\section{Introduction}

The Yau--Tian--Donaldson conjecture states that the existence of a K\"ahler--Einstein metric on a Fano manifold $X$ should be equivalent to the purely algebro-geometric notion of \emph{K-stability} of $(X,-K_X)$ \cite{STY,GT,SD1}, where $X$ being Fano means that the anticanonical class $-K_X$ is ample. There are, by now, many different proofs of this conjecture \cite{datszek,CSW,KZ,bbj,chiliguniform}, following the initial work of Chen--Donaldson--Sun \cite{CDS} (who proved K-stability implies existence) and Tian and Berman (who proved existence implies K-stablity) \cite{GT, bermankpoly}. The notion of K-stability involves associating a numerical invariant---called the \emph{Donaldson--Futaki invariant}---to certain algebro-geometric degenerations of $(X,-K_X)$ called \emph{test configurations}; K-stability asks that the Donaldson-Futaki invariant is always positive.

The alternative proof that we advertise, which applies when $\Aut(X)$ is discrete and proves a slightly weaker statement, is due to Berman--Boucksom--Jonsson and roughly goes as follows \cite{bbj}. Firstly, the existence of a K\"ahler--Einstein metric is equivalent to coercivity of the \emph{Ding functional} \cite{bob, bbgz}, a functional on the space of K\"ahler metrics lying in $c_1(X)=c_1(-K_X)$. Assuming the Ding functional is not coercive, they produce a (weak) ``destabilising'' geodesic ray in the space of K\"ahler metrics and approximate it by geodesic rays arising from test configurations. Rather than K-stability, the key algebraic input is instead the notion of \emph{uniform Ding stability}. Important work of Berman explains that, given a test configuration, the slope of the Ding functional along an associated geodesic is the \emph{Ding invariant} of a test configuration  \cite{bermankpoly}, which has well-behaved enough approximation properties to  construct a destabilising test configuration from the destabilising geodesic.  Finally, input from birational geometry shows that uniform Ding stability is actually equivalent to uniform K-stability. We emphasise that it is really uniform Ding stability that plays the crucial role in their proof, and part of the reason for this is that Ding stability is more suited than K-stability to situations in which less regularity is available.

The goal of this paper is develop a theory of Ding stability when $-K_X$ is \emph{big} rather than \emph{ample}, and to relate Ding stability to the existence of K\"ahler--Einstein metrics in this generality. The condition that a line bundle $L$ on $X$ be big asks that the volume $$\vol(L) = \lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{\dim H^0(X,kL)}{k^n/n!}$$ is strictly positive; this concept plays a crucial role in many different aspects of modern algebraic geometry. We highlight two such instances: the first is that the condition that $K_X$ be big means that is $X$ is of \emph{general type}, and these are the primary setting of birational geometry \cite{BCHM}. The second is recent work of Li \cite{CL}, who explains how to use big line bundles to study the existence of constant scalar curvature K\"ahler metrics in the first Chern class of an ample line bundle $L$---here big line bundles are extremely useful even for applications to the ample setting.

The study of K\"ahler--Einstein metrics in the big setting began with early work of Tsuji \cite{tsuji}, and on manifolds with $K_X$ big a complete theory now exists, especially due to work of Eyssidieux--Guedj--Zeriahi \cite{EGZ} (see also \cite{begz, bbgz}). The ``opposite'' situation, namely when $-K_X$ is big, is the one of interest to us, and its connection with the Yau-Tian-Donaldson conjecture seems to have not been considered before. As in the Fano setting with $-K_X$ ample, such metrics cannot exist in general, and one expects that their existence should be intimately related with algebro-geometric stability. Our main result confirms this:

\begin{theorem}\label{intromainthm} Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety with $-K_X$ big and klt.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If $X$ admits a K\"ahler--Einstein metric, then it is  Ding semistable.
\item If $X$ admits a unique K\"ahler--Einstein metric, then it is uniformly Ding stable.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

We expect that uniqueness of K\"ahler--Einstein metrics happens precisely when $\Aut(X)$ is discrete. In particular, our result proves one direction of the Yau--Tian--Donaldson in this setting.

Technically, the main difficulty with K\"ahler geometry in big classes is that the most natural metrics are actually \emph{singular}, and hence one must employ the tools of pluripotential theory. The least singular metrics are those with \emph{minimal singularities}, and  even defining K\"ahler--Einstein condition in this setting requires some care: we must assume that metrics with minimal singularities are \textit{klt}, i.e. that their multiplier ideal sheaf is trivial. This condition can be formulated purely algebraically in our setting, by asking for the multiplier ideal sheaf of the augmented base locus of $-K_X$ to be trivial, in which case we say that $-K_X$ (or more accurately $\|-K_X\|$) is \textit{klt}. Thus a first step towards Theorem \ref{intromainthm} is to develop the foundations of the theory of K\"ahler--Einstein metrics and the Ding functional in the big and klt setting. Our setting is morally related to recent work of Trusiani \cite{AT}, who develops a theory of K\"ahler--Einstein metrics with \emph{prescribed singularities}; Trusiani assumes $-K_X$ ample, but fixes the singularity type of the metrics of interest. By adapting his ideas, using foundational pluripotential-theoretic work of Darvas--di Nezza--Lu \cite{ddnlmetric, ddnlfullmass} and a key convexity result of Berndtsson--P\u{a}un \cite{bpaun}, we prove the following:

\begin{theorem}\label{introanalytichm} Let $X$ be a  smooth projective variety with $-K_X$ big and klt.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If $X$ admits a K\"ahler--Einstein metric, then  the Ding functional is bounded below.
\item If $X$ admits a unique K\"ahler--Einstein metric, then the Ding functional is coercive.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

The technical core of the paper is then to relate coercivity of the Ding functional to uniform Ding stability. To explain this, we first briefly explain our notion of a test configuration, which makes sense for a general big line bundle $L$ on $X$ (which in applications to the existence of K\"ahler--Einstein metrics will be taken to be $-K_X$. 

In the ample case, the definition of a test configuration involves a $\mathbb{C}^*$-degeneration $\mathcal{X}\to \mathbb{P}^1$, where  in particular all non-zero fibres are isomorphic to $X$, and a $\mathbb{Q}$-line bundle $\L$ over $\mathcal{X}$, with $(\cX,\cL)$ restricting to $(X,L)$ on the general fibre; $\cL$ can be taken to be ample \cite{SD1}.  Our definition of a test configuration in the big setting hence requires a \emph{positivity condition} on the total space, namely that the line bundle be \emph{globally big}. A distinguished feature of our approach is that we allow test configurations for certain\textit{ birational models} of $(X,L)$, rather than only for $(X,L)$ itself (as is explained in more detail below). Thus  Ding stability condition is naturally a property of the \emph{birational equivalence class} of $(X,-K_X)$; this is conceptually important for applications to algebraic geometry. Furthermore, because of this, Theorem \ref{introanalytichm} provides new obstructions to the existence of K\"ahler--Einstein metrics even when $-K_X$ is ample.


Relative to a fixed smooth reference form $\theta \in c_1(X)$, the  Ding functional is a difference of two components: the first is the \emph{Monge--Amp\`ere energy}, sending a psh function $\phi \to E(\phi)$; this functional appears in  many different aspects of K\"ahler geometry. The second, $\phi \to L(\phi)$, is more specific to the K\"ahler--Einstein problem. Similarly our Ding invariant is a difference of two terms, the first being the \emph{volume} of $\L$---which appears in many different aspects of algebraic geometry---while the second is again more specific to the fact that $-K_X$ is big. 

Our slope formulas---which are the key to proving Theorem \ref{intromainthm} from Theorem \ref{introanalytichm}---begin by proving a slope formula for the Monge--Amp\`ere energy for paths of singular metrics; for rays of metrics associated to test configurations, we show that the slope of the Monge--Amp\`ere energy is the \emph{volume} of $\L$. In fact our results apply for a much more general class of energy functionals, which we call \emph{positive Deligne functionals}, with our slope formulas then involving the \emph{positive intersection product} of Boucksom--Favre--Jonsson when the subgeodesic has minimal singularities \cite{bfjteissier}. Allowing general singularity types, the algebro-geometric slope formula uses recent work of Darvas--Xia and Xia giving an algebraic interpretation of mixed Monge--Amp\`ere masses \cite{darvas-xia-psef, xia-okounkov} (see also Trusiani \cite[Section 3]{AT}, who independently introduced the singularity classes relevant to these results). These sorts of slope formulae in the theory of Deligne pairings---which go back to work of Phong--Ross--Sturm in the ample setting \cite{PRS}---also play a crucial role in the general Yau--Tian--Donaldson conjecture addressing the existence of constant scalar curvature K\"ahler metrics in ample classes \cite{BHJ2}.

The slope formula we prove for the remaining component $L(\phi)$ of the Ding functional generalises a key result  of Berman in the case $-K_X$ is ample \cite{bermankpoly}. Our generalised version crucially involves a measure of the \emph{singularities} of the metric on the total space (not appearing in the work of Berman).  The most important situation is when the metric on the total space itself has minimal singularities, meaning that that the slope formula involves algebro-geometric invariants of the asymptotic linear system $\|\L\|$, though in fact we again prove our slope formula for very general classes of singularities.

A distinguished class of test configurations consists of those which we call \emph{big and klt}; for these the singularities of the asymptotic linear system  $\|\L\|$ can be read off from that of $\|L\|$; loosely these should play a similar  role to \emph{special degenerations} in the theory of Ding stability of Fano varieties. In particular---for this class---the Ding invariant thus defined has many good properties such as being \emph{translation invariant}, which means that it is unchanged under addition of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(k)$. Furthermore, for this class of test configurations the notion of Ding stability shares many of the properties of Ding stability of a pair, namely when a divisor $D \subset X$ is included in the setup.

\subsection*{Outlook} While the notion of Ding stability is central in the theory of K\"ahler--Einstein metrics on Fano manifolds, the notion of K-stability also plays an important role, not least because it makes sense for a general \emph{polarised variety} $(X,L)$, in the sense that $L$ is an ample line bundle on $X$. In Section \ref{sec:dingstability} (especially Remark \ref{rmk:kstab}) we mention that there is also a natural notion of \emph{uniform K-stability} for a pair $(X,L)$ with $L$ assumed to be \emph{big}. While this notion plays no role in the present work, we expect that it will do so in the future and we plan to return to this in a sequel.

As mentioned, Trusiani has developed a very complete analytic theory of K\"ahler--Einstein metrics with prescribed singularities on Fano manifolds \cite{AT}. He proves also a converse to his analogue of Theorem \ref{introanalytichm}, including uniqueness of K\"ahler--Einstein metrics with prescribed singularities up to automorphisms, by adapting Berndtsson's proof of strict convexity of the Ding functional \cite{bob}. The main technical advantage over our setting is that since he assumes $-K_X$ is ample, one can take well-behaved approximations of  singular metrics by smooth ones; this is impossible in our situation. Especially given he proves the \emph{equivalence} of coercivity of the Ding functional and existence of K\"ahler--Einstein metrics, it would be very interesting to adapt our ideas to his setting. Trusiani informs us that in forthcoming work he develops notions of K-stability and Ding stability in the prescribed singularity setting (with $-K_X$ ample), and connects them to the existence of K\"ahler--Einstein metrics with prescribed singularities; his definitions use intersection theory on the Riemann--Zariski space. We thank him for his comments and for his interest.

\subsection*{A converse and the relation with the work of Darvas--Zhang} As this work was nearing completion, we learned of independent work of Darvas--Zhang \cite{darvaszhang}, whose motivation is very similar to our own but whose techniques and directions are quite different. Rather than developing a theory of test configurations and associated Ding invariants, they develop a theory of \emph{delta invariants} in the big setting (involving divisorial valuations on $X$), and in particular show that if $-K_X$ is big and such that their delta-invariant associated to $-K_X$ is strictly larger than $1$, then $X$ admits a K\"ahler--Einstein metric, thus their main result is in the \emph{opposite} direction to our Theorem \ref{intromainthm}. We note that they give an explicit example of a Kähler-Einstein manifold with big anticanonical bundle which admits a K\"ahler--Einstein metric (\cite{darvaszhang}, after Corollary 1.3). It would be very interesting to relate their delta invariant to our notion of Ding stability; in the Fano case, this is a consequence of important work of Fujita \cite{fujita}, Li \cite{CL-duke}, Fujita--Odaka \cite{FO} and Blum--Jonsson \cite{blum-jonsson}. In particular we expect that uniform Ding stability is actually \emph{equivalent} to the condition that the delta-invariant is strictly larger than $1$. We also note that there is overlap in our analytic results proving Theorem \ref{introanalytichm} and the work of Darvas--Zhang. 

Hence either by passing through the work of Darvas--Zhang or through other natural approaches (and beyond relating uniform Ding stability to the delta invariant), what seems most important to complete the proof of the Yau--Tian--Donaldson conjecture in the big setting is to establish the \emph{strict convexity} of the Ding functional when $\Aut(X)$ is discrete, extending Berndtsson's work in the ample setting \cite{bob}. 

\subsection*{Moduli} Ding stability and K-stability have achieved their prominence for two reasons: the first is their relationship with the existence of K\"ahler--Einstein metrics and constant scalar curvature metrics, while the second is their relationship with the construction of \emph{moduli spaces of projective varieties}. For the latter we refer to \cite{xu-survey} for a survey. It is thus natural to ask the relevance of  Ding stability and K-stability for big classes to moduli theory. We speculate slightly imprecisely, and slightly optimistically, in this direction.

Our first remark is that the notions of K-stability and Ding stability should really be thought of as properties of equivalence classes of projective varieties along with a line bundle under the equivalence relation generated by \emph{birational equivalence}: we say that $(X_1,L_1) \sim (X_2,L_2)$ if there exists a $(Y,L_Y)$ with contractions $\pi_1: Y \to X_1$ and $\pi_2: Y \to X_2$ such that $$\pi_{1*}L_Y = L_1 \textrm{ and } \pi_{2*}L_Y = L_2$$ and the volume remains fixed, in the sense that $$\vol(L_1) = \vol(L_2) = \vol(L_Y).$$ Analytically, this equivalence relation is motivated by the fact that the space of finite energy metrics in $c_1(L_1)$ is naturally identified with that of $c_1(L_2)$, through each being identified with that of $c_1(L_Y)$ \cite{DNFT}. Algebraically, the condition is very natural from the perspective of birational geometry, as we now explain.

Recall that when $K_X$ is big, $X$ is said to be of \emph{general type}. Supposing $\pi: Y \to X$ is a birational morphism, we can write $$K_Y = \pi^*K_X + \sum a_i E_i,$$ and the condition $\pi_*K_Y = K_X$ asks that $a_i\geq 0$; this holds provided $X$ has \emph{canonical singularities} (in particular it is automatic when $X$ is smooth). The volume condition then holds through the resulting  identification $$H^0(Y,kK_Y) \cong H^0(X,kK_X).$$ Thus we have $$(X,K_X) \sim (Y,K_Y)$$ provided $X$ and $Y$ are birational and have canonical singularities. As one of the main results of the minimal model programme, each such equivalence class contains a unique representative $(X_{\can},K_{X_{\can}})$ with $K_{X_{\can}}$ ample \cite{BCHM}; this is called the \emph{canonical model} of $(X,K_X)$, it has canonical singularities in general. A fundamental result of Essydieux--Guedj--Zeriahi produces a K\"ahler--Einstein metric in $c_1(K_{X_{\can}})$ \cite{EGZ}, which induces a singular K\"ahler--Einstein metric in $c_1(K_X)$ for $X\sim X_{\can}$ (the nonsingular case following from the fundamental work of Aubin and Yau \cite{aubinyauaubin, aubinyauyau}). Furthermore, as one of the main applications of the minimal model programme, there is a projective, separated moduli space of varieties with ample canonical class and fixed volume \cite{JK}. To be more precise one must carefully define the notion of a family and the class of singularities of $X$ allowed. But what we note here is that---assuming the right notion of a family---this produces a moduli space of equivalence classes of varieties $(X,L)$ containing a representative with $K_X$ big.

