text:
# Hyperplane arrangements, M-tame polynomials and twisted cohomology

## 1 Introduction

Let $`𝒜=\{H_1,\mathrm{},H_d\}`$ be an affine essential hyperplane arrangement in $`^{n+1}`$, see \[OT1\], \[OT2\] for general facts on arrangements.
We set as usual $`M=M(𝒜)=^{n+1}\backslash X`$, $`X`$ being the union of all the hyperplanes in $`𝒜`$. One of the main problems now in hyperplane arrangement theory is to study the cohomology of the complement $`M`$ with coefficients in some local system $``$ on $`M`$, see for instance the introduction and the references in \[CDO\] as well as \[OT2\].
A rank one local system $``$ on $`M(𝒜)`$ corresponds to a homomorphism

$$\pi _1(M(𝒜))_{ab}=H_1(M(𝒜),)^d^{}$$

i.e. such a local system $``$ is determined by a collection $`\lambda ()=(\lambda _1(),\mathrm{},\lambda _d())`$ of $`d`$ non-zero complex numbers. Here $`\lambda _j()`$ is the monodromy of the local system $``$ about the hyperplane $`H_j`$. We call the local system $``$ equimonodromical if all these monodromies$`\lambda _j()`$ are the same, i.e. there is $`\lambda ^{}`$ such that $`\lambda _j()=\lambda `$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},d`$. In such a situation we denote the corresponding local system by $`_\lambda `$.
We assume in the sequel that $`\lambda _j()1`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},d`$, the remaining cases being essentially reduced to this one using \[C\]. Then, there are unique integers $`N>1`$ and $`0<e_j<N`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},d`$ such that

$$g.c.d(e_1,\mathrm{},e_d)=1and\lambda _j()=exp(2\pi ie_j/N)$$

for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},d`$. We set $`e=(e_1,\mathrm{},e_d)`$.
For any $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$, let $`\mathrm{}_i=0`$ be an equation for the hyperplane $`H_i`$ and consider the product

$$f_e=\underset{i=1,d}{}\mathrm{}_i^{e_i}[x_0,\mathrm{},x_n].$$

Let $`d_e=e_1+\mathrm{}+e_d`$ be the degree of the polynomial $`f_e`$. When $`e_j=1`$ for all $`j`$, then we simply write $`f`$ for the corresponding product. Note that $`deg(f)=d`$ and $`f=0`$ is an equation for the union $`X`$.

When the arrangement $`𝒜`$ is central, i.e. $`0H_i`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$, the above polynomial $`f`$ is homogeneous and there is a lot of interest in the associated Milnor fiber

$$F=F(𝒜)=f^1(1)$$

and the corresponding monodromy action $`h^q:H^q(F,)H^q(F,)`$ coming from the obvious fibration

$$FM^{}$$

see for instance \[CS\]. In particular, it is known that

$$dimH^q(M,_\lambda )=dim\text{Ker }(h^q\lambda Id)+dim\text{Ker }(h^{q1}\lambda Id)$$

see for instance \[DN2\]. If we denote by $`M^{}=M^{}(𝒜)`$ the quotient $`M(𝒜)/^{}^n`$ and if $`\lambda ^d=1`$, then there is an induced equimonodromical local system $`_\lambda ^{}`$ on $`M^{}(𝒜)`$ and we have

$$dimH^q(M^{},_\lambda ^{})=dim\text{Ker }(h^q\lambda Id)$$

see \[CS\]. When the local system $``$ is not equimonodromical, then one still has an equality

$$dimH^q(M,)=dim\text{Ker }(h_e^qaId)+dim\text{Ker }(h_e^{q1}aId)$$

where $`a=exp(2\pi i/N)`$, $`F_e=f_e^1(1)`$ and $`h_e:F_eF_e`$ is the corresponding monodromy operator, see \[DN2\].

When the arrangement $`𝒜`$ is not central, the usual way to study the cohomology groups $`H^{}(M(𝒜),)`$ is to identify $`𝒜`$ to a projective arrangement $`𝒜_p`$ in $`^{n+1}`$ by adding the hyperplane at infinity, hence $`|𝒜_p|=|𝒜|+1=d+1`$, and then study the Milnor fibration of the central arrangement $`=Cone(𝒜_p)`$ in $`^{n+2}`$ since $`M^{}()=M(𝒜)`$. This approach has at least two disadvantages:

(i) we have to increase dimensions by one, e.g. if we start with a line arrangement $`𝒜`$, the Milnor fiber $`F()`$ is a surface;

(ii) if we are interested in the special class of equimonodromical local systems $`_\lambda `$ and if $`a^{d+1}1`$, then the local sytem on $`M^{}()`$ naturally associated to $`_\lambda `$ on $`M(𝒜)`$, is no longer equimonodromical.

The purpose of this note is to introduce a new approach to the study of the affine arrangement $`𝒜`$, generalizing the central arrangement case and avoiding the above two problems. This approach is based on the study of the topology of the function $`f:^{n+1}`$ and of its monodromy representation, using the tools developed over the years by many authors, see for instance \[B\], \[NZ1\], \[NZ2\], \[PZ\] and the new progress on Alexander invariants in \[DN2\].

## 2 Affine arrangements and M-tame polynomials

First we recall the notion of an $`M`$-tame polynomial introduced in \[NZ1\] and later studied in \[NZ2\], \[NS\]. For any polynomial $`g[x_0,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ consider the set

$$M(g)=\{x^{n+1}|grad(g)(x)=c\overline{x}forsomec\}$$

where $`grad(g)(x)=(g_0(x),\mathrm{},g_n(x))`$, with $`g_k`$ the partial derivative of $`g`$ with respect to $`x_k`$ and $`\overline{x}`$ is the complex conjugate of $`x`$.

###### Definition 2.1

We say that the polynomial $`g`$ is $`M`$-tame if for any sequence $`\{z^k\}M(g)`$ with $`lim|z^k|=+\mathrm{}`$ we have $`lim|g(z^k)|=+\mathrm{}`$.

It is clear that an $`M`$-tame polynomial can have only isolated singularities (see also the proof of Corollary 2.2 below). Therefore our polynomial $`f`$ associated to an affine arrangement cannot be $`M`$-tame as soon as $`n>1`$ (except very special cases). Our first result says that this is not a major drawback.

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`𝒜=\{H_1,\mathrm{},H_d\}`$ be an affine essential hyperplane arrangement in $`^{n+1}`$ given by the equation $`f=0`$. Then the following hold.

(i) For $`n=1`$ the polynomial $`f`$ is $`M`$-tame.

(ii) For $`n>1`$ as well as for $`n=1`$ and $`d_e>d`$, the polynomial $`f_e`$ is $`M_0`$-tame in the following sense: for any sequence $`\{z^k\}M(f_e)\backslash X`$ with $`lim|z^k|=+\mathrm{}`$ we have $`lim|f_e(z^k)|=+\mathrm{}`$.

Proof.

The proof of the first claim is easily reduced to the second and we leave it to the reader. The fact that for $`n=1`$ the polynomial $`f`$ has a good behaviour at infinity also follows from our discussion in the next section.

The proof of the second claim above is an improved version of the proof of Lemma 4 in \[Bo\]. Assume that there is a sequence of points $`\{z^k\}M(f_e)\backslash X`$ with $`lim|z^k|=+\mathrm{}`$ and $`lim|f_e(z^k)|+\mathrm{}`$. Then, by passing to a subsequence, we can assume that $`limf_e(z^k)=b`$.
Since the arrangement $`𝒜`$ is essential, the set of indices $`j`$ such that $`lim|\mathrm{}_j(z^k)|=+\mathrm{}`$ is not empty. By renumbering the hyperplanes, we can assume that $`lim|\mathrm{}_m(z^k)|=0`$ exactly for $`1mq`$ with $`q1`$ (this set is non-empty since $`limf_e(z^k)=b`$). We set

$$g=\underset{mq}{}\mathrm{}_m^{e_m}andh=\underset{m>q}{}\mathrm{}_m^{e_m}.$$

By a linear unitary change of coordinates we can assume that

$$H_1\mathrm{}H_q:x_0=\mathrm{}=x_p=0$$

with $`pq1`$. (The unitary requirement is essential, since the condition of $`M_0`$-tame is a condition of transversality of the fibers of $`f_e`$ with respect to large spheres centered at the origin, and such spheres being invariant by unitary transformations, it follows that the condition $`M_0`$-tame is also invariant.) Then $`\mathrm{}_m`$ for $`1mq`$ is a linear combination of $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_p`$ and $`g`$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $`q_e=e_1+\mathrm{}+e_q`$ in $`[x_0,\mathrm{},x_p]`$.
Now write $`z^k=(z_0^k,\mathrm{},z_n^k)`$ in the above fixed coordinate system and hence $`z_m^k0`$ for $`1mp`$. There is an integer $`K>p`$ such that $`|z_K^k|+\mathrm{}`$.
Consider the obvious equality

$$\frac{grad(f_e)}{f_e}=\frac{grad(g)}{g}+\frac{grad(h)}{h}.$$

By passing to a subsequence if necessary, we can assume that $`\mathrm{}_j(z^k)`$ is bounded away from $`0`$ for $`j>q`$. It follows that $`\frac{grad(h)}{h}`$ is bounded on the sequence $`z^k`$. This implies that for $`i>p`$, $`\frac{f_{e,i}}{f_e}=\frac{h_i}{h}`$ is bounded on the sequence $`z^k`$.

Consider now the equality

$$\frac{_{i=0,p}f_{e,i}(z^k)z_i^k}{f_e(z^k)}=\frac{_{i=0,p}g_i(z^k)z_i^k}{g(z^k)}+\frac{_{i=0,p}h_i(z^k)z_i^k}{h(z^k)}.$$

By Euler formula, the first term in the right hand side is equal to $`q_e>0`$, while by the above discussion the second term tends to zero. It follows that there is an integer $`Lp`$ such that $`|\frac{f_{e,L}(z^k)}{f_e(z^k)}|+\mathrm{}`$. Since $`z^kM(f)\backslash X`$ we have

$$|z_K^k||\frac{f_{e,L}(z^k)}{f_e(z^k)}|=|z_L^k||\frac{f_{e,K}(z^k)}{f_e(z^k)}|.$$

This leads to a contradiction, as the left hand side goes to infinity while the right hand side goes to zero, by the definition of $`K`$ and $`L`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

This result has the following corollaries, saying that essentially $`f_e`$ behaves like an $`M`$-tame polynomial. In fact, only the high connectivity of the general fiber $`F_e`$ of $`f_e`$ is lost. On the other hand, the defining condition on the multi-index $`e`$ implies that this general fiber $`F_e`$ is connected, see \[DPu\], Remark (I).

###### Corollary 2.1

For any $`t`$ the inclusion of the fiber $`F_t=f_e^1(t)`$ into the corresponding tube $`T_t=f_e^1(D_t)`$, with $`D_t`$ a small disc in $``$ centered at $`t`$, is a homotopy equivalence. In particular, both $`X=F_0`$ and $`T_0`$ have the homotopy type of a bouquet of $`n`$-dimensional spheres.

Proof.  The condition of $`M`$-tame says that the fibers of $`f_e`$ are transversal to large enough spheres in $`^{n+1}`$ centered at the origin. The weaker condition $`M_0`$ says the same thing, if we interpret transversality to the special fiber $`X=F_0`$ in the stratified sense. So the retractions from $`T_t`$ to $`F_t`$ obtained in the $`M`$-tame case in \[NZ1\], \[NZ2\] by integrating vector fields exist in our case as well. The fact that $`X`$ has the homotopy type of a bouquet of $`n`$-dimensional spheres is well known, see for instance \[DP\].

$`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`\mu (𝒜)`$ denote the number of spheres in the above bouquet. This number is determined by the following result, see \[Da\] for a different approach.

###### Corollary 2.2

The function $`f_e:M(𝒜)`$ induced by the polynomial $`f_e`$ has only isolated singularities and

$$\underset{xM(𝒜)}{}\mu (f_e,x)=\mu (𝒜)=(1)^{n+1}\chi (M(𝒜)).$$

Proof.

