Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/MathOperators.js
Research article

Pricing and hedging bond options and sinking-fund bonds under the CIR model

  • Received: 27 November 2021 Revised: 13 December 2021 Accepted: 04 January 2022 Published: 10 January 2022
  • JEL Codes: G12, G13

  • This article derives simple closed-form solutions for computing Greeks of zero-coupon and coupon-bearing bond options under the CIR interest rate model, which are shown to be accurate, easy to implement, and computationally highly efficient. These novel analytical solutions allow us to extend the literature in two other directions. First, the static hedging portfolio approach is used for pricing and hedging American-style plain-vanilla zero-coupon bond options under the CIR model. Second, we derive analytically the comparative static properties of sinking-fund bonds under the same interest rate modeling setup.

    Citation: Manuela Larguinho, José Carlos Dias, Carlos A. Braumann. Pricing and hedging bond options and sinking-fund bonds under the CIR model[J]. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2022, 6(1): 1-34. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2022001

    Related Papers:

    [1] Vladimir Rovenski . Willmore-type variational problem for foliated hypersurfaces. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(6): 4025-4042. doi: 10.3934/era.2024181
    [2] Agustín Moreno Cañadas, Pedro Fernando Fernández Espinosa, José Gregorio Rodríguez-Nieto, Odette M Mendez, Ricardo Hugo Arteaga-Bastidas . Extended Brauer analysis of some Dynkin and Euclidean diagrams. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(10): 5752-5782. doi: 10.3934/era.2024266
    [3] Ming Ding, Zhiqi Chen, Jifu Li . The properties on F-manifold color algebras and pre-F-manifold color algebras. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(1): 87-101. doi: 10.3934/era.2025005
    [4] Agustín Moreno Cañadas, Isaías David Marín Gaviria, Pedro Fernando Fernández Espinosa . Brauer configuration algebras and Kronecker modules to categorify integer sequences. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(2): 661-682. doi: 10.3934/era.2022035
    [5] Yaguo Guo, Shilin Yang . Projective class rings of the category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules over the 2-rank Taft algebra. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(8): 5006-5024. doi: 10.3934/era.2023256
    [6] Hongliang Chang, Yin Chen, Runxuan Zhang . A generalization on derivations of Lie algebras. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(3): 2457-2473. doi: 10.3934/era.2020124
    [7] Yuriĭ G. Nikonorov, Irina A. Zubareva . On the behavior of geodesics of left-invariant sub-Riemannian metrics on the group Aff0(R)×Aff0(R). Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(1): 181-209. doi: 10.3934/era.2025010
    [8] Juxiang Sun, Guoqiang Zhao . Gorenstein invariants under right Quasi-Frobenius extensions. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(6): 3561-3570. doi: 10.3934/era.2025158
    [9] Víctor León, Bruno Scárdua . A geometric-analytic study of linear differential equations of order two. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(2): 2101-2127. doi: 10.3934/era.2020107
    [10] Doston Jumaniyozov, Ivan Kaygorodov, Abror Khudoyberdiyev . The algebraic classification of nilpotent commutative algebras. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(6): 3909-3993. doi: 10.3934/era.2021068
  • This article derives simple closed-form solutions for computing Greeks of zero-coupon and coupon-bearing bond options under the CIR interest rate model, which are shown to be accurate, easy to implement, and computationally highly efficient. These novel analytical solutions allow us to extend the literature in two other directions. First, the static hedging portfolio approach is used for pricing and hedging American-style plain-vanilla zero-coupon bond options under the CIR model. Second, we derive analytically the comparative static properties of sinking-fund bonds under the same interest rate modeling setup.



    In all the text, X will denote an n-dimensional connected complex projective manifold, A will be an ample line bundle on X. A Zariski open subset of X is said to be 'big' if its complement has codimension at least 2 in X.

    Let FTX, the holomorphic tangent bundle of X, be a coherent saturated subsheaf of rank rn.

    Recall that F is saturated if TX/F has no torsion. Since F is saturated, the Zariski closed subset Sing(F)X over which F is not a subbundle has codimension at least two, and any local section of F defined on the complement of Sing(F) extends across Sing(F).

    Definition 1.1. We say that F is a foliation if, for any two germs of sections V,W of F, their Lie Bracket [V,W] is also a germ of section of F. Equivalently, the Lie bracket defines a morphism of sheaves of OX-modules*L:2FTX/F which vanishes identically on X.

    *Indeed: [fV,gW]=fg.[V,W]+(fV(g).Wg.W(f).V)fg.[V,W] modulo F for any local sections V,W of F, and holomorphic functions f,g.

    This is the 'Frobenius' integrability condition. It implies that, over UF:=XSing(F), each point has a local analytic open neighbourhood U=F×B, with F,B open subsets of Cr and Cnr respectively such that FU=Ker(dβ), where β:UB is the projection onto the second factor B. In particular, for each such x=(f,b)U, there is a unique germ of manifold Fx=F×{b} of dimension r, called the germ of the 'leaf' of F at x, which has in each of its points x:=(f,b), the subspace Fx as its tangent space.

    We thus define an equivalence relation on UF for which two points are equivalent if they can be connected by a chain of germs of leaves of F locally defined as above. The classes of this relation are called the leaves of F. They are the maximal connected, r-dimensional manifolds immersed (but not necessarily closed) in UF, and tangent to F. Near the points of Sing(F), the leaves of F may have a chaotic behaviour.

    Example 1.2. The simplest example of an everywhere regular foliation with non-closed leaves is the following: X:=C2/Λ is an Abelian surface, and F=X×{C.v}TX=X×C2 is the trivial rank one subbundle generated by a vector vC2. Let Γ:=C.vΛ: this is a closed additive subgroup of C.v of rank ρ either 0,1 or 2. So all leaves are isomorphic to C.v/Γ, which is isomorphic to either C,C, or an elliptic curve when ρ=2, i.e., when Γ is a cocompact sublattice of C.v. If the leaves of F are not compact, they are Zariski-dense, but their topological closures are real tori of real dimension d either 3 or 4. It may happen that d=3 even if the leaves of F are isomorphic to C. This happens for example if v=e1+2.e2, J.v=e1+3.e3:=w, the lattice defining X being generated over Z by e1,,e4, and the complex structure J on R4 extending the one defined above (J.v=w). One obtains so a two-dimensional compact complex torus X. It is less obvious whether this can be done in such a way that X is an abelian variety.

    Example 1.3. Let X:=P2, with affine coordinates (x,y) and F be defined as the Kernel of the (rational) 1-form w:=dyλ.dx, where λC. The leaves are then defined by the equation y=xλ, and are thus algebraic if and only if λQ. The Zariski and topological closures of the leaves can be easily described in terms of λ. Examples 1.2 and 1.3 show that algebraicity is an arithmetic property in families of foliations.

    Example 1.4. The globally simplest foliations, however, are the ones arising from dominant rational fibrations , where Z is a manifold of dimension p:=nr, and the generic fibre of f is connected. The associated foliation is then F:=(Ker(df))sat, where sat denotes the saturation inside TX, and Sing(F) is the union of the indeterminacy locus of f, and of the singularities of the (reduction of the) fibres.

    Definition 1.5. Let FTX be a foliation on X. We say that F is 'algebraic' if all leaves of F are algebraic submanifolds of X, that is: if their Zariski and topological closures coincide, or equivalently, have the same dimension r.

    Using Chow-scheme theory, one shows that F is algebraic if and only if it arises from a fibration, as in Example 1.4.

    Problem: Find 'numerical' criteria for the algebraicity of foliations FTX. The criteria we shall give and use below are the positivity of intersection numbers of det(F) and 'movable' classes of curves on either X or the projectivisation of F. We shall see that these conditions also imply restrictions on the structure of the leaves of F.

    The criterion we shall prove and use here is the following, inspired by, and partially extending, former results [2,3,4]:

    Theorem 1.6. (see [1,5]) The foliation FTX is algebraic if the dual F:=HomOX(F,OX) of F is not pseudo-effective*.

    *This is proved, but not stated explicitely in [1]. It is stated explicitely in [5].

    We also have the next particular case:

    Theorem 1.7. Let FTX be a foliation with μα,min(F)>0 for some αMov(X). Then F is not pseudo-effective, F is an algebraic foliation. Moreover, its leaves have rationally connected closures.

    The notions of rational connectedness and μα,min will be defined in sections 4 and 6 below. We now define the pseudo-effectivity.

    Definition 1.8. A coherent sheaf G on X, is pseudo-effective if, for any j>0,c>0, H0(X,Sym[m](G)Aj){0} for some m>j.c. Here Sym[m](G) denotes the reflexive hull (i.e., the double dual) of Symm(G).

    Otherwise, if H0(X,Sym[m](G)Aj)={0},m>c(A).j, any j>0, and some constant c(A)>0, G is said to be not pseudo-effective.

    Equivalently, by the next remark, G is not pseudo-effective if G is locally free on U=XS, where SX is Zariski closed of codimension at least 2, and if H0(U,Symm(G)Aj)={0},m>c(A).j.

    Remark 1.9. Recall that F is reflexive if the natural morphism FF is an equality. Such a sheaf is torsionfree and normal (i.e., any section defined on a big Zariski open subset UX extends to X). If rk(F)=1, reflexive means locally free on a smooth X. If FE is of rank one, with E locally free, then F is reflexive if and only if it is saturated in E (but not necessarily a subbundle). Its powers FkSymkE,k>0 are then all saturated.

    We shall see in §3 and §4 how to check the non-pseudo-effectivity of a sheaf G using negativity or non-positivity of intersection numbers with 'movable classes of curves'.

    The following consequences of Theorem 1.6 can be stated without reference to pseudo-effectivity.

    Corollary 1.10. (see [1], [3]) Let s be a nonzero section of mTXL, for some m>0 and L a line bundle with c1(L)=0. Assume that s vanishes somewhere on X. Then X is uniruled (i.e., covered by rational curves).

    Recall that a line bundle on X is said to be 'big' if h0(X,m.L)C.mn, for some C=C(X,L)>0, and m+. A line bundle L is big if and only if mL=A+E for some m>0,A ample and E effective.

    Corollary 1.11. (see [1]) Let L be big line bundle on X, and assume there exists a sheaf injection LmΩ1X, for some m>0. Then KX is big.

    Remark 1.12. The statement of Corollary 1.11 is a form of stability specific to vector bundles E:=mΩ1X, and fails for general E: on any positive-dimensional X, if E:=AA2, with L=A ample of rank one, det(E)=A, although A injects in E.