Thus it is reasonable to ask whether there exists a moduli space of birational equivalence classes of K-stable varieties $(X,L)$ with $L$ big, which seems most tractable in the situation $L=-K_X$. In particular:

\begin{conjecture}\label{intro-con}
There is a projective, separated moduli space of birational equivalence classes of uniformly K-stable (or uniformly Ding stable) varieties $(X,L)$ such that each equivalence class contains a member with $L=-K_X$ big.
\end{conjecture}

We should say immediately that the conjecture is particularly speculative, with some aspects being more realistic than others. The problem is not even well-formed as it stands, as we have not defined what it means to have a family of such varieties (which likely requires the asymptotic base locus to vary in a flat manner, or at least various associated multiplier ideal sheaves). Similarly projectivity---or more precisely \emph{properness}---is particularly subtle, not least as the anticanonical ring $$\oplus_{k \geq 0} H^0(X,-kK_X)$$ of a variety with $-K_X$ big is not finitely generated in general \cite{FS}. K-semistable Fano varieties often have better properties than arbitrary Fano varieties, and (without any evidence), we ask: does a  \emph{Ding semistable} (or \emph{K-semistable}) variety $(X,-K_X)$ with $-K_X$ big have finitely generated anticanonical ring? Although this in itself is likely too optimistic, we hope that Conjecture \ref{intro-con} (which is unreliant on this)  serves as a guide to the relevance of our work to algebraic geometry. 



We end by noting that there is a variant of this notion of birational equivalence for projective varieties endowed with big line bundles, which we explain in Remark \ref{KKL}, and which we call \emph{strong birational equivalence}. This seems equally natural from the perspective of birational geometry, and is closely motivated by work of Kaloghiros--Kuronya-Lazi\'c \cite{KKL}; it is, however, not precisely the correct notion to relate metrics on $L_1$ and $L_2$.



\subsection*{Acknowledgements} We thank S\'ebastien Boucksom, Eveline Legendre and Calum Spicer for helpful discussions. In addition we are very grateful to T\'amas Darvas and Kewei Zhang for sharing their work \cite{darvaszhang} with us and Antonio Trusiani for informing us of his forthcoming work. RD was funded by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship, while R\'emi Reboulet was funded by a postdoctoral fellowship associated to the aforementioned Royal Society University Research Fellowship.






\section{Positive Deligne pairings and finite-energy spaces}

There are three goals to the current section. Firstly, we recall some foundational aspects  of pluripotential theory and K\"ahler geometry in big cohomology classes (for which a standard reference is \cite{JPD}). Secondly, we explain how resulting analytic volumes---integrals of \emph{Monge--Amp\`ere masses}---compare to corresponding algebraic invariants. The only truly new material is the third goal, which extends the theory of \emph{Deligne metrics} and {Deligne pairings} to the setting of big classes. 

Throughout this section, we will denote by $(X,\omega)$ a projective K\"ahler manifold of dimension $n$, and we will \emph{not} assume any sort of positivity of its anticanonical class $-K_X$. We will use additive notation for tensor products of line bundles on $X$, i.e. if $L$, $L'$ are two such line bundles, then $kL-L'$ denotes the tensor product $L^{\otimes k}\otimes (L')^{-1}$.

\subsection{Preliminaries} 

We recall that a cohomology class $\alpha\in H^{1,1}(X,\bbr)$ is said to be \textit{pseudoeffective} (or \textit{psef}) if it contains a positive closed $(1,1)$-current, and \textit{big} if it contains a closed $(1,1)$-current $\theta\geq \varepsilon \omega$ for some $\varepsilon>0$. If $\alpha=c_1(L)$ for some $\bbq$-line bundle $L$ on $X$, then the bigness condition for $\alpha$ is equivalent to maximal growth of sections of powers of $L$, i.e. if $m$ is such that $mL$ is a line bundle, then $L$ is big if and only if its \textit{volume}
$$\vol(L):=\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{n!\dim H^0(X,kmL)}{(km)^n}$$
is strictly positive.

\bigskip If $\alpha$ is a pseudoeffective class represented by a positive current $\theta$, any other closed positive $(1,1)$-current in $\alpha$ can be written as $\theta+dd^c\phi$ for some unique usc function $\phi:X\to\bbr\cup\{-\infty\}$. We define the set $\PSH(X,\theta)$ of \textit{$\theta$-plurisubharmonic functions} (or \textit{$\theta$-psh} functions) to be the set of usc functions $\phi$ such that $\theta+dd^c\phi$ is a closed positive $(1,1)$-current. If $[\theta]=c_1(L)$ for some $\bbq$-line bundle $L$, psh functions can be identified with potentials of positive metrics on $L$, and we will often use the same terminology for, interchangeably, $\theta$-psh functions, currents in the class of $\theta$, or metrics on $L$.

\bsni The class $\PSH(X,\theta)$ has the property of being closed under finite maxima, convex combinations, and decreasing limits; furthermore, the usc regularisation of a family of $\theta$-psh functions is always $\theta$-psh. Thus one can always define the function
$$V_\theta:=\mathrm{usc}\sup\{0\geq \phi\in\PSH(X,\theta)\}\in\PSH(X,\theta),$$
which is in a sense the \textit{least singular} $\theta$-psh function. Any other $\theta$-psh function $\phi$ with $|\phi-V_\theta|<C$ for some $C\geq 0$ is said to have \textit{minimal singularities}. Equivalently, $\phi\in\PSH(X,\theta)$ has minimal singularities if and only if, for any $\psi\in\PSH(X,\theta)$, there exists $C\geq 0$ such that $\phi\geq\psi-C$. We write $\PSH_\mathrm{min}(X,\theta)$ the set of $\theta$-psh functions with minimal singularities, and $\PSH_{\mathrm{min},0}(X,\theta)$ the set of $\theta$-psh functions with minimal singularities and bounded above by $0$ (equivalently, smaller than $V_\theta$). If $T=\theta+dd^c\phi$ for some $\theta$-psh function $\phi$ with minimal singularities, we will say that it is a \textit{current with minimal singularities}, and will often use the notation $T_{\mathrm{min}}$. (Similarly, in the line bundle case, we will speak of \textit{metrics with minimal singularities}.)

\bigskip In the mathematical literature, there are two important generalisations of the intersection product of nef line bundles to the big case. In \cite{begz}, generalising the fundamental work of Bedford-Taylor \cite{bedfordtaylor}, the authors define the \textit{non-pluripolar product} of $n$ closed positive $(1,1)$-currents $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_n$
$$\langle \theta_1\wedge\ldots\wedge\theta_n\rangle$$
as a closed positive $(n,n)$-current on $X$, which puts no mass on pluripolar subsets of $X$ (i.e. singularity loci of psh functions on $X$). In particular, if for all $i$, $[\theta_i]=c_1(L_i)$ for some big $\bbq$-line bundle $L$ on $X$, then one can define their (analytic) positive intersection product
$$\langle L_1,\ldots, L_n\rangle_{\mathrm{an}}:=[\langle T_{1,\mathrm{min}}\wedge\ldots\wedge T_{n,\mathrm{min}}\rangle]\in H^{n,n}(X,\bbr),$$
where each $T_{i,\mathrm{min}}$ is a current with minimal singularities in $c_1(L_i)$. It is shown in \cite{begz} that this product is independent of the choice of such currents with minimal singularities, and that it recovers the usual intersection product $(L_1\cdot\dots\cdot L_n)$ if all the $L_i$ are nef.

\bsni On the other hand, one can define an \textit{algebraic} positive intersection product as in \cite{bfjteissier}, where $\langle L_1,\dots,L_n\rangle_{\mathrm{alg}}\in N^n(X)$ is identified with the least upper bound of the set of intersection numbers of the form
$$((\pi^*L_1-D_1)\cdot\ldots\cdot(\pi^*L_n-D_n))$$
where $\pi:X'\to X$ is some composition of blow-ups of $X$, and each $D_i$ is an effective $\bbq$-Cartier divisor on $X'$ such that $\pi^*L_i-D_i$ is nef. As explained in \cite[Remark 3.2]{xiaoconvex}, if $X$ is smooth projective, then
\begin{equation}
\langle L_1,\dots,L_n\rangle_{\mathrm{alg}}=\langle L_1,\dots,L_n\rangle_{\mathrm{an}},
\end{equation}
and we just write $\langle L_1,\dots,L_n\rangle$. Note in particular (\cite{bouvolume}) that we have
$$\vol(L)=\langle L^n\rangle.$$
If $\theta$ is a fixed closed positive $(1,1)$-current, and $\phi\in\PSH(X,\theta)$, we will write
$$\MA_\theta\langle \phi\rangle:=\langle (\theta+dd^c\phi)\wedge\ldots\wedge(\theta+dd^c\phi)\rangle,$$
which we call the \textit{Monge-Ampère operator}.

\bigskip Lastly, we state an important property of non-pluripolar products: they satisfy the following \textit{integration by parts formula} (\cite[Theorem 1.14]{begz}, see also \cite{xiaibp}, \cite{luibp}):
\begin{proposition}Let $\theta_0,\dots,\theta_n$ be closed positive $(1,1)$-currents on $X$ and $\phi_i,\psi_i$, $i=0,1$ be $\theta_i$-psh functions with $|\phi_i-\psi_i|<C$ for some $C\geq 0$. Then,
\begin{equation}
\int_X (\phi_1-\psi_1) dd^c(\phi_0-\psi_0)\wedge \theta_2\wedge\ldots\wedge \theta_n=\int_X (\phi_0-\psi_0) dd^c(\phi_1-\psi_1)\wedge \theta_2\wedge\ldots\wedge \theta_n,
\end{equation}
where $dd^c$ of bounded functions is understood in the sense of Bedford-Taylor.
\end{proposition}

We briefly note that we will occasionally work over normal (or even unibranch, in the sense of \cite[Chap. 0, 23.2.1]{egaiv}) analytic spaces rather than complex manifolds, in which case a general reference is \cite{xiamabuchi}. In particular, the integration by parts formula still holds by virtue of \cite[Theorem 3.33]{xiamabuchi}.

\subsection{More general volumes}
For a metric $T_{min} = \theta + dd^c \phi \in c_1(L)$ with minimal singularities, the two equivalent quantities $$\int_X \MA_\theta\langle \phi\rangle = \lim_{k\to \infty} \frac{\dim H^0(X,kL)}{k^n}$$ can be used to define the volume of $L$. For a more general singular metric $\theta_{\psi} = \theta+dd^c \psi$, the algebro-geometric analogue of the volume is constructed as follows. 

We first assume that $\psi$ has \emph{analytic singularities}, in the sense that locally around any point there exist holomorphic functions $f_j$ such that the function $$\psi - \log \left(\sum^m_{j=1} |f_j|^2\right)$$ is locally bounded. Denote by $\mathcal{J}(c\phi)$ the \emph{multiplier ideal sheaf} of $c\psi$ for $c \in \mathbb{R} \geq 0$, namely $$\mathcal{J}(\phi)(U) = \{ f \in \mathcal{O}_X(U): |f|^2 e^{-c\psi} \in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\},$$ which is a coherent ideal sheaf by Nadel. 

\begin{theorem}[Bonavero]\cite{bonavero} The Monge--Amp\`ere mass of $\theta_{\psi}$ is given by $$\int_{X} \MA_\theta\langle \psi\rangle   = \lim_{k\to \infty} \frac{\dim H^0(X,L^k \otimes \mathcal{J}(k\psi))}{k^n}.$$\end{theorem}

To view the multiplier ideal sheaves appearing in this statement more algebraically, for an ideal sheaf $\mathfrak{a}$ one takes a resolution of $\pi: Y \to (X,\mathfrak{a})$ so that $\pi^{-1}(\mathfrak{a})= \mathcal{O}_Y(-F)$ for $F$ a divisor on $Y$ and sets $$\mathcal{J}(c\mathfrak{a}) = \pi_*\mathcal{O}_Y(K_Y - \pi^*K_X - \lfloor cF\rfloor),$$ where $\lfloor cF\rfloor$ is the integral part (or round-down) of $cF$; multplier ideal sheaves can also be defined via valuations, and we will take this perspective in Section \ref{sec:dingstability}.

 If $L$ is a big $\bbq$-line bundle, recall that we define the \textit{stable base locus} of $L$ as
$$\mathrm{Bs}(\|L\|):=\bigcap_{m} \mathrm{Bs}(|mL]),$$
where the intersection is taken over all integers $m$ such that $mL$ is a line bundle, and $\mathrm{Bs}(|mL])$ is the set of basepoints of the linear system $|mL|$. We recall in addition the \textit{augmented base locus} of $L$ is defined as
$$\mathrm{Bs}_+(\|L\|):=\bigcap_{m\in\mathbb{N}}\mathrm{Bs}(\|mL-A\|),$$ where $A$ is any ample line bundle. Both $\mathrm{Bs}(\|L\|)$ and $\mathrm{Bs}_+(\|L\|)$ can be given scheme structures, and we sometimes consider them equivalently as defining ideal sheaves.

\begin{theorem}\cite[Section 1.6.1]{guanzhou}\label{gz-openness} Let $\theta_{\phi} \in c_1(L)$ have minimal singularities. Then for all $c \geq 0$ we have an equality of multiplier ideal sheaves $$\mathcal{J}(c\phi) = \mathcal{J}(c\mathrm{Bs}(\|L\|)) = \mathcal{J}(c\mathrm{Bs}_+(\|L\|)).$$

 \end{theorem}


Bonavero's result is then complemented by the isomorphism for all $k \geq 0$ $$H^0(X,kL\otimes \mathcal{J}(\mathrm{Bs}(|k L|)) \to H^0(X,kL),$$ explaining the non-appearance of multiplier ideal sheaves in the two definitions of volume of a line bundle.

We now consider the case of a general singular $\theta$-psh function ${\psi}$, no longer assumed to have analytic singularities, in which the theory is due to Trusiani \cite{AT} and Darvas--Xia \cite{darvas-xia-psef}. In particular, the line bundle $L$ is assumed to be pseudoeffective. Here the integral of the Monge--Amp\'ere measure is no longer the appropriate quantity to link with algebro-geometric volume invariants, and instead we consider the $\mathcal{J}$\emph{-model envelope} $$P_{\mathcal{J}}(\psi) = \sup \{\psi' \in \PSH(\theta): \psi' \leq 0 \textrm{ and } \mathcal{J}(c\psi) = \mathcal{J}(c\psi') \textrm{ for all } c \geq 0\},$$ which is a $\theta$-psh function. 

\begin{definition} We say that $\psi$ is $\mathcal{J}$\emph{-model} if $P_{\mathcal{J}}(\psi) = \psi$. \end{definition}

By Darvas--Xia \cite[Theorem 1.4]{darvas-xia-closure} and Trusiani \cite{trusiani3}, the volume bound $$\int_X\MA_\theta  \langle \theta_{\psi} \rangle \leq \int_X \MA_\theta\langle \theta_{P_{\mathcal{J}}(\psi)}\rangle$$ holds, but inequality is possible \cite[Example 2.19]{darvas-xia-closure}.

\begin{theorem}[Darvas--Xia]\label{DX-volume}\cite[Theorem 1.1]{darvas-xia-psef}  The Monge--Amp\`ere mass of $\theta_{P_{\mathcal{J}}(\psi)}$ is given by $$\int_X  \MA_\theta\langle P_{\mathcal{J}}(\psi)\rangle = \lim_{k\to \infty} \frac{\dim H^0(X,kL \otimes \mathcal{J}(k\psi))}{k^n}.$$\end{theorem}


\subsection{Mixed volumes and intersection theory on the Riemann--Zariski space}\label{sect_23}

While Theorem \ref{DX-volume} provides an interpretation of the Monge--Amp\`ere mass of a $\mathcal{J}$-model psh metric, we will also be interested in more general mixed Monge--Amp\`ere measures. Here instead the interpretation we give is as an intersection number over the \emph{Riemann--Zariski space} \cite{bfjteissier}. Our discussion will follow work of Xia quite closely \cite[Theorem 5.2]{xia-pp}, who proved the corresponding interpretation for a Monge--Amp\`ere mass of a single $\mathcal{J}$-model psh metric, and so our discussion is brief. A technical point requires that the $\mathcal{J}$-model psh metrics we consider each be big, however we expect this assumption can be removed (see Remark \ref{rmk:removal}). 

