text:
# ROSAT HRI monitoring of X-ray variability in the NLS1 galaxy PKS 0558–504

## 1 Introduction

Narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies are identified by their optical emission line properties: the ratio \[O III\]/H$`\beta `$ is less than 3 and FWHM H$`\beta `$ is less than 2000$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Osterbrock & Pogge 1985, Goodrich 1989). Their optical spectra are also characterized by the presence of strong permitted Fe II, Ca II, O I $`\lambda `$ 8446 lines (Persson 1988). NLS1 exhibit characteristic features at other wavelengths as well: they are seldom radio loud (Ulvestad et al. 1995, Siebert et al. 1999, Grupe et al. 1999, 2000) and they are usually strong infrared emitters (Moran et al. 1996). In X-rays NLS1 have been generally found to have extreme spectral and variability properties that might be related to an extreme value of a fundamental physical parameter, originating from the vicinity of a supermassive black hole (e.g. Brandt & Boller 1998).

PKS 0558–504 ($`z=0.137,m_\mathrm{B}=14.97`$) is one of the few radio-loud NLS1 galaxies ($`R_\mathrm{L}=f_{5\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}/f_\mathrm{B}27`$, Siebert et al. 1999). It was optically identified on the basis of X-ray positions from the High Energy Astronomy Observatory (HEAO-1, Remillard et al. 1986). A Ginga observation (Remillard et al. 1991) showed an increase of the X-ray flux by 67% in 3 minutes, implying that the apparent luminosity must be enhanced by relativistic beaming. Further X-ray observations with different satellites have confirmed the steep X-ray spectrum and high luminosity of this source, but no more relativistic flares have been presented in the literature. It is important to search for such flares with an X-ray imaging detector to definitively rule out the possibility that the Ginga data suffered from source confusion. Tab. 1 summarizes the luminosities, observed by previous X-ray instruments, converted to the ROSAT soft X-ray band. The conversion to luminosities in the 0.2–2.4 keV energy band was performed using PIMMS, assuming Galactic absorption ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$ = $`4.39\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, Dickey & Lockman 1990) and a power law spectral model with photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ranging between 2.1 (Remillard et al. 1991) and 3.1 (Brinkmann et al. 1997). However, possible deviations from a single power law or long term spectral changes can lead to systematic uncertainties. The measured soft X-ray spectrum is rather steep and the medium energy power laws are considerably flatter, but the sparse data do not allow determination of whether the source shows spectral steepening towards lower energies or whether long term spectral changes occur during intensity variations. The luminosities were calculated by assuming a Friedman cosmology with $`H_0=70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, $`q_0=0.5`$ and isotropic emission.

In this paper we report the results of two ROSAT HRI observation campaigns taken five months apart (in November 1997 and April 1998) and the survey PSPC data (September 1990), with the purpose to check whether the strong X-ray variability is persistent and whether a nearby source contributes to the X-ray flux. In section 2 we present the observations and the spatial analysis. Section 3 deals with the variability of PKS 0558–504. Section 4 contains the main conclusions.

## 2 Observations and spatial analysis

PKS 0558–504 was observed with the ROSAT HRI on November 18 1997, with an effective exposure of 2.14 ksec, and eleven times between April 19–25, 1998, with exposures ranging between 860 sec to 4.4 ksec. All individual observations of April 1998 have been merged with a final total exposure of 21.52 ksec (see Table 2). The data analysis was performed using standard routines within the EXSAS environment (Zimmermann et al. 1994). The count rates (vignetting and dead time corrected) quoted in Table 2, as well as the light curves, were obtained by extracting photons from a circle with 150″ radius around the source center and subtracting a background from a source-free region. In order to reduce the uncertainties from an extrapolation of a steep power law spectrum to low energies (0.1–0.2 keV) where the Galactic absorption is important, we base our discussion on the luminosities in the 0.2–2.4 keV band. As a result the fluxes and luminosities quoted in Table 2 represent lower limits only. For completeness, we also mention in the text the values obtained for the 0.1–2.4 keV energy band, which are typically a factor of two higher. The conversion factor between HRI count rates and luminosities, $`A_1=3.6\times 10^{45}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{count}^1`$ ($`A_2=7.4\times 10^{45}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{count}^1`$ for 0.1–2.4 keV), was calculated by assuming a power law spectral model with the best fit parameters ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.99`$, $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ = $`4.53\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$) of the PSPC spectrum.

A peculiar property displayed by PKS 0558–504 is the unusually high ratio of X-ray to radio luminosity (Brinkmann et al. 1997), that might imply a contribution to the X-ray flux from a nearby source. To perform a spatial analysis we used all the April 1998 observations. A contour plot of the X-ray emission overlaid onto the optical image is shown in Fig. 1. The photons were binned in 2″$`\times `$2″ pixels and smoothed with a Gaussian with $`\sigma =6`$″. The surface brightness profile is well fitted by the original HRI PSF-model convolved with an additional Gaussian to allow for the known smearing of the PSF by residual wobble motion, which can vary between different observations (Morse 1994). The equatorial coordinates of the centroid in the HRI image, computed from a Gaussian fit to the spatial distribution, are RA(2000)=$`5^h59^m47\stackrel{s}{.}6`$, DEC(2000)=$`50^\mathrm{o}26\mathrm{}48\mathrm{}`$, in good agreement with the optical position, taking into account that the internal HRI position error is of the order of 5″. The only other X-ray source visible in the field of view is in the south-west of PKS 0558–504 at the position RA(2000)=$`5^h59^m21\stackrel{s}{.}2`$, DEC(2000)=$`50^\mathrm{o}28\mathrm{}23\mathrm{}`$, with a mean count rate of 0.0021 $`\mathrm{counts}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which corresponds to a flux of $`1.4\times 10^{13}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ (assuming Galactic absorption and a power law spectral model with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$). This object is classified as ‘Stellar’ with a magnitude of $`m_\mathrm{B}=19.01`$ in the digitized COSMOS UKST southern sky survey. According to Maccacaro et al. (1988) its X-ray to optical flux ratio suggests that it is an AGN. This only additional X-ray source in the HRI field of view is nearly a factor 1000 fainter than PKS 0558–504, and no other strong X-ray source is found in the ROSAT survey within a radius of 2o. Therefore contributions from a previously unknown nearby source to the high luminosity and the strong variability can be ruled out.

## 3 X-ray variability

On the basis of the luminosities quoted in Tab. 1, no long-term X-ray variability by more than a factor of 4 has been seen from PKS 0558–504. Recent SAX and RXTE observations seem to confirm this picture (A. Comastri and K. Leighly, private communication). However, spectral variations and the extrapolation of steep power law spectrum to low energies can lead to uncertain luminosities, as pointed out by Brandt et al. (1999).

More reliable results can be obtained by comparing data from the same instrument. For instance, by comparing the mean count rates of the two HRI observations taken five months apart, we find an increase of the count rates by a factor 2.4, corresponding to a luminosity variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_{0.22.4\mathrm{keV}}3.4\times 10^{45}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }L_{0.12.4\mathrm{keV}}7\times 10^{45}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$).

In Fig. 2 we show the total light curve for PKS 0558–504 during April 1998. The data points are binned into bins of 400 s, in order to avoid spurious count rate variations due to the ROSAT wobble. To characterize quantitatively the variability in the light curve, we calculated the excess variance (Nandra et al. 1997), $`\sigma _{\mathrm{rms}}^2=(5.43\pm 2.60)10^2`$. At first sight the most extreme count rate variation seems to occur during April 23 and 24, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cts}/\mathrm{\Delta }t=(1.34\pm 0.09)`$ $`\times 10^5\mathrm{counts}\mathrm{s}^2`$, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_{0.22.4\mathrm{keV}}/\mathrm{\Delta }t=(4.8\pm 0.3)\times 10^{40}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }L_{0.12.4\mathrm{keV}}/\mathrm{\Delta }t=(9.9\pm 0.7)\times 10^{40}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^2`$), calculated by performing a linear least square fit to that part of the light curve. However, if we consider the steep increase of the count rate on April 24 only, we obtain an even more extreme value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cts}/\mathrm{\Delta }t=(4.13\pm 1.34)\times 10^5\mathrm{counts}\mathrm{s}^2`$, leading to $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_{0.22.4\mathrm{keV}}/\mathrm{\Delta }t=(1.7\pm 0.5)\times 10^{41}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }L_{0.12.4\mathrm{keV}}/\mathrm{\Delta }t=(3.5\pm 1.1)\times 10^{41}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^2`$). This value can be used to estimate the lower limit of the radiative efficiency: $`\eta >4.8\times 10^{43}\mathrm{\Delta }L/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (Fabian 1979). Straightforward application of the limit gives $`\eta >0.08\pm 0.02`$ ($`\eta >0.17\pm 0.05`$ for the 0.1–2.4 keV energy band), which exceeds the theoretical maximum for accretion onto a Schwarzschild black hole, but not onto a maximally rotating Kerr black hole. The extremely high efficiency, $`\eta \stackrel{>}{}2`$, derived from the Ginga 2–10 keV luminosities (Remillard et al. 1991) however, strongly indicates that some approximations used in the calculation of the efficiency limit must be relaxed, allowing uniform radiation release and relativistic effects in the vicinity of the black hole (e.g. Brandt et al. 1999).

PKS 0558–504 was observed in the ROSAT All-Sky Survey between 1990 September 8 (10:58:02 UT) and 1990 September 14 (22:14:44 UT), with an effective exposure of 1036 s and an average count rate of $`5.5\mathrm{counts}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The light curve, shown in Fig. 3 ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{rms}}^2=(6.32\pm 0.59)10^2)`$, exhibits variability by more than a factor of three with a maximum $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cts}/\mathrm{\Delta }t=(14.3\pm 2.4)`$ $`\times 10^5\mathrm{counts}\mathrm{s}^2`$. From the PSPC count rates and the spectral parameters given below we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_{0.22.4\mathrm{keV}}/\mathrm{\Delta }t=(1.8\pm 0.3)\times 10^{41}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_{0.12.4\mathrm{keV}}/\mathrm{\Delta }t=(3.6\pm 0.6)\times 10^{41}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^2`$, which are very similar to the values of the most extreme HRI event, but on a different time scale (the rest frame interval is $`\mathrm{\Delta }t7`$h for the survey data and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t1.5`$h for the HRI flare). As a consequence the values derived for the radiative efficiency are similar: $`\eta >0.09\pm 0.01`$ for the 0.2–2.4 keV band and $`\eta >0.17\pm 0.03`$ for the 0.1–2.4 keV band.

The spectrum can be fit with a single power law with photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.99\pm 0.09`$ and free absorption of $`N_H=(4.53\pm 0.44)\times 10^{20}`$cm-2, in excellent agreement with the Galactic value. The residuals of this fit, given in Fig. 4, do not give strong evidence for deviations from a simple power law although there are indications at $`E1`$keV for some spectral changes. With these parameters the resulting unabsorbed fluxes during the survey observations are $`1.2\times 10^{10}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`2.5\times 10^{10}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, for the 0.2–2.4 keV and 0.1–2.4 keV energy bands, respectively, corresponding to $`L_{0.22.4\mathrm{keV}}=5.9\times 10^{45}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`L_{0.12.4\mathrm{keV}}=1.2\times 10^{46}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

For several AGN, light curves with large amplitude flares have been interpreted as indication for non-linear processes (Green 1993, Boller et al. 1997, Leighly & O’Brien 1997). Given that the April 1998 light curve of PKS 0558–504 presents at least two large flares, we searched for non-Gaussianity (and possibly for non-linearity; see Leighly 1999a for a detailed discussion), by adopting the Green (1993) method: a time series is non-Gaussian if the ratio of its standard deviation to its mean is larger than unity. Using the data points in Fig. 2 we find that the unweighted mean count rate is 1.61 $`\mathrm{counts}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and the standard deviation 0.39 $`\mathrm{counts}\mathrm{s}^1`$ ($`\sigma /\overline{x}=0.24`$). As a result we do not find evidence for non-Gaussian variability. However this method assumes that the sample mean and standard deviation used are accurate representations of the true mean and standard deviation, and this might not be true in our case, due to the limited number of observation intervals. The same conclusions were reached by Leighly (1999a) from ASCA data, using a different method based on the skewness of the flux distribution.

## 4 Conclusions

We have presented ROSAT HRI observations of the radio-loud NLS1 galaxy PKS 0558–504. The main results can be summarized as follows:

From the spatial analysis, no other strong X-ray sources have been detected in the neighborhood of PKS 0558–504, therefore external contributions to the high luminosity and to the strong variability from a nearby source are ruled out. By comparing the X-ray observations throughout the last decade, it is evident that the strong X-ray variability of PKS 0558–504 occurs persistently. During the ROSAT HRI observations, PKS 0558–504 shows strong variability, both on medium (months) and short (days, hours) time scales. The most extreme variation implies a radiative efficiency larger than the theoretical maximum for accretion onto a Schwarzschild black hole, and our findings generally support those of Remillard et al. (1991) where a relativistic $`(\eta \stackrel{>}{}2)`$ flare was discovered. As PKS 0558–504 is a radio-loud object, beamed emission from a jet could be the cause for the brightness and variability in X-rays. However, it is worth noting that the radio-quiet NLS1 PHL 1092 has also shown a relativistic flare $`(\eta \stackrel{>}{}0.6)`$, and radio-quiet NLS1 more generally show enhanced X-ray variability. The soft X-ray spectrum is rather steep with a power law photon index of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }3.0`$ and shows no strong indications for spectral breaks. The obtained medium energy power laws are considerably flatter ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }2.2`$) but the sparse data and the limited energy bands of the different instruments do not allow determination of whether the source shows a spectral steepening towards lower energies or whether long term spectral changes occur during intensity variations. An answer to these vital questions can only be given by the current broad band X-ray missions like SAX, XMM-Newton or Chandra.