    Products X=P1×Zn1, with Zn1 of general type, f:XZ the projection, and L=f(KZ)Ωn1X, with κ(X,L)=(n1) submaximal, show that KX may not be pseudo-effective. The positivity of subsheaves LmΩ1X is preserved by KX only when L is big.

    We shall formulate a more general version of 'birational stability' for tensor powers of cotangent bundles in §.7.

    We shall apply in §8 the Corollary 1.11 to moduli of canonically polarized manifolds.

    Let S:=SingFX be the Zariski closed set of codimension at least 2 over which F is not a subbundle of TX, and UF:=XS. For any xUF, let Ux=Fx×Bx be an open neighbourhood Ux of x in X such that the leaves of F|Ux are the fibres of the projection βx:UxBx. If ΔX×X is the diagonal of X, and if ΔF is the Zariski open set of Δ mapped to UF by (either) projections pi:X×XX,i=1,2, then there exists a germ W of submanifold of dimension n+r of UF×UF such that for each xUF, WUx×Ux=Ux×BxUx. In other words, the fibre Wx over xUF of the first projection p1|W:WUF is a germ of the leaf of F through x.

    The leaves of F will thus be algebraic if (and only if) the manifold W is a germ of an algebraic subvariety of X×X, or equivalently, if the Zariski closure V of W has the same dimension n+r as W. Let d:=dim(V); if B is any ample line bundle on V, there exists a constant C=C(B,V)>0 such that h0(V,k.B)C.kd, when k+. We thus only need to prove that h0(V,k.B)C.kn+r for some C>0, and some ample B on V in order to prove Theorem 1.6.

    Notice next that it is sufficient to show that h0(W,k.B)C.kn+r for some C>0, since the restriction map res:H0(V,k.B)H0(W,k.B) is injective by the Zariski density of W in V. We now prove this last inequality.

    Let thus B be ample on X×X. Any section s of k.B on W admits a unique development in power series along the fibres of p1|W:WUF of the form s=m0sm,k, where sm,kH0(UF,Symm(F)k.B),m,k.

    Since F is not pseudo-effective, H0(UF,Symm(F)k.B)={0} if m>C.k, for some C=C(B).

    Thus h0(W,k.B)m=C.km=0h0(UF,Symm(F)kB).

    If UF=X (i.e., F is a subbundle of TX), h0(UF,Symm(F)k.B)C".(m+k)n+r1,k>0,m0, and some C">0. Indeed, h(m,k):=h0(X,Symm(F)k.B)=h0(P(F),m.L+k.B)), where L=OP(F)(1), B is the pullback of B, and so h(m,k)C".(m+k)n+r1, since dim(P(F))=n+r1, by dominating L,B by an ample line bundle A on P(F) such that AB and AL are effective. Thus:

    m=C.km=0h0(UF,Symm(F)kB)m=C.km=0C".(m+k)n+r1(Ck+1).(C".(Ck+k)n+r1)(C+1)n+rC".kn+r, which concludes the proof of Theorem 1.6 if U=X.

    The general case UFX is obtained by applying [10], III.5.10(3), which shows that the same inequalities h0(UF,Symm(F)k.B)C".(m+k)n+r1,k>0,m0, and some C">0 still hold true, by constructing a suitable modification of P(F), and of OP(F)(1).

    More precisely: if p:P:=P(F):=Proj(SymF)X, with L:=OP(1) the tautological line bundle on P, p(Lm)=Symm(F),m>0. Moreover, if ρ:PP is a resolution of the singularities of P which coincides with P over UF, there exists an effective, ρ-exceptional divisor EP such that (pr)(m.(L+E))=Sym[m](F),k>0. See Proposition 3.9 for a simplified proof.

    Definition 3.1. Let (Ct)tT be an algebraic family of curves parametrised by an irreducible projective variety T. Assume that Ct is irreducible for tT generic, and that X is covered by the union of the Cts. Then α:=[Ct]H2n2(X,Z) is independent of tT. We call such a class a geometrically movable class on X.

    The closed convex cone of H2n2(X,R) generated by the geometrically movable classes is called the movable cone of X, denoted Mov(X), and its elements are the movable classes of X. From [7], we even have that αHn1,n1(X,R) is in Mov(X) if and only if α.D0 for any irreducible effective divisor D on X.

    Example 3.2. 1. If A is ample on X, then An1Mov(X). There are many more examples, such as the following:

    2. If CX is an irreducible curve, locally complete intersection, with ideal sheaf IC and ample normal bundle (IC/I2C), then α:=[C]Mov(X). Indeed: for any irreducible effective divisor D, we have D.C0, since D|C is a quotient of (IC/I2C). See [8,9] for more on this situation.

    Remark 3.3. If D is an effective Q-divisor on X, D.α0,αMov(X). More generally, if m.D+A if effective for infinitely many m>0, and some ample A, D.α0,αMov(X). Said otherwise: if D is pseudo-effective, then D.α0,αMov(X).

    An important result is the following converse.

    Theorem 3.4. (see [7,10]) Let L be a line bundle on X. Then L is pseudo-effective if and only if L.α0,αMov(X).

    Equivalently, L is not pseudo-effective if and only if L.α<0 for some αMov(X).

    Pseudo-effectivity is fundamental in birational geometry when applied to L=KX because of the next:

    Theorem 3.5. (see [11]) If KX is not pseudo-effective, then X is uniruled (i.e., covered by rational curves).

    The only known proof rests on positive characteristic techniques. The original statement of Miyaoka-Mori is: if (Ct)tT is an algebraic family of curves (of possibly large genus) such that KX.Ct<0, it is possible to find such a family where the Cts are rational curves!

    Remark 3.6. There exists (Nagata, Mumford, see [12]) divisors D such that D.α0,αMov(X), but which are not Q-effective. The main conjecture of birational geometry is that KX is Q-effective if KX.α0,αMov(X).

    The following birational invariance is crucial, here.

    Corollary 3.7. Let π:XX be a birational morphism between smooth projective manifolds.

    1. Let αMov(X), then π(α)Mov(X).

    2. Let αMov(X), then π(α)Mov(X).

    3. αMov(X) if and only if α:=π(α)Mov(X).

    Proof. The first (resp. second) claim follows from the equality: π(α).D=α.π(D) for any divisor D on X (resp. π(α).π(D)=π(α).(D+E)=π(α).D, where D is the strict transform of D, and E is π-exceptional, since π(α).E=0,E, π-exceptional divisor on X. The third claim follows from the others since π(π(α))=α,α.

    The following is an immediate consequence of Theorem 3.4 since p(A)+ε.OP(E)(1) is ample on P(E) for any ε>0 sufficiently small, and Symm(E)=p(OP(E)(m)),m>0:

    Corollary 3.8. Let E be a rank r vector bundle on X. Then E (identified with its sheaf of sections) is pseudo-effective if and only if L:=OP(E)(1) is pseudo-effective on p:P(E)X, that is, if L.α0,αMov(P(E)).

    The above Corollary 3.8 extends to the case when G=E is not locally free by considering a suitable modification of P(G) as constructed in [10,III,5.10]. We give a simplified proof, following the strategy of [10], in Proposition 3.9 below (to be applied to a smooth model P of the main component of P(F), as in [10,V,3.23]).

    Proposition 3.9. Let p:PX be a fibration with X normal, P smooth, both projective, let D be a Cartier divisor on P such that p(OP(D))0.

    1. If E is an effective divisor on P supported on the exceptional divisor Exc(p) of p, and such that, for every divisorial component Γ of Exc(p), its restriction EΓ to Γ is not pseudo-effective, then p(OP(k.(D+.E)))=p(OP(k.D)),k>0, where >0 is chosen to be sufficiently large, so that (D+.E)Γ is not pseudo-effective for any Γ.

    2. There exists a divisor E satisfying the previous properties.

    Proof. 1. Let ΣX be the codimension 2 or more locus of points over which p is not equidimensional, so that Exc(p)p1(Σ). There is some >0 such that (D+.E)Γ is not pseudo-effective for every Γ, since this is the case for E. We replace E by .E, so that =1, to simplify notations. Then every section of OP(k.(D+E)) vanishes on Exc(p), for every k>0, and has thus no pole there. Every element s of H0(P,p(p(OP(k.D)))) lies in H0(P,k.(D+E)+E), for some divisor E supported on Exc(p), which may be supposed to be effective. But then Et.E for some t>0 since the support of E coincides with the divisorial part of Exc(p) by our non pseudo-effectivity assumption. Since t.E is not pseudo-effective on each Γ, H0(P,k.(D+E)+t.E)=H0(P,k.(D+E))=H0(P,p(p(OP(k.D)))), which implies the claim.

    2. Let v:XX be a modification, q:PX,u:PP be the normalisation of the main component of P×XX, so that pu=vq. We choose v to be projective birational, with X smooth, and moreover such that q is equidimensional, and such that there exists an effective divisor ΔExc(v) such that Δ is ample on the divisorial part of Exc(v).

    Let E:=u(q(Δ)), and let H be a sufficiently ample divisor on P, with HΓ its restriction to Γ, for each divisorial component Γ of Exc(p). Let αΓ:=Hd2Γ, where d:=dim(P), then αΓMov(Γ). If ΓP is the strict transform of Γ by u, then q(Δ).u(αΓ)=E.αΓ since the generic member of the family αΓ does not meet the indeterminacy locus of u|Γ:ΓΓ. We thus just have to show that q(Δ).u(αΓ)<0.

    Moreover, q(Δ).u(αΓ)=Δ.q(u(αΓ))<0. Indeed: q(u(αΓ))Mov(q(Γ)), Δ is ample on the divisorial part of Exc(v), and q(Γ) is a divisorial component of Exc(v), by the equidimensionality of q. Thus E.αΓ<0, and EΓ is not pseudo-effective.

    The description of Mov(P(E)) is, in general, quite delicate. An important particular situation where the pseudo-effectivity can be tested on X rather than on P(E) is exposed in the next section.

    The data here are X,G,αMov(X),r:=rk(G)>0 as above. We assume always G to be nonzero, torsionfree. See [13], Chap. V and [14] for a detailed treatment.

    The (always locally free, since X is smooth), rank-one, sheaf det(G) is defined as det(G):=r(G).

    Definition 4.1. The slope of G with respect to α is: μα(G):=det(G).αr. We say that G is α-stable (resp. α-semi-stable) if: μα(H)<μα(G) (resp.μα(H)μα(G)), H coherent subsheaf.

    Notice that if {{\mathcal F}}\subsetneq {{\mathcal G}} is a saturated subsheaf of rank r with torsionfree quotient {{\mathcal Q}} of rank s , we have: det({{\mathcal G}}) = det({{\mathcal F}})+det({{\mathcal Q}}) and so:

    (*) \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal G}}) = \frac{r}{r+s}.\mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal F}})+\frac{s}{r+s}.\mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal Q}})\in [\mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal F}}), \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal Q}})] .

