text:
# Discreteness of minimal models of Kodaira dimension zero and subvarieties of moduli stacks

## 1. Introduction

Let $`f:VU`$ be a smooth projective morphism with connected fibres over a complex quasi-projective manifold $`U`$.

###### Definition 1.1.

1. $`\mathrm{Var}(f)`$ is the smallest integer $`\eta `$ for which there exists a finitely generated subfield $`K`$ of $`\overline{(U)}`$ of transcendence degree $`\eta `$ over $``$, a variety $`F^{}`$ defined over $`K`$, and a birational equivalence

$$V\times _U\mathrm{Spec}(\overline{(U)})F^{}\times _{\mathrm{Spec}(K)}\mathrm{Spec}(\overline{(U)}).$$
2. $`f:VY`$ is birationally isotrivial if $`\mathrm{Var}(f)=0`$, hence if there exists some generically finite covering $`U^{}U`$, a projective manifold $`F^{}`$, and a birational map

$$V\times _UU^{}U^{}\times F^{}.$$
3. $`f:VU`$ is (biregulary) isotrivial if there exists a generically finite covering $`U^{}U`$, a projective manifold $`F`$ and an isomorphism

$$V\times _UU^{}U^{}\times F.$$

So the variation of a morphisms counts the number of parameters controlling the birational structure of the fibres of $`F`$.

Maehara has shown in  that under the assumption that $`\omega _F`$ is semi-ample and big for a general fibre $`F`$ of $`f`$, a family is birationally isotrivial, if and only if it is biregulary isotrivial. In different terms, for families of minimal models of complex manifolds of general type, $`\mathrm{Var}(f)`$ measures the number of directions where the structure of $`F`$ varies. As shortly discussed in 4 his result today follow immediately from the existence of the moduli scheme $`M_h`$ of canonically polarized manifolds, and from the description of an ample invertible sheaf on $`M_h`$.

We will slightly extend the methods used to prove , Theorem 6.24, to show that for families with $`\omega _F^\delta =𝒪_F`$, for some $`\delta >0`$, the same holds true. We will show that for a given projective manifold $`F^{}`$ the set of minimal models is discrete, hence that there are no non-trivial families of minimal models.

Let us fix some polarization $``$ of $`f:VU`$, with Hilbert polynomial $`h`$. If $`\omega _{V/U}`$ is $`f`$-ample we will choose $`=\omega _{V/U}^\rho `$, for some $`\rho >0`$. By  there exists a quasi-projective moduli schemes $`M_h`$, parameterizing polarized manifolds $`(F,)`$ with $`\omega _F`$ semiample and with $`h(\nu )=\chi (^\nu )`$. The family $`f:VU`$ together with $``$ induces a map

$$\phi :UM_h$$

Since we require $`\phi :UM_h`$ to be induced by a family it factors through the moduli stack $`_h`$.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`f:VU`$ be a family of polarized manifolds. Assume that $`\omega _F^\delta =𝒪_F`$, for some $`\delta >0`$ (or that all fibres $`F`$ of $`f`$ are canonically polarized). Let $`\phi :UM_h`$ be the induced morphism to the moduli scheme. Then $`\mathrm{Var}(f)=dim(\phi (U))`$.

If in Theorem 1.2 the morphism $`f:VU`$ is birationally isotrivial, $`\phi (U)`$ must be zero dimensional, hence $`f`$ is biregulary isotrivial.

As Y. Kawamata told us, Theorem 1.2 remains true for families of polarized manifolds with $`\omega _{X/Y}`$ $`f`$-semiample. Here however one has to replace the moduli scheme $`M_h`$ by the moduli scheme $`P_h`$ of polarized manifolds, up to numerical equivalence (see ). So given a family $`f:VU`$ of polarized manifolds with $`\omega _{V/U}`$ $`f`$-semiample, let $`\psi :UP_h`$ be the morphism to the moduli scheme of polarized manifolds up to numerical equivalence. Then $`\mathrm{Var}(f)=dim(\psi (U))`$.

For some applications to subvarieties of moduli stacks of polarized $`n`$-folds of Kodaira dimension $`0<\kappa <n`$, one still has to understand the structure of the ample sheaves on $`P_h`$, less transparent than the ones on $`M_h`$. Nevertheless, we hope that most of the results stated in the second half of this note remain true for all Kodaira dimensions, with $`M_h`$ replaced by $`P_h`$.

Theorem 1.2, or more generally the equivalence of biregular and birational isotriviality allows to extends some of the results obtained in  for canonically polarized manifolds to families of manifolds $`F`$ with $`\omega _F^\delta =𝒪_F`$ (see Theorem 6.3, i) and ii) and Section 7). This is done in the second half of this article, a continuation of . What methods are concerned, the reader familiar with  will find nothing new. In fact we just sketch the changes needed to extend some of the results to this case.

In the final Section 8 we will state a criterion for the rigidity of non-isotrivial families over curves, and its translation to curves in the moduli stack of minimal polarized manifolds of Kodaira dimension zero, or of canonically polarized manifolds. This criterion is implicitly used in , Proof of 6.4 and 6.5, but it was not explicitly stated there.

A slightly weaker statement (8.2) extends to all families with $`\omega _F`$ semiample. A similar criterion has been shown by S. Kovács and, for families of Calabi-Yau manifolds by K. Liu, A. Todorov, S.-T. Yau and the second named author in . As a corollary one obtains (see 8.4):

###### Corollary 1.3.

Let $`M_h`$ be either the moduli scheme of canonically polarized manifolds or the moduli scheme of polarized manifolds $`F`$ with $`\omega _F^\delta =𝒪`$ for some $`\delta >0`$. There are only finitely many morphisms $`\phi :UM_h`$ which are induced by a smooth family $`f:VU`$ with:
For a general fibre $`F`$ of $`f`$ the $`n`$-th wedge product

$$0^n\xi H^n(F,\omega _F^1),$$

where $`\xi H^1(F,T_F)`$ denotes the Kodaira Spencer class corresponding to the deformation $`f:VU`$ of $`F`$.

The first half of this article presents a proof of Theorem 1.2, hopefully of interest independently of the applications to subvarieties of moduli stacks. In the first section, we will show, that the proof of Theorem 1.2 can be reduced to families over a curve. Next we recall and strengthen a Positivity Theorem from . It allows to reinterpret Maehara’s Result in section 4. The case of minimal models of Kodaira dimension zero is handled in Section 5.

## 2. Reduction to families over curves

In Definition 1.1, i), we may choose a finitely generated subfield $`L`$ of $`\overline{(U)}`$ which contains $`(U)`$ and $`K`$. Let $`U^{}`$ be the normalization of $`U`$ in $`L`$, and let $`T`$ be a smooth quasi-projective variety with function field $`(T)=K`$. Replacing $`T`$ by some open subscheme, we may assume that there exists a smooth projective morphism $`g:ZT`$ with general fibre $`F^{}`$, and replacing $`U^{}`$ by some open subscheme one finds morphisms $`\tau :U^{}U`$ and $`\pi :U^{}T`$ fitting into a diagram

| $`V`$ | $``$ | $`V^{}`$ | $`\stackrel{}{}`$ | $`Z^{}`$ | $``$ | $`Z`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`f`$ |  | $`f^{}`$ |  | $`g^{}`$ |  | $`g`$ |
| $`U`$ | $`\stackrel{\tau }{}`$ | $`U^{}`$ | $`\stackrel{=}{}`$ | $`U^{}`$ | $`\stackrel{\pi }{}`$ | $`T,`$ |

where $`V^{}Z^{}`$ is a birational equivalence, and where the right and left hand squares are fibre products. For a point $`tT`$ in general position, one has

$$dim(\pi ^1(t))=dim(U^{})dim(T)=dim(U)\mathrm{Var}(f).$$

If under the assumptions made in Theorem 1.2 $`\mathrm{Var}(f)<dim(\phi (U))`$, for a point $`\eta \phi (U)`$ in general position,

$$dim(\tau ^1\phi ^1(\eta ))=dim(U^{})dim(\phi (U))<dim(\pi ^1(t)),$$

hence there exists a curve $`C`$ in $`\pi ^1(t)`$ with $`\tau \phi |_C`$ finite. In order to prove Theorem 1.2 one just has to show that such a curve can not exist. Theorem 1.2 follows from

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`U`$ be a non-singular irreducible curve and let $`F^{}`$ be a projective manifold. Let $`f:VU`$ be a family of polarized manifolds. Assume that there exists a birational equivalence $`VU\times F^{}`$ over $`U`$. If either the fibres $`F`$ of $`f`$ are canonically polarized, or if $`\omega _F^\delta =𝒪_F`$, for some $`\delta >0`$, then the induced morphism $`\phi :UM_h`$ is constant.

In particular, $`f:VU`$ is biregulary isotrivial.

In order to prove Proposition 2.1 we may replace $`U`$ by a finite covering. Doing so one can assume that $`f:VU`$ extends to a semistable morphism $`f:XY`$ of projective manifolds, hence that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=f^1(S)`$ is a reduced normal crossing divisor, for $`S=YU`$.

Moreover, we may replace the given polarization by some power. In fact, the corresponding map of the moduli schemes $`M_h`$ is a finite map. This allows to assume that for all fibres $`F`$ of $`VU`$ the polarization $``$ is very ample, and without higher cohomology.

## 3. Positivity of direct image sheaves

Recall that a locally free sheaf $``$ on a projective non-singular curve $`Y`$ is numerically effective (nef), if for all finite morphisms $`\tau :ZY`$ and for all invertible quotients $``$ of $`\tau ^{}()`$ the degree $`\mathrm{deg}()0`$.

Fujita’s positivity theorem (today an easy corollary of Kollár’s vanishing theorem) says that $`f_{}\omega _{X/Y}`$ is nef. By , 2.3, one obtains as a direct consequence.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a morphism from a normal projective variety $`X`$ to a curve $`Y`$, with connected fibres. Assume that $`X`$ has at most rational double points as singularities. Let $`𝒩`$ be an invertible sheaf on $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ an effective divisor. Assume that for some $`N>0`$ there exists a nef locally free sheaf $``$ on $`Y`$ and a surjection

$$f^{}𝒩^N(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

Then

$$f_{}\left(𝒩\omega _{X/Y}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{N}\right\}\right)$$

is nef.

Here $`\omega _{X/Y}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{N}\right\}`$ denotes the (algebraic) multiplier sheaf (see for example , 7.4, or , section 5.3). If $`\tau :X^{}X`$ is any blowing up with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\tau ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a normal crossing divisor, then

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

As in , § 7 and , section 5.3, we are mainly interested in the case where the multiplier sheaf on a general fibre $`F`$ is isomorphic to $`\omega _F`$. The corresponding threshold is defined for any effective divisor $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ or any invertible sheaf $``$ on $`F`$ with $`H^0(F,)0`$.

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

$$e()=\mathrm{Max}\left\{e(\mathrm{\Pi });\mathrm{\Pi }\text{the zero set of}\sigma H^0(F,)\{0\}\right\}.$$

For smooth morphisms $`f:XY`$ and for an $`f`$-ample sheaf $``$ on $`X`$ we obtained in , 6.24 and 7.20, strong positivity theorems. Their proof, in case $`Y`$ is a curve, can easily be extended to semistable morphisms $`f:XY`$.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`Y`$ be a curve, let $`f:XY`$ be a semistable morphism between projective manifolds with connected fibres, and let $``$ be an invertible sheaf on $`X`$. Let $`UY`$ be an open dense subscheme with $`V=f^1(U)U`$ smooth. Assume that for all fibres $`F`$ of $`VU`$ the canonical sheaf $`\omega _F`$ is semiample, that $`|_F`$ is very ample and without higher cohomology. Then for

$$ec_1(|_F)^{dim(F)}+2,r=\mathrm{rank}(f_{})$$

$$\text{ and }r(\nu )=\mathrm{rank}(f_{}(^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^{e\nu })):$$

1. For all $`\nu >0`$

$$\left(\stackrel{r}{}f_{}(^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^{e\nu })\right)det(f_{})^\nu $$

is nef.
2. If the invertible sheaf $`det(f_{}(^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^{e\nu }))det(f_{})^{\nu r(\nu )}`$ is ample for some $`\nu >0`$,

$$\left(\stackrel{r}{}f_{}(\omega _{X/Y}^e)\right)det(f_{})^1$$

is ample.
3. If for all $`\nu >0`$ the degree of

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

is zero, then $`f:VU`$ is biregulary isotrivial as a family of polarized manifolds, i.e. there exists some finite covering $`U^{}U`$, a projective manifold $`F^{}`$, invertible sheaves $`^{}`$ on $`F^{}`$ and $``$ on $`U^{}`$, and an isomorphism

$$\pi :V^{}=X\times _YU^{}F^{}\times U^{}$$

with

$$pr_1^{}=\pi ^{}(pr_1^{}pr_2^{}).$$

###### Proof.

As indicated already, the proof of parts a) and b) will follow the arguments used in , 194–196, to prove 6.20. We just have to take care, that for a semistable family over a curve the sheaves are at most getting larger. So we repeat the arguments.

For a) let us fix some $`\nu >0`$. For b) we assume that

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

is ample.

