OpenAI Math Digest
AI-GENERATED GUIDE

This guide may contain errors or inaccurate explanations. Check important claims and proofs against the original papers.

CATALOGUE 033 · PAPER 02 / 5 Overview

Logarithmic Kodaira dimension and whole-fiber variation

From a field detected by logarithmic Iitaka systems to a field of definition of the whole fiber

For a projective fibration over a base of nonnegative logarithmic Kodaira dimension, the manuscript adds whole-fiber variation to the Kodaira-dimension lower bound. Its argument constructs a parameter field from logarithmic sections, establishes birational constancy of a minimal-index root cover, fixes a finite normalization of the relative Iitaka base using markings, and descends a finite cover.

Read the manuscript on GitHub

1. Main results

These are the manuscript's claims, with its numbering, hypotheses, and conclusions retained. Fix $\Omega=\overline{\mathbb C(V)}$ and let $F$ be the geometric generic fiber. The variation is

$$ \operatorname{Var}(f)=\min_{\substack{\mathbb C\subseteq L\subseteq\Omega\\L\text{ algebraically closed}}} \left\{\operatorname{trdeg}_{\mathbb C}L:\ F\text{ is birational to }(F_L)_\Omega\text{ for some }F_L/L\right\}. $$

It measures the function field of the entire $F$. Variation of a period image, a canonical model, or the relative Iitaka base alone is a different invariant.

Equation (1.1) · p.2

Theorem 1.1 — Logarithmic variation

Let $f:U\to V$ be a projective surjection with connected fibers between smooth connected complex quasi-projective varieties. If $\bar\kappa(V)\geq0$, then

$$ \bar\kappa(U)\geq\kappa(F)+\max\{\bar\kappa(V),\operatorname{Var}(f)\}. $$

The morphism need not be smooth. No abundance or good-minimal-model hypothesis is imposed on $F$. When $\kappa(F)=-\infty$, the assertion uses the manuscript's convention $(-\infty)+a=-\infty$.

Theorem 1.1 · p.2

Corollary 1.2 — Projective Iitaka–Viehweg inequality

Let $f:X\to Y$ be a surjection with connected fibers between smooth connected complex projective varieties, and assume $\kappa(Y)\geq0$. Then

$$ \kappa(X)\geq\kappa(F)+\max\{\kappa(Y),\operatorname{Var}(f)\}. $$

Corollary 1.2 · p.2

Corollary 1.3 — Variation and birational isotriviality

Let $f:U\to V$ be a smooth projective surjection with connected fibers between smooth connected complex quasi-projective varieties. Assume every closed fiber is non-uniruled. Then

$$ \begin{aligned} \bar\kappa(V)=-\infty&\ \Longrightarrow\ \operatorname{Var}(f)<\dim V,\\ \bar\kappa(V)\geq0&\ \Longrightarrow\ \operatorname{Var}(f)\leq\bar\kappa(V). \end{aligned} $$

If $V$ is Campana-special, $\operatorname{Var}(f)=0$. In particular, $\bar\kappa(V)=0$ implies birational isotriviality. Here isotriviality means variation zero; no trivialization of the family by isomorphisms is asserted. This corollary additionally uses LA and Taji and is not an input to Theorem 1.1.

Corollary 1.3 and its proof · p.5

References on the arrows

Unprefixed theorem, lemma, section and equation numbers refer to Logarithmic Kodaira dimension and whole-fiber variation. External inputs use the following keys.

