--- abstract: 'In order to study integral points of bounded log-anticanonical height on weak del Pezzo surfaces, we classify weak del Pezzo pairs. As a representative example, we consider a quartic del Pezzo surface of singularity type ${\mathbf{A}}_1+{\mathbf{A}}_3$ and prove an analogue of Manin's conjecture for integral points with respect to its singularities and its lines.' address: - 'Institut für Algebra, Zahlentheorie und Diskrete Mathematik, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Welfengarten 1, 30167 Hannover, Germany' - 'Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Am Campus 1, 3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria' author: - Ulrich Derenthal - Florian Wilsch bibliography: - 'manin\_integral.bib' date: 'September 14, 2021' title: Integral points on singular del Pezzo surfaces --- Introduction ============ Del Pezzo surfaces over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ often contain infinitely many rational points. Over the past 20 years, Manin's conjecture @MR974910 [@MR2019019] for the asymptotic behavior of the number of rational points of bounded anticanonical height has been confirmed for some smooth and many singular del Pezzo surfaces (see @MR1909606 [@MR2332351; @MR2874644] for some milestones and @MR3307753 [§ 6.4.1] for many further references), in most cases using universal torsors, often combined with advanced analytic techniques. In recent years, a conjectural framework for the density of *integral* points has emerged in the work of Chambert-Loir and Tschinkel @MR2740045. The purpose of this paper is to initiate a systematic investigation of integral points of bounded height on del Pezzo surfaces. Only a few of them are covered by general results for toric varieties @arXiv:1006.3345v2 and equivariant compactifications of vector groups @MR2999313; most del Pezzo surfaces are out of reach of this *harmonic analyis approach* since they are not equivariant compactifications of algebraic groups @MR2753646 [@MR3333982]. Del Pezzo surfaces are inaccessible to the *circle method*, which gives asymptotic formulas for integral points only on high-dimensional complete intersections @MR0150129, @MR2740045 [§ 5.4]. Therefore, we adapt the *universal torsor method* to integral points in order to confirm new cases of an integral analogue of Manin's conjecture. See also @arXiv:1901.08503 for a three-dimensional example. As rational and integral points coincide on a projective variety $X$, the study of the latter becomes interesting on its own on an integral model of the complement $X\setminus Z$ of an appropriate *boundary* $Z$. Our first result (Theorem \[thm:classification\] in Section \[sec:classification\]) is a general treatment of possible boundaries on singular del Pezzo surfaces of low degree. For singular cubic surfaces, $Z$ must be an $\mathbf{A}$-singularity; for singular quartic del Pezzo surfaces, $Z$ must be an $\mathbf{A}$-singularity or a line passing only through $\mathbf{A}$-singularities. Furthermore, ${\mathbf{A}}_1$-singularities behave differently than other $\mathbf{A}$-singularities. Therefore, a good starting point seems to be a nontoric quartic del Pezzo surface that contains an ${\mathbf{A}}_1$- and an ${\mathbf{A}}_3$-singularity and three lines. For each boundary $Z$ admissible in the sense of Theorem \[thm:classification\], we get an associated counting problem and prove an asymptotic formula of the shape $$c B (\log B)^{b-1}$$ (Theorem \[thm:main\_concrete\]), encountering a range of different phenomena when dealing with the different types of boundary. These asymptotic formulas admit a geometric interpretation (Theorem \[thm:main\_abstract\]). In particular, the leading constant $c$ consists of Tamagawa numbers as defined in @MR2740045 and combinatorial constants (analogous to the constant $\alpha$ defined by Peyre for rational points) as defined in @arXiv:1006.3345v2 for toric varieties and studied in greater generality in @wilsch-toric; this is the first result applying this combinatorial construction in a nontoric setting. The counting problem -------------------- Let $S \subset {\mathbb{P}}^4_{\mathbb{Q}}$ be the quartic del Pezzo surface defined by $$\label{eq:def_eq} x_0^2+x_0x_3+x_2x_4=x_1x_3-x_2^2=0$$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, with an ${\mathbf{A}}_1$-singularity $Q_1=(0:1:0:0:0)$ and an ${\mathbf{A}}_3$-singularity $Q_2=(0:0:0:0:1)$. Let ${\mathcal{S}}\subset {\mathbb{P}}^4_{\mathbb{Z}}$ be its integral model defined by the same equations over ${\mathbb{Z}}$. The closure of every rational point $P \in S({\mathbb{Q}})$ is an integral point $\overline{P} \in {\mathcal{S}}({\mathbb{Z}})$; both are represented (uniquely up to sign) by coprime $(x_0,\dots,x_4) \in {\mathbb{Z}}^5 \setminus \{0\}$ satisfying the defining equations . Recall that studying integral points becomes interesting only when we choose a *boundary* ${\mathcal{Z}}$ to consider integral points on ${\mathcal{S}}\setminus {\mathcal{Z}}$, and that the types of boundaries in Theorem \[thm:classification\] for our case are the singularities and the lines; we start with the former. To do so, let $Z_1=Q_1$, $Z_2=Q_2$; in addition to these, we study the boundary $Z_3=Q_1\cup Q_2$, which goes beyond the setting of weak del Pezzo pairs described in the beginning of the following section. Let ${\mathcal{Z}}_i=\overline{Z_i}$, and ${\mathcal{U}}_i = {\mathcal{S}}\setminus {\mathcal{Z}}_i$. Hence, $\overline{P}$ lies in ${\mathcal{U}}_3({\mathbb{Z}})$, say, if and only if it is does not reduce to one of the singularities modulo any prime $p$. In other words, a representative $(x_0,\dots,x_4)$ of a point in ${\mathcal{U}}_i({\mathbb{Z}})$ satisfies the *integrality condition* $$\label{eq:gcd} \begin{aligned} \gcd(x_0,x_2,x_3,x_4)=1,\qquad &\text{if $i=1$},\\ \gcd(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)=1,\qquad &\text{if $i=2$, or}\\ \gcd(x_0,x_2,x_3,x_4)=1\quad\text{and}\quad \gcd(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)=1,\qquad &\text{if $i=3$}. \end{aligned}$$ Since the sets ${\mathcal{U}}_i({\mathbb{Z}})$ of integral points are clearly infinite, we consider integral points of bounded height. We work with the *height functions* $$\label{eq:height} \begin{aligned} H_1(\overline{P}) &=\max\{{\left\lvertx_0\right\rvert},{\left\lvertx_2\right\rvert},{\left\lvertx_3\right\rvert},{\left\lvertx_4\right\rvert}\},\\ H_2(\overline{P}) &=\max\{{\left\lvertx_0\right\rvert},{\left\lvertx_1\right\rvert},{\left\lvertx_2\right\rvert},{\left\lvertx_3\right\rvert}\},\qquad \text{and}\\ H_3(\overline{P}) &=\max\{{\left\lvertx_0\right\rvert},{\left\lvertx_2\right\rvert},{\left\lvertx_3\right\rvert}, \min\{{\left\lvertx_1\right\rvert},{\left\lvertx_4\right\rvert}\}\}, \end{aligned}$$ because they can be interpreted as *log-anticanonical heights* on a minimal desingularization, as we shall see below (Lemma \[lem:heights\]). It turns out that the number of integral points of bounded height is dominated by the integral points on the three lines $$\label{eq:lines} L_1=\{x_0=x_2=x_3=0\},\ L_2=\{x_0=x_1=x_2=0\},\ L_3=\{x_0+x_3=x_1=x_2=0\};$$ in fact, there are infinitely many integral points of height $1$ on some of them. Therefore, we count integral points only in their complement $V = S \setminus \{x_2=0\}$. Hence, we are interested in the asymptotic behavior of $$\label{eq:def-N_i} N_i(B) = \# \{\overline{P} \in {\mathcal{U}}_i({\mathbb{Z}}) \cap V({\mathbb{Q}}) \mid H_i(\overline{P}) \le B\},$$ the number of integral points of bounded log-anticanonical height that are not contained in the lines. Explicitly, this is $$\label{eq:description-N_i} N_i(B) = \# \{(x_0,\dots,x_4) \in {\mathbb{Z}}^5 \setminus \{0\} \mid \eqref{eq:def_eq},\ \eqref{eq:gcd},\ x_2 > 0,\ H_i(x_0:\dots:x_4) \le B\}.