text:
# Density Functional Study of Cubic to Rhombohedral Transition in 𝛼-AlF3

## I Introduction

The ionic insulator AlF3 has a number of known polymorphs phases1 ; phases2 , which all convert irreversibly to the stable $`\alpha `$-AlF3 within the temperature range approximately 730 to 920 K. Recent interest in this material arises due to its catalytic activity for dismutation and halogen exchange reactions catalytic .

Above its transition temperature (about 730 K)Grey , $`\alpha `$-AlF3 has the cubic perovskite structure AMX3, with the A cations absent (or the ReO3 structure.) Aluminum plays the role of the M cation, and is surrounded by an octahedron of corner-shared fluorine atoms. At low temperature, the structure becomes rhombohedral, and this symmetry lowering can be characterized as a rotation of the fluorine octahedron about one of the three-fold axis of the perovskite cubic cell (or the $`a^{}a^{}a^{}`$ system in Glazer’s tilt system Woodward ). As every adjacent octahedron rotates in the opposite sense, the wave-vector of this distortion is ($`\pi ,\pi ,\pi `$), and the unit cell becomes double the size of that in the cubic phase.

We study the $`\alpha `$-AlF3 structure by using pseudopotentials, a plane-wave basis, and the LDA method. After being tested, the pseudopotentials are applied in bulk $`\alpha `$-AlF3. The total energy surface is examined in the structural parameter space where the cubic phase is compared with the rhombohedral phase found at the deepest nearby minimum of the energy surface.

## II Testing Different Pseudopotentials

The Troullier and Martins method T&M  is used to generate the pseudopotentials. Since there are different possibilities of choosing cut-off radii $`r_{cl}`$, as well as how many valence orbitals to include in the pseudopotentials, we test the pseudopotentials by doing LDA self-consistent iterations for a crystal or molecule prototype and compare the results with FP-LAPW Blaha  all-electron calculations (full potential linearized augmented plane-wave Singh ). This provides guidance on the choice of energy cut-off of the plane-wave basis, and also the choice of local potential, in the $`\alpha `$-AlF3 calculation that follows. The results of these tests are shown in Table 1 and Table 2, for aluminum and fluorine separately. For the Ceperley-Alder exchange-correlation energy CA , the Vosko-Wilk-Nusair VWN  parametrization is used.

The test of the aluminum pseudopotential is performed in bulk Al metal, not only the observed fcc structure, but also the sc and bcc structures, where comparison can still be made between the all-electron method and LDA. The results show that the pseudopotential for the Al3+ ion should be capable of describing the unoccupied $`3d`$ orbital. Otherwise, even the large $`r_{cl}`$ ($`l=0,1`$ for $`s`$ and $`p`$ orbitals) needed to fix the lattice constant in the fcc aluminum are insufficient to remove the $`r_{cl}`$-dependence of the lattice constant and bulk modulus. Due to the more attractive nature of the $`d`$ pseudopotential, including the $`3d`$ orbital reduces the dependence of these two quantities on $`r_{cl}`$ and the choice of local potential, and improves the agreement with the all-electron results. Better agreement is also seen in comparisons for $`sc`$ and bcc structures of Al metal.

The fluorine pseudopotential is tested for the F2 molecule. Unlike the low plane-wave cut-off needed for aluminum (less than 40 Rydberg), more than 90 Rydberg is needed in the F2 molecule. For bulk Al metal we use a k-point mesh of 12$`\times `$12$`\times `$12 that contains 56 special k-points, while for F2 we do a one k-point calculation.

Results in the following sections are calculated using pseudopotentials (Al, F) as shown in the captions of the Tables. This set of pseudopotentials gives the lattice constant ($`a=5.02\AA `$), and bulk modulus ($`B=146.6`$ GPa) of cubic $`\alpha `$-AlF3 in good agreement with all-electron results ($`a=5.043\AA `$, $`B=150`$ GPa.)

## III Results from LDA

### III.1 k-point Test and Density of States

A k-point mesh of 3$`\times `$3$`\times `$3 is used for the Brillouin zone summation for $`\alpha `$-AlF3. This is tested for cubic $`\alpha `$-AlF3, where a finer mesh of 4$`\times `$4$`\times `$4 gives a barely different energy vs plane wave cut-off curve, with energy uncertainty less than 1 meV. This mesh gives six special k-points after symmetrization (according to the point group D3d of the crystal), over which we include at least 36 states in the truncated Hamiltonian diagonalization processes. Since in the rhombohedral unit cell of $`\alpha `$-AlF3 we consider the 48 valence electrons from aluminum $`3s^23p^1`$ and fluorine $`2s^22p^5`$, these electrons will occupy the 24 lowest lying bands. A test including more states, 48 states for example, shows that in the process of iterative diagonalization, using 36 states gives convergent answers for the eigenvalues of the lowest 24 bands. Thus we include 36 states in the calculation of the minimum on the energy surface. To make the density of states plot, we include 50 states to better describe the empty states from aluminum orbitals. As shown in Fig. 1, LDA gives an insulator band-gap of 8 eV. We choose 90 Rydberg to be the energy cut-off for the plane-wave basis. This choice gives the same energy difference between the two structures as that from the choice of 140 Rydberg (with error within $`12`$ meV. The two structures are the cubic and the rhombohedral structure at the minimum.)

### III.2 Crystal Structure

We use LDA to search for the ground state in the rhombohedral symmetry class $`R\overline{3}C`$ seen experimentally in $`\alpha `$-AlF3Grey . There are three free parameters: (1) the lattice constant $`a`$, (2) the angle $`\theta `$ between any two of the rhombohedral lattice vectors, and (3) the inner parameter $`\delta `$, which describes the bending of the Al-F-Al bond. To describe these three parameters, we first start from the cubic structure with lattice vectors $`(2b,0,0)`$, $`(0,2b,0)`$ and $`(0,0,2b)`$, where $`b`$ is the Al-F bond length. A rhombohedral unit cell is formed by picking new lattice vectors $`\stackrel{}{a}_1=(0,2b,2b)`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}_2=(2b,0,2b)`$, and $`\stackrel{}{a}_3=(2b,2b,0)`$. The angle $`\theta `$ defined as $`\theta =\mathrm{cos}^1(\stackrel{}{a}_1\stackrel{}{a}_2/|\stackrel{}{a}_1||\stackrel{}{a}_2|)`$ is $`60^{}`$ in this case. This new cell is then elongated along the  direction. Consequently, the strains $`ϵ_{23}=ϵ_{31}=ϵ_{12}`$ become nonzero, and $`\theta 60^{}`$. Viewed from the  direction, in the aluminum plane the ions form a hexagonal pattern, and the nearest Al-Al distance on this (111) plane is the lattice constant $`a`$. This rhombohedral structure can also be described in a hexagonal setting, with the following $`c/a`$ ratio

$$\frac{c}{a}=\sqrt{\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)\left(\frac{1+2\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)}$$
(1)
The cell shape and cell volume $`V`$ are determined by $`a`$ and $`c/a`$:

$$V=\frac{a^3}{2\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\frac{1+2\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }}=\frac{a^2c}{2\sqrt{3}},$$
(2)
while the relation between the lattice constant $`a`$ and the length of the rhombohedral lattice vectors is:

$$a/|\stackrel{}{a}_1|=\sqrt{2(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )}$$
(3)
There are two aluminum ions and six fluorine ions in each rhombohedral unit cell. The fluorine ions sit at the 6e sites ($`(x,\overline{x}+\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{4})`$, $`(x,x+\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{4})`$, etc.), and $`\delta `$=$`x`$-0.75 is the deviation from $`x`$=0.75 where the Al-F-Al bond angle is strictly 180. The distortion caused by $`\delta `$ alone defines the octahedron rotation angle $`\omega `$ about the  axis:

$$\mathrm{tan}\omega =2\sqrt{3}\delta ,$$
(4)
On the other hand, the $`c/a`$ ratio and the $`\omega `$ have the following relation:

$$\frac{c}{\sqrt{6}a}=\frac{1+\zeta }{\mathrm{cos}\omega },$$
(5)
where $`\zeta `$ describes the flattening ($`\zeta <0`$) and elongation ($`\zeta >0`$) of the octahedron along .

