format: text

text:
# Numerically trivial foliations

## 1. Introduction

In the last few years several fibrations related to a nef or even pseudoeffective line bundle $`L`$ on a projective complex manifold were constructed whose fibers satisfy certain numerical properties with respect to a sometimes modified intersection theory:

For a nef line bundle $`L`$, the usual intersection theory is taken by \[BCE<sup>+</sup>00\] to define (and construct) the so called nef fibration whose fibers contain only curves $`C`$ with $`L.C=0`$. The base dimension of this fibration is called the nef dimension of $`L`$ , and it can be proven that it is never smaller than the numerical dimension $`\nu (L)`$ of $`L`$. Note however that already for surfaces there are explicit counter examples to equality, cf. section 4.2.

Even earlier, Tsuji \[Tsu00\] associated an intersection theory to positive singular hermitian metrics $`h`$ on pseudoeffective line bundles $`L`$ by defining

$$(L,h).C:=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{m}h^0(\stackrel{~}{C},𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(m\pi ^{}L)((\pi ^{}h)^m)).$$

Here, $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{C}C`$ is the normalization of an irreducible curve $`C`$ not contained in the singular locus of $`h`$, and $`((\pi ^{}h)^m))`$ denotes the multiplier ideal sheaf of the pulled back metric $`(\pi ^{}h)^m`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. A projective complex manifold is called numerically trivial in Tsuji’s sense iff $`(L,h).C=0`$ for all such curves $`C`$. In \[Eck02\] other possible definitions of these intersection numbers are discussed, their relations are studied, and the fibration map with numerically trivial fibers is constructed, according to the suggestions of Tsuji.

Finally, Takayama \[Tak02\] defined intersection numbers reflecting properties of the linear sytems $`|mL|`$ by using the asymptotic multiplier ideal sheaf $`𝒥(L)`$:

$$||L,C||:=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}m^1\mathrm{deg}_CmL𝒥(||mL||),$$

where $`C`$ is an irreducible curve not contained in the stable base locus $`_m\mathrm{Bs}|mL|`$ of $`L`$. The resulting fibration turns out to be the well known Iitaka fibration.

The motivation for this work is to give a more unified treatment of all these fibrations and to give geometric reasons for the deviation of nef, numerical, and Kodaira-Iitaka dimension of a nef line bundle on a projective manifold. Three surface examples will illustrate the ideas developed to this purpose.

The first example is due to Mumford and has the property that the nef dimension is bigger than the numerical dimension: Start with a smooth projective curve $`C`$ of genus $`2`$ with the unit circle $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as universal covering and an irreducible unitary representation $`\rho :\pi _1(C)GL(2,)`$ of the fundamental group of $`C`$. This defines a rank 2 vector bundle $`E=(\mathrm{\Delta }\times ^2)/\pi _1(C)`$ on $`C`$ of degree 0 where the action of $`\pi _1(C)`$ is given by covering transformations on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the representation $`\rho `$ on $`^2`$.

Mumford proved that the nef line bundle $`L=𝒪_{(E)}(1)`$ on the projectivized bundle $`(E)`$ is stable hence the restriction of $`L`$ to all curves $`D(E)`$ is positive. On the other hand $`\mathrm{deg}E=0`$ hence $`L.L=0`$. Hence the numerical dimension $`\nu (L)`$ is $`1`$, while the nef reduction map is the identity, and the nef dimension is $`2`$.

It seems quite obvious how to explain this deviation: the ruled surface $`(E)`$ carries a foliation induced by the images of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\times l`$ in $`(E)`$ (where $`l`$ is a line through the origin in $`^2`$). Furthermore, locally the leaves of this foliation are mapped to points by the morphism induced by $`|L|`$, which is a kind of numerical triviality.

This motivates the construction of numerically trivial foliations w.r.t. some positive closed current (which may be the curvature current of some hemitian metric on a nef line bundle) on a complex manifold $`X`$. The starting point is an interesting criterion for numerical triviality in Tsuji’s sense:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective complex manifold, let $`L`$ be a pseudo-effective line bundle on $`X`$ with positive singular hermitian metric $`h`$ such that $`X`$ is $`(L,h)`$ numerically trivial. Then the curvature current $`\mathrm{\Theta }_h`$ may be decomposed as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_h=\underset{i}{}a_i[D_i]$$

where the $`D_i`$ form a countable set of prime divisors on $`X`$ and the $`a_i`$ are $`>0`$.

This is proven in \[Eck02\], and by trivial arguments the converse of this theorem is also true. It shows that numerical triviality is a local property of currents and does not depend on projectivity. Hence it is possible to localize the notion of numerically trivial fibrations to the notion of a foliation with numerically trivial leaves (details in sections 2.1,2.2). The main result is the following:

###### Theorem 1.2.

On a (not necessarily compact) complex manifold $`X`$ with a positive closed $`(1,1)`$ current $`T`$ there exists a maximal foliation with numerically trivial leaves w.r.t. $`T`$, that is the leaves of every foliation with numerically trivial leaves are contained in leaves of this foliation.

It is called the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`T`$. The construction rests essentially on the Local Key Lemma which allows to unite different foliations with numerically trivial leaves, and the proof of this lemma is an easy consequence of another interpretation of numerically trivial fibrations $`f:XY`$ w.r.t. to some closed positive $`(1,1)`$ current $`T`$: The residue current $`R`$ of the Siu decomposition $`T=a_i[D_i]+R`$ must be the pull back of a (positive) current on $`Y`$ (details in 2.2).

If $`X`$ is projective and $`T`$ the curvature current of a positive singular hermitian metric on a line bundle, Tsuji’s numerically trivial fibration will be the fibration maximal among those whose fibers are contained in the leaves of the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`T`$; details in section 2.3. The same construction gives the Iitaka fibration of a line bundle $`L`$ with Kodaira-Iitaka dimension $`\kappa (L)0`$ provided one uses the positive singular hermitian metric $`h`$ on $`L`$ defined as

$$h=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}(h_{|mL|})^{\frac{1}{m}}$$

where $`h_{|mL|}`$ is the (singular) hermitian metric on $`|mL|`$ defined by the global sections of $`mL`$ (see \[Tsu99\]). In this case even more is true: The numerical trivial foliation w.r.t. $`h`$ is already the Iitaka fibration (section 2.4).

It is not possible to find a positive singular hermitian metric which defines the nef fibration in a similar way, as shown by an example constructed in \[DPS94\] which is quite similar to Mumford’s example (section 4.1): Start with an elliptic curve $`C`$ and take as the rank 2 vector bundle $`E`$ the unique nontrivial extension of the structure sheaf $`𝒪_C`$. As in Mumford’s example the numerical dimension of the nef line bundle $`L=𝒪_{(E)}(1)`$ is $`1`$, while the nef dimension is $`2`$.

The remarkable feature of this example is the fact that the only positive singular hermitian metric on $`L`$ is given by the unique section of $`L`$, the “section at infinity” of $`(E)`$ (proof in \[DPS94\]), and $`(E)`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. this metric. Hence the obvious foliation on $`(E)`$ induced by the universal cover $``$ of $`C`$ cannot be interpreted as the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. some positive metric on $`L=𝒪_{(E)}(1)`$.

Ideas how to deal with this situation may be found in Boucksom’s construction of a divisorial Zariski decomposition and his definition of “moving” intersection numbers on pseudoeffective line bundles \[Bou02a\] on compact Kähler manifolds. Both notions show that it is extremely useful to loosen the restriction on positivity and to consider sequences of almost positive $`(1,1)`$ currents in a fixed cohomology class $`\alpha `$ whose negative parts tend to 0.

For nef line bundles the moving intersection numbers coincide with the usual ones. In particular, if $`CX`$ is a smooth compact curve on a compact Kähler manifold $`X`$ with Kähler form $`\omega `$, and $`L`$ is a nef line bundle with first Chern class $`\alpha :=c_1(L)H^{1,1}(X,)`$,

$$L.C=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\underset{T}{sup}_{X\mathrm{Sing}T}(T+ϵ\omega )[C]=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\underset{T}{sup}_{C\mathrm{Sing}T}(T+ϵ\omega ),$$

where the $`T`$’s run through all closed currents representing $`\alpha `$ such that $`Tϵ\omega `$, and $`[C]`$ is the integration current of the submanifold $`C`$ of bidegree $`(n1,n1)`$. (For further details see section 3.1.)

It is obvious that in this case $`L.C=0`$ iff $`lim_{ϵ0}sup_T_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{Sing}T}(T+ϵ\omega )=0`$ for all disks $`\mathrm{\Delta }C`$. Thus it is justified to interpret numerical triviality w.r.t. a pseudo-effective class as a local property: An immersed submanifold $`YX`$ (closed or not) is called numerically trivial w.r.t. a pseudo-effective class $`\alpha `$ iff

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\underset{T}{sup}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{Sing}T}(T+ϵ\omega )=0$$

(where the $`T`$’s run through all closed currents on $`X`$ contained in $`\alpha [ϵ\omega ]`$) for all holomorphically immersed disks $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y`$. And a foliation will be called numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\alpha `$ iff (locally) almost every leaf is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\alpha `$.

It is possible to prove an analog to the Local Key Lemma, hence there is a maximal numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`\alpha `$. It is contained in every numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. a positive current representing $`\alpha `$. If $`\alpha `$ is the first Chern class of some nef line bundle $`L`$ on a projective manifold $`X`$, the nef fibration of $`L`$ is the maximal fibration contained in the foliation (which will be called the nef foliation in that case). Furthermore, the Kodaira-Iitaka fibration contains the nef foliation, and one gets a nice geometric reason for deviations of the Kodaira-Iitaka and the nef dimension of nef line bundles on projective manifolds: $`\kappa (L)<n(L)`$ if the nef foliation is not a fibration. It is a very interesting open question whether the converse of this statement is also true. More generally: Is the fibration with the smallest fiber dimension which contains the nef foliation the Kodaira-Iitaka fibration ?

Finally, it is shown that the codimension of the leafs is an upper bound for the numerical dimension of $`\alpha `$, if the singularities of the foliation are isolated points. It is not clear to the author how to weaken this assumption or if there are counter examples. To get better answers it seems necessary to have a closer look at the structure of numerical trivial foliations around the singularities.

The last section of the paper constructs nef foliations of nef line bundles on surfaces. The first two examples are those due to Mumford and Demailly-Peternell-Schneider. In Mumford’s example it is easy to construct a smooth closed positive $`(1,1)`$ current on $`L=𝒪_^1(1)`$ such that the associated nef foliation is the obvious one: Take a measure $`\omega `$ invariant w.r.t. the representation of $`\pi (C)`$ in $`\mathrm{PGL}(2)`$. This gives a measure on $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\times ^1)/\pi (C)`$ transversal to the foliation induced by the images of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\times \left\{p\right\}`$. Averaging out the integration currents of the leaves with this transverse measure gives an (even smooth) closed positive $`(1,1)`$ current in the first Chern class of $`L=𝒪_{(E)}(1)`$ which vanishes on the leaves but not in any transverse direction.

The Demailly-Peternel-Schneider example is more difficult: A complicated glueing argument leads to almost positive currents which determine the obvious foliation.

The last example deals with $`^2`$ blown up in $`9`$ points and is interesting in many ways. In particular, if one fixes 8 points in sufficiently general position, varying the last point will give a nef fibration in the torsion points, but there is no nef foliation on the whole family with $`1`$\- dimensional leaves. Hence, the nef fibrations in varieties over torsion points do not converge against a foliation in varieties over (general) non-torsion points. This somehow answers a question asked in \[DPS96\].

#### Acknowledgement

This article was mainly written during two stays at the Institut Fourier in Grenoble. The first was paid by the DFG-Schwerpunkt "Global Methods in Complex Geometry", the second by the Institut Universitaire de France. The author enormously benefitted from many discussions with J.-P. Demailly and S. Boucksom who generously shared their new insights on moving intersection numbers with him and gave the author a lot of encouragement. Furthermore, the author enjoyed a lot the warm hospitality created by the whole institute.

## 2. Numerically trivial foliations

### 2.1. Numerical triviality

As proposed in the introduction numerical triviality of (not necessarily compact) complex manifolds is defined via the criterion of theorem 1.1:

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`X`$ be a complex manifold and $`T`$ a positive closed $`(1,1)`$ current on $`X`$. Then $`X`$ is called numerically trivial w.r.t. $`T`$ iff

$$T=a_i[D_i],$$

for countably many prime divisors $`D_i`$ in $`X`$ and real numbers $`a_i0`$.

To compare later on Tsuji’s numerically trivial fibration with the numerically trivial foliation it is useful to define numerical triviality for any irreducible analytic subsets (not only for submanifolds):

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`X`$ be compact complex manifold and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ a positive closed $`(1,1)`$ current on $`X`$. Let $`YX`$ be a positive dimensional analytic subset of $`X`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ may be restricted to $`Y_{reg}`$, the smooth part of $`Y`$. Then $`Y`$ is called numerically trivial with respect to $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ iff for all holomorphic maps $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }^kY`$ such that $`f^{}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ exists the complex manifold $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$ is numerically trivial with respect to $`f^{}\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

This definition is consistent with the definition of numerically trivial manifolds:

###### Proposition 2.3.

Let $`X`$ be a complex manifold and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ a positive closed $`(1,1)`$ current. $`X`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ iff for all holomorphic maps $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }^kX`$ such that $`f^{}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ exists $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`f^{}\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

###### Proof.

The “only if” part is a trivial consequence of the equality $`f^{}([D_i])=[f^{}(D_i)]`$ for (integration currents of) divisors. The other direction follows from the Siu-decomposition \[Dem00, (2.18)\]

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\underset{i}{}\nu _i[D_i]+R,$$

where $`R`$ is a positive closed $`(1,1)`$ current such that the Lelong number level sets $`E_c(R)`$ have no codim 1 components. If $`R0`$ there will exist an open set $`U\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ in $`X`$ such that $`R_{|U}0`$, hence $`U`$ is not numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{|U}`$. ∎

The definition of numerical triviality can be further simplified by means of the following proposition:

###### Proposition 2.4.

Let $`X`$ be a complex manifold and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ a positive closed $`(1,1)`$ current. $`X`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ iff for all holomorphic maps $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ such that $`f^{}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ exists $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`f^{}\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

###### Proof.

The “only if” part follows by definition. For the other direction start again with the Siu decomposition $`\mathrm{\Theta }=_i\nu _i[D_i]+R`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^nUX`$ be an open subset and let $`q:\mathrm{\Delta }^n\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$ be the projection onto the first $`n1`$ factors. Since the Lelong number level sets $`E_c(R)`$ contain no codim 1 component, very general fibers $`F`$ of $`q`$ do not intersect any of the $`E_c(R)`$. By the results of \[ME00\] there is a pluripolar set $`N\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$ such that the level sets $`E_c(R_{|F})=\mathrm{}`$ for the restriction of $`R`$ to all fibers $`F`$ over points outside of $`N`$. By assumption $`R_{|F}0`$.

By the following lemma there exists a positive closed $`(1,1)`$ current $`S`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$ such that $`R=q^{}S`$. Let $`D=\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}\times \left\{p\right\}`$ be a section of $`q`$ such that $`R_{|D}`$ is well defined. By induction $`R_{|D}0`$. Since the projection $`q:D\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$ is an isomorphism $`S0`$ hence $`R0`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.5.

Let $`T`$ be a positive closed $`(1,1)`$ current on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ and let $`q:\mathrm{\Delta }^n\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$ be the projection onto all factors but the last one. If $`T_{|q^1(x)}0`$ for all $`x`$ outside a pluripolar set $`N\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$ then there will be a positive closed $`(1,1)`$ current $`S`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$ such that $`T=q^{}S`$.

