On the Solution Sets of the Cone-Volume Map

Let U=S_1\cup\cdots\cup S_k be the irreducible decomposition of U, and put L_j\coloneqq \operatorname*{lin}(S_j), n_j\coloneqq \dim L_j. By the linear invariance of the cone-volume problem [baumbach2025polynomialinequalitiesconevolumespolytopes, Proposition 2.1], we may assume that the subspaces L_1,\ldots,L_k are mutually orthogonal.

Fix \gamma\in C_{{\tt cv}}(U). By homogeneity of the cone-volume map, we may assume that \|\gamma\|_1=1. For j=1,\ldots,k, let \gamma_{S_j}\in\mathbb{R}^{|S_j|} denote the subvector of \gamma consisting of the coordinates corresponding to the normals in S_j, and set

By Proposition 2.1 we have

Moreover we have

and with v_j\coloneqq \operatorname{vol}_{n_j}\bigl(P(S_j,b_{S_j})\bigr), we may write for b\in S(U,\gamma) (see also the proof of [baumbach2025polynomialinequalitiesconevolumespolytopes, Proposition 2.7])

Observe that \prod_jv_j=\operatorname{vol}_n(P(U,b))=1. Let

and we define

Since \|\delta^{(j)}\|_1=1, every c^{(j)}\in S(S_j,\delta^{(j)}) determines a polytope of n_j-dimensional volume one. Scaling it by t_j multiplies both its volume and its cone-volume vector by t_j^{n_j}. Hence its normalized cone-volume vector remains \delta^{(j)}. Formula (?) therefore gives

Thus \Phi is well defined.

Conversely, let b\in S(U,\gamma) and set t_j\coloneqq v_j^{1/n_j}, and c^{(j)}\coloneqq t_j^{-1}b_{S_j}. Since \operatorname{vol}_n(P(U,b))=1, we have

so t\in T. Moreover, by (?),

Hence c^{(j)}\in S(S_j,\delta^{(j)}). Thus \Phi is a semialgebraic bijection with semialgebraic inverse.

Since \dim^*T=k-1, additivity of semialgebraic dimension under Cartesian products yields

Assume now first that all fibers associated with the irreducible components S_j are finite. Then \dim^*S(S_j,\delta^{(j)})=0 hence \dim^*S(U,\gamma)=k-1.

Conversely, suppose that

for every \gamma\in C_{{\tt cv}}(U). Fix i\in\{1,\ldots,k\} and \eta\in C_{{\tt cv}}(S_i). By homogeneity, it suffices to consider \|\eta\|_1=1. For every j\neq i, choose \delta^{(j)}\in C_{{\tt cv}}(S_j) with \|\delta^{(j)}\|_1=1, and set \delta^{(i)}\coloneqq \eta. As before we conclude \gamma_{S_j}=\frac{n_j}{n}\delta^{(j)} and from (?) we get \dim^*S(S_i,\eta)=0, and thus S(S_i,\eta) is finite.

If U is reducible, then m=4 and U consists of two antipodal pairs (u_1,u_2,-u_1,-u_2) and

Assume that U is irreducible. If m=4, the result follows from Theorem 3.9. If m\geq5, choose an irreducible subtuple U_0\subset U with U_0\in\mathcal{U}(2,4). By Theorem 3.9 there is \gamma^{(0)}\in C_{{\tt cv}}(U_0)\setminus B(U_0) with at least two solutions. Finally, by successively applying Theorem 3.10 we obtain a cone-volume vector \gamma with |S(U,\gamma)|\geq 2.

Choose an irreducible U_0\in\mathcal{U}(2,4) and \gamma^{(0)}\in C_{{\tt cv}}(U_0)\setminus B(U_0) with two distinct solutions b^{(0,1)} and b^{(0,2)}, as provided by Theorem 3.9. Let K_j^{(0)}=P(U_0,b^{(0,j)}), j=1,2, put d_0=d_H(K_1^{(0)},K_2^{(0)})>0 and let

Let D=\{v_1,v_2,\ldots\}\subset\mathbb S^1\setminus U_0 be a countable dense set and define U_k\coloneqq U_0\cup\{v_1,\ldots,v_k\}. Applying Theorem 3.10 inductively, we may choose \gamma^{(k)}\in C_{{\tt cv}}(U_k)\setminus B(U_k) along with two different right hand sides b^{(k,1)},b^{(k,2)}\in S(U_k,\gamma^{(k)}) such that, with K_j^{(k)}=P(U_k,b^{(k,j)}),

Here \gamma_u^{(k)} denotes the coordinate of \gamma^{(k)} corresponding to the vector u\in U_k.

