format: text

text:
# Tsuji’s Numerical Trivial Fibrations

## 1. Introduction

In \[Tsu00\], H. Tsuji stated several very interesting assertions on the structure of pseudo-effective line bundles $`L`$ on a projective manifold $`X`$. In particular he postulated the existence of a meromorphic “reduction map”, which essentially says that through the general point of $`X`$ there is a maximal irreducible $`L`$ flat subvariety. Moreover the reduction map should be almost holomorphic, i.e. has compact fibres which do not meet the indeterminacy locus of the reduction map. The proofs of \[Tsu00\] use deep analytic methods and are extremely difficult to follow. In \[BCE+00\], the existence of a similar reduction map for nef line bundles and that it is almost holomorphic is proven by purely algebraic methods. This was also stated explicitly in \[Tsu00\], but it is not clear how the two reduction maps are connected.

The purpose of this note is first to clarify the exact meaning of the intersection numbers to which the term “numerical trivial” refers. Three definitions may be found useful in Tsuji’s arguments, and it is a very subtle question when they are equivalent:

###### Definition 1.1.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective complex manifold, let $`L`$ be a holomorphic line bundle on $`X`$ with positive singular hermitian metric $`h`$. If $`CX`$ is an irreducible curve with normalization $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{C}C`$ such that $`h`$ is well defined on $`C`$, i.e. $`h_{|C}+\mathrm{}`$, then define the intersection number

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

Here, $`((\pi ^{}h)^m))`$ denotes the multiplier ideal sheaf of the pulled back metric $`(\pi ^{}h)^m`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$.

This definition leads directly to the birational invariance of the intersection numbers, i.e.for a birational morphism $`f:\stackrel{~}{X}X`$

$$(f^{}L,h^{}).\overline{C}=(L,h).C$$

where $`\overline{C}`$ is the strict transform (s. subsection 2.6).

Next, one has

###### Proposition 1.2.

If $`C`$ is smooth,

$$(L,h).C=L.C\underset{xC}{}\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_{h|C},x),$$

where $`\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_{h|C},x)`$ is the Lelong number of the positive current $`\mathrm{\Theta }_h`$ restricted to $`C`$ in $`xC`$.

This equality gives a more geometric interpretation of the intersection numbers (especially in the case of analytic singularities, s. Proposition 2.13) and is an important step towards a last equality. This is the most subtle one, and to formulate it properly, one has to remember that plurisubharmonic functions are equal to $`\mathrm{}`$ on pluripolar sets, and that for a positive current $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the level sets of the Lelong numbers $`E_c(\mathrm{\Theta })=\left\{xX\right|\nu (\mathrm{\Theta },x)c\}`$ are analytic subsets of $`X`$ (\[Siu74\],\[Dem00, (2.10)\]):

###### Definition 1.3.

Let $`X,L,h`$ be as in the previous definition. A smooth curve $`CX`$ will be called $`(L,h)`$ general iff $`h_{|C}`$ is a well defined singular metric on $`C`$ and

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

$$\nu (h_{|C},x)=\nu (h,x).$$

Using methods of \[ME00\] it is possible to show that in families of curves covering $`X`$ (e.g. the Chow variety) every curve outside a pluripolar set is $`(L,h)`$ general, s. Theorem 2.1. One can even proof the stability of this notion under certain blow ups, s. Lemma 2.8. The main reason for introducing this notion lies in the equality

$$(h^m)𝒪_C=(h^m)_{|C}=(h_{|C}^m),$$

which is true for $`(L,h)`$ general curves. From this one easily gets the announced last equality

###### Theorem 1.4.

For $`(L,h)`$ general smooth curves $`CX`$,

$$(L,h).C=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{m}h^0(C,𝒪_C(mL)(h^m)𝒪_C),$$

where $`(h^m)𝒪_C`$ is the image of $`(h^m)𝒪_C`$ in $`𝒪_C`$.

This equality is needed in order to be able to interchange restriction (to curves $`C`$) with taking global sections (of the sheaf $`𝒪_X(mL)(h^m)`$) as in the proof of the Key Lemma in subsection 3.2. There are explicit counterexamples for arbitrary curves, s. subsection 2.5. On the other hand the equality is true in general in case of analytic singularities, s. Proposition 2.11.

Furthermore this equality motivates the introduction of intersection numbers as defined above, because it associates these numbers with the sheaf $`𝒪_X(mL)(h^m)`$ which is useful and interesting in several ways: For certain L’s and h’s it occurs in Nadel’s Vanishing Theorem. Next, an appropriately chosen metric $`h`$ should encode the “negative part” of $`L`$ in the multiplier ideal sheaves $`(h^m)`$. And for an analytic Zariski decomposition $`h`$ the global sections of $`𝒪_X(mL)(h^m)`$ are the same as those of $`𝒪_X(mL)`$.

Second, this note proves the existence of the reduction map with respect to the pair $`(L,h)`$. The aim is to get a reduction map with numerically trivial fibers:

###### Definition 1.5.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective complex manifold, let $`L`$ be a pseudoeffective holomorphic line bundle on $`X`$ with positive singular hermitian metric $`h`$. Then a subvariety $`YX`$ is called numerically trivial (with respect to $`(L,h)`$) if each curve $`CY`$ such that $`h_{|C}\mathrm{}`$ has intersection number $`(L,h).C=0`$.

If $`X`$ itself is numerically trivial one can prove the following consequence for the curvature current:

###### Theorem 1.6.

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

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

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

One has to adjust Tsuji’s statement of the Reduction Map Theorem:

###### Theorem 1.7.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective complex manifold, let $`L`$ be a pseudoeffective holomorphic line bundle on $`X`$ with positive singular hermitian metric $`h`$. Then there exists a dominant rational map $`f:XY`$ with connected fibres such that

* $`(L,h)`$ is numerically trivial on fibres over points of $`Y`$ outside a pluripolar set.
* for all $`xX`$ outside a pluripolar set, every curve $`C`$ through $`x`$ with $`dimf(C)>0`$ has intersection number $`(L,h).C>0`$

Here, fibres of $`f`$ are fibres of the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_fX\times YY`$ seen as subschemes of $`X`$.

Finally, $`f`$ is uniquely determined up to birational equivalence of $`Y`$.

There are two main differences to \[Tsu00\]. First, the reduction map need not be almost holomorphic. A counter example was already given in \[BCE+00\]. Second, Tsuji ignores the fact that the singularities of arbitrary positive singular hermitian metrics are even more complicated than very general algebraic sets: they lie on pluripolar sets. This means for example, that the restriction of the singular metric may be well defined only on fibres over points outside a pluripolar set. But this is not so bad: for example, the Zariski closure of the union of these fibres is always the whole variety.

After these adjustments it is possible to apply Tsuji’s ideas in proving the Reduction Map Theorem:

* For each ample divisor $`H`$ and each pair $`(L,h)`$ of a line bundle with a positive singular hermitian metric one can define a volume

$$\mu _h(X,H+mL):=(dimX)!\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}l^{dimX}h^0(X,𝒪_X(l(H+mL))(h^{ml}))$$

and we have the following

###### Lemma 1.8.

$$(L,h)\mathrm{numerically}\mathrm{not}\mathrm{trivial}\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\mu _h(X,H+mL)=\mathrm{}.$$
* The lemma implies that for all $`N`$ there exists an $`m_0`$ such that for arbitrarily large $`l0`$ there exist sections

$$0\sigma _lH^0(X,𝒪_X(l(H+m_0L))(h^{m_0l})\text{m}_x^{Nl})$$

for a sufficiently general point $`xX`$.
* This is used for

###### Key Lemma 1.9.

Let $`f:MB`$ be a projective surjective morphism from a smooth variety $`M`$ to a smooth curve $`B`$. Let $`(L,h)`$ be a pseudo-effective line bundle $`L`$ with positive singular hermitian metric $`h`$. Suppose that $`(L,h)`$ is numerically trivial on all fibres $`F`$ of $`f`$ over a set $`B^{}B`$ not of Lebesgue measure $`0`$. If furthermore there is an $`(L,h)`$ general curve $`W`$ with $`f(W)=B`$, $`(L,h)`$ is numerically trivial on $`W`$, then $`(L,h)`$ will be numerically trivial on $`M`$.

The proof is done by contradiction: Any $`\sigma _l`$ as above must be $`0`$.
* Finally the theorem is derived from the Key Lemma with methods similar to those in \[BCE+00\].

