2019
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1907.06261
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Delta-invariants for Fano varieties with large automorphism groups

Aleksei Golota

Abstract: For a polarized variety (X, L) and a closed connected subgroup G ⊂ Aut(X, L) we define a G-invariant version of the δ-threshold. We prove that for a Fano variety (X, −K X ) and a connected subgroup G ⊂ Aut(X) this invariant characterizes G-equivariant K-stability. We also use this invariant to investigate G-equivariant K-stability of some Fano varieties with large groups of symmetries, including spherical Fano varieties. We also consider the case of G being a finite group. ALEKSEI GOLOTAAppendix A] and in [CS1… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Let T C ∼ = (C * ) r be a complex torus acting effectively and holomorphically on X. Assume that the action of T C lifts to L. By Blum-Jonsson and Golota [10,28], to compute δ(L) it is enough to only consider T C -invariant divisorial valuations. However the same fact is not known at level m: Problem 2.10.…”
Section: 3mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Let T C ∼ = (C * ) r be a complex torus acting effectively and holomorphically on X. Assume that the action of T C lifts to L. By Blum-Jonsson and Golota [10,28], to compute δ(L) it is enough to only consider T C -invariant divisorial valuations. However the same fact is not known at level m: Problem 2.10.…”
Section: 3mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that the number δ G (X, ∆; L) differs from δ G (X, ∆; L), and δ G (X, ∆; L) also differs from the counter-part of the number δ G (X, ∆; L) defined in [84].…”
Section: 2 □mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One can also define local stability thresholds δ x (X) at some x ∈ X by taking log canonical thresholds around the point x so that the global invariant δ(X) is the minimum of the local ones δ x (X); see Subsection 2.2. It is again a challenging problem to find the precise value of these invariants, unless the variety has a large group of automorphisms [BJ20, Gol19,ZZ20]; see [PW18,CZ18] for some estimates on del Pezzo surfaces.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%