\section{Introduction}

When does a Fano manifold admits a Kähler-Einstein metric?
If it does not, how can we measure this failure?
What alternative canonical metric can we obtain on a Fano manifold?
The goal of this article is not to answer these questions but to give them more visibility and provide a detailed study of a few examples.
By studying the blow-ups of projective spaces at two disjoint linear subspaces, we provide an infinite family of examples of manifolds with no Kähler-Einstein metrics but coupled Kähler-Einstein metrics.
By studying the blow-ups of quadrics at a linear subquadric, we provide an infinite family of examples of manifolds that are not K-semistable and admit no Kähler-Ricci solitons.

Let us be a bit more precise. Consider a Fano manifold $X$.
A Kähler form (abusively, metric) $\omega\in c_1(X)$ is Kähler-Einstein if it satisfies the equation
\[ \Ric(\omega)=\omega \]
where $\Ric(\omega)$ denotes the Ricci form of $\omega$.
We say a Fano manifold is Kähler-Einstein if it admits a Kähler-Einstein form.
A convincing numerical measure of how a Fano manifold fails to be Kähler-Einstein is given by the \emph{greatest Ricci lower bound}:
\[ R(X)=\sup\left\{t\in[0,1] \mid \exists \omega\in c_1(X), \Ric(\omega)\geq t\omega \right\}. \]
If $X$ is Kähler-Einstein then $R(X)=1$ while the converse direction does not hold.
In K-stability terms, $R(X)=1$ is equivalent to K-semistability of $X$.

Several candidate alternative metrics on Fano manifolds with no Kähler-Einstein metrics have been proposed over the years.
The best known are the Kähler-Ricci solitons, which satisfy the equation
\[ \Ric(\omega)-L_{\xi}\omega=\omega \]
where $\xi$ is a holomorphic vector field and $L_{\xi}$ denotes the Lie derivative with respect to $\xi$.
They actually belong to a large family of metrics introduced by Mabuchi as \emph{multiplier Hermitian structures}: $X$ is equipped with a multiplier Hermitian structure if there exists a Kähler form $\omega\in c_1(X)$, a holomorphic vector field $\xi$ and a smooth real valued concave function $h$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn_mhs}
\Ric(\omega) - \sqrt{-1}\partial \bar{\partial} h\circ \theta = \omega
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is defined by $L_{\xi}\omega=\sqrt{-1}\partial \bar{\partial} \theta$.
Kähler-Einstein metrics correspond to the case $g=0$ and Kähler-Ricci solitons to the case $g=\text{id}$.
When $g$ is the logarithm of an affine function, such metrics are called Mabuchi metrics.
The advantage of Mabuchi metrics over Kähler-Ricci solitons is that such metrics have a more algebraic nature.
For example, the holomorphic vector field is essentially well determined by the manifold alone in the case of Kähler-Ricci solitons or of Mabuchi metrics.
In the case of solitons, the vector field may very well generate a non-closed subgroup whereas this is impossible for Mabuchi metrics.
This can make an important difference in the study of moduli spaces of Fano manifolds with canonical metrics.
Motivated by this, we want to advertise the following open question.
\begin{quest}
\label{ques_pol}
Is it true that a Fano manifold $X$ admits a Kähler-Ricci soliton if and only if there exists a multiplier Hermitian structure as defined by Equation~\eqref{eqn_mhs}, where $h$ is the logarithm of a polynomial?
\end{quest}

Another candidate for canonical metrics is given by coupled Kähler-Einstein metrics.
These were introduced by Hultgren and Witt Nyström in \cite{HWN17} and in the simplest case of pairs of metrics, may be defined as follows.
A Fano manifold $X$ admits a pair of coupled Kähler-Einstein metrics if there exists a pair $(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ of Kähler forms such that
\[ \Ric(\omega_1)=\Ric(\omega_2)=\omega_1+\omega_2. \]
The advantage here is that no holomorphic vector field is involved, and the drawback is that several Kähler classes have to be considered.
Until the present paper, only two examples of Fano manifolds with no Kähler-Einstein metrics but a pair of coupled Kähler-Einstein metrics were known \cite{Hul,DH}.

The first example of a Fano manifold $X$ with no Kähler-Ricci solitons and $R(X)<1$ was obtained by the author in \cite{DelTh,DelKE}.
The example is a biequivariant compactification of the group $\Sp_4$, obtained by blowing up the unique closed orbit in the wonderful compactification of this group.
The author later provided two additional examples in \cite{DelKSSV}, as compactifications of the group $\SO_4$, however the examples were still sporadic at that point.
Such examples provide a useful illustration of the variety of situations regarding K-stability, and are the only known illustrations of type 2 singularity formation along the Kähler-Ricci flow on Fano manifolds (see \cite{LTZ}).

The infinite family of examples presented here share a strong similarity with the previous examples: they are equivariant compactifications of symmetric spaces (actually one of the above mentioned compactifications of $\SO_4$ is part of this family).
This allows us to use the K-stability criterions proved by the author in \cite{DelKSSV}, which reduces the problem to determining the sign of a finite number of integrals of polynomials on polytopes.
While such integrals can be computed, it yields in general complicated expressions.
In particular, the sign is not easily determined without an explicit computation, making the determination of K-stability on infinite families a challenging task.

The family of examples we consider here is formed as we said by blow-ups of quadrics along lower dimensional linear subquadrics.
An infinity of these are Kähler-Einstein, and an infinity are as stated (not K-semistable and with no Kähler-Ricci solitons).
\begin{thm}
\label{thm_blQ}
Let $Q^n$ denote the quadric of dimension $n$, and $Q^k$ denote a linear subquadric of $Q^n$ of dimension $k$.
Then if $2\leq k \leq n-3$, the blow-up $\Bl_{Q^k}(Q^n)$ of $Q^n$ along $Q^k$ is K-unstable and does not admit any Kähler-Ricci soliton.
In the other cases, $\Bl_{Q^k}(Q^n)$ is Kähler-Einstein.
\end{thm}
The lowest dimensional example is $\Bl_{Q^2}(Q^5)$. It has dimension five, so the following question remains open.
\begin{quest}
Does there exists examples of Fano threefolds with no Kähler-Ricci solitons that are K-unstable? What about Fano fourfolds?
\end{quest}

In the process of introducing the symmetric structure on the family of manifolds that provide our examples, a natural detour is to start by considering the blow-ups of projective spaces along linear subspaces.
The blow-up of a projective space along a linear subspace has a non-reductive automorphism group, satisfying Matsushima's obstruction \cite{Mat57}.
They provided as such the first example of a Fano manifold with no Kähler-Einstein metrics: the blow-up of $\mathbb{P}^2$ at a point.

Furthermore, the blow-up of $\mathbb{P}^4$ along a line and a disjoint plane provided the first example of a Fano manifold with reductive automorphism group and non-vanishing Futaki invariant as highlighted by Futaki himself \cite{Fut83}.
As a toric manifold, $\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^1,\mathbb{P}^2}\mathbb{P}^4$ admits a Kähler-Ricci solitons: Wang and Zhu proved in \cite{WZ04} that any toric Fano manifold admits a Kähler-Ricci soliton.
It actually admits better metrics in two directions: it admits Mabuchi metrics and coupled Kähler-Einstein metrics.

More generally, the blow-up of a projective space along two complementary linear subspaces also has reductive automorphism group and non-vanishing Futaki invariant.
We show that an infinity of these manifolds are manifolds with no Kähler-Einstein metrics but pairs of coupled Kähler-Einstein metrics.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm_cKE_BlP}
For $k$ large enough, $\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{k-1},\mathbb{P}^k}\mathbb{P}^{2k+1}$ admits pairs of coupled Kähler-Einstein metrics but no Kähler-Einstein metrics.
\end{thm}
We believe this holds more generally and our proof could easily be adapted to prove other particular cases but we found no general proof.
\begin{quest}
Does there exist a pair of coupled Kähler-Einstein metrics on all blow-ups of the projective space along complementary subspaces ?
Is it true that there exist no coupled Kähler-Einstein metrics on $\Bl_{Q^k}Q^n$, for $2\leq k\leq n-3$?
\end{quest}
Similarly, we are convinced that Mabuchi metrics exist on all blow-ups of projective space we consider. Finding no elegant general proof of this fact, we instead provide a positive answer to Question~\ref{ques_pol} in a particular case.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm_polMab}
Let $X$ be a homogeneous $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over a rational homogeneous manifold $G/P$, where $G$ is a reductive group and $P$ a parabolic subgroup of $G$. Assume $X$ is Fano, then $X$ admits Kähler-Ricci solitons, and $X$ admits multiplier Hermitian structures as in Equation~\eqref{eqn_mhs}, where $h$ is the logarithm of a polynomial of degree equal to the dimension of $G/P$.
\end{thm}

In the body of the paper we will prove the results stated in this introduction.
The results to prove are translated into combinatorial conditions by using  \cite{DH} or earlier results.
As already mentioned, it does not mean that checking the conditions is trivial, as soon as we consider infinite families.
Nonetheless the arguments to be used pertain to elementary mathematics.
An additional goal of the paper is the description of all the combinatorial data associated to the families of examples considered (in particular a full description of the Picard group and moment polytopes associated to ample line bundles).
Our hope is that these detailed examples will provide an easier entry point to the theory of horosymmetric and spherical manifolds, and can more readily be used to check properties of other canonical metrics or other geometric properties.

In section~\ref{sec_BlP} we consider the blow-ups of projective spaces along complementary linear subspaces as horospherical manifolds (the combinatorial data can be used as well to study blow-ups at a single linear subspace as horospherical manifolds), and prove Theorem~\ref{thm_cKE_BlP} and Theorem~\ref{thm_polMab}.
In sections~\ref{sec_BlQss}~and~\ref{sec_BlQred}, we study the blow-up of a quadric along a linear subquadric as a symmetric variety and prove Theorem~\ref{thm_blQ}.
In section~\ref{sec_BlQss} we treat the case when the symmetric space is semisimple, which contains the K-unstable cases.
In section~\ref{sec_BlQred} we treat the remaining case.
This final section also contains an interesting family: the blow-up of a quadric at a point admits no Mabuchi metrics, starting from dimension three.

Each one of the three sections follows the same structure.
We begin by a geometric description of the manifolds and of the orbits under the natural group action to consider.
We then describe the full combinatorial data associated to these manifolds, as horosymmetric varieties.
First we describe the combinatorial data encoding the manifold itself, then we describe the combinatorial data associated to each ample $\mathbb{R}$-divisor.
Finally we examine the combinatorial conditions encoding the existence of canonical metrics to prove our main results.

\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
It is my pleasure to thank Jakob Hultgren for our joint work which allowed to prove half of the results in this article, and which provided motivation to study these particular families of examples.
Part of this work was initially written in preparation for talks at two conferences during the summer of 2019.
I thank Ivan Cheltsov and Simone Calamai for the invitations to these conferences.
This research was accomplished in part during my postdoc in Strasbourg funded by the Labex IRMIA, and received partial funding from ANR Project FIBALGA ANR-18-CE40-0003-01.

\section{Blow-ups of projective space along complementary linear subspaces}
\label{sec_BlP}

\subsection{Description of the manifolds}
Let $p$ and $n$ be two integers such that
\[2\leq p\leq n-2, \]
Consider the complex reductive group $G:=S(\GL_p\times \GL_{n-p})$.
We consider $G$ as embedded in $\GL_n$ by block-diagonal matrices: if $(A,B)\in G$, we identify it with $\begin{pmatrix} A & 0 \\ 0 & B \end{pmatrix}$.

Write $\mathbb{C}^n=\mathbb{C}^p\oplus \mathbb{C}^q$ and consider the induced action of the group $G$.
There are four orbits under this action: the fixed point $\{0\}$, the pointed linear subspaces $(\mathbb{C}^p\setminus \{0\})\times \{0\}$ and $\{0\} \times (\mathbb{C}^q\setminus \{0\})$, and the open dense orbit $(\mathbb{C}^p\setminus \{0\}) \times (\mathbb{C}^q\setminus \{0\})$.
It induces as well an action of $G$ on $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ with three corresponding $G$-orbits: an open dense orbit, and two disjoint linear subspaces (which we denote by $\mathbb{P}^{p-1}$ and $\mathbb{P}^{q-1}$ in an abuse of notations).

The blow-ups of the projective space along one or both of these linear subspaces are Fano manifolds.
We will focus on the manifold obtained by blowing up both orbits,
and we will denote the manifold by
\[ \blPPP{n}{p} := \Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{p-1},\mathbb{P}^{q-1}}(\mathbb{P}^{n-1}). \]
By the description above, this manifold is equipped with an action of $G$.

It is a standard fact, though not obvious, that the neutral components of the automorphism group $\Aut(\Bl_Y(X))$ of a blow-up and of the stabilizer $\Stab_{\Aut(X)}(Y)$ of the blown-up submanifold in the automorphism group of the initial manifold are isomorphic.
The non-obvious direction may be seen as a consequence of Blanchard's Lemma (see \cite{BSU13,Bla56}).

