Pome

18.1 I-good singularitiesA058A93BF381

A058A93BF381

The class of $\mathcal I$-good singularities is the central object of this part of the book. These are the singularities for which the pluripotential-theoretic and multiplier-ideal notions of singularity type agree. Equivalently, they are the positive-mass potentials for which the ordinary model envelope and the $\mathcal I$-model envelope coincide, or for which the non-pluripolar mass equals the volume defined through multiplier ideals.

The starting point is the characterization theorem theorem 18.1.2. For $\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )_{>0}$, it shows that the following three conditions are equivalent: $\varphi $ lies in the $d_ S$-closure of potentials with analytic singularities; the mass-volume identity

\[ \int _ X\theta _\varphi ^ n=\operatorname{vol}\theta _\varphi \]

holds; and

\[ P_\theta [\varphi ]=P_\theta [\varphi ]_{\mathcal I}. \]

After establishing this characterization, the chapter develops the basic calculus of $\mathcal I$-good singularities. We prove stability under natural operations, including linear combinations and suprema, and record the main examples: analytic singularities, $\mathcal I$-model potentials, elementary metrics, and toric potentials. These closure properties are used repeatedly in later chapters, especially for traces, test curves and non-Archimedean potentials.

The next part of the chapter introduces mixed volumes for singular currents. The definition is first made in positive-volume classes by replacing each current with its $\mathcal I$-model envelope, and is then extended by Kähler perturbation. We prove symmetry, multilinearity, monotonicity, birational invariance, log-concavity and continuity with respect to $d_ S$-convergence.

The final section proves the asymptotic Riemann–Roch formula theorem 18.1.46. For a Hermitian pseudo-effective line bundle $(L,h)$ on a connected compact Kähler manifold $X$ of dimension $n$, the theorem identifies

\[ \lim _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n} h^0\left(X,L^ k\otimes \mathcal I(h^ k)\right) \]

with the volume of the Chern current of $h$. This result is the main algebraic manifestation of $\mathcal I$-goodness. It will be used later in the construction of partial Okounkov bodies and in the study of partial Bergman kernels.

18.1.1 The notion of $\mathcal{I}$-good singularities466586A864A3

Let $X$ be a connected compact Kähler manifold of dimension $n$.

Theorem 18.1.2.F9085BB700B0 Let $\theta $ be a closed real smooth $(1,1)$-form on $X$ representing a big cohomology class, and $\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )_{>0}$. Then the following are equivalent:

  1. 9DB4D39DE89B

    There exists a sequence $(\varphi _ j)_{j>0}$ in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$ with analytic singularities such that $\varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}\varphi $;

  2. 08242C3CBB6E

    we have

    6F6AB284E081 18.1.3
    \begin{equation} \int _ X \theta _{\varphi }^ n=\operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi }; \end{equation}
  3. 0129149C02C9

    we have

    4730AA1B3287 18.1.4
    \begin{equation} P_{\theta }[\varphi ]=P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}. \end{equation}

In 1, we can in addition require that each $\theta _{\varphi _ j}$ is a Kähler current.

Moreover, if $\theta _{\varphi }$ is a Kähler current, one may take the sequence in 1 to be any quasi-equisingular approximation of $\varphi $ in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$.

Since $(\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta ),d_ S)$ is a pseudometric space, in 1 we can also replace the word sequence by net.

Recall that according to corollary 16.6.21 and proposition 16.6.18, one direction of (18.1.3) and (18.1.4) always holds:

\[ \int _ X \theta _{\varphi }^ n\leq \operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi },\quad P_{\theta }[\varphi ]\leq P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}. \]

Proof. 1 $\implies $ 2. By theorem 16.9.30, we have

\[ \lim _{j\to \infty } \int _ X \theta _{\varphi _ j}^ n=\int _ X \theta _{\varphi }^ n>0. \]

We may therefore assume that $\int _ X \theta _{\varphi _ j}^ n>0$ for all $j \geq 1$. It follows from proposition 16.6.22 that

\[ \int _ X \theta _{\varphi _ j}^ n=\operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi _ j} \]

for any $j\geq 1$. Using theorem 16.9.57, we conclude (18.1.3).

2 $\iff $ 3. By definition,

\[ \operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi }= \int _ X\theta _{P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal I}}^ n. \]

Moreover, $\varphi -\sup _ X\varphi \leq P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal I}$. Thus, if 2 holds, theorem 16.3.15 gives $P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal I}\leq P_{\theta }[\varphi ]$; the reverse inequality follows from proposition 16.6.18. Conversely, if 3 holds, then 2 follows from proposition 16.3.10.

3 $\implies $ 1. Note that the condition in 1 characterizes the closure of analytic singularities in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$.

Step 1. We first assume that $\theta _{\varphi }$ is a Kähler current. We will prove the following more general result in this case: Without assuming 3, $P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}$ always lies in the closure of analytic singularities.

Let $(\varphi _ j)_ j$ be a quasi-equisingular approximation of $\varphi $ in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$. We will show that $\varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}$. Let

\[ \psi =\inf _{j\in \mathbb {Z}_{>0}} P_{\theta }[\varphi _ j]. \]

Since $\varphi \leq \varphi _ j$ for all $j>0$, we have

\[ \varphi -\sup _ X\varphi \leq P_{\theta }[\varphi _ j] \]

for all $j$, and hence

\[ \varphi -\sup _ X\varphi \leq \psi . \]

In particular, $\int _ X\theta _\psi ^ n>0$.

Now proposition 16.9.6, proposition 16.4.4 and corollary 16.9.14 give

\[ \varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}\psi . \]

Moreover, observe that $\psi $ is $\mathcal{I}$-model by proposition 16.6.29 and proposition 16.6.22. Hence, if $\varphi \sim _{\mathcal I}\psi $, then

\[ P_\theta [\varphi ]_{\mathcal I}=P_\theta [\psi ]_{\mathcal I}=\psi . \]

So it suffices to show that $\varphi \sim _{\mathcal I}\psi $. It only remains to argue that $\psi \preceq _{\mathcal{I}} \varphi $. For this purpose, take $\lambda >0$. We need to show that

\[ \mathcal{I}(\lambda \psi )\subseteq \mathcal{I}(\lambda \varphi ). \]

By the strong openness theorem 5.16.21, we may take $\lambda '>\lambda $ such that $\mathcal{I}(\lambda \psi )=\mathcal{I}(\lambda ' \psi )$. It follows from the definition of the quasi-equisingular approximation that

\[ \mathcal{I}(\lambda '\psi )\subseteq \mathcal{I}(\lambda '\varphi _ j)\subseteq \mathcal{I}(\lambda \varphi ) \]

for large enough $j$, where the first inclusion uses $\psi \leq P_\theta [\varphi _ j]$ and $P_\theta [\varphi _ j]\sim _{\mathcal{I}}\varphi _ j$. Our assertion follows.

It follows from the proof that we may take $\varphi _ j$ so that $\theta _{\varphi _ j}$ is a Kähler current for all $j\geq 1$.

Step 2. We handle the general case.

Assume 3 holds. By 13.13.47, we can find $\psi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$ so that $\theta _{\psi }$ is a Kähler current and $\psi \leq \varphi $. We let

\[ \psi _ j=(1-j^{-1})\varphi +j^{-1}\psi \]

for each $j\in \mathbb {Z}_{>1}$. Then $(\psi _ j)_ j$ is an increasing sequence converging almost everywhere to $\varphi $. Then

\[ P_{\theta }[\psi _ j]_{\mathcal{I}}\xrightarrow {d_ S}P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}=P_{\theta }[\varphi ] \]

by proposition 16.6.30, corollary 16.9.12. From Step 1, we know that each $P_{\theta }[\psi _ j]_{\mathcal{I}}$ lies in the closure of analytic singularities, hence so is $P_{\theta }[\varphi ]\sim _ P \varphi $. Therefore, 1 follows. $\square$

Definition 18.1.5.AE67290569F6 We say a potential $\varphi \in \mathrm{QPSH}(X)$ is $\mathcal{I}$-good if for some smooth closed real $(1,1)$-form $\theta $ on $X$ such that $\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )_{>0}$, we have

A9EABC721827 18.1.6
\begin{equation} P_{\theta }[\varphi ]=P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}. \end{equation}

Remark 18.1.7.11FBD440944D In view of theorem 18.1.2 and corollary 16.6.21, the failure of $\mathcal{I}$-goodness of a given $\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )_{>0}$ can be characterized using the difference between the volume and the mass. We therefore introduce

\[ \mathrm{Defect}(\theta _{\varphi })\coloneqq \operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi }-\int _ X \theta _{\varphi }^ n. \]
An immediate question is to verify that definition 18.1.5 is independent of the choice of $\theta $.

Lemma 18.1.8.22BB587E13F8 Let $\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )_{>0}$ for some smooth closed real $(1,1)$-form $\theta $ on $X$. Take a Kähler form $\omega $ on $X$. Then the following are equivalent:

  1. 9755050D9C5E

    $P_{\theta }[\varphi ]=P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}$;

  2. D166FB4A811A

    $P_{\theta +\omega }[\varphi ]=P_{\theta +\omega }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}$.

