Building on previous works by Bilu, Chambert-Loir and Loeser, we study the asymptotic behaviour of the moduli space of sections of a given family over a smooth projective curve, assuming that the generic fiber is an equivariant compactification of a finite dimensional vector space. Working in a suitable Grothendieck ring of varieties, we show that the class of these moduli spaces converges, modulo an adequate normalisation, to a non-zero effective element, when the class of the sections goes arbitrary far from the boundary of the dual of the effective cone. The limit can be interpreted as a motivic Euler product in the sense of Bilu’s thesis. This result provides a positive answer to a motivic version of the Batyrev-Manin-Peyre conjectures in this particular setting.
Let \pi : \mathscr{X} \to C be a family as above, with \mathscr{U} = \mathscr{X}. Then
converges in the completion of \mathscr M _ k for the weight topology, when \min ( n_\alpha )_{\alpha \in \mathscr{A}} \to \infty. Furthermore, the limit is a non-zero effective element which can be interpreted as a motivic Euler product in the sense of Bilu’s thesis [bilu2018motivic].
Consider a R-variety X and \mathscr{X} = ( X_i )_{i\in I } a family of elements of \mathrm A_X. Then the product
is defined as a notation for the formal series
where \mathbf{T} = ( T_i )_{i\in I} is a family of indeterminates indexed by the set I and \mathbf{T}^\pi stands for \prod_{i\in I} T_i^{n_i} for every partition \pi \in \mathbf{N}^{(I)}.
Let R be a variety, X be a R-variety and \mathscr{X} = ( X_i )_{i\in I} be a family of elements of \mathrm A_X.
The Euler product notation is compatible with the X=R case:
The Euler product notation is associative: if X=U\cup Y with Y a closed subscheme of X and U its complement, then
when considering the Euler products of the restrictions \mathscr Y = (X_i \times_X Y )_{i\in I} and \mathscr{U} = {( X_i \times_X U )_{i\in I}}.
As a consequence of the previous identity, the Euler product notation is compatible with finite products: if X is a finite disjoint union of varieties Y_1, ... , Y_m isomorphic to R, and if (Y_{i,j})_{i\in I} is the restriction of \mathscr{X} to Y_j for j=1 , .... , m, then
Let R be a variety, X a variety over R, \mathscr{A} = ( A_{{\mathbf{m}}})_{\mathbf{m}\in \mathbf{N}^r } a family of effective elements of \mathrm A_R, and \mathscr{B} = (B_{{\mathbf{m}}})_{\mathbf{m}\in \mathbf{N}^r } a family of elements of \mathrm A_R such that A_\mathbf 0=B_\mathbf 0=1. Then
in \mathrm A_R [[\mathbf T]].
Let M\leqslant N and n\geqslant 1 be integers. A (local) motivic Schwartz-Bruhat function of level (M,N) on K^n is an element of \mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M}_{\mathbf A_k^{n(M,N)}}.
Let D be a schematic point of S^{{\mathbf{n}}}C and \Phi_D an element of the fibre \mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M}_{\mathscr{A}_{{\mathbf{n}}} ( a , b, M , N )_D }. Then
If \Phi is an uniformly smooth family of Schwartz-Bruhat functions, then its Fourier transform \mathscr F \Phi is uniformly compactly supported and one has
in \mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M}_k.
Let h be a motivic residual function, which we assume to be of the form [H,f]_{\mathscr L_m ( \mathscr Y ) } with H a variety over \mathscr L_m ( \mathscr Y) for some m and f : H \to \mathbf A^1 a morphism. The integral of h over \mathscr L ( \mathscr Y ) is the element of \mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M}_k
Let X be a complex variety. There exists a weight function
satisfying the following properties.
w_X ( 0 ) = - \infty
w_X ( \mathfrak a + \mathfrak a ' ) \leqslant \max ( w_X ( \mathfrak a ), w_X ( \mathfrak a ' ) ) with equality if w_X ( \mathfrak a ) \neq w_X ( \mathfrak a ' ), for any \mathfrak{a}, \mathfrak{a}' \in \mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M}_X.
If \mathscr{A} = ( \mathfrak a_i ) _{i\in I} is a family of \mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M}_X indexed by a set I and \pi = ( n_i )_{i\in I } \in \mathbf{N}^{(I)} then
If Y \to X is a variety over X then
If p : Y \to X and q : Z \to X are smooth morphisms with fibres of dimension d\geqslant 0 and Y,Z irreducible, then
The completion of \mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M} _X with respect to the weight topology is
Let F(T)=\sum_{i\geqslant 0} X_i T^i be a formal power series with coefficients in \mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M} _X. The radius of convergence of F is defined by
We say that F converges for |T|<\mathbf{L}^{-r} if r\geqslant \sigma_F.
Fix \rho \in \mathbf Z_{\geqslant 1}^r and let P(\mathbf{T} ) = \sum_{{\mathbf{m}} \in \mathbf{N}^r} \mathfrak p_{{\mathbf{m}}} \mathbf{T}^{\mathbf{m}} and Q( \mathbf{T} ) = \sum_{{\mathbf{m}} \in \mathbf{N}^r} \mathfrak q_{{\mathbf{m}}} \mathbf{T}^{\mathbf{m}} be two formal series with coefficients in \mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M}_X. Assume that they converge \rho-weight-linearly at \mathbf{T}_\alpha = \mathbf{L}^{-\rho_\alpha}, which means that \sum_{{\mathbf{m}} \in \mathbf{N}^r} \mathfrak p _{{\mathbf{m}}} \mathbf{L}^{-\langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle } and \sum_{{\mathbf{m}} \in \mathbf{N}^r} \mathfrak q_{{\mathbf{m}}} \mathbf{L}^{-\langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle } are \rho-weight-linearly convergent. Then the product R ( \mathbf{T} ) = P ( \mathbf{T} ) Q (\mathbf{T} ) converges \rho-weight-linearly at \mathbf{T}_\alpha = \mathbf{L}^{-\rho_\alpha}.