We first assume cubic symmetry by fixing $`\theta =60^{}`$ and $`\delta =0`$. LDA gives the lattice constant $`a=a^{}=5.02\AA `$ for the cubic phase. With the lattice constant kept fixed at the value $`a=a^{}`$, $`\delta `$ is then relaxed to give minimum energy at $`(a,\theta ,\delta )=(a^{},60^{},\pm 0.04)`$. As shown in Fig. 2, the relaxation of $`\delta `$ finds minima at $`\delta `$=$`\pm 0.04`$ and a maximum at $`\delta =0`$, with an energy difference of 14.4 meV, showing that in our $`T`$=0 energy surface study, the unbent Al-F-Al bond, and therefore the strictly cubic structure, is not a metastable solution.

The three parameters are then relaxed in turn to approach the deepest nearby minimum. In fact, in the parameter space, there is a path that keeps the fluorine octahedra rigid and leads to the region near the overall minimum. A Rigid octahedron means that the Al-F bonds are fixed at the bond length found by LDA in the cubic phase

$$b=\frac{a^{}}{2\sqrt{2}}=\frac{a}{2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\omega }$$
(6)
and that the angles between neighboring Al-F bonds are always 90 degrees ($`\zeta =0`$). With these two restrictions, only one parameter $`\delta `$ remains and defines the rigid octahedron path. The energy along this path is also shown in Fig. 2. The overall minimum locates not far from the minimum on this path. It has an Al-F bond length only $`0.3\%`$ longer, a pretty small octahedron elongation factor $`\zeta =0.25\%`$, and the total energy 93 meV lower than the cubic phase. Table 3 shows the comparisons between LDA and experimental data Grey . While no $`T=0`$ experimental numbers are available, one can only make reasonable comparisons for the deviation of bond length and $`\zeta `$. The rhombohdral phase observed in the experiment has an Al-F bond length $`0.43\%`$ longer than the value observed in the cubic phase, and $`\zeta =0.102\%`$ (meaning the octahedron is slightly flattened.) This indicates that both the LDA and the experimentally found rhombohedral phases are close to the rigid octahedron path.

### III.3 Phonon Modes

Previous workers MF3  investigated the phonon spectrum of the cubic phase using the generalized Gordon-Kim methodIvanov . Density functional theory was applied to construct the charge distribution and polarizability of ion. An approximate crystal energy is then calculated from the ion results, and is used to examine the crystal lattice dynamics. However they did not find an instability of the cubic phase, which is contradictory to the experiment. Here we use full LDA to examine the energy surface around the rhombohedral minimum, and extract the soft phonon modes directly. The rhombohedral minimum described in the previous section, and the dipole aspect discussed in Sec. IV, both show the instability of the cubic phase.

At the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point of the rhombohedral phase, the irreducible representations are those of the point group $`D_{3d}`$ (note that the space group of the rhombohedral phase is $`R\overline{3}C`$, which is nonsymmorphic.) Among the 12 $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point modes provided by the fluorines, namely, $`A_{1\mathrm{g}}2A_{2\mathrm{g}}3E_\mathrm{g}A_{1\mathrm{u}}2A_\mathrm{u}3E_\mathrm{u}`$, the four modes $`A_{1\mathrm{g}}3E_\mathrm{g}`$ are Raman active. Viewed from the cubic phase, the octahedron rotation that governs the structural transition is the R5 mode (in Kovalev labelling) at the zone boundary ($`\pi ,\pi ,\pi `$)Raman1 . After distortion, the R5 mode gives rise to the zone-center A1g mode and one of the three Eg modes. Raman experiments Raman1 ; Raman2  showed that the A1g and one Eg are the soft phonon modes below transition. The A1g is the Al-F-Al bond angle bending mode. Using the fluorine atomic mass, and the energy vs $`\delta `$ curve, the A1g frequency is calculated to be 205 cm-1. We also calculate the other restoring coefficients of the three Eg modes, and the two Raman-inactive A2g modes. Their frequencies are listed in Table. 4.

### III.4 Dielectric Function

The electronic part of the dielectric tensor $`ϵ(𝒒=0,\omega )`$ is also calculated. $`ϵ_{xx}=ϵ_{yy}ϵ_{zz}`$ is expected since we have chosen lattice vectors such that $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{y}`$ are perpendicular to the three-fold axis. The imaginary part of the dielectric function can be directly obtained by calculating all direct inter-band transitions Yu :

$`ϵ_2(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi e}{m\omega }})^2{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}\left|\psi _{n,k}\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|\psi _{m,k}\right|^2f_n(1f_m)`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`\delta (E_mE_n\mathrm{}\omega ),`$
where $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is the momentum operator, and k runs through all k-points in the Brillouin zone allowed in a unit volume. The band indices are $`m`$ and $`n`$, $`f_{n,k}`$ and $`f_{m,k}`$ are the occupation number of the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ and $`m^{\mathrm{th}}`$ states at the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ k-point. The real part of dielectric function is obtained using the Kramers-Kronig relation. The result at $`T`$=0 is given in Fig. 3, but we do not know of any experiment to compare with. However this calculation does neglect the non-local potential effect nonlocalV  and the local field effect localE , and follows the pseudo-wave-functions that are smoothened in the ion core regions.

## IV Inner Parameter $`\delta `$ and Dipole Formation

The formation of a dipole plays an important role in the energy difference between the two $`\alpha `$-AlF3 structures. When the inner parameter $`\delta `$ is non-zero, each fluorine atom develops a dipole (Aluminum atoms sit on inversion centers and therefore cannot have dipoles). Starting from the cubic structure, the distortion from $`\delta `$ alone defines the octahedron rotation angle $`\omega `$ about the  axis (see Eq. 4) and already lowers the symmetry to $`R\overline{3}C`$. The parameter $`\delta `$ is irrelevant to the $`c/a`$ ratio, but it does flatten the octahedron (see Eq. 5). It also elongates the Al-F bond length, and introduces a polarization to each fluorine. The energy gain from the fluorine dipole-dipole interaction drives the structure off-cubic. This is shown in Fig.2, where the cubic structure is found to be not a metastable solution.

A naive picture of ionic solids has spherical electron charge clouds of total charge Qi around the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ ion. In reality, charge clouds are distorted. For example, in high T cubic $`\alpha `$-AlF3, the F ions are noticeably prolate when examined in a (100)-plane charge contour calculation Madden . This distortion is still evident in the low T rhombohedral phase, as shown in Fig. 4. The value of the charge Qi, on the other hand, is not uniquely definable. By creating a sphere centered at each fluorine atom, with a radius that only allows neighboring spheres in the rhombohedral phase to touch each other at one point, we define a volume to examine the charge and the dipole moment of the fluorine. In the cubic phase, such a sphere contains charge -0.675$`|e|`$, while it contains -0.68$`|e|`$ in the rhombohedral phase (with a slightly different radius.) Using the same sphere, we compute the local induced dipole moment $`𝒑_{\mathrm{ind}}`$ of the fluorine ion (which also has no unique definition AlCl3 .) As expected from symmetry, $`p_{\mathrm{ind}}=0`$ in the cubic phase, whereas $`p_{\mathrm{ind}}=0.103|e|\AA `$ in the rhombohedral phase, pointing from the fluorine position of the unbent Al-F-Al bond towards the actual distorted fluorine position. Note that the displacive dipole is $`p_{\mathrm{dis}}=0.315|e|\AA `$, defined by the fluorine charge -0.675$`|e|`$ and the displacement $`0.467\AA `$ of the fluorine ion when the Al-F-Al bonds bend. By symmetry, the other fluorine sitting at the opposite side of the octahedron has its dipole pointing exactly in the opposite direction. Therefore the material could be called antiferroelectric AFE .

The dipoles and charges can as well be determined by doing integration in one of the equivalent polyhedra that surround the F- ions and partition the whole space (the Al3+’s sit on shared vertices of the F- polyhedra.) In this way, the ions are charged as Al3+ and F-, while $`p_{\mathrm{ind}}=0.0963|e|\AA `$ and $`p_{\mathrm{dis}}=0.467|e|\AA `$.

It is worthwhile to see if a simplified picture with these numbers helps to understand the energy. In LDA, the energy includes the exact electrostatic or Hartree energy from the electron charge clouds, as well as other quantum effects (energy of delocalization, exchange and correlation.) Purely classical electrostatic models (plus hard core repulsion), on the other hand, provide a simple but useful view. We shall see how much classical electrostatic energy comes from the charge and if this helps to explain the stability of the structural deformation.