    If {{\mathcal F}} is torsionfree, then \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal F}}) = \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal F}}^{**}) = -\mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal F}}^*) , since these equalities need to be checked only on a big Zariski-open subset of X .

    These notions are classical when \alpha = [A]^{n-1} , where A is an ample line bundle. Just as in this classical case, we still have (with essentially the same proof, by induction on the rank, and the equality (*) ):

    Lemma 4.2. For {{\mathcal G}}, \alpha as above, there is a unique maximum {{\mathcal H}}\subset {{\mathcal G}} with \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal H}}) maximum (i.e., for any {{\mathcal H}}'\subset {{\mathcal G}} , we have: \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal H}}')\leq \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal H}}): = \mu_{\alpha, max}({{\mathcal G}}) , in case of equality: {{\mathcal H}}'\subset {{\mathcal H}}).

    {{\mathcal H}} is the \alpha -maximal destabilising subsheaf of {{\mathcal G}} , denoted {{\mathcal G}}^{\alpha, max} . It is, by construction, \alpha -semi-stable, and saturated inside {{\mathcal G}} , so its quotient {{\mathcal G}}_{\alpha, min}: = {{\mathcal G}}/{{\mathcal G}}^{\alpha, max} is torsionfree (or zero iff {{\mathcal G}} is semi-stable).

    Proof. Obvious if rank({{\mathcal G}}) = 1 , and so for direct sum of copies of a line bundle. Then embedd {{\mathcal G}} in the direct sum of a certain number of copies of A , sufficiently ample. Then \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal G}}')\leq \mu_{\alpha}(\oplus^NA) = \mu_{\alpha}(A) for any {{\mathcal G}}'\subset {{\mathcal G}} . This proves the boundedness of \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal G}}') , for {{\mathcal G}}'\subset {{\mathcal G}} . If the class \alpha is rational, one easily gets the existence of a maximum for these slopes, because of the finiteness of the possible denominators, and one can choose the rank to be maximal. The conclusion then follows. If the class \alpha is not rational, one needs a further (but still elementary) argument: choose {{\mathcal G}}_i, i = 1, 2 both different from their intersection, of the same maximal rank r with \alpha -slopes \mu_i, i = 1, 2 , approaching from below up to \varepsilon > 0 the upper bound \mu: = \mu_{\alpha, max}({{\mathcal G}}) of \alpha -slopes of all {{\mathcal G}}'\subset {{\mathcal G}} . The sum {{\mathcal G}}_1+{{\mathcal G}}_2 has rank larger than r and slope at least each \mu-2r.\varepsilon (by a simple computation using the exact sequence 0\to {{\mathcal G}}_1\cap {{\mathcal G}}_2\to {{\mathcal G}}_1\oplus {{\mathcal G}}_2\to {{\mathcal G}}_1+{{\mathcal G}}_2\to 0 ). Contradiction to the maximality of r for the ranks of {{\mathcal G}}'\subset {{\mathcal G}} with slope at least \mu-2r.\varepsilon if \varepsilon > 0 is chosen sufficiently small.

    Corollary 4.3. There are a unique integer s\geq 0 , and an increasing filtration \{0\} = {{\mathcal H}}_0\subsetneq {{\mathcal H}}_1\subsetneq {{\mathcal H}}_2\subsetneq \dots\subsetneq {{\mathcal H}}_s = {{\mathcal G}} by saturated subsheaves such that: {{\mathcal H}}_{j+1}/{{\mathcal H}}_{j} is \alpha -semistable for j = 0, \dots, s-1 , and \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal H}}_{j+1}/{{\mathcal H}}_{j}) > \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal H}}_{j+2}/{{\mathcal H}}_{j+1}) for j = 0, \dots, s-2 .

    This filtration is called the \alpha -Harder-Narasimhan filtration of {{\mathcal G}} . We write \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal G}}): = \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal G}}_{\alpha, min}): = \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal G}}/{{\mathcal H}}_{s-1}) , and \mu_{\alpha, max}({{\mathcal G}}): = \mu_{\alpha}(G^{\alpha, max}) .

    Proof. Induction on s applied to {{\mathcal G}}/{{\mathcal G}}^{\alpha, max} and {{\mathcal H}}_1 = {{\mathcal G}}^{\alpha, max} .

    Lemma 4.4. 1. Let {{\mathcal H}}\neq \{0\} be a torsionfree quotient sheaf of {{\mathcal G}} on X . Then: \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal H}})\geq \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal G}}) . If equality holds, {{\mathcal H}} is a quotient of {{\mathcal G}}_{min} .

    2. Let {{\mathcal F}}, {{\mathcal G}} be torsionfree coherent sheaves on X . Assume that \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) > \mu_{\alpha, max}({{\mathcal G}}) . Then Hom({{\mathcal F}}, {{\mathcal G}}) = \{0\} .

    3. If det({{\mathcal G}}).\alpha > 0 , then \mu_{\alpha, max}({{\mathcal G}}) = \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal G}}^{\alpha, max}) > 0 .

    Proof. 1. Induction on r : if {{\mathcal H}} is a nonzero quotient of {{\mathcal G}} , it fits in a short exact sequence 0 \to K \to {{\mathcal H}} \to {{\mathcal Q}} \to 0 , in which K (resp. {{\mathcal Q}}) is a quotient of {{\mathcal G}}^{\alpha, max} (resp. {{\mathcal G}}/{{\mathcal G}}^{\alpha, max}) , hence the conclusion since both K and {{\mathcal Q}} have slope at least \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal G}}) . The second claim holds by induction on s , because \mu_{\alpha, min} ({{\mathcal G}}/{{\mathcal G}}^{\alpha, max}) > \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal G}}) if {{\mathcal G}} is not semi-stable.

    2. If 0\neq h\in Hom({{\mathcal F}}, {{\mathcal G}}) , its image {{\mathcal H}} a subsheaf of {{\mathcal G}} , and a quotient of {{\mathcal F}} . We thus get (with \mu = \mu_{\alpha}) : \mu_{max}({{\mathcal G}})\geq \mu({{\mathcal H}})\geq \mu_{min}({{\mathcal F}}) , a contradiction.

    3. is obvious.

    Lemma 4.5. We have: ({{\mathcal G}}^*)^{\alpha, max} = ({{\mathcal G}}_{\alpha, min})^* , in particular: \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal G}}) = -\mu_{\alpha, max}({{\mathcal G}}^*) , and HN_{\alpha}({{\mathcal G}}^*) = (HN_{\alpha}({{\mathcal G}}))^* (i.e., the terms for {{\mathcal G}}^* are the dual of those for {{\mathcal G}} in reverse order).

    Proof. Dualising the projection {{\mathcal G}}\to {{\mathcal G}}_{min} , we get: ({{\mathcal G}}_{\min})^* \subset {{\mathcal G}}^* , and so -\mu_{min}({{\mathcal G}})\leq \mu_{max}({{\mathcal G}}^*) . Dualising ({{\mathcal G}}^*)^{\alpha, max}\subset {{\mathcal G}}^* , we get a generically surjective morphism {{\mathcal G}} \to {{\mathcal G}}^{**} \to (({{\mathcal G}}^*)^{\alpha, max})^* from which the inequality -\mu_{max}({{\mathcal G}}^*)\geq \mu_{min}({{\mathcal G}}) follows. We thus get the equality -\mu_{max}({{\mathcal G}}^*) = \mu_{min}({{\mathcal G}}) . Hence the second claim. The first claim follows from the second part of Lemma 4.4.(1). The last claim is seen by induction on the number of terms of the HN filtration.

    Let {{\mathcal F}}\hat{\otimes}{{\mathcal G}}: = ({{\mathcal F}}\otimes {{\mathcal G}})^{**} be the reflexive tensor product of {{\mathcal F}} and {{\mathcal G}} .

    Theorem 4.6. For X, {{\mathcal G}}, {{\mathcal H}}, \alpha as before, we have:

    1. \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal G}}) = -\mu_{\alpha, max}({{\mathcal G}}^*) , ({{\mathcal G}}_{\alpha, min})^* = ({{\mathcal G}}^*)^{\alpha, max} .

    2. ({{\mathcal G}}\hat{\otimes} {{\mathcal H}})^{\alpha, max} = {{\mathcal G}}^{\alpha, max}\hat{\otimes} {{\mathcal H}}^{\alpha, max}/ .

    3. \mu_{\alpha, max}({{\mathcal G}}\hat{\otimes} {{\mathcal H}}) = \mu_{\alpha, max}({{\mathcal G}})+\mu_{\alpha, max}({{\mathcal H}}) .

    4. \mu_{\alpha, max}(\hat{\otimes}^m({{\mathcal G}})) = \mu_{\alpha, max}(\widehat{Sym}^m({{\mathcal G}})) = m. \mu_{\alpha, max}({{\mathcal G}}) .

    5. \mu_{\alpha, max}(\hat{\wedge}^p({{\mathcal G}})) = p. \mu_{\alpha, max}({{\mathcal G}}), \forall p > 0 .

    The first claim follows from the fact that dualisation exchanges subobjects and quotients. By contrast, the proof of claim 3 is quite deep, relying on the Kobayashi-Hitchin correspondance between \alpha -stable bundles and Hermite-Einstein vector bundles (with respect to Gauduchon metrics). For this correspondance, originally due to Li-Yau in [15], see details in the book of Lübke-Teleman [16].

    Lemma 4.7. Let {{\mathcal F}} be a torsionfree coherent sheaf on X , and \alpha\in Mov(X) such that \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) > 0 . Then {{\mathcal F}}^* is not pseudo-effective.

    Proof. Let A be ample on X . Applying Theorem 4.6, we see that -\mu: = \mu_{\alpha, max}({{\mathcal F}}^*) < 0 , and so \mu_{\alpha, max}(Sym^{[m]}({{\mathcal F}})\otimes A^j) = m. \mu+j.A.\alpha < 0 for m > j.c , where c: = \frac{A.\alpha}{\mu} , which implies that h^0(X, Sym^{[m]}({{\mathcal F}})\otimes A^j) = 0 , as claimed.

    The following criterion for foliations among distributions is crucial here:

    Corollary 4.8. (see [4]) Let {{\mathcal F}}\subset TX be a coherent subsheaf. If, for some \alpha\in Mov(X) , 2.\mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) > \mu_{\alpha, max}(TX/{{\mathcal F}}) , then {{\mathcal F}} is a foliation.