The {\mathbf{m}}-th coefficient of R(\mathbf{T}) is given by
Let \delta , \delta ' > 0 and i_0, i_0' \in \mathbf{N} be such that
Then by Proposition 2.1
There is only a finite number of indices {\mathbf{m}} ' such that \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} ' \rangle < i_0. Fix such an {\mathbf{m}}'. Then for {\mathbf{m}} such that \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle is sufficiently large
The case when \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} - {\mathbf{m}} ' \rangle < i_0 ' is symmetric, and the last case \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} ' \rangle \geqslant i_0 and \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} - {\mathbf{m}} ' \rangle \geqslant i_0 ' is left to the reader. This shows the existence of j_0\in \mathbf{N} such that
for any {\mathbf{m}} such that \langle {\mathbf{m}} , \rho \rangle \geqslant j_0. Thus R ( \mathbf{T} ) converges \rho-weight-linearly at \mathbf{T}_\alpha = \mathbf{L}^{-\rho_\alpha}.
The {\mathbf{m}}-th coefficient of R(\mathbf{T}) is given by
Let \delta , \delta ' > 0 and i_0, i_0' \in \mathbf{N} be such that
Then by Proposition 2.1
There is only a finite number of indices {\mathbf{m}} ' such that \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} ' \rangle < i_0. Fix such an {\mathbf{m}}'. Then for {\mathbf{m}} such that \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle is sufficiently large
The case when \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} - {\mathbf{m}} ' \rangle < i_0 ' is symmetric, and the last case \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} ' \rangle \geqslant i_0 and \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} - {\mathbf{m}} ' \rangle \geqslant i_0 ' is left to the reader. This shows the existence of j_0\in \mathbf{N} such that
for any {\mathbf{m}} such that \langle {\mathbf{m}} , \rho \rangle \geqslant j_0. Thus R ( \mathbf{T} ) converges \rho-weight-linearly at \mathbf{T}_\alpha = \mathbf{L}^{-\rho_\alpha}.
Let \sum_{{\mathbf{m}} \in \mathbf{N}^r } \mathfrak c_{{\mathbf{m}}} \mathbf{T}^{\mathbf{m}} be a
convergent sum at \mathfrak a with coefficients in \mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M}_X and \varepsilon \in \{0,1\}^r \setminus \{ \mathbf 0 \}. For any {\mathbf{m}} = ( m_i)_{i=1}^r \in \mathbf{N}^r we write \langle \varepsilon , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^r \varepsilon_i m_i. Then
tends to zero in \widehat{\mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M}_X} when \min_{1\leqslant i \leqslant r} ( m_i ) \to \infty.
If moreover \sum_{{\mathbf{m}} \in \mathbf{N}^r } \mathfrak c_{{\mathbf{m}}} \mathbf{T}^{\mathbf{m}} is weight linearly-convergent at \mathfrak a with respect to some given {\rho \in \mathbf Z_{\geqslant 1}^r}, then there exist \delta > 0 and i_0 \in \mathbf{N} such that
whenever \langle \varepsilon , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle \geqslant i_0.
In the proof we write \mathfrak c_{{\mathbf{m}}} for \mathfrak c_{{\mathbf{m}}} \mathfrak a ^{{\mathbf{m}} }. Fix an A \in \mathbf Z. There exists {\mathbf{m}}_0 \in \mathbf{N}^r such that
Set \omega = \max ( w_X ( \mathfrak c_{{\mathbf{m}}} \mid {\mathbf{m}} \leqslant {\mathbf{m}}_0 )). On one hand if {\mathbf{m}} ' \leqslant {\mathbf{m}}_0 one has
if \min ( m_i ) is large enough. On the other hand {\mathbf{m}} ' \nleqslant {\mathbf{m}}_0 implies w_X \left ( \mathfrak c_{{\mathbf{m}} '} \mathbf{L}^{-\langle \varepsilon , {\mathbf{m}} - {\mathbf{m}} ' \rangle} \right ) < A. Thus applying Proposition 2.1 one gets
for any {\mathbf{m}} sufficiently large. This proves the lemma.
Now we assume that there exist i_0 \in \mathbf{N} and \delta >0 such that
whenever \langle {\mathbf{m}} , \rho \rangle \geqslant i_0. Remark that since we assumed that \rho \in \mathbf{Z}_{\geqslant 1}^r and \varepsilon \in \{ 0 , 1 \}^r, we have
for all {\mathbf{m}} \in \mathbf{N}^r. On one hand, if \langle {\mathbf{m}} ' , \rho \rangle < i_0, then
whenever \langle \varepsilon , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle > 2 ( \omega ' + i_0 ) and \omega ' = \max ( w_X ( \mathfrak c_{{\mathbf{m}}} \mid \langle {\mathbf{m}} ' , \rho \rangle < i_0 )). On the other hand, if \langle {\mathbf{m}} ' , \rho \rangle \geqslant i_0 then w_X ( \mathfrak c_{{\mathbf{m}} ' } ) < - \delta \langle {\mathbf{m}} ' , \rho \rangle. In particular, we have this last inequality if \langle \varepsilon , {\mathbf{m}} ' \rangle \geqslant i_0. Finally by Proposition 2.1
for all {\mathbf{m}} such that \langle \varepsilon , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle \geqslant 2 ( \omega ' + i_0 ) + 1.