In a simplified picture where only electrostatic energy and dipole formation energy ($`E_1`$ in Eq. 8, where $`\alpha =0.858\AA ^3`$ Kittel ) are considered, the total energy is

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`E_1+E_2+E_3+E_4`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑_i^2}{2\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j<i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_iZ_j}{r_{ij}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j<i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_i(𝒑_j𝒓_{ij})}{r_{ij}^3}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j<i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑_i𝒑_j3(\widehat{𝒓}_{ij}𝒑_i)(\widehat{𝒓}_{ij}𝒑_j)}{r_{ij}^3}}.`$
This form leaves out the quantum effects and the effect from covalent bond angle. We find that $`E_2`$, which is purely ionic electrostatic (including displacive dipoles), is less negative in the rhombohedral structure than in the cubic structure (i.e., if the same ion charge assignment is considered in both cases.) However, when the induced-dipole-related terms ($`E_1+E_3+E_4`$) are also considered, the energy is lowered. By assuming point charges and point dipoles, we use the results from the polyhedron method to illustrate this picture: $`E_2`$ per two AlF3 formulas in the rhombohedral phase is 1 eV higher than that in the cubic phase; but $`E_3`$ and $`E_4`$ bring the energy $`E`$ down, with the cost of $`E_1`$, to 0.97 eV lower than the cubic phase (which has only $`E_2`$.) This suggests that the effect of induced dipoles is more than enough to compensate the energy loss from the structural distortion.

## V Conclusion

We report an LDA study of bulk $`\alpha `$-AlF3. By examining the $`T`$=0 energy surface for structures of the phases on both sides of the transition, we find the structural parameters to agree with previous experiments, and the cubic phase not to be a metastable solution. Using the result of LDA, the density of states plot and the dielectric function are provided. At the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-point, the predicted A1g soft phonon mode and Eg modes are compared with previous Raman experiment, while two other A2g modes are predicted. We look at the charge and dipole moment at each fluorine ion, and use these quantities to calculate the classical electrostatic energy. In the antiferroelectric distortion which accompanies the structural transition, a classical calculation shows that the electrostatic energy gain from dipoles is more than enough to compensates the energy loss from the ion-array deformation.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank C. Grey and S. Chaudhuri for suggesting the project and for helpful discussions. The LDA code (BEST) and the FT-LAPW code is provided by Brookhaven National Laboratory. Work at Stony Brook was supported in part by NSF grant no. DMR-0089492. Work at Columbia was supported in part by the MRSEC Program of the National Science Foundation under Award Number DMR-0213574.


format: text

text:
# Potential functions and actions of tori on Kähler manifolds

## 1. Introduction

Let $`M`$ be a Kähler manifold equipped with a free Hamiltonian action of the standard $`n`$-torus, $`T`$ with moment map, $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M^n`$. For $`\lambda ^n`$ the symplectic quotient

$$M_\lambda =\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\lambda )/T$$

inherits from $`M`$ a Kähler structure; and in the first part of this paper we will describe what the Kähler form and Ricci form look like locally on coordinate patches in $`M_\lambda `$. Then in the second part of this paper we will discuss some global implications of these results. This will include

1. A Kählerian proof of the Duistermaat-Heckman theorem.
2. A formula, due to Biquard and Gauduchon, for the Kähler potential on a symplectic quotient.
3. A convexity theorem of Atiyah for moment images of $`T_{}`$-orbits.
4. A formula in terms of moment data for the Kähler metric on a toric variety.
5. A formula for the Kähler form on the symplectic quotient of a Kähler–Einstein manifold.

A few comments about each of these items:

1. The usual proof of the Duistermaat-Heckman theorem is global and topological in nature. Our proof in the Kähler case consists of showing that locally on a coordinate patch in $`M_\lambda `$ two canonically defined Kähler forms are identical.
2. The formula of Biquard–Gauduchon was used by Calderbank, David and Gauduchon to give an elegant economical proof of the theorem alluded to in item 4. (This theorem is due to one of us, and a much less elegant proof of it was presented in \[Gu\].) In this paper we use a primitive local form of the Biquard–Gauduchon theorem (see § 4, formula (4.5)) to give an even simpler derivation of this formula.
3. Atiyah’s proof of this convexity theorem for $`T_{}`$-orbits involves a careful analysis of the global geometry of the closures of these orbits. The proof we present here is quite different in spirit. In the spirit of this article it is based on convexity properties of strictly pluri-subharmonic potentials. Unfortunately, we must assume that the Kähler form defines an integral cohomology class, an hypothesis Atiyah avoids. Although standard approximation techniques will eliminate this hypothesis in some cases, we are unable to derive Atiyah’s theorem in full generality. We note that Kähler potentials have already been used to prove convexity theorems for more general moment maps by P. Heinzner and A. Huckleberry \[HH\].
4. It is well-known that the symplectic quotient by a circle action of a Kähler–Einstein manifold is not in general Kähler–Einstein. (See, for instance, \[Be\] and \[Fu\]§ 7.3 111We take this opportunity to remark that the examples of non-existence of extremal metrics on ruled surfaces cited in \[Fu\] as “Burns’s examples” are due to P. DeBartolomeis and one of us \[BD\].) As was pointed out to us by Michael Duff, this is analogous to what happens, vis a vis dimensional reduction by circle actions, in general relativity. By Kaluza–Klein, the quotient by a circle action of a $`4+1`$-dimensional Einstein manifold has, in addition to its downstairs metric, a two-form (magnetic field) and an electrostatic potential; and the field equations satisfied by these data are not just the field equations for gravity alone, but for gravity *coupled* with electromagnetism. In other words the field equations on the quotient space reflect the fact that the geometry of the quotient space is more complicated than the geometry of the original space.

We will show that this is true for symplectic quotients as well. For $`\lambda ^n`$, the level set, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\lambda )`$, is a principal $`T`$-bundle over $`M_\lambda `$, and the metric on $`M`$ gives one a connection on this bundle and a set of curvature forms, $`\mu _i`$. In addition one gets from the metric a potential function on $`M_\lambda `$, the effective potential: $`V_{\text{eff}}`$, whose value at $`pM_\lambda `$ is the volume of the fiber above $`p`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\lambda )`$.222For circle actions, this coincides with the usual “effective potential” for reduced systems in classical mechanics. (See \[AM\],§ 4.5.) We will show that if the Kähler form, $`\omega `$, and the Ricci form, $`\mu `$, satisfy on $`M`$ the Kähler–Einstein equation, $`\mu =\kappa \omega `$, then the reduced Kähler form, $`\omega _\lambda `$, and reduced Ricci form, $`\mu _\lambda `$, satisfy

(1.1)
$$\mu _\lambda 2\sqrt{1}\overline{}LogV_{\text{eff}}+c_i\mu _i=\kappa (\omega _\lambda +\lambda _i\mu _i)$$

the $`c_i`$’s being constants which don’t depend on $`\lambda `$. This identity can be thought of as a Kähler version of the Einstein equation for a metric coupled with an electromagnetic field.

The presence of the $`c_i`$’s in (1.1) is due, incidentally, to the fact that the moment map is only well-defined up to an additive constant. We will show in § 11 that, for one very natural normalization of this constant, the $`c_i`$’s are equal to zero. The proof of this will depend on a fact about Kähler–Einstein manifolds which is of independent interest. Let $`Z_i`$ , $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, be the complex vector fields generating the action of $`T_{}`$ on $`M`$. Then the components, $`\varphi _i`$, of the moment map satisfy the divergence identites

(1.2)
$$\kappa \varphi _i=\text{div}Z_i+c_i.$$

We remark that equations like 1.1 have been exploited earlier by C. LeBrun and coworkers for the construction of Kähler-Einstein and constant scalar curvature surfaces: see especially \[L\] and PP.

## 2. The Darboux theorem for $`T`$-invariant Kähler forms

Let $`^{}=\{0\}`$ and let $`T_{}=(^{})^n`$ be the complexification of the group, $`T=(S^1)^n`$. Let $`U`$ be an open convex subset of $`^m`$ and let

(2.1)
$$M=T_{}\times U=(^{})^n\times U$$

be the trivial $`T_{}`$-bundle over $`U`$. We will prove in this section an equivariant Darboux theorem for Kähler forms on $`M`$. Let $`\omega `$ be a $`T`$-invariant Kähler form which is Hamiltonian with respect to the action of $`T`$; and let $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$ and $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_m`$ be the coordinate functions on $`(^{})^n`$ and $`U`$. We will prove that

(2.2)
$$\omega =\sqrt{1}\overline{}\rho $$

where

(2.3)
$$\rho =\rho (t_1,\mathrm{},t_n,w_1,\mathrm{},w_m),t_i=|z_i|^2.$$

Moreover, we will show that if $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are two such functions

(2.4)
$$\rho _2\rho _1=\lambda _iLogt_i+\text{Re}f$$

with $`\lambda _i`$ and $`f𝒪(U)`$.