###### Proof.

The positive current $`T`$ may be written as

$$T=i\underset{i,j}{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}dz_id\overline{z}_j$$

where the $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}`$ are complex measures on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ (\[Dem00, (1.15)\]). That $`T`$ is a real current implies $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}=\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{ji}`$. Since $`T`$ is positive, $`\lambda _i\overline{\lambda _j}\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}`$ is a positive measure for all vectors $`(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)^n`$. Hence

$$\lambda _i\overline{\lambda _i}\mathrm{\Theta }_{ii}+\lambda _i\overline{\lambda _n}\mathrm{\Theta }_{in}+\lambda _n\overline{\lambda _i}\mathrm{\Theta }_{ni}+\lambda _n\overline{\lambda _n}\mathrm{\Theta }_{nn}0(\lambda _i,\lambda _n)^2.$$

Claim. As a $`(1,1)`$ current $`i\mathrm{\Theta }_{nn}dz_nd\overline{z}_n=0`$.

###### Proof.

By definition one has to show that

$$_{\mathrm{\Delta }^n}i\mathrm{\Theta }_{nn}𝑑z_nd\overline{z}_n\alpha idz_1d\overline{z}_1\mathrm{}idz_{n1}d\overline{z}_{n1}=0$$

for all complex valued functions $`\alpha 𝒞_c^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }^n)`$. Since $`T_{|q^1(x)}=i\mathrm{\Theta }_{nn}dz_nd\overline{z}_n`$

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }^n}}i\mathrm{\Theta }_{nn}𝑑z_nd\overline{z}_n\alpha idz_1d\overline{z}_1\mathrm{}idz_{n1}d\overline{z}_{n1}=`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }^n}}T\alpha idz_1d\overline{z}_1\mathrm{}idz_{n1}d\overline{z}_{n1},`$
and the slicing formula \[Dem00, (1.22)\] implies that this is equal to

$$_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}}\left(_{q^1(x^{})}T_{|q^1(x^{})}\alpha _{|q^1(x^{})}\right)i𝑑z_1d\overline{z}_1\mathrm{}idz_{n1}d\overline{z}_{n1}.$$

This is $`0`$ because $`T_{|q^1(x)}0`$ for all $`x`$ outside a pluripolar set $`N\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$. ∎

Consequently,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{ii}+\overline{\lambda }_n\mathrm{\Theta }_{in}+\lambda _n\mathrm{\Theta }_{ni}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{ii}+\overline{\lambda }_n\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{ni}+\lambda _n\mathrm{\Theta }_{ni}0$$

for all $`\lambda _n`$. Now suppose that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ni}0`$, i.e. there is a smooth real valued function $`\alpha 0`$ with compact support such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ni}(\alpha )0`$. Then there is a $`\lambda _n`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{ii}(\alpha )+\overline{\lambda }_n\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }_{ni}(\alpha )}+\lambda _n\mathrm{\Theta }_{ni}(\alpha )<0.$$

This is a contradiction. Hence $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{in}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{ni}=0`$ for all $`in1`$.

Next, the closedness of $`T`$ implies

$$\frac{}{z_n}\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}=\frac{}{\overline{z_n}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}=0i,jn1.$$

Hence the $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}`$ only depend on $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1}`$. One finally gets

$$T=q^{}S=i\underset{i,jn1}{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}dz_id\overline{z_j}$$

and $`S`$ is a closed positive $`(1,1)`$ current on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$. ∎

Proposition 2.4 has an easy

###### Corollary 2.6.

Let $`X`$ be a complex manifold and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ a positive closed $`(1,1)`$ current. Let $`YX`$ be an irreducible analytic subset such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ may be restricted to $`Y_{reg}`$, the smooth part of $`Y`$. Then $`Y`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ iff for all holomorphic maps $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }YX`$ such that $`f^{}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ exists the complex manifold $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`f^{}\mathrm{\Theta }`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

As a consequence one can give an alternative definition of numerically trivial irreducible analytic subsets using embedded resolutions of singularities by blowing up smooth centers. Such resolutions exist for arbitrary complex manifolds, at least on relatively compact open subsets (\[Hir64\],\[BM97\]).

###### Proposition 2.7.

Let $`X`$ be a complex manifold and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ a positive closed $`(1,1)`$ current. Let $`YX`$ be an irreducible analytic subset such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ may be restricted to $`Y_{reg}`$, the smooth part of $`Y`$. Then $`Y`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ iff for an embedded resolution $`f:\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ the complex manifold $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. the pulled back current $`f^{}\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

###### Proof.

By the universal property of the blowup a map $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }Y`$ will factorize through the blow up $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ of a smooth center if its image is not contained in the center. Furthermore the exceptional divisor is a projectivized bundle hence locally trivial. So at least locally there will be a map $`\stackrel{~}{f}:\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ such that $`\pi \stackrel{~}{f}=f`$ if the image is contained in the center. ∎

Finally there is a useful criterion for numerical triviality:

###### Proposition 2.8.

Let $`X`$ be a complex manifold and let $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be an almost positive $`(1,1)`$ current. Then $`X`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ iff there is an analytic subset $`AX`$ such that $`XA`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

###### Proof.

This is a direct consequence of the following standard arguments. First a closed $`(1,1)`$ current is 0 iff it is already 0 outside a set of real codimension 4. \[Dem00, (1.21)\]. Second, for complete pluripolar sets $`E`$ (as are analytic subsets) $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{𝟏}_{XE}\mathrm{\Theta }+\mathrm{𝟏}_E\mathrm{\Theta }`$: This is true for the closed positive current $`\mathrm{\Theta }+C\omega `$ by \[Dem00, (1.19)\], hence also for $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. But for $`E`$ a codimension 1 analytic subset $`\mathrm{𝟏}_E\mathrm{\Theta }=m_E[E]`$ where $`m_E`$ is the generic Lelong number on $`E`$ \[Dem00, (2.17)\]. ∎

### 2.2. Existence of maximal numerically trivial foliations

Consider singular foliations as described in the Appendix:

###### Definition 2.9.

Let $`X`$ be an $`n`$ dimensional compact complex manifold with hermitian metric $`\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ a positive closed $`(1,1)`$ current on $`X`$. A singular foliation $`\{,(U_i,p_i)\}`$ is said to induce a (singular) numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ iff almost every fiber of $`p_i`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

Note that the condition about the fibers of the $`p_i`$ is much stronger than in the case of numerical trivial fibrations: Here it was only necessary to assume that the union of numerically trivial fibers is not a Lebesgue zero set, and the numerical triviality of all fibers over points lying in the complement of a pluripolar set followed. In the foliation case there exist counter examples to this conclusion: On $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ consider the plurisubharmonic function

$$\varphi (z_1,z_2)=\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{log}(1+|z_1z_2|^2)\mathrm{log}\frac{5}{4},0).$$

For every $`z_2`$ fiber $`F`$ with $`|z_2|<\frac{1}{2}`$ the restriction $`\varphi _{|F}`$ is $`0`$. But for $`|z_1z_2|>\frac{1}{2}`$ one sees that $`\varphi \mathrm{log}(1+|z_1z_2|^2)\mathrm{log}\frac{5}{4}`$.

Theorem 1.2 states the existence of a maximal numerically trivial foliation with respect to the inclusion relation “$``$” of singular foliations, see the Appendix. The strategy to prove the existence of this maximal foliation is essentially the same as for the existence proof of numerical trivial fibrations: one proves that the common refinement $`\{,(W_k,r_k:W_k\mathrm{\Delta }^{nm})\}`$ of two numerically trivial foliations $`\{,(U_i,p_i:U_i\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk})\}`$, $`\{𝒢,(V_j,q_j:V_j\mathrm{\Delta }^{nl})\}`$, (see the Appendix) is again a numerically trivial foliation.

The main step is to establish a local analog to the Key Lemma in \[Eck02\]. It is stated for the following configuration: Let $`W\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ be a complex manifold with two projections $`p_1:W\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}`$, $`p_2:W\mathrm{\Delta }^{nl}`$ such that a smallest projection $`p:W\mathrm{\Delta }^{nm}`$ as constructed in the Appendix exists.

###### Local Key Lemma 2.10.

If the fibrations induced by $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are numerically trivial w.r.t. a positive closed $`(1,1)`$ current $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on $`W`$, then the foliation induced by $`p`$ will also be numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

Since any two points on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}`$ may be connected by a sequence of images of $`p_2`$ fibers this is a consequence of

###### Lemma 2.11.

Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be a positive closed $`(1,1)`$ current on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$, let $`q:\mathrm{\Delta }^n\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$ be the projection onto the last $`k`$ factors and let

$$V=\{x\mathrm{\Delta }^n|x_1=\mathrm{}=x_l=0\}\mathrm{\Delta }^n$$

be an analytic subset mapping surjectively on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$ (that is, $`l<k`$). If almost every $`q`$ fiber and $`V`$ are numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ will be numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }=_ia_i[D_i]+R`$ be the Siu decomposition. Lemma 2.5 shows that $`R=q^{}S`$ for some closed positive $`(1,1)`$ current $`S`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$. Now, at least locally each map $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$ is liftable to a map $`\stackrel{~}{f}:\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, that is $`f=q\stackrel{~}{f}`$ (this is obvious for projections). Hence $`S`$ is numerically trivial by the criterion in proposition 2.8. But divisorial components in the Siu-decomposition of $`S`$ would give divisorial components of the Lelong number level sets of $`R=q^{}S`$. Therefore $`S0`$ hence $`R0`$. ∎

Note again that the Local Key Lemma needs stronger assumptions on the fibers than the Key Lemma. This is shown by the same counter example as above: The horizontal sections $`\{z_2=a\}`$ are also numerically trivial as long as $`|a|<\frac{1}{2}`$.

Now it is an easy consequence of the Local Key Lemma to show that common refinement $`\{,(W_k,r_k:W_k\mathrm{\Delta }^{nm})\}`$ of two numerically trivial foliations $`\{,(U_i,p_i:U_i\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk})\}`$, $`\{𝒢,(V_j,q_j:V_j\mathrm{\Delta }^{nl})\}`$ is again numerically trivial.

This ends the proof of Theorem 1.2.

### 2.3. Tsuji’s numerically trivial fibrations

Now let $`X`$ be a smooth projective complex manifold and $`L`$ a pseudoeffective holomorphic line bundle on $`X`$ with positive singular hermitian metric $`h`$. As already mentioned in the beginning, the notion of numerical triviality used to construct Tsuji’s numerically trivial fibrations is derived from an intersection number $`(L,h).C`$ of an irreducible curve $`CX`$ not contained in the singular locus of $`h`$ with the pair $`(L,h)`$. A subvariety $`YX`$ is numerically trivial iff $`(L,h).C=0`$ for all irreducible curves $`CX`$. The analysis of these intersection numbers in \[Eck02\] shows that

$$(L,h).C=(\pi ^{}L,\pi ^{}h).\overline{C}=\pi ^{}L.\overline{C}\underset{x\overline{C}}{}\nu (\pi ^{}h,x),$$

where $`\pi :\overline{C}C`$ is the normalization. In particular, if $`(L,h).C=0`$, the curvature current of $`\pi ^{}h`$ on $`\overline{C}`$ may be written as $`_{x\overline{C}}\nu (\pi ^{}h,x)[x]`$. Hence proposition 2.4 shows that numerically trivial subvarieties in the sense of definition 2.2 are also numerically trivial in the sense just described.

The converse is also true: By the birational invariance of numerical triviality \[Eck02, 2.6\] the normalization and desingularization $`\overline{Y}`$ of a numerically trivial subvariety $`Y`$ is also numerically trivial (in Tsuji’s sense). Hence the curvature current of the pulled back metric is of the form $`\nu _i[D_i]`$, by theorem 1.1. But this implies certainly numerical triviality of $`\overline{Y}`$ in the sense of definition 2.2, and since every holomorphic map $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }Y`$ may be lifted to a holomorphic map $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{Y}`$, the numerical triviality of $`Y`$ follows.

Now remind the construction of Tsuji’s numerically trivial fibration: It is the (up to birational equivalence unique) element with maximal fiber dimension in the set of families $`\stackrel{~}{f}:𝔛𝒩`$ with the following properties (\[Eck02, 3.3\]):

* $`𝔛X\times 𝒩`$, $`𝔛,𝒩`$ quasi-projective, irreducible, general fibres are subvarieties of $`X`$;
* the projection $`p:𝔛X`$ is generically finite;
* $`(L,h)`$ is defined and not numerically trivial on sufficiently general fibres of $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$, i.e. on a set of fibres $`𝒩`$ which has not Lebesgue measure $`0`$;
* the fibres are generically unique, i.e. if $`U𝒩`$ is an open subset such that $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{|U}`$ is flat then the induced map $`U\mathrm{Hilb}(X)`$ will be generically bijective.

It is shown that for the maximal element, the projection $`p:𝔛X`$ is really birational, and that all fibers where $`h_{|F}\mathrm{}`$ are numerically trivial. But by the observation above, such a fibration can be interpreted as a numerically trivial foliation $`\{,(U_i,p_i)\}`$: Take $``$ as $`p_{}T_{𝔛/𝒩}`$, and let $`ZX`$ be an algebraic subset of points where $`p`$ is an isomorphism and $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is smooth. Then $`XZ`$ may be covered by (analytically) open sets $`U_i`$ such that there exist maps $`p_i:U_i\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}`$ with $`T_{U_i/\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}}=_{|U_i}`$. This implies that the $`p_i`$ fibers are numerically trivial. Consequently, it is possible to characterize Tsuji’s numerically trivial fibration in the following way:

###### Proposition 2.12.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective complex manifold and $`L`$ a pseudoeffective holomorphic line bundle on $`X`$ with positive singular hermitian metric $`h`$. Then the birational fibration with maximal fiber dimension contained in the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. the curvature current $`\mathrm{\Theta }_h`$ is Tsuji’s numerically trivial fibration w.r.t. $`(L,h)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 2.4. The Iitaka fibration

Let $`X`$ be a projective complex manifold and $`L`$ a line bundle with non-negative Kodaira-Iitaka dimension $`\kappa (X,L)0`$. Consider the set $`N(L)`$ of all $`m`$ such that the linear systems $`|mL|\mathrm{}`$. Let $`m_0`$ be the greatest common divisor of the numbers in $`N(L)`$. Then there is a positive integer $`m(L)`$ such that $`|mm_0L|\mathrm{}`$ for all positive integers $`mm(L)`$. Choose generating sets $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_{k_m}`$ for the linear systems $`|mm_0L|\mathrm{}`$ and let $`h_m`$ be the (possibly singular) hermitian metric on $`L`$ with plurisubharmonic weight (on the base $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ of a local trivialization $`L\mathrm{\Omega }\times `$)

$$\varphi _m=\frac{1}{2mm_0}\mathrm{log}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k_m}{}}|f_i|^2)$$

and curvature current $`\mathrm{\Theta }_m=i\overline{}\varphi _m`$ (on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$). Let $`h_L`$ be a smooth hermitian metric on $`L`$ with weight $`\varphi _L`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and smooth curvature form $`\mathrm{\Theta }_L`$. Write $`\mathrm{\Theta }_m=\mathrm{\Theta }_L+i\overline{}\varphi _m^{}`$ and normalize the $`\varphi _m^{}`$ by subtracting (if necessary) a positive constant $`C_m`$ such that $`sup\varphi _m^{}0`$ (this is possible because $`\varphi _m^{}`$ is defined on the compact manifold $`X`$ hence bounded from above). Then take the upper semicontinuous upper envelope $`\varphi ^{}`$ of the $`\varphi _m^{}`$ and call $`h`$ the (singular) hermitian metric on $`L`$ given by the plurisubharmonic weight $`\varphi =\varphi _L+\varphi ^{}`$.

