Hodge filtration, minimal exponent, and local vanishing

Mircea Mustata, Mihnea Popa

A. Introduction

Let XX be a smooth complex variety of dimension nn, and DX\mathscr{D}_{X} the sheaf of differential operators on XX. An important invariant of a filtered DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-module (M,F)(\mathcal{M},F) of geometric origin is the complexity of its filtration, namely how many steps are required to fully determine it. Concretely, the filtration FF is generated at level qq if

Here F∙DXF_{\bullet}\mathscr{D}_{X} denotes the standard filtration by the order of differential operators.

In this paper we give a bound for the generation level of the Hodge filtration on DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-modules naturally associated to rational multiples of a reduced effective divisor DD on XX, in terms of data provided by the Bernstein-Sato polynomial of DD. This study was initiated by Saito [Saito-HF], who provided such bounds for special types of singularities. Some general results were later found in [MP1], [MP2]. We improve them here, using the main result of [MP3], and also exploit the fact that they are, somewhat surprisingly, related to local vanishing theorems for sheaves of forms with log poles in birational geometry.

Reduced divisors. To highlight the main points with a minimum amount of technicalities, we first restrict our discussion to the case when we simply deal with a reduced effective divisor DD. The corresponding DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-module is the localization OX(∗D)\mathscr{O}_{X}(*D), that is, the sheaf of functions with poles of arbitrary order along DD. It is well known that OX(∗D)\mathscr{O}_{X}(*D) is regular holonomic, and underlies a mixed Hodge module on XX; therefore it comes endowed with a Hodge filtration FpOX(∗D)F_{p}\mathscr{O}_{X}(*D), with p≥0p\geq 0. See e.g. [MP1] for an in-depth study of this filtration. If DD is smooth, then the filtration is generated at level , hence from now on we focus on the case when DD is singular. We prove:

For every singular divisor DD, the Hodge filtration on OX(∗D)\mathscr{O}_{X}(*D) is generated at level n−1−⌈α~D⌉n-1-\lceil\widetilde{\alpha}_{D}\rceil.

Since α~D>0\widetilde{\alpha}_{D}>0, Theorem A recovers in particular the fact that F∙OX(∗D)F_{\bullet}\mathscr{O}_{X}(*D) is always generated at level n−2n-2, proved in [MP1, Theorem B]. Note also that it is possible to do better than Theorem A: as an extreme case, if DD is a singular simple normal crossing divisor, then F∙OX(∗D)F_{\bullet}\mathscr{O}_{X}(*D) is generated at level , but α~D=1\widetilde{\alpha}_{D}=1. The bound is nevertheless sometimes optimal; for instance, this is the case when DD has an isolated quasihomogeneous singularity by [Saito-HF, Theorem 0.7].

Moreover, Saito [Saito-B, Theorem 0.4] showed that α~D>1\widetilde{\alpha}_{D}>1 is equivalent to DD having rational singularities, and therefore:

If n≥3n\geq 3 and the divisor DD has rational singularities, then the Hodge filtration on OX(∗D)\mathscr{O}_{X}(*D) is generated at level n−3n-3.As mentioned above, for n=2n=2 the filtration is always generated at level .

This was proved when DD has isolated singularities, and conjectured to be true in general, in [MOP]. The general conjecture was already verified recently by Kebekus-Schnell [KS, §1.3], as a consequence of a local vanishing conjecture; more on this below. Note that α~D\widetilde{\alpha}_{D} could however be much larger than 11, and is in fact optimally bounded above by n/2n/2 in [Saito_microlocal] (see also [MP3, Theorem E]).

It turns out that the generation level of the Hodge filtration on OX(∗D)\mathscr{O}_{X}(*D) is intimately linked to a result in birational geometry, namely to local vanishing for pushforwards of bundles of forms with log poles. Consider a log resolution μ ⁣:Y→X\mu\colon Y\to X of the pair (X,D)(X,D), which is an isomorphism over U=X∖DU=X\smallsetminus D, and denote E=(μ∗D)redE=(\mu^{*}D)_{\rm red}. We showed in [MP1, Theorem 17.1] that F∙OX(∗D)F_{\bullet}\mathscr{O}_{X}(*D) is generated at level qq if and only if Riμ∗ΩYn−i(log⁡E)=0R^{i}\mu_{*}\Omega^{n-i}_{Y}(\log E)=0 for i>qi>q, so consequently we obtain:

When i≥n−1i\geq n-1 this is shown by elementary methods in [MP1, Theorem B], leading to the coarse bound n−2n-2 for the generation level of the Hodge filtration mentioned above. When DD has rational singularities and i=n−2i=n-2, it is proved in [MOP] in the isolated singularities case, and can be deduced in general from a vanishing statement obtained by Kebekus-Schnell [KS, Theorem 1.9], which answers [MOP, Conjecture A]. Using Corollary C, we can in fact obtain a strengthening of this conjecture/statement in the absolute case of a reduced singular hypersurface: by this here we mean a singular complex scheme DD, reduced but not necessarily irreducible, that can be embedded as a hypersurface in a smooth variety. In this case DD has an associated minimal exponent α~D\widetilde{\alpha}_{D}, independent of the embedding (since this is the case already for the Bernstein-Sato polynomial). We consider a resolution of singularities μ ⁣:D~→D\mu\colon\widetilde{D}\to D, given by the disjoint union of resolutions of the irreducible components of DD. We further assume that μ\mu is an isomorphism over the smooth locus of DD and the reduced inverse image of the singular locus of DD is a simple normal crossing divisor EE on D~\widetilde{D}. We then have Note that DD has rational singularities if and only if α~D>1\widetilde{\alpha}_{D}>1, so the case i=n−2i=n-2 corresponds to the statements in loc. cit.

With the above notation, if dim⁡(D)=n−1\dim(D)=n-1, then

We emphasize that here the overall strategy is reversed: we first show the generation bound in Theorem A using methods from the theory of (Hodge) D\mathscr{D}-modules, and then deduce the birational Corollary C, which in turn is used to prove Theorem D. At the moment we do not know how to approach the latter vanishing results via more standard methods in birational geometry.

Rational multiples. Following [MP2], [MP3], we also consider a multiple αD\alpha D, where α\alpha is a positive rational number and DD is a reduced effective divisor on XX, as above. The set-up is local: assuming that DD is defined by a regular function ff, the natural replacement for the localization OX[1/f]\mathscr{O}_{X}[1/f] is the DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-module

the free rank 11 module over OX[1/f]\mathscr{O}_{X}[1/f] generated by the formal symbol f−αf^{-\alpha}; see §1. This is a direct summand of a mixed Hodge module, and so analogously it comes endowed with a Hodge filtration FpM(f−α)F_{p}\mathcal{M}(f^{-\alpha}), with p≥0p\geq 0. Again, if DD is smooth, then this filtration is generated at level , hence from now on we focus on the case when ff defines a singular hypersurface.

Theorem A and Corollary C above are then special cases (when α=1\alpha=1) of the following two statements that will be the focus of the paper.