###### Proof.

Since the action of $`T`$ is Hamiltonian the orbits of $`T`$ are isotropic. However, for $`p_0M`$, the orbit, $`Tp_0`$ is a deformation retract of $`M`$. Therefore, since the restriction of $`\omega `$ to this orbit is zero, $`\omega `$ is exact; i.e., $`\omega =d\alpha `$. Let $`\alpha =\alpha _{0,1}+\alpha _{1,0}`$. Then, $`\omega =\alpha _{0,1}+\overline{}\alpha _{1,0}`$; and $`\overline{}\alpha _{0,1}=\alpha _{1,0}=0`$. Since $`M`$ is a domain of holomorphy, $`\alpha _{0,1}=\overline{}h`$ and hence

$$\omega =\overline{}(h\overline{h})=\sqrt{1}\overline{}\rho $$

where $`\sqrt{1}\rho =h\overline{h}`$. By averaging with respect to $`T`$ we can assume that $`\rho `$ is $`T`$-invariant and hence of the form (2.3). To prove the assertion (2.4) we make use of the following elementary fact.

###### Lemma 2.1.

If $`uC^{\mathrm{}}(^{})`$ is a radially symmetric harmonic function it is of the form $`c_1Logr+c_2`$, $`c_i`$.

###### Proof.

By hypothesis

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u=\frac{d^2}{dr^2}u+\frac{1}{r}\frac{du}{dr}=0,$$

and all solutions of this ODE are of the form above.

We will now prove (2.4) by induction on $`n`$. The difference, $`g=\rho _2\rho _1`$, is harmonic in $`z_1`$, so it has to be of the form

$$g_1(z^{},w)Log|z_1|^2+g_2(z^{},w),z^{}=(z_2,\mathrm{},z_n).$$

However,

$$0=\frac{^2}{z_1\overline{z}_i}g=\frac{1}{z_1}\frac{}{\overline{z}_i}g_1(z^{},w),$$

so the derivative of $`g_1`$ with respect to $`\overline{z}_i`$ is zero and, since $`g_1`$ is real-valued, so is the derivative with respect to $`z_i`$. Similarly the derivatives of $`g_1`$ with respect to $`w_i`$ and $`\overline{w}_i`$ are zero; so $`g_1`$ is constant. Thus

$$g=\lambda _1Log|z_1|^2+g_2(z^{},w).$$

Now apply induction.

The result we have just proved can be restated:

###### Theorem 2.2.

If $`g`$ is a $`T`$-invariant real-valued pluri-harmonic function on $`M`$ then $`g`$ is of the form

$$\lambda _iLogt_i+\text{Re}f$$

with $`\lambda _i`$ and $`f𝒪(U)`$.

## 3. The moment map

We will compute below the moment map associated with the action of $`T`$ on $`M`$. Let $`\rho `$ be the potential function (2.3). Letting $`\alpha =i\rho `$, one gets from (2.1), where $`M`$ is as in §2.

$$\omega =d\alpha $$

and hence with

$$\frac{}{\theta _j}=i\left(z_j\frac{}{z_j}\overline{z}_j\frac{}{\overline{z}_j}\right)$$

one has

$$\iota \left(\frac{}{\theta _j}\right)\omega =d\left(\iota \left(\frac{}{\theta _j}\right)\alpha \right)$$

so we get for the $`j`$$`^{\text{th}}`$ component of the moment map

(3.1)
$$\varphi _j=\iota \left(\frac{}{\theta _i}\right)\alpha =z_j\frac{\rho }{z_j}=t_j\frac{\rho }{t_j}.$$

Unlike the symplectic form, $`\omega `$, (3.1) depends upon the choice of $`\rho `$. If we replace $`\rho `$ by the potential function

(3.2)
$$\rho _1=\rho +\lambda _jLogt_i+\text{Re}ff𝒪(U)$$

and set

$$\alpha _1=i\rho _1=i\rho i\lambda _j\frac{dz_j}{z_j}\frac{i}{2}f$$

we get for the $`j`$$`^{\text{th}}`$ component of the moment map

$$\iota \left(\frac{}{\theta _j}\right)\alpha _1=\iota \left(\frac{}{\theta _j}\right)\alpha +\lambda _j,$$

i.e., the moment map associated with $`\rho _1`$ is

(3.3)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }+\lambda .$$

Thus if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ are the same, $`\lambda =0`$ and hence by (3.2) $`\rho _1=\rho +\text{Re}f`$, $`f𝒪(U)`$. Thus to summarize, we proved

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho `$ be strictly pluri-subharmonic functions of the form (2.3). If the symplectic forms and moment maps associated with $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _1`$ are the same then

(3.4)
$$\rho _1=\rho +\text{Re}f,f𝒪(U).$$

Coming back to the formula (3.1) note that if we make the change of variables $`t_i=e^{s_i}`$ and set

(3.5)
$$\rho (t_1,\mathrm{},t_n,w)=\rho (e^{s_1},\mathrm{},e^{s_n},w)=:f(s_1,\mathrm{}s_n,w)$$

the moment map can be written in the simpler form

(3.6)
$$\varphi _j(s,w)=\frac{}{s_j}f(s,w).$$

## 4. The reduced potential function

As above let $`\rho `$ be the potential function (2.3) and let

$$\alpha =i\rho =i\frac{\rho }{z_j}dz_j+_w\rho .$$

By (3.1), $`z_j\rho /z_j`$ is equal to $`\varphi _j`$; hence

(4.1)
$$\alpha =i(\varphi _jdLogz_j+_w\rho ).$$

Let us denote by $`\iota _\lambda `$ the inclusion of the level set $`\varphi ^1(\lambda )`$ and by $`\pi `$ the projection of $`T_{}\times U`$ onto $`U`$. The composite map $`\pi \iota _\lambda `$ is $`T`$-invariant and gives us an identification locally of $`U`$ with the reduced space

$$M_\lambda =\varphi ^1(\lambda )/T,$$

and via this identification, $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_n`$ become local holomorphic coordinates on $`M_\lambda `$.

From the identity 4.1, we get

(4.2)
$$\iota _\lambda ^{}\alpha =i\iota _\lambda ^{}_w\rho +dh_\lambda $$

where $`h_\lambda =i\lambda _jLog\iota _\lambda ^{}z_j`$. Setting $`\iota _\lambda ^{}t_j=t_j(w)`$, one can interchange $`\iota _\lambda ^{}`$ and $`_w`$:

$$\iota _\lambda ^{}\frac{}{w}\rho (t,w)=\frac{}{w}\rho (t(w),w)\frac{\rho }{t_j}\frac{t_j}{w},$$

and, by (3.1), rewrite this in the form

(4.3)
$$\iota _\lambda ^{}\frac{}{w}\rho (t,w)=\frac{}{w}(\iota _\lambda ^{}\rho \lambda _jLog\iota _\lambda ^{}t_j).$$

Hence (4.2) becomes

(4.4)
$$\iota _\lambda ^{}\alpha =i_w\iota _\lambda ^{}(\rho \lambda _jLogt_j)+dh_\lambda ,$$

so the reduced symplectic form $`d\iota _\lambda ^{}\alpha `$ on $`M_\lambda `$ is equal to

(4.5) $`\omega _\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`i_w\overline{}_w\rho _\lambda `$
$`where`$
(4.6) $`\rho _\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\iota _\lambda ^{}(\rho {\displaystyle \lambda _jLogt_i}).`$
## 5. The reduced Kähler metric on $`M_\lambda `$

By equation (4.5)

(5.1) $`\omega _\lambda =i{\displaystyle \psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\beta }}dw_\alpha }d\overline{w}_\beta `$
$`where`$
(5.2) $`\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\beta }}={\displaystyle \frac{^2\rho _\lambda }{w_\alpha \overline{w}_\beta }}.`$
To compute these derivatives we will, as in (3.5), set $`t_i=e^{s_i}`$ and let

$$f(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n,w)=\rho (t_1,\mathrm{},t_n,w).$$

