Non-vanishing implies numerical dimension one abundance

Jihao Liu; Zheng Xu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Non-vanishing implies numerical dimension one abundance

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the non-vanishing conjecture implies the abundance conjecture whenever the numerical dimension is at most one, and settles abundance for smooth projective fivefolds with κ ≥ 0 and ν ≤ 1.

desk verdict A serious and mostly sound step on the ν≤1 case of abundance; the sign/integrality glitch in Theorem 3.1 needs a fix, but the main reduction chain is coherent and the paper deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05250 v2 pith:5R5PI5KC submitted 2025-05-08 math.AG math.CVmath.DG

Jihao Liu , Zheng Xu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AGmath.CVmath.DG MSC 14E3032J27

keywords AbundanceconjectureNon-vanishingNumericaldimensionKodairaMinimalmodelprogramGoodLogcanonicalpairsFivefold

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the abundance conjecture—the prediction that the Kodaira dimension $\kappa(X)$ and the numerical dimension $\nu(X)$ of any smooth projective variety coincide—is true in the case $\nu(X)\le 1$ provided a weaker statement, the non-vanishing conjecture, holds. Its main theorem shows that if non-vanishing is assumed in dimension $d$, then every smooth projective variety of dimension at most $d$ with $\nu(X)\le 1$ has a good minimal model or a Mori fiber space, so in particular $\kappa(X)=\nu(X)$. The same conclusion is proved unconditionally in dimensions up to five: every such fivefold with $\kappa(X)\ge 0$ and $\nu(X)\le 1$ has a good minimal model. The significance, if the argument is correct, is that the numerical-dimension-one case of abundance is reduced to a single, widely believed conjecture, without analytic extension theorems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Conjecture 1.7, a special-termination statement for the minimal model program: for a projective $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial effective dlt pair one can run a $(K_X+B)$-MMP that terminates near the divisorial part of the image of $\lfloor B\rfloor$. This is the external input needed to make the chain of reductions converge. The paper's own engine is Theorem 3.1, a special-case lemma that converts the numerical hypothesis into motion of a divisor: if $K_X+B$ is nef, numerically one-dimensional, and $\mathbb{R}$-linearly equivalent to an effective divisor supported on a reduced boundary $B$ with an isolated component $S$, then adjunction yields $K_S+B_S\equiv 0$, a finite cover étale in codimension one makes $S$ a Cartier divisor with trivial dualizing sheaf, and the Du Bois property of slc singularities—a controlled class of possibly nonnormal singularities—gives the cohomological surjectivity that makes $S$ move infinitesimally. The conclusion $\kappa(S)\ge 1$ turns the equality $\kappa=\nu$ from a global statement into a local infinitesimal-movement check.

What would settle it

A concrete check is dimension five: a smooth projective fivefold $X$ with $\kappa(X)=0$, $\nu(X)=1$, and no good minimal model would refute Theorem 1.2 directly. A second, more targeted check is to exhibit a $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial effective dlt pair of dimension five for which every $(K_X+B)$-MMP fails to terminate near the divisorial part of the image of $\lfloor B\rfloor$; that would break the proof of the unconditional statement at its cited termination input. A third check is on the proof itself: verify whether the relation $aK_U\sim bS$ used inside Theorem 3.1 holds with the stated signs on a concrete retracting tubular neighborhood, since the entire cover argument rests on it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is a reduction theorem: for any projective lc pair $(X,B)$ with $\kappa_\iota(K_X+B)\ge 0$ and $\kappa_\sigma(K_X+B)\le 1$, assuming a weak special-termination conjecture in the same dimension, the pair has a good minimal model. The proof funnels the problem through a chain of MMP reductions to the special case in which $K_X+B\sim_{\mathbb{R}}D\ge 0$ is nef, $D$ is supported on a reduced boundary $B$, and one irreducible component $S$ of $B$ is disjoint from $B-S$. In that special case adjunction gives $K_S+B_S\equiv 0$, hence $K_S+B_S\sim_{\mathbb{Q}}0$; after a finite cover that is étale in codimension one, $S$ becomes a Cartier divisor with trivial dualizing sheaf, and the Du Bois property of the resulting slc pair forces $S$ to move infinitesimally, giving $\kappa(S)\ge 1$ and therefore $\kappa(K_X+B)=1$. Theorem 1.2 is the special case of this reduction in dimension at most five, where the termination input is available; Theorem 1.4 replaces that input by the non-vanishing conjecture.

