Log canonical models of foliated surfaces

Since X is normal, we have \Omega_X^{[**]} = \Omega_X^{**} the double dual of \Omega_X.

Given a foliation {\mathscr{F}} on X, we have an exact sequence

where K is the kernel of \rho_{\mathscr{F}}. Dualizing this sequence, we get

where A is the cokernel of \rho_{\mathscr{F}}^*. Note that A is a subsheaf of K^* and K^* is torsion-free. So A is also torsion-free, and thus \Omega_{\mathscr{F}}^* is saturated. Therefore, this gives a function F from the set of foliations of rank one on X to the set of saturated rank one coherent subsheaves of the tangent sheaf T_X.

Conversely, given a saturated coherent subsheaf T_{\mathscr{F}} of T_X, we have an exact sequence

Dualizing the sequence, we have

where B is the cokernel of \pi^*. Notice that B is a subsheaf of T_{\mathscr{F}}^* and T_{\mathscr{F}}^* is torsion-free. Thus B is also torsion-free and therefore gives a foliation on X. Hence, this gives a function G from the set of saturated rank one coherent subsheaves of the tangent sheaf T_X to the set of foliations of rank one on X.

Notice that both G\circ F and F\circ G are generically identity functions.

Notice that we have the following exact sequences:

Since G(F(\Omega_{\mathscr{F}})) is torsion-free and the map

is generically zero, the image is in fact zero in G(F(\Omega_{\mathscr{F}})). Thus, we have K\subset A^*. Similarly, we have A^* \subset K. Therefore, we have K = A^* and hence \Omega_{\mathscr{F}} \cong G(F(\Omega_{\mathscr{F}})).

Similarly, we could show that T_{\mathscr{F}} = F(G(T_{\mathscr{F}})).

See [seidenberg1968reduction], [mattei1980holonomie, Appendix], or [brunella2015birational, Theorem 1.1].

See [camacho1988quadratic], [sebastiani1997existence], or [brunella2015birational, Theorem 3.4].

We will only show the case (3). For the first two cases, the computations are similar. (See also [brunella2015birational, page 30-31 in Chapter 3].)

For the case f=x, note that 1\cdot\omega = (\lambda y(1+o(1)))\textnormal{d}x+x(-(1+o(1))\textnormal{d}y). Then we take g=1, h=\lambda y(1+o(1)), and \eta = -(1+o(1))\textnormal{d}y. Thus we have

and

For the case f=y, it is similar.

For the case C = (ax^m(1+o(1))-y^n(1+o(1))=0), we may assume, for simplicity, that C = (f=ax^m-y^n=0) and \omega = my\textnormal{d}x-nx\textnormal{d}y. Note that

So we take g = ax^{m-1}, h=y, and \eta = -n\textnormal{d}y. Thus,

and

The proof follows closely from the proof of [hacon2021birational, Lemma 1.11].

Since the eigenvalue is defined up to reciprocal, we may assume that the eigenvalue is \frac{m}{n}\in{\mathbb Q}^+ with \textnormal{gcd}(m,n)=1 and m\geq n. We proceed by induction on the pair (m,n)\in{\mathbb N}\times{\mathbb N} (by lexicographic ordering).

1. We may assume that p=(0,0) and that {\mathscr{F}} is generated by

   v = nx\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+my\frac{\partial}{\partial y}

   around p. Let \varphi : (Y,{\mathscr{G}})\longrightarrow (X,{\mathscr{F}}) be the blowup at p and E_0 be the exceptional divisor. Notice that there are two singularities on the exceptional curve locally generated by

   v_1 = nx'\frac{\partial}{\partial x'}+(m-n)y'\frac{\partial}{\partial y'}

   and

   v_2 = (n-m)x'\frac{\partial}{\partial x'}+my'\frac{\partial}{\partial y'}.

2. For the base case (m,n) = (1,1), by the computation above, the exceptional curve E_0 has no foliation singularity and is not invariant with \textnormal{tang}({\mathscr{G}},E_0) = 0. Moreover, we have \pi^*K_{\mathscr{F}} = K_{\mathscr{G}}+E_0. Thus, we complete the proof of the base case.

3. Assume (m,n)\neq (1,1) and all pairs (strictly) less than (m,n) have the desired properties. Then E_0 is invariant and \pi^*K_{\mathscr{F}} = K_{\mathscr{G}}. Notice that v_1 still has positive rational eigenvalue with corresponding pair (m-n,n) or (n,m-n) while v_2 is reduced.

   By induction hypothesis, v_1 has a sequence of blowups \psi : (Z,{\mathscr{H}}) \longrightarrow (Y,{\mathscr{G}}) with exceptional divisor E = \bigcup_{i=1}^sE_i. Since the proper transform \widetilde{E}_0 of E_0 on Z meets E, \widetilde{E}_0 can only meet E as a tail of an {\mathscr{H}}-chain. Note that \widetilde{E}_0^2\leq E_0^2-1=-2. Thus, \widetilde{E}_0 is a member of that {\mathscr{H}}-chain. Also \psi^*\pi^*K_{\mathscr{F}} = \psi^*K_{\mathscr{G}} = K_{\mathscr{H}}+E_i for some i.

(1) follows from the definition. (2) follows from (1) since K_{\mathscr{F}} is Cartier at these foliation singularities. (3) is [hacon2021birational, Proposition 2.4] and (4) is [hacon2021birational, Proposition 2.6]. (5) follows from [hacon2021birational, Corollary 2.2] and [langer2000chern, Example 5.6].

The proof follows closely from the proof of [hacon2021birational, Proposition 4.1]. For the reader’s convenience, we include the proof.

By Theorem 3.1, we have

Since K_{\mathscr{F}}^2 is the quadratic term of P and K_{\mathscr{F}}\cdot K_X is the linear term of P, both of them are fixed. Also \chi({\mathcal{O}}_X) = P(0) is also fixed. If we put m=1, then we get the number

is fixed.

Let \Sigma_1 be the set of terminal foliation singularities, \Sigma_2 be the set of dihedral quotient singularities, and \Sigma_3 be the set of cusp singularities. Also let \Sigma = \Sigma_1\cup\Sigma_2\cup\Sigma_3. Then by Proposition 3.2, we have

So the number of singularities is bounded and hence

assumes finitely many values. By [hacon2021birational, Lemma 3.4], the indices at the terminal foliation singularities are bounded by C_2.

Finally, let m = (2C_2)!. Then by Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 3.2, we have

Hence, the number of cusps is fixed.

The proof follows closely from the proof of [chen2021boundedness, Theorem 0.1] for canonical models. For the reader’s convenience, we include the proof. The difference is that now we possibly have non-invariant exceptional divisors D = \sum D_j.

Let (X,{\mathscr{F}}) be the log canonical model of (Y,{\mathscr{G}},D) (see Remark 3.6) with the associated morphism f : (Y,{\mathscr{G}},D) \longrightarrow (X,{\mathscr{F}}). Notice that f^*K_{\mathscr{F}} = K_{\mathscr{G}}+D. Let E = \cup E_i be the exceptional divisor of f : Y \longrightarrow X. We divide the proof into several steps.

1. Claim. K_Y+mi({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D) is nef (resp. ample) when m \geq 3 (resp. m\geq 4).

   Pf.

   Given any irreducible curve C on Y.

   1. If C=E_i for some i, then

      (K_Y+mi({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D))\cdot C = K_Y\cdot C > 0

      since K_Y is ample over X.

   2. If C is not contained in the exceptional divisor, then we have two cases:

      1. If K_Y\cdot C\geq 0, then

         \begin{aligned} (K_Y+mi({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D))\cdot C &\geq mi({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)\cdot C \\ &= mi({\mathscr{G}})K_{{\mathscr{F}}}\cdot f_*C > 0 \end{aligned}

         since K_{\mathscr{F}} is numerically ample (see Lemma 2.4).

      2. If K_Y\cdot C<0, by [fujino2012minimal, Proposition 3.8], every K_Y-negative extremal ray is spanned by a rational curve C with 0<-K_Y\cdot C\leq 3. Thus, if we write C \equiv \sum a_iC_i+B where B\cdot K_Y\geq 0, the C_i’s are K_Y-negative extremal rays, the a_i’s are non-negative, and at least one of a_i is positive. By what we have seen above, we have

         (K_Y+mi({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D))\cdot B\geq 0.

         Thus, we have

         \begin{aligned} (K_Y+mi({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D))\cdot C &\geq \sum_ia_i \Big(K_Y\cdot C_i+mi({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)\cdot C_i\Big) \\ &\geq \sum_ia_i(- 3+m) \geq 0 \mbox{ (resp. $>0$)}. \end{aligned}

   When m\geq 4, we notice that

   K_Y+mi({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D) = K_Y+3i({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D) + (m-3)i({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)

   is big since it is the sum of a nef divisor and a big divisor.

2. Claim. i(K_Y) and i({\mathscr{G}}) are bounded at foliation singularities.

   Pf.

   By Proposition 3.4, i(K_Y) and i({\mathscr{G}}) are bounded in terms of \chi(mK_{\mathscr{F}}) at terminal foliation singularities. Other foliation singularities are at du Val singularities at which {\mathscr{G}} is canonical. Then we have i(K_Y) = 1 and i({\mathscr{G}}) \leq 2 by Proposition 3.2(3).

3. Claim. The embedding dimension at each point at which {\mathscr{G}} is singular is bounded.

   Pf.

   By Proposition 3.4, the index at each point at which {\mathscr{G}} is terminal is bounded in terms of \chi(mK_{\mathscr{F}}). Actually, it is shown that the order of each cyclic group acting at each point at which {\mathscr{G}} is terminal is bounded. Thus, the embedding dimension at each point at which {\mathscr{G}} is terminal is bounded. See for example [reid2012surface, Corollary 2.5]. If the action is \frac{1}{n}(1,q) and \frac{n}{n-q} = [a_1,\ldots, a_k], then the embedding dimension is at most k+2.

