1 Introduction
Recently, we witnessed huge progress on K-stability of Fano varieties [Reference Abban and Zhuang1, Reference Fujita15, Reference Li18, Reference Xu22], which resulted in an immense breakthrough in the solution of the following problem:
Problem. Find all K-polystable smooth Fano threefolds.
Let us describe what is done in this direction. To do this, fix a smooth Fano threefold X. Then X belongs to one of the $105$ deformation families found by Iskovskikh, Mori, Mukai. These families are often labeled as , where the first digit stands for the rank of the Picard group of the threefolds in the family. For the detailed descriptions of the $105$ families, we refer the reader to [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3].
The valuative criterion for K-stability [Reference Fujita15, Reference Li18] allows us to explain when X is K-stable in relatively simple terms. To do this, let us remind what are $\beta $ -invariant and $\delta $ -invariant. Recall that E is a prime divisor over X if there is a birational morphism $f\colon \widetilde {X}\to X$ with normal $\widetilde {X}$ and a prime divisor $E\subset \widetilde {X}$ . We set $\beta (E)=A_X(E)-S_X(E)$ , where
and $A_X(E)$ is the log discrepancy of the divisor E. Then, for every point $P\in X$ , we let
where the infimum is taken over all prime divisors over X whose centers on X contain P. Finally, we set
The valuative criterion says that X is K-stable (respectively, K-semistable) if $\beta (F)>0$ (respectively, $\beta (F)\geqslant 0$ ) for any prime divisor F over X. Hence, X is K-stable if $\delta (X)>1$ . We say that X is K-unstable if it is not K-semistable.
The simplest way to apply the valuative criterion is to check whether $\beta (S)<0$ or not for some irreducible surface S in the threefold X. This has been done in [Reference Fujita15]. As a result, we know that X is K-unstable if it belongs to any of the following $26$ families:
To be precise, if X is contained in one of these $26$ families, then it contains an irreducible surface S such that $\beta (S)<0$ , so that X is K-unstable, which implies that X does not admit a Kähler–Einstein metric. Almost in every case, such surface S is not hard to find. For instance, if X is the unique smooth Fano threefold in the deformation family , then X is a blow up of $\mathbb {P}^3$ at a point, and S is the exceptional surface of the blow up.
We listed $26$ families of smooth Fano threefolds that contain no K-semistable members. There is another family that does not contain K-polystable members – the family . This family is quite special; see [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, § 5.10] for its detailed description, and it contains exactly two smooth Fano threefolds. One of them is K-semistable and not K-polystable, while another one is K-unstable. Moreover, it follows from [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Main Theorem] that general members of the remaining $78$ families of smooth Fano threefolds are K-polystable.
Further, all K-polystable smooth Fano threefolds in $53$ families among these $78$ families are described in [Reference Abban and Zhuang2, Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Reference Belousov and Loginov4, Reference Cheltsov and Park9, Reference Denisova13, Reference Giovenzana, Guerreiro and Viswanathan17, Reference Liu19, Reference Malbon20, Reference Xu and Liu23, Reference Cheltsov, Fujita, Kishimoto and Okada7, Reference Cheltsov, Fujita, Kishimoto and Park8]. The remaining $25$ families are:
The deformation families contain non-K-polystable members, and [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, § 7] provides conjectures that describe K-polystable smooth Fano threefolds in these four families. On the other hand, all smooth Fano threefolds in the $21$ families
are conjectured to be K-stable [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3]. The goal of this paper is to prove this for six families:
Main Theorem. Let X be a smooth Fano threefold contained in one of the following deformation families: . Then X is K-stable.
Therefore, to solve the problem posed above, it remains to find all K-polystable smooth Fano threefolds in the following $19$ families:
We hope that this will be done in a nearest future.
To prove Main Theorem, we use Abban–Zhuang theory [Reference Abban and Zhuang1] and its applications [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Reference Fujita16]. A similar approach also works for almost all smooth Fano threefolds in the family . Namely, if X is a smooth Fano threefold in the family , we show that $\delta _P(X)>1$ for every point $P\in X$ that satisfy certain geometric conditions. As a result, we obtained
Auxiliary Theorem. Let X be a smooth Fano threefold in the deformation family . Recall that there exists the following Sarkisov link:
where V is a smooth cubic threefold in $\mathbb {P}^4$ , the morphism $\pi $ is a blow up of a smooth plane cubic curve, and $\phi $ is a morphism whose fibers are normal cubic surfaces. Suppose that
Then X is K-stable.
Let us describe the structure of this paper. In Section 2, we prove auxiliary theorem, and we prove that all smooth Fano threefolds in the families and are K-stable. In Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, we prove that all smooth Fano threefolds in the families are K-stable, respectively. Note that Section 6 is very technical and long.
As we already mentioned, we use applications of Abban–Zhuang theory [Reference Abban and Zhuang1] which have been discovered in [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Reference Fujita16]. For the background material, we refer the reader to [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Reference Fujita16, Reference Xu22].
2 Families
Fix $d\in \{1,2,3\}$ . Let V be one of the following smooth Fano threefolds:
-
$\boxed{d=1}$ a smooth sextic hypersurface in $\mathbb {P}(1,1,1,2,3)$ ;
-
$\boxed{d=2}$ a smooth quartic hypersurface in $\mathbb {P}(1,1,1,1,2)$ ;
-
$\boxed{d=3}$ a smooth cubic threefold in $\mathbb {P}^4$ .
Then $-K_{V}\sim 2H$ for an ample divisor $H\in \mathrm {Pic}(V)$ such that $H^3=d$ and $\mathrm {Pic}(V)=\mathbb {Z}[H]$ . Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ be two distinct surfaces in the linear system $|H|$ , and let $\mathcal {C}=S_1\cap S_2$ . Suppose that the curve $\mathcal {C}$ is smooth. Then $\mathcal {C}$ is an elliptic curve by the adjunction formula. Let $\pi \colon X\to V$ be the blow up of the curve $\mathcal {C}$ , and let E be the $\pi $ -exceptional surface.