If ff defines a singular reduced hypersurface, then the Hodge filtration on M(f−α)\mathcal{M}(f^{-\alpha}) is generated at level n−⌈α~f+α⌉n-\lceil\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}+\alpha\rceil.

In the special case when DD has an isolated quasihomogeneous singularity, by analogy with the reduced case in [Saito-HF], this result was conjectured in [Popa] and proved in [Zhang]. Note also that Theorem E recovers the second statement of [MP2, Theorem 10.1], namely that the filtration on M(f−α)\mathcal{M}(f^{-\alpha}) is always generated at level n−1n-1.

Consider now a log resolution μ ⁣:Y→X\mu\colon Y\to X of the pair (X,D)(X,D) as above, and E=(μ∗D)redE=(\mu^{*}D)_{\rm red}. According to [MP2, Theorem 10.1], the statement of Theorem E is equivalent to the following general form of local vanishing:

Recall for completeness that it is always the case that

This is proved in [MP2, Corollary C], still using methods from the theory of mixed Hodge modules, but of a different flavor.

Hodge ideals. The Hodge filtration on M(f−α)\mathcal{M}(f^{-\alpha}) is best expressed and studied in terms of the Hodge ideals of αD\alpha D. According to [MP2, §4], for each p≥0p\geq 0 there is a coherent sheaf of ideals Ip(αD)I_{p}(\alpha D) on XX such that

Therefore Theorem E provides an effective bound describing which higher Hodge ideals of αD\alpha D are fully determined by lower ones. This type of result is very useful for concrete calculations of Hodge ideals, see [MP1] and [MP2].

Nearby and vanishing cycles. All the above results are consequences of a statement of independent interest regarding the generation level of the Hodge filtration on the graded quotients of the VV-filtration associated to the regular function f∈OX(X)f\in\mathscr{O}_{X}(X). Concretely, the VV-filtration is defined on the the left DX×C\mathscr{D}_{X\times{\mathbf{C}}}-module ι+OX\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}, the push-forward of OX\mathscr{O}_{X} via the graph embedding

with respect to the hypersurface {t=0}\{t=0\}, where tt is the coordinate on C{\mathbf{C}}. Recalling that this is a (discrete) decreasing filtration, we consider GrVα(ι+OX):=Vαι+OX/V>αι+OX{\rm Gr}^{\alpha}_{V}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}):=V^{\alpha}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}/V^{>\alpha}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}. These are DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-modules that underlie Hodge modules supported on the graph embedding of XX; in particular they come endowed with a Hodge filtration F∙GrVα(ι+OX)F_{\bullet}{\rm Gr}^{\alpha}_{V}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) induced by that on ι+OX\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}. The cases α=0\alpha=0 and α∈(0,1]\alpha\in(0,1] are intimately related to the vanishing, respectively nearby, cycles of ff. For details see §1 and §2. The main result we prove is:

If ff defines a singular, reduced hypersurface, and α∈\alpha\in is a rational number, then the Hodge filtration on GrVα(ι+OX){\rm Gr}^{\alpha}_{V}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) is generated at level n−⌈α~f+α⌉+1n-\lceil\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}+\alpha\rceil+1.

The proof of this theorem is the technical core of the paper. More precisely, we describe concretely the associated graded quotients of the Hodge filtration on these DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-modules in the range below the minimal exponent of ff; see Proposition 4.5. Using this, we apply a homological criterion for the generation level of the filtration on special filtered DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-modules (M,F)(\mathcal{M},F) via the duality functor. This is proved in Proposition 3.3, and is inspired by a duality approach to generation in [Saito_microlocal]. In order to deduce Theorem E from Theorem H, the key tool is to reinterpret the main result of [MP3] as a connection between the Hodge filtration on M(f−α)\mathcal{M}(f^{-\alpha}) and the induced Hodge filtration on VαV^{\alpha}; see Proposition 5.4.

Bounds in terms of singularity invariants in birational geometry. We conclude by noting that the minimal exponent α~f\widetilde{\alpha}_{f} can be bounded below in terms of basic invariants of the singularity, or in terms of discrepancies on a log resolution. This can be translated into bounds of a somewhat different flavor in the statements above.

Consider a log resolution μ ⁣:Y→X\mu\colon Y\to X of the pair (X,D)(X,D) as above, in the neighborhood of a (singular) point x∈Dx\in D. Assuming in addition that the strict transform D~\widetilde{D} of DD is smooth, we define integers aia_{i} and bib_{i} by the expressions

where F1,…,FmF_{1},\ldots,F_{m} are the prime exceptional divisors, and set

Denote also by d≥2d\geq 2 the multiplicity of DD at xx, and by rr the dimension of the singular locus of the projectivized tangent cone P(CxD){\mathbf{P}}(C_{x}D) (declaring that r=−1r=-1 if P(CxD){\mathbf{P}}(C_{x}D) is smooth). We then have the following lower bounds in a neighborhood of xx:

∙\bullet α~f≥γ\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}\geq\gamma.

∙\bullet α~f≥n−r−1d\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}\geq\frac{n-r-1}{d}.

The first is [MP3, Corollary D] and the second is [MP3, Theorem E(3)]. Note that, unlike α~f\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}, γ\gamma depends on the choice of log resolution. Finally, we also have:

∙\bullet k0:=⌊α~f−α⌋k_{0}:=\lfloor\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}-\alpha\rfloor is the kk-log canonicity level of the pair (X,αD)(X,\alpha D), according to [MP3, Corollary C].

We recall that (X,αD)(X,\alpha D) is -log canonical if it is log canonical, while being kk-log canonical for k≥1k\geq 1 is a refinement of the statement that DD has rational singularities. It essentially means that the Hodge filtration on M(f−α)\mathcal{M}(f^{-\alpha}) is as simple as possible up to level kk, namely equal to the pole order filtration; the upshot of this paper is that this condition also imposes a bound on the generation level of this Hodge filtration.

Further general properties of the minimal exponent α~f\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}, and open problems, can be found in [MP3, §6].

Acknowledgement. We thank the referee for very useful comments that helped us improve the exposition.

B. Preliminaries

Let XX be a smooth nn-dimensional complex algebraic variety and f∈OX(X)f\in\mathscr{O}_{X}(X) a nonzero regular function. Consider the graph embedding

and the left DX×C\mathscr{D}_{X\times{\mathbf{C}}}-module ι+OX\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}, as well as the corresponding right DX×C\mathscr{D}_{X\times{\mathbf{C}}}-module ι+ωX\iota_{+}\omega_{X}. A detailed discussion of the material in the paragraph below can be found for instance in [MP3, §2]. We denote by tt the coordinate on C{\mathbf{C}}. Recall that we have

with the obvious DX×C\mathscr{D}_{X\times{\mathbf{C}}}-module structure. Denoting by δ\delta the class of 1f−t\frac{1}{f-t}, every element in ι+OX\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X} can be written uniquely as

with vi∈OXv_{i}\in\mathscr{O}_{X}, only finitely many nontrivial. We clearly have the relation tδ=fδt\delta=f\delta. With this description, multiplication by tt is given by

and the action of a derivation P∈DerC(OX)P\in{\rm Der}_{{\mathbf{C}}}(\mathscr{O}_{X}) is given by

Recall also that the (trivial) Hodge filtration on OX\mathscr{O}_{X} induces a Hodge filtration on ι+OX\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X} given by

(see, for example, [Saito-B, (1.8.6)]). We note that the shift by 11 is needed in order to ensure compatibility when applying the convention for shifting filtrations as we pass from left to right filtered D\mathscr{D}-modules on XX and X×CX\times{\mathbf{C}} respectively; see §2.