   Other singularities on Y are du Val singularities, at which the embedding dimensions are 3.

   Thus, we have a uniform bound \delta such that \delta_\zeta\leq\delta for |\zeta|=2. See Remark 1.2.

4. We consider the {\mathbb Q}-Cartier divisor

   \begin{aligned} L &= \alpha i(K_Y)(K_Y+4i({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)) - K_Y\\ &= (\alpha i(K_Y)-1)(K_Y+3i({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D))+(\alpha i(K_Y)+3)i({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D). \end{aligned}

   Since i({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D) is Cartier, we can fix an \alpha, which only depends on the Hilbert function \chi(mK_{\mathscr{F}}), such that for any irreducible curve C, we have

   \begin{aligned} L^2 &\geq (\alpha i(K_Y)+3)^2> \delta \mbox{ and}\\ L\cdot C &\geq \alpha i(K_Y)+3>\delta/2. \end{aligned}

   By Theorem 1.1, K_Y+\lceil L\rceil = \alpha i(K_Y)(K_Y+ 4i({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)) separates points and tangents. Hence, by Theorem 1.3, it is very ample.

5. Claim. The set of surfaces X where (X, {\mathscr{F}}) \in {\mathcal{S}}_P forms a bounded family.

   Pf.

   Let \varphi : Y \longrightarrow {\mathbb P}^N be an embedding defined via |K_Y + L|. We may assume that N is minimal in the sense that \varphi(Y) is not contained in any hyperplane of {\mathbb P}^N. In this case, it is known (for a reference, see [eisenbud1987varieties, Proposition 0]) that

   \deg\varphi(Y) \geq 1 + (N-\dim \varphi(Y)) = N-1.

   By [hacon2021birational, Lemma 3.5], we know that \gamma K_{{\mathscr{F}}}-K_{X} is pseudo-effective for

   \gamma = \max\left\{\frac{2K_{{\mathscr{F}}}\cdot K_{X}}{K_{{\mathscr{F}}}^2}+3i_{\mathbb Q}({\mathscr{F}}),0\right\}

   which is bounded in terms of \chi(mK_{\mathscr{F}}). Thus,

   \begin{aligned} \deg\varphi(Y) &= \mbox{{\rm vol}}(K_Y+L) \\ &= \mbox{{\rm vol}}\Big(\alpha i(K_Y)(K_Y+ 4i({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D))\Big) \\ &\leq \mbox{{\rm vol}}\Big(\alpha i(K_Y)(K_{X}+ 4i({\mathscr{G}})K_{{\mathscr{F}}})\Big) \\ &\leq \mbox{{\rm vol}}\Big(\alpha i(K_Y)(K_{X}+ 4i({\mathscr{G}})K_{{\mathscr{F}}}) + \alpha i(K_Y)(\gamma K_{{\mathscr{F}}}-K_{X}) \Big) \\ &= \mbox{{\rm vol}}\Big(\alpha i(K_Y)(\gamma + 4i({\mathscr{G}}))K_{{\mathscr{F}}} \Big) \\ &= \Big(\alpha i(K_Y)(\gamma + 4i({\mathscr{G}}))K_{{\mathscr{F}}} \Big)^2 \end{aligned}

   which is bounded in terms of \chi(mK_{\mathscr{F}}). Therefore N is also bounded.

   Hence, by the boundedness result about Chow varieties, we have the boundedness of surfaces Y where (Y,{\mathscr{G}},D)\in{\mathcal{S}}_P.

6. Now, we would like to show the boundedness of {\mathscr{G}}(-D).

   We have shown that there exists a projective morphism \mu : {\mathcal{Y}}\longrightarrow T where {\mathcal{Y}} and T are quasi-projective varieties of finite type such that for any (Y,{\mathscr{G}},D)\in{\mathcal{S}}_P, there is a t\in T such that {\mathcal{Y}}_t\cong Y and by construction we have

   \xymatrix{{\mathcal{Y}} \ar@{^{(}->}[r] \ar[d]_-\mu & {\mathbb P}^N_T \ar[ld] \\ T & }

   and {\mathcal{O}}_Y(m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D) + nK_Y) = {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathcal{Y}}_t}(1) where m=4\alpha i(K_Y)i({\mathscr{G}}) and n = \alpha i(K_Y). Note that \alpha, i(K_Y), and i({\mathscr{G}}) are fixed and determined by the function P. Without loss of generality, we may assume that T is the closure of T' where

   T' = \{t\,\vert\, {\mathcal{Y}}_t\cong Y \mbox{ for some } (Y, {\mathscr{G}}, D)\in {\mathcal{S}}_P\}.

7. We may assume that T is reduced.

   Claim.

   We may assume that T is irreducible.

   Pf.

   Let T = \bigcup_iT_i be the decomposition of T into irreducible components. If there is a family of pre-foliations {\mathcal{F}}_i on each {\mathcal{Y}}_i = {\mathcal{Y}}\times_T T_i such that for any (Y,{\mathscr{G}},D)\in{\mathcal{S}}_P, there exist an i and t\in T_i with (Y,{\mathscr{G}}(-D))\cong ({\mathcal{Y}}_i,{\mathcal{F}}_i)_t, then the disjoint union of these families gives the required family.

   Claim.

   We may assume that T is smooth.

   Pf.

   This is achieved by the existence of a finite stratification of T by smooth locally closed subsets.

8. Recall that, by Serre’s criterion, {\mathcal{Y}} is normal if and only if it is R_1 and S_2.

   Claim.

   We may assume that {\mathcal{Y}} is normal.

   Pf.

   Suppose that {\mathcal{Y}}_t is R_1 (resp. S_2), then there exists an open subset U\subset T containing t such that {\mathcal{Y}}_U := {\mathcal{Y}}\times_T U is R_1 (resp. S_2) and every fiber {\mathcal{Y}}_t is also R_1 (resp. S_2) for t\in U. (For a reference, see [grothendieck1966elements, Théorème 12.2.4].) It follows that there is an open subset V \subset T such that {\mathcal{Y}}_V := {\mathcal{Y}}\times_T V is normal, every fiber {\mathcal{Y}}_t is normal for t\in V, and for all Y\in {\mathcal{S}}, there exists a t\in V such that Y\cong {\mathcal{Y}}_t. Hence, by shrinking T, we may assume that {\mathcal{Y}} is normal.

9. Claim. We may assume that K_{\mathcal{Y}} is {\mathbb Q}-Cartierness.

   Pf.

   This is well-known; see, for example, [simpson1994moduli, Lemma 1.27]. We include proof for the convenience of the reader.

   Since {\mathcal{Y}} is normal, the canonical sheaf K_{\mathcal{Y}} is defined as a divisorial sheaf. By assumption, i(K_Y)K_{{\mathcal{Y}}_t} is Cartier for

   t\in T^\circ := \{t\in T\,\vert\, \mbox{there exists } (Y,{\mathscr{G}},D)\in{\mathcal{S}}_P \mbox{ such that } {\mathcal{Y}}_t\cong Y\}.

   Note that T^\circ is a dense subset of T. For any t\in T^\circ, we fix a d such that i(K_Y)K_{{\mathcal{Y}}_t}(d) is generated by global sections. Then by replacing T by an open subset, we may assume that the map

   \mu_*{\mathcal{O}}_{\mathcal{Y}}(i(K_Y)K_{\mathcal{Y}}(d))\otimes k(t) \longrightarrow H^0({\mathcal{Y}}_t,i(K_Y)K_{{\mathcal{Y}}_t}(d))

   is surjective by [hartshorne1977algebraic, Theorem 12.8 and Corollary 12.9]. Since i(K_Y)K_{{\mathcal{Y}}_t}(d) is locally generated by some section of H^0({\mathcal{Y}}_t,i(K_Y)K_{{\mathcal{Y}}_t}(d)), by lifting this section to a section of H^0({\mathcal{Y}},i(K_{\mathcal{Y}}) K_{\mathcal{Y}}(d)) using the surjection above and by Nakayama’s lemma, i(K_Y)K_{\mathcal{Y}}(d) is locally generated by one section on a neighborhood of {\mathcal{Y}}_t. Therefore, i(K_Y)K_{\mathcal{Y}} is Cartier on a neighborhood of {\mathcal{Y}}_t. Shrinking T, we may assume that i(K_Y)K_{\mathcal{Y}} is Cartier.

10. Now we consider the function

    \begin{aligned} \Phi(\ell) = {} & \chi(Y,{\mathcal{O}}_X(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D+\ell(m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+nK_Y))) \\ = {} & \chi(X,{\mathcal{O}}_X((m\ell+1)(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+n\ell K_Y)) \\ = {} & \frac{1}{2}\Big((m\ell+1)(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+n\ell K_Y\Big)\cdot\Big((m\ell+1)(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+(n\ell-1)K_Y\Big) \\ & + \chi({\mathcal{O}}_Y) + \sum_{y\in\textnormal{Sing}(Y)}a\big(y,(m\ell+1)(K_{\mathscr{F}}+D)+n\ell K_Y\big) \end{aligned}

    Note that m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D) and nK_Y are Cartier, we have that

    a\big(y,(m\ell+1)(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+n\ell K_Y\big) = a(y,K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)

    for any singularity y\in Y. Also we have

    \begin{aligned} \chi({\mathcal{O}}_Y) + \sum_{y\in\textnormal{Sing}(Y)}a(y,K_{\mathscr{G}}+D) &= \chi(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D) - \frac{1}{2}(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)\cdot(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D-K_Y) \\ &= P(1) - \frac{1}{2}(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)\cdot(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D-K_Y). \end{aligned}

    Thus, we have

    \begin{aligned} \Phi(\ell) = {} & \frac{1}{2}\Big((m\ell+1)(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+n\ell K_Y\Big)\cdot\Big((m\ell+1)(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+(n\ell-1)K_Y\Big) \\ & + P(1) - \frac{1}{2}(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)\cdot(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D-K_Y) \end{aligned}

    is a polynomial with coefficients in terms of P(1), (K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)\cdot K_Y = K_{\mathscr{F}}\cdot K_X, (K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)^2=K_{\mathscr{F}}^2, and K_Y^2. Since the function P is fixed, we have K_{\mathscr{F}}^2 and K_{\mathscr{F}}\cdot K_X are fixed by Proposition 3.4. Moreover, K_Y^2 has only finitely many possibilities since the surfaces Y are in a bounded family. Therefore, we have finitely many possible polynomials \Phi(\ell).