The stabilizer of $\mathbb{P}^{p-1}$ in the automorphism group $\Aut(\mathbb{P}^{n-1})=\PGL_n$ of the projective space is the image of the group of upper block-triangular invertible matrices with two square diagonal blocks of size $p$ and $q$.
The neutral component $\Aut^0(\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{p-1}}(\mathbb{P}^{n-1}))$ of $\Aut(\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{p-1}}(\mathbb{P}^{n-1}))$ is thus exactly the stabilizer described above.
In particular, this group is not reductive and the image of $G$ in it is a Levi subgroup.
For $\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{p-1},\mathbb{P}^{q-1}}(\mathbb{P}^{n-1})$, the same argument shows that $\Aut^0(\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{p-1},\mathbb{P}^{q-1}}(\mathbb{P}^{n-1}))$ is the Levi subgroup above, hence the image of $G$ is the full connected automorphism group.
Note in particular that the automorphism group of $\blPPP{n}{p}$ is reductive.

Under the action of $G$, the manifold $\blPPP{n}{p}$ is a horospherical manifold, as we will explain in the next section.
This structure, taking into account the full group of automorphisms, is the most natural to consider.
However, we should note that $\blPPP{n}{p}$ is:
\begin{itemize}
\item a toric manifold if we consider only the action of a maximal torus,
\item a cohomogeneity one manifold if we consider only the action of a maximal compact subgroup
\item a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over the product of projective spaces $\mathbb{P}^{p-1}\times \mathbb{P}^{q-1}$.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Combinatorial data associated to the manifold}

\subsubsection{The open orbit}
Let $T\subset \SL_n$ denote the maximal torus (both in $G$ and $\SL_n$) formed by diagonal matrices, and denote the roots of $\SL_n$ with respect to $T$ by
\begin{align*}
\alpha_{i,j}: T & \to \mathbb{C}^* \\
t & \mapsto \frac{d_i}{d_j}
\end{align*}
where $t=\diag(d_1,\ldots,d_n)$, for $1\leq i\neq j\leq n$.
The roots of $G$ are the $\alpha_{i,j}$ with $1\leq i\neq j \leq p$ or $p+1\leq i\neq j\leq n$.
The set of characters of $T$ is denoted by $\mathfrak{X}(T)$ and the set of one-parameter subgroups is denoted by $\mathfrak{Y}(T)$. The Killing form of $G$ is denoted by $\killing{x}{y}$ for $x,y\in\mathfrak{g}$.

It is immediate to determine the stabilizer $H$ of the point $(1:0\cdots :0:1:0:\cdots :0)$ in $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$, which is in the open orbit (the $1$ are at position $1$ and $(p+1)$).
Let $P$ denote the parabolic subgroup of $G$ containing $T$ such that the roots of its unipotent radical are
\[ \Phi_{P^u}=\{\alpha_{1,2}, \ldots, \alpha_{1,p},\alpha_{p+1,p+2}, \ldots, \alpha_{p+1,n}\}. \]
Then $H$ is the kernel in $P$ of the character of $P$ defined by $\alpha_{1,p+1}$.

As a consequence, $H$ contains the unipotent radical of $P$, and $G/H$ is a rank one horospherical homogeneous space.
To be consistent with the conventions in \cite{DH} and \cite{DelHoro},
we fix an involution $\sigma$ of $\mathfrak{t}$ such that $\mathfrak{t}^{\sigma}=\ker(\alpha_{1,p+1})$.
It amounts to choosing the fixed point set of $\sigma$, a complement to $\mathbb{R}\alpha_{1,p+1}$ in $\mathfrak{X}(T)\otimes \mathbb{R}$.
Here, we choose the orthogonal of $\alpha_{1,p+1}$ with respect to the Killing form to define $\sigma$.

Let us describe the combinatorial invariants corresponding to the spherical homogeneous space $G/H$.
We do this with respect to the Borel subgroup $B$ of $G$ containing $T$ whose corresponding simple roots are
\[ S = \{\alpha_{2,1},\ldots,\alpha_{p,p-1},\alpha_{p+2,p+1},\ldots \alpha_{n,n-1}\}, \]
to ensure again consistency with the conventions in \cite{DH}
and \cite{DelHoro}.
The \emph{spherical lattice} $\mathcal{M}$ is then $\mathfrak{X}(T/T\cap H)=\mathbb{Z} \alpha_{1,p+1}$.
The \emph{valuation cone} is the vector space generated by $\alpha_{1,p+1}$: $\mathcal{V}= \mathcal{M}\otimes \mathbb{R}$.
The \emph{colors} are in bijection with the set $-\Phi_{P^u}\cap S=\{\alpha_{2,1},\alpha_{p+2,p+1}\}$, we denote these by $D_{\alpha_{2,1}}$ and $D_{\alpha_{p+2,p+1}}$ respectively.
Recall that given a root $\alpha\in \mathfrak{X}(T)$ of $G$, the coroot $\alpha^{\vee}\in \mathfrak{Y}(T)$ is defined by $\alpha(x)=2 \frac{\killing{x}{\alpha^{\vee}}}{\killing{\alpha^{\vee}}{\alpha^{\vee}}}$ for all $x\in \mathfrak{Y}(T)\otimes\mathbb{R}$.
The \emph{color map} sends $D_{\alpha}$ to the restriction $\alpha^{\vee}|_{\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathbb{R}}$ for $\alpha\in\{\alpha_{2,1},\alpha_{p+2,p+1}\}$.
The images are thus respectively $-e$ and $e$ where $e=\alpha_{1,p+1}^*$ denotes the element dual to $\alpha_{1,p+1}$ in $(\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathbb{R})^*$, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig_MtimesR}.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\caption{$\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathbb{R}$}
\label{fig_MtimesR}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-5,0) -- (6,0);
\draw (0,0) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (0,0) node[below]{$0$};
\draw (2.5,0) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (2.5,0) node[below right]{$e=\alpha_{1,p+1}^*=\alpha_{p+2,p+1}^{\vee}|_{\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathbb{R}}$};
\draw (-2.5,0) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (-2.5,0) node[below left]{$-e=\alpha_{2,1}^{\vee}|_{\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathbb{R}}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

Note that if we considered the case $p=1$ or $n-p=1$, only one of the two roots $\alpha_{2,1}$ or $\alpha_{p+2,p+1}$ would be a well defined roots of $G$. There would correspondingly be only one projective subspace giving rise to a non-trivial blow-up. We will not give the details but the combinatorial description is a minor variation of the one presented here.

\subsubsection{Colored fans and embeddings}
The colored fan of $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ is the fully colored fan
\[ \{(\mathbb{R}_+ e,D_{\alpha_{p+2,p+1}}),(-\mathbb{R}_+ e,D_{\alpha_{2,1}}),(\{0\},\emptyset)\}, \]
where the first cone corresponds to the orbit $\mathbb{P}^{p-1}$, the second to $\mathbb{P}^{q-1}$ and the last to the open orbit.
The colored fan of $\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{q-1}}\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ is
\[ \{(\mathbb{R}_+ e,D_{\alpha_{p+2,p+1}}),(-\mathbb{R}_+ e,\emptyset),(\{0\},\emptyset)\}. \]
The colored fan of $\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{p-1}}\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ is
\[ \{(\mathbb{R}_+ e,\emptyset),(-\mathbb{R}_+ e,D_{\alpha_{2,1}}),(\{0\},\emptyset)\}. \]
Finally, the colored fan of $\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{p-1},\mathbb{P}^{q-1}}\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ is the colorless fan
\[ \{(\mathbb{R}_+ e,\emptyset),(-\mathbb{R}_+ e,\emptyset),(\{0\},\emptyset)\}. \]

\subsection{Combinatorial data associated to divisors}

\subsubsection{Picard group, isotropy characters and polytopes:}
Recall that the Picard group of a general spherical variety is described by Brion in \cite{Bri89}.
We recalled this description and introduced a few convenient notions in \cite{DelHoro,DH} to deal with moment polytopes in the special case of horosymmetric manifolds. We will use the language of \cite{DelHoro} here, notably we will use the terms \emph{special divisor} and \emph{isotropy character} as defined in that paper.

The Picard group of $\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{p-1},\mathbb{P}^{q-1}}\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ is of rank $3$.
Let $D_{\pm}$ denote the $G$-invariant divisor associated to the ray $\pm \mathbb{R}_+ e$.
The Picard group is generated by $D_{\alpha_{2,1}}$, $D_{\alpha_{p+2,p+1}}$, $D_+$ and $D_-$ with the relation
\[ D_++D_{\alpha_{p+2,p+1}}=D_-+D_{\alpha_{2,1}}. \]
For $D_{\pm}$, they already are \emph{special} divisors, and the isotropy characters are trivial.
Up to renormalizing the action by a character of $G$, the linearized line bundle associated to $D_{\alpha_{2,1}}$ admits a $B$-semi-invariant section whose $B$-weight $\varpi_{2,1}$ is given by
$\mathrm{diag}(d_1,\cdots,d_n)\mapsto d_1^{-1}$
(this is, up to a character of the reductive group $G$ the fundamental weight of $\alpha_{2,1}$).
Then the linearly equivalent \emph{special} $\mathbb{Q}$-divisor is
\begin{align*} D_{\alpha_{2,1}}-\frac{\killing{\varpi_{2,1}}{\alpha_{1,p+1}}}{\killing{\alpha_{1,p+1}}{\alpha_{1,p+1}}}(D_++D_{\alpha_{p+2,p+1}}-D_--D_{\alpha_{2,1}}) & \\
  =  \frac{1}{2}(D_++D_{\alpha_{p+2,p+1}}+D_{\alpha_{2,1}}-D_-)  &
\end{align*}
and its isotropy character is
\[ \chi_{2,1}:=\varpi_{2,1}-\frac{\killing{\varpi_{2,1}}{\alpha_{1,p+1}}}{\killing{\alpha_{1,p+1}}{\alpha_{1,p+1}}}\alpha_{1,p+1}
=\varpi_{2,1}+\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{1,p+1}. \]

As a consequence, special $\mathbb{R}$-divisors are all the
\[ D(a_c,a_+,a_-):=a_c(D_{\alpha_{2,1}}+D_{\alpha_{p+2,p+1}})+a_+D_+ + a_-D_- \]
for $a_c$, $a_+$, $a_-\in\mathbb{R}$.
The isotropy character of such a divisor is $2a_c\chi_{2,1}$, and the associated \emph{special polytope} is defined by
\[ \Delta(a_c,a_+,a_-)=\{ t\alpha_{1,p+1} \mid \max(-a_+,-a_c) \leq t\leq \min(a_-,a_c) \}. \]
The moment polytope, provided the divisor is ample, is
\[ \Delta^+(a_c,a_+,a_-) = 2a_c\chi_{2,1}+\Delta(a_c,a_+,a_-). \]
Note that Brion's ampleness criterion \cite[Théorème~3.3]{Bri89} states, in our case, that $D(a_c,a_+,a_-)$ is ample if and only if $a_+<a_c$, $a_-<a_c$ and $a_++a_->0$.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\caption{Moment polytope for an ample divisor on $\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{p-1},\mathbb{P}^{q-1}}\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$}
\label{fig_polBlP}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [dashed] (0,-.5) -- (0,3.5);
\draw [dashed] (-1.5,0) -- (3.5,0);
\draw [dotted] (-1,0) -- (-1,3.5);
\draw [dotted] (1.5,0) -- (1.5,3.5);
\draw [thick] (-1,3.5) -- (1.5,3.5);
\draw (0,0) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (-1,0) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (-1,0) node[below left]{\small $-a_+\alpha_{1,p+1}$};
\draw (1.5,0) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (1.5,0) node[below right]{\small $a_-\alpha_{1,p+1}$};
\draw (-1,3.5) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (1.5,3.5) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (1.5,3.5) node[right]{$\Delta^+(a_c,a_+,a_-)$};
\draw (0,3.5) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (0,3.5) node[above right]{\small $2a_c\chi_{2,1}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

The special divisor $D\left(\frac{n}{2},p+1-\frac{n}{2},\frac{n}{2}-p+1\right)$ represents the anticanonical divisor, its isotropy character is $n\chi_{2,1}$, thus the corresponding moment polytope is
\[ \Delta^+\left(\frac{n}{2},p+1-\frac{n}{2},\frac{n}{2}-p+1\right) = n\chi_{2,1}+\Delta\left(\frac{n}{2},p+1-\frac{n}{2},\frac{n}{2}-p+1\right). \]

\subsubsection{Duistermaat-Heckman polynomial and barycenters}

Key ingredients in the combinatorial criterions for existence of canonical metrics are the Duistermaat-Heckman polynomial and barycenters of moment polytopes with respect to this polynomial. We give here a first expression of these in our special case.

