text:
# Transverse Momentum Dependence of Intercept Parameter 𝜆 of Two-Pion (-Kaon) Correlation Functions in q-Bose Gas Model

## Abstract

Within recently proposed approach aimed to effectively describe the observed non-Bose type behavior of the intercept $`\lambda `$ of two-particle correlation function $`C(p,K)`$ of identical pions or kaons detected in heavy-ion collisions, the $`q`$-deformed oscillators and $`q`$-Bose gas picture are employed. For the intercept $`\lambda `$, connected with deformation parameter $`q`$, the model predicts a fully specified dependence of $`\lambda `$ on pair mean momentum $`𝐊`$. The intercepts $`\lambda _\pi `$ and $`\lambda _K`$ for pions and kaons, differing noticeably at small $`𝐊`$, should merge at $`𝐊`$ large enough, i.e., in the range $`|𝐊|800`$ MeV/c, where the effect of resonance decays is negligible. In this paper we confront, fixing $`q`$ appropriately, the predicted dependence $`\lambda _\pi =\lambda _\pi (𝐊)`$ with recent results from STAR/RHIC for $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ pairs, and find nice agreement. Using the same $`q`$, we also predict behavior of $`\lambda `$ for kaons.

Two-particle correlations in momentum space can be used to extract information about the space-time structure of the emitting sources created in heavy ion collisions. The method exploits in an essential way the quantum mechanical uncertainty relation between coordinates and momenta, and thus any formal treatment of two-particle correlations must be based on a quantum mechanical description. For so-called ”chaotic” sources where the two particles are emitted independently the description can be based on the single-particle Wigner density $`S(x,K)`$ of the source (source function).

In standard quantum mechanical treatment the Bose-Einstein correlations are due to symmetrization of the two-particle (many-particle) wave function (suppose particles are emitted independently) $`\psi _{\gamma _a\gamma _b}(𝐱_a,𝐱_b,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\psi _{\gamma _a}(𝐱_a,t)\psi _{\gamma _b}(𝐱_b,t)+e^{i\alpha }\psi _{\gamma _a}(𝐱_b,t)\psi _{\gamma _b}(𝐱_a,t)\right]`$ with $`\alpha =0`$ ($`\alpha =\pi `$) for identical bosons (fermions). The indices $`\gamma _a,\gamma _b`$ of the 1-particle wave functions label complete sets of 1-particle quantum numbers. In the following, we consider two-particle correlations of noninteracting spin zero identical bosons. The correlation function, with $`P_1\left(𝐤\right)`$ and $`P_2(𝐤_a,𝐤_b)`$ being single- and two-particle probabilities to detect particles with given momenta, is defined as

$$C(𝐤_a,𝐤_b)=\frac{P_2(𝐤_a,𝐤_b)}{P_1\left(𝐤_a\right)P_1\left(𝐤_b\right)}.$$

In the absence of final state interactions (FSI, see AHR ), for chaotic source, the correlation function can be expressed as follows AGI :

$`C(𝐤_a,𝐤_b)=1+\mathrm{cos}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\left|d^4xe^{ipx}S(x,K)\right|^2}{d^4xS(x,k_a)d^4yS(y,k_b)}}`$ (1)
with the 4-momenta $`K=\frac{1}{2}(k_a+k_b)`$ as pair mean momentum and $`p=k_ak_b`$ as relative momentum. The source function $`S(x,K)`$ is defined by the single-particle states $`\psi _\gamma (x)`$ at freeze-out time and the source density matrix $`\rho _{\gamma \gamma ^{}}`$ as, e.g., in AGI . Obviously, from (1) at zero relative momentum $`𝐤_a=𝐤_b`$ one gets $`C(𝐤_a,𝐤_a)=1+\mathrm{cos}\alpha 1+\lambda `$ and since for bosons $`\alpha =0`$ it follows that $`C(𝐤_a,𝐤_a)=2`$, i.e., $`\lambda =1.`$ To fit experimental data, the correlation function of identical bosons is usually presented as $`C(p,K)=1+\lambda f(p,K)`$, with $`f(p,K)`$ commonly taken as Gaussian so that $`f(𝐩=0,K)=1`$. From the very first experiments it was deduced that $`\lambda `$ is lesser than one, the typical experimental values being $`\lambda =`$ 0.4 - 0.9 . The second term in (1) is obviously due to quantum-mechanical interference, and deviation of $`\lambda `$ from unity manifests weakening of the interference effects which can occur due to different reasons - influence of long lived resonances, coherent emission, etc.

Let us explain the key idea of the model developed in AGI ; AGI2  (named AGI-model in what follows) and further exploited in this letter. In two-boson correlations the deviation of intercept $`\lambda `$ from unity, besides the contribution due to effects from long-lived resonances, can also be caused by the averaged softening of quantum-statistical effects in the peculiar short-lived many-particle systems formed in relativistic heavy ion collisions. In such small system, the symmetrization angle $`\alpha `$ of $`\psi _{\gamma _a\gamma _b}(𝐱_a,𝐱_b,t)`$ can be distorted by an additional phase due to a nonhomogenuity of the system at freeze-out times (strong radial and azimuthal flows). These peculiarities can cause the effect analogous to Aharonov-Bohm one. As result, a finite value of averaged symmetrization angle may appear: $`\overline{\alpha }>0`$ for bosons and $`\overline{\alpha }<\pi `$ for fermions.