Proof. 1 $\implies $ 2. By theorem 18.1.2, we can find a sequence $(\varphi _ j)_ j$ in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$ with analytic singularities such that $\varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_{S,\theta }}\varphi $. By corollary 16.9.36, we have $\varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_{S,\theta +\omega }}\varphi $. Therefore, by theorem 18.1.2 again, 2 holds.

2 $\implies $ 1. Suppose that 1 fails, so that

\[ \int _ X (\theta +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi )^ n< \int _ X (\theta +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}})^ n. \]

Since $\varphi \preceq P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal I}$, the monotonicity theorem theorem 13.13.11 gives

\[ \int _ X \theta _{\varphi }^ i\wedge \omega ^{n-i}\leq \int _ X \theta _{P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal I}}^ i\wedge \omega ^{n-i} \]

for all $i=0,\ldots ,n$, and the inequality is strict for $i=n$. It follows that

\[ \begin{aligned} \int _ X (\theta +\omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi )^ n =& \sum _{i=0}^ n\binom {n}{i}\int _ X \theta _{\varphi }^ i\wedge \omega ^{n-i}\\ <& \sum _{i=0}^ n\binom {n}{i}\int _ X \theta _{P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}}^ i\wedge \omega ^{n-i}\\ =& \int _ X (\theta +\omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}})^ n \\ \leq & \int _ X (\theta +\omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta +\omega }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}})^ n. \end{aligned} \]

So 2 fails as well. $\square$

Corollary 18.1.9.4662D2032EC0 Let $\theta $ be a closed real smooth $(1,1)$-form on $X$ representing a big cohomology class. Let $(\varphi _ j)_{j\in I}$ be a net of $\mathcal{I}$-good potentials in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$ such that $\varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}\varphi $. Then $\varphi $ is $\mathcal{I}$-good.

Note that we do not need to assume that $\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )_{>0}$.

Proof. By adding a Kähler form to $\theta $, and using 18.1.8, corollary 16.9.36, we may assume that $\varphi _ j,\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )_{>0}$ for all $j\in I$. It follows from theorem 18.1.2 that

\[ \int _ X \theta _{\varphi _ j}^ n=\operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi _ j} \]

for all $j\in I$. Taking limit with respect to $j$ with the help of theorem 16.9.57, we conclude that

\[ \int _ X \theta _{\varphi }^ n=\operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi }. \]

Therefore, by theorem 18.1.2 again, we find that $\varphi $ is $\mathcal{I}$-good. $\square$

Example 18.1.10.12795171A873 Assume that $\varphi \in \mathrm{QPSH}(X)$ has analytic singularities. Then $\varphi $ is $\mathcal{I}$-good. This is proved in proposition 16.6.22.

In particular, the potential in example 5.20.12 is $\mathcal{I}$-good.

Example 18.1.11.E3DE8BCA0BA1 Let $\theta $ be a closed real smooth $(1,1)$-form on $X$ representing a big cohomology class, and let $\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )_{>0}$1 be an $\mathcal{I}$-model potential. Then $\varphi $ is $\mathcal{I}$-good.

In particular, $V_{\theta }$ is $\mathcal{I}$-good.

Example 18.1.12.4C522F2A65F0 Let $\theta $ be a closed real smooth $(1,1)$-form on $X$ representing a big cohomology class, and let $\varphi \in \mathcal{E}(X,\theta )$. Then $\varphi $ is $\mathcal{I}$-good. In fact, since $P_{\theta }[\varphi ]=V_{\theta }$, we deduce that $P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}=V_{\theta }$ as well.

In particular, the potential in example 16.3.22 is $\mathcal{I}$-good.

A further class of examples of $\mathcal{I}$-good singularities will be given in example 18.1.56 below.

There do exist, however, non-$\mathcal{I}$-good potentials.

Example 18.1.13.6212EEC14B63 The potential in example 16.8.19 is not $\mathcal{I}$-good. In fact, since all Lelong numbers of $\varphi $ vanish, we know that $\varphi \sim _{\mathcal{I}}0$, hence

\[ P_{2\omega }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}=0. \]

On the other hand,

\[ \int _ X (2\omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi )^1=\int _ X \omega <\int _ X (2\omega ), \]

where $(2\omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi )^1$ is understood in the non-pluripolar sense.

Quasi-equisingular approximations and $d_ S$-convergent sequences are related in the following manner:

Corollary 18.1.14.F1CD22EF1353 Let $\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )_{>0}$ and $(\epsilon _ j)_ j$ be a decreasing sequence in $\mathbb {R}_{\geq 0}$ with limit $0$. Fix a Kähler form $\omega $ on $X$. Consider a decreasing sequence $(\varphi _ j)_{j>0}$, where each $\varphi _ j\in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta +\epsilon _ j\omega )$ is a potential with analytic singularities. Assume that $\varphi =\inf _ j \varphi _ j$. Then the following are equivalent:

  1. 610A978F4B80

    $\varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}$2, and

  2. DCDEC3669C76

    $(\varphi _ j)_ j$ is a quasi-equisingular approximation of $\varphi $.

Proof. By corollary 16.9.36 and example 18.1.11, we may replace $\theta $ by $\theta +C\omega $ for some large constant $C>0$ and assume that $\varphi ,\varphi _ j\in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta -\omega )$ for all $j\geq 1$.

Here the limit in 1 is unchanged by this replacement. Indeed, $P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal I}$ is $\mathcal I$-model, hence $\mathcal I$-good by example 18.1.11. This implies

\[ P_{\theta +C\omega }\bigl [P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal I}\bigr ]=P_{\theta +C\omega }\bigl [P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal I}\bigr ]_{\mathcal I}=P_{\theta +C\omega }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal I}. \]

Thus the old and new targets are $P$-equivalent in the enlarged class, and proposition 16.9.6, corollary 16.9.36 shows that condition 1 is unchanged.

2 $\implies $ 1. This is already proved in the proof of theorem 18.1.2.

1 $\implies $ 2. This follows from theorem 16.9.59. $\square$

Corollary 18.1.15.36E768E33AFB Let $\pi \colon Y\rightarrow X$ be a proper bimeromorphic morphism from a compact Kähler manifold $Y$. Let $\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$ and let $(\varphi _ j)_ j$ be a quasi-equisingular approximation of $\varphi $. Then $(\pi ^*\varphi _ j)_ j$ is a quasi-equisingular approximation of the $\pi ^*\theta $-psh function $\pi ^*\varphi $.

This result is by no means obvious from the definition of quasi-equisingular approximations.

Proof. Let $(\epsilon _ j)_ j$ and $\omega $ be as in definition 6.17.5, so that $\epsilon _ j\searrow 0$ and $\varphi _ j\in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta +\epsilon _ j\omega )$ for all $j$. Choose a Kähler form $\tilde\omega $ on $Y$ and a constant $C>0$ such that $\pi ^*\omega \leq C\tilde\omega $. Then

\[ \pi ^*\varphi _ j\in \mathrm{PSH}(Y,\pi ^*\theta +C\epsilon _ j\tilde\omega ). \]

Moreover, the sequence $(\pi ^*\varphi _ j)_ j$ is decreasing, has analytic singularities, and decreases to $\pi ^*\varphi $.

It remains to verify the quasi-equisingular condition definition 6.17.5 4. Fix a constant $A>0$. Then $(\varphi _ j)_ j$ is also a quasi-equisingular approximation of $\varphi $ with respect to $\theta +A\omega $. Since $\theta _{\varphi }+A\omega $ is a Kähler current, corollary 18.1.14 gives

\[ \varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}P_{\theta +A\omega }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal I}. \]

Viewing the convergence in a fixed enlarged background class, pulling back and using corollary 16.9.11, proposition 16.6.10, we get

\[ \pi ^*\varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}\pi ^*P_{\theta +A\omega }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal I} =P_{\pi ^*(\theta +A\omega )}[\pi ^*\varphi ]_{\mathcal I}. \]

The domination $\pi ^*\omega \leq C\tilde\omega $ also gives

\[ \pi ^*\varphi _ j\in \mathrm{PSH}\bigl (Y,\pi ^*(\theta +A\omega )+C\epsilon _ j\tilde\omega \bigr ), \]

so the preceding convergence is in the setting of corollary 18.1.14 on $Y$. The potential $\pi ^*\varphi $ has positive mass with respect to $\pi ^*(\theta +A\omega )$ by the bimeromorphic invariance of non-pluripolar products proposition 13.13.4. Applying corollary 18.1.14 again on $Y$ shows that $(\pi ^*\varphi _ j)_ j$ satisfies the quasi-equisingular condition definition 6.17.5 4 for $\pi ^*\varphi $. Combining this with the first paragraph proves the assertion with respect to $\pi ^*\theta $. $\square$

18.1.16 Properties of $\mathcal{I}$-good singularitiesCE8C594C13B9

Let $X$ be a connected compact Kähler manifold of dimension $n$.

