Remark on a theorem of Oguiso

Inder Kaur School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Glasgow, G12 8QQ , UK [email protected] Β andΒ  Artie Prendergast-Smith Department of Mathematical Sciences, Loughborough University, LE11 3TU, UK [email protected]
Abstract.

For a Calabi–Yau variety X𝑋Xitalic_X, Oguiso [Ogu18] gave a useful criterion for primitivity of a self-map of X𝑋Xitalic_X in terms of the associated linear map on the NΓ©ron–Severi space of X𝑋Xitalic_X. In this short note, we prove a variant of Oguiso’s criterion and use it to verify primitivity of a certain birational automorphism of a Calabi–Yau threefold, to which Oguiso’s original criterion does not apply.

A.P-S. and I.K. were supported by EPSRC grant EP/W026554/1.

1. Introduction

The purpose of this note is to prove a variant of a criterion of Oguiso [Ogu18] verifying that a birational self-map of a Calabi–Yau variety is primitive. Roughly speaking, a map is primitive if it does not β€œfactor through” a birational automorphism of a lower-dimensional variety; in studying dynamics of birational maps, this is a natural condition to impose in order to exclude uninteresting examples such as product maps. The precise defintion of primitivity was first formulated by Zhang [Zha09], and is stated by Oguiso [Ogu18] as follows:

Definition 1.1.

Let X𝑋Xitalic_X be a projective variety. A rational fibration means a dominant rational map Ο€:Xβ‡’B:πœ‹β‡’π‘‹π΅\pi\colon X\dashrightarrow Bitalic_Ο€ : italic_X β‡’ italic_B where B𝐡Bitalic_B is a projective variety and Ο€πœ‹\piitalic_Ο€ has connected fibres. The fibration Ο€πœ‹\piitalic_Ο€ is nontrivial if 0<dimB<dimX0dimension𝐡dimension𝑋0<\dim B<\dim X0 < roman_dim italic_B < roman_dim italic_X.

Let f:Xβ‡’X:𝑓⇒𝑋𝑋f\colon X\dashrightarrow Xitalic_f : italic_X β‡’ italic_X be a birational map. A rational fibration Ο€:Xβ‡’B:πœ‹β‡’π‘‹π΅\pi\colon X\dashrightarrow Bitalic_Ο€ : italic_X β‡’ italic_B is called f𝑓fitalic_f-equivariant if there is a birational map fB:Bβ‡’B:subscript𝑓𝐡⇒𝐡𝐡f_{B}\colon B\dashrightarrow Bitalic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_B β‡’ italic_B such that Ο€βˆ˜f=fBβˆ˜Ο€πœ‹π‘“subscriptπ‘“π΅πœ‹\pi~{}\circ~{}f~{}=~{}f_{B}~{}\circ~{}\piitalic_Ο€ ∘ italic_f = italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∘ italic_Ο€. The birational map f𝑓fitalic_f is called primitive if there does not exist a non-trivial f𝑓fitalic_f-equivariant rational fibration Ο€:Xβ‡’B:πœ‹β‡’π‘‹π΅\pi\colon X\dashrightarrow Bitalic_Ο€ : italic_X β‡’ italic_B.

For a Calabi–Yau variety X𝑋Xitalic_X, Oguiso [Ogu18, Theorem 1.2] gave a useful criterion for primitivity of a birational map f:Xβ‡’X:𝑓⇒𝑋𝑋f:X\dashrightarrow Xitalic_f : italic_X β‡’ italic_X in terms of the associated linear map fβˆ—superscript𝑓f^{*}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT on the NΓ©ron–Severi space of X𝑋Xitalic_X. The precise statement is Theorem 1.3 below; roughly speaking, assuming general conjectures of minimal model theory, the criterion asks that fβˆ—superscript𝑓f^{*}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT should have no nontrivial invariant subspaces defined over β„šβ„š\mathbb{Q}blackboard_Q. In Theorem 1.4, we will prove a variant of Oguiso’s criterion, replacing his linear algebraic criterion on fβˆ—superscriptπ‘“βˆ—f^{\ast}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by one involving convex geometry.

We will also be interested in the dynamical complexity of a birational map, as measured by Dinh–Sibony’s notion of dynamical degrees [DS05]. To keep our presentation simple, we only define the first dynamical degree of a birational map f:Xβ‡’X:𝑓⇒𝑋𝑋f\colon X\dashrightarrow Xitalic_f : italic_X β‡’ italic_X, and moreover give a definition that is valid only in the special case when f𝑓fitalic_f is an isomorphism in codimension 1.

Definition 1.2.

Let f:Xβ‡’X:𝑓⇒𝑋𝑋f\colon X\dashrightarrow Xitalic_f : italic_X β‡’ italic_X be a birational map which is an isomorphism in codimension 1, and let fβˆ—:N1⁒(X)β†’N1⁒(X):superscriptπ‘“βˆ—β†’superscript𝑁1𝑋superscript𝑁1𝑋f^{\ast}\colon N^{1}(X)\rightarrow N^{1}(X)italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) β†’ italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) be the linear map induced by pullback of divisors. The first dynamical degree d1⁒(f)subscript𝑑1𝑓d_{1}(f)italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) is the spectral radius of the map fβˆ—superscriptπ‘“βˆ—f^{\ast}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, in other words,

d1⁒(f)=max⁑{|Ξ»i⁒(fβˆ—)|}subscript𝑑1𝑓subscriptπœ†π‘–superscriptπ‘“βˆ—\displaystyle d_{1}(f)=\max\left\{|\lambda_{i}(f^{\ast})|\right\}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) = roman_max { | italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | }

where the maximum is taken over the set of all eigenvalues {Ξ»i⁒(fβˆ—)}subscriptπœ†π‘–superscriptπ‘“βˆ—\{\lambda_{i}(f^{\ast})\}{ italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) } of the linear map fβˆ—superscriptπ‘“βˆ—f^{\ast}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

As motivation, in the case where f:Xβ†’X:𝑓→𝑋𝑋f\colon X\rightarrow Xitalic_f : italic_X β†’ italic_X is biregular, the Gromov–Yomdin theorem [Gro03, Yom87] says that the topological entropy of f𝑓fitalic_f equals

l⁒(f)𝑙𝑓\displaystyle l(f)italic_l ( italic_f ) :=log⁑max⁑{di⁒(f)∣i=1,…,dimXβˆ’1};assignabsentlogmaxconditionalsubscript𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑖1…dimension𝑋1\displaystyle:=\operatorname{log}\,\operatorname{max}\left\{d_{i}(f)\mid i=1,% \ldots,\dim X-1\right\};:= roman_log roman_max { italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) ∣ italic_i = 1 , … , roman_dim italic_X - 1 } ;

in the birational case Dinh-Sibony showed that l⁒(f)𝑙𝑓l(f)italic_l ( italic_f ) is an upper bound for topological entropy. So maps with d1⁒(f)>1subscript𝑑1𝑓1d_{1}(f)>1italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) > 1 can be considered as candidates for having positive topological entropy.

We now introduce some notation and terminology in order to give precise statements of Oguiso’s criterion and our variant of it.

We work throughout over β„‚β„‚\mathbb{C}blackboard_C. For a β„šβ„š\mathbb{Q}blackboard_Q-factorial projective variety X𝑋Xitalic_X, we write N1⁒(X)β„šsuperscript𝑁1subscriptπ‘‹β„šN^{1}(X)_{\mathbb{Q}}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to denote the vector space of divisors with rational coefficients modulo numerical equivalence, and N1⁒(X)superscript𝑁1𝑋N^{1}(X)italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) to denote N1⁒(X)β„šβŠ—β„tensor-productsuperscript𝑁1subscriptπ‘‹β„šβ„N^{1}(X)_{\mathbb{Q}}\otimes\mathbb{R}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ— blackboard_R. The pseudoeffective cone Eff¯⁒(X)Β―Eff𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ) means the closed cone in N1⁒(X)superscript𝑁1𝑋N^{1}(X)italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) generated by the classes of effective divisors. A divisor D𝐷Ditalic_D on X𝑋Xitalic_X is movable if the intersection of all effective divisors in the complete linear system |D|𝐷|D|| italic_D | has codimension at least 2 in X𝑋Xitalic_X. The closed movable cone Mov¯⁒(X)Β―Mov𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Mov}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Mov end_ARG ( italic_X ) means the closed cone in N1⁒(X)superscript𝑁1𝑋N^{1}(X)italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) generated by the classes of movable divisors.

A projective variety X𝑋Xitalic_X is a minimal Calabi–Yau variety if X𝑋Xitalic_X is β„šβ„š\mathbb{Q}blackboard_Q-factorial and terminal, we have h1⁒(OX)=0superscriptβ„Ž1subscript𝑂𝑋0h^{1}(O_{X})=0italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0, and the canonical divisor KXsubscript𝐾𝑋K_{X}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is trivial. We say a minimal Calabi–Yau variety is m-abundant if, for any movable effective divisor D𝐷Ditalic_D, there is another minimal Calabi–Yau variety Xβ€²superscript𝑋′X^{\prime}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and a birational map g:Xβ€²β‡’X:𝑔⇒superscript𝑋′𝑋g\colon X^{\prime}\dashrightarrow Xitalic_g : italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β‡’ italic_X such that gβˆ—β’Dsuperscript𝑔𝐷g^{*}Ditalic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_D is semi-ample on Xβ€²superscript𝑋′X^{\prime}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. By the existence of log minimal models and the log abundance theorem in dimension 3 [Kaw92, Sho03, KMM94], every minimal Calabi–Yau variety of dimension 3 is m-abundant.

