text:
# Complements on log surfaces

## Introduction

The theory of complements on algebraic varieties has been created by V. V. Shokurov in the papers , . It is a powerful tool for studying algebraic varieties, extremal contractions and singularities. Roughly speaking, the complement is a ”good” divisor in the multiple anticanonical linear system. The advantage of this theory is that the concept of complement is an invariant in Log Minimal Model Program. Moreover a complement has an inductive property, this means that the complement finding problem for an $`n`$-dimensional variety is reduced to the same one for an $`(n1)`$-dimensional variety. See the papers , ,  with reference to the theory of complements on the high-dimensional varieties. For example, the application of this theory for the three-dimensional varieties is given in the papers , , , .

Thus, in order to study effectively the three-dimensional contractions and singularities it is important to classify the log del Pezzo surfaces completely. The last open two-dimensional problem (in the framework of the theory of complements) is the classification of exceptional log del Pezzo surfaces. The exceptional log del Pezzo surfaces $`(S,D)`$ are divided into three types: $`\delta (S,D)=0`$, $`\delta (S,D)=1`$ and $`\delta (S,D)=2`$, where

$`\delta (S,D)=\mathrm{\#}\{EE\text{is a divisor with a discrepancy}a(E,D){\displaystyle \frac{6}{7}}\}.`$
The cases $`\delta (S,D)=1`$ and $`\delta (S,D)=2`$ were classified in the papers , . To study the remaining case $`\delta (S,D)=0`$ the theory of complements on surfaces must be applied in more wide set of coefficients. Therefore it will be considered when all coefficients of a boundary $`D`$ are greater then or equal to 1/2.

One of the main results of this paper given in §2 is more strong version of the main inductive theorem about the complements on surfaces. Using this inductive theorem we construct the models of exceptional log del Pezzo surfaces with $`\delta =0`$ in §4 (see definition 4.15). In §3 we give the classification of non-rational exceptional log surfaces. Also, one type of exceptional log del Pezzo surfaces with $`\delta =0`$ is described completely in §4 (see theorem 4.3).

I am grateful to Professor Yu.G. Prokhorov for valuable remarks.

## 1. Preliminary facts and results

All varieties are algebraic and are assumed to be defined over $``$, the complex number field. The main definitions, notations and notions used in the paper are given in , .

###### Definition 1.1.

Put $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐦}}=\{11/mm_{>0}\{\mathrm{}\}\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐦=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐦}}[6/7,1]`$. A coefficient $`d`$ is called standard if $`d\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐦}}`$.

Put $`/(n)=\{k/nk_{>0}\}`$.

###### Definition 1.2.

For fix $`n`$ put

$`𝒫_n=\{a0a1,\mathrm{}(n+1)a\mathrm{}na\}.`$
It is clear that

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒫_n=\left\{0\right\}[\frac{1}{n+1},\frac{1}{n}][\frac{2}{n+1},\frac{2}{n}]\mathrm{}[\frac{k}{n+1},\frac{k}{n}]\mathrm{}[\frac{n}{n+1},1].\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Definition 1.3.

Let us define the set $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{[a,b)}=\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐦}}[0,b)\right)[a,b).`$ Put $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i=\mathrm{\Phi }^{[a,b)}`$, where $`a=\frac{i1}{i}`$ and $`b=\frac{i}{i+1}`$.

###### Definition 1.4.

The pair $`(X,D=d_kD_k)`$ is called a pair of type $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ if the three following conditions are satisfied:

1. $`d_k\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ for all $`k`$;
2. there exists $`j`$ such that $`d_j\frac{i1}{i}`$;
3. the divisor $`K_X+D`$ is $`\frac{1}{i}`$-log terminal.

###### Definition 1.5.

Let $`(X/ZP,D)`$ be a pair, where $`D`$ is a subboundary. Then a $``$-complement of $`K_X+D`$ is a log divisor $`K_X+D^{}`$ such that $`D^{}D`$, $`K_X+D^{}`$ is log canonical and $`n(K_X+D^{})0`$ for some $`n`$.

###### Definition 1.6.

Let $`X`$ be a normal variety and let $`D=S+B`$ be a subboundary on $`X`$ such that $`B`$ and $`S`$ have no common components, $`S`$ is an effective integral divisor and $`\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}0`$. Then we say that the divisor $`K_X+D`$ is $`n`$-complementary if there is a $``$-divisor $`D^+`$ such that

1. $`n(K_X+D^+)0`$ (in particular, $`nD^+`$ is an integral divisor);
2. the divisor $`K_X+D^+`$ is log canonical;
3. $`nD^+nS+\mathrm{}(n+1)B\mathrm{}`$.

In this situation the $`n`$-complement of $`K_X+D`$ is $`K_X+D^+`$. The divisor $`D^+`$ is called an $`n`$-complement too.

Let $`X`$ be a semi-smooth variety in codimension 1. Then the divisor $`K_X+D`$ is $`n`$-semicomplementary if there is a $``$-divisor $`D^+`$ satisfying previous conditions (1), (3) and next condition $`(2^{})`$:

1. the divisor $`K_X+D^+`$ is semi log canonical.

###### Proposition 1.7.

\[15, example 5.2\], \[3, theorem 19.4\] Let $`X`$ be a semi-smooth, connected, complete curve. Let $`D`$ be a boundary on $`X`$ contained in the smooth part of $`X`$. Assume that $`(K_X+D)`$ is a nef divisor on every component of $`X`$. Then

1. the divisor $`K_X+D`$ is $`n`$-semicomplementary for $`n\{1,2,3,4,6\}`$;
2. if the divisor $`K_X+D`$ is not $`1`$\- and $`2`$-semicomplementary then $`X^1`$ and $`\mathrm{}D\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}D^+\mathrm{}=0`$.

The following statements show the invariance of complements with respect to the log minimal model program and their inductive properties.

###### Proposition 1.8.

\[15, lemma 5.4\] Let $`f:XZ`$ be a birational contraction of varieties and let $`D`$ be a subboundary on $`X`$. If the divisor $`K_X+D`$ is $`n`$-complementary then the divisor $`K_Z+f(D)`$ is also $`n`$-complementary.

###### Proposition 1.9.

\[16, lemma 4.4\] Let $`f:XZ`$ be a birational contraction of varieties and let $`D`$ be a subboundary on $`X`$. Assume that

1. the divisor $`K_X+D`$ is $`f`$-nef;
2. the coefficient of every non-exceptional component of $`D`$ meeting $`\mathrm{Exc}f`$ belongs to $`𝒫_n`$;
3. the divisor $`K_Z+f(D)`$ is $`n`$-complementary.

Then the divisor $`K_X+D`$ is also $`n`$-complementary.

For the two-dimensional varieties we have more strong theorem about the inductive property of complements then for the high-dimensional varieties \[13, proposition 4.4.1\].

###### Theorem 1.10.

\[13, proposition 4.4.3\] Let $`(X/ZP,D=S+B)`$ be a log surface with the following properties:

1. the divisor $`K_X+D`$ is divisorial log terminal;
2. the divisor $`(K_X+D)`$ is nef and big over $`Z`$;
3. $`S=\mathrm{}D\mathrm{}0`$ in the neighborhood of $`f^1(P)`$.

Assume that near $`f^1(P)S`$ there exists an $`n`$-semicomplement $`K_S+\mathrm{Diff}_S(B)^+`$ of $`K_S+\mathrm{Diff}_S(B)`$. Then near $`f^1(P)`$ there exists an $`n`$-complement $`K_X+S+B^+`$ of $`K_X+S+B`$ such that $`\mathrm{Diff}_S(B)^+=\mathrm{Diff}_S(B^+)`$.

###### Definition 1.11.

Let $`(X/ZP,D)`$ be a contraction of varieties, where $`D`$ is a boundary. In the case when $`dimZ0`$ the contraction is said to be exceptional if for every $``$-complement $`D^{}`$ there is at most one divisor $`E`$ (not necessarily exceptional) such that $`a(E,D^{})=1`$. In the case when $`dimZ=0`$ the log variety is said to be exceptional if the pair $`(X,D^{})`$ is kawamata log terminal for every $``$-complement $`D^{}`$.

###### Definition 1.12.

Let $`(X,D)`$ be an exceptional log variety. Define

$`\delta (X,D)=\mathrm{\#}\{EE\text{is an exceptional or non-exceptional divisor}`$
$`\text{with a discrepancy}a(E,D){\displaystyle \frac{6}{7}}\}.`$
###### Lemma 1.13.

Let $`(XP,\alpha C+B)`$ be a germ of two-dimensional log terminal pair, where $`(XP)`$ is a non-cyclic singularity, $`C`$ is a curve, $`B0`$ and $`\alpha 0`$. Then

1. the divisor $`K_X+\alpha C+B`$ is not $`(1\alpha )`$-log terminal;
2. the divisor $`K_X+\alpha C+B`$ is strictly $`(1\alpha )`$-log canonical if and only if $`(XP,\alpha C+B)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\alpha \{xy=0\})/𝔻_n`$, where $`𝔻_nSL_2()`$ is a dihedral subgroup.

###### Proof.

For some number $`0<c1`$ the pair $`(X,cC+B)`$ is log canonical, but not purely log terminal \[13, theorem 2.1.2\]. Let $`f:(Y,E)(XP)`$ be an inductive blow-up of this log pair (\[4, theorem 1.9\], \[13, proposition 3.1.4\]). Then the divisor $`K_Y`$ is $`f`$-nef since $`f`$ is the blow-up of the central vertex of minimal resolution graph \[13, §6\]. Therefore we have

$$a(E,\alpha C+B)=\frac{\alpha }{c}+(1\frac{\alpha }{c})a(E,B)\frac{\alpha }{c}\alpha .$$

The equality holds if and only if $`c=1`$, $`B=0`$ and $`a(E,0)=0`$. By the classification of two-dimensional log terminal singularities we obtain the required statement (for example, see \[13, theorem 2.1.2\]). ∎

###### Lemma 1.14.

Let $`(XP,\alpha C+B)`$ be a germ of two-dimensional log terminal pair, where $`(XP)`$ is a cyclic singularity, $`C`$ is a curve, $`B=b_iB_i0`$ and $`\alpha 0`$. Assume that the pair $`(X,C+B)`$ is not purely log terminal and $`b_i\frac{1}{2}`$ for all $`i`$. Then

1. the divisor $`K_X+\alpha C+B`$ is not $`(1\alpha )`$-log terminal;
2. the divisor $`K_X+\alpha C+B`$ is strictly $`(1\alpha )`$-log canonical if and only if:

1. $`(XP,\alpha C+B)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\alpha \{xy=0\})/_n(n1,1)`$;
    2. $`(XP,\alpha C+B)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\alpha \{x^2+y^2=0\})/_4(3,1)`$;
    3. $`(XP,\alpha C+B)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\alpha \{x^2+y^4=0\})/_2(1,1)`$, where $`\alpha 2/3`$;
    4. $`(XP,\alpha C+B)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\frac{1}{2}\{x=0\}+\frac{1}{2}\{x+y^3=0\})/_2(1,1)`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`C`$ is a reducible curve or $`B`$ consists of at least two divisors. Let $`\psi :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ be a minimal resolution and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be its graph. The proper transforms of $`C`$ and $`B`$ are denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$. The curve of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ intersecting $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$. Let us contract all other curves of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We obtain a blow-up $`f:(Y,E)(XP)`$. Write

$$K_Y+aE+B_Y+C_Y=f^{}(K_X+C+B).$$

Since

(1)
$$02+\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{Diff}_E(0)+(B_Y+C_Y)E=(1a)E^2$$

then $`a1`$. Hence

(2)
$$a(E,\alpha C+B)=\alpha a+(1\alpha )a(E,B)\alpha a\alpha .$$

The equality holds if and only if $`a=1`$, $`B=0`$ and $`a(E,0)=0`$. By the classification of two-dimensional log terminal singularities we obtain subcase (a), or subcase (d) considered below (in this situation $`B=0`$).

Assume that $`C`$ is an irreducible curve and $`B`$ consists of at most one divisor. If $`(XP)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20)/_n(1,1)`$ then arguing as above we can find the curve $`E`$ such that inequality (1) holds. If we have an equality in (2) then we obtain subcase (b).

