Consider the problem of trying to identify which $n$-dimensional compact complex manifolds can be endowed with a Kähler metric.

$\underline{n = 1}:$ Any hermitian metric on a Riemann surface is a Kähler metric as the Kähler form is a two-form, and all two-forms are closed. (This is also true of non-compact Riemann surfaces).

$\underline{n = 2}:$ A necessary and sufficient condition for a complex surface to admit a Kähler metric is that its odd Betti numbers are even.

The condition that odd Betti numbers are even is necessary for a complex manifold to admit a Kähler metric, but not sufficient for $n \geq 3$. To see it is not sufficient, consider the example of Hironaka which gives a deformation of three-dimensional Kähler manifolds to a non-Kähler manifold. The Betti numbers are invariant under diffeomorphisms, so the central fibre of the deformation has odd Betti numbers even (as it is diffeomorphic to a Kähler manifold) but it is not itself Kähler.

In general, for $n \geq 3$, it is not easy to determine when a compact complex manifold can be equipped with a Kähler metric. In the simplest of these cases, $n = 3$, are we any closer to solving this problem?

What conditions (necessary or sufficient) are there for a three-dimensional compact complex manifold to admit a Kähler metric? How far are we from a single necessary and sufficient condition (like we have for $n = 1$ and $2$)?

Of course I'm interested in results which apply for all $n$, but I'm guessing that there are some results specifically for $n = 3$.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If a compact complex manifold $X$ in the Fujiki class admits a strictly positive $(1,1)$ form $ω$ on $X$ such that $i∂∂\bar ω=0$, then $X$ is Kähler. See imar.ro/~cjoita/MC-SCV/Chiose-closedobstruction.pdf $\endgroup$
    – user21574
    Jul 28, 2017 at 9:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Additional comment: Every complex surface in the Fujiki class $\mathcal C$ is Kähler $\endgroup$
    – user21574
    Jul 28, 2017 at 9:55

3 Answers 3


The main obstruction to existence of Kahler metric (in addition to Lefschetz SL(2)-action and Riemann-Hodge relations in cohomology) is homotopy formality: the cohomology ring of a Kahler manifold is related to its de Rham algebra by a chain of homomorphisms of differential graded algebras inducing isomorphisms on cohomology. This is proven by Deligne-Griffiths-Morgan-Sullivan in 1970-ies.

This is a very strong topological condition; for instance, no nilmanifold (except torus) is homotopy formal. There are symplectic nilmanifolds satisfying hard Lefschetz and the rest of Riemann-Hodge conditions for cohomology.

Another obstruction is existence of a positive, exact current. As shown by Peternell, all non-Kahler Moishezon manifolds admit a positive, exact (n-1,n-1)-current, hence they are not Kahler. However, Moishezon manifolds are homotopy formal ([DGMS]), and often satisfy the Riemann-Hodge. This argument is also used to prove that twistor spaces of compact Riemannian 4-manifolds are not Kahler, except CP^3 and flag space (Hitchin).

The sufficient condition in this direction is obtained by Harvey-Lawson: they proved that a manifold is Kahler if and only if it does not admit an exact (2n-2)-current with positive, non-zero (n-1, n-1)-part.

Finally, Izu Vaisman has shown that any compact locally conformally Kahler manifold (a manifold with Kahler metric taking values in a non-trivial 1-dimensional local system) is non-Kahler.

Also, a complex surface is Kahler if and only if its $b_1$ is even. This was known from Kodaira classification of surfaces, and the direct proof was obtained in late 1990-ies by Buchdahl and Lamari using the Harvey-Lawson criterion.

  • $\begingroup$ (actually, symplectic structures on nilmanifolds never satisfy the Hard Lefschetz Condition, as in the proof of Theorem A by Benson and Gordon, ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=976592. In fact, the map $[\omega^{n-1}]: H^1_{dR}(X;\mathbb{R})\to H^{2n-1}_{dR}(X;\mathbb{R})$ is not surjective for a $2n$-dimensional nilmanifold $X$ with a symplectic structure $\omega$) $\endgroup$
    – daniele
    Jul 15, 2013 at 13:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ However, there are examples of non-formal (hence, non-Kahler) symplectic manifolds satisfying hard Lefschetz; see arxiv.org/abs/math/0403067, "The Lefschetz property, formality and blowing up in symplectic geometry", by Gil R. Cavalcanti $\endgroup$ Jul 15, 2013 at 21:36

A partial answer.

From the cohomological point of view, a compact Kähler manifold satisfies the "$dd^{\mathcal{J}}$-Lemma" with respect to any of its structures. In fact, such properties do not characterize Kählerness: for example, Fujiki class $\mathcal{C}$ manifolds and Moishezon manifolds satisfy $\partial\overline{\partial}$-Lemma, as Gunnar recalled.