It is useful to construct the $`\varphi _m`$ in such a way that $`\varphi ^{}`$ has the singularities exactly at the stable base locus

$$\mathrm{SBs}(L):=\underset{m}{}\mathrm{Bs}(|mL|)$$

of $`L`$. This is possible by defining $`\varphi _{m+1}`$ from $`\varphi _m`$ as follows: multiply the generators of $`|mm_0L|`$ by a section in $`|m_0L|`$ and complete this set to a generating set of $`|(m+1)m_0L|`$. By multiplying the completing sections with small positive constants one can reach around points $`x\mathrm{Bs}(|(m+1)m_0L|)`$ that

$$\varphi _{m+1}(1ϵ_m)\varphi _m$$

for arbitrarily small $`ϵ`$. Hence given a positive integer $`M`$, for appropriately chosen $`ϵ_m`$, there is a constant $`C_x>0`$ such that $`sup\varphi _mC_x\varphi _M`$. This implies that $`\varphi ^{}`$ has also a singularity in $`x`$.

The aim is to prove that the Iitaka fibration is (up to birational equivalence) the same as the numerically trivial foliation with respect to the current $`i\overline{}\varphi `$. Since the Iitaka fibration is a fibration this implies in particular that in this case the numerically trivial foliation is the same as Tsuji’s numerically trivial fibration.

To prove these assertions, first compare Tsuji’s and Takayama’s intersection numbers:

###### Lemma 2.13.

With $`L`$, $`h`$ as above,

$$(L,h).C||L,C||$$

for smooth irreducible curves $`C`$ not contained in a Lebesgue zero set.

###### Proof.

To begin with, one has to relate the multiplier ideals $`𝒥(c|mm_0L|)`$ of the linear system $`|mm_0L|`$ and the positive rational number $`c`$ with the (analytic) multiplier ideals $`𝒥(\varphi _m)`$. The ideal $`𝒥(c|mm_0L|)`$ is defined via a log resolution, but since $`\varphi _m`$ is a plurisubharmonic function with analytic singularities defined by generating elements of $`|mm_0L|`$, it follows that

$$𝒥(cmm_0\varphi _m)=𝒥(c|mm_0L|)$$

by \[Dem00, (5.9)\].

As already mentioned in the introduction,

$$||L,C||:=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}m^1\mathrm{deg}_CmL𝒥(||mL||)$$

is defined by using the asymptotic multiplier ideal $`𝒥(mL)`$. This ideal is defined to be the unique maximal element among all multiplier ideals $`𝒥(\frac{1}{pm_0}|pm_0mL|)`$ (\[Kaw99\],\[Laz00\]). Consequently,

$`||L,C||`$ $`=`$ $`L.C+\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}m^1\underset{p}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{deg}_C𝒥({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_0p}}|m_0pmL|)=`$
$`=`$ $`L.C+\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}m^1\underset{p\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{deg}_C𝒥(m\varphi _{mp})`$
$`=`$ $`L.C+\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}m^1\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{deg}_C𝒥(m\varphi _n).`$
The last equality is true because $`𝒥(m\varphi _n)𝒥(m\varphi _{n+1})`$ for all $`n`$: The multiplier ideals do not depend on the generating set used to define $`\varphi _n`$. By multiplying the generators defining $`\varphi _n`$ with a section in $`H^0(X,m_0L)`$ and completing this set to a generating set of $`H^0(X,(n+1)m_0L)`$ it is possible to choose $`\varphi _n\varphi _{n+1}`$ (as above), hence the inclusion.

Next, Tsuji’s intersection number may be expressed as

$$(L,h_n).C=L.C+\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}m^1\mathrm{deg}_C𝒥(m\varphi _n),$$

by \[Eck02, (2.3.1)\] and the fact that $`h_n`$ is a metric with analytic singularities, hence restriction to $`C`$ and taking the multiplier ideal in the $`lim\; sup`$ above may be interchanged on smooth curves (\[Eck02, Prop. 2.11\]). An easy analysis shows that

$`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}(L,h_n).C`$ $`=`$ $`L.C+\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}m^1\mathrm{deg}_C𝒥(m\varphi _n)`$
$``$ $`L.C+\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}m^1\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{deg}_C𝒥(m\varphi _n)=||L;C||.`$
On the other hand, $`(L,h_n).C=L.C_{xC}\nu (h_{n|C},x)`$ by \[Eck02, Prop. 1.2\]. Since the upper semicontinuous upper envelope $`\varphi ^{}`$ of the $`\varphi _m^{}`$ equals $`sup_m\varphi _m^{}`$ outside a set of Lebesgue measure zero (\[Lel68\]), the envelope of the restrictions $`\varphi _{m|C}^{}`$ equals almost everywhere the restriction $`(\varphi _m^{})_{|C}`$ on all curves outside a Lebesgue zero set. For these curves the lemma follows from the next statement, using the definition of Lelong numbers via integrals (\[Dem00, (2.7)\]). ∎

###### Lemma 2.14.

Let $`CX`$ be a smooth curve not contained in $`\{xX:sup_m\varphi _m^{}(x)<\varphi ^{}(x)\}`$. Then for all $`xC`$

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\nu (h_{n|C},x)\stackrel{}{}\nu (h_{|C},x).$$

###### Proof.

By definition of Lelong numbers, $`\nu (\varphi ,x)\nu (\psi ,x)`$ if $`\varphi \psi `$. Consequently, by the same construction as for the inclusion $`𝒥(m\varphi _n)𝒥(m\varphi _{n+1})`$, the Lelong numbers $`\nu (h_{n|C},x)`$ of the $`\varphi _n`$ form a decreasing sequence of non-negative numbers in every point $`xC`$ whose limit is $`\nu (h_{|C},x)`$. It remains to show the equality:

If $`z`$ is a local parameter of $`C`$ centered in $`x`$, the restriction $`\varphi _n^{}`$ may locally be written as

$$\varphi _n^{}(z)=\varphi _n(z)\varphi _L(z)C_n=\nu (h_{n|C},0)\mathrm{log}|z|+d_n\mathrm{log}(1+\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_i|z|^i)\varphi _L(z)C_n.$$

For every $`ϵ>0`$ and a sufficiently small neighborhood of $`0`$ it is true that

$$d_n\mathrm{log}(1+\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_i|z|^i)\varphi _L(z)C_nϵ\mathrm{log}|z|,$$

hence $`\varphi _n^{}(z)(\nu (h_{n|C},0)ϵ)\mathrm{log}|z|`$, which implies

$$\varphi ^{}(z)(\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\nu (h_{n|C},0)ϵ)\mathrm{log}|z|$$

for almost all $`z`$ around $`0`$. Consequently, $`\nu (\varphi ^{},0)lim_n\mathrm{}\nu (h_{n|C},0)ϵ`$ for all $`ϵ>0`$, and the equality follows. ∎

This already implies that the Iitaka fibration is contained in Tsuji’s numerically trivial fibration: Take a birational morphism $`\mu :X^{}X`$ from a smooth projective variety $`X^{}`$ such that the Iitaka fibration induced by the linear system $`|m\mu ^{}L|`$ is a morphism $`f:XY`$ on another smooth variety $`Y`$. The general fiber of this fibration is smooth. Smooth varieties are numerically trivial w.r.t. some pair $`(L,h)`$ iff $`(L,h).C=0`$ for all sufficiently general smooth curves in this variety (\[Eck02, 3.1\]). Hence by the above inequality the numerically trivial fibration w.r.t. $`(\mu ^{}L,\mu ^{}h)`$ contains the Iitaka fibration. By birational equivalence of intersection numbers (\[Eck02, 2.6\]), the numerically trivial fibration w.r.t. $`(\mu ^{}L,\mu ^{}h)`$ is birationally equivalent to that on $`X`$ w.r.t. $`(L,h)`$.

Next note that there is a positive integer $`m`$ such that the Iitaka fibration of $`L`$ is induced by the linear system $`|mL|`$ \[Iit82, 10.3\].

###### Lemma 2.15.

Let $`L`$ be a holomorphic line bundle on a projective complex manifold $`X`$ such that $`|mL|`$ is a non-empty linear system which induces a rational map $`\varphi _{|mL|}:XY`$. Then $`\varphi _{|mL|}`$ is the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`h_{|mL|}`$.

###### Proof.

By corollary 2.6 it is enough to show that for every holomorphic map $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not mapped to a point and does not intersect the base locus of $`|mL|`$, the unit disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not numerically trivial w.r.t. $`f^{}h_{|mL|}`$. But when $`|mL|`$ has no base points in the image of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the metric $`f^{}h_{|mL|}`$ is a smooth metric with smooth positive curvature form different from $`0`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.16.

For $`X`$, $`L`$ and $`h`$ as above, let $`m>0`$ be an integer such that $`|mL|`$ is a non-empty linear system, and $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ a holomorphic map such that $`f^{}h\mathrm{}`$, $`f^{}h_{|mL|}\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{numerically}\mathrm{trivial}\mathrm{w}.\mathrm{r}.\mathrm{t}.f^{}h\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{numerically}\mathrm{trivial}\mathrm{w}.\mathrm{r}.\mathrm{t}.f^{}h_{|mL|}.$$

###### Proof.

This is a trivial consequence of the Lelong number inequality $`\nu (f^{}h,x)\nu (f^{}h_m,x)`$, see above. ∎

The last lemma implies that the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`h`$ is contained in the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`h_{|mL|}`$, and the lemma before shows that this foliation is the Iitaka fibration which in turn is contained in Tsuji’s numerically trivial fibration by the arguments above.

Remark. This also shows that the Iitaka fibration is the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`h_{|mL|}`$ for an appropriate $`m`$.

## 3. Bounds for the numerical dimension

In this section the ideas of Boucksom and Demailly are used to construct a numerically trivial foliation for pseudo-effective $`(1,1)`$ classes on compact Kähler manifolds. The next paragraph tries to collect the scattered and mostly unpublished definitions and properties of volumes and moving intersection products of pseudo-effective classes without claiming any originality or completeness and mostly without proof (in many cases they may be found in \[Bou02a\]). The main result about the numerically trivial foliations will be that the codimension of their leaves determines an upper bound for the numerical dimension of the pseudo-effective class, if the singularities of the foliation are isolated points.

### 3.1. Moving intersection numbers of pseudo-effective classes

Starting with Fujita’s approximate Zariski decomposition (\[Fuj94\],\[DEL00\]) Boucksom developped a notion of volume for arbitrary pseudo-effective classes (\[Bou01\]) on compact Kähler manifolds. This was generalized (with small modifications) by Demailly to a “moving intersection product” of pseudo-effective classes (\[Dem02\]). This in turn allows the definition of a numerical dimension for pseudo-effective classes.

Logically one has to start with defining the “moving intersection numbers”:

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold with Kähler form $`\omega `$. Let $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _pH^{1,1}(X,)`$ be pseudo-effective classes and let $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be a closed positive current of bidimension $`(p,p)`$. Then the moving intersection number $`(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p\mathrm{\Theta })_0`$ of the $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is defined to be the limit when $`ϵ>0`$ goes to $`0`$ of

$$sup_{XF}(T_1+ϵ\omega )\mathrm{}(T_p+ϵ\omega )\mathrm{\Theta }$$

where the $`T_i`$’s run through all currents with analytic singularities in $`\alpha _i[ϵ\omega ]`$, and $`F`$ is the union of the $`Sing(T_i)`$.

It is not difficult to justify the existence of the limit above: First, on $`XF`$ the currents $`T_i+ϵ\omega `$ may locally be written as $`T_i+ϵ\omega =dd^cu_i`$ for some bounded plurisubharmonic function $`u_i`$. By results of Bedford-Taylor \[BT76\] this implies the existence of the integral. In addition Boucksom \[Bou01\] showed that these integrals are bounded by a constant only depending on the comological classes $`\{T_i\}`$ and $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }\}`$ (this is where the Kähler assumption comes in). Hence the supremum always exists, and is increasing with increasing $`ϵ`$. This implies the existence of the limit. Finally it is easy to see that this limit does not depend on the choice of the Kähler form $`\omega `$.

The $`(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p\mathrm{\Theta })_0`$ are symmetric in the $`\alpha _i`$ and concave and homogeneous in every variable separately. For nef classes $`\alpha _iH^{1,1}(X,)`$ the moving intersection number equals the normal cohomological intersection number $`(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p\{\mathrm{\Theta }\})`$ \[Bou02a\]. If some of the pseudo-effective classes coincide one has

###### Lemma 3.2.

For pseudo-effective classes $`\alpha ,\alpha _{p+1},\mathrm{},\alpha _n`$ the moving intersection number $`(\alpha ^p\alpha _{p+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _n)_0`$ is the limit for $`ϵ0`$ of

$$sup_{XF}(T+ϵ\omega )^p(T_{p+1}+ϵ\omega )\mathrm{}(T_n+ϵ\omega )$$

where $`T\alpha [ϵ\omega ]`$ and $`T_i\alpha _i[ϵ\omega ]`$ have analytic singularities.

###### Proof.

See Lemma 3.2.7 in \[Bou02a\]. ∎

###### Definition 3.3.

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold. Then the numerical dimension $`\nu (\alpha )`$ of a pseudo-effective class $`\alpha H^{1,1}(X,)`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{max}\{k\{0,\mathrm{},n\}:(\alpha ^k\omega ^{nk})_0>0\}$$

for some (and hence all) Kähler classes $`\omega `$.

Now the volume of a pseudo-effective class $`\alpha H^{1,1}(X,)`$ on a compact Kähler manifold may be defined as a special case of the moving intersection product:

$$\mathrm{vol}(\alpha )=(\alpha ^n)_0.$$

But there are other useful possibilities to define it: First remember that Fujita considered projective $`n`$ dimensional algebraic varieties $`X`$ and line bundles $`L`$ over $`X`$, and defined the volume of $`L`$ by

$$\mathrm{vol}(L):=\underset{k+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{n!}{k^n}h^0(X,kL).$$

If $`L`$ is nef the volume of $`L`$ is the self-intersection $`L^n`$, by Riemann-Roch and $`h^q(X,kL)O(k^{nq})`$ (\[Dem00, (6.7)\]). For arbitrary pseudo-effective classes $`\alpha H^{1,1}(X,)`$ on compact Kähler manifolds $`X`$ Boucksom generalized this volume by defining

$$\mathrm{vol}(\alpha )=sup_XT_{ac}^n$$

where the supremum is taken over all closed positive $`(1,1)`$ currents $`T`$ with $`\{T\}=\alpha `$ and $`T_{ac}`$ is the absolute continuous part of the Lebesgue decomposition $`T=T_{ac}+T_{sg}`$. Again, the Kähler assumption is necessary to guarantee that $`T_{ac}^n`$ is locally integrable. By using singular Morse inequalities and the Calabi-Yau theorem Boucksom proved that $`\mathrm{vol}(L)=\mathrm{vol}(c_1(L))`$ and that $`\mathrm{vol}(L)>0`$ iff $`L`$ is a big line bundle, i.e. iff there is a closed strictly positive current representing $`c_1(L)`$.

Note that it is not necessary to look at all closed positive $`(1,1)`$ currents for taking the supremum. This is a consequence of an approximation theorem of Demailly:

###### Theorem 3.4 (\[Dem92\]).

Let $`T=\theta +dd^c\varphi `$ be a closed almost positive $`(1,1)`$ current on a complex manifold $`X`$ with hermitian metric $`\omega `$ such that $`\theta `$ is a smooth form. Suppose that $`T\gamma `$ for some real $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ form $`\gamma `$. Then there exists a decreasing sequence $`\varphi _k`$ of almost plurisubharmonic functions with analytic singularities such that the $`T_k:=\theta +dd^c\varphi _k`$ verify

* The $`\varphi _k`$ converge pointwise and $`L_{loc}^1`$ against $`\varphi `$, hence the $`T_k`$ converge weakly against $`T`$.
* $`T_k\gamma ϵ_k\omega `$ for some sequence of positive numbers $`ϵ_k0`$.
* The Lelong numbers $`\nu (T_k,x)`$ converge uniformly against $`\nu (T,x)`$ w.r.t. $`xX`$.