    Proof. Let \Lambda: \wedge^2({{\mathcal F}})\to TX/{{\mathcal F}} be the sheaf morphism induced by the Lie bracket. The slopes assumption implies by claim 5 of Theorem 4.6 and claim 2 of Lemma 4.4 that it vanishes. The conclusion follows by Frobenius theorem.

    From Theorem 1.6, and Lemmas 4.7 and 4.8, we get:

    Theorem 4.9. Let {{\mathcal F}}\subset TX be a distribution with \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) > 0 for some \alpha\in Mov(X) . Assume that 2.\mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) > \mu_{\alpha, max}(TX/{{\mathcal F}}) (this is satisfied if {{\mathcal F}} is a piece of the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of TX relative to \alpha ). Then {{\mathcal F}} is an algebraic foliation.

    Remark 4.10. In the situation of Theorem 4.9, we shall prove in the next two sections that the leaves of {{\mathcal F}} have rationally connected closures.

    Corollary 4.11. Assume that K_X is not pseudo-effective. There then exists on X a nonzero foliation {{\mathcal F}}\subset TX such that \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) > 0 , the dual {{\mathcal F}}^* is not pseudo-effective, and {{\mathcal F}} is algebraic.

    Proof. Just apply Theorem 4.9, choosing {{\mathcal F}}: = TX^{\alpha, max} . The last claim requires new notions and techniques presented in the next two sections.

    Remark 4.12. We thus obtain the existence of (all of the) fibrations with rationally connected fibres on any given X with K_X not pseudo-effective without using the Minimal Model Program.

    Another easy, but central, property is the birational invariance 'up' of the condition \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) > 0 for subsheaves of the tangent bundles:

    Lemma 4.13. Let {{\mathcal F}}\subset TX be a subsheaf, let \pi:X'\to X be a birational morphism between X, X' projective smooth. Let {{\mathcal F}}'\subset TX' be the pullback distribution, defined as: {{\mathcal F}}': = \pi^*({{\mathcal F}})\cap TX' . Let \alpha\in Mov(X), \alpha': = \pi^*(\alpha) . Then \mu_{\alpha'}({{\mathcal F}}') = \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal F}}) , and \mu_{\alpha', min}({{\mathcal F}}') = \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) .

    Proof. The statements hold for \pi^*({{\mathcal F}}) , hence for {{\mathcal F}}' since det({{\mathcal F}}') and det(\pi^*({{\mathcal F}})) coincide outside the exceptional divisor of \pi , and \alpha'.E = 0 for each component E of this divisor.

    Remark 4.14. The statement does not (always) hold 'down' (i.e., if \alpha = \pi_*(\alpha'), but \alpha'\neq \pi^*(\alpha) : let X = \Bbb P^2 , let {{\mathcal F}} be tangent to the conics C going through 4 points in general position, and let \alpha' be the class of the strict transforms C' of these conics on the blow-up X' of \Bbb P^2 in the 4 given points. Then \mu_{\alpha'}({{\mathcal F}}') = 2 > 0 , since {{\mathcal F}}'_{\vert C'} = -K_{C'} , but \mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal F}}) = 2-4 = -2 > 0 .

    Let f:X\to Z be a fibration between complex projective manifolds. Let X_z be its generic (smooth) fibre. Let f^*(\Omega^1_Z)^{sat}\subset \Omega^1_X be the saturation of f^*(\Omega^1_Z) , and denote by f^*(K_Z)^+: = det(f^*(K_Z)^{sat}) . Let finally K^-_{X/Z}: = K_X-f^*(K_Z)^+ .

    If {{\mathcal F}}: = Ker((df)^{sat})\subset TX , we thus have: det({{\mathcal F}}^*) = K^-_{X/Z} , by the consideration of the determinants in the exact sequence: 0\to (f^*(\Omega_Z^1))^{sat}\to \Omega^1_X\to {{\mathcal F}}^*\to 0 , dual to: 0\to {{\mathcal F}}\to TX\to TX/{{\mathcal F}}\to 0 .

    Definition 5.1. We say that f is 'neat' if:

    1. The discriminant locus D(f)\subset Z of singular fibres of f is a divisor of strict normal crossings.

    2. f^{-1}(D(f))\subset X is also a divisor of simple normal crossings.

    3. There exists an equidimensional fibration f_0:X_0\to Z and a birational morphism u:X\to X_0 such that f_0\circ u = f .

    By suitable blow-ups of Z and X , any fibration can be made 'neat', as a consequence of Hironaka's resolution of singularities, and Hironaka's or Raynaud's flattening theorems.

    Theorem 5.2. Let f:X\to Z be a fibration between complex projective manifolds. Let X_z be its generic (smooth) fibre. If f is 'neat', and if K_{X_z} is pseudo-effective, K^-_{X/Z} is pseudo-effective.

    This result strengthens a weak version of Viehweg's theorem on the weak positivity of direct images of pluricanonical sheaves. A particular case was also obtained by Miyaoka using deformations of rational curves, Mori's bend and break, and positive characteristic methods.

    Corollary 5.3. Assume that K_X is not pseudo-effective, let \alpha\in Mov(X) be such that K_X.\alpha < 0 . Let {{\mathcal F}}: = TX^{\alpha, max}\subset TX , thus \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) > 0 , and so {{\mathcal F}} is a foliation, by corollary 4.11, and algebraic, by Theorem 1.6. Moreover, after suitable blow-ups of X , we have: if f:X\to Z is a fibration such that {{\mathcal F}} = Ker(df)^{sat}\subset TX , then:

    1. K_{X_z} is not pseudo-effective. More generally:

    2. If f = h\circ g for rational fibrations g:X\to Y and h:Y\to Z , then K_{Y_z} is not pseudo-effective, Y_z being the generic fibre of h (on suitable birational neat models of g, h) .

    Proof. We may blow-up X, Z_0 for any rational fibration with generic fibre the closure of a generic leaf of {{\mathcal F}} in such a way that the birational model f:X\to Z (we keep the notation X for the blown-up manifold, so as to save notations) so obtained is regular and 'neat'. By Lemma 4.13, the property \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) is preserved on the blown-up manifold by lifting both the foliation and the movable class in the natural manner, so that the Theorem 5.2 can be applied to the new f:X\to Z .

    Claim 1. By contradiction, assume not. Then K^-_{X/Z} = det({{\mathcal F}}^*) is pseudo-effective, by Theorem 5.2. Thus 0\leq K^-_{X/Z}.\alpha = det({{\mathcal F}}^*).\alpha = -\mu_{\alpha}({{\mathcal F}}) < 0 . Contradiction.

    Claim 2. By contradiction again, assume that K_{Y_z} is pseudo-effective. By applying Theorem 5.2 to h , det({{\mathcal H}}^*) , and so also g^*(det({{\mathcal H}})^*) were pseudo-effective, with {{\mathcal H}}: = Ker(dh)^{sat}\subset TY . Thus \mu_{\alpha}(g^*({{\mathcal H}}^*)) = -\mu_{\alpha}(g^*({{\mathcal H}}))\geq 0 . On the other hand, the fibration g_{\vert X_z}: = g_z:X_z\to Y_z implies that g^*({{\mathcal H}}) is a quotient of {{\mathcal F}} , so \mu_{\alpha}(g^*({{\mathcal H}}))\geq \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) > 0 . Contradiction.

    Remark 5.4. With (much) more work, it is possible to show more: for general z\in Z , there exists \alpha_z\in Mov(X_z) such that \mu_{\alpha_z, min}(TX_z) > 0 . We shall prove this less directly, but more simply, by using the theory of rational curves in the next section.

    Definition 6.1. X is said to be uniruled (resp. rationally connected) if through any generic point (resp. any two generic points) of X pass an irreducible rational curve (i.e., a non-constant image of \Bbb P^1) .

    Example 6.2. 1. \Bbb P^n is rationally connected, so also any X birational to \Bbb P^n , or rationally dominated by \Bbb P^n .

    2. X is rationally connected if -K_X is ample (i.e., if X is Fano).

    3. Smooth hypersurfaces of \Bbb P^{n+1} of degree at most n+1 are Fano (by adjunction), hence rationally connected.

    4. If X\to Z is a fibration with Z and X_z rationally connected, then X is rationally connected (a deep result of [17]).

    The present birational theory of rational curves on projective manifolds is based on [17] and the following two results:

    Theorem 6.3. (see [11]) X is uniruled if (and only if) K_X is not pseudo-effective.

    Theorem 6.4. There is a unique fibration r:X\to R (called the Maximally Rationally Connected (or MRC-) fibration of X) such that:

    1. its fibres are rationally connected.

    2. its base is not uniruled (i.e., K_R is pseudo-effective).

    Although in general, r:X\to R is rational (almost holomorphic, in the sense that its generic fibre does not meet the indeterminacy locus), since all the properties considered here are of birational nature, we may and shall assume that r is regular.

    The two extreme cases are: X = R , or R is a point, meaning respectively that X is not uniruled, and that X is rationally connected.

    Using Chow-scheme theory, one gets a relative version as well, on suitable birational models:

    Corollary 6.5. If f:X\to Z is a fibration, there exists g:X\to Y and h:Y\to Z such that for general z\in Z , g_z: = g_{\vert X_z}:X_z\to Y_z is the MRC of X_z , and so K_{Y_z} is pseudo-effective.

    Theorem 6.6. Let {{\mathcal F}}\subset TX be a foliation such that \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) > 0 , for some \alpha\in Mov(X) . Then {{\mathcal F}} is algebraic, and its leaves have rationally connected closures.

    Proof. The algebraicity of {{\mathcal F}} follows from Theorem 4.9. Let f = h\circ g be the relative MRC of f , a suitable fibration such that {{\mathcal F}} = Ker(df)^{sat} . By Corollary 5.3.1, and Theorem 6.3, X_z is uniruled and so dim(Y) < dim(X) . By Corollary 5.3.2, K_{Y_z} is not pseudo-effective if dim(Y) > dim(Z) , contradicting Corollary 6.5. Thus Y = Z , and the claim.

    Corollary 6.7. The following are equivalent:

    1. X is uniruled.

    2. K_X is not pseudo-effective.

    3. h^0(X, mK_X+A) = 0 for any ample A and large m .

    4. \mu_{\alpha, min}(\Omega^1_X) < 0 , for some \alpha \in Mov(X) .

    We have: 1 \Longrightarrow 2, 3 \Longrightarrow 4 \Longrightarrow 1 (the last two implications by Corollaries 4.11 and 6.6 respectively).

    Corollary 6.8. The following are equivalent:

    1. X is rationally connected

    2. \Omega^p_X is not pseudo-effective for any p > 0 .

