text:
# On the Brody hyperbolicity of moduli spaces for canonically polarized manifolds

## 1. A reformulation

Theorem 0.1 follows immediately from the next Propositions. In fact, if there is a holomorphic map $`\gamma :U`$, we can replace $`U`$ by the Zariski closure of $`\gamma ()`$, and the Proposition tells us that the Zariski closure must be a point and hence $`\gamma `$ constant.

###### Proposition 1.1.

Assume that for some $`f:VU_h(U)`$ the induced map $`\phi :UM_h`$ satisfies

$$dimU=dim\overline{\phi (U)}>0.$$

Then there exists no holomorphic map $`\gamma :U`$ with Zariski dense image.

The proposition 1.1 is formulated in such a way that, given a proper birational morphism $`U^{}U`$, the assumptions allow to replace $`f:VU`$ by the fibre product $`f^{}:V^{}=V\times _UU^{}U^{}`$. We will call such a pullback family $`f^{}`$ a smooth birational model for $`f`$.

By the next lemma the conclusion in 1.1 is compatible with replacing $`f`$ by any smooth birational model.

###### Lemma 1.2.

Let $`\tau :U^{}U`$ be a projective birational morphism between quasi-projective varieties. Then a holomorphic map $`\gamma :U`$ with Zariski dense image lifts to a holomorphic map $`\gamma ^{}:U^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`U_0U`$ be an open set with $`\tau |_{\tau ^1(U_0)}`$ an isomorphism. $`\gamma ()`$ meets $`U_0`$, hence $`\gamma ^{}`$ exists on the complement of a discrete subset $`A`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a small disk in $``$, centered at $`aA`$. The projective morphism $`\tau `$ factors through $`U^{}U\times ^M`$ for some $`M`$ and the composite $`pr_2\gamma ^{}|_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}:\mathrm{\Delta }^{}^M`$ is given by meromorphic functions. Obviously it extends to a holomorphic map on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and the image of the induced map $`\mathrm{\Delta }U\times ^M`$ lies in $`U^{}`$. ∎

Using 1.2 we will assume in the sequel that the quasi-projective variety $`U`$ in 1.1 is non-singular.

For the proof of 1.1 we first gather and generalize some methods of algebraic nature, in particular the weak semi-stable reduction theorem of D. Abramovich and K. Karu (see ) and the positivity results for direct images of certain sheaves (see , ,  and ). In section 4 both will be applied to certain product families, and the main result 4.1 of this section is quite similar to the one obtained by D. Abramovich in . It will allow to replace the family $`f:VU`$ by a smooth birational model of the $`r`$-fold product $`f^r:V^rU`$ and to assume the stronger positivity properties stated in 4.3 and 4.4. Whereas the results of section 2 hold true for arbitrary smooth projective morphisms, those of section 3 and 4 use the semi-ampleness of $`\omega _F`$ for all fibres $`F`$ of $`f`$.

Starting with section 5 we assume that contrary to 1.1 or 4.4 there exists a holomorphic map $`\gamma :U`$ with dense image. In order to use covering constructions, as we did in  for $`dim(U)=1`$, we will choose a hyperplane $`H`$ on $`V`$ whose discriminant locus over $`U`$ is in general position with respect to $`\gamma ()`$. At this point the ampleness of $`\omega _F`$ will be needed.

In section 6 we will use the cyclic covering, obtained by taking a root out of $`H`$ to compare and to study certain Higgs bundles and their pullback to $``$. The main properties are gathered in 6.5. Finally section 7 contains some curvature estimates, which show that the existence of $`\gamma `$, encoded in lemma 6.5, contradicts the Ahlfors-Schwarz lemma. The content of this section is influenced by the work of J.-P. Demailly , S.S.-Y. Lu and S.-T. Yau , S.S.-Y. Lu  and Y.-T. Siu  on hyperbolicity.

## 2. Mild reduction

Let $`f:XY`$ be a morphism between projective manifolds with connected general fibre. D. Abramovich and K. Karu constructed in  a generically finite proper morphism $`Y^{}Y`$ and a proper birational map $`Z^{}(X\times _YY^{})\stackrel{~}{}`$ such that the induced morphism $`g^{}:Z^{}Y^{}`$ is weakly semi-stable. Here $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ denotes the main component, i.e. the component dominant over $`X`$, We will not recall the definition of weak semi-stability, but just list the main properties needed later.

###### Definition 2.1.

A morphism $`g^{}:Z^{}Y^{}`$ between projective varieties is called mild, if

1. $`g^{}`$ is flat, Gorenstein with reduced fibres.
2. $`Y^{}`$ is non-singular and $`Z^{}`$ normal with at most rational singularities.
3. Given a dominant morphism $`Y_1^{}Y^{}`$ where $`Y_1^{}`$ has at most rational Gorenstein singularities, $`Z^{}\times _Y^{}Y_1^{}`$ is normal with at most rational singularities.
4. Let $`Y_0^{}`$ be an open subvariety of $`Y^{}`$, with $`g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(Y_0^{})Y_0^{}`$ smooth. Given a non-singular curve $`C^{}`$ and a morphism $`\pi :C^{}Y^{}`$ whose image meets $`Y_0^{}`$, the fibred product $`Z^{}\times _Y^{}C^{}`$ is normal, Gorenstein with at most rational singularities.

In  the definition of a mild morphism just uses the first three conditions, and by , 6.1 and 6.2, those hold true for weakly semi-stable morphisms. As pointed out by K. Karu in , proof of 2.12, the proof of the property c) carries over “word by word” to show d). Hence d) holds true for weakly semi-stable morphisms as well.

Hence starting with $`f:XY`$, over some $`Y^{}`$, generically finite over $`Y`$, one can find a mild model of the pullback family, i.e. a mild morphism $`g^{}:Z^{}Y^{}`$ birational to $`X\times _YY^{}Y^{}`$. However it might happen that one has to blow up the general fibre, and the smooth locus of $`g^{}`$ will not be the pullback of the smooth locus of $`f`$. Nevertheless, the existence of $`g^{}`$ will have strong consequences for direct images of powers of dualizing sheaves.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`g^{}:Z^{}Y^{}`$ be mild.

1. If $`Y^{\prime \prime }Y^{}`$ is a dominant morphism between manifolds, then

$$pr_2:Z^{}\times _Y^{}Y^{\prime \prime }Y^{\prime \prime }\text{ is mild.}$$
2. Let $`g^{\prime \prime }:Z^{\prime \prime }Y^{}`$ be a second mild morphism. Then

$$(g^{},g^{\prime \prime }):Z^{}\times _Y^{}Z^{\prime \prime }Y^{}\text{ is mild.}$$
3. For all $`\nu 1`$ the sheaf $`g_{}^{}\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}^\nu `$ is reflexive.

###### Proof.

i) The property a) in 1.2 is compatible with base change and in c) one enforces the compatibility of b) with base change, as well.
ii) Since $`Z^{\prime \prime }`$ has rational Gorenstein singularities, the property c) for $`Z^{}`$ implies that $`Z^{}\times _Y^{}Z^{\prime \prime }`$ has at most rational Gorenstein singularities. The other properties asked for in a) and b) are obvious. For c), remark that $`Z^{\prime \prime }\times _Y^{}Y_1^{}`$ is normal with rational Gorenstein singularities and hence

$$(Z^{\prime \prime }\times _Y^{}Y_1^{})\times _Y^{}Z^{}=(Z^{\prime \prime }\times _Y^{}Z^{})\times _Y^{}Y_1^{}$$

has the same property. The same argument with $`Y_0^{}`$ replaced by $`C^{}`$ gives d).

The sheaf $`g_{}^{}\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}^\nu `$ is torsion free, hence locally free outside of a closed codimension two subvariety $`T`$ of $`Y^{}`$. Since $`Z^{}`$ is normal and equidimensional over $`Y^{}`$, for $`U_0Y^{}`$ open and for $`V_0=g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(U_0)`$ one has

$$H^0(V_0,\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}^\nu )=H^0(V_0g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(T),\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}^\nu ),$$

and thereby

$$H^0(U_0,g_{}^{}\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}^\nu )=H^0(U_0T,g_{}^{}\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}^\nu ).$$

So $`g_{}^{}\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}^\nu `$ coincides with the maximal extension of $`g_{}^{}\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}^\nu |_{Y^{}T}`$ to $`Y^{}`$. ∎

Let $`VU`$ be any smooth projective morphism between quasi-projective manifolds. We choose for $`Y`$ and $`X`$ projective non-singular compactifications, with $`YU`$ and $`XV`$ normal crossing divisors, in such a way that $`VU`$ extends to a morphism $`f:XY`$. If $`g:Z^{}Y^{}`$ denotes the weak semi-stable reduction, we choose a birational morphism $`ϵ:Y_1Y`$ such that the main component $`Y_1^{}=(Y^{}\times _YY_1)\stackrel{~}{}`$ is finite over $`Y_1`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }(Y_1^{}/Y_1)`$ denote the discriminant locus in $`Y_1`$ of $`Y_1^{}Y_1`$, and let $`B_1=Y_1ϵ^1(U)`$ be the boundary divisor. Blowing up a bit more we can assume that $`Y_1`$ is non-singular, and that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(Y_1^{}/Y_1)+B_1`$ is a normal crossing divisor.

By Y. Kawamata’s covering construction (see , 2.6) there exists a non-singular projective manifold $`Y_2^{}`$, finite over $`Y_1^{}`$. In particular, there is a morphism $`Y_2^{}Y^{}`$, and by 2.2, a) the pullback of $`Z^{}Y^{}`$ is again mild.

Let us choose a desingularization $`\psi :X_1X\times _YY_1`$, such that

$$(pr_2\psi )^{}(B_1+\mathrm{\Delta }(Y_1^{}/Y_1))$$

is a normal crossing divisor.

Changing the smooth birational model we may replace $`U`$ by its pre-image in $`Y_1`$ and by abuse of notations rename $`pr_2\psi :X_1Y_1`$ as $`f:XY`$. We will also write $`Y^{}`$ instead of $`Y_2^{}`$ and $`Z^{}`$ instead of $`Z\times _Y^{}Y_2^{}`$. Doing so we reached the following situation:

###### Lemma 2.3.

Any smooth projective morphism with connected fibres has a smooth birational model $`VU`$ which fits into a diagram of morphisms of normal varieties

(2.3.1)

| $`V`$ | $`\stackrel{}{}`$ | $`X`$ | $`\stackrel{\tau ^{}}{}`$ | $`X^{}`$ | $`\stackrel{\sigma }{}`$ | $`Z`$ | $`\stackrel{\rho }{}`$ | $`X^{\prime \prime }`$ | $`\stackrel{\delta }{}`$ | $`Z^{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $``$ |  | $`f`$ |  | $`f^{}`$ |  | $`g`$ |  | $`f^{\prime \prime }`$ |  | $`g^{}`$ |
| $`U`$ | $`\stackrel{}{}`$ | $`Y`$ | $`\stackrel{\tau }{}`$ | $`Y^{}`$ | $`\stackrel{=}{}`$ | $`Y^{}`$ | $`\stackrel{=}{}`$ | $`Y^{}`$ | $`\stackrel{=}{}`$ | $`Y^{}`$ |

with:

1. $`Y`$, $`Y^{}`$, $`X`$, $`Z`$ and $`X^{\prime \prime }`$ are non-singular projective varieties.
2. $`\tau `$ is finite and $`X^{}`$ is the normalization of $`X\times _YY^{}`$.
3. $`\rho `$ and $`\delta `$ are birational, and $`\sigma `$ is a blowing up with center in the singular locus of $`X^{}`$.
4. For $`B=YU`$ the divisors $`B+\mathrm{\Delta }(Y^{}/Y)`$ and $`f^{}(B+\mathrm{\Delta }(Y^{}/Y))`$ are normal crossing divisors.
5. $`g^{}:Z^{}Y^{}`$ is mild.

###### Corollary 2.4.

The conditions i) - v) stated in 2.3 imply:

1. $`X^{}`$ has rational singularities.
2. For all $`\nu 1`$ there exist isomorphisms

$$g_{}^{}\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}^\nu \stackrel{}{}f_{}^{\prime \prime }\omega _{X^{\prime \prime }/Y^{}}^\nu \stackrel{}{}g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu .$$

In particular, $`g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu `$ is a reflexive sheaf.
3. For all $`\nu 1`$ there exists an inclusion

$$\iota :g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu \tau ^{}f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\nu ,$$

which is an isomorphism over $`U`$.
4. For all $`\nu 1`$ there exists some $`N_\nu `$ and an invertible sheaf $`\lambda _\nu `$ on $`Y`$ with

$$\tau ^{}\lambda _\nu det(g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu )^{N_\nu }.$$

In part ix) the determinant of $`g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu `$ is $`i_{}det(g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu |_{YT})`$ where $`T`$ is any codimension two subvariety with $`g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu |_{YT}`$ locally free and $`i:YTY`$ the inclusion.

###### Proof.

Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }(X^{}/X)f^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(Y^{}/Y)`$ are both normal crossing divisors one obtains vi).

$`Z^{}`$ is normal with rational Gorenstein singularities, hence $`\delta ^{}\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}\omega _{X^{\prime \prime }/Y^{}}`$ and $`\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}^\nu =\delta _{}\delta ^{}\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}^\nu \delta _{}\omega _{X^{\prime \prime }/Y^{}}^\nu .`$ The sheaf on the left hand side is invertible, and the one on the right hand side torsionfree, and both coincide outside of a codimension two subvariety. Hence they are equal and one obtains the first isomorphism in vii). For the second one, one repeats the argument for $`\rho `$ instead of $`\delta `$. By 2.2, iii), all the three sheaves in vii) are reflexive. Part viii) has been shown in , 3.2 (see also , 4.10).

Let $`B_\nu `$ denote the zero divisor of $`det(\iota )`$, hence

$$det(g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu )𝒪_Y^{}(B_\nu )=\tau ^{}det(f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\nu ).$$

In order to show that $`B_\nu `$ is the pullback of a $``$-divisor on $`Y`$, we have to show, that the multiplicities of two components of $`B_\nu `$ coincide, whenever both have the same image in $`Y`$. To this aim, given any component $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ of $`YU`$ consider a general curve $`C`$, which intersects $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ in some point $`q`$. Replacing $`C`$ by a neighborhood of $`q`$ we will assume that this is the only intersection point.