It is enough to express the Duistermaat-Heckman polynomial $P_{DH}$ in the plane generated by $\alpha_{1,p+1}$ and $2\chi_{2,1}$ since every moment polytope lives in this plane.
We have
\begin{align*}
P_{DH}(x\alpha_{1,p+1}+2y\chi_{2,1}) & = \prod_{\alpha\in -\Phi_{P^u}}\killing{\alpha}{x\alpha_{1,p+1}+2y\chi_{2,1}} \\
& = (-x+y)^{p-1}(x+y)^{n-p-1}
\end{align*}
The Duistermaat-Heckman barycenter corresponding to the ample divisor $D(a_c,a_+,a_-)$ is, for any choice of Lebesgue measure $\mathrm{d} p$,
\begin{align*}
\barDH(a_c,a_+,a_-) & = \frac{\int_{\Delta^+(a_c,a_+,a_-)} pP_{DH}(p)\mathrm{d} p}{\int_{\Delta^+(a_c,a_+,a_-)} P_{DH}(p)\mathrm{d} p}  \\
 & = 2a_c\chi_{2,1} + \left( \frac{\int_{-a_+}^{a_-} t(t+a_c)^{n-p-1}(a_c-t)^{p-1} \mathrm{d} t}{\int_{-a_+}^{a_-} (t+a_c)^{n-p-1}(a_c-t)^{p-1}\mathrm{d} t} \right)\alpha_{1,p+1}
\end{align*}

\subsection{Kähler-Einstein criterion}

Since $X$ is a toroidal horospherical manifold, the combinatorial criterion ruling the existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics on $X$ was originally proved by Podesta and Spiro \cite{PS10}.
It was reproved on several occasions by the author, in \cite{DelKSSV} and \cite{DelHoro}.
The criterion states that $X$ is Kähler-Einstein if and only if the barycenter of the moment polytope associated to the anticanonical divisor with respect to the Duistermaat-Heckman polynomial $P_{DH}$ coincides with the opposite of the sum of positive roots of the parabolic subgroup $P$. In formulas:
\begin{thm}[\cite{PS10}]
The manifold $\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{p-1},\mathbb{P}^{q-1}}\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ is Kähler-Einstein if and only if
\[ \barDH\left(\frac{n}{2},p+1-\frac{n}{2},\frac{n}{2}-p+1\right)= \sum_{\alpha\in -\Phi_{P^u}}\alpha. \]
\end{thm}

Note that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\alpha\in -\Phi_{P^u}}\alpha & = \alpha_{2,1}+\cdots+\alpha_{p,1}+\alpha_{p+2,p+1}+\cdots+\alpha_{n,p+1} \\
& = n\chi_{2,1} + \left(\frac{n}{2}-p\right)\alpha_{1,p+1}
\end{align*}

Hence the manifold $\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{p-1},\mathbb{P}^{q-1}}\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ is Kähler-Einstein if and only if
\[ I(n,p):=\int_{-(p+1-\frac{n}{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}-p+1} \left(t+p-\frac{n}{2}\right)\left(t+\frac{n}{2}\right)^{n-p-1}\left(\frac{n}{2}-t\right)^{p-1}\mathrm{d} t = 0. \]

\begin{thm}
\label{thm_BlPP}
The manifold $\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{p-1},\mathbb{P}^{q-1}}\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ is Kähler-Einstein if and only if $n$ is even and $p=\frac{n}{2}$. Else we have $I(n,p) > 0$ if $p < \frac{n}{2}$ and $I(n,p) < 0$ if $p > \frac{n}{2}$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
By using the variable $x=t+p-\frac{n}{2}$, we get
\[ I(n,p)=\int_{-1}^1 x(x+n-p)^{n-p-1}(p-x)^{p-1} \mathrm{d} x. \]
The integrand has a simple primitive, providing the explicit formula
\begin{align*}
I(n,p) & =\Big[ \frac{-1}{n}(p-x)^p(n-p+x)^{n-p} \Big]_{-1}^1 \\
& = \frac{-1}{n}\left( (p-1)^p(n-p+1)^{n-p} - (p+1)^p(n-p-1)^{n-p} \right)
\end{align*}
We claim that the function $f:x\mapsto \left(\frac{x-1}{x+1}\right)^x$ is strictly increasing on $[1,\infty[$. Once the claim is proved, the theorem is as well in view of the last expression of $I(n,p)$.
A direct computation of the derivative yields
\[ f'(x)=\left(\ln\left(\frac{x-1}{x+1}\right)+\frac{2x}{x^2-1}\right)\left(\frac{x-1}{x+1}\right)^x. \]
By a power series expansion, for $0<y<1$ we have
\[ \ln\left(1-y\right)+\frac{y(2-y)}{2}\frac{1}{1-y} =
\sum_{k\in \mathbb{N}} \frac{k+1}{2(k+3)}y^{k+3} >0. \]
Setting $y=\frac{2}{x+1}$, we obtain $f'(x)>0$ for $x>1$, thus the claim.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Mabuchi-type metrics}

The combinatorial criterion, proved by the author and Jakob Hultgren \cite{DH}, ruling the existence of Mabuchi metrics on $\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{p-1},\mathbb{P}^{q-1}}\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ reads as follows.
We place ourselves in the situation where the manifold does not admit any Kähler-Eintein metrics, that is $p\neq \frac{n}{2}$.
Set
\[ J:=\int_{-1}^1 x^2(x+n-p)^{n-p-1}(p-x)^{p-1} \mathrm{d} x>0. \]
Choose $A$ and $B\in \mathbb{R}$ such that
\[ \int_{-1}^1 x(Ax+B)(x+n-p)^{n-p-1}(p-x)^{p-1} \mathrm{d} x = AJ+BI = 0. \]
There does not exist a Mabuchi metric if and only if for all such choices, the affine function $x\mapsto Ax+B$ vanishes on $[-1,1]$, that is, if and only if $-\frac{B}{A}=\frac{J}{I}\in [-1,1]$.
If $p<\frac{n}{2}$ then $I>0$ and the latter condition is equivalent to $J-I\leq 0$. If $p>\frac{n}{2}$ then it is equivalent to $J+I\leq 0$.

From checking on examples, it appears that the manifolds $\Bl_{\mathbb{P}^{p-1},\mathbb{P}^{q-1}}\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ admit Mabuchi metrics in all cases.
However we did not find an elegant way to prove this.
On the other hand, we can easily show that there always exists a Mabuchi-type metric (or multiplier Hermitian structure) on any rank one toroidal horospherical Fano manifold.

Recall that the notion of multiplier Hermitian structure was introduced by Mabuchi in \cite{Mab03} and consists of a Kähler metric $\omega\in c_1(X)$ solving the complex Monge-Ampère equation
\[ \Ric(\omega)-\sqrt{-1}\partial\bar{\partial}h(\theta) = \omega \]
for some smooth real valued concave function $h$ defined on the range of $\theta$, where $\theta$ is the Hamiltonian function of $\omega$ with respect to some holomorphic vector field (equivalently, some action of $\mathbb{C}^*$).

In the remaining of this subsection, we consider a Fano manifold $X$, which is an arbitrary rank one toroidal horospherical manifold under the action of a reductive group $G$ with a one-dimensional center containing a $\mathbb{C}^*$ subgroup.
Equivalently, the manifold $X$ is a homogeneous $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over a rational homogeneous space $G/P$.
The action of the central subgroup $\mathbb{C}^*$ is the natural action on the fibers.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_polMab}]
Let $G/H$ be the open orbit in $X$.
Let $P$ denote the normalizer of $H$ in $G$ and choose a Borel subgroup $B$ opposite to $P$, and $T$ a maximal torus in $B\cap P$. Then the moment polytope $\Delta^+$ of $X$ is of the form
\[ \Delta^+=\left\{ t\varpi +\sum_{\alpha\in-\Phi_{P^u}}\alpha \mid -1\leq t\leq 1 \right\} \]
where $\varpi$ is a generator of the one dimensional lattice $\mathcal{M}$ (see \cite{Pas08}).
Then by \cite{DH}, there exists a multiplier Hermitian structure on $X$ if and only if we can find a smooth, real valued, concave function $h$ on $[-1,1]$ such that
\[ \int_{-1}^1te^{h(t)}P_{DH}\left(t\varpi+\sum_{\alpha\in -\Phi_{P^u}}\alpha\right)\mathrm{d} t = 0 \]
where, as usual, $P_{DH}$ denotes the Duistermaat-Heckman polynomial for $X$: $P_{DH}(x)=\prod_{\alpha\in -\Phi_{P^u}}\killing{\alpha}{x} $ for $x\in \mathfrak{X}(T)$.
Thanks to the symmetry of the polytope, an obvious choice is given by
\[ e^{h(t)}=P_{DH}\left( -t\varpi+\sum_{\alpha\in -\Phi_{P^u}}\alpha \right). \]
The corresponding function $h$ is obviously smooth, real valued, and concave: $\killing{\alpha}{-t\varpi+\sum_{\alpha\in -\Phi_{P^u}}\alpha}>0$ for all $-1\leq t\leq 1$ and $\alpha\in -\Phi_{P^u}$ since the moment polytopes are strictly contained in the positive Weyl chamber for toroidal horospherical manifolds.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Coupled Kähler-Einstein metrics}
In this section, we prove that there exists infinitely many couples $(n,p)$ such that the manifold $\blPPP{n}{p}$ admits no Kähler-Einstein metrics but admits a couple of coupled Kähler-Einstein metrics, by proving Theorem~\ref{thm_cKE_BlP} as stated in the introduction.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_cKE_BlP}]
We place ourselves in the situation where $n=2k+1$ is odd, and $p=k$.

Using the main theorem of \cite{DH}, we want to find $a_c$, $a_+$ and $a_-$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\barDH(a_c,a_+,a_-)+\barDH(k+\frac{1}{2}-a_c,\frac{1}{2}-a_+,\frac{3}{2}-a_-)=n\chi_{2,1}+\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{1,k+1}$
\item $a_+<a_c<k+a_+$
\item $a_-<a_c<k-1+a_-$
\item $0<a_++a_-<2$.
\end{itemize}
Set $a_c'=k+\frac{1}{2}-a_c$, $a_+'=\frac{1}{2}-a_+$ and $a_-'=\frac{3}{2}-a_-$.
The three last conditions ensure that the divisors $D(a_c,a_+,a_-)$ and $D(a_c',a_+',a_-')$ are ample. Their sum is obviously the anticanonical divisor, and the first condition means that the coupled Kähler-Einstein equation is satisfied for this decomposition.

Let $C(a_c,a_+,a_-)$ denote the quantity
\[
\frac{\int_{-a_+}^{a_-} t(t+a_c)^{k}(a_c-t)^{k-1}\mathrm{d} t}
{\int_{-a_+}^{a_-} (t+a_c)^{k}(a_c-t)^{k-1}\mathrm{d} t}
+
\frac{\int_{-a_+'}^{a_-'} t(t+a_c')^{k}(a_c'-t)^{k-1}\mathrm{d} t}
{\int_{-a_+'}^{a_-'} (t+a_c')^{k}(a_c'-t)^{k-1}\mathrm{d} t}
 - \frac{1}{2}
\]
then the first condition is equivalent to $C(a_c,a_+,a_-)=0$.
Note that the Kähler cone is connected and that $(a_c,a_+,a_-)\mapsto C(a_c,a_+,a_-)$ is continuous. Since $2p=2k<2k+1=n$, Theorem~\ref{thm_BlPP} implies that $C(\frac{n}{4},\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4})>0$, hence it is enough to find a triple $(a_c,a_+,a_-)$ (satisfying the ampleness conditions) with $C(a_c,a_+,a_-)<0$ to prove the existence of coupled Kähler-Einstein metrics.

Set $a_c=k-2$, $a_+=\frac{1}{2}$ and $a_-=0$.
Then we have $a_c=\frac{5}{2}$, $a_+=0$ and $a_-=\frac{3}{2}$.
Such a data satisfies the ampleness conditions.
We will show $C(a_c,a_+,a_-)<0$ for $k$ large enough by showing that the first quotient of integrals in $C(a_c,a_+,a_-)$ converges to $-\frac{1}{4}$ and that the second quotient of integrals converges to $0$.
In fact, if $a_c$ is linear in $k$, $a_+$ and $a_-$ are constant, then the quotient of integrals converges to the middle of $[-a_+,a_-]$, and if $a_+=0$, $a'_c$ and $a'_-$ are constant, then the quotient of integrals converges to $0$.