If $`f_e|M(𝒜)`$ would have non-isolated singularities, then we can find $`t^{}`$ and an irreducible affine algebraic variety $`YF_tSing(f_e)`$ with $`dimY>0`$. Any sequence of points in $`Y`$ tending to infinity would then contradict the $`M_0`$-tameness of $`f_e`$.
To complete the proof, we can use the standard trick used already by Broughton in \[B\] and deduce that $`^{n+1}`$ can be obtained from $`T_0`$ by adding $`(n+1)`$-cells in number equal to the above sum. Then we have just to use the obvious equalities $`\chi (X)=1+(1)^n\mu (𝒜)`$ and $`\chi (M(𝒜))=1\chi (X)`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

The following result explains the interest of this point of view for the computation of the twisted cohomology of the complement $`M(𝒜)`$ with values in a rank one local system $``$. For basic facts on the monodromy at infinity of polynomials we refer to \[DN1\].

###### Theorem 2.2

(i) For any integer $`k`$ such that $`0<k<n`$, the restriction of the constructible sheaf $`R^kf_e`$ to $`^{}`$ is a local system corresponding to the monodromy operator

$$M_e^k:H^k(F_e,)H^k(F_e,).$$

Here $`F_e`$ is the general fiber of the polynomial $`f_e`$ and $`M_e^k`$ can be taken to be either the monodromy about the fiber $`F_0=X`$ or, equivalently, the monodromy at infinity of the polynomial $`f_e`$.

(ii) Let $`𝔽_e`$ by the $``$-cyclic covering of $`M(𝒜)`$ corresponding to the kernel of the morphism $`f_e:\pi _1(M(𝒜))\pi _1(^{})`$ and consider $`H_n(𝔽_e,)`$ as a $`[t,t^1]`$-module in the usual way. Then there is an epimorphism of $`[t,t^1]`$-modules

$$H_n(F_e,)H_n(𝔽_e,)$$

where in the first module the multiplication by $`t`$ is either the monodromy about the fiber $`F_0=X`$ or the monodromy at infinity of the polynomial $`f`$.

Proof.

The first claim follows from the fact that the isolated singularities of $`f|M(𝒜)`$ produce no changes in the topology of the fibers in dimensions $`<n`$. In particular, the two monodromy operators in the claim (i) above coincide.
Using the above construction of $`M(𝒜)`$ starting from a punctured tube about $`X=F_0`$ (which can also be done starting from a punctured tube about the infinity, i.e. $`f^1(\backslash D_R)`$, where $`D_R`$ is a disc in $``$ of radius $`R>>0`$ centered at the origin), the proof is similar to the proofs in \[DN2\]. Easy examples in the case $`n=1`$ (to be treated in detail in the next two sections) shows that the two monodromy operators in the claim (ii) above do not coincide in general.

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2.3

(i) For any integer $`k`$ such that $`0<k<n`$, one has

$$dimH^k(M(𝒜),)=N(k,a)+N(k1,a)$$

where $`N(k,a)=dim\text{Ker }(M_e^kaId)`$ and $`a=exp(2\pi i/N)`$.

(ii) $`dimH^n(M(𝒜),)N(n,a)+N(n1,a)`$ and $`dimH^{n+1}(M(𝒜),)N(n,a)`$.

(iii) Both claims (i) and (ii) above hold for the trivial local system $`_M`$ by taking $`a=1`$.

Proof.  This claim follows from the fact that $`M(𝒜)`$ is obtained, exactly as in the proof above, from the punctured tube $`T_0^{}=T_0\backslash X`$ by attaching $`(n+1)`$-cells, see also \[DN2\]. It follows that the inclusion $`T_0^{}M(𝒜)`$ induces an isomorphism

$$H^k(M(𝒜),)H^k(T_0^{},)$$

for $`0<k<n`$, and hence the result is obtained exactly as the corresponding result for central arrangements mentionned in the Introduction. For $`k=n`$ the inequality comes from the epimorphism in Theorem 2.2, (ii). The last claim is obvious from the previous discussion.

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.1

(i) The $`[t,t^1]`$-modules $`H_m(𝔽_e,)`$ are exactly the Alexander invariants of the hypersurface $`X`$ as discussed in \[L\], \[D2\], \[DN2\] and, in the case $`n=1`$, in \[K\].

(ii) The $`M_0`$-tame polynomials have better topological properties than the semitame polynomials considered for instance in \[PZ\]. In particular, for an $`M_0`$-tame polynomial the monodromy at infinity can be realized as the monodromy à la Milnor, i.e. the total space can be chosen to be the complement of $`X`$ in a very large sphere in $`^{n+1}`$ centered at the origin as in the case of $`M`$-tame polynomials, see \[NZ2\].

(iii) It is not clear whether the monodromy operators $`M_e^k:H^k(F_e)H^k(F_e)`$ for $`0<k<n`$ are semisimple. For $`k=1`$, this is the case for the eigenvalue $`\lambda =1`$, see \[DS\]. In the next section we also show that multiplication by $`t`$ on $`H_1(𝔽,)`$ is semisimple when $`n=1`$.

The following result describes a way to compute the zeta-function

$$Z(f_e,0)(t)=\underset{m}{}(det(IdtM_{e,0}^m))^{(1)^m}$$

of the monodromy operator $`M_{e,0}`$ of the polynomial $`f_e`$ about the fiber $`X=F_0=f_e^1(0)`$.

###### Theorem 2.3

The direct image functor $`Rf_{}`$ commutes on the constant sheaf $``$ to the vanishing cycle functor $`\phi _f`$. In particular

$$Z(f_e,0)=\underset{S𝒮}{}Z(f_e,x_S)^{\chi (S)}$$

where $`𝒮`$ is a constructible regular stratification of $`X`$ with connected strata such that all the cohomology sheaves $`^m(\phi _f)`$ are locally constant along the strata of $`𝒮`$, $`x_S`$ is an arbitrary point in the stratum $`S`$ and $`Z(f_e,x_S)`$ is the local zeta-function of the function germ $`(f_e,x_S)`$.

Proof.

Exactly as in the case of an $`M`$-tame polynomial treated in \[NS\], the direct image functor $`Rf_{}`$ commutes on the constant sheaf $``$ to the vanishing cycle functor $`\phi _f`$. The formula for the zeta-function is similar to the one in the proper case obtained in \[GLM\] and is treated in detail for the case of tame polynomials in \[D4\].

$`\mathrm{}`$

Note that the above commutativity still holds when we replace the functor $`\phi _f`$ by the subfunctor $`\phi _{f,\lambda }`$ which takes only the vanishing cycles corresponding to a fixed eigenvalue $`\lambda `$. In particular $`\phi _{f,\lambda }=0`$ implies $`N(k,\lambda )=0`$ for all $`k`$. This is an effective way to get vanishing (or upper bound) results for the cohomology groups $`H^{}(M(𝒜),_a)`$, compare to \[CDO\], Corollary 16. In particular, this remark combined with Corollary 2.3 yields the following.

###### Corollary 2.4

If $`X`$ is a normal crossing divisor and $`\lambda _j()1`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},d`$, then $`H^q(M(𝒜),)=0`$ for all $`q<n`$.

## 3 Line arrangements (equimonodromical case)

In this section we assume that $`𝒜`$ is an essential line arrangement in the plane $`^2`$. Let $`n_k`$ be the number of $`k`$-fold intersection points in $`X`$. The following formulas are easy to deduce.

$$\chi (M(𝒜))=\mu (𝒜)=1d+\underset{m2}{}n_m(m1).$$

$$b_1(F)=1d+\underset{m2}{}n_m(m1)m.$$

Indeed, the first formula follows from Corollary 2.2 and the additivity of Euler characteristic with respect to constructible partitions. The second equality comes from the relation

$$b_1(F)=\underset{x^2}{}\mu (f,x)=\chi (M(𝒜))+\underset{xX}{}\mu (f,x).$$

Assume that the $`d`$ lines in $`𝒜`$ have $`p`$ distinct directions and let $`k_j`$ be the number of lines having the $`j`$-th direction. A standard computation shows that the genus (of a smooth projective model) of the general fiber $`F`$ of the defining polynomial $`f`$ is given by

$$g=genus(F)=\frac{(d1)(d2)}{2}\underset{j=1,p}{}\frac{k_j(k_j1)}{2}.$$

One can determine the resolution graph of $`f`$ as defined in \[ACD\] in a simple way. In fact $`X`$ intersects the line at infinity $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ in exactly $`p`$ points, say $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_p`$ (corresponding to the $`p`$ distinct directions of lines in $`X`$). Each of these points has to be blown-up, creating thus an exceptional curve $`E_j`$. The proper transform of $`X`$ cuts each $`E_j`$ in exactly $`k_j`$ points, and each of them has to be blown-up several times to arrive at a dicritic of degree one. Hence the total number of dicritics is

$$\delta (f)=\underset{j=1,p}{}k_j=d.$$

This gives the following.

###### Corollary 3.1

Let $`n(F_t)`$ denote the number of irreducible components of the fiber $`F_t`$. Then Kaliman’s inequality

$$\delta (f)1\underset{t}{}(n(F_t)1)$$

is in our situation an equality. In particular, all the fibers $`F_t`$ for $`t0`$ are irreducible.

It was known that this inequality is an equality when the general fiber $`F`$ is a rational curve (i.e. $`g=0`$), see \[Ka\], \[ACD\], but here we are not in this case in general, as can easily be verified using the above formula for the genus $`g`$. One also has $`dim\text{Ker }(M_{\mathrm{}}^1Id)=\delta (f)1`$ for any polynomial $`f:^2`$, see \[D3\]. Therefore the equality $`\delta (f)=d`$ implies that

$$dim\text{Ker }(M_{\mathrm{}}^1Id)=b_1(M(𝒜))1.$$

By Corollary 2.3 (iii), we get the same equality when $`n>1`$.

The multiplicity of $`f`$ along the line at infinity $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`d`$, along the exceptional curve $`E_j`$ is $`dk_j`$ and then decreases to one for each exceptional curve just before a dicritic. Applying A’Campo’s formula for the zeta-function as in \[ACD\] gives the following formula for the characteristic polynomial of the monodromy at infinity acting on $`H^1(F,)`$.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}(t)=(t1)(t^d1)^{p2}\underset{j=1,p}{}(t^{dk_j}1)^{k_j1}.$$

Comparing the degree of this polynomial to the previous formula for $`b_1(F)`$ we get the following relation among the numerical data associated to the line arrangement $`𝒜`$.

###### Corollary 3.2

$$1d+\underset{m2}{}n_m(m1)m=(d1)^2\underset{j=1,p}{}k_j(k_j1).$$

It is also easy to compute the characteristic polynomial of the monodromy at zero acting on $`H^1(F)`$. The result is the following.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0(t)=(t1)^{\mu (𝒜)}\underset{m2}{}[(t1)(t^m1)^{m2}]^{n_m}.$$

Moreover, in this case the multiplication by $`t`$ on $`H_1(𝔽,)`$ is semisimple. Indeed, using Theorem 2.2 we see that the multiplication by $`t`$ cannot have larger Jordan blocks for the eigenvalue $`\lambda =1`$ since this is the case for the monodromy at infinity, see \[D3\] and, more generally. \[DS\]. But the multiplication by $`t`$ cannot have larger Jordan blocks for the eigenvalue $`\lambda 1`$ since this is the case for the monodromy at zero, all the singularities on $`X`$ being weighted homogeneous. This proves the final claim in Remark 2.1 (iii).

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ be the greatest common divisor of the polynomials $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$. Let $`N_f(\lambda )`$, $`N_0(\lambda )`$ and respectively $`N_{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )`$ be the multiplicity of $`\lambda `$ as a root of the polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and respectively $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$. The following result can be proved exactly as Corollary 2.3.

###### Corollary 3.3

For any $`\lambda ^{}`$, $`\lambda 1`$, we have

$$dimH^1(M(𝒜),_\lambda )N_f(\lambda )=min(N_0(\lambda ),N_{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )).$$

It is interesting to compare this upper-bound to the upper-bound obtained in \[CDO\], Theorem 13. Since this latter result applies to equimonodromical rank one local systems on complements of projective line arrangements in $`^2`$, we have to assume that $`\lambda ^{d+1}=1`$ such that the local system $`_\lambda `$ is a equimonodromical local system on the arrangement complement $`M(𝒜_p)`$ as explained in the Introduction. Under this assumtion, it follows that

$$N_{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )=\underset{j}{}(k_j1)$$

where the sum is over all $`j`$ such that $`\lambda ^{k_j+1}=1`$. Since $`k_j+1`$ is exactly the multiplicity of the corresponding projective arrangement $`𝒜_p`$ at the point $`A_j`$, it follows that $`N_{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )`$ is exactly the upper-bound obtained in \[CDO\], Theorem 13 for the arrangement $`𝒜_p`$ and the line at infinity $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ as a chosen hyperplane.
On the other hand, it is easy to see that

$$N_0(\lambda )=\underset{m}{}n_m(m2)$$

where the sum is over all $`m2`$ such that $`\lambda ^m=1`$. The interested reader will have no problem to find explicit examples of line arrangements showing that both inequalities $`N_{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )>N_0(\lambda )`$ and $`N_0(\lambda )>N_{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )`$ are possible. Hence in some cases, the last corollary above gives better upper-bounds that Theorem 13 in \[CDO\] (for any choice of the line at infinity!). One such example (not very interesting) is $`f=xy(x+1)(y+1)(x+y+10)(x+y+11)(xy+100)(xy+101)`$ and $`\lambda `$ a cubic root of unity. Here any line in the associated projective arrangement contains at least a triple point (and hence $`N_{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )1`$ for any choice of the line at infinity) , but $`X`$ has only normal crossings and hence $`N_0(\lambda )=0`$.

