format: text

text:
# Extremal elliptic surfaces & Infinitesimal Torelli

## 1. Introduction

An extremal elliptic surface over $``$ is an elliptic surface such that the rank of the Néron-Severi group equals $`h^{1,1}`$ and there are finitely many sections.

Their main application, until now, is in the classification of singular fibers on certain elliptic surfaces: Once a configuration of singular fibers on an extremal elliptic surface is known, one can construct from this configuration many other configurations of singular fibers on elliptic surfaces, where the genus of the base curve and the geometric and arithmetic genus of the surface remain fixed. In \[Sh\] these operations are called elementary transformations, and are, a priori, only valid for $`K3`$ surfaces. Actually, all elementary transformations are combinations of twisting and deformations of the $`J`$-map (terminology from \[Mi 1, VIII.2\] and \[Mi 2\]) and hence are valid for any elliptic surface.

The classification of singular fibers on a rational elliptic surface has been given more than 10 years ago (see \[Per\], \[Mi 2\], \[OS\]). Recently there has been given a classification of all singular fibers of elliptic $`K3`$ surfaces with a section (see \[Sh\]). From the classification of configurations of singular fibers on rational (see \[Mi 2\]) and $`K3`$ surfaces (see \[Sh\]) we know that any configuration can be obtained from an extremal configuration using elementary transformations.

In this paper we give a complete classification of extremal elliptic surfaces with constant $`j`$-invariant (Theorem 3.3). We use this classification to prove the following.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`\pi :X^1`$ be an elliptic surface without multiple fibers. Assume that $`p_g(X)>1`$. Then $`X`$ does not satisfy infinitesimal Torelli if and only if $`j(\pi )`$ is constant and $`\pi `$ is extremal.

Kiĭ (\[Kiĭ, Theorem 2\]) proved infinitesimal Torelli for elliptic surfaces without multiple fibers and non-constant $`j`$-invariant. Saitō (\[Sai\]) proved in a different way infinitesimal Torelli for elliptic surfaces without multiple fibers and $`j`$-invariant different from 0 and 1728.

For elliptic surfaces with non-constant $`j`$-invariant we will give the following structure theorem:

###### Theorem 1.2.

Suppose $`\pi :XC`$ is an elliptic surface without multiple fibers and non-constant $`j`$-invariant, then the following are equivalent:

1. $`\pi `$ is extremal
2. $`j(\pi )`$ is not ramified outside $`0,1728,\mathrm{}`$, the only possible ramification indices above $`0`$ are $`1,2,3`$ and above $`1728`$ are $`1,2`$, and $`\pi `$ has no fibers of type $`II,III,IV`$ or $`I_0^{}`$.
3. There exists an elliptic surface with $`\pi ^{}:X^{}C`$, with $`j(\pi ^{})=j(\pi )`$, the fibration $`\pi ^{}`$ has no fibers of type $`II^{},III^{}`$ or $`IV^{}`$, at most one fiber of type $`I_0^{}`$, and $`\pi ^{}`$ has precisely $`2p_g(X)+44g(C)`$ singular fibers.

We will give a similar theorem which includes the Mordell-Weil group. Let $`m,n_1`$ be such that $`m|n`$ and $`n>1`$. Let $`X_m(n)`$ be the modular curve parameterizing triples $`((E,O),P,Q)`$, such that $`(E,O)`$ is an elliptic curve, $`PE`$ is a point of order $`m`$ and $`QE`$ a point of order $`n`$.

If $`(m,n)\{(1,2),(2,2),(1,3),(1,4),(2,4)\}`$ then there exists a universal family for $`X_m(n)`$, which we denote by $`E_m(n)`$. Denote by $`j_{m,n}:X_m(n)^1`$ the map usually called $`j`$.

From the results of \[Shi 1, §4 & §5\] it follows that $`E_m(n)`$ is an extremal elliptic surface. The following theorem explains how to construct many examples of extremal elliptic surfaces with a given torsion group.

###### Theorem 1.3.

Fix $`m,n_1`$ such that $`m|n`$ and $`(m,n)\{(1,1),(1,2),(2,2),(1,3),(1,4),(2,4)\}`$. Let $`j(C)`$ be non-constant then there exists a unique elliptic surface $`\pi :XC`$, with $`j(\pi )=j`$ and $`MW(\pi )`$ has $`/n\times /m`$ as a subgroup if and only if $`j`$ is of $`(3,2)`$-type, not ramified outside $`0,1728,\mathrm{}`$ and $`j=j_{n,m}g`$ for some $`g:CX_m(n)`$.

The extremal elliptic surface with $`j(\pi )=j`$ and $`/n\times /m`$ is a subgroup of $`MW(\pi )`$ is the unique surface with only singular fibers of type $`I_\nu `$.

If $`\pi :X^1`$ is an extremal semi-stable rational elliptic surface then $`X`$ is determined by the configuration of singular fibers (see \[MP, Theorem 5.4\]). It seems that this quite particular for rational elliptic surfaces. If $`X`$ is a $`K3`$ surface a similar statement does not hold:

###### Theorem 1.4.

There exists pairs of extremal semi-stable elliptic $`K3`$ surfaces, $`\pi _i:X_i^1`$, $`(i=1,2)`$ such that $`MW(\pi _1)MW(\pi _2)`$, the configuration of singular fibers of the $`\pi _i`$ coincide and $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are non-isomorphic.

This gives a negative answer to \[ATZ, Question 0.2\]. The essential ingredient for the proof comes from \[SZ, Table 2\].

The paper is organized as follows:

Section 2 contains some definitions and several standard facts. In section 3 we give a list of extremal elliptic surfaces with constant $`j`$-invariant. They behave different from the non-constant ones. There are exactly 5 infinite families of extremal elliptic surfaces with constant $`j`$-invariant (3 of dimension 1, 1 of dimension 2 and 1 of dimension 3). In section 4 we explain this different behavior by proving Theorem 1.1. In section 5 we explain how twisting can reduce the problem of classification. In section 6 we link the ramification of the $`j`$-map and the number of singular fibers of a certain elliptic surface. This combined with the results of section 5 gives a proof of Theorem 1.2. In section 7 contains a proof of the version with the description of the group of sections (Theorem 1.3). In section 8 we prove Theorem 1.4. In section 9 we give a classification of extremal elliptic surfaces with $`g(C)=p_g(X)=q(X)=1`$. Section 10 contains a proof of the fact that for any positive $`k`$ there exist elliptic surfaces with only one singular fiber; the singular fiber has to be of type $`I_{12k}`$ or $`I_{12k6}^{}`$, and both occur.

## 2. Preliminaries and conventions

###### Assumption 2.1.

By a curve we mean a non-singular projective complex curve.

By a surface we mean a non-singular projective complex surface.

###### Definition 2.2.

An *elliptic surface* is a triple $`(\pi ,X,C)`$ with $`X`$ a surface, $`C`$ a curve, $`\pi `$ is a morphism $`XC`$, such that almost all fibers are irreducible genus 1 curves and $`X`$ is relatively minimal.

We denote by $`j(\pi ):C^1`$ the rational function such that $`j(\pi )(P)`$ equals the $`j`$-invariant of $`\pi ^1(P)`$, whenever $`\pi ^1(P)`$ is non-singular.

A *Jacobian elliptic surface* is an elliptic surface together with a section $`\sigma _0:CX`$ to $`\pi `$.

The set of sections of $`\pi `$ is an abelian group, with $`\sigma _0`$ as the identity element. Denote this group by $`MW(\pi )`$.

An *extremal elliptic surface* is an elliptic surface such that $`\rho (X)=h^{1,1}(X)`$ and $`MW(\pi )`$ is empty or finite.

Let $`𝕃`$ be the fundamental line bundle $`[R^1\pi _{}𝒪_X]^1`$.

###### Assumption 2.3.

All elliptic surface are without multiple fibers.

###### Remark 2.4.

To an elliptic surface $`\pi :XC`$ we can associate its Jacobian fibration $`Jac(\pi ):Jac(X)C`$. The Hodge numbers $`h^{p,q}`$, the Picard number $`\rho (X)`$, the type of singular fibers of $`\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)`$ are invariant under taking the Jacobian fibration.

###### Remark 2.5.

If $`P`$ is a point on $`C`$, such that $`\pi ^1(P)`$ is singular then $`j(\pi )(P)`$ behaves as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \\ \text{Kodaira type of fiber over }P& j(\pi )(P)\\ & \\ I_0^{}& \mathrm{}\\ I_\nu ,I_\nu ^{}(\nu >0)& \mathrm{}\\ II,IV,IV^{},II^{}& 0\\ III,III^{}& 1728\end{array}$$

###### Definition 2.6.

Let $`X`$ be a surface, let $`C`$ and $`C_1`$ be curves. Let $`\phi :XC`$ and $`f:C_1C`$ be two morphisms. Then we denote by $`X\times _CC_1`$ the smooth, relatively minimal model of the ordinary fiber product of $`X`$ and $`C_1`$.

We use the line bundle $`𝕃`$ only to simplify notation. Note that $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)=p_g(X)+1g(C)=p_a(X)+1`$. (See \[Mi 1, Lemma IV.1.1\].)

Recall the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.7 (Shioda (\[Shi 2, Theorem 1.3 & Corollary 5.3\])).

Let $`\pi :XC`$ be a Jacobian elliptic surface, such that $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)>0`$. Then the Néron-Severi group of $`X`$ is generated by the classes of $`\sigma _0(C)`$, a fiber, the components of the singular fibers not intersecting $`\sigma _0(C)`$, and the generators of the Mordell-Weil group. Moreover, let $`S`$ be the set of points such that $`\pi ^1(P)`$ is singular. Let $`m(P)`$ be the number of irreducible components of $`\pi ^1(P)`$, then

$$\rho (X):=\mathrm{rank}(NS(X))=2+\underset{PS}{}(m(P)1)+\mathrm{rank}(MW(\pi ))$$

###### Definition 2.8.

Suppose $`\pi :XC`$ is an elliptic fibration. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(Jac(\pi ))`$ the subgroup of the Néron-Severi group of $`Jac(\pi )`$ generated by the classes of the fiber, $`\sigma _0(C)`$ and the components of the singular fibers not intersecting $`\sigma _0(C)`$. Let $`\rho _{tr}(\pi )=\mathrm{rank}\mathrm{\Lambda }(Jac(\pi ))`$.

Note that if $`\pi :X^1`$ has $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)=0`$, then $`\rho _{tr}=2`$, although Theorem 2.7 does not apply.

###### Definition 2.9.

Let $`\pi :XC`$ be an elliptic surface, define

* $`a(\pi )`$ as the number of fibers of type $`II^{},III^{},IV^{}`$.
* $`b(\pi )`$ as the number of fibers of type $`II,III,IV`$.
* $`c(\pi )`$ as the number of fibers of type $`I_0^{}`$.
* $`d(\pi )`$ as the number of fibers of type $`I_\nu ^{}`$, with $`\nu >0`$.
* $`e(\pi )`$ as the number of fibers of type $`I_\nu `$, $`\nu >0`$.

###### Definition 2.10.

Let $`\pi :XC`$ be an elliptic surface. Let $`PC()`$. Define $`v_P(\mathrm{\Delta }_P)`$ as the valuation at $`P`$ of the minimal discriminant of the Kodaira-Néron model, which equals the topological Euler characteristic of $`\pi ^1(P)`$.

###### Proposition 2.11.

Let $`\pi :XC`$ be an elliptic surface. Then

$$\underset{PC()}{}v_P(\mathrm{\Delta }_P)=12\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)$$

###### Proof.

This follows from Noether’s formula (see \[Mi 1, III.4.4\]). ∎

###### Proposition 2.12.

For any elliptic surface $`\pi :XC`$, not a product, we have

$$h^{1,1}(X)\rho _{tr}(\pi )=2(a(\pi )+b(\pi )+c(\pi )+d(\pi ))+e(\pi )2\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)2+2g(C)$$

###### Proof.

Recall from \[Mi 1, Lemma IV.1.1\] that

$$h^{1,1}=10\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+2g(C).$$

From Kodaira’s classification of singular fibers and Proposition 2.11 it follows that

$$\rho _{tr}(\pi )=2+12\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)2(a(\pi )+b(\pi )+c(\pi )+d(\pi ))e(\pi ).$$

Combining these finishes the proof. ∎

###### Corollary 2.13.

Let $`\pi :XC`$ be an elliptic surface with constant $`j`$-invariant, not a product. Then $`\pi `$ is extremal if and only if $`\pi `$ has $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+1g(C)`$ singular fibers.

###### Proof.

If $`j`$ is constant then $`e(\pi )=d(\pi )=0`$.∎

## 3. Constant $`j`$-invariant

In this section we give a list of all extremal elliptic surfaces with constant $`j`$-invariant.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Suppose $`\pi :XC`$ is an extremal elliptic surface such that $`j(\pi )`$ is constant. Then $`g(C)1`$.

###### Proof.

If $`j(\pi )`$ is constant $`v_P(\mathrm{\Delta }_P)10`$, for every point $`P`$. From this it follows from Proposition 2.11 and Corollary 2.13 that

$$12\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)=\underset{P|\pi ^1(P)\text{ singular}}{}v_P(\mathrm{\Delta }_p)10(\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+1g(C)).$$

From this it follows that $`g(C)1`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.2.

Suppose $`\pi :XC`$ is an extremal elliptic surface such that $`j(\pi )`$ is constant. Then one of the following occurs

1. $`g(C)=1`$; $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)=0`$ and $`X`$ is a hyperelliptic surface.
2. $`g(C)=0`$; $`j(\pi )0,1728`$; $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)=1`$.
3. $`g(C)=0`$; $`j(\pi )=0`$; $`1\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)5`$.
4. $`g(C)=0`$; $`j(\pi )=1728`$; $`1\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)3`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`g(C)=1`$. Then $`\pi `$ has $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)`$ singular fibers so

$$12\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)=v_P(\mathrm{\Delta }_P)10\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)$$

from which it follows that $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)=0`$, so $`X`$ is a hyperelliptic surface.

Suppose $`g(C)=0`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)=0`$ then $`\pi `$ is birational to a projection from a product, so by definition $`\pi `$ is not extremal.