Let us write $`T_C=T\times _YC`$, where $`T`$ stands for any of the varieties in the diagram (2.3.1). Similarly, if $`h:TT^{}`$ is any of the morphism in the diagram (2.3.1), $`h_C`$ will denote the restriction of $`h`$ to $`T_C`$.

By 2.1, d), the variety $`Z_C^{}`$ is again normal, Gorenstein with at most rational singularities, and for $`C`$ sufficiently general $`X_C`$ and $`X_C^{\prime \prime }`$ will be non-singular. Applying part viii) with $`Y`$ replaced by $`C`$, one obtains a natural inclusion

(2.4.1)
$$\iota _C:g_{C}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\omega _{Z_C^{}/Y_C^{}}^\nu \tau _C^{}(f_{C}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\omega _{X_C/C}^\nu ),$$

and the zero divisor of $`det(\iota _C)`$ is the restriction of $`B_\nu `$ to $`Y_C^{}`$. In order to show ix), we just have to verify that $`B_\nu `$ is the pullback of a $``$-divisor on $`C`$.

By  there exists a finite morphism $`C^{}C`$, totally ramified in $`q`$, such that $`X_C\times _CC^{}`$ has a semi-stable model $`SC^{}`$.

By 2.1, d), the pullback of $`Z_C^{}`$ to some non-singular covering of $`C`$ remains normal with rational Gorenstein singularities. By flat base change (2.4.1) is compatible with further pullbacks. Hence we may as well assume for a moment that $`Y_C^{}C`$ factors through $`C^{}`$. Then

$$pr_1:S^{}=S\times _C^{}Y_C^{}Y_C^{}\text{ and }g_C^{}:Z_C^{}Y_C^{}$$

are two flat Gorenstein morphism, $`S^{}`$ and $`Z_C^{}`$ are birational, and both are normal with at most rational singularities. Therefore, repeating the argument used to prove vii), one obtains

$$g_{C}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\omega _{Z_C^{}/Y_C^{}}^\nu =pr_1\omega _{S^{}/Y_C^{}}^\nu ,$$

and the divisor $`B_\nu |_{Y_C^{}}`$ is the pullback of a divisor $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ on $`C^{}`$. Since $`C^{}C`$ is totally ramified in $`q`$, the divisor $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is itself the pullback of a $``$-divisor on $`C`$. ∎

## 3. Positivity of direct image sheaves

As in  and  we use the following convention: If $``$ is a coherent sheaf on a quasi-projective normal variety $`Y`$, we consider the largest open subscheme $`i:Y_1Y`$ with $`i^{}`$ locally free. For

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=S^\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }=\stackrel{\mu }{}\text{ or }\mathrm{\Phi }=det$$

we define

$$\mathrm{\Phi }()=i_{}\mathrm{\Phi }(i^{}).$$

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $``$ be a torsion free coherent sheaf on a quasi-projective normal variety $`Y`$ and let $``$ be an ample invertible sheaf. Let $`UY`$ be an open subvariety.

1. $``$ is globally generated over $`U`$ if the natural morphism

$$H^0(Y,)𝒪_Y$$

is surjective over $`U`$.
2. $``$ is weakly positive over $`U`$ if the restriction of $``$ to $`U`$ is locally free and if for all $`\alpha >0`$ there exists some $`\beta >0`$ such that

$$S^{\alpha \beta }()^\beta $$

is globally generated over $`U`$.
3. $``$ is ample with respect to $`U`$ if there exists some $`\mu >0`$ such that

$$S^\mu ()^1$$

is weakly positive over $`U`$.

The basic properties of weakly positive sheaves are listed in , section 2.3. In particular, the definition of “weak positivity over $`U`$” does not depend on the ample sheaf $``$ (, 2.14) and, if $``$ is weakly positive over $`U`$ and $`𝒢`$ surjective over $`U`$, then $`𝒢`$ is weakly positive over $`U`$ (, 2.16). Moreover, weak positivity is a local property. If for each point $`uU`$ there is a neighborhood $`U_0`$ with $``$ weakly positive over $`U_0`$, then $``$ is weakly positive over $`U`$.

By definition, most of the properties of weakly positive sheaves $``$ carry over to sheaves which are ample over $`U`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $``$ be an ample invertible sheaf on $`Y`$. Then $``$ is ample with respect to $`U`$, if its restriction to $`U`$ is locally free and if and only if for some $`\eta >0`$ there exists a morphism

$$S^\eta (),$$

surjective over $`U`$.

###### Proof.

If $``$ is ample with respect to $`U`$, for all $`\beta `$ sufficiently large and divisible

$$S^{2\beta }(S^\mu ())^{2\beta }^\beta $$

is globally generated over $`U`$, as well as its quotient sheaf

$$S^{2\beta \mu }()^\beta .$$

We may assume that $`^{\beta 1}`$ is very ample, and we obtain the morphism asked for in 3.2. On the other hand, if there is a morphism

$$𝒪_YS^\eta ()^1,$$

surjective over $`U`$, the sheaf $`S^\eta ()^1`$ as a quotient of a weakly positive sheaf is weakly positive over $`U`$. ∎

The basic methods to study positivity properties of direct images are contained in , ,  and . Unfortunately in  and  we used “weak positivity” without specifying the open set, whereas in  we mainly work with smooth families or families without non-normal fibres. So we have to recall some definitions in this section, and we have to make the arguments carefully enough to keep track of the open set $`U`$.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a surjective projective morphism of quasi-projective manifolds. We want to extend the constructions from , section 2, to the case $`dim(Y)>1`$.

For an effective $``$-divisor $`D\mathrm{Div}(X)`$ the integral part $`[D]`$ is the largest divisor with $`[D]D`$. For an effective divisor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`X`$, and for $`N\{0\}`$ the algebraic multiplier sheaf is

$$\omega _{X/Y}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{N}\right\}=\tau _{}\left(\omega _{T/Y}\left(\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{N}\right]\right)\right)$$

where $`\tau :TX`$ is any blowing up with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\tau _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a normal crossing divisor (see for example , 7.4, or , section 5.3).

Let $`F`$ be a non-singular fibre of $`f`$. Using the definition given above for $`F`$, instead of $`X`$, and for a divisor $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ on $`F`$, one defines

$$e(\mathrm{\Pi })=\mathrm{Min}\left\{N\{0\};\omega _F\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{N}\right\}=\omega _F\right\}.$$

By  or , section 5.4, $`e(\mathrm{\Gamma }|_F)`$ is upper semi-continuous, and there exists a neighborhood $`V`$ of $`F`$ with $`e(\mathrm{\Gamma }|_V)e(\mathrm{\Gamma }|_F)`$. If $``$ is an invertible sheaf on $`F`$, with $`H^0(F,)0`$,

$$e()=\mathrm{Max}\left\{e(\mathrm{\Pi });\mathrm{\Pi }\text{ an effective divisor and }𝒪_F(\mathrm{\Pi })=\right\}.$$

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $`UY`$ be an open subscheme, let $``$ be an invertible sheaf, let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a divisor on $`X`$, and let $``$ be a coherent sheaf on $`Y`$. Assume that, for some $`N>0`$, the following conditions hold true:

1. $`V=f^1(U)U`$ is smooth with connected fibres.
2. $``$ is weakly positive over $`U`$ (in particular $`|_U`$ is locally free).
3. There exists a morphism $`f^{}^N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, surjective over $`V`$.
4. None of the fibres $`F`$ of $`f:VU`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and for all of them

$$e(\mathrm{\Gamma }|_F)N.$$

Then $`f_{}(\omega _{X/Y})`$ is weakly positive over $`U`$.

###### Proof.

By , 5.23, the restriction of the sheaf $`=f_{}(\omega _{X/Y})`$ to $`U`$ is locally free. The verification of the weak positivity will be done in several steps. Let us first show:

###### Claim 3.4.

In order to prove 3.3 we are allowed to assume that $``$ is ample with respect to $`U`$.

###### Proof.

Let $``$ be a very ample sheaf on $`Y`$ and let $`\rho :Y^M`$ be an embedding. For a general choice of the coordinate planes $`H_0,\mathrm{},H_M`$, the intersection $`H_i(YU)`$ is of codimension two in $`Y`$. We choose a codimension two subscheme $`T`$ with $`TH_i(YU)`$, for $`i=0,\mathrm{},M`$. By definition, in order to show that $`f_{}(\omega _{X/Y})`$ is weakly positive over $`U`$, we may replace $`Y`$ by $`YT`$ and assume that $`H_i(YU)=\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, for $`T`$ large enough $`f`$ will be flat. By the local nature of weak positivity, it is sufficient to show that $`f_{}(\omega _{X/Y})`$ is weakly positive over

$$U_0=U\underset{i=0}{\overset{M}{}}H_i.$$

In fact, one can cover $`U`$ by such open sets, for different choices of the coordinate planes.

Given $`\alpha >0`$ we choose $`d=1+2\alpha `$, and consider the $`d`$-th power map

$$\theta :^M^M\text{with}\theta (x_0,\mathrm{},x_M)=(x_0^d,\mathrm{},x_M^d).$$

Let $`Y^{}`$ be the normalization of $`\theta ^1(Y)`$, and let $`\tau :Y^{}Y`$ be the induced map. For the pullback $`^{}`$ of $`𝒪_^1(1)`$ to $`Y^{}`$ one obtains $`\tau ^{}=_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{d}.`$

Leaving out codimension two subschemes in $`Y`$, not meeting $`U_0`$, we may assume that $`Y^{}`$ is non-singular. Then $`X^{}=X\times _YY^{}`$ is non-singular. In fact, $`f^{}:X^{}Y^{}`$ is smooth over $`\tau ^1(U)`$ and $`\tau ^{}:X^{}X`$ is smooth over

$$X\underset{i=0}{\overset{M}{}}f^1(H_i).$$

Let us choose $`^{}=\tau ^{}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{N}`$ and $`^{}=\tau _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}^{}`$. The sheaf $`^{}`$ is ample with respect to $`U_0^{}=\tau ^1(U_0)`$. Applying 3.3 to $`^{}`$ instead of $``$ one finds

$$f_{}^{}(^{}\omega _{X^{}/Y^{}})=f_{}^{}(\tau _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\omega _{X^{}/Y^{}})^{}$$

to be weakly positive over $`U_0^{}`$. By flat base change, this sheaf is isomorphic to

$$\tau ^{}f_{}(\omega _{X/Y})^{}=\tau ^{}()^{}.$$

Hence for all $`\beta `$ sufficiently large and divisible, the sheaf

$$S^{(2\alpha )\beta }(\tau ^{}()^{})_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }=\tau ^{}(S^{2\alpha \beta }())_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2\alpha +1)\beta }=\tau ^{}(S^{2\alpha \beta }()^\beta )$$

is globally generated over $`U_0^{}`$. We obtain a morphisms

$$𝒪_Y^{}\tau ^{}(S^{2\alpha \beta }()^\beta ),$$

surjective over $`U_0^{}`$, and

$$\tau _{}𝒪_Y^{}S^{2\alpha \beta }()^\beta ,$$

surjective over $`U_0`$. For $`\beta `$ large enough, $`\tau _{}𝒪_Y^{}^\beta `$ is generated by global sections and hence $`S^{\alpha (2\beta )}()^{2\beta }`$ is globally generated over $`U_0`$. ∎

3.4 allows to assume that $``$ is ample with respect to $`U`$. Then the sheaf $`^{N\eta }(\eta \mathrm{\Gamma })`$ will be globally generated over $`V`$, for some $`\eta 0`$. Replacing $`N`$ by $`N\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by $`\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we may as well assume that $`^N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ itself has this property. From now on, this assumption will replace the conditions b) and c) in 3.3.

Leaving out a codimension two subset of $`Y`$, not meeting $`U`$, we will continue to assume that $`f`$ is flat. Let us fix some non-singular compactification $`\overline{Y}`$ of $`Y`$ and a very ample invertible sheaf $`\overline{𝒜}`$ on $`\overline{Y}`$ such that $`\overline{𝒜}^{dimY+1}\omega _{\overline{Y}}`$ is ample. We write $`𝒜=\overline{𝒜}|_Y`$ and $`=𝒜^{dimY+1}\omega _Y`$.

###### Claim 3.5.

$`𝒜^{dimY+1}\omega _Y`$ is globally generated over $`U`$.

###### Proof.

Let us choose a compactification $`\overline{X}`$ of $`X`$ such that $`f`$ extends to a morphism $`\overline{f}:\overline{X}\overline{Y}`$. Moreover we choose $`\overline{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ such that $`\overline{}^N(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$ is again globally generated over $`V`$. Let $`\tau :X^{}\overline{X}`$ be a blowing up, such that $`\tau ^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is a normal crossing divisor and let $`f^{}=\overline{f}\tau `$. The assumption d) in 3.3 implies that

$$^{}=f_{}^{}\left(\tau ^{}\overline{}𝒪_X^{}\left(\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{N}\right]\right)\omega _{X^{}/\overline{Y}}\right)\overline{f}_{}(\overline{}\omega _{\overline{X}/\overline{Y}})$$

is an isomorphism over $`U`$. Hence it is sufficient to show that

$$^{}\overline{𝒜}^{dimY+1}\omega _{\overline{Y}}$$

is globally generated over $`U`$. Blowing up a bit more, and enlarging $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ by adding components supported in $`X^{}\tau ^1(V)`$, we can as well assume that $`\tau ^{}(\overline{})^N𝒪_X^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})`$ is globally generated over $`X^{}`$. Under this assumption 3.5 has been shown in , 2.37, 2). ∎

To finish the proof, we consider for any $`\alpha >0`$ the $`\alpha `$-fold product

$$X^\alpha =X\times _Y\mathrm{}\times _YX\text{ (}\alpha \text{-times)}$$

and $`f^\alpha :X^\alpha Y`$. Let $`\sigma :X^{(\alpha )}X^\alpha `$ be a desingularization, $`f^{(\alpha )}=f^\alpha \sigma `$,

$$^{(\alpha )}=\sigma ^{}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}pr_i^{})\text{ and }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )}=\sigma ^{}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}pr_i^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

$`f^{(\alpha )}:X^{(\alpha )}Y`$, $`^{(\alpha )}`$ satisfies again the assumption a) in 3.3. Moreover we assumed $`^N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ to be globally generated over $`V`$, hence $`^{(\alpha )^N}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )})`$ is globally generated over $`V^r=V\times _U\mathrm{}\times _UV`$. The assumption d) holds true for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )}`$ by:

###### Claim 3.6.

$`e(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )}|_{F^r})=e(\mathrm{\Gamma }|_F)`$

###### Proof.

The proof, similar to the one of 5.21 in , is by induction on $`r`$. Obviously $`e(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )})e=e(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Let $`C`$ be the support of the cokernel of the inclusion

$$\omega _{F^r}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\alpha )}|_{F^r}}{e}\right\}\omega _{F^r}.$$

Applying , 5.19, to the $`i`$-th projection $`pr_i:F^rF`$, one finds subschemes $`C_i`$ of $`F`$ with $`C=pr_i^1(C_i)`$. Since this holds true for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, $`C`$ must be empty. ∎

By 3.5 the sheaf $`f_{}^{(\alpha )}(^{(\alpha )}\omega _{X^{(\alpha )}/Y})`$ is globally generated over $`U`$. Hence 3.3 follows from the next claim.