The intersection number equality in Theorem 1.4 is needed essentially in proving the Key Lemma 1.9, while the definition of the intersection number is used several times for switching to birationally equivalent varieties.

#### Acknowledgement

This note owes its subject and many ideas to the preprint \[Tsu00\] of H. Tsuji. He also kindly answered some questions of the author during the conference of the DFG Research center “Global Methods in Complex Geometry” in Marburg, June 2001. This DFG research center also supported a small workshop in January 2001, where the author had its first contact with \[Tsu00\]. Finally, he would like to thank Jean-Pierre Demailly who taught him everything about the analytic side of multiplier ideal sheaves during the ICTP summer school “Vanishing theorems and effective results in algebraic geometry” in April 2000 and whose wonderful lecture notes really served, as intended, as an “analytic tool box”. Furthermore, he pointed out to the author a serious mistake in a previous version of this paper and showed him the paper \[ME00\]. Similarly, Robert Lazarsfeld on the same summer school introduced the author to algebraic multiplier ideals.

#### Notation

If not otherwise stated, in the following $`X`$ is a smooth projective complex manifold, $`L`$ a holomorphic line bundle on $`X`$ with positive singular hermitian metric $`h`$. On any trivialization $`\theta :L_{|\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Omega }\times `$, this metric is given by

$$\xi =|\theta (\xi )|e^{\varphi (x)},x\mathrm{\Omega },\xi L_x.$$

The function $`\varphi L_{\mathrm{loc}}^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is called the weight of the metric with respect to the trivialization $`\theta `$, and $`h`$ is positive iff $`\varphi `$ is plurisubharmonic. In that case, the Lelong number of $`h`$ (or $`\varphi `$) in $`z_0X`$ is defined as

$$\nu (h,z_0)=\nu (\varphi ,z_0)=\underset{zz_0}{lim\; inf}\frac{\varphi (z)}{\mathrm{log}|zz_0|}.$$

If $`CX`$ is a smooth curve and $`h_{|C}\mathrm{}`$, the metric $`h_{|C}`$ will be a positive singular hermitian metric on $`C`$, and there are Lelong numbers $`\nu (h_{|C},x)`$ for points $`xC`$.

## 2. Intersection numbers

The aim of this section is to prove Proposition 1.2, Theorem 1.6 and Theorem 1.4. To this purpose one has to study the behavior of slices of positive currents, especially what happens to their Lelong numbers.

Furthermore, the birational invariance of intersection numbers is shown, and intersection numbers are computed on log resolutions in case of analytic singularities.

### 2.1. Slices of positive currents

The aim is to prove the following

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`\pi :XB`$ be a smooth family $`X`$ of smooth projective curves over a smooth quasiprojective base $`B`$. Let $`L`$ be a pseudo-effective line bundle on $`X`$ and $`h`$ a positive singular hermitian metric on $`L`$. Then there is a pluripolar set $`N_BB`$ such that for $`aBN_B`$, every fibre $`\pi ^1(a)`$, is an $`(L,h)`$ general curve.

This Theorem is essentially a consequence of Ben Messaoud’s

###### Theorem 2.2.

Let $`M`$, $`G`$ be two complex varieties of dimension $`n`$ and $`k`$, let $`\varphi `$ be a plurisubharmonic function on $`M`$ and let $`f:MG`$ be a submersion admitting a holomorphic section $`s`$. Then there exists a pluripolar set $`EG`$ such that for all $`aGE`$, the restricted pluripolar function $`\varphi _{|f^1(a)}\mathrm{}`$ and

$$\nu (\varphi ,s(a))=\nu (\varphi _{|f^1(a)},s(a)).$$

###### Proof.

S. \[ME00, Cor. 5.4\]. ∎

Now take an open subset $`UX`$ such that $`\pi :U\mathrm{\Delta }^k\times \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the unit disk. Apply Theorem 2.2 to the family $`U\times \mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{\pi \times \mathrm{id}_\mathrm{\Delta }}{}\mathrm{\Delta }^k\times \mathrm{\Delta }`$, the pulled back plurisubharmonic function and the section

$$s:\mathrm{\Delta }^k\times \mathrm{\Delta }U\times \mathrm{\Delta },(b,t)(b,t,t).$$

Since the projection of $`s(\mathrm{\Delta }^k\times \mathrm{\Delta })`$ on $`U`$ is an isomorphism there is pluripolar set $`E_UU`$ such that for all $`xUE_U`$

$$\nu (\varphi ,x)=\nu (\varphi _{|\pi ^1(\pi (x))},x).$$

Since the countable union of pluripolar sets is again pluripolar the same is true for a pluripolar set $`EX`$. The other two requirements of Definition 1.3 for an $`(L,h)`$ general curve also show that these curves must be fibres outside the countable union of analytic subsets, which is a pluripolar set. This shows the Theorem.

### 2.2. Proof of Proposition 1.2

The first step is to compare the sum of the restricted Lelong numbers on arbitray curves $`CX`$ with $`h_{|C}\mathrm{}`$ to the ordinary intersection number of $`C`$ with $`L`$:

###### Lemma 2.3.

$$\underset{xC}{}\nu (h_{|C},x)L.C.$$

###### Proof.

Since $`h_{|C}`$ is positive, the curvature current $`i\mathrm{\Theta }_{h_{|C}}0`$, too. By a theorem of Siu, the Lelong level sets $`E_c(\varphi )=\{xX:\nu (\varphi ,x)c\}`$ are analytic \[Dem00, (2.10)\]. But then there are only countably many points $`(x_i)_i`$ on $`C`$ with $`\nu (h_{|C},x_i)0`$. By Siu’s decomposition formula \[Dem00, (2.18)\] the current $`i\mathrm{\Theta }_{h_{|C}}_{i=1}^N\nu (h_{|C},x_i)[x_i]`$ is still positive for arbitrary $`N`$ (where $`[x_i]`$ is the integration current of the divisor $`x_i`$). Consequently the first Chern class of the ($``$) divisor $`L_{|C}_{i=1}^N\nu (h_{|C},x_i)x_i`$ is $`0`$, hence $`L.C_{i=1}^N\nu (h_{|C},x_i)0`$, and the claim follows. ∎

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`C`$ be a smooth curve and $`h`$ a positive singular hermitian metric on $`C`$. Then:

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{m}\mathrm{deg}_C(h^m)=\underset{xC}{}\nu (h,x).$$

###### Proof.

$`(h^m)`$ is a torsion free subsheaf of $`𝒪_C`$, hence it corresponds to a divisor on $`C`$, say $`(h^m)=𝒪(D_m)`$, where $`D_m`$ is an effective divisor on $`C`$. We show that

(2.2.1) $`\mathrm{mult}_xD_m\nu (h^m,x)<\mathrm{mult}_xD_m+1`$ .
This is true for arbitrary positive metrics $`h`$: Choose a sufficiently small neighborhood $`U`$ of $`x`$ such that $`\nu (h,y)<1`$ for all $`yU\{x\}`$. Let $`\varphi _h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_h`$ be the plurisubharmonic function and $`(1,1)`$ current corresponding to $`h`$ in $`U`$. As explained in the proof of the previous lemma the current $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta }_h\nu (h,x)[x]`$ is still positive, with $`\nu (\mathrm{\Theta },x)=0`$, $`\nu (\mathrm{\Theta },y)<1`$ for all $`yU\{x\}`$. Let $`\psi `$ be a plurisubharmonic function with $`dd^c\psi =\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Then $`\varphi _h=\psi +\nu (h,x)\mathrm{log}|zx|`$, hence $`\mathrm{mult}_x(h)\nu (h,x)`$.

On the other hand $`e^{2(\psi +(\nu (h,x)\nu (h,x))\mathrm{log}|zx|)}`$ is locally integrable around $`x`$ since the Lelong number in $`x`$ is $`<1`$, by Skoda’s lemma \[Dem00, (5.6)\]. This proves $`(h)_x=((zx)^{\nu (h,x)})`$, hence (2.2.1).

Now one concludes:

$`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\mathrm{deg}_CD_m\stackrel{(\text{2.2.1})}{=}\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{xC}{}}\nu (h^m,x)`$ $``$ $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{xC}{}}\nu (h^m,x)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{xC}{}}\nu (h,x)<\mathrm{}.`$
The inequality $`a\frac{1}{m}ma<\frac{1}{m}`$ for arbitrary $`a,m`$ shows the lemma. ∎

Proposition 1.2 follows from

(2.2.2) $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}h^0(C,𝒪_C(mL)𝒪_C(D_m))`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\mathrm{deg}_C(mLD_m)`$
###### Proof.