In the proof we write \mathfrak c_{{\mathbf{m}}} for \mathfrak c_{{\mathbf{m}}} \mathfrak a ^{{\mathbf{m}} }. Fix an A \in \mathbf Z. There exists {\mathbf{m}}_0 \in \mathbf{N}^r such that
Set \omega = \max ( w_X ( \mathfrak c_{{\mathbf{m}}} \mid {\mathbf{m}} \leqslant {\mathbf{m}}_0 )). On one hand if {\mathbf{m}} ' \leqslant {\mathbf{m}}_0 one has
if \min ( m_i ) is large enough. On the other hand {\mathbf{m}} ' \nleqslant {\mathbf{m}}_0 implies w_X \left ( \mathfrak c_{{\mathbf{m}} '} \mathbf{L}^{-\langle \varepsilon , {\mathbf{m}} - {\mathbf{m}} ' \rangle} \right ) < A. Thus applying Proposition 2.1 one gets
for any {\mathbf{m}} sufficiently large. This proves the lemma.
Now we assume that there exist i_0 \in \mathbf{N} and \delta >0 such that
whenever \langle {\mathbf{m}} , \rho \rangle \geqslant i_0. Remark that since we assumed that \rho \in \mathbf{Z}_{\geqslant 1}^r and \varepsilon \in \{ 0 , 1 \}^r, we have
for all {\mathbf{m}} \in \mathbf{N}^r. On one hand, if \langle {\mathbf{m}} ' , \rho \rangle < i_0, then
whenever \langle \varepsilon , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle > 2 ( \omega ' + i_0 ) and \omega ' = \max ( w_X ( \mathfrak c_{{\mathbf{m}}} \mid \langle {\mathbf{m}} ' , \rho \rangle < i_0 )). On the other hand, if \langle {\mathbf{m}} ' , \rho \rangle \geqslant i_0 then w_X ( \mathfrak c_{{\mathbf{m}} ' } ) < - \delta \langle {\mathbf{m}} ' , \rho \rangle. In particular, we have this last inequality if \langle \varepsilon , {\mathbf{m}} ' \rangle \geqslant i_0. Finally by Proposition 2.1
for all {\mathbf{m}} such that \langle \varepsilon , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle \geqslant 2 ( \omega ' + i_0 ) + 1.
Fix a complex variety X, an integer r\geqslant 1 and an r-tuple \rho \in \mathbf Z_{\geqslant 1}^r. Let \mathscr{X} be a family (X_{\mathbf{m}} )_{{\mathbf{m}} \in \mathbf{N}^r \setminus \{ \mathbf 0 \}} of elements of \mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M} _X. Assume that
there exist an integer M\geqslant 0 and real numbers \varepsilon > 0, \alpha < 1 and \beta such that
w_X (X_{{\mathbf{m}}} ) \leqslant \left ( \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle - \frac{1}{2} - \varepsilon \right ) w(X) whenever 1 \leqslant \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle \leqslant M;
w_X ( X_{{\mathbf{m}}}) \leqslant \left ( \alpha \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle + \beta - \frac{1}{2} \right ) w(X) whenever \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle > M.
Let \mathfrak b_{{\mathbf{m}}} be the coefficient of multidegree {\mathbf{m}} \in \mathbf{N}^r of the Euler product
Then there exists \delta \in \left ]0,\frac{1}{2}\right ] and \delta ' > 0 such that
for every \mathbf{m}\in \mathbf{N}^r \setminus \{ \mathbf 0 \} and \mathfrak a_1 , ... , \mathfrak a_r \in \mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M}_\mathbf C such that w( \mathfrak a_i ) < - w ( X ) \left ( 1 - \delta + \frac{\beta }{M+1} \right ) for all 1\leqslant i \leqslant r. In particular, the Euler product
converges for |T|<\mathbf{L}^{-\frac{w(X)}{2}\left ( 1 - \delta + \frac{\beta}{M+1}\right )} and takes non-zero values for |T| \leqslant \mathbf{L} ^ {-\frac{w(X)}{2}\left ( 1 - \eta + \frac{\beta}{M+1}\right )} for any 0\leqslant \eta <\delta.
By definition of the motivic Euler product notation, for every {\mathbf{m}} \in \mathbf{N}^r the coefficient \mathfrak b_{\mathbf{m}} is given by the sum
Since w ( \mathfrak b_{{\mathbf{m}}} ) is smaller or equal to \max ( \{ w ( S^\pi \mathscr{X} ) \mid \pi \text{ partition of } {\mathbf{m}} \} ), it is enough to find a uniform bound for the weight of S^\pi \mathscr{X}. So we fix \pi = ( n_\mathbf i )_{\mathbf i\in \mathbf{N}^r \setminus \{ \mathbf 0 \}} a partition of {\mathbf{m}}, that is such that \sum_{\mathbf i\in \mathbf{N}^r \setminus \{ \mathbf 0 \} } n_\mathbf i \mathbf i = {\mathbf{m}}. Then
where \delta \in \left ] 0 , \frac{1}{2} \right ] is given by 1-\delta = \max \left ( 1 - \frac{\varepsilon}{M} , \alpha \right ) if M\neq 0 and \delta = 1- \alpha otherwise. This proves the first part of the proposition.