We next consider the rational VV-filtration on ι+OX\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X} with respect to tt. Recall that this is an exhaustive, decreasing, discrete, and left continuous filtration (Vαι+OX)α∈Q(V^{\alpha}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X})_{\alpha\in{\mathbf{Q}}}. It is defined uniquely by a number of properties listed for instance in [MP3, §2]. The Hodge filtration on ι+OX\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X} induces a filtration on each Vαι+OXV^{\alpha}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X} and thus the Hodge filtration on GrVα(ι+OX)=Vαι+OX/V>αι+OX{\rm Gr}_{V}^{\alpha}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X})=V^{\alpha}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}/V^{>\alpha}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}.

A crucial point is the following link between the minimal exponent and the VV-filtration, combining the statements of [MP3, Lemma 5.3] and [MP3, Corollary 6.1].

For an integer p≥0p\geq 0 and α∈(0,1]\alpha\in(0,1], we have

For a Q{\mathbf{Q}}-divisor EE on CC, we denote by I(E)\mathcal{I}(E) its multiplier ideal; see [Lazarsfeld, Chapter 9]. If D=div(f)D={\rm div}(f), γ>0\gamma>0 is a rational number, and E=γDE=\gamma D, we will also use the notation I(fγ)\mathcal{I}(f^{\gamma}) for I(E)\mathcal{I}(E). The main result of [BS] states that for every α>0\alpha>0, we have

In order to define and study Hodge ideals for Q{\mathbf{Q}}-divisors, in [MP2] and [MP3] we considered for each α>0\alpha>0 the twisted localization DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-module

with D=div(f)D={\rm div}(f), i.e. the free OX(∗D)\mathscr{O}_{X}(*D)-module of rank 11 with generator the symbol f−αf^{-\alpha}, with the action of derivations of OX\mathscr{O}_{X} given by

The DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-module M(f−α)\mathcal{M}(f^{-\alpha}) is a filtered direct summand of a DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-module underlying a mixed Hodge module; see [MP2, §2]. In particular, it is regular holonomic, with quasi-unipotent monodromy, and admits a Hodge filtration FpM(f−α)F_{p}\mathcal{M}(f^{-\alpha}), with p≥0p\geq 0. It is shown in [MP2, §4] that if ZZ is the support of DD, then we can write

for an ideal Ip(αD)I_{p}(\alpha D), the pp-th Hodge ideal of αD\alpha D.

For every α∈Q\alpha\in{\mathbf{Q}}, we have an isomorphism of DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-modules

which preserves the Hodge filtration; see [MP2, §2]. As a special case, we naturally identify M(f−1)\mathcal{M}(f^{-1}) with the usual localization OX(∗D)\mathscr{O}_{X}(*D). In particular, when DD is reduced and α=1\alpha=1, this gives the Hodge ideals considered in [MP1].

An important input for this paper is the main result of [MP3], comparing the Hodge ideals and the VV-filtration. We only state the case when D=div(f)D={\rm div}(f) is reduced. We use the notation Qi(x)=∏j=0i−1(x+j)Q_{i}(x)=\prod_{j=0}^{i-1}(x+j), with the convention that Q0=1Q_{0}=1.

If ff defines a reduced divisor DD and α\alpha is a positive rational number, then for every p≥0p\geq 0 we have

Nearby and vanishing cycles

Later on we will need bounds for the generation level of the Hodge filtration on nearby and vanishing cycles. To this end we will make use of the duality functor D{\mathbf{D}} on filtered D\mathscr{D}-modules [Saito-MHP, §2.4]. In order to apply duality, we will pass to the corresponding right DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-modules.

We recall that there is an equivalence of categories between filtered left and right DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-modules. Given a filtered left DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-modules (M,F)(\mathcal{M},F), we denote by (Mr,F)(\mathcal{M}^{r},F) the corresponding filtered right DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-module. At the level of OX\mathscr{O}_{X}-modules we have Mr=ωX⊗OXM\mathcal{M}^{r}=\omega_{X}\otimes_{\mathscr{O}_{X}}\mathcal{M}, while the filtration on Mr\mathcal{M}^{r} is given by

For right DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-modules it is customary to use the increasing VV-filtration. This is related to the VV-filtration on the corresponding left DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-module as follows. If M\mathcal{M} is a left DX×C\mathscr{D}_{X\times{\mathbf{C}}}-module and we consider the VV-filtrations with respect to the coordinate tt on C{\mathbf{C}}, then

where we identify in the obvious way ωX×C\omega_{X\times{\mathbf{C}}} with the pull-back of ωX\omega_{X}.

It is also customary, for a filtered DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-module (M,F)(\mathcal{M},F) and an integer qq, to denote (\mathcal{M},F)(q)=\big{(}\mathcal{M},F[q]\big{)}, with

Let now (M,F)(\mathcal{M},F) be the filtered right DX×C\mathscr{D}_{X\times{\mathbf{C}}}-module underlying a pure polarizable Hodge module of weight dd. Recall that the polarization induces an isomorphism D(M,F)≃(M,F)(d){\mathbf{D}}(\mathcal{M},F)\simeq(\mathcal{M},F)(d). The nearby and vanishing cycles of (M,F)(\mathcal{M},F) with respect to tt are given, respectively, by

We also use the notation Ψt,β(M,F)\Psi_{t,\beta}(\mathcal{M},F) for \big{(}{\rm Gr}_{\beta}^{V}(\mathcal{M}),F\big{)}(1), when β∈(−1,0)\beta\in(-1,0), but Ψt,1(M,F)\Psi_{t,1}(\mathcal{M},F) for \big{(}{\rm Gr}^{V}_{-1}(\mathcal{M}),F\big{)}(1).