###### Claim 3.7.

There exists a morphism

$$f_{}^{(\alpha )}(^{(\alpha )}\omega _{X^{(\alpha )}/Y})S^\alpha (f_{}(\omega _{X/Y})),$$

surjective over $`U`$.

Proof. The natural morphism $`\sigma _{}\omega _{X^{(\alpha )}}\omega _{X^\alpha }`$ induces a morphism

$$f_{}^{(\alpha )}(^{(\alpha )}\omega _{X^{(\alpha )}/Y})f_{}^\alpha ((\underset{i=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}pr_i^{})\omega _{X^\alpha /Y}),$$

which is an isomorphism over $`U`$. By flat base change, the right hand side is nothing but

$$\stackrel{\alpha }{}f_{}(\omega _{X/Y}).$$

###### Corollary 3.8.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a projective surjective morphism between quasi-projective manifolds with connected general fibre. Assume that for some open subscheme $`UY`$

$$V=f^1(U)U$$

is smooth and that $`\omega _{F_u}`$ is semi-ample for all fibres $`F_u=f^1(u)`$ with $`uU`$. Then $`f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\nu `$ is weakly positive over $`U`$.

###### Proof.

Using 3.3 (with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }|_V=0`$), one can copy the arguments presented in the proof of Corollary 2.45 in  to obtain 3.8 as a corollary to 3.3. We leave this as an exercise since 3.8 has been shown under less restrictive assumptions in , 3.7, using different (and more complicated) arguments. ∎

###### Remark 3.9.

By  the assumption “$`\omega _{F_u}`$ is semi-ample for all fibres $`F_u`$ with $`uU`$” is equivalent to the $`f`$-semi-ampleness of $`\omega _{V/U}`$. Hence for all $`\nu `$ sufficiently large and divisible, the natural morphism

$$f^{}f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^\nu $$

is surjective over $`V`$. In particular 3.8 implies that $`\omega _{X/Y}`$ is weakly positive over $`V`$.

Let us end this section by stating a stronger positivity result. Although it holds true by  for arbitrary families of manifolds of general type, we will just formulate it for families with a semi-ample canonical sheaf. Recall that in , for a projective surjective morphism $`f:XY`$ with connected general fibre, we defined $`\mathrm{Var}(f)`$ to be the smallest integer $`\eta `$ for which there exists a finitely generated subfield $`K`$ of $`\overline{(Y)}`$ of transcendence degree $`\eta `$ over $``$, a variety $`F^{}`$ defined over $`K`$, and a birational equivalence

$$X\times _Y\mathrm{Spec}(\overline{(Y)})F^{}\times _{\mathrm{Spec}(K)}\mathrm{Spec}(\overline{(Y)}).$$

###### Theorem 3.10.

Under the assumptions made in 3.8, for all $`\nu `$ sufficiently large and divisible

$$\kappa (det(f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\nu ))=\mathrm{Var}(f).$$

###### Proof.

This has been shown in  if the general fibres of $`f`$ are of general type, and in  in general (see also  or ). ∎

###### Remark 3.11.

Let $`f:VU`$ be the morphism considered in 1.1. Since $`\omega _F`$ is ample on the fibres of $`f`$ we can replace the variety $`F^{}`$ in the definition of $`\mathrm{Var}(f)`$ by its image under a multicanonical map, hence assume that it is also canonically polarized. One obtains a morphism $`\phi ^{}:\mathrm{Spec}(K)M_h`$ and $`K`$ must contain the function field of $`\overline{\phi (U)}_{\mathrm{red}}`$. In particular the assumption $`dim(\overline{\phi (U)})=dim(U)`$ implies that $`\mathrm{Var}(f)=dim(U)`$.

## 4. Products of families of canonically polarized manifolds

Let again $`f:XY`$ be a surjective projective morphism between quasi-projective manifolds with connected fibres and let $`UY`$ be a non-empty open subvariety such that

$$f:V=f^1(U)U$$

is smooth, and such that $`\omega _{V/U}`$ is $`f`$-semi-ample.

In , 2.7, we have shown that for curves $`Y`$, the ampleness of $`det(f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\nu )`$ implies the ampleness of $`f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\nu `$, for $`\nu 2`$. In , 6.22, one finds a similar statement over $`U`$. In order to extend the latter to $`Y`$, one would like to control the “non-local free locus” of $`f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\nu `$. This could be done by using natural compactifications of moduli spaces, but those only exist for curves, for surfaces of general type, or by  under strong assumptions on the existence of minimal models.

Fortunately, the mild reduction of D. Abramovich and K. Karu can serve as a substitute, using in particular the reflexivity of the sheaves in 2.4 vii).

We will assume in the sequel, that $`dim(U)=\mathrm{Var}(f)`$, and that $`VU`$ fits into the diagram considered in 2.3. Since $`Y^{}`$ is finite over $`Y`$ one finds $`\mathrm{Var}(g)=\mathrm{Var}(f)=dim(Y^{})`$, and 3.10 implies that $`det(g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu )`$ is big for all $`\nu `$ sufficiently large and divisible. We choose such $`\nu 3`$, and we will assume in addition that

$$f^{}f_{}\omega _{V/U}^\nu \omega _{V/U}^\nu $$

and the multiplication morphisms

$$S^\beta (f_{}\omega _{V/U}^\nu )f_{}\omega _{V/U}^{\beta \nu }$$

are surjective, for all $`\beta `$. Define

$$e=\mathrm{Max}\{e(\omega _F^\nu );F\text{ a fibre of}VU\}.$$

By 2.4, ix), there is an invertible sheaf $`\lambda _\nu `$ on $`Y`$ and some $`N_\nu `$ with

$$\tau ^{}\lambda _\nu =det(g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu )^{N_\nu }.$$

Writing $`B=YU`$ for the boundary divisor, let us fix an ample invertible sheaf $`𝒜`$, such that $`𝒜(B)`$ is ample. Since

$$\kappa (\lambda _\nu )=\kappa (det(g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu ))=dim(Y),$$

there exists some $`\eta >0`$ and some effective divisor $`D`$, with $`\lambda _\nu ^\eta =𝒜(D)`$. Replacing $`N_\nu `$ by some multiple we can assume

$$det(g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu )^{N_\nu }=\tau ^{}𝒜(D)^{\nu (\nu 1)e}.$$

Define $`r_0=\mathrm{rank}(f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\nu )`$ and $`r=N_\nu r_0`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`X^{(r)}`$ denote a desingularization of the $`r`$-th fibre product $`X\times _Y\mathrm{}\times _YX`$ and let $`f^{(r)}:X^{(r)}Y`$ be the induced morphism. Then for all $`\beta `$ sufficiently large and divisible the sheaf

$$f_{}^{(r)}(\omega _{X^{(r)}/Y}^{\beta \nu })𝒜^{\beta \nu (\nu 2)}𝒪_Y(\beta \nu (\nu 1)D)$$

is globally generated over $`U`$ and

$$\omega _{X^{(r)}/Y}^{\beta \nu }f^{(r)}(𝒜^{\beta \nu (\nu 2)}𝒪_Y(\beta \nu (\nu 1)D))$$

is globally generated over $`V^r=f^{(r)1}(U)`$.

###### Proof.

We use again the notations from 2.3. By 2.2, ii), mildness of a morphism is compatible with fibre products, hence

$$g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}:Z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}=Z^{}\times _Y^{}\mathrm{}\times _Y^{}Z^{}Y^{}$$

is again mild.

For the normalization $`X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(r)}`$ of $`X^{(r)}\times _YY^{}`$ we choose a desingularization $`Z^{(r)}`$, with centers in the singular locus of $`X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(r)}`$, and a non-singular blowing up $`X_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(r)}`$ which dominates both, $`Z^{(r)}`$ and $`Z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}`$. We obtain again a diagram

| $`V^r`$ | $`\stackrel{}{}`$ | $`X^{(r)}`$ | $`\stackrel{\tau ^{(r)}}{}`$ | $`X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(r)}`$ | $`\stackrel{\sigma ^{(r)}}{}`$ | $`Z^{(r)}`$ | $`\stackrel{\rho ^{(r)}}{}`$ | $`X_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{(r)}`$ | $`\stackrel{\delta ^{(r)}}{}`$ | $`Z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $``$ |  | $`f^{\left(r\right)}`$ |  | $``$ |  | $`g^{\left(r\right)}`$ |  | $`f_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{\left(r\right)}`$ |  | $`g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}`$ |
| $`U`$ | $`\stackrel{}{}`$ | $`Y`$ | $`\stackrel{\tau }{}`$ | $`Y^{}`$ | $`\stackrel{=}{}`$ | $`Y^{}`$ | $`\stackrel{=}{}`$ | $`Y^{}`$ | $`\stackrel{=}{}`$ | $`Y^{}`$ |

which satisfies the assumptions made in 2.3. One finds for all integers $`\mu 0`$

(4.1.1)
$$g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}\omega _{Z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}/Y^{}}^\mu =\stackrel{r}{}g_{}^{}\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}^\mu .$$

In fact, by flat base change and by the projection formula, both sheaves coincide over the largest subvariety of $`Y^{}`$, where $`g_{}^{}\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}^\mu `$ is locally free. By definition, the right hand side of (4.1.1) is the reflexive hull of the tensor product on this subscheme, and by 2.2, iii) the left hand side is reflexive, hence both are equal. Corollary 2.4 implies:

###### Claim 4.2.

1. $`g_{}^{(r)}\omega _{Z^{(r)}/Y^{}}^\mu `$ is reflexive and there is an isomorphism

$$g_{}^{(r)}\omega _{Z^{(r)}/Y^{}}^\mu \stackrel{r}{}g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\mu .$$
2. There is an inclusion

$$g_{}^{(r)}\omega _{Z^{(r)}/Y^{}}^\mu \tau ^{}f_{}^{(r)}\omega _{X^{(r)}/Y}^\mu $$

which is an isomorphism over $`U^{}`$.

###### Proof.

b) and the first part of a) is nothing but 2.4, viii) and vii). For the second part of a), 2.4, vii) allows to replace the left hand side by $`g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}\omega _{Z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}/Y^{}}^\mu `$, the right hand side by $`^rg_{}^{}\omega _{Z^{}/Y^{}}^\mu `$, and to apply (4.1.1). ∎

By construction $`g^{(r)}:Z^{(r)}Y^{}`$ is smooth over $`U^{}=\tau ^1(U)`$ and

$$g_{}^{(r)}{}_{}{}^{1}(U^{})=V_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}=V^r\times _UU^{}.$$

Now we play the usual game. For the integer $`\nu 3`$ chosen above, and for $`r_0=\mathrm{rank}(g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu )`$, there is a natural inclusion

(4.2.1)
$$det(g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu )\stackrel{r_0}{}(g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu )$$

which locally splits over the open set $`Y_1^{}`$, where $`g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu `$ is locally free, in particular over $`U^{}`$. By the choice of $`r`$ one obtains an inclusion

(4.2.2)
$$\tau ^{}𝒜(D)^{\nu (\nu 1)e}\stackrel{r}{}(g_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu )=g_{}^{(r)}\omega _{Z^{(r)}/Y^{}}^\nu ,$$

again locally splitting over $`U^{}`$. In fact, the splitting inclusions in (4.2.1) and (4.2.2) exist over $`Y_1^{}`$, and since the sheaves on the right hand sides are reflexive they extend to $`Y^{}`$.