In these coordinates the $`\lambda `$-level set of the moment map is defined by the equations

$$\frac{f}{s_i}=\lambda _i$$

so if we let

(5.3)
$$g(s,w)=f(s,w)\lambda _is_i$$

then, by (4.5), $`\rho _\lambda `$ is the restriction of $`g`$ to the set

(5.4)
$$\frac{g}{s_i}=0.$$

Letting $`s=s(w)`$ on this set, we obtain from (5.2) and (4.5):

$$\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\beta }}=\frac{}{w_\alpha }\frac{}{\overline{w}_\beta }(g(s(w),w)).$$

However, by (5.4)

$$\frac{}{w_\alpha }(g(s(w),w))=\frac{g}{w_\alpha }(s(w),w)$$

and hence

(5.5)
$$\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\beta }}=\left(\iota _\lambda ^{}\frac{^2g}{s_iw_\alpha }\right)\frac{s_i}{\overline{w}_\beta }+\iota _\lambda ^{}\frac{^2g}{w_\alpha \overline{w}_\beta }.$$

Moreover, by (5.4)

$$\frac{}{w_\alpha }\left(\frac{g}{s_i}(s(w),w)\right)=0=\underset{j}{}\frac{^2g}{s_is_j}(s(w),w)+\frac{^2g}{s_iw_\alpha }(s(w),w).$$

Hence

(5.6)
$$\iota _\lambda ^{}\frac{^2g}{s_iw_\alpha }=\left(\iota _\lambda ^{}\frac{^2g}{s_is_j}\right)\frac{s_j}{w_\alpha }$$

and if we substitute this into (5.5) we get the following slightly more symmetric formula for $`\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\beta }}`$:

(5.7)
$$\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\beta }}=\iota _\lambda ^{}\frac{^2g}{w_\alpha \overline{w}_\beta }\left(\iota _\lambda ^{}\frac{^2g}{s_is_j}\right)\frac{s_i}{w_\alpha }\frac{s_j}{\overline{w}_\beta }.$$

## 6. The Ricci potential

By definition the Ricci potential of the Kähler form, $`i\overline{}\rho `$, is minus the log determinant of the matrix

($``$)
$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{^2\rho }{z_i\overline{z}_j}& \frac{^2\rho }{z_i\overline{w}_\beta }\\ \frac{^2\rho }{w_\alpha \overline{z}_j}& \frac{^2\rho }{w_\alpha \overline{w}_\beta }\end{array}\right].$$

But with $`s_i=Log|z_i|^2`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\rho }{z_i\overline{z}_j}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{z_i\overline{z_j}}}(\rho {\displaystyle \lambda _\kappa Log|z_\kappa |^2})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{z_i\overline{z}_j}}g(s,w)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_i\overline{z}_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2g}{s_is_j}}.`$
Similarly

(6.4) $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\rho }{z_i\overline{w}_\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2g}{s_i\overline{w}_\beta }}`$
(6.5) $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\rho }{w_\alpha \overline{z}_j}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{z}_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2g}{w_\alpha s_j}}`$
and
(6.7) $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\rho }{w_\alpha \overline{w}_\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2g}{w_\alpha \overline{w}_\beta }}`$
so the determinant of the matrix above is equal to the determinant of the matrix

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{^2g}{s_is_j}& \frac{^2g}{s_i\overline{w}_\beta }\\ \frac{^2g}{w_\alpha s_j}& \frac{^2g}{w_\alpha \overline{w}_\beta }\end{array}\right]$$

times a factor of

(6.8)
$$\frac{1}{|z_1|^2\mathrm{}|z_n|^2}=e^{(s_1+\mathrm{}+s_n)}.$$

Now consider the restriction of this matrix to the set, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\lambda )`$. If we multiply the $`j`$$`^{\text{th}}`$ column of this matrix by $`s_j/\overline{w}_\beta `$ and subtract it from the $`\beta `$$`^{\text{th}}`$ column we get by (5.5) and (5.6) the matrix

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{^2g}{s_is_j}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\beta }}\end{array}\right].$$

Hence the determinant of the matrix ($``$) is

$$e^{(s_1+\mathrm{}+s_n)}det\left(\frac{^2g}{s_is_j}\right)det(\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\beta }})$$

or

$$det\left(\frac{^2\rho }{z_i\overline{z}_j}\right)det(\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\beta }}).$$

Thus we’ve shown:

###### Theorem 6.1.

Let $`h`$ be the Ricci potential of the Kähler form, $`\omega `$. Then the Ricci potential, $`h_\lambda `$, of the Kähler form $`\omega _\lambda `$ is

(6.9)
$$h_\lambda =\iota _\lambda ^{}\left(h+Logdet\left(\frac{^2\rho }{z_i\overline{z}_j}\right)\right).$$

The second summand on the right has a simple geometric interpretation. Let $`\nu _i=dLogz_i`$. At a point $`pM`$ the restriction of $`\omega `$ to the orbit, $`T_{}p`$, is equal to

(6.10)
$$\sqrt{1}z_i\overline{z}_j\frac{^2\rho }{z_i\overline{z}_j}\nu _i\overline{\nu }_j$$

and the Kählerian volume form on this orbit is

(6.11)
$$\sqrt{1}f\nu _1\overline{\nu }_1\mathrm{}\nu _n\overline{\nu }_n$$

where

(6.12)
$$f=2^n|z_1|^2\mathrm{}|z_n|^2det\left(\frac{^2\rho }{z_i\overline{z}_j}\right).$$

But by (6.10) the map

$$J_p:\text{Re}\nu _i\text{Im}\nu _i,i=1,\mathrm{},n$$

maps the space

(6.13)
$$\text{span}\{\text{Re}\nu _i,i=1,\mathrm{},n\}$$

at $`p`$ isometrically onto the space

(6.14)
$$\text{span}\{\text{Im}\nu _i,i=1,\mathrm{},n\}.$$

Moreover, (6.10) also implies that these spaces are Riemannian orthocomplements of each other in the cotangent space at $`p`$ to $`T_{}p`$. Hence if $`g\text{Re}\nu _1\mathrm{}\text{Re}\nu _n`$ is the Riemannian volume form on the space (6.13), $`g\text{Im}\nu _1\mathrm{}\text{Im}\nu _n`$ is the Riemannian volume form on the space (6.14); and the wedge product of these two forms is the Riemannian volume form on the cotangent space at $`p`$ to $`T_{}p`$, which is just the volume form (6.11). Thus $`g^2=f`$. Moreover, the space (6.14) is just the cotangent space to $`Tp`$ at $`p`$ and $`\text{Im}\nu _i=d\theta _i`$. Hence the volume form on the $`T`$ orbit through $`p`$ is $`\sqrt{f}d\theta _1\mathrm{}d\theta _n`$ and the volume of this orbit is $`(2\pi )^n\sqrt{f(p)}`$. Thus $`\iota _\lambda ^{}\sqrt{f}`$ is the effective potential. $`V_{\text{eff}}`$, that we defined in § 1; and, up to an additive constant,

(6.15)
$$h_\lambda =\iota _\lambda ^{}(h+Log|z_i|^2)+2LogV_{\text{eff}}.$$

## 7. GIT quotients

In the second half of this paper we will describe some global applications of the results of §§ 1–6. Let $`M`$ now be a $`d`$-dimensional compact complex manifold, and $`\tau :T_{}\times MM`$ a holomorphic action of $`T_{}`$ on $`M`$. Let $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^{1,1}(M)`$ be a Kähler form with respect to which the restriction of $`\tau `$ to $`T`$ is Hamiltonian and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M`$ be the moment map, normalized so that

$$\varphi ^i\omega ^d=0.$$

We will assume that $`0`$ is a regular value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and that $`T`$ acts freely on the level set $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$. Then, for $`\lambda `$ close to $`0`$, $`T`$ acts freely on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\lambda )`$. Hence the reduced space

$$M_\lambda =\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\lambda )/T$$

is well-defined and is a compact Kähler manifold. We will denote by $`\omega _\lambda `$ its Kähler form.