To conclude the proof, remark that if w ( \mathfrak a_k ) < - w ( X ) \left ( 1 - \eta_k + \frac{\beta }{M+1} \right ) for some 0\leqslant \eta_k < \delta, for all integer k in \{ 1 , ... , r\}, then the weight of S^\pi \mathscr{X} \mathfrak a_1^{\rho_1 m_1} \cdots \mathfrak a_r^{\rho_r m_r} is negative for any {\mathbf{m}} non-zero and any partition of {\mathbf{m}}. This argument shows that the product takes a non-zero value at \mathfrak a : it is equal to 1 plus some terms of negative weight.
By definition of the motivic Euler product notation, for every {\mathbf{m}} \in \mathbf{N}^r the coefficient \mathfrak b_{\mathbf{m}} is given by the sum
Since w ( \mathfrak b_{{\mathbf{m}}} ) is smaller or equal to \max ( \{ w ( S^\pi \mathscr{X} ) \mid \pi \text{ partition of } {\mathbf{m}} \} ), it is enough to find a uniform bound for the weight of S^\pi \mathscr{X}. So we fix \pi = ( n_\mathbf i )_{\mathbf i\in \mathbf{N}^r \setminus \{ \mathbf 0 \}} a partition of {\mathbf{m}}, that is such that \sum_{\mathbf i\in \mathbf{N}^r \setminus \{ \mathbf 0 \} } n_\mathbf i \mathbf i = {\mathbf{m}}. Then
where \delta \in \left ] 0 , \frac{1}{2} \right ] is given by 1-\delta = \max \left ( 1 - \frac{\varepsilon}{M} , \alpha \right ) if M\neq 0 and \delta = 1- \alpha otherwise. This proves the first part of the proposition.
To conclude the proof, remark that if w ( \mathfrak a_k ) < - w ( X ) \left ( 1 - \eta_k + \frac{\beta }{M+1} \right ) for some 0\leqslant \eta_k < \delta, for all integer k in \{ 1 , ... , r\}, then the weight of S^\pi \mathscr{X} \mathfrak a_1^{\rho_1 m_1} \cdots \mathfrak a_r^{\rho_r m_r} is negative for any {\mathbf{m}} non-zero and any partition of {\mathbf{m}}. This argument shows that the product takes a non-zero value at \mathfrak a : it is equal to 1 plus some terms of negative weight.
Let \mathbf{U} = \left ( \mathbf{U}_0 , ( \mathbf{U}_s )_{s\in S} \right ) be a family of indeterminates indexed by the set
and let
for all \beta\in \prod_{v} \mathscr{B}^\mathscr{U}_v.
We define the refined motivic height zeta function \mathscr{Z} ( \mathbf{U} ) by
where
for every \beta \in \prod_{v} \mathscr{B}^\mathscr{U}_v.
By definition, the specialisation of \mathscr{Z} ( \mathbf{U} ) obtained by replacing respectively {\mathbf{U}_0 = (U_\alpha )_{\alpha \in \mathscr{A}_U}} by (T_\alpha )_{\alpha \in \mathscr{A}_U} and {\mathbf{U}_s = (U_{\alpha , s} )_{\alpha \in \mathscr{A}_D} } by (T_\alpha)_{\alpha \in \mathscr{A}_D}, for every s\in S, is the coarse zeta function Z ( \mathbf{T} ). Furthermore, if C_0 = C and \mathscr{U} = \mathscr{X} then this refined function \mathscr{Z} coincides with the coarse one Z, since in that case S=\varnothing and \mathscr{A} = \mathscr{A}_U. A similar remark can be done for \mathscr{Z}^\beta and Z^\beta.
Remark that for any character \xi and place v \in C_0 ( k ) we have a decomposition
where Z_{v,A}^{\beta_v} ( \mathbf{T} , \xi ) only depends on the indeterminates (T_\alpha )_{\alpha \in A}.
This remark remains valid for places s of S, if one just replaces \mathscr{A}_U by \mathscr{A} in the decomposition above, and adapting this decomposition to \mathscr{Z} ( \mathbf{U} , \xi ) is straightforward.
For any place v of C we set
The product
is \rho-weight-linearly convergent at T_\alpha = \mathbf{L}^{-\rho_\alpha } and the resulting sum is a non-zero effective element of \widehat{ \mathscr M_k}.
The proof is essentially the same as the one of Proposition 6.3.5.2 of [bilu2018motivic]. We write down the details here for the sake of completeness. In particular, it is important to check that we are in the situation of Proposition 2.6, in order to obtain linear convergence with respect to \rho.