For $`\omega =\omega _{Z^{(r)}/Y^{}}`$ and $`𝒜^{}=g^{(r)}\tau ^{}𝒜(D)^\nu `$ consider $`=\omega 𝒜_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$. By (4.2.2) $`\omega ^\nu 𝒜_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\nu 1)e}`$ has a section whose zero divisor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not contain a whole fibre over $`U^{}`$, and

$$^{\nu (\nu 1)e}=\omega ^{\nu (\nu 1)e\nu ^2}\omega ^{\nu ^2}𝒜_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu (\nu 1)e}=\omega ^{\nu (\nu 1)e\nu ^2}𝒪_{Z^{(r)}}(\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

All fibres of $`V^rU`$ are of the form

$$F^r=F\times \mathrm{}\times F$$

and , 5.21, implies that

$$e(\mathrm{\Gamma }|_{F^r})e(\omega _{F^r}^\nu )=e(\omega _F^\nu )e.$$

So $`e(\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }|_{F^r})\nu e`$ and for $`N=\nu e`$ the assumption b) in 3.3 holds true. By corollary 3.8 the sheaf $`g_{}\omega ^{\nu (\nu (e1)e)}`$ is weakly positive over $`U^{}`$. Since

$$g^{(r)}g_{}^{(r)}\omega ^{\nu (\nu (e1)e)}\omega ^{\nu (\nu (e1)e)}=^{\nu (\nu 1)e}𝒪_{Z^{(r)}}(\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

is surjective over $`V^r`$ we can apply 3.3 (for $`^{\nu 1}`$ instead of $``$) and obtain the weak positivity of

$$g_{}^{(r)}(^{\nu 1}\omega _{Z^{(r)}/Y^{}})=g_{}^{(r)}(\omega _{Z^{(r)}/Y^{}}^\nu )\tau ^{}𝒜(D)^{\nu (\nu 1)}$$

over $`U^{}`$. Since $`g_{}^{(r)}\omega _{Z^{(r)}/Y^{}}^{\beta \nu }`$ is reflexive, one has the multiplication morphism

$$\mu _\beta :S^\beta (g_{}^{(r)}\omega _{Z^{(r)}/Y^{}}^\nu )g_{}^{(r)}\omega _{Z^{(r)}/Y^{}}^{\beta \nu }.$$

By 4.2, a), the left hand side is $`S^\beta (^rg_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^\nu )`$ whereas the right hand side is $`^rg_{}\omega _{Z/Y^{}}^{\beta \nu }`$, hence the assumption on the surjectivity of the multiplication morphism carries over, and $`\mu _\beta `$ is surjective over $`U^{}`$. Since

$$g_{}^{(r)}(\omega _{Z^{(r)}/Y^{}}^\nu )\tau ^{}𝒜(D)^{\nu (\nu 1)}$$

is weakly positive over $`U^{}`$, for all $`\beta `$ sufficiently large and divisible

$$S^\beta (g_{}^{(r)}(\omega _{Z^{(r)}/Y^{}}^\nu )\tau ^{}𝒜(D)^{\nu (\nu 1)})\tau ^{}𝒜^\beta $$

as well as

$$g_{}^{(r)}(\omega _{Z^{(r)}/Y^{}}^{\beta \nu })\tau ^{}𝒜(D)^{\beta \nu (\nu 1)}\tau ^{}𝒜^\beta $$

will be globally generated over $`U^{}`$. By 4.2, b), one has a morphism

$$\tau _{}𝒪_Y^{}𝒜^{\beta (\nu 1)}\tau _{}\tau ^{}(f_{}^{(r)}\omega _{X^{(r)}/Y}^{\beta \nu })𝒜(D)^{\beta \nu (\nu 1)}𝒜^{\beta \nu },$$

surjective over $`U`$. Although the sheaf $`f_{}^{(r)}\omega _{X^{(r)}/Y}^{\beta \nu }`$ is not necessarily reflexive, the finiteness of $`\tau `$ allows to apply the projection formula, and to obtain thereby a morphism

$$\tau _{}𝒪_Y^{}𝒜^{\beta (\nu 1)}f_{}^{(r)}(\omega _{X^{(r)}/Y}^{\beta \nu })𝒜^{\beta \nu (\nu 2)}𝒪_Y(\beta \nu (\nu 1)D),$$

surjective over $`U`$. For $`\beta `$ large enough, the sheaf on the left hand side will be generated by global sections, hence for those $`\beta `$ the sheaf on the right hand side is globally generated over $`U`$. Since we assumed

$$f^{(r)}f_{}^{(r)}\omega _{X^{(r)/Y}}^\nu \omega _{X^{(r)}/Y}^\nu $$

to be surjective over $`V`$, the same holds true for $`\nu `$ replaced by $`\beta \nu `$, and

$$\omega _{X^{(r)}/Y}^{\beta \nu }f^{(r)}(𝒜^{\beta \nu (\nu 2)}𝒪_{X^{(r)}}(\beta \nu (\nu 1)D))$$

is globally generated over $`V^r`$. ∎

From now on, we will forget the original morphism $`f`$ and work only with the morphism $`f^{(r)}`$. To keep notations as simple as possible, we allow ourselves to change them again. Doing so, we can restate the results of the sections 2, 3 and 4 in the following way:

###### Corollary 4.3.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ be a quasi-projective manifold and let $`\stackrel{~}{f}:\stackrel{~}{V}\stackrel{~}{U}`$ be a smooth projective surjective morphism with connected fibres, with $`\mathrm{Var}(\stackrel{~}{f})=dim(\stackrel{~}{U})`$ and with $`\omega _{\stackrel{~}{F}}`$ semi-ample for all fibres $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$.

Then there exist a proper birational morphism $`U\stackrel{~}{U}`$, a projective compactification $`Y`$ of $`U`$, a projective morphism $`f:XY`$, an invertible sheaf $`𝒜`$ and an effective divisor $`D`$ on $`Y`$, such that for all $`\nu `$ sufficiently large and divisible one has:

1. $`f:V=f^1(U)U`$ is smooth with connected fibres.
2. $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are projective manifolds, and $`XV`$ and $`B=YU`$ are normal crossing divisors.
3. $`𝒜`$ is ample, and $`DB`$.
4. $`f_{}(\omega _{X/Y}^\nu )𝒜(D)^\nu `$ is globally generated over $`U`$.
5. $`\omega _{X/Y}^\nu f^{}𝒜(D)^\nu `$ is globally generated over $`V`$.

###### Proof.

By 2.3 we find a smooth birational model $`f:VU`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{f}:\stackrel{~}{V}\stackrel{~}{U}`$ which fits into the diagram in 2.3. We may replace $`VU`$ by $`V^rU`$, and apply 4.1. The property a) and b) obviously hold true. Since we assumed $`𝒜(B)`$ to be ample and $`\nu 3`$, for the invertible $`𝒜^{}=𝒜^{\nu 2}(B)`$ and for the divisor

$$D^{}=(\nu 1)D+B$$

one obtains property c) and by 4.1 d) and e). ∎

If one starts with any smooth morphism in 1.1, one knows by 3.11 that the variation is maximal. 1.2 allows to blow up the base, hence 4.3 allows to replace the original morphism by a new one, satisfying the assumptions a) - e). Thereby the proposition 1.1 and hence theorem 0.1 are immediate consequences of the next proposition, which will be shown at the end of section 7.

###### Proposition 4.4.

Given $`U`$, let $`f:XY`$ be a projective surjective morphism, satisfying the conditions a) - e) in 4.3 for some $`\nu `$, $`𝒜`$ and $`D`$. Assume moreover that $`n=dim(F)`$ is even, that $`r=dim(U)1`$, and that $`\omega _F^\nu `$ is very ample for all fibres $`F`$ of $`VU`$. Then there exists no holomorphic map $`\gamma :U`$ with dense image.

## 5. Construction of cyclic coverings

Starting from a morphism $`f:XY`$ satisfying the assumptions in 4.4 for an invertible sheaf $`𝒜`$, a divisor $`D`$ and a natural number $`\nu `$ let us consider

$$=\omega _{X/Y}f^{}𝒜(D)^1.$$

Blowing up $`X`$ with centers outside of $`V`$ we may assume that the global sections of $`^\nu `$ generate an invertible sheaf $``$. If $`E`$ denotes the divisor on $`X`$ with $`(E)=`$, then $`E`$ has support in $`XV`$, hence it is a normal crossing divisor.

Let us assume there exists a holomorphic map $`\gamma :U`$ with dense image, contrary to 4.4. In this section we will choose some divisor and some cyclic covering of $`X`$, depending on $`\gamma `$ and finally this construction will help to show that such a holomorphic map can not exist.

By 4.3, d), we have for some $`\mathrm{}`$ a morphism $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{\mathrm{}+1}{}}𝒪_Yf_{}^\nu `$, surjective over $`U`$, and by 4.3, e) the induced morphisms

$$\stackrel{\mathrm{}+1}{}𝒪_Xf^{}f_{}^\nu ^\nu $$

are both surjective over $`V`$. By assumption one obtains embeddings

$$V=(f_{}^\nu |_V)^{\mathrm{}}\times U.$$

The projection to $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ extends to the morphism $`\pi :X^{\mathrm{}}`$, defined by the sections of the sheaf $``$. For all hyperplanes $`H`$ in $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ one has

$$=𝒪_X(\pi ^{}(H)+E).$$

Let $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ denote the dual projective space. For a hyperplane $`H^{\mathrm{}}`$, we will write $`[H]\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ for the corresponding point. For each $`uU`$ and for $`F_u=f^1(u)`$ the set of all $`[H]\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`F_uH`$ non-singular and not equal to $`F_u`$ is open. Let $`S_u`$ denote the complement. By , XVII, 3.2, for general points $`u`$ of $`(\mathrm{}1)`$-dimensional components of $`S_u`$, the intersection $`F_uH`$ will have just one ordinary double point of type $`A_1`$, i.e. a singularity given locally analytic as the zero set of the equation $`x_1^2+\mathrm{}+x_n^2`$ in $`^n`$. Hence the locus $`T_u`$, consisting of hyperplanes $`H`$ with $`F_uH`$ having other types of singularities or with $`F_uH`$, is of codimension at least two in $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

As in , XVII, 6.1 those properties can also be considered in families, and the corresponding sets depend algebraically on the parameter. In particular,

$$S=\{([H],u);F_uH\text{ or }F_uH\text{ singular}\}$$

is a closed subset of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times U`$. Let us choose a codimension $`2`$ closed subscheme $`T`$ of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times U`$, contained in $`S`$ such that $`ST`$ is non-singular, of pure codimension one, and

$$ST\{([H],u);F_uH\text{ and }F_uH\text{ has one double point of type }A_1\}.$$

Given $`[H]\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ let $`S_H`$ and $`T_H`$ be the intersection of $`\{[H]\}\times U`$ with $`S`$ and $`T`$, respectively.

###### Lemma 5.1.

There exists some $`[H]\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`T_H\gamma ()=\mathrm{}`$, such that $`S_H`$ meets $`\gamma ()`$ transversally, and such that $`\pi ^{}(H)`$ is non-singular and $`\pi ^{}(H)+E`$ a normal crossing divisor.

Here “$`S_H`$ meets $`\gamma ()`$ transversally” means that for a local section $`\sigma `$ of $`𝒪_U`$ with zero set $`(S_H)_{\mathrm{red}}`$, the holomorphic function $`\gamma ^{}(\sigma )`$ has zeros of order one.

###### Proof.

$`\gamma :U`$ induces a holomorphic map

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }:\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times \stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times U.$$

Since $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ is holomorphic, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^1(T)`$ is a complex subspace of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times `$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}`$ be the complex subspace of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^1(S)`$ given locally by the following condition. Let $`\sigma `$ be a local equation of $`S`$ on $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times U`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}`$ is the analytic subspace of the zero set of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{}\sigma `$, where the multiplicity of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{}\sigma `$ is larger than or equal to two. We choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}`$.

By , page 172, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has a decomposition

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{iI}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_i$$

in irreducible components. The index set $`I`$ is countable, since each point $`p`$ has a small neighborhood $`U(p)`$ such that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times U(p)`$ meets only finitely many of those components. As usual,

$$dim(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{Max}\{dim(\mathrm{\Delta }_i);iI\}.$$

###### Claim 5.2.

$`dim(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{}1`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\gamma `$ is not an embedding of a small neighborhood of a point $`p`$, then

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times \{p\}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}$$

consists of all hyperplanes $`H`$ passing through $`p`$, and its dimension is $`\mathrm{}1`$. The set of those points is discrete. For all other points $`p`$ and for all components $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}`$ one has

$$dim(\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times \{p\}\mathrm{\Delta }_i)\mathrm{}2.$$

In fact, let $`U(p)`$ denote a sufficiently small neighborhood of $`p`$. A general $`[H]\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ does not pass through $`\gamma (p)`$, and for those who do, the intersection is transversal, except for all $`[H]`$ in a codimension $`2`$ subset of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is one of the components of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}`$, then for all $`p`$

$$dim(\mathrm{\Delta }_i\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times \{p\})=dim(T\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times \{\gamma (p)\})\mathrm{}2.$$

In both cases, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is a component of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times \{p\}`$, we are done. Otherwise choose for $`j=1,2`$ two points $`p_j`$ with

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times \{p_j\}\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{}.$$

Then $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times \{p_1\}\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is not dense in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. Obviously, the dimension of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times \{p_1\}\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is larger than or equal to $`dim(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)1`$, and by Ritt’s lemma (, page 102) both must be equal. Hence

$$dim(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)=dim(\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times \{p_1\}\mathrm{\Delta }_i)+1\mathrm{}1.$$

###### Claim 5.3.

$`pr_1(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ does not contain an open analytic subset $`W\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Proof.

We will show 5.3 by induction on $`\mathrm{}`$, just using 5.2 but not the definition of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ as a dual projective space. If $`\mathrm{}=1`$, the set $`pr_1(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is countable.

In general, if $`Wpr_1(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ we choose a point $`p`$, such that none of the countably many components of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is contained in $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}\times \{p\}`$. Moreover, for each $`iI`$, we choose a point $`q_ipr_1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)`$. Let $`H\stackrel{ˇ}{}^\mathrm{}1`$ be a hyperplane, passing through $`p`$ but not containing any of the points $`q_i`$. Then, for each component $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, the intersection $`\mathrm{\Delta }_iH\times `$ can not be dense in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and

$$dim(\mathrm{\Delta }_iH\times )<l1.$$

Hence

$$dim(\mathrm{\Delta }H\times )\mathrm{}2=dim(H)1,$$

and since $`WH`$ is an open analytic subset of $`H`$, contained in $`pr_1(\mathrm{\Delta }H\times )`$, this contradicts the induction hypotheses. ∎

Recall that we assumed that the global sections of $``$ generate the invertible subsheaf $``$ of $``$. In particular,

$$H^0(X,)=H^0(X,^\nu )=H^0(^{\mathrm{}},𝒪_{^{\mathrm{}}}(1)),$$

and for $`[H]`$ in some Zariski open subscheme $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ the preimage $`\pi ^{}(H)`$ will be non-singular and $`\pi ^{}(H)+E`$ a normal crossing divisor. By 5.3 we can find points $`[H]`$ in $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}pr_1(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, and for all of them the properties asked for in 5.1 hold true. ∎

From now on $`H`$ is fixed, and we write $`T=BT_H`$ and $`S`$ for the closure of $`S_H`$ in $`Y`$. We will not use anymore the fact that $`T_H`$ is of codimension one, and in the next step we will replace $`Y`$ by a blow up with the centers partly contained in $`T_H`$.