  • OI OpenAI — Orbifold and logarithmic Iitaka subadditivity: Inputs, additional results, or alternatives within the catalogue; see the use and relation type in the table below. 2026-09-26.
  • Fuj Osamu Fujino — Notes on the weak positivity theorems: Weak positivity for producing sections with a negative ample twist. version 0.54, 2015-06-30.
  • Del Pierre Deligne — Théorie de Hodge II: Finite characters; original-source checking of invariant cycles remains open. 1971, printed p.47 = PDF p.44.
  • DHP Jean-Pierre Demailly; Christopher D. Hacon; Mihai Păun — Extension theorems, non-vanishing and the existence of good minimal models: Extension used to contract divisors carrying poles. arXiv:1012.0493v2.
  • PT Mihai Păun; Shigeharu Takayama — Positivity of twisted relative pluricanonical bundles and their direct images: Relative Bergman weights and uniform estimates. arXiv:1409.5504v1.
  • BCHM Caucher Birkar; Paolo Cascini; Christopher D. Hacon; James McKernan — Existence of minimal models for varieties of log general type: Existence of big klt adjoint models. arXiv:math/0610203v2, 81 pages.
  • KP Sándor J. Kovács; Zsolt Patakfalvi — Projectivity of the moduli space of stable log-varieties and subadditivity of log-Kodaira dimension: Positivity of projective stable families and variation bounds for marked models. 62-page author manuscript; hash pinned.
  • Han Masaki Hanamura — Structure of birational automorphism groups, I: non-uniruled varieties: Making the cocycle constant; the original theorem statement remains unchecked. 1988, DOI 10.1007/BF01394338.
  • SGA1 Alexander Grothendieck et al. — Revêtements étales et groupe fondamental (SGA 1): Purity from codimension-one unramifiedness; the original statement remains unchecked. 2003 re-edition; arXiv:math/0206203v2.
  • Lan Aaron Landesman — Invariance of the tame fundamental group under base change between algebraically closed fields: Descent of finite étale covers, morphisms, and actions across base extension. arXiv:2005.09690v3.
  • BDPP Sébastien Boucksom; Jean-Pierre Demailly; Mihai Păun; Thomas Peternell — The pseudo-effective cone of a compact Kähler manifold and varieties of negative Kodaira dimension: Pseudoeffectivity and movable curves, or the comparison with non-uniruledness. arXiv:math/0405285v1.
  • LA OpenAI — Log abundance in characteristic zero: Good minimal models used only for the consequence Corollary 1.3. 2026-09-24.
  • Taj Behrouz Taji — Birational geometry of smooth families of varieties admitting good minimal models: Variation and special-base consequences for smooth families with good minimal models. arXiv:2005.01025v4.
  • RA OpenAI — The reverse logarithmic Kodaira inequality and additivity: Inputs, additional results, or alternatives within the catalogue; see the use and relation type in the table below. 2026-09-26.
  • PH OpenAI — Projective Hodge lines and ordinary Iitaka subadditivity: Inputs, additional results, or alternatives within the catalogue; see the use and relation type in the table below. 2026-09-27.

Each citation gives the result and pages. When printed pagination differs from the PDF position, both are shown. GitHub previews do not automatically jump to the cited page.

2. Overview of Theorem 1.1

Proof target:Theorem 1.1 · p. 2 See the hypotheses and conclusion.

When $\kappa(F)=-\infty$, the inequality is automatic under the stated convention. Below, $d=\kappa(F)\geq0$: combine the base term supplied by OI with the variation term supplied by descent of the whole fiber.

Proof route. The main theorem has three stages: construct the parameter field, establish constancy of the Kodaira-zero fibre, and descend the original whole fibre. The empty-boundary corollary and the smooth-family consequence using LA and Taji are treated separately after the main proof.

For $d=\kappa(F)\geq0$, make the field $b=\overline{\mathbb C(T_0)}$ detected by section systems into a birational definition field of the original whole geometric generic fiber $F$. The Kodaira-zero relative Iitaka fiber $J$ is distinct from $F$.

Overview linking the parameter field, first constancy, markings and descent of finite covers
Underlined citations open the sources. Tap the figure to enlarge it.Open figure ↗TeX source ↓

1. Obtain the candidate field from section systems

OI’s logarithmic lower bound yields $\mathbb C(T_0)\subseteq\mathbb C(Y)$ and $\bar\kappa(U)=d+\dim T_0$. The next section develops this construction.

Proposition 2.10, Remark 2.11 · pp.12–14 · OI, Corollary 6.2 · pp.40–41

2. Turn Hodge-line triviality into birational constancy

Apply OI’s adjoint comparison to the restricted root-cover variation to make its entire top line flat with finite character. Contraction of poles and local flows make $J$ constant; article Section 4 develops this step.

Propositions 3.9, 3.12, Corollary 3.16, Proposition 4.10 · pp.21–25, 42–43 · OI, Theorem 3.1 · pp.17–18

3. Return to the whole fiber while retaining coordinates and actions

Markings fix Iitaka-base coordinates and a finite normalization. Constant cocycles and inertia at moving divisors allow descent of covers and actions and identification of the original function field. Article Section 5 obtains $\operatorname{Var}(f)\leq\dim T_0$.

Proposition 6.2, Propositions 7.2–7.3, §7.4 · pp.47–59

Combine this bound with the section-system dimension identity to obtain Theorem 1.1. Corollary 1.2 sets the boundaries to zero; Corollary 1.3 is a separate consequence using LA and Taji. The diagrams for the parameter field, first constancy, and whole-fibre descent expand these three stages.

3. Proposition 2.10 — Constructing the parameter field

Proof target:Proposition 2.10 · pp. 12–14

Assume $d=\kappa(F)\geq0$. The first task is to compare the absolute logarithmic Iitaka base $Z$ and the original base $Y$ inside the same function field, producing a subfield of $\mathbb C(Y)$ of transcendence degree $\bar\kappa(U)-d$. No constancy assertion is used at this stage.