Suppose $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)>0`$. Assume $`j(\pi )0,1728`$. Then all singular fibers are of type $`I_0^{}`$. Since the Euler characteristic of such a fiber is 6, Proposition 2.11 implies that there are exactly $`2\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)`$ singular fibers. Applying Corollary 2.13 gives

$$2\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)=\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+1$$

From this we know $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)=1`$.

Assume $`j(\pi )=1728`$ then all singular fibers are of type $`III,I_0^{},III^{}`$. From this it follows that $`v_P(\mathrm{\Delta }_P)9`$. By Proposition 2.11 and Proposition 2.12

$$12\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)9(a(\pi )+b(\pi )+c(\pi ))=9\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+9$$

so $`1\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)3`$.

Assume $`j(\pi )=0`$ then similarly we obtain $`1\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)5`$. ∎

###### Theorem 3.3.

Suppose $`\pi :XC`$ is an elliptic surface with $`j(\pi )`$ constant.

Then $`\pi `$ is extremal if and only if either $`C`$ is a curve of genus 1 and $`Jac(X)`$ is a hyperelliptic surface or $`C^1`$ and $`Jac(\pi )`$ has a model isomorphic to one of the following:

* $`(j(\pi )=0)y^2=x^3+f(t)`$ where $`f(t)`$ comes from the following table (the left hand side indicates the positions of the singular fibers)

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & & & & \\ II& IV& I_0^{}& IV^{}& II^{}& p_g& f(t)\hfill \\ & & & & & & \\ 0& & & & \mathrm{}& 0& t\hfill \\ & 0& & \mathrm{}& & 0& t^2\hfill \\ & & 0,\mathrm{}& & & 0& t^3\hfill \\ & 1& & & 0,\mathrm{}& 1& t^5(t1)^2\hfill \\ & & 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& t^4(t1)^3\hfill \\ & & & 0,1,\mathrm{}& & 1& t^4(t1)^4\hfill \\ & & \alpha & & 0,1,\mathrm{}& 2& t^5(t1)^5(t\alpha )^3\hfill \\ & & & \alpha ,1& 0,\mathrm{}& 2& t^5(t1)^4(t\alpha )^4\hfill \\ & & & \beta & \alpha ,0,1,\mathrm{}& 3& t^5(t1)^5(t\alpha )^5(t\beta )^4\hfill \\ & & & & 0,1,\mathrm{},\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma & 4& t^5(t1)^5(t\alpha )^5(t\beta )^5(t\gamma )^5\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \{0,1\}`$, pairwise distinct.
* $`(j(\pi )=1728)y^2=x^3+g(t)x`$ where $`g(t)`$ comes from the following table

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ III& I_0^{}& III^{}& p_g& g(t)\hfill \\ & & & & \\ 0& & \mathrm{}& 0& t\hfill \\ & 0,\mathrm{}& & 0& t^2\hfill \\ & 1& 0,\mathrm{}& 1& t^3(t1)^2\hfill \\ & & 0,1,\mathrm{},\alpha & 2& t^3(t1)^3(t\alpha )^3\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\alpha 0,1`$.
* $`(j(\pi )1728)y^2=x^3+at^2x+t^3`$, with singular fibers of type $`I_0^{}`$ at $`t=0`$ and $`t=\mathrm{}`$

###### Proof.

The above list follows directly from Corollary 2.13 and Lemma 3.2. Since all cases are very similar, we discuss only the case $`j(\pi )=0`$ and $`p_g=2`$. In this case $`Jac(\pi )`$ has a model isomorphic to

$$y^2=x^3+f(t)$$

with $`f`$ a polynomial such that $`13\mathrm{deg}(f)18`$, and $`v_P(f)5`$ for all finite $`P`$. At all zeros of $`f`$ there is a singular fiber. If $`\mathrm{deg}(f)<18`$ then the fiber over $`t=\mathrm{}`$ is also singular.

If $`\pi `$ is extremal then from Corollary 2.13 it follows that $`\pi `$ has exactly 4 singular fibers. Assume that the fibers with the highest Euler characteristic are over $`t=\mathrm{},0,1`$. Since $`5+5+5+3=5+5+4+4`$ are the only two ways of writing 18 as a sum of four positive integers smaller then 6, we obtain that after applying an isomorphism, if necessary, $`f`$ equals either

$$t^5(t1)^5(t\alpha )^3\text{ or }t^5(t1)^4(t\alpha )^4.$$

###### Remark 3.4.

Note that all extremal elliptic surfaces with constant $`j`$-invariant and $`p_g(X)>1`$ have moduli.

## 4. Infinitesimal Torelli

In the previous section we gave examples of families of elliptic surfaces with maximal picard number. In this section we prove that these surfaces are counterexamples to infinitesimal Torelli. Moreover we give a complete solution for infinitesimal Torelli for elliptic surfaces (with a section) over $`^1`$.

Suppose $`X`$ is a smooth complex algebraic variety. Then the first order deformations of $`X`$ are parameterized by $`H^1(X,\mathrm{\Theta }_X)`$, with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_X`$ the tangent bundle of $`X`$. The isomorphism $`H^{p,q}(X)=H^q(X,\mathrm{\Omega }^p)`$ and the contraction map $`\mathrm{\Theta }_X_{𝒪_X}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{p1}`$ give a cup product map:

$$H^1(X,\mathrm{\Theta }_X)H^{p,q}(X)H^{p1,q+1}(X).$$

and from this one obtains the infinitesimal period map

$$\delta _k:H^1(X,\mathrm{\Theta }_X)_{p+q=k}\mathrm{Hom}(H^{p,q}(X),H^{p1,q+1}(X)).$$

The (holomorphic) map $`\delta _k`$ is closely related to the period map. Assume that $`\phi :𝒳`$ is a proper, smooth, surjective holomorphic map between complex manifolds with connected fibers, and that for all $`t`$ the vector space $`H^k(X_t,)`$ carries a Hodge structure of weight $`k`$, with $`X_t:=\phi ^1(t)`$. Fix a point $`0`$. Let $`U`$ be a small simply connected open neighborhood of $`0`$, such that the Kodaira-Spencer at the point $`0`$ is injective. Define

$$𝒫^{p,k}:UGrass(\underset{ip}{}h^{i,ki},H^k(X_0))$$

by sending $`t`$ to $`(_{ip}H^{i,ki}(X_t))H^k(X_0,)`$, via the identification $`H^k(X_0,)H^k(X_t,)`$. (Note that $`U`$ is simply connected.) Then the differential of $`_d𝒫^{p,k}`$ is injective if and only if $`\delta _k`$ is injective. (See \[Sai, Section 2\] or \[Voi, Chapter 10\].)

We say that $`X`$ satisfies infinitesimal Torelli if and only if $`\delta _{dim(X)}`$ is injective. Note that if $`X`$ is an elliptic surface with a section and base $`^1`$ then $`\delta _k`$, for $`kdimX`$ is the zero-map.

If $`X`$ is a rational surface, then there is no variation of Hodge structures. If $`X`$ is a $`K3`$ surface, then infinitesimal Torelli follows from \[PSS\]. This section will focus on the case $`p_g(X)>1`$.

There is an easy sufficient condition of Kiĭ(\[Kiĭ\]), Lieberman, Peters and Wilsker (\[LPW\]) for checking infinitesimal Torelli for manifolds with divisible canonical bundle. The following result is a direct consequence of \[LPW, Theorem 1’\].

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler $`n`$-manifold, with $`p_g(X)>1`$. Let $``$ be a line bundle such that

1. $`^k=\mathrm{\Omega }_X^n`$ for some $`k>0`$.
2. the linear system corresponding to $``$ has no fixed components of codimension 1.
3. $`H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{n1})=0.`$

Then $`\delta _n`$ is injective.

We want to apply the above theorem, when $`X`$ is an elliptic surface and $`=𝒪_X(F)`$.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`\pi :X^1`$ be an elliptic surface. Assume that $`X`$ is not birational to a product $`C\times ^1`$. Then for $`n>0`$

$$dimH^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }^1(nF))=\{\begin{array}{cc}n1\hfill & \text{if }j(\pi )\text{ is not constant}\hfill \\ n1+\mathrm{max}(0,n+d+1)\hfill & \text{if }j(\pi )\text{ is constant,}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`d=\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)\mathrm{\#}\{PC()\pi ^1(P)\text{ singular }\}`$.

###### Proof.

By \[Sai, Prop. 4.4 (I)\] we know that $`\pi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1\mathrm{\Omega }_^1^1`$ if $`j(\pi )`$ is not constant, which gives the first case.

If $`j(\pi )`$ is constant then we have the following exact sequence (by \[Sai, Prop. 4.4 (II)\]):

$$0\mathrm{\Omega }_^1^1\pi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1𝒪_^1(d)0.$$

Tensoring with $`𝒪_^1(n)`$ gives

$$dimH^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(nF))=dimH^0(^1,\mathrm{\Omega }_^1^1(n))+dimH^0(^1,𝒪_^1(n+d))=n1+\mathrm{max}(0,n+d+1),$$

using that $`dimH^1(^1,\mathrm{\Omega }_^1^1(n))=0`$. ∎

###### Corollary 4.3.

Suppose $`\pi :X^1`$ is an elliptic surface (cf. Assumption 2.3), such that $`p_g(X)>1`$. Suppose that $`j(\pi )`$ is non-constant or $`\pi `$ is not extremal then $`X`$ satisfies infinitesimal Torelli.

###### Proof.

Let $`F`$ be a smooth fiber of $`\pi `$. Note that $`𝒪(F)^{(p_g(X)1)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2`$ (see \[Shi 2, Theorem 2.8\]) and $`|F|`$ is the elliptic fibration, hence without base-points.

We claim that $`dimH^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }^1(F))=0`$. Suppose if this is not the case then by Lemma 4.2 $`j(\pi )`$ is constant and $`\pi `$ has at most $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+1`$ singular fibers. From Lemma 2.13 it follows that $`j(\pi )`$ is extremal.

Apply now Theorem 4.1 with $`=𝒪(F)`$. ∎

###### Proposition 4.4.

Let $`\phi :𝒳`$ be a family of surfaces with $`p_g(X_0)>0`$, and such that for all $`t`$ the set $`\{t^{}X_tX_t^{}\}`$ is zero dimensional. Let $`r`$ be the Picard number of a generic member of the family $`\phi `$. Suppose that if $`p_g(X_0)>1`$ and

$$dim\frac{1}{2}p_g(X)(h^{1,1}r).$$

or $`p_g(X_0)=1`$ and

$$dim(h^{1,1}r).$$

Then for all $`t`$, the surface $`X_t`$ does not satisfy infinitesimal Torelli.

###### Corollary 4.5.

Let $`\psi :𝒳`$ be a non-tivial family of surfaces such that $`\rho (X_t)=h^{1,1}(X_t)`$ for all $`t`$. Then $`X_t`$ does not satisfy infinitesimal Torelli.

###### Corollary 4.6.

Let $`\pi :X^1`$ be an extremal elliptic surface with constant $`j`$-invariant and $`p_g(X)>1`$. Then $`X`$ does not satisfy infinitesimal Torelli.

###### Proof.

From Remark 3.4 it follows that $`X`$ is a member of positive dimensional family of surfaces with $`r=h^{1,1}(X_0)`$. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 4.4.

Fix a base point $`0`$ and let $`X`$ be isomorphic to the fiber over $`0`$. For any $`t`$ denote by $`X_t`$ the fiber over $`t`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a lattice of rank $`r`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NS(X_0)`$, and we can fix the identification of Hodge structures $`H^2(X_0,)H^2(X_t,)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NS(X_t)`$.

Let $`T(X_t)`$ be the orthogonal complement of the image of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`H^2(X_t,)`$. Then $`T(X_t)`$ carries a sub-Hodge structure, and we consider variation of this Hodge structure. (cf. \[vGT, Section 6\]). Since the variation of the Hodge structure on $`H^2(X,)`$ is determined by the variation of the sub-Hodge structures $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`T`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ remains of pure type $`(1,1)`$ we have the following diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}𝒳& & 𝒳_k& & \\ & & & & \\ & \stackrel{\psi }{}& _k& & \\ & & \rho & & \\ & & H^1(X_0,\mathrm{\Theta }_{X_0})& \stackrel{\delta _2}{}& \mathrm{Hom}(H^{2,0}(X_0),H^{1,1}(X_0))\mathrm{Hom}(H^{1,1}(X_0),H^{0,2}(X_0))\\ & & & & \\ & & Im(\rho \psi )& & \mathrm{Hom}(T^{2,0}(X_0),T^{1,1}(X_0))\mathrm{Hom}(T^{1,1}(X_0),T^{0,2}(X_0)),\end{array}$$

with $`𝒳_k`$ the Kuranishi family of $`X_0`$ and $`_k`$ its base.

From this diagram one deduces $`dimIm(\rho \psi )2(h^{1,1}r)h^{2,0}`$. Using Serre duality and a result of Griffiths one can show (cf. \[vGT, §6\]) that $`Im(\rho \psi )`$ has dimension at most $`\frac{1}{2}(h^{1,1}r)h^{2,0}`$, if $`h^{2,0}>1`$ and $`Im(\rho \psi )`$ has dimension at most $`h^{1,1}r`$ if $`h^{2,0}=1`$. ∎

###### Remark 4.7.

The referee pointed out that the factorization

$$\mathrm{Hom}(T^{2,0}(X_0),T^{1,1}(X_0))\mathrm{Hom}(H^{2,0}(X_0),H^{1,1}(X_0))$$

can be proven as follows.

Let $`tB_k`$ be a direction contained for which the image of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ remain divisors. Then the kernel of cup product with $`t`$ consists of the classes of type $`(1,1)`$ infinitesimally fixed in that direction.

###### Theorem 4.8.

Let $`\pi :X^1`$ be an elliptic surface (cf. Assumption 2.3). Assume that $`p_g(X)>1`$. Then $`X`$ does not satisfy infinitesimal Torelli if and only if $`j(\pi )`$ is constant and $`\pi `$ is extremal.

###### Proof.

Combine Corollary 4.3 and Corollary 4.6. ∎

###### Remark 4.9.

Note that the hyperelliptic surfaces form a family of elliptic surfaces with $`p_g(X)=0`$, so they do not satisfy infinitesimal Torelli.