###### Acknowledgements.

The ROSAT project is supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie (BMBF) and the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. MG acknowledges support from the European Commission under contract number ERBFMRX-CT98-0195 (TMR network “Accretion onto black holes, compact stars and protostars”). WNB acknowledges support from NASA LTSA grant NAG5-8107.


format: text

text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

0.1. Let $`k`$ be a field of characteristic zero. To a nonsingular (irreducible) variety $`X`$ and a morphism $`f:X𝔸^1`$, both defined over $`k`$, was associated the invariant motivic (Igusa) zeta function by Denef and Loeser \[DL2\]. By definition it lives in a power series ring in one variable over the ring $`_L`$, where $``$ is the Grothendieck ring of algebraic varieties over $`k`$, $`L`$ is the class of $`𝔸^1`$ in $``$, and $`_L`$ denotes localization. When $`X=𝔸^d`$ this invariant specializes to both the usual $`p`$–adic Igusa zeta function and the topological zeta function associated to a polynomial $`f`$. (In fact in \[DL2\] the authors treat an even more general invariant, involving motives instead of varieties, from which also the whole Hodge spectrum of $`f`$ at any point of $`f^1\{0\}`$ can be deduced.) This notion of motivic zeta function can easily be extended to an effective divisor $`D`$ instead of just a morphism $`f`$.

The authors were inspired by Kontsevich’s idea of motivic integration. In \[Kon\] Kontsevich associated to a nonsingular irreducible variety $`X`$ and an effective divisor $`D`$ on $`X`$ an invariant $`(D)`$, living by definition in an appropriate completion $`\widehat{}`$ of $`_L`$. He used this invariant to show that birationally equivalent (smooth, projective) Calabi–Yau varieties have the same Hodge numbers.

0.2. There are important formulas for these invariants in terms of an embedded resolution (with strict normal crossings) $`h:YX`$ of supp $`D`$. Let $`\mathrm{dim}X=d`$ and denote by $`E_i,iT`$, the irreducible components of $`h^1(\mathrm{supp}D)`$. To the $`E_i`$ are associated natural multiplicities $`N_i`$ and $`\nu _i`$ defined by $`h^{}D=_{iT}N_iE_i`$ and $`\mathrm{div}(h^{}dx)=_{iT}(\nu _i1)E_i`$, where $`dx`$ is a local generator of the sheaf of regular differential $`d`$-forms on $`X`$. Also we partition $`Y`$ into the locally closed strata $`E_I^{}:=(_{iI}E_i)(_\mathrm{}IE_{\mathrm{}})\text{ for }IT.`$

We denote the class of a variety $`V`$ in $``$ by $`[V]`$, and by analogy with the usual $`p`$–adic Igusa zeta function we denote the variable of the power series ring over $`_L`$ formally by $`L^s`$. Then the motivic zeta function $`𝒵(D,s)`$ of $`D`$ is given by the formula

$$𝒵(D,s)=L^d\underset{IT}{}[E_I^{}]\underset{iI}{}\frac{(L1)L^{\nu _i}(L^s)^{N_i}}{1L^{\nu _i}(L^s)^{N_i}}$$

and so it lives already in a localization of the polynomial ring $`_L[L^s]`$. Kontsevich’s invariant for $`D`$ is given by

$$(D)=L^d\underset{IT}{}[E_I^{}]\underset{iI}{}\frac{L1}{L^{\nu _i+N_i}1}$$

and can thus in some sense be derived from $`𝒵(D,s)`$ by ‘substituting $`s=1`$’.

0.3. One can specialize $`𝒵(D,s)`$ and $`(D)`$ to more ‘concrete’ invariants, involving instead of the class $`[V]`$ of a variety $`V`$ in $``$ other additive invariants as the Hodge polynomial $`H(V)`$ or the Euler characteristic $`\chi (V)`$ of $`V`$. With a little work one obtains for instance from $`𝒵(D,s)`$ the topological zeta function

$$z(D,s)=\underset{IT}{}\chi (E_I^{})\underset{iI}{}\frac{1}{\nu _i+sN_i}(s),$$

which was introduced in \[DL1\] for $`X=𝔸^d`$ and $`k=`$, and the invariant

$$e(D)=\underset{IT}{}\chi (E_I^{})\underset{iI}{}\frac{1}{\nu _i+N_i}.$$

0.4. Can the invariants above be generalized to singular (normal) varieties $`X`$ such that analogous formulas in terms of an embedded resolution are valid ? The main problem is whether these formulas are independent of the chosen resolution. Let $`D`$ be an effective Weil divisor on $`X`$ and $`h:YX`$ an embedded resolution of $`X_{\text{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D`$ with irreducible components $`E_i,iT`$, of $`h^1(X_{\text{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D)`$. Can we generalize the multiplicities $`N_i`$ and $`\nu _i`$ ? When $`D`$ is Cartier (or $``$–Cartier) the same expression $`h^{}D=_{iT}N_iE_i`$ makes sense. We think that the most natural generalization of the $`\nu _i`$ are the log discrepancies given by $`K_Y=h^{}K_X+_{iT}(\nu _i1)E_i`$, where $`K_{}`$ is the canonical divisor. To this end we need in general $`X`$ to be Gorenstein (or $``$–Gorenstein). Up to now the following generalizations appeared (with $`k=`$).

(a) In dimension 2 these multiplicities are defined for arbitrary Weil divisors on normal surfaces. In \[V3\] we introduced a topological zeta function and a motivic zeta function for effective divisors on normal surface germs. We could have done this as well globally, associating to an effective Weil divisor $`D`$ on a normal surface $`X`$ for which $`X_{\text{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D`$ the zeta functions $`𝒵(D,s)`$ and $`z(D,s)`$, given by the same formulas as above.

(b) In arbitrary dimension Batyrev \[B2\] considered the case $`D=0`$ and associated ‘Kontsevich–like’ invariants to a log terminal $`X`$ on the level of Hodge polynomials and Euler characteristics. The last one, which he called stringy Euler number, is given by the formula for $`e(D)`$ in (0.3) with all $`N_i=0`$. The invariant on Hodge polynomial level was used in \[B2\] to define stringy Hodge numbers for projective canonical Gorenstein varieties, and to formulate a topological mirror duality test for canonical Calabi–Yau varieties.

(c) Batyrev \[B3\] also extended his construction to Kawamata log terminal pairs $`(X,D)`$, i.e. pairs such that $`K_X+D`$ is $``$–Cartier and all $`a_i>0`$ in the expression $`K_Y=h^{}(K_X+D)+_{iT}(a_i1)E_i`$. On the Euler characteristic level this invariant is given by the formula

$$e\left((X,D)\right)=\underset{IT}{}\chi (E_I^{})\underset{iI}{}\frac{1}{a_i}.$$

In \[B3\] these invariants are used to prove a version of Reid’s McKay correspondence conjecture.

We should mention that Batyrev is naturally restricted to the log terminality conditions above (all $`\nu _i>0`$ and all $`a_i>0`$, respectively) by applying motivic integration techniques to show that the formulas above are independent of the chosen resolution; see \[B2, Theorem 6.28\].

We also want to remark that $`(D)`$ is generalized in \[DL3\] in a different way (see 3.5).

0.5. In this paper we extend the invariants above beyond the log terminal case to the following general situation. Now let $`X`$ be any normal $``$–Gorenstein variety and $`D`$ an effective $``$–Cartier divisor with $`X_{\text{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D`$. We associate first to these data zeta functions $`𝒵(D,s),Z(D,s)`$ and $`z(D,s)`$ on ‘motivic’ level, Hodge polynomial level and Euler characteristic level, respectively, such that the same formulas as in (0.2) and (0.3) are valid. Then we define ‘Kontsevich’ invariants $`(D),E(D)`$ and $`e(D)`$ on the analogous levels by taking the limit for $`s1`$ in the associated zeta functions (admitting the value $`\mathrm{}`$). In particular when all $`\nu _i+N_i0`$ the formulas in (0.2) and (0.3) are again valid.

Furthermore taking the limit for $`s1`$ in the zeta functions we obtain invariants $`\left((X,D)\right),E\left((X,D)\right)`$ and $`e\left((X,D)\right)`$ of the pair $`(X,D)`$ on the same levels, the last one given by the same formula as in (0.4).

In fact we can relax our condition $`X_{\text{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D`$ to $`LCS(X)\mathrm{supp}D`$, where $`LCS(X)`$ is the locus of log canonical singularities of $`X`$. In particular this locus is empty when $`X`$ is log terminal; so we really generalize the invariants of \[B2\].

0.6. In §1 we recall the motivic zeta function of Denef and Loeser and the invariant of Kontsevich on smooth varieties $`X`$, generalizing the first one to effective divisors instead of regular functions. As an introduction to singular varieties we treat the easy case of a canonical $`X`$ in §2; there we also consider an application to minimal models. For $``$–Gorenstein varieties $`X`$ the zeta functions $`Z(D,s)`$ and $`z(D,s)`$ on the level of Hodge polynomials and Euler characteristics, respectively, are constructed in an elementary way in §3. We provide some examples in §4. The ‘motivic’ version requires more work. In §5 we first introduce a motivic zeta function $`𝒵(D,J,s)`$ on a smooth $`X`$, associated to both an effective divisor $`D`$ and an invertible subsheaf $`J`$ of the sheaf of regular differential forms on $`X`$. (This can be compared with associating a $`p`$–adic Igusa zeta function to both a polynomial and a differential form.) Then we use this object to define the motivic zeta function $`𝒵(D,s)`$ for a $``$–Gorenstein $`X`$ in §6. We include an appendix indicating how to extend the original Kontsevich invariant on smooth $`X`$ to $``$–divisors instead of (ordinary) divisors, needing a finite extension of $`\widehat{}`$.

0.7. Remark. After this work was finished we learned about the proofs of Włodarczyk \[Wł\] and of Abramovich et al \[AKMW\] of the weak factorization conjecture for birational maps. Using weak factorization we can give another proof that the zeta functions in this paper are well defined.

## 1. Smooth varieties

1.1. Let $`k`$ be a field of characteristic zero; the varieties and morphisms we will consider are assumed to be defined over $`k`$. (A variety is a reduced separated scheme of finite type over $`k`$, not necessarily irreducible.)

We fix some terminology concerning resolution. A resolution of an irreducible variety $`X`$ is a proper birational morphism $`h:YX`$ from a smooth variety $`Y`$, which is an isomorphism outside the set $`X_{\text{sing}}`$ of singular points of $`X`$. A log resolution or embedded resolution of an irreducible variety $`X`$ is a resolution $`h:YX`$ of $`X`$ for which $`h^1(X_{\text{sing}})`$ is a divisor with strict normal crossings, i.e. with smooth irreducible components intersecting transversely. A log resolution or embedded resolution of a reduced Weil divisor $`D`$ on a normal variety $`X`$ is a proper birational morphism $`h:YX`$ from a smooth $`Y`$, which is an isomorphism outside $`X_{\text{sing}}D`$, and such that $`h^1(X_{\text{sing}}D)`$ is a divisor with strict normal crossings.

We denote by $``$ the Grothendieck ring of (algebraic) varieties over $`k`$. This is the free abelian group generated by the symbols $`[V]`$, where $`[V]`$ is a variety, subject to the relations $`[V]=[V^{}]`$ if $`VV^{}`$ and $`[V]=[VV^{}]+[V^{}]`$ if $`V^{}`$ is closed in $`V`$. Its ring structure is given by $`[V][V^{}]:=[V\times V^{}]`$. We abbreviate $`L:=[𝔸^1]`$ and denote by $`_L=[L^1]`$ the localization of $``$ w.r.t. the multiplicative set $`\{L^n,n\}`$.

1.2. For $`[V]`$ we denote by $`H(V)[u,v]`$ its Hodge polynomial and by $`\chi (V)`$ its Euler characteristic. We briefly explain these notions.

Let first $`k=`$. Then for a variety $`V`$ we denote by $`h^{p,q}(H_c^i(V,))`$ the rank of the $`(p,q)`$–Hodge component of its $`i`$-th cohomology group with compact support and by $`e^{p,q}(V):=_{i0}(1)^ih^{p,q}(H_c^i(V,))`$ its Hodge numbers. The Hodge polynomial of $`V`$ is $`H(V)=H(V;u,v):=_{p,q}e^{p,q}(V)u^pv^q[u,v]`$.

Precisely by the defining relations of $``$ there is a well defined ring morphism $`H:[u,v]`$ determined by $`[V]H(V)`$.