    Notice that \frac{m+1}{n-1}>\frac{m}{n} = 4i({\mathscr{G}})\geq 4. So we have (m+1)(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+(n-1)K_Y is ample by step (?) and thus \Phi(1)=h^0(Y,{\mathcal{O}}_Y((m+1)(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+nK_Y)).

    Let \varphi be the maximum of \Phi(1) among all possible polynomials \Phi(\ell).

11. Applying [kollar2008hulls, Theorem 21] to the projective morphism \mu : {\mathcal{Y}} \longrightarrow T and the coherent sheaf \Omega_{{\mathcal{Y}}/T}, after shrinking T further, we may assume that \Omega_{{\mathcal{Y}}/T} has a relative hull \Omega_{{\mathcal{Y}}/T}^{[**]} = \Omega_{{\mathcal{Y}}/T}^{**}. Note that the relative hull behaves well under base change.

    For any polynomial \Psi(\ell) := \Phi(\ell)-s where 0\leq s\leq \varphi, we consider the Quot scheme

    Q := \textnormal{Quot}_{\Omega_{{\mathcal{Y}}/T}^{**}/{\mathcal{Y}}/T}^{\Psi(\ell),{\mathcal{O}}_{\mathcal{Y}}(1)},

    which is projective over T. Let {\mathcal{U}} := {\mathcal{Y}}\times_T Q. Then by a flattening stratification on Q, we may assume that the projection morphism {\mathcal{U}} \longrightarrow Q is flat. Now by the universal property of Quot schemes, there is a (universal) quotient sheaf {\mathcal{L}} of \Omega_{{\mathcal{U}}/Q}^{**} on {\mathcal{U}}. Moreover, by [grothendieck1966elements, Théorème 12.2.1 (v)], the loci

    \{q\in Q\, : \,{\mathcal{L}}\vert_{{\mathcal{U}}_q} \textnormal{ is torsion-free}\} \textnormal{ and } \{q\in Q\, : \,{\mathcal{L}}^*\vert_{{\mathcal{U}}_q} \textnormal{ is reflexive}\}

    are open. After shrinking Q, we may assume that {\mathcal{L}} is torsion-free and {\mathcal{L}}^* is reflexive over any point of Q, {\mathcal{L}} is torsion-free, and {\mathcal{L}}^* is reflexive. In particular, \Omega_{{\mathcal{U}}/Q}^{**}\longrightarrow {\mathcal{L}} gives a family of foliations on {\mathcal{U}} over Q.

    Now for any (Y,{\mathscr{G}},D)\in{\mathcal{S}}_P, we dualize the following short exact sequence

    \xymatrix{0\ar[r] & {\mathscr{G}} \ar[r] & T_Y \ar[r]^-\tau & T_Y/{\mathscr{G}} \ar[r] & 0}

    and get the short exact sequence

    \xymatrix{0\ar[r] & (T_Y/{\mathscr{G}})^* \ar[r]^-{\tau^*} & \Omega_Y^{**} \ar[r] & \textnormal{coker}(\tau^*) \ar[r] & 0.}

    Note that

    \xymatrix{0\ar[r] & \textnormal{coker}(\tau^*)\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_Y(D) \ar[r] & {\mathcal{O}}_Y(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D) \ar[r] & {\mathcal{Z}}\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_Y(D) \ar[r] & 0}

    where {\mathcal{Z}} is the sheaf supported at a 0-dimensional subscheme. Notice that m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+nK_Y is ample and Cartier, we have the length of {\mathcal{Z}} is at most

    \begin{aligned} & h^0(Y,{\mathcal{Z}}\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_Y(D+m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+nK_Y)) \\ = {} & \chi(Y,{\mathcal{Z}}\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_Y(D+m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+nK_Y)) \\ \leq {} & h^0(Y,{\mathcal{O}}_Y((m+1)(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+nK_Y))\leq\varphi \end{aligned}

    Then we have

    \chi(Y,{\mathcal{O}}_Y((K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+\ell(m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+nK_Y))) - \chi(Y,\textnormal{coker}(\tau^*)\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_Y(D+\ell(m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+nK_Y)))

    is a non-negative constant \leq \varphi. Thus, the function

    \chi(Y,\textnormal{coker}(\tau^*)\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_Y(D+\ell(m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)+nK_Y)))

    has the form \Phi(\ell)-s. So by the construction of Q, there is a q\in Q such that \rho : Y \longrightarrow {\mathcal{U}}_q is an isomorphism and \textnormal{coker}(\tau^*)\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_Y(D)\cong\rho^*({\mathcal{L}}\vert_{{\mathcal{U}}_q}) and thus

    {\mathscr{G}}(-D) \cong \textnormal{coker}(\tau^*)^*\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_Y(-D) \cong (\textnormal{coker}(\tau^*)\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_Y(D))^*\cong\rho^*({\mathcal{L}}\vert_{{\mathcal{U}}_q})^*.

    Notice that \rho^*({\mathcal{L}}\vert_{{\mathcal{U}}_q})^* and \rho^*({\mathcal{L}}^*\vert_{{\mathcal{U}}_q}) are isomorphic at the generic point of {\mathcal{U}}_q. By [hacon2021birational, Lemma 1.8], they are indeed isomorphic. Hence, {\mathcal{L}}^* gives the desired family of foliations over Q.

Given any irreducible curve C on Y.

1. If C=E_i for some i, then

   (K_Y+mi({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D))\cdot C = K_Y\cdot C > 0

   since K_Y is ample over X.

2. If C is not contained in the exceptional divisor, then we have two cases:

   1. If K_Y\cdot C\geq 0, then

      \begin{aligned} (K_Y+mi({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D))\cdot C &\geq mi({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)\cdot C \\ &= mi({\mathscr{G}})K_{{\mathscr{F}}}\cdot f_*C > 0 \end{aligned}

      since K_{\mathscr{F}} is numerically ample (see Lemma 2.4).

   2. If K_Y\cdot C<0, by [fujino2012minimal, Proposition 3.8], every K_Y-negative extremal ray is spanned by a rational curve C with 0<-K_Y\cdot C\leq 3. Thus, if we write C \equiv \sum a_iC_i+B where B\cdot K_Y\geq 0, the C_i’s are K_Y-negative extremal rays, the a_i’s are non-negative, and at least one of a_i is positive. By what we have seen above, we have

      (K_Y+mi({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D))\cdot B\geq 0.

      Thus, we have

      \begin{aligned} (K_Y+mi({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D))\cdot C &\geq \sum_ia_i \Big(K_Y\cdot C_i+mi({\mathscr{G}})(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D)\cdot C_i\Big) \\ &\geq \sum_ia_i(- 3+m) \geq 0 \mbox{ (resp. $>0$)}. \end{aligned}

When m\geq 4, we notice that

is big since it is the sum of a nef divisor and a big divisor.

By Proposition 3.4, i(K_Y) and i({\mathscr{G}}) are bounded in terms of \chi(mK_{\mathscr{F}}) at terminal foliation singularities. Other foliation singularities are at du Val singularities at which {\mathscr{G}} is canonical. Then we have i(K_Y) = 1 and i({\mathscr{G}}) \leq 2 by Proposition 3.2(3).

By Proposition 3.4, the index at each point at which {\mathscr{G}} is terminal is bounded in terms of \chi(mK_{\mathscr{F}}). Actually, it is shown that the order of each cyclic group acting at each point at which {\mathscr{G}} is terminal is bounded. Thus, the embedding dimension at each point at which {\mathscr{G}} is terminal is bounded. See for example [reid2012surface, Corollary 2.5]. If the action is \frac{1}{n}(1,q) and \frac{n}{n-q} = [a_1,\ldots, a_k], then the embedding dimension is at most k+2.

Other singularities on Y are du Val singularities, at which the embedding dimensions are 3.

Let \varphi : Y \longrightarrow {\mathbb P}^N be an embedding defined via |K_Y + L|. We may assume that N is minimal in the sense that \varphi(Y) is not contained in any hyperplane of {\mathbb P}^N. In this case, it is known (for a reference, see [eisenbud1987varieties, Proposition 0]) that

By [hacon2021birational, Lemma 3.5], we know that \gamma K_{{\mathscr{F}}}-K_{X} is pseudo-effective for

which is bounded in terms of \chi(mK_{\mathscr{F}}). Thus,

which is bounded in terms of \chi(mK_{\mathscr{F}}). Therefore N is also bounded.

Hence, by the boundedness result about Chow varieties, we have the boundedness of surfaces Y where (Y,{\mathscr{G}},D)\in{\mathcal{S}}_P.

Let T = \bigcup_iT_i be the decomposition of T into irreducible components. If there is a family of pre-foliations {\mathcal{F}}_i on each {\mathcal{Y}}_i = {\mathcal{Y}}\times_T T_i such that for any (Y,{\mathscr{G}},D)\in{\mathcal{S}}_P, there exist an i and t\in T_i with (Y,{\mathscr{G}}(-D))\cong ({\mathcal{Y}}_i,{\mathcal{F}}_i)_t, then the disjoint union of these families gives the required family.

This is achieved by the existence of a finite stratification of T by smooth locally closed subsets.