We show that $\mathcal{I}$-goodness is preserved by a number of natural operations.

Proposition 18.1.17.AC437613D2C1 Let $\varphi ,\psi \in \mathrm{QPSH}(X)$ be $\mathcal{I}$-good and $\lambda >0$. Then the following potentials are all $\mathcal{I}$-good:

  1. DF6905DB50A6

    $\varphi +\psi $;

  2. 0771DD6805B8

    $\varphi \lor \psi $;

  3. 51229C9B0C0E

    $\lambda \varphi $.

Proof. Take a closed real smooth $(1,1)$-form $\theta $ on $X$ such that $\varphi ,\psi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )_{>0}$. It follows from theorem 18.1.2 that there are sequences $(\varphi _ j)_ j,(\psi _ j)_ j$ in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$ with analytic singularities such that $\varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}\varphi $ and $\psi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}\psi $.

By theorem 16.9.45, proposition 16.9.42, we have

\[ \varphi _ j+\psi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}\varphi +\psi ,\quad \varphi _ j\lor \psi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}\varphi \lor \psi . \]

By proposition 5.18.2, the potentials $\varphi _ j+\psi _ j$ and $\varphi _ j\lor \psi _ j$ have analytic singularities. So $\varphi +\psi $ and $\varphi \lor \psi $ are $\mathcal{I}$-good by theorem 18.1.2.

On the other hand, 16.9.41 gives

\[ \lambda \varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}\lambda \varphi . \]

Here the convergence is understood in the scaled class. So by theorem 18.1.2, in order to show that $\lambda \varphi $ is $\mathcal{I}$-good, it suffices to show that $\lambda \varphi _ j$ is $\mathcal{I}$-good. In other words, we may assume that $\varphi $ has analytic singularities. We may further assume that $\varphi \leq 0$.

In this case, take a decreasing sequence of rational numbers $\lambda _ j\searrow \lambda $. Take a sufficiently large Kähler form $\omega $ on $X$ so that $\lambda _ j\varphi ,\lambda \varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\omega )_{>0}$ for any $j$. Then observe that

\[ \lambda \varphi =\operatorname *{sup}_{j>0}{}\! {}^{*} \lambda _ j \varphi . \]

Therefore, $\lambda _ j\varphi \xrightarrow {d_ S} \lambda \varphi $ by corollary 16.9.12. Each $\lambda _ j \varphi $ has analytic singularities, and hence is $\mathcal{I}$-good by example 18.1.10. Therefore, $\lambda \varphi $ is $\mathcal{I}$-good by theorem 18.1.2. $\square$

Example 18.1.18.3689F6A0A9EC Let $L$ be a pseudo-effective line bundle on $X$. Elementary metrics on $L$ are defined in definition 16.8.20. Let $h$ be an elementary metric on $L$. Then $\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}h$ is $\mathcal{I}$-good.

This is a direct consequence of proposition 18.1.17 and example 18.1.10, and the fact that $\mathcal{I}$-goodness depends only on the $P$-singularity type.

Proposition 18.1.19.FD679E0ECD3D Let $(\varphi _ j)_{j\in I}$ be a non-empty family of $\mathcal{I}$-good potentials in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$ for some closed real smooth $(1,1)$-form $\theta $ on $X$. Assume that this family is locally uniformly bounded from above. Then $\operatorname *{sup}_{j\in I}{}\! {}^{*} \varphi _ j$ is $\mathcal{I}$-good.

Proof. After adding a Kähler form to $\theta $, we may assume that $\varphi _ j\in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )_{>0}$ for all $j\in I$.

When $I$ is finite, this result follows from proposition 18.1.17. When $I$ is infinite, by Choquet's lemma proposition 5.14.3, we may assume that $I=\mathbb {Z}_{>0}$. Replacing $\varphi _ j$ by $\varphi _1\lor \cdots \lor \varphi _ j$ and using proposition 18.1.17, we may assume that the sequence $(\varphi _ j)_ j$ is increasing. In this case, as shown in corollary 16.9.12,

\[ \varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}\operatorname *{sup}_{ i\in \mathbb {Z}_{>0}}{}\! {}^{*} \varphi _ i. \]

Therefore, $\operatorname *{sup}_{i\in \mathbb {Z}_{>0}}{}\! {}^{*} \varphi _ i$ is $\mathcal{I}$-good by corollary 18.1.9. $\square$

18.1.20 Mixed volumes80A2DBEB2B97

We first extend the notion of volume in definition 16.6.13 to the mixed case. Let $\theta _1,\ldots ,\theta _ n$ be smooth closed real $(1,1)$-forms on $X$ representing pseudo-effective classes.

Definition 18.1.21.EDCDF35668C4 Let $\varphi _ i\in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta _ i)$ for $i=1,\ldots ,n$. Write $T_ i=\theta _ i+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ i$ for each $i=1,\ldots ,n$. Assume that $\operatorname{vol}T_ i>0$ for all $i=1,\ldots ,n$. We define the mixed volume $\operatorname{vol}(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n)$ as follows:

65AD0F03CD20 18.1.22
\begin{equation} \operatorname{vol}(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n)=\int _ X \left(\theta _1+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _1}[\varphi _1]_{\mathcal{I}}\right)\wedge \dots \wedge \left(\theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _ n}[\varphi _ n]_{\mathcal{I}}\right). \end{equation}
When $\operatorname{vol}T_ i>0$ for each $i=1,\ldots ,n$, the definition (18.1.22) does not depend on how we represent $T_ i$ as $T_ i=\theta _ i+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ i$, this is a consequence of theorem 13.13.11 and proposition 16.6.9.

Lemma 18.1.23.20316D4886CF

  1. 4642B46CE130

    The mixed volume is symmetric in its $n$-variables.

  2. 2AE20B98C203

    For any Kähler form $\omega $ on $X$, we have

    7F052390F186 18.1.24
    \begin{equation} \operatorname{vol}\left(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n\right)=\lim _{\epsilon \to 0+} \operatorname{vol}\left(T_1+\epsilon \omega ,\ldots ,T_ n+\epsilon \omega \right). \end{equation}
  3. D321C1B261ED

    Consider closed positive $(1,1)$-currents $T_1,\ldots ,T_ n,T_1'$ on $X$ with positive volumes, then

    7.10
    \begin{equation} \operatorname{vol}(T_1+T_1',T_2,\ldots ,T_ n)=\operatorname{vol}(T_1,T_2,\ldots ,T_ n)+\operatorname{vol}(T_1',T_2,\ldots ,T_ n). \end{equation}
  4. 7787D4E19E46

    Consider closed positive $(1,1)$-currents $T_1,\ldots ,T_ n$ on $X$ with positive volumes and $\lambda > 0$, then

    \[ \operatorname{vol}(\lambda T_1,T_2,\ldots ,T_ n)=\lambda \operatorname{vol}(T_1,T_2,\ldots ,T_ n). \]
  5. DAD3C89C5ACC

    Suppose that $T_1,\ldots ,T_ n,S_1,\ldots ,S_ n$ are closed positive $(1,1)$-currents on $X$ with positive volumes such that $T_ i\preceq _{\mathcal{I}} S_ i$ and $\{ T_ i\} =\{ S_ i\} $ for each $i=1,\ldots ,n$. Then

    7.11
    \begin{equation} \operatorname{vol}(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n)\leq \operatorname{vol}(S_1,\ldots ,S_ n). \end{equation}
The notation $\operatorname{Reg}$ is defined in (5.19.13).

Proof. 1 This follows from the symmetry of the mixed non-pluripolar product in (18.1.22), cf. proposition 13.11.4 2.

