A REFINEMENT OF IZUMI’S THEOREM

arXiv:1209.4104v1 [] 18 Sep 2012

SÉBASTIEN BOUCKSOM, CHARLES FAVRE, AND MATTIAS JONSSON
Abstract. We improve Izumi’s inequality, which states that any divisorial valuation v
centered at a closed point 0 on an algebraic variety Y is controlled by the order of vanishing
at 0. More precisely, as v ranges through valuations that are monomial with respect to
coordinates in a fixed birational model X dominating Y , we show that for any regular
function f on Y at 0, the function v 7→ v(f )/ ord0 (f ) is uniformly Lipschitz continuous as
a function of the weight defining v. As a consequence, the volume of v is also a Lipschitz
continuous function. Our proof uses toroidal techniques as well as positivity properties of
the images of suitable nef divisors under birational morphisms.

Contents
Introduction
1. Background
2. Some convex analysis
3. Proof of Theorem B
4. Consequences of Theorem B
References

1
6
8
9
15
22

Introduction
Let Y be a normal variety over an algebraically closed field k and let 0 ∈ Y be a closed
point. Write m0 for the maximal ideal of the local ring OY,0 at 0 and define ord0 : OY,0 →
Z≥0 ∪ {∞}, the order of vanishing at 0, by
ord0 (f ) := max{j ≥ 0 | f ∈ mj0 },
This is a valuation if 0 is a smooth point, but not in general. See §4.1 for more details.
Recall that a valuation v of the function field k(Y ) is divisorial if there exists a projective
birational morphism X → Y , with X normal, and an irreducible Cartier divisor E on X
such that v is proportional to ordE , the order of vanishing along E. We say that v is centered
at 0 if E lies above 0, or, equivalently, v ≥ 0 on OY,0 and v > 0 on m0 .
Izumi’s Theorem1 says that any divisorial valuation centered at 0 is comparable to the
order of vanishing at 0:
Date: September 20, 2012.
Second author supported by the ANR-project BERKO. Third author supported by the CNRS and the
NSF.
1In fact the original statement is slightly more general assuming only (Y, 0) to be analytically irreducible.
1

2

SÉBASTIEN BOUCKSOM, CHARLES FAVRE, AND MATTIAS JONSSON

Izumi’s Theorem. For any divisorial valuation v of k(Y ) centered at 0 there exists a
constant C = C(v) > 0 such that
C −1 ord0 (f ) ≤ v(f ) ≤ C ord0 (f ).

(*)

Only the right-hand inequality in (*) is nontrivial. Indeed, if we set c = v(m0 ) =
min{v(f ) | f ∈ m0 } then c > 0 and v ≥ c ord0 .
Several versions of Izumi’s Theorem can be found in the literature. In the case when k is
of characteristic zero and Y is smooth, it goes back at least to Tougeron, see [Tou72, p.178]
(the same proof was used in the context of plurisubharmonic functions by the second author
in [Fav99]). A proof based on multiplier ideals is given in [ELS03]. These approaches give
an estimate on the optimal constant C in (*) in terms of log-discrepancies.
Izumi himself was mainly interested in the case of singular complex analytic spaces,
see [Izu81, Izu85]. His argument has been generalized by Rees [Ree89], and alternative
proofs given by Hübl and Swanson [HS01], and Beddani [Bed09]. Another approach, based
on the notion of key polynomials, was recently developed by Moghaddam [Mog11], see [FJ04]
in the two-dimensional case. For a connection between Izumi’s Theorem and the Artin-Rees
Lemma, see [Ron06].
Our objective is not to generalize the setting of Izumi’s Theorem, but to make the statement more precise. Consider a projective birational morphism π : X → Y with X smooth.
We assume that Z := π −1 (0) is a divisor with simple normal crossing support such that
any nonempty intersection between irreducible components of Z is irreducible. (We do not
assume that Z is reduced and the exceptional set of π may be strictly larger than Z. If k
has characteristic zero, the existence of such a morphism follows from Hironaka’s Theorem.)
The dual complex ∆ = ∆(X, Z) is a simplicial complex encoding the intersections of the
irreducible components of Z. We can view the elements of ∆ as quasimonomial valuations
on OY,0 centered at 0, see e.g. [JM10].2 There is a natural (integral) affine structure on ∆.
Pick a metric on ∆ that is compatible with this structure.
Any function f ∈ OY,0 defines a nonnegative function on ∆ given by v 7→ v(f ).
Theorem A. There exists a constant A > 0 such that for any f ∈ OY,0 , the function
v 7→ v(f ) on ∆ is concave on each face and Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constant at
most A ord0 (f ).
The constant A depends on X and on the metric on ∆ = ∆(X, Z) but not on f .
It is not hard to see that Theorem A implies Izumi’s Theorem in the case when the base
field k has characteristic zero. Indeed, in view of Hironaka’s theorem [Hir64], any divisorial
valuation on k(Y ) centered at 0 is proportional to a point v in some dual complex ∆ of some
X as above; we can even choose v as a vertex. Further, Z, and hence ∆, is connected as a
consequence of Zariski’s Main Theorem. By Theorem A we have
max v(f ) ≤ (1 + A diam(∆)) min v(f ).
v∈∆

v∈∆

On the other hand, one can show (see §4.2) that minv∈∆ v(f ) is comparable to ord0 (f );
hence Izumi’s Theorem follows.
2Quasimonomial valuations are also known as Abhyankar valuations.

IZUMI’S THEOREM

3

One can also rephrase Theorem A in terms of Newton polyhedra. See §4.6 for details
on whatT follows. Let Ei , i ∈ I be the irreducible components of Z. Pick J ⊂ I such that
EJ := j∈J Ej 6= ∅, and let zj ∈ OX,ξJ , j ∈ J be a system of coordinates at the generic
point ξJ of EJ such that Ej = {zj = 0} for j ∈ J. Using Cohen’s Theorem, we can expand
any f ∈ OY,0 ⊂ OX,ξJ as a formal power series in the zj with coefficients in the residue field
of ξJ . Let Nw(f, J) ⊂ RJ≥0 be the Newton polyhedron of this expansion. Fix a norm on
RJ .
Theorem A’. There exists a constant A > 0 such that for any f ∈ OY,0 and any J
with EJ 6= ∅, all extremal points of the Newton polyhedron Nw(f, J) are of norm at most
A ord0 (f ).
Theorem A will be a consequence of a more general result that we now describe. Let X
be a smooth, quasiprojective variety over k and Z ⊂ X an effective divisor with proper and
connected simple normal crossing support such that any nonempty intersection between
irreducible components of Z is irreducible. We view the elements of the dual complex
∆ = ∆(X, Z) as rank 1 valuations on the function field of X normalized by v(Z) = 1.
Fix an effective divisor G on some open neighborhood of Z in X. We can define v(G) for
any v ∈ ∆ using local defining equations of G. Thus G gives rise to a function χ = χG on
∆, defined by χ(v) := v(G). Fix a line bundle M ∈ Pic(X) that is ample on Z.
Theorem B. There exist constants A and B such that for any G as above, the function
χ = χG on ∆ is concave on each face and Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constant at
most
A min χ + B max |(G · M n−|J|−1 · EJ )|,
(**)
∆

J

where the maximum is over subsets J ⊂ I for which EJ 6= ∅. Here the constants A and B
depend on X, M and the metric chosen on ∆ = ∆(X, Z), but not on G.
Theorem A follows from Theorem B by picking G as the divisor of f ◦ π. Indeed, the
second item in (**) vanishes, and one can show that min∆ χ and ord0 (f ) are comparable.
Theorem B can also be applied to study polynomials at infinity. Fix an embedding
Am ⊂ Pm . Following the terminology introduced in [FJ11, Jon12] in a dynamical context,
we say that an admissible compactification of Am is a smooth projective variety X over k
together with a projective birational morphism π : X → Pm that is an isomorphism over Am
and such that if Z is the pullback of the hyperplane at infinity Pm \ Am , then Z has simple
normal crossing support and any nonempty intersection between irreducible components of
Z is irreducible. By Zariski’s Main Theorem, the support of Z is connected. We can view
the elements of the dual complex ∆ = ∆(X, Z) as valuations on k(X) = k(Pm ) as above.
In particular, any polynomial P ∈ k[Am ] defines a function on ∆, given by v 7→ v(P ). This
function is easily seen to be concave and piecewise affine on the faces of ∆.
Corollary C. There exists a constant B > 0 such that if P ∈ k[Am ] is a polynomial of
degree d ≥ 1, then the function v 7→ v(P ) on ∆ is Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz
constant at most Bd.
This follows by taking the divisor G as the pullback to X of the hypersurface on Pm
defined as the zero locus of P . We have v(P ) = v(G) − d = χG (v) − d for v ∈ ∆, so the