###### Lemma 5.4.

Assume that, contrary to 4.4, there exists $`\gamma :U`$ with a dense image. Then we may assume in addition to 4.3, a), b), d) and e), that there exists a general section of $`^\nu =\omega _{X/Y}^\nu f^{}𝒜(D)^\nu `$ with zero divisor $`H+E`$, and divisors $`S`$ and $`T`$ in $`Y`$ such that:

1. $`SU`$ is dense in $`S`$ and $`S+T`$ and $`f^{}(S+T)`$ are normal crossing divisors.
2. $`XY`$ and $`HY`$ are both smooth over $`U_0=Y(ST)`$.
3. The fibres of $`HY`$ over $`Y_0=YT`$ are reduced with at most an ordinary double point.
4. $`\gamma ()T=\mathrm{}`$.
5. $`H`$ is non-singular, and $`f(E)`$ is contained in $`B`$.
6. $`𝒜`$ is semi-ample, ample with respect to $`Y_0`$, and $`DB`$.

###### Proof.

All this can be done by blowing up $`Y`$ in centers not contained in $`\gamma ()`$ and replacing $`f:XY`$ by a desingularization of the pullback family. ∎

The section of $`^\nu `$ with zero divisor $`H+E`$ gives rise to a cyclic covering $`\psi ^{}:Z^{}X`$ (see for example , Section 3). The condition 5.4, ii), implies that

$$g:Z_0=\psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}f^1(U_0)U_0$$

is smooth, hence it gives rise to a variation of Hodge structures $`𝕍_0=R^ng_{}_{Z_0}`$.

###### Lemma 5.5.

The monodromy of $`𝕍_0=R^ng_{}_{Z_0}`$ around the components of $`S`$ is finite.

###### Proof.

Here we will use the assumption, that the dimension $`n`$ of the fibres of $`f`$ is even.

A general curve $`C`$ meets $`S`$ transversally. Replacing $`C`$ by some open subset, we can assume that for a given component $`S_i`$ of $`S`$

$$C(ST)=CS_i=\{p\}.$$

The restriction

$$\psi _C:Z_C=Z^{}\times _YCX_C=X\times _YC$$

of the finite morphism $`\psi ^{}:Z^{}X`$ is a cyclic covering of order $`\nu `$, totally ramified along $`H_C=H\times _YC`$. By the definition of $`S`$ and $`T`$, the fibre $`H_p=H_CF_p`$ has one singular point $`q`$, and we can choose locally analytic parameters $`t`$ in a neighborhood of $`pC`$ and $`t,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ in a neighborhood of $`qX_C`$ such that $`H_C`$ is the zero-set of $`_{i=1}^nx_i^2+t`$ near $`q`$. Then locally near $`\psi _C^1(q)`$ the covering $`Z_C`$ is given by the equation

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i^2+t+z^\nu .$$

So $`g^1(p)`$ has one isolated singularity, a double point of type $`A_{\nu 1}`$. As well known (see , p. 132, for example), in even dimension the local monodromy group of an $`A_{\nu 1}`$ singularity is finite, and as in  or , p. 41, one obtains the same for the global monodromy. ∎

## 6. Higgs bundles

###### Notations 6.1.

In this section we assume that $`f:XY`$ satisfies the conditions stated in 4.4, except possibly that $`𝒜`$ is not ample, but only semi-ample and big. For the given holomorphic map $`\gamma :U`$ we assume moreover the existence of the divisors $`S`$, $`T`$, $`H`$ and $`E`$, satisfying the conditions in 5.4.

We define $`\mathrm{\Delta }=f^{}(T)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=f^{}(S)`$. Recall, that the original boundary divisor $`B`$ is contained in $`T`$. So the non-reduced components of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or the components of $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, mapping to codimension two subvarieties of $`Y`$, are all supported in $`f^1B`$.

Let $`\delta :X^{}X`$ be a blowing up of $`X`$ with centers in $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`H^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is a normal crossing divisor, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\delta ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\delta ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and where $`H^{}`$ is the proper transform of $`H`$. For $`=\omega _{X/Y}f^{}𝒜(D)^1`$, we write $`^{}=\delta ^{}`$. For $`E^{}=\delta ^{}(H+E)H^{}`$ on finds $`_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }=𝒪_X^{}(H^{}+E^{})`$.

Let $`g:Z_0U_0`$ be the fibre space, considered at the end of the last section, obtained by restricting the cyclic covering $`\psi ^{}:Z^{}X`$, given by the divisor $`H+E`$ in 5.4. We choose $`Z`$ to be a desingularization of the normalization of the fibre product $`X^{}\times _XZ^{}`$. Let us denote the induced morphisms by

| $`Y`$ | $`\stackrel{g}{}`$ | $`Z`$ | $`\stackrel{\delta ^{}}{}`$ | $`Z^{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`=`$ |  | $`\psi `$ |  | $`\psi ^{}`$ |
| $`Y`$ | $`\stackrel{f^{}}{}`$ | $`X^{}`$ | $`\stackrel{\delta }{}`$ | $`X.`$ |

Finally we write $`\mathrm{\Pi }=g^1(ST)`$, and identify $`Z_0`$ with $`Z\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

In the sequel we will write $`T_{}(\mathrm{log})`$ for the dual of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^1(\mathrm{log})`$.

By , for all $`k0`$ the local constant system $`R^kg_{}_{Z_0}`$ gives rise to a local free sheaf $`𝒱_k`$ on $`Y`$ with the Gauß-Manin connection

$$:𝒱_k𝒱_k\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}(S+T)),$$

where we assume that $`𝒱_k`$ is the quasi-canonical extension of

$$(R^kg_{}_{Z_0})_{}𝒪_{Y(ST)},$$

i.e. that the real part of the eigenvalues of the residues around the components of $`S+T`$ lie in $`[0,1)`$.

By  $`𝒱_k`$ carries a filtration $`^p`$ by coherent subsheaves. If the monodromies around the components of $`S+T`$ are not unipotent the $`^p`$ are not necessarily subbundles. However this is the case outside of the singular locus of $`S+T`$. By abuse of notations, we will drop the assumption that $`Y`$ is projective in the first part of this section, leave out a codimension two subscheme $`W`$ and assume that $`f`$, $`f^{}`$ and $`g`$ are flat and that $`S+T`$ is non-singular.

So the induced graded sheaves $`E^{p,kp}`$ are locally free, and they carry a Higgs structure with logarithmic poles along $`S+T`$. Let us denote it by

$$(𝔤𝔯_{}(𝒱_k),𝔤𝔯_{}())=(E,\theta )=(\underset{q=0}{\overset{k}{}}E^{kq,q},\underset{q=0}{\overset{k}{}}\theta _{kq,q}).$$

As in  we will consider a second system of sheaves related to $`Z`$ and to the pair $`(X,H)`$. We define

$$F^{p,q}=R^qf_{}^{}(\delta ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }))_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)})/_{\mathrm{torsion}}.$$

Here, for $`\eta =0,\mathrm{},\nu 1`$, the invertible sheaves $`_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\eta )}`$ are defined as

$$_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\eta )}=_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\eta }𝒪_X^{}\left(\left[\frac{\eta (H^{}+E^{})}{\nu }\right]\right)=_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\eta }𝒪_X^{}\left(\left[\frac{\eta E^{}}{\nu }\right]\right).$$

As well-known (see for example , page 130) the bundles $`E^{p,q}`$ have a similar description:

$$E^{p,q}=R^qg_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/Y}^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi }).$$

Let

$$\tau _{p,q}:F^{p,q}F^{p1,q+1}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}T)\text{ and }$$

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{p,q}:E^{p,q}E^{p1,q+1}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}(S+T))$$

be the edge morphisms of the tautological exact sequences

(6.1.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}0f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}T)\delta ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^{p1}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }))_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\hfill \\ \hfill \delta ^{}(𝔤𝔯(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta })))_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\delta ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }))_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}0,\end{array}$$

and

(6.1.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}0g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}(S+T))\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/Y}^{p1}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi })𝔤𝔯(\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi }))\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/Y}^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi })0,\hfill \end{array}$$

respectively, where

$$𝔤𝔯(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }))=\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta })/f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^2(\mathrm{log}T)\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^{p2}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta })\text{,    and}$$

$$𝔤𝔯(\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi }))=\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi })/g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^2(\mathrm{log}S+T)\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/Y}^{p2}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi }).$$

The Gauß-Manin connection is the edge morphism of

$$\begin{array}{c}0g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}(S+T))\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/Y}^1(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi })𝔤𝔯(\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^{}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi }))\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/Y}^{}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi })0,\hfill \end{array}$$

hence $`\theta _{p,q}=\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{p,q}`$.

###### Lemma 6.2.

Let $``$ stand either for $`\mathrm{Spec}()`$ or for $`Y`$. Then the group $`/\nu `$ acts on $`\psi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/}^p(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Pi }+\psi ^{}H^{}))`$ and on $`\psi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/}^p(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Pi }))`$. One has a decomposition in sheaves of eigenvectors

$$\psi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/}^p(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Pi }+\psi ^{}H^{}))\underset{\eta =0}{\overset{\nu 1}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{}/}^p(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+H^{}))_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\eta )}\text{ and}$$

$$\psi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/}^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi })\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{}/}^p(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}))\underset{\eta =1}{\overset{\nu 1}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{}/}^p(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+H^{}))_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\eta )},$$

compatible with the tautological sequences.

###### Proof.

By , 3.21 and 3.22, there are natural inclusions

$$\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{}/}^p(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+H^{}))\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/}^p(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Pi }+\psi ^{}H^{})),$$

and $`R^\beta \psi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/}^p(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Pi }+\psi ^{}H^{}))=0`$, for $`\beta >0`$. In fact, in  this is just stated for $`=\mathrm{Spec}()`$, but the general case follows by induction, considering the tautological sequences. Since $`/\nu `$ acts on $`\psi _{}𝒪_Z`$ with

$$\psi _{}𝒪_Z=\underset{\eta =0}{\overset{\nu 1}{}}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\eta )}$$

as decomposition in sheaves of eigenvectors, one obtains the first decomposition in 6.2. $`H^{}`$ is totally ramified in $`Z`$. Hence there is an exact sequence

$$0\psi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/}^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi })\psi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/}^p(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Pi }+\psi ^{}H^{}))\mathrm{\Omega }_{H^{}/}^{p1}(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})|_H^{})$$

and the two sheaves on the right hand side differ only in the $`/\nu `$ invariant part. ∎

###### Lemma 6.3.

Using the notations introduced above, let

$$\iota :\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}T)\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}(S+T))$$

be the natural inclusion. Then there exist morphisms $`\rho _{p,q}:F^{p,q}E^{p,q}`$ such that:

1. The diagram

| $`E^{p,q}`$ | $`\stackrel{\theta _{p,q}}{}`$ | $`E^{p1,q+1}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}(S+T))`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\rho _{p,q}`$ |  | $`\rho _{p1,q+1}\iota `$ |
| $`F^{p,q}`$ | $`\stackrel{\tau _{p,q}}{}`$ | $`F^{p1,q+1}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}T).`$ |

commutes.
2. There is an invertible sheaf $`𝒜`$, semi-ample and ample with respect to $`YT`$, an effective divisor $`D^{}`$, and an injection $`𝒜(D^{})F^{n,0}`$, which is an isomorphism over $`YT`$.
3. $`\tau _{n,0}`$ induces a morphism

$$\tau ^{}:T_Y(\mathrm{log}T)=(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}T))^{}F^{n,0^{}}F^{n1,1},$$

which coincides over $`Y(ST)`$ with the Kodaira-Spencer map

$$T_Y(\mathrm{log}T)R^1f_{}T_{X/Y}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }).$$

In particular this morphism is injective.
4. The morphisms $`\rho _{nm,m}`$ are injective, for all $`m`$.
5. $`({\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{n}{}}}E^{nq,q},{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\theta _{nq,q})`$
is a Higgs bundle with logarithmic poles along $`S+T`$, induced by a variation of Hodge structures with finite monodromy around the components of $`S`$.

###### Remark 6.4.

Instead of 6.3, iii) and iv) we will use later just the injectivity of $`\tau ^{}`$ and of $`\rho _{nm,m}`$ for $`m=0`$ and $`m=1`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is similar to the proof of 3.2 in . It is well-known, that the bundle in v) is the Higgs bundle for the variation of Hodge structures on $`R^ng_{}_{Z_0}`$. The condition on the monodromy follows from 5.5. By 6.2 the sheaf

$$R^qf_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{}/Y}^p(\mathrm{log}(H^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}))_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)})$$

is a direct factor of $`E^{p,q}`$. The morphism $`\rho _{p,q}`$ is induced by the natural inclusions

(6.4.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}\delta ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta })\delta ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^p(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Sigma }))\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{}/Y}^p(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}))\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{}/Y}^p(\mathrm{log}(H^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})).\end{array}$$

Over $`Y(ST)`$ the kernel of $`\rho _{nm,m}`$ is a quotient of the sheaf

$$R^{m1}(f^{}|_H^{})_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{H^{}/Y}^{nm1}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}|_H^{}).$$

Since the relative dimension of $`H^{}`$ over $`Y`$ is $`n1`$ and since $`^{}`$ is fibrewise ample, the latter is zero by the Akizuki-Kodaira-Nakano vanishing theorem. So $`\rho _{nm,m}`$ is injective, as claimed in iv).

The injective morphism in (6.4.1) also exist for $`Y`$ replaced by $`\mathrm{Spec}()`$, and the exact sequence (6.1.1) is a subsequence of

(6.4.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}0f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}(S+T))\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{}/Y}^{p1}(\mathrm{log}(H^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Sigma }))_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝔤𝔯(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{}^p(\mathrm{log}(H^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Sigma })))_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{}/Y}^p(\mathrm{log}(H^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Sigma }))_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}0.\end{array}$$

Finally by 6.2 this sequence is obtained by taking the sheaves of eigenvectors in the direct image of the exact sequence (6.1.2) under $`\psi :ZX^{}`$. One obtains i).