Proposition 2.10

Assume Theorem 1.1 and $d=\kappa(F)\geq0$. Choose a compatible SNC compactification $(X,D_X)\to(Y,D_Y)$ with the reduced inverse boundary. In the models of Proposition 2.7, let $q:X'\to Z$ be the absolute logarithmic Iitaka map, $q=h\circ x$, and $X'\xrightarrow{x}W\xrightarrow{g}Y$. The maps $x,g,h$ have connected fibers and $W\to Y\times Z$ is generically finite onto its image. Put $r=\dim W_z$ and $p_1=\dim Y-r$.

The models can be chosen with smooth connected projective varieties $S,T_0$, a birational morphism $\rho:S\to Y$, a map $g_S:W\to S$ satisfying $g=\rho\circ g_S$, and compatible morphisms from $S,Z$ to $T_0$, such that

$W\longrightarrow(S\times_{T_0}Z)_{\rm main}$ is dominant and generically finite.

$$ \begin{gathered}\dim(W/Y)=d,\qquad\dim T_0=p_1,\\\dim Z=d+\dim T_0\end{gathered} $$

The generic fibers of $S\to T_0$ and $Z\to T_0$ are geometrically integral. With $D_S=(\rho^*D_Y)_{\rm red}$ made SNC, very general $t$ satisfies $\kappa(S_t,K_{S_t}+D_S|_{S_t})\geq0$. In particular, $\mathbb C(T_0)\subseteq\mathbb C(S)=\mathbb C(Y)$ holds inside the original field tower.

Proposition 2.10 · pp. 12–14

Construct the parameter field from logarithmic Iitaka systems
Logarithmic subadditivity and the family of images produce an embedded parameter field
Underlined citations open the sources. Tap the figure to enlarge it.Open figure ↗TeX source ↓

1. Combine the two maps while retaining coefficient-one boundary

Choose SNC compactifications $(X,D_X)\to(Y,D_Y)$ with $f^{-1}(V)=U$. Applying OI Corollary 6.2 gives $\bar\kappa(U)\geq d+\bar\kappa(V)$. Resolve the absolute Iitaka map of $K_X+D_X$ as $q:X'\to Z$. The relative algebraic closure of $\mathbb C(Y)\mathbb C(Z)$ in $\mathbb C(X)$ defines $X'\xrightarrow{x}W\xrightarrow{h}Z$ and $g:W\to Y$. The map $W\to Y\times Z$ is generically finite onto its image, and the relevant generic fibers are geometrically integral.

Lemma 2.6, Proposition 2.7 · pp.8–10 · OI, Corollary 6.2 · pp.40–41

2. Contract logarithmic forms to compute the rank of the image family

Fix $0\ne\xi\in H^0(Y,m(K_Y+D_Y))$. Set $r=\dim W_z$ and $p_1=\dim Y-r$. Contracting $g^*\xi$ against $p_1$ directions from $Z$ produces a nonzero logarithmic pluricanonical form on $W_z$. Since $X'_z$ has logarithmic Kodaira dimension zero, subadditivity for $x_z$ gives

$$ \kappa(W_z,K_{W_z}+D_W^0|_{W_z})=0, \qquad \kappa(J)=\kappa(J,K_J+D'|_J)=0, \qquad D_W^0=(g^*D_Y)_{\mathrm{red}}. $$

Here $J$ is the geometric generic fiber of $x$. The contracted sections in a fixed degree are proportional. Consequently the ratios of maximal minors of the normal deformation map $T_zZ\to N_{g(W_z)/Y,y}$ do not depend on $y$. Its constant kernel gives rank $p_1$ for the differential of the Hilbert parameter map.

Lemmas 2.8–2.9, proof of Proposition 2.10 · pp.10–13

3. Embed the parameter field in the original base field

Take the relative algebraic closure in $\mathbb C(Z)$ of the parameter field of the image family $g(W_z)$, and call its smooth model $T_0$. The resolved universal image family $S$ maps generically finitely to $Y$. In the tower

$$ \mathbb C(Y)\subseteq\mathbb C(S)\subseteq\mathbb C(W)\subseteq\mathbb C(X), $$

the first extension is algebraic, while $\mathbb C(Y)$ is relatively algebraically closed in $\mathbb C(X)$. Thus $\mathbb C(S)=\mathbb C(Y)$, an identification stronger than a dimension count. Together with $\dim(W/Y)=d$, it gives

$$ \mathbb C(T_0)\subseteq\mathbb C(Y),\qquad \bar\kappa(U)=\dim Z=d+\dim T_0. $$

It remains to descend the entire fiber to $b=\overline{\mathbb C(T_0)}\subseteq\Omega$.

Proposition 2.10, Remark 2.11 · pp.12–14

Fix the resulting $b=\overline{\mathbb C(T_0)}$ as the candidate definition field. Constancy of $J$, followed by markings and descent of finite covers, must still recover the original $F$.