4

SÉBASTIEN BOUCKSOM, CHARLES FAVRE, AND MATTIAS JONSSON

Lipschitz constant of v 7→ v(P ) is the same as that of χG . Now, min∆ χG = 0, so Corollary C
follows from Theorem B.
Finally, we use Theorem A in order to study the variation of several natural numerical
invariants associated to rank 1 valuations. As above, let Y be a normal variety of dimension
m, defined over an algebraically closed field k, and let 0 be a closed point of Y . Pick any
two m0 -primary ideals a1 , a2 ⊂ OY,0 , and denote by e(ai ) their Hilbert-Samuel multiplicities.
It is a theorem due to Teissier and Risler [Tei72, §2] that the function (r, s) 7→ e(ar1 · as2 ) is a
[m−i] [i]
homogeneous polynomial of degree m and that we can find nonnegative integers e(a1
; a2 ),
0 ≤ i ≤ m, such that
m  
X
m
[m−i] [i] m−i i
r
s
e(a1 · a2 ) =
e(a1
; a2 ) r
s
i
i=0

for all r, s ∈ Z≥0 .
Pick any rank 1 valuation v on OY,0 centered at 0. Then the sequence of valuation ideals
a(v, n) = {f ∈ OY,0 | v(f ) ≥ n} forms a graded sequence in the sense that a(v, n) · a(v, n0 ) ⊂
a(v, n + n0 ) for any n, n0 . One can show (see §4.4 below) that for any integer 0 ≤ i ≤ m, the
following limit exists:
[m−i]

e(a(v, n)[i] ; m0
)
.
αi (v) := lim
n→∞
ni
When i = m, it is a theorem due to [ELS03, LM09] (see also [Cut12]) show that the sequence nm!
m dimk (OY,0 /a(v, n)) converges and that its limit is equal to αm (v). This invariant
is usually referred to as the volume of a valuation. This invariant is quite subtle, since it
can be irrational even when the valuation is divisorial, see [CS93, example 6] or [Kur03].
Now let X, Z and ∆ = ∆(X, Z) be as in Theorem A.
Corollary D. For any 0 ≤ i ≤ m, the function v 7→ αi (v) is Lipschitz continuous on ∆.
This result is new even in the case i = m. Note that Fulger [Fu12] has introduced a notion
of local volume for divisors on X, and proved that this local volume is locally Lipschitz in
the relative Néron-Severi space N (X/Y ), see Proposition 1.18 in ibid. It is unlikely that
one can recover the Lipschitz continuity of αm through his result since there is no canonical
way to attach to a valuation v ∈ ∆(X, Z) a divisor in X that computes αm (v). 3 His result
is, however, close in spirit to the continuity statement for the (global) volume function on
the Néron-Severi space of a projective variety, see [Laz]. The latter statement has been
strengthened in [BFJ09] to show that the global volume function is in fact differentiable on
the Néron-Severi space. By analogy, one can ask whether or not Fulger’s local volume, and
the functions v 7→ αi (v) are differentiable.
In the case Y is smooth at 0, we have

α1 (v) =
3When 0 is an isolated singularity, Z(v) := lim

sup
m0

v
ord0

1
Z(a(v, n))
n

−1

.

is a nef b-divisor over 0 in the sense of [BdFF10],
and one can show that αm (v) = −Z(v) . However it is unclear how to use this interpretation to prove the
continuity of αm .
m

IZUMI’S THEOREM

5

In the general singular case, one can find a constant C > 0 such that

−1
v
−1
C α1 (v) ≤ sup
≤ Cα1 (v)
m0 ord0
for all v, see Proposition 4.8. In particular, Corollary D gives a control on the variation of
the optimal constant appearing in Izumi’s theorem. More generally we obtain
Corollary E. The function (v, v 0 ) 7→ supm0

v
v0

is Lipschitz continuous on ∆ × ∆.

The constant supm0 vv0 is sometimes referred to as the linking number of two valuations,
see [Huc70, Sam59].
In dimension 2 over a smooth point, then α2 (v) = Vol(v) is equal to (supm0 v/ ord0 )−1
by [FJ04, Remark 3.33] for any valuation normalized by v(m0 ) = +1. In this case, we thus
have
−1

α1 (v)
v
, and α2 (v) =
.
α2 (v) = Vol(v), α1 (v) = sup
ord
v(m
m0
0
0)
v
Observe that since the function supm0 ord
is affine on (each segment of) the dual graph ∆
0
by [FJ04, §6], it follows that α1 and α2 are both differentiable functions on ∆.

Our approach to Theorem B follows [BFJ12a], where a similar result was proved in a
slightly different context. The fact that χ is continuous, concave and piecewise affine on
the faces on ∆ = ∆(X, Z) is a direct consequence of the way ∆ is embedded into the set of
valuations on the function field on X. After this observation the proof consists of two steps.
First we give an upper bound for χ on the vertices of ∆. Our argument for this uses
elementary intersection theory and in fact is quite close to the original proof of Izumi’s
Theorem by Izumi himself.
Second, we prove the Lipschitz estimate. Because of the concavity, it suffices to bound
certain directional derivatives of χ from above. To do this, we first define a suitable simplicial
subdivision ∆0 of ∆ such that χ is affine on (a suitable subset of) the faces of ∆0 . Using
the toroidal techniques of [KKMS], we can associate to ∆0 a projective birational morphism
X 0 → X, where X 0 is a normal, Q-factorial variety. Roughly speaking, the directional
derivatives on ∆ translate into actual differences on ∆0 , and these can be estimated more or
less as in the first step.
One of our motivations behind this paper is to study pluripotential theory on Berkovich
spaces [Ber90] over a field equipped with a trivial norm. The Lipschitz estimate in Theorem B implies the compactness of certain spaces of quasi-plurisubharmonic functions that
appear in [BFJ08, BdFF10]. These applications to pluripotential theory will appear elsewhere; the corresponding results (including the Lipschitz estimate) for a discretely valued
field can be found in [BFJ12a, BFJ12b]. For more on (pluri)potential theory in a nonArchimedean setting, see also [BR10, Thu05, FR10, FJ04, Jon12].
The paper is organized as follows. In §1 we recall some basic facts about valuations
in general and quasimonomial valuations in particular. We also state a result that follows
from [KKMS]. In §2 we recall some facts about Lipschitz constants for convex functions. The
proof of our main result, Theorem B, is then given in §3 whereas its various consequences
are established in §4.

6

SÉBASTIEN BOUCKSOM, CHARLES FAVRE, AND MATTIAS JONSSON

1. Background
Throughout the paper, k is an algebraically closed field. By a variety over k we mean
a separated integral scheme of finite type over k. If Z is a subscheme of a scheme X, we
denote by |Z| its support.
1.1. Valuations. Let X be a normal, quasiprojective variety over k. By a valuation on X
we mean a (rank 1) valuation v : k(X) → R that is trivial on k and admits a center on X,
that is, a point (not necessarily closed) ξ ∈ X such that v is nonnegative on the local ring
OX,ξ and strictly positive on the maximal ideal of this ring. Since X is assumed separated,
the center is unique if it exists. We write ValX for the set of all valuations on X. For a
closed point 0 ∈ X, we shall also denote by ValX,0 the subset of valuations v ∈ ValX such
that v(m0 ) > 0.
1
If G is a Q-Cartier divisor on X and v ∈ ValX , then we define v(G) := m
v(fm ), where
m ∈ Z>0 is such that mG is a Cartier divisor and fm ∈ OX,ξ is a local equation for mG at
the center ξ of v on X. If G is effective, then v(G) ≥ 0 with strict inequality if and only if
ξ is contained in the support of G.
Consider a proper birational map π : X 0 → X with X 0 normal. If E ⊂ X 0 is a prime
divisor, then ordE , the order of vanishing along E defines an element of ValX 0 = ValX . Any
valuation proportional to such a valuation will be called divisorial.
1.2. Dual complexes. Now assume (X, Z) is an SNC pair. By this we will mean that
X is a smooth, quasiprojective variety over k and Z ⊂ X is an effective divisor with projective, connected, simple normal crossing support such that any nonempty
intersection of
P
irreducible components of Z is connected. Thus we can write Z = i∈I bi Ei , where Ei ,
i ∈ I are
T the irreducible components of |Z|, bi ∈ Z>0 and, for any J ⊂ I, the intersection
EJ := j∈J Ej is either empty or irreducible.
The dual complex ∆ = ∆(X, Z) is a simplicial complex defined in the usual way: to each
i ∈ I is associated a vertex ei and to each J ⊂ I with EJ 6= ∅ is associated a simplex σJ
containing all the ejL
, j ∈ J.
Let Div(X, Z) ' i∈I ZEi be the freeL
abelian group of divisors on X supported on |Z|.
Set Div(X, Z)R := Div(X, Z) ⊗Z R '
i∈I REi . We can embed ∆ in the dual vector
space Div(X, Z)∗R as follows. A vertex ei of ∆ is identified with the element in Div(X, Z)∗R
satisfying hei , Ei i = b−1
and hei , Ej i = 0 for i 6= j. A simplex σJ of ∆ is identified with the
i
convex hull of (ej )j∈J in Div(X, Z)∗R . In this way, ∆ can be written




X
X
\
∆= t=
ti ei ti ≥ 0,
bi tt = 1,
Ei 6= ∅ ⊂ Div(X, Z)∗R .


i∈I

i

i|ti >0

This embedding naturally equips ∆ with an integral affine structure: the integral affine
functions are the restrictions to ∆ of the elements in Div(X, Z).
1.3. Quasimonomial valuations. We can also embed the dual complex ∆ into the valuation space ValX . See
P [JM10, §3] for details on what follows.
Pick a point t = i∈I ti ei ∈ ∆ ⊂ Div(X, Z)∗R , T
let J be the set of indices j ∈ I such that
tj > 0 and let ξJ be the generic point of EJ = j∈J Ej . Pick local algebraic coordinates
zj ∈ OX,ξJ , j ∈ J, such that Ej = {zj = 0}. We then associate to t the valuation valt , which
is a monomial valuation in these coordinates with weight tj on zj , j ∈ J. More precisely, valt

IZUMI’S THEOREM

7

is defined as follows. Using Cohen’s Theorem, we can write any f ∈ OX,ξJ in the complete
\
ring O
X,ξJ as a formal power series
X
f=
fα z α .
(1.1)
α∈NJ

\
where fα ∈ O
X,ξJ and, for each α, either fα = 0 or fα (ξJ ) 6= 0. We then set
valt (f ) := min{ht, αi | fα 6= 0}.