Let $`(XP)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20)/_n(1,1)`$. Put $`E=\mathrm{Exc}\psi `$. If $`(\stackrel{~}{C}+\stackrel{~}{B})E2`$ then lemma is proved by the same arguments. If we have an equality in (2) then we obtain subcase (c). Therefore we may assume that

$$(XP,C)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\{x=0\})/_n(1,1),B=b_1B_1\text{and}\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{B}_1E=P.$$

Take an usual blow-up at the point $`P`$. Then

$$a(E^{},\alpha C+B)=\alpha \left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)b_1\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)+\frac{2}{n},$$

where $`E^{}`$ is a corresponding exceptional curve. It can easily be checked that $`a(E^{},\alpha C+B)>\alpha `$ if and only if $`n=2`$, $`\alpha <1/2`$ and we have $`a(E,\alpha C+B)\alpha /21/4<\alpha `$. Moreover $`a(E^{},\alpha C+B)=\alpha `$ if and only if $`n=2`$, $`\alpha =b_1=\frac{1}{2}`$, that is, we obtain subcase (d) (in this situation $`B0`$). ∎

###### Proposition 1.15.

Let the pair $`(XP,\alpha C+B)`$ be of type $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, where $`i=2,3,4,5,6`$ and $`\alpha \frac{i1}{i}`$. Then one of the following possibilities holds.

1. $`(XP,\alpha C+B)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\alpha \{x=0\}+\beta \{x+y^k=0\})`$, where $`i=2`$, $`k2`$, $`\alpha >1/2`$, $`\beta >1/2`$, $`\alpha +\beta <1+\frac{1}{2k}`$.
2. $`(XP,\alpha C+B)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\alpha \{x=0\}+\frac{1}{2}\{x+y^k=0\})`$, where $`k2`$. If $`k=2`$ then $`i`$ is arbitrary. If $`k=3`$ then $`i=2,3`$. If $`k4`$ then $`i=2`$ and $`\alpha <\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2k}`$.
3. $`(XP,\alpha C+B)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\alpha \{x^2+y^k=0\})`$, where $`k2`$. If $`k=2`$ then $`i`$ is arbitrary. If $`k=3`$ then $`i=2,3,4`$. If $`k4`$ then $`i=2`$ and $`\alpha <\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4\mathrm{}k/2\mathrm{}}`$.
4. $`(XP,\alpha C+B)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\alpha \{x=0\}+b_1\{y=0\})/_n(q,1)`$, where $`(n,q)=1`$ and $`\frac{\frac{n}{i}1+b_1}{1\alpha }<qn`$ $`(`$the case $`n=q=1`$ is possible$`)`$.

###### Proof.

By lemma 1.13 $`(XP)`$ is a cyclic singularity or a smooth point. The condition that $`K_X+D`$ is $`\frac{1}{i}`$-log terminal divisor and the form of the coefficients of a divisor $`D`$ are principal in the proposition proof.

Assume that the divisor $`K_X+C+B`$ is purely log terminal. If $`(XP)`$ is a smooth point then $`(XP,\alpha C+B)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\alpha \{x=0\}+b_1\{y=0\})`$. By the same argument as in the proof of proposition 1.9  we obtain case 4).

Assume that the divisor $`K_X+C+B`$ is not purely log terminal. Then by lemma 1.14 $`(XP)`$ is a smooth point. If the divisor $`K_X+C+B`$ is divisorial log terminal then we obtain case 3) with $`k=2`$. Suppose that the divisor $`K_X+C+B`$ is not divisorial log terminal. Then there are two possibilities for a divisor $`B`$.

Let $`B=b_1B_10`$. Then $`C`$ is a smooth curve and $`B_1`$ is tangent $`C`$ at the point $`P`$. Therefore we obtain cases 1) and 2).

Let $`B=0`$. Then $`C`$ is a singular curve and we obtain case 3) with $`k3`$. ∎

###### Remark 1.16.

The case $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐦=_{i7}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ is developed in proposition 1.9 .

## 2. Main inductive theorem on surfaces

Next theorem 2.1 is more strong version of the main inductive theorem about the complements on surfaces \[16, theorem 2.3\].

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`(S,D=d_iD_i)`$ be a projective log surface with the following properties:

1. the divisor $`K_S+D`$ is log canonical, but not kawamata log terminal;
2. the divisor $`(K_S+D)`$ is nef;
3. there exists a $``$-complement of $`K_S+D`$;
4. $`d_i\frac{1}{2}`$ for all $`i`$.

Then there is $`1`$-, $`2`$-, $`3`$-, $`4`$\- or $`6`$-complement of $`K_S+D`$ which is not kawamata log terminal, except the cases from example 2.3.

Besides, if there is an infinite number of divisors $`E`$ with a discrepancy $`a(E,D)=1`$ then there is $`1`$\- or $`2`$-complement of $`K_S+D`$ which is not kawamata log terminal.

###### Proof.

In many cases this theorem is true without condition (4). When proving this theorem we follow the paper . The cases using condition (4) are considered in details.

Applying a minimal log terminal modification \[13, definition 3.1.3\] we may assume that the pair $`(S,D)`$ is divisorial log terminal. Put $`C=\mathrm{}D\mathrm{}0`$ and $`B=\{D\}`$. We have three cases depending on the numerical dimension of a divisor $`(K_S+C+B)`$.

Case I. Assume that $`(K_S+C+B)`$ is a big divisor. Then all required statements immediately follow by proposition 1.7 and theorem 1.10. Let us remark that condition (4) on a boundary $`D`$ is unnecessary in this case.

Before discussing two remaining cases let us make more precise the structure of a log surface $`(S,D)`$.

Let $`S`$ be a non-rational surface. Then our theorem is proved in \[16, theorem 2.3\], \[13, theorem 8.2.1\]. Moreover there exists 1- or 2-complement which is not kawamata log terminal and there are at most two divisors $`E`$ with a discrepancy $`a(E,D)=1`$. Let us remark that condition (4) on a boundary $`D`$ is also unnecessary in this case.

Let $`C`$ be not the chain of rational curves. Then our theorem is also true without condition (4) on the coefficients of a boundary $`D`$ \[16, theorem 2.3\].

Thus we may assume that $`S`$ is a rational surface and $`C`$ is a chain of rational curves.

Case II. Assume that $`K_S+C+B0`$ and $`(K_S+C+B)`$ is not a big divisor. By proposition 2.5  we can assume that the divisor $`(K_S+C+B)`$ is semi-ample. Let $`\nu :SZ^1`$ be the morphism given by a linear system $`|m(K_S+C+B)|`$, where $`m0`$. The next lemma is basic to construct the complements.

###### Lemma 2.2.

\[16, lemma 2.20, lemma 2.21\] Let $`(S,D)`$ be a projective log surface with a structure of fibration onto a curve $`f:SZ`$, where $`D`$ is a boundary. Let $`C=\mathrm{}D\mathrm{}0`$ and $`B=\{D\}`$. Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:

1. there exists a section $`C_1C`$ of $`f`$;
2. the divisor $`K_C+\mathrm{Diff}_C(B)`$ is $`n`$-semicomplementary;
3. the divisor $`K_S+C+\mathrm{}(n+1)B\mathrm{}/n`$ is numerically trivial on a general fiber;
4. the divisor $`(K_S+C+B)`$ is nef;
5. the divisor $`K_S+C+B`$ is log terminal in some $`(`$analytic$`)`$ neighborhood of a divisor $`C`$.

Then the divisor $`K_S+C+B`$ is $`n`$-complementary. Moreover conditions $`(1)`$ and $`(3)`$ can be replaced by condition $`(1^{}):`$

1. there exists a multi-section $`C_1C`$ of $`f`$ and $`S`$ is a rational surface.

There are three possibilities for $`C`$.

A). Let $`C_1C`$ be a multi-section of $`\nu `$. Then the required statements don’t depend on condition (4) on the coefficients of $`D`$ and follow by lemma 2.2 and proposition 1.7.

B). Let $`C`$ has the unique section $`C_1`$ of $`\nu `$. Lemma 2.2 cannot be applied if and only if there is a horizontal component $`B_i`$ of $`B`$ with a coefficient $`b_i/(n+1)`$ \[16, lemma 2.27\].

On the other hand, if there is a horizontal component $`B_j`$ of $`B`$ with a coefficient $`b_j/(n+1)`$, then we consider the divisor $`K_S+C+B\epsilon B_j`$, where $`0<\epsilon 1`$. It has the same $`n`$-complements as the divisor $`K_S+C+B`$ (see definition 1.6). Since $`(K_S+C+B)+\epsilon B_j`$ is a nef and big divisor then our theorem is reduced to case I. Therefore we assume that all horizontal components of $`B`$ have the coefficients from the set $`/(n+1)`$.

Assume that $`C`$ is a reducible divisor. Then the divisor $`K_C+\mathrm{Diff}_C(B)`$ is 1- or 2-semicomplementary by proposition 1.7.

If it is 1-semicomplementary then $`B^{\mathrm{hor}}=\frac{1}{2}B_1+\frac{1}{2}B_2`$ or $`B^{\mathrm{hor}}=\frac{1}{2}B_1`$. Hence the divisor $`K_S+C+B`$ is 2-semicomplementary.

If it is 2-semicomplementary then we have a contradiction with condition (4).

Assume that $`C=C_1`$. Then we have $`n=1,3`$ by condition (4). If $`n=1`$ then there is a 2-complement of $`K_S+C+B`$ as before. Consider the case $`n=3`$. Then $`B^{\mathrm{hor}}=\frac{1}{2}B_1+\frac{1}{2}B_2`$ or $`B^{\mathrm{hor}}=\frac{1}{2}B_1`$. The divisor $`K_S+C+B`$ doesn’t have 1-,2-,3-,4- and 6-complement if and only if the divisor $`K_C+\mathrm{Diff}_C(B)`$ doesn’t have 1-,2-,4- and 6-complement, that is, (after simple calculations)

(\*)
$$(C,\mathrm{Diff}_C(B))=(^1,(3/5+\epsilon _1)P_1+(2/3+\epsilon _2)P_2+(5/7+\epsilon _3)P_3),$$

where $`\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2+\epsilon _3<\frac{2}{105}`$ and $`\epsilon _i0`$ for all $`i`$. By lemma 2.2 the divisor $`K_S+C+B`$ is 12-complementary (the index 12 is not always a minimal one).

Let $`\nu :S\stackrel{\psi _1}{}S^{}Z`$ be a contraction of all curves in the fibres of $`\nu `$ (with the help of log minimal model program) with $`(K_S+C+\mathrm{}13B\mathrm{}/12)E>0`$. Since $`(K_S+C+\mathrm{}13B\mathrm{}/12)C=0`$ then $`\psi _1`$ doesn’t contract the curves intersecting $`C`$. We get that the divisor $`(K_S^{}+C^{}+\mathrm{}13B^{}\mathrm{}/12)`$ is nef and in particular, it is nef over $`Z`$, where $`C^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ are the images of $`C`$ and $`B`$. The cone $`\overline{\mathrm{NE}}(S/Z)`$ is polyhedral and generated by contractible extremal curves \[16, proposition 2.5\]. Let $`\nu :S\stackrel{\psi _1}{}S^{}\stackrel{\psi _2}{}\overline{S}Z`$ be a contraction of all curves not intersecting $`C^{}`$ in the fibres of $`\nu `$. Then $`\rho (\overline{S}/Z)=1`$. The pair $`(\overline{C},\mathrm{Diff}_{\overline{C}}(\overline{B}))`$ is the same one as in (*2.1), where $`\overline{C}`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ are the images of $`C^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$. Note that either $`\mathrm{Diff}_{\overline{C}}(0)=0`$, or $`\mathrm{Diff}_{\overline{C}}(0)=\frac{2}{3}P_2`$ and $`\epsilon _2=0`$.

1). Consider the case $`\mathrm{Diff}_{\overline{C}}(0)=0`$. Since $`\overline{C}\overline{B}^{\mathrm{hor}}=0`$ then $`\overline{C}^20`$. Hence, the linear system $`|\overline{C}+mf|`$ gives a birational morphism $`\psi :\overline{S}𝔽_k`$, where $`f`$ is a general fiber and $`m0`$ \[9, proposition 1.10\]. We obtain that $`\overline{S}𝔽_k`$.