Using the equation
\[ \frac{(t+k-2)^{k}(k-2-t)^{k-1}}{(k-1)^{2k-1}} =\left(1+\frac{t-1}{k-1}\right)\left(1+\frac{t-1}{k-1}\right)^{k-1}\left(1-\frac{t+1}{k-1}\right)^{k-1} \]
we see that, uniformly in $t\in [-\frac{1}{2},0]$,
\[ \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \frac{(t+k-2)^{k}(k-2-t)^{k-1}}{(k-1)^{2k-1}} = e^{-2} \]
hence
\[ \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\int_{-\frac{1}{2}}^{0} t(t+k-2)^{k}(k-2-t)^{k-1}\mathrm{d} t}
{\int_{-\frac{1}{2}}^{0} (t+k-2)^{k}(k-2-t)^{k-1}\mathrm{d} t} = -\frac{1}{4}. \]

The other limit is a bit less immediate.
Fix $0<\epsilon<\frac{3}{2}$ and consider
\begin{equation} \label{eqn_limit}
\int_{0}^{\frac{3}{2}} (t-\epsilon)\left(t+\frac{5}{2}\right)^{k}\left(\frac{5}{2}-t\right)^{k-1}\mathrm{d} t.
\end{equation}
If we prove that the latter integral is negative for $k$ large enough, then
\[ 0 < \frac{\int_{0}^{\frac{3}{2}} t\left(t+\frac{5}{2}\right)^{k}\left(\frac{5}{2}-t\right)^{k-1}\mathrm{d} t}{\int_{0}^{\frac{3}{2}} \left(t+\frac{5}{2}\right)^{k}\left(\frac{5}{2}-t\right)^{k-1}\mathrm{d} t} <\epsilon \]
for $k$ large enough.
Actually, proving this for just one $\epsilon<\frac{3}{4}$ is enough to get the conclusion.
In the integral~\eqref{eqn_limit}, the negative contribution is the integral on $[0,\epsilon]$, while the positive contribution is the integral on $[\epsilon,\frac{3}{2}]$.

For $\epsilon\leq t \leq \frac{3}{2}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\left(t+\frac{5}{2}\right)^{k}\left(\frac{5}{2}-t\right)^{k-1} & = \left(\frac{5}{2}\right)^{2k-1}\left(1+\frac{2t}{5}\right)\left(1-\left(\frac{2t}{5}\right)^2\right)^{k-1} \\
& \leq \left(\frac{5}{2}\right)^{2(k-1)}\left(1+\frac{3}{5}\right)\left(1-\left(\frac{2\epsilon}{5}\right)^2\right)^{k-1}
\end{align*}
hence
\[ \int_{\epsilon}^{\frac{3}{2}} (t-\epsilon)\left(t+\frac{5}{2}\right)^{k}\left(\frac{5}{2}-t\right)^{k-1}\mathrm{d} t \leq \left(\frac{9}{8}-\frac{3\epsilon}{2}+\frac{\epsilon^2}{2}\right)\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)^{2(k-1)}\left(1+\frac{3}{5}\right)\left(1-\left(\frac{2\epsilon}{5}\right)^2\right)^{k-1} \]

For the negative contribution, it suffices to restrict to $\left[0,\frac{1}{2(k-1)}\right]$.
Set $t=\frac{s}{k-1}$ where $s\in \left[0,\frac{1}{2}\right]$.
Then
\[ \frac{(t+\frac{5}{2})^{k}(\frac{5}{2}-t)^{k-1}}{(\frac{5}{2})^{2k-1}} = \left(1+\frac{2s}{5(k-1)}\right)\left(1+\frac{2s}{5(k-1)}\right)^{k-1}\left(1-\frac{2s}{5(k-1)}\right)^{k-1} \]
Hence, uniformly in $s\in [0,\frac{1}{2}]$ (or in $t\in \left[0,\frac{1}{2(k-1)}\right]$),
\[ \lim_{k\to \infty} \frac{(t+\frac{5}{2})^{k}(\frac{5}{2}-t)^{k-1}}{(\frac{5}{2})^{2k-1}} = 1. \]
We deduce that
\[ \int_0^{\frac{1}{2(k-1)}} (t-\epsilon)\left(t+\frac{5}{2}\right)^{k}\left(\frac{5}{2}-t\right)^{k-1}\mathrm{d} t \sim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \frac{-\epsilon\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)^{2k-1}}{2(k-1)} \]

Since
\[
\left(\frac{9}{8}-\frac{3\epsilon}{2}+\frac{\epsilon^2}{2}\right)\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)^{2(k-1)}\left(1+\frac{3}{5}\right)\left(1-\left(\frac{2\epsilon}{5}\right)^2\right)^{k-1}= o\left(\frac{-\epsilon(\frac{5}{2})^{2k-1}}{2(k-1)}\right), \]
the negative contribution in integral~\eqref{eqn_limit} is dominant over the positive contribution.
We deduce that integral~\eqref{eqn_limit} is negative for $k$ large enough.
\end{proof}

\section{Unstable blow-ups of quadrics along linear subquadrics}
\label{sec_BlQss}

\subsection{Description of the manifolds}
Choose as before two positive integers $p$ and $q$ such that $p+q=n$.
For this first section on blow-ups of quadrics, we assume $3\leq p\leq n-3$.
We will deal with the case $p=n-2$ in the next section.

Consider the standard quadratic form $\sum_{j=1}^{n}z_j^2$ on $\mathbb{C}^{n}$.
Let $Q^{n-2}$ denote the associated $n-2$-dimensional projective quadric.
It is equipped with an action of $G:=\SO_p\times \SO_q\subset \SO_n$ with four orbits, easily described in terms of the rational projections from $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ to $\mathbb{P}^{p-1}$ and $\mathbb{P}^{q-1}$.
There is an open dense orbit, formed by the points at which both projections are defined and no projection lie in the corresponding quadrics, the codimension one orbit formed by the points at which both projections are defined and lie in the corresponding quadrics, and two closed orbits formed by the points where one of the projections is undefined.

We will be interested in the blow-up $\blQQ{n}{p}$ of $Q^{n-2}$ along one of the closed orbits, say the quadric $Q^{p-2}$ in $\mathbb{P}^{p-1}$.

The group of automorphisms of $Q^{n-2}$ is up to isogeny the group $\SO_n$.
The connected group of automorphisms of $X$ is thus isogenous to the neutral component of the stabilizer of the quadric in $\mathbb{P}^{p-1}$ inside $\SO_n$.
It is isogenous to $\SO_{p}\times \SO_{q}$.

\subsection{Combinatorial data associated to the manifold}

\subsubsection{The open orbit}
The quadric and its blow-up, equipped with the action of $G$, are symmetric varieties.
The open dense orbit is the symmetric space
$\SO_p\times \SO_q / H$ where $H$ is the stabilizer of say $[1:0\cdots :0:1:0\cdots:0]$.
It is the unique proper subgroup sandwiched between
$\{1\}\times \SO_{p-1}\times \{1\} \times \SO_{q-1}$
and $S(\GO_{1}\times \GO_{p-1})\times S(\GO_1\times \GO_{q-1})$.
In particular, it is not, properly speaking a product of symmetric spaces even though its restricted root system does decompose as $A_1\times A_1$.
Let $\alpha$ and $\beta$ denote the simple restricted roots corresponding the first and second factor of $G$.
We denote by $\alpha^{\vee}$ and $\beta^{\vee}$ the corresponding simple restricted coroots.
Note that the multiplicity of the restricted root $\alpha$ is $p-2$ and the multiplicity of $\beta$ is $q-2$.

Given the restricted root system, it is easy to determine the combinatorial data associated to the spherical homogeneous space $G/H$.
The \emph{spherical lattice} $\mathcal{M}$ is the unique proper lattice sandwiched between the restricted weight lattice and the restricted root lattice for the restricted root system of type $A_1\times A_1$.
It is thus generated by $\alpha$ and $\frac{1}{2}(\alpha+\beta)$.
The \emph{valuation cone $\mathcal{V}$} is the negative restricted Weyl chamber.
The \emph{colors} are in bijection with simple restricted roots and the image of the \emph{color map} is the set of simple restricted coroots.
The description of colors in the last sentence is not immediate as it is not immediate that the color map is injective.
However, it follows for example from the description of the Picard group which will follow in the next section, as the quadric is a Picard rank one manifold.

\subsubsection{Colored fans and embeddings}
The colored fan of the quadric consists of the following colored cones:
\begin{itemize}
\item the point $(\{0\},\emptyset)$, for the open orbit,
\item the ray $(-\mathbb{R}_+ (\alpha^{\vee}+\beta^{\vee}),\emptyset)$ for the codimension one orbit,
\item $(\Cone(\alpha^{\vee},-(\alpha^{\vee}+\beta^{\vee})),\{\alpha^{\vee}\})$ for the subquadric $\text{Q}^{q-2}$,
\item and $(\Cone(\beta^{\vee},-(\alpha^{\vee}+\beta^{\vee})),\{\beta^{\vee}\})$ for the subquadric $\text{Q}^{p-2}$.
\end{itemize}

To obtain the colored fan of the blow up $\blQQ{n}{p}$ of the quadric along $\text{Q}^{p-2}$, one needs only replace the last cone by $(\Cone(-\alpha^{\vee},-(\alpha^{\vee}+\beta^{\vee})),\emptyset)$ and add the ray $(-\mathbb{R}_+ \alpha^{\vee}, \emptyset)$ (see Figure~\ref{fig_colfan}).

\begin{figure}
\centering
\caption{Colored fans of the quadric and its blow-up}
\label{fig_colfan}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\fill[color=gray!20] (-2,0) -- (0,0) -- (2,2) -- (-2,2) -- cycle;
\fill[color=gray!20] (-2,0) -- (0,0) -- (2,-2) -- (-2,-2) -- cycle;
\draw [dotted] (-2,-2) grid[xstep=1,ystep=1] (2,2);
\draw (0,0) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (1,1) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (1,1) node[below right]{$\beta^{\vee}$};
\draw (1,-1) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (1,-1) node[above right]{$\alpha^{\vee}$};
\draw [thick] (-2,0) -- (0,0);
\draw [thick] (2,2) -- (0,0);
\draw [thick] (2,-2) -- (0,0);
\draw [thick, dashed] (-2,2) -- (0,0);
\draw [thick, dashed] (-2,-2) -- (0,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\qquad
\begin{tikzpicture}
\fill[color=gray!20] (-2,0) -- (0,0) -- (-2,2) -- cycle;
\fill[color=gray!20] (-2,0) -- (0,0) -- (2,-2) -- (-2,-2) -- cycle;
\draw [dotted] (-2,-2) grid[xstep=1,ystep=1] (2,2);
\draw (0,0) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (1,1) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (1,1) node[below right]{$\beta^{\vee}$};
\draw (1,-1) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (1,-1) node[above right]{$\alpha^{\vee}$};
\draw [thick] (-2,0) -- (0,0);
\draw [thick] (-2,2) -- (0,0);
\draw [thick] (2,-2) -- (0,0);
\draw [thick, dashed] (-2,-2) -- (0,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Combinatorial data associated to divisors}

\subsubsection{Picard group, isotropy characters and polytopes}

The Picard group of $\blQQ{n}{p}$ is generated by: the two colors $D_{\alpha}$ and $D_{\beta}$ whose image under the color map are respectively $\alpha^{\vee}$ and $\beta^{\vee}$, and the $G$-invariant divisors $D_{d}$ and $D_e$, whose image in $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathbb{R})^*$ are respectively $-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{\vee}+\beta^{\vee})$ and $-\alpha^{\vee}$.
There are two relations, given by $2(D_{\alpha}-D_e)-D_d=0$ and $D_{\alpha}+D_{\beta}-D_e-D_d$.
Since we are not interested in integrality issues, we write $\mathbb{R}$-divisors as combinations of the two $G$-invariant divisors:
\[ D(a_d,a_e)=a_dD_d+a_eD_e, \]
and note that any such divisor is \emph{special} and has trivial isotropy character.
The special polytope and moment polytope thus coincide and live in $\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathbb{R}$, where they are given by
\[ \Delta(a_d,a_e)= \left\{ x \alpha+ y \beta \mid 0\leq x \leq \frac{a_e}{2}, \quad 0\leq y, \quad x+y \leq a_d \right\}. \]

Knowing the restricted root system (with multiplicities), it is easy to determine the anticanonical divisor, which is here $D(\frac{p+q}{2}-1,p-1)$.
Note also for later use that the half-sum of positive restricted roots with multiplicities is $(\frac{p}{2}-1)\alpha+(\frac{q}{2}-1)\beta$.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\caption{Moment polytope for $\blQQ{n}{p}$}
\label{fig_polblQQ}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\newcommand*\multun{4}
\newcommand*\multdeux{6}
\newcommand*\size{.6}
\draw [dotted] (-1*\size,{-(1+\multun/2)*\size}) grid[xstep=\size,ystep=\size] ({(1+\multdeux)*\size},{(1+\multdeux)*\size});
\draw (0,0) node{$\bullet$};
\draw [very thick, ->] (0,0) -- (\size,-\size) node[below left]{$\alpha$};
\draw [very thick, ->] (0,0) -- (\size,\size) node[above left]{$\beta$};
\draw [very thick] (0,0) -- ({(\multun+1)*\size/2},{-(\multun+1)*\size/2}) -- ({(\multun+\multdeux+2)*\size/2},{(\multdeux-\multun)*\size/2}) -- ({(\multun+\multdeux+2)*\size/2},{(\multun+\multdeux+2)*\size/2}) -- cycle;
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

\subsubsection{Duistermaat-Heckman polynomial and barycenters}
Up to a multiplicative constant, the Duistermaat-Heckman polynomial is
\begin{align*}
P_{DH}(x\alpha+y\beta) & = \killing{\alpha}{x\alpha+y\beta}^{p-2}\killing{\beta}{x\alpha+y\beta}^{q-2} \\
& = (2x)^{p-2}(2y)^{q-2}
\end{align*}
we set the following notation for the barycenter of moment polytopes with respect to $P_{DH}$ and an arbitrary Lebesgue measure $\mathrm{d} p$.
\[ \barDH(a_d,a_e) = \frac{\int_{\Delta(a_d,a_e)}pP_{DH}(p)\mathrm{d} p}{\int_{\Delta(a_d,a_e)}P_{DH}(p)\mathrm{d} p} \]

\subsection{Existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics}

The notation $k=p-1$, $l=q-1$ used in the following are introduced for convenience in the proofs.
With these notations, $p-2=k-1$ is the multiplicity of one of the restricted roots and $q-2=l-1$ is the multiplicity of the other.
The Duistermaat-Heckman polynomial is thus, up to a constant, $P_{DH}(x\alpha+y\beta)=x^{k-1}y^{l-1}$.