Now, trying to explain experimental data with formula (1), it is natural to relate the parameter $`\lambda `$ with the averaged angle $`\overline{\alpha }`$ to get the reduction factor $`\lambda `$ by means of $`\mathrm{cos}\overline{\alpha }`$. That is, the deviation of intercept $`\lambda `$ from unity is viewed to be due to fluctuations of symmetrization angle $`\alpha `$, i.e.

$$\lambda =\mathrm{cos}\overline{\alpha }.$$
(2)
Notice that slow bosons (pions, kaons) will experience bigger fluctuations (deviations) of symmetrization angle $`\alpha `$ than the particles with high velocities in fireball frame. That is, the deviation of intercept $`\lambda `$ from unity for slow bosons should be more sizable than for the fast ones.

To implement our key idea we exploit quantum field theory with $`q`$-deformed commutation relations (qDCR) and the techniques of $`q`$-boson statistics (see VZ  and refs. therein) which reflects a partial suppression of the quantum statistical effects. In tsallis94 ; arik99  it was argued that the algebra of qDCR is connected, for real $`q`$ only, with the so-called nonextensive statistics introduced by Tsallis tsallis88 . This type of generalized statistics has already found numerous applications in diverse branches of modern physics (see tsallis99  for refs.). In particular, nonextensive statistics was applied to the problems of high-energy nuclear collisions (UWW00  and refs. therein). However, the techniques of $`q`$-boson statistics based on qDCR allows the use of complex values as well as the real values for the deformation parameter $`q`$, depending on the choice of algebraic realization of qDCR. The physical reasons for usage of qDCR, and subsequent interpretation of $`q`$, essentially differ depending on the case of $`q`$ real or complex. Introducing deformed statistics with $`q`$ real enables one to effectively account for interaction effects by means of non-interacting ideal gas of “modified” particles. On the other hand, the approach based on qDCR provides the ability to model the effects involving the Aharonov-Bohm like phase, intimately connected with symmetrization properties of wave functions.

For the system of pions or kaons produced in heavy ion collisions, we employ the ideal $`q`$-Bose gas picture. Physical meaning or explanation of the origin of $`q`$-deformation in the considered phenomenon sharply differs in the case of real deformation parameter $`q`$ from the case when $`q`$ is a pure phase factor, as will be seen in what follows.

The AGI-model exploits two different sets of qDCR. The first is the multimode Biedenharn-Macfarlane (BM-type) $`q`$-oscillator defined as BM : $`[N_j,b_j]=b_j,`$ $`[N_j,b_j^{}]=b_j^{},`$ $`b_jb_j^{}q^1b_j^{}b_j=q^{N_j},`$ where different modes ($`ij`$) commute. Then, $`b_i^{}b_i=[N_i]_q`$ (here the “$`q`$-bracket” means $`[r]_q=(q^rq^r)/(qq^1)`$ ) so that $`b_i^{}b_i=N_i`$ is recovered in the “classical” (“no deformation”) limit $`q1`$ . Below, for the BM-type $`q`$-oscillators it is meant that

$$q=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta ),0\theta <\pi /2.$$
(3)
The second multimode $`q`$-oscillator used in AGI-model is the set of Arik-Coon (AC-type) $`q`$-oscillators, defined by the relations AC  $`[𝒩,a]=a,`$ $`[𝒩,a^{}]=a^{},`$ and $`aa^{}qa^{}a=1`$ (subscript suppressed). Again, at $`q1`$, the bilinear $`a_i^{}a_i`$ does not equal the number operator $`𝒩_i`$ (as is true for usual bosonic oscillators, i.e., at $`q=1`$). Instead, $`a_i^{}a_i=[[𝒩_i]]`$ where now the notation $`[[r]](1q^r)(1q),`$ is used. The $`q`$-bracket $`[[\widehat{A}]]`$ for an operator $`A`$ is understood as a formal series. At $`q1`$, from $`[[\widehat{A}]]`$ one recovers $`\widehat{A}`$. In what follows we set

$$1q1.$$
(4)
For each such value of the deformation parameter $`q`$, the $`a_i^{}`$ and $`a_i`$ are mutual conjugates. Note that the inverse of the relation $`a_i^{}a_i=[[𝒩_i]]`$ is given by a formula expressing the operator $`𝒩_i`$ as a formal series of creation/annihilation operators.

For a multi-pion (-kaon) system, viewed as ideal gas of $`q`$-bosons the Hamiltonian is taken as

$$H=\underset{i}{}\omega _iN_i$$
(5)
with $`i`$ labelling energy eigenvalues, $`\omega _i=\sqrt{m^2+𝐤_i^2}`$, and $`N_i`$ defined as above. This is unique truly noninteracting Hamiltonian with additive spectrum VZ . We assume discrete $`3`$-momenta of particles (the system is in a box of volume $`L^3`$). For the set of AC-type $`q`$-oscillators, one takes $`𝒩_i`$ instead of $`N_i`$ in (5).

Statistical properties are obtained by evaluating thermal averages $`A=\mathrm{Sp}(A\rho )/\mathrm{Sp}(\rho )`$, $`\rho =\mathrm{e}^{\beta H}`$ , with the Hamiltonian (5) and $`\beta =1/T`$.

With $`b_i^{}b_i=[N_i]_q`$ and $`q+q^1=[2]_q=2\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, the $`q`$-deformed distribution function is obtained as VZ ; AG ; AGI

$$b_i^{}b_i=\frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{\beta \omega _i}1+\delta _i},\delta _i=2\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1\mathrm{e}^{\beta \omega _i}}.$$
(6)
If $`\theta 0`$, it yields Bose-Einstein (BE) distribution. Note that the $`q`$-distribution function (6) is real.

The $`q`$-distribution (6) deviates from the quantum Bose-Einstein just in the “right direction” towards the classical Boltzmann distribution, that reflects a decreasing of quantum statistical effects. For kaons, whose mass $`m_K`$ is bigger than $`m_\pi `$, analogous curve should lie closer, than pion’s one, to that of BE distribution AGI2 .