    3. h^0(X, Sym^m(\Omega^1_X)\otimes A) = 0 for any p > 0 , A ample and m large.

    4. \mu_{\alpha, max}(\Omega^1_X) < 0 for some \alpha\in Mov(X) .

    Proof. The implications 1 \Longrightarrow 2, 3 are easy by taking a rational curve with ample normal bundle in X , 3 \Longrightarrow 4 is seen by contradiction, from Theorem 6.4, taking L: = r^*(K_R)\subset \Omega^p_X if p: = dim(R) > 0 is a pseudo-effective line bundle, thus such that 0 < h^0(X, m.L+A)\leq h^0(X, Sym^m(\Omega^p_X)\otimes r^*(A)) for infinitely many m's . That 4 \Longrightarrow 1 follows from Theorem 6.6 applied to {{\mathcal F}} = TX .

    Remark 6.9. 1. Theorem 6.3 (resp. Corollary 6.8) claims that X is uniruled (resp. rationally connected) if and only if there is a covering family of curves (possibly of large genus) on which det(TX) (resp. TX) is ample.

    2. The 'uniruledness conjecture' claims that X is uniruled if K_X is not \Bbb Q -effective. It implies that in the above two corollaries, the ample A could be removed in the assertions 3, and that 'pseudo-effective' could be replaced by ' \Bbb Q -effective' in assertions 2.

    Corollary 6.10. (see [1,3]) Let s be a nonzero section of \otimes^mTX\otimes L , for some m > 0 and L a line bundle with c_1(L) = 0 . Assume that s vanishes somewhere on X . Then X is uniruled (i.e., covered by rational curves).

    Proof. It is sufficient to show that \mu_{\alpha, max}(TX) > 0 , or equivalently, that \mu_{\alpha, max}(\otimes^mTX\otimes L) > 0 for some \alpha\in Mov(X) . Let L be the subsheaf of rank one of \otimes^mTX\otimes L generated by s , and let \alpha be the geometrically movable class defined by a family of ample curves going through some point where s vanishes. Thus 0 < \mu_{\alpha}(L)\leq \mu_{\alpha, max}(\otimes^mTX\otimes L) as claimed.

    Corollary 6.11. Let C\subset X be an irreducible projective curve such that TX_{\vert C} is ample. Then X is rationally connected.

    This was observed in [18] by a different approach.

    Proof. Apply Theorem 6.6, observing that [C]\in Mov(X) , by considering the graph C" of the embedding j:C'\subset X in C'\times X, C' the normalisation of C , which has normal bundle TX_{\vert C'} , so that Corollary 6.8 applies, and [C"]\in Mov(C'\times X) , so that [C] = p_*([C"])\in Mov(X) .

    Theorem 7.1. (see [1]) Assume that K_X is pseudo-effective. Let Q be a torsionfree quotient of \otimes^m\Omega^1_X , for some m > 0 . Then det(Q) is pseudo-effective.

    Proof. K_X being pseudo-effective, \mu_{\alpha, min}(\Omega^1_X)\geq 0, \forall \alpha\in Mov(X) , by Corollary 6.7. By Theorem 4.6, \mu_{\alpha, min}(\otimes^m\Omega^1_X) = m.\mu_{\alpha, min}(\Omega^1_X)\geq 0 , \forall \alpha\in Mov(X) , which means that any torsionfree quotient of \otimes^m(\Omega^1_X) is pseudo-effective.

    Theorem 7.2. (see [1]) Let L a pseudo-effective line bundle on X . If there exists a nonzero sheaf morphism \lambda: L\to \otimes^m\Omega^1_X\otimes K_X^{\otimes p} for some m\geq 0, p > 0 , K_X is pseudo-effective.

    Proof. We proceed by induction on n = dim(X) , the case n = 1 being obvious. Assume K_X is not pseudo-effective, there then exists \alpha\in Mov(X) such that K_X.\alpha < 0 , and {{\mathcal F}}\subset TX a foliation such that \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) > 0 . Thus {{\mathcal F}} is algebraic, of the form Ker(df)^{sat} for some fibration f:X\to Z with rationally connected fibres, by Theorem 6.6.

    If dim(Z) = 0 , we get {{\mathcal F}} = TX , and so: \mu_{\alpha, min}(TX) > 0 , which implies that 0\leq L.\alpha\leq \mu_{\alpha, max}((\otimes^m\Omega^1_X)\otimes K_X^{\otimes p}) = -m.\mu_{\alpha, min}(TX)+p.K_X.\alpha < 0 . Contradiction.

    If dim(Z) > 0 , then dim(X_z) < n and we may apply induction. Let \lambda_z: = \lambda_{\vert X_z}: L_z\to (\otimes^m\Omega^1_X\otimes K_X^{\otimes p})_{\vert X_z} be the restriction. The exact sequence on X_z : 0\to T\to \Omega^1_{X\vert X_z}\to \Omega^1_{X_z}\to 0 , with T a trivial bundle of rank dim(Z) , induces a filtration on (\otimes^m\Omega^1_X\otimes K_X^{\otimes p})_{\vert X_z} with graded pieces isomorphic to T^{\otimes (m-j)} \otimes^{j}\Omega^1_{X_z}\otimes K_{X_z}^{\otimes p} , and we thus get for some j\in \{0, \dots, m\} a nonzero sheaf morphism L_{X_z}\to \otimes^{j}\Omega^1_{X_z}\otimes K_{X_z}^{\otimes p} . The induction then implies that K_{X_z} is pseudo-effective, since L_{X_z} is, like L on X , pseudo-effective on X_z , for z general in Z (i.e., ouside countably many strict Zariski-closed subsets). This contradicts the non-pseudoeffectivity of K_X .

    Corollary 7.3. (see [1]) Let L a big line bundle on X . If there exists a nonzero sheaf morphism L\to \otimes^m\Omega^1_X for some m > 0 , K_X is big.

    Proof. We may assume that L is saturated, let Q: = (\otimes^m\Omega^1_X/L) . If K_X is pseudo-effective, det(\otimes^m\Omega^1_X) = N.K_X = L+det(Q) . Since L is big and det(Q) is pseudo-effective by Theorem 7.1, N.K_X , and so K_X , is big.

    We show that K_X is pseudo-effective, which will imply the claim. Since L is big, k.L+K_X is effective for some large k > 0 , and -K_X thus admits a nonzero morphism in kL = (kL+K_X)-K_X , and so by composition with \lambda^{\otimes k} , -K_X maps nontrivially into \otimes^{mk}\Omega^1_X . Equivalently, \mathcal{O}_X injects into \otimes^{mk}\Omega^1_X\otimes K_X . Theorem 7.2 implies that K_X is pseudo-effective.

    Remark 7.4. Let X: = \Bbb P^k\times Z , where k > 0 , and Z is of general type and dimension (n-k)\geq 0 . Then K_X is not pseudo-effective, although \Omega^{n-k}_X\subset \Omega^{1 \otimes (n-k)}_X contains L: = p^*(K_Z) , a line bundle of Kodaira dimension 0\leq (n-k)\leq (n-1) . The assumption that L is big cannot be weakened to any smaller Kodaira dimension in order to imply the pseudoeffectivity of K_X .

    The argument used in Theorem 7.1 however extends to arbitrary numerical dimensions when K_X is assumed to be pseudo-effective.

    Definition 7.5. Let L, P, A be line bundles on X , A ample.

    1. \kappa(X, L): = max\{k\in \Bbb Z\vert \overline{lim}_{m > 0}(\frac{h^0(X, m.L)}{m^k}) > 0\}\in \{-\infty, 0, \dots, n\}

    2. \nu(X, L): = max\{A, k\in \Bbb Z\vert \overline{lim}_{m > 0}(\frac{h^0(X, m.L+A)}{m^k}) > 0\}\in \{-\infty, 0, \dots, n\}

    The elementary properties of these two invariants are:

    Proposition 7.6. 0. \nu(X, L)\geq \kappa(X, L)

    1. L is pseudo-effective (resp. \Bbb Q -effective) iff \nu(X, L)\geq 0 (resp. \kappa(X, L)\geq 0 .

    2. L is big (i.e., \kappa(X, L) = n) iff \nu(X, L) = n .

    3. If P is pseudo-effective, \nu(X, L+P)\geq \nu(X, L) .

    4. If L is big and if P is pseudo-effective, L+P is big.

    Theorem 7.7. Assume that K_X is pseudo-effective. Let L be a line bundle on X , and L\subset \otimes^m\Omega^1_X a nonzero sheaf morphism. Then \nu(X, L)\leq \nu(X, K_X) .

    Proof. Let Q: = (\otimes^m \Omega^1_X)/L^{sat} . Since det(Q) is pseudo-effective by Theorem 7.1, N.K_X = det(L^{sat})+det(Q) is the sum of L^{sat} and P: = det(Q) which is pseudo-effective.

    Thus \nu(X, K_X) = \nu(X, N.K_X) = \nu(X, L^{sat}+P)\geq \nu(X, L) .

    Remark 7.8. 1. The analogue of Proposition 7.6.(3) is false in general for the Kodaira dimension. The proof of Theorem 7.7 thus does not apply to prove \kappa(X, L)\leq \kappa(X, K_X) in the same situation. However:

    2. A central conjecture of birational geometry claims that \nu(X, K_X) = \kappa(X, K_X) for any X . It thus implies, together with Theorem 7.7, that \kappa(X, K_X)\geq \nu(X, L) for any m > 0, L\subset \otimes^m\Omega^1_X) if \nu(X, K_X)\geq 0 .

    3. The Remark 7.4 shows that the assumption that K_X is pseudo-effective cannot be removed or weakened.

    When K_X is not pseudo-effective (i.e., when X is uniruled), we have the general version:

    Corollary 7.9. Let f:X\to Z be the MRC of X . Let L\subset \otimes^m\Omega^1_X be a subsheaf of rank 1 . Then \nu(X, L)\leq \nu(Z, K_Z) .

    Proof. We can and shall assume that L is saturated in \otimes^m\Omega^1_X: = E . Let X_z: = f^{-1}(z), z\in Z is a generic smooth fibre of f , and let A be an ample line bundle on X , with L_{X_z}: = L_{\vert X_z} .

    Lemma 7.10. \nu(X, L) = -\infty , unless L_{X_z}\subset f^*(\otimes^m\Omega^1_{Z, z}) over X_z .