## 4 Line arrangements (general case)

In this section we continue to use the notation from the previous section, in particular $`XL_{\mathrm{}}=\{A_1,\mathrm{},A_p\}`$. These $`p`$ line directions induce a partition $`(I_1,\mathrm{},I_p)`$ of the set of indices $`\{1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ such that $`iI_j`$ if and only if $`H_iL_{\mathrm{}}=A_j`$. Let $`C_t=\overline{F}_t`$ be the closure in $`^2`$ of the fiber $`F_t=f_e^1(t)`$. Then $`C_t`$ has exactly $`p`$ singularities along the line at infinity (namely at the points $`\{A_1,\mathrm{},A_p\}`$), and an easy computation using the additivity of Milnor numbers under a blow-up, see \[D1\], Proposition (10.27) shows that

$$\mu (C_t,A_j)=d_e(d_jk_j)+d_j(k_j2)+1.$$

Here $`d_j=_{iI_j}e_i`$ and $`k_j=|I_j|`$. This formula implies in the usual way the following equality

$$b_1(F_e)=1+d_e(d1)\underset{j=1,p}{}d_jk_j.$$

One surprizing consequence of this formula when compared to Corrolary 2.2 is that for a fixed arrangement $`𝒜`$ we have $`sup_eb_1(F_e)=\mathrm{}`$, i.e. the topology of the the general fiber $`F_e`$ becomes more and more complicated as the multiplicities $`e`$ increase.

Similar considerations as in the previous section shows that $`\delta (f_e)=d`$, hence the Kaliman’s inequality is an equality in this case as well and all the fibers $`F_t=f_e^1(t)`$ are irreducible for $`t0`$. Moreover, we get the following formula for the characteristic polynomial of the monodromy operator $`M_{e,\mathrm{}}^1`$ at infinity of the polynomial $`f_e`$.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{e,\mathrm{}}(t)=(t1)(t^{d_e}1)^{p2}\underset{j=1,p}{}(t^{d_ed_j}1)^{k_j1}.$$

Moreover, Theorem 2.3 can be applied in this situation and yields the following formula for the characteristic polynomial of the monodromy operator $`M_{e,0}^1`$ about the fiber $`F_0=X`$ of the polynomial $`f_e`$.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{e,0}(t)=(t1)\underset{lines}{}(t^{e_j}1)^{\chi (H_j^0)}\underset{vertices}{}(t^{d(I_v)}1)^{|I_v|2}$$

where the first product is over all the lines $`H_j`$ and $`H_j^0=H_j\backslash _{ij}H_i`$ and the second product is over all the vertices $`v`$, $`I_v`$ denotes the set of $`m`$ such that $`vH_m`$ and $`d(J)=_{mJ}e_m`$.

Let us investigate the multiplicity of a root $`a=exp(2\pi i/N)`$ in these two polynomials $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{e,\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{e,0}`$ under the assumption that $`\lambda _j()=a^{e_j}1`$ for any $`j`$. Using the above formula for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{e,0}`$ it is easy to see that this multiplicity is

$$N_0(a)=mult(a,\mathrm{\Delta }_{e,0})=\underset{vertices}{}(|I_v|2)$$

where the sum is over all vertices $`v`$ in $`^2`$ such that $`_{jI_v}\lambda _j()=1`$. In a similar way

$$N_{\mathrm{}}(a)=mult(a,\mathrm{\Delta }_{e,\mathrm{}})=\underset{vertices}{}(|I_v|2)$$

where the sum is over all vertices $`vL_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the corresponding projective arrangement $`𝒜_p`$ in $`^2`$ such that $`_{jI_v}\lambda _j(_p)=1`$, $`_p`$ being the local system $``$ regarded as a local system on $`M(𝒜_p)`$. Then we have the following result.

###### Corollary 4.1

With the above notation, for any rank one local system $``$ on $`M(𝒜)`$ such that $`\lambda _j()1`$ for all $`j`$ one has

$$dimH^1(M(𝒜),)min(N_0(a),N_{\mathrm{}}(a)).$$

The upper-bound on $`dimH^1(M(𝒜),)`$ obtained from $`N_{\mathrm{}}(a)`$ can be considered as a generalization of Theorem 13 in \[CDO\], which applies only to equimonodromical local systems.

On the other hand, it is easy to give a sheaf theoretic proof of the above Corollary. Indeed, the setting in the proof of Theorem 13 in \[CDO\] gives by a slight modification the upper-bound obtained from $`N_{\mathrm{}}(a)`$. To get the upper-bound $`N_0(a)`$, it is enough to play the same game of comparing the direct image $`Rj_{}`$ with the direct image with compact supports $`Rj_!`$ as in \[CDO\], but replacing the affine space $`^2`$ by a large closed ball $`B`$ centered at the origin of $`^2`$ and taking $`j`$ to be the inclusion $`M(𝒜)BB`$. Indeed, it is known that the inclusion $`M(𝒜)BM(𝒜)`$ is a homotopy equivalence, see for instance \[D2\] p. 26 and hence $`H^1(M(𝒜),)H^1(M(𝒜)B,)`$. Further details will be given elsewhere.

Laboratoire d’Analyse et Géométrie,

Université Bordeaux I,

33405 Talence Cedex, FRANCE

email: dimca@math.u-bordeaux.fr


format: text

text:
# Intrinsic pseudovolume forms and 𝐾-correspondences

## 0 Introduction

In recent years, the notion of $`K`$-equivalence has appeared in several contexts, like motivic integration , McKay correspondence  and derived category of coherent sheaves on varieties , . A $`K`$-equivalence between two algebraic varieties $`X`$ and $`Y`$ is a birational map $`\varphi :XY`$ whose graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi X\times Y`$ admits a desingularization

$$\tau :Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi $$

such that $`f^{}K_X`$ and $`g^{}K_Y`$ are linearly equivalent, where $`f=pr_1\tau ,g=pr_2\tau `$. Equivalently, the two ramification divisors should satisfy :

$`R_f=R_g.`$ (0.1)
In this paper, we start the study of what we call $`K`$-(iso)correspondences between smooth varieties or complex manifolds $`X,Y`$ of the same dimension, which are graphs of multivalued maps, or analytic subsets in the product $`X\times Y`$, generically finite over each factor, such that any desingularization $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ satisfies with the notations above the condition (0.1) or, in case of $`K`$-correspondences, the weakened condition

$$R_fR_g.$$

Hence we simply forget the condition that the degree of the graph over $`X`$ and $`Y`$ should be $`1`$. Such $`K`$-isocorrespondences appear naturally in the McKay situation (cf section 2).

Our main result proved in section 2, is the fact that many $`K`$-trivial projective varieties carry a lot of self-$`K`$-isocorrespondences $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X\times Y`$ satisfying the condition that $`degpr_{1}^{}{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}^{}degpr_{2}^{}{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}^{}`$. With the notations above, one can see easily that this last condition is equivalent to the equality of volume forms on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$

$$f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X=\lambda g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X,$$

where $`\lambda 1`$ is a real number, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ is the canonical volume form of $`X`$. Equivalently

$$f^{}\omega _X=\mu g^{}\omega _X$$

where $`\omega _X`$ is any generator of $`H^0(X,K_X)`$, and $`\mu `$ is a complex number of modulus $`1`$. Because of this property, these self-$`K`$-isocorrespondences look like the multiplication by an integer in an abelian variety.

Section 3 discusses potential applications of this result to the study of intrinsic pseudovolume forms on complex manifolds (see ). Kobayashi and Eisenman have introduced an intrinsic pseudovolume form $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$ on any complex manifold $`X`$, which is computed using all holomorphic maps from a polydisk $`D^n,n=dimX`$ to $`X`$. Here we introduce modified intrinsic pseudovolume forms

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an}\mathrm{\Phi }_X\mathrm{\Psi }_X$$

which are defined essentially by replacing holomorphic maps with holomorphic $`K`$-correspondences in the Eisenman-Kobayashi definition. We show that on one hand, the following theorem, due to Green-Griffiths  and Kobayashi-Ochiai  , still holds for the pseudovolume form $`\varphi _{X,an}`$ :

###### Theorem 1

If $`X`$ is a projective variety which is of general type, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an}>0`$ on a dense Zariski open set of $`X`$.

On the other hand we show that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X`$ is equal to $`0`$ for a large number of families of $`K`$-trivial varieties listed in section 3, and also for varieties which are fibered with fiber of these types. This gives us a weak version of the Kobayashi conjecture (i.e. the converse to the Green-Griffiths-Kobayashi-Ochiai theorem) for the modified pseudovolume form $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X`$.

Section 4 is devoted to a few supplementary results, remarks and questions concerning $`K`$-isocorrespondences. In particular, we provide (cf corollary 1) new examples of $`K`$-trivial varieties satisfying Kobayashi’s conjecture 1.

Acknowledgements. I wish to thank Frédéric Campana, for communicating to me his preprint , and for asking interesting questions which on related topics, which led me to work on this subject.

## 1 $`K`$-correspondences

In this section, we introduce and discuss the notions of $`K`$-correspondences and $`K`$-isocorrespondences, which are straightforward generalizations of the so-called $`K`$-ordering and $`K`$-equivalence in birational geometry (cf , ). We assume that $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are smooth complex manifolds of dimension $`n`$.

###### Definition 1

A $`K`$-correspondence from $`X`$ to $`Y`$ is a reduced $`n`$-dimensional closed analytic subset $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X\times Y`$, such that on each irreducible component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the projections to $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are generically of maximal rank, and satisfying the following two conditions :

1. The restriction $`pr_{1}^{}{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}^{}`$ is proper.
2. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{\tau }{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a desingularization, and let

$$f:=pr_1\tau :\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}X,g=pr_2\tau :\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}Y.$$

Then we have the inequality of ramification divisors on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ :

$$R_fR_g.$$

Note that property 2 has to be checked on one desingularization, and then will be satisfied by all desingularizations, as a standard argument shows.

A holomorphic map $`\varphi `$ from $`X`$ to $`Y`$ leads to a correspondence, obtained by taking the graph of $`\varphi `$. It turns out that $`K`$-correspondences behave with many respects as maps. Their main common feature with ordinary maps is the fact that for any desingularization $`\tau :\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as above, we get a natural inclusion

$$g^{}K_Yf^{}K_X,$$

as subsheaves of $`K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}`$. We also have the following important fact :

###### Proposition 1

$`K`$-correspondences can be composed. More precisely, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X\times Y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}Y\times Z`$ are $`K`$-correspondences, then define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to be the union of the components of $`p_{13}(p_{12}^1(\mathrm{\Sigma })p_{23}^1(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}))`$ on which the projections to $`X`$ and $`Z`$ are generically of maximal rank. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a $`K`$-correspondence.

Proof. Note first that the properness of the first projections on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ implies that $`p_{13}(p_{12}^1(\mathrm{\Sigma })p_{23}^1(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}))`$ is a closed analytic subset of $`X\times Z`$. It also shows that the projection to $`X`$ is proper on this analytic subset. Finally it is easy to see that a component which is generically of maximal rank over both $`X`$ and $`Z`$ must be of dimension $`n`$.