The semicontinuity of the threshold, shown in , 5.17 for example, allows to find some $`\gamma e\nu `$ with

(3.2.1)
$$e(|_F^{\nu e}\omega _F^{e\nu (e1)})\gamma $$

for all fibres $`F`$ of $`VU`$.

For b) we will show that

$$S^\gamma (\left(\stackrel{rr(\nu )}{}f_{}(\omega _{X/Y}^e)\right)det(f_{})^{r(\nu )})$$

$$det(f_{}(^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^{e\nu }))^{r(e1)}det(f_{})^{\nu r(e1)r(\nu )}$$

is nef. Hence for both, a) or b), it is sufficient to prove the corresponding statements for the pullback of the sheaves to any finite covering $`Y^{}`$ of $`Y`$. Since we assumed $`XY`$ to be semistable, the fibre product $`X^{}=X\times _YY^{}`$ is a normal variety with at most rational double points. Flat base change allows to replace $`Y`$ by such a covering and $`(f:XY,)`$ by a desingularization of the pullback family.

Doing so, we may assume that $`det(f_{})`$ is the $`r`$-th power of an invertible sheaf, and since all the sheaves occurring in a), b) or c) are compatible with changing the polarization by the pullback of an invertible sheaf on $`Y`$, we can as well assume that $`det(f_{})=𝒪_Y`$. Under this additional assumption we have to verify in a) that

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

is nef. For part b) we may assume in addition that

$$det(f_{}(^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^{e\nu }))^{r(e1)}=𝒪_Y(\gamma H)$$

for some effective divisor $`H`$ supported in $`U`$. We have to prove that

$$\left(\stackrel{rr(\nu )}{}f_{}(\omega _{X/Y}^e)\right)𝒪_Y(H)$$

is nef.

Let $`f^s:X^sY`$ be the $`s`$-fold fibre product. $`X^s`$ is normal with at most rational double points (see , page 291, for example). Consider

$$𝒫=\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}pr_i^{}.$$

By flat base change one obtains

$$f_{}^s(𝒫^\alpha \omega _{X^s/Y}^\beta )=\stackrel{s}{}f_{}(^\alpha \omega _{X/Y}^\beta )$$

for all $`\alpha ,\beta `$. The restriction of $`𝒫^\nu \omega _{X^s/Y}^{e\nu \iota }`$ to $`f_{}^{s}{}_{}{}^{1}(U)=V^s`$ is $`f^s`$-ample for all $`\iota e\nu `$. Let us write $`ϵ=e\nu `$ or $`ϵ=e\nu 1`$, where $`\nu `$ may be any positive integer.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the zero divisor of a section of $`𝒫`$, which does not contain any fibre $`F^s`$ of $`V^sU`$ the compatibility of the threshold with products and its semicontinuity imply (see , 5.14 and 5.21)

(3.2.2)
$$e(\mathrm{\Gamma }|_{F^s})e(𝒫|_{F^s})=e(|_F)<e\text{ and }e(\mathrm{\Gamma }|_{V^s})<e.$$

In fact, as shown in , 5.11), one has

$$e(|_F)c_1(|_F)^{dim(F)}+1.$$

Moreover, by the choice of $`ϵ`$

(3.2.3)
$$e(\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }|_{F^s})\nu e(\mathrm{\Gamma }|_{F^s})\nu (c_1(|_F)^{dim(F)}+1)ϵ.$$

Let $``$ be an ample invertible sheaf on $`Y`$.

###### Claim 3.3.

Assume that for some $`\rho 0`$, $`N>0`$, $`M_0>0`$ and for all multiples $`M`$ of $`M_0`$, the sheaf

$$f_{}((^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^ϵ)^{MN})^{\rho ϵNM}$$

is nef. Then

$$f_{}((^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^ϵ)^N)^{\rho (ϵN1)}$$

is nef.

###### Proof.

Let us choose $`s=r`$. The determinant gives an inclusion

$$\mathrm{det}(f_{})=𝒪_Yf_{}^r𝒫=\stackrel{r}{}f_{},$$

which splits locally. Hence the zero divisor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the induced section of $`𝒫`$ does not contain any fibre of $`V^rU`$. For

$$𝒩=𝒫^{\nu N}\omega _{X^r/Y}^{ϵN1}f^r^{\rho (ϵN1)r}$$

one obtains that the restriction of

$$𝒩^ϵ(\nu \mathrm{\Gamma })=(𝒫^\nu \omega _{X^r/Y}^ϵf^r^{\rho ϵr})^{(ϵN1)}$$

to $`V^s`$ is $`f^r`$-ample. If $`M^{}`$ is a positive integer, divisible by $`M_0N`$ the sheaf

$$f_{}^r(𝒩^ϵ(\nu \mathrm{\Gamma })^M^{})=\stackrel{r}{}(f_{}(^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^ϵ)^{(ϵN1)M^{}}^{\rho ϵr(ϵN1)M^{}})$$

is nef. Choose $`M^{}`$ such that

$$f^{}f_{}((^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^ϵ)^{(ϵN1)M^{}})(^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^ϵ)^{(ϵN1)M^{}}$$

is surjective over $`U`$.

3.1 implies that the subsheaf $`f_{}^r(𝒩\omega _{X^r/Y}\left\{\frac{\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }}{ϵ}\right\})`$ of

$$f_{}^r(𝒩\omega _{X^r/Y})=\stackrel{r}{}(f_{}(^{\nu N}\omega _{X/Y}^{ϵN})^{\rho (ϵN1)})$$

is nef. On the other hand, (3.2.2) and (3.2.3) imply that both sheaves coincide on $`U`$. ∎

Choose some $`N_0>0`$ such that for all multiples $`N`$ of $`N_0`$ and for all $`M>0`$ the multiplication maps

$$m:S^M(f_{}(^{\nu N}\omega _{X/Y}^{ϵN}))f_{}(^{\nu NM}\omega _{X/Y}^{ϵNM})$$

are surjective over $`U`$. Define

$$\rho =\mathrm{Min}\{\mu >0;f_{}(^{\nu N}\omega _{X/Y}^{ϵN})^{\mu ϵN}\text{is nef}\}.$$

The surjectivity of $`m`$ implies that

$$f_{}(^{\nu NM}\omega _{X/Y}^{ϵNM})^{\rho ϵNM}$$

is nef for all $`M>0`$. By 3.3

$$f_{}(^{\nu N}\omega _{X/Y}^{ϵN})^{\rho (ϵN1)}.$$

is nef, hence by the choice of $`\rho `$

$$(\rho 1)ϵN<\rho (ϵN1)$$

or equivalently $`\rho <ϵN`$. Then

$$f_{}(^N\omega _{X/Y}^{ϵN})^{ϵ^2N^2}$$

is nef. This remains true if one replaces $`Y`$ by any finite covering, and by , 2.2, one obtains that $`f_{}(^N\omega _{X/Y}^{ϵN})`$ is nef. Applying 3.3 a second time, for the numbers $`(N^{},N_0)`$ instead of $`(N,M_0)`$ and for $`\rho =0`$, one finds

###### Claim 3.4.

For $`\nu >0`$ and $`ϵ=e\nu `$ or $`ϵ=e\nu 1`$ and for all $`N^{}>0`$ the sheaf

$$f_{}((^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^ϵ)^N^{})$$

is nef.

In particular, choosing $`N^{}=1`$ and $`ϵ=\nu e`$ one obtains a).

For b) we consider the $`s`$-fold product $`f^s:X^sY`$ for $`s=rr(\nu ).`$ One has natural inclusions, splitting locally,

$$𝒪_Y=\mathrm{det}(f_{})^{r(\nu )}f_{}^s𝒫=\stackrel{s}{}f_{}$$

and

$$det(f_{}(^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^{e\nu }))^rf_{}^s(𝒫^\nu \omega _{X^s/Y}^{e\nu })=\stackrel{s}{}f_{}(^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^{e\nu }).$$

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ denote the corresponding zero-divisors on $`X^s`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ does not contain any fibre of $`V^sU`$. Then

$$𝒫^{e\nu }\omega _{X^s/Y}^{e\nu (e1)}=f_{}^{s}{}_{}{}^{}det(f_{}(^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^{e\nu }))^{r(e1)}𝒪_{X^s}((e1)\mathrm{\Delta }_2+\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_1),$$

and

$$𝒫^\gamma \omega _{X^s/Y}^{\gamma (e1)}=(𝒫\omega _{X^s/Y}^{e1})^{\gamma \nu e}𝒪_X(\gamma f_{}^{s}{}_{}{}^{}H+(e1)\mathrm{\Delta }_2+\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_1)).$$

By 3.4 the sheaf

$$f_{}^{s}{}_{}{}^{}((𝒫\omega _{X^s/Y}^{e1})^{\gamma \nu e})^M=\stackrel{s}{}f_{}((𝒫\omega _{X/Y}^{e1})^{\gamma \nu e})^M$$

is nef for all $`M>0`$. 3.1 implies that

$$𝒫\omega _{X^s/Y}^{e1}\omega _{X^s/Y}\left\{\frac{\gamma f_{}^{s}{}_{}{}^{}H+(e1)\mathrm{\Delta }_2+\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_1}{\gamma }\right\}$$

is nef. By (3.2.2) and (3.2.1)

$$e(((e1)\mathrm{\Delta }_2+\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_1)|_{F^s})e(𝒫|_{F^s}^{\nu e}\omega _{F^s}^{e\nu (e1)})=$$

$$e(|_F^{\nu e}\omega _F^{e\nu (e1)})\gamma $$

for all fibres $`F`$ of $`VU`$. Hence the cokernel of

$$\omega _{X^s/Y}\left\{\frac{\gamma f_{}^{s}{}_{}{}^{}H+(e1)\mathrm{\Delta }_2+\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_1}{\gamma }\right\}\omega _{X^s/Y}(f_{}^{s}{}_{}{}^{}H)$$

lies in $`X^sV^s`$, and thereby

$$f_{}^{s}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒫\omega _{X^s/Y}^e)𝒪_Y(H)=\left(\stackrel{rr(\nu )}{}f_{}(\omega _{X/Y}^e)\right)𝒪_Y(H)$$

is nef.

Part c) follows from part a) and Kollar’s ampleness criterion (see , 4.34). Again we may assume that $`det(f_{})=𝒪_Y`$. By part a) for all $`\eta >0`$ the sheaf $`=f_{}(^\eta \omega _{X/Y}^{e\eta })`$ is nef. Choose $`\nu >0`$ such that the multiplication map

$$\mu :S^\nu (^\eta )f_{}(^{\nu \eta }\omega _{X/Y}^{e\nu \eta })$$

is surjective over $`U`$. By , 4.34, $`det(\mathrm{Im}(\mu ))`$ is ample, if the kernel $`𝒦`$ of the multiplication map is of maximal variation. Let us recall the definition. For a point $`yU`$ choose a local trivialization of $``$. Then $`𝒦_y=𝒦(y)`$ as a subvectorspace of $`S^\nu (^{r(\eta )})`$, defines a point $`[𝒦_y]`$ in the Grassmann variety

$$𝔾r=\mathrm{Grass}(r(\nu \eta ),S^\nu (^{r(\eta )})).$$

The group $`G=\mathrm{Sl}(r(\eta ),)`$ acts on $`S^\nu (^{r(\eta )})`$, hence on $`𝔾r`$. Let $`G_y`$ denote the orbit of $`[𝒦_y]`$. The kernel has maximal variation, if

$$\{zY;G_z=G_y\}$$

is finite, as well as the stabilizer of $`[𝒦_y]`$.

The second condition holds true for $`\eta `$ and $`\nu `$ sufficiently large. In fact, $`𝒦_y`$ determines the fibre $`f^1(y)`$ as a subvariety of

$$(H^0(f^1(y),(^\eta \omega _{X/Y}^{e\eta })|_{f^1(y)})),$$

and $`[𝒦_y]`$ is nothing but the point of the Hilbert scheme $`\mathrm{Hilb}`$ parameterizing subvarieties of this projective space. By , 7.2, the stabilizer of such a point is finite.

The assumption in c) implies that $`𝒦`$ is not of maximal variation. Hence for all points $`z`$ in a neighborhood $`U_y`$ of $`y`$, the orbits $`G_z`$ coincide. In different terms the images of $`zU_y`$ in $`\mathrm{Hilb}`$ all belong to the same $`G`$-orbit. Since $`M_h`$ is a quotient of a subscheme of $`\mathrm{Hilb}`$ by the $`G`$-action, the morphism $`\phi :UM_h`$ is constant, as claimed in c). ∎

## 4. Families of canonically polarized manifolds

For families with $`\omega _F`$ big and semi-ample the equivalence of birational and biregular isotriviality has been shown by Maehara in . For families of canonically polarized manifolds, one just has to use, that the fibres are their own canonical model.

Or, to formulate the proof parallel to the one given below in the Kodaira dimension zero case, one could argue in the following way. Assume that $`U`$ is a curve, and choose a semistable compactification $`f:XY`$ of $`VU`$. By assumption $`X`$ is birational to the trivial family $`F^{}\times Y`$ over $`Y`$, hence $`f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\nu `$ is a direct sum of copies of $`𝒪_Y`$, for all $`\nu `$. Obviously, if $``$ is some power of $`\omega _{X/Y}`$ this implies that

$$det(f_{}(^\nu \omega _{X/Y}^{e\nu }))det(f_{})^{\nu r(\nu )}=𝒪_Y,$$

and by 3.2, c), one finds $`VU`$ to be biregulary isotrivial.