It is enough to prove convergence for places of the dense open subset C_1 of C_0. Furthermore one can assume \mathscr{A}_U = \mathscr{A}. For a place v\in C_1 the local factor F_v ( \mathbf{T}, 0 ) = \prod_{\alpha \in \mathscr{A}} ( 1 - \mathbf{L}^{\rho_\alpha -1} \mathbf T ) Z_v ( \mathbf{T} , 0 ) is given by
If we expand the product over \mathscr{A} \setminus A for any A\subset \mathscr{A} we get
and
Remark that [\Delta_v ( \varnothing ) ] = [\mathbf G_a ^n ] = \mathbf{L}^n. Then the previous sums can be decomposed with respect to the cardinalities of the sets A and B:
The definition of \Delta_v ( A ) gives the equality of classes
for every \alpha \in \mathscr{A}. Finally
where P_v ( \mathbf{T} ) is the polynomial
Let us analyse the dimensions of the coefficients of this polynomial term by term, and compare them to the multidegrees of the corresponding monomials. In the sum of the first line, since |B|\geqslant 2, the corresponding coefficient has dimension at most -2 + \sum_{\alpha \in B} \rho_\alpha. Here the corresponding monomial is \mathbf{T} ^{\mathbf{m}} with m_\alpha = 1 if \alpha \in B and 0 otherwise; thus \sum_{\alpha \in B } \rho_\alpha = \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle. Concerning the sum of the second line, since we assumed that \mathscr{X} is a good model, the dimension of \Delta_v ( A ' \cup \{ \alpha \} ) is at most n - 2 and the whole coefficient has dimension at most \rho_\alpha -2. This remark still applies to the coefficients of the third and last sum when |A|\geqslant 2: they have dimension at most -2 + \sum_{\alpha \in A\cup B} \rho_\alpha. It corresponds to the monomial \mathbf T^{\mathbf{m}} with m_\alpha = 1 if \alpha \in A \cup B and 0 otherwise; thus \langle \rho , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle = \sum_{\alpha \in A\cup B} \rho_\alpha. Finally, in the case |A|=1, then |A\cup B|\geqslant 2 and the relation
ensures that the dimension of the corresponding coefficient is again at most -2 + \sum_{\alpha \in A\cup B} \rho_\alpha.
Remark that our computations do not depend on v in the sense that there exist polynomials F ( \mathbf{T} , 0 ) and P ( \mathbf{T} ) with coefficients in \mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M}_{C_1}, such that their pull-backs by v are respectively F_v and P_v. Therefore we will be able to use Proposition 2.6 with X=C_1, { \varepsilon = \frac{1}{2}}, { M=\deg ( P ( (T^{\rho_\alpha} )_{\alpha \in \mathscr{A}} )) } and \beta = 0 so that the first condition of Proposition 2.6 becomes in our case
By the last property of the weight recalled in Proposition 2.1, we obtain the crucial argument of this proof, which is the inequality
As Bilu points out in [bilu2018motivic, Remarks 6.3.4.2-3], the bounds on dimensions obtained in the previous paragraph ensure that the coefficients of multidegree {\mathbf{m}} of P_v ( \mathbf{T} ) satisfy (?). Thus we can apply Proposition 2.6 and \rho-weight-linear convergence over C_1 at T_\alpha = \mathbf{L}^{-\rho_\alpha} follows. Since the Euler product notation is compatible with finite products and since we already know that the local factors converge weight-linearly, applying Lemma 2.4 we deduce that the \rho-weight-linear convergence holds for the product over C_0.
Since for any place v\in C_1 the fibre \mathscr{U}_v is the disjoint union of all the \Delta_v ( A) for A\subset \mathscr{A}_U, and in general E_{\beta , v } is the disjoint union of all the \Delta_v ( A , \beta ), it is straightforward to check that the value at T_\alpha =\mathbf{L}^{-\rho_\alpha '} of the motivic Euler product \prod_{v\in C_0} \mathbf{T}^{\mathbf e^{\beta_v}} F_v^\beta ( \mathbf{T} , 0 ) is
The local term \mathbf{L}^{\rho^{\beta_v} - \langle \rho , \mathbf e^\beta \rangle } [ E_{\beta_v} ^\circ ]\mathbf{L}^{-n } (which is just [\mathscr{U}_v]\mathbf{L}^{-n} if v\in C_1) can be interpreted as the motivic integral
over the adelic space G(F_v , \beta_v ) = \{ g \in G ( F_v ) \mid ( g , E_{\beta_v } ) = 1 \}. By [chambert2016motivic, Lemma 6.1.1] this integral can we rewritten as the motivic integral over arc spaces
This comes from the fact that \mathscr{X} ( \mathcal O_v ) = X ( F_v ) so that one can view G( F) as a subset of \mathscr{X} ( \mathcal O_v ) and any Schwartz-Bruhat function on G(F_v) as a motivic function on \mathscr{L} ( \mathscr{X} ), see [chambert2016motivic, § 6.1].
For any place v and any non-trivial character \xi, we write
The product
is weight-linearly convergent with respect to \rho at T_\alpha = \mathbf{L}^{-\rho_\alpha } and the resulting sum is a non-zero effective element of \widehat{ \mathscr M_k}.
Once again it is enough to check convergence on the dense subset C_1 \subset C. In order to apply Proposition 2.6, one has to bound the weight of the coefficients of F_v (\mathbf{T}, \xi ). We start by doing this for Z_v ( \mathbf{T} , \xi ).