-
• If $d=1$ , then X is a smooth Fano threefold in the deformation family .
-
• If $d=2$ , then X is a smooth Fano threefold in the deformation family .
-
• If $d=3$ , then X is a smooth Fano threefold in the deformation family .
Moreover, all smooth Fano threefolds in these families can be obtained in this way.
Note that $(-K_X)^3=4d$ . Moreover, we have the following commutative diagram:
where is the rational map given by the pencil that is generated by $S_1$ and $S_2$ , and $\phi $ is a morphism whose general fiber is a smooth del Pezzo surface of degree d.
The goal of this section is to show that X is K-stable in the case when $d=1$ or $d=2$ , and to show that X is K-stable in the case when $d=3$ and X satisfies the condition (★). To show that X is K-stable, it is enough to show that $\delta _O(X)>1$ for every point $O\in X$ . This follows from the valuative criterion for K-stability [Reference Fujita15, Reference Li18].
Lemma 2.1. Let O be a point in X; let A be the fiber of the morphism $\phi $ such that $O\in A$ . Suppose that A has at most Du Val singularities at the point O. Then
Proof. Let u be a nonnegative real number. Then $-K_X-uA\sim _{\mathbb {R}} (2-u)A+E$ , which implies that divisor $-K_X-uA$ is pseudoeffective if and only if $u\leqslant 2$ . For every $u\in [0,2]$ , let us denote by $P(u)$ the positive part of Zariski decomposition of the divisor $-K_X-uA$ , and let us denote by $N(u)$ its negative part. Then
and
Integrating, we get $S_X(A)=\frac {11}{16}$ . Using [Reference Abban and Zhuang1, Theorem 3.3] and [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Corollary 1.102], we get
where the infimum is taken by all prime divisors F over the surface A with $O\in C_A(F)$ . The value $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^A;F)$ can be computed using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Corollary 1.108] as follows:
Now, let F be any prime divisor over the surface A such that $O\in C_A(F)$ . Since
we have
Therefore, if $O\not \in E$ , then $\mathrm {ord}_{F}(E\vert _{A})=0$ , which implies that
Similarly, if $O\in E$ , then $\mathrm {ord}_{F}(E\vert _{A})\leqslant A_A(F)$ because $(A,E\vert _A)$ is log canonical, so that
Now, using Equation (2.1), we obtain the required inequality.
Suppose X is not K-stable. Let us seek for a contradiction. Using the valuative criterion for K-stability [Reference Fujita15, Reference Li18], we see that there exists a prime divisor $\mathbf {F}$ over X such that
where $A_X(\mathbf {F})$ is a log discrepancy of the divisor $\mathbf {F}$ , and $S_X(\mathbf {F})$ is defined in [Reference Fujita15] or [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, § 1.2]. Let Z be the center of the divisor $\mathbf {F}$ on X. Then Z is not a surface [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 3.17]. We see that Z is an irreducible curve or a point. Let P be a point in Z. Then $\delta _P(X)\leqslant 1$ .
Lemma 2.2. One has $P\not \in E$ .
Proof. Let us compute $S_X(E)$ . Note that $S_X(E)<1$ by [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 3.17]. Fix $u\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Then $-K_X-uE$ is pseudoeffective $\iff -K_X-uE$ is nef $\iff u\leqslant 1$ . Thus, we have
Suppose that $P\in E$ . Let us seek for a contradiction.
Note that $E\cong \mathcal {C}\times \mathbb {P}^1$ . Let $\mathbf {s}$ be a fiber of the projection $\phi \vert _{E}\colon E\to \mathbb {P}^1$ that contains P, and let $\mathbf {f}$ be a fiber of the projection $\pi \vert _{E}\colon E\to \mathcal {C}$ . Fix $u\in [0,1]$ , and take $v\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Then
This implies that
Therefore, using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Corollary 1.109], we get
Similarly, using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 1.112], we get
Therefore, it follows from [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 1.112] that
which is a contradiction.
Let A be the fiber of the del Pezzo fibration $\phi $ such that A passes through the point P. Then A is a del Pezzo surface of degree $d\in \{1,2,3\}$ that has at most isolated singularities. In particular, we see that A is normal. Applying Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2, we obtain
Corollary 2.3. One has $\delta _P(A)\leqslant \frac {15}{16}$ .
Proof. Since $1\geqslant \frac {A_X(\mathbf {F})}{S_X(\mathbf {F})}\geqslant \delta _P(X)$ , we get $\delta _P(A)\leqslant \frac {15}{16}$ by Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2.
Corollary 2.4. The surface A is singular.
Proof. If A is smooth, then $\delta _P(A)\geqslant \delta (A)\geqslant \frac {3}{2}$ [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, § 2], which contradicts Corollary 2.3.
Let $\overline {S}$ be a general surface in $|H|$ that passes through $\pi (P)$ , and let S be the proper transform on X of the surface $\overline {S}$ . Then
-
• the surface $\overline {S}$ is a smooth del Pezzo surface of degree d,
-
• the surface $\overline {S}$ intersects the curve $\mathcal {C}$ transversally at d points,
-
• the induced morphism $\pi \vert _{S}\colon S\to \overline {S}$ is a blow up of the points $\overline {S}\cap \mathcal {C}$ .
Observe that $\phi \vert _S\colon S\to \mathbb {P}^1$ is an elliptic fibration given by the pencil $|-K_S|$ . Set $C=A\big \vert _{S}$ . Then C is a reduced curve of arithmetic genus $1$ in $|-K_S|$ that has at most d components. In particular, if $d=1$ , then C is irreducible. Therefore, the following cases may happen:
-
(1) the curve C is irreducible, and C is smooth at P,
-
(2) the curve C is irreducible, and C has an ordinary node at P,
-
(3) the curve C is irreducible, and C has an ordinary cusp at P,
-
(4) the curve C is reducible.