## 5. Families of manifolds of Kodaira dimension zero

Let $`U`$ be a curve and $`f:VU`$ be a family of polarized manifolds $`F`$ with $`\omega _F^\delta =𝒪_F`$. In order to prove 2.1 we may replace $`U`$ by some finite cover, and we may choose a compactification $`f:XY`$ satisfying the assumptions made in Theorem 3.2.

By assumption, $`\lambda =f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\delta `$ is an invertible sheaf, and the natural map $`f^{}\lambda \omega _{X/Y}^\delta `$ is an isomorphism over $`V`$. Let $`E`$ be the zero divisor of this map, i.e.

$$\omega _{X/Y}^\delta =f^{}\lambda 𝒪_X(E).$$

$`E`$ is supported in $`\mathrm{\Delta }=XV`$ and, since the fibres of $`f`$ are reduced divisors, $`E`$ can not contain a whole fibre. Hence for all $`\mu >0`$ $`f_{}𝒪_X(\mu E)=𝒪_Y`$ and $`f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^{\mu \delta }=\lambda ^\mu `$.

Let $`^{}`$ be any polarization which is very ample and without higher cohomology on the fibres of $`VU`$. The sheaf

$$f_{}(^{}𝒪_X(E))=f_{}(^{}(\underset{\mu >0}{lim}𝒪(\mu E)))$$

is coherent, hence locally free.

In fact, locally étale or locally analytic we can choose over a neighborhood $`𝒰`$ of $`sS=YU`$ a section $`\sigma :𝒰X`$ with image $`C`$, not meeting the support of $`E`$. If $`I`$ denotes the ideal sheaf of $`C`$, for some $`\rho 0`$

$$f_{}(^{}|_{f^1(𝒰)}I^\rho )=0.$$

Since direct images are torsion free, and since $`E`$ is supported in fibres,

$$f_{}((^{}𝒪_X(E))|_{f^1(𝒰)}I^\rho )=0.$$

Then $`f_{}(^{}𝒪_X(E))|_𝒰`$ is a torsion free subsheaf of

$$f_{}((^{}𝒪_X(E))|_{f^1(𝒰)}𝒪_{f^1(𝒰)}/I^\rho )=f_{}(^{}|_{f^1(𝒰)}𝒪_{f^1(𝒰)}/I^\rho ),$$

hence coherent.

Let $``$ be the reflexive hull of the image of

$$f^{}f_{}(^{}𝒪_X(E))^{}𝒪_X(E).$$

$``$ is again coherent, and it must be contained in $`^{}𝒪_X(\alpha E)`$ for some $`\alpha `$. Since it is reflexive, it is an invertible sheaf. By construction $`|_V^{}|_V`$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}f_{}(^{}𝒪_X(E))=f_{}f^{}f_{}(^{}𝒪_X(E))\hfill \\ \hfill f_{}f_{}(𝒪_X(E))f_{}(^{}𝒪_X(E)),\end{array}$$

hence all those sheaves coincide. We found an invertible sheaf $``$ satisfying the assumptions made in 3.2 with the additional condition

$$f_{}(\omega _{X/Y}^e)=f_{}(𝒪_X(\frac{e}{\delta }E)f^{}\lambda ^{\frac{e}{\delta }})=f_{}\lambda ^{\frac{e}{\delta }},$$

for all multiples $`e`$ of $`\delta `$. For those $`e`$

(5.0.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\stackrel{r}{}f_{}(\omega _{X/Y}^e)\right)det(f_{})^1=\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\stackrel{r}{}(f_{})\lambda ^{\frac{e}{\delta }}\right)det(f_{})^1.\end{array}$$

###### Proof of 2.1 for $`\omega _F^\delta =𝒪_F`$.

By assumption $`f:XY`$ is birational over $`Y`$ to the trivial family $`pr_2:F^{}\times YY`$, hence

$$\lambda =f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\delta =𝒪_Y.$$

So the sheaf in (5.0.1) is

$$\left(\stackrel{r}{}(f_{})\right)det(f_{})^1.$$

Since its determinant is of degree zero, it can not be ample. (5.0.1) and 3.2, b), imply that for no $`\nu >0`$ the sheaf

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

is ample. By 3.2, a), it is of non negative degree, and 3.2, c), implies that the family $`VU`$ is biregulary isotrivial. ∎

###### Remark 5.1.

Assume that $`\delta =1`$, hence that $`\omega _{V/U}=f^{}\lambda |_U`$. The argument used in the proof of 2.1 shows in this particular case that “$`f`$ non-isotrivial” implies that on the compactification $`Y`$ of $`U`$

$$\mathrm{deg}(f_{}\omega _{X/Y})>0.$$

Since the same holds true for all finite coverings of $`U`$, one obtains that the fibres of the period map from $`M_h`$ to the period domain classifying the corresponding variations of Hodge structures can not contain a quasi-projective curve. Of course this is a well known consequence of the local Torelli Theorem for manifolds with a trivial canonical bundle.

## 6. Kodaira-Spencer maps

Recall first the following definition, replacing of nef and ample, on projective manifolds $`Y`$ of higher dimension.

###### Definition 6.1.

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

1. $``$ is generically generated if the natural morphism

$$H^0(Y,)𝒪_Y$$

is surjective over some open dense subset $`U_0`$ of $`Y`$. If one wants to specify $`U_0`$ one says that $``$ is globally generated over $`U_0`$.
2. $``$ is weakly positive if there exists some dense open subset $`U_0`$ of $`Y`$ with $`|_{U_0}`$ locally free, and if for all $`\alpha >0`$ there exists some $`\beta >0`$ such that

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

is globally generated over $`U_0`$. We will also say that $``$ is weakly positive over $`U_0`$, in this case.
3. $``$ is big if there exists some open dense subset $`U_0`$ in $`Y`$ and some $`\mu >0`$ such that

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

is weakly positive over $`U_0`$. Underlining the role of $`U_0`$ we will also call $``$ ample with respect to $`U_0`$.

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

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

we define

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

Again, $`f:VU`$ denotes a smooth family of manifolds over a quasi-projective manifold $`U`$, which is allowed to be of dimension larger than one. We choose non-singular projective compactifications $`Y`$ of $`U`$ and $`X`$ of $`V`$, such that both $`S=YU`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=XV`$ are normal crossing divisors and such that $`f`$ extends to $`f:XY`$. As usual $`\eta `$ will denote a closed point in sufficient general position on $`U`$ and $`X_\eta `$ the fibre of $`f`$ over $`\eta `$. We will write $`T_{X_\eta }^i`$ (or $`T_{X/Y}^i(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`\mathrm{}`$) for the $`i`$-th wedge product of $`T_{X_\eta }`$ (or of $`T_{X/Y}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^1(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta })^{}`$ $`\mathrm{}`$).

Let $`T_\eta `$ denote the restriction $`T_U`$ of the tangent sheaf of $`U`$ to $`\eta `$. The Kodaira-Spencer map

$$T_\eta H^1(X_\eta ,T_{X_\eta })$$

gives rise to

$$\stackrel{\nu }{}T_\eta \stackrel{\nu }{}H^1(X_\eta ,T_{X_\eta })H^\nu (X_\eta ,T_{X_\eta }^\nu ).$$

The composite map factors through

$$S^\nu (T_\eta )H^\nu (X_\eta ,T_{X_\eta }^\nu ).$$

One defines

$$\begin{array}{c}\mu (f)=\mathrm{Max}\{\nu \{0\};S^\nu (T_\eta )H^\nu (X_\eta ,T_{X_\eta }^\nu )\text{ is non zero}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Of course, $`\mu (f)n=dim(X_\eta )`$. We do not know any criterion, implying that for $`f:VU`$ one has $`\mu (f)=dim(V)dim(U)`$.

For example, if $`U`$ is a curve and $`f:VU`$ a family of polarized manifolds, restricting the tautological sequence to $`X_\eta =f^1(\eta )`$ one obtains an extension

$$0T_{X_\eta }T_X|_{X_\eta }𝒪_{X_\eta }0$$

and the induced class $`\xi _\eta H^1(X_\eta ,T_{X_\eta })`$. Then $`\mu (f)=\mu `$ if and only if for $`\eta `$ in general position, the wedge product $`^\mu \xi _\eta H^\mu (X_\eta ,T_{X_\eta }^\mu )`$ is non-zero, whereas $`^{\mu +1}\xi _\eta H^{\mu +1}(X_\eta ,T_{X_\eta }^{\mu +1})`$ is zero.

###### Problem 6.2.

Are there properties of $`X_\eta `$ which imply that for all families $`VU`$ over a curve $`U`$, with general fibre $`X_\eta =f^1(\eta )`$ the class

$$^n\xi _\eta H^n(X_\eta ,\omega _{X_\eta }^1)$$

is non-zero?

Being optimistic, one could try in 6.2 the condition “$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{X_\eta }^1`$ ample”.

A slight extension of the main result of  says:

###### Theorem 6.3.

Assume that for a general fibre $`X_\eta `$ of $`f:XY`$ either $`\omega _{X_\eta }`$ is ample, or $`\omega _{X_\eta }^\delta =𝒪_{X_\eta }`$, for some $`\delta `$.

1. Then for some $`m>0`$ the sheaf $`S^m(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}S))`$ contains an invertible subsheaf $``$ of Kodaira dimension $`\mathrm{Var}(f)`$.
2. If $`\mathrm{Var}(f)=dim(U)`$ the sheaf $`S^{\mu (f)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}S))`$ contains a big coherent subsheaf $`𝒫`$.
3. Let $`Z`$ be a submanifold of $`Y`$ such that $`S_Z=SZ`$ remains a normal crossing divisor, and such that $`W=X\times _YZ`$ is non-singular. For the induced family $`h:WZ`$ assume that $`\mu (f)=\mu (h)`$. Then, if $`\mathrm{Var}(f)=dim(U)`$, the restriction of the sheaf $`𝒫`$ from part ii) to $`S^{\mu (f)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^1(\mathrm{log}S_Z))`$ is non trivial.
4. Assume in iii) that $`h:WZ`$ is a desingularization of the pullback of a family $`h^{}:W^{}Z^{}`$ under $`\pi :ZZ^{}`$, with $`Z^{}`$ non-singular and with $`h^{}`$ smooth over $`Z^{}S_Z^{}`$ for a normal crossing divisor $`S_Z^{}`$. Then then the restriction of the sheaf $`𝒫`$ to $`S^{\mu (f)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^1(\mathrm{log}S_Z))`$ lies in $`S^{\mu (f)}(\pi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^{}^1(\mathrm{log}S_Z^{})))`$.

###### Proof.

Parts i) and ii) have been shown in , 1.4, for canonically polarized manifolds with $`\mu (f)`$ replaced by the fibre dimension $`n`$. We will just sketch the changes which allow to extend the arguments used in  to cover 6.3, ii), iii) and iv), for canonically polarized manifolds. Next we will try to convince the reader, that the same proof goes through for minimal models of Kodaira dimension zero.

As in  we drop the assumption that $`Y`$ is projective. Leaving out a codimension two subscheme, we may assume that $`f`$ is flat and that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a relative normal crossing divisor. Then we have the tautological exact sequence

$$0f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}S)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^1(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta })0$$

and the wedge product sequences

(6.3.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}0f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}S)\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^{p1}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta })\hfill \\ \hfill 𝔤𝔯(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }))\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta })0,\end{array}$$

where

$$𝔤𝔯(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }))=\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta })/f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^2(\mathrm{log}S)\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^{p2}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }).$$

For the invertible sheaf $`=\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^n(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta })`$ we consider the sheaves

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

together with the edge morphisms

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

induced by the exact sequence (6.3.1), tensored with $`^1`$. As explained in , Proof of 4.4 iii), over $`U`$ the edge morphisms $`\tau _{p,q}`$ can also be obtained in the following way. Consider the exact sequence

$$0T_{V/U}T_Vf^{}T_U0,$$

and the induced wedge product sequences

$$0T_{V/U}^{np+1}\stackrel{~}{T}_V^{np+1}T_{V/U}^{np}f^{}T_U0,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{T}_V^{np+1}`$ is a subsheaf of $`T_V^{np+1}`$. One finds edge morphisms

$$\tau _{p,q}^{}:(R^qf_{}T_{V/U}^{np})T_UR^{q+1}f_{}T_{V/U}^{np+1}.$$

Restricted to $`\eta `$ those are just the wedge product with the Kodaira-Spencer class. Moreover, tensoring with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_U^1`$ one gets back $`\tau _{p,q}|_U`$. Hence $`\mu (f)`$ is the smallest number $`m`$ for which the composite

$$\begin{array}{c}\tau ^m:F^{n,0}=𝒪_Y\stackrel{\tau _{n,0}}{}F^{n1,1}\mathrm{\Omega }_U^1\stackrel{\tau _{n1,1}}{}F^{n2,2}S^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_U^1)\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{\tau _{nm+1,m1}}{}F^{nm,m}S^m(\mathrm{\Omega }_U^1)\end{array}$$

is non-zero. Next we used that (replacing $`Y`$ by some covering) there is an ample invertible sheaf $`𝒜`$ on $`Y`$ such that the kernel $`𝒦`$ of

$$\mathrm{id}_𝒜\tau _{nm,m}:𝒜F^{nm,m}𝒜F^{nm1,m+1}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}S)$$

is negative, or to be more precise, that its dual is weakly positive. This gives a non-trivial map

$$\upsilon :𝒜𝒦^{}S^m(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}S))$$

and we take for $`𝒫`$ its image.