WV, §§3–7 · pp. 14–59

For the last conclusion of Proposition 2.10, pull the fixed nonzero base section $\xi$ to $S$ and restrict it nontrivially to very general $S_t$. Adjunction gives $\kappa(S_t,K_{S_t}+D_S|_{S_t})\geq0$, retaining base nonvanishing for the later marked-model comparison.

4. Theorem 4.1 / Proposition 4.10 — From the root cover to first constancy

Proof target:Theorem 4.1 · p. 26

The least ordinary pluricanonical index makes the entire highest Hodge piece rank one, rather than just an eigenspace. Manuscript Section 4 supplies the analytic passage from its flatness to birational constancy.

Theorem 4.1

Let $\pi^\circ:P^\circ\to C^\circ$ be a smooth projective morphism with connected fibers over a smooth connected complex algebraic curve. Assume that its very general fiber $D$ has $\kappa(D)=0$ and $h^0(D,K_D)=1$, and put $n=\dim D$. Suppose the entire top Hodge bundle $F^n(R^n\pi^\circ_*\mathbb C\otimes\mathcal O_{C^\circ})$ is a flat line with finite monodromy character.

Then a finite extension $L/\mathbb C(C^\circ)$ and a smooth connected projective variety $D_0/\mathbb C$ exist such that the generic fiber over $L$ is birational to $(D_0)_L$. For a finite group $\Gamma$ acting over the base, the identification can be chosen $\Gamma$-equivariant. A finite fiberwise birational action is also allowed after passage to an equivariant smooth projective model.

Theorem 4.1 · p. 26

Proposition 4.10

Consider the maps $x:X'\to W$, $h:W\to Z$ fixed in Propositions 2.7–2.10 and the family of their Kodaira-dimension-zero geometric generic fibers $J$. For very general $z\in Z$, the geometric generic fiber of this family over $W_z$ is birational to the base change of a smooth projective variety over $\mathbb C$. Relatively, after extending $\mathbb C(Z)$ to its algebraic closure, the geometric generic fiber of $x$ over the resulting $h$-fiber is birationally constant over that algebraically closed field.

Proposition 4.10 · p. 43

From the entire top Hodge line to birational constancy
The minimal root cover, restricted Hodge-line triviality, and analytic contraction give the first constancy statement
Underlined citations open the sources. Tap the figure to enlarge it.Open figure ↗TeX source ↓

1. Relate actual relative-form orders to the Hodge line

The connected cyclic cover obtained from the least $p>0$ and $0\ne\omega_J\in H^0(J,pK_J)$ has a resolution $\widetilde J$ with $h^0(\widetilde J,mK_{\widetilde J})=1$ for every $m>0$. Its root form spans the entire top-form space. For a base divisor $P$, distinguish the minimum $t_P$ on actual source components from the threshold $\lambda_P$ on all higher models:

$$ t_P=\min_{Q\subset X',\ Q\mapsto P}\frac{r_Q+d_Q}{m_Q},\qquad \lambda_P=\inf_{Q\mapsto P}\frac{1+r_Q}{m_Q},\qquad B_P=1-\lambda_P+t_P. $$

Here $m_Q=\operatorname{ord}_Q(x^*P)$, $r_Q=p^{-1}\operatorname{ord}_Q(\omega_J)$ is measured in the actual relative canonical bundle, and $d_Q=\operatorname{coeff}_Q(D')$. The integrability exponent of the Hodge norm identifies the parabolic order of its line $M$ as $\lambda_P-1$. Thus $T=\sum t_PP\sim_{\mathbb Q}B+M$, $0\leq B\leq1$, and $B\geq D_W^0$.

Lemma 3.1, Propositions 3.3 and 3.5 · pp.14–19

2. Apply adjoint comparison anew to the restricted variation

Multiplication by the relative generator transfers sections to the fixed $X_{*,z}$ while preserving their ratios, giving

$$ \kappa(W_z,K_{W_z}+B|_{W_z}+M|_{W_z})\leq0. $$

Meanwhile $D=K_{W_z}+B|_{W_z}$ is rationally effective. Apply OI Theorem 3.1 to the restricted integral variation to obtain $M|_{W_z}\sim_{\mathbb Q}a^*A$ with $K_R+cA$ big. Weak positivity from Fuj and section transfer give $\kappa(D+cM)\geq\dim R$. For $c\geq1$,

$$ D+M=c^{-1}(D+cM)+(1-c^{-1})D $$

transfers that lower bound to $D+M$, forcing $R$ to be a point. Hence $M|_{W_z}\sim_{\mathbb Q}0$ and $\kappa(W_z,D)=0$. Curvature on test curves and Del's finite-character theorem, applied on the restriction, give a flat entire top line with finite monodromy.