Next let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ be desingularizations of $`\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Denote by $`f,g`$ the maps from $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ to $`X`$ and $`Y`$, and by $`f^{}`$ and $`g^{}`$ the maps from $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ to $`Y`$ and $`Z`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }`$ be a component of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\times _Y\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ on which the maps $`F:=f\varphi `$ and $`G:=g^{}\psi `$ are generically of maximal rank. Here $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`\psi :\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ are the two natural maps. Choose a desingularization $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }`$. Let now $`\sigma \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\prime \prime }`$ and let

$$x=F(\sigma ),z=G(\sigma ),y=g\varphi (\sigma )=f^{}\psi (\sigma ).$$

Let $`\omega _x`$ be a holomorphic $`n`$-form which generates $`K_X`$ near $`x`$, and similarly choose $`\omega _y`$ near $`y`$ and $`\omega _z`$ near $`z`$. Then property 2 says that we have the following equality of $`n`$-forms on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ respectively:

$$g^{}\omega _y=\chi f^{}\omega _x,g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\omega _z=\chi ^{}f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\omega _y,$$

where $`\chi `$ is a holomorphic function on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`\chi ^{}`$ is a holomorphic function on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$, defined respectively on the inverse image in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ of a neighbourhood of $`(x,y)`$ in $`X\times Y`$ and on the inverse image in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ of a neighbourhood of $`(y,z)`$ in $`Y\times Z`$.

Pulling-back, via $`\varphi ,\psi `$ respectively, these equalities to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\prime \prime }`$ now gives :

$$\chi \varphi F^{}\omega _x=\varphi ^{}(g^{}\omega _y),$$

$$G^{}\omega _z=\chi ^{}\psi \psi ^{}(f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\omega _y).$$

Then, using $`g\varphi =f^{}\psi `$, we conclude that $`\varphi ^{}(g^{}\omega _y)=\psi ^{}(f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\omega _y)`$ and hence

$$G^{}\omega _z=\chi ^{}\psi \chi \varphi F^{}\omega _x$$

as $`n`$-forms on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`\chi ^{}\psi \chi \varphi `$ is a holomorphic function on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\prime \prime }`$.

Our next definition is the following :

###### Definition 2

A $`K`$-isocorrespondence between $`X`$ and $`Y`$ is a $`K`$-correspondence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ from $`X`$ to $`Y`$ such that $`{}_{}{}^{t}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a $`K`$-correspondence from $`Y`$ to $`X`$, where t means the image under the natural isomorphism $`X\times YY\times X`$.

In other words, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has to satisfy the properties that the two projections $`pr_i`$ on $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are proper on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and that if $`\tau :\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a desingularization, with $`f=pr_1\tau ,g=pr_2\tau `$, we have now the equality

$$R_f=R_g.$$

$`K`$-isocorrespondences look like isomorphisms with certain respects. The most important point for us will be the fact that with the notations above, a $`K`$-isocorrespon-
dence induces a canonical isomorphism

$$f^{}K_Xg^{}K_Y.$$

Indeed they are equal as subsheaves of $`K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}`$.

With the same arguments as before, one shows that $`K`$-correspondences can be composed.

###### Example 1

If $`f:XY`$ is a proper étale map, the graph of $`f`$ and its transpose are $`K`$-isocorrespondences.

###### Example 2

If $`G`$ is a finite group acting on X, in such a way that the stabilizer $`G_x`$ acts via $`SL(n)`$ on the tangent bundle $`T_{X,x}`$ at each point $`x`$ of $`X`$, the quotient $`X/G`$ has Gorenstein singularities. If $`xX`$, we can choose a $`G_x`$-invariant $`n`$-form $`\omega _x`$ near $`x`$. The canonical bundle $`K_{X/G}`$ admits then as a local generator the form $`\omega _{X/G}`$ such that $`q^{}\omega _{X/G}=\omega _x`$, where $`q`$ is the quotient map. Next assume that a crepant resolution $`\pi :YX/G`$ exists. This means exactly that in a neighbourhood of $`\pi ^1(y)`$, $`y:=q(x)`$, the $`n`$-form $`\pi ^{}\omega _{X/G}`$, defined on the smooth locus of $`Y`$, extends to a holomorphic $`n`$-form $`\omega _Y`$ which generates the canonical bundle of $`Y`$. We now claim that the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the meromorphic map

$$q^{}:XY$$

is a $`K`$-isocorrespondence. Indeed, choose as before $`x,\omega _x`$. Then the equality

$$q^{}\omega _{X/G}=\omega _x,$$

and the fact that $`\pi ^{}\omega _{X/G}=\omega _Y`$ on the smooth locus of $`Y`$ show that on the smooth part of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we have

$$pr_1^{}\omega _x=pr_2^{}\omega _Y.$$

Since $`\omega _Y`$ generates $`K_Y`$, this shows immediately that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a $`K`$-isocorrespondence.

The simplest example of such a situation is the case of an involution $`i`$ acting with isolated fixed points on a surface $`X`$. Then the involution acts on the blow-up $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ of $`X`$ at the fixed points, and the lifted involution $`\stackrel{~}{i}`$ fixes the exceptional curves pointwise. Then the quotient map

$$\stackrel{~}{X}\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{i}$$

ramifies simply along the exceptional curves. Furthermore the ramification divisor of the blowing-down map $`\tau :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ is also the union of the exceptional curves with multiplicity $`1`$.

## 2 Calabi-Yau varieties and $`K`$-correspondences

We consider projective $`n`$-dimensional complex manifolds with trivial canonical bundle (Calabi-Yau manifolds). We shall denote by $`\omega _X`$ a generator for $`H^0(X,K_X)`$. It can be normalized up to a complex coefficient of modulus $`1`$ in such a way that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_X=(1)^{\frac{n(n1)}{2}}i^n\omega _X\overline{\omega }_X$$

has integral $`1`$ on $`X`$. This $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ is a canonical volume form on $`X`$. We want to show the existence of self-$`K`$-isocorrespondences for a large set of Calabi-Yau manifolds, which have furthermore the property, like isogenies of abelian varieties, of multiplying the canonical volume form by a real number $`>1`$. The Calabi-Yau varieties for which we are able to prove this fall into three classes. Consider the following properties :

1. $`X`$ is covered by abelian varieties.
2. There exists a rationally connected variety $`Y`$, such that some embedding $`j:XY`$ realizes $`X`$ as a member of the linear system $`K_Y`$ on $`Y`$.
3. $`X`$ is the Fano variety (assumed to be smooth of the right dimension) of linear subspaces $`^rM`$ of a complete intersection $`M^N`$ of type $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_k)`$, with the exception of the case $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_k)=(2,\mathrm{},2)`$. (Here the numbers $`r,N,d_i`$ are chosen in such a way that $`K_X`$ is trivial. For fixed $`r,d_i`$’s, this happens in exactly one dimension $`N`$ (see below).)

We shall show later that the varieties in class 3 do not in general satisfy property stated in 2.

Our result is the following :

###### Theorem 2

Assume $`X`$ satisfies 1, 2 or is generic satisfying 3. Then there exists a self-$`K`$-isocorrespondence

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }X\times X$$

which satisfies the property that

$`f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X=\lambda g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X,\lambda >1.`$ (2.2)
Here as always, $`f`$ and $`g`$ denote the two projections to $`X`$, on a desingularisation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We can rephrase formula (2.2) as follows : since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a self-$`K`$-isocorrespondence, there is a non zero coefficient $`\mu `$ such that

$$f^{}\omega _X=\mu g^{}\omega _X.$$

Indeed, because $`\omega _X`$ nowhere vanishes, these two $`n`$-forms have the same zero divisor on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, which is equal to $`R_f=R_g`$. So the statement concerning the volume form is simply the statement that we can find such a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`\lambda =\mu ^21`$. Notice that this is also equivalent to the fact that the degrees of $`f`$ and $`g`$ are not equal. Indeed, we have a formula

$$f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X=\lambda g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X$$

and $`\lambda `$ is then computed by integrating both sides over $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, which gives

$`degf=\lambda degg.`$ (2.3)
In case 1, the construction of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is straightforward. Namely, let

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& P& \stackrel{\phi }{}& X\\ & h& & \\ & B& & \end{array}$$

be a covering of $`X`$ by abelian varieties. We may assume that there is a rational section of $`h:PB`$. Hence the smooth fibers of $`h`$ have a zero, which allows to define multiplication by any integer $`m`$. Now choose two integers $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ and define

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{(\varphi (mx),\varphi (m^{}x)),xP\}.$$

(To be more rigorous, take the closure of the set above defined for $`xP^0`$, the open set of $`P`$ where $`h`$ is of maximal rank.) It is easy to see that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has dimension $`n`$. The fact that it is a self-$`K`$-isocorrespondence follows as above, using the fact that $`K_X`$ is trivial, from the following formula (2.4), where $`a`$ is the dimension of the abelian varieties $`P_b`$ :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^a}}pr_1^{}\omega _{X}^{}{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}}}pr_2^{}\omega _{X}^{}{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}^{}`$ (2.4)
as $`n`$-forms on the smooth locus of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The formula (2.4) also shows that the coefficient $`\lambda `$ introduced above is equal to $`(\frac{m}{m^{}})^{2a}`$, hence can be made different from $`1`$.

To prove formula (2.4), we note that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the image under $`(\varphi ,\varphi )`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}P\times _BP`$,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\{(mx,m^{}x),xP\}.$$

Next the restriction $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ to $`P_b\times P_b`$ is the graph

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{}=\{(mx,m^{}x),xP_b\}.$$

It is obvious that it satisfies

$$\frac{1}{m^a}pr_1^{}\omega _{P_b}^{}{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{}}{}^{}=\frac{1}{m_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}}pr_2^{}\omega _{P_b}^{}{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{}}{}^{},$$

where $`\omega _{P_b}`$ is a holomorphic $`a`$-form on $`P_b`$. Now, since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}P\times _BP`$, the two projections $`pr_1`$, $`pr_2`$ from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ to $`P`$ induce

$`pr_1^{}:R^0h_{}K_{P/B}K_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}/B},pr_2^{}:R^0h_{}K_{P/B}K_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}/B},`$ (2.5)
and the maps

$`pr_1^{}:R^0h_{}K_PK_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}/B},pr_2^{}:R^0h_{}K_PK_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ (2.6)
are simply the above tensorized with the identity of $`K_B`$. Since we just noticed that the maps $`pr_i^{}`$ in (2.5) satisfy the relation $`\frac{1}{m^a}pr_1^{}=\frac{1}{m_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}}pr_2^{}`$, it follows that the same relation holds for the maps $`pr_i^{}`$ of (2.6). Taking global sections, it follows that

$$\frac{1}{m^a}pr_1^{}\omega _P=\frac{1}{m_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}}pr_2^{}\omega _P$$

for any holomorphic $`n`$-form $`\omega _P`$ on $`P`$ and in particular for $`\varphi ^{}\omega _X`$.

Proof of Theorem 2 in case 2. The construction is the following : recall that we have an embedding

$$j:XY.$$

Now choose a rational curve $`CY`$ with ample normal bundle, which exists since $`Y`$ is rationally connected (). We may assume furthermore that the intersection of $`C`$ with $`X`$, as a divisor on $`C`$, is of the form

$$mx+m^{}y+z,$$

where $`xy`$ and $`z`$ is a reduced zero-cycle on $`C`$ disjoint from $`x`$ and $`y`$. Here $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ are two distinct fixed integers, on which the choice of $`C`$ will of course depend. Now choose a hypersurface $`WX`$ supporting $`z`$. We will then define, for an adequate choice of $`W`$, the correspondence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as the closure of the image in $`X\times X`$ via the map $`(F,G)`$ defined below, of the following set

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\{(x^{},y^{},C^{}),C^{}X=mx^{}+m^{}y^{}+z^{},z^{}W\},$$

where in this definition, $`C^{}`$ has to be a deformation of $`C`$. The map

$$(F,G):\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}X\times X$$

is defined by

$$(F,G)((x^{},y^{},C^{}))=(x^{},y^{}).$$

More precisely, we will consider below the (unique) component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ passing through $`(x,y,C)`$. We first show that $`dim\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=n`$ for a generic choice of $`W`$. This is an easy dimension count : the Hilbert scheme of $`C`$ is smooth at $`C`$ and has dimension

$$h^0(C,N_{C/Y})=K_YC+n2.$$

Next we impose the conditions that the intersection of $`C^{}`$ with $`X`$ is finite (this is open) and of the form $`mx^{}+m^{}y+z^{}`$, with $`z^{}W`$. This imposes at most $`(m1)+(m^{}1)+degz^{}`$ conditions to the deformations of $`C^{}`$. Furthermore, one sees easily that for an adequate choice of $`W`$, these conditions are infinitesimally independent at our initial point $`(x,y,C)`$. Hence it follows that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is smooth at $`(x,y,C)`$, of dimension

$$dim\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=K_YC+n2((m1)+(m^{}1)+degz^{})$$

$$=K_YC+n2(XC2)$$

and this is equal to $`n`$ because $`XK_Y`$.