We denote by $`\chi (V)`$ the topological Euler characteristic of $`V`$, i.e. the alternating sum of the ranks of its Betti or de Rham cohomology groups. Clearly $`\chi (V)=H(V;1,1)`$ and we also obtain a ring morphism $`\chi :`$ determined by $`[V]\chi (V)`$.

For arbitrary $`k`$ (of characteristic zero) we choose an embedding of the field of definition of the variety $`V`$ into $``$. Then we can define the same morphisms $`H`$ and $`\chi `$ on $``$ starting from the $`e^{p,q}(V)`$; they are independent of the chosen embedding since for a smooth projective $`V`$ we have that $`e^{p,q}(V)=(1)^{p+q}\mathrm{dim}_kH^q(V,\mathrm{\Omega }_V^p)`$.

1.3. Till the end of this section we let $`X`$ be a smooth irreducible variety of dimension $`d`$ and $`W`$ a subvariety of $`X`$.

In \[DL2\] Denef and Loeser associate to $`WX`$ and a morphism $`f:X𝔸^1`$ an invariant named motivic Igusa zeta function. We recall here briefly its definition but generalize immediately to effective divisors $`D`$ (instead of functions $`f`$). We refer to \[DL2\] for more details and motivation, and for the relation with the usual $`p`$–adic Igusa zeta function.

We denote by $`(X)`$ the scheme of germs of arcs on $`X`$. It is a scheme over $`k`$ whose $`k`$–rational points are the morphisms $`\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]]X`$ (called the germs of arcs on $`X`$). In fact $`(X)`$ is defined as the projective limit $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_n(X)`$ of the schemes of truncated arcs $`_n(X)`$, whose $`k`$–rational points are the morphisms $`\mathrm{Spec}(k[t]/t^{n+1}k[t])X`$ (see \[DL2\] and \[BLR, p.276\]). There are canonical morphisms $`\pi _n:(X)_n(X)`$, induced by truncation. Remark also that $`_0(X)=X`$.

Now let $`D`$ be an effective divisor on $`X`$. For $`n`$ we define $`Y_{n,D,W}`$ as the subscheme of $`(X)`$ whose $`K`$–rational points, for any field $`Kk`$, are the morphisms $`\phi :\mathrm{Spec}K[[t]]X`$ satisfying the following conditions :

(i) $`\phi `$ sends the closed point of $`\mathrm{Spec}K[[t]]`$ to a point $`P`$ in $`W`$;

(ii) if $`f`$ is a local equation of $`D`$ at $`P`$, then the power series in $`t`$ given by $`f\phi `$ must be exactly of order $`n`$. (This is clearly independent of the choice of $`f`$.) We then denote by $`X_{n,D,W}`$ the image of $`Y_{n,D,W}`$ in $`_n(X)`$, viewed as a reduced subscheme of $`_n(X)`$. The motivic zeta function of $`D`$ (and $`WX`$) is

$$𝒵_W(D,s)=𝒵_W(X,D,s):=\underset{n}{}[X_{n,D,W}]L^{(n+1)dns}_L[[L^s]].$$

Here $`L^s`$ is just a variable and in the power series ring $`_L[[L^s]]`$ we abbreviate $`L^a(L^s)^b`$ by $`L^{asb}`$ for $`a`$ and $`b`$. (When $`D`$ is given by a global function $`f`$ on $`X`$ Denef and Loeser denoted this invariant by $`_W^{}f^s`$ in \[DL2\].)

One can think here mainly about $`W`$ as being $`X`$ itself, the divisor $`\{f=0\}`$, or a point of $`\{f=0\}`$. This $`W`$–formalism enables us to treat these cases together, and the greater generality is also useful.

1.3.1. We briefly compare this with the classical $`p`$–adic situation. Let $`f_p[x]=_p[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ and denote by $`|z|=p^{\mathrm{ord}_pz}`$ the $`p`$–adic absolute value of $`z_p`$. Igusa’s local zeta function of $`f`$ is

$$Z_p(f,s):=_{_p^d}|f(x)|^s|dx|$$

for $`s`$ with $`\mathrm{}(s)>0`$, where $`|dx|`$ denotes the Haar measure on $`_p^d`$ such that $`_p^d`$ has measure $`1`$. When $`f_p[x]`$ it is not difficult to verify that

$$Z_p(f,s)=\underset{n}{}\mathrm{card}(X_{n,f})p^{(n+1)dns},$$

where $`X_{n,f}`$ is the image in $`(_p/p^{n+1}_p)^d`$ of $`Y_{n,f}=\{x_p^d|\mathrm{ord}_pf(x)=n\}`$. See \[D2\] for an introduction and an overview on Igusa’s local zeta function.

1.4. There is an important formula for $`𝒵_W(D,s)`$ in terms of a log resolution of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$. In particular it implies the rationality result that $`𝒵_W(D,s)`$ belongs in fact already to a certain localization of the polynomial ring $`_L[L^s]`$.

Let $`h:YX`$ be a log resolution of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$. We denote by $`E_i,iT`$, the irreducible components of $`h^1(\mathrm{supp}D)`$ and by $`N_i`$ and $`\nu _i1`$ the multiplicities of $`E_i`$ in $`h^{}D`$ and the divisor of $`h^{}\text{dx}`$, respectively, where dx is a local generator of the sheaf $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^d`$ of regular differential $`d`$–forms. We partition $`Y`$ into the locally closed strata $`E_I^{}:=(_{iI}E_i)(_\mathrm{}IE_{\mathrm{}})`$ for $`IT`$. (Here $`E_\varphi =Y_\mathrm{}TE_{\mathrm{}}`$.)

###### Theorem

We have the formula

$$𝒵_W(D,s)=L^d\underset{IT}{}[E_I^{}h^1W]\underset{iI}{}\frac{L1}{L^{\nu _i+sN_i}1}$$

(where $`\frac{1}{L^{\nu _i+sN_i}1}:=\frac{L^{\nu _isN_i}}{1L^{\nu _isN_i}})`$. So $`𝒵_W(D,s)`$ belongs already to the localization $`_L[L^s]_{(1L^{nNs})_{n,N\{0\}}}`$ of the polynomial ring $`_L[L^s]`$.

1.4.1. One should compare this formula with the classical formula of Denef \[D1, Theorems 2.4 and 3.1\] for Igusa’s local zeta function $`Z_p(f,s)`$ of $`f[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ in terms of a resolution $`h:Y𝔸^d`$ of $`\{f=0\}`$. Using the notation above we have for all but finitely many $`p`$ that

$$Z_p(f,s)=p^d\underset{IT}{}\mathrm{\#}(E_I^{})_{𝔽_p}\underset{iI}{}\frac{p1}{p^{\nu _i+sN_i}1},$$

where $`\mathrm{\#}()_{𝔽_p}`$ denotes the number of $`𝔽_p`$–rational points of the reduction$`modp`$. See \[D1, D2\] for more details.

1.5. Here we generalize $`𝒵_W(D,s)`$ to effective $``$–divisors on $`X`$. Now let $`D`$ be an effective $``$–divisor on $`X`$ and say that $`rD`$ is a divisor for $`r\{0\}`$. We define $`𝒵_W(D,s):=𝒵_W(rD,s/r)`$, meaning by this the motivic zeta function of 1.3 for the divisor $`rD`$, where the variable $`L^s`$ is replaced by a variable $`(L^s)^{1/r}`$. This definition is easily checked to be independent of the chosen $`r`$, using Theorem 1.4. Moreover Theorem 1.4 is still valid in this context. The only difference is that the $`N_i,iT`$, are now rational numbers (of the form $`a/r`$ with $`a\{0\})`$, and one should consider $`L^{sN_i}`$ as an abbreviation of $`((L^s)^{1/r})^{rN_i}`$.

1.6. One can specialize the motivic zeta functions $`𝒵_W(D,s)`$ to more ‘concrete’ invariants on the level of Hodge polynomials and on the level of Euler characteristics.

($`i`$) Let $`D`$ be an effective divisor on $`X`$. Since the Hodge polynomial $`H(𝔸^1)=uv`$ the morphism $`H:[u,v]`$ extends naturally to a ring morphism $`H:_L[u,v]_{uv}=[u,v][(uv)^1]`$ (and further to a morphism on power series rings over these rings). We define

$$Z_W(D,s)=Z_W(X,D,s):=H(𝒵_W(D,s))=\underset{n}{}H(X_{n,D,W})(uv)^{(n+1)dns},$$

where now we denote the variable of the power series ring over $`[u,v]_{uv}`$ by $`(uv)^s`$. Using the notation of 1.4 we have the formula

$`Z_W(D,s)`$ $`=(uv)^d{\displaystyle \underset{IT}{}}H(E_I^{}h^1W){\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{uv1}{(uv)^{\nu _i+sN_i}1}}`$
$`[u,v]_{uv}[(uv)^s]_{(1(uv)^{nNs})_{n,N\{0\}}}(u,v)\left((uv)^s\right).`$
($`ii`$) To specialize further to the level of Euler characteristics one takes heuristically the limit of the expression above for $`u,v1`$. We briefly explain the exact argument; see \[DL2, (2.3)\] for the argument starting from $`𝒵_W(D,s)`$. Let $`R`$ denote the subring of $`[u,v]_{uv}[[(uv)^s]]`$ generated by $`[u,v]_{uv}[(uv)^s]`$ and the elements $`\frac{uv1}{1(uv)^{nNs}}`$, where $`n,N\{0\}`$. $`(Z_W(D,s)`$ lives in $`R`$.) By expanding $`(uv)^s`$ and $`\frac{uv1}{1(uv)^{nNs}}`$ formally into series in $`uv1`$, one constructs a canonical algebra morphism

$$R[u,v]_{uv}[s][(n+sN)^1]_{n,N\{0\}}[[uv1]],$$

where $`[[uv1]]`$ denotes completion with respect to the ideal $`(uv1)`$. Composing this morphism with the quotient map given by dividing out $`(uv1)`$ in this last algebra yields a morphism

$$\phi :R\frac{[u,v]_{uv}}{(uv1)}[s][(n+sN)^1]_{n,N\{0\}}.$$

In this last ring the evaluation $`u=v=1`$ is well defined; we put

$`z_W(D,s)=z_W(X,D,s)`$ $`:=\underset{u,v1}{lim}\phi (Z_W(D,s))`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{IT}{}}\chi (E_I^{}h^1W){\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _i+sN_i}}(s).`$
When $`X=𝔸^n`$ and $`D`$ is given by a polynomial $`f`$ these invariants are just the topological zeta functions $`Z_{\text{top}}(f,s)`$ and $`Z_{\text{top},0}(f,s)`$ of \[DL1\] if we take $`W=X`$ and $`W=\{0\}`$, respectively.

($`iii`$) As in 1.5 we can consider $`Z_W(D,s)`$ and $`z_W(D,s)`$ also for $``$–divisors $`D`$.

1.7. Now we recall the original motivic integral, introduced by Kontsevich in \[Kon\], using the notation of 1.3. We refer to \[DL3\] for a detailed exposition in a much more general setting; see also the appendix. A nice introduction is \[C\].

We say that dim $`Mn`$ for $`M`$ if $`M`$ can be expressed as a $``$–linear combination of classes of algebraic varieties of dimension at most $`n`$. We consider the decreasing filtration $`(F^m)_m`$ on $`_L`$, where $`F^m`$ is the subgroup of $`_L`$ generated by $`\{[V]L^i|\mathrm{dim}Vim\}`$, and we denote by $`\widehat{}`$ the completion of $`_L`$ with respect to this filtration.

Let again $`D`$ be an effective divisor on $`X`$. We set

$$_W(D)=_W(X,D):=\underset{n}{}\frac{[X_{n,D,W}]}{L^{(n+1)d}}L^n\widehat{};$$

this expression converges in $`\widehat{}`$ since $`\mathrm{dim}[X_{n,D,W}](n+1)d`$. This invariant was denoted as $`[_Xe^D]`$ by Kontsevich (for $`W=X`$) and as $`_{\pi _0^1W}L^{\mathrm{ord}_t𝒪(D)}𝑑\mu `$ in \[DL3\]. In this last paper Denef and Loeser develop an integration theory for semi–algebraic subsets of $`(X)`$ with values in $`\widehat{}`$ such that $`[X_{n,D,W}]/L^{(n+1)d}`$ is just the volume of $`Y_{n,D,W}`$. See also §5 and the appendix.

1.8. Remark. As far as we know it is not clear whether or not the natural morphism $`_L\widehat{}`$ is injective; its kernel is $`_mF_m`$. However for an algebraic variety $`V`$ we have that $`H(V)`$ and $`\chi (V)`$ only depend on the image of $`[V]`$ in $`\widehat{}`$, see 1.12.

###### 1.9. Theorem {\rm\[Kon\]\[DL3, (6.5)\]}

Using the notation of 1.4 we have the following formula for $`_W(D)`$ in terms of a log resolution $`h:YX`$ of supp $`D`$ :

$$_W(D)=L^d\underset{IT}{}[E_I^{}h^1W]\underset{iI}{}\frac{L1}{L^{\nu _i+N_i}1}\text{ in }\widehat{}.$$

In particular $`_W(D)`$ belongs to the image of $`_L[(L^n1)^1]_{n\{0\}}`$ in $`\widehat{}`$.