    Proof. The exact sequence 0\to f^*(\Omega^1_{Z, z})\to \Omega^1_{X\vert X_z}\to \Omega^1_{X_z}\to 0 induces on \otimes^{m}\Omega^1_{X\vert X_z} a filtration with graded pieces isomorphic, for 0\leq j\leq m , to G_j: = \otimes^{m-j} f^*(\Omega^1_{Z, z})\otimes(\otimes^j\Omega^1_{X_z}) . Since X_z is rationally connected, we may choose \alpha\in Mov(X) such that f_*(\alpha) = 0 , and \alpha restricts to X_z such that \mu_{\alpha, max}(\otimes^{j}\Omega^1_{X_z}) = j.\mu_{\alpha, max}(\Omega^1_{X_z}) < 0 , for any j > 0 . If L is not contained in \otimes^m(f^*(\Omega^1_{Z, z})) , there exists j > 0 and an injective sheaf map L\to G_j . We thus get: \mu_{\alpha}(L) = L. \alpha \leq \mu_{\alpha, max}(G_j) = j.\mu_{\alpha, max}(\Omega^1_{X_z}) < 0 , since \mu_{\alpha, max}(\otimes^{m-j}(f^*(\Omega^1_{Z, z}))) = 0 , the bundle f^*(\Omega^1_{Z, z}) being trivial. Thus L.\alpha < 0 , and \nu(X, L) = -\infty .

    From lemma 7.10, we deduce that L\subset f^*(\otimes^m\Omega^1_Z)^{sat}\subset \otimes^m\Omega^1_X . We can now conclude from the following Lemma 7.11, analogous to Lemma 7.1, using the very same arguments used to deduce Theorem 7.7 from Lemma 7.1.

    Lemma 7.11. Let f:X\to Z be the MRC fibration of X , and let {{\mathcal G}}\subsetneq f^*(\otimes^m \Omega^1_Z)^{sat} be a saturated subsheaf. Then det({{\mathcal Q}}) is pseudo-effective on X , where {{\mathcal Q}} is the quotient of (f^*(\otimes^m \Omega^1_Z))^{sat} by {{\mathcal G}} .

    Proof. We may and shall assume Z to be smooth. By contradiction, if the conclusion does not hold, \mu_{\alpha, min}(f^*(\otimes^m\Omega^1_Z)^{sat})) < 0 for some \alpha\in Mov(X) , and -\mu_{\alpha, max}((f^*(T_Z))^{sat}) = \mu_{\alpha, min}((f^*(\Omega^1_Z)^{sat})) < 0 . There is then {{\mathcal F}}\subset (f^*(T_Z))^{sat} , \alpha -semi-stable with \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) > 0 which is an algebraic foliation on X with closures of leaves rationally connected, and mapped non-trivially on Z by f , contradicting the non-uniruledness of Z .

    Let f:Y\to B be a projective holomorphic submersion with connected fibres between connected complex quasi-projective manifolds Y, B .

    We assume that all fibres of f have an ample canonical bundle, and that the 'variation' of f , defined by: Var(f) = rk(ks:TB\to R^1f_*(T_{Y/B})) is maximal, equal to dim(B) .

    The situation considered by I. Shafarevich in 1962, was when f was a non-isotrivial family of curves of genus at least 2 on a curve B . His conjecture (proved by Parshin and Arakelov) was (formulated differently) that K_{\bar{B}}+D was big on \bar{B} = B\cup D , a compactification of B .

    The conjecture of Shafarevich was extended by Viehweg in the following form: in the above situation, K_{\bar{B}}+D is big if \bar{B} is a smooth projective compactification of B obtained by adding to B a divisor D of simple normal crossings.

    In this situation, Viehweg-Zuo [19] proved the existence of a big line bundle (the 'Viehweg-Zuo sheaf') L\subset \otimes^m \Omega^1_{\bar{B}}(Log D) which, combined with the following Theorem, implies Viehweg's conjecture (proved first in [20]):

    Theorem 8.1. Let X be a connected complex projective and D a divisor of simple normal crossings on X . Assume that a big line bundle L on X has an injective sheaf morphism L\subset \otimes^m \Omega^1_{X}(Log D) . Then K_X+D is big.

    This is the logarithmic analogue of Theorem 7.3. It is proved by extending to the logarithmic setting the theorems 1.6 and 7.3, which is done very straightforwardly, by replacing in the proofs the (co)tangent bundles by their Log -analogs.

    The Viehweg's conjecture has been extended, and proofs given, in various directions (fibres of general type, or with semi-ample canonical bundle, or B 'special', and then f is isotrivial). In another direction, inspired by Lang's conjectures, the Brody, Kobayashi, or Picard hyperbolicity of the corresponding moduli spaces have been proved in various situations. See [21] for references on this topic.

    Let {{\mathcal F}}\subset TX be a numerically trivial and pseudo-effective foliation, that is: such that det({{\mathcal F}}).A^{n-1} = 0 , for some ample line bundle A . Since c_1({{\mathcal F}}) = 0 , the pseudo-effectivity of {{\mathcal F}} and {{\mathcal F}}^* are equivalent.

    When X is an abelian variety and {{\mathcal F}} is linear (that is: {{\mathcal F}} = Ker(w), w\in H^0(X, \Omega^{n-r})) , {{\mathcal F}} is numerically flat and pseudo-effective, but the leaves of {{\mathcal F}} are in general not algebraic. In such cases however, {{\mathcal F}} is flat (i.e., given by a linear representation of the fundamental group), and so semi-stable but not stable.

    The following question/conjecture was raised by Pereira-Touzet (who gave several affirmative answers, mostly in the corank-one case): if {{\mathcal F}} is A -stable and numerically trivial, is it algebraic?

    Theorem 1.6, reduces this question to the non-pseudoeffectivity of {{\mathcal F}}^* when c_1({{\mathcal F}}) = 0 , and {{\mathcal F}} is A -stable.

    A partial solution is given in the following:

    Theorem 9.1. (see [22,23]) Let E be a vector bundle on X , assume that c_1(E) = 0\neq c_2(E) , and that Sym^m(E) is A -stable for some ample A and some m > r = rk(E) . Then E is not pseudo-effective*.

    *The proof works for X compact Kähler, and E a reflexive sheaf on X .

    The proof of [23] relies on analytic and metric methods. The previous proof given in [22] by Höring-Peternell is mostly algebro-geometric. It runs along the following lines, starting with E pseudo-effective, with c_1(E) = 0 , and all Sym^m(E) A -stable, in order to show that c_2(E) = 0 . The first step shows, by induction on the codimension of W\subset P: = \Bbb P(E) , a component of the restricted base locus B_{-}(L), L: = \mathcal{O}_P(1) , that p(W) has codimension at least 2 in X , p:P\to X being the natural projection. The key ingredient in this step is following lemma, due to Mumford when r = rk(E) = 2 :

    Lemma 9.2. (see [22]) Let E be a vector bundle on a smooth projective curve C . Let L: = \mathcal{O}_{\Bbb P(E)}(1) . Assume that c_1(E) = 0 , and Sym^m(E) is stable for all m > 0 . Then L^d.Z > 0 for all d > 0 , and any irreducible Z\subset \Bbb P(E) of codimension d .

    The second step then deduces from the first one that the restriction E_S of E to a general complete intersection surface S\subset X of large degree, is nef. So that E and det(E^*) = det(E) = 0 are nef, and E^* is thus nef too. Hence E is numerically flat, so in particular all Chern classes of E vanish.

    From Theorem 9.1 and Theorem 1.6, we get:

    Corollary 9.3. Let {{\mathcal F}}\subset TX be a foliation with c_1({{\mathcal F}}) = 0\neq c_2({{\mathcal F}}) . If Sym^{[m]}({{\mathcal F}}) is A -stable for some m > rk({{\mathcal F}}) , {{\mathcal F}} is algebraic.

    The Corollary 9.3 (or the slightly weaker version of [22]) now permits to give an alternative proof of the Beauville-Bogomolov-Yau* (BBY) decomposition theorem in the projective and klt singular case.

    *Usually called the Bogomolov-Beauville decomposition. Since Yau's Ricci-flat metric is essential here, BBY seems justified.

    Let X be an n -dimensional compact Kähler manifold with c_1(X) = 0 . By Yau's theorem, any such X carries a Ricci-flat Kähler metric. There are 3 basic examples of such manifolds, each class characterised by the restricted holonomy group Hol^0 of any of their Kähler, Ricci-flat, metrics: Hol^0 is trivial for 1, is Sp(4r) for 2, and is SU(n) for 3.

    1. The compact complex tori are the quotients {\mathbb{C}}^n/\Gamma , where \Gamma is a cocompact lattice of {\mathbb{C}}^n .

    2. The irreducible hyperkähler (HK) manifolds are defined as the ones which are simply-connected, even-dimensional: n = 2r , and admit a holomorphic symplectic 2 -form \sigma generating H^0(X, \Omega^2_X) , and such that s^{\wedge r} is a nowhere vanishing section of K_X . There are few known examples: 2 deformation classes in each even dimension due to Beauville (and Fujiki in dimension 4 ), and one additional in dimensions 6 and 10, found by O'Grady.

    3. The Calabi-Yau (CY) manifolds are those which are simply connected, with h^{p, 0} = 0, \forall p = 1, \dots, (n-1) , and with K_X trivial. Many deformation families known in each dimension. Among these complete intersections of suitable multidegrees in the projective spaces.

    The BBY decomposition is the following:

    Theorem 10.1. (see [24]) Let X be a connected compact Kähler manifold with c_1(X) = 0 . A suitable finite étale cover of X is a product of a complex compact torus T , and of simply-connected CY or HK manifolds.

    Let us sketch the classical proof given in [24]: We equip X with some Ricci-flat Kähler metric [38]. Let Hol^0 be its restricted holonomy representation, and T_X = F\oplus (\oplus_i T_i) be the splitting of the tangent bundle of X into factors which are irreducible for the action of Hol^0 . This splitting is well-defined locally on X , and globally only up to possible reordering. These local factors correspond also to a local splitting of X into a direct product of Kähler submanifolds. By Berger general classification of the holonomy representations, only a flat factor F appears, together with other factors T_i having restricted holonomy either Sp or SU (the ones susceptible to preserve a section of K_X by parallel transport).

    We lift this decomposition to the universal cover \widetilde{X} of X on which the metric is complete. By De Rham decomposition theorem, \widetilde{X} splits as a Kähler product, corresponding to these Hol^0 -factors [25,Theorem 10.43]. The Cheeger-Gromoll theorem then says that \widetilde{X} = {\mathbb{C}}^k\times P , where {\mathbb{C}}^k corresponds the flat factor, the other factor P being compact, and corresponding to the product of the factors with Hol^0 either Sp or SU [25,Theorem 6.65]. Bieberbach's theorem [26] then concludes the proof.