We can now state Oguiso’s criterion [Ogu18, Theorem 1.2]:

Theorem 1.3 (Oguiso).

Let X𝑋Xitalic_X be a minimal Calabi–Yau variety of dimension at least 3333, of Picard number at least 2222, and which is m-abundant. Let f:Xβ‡’X:𝑓⇒𝑋𝑋f\colon X\dashrightarrow Xitalic_f : italic_X β‡’ italic_X be a birational map such that fβˆ—superscript𝑓f^{*}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT acts irreducibly on the β„šβ„š\mathbb{Q}blackboard_Q-vector space N1⁒(X)β„šsuperscript𝑁1subscriptπ‘‹β„šN^{1}(X)_{\mathbb{Q}}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then f𝑓fitalic_f is primitive.

To state our variant, we fix some more terminology. Let V𝑉Vitalic_V be a vector space and g:Vβ†’V:𝑔→𝑉𝑉g\colon V\rightarrow Vitalic_g : italic_V β†’ italic_V a linear endomorphism. The fixed subspace of g𝑔gitalic_g means the largest subspace UβŠ‚Vπ‘ˆπ‘‰U\subset Vitalic_U βŠ‚ italic_V such that g⁒u=u𝑔𝑒𝑒gu=uitalic_g italic_u = italic_u for all u∈Uπ‘’π‘ˆu\in Uitalic_u ∈ italic_U. A subspace WβŠ‚Vπ‘Šπ‘‰W\subset Vitalic_W βŠ‚ italic_V is g𝑔gitalic_g-stable if g⁒w∈Wπ‘”π‘€π‘Šgw\in Witalic_g italic_w ∈ italic_W for all w∈Wπ‘€π‘Šw\in Witalic_w ∈ italic_W. A face F𝐹Fitalic_F a cone K𝐾Kitalic_K is proper if Fβ‰ {0}𝐹0F\neq\{0\}italic_F β‰  { 0 } and Fβ‰ K𝐹𝐾F\neq Kitalic_F β‰  italic_K. We will show the following:

Theorem 1.4.

Let X𝑋Xitalic_X be a minimal Calabi–Yau variety of dimension at least 3333, of Picard number at least 2222, and which is m-abundant. Let f:Xβ‡’X:𝑓⇒𝑋𝑋f\colon X\dashrightarrow Xitalic_f : italic_X β‡’ italic_X be a birational map such that:

  • β€’

    the fixed subspace of fβˆ—superscript𝑓f^{*}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT intersects the cone Eff¯⁒(X)Β―Eff𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ) trivially;

  • β€’

    at least one of the following is true:

    • –

      Mov¯⁒(X)Β―Mov𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Mov}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Mov end_ARG ( italic_X ) does not have a proper fβˆ—superscript𝑓f^{*}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-stable face defined over β„šβ„š\mathbb{Q}blackboard_Q;

    • –

      Eff¯⁒(X)Β―Eff𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ) does not have a proper fβˆ—superscript𝑓f^{*}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-stable face defined over β„šβ„š\mathbb{Q}blackboard_Q.

Then f𝑓fitalic_f is primitive.

Section 2 of this note will outline Oguiso’s proof of Theorem 1.3, and explain how the proof can be modified to give the statement of Theorem 1.4. In Section 3 we will apply this variant of the criterion to verify primitivity of a certain birational automorphism to which Oguiso’s original form of the criterion does not apply. We also show that the first dynamical degree of this map is strictly greater than 1.

2. Outline proof of Theorem 1.3 and proof of Theorem 1.4

In this section we outline Oguiso’s proof of Theorem 1.3. In particular we identify those points in the proof where the assumption of irreducibility of fβˆ—superscriptπ‘“βˆ—f^{\ast}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is used. We then explain how to modify the proof so that it works under the weaker assumptions of Theorem 1.4. In various places in the proof, we take Ξ½:X~β†’X:πœˆβ†’~𝑋𝑋\nu\colon\widetilde{X}\rightarrow Xitalic_Ξ½ : over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG β†’ italic_X to be a resolution of the singularities of X𝑋Xitalic_X and of the indeterminacy of Ο€:Xβ‡’B:πœ‹β‡’π‘‹π΅\pi\colon X\dashrightarrow Bitalic_Ο€ : italic_X β‡’ italic_B, take Ο€~=Ο€βˆ˜Ξ½:X~β†’B:~πœ‹πœ‹πœˆβ†’~𝑋𝐡\widetilde{\pi}=\pi\circ\nu\colon\widetilde{X}\rightarrow Bover~ start_ARG italic_Ο€ end_ARG = italic_Ο€ ∘ italic_Ξ½ : over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG β†’ italic_B, and define X~bsubscript~𝑋𝑏\widetilde{X}_{b}over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to be the fibre of Ο€~~πœ‹\widetilde{\pi}over~ start_ARG italic_Ο€ end_ARG over a point b∈B𝑏𝐡b\in Bitalic_b ∈ italic_B.

Step 1: The first step is to prove the weaker statement that, under the hypotheses of Theorem 1.3, there can be no nontrival f𝑓fitalic_f-equivariant fibration Ο€:Xβ‡’B:πœ‹β‡’π‘‹π΅\pi\colon X\dashrightarrow Bitalic_Ο€ : italic_X β‡’ italic_B such that κ⁒(X~b)=0πœ…subscript~𝑋𝑏0\kappa(\widetilde{X}_{b})=0italic_ΞΊ ( over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0. Oguiso shows that, in this situation, we can assume after replacing X𝑋Xitalic_X with a birational model Xβ€²superscript𝑋′X^{\prime}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that Ο€πœ‹\piitalic_Ο€ is a morphism, and that the nontrivial subspace Ο€βˆ—β’N1⁒(B)βŠ‚N1⁒(X)superscriptπœ‹superscript𝑁1𝐡superscript𝑁1𝑋\pi^{*}N^{1}(B)\subset N^{1}(X)italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) βŠ‚ italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) is stable for the action of fβˆ—superscriptπ‘“βˆ—f^{\ast}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This contradicts the assumption of irreducibility of fβˆ—superscriptπ‘“βˆ—f^{\ast}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, showing that no such Ο€πœ‹\piitalic_Ο€ exists.

Step 2: The next step is to show that if P𝑃Pitalic_P is a very general point of X𝑋Xitalic_X, then the two-way orbit {fn⁒(P)∣nβˆˆβ„€}conditional-setsuperscript𝑓𝑛𝑃𝑛℀\left\{f^{n}(P)\mid n\in\mathbb{Z}\right\}{ italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_P ) ∣ italic_n ∈ blackboard_Z } is well-defined and is a Zariski-dense subset of X𝑋Xitalic_X. As a corollary of a result of Lo Bianco [LB19, Proposition 4.5.1] also proved by Oguiso [Ogu18, Proposition 2.5], this implies that for Ο€:Xβ‡’B:πœ‹β‡’π‘‹π΅\pi\colon X\dashrightarrow Bitalic_Ο€ : italic_X β‡’ italic_B as before, the general fibre X~bsubscript~𝑋𝑏\widetilde{X}_{b}over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is not of general type. The proof of the first assertion uses a result of Amerik–Campana [AC08] which shows that there is a dominant rational map ρ:Xβ‡’C:πœŒβ‡’π‘‹πΆ\rho\colon X\dashrightarrow Citalic_ρ : italic_X β‡’ italic_C to a smooth projective variety C𝐢Citalic_C such that ρ∘f=ΟπœŒπ‘“πœŒ\rho\circ f=\rhoitalic_ρ ∘ italic_f = italic_ρ and Οβˆ’1⁒(ρ⁒(P))superscript𝜌1πœŒπ‘ƒ\rho^{-1}(\rho(P))italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ρ ( italic_P ) ) is the Zariski closure of the two-way orbit of P𝑃Pitalic_P, for very general P𝑃Pitalic_P. This implies that Οβˆ—β’N1⁒(C)superscript𝜌superscript𝑁1𝐢\rho^{*}N^{1}(C)italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_C ) is a well-defined subspace of N1⁒(X)superscript𝑁1𝑋N^{1}(X)italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) on which fβˆ—superscriptπ‘“βˆ—f^{\ast}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT acts as identity, again contradicting irreducibility of fβˆ—superscriptπ‘“βˆ—f^{\ast}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT unless N1⁒(C)superscript𝑁1𝐢N^{1}(C)italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_C ) is trivial, i.e. unless C𝐢Citalic_C is a point and the orbit of P𝑃Pitalic_P is Zariski-dense.

Step 3: The final step of the proof is to consider Ο€:Xβ‡’B:πœ‹β‡’π‘‹π΅\pi\colon X\dashrightarrow Bitalic_Ο€ : italic_X β‡’ italic_B a nontrivial f𝑓fitalic_f-equivariant fibration, and to take the relative Iitaka fibration over B𝐡Bitalic_B to get g:Xβ‡’K:𝑔⇒𝑋𝐾g\colon X\dashrightarrow Kitalic_g : italic_X β‡’ italic_K. By Step 2 we know that X~bsubscript~𝑋𝑏\widetilde{X}_{b}over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT does not have general type, implying that dimK<dimXdimension𝐾dimension𝑋\dim K<\dim Xroman_dim italic_K < roman_dim italic_X; also by definition we have dimKβ‰₯dimBdimension𝐾dimension𝐡\dim K\geq\dim Broman_dim italic_K β‰₯ roman_dim italic_B. So this is again a nontrivial f𝑓fitalic_f-equivariant rational fibration. Moreover, by construction of the Iitaka fibration it has the key property that κ⁒(X~k)=0πœ…subscript~π‘‹π‘˜0\kappa(\widetilde{X}_{k})=0italic_ΞΊ ( over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 for a general point k∈Kπ‘˜πΎk\in Kitalic_k ∈ italic_K. The existence of such a fibration contradicts the conclusion of Step 1, and so the proof is complete.