By Lemma 2.3, $`\mathrm{deg}_CD_m_{xC}\nu (h_{|C}^m,x)mL.C`$. Consequently,

$$\mathrm{deg}_C(mLD_m)0.$$

Let $`g(C)`$ be the genus of the curve $`C`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}_C(mLD_m)2g(C)2`$ and $`mLD_m`$ is not effective, $`H^0(C,𝒪(mLD_m))=0`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}_C(mLD_m)2g(C)2`$ and $`mLD_m`$ is effective,

$$H^0(C,𝒪(mLD_m))\mathrm{deg}_C(mLD_m)+12g(C)1.$$

If $`\mathrm{deg}_C(mLD_m)>2g(C)2`$, then $`H^1(C,𝒪(mLD_m))=0`$, and (2.2.2) will follow by Riemann-Roch. ∎

### 2.3. Proof of Theorem 1.4

One main ingredient of the proof, which is useful in many circumstances, is

###### Extension Theorem 2.5 (Ohsawa-Takegoshi).

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ be a bounded open pseudoconvex set, $`L=\{z_i=\mathrm{}z_n=0\}`$, $`1in`$, a linear subspace, and $`\psi \mathrm{Psh}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ with $`\psi _{|L}\mathrm{}`$.

Then there is a constant $`C>0`$, only depending on $`n`$, such that for all holomorphic functions $`f`$ on $`L`$ with $`_{L\mathrm{\Omega }}|f|^2e^{2\psi }𝑑\lambda _L<\mathrm{}`$, there is an $`F𝒪(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ such that $`F_{|L}=f`$ and

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }|F|^2e^{2\psi }𝑑\lambda _\mathrm{\Omega }C_{L\mathrm{\Omega }}|f|^2e^{2\psi }𝑑\lambda _L$$

###### Proof.

S. \[Dem00, (12.9)\]. ∎

Now let $`C`$ be a smooth $`(L,h)`$ general fibre curve of the family $`X`$. Let $`D_m,D_m^{}`$ be the effective divisors corresponding to the ideal sheaves $`(h_{|C}^m)`$ and $`(h^m)_{|C}`$, as explained in subsection 2.2. The Extension Theorem implies a natural inclusion

$$(h_{|C}^m)(h^m)_{|C},$$

hence $`\mathrm{deg}_CD_m^{}\mathrm{deg}_CD_m`$, and one can prove

(2.3.1) $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}h^0(C,𝒪_C(mL)𝒪_C(D_m^{}))`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\mathrm{deg}_C(mLD_m^{})`$
similarly as (2.2.2).

The $`(L,h)`$ generality implies

$$(h_{|C}^m)=(h^m)_{|C}.$$

###### Proof.

By Skoda’s Lemma \[Dem00, (5.6)\], $`(h_{|C}^m)_x=(h^m)_{|C,x}=𝒪_{C,x}`$ for all points $`xC`$ with $`\nu (h,x)=\nu (h_{|C},x)=0`$.

Let $`xC`$ be a point with $`\nu =\nu (h,x)=\nu (h_{|C},x)>0`$. Then there is a divisor $`D`$ through $`x`$ locally defined by $`g𝒪_{X,x}`$, $`xD_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ and $`\nu =\nu _{h,x}=\nu (h,D)`$. As in subsection 2.1 it follows that

$$(h^m)_x=(g^{m\nu })𝒪_{X,x}.$$

Similarly one concludes

$$(h_{|C}^m)_x=(g^{m\nu })𝒪_{C,x}.$$

### 2.4. Characterization of numerically trivial varieties

The proof of Theorem 1.6 starts with the Siu decomposition of the curvature current \[Dem00, (2.18)\]

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

where the $`D_i`$ are the (countably many) prime divisors in the Lelong number level sets $`E_c(h)`$ and the $`a_i=\mathrm{min}_{xD_i}\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_h,x)`$.

Next, take a very ample divisor $`H`$. By Theorem 2.1 there is a smooth complete intersection curve $`C=H_1\mathrm{}H_{n1}`$, $`H_i|H|`$ which is $`(L,h)`$ general. Now by Proposition 1.2

$$0=(L,h).C=L.C\underset{xC}{}\nu (\underset{i}{}a_i[D_i]_{|C},x)\underset{xC}{}\nu (R_{|C},x).$$

Since $`C`$ is $`(L,h)`$ general the only points $`xC`$ where $`\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_h,x)>0`$ are the intersection points with the regular part of the $`D_i`$’s where furthermore $`\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_h,x)=\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_h,D_i)=a_i`$. Consequently

$$0=(L,h).C=L.C\underset{i}{}a_iD_i.C.$$

But this implies

$$0=R.C=_XR(\omega _H)^{n1}$$

where $`\omega _H`$ is the strictly positive $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ metric belonging to the very ample divisor $`H`$. Since $`R`$ is a positive current it follows

$$R=0.$$

### 2.5. A counterexample for non-$`(L,h)`$ general curves

First, one constructs a convex function $`\chi :`$ with slow growth at $`\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. the derivation tends to $`0`$) such that $`\chi (\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$. For example, take

$$\chi (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}x\hfill & \mathrm{for}x1\hfill \\ _{k=1}^n\frac{1}{k}+(x+n)\frac{1}{n+1}\hfill & \mathrm{for}n1xn\hfill \end{array}$$

Then one considers the plurisubharmonic function $`\psi =\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{log}|z_1|,\chi (\mathrm{log}|z_2|))`$ on $`^2`$. The Lelong numbers $`\nu (\psi ,x)`$ are $`0`$ everywhere because of the slow growth of $`\chi `$ at $`\mathrm{}`$, but the restriction of $`\psi `$ onto $`C=\left\{z_2=0\right\}`$ has Lelong number $`\nu (\psi _{|C},0)=1`$.

The induced metric $`h`$ may be extended to a metric of the relatively ample line bundle $`𝒪(1)`$ on the $`^1`$ bundle $`\times ^1`$ which yields the counterexample.

### 2.6. Birational invariance

Since the intersection numbers $`(L,h).C`$ are computed by pulling back to the normalization $`\widehat{C}`$ it is obvious that the intersection number $`(\pi ^{}L,\pi ^{}h).\overline{C}`$ of the strict transform $`\overline{C}`$ of a birational map $`\pi `$ does not change. The aim of this subsection is to generalize this observation and to apply it in the case of analytic singularities, thus obtaining a more algebraic definition of the intersection numbers.

###### Lemma 2.6.

Let $`\mu :C^{}C`$ be a finite morphism between smooth curves. Let $`(L,h)`$ be a pseudo-effective line bundle on $`C`$ with $`i\mathrm{\Theta }_h0`$. Then

$$(\mu ^{}L,\mu ^{}h).C^{}=\mathrm{deg}\mu (L,h).C.$$

###### Proof.

It is enough to consider the following situation: Let $`\mu :\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta },zz^n`$ be a finite morphism on the unit disc $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, let $`L`$ be trivial on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and let the function $`\psi \mathrm{Psh}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, $`i\mathrm{\Theta }_h=dd^c\psi `$. Then

$$\nu (\psi ,0)=\underset{|z|0}{lim\; inf}\frac{\psi (z)}{\mathrm{log}|z|}=\underset{|z|0}{lim\; inf}\frac{\psi (z^n)}{\mathrm{log}|z^n|}=\frac{1}{n}\underset{|z|0}{lim\; inf}\frac{\psi (z^n)}{\mathrm{log}|z|}=\frac{1}{n}\nu (\psi \mu ,0).$$

Now the lemma follows by Proposition 1.2. ∎

###### Proposition 2.7.

Let $`f:YX`$ be a surjective morphism between smooth and projective varieties $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Let $`(L,h)`$ be a pseudo-effective line bundle on $`X`$ with $`i\mathrm{\Theta }_h0`$. Then

$$(L,h)\mathrm{numerically}\mathrm{trivial}\mathrm{on}X(f^{}L,f^{}h)\mathrm{numerically}\mathrm{trivial}\mathrm{on}Y.$$

###### Proof.

Assume first that $`(L,h)`$ is numerically trivial on $`X`$. Let $`CY`$ be an irreducible curve on $`Y`$ with $`f^{}h_{|C}\mathrm{}`$. When $`f(C)`$ is a point, this point will lie in the smooth part of $`h`$, and there won’t be any singularity of $`h`$ on $`C`$. Consequently,

$$(f^{}L,f^{}h).C=f^{}L.C=L.f_{}C=0.$$

When $`f(C)`$ is another irreducible curve $`C^{}`$ then one can lift the morphism $`f_{|C}`$ to the smooth normalizations $`\widehat{C},\widehat{C}^{}`$, and the above equality follows by the lemma.