In the case of AC-type $`q`$-bosons with real $`q`$ from (3), one arrives at the distribution function (cf. VZ ; AG ; AGI ):

$$a_i^{}a_i=\frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{\beta \omega _i}q}.$$
(7)
In the no-deformation limit $`q1`$, this also reduces to the Bose-Einstein distribution, since at $`q=1`$ we return to the standard system of bosonic commutation relations.

The deviation from standard BE statistics is natural thing if one considers the system of interacting particles versus that of non-interacting particles (ideal gas). For instance, natural type of interaction is the hard-core repulsion of the particles that assumes particle finite self-volume. This type of interaction, as was shown in anch92 , results in the same kind (6) of modified statistics. At microscopical level, a finite self-volume arising due to composite structure of particles results in $`q`$-deformed commutation relations avancini95  and subsequently results in certain $`q`$-deformed statistics of the gas of such particles.

The two-particle distribution corresponding to the BM-type $`q`$-oscillators is

$$b_i^{}b_i^{}b_ib_i=\frac{2\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{e}^{2\beta \omega _i}2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\mathrm{e}^{\beta \omega _i}+1}.$$
(8)
From this and eq. (5), one obtains the intercept $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i\lambda _i+1=b_i^{}b_i^{}b_ib_i/(b_i^{}b_i)^2`$ of two-particle correlations (subscript omitted) as

$$\lambda =1+\frac{2\mathrm{cos}\theta (\mathrm{cosh}(\beta \omega )\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2}{(\mathrm{cosh}(\beta \omega )2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +1)(\mathrm{cosh}(\beta \omega )1)}.$$
(9)
At $`\beta \omega \mathrm{}`$ (i.e., at low temperature and fixed momenta or large momenta and fixed temperature) the asymptotics of intercept is given merely by the deformation angle $`\theta `$ (recall that $`q=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\theta )`$):

$$\lambda =\lambda ^{\mathrm{asymp}}=2\mathrm{cos}\theta 1(T0\mathrm{or}|𝐊|\mathrm{}).$$
(10)
From this and eq. (2) we have the (asymptotical) relation $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\overline{\alpha }}{2}`$. Note that, if the unique cause forcing the intercept to be lesser than one is the decays of resonances (the conventional viewpoint), all the curves would tend to the value $`\lambda =1`$ in the large $`|𝐊|`$ limit. In contrast, we predict a constant $`\lambda <1`$, as in (10).

In the case of AC-type $`q`$-oscillators, the formula $`a_i^{}a_i^{}a_ia_i=(1+q)(\mathrm{e}^{\beta \omega _i}q)^1(\mathrm{e}^{\beta \omega _i}q^2)^1`$ for two-particle distribution combined with (6) leads to

$$\lambda =1+a^{}a^{}aa/a^{}a^2=q\frac{q(1q^2)}{\mathrm{e}^{\beta \omega }q^2}.$$
(11)
In this case, for $`T0`$ or $`|𝐊|\mathrm{}`$ we have $`\lambda ^{\mathrm{asymp}}=q`$.

Below, the two versions (9) and (11) corresponding to BM- and AC-types of $`q`$-deformation are compared to the recent STAR/RHIC data. The experimental values for intercept parameter $`\lambda `$ in Figs. 1 and 2 are taken from Ref. star . The theoretical values are obtained by averaging over given rapidity y and transverse momentum $`K_t`$ intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }_jK_t^{j,\mathrm{max}}K_t^{j,\mathrm{min}}`$, $`j=1,2,3`$:

$$\lambda _j=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_y}\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }_y/2}{\overset{\mathrm{\Delta }_y/2}{}}dy\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}\underset{K_t^{j,\mathrm{min}}}{\overset{K_t^{j,\mathrm{max}}}{}}dK_t\lambda (q,m,T,y,K_t),$$
(12)
where $`m`$ is particle mass.

Expressions (11) and (9) for $`\lambda (q,m,T,y,K_t)`$ were used in (12) for obtaining theoretical points shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 respectively.

One can see from these figures that the agreement of experimentally measured values of intercept parameter $`\lambda `$ with the theoretically calculated ones is very good.

Detailed comparison with the experiment star  gives: the values $`\lambda _i`$ obtained from (13) at real $`q`$, see (12), fit better the three experimental values for the intercept of $`\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ correlations. On the other hand, the values calculated by (13) with $`q`$ a pure phase factor, see (10), agree better with the three experimental values for the intercept of $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ correlations. Possible explanation of the observed difference between experimental values of intercept for $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$-pairs and $`\pi ^+\pi ^+`$-pairs could be the influence of the Coulomb FSI of these charged pions with the positive charge of fireball protons. Since the AGI-model predicts that parameter $`\lambda `$ will asymptotically reach a constant value $`\lambda ^{\mathrm{asymp}.}<1`$, determined by $`q`$ only, at sufficiently large ($`500600`$ MeV/c) pion pair mean momentum $`|𝐊|`$, in order to check this prediction measurements at higher $`K_t`$ are necessary. Such measurements should be available in near future at RHIC.

For the prediction of intercept of kaons, we will use the values of $`q`$ which provide the best fit of experimental data for pions (see Figs. 1 and 2): $`q=0.63`$ or $`\theta =28.5^{}`$, assuming a universality of the deformation parameter for description of excited hot hadronic matter. The result of averaging in rapidity $`0.5y0.5`$, given by first integral in (12), is shown in Fig. 3 as solid curve in each of the triples of curves. The other two curves in each triple correspond to fixed value of rapidity: $`y=0`$ (dotted curve) and $`y=0.5`$ (dashed curve). Note that $`y=0`$ curve and solid curve almost coincide.