(1.2)

While the expansion (1.1) is not unique, one can show that (1.2) is well defined. Further,
it suffices to take the minimum over finitely many α. If t ∈ ∆, then the center of valt on X
is the generic point of EJ , where J ⊂ I is defined by the property that v lies in the relative
interior of σJ .
Proposition 1.1. Let (X, Z) be an SNC pair. Then, for any effective divisor G on X, the
function v 7→ v(G) is continuous, concave and integral piecewise affine on ∆ = ∆(X, Z).
Proof. The function v 7→ v(G) is continuous on ValX , so its restriction to ∆ is also continuous. Let σ = σJ be a face of ∆, determined by a subset J ⊂ I such that EJ 6= ∅. Let ξ = ξJ
be the generic point of EJ and f ∈ OX,ξ a defining equation for G at ξ. It then follows
from (1.2) that t 7→ valt (f ) is continuous, piecewise integral affine and convex on σJ .

The valuation valt is divisorial if and only if tj ∈ Q for all j, see [JM10, Remark 3.9]. In
particular, the set of t ∈ ∆ for which valt is divisorial is dense in ∆.
1.4. Subdivisions and blowups. A subdivision ∆0 of ∆ = ∆(X, Z) is a compact rational
polyhedral complex of Div(X, Z)∗R refining ∆. A subdivision ∆0 is simplicial if its faces are
simplices. It is projective if there exists a convex, piecewise integral function h on ∆ such
that ∆0 is the coarsest subdivision of ∆ on each of whose faces h is affine. (Such a function
h is called a support function for ∆0 .)
Theorem 1.2. Let ∆0 be a simplicial projective subdivision of ∆. Then there exists a
projective birational morphism ρ : X 0 → X with the following properties:
(i) ρ is an isomorphism on X 0 \ |Z 0 |, where Z 0 := ρ−1 (Z);
(ii) X 0 is normal, Z 0 has pure codimension 1 and every irreducible component of Z 0 is
Q-Cartier;
(iii) the vertices (e0i )i∈I 0 of ∆0 are in bijection with the irreducible components (Ei0 )i∈I 0 of
Z 0 : for each i ∈ I 0 , theTcenter on X 0 of e0i is the generic point of Ei0 ;
(iv) If J 0 ⊂ I 0 , then EJ0 0 := j∈J 0 Ej0 is nonempty if and only if the corresponding vertices
e0j , j ∈ J 0 of ∆0 span a face σJ0 0 of ∆0 ; in this case, EJ0 0 is normal, irreducible, of
codimension |J 0 |, and its generic point is the center of v on X 0 for all v in the relative
interior of σJ0 0 ;
(v) for each i ∈ I 0 , the function ∆ 3 v → v(Ei0 ) ∈ R is affine on the simplices of ∆0 .
Since Z is a divisor with simple normal crossing singularities on an smooth ambient space,
the inclusion X \ Z ⊂ X is a toroidal embedding in the sense of [KKMS, Chapter II]. This
result is thus a consequence of the toroidal analysis in op. cit.

8

SÉBASTIEN BOUCKSOM, CHARLES FAVRE, AND MATTIAS JONSSON

2. Some convex analysis
In this section we note some basic facts about convex functions. Let V be a finite dimensional real vector space and τ ⊂ V a compact convex set containing at least two points.
Denote by E(τ ) the set of extremal points of τ .
Given a norm k · k on V , the Lipschitz constant of a continuous function ϕ : τ → R is
defined as usual as
|ϕ(v) − ϕ(v 0 )|
Lipτ (ϕ) := sup
∈ [0, +∞]
kv − v 0 k
v6=v 0
and its C 0,1 -norm is then
kϕkC 0,1 (τ ) := kϕkC 0 (τ ) + Lipτ (ϕ),
where kϕkC 0 (τ ) := supτ |ϕ|. This quantity of course depends on the choice of k · k, but since
all norms on V are equivalent, choosing another norm only affects the estimates to follow
by an overall multiplicative constant.
2.1. Directional derivatives. Now let ϕ : τ → R be convex and continuous. For v, w ∈ τ
we define the directional derivative of ϕ at v towards w as
Dv ϕ(w) :=

d
dt

ϕ((1 − t)v + tw);

(2.1)

t=0+

this limit exists by convexity of ϕ.
Lemma 2.1. For any fixed w ∈ τ , the function v 7→ Dv ϕ(w) is upper semicontinuous.
Proof. Fix v and let ε > 0. Then there exists 0 < t < 1 such that
ϕ(tw + (1 − t)v) − ϕ(v)
Dv ϕ(w) ≥
−ε .
t
Since ϕ is continuous, we have
ϕ((1 − t)v + tw) − ϕ(v)
ϕ((1 − t)v 0 + tw) − ϕ(v 0 )
≥
−ε
t
t
for any v 0 close to v. Now ϕ is convex hence
ϕ((1 − t)v 0 + tw) − ϕ(v 0 )
≥ Dv0 ϕ(w),
t
and we conclude that
Dv ϕ(w) ≥ Dv0 ϕ(w) − 2ε
0
for any v close to v. This ends the proof.



Proposition 2.2. There exists C > 0 such that every Lipschitz continuous convex function
ϕ : τ → R satisfies
C −1 kϕkC 0,1 (τ ) ≤ kϕkC 0 (∂τ ) +

sup
e∈E(τ ),v∈int(τ )

Dπe (v) ϕ(e) ≤ C kϕkC 0,1 (τ ) .

Here πe (v) ∈ ∂τ is the unique point in ∂τ such that v ∈ [e, πe (v)].
Observe that sup{ Dπe (v) ϕ(e) , e ∈ E(τ ), v ∈ int(τ )} equals sup{|Dw ϕ(e)| , e ∈ E(τ ), w ∈
∂τ, [w, e] 6⊂ ∂τ }.
For the proof, see [BFJ12a, Lemma A.2].

IZUMI’S THEOREM

9

2.2. Newton polyhedra. Assume now that τ ⊂ V is a compact polytope whose affine
span hτ i is an affine hyperplane that does not contain the origin of V . Let ϕ : τ → R be a
piecewise affine continuous convex function. It extends as a 1-homogeneous piecewise linear
convex function on the polyhedral cone τ̂ over τ , whose Newton polyhedron Nw(ϕ) is as usual
defined as the convex subset of V ∗ consisting of all linear forms m ∈ V ∗ such that m ≤ ϕ
on τ̂ (or, equivalently, on τ ). We endow V ∗ with the dual norm kmk := supkvk=1 hm, vi.
Proposition 2.3. There exists a constant C > 0, not depending on ϕ, such that
C −1 kϕkC 0,1 (τ ) ≤ max kmk ≤ C kϕkC 0,1 (τ ) ,
m∈Eτ (ϕ)

∗

where Eτ (ϕ) ⊂ V denotes the (finite) set of extremal points of the Newton polyhedron of ϕ.
Proof. Since τ is a non-empty compact subset disjoint from the linear hyperplane W parallel
to hτ i, it is clear by homogeneity that there exists C > 0 such that


kmk ≤ C km|W k + inf |hm, vi|
(2.2)
v∈τ

for all m ∈ MR . On the other hand, elementary convex analysis tells us that
ϕ(v) = max hm, vi
m∈Eτ (ϕ)

(2.3)

for all v ∈ τ , and that the set {v ∈ τ | ϕ(v) = hm, vi} has non-empty interior in τ for each
m ∈ Eτ (ϕ). We thus see that the image of the gradient of ϕ on its differentiability locus is
exactly the finite set {m|W | m ∈ Eτ (ϕ)} ⊂ W ∗ , which implies that the Lipschitz constant
of ϕ on τ satisfies
Lipτ (ϕ) = max km|W k .
m∈Eτ (ϕ)

Since kϕkC 0 (τ ) ≤ maxτ kvk maxEτ (ϕ) kmk, and km|W k ≤ kmk, the left-hand inequality is
now clear. Since for each m ∈ Eτ (ϕ) there exists v ∈ τ such that ϕ(v) = hm, vi, we have
inf v∈τ |hm, vi| ≤ kϕkC 0 (τ ) , and (2.2) yields the right-hand inequality.