2). Consider the case $`\mathrm{Diff}_{\overline{C}}(0)=\frac{2}{3}P_2`$ and $`\epsilon _2=0`$. Let $`\varphi :\overline{S}^{}\overline{S}`$ be the blow-up with the unique exceptional curve at the point $`P_2`$ such that $`\mathrm{Sing}\overline{S}^{}\overline{C}^{}=\mathrm{}`$ and the divisor $`K_{\overline{S}^{}}`$ is $`\varphi `$-nef. Put $`f_2=\mathrm{Exc}\varphi `$. By the same argument as in the previous case the linear system $`|\overline{C}^{}+mf|`$ gives a birational morphism $`\psi :\overline{S}^{}𝔽_k`$. Let $`E=\mathrm{Exc}\psi `$, $`\widehat{D}=\psi (\overline{C}^{})+\mathrm{}13\psi (\overline{B}^{})\mathrm{}/12`$ and $`\psi (E)=P`$. Then either

$$\left(𝔽_kP,\widehat{D}\right)_{\mathrm{an}}\left(_{x,y}^20,(2/3)\{y=0\}+(1/2)\{x(x+y^t)=0\}\right),$$

or

$$(𝔽_kP,\widehat{D})_{\mathrm{an}}(_{x,y}^20,(2/3)\{y=0\}+(1/2)\{x^2+y^t)=0\}).$$

Since $`a(E,\widehat{D})=0`$ and $`f_2^2<1`$ then $`\psi `$ is a weighted blow-up with weights (1,3) or (2,3) (cf. \[9, lemma 5.5\]). In the second case if we take a blow-up with weights (2,3) then the following condition must be satisfied: $`t2`$. The result is summarized in the next example.

###### Example 2.3.

1). Let

$$(𝔽_k,D^+)=(𝔽_k,E_{\mathrm{}}+(1/2)E_1+(1/2)E_2+(7/12)f_1+(2/3)f_2+(3/4)f_3),$$

where $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a minimal section, $`E_i`$ is a zero section, $`f_i`$ is a fiber. Let $`h:S𝔽_k`$ be a birational contraction:

$$K_S+\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{}}+(1/2)\stackrel{~}{E}_1+(1/2)\stackrel{~}{E}_2+(7/12)\stackrel{~}{f}_1+(2/3)\stackrel{~}{f}_2+(3/4)\stackrel{~}{f}_3+$$

$$+a_i\mathrm{\Delta }_i=h^{}(K_{𝔽_k}+D^+)0.$$

Assume that $`a_i\{0\}[1/2,1)/(12)`$, $`h(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)E_{\mathrm{}}`$ for all $`i`$. Since the pair $`(𝔽_k,D^+)`$ is kawamata log terminal outside $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ then there is only finite number of such surfaces $`S`$ by lemma 3.1.9 . The log surface

$$(S,D)=(S,\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{}}+(1/2)\stackrel{~}{E}_1+(1/2)\stackrel{~}{E}_2+(3/5+\epsilon _1)\stackrel{~}{f}_1+(2/3+\epsilon _2)\stackrel{~}{f}_2+$$

$$+(5/7+\epsilon _3)\stackrel{~}{f}_3+\underset{i:a_i1/2}{}a_i\mathrm{\Delta }_i)$$

satisfies the condition of theorem 2.1, where $`\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2+\epsilon _3\frac{2}{105}`$ and $`\epsilon _i0`$ for all $`i`$. If $`5/7+\epsilon _3<8/11`$ then we have 10-complement of $`K_S+D`$. If $`5/7+\epsilon _38/11`$ then we have 12-complement. Note also that sometimes we can easily change the coefficients $`a_i`$, and we can contract $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{}}`$ if $`k>0`$.

2). Let $`\overline{S}^1`$ be an extremal generically $`^1`$-fibration, that is, $`\rho (\overline{S}/^1)`$=1. Assume that $`\mathrm{Sing}\overline{S}f_2`$, where the fiber $`f_2`$ is shown in one of the following figures.

Let us consider the minimal resolution of a surface $`\overline{S}`$ and contract all (–1) curves not intersecting the proper transform of $`\overline{E}_{\mathrm{}}`$. We obtain $`𝔽_k`$. On the ruled surface $`𝔽_k`$ the image of $`\overline{E}_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a minimal section, the images of $`\overline{B}_1`$ and $`\overline{B}_2`$ from figures 1 and 2 are the sections, the image of $`\overline{B}_1`$ from figure 3 is a 2-multi-section.

Consider the log surface

$$(\overline{S},D^+)=(\overline{S},\overline{E}_{\mathrm{}}+\overline{B}+(7/12)f_1+(3/4)f_3),$$

where $`\overline{B}=\frac{1}{2}\overline{B}_1+\frac{1}{2}\overline{B}_2`$ (in the case of figure 1 or 2) or $`\overline{B}=\frac{1}{2}\overline{B}_1`$ (in the case of figure 3). Arguing as above in the previous point of example we can construct the birational morphisms $`h:S\overline{S}`$. It is clear that the same statements take place about the structure of $`h`$ and the complements of $`K_S+D`$.

C). Let $`C`$ be in a fiber of $`\nu `$. Put $`P=\nu (C)`$ and $`f=\nu ^1(P)`$. The case, where the general fiber is an elliptic curve is considered in III, B). Therefore we assume that the general fiber of $`\nu `$ is a rational curve. The divisor $`K_C+\mathrm{Diff}_C(B)`$ has an $`n`$-semicomplement of minimal index, where $`n\{1,2,3,4,6\}`$ (see proposition 1.7). Assume that there is a horizontal component $`B_i`$ with a coefficient $`b_i/(n+1)`$. Then considering the divisor $`K_S+C+B\epsilon B_i`$ we reduce our problem to case I. Therefore we assume that all horizontal components of $`B`$ have the coefficients from the set $`/(n+1)`$. Let us show that this possibility is impossible.

Let $`\nu :S\stackrel{\psi }{}S^{}Z`$ be a contraction of all curves in the fiber $`f`$ not lying in $`C`$. Put $`C^{}=\psi (C)`$, $`B^{}=\psi (B)`$. Since $`K_S+C+B0`$ over $`Z`$ then $`(C,\mathrm{Diff}_C(B))=(C^{},\mathrm{Diff}_C^{}(B^{}))`$.

Assume that $`C`$ is a reducible curve. Then $`n=1,2`$. If $`n=1`$ then all coefficients of horizontal components of $`B`$ are equal to 1/2 by condition (4). Since the divisor $`K_S^{}+C^{}+B^{}`$ is divisorial log terminal and numerical trivial over $`Z`$ then there is a divisor in $`\mathrm{Diff}_C^{}(B^{})`$ with a coefficient 1/2. A contradiction with $`n=1`$. If $`n=2`$ then we have same contradiction.

The case, where $`C`$ is an irreducible curve, is considered similarly.

Case III. Assume that $`K_S+C+B0`$.

###### Definition 2.4.

Let $`D`$ be a $``$-divisor on a projective variety $`X`$. Define the numerical dimension of a divisor $`D`$:

$$\nu _{\mathrm{num}}(D)=\mathrm{max}\{\nu _{\mathrm{num}}(D^{})D^{}0,\mathrm{Supp}D^{}\mathrm{Supp}D\}.$$

The linear dimension $`(`$Iitaka dimension$`)`$ $`\kappa (D)`$ is defined similarly.

We have $`\kappa (B)=\nu _{\mathrm{num}}(B)`$ \[16, proposition 2.12\]. Let us consider all possibilities of $`\nu _{\mathrm{num}}(B)`$ case by case.

A). Let $`\nu _{\mathrm{num}}(B)=2`$. The cone $`\overline{\mathrm{NE}}(S)`$ is polyhedral and generated by contractible extremal curves since there exists a divisor $`B^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{Supp}B^{}\mathrm{Supp}B`$) such that the divisor $`(K_S+C+B)+\epsilon B^{}`$ is nef and big \[16, proposition 2.5\]. Let the divisor $`K_C+\mathrm{Diff}_C(B)`$ be $`n`$-semicomplementary. Let us contract all exceptional curves $`E`$ with $`(K_S+C+\mathrm{}(n+1)B\mathrm{}/n)E>0`$. We obtain either $`\nu :S\stackrel{\psi }{}S^{}\stackrel{\nu ^{}}{}Z^1`$ and $`(K_S^{}+C^{}+\mathrm{}(n+1)B^{}\mathrm{}/n)f>0`$, where $`f`$ is a general fiber of $`\nu ^{}`$, or $`\psi :SS^{}`$ and $`(K_S^{}+C^{}+\mathrm{}(n+1)B^{}\mathrm{}/n)`$ is a nef divisor. By the construction none component of $`C`$ is contracted by $`\psi `$, and $`C^{}`$ doesn’t lie in the fibres of $`\nu ^{}`$ in the first case. Therefore $`C`$ has the horizontal components of $`\nu `$ in the first case. Moreover, since $`\nu _{\mathrm{num}}(B)=2`$ then we have $`B^{\mathrm{hor}}=\frac{1}{2}B_1+\frac{1}{2}B_2`$ or $`B^{\mathrm{hor}}=\frac{1}{2}B_1`$ by condition (4). Thus the first case is reduced to case II, B). This new possibility was included in example 2.3.

In the second case the divisor $`K_S^{}+C^{}+\mathrm{}(n+1)B^{}\mathrm{}/n`$ is $`n`$-complementary without condition (4) on the coefficients of a boundary $`B`$  (here it is essential that the cone $`\overline{\mathrm{NE}}(S^{})`$ is polyhedral and generated by contractible extremal curves). By proposition 1.9 the divisor $`K_S+C+B`$ is $`n`$-complementary.

B). Let $`\nu _{\mathrm{num}}(B)=1`$. Then for some divisor $`B^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{Supp}B^{}\mathrm{Supp}B`$) the linear system $`|B^{}|`$ gives a fibration $`\nu :SY`$ and the divisor $`B`$ lies in the fibres. If some component of $`C`$ is a section then the general fiber is $`^1`$. Hence there is a multi-section $`C_1C`$. By lemma 2.2 our theorem is proved. Therefore we may assume that $`C`$ lies in the fibres and the general fiber is an elliptic curve. Arguing as above, we contract all curves $`E\mathrm{Supp}C`$ such that $`(K_S+C+\mathrm{}(n+1)B\mathrm{}/n)E0`$, where $`n`$ is the semicomplementary index of $`K_S+\mathrm{Diff}_C(B)`$. As a result we obtain $`\nu :S\stackrel{\varphi }{}S^{}\stackrel{\nu ^{}}{}Y`$, where all fibers of $`\nu ^{}`$ are irreducible, except the fiber consisting of $`C^{}`$. Let $`\psi :S^{}S^{\prime \prime }`$ be the contraction of components of $`C^{}`$. We get the model with $`\rho (S^{\prime \prime })=2`$. The cone of surface $`S^{\prime \prime }`$ has two extremal rays: a fiber of $`\nu ^{}`$, a (multi-)section $`E`$. If $`(K_{S^{\prime \prime }}+C^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{}(n+1)B^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}/n)E0`$ then the divisor $`(K_S^{}+C^{}+\mathrm{}(n+1)B^{}\mathrm{}/n)`$ is nef. In this case the theorem is proved in  without condition (4) on the coefficients of a boundary $`B`$. If $`(K_{S^{\prime \prime }}+C^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{}(n+1)B^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}/n)E>0`$ then we have a fibration $`\theta :SZ^1`$ and $`C`$ contains a section of $`\theta `$. The horizontal part of divisor $`B`$ for $`\theta `$ is $`B^{\mathrm{hor}}=\frac{1}{2}B_1+\frac{1}{2}B_2`$ or $`B^{\mathrm{hor}}=\frac{1}{2}B_1`$ by condition (4). Since $`K_S+C+B0`$ over $`Y`$ and $`K_{S^{\prime \prime }}+C^{\prime \prime }0`$ over $`Y`$ then $`\mathrm{Diff}_C(B)=\mathrm{Diff}_{C^{\prime \prime }}(0)`$. Hence the coefficients of $`\mathrm{Diff}_C(B)`$ are standard. In particular, if $`n=1,3`$ then we have $`\mathrm{Diff}_C(B)=P_1+P_2`$ and $`\mathrm{Diff}_C(B)=\frac{2}{3}P_1+\frac{2}{3}P_2+\frac{2}{3}P_3`$ respectively. Therefore, if $`n=1,2,3,4,6`$ then the divisor $`K_S+C+B`$ is 2-,2-,6-,4-,6-complementary respectively by lemma 2.2

C). Let $`\nu _{\mathrm{num}}(B)=0`$, that is, the divisor $`B`$ is contracted. Then our theorem is true without condition (4) on the coefficients of a boundary $`D`$ . ∎

###### Remark 2.5.

Condition (3) of theorem 2.1 can be replaced by one of the following more strong conditions (see \[16, proposition 2.5\]):

1. the divisor $`(K_S+D)`$ is big;
2. the cone $`\overline{\mathrm{NE}}(S)`$ is polyhedral and generated by contractible extremal curves;
3. the divisor $`(K_S+D)`$ is semi-ample;
4. there exists a contraction $`\nu :SZ`$ with the following property:
if $`(K+D)E=0`$ then $`E\mathrm{Exc}\nu `$.