Similarly, assume that $`(f^{}L,f^{}h)`$ is numerically trivial on $`Y`$. Let $`C`$ be an irreducible curve on $`X`$ with $`h_{|C}\mathrm{}`$. Then there exists an irreducible curve $`C^{}Y`$ such that $`f(C^{})=C`$, and the argument is as above. ∎

The birational invariance can be used to prove the birational invariance of $`(L,h)`$ generality:

###### Lemma 2.8.

Let $`C`$ be a smooth $`(L,h)`$ general curve on $`X`$, and let $`ZX`$ be a smooth subvariety with $`CZ`$, let $`\pi :\widehat{X}X`$ be the blowup of $`X`$ with centre $`Z`$. Then the strict transform $`\widehat{C}`$ of $`C`$ is still $`(\pi ^{}L,\pi ^{}h)`$ general.

###### Proof.

The assertion is clear as long as $`ZC=\mathrm{}`$. Otherwise, let $`xZC`$ be a point such that $`\nu (h_{|C},x)=0`$. Then for $`y`$ the unique preimage of $`x`$ in $`\widehat{C}`$,

$$0=\nu (\pi ^{}h,y)\nu (\pi ^{}h_{|\widehat{C}},y)=\nu (h_{|C},x)=0.$$

If $`xZC`$ is a point such that $`\nu (h_{|C},x)>0`$ then $`C`$ will intersect transversally a prime divisor $`D`$ of some $`E_c(h)`$. Consider two cases:

* $`Z`$ is a point. Then the intersection of the strict transforms $`\widehat{C}\widehat{D}=\mathrm{}`$, and $`C`$ intersects the smooth exceptional divisor $`E`$ transversally in a unique point $`yE`$ with $`\pi (y)=x`$. Furthermore,

$$\nu (\pi ^{}h,E)\nu (h,D)=\nu (h,x)=\nu (h_{|C},x)=\nu (\pi ^{}h_{|\widehat{C}},y),$$

hence $`\nu (\pi ^{}h,E)=\nu (\pi ^{}h_{|\widehat{C}},y)`$.
* $`dimZ1`$. Then $`\widehat{C}\widehat{D}`$ consists of one point $`y`$, and by the same argument as in (a), replacing $`E`$ by $`\widehat{D}`$, it follows

$$\nu (\pi ^{}h,\widehat{D})=\nu (\pi ^{}h_{|\widehat{C}},y).$$

$`\widehat{D}`$ cannot be singular in $`y`$ since then $`\nu (\pi ^{}h_{|\widehat{C}},y)\nu (\pi ^{}h,y)>\nu (\pi ^{}h,\widehat{D})`$.

### 2.7. The case of analytic singularities

The $`(L,h)`$ intersection numbers are much easier to handle if the plurisubharmonic weight of the metric $`h`$ has only analytic singularities:

###### Definition 2.9.

$`\varphi \mathrm{Psh}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ open, is said to have analytic singularities, if locally, $`\varphi `$ can be written as

$$\varphi =\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{log}(|f_i|^2)+v,\alpha ^+,$$

where $`v`$ is locally bounded, and the $`f_i`$ are (germs of) holomorphic functions.

For example, in this case Theorem 1.4 is true for arbitrary smooth curves. Furthermore it is easier to compute $`(L,h)`$ intersection numbers on log resolutions.

But first some more properties of metrics with analytic singularities: By definition, the corresponding plurisubharmonic weight may locally be written as $`\varphi _h=\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{log}(|f_i|^2)+O(1)`$. Define $`𝒥(h/\alpha )`$ as the ideal sheaf of germs of holomorphic functions $`f`$ such that

$$|f|C(|f_i|).$$

One can easily prove that $`𝒥(h/\alpha )_x`$ is the integral closure of the ideal generated by the germs $`f_i`$ (cf. \[Dem00, (1.11)\]). Consequently, $`𝒥(h/\alpha )`$ is coherent. Furthermore,

$$𝒥(h/\alpha )_x=(g_1,\mathrm{},g_M)\varphi =\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{log}(|g_i|^2)+O(1).$$

There exists log resolutions $`\mu :X^{}X`$ of $`𝒥(h/\alpha )`$ with $`X^{}`$ non-singular, i.e.

* $`\mu `$ is proper birational,
* $`\mu ^1𝒥(h/\alpha )=𝒥(h/\alpha )𝒪_X^{}=𝒪_X^{}(F)`$ where $`F`$ is an effective divisor on $`X^{}`$ such that $`F+\mathrm{Exc}(\mu )`$ has simple normal crossing support.

An existence proof is contained in the Hironaka package, cf. \[BM97\].

The main tool when dealing with metrics with analytic singularities is the following theorem which may be seen as an algebraic definition of multiplier ideals:

###### Theorem 2.10.

$`(h)=\mu _{}(K_{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }}[\alpha F])`$.

###### Proof.

See \[Dem00, (5.9)\]. ∎

The aim is now to prove

###### Proposition 2.11.

Let $`X`$ be a quasi-projective manifold, $`L`$ a pseudo-effective line bundle with positive singular hermitian metric $`h`$. Then for every smooth curve $`CX`$,

$$(L,h).C=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{m}h^0(C,𝒪_C(mL)(h^m)𝒪_C),$$

where $`(h^m)𝒪_C`$ is the image of $`(h^m)𝒪_C`$ in $`𝒪_C`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`D_m,D_m^{}`$ be effective divisors corresponding to the torsion free ideal sheaves $`(h_{|C}^m),(h^m)𝒪_C=(h^m)_{|C}`$. By (2.2.2),(2.3.1) it is enough to show that

(2.7.1) $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\mathrm{deg}_CD_m`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\mathrm{deg}_CD_m^{}`$
Let $`(x_i)_i`$ be the countably many points on $`C`$ such that $`\mathrm{mult}_xD_m0`$ or $`\mathrm{mult}_xD_m^{}0`$ for some $`m`$. Since $`C`$ is smooth there is an open subset $`UX`$ containing all the $`x_i`$ such that $`C=H_2\mathrm{}H_n`$ is a complete intersection of very ample smooth hypersurfaces $`H_iU`$. It is enough to prove (2.7.1) on $`U`$, hence one can assume without loss of generality that $`C`$ is a complete intersection on $`X`$ as above.

Now construct a log resolution $`\mu :X^{}X`$ as above such that furthermore,

* the support of $`F`$ contains the support of $`\mathrm{Exc}(\mu )`$,
* the strict transforms $`H_i^{}`$ of the $`H_i`$ are smooth, $`H_i+F`$ has simple normal crossing support and $`\mu ^{}H_n=H_n^{}+b_jE_j`$ where the $`E_j`$ are prime components of $`\mathrm{Exc}(\mu )`$.

One has

###### Theorem 2.12 (Local vanishing).

Let $`\text{a}𝒪_X`$ be an ideal sheaf on a smooth quasiprojective complex variety $`X`$, and let $`\mu :X^{}X`$ be a log resolution of a with $`\text{a}𝒪_X^{}=𝒪_X^{}(F)`$. Then for any rational $`c>0`$:

$$R^j\mu _{}𝒪_X^{}(K_{X^{}/X}[cF])=0\mathrm{for}j>0.$$

###### Proof.

See \[Laz00, 4.3\]. ∎

This theorem is used to prove the following inclusions of ideal sheaves on $`H_n`$: There is a $`c`$ independent of $`m`$ such that

$$(h^{m+c})_{|H_n}(h_{|H_n}^m)(h^m)_{|H_n}.$$

Equation (2.7.1) follows by induction and $`lim\; sup_m\mathrm{}\frac{1}{m}d_{m+c}=lim\; sup_m\mathrm{}\frac{1}{m}d_m`$ for sequences $`(d_m)_m`$.