Suppose that {\mathcal{Y}}_t is R_1 (resp. S_2), then there exists an open subset U\subset T containing t such that {\mathcal{Y}}_U := {\mathcal{Y}}\times_T U is R_1 (resp. S_2) and every fiber {\mathcal{Y}}_t is also R_1 (resp. S_2) for t\in U. (For a reference, see [grothendieck1966elements, Théorème 12.2.4].) It follows that there is an open subset V \subset T such that {\mathcal{Y}}_V := {\mathcal{Y}}\times_T V is normal, every fiber {\mathcal{Y}}_t is normal for t\in V, and for all Y\in {\mathcal{S}}, there exists a t\in V such that Y\cong {\mathcal{Y}}_t. Hence, by shrinking T, we may assume that {\mathcal{Y}} is normal.

This is well-known; see, for example, [simpson1994moduli, Lemma 1.27]. We include proof for the convenience of the reader.

Since {\mathcal{Y}} is normal, the canonical sheaf K_{\mathcal{Y}} is defined as a divisorial sheaf. By assumption, i(K_Y)K_{{\mathcal{Y}}_t} is Cartier for

Note that T^\circ is a dense subset of T. For any t\in T^\circ, we fix a d such that i(K_Y)K_{{\mathcal{Y}}_t}(d) is generated by global sections. Then by replacing T by an open subset, we may assume that the map

is surjective by [hartshorne1977algebraic, Theorem 12.8 and Corollary 12.9]. Since i(K_Y)K_{{\mathcal{Y}}_t}(d) is locally generated by some section of H^0({\mathcal{Y}}_t,i(K_Y)K_{{\mathcal{Y}}_t}(d)), by lifting this section to a section of H^0({\mathcal{Y}},i(K_{\mathcal{Y}}) K_{\mathcal{Y}}(d)) using the surjection above and by Nakayama’s lemma, i(K_Y)K_{\mathcal{Y}}(d) is locally generated by one section on a neighborhood of {\mathcal{Y}}_t. Therefore, i(K_Y)K_{\mathcal{Y}} is Cartier on a neighborhood of {\mathcal{Y}}_t. Shrinking T, we may assume that i(K_Y)K_{\mathcal{Y}} is Cartier.

We may assume that T is irreducible. Indeed, suppose the lemma holds whenever T is irreducible. In general, we write T = \bigcup_{j=1}^mT^j as the decomposition of irreducible components T^j. Since t_0\in T, we have t_0\in T^j for some j. Let us say t_0\in T^1. By the assumption, we have an open subset U^1\subset T^1 containing t_0 such that D_t is nef (resp. strictly nef) and big for all t\in U^1. If U^1 is contained in T\setminus\bigcup_{j=2}^mT^j which is an open subset of T, then U^1 is an open subset of T and we are done. If not, there is a point t_1\in U^1\cap\bigcup_{j=2}^m T^j \subset \bigcup_{j=2}^m T^j. By induction on the number of the irreducible components of T, we have an open subset U^2\subset \bigcup_{j=2}^m T^j containing t_1 such that D_t is nef (resp. strictly nef) and big for all t\in U^2. Note that C^1 := T^1\setminus U^1 and C^2 := \bigcup_{j=2}^mT^j\setminus U^2 are closed subsets of T. Thus U := T\setminus(C^1\cup C^2) is an open subset of T containing t_0 such that D_t is nef (resp. strictly nef) and big for all t\in U.

So from now on, we assume that T is irreducible. Since D_{t_0} is nef, we have D_{t} is nef for very general t\in T^* = T\setminus\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty T_i where T_i’s are all proper closed subsets of T. (For a reference, see [lazarsfeld2004positivity, Proposition 1.4.14].) Note that, for all t\in T^*, we have D_t^n = D_{t_0}^n>0 since D_{t_0} is nef and big. Hence, D_t is also nef and big for all t\in T^*.

Let S_N := \{t\in T\vert\, h^0({\mathcal{X}}_t,ND_{t})\geq 1\} which is a closed subset in T by the upper semi-continuity. Note that we have

By the Baire category theorem, there is an N such that S_N = T. Thus, the relative base locus of D is proper. Let U be an open subset of T such that all irreducible components of the relative base locus of D are flat over U. Notice that it is possible that t_0 is not in U.

Now for any u\in U, if there is a curve C_u such that D_u\cdot C_u<0 (resp. \leq 0), then C_u is in the relative base locus of D and moves in the family over U. So for any t\in T^*\cap U, we have D_t\cdot C_t = D_u\cdot C_u < 0 (resp. \leq 0), which is a contradiction. Therefore, D_u is nef (resp. strictly nef) for all u\in U. Moreover, D_u^n = D_{t}^n >0 where t\in T^*\cap U, then D_u is also big for u\in U.

If t_0\in U, then we are done. If not, that is t_0\in T\setminus U, then by induction on \dim T, there exists an open subset V\subset T\setminus U containing t_0 such that D_t is nef (resp. strictly nef) and big for all t\in V. So (T\setminus U)\setminus V is a closed subset of T\setminus U, which is a closed subset of T. Thus, (T\setminus U)\setminus V is a closed subset of T. Therefore V\cup U = T\setminus\big((T\setminus U)\setminus V\big) \subset T is an open subset containing t_0 such that D_t nef (resp. strictly nef) and big for all t\in V\cup U.

The proof follows closely from the proof of [chen2021boundedness, Proposition 3.1] for canonical models. For the reader’s convenience, we include the proof.

By Theorem 3.9, there exists a projective morphism \mu : {\mathcal{Y}}\longrightarrow T of quasi-projective varieties of finite type and a family of foliations {\mathcal{F}} on {\mathcal{Y}} over T such that for any (Y,{\mathscr{G}},D)\in{\mathcal{S}}_P, there exists a t\in T and an isomorphism \rho:Y\longrightarrow {\mathcal{Y}}_t such that {\mathscr{G}}(-D)\cong \rho^*({\mathcal{F}}\vert_{{\mathcal{Y}}_t}). We may assume that

is dense in T. Fix a t_0\in T^*.

Note that K_{\mathcal{F}}\vert_{{\mathcal{Y}}_t} is nef and big, by Lemma 3.11, we have that K_{\mathcal{F}} is big over T. Thus, the relative base locus of K_{\mathcal{F}} is proper. Therefore, we have a finite stratification of T such that all irreducible components of the relative base locus of K_{\mathcal{F}} are flat over T.

Let {\mathcal{E}}_j’s be those irreducible components of the relative base locus of K_{\mathcal{F}} over U of codimension one. Note that, for any t\in T^* and for any irreducible curve E\subset {\mathcal{Y}}_t with K_{\mathcal{F}}\cdot E = 0, we have E is in the relative base locus of D and hence E\subset{\mathcal{E}}_j for some j. Let \pi:\widetilde{{\mathcal{Y}}}\longrightarrow{\mathcal{Y}} be the log resolution of ({\mathcal{Y}},\sum_j{\mathcal{E}}_j) with the exceptional divisors \sum {\mathcal{F}}_\ell. By shrinking T further, we may assume that \nu := \mu\circ \pi is smooth and {\mathcal{F}}_\ell is flat over T. Let \widetilde{{\mathcal{E}}_j} be the proper transform of {\mathcal{E}}_j via \pi.

Note that \Lambda := \{\widetilde{{\mathcal{E}}_j}, {\mathcal{F}}_\ell\} is a finite set. So there are only finitely many possible connected subsets of \Lambda with dual graphs of D_n type or A_n type. By [brieskorn1968rationale, Satz 2.9 and Satz 2.11], the intersection matrix of a dihedral singularity determines the embedding dimension and the group acting on it. Since the intersection matrix remains the same in the family, we have the boundedness of the embedding dimension and the order of the group acting on these singularities. Hence the index of X at the dihedral singularities is also bounded. Similarly, by [reid2012surface], the embedding dimension and the index of a cyclic quotient singularity is determined by the intersection matrix. Therefore, we have the boundedness of the embedding dimension and of the index at the cyclic quotient singularities.

This follows closely from [hacon2021birational, Theorem 4.3]. See also [chen2021boundedness, Theorem 3.3]. For the reader’s convenience, we include the proof.

Let g : (Y,{\mathscr{G}}) \longrightarrow (X,{\mathscr{F}}) be the minimal resolution of cusps. Then K_{\mathscr{G}} = g^*K_{\mathscr{F}} and i({\mathscr{G}})=i_{\mathbb Q}({\mathscr{F}}). (See Definition 1.13.)

Now, by [hacon2021birational, Lemma 3.5], we know that \gamma K_{\mathscr{G}}-K_Y is big for any fixed integer \gamma with

Note that L := (\beta-\gamma)K_{\mathscr{G}}+(\gamma K_{\mathscr{G}}-K_Y) is pseudo-effective for any \beta>\gamma. Let L=P+N be the Zariski decomposition. Then we have

And if C is not in the exceptional divisor of g, then

By Proposition 3.13 and Proposition 3.4, we have the boundedness of embedding dimension of each rational singularity on Y. Thus, we have a uniform bound \delta such that \delta_\zeta\leq\delta for |\zeta|=2. Now we fix a \beta divisible by i_{\mathbb Q}({\mathscr{F}}) such that P^2>\delta and P\cdot C>\delta/2 for any irreducible curve C. By [langer2001adjoint, Theorem 0.1] and Proposition 1.3, we have that K_Y+L = \beta K_{\mathscr{G}} is very ample on the complement of the exceptional divisor of g. By [sakai1984weil, Theorem 6.2], g_*{\mathcal{O}}_Y(\beta K_{\mathscr{G}}) = {\mathcal{O}}_X(\beta K_{\mathscr{F}}). Hence, \beta K_{\mathscr{F}} is very ample on the complement of the cusps.

Given any irreducible curve C on Y.

1. If C is contracted by g, then

   (K_Y+3i({\mathscr{G}})K_{\mathscr{G}})\cdot C = K_Y\cdot C = -2-C^2 \geq 0

   since C^2\leq -2 by the minimality of g.