###### Remark 4.10.

Chakiris (\[Cha, §4\]) gave different formulae for $`dimH^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }^1(nF))`$. He uses them to deduce a formula for $`dimH^1(X,\mathrm{\Theta }_X)`$, which he uses to prove that generic global Torelli holds. Even with the use of these incorrect formulae his proof of generic global Torelli seems to remain valid, after a small modification. His formulae would imply that infinitesimal Torelli holds for any elliptic surface with a section. The same erroneous formulae leads Beauville (\[Beau 2, p. 13\]) to state in a survey paper on Torelli problems that infinitesimal Torelli holds for arbitrary elliptic surface with a section. Theorem 4.8 shows instead that this is true under the condition that $`j(\pi )`$ is not constant or $`\pi `$ is not extremal.

The argument used to prove that several elliptic surfaces satisfy infinitesimal Torelli, relies heavily on $`C=^1`$. Saitō proved using other techniques that if $`\pi :XC`$ is an elliptic surface with non-constant $`j`$-invariant then $`X`$ satisfy infinitesimal Torelli. We consider now the case that the $`j`$-invariant is constant and we try to find surfaces for which infinitesimal Torelli does not hold.

###### Lemma 4.11.

Let $`\phi :𝒳`$ be a family of elliptic surfaces with $`p_g(X_0)>1`$, constant $`j`$-invariant and $`s`$ singular fibers. Let $`g(C)`$ be the genus of the base curve of a generic member of this family. Suppose that for all $`t`$ we have that $`\{t^{}X_tX_t^{}\}`$ is zero-dimensional and

$$dim>(s\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+g(C)1)h^{2,0}.$$

Then for all $`t`$, $`X_t`$ does not satisfy infinitesimal Torelli.

###### Proof.

Note that $`\rho (X_t)\rho _{tr}(\pi )`$ for all $`t`$ and

$$h^{1,1}(X)\rho _{tr}(\pi )=2s2\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)2+2g(C).$$

Apply now Proposition 4.4. ∎

###### Example 4.12.

Let $`\psi :𝒳`$ be a maximal-dimensional family of elliptic surfaces with $`2\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)`$ singular fibers of type $`I_0^{}`$. Then $`dim=3g3+2\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+1`$.

We have that $`h^{2,0}>1`$ and

$$dim>(s\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+g(C)1)h^{2,0}$$

holds if and only if $`h^{2,0}=2,g(C)\{1,2,3\}`$ or $`h^{2,0}=3,g(C)=4`$. In all these cases any member of the family $`\psi `$ is a counterexample to Infinitesimal Torelli.

###### Example 4.13.

Let $`\psi :𝒳`$ be a maximal family of elliptic surfaces with $`j`$-invariant 0 or 1728 and $`s`$ singular fibers. Then $`dim=3g3+s`$.

Using $`h^{2,0}=\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+g(C)1`$, we obtain that

$$dim>(s\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+g(C)1)h^{2,0}$$

holds if and only if

$$s<\frac{\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)^2g(C)^2+5g(C)4)}{\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+g(C)2}.$$

From Noether’s condition, the smallest $`s`$ that is possible is $`\frac{6}{5}\mathrm{deg}𝕃`$. From this one deduces

$$\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)<3g(C)+6+\sqrt{4g(C)^211g(C)+16}.$$

All combinations of $`g(X)`$ and $`p_g(X)`$ satisfying the above conditions are mentioned in the table below. There $`s_{max}`$ denotes the maximum number of singular fibers such that the maximal family with $`s_{max}`$ singular fibers has $`dim()`$ is larger then the upper bound for the dimension of the period domain. The columns with $`[6/5\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)]`$ and $`[4/3\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)]`$ denote the minimal number of singular fibers for an elliptic surface with $`j`$-invariant 0 or 1728, whenever this is smaller then $`s_{max}`$.

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}& & & & & \\ g(C)& p_g(X)& \mathrm{deg}(𝕃)& s_{max}& [6/5\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)]& [4/3\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)]\\ & & & & & \\ 1& 2& 2& 3& 3& 3\\ 1& 3& 3& 4& 4& 4\\ 1& 4& 4& 5& 5& \\ 1& 5& 5& 6& 6& \\ 2& 2& 1& 2& 2& 2\end{array}$$

## 5. Twisting

In this section we study the behavior of $`h^{1,1}(X)\rho _{tr}(X)`$ under twisting, when $`X`$ is a Jacobian elliptic surface.

To a Jacobian elliptic surface $`\pi :XC`$, we can associate an elliptic curve in $`_{(C)}^2`$ corresponding to the generic fiber of $`\pi `$. Denote this elliptic curve by $`E_1`$. Vice versa to an elliptic curve $`E^{}/(C)`$ we can associate an elliptic surface $`\pi ^{}:X^{}C`$.

Let $`\pi _i:X_iC,i=1,2`$ be two Jacobian elliptic surfaces, such that $`j(\pi _i)0,1728`$. Then there exists an isomorphism $`\phi :X_1X_2`$ such that $`\pi _2\phi =\pi _1`$ if and only if the associated elliptic curves $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are isomorphic over $`(C)`$.

The last statement is equivalent to $`j(E_1)=j(E_2)`$ and the quotients of the minimal discriminants of $`E_1/(C)`$ and $`E_2/(C)`$ is a 12-th power (in $`(C)^{}`$).

If $`j(E_1)=j(E_2)`$ then under our assumptions the quotient of the minimal discriminants is a 6-th power, say $`u^6`$. From this it follows that $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are isomorphic over $`(C)(\sqrt{u})`$. We call $`E_2`$ the twist of $`E_1`$ by $`u`$ and denote this by $`E_1^{(u)}`$. Actually, we are not interested in the function $`u`$, but in the places at which the valuation of $`u`$ is odd.

###### Definition 5.1.

Let $`\pi :XC`$ be a Jacobian elliptic surface. Fix $`2n`$ points $`P_iC()`$. Let $`E/(C)`$ be the Weierstrass model of the generic fiber of $`\pi `$.

A Jacobian elliptic surface $`\pi ^{}:X^{}C`$ is called a *quadratic twist* of $`\pi `$ by $`(P_1,\mathrm{},P_n)`$ if the Weierstrass model of the generic fiber of $`\pi ^{}`$ is isomorphic to $`E^{(f)}`$, where $`E^{(f)}`$ denotes the quadratic twist of $`E`$ by $`f`$ in the above mentioned sense and $`f(C)`$ is a function such that $`v_{P_i}(f)1mod2`$ and $`v_Q(f)0mod2`$ for all $`Q\{P_i\}`$.

A *\*-minimal twist* of $`\pi `$ is a twist $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{X}C`$ such that none of the fibers are of type $`II^{},III^{},IV^{}`$ or $`I_\nu ^{}`$ and at most 1 fiber is of type $`I_0^{}`$.

The existence of the twist follows easily from the fact that $`Pic^0(C)`$ is divisible. If $`g(C)>0`$ and we fix $`2n`$ points $`P_1,\mathrm{}P_{2n}`$ then there exist $`2^{2g(C)}`$ twists by $`(P_1,\mathrm{},P_{2n})`$.

Note that a \*-minimal twist is a twist for which $`p_g(X)`$ (and $`p_a(X)`$) is minimal. Later on we will introduce another notion of minimality: the twist for which $`h^{1,1}(X)\rho _{tr}(\pi )`$ is minimal.

A \*-minimal twist of an elliptic curve need not be unique, but the configuration of the singular fibers of any two \*-minimal twists of the same surface are equal.

If $`P`$ is one of the $`2n`$ distinguished points, then the fiber of $`P`$ changes in the following way (see \[Mi 1, V.4\]).

$$I_\nu I_\nu ^{}(\nu 0)IIIV^{}IIIIII^{}IVII^{}$$

###### Lemma 5.2.

Let $`\pi :XC`$ be a Jacobian elliptic surface. Let $`P_iC()`$ be $`2n`$ points. Let $`\pi ^{}:X^{}C`$ be a twist by $`(P_i)`$. Then

$$h^{1,1}(X^{})\rho _{tr}(\pi ^{})=h^{1,1}(X)\rho _{tr}(\pi )+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}c_{P_i}$$

with

$$c_{P_i}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& \text{if }\pi ^1(P_i)\text{ is of type }I_0,IV^{},III^{}\text{ or }II^{}\text{,}\hfill \\ 0& \text{if }\pi ^1(P_i)\text{ is of type }I_\nu \text{ or }I_\nu ^{}\text{, with }\nu >0\text{,}\hfill \\ 1& \text{if }\pi ^1(P_i)\text{ is of type }II,III,IV,\text{ or }I_0^{}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Suppose $`\pi ^1(P_i)`$ is of type $`I_0`$. Then $`\pi ^1(P_i)`$ is of type $`I_0^{}`$. The Euler characteristic of this fiber is 6, so this point causes $`h^{1,1}`$ to increase by 5. An $`I_0^{}`$ fiber has 4 components not intersecting the zero-section. Hence $`\rho _{tr}`$ increases by 4.

The other fiber types can be done similarly. ∎

###### Lemma 5.3.

Given a Jacobian elliptic surface $`\pi :XC`$ with non-constant $`j`$-invariant. There exist finitely many twists $`\pi ^{}`$ of $`\pi `$ such that the non-negative integer $`h^{1,1}\rho _{tr}`$ is minimal under twisting. These twists are characterized by $`b(\pi ^{})=c(\pi ^{})=0`$.

###### Proof.

It is easy to see that there are at most finitely many twists with $`c(\pi ^{})=0`$. Hence it suffices to show that $`b(\pi ^{})=c(\pi ^{})=0`$ if $`h^{1,1}(X^{})\rho _{tr}(\pi ^{})`$ is minimal under twisting. From Lemma 5.2 it follows that it suffices to show that for any elliptic surface there exists a twist with $`b(\pi ^{})=c(\pi ^{})=0`$.

Consider a \*-minimal twist $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{X}C`$. Note that $`e(\stackrel{~}{\pi })>0`$ (otherwise the $`j`$-invariant would be constant.)

Suppose $`b(\stackrel{~}{\pi })+c(\stackrel{~}{\pi })`$ is even. Twist by all points with a fiber of type $`II,III,IV,I_0^{}`$. The new elliptic surface has $`b=c=d=0`$.

Suppose $`b(\stackrel{~}{\pi })+c(\stackrel{~}{\pi })`$ is odd. Twist by all points with a fibers of type $`II,III,IV,I_0^{}`$ and one point with a fiber of type $`I_\nu `$. The new elliptic surface has $`b=c=0,d=1`$. ∎

###### Remark 5.4.

The classification (in \[SZ\]) of extremal $`K3`$ surfaces is a classification of the root lattices corresponding to the singular fibers. In general one cannot decide which singular fibers correspond to these lattices, since each of the pairs $`(I_1,II)`$, $`(I_2,III)`$ and $`(I_3,IV)`$ give rise to the same lattice ($`A_0`$,$`A_1`$, $`A_2`$). From the lemma above it follows that this is not a problem when $`\pi `$ is extremal.

###### Proposition 5.5.

Let $`\pi _1:X_1C`$ be an elliptic surface with $`j(\pi _1)`$ non-constant. Let $`\pi :XC`$ be a \*-minimal twist of $`Jac(\pi _1)`$ with associated line bundle $`𝕃`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{X}C`$ be a twist for which $`h^{1,1}\rho _{tr}`$ is minimal. Then

$$h^{1,1}(\stackrel{~}{X})\rho _{tr}(\stackrel{~}{X})=2g(C)2\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)2+\mathrm{\#}\{\text{singular fibers for }\pi \}.$$

###### Proof.

From Proposition 2.12 and the Lemmas 5.3 and 5.2 we have $`\mathrm{deg}(\stackrel{~}{𝕃})=\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+(d(\stackrel{~}{\pi })+a(\stackrel{~}{\pi })c(\pi ))/2`$, $`d(\stackrel{~}{\pi })+e(\stackrel{~}{\pi })=e(\pi )`$, $`a(\stackrel{~}{\pi })=b(\pi )`$. This yields

$`h^{1,1}(\stackrel{~}{X})\rho _{tr}(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ $`=`$ $`2g(C)2\mathrm{deg}(\stackrel{~}{𝕃})2+2(a(\stackrel{~}{\pi })+d(\stackrel{~}{\pi }))+e(\stackrel{~}{\pi })`$
$`=`$ $`2g(C)2\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)2+b(\pi )+c(\pi )+e(\pi ).`$
Finally note that $`a(\pi )=d(\pi )=0`$. ∎

###### Corollary 5.6.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{X}C`$ be an elliptic surface with $`j(\pi )`$ non-constant, then $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is extremal if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ has no fibers of type $`II,III,IV`$ or $`I_0^{}`$ and the \*-minimal twist of its Jacobian $`\pi :XC`$ has $`2\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+22g(C)`$ singular fibers.

## 6. Configurations of singular fibers

In order to apply the results of the previous section, we need to know which elliptic surfaces have a minimal twist with $`2\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+22g(C)`$ singular fibers.

We need the following definition:

###### Definition 6.1.

A function $`f:C^1`$ is called of $`(3,2)`$-type if the ramification indices of the points in the fiber of $`0`$ are at most $`3`$, and in the fiber of $`1728`$ are at most $`2`$.

For the connection between functions of $`(3,2)`$-type and certain subgroups of $`SL_2()`$ see \[Beau 1\].

###### Proposition 6.2.

Let $`\pi :XC`$ be an elliptic surface with $`j(\pi )`$ non-constant, such that $`\pi `$ is a \*-minimal twist. Then $`j(\pi )`$ is of $`(3,2)`$-type and not ramified outside $`0,1728,\mathrm{}`$ if and only if there are $`2\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+22g(C)`$ singular fibers.

###### Proof.

Denote by

* $`n_2`$ the number of fibers of $`\pi `$ of type $`II`$.
* $`n_3`$ the number of fibers of $`\pi `$ of type $`III`$.
* $`n_4`$ the number of fibers of $`\pi `$ of type $`IV`$.
* $`n_6`$ the number of fibers of $`\pi `$ of type $`I_0^{}`$.
* $`m_\nu `$ the number of fibers of $`\pi `$ of type $`I_\nu `$. ($`\nu >0`$.)

Let $`r=\nu m_\nu `$.

The ramification of $`j(\pi )`$ is as follows (using \[Mi 1, Lemma IV.4.1\]).