In example 2.3 the log surfaces $`(S,D)`$ satisfy the conditions enumerated, of course except condition $`(3^1)`$.

The next corollary is very important for the applications.

###### Corollary 2.6.

Let $`(S,D=d_iD_i)`$ be a projective log surface. Assume that

1. the divisor $`K_S+D`$ is kawamata log terminal;
2. the divisor $`(K_S+D)`$ is nef;
3. there exists a $``$-complement of $`K_S+D`$;
4. $`d_i\frac{1}{2}`$ for all $`i`$;
5. there exists an effective $``$-divisor $`D^{}D`$ such that the divisor $`(K_S+D^{})`$ is nef and the pair $`(S,D^{})`$ is not kawamata log terminal.

Then there is $`1`$-, $`2`$-, $`3`$-, $`4`$\- or $`6`$-complement of $`K_S+D`$ which is not kawamata log terminal, except the cases appearing in example 2.3.

Besides, if there is an infinite number of divisors $`E`$ with a discrepancy $`a(E,D)=1`$ and the pair $`(S,D^{})`$ is log canonical then there is $`1`$\- or $`2`$-complement of $`K_S+D`$ which is not kawamata log terminal.

###### Proof.

Replacing the divisor $`D^{}`$ with suitable $`D+\lambda (D^{}D)`$, where $`\lambda >0`$ we may assume that the divisor $`K_S+D^{}`$ is log canonical but not kawamata log terminal.

At first let us prove that there is a $``$-complement of $`K_S+D^{}`$. If the divisor $`(K_S+D)`$ is big then the cone $`\overline{\mathrm{NE}}(S)`$ is polyhedral and generated by contractible extremal curves and we obtain the required statement \[16, proposition 2.5\]. Therefore it can be assumed that the linear system $`|m(K_S+D)|`$ gives a fibration $`\nu :SZ`$, where $`m0`$. Adding the required number of general fibres of $`\nu `$ to the divisor $`K_S+D^{}`$ we have our statement.

Let $`f:\stackrel{~}{S}S`$ be a minimal log terminal modification of the pair $`(S,D^{})`$ \[13, definition 3.1.3\]. We have

$$K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+E_i+\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{D}^{}\mathrm{}+\{\stackrel{~}{D}^{}\}=f^{}(K_S+D^{}),$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{}`$ is a proper transform of $`D^{}`$. Put

$$\stackrel{~}{D}=E_i+\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{D}^{}\mathrm{}+\underset{i:\mathrm{Supp}\stackrel{~}{D}_i\mathrm{Supp}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{D}^{}\mathrm{}}{}d_i\stackrel{~}{D}_i,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{D}_i`$ is a proper transform of $`D_i`$. Thus, the statement of corollary must be proved for the divisor $`K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+\stackrel{~}{D}`$. If the divisor $`(K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+\stackrel{~}{D})`$ is nef then it is nothing to be proved by theorem 2.1. Therefore it can be assumed that the divisor $`(K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+\stackrel{~}{D})`$ is not nef. A $``$-complement of a divisor $`K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$. We can assume that $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{D}\mathrm{}`$.

Let us prove that we can contract all exceptional curves $`E`$ such that $`(K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+\stackrel{~}{D})E>0`$ on every step.

A). Assume that $`\nu _{\mathrm{num}}(\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\})=2`$. Then arguing as in the proof of theorem 2.1 (case III,A)) the cone $`\overline{\mathrm{NE}}(\stackrel{~}{S})`$ is polyhedral and generated by contractible extremal curves. Q.E.D.

B). Assume that $`\nu _{\mathrm{num}}(\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\})=1`$. By proposition 2.12  for some divisor $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{Supp}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}\mathrm{Supp}\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$}) the linear system $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{}|`$ gives a fibration $`\nu :\stackrel{~}{S}Z`$ and a divisor $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\}`$ lies in the fibres of $`\nu `$. If $`(K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+\stackrel{~}{D})E>0`$ then a curve $`E`$ lies in the fibres of $`\nu `$. Therefore it can be contracted.

C). Assume that $`\nu _{\mathrm{num}}(\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\})=0`$. Then a divisor $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\}`$ is contracted by the definition.

Thus we get a birational morphism $`\varphi :\stackrel{~}{S}\overline{S}`$. It is clear that $`\varphi `$ doesn’t contract the components of $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{D}\mathrm{}`$, and the curve contracted intersects some component $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1`$ of $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{D}\mathrm{}`$ on every step. Put $`\overline{D}=\varphi (\stackrel{~}{D})`$.

It remains to prove that an $`n`$-complement $`\overline{D}^+`$ of $`K_{\overline{S}}+\overline{D}`$ induces an $`n`$-complement of $`K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+\stackrel{~}{D}`$ ($`n=`$1,2,3,4 or 6). Put

$$K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+\stackrel{~}{D}^+=\varphi ^{}(K_{\overline{S}}+\overline{D}^+).$$

We must prove that

(\**)
$$\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{D}\mathrm{}+\frac{\mathrm{}(n+1)\{\stackrel{~}{D}\}\mathrm{}}{n}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{D}^+\mathrm{}+\{\stackrel{~}{D}^+\}.$$

By the above this requirement is enough to check in the case, when $`\varphi `$ is a contraction of the unique curve $`E`$. Let $`P=\varphi (E)`$. By the classification of two-dimensional log terminal pairs \[13, theorem 2.1.2\] and by condition (4) we conclude that there are at most one divisor of $`\{\overline{D}\}`$ passing through the point $`P`$ and $`(\overline{S}P)`$ is a cyclic singularity. Let $`d_1\overline{D}_1`$ be a divisor passing through the point $`P`$. If the coefficient of divisor $`\overline{D}_1`$ in $`\overline{D}^+`$ is more then $`d_1`$ then we consider it instead of $`d_1`$. Since the divisor $`K_{\mathrm{}\overline{D}\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{Diff}_{\mathrm{}\overline{D}\mathrm{}}(\{\overline{D}\})`$ is $`n`$-semicomplementary there are the following cases (the case $`n=1`$ is obvious).

1). $`(\overline{S}P,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1+d_1\overline{D}_1)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\{x=0\}+d_1\{y=0\})/_2(1,1)`$ and $`n=4`$. Then by proposition 1.9 requirement (\**2.6) must be checked for $`d_1(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{5})`$.

2). $`(\overline{S}P,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1+d_1\overline{D}_1)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\{x=0\}+d_1\{y=0\})/_2(1,1)`$ and $`n=6`$. Then by proposition 1.9 requirement (\**2.6) must be checked for $`d_1(\frac{2}{3},\frac{5}{7})`$.

3). $`(\overline{S}P,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1+d_1\overline{D}_1)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\{x=0\}+d_1\{y=0\})/_3(q,1)`$ and $`n=6`$. Then by proposition 1.9 requirement (\**2.6) must be checked for $`d_1(\frac{1}{2},\frac{4}{7})`$.

4). $`(\overline{S}P,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1+d_1\overline{D}_1)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\{x=0\}+d_1\{y=0\})`$.
Requirement (\**2.6) is equivalent to the following one:

(\***)
$$\frac{\mathrm{}(n+1)a(E,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1+d_1\overline{D}_1)\mathrm{}}{n}a(E,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1+\frac{\mathrm{}(n+1)d_1\mathrm{}}{n}\overline{D}_1).$$

Since $`a(E,\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_1+d_1\overline{D}_1)1/2`$ then $`\varphi `$ is a toric blow-up. Requirement (\***) in cases 1),2) and 3) is checked directly. In case 4) the weights of weighted blow-up $`\varphi `$ are denoted by $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$. Then either $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(\alpha ,1)`$ and $`d_11/2`$, or $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(\alpha ,2)`$, $`d_13/4`$ and $`n=4`$, or $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(\alpha ,3)`$, $`d_15/6`$ and $`n=6`$. Now requirement (\***) is also fulfilled by direct calculation. ∎

###### Corollary 2.7.

Under the notation of corollary 2.6 let us decline condition $`(4)`$ on a boundary $`D`$. Then there is $`n`$-complement of $`K_S+D`$ which is not kawamata log terminal, where $`n=1`$, $`2`$, $`3`$, $`4`$, $`5`$, $`6`$, $`7`$, $`8`$, $`9`$, $`10`$, $`11`$, $`12`$, $`13`$, $`14`$, $`15`$, $`16`$, $`17`$, $`18`$, $`19`$, $`20`$, $`21`$, $`22`$, $`23`$, $`24`$, $`25`$, $`26`$, $`27`$, $`28`$, $`29`$, $`30`$, $`31`$, $`35`$, $`36`$, $`40`$, $`41`$, $`42`$, $`43`$, $`56`$ or $`57`$.

Besides, if there is an infinite number of divisors $`E`$ with a discrepancy $`a(E,D)=1`$ and the pair $`(S,D^{})`$ is log canonical then there is $`1`$-, $`2`$\- or $`6`$-complement of $`K_S+D`$ which is not kawamata log terminal.

###### Proof.

By the proof of corollary 2.6 it follows that the divisor $`K_S+D^{}`$ has a $``$-complement. Therefore we obtain our statement by theorem 2.3 . ∎

## 3. Exceptional non-rational log surfaces

###### Theorem 3.1.

$`(`$cf. \[13, proposition 9.2.2\]$`)`$ Let $`(S,D=d_iD_i)`$ be a projective log surface, where $`D`$ is a boundary. Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:

1. there exists a $``$-complement $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\theta _i\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$ of $`K_S+D`$;
2. the surface $`S`$ is non-rational and the pair $`(S,D)`$ is exceptional;
3. we have $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ or $`S`$ has a non Du Val singularity.

Then there is $`2`$-, $`3`$-, $`4`$\- or $`6`$-complement of $`K_S+D`$. Besides, one of the following cases takes place.

1. $`SC\times ^1`$, where $`C`$ is an elliptic curve, $`D_i`$ are the sections of corresponding $`^1`$-bundle.
2. $`S_C()`$, where $``$ is an indecomposable vector bundle of degree $`1`$ on an elliptic curve $`C`$. Up to multiplication by an invertible sheaf, $``$ is a nontrivial extension

$$0𝒪_C𝒪_C(O)0.$$

Then $`D_i2Ef^{}(O+t_i)`$ or $`D_i4E2f^{}O`$, where $`E`$ is a section of $`f:SC`$ and $`t_i`$ is an element of order $`2`$ in $`\mathrm{Pic}(C)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\varphi :\stackrel{~}{S}S`$ be a minimal resolution. Then $`K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\varphi ^{}(K_S+\mathrm{\Theta })0`$. Condition (3) implies $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}0`$, that is, $`\kappa (\stackrel{~}{S})=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`S_{\mathrm{min}}`$ be a minimal model of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. By the condition $`S_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is a minimal ruled surface over a curve $`C`$ with $`p_a(C)1`$. The image of divisor $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ on $`S_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is denoted by $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$. If there is an irreducible curve $`E`$ with $`E^2<0`$ on $`S_{\mathrm{min}}`$ then

$$(K_{S_{\mathrm{min}}}+E)E=\left(\underset{i:\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_iE}{}\theta _i\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_i\right)E+\epsilon E^2<0,$$

where $`\epsilon >0`$. Hence $`p_a(E)=0`$ and we have a contradiction with $`p_a(C)1`$.