We recall (see \[MFK\]) that the set of *stable points* in $`M`$ is the set

$$M_{\text{stable}}=T_{}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0).$$

This set is an open dense subset of $`M`$ whose complement is a subvariety of dimension $`d1`$. Moreover, $`T_{}`$ acts freely and properly on $`M_{\text{stable}}`$, so the quotient space

$$M_{\text{red}}=M_{\text{stable}}/T_{}$$

is a compact complex manifold of dimension $`\mathrm{}=dn`$, and, by definition, $`M_{\text{red}}`$ is the *geometric invariant theory* (GIT) *quotient of*  $`M`$ *by* $`T_{}`$. The projection

(7.1)
$$\pi :M_{\text{stable}}M_{\text{red}}$$

makes $`M_{\text{stable}}`$ into a principal $`T_{}`$ bundle over $`M_{\text{red}}`$. Moreover, since $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\lambda )`$ is compact it is contained in $`M_{\text{stable}}`$ for $`\lambda `$ close to $`0`$; hence the map

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\lambda )M_{\text{stable}}\stackrel{𝜋}{}M_{\text{red}}$$

induces a biholomorphic map, $`M_\lambda M_{\text{red}}`$; so, as complex manifolds, the $`M_\lambda `$’s are identical with $`M_{\text{red}}`$ and we can think of the $`\omega _\lambda `$’s as a family of Kähler forms on $`M_{\text{red}}`$. In the first of our applications we will describe how the $`\omega _\lambda `$’s vary as one varies the parameter, $`\lambda `$. In all the applications below, by the way, except for the application discussed in § 10, we will only be concerned with the open subset, $`M_{\text{stable}}`$, of $`M`$ and the fibration (7.1). Moreover, for the most part, it won’t be important that $`M_{\text{red}}`$ be compact; in other words, in most of the applications below, we can assume that $`M=M_{\text{stable}}`$ and allow $`M`$ to be a principal $`T_{}`$-bundle over a (not necessarily compact) base manifold, $`M_{\text{red}}`$.

## 8. The Kähler version of Duistermaat–Heckman

Let $`U`$ be a convex coordinate patch in $`M_{\text{red}}`$ and let $`M_U=\pi ^1(U)`$. We will assume that the bundle (7.1) is trivial over $`U`$ and hence

(8.1)
$$M_U=(^{})^n\times U.$$

Let $`\rho `$ be a potential function on $`M_U`$ of the form (2.3) such that $`\omega =\sqrt{1}\overline{}\rho `$ and such that the moment map (3.1) coincides with the moment map defined in the previous section. By (4.6) the reduced symplectic form on $`U`$ is equal to

(8.2)
$$\sqrt{1}\overline{}\iota _\lambda ^{}\rho \sqrt{1}\lambda _j\overline{}Log\iota _\lambda ^{}|z_j|^2.$$

(Here and throughout this section, we identify $`T`$-invariant functions on $`\varphi ^1(\lambda )`$ with functions on $`U`$, i.e., as functions of the $`w`$ coordinates, where we can express, along $`\varphi ^1(\lambda )`$, $`|z_i|^2=|z_i|^2(w)`$.) We claim that the first term in (8.2) is an *intrinsically* defined $`2`$-form on $`U`$ not depending on the trivialization (8.1). In fact if $`\rho _1`$ is another potential function with the same properties as $`\rho `$ then by Theorem 3.1, $`\rho _1=\rho +\text{Re}f`$, for $`f𝒪(U)`$ and hence

(8.3)
$$\sqrt{1}\overline{}\iota _\lambda ^{}\rho _1=\sqrt{1}\overline{}\iota _\lambda ^{}\rho .$$

The same argument shows that for different values, $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$, of $`\lambda `$

(8.4)
$$\sqrt{1}\overline{}\iota _{\lambda _1}^{}\rho \sqrt{1}\overline{}\iota _{\lambda _2}^{}\rho $$

is an intrinsically defined one-form not depending on $`\rho `$; for if we replace $`\rho `$ by $`\rho +\text{Re}f`$, this difference is unchanged. Thus there exists a globaly defined two-form, $`\mu _\lambda `$, whose restriction to $`U`$ satisfies

(8.5)
$$\mu _\lambda =\sqrt{1}\overline{}\iota _\lambda ^{}\rho $$

and a globally defined one-form, $`\nu _{1,2}`$, whose restriction to $`U`$ satisfies

(8.6)
$$\nu _{1,2}=\sqrt{1}\overline{}\iota _{\lambda _1}^{}\rho \sqrt{1}\overline{}\iota _{\lambda _2}^{}\rho $$

such that

(8.7)
$$\mu _{\lambda _1}\mu _{\lambda _2}=d\nu _{1,2}.$$

Next consider the terms in the second summand of (8.2). The projection of the product, $`T_{}=(^{})^n`$ onto its $`i`$$`^{\text{th}}`$ factor defines a character

$$\chi _i:T_{}^{}.$$

Let $`𝕃_i`$ be the line bundle over $`M_{\text{red}}`$ associated with this character: A section of this line bundle is by definition a map

$$s:M_{\text{stable}}$$

satisfying

(8.8)
$$s(ap)=\chi _i(a)^1s(p);$$

so in particular the functions

(8.9)
$$s_i:M_U^{},(z,w)z_i^1$$

are non-vanishing holomorphic sections of $`𝕃_i`$ over $`U`$.

Given a map $`s:M_{\text{stable}}`$ satisfying (8.8) the restriction of $`|s|^2`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\lambda )`$ is, by (8.8) constant on the fibers of the $`T`$-bundle:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\lambda )M_{\text{red}},$$

so one can define a hermitian metric on $`𝕃_i`$ by setting

(8.10)
$$s,s_\lambda =\iota _\lambda ^{}|s|^2,$$

and in terms of this metric the $`i`$$`^{\text{th}}`$ summand of (8.2) is equal to

(8.11)
$$\sqrt{1}\overline{}Logs_i,s_i_\lambda =\mu _{i,\lambda }$$

which is just the curvature form $`\mu _{i,\lambda }`$ of the bundle $`𝕃_i`$. This form depends on $`\lambda `$, however if $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are distinct values of $`\lambda `$, the inner products, $`,_{\lambda _1}`$ and $`,_{\lambda _2}`$ differ at each point, $`wM_{\text{red}}`$, by a positive multiplicative constant, $`\kappa _i(w)`$, and

(8.12)
$$\mu _{i,\lambda _1}\mu _{i,\lambda _2}=\sqrt{1}d(Log\kappa _i(w));$$

hence $`\mu _{i,\lambda _1}`$ and $`\mu _{i,\lambda _2}`$ are canonically cohomologous. Hence, to summarize, the reduced symplectic form, $`\omega _\lambda `$, on $`M_{\text{red}}`$ satisfies the Duistermaat – Heckman equation:

(8.13)
$$\omega _\lambda =\mu +\lambda _i\mu _i$$

where $`\mu =\mu _\lambda `$ is defined by (8.5) and $`\mu _i=\mu _{i,\lambda }`$ is the curvature form of the line bundle $`𝕃_i`$. These forms are *canonically* defined $`2`$-forms on $`M_{\text{red}}`$. Moreover, though they depend on $`\lambda `$, they are, for different choices of $`\lambda `$, *canonically* cohomologous by (8.7) and (8.12).

## 9. The Biquard–Gauduchon formula

The potential function in formula (8.2):

(9.1)
$$\rho _\lambda =\iota _\lambda ^{}\rho \lambda _i\iota _\lambda ^{}Log|z_i|^2$$

is not intrinsically defined in terms of $`\rho `$ since the functions, $`z_i`$, depend upon the choice of the trivialization (8.1). However, there is a simple way to make it intrinsically defined. The function, $`\rho _\lambda `$, lives on $`U`$, so we can pull it back by the fibration (7.1) to get a function $`\pi ^{}\rho _\lambda `$ on $`M_U`$. We claim that the sum,

(9.2)
$$\widehat{K}_\lambda =\pi ^{}\rho _\lambda +\lambda _iLog|z_i|^2$$

is independent of how we trivialize the bundles, (7.1) over $`U`$. If one changes this trivialization by replacing $`z_i`$ by $`a_i(w)z_i`$ then

$$Log|a_i(w)z_i|^2\pi ^{}Log\iota _\lambda ^{}|a_i(w)z_i|^2=Log|z_i|^2\pi ^{}Log\iota _\lambda ^{}|z_i|^2;$$

so the right-hand side of (9.2) is unchanged. Also note that (8.3) can be written in the more instrinsic form

(9.3)
$$\pi ^{}\omega _\lambda =\sqrt{1}\overline{}\widehat{K}_{\lambda .}$$

In other words, if one has a Kähler potential, $`\rho `$, on $`M`$ satisfying $`\omega =\sqrt{1}\overline{}\rho `$, one gets an *intrinsic* Kähler potential, $`\widehat{K}`$, on $`M`$ satisfying (9.3). Thus, even though there may not be a globally defined Kähler potential for the reduced symplectic form, $`\omega _\lambda `$, there is for its pull-back, $`\pi ^{}\omega _\lambda `$, to $`M`$. (See \[BG\], pages 291–293.)