So by Theorem 1.4 we obtain that $`_W(D)=𝒵_W(D)|_{s=1}`$ in $`\widehat{}`$, where the evaluation ‘$`s=1`$’ means substituting $`L^1`$ for the variable $`L^s`$.

1.10. The following important change of variables formula is a special case of \[DL3, Lemma 3.3\], and was also mentioned in \[Kon\].

###### Theorem

Let also $`X^{}`$ be a smooth irreducible variety and $`\rho :X^{}X`$ a proper birational morphism. Let $`D`$ be an effective divisor on $`X`$. Then

$$_W(X,D)=_{\rho ^1W}(X^{},\rho ^{}D+K_{X^{}|X})$$

where $`K_{X^{}|X}=K_X^{}\rho ^{}K_X`$ is the relative canonical divisor or discrepancy divisor.

1.11. It is possible to generalize the set–up in 1.7 – 1.10 to effective $``$–divisors. We treat this in the appendix. In particular we obtain for an effective $``$–divisor $`D`$ on $`X`$, such that $`rD`$ is a divisor for an $`r\{0\}`$, an analogous invariant $`_W(D)\widehat{}[L^{1/r}]`$. It is given in terms of a log resolution $`h:YX`$ (as in 1.4) by the same formula as in 1.9, where now the $`N_i`$ belong to $`\frac{1}{r}(\{0\}`$). So $`_W(D)`$ belongs to the image of $`[L^{1/r}][(L^{n/r}1)^1]_{n\{0\}}`$ in $`\widehat{}[L^{1/r}]`$.

When $`\mathrm{supp}D`$ has strict normal crossings we extend in the appendix the notion of $`_W(D)`$ further to the case that all coefficients of $`D`$ are $`>1`$. Remark that then in Theorem 1.9 (with $`h=Id_X`$) all $`\nu _i=1`$, and our condition on the coefficients of $`D`$ is thus precisely that all $`\nu _i+N_i>0`$.

1.12. One can also specialize the invariant $`_W(D)`$ to the level of Hodge polynomials and Euler characteristics. We only consider expressions in terms of log resolutions (using the notation of 1.4).

The morphism $`H:[u,v]`$ extends canonically to a morphism $`H:_L[(L^n1)^1]_{n\{0\}}[uv]_{uv}[((uv)^n1)^1]_{n\{0\}}(u,v)`$. Since the kernel of the natural map $`_L\widehat{}`$ is killed by $`H`$ we can in fact consider $`H`$ as a morphism from the image of $`_L[(L^n1)^1]_{n\{0\}}`$ in $`\widehat{}`$ into $`(u,v)`$.

We define for an effective divisor $`D`$ on $`X`$ the invariants

$`E_W(D)=E_W(X,D)`$ $`:=H(_W(D))`$
$`=(uv)^d{\displaystyle \underset{IT}{}}H(E_I^{}h^1W){\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{uv1}{(uv)^{\nu _i+N_i}1}}(u,v)`$
and

$$e_W(D)=e_W(X,D):=\underset{u,v1}{lim}E_W(X,D)=\underset{IT}{}\chi (E_I^{}h^1W)\underset{iI}{}\frac{1}{\nu _i+N_i}.$$

The extended notions of $`_W(D)`$ for $``$–divisors of 1.11 can analogously be specialized. We obtain the same expressions where now the $`N_i`$ are rational; then $`E_W(D)`$ is a rational function in $`u,v`$ with ‘fractional powers’. For $`W=X`$ this was already considered by Batyrev \[B3\].

## 2. Immediate generalizations and applications

2.1. We recall some terminology with origins in the Minimal Model Program. See for example \[KM, KMM, Kol\].

On any normal variety $`V`$ there is a well–defined linear equivalence class of canonical Weil divisors, denoted by $`K_V`$. An arbitrary Weil divisor $`D`$ on $`V`$ is called $``$–Cartier if $`rD`$ is Cartier for some $`r\{0\}`$. A normal variety $`V`$ is called ($``$–)Gorenstein if $`K_V`$ is ($``$–)Cartier.

Let $`X`$ be a normal variety and $`D`$ a $``$–divisor on $`X`$ such that $`K_X+D`$ is $``$–Cartier. (In particular we can have $`D=0`$ and then $`X`$ is $``$–Gorenstein.) Let $`\rho :YX`$ be a log resolution of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$ and denote by $`E_i,iT`$, the irreducible components of $`h^1`$ $`(X_{\mathrm{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D)`$. Then we can write

$$K_Y=\rho ^{}(K_X+D)+\underset{iT}{}(a_i1)E_i$$

in $`\mathrm{Pic}Y`$ and $`a_i=a_i(X,D;E_i)`$ is called the log discrepancy (with respect to the pair $`(X,D)`$) of $`E_i`$ for $`iT`$. This number $`a_i`$ does not depend on the chosen resolution (it is determined by the valuation on $`k(X)`$ associated to $`E_i`$). Remark that when $`X`$ is smooth and $`D=0`$ the numbers $`\nu _i`$ defined in 1.4 are just log discrepancies. ($`i`$) Let first $`D=0`$. The variety $`X`$ is called terminal, canonical, log terminal and log canonical if for some (or, equivalently, any) log resolution of $`X`$ we have that $`a_i>1`$, $`a_i1`$, $`a_i>0`$ and $`a_i0`$, respectively, for all $`iT`$.

($`ii`$) When $`D0`$ the pair $`(X,D)`$ is said to be Kawamata log terminal (shortly klt) if for some (or any) log resolution of supp $`D`$ we have that $`a_i>0`$ for all $`iT`$. In particular this implies that, if $`D=_id_iD_i`$ with the $`D_i`$ irreducible, all $`d_i<1`$. (See \[Kol, S\] for a discussion of other log terminality notions for pairs.)

($`iii`$) A closed subvariety $`CX`$ is called a log canonical centre of $`X`$ if for some log resolution $`\rho :YX`$ there exists $`iT`$ such that $`\rho (E_i)=C`$ and $`a_i0`$. The locus of log canonical singularities of $`X`$, denoted by $`LCS(X)`$, is the union of all log canonical centres of $`X`$. In particular $`LCS(X)=\mathrm{}X`$ is log terminal. (Hence a more appropriate notation for this locus, proposed by Kollár, would be Nlt(X), indicating the locus where $`X`$ is not log terminal.)

2.2. A natural idea, inspired by Theorem 1.10, to generalize the invariant $`_W(X,D)`$ to a ($``$–)divisor $`D`$ on a singular variety $`X`$ is as follows. Take a resolution $`h:YX`$ of $`X`$ and define $`_W(X,D)`$ as $`_{h^1W}(Y,h^{}D+K_{Y|X})`$, whenever this makes sense, and verify independency of the chosen resolution. So we want $`X`$ to be $``$–Gorenstein and $`h^{}D+K_{Y|X}`$ to be effective, or at least that its coefficients are $`>1`$ if its support has normal crossings.

Below we treat the ‘instructional’ case that $`X`$ is ($``$–)Gorenstein and canonical and $`D`$ is an effective ($``$–)Cartier divisor.

###### 2.3. Definition – Proposition

(i) Let $`X`$ be a Gorenstein and canonical variety and $`W`$ a subvariety of $`X`$; let $`D`$ be an effective Cartier divisor on $`X`$. Take a resolution $`h:YX`$ of $`X`$. Then we define

$$_W(X,D):=_{h^1W}(Y,h^{}D+K_{Y|X})\widehat{}.$$

(ii) More generally let $`X`$ be $``$–Gorenstein and canonical and $`W`$ a subvariety of $`X`$; let $`D`$ be an effective $``$–Cartier divisor on $`X`$. Say $`rK_X`$ and $`rD`$ are Cartier for an $`r\{0\}`$. Take a resolution $`h:YX`$ of $`X`$. Then we define $`_W(X,D)\widehat{}[L^{1/r}]`$ as above.

###### Demonstration Proof

(i) The divisor $`h^{}D+K_{Y|X}`$ is effective since $`K_{Y|X}`$ is effective, which is equivalent to $`X`$ being canonical. Let now $`h^{}:Y^{}X`$ be another log resolution of $`X`$. Since two such resolutions are always dominated by a third it is sufficient to consider the case that $`h^{}`$ factors through $`h`$ as $`h^{}:Y^{}\stackrel{𝜋}{}Y\stackrel{}{}X`$. Then by Theorem 1.10 we have

$`_{h^1W}(Y,h^{}D+K_{Y|X})`$ $`=_{\pi ^1h^1W}(Y^{},\pi ^{}(h^{}D+K_{Y|X})+K_{Y^{}|Y})`$
$`=_{h^^1W}(Y^{},h^{}D+K_{Y^{}|X}).`$
(ii) Completely analogous, using the extended theory for $``$–divisors mentioned in 1.11. ∎

When $`h:YX`$ is a log resolution of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$ we have the same formula as in Theorem 1.9, where the $`\nu _i`$ must be generalized according to their meaning as log discrepancies. More precisely, denoting the irreducible components of $`h^1(X_{\mathrm{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D)`$ by $`E_i,iT`$, we set $`h^{}D=_{iT}N_iE_i`$ and $`K_Y=h^{}K_X+_{iT}(\nu _i1)E_i`$. Then $`h^{}D+K_{Y|X}=_{iT}(\nu _i+N_i1)E_i`$ and so

$$_W(X,D)=L^d\underset{IT}{}[E_I^{}h^1W]\underset{iI}{}\frac{L1}{L^{\nu _i+N_i}1},$$

where $`d`$ is the dimension of $`X`$.

2.4. With essentially the same arguments, but needing more material from the appendix, we could introduce $`_W(X,D)`$ for a $``$–Gorenstein variety $`X`$ and a $``$–Cartier divisor $`D`$ on $`X`$ such that the pair $`(X,D)`$ is klt. (Check that this is more general than the case in 2.3 !). On the level of Hodge polynomials this would be possible using \[B2, Theorems 6.27 and 6.28\]. We do not pursue this here; our invariants $`E_W(X,D)`$ in §3 and $`_W(X,D)`$ in §6 cover this case anyhow.

2.5. In the rest of this section we present an application on minimal models, taking $`k=`$.

Recall that an irreducible projective variety $`V`$ is called a minimal model if $`V`$ is terminal and $`K_V`$ is numerically effective (shortly nef ), i.e. the intersection number $`K_VC0`$ for any irreducible curve $`C`$ on $`V`$. The Minimal Model Program predicts the existence of a minimal model in every birational equivalence class $`𝒞`$ of nonnegative Kodaira dimension; furthermore one should be able to transform every smooth irreducible projective variety in $`𝒞`$ by a finite number of divisorial contractions and flips to a minimal model.

In dimension 2 it is well known that each such class has a unique minimal model, which is moreover smooth (then divisorial contractions are just blowing–downs and flips do not occur). In dimension 3 the existence and desired property of minimal models were proved by Mori; here it is crucial to allow terminal singularities, and minimal models are not unique in a given birational equivalence class of nonnegative Kodaira dimension. In dimension $`4`$ the Minimal Model Program is still a major conjecture in algebraic geometry and is becoming a working hypothesis.

It is natural and important in this context to look for invariants which are shared by birationally equivalent minimal models. In \[Wa\] Wang proved that birationally equivalent smooth minimal models have the same Betti numbers, using the following result \[Wa, Corollary 1.10\].

###### 2.6. Proposition

Let $`f:VV^{}`$ be a birational map between two minimal models. Then there exist a smooth projective variety $`Y`$ and birational morphisms $`\phi :YV,\phi ^{}:YV^{}`$ such that $`\phi ^{}K_V=\phi ^{}K_V^{}`$.

(In fact Wang only needs $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ to be terminal varieties for which $`K_V`$ and $`K_V^{}`$ are nef along the exceptional loci of $`f`$ in $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$, respectively, to conclude.) This result has more interesting consequences.

###### 2.7. Theorem

Let $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ be birationally equivalent minimal models. Then

(i) $`_V(V,0)=_V^{}(V^{},0)`$, and

(ii) if $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are smooth, then $`[V]=[V^{}]`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

(i) Take $`V\stackrel{𝜑}{}Y\stackrel{\phi ^{}}{}V^{}`$ as in Proposition 2.6. Then by Theorem 1.10 (and its generalization in 1.11) we have

$$_V(V,0)=_Y(Y,K_Y\phi ^{}K_V)=_Y(Y,K_Y\phi {}_{}{}^{}K_V^{})=_V^{}(V^{},0).$$

(ii) For any smooth variety $`X`$ we have that $`_X(X,0)=[X]`$. ∎

As a corollary birationally equivalent smooth minimal models have the same Hodge numbers and a fortiori the same Betti numbers. In particular this is true for smooth Calabi–Yau varieties. See also \[B1, Theorems 1.1 and 4.2\].