The first inequality in (?) shows that K_j^{(k)} is a Cauchy sequence in the Hausdorff metric. Hence, let their limits be K_1 and K_2. For j=1,2, the triangle inequality gives

Consequently,

and h_{K_j}(u)\ge r_0-\frac{\rho}{3}>0 for every u\in\mathbb{S}^1. Hence K_1\neq K_2 and 0\in\mathrm{int}(K_1), \mathrm{int}(K_2). Since V_{K_1^{(k)}}=V_{K_2^{(k)}} for every k, and the cone-volume measure is weakly continuous with respect to Hausdorff metric (cf. [Schneider2014, Lemma 9.2.4]), we obtain

It remains to verify smoothness. Suppose that K_1 is not smooth, then there exists a non-regular x in the boundary of K_1 whose normal cone N_{K_1}(x) (cf. [Schneider2014, Section 2]) has dimension two. By the density of D we may choose an r such that v_r\in\operatorname{relint} N_{K_1}(x), and hence V_{K_1}(\{v_r\})=0.

Set \tau_k=\|\gamma^{(k+1)}-(\gamma^{(k)},0)\|_\infty. For k\geq r, the second inequality in (?) gives \tau_k<\gamma_{v_r}^{(k)}/3. Moreover, the new cone-volume satisfies \gamma_{v_{k+1}}^{(k+1)}\leq \tau_k, and therefore \tau_{k+1}<\tau_k/3. It follows that \sum_{k=r}^{\infty}\tau_k<\gamma_{v_r}^{(r)}/2. Moreover, for every k\geq r,

Hence \gamma_{v_r}^{(k)} > \frac12\gamma_{v_r}^{(r)} for all k\geq r. On the other hand, weak convergence of the cone-volume measures and the Portmanteau theorem give

a contradiction. Thus K_1 is smooth, and the same argument applies to K_2.

By Proposition 3.7(ii), every b\in S(U,\gamma) belongs to W(U). Hence b\in\operatorname*{int} A for some proper type-cone A and

In particular, b is an isolated point, and hence a connected component, of the real algebraic set \mathcal V(f_1^A-\gamma_1,\ldots,f_m^A-\gamma_m). The polynomials f_i^A-\gamma_i have degree at most n. By the Thom–Milnor bound [Milnor1964, Theorem 2], the number of connected components of this algebraic set is at most n(2n-1)^{m-1}. Therefore

It remains to bound the number of full-dimensional type-cones. Their walls are contained in the hyperplanes determined by affine dependencies among n+1 of the supporting hyperplanes. There are at most \binom{m}{n+1} such hyperplanes. Hence, by the standard bound for the number of regions of a hyperplane arrangement [schlafli1901theorie, §16],

Summing the preceding estimate over the type-cones gives the first bound; the final inequality is an elementary estimate.

Let b,b'\in S(U,\gamma) satisfy

Since b,b'\in\mathbb{R}^m_{>0}, the recursion (?) applies. Starting with i=1, it determines b_2 uniquely from b_m and b_1. Proceeding successively with i=2,\ldots,m-2 determines b_3,\ldots,b_{m-1}. Hence b=b'.

Set

and

By Lemma 3.4, X_\gamma is irreducible and \dim_{\mathbb C}X_\gamma=2. Lemma 3.5 implies that Y_\gamma is a proper algebraic subset of X_\gamma. Indeed, let \gamma'\in C_{{\tt cv}}(U) be as in that lemma and choose b'\in S(U,\gamma'). Then b'\in X_\gamma, whereas \gamma'_{m-1}\neq\gamma_{m-1} gives b'\notin Y_\gamma. Since every proper algebraic subset of an irreducible algebraic set has strictly smaller dimension,

Finally, S(U,\gamma)\subset Y_\gamma\cap\mathbb{R}^m, and using the standard comparison between the semialgebraic dimension of the real points and the complex dimension of a complex algebraic set,

The bound is sharp. Indeed, for a reducible U\in\mathcal{U}(2,4) the irreducible decomposition has two components, and [baumbach2025polynomialinequalitiesconevolumespolytopes, Proposition 5.1] gives

Together with the upper bound just proved, this yields \dim^*S(U,\gamma)=1.

For b\in X_\gamma we have

since otherwise (?) would give f_i(b)=0\neq\gamma_i. Hence (?) shows that every b\in X_\gamma is uniquely determined by the two coordinates b_m and b_1.

Set

and, for i=1,\ldots,m-2, define recursively

and, for (x,y)\in\Omega_{i+1},

By induction, r_i is regular on \Omega_i, and therefore \Omega_{i+1} is Zariski open in \Omega_i, hence also in \mathbb C^2. Moreover, all these sets are nonempty. Indeed, since \gamma\in C_{{\tt cv}}(U), there exists b=(b_1,\ldots,b_m)\in S(U,\gamma), and (?) shows that (b_m,b_1)\in\Omega_i for every i. Thus

is a nonempty Zariski-open subset of \mathbb C^2. Consequently, \Omega is smooth and irreducible and

By (?), the map

is well defined and regular. Conversely, if b\in X_\gamma, then b_i\neq0 for i=1,\ldots,m-2, and (?) shows recursively that

Thus \Phi is bijective, with inverse

which is regular. Hence \Phi is an isomorphism between \Omega and X_\gamma. Therefore X_\gamma is smooth and irreducible and

If U is reducible, then m=4 and, with the cyclic ordering of the outer unit normals, we have u_3=-u_1 and u_4=-u_2. For every cone-volume vector of a parallelogram one has

The vector

also satisfies the subspace concentration condition with respect to U. By the sufficiency of this condition for the discrete logarithmic Minkowski problem, proved by Chen, Li and Zhu [ChenLiZhu2019], it belongs to C_{{\tt cv}}(U) and has the required properties.