## 10. The Atiyah convexity theorem

Our proof of this theorem makes use of some elementary facts about strictly convex functions: Let $`V`$ be a real vector space and $`F:V`$ a smooth function. We recall that $`F`$ is *strictly convex* if the Hessian $`d^2F_p`$, is positive definite for all $`pV`$, and is *stable* if $`F(x)`$ tends to infinity as $`x`$ tends to infinity in $`V`$. Given $`\mathrm{}V^{}`$ let $`F_{\mathrm{}}(x)=F(x)\mathrm{}(x)`$. The *stability set* of a strictly convex function, $`F`$, is the set, $`S_F`$, of all $`\mathrm{}V^{}`$ for which $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ is stable. We will need below the following properties of this set.

###### Proposition 1.

$`S_F`$ is an open convex set.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{}=s\mathrm{}_1+(1s)\mathrm{}_2`$, $`0s1`$. Then if $`F_\mathrm{}_1(x)`$ and $`F_\mathrm{}_2(x)`$ tend to $`+\mathrm{}`$ as $`x`$ tends to infinity so does $`F_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$. To see that $`S_F`$ is open, we may, without loss of generality assume that $`\mathrm{}=0`$ and that $`x=0`$ is a strict global minimum of $`F`$. Then we have

$$F(x)>\underset{\{|x|=1\}}{\mathrm{min}}|F(x)|+c|x|,\text{for}|x|>1,$$

where $`c=\mathrm{min}_{\{|x|=1\}}\frac{F}{r}`$, and $`c>0`$ ebcause $`F`$ is strictly convex and $`F(0)=0`$. Then for all $`\mathrm{}`$ such that $`|\mathrm{}|<c,\mathrm{}S_F`$.

###### Proposition 2.

If $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are strictly convex and $`F_1F_2`$ is bounded, $`S_{F_1}=S_{F_2}`$.

###### Proof.

$`(F_1)_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ tends to $`+\mathrm{}`$ as $`x`$ tends to infinity if and only if $`(F_2)_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ tends to $`+\mathrm{}`$ as $`x`$ tends to infinity. ∎

Let $`F`$ be a function of the form

(10.1)
$$F(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_ie^{\alpha _i(x)}$$

where $`c_i>0`$ and $`\alpha _iV^{}`$.

###### Proposition 3.

$`F`$ is stable if and only if zero is contained in the interior of the convex hull of $`\{\alpha _i,i=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$.

###### Proof.

If zero is contained in the exterior or boundary of this set there exists a $`\xi V`$ such that the $`\alpha `$’s lie in the half-space

$$\{\mu V^{},\mu (\xi )0\},$$

and hence $`F(x)`$ is bounded along the ray $`x=t\xi `$, $`t0`$. ∎

###### Corollary.

The stability set of the function $`LogF`$ is the interior of the convex hull of $`\{\alpha _i,i=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$.

###### Proof.

$`LogF\mathrm{}=LogFe^{\mathrm{}}`$ where

$$Fe^{\mathrm{}}=c_ie^{\alpha _i\mathrm{}},$$

and this is stable if and only if $`\mathrm{}`$ is contained in the interior of the convex hull of the $`\alpha `$’s. ∎

The Legendre transform of a function, $`F`$, is the map

$$L_F:VV^{},pdF_p.$$

###### Proposition 4.

If $`F`$ is strictly convex, $`L_F`$ maps $`V`$ bijectively onto $`S_F`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{}`$ be in $`S_F`$. Since $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ is stable $`F_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ tends to $`+\mathrm{}`$ as $`x`$ tends to infinity, hence $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ has at least one minimum point, $`p`$. Moreover, since $`F`$ is strictly convex, every critical point of $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a non-degenerate minimum point. So by the Morse index theorem, $`p`$ is the *unique* critical point of $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$; and at $`p`$, $`dF_p=\mathrm{}`$. ∎

We will now prove that the Atiyah theorem is true in one very simple special case. Let $`\tau _0`$ be a *linear* action of $`T_{}`$ on $`^{N+1}`$ with weights, $`\beta _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N+1`$ and let $`\tau `$ be the induced action of $`T_{}`$ on $`P^N`$. Let $`p`$ be the point, $`[a_0,\mathrm{},a_n]`$, $`a_0=1`$. On the complement of the hyperplane, $`z_0=0`$, the canonical Kähler form, $`\omega _{FS}`$, is equal to $`\sqrt{1}\overline{}\rho `$ where

$$\rho =Log\left(\frac{|z_0|^2+\mathrm{}+|z_n|^2}{|z_0|^2}\right)$$

and the restriction of $`\rho `$ to the $`T_{}`$ orbit through $`p`$ is the function

$$Log(c_1t^{\alpha _1}+\mathrm{}+c_Nt^{\alpha _N}+1)$$

where $`\alpha _i=\beta _i\beta _0`$ and $`c_i=|a_i|^2`$. Making the substitution $`t_i=e^{s_i}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ this becomes

(10.2)
$$F(s)=Log(c_1e^{\alpha _1(s)}+\mathrm{}+c_Ne^{\alpha _N(s)}+1).$$

Now let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be the moment map associated with the action of $`T`$ on $`P^N`$. By (3.6) the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to $`T_{}p`$ is just $`L_F`$; and, by the corollary to proposition 3, its image is the convex hull of the set consisting of zero and those $`\alpha _i`$’s for which $`c_i0`$. In particular this proves

###### Theorem 10.1.

The moment image of $`T_{}p`$ is a convex polytope.

We will now show that this special case of the convexity theorem implies the convexity theorem in much greater generality: First of all it is clear that if $`\tau _0`$ is a linear action of $`T_{}`$ on $`^{N+1}`$ and $`\tau `$ is the induced action of $`T_{}`$ on $`P^N`$ then, for every non-singular projective variety, $`MP^N`$, which is invariant under $`\tau `$, the theorem is true for $`T_{}`$ orbits lying in $`M`$. Now suppose that $`M`$ is a compact Kähler manifold whose Kähler form, $`\omega `$, is an integral form. Then $`[\omega ]`$ is the Chern class of a complex line bundle, $`𝕃`$; and, by a theorem of Kodaira, some high power, $`𝕃^k`$, of $`𝕃`$ admits enough global holomorphic sections to imbed $`M`$ in $`P^N`$. Moreover, the action of $`T_{}`$ on $`M`$ lifts to an action of $`T_{}`$ on $`𝕃`$ and hence lifts to a *linear* action of $`T_{}`$ on the space of holomorphic sections of $`𝕃^k`$. Thus the Kodaira imbedding intertwines the action of $`T_{}`$ on $`M`$ with a linear action of $`T_{}`$ on $`P^N`$. Let $`\gamma `$ be this imbedding. The pull-back by $`\gamma `$ of $`\omega _{FS}`$ is not the Kähler form on $`M`$; however by Kodaira’s theorem $`[\omega ]=\gamma ^{}[\omega _{FS}]`$; hence there exists a $`T`$-invariant function, $`H:M`$ satisfying

(10.3)
$$\omega =\gamma ^{}\omega _{FS}+\sqrt{1}\overline{}H.$$

Now let $`q`$ be a point in $`M`$ and let $`p=\gamma (q)`$. Then by (10.3) the restriction of $`\omega `$ to the orbit, $`T_{}q`$ is equal to $`\sqrt{1}\overline{}F_1`$ where

(10.4)
$$F_1(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)=H(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)+F(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)$$

$`F`$ being the function (10.2). However, $`H`$ is bounded on $`T_{}q`$ so by proposition 2 $`L_F`$ and $`L_{F_1}`$ have the same image. Thus we can conclude:

###### Theorem 10.2.

The moment image of $`T_{}q`$ is identical with the moment image of $`T_{}p`$ (and hence, in particular, by theorem 10.1, is a convex polytope).