By definition $`F^{n,0}=f_{}^{}(\delta ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^n(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }))_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)})`$. Comparing the first Chern classes for the tautological sequence for $`f`$ one finds

$$F^{n,0}=f_{}^{}(\delta ^{}(\omega _{X/Y}^n(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{red}}\mathrm{\Delta }))_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}).$$

Recall that $`f`$ is smooth over $`YB`$, for the divisor $`B`$ considered in 4.3, c). Hence

$$f^{}B\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{red}}+\mathrm{\Delta }$$

and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^n(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta })`$ contains $`\omega _{X/Y}(f^{}B)`$. Moreover, by 4.3, c), $`D^{}=DB`$ is effective. By definition, $`=\omega _{X/Y}f^{}𝒜(D^{}+B)^1`$, and

$$_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}=_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}𝒪_X^{}\left(\left[\frac{E^{}}{\nu }\right]\right).$$

Therefore $`\delta ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^n(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }))_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}`$ contains $`\omega _{X/Y}(f^{}B)_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}`$, hence the sheaf

$$f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒜(D^{}))𝒪_X^{}\left(\left[\frac{E^{}}{\nu }\right]\right),$$

and ii) holds true. For iii), recall that over $`Y(ST)`$ the sheaf $`_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}`$ is nothing but

$$_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=\delta ^{}(^1).$$

Since $`R^\mu \delta _{}𝒪_X^{}=0`$, by the projection formula the morphism

$$(\tau _{n,0}\mathrm{id}_{𝒜(D^{})^1})|_{Y(ST)}$$

is the restriction of the edge morphism of the short exact sequence

$$0f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_U^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{V/U}^{n1}\omega _{V/U}^1𝔤𝔯(\mathrm{\Omega }_V^n)\omega _{V/U}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Omega }_{V/U}^n\omega _{V/U}^10.$$

Since $`f|_V`$ is smooth with $`n`$-dimensional fibres, the sheaf on the right hand side is $`𝒪_V`$ and the one on the left hand side is $`f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_U^1T_{V/U}`$. Tensoring with

$$f^{}T_U=f^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_U^{r1}\omega _U^1)$$

and dividing by the kernel of the wedge product

$$f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_U^1f^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_U^{r1}\omega _U^1)𝒪_V$$

on the left hand side, one obtains an exact sequence

(6.4.3)
$$0T_{V/U}𝒢f^{}T_U0,$$

where $`𝒢`$ is a quotient of $`𝔤𝔯(\mathrm{\Omega }_V^n)\omega _{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_U^{r1}`$. By definition, the restriction to $`Y(ST)`$ of the morphism considered in iii) is the first edge morphism in the long exact sequence, obtained by applying $`R^{}f_{}`$ to (6.4.3).

The wedge product induces a morphism

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_V^n\omega _{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_U^{r1}\mathrm{\Omega }_V^{n+r1}\omega _V^1=T_V.$$

Since $`r=dim(U)`$ this morphism factors through $`𝒢`$. Hence the exact sequence (6.4.3) is isomorphic to the tautological sequence

(6.4.4)
$$0T_{V/U}T_Vf^{}T_U0.$$

The edge morphism $`T_UR^1f_{}T_{V/U}`$ of (6.4.4) is the Kodaira-Spencer map. Since we assumed $`U`$ to be generically finite over the moduli space, this morphism is injective. ∎

Let us return to the case “$`Y`$ projective”. We will choose for $`E^{p,q}`$ and $`F^{p,q}`$ the maximal coherent extension of the sheaves defined above outside of a codimension two subvariety of $`Y`$. Of course, the morphisms $`\theta _{p,q}`$, $`\tau _{p,q}`$ and $`\rho _{p,q}`$ extend, and the properties i) - v) in 6.3 remain true.

By , page 12, $`\theta \theta =0`$ hence the image of the composite

$$\theta _{nq+1,q1}\mathrm{}\theta _{n,0}:E^{n,0}E^{nq,q}\stackrel{q}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}(S+T))$$

factors through

$$\theta ^q:E^{n,0}E^{nq,q}S^q\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}(S+T)).$$

By 6.3, ii) $`𝒜(D^{})`$ is a subsheaf of $`F^{n,0}`$ and hence of $`E^{n,0}`$, and one obtains a morphism

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒜(D^{})\rho _{nq,q}(F^{nq,q})S^q\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}T)\stackrel{}{}E^{nq,q}S^q\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}T)\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{S^m(\iota )}{}E^{nq,q}S^q\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}(S+T)),\end{array}$$

and thereby a morphism

$$\tau _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{q}:S^q(T_Y(\mathrm{log}T))E^{nq,q}𝒜(D^{})^1.$$

The pullback of $`\tau _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{q}`$, via $`\gamma :YTY`$, composed with the $`q`$-th tensor power of the differential of $`\gamma `$

$$d\gamma ^q:T_{}^q\gamma ^{}(S^qT_Y(\mathrm{log}T))$$

gives

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }^q:T_{}^q\gamma ^{}(E^{nq,q}𝒜(D^{})^1).$$

We choose

$$m=\mathrm{Min}\{q;\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{q+1}(T_{}^{q+1})=0\}$$

and put $`\tau =\tau _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\stackrel{~}{\tau }^m`$.

The morphism $`\tau _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ factors like

$$T_Y(\mathrm{log}T)F^{n1,1}𝒜(D^{})^1\stackrel{\rho _{n1,1}}{}E^{n1,1}𝒜(D^{})^1.$$

By 6.3, iii) the first of those morphisms is injective, and by 6.3, iv) the second one as well. Therefore $`\tau _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ is injective. Since we assumed $`\gamma ()`$ to be dense, the pullback of an injective morphism of sheaves under $`\gamma `$ remains injective. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^1`$ is injective, and $`m>0`$.

Altogether, starting from the morphism in 4.4 and from a holomorphic map $`\gamma :U`$ with dense image, we constructed divisors $`S`$ and $`T`$ with the properties stated in 5.4, and we constructed Higgs bundles which satisfy the properties a) - d) given below.

###### Lemma 6.5.

For some $`m>0`$ there exist an invertible sheaf $`𝒜`$, an effective divisor $`D^{}`$ and a morphism of sheaves

$$\tau :S^mT_Y(\mathrm{log}T)E^{nm,m}𝒜(D^{})^1E^{nm,m}𝒜^1,$$

such that the composite

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\gamma ^{}\tau d\gamma ^m:T_{}^m\gamma ^{}(S^mT_Y(\mathrm{log}T))\gamma ^{}(E^{nm,m}𝒜^1)$$

satisfies:

1. $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ is injective.
2. $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }(T_{}^m)𝒩\gamma ^{}(𝒜^1)`$
for a sub-linebundle $`𝒩`$ of

$$\mathrm{Ker}(\gamma ^{}(\theta _{nm,m}):\gamma ^{}(E^{nm,m})\gamma ^{}(E^{nm1,m+1})\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^1(\mathrm{log}\gamma ^1(S))).$$
3. $$(E,\theta )=(\underset{p+q=n}{}E^{p,q},\theta _{p,q})$$

is the Higgs bundle, corresponding to the quasi-canonical extension $`𝒱`$ of $`𝕍_0_{}𝒪_{Y(ST)}`$ for a geometric variation of Hodge structures $`𝕍_0`$, with finite monodromies around the components of $`S`$.
4. $`\gamma ()`$ does not meet $`T`$.
5. $`𝒜`$ is ample.

At the end of the next section we will show, that those properties lead to a contradiction to the Ahlfors-Schwarz lemma. Hence the holomorphic map $`\gamma `$ can not exist.

###### Proof.

All properties hold true, for the Higgs bundles constructed above, with $`𝒜`$ semi-ample and big. Choose some $`\eta >0`$ such that $`𝒜^\eta `$ contains an ample invertible sheaf $`𝒜^{}`$, and consider the Higgs bundles

$$(E^{},\theta ^{})=(E^\eta ,\theta ^{})\text{ and }(F^{},\tau ^{})=(F^\eta ,\tau ^{}).$$

Again we first consider them on $`YW`$, where $`W`$ is the singular locus of $`ST`$ and then we take the maximal extension to $`Y`$. By , page 70, the morphism

$$\theta ^{}:E^\eta E^\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_Y(\mathrm{log}(S+T))$$

is given by

$$\theta ^{}=\theta \mathrm{id}_E\mathrm{}\mathrm{id}_E+\mathrm{id}_E\theta \mathrm{}\mathrm{id}_E+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{id}_E\mathrm{}\mathrm{id}_E\theta ,$$

and similarly for $`F^{}`$ and $`\tau ^{}`$. The decomposition as a direct sum is

$$\underset{p+q=k}{}E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p,q}\text{ and }\underset{p+q=k}{}F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p,q},$$

with

$$E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p,q}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\eta }{}}E^{p_i,q_i}\text{ and }F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p,q}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\eta }{}}F^{p_i,q_i},$$

where the direct sums are taken over all $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_\eta ,q_1,\mathrm{},q_\eta `$ with

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{\eta }{}}p_i=p,\text{ and }\underset{i=1}{\overset{\eta }{}}q_i=q.$$

Again we have morphisms

$$\rho _{p,q}^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\eta }{}}\rho _{p_i,q_i}:F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p,q}E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p,q},$$

compatible with $`\theta _{p,q}^{}`$ and $`\tau _{p,q}^{}`$. In particular $`\rho _{n\eta ,0}^{}`$ is the $`\eta `$-th tensor product of $`\rho _{n,0}`$, hence injective. The same holds true for $`\rho _{n\eta 1,1}^{}`$ which is the direct sum of morphisms of the form

$$\rho _{n,0}\mathrm{}\rho _{n1,1}\mathrm{}\rho _{n,0}.$$

The properties i) and v) in 6.3 remain true, with $`E`$ and $`F`$ replaced by $`E^{}`$ and $`F^{}`$, for $`n\eta `$ instead of $`n`$ in v). In ii) one has an injection

$$𝒜^{}𝒜(D^{})^\eta F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{n\eta ,0}=(F^{n,0})^\eta .$$

The morphism

$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _{n\eta ,0}^{}:F_{}^{n,0}{}_{}{}^{\eta }(F^{n1,1}F^{n,0}\mathrm{}F^{n,0}F^{n,0}F^{n1,1}\mathrm{}F^{n,0}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}F^{n,0}F^{n,0}\mathrm{}F^{n1,1})\mathrm{\Omega }^1_Y(\mathrm{log}T)\end{array}$$

is a direct sum of morphisms of the form

$$\mathrm{id}_{F^{n,0}}\mathrm{}\theta _{n,0}\mathrm{}\mathrm{id}_{F^{n,0}},$$

hence it induces the diagonal morphism

$$\tau ^{}:T_Y(\mathrm{log}T)F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{n\eta ,0}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{n1,1}=\stackrel{\eta }{}F_{}^{n,0}{}_{}{}^{}F^{n1,1}.$$

In particular the injectivity of the morphisms in 6.3, iii), carries over.

As remarked in 6.4 the injectivity of $`\tau ^{}`$, $`\rho _{n\eta ,0}^{}`$ and of $`\rho _{n\eta 1,1}^{}`$ is sufficient to perform the constructions with $`E^{}`$ and $`F^{}`$ instead of $`E`$ and $`F`$, and to obtain some $`m>0`$ and the morphisms $`\tau `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ satisfying the properties a) and b), with $`𝒜`$ replaced by $`𝒜^\eta `$. The latter contains the ample sheaf $`𝒜^{}`$, hence e) holds true.

Finally the Higgs bundle $`(E^{},\theta ^{})`$ comes from the locally free extension $`𝒱^{}=𝒱^\eta `$ of $`𝕍_0^\eta _{}𝒪_{Y(ST)}`$. The eigenvalues of the residues of the induced connection lie in $`_0`$, hence $`𝒱^{}`$ is contained in the quasi-canonical extension $`𝒱^{\prime \prime }`$. Replacing $`𝒱^{}`$ by $`𝒱^{\prime \prime }`$, we enlarge the sheaves $`E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p,q}`$, which is allowed without changing the properties a) and b). ∎

## 7. Curvature estimates and the Ahlfors-Schwarz lemma

Let $`T`$ be the normal crossing divisor in 6.5, and let $`T=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}T_i`$ be its decomposition in irreducible components. Let $`s_i`$ be the section of $`_i=𝒪_Y(T_i)`$ with zero set $`T_i`$. We choose a hermitian metric $`g_i`$ on $`_i`$ and define

$$r_i=\mathrm{log}s_i_{g_i}^2\text{ and }r=r_1\mathrm{}r_{\mathrm{}}.$$

Given any constant $`c>1`$, by rescaling the sections $`s_i`$, i.e. by replacing $`s_i`$ by $`ϵs_i`$, for $`ϵ`$ sufficiently small, one may assume that $`r_ic`$.

On the ample invertible linebundle $`𝒜`$ in 6.5 we choose a metric $`g`$ such that the curvature form $`\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜,g)`$ is positive definite. For a positive integer $`\alpha `$ we define a new metric $`g_\alpha =gr^\alpha `$ on $`𝒜|_{YT}.`$

Recall that a hermitian form $`\omega _\alpha `$ on $`T_Y(\mathrm{log}T)`$ is continuous and positive definite, if each point in $`Y`$ has a neighborhood $`U`$ with local coordinates $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$, such that $`TU`$ is the zero set of $`z_1\mathrm{}z_k`$ and such that, writing

$$\iota _1=\mathrm{}=\iota _k=1\text{ and }\iota _{k+1}=\mathrm{}\iota _n=0,$$

$$\omega _\alpha =\sqrt{1}\underset{1i,jn}{}a_{i,j}\frac{dz_i}{z_i^{\iota _i}}\frac{d\overline{z}_j}{\overline{z_j}^{\iota _j}}$$

for a continuous and positive definite hermitian matrix $`(a_{ij})_{1i,jn}`$.