To generalise Oguiso’s proof, we need to show that Steps 1 and 2 above still work under the weaker hypotheses of Theorem 1.4. Let us deal with Step 2 first. Kee** the notation as above, we have the following:

Lemma 2.1.

Suppose C𝐢Citalic_C is not a point. For any nonzero basepoint-free divisor D𝐷Ditalic_D on C𝐢Citalic_C, we have that Οβˆ—β’(D)superscript𝜌𝐷\rho^{*}(D)italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_D ) is a nonzero effective divisor on X𝑋Xitalic_X. In particular, the subspace Οβˆ—β’N1⁒(C)superscript𝜌superscript𝑁1𝐢\rho^{*}N^{1}(C)italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_C ) intersects the cone Eff¯⁒(X)Β―Eff𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ) nontrivially.

Proof.

By definition Οβˆ—=Ξ½βˆ—β’Ο~βˆ—β’DsuperscriptπœŒβˆ—subscriptπœˆβˆ—superscript~πœŒβˆ—π·\rho^{\ast}=\nu_{\ast}\widetilde{\rho}^{\ast}Ditalic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ρ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_D where Ξ½:X~β†’X:πœˆβ†’~𝑋𝑋\nu\colon\widetilde{X}\rightarrow Xitalic_Ξ½ : over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG β†’ italic_X is a resolution as before and ρ~:X~β†’C:~πœŒβ†’~𝑋𝐢\widetilde{\rho}\colon\widetilde{X}\rightarrow Cover~ start_ARG italic_ρ end_ARG : over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG β†’ italic_C is the induced morphism.

Now let D𝐷Ditalic_D be a basepoint-free divisor class on C𝐢Citalic_C. Then ρ~βˆ—β’Dsuperscript~πœŒβˆ—π·\widetilde{\rho}^{\ast}Dover~ start_ARG italic_ρ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_D is basepoint-free on X~~𝑋\widetilde{X}over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG. In particular, we can choose an effecitve divisor in this class which is distinct from the union of all exceptional divisors of ν𝜈\nuitalic_Ξ½. Then Ξ½βˆ—β’Ο~βˆ—β’Dsubscriptπœˆβˆ—superscript~πœŒβˆ—π·\nu_{\ast}\widetilde{\rho}^{\ast}Ditalic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ρ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_D is an effective and nonzero divisor on X𝑋Xitalic_X. ∎

We then get the conclusion of Step 2 above, under the weaker hypotheses of Theorem 1.4. That is, if f:Xβ‡’X:𝑓⇒𝑋𝑋f\colon X\dashrightarrow Xitalic_f : italic_X β‡’ italic_X is a birational map such that the fixed subspace fβˆ—superscript𝑓f^{*}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT intersects the effective cone Eff¯⁒(X)Β―Eff𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ) trivially, then for a very general point closed point P∈X𝑃𝑋P\in Xitalic_P ∈ italic_X the points fn⁒(P)superscript𝑓𝑛𝑃f^{n}(P)italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_P ) are defined for all nβˆˆβ„€π‘›β„€n\in\mathbb{Z}italic_n ∈ blackboard_Z and the two-way orbit {fn⁒(P)∣nβˆˆβ„€}conditional-setsuperscript𝑓𝑛𝑃𝑛℀\left\{f^{n}(P)\mid n\in\mathbb{Z}\right\}{ italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_P ) ∣ italic_n ∈ blackboard_Z } is Zariski-dense in X𝑋Xitalic_X.

Next we turn to Step 1. To adapt the proof to work under our weaker hypotheses, we note that in the above setup, the f𝑓fitalic_f-stable subspace Ο€βˆ—β’N1⁒(B)superscriptπœ‹superscript𝑁1𝐡\pi^{*}N^{1}(B)italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_B ) contains an f𝑓fitalic_f-stable full-dimensional cone K=Ο€βˆ—β’Nef⁑(B)𝐾superscriptπœ‹Nef𝐡K=\pi^{*}\operatorname{Nef}(B)italic_K = italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Nef ( italic_B ). The relative interior of K𝐾Kitalic_K consists of divisor classes which are semi-ample on the birational model Xβ€²superscript𝑋′X^{\prime}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and hence movable on X𝑋Xitalic_X itself. So if B𝐡Bitalic_B is not a point, the cone K𝐾Kitalic_K is a nonzero fβˆ—superscript𝑓f^{*}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-stable face of Mov¯⁒(X)Β―Mov𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Mov}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Mov end_ARG ( italic_X ) defined over β„šβ„š\mathbb{Q}blackboard_Q. Moreover if dimB<dimXdimension𝐡dimension𝑋\dim B<\dim Xroman_dim italic_B < roman_dim italic_X then X𝑋Xitalic_X is covered by curves on which all divisors in K𝐾Kitalic_K have degree 00, so no divisor whose class lies in K𝐾Kitalic_K can be big. Therefore in this case K𝐾Kitalic_K is also a proper fβˆ—superscript𝑓f^{*}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-stable face of Eff¯⁒(X)Β―Eff𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ) defined over β„šβ„š\mathbb{Q}blackboard_Q. Therefore, under the hypotheses of Theorem 1.4, we conclude that there is no nontrivial f𝑓fitalic_f-equivariant fibration Ο€:Xβ‡’B:πœ‹β‡’π‘‹π΅\pi\colon X\dashrightarrow Bitalic_Ο€ : italic_X β‡’ italic_B with κ⁒(X~b)=0πœ…subscript~𝑋𝑏0\kappa(\widetilde{X}_{b})=0italic_ΞΊ ( over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0.

Finally, Oguiso’s argument in Step 3 does not use the assumption of irreducibililty of fβˆ—superscriptπ‘“βˆ—f^{\ast}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and so this step of the argument goes through unchanged. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.4.

3. Example

In this section, we give an example of a smooth Calabi–Yau variety X𝑋Xitalic_X of dimension 3 with a birational map Ο†:Xβ‡’X:πœ‘β‡’π‘‹π‘‹\varphi\colon X\dashrightarrow Xitalic_Ο† : italic_X β‡’ italic_X to which Oguiso’s Theorem 1.3 does not apply but Theorem 1.4 does. This criterion shows that Ο†πœ‘\varphiitalic_Ο† is a primitive birational map, and we will also see that it has first dynamical degree d1⁒(Ο†)subscript𝑑1πœ‘d_{1}(\varphi)italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο† ) strictly greater than 1.

Let X𝑋Xitalic_X be a general complete intersection of 3 hypersurfaces of degree (1,1,1)111(1,1,1)( 1 , 1 , 1 ) in β„™:=β„™2Γ—β„™2Γ—β„™2assignβ„™superscriptβ„™2superscriptβ„™2superscriptβ„™2\mathbb{P}:=\mathbb{P}^{2}\times\mathbb{P}^{2}\times\mathbb{P}^{2}blackboard_P := blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Bertini’s theorem shows that X𝑋Xitalic_X is smooth, and the Lefschetz hyperplane theorem shows that X𝑋Xitalic_X is simply connected, in particular H1⁒(OX)=0superscript𝐻1subscript𝑂𝑋0H^{1}(O_{X})=0italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0, and H2⁒(OX)=0superscript𝐻2subscript𝑂𝑋0H^{2}(O_{X})=0italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 also. By adjunction we have KX=(Kβ„™)|XβŠ—det⁑NX/β„™=OXK_{X}=(K_{\mathbb{P}})_{|X}\otimes\operatorname{det}N_{X/\mathbb{P}}=O_{X}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ— roman_det italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X / blackboard_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. So X𝑋Xitalic_X is a smooth Calabi–Yau variety. Let Ο€i:Xβ†’β„™2:subscriptπœ‹π‘–β†’π‘‹superscriptβ„™2\pi_{i}\colon X\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{2}italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_X β†’ blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denote projection onto the i𝑖iitalic_i-th factor, and let Li=Ο€iβˆ—β’(H)subscript𝐿𝑖superscriptsubscriptπœ‹π‘–βˆ—π»L_{i}=\pi_{i}^{\ast}(H)italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_H ) where H𝐻Hitalic_H is the class of a line in β„™2superscriptβ„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Note that Pic⁑(X)=⨁i=13β„€β‹…LiPic𝑋superscriptsubscriptdirect-sum𝑖13β‹…β„€subscript𝐿𝑖\operatorname{Pic}(X)=\bigoplus_{i=1}^{3}\mathbb{Z}\cdot L_{i}roman_Pic ( italic_X ) = ⨁ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_Z β‹… italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

The following proposition gives the basic geometric properties that we need for the fibres of the morphisms Ο€isubscriptπœ‹π‘–\pi_{i}italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The proofs are straightforward but tedious, so we defer them to the end of this section.

Proposition 3.1.

The fibres of Ο€isubscriptπœ‹π‘–\pi_{i}italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are 1-dimensional. For each i𝑖iitalic_i, there is an open set UiβŠ‚β„™2subscriptπ‘ˆπ‘–superscriptβ„™2U_{i}\subset\mathbb{P}^{2}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ‚ blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that β„™2βˆ–Uisuperscriptβ„™2subscriptπ‘ˆπ‘–\mathbb{P}^{2}\setminus U_{i}blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT consists of finitely many points, and for p∈Ui𝑝subscriptπ‘ˆπ‘–p\in U_{i}italic_p ∈ italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the fibre Ο€iβˆ’1⁒(p)superscriptsubscriptπœ‹π‘–1𝑝\pi_{i}^{-1}(p)italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) is reduced and irreducible.

