Tian’s theorem for Moishezon spaces

Dan Coman Department of Mathematics, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-1150, USA [email protected] Xiaonan Ma Université Paris Cité, CNRS, IMJ-PRG, Bâtiment Sophie Germain, UFR de Mathématiques,
 Case 7012, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France
[email protected]
 and  George Marinescu Univerisität zu Köln, Mathematisches institut, Weyertal 86-90, 50931 Köln, Germany
 Institute of Mathematics ‘Simion Stoilow’, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania
[email protected]
(Date: July 3, 2024)
Abstract.

We prove that the Fubini-Study currents associated to a sequence of singular Hermitian holomorphic line bundles on a compact normal Moishezon space distribute asymptotically as the curvature currents of their metrics.

Key words and phrases:
Bergman kernel function, Fubini-Study current, singular Hermitian metric, normal complex space, Moishezon space
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 32L10; Secondary 32A60, 32C20, 32U05, 32U40
D. Coman is supported by the NSF Grant DMS-2154273
X. Ma is partially supported by NSFC No.11829102, ANR-21-CE40-0016 and funded through the Institutional Strategy of the University of Cologne within the German Excellence Initiative
G. Marinescu is partially supported by the DFG funded project CRC TRR 191 ‘Symplectic Structures in Geometry, Algebra and Dynamics’ (Project-ID 281071066-TRR 191), the DFG Priority Program 2265 ‘Random Geometric Systems’ (Project-ID 422743078) and the ANR-DFG project QuaSiDy (Project-ID 490843120).

1. Introduction

Let (L,h)𝐿(L,h)( italic_L , italic_h ) be a positive Hermitian holomorphic line bundle on a projective manifold X𝑋Xitalic_X and set (Lp,hp)=(Lp,hp)superscript𝐿𝑝superscript𝑝superscript𝐿tensor-productabsent𝑝superscripttensor-productabsent𝑝(L^{p},h^{p})=(L^{\otimes p},h^{\otimes p})( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Kodaira’s embedding theorem states that for all p𝑝pitalic_p sufficiently large, the Kodaira map Φp:X(H0(X,Lp)):subscriptΦ𝑝𝑋superscript𝐻0superscript𝑋superscript𝐿𝑝\Phi_{p}:X\to\mathbb{P}\big{(}H^{0}(X,L^{p})^{\star}\big{)}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_X → blackboard_P ( italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) associated to (Lp,hp)superscript𝐿𝑝superscript𝑝(L^{p},h^{p})( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is an embedding. Hence one can consider the Fubini-Study forms on X𝑋Xitalic_X, γp=Φp(ωFS)subscript𝛾𝑝superscriptsubscriptΦ𝑝subscript𝜔FS\gamma_{p}=\Phi_{p}^{\star}(\omega_{\mathrm{FS}})italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_FS end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), where ωFSsubscript𝜔FS\omega_{\mathrm{FS}}italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_FS end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denotes the Fubini-Study form on a projective space. A celebrated theorem of Tian [T] shows that 1pγpc1(L,h)1𝑝subscript𝛾𝑝subscript𝑐1𝐿\frac{1}{p}\,\gamma_{p}\to c_{1}(L,h)divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L , italic_h ) as p𝑝p\to\inftyitalic_p → ∞, in the 𝒞superscript𝒞\mathscr{C}^{\infty}script_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT topology on X𝑋Xitalic_X (see also [R]). Tian’s theorem follows from the first term asymptotics of the Bergman kernel function associated to the space H0(X,Lp)superscript𝐻0𝑋superscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}(X,L^{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) endowed with the inner product determined by hpsuperscript𝑝h^{p}italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and a volume form on X𝑋Xitalic_X. We refer to the book [MM] for an exposition of these topics as well as for the full asymptotic expansion of the Bergman kernel in different contexts.

In [CM1] we extended Tian’s theorem to the case when (L,h)𝐿(L,h)( italic_L , italic_h ) is a singular Hermitian holomorphic line bundle with strictly positive curvature current on a compact Kähler manifold X𝑋Xitalic_X, the above convergence now being in the weak sense of currents. Later, we extended Tian’s theorem further to general classes of compact Kähler spaces X𝑋Xitalic_X [CM2, CMM]. In all these situations one has to replace the space H0(X,Lp)superscript𝐻0𝑋superscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}(X,L^{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) with the Bergman space H(2)0(X,Lp)subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋superscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L^{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of square integrable holomorphic sections.

In [CMM, Theorem 1.1] we generalized Tian’s theorem by considering sequences (Lp,hp)subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝(L_{p},h_{p})( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1, of singular Hermitian holomorphic line bundles over a compact normal Kähler space X𝑋Xitalic_X, in place of the sequence of powers (Lp,hp)superscript𝐿𝑝superscript𝑝(L^{p},h^{p})( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of a line bundle (L,h)𝐿(L,h)( italic_L , italic_h ). Assuming that the curvature currents c1(Lp,hp)subscript𝑐1subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝c_{1}(L_{p},h_{p})italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) satisfy a natural growth condition, we proved that the Fubini-Study currents γpsubscript𝛾𝑝\gamma_{p}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT associated to the Bergman spaces H(2)0(X,Lp)subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) (see (1.4)) distribute asymptotically like c1(Lp,hp)subscript𝑐1subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝c_{1}(L_{p},h_{p})italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

The purpose of this note is to show that the preceding result holds more generally for compact normal spaces X𝑋Xitalic_X which are not assumed to be Kähler. The precise setting is the following:

(A) X𝑋Xitalic_X is a compact, reduced, irreducible, normal complex space of dimension n𝑛nitalic_n, Xregsubscript𝑋regX_{\mathrm{reg}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_reg end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denotes the set of regular points of X𝑋Xitalic_X, Xsingsubscript𝑋singX_{\mathrm{sing}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sing end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denotes the set of singular points of X𝑋Xitalic_X, and ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω is a Hermitian form on X𝑋Xitalic_X.

(B) (Lp,hp)subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝(L_{p},h_{p})( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1, is a sequence of holomorphic line bundles on X𝑋Xitalic_X with singular Hermitian metrics hpsubscript𝑝h_{p}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT whose curvature currents verify

(1.1) c1(Lp,hp)apω on X, where ap>0 and limpap=.subscript𝑐1subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝subscript𝑎𝑝𝜔 on X, where ap>0 and subscript𝑝subscript𝑎𝑝c_{1}(L_{p},h_{p})\geq a_{p}\,\omega\,\text{ on $X$, where $a_{p}>0$ and }\lim_{p\to\infty}a_{p}=\infty.italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≥ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω on italic_X , where italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 and roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∞ .

We let Ap=Xc1(Lp,hp)ωn1subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑋subscript𝑐1subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝superscript𝜔𝑛1A_{p}=\int_{X}c_{1}(L_{p},h_{p})\wedge\omega^{n-1}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∧ italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and assume that

(1.2) T0𝒯(X) such that c1(Lp,hp)ApT0,p1.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑇0𝒯𝑋 such that subscript𝑐1subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑇0for-all𝑝1\exists\,T_{0}\in\mathscr{T}(X)\text{ such that }c_{1}(L_{p},h_{p})\leq A_{p}T% _{0}\,,\;\forall\,p\geq 1\,.∃ italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ script_T ( italic_X ) such that italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∀ italic_p ≥ 1 .

Condition (B) implies that Lpsubscript𝐿𝑝L_{p}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are big line bundles, hence X𝑋Xitalic_X is a Moishezon space.

Let dc:=12πi(¯)assignsuperscript𝑑𝑐12𝜋𝑖¯d^{c}:=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\,(\partial-\overline{\partial})italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT := divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i end_ARG ( ∂ - over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG ), so ddc=iπ¯𝑑superscript𝑑𝑐𝑖𝜋¯dd^{c}=\frac{i}{\pi}\,\partial\overline{\partial}italic_d italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_i end_ARG start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG. We consider currents on X𝑋Xitalic_X in the sense of [D2], and denote by 𝒯(X)𝒯𝑋\mathscr{T}(X)script_T ( italic_X ) the set of positive closed currents of bidegree (1,1)11(1,1)( 1 , 1 ) on X𝑋Xitalic_X which have local plurisubharmonic (psh) potentials, i.e., T=ddcv𝑇𝑑superscript𝑑𝑐𝑣T=dd^{c}vitalic_T = italic_d italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v holds in a neighborhood of each point of X𝑋Xitalic_X for some psh function v𝑣vitalic_v. We refer to [CMM, Section 2.1]) for a review of the notions of differential forms, psh functions and currents on complex spaces. We denote by PSH(U)PSH𝑈\mathrm{PSH}(U)roman_PSH ( italic_U ) the set of psh functions on an open set UX𝑈𝑋U\subset Xitalic_U ⊂ italic_X. The notions of singular Hermitian metric on a line bundle over a complex space X𝑋Xitalic_X, and its curvature current, are defined as in the case when X𝑋Xitalic_X is smooth (see [D3], [CMM, Section 2.2]).