The proof of this fact is modelled on the proof of the Restriction Theorem \[Laz00, (5.1)\]. First of all, $`\mu _{|H_n}:H_n^{}H_n`$ is a log resolution of $`𝒥(h/\alpha )_{|H_n}=𝒥(h/\alpha )𝒪_{H_n}`$ by property (d) of $`\mu `$. Property $`(c)`$ implies that there exists $`c`$ such that

$$K_{X^{}/X}[m\alpha F]c\alpha FK_{X^{}/X}[m\alpha F]b_jE_j=:B,$$

and consequently

$$(h^{m+c})_{|H_n}=\mu _{}(K_{X^{}/X}[(m+c)\alpha F])_{|H_n}\mu _{}𝒪_X^{}(B)_{|H_n}.$$

Now, $`BH_n^{}=K_{X^{}/X}[m\alpha F]\mu ^{}H_n`$. Local vanishing applied on $`𝒥(h/m\alpha )𝒪(H_n)`$ implies

$$R^1\mu _{}𝒪_X^{}(BH_n^{})=0.$$

Then

$$\mu _{}𝒪_X^{}(B)_{|H_n}=(\mu _{|H_n})_{}(𝒪_{H_n^{}}(B_{|H_n^{}}))$$

follows by taking direct images in the exact sequence

$$0𝒪_X^{}(BH_n^{})\stackrel{H_n^{}}{}𝒪_X^{}(B)𝒪_{H_n^{}}(B_{|H_n^{}})0.$$

Since $`K_{H_n^{}/H_n}=(K_{X^{}/X}b_jD_j)_{|H_n^{}}`$, it follows

$$(\mu _{|H_n})_{}(𝒪_{H_n^{}}(B_{|H_n^{}}))=(\mu _{|H_n})_{}(K_{H_n^{}/H_n}[m\alpha F_{|H_n^{}}])=(h_{|H_n}^m),$$

hence the first inclusion.

The second inclusion follows by the Ohsawa-Takegoshi Extension Theorem. ∎

The last part of this subsection shows how to compute the $`(L,h)`$ intersection numbers for metrics with analytic singularities on a log resolution of the ideal sheaf of the singularities:

###### Proposition 2.13.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety, let $`(L,h)`$ be a pseudo-effective line bundle $`L`$ on $`X`$ with a singular hermitian metric $`h`$ such that $`i\mathrm{\Theta }_h0`$ and $`h`$ has analytic singularities. Let $`𝒥(h/\alpha )`$ be the ideal sheaf ot these singularities, let $`\mu :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ be a log resolution of $`X`$ with $`\mu ^{}𝒥(h/\alpha )=𝒪(F)`$. Let $`CX`$ be an irreducible curve. Then

$$(L,h).C=\mu ^{}L.\overline{C}F.\overline{C},$$

where $`\overline{C}`$ is the strict transform of $`C`$.

###### Proof.

By birational invariance,

$$(L,h).C=(\mu ^{}L,\mu ^{}h).\overline{C}.$$

But the pull back of $`h`$ is just the metric given by $`F`$ by definition of analytic singularities and log resolutions (s. \[Dem00, (3.13)\]). This implies the proposition. ∎

## 3. The Reduction Map Theorem

### 3.1. The volume $`\mu _h`$ and numerical triviality

The aim of this subsection is the prove of Lemma 1.8 and the existence of a section $`\sigma _\lambda `$ as in step (b) of the introduction.

The proof is by induction on $`dimX`$. If $`X=C`$ is a smooth curve, the volume will be

$`\mu _h(C,H+mL)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}H^0(C,𝒪_C(l(H+mL))(h^{ml}))=`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}\mathrm{deg}_C𝒪_C(l(H+mL))(h^{ml}))=`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{deg}_CH+(L^m,h^m).C=\mathrm{deg}_CH+m(L,h).C,`$
where the second and the third equality follow by equation (2.2.2), while the fourth is a consequence of the Lelong number formula for the intersection number.

If $`dimX=n`$, then for every $`n_10`$ there will be a hyperplane pencil in $`|n_1H|`$ with smooth center $`ZX`$ such that the general element $`F`$ of the pencil is smooth, and for sufficiently general $`F`$, the restricted metric $`h_{|F}\mathrm{}`$.

Step 1. $`(L,h)`$ is not numerically trivial on a sufficiently general $`F`$.

Let $`CX`$ be an irreducible, not necessarily smooth curve such that $`(L,h).C>0`$.

Claim. For arbitrary $`n_i0`$, there exists a complete intersection

$$H_1\mathrm{}H_{n1}=C\underset{i}{}C_i,H_i|n_iH|,$$

such that the $`C_i`$ are irreducible smooth curves with $`h_{|C_i}\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof.

If $`n=2`$, the curve $`C`$ is a divisor, and for $`m0`$, the linear system $`|mHC|`$ is very ample. Hence a general element $`C^{}|mHC|`$ is irreducible, and $`h_{|C^{}}\mathrm{}`$.

For $`n>2`$, the curve $`C`$ is contained in irreducible hypersurface $`H^{}`$ with $`h_{|H^{}}\mathrm{}`$. For some $`m0`$ the linear system $`|mHH^{}|`$ is very ample. Hence a general element $`H^{\prime \prime }|mHH^{}|`$ is irreducible, and $`h_{|H^{\prime \prime }}\mathrm{}`$. Use induction on $`H_1=H^{}H^{\prime \prime }`$. ∎

Claim. For every irreducible curve $`CX`$, the following inequality is true:

(3.1.1) $`(L,h).CL.C{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_h,D_j)C.D_j.`$
###### Proof.

Let $`\pi :\widehat{C}C`$ be the normalization of $`C`$. By the decomposition theorem of Siu \[Dem00, (2.18)\],

$$i\mathrm{\Theta }_h=\underset{j}{}\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_h,D_j)[D_j]+R,R0,$$

where $`R`$ is a positive residual $`(1,1)`$ current. Let $`\varphi _j,\varphi _R`$ be the plurisubharmonic functions such that (locally) $`dd^c\varphi _j=[D_j]`$ and $`dd^c\varphi _R=R`$. Then

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\pi ^{}h}=\underset{j}{}\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_h,D_j)dd^c(\varphi _j\pi )+dd^c(\varphi _R\pi )\underset{j}{}\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_h,D_j)[\pi ^{}D_j].$$

Since $`lim\; inf_{zx}f_j(z)_jlim\; inf_{zx}f_j(z)`$ for arbitrary functions $`f_j`$, it follows

$$\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_{\pi ^{}h},x)\underset{j}{}\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_h,D_j)\nu ([\pi ^{}D_j],x)=\underset{j}{}\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_h,D_j)\mathrm{mult}_x\pi ^{}D_jx\widehat{C}.$$

But then

$`(L,h).C=L.C{\displaystyle \underset{x\widehat{C}}{}}\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_{\pi ^{}h},x)`$ $``$ $`L.C{\displaystyle \underset{x\widehat{C}}{}}({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_h,D_j)\mathrm{mult}_x\pi ^{}D_j)=`$
$`=`$ $`L.C{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_h,D_j)C.D_j.`$
By Theorem 2.1, on a sufficiently general fibre $`F`$, there is a smooth irreducible curve

$$C_F=H_1^{}\mathrm{}H_{n1}^{},H_i^{}|n_iH|,$$

which is $`(L,h)`$ general. Consequently,

$$(L,h).C_F=L.C_F\underset{j}{}\nu (\mathrm{\Theta }_h,D_j)C_F.D_j.$$

But this implies together with (3.1.1)

$$(L,h).C_F(L,h).(C+C_i)>0,$$

because $`L.C_F=L.(C+C_i)`$. Hence $`F`$ is not numerically trivial.

Step 2. Let $`\mu :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ be the blow up of $`X`$ in $`Z`$, with exceptional divisor $`E`$. Then

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\mu _{\mu ^{}h}(\stackrel{~}{X},\mu ^{}(H+mL))=\mathrm{}\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\mu _h(X,H+mL)=\mathrm{}.$$

###### Proof.

First, $`K_{\stackrel{~}{X}}=\mu ^{}K_X+E`$. By the functorial property of multiplier ideal sheaves \[Dem00, (5.8)\] this implies $`(h)=\mu _{}(𝒪(E)(\mu ^{}h))`$. Since $`(\mu ^{}h)𝒪(E)(\mu ^{}h)𝒦_{\stackrel{~}{X}}`$ (the sheaf of total quotient rings), it follows

$$\mu _{}((\mu ^{}h)^{ml})(h^{ml}).$$

By the projection formula,

$$\mu _{}(\mu ^{}𝒪_X(l(H+mL))((\mu ^{}h)^{ml}))=𝒪_X(l(H+mL))\mu _{}((\mu ^{}h)^{ml}).$$

Consequently,

$$h^0(\stackrel{~}{X},\mu ^{}𝒪_X(l(H+mL))((\mu ^{}h)^{ml})))h^0(X,𝒪_X(l(H+mL))(h^{ml})),$$

which implies the claim. ∎

Step 3. $`lim\; sup_m\mathrm{}\mu _{\mu ^{}h}(\stackrel{~}{X},\mu ^{}(H+mL))=\mathrm{}`$.