3. Proof of Theorem B
Write Z =

P

i∈I bi Ei .

Fix a line bundle M on X that is ample on Z and set
θG := max |(G · EJ · M n−|J|−1 )|.
J⊂I

Note that θG = 0 if the line bundle OX (G)|Z is trivial.
Throughout the proof, A ≥ 1 and B ≥ 0 will denote various constants whose values may
vary from line to line, but they do not depend on G.
We already know from Proposition 1.1 that the function χ = χG is nonnegative, concave
and integral piecewise affine on each simplex in ∆.
3.1. Bounding the values on vertices. We first prove the estimate
χ(ei ) ≤ A min χ + BθG
∆

for all i ∈ I.

(3.1)

Since χ is concave on each simplex, its minimum on ∆ must be attained at a vertex. Further,
the 1-skeleton of ∆ is connected since Z has connected support. We may therefore assume
that I = {0, 1, . . . , m}, where χ(e0 ) = min χ, ei is adjacent to ei+1 (i.e. Ei ∩ Ei+1 6= ∅)

10

SÉBASTIEN BOUCKSOM, CHARLES FAVRE, AND MATTIAS JONSSON

for i = 0, . . . , l − 1 and χ(el ) = maxi∈I χ, where 1 ≤ l ≤ m. It suffices to prove (3.1) for
1 ≤ i ≤ l and this we shall do by induction. Let us write
X
G=
bj χ(ej )Ej + G̃,
j∈I

where G̃ is an effective divisor whose support does not contain any Ei . For each i ∈ I we
then have
X
bj χ(ej )(Ei · Ej · M n−2 ) = (G · Ei · M n−2 ) − (G̃ · Ei · M n−2 )
j∈I

≤ (G · Ei · M n−2 )
≤ θG .

(3.2)

Set
cij := bj (Ei · Ej · M n−2 )
for i, j ∈ I. Note that cij ≥ 0 for j 6= i, with strict inequality if and only if ei and ej are
adjacent. In particular, ci,i+1 > 0 for 0 ≤ i < l. Since χ ≥ 0 it follows from (3.2) that
|cii |
θG
χ(ei ) +
ci,i+1
ci,i+1
≤ A0 χ(ei ) + B0 θG ,

χ(ei+1 ) ≤

for 0 ≤ i < l, where the constants A0 and B0 do not depend on i or G. We may assume
that A0 ≥ 1. A simple induction now gives (3.1) for 0 ≤ i < l, with A = Al0 and B =
B0 (1 + A0 + · · · + Al−1
0 ).
3.2. Bounding Lipschitz constants. Let τ be a face of ∆. Our aim is to prove by
induction on dim τ that
kχ|τ kC 0,1 ≤ A min χ + BθG .
∆

C 0,1 -norm

Here the
is defined as the sum of the sup-norm and the Lipschitz constant; see §2.
The case dim τ = 0 is settled by (3.1) so let us assume that dim τ > 0. By Proposition 1.1
the restriction of χ to τ is piecewise affine and concave. It therefore admits directional
derivatives, and we set as in (2.1)
Dv χ(w) :=

d
dt

χ ((1 − t)v + tw)
t=0+

for v, w ∈ τ .
Let us say that a codimension 1 face of τ is opposite a vertex when it is the convex hull
of the remaining vertices of τ . This notion is well-defined since τ is a simplex.
Proposition 3.1. We have
Dv χ(e) ≤ A min χ + BθG
∆

for any vertex e of τ , and any rational point v in the relative interior of the face σ of τ
opposite to e, such that χ|σ is affine near v.

IZUMI’S THEOREM

11

Granting this result, let us explain how to conclude the proof of Theorem C. By induction
we have sup∂τ χ ≤ A min∆ χ + BθG . The fact that χ is concave and nonnegative implies
that
Dv χ(e) ≥ χ(e) − χ(v) ≥ − min χ
for any e, v ∈ ∂τ . By Proposition 3.1 this gives (assuming, as we may, that A ≥ 1)
|Dv χ(e)| ≤ A| min χ| + BθG
∆

(†)

for any vertex e of τ and any rational point v in the relative interior of the face σ opposite
to e such that χ|σ is affine near v.
By Lemma 2.1 applied to the convex function −χ, the function v 7→ Dv χ(e) is lower
semicontinuous on σ. It follows by density that the upper bound (†) holds for any v in the
relative interior of σ. We conclude by Proposition 2.2 that the C 0,1 -norm of χ|τ is bounded
by A min∆ χ + BθG , completing the proof of Theorem C.
The rest of §3 is devoted to the proof of Proposition 3.1.
3.3. Special subdivisions. The star of a face σ of ∆ is defined as usual as the subcomplex
Star(σ) of ∆ made up of all the faces of ∆ containing σ. A vertex ei thus belongs to the
star of a simplex σJ iff Ei intersects EJ .
We shall need the following construction, see Figure 1. Let σ = σJ be a face of ∆ and
L ⊂ I the set of vertices of ∆ contained in Star∆ (σ). Thus j ∈ L if and only if Ej ∩ EJ 6= ∅.
Consider a rational point v in the relative interior of σ. Given 0 < ε < 1 rational and j ∈ L
set eεj := εej + (1 − ε)v. We shall define a projective simplicial subdivision ∆0 = ∆0 (ε, v) of
∆.
To define ∆0 , first consider a polyhedral subdivision ∆ε = ∆ε (v) of ∆ leaving the complement of Star∆ (σ) unchanged. The set of vertices of ∆ε is precisely (ei )i∈I ∪ (eεj )j∈L . The
faces of ∆ε contained in Star(σ) are of the following two types:
• if the convex hull Conv(ej1 , . . . , ejm ) is a face of ∆ containing σ, then Conv(eεj1 , . . . , eεjm )
is a face of ∆ε ;
• if Conv(ej1 , . . . , ejm ) is a face of ∆ contained in Star(σ) but not containing σ, then
both Conv(ej1 , . . . , ejm ) and Conv(ej1 , . . . , ejm , eεj1 , . . . , eεjm ) are faces of ∆ε .
In a neighborhood of v, note that the subdivision ∆ε is obtained by scaling ∆ by a factor
ε. More precisely, consider the affine map ψ ε : Star(σ) → Star(σ) defined by ψ ε (w) =
εw + (1 − ε)v. Then σ ε := ψ ε (σ) is the face of ∆ε containing v in its relative interior, and
ψ ε (Star∆ (σ)) = Star∆ε (σ ε ). In particular, even though ∆ε is not simplicial in general, all
faces of ∆ε containing σ ε are simplicial.
P
We claim that ∆ε is projective. To see this, write v = j∈J sj ej , with sj > 0 rational and
P
P
P
sj = 1. For j ∈ J, define a linear function λj on i∈I R+ ei ⊃ ∆ by λj ( ti ei ) = −tj /sj
and set h = max{maxj∈J λj , −(1 − ε)}. A suitable integer multiple of h ‘ is then a strictly
convex support function for ∆ε in the sense of §1.4.
Now define ∆0 = ∆0 (ε) as a simplicial subdivision of ∆ε obtained using repeated barycentric subdivision in a way that leaves Star∆ε (σ ε ) unchanged. By [KKMS, pp.115–117], ∆0 is
still projective.
Note that σ 0 := σ ε is the face of ∆0 containing v in its relative interior, For j ∈ L set
e0j = eεj . These are the vertices of ∆0 contained in Star∆0 (σ 0 ).

12

SÉBASTIEN BOUCKSOM, CHARLES FAVRE, AND MATTIAS JONSSON

e3

e′3

e1

e′1

v

e2

e′2

Figure 1. The subdivision of §3.3. Here v lies in the relative interior of the
simplex σ of ∆ with vertices e1 and e2 . The picture shows the intermediate
subdivision ∆ε , where v lies in the relative interior of the simplex σ 0 with vertices e01 and e02 . The final subdivision ∆0 is obtained from ∆ε by barycentric
subdivision of the quadrilaterals Conv(e1 , e3 , e01 , e03 ) and Conv(e2 , e3 , e02 , e03 )
3.4. Proof of Proposition 3.1. Let I be the set of vertices in ∆, let L ⊂ I be the set
of vertices contained in Star∆ (σ) and J ⊂ L the set of vertices of σ. Thus σ = σJ . The
irreducible subvariety EJ has codimension |J| = p ≥ 1.
Consider the simplicial projective subdivision ∆0 = ∆0 (ε) constructed in §3.3. For j ∈ L,
e0j := εej + (1 − ε)v is a vertex of ∆0 . Recall that σ 0 = σJ0 is the face of ∆0 containing v in its
relative interior. Since χ|σ is assumed affine in a neighborhood of v, we may choose ε > 0
small enough that:
• χ is affine on σ 0 ⊂ σ
• χ is affine on each segment [v, e0j ], j ∈ L.
Let ρ : X 0 → X be the birational morphism corresponding to the subdivision ∆0 of ∆
as in Theorem 1.2. Note that ρ induces a generically finite map EJ0 → EJ of projective
k-varieties. Indeed, EJ (resp. EJ0 ) is the closure of the center of v on X (resp. X 0 ), and both
have codimension |J| = p in view of Theorem 1.2.
The following result allows us to “linearize” the problem under consideration:
Lemma 3.2. We have

ρ∗ χ(v)Z +


X

Dv χ(ej ) bj Ej 

=
EJ0

j∈L

X
j∈L

χ(e0j ) b0j Ej0
EJ0

in Pic(EJ0 )Q , where we have set b0j := ordEj0 (Z).
Grant this result for the moment. We then have
X
ρ∗ G =
χ(e0i )b0i Ei0 + G̃0 ,
i∈I 0

where G̃0 is an effective Q-Cartier divisor on X 0 whose support does not contain any of the
Ei0 .
Lemma 3.3. The support of G̃0 does not contain EJ0 . Hence G̃0 |EJ0 is effective.