We emphasise that the results proven in the current section are not essential for our main results, beyond giving a more truly algebraic interpretation of the mixed Monge--Amp\`ere masses which will appear in our slope formulas for Deligne functionals in the case the metrics have arbitrary singularities.

\newcommand{\mathfrak{X}}{\mathfrak{X}}


We first briefly recall the basic theory of the Riemann--Zariski space associated to a smooth projective variety $X$, which is the locally ringed space denoted $\mathfrak{X}$ defined by $$\mathfrak{X} = \varprojlim_Y Y,$$ where $Y \to X$ is a birational model of $X$. For further details we refer to \cite{bfjteissier, favre-dang, xia-pp}.  The main point is the definition of a \emph{Weil $b$-divisor}, which is an element of $$ \varprojlim_Y \Weil(Y),$$  with $ \Weil(Y)$ denoting the set of numerical classes of $\mathbb{R}$-divisors on $Y$. 

Let $\theta \in c_1(L)$  with $\phi \in \PSH(\theta)$. To $\phi$ we can associate a Weil $b$-divisor $\divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi$ in the following manner. For a fixed birational model $Y\to X$ define $$\divisor_Y \phi = \sum_E \nu_E(\phi) E,$$ where $\nu_E(\psi)$ is the generic Lelong number of $\pi^*\phi$ along $E$; this produces a well-defined numerical class on $Y$ by \cite[Remark 2.10]{xia-pp}. Thus one can define a Weil $b$-divisor by $$\divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi = \varprojlim_Y\divisor_Y \phi,$$ and hence a Weil $b$-divisor $L- \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi$.

Consider now for $j=1,\hdots,n$ classes $\theta_j \in c_1(L_j)$ with $\phi_j\in \PSH(\theta_j)$. For each $j$ we associate a Weil $b$-divisor $L_j - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi_j$, and we define $$(L_1 - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi_1) \cdot \ldots \cdot (L_n - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi_n) =\varprojlim_Y (L_1 - \divisor_{Y} \phi_1) \cdot \ldots \cdot (L_n - \divisor_{Y} \phi_n),$$ which exists as the right hand side is decreasing in nets. 

\begin{proposition} Suppose for each  for $j=1,\hdots,n$ the $\theta_j$-psh function $\phi_j$ is $\mathcal{J}$-model and $\theta_j+dd^c \phi_j$ is a K\"ahler current. Then $$\int_X \langle (\theta_1+dd^c) \phi_1\wedge \ldots \wedge (\theta_n+dd^c \phi_n)\rangle =  (L_1 - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi_1) \cdot \ldots \cdot (L_n - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi_n).$$ \end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The result is due to Xia in the case $\theta_1+dd^c \phi_1 =\hdots = \theta_n+dd^c \phi_n$ \cite[Theorem 5.2]{xia-pp} (see also \cite[Proof of Theorem 6 (3)]{favre-dang}), and as we explain similar ideas prove the  general case. Thus we only sketch the arguments. 

The argument begins by taking quasi-equisingular approximations of each $\phi_j \in \PSH(\theta_j)$ in the sense of \cite[Definition 2.5]{xia-pp}, which we denote by $\phi_j^k$; these are a refinement of the classical Demailly approximation of a current and in particular each $\phi_j$ has analytic singularities. We use that $\theta_{j,\phi_j}$ is a K\"ahler current to ensure that the quasi-equisingular approximations can be taken in the same cohomology class. 

While the singularities of $\phi_j^k$ vary with $k$, in terms of the (degenerate) metric $d_{\mathcal S}$ on isomorphism classes of singularity types introduced by Darvas--di Nezza--Lu \cite{DDL-metric} we have $$d_{\mathcal S}\left([\phi_j^k],[\phi_j]\right) \to 0,$$ i.e. the singularity types converge with respect to their metric (which again is only defined in big classes). By \cite[Theorem 5.2]{xia-okounkov} this then implies that we have convergence $$\int_X \langle \theta_{1,\phi_1^k}\wedge \hdots\wedge  \theta_{n,\phi_n^k}\rangle \to \int_X \langle \theta_{1,\phi_1}\wedge \hdots\wedge  \theta_{n,\phi_n}\rangle,$$ which uses that each $\phi_j$ is $\mathcal{J}$-model in an essential way. Again as in \cite[Theorem 5.2]{xia-okounkov}, for currents with analytic singularities, the analytic and algebraic mixed volumes agree: $$\int_X \langle \theta_{1,\phi_1^k}\wedge \hdots\wedge  \theta_{n,\phi_n^k}\rangle = (L_1 - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi^k_1) \cdot \hdots \cdot (L_n - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi^k_n).$$ Thus what remains is to prove that the right hand side converges to the appropriate quantity.

It is enough to prove that for each model $Y\to X$ and each $\epsilon>0$ there is a $m_0$ such that for all $m>m_0$ we have \begin{align*}(L_1 - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi_1) \cdot \hdots \cdot (L_n - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi_n) &\leq (L_1 - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi^k_1) \cdot \hdots \cdot (L_n - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi^k_n), \\  &\leq (L_1 - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi_1) \cdot \hdots \cdot (L_n - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi_n) + \epsilon;\end{align*}we again use a similar argument to Xia \cite[Theorem 5.2]{xia-okounkov} and Dang--Favre \cite[Proof of Theorem 6 (3)]{favre-dang}.  By the construction of the quasi-equisingular approximations,  the sequence $\divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi^k_j$ is decreasing and we have convergence of  Weil $b$-divisors $$\divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi^k_j \to \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \phi_j$$ for each $j$ \cite[Lemma 2.7]{xia-pp}. By the decreasing property, the first desired inequality is automatic. Set $C = 1/\langle L_1\cdot\hdots \cdot L_n\rangle>0$ and choose $m_0$ such that for each $j$ the inequality $$L_j - \divisor_Y\psi^k_j \leq L - \divisor_Y\psi_j + C\epsilon L_j $$ holds on $Y$; this is possible by convergence of the $ \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}}\psi^k_j $. Then $$(L_1 - \divisor_Y\psi^k_1 )\cdot \hdots \cdot (L_n - \divisor_Y\psi^k_n) \leq (L_1 - \divisor_Y\psi_1 )\cdot \hdots \cdot (L_n - \divisor_Y\psi_n) + \epsilon,$$ which implies $$(L_1 - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}}\psi^k_1 )\cdot \hdots \cdot (L_n - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}}\psi^k_n) \leq (L_1 - \divisor_{Y}\psi_1 )\cdot \hdots \cdot (L_n - \divisor_{Y}\psi_n) + \epsilon$$ and hence the result.


\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{rmk:removal}

We expect a similar result to hold provided we have strict positivity of the integral $$\int_X \langle \theta_{1,\phi_1^k}\wedge \hdots\wedge  \theta_{n,\phi_n^k}\rangle.$$ 

\end{remark}

\subsection{Positive Deligne pairings}

In the relative setting,namely with $X\to Y$ (say) a smooth flat morphism of projective varieties of relative dimension $k$, the \textit{Deligne pairing} construction generalises the intersection product of line bundles on $X$ to this relative setting, yielding an ``intersection line bundle''
$$\langle L_1,\dots,L_{n+k}\rangle_{X/Y}$$
over $Y$ for $n+k$ (relatively) ample line bundles over $X$. Historically, the case of relative dimension one was settled in Deligne's original article \cite{delignedetcoh}, and then extended to the general case by Elkik \cite{elkik1, elkik2}. It was first used in K\"ahler geometry by \cite{shouwu-zhang, PRS}. 

An important aspect of the construction is that it extends to the \textit{metrised} case: if each $L_i$ is endowed with a continuous metric $\phi_i$, one obtains a continuous metric \cite{moriwaki}
$$\langle \phi_1,\dots,\phi_{n+k}\rangle_{X/Y}$$
on the line bundle $\langle L_1,\dots,L_{n+k}\rangle_{X/Y}$. The construction is symmetric, multilinear, and satisfies the change of metric formula
$$\langle \phi_0,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_{n+k}\rangle_{X/Y} - \langle \phi_0',\phi_1,\dots,\phi_{n+k}\rangle_{X/Y} = \pi_*\left((\phi_0-\phi_0')(dd^c\phi_1\wedge\dots\wedge dd^c\phi_{n+k})\right).$$
Note that it has been extended to the case of general Kähler classes on non-projective Kähler manifolds in \cite[Definition 2.1]{zak}, \cite{zaknotthesis} (see also \cite[Section 3]{dervan-ross}) and to singular metrics on (relatively) ample line bundles in \cite{rebdiscs}.

\bsni In this section, we show how to extend this construction to the case of \textit{big} cohohomology classes and metrics with minimal singularities, in a way that is compatible with the positive intersection pairing. Although we will only consider globally big classes in the present article, we also state our definitions in the relatively big setting.

\begin{definition}
Let $\pi:X\to Y$ be a surjective flat holomorphic morphism of relative dimension $k$, whose fibres we denote by $X_y$, $y\in Y$. Let $\alpha$ be a cohomology class on $X$. We say that it is \textit{relatively big} if it is represented by a closed $(1,1)$-current $\theta$ such that its restriction $\theta_y:=\theta|_{X_y}$ represents a big cohomology class on $X_y$. We say that a current $T\in\alpha$ is \textit{$\theta$-relatively psh} if $T=\theta+dd^c\phi$ and $\phi_y:=\phi|_{X_y}$ is $\theta_y$-psh for each $y\in Y$. We say that it has \textit{relative minimal singularities} (in the class of $\theta$) if it is $\theta$-relatively psh and $\phi_y$ has minimal singularities in the class of $\theta_y$ for each $y\in Y$.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}
Let $\pi:X\to Y$ be a surjective flat holomorphic morphism of relative dimension $k$ with unibranch (or normal) fibres. Let $\theta_0,\dots,\theta_{n+k-1}$ be closed $(1,1)$-currents on $X$ representing relatively big cohomology classes. For each $i=0,\dots,n+k-1$, let $\phi_i,\psi_i$ be $\theta_i$-relatively psh potentials with relative minimal singularities. We define the (difference of) \textit{positive Deligne pairing}(s) of the $(\theta_i,\phi_i,\psi_i)_i$ as
\begin{align*}
    &\llangle \phi_0,\dots,\phi_{n+k-1}\rrangle_{X/Y}-\llangle \psi_0,\dots,\psi_{n+k-1}\rrangle_{X/Y}:=\\
    &\pi_*\left((\phi_0-\psi_0)\,\langle(\theta_1+dd^c \phi_1)\wedge\dots\wedge(\theta_{n+k-1}+dd^c\phi_{n+k-1})\rangle\right)\\
    &+\pi_*\left( (\phi_1-\psi_1)\,\langle(\theta_0+dd^c \psi_0)\wedge(\theta_2+dd^c\phi_2)\wedge\dots\wedge(\theta_{n+k-1}+dd^c\phi_{n+k-1})\rangle\right)\\
    &+\dots\\
    &+\pi_*\left( (\phi_{n+k-1}-\psi_{n+k-1})\,\langle(\theta_0+dd^c \psi_0)\wedge\dots\wedge(\theta_{n+k-2}+dd^c \psi_{n+k-2})\rangle\right).
\end{align*}


If $Y$ is a point, we will often drop the subscript $X/Y$ and refer to these as \emph{positive Deligne functionals}, as those generalise the Deligne functionals of \cite{zak} to the big setting.
\end{definition}

Note also that we should make explicit the choice of reference currents $\theta_i$ in the notation; we choose not to in order to lighten notation.


\begin{remark}Note that, in light of the change of metric formula above, we recover the usual (difference of) Deligne pairings in the case where each $L_i$ is relatively nef. Since the sum of currents with minimal singularities does not in general have minimal singularities, the construction cannot be multilinear by nature.
\end{remark}

\begin{proposition}
Differences of positive Deligne pairings are symmetric, i.e. if $\sigma$ is a permutation of $\{0,\dots,n+k-1\}$, then
$$\llangle \phi_{\sigma(0)},\dots,\phi_{\sigma(n+k-1)}\rrangle-\llangle \psi_{\sigma(0)},\dots,\psi_{\sigma(n+k-1)}\rrangle=\llangle \phi_0,\dots,\phi_{n+k-1}\rrangle-\llangle \psi_0,\dots,\psi_{n+k-1}\rrangle.$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We only treat the case where $Y$ is a point (and hence $X$ is smooth), as the general case follows from similar (but notationally heavier) computations. Since adjacent transpositions generate the symmetric group, it suffices to assume that $\sigma$ permutes some $j$ and $j+1$. For clarity we will write $\theta_\phi^i:=\theta_i+dd^c\phi_i,\,\theta_\psi^i:=\theta_i+dd^c\psi_i$. Then,
\begin{align*}
    &\llangle \phi_{0},\dots,\phi_j,\phi_{j+1},\dots,\phi_{n}\rrangle-\llangle \psi_{0},\dots,\psi_j,\psi_{j+1},\dots,\psi_{n}\rrangle\\
    &-(\llangle \phi_{0},\dots,\phi_{j+1},\phi_{j},\dots,\phi_{n}\rrangle-\llangle \psi_{0},\dots,\psi_{j+1},\psi_{j},\dots,\psi_{n}\rrangle)\\
    =&\sum_{i=0}^{j-1}\biggl(\int_X(\phi_i-\psi_i)\langle \theta_\psi^0\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\psi^{i-1}\wedge\theta_\phi^{i+1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\phi^j\wedge\theta_\phi^{j+1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\phi^n\rangle\\
    &-\int_X(\phi_i-\psi_i)\langle \theta_\psi^0\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\psi^{i-1}\wedge\theta_\phi^{i+1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\phi^{j+1}\wedge\theta_\phi^{j}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\phi^n\rangle\biggl)\\
    &+\biggl(\int_X(\phi_j-\psi_j)\langle \theta_\psi^0\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\psi^{j-1}\wedge\theta_\phi^{j+1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\phi^n\rangle\\
    &-\int_X(\phi_{j+1}-\psi_{j+1})\langle \theta_\psi^0\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\psi^{j-1}\wedge\theta_\phi^{j}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\phi^n\rangle\biggl)\\
    &+\biggl(\int_X(\phi_{j+1}-\psi_{j+1})\langle \theta_\psi^0\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\psi^{j}\wedge\theta_\phi^{j+2}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\phi^n\rangle\\
    &-\int_X(\phi_{j}-\psi_{j})\langle \theta_\psi^0\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\psi^{j+1}\wedge\theta_\phi^{j+2}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\phi^n\rangle\biggl)\\
    &+\sum_{i=k+1}^n\biggl(\int_X(\phi_i-\psi_i)\langle \theta_\psi^0\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\psi^j\wedge\theta_\psi^{j+1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\psi^{i-1}\wedge\theta_\phi^{i+1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\phi^n\rangle\\
    &-\int_X(\phi_i-\psi_i)\langle \theta_\psi^0\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\psi^{j+1}\wedge\theta_\psi^{j}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\psi^{i-1}\wedge\theta_\phi^{i+1}\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\phi^n\rangle).
\end{align*}
By symmetry of non-pluripolar products, terms inside the sums in the first and last (fourth) groups cancel out. Summing the the second and third groups, and again using symmetry and multilinearity of non-pluripolar products, we find
\begin{align*}
    \int_X(\phi_j-\psi_j)\langle \theta_\psi^0\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\psi^{j-1}\wedge(\theta_\phi^{j+1}-\theta_\psi^{j+1})\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\phi^n\rangle\\
    -\int_X(\phi_{j+1}-\psi_{j+1})\langle \theta_\psi^0\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\psi^{j-1}\wedge(\theta_\phi^{j}-\theta_\psi^j)\wedge\dots\wedge\theta_\phi^n\rangle,
\end{align*}
which vanishes by the non-pluripolar integration by parts formula.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark} Although out of the scope of the present article, we note that a slight modification of our definition can accommodate for the case of metrics with \emph{prescribed singularities} (originally introduced in \cite{rwn} and studied e.g. in \cite{trusiani2,trusiani3} in the ample case, and in \cite{xiamabuchi} in the big case).
\end{remark}