Assume now that U is irreducible. Set

and

Since u_{m-1} and u_m are adjacent outer unit normals, L_{m-1}\neq L_m. Moreover,

Indeed, equality would imply, since all \gamma_i are positive, that u_1,\ldots,u_{m-2}\in L_{m-1}\cup L_m. Hence U\subset L_{m-1}\cup L_m, contradicting the irreducibility of U.

For every one-dimensional subspace L\subset\mathbb{R}^2, set

Choose q sufficiently large such that

for every one-dimensional subspace L\neq L_{m-1},L_m with L\cap U\neq\varnothing, and, in addition,

Define

By the choice of q we have

Furthermore,

On the two distinguished subspaces we have, by construction,

Hence the strict inequality (?) holds on L_{m-1} and L_m. For every other one-dimensional subspace L with L\cap U\neq\varnothing, the masses on L are unchanged, and thus

Therefore \gamma' satisfies the subspace concentration condition. Again, by the sufficiency of the subspace concentration condition [ChenLiZhu2019], we have \gamma'\in C_{{\tt cv}}(U), which proves the assertion.

Suppose first that U is irreducible. By [baumbach2025polynomialinequalitiesconevolumespolytopes, Proposition 2.7], the normalized cone-volume set, i.e., C_{{\tt cv}}(U)\cap \{y\in\mathbb{R}^m : y_1+\dots+y_m=1\} contains a relatively open subset of dimension m-1. Hence, C_{{\tt cv}}(U) contains an open subset of dimension m.

If W(U)=\varnothing, then \det^A\equiv0 for every full-dimensional type-cone A\in\mathcal A(U). Hence every point of \operatorname*{int} A is a critical point of the polynomial map f_{{\tt cv}}^A, and Sard’s theorem (see, e.g., [979f1be4-becf-36f2-be30-0bebf5263aa4]) implies that f_{{\tt cv}}^A(\operatorname*{int} A) has Lebesgue measure zero. The remaining parts of the type-cone decomposition have dimension at most m-1, and their images under the corresponding polynomial maps have also Lebesgue measure zero. Since there are only finitely many type-cones, C_{{\tt cv}}(U) would have Lebesgue measure zero, contradicting the fact that it has nonempty interior. Thus W(U)\neq\varnothing.

Conversely, suppose that W(U)\neq\varnothing and choose b\in W(U). Then b\in\operatorname*{int} A for some type-cone A and \det Df_{{\tt cv}}^A(b)\neq0. By the inverse function theorem, C_{{\tt cv}}(U) contains a nonempty open subset of \mathbb{R}^m which again by [baumbach2025polynomialinequalitiesconevolumespolytopes, Proposition 2.7] shows that U is irreducible.

i) follows directly from the inverse function theorem. For ii), if \gamma\notin B(U), then by the definition of B(U) every b\in S(U,\gamma) belongs to W(U). Hence \det Df_{{\tt cv}}^U(b)\neq0, and the inverse function theorem yields a neighborhood V_b of b such that

Thus every point of S(U,\gamma) is isolated. Since S(U,\gamma) is semialgebraic, it follows that S(U,\gamma) is finite (see, e.g., [bochnak2013real, Sections 2.3 and 2.8]).

For iii), if {\det}^A\not\equiv0, then its zero set has empty interior, so \operatorname*{int} A\setminus\mathcal V({\det}^A) is open and dense in \operatorname*{int} A. Finally, for iv) we note that B(U) is semialgebraic by the Tarski–Seidenberg theorem as the complement of W(U) is a finite union of type-cone boundaries, zero sets \mathcal V({\det}^A) with {\det}^A\not\equiv0, and type-cones on which {\det}^A\equiv0. Except for the latter all these sets have semi-algebraic dimension at most m-1 and so do their images under f^U_{{\tt cv}}. If A is a full-dimensional type cone on which {\det}^A\equiv0 then, as before, Sard’s theorem shows that f^A_{\mathrm{cv}}(\operatorname{int}A) has Lebesgue measure zero. Since this image is semialgebraic, it has semialgebraic dimension at most m-1. Hence \dim^*B(U)\leq m-1 and it has Lebesgue measure zero; see, for example, [bochnak2013real, Section 2.8].