By adjunction, the smooth fibres of each of the maps Ο€i:Xβ†’β„™2:subscriptπœ‹π‘–β†’π‘‹superscriptβ„™2\pi_{i}\colon X\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{2}italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_X β†’ blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are elliptic curves. For each i𝑖iitalic_i, let XΞ·isubscript𝑋subscriptπœ‚π‘–X_{\eta_{i}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ· start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote the generic fibre of the morphism Ο€isubscriptπœ‹π‘–\pi_{i}italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We have

Pic⁑(XΞ·)β‰…Pic⁑(X)/Vert⁑(Ο€i)Picsubscriptπ‘‹πœ‚Pic𝑋Vertsubscriptπœ‹π‘–\displaystyle\operatorname{Pic}(X_{\eta})\cong\operatorname{Pic}(X)/% \operatorname{Vert}(\pi_{i})roman_Pic ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ· end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) β‰… roman_Pic ( italic_X ) / roman_Vert ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

where Vert⁑(Ο€i)Vertsubscriptπœ‹π‘–\operatorname{Vert}(\pi_{i})roman_Vert ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) denote the subgroup of Pic⁑(X)Pic𝑋\operatorname{Pic}(X)roman_Pic ( italic_X ) spanned by effective divisors D𝐷Ditalic_D such that Ο€i⁒(D)β‰ β„™2subscriptπœ‹π‘–π·superscriptβ„™2\pi_{i}(D)\neq\mathbb{P}^{2}italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_D ) β‰  blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. By Proposition 3.1 any such D𝐷Ditalic_D is a multiple of Lisubscript𝐿𝑖L_{i}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, so Pic⁑(XΞ·)β‰…Pic⁑(X)/LiPicsubscriptπ‘‹πœ‚Pic𝑋subscript𝐿𝑖\operatorname{Pic}(X_{\eta})\cong\operatorname{Pic}(X)/L_{i}roman_Pic ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ· end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) β‰… roman_Pic ( italic_X ) / italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Let Ei⁒jsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗E_{ij}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote the restriction of the line bundle Ljsubscript𝐿𝑗L_{j}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to XΞ·isubscript𝑋subscriptπœ‚π‘–X_{\eta_{i}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ· start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For jβ‰ i𝑗𝑖j\neq iitalic_j β‰  italic_i we have

Ljβ‹…Li2β‹…(L1+L2+L3)3β‹…subscript𝐿𝑗superscriptsubscript𝐿𝑖2superscriptsubscript𝐿1subscript𝐿2subscript𝐿33\displaystyle L_{j}\cdot L_{i}^{2}\cdot(L_{1}+L_{2}+L_{3})^{3}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‹… italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β‹… ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =3absent3\displaystyle=3= 3

so Ei⁒jsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗E_{ij}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a line bundle of degree 3 on XΞ·isubscript𝑋subscriptπœ‚π‘–X_{\eta_{i}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ· start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Now let i,j,kπ‘–π‘—π‘˜i,j,kitalic_i , italic_j , italic_k be any ordering of the indices 1,2,31231,2,31 , 2 , 3. Then the line bundle Ei⁒jβˆ’Ei⁒ksubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗subscriptπΈπ‘–π‘˜E_{ij}-E_{ik}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has degree 00 on XΞ·isubscript𝑋subscriptπœ‚π‘–X_{\eta_{i}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ· start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In general for a curve C𝐢Citalic_C and y∈Pic0⁑(C)𝑦superscriptPic0𝐢y\in\operatorname{Pic}^{0}(C)italic_y ∈ roman_Pic start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_C ), translation by y𝑦yitalic_y acts on Pic⁑(C)Pic𝐢\operatorname{Pic}(C)roman_Pic ( italic_C ) by the formula

xπ‘₯\displaystyle xitalic_x ↦x+(deg⁑x)⁒y.maps-toabsentπ‘₯degπ‘₯𝑦\displaystyle\mapsto x+\left(\operatorname{deg}x\right)y.↦ italic_x + ( roman_deg italic_x ) italic_y .

In particular taking C=XΞ·i𝐢subscript𝑋subscriptπœ‚π‘–C=X_{\eta_{i}}italic_C = italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ· start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and y=Ei⁒jβˆ’Ei⁒k𝑦subscript𝐸𝑖𝑗subscriptπΈπ‘–π‘˜y=E_{ij}-E_{ik}italic_y = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we have

Ei⁒j↦4⁒Ei⁒jβˆ’3⁒Ei⁒kmaps-tosubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗4subscript𝐸𝑖𝑗3subscriptπΈπ‘–π‘˜\displaystyle E_{ij}\mapsto 4E_{ij}-3E_{ik}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↦ 4 italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 3 italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
Ei⁒k↦3⁒Ei⁒jβˆ’2⁒Ei⁒kmaps-tosubscriptπΈπ‘–π‘˜3subscript𝐸𝑖𝑗2subscriptπΈπ‘–π‘˜\displaystyle E_{ik}\mapsto 3E_{ij}-2E_{ik}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↦ 3 italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

The translation action of Pic0⁑(XΞ·i)superscriptPic0subscript𝑋subscriptπœ‚π‘–\operatorname{Pic}^{0}(X_{\eta_{i}})roman_Pic start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ· start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) on XΞ·isubscript𝑋subscriptπœ‚π‘–X_{\eta_{i}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ· start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT extends to a birational action on X𝑋Xitalic_X. We denote by Ο†i⁒j⁒k:Xβ‡’X:subscriptπœ‘π‘–π‘—π‘˜β‡’π‘‹π‘‹\varphi_{ijk}\colon X\dashrightarrow Xitalic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_X β‡’ italic_X the birational map corresponding to translation by Ei⁒jβˆ’Ei⁒ksubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗subscriptπΈπ‘–π‘˜E_{ij}-E_{ik}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Since X𝑋Xitalic_X is smooth and KXsubscript𝐾𝑋K_{X}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is trivial, by [KM98, Theorem 3.52] the map Ο†i⁒j⁒ksubscriptπœ‘π‘–π‘—π‘˜\varphi_{ijk}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in fact extends to a pseudo-automorphism of X𝑋Xitalic_X over β„™2superscriptβ„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, that is, a birational automorphism which is an isomorphism in codimension 1 and preserves the fibration Ο€isubscriptπœ‹π‘–\pi_{i}italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Fix i=1𝑖1i=1italic_i = 1, j=2𝑗2j=2italic_j = 2, k=3π‘˜3k=3italic_k = 3. By the previous displayed equations the linear map (Ο†123)βˆ—subscriptsubscriptπœ‘123(\varphi_{123})_{*}( italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 123 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on N1⁒(X)superscript𝑁1𝑋N^{1}(X)italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) is represented by a matrix of the form

M123subscript𝑀123\displaystyle M_{123}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 123 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =(1mn0430βˆ’3βˆ’2)absentmatrix1π‘šπ‘›043032\displaystyle=\begin{pmatrix}1&m&n\\ 0&4&3\\ 0&-3&-2\end{pmatrix}= ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL italic_m end_CELL start_CELL italic_n end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 4 end_CELL start_CELL 3 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - 3 end_CELL start_CELL - 2 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG )

for some integers m,nπ‘šπ‘›m,nitalic_m , italic_n.

If now Mi⁒j⁒ksubscriptπ‘€π‘–π‘—π‘˜M_{ijk}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT represents the linear map (Ο†i⁒j⁒k)βˆ—subscriptsubscriptπœ‘π‘–π‘—π‘˜(\varphi_{ijk})_{*}( italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we observe that on one hand, M123βˆ’1=M132superscriptsubscript𝑀1231subscript𝑀132M_{123}^{-1}=M_{132}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 123 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 132 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, while on the other hand, M132=T23⁒M123⁒T23subscript𝑀132subscript𝑇23subscript𝑀123subscript𝑇23M_{132}=T_{23}M_{123}T_{23}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 132 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 23 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 123 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 23 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT where T23subscript𝑇23T_{23}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 23 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the permutation matrix corresponding to the transposition (23)23(23)( 23 ). This implies that m=2⁒nπ‘š2𝑛m=2nitalic_m = 2 italic_n.