## 11. The symplectic quotient of a Kähler–Einstein manifold

Suppose that the Kähler form on $`M`$ is Kähler–Einstein, i.e., that the Ricci form and the Kähler form satisfy $`\mu =\kappa \omega `$, $`\kappa `$. We will show that the reduced Kähler form, $`\omega _\lambda `$, and reduced Ricci form, $`\mu _\lambda `$, satisfy (1.1). It is enough to prove this identity on open pseudoconvex sets, $`U`$, of $`M_{\text{red}}`$ over which $`M_{\text{stable}}`$ is the trivial bundle: $`(^{})^n\times U`$. Let $`\rho `$ be a potential function on $`U`$ of the form (2.3) such that $`\omega =\sqrt{1}\overline{}\rho `$ and such that the moment map (3.1) is identical with the given moment map. Then if $`h`$ is the Ricci potential associated with $`\rho `$, $`\kappa \rho h`$ is pluri-harmonic so by theorem 2.2

(11.1)
$$\kappa \rho =h+a_iLog|z_i|^2+\text{Re}f$$

$`f𝒪(U)`$. Thus with $`c_i=(a_i1)`$ the expression

(11.2)
$$\kappa (\iota _\lambda ^{}(\rho \lambda _iLog|z_i|^2)+\lambda _iLog\iota _\lambda ^{}|z_i|^2)$$

is equal to the expression

(11.3)
$$\iota _\lambda ^{}(h+Log|z_i|^2)+2LogV_{\text{eff}}+\text{Re}f$$

plus the expression

(11.4)
$$c_iLog\iota _\lambda ^{}|z_i|^22LogV_{\text{eff}}$$

Applying $`\overline{}`$ to these three expressions and using (6.15) one gets (1.1).

We will next show that the $`c_i`$’s are given by the divergence equations (1.2). Differentiating the identity (11.1) with respect to the vector field, $`Z_i=z_i/z_i`$, we get

(11.5)
$$\kappa Z_i\rho =Z_ih+a_i.$$

But the symplectic volume form, $`\omega ^d`$, is, up to a constant multiple, equal to

$$e^hdz_id\overline{z}_idw_\alpha d\overline{w}_\alpha .$$

Hence

$$\text{div}Z_i=L_{Z_i}\omega ^d/\omega ^d=Z_ih+1$$

and by (3.1)

$$\varphi _i=Z_i\rho ,$$

so (11.5) reduces to

$$\kappa \varphi _i=\text{div}Z_i+c_i.$$

Note in particular that if the manifold, “$`M`$”, in this section is as in section 7 the open dense subset, $`M_{\text{stable}}`$, of a *compact* manifold, $`M`$, we can integrate (1.2) over $`M`$, and using the fact that the integral

$$(\text{div}Z_i)\omega ^d=𝑑\iota (Z_i)\omega ^d$$

is zero, get

$$\kappa \varphi _i\omega ^d=c_i\text{vol}(M).$$

Thus if we normalize the moment map by requiring, as in section 7, that the integral on the left be zero, we end up with $`c_i=0`$, and the equation (1.1) reduces to the simpler form

(11.6)
$$\mu _\lambda 2\sqrt{1}\overline{}LogV_{\text{eff}}=\kappa (\omega _\lambda +\lambda _i\mu _i).$$

If we restrict to the case of level $`0`$, i.e., $`\lambda =0`$, we reproduce an earlier result of Futaki’s \[Fu\], Theorem 7.3.2, in the case of a Kähler–Einstein manifold $`M`$. Futaki treats the case of $`M`$ a Fano manifold, which would be treated here in the same fashion, mutatis mutandis.

## 12. Kähler metrics on toric varieties

Let $`\omega `$ be the standard Kähler form on $`^n`$:

$$\omega =\sqrt{1}\overline{}\rho $$

where $`\rho =|z_i|^2`$. The linear action of $`T=(S^1)^n`$ on $`^n`$ is Hamiltonian with respect to this form, and by (3.1), the moment map associated with the potential, $`\rho `$, is

(12.1)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=(|z_1|^2,\mathrm{},|z_n|^2).$$

Now let $`G`$ be a subtorous of $`T`$ and $`𝔤`$ its Lie algebra. From the inclusion of $`G`$ in $`T`$, one gets an inclusion of $`𝔤`$ into $`^n`$ and a transpose map

(12.2)
$$L:^n𝔤^{};$$

and the moment map associated with the action of $`G`$ on $`^n`$ is just the composition of (12.1) and (12.2). It is easy to see that the images of the standard basis vectors, $`e_i`$, of $`^n`$ are the weights, $`\alpha _i`$, of the representation of $`G`$ on $`^n`$, so by (12.1) and (12.2) this $`G`$-moment map can be written

(12.3)
$$\psi (z)=|z_i|^2\alpha _i.$$

This is a proper mapping if and only if the $`\alpha _i`$’s are polarized, i.e., if and only if there exists a $`\xi 𝔤`$ such that $`\alpha _i(\xi )>0`$ for all $`i`$. We will assume henceforth that this condition holds.

Now let $`\lambda `$ be a regular value of $`\psi `$ and assume that $`G`$ acts freely on the level set, $`\psi ^1(\lambda )`$. Then the reduced space, $`M_\lambda =\psi ^1(\lambda )`$ is a Kähler manifold with Kähler form, $`\omega _\lambda `$. Moreover, since the action of $`T`$ on $`^n`$ commutes with the action of $`G`$, one gets an induced Hamiltonian action of $`T`$ on $`M_\lambda `$ with moment map, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda :M_\lambda ^n`$. Moreover, if $`p`$ is the projection of $`\psi ^1(\lambda )`$ onto $`M_\lambda `$

(12.4)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda p=\mathrm{\Phi }\iota _\lambda $$

and this equation completely determines $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda `$.

The *moment polytope* of the Hamiltonian $`T`$-manifold, $`M_\lambda `$, is by definition the *image* of $`M_\lambda `$ with respect to this moment map. By (12.4) this is equal to the image with respect to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the set, $`\psi ^1(\lambda )`$; and by (12.1) and (12.2) this is equal to the set

(12.5)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda =\{(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)_+^n,t_i\alpha _i=\lambda \}.$$

In other words it is the intersection

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda =_+^nL^1(\lambda )$$

of the positive orthant in $`^n`$ with the affine subspace, $`L^1(\lambda )`$. It is easy to see that $`\lambda `$ is a regular value of $`\psi `$ if and only if $`L^1(\lambda )`$ intersects the faces of $`_+^n`$ transversally. Thus the codimension $`\kappa `$ faces of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ are the intersections of $`L^1(\lambda )`$ with the codimension $`\kappa `$ faces of $`_+^n`$. In particular the facets (codimension one faces) are the intersections of $`L^1(\lambda )`$ with the facets, $`t_i=0`$, of $`_+^n`$; so if $`j:\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^n`$ is the inclusion map, the function

(12.6)
$$j^{}t_i=:\mathrm{}_i$$

is just the distance function on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ to the $`i`$$`^{\text{th}}`$ facet. Now let $`U`$ be the open dense subset

$$(^{})^n\psi ^1(\lambda )/T$$

of $`M_\lambda `$ and fix a base point, $`c=(c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)`$, in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$.

###### Theorem 12.1.

The restriction of $`\omega _\lambda `$ to $`U`$ is equal to $`\sqrt{1}\overline{}\rho _\lambda `$ where $`\rho _\lambda `$ is the pull-back by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda `$ of the function

(12.7)
$$\mathrm{}_ic_iLog\mathrm{}_i.$$

###### Proof.

On $`(^{})^n`$ the potential function

$$\rho _1=|z_i|^2c_iLog|z_i|^2$$

satisfies $`\sqrt{1}\overline{}\rho _1=\omega `$; and by (3.3), the $`T`$-moment map associated with this potential is $`\mathrm{\Phi }c`$. Thus the $`G`$-moment map associated with this potential is $`L`$ composed with $`\mathrm{\Phi }c`$, or $`\psi \lambda `$. In particular, the zero level set of this moment map is the $`\lambda `$-level set of $`\psi `$ and so, by (4.6), one gets the induced Kähler form on $`M_\lambda `$ by applying $`\sqrt{1}\overline{}`$ to the funciton

$$\iota _\lambda ^{}(|z_i|^2c_iLog|z_i|^2)$$

and by (12.4) and (12.6) this is just the function

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^{}(\mathrm{}_ic_iLog\mathrm{}_i).$$

As we mentioned in the introduction, the proof above of theorem 12.1 is a slightly simplified version of the proof described in \[CDG\]. For applications of this theorem, see \[Ab\] and \[CDG\].