An irreducible quadrilateral is either in general position, i.e., any two normals u_i,u_j, i\ne j, are linearly independent, or a trapezoid. If U is in general position, the classification of Liu et al. [LiuLuSunEtAl2024] implies that there exists a nonempty open set \Omega\subset C_{{\tt cv}}(U) on which S(U,\gamma) has at least two elements (in fact, one may choose \Omega so that |S(U,\gamma)|\geq 3); see Proposition A.1 in Appendix ?. Since B(U) has measure zero, we may choose \gamma\in\Omega\setminus B(U).

Suppose now that U is the set of outer unit normals of a trapezoid. After a cyclic relabelling, let u_1=-u_3 and assume that u_1,u_2,u_4 lie in the same semicircle. By [Subspace_Concentration_of_Geometric_Measures, Theorem 2.14], one has |S(U,\gamma)|=2 whenever \gamma=(\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3,\gamma_4)\in\mathbb{R}^4_{>0} satisfies \gamma_1<\gamma_3 and \gamma_1+\gamma_3\geq \gamma_2+\gamma_4>2\sqrt{\gamma_1\gamma_3}. The subset defined by the strict inequalities \gamma_1<\gamma_3 and \gamma_1+\gamma_3>\gamma_2+\gamma_4>2\sqrt{\gamma_1\gamma_3} is nonempty and open. It therefore contains a point outside B(U), which proves the assertion.

After a cyclic relabelling, we may assume that v lies strictly between u_m and u_1. By the linear invariance of the cone-volume problem [baumbach2025polynomialinequalitiesconevolumespolytopes, Proposition 2.1], we may further assume that u_m=e_1 and u_1=e_2. Observe that this linear coordinate transformation changes \epsilon,\delta by a multiplicative constant and can be, therefore, neglected. Write v=\alpha u_m+\beta u_1 with \alpha,\beta>0, \alpha^2+\beta^2=1. Then h_{P(U,b^{(k)})}(v)=\alpha b_m^{(k)}+\beta b_1^{(k)}. Observe that U^+ is irreducible as well.

Let A^* and A_+^* be the proper type-cones associated with U and U^+, respectively, and put f\coloneqq f_{{\tt cv}}^{A^*}, F\coloneqq f_{{\tt cv}}^{A_+^*}, and \widetilde\gamma\coloneqq (\gamma,0).

For every k, the supporting line \{x\in\mathbb{R}^2 : \langle v,x\rangle = h_{P(U,b^{(k)})}(v)\} passes through the vertex determined by the edges with normals u_m and u_1. Hence,

We compute the Jacobian of F at \widehat b^{(k)}. For b=(b_1,\ldots,b_m,b_{m+1})\in\mathbb{R}^{m+1}, write \bar b=(b_1,\ldots,b_m) and set

Using the planar cone-volume formula (?), and by some straightforward computations we find

where

Since q(\widehat b^{(k)})=0, differentiation gives

with

The last row is therefore a_{m+1}(\widehat b^{(k)})\nabla q^T. Subtracting a_i(\widehat b^{(k)})/a_{m+1}(\widehat b^{(k)}) times the last row from the ith row, 1\leq i\leq m, yields a block triangular matrix and hence

By Proposition 3.7, b^{(k)}\in W(U), and as \widehat b_{m+1}^{(k)}>0 the right-hand side is nonzero. The inverse function theorem now gives pairwise disjoint neighbourhoods \mathcal N_k of \widehat b^{(k)}, a common neighbourhood \mathcal O of \widetilde\gamma, and inverse branches

We also use the following elementary planar observation: if b\in\mathbb{R}^{m+1}_{>0} and F(b)\in\mathbb{R}^{m+1}_{>0}, then b\in\operatorname*{int} A_+^*. Indeed, if the ith prescribed edge were absent, the signed edge length given by (?) would be nonpositive, and hence F_i(b)\leq0, a contradiction. By shrinking \mathcal O and the \mathcal N_k, we may assume that \mathcal N_k\subset\mathbb{R}^{m+1}_{>0} and that, for every \eta\in\mathcal O,

and

for all k. Since U^+ is irreducible, B(U^+) has Lebesgue measure zero by Proposition 3.7. Hence we may choose

Set b^{+,k}\coloneqq \psi_k(\gamma^+). The preceding observation gives b^{+,k}\in\operatorname*{int} A_+^*, and so f_{{\tt cv}}^{U^+}(b^{+,k})=\gamma^+. The b^{+,k} are pairwise distinct because the \mathcal N_k are disjoint, and all required estimates hold by construction. Thus

Observe, since U positively spans \mathbb R^n, general position implies that U is irreducible: a proper direct-sum decomposition would force one of its summands to contain more vectors than its dimension, contradicting general position. Thus B(U) is defined. Zhu’s [Zhu2014] existence theorem for discrete data in general position gives (cf. [baumbach2025polynomialinequalitiesconevolumespolytopes, Theorem III])

Set

We first claim that

is proper that is, the preimage of every compact subset of \mathbb{R}^m_{>0} is compact.