To determine the missing integer mπ‘šmitalic_m, we can proceed as follows. Let H𝐻Hitalic_H denote a general line in β„™2superscriptβ„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and let S=Ο€1βˆ’1⁒(H)𝑆superscriptsubscriptπœ‹11𝐻S=\pi_{1}^{-1}(H)italic_S = italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_H ). Then S𝑆Sitalic_S is a smooth surface. The map Ο†123subscriptπœ‘123\varphi_{123}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 123 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT preserves H𝐻Hitalic_H and hence restricts to an automorphism of S𝑆Sitalic_S, which we denote by Ο†Ssuperscriptπœ‘π‘†\varphi^{S}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Denote the restriction of the line bundle Lisubscript𝐿𝑖L_{i}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to S𝑆Sitalic_S by Ξ›isubscriptΛ𝑖\Lambda_{i}roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For i=1,2,3𝑖123i=1,2,3italic_i = 1 , 2 , 3 we have Ο†S⁒(Ξ›i)=Ο†123⁒(Li)|S\varphi^{S}(\Lambda_{i})=\varphi_{123}(L_{i})_{|S}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 123 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. So in particular we have Ο†S⁒(Ξ›2)=m⁒Λ1+4⁒Λ2βˆ’3⁒Λ3superscriptπœ‘π‘†subscriptΞ›2π‘šsubscriptΞ›14subscriptΞ›23subscriptΞ›3\varphi^{S}(\Lambda_{2})=m\Lambda_{1}+4\Lambda_{2}-3\Lambda_{3}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_m roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 4 roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 3 roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Since Ο†Ssuperscriptπœ‘π‘†\varphi^{S}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is an automorphism of a smooth surface, it preserves intersection numbers, so we get

(m⁒Λ1+4⁒Λ2βˆ’3⁒Λ3)2superscriptπ‘šsubscriptΞ›14subscriptΞ›23subscriptΞ›32\displaystyle(m\Lambda_{1}+4\Lambda_{2}-3\Lambda_{3})^{2}( italic_m roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 4 roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 3 roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =Ξ›22=3absentsuperscriptsubscriptΞ›223\displaystyle=\Lambda_{2}^{2}=3= roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 3

hence m=12π‘š12m=12italic_m = 12. Since m=2⁒nπ‘š2𝑛m=2nitalic_m = 2 italic_n this implies n=6𝑛6n=6italic_n = 6, so we have

M123subscript𝑀123\displaystyle M_{123}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 123 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =(11260430βˆ’3βˆ’2)absentmatrix1126043032\displaystyle=\begin{pmatrix}1&12&6\\ 0&4&3\\ 0&-3&-2\end{pmatrix}= ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 12 end_CELL start_CELL 6 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 4 end_CELL start_CELL 3 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - 3 end_CELL start_CELL - 2 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG )

Identical arguments give that (Ο†231)βˆ—subscriptsubscriptπœ‘231βˆ—(\varphi_{231})_{\ast}( italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 231 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and (Ο†312)βˆ—subscriptsubscriptπœ‘312βˆ—(\varphi_{312})_{\ast}( italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 312 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are represented respectively by the matrices

M231=(βˆ’20βˆ’36112304),subscript𝑀231matrix2036112304\displaystyle M_{231}=\begin{pmatrix}-2&0&-3\\ 6&1&12\\ 3&0&4\end{pmatrix},italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 231 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL - 2 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - 3 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 6 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 12 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 3 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 4 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) , M312=(430βˆ’3βˆ’201261).subscript𝑀312matrix4303201261\displaystyle\ M_{312}=\begin{pmatrix}4&3&0\\ -3&-2&0\\ 12&6&1\end{pmatrix}.italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 312 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 4 end_CELL start_CELL 3 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - 3 end_CELL start_CELL - 2 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 12 end_CELL start_CELL 6 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) .

After this paper was completed, we discovered that these matrices had been computed previously by Hoff–Stenger–YÑñez [HSY22, Example 4.2] by a different method.

Finally, the birational map of X𝑋Xitalic_X that we are interested in is

Ο†πœ‘\displaystyle\varphiitalic_Ο† :Xβ‡’X:absent⇒𝑋𝑋\displaystyle\colon X\dashrightarrow X: italic_X β‡’ italic_X
Ο†πœ‘\displaystyle\varphiitalic_Ο† =Ο†123βˆ˜Ο†231βˆ˜Ο†312.absentsubscriptπœ‘123subscriptπœ‘231subscriptπœ‘312\displaystyle=\varphi_{123}\circ\varphi_{231}\circ\varphi_{312}.= italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 123 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∘ italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 231 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∘ italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 312 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

The pullback map Ο†βˆ—:N1⁒(X)β†’N1⁒(X):superscriptπœ‘βˆ—β†’superscript𝑁1𝑋superscript𝑁1𝑋\varphi^{\ast}\colon N^{1}(X)\rightarrow N^{1}(X)italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) β†’ italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) is then represented by the matrix

M𝑀\displaystyle Mitalic_M =(M123⁒M231⁒M312)βˆ’1absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑀123subscript𝑀231subscript𝑀3121\displaystyle=\left(M_{123}M_{231}M_{312}\right)^{-1}= ( italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 123 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 231 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 312 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=(βˆ’44βˆ’330βˆ’6156045184016512302296)absentmatrix443306156045184016512302296\displaystyle=\begin{pmatrix}-44&-330&-615\\ 60&451&840\\ 165&1230&2296\end{pmatrix}= ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL - 44 end_CELL start_CELL - 330 end_CELL start_CELL - 615 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 60 end_CELL start_CELL 451 end_CELL start_CELL 840 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 165 end_CELL start_CELL 1230 end_CELL start_CELL 2296 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG )

We can now verify the claimed properties of our example:

Proposition 3.2.

The birational map Ο†:Xβ‡’X:πœ‘β‡’π‘‹π‘‹\varphi\colon X\dashrightarrow Xitalic_Ο† : italic_X β‡’ italic_X is primitive with first dynamical degree d1⁒(Ο†)>1subscript𝑑1πœ‘1d_{1}(\varphi)>1italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο† ) > 1.

Proof.

Using the matrix M𝑀Mitalic_M above we compute that the characteristic polynomial of Ο†βˆ—superscriptπœ‘βˆ—\varphi^{\ast}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is

χ⁒(Ο†βˆ—)⁒(t)πœ’superscriptπœ‘βˆ—π‘‘\displaystyle\chi(\varphi^{\ast})(t)italic_Ο‡ ( italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( italic_t ) =det(Ο†βˆ—βˆ’tβ‹…Id)absentsuperscriptπœ‘βˆ—β‹…π‘‘Id\displaystyle=\det\left(\varphi^{\ast}-t\cdot\operatorname{Id}\right)= roman_det ( italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_t β‹… roman_Id )
=1βˆ’2703⁒t+2703⁒t2βˆ’t3absent12703𝑑2703superscript𝑑2superscript𝑑3\displaystyle=1-2703t+2703t^{2}-t^{3}= 1 - 2703 italic_t + 2703 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

and the eigenvalues are

Ξ»1=1,Ξ»2,3=1351Β±780⁒3.formulae-sequencesubscriptπœ†11subscriptπœ†23plus-or-minus13517803\displaystyle\lambda_{1}=1,\ \lambda_{2,3}=1351\pm 780\sqrt{3}.italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 , italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1351 Β± 780 square-root start_ARG 3 end_ARG .

In particular we get that the first dynamical degree d1⁒(Ο†)subscript𝑑1πœ‘d_{1}(\varphi)italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο† ) of the birational map Ο†:Xβ‡’X:πœ‘β‡’π‘‹π‘‹\varphi\colon X\dashrightarrow Xitalic_Ο† : italic_X β‡’ italic_X is

d1⁒(Ο†)subscript𝑑1πœ‘\displaystyle d_{1}(\varphi)italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο† ) =1351+780⁒3.absent13517803\displaystyle=1351+780\sqrt{3}.= 1351 + 780 square-root start_ARG 3 end_ARG .

It remains to prove that Ο†πœ‘\varphiitalic_Ο† is a primitive birational map; for this we use Theorem 1.4. Note that since fβˆ—superscriptπ‘“βˆ—f^{\ast}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has the rational eigenvalue Ξ»1=1subscriptπœ†11\lambda_{1}=1italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1, it does not act irreducibly on N1⁒(X)β„šsuperscript𝑁1subscriptπ‘‹β„šN^{1}(X)_{\mathbb{Q}}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and so Theorem 1.3 does not apply.

To show that Theorem 1.4 applies in our example, we first verify the condition concerning the fixed subspace of Ο†βˆ—superscriptπœ‘βˆ—\varphi^{\ast}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The fixed subspace is of Ο†βˆ—superscriptπœ‘βˆ—\varphi^{\ast}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is 1111-dimensional, spanned by the divisor class

Df⁒i⁒x⁒e⁒dsubscript𝐷𝑓𝑖π‘₯𝑒𝑑\displaystyle D_{fixed}italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f italic_i italic_x italic_e italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =L1βˆ’2⁒L2+L3.absentsubscript𝐿12subscript𝐿2subscript𝐿3\displaystyle=L_{1}-2L_{2}+L_{3}.= italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Lemma 3.3.

Let rπ‘Ÿritalic_r be a nonzero real number. Then r⁒Df⁒i⁒x⁒e⁒dβˆ‰Eff¯⁒(X)π‘Ÿsubscript𝐷𝑓𝑖π‘₯𝑒𝑑¯Eff𝑋rD_{fixed}\notin\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)italic_r italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f italic_i italic_x italic_e italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ‰ overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ).

Proof.