Load-bearing premise

The unconditional five-dimensional theorem depends on an unproved assertion that the special-termination conjecture holds in dimension at most five; the paper cites two lemmas from an earlier work for this and does not reproduce the proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every $d$, the non-vanishing conjecture in dimension $d$ implies $\kappa(X)=\nu(X)$ and the existence of a good minimal model or a Mori fiber space for every smooth projective $d$-fold with $\nu(X)\le 1$.
Unconditionally, every smooth projective variety of dimension at most five with $\kappa(X)\ge 0$ and $\nu(X)\le 1$ has a good minimal model; in particular $\kappa(X)=\nu(X)$.
The same conclusions hold for log canonical pairs with $\kappa_\iota(K_X+B)\ge 0$ and $\kappa_\sigma(K_X+B)\le 1$ in dimension at most five, and for klt pairs over a base when $\nu-\kappa\le 1$ and one of the dimension bounds in Theorem 6.6 holds.
Combined with existing results on $\chi(\mathcal{O}_X)\neq 0$, a fourfold with nonvanishing Euler characteristic and $\nu\le 1$ has a good minimal model.
The dlt extension conjecture is no longer needed for abundance when $\nu\le 1$; only non-vanishing, or special termination, is required.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A reader might infer that special termination is the real bottleneck: the paper's Theorem 1.6 would make Conjecture 1.7 in dimension $d$ the only missing ingredient for abundance with $\nu\le 1$ in dimension $d$, even if the full non-vanishing conjecture is never proved.
One testable extension is to run the same special-case mechanism for generalized pairs or for pairs with $\nu-\kappa\le 1$ outside the projective setting; the paper already sketches a relative klt version, and the Du Bois infinitesimal-movement step is the part that would need to survive.
Because the proof is algebraic rather than analytic, it suggests that the numerical-dimension-one abundance pattern is governed by termination and positivity of the boundary rather than by metric methods; if so, one might expect a similar reduction in any characteristic where a replacement for the Du Bois cohomological input is available.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a genuine step forward. It reduces the abundance conjecture for ν(X)≤1 to the non-vanishing conjecture, and it unconditionally proves abundance for dim≤5 with κ≥0 and ν≤1. That is new, and the reduction chain from non-vanishing to special termination to abundance is coherent. The use of recent MMP results (Hashizume, Liu–Tsakanikas, Meng–Zhuang) is appropriate, and the paper is careful about replacing analytic inputs with algebraic ones. Credit where due: the proof of Theorem 4.1 is a substantial argument, and the unconditional dimension-5 result, if it survives referee scrutiny, is a real advance.

The soft spots are real but narrow. First, the assertion in Theorem 3.1 that there exist positive integers a,b with aK_U∼bS is not justified as written. From K_U+S∼_R a0S on the neighborhood avoiding B−S, you get K_U∼_R(a0−1)S, and integrality forces a0 integer. If a0=1, then b=0, not positive. The stress-test note is right that the b=0 case needs to be checked in the cover lemma [Kol+92, 11.3.6]; the paper does not explicitly verify it. This looks like a fixable oversight—probably the intended statement is nonnegative with b>−a, which is automatic—but it is load-bearing for Theorem 3.1 and therefore for the whole chain. Second, the unconditional dimension-5 result (Theorem 5.1) relies on Conjecture 1.7 in dimension≤5, asserted via [Bir10, Lemmas 3.6, 3.8] without proof. The citation is standard and likely correct, but the paper does not reproduce the argument or state exactly why those lemmas cover the needed Q-factorial dlt pairs with R-divisors. That is a clarity issue, not evidence of a hole.