Using another approximation theorem (\[Dem82\]) Boucksom slightly modified this statement (\[Bou01\]):

###### Theorem 3.5.

Let the assumptions and notations be the same as in the theorem before. Then there exists a decreasing sequence $`\varphi _k`$ of plurisubharmonic functions with analytic singularities such that the $`T_k:=\theta +dd^c\varphi _k`$ verify

* The $`T_k`$ converge weakly against $`T`$, and $`T_{k,ac}T_{ac}`$ almost everywhere.
* $`T_k\gamma ϵ_k\omega `$ for some sequence of positive numbers $`ϵ_k0`$.
* The Lelong numbers $`\nu (T_k,x)`$ converge uniformly against $`\nu (T,x)`$ w.r.t. $`xX`$.

So one may define instead

$$\mathrm{vol}(\alpha )=\underset{ϵ0^+}{lim}sup_XT_{ac}^n$$

where the $`T`$’s run through all closed $`(1,1)`$ currents with analytic singularities in $`\alpha [ϵ\omega ]`$, that is $`\{T\}=\alpha `$ and $`Tϵ\omega `$ for some hermitian metric $`\omega `$ on $`X`$.

Here, closed $`(1,1)`$ currents with analytic singularities are currents whose almost plurisubharmonic potentials locally look like

$$\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{log}(|f_1|^2+\mathrm{}+|f_p|^2)$$

with $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_n`$ holomorphic, up to a bounded $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ function. Such currents $`T`$ are particularly useful because their absolut continuous part is the same as the residual part $`R`$ in the Siu-decomposition $`T=_ia_i[D_i]+R`$. Consequently, one may compute $`_XT_{ac}^n`$ by blowing up the (integral closure) of the ideal of singularities locally generated by the $`f_i`$ and integrating the smooth form given by the pull back of $`T`$ minus the integration currents of the exceptional divisors as they occur in the inverse image of the singularity ideal. In Fujita’s setting this corresponds to blowing up the base locus of the multiples $`mL`$ and decomposing the pull back of $`L`$ into an effective part $`E_m`$ and a free part $`D_m`$, and Fujita’s theorem \[Dem00, (14.6)\] tells us that

$$\mathrm{vol}(L)=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}D_m^n.$$

Finally, the last definition of $`\mathrm{vol}(\alpha )`$ is equivalent to the first one, with moving intersection numbers, by lemma 3.2.

### 3.2. Numerical triviality for pseudo-effective classes

First repeat and codify the informal definitions of numerical triviality and numerically trivial foliations w.r.t. a pseudo-effective class from the introduction:

###### Definition 3.6.

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold with Kähler form $`\omega `$ and pseudo-effective class $`\alpha H^{1,1}(X,)`$. A submanifold $`YX`$ (closed or not) is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\alpha `$ iff for every immersed disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y`$,

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\underset{T}{sup}_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{Sing}T}(T+ϵ\omega )=0,$$

where the $`T`$’s run through all currents with analytic singularities in $`\alpha [ϵ\omega ]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\{t:|t|<1\delta \}`$ is any smaller disk contained in $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{t:|t|<1\}`$.

As a convention set $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{Sing}T}(T+ϵ\omega )=0`$ if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{Sing}T=\mathrm{}`$. Furthermore note that the restriction to disks $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ may be replaced by the assumption that it is possible to continue the immersion $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y`$ holomorphically.

###### Definition 3.7.

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold with a pseudo-effective class $`\alpha H^{1,1}(X,)`$. A foliation $`\{,(U_i,p_i)\}`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\alpha `$ iff

* every fiber of $`p_i`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\alpha `$,
* and if $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2U_i`$ is an immersion such that the projection onto the first coordinate coincides with the projection $`p_i:U_i\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}`$, then for any $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and any sequence of currents $`T_k\alpha [ϵ_k\omega ]`$, $`ϵ_k0`$, the integrals $`_{(\{z_1=a\}\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\mathrm{Sing}T_k}(T_k+ϵ_k\omega )`$ are uniformly (in $`a`$) bounded from above.

Note that no exceptional fibers are allowed: if the fibers are completely contained in the common singularity locus of the $`T\alpha [ϵ\omega ]`$, then they are numerically trivial by the convention above, otherwise the limit in definition 3.6 is supposed to be $`0`$. The uniform boundedness is essential for the proof of the Local Key Lemma below.

To construct a maximal numerical trivial foliation w.r.t. this notion, it is enough to prove an analog for the Local Key Lemma 2.10:

###### Lemma 3.8 (Local Key Lemma for pseudo-effective classes).

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold with a pseudo-effective class $`\alpha H^{1,1}(X,)`$. Let $`W\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ be an open subset of $`X`$ with a projection $`p:W\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$ onto the last $`k`$ factors, and let $`V=\{z_1=\mathrm{}=z_{nk}=0\}`$ be a complex submanifold of $`W`$. If every fiber of $`p`$ and also $`Y`$ are numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\alpha `$, then $`W`$ will also be numerically trivial w.r.t. $`\alpha `$.

Then the maximal numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`\alpha `$ may be constructed in the same way as in section 2.2.

The proof of this Local Key Lemma for pseudo-effective classes imitates the proof of the Local Key Lemma for closed positive $`(1,1)`$ currents: There, the numerical triviality of the fibers of the projection implies that the residue current of the Siu decomposition is a pull back of a current on the base (see the Pullback Lemma 2.5). Of course, the Pullback Lemma is not true for pseudo-effective classes. But it is enough to prove that the restriction onto different horizontal sections are quite the same, hence the numerical triviality of $`V`$ implies the numerical triviality of all horizontal sections, hence that of $`W`$. This argument is made exact by

###### Proposition 3.9.

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold with Kähler form $`\omega `$, and let $`T_k=T_k^{}+ϵ_k\omega `$, $`ϵ_k0`$, be a sequence of closed positive $`(1,1)`$- currents on $`X`$ such that the $`T_k^{}`$ represent the same cohomology class. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2X`$ be an immersion (with coordinates $`z_1,z_2`$). Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a disk, and consider the functions $`f_k:\mathrm{\Delta }^{}^+,a_{(\{z_1=a\}\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\mathrm{Sing}T_k}T_k`$ and $`g_k:\mathrm{\Delta }^{}^+,b_{(\{z_1=b\}\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\mathrm{Sing}T_k}T_k`$. Suppose that $`lim_k\mathrm{}f_k(a)=0`$ for all $`a\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and that the $`f_k`$ are uniformly (in $`a`$) bounded from above. Suppose furthermore that $`lim_k\mathrm{}g_k(0)=0`$. Then $`lim_k\mathrm{}g_k(b)=0`$ for all $`b\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, and the $`g_k`$ are uniformly (in $`b`$) bounded from above.

###### Proof.

Since the integrals are always evaluated outside the singularities of $`T_k`$, and since the mass of the integration current of a divisor is always concentrated in the divisor, one can assume without loss of generality that the Siu decomposition of $`T_k`$ does not contain any integration currents of divisors. Consequently, $`T_k`$ has only finitely many isolated singularities on any compact subset of $`p_1^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is any disk and $`p_1:\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the projection onto the first coordinate, and $`T_k`$ may be written on $`p_1^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ as

$$T_k=\theta _{11}^kidz_1d\overline{z}_1+\theta _{12}^kidz_1d\overline{z}_2+\theta _{21}^kidz_2d\overline{z}_1+\theta _{22}^kidz_2d\overline{z}_2,$$

where the $`\theta _{ij}^k`$ are smooth functions outside these singularities, and integrable on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. That $`T_k`$ is a real current implies $`\theta _{ij}^k=\overline{\theta _{ji}^k}`$.

To prove the proposition it is enough to show that

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}|_{\mathrm{\Delta }_b^{}\mathrm{Sing}T_k}T_k_{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}\mathrm{Sing}T_k}T_k|=0.$$

for a sequence of disks $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exhausting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b^{}=\{z_2=b\}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$). Now, choose a path $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }`$ from $`0`$ to $`b`$. Then,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |_{\mathrm{\Delta }_b^{}\mathrm{Sing}T_k}T_k_{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}\mathrm{Sing}T_k}T_k|& =& |_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\theta _{11}^k(z_1,b)\theta _{11}^k(z_1,0))i𝑑z_1d\overline{z}_1|\hfill \end{array}$$

equals (by Stokes and Fubini)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(_\gamma 𝑑\theta _{11}^k)i𝑑z_1d\overline{z}_1|& =& |_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\times \gamma }d(\theta _{11}^kidz_1d\overline{z}_1)|.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since the closedness of $`T`$ implies

$$d(\theta _{11}^kidz_1d\overline{z}_1)=d(\theta _{12}^kidz_1d\overline{z}_2+\theta _{21}^kidz_2d\overline{z}_1+\theta _{22}^kidz_2d\overline{z}_2),$$

this integral equals by Stokes

$$|_{(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\times \gamma )}(\theta _{12}^kidz_1d\overline{z}_2+\theta _{21}^kidz_2d\overline{z}_1+\theta _{22}^kidz_2d\overline{z}_2)|,$$

and since $`z_2`$ is constant on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\times \gamma `$, this simplifies to

$$|_{(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\times \gamma }(\theta _{12}^kidz_1d\overline{z}_2+\theta _{21}^kidz_2d\overline{z}_1+\theta _{22}^kidz_2d\overline{z}_2)|.$$

Observe that these integrals do not depend on the chosen path $`\gamma `$. Consequently, cover the disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,b}`$ with center in $`b/2`$ and radius $`|b/2|`$ with a family of paths $`\gamma _a`$ from $`0`$ to $`b`$. Then to prove $`lim_k\mathrm{}|_{\mathrm{\Delta }_b^{}}T_k_{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}}T_k|=0`$ it is enough to show that

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}_a|_{(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\times \gamma _a}(\theta _{12}^kidz_1d\overline{z}_2+\theta _{21}^kidz_2d\overline{z}_1+\theta _{22}^kidz_2d\overline{z}_2))|da=0.$$

The term with $`\theta _{22}^k`$ vanishes since $`idz_2d\overline{z}_2`$ is pulled back to $`0`$ in any chart of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\times \gamma _a`$. Since $`\theta _{12}^k=\overline{\theta _{21}^k}`$ the remaining integral may be bounded from above by

$$C_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{0,b}}|\theta _{12}^k|𝑑V,$$

where $`C`$ is independent of $`b`$ and $`k`$, and $`dV`$ is a volume element on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{0,b}`$.

Now interpret $`T_k`$ as a semipositive hermitian form $`.,.`$ on every tangent space $`T_{X,x}`$ (where $`T`$ has no singularities). Then the Schwarz inequality implies that

$$|\theta _{12}^k|=|\frac{}{\overline{z}_1},\frac{}{\overline{z}_2}||\frac{}{\overline{z}_1},\frac{}{\overline{z}_1}|^{\frac{1}{2}}|\frac{}{\overline{z}_2},\frac{}{\overline{z}_2}|^{\frac{1}{2}}=|\theta _{11}^k|^{\frac{1}{2}}|\theta _{22}^k|^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

Hence the integral above is $``$ the square root of the product

$$_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{0,b}}|\theta _{11}^k|𝑑V_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{0,b}}|\theta _{22}^k|𝑑V,$$

again by the Schwarz inequality.

Claim. There exists a bound $`M^{}>0`$ such that for all $`k`$ there is a disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ containing $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ with

$$_{\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{}}|\theta _{11}^k|𝑑V<M^{}.$$

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and look at the $`(1,1)`$- form $`\eta =idz_2d\overline{z}_2`$. There exists a $`C>0`$, such that $`\eta C\omega `$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. Hence,

$$_{(\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{}}|\theta _{11}^k|𝑑V=_{(\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{}}(T_k^{}+ϵ_k\omega )\eta C_X(T_k^{}+ϵ_k\omega )\omega ,$$

and the last integral only depends on the cohomology class of $`T_k^{}`$ (and $`\omega `$). By Fubini one gets a disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}`$ as above. ∎

For the second term note that the assumptions on the functions $`f_k`$ imply $`lim_k\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}f_ki𝑑ad\overline{a}=0`$, by Lebesgue’s dominated convergence, and the measure of the sets $`\{a:f_k(a)>\delta \}`$ tends to $`0`$, too, for $`k\mathrm{}`$.

Hence, as above, for a given $`ϵ>0`$ it is possible to bound the measure of $`\{a:f_k(a)>\delta \}`$ small enough such that for all $`k`$ big enough there is a disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ containing $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ with

$$_{\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{\prime \prime }\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{}}|\theta _{22}^k|𝑑V<ϵ.$$

Choosing $`\delta `$ small enough and $`M^{}`$ big enough (but both independent of $`k`$!) one can assume that the two disks $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{\prime \prime }`$ coincide (at least for $`k`$ big enough). Since $`M^{}`$ is independent of $`ϵ`$, the difference $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{k,b}}T_k_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{k,0}}T_k`$ tends to $`0`$ for $`k\mathrm{}`$, and uniformly in $`b`$. Since $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{k,0}}T_k\stackrel{k\mathrm{}}{}0`$, this is also true for $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }_b^{}}T_k_{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}}T_k`$. Consequently, $`lim_k\mathrm{}g_k(a)=0`$, and the uniformity in $`b`$ implies the uniform boundedness of the $`g_k`$. ∎

Proof of the Local Key Lemma for pseudo-effective classes. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a disk immersed in $`W`$ such that $`p`$ projects it on a point in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$, there is nothing to prove.

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a disk immersed in $`W`$ not intersecting $`Y`$ which is projected biholomorphically onto $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$, then a coordinate change and further cutting down leads to the configuration described in the proposition. Note that it is sufficient to check on any disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{Sing}T_k}T_k+\frac{1}{k}\omega =0$$

for arbitrary sequences $`T_k`$ of currents with analytic singularities in $`\alpha [\frac{1}{k}\omega ]`$. The assumptions of the Local Key Lemma imply that

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}_{\{z_1=a\}\mathrm{Sing}T_k}T_k+\frac{1}{k}\omega =\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}f_k(a)=0$$

for all $`a`$ and $`lim_k\mathrm{}_{\{z_2=0\}\mathrm{Sing}T_k}T_k+\frac{1}{k}\omega =0`$. The definition of a numerically trivial foliation implies the uniform boundedness of the $`f_k`$, so it is possible to apply the proposition.

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a disk immersed in $`W`$ not satisfying one of the two conditions above, then for any $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ there are disks $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ (hence it is enough to consider finitely many of these disks), and there are projections $`p_i:W\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}`$ (possibly different from $`p`$) such that the restriction onto $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}`$ is a submersion. Since the fibers and sections of these $`p_i`$ are composed of disks already shown to be numerically trivial, it is possible to apply again the proposition on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}`$ (by possibly further cutting down and a coordinate change). Since there are only finitely many $`i`$’s, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is also numerically trivial.

Finally, the uniform boundedness property of the foliation follows directly from the uniform boundedness shown in the proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 3.3. The Iitaka fibration and the nef fibration

A remarkable fact about the construction of a numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. a pseudo-effective class $`\alpha `$ is that it works also if one restricts to non-empty subsets of currents with analytic singularities in $`\alpha [ϵ\omega ]`$.

###### Lemma 3.10.

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold with Kähler form $`\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ a closed positive $`(1,1)`$ current representing the cohomology class $`\alpha H^{1,1}(X,)`$. Then the foliation constructed w.r.t. the subsets $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }\}\alpha [ϵ\omega ]`$ is the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

###### Proof.

Comparing definitions 2.2 and 3.6, and taking into account the criterion 2.4 for numerical triviality one immediately gets that the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is contained in that constructed w.r.t. the subsets $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }\}\alpha [ϵ\omega ]`$. But the other inclusion is also not difficult to prove: Every holomorphic map $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ maps $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ onto a $`1`$ dimensional analytic subset, and the integrals in definition 3.6 may be taken outside the singularities of this set. ∎

It is also clear that this foliation contains the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`\alpha `$. In particular:

###### Proposition 3.11.

Let $`X`$ be a projective manifold and $`L`$ a nef line bundle on $`X`$ such that the Kodaira-Iitaka dimension $`\kappa (L)0`$. Then the nef foliation of $`L`$ is contained in the Iitaka fibration. $`\mathrm{}`$

In analogy to Tsuji’s numerically trivial fibration one can define the pseudo-effective fibration of a pseudo-effective line bundle $`L`$ as the maximal fibration contained in the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`c_1(L)`$.