An easy infinitesimal computation involving the fact that the normal bundle of $`C`$ can be choosen arbitrarily ample will show that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is also of dimension $`n`$, or more precisely has a component of dimension $`n`$.

It remains now to show that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ gives a self-$`K`$-isocorrespondence satisfying furthermore the condition

$`m^2f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X=m_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X.`$ (2.7)
(Choosing then $`mm^{}`$, will give a coefficient $`\lambda =\frac{m_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{m^2}1`$. The formula (2.7) and the fact that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a $`K`$-isocorrespondence will follow from the following fact :

###### Lemma 1

We have

$`mF^{}\omega _X+m^{}G^{}\omega _X=0`$ (2.8)
on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ for any holomorphic $`n`$-form on $`X`$.

Indeed, since $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },(pr_1,pr_2))`$ is the Stein factorization of $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},(F,G))`$, the formula will be true as well for $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},F,G)`$ replaced with $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },pr_1,pr_2)`$ or better by a desingularization $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},f,g)`$. Now, the canonical bundle of $`X`$ being trivial, the divisor of $`f^{}\omega _X`$ (resp. $`g^{}\omega _X`$) is equal to $`R_f`$ (resp. $`R_g`$), so that formula

$`mf^{}\omega _X+m^{}g^{}\omega _X=0`$ (2.9)
implies that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a $`K`$-isocorrespondence.

Proof of the lemma. We have three $`0`$-correspondences between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`X`$. The first one is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\times X`$, which has for fiber over $`\sigma =(x,y,C)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ the $`0`$-dimensional subscheme $`CX`$ of $`X`$. If

$$𝒞\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\times Y$$

is the universal subscheme, corresponding to the map from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ to the Hilbert scheme of curves in $`Y`$, then

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_C=𝒞(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\times X).$$

The second one is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x,y}`$, whose fiber over $`\sigma =(x,y,C)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is the $`0`$-cycle $`mx+m^{}y`$. This correspondence is nothing but the sum $`m\mathrm{\Gamma }_F+m^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_G`$ of the graphs of $`F`$ and $`G`$. The third one, which we denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_z`$ has for fiber over $`\sigma =(x,y,C)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ the residual cycle $`z=CXmxm^{}y`$. Hence we obviously have the relation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_C=\mathrm{\Gamma }_z+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x,y}$$

as n-cycles in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\times X`$. It follows from this that for $`\omega _XH^0(X,K_X)`$, the Mumford pull-backs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C^{}\omega _X`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x,y}^{}\omega _X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_z^{}\omega _X`$ satisfy the relation

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C^{}\omega _X=\mathrm{\Gamma }_z^{}\omega _X+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x,y}^{}\omega _X.`$ (2.10)
Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x,y}=m\mathrm{\Gamma }_F+m^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_G`$, we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x,y}^{}\omega _X=mF^{}\omega _X+m^{}G^{}\omega _X,$$

and hence (2.10) gives

$$mF^{}\omega _X+m^{}G^{}\omega _X=\mathrm{\Gamma }_C^{}\omega _X\mathrm{\Gamma }_z^{}\omega _X.$$

To prove (2.8), it suffices now to prove that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C^{}\omega _X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_z^{}\omega _X`$ vanish.

For the second one, this is quite easy. Indeed, by definition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, the cycle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_z`$ is supported on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\times W`$. On the other hand the $`n`$-form $`\omega _X`$ vanishes on $`W`$, because $`dimW<n`$. So $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_z^{}\omega _X=0`$.

As for the second one, we already noticed the fact that

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C=(Id,j)^{}𝒞,`$ (2.11)
where we see $`𝒞`$ as a codimension $`n`$-cycle in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\times Y`$. This last cycle induces a cohomological correspondence

$$[𝒞]^{}:H^1(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^{n+1})H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},K_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}).$$

Formula (2.11) then shows immediately that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_C^{}\omega _X=[𝒞]^{}(j_{}\omega _X).$$

So to conclude the proof that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C^{}\omega _X=0`$, it suffices to see that $`j_{}\omega _X=0`$ in $`H^1(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^{n+1})`$. But this last space is in fact $`0`$, because it is Serre dual to $`H^n(Y,𝒪_Y)`$ and $`Y`$ is rationally connected.

Proof of Theorem 2 in case 3. The construction in this case is as follows. We assume the complete intersection $`M^N`$ is a generic complete intersection of multidegree $`d_1\mathrm{}d_k`$, so that its Fano variety $`X`$ of $`r`$-planes is smooth of the right dimension. Let

$$G=Grass(r+1,N+1).$$

Then the canonical bundle $`K_G`$ is equal to $`(N+1)L`$, where $`L=det`$ is the Plücker line bundle, $``$ is the dual of the tautological subbundle. Now $`XG`$ is defined as the $`0`$-set of the section $`(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_k)`$ of the vector bundle $`S^{d_1}\mathrm{}S^{d_k}`$ corresponding to the section $`(\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _k)`$ of $`𝒪_^N(d_1)\mathrm{}𝒪_^N(d_k)`$ defining $`M`$.

It follows from adjunction that the canonical bundle of $`X`$ is given by the formula

$$K_X=(N+1)L_X+\underset{i}{}detS^{d_i}.$$

We use the following lemma :

###### Lemma 2

Let $`E`$ be a vector bundle of rank $`k`$. Then for any integer $`l`$, we have

$$detS^lE(detE)^\alpha ,$$

where $`\alpha =h^0(^k,𝒪_^k(l1))`$.

We conclude from this and the fact that

$$rk=r+1,det=L,$$

that the triviality of the canonical bundle of $`X`$ is equivalent to the equality

$`N+1={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}h^0(^{r+1},𝒪_{^{r+1}}(d_i1)).`$ (2.12)
Since $`d_k3`$, we can choose two integers $`m<m^{}`$ such that $`m+m^{}=d_k`$. Let $`Z`$ be the complete intersection defined by $`(\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{k1})`$. We consider now

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\{(P_1,P_2,P),P^{r+1}Z,$$

$$P_1,P_2M,PMmP_1+m^{}P_2\}.$$

(Note that $`MZ`$ is defined by one equation of degree $`d_k`$ so that we have then either $`PM=mP_1+m^{}P_2`$ or $`PX`$.)

We define $`f`$ and $`g`$ from $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ to $`X`$ by

$$f(P_1,P_2,P)=P_1X,g(P_1,P_2,P)=P_2X.$$

###### Lemma 3

We have $`dim\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=n=dimX`$ and $`f,g`$ are dominating.

The variety $`W`$ parametrizing the $`^{r+1}`$’s contained in $`Z`$ is the $`0`$-set of the natural section

$$(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1^{},\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{d1}^{})$$

of the bundle $`S^{d_1}^{}\mathrm{}S^{d_{k1}}^{}`$ on the Grassmannian $`Grass(r+2,N+1)`$. By genericity of $`Z`$, it is smooth of dimension

$`(r+2)(Nr1){\displaystyle \underset{ik1}{}}rkS^{d_i}^{},`$ (2.13)
where

$$rkS^{d_i}^{}=h^0(^{r+1},𝒪_{^{r+1}}(d_i)).$$

On $`W`$ there is a $`^{r+1}\times ^{r+1}`$-bundle, whose fiber over $`PW`$ parametrizes pairs of hyperplanes in $`P`$. Let us call it $`W^{}`$. Then we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}W^{},$$

and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is defined by the condition that $`(P_1,P_2,P)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ if and only if the restriction $`\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{P}{}^{}`$ is proportional to $`\tau _1^m\tau _2^m^{}`$, where $`\tau _i`$ are linear equations defining $`P_i`$ in $`P`$. In other words, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}W^{}`$ is the zero locus of the section of the vector bundle $`\pi ^{}S^{d_k}^{}/H`$, where $`\pi `$ is the projection from $`W^{}`$ to $`W`$ and $`H`$ is the line subbunble with fiber $`<\tau _1^m\tau _2^m^{}>`$ at $`(P_1,P_2,P)`$. It follows that

$`dim\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}dimW+2(r+1)rkS^{d_k}^{}+1,`$ (2.14)
and since our equations are generic, a standard argument shows that we have in fact equality and that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is smooth. Combining (2.13) and (2.14), we get

$$dim\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=(r+2)(Nr1)\underset{i}{}rkS^{d_i}^{}+2(r+1)+1.$$

Next we note that, since $`X`$ is the zero locus of a transverse section of the vector bundle $`_iS^{d_i}`$ on $`Grass(r+1,N+1)`$, we have

$$dimX=(r+1)(Nr)\underset{i}{}rkS^{d_i}.$$

Noting finally that if $`E`$ is of rank $`r+1`$, then $`rkS^kE=h^0(^r,𝒪_^r(k))`$, we get

$$dim\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}dimX$$

$$=(\underset{i}{}h^0(^{r+1},𝒪_{^{r+1}}(d_i))h^0(^r,𝒪_^r(d_i)))+(r+2)(Nr1)(r+1)(Nr)+2r+3$$

$$=\underset{i}{}h^0(^{r+1},𝒪_{^{r+1}}(d_i1)+(r+2)(Nr1)(r+1)(Nr)+2r+3.$$

Using equality (2.12), this gives us $`dim\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}dimX=0`$.

To conclude the proof of the lemma, we have to show that the maps $`f,g`$ are dominating. We do it for $`f`$: the fiber of $`f`$ over $`P_1X`$ is the zero locus of a section $`s`$ of a vector bundle over the variety $`W_{P_1}^{}`$ parametrizing $`^{r+1}`$’s containing $`P_1`$, together with a hyperplane $`P_2`$ in them. Precisely, this vector bundle has for fiber

$$_{i<k}H^0(P,𝒪_P(d_i1))H^0(P,𝒪_P(d_k1))/<\tau _1^{m1}\tau _2^m^{}>$$

at $`(P,P_2)`$. The section $`s`$ takes the value

$$((\sigma _{i}^{}{}_{P}{}^{}/\tau _1)_{i<k},\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{P}{}^{}/\tau _1\mathrm{mod}\tau _1^{m1}\tau _2^m^{}$$

at $`(P,P_2)`$, where $`\tau _i`$ is a defining equation for $`P_iP`$. We use here the fact that $`P_1M`$, so that $`\sigma _{i}^{}{}_{P}{}^{}`$ vanishes along $`P_1`$. The vector bundle has the same rank as the variety $`W_{P_1}^{}`$, as shows the previous computation. To show that $`f`$ is dominating, it suffices to show that this vector bundle has a non zero top Chern class, which is not hard.

To conclude the proof of the theorem in case 3, it remains to prove the following

###### Lemma 4

The two ramification divisors $`R_f`$ and $`R_g`$ are equal.

Indeed, the lemma shows that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ provides a self-$`K`$-isocorrespondence of $`X`$. Next, we have explained after the statement of the theorem that for a self-$`K`$-isocorrespondence of a $`K`$-trivial variety, the fact that it multiplies the volume by a real coefficient different from $`1`$ as in formula (2.2) is equivalent to the fact that the degrees of the maps $`f`$ and $`g`$ are different (cf (2.3)). Now the degree of $`f`$ and $`g`$ are the top Chern classes of the vector bundles described above. From this it is easy to show that for $`m>m^{}`$ we have $`degf<degg`$.

Proof of lemma 4. We observe first that the set $`K`$ of $`(P_1,P_2)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that the linear space generated by $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ is a $`^{r+1}`$ contained in $`M`$ is of dimension $`<n`$. Suppose that we show that $`R_f=R_g`$ away from $`(f,g)^1(K)`$ : then $`R_fR_g`$ is a divisor which is rationally equivalent to $`0`$ (since both $`R_f`$ and $`R_g`$ are members of the linear system $`K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}`$), and supported on $`(f,g)^1(K)`$ which is contracted by $`(f,g)`$. But it is well known that the components of a contractible divisor are rationally independent. Hence this suffices to imply that $`R_f=R_g`$. Next, we show by a dimension count (recall that our parameters are generic) and the description given above of the fibers of $`f`$ and $`g`$ that, away from $`(f,g)^1(K)`$, the ramification of $`f`$ and $`g`$ is simple, i.e. the ramification divisor is reduced. In conclusion, it suffices to show that we have the set theoretic equality $`R_f=R_g`$ away from $`(f,g)^1(K)`$. Next we note that the set of $`(P_1,P_2,P)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ such that $`P_1=P_2`$ is of codimension greater than $`1`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. Hence it suffices to show the set theoretic equality $`R_f=R_g`$ away from $`(f,g)^1(K)`$ and at points $`(P_1,P_2,P)`$ where $`P_1P_2`$.