Let M\subset\mathbb R^m_{>0} be compact and b\in(f_{{\tt cv}}^U)^{-1}(M). Since the total mass of the cone-volume measure equals the volume,

Thus these volumes are bounded above and away from zero on (f_{{\tt cv}}^U)^{-1}(M). After rescaling each polytope to volume one, Zhu’s compactness theorem [Zhu2014, Theorem 4.3] gives a uniform bound on their diameters. Since every coordinate of f_{{\tt cv}}^U(b) is positive, every u_i determines a facet and b_i=h_{P(U,b)}(u_i). Hence, (b_1,\dots,b_m) is bounded as well, and thus (f_{{\tt cv}}^U)^{-1}(M) is bounded. If a sequence in this preimage converges to b\in\mathbb R^m_{\geq0}, continuity of the cone-volume map gives f_{{\tt cv}}^U(b)\in M\subset\mathbb R^m_{>0}. This forces b\in X, and therefore the preimage is closed in \mathbb R^m. Hence it is compact, proving properness.

Since W(U) is open in X, the set X\setminus W(U) is closed in X. Properness therefore implies that

is closed in \mathbb R^m_{>0}. Consequently,

is open. Put D\coloneqq (f_{{\tt cv}}^U)^{-1}(Y). By the definition of B(U), D\subset W(U), and Proposition 3.7(i) shows that

is a local diffeomorphism. It is also proper, hence it is a finite covering map; see [ho1975note, Lemma 3].

Hence the restriction of f_{{\tt cv}}^U is a finite covering map. By the path-lifting property for covering maps [Hatcher2002, Proposition 1.30], any path in C_{{\tt cv}}(U)\setminus B(U) joining \gamma to \gamma' induces a bijection between S(U,\gamma) and S(U,\gamma'). Thus

As explained above, we may assume \|\gamma\|_1=1. By Proposition 3.7(ii), Lemma 4.4(ii) and Lemma 4.6, \psi_\gamma has finitely many critical points y_j=\Theta_\gamma^{-1}(b^{(j)}), where S(U,\gamma)=\{b^{(1)},\dots,b^{(k)}\}, and \psi_\gamma is smooth with non-singular Hessian near each of them.

If d=0, then \mathcal Y is a point and k=1. If d\geq1, let \sigma:\mathbb{R}^d\to\mathcal Y be a diffeomorphism; such a map exists since \mathcal Y is an open convex subset of a d-dimensional affine space. Then \phi=\psi_\gamma\circ\sigma satisfies the assumptions of Lemma 4.7: it tends to infinity at infinity by Lemma 4.5, and at a critical point \mathrm{Hess}\,\phi =D\sigma^\intercal\,(\mathrm{Hess}\,\psi_\gamma)\,D\sigma. Hence, in both cases, \sum_{j=1}^k\operatorname*{sgn}\det\mathrm{Hess}\,\psi_\gamma(y_j)=1, and Lemma 4.6 gives

A sum of k terms \pm1 equals \pm1 only if k is odd.

i) follows from (Notation) and the homogeneity of v, and ii) from

together with \sum_if_{{\tt cv}}^U(b)_i=v(b) and \|\gamma\|_1=1.

iii) By (Notation), \Psi_\gamma(h-U^\intercal t) =\sum_i\gamma_i\log(h_i-\langle u_i,t\rangle)-\frac1n\log v(h), and h-U^\intercal t>0 if and only if t\in\operatorname*{int} P(U,h). The Hessian with respect to t is -\sum_i\gamma_i(h_i-\langle u_i,t\rangle)^{-2}u_iu_i^\intercal, which is negative definite as U spans \mathbb{R}^n. Since P(U,h) is bounded, the function tends to -\infty at the boundary. The smoothness of t_\gamma follows from the implicit function theorem, and the last assertion from the fact that the gradient with respect to t at t=0 equals -\sum_i\gamma_iu_i/h_i.

iv) For b\in S(U,\gamma) we have v(b)=\|\gamma\|_1=1 and \gamma_i/b_i=\frac1n\operatorname{vol}_{n-1}(F_i(b)). Hence the assertion follows from Minkowski’s relation \sum_i\operatorname{vol}_{n-1}(F_i(b))u_i=0.

i) If \pi(h')=\pi(h), then h'=h+U^\intercal s for some s\in\mathbb{R}^n, and P(U,h')=P(U,h)+s. Hence t_\gamma(h')=t_\gamma(h)+s, \rho_\gamma(h')=\rho_\gamma(h) and v(h')=v(h), so \Theta_\gamma is well defined. By Lemma 4.3(iii), \sum_i\gamma_iu_i/\rho_\gamma(h)_i=0; this condition is invariant under scaling, and by (Notation) v(\Theta_\gamma(y))=1. Thus \Theta_\gamma(y)\in M_\gamma.