\subsection{Metric structure and geodesics}

We now fix a big cohomology class $\alpha$ and a smooth representative $\theta\in\alpha$.

\begin{definition}Given $\phi\in \PSH_{\mathrm{min}}(X,\theta)$, we define its \textit{Monge--Ampère energy}
$$E_\theta\langle \phi\rangle:=\llangle \phi^{n+1}\rrangle - \llangle V_\theta^{n+1}\rrangle.$$
More generally, if $\phi\in\PSH(X,\theta)$, we can consider the sequence of approximants $\phi_k:=\max(\phi,V_\theta-k)$, which have minimal singularities and decrease pointwise to $\phi$. From the definition of $E_\theta$ it is clear that it is decreasing along pointwise decreasing sequences: we can then extend it by setting
$$E_\theta\langle \phi\rangle:=\lim_{k\to\infty} E_\theta\langle \phi_k\rangle.$$
Noting  that this can take the value $-\infty$, we define the \emph{finite energy space} $\cE^1(X,\theta)$ to be the set of $\theta$-psh functions with finite Monge-Ampère energy, and denote by $\cE^1_{0}(X,\theta)$ the set of psh functions of finite energy which are bounded above by $0$.
\end{definition}

 In particular, $V_\theta$ is the largest function in $\cE^1_{0}(X,\theta)$. By definition of $E$, one also has that $\PSH_{\mathrm{min}}(X,\theta)\subset \cE^1(X,\theta)$. Our construction via positive Deligne functionals agrees with that used in the pluripotential theory, e.g. as in \cite[Definition 2.7]{bbgz}. We collect the following important results related to $E$.
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Propositions 4.3, 4.4]{bb}, \cite[Lemma 2.6]{bbgz}}]\label{propma}The Monge--Ampère energy satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item it is continuous along pointwise decreasing limits, 	Lebesgue-a.e. increasing limits, and uniform limits in $\PSH_{\mathrm{min}}(X,\theta)$;
\item it is concave with respect to the natural convex structure on $\PSH_{\mathrm{min}}(X,\theta)$ given by convex combinations;
\item its upper level sets in $\cE^1_{0}(X,\theta)$ are convex and compact with respect to the psh (i.e. $L^1$) topology.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

Following \cite{ddnlmetric}, one can endow the space $\cE^1(X,\theta)$ with a metric structure, using the following envelope construction.
\begin{definition}Let $\phi_0,\phi_1\in\PSH(X,\theta)$. We define
$$P_\theta(\phi,\psi):=\mathrm{usc}\sup\{\psi\in\PSH(X,\theta),\,\psi\leq\min(\phi_0,\phi_1)\}.$$\end{definition}
Such envelopes are usually called \textit{rooftop envelopes} in the literature (e.g. \cite{darmabuchi}). It has been shown in \cite[Theorem 2.10]{ddnlfullmass} that if both functions have finite energy, then their rooftop envelope has finite energy; furthermore, one easily sees that if both functions have minimal singularities, then so does their rooftop envelope.


\begin{definition}Given $\phi_0,\phi_1\in\cE^1(X,\theta)$, we define their $d_1$\emph{-distance} as
$$d_{1,\theta}(\phi_0,\phi_1):=E_\theta\langle \phi_0\rangle + E_\theta\langle \phi_1\rangle -2E_\theta\langle P_\theta(\phi_0,\phi_1)\rangle\geq 0.$$

\end{definition}

Note that, if $\phi_0\geq \phi_1$, then
$$d_{1,\theta}(\phi_0,\phi_1)=E_\theta\langle \phi_1\rangle - E_\theta\langle \phi_0\rangle.$$

This produces a metric by Darvas--di Nezza--Lu.

\begin{theorem}\cite[Theorems 3.6, 3.10]{ddnlmetric} The space $(\cE^1(X,\theta),d_{1,\theta})$ is a complete metric space.
\end{theorem}

It will also be important to relate this metric to geodesics in finite energy spaces.

\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Section 3.1, Theorem 3.12]{ddnlfullmass}, \cite[Proposition 3.13]{ddnlmetric}}]\label{thm_geodminsing}The space $(\cE^1(X,\theta),d_{1,\theta})$ is a geodesic metric space, i.e. given $\phi_0,\phi_1\in \cE^1(X,\theta)$, there exists a distinguished segment $t\mapsto \phi_t\in \cE^1(X,\theta)$ such that, for all $t,s\in[0,1]$,
$$d_{1,\theta}(\phi_t,\phi_s)=|t-s|d_{1,\theta}(\phi_0,\phi_1),$$
which furthermore satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
	\item if the endpoints belong to $\PSH_{\mathrm{min}}(X,\theta)$, then the geodesic remains in $\PSH_{\mathrm{min}}(X,\theta)$;
	\item in this case, the following estimate holds: there exists $C>0$ depending only on the endpoints, such that for all $t$, $s\in [0,1]$,
	$$\sup_X |\phi_t-\phi_s| \leq C|t-s|;$$
	\item the function $t\mapsto E_\theta\langle \phi_t\rangle$ is affine on $[0,1]$;
	\item seen as a function $\Phi$ on $X\times \cA$, with $\cA\subset \bbd$ an annulus such that $z\in \cA$ iff $-\log|z|\in [0,1]$, we have that $\Phi$ is $\pi_X^*\theta$-psh;
	\item using the same notation, $\Phi$ satisfies the Monge-Ampère equation $$\langle(\pi_X^*\theta+dd^c\Phi)^{n+1}\rangle=0;$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}



\section{Variational approach to Kähler-Einstein currents}

\newcommand\phike{\phi_{\mathrm{KE}}}



Throughout this section, we assume that $-K_X$ is big, and we fix $\theta$ a smooth representative of $c_1(-K_X)$.

\subsection{Canonical measures}\label{sect_canmeasures}

We explain how psh metrics on $-K_X$ relate to measures on $X$ itself, analogously to the classical situation in which $-K_X$ is ample. Our discussion is close to that of Berman in the ample case \cite[Section 2.1.3]{bermankpoly}, essentially as he allows $X$ to be singular. That is, Berman constructs a measure on the smooth locus of $X$ and extends by zero to all of $X$, and we will construct the appropriate measure similarly.

Let $\phi$ be a psh metric on $-K_X$ with minimal singularities, and consider a local chart $U \subset X$ lying in the complement of the polar locus $\{x \in X: \phi(x)=-\infty\}$ of $\phi$; the polar locus is contained in the asymptotic base locus of $-K_X$, which is algebraic, so such a choice of $U$ is possible away from a Zariski closed subset of $X$. Denote $z_1,\ldots,z_n$  the associated local coordinates, defining a local trivialising section $$\frac{\partial}{\partial z_1}\wedge\ldots\wedge \frac{\partial}{\partial z_n}$$ and hence producing a local potential $\phi_U$ for the psh metric $\phi$. We then obtain a measure $$\mu_{\phi} = e^{-\phi_U} i^{n^2} dz_1\wedge\ldots dz_n \wedge  d\bar z_1\wedge\ldots d\bar z_n,$$ which one checks is independent of coordinates and which is defined away from the polar locus of $\phi$. We extend this measure by zero to all of $X$, and often denote the resulting measure by $e^{-\phi}$. 

 Recall that the multiplier ideal sheaf $\mathcal{J}(\phi) $ of $\phi$ is independent of choice of metric with minimal singularities, and as in Theorem \ref{gz-openness} we have $$\mathcal{J}(\phi) = \mathcal{J}(\Bs\|-K_X\|) =  \mathcal{J}(\Bs_+(\|-K_X\|).$$

\begin{definition}\label{def:klt}
We say that $\phi$ (or $\theta_{\phi})$ is \emph{klt} if  $$\mathcal{J}(\phi) = \mathcal{O}_X,$$ i.e. if the associated multiplier ideal sheaf is trivial. We sometimes say that $-K_X$ is \emph{klt} under the same condition. 
\end{definition}

Note then that the klt condition is completely algebro-geometric. The main consequence of this condition is that the associated measure $e^{-\phi}$ to a klt metric $\phi$ with minimal singularities has finite volume.



Let $L$ be a line bundle on $X$. A similar construction applies for the adjoint bundle $L+K_X$, except one needs the additional input of a section $s \in H^0(X,L+K_X)$. Thus let $s$ be such a section and let $\phi$ be a psh metric on $L$ whose polar locus is contained in a Zariski closed set. Then $|s|^2e^{-\phi}$ can be interpreted as a measure on the complement of the polar locus of $\phi$ in much the same way, and one extends by zero to all of $X$ as before (compare again Berman \cite[Section 2.1.3]{bermankpoly} in the case $-K_X$ is ample but $X$ is singular). Provided $\mathcal{I}(\phi) = \mathcal{O}_X$, the resulting measure again has finite volume. More generally, when $L$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-Cartier, with $s$ a section of $r(L+K_X)$ the same construction applies by considering the measure $|s|^{2/r}e^{-\phi}$.



\subsection{Weak Kähler--Einstein currents and the Ding functional}

The key analytic objects of study in the present work are \emph{K\"ahler--Einstein metrics}. We fix $\theta \in c_1(X)$ as before.

\begin{definition}We say that $\theta + dd^c\phi$ is a \emph{K\"ahler--Einstein metric} (or sometimes more accurately a \textit{weak Kähler--Einstein current}) if $\phi\in\cE^1(X,\theta)$, and if
\begin{equation}\label{eq_kem}
\MA_\theta\langle \phi\rangle=e^{-\phi+c},
\end{equation}
where $c$ is a real (normalising) constant. 
\end{definition}

Note that by \cite{begz}, such a current must have minimal singularities. Throughout this subsection, we further assume that $-K_X$ is klt in the sense of Definition \ref{def:klt}.

\begin{definition}We define the $L$-functional on $\PSH_{\mathrm{min}}(X,\theta)$ as
$$L_\theta\langle \phi\rangle:=-\log\int_X e^{-\phi},$$
which is finite-valued by virtue of the klt condition. It also extends to $\cE^1(X,\theta)$ by \cite[Theorem 1.1]{ddnlfullmass}. We then define the \textit{Ding functional} as
$$D_\theta\langle \phi\rangle:=L_\theta\langle\phi\rangle-E_\theta\langle\phi\rangle.$$
\end{definition}
As we will see in this section, this functional detects weak Kähler--Einstein currents. We first collect a few results.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop_continuityding}The Ding functional is lsc with respect to the psh topology, and $d_1$-continuous.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By the main theorem of \cite{demaillykollar} (as explained in \cite[Theorem 4.10]{AT}), we find that $L$ is weakly lsc and $d_1$-continuous. On the other hand, $-E$ is weakly lsc by \cite[Proposition 2.10]{begz} and $d_1$-continuous by definition.
\end{proof}

We also note the following immediate consequence of the main theorem of \cite{bpaun}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_dingconvex}The Ding functional is convex along weak geodesics in $\cE^1(X,\theta)$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}
In the case $-K_X$ is ample, \emph{strict} convexity in the absence of holomorphic vector fields is proven by Berndtsson \cite{bob}, but is an open problem in the big setting. 
\end{remark}

The following result has been proven independently by Darvas-Zhang in \cite[Proposition 5.4]{darvaszhang}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm_dingmin}Assume there exists a weak Kähler--Einstein current in $c_1(-K_X)$. Then, given $\phi\in\PSH_{\mathrm{min}}(X,\theta)$, $\theta+dd^c\phi$ is weak Kähler--Einstein if and only if $\phi$ minimises the Ding functional on $\cE^1(X,\theta)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We follow the corresponding argument in the case $-K_X$ is ample \cite[Theorem 6.6]{begz}. Assume that $\phi=\phi_{\mathrm{KE}}$ is the weak Kähler--Einstein metric in $c_1(-K_X)$. We want to show that $D_\theta\langle \phike\rangle \leq D_\theta\langle \psi\rangle$ for all $\psi\in\cE^1(X,\theta)$; by approximation and continuity of $D$ along decreasing sequences we may well assume that $\psi\in\PSH_{\mathrm{min}}(\theta)$. Since $D_\theta\langle \psi+c\rangle=D_\theta\langle \psi\rangle+c$ for all $\psi$ and $c$, we may also assume that $c=0$ in the Monge-Ampère equation \eqref{eq_kem}. Let $t\mapsto \phi_t$ be the weak geodesic with $\phi_0=\phike$ and $\phi_1=\psi$. Since $D$ is convex along geodesics by Theorem  \ref{thm_dingconvex}, it suffices to show that the derivative of $t\mapsto D_\theta\langle \phi_t\rangle$ at zero is negative. Since both $\phike$ and $\psi$ have minimal singularities, the sequence of functions
$$u_t=t\mi(\phi_t-\phike)\leq |\phike-\psi|$$
decreases as $t\to 0$ to some function $u$ bounded above on $X$ by $|\phike-\psi|$. By concavity of $E$ and monotone convergence, we find
$$\frac{d}{dt}_{|t=0}E_\theta\langle \phi_t\rangle\leq \int_X u\,\MA\langle \phike\rangle=\int_X u\,e^{-\phike}.$$
One also has that
$$t\mi(L_\theta\langle \phi_t\rangle-L_\theta\langle \phike\rangle)=\int_X (-u_t)\frac{1-e^{\phike-\phi_t}}{\phi_t-\phike}e^{-\phike},$$
but $f(x):=x\mi (1-e^{-x})$ is continuous and $\phike-\phi_t$ is uniformly bounded on $X\times[0,1]$ by Theorem \ref{thm_geodminsing}, so that by dominated convergence we find on taking $t\to 0$ that
$$\frac{d}{dt}_{|t=0}L_\theta\langle \phi_t\rangle=-\int_X u\,e^{-\phike}.$$
Since $D=L-E$, this proves that the derivative of $D$ at zero is negative, hence the inequality $D_\theta\langle \phike\rangle \leq D_\theta\langle \psi\rangle$. The converse is proven in \cite[Theorem 4.22]{ddnlmonotonicity} (note that $V_\theta$ has small unbounded locus).
\end{proof}



\subsection{Existence of a weak Kähler--Einstein current implies analytic coercivity}

To prove the main result of this section, we will need a different functional, the \textit{$J$-energy}:
\begin{definition}For $\phi\in\PSH_{\mathrm{min}}(X,\theta)$, we define the \emph{$J$-energy}
\begin{align*}
J_\theta\langle \phi\rangle:&=\llangle \phi, V_\theta^n\rrangle - \llangle \phi^{n+1}\rrangle\\
&=\int_X (\phi-V_\theta)\MA_\theta\langle V_\theta\rangle-E_\theta\langle \phi\rangle.
\end{align*}

\end{definition}

Again, one sees the term $(\phi-V_\theta)\MA_\theta\langle V_\theta\rangle$ in  this functional is decreasing along pointwise decreasing sequences, while $E$ is already defined on $\cE^1$. Thus the $J$-energy extends to $\cE^1(X,\theta)$ as well.