For $`l_00`$ the line bundle $`l_0\mu ^{}HE`$ is ample on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$. It is enough to show that

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\mu _{\mu ^{}h}(\stackrel{~}{X},l_0\mu ^{}(H+mL)E)=\mathrm{}.$$

Let $`p:\stackrel{~}{X}^1`$ be the projection on $`^1`$. Now, the sheaf $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}(ll_0\mu ^{}(H+mL)lE)((\mu ^{}h)^{mll_0})`$ is torsion free. Since $`p`$ is flat,

$$p_{}(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}(ll_0\mu ^{}(H+mL)lE)((\mu ^{}h)^{mll_0}))_{m,l}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}𝒪(a_i)$$

is also torsion free, hence a locally free sheaf on $`^1`$. Here, the $`a_i=a_i(m,l)`$ and $`r=r(m,l)`$ depend on $`m,l`$.

By upper semicontinuity and the Ohsawa-Takegoshi Extension Theorem, for a general fibre $`F`$

$`r(m,l)`$ $`=`$ $`h^0(F,𝒪_F(ll_0\mu ^{}(H+mL)lE)((\mu ^{}h)^{mll_0})_{|F})`$
$``$ $`h^0(F,𝒪_F(ll_0\mu ^{}(H+mL)lE)((\mu ^{}h)_{|F}^{mll_0})).`$
Since $`(l_0\mu ^{}(H+mL)E)_{|F}`$ is ample and $`(L_{|F}^{l_0},h_{|F}^{l_0})`$ is not numerically trivial by step 2, the induction hypothesis on $`F`$ implies

(3.1.2) $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}(\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}l^{(n1)}r(m,l))=\mathrm{}.`$
Let $`h_0`$ be a $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ hermitian metric on the ample line bundle $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}(l_0\mu ^{}HE)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{h_0}>0`$, let $`h_1`$ be any $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ metric on $`𝒪_^1(1)`$. Then there exists a $`c_{>0}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{h_0}c\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{h_1}`$ is a positive Kähler form on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$.

Claim. $`_{m,l}𝒪_^1(cl+1)`$ is globally generated for all $`l`$ with $`lc`$, $`l0`$.

###### Proof.

By looking at the short exact sequence

$$0_{m,l}𝒪_^1(cl)_{m,l}𝒪_^1(cl+1)_{m,l}𝒪_^1/\text{m}_x0,$$

one sees that the vector bundle $`_{m,l}𝒪_^1(cl+1)`$ is globally generated if $`H^1(^1,_{m,l}𝒪_^1(cl))=0`$. But this cohomology group is contained in

$$H^0(^1,R^1p_{}(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}(ll_0\mu ^{}(H+mL)lE)((\mu ^{}h)^{mll_0}))p^{}𝒪_^1(cl)).$$

This higher direct image sheaf is $`0`$ by Nadel vanishing \[Dem00, (5.11)\], applied on preimages in $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ of open affine subsets of $`^1`$ and the big line bundle $`ll_0\mu ^{}(H+mL)lE+p^{}𝒪_^1(cl)`$ equipped with the positive singular hermitian metric $`h_0^l(p^{}h_1)^{cl}(\mu ^{}h)^{mll_0}`$. ∎

The claim implies $`lim\; sup_l\mathrm{}l^1(\mathrm{min}_ia_i)c`$, hence

$`l^nh^0(\stackrel{~}{X},𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}(ll_0\mu ^{}(H+mL)lE)((\mu ^{}h)^{mll_0}))=`$
$`=`$ $`l^nh^0(^1,_{m,l})l^{(n1)}r(m,l)l^1(\underset{i}{\mathrm{min}}a_i)cl^{(n1)}r(m,l)`$
(3.1.2) implies step 3, and Lemma 1.8 is proven.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`X`$ be a complex projective variety, let $`(L,h)`$ be a pseudo-effective line bundle with positive singular hermitian metric $`h`$. Assume that $`(L,h)`$ is not numerically trivial. Let $`xX`$ be a sufficiently general point such that $`(h^m)_x𝒪_{X,x}`$. Then, for any ample line bundle $`H`$, for all $`N`$ there exists $`m_0`$ such that for $`l0`$ arbitrarily large there is a section

$$0\sigma _lH^0(X,𝒪_X(l(H+m_0L))(h^{m_0l})\text{m}_{X,x}^{Nl}).$$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 1.8 there exists an $`m_0`$ such that the volume $`\mu _h(X,H+m_0L)>N^{dimX}+1`$. Consequently, for $`l0`$ arbitrarily large,

$$h^0(X,𝒪_X(l(H+m_0L))(h^{m_0l}))\frac{N^{dimX}+1}{(dimX)!}l^{dimX}+o(l^{dimX}).$$

Set $`:=𝒪_X(l(H+m_0L))(h^{m_0l})`$. Since $`(h^m)_x𝒪_{X,x}`$, it is true that $`h^0(X,𝒪_X/\text{m}_x^{Nl})=\frac{N^{dimX}}{(dimX)!}l^{dimX}+o(l^{dimX})`$. Using the sequence

$$0H^0(X,\text{m}_x^{Nl})H^0(X,)H^0(X,𝒪_X/\text{m}_x^{Nl})$$

one gets the lemma. ∎

### 3.2. The Key Lemma

The proof of the Key Lemma 1.9 starts with the blow up $`\pi :\widehat{M}M`$ in $`W`$. Then a very general curve $`R`$ in the smooth exceptional divisor $`\widehat{W}\widehat{M}`$ is $`(\pi ^{}L,\pi ^{}h)`$ general: If $`D`$ is a prime divisor in some $`E_c(h)`$ with $`DW\mathrm{}`$, then the strict transform $`\widehat{D}`$ of $`D`$ will have minimal Lelong number $`\nu (\pi ^{}h,\widehat{D})\nu (h,D)`$. Now choose a very general curve $`R\widehat{W}`$ such that the branching locus $`\pi _{|R}:RW`$ does not contain any of the countably many points $`yW`$ with $`\nu (h_{|W},y)>0`$. Then for $`x\widehat{D}`$,

$$\nu (\pi ^{}h_{|R},x)=\nu (h_{|W},\pi (x))=\nu (h,y)=\nu (h,D)\nu (\pi ^{}h,\widehat{D}\nu (\pi ^{}h,x),$$

hence $`\nu (\pi ^{}h_{|R},x)=\nu (\pi ^{}h,x)`$. For all the other $`xR`$, the Lelong number $`\nu (\pi ^{}h_{|R},x)=0`$, hence

$$0=\nu (\pi ^{}h,x)\nu (\pi ^{}h_{|R},x)=0.$$

Now assume that $`(L,h)`$ is not numerically trivial on $`M`$. By birational invariance, $`(\pi ^{}L,\pi ^{}h)`$ is not numerically trivial on $`\widehat{M}`$. (This is an application of the definition of $`(L,h)`$ intersection numbers). For an ample line bundle $`H`$ on $`\widehat{M}`$, it follows

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\mu _h(\widehat{M},H+m\pi ^{}L)=\mathrm{}$$

by Lemma 1.8. Let $`x_0\widehat{W}`$ be a sufficiently general point such that $`(\pi ^{}h^m)_{x_0}𝒪_{\widehat{M},x_0}`$ for all integers $`m`$. By Lemma 3.1, for all $`N`$ there exists an $`m_0`$ such that for arbitrarily large $`l0`$ there is a non-vanishing section

$$\sigma _lH^0(\widehat{M},𝒪_{\widehat{M}}(l(H+m_0\pi ^{}L))(\pi ^{}h^{m_0l})\text{m}_{x_0}^{Nl})\{0\}.$$

Let $``$ be a family of smooth intersection curves of $`n2`$ divisors in $`|H_{|\widehat{W}}|`$ through $`x_0`$ which cover $`\widehat{W}`$. Choose $`d_00`$ such that for general fibres $`F`$ of $`\widehat{f}=f\pi `$,

$$H^{dimF1}F(Hd_0\widehat{W})<0.$$

Claim. There exists an $`A_0>0`$ independent of $`m_0`$ such that

(3.2.1) $`dimH^0(R,𝒪_R(l(H+m_0\pi ^{}L)s\widehat{W})(\pi ^{}h^{m_0l})_{|R})A_0l+o(l)`$
for all curves $`R`$ with $`h_{|R}\mathrm{}`$ and for all $`0sd_0l`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`(\pi ^{}L,\pi ^{}h)`$ is numerically trivial on $`\widehat{W}`$,

$$(\pi ^{}L,\pi ^{}h).R=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{m}\mathrm{deg}_R(𝒪_R(m\pi ^{}L)(\pi ^{}h^m)_{|R})=0.$$

(This is the application of Theorem 1.4, i.e. the $`(L,h)`$ generality of $`R`$.) Consequently,

$`\mathrm{deg}_R(𝒪_R(l(H+m_0\pi ^{}L)s\widehat{W})(\pi ^{}h^{m_0l})_{|R})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{deg}_R(𝒪_R(lHs\widehat{W})+`$
$`\mathrm{deg}_R(𝒪_R(lm_0\pi ^{}L)(\pi ^{}h^{m_0l})_{|R})`$
$``$ $`A_0l+o(l)`$
for some $`A_0>0`$, as long as $`0sd_0l`$.