As it is clearly seen, the cases of real $`q`$ and $`q`$ a phase factor supply significantly different values for the kaon intercept $`\lambda _K`$. It is tempting to use just this feature for making preference of particular version of the deformation parameter $`q`$ \- real or pure phase. The choice is important because differing physics is behind these two versions: real $`q`$ may reflect for instance particle finite size effects anch92  or particle composite structure avancini95 , and complex valued $`q`$ may refer to deformed symmetrization properties of wave functions (like in Aharonov-Bohm effect), relevant for short-lived systems occurred in heavy-ion collisions. It is also possible that a phase-type $`q`$ encodes gavr  the effects from mixing at the composite (quark) level. Recent data from NA44 NA44 , i.e. $`\lambda =0.84\pm 0.13`$ and $`\lambda =0.61\pm 0.36`$ resp. for $`K_t0.25`$ GeV/c and $`K_t0.91`$ GeV/c do not yet help in making choice of optimal version for $`q`$.

In summary, we have presented comparison of the AGI model with experimental data on two-particle correlations at RHIC, and found remarkable agreement. We used the parameters extracted from comparison with pion’s data to predict behavior of intercept of kaon correlation functions. We stress again the crucial importance of correlation measurements at high transverse momenta in order to check the predicted asymptotical ”saturation” of intercept parameters. Measurements $`|𝐊|`$ in the range up to $`500600`$ MeV/c for pions (up to $`700800`$ MeV/c for kaons) should be possible by RHIC detectors such as STAR and PHENIX. The asymptotical behavior of intercept parameter $`\lambda `$ within the proposed model, see (10) for phase-type $`q`$, should determine the actual value of the deformation parameter $`q`$ supposed to be a universal quantity for relativistic heavy ion collisions.

D.A. acknowledges stimulating discussions with U. Heinz, valuable advices from P. Braun-Munzinger and expresses his gratitude to L. McLerran and Nuclear Theory Group (BNL) for fruitful discussions and warm hospitality. The work of A.G. was partially supported by the Award No. UP1-2115 of the U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation (CRDF).


format: text

text:
# Notes on Toric Varieties from Mori theoretic viewpoint

## 0. Introduction

The main purpose of this notes is to supplement the paper \[Re\], which treated Minimal Model Program (also called Mori’s Program) on toric varieties. We calculate lengths of negative extremal rays of toric varieties. It is an easy exercise once we understand \[Re\]. As a corollary, we obtain a strong version of Fujita’s conjecture for singular toric varieties. Related topics are \[Ft\], \[Ka\], \[L\] and \[Mu, Section 4\]. We will freely use the notation in \[Fl\], \[Re\] and work over an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of arbitrary characteristic throughout this paper.

The following is the main theorem of this paper.

###### Theorem 0.1 (Cone Theorem).

Let $`X`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional (not necessarily $``$-factorial) projective toric variety over $`k`$. We can write the cone of curves as follows:

$$NE(X)=_0[C].$$

Let $`D=_jd_jD_j`$ be a $``$-divisor, where $`D_j`$ is an irreducible torus invariant divisor and $`0d_j1`$ for every $`j`$. Assume that $`K_X+D`$ is $``$-Cartier. Then, for each extremal ray $`_0[C]`$, there exists an $`(n1)`$-dimensional cone $`\tau `$ such that $`[V(\tau )]_{>0}[C]`$ and

$$(K_X+D)V(\tau )n+1.$$

Moreover, we can choose $`\tau `$ such that $`(K_X+D)V(\tau )n`$ unless $`X^n`$ and $`_jd_j<1`$.

Section 1 deals with the proof of Theorem 0.1. We will treat an application of this theorem in Section 2. Professor Kajiwara informed me of \[Mu\] in Kinosaki after I finished the preliminary version of this paper. The following is Mustaţǎ’s formulation of Fujita’s conjecture for toric varieties. He proved it on the assumption that $`X`$ is non-singular as an application of his vanishing theorem (see \[Mu, Theorem 0.3\]). Our proof doesn’t use vanishing theorems.

###### Corollary 0.2 (Strong version of Fujita’s conjecture).

Let $`X`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional (not necessarily $``$-factorial) projective toric variety over $`k`$ and $`D=_jd_jD_j`$ be a $``$-divisor, where $`D_j`$ is an irreducible torus invariant divisor and $`0d_j1`$ for every $`j`$. Assume that $`K_X+D`$ is $``$-Cartier. Let $`L`$ be a line bundle on $`X`$.

* Suppose that $`(LC)n`$ for every torus invariant integral curve $`CX`$. Then $`K_X+D+L`$ is nef unless $`X^n`$, $`_jd_j<1`$ and $`L𝒪_^n(n)`$.
* Suppose that $`(LC)n+1`$ for every torus invariant integral curve $`CX`$. Then $`K_X+D+L`$ is ample unless $`X^n`$, $`D=0`$ and $`L𝒪_^n(n+1)`$.

Of course, we can recover \[Mu, Theorem 0.3\] easily if we assume that $`X`$ is non-singular. See also Remark 1.13.

In section 3, we collect some results obtained by Minimal Model Program on toric varieties. We need Lemma 3.5 for the proof of Theorem 0.1. We prove that every toric variety has a small projective toric $``$-factorialization. For related topics, see \[OP, Section 3\].

###### Comment.

After I circulated \[F\], I found \[L\]. In \[L\], Laterveer proved Fujita’s conjecture for $``$-Gorenstein projective toric varieties by the similar argument to mine.