The number $`m`$ was used in the proof of , 1.4 ii), hence there is no harm to replace the upper bound $`n`$, used there, by the more precise number $`\mu (f)`$ in 6.3, ii).

The sheaves $`F^{p,q}`$ are compatible with restriction to the subvariety $`Z`$. The assumption $`\mu (f)=\mu (h)`$ implies that the restriction

$$\upsilon |_Z:𝒜|_Z𝒦^{}|_ZS^m(\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^1(\mathrm{log}S_Z))$$

is non-trivial. In fact, the kernel $`𝒦^{}`$ of

$$\mathrm{id}_{𝒜_Z}\tau _{nm,m}^Z:𝒜|_ZF^{nm,m}|_Z𝒜|_ZF^{nm1,m+1}|_Z\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^1(\mathrm{log}S_Z)$$

contains $`𝒦|_Z`$, and the diagram

| $`𝒜|_Z𝒦^{}|_Z`$ | $``$ | $`S^m(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}S))|_Z`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $``$ |  | $``$ |
| $`𝒜|_Z𝒦_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ | $``$ | $`S^m(\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^1(\mathrm{log}S_Z))`$ |

is commutative. One obtains iii).

Since the sheaves $`F^{p,q}`$ and the maps $`\tau _{p,q}`$ are compatible with pullbacks, under the additional assumptions made in iv), the image of

$$𝒜|_Z𝒦_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}S^m(\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^1(\mathrm{log}S_Z))$$

lies in $`S^m(\pi ^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^{}^1(\mathrm{log}S_Z^{})))`$ and the same holds true for the restriction of $`𝒫`$.

If one considers the proof of , 1.4, i) and ii), the assumption that the fibres are canonically polarized is used twice. First of all, since we apply in the proof of 4.4, iv), the Akizuki-Kodaira-Nakano vanishing theorem to the restriction of $`\omega _F`$ to a smooth multicanonical divisor $`B`$. If some power of $`\omega _F`$ is trivial the divisor $`B`$ is empty, and there is nothing to show.

The second time is in the proof of , 4.8. We use the diagram (2.8.1) and the fact that the morphism $`Z^\mathrm{\#}Y^\mathrm{\#}`$ considered there is of maximal variation. The construction of (2.8.1) just uses the existence of the moduli scheme $`M_h`$, and it provides a morphism $`Z^\mathrm{\#}Y^\mathrm{\#}`$ induced by a generically finite morphism $`Y^\mathrm{\#}M_h`$.

This construction works in particular for the moduli scheme of polarized manifolds $`F`$ with $`\omega _F^\delta =𝒪_F`$, and 1.2 implies that the variation of the morphism $`Z^\mathrm{\#}Y^\mathrm{\#}`$ is again maximal.

The rest of the arguments, as given on page 311–313 of  remain unchanged, and one obtains 6.3, i), ii) and iii). ∎

For families $`f:XY`$ with $`\omega _{X_\eta }`$ semiample, and with $`\mu (f)=n`$ one can add to , 1.4, a statement similar to 6.3, iii) and iv). Since the later will not be used, we omit it.

###### Theorem 6.4.

Assume $`\omega _{X_\eta }`$ is semiample, and $`\mathrm{Var}(f)=dim(f)`$.

1. There exists a non-singular finite covering $`\psi :Y^{}Y`$ and a big coherent subsheaf $`𝒫^{}`$ of $`\psi ^{}S^m(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}S))`$, for some $`m\mu (f)`$.
2. If $`\mu (f)=n`$, then one finds $`m=n`$ in i).
3. Let $`Z`$ be a submanifold of $`Y`$ such that $`S_Z=SZ`$ remains a normal crossing divisor, and such that $`W=X\times _YZ`$ is non-singular. For the induced family $`h:WZ`$ assume that $`\mu (f)=\mu (h)=n`$. Then one can choose the covering $`\psi `$ such that $`\psi ^1(Z)`$ is non-singular, $`\psi ^1(S_Z)`$ a normal crossing divisor and such that the image of the sheaf $`𝒫^{}`$ from part i) in $`\psi ^{}S^n(\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^1(\mathrm{log}S_Z))`$ is non trivial.

###### Proof.

We keep the notations from the sketch of the proof of 6.3. For part i) we replaced in , page 309 and 310, the sheaves $`F^{p,q}`$ (in fact a twist of those by some invertible sheaf on $`Y`$) by some quotient sheaves. But then $`\mu (f)`$ remains an upper bound for the number $`m`$, used there, and one obtains 6.3, i), as stated.

However, one has no control on the behavior of $`m`$ under restriction to subvarieties. So for part ii) and iii) we have to recall the construction in more detail. To get the weak positivity of the kernels $`𝒦`$ one has to replace (over some covering $`Y^{}`$ of $`Y`$ whose ramification divisor is in general position) $`𝒜F^{nm,m}`$ by its image $`𝒜\stackrel{~}{F}^{nm,m}`$ in some larger sheaf $`E^{nm,m}`$. Here

$$(\underset{p+q=n}{}E^{p,q},\underset{p+q=n}{}\theta _{p,q})$$

is again a Higgs bundle, and $`\theta _{p,q}`$ is compatible with $`\tau _{p,q}`$.

As stated in the proof of , 4.4, iv) the kernel and cokernel of the map

$$𝒜F^{nm,m}E^{nm,m}$$

are direct images of the $`nm1`$-forms of a multicanonical divisor. If $`n=m`$ there are no such forms, and $`𝒜F^{0,n}`$ is a subsheaf of $`E^{0,n}`$. Hence $`\tau ^n0`$ implies that the corresponding map for $`𝒜\stackrel{~}{F}^{nm,m}`$ is non-zero. The compatibility with restrictions follows by the argument used in the proof of 6.3, iii). ∎

## 7. Subvarieties of the moduli stack of polarized manifolds of Kodaira dimension zero

Theorem 6.3 has a number of geometric implication for manifolds $`U`$ mapping to moduli stacks of polarized manifolds, i.e. for morphisms $`\phi :UM_h`$ induced by a family $`f:VU`$. Those had been shown in  for the moduli stack of canonically polarized manifolds. The proves are all based on vanishing theorems for logarithmic differential forms, and they do not refer to the type of fibres of $`f`$, once 6.3, i) and ii), is established.

Using 1.2 we extended 6.3, i) and ii), to a larger class of families of polarized manifolds. Hence the geometric implications carry over to this larger class, i.e. to the moduli stack of polarized manifolds with $`\omega _F^\delta =𝒪_F`$, for some $`\delta >0`$. For the readers convenience we recall the statements below.

###### Theorem 7.1 (see , 5.2, 5.3, 7.2, 6.4, and 6.7).

Let $`M_h`$ be the moduli scheme of canonically polarized manifolds, or of polarized manifolds $`F`$ with $`\omega _F^\delta `$ trivial for some $`\delta >0`$.

1. Assume that $`U`$ satisfies one of the following conditions

1. $`U`$ has a non-singular projective compactification $`Y`$ with $`S=YU`$ a normal crossing divisor and with boundary $`T_Y(\mathrm{log}S)`$ weakly positive.
    2. Let $`H_1+\mathrm{}+H_{\mathrm{}}`$ be a reduced normal crossing divisor in $`^N`$, and $`\mathrm{}<\frac{N}{2}`$. For $`0rl`$ define

    $$H=\underset{j=r+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}H_j,S_i=H_i|_H,S=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}S_i,$$

    and assume $`U=HS`$.
    3. $`U=^NS`$ for a reduced normal crossing divisor

    $$S=S_1+\mathrm{}+S_{\mathrm{}}$$

    in $`^N`$, with $`\mathrm{}<N.`$

Then a morphism $`UM_h`$, induced by a family, must be trivial.
2. For $`Y=^{\nu _1}\times \mathrm{}\times ^{\nu _k}`$ let

$$D^{(\nu _i)}=D_0^{(\nu _i)}+\mathrm{}+D_{\nu _i}^{(\nu _i)}$$

be coordinate axes in $`^{\nu _i}`$ and

$$D=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}D^{(\nu _i)}.$$

Assume that $`S=S_1+\mathrm{}S_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a divisor, such that $`D+S`$ is a reduced normal crossing divisor, and $`\mathrm{}<dim(Y)`$. Then there exists no morphism $`\phi :U=Y(D+S)M_h`$ with

$$dim(\phi (U))>\mathrm{Max}\{dim(Y)\nu _i;i=1,\mathrm{},k\}.$$
3. Let $`U`$ be a quasi-projective variety and let $`\phi :UM_h`$ be a quasi-finite morphism, induced by a family. Then $`U`$ can not be isomorphic to the product of more than $`\mu (f)`$ varieties of positive dimension.

## 8. Rigidity

Again, $`f:VU`$ denotes a smooth family of manifolds with $`\omega _{V/U}`$ $`f`$-semiample and with $`\mathrm{Var}(f)=dim(U)>0`$. We say that $`f`$ is rigid, if there exists no non-trivial deformation over a non-singular quasiprojective curve $`T`$.

Here a deformation of $`f`$ over $`T`$, with $`0T`$ a base point, is a smooth projective morphism

$$g:𝒱U\times T$$

for which there exists a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}V& \stackrel{}{}& g^1(U\times \{0\})& \stackrel{}{}& 𝒱\\ f& & & & g\\ U& \stackrel{}{}& U\times \{0\}& \stackrel{}{}& U\times T\end{array}.$$

If the fibres $`F`$ of $`f`$ are canonically polarized, or if some power of $`\omega _F`$ is trivial, this says that morphisms from $`U`$ to the moduli stack do not deform.

###### Proposition 8.1.

Assume either that $`\omega _{X_\eta }`$ is ample, or that $`\omega _{X_\eta }^\delta =𝒪_{X_\eta }`$, for some $`\delta `$. Assume that $`\mathrm{Var}(f)=dim(U)>0`$. Let $`T`$ be a non-singular quasi-projective curve. Let $`g:𝒱U\times T`$ be a deformation of $`f`$. If $`\mu (f)=\mu (g)`$, then $`\mathrm{Var}(g)=dim(U)`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{Var}(g)>dim(U).`$ Then

$$dim(U)+1=dimU\times T\mathrm{Var}(g)>dim(U),$$

hence, $`dim(U\times T)=\mathrm{Var}(g).`$ Let $`\overline{T}`$ be a non-singular compactification of $`T`$, $`S_{\overline{T}}=\overline{T}T`$. Correspondingly we write $`S_{Y\times \overline{T}}`$ for the complement of $`U\times T`$ in $`Y\times \overline{T}`$.

By Theorem 6.3, ii, one finds a big coherent subsheaf $`𝒫`$ of

$$S^{\mu (g)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y\times \overline{T}}^1(\mathrm{log}S_{Y\times \overline{T}})),$$

and by 6.3, iii) the image of $`𝒫`$ in

$$S^{\mu (g)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y\times \{0\}}^1(\mathrm{log}S_{Y\times \{0\}}))=pr_1^{}(S^{\mu (g)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}S)))|_{Y\times \{0\}}$$

is non-zero. Then, the image of $`𝒫`$ in

$$pr_1^{}(S^{\mu (g)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}S)))$$

is non-zero, and for a point $`yY`$ in general position, the image of $`𝒫`$ under

$$S^{\mu (g)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y\times \overline{T}}^1(\mathrm{log}S_{Y\times \overline{T}}))|_{\{y\}\times T}pr_1^{}(S^{\mu (g)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}S)))|_{\{y\}\times T}$$

is not zero. Note that any non-zero quotient of the coherent sheaf $`𝒫|_{\{y\}\times T}`$ for $`y`$ in general position must be big. In fact, if $`𝒫`$ is ample over some open dense subset $`W_0`$ of $`Y\times \overline{T}`$, one just has to make sure that $`\{y\}\times T`$ meets $`W_0`$. Since $`pr_1^{}(S^{\mu (g)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}S)))|_{\{y\}\times T}`$ is a direct sum of copies of $`𝒪_{\{y\}\times T}`$ this is not possible. ∎

Using 6.4 instead of 6.3 one obtains a similar result for families with $`\omega _{V/U}`$ $`f`$ semiample, whenever $`\mu (f)=n`$.