Propositions 3.7, 3.9 and 3.12, Lemma 3.11, Corollaries 3.13–3.16 · pp.20–25 · OI, Theorem 3.1 · pp.17–18 · Fuj, Theorem 1.1 · pp.1–2 · Del, Corollary 4.2.8(iii)(b) · printed p.47 / PDF p.44

3. Contract poles of the lifted vector field

Over a curve, kill the finite character and lift the invariant class to a global form $\Theta$. Its kernel defines a rational vector field with $d\pi(v)=\partial_t$ and $\iota_v\Theta=0$. Poles may remain along the zero divisor of the relative top form. Lemma 4.4 uses DHP extension, while Lemmas 4.6–4.7 use PT relative Bergman weights. These lead to positive limiting fixed order $\sigma_S(K_D)>0$ at every pole divisor $S$. The weight is constructed before the final fiber is selected, and the regularization, degree, and cutoff limits have a prescribed order.

Sections 4.1–4.5 · pp.26–40 · DHP, Theorem 4.1 · pp.20–21 · PT, Theorem 4.2.7 and Remark 4.3.1 · pp.36–37

Choose one small $\varepsilon>0$ for all the finitely many poles. The big klt adjoint model of $K_D+\varepsilon H$, supplied by BCHM, contracts their positive fixed orders. Normality extends the resulting regular vector field across codimension two. Local flows and algebraic spreading of graphs give birational constancy after a finite field extension. Applying this equivariantly to the root cover and taking invariant function fields makes $J$ constant in the $h$-fiber directions. Descending the original whole $F$ still requires the next step.

Proof of Theorem 4.1, Corollary 4.9, Proposition 4.10 · pp.40–43 · BCHM, Theorem 1.2(2) · p.5

This fixes the Kodaira-zero fiber $J$. The next descent retains Iitaka-base coordinates and group actions to fix the entire geometric generic fiber.

WV, §6 introduction・§7.4 · pp. 46, 58–59

5. Proposition 7.3 — Descent retaining the whole Iitaka base

Proof target:Proposition 7.3 · pp. 57–59

Put $b=\overline{\mathbb C(T_0)}$ and denote the geometric generic fibers of $W,S,Z$ over $T_0$ by $H_0,I,P_0$. Write $p_I:H_0\to I$ and $a_0:H_0\to P_0$ for the induced maps. The map $H_0\to I\times_bP_0$ is generically finite and $\dim P_0=d$. Constancy of $J$ must now be made compatible with the coordinates of $P_0$.

Proposition 7.3

In the setting of §§6–7, fix $b=\overline{\mathbb C(T_0)}\subseteq\Omega$. After the marking of Proposition 6.2 and finite parameter extension, let $V'/b$ be the fixed finite normalization of the original Iitaka base and $I/b$ the parameter variety; put $k=b(V')$, $L_0=b(I)$, and $K=L_0(V')$. The Kodaira-dimension-zero fiber $J/K$ has total field $K(J)$ from the original fibration. Use the finite Galois splitting with constant cocycle of Lemma 7.1 and the unramifiedness at moving divisors after every finite parameter extension from Proposition 7.2.

For an algebraic closure $\Lambda$ of $L_0$, there is a finitely generated field $F_b/b$ containing $k$ and an isomorphism

$$ \begin{aligned}\operatorname{Frac}(\Lambda\otimes_bF_b)\\{}\simeq\operatorname{Frac}(\Lambda\otimes_{L_0}K(J)).\end{aligned} $$

On identifying $\Lambda=\Omega$, the right-hand side is the function field of the whole original geometric generic fiber. Thus $\operatorname{Var}(f)\leq\dim T_0$.

Proposition 7.3 · pp. 57–59

Descend the whole fiber retaining Iitaka-base coordinates
Markings fix a finite normalization, and unramifiedness at moving divisors permits descent of the entire function field
Underlined citations open the sources. Tap the figure to enlarge it.Open figure ↗TeX source ↓

1. Recover the finite normalization using coordinate and sum markings

For an embedding of $P_0$ with coordinates $x_0,\ldots,x_N$, label the pullbacks of $x_0=0$, $x_j=0$, and $x_0+x_j=0$ by distinct small coefficients. Slightly decrease the old boundary to make the generic pair klt, and add further general markings to make it big. The added line bundles restrict trivially to $a_0$-fibers, preserving the upper bound $\kappa(H_0,K_{H_0}+\Delta)\leq d$. Proposition 5.3, using KP, gives the lower bound $d+\operatorname{Var}(\text{marked model})$. The marked model is therefore constant after a finite parameter extension. Let $C_*$ be the underlying normal projective variety of this model pair over $b$.