###### Acknowledgements.

Some parts of this paper were obtained in 1999, when I was a Research Fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. I would like to express my gratitude to Professors Masanori Ishida, Shigefumi Mori, Tadao Oda, Takeshi Kajiwara, and Hiromichi Takagi, who gave me various advice and useful comments. I like to thank Doctor Hiroshi Sato, who gave me various advice and answered my questions. I also like to thank Doctor Takeshi Abe, who led me to this problem.

## 1. Proof of the theorem

###### 1.1.

First, let us recall weighted projective spaces. We adopt toric geometric descriptions. This helps the readers to understand Theorem 0.1. However, it is not necessary for the proof of Theorem 0.1.

###### 1.2c.f. \[Fl, p.35\].

Let $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_{n+1})`$ be a weighted projective space. To construct this as a toric variety, start with the fan whose cones generated by proper subsets of $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n+1}\}`$, where any $`n`$ of these vectors are linearly independent, and their sum is zero. The lattice $`N`$ is taken to be generated by the vectors $`e_i=(1/d_i)v_i`$ for $`1in+1`$. The resulting toric variety is in fact $`=(d_1,\mathrm{},d_{n+1})`$. We note that $`\mathrm{Pic}`$. Let $`f_i`$ be a unique primitive lattice point in the cone $`e_i`$ with $`e_i=u_if_i`$ for $`u_i_{>0}`$. We put $`d=\mathrm{gcd}(u_1d_1,\mathrm{},u_{n+1}d_{n+1})`$ and define $`c_i=(1/d)u_id_i`$ for every $`i`$. Then we obtain that $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_{n+1})(c_1,\mathrm{},c_{n+1})`$ and $`c_if_i=0`$. By changing the order, we can assume that $`c_1c_2\mathrm{}c_{n+1}`$. We note that $`K_{}=V(f_i)`$. Let $`\tau `$ be the $`(n1)`$-dimensional cone $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_{n1}`$. Then we have

$$K_{}V(\tau )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}V(f_i)V(\tau )=\frac{c}{c_nc_{n+1}}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}c_i)n+1,$$

where $`c=\mathrm{gcd}(c_n,c_{n+1})`$. We note that

$$V(f_i)V(\tau )=\frac{cc_i}{c_nc_{n+1}}.$$

For calculations of intersection numbers, we recommend the readers to see \[Fl, p.100\] and \[Re, (2.7)\]. If the equality holds in the above equation, then $`c_i=1`$ for every $`i`$. Thus, we obtain $`^n`$.

###### Remark 1.3.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{gcd}(d_1,\mathrm{},d_{n+1})=1`$. Then, $`e_i`$ is primitive in $`e_iN`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{gcd}(d_1,\mathrm{},d_{i1},d_{i+1},\mathrm{},d_{n+1})=1`$.

###### 1.4.

If $`n=2`$, then $`c=1`$ since $`f_1`$ is primitive and $`c_if_i=0`$. Therefore, we have

$$K_{}V(\tau )=\frac{1}{c_2c_3}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}c_i)\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}+12=n$$

when $`\simeq ̸^2`$. So, we have that $`K_{}V(\tau )n`$ if $`n=2`$ and $`\simeq ̸^2`$. If $`K_{}V(\tau )=2`$, then $`(1,1,2)`$.

###### 1.5c.f. Proposition 1.10 below.

When $`n3`$, the above inequality in 1.4 is not true. Assume that $`n3`$. Let $``$ be an $`n`$-dimensional weighted projective space $`(l1,l1,l,\mathrm{},l)`$, where $`l2`$. Then we obtain

$$K_{}V(\tau )=n+1\frac{2}{l}.$$

So, we have $`K_{}V(\tau )>n`$ when $`l3`$. If we make $`l`$ large, then $`K_{}V(\tau )`$ becomes close to $`n+1`$.

###### 1.6.

Let $`=(1,\mathrm{},1,l1,l)`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional weighted projective space with $`l2`$ and $`n2`$. Then we have

$$K_{}V(\tau )=\frac{n+2l2}{l(l1)}.$$

Thus, if we make $`l`$ large, then $`K_{}V(\tau )`$ becomes close to zero.

###### 1.7.

Next, we treat $``$-factorial toric Fano varieties with Picard number one. This type of varieties plays an important role for the analysis of extremal contractions. Here, we adopt the following description 1.9 for the definition of $``$-factorial toric Fano varieties with Picard number one. By this, it is easy to see that every extremal contraction contains them in the fibers (see Proof of the theorem below). Of course, weighted projective spaces are in this class.

###### Remark 1.8.

In \[Re, (0.1)\], it is stated that any fiber of an extremal contraction is a weighted projective space. However, it is not true since there exists a $``$-factorial toric Fano variety with Picard number one that is not a weighted projective space.

###### 1.9$``$-factorial toric Fano varieties with Picard number one.

Now we fix $`N^n`$. Let $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n+1}\}`$ be a set of primitive vectors such that $`N_{}=_i_0v_i`$. We define $`n`$-dimensional cones

$$\sigma _i:=e_1,\mathrm{},e_{i1},e_{i+1},\mathrm{},e_{n+1}$$

for $`1in+1`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the complete fan generated by $`n`$-dimensional cones $`\sigma _i`$ for every $`i`$. Then we obtain a complete toric variety $`X=X(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ with Picard number $`\rho (X)=1`$. We call it a $``$-factorial toric Fano variety with Picard number one. We define $`(n1)`$-dimensional cones $`\mu _{i,j}=\sigma _i\sigma _j`$ for $`ij`$. We can write $`_ia_iv_i=0`$, where $`a_i_{>0}`$, $`\mathrm{gcd}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n+1})=1`$, and $`a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{n+1}`$ by changing the order. Then we obtain