It is a general fact that the duality functor commutes with nearby and vanishing cycles. The results that follow can be found in [Saito_duality, Theorem 1.6]. Concretely, we have canonical isomorphisms

Using the fact that {\mathbf{D}}(\mathcal{M},F)\simeq\big{(}\mathcal{M},F\big{)}(d), we obtain isomorphisms

We can in fact be more precise about the first of these isomorphisms; there is a canonical isomorphism

and for every β∈(−1,0)\beta\in(-1,0), there is a canonical isomorphism

In what follows, we will only be interested in the case when (M,F)(\mathcal{M},F) is the filtered right DX×C\mathscr{D}_{X\times{\mathbf{C}}}-module (ι+ωX,F)(\iota_{+}\omega_{X},F) corresponding to (ι+OX,F)(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X},F). Note that in this case we have d=nd=n, hence the isomorphism (2.1) gives

Finally, we note that since the Hodge filtration on GrβV(ι+ωX){\rm Gr}_{\beta}^{V}(\iota_{+}\omega_{X}) is induced by that on ι+ωX\iota_{+}\omega_{X}, which is the filtered right DX×C\mathscr{D}_{X\times{\mathbf{C}}}-module corresponding to ι+OX\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}, using the convention above on upper and lower indexed VV-filtrations we have

Generation level

Let (M,F)(\mathcal{M},F) be a right DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-module with a good filtration. The filtration FF is generated at level qq if

A similar definition holds for left DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-modules, as in the introduction. Note that such qq always exists by the definition of a good filtration. Another interpretation is that the filtration is generated at level qq if and only if Gr∙FM{\rm Gr}^{F}_{\bullet}\mathcal{M} is generated in degrees ≤q\leq q as a graded module over

where TX\mathscr{T}_{X} is the tangent sheaf of XX.

A generation criterion using the duality functor is given by the following result; see [Saito_microlocal, Lemma 2.5] and its proof.

If (M,F)(\mathcal{M},F) is a filtered right DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-module underlying a mixed Hodge module such that F−q−1D(M)=0F_{-q-1}{\mathbf{D}}(\mathcal{M})=0, then the filtration on M\mathcal{M} is generated at level qq.

We will also need a refinement of this criterion for (essentially) self-dual (M,F)(\mathcal{M},F), and for this we formulate more precisely the setup provided by duality. The -section of the cotangent bundle corresponds to a surjective morphism AX→OX\mathcal{A}_{X}\to\mathscr{O}_{X}. We denote by K∙K^{\bullet} the corresponding Koszul complex

placed in degrees −n,…,0-n,\ldots,0, where K−i=∧iTX⊗OXAX(i)K^{-i}=\wedge^{i}\mathscr{T}_{X}\otimes_{\mathscr{O}_{X}}\mathcal{A}_{X}(i). Note that we use the opposite of the standard convention for degree-shift, namely P(i)m=Pm−i{\mathcal{P}}(i)_{m}={\mathcal{P}}_{m-i}. This is a complex of graded free AX\mathcal{A}_{X}-modules, which gives a free resolution of OX\mathscr{O}_{X} as an AX\mathcal{A}_{X}-module.

Suppose now that (M,F)(\mathcal{M},F) is a filtered right DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-module that underlies a mixed Hodge module. In this case we have that Gr∙FM{\rm Gr}_{\bullet}^{F}\mathcal{M} is a Cohen-Macaulay AX\mathcal{A}_{X}-module by [Saito-MHP, Lemme 5.1.13] (and, more generally, one can consider filtered DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-modules with this property). Recall from [Saito-MHP, §2.2] that DR~(M,F)\widetilde{\rm DR}(\mathcal{M},F) is the filtered differential complex

placed in degrees −n,…,0-n,\ldots,0, such that the level pp part is given by

The maps are not OX\mathscr{O}_{X}-linear, but by taking the associated graded objects, we obtain complexes of OX\mathscr{O}_{X}-modules. More precisely, we have

where P=Gr∙FMP={\rm Gr}^{F}_{\bullet}\mathcal{M}. Note that P⊗AXK∙P\otimes_{\mathcal{A}_{X}}K^{\bullet} represents the object P⊗LAXOXP\overset{\mathbf{L}}{\otimes}_{\mathcal{A}_{X}}\mathscr{O}_{X} in the derived category of graded OX\mathscr{O}_{X}-modules.

An important feature of the duality functor is the following isomorphism in the derived category of filtered differential complexes of OX\mathscr{O}_{X}-modules:

See [Saito-MHP, §2.4], and also [Saito_microlocal, Remark 2.6].

Suppose now that (M,F)(\mathcal{M},F) satisfies D(M,F)≃(M,F)(d){\mathbf{D}}(\mathcal{M},F)\simeq(\mathcal{M},F)(d) for some d∈Zd\in{\mathbf{Z}}; this is for instance the case for the nearby and vanishing cycle modules in the previous section. By combining the above facts, we see that for every p∈Zp\in{\mathbf{Z}} we have an isomorphism in the derived category of OX\mathscr{O}_{X}-modules:

Denoting A∙:=P⊗AXK∙A^{\bullet}:=P\otimes_{\mathcal{A}_{X}}K^{\bullet}, using the discussion at the beginning of the section we see that the filtration on M\mathcal{M} is generated at level qq if and only if H0(A∙)p=0{\mathcal{H}}^{0}(A^{\bullet})_{p}=0 for every p>qp>q. The isomorphism (3.2) gives

On the other hand, we have the first-quadrant spectral sequence

Thus for such filtered DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-modules we obtain the following refinement of the criterion in Proposition 3.1:

If (M,F)(\mathcal{M},F) underlies a mixed Hodge module and D(M,F)≃(M,F)(d){\mathbf{D}}(\mathcal{M},F)\simeq(\mathcal{M},F)(d), then the filtration on M\mathcal{M} is generated at level qq if

C. Main results

We continue to work on a smooth complex variety XX, endowed with a nonzero regular function f∈OX(X)f\in\mathscr{O}_{X}(X). We use the notation of the previous section.

For α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1) and q≥1q\geq 1, the Hodge filtration on GrVα(ι+OX){\rm Gr}_{V}^{\alpha}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) is generated at level qq if Fn−qGrV1−α(ι+OX)=0F_{n-q}{\rm Gr}_{V}^{1-\alpha}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X})=0. In particular, if ff defines a singular hypersurface, then the Hodge filtration on GrVα(ι+OX){\rm Gr}_{V}^{\alpha}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) is generated at level n−⌈α~f+α⌉+1n-\lceil\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}+\alpha\rceil+1.

It follows from (2.6) that the filtration on GrVα(ι+OX){\rm Gr}_{V}^{\alpha}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) is generated at level qq if and only if the filtration on Gr−αV(ι+ωX){\rm Gr}^{V}_{-\alpha}(\iota_{+}\omega_{X}) is generated at level q−n−1q-n-1. Using the isomorphism (2.4), we deduce in turn from Proposition 3.1 that this is the case if

is . The latter condition is equivalent with Fn−qGrV1−α(ι+OX)=0F_{n-q}{\rm Gr}_{V}^{1-\alpha}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X})=0 by another application of (2.6), giving the first assertion in the proposition.

For the second assertion, note that by Lemma 1.2, for every j≥0j\geq 0 and every β∈(0,1)\beta\in(0,1) we have the equivalence

In particular, if this holds for j≥1j\geq 1, it also holds for j−1j-1. If q=n−⌈α~f+α⌉+1q=n-\lceil\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}+\alpha\rceil+1, then q>n−α~f−αq>n-\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}-\alpha, and we conclude that there is β\beta with 1−α<β<11-\alpha<\beta<1, such that ∂tn−q−1δ∈Vβι+OX\partial_{t}^{n-q-1}\delta\in V^{\beta}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}. In this case we have Fn−qVβι+OX=Fn−qι+OXF_{n-q}V^{\beta}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}=F_{n-q}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}, hence clearly Fn−qGrV1−α(ι+OX)=0F_{n-q}{\rm Gr}_{V}^{1-\alpha}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X})=0. ∎

A similar proof works for α=0\alpha=0; we include it for completeness, even though this is not relevant for the rest of the paper.