Proposition 5.3, Proposition 6.2 · pp.45–50 · KP, Theorem 9.9 · p.50

Coordinate divisors determine $x_j/x_0=c_jf_j$ with $f_j\in b(C_*)$; the sum divisors force $c_j\in b$. The morphism $C_*\to P_0$ itself descends, fixing the normalization $V'\to P_0$ in its function field. Images of positive old-boundary components become fixed $b$-divisors as well. With $k=b(V')$ and $K=k(I)$, the preceding constancy statement supplies a reference variety $J_0/k$. The markings are auxiliary identifiers and are discarded from the final fiber.

Proposition 6.2, especially (6.12) · pp.47–51

2. Remove the nonconstant cocycle and the inertia at moving divisors

Lemma 7.1 uses Han's structure theorem for birational automorphism groups. The abelian identity component and the unique divisibility of $A_1(\overline K)/A_1(\overline k)$ allow averaging over a finite quotient to remove the nonconstant cocycle as a coboundary. The resulting finite Galois splitting has a constant cocycle with faithful pairs $(z_g,g|_{k'})$.

Lemma 7.1 · pp.52–54

Comparison with the original Han statements remains pending.

At a moving divisor $P$, the old boundary coefficient is $B_P=0$. Equality in the order inequalities produces an actual source component $Q$ with $m_Q=1$ attaining $\lambda_P$. On the split constant family the special fiber is the unique minimizing divisor. The identities

$$ m_{Q'}=\frac{e_Qm_Q}{e},\qquad \frac{1+r_{Q'}}{m_{Q'}}=e\frac{1+r_Q}{m_Q}-(e-1) $$

give $e_Q=e$. Total and base inertia coincide, and faithfulness of the constant cocycle makes inertia trivial. Repeating the argument after every finite parameter extension is needed to control all moving divisors over the algebraic closure.

Corollary 3.4 · p.18, Lemma 6.4 · pp.51–52, Proposition 7.2 · pp.55–56

3. Descend the cover, its action, and its coefficient field together

Remove the fixed branch divisors and singular locus to obtain $O\subset V'$. The manuscript invokes purity to make the splitting cover finite étale over $O$. In characteristic zero, Lan's base-change invariance descends covers and their morphisms, retaining both the group action and the map carrying $k'$. For the field $E_1$ of a connected component and its stabilizer $G_1$, set

$$ F_b=E_1(J_0)^{G_1},\qquad k=b(V')\subseteq F_b. $$

Commutation of finite-group invariants with field extension and identification of the original field tower give

$$ \operatorname{Frac}(\Omega\otimes_bF_b) \simeq\operatorname{Frac}(\Omega\otimes_{\mathbb C(Y)}\mathbb C(X)). $$

The right side is the function field of the entire original geometric generic fiber. Hence $\operatorname{Var}(f)\leq\operatorname{trdeg}_{\mathbb C}b=\dim T_0$. Combine this with the dimension identity and subadditivity from article Section 3 to obtain Theorem 1.1.

Proposition 7.3 and Section 7.4 · pp.57–59 · Lan, Theorem 1.1 and Remark 1.5 · pp.2–3

For purity, only the receiving argument and its stated hypotheses were checked; the original SGA1 statement was not rechecked.

This completes the lower bound involving variation in Theorem 1.1. Corollary 1.2 uses this output with empty boundaries.

WV, Theorem 1.1 / Corollary 1.2 · p. 2; §7.4 · p. 59

6. Corollary 1.2: take empty boundaries

Proof target:Corollary 1.2 · p. 2 See the hypotheses and conclusion.

For projective $X,Y$, use empty compactification boundaries. The geometric generic fiber and its field-of-definition invariant are unchanged.

Specialize to Corollary 1.2 with empty boundaries
Empty boundaries specialize the logarithmic inequality to the projective inequality
Underlined citations open the sources. Tap the figure to enlarge it.Open figure ↗TeX source ↓

1. Replace logarithmic by ordinary Kodaira dimensions

With $D_X=D_Y=0$, one has $\bar\kappa(X)=\kappa(X)$ and $\bar\kappa(Y)=\kappa(Y)$. The hypothesis $\kappa(Y)\geq0$ is exactly the base hypothesis of Theorem 1.1, so its inequality gives Corollary 1.2 immediately.

Proof of Corollary 1.2 · p.2, Section 7.4 · p.59

The ordinary Iitaka–Viehweg inequality applies to projective fibrations over a base of nonnegative Kodaira dimension. The additional relative-Iitaka route is not a premise of this proof.

WV, Corollary 1.2 · p. 2; §9 introduction · p. 69

7. Corollary 1.3: good models for a smooth family

Proof target:Corollary 1.3 · p. 5 See the hypotheses and conclusion.

This route uses smoothness of the family and non-uniruledness of every closed fiber. It does not enter the proof of the main theorem.