For b\in M_\gamma let y=\pi(b)/\langle\omega,b\rangle. Then y\in C and \ell(y)=1, i.e., y\in\mathcal Y. With h=b/\langle\omega,b\rangle we have \pi(h)=y and t_\gamma(h)=0 by Lemma 4.3(iii), so \rho_\gamma(h)=h, v(h)=\langle\omega,b\rangle^{-n} and \Theta_\gamma(y)=b. Conversely, for y\in\mathcal Y and \pi(h)=y, we have \pi(\Theta_\gamma(y))=v(h)^{-1/n}y, and applying \ell gives

Hence the two maps are inverse to each other; both are continuous.

As \pi|_{\Lambda^\perp} is an isomorphism and E=\pi^{-1}(C), the map \sigma(y)=(\pi|_{\Lambda^\perp})^{-1}(y) is a smooth section \mathcal Y\to E. Since \Theta_\gamma=v(\sigma)^{-1/n}\,\rho_\gamma\circ\sigma, the regularity assertions follow from Lemma 4.3(iii), (Notation), (Notation) and the fact that v is a polynomial on every type-cone.

ii) Let J_\gamma(h)=\Psi_\gamma(\rho_\gamma(h)) =\max_t\Psi_\gamma(h-U^\intercal t), h\in E. As the derivative with respect to t vanishes at t=t_\gamma(h), the chain rule gives

Moreover, J_\gamma is invariant under translations h\mapsto h+U^\intercal s and scalings h\mapsto\tau h, \tau>0. Therefore J_\gamma=\psi_\gamma\circ q with q(h)=\pi(h)/\langle\omega,h\rangle. Since \langle\omega,h\rangle>0 on E and q coincides with the affine surjection \pi on E\cap\{\langle\omega,h\rangle=1\}, the map q:E\to\mathcal Y is a smooth submersion. Consequently, y=q(h) is a critical point of \psi_\gamma if and only if \nabla J_\gamma(h)=0, which by (?) and Lemma 4.3(ii) is equivalent to f_{{\tt cv}}^U(\rho_\gamma(h))=v(\rho_\gamma(h))\gamma. By homogeneity, this holds if and only if \Theta_\gamma(y)=v(\rho_\gamma(h))^{-1/n}\rho_\gamma(h)\in S(U,\gamma). The last statement follows from i) and Lemma 4.3(iv).

Suppose that \min_ib^{(k)}_i\to0 for a sequence of points b^{(k)}\in M_\gamma. Put \mu_k=\max_i(\gamma_i/b^{(k)}_i), so that \mu_k\to\infty, and let c^{(k)}_i=\gamma_i/(\mu_kb^{(k)}_i)\in(0,1]. Then \max_ic^{(k)}_i=1 and \sum_ic^{(k)}_iu_i=0. After passing to a subsequence, c^{(k)}\to c\in[0,1]^m\setminus\{0\} with \sum_ic_iu_i=0, and b^{(k)}_i=\gamma_i/(\mu_kc^{(k)}_i)\to0 for all i\in Z=\{i:c_i>0\}.

The polytopes P_k=P(U,b^{(k)}) contain the origin and have volume one. Hence, by Zhu’s compactness theorem [Zhu2014, Theorem 4.3], they are uniformly bounded; note that general position in [Zhu2014] includes that the vectors are not contained in a closed hemisphere, which holds since \operatorname*{pos}(U)=\mathbb{R}^n. By Blaschke’s selection theorem we may assume that P_k\to P_\infty in the Hausdorff metric, where \operatorname{vol}(P_\infty)=1. Every x\in P_\infty is the limit of points x_k\in P_k, and so \langle u_i,x\rangle\leq\lim_kb^{(k)}_i=0 for i\in Z. As \sum_{i\in Z}c_i\langle u_i,x\rangle=0 with c_i>0, all these inner products vanish, i.e., P_\infty\subseteq u_i^\perp for i\in Z. This contradicts \operatorname{vol}(P_\infty)=1.

On M_\gamma we have \Psi_\gamma(b)=\sum_i\gamma_i\log b_i\geq\log\delta. If \Psi_\gamma(b)\leq c, then \gamma_i\log b_i\leq c-(1-\gamma_i)\log\delta, so b lies in a compact box contained in \mathbb{R}^m_{>0}. As the conditions defining M_\gamma are closed in \mathbb{R}^m_{>0}, the set \{b\in M_\gamma:\Psi_\gamma(b)\leq c\} is compact. Since \psi_\gamma=\Psi_\gamma\circ\Theta_\gamma and \Theta_\gamma is a homeomorphism, the assertions follow.

By Proposition 3.7(ii), b\in W(U), i.e., b\in\operatorname*{int} A for a type-cone A with \det^A(b)\neq0. On \operatorname*{int} A we have v=v^A and f_{{\tt cv}}^U=f_{{\tt cv}}^A, which are polynomials, homogeneous of degree n. Hence \Psi_\gamma is smooth near b, and by Lemma 4.4(i), \psi_\gamma is smooth near y_0. Since b is a critical point of \Psi_\gamma (Lemma 4.3(ii)), the second differential \mathfrak h of \Psi_\gamma at b is a well-defined symmetric bilinear form on \mathbb{R}^m, and by the invariance of \Psi_\gamma under scalings, b lies in its radical. We compute \mathfrak h in two coordinate systems.