First consider a divisor class D=a⁒L1+b⁒L2+c⁒L3π·π‘Žsubscript𝐿1𝑏subscript𝐿2𝑐subscript𝐿3D=aL_{1}+bL_{2}+cL_{3}italic_D = italic_a italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_b italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_c italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with a,b,cβˆˆβ„π‘Žπ‘π‘β„a,b,c\in\mathbb{R}italic_a , italic_b , italic_c ∈ blackboard_R. We claim that if any two of a,b,cπ‘Žπ‘π‘a,b,citalic_a , italic_b , italic_c are strictly negative, then Dβˆ‰Eff¯⁒(X)𝐷¯Eff𝑋D\notin\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)italic_D βˆ‰ overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ). To see this, suppose for simplicity that a<0π‘Ž0a<0italic_a < 0 and b<0𝑏0b<0italic_b < 0. Let C3subscript𝐢3C_{3}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be any fibre of Ο€3:Xβ†’β„™2:subscriptπœ‹3→𝑋superscriptβ„™2\pi_{3}\colon X\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{2}italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_X β†’ blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then L1β‹…C3>0β‹…subscript𝐿1subscript𝐢30L_{1}\cdot C_{3}>0italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‹… italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 and L2β‹…C3>0β‹…subscript𝐿2subscript𝐢30L_{2}\cdot C_{3}>0italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‹… italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0, while L3β‹…C3=0β‹…subscript𝐿3subscript𝐢30L_{3}\cdot C_{3}=0italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‹… italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0. So we have

Dβ‹…C3⋅𝐷subscript𝐢3\displaystyle D\cdot C_{3}italic_D β‹… italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =a⁒L1β‹…C3+b⁒L2β‹…C3absentβ‹…π‘Žsubscript𝐿1subscript𝐢3⋅𝑏subscript𝐿2subscript𝐢3\displaystyle=aL_{1}\cdot C_{3}+bL_{2}\cdot C_{3}= italic_a italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‹… italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_b italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‹… italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
<0.absent0\displaystyle<0.< 0 .

On the other hand, since curves algebraically equivalent to C3subscript𝐢3C_{3}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT cover X𝑋Xitalic_X, if ΔΔ\Deltaroman_Ξ” is any effective divisor on X𝑋Xitalic_X we have Ξ”β‹…C3β‰₯0β‹…Ξ”subscript𝐢30\Delta\cdot C_{3}\geq 0roman_Ξ” β‹… italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰₯ 0. The same inequality therefore holds for any class Ξ”βˆˆEff¯⁒(X)Δ¯Eff𝑋\Delta\in\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)roman_Ξ” ∈ overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ), showing that such a class D𝐷Ditalic_D cannot belong to Eff¯⁒(X)Β―Eff𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ).

Now consider the class Df⁒i⁒x⁒e⁒d=L1βˆ’2⁒L2+L3subscript𝐷𝑓𝑖π‘₯𝑒𝑑subscript𝐿12subscript𝐿2subscript𝐿3D_{fixed}=L_{1}-2L_{2}+L_{3}italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f italic_i italic_x italic_e italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If r<0π‘Ÿ0r<0italic_r < 0, then r⁒Df⁒i⁒x⁒e⁒dπ‘Ÿsubscript𝐷𝑓𝑖π‘₯𝑒𝑑rD_{fixed}italic_r italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f italic_i italic_x italic_e italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has two negative coefficients, so by the previous paragraph r⁒Df⁒i⁒x⁒e⁒dβˆ‰Eff¯⁒(X)π‘Ÿsubscript𝐷𝑓𝑖π‘₯𝑒𝑑¯Eff𝑋rD_{fixed}\notin\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)italic_r italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f italic_i italic_x italic_e italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ‰ overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ). If r>0π‘Ÿ0r>0italic_r > 0, then r⁒Df⁒i⁒x⁒e⁒d∈Eff¯⁒(X)π‘Ÿsubscript𝐷𝑓𝑖π‘₯𝑒𝑑¯Eff𝑋rD_{fixed}\in\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)italic_r italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f italic_i italic_x italic_e italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ) if and only if Df⁒i⁒x⁒e⁒d∈Eff¯⁒(X)subscript𝐷𝑓𝑖π‘₯𝑒𝑑¯Eff𝑋D_{fixed}\in\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f italic_i italic_x italic_e italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ). Since the cone Eff¯⁒(X)Β―Eff𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ) is preserved by birational automorphisms, this implies that Ο†βˆ—β’Df⁒i⁒x⁒e⁒d∈Eff¯⁒(X)subscriptπœ‘subscript𝐷𝑓𝑖π‘₯𝑒𝑑¯Eff𝑋\varphi_{*}D_{fixed}\in\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f italic_i italic_x italic_e italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ) for every Ο†βˆˆBir⁑(X)πœ‘Bir𝑋\varphi\in\operatorname{Bir}(X)italic_Ο† ∈ roman_Bir ( italic_X ). But using the matrix M123subscript𝑀123M_{123}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 123 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT above we compute that (Ο†123)βˆ—β’Df⁒i⁒x⁒e⁒d=βˆ’17⁒L1βˆ’L2+4⁒L3subscriptsubscriptπœ‘123subscript𝐷𝑓𝑖π‘₯𝑒𝑑17subscript𝐿1subscript𝐿24subscript𝐿3(\varphi_{123})_{*}D_{fixed}=-17L_{1}-L_{2}+4L_{3}( italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 123 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f italic_i italic_x italic_e italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - 17 italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 4 italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which by the previous paragraph cannot be in Eff¯⁒(X)Β―Eff𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ). ∎

This proves that the birational map Ο†πœ‘\varphiitalic_Ο† satisfies the first condition of Theorem 1.4. To prove the second criterion, we can argue as follows. A 1-dimensional Ο†βˆ—superscriptπœ‘βˆ—\varphi^{\ast}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-stable face of Eff¯⁒(X)Β―Eff𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ) would span a 1-dimensional eigenspace, but we have already seen that the unique nontrivial β„šβ„š\mathbb{Q}blackboard_Q-eigenspace is the fixed subspace, which does not span a face of Eff¯⁒(X)Β―Eff𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ) say. So we can restrict our attention to stable faces of dimension 2. If F𝐹Fitalic_F is a 2-dimensional Ο†βˆ—superscriptπœ‘βˆ—\varphi^{\ast}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-stable face of Eff¯⁒(X)Β―Eff𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ), then its linear span is a 2-dimensional stable subspace VFβŠ‚N1⁒(X)subscript𝑉𝐹superscript𝑁1𝑋V_{F}\subset N^{1}(X)italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ‚ italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ). Consider the dual linear map (Ο†βˆ—)∨superscriptsuperscriptπœ‘βˆ—\left(\varphi^{\ast}\right)^{\vee}( italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∨ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT on (N1⁒(X))∨=N1⁒(X)superscriptsuperscript𝑁1𝑋subscript𝑁1𝑋\left(N^{1}(X)\right)^{\vee}=N_{1}(X)( italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∨ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ). The annhilator VFβŸ‚superscriptsubscript𝑉𝐹perpendicular-toV_{F}^{\perp}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of VFsubscript𝑉𝐹V_{F}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F end_POSTSUBSCRIPT would then be a 1-dimensional eigenspace of (Ο†βˆ—)∨superscriptsuperscriptπœ‘βˆ—\left(\varphi^{\ast}\right)^{\vee}( italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∨ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT defined over β„šβ„š\mathbb{Q}blackboard_Q; moreover, the pseudoeffective cone Eff¯⁒(X)Β―Eff𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ) is dual to the cone of nef curves, so this 1-dimensional eigenspace would contain the class of a nef curve.

Computation shows that the only such eigenspace is spanned by the vector v=L1βˆ¨βˆ’2⁒L2∨+L3βˆ¨π‘£superscriptsubscript𝐿12superscriptsubscript𝐿2superscriptsubscript𝐿3v=L_{1}^{\vee}-2L_{2}^{\vee}+L_{3}^{\vee}italic_v = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∨ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∨ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∨ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where {L1∨,L2∨,L3∨}superscriptsubscript𝐿1superscriptsubscript𝐿2superscriptsubscript𝐿3\{L_{1}^{\vee},L_{2}^{\vee},L_{3}^{\vee}\}{ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∨ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∨ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∨ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } is the dual basis to L1,L2,L3subscript𝐿1subscript𝐿2subscript𝐿3L_{1},L_{2},L_{3}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Any nonzero multiple of v𝑣vitalic_v is therefore negative on at least one of the effective divisors L1,L2,L3subscript𝐿1subscript𝐿2subscript𝐿3L_{1},L_{2},L_{3}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, so this eigenspace cannot contain the class of a nef curve. By the last paragraph, this shows that there is no 2-dimensional Ο†βˆ—superscriptπœ‘βˆ—\varphi^{\ast}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-stable face of Eff¯⁒(X)Β―Eff𝑋\overline{\operatorname{Eff}}(X)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Eff end_ARG ( italic_X ) defined over β„šβ„š\mathbb{Q}blackboard_Q. ∎

To finish, we give the proofs of the properties of the fibrations Ο€isubscriptπœ‹π‘–\pi_{i}italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that were claimed in Proposition 3.1. Recall that X𝑋Xitalic_X is a general complete intersection of 3 hypersurfaces of degree (1,1,1)111(1,1,1)( 1 , 1 , 1 ) in β„™2Γ—β„™2Γ—β„™2superscriptβ„™2superscriptβ„™2superscriptβ„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}\times\mathbb{P}^{2}\times\mathbb{P}^{2}blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. To fix notation say that F1,F2,F3∈H0⁒(β„™2Γ—β„™2Γ—β„™2,O⁒(1,1,1))subscript𝐹1subscript𝐹2subscript𝐹3superscript𝐻0superscriptβ„™2superscriptβ„™2superscriptβ„™2𝑂111F_{1},\,F_{2},\,F_{3}\in H^{0}\left(\mathbb{P}^{2}\times\mathbb{P}^{2}\times% \mathbb{P}^{2},O(1,1,1)\right)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_O ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) ) and

X𝑋\displaystyle Xitalic_X ={([X0,X1,X2],[Y0,Y1,Y2],[Z0,Z1,Z2])∣Fα⁒(Xi,Yj,Zk)=0⁒ for ⁒α,i,j,k=1,2,3}.absentconditional-setsubscript𝑋0subscript𝑋1subscript𝑋2subscriptπ‘Œ0subscriptπ‘Œ1subscriptπ‘Œ2subscript𝑍0subscript𝑍1subscript𝑍2formulae-sequencesubscript𝐹𝛼subscript𝑋𝑖subscriptπ‘Œπ‘—subscriptπ‘π‘˜0Β forΒ π›Όπ‘–π‘—π‘˜123\displaystyle=\left\{\left([X_{0},X_{1},X_{2}],[Y_{0},Y_{1},Y_{2}],[Z_{0},Z_{1% },Z_{2}]\right)\mid F_{\alpha}(X_{i},Y_{j},Z_{k})=0\text{ for }\alpha,\,i,\,j,% \,k=1,2,3\right\}.= { ( [ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] , [ italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] , [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ) ∣ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 for italic_Ξ± , italic_i , italic_j , italic_k = 1 , 2 , 3 } .