First, the divisor of f_\xi can be written
where \Xi_\xi is the Zariski-closure of \{ \langle x , \xi \rangle = 0 \} in X. Over a place v\in C_1, one has \mathscr{B}^\mathscr{U}_v = \{ \beta_v \} and the local factor Z_v(\mathbf{T} , \xi ) can be written Z_v (\mathbf{T} , \xi ) = \sum_{A\subset \mathscr{A}_U} Z_{v,A} ( \mathbf{T} , \xi ) with
as we already pointed out in Remark 3.3. It is possible to compute or at least bound the weight of this integral. We refer to [bilu2018motivic, § 6.3.5.2] for the details of such computations; in this proof we will restrict ourselves to giving a list of results we need to apply Proposition 2.6. In particular we obtain weight-linear convergence of the Euler product \prod_{v\in C_1} F_v ( \mathbf{T} , \xi ). In what follows \mathscr{X}_{\mathcal O_v} is written \mathscr{X} for conciseness and the index v may be dropped.
If A=\varnothing then the integral above equals one. If A= \{ \alpha \} the intermediate step is to cut the integral into two pieces: one part corresponding to arcs with origin in the zero divisor \Xi_\xi of f_\xi and another part corresponding to arcs with origin outside \Xi_\xi.
Then there are several cases to distinguish, according to the order of the pole of f_\xi at D_\alpha. On one hand, concerning arcs with origins outside \Xi_\xi, one has the following results.
If d_\alpha (\xi ) = 0 then
If d_\alpha (\xi ) =1 then
Since \dim ( D_\alpha^\circ \setminus \Xi_\xi ) = n-1, one has the following upper bound on the weight
If d_\alpha (\xi ) > 1 then this integral equals zero.
On the other hand, concerning arcs with origin in \Xi_\xi, the corresponding integral can be rewritten
By (?), the weight of the coefficient of order m is smaller than the weight of the motivic volume
One has the upper bound on dimensions
and thus on weights
Setting c = \underset{\alpha \in \mathscr{A}_U}{\max}\left ( 1 - \frac{1}{2\rho_\alpha } \right ) as in [bilu2018motivic], one gets 2\rho_\alpha - 1 \leqslant 2 \rho_\alpha c for every \alpha \in \mathscr{A}_U and
Now if |A | \geqslant 2 the idea is similar. The corresponding local term is
The volume of the constructible subsets of \Omega_v ( A) over which integration is done is actually
By definition of D_A^\circ, it has dimension at most n-|A|. Thus the dimension of the integral is at most - \sum_{\alpha \in A} m_\alpha and, using again the inequality of § ?, the weight of the {\mathbf{m}}-th coefficient of Z_{v,A} ( \mathbf{T} , \xi ) is bounded by
To summarize, we obtained
The last step of the proof consists in multiplying by \prod_{\alpha \in \mathscr{A}_U^0 (\xi )} \left ( 1 - \mathbf{L}^{\rho_\alpha -1 }T_\alpha \right ). This operation does not affect the bounds we need in order to apply Proposition 2.6, since \rho_\alpha - 1 \leqslant c\rho_\alpha, and allows one to control the diverging term
in the expression of Z_v ( \mathbf{T} , \xi ). One gets
where P_v ( \mathbf{T}, \xi ) is a Laurent series consisting of terms satisfying the bounds of Proposition 2.6 for
Finally, by Proposition 2.1 one has for every \alpha \in \mathscr{A}_U^0 ( \xi)
Our analysis shows that we can apply Proposition 2.6 with X=C_1, \varepsilon = \frac{1}{2}, M arbitrary and \beta = 0. The result follows.
The previous proof shows that the weight-linear convergence of \prod_{v\in C_1} F_ v ( \mathbf{T} , \xi ) with respect to \rho is uniform on each set of a finite partition of V\setminus \{ 0\} given by
(recall that V is the n-th power of the Riemann-Roch space of the divisor \tilde{E} (?)).
There exists a decomposition
and a real number \delta >0 such that for all \varepsilon \in \{ 0 , 1\}^{\mathscr{A} } \setminus \{ \mathbf 0 \}
while
when \min_{\alpha \in \mathscr{A}} ( m_\alpha ) tends to infinity.
There exists a decomposition
and a positive real number \delta_\xi > 0 (which only depends on the d_\alpha ( \xi )) such that for every \varepsilon \in \{ 0 , 1 \}^{\mathscr{A}_0 ( \xi ) }
when \min ( m_\alpha )\to \infty.
For any character \xi, there exists a decomposition
and a real number \delta_\xi >0 (depending only on the d_\alpha ( \xi )) such that
if \xi = 0
where \mathfrak b_{{\mathbf{m}} ' } is the {\mathbf{m}} '-th coefficient of \prod_{v\in C_0} F_v ( \mathbf{T} , 0 ) and
when \min_{\alpha \in \mathscr{A}} ( m_\alpha ) \to \infty ;
if \xi \neq 0
when \min ( m_\alpha )\to \infty.
Let \xi be any character. There exists a decomposition
and a real number \delta_\xi > 0 (depending only on \prod_{v\in C} F_v ( \mathbf{T} , \xi )) such that for all non empty subset A \subset \mathscr{A}_U^0 ( \xi ) and \varepsilon \in \{0,1\}^{\mathscr{A}_U^0 ( \xi ) \setminus A} \times \{ 1 \}^A
when \min ( m_\alpha ) \to \infty.
Such an \mathsf{M} _s \subset \mathscr{A}_D corresponds to a maximal face of the analytic Clemens complex \mathrm{Cl}_s ( X , D ) = \mathrm{Cl}_{F_s} ( X_{F_s} , D_{F_s} ).