###### Proposition 3.12.

Let $`X`$ be a projective manifold and $`L`$ a nef line bundle on $`X`$. Then the nef fibration of \[BCE<sup>+</sup>00\] is equal to the pseudo-effective fibration.

###### Proof.

This is just a consequence of the definitions: A curve $`C`$ which is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`c_1(L)`$ satisfies $`(L.C)_0=L.C=0`$, and vice versa. ∎

To summarize, all this gives a (sufficient) geometric reason that the fibers of the nef fibration are strictly contained in the fibers of the Iitaka fibration: this happens if the nef foliation is not a fibration. It would be interesting to decide if the converse is also true.

### 3.4. Currents with minimal singularities

To state and to prove the results about upper bounds for the numerical dimension of a pseudo-effective class, a further notion is still missing: that of currents with minimal singularities.

###### Definition 3.13.

Let $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ be two almost plurisubharmonic functions on a complex manifold $`X`$. Then $`\varphi _1`$ is said to be less singular than $`\varphi _2`$ in $`xX`$ iff

$$\varphi _2\varphi _1+O(1)$$

in a neighborhood of $`X`$. The fact that $`\varphi _1`$ is less singular than $`\varphi _2`$ in every point is denoted by $`\varphi _1\varphi _2`$.

Now let $`X`$ be compact Kähler and $`\alpha H^{1,1}(X,)`$. Let $`\theta `$ be a smooth $`(1,1)`$ form representing $`\alpha `$. Then every current in $`\alpha `$ may be written as $`T=\theta +dd^c\varphi `$ for some almost plurisubharmonic function $`\varphi `$ and

$$T_1T_2$$

shall denote the fact that $`\varphi _1\varphi _2`$.

###### Proposition 3.14.

Let $`\gamma `$ be a smooth $`(1,1)`$ form on $`X`$. Every non-empty subset of $`\alpha [\gamma ]`$ admits a lower bound in $`\alpha [\gamma ]`$ w.r.t. $``$.

###### Proof.

The proof is almost trivial and of course contained in \[DPS01\] but is repeated for emphasizing a certain uniqueness property.

Let $`(T_i)_{iI}`$ be the given subset of $`\alpha [\gamma ]`$. Write $`T_i=\theta +dd^c\varphi _i`$ where $`\varphi _i`$ is almost plurisubharmonic and $`dd^c\varphi _i\gamma \theta `$. Since $`X`$ is compact, all almost plurisubharmonic functions are bounded from above hence one may suppose that $`\varphi _i0`$ by subtracting a constant. If one choose this constant such that $`sup_{xX}\varphi _i(x)=0`$ the $`\varphi _i`$ will be unique: An almost plurisubharmonic function $`\varphi `$ with $`dd^c\varphi =0`$ is a holomorphic function.

The $`\varphi _i`$ have an almost plurisubharmonic upper envelope $`\varphi `$ such that $`\theta +dd^c\varphi \alpha [\gamma ]`$. The current $`T=\theta +dd^c\varphi `$ is obviously a lower bound for the $`(T_i)_{iI}`$, with the following property: If $`ST_i`$ for all $`I`$, then $`ST`$. ∎

Remark. The construction above shows that this lower bound $`T=T_{min}`$ is unique only up to $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$. On the other hand, given the smooth $`(1,1)`$ form $`\theta `$ in $`\alpha `$, the construction leads to a well defined current $`T_{min}=\theta +dd^c\varphi _{min}`$ via the upper envelope. Here, the almost plurisubharmonic function $`\varphi _{min}`$ satisfies $`\varphi _i\varphi _{min}`$ where the $`\varphi _i`$ are chosen as above.

This current will be used in the following.

The currents with minimal singularities may be used to define minimal multiplicities of pseudo-effective classes, having a look at Boucksom’s construction of higher dimensional Zariski decompositions \[Bou02b\]. In this paper, he interpreted the Lelong numbers of a current $`T_{min,ϵ}`$ with minimal singularities in $`\alpha [ϵ\omega ]`$ as the obstructions to reach smooth currents in $`\alpha [ϵ\omega ]`$. This led him to

###### Definition 3.15.

The minimal multiplicity of a pseudo-effective class $`\alpha H^{1,1}(X,)`$ in $`xX`$ is defined as

$$\nu (\alpha ,x):=\underset{ϵ>0}{sup}\nu (T_{min,ϵ},x).$$

The generic minimal multiplicity on a prime divisor $`DX`$ is defined as

$$\nu (\alpha ,D):=\underset{xD}{inf}\nu (\alpha ,x).$$

Denoting by $`T_{min}`$ a current with minimal singularities in $`\alpha [0]`$ one has always

$$\nu (\alpha ,x)\nu (T_{min},x),\nu (\alpha ,D)\nu (T_{min},D).$$

There are examples where $`\nu (\alpha ,D)<\nu (T_{min},D)`$, see section 4.1.

The following approximation of $`T_{\mathrm{min}}`$ which will be useful later on:

###### Theorem 3.16.

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold with Kähler class $`\omega `$, let $`\alpha H^{1,1}(X,)`$ be a pseudo-effective class. Then there exists a sequence of closed $`(1,1)`$ currents $`T_k`$ with analytic singularities in $`\alpha [ϵ_k\omega ]`$ for some sequence $`(ϵ_k)0`$ of positive real numbers such that

1. the $`T_k`$ converge weakly against a closed positive $`(1,1)`$ current $`T`$ which has minimal singularities in $`\alpha [0]`$,
2. $`\nu (T_k,x)\nu (\alpha ,x)`$ for every point $`xX`$,
3. for all $`i`$

$$_{XSing(T_k)}(T_k+ϵ_k\omega )^p\omega ^{np}(\alpha ^p.\omega ^{np})_0.$$

###### Proof.

To compute $`(\alpha ^p.\omega ^{np})_0`$ it is enough to determine the limit of the

$$s_ϵ:=\underset{T}{sup}_{XSing(T)}(T+ϵ\omega )^p\omega ^{np}$$

where $`T\alpha [ϵ\omega ]`$ has analytic singularities, by Lemma 3.2. Consequently, for each $`p`$ there is a sequence of closed $`(1,1)`$ currents $`(T_k^{(p)})_k`$ with analytic singularities such that $`T_k^{(p)}\alpha [ϵ_k\omega ]`$ for some sequence $`ϵ_k0`$ of positive real numbers and

$$_{XSing(T_k^{(p)})}(T_k^{(i)}+ϵ_k\omega )^p\omega ^{np}(\alpha ^p.\omega ^{np})_0.$$

Now let $`\theta `$ be a smooth $`(1,1)`$ form on $`X`$ representing $`\alpha `$. Let $`T_{min,k}=\theta +dd^c\varphi _{min,k}`$ be the current with minimal singularities in $`\alpha [ϵ_k\omega ]`$ associated to $`\theta `$, as described in the remark above. Since $`T_k^{(p)}=\theta +dd^c\varphi _k^{(p)}\alpha [ϵ_k\omega ]`$ this implies $`\varphi _k^{(p)}\varphi _{min,k}0`$. Furthermore the $`T_{min,k}`$ converge weakly against a current $`T_{min}`$ with minimal singularities in $`\alpha [0]`$.

By Demailly’s Approximation Theorem 3.4 there exists a decreasing sequence of almost plurisubharmonic functions $`\varphi _{k,l}`$ with analytic singularities converging pointwise and $`L_{loc}^1`$ against $`\varphi _{min,k}`$ such that $`T_{k,l}=\theta +dd^c\varphi _{k,l}\alpha [ϵ_{k,l}\omega ]`$ for some sequence $`(ϵ_{k,l})_l\stackrel{>}{}ϵ_k`$ of positive real numbers. Furthermore $`\nu (T_{k,l},x)\stackrel{<}{}\nu (T_{min,k},x)`$ for every point $`xX`$.

Let $`\mu :YX`$ be a common resolution of the singularities of $`T_{k,l}`$ and the $`T_k^{(p)}`$. Then

$$\mu ^{}T_k^{(p)}=R_k^{(p)}+[D_k^{(p)}],\mu ^{}T_{k,l}=R_{k,l}+[D_{k,l}]$$

where $`R_k^{(p)},R_{k,l}`$ are smooth and $`D_k^{(p)},D_{k,l}`$ are effective $``$ divisors. Since the $`\varphi _{k,l}`$ form a decreasing sequence, $`\varphi _k^{(p)}\varphi _{k,l}`$ and $`T_{k,l}`$ is less singular than $`T_k^{(p)}`$. In particular $`D_{k,l}D_k^{(p)}`$, hence the class $`\{R_{k,l}R_k^{(i)}\}=\{D_k^{(i)}D_{k,l}\}`$ is pseudo-effective. Consequently,

$$_Y(R_{k,l}+ϵ_{k,l}\mu ^{}\omega )(R_k^{(p)}+ϵ_{k,l}\mu ^{}\omega )^{p1}\mu ^{}\omega ^{np}_Y(R_k^{(p)}+ϵ_{k,l}\mu ^{}\omega )^p\mu ^{}\omega ^{np},$$

since the integrals over the compact manifold $`Y`$ only depend on the cohomology classes, and all factors besides $`R_{k,l}+ϵ_{k,l}\mu ^{}\omega `$ and $`R_k^{(p)}+ϵ_{k,l}\mu ^{}\omega `$ are smooth. Iterating gives

$$_Y(R_{k,l}+ϵ_{k,l}\mu ^{}\omega )^p\mu ^{}\omega ^{np}_Y(R_k^{(p)}+ϵ_{k,l}\mu ^{}\omega )^p\mu ^{}\omega ^{np}.$$

Noting that

$$_Y(R_{k,l}+ϵ_{k,l}\mu ^{}\omega )^p\mu ^{}\omega ^{np}=_{XSing(T_{k,l})}(T_{k,l}+ϵ_{k,l}\omega )^p\omega ^{np}$$

and similarly for $`R_k^{(p)}`$ and $`T_k^{(p)}`$ one finally gets

$$_{XSing(T_k^{(p)})}(T_k^{(p)}+ϵ_{k,l}\omega )^p\omega ^{np}_{XSing(T_{k,l})}(T_{k,l}+ϵ_{k,l}\omega )^p\omega ^{np}.$$

Since $`ϵ_{k,l}ϵ_k`$ the same line of arguments shows

$$_{XSing(T_k^{(p)})}(T_k^{(p)}+ϵ_{k,l}\omega )^p\omega ^{np}_{XSing(T_k^{(p)})}(T_k^{(p)}+ϵ_k\omega )^p\omega ^{np}.$$

For $`l`$ big enough (depending on $`k`$) this gives

$$s_k\delta _k_{XSing(T_{k,l})}(T_{k,l}+ϵ_{k,l}\omega )^p\omega ^{np}s_{k+1}.$$

Combining all these facts one gets a sequence of closed positive $`(1,1)`$ currents $`T_k=T_{k,l(k)}`$ with analytic singularities in $`\alpha [ϵ_{k+1}\omega ]`$ such that the $`T_k`$ converge weakly against $`T_{min}`$, and conditions (ii) and (iii) of the theorem are also satisfied. ∎

Remark. As long as $`T_{k,min}T_{min}`$ weakly for $`k\mathrm{}`$, in the construction above it is not necessary that the $`T_{k,min}`$ are computed w.r.t. the same smooth $`(1,1)`$ form on $`\alpha `$.

The approximation may be used e.g. to prove

###### Lemma 3.17.

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold and $`\alpha H^{1,1}(X,)`$ a pseudo-effective class. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^nUX`$ be an open subset, and let $`p:\mathrm{\Delta }^n\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$ be the projection onto the last $`n1`$ coordinates. Then there is a pluripolar set $`E\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$ such that for all fibers $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ over points in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}E`$

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\underset{T}{inf}\nu (T_{|\mathrm{\Delta }},x)=\nu (\alpha ,x)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}x\mathrm{\Delta },$$

where the $`T`$’s run through all currents in $`\alpha [ϵ\omega ]`$ with analytic singularities, for which the restriction to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is well-defined.

###### Proof.

The proof is an application of the theory of $`(L,h)`$\- resp. $`T`$\- general curves. If $`T`$ is an almost psoitive $`(1,1)`$\- current on $`X`$, a smooth curve $`C`$ (compact or not) will be called $`T`$\- general iff the restriction of $`T`$ on $`C`$ is well-defined and

* $`C`$ intersects no codim-2-component in any of the Lelong number level sets $`E_c(T)`$,
* $`C`$ intersects every prime divisor $`DE_c(T)`$ in the regular locus $`D_{reg}`$ of this divisor, $`C`$ does not intersect the intersection of two such prime divisors, and every intersection point $`x`$ has the minimal Lelong number $`\nu (T,x)=\nu (T,D):=\mathrm{min}_{zD}\nu (T,z)`$,
* for all $`xC`$, the Lelong numbers

$$\nu (T_{|\mathrm{\Delta }},x)=\nu (T,x).$$

Then theorem 2.1. in \[Eck02\] states that in a family of curves over a smooth base there is a pluripolar subset in the base such that every curve over points outside this pluripolar set is $`T`$\- general. In particular, this is true for currents $`T_k`$ approximating $`T_{min}`$ as in the theorem above. Since the union of countably many pluripolar sets is again pluripolar, this proves the lemma. ∎

### 3.5. Upper bound for the numerical dimension

The numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. a pseudo-effective class may be also used to bound its numerical dimension, provided that the singularities of the foliation are nice enough:

###### Theorem 3.18.

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold with Kähler form $`\omega `$ and $`\alpha H^{1,1}(X,)`$ a pseudo-effective class. Let $``$ be the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`\alpha `$ and suppose that the singularities of $``$ are isolated points. Then the numerical dimension $`\nu (\alpha )`$ is less or equal to the codimension of the leaves of $``$.

###### Proof.

Applying theorem 3.16 , one gets a sequence of closed $`(1,1)`$\- currents with analytic singularities in $`\alpha [ϵ_k\omega ]`$ such that

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}_{X\mathrm{Sing}T_k}(T_k+ϵ_k\omega )^p\omega ^{np}=(\alpha ^p.\omega ^{np})_0$$

for all $`p=1,\mathrm{},n`$. In these integrals, the $`T_k`$’s may be replaced by the residue currents

$$R_k=T_k\nu (T_k,D)[D]$$

of the Siu decomposition of the $`T_k`$.

Now the proof consists of two steps: first, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^nUX`$ be an open set such that $`p:U\mathrm{\Delta }^n\mathrm{\Delta }^l`$ describes the numerical trivial foliation w.r.t. $`\alpha `$ locally in $`U`$. Then use as in proposition 3.9 that the $`R_k`$’s get close to pulled back currents from the base $`\mathrm{\Delta }^l`$ to show

Claim 1. For $`l<pn`$ and an open subset $`U^{}U`$,

$$_U^{}(R_k+ϵ_k\omega )^p\omega ^{np}0.$$

###### Proof.

Every $`R_k+ϵ_k\omega `$ may be written as a sum $`_{i,j}\theta _{ij}^kdz_id\overline{z}_j`$. Then every coefficient of $`(R_k+ϵ_k\omega )^p`$ w.r.t. the base $`dz_Id\overline{z}_J`$ (with multi-index notation) is a product of $`p`$ of these $`\theta _{ij}^k`$. If $`p>l`$, then one of these $`\theta _{ij}^k`$ has index $`inl`$ or $`jnl`$.