Above $`0`$ we have $`n_2`$ points with ramification index 1 modulo 3, we have $`n_4`$ point with index 2 modulo 3 and at most $`(rn_22n_4)/3`$ points with index 0 modulo 3. In total, we have at most $`n_2+n_4+(rn_22n_4)/3`$ points in $`j(\pi )^1(0)`$.

Above $`1728`$ we have $`n_3`$ points with index 1 modulo 2 and at most $`(rn_3)/2`$ points with index 0 modulo 2. So $`j(\pi )^1(1728)`$ has at most $`n_3+(rn_3)/2`$ points.

Above $`\mathrm{}`$ we have $`m_\nu `$ points.

Collecting the above gives

$$\mathrm{\#}j(\pi )^1(0)+\mathrm{\#}j(\pi )^1(1728)+\mathrm{\#}j(\pi )^1(\mathrm{})2/3n_2+1/2n_3+1/3n_4+5/6r+m_\nu $$

with equality if and only if $`j(\pi )`$ is of $`(3,2)`$-type.

Hurwitz’ formula implies that

$$r+22g(C)\mathrm{\#}j(\pi )^1(0)+\mathrm{\#}j(\pi )^1(1728)+\mathrm{\#}j(\pi )^1(\mathrm{})$$

with equality if and only if there is no ramification outside $`0,1728`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$.

So

$$r12g(C)12+4n_2+3n_3+2n_4+6m_\nu $$

and by Proposition 2.11

$$in_i+r=12\mathrm{deg}(𝕃).$$

Substituting gives

$$2\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+22g(C)n_2+n_3+n_4+n_6+b_\nu $$

with equality if and only if $`j(\pi )`$ is not ramified outside $`0,1728`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`j(\pi )`$ is of $`(3,2)`$-type. ∎

This enables us to prove

###### Theorem 6.3.

Suppose $`\pi :XC`$ is an elliptic surface with non-constant $`j`$-invariant, then the following three are equivalent

1. $`\pi `$ is extremal
2. $`j(\pi )`$ is of $`(3,2)`$-type, not ramified outside $`0,1728,\mathrm{}`$ and $`\pi `$ has no fibers of type $`II,III,IV`$ or $`I_0^{}`$.
3. The minimal twist $`\pi ^{}`$ of $`Jac(\pi )`$ has $`2\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)+22g(C)`$.

###### Proof.

Apply Proposition 6.2 to Corollary 5.6.∎

###### Remark 6.4.

Frederic Mangolte pointed out to me that the equivalence of (1) and (2) was already proved in \[Nori\].

###### Remark 6.5.

Consider functions $`f:C^1`$ up to automorphisms of $`C`$. If we fix the ramification indices above $`0,1728,\mathrm{}`$ and demand that $`f`$ is unramified at any other point, then there are only finitely many $`f`$ with that property. A small deformation of $`f`$ in $`Mor_d(C,^1)`$, the moduli space of morphisms $`C^1`$ of degree $`d`$, has more critical values.

So the $`j`$-invariants of extremal elliptic surface lie “discretely” in $`Mor_d(C,^1)`$. By Lemma 5.3, to any $`j`$-invariant there correspond only finitely many extremal elliptic surfaces (by Lemma 5.3). So extremal elliptic surfaces over $`^1`$ with geometric genus $`n`$ and non-constant $`j`$-invariant, lie discretely in the moduli space of elliptic surfaces over $`^1`$ with geometric genus $`n`$.

Suppose that $`\pi :X^1`$ has $`2p_g(X)+4`$ singular fibers of type $`I_\nu `$ and no other singular fibers. Let $`f:^1^1`$ be a cyclic morphism ramified at two points $`P`$ such that $`\pi ^1(P)`$ is singular.

Fastenberg (\[Fa, Theorem 2.1\]) proved that then the base changed surface has Mordell-Weil rank 0. In fact, she proved that the base-changed surface is extremal. The first surface is also extremal (by Proposition 5.6). A slightly more general variant is the following.

###### Example 6.6.

Suppose $`\pi :XC`$ is an extremal elliptic surface. Let $`f:C^{}C`$ be a finite morphism.

Then the base-changed elliptic surface $`\pi ^{}:X^{}C^{}`$ is extremal if $`f`$ is not ramified outside the set of points $`P`$, such that $`\pi ^1(P)`$ is multiplicative or potential multiplicative.

In that case the composition $`j^{}:C^{}C\stackrel{j}{}^1`$ is not ramified outside $`0,1728`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ and the ramification indices above $`0`$ and $`1728`$ are at most 3 and 2. Moreover there are no fibers of type $`II,III,IV`$ or $`I_0^{}`$.

An easy calculation shows that all elliptic surfaces for which Fastenberg’s results (\[Fa, Theorem 1\]) hold, are either extremal elliptic surfaces or have a twist which is extremal. Moreover these surfaces have no fibers of type $`I_0^{}`$, hence all elliptic surfaces for which her results hold lie discretely in the moduli spaces mentioned above.

## 7. Mordell-Weil groups of extremal elliptic surfaces

It remains to classify which Mordell-Weil groups can occur. To this we can give only a partial answer to this.

Let $`m,n_1`$ be such that $`m|n`$ and $`n>1`$. Recall from section 1 that $`X_m(n)`$ is the modular curve parameterizing triples $`((E,O),P,Q)`$, such that $`(E,O)`$ is an elliptic curve, $`PE`$ is a point of order $`m`$ and $`QE`$ a point of order $`n`$.

If $`(m,n)\{(1,2),(2,2),(1,3),(1,4),(2,4)\}`$ then there exists a universal family for $`X_m(n)`$, which we denote by $`E_m(n)`$. Denote by $`j_{m,n}:X_m(n)^1`$ the map usually called $`j`$.

From the results of \[Shi 1, §4 & §5\] it follows that $`E_m(n)`$ is an extremal elliptic surface. The following theorem explains how to construct many examples of extremal elliptic surfaces with a given torsion group.

###### Theorem 7.1.

Fix $`m,n_1`$ such that $`m|n`$ and $`(m,n)\{(1,1),(1,2),(2,2),(1,3),(1,4),(2,4)\}`$. Let $`j(C)`$ be non-constant then there exists a unique elliptic surface $`\pi :XC`$, with $`j(\pi )=j`$ and $`MW(\pi )`$ has $`/n\times /m`$ as a subgroup if and only if $`j`$ is of $`(3,2)`$-type, not ramified outside $`0,1728,\mathrm{}`$ and $`j=j_{n,m}g`$ for some $`g:CX_m(n)`$.

The extremal elliptic surface with $`j(\pi )=j`$ and $`/n\times /m`$ is a subgroup of $`MW(\pi )`$ is the unique surface with only singular fibers of type $`I_\nu `$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\pi :XC`$ be an elliptic surface, such that $`MW(\pi )`$ has a subgroup isomorphic to $`G:=/m\times /n`$. Then $`j:C^1`$ can be decomposed in $`g:CX_m(n)`$ and $`j_{m,n}:X_m(n)^1`$, and $`X`$ is isomorphic to $`E_m(n)\times _{X_m(n)}C`$.

Conversely, for any base change $`\pi ^{}`$ of $`\phi _{m,n}:E_m(n)X_m(n)`$, the group $`MW(\pi ^{})`$ has $`G`$ as a subgroup.

Moreover since $`\phi _{m,n}`$ has only singular fibers of type $`I_\nu `$, the same holds for $`\pi ^{}`$. An application of Theorem 6.3 concludes the proof. ∎

###### Remark 7.2.

Let $`n=2`$ and $`m2`$. Then any elliptic surface with such that $`j(\pi )=j_{m,n}g`$, has $`G=/n\times /m`$ as a subgroup of $`MW(\pi )`$.

## 8. Uniqueness

Artal Bartolo, Tokunaga and Zhang (\[ATZ\]) expect that an extremal elliptic surface is determined by the configuration of the singular fibers and the Mordell-Weil group. More precise, they raise the following question:

###### Question 8.1.

Suppose $`\pi _1:X_1^1`$ and $`\pi _2:X_2^1`$ are extremal semi-stable elliptic surfaces, such that $`MW(\pi _1)MW(\pi _2)`$ and the configurations of singular fibers of $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ are the same.

Are $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ isomorphic, and if so, is there then an isomorphism that respects the fibration and the zero section?

By \[MP, Theorem 5.4\] this is true in the case where $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are rational elliptic surfaces.

In the case where $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are $`K3`$ surfaces the answer is the following theorem.

###### Theorem 8.2.

There exists precisely 19 pairs $`(\pi _1:X_1^1,\pi _2:X_2^1)`$ of extremal elliptic $`K3`$ surface, such that $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ have the same configuration of singular fibers, $`MW(\pi _1)`$ and $`MW(\pi _2)`$ are trivial, and $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are not isomorphic. Of these pairs 13 are semi-stable. There is an unique pair for which the above holds with $`MW(\pi _1)=MW(\pi _2)=/2`$, which is not semi-stable.

###### Proof.

From \[SZ, Table 2\] there exist 19 pairs of surfaces $`(X_1,X_2)`$ such that the transcendental lattices of $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ lie in distinct $`SL_2()`$-orbits, they admit elliptic fibrations $`\pi _i:X_i^1`$ such that $`MW(\pi _1)=MW(\pi _2)=0`$ and the contributions of the singular fibers as sub-lattices of the Néron-Severi lattice coincide.

From Remark 5.4 we know that for extremal elliptic surfaces the sub-lattices determine the singular fibers. Since the transcendental lattices are in different $`SL_2()`$-orbits, the surfaces are not isomorphic.

The rest of the statement follows from the same Table. ∎

###### Remark 8.3.

From these surfaces one should be able to construct other pairs of extremal elliptic surfaces with isomorphic Mordell Weil groups, and the same configuration of singular fibers, such that the geometric genus is higher then 1.

Start with two non-isomorphic extremal elliptic $`K3`$ surfaces with the same configuration of singular fibers and the same Mordell Weil group. Then the $`j`$-invariant of both surfaces are unequal modulo automorphism of $`^1`$.

We can base-change both surfaces in such a way that the base-changed surfaces remain extremal (cf. Example 6.6), they have the same configuration of singular fibers and their $`j`$-invariants are unequal modulo an automorphism of $`^1`$.

The configuration of singular fibers gives restrictions on the possibilities for the torsion part of the Mordell-Weil group. One can hope that this is sufficient to prove that the Mordell-Weil groups are isomorphic.

Note that the base-changed surfaces are not isomorphic, since a surface which is not a $`K3`$ surface has at most one elliptic fibration.

###### Remark 8.4.

(“case 49”) In \[ATZ\] it is proven that there are two elliptic surfaces with $`MW(\pi _i)=/5`$ and singular fibers $`2I_1,I_2,2I_5,I_{10}`$ and there exists no isomorphism between them that respects the fibration. In \[SZ\] it is proven that both surfaces are isomorphic. For any other pair of (semi-stable) extremal elliptic $`K3`$ surfaces with $`\mathrm{\#}MW(\pi )>4`$ and the same singular fibers configuration, there exists an isomorphism which respects the fibration. (\[ATZ, Theorem 0.4\])

## 9. Extremal elliptic surfaces with $`p_g=1,q=1`$

An elliptic surface with a section and $`q=1`$ needs to have a genus 1 base curve. This implies that for an extremal elliptic surface with $`p_g=1,q=1`$ we have $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)=1`$.

The minimal twist of an extremal elliptic surface with $`p_g=1,q=1`$ has two singular fibers.

All possible pairs of fiber types such that the sum of the Euler characteristics is 12, are given in the following table.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}& & & & & & & & & & \\ F_1& I_{11}& I_{10}& I_9& I_8& I_7& I_6& I_{10}& I_9& I_8& I_6\\ F_2& I_1& I_2& I_3& I_4& I_5& I_6& II& III& IV& I_0^{}\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & \text{[AlR 4]}& \text{[AlR 3]}& \text{[AlR 1]}& & \text{[AlR 2]}& & & & \end{array}$$

Several of these surfaces are already described in the literature. See the above mentioned references.

###### Remark 9.1.

Note that the 6 configurations with two $`I_\nu `$ fibers are already extremal. The configurations with one additive and one multiplicative fibers are not extremal. If we twist by the two points with a singular fiber we obtain an extremal elliptic surface, but then the degree of $`𝕃`$ is 2, except for the $`I_6I_0^{}`$, its extremal twist has one singular fiber of type $`I_6^{}`$.

###### Proposition 9.2.

All these configurations exist, except $`I_7I_5`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from the following lemmas. Note that the existence of elliptic surfaces over $`^1`$ with the below mentioned singular fibers follows from \[Per\].

###### Lemma 9.3.

The configurations with $`I_kI_{12k}`$ exist for $`k=2,4,6`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\pi :X^1`$ be an elliptic surface with two $`III`$ fibers, a fiber of type $`I_{k/2}`$ and a fiber of type $`I_{6k/2}`$, and no other singular fibers. Let $`\phi :C^1`$ be a degree two cover ramified at the four points where the fiber of $`\pi `$ is singular. Then $`\pi ^{}:X\times _^1CC`$ has two fibers of type $`I_0^{}`$, a fiber of type $`I_k`$ and a fiber of type $`I_{12k}`$. Twisting by the two points with $`I_0^{}`$ fibers gives the desired configuration.∎

###### Lemma 9.4.

The configurations $`I_8IV`$ and $`I_6I_0^{}`$ exist.

###### Proof.

For the first let $`\pi :X^1`$ be an elliptic surface with two $`III`$ fibers, a fiber of type $`II`$ and a fiber of type $`I_4`$, and no other singular fibers. Let $`\phi :C^1`$ be a degree two cover ramified at the four points where the fiber of $`\pi `$ is singular. Then $`\pi ^{}:X\times _^1CC`$ has two fibers of type $`I_0^{}`$ a fiber of type $`I_8`$ and a fiber of type $`IV`$. Twisting by the two points with a $`I_0^{}`$ fibers gives the desired configuration.

For the second let $`\pi :X^1`$ be an elliptic surface with three $`III`$ fibers and a fiber of type $`I_3`$, and no other singular fibers. Let $`\phi :C^1`$ be a degree two cover ramified at the four points where the fiber of $`\pi `$ is singular. Then $`\pi ^{}:X\times _^1CC`$ has three fibers of type $`I_0^{}`$ and a fiber of type $`I_6`$. Twisting by two points with a $`I_0^{}`$ fiber gives the desired configuration. ∎

For the other four configurations we have a different strategy. We simply show that the $`j`$-map with the right ramification indices exists. This is equivalent to give the monodromy representation.