If Fn−q+1GrV0(ι+OX)=0F_{n-q+1}{\rm Gr}_{V}^{0}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X})=0 for some q≥1q\geq 1, then the Hodge filtration on GrV0(ι+OX){\rm Gr}_{V}^{0}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) is generated at level qq. In particular, if ffdefines a singular hypersurface, then the Hodge filtration on GrV0(ι+OX){\rm Gr}_{V}^{0}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) is generated at level n−⌈α~f⌉+1n-\lceil\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}\rceil+1.

Arguing as above, using (2.5) and Proposition 3.1 we see that the Hodge filtration on GrV0(ι+OX){\rm Gr}^{0}_{V}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) is generated at level qq if Fn−q+1GrV0(ι+OX)=0F_{n-q+1}{\rm Gr}_{V}^{0}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X})=0. This in turn holds if q=n−⌈α~f⌉+1q=n-\lceil\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}\rceil+1, since Lemma 1.2 implies that there exists β>0\beta>0 such that ∂t⌈α~f⌉−1δ∈Vβ\partial_{t}^{\lceil\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}\rceil-1}\delta\in V^{\beta}. ∎

For GrV1(ι+OX){\rm Gr}_{V}^{1}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) we need to use a more refined argument. We start by specializing the criterion in Proposition 3.3 to the DX×C\mathscr{D}_{X\times{\mathbf{C}}}-module M=Gr−1V(ι+ωX)\mathcal{M}={\rm Gr}^{V}_{-1}(\iota_{+}\omega_{X}), in which case we have d=n+1d=n+1 by (2.3), so that the vanishing in the proposition concerns

Furthermore, the filtration on GrV1(ι+OX){\rm Gr}_{V}^{1}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) is generated at level qq if and only if the filtration on Gr−1V(ι+ωX){\rm Gr}^{V}_{-1}(\iota_{+}\omega_{X}) is generated at level q−n−1q-n-1. We thus obtain

The Hodge filtration on GrV1(ι+OX){\rm Gr}_{V}^{1}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) is generated at level qq if

To apply this criterion, we need a better understanding of the terms GrkFGrV1(ι+OX){\rm Gr}^{F}_{k}{\rm Gr}^{1}_{V}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}). To this end, for every k≥0k\geq 0 we introduce the following coherent ideals of OX\mathscr{O}_{X}:

From now on, we will only deal with the VV-filtration on ι+OX\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}, hence in order to simplify the notation we often denote Vα=Vαι+OXV^{\alpha}=V^{\alpha}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X} and GrVα=GrVα(ι+OX){\rm Gr}^{\alpha}_{V}={\rm Gr}^{\alpha}_{V}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}).

We will make use of the fact that Jk′⊆(f)J^{\prime}_{k}\subseteq(f) for all k≥0k\geq 0. In fact, we prove the following more precise result:

If ff defines a reduced hypersurface, then for every k≥0k\geq 0, we have Jk′=(fk+1)J^{\prime}_{k}=(f^{k+1}).

It is well known that I(fk+1)=(fk+1){\mathcal{I}}(f^{k+1})=(f^{k+1}), and so by (1.3) it follows that fk+1δ∈V>(k+1)f^{k+1}\delta\in V^{>(k+1)}. We thus have fk+1∂tkδ∈V>1f^{k+1}\partial_{t}^{k}\delta\in V^{>1}, hence fk+1∈Jk′f^{k+1}\in J^{\prime}_{k}.

It suffices to prove the reverse inclusion Jk′⊆(fk+1)J^{\prime}_{k}\subseteq(f^{k+1}) on an open subset UU of XX such that codimX(X∖U)≥2{\rm codim}_{X}(X\smallsetminus U)\geq 2. Since ff defines a reduced hypersurface, we can find such a subset UU on which ff is smooth. We will therefore assume from now on that div(f){\rm div}(f) is smooth. After passing to a suitable open cover of XX, we may further assume that we have an algebraic system of coordinates x1,…,xnx_{1},\ldots,x_{n} such that f=x1f=x_{1}.

Recall that in this case the VV-filtration on ι+OX\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X} only jumps at integers (hence V>1=V2V^{>1}=V^{2}) and for every m≥1m\geq 1, VmV^{m} is generated over DX\mathscr{D}_{X} by x1m−1x_{1}^{m-1}. This follows easily by checking that this definition satisfies the defining properties of the VV-filtration. (For a more general statement valid for arbitrary simple normal crossing divisors, see [Saito-MHM, Theorem 3.4].) In particular, we see that V2V^{2} is generated as an OX\mathscr{O}_{X}-module by ∂x1ix1δ\partial_{x_{1}}^{i}x_{1}\delta, for i≥0i\geq 0. Since ∂x1iδ=(−1)i∂tiδ\partial_{x_{1}}^{i}\delta=(-1)^{i}\partial_{t}^{i}\delta, we have

We conclude that given a regular function hh, we have h∂tkδ∈V2h\partial_{t}^{k}\delta\in V^{2} if and only if there are regular functions g0,…,gpg_{0},\ldots,g_{p} such that

This equality holds if and only if gi=0g_{i}=0 for i>ki>k, h=(−1)kx1gkh=(-1)^{k}x_{1}g_{k}, and

This clearly implies that h∈(x1k+1)h\in(x_{1}^{k+1}), completing the proof of the lemma. ∎

We are now able to establish the connection between the Hodge filtration on GrV1{\rm Gr}^{1}_{V} and the minimal exponent α~f\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}.

If ff defines a reduced hypersurface and p≥0p\geq 0 is an integer such that α~f>p\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}>p, then

({\rm(}note that the second statement is vacuous for p=0p=0){\rm)}.

Fix 0≤k≤p0\leq k\leq p. Since k<α~fk<\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}, it follows from Lemma 1.2 that ∂tiδ∈V>0\partial_{t}^{i}\delta\in V^{>0} for 0≤i≤k0\leq i\leq k. This implies that for every such ii, we have t∂tiδ∈V>1t\partial_{t}^{i}\delta\in V^{>1}. Note that

hence t∂tδ,…,t∂tk,∂tkδt\partial_{t}\delta,\ldots,t\partial_{t}^{k},\partial_{t}^{k}\delta give a basis of Fk+1ι+OXF_{k+1}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X} over OX\mathscr{O}_{X}. Since all but the last one of these elements lie in Fk+1V>1F_{k+1}V^{>1}, we have a canonical isomorphism

If k≤p−1k\leq p-1, then ∂tkδ∈V1\partial_{t}^{k}\delta\in V^{1} by Lemma 1.2, hence Jk=OXJ_{k}=\mathscr{O}_{X}. Moreover, via the isomorphisms (4.6), the inclusion

maps the class of 11 in OX/Jk′\mathscr{O}_{X}/J^{\prime}_{k} to the class of 1k+1f\frac{1}{k+1}f in Jk+1/Jk+1′J_{k+1}/J^{\prime}_{k+1}. Indeed, this follows from the fact that

where the equality follows from Lemma 4.4. Furthermore, as we have already mentioned, if k≤p−2k\leq p-2, then Jk+1=OXJ_{k+1}=\mathscr{O}_{X}, hence Grk+2FGrV1≃OX/(f){\rm Gr}^{F}_{k+2}{\rm Gr}^{1}_{V}\simeq\mathscr{O}_{X}/(f).