We do it by an explicit computation : let $`P_1X`$, and let $`(P_1,P_2,P),P_1P_2,PM`$ be a point of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ where $`f`$ ramifies. So there is a first order deformation $`P_ϵ`$ of $`P`$ in $`Z`$, fixing $`P_1`$, and such that $`\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{P_ϵ}{}^{}`$ remains to first order of the form $`\tau _{1,ϵ}^m\tau _{2,ϵ}^m^{}`$, where $`\tau _{1,ϵ}`$ is a defining equation of $`P_1`$ in $`P_ϵ`$. Since the first order deformation $`P_ϵ`$ fixes $`P_1`$, it is contained in a $`^{r+2}`$ that we shall denote by $`P^{}`$. Let us choose coordinates $`X_0,\mathrm{},X_{r+2}`$ on $`P^{}`$ so that $`P`$ is defined by $`X_{r+2}=0`$, $`P_1`$ is defined by $`X_{r+2}=X_{r+1}=0`$ and $`P_2`$ is defined by $`X_{r+2}=X_r=0`$.

The deformation $`P_ϵ`$ is then given by the equation

$$X_{r+2}=\epsilon X_{r+1}.$$

We have by assumption :

$$\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{P^{}}{}^{}=X_{r+1}^mX_r^m^{}+X_{r+2}G.$$

It follows that in the coordinates $`X_0,\mathrm{},X_{r+1}`$ for $`P_ϵ`$, we have to first order in $`ϵ`$ :

$$\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{P_ϵ}{}^{}=X_{r+1}^mX_r^m^{}+ϵX_{r+1}G^{},$$

where $`G^{}`$ is the restriction of $`G`$ to $`P`$. Since $`\tau _{1,ϵ}`$ is proportional to $`X_{r+1}`$, the condition that $`\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{P_ϵ}{}^{}`$ remains to first order of the form $`\tau _{1,ϵ}^m\tau _{2,ϵ}^m^{}`$ is then clearly

$$G^{}=X_{r+1}^{m1}X_r^{m^{}1}A$$

for some linear form $`A`$ on $`P`$. Hence our condition is that

$`\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{P^{}}{}^{}=X_{r+1}^mX_r^m^{}+X_{r+1}^{m1}X_r^{m^{}1}X_{r+2}A+X_{r+2}^2H`$ (2.15)
$`=X_{r+1}^{m1}X_r^{m^{}1}(X_{r+1}X_r+X_{r+2}A)\mathrm{mod}X_{r+2}^2.`$ (2.16)
Furthermore, we note that the fact that $`P`$ has a deformation in $`P^{}`$ which remains contained in $`Z`$ can be written as the fact that $`\sigma _{i}^{}{}_{P^{}}{}^{},i<k`$ vanish at order $`2`$ along $`P`$, hence it does not depend on $`P_1`$. Now the equation (2.15) is symmetric in $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. This shows that $`g`$ ramifies as well at $`(P_1,P_2,P)`$, and concludes the proof of lemma 4.

As a remark of independent interest, we show now that many varieties in class 3 do not fall in class 2.

###### Proposition 2

Let $`X`$ be the Fano variety of $`^r`$’s in a generic complete intersection $`M`$ of type $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_k)`$ in $`^N`$. Assume that $`X`$ has trivial canonical bundle and that all $`d_i`$ are $`>2`$. Then $`X`$ is not a member of $`K_Y`$ in a rationally connected variety $`Y`$.

Proof. We note to begin with that, for such an $`X`$, $`PicX=L`$, where $`L`$ is the Plücker line bundle. Assuming the statement of the proposition is false, there would then be two possibilities :

1. $`(K_Y)_X=\alpha L,\alpha 0`$.
2. $`(K_Y)_X=\alpha L,\alpha >0`$.

In case 1, $`Y`$ is not Fano, but since it is rationally connected, it admits a Mori contraction

$$\varphi :YY^{}.$$

Since curves contracted by $`\varphi `$ have negative intersection with $`K_Y`$, we see that $`\varphi _X`$ has to be finite. It follows that the positive dimensional fibers of $`\varphi `$ (which all meet $`X`$ since $`XK_Y`$), are $`1`$-dimensional. Hence they are rational curves $`C`$ such that their space of deformation in $`Y`$ is at most $`n`$-dimensional. There are two possibilities for generic $`C`$:

\- $`h^0(N_{C/Y})=n`$, that is $`CX=2`$, or

\- $`h^0(N_{C/Y})=n1`$, that is $`CX=1`$.

In the first case, $`\varphi _X`$ is of degree $`2`$, and since it is finite, $`X`$ has an involution over $`Y^{}`$. We show in lemma 5 that $`X`$ has no non-trivial automorphism, so this case is ruled out.

In the second case, $`\varphi `$ is the contraction of a divisor. Then because $`XK_Y`$, one can show that the variety $`Y^{}`$ is smooth and that $`XY^{}`$ is realized via $`\varphi `$ as a member of $`K_Y^{}`$. Induction on the Picard number of $`Y`$ also rules out this case.

It remains next to consider case 2. In this case, since $`𝒪_X(X)`$ is very ample, and $`H^1(Y,𝒪_Y)=0`$, $`X`$ moves in $`Y`$. On the other hand, it does not deform in $`Y`$, because one can compute that $`H^1(X,T_XL^\alpha )=0,\alpha >0`$. If $`X`$ has no non-trivial automorphism, it follows by taking a pencil in $`Y`$ that $`Y`$ is birationally equivalent to $`X\times ^1`$, hence is not rationally connected. So we get a contradiction using the following lemma :

###### Lemma 5

$`X`$ being as the statement of the proposition, $`X`$ has no non-trivial automorphism.

Proof of lemma 5. An automorphism $`\iota `$ of $`X`$ induces a automorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\iota }`$ of the projective space generated by $`X`$ in the Plücker embedding, because $`PicX=L`$, where $`L`$ is the Plücker line bundle. Now, one shows that, under our assumptions, this projective space is the Plücker space, that is there are no linear equations on the Grassmannian which vanish on $`X`$. Next one shows that the quadratic equations vanishing on $`X`$ also vanish on the Grassmannian. It follows that the automorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\iota }`$ of the Plücker projective space induces an automorphism of the Grassmannian. Hence it is induced by an automorphism $`\iota ^{}`$ of the projective space $`^n`$, which has to fix the variety $`M`$. One concludes then using the fact that $`M`$ has no non trivial automorphism.

## 3 Intrinsic pseudo-volume forms and a problem of
Kobayashi

The Kobayashi-Eisenman pseudo-volume form $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$ on a complex manifold $`X`$ is defined as follows : for $`xX,uT_{X,x}`$ put

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_X(u)=\frac{1}{\lambda },$$

where $`\lambda =Max_{\varphi :D^nX,\varphi (0)=x}\{\mu ,\varphi _{}(\frac{}{z_1}\mathrm{}\frac{}{z_n})=\mu u\}`$.

Here $`D`$ is the unit disk in $``$.

###### Remark 1

A similar definition can be made using the ball instead of the polydisk , cf . The resulting pseudo-volume forms so obtained are equivalent, and all the results that follow will be true as well with this definition of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$.

Denoting $`\kappa _n`$ the hyperbolic form on the polydisk :

$`\kappa _n=i^n\mathrm{\Pi }_1^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1z_j^2)^2}}dz_j\overline{dz}_j,`$ (3.17)
we see immediately, using the fact that $`\kappa _n`$ coincides with the standard volume form at $`0`$, is invariant under the automorphisms of $`D_n`$, and that the later act transitively on $`D^n`$, that we can express $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$ as follows :

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{X,x}=inf_{\varphi :D^nX,\varphi (b)=x}\{(\varphi _b^1)^{}\kappa _n\}.`$ (3.18)
Here we consider only the holomorphic maps $`\varphi :D^nX`$ which are unramified at $`b,\varphi (b)=x`$, and $`\varphi _b`$ is then defined as the local inverse of $`\varphi `$ near $`b`$. It is obvious from either definition that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$ satisfies the decreasing volume property with respect to holomorphic maps :

For any holomorphic map $`\varphi :XY`$ between $`n`$-dimensional complex manifolds, we have

$$\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_Y\mathrm{\Psi }_X.$$

Also, the following theorem is a consequence of Ahlfors-Schwarz lemma (cf ) :

###### Theorem 3

If $`X`$ is isomorphic to $`D_n`$ (resp. to the quotient of $`D_n`$ by a group acting freely and properly discontinuously, eg $`X`$ is a product of curves), then $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X=\kappa _n`$, (resp. to the hyperbolic volume form on the quotient induced by $`\kappa _n`$).

There is also a meromorphic version $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_X`$ which has the advantage of being invariant under birational maps : namely put

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{X,x}=inf_{\varphi :D^nX,\varphi (b)=x}\{(\varphi _b^1)^{}\kappa _n\}.`$ (3.19)
Here we consider the meromorphic maps $`\varphi :D^nX`$ which are defined at $`b`$ and unramified at $`b,\varphi (b)=x`$, and $`\varphi _b`$ is then defined as the local inverse of $`\varphi `$ near $`b`$.

The following result is proved in ,  :

###### Theorem 4

If $`X`$ is a projective complex manifold which is of general type, then $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_X`$ is non degenerate outside a proper closed algebraic subset of $`X`$.

(The result is proved in  for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$, but it is not hard to see that it applies as well to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_X`$.) Kobayashi  conjectures the converse to this statement :

###### Conjecture 1

If $`X`$ is a projective complex manifold which is not of general type, then $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_X=0`$ on a dense Zariski open set of $`X`$.

###### Remark 2

A priori, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_X`$ is only uppersemicontinuous, hence the equality $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_X=0`$ on a dense Zariski open set of $`X`$ does not imply that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_X=0`$ everywhere.

This conjecture is known in dimension $`2`$, . In dimension $`2`$, it uses the classification of surfaces, and the fact that $`K3`$-surfaces are covered by elliptic curves. The proof shows more generally that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X=0`$ on a dense Zariski open set, for a variety which is covered by abelian varieties.

We start this section with the definition of modified versions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X,\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$, together with their meromorphic counterparts $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_X,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{X,an}`$.

###### Definition 3

We put

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,x}=inf_{\mathrm{\Sigma }X\times X,Kiso,\sigma \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},g(\sigma )=x}(f^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_X)_\sigma .$$

Here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ runs through the self-$`K`$-isocorrespondences of $`X`$, and we denote as usual

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}& \stackrel{g}{}& X\\ & f& & \\ & X& & \end{array}$$

a desingularization. We use then the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ induces a canonical isomorphism

$$f^{}K_Xg^{}K_X$$

to see that $`(f^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_X)_\sigma `$ gives a pseudo-volume element for $`X`$ at $`x,g(\sigma )=x`$.

The definition of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an}`$ is similar:

###### Definition 4

We put

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an,x}=inf_{\mathrm{\Sigma }Y\times X,Kcorresp,\sigma \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},g(\sigma )=x}(f^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_Y)_\sigma .$$

Here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ runs through the set of all $`K`$-correspondences from $`Y`$ to $`X`$, but we ask that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is unramified at $`\sigma `$, namely that near $`\sigma \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, we have the equality $`R_f=R_g`$. Then exactly as above, $`(f^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_Y)_\sigma `$ gives a pseudo-volume element for $`X`$ at $`x,g(\sigma )=x`$.

The reason for the notation $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an}`$ (an for analytic) is the fact that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an}`$ is much more analytic, namely it can also be computed as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an,x}=inf_{\mathrm{\Sigma }D^n\times X,Kcorresp,\sigma \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},g(\sigma )=x}(f^{}\kappa _n)_\sigma .`$ (3.20)
###### Remark 3

There are other intermediate possible definitions for a modified version of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$ using $`K`$-correspondences. For example, we could restrict in the definition of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an}`$ to the proper $`K`$-correspondences, i.e. those for which $`g`$ is also proper. In the definition of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X`$, we could consider all $`K`$-isocorrespondences from $`Y`$ to $`X`$, instead of the self-$`K`$-isocorrespondences from $`X`$ to $`X`$. We restricted to the two extremal cases, which seem to be the most interesting, because on one side $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X`$ is of course the closest to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$, while on the other side $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an}`$ satisfies the following version of the decreasing volume property, as follows immediately from its definition.