###### Lemma 9.5.

The configurations $`I_{11}I_1`$, $`I_9I_3`$, $`III_{10}`$, $`IIII_9`$ exist.

###### Proof.

For the two configurations of type $`I_\mu I_\nu `$ we need to find curves $`C`$ and functions $`j:C^1`$ of degree 12 such that above $`\mathrm{}`$ there are two point with ramification indices $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$, all points above $`0`$ have ramification index 3 and all points above $`1728`$ have ramification index 2. (see \[Mi 1, Lemma IV.4.1\].)

By the Riemann existence theorem it suffices to give two permutations $`\sigma _0,\sigma _1`$ in $`S_{12}`$, such that $`\sigma _0`$ is the product of 6 disjoint 2-cycles, $`\sigma _1`$ the product of 4 disjoint 3-cycles, and $`\sigma _0\sigma _1`$ is a product of a $`\mu `$-cycle and a $`\nu `$ cycle, and the subgroup generated by $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma _1`$ is transitive. (See \[Mi 3, Corollary 4.10\].)

For $`I_1I_{11}`$, we use

$$(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}2\hspace{0.33em}3})(\mathrm{4\hspace{0.33em}5\hspace{0.33em}6})(\mathrm{7\hspace{0.33em}8\hspace{0.33em}9})(\mathrm{10\hspace{0.33em}11\hspace{0.33em}12})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}3})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}4})(\mathrm{5\hspace{0.33em}7})(\mathrm{8\hspace{0.33em}10})(\mathrm{9\hspace{0.33em}11})(\mathrm{6\hspace{0.33em}12})=(1)(\mathrm{3\hspace{0.33em}2\hspace{0.33em}5\hspace{0.33em}8\hspace{0.33em}11\hspace{0.33em}7\hspace{0.33em}6\hspace{0.33em}10\hspace{0.33em}9\hspace{0.33em}12\hspace{0.33em}4})$$

For $`I_3I_9`$, we use

$$(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}2\hspace{0.33em}3})(\mathrm{4\hspace{0.33em}5\hspace{0.33em}6})(\mathrm{7\hspace{0.33em}8\hspace{0.33em}9})(\mathrm{10\hspace{0.33em}11\hspace{0.33em}12})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}6})(\mathrm{4\hspace{0.33em}9})(\mathrm{3\hspace{0.33em}7})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}10})(\mathrm{5\hspace{0.33em}12})(\mathrm{8\hspace{0.33em}11})=(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}4\hspace{0.33em}7})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}11\hspace{0.33em}9\hspace{0.33em}5\hspace{0.33em}10\hspace{0.33em}3\hspace{0.33em}8\hspace{0.33em}12\hspace{0.33em}6})$$

Similarly the existence of $`III_{10}`$, follows from

$$(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}2})(\mathrm{3\hspace{0.33em}4})(\mathrm{5\hspace{0.33em}6})(\mathrm{7\hspace{0.33em}8})(\mathrm{9\hspace{0.33em}10})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}4\hspace{0.33em}7})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}5\hspace{0.33em}8})(\mathrm{3\hspace{0.33em}6\hspace{0.33em}9})=(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}3\hspace{0.33em}5\hspace{0.33em}7\hspace{0.33em}2\hspace{0.33em}6\hspace{0.33em}10\hspace{0.33em}9\hspace{0.33em}4\hspace{0.33em}8})$$

and the existence of $`IIII_9`$, follows from

$$(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}3})(\mathrm{4\hspace{0.33em}5})(\mathrm{6\hspace{0.33em}7})(\mathrm{8\hspace{0.33em}9})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}4\hspace{0.33em}7})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}5\hspace{0.33em}8})(\mathrm{3\hspace{0.33em}6\hspace{0.33em}9})=(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}5\hspace{0.33em}9\hspace{0.33em}2\hspace{0.33em}4\hspace{0.33em}6\hspace{0.33em}8\hspace{0.33em}3\hspace{0.33em}7}).$$

###### Lemma 9.6.

The configuration $`I_7I_5`$ does not exists.

###### Proof.

A computer search learned us that the permutations needed for the existence of $`I_7I_5`$ do not exist.∎

###### Corollary 9.7.

Let $`k_i`$ be positive integers such that $`k_i=12`$, with $`i2`$, and if $`i=2`$ then $`(k_1,k_2)(7,5)`$ or $`(5,7)`$. Then there exist a curve $`C`$ of genus 1, and an elliptic surface $`\pi :XC`$ such that the configuration of singular fibers of $`\pi `$ is $`I_{k_i}`$.

###### Proof.

Use the monodromy representation as in \[Mi 2, Remark after Corollary 3.5\]. ∎

## 10. Elliptic surfaces with one singular fiber

In the previous section we proved that there exists an elliptic fibration with an $`I_6`$ and an $`I_0^{}`$ fiber. Twisting by the points with a singular fiber yields an elliptic surface with one singular fiber, of type $`I_6^{}`$. We will prove that for fixed $`\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)`$ there the two possible configurations can be realized as elliptic surface.

###### Proposition 10.1.

Suppose $`\pi :XC`$ is an elliptic surface with one singular fiber. The fiber is of type $`I_{12k6}^{}`$ or $`I_{12k}`$ for some $`k_{>0}`$, and $`g(C)k`$ in the first case and $`g(C)k+1`$ in the second. Conversely all these configurations occur.

###### Proof.

Since the Euler characteristic of the singular fiber is $`12\mathrm{deg}(𝕃)`$, the only possible configurations are $`I_\nu `$ and $`I_\nu ^{}`$.

Fix a rational elliptic surface $`\pi :X^1`$ with 3 fibers of type $`III`$, and one fiber of type $`I_3`$. (The existence follows from \[Per\].)

Fix $`k`$ a positive integer. Take a curve $`C`$ such that $`\phi :C^1`$, has degree $`4k2`$, and is ramified at the four points which have the singular fibers, and above such a point there is exactly one point.

The base change $`\pi ^{}:X\times _^1CC`$ has 3 fibers of type $`I_0^{}`$ and one fiber of type $`I_{12k6}`$. Twisting by all four points with a singular fiber yields an elliptic surface with one singular fiber and this fiber is of type $`I_{12k6}^{}`$.

If we replace $`4k2`$ by $`4k`$, we obtain an elliptic surface with one fiber of type $`I_{12k}`$.

For any elliptic surface with only one singular fiber and that fiber is of type $`I_0^{}`$, we have the following: the $`j`$-map $`C^1`$ has degree $`12k6`$, one point above $`\mathrm{}`$, at most $`4k2`$ points above 0, and at most $`6k3`$ points above 1728. This implies that the base curve has genus at least $`k`$. A similar argument shows that in the case that the only singular fiber is of type $`I_{12k}`$, the base curve has genus at least $`k+1`$. ∎


text:
# Centrally symmetric generators in toric Fano varieties11footnote 12000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 14J45, 14M25, 52B20.

(22nd October 2002)
Abstract. We give a structure theorem for $`n`$-dimensional smooth toric Fano varieties whose associated polytope has “many” pairs of centrally symmetric vertices.

Introduction. Smooth toric Fano varieties, together with their equivariant birational contractions, have been intensively studied in recent years: see \[WW82, Bat82, Bat99, Sat00, Bon00, Cas01b, Cas01c, Sat02\]. In some cases, the toric case has been a testing ground for results concerning general smooth Fano varieties, see for instance \[BCW02, BCDD02\]. Despite the strong combinatorial properties of fans of toric Fano varieties, these varieties are classified only in dimension less or equal to 4 (see \[WW82, Bat82\] for dimension 3, \[Bat99\] and \[Sat00\], example 4.7, for dimension 4).

Let $`X`$ be a smooth, complete toric variety of dimension $`n`$, $`N=\mathrm{Hom}_{}(^{},T)`$, $`N_{}=N_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ the fan of $`X`$ in $`N_{}`$. We denote by $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_h`$ the convex cone spanned in $`N_{}`$ by $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_hN`$.

###### Definition.

The set of *generators* of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ is defined in the following way:

$$G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)=\{xN|x\mathrm{\Sigma }_X\text{ and }x\text{ is primitive in }xN\}.$$

Suppose that $`X`$ is Fano. Then the generators $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$ are the vertices of a simplicial convex polytope $`𝒫_XN_{}`$, and every cone in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ is the cone over a face of $`𝒫_X`$. Hence the set of generators $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$ determines the fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ (and $`X`$). This means that $`X`$ is the only Fano variety in the set

$`_X=\{`$ $`X^{}\text{ toric, smooth, complete }|\phi :X^{}X\text{ equivariant, birational, isomorphism}`$
$`\text{in codimension 1}\}`$
$`=\{`$ $`X^{}\text{ toric, smooth, complete }|G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X^{})=G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)\}`$
and any such $`X^{}`$ determines $`X`$. It is an interesting question whether there exists some $`X^{}`$ in $`_X`$ with a particularly simple structure. More precisely, we think of a toric bundle structure (see section 2), with fiber and basis some lower dimensional toric Fano variety. This would give an inductive way to classify these varieties. Our result is the following:

###### Theorem (theorem 5 and proposition 7).

Let $`X`$ be a smooth toric Fano variety. Suppose that $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$ contains $`r>0`$ pairs of centrally symmetric generators $`\{x,x\}`$, and consider the linear subspace $`H`$ of $`N_{}`$ spanned by all such pairs.

1. If $`dimH<r`$, then $`X`$ is a toric bundle over a lower dimensional toric Fano variety, with fiber a product of Del Pezzo varieties (see definition on page Definition).
2. If $`H`$ contains more than $`2dimH`$ generators, then there exists $`X^{}`$ in $`_X`$ which is a toric bundle over a lower dimensional toric Fano variety, with fiber a product of Del Pezzo and pseudo Del Pezzo varieties (see definitions on page Definition).
3. If $`dimH=n1`$, then there exists $`X^{}`$ in $`_X`$ which is a toric bundle over $`^1`$, with fiber a product of Del Pezzo varieties, pseudo Del Pezzo varieties and a power of $`^1`$.
4. If $`dimH=n`$, then $`X`$ itself is a product of Del Pezzo varieties, pseudo Del Pezzo varieties and a power of $`^1`$.

All these results give a structure theorem for some classes of toric Fano varieties, in any dimension. The last case ($`dimH=n`$) generalizes a previous result by G. Ewald \[Ewa88\], who obtaines the same statement under the stronger hypothesis that there exists an $`n`$-dimensional cone $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ such that $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$.

The structure of the paper is as follows: in section 1 we recall the language of primitive relations and some results of toric Mori theory; in section 2 we recall properties of toric bundles; in section 3 we introduce Del Pezzo and pseudo Del Pezzo varieties and state and prove our results.

1. Primitive relations and 1-cycles. We collect here some basic notions and results. We refer to \[Oda88, Ful93\] for properties of toric varieties, to \[Bat99\] for primitive collections and primitive relations, to \[Rei83\] and to the survey paper \[Wiś02\] for toric Mori theory.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth, complete toric variety.

###### Definition.

A set $`PG(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$ is a *primitive collection* if $`P\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ and $`P\{x\}\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ for all $`xP`$.

If $`P=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_h\}`$ is a primitive collection, consider the minimal cone $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ containing the point $`x_1+\mathrm{}+x_h`$. If $`\sigma =y_1,\mathrm{},y_k`$, we get a relation

$$x_1+\mathrm{}+x_h(a_1y_1+\mathrm{}+a_ky_k)=0$$

with $`a_i_{>0}`$. This is the *primitive relation* $`r(P)`$ associated to $`P`$, and the *degree* of $`P`$ is $`\mathrm{deg}P=h_ia_i`$.

Let $`𝒜_1(X)`$ be the group of algebraic 1-cycles on $`X`$ modulo numerical equivalence, $`𝒩_1(X)=𝒜_1(X)_{}`$, and $`\mathrm{NE}(X)𝒩_1(X)`$ the convex cone generated by classes of effective curves; we recall that $`\mathrm{NE}(X)`$ is closed and polyhedral.

For every $`r\{0,\mathrm{},n\}`$ there is a bijection between the set of $`r`$-dimensional cones in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ and the set of codimension $`r`$ orbits of $`T`$ in $`X`$. For $`r=1`$, this gives a bijection between $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$ and the set of codimension 1 orbits of $`T`$. We denote by $`V(\sigma )`$ (respectively $`V(x)`$) the closure of the orbit corresponding to $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ (respectively $`xG(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$); this is an irreducible invariant subvariety.

We recall that there is an exact sequence:

$$0𝒜_1(X)^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)}N0$$

where the map $`𝒜_1(X)^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)}`$ is given by $`\gamma \{\gamma V(x)\}_{xG(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)}`$. Hence the group $`𝒜_1(X)`$ is canonically isomorphic to the lattice of integral relations among the elements of $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$: a relation $`_xa_xx=0`$ corresponds to a numerical class $`\gamma `$ that has intersection $`a_x`$ with each divisor $`V(x)`$. Moreover, we have $`(K_X)\gamma =_xa_x`$. In particular, every primitive relation $`r(P)`$ defines a numerical class in $`𝒜_1(X)`$, and $`\mathrm{deg}P=(K_X)r(P)`$. In the sequel, we will identify numerical classes with their associated relations. Remark that from the exact sequence above we deduce $`\rho _X=\mathrm{\#}G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)n`$, where $`\rho _X`$ is the Picard number of $`X`$.

###### Lemma 1 (\[Cas01a\], lemma 1.4).

Let $`\gamma 𝒜_1(X)`$ given by the relation

$$a_1x_1+\mathrm{}+a_hx_h(b_1y_1+\mathrm{}+b_ky_k)=0$$

with $`a_i,b_j_{>0}`$ for each $`i,j`$. If $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$, then $`\gamma \mathrm{NE}(X)`$.