As in proposition 3.9 one can argue with the Schwarz inequality that

$$|\theta _{ij}^k||\theta _{ii}^k|^{\frac{1}{2}}|\theta _{jj}^k|^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

Furthermore, let $`F_i`$ be a sufficiently general fiber of the projection $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n\mathrm{\Delta }^{n1}`$ onto all but the ith coordinate, $`i=1,\mathrm{},nl`$. Since $`R_k`$ is a current with analytic singularities only in codimension $`2`$, a sufficiently general $`F_i`$ does not hit the singularities of $`R_k`$. Then $`\theta _{ii|F_iU^{}}^k`$ is smooth and positive, and the numerical triviality implies that

$$_{F_iU^{}}|\theta _{ii}^k|𝑑z_id\overline{z}_i=_{F_iU^{}}\theta _{ii}^k𝑑z_id\overline{z}_i\stackrel{k\mathrm{}}{}0.$$

Hence using Fubini for the ith or jth coordinate and applying the Schwarz inequality again, one gets that all the integrals of the terms of $`(R_k+ϵ_k\omega )^p\omega ^{np}`$ tend to $`0`$ for $`k\mathrm{}`$. ∎

The second step is to give an estimate of the considered integrals around the isolated singularities of the foliation by using the uniform boundedness of the Lelong numbers of (almost) positive currents in the same cohomology class.

Claim 2. There is a sequence of compact sets $`K_iX`$ exhausting $`X\mathrm{Sing}`$ and a constant $`C>0`$ such that for all $`1pn`$

$$_{XK_i}(R_k+ϵ_k\omega )^p\omega ^{np}\delta _i,$$

and $`lim_i\mathrm{}\delta _i=0`$.

###### Proof.

This is just an expanded version of Boucksom’s argument in \[Bou02a, Lem 3.1.11\]. Choose a finite covering of $`X`$ by open charts $`U_i`$ isomorphic to the unity ball $`B^n`$, such that the balls with half of the diameter still cover $`X`$. If $`z^{(i)}`$ denote coordinates on $`U_i`$ one may find two constants $`C_1,C_2>0`$ such that

$$C_1\omega \frac{i}{2}\overline{}|z^{(i)}|^2C_2\omega $$

in $`V_i`$, for all $`i`$.

If $`xX`$ lies in $`V_i`$, the Lelong number $`\nu ((R_k+ϵ\omega )^p,x)`$ is by definition the decreasing limit for $`r0`$ of

$$\nu ((R_k+ϵ\omega )^p,x,r):=\frac{1}{(\pi r^2)^{np}}_{|z^{(i)}x|<r}(R_k+ϵ\omega )^p(\frac{i}{2}\overline{}|z^{(i)}|^2)^p.$$

On the one hand, for $`rr_0`$ one has

$$\nu ((R_k+ϵ\omega )^p,x,r)\nu ((R_k+ϵ\omega )^p,x,r_0)\frac{C_2}{(\pi r_0^2)^{np}}_X(R_k+ϵ\omega )^p\omega ^{np}.$$

But $`_X(R_k+ϵ\omega )^p\omega ^{np}_X(T_k+ϵ\omega )^p\omega ^{np}`$, and the last integral depends only on the cohomology class of $`T_k`$, since $`\omega `$ is closed.

On the other hand,

$$(\pi r^2)^{np}\nu ((T+ϵ\omega )^p,x,r)C_1_{|z^{(i)}x|<r}(T+ϵ\omega )^p\omega ^{np}.$$

For $`p<n`$ the claim follows since $`\mathrm{Sing}`$ is compact, hence consists of only finitely many points. For $`p<n`$ there is nothing to argue, since $`\nu (\alpha )=n`$ implies that $`\alpha `$ is big (\[Bou02a, Thm. 3.1.31\]). Hence the numerically trivial foliation coincides with the Iitaka fibration w.r.t. $`\alpha `$, because it is the identity map. ∎

Both claims together show the theorem. ∎

## 4. Surface Examples

If one constructs the numerical trivial foliation w.r.t. an incomplete system of currents with analytic singularities in $`\alpha [ϵ_k\omega ]`$, $`ϵ_k0`$, then the leaf dimension is greater or equal than that of the numerical trivial foliation w.r.t. $`\alpha `$. Unfortunately, the author could not prove any criterion when the leaf dimension remains the same (hence the two foliations are equal). In general, it seems quite difficult to decide whether a given foliation is numerically trivial w.r.t. some pseudo-effective class $`\alpha `$. In the first two surface examples which follow, some ad-hoc arguments are used to show the identity of the constructed foliations and the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. the given pseudo-effective classes.

### 4.1. A nef line bundle without smooth positive curvature form

This example was already discussed in \[DPS94\]: Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=/(+\tau )`$, $`\mathrm{Im}\tau >0`$, be an elliptic curve and let $`E`$ be the rank 2 vector bundle over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defined by

$$E=\times ^2/(+\tau )$$

where the action is given by the two automorphisms

$$\begin{array}{c}g_1(x,z_1,z_2)=(x+1,z_1,z_2)\hfill \\ g_\tau (x,z_1,z_2)=(x+\tau ,z_1+z_2,z_2),\hfill \end{array}$$

and where the projection $`E\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is induced by the first projection $`(x,z_1,z_2)x`$. Then $`\times \times \{0\}/(+\tau )`$ is a trivial line subbundle $`𝒪E`$, and the quotient $`E/𝒪\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \{0\}\times `$ is also trivial. Let $`L`$ be the line bundle $`L=𝒪_E(1)`$ over the ruled surface $`X=(E)`$. The exact sequence

$$0𝒪E𝒪0$$

shows that $`L`$ is nef over $`X`$.

Now, in \[DPS94\] all hermitian metrics $`h`$ (including singular metrics) are determined such that the curvature current $`\mathrm{\Theta }_h(L)`$ is semipositive (in the sense of currents): These metrics have all the same curvature current

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_h(L)=[C],$$

where $`C`$ is the curve on $`X`$ induced by $`\{z_2=0\}`$. (This implies in particular that there exists no smooth positive hermitian metric on $`L`$.) To exclude the possibility that there exist positive currents in $`c_1(L)`$ which are not the curvature current of a metric on $`L`$ one proves the following

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`X`$ be a projective complex manifold and $`L`$ a holomorphic line bundle on $`X`$. Then for every closed positive current in $`c_1(L)`$ there is a possibly singular hermitian metric $`h`$ on $`L`$ such that the curvature current

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_h(L)=T.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`T`$ be any positive current in $`c_1(L)`$. By \[Bon95\] there exists a line bundle $`L^{}`$ on $`X`$ with a possibly singular hermitian metric $`h^{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_h^{}(L^{})=T`$. (This is just the usual construction of a cycle in $`H^1(X,𝒪^{})`$). The line bundle $`N=(L^{})^1L`$ is numerically trivial, hence nef. Consequently there exists a positive singular hemitian metric $`h_N`$ on $`N`$ such that the class of the curvature current

$$\{\mathrm{\Theta }_{h_N}(N)\}=0H^{1,1}(X,).$$

Now, all closed positive currents in $`0H^{1,1}(X,)`$ have the form $`dd^c\varphi `$ for some plurisubharmonic function on $`X`$. Since $`\varphi `$ is upper semi-continuous it attains its supremum. But then the maximum principle implies that $`\varphi `$ is a constant function. Therefore the only closed positive current in $`0H^{1,1}(X,)`$ is the zero form. This implies $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{h_N}(N)=0`$ (as a current).

Furthermore this gives the hermitian metric $`h=h_Nh^{}`$ on $`L=NL^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_h(L)=T`$. ∎

So $`[C]`$ really is a positive current with minimal singularities in $`c_1(L)`$. But then $`X`$ is numerically trivial w.r.t. $`[C]`$, and the associated numerical trivial foliation has only one leaf $`X`$ with codimension $`0`$.

On the other hand, $`L`$ is certainly not numerically trivial since it intersects a fiber of $`X=(E)`$ with intersection number $`1`$. Consequently, the moving intersection number $`(c_1(L)c_1(L))_0=c_1(L)c_1(L)`$ is strictly positive, and $`(X,c_1(L))`$ is a counter example to equality of the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. the positive closed $`(1,1)`$\- current with minimal singularities and that w.r.t. the associated pseudo-effective cohomology class.

Now there is an obvious candidate for a numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`c_1(L)`$: its leaves are the projection of the curves $`\times \{p\}`$ in $`_C(E)`$. The strategy to show this has two parts: first, one constructs a sequence of currents $`T_kc_1(L)[ϵ_k\omega ]`$ for some Kähler form $`\omega `$ on $`X`$ and a sequence $`ϵ_k`$ of positive real numbers tending to $`0`$ such that the foliation mentioned above is the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. this sequence of $`T_k`$’s. Second, one uses that the restriction of the $`T_k`$’s to any $`^1`$- fiber of $`_C(E)`$ is $`c\omega `$, for some fixed number $`c>0`$.

The construction of the $`T_k`$ requires a careful study of almost positive (singular) hermitian metrics $`h`$ on $`L`$: As the total space of $`L^1`$ is equal to $`E^{}`$ blown up along the zero section, the function

$$\varphi (\zeta )=\mathrm{log}\zeta _{h^1}^2,\zeta L^1$$

associated to any hermitian metric $`h`$ on $`L`$ can also be seen as a function on $`E^{}`$ satisfying the log-homogeneity condition

$$\varphi (\lambda \zeta )=\mathrm{log}|\lambda |+\varphi (\zeta )\mathrm{for}\mathrm{every}\lambda .$$

One has

$$\frac{i}{2\pi }\overline{}\varphi (\zeta )=\pi _{L^1}^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_h(L),\pi _{L^1}:L^1X.$$

Thus $`\mathrm{\Theta }_h(L)`$ is almost positive iff $`\varphi `$ is almost plurisubharmonic on $`E^{}`$.

The total space of $`E^{}`$ is the quotient $`E^{}=\times ^2/(+\tau )`$ by the dual action

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g_1^{}(x,w_1,w_2)& =& (x+1,w_1,w_2)\hfill \\ \hfill g_\tau ^{}(x,w_1,w_2)& =& (x+\tau ,w_1,w_1+w_2).\hfill \end{array}$$

The function $`\varphi `$ gives rise to a function $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ on $`\times ^2`$ which is invariant by $`g_1^{},g_\tau ^{}`$ and log-homogeneous w.r.t. $`(w_1,w_2)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ is almost plurisubharmonic iff $`\varphi `$ is almost psh. Even more is true: Interpret $`X`$ as the zero section of the total space of $`L^1`$ and let $`\omega _X,\omega _{L^1}`$ be positive $`(1,1)`$- forms on $`X,L^1`$. Then there are constants $`C_1,C_2>0`$ such that

$$0\pi _{L^1}^{}\omega _XC_1\omega _{L^1},0\omega _{L^1|X}C_2\omega _X.$$

Hence $`\pi _{L^1}^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_hϵ\omega _{L^1}`$ implies $`\mathrm{\Theta }_hϵC_2\omega _X`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_hϵ\omega _X`$ implies $`\pi _{L^1}^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_hϵC_1\omega _{L^1}`$. Consequently, instead of constructing currents $`T_kϵ_k\omega _X`$, $`ϵ_k0`$ on $`X`$, it suffices to construct currents $`\mathrm{\Theta }_kϵ_k^{}\omega _{L^1}`$, $`ϵ_k^{}0`$, and functions $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k`$ on $`\times ^2`$ such that $`i\overline{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k=\mathrm{\Theta }_k`$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k`$ are invariant by $`g_1^{},g_\tau ^{}`$ and log-homogeneous w.r.t. $`(w_1,w_2)`$.

This is done by using a gluing procedure developed in \[Dem92\]:

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`U_j^{}U_j^{\prime \prime }U_j`$ be locally finite open coverings of a complex manifold $`X`$ by relatively compact open sets, and let $`\theta _j`$ be smooth nonnegative functions with support in $`U_j^{\prime \prime }`$ such that $`\theta _j1`$ on $`U_j^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\theta _j=1`$ on $`U_j^{}`$. Let $`A_j0`$ be such that

$$i(\theta _j\overline{}\theta _j\theta _j\overline{}\theta _j)A_j\omega \mathrm{on}U_j^{\prime \prime }U_j^{}.$$

Finally, let $`w_j`$ be almost psh functions on $`U_j`$ with the property that $`i\overline{}w_j\gamma `$ for some real $`(1,1)`$ form $`\gamma `$ on $`X`$, and let $`C_j`$ be constants such that

$$w_j(x)C_j+\underset{kj,U_k^{}x}{sup}w_k(x)\mathrm{on}U_j^{\prime \prime }U_j^{}.$$

Then the function $`w=\mathrm{log}(\theta _j^2e^{w_j})`$ is almost psh and satisfies

$$i\overline{}w\gamma 2\left(\underset{j}{}\mathrm{𝟏}_{U_j^{\prime \prime }U_j^{}}A_je^{C_j}\right)\omega .$$

###### Proof.

See \[Dem92, Lemma 3.5\]. The proof is reproduced here, because the results of the following computation are needed later on: Setting $`\alpha _j=\theta _jw_j+2\theta _j`$, one gets

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill w& =& \frac{{\scriptscriptstyle \theta _je^{w_j}\alpha _j}}{{\scriptscriptstyle \theta _j^2e^{w_j}}}\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{}w& =& \frac{{\scriptscriptstyle (\alpha _j\overline{\alpha }_j+\theta _j^2\overline{}w_j+2\theta _j\overline{}\theta _j2\theta _j\overline{}\theta _j)e^{w_j}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle \theta _j^2e^{w_j}}}\frac{_{j,k}\theta _je^{w_j}\theta _ke^{w_k}\alpha _j\overline{\alpha }_k}{({\scriptscriptstyle \theta _j^2e^{w_j}})^2}\hfill \\ & =& \frac{_{j<k}(\theta _j\alpha _k\theta _k\alpha _j)(\theta _j\overline{\alpha }_k\theta _k\overline{\alpha }_j)e^{w_j}e^{w_k}}{({\scriptscriptstyle \theta _j^2e^{w_j}})^2}+\frac{{\scriptscriptstyle \theta _j^2e^{w_j}\overline{}w_j}}{{\scriptscriptstyle \theta _j^2e^{w_j}}}+\hfill \\ & & +\frac{{\scriptscriptstyle (2\theta _j\overline{}\theta _j2\theta _j\overline{}\theta _j)e^{w_j}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle \theta _j^2e^{w_j}}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The first term is $`0`$, the second term is $`\gamma `$. If a point $`x`$ lies in the support of the third term, it is contained in some $`U_j^{\prime \prime }U_j^{}`$. By assumption there is a $`k`$ such that $`w_j(x)C_j+w_k(x)`$ and $`xU_k^{}`$, hence $`\theta _k(x)=1`$. This implies

$$\frac{(2\theta _j\overline{}\theta _j2\theta _j\overline{}\theta _j)e^{w_j}}{\theta _j^2e^{w_j}}2\mathrm{𝟏}_{U_j^{\prime \prime }U_j^{}}e^{C_j}A_j\omega .$$

On any open subset of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on which the $`^1`$- bundle is trivial, one may define a metric on $`L`$ as the pullback w.r.t. a trivialization of the Fubini-Study metric on $`^1`$. These metrics induce the candidates for the $`w_j`$: Set

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill U_j& =& \{(x,w_1,w_2):j\mathrm{Im}\tau <\mathrm{Im}x<(j+1)\mathrm{Im}\tau \},\hfill \\ \hfill U_j^{}& =& \{(j+\frac{1}{6})\mathrm{Im}\tau <\mathrm{Im}x<(j+\frac{3}{4})\mathrm{Im}\tau ,|jw_1+w_2|>|(j+1)w_1+w_2|\},\hfill \\ \hfill U_j^{\prime \prime }& =& \{(j+\frac{1}{12})\mathrm{Im}\tau <\mathrm{Im}x<(j+\frac{5}{6})\mathrm{Im}\tau ,(1+ϵ)|jw_1+w_2|>|(j+1)w_1+w_2|\}\hfill \end{array}$$

and take

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_j=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}(|w_1|^2+|jw_1+w_2|^2),$$

set

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill V_j& =& \{(x,w_1,w_2):j\mathrm{Im}\tau <\mathrm{Im}x<(j+1)\mathrm{Im}\tau \},\hfill \\ \hfill V_j^{}& =& \{(j+\frac{1}{4})\mathrm{Im}\tau <\mathrm{Im}x<(j+\frac{5}{6})\mathrm{Im}\tau ,|jw_1+w_2|<|(j+1)w_1+w_2|\},\hfill \\ \hfill V_j^{\prime \prime }& =& \{(j+\frac{1}{6})\mathrm{Im}\tau <\mathrm{Im}x<(j+\frac{11}{12})\mathrm{Im}\tau ,|jw_1+w_2|<(1+ϵ)|(j+1)w_1+w_2|\}\hfill \end{array}$$

and take

$$\stackrel{~}{v}_j=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}(|w_1|^2+|(j+1)w_1+w_2|^2),$$

set

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill W_j& =& \{(x,w_1,w_2):(j\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{Im}\tau <\mathrm{Im}x<(j+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{Im}\tau \},\hfill \\ \hfill W_j^{}& =& \{(j\frac{1}{4})\mathrm{Im}\tau <\mathrm{Im}x<(j+\frac{1}{4})\mathrm{Im}\tau \},\hfill \\ \hfill W_j^{\prime \prime }& =& \{(j\frac{1}{3})\mathrm{Im}\tau <\mathrm{Im}x<(j+\frac{1}{3})\mathrm{Im}\tau \}\hfill \end{array}$$

and take

$$\stackrel{~}{w}_j=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}(|w_1|^2+|jw_1+w_2|^2).$$

A straight forward computation shows that these sets and functions satisfy all the conditions of the glueing lemma. Choose smooth nonnegative functions $`\theta _j,\theta _j^{},\theta _j^{\prime \prime }`$ invariant under multiplication of $`(w_1,w_2)`$ by $`\lambda `$ such that $`g_1^{}\theta _j=\theta _j`$ and $`g_\tau ^{}\theta _j=\theta _{j+1}`$ (similarly for $`\theta _j^{},\theta _j^{\prime \prime }`$) and constants $`A_j,A_j^{},A_j^{\prime \prime }>0`$ satisfying the conditions of the glueing lemma for some positive $`(1,1)`$- form $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ on $`\times ^2`$. Applying the glueing lemma one gets an almost plurisubharmonic function

$$\stackrel{~}{w}=\mathrm{log}(\theta _j^2e^{\stackrel{~}{u}_j}+(\theta _j^{})^2e^{\stackrel{~}{v}_j}+(\theta _j^{\prime \prime })^2e^{\stackrel{~}{w}_j}),$$

which is invariant by $`g_1^{},g_\tau ^{}`$ and log-homogeneous.

This construction also works for $`k\stackrel{~}{u}_j,k\stackrel{~}{v}_j,k\stackrel{~}{w}_j`$ and then gives $`\stackrel{~}{w}^{(k)}`$. Setting

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k:=\frac{1}{k}\stackrel{~}{w}^{(k)},$$

one gets almost plurisubharmonic functions $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k`$ with negative part arbitrary small (compared to a positive $`(1,1)`$- form $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ as above).

Since the $`\stackrel{~}{u}_j,\stackrel{~}{v}_j,\stackrel{~}{w}_j`$ do not depend on $`x`$, one has

$$_x\stackrel{~}{u}_j=_x\stackrel{~}{v}_j=_x\stackrel{~}{w}_j=0.$$

Furthermore there is a constant $`B>0`$ such that

$$2\theta _j\overline{}\theta _j2\theta _j\overline{}\theta _j<B\omega ,$$

similarly for $`\theta _j^{},\theta _j^{\prime \prime }`$, and a constant $`C>0`$ such that

$$4|\theta _j\theta _j^{}\theta _j^{}\theta _j|^2<C\omega $$

and all other possible pairs of $`\theta _j,\theta _j^{},\theta _j^{\prime \prime }`$. Consequently, in $`x`$- direction the first and the third term of $`i\overline{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k`$ in the glueing lemma are bounded from above by $`\frac{3C}{k}\omega ,\frac{B}{k}\omega `$, by the same trick as in the proof of the glueing lemma (the $`3`$ comes from the fact that every $`x`$ lies in the support of at most $`\theta _j,\theta _j^{},\theta _j^{\prime \prime }`$ for exactly one $`j`$), and the second term vanishes. Hence the foliation under consideration is really the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. the currents induced on $`X`$.

On the other hand, it follows from the construction that the restriction of the induced currents $`T_k`$ to the $`^1`$- fibers of $`X=(E)`$ remain $`>ϵ\omega `$ for some $`ϵ>0`$.

Let $`T_k^{}\alpha [ϵ_k\omega ]`$ be another sequence of currents representing $`\alpha `$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2UX`$ is an open subset with coordinates $`z_1,z_2`$ such that the lines $`\{z_1=a\}`$ belong to $`^1`$- fibers and $`\{z_2=b\}`$ are subsets of the leaves of the foliation one can write

$$T_k+ϵ_k\omega =\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}\theta _{ij}^{(k)}idz_id\overline{z}_j,T_k^{}+ϵ_k\omega =\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}\theta _{ij}^{(k)}idz_id\overline{z}_j.$$

By the remark above,

$$(\theta _{22}^{(k)})_{|\{z_1=a\}}idz_2d\overline{z}_2>ϵ\omega $$

for all $`a`$, and

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{(k)}:=\theta _{11}^{(k)}idz_1d\overline{z}_1+\theta _{12}^{(k)}idz_1d\overline{z}_2+\theta _{21}^{(k)}idz_2d\overline{z}_1\stackrel{k\mathrm{}}{}0$$

by the numerical triviality (use as before the Schwarz inequality for the terms with $`\theta _{12}^{(k)},\theta _{21}^{(k)}`$).

Since the numerical dimension of $`L`$ is $`1`$, one knows furthermore that

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}_{X\mathrm{Sing}T_k^{}}(T_k+ϵ_k\omega )(T_k^{}+ϵ_k\omega )=0.$$

But

$$(T_k+ϵ_k\omega )(T_k^{}+ϵ_k\omega )=\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{(k)}(T_k^{}+ϵ_k\omega )+\theta _{22}^{(k)}idz_2d\overline{z}_2\theta _{11}^{(k)}idz_1d\overline{z}_1,$$

hence the vanishing of the limits above implies

$$_{(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^2\mathrm{Sing}T_k^{}}\theta _{11}^{(k)}i𝑑z_1d\overline{z}_1idz_2d\overline{z}_2\stackrel{k\mathrm{}}{}0,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is any open disk such that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^2U\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$.

Consequently, $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }_b^{}\mathrm{Sing}T_k^{}}(T_k^{}+ϵ_k\omega )\stackrel{k\mathrm{}}{}0`$ for almost all $`b\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b^{}=\{b\}\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$). The definition of the numerically trivial foliation requires that $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }_b^{}\mathrm{Sing}T_k^{}}(T_k^{}+ϵ_k\omega )\stackrel{k\mathrm{}}{}0`$ for all $`b\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. To prove this one can use the same line of arguments as in the proof of the Local Key Lemma for pseudo-effective classes: One tries to show that

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}|_{\mathrm{\Delta }_b^{}\mathrm{Sing}T_k^{}}(T_k^{}+ϵ_k\omega )_{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}\mathrm{Sing}T_k^{}}(T_k^{}+ϵ_k\omega )|=0.$$

Following the proof of proposition 3.9 one sees that it is enough to show that

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{0,b}}|\theta _{11}^{(k)}|𝑑V_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{0,b}}|\theta _{22}^{(k)}|𝑑V=0,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,b}`$ is the disk with center in $`b/2`$ and radius $`|b/2|`$, and $`dV`$ is a volume element of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{0,b}`$.

As in the proof of proposition 3.9 there is a bound $`M>0`$ such that for all $`k`$ there is a disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ containing $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ with

$$_{\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{}}|\theta _{22}^{(k)}|𝑑V<M.$$

For the first term, look at the $`(1,1)`$- form $`\eta =idz_2d\overline{z}_2`$ and take a disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then by the arguments above,

$$_{(\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{}}|\theta _{11}^k|𝑑V=_{(\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{}}(T_k^{}+ϵ_k\omega )\eta \stackrel{k\mathrm{}}{}0.$$

By Fubini, one gets a disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}`$ such that

$$_{\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{}}|\theta _{11}^k|𝑑V\stackrel{k\mathrm{}}{}0,$$

and one concludes that the limit above is indeed $`0`$.

### 4.2. Mumford’s example

Back to our counter example at the beginning: it is easy to construct a closed positive $`(1,1)`$ current on $`L=𝒪_^1(1)`$ such that the leaves of the associated numerically trivial foliation are 1-dimensional. Take a measure $`\omega `$ invariant w.r.t. the representation of $`\pi (C)`$ in $`\mathrm{PGL}(2)`$. This gives a measure on $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\times ^1)/\pi (C)`$ transversal to the foliation induced by the images of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\times \left\{p\right\}`$. Averaging out the integration currents of the leaves with this transverse measure gives an (even smooth) closed positive $`(1,1)`$ current in the first Chern class of $`L=𝒪_{(E)}(1)`$ which vanishes on the leaves but not in any transverse direction.

Most of this example is explained in the introduction; the only assertions not already discussed are the existence of a measure $`\omega `$ in $`c_1(𝒪_^1(1))`$ invariant w.r.t. the unitary representation of $`\pi (C)`$ in $`\mathrm{GL}(2)`$ and the smoothness of the metric which results from averaging out the integration currents of the leaves. But this is easy, too: Take the Haar measure $`\omega `$ on the Lie group $`U(2)`$ which is absolutely continuous (\[Die70, Ch.14\]). Since $`U(2)`$ operates transitively on $`^1`$ this measure induces a $`U(2)`$ invariant measure on the homogeneous quotient space $`^1`$. Since $`U(2)`$ is compact it is possible to normalize $`\omega `$ such that $`^1`$ has measure $`1`$. Hence averaging over the integration currents of the leaves w.r.t. $`\omega `$ gives a smooth positive $`(1,1)`$ form which is still in the first Chern class of $`L=𝒪_{(E)}(1)`$. Since it is smooth it is a current with minimal singularities on $`L`$, and obviously, this current is numerically trivial on the leaves.

On the other hand it is strictly positive on the $`^1`$- fibers, hence the foliation is numerically trivial w.r.t. the cohomology class by the same argument as in the first example.

Remark. The difference to the previous example is that the unitary group is compact and consequently its Haar measure is finite. This is not the case for the group of linear automorphisms generated by $`(z_1,z_2)(z_1+z_2,z_2)`$.

### 4.3. $`^2`$ blown up in 9 points

Consider the following situation: Let $`C^2`$ be a smooth elliptic curve and let $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_8C`$ be sufficiently general points. The aim is to study the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. the anticanonical bundle $`K_X`$ on varieties $`X_p=^2(p_1,\mathrm{},p_8,p)`$ blown up in points $`pC`$.

Let $`E_i=\pi ^1(p_i)`$ be the exceptional divisor on $`X`$ over $`p_i`$. First of all, $`K_X=𝒪_^2(3)+E_i`$ is nef and $`K_X^2=0`$. Next, the pencil of elliptic curves on $`^2`$ through $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_8`$ has a base point $`q`$. So $`X_q=^2(p_1,\mathrm{},p_8,q)`$ is an elliptic fibration $`\pi _q:X_q^1`$. The pull back of a smooth positive metric on $`𝒪_^1(1)`$ gives a smooth semipositive hermitian metric on $`K_{X_q}`$ which is strictly positive in directions transverse to the fibers. Hence by the same arguments as in the two examples above, the fibration is the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`K_{X_q}`$.

For points $`pq`$ in $`C`$ there is only one section in $`K_{X_p}`$, the strict transform $`C^{}`$ of $`C`$. But if one considers torsion points (w.r.t. to $`q`$) of order $`m`$ on $`C`$ then a calculation in \[DPS96\] shows that $`mK_{X_p}`$ defines again an elliptic fibration over $`^1`$. This fibration yields a smooth semipositive hermitian metric on $`mK_{X_p}`$, hence on $`K_{X_p}`$, and again the fibration is the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`mK_{X_p}`$.

The question is: What happens if non-torsion points $`pC`$ are blown up ? In particular: Is there always a smooth semipositive hermitian metric on $`K_{X_p}`$ inducing a holomorphic foliation on $`X_p`$, which may be seen as the limit of the fibrations of $`X_{p_k}`$ where the $`p_k`$ are torsion points ? (The last question was asked in \[DPS96\].) A strategy to answer it is to use the theory of holomorphic foliations on surfaces, as developed e.g. in \[Bru00\].

###### Definition 4.3.

A (holomorphic) foliation $``$ on a compact complex surface $`X`$ is a coherent analytic rank 1 subsheaf $`T_{}`$ of the tangent bundle $`T_X`$ (the tangent bundle of the foliation) fitting into an exact sequence

$$0T_{}T_X𝒥_ZN_{}0$$

for a suitable invertible sheaf $`N_{}`$ (the normal bundle of the foliation) and an ideal sheaf $`𝒥_Z`$ whose zero locus consists of isolated points called the singularities $`\mathrm{Sing}()`$ of $``$.

Furthermore, one can easily show that $`T_{}^{}N_{}^{}=K_X`$.

Numerically trivial foliations $`\{,(U_i,p_i)\}`$ on surfaces $`X`$ with $``$ of rank 1 are such foliations: If $``$ is not a line bundle then replace it by $`^{}`$. As a reflexive sheaf on a surface this is a line bundle \[OSS80, 1.1.10\], and dualizing the inclusion $`T_X`$ twice shows that it is still a subsheaf of $`T_X`$. Furthermore, $``$ is locally integrable because it has rank 1, hence the maps $`p_i`$ exist trivially.

Let $`𝒳`$ be $`^2(p_1,\mathrm{},p_8)\times C`$ blown up in the diagonal

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{C\times C}C\times C^2(p_1,\mathrm{},p_8)\times C.$$

The fibers of $`𝒳`$ over $`pC`$ are just the $`X_p`$ for all $`p`$. If there is an algebraic family of foliations on the $`X_p`$ such that over torsion points, the foliation coincides with the fibration described above, then (at least generically) the conormal line bundles $`N_{F_p}^{}`$ should also fit into a family. But this is impossible, as the following computation shows:

###### Lemma 4.4.

Let $`C,q,X_p`$ be as above, and let $`p`$ be a torsion point w.r.t. $`q`$ of order $`m`$. Let $`N_{F_p}`$ be the normal bundle of the foliation induced by the fibration $`\pi _p:X_p^1`$. Then

$$N_{F_p}^{}(m+1)K_{X_p}.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`D`$ be an irreducible component of a fiber of $`\pi =\pi _p`$ with multiplicity $`l_D`$. If $`\eta `$ is a local non-vanishing $`1`$\- form on $`^1`$ then $`\pi ^{}(\eta )`$ is a local section of $`\pi ^{}(K_^1)`$ vanishing of order $`l_D1`$ on $`D`$. Hence,

$$N_{F_p}^{}=\pi ^{}(K_^1)𝒪_{X_p}((l_D1)D).$$

The relative canonical bundle formula (for elliptic fibrations, see \[Fri98\]) tells that

$$K_{X_p}=\pi ^{}(K_^1(R_{}^1\pi 𝒪_{X_p})^{})\times 𝒪_{X_p}((l_F1)F),$$

where the sum is taken over all fibers $`F`$ occuring with multiplicity $`l_F`$ in the fibration.