###### Lemma 6

If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }Y\times X`$ is a $`K`$-correspondence, then with the notations used before for the desingularization :

$$g^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an}f^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{Y,an}.$$

Note also that from the definition of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X`$ we get the following :

###### Lemma 7

If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X\times X`$ is a self-$`K`$-isocorrespondence, we have with the same notations :

$$f^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_X=g^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_X.$$

Finally, we define the meromorphic versions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_X,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{X,an}`$ by the formula :

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{X,x}=inf_{\varphi :XY,\varphi (x)=y}\{\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{Y,y}\},$$

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{X,an,x}=inf_{\varphi :XY,\varphi (x)=y}\{\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{Y,an,y}\}.$$

In both formulas, we consider only the birational maps $`\varphi :XY`$ which are defined at $`x`$ and such that $`\varphi ^1`$ is defined at $`y=\varphi (x)`$.

Of course we have, for any birational map $`\varphi :XY`$, the equalities

$$\varphi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_Y=\mathrm{\Phi }_X,$$

$$\varphi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{Y,an}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an},$$

which are satisfied on the open set $`U`$ of $`X`$ where $`\varphi `$ is defined and is a local isomorphism. In particular, if $`UX`$ is the inclusion of a Zariski open set, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{XU}=\mathrm{\Phi }_U,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{X,anU}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{U,an}.`$ (3.21)
Our main result towards the comparison of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X,\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$ is the following :

###### Theorem 5

If $`X`$ is the polydisk $`D^n`$, or any quotient of the polydisk by a free properly discontinuous action of a group on $`D^n`$, eg $`X`$ is a product of curves, then

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an}=\mathrm{\Psi }_X.$$

Since

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an}\mathrm{\Phi }_X\mathrm{\Psi }_X,$$

it follows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X=\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$ too.

Proof. We do it for $`D^n`$, the general case follows exactly in the same way, using the fact that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$ in this case is the hyperbolic volume form, which satisfies the Kähler-Einstein equation (3.24). The proof is very similar to the proof that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{D^n}=\kappa _n`$ (theorem 3), namely it uses the Ahlfors-Schwarz lemma. We want however to explain carefully why it works as well in the context of $`K`$-correspondences.

By formula 3.20, what we have to prove is the following :

If

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}& \stackrel{g}{}& D^n\\ & f& & \\ & D^n& & \end{array}$$

is the desingularization of a $`K`$-correspondence from $`D^n`$ to itself, then

$`g^{}\kappa _nf^{}\kappa _n.`$ (3.22)
Let

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_ϵ& \stackrel{g_ϵ}{}& D^n\\ & f_ϵ& & \\ & D^n& & \end{array}$$

be the restriction of the $`K`$-correspondence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to the polydisk of radius $`1ϵ`$. In other words we intersect $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`D_{1ϵ}^n\times D^n`$ and we identify $`D_{1ϵ}^n`$ with $`D^n`$ via the homothety of coefficient $`\frac{1}{1ϵ}`$. It suffices to show that

$`g_ϵ^{}\kappa _nf_ϵ^{}\kappa _n.`$ (3.23)
Next because $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a $`K`$-correspondence, the ratio

$$\psi _ϵ:=\frac{g_ϵ^{}\kappa _n}{f_ϵ^{}\kappa _n}$$

is a non negative $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-function (which is even real analytic) on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_ϵ`$. Furthermore, as we have restricted to $`D_{1ϵ}^n`$, the numerator stays bounded near the boundary while the denominator tends to $`\mathrm{}`$ generically on the boundary of $`D^n`$, so we have

$$\underset{f(x)D^n}{lim}\psi _ϵ(x)=0.$$

It follows then from the properness of the map $`f_ϵ`$ that $`\psi _ϵ`$ has a maximum on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_ϵ`$. Let $`\psi _ϵ(x)`$ be maximum. Formula (3.23) is equivalent to

$$\psi _ϵ(x)1.$$

Assume the contrary and let $`c:=\psi _ϵ(x)>1`$. Choose $`\alpha `$ generic, $`1<\alpha <c`$. Let

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ϵ,\alpha }:=\{y\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_ϵ,\psi _ϵ(x)\alpha \}.$$

Then since $`\alpha `$ is generic, and $`\psi _ϵ`$ tends to $`0`$ near $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_ϵ`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ϵ,\alpha }`$ is compact and has a smooth boundary. Now let $`\chi =i^n\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^{j=n}\frac{1}{(1z_j^2)^2}`$. By definition of $`\kappa _n`$ (cf (3.17)), we have

$$\psi _ϵ=\frac{g_ϵ^{}\chi }{f_ϵ^{}\chi }G^2,$$

where $`G`$ is holomorphic. Furthermore, we have the Kähler-Einstein equation

$`({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{}log\chi )^n=n!\kappa _n.`$ (3.24)
Denoting by $`\omega =\frac{i}{2}\overline{}log\chi `$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{}log\psi _ϵ=g_ϵ^{}\omega f_ϵ^{}\omega ,\omega ^n=\kappa _n.`$ (3.25)
Now, in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ϵ,\alpha }`$, we have $`\psi _ϵ>1`$, which implies that

$`f_ϵ^{}\kappa _ng_ϵ^{}\kappa _n,`$ (3.26)
with strict inequality away from the ramification divisor $`R_f`$. Let

$$\theta :=g_ϵ^{}\omega ^{n1}+g_ϵ^{}\omega ^{n2}f_ϵ^{}\omega +\mathrm{}+f_ϵ^{}\omega ^{n1}.$$

This is a semipositive $`(n1,n1)`$-form, which is positive away from $`R_f`$. Furthermore formulae (3.25) and (3.26) say that

$`({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{}log\psi _ϵ)\theta 0`$ (3.27)
in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ϵ,\alpha }`$ with strict inequality away from the ramification divisor $`R_f`$. Of course, if we knew that $`xR_f`$ then we would conclude that the hypothesis that $`log\psi _ϵ`$ has a maximum at $`x`$ is absurd, because its Hessian should then be seminegative at $`x`$, contradicting the strict inequality in (3.27). In general, one can apply the following (standard) argument : choose a number $`\alpha ^{}`$, such that $`\alpha <\alpha ^{}<logc`$. Put

$$\mu ^+=Sup(0,log\psi _ϵ\alpha ^{}).$$

Then $`\mu ^+`$ is non negative, vanishes identically near the boundary of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ϵ,\alpha }`$, and is positive at $`x`$. Now consider

$$_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ϵ,\alpha }}\mu ^+(\frac{i}{2}\overline{}log\psi _ϵ)\theta .$$

This is strictly positive. On the other hand, integration by parts, using the fact that the derivatives of $`\mu ^+`$ are integrable, gives :

$$_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ϵ,\alpha }}\mu ^+(\frac{i}{2}\overline{}log\psi _ϵ)\theta =_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ϵ,\alpha }}\frac{i}{2}(\mu ^+\overline{}log\psi _ϵ)\theta .$$

But since $`\mu ^+=log\psi _ϵ\alpha ^{}`$ when it is non zero, the integral on the right is equal to

$$_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ϵ,\alpha ^{}}}\frac{i}{2}(log\psi _ϵ\overline{}log\psi _ϵ)\theta ,$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ϵ,\alpha ^{}}=\{y\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ϵ,\alpha },log\psi _ϵ(y)\alpha ^{}\}.$$

But this last integral is obviously negative, which is a contradiction.

Next we have the following strenghtening of theorem 4.

###### Theorem 6

If $`X`$ is a projective complex manifold which is of general type, we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{X,an}>0`$ (and in particular $`\varphi _X>0`$) away from a proper closed algebraic subset of $`X`$.

Proof. We just sketch the argument, since it is a combination of the construction in ,  and of the arguments given above in the specific case of $`K`$-correspondences.

Since $`X`$ is of general type, there exists an inclusion of sheaves

$$LK_X^\alpha $$

for sufficiently large $`\alpha `$, where $`L`$ is an ample line bundle on $`X`$. Then, if $`h_L`$ is a hermitian metric on $`L`$ such that the associated Chern form

$$\omega _{L,h}=\frac{1}{2i\pi }\overline{}h_L$$

is a Kähler form, we can see $`\mu :=\frac{1}{h_L^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}}`$ as a pseudovolume form on $`X`$, vanishing along a divisor, which satisfies, in local coordinates where $`\mu =i^n\chi dz_1d\overline{z}_1\mathrm{}dz_nd\overline{z}_n`$, the equation

$`i\overline{}log\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\omega _{L,h}.`$ (3.28)
Now after a rescaling, we may assume that

$`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}\omega _{L,h})^nn!\mu .`$ (3.29)
So the theorem is a consequence of the following proposition, which is proved exactly as theorem 5 :

###### Proposition 3

Assume $`X`$ is equipped with a pseudo-volume form $`\mu `$ satisfying equations (3.28) and (3.29). Then for any $`K`$-correspondence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }D^n\times X`$, we have

$$g^{}\mu _nf^{}\kappa _n.$$

###### Remark 4

One can show similarly that the same result holds for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{X,an}`$.

The two theorems above obviously lead to the following

###### Conjecture 2

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_X`$ is equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X`$. This means that there exists a non zero constant $`\alpha `$ depending on $`X`$ such that

$$\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_X\mathrm{\Phi }_X\mathrm{\Psi }_X.$$

We conclude this section with the proof of the following theorems, which prove a number of special cases of Kobayashi’s conjecture 1 for our pseudovolume forms $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_X`$.

###### Theorem 7

Assume $`X`$ is a $`K`$-trivial projective variety which is as in the statement of theorem 2, that is satisfies 1, 2 or is generic satisfying 3. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X=0`$.

###### Theorem 8

Assume $`X`$ is birational to $`X^{}`$, and there exists a projective morphism $`\varphi :XB`$ such that $`dimB<dimX`$ and the generic fiber $`X_b^{}`$ is a $`K`$-trivial variety as in the previous theorem. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_X=0`$ on a dense Zariski open set of $`X`$.

Proof of theorem 7. By theorem 2, there exists a self-$`K`$-isocorrespondence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X\times X`$ such that, with the notation

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}& \stackrel{g}{}& X\\ & f& & \\ & X& & \end{array}$$

for a desingularization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we have

$$f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X=\lambda g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X,$$

for some $`\lambda >1`$. By lemma 7, we know that

$$f^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_X=g^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_X.$$

Writing $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X=\chi \mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ and combining these two equalities gives

$$f^{}\chi =\lambda g^{}\chi .$$

But the function $`\chi `$ is uppersemicontinuous and bounded, hence it has a maximum. Let $`x`$ be a point where $`\chi (x)`$ is maximum. Let $`\sigma \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ be such that $`g(\sigma )=x`$. Then for $`y=f(x)`$, we get $`\chi (y)=\lambda \chi (x)`$. Since $`\chi (x)`$ is maximum, we also have $`\chi (y)\chi (x)`$, which implies $`\chi (x)=0`$ because $`\lambda >1`$. So $`\chi =0`$.

Proof of theorem 8. By the birational invariance of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_X`$, it suffices to show that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_X^{}`$ on a dense Zariski open set $`X^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`X^{}`$, or equivalently that, for some dense open $`X^{\prime \prime }`$, one has $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{X^{\prime \prime }}=0`$.

But the construction of the self-$`K`$-isocorrespondence given in the proof of theorem 2 can be made in families at least over a Zariski open set $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`B`$. Letting $`X^{\prime \prime }=\varphi ^1(B^{\prime \prime })`$, we get a relative self-$`K`$-isocorrespondence

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }X^{\prime \prime }\times _{B^{\prime \prime }}X^{\prime \prime }$$

satisfying the property that as relative pseudovolume forms on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ over $`B^{\prime \prime }`$, we have

$`f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{\prime \prime }/B}=\lambda g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{\prime \prime }/B},\lambda >1.`$ (3.30)
(Indeed, note that the coefficient $`\lambda `$ is constant in families, by the formula (2.3).) Now, since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X^{\prime \prime }\times _{B^{\prime \prime }}X^{\prime \prime }`$, we have $`\varphi f=\varphi g=:\pi `$ and for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ a volume form on $`B`$, we have

$$f^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{\prime \prime }/B}\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_B)=(f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{\prime \prime }/B})\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_B,$$

and similarly for $`g`$. Hence (3.30) gives

$`f^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{\prime \prime }/B}\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_B)=\lambda g^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{\prime \prime }/B}\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_B).`$ (3.31)
Denoting by $`\mu `$ the volume form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{\prime \prime }/B}\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ on $`X^{\prime \prime }`$, we have a relation $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{X^{\prime \prime }}=\chi \mu `$ for some function $`\chi `$, and formula (3.31), together with the relation

$$f^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{X^{\prime \prime }}=g^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{X^{\prime \prime }}$$

show that

$$f^{}\chi =\lambda g^{}\chi .$$

One concludes then that $`\chi =0`$, hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{X^{\prime \prime }}=0`$, using the fact that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X^{\prime \prime }\times _BX^{\prime \prime }`$ and the properness of $`\varphi :X^{\prime \prime }B^{\prime \prime }`$.