$$0<V(v_{n+1})V(\mu _{n,n+1})=\frac{\mathrm{mult}(\mu _{n,n+1})}{\mathrm{mult}(\sigma _n)}1,$$

$$V(v_i)V(\mu _{n,n+1})=\frac{a_i}{a_{n+1}}\frac{\mathrm{mult}(\mu _{n,n+1})}{\mathrm{mult}(\sigma _n)},$$

and

$`K_XV(\mu _{n,n+1})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}V(v_i)V(\mu _{n,n+1})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{n+1}}}({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}a_i){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{mult}(\mu _{n,n+1})}{\mathrm{mult}(\sigma _n)}}n+1.`$
For “$`\mathrm{mult}`$” in the above equations, see \[Fl, p.48 and p.100\]. If $`K_XV(\mu _{n,n+1})=n+1`$, then $`a_i=1`$ for every $`i`$ and $`\mathrm{mult}(\mu _{n,n+1})=\mathrm{mult}(\sigma _n)`$.

###### Proposition 1.10.

If $`X\simeq ̸^n`$, then there exists some pair $`(l,m)`$ such that $`K_XV(\mu _{l,m})n`$.

###### Proof.

Assume the contrary. Then we obtain

$$K_XV(\mu _{k,n+1})=\frac{1}{a_{n+1}}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}a_i)\frac{\mathrm{mult}(\mu _{k,n+1})}{\mathrm{mult}(\sigma _k)}>n$$

for $`1kn`$. Thus

$$(n+1)a_{n+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}a_i>\frac{\mathrm{mult}(\sigma _k)}{\mathrm{mult}(\mu _{k,n+1})}na_{n+1}$$

for every $`k`$. Since

$$\frac{\mathrm{mult}(\sigma _k)}{\mathrm{mult}(\mu _{k,n+1})}_{>0},$$

we have that $`\mathrm{mult}(\sigma _k)=\mathrm{mult}(\mu _{k,n+1})`$ for every $`k`$. This implies that $`a_k`$ divides $`a_{n+1}`$ for all $`k`$.

###### Claim.

$`a_1=\mathrm{}=a_{n+1}=1`$.

###### Proof of Claim.

If $`a_1=a_{n+1}`$, then we obtain the required results. So, we assume that $`a_1a_{n+1}`$. On this assumption, we have that $`a_2a_{n+1}`$ since $`v_1`$ is primitive and $`_ia_iv_i=0`$. In this case, we have

$$K_XV(\mu _{k,n+1})=\frac{1}{a_{n+1}}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}a_i)n.$$

We note that

$$\frac{a_i}{a_{n+1}}\frac{1}{2}$$

for $`i=1,2`$. This is a contradiction. So we obtain that $`a_1=\mathrm{}=a_{n+1}=1`$. ∎

In this case, $`K_XV(\mu _{i,j})>n`$ implies $`K_XV(\mu _{i,j})=n+1`$ for every pair $`(i,j)`$. Then $`\mathrm{mult}(\mu _{i,j})=\mathrm{mult}(\sigma _i)`$ for $`ij`$. So, we have that $`\mathrm{mult}(\sigma _i)=1`$ for every $`i`$. Therefore, we obtain $`X^n`$. This is a contradiction. ∎

###### Remark 1.11.

The usual definition of Fano varieties is the following: $`X`$ is Fano if $`K_X`$ is an ample $``$-Cartier divisor. It is easy to check that the notion of $``$-factorial toric Fano varieties with Picard number one by the usual definition coincides with ours.

###### 1.12.

From now on, we freely use the notation in \[Re\], especially, \[Re, (2.2)\] (see also \[Re, (1.10)\]).

###### Proof of the theorem.

###### Step 1.

We assume that $`X`$ is $``$-factorial. Let $`R=_0[C]`$ be an extremal ray. There exists an elementary contraction $`\phi _R:XY`$, which is corresponding to the extremal ray $`R`$. The $``$-factorial toric Fano variety $`PX`$ with Picard number $`\rho (P)=1`$, which is corresponding to the cone $`\sigma =e_1,\mathrm{},e_\beta `$, that is, $`P=V(\sigma )X`$, is a fiber of $`\phi _R|_A:AB`$ (c.f. \[Re, (2.5)\]). We note that

$$K_P=\underset{i=\beta +1}{\overset{n+1}{}}V(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_i),$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_i=e_1,\mathrm{},e_\beta ,e_i`$ for $`\beta +1in+1`$. On the other hand, $`V(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_i)=b_iV(e_i)V(\sigma )`$ for some $`b_i_{>0}`$ since the cones are simplicial (see \[Fl, p.100\]). Let $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ be an $`(n1)`$-dimensional cone containing $`\sigma `$. We have that

$`K_PV(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=\beta +1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}V(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_i)V(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$
$`=`$ $`V(\stackrel{~}{\tau })({\displaystyle \underset{i=\beta +1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}b_iV(e_i)V(\sigma ))`$
$`=`$ $`V(\stackrel{~}{\tau })(K_X+{\displaystyle \underset{\text{every ray}}{}}V(e_i){\displaystyle \underset{i=\beta +1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}b_iV(e_i))`$
$`=`$ $`V(\stackrel{~}{\tau })(K_X+{\displaystyle \underset{i=\beta +1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}(1b_i)V(e_i)+{\displaystyle \underset{\text{others}}{}}V(e_i))`$
$``$ $`(K_X+D)V(\stackrel{~}{\tau }).`$
We note that

$$K_X+\underset{\text{every ray}}{}V(e_i)0$$

and $`D`$ can be written as $`_jd_jV(e_j)`$ with $`0d_j1`$ by the assumption, and that $`V(\stackrel{~}{\tau })V(e_i)>0`$ if and only if $`\beta +1in+1`$ by \[Re, (2.2)\] (see also \[Re, (2.4), (2.7), (2.10)\]). We choose $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ as in the above argument 1.9, that is, $`K_PV(\stackrel{~}{\tau })n\beta +1`$, where $`dimP=n\beta `$. Then, by the above argument and the choice of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$,

$$(K_X+D)V(\stackrel{~}{\tau })K_PV(\stackrel{~}{\tau })n\beta +1.$$

Therefore, if the minimal length of a $`(K_X+D)`$-negative extremal ray is greater than $`n`$, then $`\beta =\alpha =0`$. Thus we have $`X^n`$ and $`_jd_j<1`$ by Proposition 1.10. Therefore, we obtain the required result when $`X`$ is $``$-factorial.