###### Proposition 8.2.

Assume that $`\omega _{X_\eta }`$ is semiample, that

$$\mathrm{Var}(f)=dim(U)>0$$

and that

$$\mu (f)=dim(X_\eta )=n.$$

Let $`T`$ be a non-singular quasi-projective curve, and let $`g:𝒱U\times T`$ be a deformation of $`f`$. Then $`\mathrm{Var}(g)=dim(U)`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\mathrm{Var}(g)>dim(U)`$, again one finds $`dim(U\times T)=\mathrm{Var}(g).`$ Let us keep the notations from the proof of 8.1. By Theorem 6.4, ii, one finds a finite covering $`\psi :Y^{}Y`$ and a big coherent subsheaf $`𝒫^{}`$ of

$$\psi ^{}(S^{\mu (g)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y\times \overline{T}}^1(\mathrm{log}S_{Y\times \overline{T}}))),$$

and by 6.4, iii) the image of $`𝒫^{}`$ in

$$\psi ^{}(S^{\mu (g)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y\times \{0\}}^1(\mathrm{log}S_{Y\times \{0\}})))=\psi ^{}pr_1^{}(S^{\mu (g)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}S))|_{Y\times \{0\}})$$

is non-zero. Then, for a point $`yY`$, in general position, the image of $`𝒫^{}`$ under

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi ^{}(S^{\mu (g)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y\times \overline{T}}^1(\mathrm{log}S_{Y\times \overline{T}}))|_{\{y\}\times T})\hfill \\ \hfill \psi ^{}(pr_1^{}(S^{\mu (g)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}S)))|_{\{y\}\times T})\end{array}$$

is not zero. Again, since the sheaf on the right hand side is trivial, one obtains a contradiction. ∎

Let $`h:𝒳Z`$ be a polarized family of manifolds $`F`$ with $`\omega _F`$ semiample and of maximal variation, over a non-singular quasi-projective manifold $`Z`$. Assume that $`\overline{Z}`$ is a projective compactification of $`Z`$, such that $`\overline{Z}Z`$ is a normal crossing divisor. Assume in addition, that there is an open dense subscheme $`Z_0`$ such that for all subvarieties $`𝒰`$ of $`Z`$ meeting $`Z_0`$

$$\mathrm{Var}(𝒳\times _Z𝒰𝒰)=dim(𝒰).$$

Let $`Y`$ be a non-singular projective curve and let $`UY`$ be open and dense. Let us write

$$𝐇=\mathrm{𝐇𝐨𝐦}((Y,U),(\overline{Z},Z))$$

for the scheme parameterizing non-trivial morphisms $`\psi :Y\overline{Z}`$ with $`\psi (U)Z`$ and

$$𝐇_{Z_0}=\mathrm{𝐇𝐨𝐦}((Y,U),(\overline{Z},Z);Z_0)𝐇$$

for those with $`\psi (U)Z_0\mathrm{}`$. Based on the bounds obtained in  we have shown in  that $`𝐇_{Z_0}`$ is of finite type.

###### Corollary 8.3.

1. 1. Let $`\psi :UZ`$ be a morphism and $`f:VU`$ the pull back family. Assume that $`\psi (U)Z_0\mathrm{}`$ and that

    $$\mu (f:VU)=dim(F)=n$$

    Then the point $`[\psi :Y\overline{Z}]`$ is isolated in $`𝐇_{Z_0}`$.
    2. Assume for all fibres $`F`$ of $`h^1(Z_0)Z_0`$ and for all $`\xi H^1(F,T_F)`$

    $$0^n\xi H^n(F,\omega _F^1).$$

    Then $`𝐇_{Z_0}`$ is a finite set of points.
    3. Assume that the fibres $`F`$ of $`h:𝒳Z`$ are either canonically polarized, or of Kodaira dimension zero.
    4. Let $`\psi :UZ`$ be a morphism and $`f:VU`$ the pull back family. Assume that $`\psi (U)Z_0\mathrm{}`$ and that

    $$\mu (f:VU)=\mu (h:𝒳Z).$$

    Then the point $`[\psi :Y\overline{Z}]`$ is isolated in $`𝐇_{Z_0}`$.
    5. Assume there exists a constant $`\mu `$ such that for all fibres $`F`$ of $`h^1(Z_0)Z_0`$ and for all $`\xi H^1(F,T_F)`$

    $$0^\mu \xi H^\mu (F,T_F^\mu )$$

    but

    $$0=^{\mu +1}\xi H^{\mu +1}(F,T_F^{\mu +1}).$$

    Then $`𝐇_{Z_0}`$ is a finite set of points.

###### Proof.

In both cases b) follows from a). For the latter assume that $`[\psi ]`$ lies in a component of $`𝐇`$ of dimension larger than zero. Let $`T`$ be a curve in $`𝐇`$, containing the point $`[\psi ]`$. Then one has a non-trivial deformation $`\mathrm{\Psi }:U\times TZ`$ of $`\psi `$, hence a non-trivial deformation $`g:𝒱U\times T`$ of $`f:VU`$. By 8.1 in case II) or by 8.2 in case I)

$$\mathrm{Var}(g)=\mathrm{Var}(f)<dim(U\times T)=dim(U)+1,$$

contradicting the assumption made on $`Z_0`$ and $`𝒳Z`$. ∎

Corollary 8.3, II), should imply certain finiteness results for curves in the moduli scheme $`M_h`$ of canonically polarized manifolds, or the moduli scheme of minimal models of Kodaira dimension zero meeting an open subscheme $`W`$ where the assumption corresponding to the one in 8.3, II), b), holds true. However, one would have to show, that morphisms $`\phi `$ which factor through the moduli stack, are parameterized by some coarse moduli scheme. Hopefully this can be done extending the methods used in  for moduli of curves to moduli of higher dimensional manifolds.

Here we will show a slightly weaker statement, which coincides with 1.3 for $`\mu =n`$.

###### Corollary 8.4.

Let $`M_h`$ be either the moduli scheme of canonically polarized manifolds or the moduli scheme of polarized manifolds $`F`$ with $`\omega _F^\delta =𝒪`$ for some $`\delta >0`$. Let $`0<\mu n=dim(F)`$ be a constant such that for all $`(F,)`$, and for all $`\xi H^1(F,T_F)`$

$$0=^{\mu +1}\xi H^{\mu +1}(F,T_F^{\mu +1}).$$

Then for a quasi-projective non-singular curve $`U`$ there are only finitely many morphisms $`\phi :UM_h`$ which are induced by a smooth family $`f:VU`$ with $`\mu (f)=\mu `$.

###### Proof.

Let us choose any projective compactification $`\overline{M}_h`$ of $`M_h`$, and an invertible sheaf $``$ on $`\overline{M}_h`$ which is ample with respect to $`M_h`$. As usual, $`Y`$ will be a non-singular projective curve containing $`U`$. We write $`s`$ for the number of points in $`S=YU`$ and $`g(Y)`$ for the genus of $`Y`$.

To show that there are only finitely many components of the scheme

$$\mathrm{𝐇𝐨𝐦}((Y,U),(M_h,\overline{M}_h))$$

which contain a morphism $`\phi :UM_h`$ factoring through the moduli stack, one has to find an upper bound for $`\phi ^{}`$. To this aim one may assume that $`\overline{M}_h`$ is reduced. The proof for the boundedness follows the line of the proof of , 6.2.

Kollar and Seshadri constructed (see , 9.25) a finite covering of $`M_h`$ which factors through the moduli stack.

Consider any finite morphism $`\pi :ZM_h`$ with this property. We choose a projective compactifications $`\overline{Z}`$ of $`Z`$ such that $`\pi `$ extends to $`\pi :\overline{Z}\overline{M}_h`$. So $`\pi ^{}`$ is again ample with respect to $`\pi ^1(M_h)`$. Let $`M_0`$ be a non-singular subvariety of $`\pi (Z)M_h`$ with $`Z_0=\pi ^1(M_0)`$ non singular.

Recall that for a family of projective varieties we constructed in , 2.7, a good open subset of the base space. Applying this construction to the restriction of the universal family to $`Z_0`$, we may assume furthermore, that $`Z_0`$ coincides with this subset.

By induction on the dimension of $`Z`$, we may assume that we have found an upper bound for $`\phi ^{}()`$ whenever $`\phi (Y)\pi (Z)M_0`$. Hence it is sufficient to find such a bound under the assumptions that $`\phi (Y)\pi (Z)`$ and $`\phi (Y)M_0\mathrm{}`$. There exists a finite covering $`Y^{}`$ of $`Y`$ of degree $`d\mathrm{deg}(Z/\pi (Z))`$, such that

$$Y^{}\stackrel{\sigma }{}Y\stackrel{\phi }{}\pi (Z)$$

factors through $`\phi ^{}:Y^{}Z`$, and it is sufficient to bound the degree of $`\sigma ^{}\phi ^{}`$. For simplicity, we assume that $`\phi :Y\pi (Z)`$ factors through $`\phi ^{}:YZ`$.

By , 2.6 and 2.7, blowing up $`Z`$ with centers in $`ZZ_0`$ we may assume that $`Z`$ is non singular, that there exists a certain invertible sheaf $`\lambda _\nu `$ on $`Z`$, and a constant $`N_\nu >0`$, such that

$$\mathrm{deg}(\phi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\lambda _\nu )N_\nu \mathrm{deg}(det(f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\nu )),$$

where, as usual, $`f:XY`$ is an extension of $`VU`$ to a projective manifold $`X`$. By the explicit description of $`\lambda _\nu `$ in , 2.6, d), and by , 3.4, the sheaf $`\lambda _\nu `$ is ample with respect to $`Z_0`$ for some $`\nu >1`$. Hence it is sufficient to give an upper bound for $`\mathrm{deg}(\phi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\lambda _\nu )`$, or for $`\mathrm{deg}(det(f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\nu ))`$.

By  (see also  and ) there exists a constant $`e`$, depending only on the Hilbert polynomial $`h`$, with

$$\mathrm{deg}(det(f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\nu ))(n(2g(Y)2+s)+s)\nu \mathrm{rank}(f_{}\omega _{X/Y}^\nu )e,$$

and we found the bound we were looking for.

It remains to show, that the points

$$[\phi :Y\overline{M}_h]\mathrm{𝐇𝐨𝐦}((Y,U),(M_h,\overline{M}_h))$$

which are induced by a family $`f:XY`$ with $`\mu (f)=\mu `$, are discrete. If not, one finds a positive dimensional manifold $`T`$ and a generically finite morphism to $`\mathrm{𝐇𝐨𝐦}((Y,U),(M_h,\overline{M}_h))`$ whose image contains a dense set of points where the corresponding morphism is induced by a family. Let us choose a smooth projective compactification $`\overline{T}`$ with $`S_{\overline{T}}=\overline{T}T`$ a normal crossing divisor.

The induced morphism $`Y\times T\overline{M}_h`$ is not necessarily factoring through the moduli stack, but using again the Kollár Seshadri construction again, we find a generically finite morphism $`\pi :ZY\times \overline{T}`$ which over $`\pi ^1(U\times T)`$ is induced by a smooth family. Assume that $`Z`$ is non-singular and that $`S_Z=ZU\times T`$ is a normal crossing divisor. Write $`p:Z\overline{T}`$ for the induced morphism.

Applying 6.3, ii), one obtains a big coherent subsheaf

$$𝒫S^\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^1(\mathrm{log}S_Z)).$$

By part iii), is image $`𝒫^{}`$ in $`S^\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/T}(\mathrm{log}S_Z))`$ is non zero, and iv) implies that for a dense set of points $`tT`$ the restriction $`𝒫^{}|_{p^1(t)}`$ lies in

$$\pi ^{}S^\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y\times \{t\}}^1(\mathrm{log}(S\times \{t\}))).$$

This is only possible, if $`𝒫^{}`$ is a big subsheaf of

$$\pi ^{}S^\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y\times \overline{T}}^1(\mathrm{log}(S\times \overline{T}))).$$

Restricting to $`\pi ^1(\{y\}\times \overline{T}`$, for general $`yY`$ one obtains as in the proof of 8.2 a big subsheaf of a trivial sheaf, a contradiction. ∎

Needless to say, Corollary 8.4 is sort of empty, as long as we do not know any answer to Problem 6.2.


format: text

text:
# On Endomorphisms of Algebraic Surfaces

## Introduction

We work over the complex numbers field $``$. By a self-map $`f`$, we mean an algebraic morphism from an algebraic variety $`X`$ onto itself. Invertible self-maps (e.g. automorphisms and hence of degree $`1`$) have been intensively studied by mathematicians. However, those $`f`$ of degree $`2`$ are not known much yet.

We remark that the study of self-maps on singular varieties can not be reduced to that on smooth varieties. Indeed, the multiplication by an integer $`n2`$ on an abelian surface $`A`$ induces a self-map $`f`$ of degree $`n^4`$ on the Kummer surface $`K`$ ($`=A`$ modulo the involution -id). However, the induced self rational map $`f^{}`$ on the minimal resolution of the Kummer surface $`K`$ is not a morphism for the $`f`$-pre image of the 16 singularities on $`K`$ has more than these $`16`$ points.

Self-maps of open algebraic varieties are actually more difficult. For example, the Jacobian conjecture, which has been open for 50 more years and is still open, asserts that every etale endmorphism (not necessarily surjective) of the affine $`n`$-space is an automorphism. In these notes we will consider self-maps of projective varieties only.

We mention some known results. A self-map of a variety of Kodaira dimension $`0`$ is unramified (Sommese’s result). In particular, there are no self-maps of degree $`2`$ on a surface with non-negative Kodaira dimension and non-zero $`c_1^2`$ or $`c_2`$. Beauville \[B\] proved that there are no self-maps of degree $`2`$ on a smooth hypersurface of degree $`3`$ in a projective space, and that if a del Pezzo surface $`X`$ has a self-map of degree $`2`$, then $`K_X^26`$.