If $`\widehat{W}.R0`$ the ampleness of $`H`$ will imply by Riemann-Roch that

$$H^1(R,𝒪_R(l(H+m_0\pi ^{}L)s\widehat{W})(\pi ^{}h^{m_0l})_{|R})=0$$

and hence the claim.

If $`\widehat{W}.R>0`$ there will exist an $`a_0`$ such that for all $`sa_0`$ the cohomology group $`H^0(R,𝒪_R(s\widehat{W}))0`$. Therefore,

$`h^0(R,𝒪_R(l(H+m_0\pi ^{}L)s\widehat{W})(\pi ^{}h^{m_0l})_{|R})`$
$`h^0(R,𝒪_R(l(H+m_0\pi ^{}L))(\pi ^{}h^{m_0l})_{|R}),`$
and this gives the claim for $`a_0sd_0l`$. For $`sa_0`$ one can argue as above with $`H`$ ample and Riemann-Roch. ∎

Now choose $`N>A_0+d_0`$. Then

$$\mathrm{deg}_R\sigma _{l|R}Nl$$

for the corresponding section

$$\sigma _{l|R}H^0(R,𝒪_R(l(H+m_0\pi ^{}L))(\pi ^{}h^{m_0l})_{|R}\text{m}_{R,x_0}^{Nl}).$$

Because $`s=0`$ (3.2.1) implies that $`\sigma _{l|R}0`$ for $`l0`$ depending on $`R`$. But since $`\sigma _l`$ vanishes on a Zariski closed subset and the curves in $``$ cover $`\widehat{W}`$, there exists an $`l0`$ such that $`\sigma _{l|\widehat{W}}0`$ and

$$\sigma _lH^0(\widehat{M},𝒪_{\widehat{M}}(l(H+m_0\pi ^{}L)\widehat{W})(\pi ^{}h^{m_0l})\text{m}_{x_0}^{Nl1}).$$

By repeating the argument for $`0<sd_0l`$ one finally gets

$$\sigma _lH^0(\widehat{M},𝒪_{\widehat{M}}(l(H+m_0\pi ^{}L)d_0l\widehat{W})(\pi ^{}h^{m_0l})).$$

Let $`F`$ be sufficiently general, $`\pi ^{}h_{|F}\mathrm{}`$ and $`(\pi ^{}L,\pi ^{}h)`$ numerically trivial on $`F`$. Let $`𝒮_F`$ be a family of smooth intersection curves of $`dimF1`$ divisors in $`|H_{|F}|`$ covering $`F`$. Let $`S𝒮_F`$ be such a curve, $`\pi ^{}h_{|S}\mathrm{}`$, and assume that $`S\widehat{W}\mathrm{}`$. Since $`(\pi ^{}L,\pi ^{}h)`$ is numerically trivial on $`F`$,

$$(\pi ^{}L,\pi ^{}h).S=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{m}\mathrm{deg}_S(𝒪_S(m\pi ^{}L)(\pi ^{}h^m)_{|S})=0.$$

Furthermore, by assumption

$$S.(Hd_0\widehat{W})=H^{dimF1}.F.(Hd_0\widehat{W})<0,$$

hence

$$\mathrm{deg}_S(𝒪_S(l(H+m\pi ^{}L)d_0l\widehat{W})(\pi ^{}h^{m_0l})_{|S})<0$$

for some $`l0`$, and as above one concludes $`\sigma _{l|F}0`$, $`\sigma _l0`$ which is a contradiction.

### 3.3. Proof of the pseudo-effective Reduction Map Theorem

The main construction used in this proof is described by the following

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`X`$ be a complex projective variety, let $`M`$ be a set of subvarieties $`F_mX`$, $`mM`$, such that the union $`_{mM}F_mX`$ is not contained in a pluripolar set in $`X`$. Then there is a family $`𝔉X\times B`$ of subschemes of $`X`$, covering the whole of $`X`$, and a set $`B^{}B`$ not contained in a pluripolar set of $`B`$, parametrizing subvarieties $`F_m`$, $`mM`$.

###### Proof.

$`M`$ may be interpreted as a subset of $`\mathrm{Chow}(\mathrm{X})`$. There are only countably many components of $`\mathrm{Chow}(\mathrm{X})`$. Hence there must be at least one component $`𝒞\mathrm{Chow}(\mathrm{X})`$ such that the subschemes parametrized by the Zariski closure $`Z=\overline{𝒞M}`$ cover the whole of $`X`$, and $`𝒞M`$ is not a pluripolar set in $`Z`$. Otherwise, the subvarieties $`F_m`$, $`mM`$, are contained in a pluripolar set of $`X`$, contradiction. ∎

Consider families $`\stackrel{~}{f}:𝔛𝒩`$ with the following properties:

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

The identity map $`\mathrm{id}:XX`$ is such a family, hence there is one with minimal base dimension $`dim𝒩`$.

Claim. The projection $`p:𝔛X`$ is birational on such a minimal family $`\stackrel{~}{f}:𝔛𝒩`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`p`$ is not birational.

Then, for a general fibre $`F`$ of $`f`$ and a general point $`xF`$ there is another fibre $`F^{}`$ containing $`x`$, hence a curve $`C^{}`$ with $`xC^{}F^{}`$ and $`C^{}F`$. Consequently, one gets a family of curves $`g:`$ with $`𝔛\times `$ giving a generically finite covering of $`𝔛`$ such that for the general $`g`$ fibre curve $`C`$ the $`f`$ projection has $`dimf(C)=1`$. By blowing up and base change one can assume the following situation:

where $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ are smooth, the general fibres of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ are smooth curves and the fibres of $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ map onto fibres of $`f`$ in $`X`$. Furthermore, the maps $`p`$ and $`\pi `$ are generically finite.

Let $`(\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{h})`$ be the pulled back $`(L,h)`$. Take an $`(\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{h})`$ general $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ fibre curve $`C`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ such that the general $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ fibre through points of $`C`$ is smooth. Look at the subvariety $`G_C=\stackrel{~}{f}^1(\stackrel{~}{f}(C))\stackrel{~}{}`$. It may be not smooth, but by the smoothness of the general $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ fibre, the singular locus does not contain $`C`$. Hence using Lemma 2.8, an embedded resolution of $`G_C`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ gives a smooth subvariety $`\widehat{G_C}`$ in the blow up $`\widehat{}`$ such that the strict transform $`\widehat{C}`$ of $`C`$ is still $`(\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{L},\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{h})`$ general in $`\widehat{}`$. By the following lemma, $`\widehat{C}`$ is also $`(\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{L},\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{h})`$ general in $`\widehat{G_C}`$, and one can apply the Key Lemma: $`\widehat{G_C}`$ is $`(\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{L},\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{h})`$ numerically trivial. By birational invariance this is true for the image of $`\widehat{G_C}`$ in $`X`$, too. But $`dim\widehat{G_C}>dimF`$. Since all curves in a family are $`(L,h)`$ general outside a pluripolar set, the construction in Lemma 3.2 gives a new family

$$g:𝔜$$

satisfying conditions (i) - (iv), and

$$dim=dimXdimG=dimX(dim𝒩^{}+dimF)<dimXdimF=dim𝒩$$

for fibres $`G`$ of $`g`$. This is a contradiction to the minimality of $`dim𝒩`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`YX`$ be a smooth subvariety in a projective complex variety $`X`$ with a pseudo-effective line bundle $`L`$ and a positive singular hermitian metric $`h`$ on $`L`$ such that $`h_{|Y}\mathrm{}`$. Then an $`(L,h)`$ general curve is also an $`(L_{|Y},h_{|Y})`$ general curve on $`Y`$.