\subsubsection{Non-existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics}

Set, for $k$, $l$ in $\mathbb{N}_{\geq 2}$,
\begin{equation*}
I(k,l):= \int_{x=0}^k \int_{y=0}^{k+l-x} (x-(k-1))x^{k-1}y^{l-1} \mathrm{d} y \mathrm{d} x.
\end{equation*}

\begin{thm}
The expression $I(k,l)$ is negative for $k\in \mathbb{N}_{>2}$ and $l\in \mathbb{N}{\geq 2}$.
\end{thm}

The direct translation in geometrical terms justifies the K-unstable members of the family, a major step in proving Theorem~\ref{thm_blQ}:
\begin{cor}
The Fano manifold $\blQQ{n}{p}=\Bl_{Q^{p-2}}(Q^{n-2})$ does not admit a Kähler-Einstein metric if $3<p\leq n-3$.
\end{cor}
It is a direct consequence from this and the fact that $G$ is semisimple that there cannot exist any Kähler-Ricci soliton or Mabuchi metrics on these manifolds (the soliton or Mabuchi vector field must commute with the action of $G$ hence is zero here).
Furthermore, the above Theorem has a more precise interpretation: from \cite{DelKSSV} we deduce that $\blQQ{n}{p}$ is not K-semistable, or similarly from \cite{DH} we deduce that the greatest Ricci lower bound $R(\blQQ{n}{p})$ is strictly less than $1$.

\begin{proof}
We first derive an explicit formula for the integral.
Integration in the $y$ variable yields
\begin{equation*}
I(k,l)= \int_0^k (x^k-(k-1)x^{k-1})\frac{(k+l-x)^l}{l} \mathrm{d} x
\end{equation*}
Using the change of variables $t=\frac{x}{k}$, we have
\begin{equation*}
I(k,l)= \frac{k^{k+l+1}}{l} \int_0^1 \left( t^k-\frac{k-1}{k}t^{k-1} \right) \left( 1-t+\frac{l}{k} \right)^l \mathrm{d} t
\end{equation*}
By the binomial formula applied to $\left( 1-t+\frac{l}{k} \right)^l$, we write this as a sum
\begin{equation*}
\frac{k^{k+l+1}}{l} \sum_{j=0}^l {l \choose j} \frac{l^{l-j}}{k^{l-j}} \left( B(k+1,j+1)-\frac{k-1}{k}B(k,j+1) \right)
\end{equation*}
where $B$ denotes the \emph{beta function}, defined by
\begin{align*}
B(a,b)& =\int_0^1 t^{a-1}(1-t)^{b-1}\mathrm{d} t \\
& = \frac{(a-1)!(b-1)!}{(a+b-1)!} \quad \text{ at positive integers } a, b
\end{align*}

Let $A_j$ denote the $j$-th summand, so that $lk^{-(k+l+1)}I(k,l)=\sum_{j=0}^lA_j$.
We simplify a bit the expression of the summands:
\begin{align*}
A_j & = {l \choose j} \frac{l^{l-j}}{k^{l-j}} \left( \frac{k!j!}{(k+j+1)!}-\frac{k-1}{k}\frac{(k-1)!j!}{(k+j)!} \right) \\
& = {l \choose j} \frac{l^{l-j}}{k^{l-j+1}} \frac{(k-1)!j!}{(k+j+1)!}\left( k^2-(k-1)(k+j+1) \right) \\
& = {l \choose j} \frac{l^{l-j}}{k^{l-j+1}} \frac{(k-1)!j!}{(k+j+1)!}(j(1-k)+1)
\end{align*}
The major advantage of this expression (over the numerous different ways to compute the integral) is that for $k\geq 3$, all but the first term are negative.
It thus suffices to compensate the positive first term with some of the negative terms to conclude.

For most cases, it is enough to consider the first two summands:
\begin{align*}
A_0+A_1 & = \frac{l^l}{k^{l+1}}\frac{1}{k(k+1)} + l\frac{l^{l-1}}{k^{l}}\frac{2-k}{k(k+1)(k+2)} \\
& = \frac{l^l}{k^{l+2}(k+1)(k+2)}\left(-k^2+3k+2 \right)
\end{align*}
The polynomial $-x^2+3x+2$ is negative for $x>\frac{3+\sqrt{17}}{2}$, hence $A_0+A_1$ is negative for $k\geq 4$.

For the case $k=3$, we consider the additional summand $A_2$. We compute
\begin{align*}
A_0+A_1+A_2=\frac{l^{l-1}}{36\cdot 3^l}(-5l+9)
\end{align*}
and this is negative for $l>\frac{9}{5}$ hence in particular for $l\geq 2$.
\end{proof}

\subsubsection{Existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics}

\begin{thm}
We have, for all $l\in \mathbb{N}_{\geq 2}$,
\begin{align*}
J(l):=\int_{x=0}^2\int_{y=0}^{2+l-x} x(y-(l-1))y^{l-1} \mathrm{d} y \mathrm{d} x & >0 \\
I(l):= \int_{x=0}^2\int_{y=0}^{2+l-x} x(x-1)y^{l-1} \mathrm{d} y \mathrm{d} x & >0
\end{align*}
\end{thm}

The geometrical translation of the above statement finishes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_blQ} in the cases $3\leq p\leq n-3$.

\begin{proof}
Let us start with the first inequality. We compute \begin{align*}
J(l) & = \int_0^2 x\left( \frac{(2+l-x)^{l+1}}{l+1}-(l-1)\frac{(2+l-x)^{l}}{l} \right) \mathrm{d} x \\
& = \int_l^{l+2} \frac{t^l}{l(l+1)}\left(-lt^2+(2l^2+2l-1)t-(l+2)(l^2-1) \right) \mathrm{d} t \\
& = \frac{(l+2)^{l+1}(4l^2+7l-2)-l^{l+1}(-4l^2+l+12)}{l(l+1)(l+2)(l+3)}
\end{align*}
Note that, for $l\geq 2$, $4l^2+7l-2$ is positive, and $(l+2)^{l+1}>l^{l+1}$, so we have
\begin{align*}
l^{-l}(l+1)(l+2)(l+3)J(l) & >(4l^2+7l-2)-(-4l^2+l+12) \\
& > 8l^2+6l-14.
\end{align*}
It is easy to check that the latter polynomial is positive for $l>1$ hence \emph{a~fortiori} for $l\geq 2$.

For the second inequality, we compute using the same method
\begin{align*}
I(l) & = \frac{(l+2)^{l+2}-(7l+12)l^{l+1}}{(l+2)(l+3)} \\
& = \frac{(l+2)^{l+2}}{(l+2)(l+3)}\left( 1-\left( 1-\frac{2}{l+2} \right)^{l+2}\frac{7l+12}{l} \right)
\end{align*}
By a classical inequality, $\left(1-\frac{2}{l+2} \right)^{l+2}<e^{-2}$, hence it is enough to have
\begin{equation*}
7l+12<le^2.
\end{equation*}
The inequality above is satisfied as long as $l\geq 31$ and the statement is proved in these cases.
It remains to check a finite number of cases (for $2\leq l\leq 30$).
We omit the details as it is tedious and without difficulty.
\end{proof}

\section{Remaining cases of blow-ups of quadrics along a linear subquadric}
\label{sec_BlQred}

\subsection{Description of the manifolds}

In this last section, we consider the same manifolds $\blQQ{n}{p}$ as in the last section, but assuming now $3\leq p=n-2$.
The group $G=\SO_{n-2}\times\SO_2=\SO_{n-2}\times \mathbb{C}^*$ is not semisimple, and there are more orbits in the quadric:
the zero-dimensional quadric $Q^0$ consists of \emph{two} orbits of $G$,
there is still the closed orbit $Q^{n-4}$,
there are \emph{two} codimension one orbits, formed by points whose projections belong to $Q^{n-4}$ and one point in $Q^0$,
and finally the complement of all these lower dimensional orbits is the open dense orbit.

We will be interested in the blow-ups of $Q^{n-2}$ along $Q^{n-4}$, the blow-up along $Q^0$, and the blow up along a single point (which is one half of $Q^0$).

\subsection{Combinatorial data associated to the manifolds}

\subsubsection{The open orbit}

The open dense orbit is a (reductive) symmetric space of type $A_1$ and rank two.
The simple root is denoted, consistently with the previous section, by $\alpha$.
Its multiplicity is $p-2=n-4$.
The spherical lattice $\mathcal{M}$ is generated by some element $\varpi \in \mathfrak{X}(T/(T\cap [G,G]))$ and $\frac{\varpi+\alpha}{2}$
The valuation cone $\mathcal{V}$ is still the negative restricted Weyl chamber, defined here by $\alpha\leq 0$ in $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathbb{R})^*$.
There is a single color $D_{\alpha}$ which is sent to $\alpha^{\vee}$ by the color map.
Let $f$ be the element of $(\mathcal{M}\otimes\mathbb{R})^*$ defined by $\alpha(f)=0$ and $\varpi(f)=2$, so that $f$ and $\frac{f+\alpha^{\vee}}{2}$ generate the lattice dual to $\mathcal{M}$.

\subsubsection{Colored fans and embeddings}
The colored fan of the quadric is formed by the following cones:
\begin{itemize}
\item $(\{0\},\emptyset)$ corresponding to the open dense orbit,
\item the ray $(\mathbb{R}_+ (f-\alpha^{\vee}),\emptyset)$ corresponding to a codimension one orbit whose closure we denote by $D_+$,
\item the ray $(-\mathbb{R}_+ (f+\alpha^{\vee}),\emptyset)$ corresponding to a codimension one orbit whose closure we denote by $D_-$,
\item the colorless cone $(\Cone(f-\alpha^{\vee},-f-\alpha^{\vee}),\emptyset)$ corresponding to $Q^{n-4}$
\item the colored cone $(\Cone(\alpha^{\vee},f-\alpha^{\vee}),\{\alpha^{\vee}\})$ corresponding to one point in $Q^0$,
\item and the colored cone $(\Cone(\alpha^{\vee},-f-\alpha^{\vee}),\{\alpha^{\vee}\})$ corresponding to the other point in $Q^0$.
\end{itemize}
To obtain the colored fans of the blow-ups, it suffices to make the obvious modifications while adding:
\begin{itemize}
\item the ray $(\pm\mathbb{R}_+ f,\emptyset)$ for the blow-up at one point of $Q^0$, or both for the blow-up along the full $Q^0$, we denote by $E_{\pm}$ the corresponding divisors,
\item the ray $(-\mathbb{R}_+ \alpha^{\vee},\emptyset)$ for the blow-up at $Q^{n-4}$, we denote by $E$ the corresponding divisor.
\end{itemize}

The images of the above divisors in $(\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathbb{R})^*$ are as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig_colorsQ}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\caption{Images of divisors in $(\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathbb{R})^*$}
\label{fig_colorsQ}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [dotted] (-2,-2) grid[xstep=1,ystep=1] (2,2);
\draw [thick, ->] (0,0) -- (1,-1);
\draw (.7,-.7) node[left]{$\alpha^{\vee}$};
\draw [thick, ->] (0,0) -- (1,1);
\draw (.5,.5) node[right]{$f$};
\draw (1,1) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (1,1) node[above right]{$E_+$};
\draw (-1,-1) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (-1,-1) node[below left]{$E_-$};
\draw (0,1) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (0,1) node[above]{$D_+$};
\draw (-1,0) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (-1,0) node[left]{$D_-$};
\draw (1,-1) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (1,-1) node[below right]{$D_{\alpha}$};
\draw (-1,1) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (-1,1) node[above left]{$E$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Combinatorial data associated to divisors}