## 4 Concluding remarks and questions

### 4.1 Fano varieties of $`r`$-planes in a hypersurface

Our first question concerns the Chow-theoretic interpretation of our construction of a self-$`K`$-correspondence in case 3, that is when $`X`$ is the variety of $`r`$-planes in a hypersurface of degree $`d`$ (or more generally a complete intersection). Unlike case 2, we did not deduce formula

$`f^{}\omega _X=\mu g^{}\omega _X`$ (4.32)
from a relation between $`0`$-cycles, of the shape

$`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma },\alpha f(\sigma )+\beta g(\sigma )z,`$ (4.33)
where $`z`$ is supported on a proper algebraic subset of $`X`$, and $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are fixed integers depending on the integers $`m,m^{}`$. Of course, by Mumford’s theorem , (4.33) implies (4.32), with $`\mu =\frac{\beta }{\alpha }`$. Bloch-Beilinson’s conjectures predict also that conversely (4.32) implies (4.33). So our first question is : how to prove a formula like (4.33), for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ constructed as in the proof of theorem 2, case 3? Let us do it in the case where $`M`$ is the cubic fourfold, $`m=2,m^{}=1`$ and $`r=1`$. In this case $`X`$ is $`4`$-dimensional and is hyperKähler (cf ).

Recall that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ parametrizes the pairs $`(L_1,L_2)`$ of lines in $`M`$ such that there exists a plane $`P^5`$, with

$$PM=2L_1+L_2.$$

For each line $`LM`$, let us denote by $`l`$ the corresponding point in $`X`$. For a generic $`lX`$ there is an incidence surface in $`X`$ (cf )

$$S_l:=\{l^{}X,LL^{}\mathrm{}\}.$$

Note that if

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& P& \stackrel{q}{}& M\\ & p& & \\ & X& & \end{array}$$

is the incidence correspondence, we have

$$S_l=p_{}q^{}L\mathrm{in}CH^2(X).$$

It follows that, denoting by $`h`$ the class of a plane section of $`M`$, we have for any $`(l_1,l_2)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the relation

$`2S_{l_1}+S_{l_2}=p_{}q^{}h\mathrm{in}CH^2(X).`$ (4.34)
Now, it is not hard to prove the following

###### Lemma 8

There exists an integer $`\alpha 0`$ and a proper algebraic subset $`ZX`$ such that for any $`lX`$ the following relation holds in $`CH(X)`$ :

$`S_l^2=\alpha l+z,`$ (4.35)
where $`z`$ is a $`0`$-cycle supported on $`Z`$.

We now combine formulas (4.35) and (4.34) to get for any $`(l_1,l_2)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the relations

$$4S_{l_1}^2=S_{l_2}^2+z^{},$$

$$4\alpha l_1=\alpha l_2+z^{}+z^{\prime \prime },$$

where $`z^{}`$ and $`z^{\prime \prime }`$ are supported on a fixed algebraic subset of $`X`$. This gives us the formula (4.33) in this case. This also shows that $`\mu =\frac{1}{4}`$ hence $`\lambda =\frac{1}{16}=\frac{degf}{degg}`$ in this case.

### 4.2 Some examples satisfying the Kobayashi conjecture

In a different direction we observe that our construction in case 3 provides for $`d=3`$ a true rational map $`\varphi :XX`$. Here we consider the Fano variety of $`r`$-planes in a hypersurface $`M`$ of degree $`3`$ in $`^n`$, with the relation

$`n+1=h^0(^{r+1},𝒪_{^{r+1}}(2))`$ (4.36)
which implies that $`K_X`$ is trivial (cf (2.12)). Now let as in section 2

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{(P_1,P_2)X\times X,P^n,PM=2P_1+P_2\}.$$

Here $`P`$ has to be a $`r+1`$-plane and we in fact have to consider the Zariski closure of the set above.

We have the following

###### Lemma 9

The first projection $`pr_1:\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$ is of degree $`1`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the graph of a rational map $`\varphi `$.

Proof. Let $`P_1`$ be generic in $`X`$. Consider

$$P:=\underset{xP_1}{}T_{X,x}.$$

Here $`T_{X,x}`$ is the projective hyperplane tangent to $`X`$ at $`x`$. Then $`P`$ has dimension $`nh^0((^r,𝒪_^r(2))`$ because the Gauss map of $`M`$ is given by polynomials of degree $`2`$. But we have by (4.36)

$$nh^0((^r,𝒪_^r(2))=1+h^0(^{r+1},𝒪_{^{r+1}}(2))h^0((^r,𝒪_^r(2))$$

$$=1+h^0(^{r+1},𝒪_{^{r+1}}(1))=r+1.$$

Hence $`P`$ is a $`^{r+1}`$ everywhere tangent to $`M`$ along $`P_1`$. Hence we have

$$PM=2P_1+P_2,$$

for some $`P_2`$ which must be the only point in the fiber of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ over $`P_1`$.

###### Corollary 1

For such $`X`$, we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_X=0$$

on a Zariski open set of $`X`$. In other words, Kobayashi’s conjecture 1 is true for $`X`$.

Proof. The decreasing volume property for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_X`$ will say that

$$\varphi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_X\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_X$$

on the open set where $`\varphi `$ is defined. On the other hand, we have seen that

$$\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X=\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_X,\lambda =deg\varphi ,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ is the canonical volume form of $`X`$. Now we conclude as in the proof of Theorem 7, using the fact that $`deg\varphi >1`$, (for example $`deg\varphi =16`$ in the case of the cubic fourfold).

###### Remark 5

The existence of the self-map $`\varphi `$ of degree $`>1`$, hence multiplying the volume form by a coefficient $`>1`$, suggests that not only the Kobayashi pseudovolume form of $`X`$ vanishes but also the Kobayashi pseudodistance of $`X`$ vanishes, as conjectured in , . This would follow, as the following argument shows, from a dynamical study of the map $`\varphi `$ but we have not been able to do it. In fact, what is easily seen is the fact that the Kobayashi pseudodistance $`d_K`$ of $`X`$ as above is $`0`$ if, for general $`yX`$, the orbit $`\{\varphi ^k(y),k\}`$ is dense in $`X`$. Indeed, one sees easily that $`\varphi `$ has one fixed point $`x`$. Next consider the function $`\chi (y)=d_K(x,y)`$ on $`X`$. By the decreasing distance property, we have

$$d_K(x,\varphi (y))d_K(x,y).$$

So it follows that we have the inequality of pseudo-volume forms :

$$\varphi ^{}(\chi \mathrm{\Omega }_X)\chi \varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X.$$

Now we have

$$\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X=deg\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }_X.$$

So

$$\varphi ^{}(\chi \mathrm{\Omega }_X)deg\varphi \chi \mathrm{\Omega }_X.$$

But the integrals of both sides over $`X`$ are equal. Hence we conclude that

$$f^{}\chi =\chi $$

almost everywhere on $`X`$. So we have $`d_K(x,\varphi (y))=d_K(x,y)`$ for almost all $`y`$. So if the $`\varphi ^k(y)`$ are dense in $`X`$, (for $`k`$ negative or positive), hence arbitrary close to $`x`$, we find that $`d_K(x,y)=0`$ for almost every $`y`$.

### 4.3 $`K`$-correspondences and the Kodaira dimension

The following two propositions relate the Kodaira dimension and $`K`$-correspondences.

###### Proposition 4

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }Y\times X`$ be a $`K`$-correspondence, where $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are smooth and projective. Then

$$\kappa (Y)\kappa (X).$$

Proof. Let

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}& \stackrel{g}{}& X\\ & f& & \\ & Y& & \end{array}$$

be a desingularization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. If $`\kappa (X)=\mathrm{}`$ there is nothing to prove. If $`\kappa (X)0`$ there is a non zero section of $`K_X^m`$ for some $`m1`$. Since $`g^{}K_Xf^{}K_Y`$, there is a non zero section of $`f^{}K_Y^m`$, and it follows that there is a non zero section of $`K_Y^{Nm}`$, where $`N`$ is the degree of $`f`$. So $`\kappa (Y)0`$. So we can consider the Iitaka fibration

$$YB$$

whose generic fiber $`Y_b`$ satisfies

$$\kappa (K_{Y}^{}{}_{Y_b}{}^{})=0.$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_b:=f^1(Y_b)`$. Then

$$\kappa (f^{}K_{Y}^{}{}_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_b}{}^{})=0.$$

Since $`g^{}K_Xf^{}K_Y`$, it follows that

$$\kappa (g^{}K_{X}^{}{}_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_b}{}^{})=0.$$

Hence the components of $`g(\stackrel{~}{Y}_b)`$ are contained in a fiber of the Iitaka fibration $`XB^{}`$ of $`X`$. It follows that $`dimB^{}dimB`$.

###### Proposition 5

If $`X`$ is a projective variety which is of general type, any self-$`K`$-isocorrespondence

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}& \stackrel{g}{}& X\\ & f& & \\ & X& & \end{array}$$

satisfies

$$degf=degg.$$

Proof. For a line bundle $`L`$ on a projective variety, whose Iitaka dimension is equal to $`n=dimX`$, define

$$d^+(L)=Sup_m\{\frac{deg\varphi _m(X)}{m^n}\}$$

where $`\varphi _m`$ is the rational map to projective space given by the sections of $`L^m`$ assuming there are any. This is a finite positive number. Also, it is immediate to see that if

$$\varphi :X^{}X$$

is a generically finite cover, we have

$$d^+(\varphi ^{}L)=deg\varphi d^+(L).$$

We can apply this to $`K_X`$ and to $`f:\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}X`$ and $`g:\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}X`$, since the Iitaka dimension of $`K_X`$ is equal to $`n`$, and using the fact $`f^{}K_Xg^{}K_X`$, we find that

$$degfd^+(K_X)=deggd^+(K_X).$$

Hence $`degf=degg`$.

Note that in the above propositions, we used only the fact that $`f^{}K_Xg^{}K_X`$, which is weaker than the equality of the ramification divisors. Note also that the hypothesis in proposition 5 is necessary. Indeed we know the existence of self-$`K`$-isocorrespondences $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of arbitrary large degree $`degg/degf`$ for $`K`$-trivial varieties $`X`$ (eg take for $`X`$ an elliptic curve). Considering a product $`Y\times X`$, and the self-$`K`$-isocorrespondences $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Y\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`Y\times X`$, we find examples of self-$`K`$-isocorrespondences of degree $`1`$ on varieties with any possible Kodaira dimension, except for the maximal one.

We note also that, in the second example studied in section 2, we have found for the considered $`K`$-trivial varieties $`X`$, self-$`K`$-isocorrespondences $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X\times X`$ which pass through an arbitrary pair $`(x,y)`$. We ask conversely:

###### Conjecture 3

Let $`X`$ be such that there exists a self-$`K`$-isocorrespondence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X\times X`$ which passes through an arbitrary pair $`(x,y)`$, then $`\kappa (X)0`$.

In case where $`X`$ is a curve, we have the following :

###### Proposition 6

Assume $`X`$ is a smooth curve of genus $`>1`$, then any self-$`K`$-isocorres-
pondence of $`X`$ is rigid.

Proof. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{(f,g)}{}X\times X`$ be the desingularization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By rigid, we mean here that there is no deformation of the triple $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},f,g)`$, keeping the property that $`R_f=R_g`$. But, since both $`f`$ and $`g`$ ramify along $`R_f`$, the torsion free part of the normal bundle

$$(f,g)^{}(T_{X\times X})/T_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}$$

has degree $`degf^{}T_X`$, which is negative. Hence it has no non zero section.