Let H(2)0(X,Lp)subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) be the Bergman space of L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-holomorphic sections of Lpsubscript𝐿𝑝L_{p}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT relative to the metric hpsubscript𝑝h_{p}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the volume form induced by ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω on X𝑋Xitalic_X,

(1.3) H(2)0(X,Lp)=H(2)0(X,Lp,hp,ωn)={SH0(X,Lp):Sp2:=X|S|hp2ωnn!<},subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝superscript𝜔𝑛conditional-set𝑆superscript𝐻0𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝assignsuperscriptsubscriptnorm𝑆𝑝2subscript𝑋subscriptsuperscript𝑆2subscript𝑝superscript𝜔𝑛𝑛H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p})=H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p},h_{p},\omega^{n})=\Big{\{}S\in H^{0}(% X,L_{p}):\,\|S\|_{p}^{2}:=\int_{X}|S|^{2}_{h_{p}}\,\frac{\omega^{n}}{n!}<% \infty\Big{\}},italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = { italic_S ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) : ∥ italic_S ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT := ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_S | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG < ∞ } ,

endowed with the obvious inner product. Let Pp,γpsubscript𝑃𝑝subscript𝛾𝑝P_{p},\gamma_{p}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the Bergman kernel function and the Fubini-Study current of the space H(2)0(X,Lp)subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). They are defined as follows. Let S1p,,Sdppsuperscriptsubscript𝑆1𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑆subscript𝑑𝑝𝑝S_{1}^{p},\dots,S_{d_{p}}^{p}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be an orthonormal basis of H(2)0(X,Lp)subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). If xX𝑥𝑋x\in Xitalic_x ∈ italic_X let epsubscript𝑒𝑝e_{p}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a holomorphic frame of Lpsubscript𝐿𝑝L_{p}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on a neighborhood Upsubscript𝑈𝑝U_{p}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of x𝑥xitalic_x and write Sjp=sjpepsuperscriptsubscript𝑆𝑗𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑗𝑝subscript𝑒𝑝S_{j}^{p}=s_{j}^{p}e_{p}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with sjp𝒪X(Up)superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑗𝑝subscript𝒪𝑋subscript𝑈𝑝s_{j}^{p}\in\mathscr{O}_{X}(U_{p})italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ script_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Then

(1.4) Pp(x)=j=1dp|Sjp(x)|hp2,γp|Up=12ddclog(j=1dp|sjp|2).formulae-sequencesubscript𝑃𝑝𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑗1subscript𝑑𝑝superscriptsubscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑆𝑝𝑗𝑥subscript𝑝2evaluated-atsubscript𝛾𝑝subscript𝑈𝑝12𝑑superscript𝑑𝑐superscriptsubscript𝑗1subscript𝑑𝑝superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑠𝑗𝑝2P_{p}(x)=\sum_{j=1}^{d_{p}}|S^{p}_{j}(x)|_{h_{p}}^{2}\,,\,\;\gamma_{p}|_{U_{p}% }=\frac{1}{2}\,dd^{c}\log\left(\sum_{j=1}^{d_{p}}|s_{j}^{p}|^{2}\right).italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_d italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_log ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

We have that Pp,γpsubscript𝑃𝑝subscript𝛾𝑝P_{p},\,\gamma_{p}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are independent of the choice of basis. Moreover, γp=Φp(ωFS)subscript𝛾𝑝superscriptsubscriptΦ𝑝subscript𝜔FS\gamma_{p}=\Phi_{p}^{\star}(\omega_{\mathrm{FS}})italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_FS end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), where Φp:X(H(2)0(X,Lp)):subscriptΦ𝑝𝑋subscriptsuperscript𝐻02superscript𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝\Phi_{p}:X\dashrightarrow\mathbb{P}\big{(}H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p})^{\star}\big{)}roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_X ⇢ blackboard_P ( italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is the (meromorphic) Kodaira map associated to the Bergman space H(2)0(X,Lp)subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

Our main result is the following theorem:

Theorem 1.1.

Assume that X,ω,(Lp,hp),p1𝑋𝜔subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝𝑝1X,\omega,(L_{p},h_{p}),\,p\geq 1italic_X , italic_ω , ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_p ≥ 1, satisfy conditions (A)-(B). Then the following hold:

(i) 1AplogPp01subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑃𝑝0\frac{1}{A_{p}}\log P_{p}\to 0divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 as p𝑝p\to\inftyitalic_p → ∞, in L1(X,ωn)superscript𝐿1𝑋superscript𝜔𝑛L^{1}(X,\omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

(ii) 1Ap(γpc1(Lp,hp))01subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝛾𝑝subscript𝑐1subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝0\frac{1}{A_{p}}\,(\gamma_{p}-c_{1}(L_{p},h_{p}))\to 0divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) → 0 as p𝑝p\to\inftyitalic_p → ∞, in the weak sense of currents on X𝑋Xitalic_X.

Note that a complex space X𝑋Xitalic_X that verifies (A)-(B) is a Moishezon space. Thus Theorem 1.1 applies to any compact normal Moishezon space X𝑋Xitalic_X, which is not necessarily assumed to be Kähler. Indeed, a singular Hermitian holomorphic line bundle (Lp,hp)subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝(L_{p},h_{p})( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) over X𝑋Xitalic_X with strictly positive curvature current as in (1.1) is big, hence X𝑋Xitalic_X is Moishezon (see, e.g., [CMM, Proposition 2.3], [BCMN, Propositions 3.2 and 3.3]). We recall that a (reduced) compact irreducible complex space X𝑋Xitalic_X of dimension n𝑛nitalic_n is called a Moishezon space if there exist n𝑛nitalic_n algebraically independent meromorphic functions on X𝑋Xitalic_X (see [U, Definition 3.5], [BCMN, Section 3]). We refer to [BCMN, Section 3] and the references therein for the definition and some basic properties of big line bundles over complex spaces.

Theorem 1.1 is proved in Section 2. An important special case is provided by the sequence of powers (Lp,hp)=(Lp,hp)subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝superscript𝐿𝑝superscript𝑝(L_{p},h_{p})=(L^{p},h^{p})( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of a singular Hermitian holomorphic line bundle (L,h)𝐿(L,h)( italic_L , italic_h ) with strictly positive curvature current. See Theorem 3.1 in Section 3, which gives a full generalization of Tian’s theorem to the singular setting. We recall in Section 3 a few other important applications of Theorem 1.1, in particular to the asymptotic distribution of the zeros of random sequences of holomorphic sections (see Theorem 3.3).

2. Proof of Theorem 1.1

By a theorem of Moishezon ([Mo], [U, Theorem 3.6]), X𝑋Xitalic_X is bimeromorphically equivalent to a projective manifold. More precisely, since X𝑋Xitalic_X is assumed to be normal we have that codimXsing2codimsubscript𝑋sing2\operatorname{codim}X_{\mathrm{sing}}\geq 2roman_codim italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sing end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 2 and the following holds (see [BCMN, Theorem 3.1]):

Theorem 2.1.

If X𝑋Xitalic_X is a compact, irreducible, normal Moishezon space then there exists a connected projective manifold X~~𝑋\widetilde{X}over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG and a surjective holomorphic map π:X~X:𝜋~𝑋𝑋\pi:\widetilde{X}\to Xitalic_π : over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG → italic_X, given as a composition of finitely many blow-ups with smooth center, such that π:X~ΣXY:𝜋~𝑋Σ𝑋𝑌\pi:\widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigma\to X\setminus Yitalic_π : over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ → italic_X ∖ italic_Y is a biholomorphism, where Y𝑌Yitalic_Y is an analytic subset of X𝑋Xitalic_X, codimY2codim𝑌2\operatorname{codim}Y\geq 2roman_codim italic_Y ≥ 2, XsingYsubscript𝑋sing𝑌X_{\mathrm{sing}}\subset Yitalic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sing end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ italic_Y, and Σ=π1(Y)Σsuperscript𝜋1𝑌\Sigma=\pi^{-1}(Y)roman_Σ = italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Y ) is a normal crossings divisor.

Let X,ω,(Lp,hp)𝑋𝜔subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝X,\omega,(L_{p},h_{p})italic_X , italic_ω , ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) verify assumptions (A)-(B) and π:X~X:𝜋~𝑋𝑋\pi:\widetilde{X}\to Xitalic_π : over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG → italic_X be as in Theorem 2.1. In [CMM] we assumed that X𝑋Xitalic_X is a Kähler normal space, and we showed that the desingularization X~~𝑋\widetilde{X}over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG obtained by finitely many blow-ups with smooth centers as in [BM, GM] is Kähler. This is crucial for construction peak sections by using methods involving ¯¯\overline{\partial}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG. In our present situation we obtain a projective desingularization X~~𝑋\widetilde{X}over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG since X𝑋Xitalic_X is Moishezon.

We will follow the arguments from the proof of [CMM, Theorem 1.1], working with π:X~X:𝜋~𝑋𝑋\pi:\widetilde{X}\to Xitalic_π : over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG → italic_X instead of the desingularization of X𝑋Xitalic_X given in [CMM, Section 2.3], and using a Kähler form ω~~𝜔\widetilde{\omega}over~ start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG on the projective manifold X~~𝑋\widetilde{X}over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG. We recall the following lemmas that will be needed in the proof.

Lemma 2.2 ([CMM, Lemma 2.1]).