In particular, every primitive relation is an effective class: therefore, *if $`X`$ is Fano, every primitive collection has strictly positive degree*.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`X`$ be a toric Fano variety and let $`\gamma \mathrm{NE}(X)𝒜_1(X)`$ be such that $`(K_X)\gamma =1`$. Then $`\gamma `$ is extremal in $`\mathrm{NE}(X)`$, the relation associated to $`\gamma `$ is a primitive relation

$$x_1+\mathrm{}+x_h(a_1y_1+\mathrm{}+a_ky_k)=0,$$

and for every cone $`\nu =z_1,\mathrm{},z_t`$ such that $`\{z_1,..,z_t\}\{x_1,..,x_h,y_1,..,y_k\}=\mathrm{}`$ and $`y_1,..,y_k+\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$, we have $`x_1,..,\stackrel{ˇ}{x}_i,..,x_h,y_1,..,y_k+\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$.

###### Proof.

See \[Cas01a\], corollary 4.4 and \[Rei83\], theorem 2.4. ∎

###### Lemma 3 (\[Cas01c\], lemma 2.2).

Let $`X`$ be a toric Fano variety. Suppose that $`\{x,x\}`$ is a primitive collection in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. Then for any other primitive collection $`P`$ containing $`x`$, the associated primitive relation is

$$r(P):x+y_1+\mathrm{}+y_h(z_1+\mathrm{}+z_h)=0;$$

moreover, $`P^{}=\{x,z_1,\mathrm{},z_h\}`$ is also a primitive collection, with relation

$$r(P^{}):(x)+z_1+\mathrm{}+z_h(y_1+\mathrm{}+y_h)=0.$$

Both $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ have degree 1, their primitive relations are extremal, and $`2hn`$.

2. Toric bundles. We recall the following standard result of toric geometry (see \[Ewa96\], theorem 6.7 in chapter VI, or \[Ful93\], section 2.4, exercise on fiber bundles):

###### Theorem 4.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth, complete toric variety. Consider a linear subspace $`HN_{}`$ of dimension $`r`$ and suppose that for every $`n`$-dimensional cone $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$, we have $`\sigma =\eta +\tau `$, with $`\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$, $`\eta H`$, $`dim\eta =r`$ and $`\tau H=\{0\}`$. Then:

$``$ the set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_F=\{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_X|\sigma H\}`$ is the fan of a smooth, complete, $`r`$-dimensional toric variety $`F`$;

$``$ consider a complementar $`H^{}`$ of $`H`$ in $`N_{}`$ such that $`N=(NH)(NH^{})`$, and let $`\pi :N_{}H^{}`$ be the projection. Then the set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Z=\{\pi (\sigma )|\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_X\}`$ is the fan of a complete, smooth, $`(nr)`$-dimensional toric variety $`Z`$;

$``$ the projection $`\pi `$ induces an equivariant morphism $`\overline{\pi }:XZ`$ such that, for every affine invariant open subset $`UZ`$, $`\overline{\pi }^1(U)F\times U`$ as toric varieties over $`U`$.

Hence, $`X`$ is a toric bundle over $`Z`$ with fiber $`F`$.

Under this description, for every $`\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ such that $`\eta H`$ and $`dim\eta =r`$, the subvariety $`V(\eta )`$ is an invariant section of the bundle; for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ such that $`\tau H=\{0\}`$ and $`dim\tau =nr`$, the subvariety $`V(\tau )`$ is an invariant fiber.

Suppose that $`X`$ is a toric bundle over $`Z`$ with fiber $`F`$, as described in theorem 4. Then $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_F)=G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H`$ and the primitive collections of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ contained in $`H`$ are exactly the primitive collections of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_F`$. These primitive collections have the same primitive relations in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ and in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_F`$.

Now set $`𝒢=G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_F)`$. The projection $`\pi :N_{}H^{}`$ induces a bijection between $`𝒢`$ and $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_Z)`$. Under this identification, the primitive collections of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ not contained in $`H`$ are exactly the primitive collections of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Z`$. We denote by $`\overline{x}`$ the image of an element $`xN`$ under $`\pi `$. A primitive relation in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Z`$ of the form

$$\overline{z}_1+\mathrm{}+\overline{z}_h(a_1\overline{y}_1+\mathrm{}+a_k\overline{y}_k)=0$$

will lift in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ to a primitive relation of the form:

$$z_1+\mathrm{}+z_h(a_1y_1+\mathrm{}+a_ky_k+b_1x_1+\mathrm{}+b_lx_l)=0,$$

with $`l0`$ and $`x_iG(\mathrm{\Sigma }_F)`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$.

The bundle is trivial, namely $`XF\times Z`$, if and only if all primitive relations in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Z`$ remain unchanged when lifted in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$.

3. Del Pezzo varieties and centrally symmetric generators. Let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ be a basis of the lattice $`N`$ and suppose that $`n=2r`$ is even. Consider the following elements of $`N`$:

$$x_0=x_1\mathrm{}x_n,y_i=x_i\text{ for }i=0,\mathrm{},n.$$

*Notation:* $`I^s`$ denotes a set of indexes of cardinality $`s`$.

###### Definition.

The $`n`$-dimensional *Del Pezzo variety $`V^n`$* is the toric Fano variety described by the fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{V^n}N_{}`$ such that $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{V^n})=\{x_0,y_0,..,x_n,y_n\}`$.

The $`n`$-dimensional *pseudo Del Pezzo variety $`\stackrel{~}{V}^n`$* is the toric Fano variety described by the fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{~}{V}^n}N_{}`$ such that $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{~}{V}^n})=\{x_0,x_1,y_1,..,x_n,y_n\}`$.

We have $`\rho _{V^n}=n+2`$ and $`\rho _{\stackrel{~}{V}^n}=n+1`$. In dimension 2, these varieties are the Del Pezzo surfaces $`S_3`$ and $`S_2`$, obtained from $`^2`$ blowing-up respectively three or two fixed points. If the dimension is greater than two, the varieties $`V^n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}^n`$ do not admit any smooth equivariant blow-down; moreover, the blow-up along any invariant subvariety is never Fano. This behaviour is rather peculiar: in dimension 4, H. Sato (\[Sat00\], theorem 8.1) has shown that any toric Fano 4-fold different from $`V^4`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}^4`$ can be obtained from $`^4`$ by a sequence of smooth equivariant blow-ups and blow-downs in such a way that all the intermediate varieties are Fano.

The variety $`V^n`$ can be geometrically described as follows. Consider the Cremona map $`^n^n`$. It is well known that this map factorizes as a sequence of smooth blow-ups and blow-downs in the following way: first blow-up $`n+1`$ general points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n+1}`$ in $`^n`$. Then, for all $`m=2,\mathrm{},n2`$ (in this order), flip the strict transforms of all the $`^{m1}`$ spanned by $`m`$ of the points $`p_i`$. Finally, blow-down the strict transforms of all the $`^{n1}`$ spanned by $`n`$ of the points $`p_i`$. It is easy to see that this is a toric factorization, namely, all varieties involved are toric and the maps are equivariant. Now, $`V^n`$ is the intermediate variety that you get if you perform the flips just till the dimension $`m=r1`$, where $`r=n/2`$.

Del Pezzo varieties were introduced by V. E. Voskresenskiĭ and A. A. Klyachko \[VK85\], where they show (theorem 6) that *every toric Fano variety whose fan is centrally symmetric is a product of Del Pezzo varieties and a power of $`^1`$.* This result has been generalized by G. Ewald \[Ewa88\], who introduces pseudo Del Pezzo varieties and shows that *every toric Fano variety whose fan contains two centrally symmetric maximal cones, is a product of Del Pezzo varieties, pseudo Del Pezzo varieties and a power of $`^1`$.* We will see in proposition 7 that it is actually enough to ask that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ has $`n`$ linearly independent pairs of symmetric generators.

Explicitly, the fans of $`V^n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}^n`$ are:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{V^n}=\{`$ $`x_i,y_j_{iI^r,jJ^r}|I^r,J^r\{0,\mathrm{},n\}\text{ disjoint}\};`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{~}{V}^n}=\{`$ $`x_0,x_i,y_j_{iI^{r1},jJ^r},x_i,y_j_{i\stackrel{~}{I}^{r+s},j\stackrel{~}{J}^{rs}}|I^{r1},J^r\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\text{ disjoint},`$
$`s\{0,\mathrm{},r\}\text{ and }\stackrel{~}{I}^{r+s},\stackrel{~}{J}^{rs}\text{ a partition of }\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\}.`$
The primitive relations of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{V^n}`$ are $`x_i+y_i=0`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},n`$ and

$$\underset{iI^{r+1}}{}x_i(\underset{jJ^r}{}y_j)=0,\underset{iI^{r+1}}{}y_i(\underset{jJ^r}{}x_j)=0$$

for every partition $`I^{r+1},J^r`$ of $`\{0,\mathrm{},n\}`$.

The primitive relations of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{~}{V}^n}`$ are $`x_i+y_i=0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and

$$x_0+\underset{iI^r}{}x_i(\underset{jJ^r}{}y_j)=0,\underset{jJ^{r+1}}{}y_j(x_0+\underset{iI^{r1}}{}x_i)=0$$

for all partitions $`I^r,J^r`$ and $`I^{r1},J^{r+1}`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$.

What makes Del Pezzo and pseudo Del pezzo varieties special among toric Fano varieties, is that they have lots of numerical classes of curves with anticanonical degree 1.

###### Theorem 5.

Let $`X`$ be a toric Fano variety and let $`H`$ be the linear subspace of $`N_{}`$ spanned by all pairs of centrally symmetric generators in $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$. Then there exists a decomposition

$$H=H_1\mathrm{}H_a\stackrel{~}{H}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{H}_bK$$

with $`a0`$, $`h_i=dimH_i>0`$, $`b0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_i=dim\stackrel{~}{H}_i>0`$ and $`dimK0`$, such that:

1. $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H=_{i=1}^a\left(G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H_i\right)_{j=1}^b(G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)\stackrel{~}{H}_j)\left(G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)K\right)`$;
2. $`\mathrm{\#}(G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H_i)=2(h_i+1)`$, $`\mathrm{\#}(G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)\stackrel{~}{H}_j)=2\stackrel{~}{h}_j+1`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}(G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)K)=2dimK`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},a`$ and $`j=1,\mathrm{},b`$;
3. there exists a commutative diagram

where all varieties are smooth, projective and toric, $`Z`$ and $`W`$ are Fano, $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ are equivariant birational maps which are isomorphisms in codimension 1, and the decomposition of $`H`$ induces toric bundle structures:

* $`XZ`$ and $`X^{}Z^{}`$ with fiber $`V^{h_1}\times \mathrm{}\times V^{h_a}`$,
    * $`Z^{}W`$ with fiber $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{\stackrel{~}{h}_1}\times \mathrm{}\times \stackrel{~}{V}^{\stackrel{~}{h}_b}`$,
    * $`X^{}W`$ with fiber $`V^{h_1}\times \mathrm{}\times V^{h_a}\times \stackrel{~}{V}^{\stackrel{~}{h}_1}\times \mathrm{}\times \stackrel{~}{V}^{\stackrel{~}{h}_b}`$.

*Remarks:*

1. $`X^{}_X`$.
2. in particular, we will see in the proof (step 7) that $`\phi `$ is an isomorphism over some invariant section of $`X^{}W`$, hence there exists an invariant subvariety $`VW`$ of $`X`$: $`V`$ is Fano, $`dimV=n_ih_i_j\stackrel{~}{h}_j`$ and $`\rho _V=\rho _X_i(h_i+2)_j(\stackrel{~}{h}_j+1)`$ (where $`\rho _V`$ and $`\rho _X`$ are the Picard number of $`V`$ and $`X`$ respectively).
3. when $`H_i`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{H}_i`$ has dimension 2, we recover \[Cas01c\], 2.4.3 and 2.4.2a respectively.
4. for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},a`$, $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H_i`$ consists of $`h_i+1`$ pairs of symmetric generators $`\{x_l,y_l\}`$, $`h_i`$ by $`h_i`$ linearly independent, such that $`x_1+\mathrm{}+x_{h_i+1}=0`$.
5. for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},b`$, $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)\stackrel{~}{H}_j`$ consists of $`\stackrel{~}{h}_j`$ linearly independent pairs of symmetric generators $`\{x_l,y_l\}`$, plus another generator $`x_0=x_1+\mathrm{}+x_{\stackrel{~}{h}_j}`$.
6. $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)K`$ consists of $`dimK`$ linearly independent pairs of symmetric generators.

For the proof of theorem 5, we need the following lemma:

###### Lemma 6.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ contains $`m`$ pairs of centrally symmetric generators $`x_i+y_i=0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Let $`\tau =z_1,\mathrm{},z_s\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ such that $`\{z_1,..,z_s,x_1,..,x_m\}`$ are linearly independent. Then there exists a partition $`I,J`$ of $`\{1,..,m\}`$ such that $`\tau +x_i,y_j_{iI,jJ}\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. In particular, $`\{z_1,..,z_s,x_1,..,x_m\}`$ is a part of a basis of the lattice $`N`$.

###### Proof of lemma 6.

Suppose that $`\tau +y_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. Then, up to renumbering $`\{z_1,..,z_s\}`$, there is a primitive collection $`\{z_j,\mathrm{},z_s,y_1\}`$ with $`1js`$, and by lemma 3 we get primitive relations:

$$z_j+\mathrm{}+z_s+y_1(u_1+\mathrm{}+u_{sj+1})=0,u_1+\mathrm{}+u_{sj+1}+x_1(z_j+\mathrm{}+z_s)=0.$$

Now, theorem 2 implies that either $`\tau +x_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$, or $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_s\}\{u_1,\mathrm{},u_{sj+1}\}`$. This last case is impossible, because it would give a relation of linear dependence among $`\{z_1,..,z_s,y_1\}`$, against the hypotheses. Therefore $`\tau +x_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$, and by recurrence we have the statement. ∎

###### Useful Remark.

Suppose that we have a relation among generators:

$$a_1x_1+\mathrm{}+a_hx_h(b_1y_1+\mathrm{}+b_ky_k)=0$$

with $`a_i,b_j_{>0}`$ for each $`i,j`$. Then the two cones $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_h`$ and $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_k`$ can not be both in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$, because they intersect in their interior, while two cones in the fan always intersect along a face.

###### Proof of theorem 5.

We fix an $`m`$-dimensional linear subspace $`H^{}`$ of $`H`$ spanned by $`m`$ pairs of centrally symmetric generators $`x_i+y_i=0`$, with $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_m`$ linearly independent.