IZUMI’S THEOREM

13

The proof is given below. Grant this result for the moment. Set r = deg(ρ|EJ0 ). Then we
have
r(G · M n−p−1 · EJ ) = ρ∗ G · (ρ∗ M )n−p−1 · EJ0
X
=(
χ(e0j )b0j Ej0 + G̃0 ) · (ρ∗ M )n−p−1 · EJ0
j∈L

X
≥(
χ(e0j )b0j Ej0 ) · (ρ∗ M )n−p−1 · EJ0
j∈L





= ρ∗ χ(v)Z +

X

Dv χ(ej ) bj Ej  · (ρ∗ M )n−p−1 · EJ0

j∈L





= r χ(v)Z +

X

Dv χ(ej ) bj Ej  · M n−p−1 · EJ .

j∈L

Here the first and last inequality follow from the projection formula. The inequality follows
from Lemma 3.3. The second to last equality is a consequence of Lemma 3.2. We see that
X
χ(v)(Z · M n−p−1 · EJ ) +
Dv χ(ej )bj (Ej · M n−p−1 · EJ ) ≤ θG .
(3.3)
j∈L

By induction, the C 0,1 -norm of χ|σ is under control. Since v belongs to σ = σJ , this gives
χ(v) + max |Dv χ(ej )| ≤ A min χ + BθG ,

(3.4)

∆

j∈J

which together with (3.3) yields an upper bound
X

Dv χ(ej ) bj EJ · Ej · M n−p−1 ≤ A min χ + BθG .
∆

j∈L\J

(3.5)

Now the fact that χ is nonnegative and concave shows that
min Dv χ(ej ) ≥ min (χ(ej ) − χ(v)) ≥ −χ(v) ≥ −A min χ − BθG ,

j∈L\J

∆

j∈L\J

(3.6)

where the last inequality follows from the inductive assumption. Note that Ej |EJ is a nonzero effective divisor for j ∈ L \ J. As a consequence
(EJ · Ej · M n−p−1 ) > 0
since M is ample. The inequalities (3.5) and (3.6) therefore imply that
max Dv χ(ej ) ≤ A min χ + BθG ,

j∈L\J

∆

which completes the proof, since e = ej for some j ∈ L \ J.
P
P
Proof of Lemma 3.2. We write v = j∈J sj ej with sj > 0 rational and j∈J sj = 1. Set
si = 0 for i ∈ I \ J. For i ∈ I let χi be the function on ∆ that is affine on each face of ∆

14

SÉBASTIEN BOUCKSOM, CHARLES FAVRE, AND MATTIAS JONSSON

and satisfies χi (ej ) = δij for all j ∈ I. Since e0j = εej + (1 − ε)v for j ∈ L we get:

ε + (1 − ε)si



(1 − ε)s
i
χi (e0j ) =

ε



0

if
if
if
if

i=j
i 6= j
i=j
i 6= j

∈J
∈J
∈L\J
∈L\J

By Theorem 1.2, Ej0 intersects EJ0 if and only if j ∈ L. We thus have
ρ∗ (bi Ei )|EJ0 =

X

χi (e0j )b0j Ej0 |EJ0 for all i ∈ I

j∈L

and
ρ∗ Z|EJ0 =

X

b0j Ej0 |EJ0

j∈L

in Pic(EJ0 )Q , where b0j = ordEj0 (IZ ).
Recall also that χ is affine on each segment [v, e0i ], so that Dv χ(ei ) = ε−1 (χ(e0i ) − χ(v))
for i ∈ L. We can now compute in Pic(EJ0 )Q
!
ρ∗

X

Dv χ(ei ) bi Ei

i∈L

=
EJ0

X

ε−1



X
χ(e0i ) − χ(v) 
χi (e0j ) b0j Ej0 |EJ0  =


i∈L

j∈L


=

X



ε−1 (χ(e0i ) − χ(v)) ε b0i Ei0 |EJ0 + si

i∈J

X

(1 − ε) b0j Ej0 |EJ0  +

j∈J

+

X

ε−1 (χ(e0i ) − χ(v)) ε b0i Ei0 |EJ0 =

i∈L\J


!
X
X
X
=
(χ(e0i ) − χ(v)) b0i Ei0 |EJ0 + ε−1 (1 − ε)
si (χ(e0i ) − χ(v)) 
b0j Ej0 |EJ0 
i∈L

i∈J

j∈J

=

X
(χ(e0j ) − χ(v)) b0j Ej0
j∈L

.
EJ0

0
0
The
follows
P last equality
P from the fact that χ is affine on the simplex σJ of ∆ so that
0

i∈J si χ(ei ) = χ(v) =
i∈J si χ(v). This concludes the proof.

Proof of Lemma 3.3. By assumption, the function w 7→ w(G) is P
affine on the face σ 0 = σJ0
0
of ∆ . By Theorem 1.2, the same is true of the function w 7→ i∈I 0 ϕ(e0i )b0i w(Ei0 ). From
this we see that the function w 7→ w(G̃0 ) is also affine on σ 0 . But by construction, this
function vanishes at the vertices of σ 0 and hence is identically zero on σ 0 . This implies that
the support of G̃0 does not contain EJ0 , so that the Q-Cartier divisor G̃0 |EJ0 is effective, as
claimed.


IZUMI’S THEOREM

15

4. Consequences of Theorem B
In this final section we prove the various consequences of Theorem B, namely Theorems A
and A’, Izumi’s Theorem (in characteristic zero) and Corollaries C, D and E.
4.1. Order functions, integral closure and Rees valuations. Let us return to the
situation in the beginning of the introduction. Thus k is an algebraically closed field, Y is
a normal variety over k and 0 ∈ Y is a closed point. We do not assume that Y is smooth
outside 0. Write m0 for the maximal ideal of the local ring OY,0 at 0.
For any function f ∈ OY,0 define
ord0 (f ) := max{j ≥ 0 | f ∈ mj0 }.

(4.1)

When 0 is a smooth point of Y , ord0 is a divisorial valuation, associated to the exceptional
divisor of the blowup of Y at 0. In the singular case, however, ord0 may not be a valuation.
Indeed, the sequence (ord0 (f n ))n≥1 which is clearly superadditive in the sense that
0

0

ord0 (f n+n ) ≥ ord0 (f n ) + ord0 (f n )

(4.2)
n0 .

may fail to be additive, that is, strict inequality may hold in (4.2) for certain n,
To remedy this particular fact, one defines
d0 (f ) := lim 1 ord0 (f n );
ord
n→0 n
d0 is a special case of a
the limit exists as a standard consequence of (4.2). The function ord
construction introduced by Samuel [Sam52] and later studied extensively by Rees, see [Ree88]
and also [HS, LT08, Swa11].
Recall that the integral closure b of an ideal b ⊂ OY,0 is an ideal defined as the set of
elements f ∈ OY,0 that satisfy an equation
f n + a1 f n−1 + · · · + an = 0,
with n ≥ 1 and ai ∈ bi for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. The following result is valid in a context far more
general than what we state here, see [Hun92, Theorem 4.13] or [LT08, Proposition 1.14] .
Theorem 4.1. There exists an integer N such that
bn ⊂ bn−N

(4.3)

for any ideal b ⊂ OY,0 and any n ≥ N .
Let ν : Y + → Y be the normalized blowup of m0 and write
m0 · OY + = OY + (−

k
X

ri Ei ),

i=1

where the Ei are prime Weil divisors on Y + and ri ∈ Z>0 . For each i we have a divisorial
valuation ordEi on OY,0 . We normalize these as follows.
Definition 4.2. The divisorial valuations w1 , . . . , wk defined by
ordEi
ordEi
wi :=
=
ri
ordEi (m0 )
are called the Rees valuations of m0 .