2.8. Assuming the Minimal Model Program in some dimension $`d`$ we can use Theorem 2.7 to define a birational invariant. For any birational equivalence class $`𝒞`$ of nonnegative Kodaira dimension the expression $`:=_X(X,0)`$ is independent of a chosen minimal model $`X`$. Looking at 2.3 it is given by the following formula in terms of any log resolution $`h:YX`$ of any minimal model $`X`$ of $`𝒞`$. Denote by $`E_i,iT`$, the irreducible components of $`h^1(X_{\text{sing}})`$ and set $`K_Y=h^{}K_X+_{iT}(\nu _i1)E_i`$. Then

$$=L^d\underset{IT}{}[E_I^{}]\underset{iI}{}\frac{L1}{L^{\nu _i}1}.$$

One could extract ‘minimal stringy Hodge numbers’ from (the Hodge polynomial version of) this invariant, see \[B2\]; and maybe it is related to a ‘minimal cohomology theory’ as explained in \[Wa\].

## 3. Singular varieties; on the level of Hodge polynomials and Euler characteristics

3.1. Our aim in this paper is to associate zeta functions and ‘Kontsevich’ invariants to effective $``$–Cartier divisors $`D`$ on arbitrary $``$–Gorenstein varieties $`X`$ for which $`X_{\mathrm{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D`$, generalizing the notions in §1. In this section we realize this on the level of Hodge polynomials and Euler characteristics in a fairly elementary way. The more general case on the level of the Grothendieck ring will be treated in §5.

3.2. We fix notation for this section. Let $`X`$ be a $``$–Gorenstein variety and $`D`$ an effective $``$–Cartier divisor on $`X`$. (When $`\mathrm{dim}X=2`$ we only need that $`X`$ is normal and $`D`$ can be any effective Weil divisor with rational coefficients, see \[V3\].) For a log resolution $`h:YX`$ of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$ we denote by $`E_i,iT`$, the irreducible components of $`h^1(X_{\mathrm{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D)`$ and we put $`E_I^{}:=(_{iI}E_i)(_\mathrm{}IE_{\mathrm{}})`$ for $`IT`$. We also set $`h^{}D=_{iT}N_iE_i`$ and $`K_Y=h^{}K_X+_{iT}(\nu _i1)E_i`$. Remember that now the $`\nu _i`$ and they can be negative or zero.

In the sequel we will again consider arbitrary subvarieties $`W`$ of $`X`$. One can think mainly about $`W`$ being for example $`X`$, $`\mathrm{supp}D`$, $`X_{\mathrm{sing}}`$ or a point of $`X_{\mathrm{sing}}`$.

###### \bf3.3. Definition – Proposition

Let $`X`$ be a $``$–Gorenstein variety of dimension $`d`$ and $`W`$ a subvariety of $`X`$. Let $`D`$ be an effective $``$–Cartier divisor on $`X`$ such that $`X_{\mathrm{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D`$. Take $`r\{0\}`$ with $`rK_X`$ and $`rD`$ Cartier.

(i) The zeta function $`Z_W(D,s)=Z_W(X,D,s)`$ is the unique rational function in the variable $`(uv)^{s/r}`$ and with coefficients in (the fraction field of) $`[u,v][(uv)^{1/r}]`$ such that for $`n>>0`$

$$Z_W(D,n)=E_{h^1W}(Y,nh^{}D+K_{Y|X}),$$

where $`h:YX`$ is a resolution of $`X`$.

(ii) Let $`h:YX`$ be a log resolution of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$. With the notation of 3.2 we have that

$$Z_W(D,s)=\frac{1}{(uv)^d}\underset{IT}{}H(E_I^{}h^1W)\underset{iI}{}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^{\nu _i+sN_i}1}.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`h_i:Y_iX`$ be resolutions of $`X`$ for $`i=1,2`$. We first show that the defining expressions for $`Z_W(D,n)`$ using $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ are equal when $`n>>0`$. Take $`n`$ such that $`nh_i^{}D+K_{Y_i|X}`$ is effective for $`i=1,2`$ (here we need that $`X_{\mathrm{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D)`$, and take a resolution $`h:YX`$ of $`X`$ dominating both $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$.

$``$$``$$``$$``$$``$$`\phi _1`$$`\phi _2`$$`h`$$`h_2`$$`h_1`$$`Y_1`$$`Y`$$`Y_2`$$`X`$

Then by Theorem 1.10 (for $``$–divisors and on the level of Hodge polynomials) we have for $`i=1,2`$ that

$`E_{h_i^1W}(Y_i,nh_i^{}D+K_{Y_i|X})`$ $`=E_{\phi _i^1h_i^1W}(Y,\phi _i^{}(nh_i^{}D+K_{Y_i|X})+K_{Y|Y_i})`$
$`=E_{h^1W}(Y,nh^{}D+K_{Y|X}).`$
Choosing now $`h:YX`$ as a log resolution for $`\mathrm{supp}D`$ we have that

$$E_{h^1W}(Y,nh^{}D+K_{Y|X})=\frac{1}{(uv)^d}\underset{IT}{}H(E_I^{}h^1W)\underset{iI}{}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^{\nu _i+nN_i}1}.$$

Hence for $`n>>0`$ the stated rational function in (ii) indeed yields $`E_{h^1W}(Y,nh^{}D+K_{Y|X})`$ when evaluating in $`s=n`$ (i.e. in $`(uv)^{s/r}=(uv)^{n/r})`$.

Finally this rational function must be unique since a polynomial over the domain $`[u,v][(uv)^{1/r}]`$ can have at most finitely many zeroes. ∎

###### 3.4. Definition

With the same notation as in 3.3 we define the topological zeta function of $`D`$ as

$$z_W(D,s)=z_W(X,D,s):=\underset{IT}{}\chi (E_I^{}h^1W)\underset{iI}{}\frac{1}{\nu _i+sN_i}(s).$$

We can justify this definition either by an analogous proof or by obtaining $`z_W(D,s)`$ from $`Z_W(D,s)`$ by a limit argument as in 1.6.

3.5. In the following we extend Kontsevich’s construction $`E_W(X,D)`$ to $``$–Gorenstein varieties $`X`$. We should remark here that in \[DL3\] Denef and Loeser also generalized in a different way $`_W(X,D)`$ to (arbitrary) singular varieties $`X`$. We consider their point of view as more ‘integrational’ and ours as more ‘geometrical’. Our idea is simply to substitute $`s=1`$ in $`Z_W(D,s)`$ when this makes sense or, more generally, to take the limit for $`s1`$.

###### 3.6. Definition

Let $`X`$ be a $``$–Gorenstein variety and $`W`$ a subvariety of $`X`$. Let $`D`$ be an effective $``$–Cartier divisor on $`X`$ such that $`X_{\mathrm{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D`$. Take $`r\{0\}`$ with $`rK_X`$ and $`rD`$ Cartier. Then we put

$$E_W(D)=E_W(X,D):=\underset{s1}{lim}Z_W(X,D,s)(u^{1/r},v^{1/r})\{\mathrm{}\}.$$

Remarks. (1) By $`lim_{s1}`$ we mean taking the limit $`(uv)^{s/r}(uv)^{1/r}`$. This is well defined since $`Z_W(D,s)`$ is a rational function in the variable $`(uv)^{s/r}`$ over a field.

(2) If there exists a log resolution $`h:YX`$ of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$ for which $`\nu _i+N_i0`$ for all $`iT`$, then, because of the formula in 3.3(ii), we obtain $`E_W(D)`$ from $`Z_W(D,s)`$ simply by substituting $`(uv)^{1/r}`$ for $`(uv)^{s/r}`$. (We formulate this below as Proposition 3.7.) If on the other hand there does not exist such a log resolution, then in general we will have $`E_W(D)=\mathrm{}`$. However there are cases where our definition then yields an element in $`(u^{1/r},v^{1/r})`$, see example 4.1.

###### 3.7. Proposition

Let $`WX`$ and $`D`$ be as in 3.6. Let $`h:YX`$ be a log resolution of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$ for which $`\nu _i+N_i0`$ for all $`iT`$ (using the notation of 3.2). Then

$$E_W(D)=\frac{1}{(uv)^d}\underset{IT}{}H(E_I^{}h^1W)\underset{iI}{}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^{\nu _i+N_i}1}.$$

So indeed we extended Kontsevich’s invariant for smooth $`X`$ on the level of Hodge polynomials (1.12).

###### 3.8. Definition – Proposition

Let $`WX`$ and $`D`$ be as in 3.6. We define

$$e_W(D)=e_W(X,D):=\underset{s1}{lim}z_W(X,D,s)\{\mathrm{}\}.$$

Let $`h:YX`$ be a log resolution of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$ for which $`\nu _i+N_i0`$ for all $`iT`$. Then

$$e_W(D)=\underset{IT}{}\chi (E_I^{}h^1W)\underset{iI}{}\frac{1}{\nu _i+N_i}.$$

3.9. Next we introduce analogous invariants for pairs $`(X,D)`$, which will coincide with Batyrev’s stringy $`E`$–function and stringy Euler number for klt pairs \[B3\].

###### 3.10. Definition – Proposition

Let $`X`$ be a $``$–Gorenstein variety and $`W`$ a subvariety of $`X`$. Let $`D`$ be an effective $``$–Cartier divisor on $`X`$ such that $`X_{\mathrm{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D`$. Take $`r\{0\}`$ with $`rK_X`$ and $`rD`$ Cartier.

(i) We put

$$E_W\left((X,D)\right):=\underset{s1}{lim}Z_W(X,D,s)(u^{1/r},v^{1/r})\{\mathrm{}\}.$$

(ii) Let $`h:YX`$ be a log resolution of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$. Using the notation of 3.2, let $`a_i,iT`$, denote the log discrepancy of $`E_i`$ with respect to the pair $`(X,D)`$. Then, if $`a_i0`$ for all $`iT`$, we have

$$E_W\left((X,D)\right)=\frac{1}{(uv)^d}\underset{IT}{}H(E_I^{}h^1W)\underset{iI}{}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^{a_i}1}.$$

Remark. By $`lim_{s1}`$ we mean taking the limit $`(uv)^{s/r}(uv)^{1/r}`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

If $`\nu _iN_i0`$ for all $`iT`$, then, because of the formula for $`Z_W(X,D,s)`$ in 3.3(ii) this limit procedure just means substituting $`(uv)^{1/r}`$ for the variable $`(uv)^{s/r}`$. Clearly we obtain the stated formula for $`E_W\left((X,D)\right)`$ since $`a_i=\nu _iN_i`$ for $`iT`$. ∎

3.11. When the pair $`(X,D)`$ is klt and for $`W=X`$ Batyrev introduced in \[B3\] the same invariant as the stringy $`E`$–function of $`(X,D)`$, denoted by $`E_{st}(X,D)`$. (We do not recover his invariant completely as a special case of $`E_W\left((X,D)\right)`$ because Batyrev only requires $`K_X+D`$ to be $``$–Cartier.) Analogously the invariant $`e_X\left((X,D)\right)`$ below was baptized stringy Euler number by Batyrev and denoted by $`e_{st}(X,D)`$.

###### 3.12. Definition – Proposition

Let $`WX`$ and $`D`$ be as in 3.10. We define

$$e_W\left((X,D)\right):=\underset{s1}{lim}z_W(X,D,s)\{\mathrm{}\}.$$

Let $`h:YX`$ be a log resolution of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$ for which $`\nu _iN_i0`$ for all $`iT`$. Then, denoting by $`a_i`$ the log discrepancy of $`E_i`$ with respect to the pair $`(X,D)`$, we have

$$e_W\left((X,D)\right)=\underset{IT}{}\chi (E_I^{}h^1W)\underset{iI}{}\frac{1}{a_i}.$$

3.13. In Definition–Proposition 3.3, and hence in all subsequent constructions, we required the effective divisor $`D`$ to satisfy $`X_{\mathrm{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D`$. We needed this to assure that for a resolution $`h:YX`$ the divisor $`nh^{}D+K_{Y|X}`$ would be effective for $`n>>0`$. However, using $`A5`$ in the appendix, it is in fact sufficient to require that $`\mathrm{supp}D`$ contains the locus of log canonical singularities $`LCS(X)`$ of $`X`$.

###### 3.14. Definition – Theorem

Let $`X`$ be a $``$–Gorenstein variety of dimension $`d`$ and $`W`$ a subvariety of $`X`$. Let $`D`$ be an effective $``$–Cartier divisor on $`X`$ such that $`LCS(X)\mathrm{supp}D`$. Take $`r\{0\}`$ with $`rK_X`$ and $`rD`$ Cartier.

(i) The zeta function $`Z_W(D,s)=Z_W(X,D,s)`$ is the unique rational function in the variable $`(uv)^{s/r}`$ and with coefficients in (the fraction field of) $`[u,v][(uv)^{1/r}]`$ such that for $`n>>0`$

$$Z_W(D,n)=E_{h^1W}(Y,nh^{}D+K_{Y|X}),$$

where $`h:YX`$ is a log resolution for $`\mathrm{supp}D`$.