By definition, \Delta_s ( A , \beta ) is the set of points of the fibre \mathscr{X}_s belonging exclusively to \mathscr{D}_{\alpha } and E_\beta, that is to say
For simplicity we assume that \mathscr{B}_{1,s} = \{ \beta \}.
We argue by contradiction: assume that \mathsf{M}_s is not a maximal face of \mathrm{Cl}_{F_s} ( X_{F_s} , D_{F_s} ). It means that there exists a non-empty subset \mathsf{M}_s ' \subset \mathscr{A}_D which contains \mathsf{M}_s as a proper subset and such that
We can assume furthermore that \mathsf{M}_s ' is maximal for this property. In other words \mathsf{M}_s ' is a maximal face of \mathrm{Cl}_{F_s} ( X_{F_s} , D_{F_s} ) containing \mathsf{M}_s as a proper subface. Remark that since X \setminus U = \cup_{\alpha \in \mathscr{A}_D} D_\alpha and X_{F_s} ( F_s ) = X ( F_s), together with the maximality of \mathsf{M}_s ', then
for every \alpha ' \in \mathscr{A} \setminus \mathsf{M}_s '.
Our argument relies on the fact that \mathscr{X} \to C is proper. Composing with the projection X_{F_s} \to \mathscr{X} and applying the valuative criterion of properness, this F_s-point x_s uniquely lifts to a \mathcal O_s-point \widetilde{x_s} of \mathscr{X}.
Since for every \alpha, \mathscr{D}_\alpha is the closure in \mathscr{X} of D_\alpha, \widetilde{x_s} is actually a \mathcal O_s-point of \bigcap_{\alpha \in \mathsf{M}_s ' } \mathscr{D}_{\alpha }. By reduction modulo the maximal ideal of \mathcal O_s, one gets a well-defined reduction \overline{x_s} to the special fibre \mathscr{X}_s.
This very last point \overline{x_s} is actually a point of \bigcap_{\alpha \in \mathsf{M}_s ' } \mathscr{D}_{\alpha , s } which does not belong to any of the \mathscr{D}_{\alpha ' } for \alpha ' \in \mathscr{A} \setminus \mathsf{M}_s ': since all the intersections we are considering are smooth, we use Hensel’s lemma here. This contradicts the maximality of \mathsf{M}_s with respect to the hypothesis \Delta_ s ( \mathsf{M}_s , \beta ) \neq \varnothing, since we have found a \mathsf{M}_s ' strictly containing \mathsf{M}_s and such that \Delta_s ( \mathsf{M}_s ' , \beta ) is non-empty. Thus \mathsf{M}_s is a maximal face of \mathrm{Cl}_s ( X , D ). In the general case where the fibre above s is not irreducible, then the above argument gives at least one irreducible component \beta for which \Delta_ s ( \mathsf{M}_s ' , \beta ) \neq \varnothing. The conclusion follows.
If \mathsf{M} _s is a maximal face of \mathrm{Cl}_s ( X , D ), then for every A\subset \mathscr{A}_U and \beta \in \mathscr{B}_{1,s} the pair (A \cup \mathsf{M}_s , \beta ) is sent to \mathsf{M} _s.
In the expression of P_{\mathsf{M}_s}^{\beta_s} ( \mathbf{T} ), the polynomials (1-\mathbf{L}^{\rho_\alpha ' } T_\alpha ) for \alpha \in \mathscr \mathsf{M}_s give vanishing factors at T_\alpha = \mathbf{L}^{-\rho_\alpha ' }. In particular, for any A \subset \mathscr{A} such that A \cap \mathscr{A}_D \subset \mathsf{M}_s, we have
if and only if A \cap \mathscr{A}_D =\mathsf{M}_s, and thus using Remark 4.6
By definition of \Delta_s ( \mathsf{M}_s \cup A , \beta ) one has
where E_{\beta}^\circ stands for E_{\beta} \setminus \cup_{\beta ' \neq \beta } E_{\beta ' } and \mathscr{D}_{\mathsf{M}_s } is the intersection \cap_{\alpha \in \mathsf{M}_s} \mathscr{D}_{\alpha , s}. Finally the value of P_{\mathsf{M}_s}^{\beta_s} at \left ( \mathbf{L}^{-\rho_\alpha ' } \right )_{\alpha \in \mathscr{A}} is
For all choice of maximal faces \mathsf{M} \in\mathrm{Cl}_S^{\mathrm{max}} ( X , D ) and vertical components \beta \in \prod_v \mathscr{B}^\mathscr{U}_v, there exists a decomposition
as well as a real number \delta > 0 such that in \widetilde{\mathscr M_k }
converges \rho'-weight-linearly to the non-zero effective element
and for every \varepsilon \in \{ 0 , 1 \}^{\mathscr{A}_U} \setminus \{ \mathbf 0 \}
when \min ( m_\alpha ) \to \infty.
For all choice of maximal faces {\mathsf{M} \in\mathrm{Cl}_S^{\mathrm{max}} ( X , D )}, there is a decomposition
and a real number \delta > 0
such that for all non-empty subset A \subset \mathscr{A}_U and \varepsilon \in \{0,1\}^{\mathscr{A}_U \setminus A} \times \{ 1 \}^A
when \min ( m_\alpha ) \to \infty.