16

SÉBASTIEN BOUCKSOM, CHARLES FAVRE, AND MATTIAS JONSSON

Theorem 4.3. There exists an integer N > 0 such that the following conditions hold for
any function f ∈ OY,0 and any n ≥ 1:
d0 (f ) = mini wi (f );
(i) ord
d0 (f ) ≥ n;
(ii) f ∈ mn0 if and only if ord
d0 (f ) ≤ ord0 (f ) + N ;
(iii) ord0 (f ) ≤ ord
d0 (f ) ≤ (N + 1) ord0 (f ).
(iv) ord0 (f ) ≤ ord
Proof. Since ν is also the normalized blow-up of mn0 for any n ≥ 1, we have
X
nri Ei ),
mn0 = ν∗ OY + (−
i

see [Laz, Proposition 9.6.6]. Hence
f ∈ mn0

if and only if

min wi (f ) ≥ n.
i

(4.4)

We first prove (i). Pick λ ∈ Q≥0 . If mini wi (f ) ≥ λ, then for p sufficiently divisible we have
pλ−N
f p ∈ mpλ
0 ⊂ m0

d0 (f ) ≥ λ. On the
by (4.4) and (4.3), respectively. This gives ord0 (f p ) ≥ pλ−N and hence ord
d
other hand, suppose ord0 (f ) ≥ λ and pick 0 < µ < λ. For p sufficiently divisible we then have
pµ
−1 min (f p ) ≥ pµ
ord0 (f p ) ≥ µp, so that f p ∈ mpµ
i
0 ⊂ m0 . Using (4.4) we get mini wi (f ) = p
and hence mini wi (f ) ≥ λ, proving (i).
Now (ii) follows immediately from (i) and from (4.4). As for (iii), the first inequality
is obvious and the second results from (ii) and (4.3). Finally, (iv) is a direct consequence
of (iii) when ord0 (f ) ≥ 1 and is trivial when ord0 (f ) < 1 since in this case f 6∈ m0 and
d0 (f ) = 0.
ord0 (f ) = ord

Remark 4.4. Theorem 4.3 is a special case of the strong valuation theorem due to Rees
and is valid much more generally, see [HS, LT08, Ree88]. Our presentation follows [Laz,
§9.6.A].
4.2. Proof of Izumi’s Theorem. Let v be any divisorial valuation of k(Y ) centered at 0.
We may assume that v is normalized by v(m0 ) = 1. It is then clear that v ≥ ord0 .
It remains to prove that there exists a constant C > 0 such that v(f ) ≤ C ord0 (f ) for
all f ∈ OY,0 . For this part, we assume that k has characteristic zero. Using Hironaka’s
theorem [Hir64] we can find a projective birational morphism π : X → Y with X smooth
such that the scheme theoretic preimage Z := π −1 (0) is a divisor (not necessarily reduced)
with simple normal crossing support such that any nonempty intersection of irreducible
components of Z is irreducible. Note that we do not assume that π is an isomorphism
outside |Z|. We may also assume that the center of v has codimension 1 so that v is a vertex
in the dual complex ∆ = ∆(X, Z) as in §1.2.
Given a function f ∈ OY,0 define a continuous function χ = χf on ∆ by
χ(v) = v(f ).
It is clear that χ > 0 on ∆ if f ∈ m0 and χ ≡ 0 otherwise. Note that replacing Y by a
suitable affine neighborhood of 0, we may view f as a section of the trivial line bundle OX .
We can therefore apply (3.1). We get that v(f ) ≤ A min∆ χf for some constant A > 0
independent on f . It remains to relate min∆ χf to ord0 (f ). To this end, we first prove

IZUMI’S THEOREM

17

d0 (f ).
Lemma 4.5. For any function f ∈ OY,0 we have min∆ χf = ord
Proof. If ord0 (f ) ≥ n, then f ∈ mn0 and hence min∆ χf ≥ minv∈∆ v(mn0 ) = n. Replacing f
d0 (f ).
by a power, we get min∆ χf ≥ ord
Since Z is a divisor and X is smooth, π must factor through the normalized blowup
ν : Y + → Y of 0. This implies that all the Rees valuations of 0 appear as (some of the)
vertices of the dual complex ∆. This observation and Theorem 4.3 (i) now imply the reverse
inequality.

d0 (f ) ≤ A(N + 1) ord0 (f ) by Theorem 4.3 (i),
Finally we have v(f ) ≤ A min∆ χf = A ord
and the proof of Izumi’s theorem is complete.
Remark 4.6. Observe that the proof does not rely on the Lipschitz estimates of Theorem B,
and follows from a direct intersection theoretic computation which is similar to Izumi’s
original argument.
4.3. Proof of Theorem A. Consider a projective birational morphism π : X → Y with
X smooth such that Z := π −1 (0) is a divisor with simple normal crossing support such that
any nonempty intersection of irreducible components of Z is irreducible. Let ∆ = ∆(X, Z)
be the dual complex.
Given a function f ∈ OY,0 , the function χ(v) := v(f ) is continuous on ∆. It is clear that
χ > 0 on ∆ if f ∈ m0 and χ ≡ 0 otherwise. As above, we may view f as a section of the
trivial line bundle OX . We can therefore apply Theorem B and get that χf is concave on
each face and Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constant at most A min∆ χf .
Thus the Lipschitz constant of χf is bounded from above by at most A(N + 1) ord0 (f )
by Lemma 4.5 and Theorem 4.3 (iv), concluding the proof of Theorem A.
4.4. Mixed multiplicities. Let (Y, 0) be as before. The Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity of an
m0 -primary ideal a ⊂ OY,0 is defined as the limit
m!
dimk (OY,0 /an ) .
n→∞ nm

e(a) = lim

Recall that the mixed multiplicities of any two m0 -primary ideals a1 , a2 are a sequence of
[0] [m]
[1] [m−1]
[m] [0]
m + 1 integers e(a1 ; a2 ), e(a1 ; a2
), ..., e(a1 ; a2 ) such that
m  
X
m
[m−i] [i] m−i i
r
s
e(a1 · a2 ) =
e(a1
; a2 ) r
s
i
i=0

for all r, s ∈ Z+ , see [Tei72, §2] or [Laz, §1.6.B]. Observe that mixed multiplicities are
[m−i] [i]
[i] [m−i]
symmetric in their argument e(a1
; a2 ) = e(a2 ; a1
).
These multiplicities also have the following geometric interpretation, see [Laz, §1.6.B].
Let ν : Y + → Y be any birational proper map P
that dominates the normalized blowups of
a1 and a2 . For ε = 1, 2 write aε · OY + = OY + (− j rj,ε Ej ), with rj,ε ∈ Z>0 . Then

m−i 
i
X
X
[m−i] [i]
rj,1 Ej 
·
ri,2 Ej 
(4.5)
e(a1
; a2 ) = − 
j

j

18

SÉBASTIEN BOUCKSOM, CHARLES FAVRE, AND MATTIAS JONSSON

P
Since the antieffective divisors − j rj,ε Ej are π-exceptional and π-nef, it follows that mixed
multiplicities are decreasing with respect to the inclusion of ideals:
[m−i]

a1 ⊂ a01 ⇒ e(a1

[i]

[i]

; a2 ) ≥ e(a01[m−i] ; a2 ) .

(***)

Pick any rank 1 valuation v on OY,0 centered at 0. Then the sequence of valuation ideals
a(v, n) = {f ∈ OY,0 | v(f ) ≥ n}
forms a graded sequence in the sense that
a(v, n) · a(v, n0 ) ⊂ a(v, n + n0 )
for any n, n0 . Recall that the volume of v is defined by
Vol(v) := lim sup
n→∞

dimk (OY,0 /a(v, n))
∈ [0, +∞).
nm /m!

It is a theorem that the volume is actually defined as a limit, see [ELS03, LM09, Cut12].
[m−i]

Proposition 4.7. For any integer 0 ≤ i ≤ m, the sequence n1i e(a(v, n)[i] ; m0
)) converges
to a positive real number αi (v).
We have α0 (v) = e(m) and αm (v) = Vol(v). Moreover these numbers satisfy the Teissier
inequalities
αi (v)2 ≤ αi−1 (v) αi+1 (v), i = 1, ..., m − 1 .
(4.6)
[m−i]

Proof. Fix 0 ≤ i ≤ m, and write en := e(a(v, n)[i] ; m0
)). Since a(v, 1)n ⊂ a(v, n), we
have
[m−i]
[m−i]
[m−i]
e(a(v, n)[i] ; m0
)) ≤ e(a(v, 1)n[i] ; m0
)) = ni e(a(v, 1)[i] ; m0
)) ,
It follows that enni ≤ e1 is bounded from above. Pick ε > 0 and choose N such that
≤ lim inf l elil + ε. For any n ≥ N write n = pN + q with p, q ∈ Z+ and 0 ≤ q ≤ N − 1.
Then a(v, n) ⊃ a(v, N )p · a(v, q) ⊃ a(v, N )p+1 hence by monotonicity of mixed multiplicities



eN N i (p + 1)i
el
N (p + 1) i
en
≤ i
≤ lim inf i + ε
.
l
ni
N
ni
l
pN + q
eN
Ni

If p is large enough, then we get enni ≤ (1 − ε)(lim inf l elil + ε) which implies enni → lim inf l elil .
The fact that α0 (v) = e(m0 ) follows from the definition, and the equality αm (v) = Vol(v)
is a theorem proved successively in greater generality in [ELS03, Mus02, LM09, Cut12]. The
inequalities (4.6) follow from the usual Teissier inequalities for mixed multiplicities, see [Laz,
Theorem 1.6.7 (iv)] and ultimately result from the Hodge index theorem.
Since αi (v) is nonnegative, and α0 (v) > 0, the Teissier inequalities imply that αi (v) > 0
for all i.

