ScalingStacks

5. Positivity of forms and metrics [01FE]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

5. Positivity of forms and metrics

5.1. Positive closed (1,1)(1,1)-forms and metrics

The following definition extends the one in [Zha95, Gub98, CL06].

Definition 5.1.

A closed (1,1)(1,1)-form θ\theta is said to be:

  • (i)

    semipositive if θ𝒳∈N1​(𝒳/S)\theta_{\mathcal{X}}\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) is nef for some (or, equivalently, any) determination 𝒳\mathcal{X} of θ\theta;

  • (ii)

    𝒳\mathcal{X}-positive if 𝒳∈ℳX\mathcal{X}\in\mathcal{M}_{X} is a determination of θ\theta and θ𝒳∈N1​(𝒳/S)\theta_{\mathcal{X}}\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) is ample.

A model metric ∥⋅∥\|\cdot\| on a line bundle LL is said to be semipositive if the curvature form c1(L,∥⋅∥)c_{1}(L,\|\cdot\|) is semipositive.

The equivalence in (i) follows from the following standard fact: if α∈N1​(𝒳/S)\alpha\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) is a numerical class and π:𝒳′→𝒳\pi:\mathcal{X}^{\prime}\to\mathcal{X} is a vertical blow-up then π∗​α\pi^{*}\alpha is nef iff α\alpha is nef. On the other hand, the analogous result is obviously wrong for ample classes, so that it is indeed necessary to specify the model in (ii). If ω\omega is 𝒳\mathcal{X}-positive and θ∈𝒵1,1​(X)\theta\in\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) is determined on 𝒳\mathcal{X} then ω+ε​θ\omega+\varepsilon\theta is also 𝒳\mathcal{X}-positive for all 0<ε≪10<\varepsilon\ll 1.

The set of all semipositive closed (1,1)(1,1)-forms is a convex cone 𝒵+1,1​(X)\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}_{+}(X) of 𝒵1,1​(X)\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) that can be equivalently defined as

𝒵+1,1​(X):=lim→𝒳⁡Nef⁡(𝒳/S).\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}_{+}(X):=\varinjlim_{\mathcal{X}}\Nef(\mathcal{X}/S).
Proposition 5.2.

Let θ\theta be a closed (1,1)(1,1)-form whose de Rham class {θ}∈N1​(X)\{\theta\}\in N^{1}(X) is ample. For every sufficiently high model 𝒳\mathcal{X}, we may then find a model function φ\varphi such that θ+d​dc​φ\theta+dd^{c}\varphi is 𝒳\mathcal{X}-positive. If θ\theta is furthermore semipositive then we may also arrange that −ε≤φ≤0-\varepsilon\leq\varphi\leq 0 for any given ε>0\varepsilon>0.

Proof.

Let 𝒳′\mathcal{X}^{\prime} be a determination of θ\theta and let ℒ′∈Pic⁡(𝒳′)𝐑\mathcal{L}^{\prime}\in\Pic(\mathcal{X}^{\prime})_{\mathbf{R}} be a representative of θ\theta. The assumption implies that the 𝐑\mathbf{R}-line bundle L:=ℒ′|𝒳KL:=\mathcal{L}^{\prime}|_{\mathcal{X}_{K}} is ample. By Corollary 1.5 we may thus assume that 𝒳′\mathcal{X}^{\prime} has been chosen so that LL admits an ample extension ℒ∈Pic⁡(𝒳)𝐑\mathcal{L}\in\Pic(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{R}} for each model 𝒳\mathcal{X} dominating 𝒳′\mathcal{X}^{\prime}. If π:𝒳→𝒳′\pi:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{X}^{\prime} denotes the corresponding vertical blow-up then ℒ−π∗​ℒ′=D\mathcal{L}-\pi^{*}\mathcal{L}^{\prime}=D for some D∈Div0⁡(𝒳)𝐑D\in\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{R}}, and φ=φD\varphi=\varphi_{D} is a model function such that θ+d​dc​φ\theta+dd^{c}\varphi is 𝒳\mathcal{X}-positive.

Now suppose θ\theta is semipositive and pick 𝒳\mathcal{X}, φ\varphi as above. Upon replacing φ\varphi by φ−supXφ\varphi-\sup_{X}\varphi we may assume that φ≤0\varphi\leq 0. Then the closed (1,1)(1,1)-form

θ+d​dc​(ε​φ)=ε⁡(θ+d​dc​φ)+(1−ε)​θ\theta+dd^{c}(\varepsilon\varphi)=\varepsilon(\theta+dd^{c}\varphi)+(1-\varepsilon)\theta

is also 𝒳\mathcal{X}-positive for each 0<ε<10<\varepsilon<1, completing the proof since φ\varphi is bounded. ∎

Since the nef cone of N1​(X)N^{1}(X) is the closure of the ample cone, we get as a consequence:

Corollary 5.3.