Fix $u\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Then $-K_X-uS$ is nef $\iff u\leqslant 1 \iff -K_X-uS$ is pseudoeffective. Using this, we see that
which also follows from [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 3.17]. Moreover, if $u\in [0,1]$ , then
where $\mathbf {e}_1,\ldots ,\mathbf {e}_d$ are exceptional curves of the blow up $\pi \vert _{S}\colon S\to \overline {S}$ .
Lemma 2.5. Suppose that C is irreducible. Then C is singular at the point P.
Proof. As in the proof of Lemma 2.2, it follows from [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 1.112] that
where $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;C)$ and $S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,C};P)$ are defined in [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, § 1.7]. Since we know that $S_X(S)<1$ , we see that $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;C)\geqslant 1$ or $S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,C};P)\geqslant 1$ . Let us compute these numbers.
Let $P(u,v)$ be the positive part of the Zariski decomposition of $(-K_X-uS)\vert _{S}-vC$ , and let $N(u,v)$ be its negative part, where $u\in [0,1]$ and $v\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Since
we see that $(-K_X-uS)\vert _{S}-vC$ is pseudoeffective $\iff v\leqslant 2-u$ . Moreover, we have
and
Thus, it follows from [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Corollary 1.109] that
Thus, we conclude that $S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,C};P)\geqslant 1$ .
Since $P\not \in \mathbf {e}_1\cup \cdots \cup \mathbf {e}_d$ by Lemma 2.2, it follows from [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 1.112] that
which is a contradiction.
Now, let us show that C is reducible for $d\in \{1,2\}$ .
Lemma 2.6. Suppose that C is irreducible. Then $d=3$ and C has a cusp at P.
Proof. By Lemma 2.5, the curve C is singular at the point P.
Now, let $\sigma \colon \widetilde {S}\to S$ be the blow up of the point P; let $\mathbf {f}$ be the $\sigma $ -exceptional curve, and let $\widetilde {\mathbf {e}}_1,\ldots ,\widetilde {\mathbf {e}}_d,\widetilde {C}$ be the proper transforms on $\widetilde {S}$ of the curves $\mathbf {e}_1,\ldots ,\mathbf {e}_d,C$ , respectively. Then the curve $\widetilde {C}$ is smooth, and it follows from [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Remark 1.113] that
where $S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{\widetilde {S},\mathbf {f}};O)$ and $S(V_{\bullet ,\bullet }^{S};\mathbf {f})$ are defined in [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, § 1.7]. Since we know that $S_X(S)<1$ , we see that $S(V_{\bullet ,\bullet }^{S};\mathbf {f})\geqslant 2$ or there exists a point $O\in \mathbf {f}$ such that $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{\widetilde {S},\mathbf {f}};O)\geqslant 1$ .
Let us compute $S(V_{\bullet ,\bullet }^{S};\mathbf {f})$ . Fix $u\in [0,1]$ and $v\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Since $\sigma ^*(C)\sim \widetilde {C}+2\mathbf {f}$ , we get
Then the divisor $\sigma ^*((-K_X-uS)\vert _{S})-v\mathbf {f}$ is pseudoeffective $\iff v\leqslant 4-2u$ .
Let $P(u,v)$ be the positive part of the Zariski decomposition of $\sigma ^*((-K_X-uS)\vert _{S})-v\mathbf {f}$ , and let $N(u,v)$ be its negative part. Then
and
Thus, using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Corollary 1.109], we get
Therefore, there exists a point $O\in \mathbf {f}$ such that $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{\widetilde {S},\mathbf {f}};O)\geqslant 1$ .
Let us compute $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{\widetilde {S},\mathbf {f}};O)$ . Observe that
Hence, it follows from [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Remark 1.113] that
Therefore, if $O\not \in \widetilde {C}$ , we obtain $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{\widetilde {S},\mathbf {f}};O)=\frac {5d}{32}$ , which contradicts to $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{\widetilde {S},\mathbf {f}};O)\geqslant 1$ . Similarly, if $O\in \widetilde {C}$ and $\widetilde {C}$ intersects the curve $\mathbf {f}$ transversally at the point O, then
which again contradicts $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{\widetilde {S},\mathbf {f}};O)\geqslant 1$ . Therefore, the curves $\widetilde {C}$ and $\mathbf {f}$ are tangent at O, which implies that C has a cusp at the point P.
Thus, to proceed, we may assume that $d=1$ or $d=2$ .
Now, let us consider the following commutative diagram:
where
-
• $\rho $ is the blow up of the point $\widetilde {C}\cap \mathbf {f}$ ,
-
• $\eta $ is the blow up of the intersection point of the $\rho $ -exceptional curve and the proper transform of the curve $\widetilde {C}$ ,
-
• $\psi $ is the contraction of the proper transforms of both $(\sigma \circ \rho )$ -exceptional curves,
-
• $\upsilon $ is the birational contraction of the proper transform of the $\eta $ -exceptional curve.
Let $\mathscr {F}$ be the $\upsilon $ -exceptional curve; let $\mathscr {C}$ be the proper transform on $\mathscr {S}$ of the curve C. Then $\mathscr {F}$ and $\mathscr {C}$ are smooth, $\mathscr {C}^2=-6$ , $\mathscr {F}^{2}=-\frac {1}{6}$ , $\mathscr {C}\cdot \mathscr {F}=1$ , and $\upsilon ^*(C)=\mathscr {C}+6\mathscr {F}$ .
Observe that $\mathscr {F}$ contains two singular points of the surfaces $\mathscr {S}$ , which are quotient singular points of type $\frac {1}{2}(1,1)$ and $\frac {1}{3}(1,1)$ . Denote these points by $Q_2$ and $Q_3$ , respectively. Note that $\mathscr {C}$ does not contain $Q_2$ and $Q_3$ . Write $\Delta _{\mathscr {F}}=\frac {1}{2}Q_2+\frac {2}{3}Q_3$ . Then, since $A_S(\mathscr {F})=5$ , it follows from [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Remark 1.113] that
But we already proved that $S_X(S)<1$ . Hence, we conclude that $S(V_{\bullet ,\bullet }^{S};\mathscr {F})\geqslant 5$ or there exists a point $Q\in \mathscr {F}$ such that $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{\mathscr {S},\mathscr {F}};Q)\geqslant 1-\mathrm {ord}_{Q}(\Delta _{\mathscr {F}})$ .