Corollary 1.3 via LA and Taji
Non-uniruled closed fibers acquire good models from LA, allowing application of Taji
Underlined citations open the sources. Tap the figure to enlarge it.Open figure ↗TeX source ↓

1. Obtain canonical good models from LA's comparison

For every closed fiber $F_v$, BDPP makes $K_{F_v}$ pseudo-effective. LA Corollary 11.2 supplies a semiample $K_{M_v}$ and a common-resolution identity

$$ p^*K_{F_v}=q^*K_{M_v}+E,\qquad E\geq0,\quad E\text{ is }q\text{-exceptional}. $$

For every prime $P$ exceptional over $M_v$,

$$ a(P,M_v)=a(P,F_v)+\operatorname{coeff}_P E\geq0. $$

Thus $M_v$ is canonical and gives a good minimal model in the sense used by Taji.

Proof of Corollary 1.3 · p.5 · BDPP, Corollary 0.3 · p.2 · LA, Corollary 11.2 · pp.73–74

2. Apply Taji with whole-fiber variation

For smooth projective families whose fibers have good minimal models, Taj Theorems 1.1–1.2 supply isotriviality over special bases and the two variation bounds according to the sign of the base's logarithmic Kodaira dimension. Taji's definition on p.2 also uses a birational field of definition of the entire fiber. When $\bar\kappa(V)=0$, combine the bound with $\operatorname{Var}(f)\geq0$.

Corollary 1.3 · p.5 · Taj, Theorems 1.1–1.2 and definition of variation · p.2

For a smooth family with $\kappa(F)\geq0$ and $\bar\kappa(V)\geq0$, comparing RA Corollary 1.2's additivity with Theorem 1.1 gives the same upper bound. This alternative does not cover the negative-base branch or all special bases.

Comparison paragraph · p.5 · RA, Corollary 1.2 · p.2

A base of logarithmic Kodaira dimension zero gives birational isotriviality. For the negative-base and special-base conclusions, retain the hypotheses of the LA–Taji route.

WV, Corollary 1.3 · p. 5

8. Additional results in Sections 8–9

The main proof ends in Section 7.4. Theorem 8.1 replaces the Hodge contribution by an arbitrary nef pullback $M=h^*A$, for morphisms $g:W\to Y$ and $h:W\to Z$, an effective SNC rational boundary $B\geq(g^*D_Y)_{\mathrm{red}}$, and $\kappa(Y,K_Y+D_Y)\geq0$. The varieties are smooth complex projective, both morphisms are surjective with connected fibers, $D_Y$ is reduced SNC, the coefficients of $B$ lie in $[0,1]$, and here $d=\dim(W/Y)$. If $K_Z+aA$ is big for all sufficiently large rational $a$ and $K_W+B+M$ is big over $Y$, it asserts a second Iitaka base $U_2$ (called $U$ in the manuscript) satisfying

$$ \kappa(W,K_W+B+M)=\dim U_2=d+\dim T_0, \qquad \kappa(Y,K_Y+D_Y)\leq\dim T_0. $$

The final interpolation compares $P_{U_2}(c)$ and $P_{U_2}(a)$ on one fixed model. This reading covered the statement and the final proof passage, not Section 8's intermediate volume and effective finite-group degree estimates.

Theorem 8.1 · pp.59–60, final proof passage · p.69

Section 9 applies this construction to the ordinary relative Iitaka fibration. It cites OI Proposition 2.7, Lemma 7.1, Corollary 7.2, and Lemma 7.4 for section comparison and the reduced-root entire top line. Corollary 9.4 identifies the absolute Iitaka field and the intermediate field, recovering $\mathbb C(T_0)=\mathbb C(Y)\cap\mathbb C(U_2)$ inside $\mathbb C(X)$ before applying Proposition 7.3. The additional OI statements and their use in Proposition 9.1 were compared. Their full proofs and the complete arguments of §§8–9 were not independently verified.