(ii) With the notation of 3.2 for $`h`$ we have that

$$Z_W(D,s)=\frac{1}{(uv)^d}\underset{IT}{}H(E_I^{}h^1W)\underset{iT}{}\frac{uv1}{(uv)^{\nu _i+sN_i}1}.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

We proceed analogously as in the proof of 3.3, but now working only with log resolutions $`h:YX`$ of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$. Then for $`n>>0`$ the coefficients $`d_i=nN_i+\nu _i1`$ of $`nh^{}D+K_{Y|X}`$ all satisfy $`d_i>1`$. Indeed any exceptional component $`E_i`$ of $`h`$ for which $`\nu _i0`$ satisfies $`h(E_i)LCS(X)\mathrm{supp}D`$, and hence $`N_i>0`$ for such an $`E_i`$. So in this case the invariant $`E_{h^1W}(Y,nh^{}D+K_{Y|X})`$ is well defined by $`A5`$ and Theorem A6. ∎

Remark. In the formula above the ‘denominators’ $`\nu _i+sN_i`$ are thus always nonzero since either $`\nu _i>0`$ or $`N_i>0`$.

3.15. We can also extend all invariants which we considered in 3.4 – 3.12, i.e. $`z_W(D,s)`$, $`E_W(D)`$, $`e_W(D)`$, $`E_W\left((X,D)\right)`$ and $`e_W\left((X,D)\right)`$, to the case that only $`LCS(X)\mathrm{supp}D`$.

In particular when $`X`$ is log terminal and $`D=0`$, then our invariants $`E_X(0)`$ and $`e_X(0)`$ are precisely the stringy E–function $`E_{st}(X;u,v)`$ and stringy Euler number $`e_{st}(X)`$ of Batyrev \[B2\].

## 4. Examples

In this section we present a number of examples, first in dimension two and then in higher dimension, for which we compute the invariants introduced above. Recall (see (0.4(a)) that in dimension two we can consider more generally Weil divisors instead of Cartier divisors.

4.1. Let $`0X`$ be a normal surface germ with minimal resolution $`h:YX`$ such that $`h^1\{0\}=E_0E_g`$, where $`E_0`$ and $`E_g`$ are nonsingular curves of genus $`0`$ and $`g2`$, respectively, intersecting transversely. So $`h`$ is already a log resolution of $`X`$. (This singularity is quasihomogeneous.) Let $`E`$ be a nonsingular curve (germ) in $`Y`$ intersecting $`E_g`$ transversely in one point and disjoint from $`E_0`$. Denote $`D=h(E)`$; so $`D`$ is a prime Weil divisor on $`X`$ through $`0`$ and $`h`$ is also a log resolution of $`D`$. See Figure 1.

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................$``$$`D`$$`0`$$`X`$$``$$`h`$                      $`E_0`$$`E_g`$$`E`$$`Y`$Figure 1

Let $`\kappa _0`$ and $`\kappa _g`$ denote the self–intersection number of $`E_0`$ and $`E_g`$ on $`Y`$, respectively; we have that $`\kappa _02`$ and $`\kappa _g1`$. We will treat the germs $`0X`$ for which $`N:=2g\kappa _g1>0`$ in order to compute $`z_0(ND,s)`$ and $`e_0(ND)`$ for the effective Weil divisor $`ND`$ on $`X`$.

We denote as usual $`h^{}ND=NE+N_0E_0+N_gE_g`$ and $`K_Y=h^{}K_X+(\nu _01)E_0+`$ $`(\nu _g1)E_g`$. The following relations are well known (see for example \[V3, Lemma 2.3\]) :

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \kappa _0N_0& =N_g\hfill \\ \hfill \kappa _0\nu _0& =\nu _g+1\hfill \end{array}\text{ and }\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \kappa _gN_g& =N_0+N\hfill \\ \hfill \kappa _g\nu _g& =(\nu _01)+22g.\hfill \end{array}$$

A short computation yields the expression for $`N_0`$, $`\nu _0`$, $`N_g`$ and $`\nu _g`$ in terms of our data $`\kappa _0`$, $`\kappa _g`$ and $`g`$ :

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill N_0& =\frac{N}{\kappa _0\kappa _g1}=\frac{2g\kappa _g1}{\kappa _0\kappa _g1}\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _0& =\frac{2g+\kappa _g+1}{\kappa _0\kappa _g1}\hfill \end{array}\text{ and }\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill N_g& =\frac{\kappa _0N}{\kappa _0\kappa _g1}=\frac{\kappa _0(2g\kappa _g1)}{\kappa _0\kappa _g1}\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _g& =\frac{\kappa _0(12g)+1}{\kappa _0\kappa _g1}\hfill \end{array}$$

Remark that $`\nu _0+N_0=0`$ (which, as you can guess, is forced by our choice of $`N`$); nevertheless $`e_0(ND)`$ will be a rational number. We have by definition that

$`z_0(ND,s)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _0+sN_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\nu _0+sN_0)(\nu _g+sN_g)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2g}{\nu _g+sN_g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\nu _g+sN_g)(1+sN)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1+(\kappa _02g)(1+sN)}{(\nu _g+sN_g)(1+sN)}}.`$
The fact that $`\nu _0+sN_0`$ cancels in the denominator is a general fact; see \[V3, 2.2\]. Plugging in the expression for $`\nu _g`$ and $`N_g`$ yields

$$z_0(ND,s)=\frac{(\kappa _0\kappa _g1)[1+(\kappa _02g)(1+sN)]}{(12\kappa _0g+\kappa _0(1+sN))(1+sN)}\text{ (with }N=2g\kappa _g1)$$

and

$$e_0(ND)=\underset{s1}{lim}z_0(ND,s)=\frac{(2g\kappa _0)(2g\kappa _g)1}{2g\kappa _g}.$$

One can analogously compute $`Z_0(ND,s)`$ and $`E_0(ND)`$.

4.2. Let $`0X`$ and $`h:YX`$ be as above with $`g=1`$ (instead of $`g2`$). Now let $`E^{}`$ be a nonsingular curve germ in $`Y`$ intersecting $`E_0`$ transversely in one point and disjoint from $`E_1`$, and denote $`D^{}=h(E^{})`$. See Figure 2.

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................$``$$`D^{}`$$`0`$$`X`$$``$$`h`$Figure 2                    $`E_0`$$`E_1`$$`E^{}`$$`Y`$

One easily computes (see \[V3, 2.5\]) that

$$z_0(ND^{},s)=\frac{\kappa _0\kappa _11}{1+sN}\text{and thus}e_0(ND^{})=\frac{\kappa _0\kappa _11}{1+N}.$$

Now choose $`N=\kappa _01`$. It is easy to verify that then $`\nu _1+N_1=0`$; so as in 4.1 we could not have defined $`e_0((\kappa _01)D^{})`$ by the usual formula. However in this example our definition on the level of Hodge polynomials yields $`E_0((\kappa _01)D^{})=\mathrm{}`$.

4.2.1. Remark. One could argue whether in Definition–Proposition 3.8 (and analogously in 3.12) it is more appropriate to introduce $`e_W(D)`$ as $`lim_{u,v1}E_W(D)`$. When $`E_W(D)\mathrm{}`$ this amounts to the same, but when $`E_W(D)=\mathrm{}`$ we then would miss some interesting values of $`e_W(D)`$ as in 4.2 above.

4.3. Let $`X`$ be the quadric hypersurface $`\{xyzw=0\}`$ in $`𝔸^4`$. The origin $`0`$ is the only singular point of $`X`$. Blowing up $`0`$ yields a log resolution $`h_1:Y_1X`$ of $`X`$, which is an isomorphism outside $`h^1\{0\}`$ and with $`E_1=h^1\{0\}(\{xyzw=0\}^3)^1\times ^1`$.

(a) Consider the divisor $`D=E+E^{}`$ on $`X`$, where $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$ are the zero sets of the functions $`zw`$ and $`y`$ on $`X`$, respectively. Remark that $`E`$ is irreducible and that $`E^{}`$ consists of two irreducible components. We want to compute $`z_0(D,s)`$. In this example we will use the same notation for divisors and their strict transforms by blowing–ups.

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................                      ...........................................................................................    $`E^{}`$$`E^{}`$$`E`$$`E_1`$Figure 3

In Figure 3 we present the intersection configuration of $`E_1,E`$ and $`E^{}`$ on $`Y_1`$. The variety $`Y_1`$ is naturally covered by 4 affine charts, each isomorphic to $`𝔸^3`$. In the ‘main chart’ the exceptional surface $`E_1`$ and the strict transforms $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$ are given in affine coordinates $`x,z,w`$ by

$`E_1:x=0,`$
$`E:zw=0,`$
$`E^{}:zw=0`$
(in the other charts $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$ do not intersect).

We obtain a log resolution $`h`$ of $`D`$ by composing $`h_1`$ with the blowing–up $`h_2:Y_2Y_1`$ of the curve $`EE^{}(𝔸^1)`$ in $`Y_1`$. The exceptional variety $`E_2`$ of $`h_2`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔸^1\times ^1`$; the intersection configuration of $`E_2,E_1,E`$ and $`E^{}`$ is presented in Figure 4.

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................                        .............................................................................................................................................................................................................$`E^{}`$$`E^{}`$$`E`$$`E_1`$$`E_2`$Figure 4

Denoting as usual $`h^{}D=E+E^{}+N_1E_1+N_2E_2`$ and $`K_Y=h^{}K_X+(\nu _11)E_1+(\nu _21)E_2`$, one easily verifies that $`(\nu _1,N_1)=(2,2)`$ and $`(\nu _2,N_2)=(2,3)`$. The contributors to $`z_0(D,s)`$ are $`E_1^{},(E_1E_2)^{},(E_1E)^{},(E_1E^{})^{},E_1E_2E`$ and $`E_1E_2E^{}`$. Now $`\chi (E_1^{})=0`$ and the other Euler characteristics are obvious; then

$`z_0(D,s)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _1+sN_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _2+sN_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{1+s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{(\nu _2+sN_2)(1+s)}}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{(2+3s)(1+s)}}.`$
Also $`e_0(D)=lim_{s1}z_0(D,s)=\frac{2}{5}`$ and $`e_0\left((X,D)\right)=lim_{s1}z_0(D,s)=\mathrm{}.`$

(b) Now consider the $``$–divisor $`D=NE+N^{}E^{}`$ with $`N>0,N^{}>0,N1,N^{}1`$ and $`N+N^{}=2`$. The morphism $`h:Y_2X`$ in (a) is of course still a log resolution of $`D`$. The only difference with the data in (a) is that here $`h^{}D=NE+NE^{}+N_1E_1+N_2E_2`$ with $`N_1=N+N^{}=2`$ and $`N_2=N+2N^{}=2+N^{}`$. So

$`z_0(D,s)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _1+sN_1}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _2+sN_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+sN}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+sN^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\nu _2+sN_2)(1+sN)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(\nu _2+sN_2)(1+sN^{})}})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2+2s}}{\displaystyle \frac{8+16s+8s^2}{(2+s(2+N^{}))(1+sN)(1+sN^{})}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(1+s)}{(2+s(2+N^{}))(1+sN)(1+sN^{})}}.`$
And then $`e_0(D,s)=\frac{8}{(4+N^{})(1+N)(1+N^{})}`$ and $`e_0\left((X,D)\right)=0`$.

4.4. Fix $`d,d3`$. Take a homogeneous polynomial $`F`$ in $`d+1`$ variables of degree $`a2`$ such that $`\{F=0\}^d`$ is nonsingular.

Let $`X`$ be the hypersurface in $`𝔸^{d+1}`$ given by the zero set of $`F`$; so $`X`$ is the affine cone over $`\{F=0\}^d`$ and the origin is the only singular point of $`X`$. Let $`D`$ be the intersection of $`X`$ with a general hyperplane through the origin in $`𝔸^{d+1}`$. The blowing–up $`h:YX`$ of the origin yields a log resolution of $`X`$, which is moreover a log resolution of $`D`$. We denote the strict transform of $`D`$ by $`E`$, and the exceptional variety of $`h`$ by $`E_1`$. Notice that $`E_1`$ is isomorphic to $`\{F=0\}^d`$. We try to give an impression of this situation in Figure 5.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................$``$$`D`$$`0`$$`X`$..........................................................................................................................................................................$``$$`h`$Figure 5..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................                $`E_1`$$`E`$$`Y`$..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

As usual we denote $`K_Y=h^{}K_X+(\nu _11)E_1`$ and $`h^{}(ND)=NE+N_1E_1`$ for $`N`$, $`N>0`$. One can verify that $`\nu _1=d+1a`$ and $`N_1=N`$.