###### Lemma 7.1.

Rescaling the $`s_i`$, if necessary, there exists a continuous and positive definite hermitian form $`\omega _\alpha `$ on $`T_Y(\mathrm{log}T)`$ with

$$r^2\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜|_{YT},g_\alpha )\omega _\alpha .$$

###### Proof.

We recall the formula for the curvature calculation of a linebundle with a metric $`(,g)`$ (see for example , 7.1). Let

$$|_UU\times $$

be a local trivialization of $``$ and let $`s_U`$ be a holomorphic section of $`|_U,`$ which does not vanish in any point of $`U`$. Then $`s_U`$ corresponds to a holomorphic function $`h_U`$ on $`U,`$ and the metric $`g`$ is given by

$$s_u_g^2=|h_U|^2e^\varphi .$$

The curvature $`\mathrm{\Theta }(,g)`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(,g)=\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\pi }\overline{}\varphi .$$

Applying this formula (see also , proof of 3.1), one finds

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜,g_\alpha )=\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜,gr^\alpha )=\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜,ge^{(\alpha \mathrm{log}r)})=\mathrm{\Theta }(A,g)\frac{\sqrt{1}\alpha }{2\pi }\overline{}\mathrm{log}r$$

$$=\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜,g)\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\sqrt{1}\alpha }{2\pi }\overline{}\mathrm{log}r_i=\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜,g)\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\sqrt{1}\alpha }{2\pi }\frac{\overline{}r_i}{r_i}$$

$$=\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜,g)\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }(L_i,g_i)}{r_i}+\frac{\sqrt{1}\alpha }{2\pi }\frac{r_i\overline{}r_i}{r_i^2}.$$

Rescaling the sections $`s_i`$ one can assume that the $`r_i`$ are larger than a large constant $`c>1`$, hence that

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜,g)\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\omega _\alpha ^{}:=\frac{\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }(L_i,g_i)}{r_i}$$

is a continuous and positive definite (1,1)-form on $`Y.`$ Moreover

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜,g_\alpha )=\omega _\alpha ^{}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\sqrt{1}\alpha }{2\pi }\frac{r_i\overline{}r_i}{r_i^2}\omega _\alpha ^{}+\frac{\sqrt{1}\alpha }{2\pi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{r_i\overline{}r_i}{r^2}.$$

The (1,1) form

$$\frac{\sqrt{1}\alpha }{2\pi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}r_i\overline{}r_i$$

is clearly positive semi-definite on $`YT`$.

###### Claim 7.2.

Assume again that $`TU`$ is the zero set of $`z_1\mathrm{}z_k`$ for local coordinates $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$ on $`U`$. Then in a small neighborhood of $`TU`$ the form

$$\frac{\sqrt{1}\alpha }{2\pi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}r_i\overline{}r_i$$

is positive definite on the subspace of $`T_Y(\mathrm{log}T)|_U`$ spanned by

$$\{z_1_{z_1},\mathrm{},z_k_{z_k}\}.$$

###### Proof.

Near $`T_i`$ the section $`s_i`$ can be expressed as

$$s_i=z_it_i,s_i_{g_i}^2=z_i\overline{z}_it_i_{g_i}^2=z_i\overline{z}_if_i,$$

where $`t_i`$ a local basis of $`L_i`$ and where $`f_i`$ is a positive Function. So,

$$r_i=\mathrm{log}s_i_{g_i}^2=\mathrm{log}z_i\mathrm{log}\overline{z}_i\mathrm{log}f_i,$$

$$r_i=\frac{dz_i}{z_i}\frac{1}{f_i}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{f_i}{z_j}dz_j,$$

and

$$\overline{}r_i=\frac{d\overline{z}_i}{\overline{z}_i}\frac{1}{f_i}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{f_i}{\overline{z}_j}d\overline{z}_j.$$

So the leading term in

$$\frac{\sqrt{1}\alpha }{2\pi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}r_i\overline{}r_i$$

near $`TU`$ is

$$\frac{\sqrt{1}\alpha }{2\pi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{dz_i}{z_i}\frac{d\overline{z}_i}{\overline{z}_i}.$$

Obviously this form is positive definite on the subspace spanned by

$$\{z_1_{z_1},\mathrm{},z_k_{z_k}\}.$$

Since we assumed that $`r1`$,

$$r^2\mathrm{\Theta }(A|_{YT},g_\alpha )r^2\omega _\alpha ^{}+\frac{\sqrt{1}\alpha }{2\pi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}r_i\overline{}r_i\omega _\alpha ^{}+\frac{\sqrt{1}\alpha }{2\pi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}r_i\overline{}r_i.$$

By 7.2 the (1,1) form

$$\omega _\alpha =\omega _\alpha ^{}+\frac{\sqrt{1}\alpha }{2\pi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}r_i\overline{}r_i$$

is continuous and positive definite on $`T_Y(\mathrm{log}T).`$

Let $`\gamma :YT`$ be the holomorphic map with Zariski dense image, considered in 6.5 and let $`t`$ be the global coordinate on $`.`$ We take the ample bundle $`𝒜`$ on $`Y`$ with the metric $`g_\alpha `$ on $`YT`$ and the hermitian metric $`\omega _\alpha `$ on $`T_Y(\mathrm{log}T)`$ from lemma 7.1. Writing again

$$d\gamma :T_{}\gamma ^{}T_Y(\mathrm{log}T)$$

for the differential, one finds

$$\gamma ^{}\omega _\alpha =\sqrt{1}d\gamma (_t)_{\gamma ^{}\omega _\alpha }^2dtd\overline{t},$$

and 7.1 implies:

###### Corollary 7.3.

$`\gamma ^{}r^2\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜|_{YT},g_\alpha )\sqrt{1}d\gamma (_t)_{\gamma ^{}\omega _\alpha }^2dtd\overline{t}.`$

Let us return to the morphism of sheaves in 6.5:

$$\tau :S^mT_Y(\mathrm{log}T)E^{nm,m}(𝒜(D^{}))^1E^{nm,m}𝒜^1$$

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }:=\gamma ^{}\tau (d\gamma )^m:T_{}^m\gamma ^{}S^mT_Y(\mathrm{log}T)\gamma ^{}(E^{nm,m}𝒜^1).$$

By 6.5, c) $`E^{nm,m}`$ is a sub quotient of the quasi-canonical extension of a geometric variation of Hodge structures $`𝕍_0`$ on $`YST`$. By Kawamata’s construction (see , 2.5) one finds a finite morphism $`\pi :Y^{}Y`$ with $`Y^{}`$ non-singular and $`S^{}+T^{}=\pi ^{}(S+T)`$ a normal crossing divisors such that the local monodromies of the pullback $`\pi ^{}𝕍_0`$ around $`S^{}+T^{}`$ are unipotent. For the discriminant $`\mathrm{\Delta }(Y^{}/Y)`$ of $`\pi :Y^{}Y`$ both,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(Y^{}/Y)+S+T\text{ and }\pi ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }(Y^{}/Y)+S+T)$$

are normal crossing divisors. Moreover, for a component $`T_i`$ of $`S+T`$ there exists some $`\mu _i`$ with

$$\pi ^{}T_i=\mu _i(\pi ^{}T_i)_{\mathrm{red}}.$$

Since we assumed the local monodromy of $`𝕍_0`$ around the components of $`S`$ to be of finite order, the local monodromy of $`\pi ^{}𝕍_0`$ around the components of $`S^{}=\pi ^{}(S)`$ is trivial, hence $`\pi ^{}𝕍_0`$ extends to a variation of Hodge structures $`𝕍_0^{}`$ across $`S^{}.`$ Let $`h`$ and $`h^{}`$ denote the Hodge metrics on $`𝕍_0`$ and $`𝕍_0^{}`$, respectively. We use the same notation for the induced metric on the Higgs bundles $`E^{p,q}`$ and $`E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p,q}`$, where the latter is given by sub quotients of the canonical extension of $`𝕍_0^{}`$ across $`T^{}=\pi ^{}T.`$ We have an inclusion of sheaves

$$\iota :(\pi ^{}E^{nm,m},\pi ^{}h)(E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{nm,m},h^{}),$$

such that $`\pi ^{}(h)=\iota ^{}(h^{})`$ on $`Y^{}S^{}T^{}`$.

Consider the diagram of morphisms of analytic spaces

(7.3.1)

| $`^{}`$ | $`\stackrel{\gamma ^{}}{}`$ | $`Y^{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\pi ^{}`$ |  | $`\pi `$ |
| $``$ | $`\stackrel{\gamma }{}`$ | $`Y`$ |

where $`^{}`$ is obtained as a normalization of the fibre product. Hence if $`U`$ is a sufficiently small neighborhood of $`t_0\gamma ^1(S)`$, then for each $`t_0^{}\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(t_0)`$ there exists a connected component $`U^{}\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(U)`$ and a coordinate function $`t^{}`$ on $`U^{}`$, for which the map $`\pi ^{}:U^{}U`$ is given by

(7.3.2)
$$tt_0=\pi ^{}(t)=(t^{}t_0^{})^{\mu _0},\text{ for some }\mu _0\{0\}.$$

By 6.5, b), $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }(T_{}^m)`$ is contained in an invertible linebundle $`𝒩\gamma ^{}(𝒜^1)`$, where $`𝒩`$ is a sub-linebundel of the kernel of $`\gamma ^{}(\theta _{nm,m})`$. If

$$\theta _{nm,m}^{}:E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{nm,m}E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{nm1,m+1}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^{}^1(\mathrm{log}\pi ^{}(T))$$

denotes the Higgs structure on $`Y^{}`$, we have a commutative diagram

| $`\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{nm,m}`$ | $`\stackrel{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\theta _{nm,m}^{})}{}`$ | $`\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{nm1,m+1}\mathrm{\Omega }_{^{}}^1(\mathrm{log}S^{})`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\iota \right)`$ |  | $`\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\iota \right)\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ |
| $`\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^{}E^{nm,m}`$ | $`\stackrel{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^{}(\theta _{nm,m})}{}`$ | $`\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^{}E^{nm1,m+1}\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^1(\mathrm{log}S).`$ |

So $`\iota `$ induces an inclusion

$$\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{ker}(\gamma ^{}(\theta _{nm,m}))\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ker}(\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\theta _{nm,m}^{})),$$

hence there exists a sub-linebundle

$$𝒩^{}\mathrm{ker}(\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\theta _{nm,m}^{}))$$

with

(7.3.3)
$$\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }(T_{}^m)\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒩)\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\pi ^{}𝒜^1)𝒩^{}\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\pi ^{}𝒜^1).$$

As in , 1.1, using $`\theta _{nm,m}^{}(𝒩^{})=0`$ and P. Griffith’s estimates for the curvature of the Hodge metric (, chapter II) one obtains:

###### Lemma 7.4.

The curvature $`\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒩^{},h^{}|_𝒩^{})`$ of the restricted Hodge metric on $`𝒩^{}`$ is negative semi-definite on $`Y^{}T^{}`$.

The Hodge metric $`h`$ defines a metric $`hg_\alpha ^1`$ on $`E^{nm,m}𝒜^1|_{YST}.`$ By 6.5, a), $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }0`$ and since $`\gamma ()`$ is Zariski dense in $`Y`$ we may define a non-zero positive semi-definite Kähler form $`\sqrt{1}c(t)dtd\overline{t}`$ on $`\gamma ^1(S)`$ by choosing

$$c(t)=\stackrel{~}{\tau }((_t)^m)_{\gamma ^{}(hg_\alpha ^1)}^{\frac{2}{m}}.$$

###### Lemma 7.5.

Let $`\mu `$ denote the lowest common multiple of all the ramification orders of components of $`\pi ^{}(S)`$ over $`Y`$. Then there exists an effective divisor $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ on $``$ (i.e. a locally finite sum $`\beta _iP_i`$ with $`\beta _i0`$) and a linebundle $`𝒩^{(\mu )}`$ on $``$ with

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }(T_{}^m)^\mu 𝒪_{}(\mathrm{\Pi })=𝒩^{(\mu )}\gamma ^{}𝒜^\mu \text{ and }\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝒩^{(\mu )}=𝒩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }.$$

###### Proof.

By (7.3.3) $`\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }(T_{}^m)`$ is a subsheaf of $`𝒩^{}\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\pi ^{}𝒜^1)`$. Using the description of $`\pi ^{}`$ in (7.3.2), we choose for a given point $`t_0^{}\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\gamma ^1(S)`$ a small neighborhood $`U^{}`$ and some $`\rho `$ with

$$\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }(T_{}^m)|_U^{}𝒪_U^{}(\rho t_0^{})=𝒩^{}\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\pi ^{}𝒜^1)|_U^{}.$$

The number $`\frac{\rho }{\mu _0}`$ is determined by the monodromy of $`𝕍_0`$ around the component of $`S`$ containing $`\gamma (t_0)`$, hence it is independent of the point $`t_0^{}\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(t_0)`$. Since the ramification order $`\mu _0`$ in (7.3.2) divides $`\mu `$ we may choose $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ to be the effective divisor with $`\mathrm{\Pi }|_U=\frac{\rho \mu }{\mu _0}t_0`$ and

$$𝒩^{(\mu )}=\stackrel{~}{\tau }(T_{}^m)^\mu 𝒪_{}(\mathrm{\Pi })\gamma ^{}𝒜^\mu .$$

Outside of $`\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ the metrics $`\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$ and $`\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}h^\mu `$ on $`𝒩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$ coincide, hence $`\gamma ^{}h^\mu `$ extends to a metric $`h^{(\mu )}`$ on $`𝒩^{(\mu )}`$ and

$$c(t)=\stackrel{~}{\tau }((_t)^m)^\mu _{h^{(\mu )}\gamma ^{}g_\alpha ^\mu }^{\frac{2}{m\mu }}.$$

In particular $`\sqrt{1}c(t)dtd\overline{t}`$ defines a semi-definite Kähler form on $``$. The induced metric $`F`$ is a singular metric in the sense described in , 7.1, or , Section 2. The curvature current of $`T_{}`$ is then defined to be the closed (1,1)-current

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(T_{},F)=\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\pi }\overline{}\mathrm{log}c(t).$$

###### Lemma 7.6.

There exists some $`ϵ^{}>0`$ with

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(T_{},F)ϵ^{}\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜|_{YT},g_\alpha )$$

in the sense of currents.