$$ Recall that the second type of boundary is a line, resulting in $Z_4=L_1,Z_5 = L_2, Z_6 = L_3$ with the notation in . Let ${\mathcal{Z}}_i=\overline{Z_i}$ in ${\mathcal{S}}$, and ${\mathcal{U}}_i={\mathcal{S}}\setminus {\mathcal{Z}}_i$ for $i=4,5,6$. Analogously to the first three cases, a point $(x_0:\dots:x_4)\in S$ with coprime $x_0,\dots,x_4 \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ lies in ${\mathcal{U}}_i({\mathbb{Z}})$ if and only if $$\label{eq:gcd-lines} \begin{aligned} \gcd(x_0,x_2,x_3)=1, \qquad &\text{if $i=4$},\\ \gcd(x_0,x_1,x_2)=1, \qquad &\text{if $i=5$, or}\\ \gcd(x_0+x_3,x_1,x_2)=1, \qquad &\text{if $i=6$}. \end{aligned}$$ We work with the heights $$\begin{aligned} H_4(\overline{P}) &= \max\{|x_0|,|x_2|,|x_3|\},\\ H_5(\overline{P}) &= \max\{|x_0|,|x_1|,|x_2|\},\qquad \text{and}\\ H_6(\overline{P}) &= \max\{|x_0+x_3|,|x_1|,|x_2|\},\end{aligned}$$ which will again turn out to be log-anticanonical on a minimal desingularization. Let $N_i(B)$ for $i=4,5,6$ be defined as in . They satisfy descriptions as in , with the integrality condition replaced by . Our second result consists of asymptotic formulas for these counting problems: \[thm:main\_concrete\] As $B \to \infty$, we have $$\begin{aligned} N_1(B) &= \frac{13}{4320} \left(\prod_p \left(1-\frac 1 p\right)^5\left(1+\frac 5 p\right)\right) B (\log B)^5 + O(B (\log B)^4 \log\log B), \\ N_2(B) & = \frac{1}{32} \left(\prod_p \left(1-\frac 1 p\right)^3\left(1+\frac 3 p\right)\right) B (\log B)^4 + O(B(\log B)^3 \log\log B),\\ N_3(B) & = \frac 1 8 \left(\prod_p \left(1-\frac 1 p\right)^2\left(1+\frac 2 p-\frac 1 {p^2}\right)\right) B (\log B)^3 + O(B(\log B)^2 \log\log B), \\ N_4(B) &= 2 \left(\prod_p \left(1-\frac 1 p\right)\left(1+\frac 1 p\right)\right) B (\log B)^2 + O(B \log B \log\log B), \quad \text{and}\\ N_5(B) = N_6(B) &= \frac{7}{24} \left(\prod_p \left(1-\frac 1 p\right)^2\left(1+\frac 2 p\right)\right) B (\log B)^3 + O(B(\log B)^2 \log\log B). \end{aligned}$$ Cases 5 and 6 are symmetric: The involutive automorphism $$\label{eq:symmetry} (x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\mapsto (x_0+x_3,-x_1,x_2,-x_3,x_4)$$ of $S$ exchanges the lines $L_2$ and $L_3$ and the height functions $H_5$ and $H_6$, while leaving $V=S\setminus\{x_2=0\}$ invariant, whence $N_5(B)=N_6(B)$. The expected asymptotic formula {#sec:expected} ------------------------------- Similarly to the case of rational points @MR1679843 [@MR2019019], our asymptotic formulas for the number of integral points of bounded height should be interpreted on a desingularization $\rho \colon {\widetilde{S}}\to S$. Here, ${\widetilde{S}}$ is a *weak del Pezzo surface*, that is, a smooth projective surface whose anticanonical bundle $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}^\vee$ is big and nef (but not ample in our case). To interpret the number of points on ${\mathcal{U}}_i = {\mathcal{S}}\setminus {\mathcal{Z}}_i$, we study a desingularization ${\widetilde{U}}_i = {\widetilde{S}}\setminus D_i$ of $U_i$, where $D_i=\rho^{-1}(Z_i)$ is a reduced effective divisor with strict normal crossings. In the context of integral points, the log-anticanonical bundle $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D_i)^\vee$ assumes the role of the anticanonical bundle. From this point of view, Theorem \[thm:main\_concrete\] can be interpreted in the framework described in @MR2740045. The minimal desingularization $\rho: {\widetilde{S}}\to S$ is an iterated blow-up of ${\mathbb{P}}^2_{\mathbb{Q}}$ in five points. The analogous blow-up of ${\mathbb{P}}^2_{\mathbb{Z}}$ results in an integral model $\rho\colon {\widetilde{{\mathcal{S}}}}\to {\mathcal{S}}$; see Section \[sec:torsor\]. Then $D_1$, $D_2$ are the divisors above $Q_1,Q_2$, respectively, and $D_3=D_1+D_2$ is the one over both; see Figure \[fig:clemens\_complex\] for their dual graph (Dynkin diagram). Our discussion is simplified by the fact that the pairs $({\widetilde{S}},D_i)$ are split, in the sense that $\operatorname{Pic}{\widetilde{S}}\to \operatorname{Pic}{\widetilde{S}}_{{\overline{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}$ is an isomorphism and @MR3732687 [Definition 1.6] holds, and by the fact that we are working over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. Let ${\widetilde{U}}_i,{\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_i$ be the complement of $D_i,\overline{D_i}$ in ${\widetilde{S}},{\widetilde{{\mathcal{S}}}}$, respectively, where $\overline{D_i}$ is the Zariski closure of $D_i$ in ${\widetilde{{\mathcal{S}}}}$. The preimage of the complement $V$ of the lines on $S$ is the complemenent ${\widetilde{V}}$ of all negative curves on ${\widetilde{S}}$. This leads to the reinterpretation of our counting problem as $$N_i(B) = \#\{\overline{P} \in {\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_i({\mathbb{Z}}) \cap {\widetilde{V}}({\mathbb{Q}}) \mid H_i(\rho(\overline{P})) \le B\}$$ on the minimal desingularization, and we prove in Lemma \[lem:heights\] that $H_i \circ \rho$ is a log-anticanonical height function on ${\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_i({\mathbb{Z}}) \cap {\widetilde{V}}({\mathbb{Q}})$. Note that the log-anticanonical bundle $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D_i)^\vee$ is big and nef for $i=1,2,4,5,6$, but big and *not* nef for $i=3$ (Lemma \[lem:big-and-nef\]); the unusual shape of $H_3$ is clearly related to this. From the shape of asymptotic formulas in previous results @arXiv:1006.3345v2 [@MR2999313; @MR3117310; @arXiv:1901.08503] and the study of volume asymptotics in @MR2740045, we expect that $$N_i(B) \sim c_{i,{\mathrm{fin}}}c_{i,\infty} B (\log B)^{b_i-1},$$ where the leading constant can be decomposed into a finite part $c_{i,{\mathrm{fin}}}$ and an archimedean part $c_{i,\infty}$ that we shall describe and determine in Section \[sec:leading-constant\] precisely. The finite part $$\label{eq:c_fin} c_{i,{\mathrm{fin}}} = \prod_p \left(1-\frac 1 p \right)^{\operatorname{rk}\operatorname{Pic}{\widetilde{U}}_i} \tau_{({\widetilde{S}},D_i), p}({\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_i({\mathbb{Z}}_p)),$$ which behaves similarly as in the case of rational points, is defined as an Euler product of convergence factors and $p$-adic Tamagawa numbers. We compute the latter as $p$-adic integrals over ${\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_i({\mathbb{Z}}_p)$ (Lemma \[lem:surface-finite-volumes\]); they turn out to be simply $\#{\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_i({\mathbb{F}}_p)/p^{\dim S}$. This reflects the fact that integral points should be distributed evenly in the set ${\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_i({\mathbb{Z}}_p)$, which has positive and finite volume with respect to the modified Tamagawa measure $\tau_{({\widetilde{S}},D_i),p}$ defined in @MR2740045. (E7) at (-4,0) \[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.3\]; (E3) at (-2,0) \[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.3\]; (E4) at (0,0) \[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.3\]; (E6) at (2,0) \[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.3\]; (E3) – (E4) node\[pos=0.5, anchor=north\]<span>$A_1$</span>; (E4) – (E6) node\[pos=0.5, anchor=north\]<span>$A_2$</span>; On the other hand, 100% of the integral points are arbitrarily close to the boundary with respect to the real-analytic topology, ordered by height. This makes the analysis of $c_{i,\infty}$ much more delicate than for rational points. More precisely, the points close to the minimal strata of the boundary—that is, the intersection of a maximal set of intersecting components of $D_i$—should dominate the counting function. These strata are encoded in the *(analytic) Clemens complex* ${\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{an}}}_{\mathbb{R}}(D_i)$. For a split surface, the vertices of this Clemens complex correspond to the irreducible components of the boundary divisor $D_i$, and there is an edge for each intersection point of two divisors. The archimedean constant $$\label{eq:c_infty} c_{i,\infty} = \sum_A \alpha_{i,A} \tau_{i,D_A,\infty}(D_A({\mathbb{R}}))\\$$ is a sum over the faces $A$ of maximal dimension of the Clemens complex, which correspond to the minimal strata $D_A$ of $D_i$. For each maximal-dimensional face $A$, we have a product of a rational factor $\alpha_{i,A}$ and an archimedean Tamagawa number $\tau_{i,D_A,\infty}(D_A({\mathbb{R}}))$ coming from a *residue measure* as defined in @MR2740045. This measure can be interpreted as a real density, which is supported on $D_A({\mathbb{R}})$ and should measure the distribution of points in neighborhoods of open subsets of $D_A({\mathbb{R}})$. From another point of view, the set ${\widetilde{S}}({\mathbb{R}})$ has infinite volume with respect to a modified measure $\tau_{({\widetilde{S}},D_i),\infty}$ as above, and $\tau_{i,D_A,\infty}(D_A({\mathbb{R}}))$ appears in the leading constant of the asymptotic volume of *height balls* with respect to said measure (cf. @MR2740045 [Propositions 2.5.1, 4.2.4]). In the first case, the Clemens complex consists of only one vertex corresponding to the boundary divisor above the ${\mathbf{A}}_1$-singularity $Q_1$, and integral points accumulate near it (Figure \[fig:points\_U1\]). In the second and third case, the maximal dimensional faces $A_1,A_2$ of the Clemens complex correspond to the two intersection points $D_{A_1},D_{A_2}$ of the divisors above the ${\mathbf{A}}_3$-singularity, and "most" integral points are very close to these two intersection points (Figure \[fig:points\_U2\]). Correspondingly, the archimedean Tamagawa number is the volume of the boundary divisor in the first case, and it is the volume of the two intersection points in the second and third case. In the remaining cases, it similarly is a volume of intersection points (Lemma \[lem:arch-volumes\]). The rational factor $\alpha_{i,A}$ is particularly interesting in our examples. It is introduced in @arXiv:1006.3345v2 for toric varieties and generalized in @wilsch-toric to be $$\label{eq:alpha} \alpha_{i,A} = \operatorname{vol}\{x \in (\operatorname{Eff}{\widetilde{U}}_{i,A})^\vee \mid \langle x, \omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D_i)^\vee|_{{\widetilde{U}}_{i,A}}\rangle = 1\},$$ where ${\widetilde{U}}_{i,A}$ is the subvariety consisting of ${\widetilde{U}}_i$ and the divisors corresponding to $A$. For vector groups @MR2999313 and wonderful compactifications @MR3117310, the effective cone is generated by the boundary divisors and simplicial, which makes the treatment of this factor easy. In @arXiv:1901.08503, it behaves similarly as Peyre's $\alpha$ for projective varieties since the boundary has just one component; it is also much simpler since the Picard number is $2$. Our second and following cases behave in a different way since the Clemens complex is not a simplex, providing the first nontrivial treatment of this factor for a nontoric variety. Here, it turns out that the resulting polytopes for the different maximal faces fit together to one polytope whose volume appears in the leading constant of the counting problem (Lemma \[lem:arch-constants\]). In case $4$, one of the polytopes has volume $0$, making this an example for the obstruction @wilsch-toric [Proposition 2.13] to the existence of integral points near the corresponding minimal stratum of the boundary (Remark \[rmk:obstruction\]). ![Integral points on ${\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_1$ of height $\le 90$. The boundary divisor is the central vertical line. Some horizontal and diagonal lines look accumulating, but in fact are not: They contain $\sim c^\prime B$ points, which is less than the $c B(\log B)^5$ points on $U$; the constants $c^\prime$ can however be up to $2$, while the constant $c$ in our main theorem is numerically $\approx .0003$.