For reference we also introduce the $I$ and $I-J$-energies, which also admit natural interpretations as Deligne functionals.

\begin{definition} We define the $I$\emph{-energy} to be $$I_{\theta}\langle\phi\rangle = \int_X (\phi - V_{\theta})(\MA_{\theta}\langle V_{\theta}\rangle-\MA_{\theta}\langle\phi\rangle),$$ and set $(I_\theta-J_\theta)\langle\phi\rangle = I_\theta\langle\phi\rangle - J_\theta\langle\phi\rangle.$
\end{definition}

These energies are equivalent in the following sense:

\begin{lemma}\label{IJ-uniform}
There are uniform bounds \begin{align*}J_\theta\langle\phi\rangle &\leq I_\theta\langle\phi\rangle \leq (n+1)J_\theta\langle\phi\rangle, \\ n^{-1}J_\theta\langle\phi\rangle &\leq I_\theta\langle\phi\rangle - J_\theta\langle\phi\rangle \leq nJ_\theta\langle\phi\rangle. \end{align*}
\end{lemma}

These functionals allow us define \emph{coercivity} of energy functionals.

\begin{definition}We say that $D$ is \textit{$d_1$-coercive} if there exists constants $\delta>0$, $C$ such that for all $\phi\in\cE^1_{0}(X,\theta)$, we have
$$D_\theta\langle \phi\rangle \geq \delta\cdot d_{1,\theta}(\phi,V_\theta)-C;$$
we say that it is \textit{$J$-coercive} if there exist $\delta>0$ and $C$ such that for all $\phi\in\cE^1_{0}(X,\theta)$, we have
$$D_\theta\langle \phi\rangle \geq \delta\cdot J_\theta\langle\phi\rangle-C.$$
\end{definition}

\begin{proposition}\label{prop_jd1comparison}$D$ is $J$-coercive if and only if it is  $d_1$-coercive.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to extend to the big case the estimate from \cite[Proposition 5.5]{darvasrubinstein}, i.e. to show that there exists $C>0$ with
$$d_{1,\theta}(\phi,V_\theta)-C\leq J_\theta\langle \phi\rangle \leq d_{1,\theta}(\phi,V_\theta)+C$$
for all $\phi\in\cE^1_{0}(X,\theta)$. We proceed as in \cite[Lemma 3.7]{AT}. By definition of $V_\theta$, we have $V_\theta\geq \phi$ on $\cE^1_{0}(X,\theta)$, hence
$$d_{1,\theta}(\phi,V_\theta)=-E_\theta\langle \phi\rangle\geq J_\theta\langle \phi\rangle.$$
For the reverse estimate, we use \cite[Corollary 3.4 $(i)$]{dntcontact} (setting $f=0$ in their notation), which gives $$\MA_\theta\langle V_\theta\rangle=(\theta
^n)|_{\{V_\theta=0\}},$$

hence
$$0\leq \int_X (\phi-V_\theta)\MA\langle V_\theta\rangle \leq \int_X |-\phi|\,(\theta^n).$$ By weak compactness of $\cE^1_0(X,\theta)$, the right-hand side is uniformly bounded by some constant $C$, hence using again the fact that $d_{1,\theta}(\phi,V_\theta)=-E_\theta\langle \phi\rangle$, we find that $-C+d_{1,\theta}(\phi,V_\theta)\leq J_\theta\langle\phi\rangle$, thus proving the left-hand estimate. 
\end{proof}

Of course, from Lemma \ref{IJ-uniform} it also follows that $d_1$-coercivity is equivalent to $I$ or $I-J$-coercivity. We now prove the main theorem of this section.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm_dingcoercive}Assume that $-K_X$ is big, that $X$ satisfies the klt condition with respect to $\mathrm{Bs}_+(-K_X)$. If there exists a unique weak Kähler--Einstein current $\theta+dd^c\phi_{\mathrm{KE}}$ in $c_1(-K_X)$, then the Ding functional $D$ is $J$-coercive on $\cE^1(X,\theta)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}As in the proof \cite[Theorem D]{AT}, we consider
$$a:=\inf\{(D_\theta\langle \phi\rangle-D_\theta\langle\phi_{\mathrm{KE}}\rangle)/d_{1,\theta}(\phi,\phi_{\mathrm{KE}}),\,\phi\in\PSH_{\mathrm{min},0}(X,\theta),\,d_{1,\theta}(\phi,\phi_{\mathrm{KE}})\geq 1\},$$
and we first show that $a>0$. 

Assuming $a=0$, we can find a sequence of metrics $\phi_k\in\cE^1_{0}(X,\theta)$ such that $$(D_\theta\langle \phi_k\rangle-D_\theta\langle\phi_{\mathrm{KE}}\rangle)/d_{1,\theta}(\phi_k,\phi_{\mathrm{KE}})\to 0$$ and $$d_{1,\theta}(\phi_k,\phi_{\mathrm{KE}})\geq 1.$$ If we let $t\mapsto \phi_{t,k}$ be the unit speed geodesic parametrised by $[0,d_{1,\theta}(\phi_k,\phi_{\mathrm{KE}})]$ with $\phi_{0,k}=\phi_{\mathrm{KE}}$ and $\phi_{d_{1,\theta}(\phi_k,\phi_{\mathrm{KE}}),k}=\phi_k$, and $\psi_k:=\phi_{1,k}$, then by convexity of the Ding functional we find that $D_\theta\langle \psi_k\rangle \to_{k\to\infty} D_\theta\langle \phi_{\mathrm{KE}} \rangle$. 

Because by definition $d_{1,\theta}(\psi_k,\phi_{\mathrm{KE}})=1$, we also have that the family $(\psi_k)_k$ is contained in a (sup-normalised) upper level set of the Monge-Ampère energy. By weak compactness of such level sets (Proposition \ref{propma}), we can assume up to passing to a subsequence that $\psi_k\to_{k\to\infty}\psi\in\cE^1_{0}(X,\theta)$ in the psh topology. By lower semicontinuity of $D$, this together with the above convergence implies $D_\theta\langle\psi\rangle\leq D_\theta\langle \phi_{\mathrm{KE}}\rangle$. Since $\phi_{\mathrm{KE}}$ is Kähler--Einstein, it minimises $D$ by Theorem \ref{thm_dingmin}, hence $\psi=\phi_{\mathrm{KE}}$. Since the $L$-part of the Ding energy is continuous with respect to the psh topology, we have in particular that $E_\theta\langle \psi_k\rangle\to E_\theta\langle \phi_{\mathrm{KE}}\rangle$, hence $d_{1,\theta}(\psi_k,\phi_{\mathrm{KE}})\to 0$ which contradicts the assumption that $d_{1,\theta}(\psi_k,\phi_{\mathrm{KE}})\geq 1$, thereby ensuring that $a>0$.

 Assuming now $a>0$ one sees that, if $\phi\in\cE^1_{0}(X,\theta)$ satisfies $d_{1,\theta}(\phi,\phi_{\mathrm{KE}})\leq 1$ then
\begin{align*}
&a\cdot d_{1,\theta}(\phi,V_\theta)-a\cdot\sup\{d_{1,\theta}(\phi',V_\theta),\,d_{1,\theta}(\phi',\phi_{\mathrm{KE}})\leq 1\}+D_\theta\langle \phi_{\mathrm{KE}}\rangle\leq D_\theta\langle\phi_{\mathrm{KE}}\rangle\leq D_\theta\langle \phi\rangle
\end{align*}
(where the second inequality follows again from the fact that Kähler--Einstein metrics minimise $D$). On the other hand, by definition of $a$, if $\phi\in\PSH_{\mathrm{min},0}(X,\theta)$ satisfies $d_{1,\theta}(\phi,\phi_{\mathrm{KE}})\geq 1$ then
$$a\cdot d_{1,\theta}(\phi,V_\theta)+D_\theta\langle \phi_{\mathrm{KE}}\rangle \leq D_\theta\langle \phi\rangle,$$
and this extends to $\cE^1_0(X,\theta)$ by approximation as usual; hence setting $$C:=a\cdot\sup\{d_{1,\theta}(\phi',V_\theta),\,d_{1,\theta}(\phi',\phi_{\mathrm{KE}})\leq 1\}-D_\theta\langle \phi_{\mathrm{KE}}\rangle$$ we have
$$a\cdot d_{1,\theta}(\phi,V_\theta)-C\leq D_\theta\langle \phi\rangle$$
on $\cE^1_{0}(X,\theta)$. If $\phi\in\cE^1_0(X,\theta)$, then $\phi_k:=\max(V_\theta-k,\phi)$ has minimal singularities, hence the above inequality extends to all of $\cE^1_0(X,\theta)$, implying by Proposition \ref{prop_jd1comparison} that $D$ is $J$-coercive.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
We expect that K\"ahler--Einstein metrics are unique precisely when $\Aut(X)$ is finite. To justify this expectation, note firstly that if $\theta_{\phi}$ has minimal singularities in $c_1(X)$, then for $g \in \Aut(X)$, the pullback $g^*\theta_{\phi}$ has minimal singularities by \cite[Remark 3.7]{rwn}. Further, if $\theta_{\phi}$ is K\"ahler--Einstein, by then working away from the polar locus, it is clear that $g^*\theta_{\phi}$ is also  K\"ahler--Einstein. Thus uniqueness of  K\"ahler--Einstein metrics implies $\Aut(X)$ is finite.
\end{remark}


\section{Uniform Ding stability}\label{sec:dingstability}


\subsection{Ding stability}The goal of the present section is to introduce a notion of \emph{uniform Ding stability} for a normal projective variety $X$ with big anticanonical class $-K_X$. The notion of uniform Ding stability involves numerical invariants associated to \emph{test configurations}; since the notion of a test configuration makes sense more generally, we begin by considering a normal projective variety $X$ along with a big $\bbq$-line bundle $L$ on $X$. 

The natural setting for stability conditions in the big setting is not a fixed $(X,L)$, but rather an equivalence class of such varieties in the following sense.

\begin{definition}\label{def:birational-equivalence} Let $(X,L)$ and $(Y,L_Y)$ be normal projective varieties endowed with big line bundles. We say that $(X,L)$ and $(Y,L_Y)$ are \emph{birationally equivalent} if there is a normal projective variety $Z$ along with a big line bundle $L_Z$ such that there exist birational contractions $p_X:Z \to X$ and $p_Y: Z \to Y$ such that $$p_{X*} L_Z = L \textrm{ and } p_{Y*} L_Z = L_Y,$$ and the following volume condition holds: $$\vol (L_Z) = \vol (L) = \vol (L_Y).$$ 
\end{definition}

Pictorially this is represented as:
\[
\xymatrix{ 
\quad & \ar@{->}[dl]_{p_X} (Z,L_Z)  \ar@{->}[dr]^{p_Y} & \quad \\
(X,L) & \quad  & (Y,L_Y).
}\]

All concepts we introduce will be birational invariants, so we will typically replace $(Y,L_Y)$ with $(Z,L_Z)$ and assume that $Y$ itself admits a morphism $p: (Y,L_Y) \to (X,L)$ defining the birational equivalence. A test configuration for $(X,L)$ is then essentially a $\mathbb{C}^*$-degeneration of an element of the birational equivalence class of $(X,L)$.

\begin{definition}
Suppose $p: (Y,L_Y) \to (X,L)$ defines a birational equivalence. A  \emph{test configuration} $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ for $(X,L)$ (or more precisely for $p: (Y,L_Y) \to (X,L)$) is a normal projective variety $\mathcal{X}$, a $\mathbb{Q}$-line bundle $\L$ along with a surjective morphism $\pi: \mathcal{X} \to \mathbb{P}^1$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item there is a $\mathbb{C}^*$-action on $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ making $\pi$ a $\mathbb{C}^*$-equivariant morphism;
\item there is a positive integer $k$ such that $k\cL$ is a line bundle, and a $\mathbb{C}^*$-equivariant isomorphism $(\mathcal{X} \backslash \{0\}, k\L|_{\mathcal{X} \backslash \{0\}}) \cong (Y,kL_Y)\times \mathbb{C}$, with the latter given the trivial $\mathbb{C}^*$-action on the first factor.
\end{enumerate}\noindent We further say that $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ is \emph{big} if $\L$ is big.
\end{definition}


\begin{remark}\label{KKL} A closely related equivalence relation, which we call \emph{strong birational equivalence}, is given as follows. In the notation of Definition \ref{def:birational-equivalence}, we firstly ask that $q: Y\dashrightarrow X$ be a contraction with $q_*L_Y = L_X$. Writing $$p_Y^*L_Y = p_X^*L_X + E,$$ where $E$ is $q_X$-exceptional, we secondly ask that $E$ is effective. In the terminology of Kaloghiros--Kuronya--Lazi\'c \cite[Definition 2.3]{KKL} (whose work motivated the definition of strong birational equivalence), this asks that $q: Y \to X$ is $L_Y$-\emph{nonpositive}, and implies that for all $k \geq 0$ $$H^0(Y,kL_Y) \cong H^0(X,kL)$$ and hence that $\vol(L_Y) = \vol(L)$. This equivalence relation is perhaps more natural from the perspective of birational geometry, whereas our chosen equivalence relation (which can be seen as a sort-of asymptotic version of strong birational equivalence) is the right one to relate the K\"ahler geometry of $(Y,L_Y)$ and $(X,L)$.
\end{remark}


 To define the Ding invariant, we will require a rather general version of the log canonical threshold, for which it is most conventient to take a valuative perspective (as for example in \cite[Section 3.3.2]{blum} or \cite{BFFU}). Considering a normal projective variety $X$ with a big line bundle $L$ and $\mathbb{Q}$-divisors $D_1, D_2$ (not necessarily effective), we define \begin{align*}\mathcal{J}((X,D_1,\|L\|); &cD_2)(U) = \{f\in \mathcal{O}_{X}(U):  \textrm{ there exists an  }\epsilon>0 \textrm{ such that for all }  E \\ &\ord_E(f) \geq (1+\epsilon) (\ord_E\|L\| + \ord_ED_2  - A_{(X,D_1)}(E)\}, \end{align*}  where $E$ runs over prime divisors on birational models $Y \to X$ of $X$. The notation is as follows: firstly the \emph{log discrepancy} $A_{(X,D_1)}(E)$, is defined via a log resolution $\pi: Y \to X$ of $D_1$ and $E$ as $$A_{(X,D_1)}(E) =1+ \ord_E (K_{Y} - \pi^*(K_{X}+D_1)),$$ which  is defined provided  $K_{X}+D_1$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-Cartier (which in particular is necessary to make sense of the definition of the multiplier ideal sheaf). Secondly we have set $$\ord_E\|L\| = \lim_{k \to \infty} \ord_E H^0(X,kL).$$

We now assume that that $L=-K_X$ is big. Consider a big test configuration $\pi:(\mathcal{X},\L)\to(X,L)$, defined for a birational equivalence $p:(Y,L_Y)\to (X,L)$. We begin with the following observation (a particular case of which was proven in \cite{bermankpoly}). Suppose $r>0$ is such that $r\L$ is Cartier.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem_pushfwd} The pushforward $\pi_*(r(\L+K_{\cX/\mathbb{P}^1}))$ is a line bundle. \end{lemma}

\begin{proof} Since $\pi$ is surjective, the pushforward is torsion-free, and since the base $\mathbb{P}^1$ is one-dimensional, the direct image  $\pi_*(r(\L+K_{\mathcal{X}/\mathbb{P}^1}))$ is actually locally free, hence corresponds to a vector bundle. But the general fibre is given as $$(\pi_*(r(\L+K_{\mathcal{X}/\mathbb{P}^1})))_t\cong H^0(\mathcal{X}_t, \L_{t} +K_{\mathcal{X}_t})\cong H^0(Y,L_Y+K_Y).$$
Since $p:Y\to X$ is a birational equivalence, then $L_Y=\pi^*(-K_X)+E$ with $E$ some $\bbq$-divisor such that $\pi_*E=\cO_X$. Thus
$$H^0(Y,L_Y+K_Y)\cong H^0(Y,\pi^*(-K_X)+E+K_Y)\cong H^0(X,\cO_X)$$
by the projection formula. Since the right-most vector space has dimension one, the result is proven.
 \end{proof}
By picking local trivialising sections for $\pi_*(r(\L+K_{\cX/\mathbb{P}^1}))$, which we can identify with sections of $r(\L+K_{\cX/\mathbb{P}^1})$, we define a $\mathbb{Q}$-divisor $\Delta$ on $\mathcal{X}$. As $$K_{\mathcal{X}} + \Delta = \L + K_{\mathbb{P}^1}$$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-Cartier, we may define the multiplier ideal sheaf $\mathcal{J}((\mathcal{X},\Delta,\|\L\|);c\mathcal{X}_0)$ using the above recipe.