If

H(2)0(X~,πLp)={S~H0(X~,πLp):X~|S~|πhp2πωnn!<},subscriptsuperscript𝐻02~𝑋superscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝conditional-set~𝑆superscript𝐻0~𝑋superscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝subscript~𝑋subscriptsuperscript~𝑆2superscript𝜋subscript𝑝superscript𝜋superscript𝜔𝑛𝑛H^{0}_{(2)}(\widetilde{X},\pi^{\star}L_{p})=\left\{\widetilde{S}\in H^{0}(% \widetilde{X},\pi^{\star}L_{p}):\,\int_{\widetilde{X}}|\widetilde{S}|^{2}_{\pi% ^{\star}h_{p}}\,\frac{\pi^{\star}\omega^{n}}{n!}<\infty\right\},italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG , italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = { over~ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG , italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) : ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | over~ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG < ∞ } ,

the map π:H(2)0(X,Lp)H(2)0(X~,πLp):superscript𝜋subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝subscriptsuperscript𝐻02~𝑋superscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝\pi^{\star}:H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p})\longrightarrow H^{0}_{(2)}(\widetilde{X},\pi^% {\star}L_{p})italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⟶ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG , italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is an isometry and the Bergman kernel function of H(2)0(X~,πLp)subscriptsuperscript𝐻02~𝑋superscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}_{(2)}(\widetilde{X},\pi^{\star}L_{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG , italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is P~p=Ppπsubscript~𝑃𝑝subscript𝑃𝑝𝜋\widetilde{P}_{p}=P_{p}\circ\piover~ start_ARG italic_P end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∘ italic_π.

Lemma 2.3 ([CMM, Lemma 2.2, Lemma 3.2]).

There exist α(0,1)𝛼01\alpha\in(0,1)italic_α ∈ ( 0 , 1 ), bpsubscript𝑏𝑝b_{p}\in\mathbb{N}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_N, a Hermitian form ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω on X~~𝑋\widetilde{X}over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG, and singular Hermitian metrics h~psubscript~𝑝\widetilde{h}_{p}over~ start_ARG italic_h end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on πLp|X~Σevaluated-atsuperscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝~𝑋Σ\pi^{\star}L_{p}|_{\widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigma}italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that ΩπωΩsuperscript𝜋𝜔\Omega\geq\pi^{\star}\omegaroman_Ω ≥ italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω, bpsubscript𝑏𝑝b_{p}\to\inftyitalic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → ∞ and bp/Ap0subscript𝑏𝑝subscript𝐴𝑝0b_{p}/A_{p}\to 0italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 as p𝑝p\to\inftyitalic_p → ∞, h~pαbpπhpsubscript~𝑝superscript𝛼subscript𝑏𝑝superscript𝜋subscript𝑝\widetilde{h}_{p}\geq\alpha^{b_{p}}\pi^{\star}h_{p}over~ start_ARG italic_h end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and c1(πLp,h~p)bpΩsubscript𝑐1superscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝subscript~𝑝subscript𝑏𝑝Ωc_{1}(\pi^{\star}L_{p},\widetilde{h}_{p})\geq b_{p}\Omegaitalic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over~ start_ARG italic_h end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≥ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω on X~Σ~𝑋Σ\widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigmaover~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ. Moreover, for every relatively compact open subset U~~𝑈\widetilde{U}over~ start_ARG italic_U end_ARG of X~Σ~𝑋Σ\widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigmaover~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ there exists a constant βU~>1subscript𝛽~𝑈1\beta_{\widetilde{U}}>1italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_U end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 such that h~pβU~bpπhpsubscript~𝑝superscriptsubscript𝛽~𝑈subscript𝑏𝑝superscript𝜋subscript𝑝\widetilde{h}_{p}\leq\beta_{\widetilde{U}}^{b_{p}}\pi^{\star}h_{p}over~ start_ARG italic_h end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_U end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on U~~𝑈\widetilde{U}over~ start_ARG italic_U end_ARG.

The Hermitian form ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω is obtained as Ω=Cπω+c1(F,θ)Ω𝐶superscript𝜋𝜔subscript𝑐1𝐹𝜃\Omega=C\pi^{\star}\omega+c_{1}(F,\theta)roman_Ω = italic_C italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω + italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F , italic_θ ), where θ𝜃\thetaitalic_θ is a suitable metric on F=𝒪X~(Σ)𝐹subscript𝒪~𝑋ΣF=\mathscr{O}_{\widetilde{X}}(-\Sigma)italic_F = script_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - roman_Σ ) and C>0𝐶0C>0italic_C > 0 is an appropriate constant. If bpsubscript𝑏𝑝b_{p}\in\mathbb{N}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_N is a sequence such that bpsubscript𝑏𝑝b_{p}\to\inftyitalic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → ∞, apCbpsubscript𝑎𝑝𝐶subscript𝑏𝑝a_{p}\geq Cb_{p}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_C italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, bp/Ap0subscript𝑏𝑝subscript𝐴𝑝0b_{p}/A_{p}\to 0italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 and if φ𝜑\varphiitalic_φ is a weight of θ𝜃\thetaitalic_θ on X~Σ~𝑋Σ\widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigmaover~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ, one defines the metric h~p=e2bpφπhpsubscript~𝑝superscript𝑒2subscript𝑏𝑝𝜑superscript𝜋subscript𝑝\widetilde{h}_{p}=e^{-2b_{p}\varphi}\pi^{\star}h_{p}over~ start_ARG italic_h end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on πLp|X~Σevaluated-atsuperscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝~𝑋Σ\pi^{\star}L_{p}|_{\widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigma}italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and shows that it has the desired properties. In particular the positivity of c1(πLp,h~p)subscript𝑐1superscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝subscript~𝑝c_{1}(\pi^{\star}L_{p},\widetilde{h}_{p})italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over~ start_ARG italic_h end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is needed to solve a ¯¯\overline{\partial}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG-equation on X~Σ~𝑋Σ\widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigmaover~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ, by using the following version of Demailly’s estimates for the ¯¯\overline{\partial}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG-operator [D1, Théorème 5.1] (see also [CMM, Theorem 2.5]):

Theorem 2.4.

Let Z𝑍Zitalic_Z, dimZ=ndimension𝑍𝑛\dim Z=nroman_dim italic_Z = italic_n, be a complete Kähler manifold and ΘΘ\Thetaroman_Θ be a Kähler form on Z𝑍Zitalic_Z (not necessarily complete) such that its Ricci form RicΘ2πBΘsubscriptRicΘ2𝜋𝐵Θ\operatorname{Ric}_{\Theta}\geq-2\pi B\Thetaroman_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Θ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ - 2 italic_π italic_B roman_Θ for some constant B>0𝐵0B>0italic_B > 0. Let (Lp,hp)subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝(L_{p},h_{p})( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) be singular Hermitian holomorphic line bundles on Z𝑍Zitalic_Z such that c1(Lp,hp)2apΘsubscript𝑐1subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝2subscript𝑎𝑝Θc_{1}(L_{p},h_{p})\geq 2a_{p}\Thetaitalic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≥ 2 italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Θ, where apBsubscript𝑎𝑝𝐵a_{p}\geq Bitalic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_B. If gL0,12(Z,Lp,loc)𝑔subscriptsuperscript𝐿201𝑍subscript𝐿𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑐g\in L^{2}_{0,1}(Z,L_{p},loc)italic_g ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Z , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_l italic_o italic_c ) verifies ¯g=0¯𝑔0\overline{\partial}g=0over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_g = 0 and Z|g|hp2Θn<subscript𝑍subscriptsuperscript𝑔2subscript𝑝superscriptΘ𝑛\int_{Z}|g|^{2}_{h_{p}}\,\Theta^{n}<\infty∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_g | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Θ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < ∞ then there exists uL0,02(Z,Lp,loc)𝑢subscriptsuperscript𝐿200𝑍subscript𝐿𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑐u\in L^{2}_{0,0}(Z,L_{p},loc)italic_u ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Z , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_l italic_o italic_c ) such that ¯u=g¯𝑢𝑔\overline{\partial}u=gover¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG italic_u = italic_g and Z|u|hp2Θn1apZ|g|hp2Θnsubscript𝑍subscriptsuperscript𝑢2subscript𝑝superscriptΘ𝑛1subscript𝑎𝑝subscript𝑍subscriptsuperscript𝑔2subscript𝑝superscriptΘ𝑛\int_{Z}|u|^{2}_{h_{p}}\,\Theta^{n}\leq\frac{1}{a_{p}}\,\int_{Z}|g|^{2}_{h_{p}% }\,\Theta^{n}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Θ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_g | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Θ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Proof of Theorem 1.1.

By (1.4) we have that logPpL1(X,ωn)subscript𝑃𝑝superscript𝐿1𝑋superscript𝜔𝑛\log P_{p}\in L^{1}(X,\omega^{n})roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and

γpc1(Lp,hp)=12ddclogPp.subscript𝛾𝑝subscript𝑐1subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝12𝑑superscript𝑑𝑐subscript𝑃𝑝\gamma_{p}-c_{1}(L_{p},h_{p})=\frac{1}{2}\,dd^{c}\log P_{p}.italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_d italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Thus (ii)𝑖𝑖(ii)( italic_i italic_i ) follows at once from (i)𝑖(i)( italic_i ). To prove (i)𝑖(i)( italic_i ) we proceed in two steps.