<span data-label="fig:points_U1"></span>](figures/manin_integral-figure-e7.pdf) ![Integral points on ${\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_2$ of height $\le 60$, in neighborhoods of $D_{A_1}$ (left) and $D_{A_2}$ (right). Most points are close to the three boundary divisors, which are the central horizontal line and two vertical lines here.<span data-label="fig:points_U2"></span>](figures/manin_integral-figure-d2-ab.pdf "fig:") ![Integral points on ${\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_2$ of height $\le 60$, in neighborhoods of $D_{A_1}$ (left) and $D_{A_2}$ (right). Most points are close to the three boundary divisors, which are the central horizontal line and two vertical lines here.<span data-label="fig:points_U2"></span>](figures/manin_integral-figure-d2-cd.pdf "fig:") The exponent of $\log B$ is expected to be $b_i-1$, where $$\label{eq:exponent} b_i = \operatorname{rk}\operatorname{Pic}{\widetilde{U}}_i - \operatorname{rk}{\mathbb{Q}}[U_i]/{\mathbb{Q}}^\times + \dim {\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{an}}}_{\mathbb{R}}(D_i) + 1.$$ Here, $\dim {\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{an}}}_{\mathbb{R}}(D_i) + 1$ is the maximal number of components of the boundary divisor $D_i$ that meet in the same point, and ${\mathbb{Q}}[U_i]^\times = {\mathbb{Q}}^\times$ in each case. We can reformulate Theorem \[thm:main\_concrete\] as follows: \[thm:main\_abstract\] For $i \in \{1,\dots,6\}$, we have $$\label{eq:main-formula} N_i(B) = c_{i,\infty} c_{i,{\mathrm{fin}}} B(\log B)^{b_i-1}(1+o(1))$$ as $B \to \infty$, where the constants $c_{i,\infty}$, $c_{i,{\mathrm{fin}}}$, and $b_i$ are as in , , and , respectively. This confirms the expectations extracted from @MR2740045 [@arXiv:1006.3345v2; @wilsch-toric]. Strategy of the proof --------------------- In Section \[sec:classification\], we define and classify *weak del Pezzo pairs* $({\widetilde{S}},D)$, which have big and nef log-anticanonical bundle $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D)^\vee$ (Theorem \[thm:classification\]). In Section \[sec:torsor\], we describe a universal torsor on the minimal desingularization of $S$, we show that our height functions are log-anticanonical, and we describe them in terms of Cox coordinates. This leads to a completely explicit counting problem on the universal torsor (Lemma \[lem:param\]), with a $(2^{\operatorname{rk}\operatorname{Pic}{\widetilde{U}}_i}:1)$-map to our set of integral points of bounded height: roughly, the torsor variables corresponding to the boundary divisors must be $\pm 1$, and for big and base point free (whence nef) log-anticanonical class, the height function $H_i$ is given by monomials in the Cox ring of log-anticanonical degree. The third case seems to be one of the first examples of the universal torsor method with respect to a height for a divisor class that is big and *not* nef. In Section \[sec:counting\], we estimate the number of points in our counting problem on the universal torsor using analytic techniques. Here, we approximate summations over the torsor variables by real integrals $V_{i,0}(B)$; the coprimality conditions lead to an Euler product that agrees with $c_{i,{\mathrm{fin}}}$ (Lemmas \[lem:first\_summation\] and \[lem:surface-result-of-count\]). This step is similar to the case of rational points treated in @MR2520770; hence, we shall be very brief. In Section \[sec:volumes\], to complete the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\_concrete\], our goal is to transform $V_{i,0}(B)$ into $2^{\operatorname{rk}\operatorname{Pic}{\widetilde{U}}_i} C_i B(\log B)^{b_i-1}$, where $C_i$ is the product of a the volume of a polytope (which turns out to be $\sum \alpha_{i,A}$) and a real density (which agrees with the archimedean Tamagawa numbers $\tau_{i,D_A,\infty}(D_A({\mathbb{R}}))$), up to a negligible error term. In the first case, there is a complication due to an inhomogeneous expression (with respect to the grading by the Picard group) in the domain of $V_{1,0}$ (Lemma \[lem:adjust\_V1\] and more importantly Lemma \[lem:treat\_W\]); here, a subtle estimation is necessary. In the third case, we modify the height function $H_3$ to $H_3'$ (which coincides essentially with $H_2$) as in Lemma \[lem:adjust\_V3\]. These extra complications have never appeared in the universal torsor method for rational points; we believe that they are typical for integral points and nonnef heights. In Section \[sec:leading-constant\], we prove Theorem \[thm:main\_abstract\] by explicitly computing the expected constants discussed in Section \[sec:expected\]. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ---------------- The first author was partly supported by grant DE 1646/4-2 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The second author was partly supported by FWF grant P 32428-N35 and conducted part of this work as a guest at the Institut de Mathématiques de Jussieu–Paris Rive Gauche invited by Antoine Chambert-Loir and funded by DAAD. Classification of weak del Pezzo pairs {#sec:classification} ====================================== For us, a *weak del Pezzo pair* $({\widetilde{S}},D)$ consists of a smooth projective surface ${\widetilde{S}}$ with a reduced effective divisor $D$ with strict normal crossings such that the log-anticanonical bundle $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D)^\vee$ is big and nef. The aim of this section is to study the possible choices of divisors $D$ on a weak del Pezzo surface ${\widetilde{S}}$ that render the pair $({\widetilde{S}},D)$ weak del Pezzo in this sense. Considering *pairs* $(X,D)$ is standard when studying integral points: While rational and integral points coincide on complete varieties as a consequence of the valuative criterion for properness, the study of integral points becomes a distinct problem on an integral model ${\mathcal{U}}$ of a noncomplete variety $U$. Then one passes to a compactification, more precisely, a smooth projective variety $X$ containing $U$ such that the boundary $D = X \setminus U$ is a reduced effective divisor with strict normal crossings. In particular, the pair $(X,D)$ is smooth and divisorially log terminal. The goal is then to count the number of points on ${\mathcal{U}}$ of bounded log-anticanonical height (that is, with respect to $\omega_X(D)^\vee$), excluding any strict subvarieties (or, more generally, *thin* subsets) whose points would contribute to the main term. Setting $D=0$ then recovers the setting of Manin's conjecture on rational points. In its original form @MR974910 [@MR1340296], Manin's conjecture makes a prediction about the number of rational points on *smooth Fano varieties*: smooth projective varieties whose anticanonical bundle is ample. These conditions can be relaxed. In dimension $2$, this leads to the study of rational points on *weak del Pezzo surfaces*, that is, smooth surfaces whose anticanonical bundle is big and nef. Weak del Pezzo surfaces ${\widetilde{S}}$ are precisely the smooth del Pezzo surfaces ${\widetilde{S}}= S$ and the minimal desingularizations $\rho\colon {\widetilde{S}}\to S$ of del Pezzo surfaces with only ${\mathbf{ADE}}$-singularities @MR579026_new. Since $\rho$ is a crepant resolution—that is, $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}} = \rho^* \omega_S$—counting points on $S$ of bounded anticanonical height amounts to counting points on ${\widetilde{S}}$ of bounded anticanonical height after excluding points on the exceptional locus. By @MR1679843 [@MR2019019], an asymptotic formula for the number of rational points on $S$ should be interpreted in terms of its minimal desingularization ${\widetilde{S}}$; for example, the Picard rank $\rho$ of ${\widetilde{S}}$ appears in the expected asymptotic formula. The number of rational points of bounded height has been shown to conform to the same prediction as in Manin's conjecture for many weak del Pezzo surfaces (see the references in @MR3307753 [§ 6.4.1]). To simplify the exposition, let ${\widetilde{S}}$ be a weak del Pezzo surface whose degree $d$ is at most $7$. Let $D=\sum_{\alpha \in \mathcal{A}} D_\alpha \subset {\widetilde{S}}$ be a reduced and effective divisor with strict normal crossings and irreducible components $D_\alpha$. \[lem:nef-criterion\] The log-anticanonical bundle $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D)^\vee$ is nef if and only if all of the following conditions hold: 1. \[enum:cond–2\] If $E$ is a $(-2)$-curve and $D_\alpha.E>0$ for some $\alpha \in \mathcal{A}$, then $E \subset D$. 2. \[enum:cond–1\] If $E$ is an arbitrary negative curve meeting two different $D_\alpha,D_\beta$ or one $D_\gamma \subset D$ with multiplicity $D_\gamma.E\ge 2$ (with $\alpha,\beta,\gamma \in \mathcal{A}$), then $E \subset D$. 3. \[enum:cond-no-three\] If $E$ is a negative curve, then $$\sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \mathcal{A} \\ D_\alpha \ne E }} D_\alpha . E \le 2.$$ Recall that a divisor is nef if its intersection with all negative curves is nonnegative. If $E$ is a $(-2)$-curve, then $$(-K-D).E = -K.E-D.E = 0 + 2\delta_{E \subset D} - \sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \mathcal{A} \\ D_\alpha \ne E }}D_\alpha . E,$$ and this number is nonnegative if and only if \[enum:cond–2\] and \[enum:cond-no-three\] hold for $E$. If $E$ is a $(-1)$-curve, then $$(-K-D).E = -K.E-D.E = 1 + \delta_{E \in D} - \sum_{\substack{\alpha \in \mathcal{A} \\ D_\alpha \ne E }}D_\alpha . E,$$ and this number is nonnegative if and only if \[enum:cond–1\] and \[enum:cond-no-three\] hold for $E$. \[rmk:A-singularities\] If $\rho\colon {\widetilde{S}}\to S$ is the minimal desingularization of a singular del Pezzo surface, then Lemma \[lem:nef-criterion\] shows: If one of the $(-2)$-curves above a singularity $Q \in S$ is in $D$, then by Lemma \[lem:nef-criterion\] \[enum:cond–2\] all curves above this singularity must be in $D$. Similarly, if a $(-1)$-curve whose image in $S$ contains a singularity $Q$ is in $D$, then all $(-2)$-curves above $Q$ must be in $D$. By Lemma \[lem:nef-criterion\] \[enum:cond-no-three\], $Q$ must be an ${\mathbf{A}}$-singularity in both cases. The surface ${\widetilde{S}}$ can be described by a sequence of $r=9-\deg {\widetilde{S}}$ blow-ups $${\widetilde{S}}= {\widetilde{S}}^{(r)} \xrightarrow{\pi_r} {\widetilde{S}}^{(r-1)}\to \dots \to {\widetilde{S}}^{(1)} \xrightarrow{\pi_1} {\widetilde{S}}^{(0)} = {\mathbb{P}}^2,$$ where $\pi_i$ is the blow-up in a point $p_i$ that does not lie on a $(-2)$-curve on ${\widetilde{S}}^{(i-1)}$. Let $\pi\colon {\widetilde{S}}\to {\mathbb{P}}^2$ be their composition. Let $\ell_0=\pi^*\ell$, where $\ell$ is the class of a line on ${\mathbb{P}}^2$, and for $1\le i\le r$, let $\ell_i=(\pi_{i+1}\cdots\pi_{r})^{*}E^{(i)}$, where $E^{(i)}$ is the exceptional divisor of the $i$th blow-up $\pi_i$. Then the Picard group of ${\widetilde{S}}$ is freely generated by the classes $\ell_0,\dots,\ell_r$. The intersection form is given by $\ell_i.\ell_j=0$ for $i\ne j$, $\ell_0^2=1$, and $\ell_i^2=-1$ for $i\ge 1$. Let $P$ be the image of an exceptional divisor of one of the the blow-ups in ${\mathbb{P}}^2$, and $n_P$ be the number of exceptional curves mapped to $P$. Then these negative curves form a chain, the first $n_P-1$ of which are $(-2)$-curves whose classes have the form $\ell_{i_1} - \ell_{i_2}$, …, $\ell_{i_{s-1}}-\ell_{i_s}$ followed by a $(-1)$-curve whose class has the form $\ell_{i_s}$. The anticanonical class is $3\ell_0 - \ell_1 - \cdots - \ell_r$, and we fix an anticanonical divisor $-K$. Denote by $[F]$ the class of a divisor or line bundle $F$ in the Picard group. For $L_1,L_2\in \operatorname{Pic}({\widetilde{S}})_{\mathbb{R}}$, we write $L_1 \le L_2$ if their difference $L_2 - L_1$ is in the effective cone. \[lem:aux-big-nef\] Let $L\in\operatorname{Pic}({\widetilde{S}})$. 1. \[enum:aux-sum-lj\] If $L\le \sum_{1\le j \le r} a_j \ell_j$ for some $a_1,\dots,a_r\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, then $L$ is not big. 2. \[enum:aux-l0-li\] If $L\le \ell_0 - \ell_i$ for some $i \ge 1$, then $L$ is not nef or not big. For the first statement, we just have to note that $-{\varepsilon}\ell_0 + \sum_{1\le j \le k} a_j \ell_j$ is not effective for any ${\varepsilon}>0$. Turning to the second statement, assume for contradiction that $L$ is big and nef. Note that $\ell_0 - \ell_i$ has nonnegative intersection with all $(-1)$-curves. If $\ell_0-\ell_i$ has (strictly) negative intersection with a $(-2)$-curve $E$, then this curve needs to have class $[E]=\ell_i - \ell_j$ for some $j\ne i$ (cf. @MR833513 [Theorem 25.5.3]). Writing $\ell_0 - \ell_i = L + [F]$ with effective $F$, we get $F.E<0$, so $E \subset F$, and $L \le \ell_0 - \ell_i - [E] = \ell_0 - \ell_j$. The only negative curves that could have negative intersection with $\ell_0-\ell_j$ have class $\ell_j - \ell_k$. As curves of classes $\ell_i - \ell_j$, $\ell_j - \ell_k$, etc., are contracted to a single point by $\pi$, we can eventually find an $\ell_{i'}$ with $L\le \ell_0 - \ell_{i'}$ and such that $\ell_0-\ell_{i'}$ has nonnegative intersection with all negative curves. Then $\ell_0 -\ell_{i'}$ is nef. But $(\ell_0-\ell_{i'})^2=0$, whence it cannot be big. \[prop:big-necessary\] Assume that $\deg {\widetilde{S}}\le 4$. If $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D)^\vee$ is big and nef, then $D$ is contained in the union of all negative curves. Assume for contradiction that $D$ contains a nonnegative curve $C$, but that $-K-D$ is big and nef. In particular, $-K-D^\prime$ is big for all $D^\prime \subset D$. Since $C$ is nonnegative, it is the strict transform of a curve $C_0$ on ${\mathbb{P}}^2$. Then $$[C]=d \ell_0 - \sum_{i=1}^r a_i \ell_i,$$ where $d=\deg C_0$ and $a_i=C.\ell_i$. We first reduce to the case of $C_0$ being a line. If $d\ge 3$, then $[-K-C] \le \sum_{1\le i \le r} a_i \ell_i$, which is not big by Lemma \[lem:aux-big-nef\] \[enum:aux-sum-lj\]. If $C_0$ is a nondegenerate conic, then $a_1,\dots,a_r\le 1$, since $C_0$ has multiplicity $\le 1$ in all images of the exceptional divisors. Moreover, since $C^2 \ge 0$, at most four of the $a_i$ are nonzero. It follows that $[-K-C]\le \ell_0 - \ell_j$, so $-K-D$ is not big or not nef by Lemma \[lem:aux-big-nef\] \[enum:aux-l0-li\]. So let $C_0$ be a line. As the self-intersection of $C$ is nonnegative, $[C]=\ell_0 - \ell_j$ for some $j$ or $[C]=\ell_0$. In the first case, $C_0$ contains the center $P=\pi_1 \cdots \pi_j(p_j)$ of a blow-up. If $n_P >1$, then $\pi^{-1}(P)$ contains $(-2)$-curves. Appealing to Lemma \[lem:nef-criterion\] \[enum:cond–2\], the first $(-2)$-curve must be contained in $D$, as must the remaining $(-2)$-curves by repeated applications. Let $E_0$ be the sum of these $(-2)$-curves. Then $C'=C+E_0\subset D$ is of class $[C']=\ell_0 -\ell_{j'}$, where $\ell_{j'}$ is the class of the final $(-1)$-curve in the chain. If $n_P=1$ or $[C]=\ell_0$, set $E_0=0$ and $C'=C$; in the first case, set $j'=j$; in the latter case, fix an arbitrary $j'$ and note that $[C]\le \ell_0 - \ell_{j'}$. Then $C'$ satisfies the conditions in Lemma \[lem:nef-criterion\] for all negative curves in the preimage of $P$ by this construction, and it does the same for all other curves contracted by $\pi$ as it does not meet them. For what remains, we distinguish three cases. Case 1. The curve $C$ does not meet any of the remaining $(-2)$-curves, and $C.E\le 1$ for all remaining $(-1)$-curves. Then $(-K-C')$ is nef by Lemma \[lem:nef-criterion\]. But $(-K-C')^2\le 4 - (r - 1) \le 0$, so it cannot be big. Case 2. The curve $C$ meets one of the remaining $(-2)$-curves $E$. Then $E\subset D$ by Lemma \[lem:nef-criterion\] \[enum:cond–2\]. Since $E$ is the strict transform of a curve in ${\mathbb{P}}^2$, its class satisfies $[E]= l_0 -l_{i_1} - l_{i_2} - l_{i_3}$ for some pairwise different $i_1, i_2, i_3$ or $[E] \ge 2 \ell_0 + \sum a_i\ell_i$ for some $a_i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. In the first case, $[-K-C-E]\le \ell_0 - \ell_k$ for $k\ne i_i,i_2,i_3,j$, and in the second case, $[-K-C-E] \le \sum_{1 \le i \le r} a_i\ell_i$. In both cases, $-K-D$ is not big or not nef by Lemma \[lem:aux-big-nef\] \[enum:aux-l0-li\] or \[enum:aux-sum-lj\], respectively. Case 3. The curve $C$ meets a $(-1)$-curve $E$ with $C.E\ge 2$. By Lemma \[lem:nef-criterion\] \[enum:cond–1\], $E\subset D$. As $E$ is the strict transform of a curve on ${\mathbb{P}}^2$, its class verifies $[E]\ge [F]$ for a $(-2)$-class $[F]$ of the same shape as in the previous case; hence, $-K-D$ is not big or not nef. The assumption $\deg {\widetilde{S}}\le 4$ in Proposition \[prop:big-necessary\] is necessary: Let ${\widetilde{S}}$ be a smooth del Pezzo surface of degree at least $5$ that is a blow-up of ${\mathbb{P}}^2$ in at most $4$ points in general position. Then the strict transform $D$ of a line that meets precisely one of these points is an example of a nonnegative curve such that $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D)^\vee$ is big and nef. \[thm:classification\] Let ${\widetilde{S}}$ be a weak del Pezzo surface of degree $d \le 4$. Precisely the following choices of a reduced effective divisor $D$ make $({\widetilde{S}},D)$ a weak del Pezzo pair. 1. The divisor $D$ can be zero. 2. If $3 \le d \le 4$, then $D$ can consist of all $(-2)$-curves corresponding to one ${\mathbf{A}}$-singularity. 3. If $d= 4$, then $D$ can consist of a $(-1)$-curve and all $(-2)$-curves corresponding to all singularities on its image in the anticanonical model, provided that those singularities are ${\mathbf{A}}$-singularities and all curves in $D$ form a chain. Let $D$ be a reduced effective divisor such that $-K-D$ is big and nef. By Proposition \[prop:big-necessary\], $D=\sum E_i$ has to be supported on negative curves. Consider the complete subgraph $G$ of the Dynkin diagram on the vertices corresponding to components of $D$. By Lemma \[lem:nef-criterion\] \[enum:cond-no-three\], each of its connected components is a path or a cycle. Let $N_1$ be the number of $(-1)$-curves in $D$, and $N_2$ be the number of $(-2)$-curves. Then $v=N_1+N_2$ is the number of vertices of $G$, and denote by $e$ its number of edges. The self-intersection of the log-anticanonical divisor is $$(-K-D)^2 = K^2 + \sum_i E_i^2 + 2 \sum_i E_i.K + 2\sum_{i<j} E_i.E_j.$$ As $-K.E$ is zero for $(-2)$-curves and $1$ for $(-1)$-curves, we get $$\label{eq:self-intersection} (-K-D)^2 = d + 2(e-v) - N_1.$$ Since $-K-D$ is big and nef, this self-intersection must be positive. If $G$ is connected and not a cycle, then $e=v-1$, so $d -2-N_1 >0$. In case $d=4$, this leaves us with $N_1 \le 1$, in case $d=3$ with $N_1 = 0$, and in case $d\le 2$ with an immediate contradiction. In each case, the resulting divisors satisfy the asserted description using Remark \[rmk:A-singularities\] and that the graph is a path. It remains to prove that $G$ has to be connected and not a cycle. If $G$ is not connected and does not contain a cycle, then $(-K-D)^2 = d-4-N_1 \le 0$, so $-K-D$ cannot be big, leaving only the case of graphs $G$ containing a cycle, in which case $d-N_1>0$ for $-K-D$ to be big. For $N_1=0$, we note that only Dynkin diagrams of type ${\mathbf{A}}$, $\mathbf D$, and $\mathbf E$ appear as intersection graphs of $(-2)$-curves, and these do not contain double edges, nor more general cycles. If $N_1=1$, then $d\ge 2$. The sum $E_2$ of the $(-2)$-curves in $D$ forms a $(-2)$-class, since $E_2^2 = -2N_2 + 2(s-1)=-2$ and $-K.E_2=0$. As the Weyl group acts transitively on $(-1)$-curves and leaves the intersection pairing invariant, we can assume that $[E_1]=\ell_1$. Now $\ell_1.[E_2]\ge 2$, and so the $(-2)$-class needs to have the form $3\ell_0 - 2\ell_1 - \ell_2 - \cdots - \ell_8$. But such a class does not exist if $d\ge 2$ (cf. @MR833513 [Theorem 25.5.3]). If $N_1 = 2$, then $d\ge 3$. In this case, the anticanonical model contracts $(-2)$-curves and maps $(-1)$-curves to lines. The resulting two lines then need to intersect with multiplicity $2$, an impossibility. Finally, if $N_1=3$, then $d = 4$. In this case, the anticanonical model $\phi\colon {\widetilde{S}}\to S = Q_1 \cap Q_2 \subset {\mathbb{P}}^4$ is a (possibly singular) intersection of two quadrics, still contracting all $(-2)$-curves and mapping all $(-1)$-curves to lines. The resulting three lines need to intersect pairwise. If they were contained in a plane $P$, this plane would intersect $Q_1$ in three lines, an impossibility. So the three lines intersect in a point $Q$. The tangent space at $Q$ needs to contain each plane containing two of these lines, whence $Q$ is singular. Then ${\widetilde{S}}\to S$ factors through the blow-up $Y$ of ${\mathbb{P}}^4$ in $Q$. The strict transforms of the lines do not intersect on $Y$, and thus the $(-1)$-curves on ${\widetilde{S}}$ do not intersect. It follows that each of them intersects a $(-2)$-curve above $Q$. Hence, the $(-2)$-curves are contained in $D$, and at least one of them needs to intersect three other negative curves in $D$. Now, Lemma \[lem:nef-criterion\] \[enum:cond-no-three\] implies that $-K-D$ cannot be nef. Conversely, if $D$ is one of the divisors in the statement, then it is nef by Lemma \[lem:nef-criterion\], and its self-intersection is positive by ; hence, it is also big. Passage to a universal torsor {#sec:torsor} ============================= As in the introduction, let $S \subset {\mathbb{P}}^4_{\mathbb{Q}}$ be the singular quartic del Pezzo surface defined by the equations . By @MR3180592 [@MR3939263] (but using the notation and numbering of @MR2520770 [Section 8]), a Cox ring of its minimal desingularization ${\widetilde{S}}$ is $$\label{eq:cox} R={\mathbb{Q}}[{\eta}_1,\dots,{\eta}_9]/({\eta}_1{\eta}_9+{\eta}_2{\eta}_8+{\eta}_4{\eta}_5^3{\eta}_6^2{\eta}_7)$$ with grading $$\begin{aligned} \deg{\eta}_1&=\ell_5,\quad \deg{\eta}_2 =\ell_4,\quad \deg{\eta}_3=\ell_0-\ell_1-\ell_4-\ell_5,\\ \deg{\eta}_4&=\ell_1-\ell_2,\quad \deg{\eta}_5=\ell_3,\quad \deg{\eta}_6=\ell_2-\ell_3,\\ \deg{\eta}_7&=\ell_0-\ell_1-\ell_2-\ell_3,\quad \deg{\eta}_8=\ell_0-\ell_4,\quad \deg{\eta}_9=\ell_0-\ell_5\end{aligned}$$ for a certain basis $\ell_0,\dots,\ell_5$ of $\operatorname{Pic}{\widetilde{S}}$. See Figure \[fig:dynkin-diagram\] for the dual graph of the divisors $E_i$ corresponding to ${\eta}_i$. \[square/.style=<span>regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4</span>\] (E8) at (0,-1) <span>$E_8$</span>; (E9) at (0, 1) <span>$E_9$</span>; (E7) at (2, 0) <span>$E_7$</span>; (E5) at (4, 0) <span>$E_5$</span>; (E6) at (6, 0) <span>$E_6$</span>; (E4) at (8, 0) <span>$E_4$</span>; (E3) at (10, 0) <span>$E_3$</span>; (E1) at (8, 1) <span>$E_1$</span>; (E2) at (8,-1) <span>$E_2$</span>; (E8) – (E9); (E8) – (E7); (E9) – (E7); (E9) – (E1); (E8) – (E2); (E3) – (E1) node \[midway, above\] <span>$A_6$</span>; (E3) – (E2) node \[midway, below\] <span>$A_5$</span>; (E7) – (E5) node \[midway, above\] <span>$A_4$</span>; (E5) – (E6) node \[midway, above\] <span>$A_3$</span>; (E6) – (E4) node \[midway, above\] <span>$A_2$</span>; (E4) – (E3) node \[near start, above\] <span>$A_1$</span>; Here, the divisor $D_1=E_7$ is the $(-2)$-curve on ${\widetilde{S}}$ above the singularity $Q_1$ on $S$, the divisor $D_2=E_3+E_4+E_6$ is the sum of the $(-2)$-curves above to $Q_2$, the divisor $D_3=D_1+D_2=E_3+E_4+E_6+E_7$ is the sum of all $(-2)$-curves, and $E_5,E_2,E_1$ are the $(-1)$-curves that are the strict transforms of the three lines $L_1,L_2,L_3$ on $S$ as in , respectively, while $E_8$ and $E_9$ correspond to the two further generators of the Cox ring. The divisors $$D_4=E_3+\cdots+E_7,\quad D_5=E_2+E_3+E_4+E_6,\quad \text{and} \quad D_6=E_1+E_3+E_4+E_6$$ lie above the lines $L_1$, $L_2$, and $L_3$, respectively. Since $V \subset S$ is the complement of the lines, which contain the singularities, its preimage ${\widetilde{V}}\subset {\widetilde{S}}$ is the complement of the negative curves $E_1,\dots,E_7$. The irrelevant ideal of $R$ is $I_{\mathrm{irr}}=\prod({\eta}_i,{\eta}_j)$, where the product runs over all pairs $i < j$ such that there is no edge between $E_i$ and $E_j$ in Figure \[fig:dynkin-diagram\]. The sections $$\label{eq:antican_sections} L_0=\{{\eta}_2{\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5{\eta}_6{\eta}_7{\eta}_8,\ {\eta}_1^2{\eta}_2^2{\eta}_3^3{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_6,\ {\eta}_1{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2{\eta}_7,\ {\eta}_3{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^4{\eta}_6^3{\eta}_7^2,\ {\eta}_7{\eta}_8{\eta}_9 \}$$ have anticanonical degree and define the morphism $\rho: {\widetilde{S}}\to S$. The desingularization ${\widetilde{S}}$ can be described as a certain sequence of five iterated blow-ups of ${\mathbb{P}}^2_{\mathbb{Q}}$ in rational points @MR2520770. As in @MR3552013 [Proposition 4.1(i)], let ${\widetilde{{\mathcal{S}}}}$ be the integral model defined by the corresponding sequence of blow-ups of ${\mathbb{P}}^2_{\mathbb{Z}}$, and recall ${\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_i={\mathcal{S}}-\overline{D_i}$. Consider the open subscheme ${\mathcal{Y}}$ of the spectrum of $$R_{\mathbb{Z}}={\mathbb{Z}}[{\eta}_1,\dots,{\eta}_9]/({\eta}_1{\eta}_9+{\eta}_2{\eta}_8+{\eta}_4{\eta}_5^3{\eta}_6^2{\eta}_7)$$ defined as the complement of ${\mathbb{V}}(I_{\mathrm{irr}}\cap R_{\mathbb{Z}})$. By @MR3552013 [Proposition 4.1(ii)], ${\mathcal{Y}}$ is a ${\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m},{\mathbb{Z}}}}^6$-torsor over ${\widetilde{{\mathcal{S}}}}$ via a morphism $\pi:{\mathcal{Y}}\to{\widetilde{{\mathcal{S}}}}$. This torsor defines an explicit parametrization of integral points by lattice points: \[lem:torsor\] Let $i\in\{1,\dots,6\}$, and ${\mathcal{Y}}_i=\pi^{-1}({\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_i)\subset {\mathcal{Y}}$. Then $\pi\colon {\mathcal{Y}}_i\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_i$ is a ${\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m},{\mathbb{Z}}}}^6$-torsor. This morphism induces a $2^6$-to-$1$-correspondence $${\mathcal{Y}}_i({\mathbb{Z}})\cap \pi^{-1}({\widetilde{V}})({\mathbb{Q}}) \to {\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_i({\mathbb{Z}})\cap {\widetilde{V}}({\mathbb{Q}}),$$ and we have $${\mathcal{Y}}_i({\mathbb{Z}})\cap \pi^{-1}({\widetilde{V}})({\mathbb{Q}}) = {\{ {\boldsymbol{\eta}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^9 \mid{} \text{\eqref{eq:torsor},~\eqref{eq:surface-gcd},~\eqref{eq:pm1} hold},\ {\eta}_1\cdots{\eta}_7 \ne 0,\\ \}},$$ where $$\begin{aligned} &{\eta}_1{\eta}_9+{\eta}_2{\eta}_8+{\eta}_4{\eta}_5^3{\eta}_6^2{\eta}_7=0,\label{eq:torsor}\\ &\gcd({\eta}_i,{\eta}_j)=1 \qquad \text{if $E_i$ and $E_j$ do not share an edge in Figure~\ref{fig:dynkin-diagram}}, and\label{eq:surface-gcd}\\ &|{\eta}_j| = 1 \qquad \text{ if } E_j \subset {\left\lvertD_i\right\rvert}.\label{eq:pm1} \end{aligned}$$ Since $\pi$ is a ${\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m},{\mathbb{Z}}}}^6$-torsor, so are its restrictions to the open subschemes ${\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_i$. As before, the anticanonical sections above induce a morphism ${\widetilde{{\mathcal{S}}}}\to {\mathcal{S}}$. In particular, this morphism induces the stated bijections. Integral points ${\boldsymbol{\eta}}\in\operatorname{Spec}R_{\mathbb{Z}}$ are lattice points $({\eta}_1,\dots,{\eta}_9)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^9$ satisfying the equation in the Cox ring. Such a point is integral on the complement of ${\mathbb{V}}(I_{\mathrm{irr}})=\bigcup {\mathbb{V}}({\eta}_i,{\eta}_j)$—the union running over all $i,j$ which do not share an edge in Figure \[fig:dynkin-diagram\]—if it does not reduce to any of the ${\mathbb{V}}({\eta}_i,{\eta}_j)$ for any prime, that is, if holds. Integral points on ${\mathcal{Y}}_1\subset {\mathcal{Y}}$ are precisely those which do not reduce to $\pi^{-1}(E_7)={\mathbb{V}}({\eta}_7)$ at any place; that is, they are those points satisfying ${\eta}_7\in\{\pm 1\}$. Analogously, integral points on ${\mathcal{Y}}_2$ are those satisfying ${\eta}_3,{\eta}_4,{\eta}_6\in\{\pm 1\}$, integral points on ${\mathcal{Y}}_3$ are those satisfying ${\eta}_3,{\eta}_4,{\eta}_6,{\eta}_7\in\{\pm 1\}$, and similarly for ${\mathcal{Y}}_4, {\mathcal{Y}}_5, {\mathcal{Y}}_6$. The preimage of ${\widetilde{V}}$ in the universal torsor is the complement of ${\eta}_1\cdots{\eta}_7=0$. We now turn to studying the log-anticanonical bundles and the height functions associated with them. Recall that the case $D_6$ can be reduced to $D_5$ by symmetry as in . \[lem:big-and-nef\] The only nonzero reduced effective divisors $D\subset {\widetilde{S}}$ such that $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D)^\vee$ is big and nef are $D_i$ for $i \in \{1,2,4,5,6\}$. Consider the sets $$\begin{aligned} &M_1= \{{\eta}_2{\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5{\eta}_6{\eta}_8,{\eta}_1{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2,{\eta}_3{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^4{\eta}_6^3{\eta}_7,{\eta}_8{\eta}_9\},\\ & M_2 = \{{\eta}_2{\eta}_5{\eta}_7{\eta}_8,{\eta}_1^2{\eta}_2^2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4, {\eta}_4{\eta}_5^4{\eta}_6^2{\eta}_7^2\},\\ &M_4=\{{\eta}_2{\eta}_8, {\eta}_1{\eta}_2{\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5{\eta}_6, {\eta}_4{\eta}_5^3{\eta}_6^2{\eta}_7\}, \quad \text{and}\\ &M_5=\{{\eta}_5{\eta}_7{\eta}_8,{\eta}_1^2{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4,{\eta}_1{\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6{\eta}_7\} \end{aligned}$$ of monomials in the Cox ring $R$ of degree $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D_i)^\vee$ for $i=1,2,4,5$, respectively. For ${\boldsymbol{\eta}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^9$ satisfying , none of these sets can vanish simultaneously modulo a prime $p$. The respective log-anticanonical bundles are base point free. The log-anticanonical bundle $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D_3)^\vee$ is big, but not nef, whence not base point free. It has a representation $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D_3)^\vee\cong {\mathcal{L}}_1 \otimes {\mathcal{L}}_2^\vee$ as a quotient of the nef bundles ${\mathcal{L}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{L}}_2$ whose sections are elements of degree $4\ell_0-\ell_1-\ell_2$ and $3\ell_0-\ell_1-\ell_2-\ell_3$ in the Cox ring, respectively. Consider the sets of Cox ring elements $$\begin{aligned} L_2 &= {\eta}_1{\eta}_2L_0 \cup \{{\eta}_4^2 {\eta}_5^6 {\eta}_6^4 {\eta}_7^3\} && \text{of degree ${\mathcal{L}}_2$,}\\ L_3 &= \{{\eta}_2{\eta}_5{\eta}_8, {\eta}_1{\eta}_2{\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6, {\eta}_4 {\eta}_5^4 {\eta}_6^2 {\eta}_7\} && \text{of degree $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D_3)^\vee$, and}\\ L_1 &= L_2 L_3 \cup \{{\eta}_1^3 {\eta}_2^3 {\eta}_3^2 {\eta}_4 {\eta}_8 {\eta}_9\} && \text{of degree ${\mathcal{L}}_1$.} \end{aligned}$$ Then neither $L_1$ nor $L_2$ can vanish simultaneously modulo a prime $p$. The first statement is a special case of Theorem \[thm:classification\]. For the first set, assume that $p\mid \eta_8\eta_9$ for a prime $p$. Then $p\nmid {\eta}_3\cdots{\eta}_6$, since the corresponding divisors $E_3,\dots,E_6$ share an edge with neither $E_8$ nor $E_9$ in Figure \[fig:dynkin-diagram\], while at most one of ${\eta}_1,{\eta}_2,{\eta}_7$ can be divisible by $p$. Hence, the second or third section is not divisible by $p$. For the second set, assume that $p\mid {\eta}_2{\eta}_5{\eta}_7{\eta}_8$. If $p\mid {\eta}_5{\eta}_7$, then $p\nmid {\eta}_1^2{\eta}_2^2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4$; if $p\mid {\eta}_2{\eta}_8$ and $p\nmid{\eta}_7$, then $p\nmid {\eta}_4{\eta}_5^3{\eta}_6^2{\eta}_7$. Regarding the case $i=4$, if $p\mid {\eta}_2{\eta}_8$, then $p\nmid {\eta}_4{\eta}_5^3{\eta}_6^2{\eta}_7$. For $i=5$, assume $p\mid {\eta}_5{\eta}_7{\eta}_8$. If $p\mid {\eta}_5{\eta}_7$, then $p\nmid {\eta}_1^2{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4$; if $p\mid {\eta}_8$ and $p\nmid {\eta}_7$, then $p\nmid {\eta}_1{\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6{\eta}_7$. Turning to $L_2$, we know that the anticanonical sections in cannot be divisible by $p$ simultaneously, so for all sections in $L_2$ to be be divisible by $p$ simultaneously, $p\mid {\eta}_1{\eta}_2$. But then $p\nmid {\eta}_4^2 {\eta}_5^6 {\eta}_6^4 {\eta}_7^3$. Lastly, assume that the monomials in $L_1$ are divisible by $p$, so that $p$ in particular divides all monomials in $L_2L_3$. Since $p$ cannot divide all monomials in $L_2$, it has to divide all monomials in $L_3$. If follows that $p\mid {\eta}_2{\eta}_5{\eta}_8$. If $p\mid{\eta}_2$, then the last monomial in $L_3$ cannot be zero modulo $p$. If $p\mid{\eta}_8$, then $p$ can divide only one of ${\eta}_2$ or ${\eta}_7$, but none of the remaining variables in the latter two sections of $L_3$, so one of those two sections is nonzero modulo $p$. So $p\mid {\eta}_5$. Now $p$ can divide at most one of ${\eta}_6$ and ${\eta}_7$, but none of the remaining variables, and so the last section of $L_1$ is nonzero modulo $p$. A contradiction. By the same arguments (replacing vanishing modulo $p$ by vanishing over ${\overline{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$), the log-anticanonical bundles $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D_i)^\vee$ for $i=1,2,4,5$ and the bundles ${\mathcal{L}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{L}}_2$ are base point free, whence nef. On the other hand, $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D_3)^\vee$ is not nef, since its intersection number with $E_5$ is $-1$. For $i \in \{1,\dots,5\}$, the morphism $\rho\colon {\widetilde{S}}\to S$ induces bijections $${\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_i({\mathbb{Z}}) \cap {\widetilde{V}}({\mathbb{Q}}) \to {\mathcal{U}}_i({\mathbb{Z}})\cap V({\mathbb{Q}}).$$ Consider the morphism $f\colon {\mathcal{Y}}\to {\mathbb{P}}^4_{\mathbb{Z}}$ defined by ${\boldsymbol{\eta}}\mapsto(s_0({\boldsymbol{\eta}}):\dots:s_4({\boldsymbol{\eta}}))$ with the anticanonical sections $s_j$ in . We only have to show that holds for ${\boldsymbol{\eta}}$ if and only if the corresponding gcd-condition in resp. holds for $f({\boldsymbol{\eta}})$. To this end, we note that ${\eta}_1{\eta}_2 {\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6{\eta}_7$ is in the radical of the ideal generated by $M_2$ as in Lemma \[lem:big-and-nef\], so can be rewritten as $${\left\lvert{\eta}_7\right\rvert}\gcd\{m({\boldsymbol{\eta}}) \mid m \in M_1\} = 1 \quad \text{and}\quad {\left\lvert{\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_6\right\rvert} \gcd\{m({\boldsymbol{\eta}}) \mid m \in M_2\} = 1.$$ By Lemma \[lem:big-and-nef\], these gcds are one, and so the claim follows for $i\in\{1,2\}$. Since ${\mathcal{U}}_3$ and ${\widetilde{\mathcal{U}}}_3$ are the intersections of the respective open subschemes with in the first two cases, the assertion follows for $i=3$. The cases $i=4$ and $i=5$ can be proved using an analogous reformulation of the first two conditions in . These sets of sections define adelic metrics on line bundles isomorphic to $\omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D_i)^\vee$ for $i \in \{1,2,4,5\}$ and the line bundles ${\mathcal{L}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{L}}_2$, and the latter two metrics induce one on ${\mathcal{L}}_1\otimes {\mathcal{L}}_2^\vee\cong \omega_{{\widetilde{S}}}(D_3)^\vee$. The metrics on the bundles isomorphic to the log-anticanonical bundles then induce log-anticanonical height functions ${\widetilde{H}}_i$ for $i \in \{1,\dots,5\}$. \[lem:heights\] For ${\boldsymbol{\eta}}= ({\eta}_1,\dots,{\eta}_9) \in {\mathbb{R}}^9$ satisfying and , let $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal{H}}_i({\boldsymbol{\eta}}) = \begin{cases} \max\{|{\eta}_2{\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5{\eta}_6{\eta}_8|,|{\eta}_1{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2|, |{\eta}_3{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^4{\eta}_6^3|,|{\eta}_8{\eta}_9|\}, & i=1;\\ \max\{|{\eta}_2{\eta}_5{\eta}_7{\eta}_8|,|{\eta}_1^2{\eta}_2^2|,|{\eta}_5^4{\eta}_7^2|\}, & i=2;\\ \max\{|{\eta}_2{\eta}_5{\eta}_8|,|{\eta}_1{\eta}_2{\eta}_5^2|,|{\eta}_5^4|, \min\{{\left\lvert{\eta}_1^2{\eta}_2^2\right\rvert},|{\eta}_8{\eta}_9| \}\}, & i=3;\\ \max\{|{\eta}_2{\eta}_8|,|{\eta}_1{\eta}_2|,1\}, & i=4;\\ \max\{|{\eta}_1^2|,|{\eta}_1{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_7|,|{\eta}_5{\eta}_7{\eta}_8|\}, & i=5. \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ For ${\boldsymbol{\eta}}\in {\mathcal{Y}}_i({\mathbb{Z}}) \cap \pi^{-1}({\widetilde{V}})({\mathbb{Q}})$, we have ${\mathcal{H}}_i({\boldsymbol{\eta}}) = {\widetilde{H}}_i(\pi({\boldsymbol{\eta}})) = H_i(\rho(\pi({\boldsymbol{\eta}})))$, where $H_i$ is the height in and ${\widetilde{H}}_i$ is the log-anticanonical height on ${\widetilde{S}}({\mathbb{Q}})$ induced by the sections in Lemma \[lem:big-and-nef\]. For $i\in\{1,2,4,5\}$, the metrics induce height functions ${\widetilde{H}}_i(x)=H_{{\mathbb{P}}^{N_i}}(f_i(x))$ verifying $f_i(\pi({\boldsymbol{\eta}})) = (m_0({\boldsymbol{\eta}}): \dots : m_{N_i}({\boldsymbol{\eta}}))$ for the sections $m_0,\dots,m_{N_i}\in M_i$ constructed in Lemma \[lem:big-and-nef\], so $$H_i(\pi({\boldsymbol{\eta}})) = \prod_v \max_{m\in M_i}\{{\left\lvertm({\boldsymbol{\eta}})\right\rvert}_v\}.$$ By the same lemma, the $p$-adic contributions to this product are $1$, whence ${\widetilde{H}}_i(\pi({\boldsymbol{\eta}})) = {\mathcal{H}}_i({\boldsymbol{\eta}})$. To check that these height functions coincide with the ones defined in the introduction, we note that, for example, for a point in ${\mathcal{Y}}_1({\mathbb{Z}})$ we have ${\eta}_7\in \{\pm 1\}$, and thus $|{\eta}_2{\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5{\eta}_6{\eta}_8|=|{\eta}_2{\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5{\eta}_6{\eta}_7{\eta}_8|=|x_0|$. We get analogous identities for the other coordinates and cases. There is no section corresponding to $x_2$ in the second height function, but, for integral points on ${\mathcal{Y}}_2$, we have ${\left\lvertx_2\right\rvert}=\sqrt{{\left\lvert{\eta}_1^2{\eta}_2^2\right\rvert}{\left\lvert{\eta}_5^4{\eta}_7^2\right\rvert}}=\sqrt{{\left\lvertx_1x_3\right\rvert}}$; hence, it can never contribute to the maximum. The case $i=3$ is more complicated. The log-anticanonical height function ${\widetilde{H}}_3$ induced by the metrics on ${\mathcal{L}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{L}}_2$ satisfies $${\widetilde{H}}_3(\pi({\boldsymbol{\eta}}))=\frac{\max_{s\in L_1} {\left\lverts({\boldsymbol{\eta}})\right\rvert}}{\max_{s\in L_2} {\left\lverts({\boldsymbol{\eta}})\right\rvert}} = \max\left\{ \max_{s \in L_3} {\left\lverts({\boldsymbol{\eta}})\right\rvert}, \frac{{\left\lvert{\eta}_1^3 {\eta}_2^3 {\eta}_3^2 {\eta}_4 {\eta}_8 {\eta}_9\right\rvert}}{\max_{s \in L_2} {\left\lverts({\boldsymbol{\eta}})\right\rvert}} \right\}$$ by an analogous argument as in the previous cases. Now note that for ${\boldsymbol{\eta}}\in {\mathcal{Y}}_3({\mathbb{Z}}) \cap \pi^{-1}({\widetilde{V}})({\mathbb{Q}})$, we can simplify this to $$\label{eq:new-height-3} \widetilde H_3(\pi({\boldsymbol{\eta}}))= \max\{{\left\lvert{\eta}_2{\eta}_5{\eta}_8\right\rvert}, {\left\lvert{\eta}_1{\eta}_2{\eta}_5^2\right\rvert}, {\left\lvert{\eta}_5^4\right\rvert}, \min\{{\left\lvert{\eta}_1^2{\eta}_2^2\right\rvert}, {\left\lvert{\eta}_8{\eta}_9\right\rvert}\}\}.$$ Indeed, ${\eta}_3,{\eta}_4,{\eta}_6,{\eta}_7$ have absolute value $1$ and the remaining variables absolute value at least one. Then $$\frac{{\left\lvert{\eta}_1^3 {\eta}_2^3 {\eta}_3^2 {\eta}_4 {\eta}_8 {\eta}_9\right\rvert}}{\max_{s \in L_2} {\left\lverts({\boldsymbol{\eta}})\right\rvert}} \le \min\{{\left\lvert{\eta}_1^2{\eta}_2^2\right\rvert}, {\left\lvert{\eta}_8{\eta}_9\right\rvert}\}$$ follows from ${\eta}_1^3{\eta}_2^3{\eta}_3^4{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_6, {\eta}_1{\eta}_2{\eta}_7{\eta}_8{\eta}_9\in L_2$. Now assume that ${\eta}_1^2{\eta}_2^2$ is larger than the other three terms in the maximum in ; then the maximum over $L_2$ can only be attained by ${\eta}_1^3{\eta}_2^3{\eta}_3^4{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_6$ or ${\eta}_1{\eta}_2{\eta}_7{\eta}_8{\eta}_9$, and the inverse inequality follows. Finally, we note that ${\left\lvert{\eta}_3\right\rvert}={\left\lvert{\eta}_4\right\rvert}={\left\lvert{\eta}_6\right\rvert}={\left\lvert{\eta}_7\right\rvert}=1$ implies ${\left\lvert{\eta}_1^2{\eta}_2^2\right\rvert}={\left\lvertx_1\right\rvert}$ and ${\left\lvert{\eta}_8{\eta}_9\right\rvert}={\left\lvertx_4\right\rvert}$. \[lem:param\] For $i \in \{1,\dots,5\}$, we have $$N_i(B) = \frac{1}{2^{6-\#D_i}}\#{\left\{ ({\eta}_1\dots,{\eta}_9) \in {\mathbb{Z}}^{9} \ \left|\ \begin{aligned}& \text{\eqref{eq:torsor},~\eqref{eq:surface-gcd} hold},\ {\eta}_j = 1\text{ if }E_j \subset D_i,\\ & {\eta}_1\cdots{\eta}_7 \ne 0,\ {\mathcal{H}}_i({\eta}_1,\dots,{\eta}_9) \le B \end{aligned}\right.\right\}},$$ where $\#D_i$ denotes the number of irreducible components of $D_i$. We combine Lemma \[lem:torsor\] and Lemma \[lem:heights\]. The $\#D_i$ coordinates ${\eta}_j$ belonging to irreducible components $E_j\subset D_i$ satisfy ${\left\lvert{\eta}_j\right\rvert}=1$. By symmetry, we can further assume that ${\eta}_j=1$, making the $2^6$-to-$1$-correspondence from Lemma \[lem:torsor\] a $2^{6-\#D_i}$-to-$1$-correspondence. Counting {#sec:counting} ======== In our counting process, we treat ${\eta}_9$ as a dependent variable using the torsor equation from , which we regard as a congruence modulo the coefficient ${\eta}_1$ of ${\eta}_9$. First, we sum over ${\eta}_8$, and then over the remaining variables. Since this is similar to the case of rational points in @MR2520770, we shall be brief. In this section, we use the notation $${{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{(i)}}= ({\eta}_j)_{j \in J_i} = \begin{cases} ({\eta}_1,\dots,{\eta}_6), &i=1;\\ ({\eta}_1,{\eta}_2,{\eta}_5,{\eta}_7), &i=2;\\ ({\eta}_1,{\eta}_2,{\eta}_5), &i=3;\\ ({\eta}_1,{\eta}_2), &i=4;\\ ({\eta}_1,{\eta}_5,{\eta}_7), &i=5; \end{cases}$$ for $(7-\#D_i)$-uples indexed by $$\label{eq:def_Ji} J_i=\{j \in \{1,\dots,7\} \mid E_j \not\subset D_i\}.$$ We write ${\mathcal{H}}_i({{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{(i)}},{\eta}_8)$ for ${\mathcal{H}}_i({\eta}_1,\dots,{\eta}_9)$ where ${\eta}_j=1$ whenever $E_j \subset D_i$ and where ${\eta}_9$ is expressed in terms of ${\eta}_1,\dots,{\eta}_8$ using the torsor equation , assuming ${\eta}_1\ne 0$. \[lem:first\_summation\] For $i \in \{1,\dots, 5\}$, we have $$N_i(B) = \frac{1}{2^{6-\#D_i}} \sum_{{{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{(i)}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ne 0}^{J_i}} \theta_1({{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{(i)}})V_{i,1}({{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{(i)}};B) + O(B \log B)$$ with $$V_{i,1}({{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{(i)}};B) = \int_{{\mathcal{H}}_i({{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{(i)}},{\eta}_8) \le B} \frac{{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_8}{|{\eta}_1|}$$ and $$\theta_1({{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{(i)}}) = \prod_p \theta_{1,p}(I_p({{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{(i)}})),$$ where $I_p({{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{(i)}}) = \{j \in J_i \mid p \mid {\eta}_j\}$ and $$\theta_{1,p}(I) = \begin{cases} 1, & I = \emptyset, \{1\}, \{2\}, \{7\};\\ 1-\frac 1 p, & I = \{4\}, \{5\}, \{6\}, \{1,3\}, \{2,3\}, \{3,4\}; \{4,6\}, \{5,6\}, \{5,7\};\\ 1- \frac 2 p, & I = \{3\};\\ 0, & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$ The proof is as in @MR2520770 [Lemma 8.4], with slightly different height functions and some ${\eta}_i=1$, which leads to different error terms. In the first case, using the second height condition, the error term is $$\ll \sum_{{\eta}_1, \dots, {\eta}_6} 2^{\omega({\eta}_3)+\omega({\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5{\eta}_6)} \ll \sum_{{\eta}_2, \dots, {\eta}_6} \frac{2^{\omega({\eta}_3)+\omega({\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5{\eta}_6)}B}{|{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2|} \ll B\log B.$$ In the second case, using the second and the third height condition, it is $$\ll \sum_{{\eta}_1, {\eta}_2, {\eta}_5, {\eta}_7} 2^{\omega({\eta}_5)} \ll \sum_{{\eta}_1, {\eta}_5} \frac{2^{\omega({\eta}_5)}B}{|{\eta}_1{\eta}_5^2|} \ll B\log B.$$ In the third case, using the second height condition, it is $$\ll \sum_{{\eta}_1, {\eta}_2, {\eta}_5} 2^{\omega({\eta}_5)} \ll \sum_{{\eta}_1, {\eta}_5} \frac{2^{\omega({\eta}_5)}B}{|{\eta}_1{\eta}_5^2|} \ll B\log B.$$ The remaining cases are very similar. \[lem:surface-result-of-count\] For $i \in \{1,\dots, 5\}$, we have $$N_i(B) =\frac{1}{2^{6-\#D_i}}\left(\prod_p \omega_{i,p}\right) V_{i,0}(B) + O(B(\log B)^{b_i-2}\log \log B)$$ with $$V_{i,0}(B) =\int_{|{\eta}_j| \ge 1 \ \forall j \in J_i} V_{i,1}({{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{(i)}};B) {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{(i)}}$$ and $$\omega_{i,p} = \begin{cases} \left(1-\frac 1 p\right)^{6-\#D_i}\left(1+\frac{6-\#D_i} p\right), & i \in \{1,2,4,5,6\};\\ \left(1-\frac 1 p\right)^2\left(1+\frac 2 p-\frac 1{p^2}\right), &i=3. \end{cases}$$ In the first case, by , the last height condition is $$\label{eq:last_height_1} |({\eta}_2{\eta}_8^2+{\eta}_4{\eta}_5^3{\eta}_6^2{\eta}_8)/{\eta}_1| \le B.$$ Hence, by @MR2520770 [Lemma 5.1(4)], $$V_{1,1}({\eta}_1, \dots, {\eta}_6;B) \ll \frac{B^{1/2}}{|{\eta}_1{\eta}_2|^{1/2}} = \frac{B}{|{\eta}_1{\eta}_2{\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5{\eta}_6|} \left(\frac{B}{|{\eta}_1{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2|}\right)^{-1/2}.$$ In the second case, we use $$V_{2,1}({\eta}_1, {\eta}_2, {\eta}_5, {\eta}_7; B) \ll \frac{B}{|{\eta}_1{\eta}_2{\eta}_5{\eta}_7|}.$$ In the third case, we use $$V_{3,1}({\eta}_1, {\eta}_2, {\eta}_5; B) \ll \frac{B}{|{\eta}_1{\eta}_2{\eta}_5|}.$$ Therefore, @MR2520770 [Proposition 4.3, Corollary 7.10] gives the result in the first three cases. The final cases are similar to the second and third case. Volume asymptotics {#sec:volumes} ================== We must show that the real integrals $V_{i,0}(B)$ in Lemma \[lem:surface-result-of-count\] grow of order $B(\log B)^{b_i-1}$. In the first and third case, this is more subtle than for rational points. \[lem:adjust\_V1\] We have $|V_{1,0}'(B)-V_{1,0}(B)|\ll B (\log B)^4$, where $$V_{1,0}'(B) = \int_{\substack{|{\eta}_2|,\dots,|{\eta}_6|\ge 1\\ {\mathcal{H}}_1'({\eta}_1,\dots,{\eta}_6,{\eta}_8) \le B}} \frac{{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_1 \dots {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_6 {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_8}{|{\eta}_1|}$$ with $${\mathcal{H}}_1'({\eta}_1,\dots,{\eta}_6,{\eta}_8) = \max\left\{ \begin{aligned} &|{\eta}_2{\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5{\eta}_6{\eta}_8|,|{\eta}_1{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2|,\\ &|{\eta}_3{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^4{\eta}_6^3|,|{\eta}_2{\eta}_8^2/{\eta}_1|,|{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2| \end{aligned} \right\}.$$ We must show that adding the condition $|{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2| \le B$, removing the condition $|{\eta}_1| \ge 1$, and replacing by $|{\eta}_2{\eta}_8^2/{\eta}_1| \le B$ in the integration domain changes the integral by $\ll B(\log B)^4$. Adding the condition $|{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2| \le B$ does not change $V_{1,0}(B)$, since this inequality follows from $|{\eta}_1| \ge B$ and the second height condition. Afterwards, we can remove the condition $|{\eta}_1| \ge 1$ from $V_{1,0}(B)$ since this changes the integral by $$\int_{\substack{|{\eta}_1|\le 1,\ |{\eta}_2|,\dots,|{\eta}_6|\ge 1\\ {\mathcal{H}}_1({\eta}_1,\dots,{\eta}_6,{\eta}_8)\le B\\ |{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2| \le B}} \frac{{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_1 \dots {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_6 {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_8}{|{\eta}_1|} \ll \int_{\substack{|{\eta}_1| \le 1,\ |{\eta}_2|,\dots,|{\eta}_6|\ge 1\\ |{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2| \le B}} \frac{B^{1/2} {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_1 \dots {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_6}{|{\eta}_1{\eta}_2|^{1/2}},$$ where we estimate the integral over ${\eta}_8$ as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:surface-result-of-count\]. Now we observe that the new condition $|{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2| \le B$ together with $|{\eta}_2|,\dots,|{\eta}_6| \ge 1$ implies $|{\eta}_2|,\dots,|{\eta}_6|\le B$; all these conditions and $|{\eta}_1|\le 1$ allow us to bound the error as required. Finally, we must replace by $|{\eta}_2{\eta}_8^2/{\eta}_1| \le B$. A comparison of ${\mathcal{H}}_1$ in Cox coordinates (Lemma \[lem:heights\]) with $H_1$ as in motivates the transformation $$\label{eq:change_of_coords} {\eta}_8=\frac{B}{{\eta}_2{\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5{\eta}_6}x_0,\quad {\eta}_1=\frac{B}{{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2} x_2,$$ which turns $\frac{{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_1 {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_8}{|{\eta}_1|}$ into $\frac{B{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x_0 {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x_2}{|x_2{\eta}_2{\eta}_3{\eta}_4{\eta}_5{\eta}_6|}$, and the transformation ${\eta}_3 =\frac{B}{{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^4{\eta}_6^3} x_3$, which turns $\frac{{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_3}{|{\eta}_3|}$ into $\frac{{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x_3}{|x_3|}$. These transformations turn ${\mathcal{H}}_1({\eta}_1,\dots,{\eta}_6,{\eta}_8) \le B$ into $$|x_0|,|x_2|,|x_3|,|x_0(x_0+x_3)/x_2| \le 1.$$ Furthermore, they turn $|{\eta}_3| \ge 1$ and $|{\eta}_2{\eta}_3^2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2| \le B$ (which imply $|{\eta}_2{\eta}_4^2{\eta}_5^2{\eta}_6^2| \le B$) into a condition $X_3 \le |x_3| \le X_3'$ for certain $X_3$ and $X_3'$, whose values (depending on ${\eta}_2,{\eta}_4,{\eta}_5,{\eta}_5,B$) will not matter to us. Altogether, this shows that $$V_{1,0}(B) = \int_{\substack{|{\eta}_2|, |{\eta}_4|, |{\eta}_5|, |{\eta}_6| \ge 1\\|{\eta}_2 {\eta}_4^2 {\eta}_5^2 {\eta}_6^2|\le B}} W({\eta}_2,{\eta}_4,{\eta}_5,{\eta}_6,B) \frac{B{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_2 {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_4 {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_5 {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\eta}_6}{|{\eta}_2{\eta}_4{\eta}_5{\eta}_6|} + O(B(\log B)^4)$$ with $$W({\eta}_2,{\eta}_4,{\eta}_5,{\eta}_6,B) = \int_{\substack{ |x_0|,|x_2|,|x_3|,|x_0(x_0+x_3)/x_2| \le 1\\ X_3 \le |x_3| \le X_3' }} \frac{{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x_0 {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x_2 {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x_3}{|x_2 x_3|}\text{.}$$ Now the following Lemma \[lem:treat\_W\] shows that we can replace $|x_0(x_0+x_3)/x_2|\le 1$ by $|x_0^2/x_2| \le 1$ with an error of $O(1)$. We plug this back into $V_{1,0}(B)$ and observe that the integral of $O(1)\cdot B/|{\eta}_2{\eta}_4{\eta}_5{\eta}_6|$ is $\ll B(\log B)^4$, while the inverse of our previous transformations turn the main term into $V_{1,0}'(B)$ since they turn $|x_0^2/x_2| \le 1$ into $|{\eta}_2{\eta}_8^2/{\eta}_1| \le B$ and since we can remove the condition $|{\eta}_2 {\eta}_4^2 {\eta}_5^2 {\eta}_6^2|\le B$, which is implied by the others. To complete the proof of Lemma \[lem:adjust\_V1\], we show: \[lem:treat\_W\] We have $W({\eta}_2,{\eta}_4,{\eta}_5,{\eta}_6,B) = W'({\eta}_2,{\eta}_4,{\eta}_5,{\eta}_6,B)+O(1)$, where $$W'({\eta}_2,{\eta}_4,{\eta}_5,{\eta}_6,B) = \int_{\substack{ |x_0|,|x_2|,|x_3|,|x_0^2/x_2| \le 1\\ X_3 \le |x_3| \le X_3' }} \frac{{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x_0 {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x_2 {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x_3}{|x_2 x_3|}\text{.}$$ As a first step, we integrate over $x_2$ to get $$\label{eq:W-step-1} W({\eta}_2,{\eta}_4,{\eta}_5,{\eta}_6,B) = \int_{\substack{ |x_0(x_0+x_3)| \le 1 \\ |x_0|,|x_3| \le 1 \\ X_3 \le |x_3| \le X_3' }} (-2\log |x_0| - 2 \log |x_0+x_3|) \frac{{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x_0 {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x_3}{|x_3|}$$ and shall integrate the two terms individually. To determine the integral over the first one, we remove the condition $|x_0(x_0+x_3)| \le 1$, introducing an error of at most $$|R_1({\eta}_2,{\eta}_4,{\eta}_5,{\eta}_6,B)| \le 4 \int_{\substack{ x_0,|x_3| \le 1, x_0\ge 0\\ |x_0(x_0+x_3)| \ge 1 \\ }} -\log x_0 \frac{{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x_0 {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x_3}{|x_3|}$$ by
{'source': 'arXiv_out/2109'}