On the other hand, note that we always have

where the last equality holds by Lemma 4.4. Furthermore, J0=OXJ_{0}=\mathscr{O}_{X} if p≥1p\geq 1. This completes the proof of the proposition. ∎

If ff defines a singular, reduced hypersurface, then the Hodge filtration on GrV1(ι+OX){\rm Gr}_{V}^{1}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) is generated at level n−⌈α~f⌉n-\lceil\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}\rceil.

Equivalently, we need to check that if pp is a nonnegative integer such that α~f>p\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}>p, then the filtration on GrV1{\rm Gr}_{V}^{1} is generated at level n−1−pn-1-p. (Note that since ff defines a singular hypersurface, we have α~f≤n2\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}\leq\frac{n}{2} as mentioned in the introduction, hence our assumption on pp implies n−1−p≥1n-1-p\geq 1.) It follows then from Corollary 4.3 that it is enough to show:

Note that we only need to consider ii and jj such that 0≤j−i−1≤n−i−1≤p0\leq j-i-1\leq n-i-1\leq p.

To see this, we use the isomorphisms in Proposition 4.5. First, the short exact sequence

gives {\mathscr{E}xt}_{\mathscr{O}_{X}}^{m}\big{(}\mathscr{O}_{X}/(f),\mathscr{O}_{X}\big{)}=0 for all m≥2m\geq 2. We thus see that if 0≤j−i−1≤p−10\leq j-i-1\leq p-1, we have

since j≥i+1≥n−p≥2j\geq i+1\geq n-p\geq 2. On the other hand, if j−i−1=pj-i-1=p, then j=nj=n, and the short exact sequence

is a quotient of {\mathscr{E}xt}_{\mathscr{O}_{X}}^{n}\big{(}\mathscr{O}_{X}/(f),\mathscr{O}_{X}\big{)}=0. This completes the proof of the proposition. ∎

In the statements of Propositions 4.1, 4.2, and 4.7, we assumed that the hypersurface defined by ff is singular, in order to avoid the case when α~f=∞\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}=\infty. If ff defines a smooth hypersurface, then GrVα{\rm Gr}_{V}^{\alpha} is nonzero only when α\alpha is an integer and the Hodge filtration on both GrV0{\rm Gr}_{V}^{0} and GrV1{\rm Gr}_{V}^{1} is generated in level .

Let π ⁣:X×C→X\pi\colon X\times{\mathbf{C}}\to X be the projection onto the first component. Given α∈Q\alpha\in{\mathbf{Q}}, we consider the map

where Qi(x)=∏j=0i−1(x+j)Q_{i}(x)=\prod_{j=0}^{i-1}(x+j) (with the convention that Q0=1Q_{0}=1). Note that both sides have DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-module structure; in fact π∗Vαι+OX\pi_{*}V^{\alpha}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X} is naturally a DX[t,∂tt]\mathscr{D}_{X}[t,\partial_{t}t]-module.

The map τα\tau_{\alpha} is a morphism of DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-modules. Moreover, we have

where the equalities hold via the identification in ({\rm(}1.4){\rm)}.

We may and will assume that XX is affine. The fact that τα(gu)=g⋅τα(u)\tau_{\alpha}(gu)=g\cdot\tau_{\alpha}(u) for every g∈OX(X)g\in\mathscr{O}_{X}(X) and every global section uu of VαV^{\alpha} is clear. Suppose now that v=∑i=0pvi∂tiδ∈Vαv=\sum_{i=0}^{p}v_{i}\partial_{t}^{i}\delta\in V^{\alpha} and PP is a C{\mathbf{C}}-derivation of OX(X)\mathscr{O}_{X}(X). We have

where we used the fact that Qi+1(α)=(α+i)Qi(α)Q_{i+1}(\alpha)=(\alpha+i)Q_{i}(\alpha) and

By the definition of the VV-filtration, if v∈Vαv\in V^{\alpha}, then tv∈Vα+1tv\in V^{\alpha+1} (and for α>0\alpha>0, multiplication by tt induces an isomorphism of DX\mathscr{D}_{X}-modules Vα→Vα+1V^{\alpha}\to V^{\alpha+1}). In order to prove (5.2), note first that if v=∑i=0pvi∂tiδv=\sum_{i=0}^{p}v_{i}\partial_{t}^{i}\delta, then

and Q0(α+1)=Q0(α)Q_{0}(\alpha+1)=Q_{0}(\alpha), we conclude that τα+1(tv)=τα(v)\tau_{\alpha+1}(tv)=\tau_{\alpha}(v) via (1.4).

Suppose now that v=∑i=0pvi∂tiδ∈Vα+1v=\sum_{i=0}^{p}v_{i}\partial_{t}^{i}\delta\in V^{\alpha+1}, hence ∂tv=∑i=0pvi∂ti+1δ∈Vα\partial_{t}v=\sum_{i=0}^{p}v_{i}\partial_{t}^{i+1}\delta\in V^{\alpha}. We then have

If D=div(f)D={\rm div}(f) is a reduced divisor, then for every α>0\alpha>0 the morphism τα\tau_{\alpha} is surjective, and the Hodge filtration on the image is, up to a shift by 11, the induced filtration from that on Vαι+OXV^{\alpha}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}. More precisely, we have

Thanks to (1.1), the elements of Fp+1VαF_{p+1}V^{\alpha} are the sums ∑i=0pvi∂tiδ\sum_{i=0}^{p}v_{i}\partial_{t}^{i}\delta that belong to VαV^{\alpha}. The fact that for all α>0\alpha>0 we have

is then precisely the content of Theorem 1.5. Since the Hodge filtration on M(f−α)\mathcal{M}(f^{-\alpha}) is exhaustive, we deduce that τα\tau_{\alpha} is surjective. ∎

The same statement holds more generally when D=div(f)D={\rm div}(f) is not necessarily reduced, but α>0\alpha>0 is such that ⌈αD⌉\lceil\alpha D\rceil is reduced. For this one simply needs to refer to [MP3, Theorem A] instead.

Proof of the main result

We begin with the following general (and well-known) fact:

If u∈ι+OXu\in\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X} is such that ∂tu∈Vα\partial_{t}u\in V^{\alpha} for some α≤0\alpha\leq 0, then u∈Vα+1u\in V^{\alpha+1}.