    Notice that this shows in particular that the (everywhere regular) foliations defined on X by the factors T_i have compact leaves (with finite fundamental groups), and are thus 'algebraic' (i.e., with equal Zariski and topological closures of their leaves).

    We shall now give, but only in the projective case, an alternative proof which does not require the consideration of the universal cover. This is done by proving directly, using Theorem 9.1, that the foliations defined by the T_i's are all algebraic. This follows from the following:

    Lemma 10.2. For each i , and each m > 0, c_1(T_i) = 0 , and Sym^m(T_i) is A -stable for any ample line bundle A on X .

    Proof. Since c_1(TX) = c_1(F) = 0 , the first claim follows from the second one. The second claim is a consequence of representation theory of the groups SU and Sp [27].

    If we take thus the (regular and submersive) fibration f_i:X\to B with fibres the (projective) leaves of T_i , it is isotrivial of fibre F_i (by the existence of the transversal foliation defined by F\oplus_{j\neq i} T_j) , and F_i has a vanishing irregularity and a discrete automorphism group (because the restricted holonomy is either SU or Sp) , which implies that after a finite étale base change B'\to B , X splits as a product F_i\times B' .

    Induction on dim(X) now reduces the proof to the case where TX = F , the flat factor. Bieberbach theorem [26] then permits to conclude. For details, see [28].

    This BBY decomposition is still valid for projective varieties with klt singularities, but the proof, obtained first in [22], and using a combination of the works [5,29,30,31], is much more involved, both technically and conceptually.

    A simplified proof, which closely follows the above alternative proof in the smooth case, and avoids the delicate arguments in positive characteristic used in [5], can be found in [28]. The result has then been extended to the Kähler case in [6], by deformation to the projective case.

    We denote by X a smooth and connected complex projective manifold*, of dimension n . Let {{\mathcal E}} be a torsionfree coherent sheaf on X .

    *The questions raised below could be extended to the compact Kähler case, and to smooth or klt orbifold pairs.

    Definition 11.1. We say that {{\mathcal E}} is pseudo-effective if so is det(Q) , for each nonzero quotient of {{\mathcal E}}^{**} . Equivalently, \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal E}}^{**})\geq 0, \forall \alpha\in Mov(X) .

    Example 11.2. 1. If {{\mathcal E}} is pseudo-effective, so is any of its quotients, as well as \otimes^m{{\mathcal E}}, Sym^m{{\mathcal E}}, \wedge^m{{\mathcal E}}, \forall m > 0 , and more generally the tensors deduced from {{\mathcal E}} by linear representations, by Theorem 4.6.

    2. If K_X = det(\Omega^1_X) is pseudo-effective, so is \Omega^1_X , as seen in Theorem 7.1. In [1], the same property is shown, more generally, for any quotient of \otimes^m(\Omega^1_X) with pseudo-effective determinant.

    We ask the same question also for subsheaves of \otimes^m(\Omega^1_X) :

    Question 11.3. Let {{\mathcal E}}\subset \otimes^m\Omega^1_X be such that det({{\mathcal E}}) is pseudo-effective. Is {{\mathcal E}} pseudo-effective? This is a birational version of stability.

    Notice that if {{\mathcal E}}\subset \Omega^p_X is saturated and defines an algebraic foliation of rank r = (n-p) , the answer is yes by [1], since {{\mathcal E}} is then the cotangent sheaf of the space of leaves.

    This question might be answered by showing the relative algebraicity of two transcendental foliations deduced from suitable quotients of \Omega^1_X , using a suitable extension of the next algebraicity criterion in [1].

    Recall this algebraicity criterion (theorem 1.7): if {{\mathcal F}}\subset TX is a foliation such that {{\mathcal F}}^* (which is a quotient of \Omega^1_X ) is not pseudo-effective, the leaves of {{\mathcal F}} are algebraic. Moreover, if \mu_{\alpha, max}({{\mathcal F}}^*) < 0 for some \alpha\in Mov(X) , the leaves of {{\mathcal F}} are rationally connected.

    Question 11.4. If {{\mathcal F}}^* is not pseudo-effective, are there restrictions on the leaves of {{\mathcal F}} , and which ones?

    Already when {{\mathcal F}} = TX , the answer is nontrivial, and consists in the classification of manifolds X with \Omega^1_X not pseudo-effective, or equivalently with \nu_1(X) = -\infty , using the notations of the next subsection. Although such manifolds may have an ample, or a trivial canonical bundle, as shown by hypersurfaces in \Bbb P^{n+1} , they share some common properties with the rationally connected manifolds. For example, rationally connected manifolds are simply-connected, and it is shown in [32] that the linear representations of X have a finite image if \Omega^1_X is not pseudo-effective. For manifolds of general type, even for surfaces, the invariant \kappa_1 (see below), does not seem to be described by, or even related to, other algebro-geometric invariants. For special manifolds, in the sense of definition 11.11 below, the situation might be much simpler (see conjecture 11.13).

    An additional problem is that if the foliation {{\mathcal F}} has {{\mathcal F}}^* not pseudo-effective, and so if {{\mathcal F}} is algebraic, it is not clear whether or not the general fibres of an associated fibration have \Omega^1 not pseudo-effective. The proof when \mu_{\alpha, min}({{\mathcal F}}) > 0 relies on the MRC, and it is unknown whether a similar fibration may be expected to exist on any X , with fibres having \Omega^1 not pseudo-effective, and base with \Omega^1 pseudo-effective.

    Let {{\mathcal E}} be torsionfree coherent on X , of rank r , and let \Bbb P({{\mathcal E}}), \mathcal{O}_{{{\mathcal E}}}(1) be the corresponding (Grothendieck) projectivisation, together with its tautological line bundle.

    Definition 11.5. We write \kappa({{\mathcal E}}): = \kappa(\Bbb P({{\mathcal E}}), \mathcal{O}_{{{\mathcal E}}}(1))-(r-1) , and \nu({{\mathcal E}}): = \nu(\Bbb P({{\mathcal E}}), \mathcal{O}_{{{\mathcal E}}}(1))-(r-1) . We also write \nu_p(X): = \nu(\Omega^p_X) , and \kappa_p(X): = \kappa(\Omega^p_X) , so that: \nu(X) = \nu_n(X) , and \kappa(X): = \kappa_n(X) .

    The definition fits with the original one for line bundles. Moreover, the invariants \kappa_p and \nu_p are preserved under finite étale covers. The invariant \kappa_1 has been introduced and studied by F. Sakai in [33]*.

    *F. Sakai uses the 'invariant \lambda ', which takes the value -n when \kappa_1 = -\infty , but otherwise coincides with \kappa_1 . His convention simplifies the formulations in some situations, such as products.

    The classical 'Abundance conjecture' \nu_n(X) = \kappa_n(X) extends as:

    Conjecture 11.6. For any X and p > 0 , one has: \nu_p(X) = \kappa_p(X) .

    Remark 11.7. 1. In [34], this is stated when \kappa_p(X) = -\infty , and proved for elliptic surfaces (except for some isotrivial ones), and some other additional cases.

    2. If \kappa_p(X) = -\infty, \forall p > 0 , and if we assume the classical 'Abundance conjecture', we get by the MRC fibration that X is rationally connected, and so that -\infty = \kappa_p(X) = \nu_p(X), \forall p > 0 . Conjecture 11.6 is thus a consequence of its 'classical' version in this situation.

    Example 11.8. 1. If c_1(X) = 0 , from the Beauville-Bogomolov-Yau decomposition theorem, and [22], one can easily see* that \nu_1(X) = \kappa_1(X) = \tilde{q}(X)-n , where \tilde{q}(X) is the maximum of q(X') when X' runs through the finite étale covers of X . The same properties can be still shown with more work†when X is a smooth model of a klt variety with c_1 = 0 . Thus \kappa_1(X) = \nu_1(X) = \tilde{q}(X)-n whenever \kappa(X) = 0 , if one assumes the existence of good minimal models.

    *In the next formula, if \tilde{q}(X) = 0 , replace Sakai's -n by -\infty .

    †Because one needs to carefully distinguish étale from quasi-étale covers, as shown by the Kummer K3's .

    Remark 11.9. The Abundance conjecture \nu = \kappa fails in general for rank-one subsheaves L of \Omega^p_X , by the examples of M. Brunella and M. Mc Quillan of the (duals of the) tautological foliations on irreducible free quotients of the bidisc, which have \kappa = -\infty and \nu = 1 .

    Question 11.10. Are there rank-one subsheaves L of \Omega^p_X for suitable X, p > 0 , with p = \nu(X, L) > \kappa(X, L)\geq 0 ? As seen just above, there are examples with p = \nu(X, L) > \kappa(X, L) = -\infty .

    Recall that from Bogomolov's theorem that \kappa(X, L)\leq p, \forall X, \forall p > 0 , if L is any rank-one subsheaf of \Omega^p_X .

    Definition 11.11. We say that X is special‡ if \kappa(X, L) < p , for any such L , and any p > 0 ;

    ‡We may assume X to be compact Kähler, here.

    Bogomolov's theorem has been strengthened by C. Mourougane and S. Boucksom to \nu(X, L)\leq p, \forall X, \forall p > 0 .

    Conjecture 11.12. If X is special, \nu(X, L) < p, \forall L\subset \Omega^p_X, \forall p > 0 , L of rank one.

    This has been proved in [35] for p = 1 . Notice that if L\subset \Omega^1_X is of rank one with \nu(X, L) = 1 , there may be no L'\subset \Omega^1_X with \kappa(X, L') = 1 , as shown by the example of Brunella and Mc Quillan in remark 11.9, since no finite étale cover of the ambiant surface maps onto a curve of positive genus.

    Conjecture 11.13. Assume X (smooth compact Kähler) is special. Do we have§ : \nu_1(X) = \kappa_1(X) = \tilde{q}(X)-n ?

    §If \tilde{q}(X) = 0 , replace the RHS -n by -\infty .

    If yes, then \nu_1(X) = \kappa_1(X) = -\infty , that is \Omega^1_X not pseudo-effective, if and only if \tilde{q}(X) = 0 , if and only if \pi_1(X) is finite.

    Recall that the Abelianity conjecture claims that \pi_1(X) is virtually abelian if X is special, so that \tilde{q}(X) = 0 should then mean that \pi_1(X) is finite.

    Notice that if X is a compact Kähler complex manifold with all of its finite étale covers having a surjective Albanese map (as is the case when X is special), then \kappa_1(X)\geq \tilde{q}(X)-n .

    We thank the reviewers for their careful readings, corrections and suggestions, which lead to improvements of the text.