Let us compute $S(V_{\bullet ,\bullet }^{S};\mathscr {F})$ . Take $v\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Set $P(u)=-K_X-u S$ . Then
where $\mathscr {E}_i$ is the proper transform on $\mathscr {S}$ of the $(-1)$ -curve $\mathbf {e}_i$ . Using this, we conclude that the divisor $\upsilon ^*(P(u)|_S)-v\mathscr {F}$ is pseudoeffective $\iff v\leqslant 12-6u$ .
Let $\mathscr {P}(u,v)$ be the positive part of the Zariski decomposition of $\upsilon ^*(P(u)|_S)-v\mathscr {F}$ , and let $\mathscr {N}(u,v)$ be its negative part. Then
and
This gives
Thus, using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Corollary 1.109] and integrating, we get
since $d=1$ or $d=2$ . Thus, there is a point $Q\in \mathscr {F}$ such that $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{\mathscr {S},\mathscr {F}};Q)\geqslant 1-\mathrm {ord}_{Q}(\Delta _{\mathscr {F}})$ .
Now, using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Remark 1.103] again, we see that
On the other hand, we have
and
In particular, we have
Hence, if $Q\not \in \mathscr {C}$ , then $\frac {1}{3}\leqslant 1-\mathrm {ord}_{Q}(\Delta _{\mathscr {F}})\leqslant S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{\mathscr {S},\mathscr {F}};Q)=\frac {5d}{96}<\frac {1}{3}$ , which is absurd. Thus, we conclude that $Q=\mathscr {C}\cap \mathscr {F}$ . Then
which is a contradiction, since $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{\mathscr {S},\mathscr {F}};Q)\geqslant 1-\mathrm {ord}_{Q}(\Delta _{\mathscr {F}})=1$ .
In particular, we conclude that either $d=2$ or $d=3$ .
Corollary 2.7. All smooth Fano threefolds in the family are K-stable.
Recall that A is the fiber of the del Pezzo fibration $\phi \colon X\to \mathbb {P}^1$ that passes through P. Note also that we have the following possibilities:
-
• $d=2$ , and A is a double cover of $\mathbb {P}^2$ branched over a reduced quartic curve;
-
• $d=3$ , and A is a normal cubic surface in $\mathbb {P}^3$ .
Observe that $C=S\cap A$ , where S is a general surface in $|\pi ^*(H)|$ that contains the point P. Since C is singular at P, the surface A must be singular at P, which confirms Corollary 2.4. Now, using classifications of reduced singular plane quartic curves and singular normal cubic surfaces [Reference Bruce and Wall6], we see that $P=\mathrm {Sing}(A)$ , and one of the following three cases holds:
-
• $d=2$ , and A is a double cover of $\mathbb {P}^2$ branched over four lines intersecting in a point;
-
• $d=3$ , and A is a cone in $\mathbb {P}^3$ over a smooth plane cubic curve;
-
• $d=3$ , and A has Du Val singular point of type $\mathbb {D}_4$ , $\mathbb {D}_5$ , or $\mathbb {E}_6$ .
Let us show that the first case is impossible.
Lemma 2.8. One has $d=3$ .
Proof. Suppose that $d=2$ . Then $P=\mathrm {Sing}(A)$ , and A is a double cover of $\mathbb {P}^2$ branched over a reduced reducible plane quartic curve that is a union of four distinct lines passing through one point. Let us seek for a contradiction.
Let $\alpha \colon \widetilde {X}\to X$ be the blow up of the point P, let $E_P$ be the $\alpha $ -exceptional divisor and let $\widetilde {A}$ be the proper transform on $\widetilde {X}$ of the surface A. Then $\widetilde {A}\cap E_P$ is a line $L\subset E_P\cong \mathbb {P}^2$ , and the surface $\widetilde {A}$ is singular along this line. Let $\beta \colon \overline {X}\to \widetilde {X}$ be the blow up of the line L, let $E_L$ be the $\beta $ -exceptional divisor, let $\overline {A}$ be the proper transform on $\overline {X}$ of the surface $\widetilde {A}$ and let $\overline {E}_P$ be the proper transforms on $\overline {X}$ of the surface $E_P$ . Then
-
• $E_L\cong \mathbb {F}_2$ ,
-
• the intersection $\overline {E}_P\cap E_L$ is the $(-2)$ -curve in $E_L$ ,
-
• the surface $\overline {A}$ is smooth, and there exists a $\mathbb {P}^1$ -bundle $\overline {A}\to \mathcal {C}$ ,
-
• $\overline {A}\cap E_L$ is a smooth elliptic curve that is a section of the $\mathbb {P}^1$ -bundle $\overline {A}\to \mathcal {C}$ ,
-
• the surfaces $\overline {A}$ and $\overline {E}_P$ are disjoint,
-
• $\overline {E}_P\cong \mathbb {P}^2$ and $\overline {E}_P\vert _{\overline {E}_P}\cong \mathcal {O}_{\mathbb {P}^2}(-2)$ .
There is a birational contraction $\gamma \colon \overline {X}\to \widehat {X}$ of the surface $\overline {E}_P$ such that $\widehat {X}$ is a projective threefold that has one singular point $O=\gamma (\overline {E}_P)$ , which is a terminal cyclic quotient singularities of type $\frac {1}{2}(1,1,1)$ . Thus, there exists the following commutative diagram
where $\sigma $ is a birational morphism that contracts the surface $\gamma (E_L)$ to the point P.