Logarithmic coordinates. Let x_0\in\mathbb{R}^m be given by (x_0)_i=\log b_i, let V(x)=v(e^{x_1},\dots,e^{x_m}), and consider

By (Notation), \nabla V=n\,f_{{\tt cv}}^A\circ\exp, and hence \nabla\widehat\Psi=\gamma-(f_{{\tt cv}}^A\circ\exp)/V. Using V(x_0)=1 and f_{{\tt cv}}^A(b)=\gamma we obtain

Here \mathcal A=\frac1n\mathrm{Hess}\,V(x_0) is symmetric, and Euler’s relation for the homogeneous map f_{{\tt cv}}^A gives \mathcal A\mathbf 1=n\gamma, where \mathbf 1=(1,\dots,1)^\intercal. Consider the decomposition \mathbb{R}^m=\mathbb{R}\mathbf 1\oplus\gamma^\perp (note \langle\gamma,\mathbf 1\rangle=1). For w\in\gamma^\perp we have \mathbf 1^\intercal\mathcal Aw=n\langle\gamma,w\rangle=0 and \mathrm{Hess}\,\widehat\Psi(x_0)w=-\mathcal Aw. Hence, with respect to this decomposition,

As \det\mathcal A=\det Df_{{\tt cv}}^U(b)\,b_1\cdots b_m\neq0, the form \mathcal A|_{\gamma^\perp} is non-degenerate with \varepsilon(\mathcal A|_{\gamma^\perp})=\operatorname*{sgn}\det Df_{{\tt cv}}^U(b). Since the differential of the exponential map at x_0 maps \mathbf 1 to b, we conclude that the radical of \mathfrak h is \mathbb{R} b and that the induced form \bar{\mathfrak h} on \mathbb{R}^m/\mathbb{R} b satisfies

Coordinates adapted to translations and scalings. For (y,t,s) in a neighbourhood of (y_0,0,0) in \mathcal Y\times\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R} let R(y,t,s)=e^s\bigl(\Theta_\gamma(y)-U^\intercal t\bigr). The map R is smooth, R(y_0,0,0)=b, and it has the smooth local inverse

with q as in the proof of Lemma 4.4; this follows from q\circ\Theta_\gamma=\operatorname*{id} and \langle\omega,U^\intercal t\rangle=0. Hence R is a local diffeomorphism. By scale invariance, \Psi_\gamma\circ R(y,t,s)=F(y,t) \coloneqq\Psi_\gamma(\Theta_\gamma(y)-U^\intercal t) does not depend on s, and F(y,0)=\psi_\gamma(y). Since \Theta_\gamma(y)\in M_\gamma, Lemma 4.3(iii) shows that \partial_tF(y,0)=0 for all y, and therefore \partial_y\partial_tF(y_0,0)=0. Moreover, \partial_t^2F(y_0,0)=-\sum_i\gamma_ib_i^{-2}u_iu_i^\intercal is negative definite. Consequently,

and since \partial_sR(y_0,0,0)=b, this is a Gram matrix of \mathfrak h in which the last summand corresponds to the radical \mathbb{R} b. Thus \bar{\mathfrak h}\cong\mathrm{Hess}\,\psi_\gamma(y_0)\oplus \partial_t^2F(y_0,0). As \bar{\mathfrak h} is non-degenerate, so is \mathrm{Hess}\,\psi_\gamma(y_0), and \varepsilon(\bar{\mathfrak h}) =(-1)^n\operatorname*{sgn}\det\mathrm{Hess}\,\psi_\gamma(y_0). Together with (?) this proves the lemma.

By [CastroLazer1979] (see [McKenzie1984] for an elementary proof), the Brouwer degree of \nabla\phi on the ball B_r with respect to the value 0 equals 1 for all sufficiently large r. By the additivity of the degree, it equals the sum of the local indices of \nabla\phi at the points z_j, and the local index at a non-degenerate zero is \operatorname*{sgn}\det\mathrm{Hess}\,\phi(z_j); see, e.g., [Deimling1985].

The standard variation formula for the volume of a polytope with respect to its support numbers gives

see, e.g., [Schneider2014, Section 5.1]. Hence

Since

the off-diagonal formulas follow immediately. For the diagonal term, we use the Minkowski formula in the (n-1)-dimensional affine hull of F_i(b):

Substituting the expression for h_{ik} gives

as claimed.

Set H=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n:\langle u,x\rangle=0\} and K_t\coloneqq F(t)-tu\subset H. Fix \delta=\lambda\varepsilon with \lambda\in(0,1). Convexity of P gives

All three sets have the same positive (n-1)-dimensional volume. Hence Brunn–Minkowski in H gives equality, and therefore K_b and K_{b-\varepsilon} are homothetic. Since their volumes are equal, they are translates; write

It follows that K_b+\lambda v\subseteq K_{b-\delta}. The two sets again have the same volume, and hence

Thus

which proves the assertion.