*Step 1:* every generator of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ contained in $`H^{}`$ and different from $`x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m`$ has the form $`_{i=1}^m\epsilon _ix_i`$ with $`\epsilon _i\{1,0,1\}`$ for all $`i`$.

###### Proof of step 1.

Let $`x_0G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$ be a generator in $`H^{}`$ different from $`\{x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m\}`$. Up to reorder $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_m\}`$, we can suppose that $`x_0=_{i=1}^s\epsilon _ix_i`$, with $`2sm`$ and $`\epsilon _i0`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$. Then for all $`j\{1,..,s\}`$ the generators $`\{x_0,x_1,..,\stackrel{ˇ}{x}_j,..,x_s\}`$ are linearly independent, and by lemma 6 they are a part of a basis of the lattice, hence $`|\epsilon _j|=1`$. ∎

We assume from now on that $`x_0=y_1+\mathrm{}+y_mG(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$.

*Step 2:*  $`m=2r`$ is even and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ contains all the cones

$$x_i,y_j_{iI^r,jJ^r},x_0,x_i,y_j_{i\stackrel{~}{I}^{r1},j\stackrel{~}{J}^r}$$
($``$)
and the primitive extremal relations

$$x_0+\underset{iI^r}{}x_i(\underset{jJ^r}{}y_j)=0,\underset{J^{r+1}}{}y_j(x_0+\underset{iI^{r1}}{}x_i)=0$$

for all partitions $`I^r,J^r`$ and $`I^{r1},J^{r+1}`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ and for all choices of $`\stackrel{~}{I}^{r1},\stackrel{~}{J}^r\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ disjoint.

Moreover, for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ such that $`\tau H^{}=\{0\}`$ and $`\tau +\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ for some $`\eta `$ in ($``$Proof of theorem 5.), then $`\tau +\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ for all $`\eta ^{}`$ in ($``$Proof of theorem 5.).

###### Proof of step 2.

By lemma 6, since $`\{x_0,x_1,..,x_{m1}\}`$ are linearly independent and $`x_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$, up to reorder $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_{m1}\}`$ we have $`x_0,x_1,..,x_{r1},y_r,..,y_{m1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ with $`1rm`$. Applying again lemma 6 to the cone $`\sigma =x_1,..,x_{r1},y_r,..,y_{m1}`$, we get that at least one of the two cones $`\sigma +y_m`$, $`\sigma +x_m`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$.

Consider the relation $`y_r+\mathrm{}+y_m(x_0+x_1+\mathrm{}+x_{r1})=0`$. Since $`x_0,x_1,..,x_{r1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$, by lemma 1 this relation corresponds to an effective class, and since $`X`$ is Fano, its degree must be positive: this gives $`2rm`$. Moreover, it can not be $`y_r,\mathrm{},y_m\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ (see the Useful Remark), hence $`\sigma +x_m=x_0,x_1,..,x_{r1},y_r,..,y_{m1},x_m\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. This implies that also the relation $`x_0+x_1+\mathrm{}+x_{r1}+x_m(y_r+\mathrm{}+y_{m1})=0`$ is effective, hence its degree is positive, and we get $`2rm`$. Therefore $`2r=m`$. In particular, the relation $`x_0+x_1+\mathrm{}+x_{r1}+x_m(y_r+\mathrm{}+y_{m1})=0`$ has degree 1, so by theorem 2 $`x_1,..,x_{r1},x_m,y_r,..,y_{m1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$.

Now, we know that at least one cone in each of the two types in ($``$Proof of theorem 5.) is in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. Let $`I^r`$, $`J^r`$ be such that the cone $`x_i,y_j_{iI^r,jJ^r}`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. Then the relation

$$x_0+\underset{iI^r}{}x_i(\underset{jJ^r}{}y_j)=0$$

is effective by lemma 1, thus theorem 2 implies that the cones

$$x_0,x_i,y_j_{iI^r\{p\},jJ^r}$$

are in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ for all $`pI^r`$.

In an analogue way, suppose that for some $`\stackrel{~}{I}^{r1}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{J}^r`$ the cone $`x_0,x_i,y_j_{i\stackrel{~}{I}^{r1},j\stackrel{~}{J}^r}`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. Let $`\{1,\mathrm{},m\}=\stackrel{~}{I}^{r1}\stackrel{~}{J}^r\{l\}`$. Then the relations

$$\underset{j\stackrel{~}{J}^r\{l\}}{}y_j(x_0+\underset{i\stackrel{~}{I}^{r1}}{}x_i)=0,x_0+\underset{i\stackrel{~}{I}^{r1}\{l\}}{}x_i(\underset{j\stackrel{~}{J}^r}{}y_j)=0$$

are effective by lemma 1, and again, theorem 2 implies that the cones

$$x_0,x_i,y_j_{i\stackrel{~}{I}^{r1},j(\stackrel{~}{J}^r\{p\})\{l\}},x_i,y_j_{i\stackrel{~}{I}^{r1}\{l\},j\stackrel{~}{J}^r}$$

are in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ for all $`p\stackrel{~}{J}^r`$. Hence, proceeding in this way, we get all the desired cones and extremal relations in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$.

Finally, if $`\tau `$ is such that $`\tau H^{}=\{0\}`$ and $`\tau +\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ for some $`\eta `$ in ($``$Proof of theorem 5.), then it is easy to see, using the extremal relations and reasonning as above, that $`\tau +\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ for all $`\eta ^{}`$ in ($``$Proof of theorem 5.). ∎

*Step 3:* set $`y_0=x_0`$. Either $`H^{}G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)=\{x_0,x_1,y_1,..,x_m,y_m\}`$, or $`H^{}G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)=\{x_0,y_0,x_1,y_1,..,x_m,y_m\}`$.

###### Proof of step 3.

Suppose that $`zH^{}G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$, $`z\{x_0,x_1,y_1,..,x_m,y_m\}`$: we want to show that $`z=y_0=x_0`$. We know by step 1 that $`z=_{i=1}^m\lambda _iy_i`$ with $`\lambda _i\{1,0,1\}`$ for all $`i`$:

$$z=\underset{\lambda _i=1}{}y_i+\underset{\lambda _i=1}{}x_i=x_0+\underset{\lambda _i=0}{}x_i+\underset{\lambda _i=1}{}2x_i.$$

Since $`z`$ can not be in the interior of some cone of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$, we know by step 2 that either $`\mathrm{\#}\{i|\lambda _i=1\}r+1`$ or $`\mathrm{\#}\{i|\lambda _i=1\}r+1`$, and that $`\mathrm{\#}\{i|\lambda _i=0\text{ or }\lambda _i=1\}r`$. Hence at least $`r+1`$ of the $`\lambda _i`$ are -1. Thus we have

$$x_0+z=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\lambda _i+1)y_i=\underset{\lambda _i=1}{}2y_i+\underset{\lambda _i=0}{}y_i$$

and since there are at most $`r1`$ $`y_i`$ appearing on the right hand side, we know by step 2 that they generate a cone in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. Hence $`\{x_0,z\}`$ is a primitive collection (see the Useful Remark), and since $`X`$ is Fano, up to reordering $`\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_m\}`$ there are only two possible primitive relations: either $`x_0+z=0`$ (so $`z=y_0`$), or $`x_0+zy_1=0`$ (so $`z=x_2+\mathrm{}+x_m`$). Let’s show that this last case is impossible. If $`x_0+zy_1=0`$, this relation has degree 1; thus by theorem 2 $`y_1,..,y_r\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ implies $`z,y_1,..,y_r\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. But we also have $`z+y_2+\mathrm{}+y_r=x_{r+1}+\mathrm{}+x_m`$ and $`x_{r+1},..,x_m\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$, a contradiction (by the Useful Remark). ∎

*Step 4:* for every generator $`wG(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$ such that $`wH^{}`$, we have $`w+\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ for all $`\eta `$ in ($``$Proof of theorem 5.).

###### Proof of step 4.

Suppose first that $`w,x_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. Since $`\{w,x_0,x_1,..,x_{m1}\}`$ are linearly independent, we know by lemma 6 that there exists a partition $`I,J`$ of $`\{1,..,m1\}`$ such that $`w,x_0,x_i,y_j_{iI,jJ}\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. This cone can not contain a primitive collection, so it must be $`\mathrm{\#}Ir1`$, $`\mathrm{\#}Jr`$. Since $`\mathrm{\#}I+\mathrm{\#}J=2r1`$, it must be $`\mathrm{\#}I=r1`$, $`\mathrm{\#}J=r`$. Hence the statement follows from step 2.

If $`w,x_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$, it means that $`\{w,x_0\}`$ is a primitive collection. Since $`w`$ is not in $`H^{}`$, $`wx_0`$; hence the only possible primitive relation is $`w+x_0u=0`$, which has degree 1 and is extremal by theorem 2. Now, $`uH^{}`$ and $`u,x_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$: so by what preceeds, $`u+\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ for all $`\eta `$ in ($``$Proof of theorem 5.). Choose $`\eta =x_i,y_j_{iI^r,jJ^r}`$ for some $`I^r`$, $`J^r`$. Since the relation $`w+x_0u=0`$ is extremal, theorem 2 implies that also $`w+\eta `$ is in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. By step 2, the same is true for all $`\eta ^{}`$ in ($``$Proof of theorem 5.), thus we get $`w,x_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$, a contradiction. ∎

*Step 5:* let $`W`$ be the invariant subvariety associated to one of the cones in ($``$Proof of theorem 5.). Then $`W`$ is Fano.

###### Proof of step 5.

We remark first of all that the linear span of the cones in ($``$Proof of theorem 5.) is always $`H^{}`$, and by step 2 the invariant subvarieties associated to these cones are all isomorphic. Let’s fix a cone $`\eta `$ in ($``$Proof of theorem 5.) and let $`W=V(\eta )`$.

Consider an invariant curve $`C`$ in $`W`$: in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ the curve $`C`$ is associated to the $`(n1)`$-dimensional cone $`w_3,\mathrm{},w_s+\eta =(w_1,w_3,..,w_s+\eta )(w_2,w_3,..,w_s+\eta )`$. Remark that by step 2, $`w_1,w_3,..,w_s+\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ and $`w_2,w_3,..,w_s+\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ for all $`\eta ^{}`$ in ($``$Proof of theorem 5.). The numerical class of $`C`$ in $`W`$ is given by the relation

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}a_i\overline{w}_i=0,$$

where $`a_i`$ and $`\overline{w}`$ denotes the image of $`wN`$ under the projection $`NN/H^{}`$. Hence in $`W`$ the anticanonical degree of $`C`$ is $`_ia_i`$. In the lattice $`N`$, this relation lifts as

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}a_iw_i+\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _jx_j=0,$$

where $`\lambda _j`$. Choose a partition $`I^r`$, $`J^r`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$: then the two relations

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}a_iw_i+\underset{kI^r}{}\lambda _kx_k\underset{jJ^r}{}\lambda _jy_j=0,\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}a_iw_i+\underset{jJ^r}{}\lambda _jx_j\underset{kI^r}{}\lambda _ky_k=0$$

correspond respectively to the numerical classes of the invariant curves in $`X`$:

$$V(w_3,..,w_s,x_k,y_j_{kI^r,jJ^r}),V(w_3,..,w_s,x_j,y_k_{jJ^r,kI^r}).$$

Since $`X`$ is Fano, they both have positive degree, so $`_ia_i1+|_{kI^r}\lambda _k_{jJ^r}\lambda _j|1`$. ∎

*Step 6:* Suppose that $`y_0=x_0H^{}G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$. Then every cone $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ decomposes as $`\sigma =\eta +\tau `$, with $`\eta H^{}`$, $`dim\eta =m`$ and $`\tau H^{}=\{0\}`$; $`H^{}`$ contains the fan of a Del Pezzo variety $`V^m`$ and $`X`$ is a toric bundle over $`W`$ with fiber $`V^m`$.

###### Proof of step 6.

Apply step 2 twice considering first $`x_0`$ and then $`y_0`$: it is immediate to see that $`H^{}`$ contains the fan of the Del Pezzo variety $`V^m`$. Consider now a cone $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ such that $`\tau H^{}=\{0\}`$. By lemma 6, we know that $`\tau +\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ for at least one $`m`$-dimensional $`\eta H^{}`$. Hence, again by step 2, $`\tau +\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ for all $`\eta ^{}H^{}`$. Thus by theorem 4 $`X`$ is a toric bundle over a smooth toric variety with fiber $`V^m`$. Since $`W`$ is an invariant section of the bundle, it is isomorphic to the basis of the bundle. ∎

*Step 7:* suppose that $`H^{}G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)=\{x_0,x_1,y_1,..,x_m,y_m\}`$. Then there exist a smooth projective toric variety $`X^{}`$ with $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X^{})=G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$, such that $`X^{}`$ is a toric bundle over $`W`$ with fiber the pseudo Del Pezzo variety $`\stackrel{~}{V}^m`$.

###### Proof of step 7.

We remark that by step 4, all generators in $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H^{}`$ induce a generator in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_W`$. The fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X^{}`$ is defined as follows:

1. $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X^{})=G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$;
2. the set $`\{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_X^{}|\sigma H^{}\}`$ is the fan of the pseudo Del Pezzo variety $`\stackrel{~}{V}^m`$ in $`H^{}`$, with generators $`\{x_0,x_1,y_1,..,x_m,y_m\}`$;
3. for every $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ such that $`\tau H^{}=\{0\}`$ and $`\tau +\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ for $`\eta `$ in ($``$Proof of theorem 5.), and for every $`\sigma H^{}`$ in the fan of $`\stackrel{~}{V}^m`$, we set $`\tau +\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_X^{}`$.

By construction, $`X^{}`$ is a toric bundle with fiber $`\stackrel{~}{V}^m`$ (see theorem 4). The invariant subvarieties $`V(\sigma )X^{}`$ for $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_X^{}(m)`$, $`\sigma H^{}`$, are invariant sections of the bundle. If $`\sigma `$ is one of the cones in ($``$Proof of theorem 5.), then $`XX^{}`$ is an isomorphism on $`V(\sigma )W`$. Therefore the basis of the bundle is actually $`W`$. ∎

Let’s consider now the linear subspace $`H`$ of $`N_{}`$ spanned by all pairs of symmetric generators in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. We want to prove that $`H`$ decomposes as a direct sum of subspaces as $`H^{}`$.