\subsubsection{Picard group, isotropy characters and polytopes:}
The Picard group of the blow-up of $Q^{n-2}$ along $Q^{n-4}$ is generated by $D_+$, $D_-$, $D_{\alpha}$, and $E$, with the relations $D_-=D_+$ and $D_++D_-+2E-2D_{\alpha}=0$.
It is convenient to represent the $\mathbb{R}$-divisors as combinations
\[ D_e(a,a_e)=a(D_++D_-)+a_eE \]
with $a$, $a_e\in \mathbb{R}$.
They are special divisors, with trivial isotropy characters.
The corresponding special (or moment) polytope is
\[ \Delta_e(a,a_e)=\{ x\alpha+y\varpi \mid 0\leq x\leq \frac{a_e}{2}, \quad x-a\leq y\leq a-x  \}. \]
The divisor $D_e(a,a_e)$ is ample if and only if $0<a_e<2a$.
The anticanonical divisor is $D_e(\frac{n}{2}-1,n-3)$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\caption{The polytope $\Delta_e(a,a_e)$}
\label{fig_polQn4}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [dotted] (-3,-3) grid[xstep=1,ystep=1] (3,3);
\draw (0,0) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (0,0) node[above left]{$0$};
\draw [thick] (-2,-2) -- (1,-2) -- (2,-1) -- (2,2) -- cycle;
\draw (1.5,-1.5) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (1.5,-1.5) node[below right]{$\frac{a_e}{2}\alpha$};
\draw (2,2) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (2,2) node[above right]{$a\varpi$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

We now consider the blow-up of $Q^{n-2}$ along one point of $Q^0$, say the one whose exceptional divisor we denoted by $E_+$.
The relations in the Picard group are $2E_++D_+-D_-=0$ and $2D_{\alpha_1}-D_+-D_-=0$.
We may then write any $\mathbb{R}$-divisor as combinations
\[ D_+(a,a_+)=a(D_++D_-)+a_+E_+ \]
with $a$, $a_+\in \mathbb{R}$.
They are special divisors, with trivial isotropy characters.
The corresponding special (or moment) polytope is
\[ \Delta_+(a,a_+)=\left\{ x\alpha+y\varpi \mid 0\leq x, \quad \frac{-a_+}{2} \leq y, \quad x-a\leq y\leq a-x  \right\}. \]
The divisor $D_+(a,a_+)$ is ample if and only if $0<a_+<2a$.
The anticanonical divisor is $D_+(\frac{n}{2}-1,1)$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\caption{The polytope $\Delta_+(a,a_+)$}
\label{fig_polBlQpt}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [dotted] (-3,-3) grid[xstep=1,ystep=1] (3,3);
\draw (0,0) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (0,0) node[above left]{$0$};
\draw [thick] (-1,-1) -- (0,-2) -- (2,-2) -- (2,2) -- cycle;
\draw (2,-2) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (2,-2) node[below right]{$a\alpha$};
\draw (-1,-1) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (-1,-1) node[below left]{$-\frac{a_+}{2}\varpi$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

We now consider the blow-up of $Q^{n-2}$ along both points of $Q^0$.
The relations are now $2(E_+-E_-)+D_+-D_-=0$ and $2D_{\alpha_1}-(D_++D_-)=0$.
We may then write any $\mathbb{R}$-divisor as combinations
\[ D_{\pm}(a,a_+,a_-)=a(D_++D_-)+a_+E_+ +a_-E_- \]
with $a$, $a_+$, $a_-\in \mathbb{R}$.
They are special divisors, with trivial isotropy characters.
The corresponding special (or moment) polytope is
\[ \Delta_{\pm}(a,a_+,a_-)=\left\{ x\alpha+y\varpi \mid 0\leq x, \quad \frac{-a_+}{2} \leq y \leq \frac{a_-}{2}, \quad x-a\leq y\leq a-x  \right\}. \]
The divisor $D_{\pm}(a,a_+,a_-)$ is ample if and only if $0<a_+<2a$ and $0<a_-<2a$.
The anticanonical divisor is $D_{\pm}(\frac{n}{2}-1,1,1)$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\caption{The polytope $\Delta_{\pm}(a,a_+,a_-)$}
\label{fig_polBlQ2pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [dotted] (-3,-3) grid[xstep=1,ystep=1] (3,3);
\draw (0,0) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (0,0) node[above left]{$0$};
\draw [thick] (-1,-1) -- (0,-2) -- (2,-2) -- (2,1) -- (1.5,1.5) -- cycle;
\draw (2,-2) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (2,-2) node[below right]{$a\alpha$};
\draw (-1,-1) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (-1,-1) node[below left]{$-\frac{a_+}{2}\varpi$};
\draw (1.5,1.5) node{$\bullet$};
\draw (1.5,1.5) node[above right]{$\frac{a_-}{2}\varpi$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

\subsubsection{Duistermaat-Heckman polynomial and barycenters}
Up to a multiplicative constant, the Duistermaat-Heckman polynomial is
\begin{align*}
P_{DH}(x\alpha+y\varpi) & = \killing{\alpha}{x\alpha+y\varpi}^{n-4} \\
& = (2x)^{n-4}
\end{align*}
The half sum of restricted roots is $(\frac{n}{2}-2)\alpha_1$

We set the following notations for the barycenters of the several blow-ups of $Q^{n-2}$:
\begin{align*}
\barDH_e(a,a_e)& =\frac{\int_{\Delta_e(a,a_e)}pP_{DH}(p)\mathrm{d} p}{\int_{\Delta_e(a,a_e)}P_{DH}(p)\mathrm{d} p} \\
\barDH_+(a,a_+)& =\frac{\int_{\Delta_+(a,a_+)}pP_{DH}(p)\mathrm{d} p}{\int_{\Delta_+(a,a_+)}P_{DH}(p)\mathrm{d} p} \\
\barDH_{\pm}(a,a_+,a_-)& =\frac{\int_{\Delta_{\pm}(a,a_+,a_-)}pP_{DH}(p)\mathrm{d} p}{\int_{\Delta_{\pm}(a,a_+,a_-)}P_{DH}(p)\mathrm{d} p} \\
\end{align*}

\subsection{Existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics for blow-ups along a full quadric}

We will now finish the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_blQ}.

\subsubsection{Case of $\Bl_{Q^{n-4}}Q^{n-2}$}

Set
\begin{align*}
I_V & = \int_{x=0}^{n-3}\int_{y=x-n+2}^{n-2-x}x^{n-4} \mathrm{d} y \mathrm{d} x \\
I_{\alpha} & = \int_{x=0}^{n-3}\int_{y=x-n+2}^{n-2-x}x^{n-3} \mathrm{d} y \mathrm{d} x \\
I_{\varpi} & = \int_{x=0}^{n-3}\int_{y=x-n+2}^{n-2-x}yx^{n-4} \mathrm{d} y \mathrm{d} x
\end{align*}
then $\Bl_{Q^{n-4}}(Q^{n-2})$ is Kähler-Einstein if and only if
\[ I_{\varpi}=0 \qquad \text{and} \qquad \frac{I_{\alpha}}{I_V}>n-4. \]
The vanishing $I_{\varpi}=0$ is obvious by symmetry with respect to the reflection leaving $\mathbb{R}\varpi$ invariant, while a straightforward computation yields
\[ \frac{I_{\alpha}}{I_V}= \frac{2(n-3)^2(n-2)}{(n-1)(2n-5)}. \]
Then $\frac{I_{\alpha}}{I_V}>n-4$ is equivalent to $7n^2-11n+2>0$ which is true for $n>\frac{11+\sqrt{65}}{14}$ hence certainly for all $n\geq 5$.
So we have proved that $\Bl_{Q^{n-4}}Q^{n-2}$ is Kähler-Einstein for all $n\geq 5$.

\subsubsection{Case of $\Bl_{Q^{0}}Q^{n-2}$}

Here there is an obvious symmetry of the polytope yielding the vanishing of the Futaki character, hence no obstruction in the direction of $\varpi$.
It remains to check the inequality
\[ \frac{I_{\alpha}}{I_{V}}-(n-4)>0 \]
where
\begin{align*}
I_V & = 2\int_{y=0}^{1}\int_{x=0}^{n-2-y}x^{n-4} \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} y \\
I_{\alpha} & = 2\int_{y=0}^{1}\int_{x=0}^{n-2-y}x^{n-3} \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} y.
\end{align*}
We have, by computation of the integrals,
\begin{align*}
\frac{I_{\alpha}}{I_{V}}& = \frac{(n-3)\left((n-2)^{n-1}-(n-3)^{n-1}\right)}{(n-1)\left((n-2)^{n-2}-(n-3)^{n-2}\right)} \\
\end{align*}

Using the fact that
\[ \left((n-2)^{n-1}-(n-3)^{n-1}\right)>(n-2)\left((n-2)^{n-2}-(n-3)^{n-2}\right)\]
the previous inequality is implied by
\[ (n-3)(n-2)-(n-4)(n-1)>0 \]
which is true (recall that we can assume $n\geq 5$ throughout).
We have proved that $\Bl_{Q^{0}}Q^{n-2}$ is Kähler-Einstein.

\subsection{There are no Mabuchi metrics on $\Bl_{\text{pt}}Q^{n-2}$}

We finally consider the blow-up of $Q^{n-2}$ at a point.
There is an obvious lack of symmetry in the polytope (even with respect to the Duistermaat-Heckman measure) which ensures the the Futaki character will not vanish.
Hence there are no Kähler-Einstein metrics on $\Bl_{\text{pt}}Q^{n-2}$.
An even shorter proof is that the automorphism group is not reductive.
We prove in fact a stronger result:
\begin{thm}
For $n\geq 5$, the blow-up of $Q^{n-2}$ at one point does not admit Mabuchi metrics.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
By \cite{DH} and the combinatorial description above, there exists a Mabuchi metric on $\Bl_{\text{pt}}Q^{n-2}$ if and only if we can find a linear function $y\mapsto Ay+B$ with $0\neq A$, $B\in \mathbb{R}$, such that the following three conditions are satisfied:
\[ \left(\int_{y=\frac{-1}{2}}^{0}\int_{x=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}+y} +\int_{y=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}}\int_{x=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}-y}\right) y(Ay+B)x^{n-4} \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} y  =0, \]
\[ \left(\int_{y=\frac{-1}{2}}^{0}\int_{x=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}+y} +\int_{y=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}}\int_{x=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}-y}\right) (x-\frac{n-4}{2})(Ay+B)x^{n-4} \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} y =0, \]
and
\[ \frac{-B}{A} < \frac{-1}{2} \quad \text{ or } \quad \frac{-B}{A} >\frac{n-2}{2}. \]
We will show that when the first condition is satisfied, the third condition is violated.
Assume $A$ and $B$ are such that the first condition is satisfied.
Then $\frac{-B}{A}$ is equal to
\[ \frac{\left(\int_{y=\frac{-1}{2}}^{0}\int_{x=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}+y} +\int_{y=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}}\int_{x=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}-y}\right) y^2x^{n-4} \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} y}{\left(\int_{y=\frac{-1}{2}}^{0}\int_{x=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}+y} +\int_{y=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}}\int_{x=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}-y}\right) yx^{n-4} \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} y} \]
The numerator is obviously positive, and the denominator is positive thanks to the lack of symmetry, and comparison with the Kähler-Einstein case of $\Bl_{Q^{0}}Q^{n-2}$.
In order to show that there are no Mabuchi metrics, it thus suffices to show that
\[ \left(\int_{y=\frac{-1}{2}}^{0}\int_{x=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}+y} +\int_{y=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}}\int_{x=0}^{\frac{n-2}{2}-y}\right)
y(y-\frac{n-2}{2})x^{n-4} \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} y \leq 0. \]
Integrating, then multiplying by $2^n n(n-1)(n-3)$, this is equivalent to
\[ 4(n-2)^{n-1}-(n-3)^{n-2}(2n^2+n-9) \leq 0. \]
Since
\[ \left(\frac{n-2}{n-3}\right)^{n-3}=\left(1-\frac{1}{n-3}\right)^{n-3}\leq e^{-1}, \]
the inequality is implied by
\[ 0\leq 2n^3-9n^2+4n+11 \]
which certainly holds for $n\geq 5$.
We have shown that $\Bl_{\text{pt}}Q^{n-2}$ admits no Mabuchi metrics (for $n\geq 5$).
\end{proof}

\bibliographystyle{plain}


\section{Introduction}
\label{sect1}

Understanding the physical mechanism behind the recent acceleration of the universe is among the most pressing tasks of observational cosmology. Whether this mechanism is a cosmological constant or a new dynamical degree of freedom---describing an additional fluid or a modification in the large-scale behaviour of gravity---is still unknown, and major observational efforts are in progress to address the issue \cite{Huterer}.

One of the natural extensions of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity consists in allowing for the presence of spacetime torsion. This was first considered almost one century ago by Cartan \cite{Cartan}, and had a brief revival of interest in the 1960s due to seminal works by Kibble and Sciama \cite{Kibble,Sciama}, but its observational consequences are relatively unexplored. In the modern cosmological context, it is interesting to note that the form of underlying torsion tensor can be chosen such that the homogeneity and isotropy of Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker universes is preserved \cite{Tsamparlis}. This scenario has been recently reconsidered \cite{Torsion1} and it has been noted that such universes may undergo accelerating phases \cite{Torsion2}.