\begin{definition} We define the \emph{log canonical threshold} of $\mathcal{X}_0$ on $(\mathcal{X},\Delta,\|\L\|)$ to be $$\lct((\mathcal{X},\Delta,\|\L\|);\mathcal{X}_0) = \sup \{c\in \mathbb{R}: \mathcal{J}((\mathcal{X},\Delta,\|\L\|);c\mathcal{X}_0) = \mathcal{O}_X\}.$$\end{definition}

This definition allows us to define the Ding invariant.



\begin{definition} The \emph{Ding invariant} of $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ is defined as $$\Ding(\mathcal{X},\L) =\lct((\mathcal{X},\Delta,\|\L\|);\mathcal{X}_0) - 1+ \frac{\langle \L^{n+1}\rangle}{(n+1)\langle (-K_X)^n\rangle}.$$
\end{definition}



\begin{definition} We say that $(X,-K_X)$ is \emph{Ding semistable} if for all big and klt test configurations $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ for $(X,-K_X)$ we have $$\Ding(\mathcal{X},\L) \geq 0.$$

\end{definition}

By definition, a test configuration $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ admits a natural map $$\mathcal{X} \backslash \{0\} \to X \times (\mathbb{P}^1 \backslash \{0\})$$ induced by $p: Y \to X$. To define uniform Ding stability, we require in addition a norm, which is defined at first for \emph{dominant} test configurations, where this map extends over the central fibre.

\begin{definition} We say that a test configuration $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ for $$p: (Y,L_Y) \to (X,L)$$ is a \emph{dominant} test configuration if it admits a surjective $\mathbb{C}^*$-equivariant map $$p: \mathcal{X} \to Y\times \mathbb{P}^1 \to X\times \mathbb{P}^1$$ compatible with the natural maps to $\mathbb{P}^1$ and with $p: Y \to X$ and such that $K_{\mathcal{X}}$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-Cartier.\end{definition}

Note that given any test configuration for $p: (Y,L_Y) \to (X,L)$, one can (non-canonically) construct an associated dominant test configuration $$q: (\mathcal{X}',q^*\L) \to (\mathcal{X},\L)$$ by taking an equivariant resolution of indeterminacy of the natural birational map $$Y\times \mathbb{P}^1 \dashrightarrow \mathcal{X}, $$ and one can even take $\mathcal{X}'$ to be smooth. The following invariants generalise to the big case invariants introduced in \cite{BHJ1,uniform}.


\begin{definition} For a dominant test configuration $(\mathcal{X},\L)$, setting $V=\langle L^n\rangle$  we define 
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
 \item the $J$-\emph{energy} $$J(\mathcal{X},\L) = V^{-1}\langle \L\cdot L^n\rangle-  (V(n+1))^{-1}\langle \L^{n+1}\rangle;$$
 \item the $I$-\emph{energy} $$I(\mathcal{X},\L) = V^{-1}\langle (\L-L)\cdot L^n \rangle - V^{-1}\langle (\L-L)\cdot \L^n \rangle;$$
 \item the \emph{minimum norm} (or $I-J$-\emph{energy}) $$\|(\mathcal{X},\L)\|_m = I(\mathcal{X},\L) - J(\mathcal{X},\L).$$
 \end{enumerate} For a general test configuration we define $J(\mathcal{X},\L)$ to equal $J(\mathcal{Y},\L_{\mathcal{Y}})$ for any associated dominant test configuration.
\end{definition}

It is straightforward to see that the for a general test configuration, these definitions---calculated on a resolution of indeterminacy---are independent of choice of such resolution. The following is proven in Section \ref{sec5} as Lemma \ref{NA-IJ-uniform}, using analytic techniques. 


\begin{lemma}
There are uniform bounds \begin{align*}J(\mathcal{X},\L) &\leq I(\mathcal{X},\L) \leq (n+1)J(\mathcal{X},\L), \\ n^{-1}J(\mathcal{X},\L)&\leq \|(\mathcal{X},\L)\|_m =  I(\mathcal{X},\L)- J(\mathcal{X},\L)\leq nJ(\mathcal{X},\L). \end{align*}
\end{lemma}

\noindent Thus the ``norms'' defined by each of these quantities are equivalent.

\begin{definition} We say that $(X,-K_X)$ is  \emph{uniformly Ding stable} if there exists an $\epsilon>0$ such that for all  big  test configurations $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ we have $$\Ding(\mathcal{X},\L) \geq \epsilon \|(\mathcal{X},\L)\|_m.$$
 \end{definition}
 
 The following will be useful in relating uniform Ding stability to its analytic counterpart.
 
 \begin{proposition}$(X,-K_X)$ is uniformly Ding stable if and only if  there exists an $\epsilon>0$ such that for all smooth, dominant test configurations $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ we have $$\Ding(\mathcal{X},\L) \geq \epsilon\|(\mathcal{X},\L)\|_m.$$\end{proposition}
 
 \begin{proof}Take an associated dominant test configuration $(\mathcal{X}',q^*\L)$ with smooth total space; note that this test configuration remains big. Birational invariance of the positive intersection product means all that needs to be checked is that the $\lct$ term in Ding is unchanged. But since the line bundle on $\mathcal{X}'$ is the pullback $q^*\L$, for all divisorial valuations $E$ we have $$\ord_E\|\L\| = \ord_E\|q^*\L\|.$$ Similarly with $\Delta'$, the associated divisor on $\mathcal{X}'$, we have $$K_{\mathcal{X}'} + \Delta' = q^*(K_{\mathcal{X}} + \Delta)$$ by a direct calculation, which then implies the desired equality of log canonical thresholds. 
 \end{proof}
 
 \begin{remark}\label{rmk:kstab} For a general normal projective variety $X$ with a big line bundle $L$, one can define uniform K-stability in a similar manner. Considering $\mathcal{J}_L=\mathcal{J}(\Bs(\|L\|))$ as a subscheme of $\mathcal{X}$, denote by  $\langle L^{n-1}\rangle \cdot \mathcal{J}(\Bs(\|L\|))$ the restricted volume. Define $$\mu(X,L) = \frac{-K_{(X,\mathcal{J}_L)}\cdot \langle \L^{n-1}\rangle}{\langle L^n\rangle},$$ where $$-K_{(X,\mathcal{J}_L)}\cdot \langle \L^{n-1}\rangle = -K_X\cdot \langle L^{n-1}\rangle -\mathcal{J}_L \cdot \langle \L^{n-1}\rangle.$$ Defining the \emph{Donaldson--Futaki invariant} of a big test configuration as $$\DF(\mathcal{X},\L) = \frac{n}{n+1}\mu(X,L)\langle \L^{n+1} \rangle + \langle \L^n\rangle  \cdot K_{(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{J}_{\L})/\mathbb{P}^1},$$ where $\mathcal{J}_{\L} = \mathcal{J}(\Bs(\|\L\|)$ and the notation again means restricted violume, we say that $(X,L)$ is \emph{uniformly K-stable} if there exists an $\epsilon>0$ such that for all big test configurations we have $$\DF(\mathcal{X},\L) \geq \epsilon \|(\mathcal{X},\L)\|_m.$$ Uniform K-stability plays no role in this paper, but we will return to it in future work.
 
This notion should be compared to related work of Li \cite{CL}, who defines an analogue of the Donaldson--Futaki invariant when $\L$ is big but $L$ is \emph{ample}. Multiplier ideal sheaves do not appear in his setting, nor do general birational equivalence classes (so in particular in his situation the general fibres of the test configuration are isomorphic to $(X,L)$ itself).

 \end{remark}
 

 
 \subsection{Klt test configurations}

A distinguished class of test configurations, which in a sense are the most natural ones, are what we call \emph{big and klt} test configurations; for this class of test configurations, the Ding invariants enjoys better properties than for general test configurations, as we explain. We begin with a dominant test configuration.



\begin{definition}\label{def_bigtc} We say that a big, dominant test configuration is \emph{klt} if it satisfies $$ \mathcal{J}(k\Bs(\|\L\|)) = \mathcal{J}(k\Bs(\|p^*L\|)) \textrm{ for all }k \geq 0,$$ where we have denoted by $p: \mathcal{X} \to X$ the projection. \end{definition}

For the purposes of the present section it seems convenient to again take a valuative approach to multiplier ideal sheaves. Since the definition is slightly more straightfoward than in the definition of Ding stability, we state the definition again. For an ideal sheaf $\mathfrak{a}$ on $X$ we denote $$\mathcal{J}(k\mathfrak{a})(U) = \{f\in\mathcal{O}_X(U): \textrm{ for all } E\subset Y \to X, \ord_Ef>k\ord_E(\mathfrak{a}) - A_X(E)   \},$$  where $E\subset Y \to X$ is a divisor on a birational model $Y$ of $X$, viewed as producing a divisorial valuation; for a line bundle $L$ on $X$ we take $\mathfrak{a} = \Bs(\|L\|),$ so in particular  $$\ord_E(\mathfrak{a}) = \lim_{k \to \infty}\frac{1}{k} \ord_E H^0(X,kL).$$



The following will allow us to extend the definition of a klt test configuration beyond the dominant setting.

\begin{lemma}
Let $q: (\mathcal{X},q^*\L) \to (\mathcal{X},\L)$ be a $\mathbb{C}^*$-equivariant morphism of big, dominant test configurations for $(X,L)$ with $p_{\mathcal{X}}: \mathcal{X} \to X$ and $p_{\mathcal{X}'}: \mathcal{X}'\to X$ the associated morphisms. Then we have $$\mathcal{J}(k\Bs(\|\L\|)) = \mathcal{J}(k\Bs(\|p_{\mathcal{X}}^*L)\|)$$ for all $k\geq 0$  if and only if  $$\mathcal{J}(k\Bs(\|q^*\L\|)) = \mathcal{J}(k\Bs( \|p_{\mathcal{X}'}^*L\|)).$$\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}

The main point is that for linear series, multiplier ideal sheaves determine valuative invariants; we prove this is to pass through corresponding analytic statements. We begin by making some observations for a general pseudoeffective line bundle $L$ on $X$ endowed with a singular metric $\phi$. By Xia \cite[Lemma 5.19]{xia-okounkov}, we have $$\lim_{k \to \infty}\frac{1}{k} \ord_E H^0(X,kL\otimes  \mathcal{J}(k\phi)) =\lim_{k \to \infty}\frac{1}{k}\ord_E \mathcal{J}(k\phi).$$ For a big line bundle $L$ and a metric $\phi$ with minimal singularities it thus follows that $$\lim_{k \to \infty}\frac{1}{k} \ord_E H^0(X,kL) = \lim_{k \to \infty}\frac{1}{k} \ord_E \mathcal{J}(k\|L\|).$$ Thus the valuative invariant $$\ord_E \|L\| = \lim_{k \to \infty}\frac{1}{k} \ord_E H^0(X,kL)$$ is actually captured by the multiplier ideal sheaves $\mathcal{J}(k\|L\|).$

Now turn to dominant test configurations $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ and $(\mathcal{X}',q^*\L)$ as in the statement of the lemma. Suppose that for all $k\geq 0$ we  have equality $$\mathcal{J}(k\Bs(\|\L\|)) = \mathcal{J}(k\Bs(\|p_{\mathcal{X}}^*L)\|).$$ It then  follows that $$\ord_E\|\L\| = \ord_E\|p_{\mathcal{X}}^*L\|$$ for all $E \subset \mathcal{Y} \to X$ from the above. Conversely, this equality of orders implies equality of multiplier ideal sheaves by our valuative definition of multiplier ideal sheaves. This is enough to prove the result: as $\mathcal{X}'$ is birational to $\mathcal{X}$, we can view the valuation $E$ as a valuation on $\mathcal{X}'$ also, and in this way $$\ord_E\|\L\| = \ord_E\|q^*\L\|, \textrm{ and }\ord_E\|p_{\mathcal{X}}^*L\| = \ord_E\|p_{\mathcal{X}'}^*L\|.$$ This implies that we have equality of multiplier ideal sheaves $$\mathcal{J}(k\Bs(\|q^*\L\|)) = \mathcal{J}(k\Bs(\|p_{\mathcal{X}'}^*L\|))$$ since these are determined by the valuative invariants, which are equal.\end{proof}

\begin{definition}
We say that a test configuration is \emph{klt} if a single, or equivalently any, associated dominant test configuration is klt.
\end{definition}

The klt condition essentially asks that  that the asymptotic linear system $\|\L\|$ has mild singularities relative to $\|p^*L\|$. In the classical case where $L$ is ample, the asymptotic base locus $\Bs(\|p^*L\|)$ is trivial and the condition is implied by asking that $\L$ is ample, which is the usual hypothesis in the definition of Ding stability. In general the condition is weaker than asking that $\Bs(\|\L\|) = \Bs(\|p^*L\|)$, which prescribes the asymptotic base locus of $\L$.

The main benefit of the klt condition is that $\Ding(\mathcal{X},\L)$ is translation invariant for such test configurations, in the following sense. Firstly, note the condition that $ \mathcal{J}(k\Bs(\|\L\|)) = \mathcal{J}(k\Bs(\|p^*L\|))$ is preserved by modifying $\L$ by adding  $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(j)$ for $j\geq 0$, where this  really denotes the pull-back from $\mathbb{P}^1$, by Lemma \ref{lemma:translation}.  Thus for  $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ a big and klt test configuration,  $(\mathcal{X},\L+\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(j))$ is still big and klt. By linking with the Ding functional, we will prove the following as Proposition \ref{prop:translation}.

\begin{proposition}For a big and klt test configuration, the Ding invariant is translation invariant: $$\Ding(\mathcal{X},\L) = \Ding(\mathcal{X},\L+\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(j))$$ for all $j \geq 0$. \end{proposition}

\noindent  This is non-trivial as the volume is not multilinear in general, and the proof uses the klt condition $ \mathcal{J}(k\Bs(\|\L\|)) = \mathcal{J}(k\Bs(\|p^*L\|))$. 

\begin{remark} Returning momentarily to the notion of uniform K-stability, note that for a big and \emph{klt} test configuration, provided $\mathcal{J}(\|L\|)=\mathcal{O}_X$ is trivial (so that $L$ is klt), the Donaldson-Futaki invariant does not actually involve multiplier ideal sheaves. In general for big and klt test configurations, the Ding invariant and Donaldson--Futaki invariants appear more similar to what appears in the theory of \emph{log} Ding stability and K-stability, where one includes a divisor $D \subset X$ in the setup.
\end{remark} 

\section{Asymptotics of functionals and the main theorem}\label{sec5}

\subsection{Slope formula for positive Deligne pairings of metrics with minimal singularities}

In this section, we prove a general slope formula for big test configurations in the sense of Definition \ref{def_bigtc}. Let $L_0,\dots,L_n$ be big line bundles on $X$ and, for each $i=0,\dots,n$, we define $\alpha_i:=c_1(L_i)$. We fix smooth representatives $\theta_i$ in each $\alpha_i$ and, for each $i$, a $\theta_i$-psh function $\psi_i$ with minimal singularities.

 We also consider $(\cX_i,\cL_i)$ big test configurations for each $(X,L_i)$ which dominate the trivial test configuration; we can and do assume that $\cX_i=\cX$ for each $i$, with $\cX$ smooth. We also assume that the general fibres $\mathcal{X}_t$ for $t\neq 0$ are isomorphic to $X$; the general situation is described in Corollary \ref{coro_generalcase}, where the results are as one would expect.  We let $\Theta_i$ be an $\bbs^1$-invariant smooth representative of $c_1(\cL_i)$ which restricts to $\theta_i$ on the general fibre.