Let $G=\gamma (E_L)$ , let $\widehat {A}=\gamma (\overline {A})$ and let $\widehat {E}$ be the proper transform on $\widehat {X}$ of the surface E. Then $A_{X}(G)=4$ . Moreover, we have
Note that $\widehat {A}\cong \overline {A}$ and $G\cong \mathbb {P}(1,1,2)$ , so we can identify G with a quadric cone in $\mathbb {P}^3$ . Note also that O is the vertex of the cone G. Moreover, by construction, we have $O\not \in \widehat {A}$ . Furthermore, the exists a $\mathbb {P}^1$ -bundle $\widehat {A}\to \mathcal {C}$ such that $G\vert _{\widehat {A}}$ is its section.
Let $\mathbf {g}$ be a ruling of the quadric cone G, let $\mathbf {l}$ be a fiber of the $\mathbb {P}^1$ -bundle $\widehat {A}\to \mathcal {C}$ and let $\mathbf {f}$ be a fiber of the $\mathbb {P}^1$ -bundle $\pi \circ \sigma \vert _{\widehat {E}}\colon \widehat {E}\to \mathcal {C}$ . Then $G\vert _{G}\sim _{\mathbb {Q}}-\mathbf {g}$ and $\widehat {A}\vert _{G}\sim _{\mathbb {Q}}4\mathbf {g}$ . Moreover, the intersections of the surfaces G, $\widehat {A}$ , $\widehat {E}$ with the curves $\mathbf {g}$ , $\mathbf {l}$ , $\mathbf {f}$ are given here:
Fix a nonnegative real number u. We have $\sigma ^{*}(-K_X)-uG\sim _{\mathbb {R}} 2\widehat {A}+\widehat {E}+(8-u)G$ , which implies that $\sigma ^{*}(-K_X)-uG$ is pseudoeffective $\iff u\in [0,8]$ . Furthermore, if $u\in [0,8]$ , then the Zariski decomposition of the divisor $\sigma ^{*}(-K_X)-uG$ can be described as follows:
and
where $P(u)$ and $N(u)$ are the positive and the negative parts of the decomposition. Then
Integrating, we get $S_{X}(G)=\frac {27}{8}<4=A_{X}(G)$ . But [Reference Fujita16, Corollary 4.18] gives
where $\delta _{Q}(G,V^G_{\bullet ,\bullet })$ is defined in [Reference Fujita16]. Moreover, if Q is a point in G and Z is a smooth curve in G that passes through Q, then it follows from [Reference Fujita16, Corollary 4.18] that
where $S(V^G_{\bullet ,\bullet };Z)$ and $S(W^{G,Z}_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet };Q)$ are defined in [Reference Fujita16], and
Let us show that $\delta _{Q}\big (G,V^G_{\bullet ,\bullet }\big )>1$ for every $Q\in G$ , which would imply a contradiction.
Let $\mathscr {C}=\widehat {A}\vert _{G}$ , and let $\ell $ be the curve in $|\mathbf {f}|$ that contains Q. Then $O\not \in \mathscr {C}$ and $O\in \ell $ so that $\Delta _{\mathscr {C}}=0$ and $\Delta _{\ell }=\frac {1}{2}O$ . Take $v\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Then
Now, using [Reference Fujita16, Theorem 4.8], we get
Similarly, if $Q\not \in \mathscr {C}$ , then it follows from [Reference Fujita16, Theorem 4.17] that
so that $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{G,\ell };Q)=\frac {5}{32}$ , which implies that $\delta _{Q}(G,V^G_{\bullet ,\bullet })\geqslant \frac {16}{5}$ . Likewise, if $Q\in \mathscr {C}$ , then
and
This implies that $\delta _{Q}(G,V^G_{\bullet ,\bullet })\geqslant \min \left \{\frac {16}{11},\frac {8}{5}\right \}=\frac {16}{11}$ , which is a contradiction.
Corollary 2.9. All smooth Fano threefolds in the family are K-stable.
We see that $d=3$ so that A is a singular cubic surface in $\mathbb {P}^3$ such that $P=\mathrm {Sing}(A)$ . Let $\sigma \colon \widehat {X}\to X$ be the blow up of the point P, and let G be the $\sigma $ -exceptional surface. Denote by $\widehat {A}$ and $\widehat {E}$ the proper transforms on $\widehat {X}$ of the surfaces A and E, respectively.
Lemma 2.10. The surface A has Du Val singularities.
Proof. Suppose that A is a cone in $\mathbb {P}^3$ with vertex P. Take $u\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Then
Thus, the divisor $\sigma ^*(-K_X)-vG$ is pseudoeffective $\iff u\in [0,6]$ . Moreover, if $u\in [0,6]$ , then the Zariski decomposition of the divisor $\sigma ^*(-K_X)-vG$ can be described as follows:
and
where $P(u)$ and $N(u)$ are the positive and the negative parts of the Zariski decomposition, respectively. Using this, we compute
Let us apply [Reference Fujita16, Theorem 4.8], [Reference Fujita16, Corollary 4.17], [Reference Fujita16, Corollary 4.18] using notations introduced in [Reference Fujita16, § 4]. To start with, we apply [Reference Fujita16, Corollary 4.18] to get
where $\delta _{Q}(G,V^G_{\bullet ,\bullet })$ is defined in [Reference Fujita16, § 4]. Let Q be an arbitrary point in the surface G, and let $\ell $ is a general line in $G\cong \mathbb {P}^2$ that contains Q. Then [Reference Fujita16, Corollary 4.18] gives
where $S(V^F_{\bullet ,\bullet };\ell )$ and $S(W^{G,\ell }_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet };Q)$ are defined in [Reference Fujita16, § 4]. Take $v\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Then
Let $\mathscr {C}=\widehat {A}\vert _{G}$ . Then $\mathscr {C}$ is a smooth cubic curve in $G\cong \mathbb {P}^2$ . Let
Now, using [Reference Fujita16, Theorem 4.8], we get
Similarly, it follows from [Reference Fujita16, Theorem 4.17] that
where
So, we have $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{G,\ell };Q)\leqslant \frac {43}{48}$ . Then $\delta _{Q}(G,V^G_{\bullet ,\bullet })>1$ , which contradicts Equation (2.2).