Here we use recent low-redshift data, coming from the Pantheon Type Ia Supernova compilation by Riess {\it et al.} \cite{Riess} and the compilation of 38 Hubble parameter measurements by Farooq {\it et al.} \cite{Farooq} to constrain this class of models. We start by considering models without a cosmological constant (where torsion would be expected to yield the current acceleration of the universe) finding that these are strongly disfavoured by the data. To the extent that a comparison is possible, our results here are in agreement with other recent work \cite{Pereira}, which uses different assumptions and data (as we discuss below). We then treat these models under a more general assumption that they are one-parameter extensions of $\Lambda$CDM, constraining the relative contribution of torsion to the level of a few percent (in appropriate units, also defined below). We also briefly discuss how these constraints may be improved by forthcoming low-redshift data, specifically from a combination of next generation supernova measurements from WFIRST and novel measurements of the redshift drift of cosmological objects following the Hubble flow from the ELT.

The plan of the rest of the work is as follows. We start by briefly describing the derivation of the Einstein and continuity equations for these models in Sect. \ref{sect2}, and also comment on the steady-state torsion parametrization which we will use in most of what follows. Constraints on these models from the aforementioned current data are presented in Sect. \ref{sect3}, while in Sect. \ref{sect4} we look beyond the current status and present forecasts for analogous constraints from next-generation experiments. In Sect. \ref{sect5} we briefly study and constrain an alternative to the steady-state torsion parametrization (in order to test how generic are the results obtained with our primary choice of parametrization), and finally we present some conclusions in Sect. \ref{sect6}

\section{Homogeneous and isotropic models with torsion}
\label{sect2}

Spatially homogeneous and isotropic cosmologies including torsion have recently been studied in \cite{Torsion1,Torsion2}. In theories with torsion there is a further degree of freedom (in addition to the usual metric), which also gravitates. While there is at present no experimental or observational evidence for the presence of this degree of freedom, it is important to study its possible effects, and here we do this for the recent universe. The torsion field can be chosen such as to preserve the homogeneity and isotropy of Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker models \cite{Tsamparlis}, and as recently discussed in \cite{Torsion1,Torsion2} torsion can play a non-trivial cosmological role and in some cases lead to accelerating universes. In what follows we briefly summarize the results of these theoretical works, leading to the Friedmann, Raychaudhuri and continuity equations for these models, which will be the starting point of our observational analysis.

Mathematically, the torsion tensor $S^\xi_{\mu\nu}$ is defined as the antisymmetric part of the affine connection,
\begin{equation}
S^\xi_{\mu\nu}=\Gamma^\xi_{[\mu\nu]}\,;
\end{equation}
the symmetric part of the connection are the usual Christoffel symbols. Physically, this defines relation between the intrinsic angular momentum (i.e., the spin) of matter with the geometric properties of the underlying spacetime. The only non-trivial contraction of the torsion tensor is the torsion vector, $S_\mu=S^\nu_{\mu\nu}$. The general field equations including torsion are known as the Einstein-Cartan equations. Nominally the Einstein equations retain the usual form
\begin{equation}
R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu\nu}+\Lambda g_{\mu\nu} =\kappa T_{\mu\nu}\,,
\end{equation}
where $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric, $R_{\mu\nu}$ and $R$ are the Ricci tensor and scalar, $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor, $\Lambda$ is Einstein's cosmological constant and $\kappa=8\pi G$. However, note that the presence of torsion implies that the Ricci tensor and the energy-momentum tensor are not symmetric. The Cartan equations relate the torsion tensor to the spin tensor, denoted $s_{\mu\nu\xi}$, as follows
\begin{equation}
S_{\mu\nu\xi}=-\frac{\kappa}{4}\left(2s_{\nu\xi\mu}+g_{\xi\mu}s_\nu-g_{\mu\nu}s\xi \right)\,,
\end{equation}
and similarly for the torsion and spin vectors one has $S_\mu=-\kappa s_\mu/4$.

Generically speaking, models containing torsion do not lead to homogeneous and isotropic universes. However, as discussed in \cite{Tsamparlis}, there is a particular choice of torsion tensor which does lead to such universes. It is convenient to define it by considering a $3+1$ spacetime decomposition, introducing a timelike 4-velocity field $u_\mu$ (satisfying $u_\mu u^\mu=-1$) and using it to decompose the metric into $g_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}-u_\mu u_\nu$, with the tensor $h_{\mu\nu}$ being symmetric and orthogonal to the vector $u_\mu$. With these definitions, the required torsion tensor has the form
\begin{equation}
S_{\mu\nu\xi}=2\phi(t) h_{\mu[\nu}u_{\xi]}\,;
\end{equation}
the scalar function $\phi$ must depend only on time (a spatial dependence would violate the homogeneity assumption), but is otherwise arbitrary.

Making the standard assumption of treating the metric and the torsion as independent objects, the line element of a FRW-like spacetime with torsion should be the same as in the standard Riemann case, namely
\begin{equation}
d{\cal s}^2=-dt^2+a^2\left[\frac{dr^2}{1-Kr^2}+r^2d\Omega^2\right]\,,
\end{equation}
where $a$ is the scale factor and $K$ is the 3-curvature. Standard computational techniques then lead to the following Friedmann, Raychaudhuri and continuity equations \cite{Torsion1,Torsion2}
\begin{equation}
H^2=\frac{1}{3}\kappa\rho-\frac{K}{a^2}+\frac{1}{3}\Lambda-4\phi^2-4H\phi
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\ddot a}{a}=-\frac{1}{6}(\rho+3p)+\frac{1}{3}\Lambda-2{\dot\phi}-2H\phi
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\dot\rho}=-3H\left(1+2\frac{\phi}{H}\right)(\rho+p)+4\phi\left(\rho+\frac{\Lambda}{\kappa}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
Here the dot denotes a derivative with respect to physical time, $H={\dot a}/a$ is the Hubble parameter, and finally $\rho$ and $p$ are the density and pressure. In what follows we will assume $K=0$ and barotropic fluids with a constant equation of state $p=w\rho$.

We can also define the usual present-day fractions of matter and dark energy, $\Omega_m=\kappa\rho_{0}/3H_0^2$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=\Lambda/3H_0^2$, and we can similarly define a torsion contribution
\begin{equation}\label{torphi}
\Omega_\phi=-4\left(\frac{\phi_0}{H_0}\right)\left[1+\frac{\phi_0}{H_0}\right]\,.
\end{equation}
In most of what follows we will make the usual simplifying assumption (also adopted in \cite{Torsion1,Pereira}, where it is dubbed steady-state torsion) that the relative torsion contribution to the expansion remains constant in time,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\phi}{H}=\lambda=const.\,,
\end{equation}
and we will usually express observational constraints directly in terms of the model parameter $\lambda$. The exception is Sect. \ref{sect5}, where we will briefly consider an alternative phenomenological parametrization for the torsion field $\phi$.

The analysis of \cite{Torsion1} leads to a bound from primordial nucleosynthesis of $-0.01\lesssim\lambda\lesssim0.02$ (in the absence of an explicit statement therein, we assume that this is a one-sigma bound). The more recent analysis of \cite{Pereira} uses models with up to 4 free parameters, assuming $\Lambda=0$ and $w=0$ throughout, but not assuming flat universes. Under those assumptions they find that scenarios with $\phi=const$ or $\phi\propto H$ are observationally disfavoured (we will confirm the latter below), and toy models with 3 or 4 free parameters would be needed in order to have realistic values of the matter density and Hubble constant (though such models will have strong degeneracies between some of these parameters). Our analysis differs in focusing on models with fewer and/or better motivated parameters: we will assume flat universes, but allow for non-zero values of the cosmological constant and of the matter equation of state.

For numerical purposes, in the following sections it is convenient to define a dimensionless density ($r$) via $\rho=r\rho_0$, as well as the dimensionless Hubble parameter $E=H/H_0$, and write the Friedmann and continuity equations as a function of redshift as follows
\begin{equation}
E^2(z)=1+\frac{r(z)-1}{(1+2\lambda)^2}\Omega_m
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
(1+z)\frac{dr}{dz}=3(1+w)r+2\lambda\left[2+(1+3w)r-\frac{2}{\Omega_m}(1+2\lambda)^2\right]\,,
\end{equation}
where we have made use of the flatness condition (leading to a relation between $\lambda$, $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ which allows us to eliminate the latter) and are also assuming that $\lambda\neq-1/2$ and $\Omega_m\neq0$. We will deal with the particularly simple case $\Omega_\Lambda=0$ separately at the beginning of the next section.

\section{Constraints from current data}
\label{sect3}

We now use recent low-redshift background cosmology data to constrain these models, under various different assumptions about the underlying parameter space. Specifically, we use two main data sets. The first is the compressed data from the Pantheon compilation \cite{Riess}. We note that the values reported in the arXiv and the published versions are slightly different; in what follows we used the values from the published version. The 1049 supernova measurements in the range $0<z<2.3$ are compressed into 6 correlated measurements of $E^{-1}(z)$ (where $E(z)$is again the dimensionless Hubble parameter) in the redshift range $0.07<z<1.5$. It has been shown \cite{Riess} that this compressed data set provides a nearly identical characterization of dark energy as the full supernova sample, thus making it an efficient compression of the raw data. Our second data set is the recent heterogeneous compilation of 38 Hubble parameter measurements in the redshift range  $0.07<z<2.36$ \cite{Farooq}.

We carried out a standard likelihood analysis with up to three different free parameters: $\Omega_m$, $\lambda$ and the equation of state $w$. We always assume uniform priors on $\lambda$ and $w$. For the matter density we will in some cases use a Planck-like prior, $\Omega_m=0.315\pm0.007$ \cite{Planck}, otherwise the prior is also uniform. Another relevant parameter is the Hubble constant, but this is always analytically marginalized in our analysis, following the procedure detailed in \cite{Basilakos}.

\subsection{No cosmological constant}

We start with the simple case $\Omega_\Lambda=0$. In this case the dimensionless Friedmann equation has the analytic solution
\begin{equation}
E^2(z)=(1+z)^{3(1+w)+2\lambda(1+3w)}\,;
\end{equation}
note that the matter density does not explicitly appear because it and $\lambda$ are not independent, being related by
\begin{equation}
\Omega_m=(1+2\lambda)^2\,.
\end{equation}
Clearly there will be a degeneracy between $\lambda$ and $w$, although it can be broken by a prior on the matter density---for which we will use Planck, as mentioned above. Figure \ref{fig1} summarizes the results of our analysis, without and with this prior. Note that in this and subsequent figures the pairs of panels are always displayed with identical axis ranges, to facilitate the comparison and highlight the impact of the prior.

\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure1a.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure1b.png}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig1}Constraints on the $\lambda$--$w$ parameter space for $\Omega_\Lambda=0$. Left and right panels are respectively for the cases without and with the Planck prior. The black lines represent the one, two and three sigma confidence levels, and the colormap depicts the reduced chi-square of the fit: for the best-fit choice of model parameters, this is respectively 2.78 and 2.71, confirming that this is a very poor fit to the data.}
\end{figure*}

The most striking result is that this is a very poor fit to the data: the reduced chi-squares for the best fit choice of parameters are respectively 2.78 without the prior and 2.71 with the prior. In the latter case the relation
\begin{equation}
\lambda=\frac{1}{2}(-1\pm\sqrt{\Omega_m})\,
\end{equation}
determines the two possible values for the torsion ratio, $\lambda=-0.22$ or $\lambda=-0.78$; these would correspond to $\Omega_\phi=1-\Omega_m\sim0.685$. The preferred values for the equation of state $w$ are -0.39 and -0.28 without the prior and -0.40 and -0.26 with the prior, respectively.

Having shown that these models can't be fundamental alternatives to $\Lambda$CDM, in which torsion would be responsible for the recent acceleration of the universe, we move on to consider the more phenomenological scenario where torsion is an extension of standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, enabling constraints on the observationally allowed amount of torsion.

\subsection{Cosmological constant with $w=0$}

We now return to the generic case where $\Omega_\Lambda$ need not vanish, so we are effectively treating these models as one-parameter extensions of $\Lambda$CDM, to which model they reduce when $\lambda=0$. We start by assuming that matter has the standard equation of state, $w=0$. As in the previous subsection will separately consider the cases without and with the aforementioned Planck prior on the matter density.