Since $`088p_a(C)=K_{S_{\mathrm{min}}}^2=\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}^20`$ then $`p_a(C)=1`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_i^2=\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_i\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_j=0`$ for all $`i,j`$. Since $`\theta _i<1`$ for all $`i`$ then the pair $`(S_{\mathrm{min}},\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }})`$ is terminal. Therefore $`_C()S_{\mathrm{min}}\stackrel{~}{S}S`$, where $`\mathrm{deg}0`$. By chapter 5  and by examples 1.1, 2.1  we obtain the remaining statements. ∎

###### Remark 3.2.

\[16, example 2.1\] In case 2) of theorem 3.1 the linear system $`|4E2f^{}O|`$ gives a structure of elliptic fibration with three degenerate (double) fibres, which are linear equivalent to $`2Ef^{}(O+t_i)`$.

###### Corollary 3.3.

Under the conditions of theorem 3.1 we have $`\delta (S,D)=0`$.

## 4. Construction of models of log del Pezzo surfaces with $`\delta =0`$

The classification of exceptional log surfaces with $`\delta =1,2`$ was given in the papers , . The exceptional non-rational log surfaces were completely classified in theorem 3.1. Thus it remains to study the last remaining case – the exceptional rational log surfaces with $`\delta =0`$.

###### Definition 4.1.

The pair $`(S,D)`$ is called a log del Pezzo surface, where $`D`$ is a boundary, if the following conditions are satisfied:

1. the divisor $`(K_S+D)`$ is nef;
2. the divisor $`K_S+D`$ is log canonical;
3. there exists a $``$-complement of $`K_S+D`$.

Let us consider the limiting case.

###### Example 4.2.

\[1, remark 1.2\], \[17, examples 4.2, 5.3\] 1). Let $`\overline{S}=C\times C`$, where $`C=/(+\epsilon _3)`$ is an elliptic curve and $`\epsilon _3`$ is a primitive root of unity of order 3. The group $`_3`$ acts on the curve $`C`$ by the multiplication on $`\epsilon _3`$. Then $`S=\overline{S}/_3`$ is a surface with $`3K_S0`$, $`\rho (S)=4`$, and $`\mathrm{Sing}S`$ consists of nine singularities $`\frac{1}{3}(1,1)`$.

2). Let the surface $`\overline{S}=J(C)`$ be the jacobian of hyperelliptic curve $`C:y^2=x^51`$ of genus 2. The group $`_5`$ is generated by the automorphism $`(x,y)(\epsilon _5x,y)`$ of curve $`C`$, where $`\epsilon _5`$ is a primitive root of unity of order 5. Then $`S=\overline{S}/_5`$ is a surface with $`5K_S0`$, $`\rho (S)=2`$, and $`\mathrm{Sing}S`$ consists of five singularities $`\frac{1}{5}(2,1)`$.

3). Let us consider three irreducible curves $`\overline{E}_1𝒪_^2(1)`$, $`\overline{E}_2\overline{E}_3𝒪_^2(4)`$ on $`^2`$. The curve $`\overline{E}_2`$ and the curve $`\overline{E}_3`$ has three ordinary double points $`Q_5`$, $`Q_6`$, $`Q_7`$ and $`Q_8`$, $`Q_9`$, $`Q_{10}`$ respectively. The line $`\overline{E}_1`$ intersects the curves $`\overline{E}_2`$ and $`\overline{E}_3`$ at the points $`Q_1`$, $`Q_2`$, $`Q_3`$ and $`Q_4`$. The curve $`\overline{E}_2`$ intersects $`\overline{E}_3`$ at the points $`Q_1`$,…,$`Q_{10}`$. Let us take the usual blow-ups of $`^2`$ at the points $`Q_1`$,…,$`Q_{10}`$ and contract the proper transforms of the curves $`\overline{E}_1`$, $`\overline{E}_2`$, $`\overline{E}_3`$. We get a surface $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ with $`3K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}0`$, $`\rho (\stackrel{~}{S})=8`$, and $`\mathrm{Sing}\stackrel{~}{S}`$ consists of three singularities $`\frac{1}{3}(1,1)`$. When contracting $`(2)`$ curves on $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ we get a surface $`S`$ with $`3K_S0`$ and with three non Du Val singularities $`\frac{1}{3}(1,1)`$.

###### Theorem 4.3.

Let $`S`$ be a rational exceptional log del Pezzo surface $`(D=0)`$. Assume that $`a(E,0)>1/2`$ for all $`E`$ and there is no a $``$-complement $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$ of $`K_S`$. Then the surface $`S`$ is of example 4.2.

###### Proof.

The surface $`S`$ must have a non Du Val singularity otherwise $`h^0(S,𝒪_S(K_S))1`$.

###### Lemma 4.4.

Let $`(XP)`$ be a two-dimensional non Du Val singularity. Assume that

$`M=\mathrm{min}\{a(E,0)E\text{is an exceptional divisor}\}>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$
Then $`(XP)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20)/_{2n+1}(n,1)`$, where $`n1`$. In particular, $`M=\frac{n}{2n+1}\frac{1}{3}`$.

###### Proof.

If $`(XP)`$ is a non-cyclic singularity then the blow-up of central vertex of minimal resolution graph gives a discrepancy $`\frac{1}{2}`$. Therefore $`(XP)`$ is a cyclic singularity. Let $`\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ be a blow-up with the unique exceptional exceptional curve $`E`$ such that its self-intersection index $`k`$ on the minimal resolution of $`(XP)`$ is at most $`3`$. Then

$$\frac{1}{2}<a(E,0)=1+\frac{2+\mathrm{Diff}_E(0)}{E^2}=1+\frac{2+\frac{m_11}{m_1}+\frac{m_21}{m_2}}{k+\frac{q_1}{m_1}+\frac{q_2}{m_2}}.$$

Hence $`(m_1,q_1)=(1,0)`$, $`(m_2,q_2)=(m_2,m_21)`$, $`k=3`$. ∎

Let $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_r`$ be non Du Val singularities of $`S`$ of types $`\frac{1}{2n_1+1}(n_1,1)`$,…, $`\frac{1}{2n_r+1}(n_r,1)`$ respectively. Let $`f:\stackrel{~}{S}S`$ be a minimal resolution. Then $`K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+\mathrm{\Delta }=f^{}K_S`$. By lemma 4.4

$$h^2(\stackrel{~}{S},𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{S}}(2K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}\mathrm{}3\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}))=h^0(\stackrel{~}{S},𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{S}}(3K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}+\mathrm{}3\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}))=0,$$

except the case $`n_1=\mathrm{}=n_r=1`$ and $`K_S0`$. Let us determine the remaining possibilities of $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_r`$. By Riemann-Roch theorem and Noether’s formula we have the next system

$$\{\begin{array}{c}0=h^0(\stackrel{~}{S},𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{S}}(2K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}\mathrm{}3\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}))=3K_S^2+r+13_{i=1}^r\frac{n_i}{2n_i+1}+\hfill \\ +h^1(\stackrel{~}{S},𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{S}}(2K_{\stackrel{~}{S}}\mathrm{}3\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}))\hfill \\ K_S^2_{i=1}^r\frac{n_i}{2n_i+1}+\rho (S)+n_1+\mathrm{}+n_r10.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Lemma 4.5.

\[2, corollary 9.2\] Let $`X`$ be a rational surface with kawamata log terminal singularities and with $`\rho (X)=1`$. Then

$$\underset{P\mathrm{Sing}X}{}\frac{m_P1}{m_P}3,$$

where $`m_P`$ is the order of the local fundamental group $`\pi _1(U_P\{P\})`$ $`(U_P`$ is a sufficiently small neighborhood of $`P)`$.

Taking into account $`K_S^20`$ and lemma 4.5 we obtain $`K_S^2=0`$, $`\rho (S)=2`$, $`n_1=\mathrm{}=n_5=2`$, $`\mathrm{Sing}S=\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_5\}`$ by the system. Moreover, we have $`K_S0`$. Indeed, let $`K_S0`$. If there is a curve $`E`$ with $`E^2<0`$ on $`S`$ then we can contract it and obtain a contradiction with lemma 4.5. Therefore we have generically $`^1`$-fibration $`SZ`$, but it is impossible by classification of such fibrations \[13, theorem 7.1.12\].

Let $`\overline{S}S`$ be a canonical cover. There are two cases \[1, theorem C\].

A). Let $`\overline{S}`$ be an abelian surface. Then theorem C  implies that $`S`$ is a surface from example 4.2 (points 1) or 2)) and $`n_1=\mathrm{}=n_9=1`$ or $`n_1=\mathrm{}=n_5=2`$ respectively.

B). Let $`\overline{S}`$ be a $`K3`$-surface. Then by theorem 5.1  we get that $`n_1=n_2=n_3=1`$. It is clear that one of the minimal models of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is $`S_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$. Let $`\phi :\stackrel{~}{S}S_{\mathrm{min}}`$ be a corresponding birational morphism. Put $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\phi (\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{1}{3}(\phi (E_1)+\phi (E_2)+\phi (E_3))`$, where $`E_i`$ is an exceptional curve over the point $`P_i`$. Let $`\phi `$ contracts a curve $`E`$ different from $`E_i`$ for all $`i`$. Then the pair $`(S_{\mathrm{min}}\overline{P},\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ is canonical, where $`\overline{P}=\phi (E)`$. It is easy to prove that $`(S_{\mathrm{min}}\overline{P},\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ is analytically isomorphic either $`(^20,\frac{1}{3}\{x^3+y^l=0\})`$, where $`l=3,4`$, or $`(^20,\frac{1}{3}\{x^3+xy^3=0\})`$, or $`(^20,\frac{1}{3}\{x^2y+y^4=0\})`$.

###### Lemma 4.6.

There exists a surface $`S^{}`$ such that $`\psi (E_i)`$ is $`(+1)`$ non-singular rational curve for some $`i`$, where $`\phi :S\stackrel{\psi }{}S^{}S_{\mathrm{min}}`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\frac{1}{3}\overline{E}_j`$ then $`p_a(\overline{E}_j)=28`$. The curve $`\overline{E}_j`$ must have two singular points of multiplicity 4 and eight singular points of multiplicity 3, we get a contradiction. Therefore there exists a curve $`\overline{E}_j`$ such that $`(𝒪_^2(5)\overline{E}_j)`$ is a nef divisor. Take a resolution of the curve $`\overline{E}_j`$ singularities. We obtain a curve with a self-intersection index $`+1`$. Q.E.D. ∎

We can assume that the linear system $`|\psi (E_i)|`$ gives a birational morphism $`S^{}S_{\mathrm{min}}`$ \[9, proposition 1.10\] and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\frac{1}{3}\overline{E}_1+\frac{1}{3}\overline{E}_2+\frac{1}{3}\overline{E}_3`$.

Sorting out all variants of $`\overline{E}_1`$, $`\overline{E}_2`$, $`\overline{E}_3`$ on $`S_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ the reader will easily prove that there are four (–1) curves on $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ such that every curve intersects all $`E_i`$ and they are mutually disjoint. Let us contract them $`SS^{}`$. We obtain a surface $`S^{}`$ from case 3) of example 4.2.

###### 4.7.

The classification of log del Pezzo surfaces is very important to study the three-dimensional extremal contractions and singularities, because there is an induction from a (local) three-dimensional contraction to a two-dimensional log variety , , . Let us remark that in the result of induction we obtain the log surfaces $`(S,D)`$ such that the divisor $`(K_S+D)`$ is nef, big and the coefficients of $`D`$ are standard. In order to get an effective classification, the exceptional log del Pezzo surfaces with $`\delta =1,2`$ are considered in more wide set of coefficients – $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐦`$ , . In this case the big condition is replaced, for instance, on the requirement of existence of $``$-complement of $`K_S+D`$. The later allows to give the classification of log Enriques surfaces with $`\delta =1,2`$ , . Therefore, in the case $`\delta =0`$ the set $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐦}}`$ will be extended to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$. Now the main goal is to construct the models of $`(S,D)`$ with Picard number 1 or 2.

###### Definition 4.8.

Let $`(S,D)`$ be an exceptional log del Pezzo surface with $`\delta (S,D)=0`$, where $`S`$ is a rational surface. Then the pair $`(S,D)`$ of type $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ is called an exceptional log del Pezzo surface of type $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, where $`i=2,3,4,5,6`$.