The invariant α1 (v) is closely related to the optimal Izumi constant. F The linking
number [Huc70, Sam59] of any two rank 1 valuations on OY,0 centered at 0 is defined by
β(v/w) := sup
f ∈m0

v(f )
∈ (0, ∞] .
w(f )

By Izumi’s theorem, this number is finite whenever v and w are both quasimonomial.

IZUMI’S THEOREM

19

Proposition 4.8. Let wi = r1i ordEi be the Rees valuations normalized as in Definition 4.2.
Then there exists integers ai ≥ 1 such that
X ai
α1 (v) =
β(v/wi )−1 .
(4.7)
ri
i

In particular, there exists a constant C > 0 depending only on (Y, 0) but not on v such that

−1
v
−1
C α1 (v) ≤ sup
≤ C α1 (v) .
m0 ord0
Finally, when OY,0 admits a unique Rees valuation, there exists a positive rational number
θ such that

−1
v
α1 (v) = θ sup
d0
m0 ord
for all v; and θ = 1 when 0 is a smooth point.
Remark 4.9. Suppose dim(Y ) = 2 and the point 0 is smooth. Then [FJ04, Remark 3.33],
Propositions 4.7 and 4.8 imply
−1

−1

v
v
, and α2 (v)v(m0 ) = sup
,
α1 (v) = sup
m0 ord0
m0 ord0
It follows that α12 (v) = α0 (v) α2 (v) if and only if supm0 v/ ord0 = v(m0 ). The latter condition
is equivalent to v being proportional to ord0 .
+
Proof. As
Y be the normalized blowup of m0 , write m0 · OY + =
P in §4.1, let ν : Y →
−1
OY + (− i ri Ei ), so that wi = ri ordEi .
Lemma 4.10. [JM10, Lemma 2.4] β(v/w)−1 = limn n1 w(a(v, n)).

By (4.5), we get
m−1

! 
[m−1]

e(a(v, n)[1] ; m0

)=

X
i

ordEi (a(v, n))Ei

· −

X

rj Ej 

j

=

X ai
ri

wi (a(v, n))

P
with ai := Ei · ( j −rj Ej )m−1 . Then (4.7) follows from the previous lemma, by dividing by
n and letting n → ∞.
Pick any rank 1 valuation v on OY,0 centered at 0, and write
v
.
β(v) := sup
m0 ord0
P
We have v ≤ β(v) ord0 ≤ β(v)wi for all i, so that β(v/wi ) ≤ β(v), and α1 (v) ≥ ( arii )β(v)−1 .
P
Conversely, α1 (v) ≤ ( arii )β(v/wi )−1 for some i, whereas β(v/wi ) ≥ C −1 supm0 v/ ord0 =
P
C −1 β(v) by Izumi’s theorem applied to wi . This proves α1 (v) ≤ C( arii )β(v)−1 as required.
Finally if OY,0 has a unique Rees valuation wi , then (4.7) and Theorem 4.3 (i) imply
d0 )−1 . Finally when 0 is a smooth point, it is easy to see that ai =
α1 (v) = arii (supm0 v/ord
ri = 1. This concludes the proof.


20

SÉBASTIEN BOUCKSOM, CHARLES FAVRE, AND MATTIAS JONSSON

Proof of Lemma 4.10. We give a proof for completeness, see [JM10, Lemma 2.4]. Observe
first that since a(v, n) is a graded sequence of ideals, then the limit lim n1 w(a(v, n)) exists
as n → ∞. Denote it by θ. For any n, we have n = v(a(v, n)) ≤ w(a(v, n)) β(v/w) hence
1 ≤ θ β(v/w). Conversely, pick any f ∈ m0 , and let n := v(f ). Then f ∈ a(v, n) and
w(a(v, n)) ≤ w(f ) implies
1
w(a(v, n)) v(f ) ≤ w(f )
n
Replacing f by f l and letting l → ∞ we get v(f ) ≤ θ−1 w(f ) which implies β(v/w) ≤ θ−1 .
This concludes the proof.

4.5. Proof of Corollaries D and E. We start by proving Corollary D. Fix 0 ≤ i ≤ m.
For any v ∈ ∆ we have v ≥ ord0 , so that a(v, n) ⊃ mn0 for any n ≥ 1. This implies that
αi (v) ≤ C

(4.8)

for all v ∈ ∆.
Fix a metric on ∆ compatible with the affine structure. Fix v ∈ ∆ and an integer n ≥ 1.
It follows from Theorem A that the function w 7→ w(a(v, n)) is Lipschitz continuous with
Lipschitz constant at most
A ord0 (a(v, n)) ≤ A v(a(v, n)).
Consider a valuation w ∈ ∆ such that kv − wk <

1
A.

We then have

w(a(v, n)) ≥ v(a(v, n)) − Av(a(v, n))kv − wk
= (1 − Akv − wk)v(a(v, n))
≥ (1 − Akv − wk)n,
so that
a(v, n) ⊂ a(w, n(1 − Akv − wk)).

(4.9)

and by (***)
[m−i]

e(a(v, n)[i] , m0
ni

)

[m−i]

e(a(w, n(1 − Akv − wk))[i] , m0
)
i
n
[m−i]
[i]
)
i e(a(w, n(1 − Akv − wk)) , m0
= (1 − Akv − w|)
.
i
i
n (1 − Akv − wk)

≥

Letting n → ∞ we obtain
αi (v) ≥ (1 − Akv − wk)i αi (w),
so that
αi (w) − αi (v) ≤ (1 − (1 − Akv − wk)i )αi (w)
≤ C(1 − (1 − Akv − wk)i )
≤ iCAkv − wk,
where we have used the inequality 1 − (1 − t)i ≤ it for 0 ≤ t ≤ 1. Exchanging the roles of v
and w we conclude that
|αi (v) − αi (w)| ≤ iCAkv − wk
for all v, w ∈ ∆ such that kv − wk < A1 . This completes the proof of Corollary D.

IZUMI’S THEOREM

21

We now prove Corollary E. Pick four valuations v, v 0 , w, w0 ∈ ∆. As in the proof of
Corollary D we may assume max{kv − wk, kv 0 − w0 k} ≤ A. By (4.9) we get
a(w, n) ⊂ a(v, n(1 − Akv − wk)) and a(w0 , n)) ≤ a(v 0 , n(1 − Akv 0 − w0 k)) .
In particular n ≤ w(a(w, n)) ≤ w(a(v, n(1−Akv−wk))) so that β(v/w)−1 ≥ (1−Akv−wk)−1
by Lemma 4.10. Since
β(v/v 0 ) ≤ β(v/w) β(w/v 0 ) ≤ β(v/w) β(w0 /v 0 ) β(w/w0 ),
we conclude
β(v/v 0 ) ≤ (1 − Akv − wk)(1 − Akv 0 − w0 k) β(w/w0 )
which implies the Lipschitz continuity of (v, v 0 ) 7→ β(v/v 0 ) as above.
4.6. Proof of Theorem A’. We keep the notation from the introduction. Thus we let
(X, Z), ∆, J, σJ , ξJ and (zj )j∈J be as in the discussion before Theorem A’. By Cohen’s
\
Theorem there is an isomorphism O
X,ξJ ' κ[[ξj ]]j∈J , where κ(ξJ ) is the residue field at ξJ .
Fix such an isomorphism. Given f ∈ OY,0 we can then write
X
f=
aβ z β
β∈ZJ
≥0

with aβ ∈ κ(ξJ ). The Newton polydron Nw(f, J) is then defined as


[
Nw(f, J) := Conv 
(β + RJ≥0 ) ⊂ RJ≥0 .
aβ 6=0

Let us give an alternative description of the Newton polyhedron, which shows that it does
not depend on the choice of coordinates zj or the
in Cohen’s theorem.
Pchoice of isomorphism
J
Consider σJ as embedded as the unit simplex in j∈J Rej ' R and let h·, ·i be the standard
scalar product on RJ . We then have
β ∈ Nw(f, J) ⇔ hv, βi ≥ v(f ) for all v ∈ σJ
⇔ hv, −βi ≤ ϕ(v) for all v ∈ σJ
⇔ −β ∈ Nw(ϕ),
where Nw(ϕ) denotes the Newton polyhedron of the piecewise affine convex function ϕ =
log |f | on the simplex σJ , as defined in §2.2.
Fix a norm on RJ . By Theorem A, the Lipschitz constant of ϕ on σ is bounded by
A ord0 (ϕ). If β ∈ RJ is an extremal point of Nw(f, J), then −β is an extremal point of
Nw(ϕ) and we conclude from Proposition 2.3 that kβk ≤ AC ord0 (f ), concluding the proof
of Theorem A’.
4.7. Proof of Corollary C. As in the introduction, we fix an embedding Am ,→ Pm and
call a smooth projective variety X an admissible compactification of Am if X admits a
birational morphism π : X → Pm that is an isomorphism above Am and such that the
divisor Z := π −1 (Pm \ Am ) has simple normal crossing support and that any nonempty
intersection between irreducible components of Z is irreducible. Note that Z then has
connected support as a consequence of Zariski’s Main Theorem. Further, X contains Am as