Assume first that f_{\xi} extends to a regular map \mathscr{X}_{F_s} \to \mathbf{P}^1_{F_s}. Then there is a family (P_{\mathsf{M}_s^0}^{\beta_s} )_{\mathsf{M}_s^0 \in \mathrm{Cl}^{\mathrm{max}} ( X , D )_0} of polynomials with coefficients in \mathscr{E}\mathit{xp}\mathscr{M}_k such that
Let \xi be a non-trivial character. For all \mathsf{M}^0 \in\mathrm{Cl}_S^{\mathrm{max}} ( X , D )_0 \subset \mathcal P ( \mathscr{A}_D ) ^S, there exist decompositions
as well as a real number \delta_\xi > 0 such that for all \varepsilon \in \{ 0 , 1 \}^{\mathscr{A}_U^0 ( \xi ) }
and for all \varnothing \neq A \subset \mathscr{A}_U and \varepsilon \in \{0,1\}^{\mathscr{A}_U^0 ( \xi ) \setminus A} \times \{ 1 \}^A
when \min ( m_\alpha ) \to \infty.
Let \mathsf{M} \in \mathrm{Cl}_S^{\mathrm{max}} ( X , D ) be any choice of maximal faces over the places s\in S and \beta \in \prod_v \mathscr{B}^\mathscr{U}_v a choice of vertical components. When \min ( m_{\alpha , s} ) becomes arbitrary large, the coefficients of
normalised by \mathbf{L}^{\langle \rho ' , {\mathbf{m}} \rangle}, converges in \widehat{\mathscr M_k } to a non-zero effective element of \widehat{\mathscr M_k} which can be written as the following motivic Euler product:
Furthermore, there exists a finite partition ( P ) of V\setminus \{ 0 \} such that the normalised coefficients of \mathscr{Z}_{\mathsf{M}} ^ \beta (\mathbf{U} , \xi ) tends to zero weight-linear-uniformly with respect to \rho on each stratum P.
Over places v\in C_0, as we pointed out in Remark 3.6, the local term \mathbf{L}^{\rho^{\beta_v} - \langle \rho , \mathrm{e}^{\beta_v} \rangle } \frac{[ E_{\beta_v} ^\circ ]}{\mathbf{L}^n } can be interpreted as the motivic integral
This remark can be adapted for places s\in S if one replaces E_{\beta_v}^\circ by E_{\beta_v}^\circ \cap \mathscr{D}_{\mathsf{M}_s} and add a controling term. Let \epsilon be a non-negative integer, \epsilon_\alpha = \epsilon if \alpha \in \mathsf{M}_s and zero otherwise, and
Then one considers for \epsilon \geqslant 1
This last family of integrals can be computing using the isomorphism
introduced at the beginning of § ?, together with the motivic volumes computed in § ?:
This last equality shows that it makes sense to consider the value at \epsilon = 0 of
Since [E_{\beta_v}^\circ \cap \mathscr{D}_{\mathsf{M}_s}] = \sum_{A\subset \mathscr{A}_U } [ \Delta_s ( A \cup \mathsf{M}_s , \beta ) ], this residue is precisely the local term
A geometric interpretation of Proposition 4.12 is as follows.
For any { \mathsf{M} \in \mathrm{Cl}_S^{\mathrm{max}} ( X , D ) }, let M_{{\mathbf{n}} , \mathsf{m}_S}^{\beta , \mathsf{M} }\subset M_{{\mathbf{n}} , \mathsf{m}_S}^\beta be the constructible moduli subspace of sections \sigma \in M_{{\mathbf{n}} , \mathsf{m}_S}^\beta such that
Remark that by definition of the Clemens complexes, M_{{\mathbf{n}}, \mathsf{m}_S }^{\beta , \mathsf{M}} is non-empty if and only if the support of \mathsf{m}_s = \left ( ( \sigma ( \eta_C ) , \mathscr{D}_\alpha )_s \right )_{\alpha \in \mathscr{A}_D} \in \mathbf{N}^{\mathscr{A}_D} is exactly \mathsf{M}_s for all s\in S. The maximal number of \mathscr D_\alpha a section can intersect above each point of S is encoded in \mathrm{Cl}_S^{\mathrm{max}} ( X , D ). This also means that when the multidegree of a section tends to infinity, there is an unique way to associate a maximal face to the section and M_{{\mathbf{n}} , \mathsf{m}_S}^{\beta , \mathsf{M} } is actually the right moduli space to consider. We showed that [M_{{\mathbf{n}} , \mathsf{m}_S}^{\beta , \mathsf{M} }]\mathbf{L}^{-\langle {\mathbf{n}}_U^\beta + \mathsf{m}_S , \rho ' \rangle } converges to the constant of Proposition 4.12. Since [M_{{\mathbf{n}} , \mathsf{m}_S}^{\beta , \mathsf{M} }] coincides with the coefficient of sufficiently high degree of the refined height zeta function \mathscr{Z}^\beta_\mathsf{M} ( \mathbf{U} ), this is the following statement and main result.
When the multidegree ({\mathbf{n}}_U^\beta , \mathsf{m}_S ) \in \mathbf{N}^{\mathscr{A}_U} \times \mathbf{N}^{\mathsf{M}} goes arbitrary far from the boundaries of the corresponding cone, the normalised class
converges, in the completion of \mathscr M_k for the weight topology, to the motivic Euler product
The text on this page is from arXiv:2106.11898v2 by Loïs Faisant, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2106/2106.11898.jsonl.