2. If C is not contracted by g,

   1. If K_Y\cdot C\geq 0, then

      (K_Y+3i({\mathscr{G}})K_{\mathscr{G}})\cdot C \geq 3i({\mathscr{G}})K_{{\mathscr{F}}}\cdot g_*C > 0

      by Lemma 2.4.

   2. If K_Y\cdot C<0, by [fujino2012minimal, Proposition 3.8], every K_Y-negative extremal ray is spanned by a rational curve C with 0<-K_Y\cdot C\leq 3. Thus, if we write C \equiv \sum a_iC_i+D where D\cdot K_Y\geq 0, the C_i’s are K_Y-negative extremal rays, the a_i’s are non-negative, and at least one of a_i is positive. By what we have seen above, (K_Y+3i({\mathscr{G}})K_{\mathscr{G}})\cdot D\geq 0. Thus,

      \begin{aligned} & (K_Y+3i({\mathscr{G}})K_{\mathscr{G}})\cdot C \\ = {} & \sum_ia_i \Big((K_Y+3i({\mathscr{G}})K_{\mathscr{G}})\cdot C_i\Big) + (K_Y+3i({\mathscr{G}})K_{\mathscr{G}})\cdot D \\ \geq {} & \sum_ia_i(- 3+3) + 0 = 0. \end{aligned}

This completes the proof of the nefness of K_Y+3i({\mathscr{G}})K_{\mathscr{G}}.

We can take i(P) = C_2! where C_2 comes from Proposition 3.4 and depends only on P.

The idea of the proof is from the proof of [cascini2018invariance, Proposition 3.7]. We divide the proof into the following steps. Let m\in{\mathbb N} be a positive integer divisible by i(P).

1. Fix a point 0\in T and let (X,{\mathscr{F}},D) := ({\mathcal{X}},{\mathcal{F}},\Delta)\vert_{{\mathcal{X}}_0}\in{\mathcal{S}}_P. Let \rho : X^{\textnormal{m}} \longrightarrow X be the minimal resolution of X and {\mathscr{F}}^{\textnormal{m}} be the pullback foliation on X^\textnormal{m}. Contracting down all {\mathscr{F}}^{\textnormal{m}}-chains to get (Y,{\mathscr{G}}), we have a morphism \pi: (Y,{\mathscr{G}}) \longrightarrow (X,{\mathscr{F}}).

   \xymatrix{X^{\textnormal{m}} \ar[dd]_-\rho \ar[rd] & \\ & Y \ar[ld]^-\pi \\ X &}

   Let E be the proper transform of D. Thus, because of the construction of the minimal partial du Val resolution (3.5), we have K_{\mathscr{G}}+E = \pi^*(K_{\mathscr{F}}+D), which is nef and big.

   Let \Gamma_1, \ldots, \Gamma_p be all elliptic Gorenstein leaves on Y and C_1, \ldots, C_q be all disconnected chains of rational curves exceptional over its log canonical model such that (K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)\cdot C_j^{(k)}=0 where C_j = \sum_{k=1}^{r_j} C_j^{(k)} is the sum of its irreducible components. Also let Z = \sum_{i=1}^p\Gamma_i + \sum_{j=1}^q C_j.

2. Claim. h^1(\Gamma_i,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E))=0 for all i.

   Pf.

   Notice that \Gamma_i is Cohen-Macaulay with the trivial dualizing sheaf. Since each irreducible component of E is over a log canonical non-canonical foliation singularity, E does not meet \Gamma_i. So we have

   h^1(\Gamma_i, m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)) = h^0(\Gamma_i,-m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)) = h^0(\Gamma_i,-mK_{{\mathscr{G}}}) = 0

   where the last equality is because {\mathcal{O}}_{\Gamma_i}(mK_{{\mathscr{G}}}) is not torsion and has degree 0 by [mcquillan2008canonical, FactIII.0.4 and Theorem IV.2.2].

3. Claim. h^1(C_j,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E))=0 for all j.

   Pf.

   Note that we have

   (K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)\cdot C_j^{(k)}=0

   for all j and k. Since C_j^{(k)}’s are either smooth rational curves or a rational curve with two singularities of index two, we have

   h^1(C_j^{(k)},m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)) = 0

   for all j and k. Now, for any fixed j, we consider the following short exact sequence

   \xymatrix{0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal{O}}_{C_j} \ar[r] & \displaystyle \bigoplus_{k=1}^{r_j}{\mathcal{O}}_{C_j^{(k)}} \ar[r] & \displaystyle \bigoplus_{k=1}^{r_j-1}{\mathcal{O}}_{C_j^{(k)}\cap C_j^{(k+1)}} \ar[r] & 0.}

   Tensoring with {\mathcal{O}}_{C_j}(m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)) and taking the induced long exact sequence, we notice that the map

   \xymatrix{\displaystyle \bigoplus_{k=1}^{r_j}H^0\big({C_j^{(k)}},m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)\big) \ar[r] & \displaystyle \bigoplus_{k=1}^{r_j-1}H^0\big({C_j^{(k)}\cap C_j^{(k+1)}},m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)\big)}

   is surjective and thus, we have that h^1(C_j,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E))=0 for all j by equation (Proof).

4. Claim. h^j(Y, m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)-Z)=0 for j>0 and for all m\geq m_0 for some m_0.

   Pf.

   For any irreducible curve C in the support of Z, we have that

   \big(m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)-(K_Y+Z)\big)\cdot C = -(K_Y+Z)\cdot C\geq 0.

   Note that K_{\mathscr{G}}+E = \pi^*(K_{\mathscr{F}}+D) is nef and big, and the (K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)-trivial curves are exactly the curves in the support of Z. Then there exists an m_0 depending only on (X,{\mathscr{F}},D) such that m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)-(K_Y+Z) is nef and big for m\geq m_0. Since Y is klt, we have

   h^j(Y,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)-Z) = h^j(Y,K_Y+m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)-(K_Y+Z)) = 0

   for all j>0 and m\geq m_0 by Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem.

5. Claim. h^j(Y,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E))=0 for j>0 and for all m\geq m_0.

   Pf.

   By steps (2) and (3), we have that h^1(Z,m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)) = 0. Now we consider the short exact sequence

   \xymatrix{0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal{O}}_Y(-Z) \ar[r] & {\mathcal{O}}_Y \ar[r] & {\mathcal{O}}_Z \ar[r] & 0.}

   Tensoring with {\mathcal{O}}_Y(m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)) and taking the induced long exact sequence, we have the map

   \xymatrix{H^1(Y,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)-Z) \ar[r] & H^1(Y,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E))}

   is surjective and H^2(Y,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)-Z) \cong H^2(Y,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)). Thus, we have h^j(Y,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)) = 0 for j>0 and for all m\geq m_0 by step (4).

6. Claim. h^1(X,m(K_{\mathscr{F}}+D))=0 for all m\geq m_0.

   Pf.

   Note that \pi_*(m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)) = m(K_{\mathscr{F}}+D) by the projection formula. Since h^1(Y,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E))=0 for all m\geq m_0 by step (5), we have that

   h^1(X,m(K_{{\mathscr{F}}}+D))=0

   for all m\geq m_0 by Leray spectral sequence.

7. Claim. h^2({\mathcal{X}}_t,m(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_t}+\Delta_t))=0 for all t\in T and for m\geq m_P for some m_P.

   Pf.

   Note that K_{{\mathcal{F}}_t}+\Delta_t is nef and big since ({\mathcal{X}}_t,{\mathcal{F}}_t,\Delta_t)\in{\mathcal{S}}_P. In addition, we have already seen, in the proof of Theorem 3.9, that K_{{\mathcal{X}}_t}+4i(P)(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_t}+\Delta_t) is ample. Moreover, by [hacon2021birational, Lemma 3.5], we have that m(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_t}+\Delta_t) - K_{{\mathcal{X}}_t} is big for m\geq m_P where

   m_P := \max\left\{\frac{2(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_t}+\Delta_t)\cdot K_{{\mathcal{X}}_t}}{(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_t}+\Delta_t)^2}+4i(P)+1, 1\right\}.

   By Proposition 3.4, we have that m_P depends only on P.

   Now by Serre duality, we have, for m\geq m_P, that

   h^2({\mathcal{X}}_t,m(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_t}+\Delta_t)) = h^0({\mathcal{X}}_t,K_{{\mathcal{X}}_t} - m(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_t}+\Delta_t)) = 0

   since there is no section for an anti-big divisor.

8. Take m_f := \max\{m_0, m_P\} which only depends on the family f. Now we have, for all t\in T and for all m\geq m_f, that

   \begin{aligned} h^0({\mathcal{X}}_t,m(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_t}+\Delta_t)) &\geq \chi({\mathcal{X}}_t,m(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_t}+\Delta_t)) \\ &= \chi({\mathcal{X}}_0,m(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_0}+\Delta_0)) \\ &= h^0({\mathcal{X}}_0,m(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_0}+\Delta_0)) \end{aligned}

   where the first inequality comes from step (7) and the last equality comes from steps (6) and (7).

   On the other hand, by upper semi-continuity, we have

   h^0({\mathcal{X}}_t,m(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_t}+\Delta_t))\leq h^0({\mathcal{X}}_0,m(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_0}+\Delta_0)).

   Therefore, we get the desired equality.

Notice that \Gamma_i is Cohen-Macaulay with the trivial dualizing sheaf. Since each irreducible component of E is over a log canonical non-canonical foliation singularity, E does not meet \Gamma_i. So we have

where the last equality is because {\mathcal{O}}_{\Gamma_i}(mK_{{\mathscr{G}}}) is not torsion and has degree 0 by [mcquillan2008canonical, FactIII.0.4 and Theorem IV.2.2].