Proposition 9.1, Corollaries 9.2–9.4 · pp.69–72

9. Which papers supply which steps

InputUse and role in this manuscriptRelation and comparison scope
OI Corollary 6.2, pp.40–41Theorem 2.1, Section 2: logarithmic lower bounds and zero-dimensional Iitaka systemsdirect; input statement and applications compared
OI Theorem 3.1, pp.17–18Theorem 3.8, Propositions 3.9 and 3.12: restricted adjoint comparisondirect; integral ambient and complex-summand hypotheses compared
Fuj Theorem 1.1, pp.1–2Lemma 3.11, pp.22–23: sections after a big base twistdirect; lc, Cartier multiple, and projective-base hypotheses compared
Del Corollary 4.2.8(iii)(b), printed p.47Corollaries 3.14–3.16: finite character of a rank-one subsystemdirect; statement and use compared; invariant-cycle citation separately unverified
DHP Theorem 4.1, pp.20–21Lemma 4.4, pp.30–31: extension under a putatively nonzero restriction to the zero divisordirect; conditions (19)–(23) compared with the application
PT Theorem 4.2.7 and Remark 4.3.1, pp.36–37Lemma 4.6, pp.34–35: relative Bergman weight and uniform upper bounddirect; statement and use compared
BCHM Theorem 1.2(2), p.5Section 4.6, p.40, Section 6, p.48: big klt adjoint modelsdirect; model-existence statement and uses compared; auxiliary ample-model locators unverified
KP Theorem 9.9, p.50Proposition 5.3, p.46 → Proposition 6.2: lower bound for marked-model variationdirect; auxiliary base divisor $M=0$ and klt big generic pair compared
Han Theorems 2.1–2.2Lemma 7.1, p.53: birational identity component and cocycledirect; receiving citation and argument read; original statements not compared
SGA1 X, Théorème 3.1Proposition 7.3, p.57: purity for a finite normalization unramified in height onedirect; hypotheses as listed by the receiving paper checked
Lan Theorem 1.1 and Remark 1.5, pp.2–3Proposition 7.3, pp.57–58: descent of finite étale covers and morphismsdirect; characteristic-zero specialization and use compared
BDPP Corollary 0.3, LA Corollary 11.2, Taj Theorems 1.1–1.2Corollary 1.3, p.5consequence; input statements and interfaces compared; not used in the main theorem
PH Lemma 8.4 and Theorem 8.1Remark 3.17, p.25alternative; input statements and use compared, including checks recorded in the PH article; input proofs unverified
OI Proposition 2.7, Lemma 7.1, Corollary 7.2, Lemma 7.4Proposition 9.1, pp.69–70consequence (directly used by the additional result); statements and uses compared, full proofs unverified

Unrecorded relations remain unexamined. Comparing an input's statement with its application is distinct from verifying the input theorem's entire proof.

10. Return to the sources

  • Theorem 1.1 · p. 2 — Read the main hypotheses and conclusion alongside the proof passages below

  • Proposition 2.10 · pp. 12–14 — Follow the embedding of the parameter field into the original base field and the dimension identity

  • Theorem 4.1 · p. 26 — Follow the flat entire top line through contraction of poles and equivariant flows to birational constancy

  • Proposition 7.3 · pp. 57–59 — Retain the fixed Iitaka-base coordinates while descending the cover and action to the whole fiber

  • Corollary 1.2 · p. 2 — Set the boundary to zero to obtain the projective Iitaka–Viehweg inequality

  • Corollary 1.3 · p. 5 — Check how good models and Taji also supply the negative-base and special-base consequences

  • Embedded parameter field: Proposition 2.10, equation (2.12), pp.12–14.

  • Actual minimum versus all-valuation threshold: Propositions 3.3 and 3.5, pp.17–19, returning in Lemma 6.4's multiplicity-one minimizer.

  • First constancy statement: Proposition 3.12, Theorem 4.1, Lemmas 4.6–4.7, Proposition 4.8, pp.23–43.

  • Second constancy statement and the whole field: Proposition 6.2, Lemma 6.4, Propositions 7.2–7.3, pp.47–59.

This reading covered the main statements and corollaries, Section 2's parameter field, Section 3's root cover, orders, and restricted triviality, the principal analytic constancy argument of Section 4, and the marked models and descent in Sections 5–7. The external interfaces compared are listed in the table. This is an account of the argument's route, not an independent verification of every inference.

Remaining work includes the full regularization and $L^2$ estimates of Section 4, external Hodge-extension and boundary-growth inputs, Hanamura's original statements, the original SGA1 purity statement, Section 8's intermediate proofs, and full proofs of Section 9's additional OI inputs. The full proofs of external inputs, expert review, and formal verification have not been completed. The separate scope for Sections 8–9 is stated above.

The catalogue-033 manuscripts, including WV and OI, use commit fd4aeeb2ee4fc729c18d98444fed42fd0529eeeb. LA uses adc7f1241b42e322a6451854ab7e4b4c146bf78a, matching the existing catalogue-034 article. Page locators refer to the respective PDFs; Deligne's printed pagination is additionally indicated.

For the additional route, the statements of OI Proposition 2.7, Lemma 7.1, Corollary 7.2 and Lemma 7.4 were compared with their use in Proposition 9.1. Complete valuation comparisons, all BFMT interfaces and the full proofs of §§8–9 remain unverified.

OI, Proposition 2.7・Lemma 7.1・Corollary 7.2・Lemma 7.4 · pp.10–17, 43–47 · WV, Proposition 9.1 · pp.69–70

Back to catalogue 033 →

Enlarged figure

Scroll to move around the figure. Underlined citations remain clickable.