###### Step 2 (c.f. \[L, (2.4) Lemma\]).

We assume that $`X`$ is not $``$-factorial. Let $`f:(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{D})(X,D)`$ be a projective modification constructed in Lemma 3.5 below. We note that $`X\simeq ̸^n`$. Let $`R=_0[C]`$ be a $`(K_X+D)`$-negative extremal ray. We take $`V(\tau )_{>0}[C]`$ such that $`(K_X+D)V(\tau )`$ is minimal. We take $`V(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ such that $`f_{}V(\stackrel{~}{\tau })=V(\tau )`$. We can write $`V(\stackrel{~}{\tau })=a_iV(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i)`$ in $`NE(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ for $`a_i_{>0}`$ such that $`V(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i)`$ is extremal and $`(K_{\stackrel{~}{X}}+\stackrel{~}{D})V(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i)n`$ for every $`i`$ by Theorem 0.1 since $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is not a projective space. Since $`_ia_if_{}V(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i)=V(\tau )R`$, we have that $`f_{}V(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i)R`$ for every $`i`$. So, there exists some $`i`$ such that $`0f_{}V(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i)=bV(\tau )`$ in $`R`$ for $`b1`$ since $`(K_X+D)V(\tau )`$ is minimal. Therefore,

$$(K_X+D)V(\tau )=\frac{1}{b}(K_{\stackrel{~}{X}}+\stackrel{~}{D})V(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i)n.$$

Thus we finished the proof. ∎

###### Remark 1.13.

In Step 1 in the proof of the theorem, we assume that $`X`$ is non-singular. Then we obtain that $`b_i=1`$ and $`V(\stackrel{~}{\tau })V(e_i)`$. We note that $`V(\stackrel{~}{\tau })V(e_i)>0`$ if and only if $`\beta +1in+1`$. It can be checked easily that $`P`$ is an $`(n\beta )`$-dimensional projective space $`^{n\beta }`$ and $`K_PV(\stackrel{~}{\tau })=(n\beta +1)`$. Thus, Proposition 4.3, Lemma 4.4, and Propositions 4.5, 4.6 in \[Mu\] can be checked easily by the above computation (see also \[Re, (2.10)(i)\]). Therefore, we can recover \[Mu, Section 4\] without using vanishing theorems.

## 2. Applications to Fujita’s conjecture on toric varieties

In this section, we treat some applications of Theorem 0.1. Corollary 0.2 follows from Theorem 0.1 directly.

###### Proof of Corollary 0.2.

It is obvious by Theorem 0.1, \[Od, §2.3 Theorem 2.18\] and \[Mu, Theorem 3.2\]. ∎

###### Corollary 2.1.

In Corollary 0.2 (1), we further assume that $`K_X+D`$ is Cartier. Then $`K_X+D+L`$ is generated by global sections unless $`X^n`$, $`D=0`$, and $`L𝒪_^n(n)`$.

###### Proof.

It is obvious by Corollay 0.2 (1). We note that every nef line bundle is generated by its global sections on a complete toric variety. It is well-known (see, for example, \[Mu, Theorem 3.1\]). ∎

By combining Corollary 0.2 with Demazur’s theorem (\[Od, §2.3 Corollary 2.15\]), we obtain the following result. This is the original version of Fujita’s conjecture on toric varieties.

###### Corollary 2.2 (Fujita’s conjecture for toric varieties).

Let $`X`$ be a non-singular projective toric variety over $`k`$ and $`L`$ an ample line bundle on $`X`$. Then $`K_X+(n+1)L`$ is generated by global sections and $`K_X+(n+2)L`$ is very ample, where $`n=dimX`$. Moreover, if $`(X,L)\simeq ̸(^n,𝒪_^n(1))`$, then $`K_X+nL`$ is generated by global sections and $`K_X+(n+1)L`$ is very ample.

###### Remark 2.3.

For very ampleness on singular toric varieties, see \[L, 3. Very ampleness\].

## 3. Remarks on Minimal Model Program for toric varieties

In this section, we use the notation in \[KM\] and \[Ut\]. The following lemma is well-known to specialists. It may help the readers to understand this section.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`X`$ be a complete toric variety over $`k`$ and $`D`$ the complement of the big torus in $`X`$ as a reduced divisor. Then the pair $`(X,D)`$ is log-canonical. Furthermore, if $`K_X`$ is $``$-Cartier, then the pair $`(X,0)`$ is log-terminal.

###### Proof.

Let $`g:YX`$ be a toric resolution of singularities. Then we have

$$K_Y+E=g^{}(K_X+D),$$

where $`E`$ is the complement of the big torus in $`Y`$ as a reduced divisor. Thus, the pair $`(X,D)`$ is log-canonical by the definition (see \[KM, Definition 2.34\]). If $`K_X`$ is $``$-Cartier, then $`D`$ is $``$-Cartier since $`K_X+D0`$. Note that $`\mathrm{Supp}g^{}D=\mathrm{Supp}E`$ and $`g^{}D`$ is an effective $``$-divisor. Therefore, the pair $`(X,0)`$ is log-terminal (see \[KM, Definition 2.34\]). ∎

The following is a variant of \[Ut, 17.10 Theorem\] for toric varieties. We recommend the readers who are not familiar with Minimal Model Program to see \[KM, §3.7\].