Certainly if β≪0\beta\ll 0, then u∈Vβu\in V^{\beta}. We may assume that u≠0u\neq 0 and choose β\beta which is largest with this property, so that u∉V>βu\not\in V^{>\beta}. If β≥α+1\beta\geq\alpha+1, then we are done. Otherwise β−1<α≤0\beta-1<\alpha\leq 0, and ∂tu\partial_{t}u vanishes in GrVβ−1{\rm Gr}^{\beta-1}_{V}. Recall however that an easy consequence of the definition of the VV-filtration is that for every γ≠0\gamma\neq 0, the map

is bijective. It follows that uu vanishes in GrVβ{\rm Gr}_{V}^{\beta}, a contradiction. ∎

Next, using the result of the previous section, we show that in order to bound the generation level of M(f−α)\mathcal{M}(f^{-\alpha}) for any α>0\alpha>0, it suffices to study the Hodge filtration on the associated graded terms GrVβ{\rm Gr}^{\beta}_{V}, for special rational β\beta.

If α∈(0,1]\alpha\in(0,1] is a rational number and q≥0q\geq 0 is such that the Hodge filtration on GrVβ(ι+OX){\rm Gr}_{V}^{\beta}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) is generated at level q+1q+1 for all β∈[α,1]\beta\in[\alpha,1], then the Hodge filtration on M(f−α){\mathcal{M}}(f^{-\alpha}) is generated at level qq.

We need to show that FpM(f−α)⊆F1DX⋅Fp−1M(f−α)F_{p}{\mathcal{M}}(f^{-\alpha})\subseteq F_{1}\mathscr{D}_{X}\cdot F_{p-1}{\mathcal{M}}(f^{-\alpha}) for every p>qp>q. Given such pp and u∈FpM(f−α)u\in F_{p}{\mathcal{M}}(f^{-\alpha}), it follows from Proposition 5.4 that we can find u~∈Fp+1Vα\widetilde{u}\in F_{p+1}V^{\alpha} such that τα(u~)=u\tau_{\alpha}(\widetilde{u})=u. The VV-filtration is discrete, hence after using the hypothesis finitely many times, we obtain

Since τα\tau_{\alpha} maps F1DX⋅FpVαF_{1}\mathscr{D}_{X}\cdot F_{p}V^{\alpha} to F1DX⋅Fp−1M(f−α)F_{1}\mathscr{D}_{X}\cdot F_{p-1}{\mathcal{M}}(f^{-\alpha}), we may clearly assume that u~∈Fp+1V>1\widetilde{u}\in F_{p+1}V^{>1}. In this case we can write u~=tv\widetilde{u}=tv for some v∈Fp+1V>0v\in F_{p+1}V^{>0}; see for instance (the proof of) [MP3, Lemma 4.5]. Furthermore, by the definition of Fp+1ι+OXF_{p+1}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}, we can write v=v0δ+∂twv=v_{0}\delta+\partial_{t}w, for some v0∈OXv_{0}\in\mathscr{O}_{X} and w∈Fpι+OXw\in F_{p}\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}. Note that δ∈V>0\delta\in V^{>0}, hence v0δ∈V>0v_{0}\delta\in V^{>0}, and thus ∂tw∈V>0\partial_{t}w\in V^{>0}. By Lemma 6.1, we have w∈FpV1w\in F_{p}V^{1}, so in particular w∈FpVαw\in F_{p}V^{\alpha}. Since tv0δ=v0fδtv_{0}\delta=v_{0}f\delta, we have

where the last equality follows from (5.2) and (5.3). But (v0f)f−α∈F0M(f−α)(v_{0}f)f^{-\alpha}\in F_{0}{\mathcal{M}}(f^{-\alpha}), which follows for example from Proposition 5.4, since fδ∈V>1⊆Vαf\delta\in V^{>1}\subseteq V^{\alpha} by (1.3). Also, since w∈FpVαw\in F_{p}V^{\alpha}, it follows from Proposition 5.4 that τα(w)∈Fp−1M(f−α)\tau_{\alpha}(w)\in F_{p-1}{\mathcal{M}}(f^{-\alpha}). We conclude that u∈Fp−1M(f−α)u\in F_{p-1}{\mathcal{M}}(f^{-\alpha}), completing the proof. ∎

We are finally able to give the proof of the main result:

According to Corollary 6.2, it suffices to know that GrVβ(ι+OX){\rm Gr}_{V}^{\beta}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) is generated at level n−⌈α~f+α⌉+1n-\lceil\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}+\alpha\rceil+1 for all β∈[α,1]\beta\in[\alpha,1]. But this follows from Propositions 4.1 and 4.7, which show that each GrVβ(ι+OX){\rm Gr}_{V}^{\beta}(\iota_{+}\mathscr{O}_{X}) is generated at level n−⌈α~f+β⌉+1n-\lceil\widetilde{\alpha}_{f}+\beta\rceil+1. ∎

Proof of Theorem D

Consider a reduced complex scheme DD, which can be embedded as a hypersurface in a smooth variety XX, with minimal exponent α~D\widetilde{\alpha}_{D}. We consider a resolution of singularities μ ⁣:D~→D\mu\colon\widetilde{D}\to D. (Recall that by this we mean the disjoint union of resolutions of the irreducible components of DD.) We further assume that ff is an isomorphism over the smooth locus of DD and that the reduced inverse image of the singular locus DsingD_{\rm sing} of DD is a simple normal crossing divisor EE on D~\widetilde{D}.

The statement of Theorem D is independent of the choice of such a resolution.

A standard argument shows that it is enough to compare the assertion for μ\mu and for another resolution with the same properties of the form μ∘g\mu\circ g, for some morphism g ⁣:D′→D~g\colon D^{\prime}\to\widetilde{D}. Note that if E′E^{\prime} is the reduced inverse image of DsingD_{\rm sing} on D′D^{\prime}, then E′=(g∗E)redE^{\prime}=(g^{*}E)_{\rm red} and gg is an isomorphism over D~∖Supp(E)\widetilde{D}\smallsetminus{\rm Supp}(E). In this case, we have for all ii

by [EV, Lemmas 1.2 and 1.5]; cf. also [MP1, Theorem 31.1(i)]. The assertion in the lemma thus follows via the Leray spectral sequence. ∎

If DD is smooth, then μ\mu is an isomorphism, and we trivially have Riμ∗ΩYj(log⁡E)=0R^{i}\mu_{*}\Omega^{j}_{Y}(\log E)=0 for all i>0i>0 and all jj. From now on, we focus on the case when DD is singular (in which case recall, as mentioned in the Introduction, that α~D≤n/2\widetilde{\alpha}_{D}\leq n/2, where dim⁡(D)=n−1\dim(D)=n-1).