To compute $`z_X(ND,s)`$ we need the Euler characteristics of the varieties $`Y^{},E^{},E_1^{}`$ and $`EE_1`$ (which stratify $`Y`$). Since $`X`$ and $`D`$ are affine cones we have that

$$\chi (E^{})=\chi (D\{0\})=0\text{ and }\chi (Y^{})=\chi (XD)=0.$$

Now $`E_1`$ is a nonsingular hypersurface of degree $`a`$ in $`^d`$, yielding

$$\chi (E_1)=(1a)\left(\frac{(1a)^d1}{a}\right)+d$$

(see for example \[Hirz\]). And because $`D`$ was chosen to be general we have moreover that $`EE_1`$ is a nonsingular hypersurface of degree $`a`$ in $`^{d1}`$; so

$$\chi (EE_1)=(1a)\left(\frac{(1a)^{d1}1}{a}\right)+d1.$$

Then finally $`\chi (E_1^{})=\chi (E_1)\chi (EE_1)=(1a)^d+1`$ and

$`z_X(ND,s)=`$ $`z_0(ND,s)={\displaystyle \frac{\chi (E_1^{})}{\nu _1+sN_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi (EE_1)}{(\nu _1+sN_1)(1+sN)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1a)^d+1}{d+1a+sN}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1a)\left(\frac{(1a)^{d1}1}{a}\right)+d1}{(d+1a+sN)(1+sN)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1a)\left(\frac{(1a)^d1}{a}\right)+d+s\left(1(1a)^d\right)N}{(d+1a+sN)(1+sN)}}.`$
A (not very exciting) calculation shows that there is no cancellation in this expression, except when $`d=3`$ and $`a=2`$ or $`3`$, in which case $`z_X(ND,s)`$ is

$$\frac{2}{1+sN}\text{and }\frac{9}{1+sN},$$

respectively. Taking limits we obtain

$$e_X(ND)=\frac{(1a)\left(\frac{(1a)^d1}{a}\right)+d+\left(1(1a)^d\right)N}{(d+1a+N)(1+N)}\text{ if }d+1+Na$$

and

$$e_X\left((X,ND)\right)=\frac{(1a)\left(\frac{(1a)^d1}{a}\right)+d+\left((1a)^d1\right)N}{(d+1aN)(1N)}\text{ if }\{\begin{array}{cc}d+1a+N\hfill & \\ N1.\hfill & \end{array}$$

## 5. Zeta functions associated to divisors and differential forms

5.1. In the $`p`$–adic theory of Igusa’s local zeta functions one also associates this invariant to both polynomials and differential forms, see e.g. \[L, III3.5\]. Let $`f_p[x]=_p[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ and $`w\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝔸^d}^d`$, i.e. $`w=gdx`$ where $`g_p[x]`$ and $`dx=dx_1\mathrm{}dx_d`$. Then, with the notation of 1.3.1,

$$Z_p(f,w,s):=_{_p^d}|f(x)|^s|g(x)||dx|.$$

With the notation of 1.4 let $`\nu _i^{}1`$ be the multiplicity of $`E_i`$ in the divisor of $`h^{}w`$. Then (for $`f[x]`$) the same formula as in 1.4.1 is valid when we replace $`\nu _i`$ by $`\nu _i^{}`$.

We also want to introduce this notion on the level of the Grothendieck ring of algebraic varieties as in 1.3. Our motivation in this paper is that we will use it to construct on a $``$–Gorenstein variety $`X`$ an invariant $`𝒵_W(X,D,s)`$, generalizing $`Z_W(X,D,s)`$ in 3.3, on the level of the Grothendieck ring. Furthermore we will need this notion in future work.

5.2. We fix notations for this section. Let $`X`$ be an irreducible nonsingular variety of dimension $`d`$ and $`W`$ a subvariety of $`X`$. Let $`D`$ be an effective divisor on $`X`$ and $`J\mathrm{\Omega }_X^d`$ an invertible subsheaf of the sheaf of regular differential $`d`$–forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^d`$ on $`X`$.

We will only consider the situation where supp $`J\mathrm{supp}D`$; we motivate this below.

5.3. First we rephrase the definition of $`𝒵_W(D,s)`$ in terms of the motivic volume $`\mu `$ of \[DL3, 3.2\] or \[DL4\]. Denote by $`𝒞`$ the family of subsets of $`(X)`$ of the form $`\pi _n^1A_n`$ for some $`n`$ and constructible subset $`A_n`$ of $`_n(X)`$. We call these cylindrical subsets as in \[B2\] or \[DL4\]. There exists a unique additive measure $`\mu :𝒞_L`$ satisfying $`\mu (\pi _n^1A_n)=\frac{[A_n]}{L^{(n+1)d}}`$ for $`A_n`$ as above. (In fact this map is denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ in \[DL3\] and there $`\mu `$ is a map from the more complicated family of semi–algebraic subsets of $`(X)`$ to $`\widehat{M}`$.) For $`A`$ in $`𝒞`$ and $`\alpha :A`$ a bounded function with cylindrical fibres one defines the integral

$$_AL^\alpha 𝑑\mu :=\underset{n}{}L^n\mu (\alpha ^1\{n\})_L.$$
$`\mathrm{5.3.1}`$
Now re–examining the definition of $`𝒵_W(D,s)`$ in 1.3 we have, with the notation introduced there, that $`\mu (Y_{n,D,W})=[X_{n,D,W}]L^{(n+1)d}`$ and hence

$$𝒵_W(D,s)=\underset{n}{}\mu (Y_{n,D,W})L^{ns}_L[[L^s]].$$

5.4. The following construction is a special case of \[DL3, 3.5\]. To the sheaf $`J`$ is associated as follows a measure $`\mu _J`$ on $`𝒞`$, such that $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Omega }_X^d}=\mu `$.

For $`PX`$ let $`dx`$ and $`g_Pdx`$ be local generators of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^d`$ and $`J`$, respectively, around $`P`$. Denote then by $`\mathrm{ord}_tJ:(X)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ the function assigning to $`\phi `$ in $`(X)`$ the order of the power series given by $`g_{\pi _0(\phi )}\phi `$. For $`A`$ in $`𝒞`$ we define

$$\mu _J(A):=_AL^{\mathrm{ord}_tJ}𝑑\mu =\underset{\mathrm{}}{}L^{\mathrm{}}\mu (A\{\mathrm{ord}_tJ=\mathrm{}\}).$$

Indeed the sets $`\{\mathrm{ord}_tJ=\mathrm{}\}`$ are cylindrical. For arbitary $`A`$ the right hand side above is only defined as an element in $`\widehat{}`$; however we will only consider sets $`A`$ for which the sum over $`\mathrm{}`$ is finite and then $`\mu _J(A)_L`$. Replacing $`\mu `$ by $`\mu _J`$ we can consider analogous integrals as in (5.3.1).

The following change of variables formula is a special case of \[DL3, 3.5.2\]. (It follows immediately from \[DL3, 3.3\] of which Theorem 1.10 is a special case.)

###### 5.4.1. Proposition

Let $`X^{}`$ be another irreducible smooth variety and $`\rho :X^{}X`$ a proper birational morphism. For $`A`$ in $`𝒞`$ and $`\alpha :A`$ a bounded function with cylindrical fibres we have that

$$_AL^\alpha 𝑑\mu _J=_{\rho ^1A}L^{\alpha \rho }𝑑\mu _{\rho ^{}J}.$$

###### 5.5. Definition

To the data of 5.2 we associate the motivic zeta function

$`𝒵_W(D,J,s)`$ $`=𝒵_W(X,D,J,s):={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mu _J(Y_{n,D,W})L^{ns}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}L^{\mathrm{}}\mu (Y_{n,D,W}\{\mathrm{ord}_tJ=\mathrm{}\})\right)L^{ns}_L[[L^s]].`$
We explain why the sum over $`\mathrm{}`$ is finite. For any fixed $`n`$ we have that $`Y_{n,D,W}=_{\mathrm{}\{\mathrm{}\}}(Y_{n,D,W}\{\mathrm{ord}_tJ=\mathrm{}\})`$. But our condition $`\mathrm{supp}J\mathrm{supp}D`$ implies that

$$\{\mathrm{ord}_tJ=\mathrm{}\}=(\mathrm{supp}J)(\mathrm{supp}D)=\{\mathrm{ord}_tD=\mathrm{}\},$$

hence we have that $`Y_{n,D,W}\{\mathrm{ord}_tJ=\mathrm{}\}=\mathrm{}`$ and so $`Y_{n,D,W}`$ is the countable union of the cylindrical sets $`Y_{n,D,W}\{\mathrm{ord}_tJ=\mathrm{}\},\mathrm{}`$. Then this union is finite by \[B2, Theorem 6.6\].

###### 5.6. Theorem

Let $`X^{}`$ be another irreducible smooth variety and $`\rho :X^{}X`$ a proper birational morphism. Then

$$𝒵_W(X,D,J,s)=𝒵_{\rho ^1W}(X^{},\rho ^{}D,\rho ^{}J,s).$$

###### Demonstration Proof

This is a consequence of Proposition 5.4.1. ∎

###### 5.7. Theorem

Let $`h:YX`$ be a log resolution of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$. Denote as usual the irreducible components of $`h^1(\mathrm{supp}D)`$ by $`E_i,iT`$. We set $`h^{}D=_{iT}N_iE_i`$ and $`\mathrm{div}(h^{}w)=_{iT}(\nu _i^{}1)E_i`$, where $`w`$ is a local generator of $`J`$. Then

$$𝒵_W(D,J,s)=L^d\underset{IT}{}[E_I^{}h^1W]\underset{iI}{}\frac{L1}{L^{\nu _i^{}+sN_i}1}.$$

Remark. Let as in 1.4 $`dx`$ be a local generator of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^d`$ and $`\mathrm{div}(h^{}dx)=_{iT}(\nu _i1)E_i`$. Say $`w=gdx`$ and $`\mathrm{div}(h^{}g)=_{iT}M_iE_i`$. Then $`\nu _i^{}=\nu _i+M_i`$ for $`iT`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

One can adapt the proof of \[DL2, Theorem 2.2.1\] completely to this more general setting with the sheaf $`J`$. ∎

5.8. The notion introduced above is sufficient to introduce zeta functions on the level of the Grothendieck ring for Gorenstein varieties. To cover the case of $``$–Gorenstein varieties we need ‘sheaves of multivalued differential forms’. We briefly describe this generalization.

Now let $`J(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^d)^m`$ be an invertible subsheaf of the $`m`$–fold tensor product of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^d`$, still satisfying $`\mathrm{supp}J\mathrm{supp}D`$. We define

$$\mu _{J^{1/m}}(A):=_AL^{\frac{\mathrm{ord}_tJ}{m}}𝑑\mu =\underset{\mathrm{}}{}L^{\mathrm{}/m}\mu (A\{\mathrm{ord}_tJ=\mathrm{}\})_L[L^{1/m}]$$

for the sets $`A`$ in $`𝒞`$ for which the last sum is finite. Then the motivic zeta function is

$`𝒵_W(D,J^{1/m},s)`$ $`=𝒵_W(X,D,J^{1/m},s)`$
$`:={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mu _{J^{1/m}}(Y_{n,D,W})L^{ns}_L[L^{1/m}][[L^s]].`$
Theorem 5.7 easily generalizes to this setting, but now the $`\nu _i^{}\frac{1}{m}(\{0\})`$.

5.9. Finally as in 1.5 we can generalize further to $``$–divisors. Now if $`D`$ is an effective $``$–divisor on $`X`$, such that $`rD`$ is a divisor for an $`r\{0\}`$, we define $`𝒵_W(D,J^{1/m},s):=𝒵_W(rD,J^{1/m},s/r)`$. Again Theorem 5.7 generalizes, with now the $`N_i\frac{1}{r}(\{0\})`$.

## 6. Singular varieties; on the level of the Grothendieck ring

6.1. In this section we generalize the zeta function of 3.3 to the level of the Grothendieck ring. In order to focus on the main idea we first treat the essential case, being an effective Cartier divisor $`D`$ on a Gorenstein variety $`X`$. For a normal variety $`V`$ we denote its canonical sheaf (corresponding to $`K_V`$) by $`\omega _V`$; we have that $`\omega _V`$ is invertible or $`\omega _V^m`$ is invertible for some $`m\{0\}`$ precisely when $`V`$ is Gorenstein or $``$–Gorenstein, respectively.

Also in the sequel $`(F)`$ denotes the sheaf of ideals associated to an effective divisor $`F`$ on a nonsingular variety.

###### 6.2. Definition – Proposition

Let $`X`$ be a Gorenstein variety of dimension $`d`$ and $`W`$ a subvariety of $`X`$. Let $`D`$ be an effective Cartier divisor on $`X`$ such that $`X_{\mathrm{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D`$.

(i) The motivic zeta function

$$𝒵_W(D,s)=𝒵_W(X,D,s):=𝒵_{h^1W}(Y,h^{}D,h^{}\omega _X(ah^{}D),sa)$$

where $`h:YX`$ is a log resolution of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$ and $`a,a>>0`$.

(ii) Let $`h:YX`$ be a log resolution of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$. With the notation of 3.2 we have that

$$𝒵_W(D,s)=L^d\underset{IT}{}[E_I^{}h^1W]\underset{iI}{}\frac{L1}{L^{\nu _i+sN_i}1}.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

We first explain the right hand side of our definition. Since $`X_{\mathrm{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D`$ we have that $`\mathrm{supp}(h^{}\omega _X)\mathrm{supp}(h^{}D)`$, yielding for $`a>>0`$ that $`h^{}\omega _X(ah^{}D)`$ is an invertible subsheaf of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^d`$. So to this sheaf and the effective divisor $`h^{}D`$ we can associate the motivic zeta function of 5.5. The substitution ‘$`sa`$ instead of $`s`$’ means replacing the variable $`L^s`$ by $`L^a(L^s)`$.