Note that we have

for all j and k. Since C_j^{(k)}’s are either smooth rational curves or a rational curve with two singularities of index two, we have

for all j and k. Now, for any fixed j, we consider the following short exact sequence

Tensoring with {\mathcal{O}}_{C_j}(m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)) and taking the induced long exact sequence, we notice that the map

is surjective and thus, we have that h^1(C_j,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E))=0 for all j by equation (Proof).

For any irreducible curve C in the support of Z, we have that

Note that K_{\mathscr{G}}+E = \pi^*(K_{\mathscr{F}}+D) is nef and big, and the (K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)-trivial curves are exactly the curves in the support of Z. Then there exists an m_0 depending only on (X,{\mathscr{F}},D) such that m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)-(K_Y+Z) is nef and big for m\geq m_0. Since Y is klt, we have

for all j>0 and m\geq m_0 by Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem.

By steps (2) and (3), we have that h^1(Z,m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)) = 0. Now we consider the short exact sequence

Tensoring with {\mathcal{O}}_Y(m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)) and taking the induced long exact sequence, we have the map

is surjective and H^2(Y,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)-Z) \cong H^2(Y,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)). Thus, we have h^j(Y,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E)) = 0 for j>0 and for all m\geq m_0 by step (4).

Note that \pi_*(m(K_{\mathscr{G}}+E)) = m(K_{\mathscr{F}}+D) by the projection formula. Since h^1(Y,m(K_{{\mathscr{G}}}+E))=0 for all m\geq m_0 by step (5), we have that

for all m\geq m_0 by Leray spectral sequence.

Note that K_{{\mathcal{F}}_t}+\Delta_t is nef and big since ({\mathcal{X}}_t,{\mathcal{F}}_t,\Delta_t)\in{\mathcal{S}}_P. In addition, we have already seen, in the proof of Theorem 3.9, that K_{{\mathcal{X}}_t}+4i(P)(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_t}+\Delta_t) is ample. Moreover, by [hacon2021birational, Lemma 3.5], we have that m(K_{{\mathcal{F}}_t}+\Delta_t) - K_{{\mathcal{X}}_t} is big for m\geq m_P where

By Proposition 3.4, we have that m_P depends only on P.

Now by Serre duality, we have, for m\geq m_P, that

since there is no section for an anti-big divisor.

By Theorem 3.9 and 7.4, we have finitely many families f_j’s of foliated triples parametrizing {\mathcal{S}}_P. Taking m_P divisible by all m_{f_j}’s in Theorem 4.2, we have

for all (X,{\mathscr{F}},D)\in{\mathcal{S}}_P. Since \chi(X,m(K_{\mathscr{F}}+D)) is constant for all (X,{\mathscr{F}},D)\in{\mathcal{S}}_P, so is h^0(X,m(K_{\mathscr{F}}+D)).

Let R be a (K_{\mathcal{F}}+\Delta)-negative extremal ray over T. Then its locus is not the whole space {\mathcal{X}} since the general fiber of f is a model of a foliated triple in {\mathcal{S}}_P. Thus, by the proof of [cascini2020mmp, Theorem 8.8], we may run the (K_{\mathcal{F}}+\Delta)-MMP over T, which will end up with a family of foliated triples ({\mathcal{X}}^{\textnormal{m}},{\mathcal{F}}^{\textnormal{m}},\Delta^{\textnormal{m}}) \longrightarrow T such that K_{{\mathcal{F}}^{\textnormal{m}}}+\Delta^{\textnormal{m}} is nef over T. Moreover, f^{\textnormal{m}} : {\mathcal{X}}^{\textnormal{m}} \longrightarrow T is dlt and the general fiber is in {\mathcal{S}}_P.

Let g : ({\mathcal{Y}},{\mathcal{G}},\Theta) \longrightarrow C be a semi-stable reduction of the closure of the family f^\circ : ({\mathcal{X}}^\circ,{\mathcal{F}}^\circ,\Delta^\circ) \longrightarrow T^\circ where C \longrightarrow T is a finite morphism and C is a smooth curve.

Then by Theorem 5.5, we run the relative (K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Theta)-MMP over C. Thus, we get a family g : ({\mathcal{Y}},{\mathcal{G}},\Theta) \longrightarrow C such that K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Theta is nef over C. By running additional partial K_{\mathcal{Y}}-MMP over C, we may assume that K_{\mathcal{Y}}+4i(P)(K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Theta) is nef over C. (See Lemma 4.1 for the definition of i(P).) Note that \big(K_{\mathcal{Y}}+4i(P)(K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Theta)\big)-K_{\mathcal{Y}} is nef and big over C. By relative base point free theorem (see [kollar1998birational, Theorem 3.24] for a reference), K_{\mathcal{Y}}+4i(P)(K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Theta) is semi-ample over C. Thus, we have the relative canonical model g : ({\mathcal{Y}},{\mathcal{G}},\Theta) \longrightarrow C.

Let f^\circ_C be the base change of f^\circ via the morphism C^\circ \longrightarrow T^\circ where C^\circ = C\setminus\{0\}. Notice that for any c\in C\setminus\{0\}, the fibers of f^\circ_C and g over c are isomorphic. Moreover, for c=0, we have that (K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Theta)\vert_{{\mathcal{Y}}_0} is nef and K_{{\mathcal{Y}}_0}+4i(P)(K_{{\mathcal{G}}}+\Theta)\vert_{{\mathcal{Y}}_0} is ample. Hence, the fiber of g over 0\in C is stable and {\mathcal{S}}_P-smoothable. Therefore, g : ({\mathcal{Y}},{\mathcal{G}},\Theta) \longrightarrow C is a family of stable {\mathcal{S}}_P-smoothable foliated triples over C.

Notice that K_Y+4i(P)(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D) is ample by the part (1) of the proof of Theorem 3.9.

Let (X,{\mathscr{F}}) be the log canonical model of (Y,{\mathscr{G}},D). Note that K_{\mathscr{G}}+D is the pullback of K_{\mathscr{F}}. Thus the divisor K_{\mathscr{H}}+f_*^{-1}D+\sum_j\varepsilon(E_j)E_j - f^*(K_{\mathscr{G}}+D) = \sum_ja'_jE_j is effective and exceptional since {\mathscr{F}} has at worst log canonical singularities. Moreover, since Y has at worst klt singularities, we have K_Z - f^*K_Y = \sum_j a''_jE_j where a''_j > -1. Hence, a_j = 4i(P)a'_j+a''_j > -1.

Restriction the equality to the general element t\in T, not 0, we have

By Lemma 6.3, we have, for all j, that b_j\geq -1.

Moreover, let X be an irreducible component of {\mathcal{X}}_0 and Y be the proper transform of X in {\mathcal{Y}}. Note that (K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Theta)\vert_{Y} - g_0^*(K_{\mathcal{F}}+\Delta)\vert_{X} is effective since ({\mathcal{F}},\Delta) is a family of stable {\mathcal{S}}_P-smoothable foliated triples where g_0 is the morphism from Y to X. Moreover, by adjunction, we have

where the last inequality follows from {\mathcal{X}}_0 has semi-log canonical singularities. Hence, a_i\geq 0 for all i.

Let {\mathcal{Y}} be a common resolution of ({\mathcal{X}}_1,\Delta_1), ({\mathcal{X}}_2,\Delta_2), and \varphi^\circ. Let g_1 and g_2 be the morphisms fitting into the following commutative diagram.

Note that g_1^*{\mathcal{F}}_1 and g_2^*{\mathcal{F}}_2 are isomorphic over T^\circ, so they are isomorphic at the generic point of {\mathcal{Y}}. By [hacon2021birational, Lemma 1.8], they are in fact isomorphic. Let {\mathcal{G}} = g_1^*{\mathcal{F}}_1 = g_2^*{\mathcal{F}}_2. Moreover, we have the proper transforms (g_{1*})^{-1}\Delta_1 and (g_{2*})^{-1}\Delta_2 are the same. Then we put \Theta = (g_{1*})^{-1}\Delta_1 = (g_{2*})^{-1}\Delta_2.

As in subsection ?, we may assume that ({\mathcal{Y}},{\mathcal{G}},\Theta) \longrightarrow T is a semi-stable reduction. Note that {\mathcal{X}}_1 and {\mathcal{X}}_2 may not be normal after base change.

Suppose first that {\mathcal{X}}_1 is normal. We write

where E_i are exceptional divisors mapping to 0\in T and F_j are flat over T.

Now, by Lemma 6.4, a_i\geq 0, and b_j\geq -1. Also, by adjunction formula, we notice that

Hence, we have

If {\mathcal{X}}_1 is not normal, then using the same argument as above, we have the normalization

Note that the conductor of the normalization {\mathcal{X}}_1^\nu \longrightarrow {\mathcal{X}}_1 is in the support of \sum F_j. Thus we have

Therefore {\mathcal{X}}_1 and {\mathcal{X}}_2 are isomorphic in codimension 1 where {\mathcal{X}}_1 and {\mathcal{X}}_2 here are the original one (before taking a base change). Since they both satisfy Serre’s condition S_2, they are, in fact, isomorphic.

Now we put {\mathcal{X}}_1\cong{\mathcal{X}}_2\cong{\mathcal{X}}. Notice that {\mathcal{F}}_1 and {\mathcal{F}}_2 are isomorphic at the generic point of {\mathcal{X}}. So they are indeed isomorphic. Moreover, \Delta_1 and \Delta_2 are isomorphic as well.

Since {\mathscr{F}} is log canonical, by [mcquillan2013almost, Fact I.ii.4] the vector field around any fixed point either is a smooth point or belongs to one of three cases in Lemma 1.24.

1. If E_1 has only one singularity p_1, we have that

   \textnormal{Z}({\mathscr{F}},E_1,p_1)=\textnormal{Z}({\mathscr{F}},E_1)=2.

