format: text

text:
# The Sources of b-Quarks at the Tevatron and their Correlations

## I Introduction

It is important to have good leading order (or leading-log order) estimates of hadron-hadron collider observables. Of course, precise comparisons with data require beyond leading order calculations. If the leading order estimates are within a factor of two of the data, higher order calculations might be expected to improve the agreement. On the other hand, if the leading order estimates are off by more than about a factor of two of the data, one cannot expect higher order calculations to improve the situation. In this case, even if the higher order corrections were large enough to bring agreement, one could not trust a perturbative series in which the second term is greater than the first. If a leading order estimate is off by more than a factor of two, it usually means that one has overlooked some important physics. For this reason good leading-log order estimates are important.

In this analysis the leading-log order QCD hard scattering Monte-Carlo models of HERWIG herwig , ISAJET isajet , and PYTHIA pythia  are used to study the sources of $`b`$-quarks at the Tevatron. The reactions responsible of producing $`b`$-quarks are separated into three categories; flavor creation, flavor excitation, and shower/fragmentation. Flavor creation corresponds to the production of a $`b\overline{b}`$ pair by gluon fusion or by the annihilation of light quarks via the two $`2`$-to-$`2`$ parton subprocesses, $`q+\overline{q}b+\overline{b}`$, and $`g+gb+\overline{b}`$, and is illustrated in FIG. 1. The data from CDF and D0 CDF1 ; CDF2 ; D0 ; wester  for the integrated inclusive $`b`$-quark cross section for $`|y|<1`$ at $`1.8\text{TeV}`$ are compared with the QCD Monte-Carlo model predictions for flavor creation in FIG. 2, where $`y`$ is the rapidity of the $`b`$-quark. Here the parton distribution functions CTEQ3L have been used for all three Monte-Carlo models and, as is well know, the leading order predictions are roughly a factor of four below the data. The leading order estimates of the flavor creation contribution to $`b`$-quark production at the Tevatron are so far below the data that higher order corrections (even though they may be important) cannot be the whole story.

An additional source of $`b`$-quarks at the Tevatron comes from the scattering of a $`b`$ or $`\overline{b}`$ quark out of the initial-state into the final-state by a gluon or by a light quark or antiquark via the subprocesses; $`g+bg+b`$, $`g+\overline{b}g+\overline{b}`$, $`q+bq+b`$, $`q+\overline{b}q+\overline{b}`$, $`\overline{q}+b\overline{q}+b`$, and $`\overline{q}+\overline{b}\overline{q}+\overline{b}`$. This is referred to as “flavor excitation” and is illustrated in FIG. 3. Flavor excitation is, of course, very sensitive to the number of $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quarks within the proton (i.e., the structure functions). The $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quarks are generated through the $`Q^2`$ evolution of the structure functions. Even with no “intrinsic” $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs within the proton, at high $`Q^2`$ $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs are produced by gluons and populate the proton “sea”. The number of $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs within the proton is related, through the $`Q^2`$ evolution, to the gluon distribution within the proton. None of the structure functions considered in this analysis include “intrinsic” $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs within the proton. The $`b\overline{b}`$ pair content within the proton is generated entirely through the $`Q^2`$ evolution of the structure functions.

Another source of $`b`$-quarks at the Tevatron comes from reactions which have a $`b\overline{b}`$ in the final-state but with only gluons and light quarks and light antiquarks participating in the $`2`$-to-$`2`$ hard parton scattering subprocess (i.e., no heavy quarks in the $`2`$-to-$`2`$ hard scattering subprocess). This is referred to as “shower/fragmentation” and is illustrated in FIG. 4. Here the subprocesses are all QCD $`2`$-to-$`2`$ gluon, light quark, and light antiquark subprocesses. The “shower/fragmentation” contribution comes from $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs produced within parton-showers or during the fragmentation process. This category includes the “gluon splitting” subprocess, $`g+gg+(gb\overline{b})`$, as modeled by the QCD leading-log Monte-Carlo models.

Section II discusses methods of generating the three sources of $`b`$-quarks; flavor creation, flavor excitation, and shower/fragmentation. In Section III the leading-log QCD Monte-Carlo model predictions are compared with data on the $`b`$-quark inclusive cross section at the Tevatron. Correlations between the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quark are very different for the three sources and in Section IV we study ways to isolate the individual contributions using $`b\overline{b}`$ correlations. Section V is reserved for summary and conclusions.

## II Monte-Carlo Generation

It is not easy to arrive at the QCD Monte-Carlo model predictions for $`b`$-quark production at the Tevatron. Some of the plots presented here contain $`8`$ million generated events. In addition, one must handle each of the Monte-Carlo models differently in order to get all three contributions; flavor creation, flavor excitation, and shower/fragmentation.

### II.1 Flavor Creation

The flavor creation contribution to $`b`$-quark production at the Tevatron is the easiest to generate. ISAJET, HERWIG, and PYTHIA all allow the user to select and generate separately the flavor creation contribution. For ISAJET if one runs all QCD and then selects the flavor creation terms by monitoring the $`2`$-to-$`2`$ subprocess, one gets the same answer as running the flavor creation contribution separately. However, this is not true for HERWIG and PYTHIA. These two Monte-Carlo models only include the $`b`$-quark mass when one runs the flavor creation terms separately (i.e., heavy quark production). For HERWIG and PYTHIA, when one runs all QCD the $`b`$-quark mass is set to zero. ISAJET always includes the $`b`$-quark mass in the flavor creation subprocesses. Setting the $`b`$-quark mass equal to zero increases the $`b`$-quark inclusive flavor creation cross section for $`p_T`$$`>5\text{GeV/c}`$ and $`|y|<1`$ by roughly $`40\%`$ at $`1.8\text{TeV}`$.

In summary, one can produce the flavor creation contribution in two ways with ISAJET, either by running them separately or by running all QCD. For HERWIG and PYTHIA one must generate the flavor creation terms separately by running the heavy quark option (IPROC = 1705 or MSEL = 5). For PYTHIA this produces only the flavor creation contribution. However, for HERWIG the heavy quark option produces both the flavor creation terms and the flavor excitation terms and one must monitor the $`2`$-to-$`2`$ subprocesses to separate them.

### II.2 Flavor Excitation

For ISAJET one can run the flavor excitation contribution separately or one can run all QCD and then select out the flavor excitation contribution (one gets the same answer either way). For HERWIG running the heavy quark option gets both the flavor creation and the flavor excitation contributions (with the $`b`$-quark mass included). For HERWIG, if one runs all QCD and then selects out the flavor excitation contribution one gets a different answer since here the $`b`$ mass is set to zero. For PYTHIA the only way to get the flavor excitation contribution is to run all QCD and then select out the flavor excitation contribution, but here one only gets the massless approximation. Actually, in leading order it is not clear how to handle the $`b`$-quark mass in the flavor excitation subprocesses since one is going from an off-shell $`b`$ (or $`\overline{b}`$) quark in the initial state to an on-shell massive $`b`$ (or $`\overline{b}`$) quark in the final state. This limits the accuracy of the leading order estimate of this contribution.

### II.3 Shower/Fragmentation

For all three Monte-Carlo models the only way to get the shower/fragmentation contribution to $`b`$-quark production is to run all QCD $`2`$-to-$`2`$ subprocesses and then select out the shower/fragmentation contribution by monitoring the subprocesses, which requires producing large numbers of events. The shower/fragmentation contribution differs greatly among the Monte-Carlo models for two reasons. The first is due to different fragmentation schemes. ISAJET uses independent fragmentation, while HERWIG and PYTHIA do not. The second difference arises from the way the QCD Monte-Carlo produce parton showers. ISAJET uses a leading-log picture in which the partons within the shower are ordered according to their invariant mass. Kinematics requires that the invariant mass of daughter partons are less than the invariant mass of the parent. HERWIG and PYTHIA modify the leading-log picture to include “color coherence effects” which leads to “angle ordering” within the parton shower.

The flavor excitation and shower/fragmentation $`2`$-to-$`2`$ subprocesses diverge as the parton transverse momentum, $`p_T(\mathrm{hard})`$, goes to zero. To get a finite result one must regulate the divergences or specify a minimum value for $`p_T(\mathrm{hard})`$. For HERWIG and ISAJET we take $`p_T(\text{hard})>3\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}`$. PYTHIA regulates the perturbative $`2`$-to-$`2`$ parton scattering differential cross sections, which allow one to take $`p_T(\mathrm{hard})`$$`>0`$. For PYTHIA $`b`$-quark predictions with $`p_T`$($`b`$-quark) $`>5\text{GeV/c}`$ are independent of the whether one takes $`p_T(\text{hard})>3\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}`$ or $`p_T(\mathrm{hard})`$$`>0`$.

## III The Inclusive Cross-Section

The data from CDF and D0 CDF1 ; CDF2 ; D0 ; wester  on the integrated inclusive $`b`$-quark total cross-section are compared with the QCD Monte-Carlo model predictions in FIGS. 57, with the CTEQ3L structure functions and $`p_T(\text{hard})>3\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}`$. The four curves in each of the plots correspond to the contribution to $`b`$-quark production from flavor creation, flavor excitation, shower/fragmentation, and the resulting overall total. After adding the contributions from all three sources PHYTHIA (CTEQ3L) agrees fairly well with the data. ISAJET (CTEQ3L) is a bit below the data because of a smaller shower/fragmentation contribution. HERWIG (CTEQ3L) is also slightly below the data due to a smaller flavor excitation component. One does not expect precise agreement from these leading-log estimates. However, the qualitative agreement indicates that probably nothing unusual is happening in $`b`$-quark production at the Tevatron.

FIG. 8 and FIG. 9 show the differential inclusive $`b`$-quark $`p_T`$ cross section and the integrated total cross section, respectively, from PYTHIA (CTEQ4L), with $`p_T(\mathrm{hard})`$$`>0`$. PYTHIA regulates the divergences in the perturbative $`2`$-to-$`2`$ parton scattering differential cross sections and these plots show a smooth behavior down to $`p_T`$($`b`$-quark) equal to zero.

FIG. 10 shows the predictions of HERWIG (DO1.1), HERWIG (CTEQ3L), ISAJET (CTEQ3L), PYTHIA (CTEQ3L), PYTHIA (CTEQ4L), and PYTHIA (GRV94L) for the integrated $`b`$-quark total cross section ($`p_T`$$`>5\text{GeV/c}`$, $`|y|<1`$) at $`1.8\text{TeV}`$. The contributions from flavor creation, flavor excitation, and shower/fragmentation are shown together with the overall resulting sum (overall height of box). The DO1.1 structure functions include only four flavors and the probability of finding a $`b`$ (or $`\overline{b}`$) quark within the proton is set identically equal to zero. Thus, running with the DO1.1 structure functions results in no flavor excitation. The differences among the Monte-Carlo models for flavor excitation are due to the different ways the models handle the $`b`$-quark mass in this subprocess.

The Monte-Carlo model predictions for the shower/fragmentation contribution differ considerably. This is not surprising since ISAJET uses independent fragmentation, while HERWIG and PYTHIA do not; and HERWIG and PYTHIA modify the leading-log picture of parton showers to include “color coherence effects”, while ISAJET does not.

The flavor creation contribution to inclusive $`b`$-quark production ($`p_T`$$`>5\text{GeV/c}`$, $`|y|<1`$) is predicted by HERWIG (CTEQ3L) and PYTHIA (CTEQ3L) to be about $`25\%`$ of the overall $`b`$-quark production rate from all three sources at $`1.8\text{TeV}`$, while for ISAJET (CTEQ3L) it is about $`35\%`$ of the total.

## IV Correlations

Clearly the three sources of $`b`$-quarks; flavor creation, flavor excitation, and shower/fragmentation have quite different topological structures and the correlations between the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quarks are quite different.