Thus, we see that P is a Du Val singular point of the surface A of type $\mathbb {D}_4$ , $\mathbb {D}_5$ , $\mathbb {E}_6$ . Now, arguing as in the proof of [Reference Xu22, Lemma 9.11], we see that $\beta (\mathbf {F})>0$ if
-
(1) the inequality $\beta (G)>0$ holds,
-
(2) and for every prime divisor $\mathbf {E}$ over X such that $C_X(\mathbf {E})$ is a curve containing P, the following inequality holds:
$$ \begin{align*}\frac{A_X(\mathbf{E})}{S_X(\mathbf{E})}\geqslant\frac{4}{3}. \end{align*} $$
Since $\beta (\mathbf {F})\leqslant 0$ by our assumption, we see that at least one of these conditions must fail.
Lemma 2.11. One has $\beta (G)\geqslant \frac {465}{2048}$ .
Proof. Let $\widehat {A}$ and $\widehat {E}$ be the proper transforms on $\widehat {X}$ of the surfaces A and E, respectively. Take $u\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Then
which easily implies that the divisor $-K_{\widehat {X}}-G$ is pseudoeffective $\iff u\leqslant 4$ because we can contract the surfaces $\widehat {A}$ and $\widehat {E}$ simultaneously after flops. Then
Note that $\sigma ^*(-K_{X})-uG$ is nef for $u\in [0,1]$ because the divisor $-K_X$ is very ample. Thus, if $u\in [0,1]$ , then
Similarly, if $1\leqslant u\leqslant \frac {3}{2}$ , then
Finally, let us estimate $\mathrm {vol}(\sigma ^*(-K_{X})-uG)$ in the case when $4\geqslant u>\frac {3}{2}$ .
Let Z be a general hyperplane section of the cubic surface A that passes through P, and let $\widehat {Z}$ be its proper transform on the threefold $\widehat {X}$ . Then Z is an irreducible cuspidal cubic curve, and $\widehat {Z}\subset \widehat {A}$ . Observe that $(\sigma ^*(-K_{X})-uG)\cdot \widehat {Z}=3-2u$ and $\widehat {A}\cdot \widehat {Z}=-4$ , so $\widehat {A}$ is contained in the asymptotic base locus of the divisor $\sigma ^*(-K_{X})-uG$ for $u>\frac {3}{2}$ . Moreover, if $\sigma ^*(-K_{X})-uG\sim _{\mathbb {R}}\widehat {D}+\lambda \widehat {A}$ for $\lambda \in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ and an effective $\mathbb {R}$ -divisor $\widehat {D}$ whose support does not contain $\widehat {A}$ , then $\widehat {Z}\not \subset \widehat {D}$ , which implies that
so that $\lambda \geqslant \frac {3-2u}{4}$ . Thus, if $4\geqslant u>\frac {3}{2}$ , then
Moreover, if $4\geqslant u>\frac {3}{2}$ , then
Therefore, if $4\geqslant u>\frac {3}{2}$ , then
Furthermore, if $\frac {7}{2}\geqslant u>\frac {3}{2}$ , then $\frac {11-2u}{4}H-\frac {7-2u}{2}E$ is nef so that
Similarly, if $4\geqslant u>\frac {7}{2}$ , then
Now, we can estimate $\beta (G)$ as follows
as claimed.
Therefore, there exists a prime divisor $\mathbf {E}$ over X such that $C_X(\mathbf {E})$ is a curve, $P\in C_X(\mathbf {E})$ , and $A_X(\mathbf {E})<\frac {4}{3}S_X(\mathbf {E})$ . Set $Z=C_X(\mathbf {E})$ . Then $\delta _O(X)<\frac {4}{3}$ for every point $O\in Z$ .
Lemma 2.12. One has $Z\subset A$ , and Z is a line in the cubic surface A.
Proof. Let O be a general point in Z, and let $A_O$ be the fiber of $\phi $ that passes through O. If $Z\not \subset A$ , then $A_O$ is smooth, so that $\delta _O(A_O)\geqslant \frac {3}{2}$ by [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Lemma 2.13], which gives
by Lemma 2.1. This shows that $Z\subset A$ and $A_O=A$ .
To complete the proof of the lemma, we have to show that Z is a line in the surface A. Suppose that Z is not a line. Then the point O is not contained in a line in the surface A because A contains finitely many lines [Reference Bruce and Wall6]. Now, arguing as in the proof of [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Lemma 2.13], we get $\delta _O(A)\geqslant \frac {3}{2}$ . So, applying Lemma 2.1 again, we get a contradiction as above.
Now, our auxiliary theorem follows from the following lemma:
Lemma 2.13. The surface A does not have a singular point of type $\mathbb {D}_4$ .
Proof. Suppose A has singularity of type $\mathbb {D}_4$ . Then it follows from [Reference Bruce and Wall6] that, for a suitable choice of coordinates x, y, z, t on the projective space $\mathbb {P}^3$ , one of the following cases hold:
-
(A) $A=\{tx^2=y^3-z^3\}\subset \mathbb {P}^3$ ,
-
(B) $A=\{tx^2=y^3-z^3+xyz\}\subset \mathbb {P}^3$ .
Note that $P=[0:0:0:1]$ , and A contains six lines [Reference Bruce and Wall6]. In case (A), these lines are
where $\omega _3$ is a primitive cube root of unity. In case (B), these lines are
Note that $P=L_1\cap L_3\cap L_3$ , $P\not \in L_4\cup L_5\cup L_6$ and $-K_A\sim 2L_1+L_4\sim 2L_2+L_5\sim 2L_3+L_6$ .
By Lemma 2.12, we may assume that $Z=L_1$ .
Recall that $S_X(A)=\frac {11}{16}$ ; see the proof of Lemma 2.1. Using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 1.112], we get
where $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^A;L_1)$ is defined in [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, § 1.7]. Therefore, we conclude that $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^A;L_1)<\frac {4}{3}$ . Let us compute $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^A;L_1)$ using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Corollary 1.109].