The proof of Theorem D is inspired by the proof of [MOP, Theorem E], which partly treats the case k=1k=1. We begin with an auxiliary result:

Let g ⁣:Y→Xg\colon Y\to X be the blow-up of a smooth variety XX along a smooth, irreducible subvariety ZZ, of codimension r≥2r\geq 2. Let FF be a reduced simple normal crossing divisor on XX, having simple normal crossings with ZZ as well, and denote by F~\widetilde{F} the strict transform of FF and by EE the exceptional divisor on YY. Then for every i<ri<r, the following hold:

For i=0i=0 the assertion is clear and for i=1i=1 it follows from [MP1, Theorem 31.1(ii)], so from now on we assume i≥2i\geq 2, hence r≥3r\geq 3. We argue by induction on rr. If Z⊆Supp(F)Z\subseteq{\rm Supp}(F), then the assertion holds for all ii, using again [EV, Lemmas 1.2 and 1.5]. Suppose now that ZZ is not contained in Supp(F){\rm Supp}(F). Since the assertion is local on XX, we may assume that we have algebraic coordinates x1,…,xnx_{1},\ldots,x_{n} on XX such that ZZ is defined by x1,…,xrx_{1},\ldots,x_{r} and all components of FF are defined by some xkx_{k}, with k>rk>r. Let TT be the smooth divisor on XX defined by x1x_{1} and consider the induced morphism h ⁣:T~→Th\colon\widetilde{T}\to T, where T~\widetilde{T} is the strict transform of TT on YY. Consider the standard residue short exact sequence on YY:

Note that hh is the blow-up of TT along ZZ, with exceptional divisor E∣T~E|_{\widetilde{T}}. Moreover, the strict transform of F∣TF|_{T} is F~∣T~\widetilde{F}|_{\widetilde{T}}. Since codimT(Z)=r−1≥2{\rm codim}_{T}(Z)=r-1\geq 2, the inductive assumption thus gives

On the other hand, since Z⊆Supp(F+T)Z\subseteq{\rm Supp}(F+T) it follows, again from the reference above, that

The long exact sequence for higher direct images associated to (7.3) gives

which compared to the standard residue sequence gives the assertions in the lemma. ∎

In order to apply the previous lemma, we will need to control the codimension of the blow-up centers when we have a lower bound on α~D\widetilde{\alpha}_{D}. This is provided by:

If DD is a singular effective divisor on XX such that α~D>k\widetilde{\alpha}_{D}>k for some nonnegative integer kk, then we have the following lower bound for the codimension of the singular locus DsingD_{\rm sing} of DD:

To see this, we first prove a general lemma concerning the behavior of α~D\widetilde{\alpha}_{D} under restriction to a general hypersurface.

If DD is an effective divisor on XX and HH is a general smooth hypersurface in XX (for example, a general member of a basepoint-free linear system), then

We may assume that DD is reduced: otherwise lct(X,D)<1{\rm lct}(X,D)<1, hence lct(X,D)=α~D{\rm lct}(X,D)=\widetilde{\alpha}_{D} and for HH general we have

where the second inequality follows, for example, from the Generic Restriction theorem for multiplier ideals, see [Lazarsfeld, Theorem 9.5.35]. Supposing now that DD is reduced, we appeal to results on Hodge ideals (for Q{\mathbf{Q}}-divisors). If we write α~D=p+α\widetilde{\alpha}_{D}=p+\alpha, for some α∈(0,1]\alpha\in(0,1] and some nonnegative integer pp, it follows from [MP3, Corollary C] that Ip(αD)=OXI_{p}(\alpha D)=\mathscr{O}_{X} and since HH is general, according to [MP2, Theorem 13.1] we have

Another application of [MP3, Corollary C] gives α~D∣H≥p+α=α~D\widetilde{\alpha}_{D|_{H}}\geq p+\alpha=\widetilde{\alpha}_{D}. ∎

We may assume that XX is an affine variety. We denote r=dim⁡(Dsing)r=\dim(D_{\rm sing}). If r≥1r\geq 1 and HH is a general hyperplane section of XX, then HH is smooth, D∣HD|_{H} is singular, and \dim\big{(}(D|_{H})_{\rm sing}\big{)}=r-1. Moreover, it follows from Lemma 7.5 that α~D∣H>k\widetilde{\alpha}_{D|_{H}}>k. After iterating this rr times, we obtain a smooth subvariety YY of XX, with dim⁡(Y)=n−r\dim(Y)=n-r, such that D∣YD|_{Y} is a singular effective divisor and α~D∣Y>k\widetilde{\alpha}_{D|_{Y}}>k. Since α~D∣Y≤12dim⁡(Y)\widetilde{\alpha}_{D|_{Y}}\leq\frac{1}{2}\dim(Y), we conclude that k<12(n−r)k<\frac{1}{2}(n-r), hence

We can finally approach our main goal for this section.

Let XX be a smooth variety in which DD embeds as a hypersurface. We need to show, equivalently, that if kk is a nonnegative integer such that α~D>k\widetilde{\alpha}_{D}>k, then

By Lemma 7.1, the assertion in the theorem is independent of the choice of resolution μ\mu. We thus first construct a log resolution μ ⁣:Y→X\mu\colon Y\to X of the pair (X,D)(X,D), as a composition

Each μj\mu_{j} with 1≤j≤N1\leq j\leq N is the blow-up of a smooth, irreducible subvariety Zj−1Z_{j-1} of Xj−1X_{j-1} that lies over Dsing⊆XD_{\rm sing}\subseteq X. We denote by FjF_{j} the exceptional divisor of Xj→XX_{j}\to X and by DjD_{j} the strict transform of DD on XjX_{j}.

Each Zj−1Z_{j-1} with 1≤j≤N1\leq j\leq N has simple normal crossings with Dj−1+Fj−1D_{j-1}+F_{j-1}.

In particular, we see inductively that each XjX_{j} is smooth and Fj+DjF_{j}+D_{j} is a simple normal crossing divisor. We may assume that D~=DN\widetilde{D}=D_{N} is smooth, so that the induced morphism φ ⁣:D~→D\varphi\colon\widetilde{D}\to D is a resolution of DD that is an isomorphism over D∖DsingD\smallsetminus D_{\rm sing}. Furthermore, if F=FNF=F_{N}, and E=F∣D~E=F|_{\widetilde{D}}, then E=μ−1(Dsing)redE=\mu^{-1}(D_{\rm sing})_{\rm red} and this is a simple normal crossing divisor on D~\widetilde{D}.

To see this, using the Leray spectral sequence, it is enough to show that for every 1≤j≤N1\leq j\leq N we have

If Zj−1⊆Fj−1Z_{j-1}\subseteq F_{j-1}, then this follows from [EV, Lemmas 1.2 and 1.5] (or [MP1, Theorem 31.1(i)]). On the other hand, if Zj−1⊈Fj−1Z_{j-1}\not\subseteq F_{j-1}, then Zj−1Z_{j-1} is equal to the strict transform of its image in XX. By construction and Proposition 7.4, it follows that codimXj−1(Zj−1)≥2k+1{\rm codim}_{X_{j-1}}(Z_{j-1})\geq 2k+1, and (7.7) then follows from Lemma 7.2. This proves our claim.

Consider now the residue short exact sequence

on YY, and the following piece in the corresponding long exact sequence for higher direct images:

the first term vanishes because of Corollary C. Since the third term vanishes by the above Claim, we conclude that the middle term vanishes as well. This completes the proof of the theorem. ∎

References