For i=1,2,3𝑖123i=1,2,3italic_i = 1 , 2 , 3, let Ο€i:Xβ†’β„™2:subscriptπœ‹π‘–β†’π‘‹superscriptβ„™2\pi_{i}\colon X\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{2}italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_X β†’ blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denote projection onto the i𝑖iitalic_i-th factor. To keep notation simple we write the required proofs for the case i=1𝑖1i=1italic_i = 1; identical proofs work for i=2𝑖2i=2italic_i = 2 and i=3𝑖3i=3italic_i = 3.

Proposition 3.4.

The fibres of Ο€1subscriptπœ‹1\pi_{1}italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are 1-dimensional.

Proof.

Choose pβˆˆβ„™2𝑝superscriptβ„™2p\in\mathbb{P}^{2}italic_p ∈ blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and denote by Fipsuperscriptsubscript𝐹𝑖𝑝F_{i}^{p}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT the form obtained by substituting homogeneous coordinates of p𝑝pitalic_p in place of X0,X1,X2subscript𝑋0subscript𝑋1subscript𝑋2X_{0},X_{1},X_{2}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the forms Fisubscript𝐹𝑖F_{i}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. So the fibre Ο€1βˆ’1⁒(p)superscriptsubscriptπœ‹11𝑝\pi_{1}^{-1}(p)italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) equals the intersection F1p∩F2p∩F3psuperscriptsubscript𝐹1𝑝superscriptsubscript𝐹2𝑝superscriptsubscript𝐹3𝑝F_{1}^{p}\cap F_{2}^{p}\cap F_{3}^{p}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∩ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∩ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

First we claim that, for all pβˆˆβ„™2𝑝superscriptβ„™2p\in\mathbb{P}^{2}italic_p ∈ blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the vector space span⁑(F1p,F2p,F3p)βŠ‚H0⁒(β„™2Γ—β„™2,O⁒(1,1))spansuperscriptsubscript𝐹1𝑝superscriptsubscript𝐹2𝑝superscriptsubscript𝐹3𝑝superscript𝐻0superscriptβ„™2superscriptβ„™2𝑂11\operatorname{span}\left(F_{1}^{p},\,F_{2}^{p},\,F_{3}^{p}\right)\subset H^{0}% (\mathbb{P}^{2}\times\mathbb{P}^{2},O(1,1))roman_span ( italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) βŠ‚ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_O ( 1 , 1 ) ) has dimension 3. To see this, write Fi=βˆ‘Ξ›i⁒j⁒k⁒Yj⁒Zksubscript𝐹𝑖subscriptΞ›π‘–π‘—π‘˜subscriptπ‘Œπ‘—subscriptπ‘π‘˜F_{i}=\sum\Lambda_{ijk}Y_{j}Z_{k}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = βˆ‘ roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for linear forms Ξ›i⁒j⁒ksubscriptΞ›π‘–π‘—π‘˜\Lambda_{ijk}roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the variables X0,X1,X2subscript𝑋0subscript𝑋1subscript𝑋2X_{0},X_{1},X_{2}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then

dim⁑span⁑(F1p,F2p,F3p)dimspansuperscriptsubscript𝐹1𝑝superscriptsubscript𝐹2𝑝superscriptsubscript𝐹3𝑝\displaystyle\operatorname{dim}\operatorname{span}\left(F_{1}^{p},\,F_{2}^{p},% \,F_{3}^{p}\right)roman_dim roman_span ( italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) =rank⁑(Ξ›100Ξ›110β‹―Ξ›122Ξ›200Ξ›210β‹―Ξ›222Ξ›300Ξ›310β‹―Ξ›322)⁒(p)absentrankmatrixsubscriptΞ›100subscriptΞ›110β‹―subscriptΞ›122subscriptΞ›200subscriptΞ›210β‹―subscriptΞ›222subscriptΞ›300subscriptΞ›310β‹―subscriptΞ›322𝑝\displaystyle=\operatorname{rank}\begin{pmatrix}\Lambda_{100}&\Lambda_{110}&% \cdots&\Lambda_{122}\\ \Lambda_{200}&\Lambda_{210}&\cdots&\Lambda_{222}\\ \Lambda_{300}&\Lambda_{310}&\cdots&\Lambda_{322}\end{pmatrix}(p)= roman_rank ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 100 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 110 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL β‹― end_CELL start_CELL roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 122 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 200 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 210 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL β‹― end_CELL start_CELL roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 222 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 300 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 310 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL β‹― end_CELL start_CELL roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 322 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) ( italic_p )

Since the Ξ›i⁒j⁒ksubscriptΞ›π‘–π‘—π‘˜\Lambda_{ijk}roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are general, the locus of points pβˆˆβ„™2𝑝superscriptβ„™2p\in\mathbb{P}^{2}italic_p ∈ blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT where this matrix drops rank is empty.

Next, since span⁑(F1p,F2p,F3p)spansuperscriptsubscript𝐹1𝑝superscriptsubscript𝐹2𝑝superscriptsubscript𝐹3𝑝\operatorname{span}\left(F_{1}^{p},\,F_{2}^{p},\,F_{3}^{p}\right)roman_span ( italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) has dimension 3, F3psuperscriptsubscript𝐹3𝑝F_{3}^{p}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT say does not vanish identically on F1p∩F2psuperscriptsubscript𝐹1𝑝superscriptsubscript𝐹2𝑝F_{1}^{p}\cap F_{2}^{p}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∩ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. So the only way that the fibre can have dimension 2 is if all of the Fipsuperscriptsubscript𝐹𝑖𝑝F_{i}^{p}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT vanish on a surface SβŠ‚β„™2Γ—β„™2𝑆superscriptβ„™2superscriptβ„™2S\subset\mathbb{P}^{2}\times\mathbb{P}^{2}italic_S βŠ‚ blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT which is a component of a reducible complete intersection of the zero-loci of two sections of O⁒(1,1)𝑂11O(1,1)italic_O ( 1 , 1 ). A standard dimension count shows that the subset RβŠ‚G⁒r⁒(3,V)π‘…πΊπ‘Ÿ3𝑉R\subset Gr(3,V)italic_R βŠ‚ italic_G italic_r ( 3 , italic_V ) parametrising linear systems whose base locus contains such a component has codimension 7 in G⁒r⁒(3,V)πΊπ‘Ÿ3𝑉Gr(3,V)italic_G italic_r ( 3 , italic_V ).

The linear system span⁑(F1,F2,F3)spansubscript𝐹1subscript𝐹2subscript𝐹3\operatorname{span}(F_{1},F_{2},F_{3})roman_span ( italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) defines a morphism

Ο•:β„™2:italic-Ο•superscriptβ„™2\displaystyle\phi\colon\mathbb{P}^{2}italic_Ο• : blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’G⁒r⁒(3,V)β†’absentπΊπ‘Ÿ3𝑉\displaystyle\rightarrow Gr(3,V)β†’ italic_G italic_r ( 3 , italic_V )
p𝑝\displaystyle pitalic_p ↦span⁑(F1p,F2p,F3p)maps-toabsentspansuperscriptsubscript𝐹1𝑝superscriptsubscript𝐹2𝑝superscriptsubscript𝐹3𝑝\displaystyle\mapsto\operatorname{span}(F_{1}^{p},F_{2}^{p},F_{3}^{p})↦ roman_span ( italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

where V=V=H0⁒(β„™2Γ—β„™2,O⁒(1,1))𝑉𝑉superscript𝐻0superscriptβ„™2superscriptβ„™2𝑂11V=V=H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{2}\times\mathbb{P}^{2},O(1,1))italic_V = italic_V = italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_O ( 1 , 1 ) ). The group G⁒L⁒(9)𝐺𝐿9GL(9)italic_G italic_L ( 9 ) acts transitively on G⁒r⁒(3,V)πΊπ‘Ÿ3𝑉Gr(3,V)italic_G italic_r ( 3 , italic_V ), so by Kleiman’s theorem the general translate of ϕ⁒(β„™2)italic-Ο•superscriptβ„™2\phi(\mathbb{P}^{2})italic_Ο• ( blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is transverse to the codimension-7 subset R𝑅Ritalic_R defined above, hence disjoint from it. By computation we see that the action of G⁒L⁒(9)𝐺𝐿9GL(9)italic_G italic_L ( 9 ) on V𝑉Vitalic_V corresponds to changing the choice of forms F1,F2,F3subscript𝐹1subscript𝐹2subscript𝐹3F_{1},F_{2},F_{3}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. So the general translate equals ϕ⁒(β„™2)italic-Ο•superscriptβ„™2\phi(\mathbb{P}^{2})italic_Ο• ( blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for a suitable choice of forms F1,F2,F3subscript𝐹1subscript𝐹2subscript𝐹3F_{1},F_{2},F_{3}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Hence, for a general choice of forms F1,F2,F3subscript𝐹1subscript𝐹2subscript𝐹3F_{1},F_{2},F_{3}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the fibres of Ο€1subscriptπœ‹1\pi_{1}italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are all 1-dimensional. ∎

Lemma 3.5.