More precisely:

  • with respect to the complex structure, a compact Kähler manifold satisfies the classical $\partial\overline{\partial}$-Lemma, stating that every $\partial$-closed $\overline{\partial}$-closed $d$-exact form is also $\partial\overline{\partial}$-exact, namely, the natural map $H^{\bullet,\bullet}_{BC}(X)\to H^{\bullet}_{dR}(X;\mathbb{C})$ induced by the identity is injective (here, $H^{\bullet,\bullet}_{BC}(X):=\frac{\ker\partial\cap\ker\overline{\partial}}{\mathrm{imm}\partial\overline{\partial}}$ is the Bott-Chern cohomology of $X$, and its dual $H^{\bullet,\bullet}_{A}(X):=\frac{\ker\partial\overline{\partial}}{\mathrm{imm}\partial+\mathrm{imm}\overline{\partial}}$ is the Aeppli cohomology). As a consequence, one gets the Hodge decomposition. In particular, $\dim_{\mathbb{C}} H^{\bullet}_{dR}(X;{\mathbb{C}}) = \sum_{p+q=k} \dim_{\mathbb{C}} H^{p,q}_{\overline{\partial}}(X)$ and $\dim_{\mathbb{C}} H^{p,q}_{\overline{\partial}}(X)=\dim_{\mathbb{C}} H^{q,p}_{\overline{\partial}}(X)$ for every $k$, for every $p,q$. Note that such equalities do not characterize even the validity of the $\partial\overline{\partial}$-Lemma. Furthermore, one has that a compact complex manifold satisfies the $\partial\overline{\partial}$-Lemma if and only if $2\dim_{\mathbb{C}}H^k_{dR}(X;\mathbb{C}) = \sum_{p+q=k} \left(\dim_{\mathbb{C}} H^{p,q}_{BC}(X) + \dim_{\mathbb{C}} H^{p,q}_{A}(X)\right)$ for every $k$.

  • with respect to the symplectic structure, a compact Kähler manifold satisfies the Hard Lefschetz Condition, which is the symplectic counterpart of the $\partial\overline{\partial}$-Lemma. By definition, Hard Lefschetz Condition states that $[\omega^k]\colon H^{n-k}_{dR}(X;\mathbb{R})\to H^{n+k}_{dR}(X;\mathbb{R})$ is an isomorphism for every $k$, where $\omega$ is the Kähler form and $2n$ denotes the real dimension of $X$. By considering the symplectic differential $d^{\Lambda}:=\left[d, -\iota_{\omega^{-1}}\right]$ and defining the Tseng and Yau symplectic Bott-Chern cohomologies as in the complex case by using $d$ and $d^\Lambda$ instead of $\partial$ and $\overline{\partial}$, one has that the Hard Lefschetz Condition is equivalent to the $dd^\Lambda$-Lemma, which is equivalent to the equality $\dim_{\mathbb{R}} H^k_{BC}(X) + \dim_{\mathbb{R}} H^k_{A}(X) = 2\dim_{\mathbb{R}} H^k_{dR}(X;\mathbb{R})$ for every $k$.

  • Looking at a Kähler manifold as a generalized-complex manifold (in the sense of Hitchin, Gualtieri, Cavalcanti,) one gets further numerical properties. For example, one gets that the $dd^{\mathcal{J}}$-Lemma with respect to the generalized-complex structure of type $n$ is equivalent to the equalities $\dim_{\mathbb{C}}H_{dR}^{k}(X;\mathbb{C})= \sum_{p+q=k}\dim_{\mathbb{C}}H^{p,q}_{\overline{\partial}}(X)$ and $\sum_{p-q=k}\dim_{\mathbb{C}}H^{p,q}_{BC}(X) = \sum_{p-q=k}\dim_{\mathbb{C}}H^{p,q}_{\overline{\partial}}(X)$ for every $k$ (note, "$p-q=k$" instead of "$p+q=k$").

Obviously, as said, these cohomological properties are quite far from being sufficient.. Notwithstanding, Kähler manifolds are characterized inside some special classes of compact manifolds, such as, for example, nilmanifolds and solvmanifolds.

Note also a related question: Fundamental Groups of compact Complex manifolds?


One necessary condition for the existence of a Kaehler structure on a manifold is Theorem 1.8 (the hard Lefschetz property) from here. According to the author (Claire Voisin) these are the only known obstructions.

  • $\begingroup$ That is very probably not sufficient. Consider Hironaka's example $X$ of a non-Kahler deformation of projective manifolds. That manifold is Moishezon since it is a deformation limit of projective manifolds (by Popovici, I think). Then there exists a modification $\epsilon X \to X'$ where $X'$ is projective. It follows that the cohomology ring of $X$ admits a Hodge decomposition. I would think that you could then find some $(1,1)$-class on $X$ to play the role of a Kahler class in the hard Lefschetz theorem, the only difference being that it wouldn't be represented by a Kahler form. $\endgroup$ Jul 8, 2013 at 15:59
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Andrei : There are other obstructions known on the fundamental group see e.g. homepages.math.uic.edu/~jaca2009/notes/Arapura.pdf , plus, in the paper by Voisin you cite, her goal is to show that there are other obstructions, coming from the algebra structure of the cohomology. $\endgroup$
    – BS.
    Jul 9, 2013 at 9:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.