To do this, we use notations introduced in the proof of Lemma 2.1 applied to $O=P$ . Then using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Corollary 1.109] and computations from the proof of Lemma 2.1, we get
since $L_1\not \subset \mathrm {Supp}(N(u))$ since $L_1\not \subset E$ . Let us compute $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^A; L_1)$ . Take $v\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Then
Thus, the divisor $-K_A-vL_1$ is pseudoeffective $\iff v\leqslant 2$ since $L_4^2=-1$ . Fix $v\in [0,2]$ . Let $P(u,v)$ be the positive part of the Zariski decomposition of the divisor $-K_A-vL_1$ , and let $N(u,v)$ be its negative part. Then
and
Thus, if $0\leqslant v\leqslant 1$ , then $\mathrm {vol}(-K_A-vL_1)=3-2v$ because $L_1^2=0$ and $L_1\cdot L_4=0$ . Similarly, if $1\leqslant v\leqslant 2$ , then $\mathrm {vol}(-K_A-vL_1)=(v-2)^2$ . This gives
and
Combining, we get $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^A;L_1)=\frac {35}{48}<\frac {3}{4}$ . This is a contradiction.
3 Family .
Let R be a smooth surface of degree $(2,4)$ in $\mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^2$ ; let $\pi \colon X\to \mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^2$ be a double cover ramified over the surface R. Then X is a smooth Fano threefold in the family . Moreover, all smooth Fano threefolds in this family can be obtained this way.
Let $\mathrm {pr}_1\colon \mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^2\to \mathbb {P}^1$ and $\mathrm {pr}_2\colon \mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^2\to \mathbb {P}^2$ be the projections to the first and the second factors, respectively. Set $p_1=\mathrm {pr}_1\circ \pi $ and $p_2=\mathrm {pr}_2\circ \pi $ . We have the following commutative diagram:
where $p_1$ is a fibration into del Pezzo surfaces of degree $2$ , and $p_2$ is a conic bundle.
Lemma 3.1. Let S be a fiber of the morphism $p_1$ . Then S is irreducible and normal.
Proof. Since $p_1\colon X\to \mathbb {P}^1$ is a Mori fiber space, any fiber of $p_1$ is irreducible and reduced. Moreover, any fiber of $\mathrm {pr}_1|_R$ is reduced by local computations. Thus, the assertion follows.
Lemma 3.2. Let S be a fiber of the morphism $p_1$ , let C be a fiber of the morphism $p_2$ and let P be a point in $S\cap C$ . Then S or C is smooth at P.
Proof. Local computations.
Now, we are ready to prove that X is K-stable. Recall from [Reference Cheltsov, Przyjalkowski and Shramov10] that $\mathrm {Aut}(X)$ is finite. Thus, the threefold X is K-stable if and only if it is K-polystable [Reference Xu22].
Let $\tau $ be the Galois involution of the double cover $\pi \colon X\to \mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^2$ , and let $G=\langle \tau \rangle $ . Suppose that X is not K-polystable. Then it follows from [Reference Zhuang24, Corollary 4.14] that there exists a G-invariant prime divisor $\mathbf {F}$ over X such that
Let Z be the center of this divisor on X. Then Z is not a surface by [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 3.17]. Hence, we see that either Z is a G-invariant irreducible curve, or Z is a G-fixed point. Let us seek for a contradiction.
Let P be a general point in Z, and let S be the fiber of $p_1$ that passes through P.
Lemma 3.3. The surface S is singular at P.
Proof. Suppose that S is smooth at P. Let B be a general curve in $|-K_S|$ that contains P. Then B is a smooth curve in S. Applying [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 1.112], we get
Since $S_X(S)<1$ by [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 3.17], we see that $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;B)\geqslant 1$ or $S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,B};P)\geqslant 1$ . We refer the reader to [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, § 1.7] for definitions of $S_X(S)$ , $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;B)$ , $S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,B};P)$ .
Note that [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 1.112] requires S to have Du Val singularities, but S may have non-Du Val singularities. Nevertheless, we still can apply [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 1.112] here since the proof of [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 1.112] remains valid in our case because S is smooth along B.
Let us compute $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;B)$ and $S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,B};P)$ . Take $u\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ and $v\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Then
Similarly, if $u\in [0,1]$ , then $(-K_X-uS)\vert _{S}-vB\sim _{\mathbb {R}}(1-v)(-K_S)$ , so
Now, applying [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Corollary 1.109], we get
Similarly, using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 1.112], we get
But we already know that $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;B)\geqslant 1$ or $S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,B};P)\geqslant 1$ . This is a contradiction.
If Z is a curve, then S is smooth at P by Lemma 3.1 because P is a general point in Z. Hence, we conclude that $Z=P$ because S is singular at the point P by Lemma 3.3. Recall that Z is G-invariant. This implies that $\tau (P)\in R$ .
Let C be the fiber of $p_2$ that passes through P. Then C is smooth at P by Lemma 3.2 because S is singular at P. Since $\tau (P)\in R$ , we see that C is irreducible and smooth.
Let T be a sufficiently general surface in linear system $|p_2^*(\mathcal {O}_{\mathbb {P}^2}(1))|$ that contains C. Since C is smooth, it follows from Bertini’s theorem that the surface T is smooth.
As in the proof of Lemma 3.3, it follows from [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 1.112] that
Moreover, it follows from [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 3.17] that $S_X(T)<1$ . Thus, we conclude that
In fact, since P is the center of the divisor $\mathbf {F}$ on X, [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 3.17] gives
Now, let us compute $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^T;C)$ and $S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{T,C};P)$ using the results obtained in [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, § 1.7].
Take $u\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ and $v\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Then
Similarly, if $u\in [0,1]$ , then
because $(-K_X-uT)\vert _{T}-vC\sim _{\mathbb {R}}S|_T+(1-u-v)C$ . So, using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Corollary 1.109], we get
Hence, it follows from Equation (3.1) that $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{T,C},P)>1$ . Now, using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 1.112], we get
which is a contradiction. This shows that X is K-stable.