   Thus by Lemma 1.24, we know that p_1 is a saddle-node, \textnormal{Z}({\mathscr{F}},E_2,p_1) = 1, and \textnormal{CS}({\mathscr{F}},E_2,p_1)=0. By Camacho-Sad formula (Theorem 1.23), we have that

   \lambda_2 := \textnormal{CS}({\mathscr{F}},E_2,p_2) = E_2^2-\textnormal{CS}({\mathscr{F}},E_2,p_1) =E_2^2\leq -2.

   Hence p_2 is reduced and non-degenerate.

   Claim.

   For all i=2, \ldots, s, \lambda_i := \textnormal{CS}({\mathscr{F}},E_{i},p_{i}) are negative rational numbers less than -1 and p_{i} are reduced non-degenerate singularities.

   We have seen that the claim holds for i=2. Now we assume that p_i’s are reduced and non-degenerate with \lambda_i\in{\mathbb Q}_{<-1} for i=2, \ldots, k-1. Then we have that \textnormal{Z}({\mathscr{F}},E_k,p_{k-1})=1 and \textnormal{Z}({\mathscr{F}},E_k,p_k)=1. By Camacho-Sad formula (Theorem 1.23) and Lemma 1.24, we have that

   \begin{aligned} \lambda_k &= E_k^2-\textnormal{CS}({\mathscr{F}},E_k,p_{k-1}) \\ &= E_k^2-\frac{1}{\lambda_{k-1}} < -2+1=-1. \end{aligned}

   Therefore, by induction, we complete the proof of the claim and of the first case.

2. Now we assume that all E_i’s have two foliation singularities. Suppose there are two non-reduced singularities p_i and p_j. As the proof of Lemma 2.7, after a sequence of blowups, we get a string with two separatrices at each singularity, which is impossible by Theorem 1.17.

   Moreover, if \textnormal{Z}({\mathscr{F}},E_i,p_i)\leq 0, then

   \textnormal{Z}({\mathscr{F}},E_i,p_{i-1}) = 2-\textnormal{Z}({\mathscr{F}},E_i,p_i)\geq 2.

   So, by Lemma 1.24, we have that p_{i-1} is a saddle-node.

1. If there is only one non-reduced singularity p, then we can view this cycle as one Hirzebruch-Jung string of (-2)-{\mathscr{F}}-curves with 2 non-reduced singularities. Thus by Lemma 7.1, it is impossible.

2. If there are more than two non-reduced singularities, then we can take any Hirzebruch-Jung string of (-2)-{\mathscr{F}}-curves such that both endpoints are non-reduced. Then by Lemma 7.1, it is impossible.

3. Now we know that all singularities on E are reduced. Since all E_i’s are (-2)-{\mathscr{F}}-curves, we have that all singularities on E are non-degenerate by Lemma 1.24.

For any w\in W, we can pick an étale open subset {\mathcal{U}} of {\mathcal{X}} containing w such that (x,y,t) are local coordinates of {\mathcal{U}} with \pi(x,y,t) = t and W\cap {\mathcal{U}} = (x=y=0).

Then, on {\mathcal{U}}, the foliation is given by

where a, b, c, and d are holomorphic functions from \pi(V) to {\mathbb C} and h.o.t stands for higher order terms (in x, y, and t). Thus we form a matrix

which has two eigenvalues \mu_+(t) and \mu_-(t). Since all foliation singularities are log canonical, at least one of two eigenvalues is not zero. Therefore, we can define a holomorphic map \lambda : W\cap{\mathcal{U}} \longrightarrow {\mathbb P}^1 by \lambda(w) = [\mu_+(\pi(w)):\mu_-(\pi(w))]. Notice that this map is independent of the open subset {\mathcal{U}} and of change of coordinates. Thus, \lambda can be defined on W and is holomorphic.

We divide the proof into several steps.

1. Let g: {\mathcal{Y}}\longrightarrow{\mathcal{X}} be a resolution of singularities, {\mathcal{G}} = g^*{\mathcal{F}} be the pullback foliation, and \Theta be the proper transform of \Delta. Let \pi = f\circ g. By Proposition 1.28, replacing {\mathcal{Y}} with its higher model (via some blowups), we may assume that {\mathcal{Y}}_t is smooth and {\mathcal{G}}_t has at worst log canonical singularities for all t\in U for some open subset U\subset T.

2. Claim. After shrinking U further if necessary, the following conditions hold:

   1. \pi_U is smooth.

   2. Each irreducible component of singularities of {\mathcal{G}} is finite over U and pairwise disjoint.

   3. Each irreducible component of exceptional divisors of g is flat over U.

   4. For any irreducible component C of singularities of {\mathcal{G}} and any irreducible component E of exceptional divisors of g, we have C\cap E is either C or empty.

   5. For each irreducible component E of exceptional divisors of g, either E_u is invariant for all u\in U or E_u is not invariant for all u\in U.

   Pf.

   More explicitly, (a) comes from the generic smoothness. For others, let

   S_1 = \bigcup \pi(C)

   where the union is taken over all irreducible components C of singularities of {\mathcal{G}} and of exceptional divisors of g, which are not finite over U. Let

   S_2 = \bigcup \{t\,\vert\,C_{i,t} = C_{j,t}\}

   where the union is taken over all distinct irreducible components C_i and C_j of singularities of {\mathcal{G}}. Let

   S_3 = \bigcup\pi(C\cap E)

   where the union is taken over all irreducible components C of singularity of {\mathcal{G}} and all irreducible components E of exceptional divisors of g such that C\cap E is neither C nor empty.

   Note that S_1, S_2, and S_3 are all proper closed subsets of U. So by replacing U by U\setminus (S_1\cup S_2\cup S_3), conditions (a)-(d) hold. The condition (e) can be achieved since being non-invariant is an open condition.

3. The conditions (a)-(d) will ensure that the number of foliation singularities on an exceptional prime divisor of g is constant over U. Furthermore, all singularities of {\mathcal{G}} do not collide over U. Also there is a t_0\in T'\cap U since T' is dense in T.

4. We say an irreducible component E of exceptional divisors a relative {\mathcal{G}}-exceptional curve if E_{t_0} is a {\mathcal{G}}_{t_0}-exceptional curve. Then, for any u\in U, we have that E_u is invariant, and the contraction of E_u introduces a log canonical foliation singularity on a smooth surface point.

   Contracting all relative {\mathcal{G}}-exceptional curves, we may assume that there is no relative {\mathcal{G}}-exceptional curve by induction on Picard number.

5. Now we say E=\bigcup_{i=1}^{s}E_i is a relative ({\mathcal{G}},\Theta)-chain if E_{t_0} = \bigcup_{i=1}^{s}E_{i,t_0} is a {\mathcal{G}}_{t_0}-chain and E_{i,t_0}\cdot\Theta_{t_0}=0 for i=1, \ldots, s. (See Figure ?.)

   The paper has a figure here, which this page does not show.

   Since, over t_0, there is only one singularity p_{1,t_0} on E_{1,t_0}, we have that, over any u\in U, there is also only one singularity p_{1,u} on E_{1,u}.

   By Camacho-Sad formula (Theorem 1.23), we have \textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{1,u},p_{1,u}) = E_{1,u}^2\leq -2. And by Lemma 1.24, the eigenvalue \lambda_1 = \textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{1,u},p_{1,u}) must be a negative integer less than -2. Thus, p_{1,u} is a reduced non-degenerate singularity.

   Let the singularities on E_{k,u} be p_{k-1,u} and p_{k,u} for k = 2, \ldots, s.

   Claim.

   For all k=1, \ldots, s, \lambda_k := \textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{k,u},p_{k,u}) are negative rational numbers less than -1 and p_{k,u} are reduced non-degenerate singularities.

   Pf.

   We have shown that this holds when k=1. Assume the claim holds for k-1. By Camacho-Sad formula (Theorem 1.23) and Lemma 1.24, we have that

   -2\geq E_{k,u}^2 = \textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{k,u}, p_{k-1,u})+\textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{k,u},p_{k,u}) = \frac{1}{\lambda_{k-1}} + \lambda_{k}.

   Thus, \lambda_k\leq -2-\frac{1}{\lambda_{k-1}}<-2+1=-1. Hence, \lambda_k is a negative rational number less than -1. Therefore, p_{k,u} is also a reduced non-degenerate singularity. This completes the proof of the claim.

6. We contract all relative ({\mathcal{G}},\Theta)-chains and still using the notation ({\mathcal{Y}},{\mathcal{G}},\Theta) for the resulting foliation. Then we have a family such that

   (K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Theta)\vert_{{\mathcal{Y}}_t}

   is nef and big for all t\in T'\cap U. By Lemma 3.11, after shrinking U further, we have (K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Theta)\vert_{{\mathcal{Y}}_u} is nef and big for all u\in U.

   Next, in order to show that ({\mathcal{Y}},{\mathcal{G}},\Theta)_t\in{\mathcal{S}}_P, we will study the relative (K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Theta)-trivial curves, that is, the irreducible component E of exceptional divisors such that E_{t_0} is (K_{{\mathcal{G}}_{t_0}}+\Theta_{t_0})-trivial.

7. Let E = E_{0,1}\cup E_{0,2}\cup\bigcup_{i=1}^s E_i be the exceptional divisor over a dihedral singularity where, for all u\in U, \bigcup_{i=1}^sE_{i,u} is a Hirzebruch-Jung string, and E_{0,1,u} and E_{0,2,u} are disjoint, of self-intersection -2 and both intersect the bad tail E_{1,u}. (See the Figure ? for its dual graph.)

   The paper has a figure here, which this page does not show.

   Let p_{0,1,u}, p_{0,2,u}, and p_{1,u} be three singularities on E_{1,u}. Let p_{k-1,u} and p_{k,u} be two singularities on E_{k,u} for k = 2, \ldots, s. (See the Figure ?.)

   The paper has a figure here, which this page does not show.