In view of the above results, one needs to study the self-maps on algebraic varieties of Kodaira dimension $`\mathrm{}`$. The first thing is naturally the study of those on Fano or even weak Fano varieties. Here we say a smooth projective variety is Fano (resp. weak Fano) if its anti-canonical divisor is ample (resp. nef and big). A Fano (resp. weak Fano surface) is also called a del Pezzo (resp. weak del Pezzo) surface. A weak del Pezzo surface $`X`$ satisfies $`1K_X^29`$. Also, $`K_X^2=9`$ if and only if $`X=^2`$, and $`K_X^2=8`$ if and only if $`X`$ is a Hirzebruch surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$ of degree $`s`$ for some $`0s2`$.

After the preliminary version of these notes was written, I was kindly informed by Professor Dolgachev that a recent thesis of M. Dabija \[Da\] has shown that if a blow up of $`^2`$ has a self-map of degree $`2`$, then it is the blow up of at most 3 non-collinear points (and their infinitely near points), which is, in the case of weak del Pezzo surfaces, part of our Theorem 2 (see also Lemma 1.1). Actually, we prove that there are exactly $`12`$ isomorphism classes of weak del Pezzo surfaces of degree $`7`$, each of which has at least one (and hence infinitely many) self-maps of degree $`2`$. Now we state our main results.

Theorem 1. Let $`X`$ be a weak del Pezzo surface with $`K_X^27`$ and a self-map $`f`$ which is not an automorphism. Then we have:

(1) We have $`K_X^23`$. Conversely, for every $`3d_x7`$ and every $`1d_f`$, there is a weak del Pezzo surface $`X`$ with $`K_X^2=d_x`$ and a self-map $`f`$ of degree $`d_f^2`$.

(2) There is an integer $`m>0`$ such that $`g:=f^m`$ is again a self-map of $`X`$ of degree $`d^2`$ and induced from a self-map of $`^2`$, also denoted by $`g`$, i.e., there is a birational morphism $`\mu :X^2`$ such that $`g\mu =\mu g`$. Moreover, $`g^{}E=dE`$ for every negative curve $`E`$ on $`X`$ (see Theorems $`2`$ and $`2.1`$ for the description of such $`g`$).

Theorem 2. Let $`X`$ be a weak del Pezzo surface with $`K_X^27`$ and a self-map $`f`$ (which is not an automorphism) such that $`\text{Supp}(f^1(E))=E`$ for every negative curve $`E`$ on $`X`$. Then we have:

(1) We have $`deg(f)=d^2`$ for some integer $`d2`$. There are a birational morphism $`\mu :X^2`$ and a self-map of $`^2`$, also denoted by $`f`$, such that $`\mu f=f\mu `$.

(2) There is a triangle of three non-concurrent lines $`_iL_i`$ such that $`\mu `$ is the blow-up of some of the three intersection points of the triangle and their infinitely near points satisfying the conditions $`(2a)(2c)`$ in Theorem $`2.1`$ in Section $`2`$, especially the reduced divisor $`LP=\text{Supp}(\mu ^1(L_i))`$ is a simple loop of $`^1`$’s and all negative curves $`E_i`$ of $`X`$ are contained in $`LP`$.

(3) The ramification divisor of $`f`$ is determined below, where $`Z/(d1)+E_i_{}LP`$

$$K_X=f^{}K_X+(d1)\underset{i}{}E_i+Z.$$

(4) The dual graph of the loop $`LP`$ in $`(2)`$ determines uniquely the isomorphism class of $`X`$. There are exactly twelve such loops (and hence exactly twelve isomorphism classes of surfaces $`X`$, i.e., $`X(j)`$ ($`1j12`$) in Lemma $`2.4`$) satisfying the conditions $`(2a)(2c)`$ and $`K_X^27`$ (see Figures $`112`$); see Theorem $`2.1`$ below For more information on $`\mu `$ and the converse part.

Theorem 3.

(1) Let $`X`$ be a weak del Pezzo surface with a self-map of degree $`2`$ and with $`K_X^27`$. Then $`X`$ is isomorphic to one of those $`12`$ isomorphism classes $`X(j)`$ ($`1j12`$) given in Lemma $`2.4`$; in particular, $`K_X^23`$.

(2) For every $`1j12`$ and every integer $`d1`$, there is a self-map of degree $`d^2`$ on the surface $`X(j)`$.

Remark 4.

(1) Not every self-map of a surface has degree $`d^2`$ for some integer $`d`$. Indeed, if $`f:^1^1`$ is the self-map given by $`X_iX_i^d`$, then the self-map $`f\times \text{id}_C`$ of $`^1\times C`$, where $`C`$ is a curve, has degree $`d`$.

(2) Not every automorphism of a blown up surface of $`^2`$ is lifted from a projective transformation of $`^2`$; see \[ZD, Theorem 1\].

Question 5.

(1) Suppose that $`f`$ is a self-map of degree $`2`$ on a rational surface. Find the condition for $`f`$ to be lifted from a self-map on $`^2`$.

(2) Suppose that $`f`$ is a self-map of $`X`$ such that $`f^1(P)=\{P\}`$ for some point $`P`$. Find a necessary and sufficient condition on $`f`$ so that one can lift $`f`$ to a self-map on the blow-up of $`X`$ at $`P`$. A sufficient condition for lifting is given in Lemma 1.2.

## Terminology and Notation

1. All surfaces (and also varieties) in the paper are assumed to be projective unless otherwise specified.

2. A self-map $`f`$ of an algebraic variety $`X`$ is an algebraic morphism from $`X`$ onto itself.

3. A $`(n)`$-curve on a smooth surface is a smooth rational curve of self intersection $`n`$.

4. A curve $`C`$ on a surface is negative if $`C^2<0`$. A divisor on a surface is negative if its irreducible components have negative intersection matrix.

5. For a divisor $`D`$, we use $`\mathrm{\#}D`$ to denote the number of irreducible components in $`\text{Supp}D`$.

## Acknowledgement

The author is very grateful to Professor Dolgachev for his encouragement and valuable suggestions. This work was started when the author visited Korea Institute for Advanced Study in December 2001. The author would like to thank the Institute, especially Professor J. Keum for the valuable discussion. This work was also partially supported by an Academic Reserach Fund of National University of Singapore.

After the paper was presented in the conference on Algebraic Geometry on the occasion of Professor S. Iitaka’s 60th birthday, Professors E. Sato and K. Cho kindly pointed out that Professor N. Nakayama has classified surfaces with a self map of degree $`2`$, in particular: a rational surface has a self map of degree $`2`$ if and only if it is a toric surface. This agrees with our Theorem 2, where the surface is a blow-up of points of the intersection of the triangle and their infinitely near point so that the inverse of the triangle is a simple loop and hence the resulted surface is a toric surface. The methods of Professor Nakayama’s and ours are different. According to Professor Nakayama’s preprint, there are also works by Segami (resp. Fujimoto-Sato) on self-maps for irrational surfaces (resp. threefolds).

## Section 1. Examples and preparations

Lemma 1.1. Let $`X`$ be a smooth surface with a self-map $`f`$ of degree $`2`$ so that every negative divisor on $`X`$ is contractible to a $``$-factorial singularity (this is true if $`X`$ is weak del Pezzo; see Lemma $`1.4`$) Then we have:

(1) $`f`$ is a finite morphism.

(2) Suppose that $`E`$ is a negative curve on $`X`$. Then $`F=\text{Supp}(f^1(E))`$ is irreducible and negative.

(3) Suppose that there are (at least one and) only finitely many negative curves on $`X`$ (this is true if $`X`$ is weak del Pezzo by Lemma $`1.4`$). Then there is a positive integer $`m`$ such that $`g=f^m`$ is a self-map of $`X`$ satisfying $`deg(g)=d^2`$ for some integer $`d>0`$ and $`g^{}E=dE`$ for every negative curve $`E`$ on $`X`$.

Proof. The proof of (1) is similar to that of (2). For (2), let $`\mu :XY`$ be the algebraic contraction of $`E`$ to a point $`P`$ on the normal surface $`Y`$. The Stein factorization of $`\mu f`$ will decompose as $`\mu f=g\nu `$, where $`g:Y^{}Y`$ is a finite morphism. Now $`\nu `$ maps $`F`$ to points lying over the point $`P=\mu f(E)`$. Hence $`F`$ is contractible (and hence negative; see \[M\]) and the Picard number $`\rho (Y^{})=\rho (X)\mathrm{\#}F`$. On the other hand, $`Y^{}`$ dominates $`Y`$ and hence $`\rho (Y^{})\rho (Y)=\rho (X)1`$. Thus $`F`$ is irreducible and negative.

For (3), note that by (2), $`f^1`$ induces a bijection on the finite set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of all negative curves on $`X`$. Hence, for some $`m>0`$, the inverse of $`g=f^m`$ acts as identity on the set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, i.e., $`\text{Supp}(g^1(E))=E`$ for every negative curve $`E`$ on $`X`$. Now (3) follows from the proof of Lemma 1.2. This proves the lemma.

Lemma 1.2.

(1) Suppose that $`f`$ is a self-map on a smooth surface $`X`$. If $`E`$ is a $`(1)`$-curve on $`X`$ such that $`\text{Supp}(f^1(E))=E`$ and $`\mu :XY`$ is the blow down of $`E`$ to a point $`P`$, then $`Y`$ has an induced self-map, also denoted by $`f`$ such that $`f\mu =\mu f`$ and $`f^1(P)=\{P\}`$. Moreover, $`deg(f)=d^2`$ and $`f^{}E=dE`$ for some positive integer $`d`$.

(2) Suppose that $`f`$ is a self-map on a smooth surface $`Y`$. If $`P`$ is a point on $`Y`$ (so that two smooth curves $`C_i`$ intersect transversally at $`P`$ and $`f^{}C_i=dC_i`$; this technic condition could probably be weakened) such that $`f^1(P)=\{P\}`$ and $`\mu :XY`$ is the blow up of $`P`$ with $`E`$ the exceptional divisor, then there is an induced self-map of $`X`$, also denoted by $`f`$, such that $`\mu f=f\mu `$ and $`f^{}E=dE`$, where $`deg(f)=d^2`$.

Proof. The first part of (1) follows from the proof of Lemma 1.1 (2). For the second part of (1), let $`f^{}E=d^{}E`$ and $`f_{}E=d^{\prime \prime }E`$. Then $`deg(f)E=f_{}f^{}E=d^{}d^{\prime \prime }E`$. Also $`deg(f)E^2=(f^{}(E))^2=(d^{})^2E^2`$. Thus $`d^{}d^{\prime \prime }=deg(f)=(d^{})^2`$ and $`deg(f)=d^2`$ with $`d=d^{}=d^{\prime \prime }`$.

For (2), suppose that $`C_i=\{x_i=0\}`$ with $`x_1,x_2`$ the local coordinates at $`P`$. Then the blow up of $`P`$ is locally $`(x_i,x_j/x_i)(x_i,x_j)`$ with $`\{i,j\}=\{1,2\}`$, while $`f`$ is given by $`f^{}:x_ix_i^d\times `$ (a unit). Now it is clear that $`f`$ is liftible. This proves the lemma.

Lemma 1.3.

(1) A weak del Pezzo surface is a rational surface.

(2) Let $`X`$ be a smooth rational surface and let $`D`$ be an effective divisor on $`X`$. Suppose that $`|K_X+D|=\mathrm{}`$. Then $`D`$ is of simple normal crossing and supported by smooth rational curves.

(3) Let $`X`$ be a smooth rational surface and let $`0D`$ be a reduced divisor in $`|K_X|`$. Then either $`D`$ is irreducible and of arithmetic genus $`1`$, or $`D`$ is reducible and every component of $`D`$ is isomorphic to $`^1`$. Moreover, if $`D`$ is reducible and let $`D=D_j`$ with $`D_j`$ irreducible, then either $`\mathrm{\#}D=2`$ and $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are tangent to each other (of order $`2`$) at a point, or $`\mathrm{\#}D=3`$ and $`D_j`$’s pass through a common point, or $`D`$ is a simple loop.

Proof. Note that the contraction of all $`(2)`$-curves on $`X`$ will give rise to a Gorenstein del Pezzo surface (i.e., the anti-canonical divisor is ample and all singularities are Du Val), which is rational so does $`X`$, see e.g. \[GZ1, Lemma 1.3\]. (2) is a consequence of the Riemann-Roch theorem applied to all sub-divisors of $`D`$. For (3), let $`B`$ be the minimal sub-divisor of $`D`$, which is not a normal crossing rational tree. Then the Riemann-Roch theorem implies that $`|K_X+B|\mathrm{}`$. Hence $`B=DK_X`$. Also $`DK_X`$ implies that one of the cases in (3) occurs. We need to say that there is such $`B`$. Otherwise, $`D`$ is a disjoint union of $`e`$ rational trees. So $`0=D.(D+K_X)=2e`$, a contradiction. This proves the lemma.

Lemma 1.4. Let $`X`$ be a weak del Pezzo surface. Then we have:

(1) If $`C`$ is a curve on $`X`$ with $`C^2<0`$, then $`C`$ is a $`(1)`$ or $`(2)`$-curve.