Step 1. We prove that 1AplogPp01subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑃𝑝0\frac{1}{A_{p}}\log P_{p}\to 0divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 as p𝑝p\to\inftyitalic_p → ∞, in Lloc1(XY,ωn)subscriptsuperscript𝐿1𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑋𝑌superscript𝜔𝑛L^{1}_{loc}(X\setminus Y,\omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_o italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ∖ italic_Y , italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Fix xXYXreg𝑥𝑋𝑌subscript𝑋regx\in X\setminus Y\subset X_{\mathrm{reg}}italic_x ∈ italic_X ∖ italic_Y ⊂ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_reg end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, WXYdouble-subset-of𝑊𝑋𝑌W\Subset X\setminus Yitalic_W ⋐ italic_X ∖ italic_Y a contractible Stein coordinate neighborhood of x𝑥xitalic_x, r0>0subscript𝑟00r_{0}>0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 such that the (closed) ball V:=B(x,2r0)Wassign𝑉𝐵𝑥2subscript𝑟0𝑊V:=B(x,2r_{0})\subset Witalic_V := italic_B ( italic_x , 2 italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⊂ italic_W, and set U=B(x,r0)𝑈𝐵𝑥subscript𝑟0U=B(x,r_{0})italic_U = italic_B ( italic_x , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Note that the currents {1Apc1(Lp,hp)}1subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑐1subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝\{\frac{1}{A_{p}}\,c_{1}(L_{p},h_{p})\}{ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) } have uniformly bounded mass. By [DS, Proposition A.16] (see also [DNS]) and [Ho, Theorem 3.2.12], we infer that there exist psh functions ψpsubscript𝜓𝑝\psi_{p}italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on intVint𝑉\operatorname{int}Vroman_int italic_V such that ddcψp=c1(Lp,hp)𝑑superscript𝑑𝑐subscript𝜓𝑝subscript𝑐1subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝dd^{c}\psi_{p}=c_{1}(L_{p},h_{p})italic_d italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and the sequence {1Apψp}1subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝜓𝑝\{\frac{1}{A_{p}}\,\psi_{p}\}{ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } is relatively compact in Lloc1(intV,ωn)subscriptsuperscript𝐿1𝑙𝑜𝑐int𝑉superscript𝜔𝑛L^{1}_{loc}(\operatorname{int}V,\omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_o italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_int italic_V , italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Since Lp|Wevaluated-atsubscript𝐿𝑝𝑊L_{p}|_{W}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is holomorphically trivial, we can find holomorphic frames epsubscript𝑒𝑝e_{p}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for Lp|intVevaluated-atsubscript𝐿𝑝int𝑉L_{p}|_{\operatorname{int}V}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_int italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that ψpsubscript𝜓𝑝\psi_{p}italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are the corresponding psh weights of hpsubscript𝑝h_{p}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, so |ep|hp=eψpsubscriptsubscript𝑒𝑝subscript𝑝superscript𝑒subscript𝜓𝑝|e_{p}|_{h_{p}}=e^{-\psi_{p}}| italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Let ω~~𝜔\widetilde{\omega}over~ start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG be a Kähler form on X~~𝑋\widetilde{X}over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG and ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω be the Hermitian form from Lemma 2.3. Then there exists constants δ1,δ2>0subscript𝛿1subscript𝛿20\delta_{1},\delta_{2}>0italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 such that

(2.1) Ωδ1ω~,ω~δ2Ωδ2πω.formulae-sequenceΩsubscript𝛿1~𝜔~𝜔subscript𝛿2Ωsubscript𝛿2superscript𝜋𝜔\Omega\geq\delta_{1}\widetilde{\omega}\,,\;\widetilde{\omega}\geq\delta_{2}% \Omega\geq\delta_{2}\pi^{\star}\omega.roman_Ω ≥ italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG , over~ start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG ≥ italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω ≥ italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω .

With {bp}subscript𝑏𝑝\{b_{p}\}{ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } as in Lemma 2.3, we prove that there exist C1>1subscript𝐶11C_{1}>1italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 and p0subscript𝑝0p_{0}\in\mathbb{N}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_N such that

(2.2) bplogC1AplogPp(z)Aplog(C1r2n)Ap+2Ap(maxB(z,r)ψpψp(z))subscript𝑏𝑝subscript𝐶1subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑃𝑝𝑧subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝐶1superscript𝑟2𝑛subscript𝐴𝑝2subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝐵𝑧𝑟subscript𝜓𝑝subscript𝜓𝑝𝑧-\frac{b_{p}\log C_{1}}{A_{p}}\leq\frac{\log P_{p}(z)}{A_{p}}\leq\frac{\log(C_% {1}r^{-2n})}{A_{p}}+\frac{2}{A_{p}}\,\left(\max_{B(z,r)}\psi_{p}-\psi_{p}(z)\right)- divide start_ARG italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_log italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ divide start_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ divide start_ARG roman_log ( italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B ( italic_z , italic_r ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) )

holds for all p>p0𝑝subscript𝑝0p>p_{0}italic_p > italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, 0<r<r00𝑟subscript𝑟00<r<r_{0}0 < italic_r < italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and zU𝑧𝑈z\in Uitalic_z ∈ italic_U with ψp(z)>subscript𝜓𝑝𝑧\psi_{p}(z)>-\inftyitalic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) > - ∞. The upper bound in (2.2) follows from the subaverage inequality, exactly as the upper bound from [CM1, (7)].

We show next that there exist c(0,1)𝑐01c\in(0,1)italic_c ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) and p0subscript𝑝0p_{0}\in\mathbb{N}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_N with the following property: if p>p0𝑝subscript𝑝0p>p_{0}italic_p > italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and zU𝑧𝑈z\in Uitalic_z ∈ italic_U is such that ψp(z)>subscript𝜓𝑝𝑧\psi_{p}(z)>-\inftyitalic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) > - ∞, then there exists Sz,pH(2)0(X,Lp)subscript𝑆𝑧𝑝subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝S_{z,p}\in H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p})italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) with Sz,p(z)0subscript𝑆𝑧𝑝𝑧0S_{z,p}(z)\neq 0italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ≠ 0 and

(2.3) cbpSz,pp2|Sz,p(z)|hp2.superscript𝑐subscript𝑏𝑝superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝑆𝑧𝑝𝑝2subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑆𝑧𝑝𝑧2subscript𝑝c^{b_{p}}\|S_{z,p}\|_{p}^{2}\leq|S_{z,p}(z)|^{2}_{h_{p}}.italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ | italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

This yields the lower bound in (2.2), since Pp(z)|Sz,p(z)|hp2/Sz,pp2cbpsubscript𝑃𝑝𝑧subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑆𝑧𝑝𝑧2subscript𝑝superscriptsubscriptnormsubscript𝑆𝑧𝑝𝑝2superscript𝑐subscript𝑏𝑝P_{p}(z)\geq|S_{z,p}(z)|^{2}_{h_{p}}/\|S_{z,p}\|_{p}^{2}\geq c^{b_{p}}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ≥ | italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / ∥ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. To this end we work first on πLp|X~Σevaluated-atsuperscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝~𝑋Σ\pi^{\star}L_{p}|_{\widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigma}italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT using the metric h~psubscript~𝑝\widetilde{h}_{p}over~ start_ARG italic_h end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from Lemma 2.3. By (2.1),

c1(πLp|X~Σ,h~p)bpΩδ1bpω~ on X~Σ, where bp.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑐1evaluated-atsuperscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝~𝑋Σsubscript~𝑝subscript𝑏𝑝Ωsubscript𝛿1subscript𝑏𝑝~𝜔 on ~𝑋Σ where subscript𝑏𝑝c_{1}\big{(}\pi^{\star}L_{p}|_{\widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigma},\widetilde{h}_{p}% \big{)}\geq b_{p}\Omega\geq\delta_{1}b_{p}\widetilde{\omega}\text{ on }% \widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigma,\text{ where }b_{p}\to\infty.italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over~ start_ARG italic_h end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≥ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω ≥ italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG on over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ , where italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → ∞ .

We have that X~Σ~𝑋Σ\widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigmaover~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ has a complete Kähler metric [D1, O], and Ricω~2πBω~subscriptRic~𝜔2𝜋𝐵~𝜔\operatorname{Ric}_{\widetilde{\omega}}\geq-2\pi B\widetilde{\omega}roman_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ - 2 italic_π italic_B over~ start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG on X~~𝑋\widetilde{X}over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG for some B>0𝐵0B>0italic_B > 0. Using ideas from [D4, Proposition 3.1], [D5, Section 9], we apply the Ohsawa-Takegoshi extension theorem [OT] and Theorem 2.4 as in the proof of [CM1, Theorem 5.1] to show that there exist C2>1subscript𝐶21C_{2}>1italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1, p0subscript𝑝0p_{0}\in\mathbb{N}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_N, such that if p>p0𝑝subscript𝑝0p>p_{0}italic_p > italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and z~π1(U)~𝑧superscript𝜋1𝑈\widetilde{z}\in\pi^{-1}(U)over~ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ∈ italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_U ), ψpπ(z~)>subscript𝜓𝑝𝜋~𝑧\psi_{p}\circ\pi(\widetilde{z})>-\inftyitalic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∘ italic_π ( over~ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) > - ∞, then there is S~H0(X~Σ,πLp)~𝑆superscript𝐻0~𝑋Σsuperscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝\widetilde{S}\in H^{0}(\widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigma,\pi^{\star}L_{p})over~ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ , italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) verifying S~(z~)0~𝑆~𝑧0\widetilde{S}(\widetilde{z})\neq 0over~ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG ( over~ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ≠ 0 and

X~Σ|S~|h~p2ω~nn!C2|S~(z~)|h~p2.subscript~𝑋Σsubscriptsuperscript~𝑆2subscript~𝑝superscript~𝜔𝑛𝑛subscript𝐶2subscriptsuperscript~𝑆~𝑧2subscript~𝑝\int_{\widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigma}|\widetilde{S}|^{2}_{\widetilde{h}_{p}}\,% \frac{\widetilde{\omega}^{n}}{n!}\leq C_{2}|\widetilde{S}(\widetilde{z})|^{2}_% {\widetilde{h}_{p}}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | over~ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_h end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | over~ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG ( over~ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_h end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

By Lemma 2.3 and (2.1) we obtain

(2.4) δ2nαbpX~Σ|S~|πhp2πωnn!C2βbp|S~(z~)|πhp2,superscriptsubscript𝛿2𝑛superscript𝛼subscript𝑏𝑝subscript~𝑋Σsubscriptsuperscript~𝑆2superscript𝜋subscript𝑝superscript𝜋superscript𝜔𝑛𝑛subscript𝐶2superscript𝛽subscript𝑏𝑝subscriptsuperscript~𝑆~𝑧2superscript𝜋subscript𝑝\delta_{2}^{n}\alpha^{b_{p}}\int_{\widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigma}|\widetilde{S}|% ^{2}_{\pi^{\star}h_{p}}\,\frac{\pi^{\star}\omega^{n}}{n!}\leq C_{2}\beta^{b_{p% }}|\widetilde{S}(\widetilde{z})|^{2}_{\pi^{\star}h_{p}},italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | over~ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | over~ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG ( over~ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

where β>1𝛽1\beta>1italic_β > 1 is so that h~pβbpπhpsubscript~𝑝superscript𝛽subscript𝑏𝑝superscript𝜋subscript𝑝\widetilde{h}_{p}\leq\beta^{b_{p}}\pi^{\star}h_{p}over~ start_ARG italic_h end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on π1(U)superscript𝜋1𝑈\pi^{-1}(U)italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_U ). As π:X~ΣXY:𝜋~𝑋Σ𝑋𝑌\pi:\widetilde{X}\setminus\Sigma\to X\setminus Yitalic_π : over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ → italic_X ∖ italic_Y is a biholomorphism, we let z=π(z~)𝑧𝜋~𝑧z=\pi(\widetilde{z})italic_z = italic_π ( over~ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) and Sz,psubscript𝑆𝑧𝑝S_{z,p}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the section of Lp|XYevaluated-atsubscript𝐿𝑝𝑋𝑌L_{p}|_{X\setminus Y}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X ∖ italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT induced by S~~𝑆\widetilde{S}over~ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG. Since X𝑋Xitalic_X is normal and codimY2codim𝑌2\operatorname{codim}Y\geq 2roman_codim italic_Y ≥ 2, Sz,psubscript𝑆𝑧𝑝S_{z,p}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT extends to a holomorphic section on X𝑋Xitalic_X and (2.3) follows from (2.4).

Recall that {1Apψp}1subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝜓𝑝\{\frac{1}{A_{p}}\,\psi_{p}\}{ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } is relatively compact in Lloc1(intV,ωn)subscriptsuperscript𝐿1𝑙𝑜𝑐int𝑉superscript𝜔𝑛L^{1}_{loc}(\operatorname{int}V,\omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_o italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_int italic_V , italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), hence it is locally uniformly upper bounded in intVint𝑉\operatorname{int}Vroman_int italic_V. It follows from (2.2) that there is a constant C3>0subscript𝐶30C_{3}>0italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 such that

(2.5) |1AplogPp|C32Apψp a.e. on U,p>p0.formulae-sequence1subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑃𝑝subscript𝐶32subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝜓𝑝 a.e. on 𝑈for-all𝑝subscript𝑝0\left|\frac{1}{A_{p}}\log P_{p}\right|\leq C_{3}-\frac{2}{A_{p}}\,\psi_{p}\,% \text{ a.e.\ on }U,\;\forall\,p>p_{0}.| divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT a.e. on italic_U , ∀ italic_p > italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Moreover, if a subsequence 1Apjψpjψ1subscript𝐴subscript𝑝𝑗subscript𝜓subscript𝑝𝑗𝜓\frac{1}{A_{p_{j}}}\,\psi_{p_{j}}\to\psidivide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_ψ in Lloc1(intV,ωn)subscriptsuperscript𝐿1𝑙𝑜𝑐int𝑉superscript𝜔𝑛L^{1}_{loc}(\operatorname{int}V,\omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_o italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_int italic_V , italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and a.e. on intVint𝑉\operatorname{int}Vroman_int italic_V, where ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ is psh on intVint𝑉\operatorname{int}Vroman_int italic_V, we infer from (2.2) and the Hartogs lemma [Ho, Theorem 3.2.13] that

0lim inflogPpj(z)Apjlim suplogPpj(z)Apj2(maxB(z,r)ψψ(z))0limit-infimumsubscript𝑃subscript𝑝𝑗𝑧subscript𝐴subscript𝑝𝑗limit-supremumsubscript𝑃subscript𝑝𝑗𝑧subscript𝐴subscript𝑝𝑗2subscript𝐵𝑧𝑟𝜓𝜓𝑧0\leq\liminf\frac{\log P_{p_{j}}(z)}{A_{p_{j}}}\leq\limsup\frac{\log P_{p_{j}}% (z)}{A_{p_{j}}}\leq 2\left(\max_{B(z,r)}\psi-\psi(z)\right)0 ≤ lim inf divide start_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ lim sup divide start_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ 2 ( roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B ( italic_z , italic_r ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ - italic_ψ ( italic_z ) )

holds for a.e. zU𝑧𝑈z\in Uitalic_z ∈ italic_U and every r<r0𝑟subscript𝑟0r<r_{0}italic_r < italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Thus 1ApjlogPpj01subscript𝐴subscript𝑝𝑗subscript𝑃subscript𝑝𝑗0\frac{1}{A_{p_{j}}}\log P_{p_{j}}\to 0divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 a.e. on U𝑈Uitalic_U, and hence in L1(U,ωn)superscript𝐿1𝑈superscript𝜔𝑛L^{1}(U,\omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_U , italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) by (2.5) and the generalized Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem. We conclude that 1AplogPp01subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑃𝑝0\frac{1}{A_{p}}\log P_{p}\to 0divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 as p𝑝p\to\inftyitalic_p → ∞ in Lloc1(XY,ωn)subscriptsuperscript𝐿1𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑋𝑌superscript𝜔𝑛L^{1}_{loc}(X\setminus Y,\omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_o italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ∖ italic_Y , italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

Step 2. We finish the proof of (i)𝑖(i)( italic_i ) by showing that there exists a compact set KX𝐾𝑋K\subset Xitalic_K ⊂ italic_X such that YintK𝑌int𝐾Y\subset\operatorname{int}Kitalic_Y ⊂ roman_int italic_K and 1AplogPp01subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑃𝑝0\frac{1}{A_{p}}\log P_{p}\to 0divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 in L1(K,ωn)superscript𝐿1𝐾superscript𝜔𝑛L^{1}(K,\omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_K , italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Let H(2)0(X~,πLp)subscriptsuperscript𝐻02~𝑋superscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}_{(2)}(\widetilde{X},\pi^{\star}L_{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG , italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) be the Bergman spaces from Lemma 2.2. It follows by (1.2) that there exists M>0𝑀0M>0italic_M > 0 such that

(2.6) X~c1(πLp,πhp)Ωn1MAp,p1.formulae-sequencesubscript~𝑋subscript𝑐1superscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝superscript𝜋subscript𝑝superscriptΩ𝑛1𝑀subscript𝐴𝑝for-all𝑝1\int_{\widetilde{X}}c_{1}(\pi^{\star}L_{p},\pi^{\star}h_{p})\wedge\Omega^{n-1}% \leq MA_{p}\;,\;\;\forall\,p\geq 1\,.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∧ roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_M italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∀ italic_p ≥ 1 .

Let yΣ𝑦Σy\in\Sigmaitalic_y ∈ roman_Σ. By (2.6), we can proceed as in Step 1 to find an open neighborhood W~~𝑊\widetilde{W}over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG of y𝑦yitalic_y and holomorphic frames e~psubscript~𝑒𝑝\widetilde{e}_{p}over~ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of πLp|W~evaluated-atsuperscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝~𝑊\pi^{\star}L_{p}|_{\widetilde{W}}italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with corresponding psh weights ψ~psubscript~𝜓𝑝\widetilde{\psi}_{p}over~ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of πhpsuperscript𝜋subscript𝑝\pi^{\star}h_{p}italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, such that the sequence {1Apψ~p}1subscript𝐴𝑝subscript~𝜓𝑝\{\frac{1}{A_{p}}\,\widetilde{\psi}_{p}\}{ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } is relatively compact in Lloc1(W~,Ωn)subscriptsuperscript𝐿1𝑙𝑜𝑐~𝑊superscriptΩ𝑛L^{1}_{loc}(\widetilde{W},\Omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_o italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG , roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Let {S~jp: 1jdp}conditional-setsubscriptsuperscript~𝑆𝑝𝑗1𝑗subscript𝑑𝑝\{\widetilde{S}^{p}_{j}:\,1\leq j\leq d_{p}\}{ over~ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : 1 ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } be an orthonormal basis of H(2)0(X~,πLp)subscriptsuperscript𝐻02~𝑋superscript𝜋subscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}_{(2)}(\widetilde{X},\pi^{\star}L_{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG , italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and S~jp=s~jpe~psubscriptsuperscript~𝑆𝑝𝑗subscriptsuperscript~𝑠𝑝𝑗subscript~𝑒𝑝\widetilde{S}^{p}_{j}=\widetilde{s}^{p}_{j}\widetilde{e}_{p}over~ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over~ start_ARG italic_s end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , with s~jp𝒪X~(W~)subscriptsuperscript~𝑠𝑝𝑗subscript𝒪~𝑋~𝑊\widetilde{s}^{p}_{j}\in\mathscr{O}_{\widetilde{X}}(\widetilde{W})over~ start_ARG italic_s end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ script_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG ). By Lemma 2.2,

1Apv~p1Apψ~p=12AplogPpπ, where v~p=12log(j=1dp|s~jp|2)PSH(W~).formulae-sequence1subscript𝐴𝑝subscript~𝑣𝑝1subscript𝐴𝑝subscript~𝜓𝑝12subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑃𝑝𝜋 where subscript~𝑣𝑝12superscriptsubscript𝑗1subscript𝑑𝑝superscriptsubscriptsuperscript~𝑠𝑝𝑗2PSH~𝑊\frac{1}{A_{p}}\,\widetilde{v}_{p}-\frac{1}{A_{p}}\,\widetilde{\psi}_{p}=\frac% {1}{2A_{p}}\log P_{p}\circ\pi,\text{ where }\widetilde{v}_{p}=\frac{1}{2}\,% \log\Big{(}\sum_{j=1}^{d_{p}}|\widetilde{s}^{p}_{j}|^{2}\Big{)}\in\mathrm{PSH}% (\widetilde{W}).divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∘ italic_π , where over~ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_log ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | over~ start_ARG italic_s end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∈ roman_PSH ( over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG ) .

We claim that 1AplogPpπ01subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑃𝑝𝜋0\frac{1}{A_{p}}\log P_{p}\circ\pi\to 0divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∘ italic_π → 0 in Lloc1(W~,Ωn)subscriptsuperscript𝐿1𝑙𝑜𝑐~𝑊superscriptΩ𝑛L^{1}_{loc}(\widetilde{W},\Omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_o italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG , roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Indeed, assume that a subsequence {1Apjψ~pj}1subscript𝐴subscript𝑝𝑗subscript~𝜓subscript𝑝𝑗\{\frac{1}{A_{p_{j}}}\,\widetilde{\psi}_{p_{j}}\}{ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } converges in Lloc1(W~,Ωn)subscriptsuperscript𝐿1𝑙𝑜𝑐~𝑊superscriptΩ𝑛L^{1}_{loc}(\widetilde{W},\Omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_o italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG , roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) to a psh function ψ~~𝜓\widetilde{\psi}over~ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG on W~~𝑊\widetilde{W}over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG. By Step 1, 1AplogPpπ01subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑃𝑝𝜋0\frac{1}{A_{p}}\log P_{p}\circ\pi\to 0divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∘ italic_π → 0 in Lloc1(W~Σ,Ωn)subscriptsuperscript𝐿1𝑙𝑜𝑐~𝑊ΣsuperscriptΩ𝑛L^{1}_{loc}(\widetilde{W}\setminus\Sigma,\Omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_o italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ , roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), hence 1Apjv~pjψ~1subscript𝐴subscript𝑝𝑗subscript~𝑣subscript𝑝𝑗~𝜓\frac{1}{A_{p_{j}}}\,\widetilde{v}_{p_{j}}\to\widetilde{\psi}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → over~ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG in Lloc1(W~Σ,Ωn)subscriptsuperscript𝐿1𝑙𝑜𝑐~𝑊ΣsuperscriptΩ𝑛L^{1}_{loc}(\widetilde{W}\setminus\Sigma,\Omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_o italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG ∖ roman_Σ , roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). It follows that {1Apjv~pj}1subscript𝐴subscript𝑝𝑗subscript~𝑣subscript𝑝𝑗\{\frac{1}{A_{p_{j}}}\,\widetilde{v}_{p_{j}}\}{ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } is locally uniformly upper bounded in W~~𝑊\widetilde{W}over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG and 1Apjv~pjψ~1subscript𝐴subscript𝑝𝑗subscript~𝑣subscript𝑝𝑗~𝜓\frac{1}{A_{p_{j}}}\,\widetilde{v}_{p_{j}}\to\widetilde{\psi}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → over~ start_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG in Lloc1(W~,Ωn)subscriptsuperscript𝐿1𝑙𝑜𝑐~𝑊superscriptΩ𝑛L^{1}_{loc}(\widetilde{W},\Omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_o italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG , roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). This proves our claim.

Since ΣΣ\Sigmaroman_Σ is compact, we infer by the above that there exists a compact set KX𝐾𝑋K\subset Xitalic_K ⊂ italic_X such that YintK𝑌int𝐾Y\subset\operatorname{int}Kitalic_Y ⊂ roman_int italic_K and 1AplogPpπ01subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑃𝑝𝜋0\frac{1}{A_{p}}\log P_{p}\circ\pi\to 0divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∘ italic_π → 0 in L1(π1(K),Ωn)superscript𝐿1superscript𝜋1𝐾superscriptΩ𝑛L^{1}(\pi^{-1}(K),\Omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_K ) , roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Then

1ApK|logPp|ωn=1Apπ1(K)|logPpπ|πωn1Apπ1(K)|logPpπ|Ωn01subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝐾subscript𝑃𝑝superscript𝜔𝑛1subscript𝐴𝑝subscriptsuperscript𝜋1𝐾subscript𝑃𝑝𝜋superscript𝜋superscript𝜔𝑛1subscript𝐴𝑝subscriptsuperscript𝜋1𝐾subscript𝑃𝑝𝜋superscriptΩ𝑛0\frac{1}{A_{p}}\int_{K}|\log P_{p}|\,\omega^{n}=\frac{1}{A_{p}}\int_{\pi^{-1}(% K)}|\log P_{p}\circ\pi|\,\pi^{\star}\omega^{n}\leq\frac{1}{A_{p}}\int_{\pi^{-1% }(K)}|\log P_{p}\circ\pi|\,\Omega^{n}\to 0divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_K ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∘ italic_π | italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_K ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∘ italic_π | roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → 0

as p𝑝p\to\inftyitalic_p → ∞, and the proof is finished. ∎

3. Applications

In the case of the sequence of powers of a single line bundle, Theorem 1.1 yields the following generalization of Tian’s theorem to the setting of big line bundles on Moishezon spaces:

Theorem 3.1.

Let X𝑋Xitalic_X be a compact, reduced, irreducible, normal complex space of dimension n𝑛nitalic_n and (L,h)𝐿(L,h)( italic_L , italic_h ) be a singular Hermitian holomorphic line bundle on X𝑋Xitalic_X such that c1(L,h)εωsubscript𝑐1𝐿𝜀𝜔c_{1}(L,h)\geq\varepsilon\omegaitalic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L , italic_h ) ≥ italic_ε italic_ω, where ε>0𝜀0\varepsilon>0italic_ε > 0 is a constant and ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω is a Hermitian form on X𝑋Xitalic_X. If Pp,γpsubscript𝑃𝑝subscript𝛾𝑝P_{p},\gamma_{p}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are the Bergman kernel function and Fubini-Study current of H(2)0(X,Lp,hp,ωn)subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋superscript𝐿𝑝superscript𝑝superscript𝜔𝑛H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L^{p},h^{p},\omega^{n})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) then, as p𝑝p\to\inftyitalic_p → ∞,

1plogPp0 in L1(X,ωn),1pγpc1(L,h) weakly on X.formulae-sequence1𝑝subscript𝑃𝑝0 in superscript𝐿1𝑋superscript𝜔𝑛1𝑝subscript𝛾𝑝subscript𝑐1𝐿 weakly on 𝑋\frac{1}{p}\,\log P_{p}\to 0\text{ in }L^{1}(X,\omega^{n}),\;\frac{1}{p}\,% \gamma_{p}\to c_{1}(L,h)\text{ weakly on }X.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 in italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L , italic_h ) weakly on italic_X .
Proof.