    The author declares there is no conflicts of interest.



    [1] Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (1972) Handbook of Mathematical Functions, (Dover, New York).
    [2] Allegretto W, Lin Y, Yang H (2003) Numerical Pricing of American Put Options on Zero-Coupon Bonds. Appl Numer Math 46: 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9274(03)00034-5 doi: 10.1016/S0168-9274(03)00034-5
    [3] Alvarez LHR (2001) On the Form and Risk-Sensitivity of Zero Coupon Bonds for a Class of Interest Rate Models. Insur Math Econ 28: 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6687(00)00068-8 doi: 10.1016/S0167-6687(00)00068-8
    [4] Bacinello AR, Ortu F, Stucchi P (1996) Valuation of Sinking-Fund Bonds in the Vasicek and CIR Frameworks. Appl Math Financ 3: 269–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504869600000013 doi: 10.1080/13504869600000013
    [5] Benton D, Krishnamoorthy K (2003) Computing Discrete Mixtures of Continuous Distributions: Noncentral Chisquare, Noncentral t and the Distribution of the Square of the Sample Multiple Correlation Coefficient. Comput Stat Data Anal 43: 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9473(02)00283-9 doi: 10.1016/S0167-9473(02)00283-9
    [6] Brigo D, Mercurio F (2001) A Deterministic-Shift Extension of Analytically-Tractable and Time-Homogeneous Short-Rate Models. Financ Stoch 5: 369–387.
    [7] Carr P (2001) Deriving Derivatives of Derivative Securities. J Comput Financ 4: 5–29. https://10.1109/CIFER.2000.844609 doi: 10.1109/CIFER.2000.844609
    [8] Chan KC, Karolyi GA, Longstaff FA, et al. (1992) An Empirical Comparison of Alternative Models of the Short-Term Interest Rate. J Financ 47: 1209–1227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04011.x doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04011.x
    [9] Chesney M, Elliott RJ, Gibson R (1993) Analytical Solutions for the Pricing of American Bond and Yield Options. Math Financ 3: 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9965.1993.tb00045.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9965.1993.tb00045.x
    [10] Chung SL, Shackleton M (2002) The Binomial Black-Scholes Model and the Greeks. J Futures Mark 22: 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/fut.2211 doi: 10.1002/fut.2211
    [11] Chung SL, Shackleton M (2005) On the Errors and Comparison of Vega Estimation Methods. J Futures Mark 25: 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/fut.20127 doi: 10.1002/fut.20127
    [12] Chung SL, Shih PT (2009) Static Hedging and Pricing American Options. J Bank Financ 33: 2140–2149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.05.016 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.05.016
    [13] Chung SL, Shih PT, Tsai WC (2010) A Modified Static Hedging Method for Continuous Barrier Options. J Futures Mark 30: 1150–1166. https://doi.org/10.1002/fut.20451 doi: 10.1002/fut.20451
    [14] Chung SL, Shih PT, Tsai WC (2013) Static Hedging and Pricing American Knock-In Put Options. J Bank Financ 37: 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.08.019 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.08.019
    [15] Chung SL, Hung W, Lee HH, et al. (2011) On the Rate of Convergence of Binomial Greeks. J Futures Mark 31: 562–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/fut.20484 doi: 10.1002/fut.20484
    [16] Cohen JD (1988) Noncentral Chi-Square: Some Observations on Recurrence. Ame Stat 42: 120–122. https://10.1080/00031305.1988.10475540 doi: 10.1080/00031305.1988.10475540
    [17] Cox JC, Ingersoll Jr JE, Ross SA (1979) Duration and the Measurement of Basis Risk. J Bus 52: 51–61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2352663
    [18] Cox JC, Ingersoll Jr JE, Ross SA (1985) A Theory of the Term Structure of Interest Rates. Econometrica 53: 385–408. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701022_0005 doi: 10.1142/9789812701022_0005
    [19] Cruz A, Dias JC (2017) The Binomial CEV Model and the Greeks. J Futures Mark 37: 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/fut.21791 doi: 10.1002/fut.21791
    [20] Cruz A, Dias JC (2020) Valuing American-Style Options under the CEV Model: An Integral Representation Based Method. Rev Deri Res 23: 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11147-019-09157-w doi: 10.1007/s11147-019-09157-w
    [21] Deng G (2015) Pricing American Put Option on Zero-Coupon Bond in a Jump-Extended CIR Model. Commun Nonlinear Sci 22: 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2014.10.003 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2014.10.003
    [22] Dias JC, Nunes JPV, Cruz A (2020) A Note on Options and Bubbles under the CEV Model: Implications for Pricing and Hedging. Rev Deriv Res 23: 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11147-019-09164-x doi: 10.1007/s11147-019-09164-x
    [23] Dias JC, Nunes JPV, Ruas JP (2015) Pricing and Static Hedging of European-Style Double Barrier Options under the Jump to Default Extended CEV Model. Quant Financ 15: 1995–2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2014.971049 doi: 10.1080/14697688.2014.971049
    [24] Feller W (1951) Two Singular Diffusion Problems. Annal Math 54: 173–182. https://doi.org/10.2307/1969318 doi: 10.2307/1969318
    [25] Guo JH, Chang LF (2020) Repeated Richardson Extrapolation and Static Hedging of Barrier Options under the CEV Model. J Futures Mark 40: 974–988. https://doi.org/10.1002/fut.22100 doi: 10.1002/fut.22100
    [26] Hull J, White A (1990) Valuing Derivative Securities Using the Explicit Finite Difference Method. J Financ Quant Anal 25: 87–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/2330889 doi: 10.2307/2330889
    [27] Jamshidian F (1989) An Exact Bond Option Formula. J Financ 44: 205–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1989.tb02413.x doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1989.tb02413.x
    [28] Jamshidian F (1995) A Simple Class of Square-Root Interest-Rate Models. Appl Math Financ 2: 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504869500000004 doi: 10.1080/13504869500000004
    [29] Johnson NL, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N (1995) Continuous Univariate Distributions, Vol. 2, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York).
    [30] Larguinho M, Dias JC, Braumann CA (2013) On the Computation of Option Prices and Greeks under the CEV Model. Quant Financ 13: 907–917. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2013.765958 doi: 10.1080/14697688.2013.765958
    [31] Longstaff FA (1993) The Valuation of Options on Coupon Bonds. J Bank Financ 17: 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4266(93)90078-R doi: 10.1016/0378-4266(93)90078-R
    [32] Longstaff FA, Schwartz ES (2001) Valuing American Options by Simulation: A Simple Least-Squares Approach. Rev Financ Stud 14: 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/14.1.113 doi: 10.1093/rfs/14.1.113
    [33] Maghsoodi Y (1996) Solution of the Extended CIR Term Structure and Bond Option Valuation. Math Financ 6: 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9965.1996.tb00113.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9965.1996.tb00113.x
    [34] McKean Jr HP (1965) Appendix: A Free Boundary Problem for the Heat Equation Arising from a Problem of Mathematical Economics. Ind Manage Rev 6: 32–39.
    [35] Najafi AR, Mehrdoust F, Shirinpour S (2018) Pricing American Put Option On Zero-Coupon Bond Under Fractional CIR Model With Transaction Cost. Commun Stat Simulation Comput 47: 864–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2017.1295153 doi: 10.1080/03610918.2017.1295153
    [36] Nawalkha SK, Beliaeva NA (2007) Efficient Trees for CIR and CEV Short Rate Models. J Altern Invest 10: 71–90. https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.2007.688995 doi: 10.3905/jai.2007.688995
    [37] Nelson DB, Ramaswamy K (1990) Simple Binomial Processes as Diffusion Approximations in Financial Models. Rev Financ Stud 3: 393–430. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/3.3.393 doi: 10.1093/rfs/3.3.393
    [38] Nunes JPV, Ruas JP, Dias JC (2015) Pricing and Static Hedging of American-Style Knock-in Options on Defaultable Stocks. J Bank Financ 58: 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.05.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.05.003
    [39] Nunes JPV, Ruas JP, Dias JC (2020) Early Exercise Boundaries for American-Style Knock-Out Options, Eur J Oper Res 285: 753–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.02.006 doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2020.02.006
    [40] Pelsser A, Vorst TC (1994) The Binomial Model and the Greeks. J Deriv 1: 45–49. https://doi.org/10.3905/jod.1994.407888 doi: 10.3905/jod.1994.407888
    [41] Peng Q, Henry S (2018) On the Distribution of Extended CIR Model. Stat Pro Lett 142: 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2018.06.011 doi: 10.1016/j.spl.2018.06.011
    [42] Ruas JP, Dias JC, Nunes JPV (2013) Pricing and Static Hedging of American Options under the Jump to Default Extended CEV Model. J Bank Financ 37: 4059–4072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.07.019 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.07.019
    [43] Sankaran M (1963) Approximations to the Non-Central Chi-Square Distribution. Biometrika 50: 199–204. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333761 doi: 10.2307/2333761
    [44] Shaw W (1998) Modelling Financial Derivatives with Mathematica (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).
    [45] ShuJi L, ShengHong L (2006) Pricing American Interest Rate Option on Zero-Coupon Bond Numerically. Appl Math Comput 175: 834–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AMC.2005.08.008 doi: 10.1016/J.AMC.2005.08.008
    [46] Thakoor N, Tangman Y, Bhuruth M (2012) Numerical Pricing of Financial Derivatives Using Jain's High-Order Compact Scheme. Math Sci 6: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-7456-6-72 doi: 10.1186/2251-7456-6-72
    [47] Tian Y (1992) A Simplified Binomial Approach to the Pricing of Interest-Rate Contingent Claims. J Financ Eng 1: 14–37.
    [48] Tian Y (1994) A Reexamination of Lattice Procedures for Interest Rate Contingent Claims. Adv Futures Options Res 7: 87–111. https://ssrn.com/abstract=5877
    [49] Vasicek O (1977) An Equilibrium Characterization of the Term Structure. J Financ Econ 5: 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(77)90016-2 doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(77)90016-2
    [50] Wei JZ (1997) A Simple Approach to Bond Option Pricing. J Futures Mark 17: 131–160.
    [51] Yang H (2004) American Put Options on Zero-Coupon Bonds and a Parabolic Free Boundary Problem. Int J Numer Anal Model 1: 203–215.
    [52] Zhou HJ, Yiu KFC, Li LK (2011) Evaluating American Put Options on Zero-Coupon Bonds by a Penalty Method. J Comput Appl Math 235: 3921–3931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2011.01.038 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2011.01.038
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(3526) PDF downloads(354) Cited by(2)

Figures and Tables

Figures(2)  /  Tables(6)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog