Geometry of weighted Lorentz–Finsler manifolds I:
Singularity theorems
Yufeng LU∗

Ettore MINGUZZI†

Shin-ichi OHTA∗,‡

December 19, 2020

Abstract
We develop the theory of weighted Ricci curvature in a weighted Lorentz–Finsler
framework and extend the classical singularity theorems of general relativity. In
order to reach this result, we generalize the Jacobi, Riccati and Raychaudhuri equations to weighted Finsler spacetimes and study their implications for the existence ofconjugate points along causal geodesics. We also show a weighted Lorentz–Finsler
version of the Bonnet–Myers theorem based on a generalized Bishop inequality.

1

Introduction

The aim of this work is to develop the theory of weighted Ricci curvature on weighted
Lorentz–Finsler manifolds and show that the classical singularity theorems of generalrelativity [HE] can be generalized to this setting. It is known that singularity theorems
can be generalized to Finsler spacetimes [AJ, Min4], and at least some of them have been
generalized to the weighted Lorentzian framework [Ca, GW, WW1, WW2] (we refer to[GW, WW1] for some physical motivations in connection with the Brans–Dicke theory).
We will generalize many singularity theorems, including the classical ones by Penrose,
Hawking, and Hawking–Penrose, to the weighted Lorentz–Finsler setting.
By a weighted Lorentzian manifold we mean a pair of a Lorentzian manifold (M, g)
and a weight function ψ on M . This is equivalent to considering a pair of (M, g) anda measure m on M via the relation m = e−ψ volg , where volg is the canonical volume
measure of g. The latter formulation was studied also in the Finsler framework [Oh1],
where the weight function associated with a measure needs to be a function on the tangent
bundle T M \ {0} (since we do not have a unique canonical measure like volg ). Motivatedby these investigations, we work with an even more general structure, namely a pair given
by a Lorentz–Finsler spacetime (M, L) and a (positively 0-homogeneous) function ψ on∗

Department of Mathematics, Osaka University, Osaka 560-0043, Japan (u105701g@ecs.osaka-u.ac.jp,
s.ohta@math.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp)†
Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica “U. Dini”, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Via S. Marta
3, I-50139 Firenze, Italy (ettore.minguzzi@unifi.it)‡
RIKEN Center for Advanced Intelligence Project (AIP), 1-4-1 Nihonbashi, Tokyo 103-0027, Japan1

the set of causal vectors. In this framework we can include the unweighted case as well
(as the case ψ = 0), while in general a constant function may not be associated with any
measure. See Section 4 for a more detailed discussion.
Our results will be formulated with the weighted Ricci curvature RicN , which is definedfor (M, L, ψ) in a similar way to the Finsler case [Oh1] (see Definition 4.1). The realparameter N is called the eﬀective dimension or the synthetic dimension (in connection
with the synthetic theory of curvature-dimension condition, see below). Our work not only
unifies previous results, but also improves previous findings already in the non-Finsler
case, particularly in dealing with the weight. A weighted generalization of the Bishop
inequality leads us to a weighted Lorentz–Finsler version of the Bonnet–Myers theorem(Theorem 5.17). For what concerns singularity theorems, we obtain not only the weighted
Raychaudhuri equation, but also the weighted Jacobi and Riccati equations (Section 5).
Moreover, we show that the genericity condition can be used in its classical formulation(we need to introduce a weighted version as in [Ca, WW2] only in the extremal case of
N = 0, see Remarks 7.2, 7.5). This fact simplifies the statements of some theorems.
Our results apply to every eﬀective dimension, N ∈ (−∞, 0] ∪ [n, +∞] in the timelike
case and N ∈ (−∞, 1]∪[n, +∞] in the null case. The idea of including negative values of N
is recent, see [WW1, WW2] for the Lorentzian case (for us the spacetime dimension is n+1,
which means that the formulas in previous references have to undergo the replacements
n 7→ n + 1 and N 7→ N + 1 to be compared with our owns, see Remark 4.2). Ourformulation of ϵ-completeness (Definitions 5.10, 6.4), which is a key concept in singularity
theorems, generalizes that in [WW1, WW2] and is very accurate: We are able to identify
a family of time parameters, depending on a real variable ϵ belonging to an ϵ-range
dependent on N , for which the incompleteness holds (see Propositions 5.8, 6.3). For
ϵ = 1 one recovers the ordinary concept of completeness, while for ϵ = 0 one recovers
the ψ-completeness studied in [WW1, WW2]. Our N -dependent ϵ-range explains why forN ∈ [n, ∞) one can infer both (unweighted and weighted) forms of incompleteness, while
for negative N one can infer only the ψ-incompleteness.
The investigation of weighted Lorentz–Finsler manifolds is meaningful also from theview of synthetic studies of Lorentzian geometry. This is motivated by the important
breakthrough in the positive-definite case, a characterization of the lower (weighted)
Ricci curvature bound by the convexity of an entropy in terms of optimal transport theory, called the curvature-dimension condition CD(K, N ) (roughly speaking, CD(K, N ) is
equivalent to RicN ≥ K). We refer to [CMS, LV, vRS, St1, St2, Vi] for the Riemanniancase and to [Oh1] for the Finsler case. The curvature-dimension condition can be formulated in metric measure spaces without diﬀerentiable structures. Then one can successfully
develop comparison geometry and geometric analysis on such metric measure spaces. Lorentzian counterparts of such a synthetic theory attracted growing interest recently, seefor instance [AB, KuSa] for triangle comparison theorems, [BP, Br, EM, KeSu, Su] for
optimal transport theory, [Mc] for a direct analogue to the curvature-dimension condition, and [MS] for an optimal transport interpretation of the Einstein equation. We also
refer to [GKS, Min6], the proceedings [CGKM] and the references therein for related investigations of less regular Lorentzian spaces. Since the curvature-dimension condition isavailable both in Riemannian and Finsler manifolds, it is important to know what kind ofcomparison geometric results can be generalized to the Finsler setting. Thus the results2

in this article will give some insights in the synthetic study of Lorentzian geometry. We
will continue the study of weighted Lorentz–Finsler manifolds in a forthcoming paper on
splitting theorems.

1.1

The structure of singularity theorems

Although our work will contain results whose scope exceeds that of singularity theorems,
it will be convenient to mention how singularity theorems are typically structured, forthat will clarify the focus of this work.
Singularity theorems are composed of the following three steps (see [Min7, Section 6.6]
for further discussions):
I. A non-causal statement assuming some form of geodesic completeness plus some
genericity and convergence conditions, and implying the existence of conjugate points
along geodesics or focal points for certain (hyper)surfaces with special convergenceproperties, e.g., our Corollaries 5.11 and 6.5. This step typically makes use of theRaychaudhuri equation.
II. A non-causal statement to the eﬀect that the presence of conjugate or focal points
spoils some length maximization property (achronal property in the null case), forinstance [Min4, Proposition 5.1] will be used to show Proposition 8.2.
III. A statement to the eﬀect that under some causality conditions as well as in presenceof some special set (trapped set, Cauchy hypersurface) the spacetime necessarily has
a causal line (a maximizing inextendible causal geodesic) or a causal S-ray.
The first two results go in contradiction with the last one, so from here one infers thegeodesic incompleteness.
Interestingly, the first two steps basically coincide for all the singularity theorems. For
instance, Penrose’s and Gannon’s singularity theorems [Ga, Pen], but also the topologicalcensorship theorem [FSW], use the same versions of Steps I, II. Similarly, Hawking–Penrose’s and Borde’s singularity theorems [Bo, HP] use the same versions of Steps I, II.
Most singularity theorems really diﬀer just for the causality statement in Step III. For
this reason, it is often convenient to identify the singularity theorem with its causality
core statement, namely Step III. It turns out that this causality core statement in mostcases involves just the cone distribution, thereby it is fairly robust.
For instance, we shall work with a Lorentz–Finsler space of Beem’s type which is a
special case of a more general object called a locally Lipschitz proper Lorentz–Finsler space,see [Min6, Theorem 2.52], which is basically a distribution of closed cones x 7→ Ωx plus afunction F : Ω −→ R satisfying certain regularity properties. For this structure and hence
for our setting, one can prove the following causality statement [Min6, Theorem 2.67] (thisresult actually holds for more general closed cone structures): In a Finsler spacetime
admitting a non-compact Cauchy hypersurface every nonempty compact set S admits afuture lightlike S-ray. (The various terms will be clarified in what follows.)
There is also a simpler approach by which one can understand the validity of thistype of causality core statements. The local causality theory makes use of the existence3

of convex neighborhoods, but does not make use of the curvature tensor. The curvaturetensor really makes its appearance only in Steps I and II above. Thus all the proofs ofthese causality core statements, being of topological nature, pass through word-for-wordfrom the Lorentzian to the Lorentz–Finsler case, and since the weight is not used, to theweighted Lorentz–Finsler case. These topological proofs can then be read from reviewsof Lorentzian causality theory, e.g., [Min7, Theorem 6.23] includes the above statement.
It is important to understand that what we shall be doing in the following sections
is to generalize Step I. Step II has been already adapted to the Lorentz–Finsler settingin [Min4], and hence to the weighted Lorentz–Finsler setting since it does not use theweight. Step III was also already generalized in [Min6] to frameworks broader thanthat of this work. In this sense we are not considering the most general situation, andwe do not intend to make a full list of applications. We wish to show that singularity
theorems can be generalized to the weighted Lorentz–Finsler case, by presenting several
singularity theorems for the sake of illustrating the general strategy. Once Steps I and
II are established, by selecting a diﬀerent causality core statement in Step III, one canobtain other singularity theorems not explicitly considered in this article (we refer to[Min4, Section 8], [Min7, Section 6.6], and [Min6, Section 2.15] for further singularity
theorems as well as more general statements).

1.2

Notations and organization of the paper

Let us fix some terminologies and notations. Riemannian and Finsler manifolds havepositive-definite metrics. The analogous structures in the Lorentzian signature will becalled Lorentzian manifolds and Lorentz–Finsler manifolds. Lorentz–Finsler manifolds
are also known as Lorentz–Finsler spaces in other references, for example, [Min6]. The
Lorentzian signature we use is (−, +, . . . , +). We stress that the dimension of the spacetime manifold is always n + 1, and the indices will be taken as α = 0, 1, . . . , n.
This article is organized as follows. In Sections 2 and 3, we introduce necessary
notions of Finsler spacetimes, including some causality conditions and the flag and Ricci
curvatures. We then introduce the weighted Ricci curvature in Section 4. In Sections 5
and 6, we study the timelike and null Raychaudhuri equations, respectively, which areapplied in Section 7 to investigate the existence of conjugate points along geodesics.
Finally, Section 8 is devoted to the proofs of some notable singularity theorems, along thestrategy outlined in Subsection 1.1 above.

2

Finsler spacetimes

2.1

Lorentz–Finsler manifolds

Let M be a connected C ∞ -manifold of dimension n + 1 without boundary. Given local
coordinates (xα )nα=0 on an open set U ⊂ M , we will use the fiber-wise linear coordinates(xα , v β )nα,β=0 of T U such that
v=

n
∑
β=0

vβ

∂
,
∂xβ x
4

x ∈ U.

We employ Beem’s definition of Lorentz–Finsler manifolds [Be] (see Remark 2.6 below for
the relation with the other definitions).
Definition 2.1 (Lorentz–Finsler structure) A Lorentz–Finsler structure of M will
be a function L : T M −→ R satisfying the following conditions:(1) L ∈ C ∞ (T M \ {0});(2) L(cv) = c2 L(v) for all v ∈ T M and c > 0;
(3) For any v ∈ T M \ {0}, the symmetric matrix
gαβ (v) :=

∂ 2L
(v),
∂v α ∂v β

α, β = 0, 1, . . . , n,

(2.1)

is non-degenerate with signature (−, +, . . . , +).
We will call (M, L) a Lorentz–Finsler manifold or a Lorentz–Finsler space.
We stress that the homogeneity condition (2) is imposed only in the positive direction(c > 0), thus L(−v) ̸= L(v) is allowed. We say that L is reversible if L(−v) = L(v) for allv ∈ T M . The matrix (gαβ (v))nα,β=0 in (2.1) defines the Lorentzian metric gv of Tx M by
gv

(∑
n

)
n
n
∑
∑
∂
β ∂
b
aα bβ gαβ (v).
a
,
:=
α x
β x
∂x
∂x
α=0
β=0
α,β=0
α

(2.2)

By construction gv is the second order approximation of 2L at v. Similarly to the positivedefinite case, the metric gv and Euler’s homogeneous function theorem (see [BCS, Theorem 1.2.1]) will play a fundamental role in our argument. We have for example
gv (v, v) =n∑v α v β gαβ (v) = 2L(v).

α,β=0Definition 2.2 (Timelike vectors) We call v ∈ T M a timelike vector if L(v) < 0 anda null vector if L(v) = 0. A vector v is said to be lightlike if it is null and nonzero. The
spacelike vectors are those for which L(v) > 0 or v = 0. The causal (or non-spacelike)
vectors are those which are lightlike or timelike (L(v) ≤ 0 and v ̸= 0). The set of timelike
vectors will be denoted by∪Ω′x := {v ∈ Tx M | L(v) < 0},
Ω′ :=
Ω′x .
x∈M

Sometimes we shall make use of the function F : Ω′ −→ [0, +∞) defined by√√
F (v) := −gv (v, v) = −2L(v),(2.3)

which measures the ‘length’ of causal vectors. The structure of the set of timelike vectors
was studied in [Be]. We summarize fundamental properties in the next lemma, see also
[Be, Per, Min3] for more detailed investigations.
5Lemma 2.3 (Properties of Ω′x ) Let (M, L) be a Lorentz–Finsler manifold and x ∈ M .
(i) We have Ω′x ̸= ∅.
(ii) For each c < 0, Tx M ∩ L−1 (c) is nonempty and positively curved with respect to thelinear structure of Tx M .
(iii) Every connected component of Ω′x is a convex cone.
Proof. (i) If L(v) > 0 for all v ∈ Tx M \ {0}, then Tx M ∩ L−1 (1) is compact and L
is nonnegative-definite at an extremal point of Tx M ∩ L−1 (1). This contradicts Definition 2.1(3). If L ≥ 0 on Tx M and there is v ∈ Tx M \ {0} with L(v) = 0, then L is again
nonnegative-definite at v and we have a contradiction. Therefore we conclude Ω′x ̸= ∅.
(ii) The first assertion Tx M ∩ L−1 (c) ̸= ∅ is straightforward from (i) and the homogeneity of L. The second assertion is shown by comparing L and its second orderapproximation gv at v ∈ Tx M ∩ L−1 (c) (see [Be, Lemma 1]).
(iii) This is a consequence of (ii).
□In the 2-dimensional case (n + 1 = 2), the number of connected components of Ω′x is
not necessarily 2, even when L is reversible (i.e., L(−v) = L(v)).
Example 2.4 (Beem’s example, [Be]) Let us consider the Euclidean plane R2 . Givenk ∈ N, we define L : R2 −→ R in the polar coordinates by L(r, θ) := r2 cos kθ. Then
Hess L(r, θ) has the negative determinant for r > 0, and the number of connected components of {x ∈ R2 | L(x) < 0} is k. Notice that L(r, θ + π) = L(r, θ) (reversible) if k iseven, and L(r, θ + π) = −L(r, θ) (non-reversible) if k is odd.
This phenomenon could be regarded as a drawback of the formulation of Definition 2.1
from the view of theoretical physics, since it is diﬃcult to interpret the causal structureof such multi-cones (see [Min3] for further discussions). However, in the reversible case,it turned out that such an ill-posedness occurs only when n + 1 = 2 ([Min3, Theorem 7]).
Theorem 2.5 (Well-posedness for n + 1 ≥ 3) Let (M, L) be a reversible Lorentz–Finsler
manifold of dimension n + 1 ≥ 3. Then, for any x ∈ M , the set Ω′x has exactly two connected components.
The key diﬀerence between n+1 = 2 and n+1 ≥ 3 used in the proof is that the sphere
Sn is simply-connected if and only if n ≥ 2 (see [Min3, Theorem 6]). One may think oftaking the product of (R2 , L) in Example 2.4 and R, that is, L(r, θ, z) := r2 cos kθ + z 2 .
This Lagrangian L is, however, twice diﬀerentiable at (0, 0, 1) if and only if k = 2.
Remark 2.6 (Definitions of Lorentz–Finsler structures) The analogue to Theorem 2.5
in the non-reversible case is an open problem. Nevertheless, it is in many cases acceptable to consider L as defined just inside the future cone, as in the approach by
Asanov [As]. That is to say, we consider a∪smooth family of convex cones, {Ωx }x∈M withΩx ⊂ Tx M \ {0}, and L is defined only on x∈M Ωx such that L < 0 on Ωx , L = 0 on ∂Ωx ,and having the Lorentzian signature (studies of increasing functions for cone distributions
can be found in [FS, BS] and their general causality theory is developed in [Min6]). In
6ethis case, under the natural assumption that dL ̸= 0 on ∂Ωx , we can extend L to Leon the whole tangent bundle T M such that the set of timelike vectors of L has exactly
e may not be
two connected components in each tangent space (see [Min5, Theorem 1], L
reversible). Therefore assuming that L is globally defined as in Definition 2.1 costs nogenerality. Furthermore, in most arguments, given a (future-directed) timelike vector v,
we make use of gv from (2.2) instead of L itself.

2.2

Causality theory

We recall some fundamental concepts in causality theory on a Lorentz–Finsler manifold(M, L). A continuous vector field X on M is said to be timelike if L(X(x)) < 0 for allx ∈ M . If (M, L) admits a timelike smooth vector field X, then (M, L) is said to betime oriented by X, or simply time oriented. We will call a time oriented Lorentz–Finsler
manifold a Finsler spacetime.
A causal vector v ∈ Tx M is said to be future-directed if it lies in the same connectedcomponent of Ω′x \ {0} as X(x). We will denote by Ωx ⊂ Ω′x the set of future-directed
timelike vectors, and set
∪
∪
∪
Ω :=
Ωx ,
Ω \ {0} :=(Ωx \ {0}).
Ω :=
Ωx ,
x∈M

x∈M

x∈M

A C 1 -curve in (M, L) is said to be timelike (resp. causal, lightlike, spacelike) if its
tangent vector is always timelike (resp. causal, lightlike, spacelike). All causal curves will
be future-directed in this article. Given distinct points x, y ∈ M , we write x ≪ y if there
is a future-directed timelike curve from x to y. Similarly, x < y means that there is a
future-directed causal curve from x to y, and x ≤ y means that x = y or x < y.
The chronological past and future of x are defined by
I − (x) := {y ∈ M | y ≪ x},

I + (x) := {y ∈ M | x ≪ y},and the causal past and future are defined by
J − (x) := {y ∈ M | y ≤ x},

J + (x) := {y ∈ M | x ≤ y}.

For a general set S ⊂ M , we define I − (S), I + (S), J − (S) and J + (S) analogously.
Definition 2.7 (Causality conditions) Let (M, L) be a Finsler spacetime.
(1) (M, L) is said to be chronological if x ∈/ I + (x) for all x ∈ M .
(2) We say that (M, L) is causal if there is no closed causal curve.
(3) (M, L) is said to be strongly causal if, for all x ∈ M , every neighborhood U of x
contains another neighborhood V of x such that no causal curve intersects V morethan once.
(4) We say that (M, L) is globally hyperbolic if it is strongly causal and, for any x, y ∈ M ,
J + (x) ∩ J − (y) is compact.
7

Clearly strong causality implies causality, and a causal spacetime is chronological. The
chronological condition implies that the spacetime is non-compact. The following concept
plays an essential role in the study of the geodesic incompleteness in general relativity.
Definition 2.8 (Inextendibility) A future-directed causal curve η : (a, b) −→ M issaid to be future (resp. past) inextendible if η(t) does not converge as t → b (resp. t → a).
We say that η is inextendible if it is both future and past inextendible.
Global hyperbolicity can be characterized in many ways. Here we mention one of themin terms of Cauchy hypersurfaces (see [Min4, Proposition 6.12], [FS, Theorem 1.3]).
Definition 2.9 (Cauchy hypersurfaces) A hypersurface S ⊂ M is called a Cauchy
hypersurface if every future-directed inextendible causal curve intersects S exactly once.
Proposition 2.10 A Finsler spacetime (M, L) is globally hyperbolic if and only if it admits a smooth Cauchy hypersurface.

2.3

Geodesics

Next we introduce some geometric concepts. Define the Lorentz–Finsler length of a piecewise C 1 -causal curve η : [a, b] −→ M by (recall (2.3) for the definition of F )∫ bℓ(η) :=()
F η̇(t) dt.

aThen, for x, y ∈ M , we define the Lorentz–Finsler distance d(x, y) from x to y byd(x, y) := sup ℓ(η),η

where η runs over all piecewise C 1 -causal curves from x to y. We set d(x, y) := 0 if there isno causal curve from x to y. We remark that, under the assumption of global hyperbolicity,d is finite and continuous ([Min4, Proposition 6.8]). A causal curve η : I −→ M is said
to be maximizing if, for every t1 , t2 ∈ I with t1 < t2 , we have d(η(t1 ), η(t2 )) = ℓ(η|[t1 ,t2 ] ).
∫b
The Euler–Lagrange equation for the action S(η) := a L(η̇(t)) dt provides the geodesic
equationn∑αeα (η̇)η̇ β η̇ γ = 0,
η̈ +
Γ
(2.4)
βγ
β,γ=0

where we define)(n1 ∑ αδ
∂gδγ ∂gβδ ∂gβγαe
Γβγ (v) :=
+
−
(v)
g (v)
2 δ=0
∂xβ
∂xγ
∂xδ

(2.5)

for v ∈ T M \ {0} and (g αβ (v)) denotes the inverse matrix of (gαβ (v)).
We say that a C ∞ -causal curve η : [a, b] −→ R is geodesic if (2.4) holds for all t ∈ (a, b).
Since L(η̇) is constant by (2.4), a causal geodesic is indeed either a timelike geodesic or8

a lightlike geodesic. Given v ∈ Ωx , if there is a geodesic η : [0, 1] −→ M with η̇(0) = v,
then the exponential map expx is defined by expx (v) := η(1).
Locally maximizing causal curves coincide with causal geodesics up to reparametrizations ([Min2, Theorem 6]). Under very weak diﬀerentiability assumptions on the metric,
this local maximization property can be used to define the notion of causal geodesics (see[Min6]). We remark that, under Definition 2.1, due to a classical result by Whitehead,the manifold admits convex neighborhoods. Ultimately, this single fact makes it possible
to work out much of causality theory for Lorentz–Finsler manifolds in analogy with thatfor Lorentzian manifolds (we refer to [Min2, Min4]).

3

Covariant derivatives and curvatures

In this section, along the argument in [Sh, Chapter 6] (see also [Oh5]) in the positivedefinite case, we introduce covariant derivatives (associated with the Chern connection)
and Jacobi fields by analyzing the behavior of geodesics. Then we define the flag and
Ricci curvatures in the spacetime context. We refer to [Min4, Section 2] for a further
account.
Similarly to the previous section, (M, L) will denote a Finsler spacetime and all causal
curves and vectors are future-directed. In this section, however, this is merely for simplicity and the time-orientability plays no role. Everything is local and can be readily
generalized to general causal vectors and geodesics on Lorentz–Finsler manifolds.

3.1

Covariant derivatives

We first introduce the coeﬃcients of the geodesic spray and the nonlinear connection as
1 ∑ eαΓ (v)v β v γ ,2 β,γ=0 βγnGα (v) :=Nβα (v) :=

∂Gα
(v)
∂v β

for v ∈ T M \{0}, and Gα (0) = Nβα (0) := 0. Note that Gα is positively 2-homogeneous and∑Nβα is positively 1-homogeneous, and 2Gα (v) = nβ=0 Nβα (v)v β holds by the homogeneousfunction theorem. The geodesic equation (2.4) is now written as η̈ α + 2Gα (η̇) = 0. In
eα in (2.5) asorder to define covariant derivatives, we need to modify Γ
βγ
)
(
n
∑
∂g
∂g
1
∂g
βδ
δγ
βγ
µ
µ
α
α
αδ
µ
e (v) −Γβγ (v) := Γ
g (v)
N +
N −
N (v)
βγ
2 δ,µ=0∂v µ β∂v µ γ∂v µ δ
for v ∈ T M \ {0}. Notice that these formulas are the same as those in [Sh] (while Gi (v)in [Oh5] corresponds to 2Gα (v) in this article).
Definition 3.1 (Covariant derivatives) For a C 1 -vector field X on M , x ∈ M andv, w ∈ Tx M with w ̸= 0, we define the covariant derivative of X by v with reference(support) vector w by
}
n
n {
α
∑
∑
∂
α
β γ
w
β ∂X
.
(x) +
Γβγ (w)v X (x)Dv X :=
v
β
∂x
∂xα x
γ=0
α,β=0
9

The reference vector will be usually chosen as w = v or w = X(x). The following
result is shown in the same way as [Sh, Section 6.2] (see also [Oh3, Lemma 2.3]).
Proposition 3.2 (Riemannian characterization) If V is a nowhere vanishing C ∞ vector field such that all integral curves of V are geodesic, then we have
DVV X = DVgV X,

gVVDX
V = DXV

for any diﬀerentiable vector field X, where DgV denotes the covariant derivative withrespect to the Lorentzian structure gV induced from V via (2.2).
Along a C ∞ -curve η with η̇ ̸= 0, one can consider the covariant derivative along η,
)
n (
n
∑
∑
∂
η̇
α
β γ
α
,
Dη̇ X(t) :=Ẋ +Γβγ (η̇)η̇ X (t) α
∂x
η(t)
α=0
β,γ=0
∑
for vector fields X along η, where X(t) = nα=0 X α (t)(∂/∂xα )|η(t) . Then the geodesic
equation (2.4) coincides with Dη̇η̇ η̇ = 0.
For a nonconstant causal geodesic η and C ∞ -vector fields X, Y along η, we have]d[gη̇ (X, Y ) = gη̇ (Dη̇η̇ X, Y ) + gη̇ (X, Dη̇η̇ Y )(3.1)
dt(see, e.g., [BCS, Exercise 5.2.3]). One also has, for nowhere vanishing X,]
d[gX (X, Y ) = gX (Dη̇X X, Y ) + gX (X, Dη̇X Y )(3.2)
dt(see [BCS, Exercise 10.1.2]).

3.2

Jacobi fields

Next we introduce Jacobi fields. Let ζ : [a, b] × (−ε, ε) −→ M be a C ∞ -map such thatζ(·, s) is a causal geodesic for each s ∈ (−ε, ε). Put η(t) := ζ(t, 0) and consider thevariational vector field Y (t) := ∂ζ/∂s(t, 0). Then we haveDη̇η̇ Dη̇η̇ Y
)}
n (
n {
∑
∑
∂Nβα
∂Nβα
∂Gα
∂
γ
γ
γ
α
=
−2 β (η̇) +(η̇)η̇ − 2 γ (η̇)G (η̇) + Nγ (η̇)Nβ (η̇) Y β α .
γ
∂x
∂x
∂v
∂x η
γ=0
α,β=0
Now, we define

) ∑
n (
n
∑
∂Nβα
∂Nβα
∂Gα
α
γ
γ
Rβ (v) := 2 β (v) −
(v)v
−
2
(v)G
(v)
−
Nγα (v)Nβγ (v)
γ
γ
∂x
∂x
∂v
γ=0
γ=0

for v ∈ Ω (note that Rβα (0) = 0), andRv (w) :=n∑Rβα (v)wβ

α,β=0

∂
∂xα x

(3.3)

for v ∈ Ωx and w ∈ Tx M . Then we arrive at the Jacobi equationDη̇η̇ Dη̇η̇ Y + Rη̇ (Y ) = 0.
10

(3.4)

Definition 3.3 (Jacobi fields) A solution Y to (3.4) is called a Jacobi field along a
causal geodesic η.
We recall two important properties of Rv , see [Min4, Proposition 2.4] for a detailed
account.
Proposition 3.4 (Properties of Rv )(i) We have Rv (v) = 0 for every v ∈ Ωx .

(ii) Rv is symmetric in the sense that()()
gv w1 , Rv (w2 ) = gv Rv (w1 ), w2(3.5)

holds for all v ∈ Ωx \ {0} and w1 , w2 ∈ Tx M .
Along a nonconstant causal geodesic η : [a, b] −→ M , if there is a nontrivial Jacobi
field Y such that Y (a) = Y (t) = 0 for some t ∈ (a, b], then we call η(t) a conjugate pointof η(a) along η. The existence of conjugate points is a key issue throughout this article.

3.3

Curvatures

The flag and Ricci curvatures are defined by using Rv in (3.3) as follows. The flag curvaturecorresponds to the sectional curvature in the Riemannian or Lorentzian context.
Definition 3.5 (Flag curvature) For v ∈ Ωx and w ∈ Tx M linearly independent of v,
define the flag curvature of the 2-plane v ∧ w (a flag) spanned by v, w with flagpole v as
K(v, w) := −gv (Rv (w), w).
gv (v, v)gv (w, w) − gv (v, w)2(3.6)

We remark that this is the opposite sign to [BEE], while the Ricci curvature will be
the same. The flag curvature K(v, w) depends only on the 2-plane v ∧ w and the choiceof the flagpole R+ v in it.
Note that, for v timelike, the denominator in the right-hand side of (3.6) is negative.
The flag curvature is not defined for v lightlike, for in this case the denominator could
vanish. Thus we define the Ricci curvature directly as the trace of Rv in (3.3).
Definition 3.6 (Ricci curvature) For v ∈ Ωx \ {0}, the Ricci curvature or Ricci scalar
is defined as the trace of Rv , i.e., Ric(v) := trace(Rv ).
Since Ric(v) is positively 2-homogeneous, we can set Ric(0) := 0 by continuity. We saythat Ric ≥ K holds in timelike directions for some K ∈ R if we have Ric(v) ≥ KF (v)2 =−2KL(v) for all v ∈ Ω. For v lightlike, since L(v) = 0, only the nonnegative curvature
condition Ric(v) ≥ 0 makes sense.
For a ∑
normalized timelike vector v ∈ Ωx with F (v) = 1, Ric(v) can be given as
Ric(v) = ni=1 K(v, ei ), where {v} ∪ {ei }ni=1 is an orthonormal basis with respect to gv ,i.e., gv (ei , ej ) = δij and gv (v, ei ) = 0 for all i, j = 1, . . . , n.
We deduce from Proposition 3.2 the following important feature of the Finsler curvature. This is one of the main driving forces behind the recent developments of comparison
geometry and geometric analysis on Finsler manifolds (see [Sh, Oh1, Oh5]).
11

Theorem 3.7 (Riemannian characterizations) Given a timelike vector v ∈ Ωx , takea C 1 -vector field V on a neighborhood of x such that V (x) = v and every integral curveof V is geodesic. Then, for any w ∈ Tx M linearly independent of v, the flag curvatureK(v, w) coincides with the sectional curvature of v ∧ w for the Lorentzian metric gV .
Similarly, the Ricci curvature Ric(v) coincides with the Ricci curvature of v for gV .
Proof. Let η : (−δ, δ) −→ M be the geodesic with η̇(0) = v and observe that V (η(t)) =η̇(t) by the condition imposed on V . Take a C ∞ -variation ζ : (−δ, δ) × (−ε, ε) −→ Mof η such that ∂s ζ(0, 0) = w and that each ζ(·, s) is an integral curve of V . Then by the
hypothesis, ζ(·, s) is geodesic for all s and hence Y (t) := ∂s ζ(t, 0) is a Jacobi field along
η. Hence we deduce from the Jacobi equation (3.4) thatgv (Dη̇η̇ Dη̇η̇ Y (0), w)
gv (Rv (w), w)=.
K(v, w) = −gv (v, v)gv (w, w) − gv (v, w)2gv (v, v)gv (w, w) − gv (v, w)2
Now we compare this observation with the Lorentzian counterpart for gV . Since ζ
is also a geodesic variation for gV (by Proposition 3.2), Y is a Jacobi field also for gV .
Moreover, it follows from Proposition 3.2 that Dη̇η̇ Dη̇η̇ Y (0) = Dη̇gV Dη̇gV Y (0). This shows
the first assertion, and the second assertion is obtained by taking the trace.
□
This observation is particularly helpful when we consider comparison theorems, see
Subsection 5.5 for some instances.

4

Weighted Ricci curvature

In this section we introduce the main ingredient of our results, the weighted Ricci curvature, for a triple (M, L, ψ) where (M, L) is a Finsler spacetime and ψ : Ω \ {0} −→ R isa weight function which is C ∞ and positively 0-homogeneous, i.e., ψ(cv) = ψ(v) for allc > 0.
Let π : Ω \ {0} −→ M be the bundle of∧causal vectors. The function ψ can be used to∗define a section of the pullback bundle π [ n+1 (T ∗ M )] −→ Ω \ {0} as
√
[(
)n
]
Φ(x, v) dx0 ∧ dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxn ,Φ(x, v) := e−ψ(v) −det gαβ (v) α,β=0 ,provided that M is orientable. In other words, we can consider a similar formula (evenwhen M is not orientable) as follows: For every causal vector field V on M ,()
mV (dx) := Φ x, V (x) dx0 dx1 · · · dxn = e−ψ(V (x)) volgV (dx)defines a measure mV on M , where volgV is the volume measure induced from gV .
This structure (M, L, ψ) generalizes that of a Lorentz–Finsler measure space, whichmeans a triple (M, L, m) where m is a positive C ∞ -measure on M in the sense that, ineach local coordinates (xα )nα=0 , m is written as m(dx) = Φ(x) dx0 dx1 · · · dxn (see [Oh1]for the positive-definite case). In this setting the function ψ is defined so as to satisfy, forv ∈ Ωx \ {0},
√
[(
)n
]
Φ(x) = e−ψ(v) −det gαβ (v) α,β=0 .
12Notice that gαβ (v) depends on the direction v in the Lorentz–Finsler (or Finsler) case.
This is the reason why we consider a function on Ω \ {0}, instead of a function on M as in
the Lorentzian case. Our approach here, considering a general function ψ not necessarily
induced from a measure, represents a further generalization which allows us to identify
the unweighted case: We shall say that we are in the unweighted case if ψ is constant.
(There may not exist any measure such that ψ is constant, see [Oh2] for a related study inthe positive-definite case.) Since all the following calculations involve only the derivativesof ψ, we can regard the choice ψ = 0 as the only unweighted case.
We need to modify Ric(v) defined in Definition 3.6 according to the choice of ψ, so as
to generalize the definition of [Oh1] for the Finsler measure space case. As a matter ofnotation, given a causal geodesic η(t) we shall write()ψη (t) := ψ η̇(t) .
(4.1)
Definition 4.1 (Weighted Ricci curvature) On (M, L, ψ) with dim M = n +1, given
a nonzero causal vector v ∈ Ωx \ {0}, let η : (−ε, ε) −→ M be the geodesic with η̇(0) = v.
Then, for N ∈ R \ {n}, we define the weighted Ricci curvature by
RicN (v) := Ric(v) + ψη′′ (0) −ψη′ (0)2.
N −n

As the limits of N → +∞ and N ↓ n, we also define{
Ric(v) + ψη′′ (0)Ric∞ (v) := Ric(v) + ψη′′ (0),Ricn (v) :=
−∞

(4.2)

if ψη′ (0) = 0,
if ψη′ (0) ̸= 0.

Remark 4.2 Because of our notation dim M = n + 1, RicN in this article corresponds+1
to RicN +1 in [Oh1, Oh5] or RicN
in [WW1, WW2].
f
Similarly to Definition 3.6, we say that RicN ≥ K holds in timelike directions for someK ∈ R if we have RicN (v) ≥ KF (v)2 for all v ∈ Ω, and RicN ≥ 0 in null directions meansthat RicN (v) ≥ 0 for all lightlike vectors v.
The weighted Ricci curvature RicN is also called the Bakry–Émery–Ricci curvature,
due to the pioneering work by Bakry–Émery [BE] in the Riemannian situation (we referto the book [BGL] for further information). The Finsler version was introduced in [Oh1]
as we mentioned, and we refer to [Ca] for the case of Lorentzian manifolds.
Remark 4.3 (Remarks on RicN ) (a) In the unweighted case, we have RicN (v) = Ric(v)for every N ∈ (−∞, +∞]. In general, it is clear by definition that RicN is monotone
non-decreasing in the ranges [n, +∞] and (−∞, n), and we have
Ricn (v) ≤ RicN (v) ≤ Ric∞ (v) ≤ RicN ′ (v)(4.3)

for any N ∈ (n, +∞) and N ′ ∈ (−∞, n).
(b) The study of the case where N ∈ (−∞, n) is rather recent. The above monotonicity
in N implies that RicN ≥ K with N < n is a weaker condition than Ric∞ ≥ K.
Nevertheless, one can generalize a number of results to this setting, see [KM, Mil,
Oh4, Wy] for the positive-definite case and [WW1, WW2] for the Lorentzian case.
13(c) The Riemannian characterization as in Theorem 3.7 is valid also for the weighted Ricci
curvature. Take a C 1 -vector field V such that V (x) = v and all integral curves of V
are geodesic. Then V induces the metric gV and the weight function ψV := ψ(V ) on
(g ,ψ )
a neighborhood of x, thus we can calculate the weighted Ricci curvature RicN V V (v)for (M, gV , ψV ). Since η is geodesic also for gV and η̇(t) = V (η(t)) by construction,
we deduce that RicN (v) in (4.2) coincides with the Lorentzian counterpart:(g ,ψV )RicN V5(v) = RicgV (v) + (ψV ◦ η)′′ (0) −(ψV ◦ η)′ (0)2.
N −nWeighted Raychaudhuri equation

Next we consider the Raychaudhuri equation on weighted Finsler spacetimes. In theunweighted case, the Finsler Raychaudhuri equation was established in [Min4] along withcorresponding singularity theorems. Our approach is inspired by [Ca] on the weighted
Lorentzian setting. (A counterpart to the Raychaudhuri equation in the positive-definite
case is the Bochner–Weitzenböck formula; for that we refer to [OS] in the Finsler context.)

5.1

Weighted Jacobi and Riccati equations

We begin with the notion of Jacobi and Lagrange tensor fields. We say that a timelike
geodesic η has unit speed if F (η̇) ≡ 1 (L(η̇) ≡ −1/2). For simplicity, the covariant
derivative of a vector field X along η will be denoted by X ′ . Observe that this timediﬀerentiation by acting linearly passes to the tensor bundle over η and in particular
to endomorphisms E as E ′ (P ) := E(P )′ − E(P ′ ). We denote by Nη (t) ⊂ Tη(t) M then-dimensional subspace gη̇(t) -orthogonal to η̇(t).
Definition 5.1 (Jacobi, Lagrange tensor fields) Let η : I −→ M be a timelike
geodesic of unit speed.
(1) A smooth tensor field J, giving an endomorphism J(t) : Nη (t) −→ Nη (t) for eacht ∈ I, is called a Jacobi tensor field along η if we haveJ′′ + RJ = 0(5.1)

and ker(J(t)) ∩ ker(J′ (t)) = {0} holds for all t ∈ I, where R(t) := Rη̇(t) : Nη (t) −→Nη (t) is the curvature endomorphism.
(2) A Jacobi tensor field J is called a Lagrange tensor field if(J′ )T J − JT J′ = 0(5.2)

holds on I, where the transpose T is taken with respect to gη̇ .
For t ∈ I where J(t) is invertible, note that (5.2) is equivalent to the gη̇ -symmetry ofJ′ J−1 . At those points we define B := J′ J−1 . Then, multiplying (5.1) by J−1 from right,
we arrive at the Riccati equation
B′ + B2 + R = 0.
For thoroughness, let us explain the precise meaning of (5.1) and (5.2).
14

(5.3)

Remark 5.2 (a) The equation (5.1) means that, for any gη̇ -parallel vector field P (t) ∈Nη (t) along η (namely P ′ ≡ 0), Y (t) := J(t)(P (t)) is a Jacobi field along η such thatgη̇ (Y, η̇) = 0. Then we find from (3.1) that gη̇ (Y ′ , η̇) = 0. Thus we have J′ : Nη (t) −→Nη (t) and B : Nη (t) −→ Nη (t).
(b) Proposition 3.4 ensures Rη̇(t) (v) ∈ Nη (t) for all v ∈ Tη(t) M . The gη̇ -symmetry in (5.2)
means that, given two gη̇ -parallel vector fields P1 (t), P2 (t) ∈ Nη (t) along η, the Jacobi
fields Yi := J(Pi ) satisfy(5.4)
gη̇ (Y1′ , Y2 ) − gη̇ (Y1 , Y2′ ) = 0
on I. Since (5.1) and (3.5) imply [gη̇ (Y1′ , Y2 ) − gη̇ (Y1 , Y2′ )]′ ≡ 0, we have (5.4) for all t
if it holds at some t.
We introduce fundamental quantities in the analysis of Jacobi tensor fields along theLorentz–Finsler treatment of [Min4].
Definition 5.3 (Expansion, shear tensor) Let J be a Jacobi tensor field along a timelike geodesic η : I −→ M of unit speed. For t ∈ I where J(t) is invertible, we define theexpansion scalar by()
θ(t) := trace B(t)and the shear tensor (the traceless part of B) by
σ(t) := B(t) −

θ(t)
In ,
n

where In represents the identity of Nη (t).
We proceed to the weighted situation. Recall that ψ is a function on Ω \ {0} and,along a causal geodesic η, we set ψη := ψ(η̇) (see (4.1)). For a Jacobi tensor field J along
a timelike geodesic η : I −→ M of unit speed, define the weighted Jacobi endomorphismbyJψ (t) := e−ψη (t)/n J(t).
(5.5)
Now we introduce an auxiliary time, the ϵ-proper time, defined by∫2(ϵ−1)
τϵ := e n ψη (t) dt,(5.6)

where t is the usual proper time parametrization. Notice that τϵ coincides with the usual
proper time for ϵ = 1, and the case of ϵ = 0 was introduced in [WW1]. For brevity the(covariant) derivative in τϵ will be denoted by ∗. For instance,)2(1−ϵ)d[η ◦ τϵ−1 ] (η (t) :=τϵ (t) = e n ψη (t) η̇(t).
dτϵ∗Let us also introduce a weighted counterpart to the curvature endomorphism:{() }ψη′ (t)24(1−ϵ)1ψη (t)′′n
R(N,ϵ) (t) := eR(t) +
ψ (t) −
In
n η
N −n
15

(5.7)

for N ̸= n (compare this with Rf (t) in [Ca, Definition 2.7]). This expression is chosen insuch a way that4(1−ϵ)
trace(R(N,ϵ) ) = e n ψη RicN (η̇) = RicN (η ∗ ).
A straightforward calculation shows the following weighted Jacobi equation, which generalizes (5.1).
Lemma 5.4 (Weighted Jacobi equation) With the notations as above, we haveJ∗∗
ψ +2ϵ ∗ ∗
ψ J + R(0,ϵ) Jψ = 0.
n η ψ

(5.8)

Proof. Recalling the definition of Jψ in (5.5), we observe)(ψη∗2(1−ϵ)∗−ψη /nψη ′nJ − J ,
(5.9)
Jψ = een{()}ψη∗ 2(1−ϵ) ψη ′ ψη∗4(1−ϵ)
1 − 2ϵ ∗ 2(1−ϵ) ψη ′ ψη∗∗∗∗−ψη /nψ′′ηJψ = ee nJ +ψη e n
J −
J−
e n
J − J
n
n
n
n
(
∗∗
∗ 2 )
ψη
(ψη )
4(1−ϵ)
2(1−ϵ)
2ϵ= e−ψη /n e n ψη J′′ − ψη∗ e n ψη J′ −
J+
J .
n
n
n2
Moreover,R(0,ϵ) = e4(1−ϵ)ψηn()
12(1 − ϵ) ∗ 2 (ψη∗ )2
∗∗
R+
ψ −
(ψη ) +
In .
n η
n
n

(5.10)

Therefore we have, with the help of J′′ + RJ = 0 in (5.1),()
2(1−ϵ)2ϵ ∗ 22ϵ∗∗−ψη /n 2ϵ ∗ψ′ηJψ + R(0,ϵ) Jψ = −eψη e nJ − 2 (ψη ) J = − ψη∗ J∗ψ .
nnn□
For t ∈ I where J(t) is invertible, we defineBϵ (t) := J∗ψ (t)Jψ (t)−1 = e2(1−ϵ)
ψη (t)nψη∗ (t)B(t) −
In ,n(5.11)

where we used (5.9) and suppressed the dependence on ψ. Similarly to Lemma 5.4 above,
one can show the weighted Riccati equation generalizing (5.3) as follows.
Lemma 5.5 (Weighted Riccati equation) With the notations as above, we have
B∗ϵ +

2ϵ ∗
ψ Bϵ + B2ϵ + R(0,ϵ) = 0.
n ηProof. We deduce fromB∗ϵ = e4(1−ϵ)ψηnψη∗∗2(1 − ϵ) ∗ 2(1−ϵ) ψη
n
ψη e
In ,
B +
B−
n
n
′

16

(5.12)

(5.10) and B′ + B2 + R = 0 in (5.3) that(ψη∗ )2ψη∗
2(1−ϵ)
1 − 2ϵ ∗ 22(1 − ϵ) ∗ 2(1−ϵ) ψηψη e nIn −(ψη ) InB − 2e n ψη B +
2
n
n
n
n2
2(1−ϵ)2ϵ2ϵ2ϵ= − ψη∗ e n ψη B + 2 (ψη∗ )2 In = − ψη∗ Bϵ .
nnnB∗ϵ + B2ϵ + R(0,ϵ) =□Observe that for ϵ = 0 both the weighted Jacobi and Riccati equations are simplified tohave the same forms as the unweighted situation (compare this with [Ca, Proposition 2.8],2(1−ϵ)
adding the factor e n ψη enabled us to remove the extra term appearing there). We definethe ϵ-expansion scalar by()()
2(1−ϵ)
2(1−ϵ)θϵ (t) := trace Bϵ (t) = e n ψη (t) θ(t) − ψη∗ (t) = e n ψη (t) θ(t) − ψη′ (t) .
(5.13)For ϵ = 0, we may also write θψ := θ0 = e n ψη (θ − ψη′ ). Define the ϵ-shear tensor by22(1−ϵ)θϵ (t)In = e n ψη (t) σ(t).
nSince B is gη̇ -symmetric, so are Bϵ and σϵ .

σϵ (t) := Bϵ (t) −5.2(5.14)

Raychaudhuri equation

Taking the trace of the weighted Riccati equation (5.12), we obtain the weighted Raychaudhuri equation displaying Ric0 and after a straightforward manipulation the versions
displaying RicN .
Theorem 5.6 (Timelike weighted Raychaudhuri equation) Let J be a nonsingular
Lagrange tensor field along a future-directed timelike geodesic η : I −→ M of unit speed.
Then, for N = 0, the ϵ-expansion θϵ satisfies
θϵ∗ +

2ϵ ∗
θ2
ψη θϵ + ϵ + trace(σϵ2 ) + Ric0 (η ∗ ) = 0nn(5.15)

on I. For N ∈ (−∞, +∞)\{0, n}, θϵ satisfies
(
) 2
(
)2
ψη∗
θϵ N (N − n) ϵθϵ∗
2N − nθϵ + 1 − ϵ+++trace(σϵ2 )+RicN (η ∗ ) = 0, (5.16)
N
n
n
N
N −n
and for N = +∞, θϵ satisfies
θ2 1
θϵ∗ + (1 − ϵ2 ) ϵ + (ϵθϵ + ψη∗ )2 + trace(σϵ2 ) + Ric∞ (η ∗ ) = 0.
nn(5.17)

Proof. The first equation (5.15) is obtained as the trace of (5.12) by noticing
(
)
2θϵ
θ2
θϵ2
2
2
σϵ + 2 In = trace(σϵ2 ) + ϵ .
trace(Bϵ ) = trace σϵ +nnnThen (5.16) follows from (5.15) by comparing Ric0 and RicN . The expression (5.17) for
N = +∞ can be derived again from (5.15), or as the limiting case of (5.16).
□
17

The usefulness of (5.16) and (5.17) stands in the possibility of controlling the positivityof the coeﬃcient in front of θϵ2 , as we shall see. Though we did not have a Raychaudhuri
equation with this property for N = n, we do have a meaningful Raychaudhuri inequality.
Proposition 5.7 (Timelike weighted Raychaudhuri inequality) Let J be a nonsingular Lagrange tensor field along a timelike geodesic η : I −→ M of unit speed. For everyϵ ∈ R and N ∈ (−∞, 0) ∪ [n, +∞], we have on I

whereθϵ∗ ≤ −RicN (η ∗ ) − trace(σϵ2 ) − cθϵ2 ,(5.18)()
2N − n1−ϵ.
N(5.19)

1c = c(N, ϵ) :=nMoreover, for ϵ = 0 one can take N → 0 and (5.18) holds with c = c(0, 0) := 1/n.
Proof. For N ∈ (−∞, 0) ∪ (n, +∞], the inequality (5.18) readily follows from (5.16) or(5.17). The case of N = n is obtained by taking the limit N ↓ n. The case of N = ϵ = 0
is immediate from (5.15).
□
Looking at the condition for c > 0, we arrive at a key step for singularity theorems.
Proposition 5.8 (Timelike ϵ-range for convergence) Given N ∈ (−∞, 0]∪[n, +∞],
take ϵ ∈ R such that√Nϵ = 0 for N = 0, |ϵ| <for N ̸= 0.
(5.20)
N −n
Let η : (a, b) −→ M be a timelike geodesic of unit speed. Assume that RicN (η ∗ ) ≥ 0 holdson (a, b), and let J be a Lagrange tensor field along η such that for some t0 ∈ (a, b) we haveθϵ (t0 ) < 0. Then we have det J(t) = 0 for some t ∈ [t0 , t0 + s0 ] provided that t0 + s0 < b,where we set, with c = c(N, ϵ) > 0 in (5.19),()
1−1
s0 := τϵτϵ (t0 ) −− t0 .
(5.21)cθϵ (t0 )Similarly, if θϵ (t0 ) > 0, then we have det J(t) = 0 for some t ∈ [t0 + s0 , t0 ] provided
that t0 + s0 > a for s0 above.
Note that the assumption RicN (η ∗ ) ≥ 0 is equivalent to RicN (η̇) ≥ 0, and that θϵ (t0 ) <0 is equivalent to θψ (t0 ) < 0 (corresponding to ϵ = 0). When N = n, the condition (5.20)
is void and we can take any ϵ ∈ R.
Proof. Let us consider the former case of θϵ (t0 ) < 0, then s0 > 0. Observe that θϵ (t0 )−1 =c(τϵ (t0 ) − τϵ (t0 + s0 )). Assume to the contrary that [t0 , t0 + s0 ] ⊂ (a, b) and det J(t) ̸= 0 for
all t ∈ [t0 , t0 + s0 ]. Since σϵ is gη̇ -symmetric, we deduce from (5.18) that θϵ∗ ≤ −cθϵ2 ≤ 0.
Hence we have θϵ < 0 on [t0 , b) and, moreover, [θϵ−1 ]∗ ≥ c. Integrating this inequality fromt0 to t ∈ (t0 , t0 + s0 ) yields
θϵ (t) ≤

1
1
=
< 0.
θϵ (t0 )−1 + c(τϵ (t) − τϵ (t0 ))c(τϵ (t) − τϵ (t0 + s0 ))18This implies limt↑t0 +s0 θϵ (t) = −∞. Then, sinceθϵ = e2(1−ϵ)
ψηntrace(B) − ψη∗ = e2(1−ϵ)
ψηn(det J)′− ψη∗ ,
det J

it necessarily holds that det J(t0 + s0 ) = 0, a contradiction. The case of θϵ (t0 ) > 0 (wheres0 < 0) is proved analogously.
□
Remark 5.9 (Admissible range of ϵ) The condition (5.20) for ϵ gives an important
insight on the relation between N and the admissible range of ϵ. Observe that ϵ = 0 as
in [WW1, WW2] is allowed for any N ∈ (−∞, 0] ∪ [n, +∞], while ϵ = 1 corresponding to
the usual proper time is allowed only for N ∈ [n, +∞).

5.3

Completenesses

Inspired by Proposition 5.8, we introduce a completeness condition associated with the
ϵ-proper time in (5.6).
Definition 5.10 (Timelike ϵ-completeness) Let η : (a, b) −→ M be an inextendible
timelike geodesic. We say that η is future ϵ-complete if limt→b τϵ (t) = +∞. Similarly, we
say that it is past ϵ-complete if limt→a τϵ (t) = −∞. The spacetime (M, L, ψ) is said tobe future timelike ϵ-complete if every inextendible timelike geodesic is future ϵ-complete,and similar in the past case.
If ϵ = 1 one simply speaks of the (geodesic) completeness with respect to the usual
proper time (namely b = +∞), while if ϵ = 0 one speaks of the ψ-completeness introduced
by Wylie [Wy] in the Riemannian case and by Woolgar–Wylie [WW1, WW2] in theLorentzian case. Note also that the ϵ-completeness was tacitly assumed in [Ca, GW]
through the upper boundedness of ψ (see Lemma 5.12 below). The following corollary isimmediate from Proposition 5.8.
Corollary 5.11 Let N ∈ (−∞, 0] ∪ [n, +∞] and J be a Lagrange tensor field along afuture inextendible timelike geodesic η : (a, b) −→ M satisfying RicN (η̇) ≥ 0. Assume that
η is future ϵ-complete for some ϵ ∈ R that belongs to the timelike ϵ-range in (5.20), andthat θϵ (t0 ) < 0 for some t0 ∈ (a, b). Then η develops a point t ∈ (t0 , b) where det J(t) = 0.
Proof. It suﬃces to show that one can always find s0 ∈ (0, b − t0 ) satisfying θϵ (t0 )−1 =c(τϵ (t0 ) − τϵ (t0 + s0 )). This clearly holds true under the future ϵ-completeness.
□
We remark that the future ϵ-completeness clearly requires the future inextendability,
but not necessarily b = +∞. The next lemma is an immediate consequence of Definition 5.10, see [WW1, Lemma 1.3].
Lemma 5.12 Let ϵ < 1. If ψ is bounded above, then the future (resp. past) completeness
implies the future (resp. past) ϵ-completeness. If ψη is non-increasing along every timelike
geodesic η, then the future completeness implies the future ϵ-completeness. Similarly, ifψη is non-decreasing along every timelike geodesic η, then the past completeness implies
the past ϵ-completeness.
19

5.4

Timelike geodesic congruence from a point

In this subsection, we study timelike geodesic congruences issued from a point. A similar
analysis can be applied to timelike geodesic congruences that are orthogonal to a spacelike
hypersurface. Our objective is to show that they determine Lagrange tensor fields. This
subsection does not use the weight.
Proposition 5.13 Let (M, L) be a Finsler spacetime, and let η : [0, l] −→ M be a timelike
geodesic of unit speed. Suppose that there is no point conjugate to η(0) along η. Then
there exists a Lagrange tensor field J(t) : Nη (t) −→ Nη (t) such that J(0) = 0, J′ (0) = Inand det J(t) > 0 for all t ∈ (0, l].
Proof. Let x = η(0) and v = η̇(0). For each w ∈ Tx M , we consider the vector fieldYw := d(expx )tv (tw) ∈ Tη(t) M . By construction it is a Jacobi field along η satisfying
Yw (0) = 0 and Yw′ (0) = w, where we denote by Yw′ the covariant derivative Dη̇η̇ Yw along η.
We shall define an endomorphism J(t) : Nη (t) −→ Nη (t) (in a way similar to Remark 5.2). Given w ∈ Nη (t), we extend it to the gη̇ -parallel vector field P along η(namely P ′ ≡ 0), and then define J(t)(w) := YP (0) (t). Note that the image of J(t) is
indeed included in Nη (t), since it follows from (3.1), (3.4) and Proposition 3.4 that
]
(
)
d2 [
g
(
η̇,
Y
)
=
−g
η̇,
R
(Y
)
≡ 0.
η̇
η̇
η̇
P
(0)
P
(0)
dt2
Since P is gη̇ -parallel, we have
J′ (P ) = J(P )′ − J(P ′ ) = YP′ (0) ,J′′ (P ) = (J′ (P ))′ − J′ (P ′ ) = YP′′(0) = −Rη̇ (YP (0) ).

Therefore J satisfies the equation J′′ + RJ = 0. Since η(0) has no conjugate point by
hypothesis and YP (0) (0) = 0, the map J(t) has maximum rank and hence invertible forevery t ∈ (0, l]. In particular, ker(J(t)) ∩ ker(J′ (t)) = {0} for all t ∈ [0, l], thus J is a
Jacobi tensor field.
Next, we prove that JT J′ is gη̇ -symmetric. To this end, observe that
]
(
)
(
)
d[
gη̇ (Yw′ 1 , Yw2 ) − gη̇ (Yw1 , Yw′ 2 ) = −gη̇ Rη̇ (Yw1 ), Yw2 + gη̇ Yw1 , Rη̇ (Yw2 ) = 0
dt
for w1 , w2 ∈ Nη (0), where we used (3.5). Combining this with Yw1 (0) = Yw2 (0) = 0 yieldsgη̇ (Yw′ 1 , Yw2 ) = gη̇ (Yw1 , Yw′ 2 ). This shows that JT J′ is indeed symmetric (and hence J is a
Lagrange tensor field) because, for the gη̇ -parallel vector field Pi with Pi (0) = wi (i = 1, 2),()()
gη̇ P1 , JT J′ (P2 ) = gη̇ (Yw1 , Yw′ 2 ) = gη̇ (Yw′ 1 , Yw2 ) = gη̇ JT J′ (P1 ), P2 .
Finally, we find by construction that J(0) = 0 and J′ (0) = In , where In is the identityof Nη (0). Thus we obtain, for t suﬃciently close to 0, det J(t) = det(tIn + o(t)) > 0. By
the continuity and non-degeneracy of J, det J(t) is indeed positive for every t.
□

20

5.5

Comparison theorems

This subsection is devoted to the (weighted) Lorentz–Finsler analogues of two fundamental
comparison theorems in Riemannian geometry, the Bonnet–Myers and Cartan–Hadamard
theorems. We refer to [Ch] for the Riemannian case, [BCS] for the Finsler case, and to[BEE, Chapter 11] for the Lorentzian case.
Though we will give precise proofs, it is also possible to reduce those theorems to the(weighted) Lorentzian setting by using Theorem 3.7. We refer to [Oh5] for details.
Proposition 5.14 (Weighted Bishop inequality) Let J be a nonsingular Lagrange
tensor field along a timelike geodesic η : I −→ M of unit speed. Let N ∈ (−∞, 0]∪[n, +∞]and ϵ ∈ R be in the timelike ϵ-range as in (5.20). Defining ξ := |det Jψ |c with c > 0 in
(5.19), we have on Iξ ∗∗ ≤ −cξ RicN (η ∗ ).
Proof. Note that J being nonsingular ensures that det Jψ is always positive or always
negative. If det Jψ > 0, then we deduce from log ξ = c log(det Jψ ) thatξ∗
(det Jψ )∗=c= c trace(J∗ψ J−1
ψ ) = c trace(Bϵ ) = cθϵ .
ξdet Jψ
Thus ξ ∗∗ ξ − (ξ ∗ )2 = cθϵ∗ ξ 2 , and then the weighted Raychaudhuri inequality (5.18) yields
ξ ∗∗ ≤ −cξ{RicN (η ∗ ) + trace(σϵ2 )} ≤ −cξ RicN (η ∗ ).
In the case of det Jψ < 0, we have log ξ = c log(− det Jψ ) and can argue similarly.

□

An interesting case is N ∈ [n, +∞), ϵ = 1 and c = 1/N , for it corresponds to theusual proper time parametrization and leads us to the weighted Bonnet–Myers theorem.
We are going to need some auxiliary geometric properties of Finsler spacetimes. The
existence of convex neighborhoods implies that several standard proofs from causality theory, originally developed for Lorentzian spacetimes, pass unaltered to the Lorentz–Finsler
framework (we refer to [Min2]). An important result is a generalization of the Avez–
Seifert connectedness theorem as follows (see [Min4, Proposition 6.9], it actually holds
under much weaker regularity assumptions on the metric as in [Min6, Theorem 2.55]).
Theorem 5.15 (Avez–Seifert theorem) In a globally hyperbolic Finsler spacetime, any
two causally related points are connected by a maximizing causal geodesic.
It should be recalled here that in a Finsler spacetime two points connected by a causal
curve which is not a lightlike geodesic are necessarily connected by a timelike curve, see[Min2, Lemma 2] or [Min6, Theorem 2.16]. Thus a lightlike curve which is maximizing isnecessarily a lightlike geodesic.
We also need the following (see [Min4, Proposition 5.1] and also [Min7, Theorem 6.16]).
Proposition 5.16 (Beyond conjugate points) In a Finsler spacetime, a causal geodesicη : [a, b] −→ M cannot be maximizing if it contains an internal point conjugate to η(a).
Similarly, a causal geodesic η : (a, b) −→ M cannot be maximizing if it contains a pair ofmutually conjugate points.
21

Define the timelike diameter of a Finsler spacetime (M, L) bydiam(M ) := sup{d(x, y) | x, y ∈ M }.
By the definition of the distance function, given x, y ∈ M and any causal curve η from x
to y, we have ℓ(η) ≤ d(x, y). Hence, if diam(M ) < ∞, then every timelike geodesic has
finite length and (M, L) is timelike geodesically incomplete (see [BEE, Remark 11.2]).
Now we state a weighted Lorentz–Finsler analogue of the Bonnet–Myers theorem.
Theorem 5.17 (Weighted Bonnet–Myers theorem) Let (M, L, ψ) be globally hyperbolic of dimension n + 1 ≥ 2. If RicN ≥ K holds in timelike directions for someN ∈ [n, +∞) and K > 0, then we have√Ndiam(M ) ≤ π.
K
Proof. Suppose that the claim is√not true, then we can find two causally related points
x, y ∈ M such that d(x, y) > π N/K. By Theorem 5.15, there is a timelike√ geodesicη : [0, l] −→ M with η(0) = x, η(l) =√y, F (η̇) = 1 and l = ℓ(η) = d(x, y) > π N/K. We
are going to prove that, due to l > π N/K, there necessarily exists a conjugate point toη(0). Then Proposition 5.16 gives the desired contradiction.
Now we assume that there is no conjugate point to η(0). Then Proposition 5.13 applies
and we have a Lagrange tensor field J with the properties given there. Define Jψ = e−ψη /n J
and ξ = (det Jψ )1/N (i.e., ϵ = 1), and notice that ξ > 0 for t > 0. Then by Proposition 5.14
with ϵ = 1, we have()
N ξ ′′ (t) ≤ −ξ(t)RicN η̇(t) ≤ −Kξ(t).
(5.22)√
Putting s(t) := sin(t K/N ), we obtain (ξ ′ s − ξs′ )′ ≤ 0.
Let us prove that limt→0 (ξ ′ s − ξs′ )(t) ≤ 0, from which it follows ξ ′ s − ξs′ ≤ 0. Noticethat ξ ∈ C 2 ((0, l]) ∩ C 0 ([0, l]) and ξ(0) = 0 (by J(0) = 0), so we need only to prove
limt→0 ξ ′ (t)t ≤ 0 where ξ ′ (t)t needs not be C 1 at 0. We deduce from (5.22) that ξ isconcave in t near t = 0. Let f (t) := ξ(t) − tξ ′ (t) be the ordinate of the intersection
between the tangent to the graph of ξ at (t, ξ(t)) and the vertical axis. By the concavityof ξ, f is non-decreasing in t and f (t) ≥ ξ(0) = 0. Therefore the limit limt→0 f (t) exists
and we obtain
lim tξ ′ (t) = − lim f (t) ≤ 0.
t→0
t→0
√
Since ξ ′ s − ξs′ ≤ 0, the ratio ξ(t)/s(t) is non-increasing
in
t
∈
(0,
π
N/K). Hence√ξ(t0 ) = 0 necessarily holds at some t0 ∈ (0, π N/K]. This contradicts
the assumed√□
absence of conjugate points, therefore we conclude that diam(M ) ≤ π N/K.
We remark that the unweighted√ is included in the above theorem as ψ = 0√ situationand then we have diam(M ) ≤ π n/K = π (dim M − 1)/K.
We end this section by giving a Lorentz–Finsler version of the Cartan–Hadamard
theorem, that we obtain in the unweighted case only.

22

Theorem 5.18 (Cartan–Hadamard theorem) Let (M, L) be a globally hyperbolic Finsler
spacetime whose flag curvature K(v, w) is nonpositive for every v ∈ Ωx and linearly independent w ∈ Tx M . Then every causal geodesic does not have conjugate points.
We remark that our flag curvature has the opposite sign to [BEE], thus we are considering the nonpositive curvature (similarly to the Riemannian or Finsler case).
Proof. Assume that there is a timelike geodesic η : [0, l] −→ M and a nontrivial Jacobi
field Y along η such that Y (0) and Y (l) vanish. We will denote by Y ′ the covariant
derivative Dη̇η̇ Y along η. We deduce from
]
(
)
d2 [
gη̇ (η̇, Y ) = −gη̇ η̇, Rη̇ (Y ) = 02dtthat gη̇ (η̇(t), Y (t)) is aﬃne in t, but it vanishes at t = 0, l. This implies that gη̇ (η̇, Y ) ≡ 0
and gη̇ (η̇, Y ′ ) ≡ 0. Hence Y and Y ′ are gη̇ -spacelike( and, in) particular, gη̇ (Y, Y ) ≥ 0 as wellas gη̇ (Y ′ , Y ′ ) ≥ 0. The assumption implies gv w, Rv (w) ≤ 0 for v ∈ Ωx and w ∈ Tx M
(which by continuity implies the same inequality for v ∈ Ωx ). Thus we have
]
(
)
d2 [
gη̇ (Y, Y ) = 2gη̇ (Y ′ , Y ′ ) − 2gη̇ Y, Rη̇ (Y ) ≥ 0.
2
dt
Therefore gη̇ (Y, Y ) is a nonnegative convex function vanishing at t = 0, l, and hencegη̇ (Y, Y ) = 0. This implies that Y vanishes on entire [0, l], a contradiction.
For a lightlike geodesic η, we obtain gη̇ (Y, Y ) = 0 by the same argument, and thenY ≡ 0 if Y (t) is gη̇ -spacelike at some t ∈ (0, l). In the case where Y is always gη̇ -lightlike,since gη̇ (η̇, Y ) = 0, we have Y (t) = f (t)η̇(t) for some function f with f (0) = f (l) = 0.
Combining this with f ′′ = 0 following from the Jacobi equation of Y , we have f ≡ 0. □In the Riemannian or Finsler setting, the absence of conjugate points yields that theexponential map expx : Tx M −→ M is a covering and, if M is simply-connected, expx
is a diﬀeomorphism. The Lorentzian case is not as simple as such since Theorem 5.18 isconcerned with only causal geodesics. See [BEE, Section 11.3] for further discussions.

6

Null case

The arguments in Subsections 5.1–5.3 can be extended to lightlike geodesics. We will keep
the same notations τϵ and c for quantities that are just analogous to those appearing in thetimelike case (compare (6.2) and (6.5) in this section with (5.6) and (5.19), respectively),
hoping that this choice will cause no confusion.
Let η : I −→ M be a future-directed lightlike geodesic, i.e., L(η̇) = 0 and η̇ ̸= 0. ThenNη (t) ⊂ Tη(t) M is similarly defined as the n-dimensional subspace gη̇(t) -orthogonal to η̇(t),but in this case η̇(t) ∈ Nη (t). Thus it is convenient to work with the quotient spaceQη (t) := Nη (t)/η̇(t).
The metric gη̇ induces the positive-definite metric h on this quotient bundle over η. It canbe shown (see [Min4]) that the covariant derivative Dη̇η̇ is well defined over this quotient,23and it can be extended linearly over the space of endomorphisms of Qη (t). It is important
to observe that this vector space is (n − 1)-dimensional, so its identity In−1 has a trace
which equals n − 1. This fact explains why in passing from the timelike to the null case
we get the replacements n 7→ n − 1 and N 7→ N − 1 in several formulas. Jacobi andLagrange tensor fields are endomorphisms of this space but are otherwise defined in theusual way (Definition 5.1). For instance, a Jacobi tensor field J satisfies
J′′ + RJ = 0(6.1)(where ′ is the mentioned covariant derivative on the quotient space) and ker(J(t)) ∩ker(J′ (t)) = {0} (this 0 belongs to Qη (t), if we work with endomorphisms of Nη (t) thenwe would have Rη̇(t) on the right-hand side). In (6.1), R : Qη −→ Qη is the h-symmetriccurvature endomorphism. Then B := J′ J−1 is also an h-symmetric endomorphism of Qη ,and σ and θ are its trace and traceless parts (similarly to Definition 5.3), see [Min4] fordetails.
Analogous to the ϵ-proper time (5.6) in the timelike case, along a lightlike geodesic η
we define∫2(ϵ−1)
τϵ := e n−1 ψη (t) dt.
(6.2)
Similarly to the previous section, we denote by ∗ the (covariant) derivative in τϵ , thus2(1−ϵ)η ∗ (t) = e n−1 ψη (t) η̇(t). The weighted Jacobi endomorphismJψ (t) := e−ψη (t)/(n−1) J(t)and the curvature endomorphism
R(N,ϵ) (t) := e4(1−ϵ)
ψη (t)
n−1{
R(t) +()}
ψη′ (t)2
1′′
ψ (t) −
In−1
n−1 η
N −n

are defined in the same way as well. Notice that trace(R(N,ϵ) ) = RicN (η ∗ ). The same
calculation as Lemma 5.4 yields the weighted Jacobi equationJ∗∗ψ +2ϵ ∗ ∗
ψ J + R(1,ϵ) Jψ = 0,n−1 η ψwhere we remark that R(1,ϵ) is employed instead of R(0,ϵ) in (5.8).
For t ∈ I where J(t) is invertible, we define()
2(1−ϵ)
ψη′
ψη
∗ −1
n−1
Bϵ := Jψ Jψ = e
B−
In−1 .
n−1
Then the weighted Riccati equation
B∗ϵ +

2ϵ ∗
ψ Bϵ + B2ϵ + R(1,ϵ) = 0
n−1 η

is obtained similarly to Lemma 5.5. We also define the ϵ-expansion scalar()()
2(1−ϵ)θϵ (t) := trace Bϵ (t) = e n−1 ψη (t) θ(t) − ψη′ (t)
24

(6.3)

and the ϵ-shear tensor
σϵ (t) := Bϵ (t) −2(1−ϵ)θϵ (t)
In−1 = e n−1 ψη (t) σ(t).
n−1Taking the trace of the weighted Riccati equation (6.3), we get the weighted Raychaudhuri
equation, in the same manner as Theorem 5.6.
Theorem 6.1 (Null weighted Raychaudhuri equation) Let J be a nonsingular Lagrange tensor field along a future-directed lightlike geodesic η : I −→ M . Then, for N = 1,
the ϵ-expansion θϵ satisfies
θϵ∗ +

2ϵ ∗
θ2
ψη θϵ + ϵ + trace(σϵ2 ) + Ric1 (η ∗ ) = 0
n−1
n−1

on I. For N ∈ (−∞, +∞)\{1, n}, it satisfies
(
) 2
(
)2
ψη∗
θϵ
(N − 1)(N − n)ϵθϵ∗2N − nθϵ + 1 − ϵ++N −1 n−1
n−1
N −1 N −n+ trace(σϵ2 ) + RicN (η ∗ ) = 0,
and for N = +∞ it satisfiesθϵ∗ + (1 − ϵ2 )θϵ21+(ϵθϵ + ψη∗ )2 + trace(σϵ2 ) + Ric∞ (η ∗ ) = 0.
n−1 n−1

Once again the usefulness of these equations stands in the possibility of controlling
the positivity of the coeﬃcient in front of θϵ2 . The analogues to Propositions 5.7 and 5.8
hold as follows.
Proposition 6.2 (Null weighted Raychaudhuri inequality) Let J be a nonsingular
Lagrange tensor field along a lightlike geodesic η : I −→ M . For every ϵ ∈ R andN ∈ (−∞, 1) ∪ [n, +∞], we have on Iθϵ∗ ≤ −RicN (η ∗ ) − trace(σϵ2 ) − cθϵ2 ,

(6.4)

(
)
1
2N − nc = c(N, ϵ) =
1−ϵ
.
(6.5)
n−1
N −1
Moreover, for ϵ = 0 one can take N → 1 and (6.4) holds with c = c(1, 0) = 1/(n − 1).
where

Proposition 6.3 (Null ϵ-range for convergence) Given N ∈ (−∞, 1]∪[n, +∞], takeϵ ∈ R such that√N −1
ϵ = 0 for N = 1, |ϵ| <for N ̸= 1.
(6.6)
N −n
Let η : (a, b) −→ M be a lightlike geodesic. Assume that RicN (η ∗ ) ≥ 0 holds on (a, b), andlet J be a Lagrange tensor field along η such that for some t0 ∈ (a, b) we have θϵ (t0 ) < 0.
Then we have det J(t) = 0 for some t ∈ [t0 , t0 + s0 ] provided that t0 + s0 < b, where c ands0 are from (6.5) and (5.21), respectively.
Similarly, if θϵ (t0 ) > 0, then we have det J(t) = 0 for some t ∈ [t0 + s0 , t0 ] provided
that t0 + s0 > a.
25

Similarly to Remark 5.9, note that in (6.6) ϵ = 0 is allowed for any N , while ϵ = 1 isallowed only for N ∈ [n, +∞). We proceed to the study of completeness conditions.
Definition 6.4 (Null ϵ-completeness) Let η : (a, b) −→ M be an inextendible lightlike geodesic. We say that η is future ϵ-complete (resp. past ϵ-complete) if limt→b τϵ (t) =+∞ (resp. limt→a τϵ (t) = −∞). The spacetime (M, L, ψ) is said to be future null ϵcomplete if every lightlike geodesic is future ϵ-complete, and similar in the past case.
The next corollary is obtained similarly to Corollary 5.11.
Corollary 6.5 Let N ∈ (−∞, 1] ∪ [n, +∞] and J be a Lagrange tensor field along afuture inextendible lightlike geodesic η : (a, b) −→ M satisfying RicN (η̇) ≥ 0. Assume that
η is future ϵ-complete for some ϵ ∈ R that satisfies (6.6), and that θϵ (t0 ) < 0 for somet0 ∈ (a, b). Then η develops a point t ∈ (t0 , b) where det J(t) = 0.

7

Incomplete or conjugate

In this section we show that, under some genericity and convergence conditions, every
timelike or lightlike geodesic is either incomplete or including a pair of conjugate points.
The following notion will play an essential role.
Definition 7.1 (Genericity conditions) Let η : (a, b) −→ M be a timelike geodesic ofunit speed. We say that the genericity condition holds along η if there exists t1 ∈ (a, b)
such that R(t1 ) ̸= 0, where R(t) = Rη̇(t) : Nη (t) −→ Nη (t). We say that (M, L, ψ) satisfies
the timelike genericity condition if the genericity condition holds along every inextendible
timelike geodesic. Similarly, we define the null genericity condition where this time we use
the curvature endomorphism on the quotient space Qη . We say that (M, L, ψ) satisfies thecausal genericity condition if it satisfies both the timelike and null genericity conditions.
Remark 7.2 This is the standard genericity condition for Lorentz–Finsler geometry (see[Min4]) which generalizes that of Lorentzian geometry (see for instance [BEE]).
In the timelike case, we need to introduce a weighted version only in the extremal caseN = 0, where we replace R with R(0,0) from (5.7) similarly to [Ca, WW2], see Remarks 7.5,
7.13 for further discussions. Also for N ̸= 0, we could use the weighted version in thenext results, Lemma 7.4 and Proposition 7.6, with no alteration in the conclusions. Thisis because in the relevant step of the proof one observes that ψη′ = 0 and hence all thecurvature endomorphisms coincide up to a multiplicative factor.
In the null case, we need a weighted version only in the extremal case N = 1, where
we replace R with R(1,0) . Again for N ̸= 1, we could use the weighted version in the next
results with no alteration in the conclusions.
Definition 7.3 Let η : (a, b) −→ M be an inextendible timelike geodesic of unit speed.
For t ∈ (a, b), define L+ (t) (resp. L− (t)) as the collection of all Lagrange tensor fields J
along η such that J(t) = In and θ1 (t) ≥ 0 (resp. θ1 (t) ≤ 0).
Recall from (5.13) that θ1 = θ − ψη′ and that θ1 (t) ≥ 0 is equivalent to θϵ (t) ≥ 0
regardless of the choice of ϵ.
26

Lemma 7.4 Let N ∈ (−∞, 0) ∪ [n, +∞] and η : (a, b) −→ M be an inextendible timelike
geodesic of unit speed such that RicN (η̇) ≥ 0 on (a, b) and R(t1 ) ̸= 0 for some t1 ∈ R.
(i) Suppose that η is future ϵ-complete where ϵ ∈ R belongs to the timelike ϵ-range in(5.20). Then, for any J ∈ L− (t1 ), there exists some t ∈ (t1 , b) such that det J(t) = 0.
(ii) Similarly, if η is past ϵ-complete for ϵ in (5.20), then for any J ∈ L+ (t1 ) there exists
some t ∈ (a, t1 ) such that det J(t) = 0.
Proof. Since the proofs are similar, we prove only (i). The condition J ∈ L− (t1 ) implies
θϵ (t1 ) ≤ 0. If there is some t0 ≥ t1 such that θϵ (t0 ) < 0, then Corollary 5.11 shows theexistence of t > t1 with det J(t) = 0. Thus we assume θϵ (t) ≥ 0 for all t ≥ t1 .
It follows from the Raychaudhuri inequality (5.18) that θϵ′ (t) ≤ 0, hence θϵ (t) = 0 for
all t ≥ t1 . Then the Raychaudhuri equation (5.16) or (5.17) implies that RicN (η̇(t)) = 0,
trace(σϵ (t)2 ) = 0 and ψη′ (t) = 0 for all t ≥ t1 . (For the case N = n, we take N ′ ∈ (n, ∞)such that ϵ belongs to the timelike ϵ-range of N ′ and apply (5.16) for N ′ with the helpof RicN ′ ≥ Ricn from (4.3)). Since σϵ is gη̇ -symmetric, we have σϵ (t) = 0 for all t ≥ t1 .
Moreover, we deduce from (5.13), (5.14) and (5.11) that θ(t) = 0, σ(t) = 0 and B(t) = 0
for all t ≥ t1 . Then we obtain from the unweighted Riccati equation B′ + B2 + R = 0 in□(5.3) that R(t) = 0 for all t ≥ t1 , a contradiction that completes the proof.
Remark 7.5 (N = 0 case) In the extremal case of N = 0 (and hence ϵ = 0), the same
argument as Lemma 7.4 shows θϵ (t) = 0 and it implies Ric0 (η̇(t)) = 0, σϵ (t) = 0 andBϵ (t) = 0, but not ψη′ (t) = 0 (see (5.15)). Nonetheless, the weighted Riccati equation(5.12) yields R(0,0) (t) = 0, therefore we obtain the same conclusion as Lemma 7.4 byreplacing the hypothesis R(t1 ) ̸= 0 with the weighted genericity condition R(0,0) (t1 ) ̸= 0
similar to [Ca, WW2]. This phenomenon could be compared with Wylie’s observation in
the splitting theorems: One obtains the isometric splitting for N ∈ (−∞, 0) ∪ [n, +∞],
while for N = 0 only the weaker warped product splitting holds true. We refer to [Wy] for
the Riemannian case and [WW2] for the Lorentzian case (where N = 1 is the extremalcase due to the diﬀerence from our notation, recall Remark 4.2).
The following proposition is the next key step towards singularity theorems.
Proposition 7.6 (Generating conjugate points) Let N ∈ (−∞, 0)∪[n, +∞] and ϵ ∈R belong to the timelike ϵ-range in (5.20). Let η : (a, b) −→ M be an ϵ-complete timelike
geodesic satisfying the genericity condition and RicN (η̇) ≥ 0 on (a, b). Then η necessarily
has a pair of conjugate points.
To prove the proposition, we need two lemmas on Lagrange tensor fields shown in thesame way as the Lorentzian setting. Indeed, everything can be calculated in terms of gη̇ ,thereby one can follow the same lines as [BEE, Lemmas 12.12, 12.13].
Lemma 7.7 Let η : (a, b) −→ M be a timelike geodesic of unit speed having no conjugate
points. Take t1 ∈ (a, b) and let J be the unique Lagrange tensor field along η such that27

J(t1 ) = 0 and J′ (t1 ) = In . Then, for each s ∈ (t1 , b), the Lagrange tensor field Ds withDs (t1 ) = In and Ds (s) = 0 satisfies the equation∫ s(JT J)(r)−1 dr(7.1)
Ds (t) = J(t)t

for all t ∈ (t1 , b). Moreover, Ds (t) is nonsingular for all t ∈ (t1 , s).
Proof. Recall that J′ means Dη̇η̇ J. Note first that by the standard ODE theory the Jacobi
tensor field J is uniquely determined by the boundary condition J(t1 ) = 0 and J′ (t1 ) = In .
Moreover, J(t1 ) = 0 ensures that J is a Lagrange tensor field (recall Remark 5.2).
The endomorphism in the right-hand side of (7.1),∫ s(JT J)(r)−1 dr,t ∈ (t1 , b),
X(t) := J(t)tis well defined since η has no conjugate points and J(t1 ) = 0. We shall see that X is a
Lagrange tensor field satisfying the same boundary condition as Ds at s, which implies
Ds = X. The condition X′′ + RX = 0 for X being a Jacobi tensor field is proved by using
the symmetry (5.2) for J. Since X(s) = 0 clearly holds, X is indeed a Lagrange tensor
field. Moreover, we deduce from [(JT )′ Ds − JT D′s ]′ ≡ 0 (by the symmetry (3.5)), J(t1 ) = 0
and J′ (t1 ) = Ds (t1 ) = In that (JT )′ Ds − JT D′s ≡ In . HenceX′ (s) = −J(s) · (JT J)(s)−1 = −JT (s)−1 = D′s (s).
Therefore we obtain Ds = X. The nonsingularity for t ∈ (t1 , s) is seen by noticing that
(JT J)(r)−1 is positive-definite.
□
Lemma 7.8 Let η : (a, b) −→ M be a timelike geodesic of unit speed without conjugate
points. For t1 ∈ (a, b) and s ∈ (t1 , b), let J and Ds be the Lagrange tensor fields asin Lemma 7.7. Then D(t) := lims→b Ds (t) exists and is a Lagrange tensor field along ηsuch that D(t1 ) = In and D′ (t1 ) = lims→b D′s (t1 ). Moreover, D(t) is nonsingular for allt ∈ (t1 , b).
Proof. We can argue along the lines of [BEE, Lemma 12.13] (by replacing a in that
proof with any a′ ∈ (a, t1 ) in our notation) and find that lims→b D′s (t1 ) exists and D is the
Lagrange tensor field such that D(t1 ) = In and D′ (t1 ) = lims→b D′s (t1 ), represented as∫ b
D(t) = J(t)(JT J)(r)−1 dr,t ∈ (t1 , b).

t

The nonsingularity is shown in the same way as Lemma 7.7.

□

We are ready to prove Proposition 7.6. Notice that we will use both (i) and (ii) of
Lemma 7.4, so that both the future and past ϵ-completenesses are required.
Proof of Proposition 7.6. Suppose that η has no conjugate points and fix t1 ∈ (a, b) suchthat R(t1 ) ̸= 0. Let D := lims→b Ds be the Lagrange tensor field given in Lemma 7.8, and28

θ1 (t) be the 1-expansion associated to D. Thanks to Lemma 7.4(i) and the nonsingularityof D on (t1 , b), we have D ̸∈ L− (t1 ) and hence θ1 (t1 ) > 0. Since D(t1 ) = lims→b Ds (t1 ) andD′ (t1 ) = lims→b D′s (t1 ), θ1 (t1 ) > 0 still holds for Ds with suﬃciently large s > t1 . Then it
follows from Lemma 7.4(ii) that there exists t2 < t1 such that det Ds (t2 ) = 0.
Now, take v ∈ Nη (t2 ) \ {0} with Ds (t2 )(v) = 0 and let P be the gη̇ -parallel vector fieldalong η with P (t2 ) = v. Then, Y := Ds (P ) is a Jacobi field (recall Remark 5.2) and wehaveY (t2 ) = Ds (t2 )(v) = 0,
Y (s) = 0,
Y (t1 ) = P (t1 ) ̸= 0.
Therefore η(s) is conjugate to η(t2 ), a contradiction. This completes the proof.

□

An analogous proof gives the following result for null geodesics.
Proposition 7.9 Let N ∈ (−∞, 1) ∪ [n, +∞] and ϵ ∈ R belong to the null ϵ-range in(6.6). Let η : (a, b) −→ M be an ϵ-complete lightlike geodesic satisfying the genericity
condition and RicN (η̇) ≥ 0 on (a, b). Then η necessarily has a pair of conjugate points.
We summarize the outcomes of Propositions 7.6 and 7.9 by using the following notion.
Definition 7.10 (Convergence conditions) We say that (M, L, ψ) satisfies the timelike N -convergence condition (resp. the null N -convergence condition) for N ∈ (−∞, +∞]if we have RicN (v) ≥ 0 for all timelike vectors v ∈ Ω (resp. for all v ∈ ∂Ω).
By continuity, the timelike N -convergence condition is equivalent to RicN (v) ≥ 0 for
all causal vectors v ∈ Ω, so it can also be called the causal N -convergence condition.
Theorem 7.11 Let (M, L, ψ) be a Finsler spacetime of dimension n + 1 ≥ 2, satisfying
the timelike genericity and timelike N -convergence conditions for some N ∈ (−∞, 0) ∪[n, +∞]. Then every future-directed timelike geodesic is either including a pair of conjugate points or ϵ-incomplete for any ϵ ∈ R belonging to the timelike ϵ-range (5.20).
By the ϵ-incompleteness, we mean that (at least) one of the future and past ϵcompletenesses fails. In the null case we have similarly the next result.
Theorem 7.12 Let (M, L, ψ) be a Finsler spacetime of dimension n + 1 ≥ 3, satisfying
the null genericity and null N -convergence conditions for some N ∈ (−∞, 1) ∪ [n, +∞].
Then every future-directed lightlike geodesic is either including a pair of conjugate points
or ϵ-incomplete for any ϵ ∈ R belonging to the null ϵ-range (6.6).
Remark 7.13 (Extremal cases) Due to Remark 7.5, when N = 0 in the timelike caseor N = 1 in the null case, we have the analogues to Theorems 7.11, 7.12 under themodified genericity conditions R(0,0) (t1 ) ̸= 0 or R(1,0) (t1 ) ̸= 0 at some t1 ∈ (a, b).

8Singularity theorems

We finally discuss several singularity theorems derived from the results in the previous
sections (recall Subsection 1.1 for the general strategy). Our presentation follows [Min4]
based on causality theory (see also [AJ]). We also refer to [Min6, Min7] for singularity
theorems in causality theory. Recall Subsection 2.2 for some notations in causality theory.
29

8.1

Trapped surfaces

We first introduce the notion of trapped surfaces. Let S ⊂ M be a co-dimension 2,
orientable, compact C 2 -spacelike submanifold without boundary. By this we mean thatfor each x ∈ S, Tx S ∩ Ωx = {0}. By the convexity of the cone Ωx there are exactly two
hyperplanes Hx± ⊂ Tx M containing Tx S and tangent to Ωx . These hyperplanes determine
two future-directed lightlike vectors v ± in the sense that Hx± intersects Ωx in the ray R+ v ± .
This fact can be seen as a consequence of the bijectivity of the Legendre map, and we have
Hx± = ker gv± (v ± , ·) (see [Min3, Proposition 3] and also [AJ, Proposition 5.2]). A C 1 -choiceof the vector field v ± over S will be denoted by V ± . It exists by the orientability provided
that the spacetime is orientable in a neighborhood of S, and is uniquely determined up
to a point-wise rescaling, V ± 7→ f V ± , with f > 0.
Now we consider the geodesic congruence generated by V + , namely the family oflightlike geodesics emanating from S with the initial condition V + . Let η : [0, b) −→ M ,with x := η(0) ∈ S and η̇(0) = V + (x), be one such geodesic. Then we consider theJacobi tensor field J along η associated with the geodesic congruence, namely J(0) = In−1+
and J′ (0)(w) = DwV V + for each w ∈ Qη (0). (We remark that this is an endomorphism
left unchanged by the above rescaling (thereby well defined), i.e., invariant under the
replacements w 7→ w+f V + (x). Hence it is enough to consider w ∈ Tx S). More intuitively,
given w ∈ Tx S and the gη̇ -parallel vector field P with P (0) = w, the Jacobi field Yw :=+J(P ) satisfies Yw (0) = w and Yw′ (0) = DwV V + so that Yw is the variational vector fieldof a geodesic variation ζ : [0, b) × (−ε, ε) −→ M such that ζ(0, ·) is a curve in S with∂s ζ(0, 0) = w and ζ(·, s) is the geodesic with initial vector V + (ζ(0, s)) for each s.
One can show that J is in fact a Lagrange tensor field (see [Min4, Section 4], andthis could be compared with the symmetry of the Hessian in the positive-definite caseas in [OS, Lemma 2.3]). That is, let w1 , w2 ∈ Tx S and extend them to two vector fields
W1 , W2 tangent to S and commuting at x (i.e., [W1 , W2 ](x) = 0). Next extend them to aneighborhood U of S with no focal points. Let us also extend V + to a vector field on U ,and let us keep the same notations for the extended fields. Since Wi is tangent to S, wehave ∂wi gV + (V + , Wj ) = 0 for i, j = 1, 2. Then it follows from (3.2) and [W1 , W2 ](x) = 0
that
+

+

+

+

gV + (w1 , DwV 2 V + ) = −gV + (DwV 2 W1 , V + ) = −gV + (DwV 1 W2 , V + ) = gV + (w2 , DwV 1 V + ).
This together with J(0) = In−1 implies the symmetry of B = J′ J−1 , and hence the Lagrange
property for J (recall Remark 5.2).
Focal points of S are those at which det J = 0. In Lorentz–Finsler geometry it has been
proved in [Min4, Proposition 5.1] (see [Min7, Theorem 6.16] for the analogous Lorentzian
proof) that every geodesic of the congruence including a focal point necessarily enters theset I + (S) defined in Subsection 2.2 (this result does not use the weight and so passes to ourcase). A future lightlike S-ray is a future inextendible, lightlike geodesic η : [0, b) −→ Msuch that η(0) ∈ S and d(S, η(t)) = ℓ(η|[0,t] ) for all t ∈ (0, b). Then η issues necessarily
orthogonally from S, and does not intersect I + (S). Note also that, if every geodesic of
the congruence develops a focal point, then there are no future lightlike S-rays.
The expansion θ+ : S −→ R of S will be the expansion of the geodesic congruence
defined by+
θ+ (x) := trace(J′ J−1 )(0) = trace(w 7→ DwV V + ),30

where J is the Lagrange tensor field along the geodesic η with η̇(0) = V + (x) as above.
The right-hand side can be interpreted as the trace of the shape operator of S. Similarly,
define the ϵ-expansion θϵ+ : S −→ R of S by()
2(1−ϵ)
ψη (0) +′n−1
θϵ+ (x) := trace(J∗ψ J−1
)(0)
=
e
θ
(x)
−
ψ
(0)
.
η
ψ
The factor on the right-hand side is in most cases of no importance, since what reallymatters is the sign of θϵ+ . For instance the constant ϵ does not appear in the next definition.
We define θ− and θϵ− associated with V − in the same manner.
Definition 8.1 (Trapped surfaces) We say that S is a ψ-trapped surface if θ1+ < 0 andθ1− < 0 on S.
By the null Raychaudhuri equation of Theorem 6.1, more precisely by Corollary 6.5,
we obtain the following.
Proposition 8.2 Let (M, L, ψ) be a Finsler spacetime of dimension n + 1 ≥ 3, satisfying
the null N -convergence condition for some N ∈ (−∞, 1] ∪ [n, +∞]. Let S be a ψ-trappedsurface. Then every lightlike S-ray is necessarily future ϵ-incomplete for any ϵ ∈ R thatbelongs to the null ϵ-range (6.6).
Proof. Assume to the contrary that a lightlike S-ray is future ϵ-complete for some ϵ satisfying (6.6). By Corollary 6.5 it develops a focal point, hence by [Min4, Proposition 5.1]
it enters I + (S), which contradicts the definition of a future lightlike S-ray.
□

8.2

Singularity theorems

In the previous sections we generalized Step I according to the general strategy outlinedin Subsection 1.1. Thus, we are ready to obtain some notable singularity theorems in theweighted Lorentz–Finsler framework.
We say that S ⊂ M is achronal if I + (S) ∩ S = ∅ (namely, no two points in S areconnected by a timelike curve). A nonempty set S ⊂ M is called a future trapped set
if the future horismos E + (S) := J + (S) \ I + (S) of S is nonempty and compact. Recall
Definition 2.9 for the definition of Cauchy hypersurfaces.
As mentioned in Subsection 1.1 we have the next causality core statement which isvalid for our Finsler spacetimes (and also for less regular spaces, [Min6, Theorem 2.67]).
Theorem 8.3 Let (M, L) be a Finsler spacetime admitting a non-compact Cauchy hypersurface. Then every nonempty compact set S admits a future lightlike S-ray.
Joining Proposition 8.2 (as Steps I and II) with Theorem 8.3 (as Step III), we obtainour first singularity theorem, which is a generalization of Penrose’s theorem (analogous
to [Min7, Theorem 6.25]). Recall that a ψ-trapped surface is compact.
Theorem 8.4 (Weighted Finsler Penrose’s theorem) Let (M, L, ψ) be a Finsler spacetime of dimension n+1 ≥ 3, admitting a non-compact Cauchy hypersurface and satisfying
the null N -convergence condition for some N ∈ (−∞, 1] ∪ [n, +∞]. Suppose that there isa ψ-trapped surface S. Then there exists a lightlike geodesic issued from S which is future
ϵ-incomplete for every ϵ ∈ R that belongs to the null ϵ-range in (6.6).
31

As another example of causality core statement, we consider the following theorem
corresponding to [Min6, Theorem 2.64] or [Min7, Theorem 4.106]. Recall that a timefunction is a continuous function that increases over every causal curve. For closed cone
structures and hence for Finsler spacetimes, the existence of a time function is equivalent
to the stable causality, i.e., the possibility of widening the causal cones without introducing
closed causal curves (see [Min6, Theorem 2.30]). A lightlike line is an inextendible lightlike
geodesic for which no two points can be connected by a timelike curve (i.e., achronality).
Theorem 8.5 Let (M, L) be a chronological Finsler spacetime. If there are no lightlikelines, then there exists a time function and hence (M, L) is stably causal.
Joining this with Theorem 7.12 and Proposition 5.16 (as Steps I and II, respectively),
we have a generalization of a singularity theorem obtained by the second author in [Min1].
Theorem 8.6 (Absence of time implies singularities) Let (M, L, ψ) be a chronological Finsler spacetime of dimension n + 1 ≥ 3, satisfying the null genericity and thenull N -convergence conditions for some N ∈ (−∞, 1) ∪ [n, +∞]. If there are no timefunctions, then there exists a lightlike line which is ϵ-incomplete for every ϵ ∈ R belonging
to the null ϵ-range (6.6).
In the case of N = 1, we have the same conclusion by replacing the genericity condition
with the weighted one R(1,0) ̸= 0 (recall Remarks 7.5, 7.13).
The next lemma from [Min7, Corollary 2.117] passes word-for-word to the Lorentz–
Finsler case. We say that S ⊂ M is future null (resp. causally) araying if there are no
future-directed lightlike (resp. causal) S-rays.
Lemma 8.7 Let (M, L) be a stably causal Finsler spacetime. A nonempty compact set S
is a future trapped set if and only if it is future null araying.
Let us come to the causality core statement, found in [Min6, Theorem 2.71] or [Min7,
Theorem 6.43], behind Hawking and Penrose’s theorem.
Theorem 8.8 Chronological Finsler spacetimes (M, L) without causal lines do not admit
nonempty, compact, future null araying sets.
Notice that a chronological spacetime without lightlike lines is stably causal by Theorem 8.5 and hence, by Lemma 8.7, future null araying sets in this statement can beequivalently replaced by future trapped sets. Then the following is an analogue to [Min7,
Theorem 6.44]. Given an achronal set S ⊂ M , we define its edge edge(S) as the setof points x ∈ S such that, for every neighborhood U of x, there are y ∈ I − (x; U ) \ S,z ∈ I + (x; U ) \ S and a timelike curve in U \ S from y to z. We denoted by I − (x; U ) (resp.
I + (x; U )) the set of points y ∈ U such that there is a smooth timelike curve in U from y
to x (resp. from x to y). An achronal set is a closed topological hypersurface if and only
if its edge is empty (see [ON, Corollary 14.26]).
Theorem 8.9 (Weighted Finsler Hawking–Penrose’s theorem) Let (M, L, ψ) be achronological Finsler spacetime satisfying the causal genericity and the causal N -convergenceconditions for some N ∈ (−∞, 0)∪[n, +∞]. Suppose that there exists one of the following:32

(i) a compact achronal set without edge (e.g., a compact achronal spacelike hypersurface),(ii) a ψ-trapped surface,(iii) a point x such that, on every lightlike geodesic emanating from x, its expansion θ1
becomes negative at some point (i.e., the lightlike geodesic is reconverging).
Then (M, L, ψ) admits a timelike geodesic which is ϵ-incomplete for every ϵ ∈ R belonging
to the timelike ϵ-range (5.20), or a lightlike geodesic which is ϵ-incomplete for every ϵ ∈ Rsatisfying (6.6). In particular, it is ψ-incomplete (and incomplete in the usual sense if
N ∈ [n, ∞)).
Proof. Suppose that the claim is not true. Then, by Theorems 7.11 and 7.12, every causal
geodesic has conjugate points and hence is not maximizing, thereby it is not a causal line.
A chronological spacetime without causal lines is stably causal (by Theorem 8.5), thus
compact future trapped sets and future null araying sets are the same (Lemma 8.7).
(i) A result of causality theory whose proof passes word-for-word to the Lorentz–
Finsler case states that every compact achronal set without edge is a future trappedset (see [Min7, Corollary 2.145]), hence a compact future null araying set. This goes incontradiction with Theorem 8.8.
(ii) Since a ψ-trapped surface is necessarily future null araying due to Proposition 8.2
and the hypothesis, this also goes in contradiction with Theorem 8.8.
(iii) By Corollary 6.5 and [Min4, Proposition 5.1], every lightlike geodesic issued fromx enters I + (x), namely the singleton {x} is a compact future null araying set. Therefore
we have a contradiction again with Theorem 8.8.
□
Remark 8.10 (N = 0 case) A version for N = 0 holds true, there we assume the standard null genericity condition and the weighted timelike genericity condition demandingR(0,0) ̸= 0 in place of R ̸= 0 at a point on each timelike geodesic (recall Remark 7.13).
We say that S ⊂ M is acausal if it does not admit x, y ∈ S with x < y, namely no
causal curve meets S more than once. An acausal set is clearly achronal. A partial Cauchy
hypersuface is by definition an acausal set without edge (see [Min7, Definition 3.35]). The
causal core statement which corresponds to Hawking’s singularity theorem is the following(see [Min7, Theorem 6.48]).
Theorem 8.11 On a Finsler spacetime (M, L) there is no compact partial Cauchy hypersurface S which is future causally araying.
The concepts involved in this statement being dependent on the notion of Lorentz–
Finsler length are not purely causal. Nevertheless, the proof uses only the existence of
convex neighborhoods and does indeed pass word-for-word to the Finsler setting. We
need a definition which is the analog of Definition 8.1 in the timelike case.
Definition 8.12 (Contraction and expansion) Let S be a C 2 -spacelike hypersurface,and V be its future-directed normal vector field, namely V (x) ∈ Ωx and ker gV (V (x), ·) =Tx S for all x ∈ S. Consider the geodesic congruence generated by V , the expansions
θ = trace(w 7→ DwV V ) and θϵ on S in the same way as Subsection 8.1. Then we say that S
33

is contracting if θ < 0 on S, and that S is ψ-contracting if θ1 < 0 on S. If the inequality
is reversed, then one speaks of expanding and ψ-expanding hypersurfaces.
Theorem 8.13 (Weighted Finsler Hawking’s theorem) Let (M, L, ψ) be a Finsler
spacetime satisfying the timelike N -convergence condition for some N ∈ (−∞, 0]∪[n, +∞].
If M contains a compact C 2 -spacelike hypersurface S which is ψ-contracting, then there
exists a timelike geodesic issued normally from S which is future ϵ-incomplete for everyϵ ∈ R that belongs to the timelike ϵ-range (5.20).
Proof. The proof goes as in [Min7, Theorem 6.49]. If S is not acausal, then one can passto the Geroch covering spacetime MG which contains an acausal homeomorphic copy of S
(see [Min7, Section 2.15]). Since the other assumptions lift to the covering spacetime, andtimelike geodesic ϵ-incompleteness projects to the base, we can assume that S is acausal.
In particular, S is achronal and a partial Cauchy hypersuface.
Assume that each timelike geodesic orthogonal to S is future ϵ-complete for someϵ ∈ R that belongs to the timelike ϵ-range in (5.20). By Corollary 5.11 and the hypothesisθ1 < 0, every timelike geodesic issued normally from S develops a focal point in the
future, thereby it cannot be a future causal S-ray (by [Min4, Proposition 5.1]). However,
all future causal S-rays are necessarily orthogonal to S and hence timelike, therefore there
are no future causal S-rays. This shows that S is future causally araying, a contradiction
to Theorem 8.11.
□
Remark 8.14 (Past case via reverse structure) The past case of Theorem 8.13 can←−be seen by introducing the reverse structure L (v) := L(−v). Precisely, we consider the←−←−cone structure Ω x := −Ωx and the weight ψ (v) := ψ(−v). Then, for each timelike
geodesic η : (a, b) −→ M in (M, L), the reverse curve η̄(t) := η(−t) is a timelike geodesic
←
−
←−
←−
˙
in (M, L ), and RicN (η̄(t))= RicN (−η̇(−t)) = RicN (η̇(−t)). Now, assuming that S is←−←−
ψ-expanding with respect to L, S is ψ -contracting with respect to L and Theorem 8.13
yields a timelike geodesic which is future ϵ-incomplete for any ϵ in (5.20) with respect to←−
L . Then its reverse curve is a timelike geodesic past ϵ-incomplete with respect to L, thisgives the past case of Theorem 8.13.
Acknowledgements. SO would like to thank Erasmo Caponio for drawing his attention
to the subject of Finsler spacetimes. SO was supported in part by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (KAKENHI) 19H01786. The authors are grateful to an anonymousreferee for his/her valuable comments.

References[AJ]

A. B. Aazami and M. A. Javaloyes, Penrose’s singularity theorem in a Finsler spacetime. Classical Quantum Gravity 33 (2016), no. 2, 025003, 22 pp.

[AB]

S. B. Alexander and R. L. Bishop, Lorentz and semi-Riemannian spaces with Alexandrov curvature bounds. Comm. Anal. Geom. 16 (2008), 251–282.

[As]

G. S. Asanov, Finsler geometry, relativity and gauge theories. D. Reidel PublishingCo., Dordrecht, 1985.

34

[BE]

D. Bakry and M. Émery, Diﬀusions hypercontractives. (French) Séminaire de probabilités, XIX, 1983/84, 177–206, Lecture Notes in Math., 1123, Springer, Berlin, 1985.

[BGL]

D. Bakry, I. Gentil and M. Ledoux, Analysis and geometry of Markov diﬀusion operators. Springer, Cham, 2014.

[BCS]

D. Bao, S.-S. Chern and Z. Shen, An introduction to Riemann–Finsler geometry.
Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000.

[Be]

J. K. Beem, Indefinite Finsler spaces and timelike spaces. Can. J. Math. 22 (1970),
1035–1039.

[BEE]

J. K. Beem, P. E. Ehrlich and K. L. Easley, Global Lorentzian Geometry. Marcel
Dekker Inc., New York, 1996.

[BS]P. Bernard and S. Suhr, Lyapounov functions of closed cone fields: From Conley theory
to time functions. Comm. Math. Phys. 359 (2018), 467–498.

[BP]

J. Bertrand and M. Puel, The optimal transport problem for relativistic costs. Calc.
Var. Partial Diﬀerential Equations 46 (2013), 353–374.

[Bo]

A. Borde, Singularities in closed spacetimes. Classical Quantum Gravity 2 (1985),
589–596.

[Br]

Y. Brenier, Extended Monge–Kantorovich Theory. Optimal Transportation and Applications (Martina Franca, 2001). Lecture Notes in Math., 1813, 91–121. Springer,
Berlin (2003).

[Ca]

J. S. Case, Singularity theorems and the Lorentzian splitting theorem for the Bakry–
Emery–Ricci tensor. J. Geom. Phys. 60 (2010), 477–490.

[Ch]

I. Chavel, Riemannian geometry. A modern introduction. Second edition. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2006.

[CMS]

D. Cordero-Erausquin, R. J. McCann and M. Schmuckenschläger, A Riemannian interpolation inequality à la Borell, Brascamp and Lieb. Invent. Math. 146 (2001),
219–257.

[CGKM] P. T. Chruściel, J. Grant, M. Kunzinger and E. Minguzzi, Preface [Non-regular spacetime geometry]. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 968 (2018), 011001, 3pp.
[EM]

M. Eckstein and T. Miller, Causality for nonlocal phenomena. Ann. Henri Poincaré18 (2017), 3049–3096.

[FS]

A. Fathi and A. Siconolfi, On smooth time functions. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.
152 (2012), 303–339.

[FSW]

J. L. Friedman, K. Schleich and D. M. Witt, Topological censorship. Phys. Rev. Lett.
71 (1993), 1486–1489.

[GW]

G. J. Galloway and E. Woolgar, Cosmological singularities in Bakry–Émery spacetimes. J. Geom. Phys. 86 (2014), 359–369.

35

[Ga]

D. Gannon, Singularities in nonsimply connected space-times. J. Mathematical Phys.
16 (1975), 2364–2367.

[GKS]

J. D. E. Grant, M. Kunzinger and C. Sämann, Inextendibility of spacetimes andLorentzian length spaces. Ann. Global Anal. Geom. 55 (2019), 133–147.

[HE]

S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The large scale structure of space-time. Cambridge
University Press, London-New York, 1973.

[HP]

S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology. Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 314 (1970), 529–548.

[KeSu]

M. Kell and S. Suhr, On the existence of dual solutions for Lorentzian cost functions.
Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 37 (2020), 343–372.

[KM]

A. V. Kolesnikov and E. Milman, Brascamp–Lieb-type inequalities on weighted Riemannian manifolds with boundary. J. Geom. Anal. 27 (2017), 1680–1702.

[KuSa]

M. Kunzinger and C. Sämann, Lorentzian length spaces. Ann. Global Anal. Geom. 54(2018), 399–447.

[LV]

J. Lott and C. Villani, Ricci curvature for metric-measure spaces via optimal transport.
Ann. of Math. 169 (2009), 903–991.

[Mc]

R. J. McCann, Displacement convexity of Boltzmann’s entropy characterizes the strong
energy condition from general relativity. Camb. J. Math. 8 (2020), 609–681.

[Mil]

E. Milman, Beyond traditional curvature-dimension I: new model spaces for isoperimetric and concentration inequalities in negative dimension. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
369 (2017), 3605–3637.

[Min1]

E. Minguzzi, Chronological spacetimes without lightlike lines are stably causal. Comm.
Math. Phys. 288 (2009), 801–819.

[Min2]

E. Minguzzi, Convex neighborhoods for Lipschitz connections and sprays. Monatsh.
Math. 177 (2015), 569–625.

[Min3]

E. Minguzzi, Light cones in Finsler spacetimes. Comm. Math. Phys. 334 (2015), 1529–
1551.

[Min4]

E. Minguzzi, Raychaudhuri equation and singularity theorems in Finsler spacetimes.
Classical Quantum Gravity 32 (2015), 185008, 26pp.

[Min5]

E. Minguzzi, An equivalence of Finslerian relativistic theories. Rep. Math. Phys. 77(2016), 45–55.

[Min6]

E. Minguzzi, Causality theory for closed cone structures with applications. Rev. Math.
Phys. 31 (2019), 1930001, 139pp.

[Min7]

E. Minguzzi, Lorentzian causality theory. Living Reviews in Relativity 22, 3 (2019),
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41114-019-0019-x.

[MS]A, Mondino and S. Suhr, An optimal transport formulation of the Einstein equationsof general relativity. Preprint (2018). Available at arXiv:1810.13309

36

[Oh1]

S. Ohta, Finsler interpolation inequalities. Calc. Var. Partial Diﬀerential Equations
36 (2009), 211–249.

[Oh2]

S. Ohta, Vanishing S-curvature of Randers spaces. Diﬀerential Geom. Appl. 29 (2011),
174–178.

[Oh3]

S. Ohta, Splitting theorems for Finsler manifolds of nonnegative Ricci curvature. J.
Reine Angew. Math. 700 (2015), 155–174.

[Oh4]

S. Ohta, (K, N )-convexity and the curvature-dimension condition for negative N . J.
Geom. Anal. 26 (2016), 2067–2096.

[Oh5]

S. Ohta, Nonlinear geometric analysis on Finsler manifolds. Eur. J. Math. 3 (2017),
916–952.

[OS]

S. Ohta and K.-T. Sturm, Bochner–Weitzenböck formula and Li–Yau estimates on
Finsler manifolds. Adv. Math. 252 (2014), 429–448.

[ON]

B. O’Neill, Semi-Riemannian geometry: With applications to relativity. Academic
Press, Inc., New York, 1983.

[Pen]

R. Penrose, Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 14(1965), 57–59.

[Per]

V. Perlick, Fermat principle in Finsler spacetimes. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 38 (2006),
365–380.

[vRS]

M.-K. von Renesse and K.-T. Sturm, Transport inequalities, gradient estimates, entropy and Ricci curvature. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 58 (2005), 923–940.

[Sh]

Z. Shen, Lectures on Finsler geometry. World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore,
2001.

[St1]

K.-T. Sturm, On the geometry of metric measure spaces. I. Acta Math. 196 (2006),
65–131.

[St2]

K.-T. Sturm, On the geometry of metric measure spaces. II. Acta Math. 196 (2006),
133–177.

[Su]

S. Suhr, Theory of optimal transport for Lorentzian cost functions. Münster J. Math.
11 (2018), 13–47.

[Vi]

C. Villani, Optimal transport, old and new. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009.

[WW1]

E. Woolgar and W. Wylie, Cosmological singularity theorems and splitting theorems
for N -Bakry–Émery spacetimes. J. Math. Phys. 57 (2016), 022504, 1–12.

[WW2]

E. Woolgar and W. Wylie, Curvature-dimension bounds for Lorentzian splitting theorems. J. Geom. Phys. 132 (2018), 131–145.

[Wy]

W. Wylie, A warped product version of the Cheeger–Gromoll splitting theorem. Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 369 (2017), 6661–6681.

37