Corollary 3.4. All smooth Fano threefolds in the family are K-stable.
4 Family .
Let $\mathscr {S}$ and $\mathscr {S}^\prime $ be smooth cubic surfaces in $\mathbb {P}^3$ such that their intersection is a smooth curve of genus $10$ . Set $\mathscr {C}=\mathscr {S}\cap \mathscr {S}^\prime $ , and let $\pi \colon X\to \mathbb {P}^3$ be the blow up of the curve $\mathscr {C}$ . Then X is a smooth Fano threefold in the family , and every smooth Fano threefold in this family can be obtained in this way. Moreover, there exists a commutative diagram
where is a map that is given by the pencil generated by the surfaces $\mathscr {S}$ and $\mathscr {S}^\prime $ , and $\phi $ is a fibration into cubic surfaces. Note that $-K_X^3=10$ and $\mathrm {Aut}(X)$ is finite [Reference Cheltsov, Przyjalkowski and Shramov10].
Let $H=\pi ^*(\mathcal {O}_{\mathbb {P}^3}(1))$ , and let E be the $\pi $ -exceptional surface. Then $-K_X\sim 4H-E$ , the morphism $\phi $ is given by the linear system $|3H-E|$ , and $E\cong \mathscr {S}\times \mathbb {P}^1$ .
The goal of this section is to prove that X is K-stable. Suppose that X is not K-stable. Let us seek for a contradiction. First, using the valuative criterion for K-stability [Reference Fujita15, Reference Li18], we see that there exists a prime divisor $\mathbf {F}$ over X such that
Let Z be the center of the divisor $\mathbf {F}$ on X. Then Z is not a surface by [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 3.17]. Therefore, either Z is an irreducible curve or Z is a point. Fix a point $P\in Z$ .
Let A be the surface in $|3H-E|$ that contains P. Fix $u\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Let $\mathscr {P}(u)$ be the positive part of the Zariski decomposition of $-K_X-uA$ , and let $\mathscr {N}(u)$ be its negative part. Then
This implies that $-K_X-uA$ is pseudoeffective $\iff u\leqslant \frac {4}{3}$ . Moreover, we have
and
Integrating, we obtain $S_X(A)=\frac {67}{120}<1$ , which also follows from [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 3.17].
Note that $\pi (A)$ is a normal cubic surface in $\mathbb {P}^3$ , and $\pi (A)$ is smooth along the curve $\mathscr {C}$ . In particular, we see that $A\cong \pi (A)$ , and A is smooth along the intersection $E\cap A$ .
Lemma 4.1. The surface A is singular at the point P.
Proof. Suppose that A is smooth at P. Let C be a general curve in $|-K_A|$ that passes through the point P. Then C is a smooth irreducible elliptic curve. Take $v\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Then
Therefore, using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Corollary 1.109], we obtain
Similarly, using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 1.112], we obtain
Therefore, it follows from [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Theorem 1.112] that
which is absurd.
Corollary 4.2. The point P is not contained in the surface E.
Since $A\cong \pi (A)$ , we may consider A as a cubic surface in $\mathbb {P}^3$ . Then
-
• either $\mathrm {mult}_P(A)=2$ and A has Du Val singularities.
-
• or $\mathrm {mult}_P(A)=3$ and A is a cone over a plane smooth cubic curve with vertex P.
Lemma 4.3. One has $\mathrm {mult}_P(A)\ne 3$ .
Proof. Let $\sigma \colon \widehat {X}\to X$ be a blow up of the point P, and let G be the $\sigma $ -exceptional surface. Denote by $\widehat {A}$ and $\widehat {E}$ the proper transforms on $\widehat {X}$ of the surfaces A and E, respectively. Suppose that $\mathrm {mult}_P(A)=3$ . Take $u\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Then
Thus, the divisor $\sigma ^*(-K_X)-vG$ is pseudoeffective $\iff u\in [0,4]$ . Moreover, if $u\in [0,4]$ , then the Zariski decomposition of the divisor $\sigma ^*(-K_X)-vG$ can be described as follows:
and
where $P(u)$ and $N(u)$ are the positive and the negative parts of the Zariski decomposition, respectively. Using this, we compute
As in the proof of Lemma 2.10, let us use results from [Reference Fujita16, § 4] to get a contradiction. Namely, applying [Reference Fujita16, Corollary 4.18], we get
where $\delta _{Q}(G,V^G_{\bullet ,\bullet })$ is defined in [Reference Fujita16, § 4]. So, there is $Q\in G$ such that $\delta _{Q}(G,V^G_{\bullet ,\bullet })<\frac {40}{31}$ .
Let $\ell $ is a general line in $G\cong \mathbb {P}^2$ that contains Q. Then [Reference Fujita16, Corollary 4.18] gives
Let us compute $S(V^G_{\bullet ,\bullet };\ell )$ and $S(W^{G,\ell }_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet };Q)$ . Take $v\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$ . Then
Let $\widehat {\mathscr {C}}=\widehat {A}\vert _{G}$ . Then $\widehat {\mathscr {C}}$ is a smooth cubic curve in $G\cong \mathbb {P}^2$ . Let
Now, using [Reference Fujita16, Theorem 4.8], we get
Similarly, it follows from [Reference Fujita16, Theorem 4.17] that $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{G,\ell };Q)$ can be computes as follows:
where $F_Q=0$ if $Q\not \in \widehat {A}\vert _{G}$ , and
otherwise. This gives $S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{G,\ell };Q)\leqslant \frac {31}{40}$ . Combining the estimates, we get $\delta _{Q}(G,V^G_{\bullet ,\bullet })\geqslant \frac {40}{31}$ , which is a contradiction. This completes the proof of the lemma.
Hence, we see that the surface A has Du Val singularities. Let S be a general surface in the linear system $|H|$ that contains P. Then S is smooth, and $-K_X-uS\sim _{\mathbb {R}} (4-u)H-E$ . Hence, the divisor $-K_X-uS$ is pseudoeffective $\iff $ it is nef $\iff u\leqslant 1$ . Then