Let M𝑀Mitalic_M denote the parameter space of complete intersection curves in β„™2Γ—β„™2superscriptβ„™2superscriptβ„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}\times\mathbb{P}^{2}blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT which are defined by the vanishing of 3 sections of O⁒(1,1)𝑂11O(1,1)italic_O ( 1 , 1 ). The locus of curves which are reducible or generically non-reduced has codimension 2 in M𝑀Mitalic_M.

Sketch of proof.

The variety M𝑀Mitalic_M is an open subset of the Grassmannian G⁒r⁒(3,V)πΊπ‘Ÿ3𝑉Gr(3,V)italic_G italic_r ( 3 , italic_V ). The dimension of V𝑉Vitalic_V equals 9, so M𝑀Mitalic_M has dimension 18181818. A curve parameterised by a general point of M𝑀Mitalic_M has bidegree (3,3)33(3,3)( 3 , 3 ). Now suppose that F𝐹Fitalic_F is a reducible curve corresponding to a point of M𝑀Mitalic_M; for simplicity assume it has 2 components. Then we have

F𝐹\displaystyle Fitalic_F =Ci,jβˆͺC3βˆ’i,3βˆ’jabsentsubscript𝐢𝑖𝑗subscript𝐢3𝑖3𝑗\displaystyle=C_{i,j}\cup C_{3-i,3-j}= italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆͺ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 - italic_i , 3 - italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

where Cl,msubscriptπΆπ‘™π‘šC_{l,m}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l , italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denotes a smooth rational curve of bidegree (l,m)π‘™π‘š(l,m)( italic_l , italic_m ) in β„™2Γ—β„™2superscriptβ„™2superscriptβ„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}\times\mathbb{P}^{2}blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and the intersection of the two components is a zero-dimensional scheme of length 2. We claim that for each possible type of reducible curve, the space of such curves has dimension at most 16.

We give full details in the case F=C2,3βˆͺC1,0𝐹subscript𝐢23subscript𝐢10F=C_{2,3}\cup C_{1,0}italic_F = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆͺ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT; other cases are similar. Let p⁒ri:β„™2Γ—β„™2β†’β„™2:𝑝subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘–β†’superscriptβ„™2superscriptβ„™2superscriptβ„™2pr_{i}\colon\mathbb{P}^{2}\times\mathbb{P}^{2}\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{2}italic_p italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denote the projections to the two factors. The space of smooth rational curves of bidegree (2,3)23(2,3)( 2 , 3 ) has dimension 16. Let C𝐢Citalic_C be such a curve: then p⁒r2⁒(C)𝑝subscriptπ‘Ÿ2𝐢pr_{2}(C)italic_p italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) is a cubic in β„™2superscriptβ„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, which must be rational and therefore has a singular point p𝑝pitalic_p. Now let Cβ€²superscript𝐢′C^{\prime}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the component of bidegree (1,0)10(1,0)( 1 , 0 ). It is contained in a fibre p⁒r2βˆ’1⁒(q)𝑝superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ21π‘žpr_{2}^{-1}(q)italic_p italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_q ) for some qπ‘žqitalic_q. But C∩C′𝐢superscript𝐢′C\cap C^{\prime}italic_C ∩ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has length 2 and p⁒r2𝑝subscriptπ‘Ÿ2pr_{2}italic_p italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT maps C𝐢Citalic_C isomorphically onto its image away from p⁒r2βˆ’1⁒(p)𝑝superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ21𝑝pr_{2}^{-1}(p)italic_p italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ), so we must have Cβ€²βŠ‚p⁒r2βˆ’1⁒(p)superscript𝐢′𝑝superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ21𝑝C^{\prime}\subset pr_{2}^{-1}(p)italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ‚ italic_p italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ). If p⁒r2⁒(C)𝑝subscriptπ‘Ÿ2𝐢pr_{2}(C)italic_p italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) has a node at p𝑝pitalic_p then Cβ€²superscript𝐢′C^{\prime}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT must be the line joining the two points of p⁒r2βˆ’1⁒(p)∩C𝑝superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ21𝑝𝐢pr_{2}^{-1}(p)\cap Citalic_p italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ∩ italic_C; if p⁒r2⁒(C)𝑝subscriptπ‘Ÿ2𝐢pr_{2}(C)italic_p italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) has a cusp at p𝑝pitalic_p then Cβ€²superscript𝐢′C^{\prime}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT must be the tangent line to C𝐢Citalic_C at the point p⁒r2βˆ’1⁒(p)∩C𝑝superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ21𝑝𝐢pr_{2}^{-1}(p)\cap Citalic_p italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ∩ italic_C. In both cases Cβ€²superscript𝐢′C^{\prime}italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is uniquely determined by C𝐢Citalic_C, so the space of such curves has dimension 16161616.∎

Now we can complete the proof of Proposition 3.1.

Proposition 3.6 (=Proposition 3.1).

The fibres of Ο€1subscriptπœ‹1\pi_{1}italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are irreducible and generically reduced in codimension 1.

Proof.

Again we consider the morphism

Ο•:β„™2:italic-Ο•superscriptβ„™2\displaystyle\phi\colon\mathbb{P}^{2}italic_Ο• : blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’MβŠ‚G⁒r⁒(3,9)β†’absentπ‘€πΊπ‘Ÿ39\displaystyle\rightarrow M\subset Gr(3,9)β†’ italic_M βŠ‚ italic_G italic_r ( 3 , 9 )
p𝑝\displaystyle pitalic_p ↦span⁑(F1p,F2p,F3p)maps-toabsentspansuperscriptsubscript𝐹1𝑝superscriptsubscript𝐹2𝑝superscriptsubscript𝐹3𝑝\displaystyle\mapsto\operatorname{span}(F_{1}^{p},F_{2}^{p},F_{3}^{p})↦ roman_span ( italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

defined by our choice of 3 forms. Let S𝑆Sitalic_S denote the subset of M𝑀Mitalic_M parametrising curves which are reducible or generically non-reduced. Lemma 3.5 shows that S𝑆Sitalic_S has codimension 2 in M𝑀Mitalic_M. As before, the general G⁒L⁒(9)𝐺𝐿9GL(9)italic_G italic_L ( 9 )-translate of ϕ⁒(β„™2)italic-Ο•superscriptβ„™2\phi(\mathbb{P}^{2})italic_Ο• ( blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is transverse to R𝑅Ritalic_R and therefore Rβˆ©Ο•β’(β„™2)𝑅italic-Ο•superscriptβ„™2R\cap\phi(\mathbb{P}^{2})italic_R ∩ italic_Ο• ( blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) has codimension 2 in β„™2superscriptβ„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Again, the general translate equals ϕ⁒(β„™2)italic-Ο•superscriptβ„™2\phi(\mathbb{P}^{2})italic_Ο• ( blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for a suitable choice of forms F1,F2,F3subscript𝐹1subscript𝐹2subscript𝐹3F_{1},F_{2},F_{3}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. ∎

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have no conflict of interest.

References

  • [AC08] Ekaterina Amerik and FrΓ©dΓ©ric Campana. Fibrations mΓ©romorphes sur certaines variΓ©tΓ©s Γ  fibrΓ© canonique trivial. Pure Appl. Math. Q., 4(2, Special Issue: In honor of Fedor Bogomolov. Part 1):509–545, 2008.
  • [DS05] Tien-Cuong Dinh and Nessim Sibony. Une borne supΓ©rieure pour l’entropie topologique d’une application rationnelle. Ann. of Math. (2), 161(3):1637–1644, 2005.
  • [Gro03] MikhaΓ―l Gromov. On the entropy of holomorphic maps. Enseign. Math. (2), 49(3-4):217–235, 2003.
  • [HSY22] Michael Hoff, Isabel Stenger, and José Ignacio YÑñez. Movable cones of complete intersections of multidegree one on products of projective spaces, 2022. arXiv:2207.11150.
  • [Kaw92] Yujiro Kawamata. Abundance theorem for minimal threefolds. Invent. Math., 108(2):229–246, 1992.
  • [KM98] JΓ‘nos KollΓ‘r and Shigefumi Mori. Birational geometry of algebraic varieties, volume 134 of Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998. With the collaboration of C. H. Clemens and A. Corti, Translated from the 1998 Japanese original.
  • [KMM94] Sean Keel, Kenji Matsuki, and James McKernan. Log abundance theorem for threefolds. Duke Math. J., 75(1):99–119, 1994.
  • [LB19] Federico LoΒ Bianco. On the primitivity of birational transformations of irreducible holomorphic symplectic manifolds. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (1):1–32, 2019.
  • [Ogu18] Keiji Oguiso. A criterion for the primitivity of a birational automorphism of a Calabi-Yau manifold and an application. Math. Res. Lett., 25(1):181–198, 2018.
  • [Sho03] V.Β V. Shokurov. Prelimiting flips. Tr. Mat. Inst. Steklova, 240(Biratsion. Geom. LineΔ­n. Sist. Konechno Porozhdennye Algebry):82–219, 2003.
  • [Yom87] Y.Β Yomdin. Volume growth and entropy. Israel J. Math., 57(3):285–300, 1987.
  • [Zha09] De-Qi Zhang. Dynamics of automorphisms on projective complex manifolds. J. Differential Geom., 82(3):691–722, 2009.