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`X`$ be a complete toric variety over $`k`$ and $`g:YX`$ a projective birational toric morphism from a $``$-factorial toric variety $`Y`$. Let $``$ be a subset of the exceptional divisors. Then there is a factorization

$$g:Y\stackrel{~}{X}X$$

with the following properties:

* $`h:Y\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is a local isomorphism at every generic point of the divisor that is not in $``$;
* $`h`$ contracts every exceptional divisor in $``$;
* $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is projective over $`X`$ and $``$-factorial. Of course, the pair $`(\stackrel{~}{X},0)`$ is log-terminal by Lemma 3.1.

In particular, if $``$ is the set of all the $`g`$-exceptional divisors, then $`f:\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ is small, that is, an isomorphism in codimension one. We call this a small projective toric $``$-factorialization.

###### Proof.

Let $`g:YX`$ be as above and $`E=E_i`$ the complement of the big torus in $`Y`$. We note that

$$K_Y+E=g^{}(K_X+D)0.$$

Apply $`(K_Y+_{E_i}E_i+_{E_j}2E_j)`$-log minimal model program over $`X`$. We note that divisorial contractions and log-flips always exist by \[Re, (0.1)\] (see also \[KMM, §5-2\]). Here, a log-flip means an elementary transformation with respect to a $`(K_Y+_{E_i}E_i+_{E_j}2E_j)`$-negative extremal ray in the terminology of \[Re\]. Since the relative Picard number $`\rho (Y/X)`$ is finite, divisorial contractions can occur finite times. So it is enough to check the termination of log-flips. Assume that there exists an infinite sequence of log-flips:

$$Y_0Y_1\mathrm{}Y_m\mathrm{}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the fan corresponding to $`Y_0`$. Since the log-flips don’t change one-dimensional cones of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, there are numbers $`k<l`$ such that $`Y_kY_l`$ over $`X`$. This is a contradiction because there is a valuation $`v`$ such that the discrepancies satisfy

$$a(v,Y_k,\underset{E_i}{}E_i+\underset{E_j}{}2E_j)<a(v,Y_l,\underset{E_i}{}E_i+\underset{E_j}{}2E_j)$$

(see \[KM, Lemma 3.38\]), where $`_{E_i}E_i+_{E_j}2E_j`$ means the proper transform of it on $`Y_k`$ or $`Y_l`$. Therefore, we obtain $`f:\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ with the above mentioned properties by \[KM, Lemma 3.39\]. ∎

###### Remark 3.3.

Since we can take a projective toric desingularization as $`g:YX`$ in Theorem 3.2, there exists at least one small projective toric $``$-factorialization for $`X`$.

###### Remark 3.4 (c.f. \[KM, Theorem 6.38\]).

Let $`X`$ be a complete toric variety and $`f_i:X_iX`$ be small projective toric $``$-factorializations for $`i=1,2`$. Then $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ can be obtained from each other by a finite succession of elementary transformations111This elementary transformation was called flop in \[OP\] (see \[OP, p.397 Remark\]). However, it might be better to call it log-canonical flop from the log Minimal Model Theoretic viewpoint (c.f. Lemma 3.1). See also \[Ut, 6.8 Definition\].. It can be checked by the log Minimal Model Program over $`X`$ as in the proof of Theorem 3.2 and \[KM, Lemma 6.39\]. Details are left to the readers.

By Theorem 3.2, we obtain the next lemma, which was already used in the proof of Corollary 0.2.

###### Lemma 3.5.

Let $`X`$ be a projective toric variety over $`k`$ and $`D=_jd_jD_j`$ be a $``$-divisor, where $`D_j`$ is an irreducible torus invariant divisor and $`0d_j1`$ for every $`j`$. Assume that $`K_X+D`$ is $``$-Cartier. Then there exists a projective birational toric morphism $`f:\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ has only $``$-factorial singularities and $`K_{\stackrel{~}{X}}+\stackrel{~}{D}=f^{}(K_X+D)`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{D}=_i\stackrel{~}{d}_i\stackrel{~}{D}_i`$ is a $``$-divisor such that $`\stackrel{~}{D}_i`$ is an irreducible torus invariant divisor and $`0\stackrel{~}{d}_i1`$ for every $`i`$.

By Sumihiro’s equivariant embedding theorem, we can remove the assumption that $`X`$ is complete.

###### Corollary 3.6 (Small projective toric $``$-factorialization).

Let $`X`$ be a toric variety over $`k`$. Then there exists a small projective toric morphism $`f:\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is $``$-factorial.

###### Proof.

We can compactify $`X`$ by Sumihiro’s theorem \[Od, §1.4\]. So, this corollary follows from Theorem 3.2 and Remark 3.3 easily. ∎

The existence of a small projective toric $``$-factorialization means the following corollary.

###### Corollary 3.7.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a fan. Then there exists a projective simplicial subdivision $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, that is, the morphism $`X(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }})X(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is projective and $`X(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ is $``$-factorial, such that the set of one-dimensional cones of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ coincides with that of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

###### Remark 3.8.

The above corollary seems to follow from the theory of Gelfand-Kapranov-Zelevinskij decompositions. For details about GKZ-decompositions, see \[OP, Section 3\], especially, \[OP, Corollary 3.8\]. We note that \[OP\] generalized and reformulated results on \[Re\].