   By Camacho-Sad formula (Theorem 1.23), we have, for any u\in U, that

   -2 = E_{0,1,u}^2 = \textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{0,1,u},p_{0,1,u}) \mbox{ and } -2 = E_{0,2,u}^2 = \textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{0,2,u},p_{0,2,u}).

   So p_{0,1,u} and p_{0,2,u} are reduced. Thus,

   \begin{aligned} E_{1,u}^2 &= \textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{1,u},p_{1,u}) + \textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{1,u},p_{0,1,u}) + \textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{1,u},p_{0,2,u}) \\ &= \textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{1,u},p_{1,u})-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}. \end{aligned}

   Hence \lambda_1 := \textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{1,u},p_{1,u}) = E_{1,u}^2+1\leq -1.

   Claim.

   For all k=1, \ldots, s, \lambda_k := \textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{k,u},p_{k,u}) are negative rational numbers at most -1 and p_{k,u} are reduced non-degenerate singularities.

   Pf.

   We have shown that this holds when k=1. Assume the claim holds for k-1.

   -2\geq E_{k,u}^2 = \textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{k,u}, p_{k-1,u})+\textnormal{CS}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{k,u},p_{k,u}) = \frac{1}{\lambda_{k-1}} + \lambda_{k}.

   Thus, \lambda_k\leq -2-\frac{1}{\lambda_{k-1}}\leq -2+1=-1. Hence, \lambda_k is a negative rational number at most -1. Therefore, p_{k,u} is also a reduced non-degenerate singularity. This completes the proof of the claim.

   So the contraction of E_u introduces a dihedral singularity.

8. Let E = \bigcup_{i=1}^sE_i be a connected component of exceptional divisors such that E_{t_0} = \bigcup_{i=1}^sE_{i,t_0} is an elliptic Gorenstein leaf. Then E_u = \bigcup_{i=1}^sE_{i,u} is also an elliptic Gorenstein leaf for all u\in U. By Lemma 7.2, all singularities on E_u are reduced and non-degenerate. Therefore, the contraction of E_u introduces a cusp singularity.

9. (Cyclic non-terminal canonical foliation singularities) Let E = \bigcup_{i=1}^sE_i be a connected component of exceptional divisors such that the contraction of E_{t_0} = \bigcup_{i=1}^sE_{i,t_0} gives a cyclic non-terminal foliation singularity such that E_{i,t_0} are invariant for all i.

   Then E_{t_0} is a chain of (-2)-{\mathcal{G}}_{t_0}-curves. Thus E_u is also a chain of (-2)-{\mathcal{G}}_u-curves for u\in U. By Lemma 7.1, we have the following two cases.

   1. In the first case, all singularities are reduced. So the contraction of E_u introduces a canonical foliation singularity.

   2. In the second case, if all p_{i,u} are reduced (see Figure ?), then the contraction of E_u introduces a canonical foliation singularity as well.

      The paper has a figure here, which this page does not show.
      Claim.

      If there is an i such that p_{i,u} is not reduced, then all p_{j,u} are non-degenerate for j\neq i.

      Pf.

      Suppose not, then one of p_{i-1,u} and p_{i+1,u} is a saddle-node. Without loss of generality, we assume that p_{i+1,u} is a saddle-node and

      \textnormal{Z}({\mathcal{G}}_u,E_{i+1,u},p_{i,u})\leq 0.

      Let W_i be the irreducible component of the singularities of {\mathcal{G}} containing p_{i,u}. By Lemma 7.3, we have a holomorphic map \lambda_i : W_i \longrightarrow {\mathbb P}^1. Note that W_i is connected and locally path-connected (in the analytic topology). We have that W_i is path-connected. Note that the claim holds true when \lambda is a constant function. So we now assume that \lambda is not a constant function.

      There is a sequence \{w_j\}_{j=1}^\infty converging to p_{i,u} such that \lambda_i(w_j) is not a positive rational and converges to \lambda(p_{i,u}). For any w_{j} close to p_{i,u}, there are only two separatrices, one of which is E_{i+1,\pi(w_j)}. So we may assume E_{i+1,\pi(w_j)} converges to E_{i+1,u}. Thus \textnormal{Z}({\mathcal{G}}_u, E_{i+1,u},p_{i,u}) = 1, which gives a contradiction.

      This completes the proof of the claim.

      Therefore, the contraction of E_u introduces a mild log canonical foliation singularity.

10. Let E = \bigcup_{i=1}^sE_i be a connected component of exceptional divisors such that the contraction of E_{t_0} = \bigcup_{i=1}^sE_{i,t_0} gives a cyclic non-canonical foliation singularity. So there is a unique j\in\{1, \ldots, s\} such that E_{j,t_0} is non-invariant. Since being non-invariant is an open condition, by shrinking U further, we may assume that E_{u,t_0} is non-invariant for all u\in U.

    By (?), when u varies, we know that \bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_{i,u} and \bigcup_{i=j+1}^{s}E_{i,u} have the same structures, respectively. Therefore, the contraction of E_u introduces a mild log canonical foliation singularities.

11. Fix any u\in U, we may contract all E_u where E is any relative (K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Theta)-trivial curve. It will end up with a foliated surface (Z,{\mathscr{H}}) with

    K_{{\mathcal{G}}_u}+\Theta_u = \pi^*K_{\mathscr{H}}

    where \pi : Y \longrightarrow Z is the contraction morphism.

    Claim.

    There is no K_{{\mathscr{H}}}-trivial curve C with C^2<0.

    Pf.

    Suppose C is a K_{\mathscr{H}}-trivial curve with C^2<0. Then the proper transform \widetilde{C} on Y is a (K_{{\mathcal{G}}_u}+\Theta_u)-trivial curve. Note that \widetilde{C}^2\leq C^2<0. Also, by Corollary 3.12, this \widetilde{C} moves in a family \mathscr{C} with \mathscr{C}_u = \widetilde{C}. However, \mathscr{C}_{t_0}^2 = \mathscr{C}_{u}^2 = \widetilde{C}^2<0 and

    (K_{{\mathcal{G}}_{t_0}}+\Theta_{t_0})\cdot\mathscr{C}_{t_0} = (K_{{\mathcal{G}}_u}+\Theta_u)\cdot\mathscr{C}_u = K_{\mathscr{H}}\cdot C = 0.

    Therefore, \mathscr{C} is a relative (K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Theta)-trivial curve. Hence, \widetilde{C} = \mathscr{C}_u is contracted by \pi, which gives a contradiction. This completes the proof of the claim.

    Therefore, (Z,{\mathscr{H}}) is a log canonical model and hence ({\mathcal{X}},{\mathcal{F}},\Delta)_u\in{\mathcal{S}}_P for any u\in U.

More explicitly, (a) comes from the generic smoothness. For others, let

where the union is taken over all irreducible components C of singularities of {\mathcal{G}} and of exceptional divisors of g, which are not finite over U. Let

where the union is taken over all distinct irreducible components C_i and C_j of singularities of {\mathcal{G}}. Let

where the union is taken over all irreducible components C of singularity of {\mathcal{G}} and all irreducible components E of exceptional divisors of g such that C\cap E is neither C nor empty.

Note that S_1, S_2, and S_3 are all proper closed subsets of U. So by replacing U by U\setminus (S_1\cup S_2\cup S_3), conditions (a)-(d) hold. The condition (e) can be achieved since being non-invariant is an open condition.

We have shown that this holds when k=1. Assume the claim holds for k-1. By Camacho-Sad formula (Theorem 1.23) and Lemma 1.24, we have that

Thus, \lambda_k\leq -2-\frac{1}{\lambda_{k-1}}<-2+1=-1. Hence, \lambda_k is a negative rational number less than -1. Therefore, p_{k,u} is also a reduced non-degenerate singularity. This completes the proof of the claim.

We have shown that this holds when k=1. Assume the claim holds for k-1.

Thus, \lambda_k\leq -2-\frac{1}{\lambda_{k-1}}\leq -2+1=-1. Hence, \lambda_k is a negative rational number at most -1. Therefore, p_{k,u} is also a reduced non-degenerate singularity. This completes the proof of the claim.

So the contraction of E_u introduces a dihedral singularity.

Suppose not, then one of p_{i-1,u} and p_{i+1,u} is a saddle-node. Without loss of generality, we assume that p_{i+1,u} is a saddle-node and

Let W_i be the irreducible component of the singularities of {\mathcal{G}} containing p_{i,u}. By Lemma 7.3, we have a holomorphic map \lambda_i : W_i \longrightarrow {\mathbb P}^1. Note that W_i is connected and locally path-connected (in the analytic topology). We have that W_i is path-connected. Note that the claim holds true when \lambda is a constant function. So we now assume that \lambda is not a constant function.

There is a sequence \{w_j\}_{j=1}^\infty converging to p_{i,u} such that \lambda_i(w_j) is not a positive rational and converges to \lambda(p_{i,u}). For any w_{j} close to p_{i,u}, there are only two separatrices, one of which is E_{i+1,\pi(w_j)}. So we may assume E_{i+1,\pi(w_j)} converges to E_{i+1,u}. Thus \textnormal{Z}({\mathcal{G}}_u, E_{i+1,u},p_{i,u}) = 1, which gives a contradiction.

This completes the proof of the claim.

Suppose C is a K_{\mathscr{H}}-trivial curve with C^2<0. Then the proper transform \widetilde{C} on Y is a (K_{{\mathcal{G}}_u}+\Theta_u)-trivial curve. Note that \widetilde{C}^2\leq C^2<0. Also, by Corollary 3.12, this \widetilde{C} moves in a family \mathscr{C} with \mathscr{C}_u = \widetilde{C}. However, \mathscr{C}_{t_0}^2 = \mathscr{C}_{u}^2 = \widetilde{C}^2<0 and

Therefore, \mathscr{C} is a relative (K_{\mathcal{G}}+\Theta)-trivial curve. Hence, \widetilde{C} = \mathscr{C}_u is contracted by \pi, which gives a contradiction. This completes the proof of the claim.