The closure of the image of 𝒵+1,1​(X)\mathcal{Z}_{+}^{1,1}(X) in N1​(X)N^{1}(X) coincides with the nef cone of N1​(X)N^{1}(X).

Remark 5.4.

In the complex case, it is not always possible to find a smooth semipositive form in a nef class, so the image of 𝒵+1,1​(X)\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}_{+}(X) in N1​(X)N^{1}(X) is strictly contained in Nef⁡(X)\Nef(X) in general, see [DPS94, Example 1.7]. In the non-Archimedean setting, the situation is unclear.

5.2. θ\theta-psh model functions

By analogy with the complex case, we introduce:

Definition 5.5.

Let θ∈𝒵1,1​(X)\theta\in\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) be a closed (1,1)(1,1)-form. A model function φ∈𝒟⁡(X)\varphi\in\mathcal{D}(X) is said to be θ\theta-plurisubharmonic (θ\theta-psh for short) if the closed (1,1)(1,1)-form θ+d​dc​φ\theta+dd^{c}\varphi is semipositive.

Note that constant functions are θ\theta-psh model functions iff θ\theta is semipositive. Also, if ψ∈𝒟⁡(X)\psi\in\mathcal{D}(X), then φ\varphi is a θ\theta-psh model function iff φ−ψ\varphi-\psi is (θ+d​dc​ψ)(\theta+dd^{c}\psi)-psh.

We will need two technical results relating θ\theta-psh model functions to fractional ideal sheaves.

Lemma 5.6.

Let ℒ∈Pic⁡(𝒳)\mathcal{L}\in\Pic(\mathcal{X}) and let ∥⋅∥\|\cdot\| be the corresponding metric on L:=ℒ|XL:=\mathcal{L}|_{X}. If 𝔞\mathfrak{a} is a vertical fractional ideal sheaf on 𝒳\mathcal{X} such that ℒ⊗𝔞\mathcal{L}\otimes\mathfrak{a} is generated by its global sections, then log⁡|𝔞|\log|\mathfrak{a}| is a model c1(L,∥⋅∥)c_{1}(L,\|\cdot\|)-psh function.

Proof.

Let π:𝒳′→𝒳\pi:\mathcal{X}^{\prime}\to\mathcal{X} be the normalization of the blow-up of 𝒳\mathcal{X} along 𝔞\mathfrak{a} and let D∈Div0⁡(𝒳′)D\in\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X}^{\prime}) be the vertical Cartier divisor such that 𝔞⋅𝒪𝒳′=𝒪𝒳′​(D)\mathfrak{a}\cdot\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}^{\prime}}=\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}^{\prime}}(D). The assumption implies that π∗​ℒ⊗𝒪𝒳′​(D)\pi^{*}\mathcal{L}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}^{\prime}}(D) is also generated by its global sections, so that ℒ+D\mathcal{L}+D is nef. The result follows since the model function log⁡|𝔞|\log|\mathfrak{a}| is determined on 𝒳′\mathcal{X}^{\prime} by DD. ∎

Lemma 5.7.

Let θ\theta be a closed (1,1)(1,1)-form and let 𝒳\mathcal{X} be a determination of θ\theta. Then each θ\theta-psh model function φ∈𝒟⁡(X)\varphi\in\mathcal{D}(X) is a uniform limit on XX of functions of the form 1m​log⁡|𝔞|\tfrac{1}{m}\log|\mathfrak{a}| with m∈𝐍∗m\in\mathbf{N}^{*} and 𝔞\mathfrak{a} a vertical fractional ideal sheaf on 𝒳\mathcal{X}.

Proof.

Let π:𝒳′→𝒳\pi:\mathcal{X}^{\prime}\to\mathcal{X} be a vertical blow-up such that φ=φD\varphi=\varphi_{D} for some D∈Div0⁡(𝒳′)𝐐D\in\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X}^{\prime})_{\mathbf{Q}}. Since θ\theta is determined by θ𝒳∈N1​(𝒳/S)\theta_{\mathcal{X}}\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S), the assumption that φ\varphi is θ\theta-psh implies that DD is π\pi-nef. By Lemma 1.4 and Kleiman’s criterion [Kle66], we may find a vertical π\pi-ample 𝐐\mathbf{Q}-divisor A∈Div0⁡(𝒳′)𝐐A\in\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X}^{\prime})_{\mathbf{Q}} arbitrarily close to DD. It is then clear that φA\varphi_{A} is uniformly close to φ=φD\varphi=\varphi_{D} on XX (see the proof of Corollary 2.4). Since AA is π\pi-ample we may find m≫1m\gg 1 such that 𝒪𝒳′​(m​A)\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}^{\prime}}(mA) is π\pi-globally generated. If we set 𝔞:=π∗​𝒪𝒳′​(m​A)\mathfrak{a}:=\pi_{*}\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}^{\prime}}(mA) we then have φA=1m​log⁡|𝔞|\varphi_{A}=\tfrac{1}{m}\log|\mathfrak{a}|, which concludes the proof. ∎

We are now in a position to establish the first properties of θ\theta-psh model functions.

Proposition 5.8.

Let θ\theta be a closed (1,1)(1,1)-form. Then the set of θ\theta-psh model functions φ∈𝒟⁡(X)\varphi\in\mathcal{D}(X) is (𝐐\mathbf{Q}-)convex and stable under max.

Proof.

Convexity is clear from the definition. To prove stability under maxima, let φ1,φ2∈𝒟⁡(X)\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2}\in\mathcal{D}(X) be θ\theta-psh, pick a common determination 𝒳\mathcal{X} of θ\theta and the φi\varphi_{i}’s and let Di∈Div0⁡(𝒳)𝐐D_{i}\in\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{Q}} be a representative of φi\varphi_{i} for i=1,2i=1,2.

Since the ample cone of N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) is open, we may find ample line bundles 𝒜1,…,𝒜r∈Pic⁡(𝒳)\mathcal{A}_{1},\dots,\mathcal{A}_{r}\in\Pic(\mathcal{X}) whose numerical classes α1,…,αr\alpha_{1},\dots,\alpha_{r} form a basis of N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S). We may thus find t1,…,tr∈𝐑t_{1},\dots,t_{r}\in\mathbf{R} such that ℒ:=∑jtj​𝒜j\mathcal{L}:=\sum_{j}t_{j}\mathcal{A}_{j} is a representative of θ\theta in Pic⁡(𝒳)𝐑\Pic(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{R}}. Let ε1,…,εr>0\varepsilon_{1},\dots,\varepsilon_{r}>0 be (small) positive numbers such that tj+εj∈𝐐t_{j}+\varepsilon_{j}\in\mathbf{Q} for each ii and set ℒε:=∑j(tj+εj)​𝒜j\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}:=\sum_{j}(t_{j}+\varepsilon_{j})\mathcal{A}_{j}. Since φ,φ′\varphi,\varphi^{\prime} are θ\theta-psh it follows that ℒε+Di\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}+D_{i} is an ample 𝐐\mathbf{Q}-divisor on 𝒳\mathcal{X} for i=1,2i=1,2. We may thus find a positive integer mm such that m​ℒε∈Pic⁡(𝒳)m\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}\in\Pic(\mathcal{X}), m​Di∈Div0⁡(𝒳)mD_{i}\in\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X}) and both sheaves 𝒪𝒳​(m⁡(ℒε+Di))\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}}\left(m\left(\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}+D_{i}\right)\right), i=1,2i=1,2 are generated by their global sections on 𝒳\mathcal{X}. If we introduce the vertical fractional ideal sheaf

𝔞m:=𝒪𝒳​(m​D1)+𝒪𝒳​(m​D2)\mathfrak{a}_{m}:=\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}}(mD_{1})+\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}}(mD_{2})

then it follows that 𝒪𝒳​(m​ℒε)⊗𝔞m\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}}(m\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon})\otimes\mathfrak{a}_{m} is also generated by its global sections. By Lemma 5.6, log⁡|𝔞m|=m​max⁡{φ1,φ2}\log|\mathfrak{a}_{m}|=m\max\left\{\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2}\right\} is thus psh with respect to m⁡(θ+∑jεj​αj)m(\theta+\sum_{j}\varepsilon_{j}\alpha_{j}), that is:

θ+∑jεj​αj+d​dc​max⁡{φ1,φ2}≥0.\theta+\sum_{j}\varepsilon_{j}\alpha_{j}+dd^{c}\max\{\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2}\}\geq 0.

Letting εj→0\varepsilon_{j}\to 0, we conclude as desired that θ+d​dc​max⁡{φ1,φ2}≥0\theta+dd^{c}\max\{\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2}\}\geq 0. ∎

Proposition 5.9.

Let θ\theta be a closed (1,1)(1,1)-form and let 𝒳\mathcal{X} be a SNC model on which θ\theta is determined. Then each θ\theta-psh model function φ∈𝒟⁡(X)\varphi\in\mathcal{D}(X) satisfies:

  • (i)

    φ∘emb𝒳\varphi\circ\emb_{\mathcal{X}} is piecewise affine and convex on each face of Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}};

  • (ii)

    φ≤φ∘p𝒳\varphi\leq\varphi\circ p_{\mathcal{X}} with equality if φ\varphi is determined on 𝒳\mathcal{X}.

Proof.

This follows directly from Lemma 5.7 and Proposition 3.9. ∎

Finally we show that θ\theta-psh model functions are plentiful as soon as {θ}\{\theta\} is ample.

Proposition 5.10.

Let θ\theta be a closed (1,1)(1,1)-form whose de Rham class {θ}∈N1​(X)\{\theta\}\in N^{1}(X) is ample. Then 𝒟⁡(X)\mathcal{D}(X) is spanned by θ\theta-psh model functions.

Proof.

Let φ∈𝒟⁡(X)\varphi\in\mathcal{D}(X). By Proposition 5.2 we may find a model 𝒳\mathcal{X} and a model function ψ\psi such that θ\theta, φ\varphi and ψ\psi are all determined on 𝒳\mathcal{X} and such that θ+d​dc​ψ\theta+dd^{c}\psi is 𝒳\mathcal{X}-positive. Since the closed (1,1)(1,1)-form d​dc​φdd^{c}\varphi is determined on 𝒳\mathcal{X} we may thus find a rational number 0<ε≪10<\varepsilon\ll 1 such that θ+d​dc​(ψ+ε​φ)≥0\theta+dd^{c}(\psi+\varepsilon\varphi)\geq 0. It follows that ε​φ=(ψ+ε​φ)−ψ\varepsilon\varphi=(\psi+\varepsilon\varphi)-\psi is a difference of θ\theta-psh model functions, and the result follows. The case when θ\theta is semipositive is proved in a similar way. ∎

5.3. Closedness of θ\theta-psh model functions

The next result will be used to show that the definition of θ\theta-psh functions in Section 7 below extends the one for model functions.

Theorem 5.11.

Let θ\theta be a closed (1,1)(1,1)-form. The set of θ\theta-psh model functions is closed in 𝒟⁡(X)\mathcal{D}(X) with respect to the topology of pointwise convergence on XdivX^{\mathrm{div}}.

This theorem in particular implies that S.-W. Zhang’s definition of continuous semipositive metrics as uniform limits of semipositive model metrics (cf. [Zha95, 3.1]) is consistent when applied to model metrics. Another argument for this, valid in arbitrary residue characteristic, has been communicated to the authors by A. Thuillier. This argument uses a theorem by Tate to reduce to the case of curves.

We start the proof with the following special case.

Lemma 5.12.

Let 𝒳\mathcal{X} be an SNC model and pick ℒ∈Pic⁡(𝒳)\mathcal{L}\in\Pic(\mathcal{X}) such that L:=ℒ|𝒳KL:=\mathcal{L}|_{\mathcal{X}_{K}} is ample. Assume that the model metric hℒh_{\mathcal{L}} is a pointwise limit over XdivX^{\mathrm{div}} of semipositive model metrics on LL. Then hℒh_{\mathcal{L}} itself is semipositive, i.e. ℒ\mathcal{L} is nef.

Proof.

Step 1. For each m≥0m\geq 0 let 𝔞m⊂𝒪𝒳\mathfrak{a}_{m}\subset\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}} be the base-ideal of 𝒪𝒳​(m​ℒ)\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}}(m\mathcal{L}). We are going to show that 1m​log⁡|𝔞m|\tfrac{1}{m}\log|\mathfrak{a}_{m}| converges pointwise to 00 on XdivX^{\mathrm{div}}. Note that 𝔞m\mathfrak{a}_{m} is vertical for m≫1m\gg 1 since ℒ\mathcal{L} is ample on the generic fiber of 𝒳\mathcal{X}. The sequence 𝔞∙=(𝔞m)m≥0\mathfrak{a}_{\bullet}=(\mathfrak{a}_{m})_{m\geq 0} is a graded sequence of ideals, i.e. we have 𝔞m⋅𝔞l⊂𝔞m+l\mathfrak{a}_{m}\cdot\mathfrak{a}_{l}\subset\mathfrak{a}_{m+l} for all m,lm,l. It follows that (log⁡|𝔞m|)m(\log|\mathfrak{a}_{m}|)_{m} is a super-additive sequence, which implies that

(5.1) limm→∞1m​log⁡|𝔞m|=supm1m​log⁡|𝔞m|≤0\lim_{m\to\infty}\frac{1}{m}\log|\mathfrak{a}_{m}|=\sup_{m}\frac{1}{m}\log|\mathfrak{a}_{m}|\leq 0

pointwise on XX. Pick a rational number ε>0\varepsilon>0 and x∈Xdivx\in X^{\mathrm{div}}. Let θ\theta be the curvature form of hℒh_{\mathcal{L}}. Since 00 is by assumption a pointwise limit of θ\theta-psh model functions, there exists a vertical blow-up π:𝒳′→𝒳\pi:\mathcal{X}^{\prime}\to\mathcal{X} and D∈Div0⁡(𝒳′)𝐐D\in\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X}^{\prime})_{\mathbf{Q}} such that φD\varphi_{D} is θ\theta-psh, φD​(x)≥−ε\varphi_{D}(x)\geq-\varepsilon and φD​(xEi)≤ε\varphi_{D}(x_{E_{i}})\leq\varepsilon for each irreducible component EiE_{i} of our given model 𝒳\mathcal{X}. By Proposition 5.9 the latter condition yields φD≤ε\varphi_{D}\leq\varepsilon on XX, so that D′:=D+ε​𝒳0′∈Div0⁡(𝒳′)D^{\prime}:=D+\varepsilon\mathcal{X}^{\prime}_{0}\in\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X}^{\prime}) has D′≤0D^{\prime}\leq 0 and satisfies φD′​(x)≥−2​ε\varphi_{D^{\prime}}(x)\geq-2\varepsilon. On the other hand, we may assume that 𝒳′\mathcal{X}^{\prime} has been chosen high enough to apply Proposition 5.2 and get D′′∈Div0⁡(𝒳′)𝐐D^{\prime\prime}\in\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X}^{\prime})_{\mathbf{Q}} with D′′≤0D^{\prime\prime}\leq 0, φD′′≥−ε\varphi_{D^{\prime\prime}}\geq-\varepsilon on XX and π∗​ℒ+D′+D′′\pi^{*}\mathcal{L}+D^{\prime}+D^{\prime\prime} ample. Since D′+D′′≤0D^{\prime}+D^{\prime\prime}\leq 0 we then have

𝒪𝒳′​(m⁡(π∗​ℒ+D′+D′′))⊂𝒪𝒳′​(m​π∗​ℒ).\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}^{\prime}}(m\left(\pi^{*}\mathcal{L}+D^{\prime}+D^{\prime\prime}\right))\subset\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}^{\prime}}(m\pi^{*}\mathcal{L}).

Now the left-hand side is globally generated for some mm. Since π∗​𝒪𝒳′=𝒪𝒳\pi_{*}\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}^{\prime}}=\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}} we conclude that

𝒪𝒳′​(m⁡(D′+D′′))⊂𝒪𝒳′⋅𝔞m,\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}^{\prime}}(m(D^{\prime}+D^{\prime\prime}))\subset\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}^{\prime}}\cdot\mathfrak{a}_{m},

hence

−3​ε≤φD′+D′′​(x)≤1m​log⁡|𝔞m|​(x).-3\varepsilon\leq\varphi_{D^{\prime}+D^{\prime\prime}}(x)\leq\frac{1}{m}\log|\mathfrak{a}_{m}|(x).

We have thus shown that supm1m​log⁡|𝔞m|≥0\sup_{m}\tfrac{1}{m}\log|\mathfrak{a}_{m}|\geq 0 at each x∈Xdivx\in X^{\mathrm{div}}, which implies as desired that 1m​log⁡|𝔞m|\tfrac{1}{m}\log|\mathfrak{a}_{m}| converges to 00 pointwise on XdivX^{\mathrm{div}} thanks to (5.1).

Step 2. Let us now show that ℒ\mathcal{L} is nef. For each c>0c>0 let 𝒥⁡(𝔞∙c)⊂𝒪𝒳\mathcal{J}(\mathfrak{a}_{\bullet}^{c})\subset\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}} be the multiplier ideal attached to the graded sequence 𝔞∙\mathfrak{a}_{\bullet} (cf. Appendix B). We have the elementary inclusion 𝔞m⊂𝒥⁡(𝔞∙m)\mathfrak{a}_{m}\subset\mathcal{J}(\mathfrak{a}_{\bullet}^{m}) for all m∈𝐍m\in\mathbf{N}, whereas the subadditivity property (cf. Theorem B.7) implies 𝒥⁡(𝔞∙m​l)⊂𝒥​(𝔞∙m)l\mathcal{J}(\mathfrak{a}_{\bullet}^{ml})\subset\mathcal{J}(\mathfrak{a}_{\bullet}^{m})^{l} for all l,m∈𝐍l,m\in\mathbf{N}. We infer that 𝔞m​l⊂𝒥​(𝔞∙m)l\mathfrak{a}_{ml}\subset\mathcal{J}(\mathfrak{a}_{\bullet}^{m})^{l} for any m,lm,l and hence

supl1l​log⁡|𝔞m​l|≤log⁡|𝒥⁡(𝔞∙m)|≤0.\sup_{l}\tfrac{1}{l}\log|\mathfrak{a}_{ml}|\leq\log|\mathcal{J}(\mathfrak{a}_{\bullet}^{m})|\leq 0.

By Step 2 we conclude that log⁡|𝒥⁡(𝔞∙m)|=0\log|\mathcal{J}(\mathfrak{a}_{\bullet}^{m})|=0, i.e. 𝒥⁡(𝔞∙m)=𝒪𝒳\mathcal{J}(\mathfrak{a}_{\bullet}^{m})=\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}} since multiplier ideals are integrally closed by definition. The uniform global generation property of multiplier ideals (Theorem B.8) now yields an ample line bundle 𝒜∈Pic⁡(𝒳)\mathcal{A}\in\Pic(\mathcal{X}) independent of mm such that m​ℒ+𝒜m\mathcal{L}+\mathcal{A} is globally generated for all m∈𝐍m\in\mathbf{N}. This immediately shows that ℒ\mathcal{L} is nef. ∎

Proof of Theorem 5.11.

. Suppose that φ∈𝒟⁡(X)\varphi\in\mathcal{D}(X) is a pointwise limit of θ\theta-psh model functions. Our goal is to show that φ\varphi is θ\theta-psh. Upon replacing θ\theta with θ+d​dc​φ\theta+dd^{c}\varphi we may assume that φ=0\varphi=0. Note that the existence of at least one θ\theta-psh model function implies that (θ𝒳)|𝒳K(\theta_{\mathcal{X}})|_{\mathcal{X}_{K}} is nef. As in Proposition 5.8 we can choose finitely many ample line bundles 𝒜i∈Pic⁡(𝒳)\mathcal{A}_{i}\in\Pic(\mathcal{X}) such that their numerical classes αi∈N1​(𝒳/S)\alpha_{i}\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) form a basis of N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S). There exists arbitrarily small positive numbers ε=(εi)\varepsilon=(\varepsilon_{i}) such that θ𝒳+∑iεi​αi\theta_{\mathcal{X}}+\sum_{i}\varepsilon_{i}\alpha_{i} is a rational class, hence the class of a 𝐐\mathbf{Q}-line bundle ℒε\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon} on 𝒳\mathcal{X} whose restriction to 𝒳K\mathcal{X}_{K} is ample. Since 00 is a pointwise limit of θ\theta-psh model functions and since hℒε​e−ψh_{\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}}e^{-\psi} is semipositive for each θ\theta-psh model function ψ\psi, we may now apply Lemma 5.12 to conclude that ℒε\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon} is nef. It follows that θ𝒳∈Nef⁡(𝒳/S)\theta_{\mathcal{X}}\in\Nef(\mathcal{X}/S) by closedness of the nef cone. ∎

Remark 5.13.

The use of multiplier ideals in Step 2 is similar to [ELMNP06, Proposition 2.8], and very much in the spirit of the arguments we shall use to prove Theorem B. It would be interesting to have a proof along the lines of [Good69, p.178, Proposition 8].

5.4. Comparison of terminology

The terminology for semipositive is unfortunately not uniform across the literature. Here is a tentative summary.

Model metric: [YZ09] Semipositive continuous metric: [CL06, CL10]
Algebraic metric: [BPS, CL06, Liu] Approachable metric: [BPS]
Smooth metric: [CL10] Semipositive metric: [YZ09, Liu]
Root of an algebraic metric: [Gub98] Semipositive admissible metric: [Gub98]
Table 1. Terminology for metrics on line bundles.

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.