Fix $`h=dimH`$ pairs $`x_i+y_i=0`$ that span $`H`$. If $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H=\{x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_h,y_h\}`$, then the desired decomposition is just $`H=K`$. If there is a generator $`x_0H`$ different from $`\{x_i,y_i\}`$, by step 1, up to renaming $`\{x_i,y_i\}`$, we can suppose that $`x_0=y_1+\mathrm{}+y_m`$ with $`2mh`$. Let $`H^{}`$ be the linear span of $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_m\}`$. We have to show that if $`v`$ is another generator in $`H`$ such that $`vx_0`$, then the smallest linear subspace $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ containing $`v`$ satisfies $`H^{}H^{\prime \prime }=\{0\}`$.

Again by step 1, we know that $`v=_{i=1}^h\epsilon _ix_i`$ with $`\epsilon _i\{1,0,1\}`$ for all $`i`$. Up to renaming $`\{x_{m+1},y_{m+1},\mathrm{},x_h,y_h\}`$, we can assume that

$$v=\underset{iI}{}x_i+\underset{jJ}{}y_j+\underset{k=m+1}{\overset{s}{}}y_k$$

where $`I,J\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ disjoint and $`m<sh`$. Remark that it must be $`s>m`$, because by step 3 we know that $`vH^{}`$ (and $`x_0H^{\prime \prime }`$).

Suppose first that $`\mathrm{\#}Ir`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}Jr`$ and choose a partition $`I^r,J^r`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ such that $`I^rI`$, $`J^rJ`$. Set $`\eta =x_i,y_j_{iI^r,jJ^r}`$. By step 4, we have $`v+\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$, and since $`\{v,x_i,y_j,x_{m+1},..,x_{s1}\}_{iI^r,jJ^r}`$ are linearly independent, lemma 6 implies that we can reorder $`\{x_{m+1},..,x_{s1}\}`$ in such a way that

$$\eta +v,x_{m+1},..,x_t,y_{t+1},..,y_{s1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_X,\text{ with }mts1,$$

and by step 2 the same is true for $`\eta ^{}=x_j,y_i_{jJ^r,iI^r}`$. Now, the relations

$$\underset{k=t+1}{\overset{s}{}}y_k(v+\underset{iI}{}y_i+\underset{jJ}{}x_j+\underset{h=m+1}{\overset{t}{}}x_h)=0,v+\underset{h=m+1}{\overset{t}{}}x_h+x_s(\underset{iI}{}x_i+\underset{jJ}{}y_j+\underset{k=t+1}{\overset{s1}{}}y_k)=0$$

are effective by lemma 1, and since $`X`$ is Fano, they have positive degree: thus we get $`\mathrm{\#}I+\mathrm{\#}Js+m2t2`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}I+\mathrm{\#}J2t+2ms`$. So $`\mathrm{\#}I+\mathrm{\#}J0`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}I=\mathrm{\#}J=0`$: then $`v=_{k=m+1}^sy_k`$ and $`H^{}H^{\prime \prime }=\{0\}`$.

Suppose now that either $`\mathrm{\#}I`$ or $`\mathrm{\#}J`$ is bigger than $`r`$. In this case, we get a contradiction; the proof is very similar to the preceeding case. Suppose that $`\mathrm{\#}I>r`$: we can write

$$v=x_1+\mathrm{}+x_r+\underset{iI^{}}{}x_i+\underset{jJ}{}y_j+\underset{k=m+1}{\overset{s}{}}y_k,$$

where $`I=\{1,..,r\}I^{}`$. Reasonning as before we get the same cones in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$; now we consider the relations:

$$\underset{iI^{}}{}x_i+\underset{k=t+1}{\overset{s}{}}y_k(v+y_1+\mathrm{}+y_r+\underset{jJ}{}x_j+\underset{h=m+1}{\overset{t}{}}x_h)=0,$$

$$v+\underset{iI^{}}{}y_i+\underset{h=m+1}{\overset{t}{}}x_h+x_s(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_r+\underset{jJ}{}y_j+\underset{k=t+1}{\overset{s1}{}}y_k)=0.$$

Since they have positive degree, we get $`\mathrm{\#}I^{}\mathrm{\#}J+r`$, hence $`\mathrm{\#}J=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}I^{}=r`$. Thus $`v=x_0`$, a contradiction. In the same way, if $`\mathrm{\#}J>r`$, we get $`v=x_0`$, again a contradiction. ∎

###### Remark.

In the same setting as step 7, it is not true in general that $`H^{}`$ contains the fan of $`\stackrel{~}{V}^m`$. Indeed, the sets $`\{x_i,y_j\}_{iI^{r+s},jJ^{rs}}`$ where $`I^{r+s},J^{rs}`$ is a partition of $`\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ and $`s\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$, do not need to generate a cone in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$.

As an immediate corollary, we get a generalization of Ewald’s result \[Ewa88\]:

###### Proposition 7.

Let $`X`$ be a toric Fano variety and let $`H`$ be the linear subspace of $`N_{}`$ spanned by all pairs of symmetric generators in $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$.

Suppose that $`dimH=n`$. Then $`X`$ is a product of Del Pezzo varieties, pseudo Del Pezzo varieties and a power of $`^1`$.

Suppose that $`dimH=n1`$. Then there exists $`X^{}_X`$ which is a toric bundle over $`^1`$ with fiber a product of Del Pezzo varieties, pseudo Del Pezzo varieties and a power of $`^1`$.

In dimension 4, there are only two toric Fano varieties which have 3 linearly independent pairs of symmetric generators and such that $`X^{}`$ is not isomorphic to $`X`$. These 4-folds are $`M1`$ and $`R3`$, in Batyrev’s notation \[Bat99\]. In both cases $`\phi :X^{}X`$ is just a flip.

###### Proof of proposition 7.

The statement for $`dimH=n`$ is straightforward from theorem 5: let $`XX^{}W`$ be as in theorem 5, $`(iii)`$. Then $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_W)`$ consists of $`dimW`$ linearly independent pairs of symmetric generators $`\overline{x}_i,\overline{y}_i`$, where $`\overline{u}`$ denotes the image of $`u`$ under the projection $`NN/H^{}`$, $`H^{}=H_1\mathrm{}H_a\stackrel{~}{H}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{H}_b`$. Since $`W`$ is Fano, we have $`W(^1)^{dimW}`$. Moreover, the primitive relations of $`W`$ $`\overline{x}_i+\overline{y}_i=0`$ remain unchanged when lifted to $`N`$, hence $`X^{}`$ is actually the product $`V^{h_1}\times \mathrm{}\times V^{h_a}\times \stackrel{~}{V}^{\stackrel{~}{h}_1}\times \mathrm{}\times \stackrel{~}{V}^{\stackrel{~}{h}_b}\times (^1)^{dimW}`$. Since $`X^{}`$ is Fano, $`X^{}X`$.

Assume $`dimH=n1`$ and fix $`n1`$ pairs $`x_i,y_i`$ with $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$ such that $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}`$ are a basis for $`H`$ and $`x_i+y_i=0`$ for all $`i`$.

###### Claim.

Let $`v,wG(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H`$. Then either $`\{v,w\}`$ is a primitive collection with relation $`v+wz=0`$ and $`zG(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H`$, or $`v,w\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ and $`w=_{i=1}^{n1}\epsilon _ix_i+\delta v`$ with $`|\delta |=1`$ and $`\epsilon _i\{1,0,1\}`$ for all $`i`$; moreover, the number of non-zero $`\epsilon _i`$ is odd.

###### Proof of the claim.

If $`vG(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H`$, then by lemma 6 $`\{v,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}`$ is a basis of $`N`$. Hence, if $`v,wG(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H`$, we have $`w=_{i=1}^{n1}\epsilon _ix_i+\delta v`$ with $`|\delta |=1`$.

Suppose that $`\{v,w\}`$ is a primitive collection. Since $`v+w0`$ (otherwise $`dimH=n`$), the associated primitive relation must be $`v+wz=0`$, with $`zG(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)`$. Then $`z=_{i=1}^{n1}\epsilon _ix_i+(1+\delta )v`$, hence it must be $`\delta =1`$ and $`zH`$.

Let’s assume that $`v,w\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. We can reorder $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}`$ in such a way that $`w=_{i=1}^r\epsilon _ix_i+\delta v`$ with $`r\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ and $`\epsilon _i0`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$. Fix $`i\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$. Since $`\{v,w,x_1,..,\stackrel{ˇ}{x}_i,..,x_r\}`$ are linearly independendent, lemma 6 implies that it is a part of a basis of the lattice. Hence $`|\epsilon _i|=1`$.

It remains to show that $`r`$ is odd. Up to renaming $`\{x_i,y_i\}`$, we can assume that $`w=_{i=1}^rx_i+\delta v`$, where $`|\delta |=1`$. Again by lemma 6, there exists a partition $`I,J`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},r1\}`$ such that $`v,w,x_i,y_j_{iI,jJ}\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$. Consider now the two relations:

$$\underset{iI}{}x_i+x_r+\delta vw\underset{jJ}{}y_j=0,\underset{jJ}{}y_j+y_r+w\delta v\underset{iI}{}x_i=0.$$

They are both effective by lemma 1, so they must have positive degree: this gives $`\mathrm{\#}J=\mathrm{\#}I+\delta 1`$, hence $`r=2\mathrm{\#}I+\delta `$ is odd. ∎

We first prove the proposition in the case $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H=\{x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1},y_{n1}\}`$ (namely, in the decomposition given by theorem 5, we have $`H=K`$). Then, we can restate the claim as follows: for every $`v,wG(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H`$, we have $`w=_{i=1}^{n1}\epsilon _ix_i+\delta v`$ with $`|\delta |=1`$ and $`\epsilon _i\{1,0,1\}`$ for all $`i`$; moreover, the number of non-zero $`\epsilon _i`$ is odd.

Remark that $`\mathrm{\#}(G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H)2`$, because since $`X`$ is complete, there is at least one generator in both half-spaces cut by $`H`$. Let’s show that $`\mathrm{\#}(G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H)=2`$. By contradiction, suppose that $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)H\{v_1,v_2,w\}`$ with $`v_1,v_2`$ in the same half-space cut by $`H`$ and $`w`$ in the other one. By the claim we have $`v_2=v_1+_{iI}\epsilon _ix_i`$ and $`w=v_1+_{jJ}\delta _jx_j`$ with $`I,J\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, $`|\epsilon _i|=|\delta _j|=1`$ for all $`i,j`$, and $`\mathrm{\#}I`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}J`$ odd. Then

$$w+v_2=\underset{i(IJ)}{}\epsilon _ix_i+\underset{j(JI)}{}\delta _jx_j+\underset{iIJ}{}(\epsilon _i+\delta _i)x_i.$$

Since by the claim all the coefficients must be 1 or -1, we have $`\epsilon _i+\delta _i=0`$ for all $`iIJ`$, and the non-zero coefficients are $`\mathrm{\#}(IJ)+\mathrm{\#}(JI)=\mathrm{\#}I+\mathrm{\#}J2\mathrm{\#}(IJ)`$ an even number, a contradiction.

Therefore we have $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)=\{x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1},y_{n1},v,w\}`$ and up to renaming $`\{x_i,y_i\}`$, we can assume $`v+w=x_1+\mathrm{}+x_r`$, $`r\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ odd. Hence $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)=G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X^{})`$ where $`X^{}`$ has primitive relations: $`x_i+y_i=0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, and $`v+w(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_r)=0`$. Thus $`X^{}`$ is a $`(^1)^{n1}`$-bundle over $`^1`$. We can actually say more: define $`Y^{}`$ to be the $`(r+1)`$-dimensional smooth toric variety with $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_Y^{})=\{x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_r,y_r,v,w\}`$ and primitive relations $`x_i+y_i=0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$ and $`v+w(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_r)=0`$. Then $`Y^{}`$ is a $`(^1)^r`$-bundle over $`^1`$ and $`X^{}=(^1)^{n1r}\times Y^{}`$. Moreover, $`X=(^1)^{n1r}\times Y`$, where $`Y`$ is Fano and $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_Y)=G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_Y^{})`$.

We have now to prove the general case. Let $`XX^{}W`$ be as in theorem 5, $`(iii)`$. Then $`W`$ is Fano and has at least $`dimW1`$ linearly independent pairs of symmetric generators $`\overline{x}_i+\overline{y}_i=0`$, where $`\overline{u}`$ denotes the image of $`u`$ under the projection $`NN/H^{}`$, $`H^{}=H_1\mathrm{}H_a\stackrel{~}{H}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{H}_b`$. By what preceeds, $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_W)`$ has exactly $`2dimW`$ elements: the last two are $`\overline{v}`$, $`\overline{w}`$ such that $`\overline{v}+\overline{w}=\overline{x}_1+\mathrm{}+\overline{x}_r`$ for some $`r\{0,\mathrm{},dimW\}`$ (if $`r>0`$ then it must be odd). In $`X^{}`$, by hypothesis we still have $`x_i+y_i=0`$; the last relation lifts as $`v+w=x_1+\mathrm{}+x_r+u_1+\mathrm{}+u_s`$, where $`\{u_1,\mathrm{},u_s\}`$ are contained in $`H^{}`$ (and again $`r+s`$ is odd). Hence $`X^{}`$ is a toric bundle over $`^1`$ with fiber $`V^{h_1}\times \mathrm{}\times V^{h_a}\times \stackrel{~}{V}^{\stackrel{~}{h}_1}\times \mathrm{}\times \stackrel{~}{V}^{\stackrel{~}{h}_b}\times (^1)^{dimW1}`$. ∎

###### Remark.

We think that it should be possible, with a detailed analysis, to classify all the possible $`X`$ Fano with $`dimH=n1`$, namely: to list all the possible decompositions of $`v+w`$ in $`H`$, or in other words again, to list all the possible $`X^{}^1`$ with fiber a product of Del Pezzo varieties, pseudo Del Pezzo varieties and a power of $`^1`$, such that there exists $`X`$ Fano with $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X)=G(\mathrm{\Sigma }_X^{})`$. In the proof, we did this when the fiber of $`X^{}^1`$ is just a power of $`^1`$.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Laurent Bonavero and Olivier Debarre, for many useful conversations about toric Fano varieties.

I am also very grateful to Lucia Caporaso, my advisor, for her constant guide.