 If $\Phi_i$ is a function in $\PSH(\cX,\Theta_i)$ with \textit{relative} minimal singularities, we can identify its restriction to $X\times \bbc^*\subset \cX$ with a function $z\mapsto \phi_{i,z}\in \PSH_{\mathrm{min}}(X,\theta_i)$, for $z\in \bbc^*$. This allows us to define a function
$$\llangle\Phi_0,\ldots,\Phi_n \rrangle: \bbc^* \to \mathbb{R}$$
(using abusive notation, since it depends on the choice of the reference functions $(\psi_i)_i$,) defined as
$$\llangle\Phi_0,\ldots,\Phi_n \rrangle(z)=\llangle \phi_{0,z},\dots,\phi_{n,z}\rrangle-\llangle \psi_0,\dots,\psi_n\rrangle.$$
Consider the restriction of the mixed Monge-Amp\`ere measure $$\langle \Theta_0+dd^c \Phi_0,\ldots,  \Theta_n + dd^c \Phi_n\rangle$$ to $X \times \bbc^*$. Our next main result produces a potential for the pushforward of this measure if the case where the $\Phi_i$ have \textit{global} minimal singularities; we explain in Proposition \ref{prop_existencemin} that this implies relative minimal singularities away from the central fibre.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_curvature}
Using the notation above, let $\Phi_i\in\PSH_{\mathrm{min}}(\cX,\Theta_i)$. Then, we have an equality of currents on $\bbc^*$
$$\int_{X/\bbc^*}\langle \Theta_0+dd^c \Phi_0,\ldots,  \Theta_n + dd^c \Phi_n\rangle = dd^c \llangle\Phi_0,\ldots,\Phi_n \rrangle.$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to show that for all functions $f$ of compact support on $\bbc^*$ that $$\int_{\bbc^*} f \int_{X\times {\bbc^*}/{\bbc^*}}\langle \Theta_0+dd^c \Phi_0,\ldots,  \Theta_n + dd^c \Phi_n\rangle = \int_{\bbc^*} f dd^c \llangle\Phi_0,\ldots,\Phi_n \rrangle,$$ where by definition we have  $$\int_{\bbc^*} f \int_{X\times {\bbc^*}/{\bbc^*}}\langle \Theta_0+dd^c \Phi_0,\ldots,  \Theta_n + dd^c \Phi_n\rangle = \int_{X\times {\bbc^*}}  f \langle \Theta_0+dd^c \Phi_0,\ldots,  \Theta_n + dd^c \Phi_n\rangle.$$ 

Now integration by parts gives \begin{align*} \int_{\bbc^*} f dd^c \llangle\Phi_0,\ldots,\Phi_n \rrangle &= \int_{\bbc^*} (\llangle \phi_{0,z},\ldots,\phi_{n,z}\rrangle-\llangle \psi_0,\ldots,\psi_n\rrangle) (dd^c f)(z), \\ 
&= \int_{X\times {\bbc^*}} dd^c f\wedge\sum_i T_i,
\end{align*}
with 
$$T_i=(\phi_{i,z}-\psi_i)\langle (\theta_{0}+dd^c \psi_0)\wedge \ldots\wedge (\theta_{i-1}+dd^c \psi_{i-1})\wedge(\theta_{i+1}+dd^c\phi_{i+1,z})\wedge\ldots\wedge(\theta_{n}+dd^c\phi_{n,z})\rangle.$$
Because $f$ has compact support,
$$\int_{X\times {\bbc^*}} dd^c f\wedge\sum_i T_i=\int_{\cX} dd^c f\wedge \sum_i T'_i$$
with
$$T'_i=(\Phi_i-\Psi_i)\langle (\Theta_{0}+dd^c\Psi_0)\wedge \dots\wedge (\Theta_{i-1}+dd^c \Psi_{i-1})\wedge(\Theta_{i+1}+dd^c\Phi_{i+1})\wedge\dots\wedge(\Theta_{n}+dd^c\Phi_{n})\rangle,$$
having set $\Psi_i$ a $\Theta_i$-psh function with minimal singularities and equal to $\psi_i$ outside the central fibre, given by Proposition \ref{prop_existencemin} below. Since $\pi^*\pi_X^*f$ is bounded on $\cX$, and the $\Phi_i$ as well as the $\Psi_i$ have minimal singularities, we can apply non-pluripolar integration by parts on $\cX$ to obtain
\begin{align*}
&\int_{X\times {\bbc^*}} dd^c f\wedge\sum_i T_i\\
&=\int_{\cX} dd^c f\wedge \sum_i T'_i\\
&=\int_{\cX} f(dd^c\Phi_i-dd^c \Psi_i)\\
&\wedge  \sum_i \langle (\Theta_{0}+dd^c\Psi_0)\wedge \ldots\wedge (\Theta_{i-1}+dd^c \Psi_{i-1})\wedge(\Theta_{i+1}+dd^c\Phi_{i+1})\wedge\ldots\wedge(\Theta_{n}+dd^c\Phi_{n})\rangle\\
&=\int_{X\times\bbc^*} f(dd^c\phi_{i,z}-dd^c \psi_i)\\
&\wedge \sum_i \langle (\theta_{0}+dd^c\psi_0)\wedge \ldots\wedge (\theta_{i-1}+dd^c \psi_{i-1})\wedge(\theta_{i+1}+dd^c\phi_{i+1,z})\wedge\ldots\wedge(\theta_{n}+dd^c\phi_{n,z})\rangle.
\end{align*}
Using multilinearity of the mixed Monge-Amp\`ere operator and the fact that $$\langle \wedge^{n+1}(\theta_i+dd^c \psi_i)\rangle = 0,$$ we see that 
\begin{align*} &(dd^c\phi_{i,z}-dd^c \psi_i)\wedge \sum_i \langle (\theta_{0}+dd^c\psi_0)\wedge \ldots\wedge (\theta_{i-1}+dd^c \psi_{i-1})\wedge(\theta_{i+1}+dd^c\phi_{i+1,z})\wedge\ldots\wedge(\theta_{n}+dd^c\phi_{n,z})\rangle \\ &=  \langle \theta_0 + dd^c \phi_{0,z}\wedge\ldots\wedge  \theta_n + dd^c \phi_{n,z}\rangle
\end{align*} which completes the proof.
\end{proof}

As promised, we show that there always exist psh functions satisfying the hypotheses of the previous proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop_existencemin}
Let $L$ be a big line bundle on $X$ and let $(\cX,\cL)$ be a big test configuration dominating the trivial test configuration. Then, for any $\phi\in\PSH(X,L)$, there exists $\Phi\in\PSH(\cX,\cL)$ which restricts to $\phi$ outside of the central fibre; furthermore, if $\phi$ has minimal singularities then so does $\Phi$. In particular, any $\cL$-psh with minimal singularities on $\cL$ has relative minimal singularities outside of the central fibre.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\theta$ be a smooth representative of $c_1(L)$ and let $\phi\in\PSH(X,\theta)$. It naturally defines an invariant psh metric $\pi_\triv^*\phi$ on the trivial test configuration $(X\times \bbp^1,\pi_\triv^*\theta)$ which restricts to $\phi$ on any fibre. If $\pi:(\cX,\cL)\to (X\times \bbp^1,L\times \bbp^1)$ is a dominant test configuration, then $\pi^*\pi_X^*\phi$ is also psh on $\pi^*\pi_\triv^*\theta$ and restricts to $\phi$ on the general fibre. 

We now write $\cL=\pi^*\pi_X^*L + \cD$ with $\cD$ a vertical $\bbq$-Cartier divisor. Picking $k$ such that $kD$ is Cartier and a defining section $s_{kD}$ for $kD$, we then have that $\pi^*\pi_X^*\phi+k\mi\log|s_{kD}|$ is $\cL$-psh and restricts to $\phi$ away from the central fibre, giving our desired $\Phi$. Assuming $\phi$ has minimal singularities, $\pi^*\pi_X^*\phi$ also has minimal singularities by \cite[Proposition 1.12]{begz}, and it follows that $\pi^*\pi_X^*\phi+k\mi\log|s_{kD}|$ also has minimal singularities by Siu's decomposition theorem.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{rem_53}In the case where $(\cX,\cL)$ is a big \textit{and klt} test configuration for $(X,L)$ in the sense of Definition \ref{def_bigtc}, i.e. $$\mathcal{J}(c\Bs(\|L\|))=\mathcal{J}(c\Bs\|\cL\|)$$ for $c>0$, then Proposition \ref{prop_existencemin} implies that there always exists an $\cL$-psh function $\Phi$ with minimal singularities and such that $\mathcal{J}(c\Bs(\|L\|))=\mathcal{J}(c\Bs\|\cL\|)$. Indeed, by Theorem \ref{gz-openness} a metric with minimal singularities has multiplier ideal equal to that of the asymptotic base locus. This will be an important property in the next section, when we will look at the slope at infinity of the Ding functional in the case where $L=-K_X$. 

We also note that this klt assumption is necessary for the existence of such $\Phi$: otherwise, one could construct a Siu-type psh function with multiplier ideal $\cJ(c\mathrm{Bs}(L))$ as in \cite[Definition 3.2, Example 3.3]{kim}; but \cite[(1)]{kim} and the openness conjecture again would force $\cJ(c\mathrm{Bs}(L))=\cJ(c\|\cL\|)$.
\end{remark}
\iffalse Fix a test configuration $\mathcal{X} \to \mathbb{P}^1$ be a test configuration and let $\mathcal{A}_0, \ldots, \mathcal{A}_n$ be $\mathbb{C}^*$-invariant Bott-Chern cohomology classes. We assume throughout that $\mathcal{A}_0,\ldots,\mathcal{A}_n$ are either relatively semipositve or globally big. This means that we can find $S^1$-invariant representatives $\Omega_0,\ldots,\Omega_n$, where if $\mathcal{A}_j$ is big, we take $\Omega_j$ to be a positive metric with minimal singularities, and if $\mathcal{A}_j$ is semipositive, we take $\Omega_j$ to be semipositive. 

By passing to an equivariant resolution of singularities, we assume that $\mathcal{X}$ is actually smooth. 

Let $t$ be a coordinate on $\mathbb{C}^* = \mathbb{P}^1\backslash\{0, \infty\}$ and let $t$ be a coordinate on $\mathbb{C}^*$. Let $\tau = -\log|t|$. Identifying $\mathcal{X}_1 = X$ and using the $\mathbb{C}^*$-action, we can write $$\Omega_{j,1} = \Omega_j|_{\mathcal{X}_1} = \omega_j + dd^c \psi_j.$$ We then define $\phi_j: X \times \mathbb{C}^*\to \mathbb{R}$ by using the $\mathbb{C}^*$-action to identify $\mathcal{X}_{\mathbb{C}^*} = X \times \mathbb{C}^*$, and writing (slightly abusively, via the $\mathbb{C}^*$-action) $$\Omega_j|_{X\times b} = \omega_j + dd^c \phi_{j,b}.$$ This defines $\psi_j$ up to a constant and $\phi_j$ up to pullback of a function on $\mathbb{C}^*$, the precise choice will be irrelevant.\fi

Assuming the functions $\Phi_i$ are $\bbs^1$-invariant, we can in fact identify their restriction to $X\times\bbd^*$ with a function
$$t\mapsto \phi_{i,t}:=\phi_{i,-\log|z|}$$
for $t\in[0,\infty)$. Similarly, the function $\llangle \Phi_0,\dots,\Phi_n\rrangle$ can be seen as a function on $[0,\infty)$. We then obtain a slope formula as desired.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm-deligne-slope}
Under the assumptions of Proposition \ref{prop_curvature}, we have a slope formula $$\langle \cL_0\cdot\ldots\cdot\cL_n\rangle = \lim_{t\to\infty}  \frac{\llangle\Phi_0,\ldots,\Phi_n \rrangle(t)}{t}.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since the currents $\Theta_i+dd^c \Phi_i$ have minimal singularities, we know that $$\langle \cL_0\cdot\ldots\cdot\cL_n\rangle = \int_{\mathcal{X}} \langle (\Theta_0+dd^c \Phi_0) \wedge\dots\wedge (\Theta_n+dd^c \Phi_n)\rangle .$$ The mixed Monge--Amp\'ere measure puts no mass on pluripolar sets, so we have \begin{align*}\int_{\mathcal{X} }  \langle (\Theta_0+dd^c \Phi_0) \wedge\dots\wedge (\Theta_n+dd^c \Phi_n)\rangle &= \int_{\mathcal{X}_{\mathbb{C}^*}}  \langle (\Theta_0+dd^c \Phi_0) \wedge\dots\wedge (\Theta_n+dd^c \Phi_n)\rangle, \\ &= \int_{X\times \mathbb{C}^*} \langle (\Theta_0+dd^c \Phi_0) \wedge\dots\wedge (\Theta_n+dd^c \Phi_n)\rangle,  \\ &= \int_{\mathbb{C}^*} dd^c \llangle\Phi_0,\ldots,\Phi_n \rrangle,  \\ &=   \lim_{t\to\infty}  \frac{\llangle\Phi_0,\ldots,\Phi_n \rrangle(t)}{t},\end{align*} where the second-to-last equality follows from Proposition \ref{prop_curvature} and the last equality follows from a calculation in polar coordinates as in \cite[Lemma 2.6]{bermankpoly}. The result follows.\end{proof}

We end by briefly discussing the situation when each $\Phi_i \in \PSH(\mathcal{X},\Theta_i)$ is not necessarily taken to have minimal singularities.  Here the constructions go through in a very  similar manner, and using the same notation along with the results of Section \ref{sect_23} produces the following corollary:

\begin{corollary}\label{coro_generalcase} For an $\bbs^1$-invariant metric $\Phi \in \PSH(\mathcal{X},\Theta)$ which has relatively minimal singularities away from the central fibre, we have $$\lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{\dim H^0(\mathcal{X},k\L\otimes\mathcal{J}(k\Phi))}{(n+1)!k^{n+1}} = \lim_{t\to\infty}  \frac{E\langle\phi_t\rangle}{t}.$$ More generally for $\bbs^1$-invariant metrics $\Phi_i \in \PSH(\mathcal{X},\Theta_i)$ with relatively minimal singularities away from the central fibre, we have $$ (\L_0 - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \Phi_0) \cdot \ldots \cdot (\L_n - \divisor_{\mathfrak{X}} \Phi_n) = \lim_{t\to\infty}  \frac{\llangle\Phi_0,\ldots,\Phi_n \rrangle(t)}{t}.$$
\end{corollary}






\subsection{Finite-energy spaces and birational equivalence}

In order to study Ding-stability for dominant test configurations, we will need to consider psh functions living in energy spaces over different manifolds. The following result explains how to relate such energy classes.

\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Theorem 3.5]{DNFT}, \cite[Remark 2.4]{dinezzastability}}]\label{thm_pullbackenergy}
Let $\pi:Y\to X$ be a birational morphism. Let $L_Y$ be a big line bundle on $Y$, and let $\theta_Y\in c_1(L_Y)$ be a smooth representative. Then,
$$\cE^1(Y,\theta_Y)=\cE^1(X,\pi_*\theta_Y)$$
if and only if
$$\vol(\theta_Y)=\vol(\pi_*\theta_Y),$$
and this identification preserves the property of having minimal singularities. If $\pi:Y\to X$ is a blowup with smooth centre and exceptional $\bbq$-divisor $E$, and $s_{cE}$ is a defining section for $cE$ with $c$ such that $cE$ is Cartier, then $\phi\in\PSH_{\mathrm{min}}(X,\pi_*\theta_Y)$ is identified with
$$\pi^*\phi + c\mi\log|s_{cE}|.$$
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}
Through this identification, it is clear that the proof of Theorem \ref{thm-deligne-slope} goes through in the same manner, producing slope formulas for Deligne functionals on general test configurations whose central fibre is given by a pair $(Y,L_Y)$ birationally equivalent to $(X,L)$.
\end{remark}



\subsection{Slope formula for the Ding energy}

We assume from now on that $-K_X$ is big, and that $X$ is klt with respect to $\Bs(\|-K_X\|)$, namely $$\mathcal{J}(\Bs(\|-K_X\|)) = \mathcal{O}_X.$$ We set $L:=-K_X$ for notational convenience. We then consider $\pi:(Y,L_Y)\to (X,L)$ a birational equivalence, and $$\Pi:(\cY,\cL_\cY)\to (X\times\bbp^1,L\times\bbp^1)$$ a big and dominant test configuration for $\pi: Y \to X$ with smooth total space. Fixing a smooth representative $\Theta_Y$ for $c_1(\cL_\cY)$, let $\Phi_\cY$ be a $\bbs^1$-invariant psh metric in $\PSH(\cY,\Theta_\cY)$  with relative minimal singularities away from the central fibre. We now prove a slope formula for the Ding energy along $\Phi_\cY$. The strategy is similar to Berman's work \cite{bermankpoly}. Suppose $r>0$ is such that $r\L_\cY$ is Cartier. We will consider throughout the $\mathbb{Q}$-line bundle $$r\mi(\pi_{\bbp^1}\circ\Pi)_*(r(\L_\mathcal{Y}+K_{\cY/\mathbb{P}^1}))$$ (using Lemma \ref{lem_pushfwd}); but to ease notation we will assume throughout that $r=1$. The proofs in the general case only cause notational difficulty.