If c1(L,h)=Xc1(L,h)ωn1normsubscript𝑐1𝐿subscript𝑋subscript𝑐1𝐿superscript𝜔𝑛1\|c_{1}(L,h)\|=\int_{X}c_{1}(L,h)\wedge\omega^{n-1}∥ italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L , italic_h ) ∥ = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L , italic_h ) ∧ italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then the assumptions (A)-(B) hold with

ap=pε,Ap=pc1(L,h),T0=c1(L,h)/c1(L,h).formulae-sequencesubscript𝑎𝑝𝑝𝜀formulae-sequencesubscript𝐴𝑝𝑝normsubscript𝑐1𝐿subscript𝑇0subscript𝑐1𝐿normsubscript𝑐1𝐿a_{p}=p\,\varepsilon,\;A_{p}=p\,\|c_{1}(L,h)\|,\;T_{0}=c_{1}(L,h)/\|c_{1}(L,h)\|.italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_p italic_ε , italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_p ∥ italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L , italic_h ) ∥ , italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L , italic_h ) / ∥ italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L , italic_h ) ∥ .

Recall that a Kähler current is a positive closed current T𝑇Titalic_T of bidegree (1,1)11(1,1)( 1 , 1 ) on X𝑋Xitalic_X such that Tεω𝑇𝜀𝜔T\geq\varepsilon\omegaitalic_T ≥ italic_ε italic_ω for some constant ε>0𝜀0\varepsilon>0italic_ε > 0. Let (L,h)𝐿(L,h)( italic_L , italic_h ) be a singular Hermitian holomorphic line bundle on X𝑋Xitalic_X with positive curvature current c1(L,h)0subscript𝑐1𝐿0c_{1}(L,h)\geq 0italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L , italic_h ) ≥ 0, and such that L𝐿Litalic_L has a singular Hermitian metric h0subscript0h_{0}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT whose curvature is a Kähler current. As in [CMM, Corollary 5.2], Theorem 1.1 can be applied to the sequence of line bundles (Lp,hpnph0np)superscript𝐿𝑝tensor-productsuperscript𝑝subscript𝑛𝑝superscriptsubscript0subscript𝑛𝑝(L^{p},h^{p-n_{p}}\otimes h_{0}^{n_{p}})( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p - italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), where npsubscript𝑛𝑝n_{p}\in\mathbb{N}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_N and npsubscript𝑛𝑝n_{p}\to\inftyitalic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → ∞, np/p0subscript𝑛𝑝𝑝0n_{p}/p\to 0italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_p → 0 as p𝑝p\to\inftyitalic_p → ∞. One can also apply Theorem 1.1 to the sequence of tensor products of powers of several line bundles as in [CMM, Corollary 5.11]. We refer to [CMM, Section 5] for the details.

Let us consider now the special case when X𝑋Xitalic_X is smooth, i.e., a connected compact complex manifold of dimension n𝑛nitalic_n. If X𝑋Xitalic_X is assumed to be Kähler then the domination condition (1.2) is not needed as one can work directly on X𝑋Xitalic_X without the use of a modification π𝜋\piitalic_π. More precisely, in [CMM] we proved the following:

Theorem 3.2.

[CMM, Theorem 1.2] Let (X,ω)𝑋𝜔(X,\omega)( italic_X , italic_ω ) be a compact Kähler manifold of dimension n𝑛nitalic_n and (Lp,hp)subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝(L_{p},h_{p})( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1, be a sequence of singular Hermitian holomorphic line bundles on X𝑋Xitalic_X which satisfy c1(Lp,hp)apωsubscript𝑐1subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝subscript𝑎𝑝𝜔c_{1}(L_{p},h_{p})\geq a_{p}\,\omegaitalic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≥ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω, where ap>0subscript𝑎𝑝0a_{p}>0italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 and apsubscript𝑎𝑝a_{p}\to\inftyitalic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → ∞. If Pp,γpsubscript𝑃𝑝subscript𝛾𝑝P_{p},\gamma_{p}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are the Bergman kernel function and Fubini-Study current of H(2)0(X,Lp)subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), and if Ap=Xc1(Lp,hp)ωn1subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑋subscript𝑐1subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝superscript𝜔𝑛1A_{p}=\int_{X}c_{1}(L_{p},h_{p})\wedge\omega^{n-1}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∧ italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then 1AplogPp01subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝑃𝑝0\frac{1}{A_{p}}\log P_{p}\to 0divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_log italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 in L1(X,ωn)superscript𝐿1𝑋superscript𝜔𝑛L^{1}(X,\omega^{n})italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and 1Ap(γpc1(Lp,hp))01subscript𝐴𝑝subscript𝛾𝑝subscript𝑐1subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝0\frac{1}{A_{p}}\,(\gamma_{p}-c_{1}(L_{p},h_{p}))\to 0divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) → 0 weakly on X𝑋Xitalic_X.

However, if X𝑋Xitalic_X is a Moishezon manifold which is not Kähler, and hence not projective, we still have to use in our proof of Theorem 1.1 the modification π:X~X:𝜋~𝑋𝑋\pi:\widetilde{X}\to Xitalic_π : over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG → italic_X provided in Theorem 2.1. So we have to require the domination condition (1.2) in assumption (B).

One of the main applications of Tian’s theorem is to the study of the asymptotic distribution of the zeros of random sequences of sections in H0(Z,Lp)superscript𝐻0𝑍superscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}(Z,L^{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Z , italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) as p𝑝p\to\inftyitalic_p → ∞, where L𝐿Litalic_L is a holomorphic line bundle over a compact complex manifold Z𝑍Zitalic_Z. This started with the pioneering work of Shiffman and Zelditch [SZ1] in the case of a positive line bundle (L,h)𝐿(L,h)( italic_L , italic_h ) over a projective manifold Z𝑍Zitalic_Z (see also [SZ2, Sh]). It is shown in [SZ1] that for almost all sequences {σpH0(Z,Lp)}p1subscriptsubscript𝜎𝑝superscript𝐻0𝑍superscript𝐿𝑝𝑝1\{\sigma_{p}\in H^{0}(Z,L^{p})\}_{p\geq 1}{ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Z , italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT one has that 1p[σp=0]c1(L,h)1𝑝delimited-[]subscript𝜎𝑝0subscript𝑐1𝐿\frac{1}{p}\,[\sigma_{p}=0]\to c_{1}(L,h)divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG [ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 ] → italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L , italic_h ) weakly on Z𝑍Zitalic_Z, where [s=0]delimited-[]𝑠0[s=0][ italic_s = 0 ] denotes the current of integration over the zero divisor of a holomorphic section s𝑠sitalic_s. In the case of singular Hermitian holomorphic line bundles we proved that similar results hold in different contexts [CM1, CM2, CMN1, CMN2].

The study of the asymptotic distribution of zeros of random sections in the Bergman spaces H(2)0(X,Lp)subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) for an arbitrary sequence of singular Hermitian holomorphic line bundles (Lp,hp)subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝(L_{p},h_{p})( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) over a compact normal Kähler space X𝑋Xitalic_X was pursued in [CMM, BCM]. In particular we considered in [BCM, Theorem 1.1] very general probability measures on the spaces H(2)0(X,Lp)subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), as follows. We identify the spaces H(2)0(X,Lp)dpsimilar-to-or-equalssubscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑑𝑝H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p})\simeq\mathbb{C}^{d_{p}}italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≃ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT using fixed orthonormal bases S1p,,Sdppsuperscriptsubscript𝑆1𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑆subscript𝑑𝑝𝑝S_{1}^{p},\dots,S_{d_{p}}^{p}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and we endow them with probability measures σpsubscript𝜎𝑝\sigma_{p}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that the following holds:

(C) There exist a constant ν1𝜈1\nu\geq 1italic_ν ≥ 1 and for every p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1 constants Cp>0subscript𝐶𝑝0C_{p}>0italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 such that

dp|log|a,u||ν𝑑σp(a)Cp,for any udp with u=1.subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑑𝑝superscript𝑎𝑢𝜈differential-dsubscript𝜎𝑝𝑎subscript𝐶𝑝for any udp with u=1\int_{\mathbb{C}^{d_{p}}}\big{|}\log|\langle a,u\rangle|\,\big{|}^{\nu}\,d% \sigma_{p}(a)\leq C_{p}\,,\,\text{for any $u\in\mathbb{C}^{d_{p}}$ with $\|u\|% =1$}\,.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_log | ⟨ italic_a , italic_u ⟩ | | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a ) ≤ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , for any italic_u ∈ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with ∥ italic_u ∥ = 1 .

Note that [BCM, Theorem 1.1] holds in our present context. Indeed, we can apply the general equidistribution result [BCM, Theorem 4.1] together with Theorem 1.1. We recall one of its assertions here.

Theorem 3.3.