2 For each $i$ and each $\epsilon >0$, we have

\[ P_{\theta _ i}[\varphi _ i]_{\mathcal{I}}\sim _ P P_{\theta _ i+\epsilon \omega }\left[P_{\theta _ i}[\varphi _ i]_{\mathcal{I}}\right]_{\mathcal{I}}=P_{\theta _ i+\epsilon \omega }[\varphi _ i]_{\mathcal{I}} \]

as a consequence of example 18.1.11. Hence using proposition 16.8.22 and the multi-linearity of the non-pluripolar product proposition 13.11.4 6,

\[ \begin{aligned} & \lim _{\epsilon \to 0+}\operatorname{vol}(T_1+\epsilon \omega ,\ldots ,T_ n+\epsilon \omega )\\ =& \lim _{\epsilon \to 0+}\int _ X \left(\theta _1+\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _1}[\varphi _1]_{\mathcal{I}}\right)\wedge \cdots \wedge \left(\theta _ n+\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _ n}[\varphi _ n]_{\mathcal{I}}\right)\\ =& \operatorname{vol}(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n). \end{aligned} \]

3 We write $T_ i=\theta _ i+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ i$ as before for each $i$ and $T_1'=\theta _1'+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _1'$. The potentials $P_{\theta _1}[\varphi _1]_{\mathcal I}$ and $P_{\theta _1'}[\varphi _1']_{\mathcal I}$ are $\mathcal I$-model with positive masses, hence $\mathcal I$-good. By proposition 18.1.17, their sum is $\mathcal I$-good. Moreover, it is $\mathcal I$-equivalent to $\varphi _1+\varphi _1'$. Then thanks to proposition 18.1.17,

\[ P_{\theta _1}[\varphi _1]_{\mathcal{I}}+P_{\theta _1'}[\varphi _1']_{\mathcal{I}}\sim _ P P_{\theta _1+\theta _1'}\left[P_{\theta _1}[\varphi _1]_{\mathcal{I}}+P_{\theta _1'}[\varphi _1']_{\mathcal{I}} \right]_{\mathcal{I}} = P_{\theta _1+\theta _1'}\left[\varphi _1+\varphi _1'\right]_{\mathcal{I}} \]

Thus by proposition 16.8.22, we have

\[ \begin{aligned} & \operatorname{vol}(T_1+T_1',T_2,\ldots ,T_ n)\\ =& \int _ X \left( \theta _1+\theta _1'+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _1+\theta _1'}[\varphi _1+\varphi _1']_{\mathcal{I}} \right)\wedge \left( \theta _2+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _2}[\varphi _2]_{\mathcal{I}}\right)\wedge \cdots \\ & \wedge \left( \theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _ n}[\varphi _ n]_{\mathcal{I}}\right)\\ =& \int _ X \left( \theta _1+\theta _1'+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _1}[\varphi _1]_{\mathcal{I}}+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _1'}[\varphi _1']_{\mathcal{I}} \right)\wedge \left( \theta _2+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _2}[\varphi _2]_{\mathcal{I}}\right)\wedge \cdots \\ & \wedge \left( \theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _ n}[\varphi _ n]_{\mathcal{I}}\right)\\ =& \operatorname{vol}(T_1,T_2,\ldots ,T_ n)+\operatorname{vol}(T_1',T_2,\ldots ,T_ n). \end{aligned} \]

4 This follows from (18.1.22), proposition 16.6.27 1 and proposition 13.11.4 6.

5 Our assertion follows from the monotonicity theorem theorem 13.13.11. $\square$

In view of 18.1.23 2, we may extend the definition of mixed volumes to the more general setting as follows:

Definition 18.1.25.7731FA7D8BFD Let $\varphi _ i\in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta _ i)$ for $i=1,\ldots ,n$. Write $T_ i=\theta _ i+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ i$ for each $i=1,\ldots ,n$. Take a Kähler form $\omega $ on $X$. We define the mixed volume $\operatorname{vol}(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n)$ as

0141EC0ADB1E 18.1.26
\begin{equation} \operatorname{vol}\left(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n\right)=\lim _{\epsilon \to 0+}\operatorname{vol}\left(T_1+\epsilon \omega ,\ldots ,T_ n+\epsilon \omega \right). \end{equation}

Note that $\operatorname{vol}(T_1+\epsilon \omega ,\ldots ,T_ n+\epsilon \omega )$ is decreasing as $\epsilon \to 0+$ due to 18.1.23 3, so the limit exists.

Furthermore, $\operatorname{vol}(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n)$ does not depend on the choice of $\omega $, as a consequence of 18.1.23 3.

Proposition 18.1.27.DF8A923E8F3E

  1. 74EAB3B1411B

    The mixed volume is symmetric in its $n$-variables.

  2. AEBD6B8A6D3F

    Consider closed positive $(1,1)$-currents $T_1,\ldots ,T_ n,T_1'$ on $X$, then

    7.22
    \begin{equation} \operatorname{vol}(T_1+T_1',T_2,\ldots ,T_ n)=\operatorname{vol}(T_1,T_2,\ldots ,T_ n)+\operatorname{vol}(T_1',T_2,\ldots ,T_ n). \end{equation}
  3. 439CA74101C3

    Consider closed positive $(1,1)$-currents $T_1,\ldots ,T_ n$ on $X$ and $\lambda \geq 0$, then

    \[ \operatorname{vol}(\lambda T_1,T_2,\ldots ,T_ n)=\lambda \operatorname{vol}(T_1,T_2,\ldots ,T_ n). \]
  4. CB1FF7FB0BEC

    Suppose that $T_1,\ldots ,T_ n,S_1,\ldots ,S_ n$ are closed positive $(1,1)$-currents on $X$ such that $T_ i\preceq _{\mathcal{I}} S_ i$ and $\{ T_ i\} =\{ S_ i\} $ for each $i=1,\ldots ,n$. Then

    7.23
    \begin{equation} \operatorname{vol}(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n)\leq \operatorname{vol}(S_1,\ldots ,S_ n). \end{equation}
  5. 5BDABA896DC6

    Suppose that $T_1,\ldots ,T_ n$ are closed positive $(1,1)$-currents on $X$. Then

    7.24
    \begin{equation} \operatorname{vol}\left(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n \right)=\operatorname{vol}\left(\operatorname{Reg}T_1,\ldots ,\operatorname{Reg}T_ n \right). \end{equation}
  6. EF34C0318EDD

    For any closed positive $(1,1)$-current $T$ on $X$, we have

    1BAF68507D97 18.1.28
    \begin{equation} \operatorname{vol}(T,\ldots ,T)=\operatorname{vol}T. \end{equation}

Proof. 1, 2, 3, 4 are immediate consequences of the corresponding properties proved in 18.1.23.

5 Using 3 and 4, it suffices to establish the following: Suppose that

5EAAF326E66A 18.1.29
\begin{equation} T=\sum _ i c_ i[E_ i] \end{equation}

is a closed positive $(1,1)$-current on $X$, where $\{ E_ i\} $ is a countable collection of prime divisors on $X$ and $c_ i>0$. Then

A35A4555844E 18.1.30
\begin{equation} \operatorname{vol}\left(T,T_2,\ldots ,T_ n \right)=0 \end{equation}

for any closed positive $(1,1)$-currents $T_2,\ldots ,T_ n$ on $X$.

Step 1. We first assume that (18.1.29) is a finite sum. Fix a Kähler form $\omega $ on $X$.

In this case, thanks to 3 and 4 again, we may assume that $T=[E]$ for some prime divisor $E$ on $X$. Write $[E]=\theta _{\varphi }$. Then $\varphi $ has analytic singularities thanks to proposition 5.20.4. Therefore, $P_{\theta +\epsilon \omega }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}\sim \varphi $ for any $\epsilon >0$ due to proposition 16.6.22. Write $T_ i=\theta _ i+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ i$ for $i=2,\ldots ,n$, and choose $C>0$ so that $C\omega +\theta _ i$ are Kähler forms for each $i=2,\ldots ,n$. Then

\[ \begin{aligned} & \operatorname{vol}(T,T_2,\ldots ,T_ n)\\ =& \lim _{\epsilon \to 0+} \int _ X \left([E]+\epsilon \omega \right)\wedge \left( \theta _2+\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _2+\epsilon \omega }[\varphi _2]_{\mathcal{I}}\right)\wedge \cdots \\ & \wedge \left( \theta _ n+\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _ n+\epsilon \omega }[\varphi _ n]_{\mathcal{I}}\right)\\ =& \lim _{\epsilon \to 0+} \epsilon \int _ X \omega \wedge \left( \theta _2+\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _2+\epsilon \omega }[\varphi _2]_{\mathcal{I}}\right)\wedge \cdots \\ & \wedge \left( \theta _ n+\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _ n+\epsilon \omega }[\varphi _ n]_{\mathcal{I}}\right)\\ \leq & \lim _{\epsilon \to 0+} \epsilon \int _ X \omega \wedge \left( \theta _2+C\omega \right)\wedge \cdots \wedge \left( \theta _ n+C\omega \right)\\ =& 0, \end{aligned} \]

where the inequality step follows from the monotonicity theorem theorem 13.13.11 and the fact that $P_{\theta _ i+\epsilon \omega }[\varphi _ i]_{\mathcal{I}}\leq 0$ for all $i=2,\ldots ,n$.

Step 2. We prove the case where $\{ E_ i\} $ is infinite. We may assume that $i$ runs over $\mathbb {Z}_{>0}$.

Write $T_ i=\theta _{i}+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ i$ for $i=2,\ldots ,n$ as before. Fix a Kähler form $\omega $ on $X$ so that $\theta _ i+\omega $ is a Kähler form for each $i=2,\ldots ,n$. Fix $\epsilon >0$.