\bigskip Let $s$ be a trivialising section of $(\pi_{\bbp^1}\circ\Pi)_*(\L_\mathcal{Y}+K_{\cY/\mathbb{P}^1})$ over a neighbourhood $U$ of $0$ (which we can assume to be a disc) in $\bbp^1$, and let $\cY_U$ be the restriction of $\cY$ to this neighbourhood. We may thus realise $s$ as a section of $(\L_\mathcal{Y}+K_{\cY/\mathbb{P}^1})$ over $\cY_U$, and we may assume that its restriction to a fibre $s_t=s|_{\cY_t}$ is constant in $t$ when identified as a section of $L_Y+K_Y$ through the identification $L_Y+K_Y\cong \cL_\cY+K_{\cY/\bbp^1}$. As in Section \ref{sect_canmeasures}, since for $t\neq 0$ we obtain a section $s_t$ of the adjoint bundle $L_Y+K_Y$, we can associate to $s_t$ and $\phi_{\cY,t}$ a measure
$$\mu_{\cY,t}:=|s|^2e^{-\phi_{\cY,t}}.$$
We then define
$$v(t):=\int_{Y}\mu_{\cY,t}.$$
Note that $\phi_{\cY,t}$ can be identified with a psh metric $\phi_t$ on $-K_X$ with minimal singularities in $\PSH(X,\theta)=\PSH(X,\pi_*\theta_Y)$ via Theorem \ref{thm_pullbackenergy}. It defines again as in Section \ref{sect_canmeasures} a canonical measure $\mu_t:=e^{-\phi_t}$, so that $$-\log\int_X \mu_t= L(\phi_t).$$
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_invarianceding}
For all $t$, we have
$$v(t)=\int_X \mu_t.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As explained in \cite[Remark 3.4]{dinezzastability}, we have $\phi_{\cY,t}=\pi^*\phi_t+c\mi \log|s_{cE}|$, with $E$ the exceptional divisor of $\pi$, $c$ such that $cE$ is Cartier, and $s_{cE}$ a defining section for $cE$. In particular, by construction, the measures $\mu_{\cY,t}$ and $\mu_t$ coincide on the set where $\pi$ is an isomorphism, and trivially $\phi_{\cY,t}=\phi_t$ on this set; and are extended by zero away from this set, proving the lemma.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}[P\u{a}un--Takayama]\label{thm_pshding}The function $v(t)$ is subharmonic on a neighbourhood of $0$ in $\mathbb{P}^1$.\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} This follows directly from a general result of P\u{a}un--Takayama \cite{pauntakayama}. To see this, one views $v(t)$ as the potential for the natural $L^2$-metric on $(\pi_{\bbp^1}\circ\Pi)_*(\L_\mathcal{Y}+K_{\cY/\mathbb{P}^1})$, to which \cite[Theorem 1.1]{pauntakayama} implies the desired subharmonicity. \end{proof}

\begin{remark} As in Berman \cite[Lemma 3.2]{bermankpoly}, This result also follows from earlier work of Berndtsson--P\u{a}un \cite{bpaun}, arguing instead similarly to Berman \cite[Lemma 3.2]{bermankpoly} using a version of the Ohsawa--Takegoshi extension theorem. \end{remark}

Since $v$ is subharmonic, it has a well-defined Lelong number at zero. By construction, $v$ is also $\bbs^1$-invariant, so that its Lelong number at $0$ is then computed by the slope at infinity
$$\nu_0(v)=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{v(t)}{t}.$$
We claim that this slope at infinity is in turn computed by a complex singularity exponent associated to a canonical measure, in the following sense.
\begin{definition}
As in the previous discussion, the data of a section of $(\L_\mathcal{Y}+K_{\cY/\mathbb{P}^1})$ over $\cY_U$ yields a measure $|s|^2e^{-\Phi_\cY}$ away from the polar locus of $\Phi_\cY$, which we extend by zero there; this measure extends the family $t\mapsto \mu_{\cY,t}$ considered before, over the central fibre. Given any continuous $(n+1,n+1)$-current $\Phi$ seen as a measure $\mu_\Phi$ on $\cX$, let us denote $e^{-\gamma_\cY}$ the Radon--Nikodym derivative of $|s|^2e^{-\Phi_\cY}$ with respect to $\mu_\Phi$. We then define the \textit{complex singularity exponent}
$$c_{\cY_0}(\cY,\Delta_\cY,\Phi_\cY) = \sup\{c \in \mathbb{R}, \exists\textrm{ a neighbourhood } U\textrm{ of }\cY_0 \textrm{ with } e^{-c\gamma}\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(U, \mu_\Phi)\}$$
with $\Delta_\cY:=-\cL_\cY-K_{\cY/\bbp^1}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_slopeding1}
We have that
$$\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{v(t)}{t}=1 - c_{\cY_0}(\cY,\Delta_\cY,\Phi_\cY).$$
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
A general computation as in \cite[Proposition 3.8]{bermankpoly} shows that
$$\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{v(t)}{t}=\inf \left \{ c\in \mathbb{R}: \int_U e^{-v(z)}e^{(1-c)\log|z|^2}idz\wedge d\bar z<\infty\right\}.$$
while viewing $v$ as a potential for the $L^2$-metric as in Theorem \ref{thm_pshding}, we see that for any function $f$ on $U$ we have 
$$\int_{\mathcal{Y}_U}(\pi_U\circ\Pi)^*f\,e^{-\gamma_\cY}\mu_\Phi=\int_{\mathcal{Y}_U}(\pi_U\circ\Pi)^*f\,|s|^2e^{-\Phi_\cY}= \int_U e^{-v(z)}f(z) idz \wedge d\bar z.$$
Setting $f(z) = \exp{(1-c)\log|z|^2}$ we then have
$$\int_{\mathcal{Y}_U}e^{(1-c)\log|z|^2}e^{-\gamma_\cY}\mu_\Phi= \int_U e^{-v(z)}e^{(1-c)\log|z|^2} idz \wedge d\bar z.$$
But we have that
$$\inf\left\{c\in\bbr,\,\int_{\mathcal{Y}_U}e^{(1-c)\log|z|^2}e^{-\gamma_\cY}\mu_\Phi<\infty\right\}=1-c_{\cY_0}(\cY,\Delta_\cY,\Phi_\cY),$$
concluding the proof.
\end{proof}


\begin{remark} We emphasise that we do not need $\Phi_{\mathcal{Y}}$ to have global minimal singularities for this result to hold, so along with Corollary \ref{coro_generalcase} we obtain a very general slope formula for the Ding functional.\end{remark}

\begin{corollary}\label{coro_slopeding2}
If $\Phi_\cY$ has global minimal singularities, then
$$\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{v(t)}{t}=1 - \mathrm{lct}((\cY,\Delta_\cY,\|\cL_\cY\|);\cY_0).$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to show that
$$\mathrm{lct}((\cY,\Delta_\cY,\|\cL_\cY\|);\cY_0)=c_{\cY_0}(\cY,\Delta_\cY,\Phi_\cY).$$
Because $\Phi_\cY$ has analytic singularities (along the augmented base locus of $\cL_\cY$), the result follows from \cite[Proposition 3.20]{kollar} (using the fact that our valuative definition of the asymptotic multiplier ideals appearing in the lct coincide with the ``usual'' notion of asymptotic multiplier ideal, as in \cite[Proposition 3.3.8]{blum}).
\end{proof}

\subsection{The main theorem}

We now bring together the various results. We let $(X,-K_X)$ be such that $-K_X$ is big and klt, and we fix a reference metric on $-K_X$ with minimal singularities. We assume $\pi:Y\to X$ is a birational equivalence and $\Pi:(\mathcal{X},\L)\to (X \times \mathbb{P}^1,-K_X)$ is a dominant big test configuration for $\pi$ with smooth total space, and let $\Phi$ be a singular $\bbs^1$-invariant psh metric on $\L$ which has global and relative minimal singularities.

\begin{corollary}\label{coro_slopes} The slope formulas $$\lim_{t \to \infty} \frac{D(t)}{t} = \Ding(\mathcal{X},\L)$$ and $$\lim_{t \to \infty} \frac{J(t)}{t} = J(\mathcal{X},\L)$$ hold. \end{corollary}

\begin{proof} 
By Theorem \ref{thm-deligne-slope} and the fact that metrics with minimal singularities compute positive intersection numbers, we have $$\lim_{t \to \infty} \frac{E(t)}{t} = \langle \L^{n+1}\rangle,\,\lim_{t \to \infty} \frac{J(t)}{t} = J(\mathcal{X},\L).$$
In turn, Corollary \ref{coro_slopeding2} provides $$\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{v(t)}{t}=1 - \mathrm{lct}((\cY,\Delta_\cY,\|\cL_\cY\|);\cY_0)$$
in the notation of the previous section; adding these proves the slope formula for the Ding functional.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary} The following direction holds in the Yau--Tian--Donaldson conjecture:

\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item   if $X$ admits a K\"ahler--Einstein metric, it is Ding semistable;
\item  if $X$ admits a unique K\"ahler--Einstein metric, it is uniformly Ding stable.
\end{enumerate}
 \end{corollary}
 \begin{proof}
We prove (ii). Let $\theta\in c_1(-K_X)$ be a smooth representative. By Theorem \ref{thm_dingcoercive}, if $X$ admits a unique Kähler--Einstein metric, then $D$ is coercive on $\cE^1(X,\theta)$. Given $\pi:Y\to X$ a birational equivalence and $\theta_Y$ a big cohomology class on $Y$ such that $\pi_*\theta_Y=\theta$, Lemma \ref{lem_invarianceding} and Theorem \ref{thm_pullbackenergy} imply that $D$ is also coercive on $\cE^1(Y,\theta_Y)$. We now pick a dominant big  test configuration $(\cX,\cL)$ for $\pi$, and a $\bbs^1$-invariant metric $\Phi=\{\phi_t\}_t$ on $\cL$ with minimal singularities. By coercivity of $D$ on $\cE^1(Y,\theta_Y)$ we have that there exists $\delta>0$, $C>0$ (independent of $(\cX,\cL)$) such that for all $t$
$$D(\phi_t)\geq \delta J(\phi_t)-C,$$
which yields uniform Ding stability upon taking slopes and using Corollary \ref{coro_slopes}. The statement (i) is proven similarly using Theorem \ref{thm_dingmin} (which implies the Ding functional to be bounded below.
 \end{proof}
 
 \subsection{Loose ends}
 
 We end by using slope formulas to prove some promised properties of the Ding invariant and the norms. We begin with translation invariance.
 
 \begin{lemma}\label{lemma:translation}
Suppose $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ is a big and klt test configuration. Then for any $k \geq 0$, $(\mathcal{X},\L+\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(k))$ is a big and klt test configuration.
 \end{lemma}
 
 \begin{proof}
 
  Since $k\geq 0$, the test configuration $(\mathcal{X},\L+\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(k))$ is certainly big, so we must show that it remains klt, for which we may assume $\mathcal{X}$ is dominant. Recall that this asks  that for all $k \geq 0$ we have equality $$\mathcal{J}(\Bs(k\|\L+\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(j)\|)) = \mathcal{J}(\Bs(k\|p^*L\|)).$$ 
  
  As in Remark \ref{rem_53},  the klt condition for $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ is equivalent to the existence of a metric $\Phi \in \PSH(\mathcal{X},\Theta)$ with minimal singularities which satisfies $$\mathcal{J}(\Bs(k\|\L\|)) = \mathcal{J}(k\Phi)$$ for all $k\geq 0$. But the existence of such a metric implies the existence of a metric  $$\Theta + dd^c \Phi + k\omega_{FS} \in c_1(\L + k\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}}(1))$$ with the same property, since $\omega_{FS}$ is smooth. This proves the result. \end{proof}
 
 Thus we may speak about translation invariance.
 
 \begin{proposition}\label{prop:translation}
 Let $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ be a big and klt test configuration. Then for all $k \geq 0$ the big and klt test configuration satisfies  $$\Ding(\mathcal{X},\L+\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(k)) = \Ding(\mathcal{X},\L).$$
 \end{proposition}
 
 \begin{proof}
 
 The proof is very similar to the above, which implies that for  $\Phi \in \PSH(\mathcal{X},\Theta)$ with minimal singularities,  $\Phi \in \PSH(\mathcal{X},\Theta+k\omega_{FS})$ still has minimal singularities. We begin with the volume, which by the minimal singularities condition satisfies $$\vol(\L) = \int_{\mathcal{X}} \MA_{\Theta}\langle \Phi\rangle = \int_{\mathcal{X}} \langle (\Theta+dd^c\Phi)^{n+1}\rangle.$$ Since $\Phi \in \PSH(\mathcal{X},\Theta+k\omega_{FS})$ has minimal singularities, it also computes the volume and hence by multilinearity of the Monge--Amp\`ere mass a calculation provides \begin{equation}\label{finaleq}\vol(\L+\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(k)) = \vol(\L) + k(n+1) \vol(L),\end{equation} where we use that $$\langle \L^n \cdot \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(1) \rangle = \langle L^n\rangle$$ as $\L$ restricts to $L_Y$ on the general fibre (which has the same volume as $L$ by hypothesis).
 
Similarly viewing the Ding invariant through the complex singularity exponent as in Theorem \ref{thm_slopeding1}, what changes upon modifying $\L$ to $\L+\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(k)$ is $\Delta_{\mathcal{Y}}$ (which in the notation introduced there adds a term of the form $e^{-k\log |\tau|^2}$), and the argument of Theorem \ref{thm_slopeding1} then shows that the complex singularity exponent changes in the same way as Equation \eqref{finaleq}. The result follows.
 \end{proof}
 
 We finally show equivalence of the various norms.

\begin{lemma}\label{NA-IJ-uniform}
There are uniform bounds \begin{align*}J(\mathcal{X},\L) &\leq I(\mathcal{X},\L) \leq (n+1)J(\mathcal{X},\L), \\ n^{-1}J(\mathcal{X},\L)&\leq \|(\mathcal{X},\L)\|_m = I(\mathcal{X},\L)- J(\mathcal{X},\L)\leq nJ(\mathcal{X},\L). \end{align*}
\end{lemma}


\begin{proof} The main point is that each of the $I,J$ and $I-J$ energies can be viewed as Deligne functionals. That is, by Lemma \ref{IJ-uniform} we have analogous analytic uniform bounds for the $I,J$ and $I-J$ energies on $\mathcal{E}^1(X,\theta)$. Associating to $(\mathcal{X},\L)$ a metric in $c_1(\L)$ with minimal singularities and using Theorem \ref{thm-deligne-slope}, we obtain analogous uniform bounds for their slopes, which are precisely $ I(\mathcal{X},\L), J(\mathcal{X},\L)$ and $I(\mathcal{X},\L)- J(\mathcal{X},\L) = \|(\mathcal{X},\L)\|_m$ (with the latter equality holding by definition).
\end{proof}

\bibliographystyle{alpha}