22

SÉBASTIEN BOUCKSOM, CHARLES FAVRE, AND MATTIAS JONSSON

a Zariski open subset. We view the elements of the dual complex ∆ = ∆(X, Z) as valuations
on k(X) normalized on v(Z) = 1.
Let Ld = π ∗ O(d) for d ≥ 1 and let G be the pullback to X of the zero locus on P
on Pm . Thus Ld = OX (G) = L⊗d
and we have v(G) = v(P ) + d for every v ∈ ∆. In
1
particular, the functions v 7→ v(P ) and v 7→ χG (v) := v(G) on ∆ have the same Lipschitz
constant. Now minv∈∆ v(P ) = −d, with the minimum being obtained at the divisorial
valuation corresponding to the divisor Pm \ Am , so min∆ χG = 0. We therefore get from
Theorem B that the Lipschitz constant of χG is bounded from above by
B max |(G · M n−|J|−1 · EJ )| = B max |(Ld · M n−|J|−1 · EJ )|
J⊂I

J⊂I

= Bd max |(L1 · M n−|J|−1 · EJ )|,
J⊂I

which completes the proof.
References
[BR10]

M. Baker, and R. Rumely. Potential theory and dynamics on the Berkovich projective line. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 159. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2010.
5
[Bed09] C. Beddani. Comparaison des valuations divisorielles. Astérisque 323 (2009), 17–31. 2
[Ber90]
V. Berkovich. Spectral theory and analytic geometry over non-Archimedean fields. Mathematical
Surveys and Monographs, vol. 33, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1990. 5
[BdFF10] S. Boucksom, T. de Fernex and C. Favre, The volume of an isolated singularity. Duke Math. J.
161 (2011), 1455–1520. 4, 5
[BFJ08] S. Boucksom, C. Favre and M. Jonsson. Valuations and plurisubharmonic singularities. Publ. Res.
Inst. Math. Sci. 44 (2008), 449–494. 5
[BFJ09] S. Boucksom, C. Favre and M. Jonsson. Differentiability of volumes of divisors and a problem of
Teissier. J. Algebraic Geom. 18 (2009), no. 2, 279308. 4
[BFJ12a] S. Boucksom, C. Favre and M. Jonsson. Singular semipositive metrics in non-Archimedean geometry. arXiv.org:1201.0187. 5, 8
[BFJ12b] S. Boucksom, C. Favre and M. Jonsson. Solution to a non-Archimedean Monge-Ampère equation.
arXiv.org:1201.0188. 5
[Cut12] S. D. Cutkosky. Multiplicities Associated to Graded Families of Ideals. arXiv.org:1206.4077. 4,
18
[CS93]
S. D. Cutkosky, and V. Srinivas. On a problem of Zariski on dimensions of linear systems. Ann.
of Math. (2) 137 (1993), no. 3, 531559. 4
[ELS03] L. Ein, R. Lazarsfeld, and K. Smith. Uniform approximation of Abhyankar valuation ideals in
smooth function fields. Amer. J. Math. 125 (2003), no. 2, 409–440. 2, 4, 18
[Fav99]
C. Favre. Note on pull-back and Lelong number of currents. Bull. Soc. Math. France 127 (1999),
no. 3, 445–458. 2
[FJ04]
C. Favre and M. Jonsson. The valuative tree. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1853, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 2004. 2, 5, 19
[FJ07]
C. Favre and M. Jonsson. Eigenvaluations. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. 40 (2007), 309–349.
[FJ11]
C. Favre and M. Jonsson. Dynamical compactifications of C2 . Ann. of Math. 173 (2011), 211–249.
3
[FR10]
C. Favre and J. Rivera-Letelier. Théorie ergodique des fractions rationnelles sur un corps ultramétrique. Proc. London Math. Soc. 100 (2010), 116–154. 5
[Fu12]
M. Fulger. Local volumes on normal algebraic varieties. arXiv.org:1105.2981. 4
[Hir64]
H. Hironaka. Resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero.
I, II. Ann. Math. 79 (1964), 109–203; ibid. 205–326. 2, 16
[HS01]
R. Hübl and I. Swanson. Discrete valuations centered on local domains. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 161
(2001), 145–166. 2

IZUMI’S THEOREM

[Huc70]
[Hun92]
[HS]
[Izu81]
[Izu85]
[Jon12]
[JM10]
[KKMS]
[Kur03]
[Laz]

[LM09]
[LT08]
[Mog11]
[Mus02]
[Ree88]
[Ree89]
[Ron06]
[Sam52]
[Sam59]
[Swa11]
[Tei72]
[Thu05]

[Tou72]

23

J. Huckaba. Some results on pseudo valuations. Duke Math. J. 37 (1970), 19. 5, 18
C. Huneke. Uniform bounds in noetherian rings. Invent. Math. 107 (1992), 203–223. 15
C. Huneke and I. Swanson. Integral closure of ideals in rings and modules. London Mathematics
Society Lecture Note Series, 336. Cambridge University Presss. Cambridge, 2006. 15, 16
S. Izumi. Linear complementary inequalities for orders of germs of analytic functions. Invent.
Math. 65 (1981/82), no. 3, 459–471. 2
S. Izumi. A measure of integrity for local analytic algebras. Publ. RIMS Kyoto Univ. 21 (1985),
719–735. 2
M. Jonsson. Dynamics on Berkovich spaces in low dimensions. arXiv:1201.1944. 3, 5
M. Jonsson and M. Mustaţă. Valuations and asymptotic invariants for sequences of ideals.
arXiv:1011.3967. To appear in Ann. Inst. Fourier. 2, 6, 7, 19, 20
G. Kempf, F. Knudsen, D. Mumford and B. Saint-Donat. Toroidal embeddings. I. Lecture Notes
in Mathematics, Vol. 339. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1973. 5, 7, 11
A. Küronya. A divisorial valuation with irrational volume. J. Algebra 262 (2003), 413–423. 4
R. Lazarsfeld. Positivity in algebraic geometry. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete.
3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics, 49. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004. 4, 16, 17,
18
R. Lazarsfeld and M. Mustaţă. Convex bodies associated to linear series. Ann. Sci. École Norm.
Sup. (4) 42 (2009), 783–835. 4, 18
M. Lejeune-Jalabert, B. Teissier. Clôture intégrale des idéaux et équisingularité. With an appendix
by Jean-Jacques Risler. Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (6) 17 (2008), no. 4, 781–859. 15, 16
M. Moghaddam. On Izumi’s theorem on comparison of valuations. Kodai Math. J. 34 (2011),
16–30. 2
M. Mustaţă. On multiplicities of graded sequences of ideals. J. Algebra 256 (2002), 229–249. 18
D. Rees. Lectures on the asymptotic theory of ideals. London Mathematics Society Lecture Note
Series, 113. Cambridge University Presss. Cambridge, 1988. 15, 16
D. Rees. Izumi’s theorem. In Commutative algebra (Berkeley, CA, 1987), 407–416. Math. Sci. Res.
Inst. Publ., 15. Springer, New York 1989. 2
G. Rond. Lemme d’Artin-Rees, théorème d’Izumi et fonction de Artin. J. Algebra 299 (2006),
245–275. 2
P. Samuel. Some asymptotic properties of powers of ideals. Ann. of Math. 56 (1952), 11–21. 15
P. Samuel. Multiplicités de certaines composantes singulières. Illinois J. Math. 3 (1959), 319327.
5, 18
I. Swanson. Rees valuations. In Commutative algebra—Noetherian and non-Noetherian perspectives, 421–440. Springer, New York 2011. 15
B. Teissier. Cycles évanescents, sections planes et conditions de Whitney. Singularités à Cargèse,
1972. Astèrisque 7-8 (1973), 285-362. 4, 17
A. Thuillier. Théorie du potentiel sur les courbes en géométrie analytique non archimédienne.
Applications à la théorie d’Arakelov. Phd of the University of Rennes 1 (2005), viii + 184 p.
http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/04/87/50/PDF/tel-00010990.pdf 5
J.-C. Tougeron. Idéaux de fonctions différentiables. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 71. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1972. 2

CNRS-Université Paris 6, Institut de Mathématiques, F-75251 Paris Cedex 05, France
E-mail address: boucksom@math.jussieu.fr
CNRS-CMLS, École Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau Cedex France
E-mail address: favre@math.polytechnique.fr
Dept of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043, USA
E-mail address: mattiasj@umich.edu