We can find $N_0>0$ so that for any $N\geq N_0$, the class of

\[ \epsilon \omega + \sum _{i=N+1}^{\infty }c_ i[E_ i] \]

is Kähler. Take a Kähler form $\omega _ N$ in this class. Then the currents

\[ \sum _{i=1}^ N c_ i [E_ i]+\omega _ N,\quad \sum _{i=1}^{\infty } c_ i [E_ i]+\epsilon \omega \]

all lie in the same cohomology class. Moreover,

\[ \sum _{i=1}^{\infty } c_ i [E_ i]+\epsilon \omega \preceq _{\mathcal{I}}\sum _{i=1}^ N c_ i [E_ i]+\omega _ N. \]

Therefore, by the monotonicity in 5, followed by the finite divisorial case of Step 1,

\[ \begin{aligned} \operatorname{vol}\left(T,T_2,\ldots ,T_ n\right)\leq & \operatorname{vol}\left(T+\epsilon \omega ,T_2,\ldots ,T_ n\right)\\ \leq & \operatorname{vol}\left(\sum _{i=1}^ N c_ i [E_ i]+\omega _ N,T_2,\ldots ,T_ n\right)\\ =& \operatorname{vol}\left(\omega _ N,T_2,\ldots ,T_ n\right)\\ \leq & \int _ X \omega _ N\wedge (\theta _2+\omega )\wedge \cdots \wedge (\theta _ n+\omega ). \end{aligned} \]

Letting $N\to \infty $, and using $\{ \omega _ N\} \to \{ \epsilon \omega \} $, we get

\[ \operatorname{vol}\left(T,T_2,\ldots ,T_ n\right)\leq \epsilon \int _ X \omega \wedge (\theta _2+\omega )\wedge \cdots \wedge (\theta _ n+\omega ). \]

Since $\epsilon >0$ is arbitrary, we conclude (18.1.30).

6 Write $T=\theta _{\varphi }$. In more concrete terms, we need to show that

\[ \lim _{\epsilon \to 0+}\int _ X (\theta +\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta +\epsilon \omega }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}})^ n=\int _ X (\theta +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}})^ n. \]

We may replace $\varphi $ by $P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}$ and assume that $\varphi $ is $\mathcal{I}$-model in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$. Then we claim that

\[ \varphi =\inf _{\epsilon >0}P_{\theta +\epsilon \omega }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}. \]

From this, our assertion follows from proposition 16.4.4.

The $\leq $ direction is clear. For the converse, since $\varphi $ is $\mathcal{I}$-model, it suffices to show that for each prime divisor $E$ over $X$, we have

\[ \nu (\varphi ,E)\leq \nu \left(\inf _{\epsilon >0}P_{\theta +\epsilon \omega }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}},E\right). \]

We simply compute

\[ \nu \left(\inf _{\epsilon >0}P_{\theta +\epsilon \omega }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}},E\right)\geq \sup _{\epsilon >0}\nu \left(P_{\theta +\epsilon \omega }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}},E\right)=\nu (\varphi ,E). \]
$\square$

Lemma 18.1.31.1AEDF3A60767 Let $\omega $ be a Kähler form on $X$. Then there is a constant $C>0$ depending only on $X,\omega ,\{ T_1\} ,\ldots ,\{ T_ n\} $ such that

\[ 0\leq \operatorname{vol}(T_1+\epsilon \omega ,\ldots , T_ n+\epsilon \omega )-\operatorname{vol}(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n)\leq C\epsilon \]

for any $\epsilon \in [0,1]$.

Proof. By the multi-linearity established in proposition 18.1.27, we can write

\[ \operatorname{vol}\left(T_1+\epsilon \omega ,\ldots , T_ n+\epsilon \omega \right)-\operatorname{vol}(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n) \]

as a linear combination of the $2^ n-1$-terms:

\[ \epsilon ^ m\operatorname{vol}\left(\omega ^ m, T_{i_1},\ldots ,T_{i_{n-m}} \right) \]

where $J\subseteq \{ 1,\ldots ,n\} $ is a non-empty subset of cardinality $m$, and $\{ i_1,\ldots ,i_{n-m}\} $ is the complement of $J$. It suffices to show that the coefficients are bounded by a constant as above. Take $D\geq 0$ as the minimal non-negative number so that $D\{ \omega \} +\{ T_ i\} $ is nef for each $i=1,\ldots ,n$. Then by the monotonicity theorem theorem 13.13.11,

\[ \operatorname{vol}\left(\omega ^ m, T_{i_1},\ldots ,T_{i_{n-m}} \right)\leq \{ \omega \} ^ m\cap \left( \{ T_{i_1}\} +D\{ \omega \} \right) \cap \cdots \cap \left( \{ T_{i_{n-m}}\} +D\{ \omega \} \right). \]

Our assertion follows. $\square$

Next we show that theorem 16.9.57 continues to hold even when $\varphi $ has vanishing mass. We prove a slightly more general result:

Theorem 18.1.32.A320A575BBEB Let $\theta _1,\ldots ,\theta _ n$ be smooth closed real $(1,1)$-forms representing big cohomology classes. Suppose that $(\varphi _ j^ k)_{k\in I}$ are nets in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta _ j)$ and $\varphi _ j\in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta _ j)$ for $j=1,\ldots ,n$. We assume that $\varphi _ j^ k\xrightarrow {d_ S}\varphi _ j$ for each $j=1,\ldots ,n$. Then

BCAEFDCBCBE3 18.1.33
\begin{equation} \lim _{k\in I}\operatorname{vol}\left( \theta _{1,\varphi _1^ k},\ldots , \theta _{n,\varphi _ n^ k}\right)=\operatorname{vol}\left( \theta _{1,\varphi _1},\ldots , \theta _{n,\varphi _ n}\right). \end{equation}

Proof. Fix a Kähler form $\omega $. Then for any $\epsilon >0$, we have

\[ \lim _{k\in I}\operatorname{vol}\left( (\theta _1+\epsilon \omega )_{\varphi _1^ k},\ldots , (\theta _ n+\epsilon \omega )_{\varphi _ n^ k}\right)=\operatorname{vol}\left( (\theta _1+\epsilon \omega )_{\varphi _1},\ldots , (\theta _ n+\epsilon \omega )_{\varphi _ n}\right) \]

as a consequence of corollary 16.9.36, theorem 16.9.30 and theorem 16.9.49.

Now thanks to 18.1.31, there is $C>0$ so that for each $k\in I$,

\[ \begin{aligned} 0\leq & \operatorname{vol}\left( (\theta _1+\epsilon \omega )_{\varphi _1^ k},\ldots , (\theta _ n+\epsilon \omega )_{\varphi _ n^ k}\right)-\operatorname{vol}\left( \theta _{1,\varphi _1^ k},\ldots , \theta _{n,\varphi _ n^ k}\right)\leq C\epsilon ,\\ 0\leq & \operatorname{vol}\left( (\theta _1+\epsilon \omega )_{\varphi _1},\ldots , (\theta _ n+\epsilon \omega )_{\varphi _ n}\right)-\operatorname{vol}\left( \theta _{1,\varphi _1},\ldots , \theta _{n,\varphi _ n}\right)\leq C\epsilon . \end{aligned} \]

Therefore, (18.1.33) follows. $\square$

Corollary 18.1.34.3305393E4400 Let $\theta $ be a smooth closed real $(1,1)$-form representing a big cohomology class. Let $(\varphi _ j)_{j\in I}$ be a net in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$ and $\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$. Assume that $\varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}\varphi $. Then

55BF10D53948 18.1.35
\begin{equation} \operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi _ j}\to \operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi },\quad \int _ X \theta _{\varphi _ j}^ n\to \int _ X \theta _{\varphi }^ n. \end{equation}

Proof. The first part of (18.1.35) is a special case of theorem 18.1.32, while the second part of (18.1.35) is a special case of theorem 16.9.30. $\square$

The mixed volume has a log-concavity property:

Proposition 18.1.36.BB7441317AAF Let $T_1,\ldots ,T_ n$ be closed positive $(1,1)$-currents on $X$. Then

\[ \operatorname{vol}(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n)\geq \prod _{i=1}^ n(\operatorname{vol}T_ i)^{1/n}. \]

Proof. We may assume that $\operatorname{vol}T_ i>0$ for each $i=1,\ldots ,n$ since there is nothing to prove otherwise. In this case, we need to show that

\[ \begin{split} & \int _ X \left(\theta _1+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _1}[\varphi _1]_{\mathcal{I}}\right)\wedge \cdots \wedge \left(\theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _ n}[\varphi _ n]_{\mathcal{I}}\right)\\ \geq & \prod _{i=1}^ n\left(\int _ X \left(\theta _ i+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta _ i}[\varphi _ i]_{\mathcal{I}} \right)^ n \right)^{1/n}. \end{split} \]

This is a special case of theorem 13.13.5. $\square$

Next, we also study how the mixed volume behaves under bimeromorphic transforms.