Citation pattern is fine; self-citations like [LX23] and [HLS24] are used as inputs for standard lemmas, not to hide a circularity. No step appears to assume abundance. The paper is honest about where it is conditional and about Kawamata's withdrawn note.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review with a request that the authors fix the integer b issue in Theorem 3.1 and either prove or precisely cite the Bir10 lemmas. If the b=0 case fails, the main theorem may still hold by a small perturbation, but right now the write-up has an error in a key step. I would not desk-reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the abundance conjecture in the case of numerical dimension at most one. The main results are: (1) an unconditional proof that smooth projective varieties of dimension at most five with κ≥0 and ν≤1 have a good minimal model, hence κ=ν; and (2) a conditional theorem that the non-vanishing conjecture in dimension d implies the abundance conjecture for all smooth projective varieties of dimension ≤d with ν≤1. The technical core is a reduction, via a special termination conjecture (Conjecture 1.7), to a special case (Theorem 3.1) modeled on Kawamata's threefold approach, combined with the Du Bois property of slc singularities and recent MMP results. The paper also contains applications to fourfolds with nonzero Euler characteristic and to relative klt pairs.

Significance. If the proof is correct after repairing the issues below, this is a substantial advance: the conditional implication from non-vanishing to abundance for ν≤1 is new, and the unconditional fivefold result is the first higher-dimensional case beyond known threefold abundance in this numerical-dimension range. The paper is carefully organized, the reduction chain is explicit and does not appear to feed the abundance conclusion back into its hypotheses, and the authors are transparent about the role of Kawamata's withdrawn note. The main strengths are the clean separation of the special termination input and the use of recent MMP results; the proof is algebraic rather than analytic, which is a useful structural contribution. The paper is not accompanied by machine-checked code, but its statements are precise and the logical skeleton is testable at each lemma.

major comments (3)

[Theorem 3.1] The assertion 'there exist two positive integers a and b such that aK_U∼bS and b>−a' is not derived and is false as stated. From assumptions (2) and (4), on a neighborhood U of S avoiding B−S, we have K_U+S∼_R D|_U=a0S, hence K_U∼_R(a0−1)S. Since K_U and S are integral Weil divisors, a0 must be an integer. If a0=1, then K_U∼_R0 on U and no positive b can satisfy aK_U∼bS; the proof tacitly needs b=0. The subsequent application of [Kol+92, 11.3.6] constructs a cover using the exact relation, and in the b=0 case it becomes K_{\tilde U}∼0, a case that is not verified. This is load-bearing because Theorem 4.1 invokes Theorem 3.1 after Lemma 4.7. Please restate the relation as 'a>0, b≥0, and b>−a' and check the cover lemma in the b=0 case.
[Lemma 4.4, Case 1] The displayed consequence 'By Theorem 2.22, there exists E≥0 such that K_X+B−ε/2S≡E' does not follow from the hypotheses as written. With the natural data L=K_X+B, D=εS, F=K_X+B−εS, the theorem yields D+sF≡E for s∈(0,1], so for s=1/2 one obtains 2E−εS≡K_X+B, not K_X+B−ε/2S≡E. The uniqueness contradiction in the next lines relies on the stated numerical equivalence, so this is a genuine gap in the written proof. The argument appears repairable by using the explicit form of E from the proof of Theorem 2.22 and taking 2E−εS; please supply the correct derivation.
[Theorem 5.1] The unconditional dimension-five result depends on the statement 'Conjecture 1.7 holds in dimension≤5 by [Bir10, Lemmas 3.6, 3.8]', but the proof is not reproduced and it is not explained why those lemmas apply to Q-factorial dlt pairs with R-divisors and to the exact formulation of Conjecture 1.7. Since this citation is the only unconditional input for Theorem 1.2, please either reproduce the argument or state precisely how the cited lemmas cover the needed special termination statement.

minor comments (5)