###### Proof.

$`\nu (h_{|C},x)=0`$ implies $`0=\nu (h_{|Y},x)\nu (h_{|C},x)=0`$, hence $`\nu (h_{|Y},x)=\nu (h_{|C},x)`$.

$`\nu (h_{|C},x)>0`$ implies that $`xD`$ for some prime divisor $`D`$ on some $`E_c(h)`$. The restricted divisor $`D_{|Y}`$ may be singular but not in $`x`$: Then,

$$\nu (h_{|Y},x)>\nu (h_{|Y},D_{|Y})\nu (h,D)=\nu (h_{|C},x),$$

contradiction. ∎

In the same way one shows

Claim. Let $`\stackrel{~}{g}:𝔛\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ be another family satisfying the conditions (i) - (iv). Then there is a commutative diagram of rational maps

such that the general fibre of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is contained in a fibre of $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

On the one hand, this claim implies the birational uniqueness of $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$. On the other hand one can prove claim (ii) in the pseudo-effective Reduction Map Theorem: If (ii) is not satisfied there will be a set of points $`NX`$ which is not contained in a pluripolar set such that

$$xNC_xx\mathrm{irreducible}\mathrm{curve},dim\stackrel{~}{f}(C_x)=1:(L,h).C_x=0.$$

By Lemma 3.2 one gets a family of curves satisfying conditions (i)-(iv). The claim implies that the general fibre of this family is contained in a fibre of $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$, hence also some of the curves $`C_x`$: contradiction.

Finally it is possible to prove that in part (i) of the Reduction Map Theorem, all fibres outside a pluripolar set are $`(L,h)`$ numerically trivial: This pluripolar set is just the set of fibres $`F`$ such that $`h_{|F}\mathrm{}`$. Because assume to the contrary that $`CF`$ is a curve on a fibre $`F`$ such that $`h_{|C}\mathrm{}`$, hence $`h_{|F}\mathrm{}`$, and $`C`$ is not $`(L,h)`$ numerically trivial. Then, as in step 1 of subsection 3.1, $`(L,h)`$ is not numerically trivial on sufficiently general fibres $`F`$, contradiction !


text:
# 1 Expanding final streaks in ESRM

## 1 Expanding final streaks in ESRM

In Refs.  we assumed that the final result of the collision of two streaks, after stopping the string’s expansion and after its decay, is one streak of the length $`l_f`$ with homogeneous energy density distribution, $`e_f`$, moving like one object with rapidity $`y_f`$ ($`e_f`$ and $`y_f`$ can be easily found from conservation laws). The typical values of the string tension, $`\sigma `$, are of the order of $`10GeV/fm`$, and these may be treated as several parallel strings. We assumed that such a final state is due to string-string interactions and string decays, which we are not going to describe in our simple model. One of the simplest ways to quantitatively take into account string decays is presented in Ref. .

Now we would like to describe the scenario with expanding final streaks, which seems to be more realistic . It is based on the solution for the one-dimensional expansion of the finite streak into the vacuum, which can be found  generalizing the description in .

The initial condition is

$`e(z,t_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \mathrm{}<z<R_{},\hfill \\ e_0\hfill & ,R_{}zR_+\hfill \\ 0\hfill & ,R_+<z<\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}`$ (4)
$`v(z,t_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & ,\mathrm{}<z<R_{}\hfill \\ \mathrm{tanh}y_0\hfill & ,R_{}zR_+\hfill \\ 1\hfill & ,R_+<z<\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array},`$ (8)
where $`R_{}`$, $`R_+`$ are the borders of the system.

For the forward-going rarefaction wave, $`v>0`$, generated on the right end of the initial streak, we infer that the head of this wave (the point where the rarefaction of matter starts, i.e., where the energy density $`e`$ starts to fall below $`e_0`$) travels with the velocity $`(\mathrm{tanh}y_0c_0)/(1c_0\mathrm{tanh}y_0)`$ to the left. On the other hand, the base of the rarefaction wave (the point where $`e`$ starts to acquire non-vanishing values) travels with light velocity $`v=1`$ to the right. The solution for a simple wave has a similarity form , i.e., the profile of the rarefaction wave does not change with time when plotted as a function of the similarity variable $`\zeta _\pm \frac{zR_\pm }{tt_0}`$. Thus,

$$e(\zeta _+)=e_0\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & ,1\zeta _+\frac{\mathrm{tanh}y_0c_0}{1c_0\mathrm{tanh}y_0}\hfill \\ \left[\frac{1+\mathrm{tanh}y_0}{1\mathrm{tanh}y_0}\frac{1c_0}{1+c_0}\frac{1\zeta _+}{1+\zeta _+}\right]^{(1+c_0^2)/2c_0}\hfill & ,\frac{\mathrm{tanh}y_0c_0}{1c_0\mathrm{tanh}y_0}<\zeta _+1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
$$\mathrm{tanh}y(\zeta _+)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{tanh}y_0\hfill & ,1\zeta _+\frac{\mathrm{tanh}y_0c_0}{1c_0\mathrm{tanh}y_0}\hfill \\ \frac{c_0+\zeta _+}{1+\zeta _+c_0}\hfill & ,\frac{\mathrm{tanh}y_0c_0}{1c_0\mathrm{tanh}y_0}<\zeta _+1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
Similarly for the backward-going rarefaction wave, $`v<0`$, we get

$$e(\zeta _{})=e_0\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & ,\frac{\mathrm{tanh}y_0+c_0}{1+c_0\mathrm{tanh}y_0}\zeta _{}1\hfill \\ \left[\frac{1\mathrm{tanh}y_0}{1+\mathrm{tanh}y_0}\frac{1c_0}{1+c_0}\frac{1+\zeta _{}}{1\zeta _{}}\right]^{(1+c_0^2)/2c_0}\hfill & ,1<\zeta _{}\frac{\mathrm{tanh}y_0+c_0}{1+c_0\mathrm{tanh}y_0},\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
$$\mathrm{tanh}y(\zeta _{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{tanh}y_0\hfill & ,\frac{\mathrm{tanh}y_0+c_0}{1+c_0\mathrm{tanh}y_0}\zeta _{}1\hfill \\ \frac{\zeta _{}c_0}{1\zeta _{}c_0}\hfill & ,1<\zeta _{}\frac{\mathrm{tanh}y_0+c_0}{1+c_0\mathrm{tanh}y_0}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
This simple analytical solution is valid as long as the two rarefaction waves did not overlap in the middle of the system. Further evolution becomes more complicated and doesn’t have a similarity form any more.

Thus, based on the solution presented above we can have a more advanced description of the final streaks. Let us assume that the homogeneous final streaks, with some $`e_f`$, $`y_f`$, are formed in the Center-of-Rapidity frame (CRF) when the larger of initial streaks reach the rapidity $`y_f`$. Up to this point the fluid cell trajectories are the same as those for non-expanding scenario , but after the homogeneous final streak is formed, it starts to expand according to the simple rarefaction wave solution, eqs. (9-12) . Figure 1 (B) shows new trajectories of the streak ends (compare to (A) from Ref. ), and Figures 1 (C,D) present energy density and rapidity profile for this expanding streak.

Such an initial state with expanding streaks will also help to avoid the problem which may cause the development of numerical artifacts, namely a step-like in the beam direction initial energy density distribution (output of ESRM): it has a jump from $`e_f=const`$ inside the matter, to $`0`$ in the outside vacuum (of course, where there is also a jump of $`e`$ as a function of $`x,y`$, but it is much smoother and this is not the direction of the initial expansion). In order to avoid (or at least to suppress) this effect, it was proposed in Ref.  to smooth over initial energy density distribution, for example by a Gaussian shape. Our simple analytic solution smoothes out this jump in a natural way.

Fig. 2 shows the energy density distribution in the reaction plane for the RHIC collisions calculated in the scenario with expanding final streaks. The QGP forms a tilted disk for $`b0`$. Thus, the direction of fastest expansion, the same as the largest pressure gradient, will be in the reaction plane, but will deviate from both the beam axis and the usual transverse flow direction. So, the new “third flow component”  appears in addition to the usual transverse flow component in the reaction plane. For non-expanding streaks this was shown in . If we let final streaks expand, this smoothes out the picture, but most of the matter, nevertheless, keeps a similar energy density profile and velocity distribution.