Proposition 18.1.37.24049C5AD956 Let $\pi \colon Y\rightarrow X$ be a proper bimeromorphic morphism from a Kähler manifold $Y$ to $X$. Then

\[ \operatorname{vol}\left(\pi ^*T_1,\ldots ,\pi ^*T_ n\right)=\operatorname{vol}\left(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n\right). \]

Proof. Using the definition of the mixed volume, we may easily reduce to the case where $\operatorname{vol}T_ i>0$ for each $i=1,\ldots ,n$. By proposition 16.6.10, we know that if we write $T_ i=\theta _ i+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ i$, then

\[ \pi ^*P_{\theta _ i}[\varphi _ i]_{\mathcal{I}}=P_{\pi ^*\theta _ i}[\pi ^*\varphi _ i]_{\mathcal{I}} \]

for each $i=1,\ldots ,n$. In particular,

\[ \operatorname{vol}\pi ^*T_ i=\operatorname{vol}T_ i>0. \]

Our assertion follows from the bimeromorphic invariance of the non-pluripolar product proposition 13.13.4. $\square$

As for pushforward, we also have a similar result. We need a preliminary result:

Lemma 18.1.38.30F0E1037DAE Let $\pi \colon Y\rightarrow X$ be a proper bimeromorphic morphism from a Kähler manifold $Y$. Then for any non-divisorial closed positive $(1,1)$-current $T$ on $Y$, we have

\[ \pi ^* \pi _* T=T+\sum _{i=1}^ N c_ i [E_ i] \]

for finitely many $\pi $-exceptional divisors $E_ i$ and $c_ i>0$.

Proof. Let $E$ be the exceptional locus of $\pi $. Then

\[ T=\mathds {1}_{Y\setminus E}\pi ^* \pi _* T. \]

Therefore,

\[ \pi ^* \pi _* T-T=\mathds {1}_ E\pi ^* \pi _* T, \]

which has the stated form, due to the support theorems, see [Section 8, DemBook]. $\square$

Corollary 18.1.39.F7A7811A159E Let $\pi \colon X\rightarrow Z$ be a proper bimeromorphic morphism from $X$ to a Kähler manifold $Z$. Then

4A8B3C0B6CE6 18.1.40
\begin{equation} \operatorname{vol}(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n)=\operatorname{vol}(\pi _*T_1,\ldots ,\pi _*T_ n). \end{equation}

Proof. Observe that we may assume that $T_ i=\operatorname{Reg}T_ i$ for all $i=1,\ldots ,n$. In fact, since the pushforward of the divisorial part of $T_ i$ is divisorial as well, hence by proposition 18.1.27 5, they do not contribute to the volumes.

Now by proposition 18.1.37, it remains to show that

\[ \operatorname{vol}(T_1,\ldots ,T_ n)=\operatorname{vol}(\pi ^*\pi _*T_1,\ldots ,\pi ^*\pi _*T_ n). \]

By 18.1.38, the difference $\pi ^*\pi _*T_ i-T_ i$ is divisorial, hence our desired equality follows from proposition 18.1.27 5. $\square$

A particular corollary of corollary 18.1.39 will be useful later.

Corollary 18.1.41.1F0FA3B61EBC Let $\pi \colon X\rightarrow Z$ be a proper bimeromorphic morphism from $X$ to a Kähler manifold $Z$. Assume that $T$ is an $\mathcal{I}$-good closed positive $(1,1)$-current on $X$. Then so is $\pi _*T$.

Proof. We may assume that $\int _ X T^ n>0$. Then by corollary 18.1.39,

\[ \operatorname{vol}\pi _*T=\operatorname{vol}T>0 \]

as well. Since $T$ is $\mathcal{I}$-good, we have

\[ \operatorname{vol}T=\int _ X T^ n. \]

But $\int _ X T^ n=\int _ Z (\pi _*T)^ n$, so

\[ \operatorname{vol}\pi _*T=\int _ Z (\pi _*T)^ n>0. \]

It follows that $\pi _*T$ is $\mathcal{I}$-good. $\square$

Finally we establish a semicontinuity property of the mixed volumes.

Theorem 18.1.42.763BE634A054 Let $(\varphi _ i^ j)_{j\in J}$ ($i=1,\ldots ,n$) be nets in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta _ i)$, and $\varphi _ i\in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta _ i)$ ($i=1,\ldots ,n$). Assume that for each prime divisor $E$ over $X$, we have

\[ \lim _{j\in J} \nu \left(\varphi _ i^ j,E\right)=\nu \left(\varphi _ i,E\right),\quad i=1,\ldots ,n. \]

Then

\[ \varlimsup _{j\in J} \operatorname{vol}\left(\theta _1+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _1^ j, \dots ,\theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ n^ j \right) \leq \operatorname{vol}\left(\theta _1+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _1, \dots ,\theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ n\right). \]

Proof. Step 1. We first assume that $\operatorname{vol}(\theta _ i+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ i^ j)>0$ and $\operatorname{vol}(\theta _ i+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ i)>0$ for all $i=1,\ldots ,n$ and $j\in J$.

Without loss of generality, we may assume that the $\varphi _ i^ j$'s and the $\varphi _ i$'s are $\mathcal{I}$-model for all $i=1,\ldots ,n$ and $j\in J$. Our assertion becomes

055370851A43 18.1.43
\begin{equation} \varlimsup _{j\in J} \int _ X \left(\theta _1+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _1^ j\right)\wedge \dots \wedge \left(\theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ n^ j \right) \leq \int _ X \left(\theta _1+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _1\right) \wedge \dots \wedge \left(\theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ n\right). \end{equation}

For each $j\in J$, define

\[ \psi _ i^ j\coloneqq \operatorname *{sup}_{k\geq j}{}\! {}^{*} \varphi _ i^ k,\quad i=1,\ldots ,n. \]

Observe that $\psi _ i^ j$ is $\mathcal{I}$-good thanks to proposition 18.1.19, since after the preceding reduction the tail family is bounded above by $0$. It follows from corollary 5.16.9 and our assumption that

\[ \lim _{j\in J}\nu \left(\psi _ i^ j,E\right)=\nu \left(\varphi _ i,E\right),\quad i=1,\ldots ,n. \]

Moreover, for each $j\in J$, the same formula gives $\varphi _ i\preceq _{\mathcal{I}}\psi _ i^ j$. Since $\varphi _ i$ is $\mathcal{I}$-model and $\psi _ i^ j$ is $\mathcal{I}$-good, proposition 16.8.17 gives

\[ \varphi _ i\leq P_{\theta _ i}\left[\psi _ i^ j\right]. \]

For each $i=1,\ldots ,n$, we define

\[ \psi _ i=\inf _{j\in J}P_{\theta _ i}\left[\psi _ i^ j\right]. \]

In particular, $\psi _ i\geq \varphi _ i$, so $\int _ X\theta _{i,\psi _ i}^ n>0$. Since $\psi _ i^ j$ is $\mathcal{I}$-good, $P_{\theta _ i}[\psi _ i^ j]$ is both model and $\mathcal{I}$-model. Due to proposition 16.6.29, $\psi _ i$ is $\mathcal{I}$-model. Thanks to proposition 16.4.4, we know

\[ \nu (\psi _ i,E)=\nu (\varphi _ i,E) \]

for any $i=1,\ldots ,n$ and any prime divisor $E$ over $X$. In other words, $\psi _ i\sim _{\mathcal{I}} \varphi _ i$ for $i=1,\ldots ,n$. But both $\varphi _ i$ and $\psi _ i$ are $\mathcal{I}$-good, therefore,

\[ \psi _ i\sim _{P} \varphi _ i,\quad i=1,\ldots ,n. \]

By proposition 16.8.22, we have

\[ \int _ X (\theta _1+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\psi _1)\wedge \cdots \wedge (\theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\psi _ n)=\int _ X (\theta _1+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _1)\wedge \cdots \wedge (\theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ n). \]

Next by proposition 16.8.22 again,

\[ \begin{split} & \varlimsup _{j\in J} \int _ X \left(\theta _1+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _1^ j\right)\wedge \dots \wedge \left(\theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ n^ j \right)\\ \leq & \varlimsup _{j\in J} \int _ X \left(\theta _1+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\psi _1^ j\right)\wedge \dots \wedge \left(\theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\psi _ n^ j \right). \end{split} \]

On the other hand, due to proposition 16.4.4 and corollary 16.9.14, for each $i=1,\ldots ,n$, we have

\[ \psi _ i^ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}\psi _ i. \]

We conclude from theorem 16.9.30 that

\[ \varlimsup _{j\in J} \int _ X \left(\theta _1+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\psi _1^ j\right)\wedge \dots \wedge \left(\theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\psi _ n^ j \right)=\int _ X (\theta _1+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\psi _1)\wedge \cdots \wedge (\theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\psi _ n). \]

Putting these equations together, (18.1.43) follows.

Step 2. Next we handle the general case.

Fix a Kähler form $\omega $ on $X$. For any $\epsilon \in (0,1]$, from Step 1, we know that

\[ \begin{split} & \varlimsup _{j\in J} \operatorname{vol}\left(\theta _1+\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _1^ j, \dots ,\theta _ n+\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ n^ j \right) \\ \leq & \operatorname{vol}\left(\theta _1+\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _1, \dots ,\theta _ n+\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ n\right). \end{split} \]

Using 18.1.31, we have

\[ \begin{aligned} & \varlimsup _{j\in J} \operatorname{vol}\left(\theta _1+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _1^ j, \dots ,\theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ n^ j \right)\\ \leq & \varlimsup _{j\in J} \operatorname{vol}\left(\theta _1+\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _1^ j, \dots ,\theta _ n+\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ n^ j \right)\\ \leq & \operatorname{vol}\left(\theta _1+\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _1, \dots ,\theta _ n+\epsilon \omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ n\right)\\ \leq & \operatorname{vol}\left(\theta _1+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _1, \dots ,\theta _ n+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ n\right)+C\epsilon . \end{aligned} \]

But since $\epsilon $ is arbitrary, our assertion follows. $\square$

18.1.44 The volumes of Hermitian pseudo-effective line bundles91B566E4374E

Let $X$ be a connected compact Kähler manifold of dimension $n$.

Definition 18.1.45.4B65B5AA614D A Hermitian pseudo-effective line bundle $(L,h)$ on a complex manifold $Y$ consists of a holomorphic line bundle $L$ on $Y$ together with a plurisubharmonic metric $h$ on $L$.

Theorem 18.1.46 (Asymptotic Riemann–Roch formula).FEA63C5AE11F Let $(L,h)$ be a Hermitian pseudo-effective line bundle on $X$ and $T$ be a holomorphic line bundle on $X$. We have

A09BDD8C8D10 18.1.47
\begin{equation} \lim _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(h^ k)\right)=\operatorname{vol}\left(\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}h\right). \end{equation}

In particular, the limit exists.

For the proof, let us fix a smooth Hermitian metric $h_0$ on $L$ with $\theta =c_1(L,h_0)$. We identify $h$ with $h_0\exp (-\varphi )$ for some $\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$. See section 5.20 for the relevant notations.

Recall that when $X$ admits a big line bundle, it is necessarily projective. See [Theorem 2.2.26, MM07].

We first handle the case where $\varphi $ has analytic singularities.

Proposition 18.1.48.A51A6DE92117 Under the assumptions of theorem 18.1.46, assume furthermore that $\varphi $ has analytic singularities such that $\theta _{\varphi }$ is a Kähler current, then (18.1.47) holds.

Proof. Step 1. Reduce to the case of log singularities.

Let $\pi \colon Y\rightarrow X$ be a log resolution of $\varphi $. In this case, for each $k\in \mathbb {Z}_{>0}$, we have

\[ h^0\Bigl (X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\Bigr )=h^0\Bigl (Y,K_{Y/X}\otimes \pi ^*T\otimes \pi ^*L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\pi ^*\varphi )\Bigr ). \]

By proposition 16.6.10, we have

\[ \operatorname{vol}(\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}h)=\operatorname{vol}(\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\pi ^*h). \]

Therefore, it suffices to argue (18.1.47) with $K_{Y/X}\otimes \pi ^*T$, $\pi ^*L$ and $\pi ^*h$ in place of $T$, $L$ and $h$.

Note that $\theta _{\varphi }$ is no longer a Kähler current, but it still has positive mass.

Step 2. Assume that $\varphi $ has log singularities along an effective $\mathbb {Q}$-divisor $D$. We may assume that $D$ is simple normal crossing by replacing $X$ by a modification and $D$ by the pull-back. We decompose $D$ into irreducible components, say

\[ D=\sum _{i=1}^ N a_ iD_ i. \]

In this case, we can easily compute

\[ \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )=\mathcal{O}_ X\left(-\sum _{i=1}^ N\lfloor k a_ i \rfloor D_ i\right) \]

for each $k\in \mathbb {Z}_{>0}$. Observe that $L-D$ is nef (see 5.18.5). Choose an integer $q>0$ so that $qD$ is integral. For each residue class $s=0,\ldots ,q-1$, we have

\[ \left\lfloor (mq+s)D\right\rfloor =mqD+\lfloor sD\rfloor . \]

Hence, on the residue class $k=mq+s$, the line bundle

\[ T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{O}_ X\left(-\sum _{i=1}^ N\lfloor k a_ i \rfloor D_ i\right) \]

is a fixed twist of $\left(q(L-D)\right)^ m$. Applying the asymptotic Riemann–Roch theorem [Corollary 1.4.41, PAG1] to the nef line bundle $q(L-D)$ and then letting $m\to \infty $ in each residue class, we conclude that

\[ \lim _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{O}_ X\left(-\sum _{i=1}^ N\lfloor k a_ i \rfloor D_ i\right)\right)= (L-D)^ n. \]

Observe that by proposition 5.20.4,

\[ \theta _{\varphi }=[D]+S, \]

where $S$ is a closed positive $(1,1)$-current with bounded potential. Therefore,

\[ (L-D)^ n=\int _ X S^ n=\int _ X \theta _{\varphi }^ n. \]

By example 18.1.10, we know that the right-hand side is exactly $\operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi }$. $\square$

Proof of theorem 18.1.46. Step 1. We first handle the case where $\theta _{\varphi }$ is a Kähler current. Fix a Kähler form $\omega \geq \theta $ on $X$ such that $\theta _{\varphi }\geq 2\delta \omega $ for some $\delta \in (0,1)$.

Let $(\varphi _ j)_ j$ be a quasi-equisingular approximation of $\varphi $ in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$. We may assume that $\theta _{\varphi _ j}\geq \delta \omega $ for all $j$. From proposition 18.1.48, we know that for each $j\geq 1$,

\[ \varlimsup _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right)\leq \lim _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi _ j)\right)=\operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi _ j}. \]

It follows from theorem 18.1.2 and theorem 16.9.57 that the right-hand side converges to $\operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi }$ as $j\to \infty $. Therefore,

\[ \varlimsup _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right)\leq \operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi }. \]

Conversely, fix an integer $N>\delta ^{-1}$. From theorem 18.1.2 and theorem 16.9.30, we know that

17BF54CBA55B 18.1.49
\begin{equation} \lim _{j\to \infty }\int _ X \theta _{\varphi _ j}^ n=\int _ X \theta _{P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}}^ n>0. \end{equation}

Therefore, by 13.13.30, we can find $j_0>0$ such that for $j\geq j_0$, there is $\psi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )_{>0}$ (depending on $j$) with

1375552B142A 18.1.50
\begin{equation} (1-N^{-1})\varphi _ j+N^{-1}\psi \leq P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}. \end{equation}

For each $k>0$, we write $k=k'N-r$, where $k'\in \mathbb {N}$ and $r\in \{ 0,1,\ldots ,N-1\} $. Then we compute for $j\geq j_0$ and large enough $k$ (to be specified shortly) that

\[ \begin{aligned} & h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^{k}\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right)\\ \geq & h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^{-r}\otimes L^{k'N}\otimes \mathcal{I}(k'N\varphi )\right)\\ \geq & h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^{-r}\otimes L^{k'N}\otimes \mathcal{I}\left(k'(\psi +(N-1)\varphi _ j)\right)\right)\\ \geq & h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^{-r}\otimes L^{k'(N-1)}\otimes \mathcal{I}\left(k'N\varphi _ j\right)\right), \end{aligned} \]

where the third line follows from (18.1.50), the fourth line can be argued as follows: For large enough $k$, there is a non-zero section $s\in \mathrm{H}^0(X,L^{k'}\otimes \mathcal{I}(k'\psi ))$ by 13.13.48. It follows from 5.18.15 that for large enough $k$,

\[ \mathcal{I}\left(k'N\varphi _ j\right)\subseteq \mathcal{I}_{\infty }\left(k'(N-1)\varphi _ j\right). \]

It follows that multiplication by $s$ gives an injective map

\[ \begin{split} \mathrm{H}^0\left(X,T\otimes L^{-r}\otimes L^{k'(N-1)}\otimes \mathcal{I}\left(k'N\varphi _ j\right)\right)\hookrightarrow \\ \mathrm{H}^0\left(X,T\otimes L^{-r}\otimes L^{k'N}\otimes \mathcal{I}\left(k'\psi +k'(N-1)\varphi _ j\right)\right). \end{split} \]

Next observe that

\[ (N-1)\theta +N\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ j= N\theta _{\varphi _ j}-\theta \geq N\delta \omega -\theta \geq (N\delta -1)\omega . \]

Since $N>\delta ^{-1}$, this is a Kähler current. Hence proposition 18.1.48 is applicable. We let $k\to \infty $ to conclude that

\[ \begin{aligned} \varliminf _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^{k}\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right) \geq & N^{-n}\int _{X} \left( (N-1)\theta +N\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ j\right)^ n\\ =& \int _ X \left((1-N^{-1})\theta +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ j \right)^ n\\ \geq & \int _ X \left(\theta +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ j \right)^ n -C N^{-1}, \end{aligned} \]

where $C$ is a constant independent of $N$ and $j$. Letting $j\to \infty $ and then $N\to \infty $ and using (18.1.49), we find that

\[ \varliminf _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^{k}\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right)\geq \int _ X \theta _{P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}}^ n. \]

Therefore, (18.1.47) follows.