(2) There are only finitely many curves $`C`$ on $`X`$ with $`C^2<0`$.

Proof. For (1), since $`K_X`$ is nef, we have $`K_X.C0`$. Now (1) follows from the genus formula for $`C`$.

(2) is well known. We prove it here for readers’ convenience. Note that all $`(2)`$-curves are perpendicular to the nef and big divisor $`K_X`$, whence contractible altogether to Du Val singularities by using the Hodge index theorem. So the number of all $`(2)`$-curves on $`X`$ is bounded from above by $`\rho (X)1`$.

For $`(1)`$-curves $`E_i`$, note that $`E_i^{}:=E_i+(1/d)K_X`$ is perpendicular to $`K_X`$ where $`d=K_X^2`$ and hence can be written as

$$E_i^{}=\underset{j}{}a_jB_j$$

where $`K_X,B_j`$ form an orthogonal basis of $`(PicX)`$ (so $`B_j^2<0`$, with $`B_j`$ chosen to be integral). Since $`1+1/d=(E_i^{})^2=a_j^2(B_j^2)`$, the values $`|a_j|`$ are bounded from above. Since $`a_kB_k^2=E_i^{}.B_k(1/d)`$, the denominators of $`a_j`$ are bounded from above. Thus there are only finitely many choices of $`a_i`$ and hence only finitely many cohomology classes $`[E_i^{}]`$.

Suppose the contrary that there are infinitely many $`(1)`$-curves $`E_i`$ on $`X`$. Then $`[E_a^{}]=[E_b^{}]`$ for some $`ab`$. So $`11/d=(E_a^{})^2=(E_a^{}.E_b^{})=E_a.E_b1/d`$ and $`E_a.E_b=1`$, a contradiction. So the lemma is true.

Example 1.5. Let $`f=\phi _d:^2^2`$ be the morphism of degree $`d^2`$ ($`d2`$) given by

$$[X:Y:Z][X^{}:Y^{}:Z^{}],X^{}=X^d,Y^{}=Y^d,Z^{}=Z^d.$$

Let $`L_i`$ (resp. $`L_i^{}`$) be the lines defined respectively by $`X=0`$, $`Y=0`$ and $`Z=0`$ (resp. $`X^{}=0`$, $`Y^{}=0`$ and $`Z^{}=0`$). Then $`f^{}(L_i^{})=dL_i`$ and

$$K_^2=f^{}(K_^2)+(d1)\underset{i}{}L_i.$$

If we use $`[U:V:W]`$ as coordinates for both the domain and range of $`f`$ so that $`f`$ is a self-map and use $`L_i`$ to denote the lines defined by coordinates, then we have $`f^{}L_i=dL_i`$ and $`f^1(P_i)=P_i`$ where $`P_1=[1:0:0],P_2=[0:1:0],P_3=[0:0:1]`$. Set $`X_0=^2`$ and $`LP_0=L_i`$. Let $`\mu _1:X_1^2`$ be the blow up of one of $`P_i`$. By Lemma 1.2, we have an induced self-map $`f`$ on $`X_1`$ such that $`f^{}C=dC`$ for every curve in the reduced divisor $`LP_1=\mu _1^1(_iL_i)`$ which is a simple loop so that $`K_{X_1}+LP_10`$. Moreover,

$$K_{X_1}=f^{}K_{X_1}+(d1)(LP_1).$$

Similarly, we let $`\mu _2:X_2X_1`$ be the blow up of an intersection point of the loop $`LP_1`$ and set the reduced divisor $`LP_2=\mu _2^1(LP_1)`$. Thus we obtain $`\mu _i:X_iX_{i1}`$ and a self-map $`f`$ on all $`X_i`$ commuting with all $`\mu _j`$ such that

$$K_{X_i}=f^{}K_{X_i}+(d1)(LP_i),$$

where the reduced divisor $`LP_i`$ is the inverse of the triangle $`LP_0=L_i`$ and is again a simple loop so that

$$K_{X_i}+LP_i0.$$

## Section 2. The proof of Theorems 1 and 2

We will prove Theorem 2.1 below which includes Theorem 2 in the Introduction.

Theorem 2.1. Let $`X`$ be a weak del Pezzo surface with $`K_X^27`$ and a self-map $`f`$ (which is not an automorphism) such that $`\text{Supp}(f^1(E))=E`$ for every negative curve $`E`$ on $`X`$. Then we have:

(1) We have $`deg(f)=d^2`$ for some integer $`d2`$. There are a birational morphism $`\mu :X^2`$ and a self-map of $`^2`$, also denoted by $`f`$, such that $`\mu f=f\mu `$.

(2) There is a triangle of three non-concurrent lines $`_iL_i`$ such that $`\mu `$ is the blow-up of some of the three intersection points of the triangle and their infinitely near points satisfying

(2a) The reduced divisor $`LP=\mu ^1(L_i)`$ is a simple loop of $`^1`$’s; write $`LP=_iE_i+_jP_j`$ with $`E_i^2<0`$ and $`P_j^20`$,

(2b) every negative curve on $`X`$ is contained in the loop $`LP`$, i.e., equal to one of $`E_i`$,

(2c) every curve in the loop $`LP`$ has self intersection in $`\{2,1,0,1\}`$.

(3) We have $`K_X+LP0`$ and $`f^{}E_i=dE_i`$; the ramification divisor of $`f`$ is determined below

$$K_X=f^{}K_X+(d1)\underset{i}{}E_i+Z$$

where the effective integral divisor $`Z`$ is supported by curves of non-negative self intersection, such that $`Z(d1)P_j`$.

(4) The dual graph of the loop $`LP`$ in $`(2)`$ determines uniquely the isomorphism class of $`X`$. There are exactly twelve such loops (and hence exactly twelve isomorphism classes of surfaces $`X`$, i.e., $`X_j`$ ($`1j12`$) in Lemma $`2.4`$) satisfying the conditions $`(2a)(2c)`$ and $`K_X^27`$ (see Figures $`112`$).

(5) Conversely, if $`\nu :Y^2`$ is the blow-up of some intersection points of a triangle of three non-concurrent lines $`L_i`$ satisfying $`(2a)(2c)`$ and $`K_Y^27`$, then $`Y`$ is a weak del Pezzo surface with $`K_Y^23`$. For every $`d>1`$, this $`Y`$ has a self-map $`g`$ of degree $`d^2`$ (induced from a self-map $`g`$ of $`^2`$ so that $`g\nu =\nu g`$) such that $`g^{}C=dC`$ for every curve in $`LP`$, where the reduced divisor $`LP`$ is the simple loop $`\nu ^1(L_i)`$, and that

$$K_Y=g^{}K_Y+(d1)LP.$$

We now prove Theorem 2.1. Let $`f,X`$ be as in Theorem 2.1. Let $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`1\mathrm{}m`$) be all of the negative curves on $`X`$, each of which is either a $`(1)`$ or $`(2)`$-curve (Lemma 1.4). Since $`K_X^27`$, we have $`m1`$. By the proof of Lemma 1.2, we have $`deg(f)=d^2`$ and $`f^{}E=dE`$ for every negative curve $`E`$. Write

$$K_X=f^{}K_X+(d1)\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{m}{}}E_{\mathrm{}}+Z,$$

where $`Z`$ is effective and supported by curves of non-negative self intersection. Set $`D=K_XE_{\mathrm{}}`$. Write $`Z=_iz_iZ_i`$ with $`z_i1`$ and $`Z_i`$ irreducible. We first prove:

Lemma 2.2

(1) $`f^{}CdC`$ for every divisor $`C`$ on $`X`$.

(2) $`K_X=_{\mathrm{}=1}^mE_{\mathrm{}}+D`$.

(3) $`Z(d1)D`$ and $`D`$ is nef. We have $`h^0(X,D)=1+(D.DK_X)/21`$, so we will assume $`D0`$ thereafter. If $`D0`$, then $`h^0(X,D)=D^2+1+e2`$, where $`e`$ is the number of connected components of $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$.

(4) If $`D0`$ (i.e., if $`Z0`$) but $`D`$ is not big then $`Z_i^1`$ with $`Z_i^2=0`$ (so $`Z_iZ_1`$) and $`DeZ_1`$.

(5) If $`D`$ is big, then $`|D|`$ is base point free and $`dim|D|=D^2+1`$.

Proof of Lemma $`2.2`$. Since $`K_X^27`$, it is easy to see that $`PicX`$ is generated by negative curves $`E`$; now (1) follows from the fact that $`f^{}E=dE`$. (2) is just the definition of $`D`$. The first part of (3) follows from (1) and the ramification divisor formula displayed above. Note that $`Z_i^20`$ as mentioned early. So $`Z`$ and hence $`D`$ are nef. By the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing \[K, V\] we have $`H^1(X,D)=0`$ since $`DK_X`$ is nef and big. Clearly, we have $`H^2(X,D)H^0(X,K_XD)=0`$ since $`(d1)DZ0`$ and the Kodaira dimension $`\kappa (X)`$ is negative. So by the Riemann-Roch theorem, $`h^0(X,D)=1+(D.DK_X)/21`$.

Assume $`D0`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}D.E_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{\mathrm{}}{}\{E_{\mathrm{}}.(K_X+\underset{p}{}E_p)\}=\underset{\mathrm{}}{}(2\underset{p\mathrm{}}{}E_{\mathrm{}}.E_p)=\\ 2m\underset{\mathrm{}p}{}E_{\mathrm{}}.E_p=2m2(me)=2e.\end{array}$$

In the second last equality, we use the fact that $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a union of $`e`$ connected rational trees for $`|K_X+E_{\mathrm{}}|=|D|=\mathrm{}`$ and by Lemma 1.3, and that the number of edges in a connected tree is one less than its number of vertices. Now $`D.K_X=D^2+D.E_{\mathrm{}}`$. So $`h^0(X,D)=1+D^2+e`$. This proves (3).

Suppose that $`D0`$ but $`D`$ is not big. So $`Z^2=0=D^2`$. Thus $`Z_{\text{red}}`$ is a disjoint union of curves $`Z_i`$ with $`Z_i^2=0`$. Since $`K_X`$ is nef and big, we have $`K_X.Z_i<0`$ (equality would imply that $`Z_i^2<0`$ by the Hodge index theorem). So $`Z_i^1`$ and $`K_X.Z_i=2`$ by the genus formula for $`Z_i`$. Now for all $`ij`$, $`Z_iZ_j`$ because $`Z_iZ_j=\mathrm{}`$. Since $`D.Z=(d1)D^2=0`$, $`D`$ is contained in fibres of the $`^1`$-fibration $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{|Z_1|}:X^1`$. This and $`D^2=0`$ imply that $`D`$ is a positive multiple of $`Z_1`$. Since the fibration clearly has a cross-section, $`DsZ_1`$ for some positive integer $`s`$. Now $`dim|D|=s`$. This and (3) imply that $`s=e`$. This completes the proof of (4).

Suppose that $`D`$ is big (and also nef). Then $`dim|D|2`$ by (3). Write $`|D|=|M|+F`$, where $`F`$ is the full fixed part. The Stein factorization applied to our regular surface $`X`$ implies that $`M=kM_1`$ where $`M_1`$ is irreducible. Since $`|K_X+M_1||K_X+D|=\mathrm{}`$, the $`M_1^1`$ by Lemma 1.3. Thus $`|M_1|`$ is base point free and $`dim|M_1|=M_1^2+1`$ (see e.g. \[DZ, Lemma 1.7\]). Hence we may assume that $`k=1`$ unless $`M^2=0`$. So either $`M^2=0`$ and $`dim|M|=dim|kM_1|=k`$, or $`M^2>0`$, $`k=1`$ and $`dim|M|=M^2+1`$.

Note that $`D^2=k^2M_1^2+kM_1.F+D.F`$, where each term of the latter is non-negative. If $`M^2=0`$, then the big and nefness of $`D`$ implies that $`F>0`$ and ($`D`$ is 1-connected and hence) $`M.F>0`$, whence $`D^2kM_1.Fk`$. This leads to $`k=dim|M|=dim|D|=D^2+ek+1`$, a contradiction. Thus $`M^2>0`$ and hence $`M^2+1=dim|M|=dim|D|=D^2+eM^2+M.F+1`$, whence $`F=0`$ and $`e=1`$. This proves (5).

Lemma 2.3.

(1) $`D+_{\mathrm{}=1}^mE_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a simple loop of $`^1`$’s ($`D`$ being general), is a member of $`|K_X|`$ and contains all negative curves on $`X`$.

(2) $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ is connected with $`m3`$ components, i.e., $`e=1`$.

(3) $`LP:=D+E_{\mathrm{}}`$ fits one of the $`12`$ Figures attached at the end of the paper; when $`D^2>0`$, $`D`$ is replaced by a member $`D_1+D_2`$ in $`|D|`$ with $`D_j^20`$, $`D_1.D_2=1`$ and simple normal crossing $`LP:=D_1+D_2+E_{\mathrm{}}`$.

(4) There is a smooth blow down $`\mu :X^2`$ of curves in $`E_{\mathrm{}}LP`$ such that $`\mu (LP)`$ is a union of three non-concurrent lines $`L_j`$ and $`\mu `$ is the blow up of some of the three intersection points of $`L_j`$ and their infinitely near points. Moreover, the self-map $`f`$ of $`X`$ induces a self-map of $`^2`$, also denoted by $`f`$ such that $`f\mu =\mu f`$.