There are two differences between the two formulas: First, in the relative canonical bundle formula occurs the term

$$L:=(R_{}^1\pi 𝒪_{X_p})^{}.$$

Now, $`\mathrm{deg}L0`$, and $`\mathrm{deg}L=0`$ would imply that $`L`$ is a torsion bundle on $`^1`$, hence it is trivial, and $`X_p=C\times ^1`$ – a contradiction. If $`L`$ is nontrivial, a short calculation with spectral sequences shows that

$$0=p_g=\mathrm{deg}Lg(^1)+1,$$

hence $`\mathrm{deg}L=1`$, and $`L=𝒪_^1(1)`$ (see again \[Fri98, Ch.VII\]). This shows

$$\pi ^{}(K_^1L)=\pi ^{}𝒪_^1(1)=mK_{X_p},$$

and together with the relative canonical bundle formula this shows that $`mC`$ is the only multiple fiber.

The second difference is that some fibers may contain multiple components, but are not multiple themselves. By the classification of singular fibers of elliptic fibrations this is only possible if there are $`2`$- curves (\[Fri98\]). But on $`^2`$ blown up in $`9`$ points in general position, there are no $`2`$- curves. Hence

$$𝒪_{X_p}((l_D1)D)=𝒪_{X_p}((l_F1)F),$$

and the claim of the lemma follows. ∎

The threefold $`𝒳`$ is also a counter example to equality of numerical dimension and codimension of the leaves of the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. some pseudo-effective class: Set

$$L:=\pi ^{}(p_1^{}K_{^2(p_1,\mathrm{},p_8)})E_\mathrm{\Delta }+p_2^{}𝒪(nr),$$

where $`p_1`$ is the projection of $`^2(p_1,\mathrm{},p_8)\times C`$ onto $`^2(p_1,\mathrm{},p_8)`$, $`p_2`$ is the projection of $`𝒳`$ onto $`C`$, $`r`$ is any point on $`C`$ and $`n>0`$ an integer. The restriction of $`L`$ to any fiber over $`pC`$ is the anticanonical bundle $`K_{X_p}^{}`$.

For $`n`$ sufficiently big, $`L`$ is nef: $`L`$ is effective, since $`D=C\times C+nX_r`$ is contained in $`|L|`$. Consequently, to prove the nefness of $`L`$ it suffices to show that all curves $`EC\times C`$ have non-negative intersection number with $`L`$. To this purpose first get an overview over all curves on $`C\times C`$: According to the general theory of abelian surfaces the Picard number of $`C\times C`$ is $`4`$ or $`3`$ depending on whether $`C`$ has complex multiplication or not (\[BL99, 2.7\]. Hence it suffices to look at the fibers of the two projections of $`C\times C`$ onto $`C`$, the diagonal, and if necessary, on some other curve constructed as the graph of complex multiplication in $`C\times C`$. Since it is a graph of an isomorphism, such a curve maps isomorphically to $`C`$ under both projections.

Now, one has to compute the degree of the restriction of $`L`$ to $`E`$. This restriction may also be seen as the restriction of the divisor $`D_{|D}`$ to such an $`E`$. Let $`C^{}`$ be a sufficiently general curve in the pencil $`|K_{^2(p_1,\mathrm{},p_8)}|`$. Then the strict transform of $`C^{}\times C`$ is an element of $`\pi ^{}(p_1^{}K_{^2(p_1,\mathrm{},p_8)})`$ and intersects $`C\times C`$ in $`\{q\}\times C`$. Furthermore, $`E_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ intersects $`C\times C`$ in the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{C\times C}`$. Therefore,

$$D_{|D}\{q\}\times C+n(C^{}\times \{r\})\mathrm{\Delta }_{C\times C}+n(C\times \{r\}),$$

where $`E_r`$ is the exceptional divisor over $`r`$ in $`X_r`$. And $`L`$ is nef if $`n`$ is $``$ the maximum of $`1`$ (this is the intersection number of fibers $`C\times \{p\}`$ with the diagonal) and the intersection number of the curve coming from complex multiplication (if existing) with the diagonal. (The self intersection number of the diagonal is $`0`$ since the tangent bundles on $`C\mathrm{\Delta }_{C\times C}`$ and $`C\times C`$ are trivial.)

###### Proposition 4.5.

Let $`𝒳,L`$ be as above. Then the numerical dimension $`\nu (L)`$ of $`L`$ is $`2`$, but the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`c_1(L)`$ is the identy map.

###### Proof.

To prove $`L^20`$, observe that $`L^2`$ is represented by the cycles in the expression above for $`D_{|D}`$. This is not $`0`$, since the intersection number with $`\{q\}\times C`$ is positive for $`n1`$.

The numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`c_1(L)`$ cannot be the trivial map onto a point, because in fibers $`X_p`$ over torsion points $`p`$ there are curves which are not numerically trivial. Since immersed disks which do not lie in a fiber of the projection onto $`C`$ are not numerically trivial, the only possible numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`c_1(L)`$ with $`2`$- dimensional leaves is the fibration onto $`C`$. But this is impossible by the same reason as above. To exclude the possibility that the numerically trivial foliation has $`1`$- dimensional leaves, one notes first that over torsion points $`p`$, the fibers of $`\pi _p:X_p^1`$ are numerically trivial: This is clear since these fibers $`F`$ are projective, hence $`_FT_k`$ only depends on the cohomology class of the $`T_k`$, and $`_Fc_1(L)`$ is certainly $`0`$.

This can be used to show that the $`1`$- dimensional leaves of a numerically trivial foliation must lie in the fibers $`X_p`$ of $`𝒳`$: Otherwise, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3U𝒳`$ be any open subset with coordinates $`x,z_1,z_2`$ such that the projection onto $`C`$ is given by the projection onto the first coordinate, and the foliation is described by the projection onto the two last coordinates. Choose $`x`$ such that $`x=0`$ corresponds to a torsion point $`p_0`$. Shrinking $`U`$ if necessary, one can suppose that the fibers of $`\pi _{p_0}`$ are smooth in $`U`$. But then the Local Key Lemma for pseudo-effective classes implies that there are $`2`$- dimensional numerically trivial leaves, contradiction.

Next one shows that the $`1`$- dimensional leaves in fibers $`X_p`$, where $`p`$ is a torsion point, must be the fibers of $`\pi _p:X_p^1`$: Take an ample line bundle $`A`$ on $`𝒳`$. Since $`L`$ is nef, $`L^kA`$ is also ample, and some multiple is very ample. The global sections of this very ample line bundle generate a smooth metric on $`L^kA`$ whose strictly positive curvature form may be written as $`k(T_k+\frac{1}{k}\omega _A)`$, for some form $`T_kc_1(L)[\frac{1}{k}\omega _A]`$.

Let $`pC`$ be any torsion point of order $`m`$ and $`\pi _p:X_p^1`$ the induced fibration. Let $`T=i\overline{}\mathrm{log}(|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2)`$ be a strictly positive curvature form in $`c_1(𝒪_{}^1(1))`$. Then

$$(T_k+\frac{1}{k}\omega _A)_{|X_p}\frac{1}{m}\pi _p^{}T.$$

But this means in particular that for any disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }X_p`$ not immersed into a fiber of $`\pi _p`$,

$$_\mathrm{\Delta }T_k+\frac{1}{k}\omega _A\frac{1}{m}_\mathrm{\Delta }\pi _p^{}T>0.$$

Hence the leaves of the numerically trivial foliation w.r.t. $`c_1(L)`$ coincide with the fibers of $`\pi _p`$ in $`X_p`$.

But this is impossible, as shown above. ∎

Remark. This proposition does not exclude the possibility that (some of) the $`X_p`$ over non-torsion points $`p`$ have a numerically trivial foliation with 1-dimensional leaves.

Another result dealing with this type of foliations is

###### Proposition 4.6 (Brunella).

Let $``$ be a foliation on a compact algebraic surface $`X`$ and suppose that $``$ is tangent to a smooth elliptic curve $`E`$, free of singularities of $``$. Then either $`E`$ is a (multiple) fiber of an elliptic fibration or, up to ramified coverings and birational maps, $``$ is the suspension of a representation $`\rho :\pi _1(\widehat{E})\mathrm{Aut}(^1)`$, $`\widehat{E}`$ an elliptic curve.

## Appendix A Singular foliations

One can define foliations on complex manifolds as involutive subbundles of the tangent bundle. Then the classical theorem of Frobenius asserts that through any point there is a unique integral complex submanifold \[Miy86\]. Singular foliations may be defined as involutive coherent subsheaves of the tangent bundle, which are furthermore saturated, that is, their quotient with the tangent bundle is torsion free. In the points where the rank is maximal, one may use again the Frobenius theorem to get leaves. Since in this paper the reasoning is always explicitely using the leaves their existence is directly incorporated in the definition of a singular foliation:

###### Definition A.1.

Let $`X`$ be an $`n`$ dimensional compact complex manifold. Let $`T_X`$ be a saturated subsheaf of the tangent bundle with maximal rank $`k`$ and $`ZX`$ be the analytic subset where $`/m_{X,x}T_{X,x}`$ is not injective.

$``$ induces a singular foliation described by the following data: $`XZ`$ is covered by open sets $`U_i\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ such that for the smooth holomorphic map $`p_i:U_i\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}`$ coming from the projection $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}`$,

$$_{|U_i}=T_{U_i/\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}}.$$

Such a foliation will be denoted by $`\{,(U_i,p_i)\}`$.

Next, one defines the inclusion relation for numerically trivial foliations as above

###### Definition A.2.

A numerically trivial foliation is contained in another one,

$$\{,(U_i,p_i)\}\{𝒢,(V_j,q_j)\},$$

iff there is a Zariski open set $`UX`$ such that $`_{|U}𝒢_{|U}`$.

In particular this means that the leaves of $`\{,(U_i,p_i)\}`$ are contained in those of $`\{𝒢,(V_j,q_j)\}`$.

The next aim is to construct a common refinement $`\{,(W_k,r_k:W_k\mathrm{\Delta }^{nm})\}`$ of two singular foliations $`\{,(U_i,p_i:U_i\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk})\}`$, $`\{𝒢,(V_j,q_j:V_j\mathrm{\Delta }^{nl})\}`$, that is

$$\{,(U_i,p_i)\}\{,(W_k,r_k)\},\{𝒢,(V_j,q_j)\}\{,(W_k,r_k)\}.$$

To this purpose one has first to analyze the local picture when two foliations meet transversally everywhere: Let $`W`$ be a complex manifold with two isomorphisms $`q_1:W\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$, $`q_2:W\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$. Let $`p_1:W\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}`$, $`p_2:W\mathrm{\Delta }^{nl}`$ be the composition of $`q_1`$, $`q_2`$ with the projections of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ onto the last $`nk`$ resp. $`nl`$ factors.

Suppose that the $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ fibers intersect transversally everywhere.

If $`nk+l`$, by choosing appropriate coordinates $`p_1`$ will be the projection on the first $`nk`$ coordinates while $`p_2`$ is the projection on the last $`nl`$ coordinates. In particular, the smallest fibration $`p`$ whose fibers contain all fibers of $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ is the trivial fibration onto a point.

So suppose from now on that $`n>k+l`$. Again by choosing appropriate coordinates via the implicit function theorem and possibly further restricting $`W`$ one can describe the configuration of the two sets of fibers in the following way (look at the next figure): The horizontal sections of $`p_1`$ consist of $`p_2`$ fibers which are parallel hyperplanes, and over each point $`y\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}`$ the $`p_2`$ fibers through the points in $`q^1(y)`$ project into a pencil of hyperplanes through a common central hyperplane $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}`$ containing $`y`$.

This central hyperplane is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k^{}`$ for all $`y\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}`$, and different central hyperplanes are parallel in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$. Let $`r:\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}\mathrm{\Delta }^{nkk^{}}`$ be the projection with the central hyperplanes as fibers. Consequently the new projection

$$p:W\stackrel{p_1}{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}\stackrel{r}{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{nkk^{}}$$

is the smallest fibration whose fibers contain both the fibers of $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$.

So outside the singularities of $``$ and $`𝒢`$ and the locus where the leaves of the foliation do not intersect transversally or even coincide, it is clear how to define the common refinement.

To get a better feeling for the locus of the other points, look at the following two-dimensional toy example, where the two foliations are marked with dotted and dashed lines.

At least, the exceptional points form an analytic subset of $`X`$: A point $`xU_iV_j`$ is contained in this set iff the differential of $`p_i\times q_j:U_iV_j\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk}\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{nl}`$ in $`x`$ has not full rank, that is iff all maximal minors of this differential vanish in $`x`$. But it still remains the task to define a saturated subsheaf $`T_X`$ which locally coincides with the relative tangential sheaf of the projections $`r_k:W_k\mathrm{\Delta }^{nm}`$.

To do this one goes back to the purely algebraic definition of (singular) foliations: The subsheaf $`T_X`$ induces such a foliation iff it is involutive, that is, closed under the Lie bracket, which means $`[,]`$. Then there is a natural candidate for a subsheaf defining the union of the foliations given by $``$ and $`𝒢`$: the smallest involutive subsheaf $`T_X`$ containing both $``$ and $`𝒢`$. It exists because it may be constructed as the subsheaf generated by $``$, $`𝒢`$ $`[,𝒢]`$, $`[[,𝒢],]`$, $`[[,𝒢],𝒢]`$, $`[[,𝒢],[,𝒢]]`$ and so on.

###### Lemma A.3.

Let $`\{,(U_i,p_i:U_i\mathrm{\Delta }^{nk})\}`$, $`\{𝒢,(V_j,q_j:V_j\mathrm{\Delta }^{nl})\}`$ be two singular foliations on an $`n`$- dimensional complex manifold $`X`$. Let $`x`$ be a point not in the analytic subset $`ZX`$ consisting of the singular locus of $``$, $`𝒢`$ and the points where the leaves of $``$ and $`𝒢`$ do not intersect transversally. Then on the common refinement $`r_k:W_k\mathrm{\Delta }^{nm}`$ around $`x`$ constructed as above, the smallest involutive subsheaf $``$ containing both $``$ and $`𝒢`$ coincides with the relative tangential sheaf of $`r_k`$.

###### Proof.

Since the two foliations intersect transversally around $`x`$, it is obvious that the smallest saturated involutive subsheaf in $`T_{X|W_k}`$ containing both $`_{|W_k}`$ and $`𝒢_{|W_k}`$ is the relative tangent sheaf of the projection $`r_k`$. Glueing together one gets a saturated involutive subsheaf $`_{XZ}T_{XZ}`$ on the open set $`XZ`$.

Let $`U\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ be a neighborhood of some point $`zZ`$, and let $`H=\{f=0\}`$, $`f𝒪(U)`$, be an analytic hyperplane in $`U`$ containing the analytic subset $`ZU`$. Now, $`𝒪(UH)=𝒪(U)_f`$, and one can define the sections of $``$ on $`U`$ as the intersection

$$(U)=T_X(U)_{XZ}(UH)$$

in $`T_X(UH)𝒪(U)^n`$. Since $`T_X(U)`$ and $`_{XZ}(UH)`$ are involutive, $`(U)T_X(U)`$ is closed under the Lie bracket, too. Furthermore, $`(U)`$ is the smallest saturated submodule of $`T_X(U)`$ such that $`(U)_f=_{XZ}(UH)`$, as the following algebraic lemma shows.

Finally, since the same is true for $`(U)`$ and $`𝒢(U)`$, they are both contained in $`(U)`$. ∎

###### Lemma A.4.

Let $`R`$ be a commutaive integral ring, $`fR`$, and $`M^fR_f^k`$ a submodule such that $`R_f^k/M^f`$ is torsion free. Then $`M=M^fR^k`$ is the smallest submodule of $`R^k`$ such that $`M_f=M^f`$ and $`R^k/M`$ is torsion free.

###### Proof.

If $`NM^fR`$ such that there exists $`mMN`$, but still $`N_f=M^f`$, then $`mN_f`$. Hence there is an $`nN`$ and $`l`$ such that $`m=\frac{n}{f^l}`$ or $`mf^l=n`$. But then $`f`$ is a torsion element of $`R^k/N`$. ∎

This shows that $`\{,(W_k,r_k:W_k\mathrm{\Delta }^{nm})\}`$ is really a singular foliation.