Assume that X,ω,(Lp,hp),σp𝑋𝜔subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝subscript𝜎𝑝X,\omega,(L_{p},h_{p}),\sigma_{p}italic_X , italic_ω , ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT verify (A), (B), (C) and consider the product probability space

(,σ)=(p=1H(2)0(X,Lp),p=1σp).𝜎superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑝1subscriptsuperscript𝐻02𝑋subscript𝐿𝑝superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑝1subscript𝜎𝑝(\mathcal{H},\sigma)=\left(\prod_{p=1}^{\infty}H^{0}_{(2)}(X,L_{p}),\prod_{p=1% }^{\infty}\sigma_{p}\right).( caligraphic_H , italic_σ ) = ( ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

If p=1CpApν<superscriptsubscript𝑝1subscript𝐶𝑝superscriptsubscript𝐴𝑝𝜈\sum_{p=1}^{\infty}C_{p}A_{p}^{-\nu}<\infty∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < ∞ then for σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ-a.e. sequence {sp}subscript𝑠𝑝\{s_{p}\}\in\mathcal{H}{ italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } ∈ caligraphic_H we have, as p𝑝p\to\inftyitalic_p → ∞,

1Aplog|sp|hp0 in L1(X,ωn),1Ap([sp=0]c1(Lp,hp))0 weakly on X.formulae-sequence1subscript𝐴𝑝subscriptsubscript𝑠𝑝subscript𝑝0 in superscript𝐿1𝑋superscript𝜔𝑛1subscript𝐴𝑝delimited-[]subscript𝑠𝑝0subscript𝑐1subscript𝐿𝑝subscript𝑝0 weakly on 𝑋\frac{1}{A_{p}}\log|s_{p}|_{h_{p}}\to 0\text{ in }L^{1}(X,\omega^{n}),\;\frac{% 1}{A_{p}}\big{(}[s_{p}=0]-c_{1}(L_{p},h_{p})\big{)}\to 0\text{ weakly on }X.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_log | italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 in italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( [ italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 ] - italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) → 0 weakly on italic_X .

We refer to [BCM, BCHM] for general classes of measures σpsubscript𝜎𝑝\sigma_{p}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that satisfy condition (C), including Gaussians, Fubini-Study volumes, and area measure of spheres. Note that if the measures σpsubscript𝜎𝑝\sigma_{p}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT verify (C) with constants Cp=Γνsubscript𝐶𝑝subscriptΓ𝜈C_{p}=\Gamma_{\nu}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT independent of p𝑝pitalic_p (like the Gaussians and the Fubini-Study volumes) then the hypothesis of Theorem 3.3 becomes p=1Apν<superscriptsubscript𝑝1superscriptsubscript𝐴𝑝𝜈\sum_{p=1}^{\infty}A_{p}^{-\nu}<\infty∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ν end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < ∞.

We close the paper with some remarks of Moishezon manifolds. By a theorem of Moishezon, a Moishezon manifold is projective if and only if it carries a Kähler metric, see [Mo] and [MM, Theorem 2.2.26]. Moreover, any Moishezon manifold of dimension two is projective, by Theorem 2.1. Indeed, in dimension two we can blow up only points and the blow-up X^^𝑋\widehat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG at a point of a compact manifold X𝑋Xitalic_X is projective if and only X𝑋Xitalic_X is projective. Hence non-projective Moishezon manifolds have dimension greater than two. The first example of this kind was obtained by Hironaka in his thesis (1961) and is described in [Ha, Appendix B, Example 3.4.1]. It’s a manifold which contains a curve which is homologous to zero, which is impossible on a Kähler manifold. Further examples can be found in [A, BV, Ko, Pe], see also [MM, Section 2.3.4].

References

  • [A] M. Andreatta, Moishezon manifolds, Math. Z. 230 (1999), no. 4, 713–726.
  • [BCHM] T. Bayraktar, D. Coman, H. Herrmann and G. Marinescu, A survey on zeros of random holomorphic sections, Dolomites Res. Notes Approx. 11 (2018), Special Issue Norm Levenberg, 1–19.
  • [BCM] T. Bayraktar, D. Coman and G. Marinescu, Universality results for zeros of random holomorphic sections, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 373 (2020), no. 6, 3765–3791.
  • [BCMN] T. Bayraktar, D. Coman, G. Marinescu and V.-A. Nguyên, Zeros of random holomorphic sections of big line bundles with continuous metrics, preprint, 2024.
  • [BV] L. Bonavero and C. Voisin, Schémas de Fano et variétés de Moishezon, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 323 (1996), no. 9, 1019–1024.
  • [BM] E. Bierstone and P. Milman, Canonical desingularization in characteristic zero by blowing up the maximum strata of a local invariant, Invent. Math. 128 (1997), 207–302.
  • [CM1] D. Coman and G. Marinescu, Equidistribution results for singular metrics on line bundles, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Supér. (4) 48 (2015), 497–536.
  • [CM2] D. Coman and G. Marinescu, Convergence of Fubini-Study currents for orbifold line bundles, Internat. J. Math. 24 (2013), 1350051, 27 pp.
  • [CMM] D. Coman, X. Ma and G. Marinescu, Equidistribution for sequences of line bundles on normal Kähler spaces, Geom. Topol. 21 (2017), 923–962.
  • [CMN1] D. Coman, G. Marinescu and V.-A. Nguyên, Hölder singular metrics on big line bundles and equidistribution, Int. Math. Res. Notices 2016, no. 16, 5048–5075.
  • [CMN2] D. Coman, G. Marinescu and V.-A. Nguyên, Approximation and equidistribution results for pseudo-effective line bundles, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 115 (2018), 218–236.
  • [D1] J.-P. Demailly, Estimations L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT pour l’opérateur ¯¯\overline{\partial}over¯ start_ARG ∂ end_ARG d’un fibré holomorphe semipositif au–dessus d’une variété kählérienne complète, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 15 (1982), no. 3, 457–511.
  • [D2] J.-P. Demailly, Mesures de Monge-Ampère et caractérisation géométrique des variétés algébriques affines, Mém. Soc. Math. France (N.S.) No. 19 (1985), 1–125.
  • [D3] J.-P. Demailly, Singular Hermitian metrics on positive line bundles, in Complex algebraic varieties (Bayreuth, 1990), Lecture Notes in Math. 1507, Springer, Berlin, 1992, 87–104.
  • [D4] J.-P. Demailly, Regularization of closed positive currents and intersection theory, J. Algebraic Geom. 1 (1992), 361–409.
  • [D5] J.-P. Demailly, A numerical criterion for very ample line bundles, J. Differential Geom. 37 (1993), 323–374.
  • [DS] T.-C. Dinh and N. Sibony, Dynamics in several complex variables: endomorphisms of projective spaces and polynomial-like map**s, Holomorphic dynamical systems, 165–294, Lecture Notes in Math. 1998, Springer, Berlin, 2010.
  • [DNS] T.-C. Dinh, V.-A. Nguyên and N. Sibony, Dynamics of horizontal-like maps in higher dimension, Adv. Math. 219 (2008), 1689–1721.
  • [GM] C. Grant Melles and P. Milman, Classical Poincaré metric pulled back off singularities using a Chow-type theorem and desingularization, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (6) 15 (2006), 689–771.
  • [Ha] R. Hartshorne, Algebraic geometry, Grad. Texts in Math., No. 52, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1977. xvi+496 pp.
  • [Ho] L. Hörmander, Notions of Convexity, Reprint of the 1994 edition, Modern Birkhäuser Classics, Basel, Birkhäuser, 2007, viii, 414 pp.
  • [Ko] J. Kollár, Flips, flops, minimal models, etc., Surveys in differential geometry (Cambridge, MA, 1990), 113–199, Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, PA, 1991.
  • [MM] X. Ma and G. Marinescu, Holomorphic Morse Inequalities and Bergman Kernels, Progress in Math., vol. 254, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2007, xiii, 422 pp.
  • [Mo] B. G. Moishezon, On n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional compact complex manifolds having n𝑛nitalic_n algebraically independent meromorphic functions. I, II, III, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 30 (1966), 133–174, 345–386, 621–656. English translation: American Mathematical Society Translations Ser. 2, 63, 1967, 51–177.
  • [O] T. Ohsawa, Hodge spectral sequence and symmetry on compact Kähler spaces, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 23 (1987), 613–625.
  • [OT] T. Ohsawa and K. Takegoshi, On the extension of L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT holomorphic functions, Math. Z. 195 (1987), 197–204.
  • [Pe] T. Peternell, Moishezon manifolds and rigidity theorems, Bayreuth. Math. Schr. (1998), no. 54, 1–108.
  • [R] W. D. Ruan, Canonical coordinates and Bergman metrics, Comm. Anal. Geom. 6 (1998), 589–631.
  • [Sh] B. Shiffman, Convergence of random zeros on complex manifolds, Sci. China Ser. A 51 (2008), 707–720.
  • [SZ1] B. Shiffman and S. Zelditch, Distribution of zeros of random and quantum chaotic sections of positive line bundles, Comm. Math. Phys. 200 (1999), 661–683.
  • [SZ2] B. Shiffman and S. Zelditch, Number variance of random zeros on complex manifolds, Geom. Funct. Anal. 18 (2008), 1422–1475.
  • [T] G. Tian, On a set of polarized Kähler metrics on algebraic manifolds, J. Differential Geom. 32 (1990), 99–130.
  • [U] K. Ueno, Classification theory of algebraic varieties and compact complex spaces, Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 439, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1975, xix+278 pp.