Proof of Lemma $`2.3`$. (1) Since $`K_X^27`$ and by Lemma 1.4, there is a birational morphism $`X^2`$ (see, e.g. \[DZ, Lemma 4.2\]), and also $`m=\mathrm{\#}(E_{\mathrm{}})3`$; it is also easy to check that if $`m=3`$ then $`K_X^2=7`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a linear chain. After choosing $`D`$ general (if $`D0`$), we may assume that $`D+E_{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`K_X`$) is reduced and of simple normal crossing, and by Lemma 1.3 it is a simple loop of $`^1`$’s. So (1) is true.

For (2), it is clear when $`D=0`$ or $`D`$ is big (see the proof of Lemma 2.2). Suppose that $`D0`$ but $`D^2=0`$. In notation of Lemma 2.2, we have $`Z_1.E_{\mathrm{}}=Z_1.(K_XD)=2`$, say $`Z_1._{j=1}^kE_j=2`$ ($`k=1,2`$). So if $`e2`$ then $`Z(1)+Z(2)+_{j=1}^kE_j`$ contains a loop and is a sub-divisor of the simple loop $`Z_1+\mathrm{}+Z(e)+_{\mathrm{}=1}^mE_{\mathrm{}}`$, whence $`m=k2`$, a contradiction; here $`_{j=1}^eZ(j)eZ_1`$ is a general members of $`D`$. So $`e=1`$.

To prove (3), we consider the case $`D=0`$, or $`D0`$ and $`D^2=0`$, or $`D^2>0`$ separately. If $`D0`$ but $`D^2=0`$, we let $`\phi =\mathrm{\Phi }_{|D|}`$; if $`D=0`$ we let $`\phi :X^1`$ be a suitable $`^1`$-fibration. Let $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_k`$ be all of the singular fibres \[Z1, Lemma 1.5\]. Clearly, each $`S_j`$ consists of negative curves, so $`\text{Supp}_jS_jE_{\mathrm{}}`$. We may assume that $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ in $`_{\mathrm{}=1}^mE_{\mathrm{}}`$ are two distinct cross-sections of $`\phi `$; this is true when $`D0`$ but $`D^2=0`$, and can be done by choosing $`\phi `$ suitably and making use of (1) and the fact that $`m3`$.

Suppose that $`D=0`$. If $`k2`$, (1) implies that $`k=2`$ and $`LP=E_{\mathrm{}}`$ fits one of Figures 1 - 5. If $`k=1`$, then (1) implies that $`E_1.E_2=1`$ and $`S_1`$ is a linear chain of length $`3E_1^2E_2^2`$ and dual graph

$$(1)(2)\mathrm{}(2)(1).$$

Now the consideration of the new fibration $`\phi _2`$ with a fibre $`T_1`$ formed by $`E_1`$ and $`E_1^2`$ components in $`S_1`$, shows that $`X`$ has a new negative curve in a fibre $`T_2`$ ($`T_1`$) but outside $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$, a contradiction.

Suppose that $`D0`$ but $`D^2=0`$. Then (1) implies that $`\phi `$ has exactly one singular fibre $`S_1`$, and $`LP:=D+E_{\mathrm{}}`$ fits Figure 6, 7 or 8.

Suppose that $`D^2>0`$. Let $`\mu :X^2`$ be a birational morphism \[DZ, Lemma 4.2\], smoothly blowing down curves in $`E_{\mathrm{}}D+E_{\mathrm{}}K_X`$ so that $`\mu _{}(D+E_{\mathrm{}})`$ is a nodal member of $`|K_^2|`$. Then (1) implies that this nodal member is a union of a line ($`=\mu (E_{\mathrm{}})=\mu (E_1)`$ say) and a conic $`\mu (D)`$ so that $`D+E_{\mathrm{}}`$ fits Figure $`j`$ for some $`9j12`$, where $`D_1+D_2`$ should be read as $`D`$. Now let $`D_1+D_2`$ be the proper transform of the two lines meeting $`\mu (E_1)`$ at the two points $`\mu (E_1)\mu (D)`$. Then from Figures 9-12 describing $`\mu `$, we see that $`D_1+D_2`$ is a member in $`|D|`$ so that $`LP:=D_1+D_2+E_{\mathrm{}}`$ is of simple normal crossing and fits exactly Figure $`j`$. This proves (3). (4) is clear from Figures 1 - 12 describing $`\mu `$, and Lemma 1.2.

Lemma 2.4. For every $`1k12`$, there is exactly one surface $`X(k)`$, modulo isomorphism, with a simple loop $`LP`$ of Figure $`k`$ and satisfying Lemma $`2.3(1)`$, i.e., satisfying $`(2a)(2c)`$ of Theorem $`2.1`$.

Proof of Lemma $`2.4`$. Let $`X(j)`$ denote a surface with $`LPK_{X(j)}`$ of Figure $`j`$. We see easily that there are following birational morphisms:

$$\begin{array}{c}X(5)X(4)X(2)X(1)X(2)X(3),\\ X(6)X(7)X(8),\\ X(9)X(10)X(11)X(12).\end{array}$$

We will prove for some cases with smaller $`K_X^2`$ and the others either follow or are easier. For $`X(5)`$, we can take $`\mu :X(5)^2`$ to be the composite of the blow up of the three intersection points $`P_k`$ ($`k=1,2,3`$) of the three non-concurrent lines $`_{i<j}L_{ij}`$ (with $`L_{ij}`$ the line joining $`P_i`$ and $`P_j`$, and we may assume that $`P_1=[1:0:0],P_2=[0:1:0],P_3=[0:0:1]`$) with $`E_k`$ the exceptional divisor, and the blow up of the three intersection points of $`E_1,E_2,E_3`$ with respectively the proper transforms of $`L_{12},L_{23}`$ and $`L_{31}`$.

For $`X(8)`$, we see that there is a birational morphism $`\eta :X(8)^1\times ^1`$. It is the composite of the blow up of two points $`P_j`$ having coordinates $`(x,y)=(0,\mathrm{})`$ and $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ with exceptional divisors $`E_j`$, and the blow up of the two intersection points of $`E_1,E_2`$ with respectively the proper transforms of the fibres $`x=0`$ and $`x=\mathrm{}`$.

For $`X(10)`$, we can take $`\mu :X(10)^2`$ to be the composite of the blow up of the two points $`P_j`$ ($`j=1,2`$) with exceptional divisor $`E_j`$, and the blow up of the intersection point of $`E_1`$ with the proper transform of $`L_{12}`$ (we use the notation of $`X(5)`$). For $`X(12)`$, we can take $`\mu :X^2`$ to be the composite of the blow up of $`P_1`$ with $`E_1`$ the exceptional curve, the blow up of the intersection point of $`E_1`$ with the proper transform of $`L_{12}`$ with $`F_1`$ the exceptional divisor, and the blow up of the intersection point of $`F_1`$ with the proper transform of $`L_{12}`$ (we use the notation of $`X(5)`$).

The above arguments shows that for each of $`k=5,8,10,12`$, the surface $`X(k)`$ is unique modulo isomorphism. The other cases are similar. This proves Lemma 2.4.

Now we will complete the proof of Theorem 2.1. In view of Lemma 2.3, we only need to prove Theorem 2.1 (4) and (5). Theorem 2.1 (4) follows from Lemma 2.4. Indeed, if $`\mathrm{\#}P_j=0`$ (resp. $`1`$, or $`2`$), then as in Lemma 2.3, one can show that $`LP`$ which satisfies (2a) - (2c), fits one of Figures 1-4 (resp. Figures 6-8, or Figures 9-12).

For Theorem 2.1 (5), we note that $`K_YLP`$, and the latter is given in one of Figures 1 - 12 and hence is nef and big so that $`K_Y^2=(LP)^2`$ is between $`3`$ and $`7`$. In particular, $`Y`$ is a weak del Pezzo surface. The last assertion in Theorem 2.1 (5) now follows from Example 1.5 with $`g:=\phi _d`$. This proves Theorem 2.1 and also Theorem 2. Now Theorems 1 and 3 are consequences of Theorem 2.1 and Lemma 1.1.

$$\begin{array}{c}(1)(1)(1)\\ ||\\ ||\\ (1)(1)(1)\\ \text{Figure 1}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}(2)(1)(2)\\ ||\\ ||\\ (1)(1)(1)(1)\\ \text{Figure 2}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}(2)(1)(2)(1)\\ ||\\ ||\\ (1)(2)(1)(2)\\ \text{Figure 3}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}(1)(2)(2)(1)\\ ||\\ ||\\ (2)(1)(1)(2)\\ \text{Figure 4}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}(1)(2)(2)(1)\\ ||\\ ||\\ (2)(2)(1)(2)(2)\\ \text{Figure 5}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}D\\ (1)(0)(1)\\ ||\\ ||\\ (1)(2)(1)\\ \text{Figure 6}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}D\\ (1)(0)(2)\\ ||\\ ||\\ (1)(2)(2)(1)\\ \text{Figure 7}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}D\\ (2)(0)(2)(1)\\ ||\\ ||\\ (1)(2)(2)(2)\\ \text{Figure 8}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}D_1D_2\\ (0)(0)\\ ||\\ ||\\ (1)(1)(1)\\ \text{Figure 9}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}D_1D_2\\ (2)(0)(0)\\ ||\\ ||\\ (1)(2)(1)\\ \text{Figure 10}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}D_1D_2\\ (0)(1)\\ ||\\ ||\\ (2)(1)(1)\\ \text{Figure 11}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}D_1D_2\\ (2)(0)(1)\\ ||\\ ||\\ (2)(1)(2)\\ \text{Figure 12}\end{array}$$

## References

\[B\] A. Beauville, Endomorphisms of hypersurfaces and other manifolds, math.AG / 0008205.

\[Da\] M. Dabija, Algebraic and geometric dynamics in several complex variables, Ph D thesis, Univ. of Michigan, 2000.

\[D\] I. Dolgachev, Personal e-mail dated 24 December 2001.

\[DZ\] I. Dolgachev and D. -Q. Zhang, Coble rational surfaces, Amer. J. Math. 123 (2001), no. 1, 79–114.

\[GZ1, 2\] R. V. Gurjar and D. -Q. Zhang, $`\pi _1`$ of smooth points of a log del Pezzo surface is finite, I; II, J. Math. Sci. Univ. Tokyo 1 (1994), no. 1, 137–180; J. Math. Sci. Univ. Tokyo 2 (1995), no. 1, 165–196.

\[GPZ\] R. V. Gurjar, C. R. Pradeep and D. -Q. Zhang, On Gorenstein Surfaces Dominated by $`^2`$, Nagoya Mathematical Journal, to appear, math.AG/0112242.

\[K\] Y. Kawamata, A generalization of Kodaira-Ramanujam’s vanishing theorem, Math. Ann. 261 (1982), no. 1, 43–46.

\[MZ1, 2\] M. Miyanishi and D. -Q. Zhang, Gorenstein log del Pezzo surfaces of rank one, I; II, J. Algebra 118 (1988), no. 1, 63–84; J. Algebra 156 (1993), no. 1, 183–193.

\[M\] D. Mumford, The topology of normal singularities of an algebraic surface and a criterion for simplicity, Inst. Hautes Itudes Sci, Publ. Math. No. 9 (1961), 5–22.

\[R\] M. Reid, Chapters on algebraic surfaces, in: Complex algebraic geometry (Park City, UT, 1993), 3–159, IAS/Park City Math. Ser., 3.

\[V\] E. Viehweg, Vanishing theorems, J. Reine Angew. Math. 335 (1982), 1–8.

\[Y\] Q. Ye, On Gorenstein log del Pezzo Surfaces, Japanese J. Math. to appear, math.AG / 0109223.

\[Z1\] D. -Q. Zhang, Logarithmic del Pezzo surfaces of rank one with contractible boundaries, Osaka J. Math. 25 (1988), no. 2, 461–497.

\[Z2\] D. -Q. Zhang, Logarithmic del Pezzo surfaces with rational double and triple singular points, Tohoku Math. J. 41 (1989), no. 3, 399–452.

\[Z3\] D. -Q. Zhang, Algebraic surfaces with nef and big anti-canonical divisor, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 117 (1995), no. 1, 161–163.

\[ZD\] D. -Q. Zhang, Automorphisms of finite order on rational surfaces, with an appendix by I. Dolgachev, J. Alg. 238 (2001), 560–589.

\[N\] N. Nakayama, Ruled surfaces with non-trivial surjective endomorphisms, RIMS, Kyoto Univ. Preprint No. 1286, July 2001, Kyushu J. Math. to appear.

\[S\] M. Segami, On surjective endomorphism of surfaces (in Japanese), Proceedings of Symposium on vector bundles and algebraic geometry, Jan. 1997, Kyushu Univ. ed. S. Mukai and E. Sato, 93-102.

\[F\] Y. Fujimoto, Endomorphisms of smooth projective threefolds with non-negative Kodaira dimension, Preprint 2000.

\[FS\] Y. Fujimoto and E. Sato, On smooth projective threefolds with non-trivial surjective endomorphisms, Proc. Japan Acad. 74 (1998), 143 – 145.