###### Proof.

Let $`[\mathrm{\Pi }]`$ denote the current of integration over the divisor $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. As in , proof of 7.2, one defines a singular metric $`|s|^2`$ on sections of $`𝒪_{}(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ by taking the square of the modulus of $`s`$ viewed as a complex valued function. By the Lelong-Poincaré equation $`[\mathrm{\Pi }]`$ is the curvature current of this metric. One finds

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(T_{}^{m\mu },F^{m\mu })+\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜^\mu |_{YT},g_{\alpha \mu })+[\mathrm{\Pi }]=\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒩^{(\mu )},h^{(\mu )}).$$

By , section 2, the curvature current of a singular metric on a holomorphic linebundle on a complex manifold is compatible with pullback under holomorphic maps. Hence

$$\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒩^{(\mu )},h^{(\mu )})=\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu },h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu })=\mu \mathrm{\Theta }(𝒩^{},h^{}).$$

By 7.4 the latter is negative semi-definite, hence $`\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒩^{(\mu )},h^{(\mu )})0`$. Moreover, $`[\mathrm{\Pi }]0`$ in the sense of currents, hence

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(T_{},F)=\frac{1}{m\mu }\mathrm{\Theta }(T_{}^{m\mu },F^{m\mu })\frac{1}{m}\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜|_{YT},g_\alpha ).$$

###### Lemma 7.7.

For $`\alpha 1`$ there exists some $`ϵ>0`$ with

$$\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜|_{YT},g_\alpha )ϵ\sqrt{1}c(t)dtd\overline{t}.$$

###### Proof.

We will use the notations from 7.5, in particular the metric $`h^{(\mu )}`$ on $`𝒩^{(\mu )}`$. Recall that

$$c(t)=\stackrel{~}{\tau }((_t)^m)^\mu _{h^{(\mu )}\gamma ^{}g_\alpha ^\mu }^{\frac{2}{m\mu }},$$

and that by 7.3, for all $`\alpha >0`$

$$\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒜|_{YT},g_\alpha )\sqrt{1}\gamma ^{}r^2d\gamma (_t)_{\gamma ^{}\omega _\alpha }^2dtd\overline{t}.$$

Hence in order to show 7.7 it remains to verify that for $`\alpha 1,`$ there exists some $`ϵ>0`$ with

(7.7.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}\gamma ^{}r^2d\gamma (_t)_{\gamma ^{}\omega _\alpha }^2ϵ\gamma ^{}r^{\frac{\alpha }{m}}\stackrel{~}{\tau }((_t)^m)^\mu _{h^{(\mu )}\gamma ^{}g^\mu }^{\frac{2}{m\mu }}\hfill \\ \hfill =ϵ\stackrel{~}{\tau }((_t)^m)^\mu _{h^{(\mu )}\gamma ^{}g_\alpha ^\mu }^{\frac{2}{m\mu }}.\end{array}$$

Given a point $`pY`$ choose a small polydisk $`U`$ with coordinates $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$, in such a way that the divisors $`TU`$ and $`SU`$ are defined by the equation

$$z_1\mathrm{}z_k=0\text{ and }z_{k+1}\mathrm{}z_{k+k^{}}=0.$$

Let $`\pi :Y^{}Y`$ be the cover ramified along $`S+T`$ which we considered in (7.3.1). Choosing $`U`$ small enough, we may assume that the connected component $`U^{}\pi ^1(U)`$ are polydisks with coordinates $`\{w_1,\mathrm{},w_n\}`$, and that $`\pi `$ is defined by

$$\pi (w_1,\mathrm{},w_n)=(z_1^{\mu _1},\mathrm{},z_n^{\mu _n}).$$

Hence for $`S^{}=\pi ^{}(S)_{red},`$ and $`T^{}=\pi ^{}(T)_{red},`$ the restrictions to $`U^{}`$ are the zero sets of

$$w_1\mathrm{}w_k\text{ and }w_{k+1}\mathrm{}w_{k+k^{}},$$

respectively.

Consider as above the Higgs bundle $`E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p,q}`$ obtained from the canonical extension of $`𝕍_0^{}`$ along $`T^{}`$, and let $`\{e_1^{},e_2^{},\mathrm{}\}`$ be a basis for $`E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{nm,m}|_U^{}`$.

###### Claim 7.8.

For $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ sufficiently small, there exist some $`\beta ^{}1`$ and a real number $`c>0`$ with

$$h^{}(e_i^{}(w),e_j^{}(w))c((\mathrm{log}|w_1|)(\mathrm{log}|w_2|)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}|w_k|))^\beta ^{},$$

for all $`w=(w_1,\mathrm{},w_n)U^{}T^{}`$.

###### Proof.

By , 5.21, $`U_0^{}=U^{}T^{}`$ can be decomposed into

$$U_0^{}=U_{}^{}{}_{0,K}{}^{I},$$

where the open subset $`U_{0,K}^I`$ depends on the index of the filtration of the mixed Hodge structure (see Section 5.7 of ), and such that

$$h^{}(e_i^{}(w),e_i^{}(w))(\mathrm{log}|w_1|)^{l_1/2}(\mathrm{log}|w_2|)^{(l_2l_1)/2}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}|w_k|)^{(l_kl_{k1})/2},$$

for all $`wU_{}^{}{}_{0,K}{}^{I},`$ where $`(l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_k)`$ is the multi index of the weight filtration of the mixed Hodge structure. Since this index set is finite, there exist some $`\beta ^{}1`$ and some $`c>0`$ such that

$$h^{}(e_i^{}(w),e_i^{}(w))c((\mathrm{log}|w_1|)(\mathrm{log}|w_2|)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}|w_k|))^\beta ^{},$$

for all $`wU_{}^{}{}_{0,K}{}^{I}`$ and for all $`I`$. Hence

$$h^{}(e_i^{}(w),e_i^{}(w))c((\mathrm{log}|w_1|)(\mathrm{log}|w_2|)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}|w_k|))^\beta ^{},$$

for all $`wU^{}T^{}`$. By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we obtain

$$h^{}(e_i^{}(w),e_j^{}(w))c((\mathrm{log}|w_1|)(\mathrm{log}|w_2|)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}|w_k|))^\beta ^{},$$

for all $`wU^{}T^{}`$. ∎

$`Y`$ is compact, hence there is a finite covering $`\{U\}`$ of $`Y`$ such that for all $`U`$ and each of the finitely many connected components $`U^{}`$ of $`\pi ^1(U)`$, 7.8 holds true. We may even assume, that 7.8 remains true, for the same $`\beta ^{}`$, for all point in a small neighborhood of the closure $`\overline{U}^{}`$, not lying on $`T^{}`$.

We choose some $`\alpha 1`$ such that for all the open sets $`U^{}`$ and for the constant $`\beta ^{}`$ given by 7.8 one has

$$\alpha \beta ^{}+2m.$$

In order to prove (7.7.1) it is sufficient to show that on each $`U^{}`$ there is some $`ϵ>0`$ with

(7.8.1)
$$||\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}d\gamma (_t)|_{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(U^{})}||_{\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}\omega _\alpha }^2ϵ\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}(r^{\alpha /m+2})||\stackrel{~}{\tau }((_t)^m)|_{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(U^{})}||_{\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}(hg^1)}^{\frac{2}{m}}.$$

Let us return to the diagram (7.3.1). As in the beginning of this section, for each component $`T_i`$ of $`T`$ we consider $`_i=𝒪_Y(T_i)`$ with the hermitian metric $`g_i`$, and $`\pi ^{}L_i`$ with the pullback metric $`\pi ^{}g_i.`$ Let $`s_i`$ be a section of $`_i`$ with zero locus $`T_i`$, where we assume that $`s_i`$ has been rescaled as needed in 7.3 for the constant $`\alpha `$, chosen above.

For the section $`s_i^{}=\pi ^{}s_i`$ define

$$r_i^{}=\mathrm{log}s_i^{}_{\pi g_i}$$

and $`r^{}=r_1^{}\mathrm{}r_{\mathrm{}}^{}.`$ Obviously one has $`r_i^{}=\pi ^{}r_i`$ and $`r^{}=\pi ^{}r`$.
Proof of the inequality (7.8.1). Let $`\{\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{}\}`$ be an orthonormal basis for $`T_Y(\mathrm{log}T)|_U`$, with respect to $`\omega _\alpha `$. Then

$$\{\varphi _{i_1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{i_m};i_1\mathrm{}i_m\}$$

is an orthonormal basis for $`S^mT_Y(\mathrm{log}T)|_U`$ with respect to $`\omega _\alpha `$ and

$$\{\gamma ^{}(\varphi _{i_1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{i_m});i_1\mathrm{}i_m\}$$

is an orthonormal basis for $`\gamma ^{}S^mT_Y(\mathrm{log}T)|_{\gamma ^1U}`$ with respect to $`\gamma ^{}\omega _\alpha .`$ Then, using the morphisms in (7.3.1),

$$\{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^{}(\varphi _{i_1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{i_m});i_1\mathrm{}i_m\}$$

is an orthonormal basis for $`\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^{}S^mT_Y(\mathrm{log}T)|_{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}U^{}}`$ with respect to $`\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^{}\omega _\alpha .`$

For the map

(7.8.2)
$$d\gamma ^m:T_{}^m|_{\gamma ^1(U)}\gamma ^{}(S^mT_Y(\mathrm{log}T)|_U),$$

write

$$d\gamma ^m((_t)^m|_{\gamma ^1(U)})=c_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m}\gamma ^{}(\varphi _{i_1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{i_m}).$$

Then

$$||d\gamma (_t)|_{\gamma ^1(U)}||_{\gamma ^{}\omega _\alpha }^2=(|c_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m}|^2)^{1/m}.$$

Let

$$\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}d\gamma ^m:\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}T_{}^m|_{\gamma ^1(U)}\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}(S^mT_Y(\mathrm{log}T)|_U)$$

be the pullback of the morphism (7.8.2). By the commutativity of (7.3.1) one obtains

$$\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}d\gamma ^m((_t)^m)|_{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\pi ^1(U)}=\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(c_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m})\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^{}(\varphi _{i_1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{i_m})$$

and

$$||\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}d\gamma (_t)|_{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\pi ^1(U)}||_{\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}\omega _\alpha }^2=(\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}|c_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m}|^2)^{1/m}.$$

Next we consider the second map

$$\gamma ^{}\tau :\gamma ^{}(S^mT_Y(\mathrm{log}T)|_U)\gamma ^{}(E^{nm,m}𝒜^1|_U)$$

and its pullback

$$\begin{array}{c}\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}\tau :\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^{}(S^mT_Y(\mathrm{log}T)|_U)\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi ^{}(E^{nm,m}𝒜^1|_U)\hfill \\ \hfill \gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{nm,m}\pi ^{}𝒜^1|_U^{}).\end{array}$$

For the connected component $`U^{}`$ of $`\pi ^1(U)`$ let $`a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ be a local generator of $`\pi ^{}𝒜^1|_U^{}.`$ Then $`\{e_1^{}a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},e_2^{}a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},\mathrm{}\}`$ is a basis of $`E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{nm,m}\pi ^{}𝒜^1|_{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(U)}`$ and the morphism

$$\pi ^{}\tau :\pi ^{}S^mT_Y(\mathrm{log}T)|_U^{}E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{nm,m}\pi ^{}𝒜^1|_U^{}$$

is given by

$$\pi ^{}\tau (\pi ^{}(\varphi _{i_1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{i_m}))=b_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m}^je_j^{}a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}$$

and one finds

$$\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}\tau d\gamma ^m((_t)^m|_{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(U^{})})=\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(c_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m})\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(b_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m}^j)\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(e_j^{}a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}).$$

Since the metric $`\pi ^{}g^1`$ on $`\pi ^{}𝒜^1`$ is regular on $`U^{}`$ the claim 7.8 implies that

$$\begin{array}{c}|\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(h^{}\pi ^{}g^1)(\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(e_i^{}a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}),\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(e_j^{}a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}))|\hfill \\ \hfill c\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}((\mathrm{log}|w_1|)(\mathrm{log}|w_2|)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{log}|w_k|))^\beta ^{}.\end{array}$$

Here and later we allow ourselves to replace the constant $`c`$ by some larger constant, whenever it is needed.

For the ramification order $`\mu _i`$ of $`\pi `$ over $`T_i`$, and for some positive function $`d_i`$ on $`U^{}`$ one has

$$|w_i|=d_i||s_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{\frac{1}{\mu _i}}|_U^{}||_{\pi ^{}g_i}.$$

This description extends to the compactification $`\overline{U}^{}`$ of $`U^{}`$. Since $`\overline{U}^{}`$ is compact, $`d_i`$ is bounded away from zero, and one finds

$$|\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(h^{}\pi ^{}g^1)(\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(e_i^{}a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}),\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(e_j^{}a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}))|c\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta ^{}}=c\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}r^\beta ^{}.$$

On the compact set $`\overline{U}^{}`$ all $`b_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m}^j`$ are bounded above. Hence, all $`\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(b_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m}^j)`$ also are bounded above, and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality implies

(7.8.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}||\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }((_t)^m)|_{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(U^{})}||_{\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}(hg^1)}^2c\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}r^\beta ^{}\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}|c_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m}|^2\hfill \\ \hfill =c\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}r^\beta ^{}||\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}d\gamma (_t)|_{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(U^{})}||_{\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}\omega _\alpha }^{2m}.\end{array}$$

Since we assumed $`r1`$ and $`\alpha 2m\beta ^{}`$, the right hand side in (7.8.3) is smaller than

$$c\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}r^{\alpha 2m}||\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}d\gamma (_t)|_{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(U^{})}||_{\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}\omega _\alpha }^{2m},$$

hence, we obtain the inequality

$$||\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}d\gamma (_t)|_{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(U^{})}||_{\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}\omega _\alpha }^2\frac{1}{c}\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}(r^{\alpha /m+2})||\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }((_t)^m)|_{\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(U^{})}||_{\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\gamma ^{}(hg^1)}^{\frac{2}{m}}$$

as stated in (7.8.1). ∎

Proof of 4.4. It remains to contradict the existence of the ample sheaf $`𝒜`$ and of the Higgs bundles having the properties stated in 6.5. Those led to the estimates in this section.

Recall the Ahlfors-Schwarz-Lemma, as stated in 1.1.1 in  (see also lemma 3.2 in ):

###### Lemma 7.9.

Let $`c`$ be a realvalued nonnegative function on $``$ which locally is of the form $`\phi |f|^2`$, where $`\phi `$ is a local smooth positive function and $`f`$ is a local holomorphic function. Then there can not exists any positive number $`\rho `$ such that

$$_t_{\overline{t}}\mathrm{log}c(t)\rho c(t)$$

on $``$ in the sense of currents.

Using the inequalities obtained in 7.6 and 7.7 one has for suitable constants $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ^{}`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\pi }_t_{\overline{t}}\mathrm{log}c(t)dtd\overline{t}=\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\pi }\overline{}\mathrm{log}c(t)=\mathrm{\Theta }(T_{},F)\hfill \\ \hfill ϵ\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }(A_{YT},g_\alpha )ϵϵ^{}\sqrt{1}c(t)dtd\overline{t}\end{array}$$

in the sense of currents. Hence

$$_t_{\overline{t}}\mathrm{log}c(t)2\pi ϵϵ^{}c(t),$$

contradicting Lemma 7.9. ∎