Now we show independency of the chosen resolution; it is sufficient to consider another log resolution $`h^{}:Y^{}X`$ that factors as $`h^{}:Y^{}\stackrel{𝜑}{}Y\stackrel{}{}X`$. By Theorem 5.6 we indeed have that

$`𝒵_{h^1W}`$ $`(Y,h^{}D,h^{}\omega _X(ah^{}D),sa)`$
$`=𝒵_{\phi ^1(h^1W)}(Y^{},\phi ^{}h^{}D,\phi ^{}(h^{}\omega _X)\phi ^{}((ah^{}D)),sa)`$
$`=𝒵_{h^1W}(Y^{},h^{}D,h^{}\omega _X(ah^{}D),sa).`$
Let $`\eta `$ and $`f`$ be local generators of $`\omega _X`$ and $`(D)`$, respectively. Then $`(h^{}f)^a(h^{}\eta )`$ is a local generator of $`h^{}\omega _X(ah^{}D)`$ and its divisor of zeroes is $`_{iT}((\nu _i1)+aN_i)E_i`$. Hence Theorem 5.7 (with $`h=Id_Y`$) yields the stated formula for $`𝒵_W(D,s)`$, which also proves independency of the number $`a`$. ∎

6.3. Now let $`X`$ be $``$–Gorenstein and say that $`mK_X`$ is Cartier for some $`m\{0\}`$. We define $`𝒵_W(X,D,s)`$ just as in 6.2, interpreting the expression $`h^{}\omega _X(ah^{}D)`$ as an abbreviation of $`(h^{}(\omega _X^m)(mah^{}D))^{1/m}`$ (see 5.8). Now $`𝒵_W(X,D,s)`$ lives in a localization of $`_L[L^{1/m}][L^s]`$ and is given by the same formula as in 6.2 (with now the $`\nu _i`$).

When $`D`$ is an effective $``$–Cartier divisor we set as usual $`𝒵_W(D,s):=𝒵_W(rD,s/r)`$ if $`rD`$ is Cartier for an $`r\{0\}`$. Then in full generality we have the following.

###### 6.4. Definition – Proposition

Let $`X`$ be a $``$–Gorenstein variety of dimension $`d`$ and $`W`$ a subvariety of $`X`$. Let $`D`$ be an effective $``$–Cartier divisor on $`X`$ (with $`rD`$ Cartier for an $`r\{0\})`$ such that $`X_{\mathrm{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D`$. The motivic zeta function

$$𝒵_W(D,s)=𝒵_W(X,D,s):=𝒵_{h^1W}(Y,h^{}(rD),h^{}\omega _X(arh^{}D),s/ra)$$

where $`h:YX`$ is a log resolution of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$ and $`a,a>>0`$. We have the same formula as in 6.2.

Of course $`𝒵_W(D,s)`$ specializes to the zeta function $`Z_W(D,s)`$ of 3.3.

6.5. Finally we consider for arbitrary $``$–Gorenstein varieties $`X`$ ‘Kontsevich’ invariants $`_W(D)`$ and $`_W\left((X,D)\right)`$ on the level of the Grothendieck ring, which specialize to $`E_W(D)`$ and $`E_W\left((X,D)\right)`$ of 3.6 and 3.10, respectively. Notice first that in 6.4 we have, by the formula for $`𝒵_W(D,s)`$ in terms of a log resolution, that it already belongs to the localization of a polynomial ring $`_L[L^{1/r}][L^{s/r}]`$ with respect to $`(1L^{\alpha \beta s})_{\alpha ,\beta _{>0}}`$. Morally we again take limits for $`s1`$ and $`s1`$ to define $`_W(D)`$ and $`_W\left((X,D)\right)`$, respectively.

###### 6.6. Definition

Let $`X`$ be a $``$–Gorenstein variety of dimension $`d`$ and $`W`$ a subvariety of $`X`$. Let $`D`$ be an effective $``$–Cartier divisor on $`X`$ such that $`X_{\mathrm{sing}}\mathrm{supp}D`$. Take $`r\{0\}`$ with $`rK_X`$ and $`rD`$ Cartier.

(i) If $`𝒵_W(D,s)`$ belongs to the localization of $`_L[L^{1/r}][L^{s/r}]`$ with respect to $`(1L^{\alpha \beta s})_{\alpha ,\beta _{>0},\alpha +\beta 0}`$, then we put

$$_W(D)=_W(X,D):=𝒵_W(D,s)|_{s=1}.$$

Otherwise we put $`_W(D)=_W(X,D):=\mathrm{}`$.

(ii) If $`𝒵_W(D,s)`$ belongs to the localization of $`_L[L^{1/r}][L^{s/r}]`$ with respect to $`(1L^{\alpha \beta s})_{\alpha ,\beta _{>0},\alpha \beta }`$, then we put

$$_W\left((X,D)\right):=𝒵_W(D,s)|_{s=1}.$$

Otherwise we put $`_W\left((X,D)\right):=\mathrm{}`$.

Here the evaluations $`s=1`$ and $`s=1`$ mean substituting the variable $`L^{s/r}`$ by $`L^{1/r}`$ and $`L^{1/r}`$, respectively, yielding a well defined element in $`\widehat{}[L^{1/r}]`$.

###### 6.7. Proposition

Consider the same data as is 6.6.

(i) Suppose there is a log resolution $`h:YX`$ of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$ for which $`\nu _i+N_i0`$ for all $`iT`$ (using the notation of 3.2). Then

$$_W(D)=L^d\underset{IT}{}[E_I^{}h^1W]\underset{iI}{}\frac{L1}{L^{\nu _i+N_i}1}.$$

(ii) Suppose there is a log resolution $`h:YX`$ of $`\mathrm{supp}D`$ for which all log discrepancies $`a_i,iT`$, with respect to the pair $`(X,D)`$ satisfy $`a_i0`$ (using the notation of 3.2). Then

$$_W\left((X,D)\right)=L^d\underset{IT}{}[E_I^{}h^1W]\underset{iI}{}\frac{L1}{L^{a_i}1}.$$

## Appendix

A1. Let in this appendix $`X`$ be a smooth irreducible variety of dimension $`d`$ and $`W`$ a subvariety of $`X`$.

In 1.7 – 1.10 we described the Kontsevich invariant $`_W(D)\widehat{}`$, associated to an effective divisor $`D`$ on $`X`$, and we mentioned its important properties. Here we will generalize this notion to effective $``$–divisors; if $`rD`$ is a divisor for an $`r\{0\}`$ we obtain an invariant $`_W(D)`$ in a finite extension $`\widehat{}[L^{1/r}]`$ of $`\widehat{}`$, and we treat analogous properties. We also introduce this invariant for a $``$–divisor $`D=_id_iD_i`$ (with the $`D_i`$ irreducible) such that all $`d_i>1`$ and $`\mathrm{supp}D=_iD_i`$ is a divisor with strict normal crossings. This is used in 3.14.

A2. First we describe the ring $`\widehat{}[L^{1/r}]`$. Consider the integral ring extension $`_L_L[L^{1/r}]:=\frac{_L[X]}{(X^rL)}`$, where $`L^{1/r}`$ is the class of $`X`$ in this quotient. Each element $`a_L[L^{1/r}]`$ has a unique expression of the form $`a=_{i=0}^{r1}a_iL^{i/r}`$ or $`a=_{i=0}^{r1}a_i^{}L^{i/r}`$ with $`a_i,a_i^{}_L`$.

We extend the decreasing filtration $`(F_m)_m`$ on $`_L`$, introduced in 1.7, to the ring $`_L[L^{1/r}]`$. Let $`F_m^{},m`$, be the subgroup of $`_L[L^{1/r}]`$ generated by

$$\left\{\underset{i=0}{\overset{r1}{}}\frac{[A_i]}{L^{n_i}}L^{i/r}\right|\mathrm{dim}A_in_im\text{ for }i=0,\mathrm{},r1\}.$$

(So indeed $`F_m=_LF_m^{}`$.) We take the completion $`\widehat{}^{}`$ of $`_L[L^{1/r}]`$ with respect to this filtration $`(F_m^{})_m`$; then we have an injection $`\widehat{}\widehat{}^{}`$.

One can verify that $`\widehat{}^{}\widehat{}[L^{1/r}]`$, where the right hand side can be interpreted either as the subring of $`\widehat{}^{}`$ generated by $`\widehat{}`$ and $`L^{1/r}`$, or as $`\frac{\widehat{}[X]}{(X^rL)}`$.

A3. We will use the following notation. Let $`D`$ be a prime divisor on $`X`$. Then $`\mathrm{ord}_tD:(X)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ assigns to $`\phi (X)`$ the order of the power series in $`t`$ given by $`f\phi `$, where $`f`$ is a local equation of $`D`$ at $`\pi _0(\phi )`$. For a $``$–divisor $`D=_id_iD_i`$ (with the $`D_i`$ prime divisors) we then define $`\mathrm{ord}_tD:(X)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ by $`\mathrm{ord}_tD:=_id_i\mathrm{ord}_tD_i`$.

A4. Definition. Let $`D`$ be a $``$–divisor on $`X`$ and $`r\{0\}`$ such that $`rD`$ is a divisor.

($`i`$) If $`D`$ is effective we define for $`n`$ the subscheme $`Y_{n,D,w}`$ of $`(X)`$ and the subscheme $`X_{n,D,w}`$ of $`_n(X)`$ as in 1.3 with only the following adaptation : now $`f`$ is a local equation of the divisor $`rD`$ (instead of $`D`$). Then we set

$$_W(D)=_W(X,D):=\underset{n}{}\frac{[X_{n,D,W}]}{L^{(n+1)d}}L^{n/r}\widehat{}[L^{1/r}].$$

In terms of the motivic volume $`\mu `$ of 5.3 we can describe $`_W(D)`$ as

$$_W(D)=_{\pi _0^1W}L^{\mathrm{ord}_tD}𝑑\mu :=\underset{n}{}\mu (\pi _0^1W\{\mathrm{ord}_tD=\frac{n}{r}\})L^{n/r}.$$

($`ii`$) In general we say that $`\mathrm{ord}_tD:(X)\frac{1}{r}\{\mathrm{}\}`$ is integrable on $`\pi _0^1W`$ if

$$_{\pi _0^1W}L^{\mathrm{ord}_tD}𝑑\mu :=\underset{n}{}\mu (\pi _0^1W\{\mathrm{ord}_tD=\frac{n}{r}\})L^{n/r}$$

converges in $`\widehat{}[L^{1/r}]`$; we then denote this invariant again by $`_W(D)`$.

A5. An important case of this last definition occurs when $`D=_{i=1}^kd_iD_i`$ with the $`D_i`$ irreducible, all $`d_i>1`$, and supp $`D=_{i=1}^kD_i`$ a divisor with strict normal crossings. For $`J\{1,\mathrm{},k\}`$ denote $`D_J^{}:=(_{jJ}D_j)(_\mathrm{}JD_{\mathrm{}})`$ and $`M_J:=\{(m_1,\mathrm{},m_k)^k`$ $`m_j>0jJ\}`$. Then one can compute that

$$_{\pi _0^1W}L^{\mathrm{ord}_tD}𝑑\mu =L^d\underset{J\{1,\mathrm{},k\}}{}(L1)^{|J|}[D_J^{}W]\underset{(m_1,\mathrm{},m_k)M_J}{}L^{_{jJ}(d_j+1)m_j},$$

which converges in $`\widehat{}[L^{1/r}]`$ since all $`d_j+1>0`$. See \[B2, Theorem 6.28\] and \[C, Theorem 1.17\].

###### \bfA6. Theorem

Let also $`X^{}`$ be a smooth irreducible variety and $`\rho :X^{}X`$ a proper birational morphism. Let $`D`$ be a $``$–divisor on $`X`$. Then $`\mathrm{ord}_tD`$ is integrable on $`\pi _0^1W`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{ord}_t(\rho ^{}D+K_{X^{}|X})`$ is integrable on $`\pi _0^1(\rho ^1W)`$; and in this case

$$_W(X,D)=_{\rho ^1W}(X^{},\rho ^{}D+K_{X^{}|X}).$$

###### Demonstration Proof

The proof of \[DL3, Lemma 3.3\], based on the crucial and difficult \[DL3, Lemma 3.4\], can be adapted to this setting. See \[B2, Theorem 6.27\] for an analogous statement and proof when $`W=X`$. We also remark that when $`D`$ is an effective $``$–divisor (implying that both functions are integrable), then one can prove the stated equality using the equality in \[DL3, Lemma 3.3\]. ∎

###### A7. Theorem

Let $`D`$ be a $``$–divisor on $`X`$ (with $`rD`$ a divisor for an $`r\{0\}`$) such that $`\mathrm{ord}_tD`$ is integrable on $`\pi _0^1W`$. Using the notation of 1.4 we have the following formula for $`_W(D)`$ in terms of a log resolution $`h:YX`$ of supp $`D`$ :

$$_W(D)=L^d\underset{IT}{}[E_I^{}h^1W]\underset{iI}{}\frac{L1}{L^{\nu _i+N_i}1}\text{ in }\widehat{}[L^{1/r}].$$

In particular $`_W(D)`$ belongs to the image of $`_L[(1L^{n/r})^1]_{n\{0\}}`$ in $`\widehat{}[L^{1/r}]`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

This follows from A5 and Theorem A6. One can also adapt \[DL3, (6.5)\]. ∎