Suppose first that f_i^A has degree 1 in b_i. Since

the polynomial \operatorname{vol}_{n-1}(F_i(b)) is independent of b_i. Fix b\in\operatorname*{int} A and choose \varepsilon>0 such that b-\delta e_i\in\operatorname*{int} A for 0\leq\delta\leq\varepsilon. Since only the i-th support number changes,

Hence Lemma 5.2 gives F_i(b-\delta e_i)=F_i(b)+t_\delta for 0<\delta<\varepsilon. Apparently, t_\delta\ne 0 and for every j\in J^A(i) the h_{F_i(b-\delta e_i)}(u_j)=b_j=h_{F_i(b)}(u_j), and therefore

Thus all normals adjacent to u_i lie in the hyperplane \{x\in\mathbb{R}^n : \langle t_\delta, x\rangle=0\}.

Conversely, suppose that the normals adjacent to u_i are contained in an (n-1)-dimensional subspace L. Choose v\ne 0 orthogonal to L. As u_i\notin L we may assume that \langle u_i,v\rangle=1. Then for b\in\operatorname*{int} A and sufficiently small s>0 we get

because \langle u_j,v\rangle=0 for every j\in J^A(i). Consequently, \operatorname{vol}_{n-1}(F_i(b)) is independent of b_i, and hence f_i^A(b) has degree 1 in b_i.

Fix \overline{b}\in\operatorname*{int} A and, for \lambda\geq \overline{b}_i, set

Since \mathbb{R}_{\geq0}e_i\subseteq A, we have b(\lambda)\in\operatorname*{int} A for every \lambda\geq \overline{b}_i.

Let \beta denote the coefficient of b_i^n in the polynomial f_i^A(b). Since, for j\neq i, the polynomial f_j^A is divisible by b_j, the monomial b_i^n occurs in none of these polynomials. Hence, using \operatorname{vol}_n(P(U,b(\lambda)))=\sum_{j=1}^m f_j^A(b(\lambda)) we obtain

Set

where for t\in\mathbb{R}, H^-_{u_j,t}=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n :\langle u_j,x\rangle\leq t\}. Then P_\lambda=Q\cap H^-_{u_i,\lambda}. Since u_i continues to define a facet of P_\lambda for arbitrarily large \lambda, we have h_Q(u_i)=\infty, and hence h_C(u_i)=\infty.

We claim that the recession cone C is full-dimensional. Suppose otherwise and put

The projection Q\vert V is a d-dimensional bounded polytope in V, and therefore has at least d+1 facets. Let v\in V be an outer unit normal of one of these facets. Since v vanishes on \operatorname*{lin} C, we have F_Q(v)=F_Q(v)+C, and, in particular, F_Q(v) is a facet of Q.

Moreover, since h_C(u_i)=\infty, for all sufficiently large \lambda the truncation of F_Q(v) by H^-_{u_i,\lambda} is a facet of P_\lambda adjacent to F_i(P_\lambda). Thus v is one of the normals \{u_j:j\in J^A(i)\}. Consequently, at least d+1 normals adjacent to u_i lie in the d-dimensional subspace V, contradicting their general position. Hence

The set C\cap H^-_{u_i,1} is bounded. Indeed, otherwise there exists a non-zero w satisfying

which is impossible since U positively spans \mathbb{R}^n. Since C is full-dimensional, C\cap H^-_{u_i,1} has positive n-dimensional volume. Moreover, \overline{b}_j>0 for all j, so C\subseteq Q and

By homogeneity of the cone C,

Thus f_i^A contains the monomial b_i^n with positive coefficient.

The case distinction in Table ? provides a vector \gamma^{(0)}\in C_{{\tt cv}}(U) for which |S(U,\gamma^{(0)})|=3. For example, if 0<\lambda<1 and \sigma>0, choose \gamma_1,\gamma_3>0 and set

As \gamma_2\to\infty,

while the exceptional equality \lambda=\lambda_0 can be avoided. Hence, for sufficiently large \gamma_2, one of the three-solution cases in the table applies. The other parameter ranges are treated analogously.

It remains to observe that the three solutions persist under small perturbations of \gamma^{(0)}. Suppose, for instance, that \sigma>0. By (?), they correspond to three distinct roots of q_{\gamma^{(0)}} in (1,\infty). Moreover,

so there is a fourth root in (0,1). Thus all four roots are simple. Since simple roots depend continuously on the coefficients, the three roots in (1,\infty) persist for all \gamma in a sufficiently small neighbourhood of \gamma^{(0)}. The case \sigma<0 is analogous. Shrinking the neighbourhood if necessary yields a nonempty open set \Omega\subset C_{{\tt cv}}(U) on which |S(U,\gamma)|=3.