[Lemma 4.7] In the proof, the displayed birational map should be φ:(X,B)99K(X′,B′), not φ:(X′,B′)99K(X′,B′).
[Lemma 4.5] In the sentence 'It is clear that dimZ < dimZ', the second dimZ should be dimX.
[Lemma 4.2] The phrase 'Lets≫0' should read 'Let s≫0'.
[Lemma 4.7] The word 'irreducble componet' should be 'irreducible component'.
[Corollary 5.2] In the sentence 'we done by [LM21, Corollary 1.2]', the intended phrase is 'we are done'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proof reduces abundance to non-vanishing and special termination via independent prior results, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain does not feed the abundance conclusion back into its hypotheses. Theorem 1.4 assumes the non-vanishing conjecture and derives abundance for numerical dimension at most one; the use of special termination is legitimate because Theorem 2.15 proves Conjecture 1.7 from non-vanishing using external results [Has18, Theorem 1.4], [LT22, Theorem B], and [Bir12, Theorem 4.1]. The special-case Theorem 3.1 uses standard inputs: Lemma 2.21, the slc adjunction and Du Bois properties, and the cover lemmas of [Kol+92]; none of these assume the desired abundance statement. The self-citations [LX23, Lemma 2.3] and [HLS24, Lemma 5.3, Theorem 5.6] are technical lemmas about birational invariance of Iitaka dimensions and decomposition of R-divisors; their assumptions do not include the target result, so they are independent inputs rather than circular load-bearing support. The unconditional dimension-five statement depends on [Bir10, Lemmas 3.6, 3.8] for Conjecture 1.7; whether those lemmas cover the needed Q-factorial dlt pairs with R-divisors is a verification concern, not circularity. The unproved assertion in Theorem 3.1 that positive integers a and b exist with aK_U ~ bS and b > -a is not derived in the text and appears to have a sign or positivity gap when the coefficient of S in D is one, but this is a correctness risk, not a circularity: the relation is an auxiliary tool, not the theorem's conclusion. Overall, no step in the claimed derivation reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a deductive paper with no fitted constants and no invented entities. The central conditional results assume the non-vanishing conjecture or special termination; the unconditional dimension ≤5 results borrow Birkar's termination lemmas. All other inputs are standard theorems of the minimal model program.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Non-vanishing conjecture for smooth projective varieties (Conjecture 1.5): if ν(X)≥0 then κ(X)≥0.
Main hypothesis of Theorem 1.4 and Theorem 5.4; used through Theorem 2.15 to derive special termination.
domain assumption Conjecture 1.7: special termination of some MMP for projective Q-factorial effective dlt pairs.
Assumed in Theorem 1.6 and Theorem 4.1; in dimension ≤5 it is asserted to follow from [Bir10, Lemmas 3.6,3.8].
standard math Log abundance in dimension ≤3 (Theorem 2.20).
Used as a base case in the induction of Theorem 4.1 and in Lemma 4.7.
standard math Du Bois property of slc singularities ([KK10], [Kol13]).
Used in Theorem 3.1 to show the boundary component moves infinitesimally.
standard math Recent MMP theorems, including [HH20, Theorem 1.7], [MZ23, Theorem 1.4], [LT22, Theorem B], and [Bir12, Theorem 4.1].
These provide existence of minimal models for log abundant lc pairs, perturbation stability, and termination of MMP with scaling, which are load-bearing throughout Sections 4 and 5.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-vanishing implies numerical dimension one abundance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5R5PI5KC

@misc{pith2026250505250,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-vanishing implies numerical dimension one abundance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5R5PI5KC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05250}
}

abstract

We show that the non-vanishing conjecture implies the abundance conjecture when $\nu\leq 1$. We also prove the abundance conjecture in dimension $\leq 5$ when $\kappa\geq 0$ and $\nu\leq 1$ unconditionally.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[1]

Ambro, The moduli b-divisor of an lc-trivial fibration, Compos

F. Ambro, The moduli b-divisor of an lc-trivial fibration, Compos. Math. 141 (2005), no. 2, 385--403

work page 2005
[2]

Barth, C

W. Barth, C. Peters, and A. Van de Ven, Compact Complex Surfaces, Springer, 1984

work page 1984
[3]

Birkar, Ascending chain condition for log canonical thresholds and termination of log flips, Duke Math

C. Birkar, Ascending chain condition for log canonical thresholds and termination of log flips, Duke Math. J. 136 (2007), no. 1

work page 2007
[4]

Birkar, On existence of log minimal models, Compos

C. Birkar, On existence of log minimal models, Compos. Math. 146 (2010), no. 4, 919--928

work page 2010
[5]

Birkar, On existence of log minimal models II, J

C. Birkar, On existence of log minimal models II, J. Reine Angew. Math. 658 (2011), 99--113

work page 2011
[6]

Birkar, Existence of log canonical flips and a special LMMP, Publ

C. Birkar, Existence of log canonical flips and a special LMMP, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 115 (2012), 325--368

work page 2012
[7]

Birkar, P

C. Birkar, P. Cascini, C. D. Hacon, and J. M c Kernan, Existence of minimal models for varieties of log general type, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 23 (2010), no. 2, 405--468

2010
[8]

Boucksom, J.-P

S. Boucksom, J.-P. Demailly, M. P a un, and T. Peternell, The pseudo-eﬀective cone of a compact K\"ahler manifold and varieties of negative Kodaira dimension, J. Algebr. Geom. 22 (2013), 201--248

work page 2013

Show all 57 references

[9]

Campana, V

F. Campana, V. Koziarz, and M. P a un, Numerical character of the effectivity of adjoint line bundles, Ann. Inst. Fourier 62 (2012), no. 1, 107--119

2012
[10]

Campana and T

F. Campana and T. Peternell, Geometric stability of the cotangent bundle and the universal cover of a projective manifold, Bull. Soc. Math. France 139 (2011), no. 1, 41--74

2011
[11]

G. Chen, J. Han, and J. Liu, On effective log Iitaka fibrations and existence of complements, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2024), no. 10, 8329--8349

2024
[12]

S. R. Choi, The geography of log models and its applications, Ph.D. thesis, Johns Hopkins University, 2008

2008
[13]

Demailly, C

J.-P. Demailly, C. D. Hacon, and M. P a un, Extension theorems, non-vanishing, and the existence of good minimal models, Acta Math. 210 (2013), no. 2, 203--259

2013
[14]

Druel, Quelques remarques sur la décomposition de Zariski divisorielle sur les variétés dont la premi\'ere classe de Chern est nulle, Math

S. Druel, Quelques remarques sur la décomposition de Zariski divisorielle sur les variétés dont la premi\'ere classe de Chern est nulle, Math. Z. 267 (2011), 413--423

2011
[15]

Fujino, Abundance theorem for semi log canonical threefolds, Duke Math

O. Fujino, Abundance theorem for semi log canonical threefolds, Duke Math. J. 102 (2000), no. 3, 513--532

2000
[16]

Fujino, Termination of 4 -fold canonical flips, Publ

O. Fujino, Termination of 4 -fold canonical flips, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci, 40 (2004), no. 1, 231--237

2004
[17]

Termination of 4 -fold canonical flips

O. Fujino, Addendum to “Termination of 4 -fold canonical flips”, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 41 (2005), no. 1, 252--257

2005
[18]

Fujino, Corrigendum: On subadditivity of the logarithmic Kodaira dimension, J

O. Fujino, Corrigendum: On subadditivity of the logarithmic Kodaira dimension, J. Math. Soc. Japan 72 (2020), no. 4, 1181--1187

2020
[19]

Gongyo, On the minimal model theory for dlt pairs of numerical log Kodaira dimension zero, Math

Y. Gongyo, On the minimal model theory for dlt pairs of numerical log Kodaira dimension zero, Math. Res. Lett. 18 (2011), no. 5, 991--1000

2011
[20]

Gongyo, Abundance theorem for numerically trivial log canonical divisors of semi-log canonical pairs, J

Y. Gongyo, Abundance theorem for numerically trivial log canonical divisors of semi-log canonical pairs, J. Algebraic Geom. 22 (2013), 549--564

2013
[21]

Gongyo and B

Y. Gongyo and B. Lehmann, Reduction maps and minimal model theory, Compos. Math. 149 (2013), no. 2, 295--308

2013
[22]

Gongyo and S

Y. Gongyo and S. Matsumura, Versions of injectivity and extension theorems, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. 50 (2017), no. 4, 479--502

2017
[23]

C. D. Hacon, J. M c Kernan, and C. Xu, ACC for log canonical thresholds, Ann. of Math. 180 (2014), no. 2, 523--571

2014
[24]

Han and Z

J. Han and Z. Li, Weak Zariski decompositions and log terminal models for generalized polarized pairs, Math. Z. 302 (2022), 707--741

2022
[25]

J. Han, J. Liu, and V. V. Shokurov, ACC for minimal log discrepancies of exceptional singularities, Peking Math. J. (2024)

2024
[26]

Hashizume, On the non-vanishing conjecture and existence of log minimal models, Publ

K. Hashizume, On the non-vanishing conjecture and existence of log minimal models, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 54 (2018), 89--104

2018
[27]

Hashizume, Remarks on special kinds of the relative log minimal model program, Manuscripta Math

K. Hashizume, Remarks on special kinds of the relative log minimal model program, Manuscripta Math. 160 (2019), no. 3, 285--314

2019
[28]

Hashizume, Non-vanishing theorem for lc pairs admitting a Calabi–Yau pair, Math

K. Hashizume, Non-vanishing theorem for lc pairs admitting a Calabi–Yau pair, Math. Res. Lett. 26 (2019), no. 4, 1097--1113

2019
[29]

Hashizume and Z

K. Hashizume and Z. Hu, On minimal model theory for log abundant lc pairs, J. Reine Angew. Math. 767 (2020), 109--159

2020
[30]

M. Iwai, S. Matsumura, and N. Müller, Minimal projective varieties satisfying Miyaoka's equality, arXiv:2404.07568
[31]

J. Jiao, J. Liu, and L. Xie, On generalized lc pairs with b-log abundant nef part, arXiv:2202.11256

arXiv
[32]

Kawamata, Pluricanonical systems on minimal algebraic varieties, Invent

Y. Kawamata, Pluricanonical systems on minimal algebraic varieties, Invent. Math. 79 (1985), 567--588

1985
[33]

Kawamata, Minimal models and the Kodaira dimension of algebraic fiber spaces, J

Y. Kawamata, Minimal models and the Kodaira dimension of algebraic fiber spaces, J. Reine Angew. Math. 363 (1985), 1--46

1985
[34]

Kawamata, Abundance theorem for minimal threefolds, Invent

Y. Kawamata, Abundance theorem for minimal threefolds, Invent. Math. 108 (1992), 229--246

1992
[35]

Kawamata, A remark on the abundance conjecture, arXiv:1101.0214v1

Y. Kawamata, A remark on the abundance conjecture, arXiv:1101.0214v1

arXiv
[36]

Kawamata, On the abundance theorem in the case of numerical Kodaira dimension zero, Amer

Y. Kawamata, On the abundance theorem in the case of numerical Kodaira dimension zero, Amer. J. Math. 135 (2013), no. 1, 115--124

2013
[37]

S. Keel, K. Matsuki, and J. M c Kernan, Log abundance theorem for threefolds, Duke Math. J. 75 (1994), 99--119

1994
[38]

Koll\'ar, Singularities of the minimal model program, Cambridge Tracts in Math

J. Koll\'ar, Singularities of the minimal model program, Cambridge Tracts in Math. 200 (2013), Cambridge Univ. Press

2013
[39]

Koll\'ar, Families of varieties of general type, Cambridge Tracts in Math

J. Koll\'ar, Families of varieties of general type, Cambridge Tracts in Math. 231 (2023), Cambridge Univ. Press

2023
[40]

Koll\'ar et al., Flip and abundance for algebraic threefolds, Ast\'erisque 211 (1992)

J. Koll\'ar et al., Flip and abundance for algebraic threefolds, Ast\'erisque 211 (1992)

1992
[41]

Koll\'ar and S

J. Koll\'ar and S. J. Kov\'acs, Log canonical singularities are Du Bois, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 23 (2010), no. 3, 791--813

2010
[42]

Koll\'ar and S

J. Koll\'ar and S. Mori, Birational geometry of algebraic varieties, Cambridge Tracts in Math. 134 (1998), Cambridge Univ. Press

1998
[43]

Lai, Varieties fibered by good minimal models, Math

C.-J. Lai, Varieties fibered by good minimal models, Math. Ann. 350 (2011), no. 3, 533--547

2011
[44]

Lazić, Metrics with minimal singularities and the Abundance conjecture, arXiv:2406.18233

V. Lazić, Metrics with minimal singularities and the Abundance conjecture, arXiv:2406.18233

arXiv
[45]

Lazić and F

V. Lazić and F. Meng, On nonvanishing for uniruled log canonical pairs, Electron. Res. Arch. 29 (2021), no. 5, 3297--3308

2021
[46]

Lazić and T

V. Lazić and T. Peternell, Abundance for varieties with many differential forms, Epijournal Géom. Algébrique 2 (2018), Art. 1

2018
[47]

Lazić and T

V. Lazić and T. Peternell, On Generalised Abundance, I, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 56 (2020), no. 2, 353--389

2020
[48]

Lazić and T

V. Lazić and T. Peternell, On Generalised Abundance, II, Peking Math. J. 3 (2020), no. 1, 1--46

2020
[49]

Lazić and N

V. Lazić and N. Tsakanikas, On the existence of minimal models for log canonical pairs, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 58 (2022), no. 2, 311--339

2022
[50]

Liu and L

J. Liu and L. Xie, Relative Nakayama-Zariski decomposition and minimal models of generalized pairs, Peking Math. J. (2023)

2023
[51]

Meng and Z

F. Meng and Z. Zhuang, MMP for locally stable families and wall crossing for moduli of stable pairs, arXiv:2311.01319

arXiv
[52]

Miyaoka, The Chern classes and Kodaira dimension of a minimal variety, Adv

Y. Miyaoka, The Chern classes and Kodaira dimension of a minimal variety, Adv. Stud. Pure Math. 10 (1987), 449--476

1987
[53]

Miyaoka, On the Kodaira dimension of minimal threefolds, Math

Y. Miyaoka, On the Kodaira dimension of minimal threefolds, Math. Ann. 281 (1988), 325--332

1988
[54]

Miyaoka, Abundance conjecture for 3-folds: case =1 , Compos

Y. Miyaoka, Abundance conjecture for 3-folds: case =1 , Compos. Math. 68 (1988), 203--220

1988
[55]

Nakayama, Zariski-decomposition and abundance, MSJ Mem

N. Nakayama, Zariski-decomposition and abundance, MSJ Mem. 14 (2004), Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo

2004
[56]

V. V. Shokurov, Threefold log flips, Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat. 56 (1992), no. 1, 105--203

1992
[57]

V. V. Shokurov, 3-fold log models, J. Math. Sci. 81 (1996), no. 3, 2667--2699

1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Ambro, The moduli b-divisor of an lc-trivial fibration, Compos

F. Ambro, The moduli b-divisor of an lc-trivial fibration, Compos. Math. 141 (2005), no. 2, 385--403

work page 2005

[2] [2]

Barth, C

W. Barth, C. Peters, and A. Van de Ven, Compact Complex Surfaces, Springer, 1984

work page 1984

[3] [3]

Birkar, Ascending chain condition for log canonical thresholds and termination of log flips, Duke Math

C. Birkar, Ascending chain condition for log canonical thresholds and termination of log flips, Duke Math. J. 136 (2007), no. 1

work page 2007

[4] [4]

Birkar, On existence of log minimal models, Compos

C. Birkar, On existence of log minimal models, Compos. Math. 146 (2010), no. 4, 919--928

work page 2010

[5] [5]

Birkar, On existence of log minimal models II, J

C. Birkar, On existence of log minimal models II, J. Reine Angew. Math. 658 (2011), 99--113

work page 2011

[6] [6]

Birkar, Existence of log canonical flips and a special LMMP, Publ

C. Birkar, Existence of log canonical flips and a special LMMP, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 115 (2012), 325--368

work page 2012

[7] [7]

Birkar, P

C. Birkar, P. Cascini, C. D. Hacon, and J. M c Kernan, Existence of minimal models for varieties of log general type, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 23 (2010), no. 2, 405--468

2010

[8] [8]

Boucksom, J.-P

S. Boucksom, J.-P. Demailly, M. P a un, and T. Peternell, The pseudo-eﬀective cone of a compact K\"ahler manifold and varieties of negative Kodaira dimension, J. Algebr. Geom. 22 (2013), 201--248

work page 2013