###### 4.9.

Let $`i=3,4,5,6`$. Put

$$\widehat{D}=\underset{d_k\frac{i1}{i}}{}c(D_k)D_k+\underset{d_k<\frac{i1}{i}}{}d_kD_k,$$

where $`c(D_k)=c(S,Dd_kD_k;D_k)`$ is a log canonical threshold of a divisor $`D_k`$ for the pair $`(S,Dd_kD_k)`$. By proposition 1.15 the divisor $`K_S+\widehat{D}`$ is log canonical. By corollary 2.6 the divisor $`(K_S+\widehat{D})`$ is not nef. Assume that $`\rho (S)3`$. Then there exists an exceptional curve $`E`$ with $`(K_S+\widehat{D})E>0`$ (see the proof of theorem 4.1 from the paper ). Let $`\phi :SS^{}`$ be a contraction of $`E`$. In contrast to the case $`\delta (S,D)1`$ the birational morphism $`\phi `$ can contract the curve from $`D`$ with a coefficient $`\frac{i1}{i}`$.

###### Lemma 4.10.

Let $`D=\alpha E+D^{}`$, $`\alpha \frac{i1}{i}`$ and $`P=\phi (E)`$. Then we have one of the following cases.

1. $`(S^{}P,\phi (D))_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\frac{1}{2}\{x=0\}+(\frac{3}{4}+\epsilon )\{x+y^3=0\})`$, where $`\epsilon <\frac{1}{60}`$ and $`i=4`$. A morphism $`\phi `$ is a weighted blow-up with weights $`(3,1)`$.
2. $`(S^{}P,\phi (D))_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,(\frac{2}{3}+\epsilon _1)\{x=0\}+(\frac{2}{3}+\epsilon _2)\{x+y^2=0\})`$, where $`\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2<\frac{1}{24}`$ and $`i=3`$. A morphism $`\phi `$ is a weighted blow-up with weights $`(2,1)`$.
3. $`(S^{}P,\phi (D))_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,\frac{1}{2}\{x=0\}+(\frac{2}{3}+\epsilon )\{x+y^l=0\})`$, where $`l=3,4`$, $`i=3`$ and $`\epsilon <\frac{3}{4l}\frac{1}{6}`$. A morphism $`\phi `$ is a weighted blow-up with weights $`(l,1)`$.
4. $`(S^{}P,\phi (D))_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,(\frac{i1}{i}+\epsilon )\{x^2+y^3=0\})`$, where $`i=5,4,3`$, $`\epsilon <\frac{1}{180}`$ if $`i=5`$, $`\epsilon <\frac{1}{20}`$ if $`i=4`$, $`\epsilon <\frac{1}{12}`$ if $`i=3`$. A morphism $`\phi `$ is a weighted blow-up with weights $`(3,2)`$.

###### Proof.

Note that $`E`$ must intersect a curve from $`D^{}`$ with a coefficient $`\frac{i1}{i}`$. Let us consider the case when $`i=3`$ and there exists a point on $`E`$ with $`k=3`$ from point 2) of proposition 1.15. Then

$$(K_S+D)E>(K_S+E+D^{})E=2+\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{Diff}_E(0)+D^{}E$$

$$2+\frac{3}{2}+\frac{2}{3}>0.$$

A contradiction. Therefore $`E`$ has a coefficient 1 in $`\widehat{D}`$. There are three possibilities.
1). Assume that $`\mathrm{Diff}_E(0)=0`$. Then $`(S^{}P)_{\mathrm{an}}(^20)/_n(1,1)`$. Since $`(K_S+\widehat{D})E>0`$ and $`(K_S+D)E0`$ then simple calculations show that the possibility is not realized.
2). Assume that $`\mathrm{Diff}_E(0)=\frac{k1}{k}P`$, where $`k2`$. For example, consider the case $`i=3`$. Since $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{Diff}_E(D^{})<2`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{Diff}_E(\widehat{D}E)>2`$ then $`k=2,3,4,5`$ and $`P`$ is a non-singular point of $`S^{}`$. Moreover we have

1. $`\mathrm{Diff}_E(D^{})=\frac{1}{2}P+(\frac{2}{3}+\epsilon _1)P_1+(\frac{2}{3}+\epsilon _2)P_2`$ or
2. $`\mathrm{Diff}_E(D^{})=\frac{k1}{k}P+\frac{1}{2}P_1+(\frac{2}{3}+\epsilon )P_2`$, where $`k=3,4,5`$.

It remains to check that $`a(E,\phi (D))<\frac{i}{i+1}`$. We obtain cases (2) and (3).
3). Assume that $`\mathrm{Diff}_E(0)=\frac{k_11}{k_1}P_1+\frac{k_21}{k_2}P_2`$, where $`k_1,k_22`$. Since $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{Diff}_E(D^{})<2`$ then it can be assumed that $`k_1=2`$. By direct calculations we obtain case (4). ∎

###### 4.11.

If $`i=4,5,6`$ then we repeat the procedure for $`S^{}`$ described above. If $`i=4`$ then the case, when there is a point on an exceptional curve from case (1) of lemma 4.10, is impossible by the same argument as case 2) of proposition 1.15 with $`k=3`$ (see the proof of lemma 4.10). As a result we get a surface $`\overline{S}`$ with $`\rho (\overline{S})=1`$, or a surface $`\overline{S}`$ with $`\rho (\overline{S})=2`$ and with structure of generically $`^1`$-fibration.

Now let $`i=3`$. Put $`D^{}=d_k^{}D_k^{}=\phi (D)`$. Let us repeat the procedure described above. If there is no a point on $`D_k^{}`$ from case (2) of lemma 4.10, the divisor $`\widehat{D}^{}`$ is defined as the divisor $`\widehat{D}`$. Otherwise, put $`c(D_k^{})=3/4`$.

Let $`\phi ^{}:S^{}S^{\prime \prime }`$ be a contraction of a curve $`E^{}`$ from $`D^{}`$ with a coefficient $`2/3`$. Two new cases can be appeared.
1). The case, when there is a point on $`E^{}`$ from case (3) of lemma 4.10, is similarly impossible.
2). Assume that there is a point on $`E^{}`$ from case (2) of lemma 4.10. Then $`\mathrm{Diff}_E^{}(\widehat{D}^{}\frac{3}{4}E^{})\frac{3}{2}Q`$, where $`Q`$ is a point of $`E^{}`$. Indeed, otherwise we have

$$\{\begin{array}{c}(K_S^{}+\widehat{D}^{})E^{}=(K_S^{}+\frac{3}{4}E^{}+3/4D_2^{})E^{}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{4}E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}>0\hfill \\ (K_S^{}+D^{})E^{}=(K_S^{}+(\frac{2}{3}+\epsilon _1)E^{}+(\frac{2}{3}+\epsilon _2)D_2^{})E^{}=\hfill \\ =\frac{2}{3}+2\epsilon _2(\frac{1}{3}\epsilon _1)E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2<\frac{1}{24}`$ then this system of inequalities is contradictorily. The simple calculations show that the following new case is possible only.

(I)
$$(S^{\prime \prime }P^{},\phi ^{}(D^{}))_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,(\frac{2}{3}+\epsilon )\{x^2+y^5=0\}),$$

where $`\epsilon <\frac{1}{120}`$, $`P^{}=\phi ^{}(E^{})`$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ is a weighted blow-up with weights (2,1). Repeating the procedure we obtain the surface $`\overline{S}`$ described above.

###### 4.12.

Let $`i=2`$. Now the main problem is how much to increase the divisor $`D=d_lD_l`$ up to $`\widehat{D}=c_lD_l`$, where $`c_ld_l`$ for all $`l`$. After this increase the divisor $`K_S+\widehat{D}`$ must be log canonical, but not kawamata log terminal. As before there is an exceptional curve $`E`$ with $`(K_S+D)E>0`$ under the condition $`\rho (S)3`$. The corresponding morphism is denoted by $`\phi :SS^{}`$.

Let us describe the construction of $`\widehat{D}`$. Let $`D_t`$ be a non-singular curve. If there is a point on $`D_t`$ from point 1) or 2) of proposition 1.15 with $`k4`$ then $`ED_t`$. Indeed, otherwise we have

$$(K_S+D)D_t>(K_S+D_t+\underset{lt}{}d_lD_l)D_t2+(\underset{lt}{}d_lD_l)D_t0.$$

Therefore it is not important how much to increase the coefficient $`d_t`$ in this case.

Consider the remaining cases. If there is a point on $`D_t`$ from point 1) or 2) of proposition 1.15 with $`k=3`$ then we put $`c_t=\frac{2}{3}`$.

Consider the remaining cases. If there is a point on $`D_t`$ from point 1) or 2) of proposition 1.15 with $`k=2`$ then we put $`c_t=\frac{3}{4}`$.

In the remaining cases we arbitrarily increase the other coefficients $`d_l`$ up to maximal possible values.

###### Lemma 4.13.

Let $`D=\alpha E+D^{}`$, $`\alpha \frac{1}{2}`$ and $`P=\phi (E)`$. Then we have one of the following cases.

1. $`(S^{}P,\phi (D))_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon )\{x^3+y^4=0\})`$, where $`\epsilon <\frac{1}{24}`$. A morphism $`\phi `$ is a weighted blow-up with weights $`(1,1)`$.
2. $`(S^{}P,\phi (D))_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon _1)\{y=0\}+(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon _2)\{x^2+y^3=0\})`$, where $`3\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2<\frac{1}{4}`$. A morphism $`\phi `$ is a weighted blow-up with weights $`(1,1)`$.
3. $`(S^{}P,\phi (D))_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon )\{x^2+y^{2k+1}=0\})`$, where $`\epsilon <\frac{3}{8k+4}`$. A morphism $`\phi `$ is a weighted blow-up with weights $`(k,1)`$.
4. $`(S^{}P,\phi (D))_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon _1)\{x=0\}+(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon _2)\{y=0\}+(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon _3)\{x+y=0\})`$, where $`\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2+\epsilon _3<\frac{1}{6}`$. A morphism $`\phi `$ is a weighted blow-up with weights $`(1,1)`$.
5. $`(S^{}P,\phi (D))_{\mathrm{an}}(^20,(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon _1)\{x=0\}+(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon _2)\{x+y^k=0\})`$, where $`\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2<\frac{2}{3k}`$. A morphism $`\phi `$ is a weighted blow-up with weights $`(k,1)`$.

###### Proof.

Since the divisor $`K_S+D`$ is $`\frac{1}{2}`$-log terminal then the singularities of $`S`$ lying on $`E`$ are Du Val singularities of type $`𝔸_n`$ (see lemma 1.15). For the same reason there is at most one singular point on a curve $`E`$.

Assume that $`E`$ has the point of tangency of multiplicity 3 with a curve $`D_1`$ from $`D^{}`$. Since $`(K_S+D)E0`$ then $`\mathrm{Diff}_E(D^{}d_1D_1)=0`$ and we obtain case (1).

If $`E`$ has the point of tangency of multiplicity 3 with a curve $`D_1`$ from $`D^{}`$ then arguing as above in lemma 4.10 we obtain cases (2) and (3).

For the remaining possibility we have cases (4) and (5). ∎

###### 4.14.

Let us repeat the procedure described above. As a result of multiple procedure repetition two new singularities can appear similarly to point 4.11:

(II)
$$(^20,(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon _1)\{y=0\}+(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon _2)\{x=0\}+(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon _3)\{x+y^k=0\}),$$

where $`\epsilon _1+k(\epsilon _2+\epsilon _3)<\frac{1}{6}`$, and

(III)
$$(^20,(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon _1)\{y=0\}+(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon _2)\{x^2+y^{2k+1}=0\}),$$

where $`\epsilon _1+2k\epsilon _2<\frac{1}{6}`$.

The results above-mentioned allow to define the model of exceptional log del Pezzo surface of type $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ (cf. \[16, §5\]).

###### Definition 4.15.

Let $`(S,D)`$ be an exceptional log del Pezzo surface of type $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ $`(i=2,3,4,5,6)`$ except the following points (if $`i=6`$ then there are no exceptions).