Step 2. We handle the case where $\operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi }>0$. We may assume that $\varphi $ is $\mathcal{I}$-model.

First observe that $L$ is big by proposition 13.13.3. Hence $X$ is projective. Take a very ample line bundle $A$ on $X$ and a Kähler form $\omega $ in $c_1(A)$. Take a Hermitian metric $h_ A$ on $A$ with $\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}h_ A=\omega $.

Fix $N\in \mathbb {Z}_{>0}$. We decompose any $k>0$ as $k=k'N+r$ with $k'\in \mathbb {N}$ and $r\in \{ 0,1,\ldots ,N-1\} $. Then

\[ h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right)\leq h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ r \otimes L^{k'N}\otimes \mathcal{I}(k'N\varphi )\right). \]

Therefore,

\[ \begin{aligned} & \varlimsup _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right)\\ \leq & \max _{r=0,\ldots ,N-1}\varlimsup _{k'\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k'^ nN^ n} h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ r \otimes L^{k'N}\otimes \mathcal{I}(k'N\varphi )\right)\\ \leq & \max _{r=0,\ldots ,N-1}\varlimsup _{k'\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k'^ nN^ n} h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ r \otimes L^{k'N}\otimes A^{k'}\otimes \mathcal{I}(k'N\varphi )\right)\\ =& \int _ X \left(N^{-1}\omega +\theta +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}P_{\theta +N^{-1}\omega }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}\right)^{n}, \end{aligned} \]

where the third line uses multiplication by a non-zero section of $A^{k'}$, and we have applied Step 1 to the Hermitian pseudo-effective line bundle $(L^ N\otimes A,h^{\otimes N}\otimes h_ A)$ on the fourth line. On the other hand, since $\varphi $ is $\mathcal{I}$-good by example 18.1.11, 18.1.8 gives

\[ P_{\theta +N^{-1}\omega }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}=P_{\theta +N^{-1}\omega }[\varphi ]. \]

It follows from proposition 16.3.10 that

\[ \varlimsup _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right)\leq \int _ X \left(N^{-1}\omega +\theta +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi \right)^ n. \]

Letting $N\to \infty $, we conclude

\[ \varlimsup _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right)\leq \int _ X \theta _{\varphi }^ n. \]

It remains to argue the reverse inequality.

Choose $\psi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$ such that $\theta _{\psi }$ is a Kähler current and $\psi \leq \varphi $. The existence of $\psi $ is guaranteed by 13.13.47. Then for any $t\in (0,1)$, we set

\[ \varphi _ t=(1-t)\varphi +t\psi . \]

It follows again from Step 1 that

\[ \varliminf _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right)\geq \lim _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi _ t)\right)=\operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi _ t}. \]

On the other hand, by theorem 18.1.32 and corollary 16.9.38,

\[ \lim _{t\to 0+}\operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi _ t}=\operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi }. \]

So we find

\[ \varliminf _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right)\geq \operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi }. \]

We conclude (18.1.47) in this case.

Step 3. We finally handle the case where $\operatorname{vol}\theta _{\varphi }=0$. Replacing $\varphi $ by $P_{\theta }[\varphi ]_{\mathcal{I}}$, we may assume that $\varphi $ is $\mathcal{I}$-model.

Assume that (18.1.47) fails. That is,

\[ \varlimsup _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\right)\geq \varlimsup _{k\to \infty } \frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right)>0, \]

then $L$ is a big line bundle and hence $X$ is projective.

Fix a very ample line bundle $A$ on $X$ and a Kähler form $\omega \in c_1(A)$. Take a decreasing sequence $(\epsilon _ j)_ j$ of rational numbers with limit $0$ and a quasi-equisingular approximation $(\varphi _ j)_ j$ of $\varphi $ with $\varphi _ j\in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta +\epsilon _ j\omega )_{>0}$.

We claim that as $j\to \infty $, the sequence $P_{\theta +\epsilon _ j\omega }[\varphi _ j]$ is decreasing with limit $\varphi $.

It is clear that this sequence is decreasing. Let $\psi $ denote its limit for the moment. It is also clear that $\psi \geq \varphi $. Since $\varphi $ is $\mathcal{I}$-model, it remains to show that $\psi \preceq _{\mathcal{I}}\varphi $. Fix $\lambda >0$. By strong openness, choose $\lambda '>\lambda $ such that $\mathcal{I}(\lambda \psi )=\mathcal{I}(\lambda '\psi )$. For $j$ large enough, the quasi-equisingularity of $(\varphi _ j)_ j$ gives

\[ \mathcal{I}(\lambda '\psi )\subseteq \mathcal{I}(\lambda '\varphi _ j)\subseteq \mathcal{I}(\lambda \varphi ), \]

where the first inclusion uses $\psi \leq P_{\theta +\epsilon _ j\omega }[\varphi _ j]$ and $P_{\theta +\epsilon _ j\omega }[\varphi _ j]\sim _{\mathcal{I}}\varphi _ j$. Thus $\psi \preceq _{\mathcal{I}}\varphi $, and the claim follows.

By our claim, proposition 16.3.10 and proposition 16.4.4, we find that

56B91126C3D7 18.1.51
\begin{equation} \lim _{j\to \infty } \int _ X \left(\theta +\epsilon _ j\omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ j\right)^ n=\int _ X \theta _{\varphi }^ n=0. \end{equation}

Fix $j>0$, take an integer $N>0$ so that $N\epsilon _ j$ is an integer. Then we compute

\[ \begin{aligned} & \varlimsup _{k\to \infty } \frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right)\\ \leq & \varlimsup _{k\to \infty } \frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi _ j)\right)\\ \leq & \max _{a=0,\ldots ,N-1}\varlimsup _{k'\to \infty } \frac{n!}{(k'N)^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ a\otimes L^{Nk'}\otimes \mathcal{I}(Nk'\varphi _ j)\right)\\ \leq & \max _{a=0,\ldots ,N-1}\varlimsup _{k'\to \infty } \frac{n!}{(k'N)^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ a\otimes L^{Nk'}\otimes A^{k'N\epsilon _ j}\otimes \mathcal{I}(Nk'\varphi _ j)\right)\\ =& \frac{1}{N^ n}\int _ X \left( N\theta +\epsilon _ jN\omega +N\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ j \right)^ n, \end{aligned} \]

where the third line follows by writing $k=Nk'+a$ as before, we applied Step 2 on the last line. Dividing by $N^ n$, we find that

\[ \varlimsup _{k\to \infty } \frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right)\leq \int _ X \left(\theta +\epsilon _ j\omega +\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}\varphi _ j\right)^ n. \]

Since we know (18.1.51), letting $j\to \infty $, we conclude that

\[ \varlimsup _{k\to \infty } \frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,T\otimes L^ k\otimes \mathcal{I}(k\varphi )\right)=0, \]

which is a contradiction. Hence (18.1.47) is established in full generality. $\square$

Corollary 18.1.52.DA9EAE05F341 Let $L$ be a pseudo-effective line bundle on $X$, and let $h$ be a smooth Hermitian metric on $L$ with $\theta =c_1(L,h)$. Then we have

8448EC5F2FB3 18.1.53
\begin{equation} \lim _{k\to \infty }\frac{n!}{k^ n}h^0\left(X,L^ k\right)=\int _ X \theta _{V_{\theta }}^ n. \end{equation}

Proof. It suffices to observe that

9E9E2CC55B5A 18.1.54
\begin{equation} \mathrm{H}^0\left(X,L^ k \otimes \mathcal{I}\left(kV_{\theta }\right) \right)=\mathrm{H}^0\left(X,L^ k\right) \end{equation}

for all $k>0$, since for any holomorphic section $s$ of $L^ k$, the function $\log |s|_{h^ k}^2$ is $\theta $-psh thanks to proposition 5.20.4 and therefore, we have

\[ \frac{1}{k}\log |s|_{h^ k}^2\preceq V_{\theta }. \]

In particular, $s\in \mathrm{H}^0\left(X,L^ k \otimes \mathcal{I}\left(kV_{\theta }\right) \right)$. $\square$

This common quantity is the volume of $L$, usually denoted by $\operatorname{vol}L$. In view of definition 16.6.16, we have

18274B986369 18.1.55
\begin{equation} \operatorname{vol}L=\operatorname{vol}c_1(L). \end{equation}

Example 18.1.56.35A211AC3973 If $X$ is a smooth projective toric variety and $\theta $ is invariant under the action of the compact torus, then any $\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}_{\mathrm{tor}}(X,\theta )$ is $\mathcal{I}$-good.

Proof. Thanks to 18.1.8, we may assume that $\theta \in c_1(L)$ for some toric invariant ample line bundle $L$. In this case, the result follows from theorem 18.1.2, theorem 18.1.46 and theorem 21.12.31. $\square$

Cite this page

Comments

Corrections, questions, and mathematical discussion are welcome. Sign in with GitHub to comment. Comments are public.