\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure2a.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure2b.png}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig2}Constraints on the $\lambda$--$\Omega_m$ parameter space for $w=0$.  Left and right panels are respectively for the cases without and with the Planck prior. The black lines represent the one, two and three sigma confidence levels, and the colormap depicts the reduced chi-square of the fit.}
\end{figure*}

Figure \ref{fig2} summarizes the results of this analysis. Starting with the case without the Planck prior, we find the following one-sigma posterior likelihoods for the two free parameters
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{w=0}=-0.07^{+0.05}_{-0.04}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{m,w=0}=0.18^{+0.06}_{-0.03}\,;
\end{equation}
there is a clear degeneracy between the two parameters, and there is a one-sigma preference for a non-zero (negative) $\lambda$, with a correspondingly smaller value of the matter density. However, at the two-sigma level the results are consistent with $\Lambda$CDM. The inclusion of the Planck prior breaks the degeneracy and significantly improves the constraints. Additionally (and unsurprisingly) the Planck prior makes the results more consistent with $\Lambda$CDM; the one-sigma posterior likelihood for the torsion parameter is found to be
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{(w=0, Planck)}=0.02^{+0.01}_{-0.02}\,,
\end{equation}
which is consistent with the null result at just over one sigma. The Planck prior shifts the preferred value of the matter density to significantly larger values, and the positive correlation between the two parameters makes the preferred value of $\lambda$ correspondingly larger. For the best fit value, and according to Eq. \ref{torphi}, the torsion contribution would therefore be $\Omega_\phi\sim-0.07$.

\subsection{Cosmological constant with $w\neq0$}

We can extend the results of the previous subsection by allowing for a non-zero (but still constant) equation of state. There is a weak degeneracy between $w$ and the other model parameters, so although the constraints become weaker (as they must), both parameters are still well constrained by the data. On the other hand, without the Planck prior the matter density is not constrained, even at one sigma.

\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure3a.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure3b.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure3c.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure3d.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure3e.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure3f.png}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig3}Likelihood constraints in the various 2D planes of the $\lambda$--$w$--$\Omega_m$ parameter space.  Left and right side panels are respectively for the cases without and with the Planck prior. The black lines represent the one, two and three sigma confidence levels, and the colormap depicts the reduced chi-square of the fit.}
\end{figure*}

Figure \ref{fig3} summarizes the results of this analysis. Starting with the case without the Planck prior, the one-sigma posterior likelihood for the torsion parameter is
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{(w\neq0)}=-0.02\pm0.04\,,
\end{equation}
while for the equation of state we have
\begin{equation}
w=-0.05\pm0.04\,;
\end{equation}
there is therefore a small (statistically not significant) preference for a negative equation of state for matter. Moreover, we see that this equation of state is quite tightly constrained, which explains why the constraint on $\lambda$ is not significantly changed with respect to the $w=0$ case. Indeed the main difference in allowing for a non-zero equation of state is that there is no longer any constraining power on the matter density. This can again be circumvented by adding the Planck prior, which leads to
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{(w\neq0, Planck)}=-0.01\pm0.02\,;
\end{equation}
compared to the $w=0$ case the best-fit value has changed sign, and the constraint is now consistent with the null result at one sigma. When compared to the $w\neq0$ constraint without the matter prior the sensitivity is improved by a factor of two. For the best fit value the torsion contribution would be $\Omega_\phi\sim0.03$. On the other hand, the constraint on the matter equation of state is relatively less affected
\begin{equation}
w_{Planck}=-0.05\pm0.03\,;
\end{equation}
this is consistent with the standard result ($w=0$) at the two sigma confidence level.

\section{Forecasts of future constraints}
\label{sect4}

Here we briefly discuss how the constraints discussed in the previous section might be improved by future observations. Specifically, we consider measurements of the redshift drift by the Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) \cite{Liske,Alves}, which will directly probe the expansion of the universe in the deep matter era, as well as an improved supernova data set.

The redshift drift of an astrophysical object following the Hubble flow is given by \cite{Sandage,Liske}
\begin{equation}
\Delta z=\tau_{obs} H_0 \left[1+z-E(z)\right]\,,
\end{equation}
where $\tau_{obs}$ is the observation time span, although the actual observable is a spectroscopic velocity
\begin{equation}
\Delta v=k\tau_{obs}h\left[1-\frac{E(z)}{1+z}\right]\,,
\end{equation}
which we expressed in terms of $E(z)$ and $h=H_0/(100 km/s/Mpc)$; we also introduced the normalization constant $k$, which has the value $k=3.064$ cm/s if $\tau_{obs}$ is expressed in years. The uncertainty in the velocity measurement for the ELT is expected to be \cite{Liske,HIRES}
\begin{equation}
\sigma_v(z)=1.35\left(\frac{2370}{S/N}\right)\sqrt{\frac{30}{N_{qso}}}\left(\frac{5}{1+z_{qso}}\right)^\lambda\,,
\end{equation}
where $S/N$ denotes the signal to noise of the spectra available at the redshift bin $z_{qso}$ and $N_{qso}$ is the number of quasars observed at that redshift. The exponent of the last term is $\lambda=1.7$ for $z_{qso}\le4$ and $\lambda=0.9$ for $z_{qso}>4$. We assume a realistic observation program with a time span of $\tau_{obs}=20$ years, a signal to noise $S/N=3000$ in each measurement, and three different measurements at redshift bins centered at $z_{qso}=2.5, 3.5, 5.0$, each based on combining spectra from sets of $N_{qso}=10$ quasars \cite{HIRES}.

The work leading to the Pantheon compilation \cite{Riess} also discusses a future data set of supernova measurements from the proposed WFIRST satellite \cite{WFIRST}. Their analysis leads to the following values for percent errors on $E(z)$:  $\sigma=1.3, 1.1, 1.5, 1.5, 2.0, 2.3, 2.6, 3.4, 8.9$ for the nine redshift bins centered at $z=0.07, 0.20, 0.35, 0.60, 0.80, 1.00, 1.30, 1.70, 2.50$, respectively. These measurements are not fully independent, as there are pairwise correlations among some of the measurements, but the authors state that these effects are small, so in the absence of publicly available information on them we ignore them in the analysis that follows. Their simulated data set was also obtained under the assumption of a flat universe.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure4a.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure4b.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure4c.png}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig4}Likelihood constraints in the various 2D planes of the $\lambda$--$w$--$\Omega_m$ parameter space for the future (simulated) data sets described in the main text. Dashed and solid lines respectively depict the cases with and without priors. One, two and three sigma confidence levels are represented in both cases.}
\end{figure}

We thus forecast constraints on the models under consideration for a combined mock data set of ELT redshift drift and WFIRST supernova measurements, both on their own and complemented by a Planck-like prior that has an uncertainty on the matter density $\sigma(\Omega_m)=0.007$.  We assume a fiducial $\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\lambda=0$, $w=0$ and $h=0.7$.

The results are summarized in Fig. \ref{fig4}. Similarly to the results for current data in the previous section, we again note that the matter density is unconstrained without a matter prior. Our analysis indicates that constraints on $w$ without the Planck prior are comparable to current constraints with the prior, while those on $\lambda$ are weaker by about a factor of three. On the other hand, with a Planck-level prior on the matter density, we forecast the following one-sigma uncertainties
\begin{equation}
\sigma_\lambda=0.009
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\sigma_w=0.013\,,
\end{equation}
which improve on the current ones (discussed in the previous section) by about a factor of two. The former corresponds to a one-sigma upper bound on the torsion contribution of $\Omega_\phi<0.036$.

\section{An alternative parametrization}
\label{sect5}

Our analysis so far has relied on the steady-state torsion assumption for the torsion field, $\phi=\lambda H$, which has also been used in the published literature. In this section we test the robustness of our analysis by briefly considering an alternative assumption.

From the phenomenological and dimensional analysis points of view, the most natural alternative parametrization to making the torsion field proportional to the Hubble parameter (i.e., the square root of the left-hand side of the Friedmann equation) is to make the it proportional to the square root of the matter density (i.e., the square root of the right-hand side of the Friedmann equation). Specifically, we now assume
\begin{equation}
\phi=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon\sqrt{\frac{\kappa\rho}{3}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is the free parameter replacing $\lambda$. In this case, and keeping the rest of our previously stated assumptions, the Friedmann and continuity equations now have the following form (written in terms of the dimensionless versions of the Hubble parameter and density)
\begin{equation}
E(z)=\sqrt{\Omega_mr(z)+\Omega_\Lambda}-\epsilon\sqrt{\Omega_mr(z)}\,,
\end{equation}
where the assumption of zero spatial curvature requires $\Omega_m+\Omega_\Lambda=(1+\epsilon\sqrt{\Omega_m})^2$, and
\begin{equation}
(1+z)\frac{dr}{dz}=3(1+w)r+\epsilon\frac{\sqrt{\Omega_mr}}{E(z)}\left[3(1+w)r-2\left(r+\frac{\Omega_\Lambda}{\Omega_m}\right)\right]\,.
\end{equation}

We now repeat the analysis of the previous section for this parametrization. Firstly, in the $\Omega_\Lambda=0$ case and with additional assumption of a small $\epsilon$, we have the following solution
\begin{equation}
E^2(z)=(1+z)^{3(1+w)+\epsilon(1+3w)}\,,
\end{equation}
with the matter density and $\epsilon$ being related via $\sqrt{\Omega_m}(1-\epsilon)=1$; this is therefore akin to the $\lambda$ case, and it is easy to see that it provides an equally poor fit to the data. Indeed, in the perturbative limit of small $\lambda$ and $\epsilon$ one simply has $\epsilon=2\lambda$, which is to be expected since in the absence of both a spatial curvature and a cosmological constant the Friedmann equation implies that Hubble parameter and matter density are approximately proportional to each other (with the torsion field providing a small correction to this behaviour). However, note that this simple relation between the two parameters is only a rough approximation in the general case with a cosmological constant and/or with non-negligible amounts of torsion.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure5a.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure5b.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,keepaspectratio]{figure5c.png}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig5}Likelihood constraints in the various 2D planes of the $\epsilon$--$w$--$\Omega_m$ parameter space. The black lines represent the one, two and three sigma confidence levels, and the colormap depicts the reduced chi-square of the fit.}
\end{figure}

The results of the general analysis in this case are shown in Figure \ref{fig5}, which can be compared to the right-hand side panels of Figure \ref{fig3}. The one-sigma posteriors for the two parameters are now
\begin{equation}
\epsilon=-0.02^{+0.05}_{-0.07}\,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
w=-0.06^{+0.05}_{-0.06}\,.
\end{equation}
In this case the posterior likelihoods are somewhat more asymmetric due to a stronger correlation between $\epsilon$ and the other free parameters in the model, but other than this the results are the expected ones: one-sigma uncertainties and the best-fit value for $\epsilon$ differ from those on $\lambda$ by a factor of about two, while the best-fit value of $w$ is relatively unaffected. And while both best-fit values are slightly negative, there is no statistically significant preference for the presence of torsion.

\section{Conclusions}
\label{sect6}

We have studied a phenomenological but physically motivated class of models for the late-time evolution of the universe allowing for the presence of spacetime torsion, and used low-redshift data (occasionally complemented by a Planck prior on the matter density) to constrain them. This analysis allows us to quantify by how much torsion may contribute to the recent universe, and is also useful as a stress test of $\Lambda$CDM in the sense that it allows us to further study how dark energy may differ from a cosmological constant at low redshifts.

In our analysis we have restricted ourselves to background quantities, thus obtaining a preliminary assessment of the observational viability of these models. An analysis of linear perturbations in this model (necessary, for example, to obtain detailed cosmic microwave background constraints) remains to be done. It is clear from our results that the constraints benefit from a matter prior, for which we have relied on the Planck data \cite{Planck}. We note that it is not {\it a priori} obvious that this prior is applicable to these models, especially if the models are interpreted as fundamental alternatives to $\Lambda$CDM (i.e., if $\Omega_\Lambda=0$  and torsion itself provided the acceleration). However, such a scenario is strongly disfavoured even with low redshift data alone, so this is a moot point. Thus the remaining cosmological niche for these models is a phenomenological one, in which the models are one-parameter extensions of $\Lambda$CDM, with the extra parameter (here denoted $\lambda$) expected to be small. In this case, and although this needs to ultimately be confirmed by a full CMB analysis, we would expect that it is reasonable to use the prior.

Our constraints on $\lambda$ are comparable to (or slightly stronger than) the ones obtained in \cite{Torsion1} from big bang nucleosynthesis, and also agree, at least qualitatively, with those of \cite{Pereira} (which uses different assumptions on the parametrization of torsion and on cosmological model parameters). We have also quantified how these constraints can be improved by analogous low-generation data, and checked the robustness of the steady-state torsion assumption by also studying an alternative parametrization.

In conclusion, we find no statistically significant preference for the presence of torsion. By itself torsion can't be responsible for the acceleration of the universe, and even if taken as an extension of the canonical $Lambda$CDM paradigm the overall contribution to the Universe's energy budget is constrained to be no larger than a few percent (the exact number depending on the underlying assumptions). We also note that our constraints should be seen as conservative. Our analysis has focused on low-redshift background cosmology data, except for the occasional inclusion of a Planck-inspired prior on the matter density. An analysis including a full treatment of the cosmic microwave background should lead to stronger constraints. We leave this interesting analysis for subsequent work.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

We are grateful to Ana Catarina Leite for helpful discussions on the subject of this work. This work was financed by FEDER---Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional funds through the COMPETE 2020---Operacional Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalisation (POCI), and by Portuguese funds through FCT---Funda\c c\~ao para a Ci\^encia e a Tecnologia in the framework of the project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-028987.

\bibliographystyle{model1-num-names}