1. If $`i=5`$ then see point (4) of lemma 4.10.
2. If $`i=4`$ then see points (1), (4) of lemma 4.10.
3. If $`i=3`$ then see points (2), (3), (4) of lemma 4.10 and case (I) of point 4.11.
4. If $`i=2`$ then see points (1), (3), (5) of lemma 4.13. It is possible with another restrictions on the values of $`\epsilon `$, $`\epsilon _1`$, $`\epsilon _2`$. Also see cases (II) and (III) of point 4.14.

Then the pair $`(S,D)`$ is called a model of type $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ if one of the following two conditions is satisfied.

1. $`\rho (S)=1`$.
2. $`\rho (S)=2`$, the cone $`\overline{\mathrm{NE}}(S)`$ is generated by two extremal rays $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$. The ray $`R_1`$ gives generically $`^1`$-fibration. If the ray $`R_2`$ gives a birational contraction of a curve $`E`$ then $`E`$ is a component of divisor $`D`$ with a coefficient $`\frac{i1}{i}`$.

###### Remark 4.16.

Let us remark that in the model of type $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ definition the condition, that the divisor $`K_S+D`$ is $`\frac{1}{i}`$-log terminal, is not fulfilled at the non-singular points of surface $`S`$ only.

###### 4.17.

The very important problem is to classify the models of type $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$. When the model classification of type $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ is finished it is remained to describe the exceptional surfaces $`S`$ such that the divisor $`K_S`$ is $`\frac{1}{2}`$-log terminal and there exists a 2-complement $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$ of $`K_S`$ (see theorem 4.3). This completes the classification of exceptional log del Pezzo surfaces (see , ) and allows to describe log Enriques surfaces completely (see , ).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of the Higgs boson will shed light on the symmetry breaking machanism of the Standard Model (SM). The experimental bound from the LEP experiments and precision studies within and beyond the standard model strongly suggest that hadron colliders such as the Tevatron and the LHC will see the Higgs boson if it exists. At these machines the dominant contribution to single Higgs boson production is the gluon-gluon fusion process through heavy quark loops. The reason for this is that the Higgs boson couples strongly to heavy quarks. In addition the large gluon flux at the LHC enhances the total inclusive cross section substantially. The NLO corrections along with NLO parton distributions yield a large $`K`$ factor and also show a strong scale dependence. Hence there is need for improved parton densities using NNLO splitting functions as well as inclusion of NNLO partonic cross sections. The NNLO correction to Higgs boson production was first computed by an expansion technique in . Exact results were obtained in  using Cutkosky rules. In our work , we have used a straightforward technique which was adopted in  to compute the NNLO corrections to Drell-Yan process. Clever choice of the integration variables in specific frames makes the computation manageable.

## 2 Method of Computation

We use the effective Lagrangian approach which emerges from the SM in the heavy top quark limit ($`m_t\mathrm{}`$) and is found to be a good approximation at hadron colliders. For Higgs boson production at hadron colliders at the NNLO level one has to compute 1) tree level $`a+bc+d+H`$, 2) one-loop corrected $`a+bc+H`$ and 3) two-loop corrected $`g+gH`$, where $`a,b,c,d`$ are light partons such as quarks, antiquarks and gluons whose interactions are governed by QCD. These corrections involve the computation of $`23`$ body phase-space integrals and two and one-loop momentum integrals followed by $`21`$ and $`22`$ phase-space integrations respectively. We use dimensional regularization (space time dimension is taken to be $`n=4+\epsilon `$) to regulate both ultraviolet and infrared (soft and collinear) divergences. We first describe here how we have performed three-body phase-space integrals for $`23`$ tree level matrix elements and the two-body phase-space integrals for one-loop corrected matrix elements. The $`23`$ body processes involve two angular integrations (say $`\theta ,\varphi `$) and two parametric integrations (say $`z,y`$). Before we perform these integrations, it is important to classify the matrix elements in such a way that the phase-space integrations over them can be done in suitable frames. For example, when the Higgs boson is produced from the incoming partons, the center of mass (CM) frame of outgoing partons is the most suitable frame, because the massive propagators $`1/(P_{15}^\alpha P_{25}^\beta )`$ ( $`\alpha ,\beta 1`$) will not involve angular dependence in this frame. Here $`P_{i5}=(p_i+p_H)^2`$ where $`p_H`$ is the momentum of the Higgs boson, and $`p_i`$ is the momentum of the massless parton. Similarly when the Higgs boson is produced from an outgoing parton, we choose the CM frame of incoming partons where $`1/(P_{35}^\alpha P_{45}^\beta )`$ ($`\alpha ,\beta 1`$) do not depend on the angles. Complications arise when we encounter processes where the Higgs boson is produced by both initial and final state partons, i.e., where interference terms of the form $`1/(P_{15}^\alpha P_{45}^\beta )`$ ($`\alpha ,\beta 0`$) appear. In this case we have chosen the CM frame of the 4th (or 3rd) parton and the Higgs boson where the angular integrals and other parametric integrals are less difficult. In the CM frame of the incoming partons and the CM frame of the outgoing partons we perform the angular integrations exactly using the result given in .

$`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta {\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi \mathrm{sin}^{n3}\theta \mathrm{sin}^{n4}\varphi 𝒞_{ij}(\theta ,\varphi ,\chi )=2^{1ij}\pi `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}n1j)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}n1i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n3)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n2ij)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\frac{1}{2}n1)}}F_{1,2}(i,j,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n1;\mathrm{cos}^2(\chi /2)),`$
where $`𝒞_{ij}=(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )^i(1\mathrm{cos}\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta )^j`$. Here $`\mathrm{cos}\chi `$ is related to kinematical variables such as $`x(=m_H^2/s`$, $`s`$-CM energy) and the integration variables $`z`$ and $`y`$, and $`F_{1,2}`$ is the hypergeometric function. In the CM frame of the 4th parton and Higgs boson, due to the complexity, we performed one angular integration (say $`\varphi `$) exactly and performed the remaining $`\theta `$ integration after expanding the integrands in powers of $`\epsilon =n4`$. In all these frames, using various Kummer’s relations, the hypergeometric functions are simplified to the form $`F_{1,2}(\pm \epsilon /2,\pm \epsilon /2,1\pm \epsilon /2;𝒟(x,y,z))`$ which is the most suitable for integrations over $`z`$ and $`y`$. The next hurdle in the computation is the appearance of terms with large powers in $`1/(1z)`$ or $`1/z`$. We have reduced the higher powers of $`1/(1z)^{\alpha +\beta \epsilon }`$ or $`1/z^{\alpha +\beta \epsilon }`$ where $`\alpha >1`$ by successive integration by parts with exact hypergeometric functions until we arrive at $`1/(1z)^{1+\beta \epsilon }`$ or $`1/z^{1+\beta \epsilon }`$ multiplied by regular functions. We have used the following identity to accomplish this:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}F_{1,2}({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}},1+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}};𝒟(z))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2𝒟(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒟(z)}{dz}}((1𝒟(z))^{\frac{\epsilon }{2}}`$ (2.1)
$`F_{1,2}({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}},1+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}};𝒟(z))).`$
In the end we are left with integrations of the form $`_0^1𝑑zz^{1\beta \epsilon }f(z)`$ and/or $`_0^1𝑑z(1z)^{1\beta \epsilon }f(z)`$. Such integrals are simplified as follows:

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑zz^{1\beta \epsilon }f(z)={\displaystyle _0^\delta }𝑑zz^{1\beta \epsilon }f(z)+{\displaystyle _\delta ^1}𝑑zz^{1\beta \epsilon }f(z)\delta <<1.`$ (2.2)
The first term can be evaluated to be $`f(0)([\beta \epsilon ]^1+\mathrm{log}\delta +[\beta \epsilon /2]\mathrm{log}^2\delta +\mathrm{})`$. After expanding $`z^{\beta \epsilon }`$ in powers of $`\epsilon `$ in the second term the $`z`$ integration can be performed exactly order-by-order in $`\epsilon `$ with non-zero $`\delta `$. At the end the $`\delta `$ dependence cancels in each order in $`\epsilon `$. Since the $`z`$ integration over the hypergeometric functions is nontrivial due to their complicated arguments, we have expanded them in powers of $`\epsilon `$ prior to the $`z`$ integration:

$`F_{1,2}({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}},1+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}};𝒟(z))`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{4}}\mathrm{Li}_2(𝒟(z))+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^3}{8}}\left(\mathrm{S}_{1,2}(𝒟(z))\mathrm{Li}_3(𝒟(z))\right)`$ (2.3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^4}{16}}\left(\mathrm{S}_{1,3}(𝒟(z))\mathrm{S}_{2,2}(𝒟(z))+\mathrm{Li}_4(𝒟(z))\right),`$
where $`\mathrm{S}_{n,p}(z)=(1)^{n+p1}[(n1)!p!]^1_0^1𝑑t[t]^1\mathrm{log}^{n1}(t)\mathrm{log}^p(1zt)`$ with $`n,p1`$ and $`\mathrm{Li}_n(z)=\mathrm{S}_{n1,1}(z)`$(see ). We have repeated the same procedure to perform the remaining $`y`$ integration. In addition to $`23`$ contributions, we encounter one-loop corrected $`22`$ processes at NNLO level. Here the one-loop tensorial integrals are reduced to scalar integrals using the Passarino-Veltman reduction procedure implemented in $`n`$ dimensions. The resulting one-loop two and three-point scalar integrals can be expressed in terms of kinematic invariants. In the case of the four-point function, the scalar integrals can be expressed only in terms of hypergeometric functions which increases the complexity of the two-body phase-space integrations. We follow the procedure adopted for the $`23`$ phase-space integrations to perform the two-body phase-space integrations. After performing all these integrals, we have removed all the ultraviolet divergences by strong coupling and operator renormalization constants. The remaining collinear divergences are removed by mass factorization. Then we are left with finite partonic cross sections which are folded with parton distribution functions to compute hadronic cross section for the inclusive Higgs boson production.

Using the method described above we have successfully computed the NNLO corrections to Higgs boson production at hadron colliders and found complete agreement with the results of . We find that NNLO corrections improve the convergence of the perturbative result and decrease the scale ambiguities inherent in it.


text:
# Initial dissipation and current-voltage characteristics of superconductors containing fractal clusters of a normal phase

## I Introduction

Superconductors containing fractal clusters of a normal phase have specific magnetic and transport properties. Prester (1999); Kuzmin (2000, 2001a) The study of their U-I characteristics enable to get new information on the electromagnetic properties as well as on the nature of a vortex state in such materials. Blatter et al. (1994); Fisher (1989); Fisher et al. (1991); Brown (2000); Yamafuji and Kiss (1997) The neighborhood of resistive transition, especially its initial stage where the energy dissipation sets-in, is of special interest. In this region the process of vortex depinning gradually accrues resulting finally with the destruction of a superconducting state.

The problem of initial dissipation in high-temperature superconductors (HTS’s) has been studied by many authors. Prester (1999); Fukumoto et al. (1995); Suenaga et al. (1995); Fukumoto et al. (1996); Hlasnik et al. (1996); Polak et al. (1997); Prester (1996, 1998); Prester et al. (1998) The residual resistance of bismuth-based HTS’s \[Bi2Sr2Ca2Cu3O10+y (BSCCO-2223) and Bi2Sr2CaCu2O10+y (BSCCO-2212)\] at small currents has been explained by deterioration of grain boundaries, by initiation of micro-cracks which can act as chains of weak links, Fukumoto et al. (1995); Suenaga et al. (1995) as well as by the grain-to-grain misalignment or by degradation of the grains themselves Fukumoto et al. (1996). A strong influence of transfer resistance between superconducting and normal metal on U-I characteristics of silver-sheathed BSCCO-2223 tapes has been found. Hlasnik et al. (1996) The ohmic behavior of U-I curve on the initial stage of resistive transition in BSCCO-2223 and BSCCO-2212 has been attributed to the local transfer of excess current into the normal metal inclusions. Polak et al. (1997) The fractal regime in the initial stage of dissipation has been observed in BSCCO-2223, YBa2Cu3O7-x, and GdBa2Cu3O7-x. Prester (1999) The fractal nature of the normal-phase clusters contained in YBa2Cu3O7-x thin films has been found Kuzmin (2000) and the effect of such clusters on vortex dynamics has been analyzed. Kuzmin (2001a, b, 2002, 2003) In the present work we consider the influence of the fractal clusters of a normal phase on the initial part of U-I characteristic near the resistive transition.

## II Statement of a Problem

Let us consider a superconductor containing inclusions of a normal phase, which are out of contact with one another. We will suppose that the characteristic sizes of these inclusions far exceed both the superconducting coherence length and the penetration depth. A prototype of such a structure is the superconducting wire or tape armored by normal metal for giving the necessary electrical and mechanical properties. Polak et al. (1997); Pashitski et al. (1995); Kováč et al. (1997) Concrete example is the silver-sheathed HTS bismuth-based composites, which are of practical interest for energy transport and storage. Fukumoto et al. (1995); Hlasnik et al. (1996); Prester et al. (1998)

When electric current is passed through such a material, it flows through a superconducting percolative cluster. A specificity of the problem is that the percolative cluster consists of mesoscopic superconducting islands joined by weak links. Prester (1999, 1996) As the transport current is increased, the local currents flowing through ones or other weak links begin to exceed the critical values, so some part of them become resistive. Thus, the number of weak links involved in the superconducting cluster is randomly reduced so the transition of a superconductor into a resistive state corresponds to breaking of the percolation through a superconducting cluster. The transport current acts as a random generator that changes the relative fractions of conducting components in classical percolative medium, Stauffer (1979) hence the resistive transition can be treated as a current-induced critical phenomenon. Prester (1996, 1998)

On the other hand, the dissipation of energy in a superconductor is linked with the vortex dynamics as any motion of a magnetic flux induces an electric field. In HTS’s the vortex motion is of special importance because of large thermal fluctuations existing at high temperatures and small pinning energies. Blatter et al. (1994) The magnetic flux can move only after the vortices will be broken away from the pinning centers. Until the moment when the Lorentz force created by a transport current will exceed the pinning force the magnetic flux remains trapped in normal-phase clusters. These clusters present the sets of normal-phase inclusions, united be the common trapped flux and surrounded by the superconducting phase. Kuzmin (2000, 2001a) In such a system depinning has a percolative character, Yamafuji and Kiss (1997); Ziese (1996a, b) because vortices move through the randomly generated channels, connecting the normal-phase clusters. Such channels of vortex transport can be created by weak links, Durán et al. (1992) which form readily in HTS’s due to the intrinsically short coherence length. Sonier et al. (1999) Depending on the specific weak link configuration each normal-phase cluster has its own current of depinning, which contributes to the total statistical distribution of critical currents. Thus, the weak links do not only connect superconducting clusters between themselves, maintaining the electrical current percolation, but they also form the channels for vortex transport so providing for the percolation of magnetic flux.

The depinning current of each cluster is related to the cluster size, because the larger cluster has more weak links over its boundary with the surrounding superconducting space, and thus the smaller current of depinning. Kuzmin (2001a) As a measure of the cluster size we will take the area of its cross-section, and in the subsequent text we will call this value simply “the cluster area“. In the general case the distribution of the cluster areas may be described by gamma distribution with the probability density

$$w\left(a\right)=\frac{\left(g+1\right)^{g+1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(g+1\right)}a^g\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(g+1\right)a\right]$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\nu \right)`$ is Euler gamma function, $`aA/\overline{A}`$ is the dimensionless area of the cluster, $`A`$ is the area of the cross-section of the cluster by the plane, transversally to which the vortices are moving, $`A_0>0`$ and $`g>1`$ are the parameters of gamma distribution that control the mean area of the cluster $`\overline{A}=(g+1)A_0`$ and its variance $`\sigma _A^2=\left(g+1\right)A_0^2`$. The mean dimensionless area of the cluster is equal to unity, whereas the variance is determined by $`g`$-parameter only: $`\sigma _a^2=1/\left(g+1\right)`$.

In order to use the formulas for U-I characteristics obtained in Refs. Kuzmin, 2001b, 2003 for the case of thin films with clusters of columnar defects, it is necessary to assume that all the entry points into weak links are distributed uniformly along extended parts of the normal-phase inclusions. The problem setting for armored superconducting wires has some distinctive features: (i) the fragments of a normal phase has the form of extended inclusions oriented along an axis of the wire; (ii) the magnetic flux is created by the transport current itself and is concentrated along irregular-shaped rings, which are deformed in such a way that the normal-phase clusters would be most captured; (iii) the vortices are transferred through the weak links connecting long parts of the normal-phase inclusions between themselves.

Gamma distribution of the cluster area of Eq. (1) gives rise to exponential-hyperbolic distribution of depinning currents, Kuzmin (2002) for which U-I characteristic has the form Kuzmin (2003):

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_f}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(g+1\right)}}[i\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1,Gi^{2/D})`$ (2)
$`G^{D/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}},Gi^{2/D})]`$
where

$$G\left[\frac{\theta ^\theta }{\theta ^{g+1}\left(D/2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\theta \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1,\theta )}\right]^{\frac{2}{D}}$$

$`\theta g+1+D/2`$, $`iI/I_c`$ is the dimensionless electrical current normalized to the critical current of the transition into a resistive state $`I_c=\alpha \left(A_0G\right)^{D/2}`$, $`\alpha `$ is the form factor, $`D`$ is the fractal dimension of the cluster boundary, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu ,z)`$ is the complementary incomplete gamma function. The voltage across a sample $`U`$ and flux flow resistance $`R_f`$ are linked to the corresponding dimensionless quantities $`u`$ and $`r_f`$ by the formula: $`U/R_f=I_c\left(u/r_f\right)`$.

The U-I characteristics in the simplest case of $`g=0`$, when gamma distribution of Eq. (1) is reduced to the exponential one, $`w\left(a\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(a\right)`$, are shown in Fig. 1.

This figure demonstrates that in the range of the currents $`i>1`$ the fractality of the clusters reduces the voltage arising from magnetic flux motion. Meanwhile, the situation is different below the critical current. When $`i<1`$, the higher the fractal dimension of the normal phase cluster is, the larger is the voltage across a sample and the more stretched is the region of initial dissipation on U-I characteristic. For further consideration it is convenient to introduce the onset current $`i_{on}`$, from which this region spreads away. The magnitude of this current is set by the resolution of voltage measurement. In Fig. 1 the arrows show the onset current values $`i_{on}`$ corresponding to the resolution level of $`10^5u/r_f`$. The inset of this figure shows the dependence of the onset current $`i_{on}`$ on the fractal dimension.

## III Experiment

For experimental study of initial dissipation the high-resolution measurements of differential resistance of HTS composites (BiPb)2Sr2Ca2Cu3O10+y containing inclusions of silver (BPSCCO/Ag) were carried out. The samples had the form of silver-sheathed tapes with superconducting core. These tapes were prepared following a conventional “powder-in-tube“ technique Kováč et al. (1995). Magneto-optical micrographs of such tapes are given in Refs. Polak et al., 1997; Prester, 1998; Pashitski et al., 1995. The superconducting core inevitably contains the normal-phase inclusions of Ag as well as different secondary phases (the degraded non-stoichiometric material, grain boundaries, voids, cracks, impurities, etc.). The volume content of the normal phase in the core was far below the percolation threshold so the percolative superconducting cluster was dense enough. Comprehensive characterization of structural (XRD, EDX, SEM, and TEM data), mechanical (microhardness) and electrical properties (transport critical current) of the samples can be found in Ref. Kováč et al., 1997.

U-I characteristics were obtained by integration of experimental dependencies of the differential resistance on a current. Such a measurement technique was chosen for the following reasons: (i) the differential resistance presents a small-signal parameter suitable for description of the nonlinear U-I characteristic; (ii) the lock-in ac technique provides the high resolution necessary to observe peculiarities of the resistive transition. In our experiments the differential resistance resolution was equal to 1 $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ that corresponds to the equivalent voltage resolution of 1.5 nV at ac current component of 1.5 mA. The measured differential resistance $`R_d`$ is proportional to density of vortices, $`n`$, broken away from the pinning centers: $`R_d=nR_f\mathrm{\Phi }_0/B`$, where $`B`$ is the magnetic field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0hc/\left(2e\right)`$ is the magnetic flux quantum, $`h`$ is Planck constant, $`c`$ is the velocity of light, and $`e`$ is the electron charge. It is just a motion of these vortices induces electrical field in a sample and thus causes the dissipation.

The obvious region of initial dissipation was observed in ten samples taken from different batches. The U-I characteristic of one of the samples, where this region was more clearly defined, is presented in Fig. 2.

The parameters of this sample were as follows: cross-section area of the superconducting core was equal to 0.068 mm2 at the thickness of 30 $`\mu `$m while the width of the tape was 4 mm at the thickness of 0.2 mm, transition temperature was $`T_c`$=107.3 K, normal state resistance just above the transition (at $`T`$=110 K) was equal to 545 $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$, critical current density at $`T`$=77 K (criterion 1 $`\mu V/cm`$, self-field) was equal to 3.1 kA/cm2. The measurements were carried out at temperature of 96.5 K in the Earth magnetic field. Notice that this temperature was more than 10 K below he transition temperature so any marked self-heating effects are excluded. The tape form of our samples provides an ideal thermal contact with the thermally stabilized copper substrate so the Joule heating at the current contacts was substantially diminished. The measurements were also performed in the temperature range 90 K$`<T<`$105 K, and in applied magnetic field up to 100 Oe, but obtained results were similar. The flux flow resistance, which gives the asymptotic slope of U-I characteristic of a superconductor in a resistive state, was equal to $`R_f=560\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$. The corresponding curve in the limiting case of flux flow is shown by the dash-dot line in the upper inset of Fig. 2. The value of the critical current of resistive transition $`I_c`$=0.8 A was found by the point of intersection of abscissa axis and the tangent line drawn through the inflection point of the curve of dependence of the differential resistance on the current. Theoretical U-I characteristic, found from equation (2), is shown in Fig. 2 by a solid line. In order to highlight the effects associated with the fractal properties of clusters, the greatest possible value of fractal dimension $`D=2`$ was taken (such a fractal dimension is inherent, for example, in Peano curves. Mandelbrot (1977)) In this case the onset current, calculated on the level of $`10^5u/r_f`$, is equal to $`I_{on}`$=0.38 A (see also inset of Fig. 1). The only one free parameter of the theoretical model is $`g`$-parameter of gamma distribution. Inasmuch as there is no experimental information about statistical distribution of normal-phase cluster areas, we have taken the simplest case of exponential distribution ($`g=0`$). The insets of Fig. 2 show how the distribution of the cluster sizes (lower inset) can affect the U-I characteristics (upper inset). The theoretical curve agrees with experimental data in the main point: the U-I characteristic does not start exactly from the critical current $`I_c`$, but there is a well-defined initial region that begins with the onset current $`I_{on}`$, with the perfect coincidence between the calculated and measured magnitudes of latter parameter. At the same time, the theoretical curve passes below the experimental points at small currents and has no bend near $`I_c`$. This feature may be explained by that the theoretical curve was calculated for the case of the constant value of fractal dimension, whereas the experimental data relate to the situation where the fractal dimension is not the same for the different parts of U-I characteristic because its value is governed by the transport current. Indeed, on the current-induced resistive transition the cluster topology varies as the transport current increases. As more and more weak links turn resistive, the superconducting cluster becomes less and less ramified. This can result in changing in fractal dimension of the normal-phase clusters as the boundary between superconducting and normal phases becomes less indented. Thus it is necessary to take into account that the interface sweeps through the area of reduced value of a superconducting order parameter that surrounds the normal-phase inclusions, so its position depends on the magnitude of transport current. Therefore dependence of the fractal dimension on the current can be very complicated. In addition to that, the differences observed may be ascribed to the peculiarities of flux creep in the initial stage of resistive transition, which are not taken into account within the used theoretical model.

In conclusion, we have shown in this paper that the initial region of dissipation in HTS’s can be considered as vortex dynamics phenomenon, which demonstrates the fractal properties of the normal-phase clusters.

###### Acknowledgements.

The work is carried out at support of Russian Foundation for Basic Researches (grant No 02-02-17667) and Croatian Ministry of Science and Technology (Project No 0035009). M.P. also acknowledges support of the Swiss National Science Foundation, SCOPES project No 7KRPJ065631.