### IV.1 Simple “Toward” and “Away” Probabilities

FIGS. 1113 show the QCD Monte-Carlo model predictions for some simple correlations. Here one requires a $`b`$-quark to be in the region $`p_T`$$`>5\text{GeV/c}`$ and $`|y|<1`$ and then asks for the probability of finding a $`\overline{b}`$-quark in the same region, $`p_T`$$`>5\text{GeV/c}`$ and $`|y|<1`$. Furthermore, one breaks this probability into two terms, “toward” and “away”. The “toward” region corresponds to $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi |`$$`<90^{}`$ and the “away” region has $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi |`$$`>90^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle between the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quark. The models predict that for flavor creation the probability that both the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quark lie in the region $`p_T`$$`>5\text{GeV/c}`$ and $`|y|<1`$ is about $`40\%`$, with the $`\overline{b}`$-quark almost always on the “away-side” of the $`b`$-quark.

The QCD Monte-Carlo models differ considerably on the correlations for the shower/fragmentation contribution. For this contribution all three models predict that both the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quark lie in the region $`p_T`$$`>5\text{GeV/c}`$ and $`|y|<1`$ around $`30\%`$-$`40\%`$ of the time, which is comparable to the flavor creation contribution. However, ISAJET predicts that for the shower/fragmentation contribution that the $`\overline{b}`$-quark is almost always on the “toward-side” of the $`b`$-quark, while HERWIG and PYTHIA predict about equal amounts of “toward” and “away” for this contribution.

As one would expect, all the models predict that it is not very likely to find both the $`b`$ and the $`\overline{b}`$-quark in the region $`p_T`$$`>5\text{GeV/c}`$ and $`|y|<1`$ for the flavor excitation contribution. For flavor excitation either the $`b`$-quark or the $`\overline{b}`$-quark is part of the “underlying” event (see FIG. 3). The models differ greatly on the correlations for the flavor excitation contribution. For this contribution PYTHIA predicts that both the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$-quark lie in the region $`p_T`$$`>5\text{GeV/c}`$ and $`|y|<1`$ around $`20\%`$ of the time, while ISAJET predicts $`13\%`$ and HERWIG gives $`5\%`$ for this probability. All three models predict that for flavor excitation when both the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$-quark are found in the region $`p_T`$$`>5\text{GeV/c}`$ and $`|y|<1`$ that the $`\overline{b}`$-quark is about equally likely to be on “toward” or “away” side of the $`b`$-quark.

### IV.2 $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ Distribution

FIG. 14 shows the predictions of PYTHIA for the azimuthal angle, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$, between a $`b`$-quark with $`p_{T1}>5\text{GeV/c}`$ and $`|y_1|<1`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quark with $`p_{T2}>0`$ and $`|y_2|<1`$. FIG. 15 is the same as FIG. 14 except both the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quark are required to have $`p_T>5\text{GeV/c}`$. Notice that the relative amounts of flavor excitation and shower/fragmentation decrease compared to flavor creation when one demands that both the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quarks to have $`p_T>5\text{GeV/c}`$. Integrating the curves in FIG. 15 over the “toward” and “away” regions correspond to the simple probabilities discussed in Section IV(a). Clearly, the “toward” region is very sensitive to the presence of the flavor excitation and shower/fragmentation terms.

### IV.3 Distance “R”

FIG. 16 shows the predictions of PYTHIA for the distance, $`R`$, in $`\eta `$-$`\varphi `$ space between a $`b`$-quark with $`p_{T1}>5\text{GeV/c}`$ and $`|y_1|<1`$ and $`\overline{b}`$-quark with $`p_{T2}>5\text{GeV/c}`$, where $`R=\sqrt{(\eta _1\eta _2)^2+(\varphi _1\varphi _2)^2}`$ and $`\eta `$ is the pseudo-rapidity. One can see that the region $`R<1`$ isolates the shower/fragmentation contribution.

### IV.4 Rapidity Correlations

FIG. 17 shows the predictions of PYTHIA for the rapidity, $`y_1`$ of a $`b`$-quark with $`p_{T1}>5\text{GeV/c}`$ for events with a $`\overline{b}`$-quark with $`p_{T2}>5\text{GeV/c}`$ and $`|y_2|<0.5`$. Here the flavor excitation contribution behaves much differently than the other two terms. However, the resulting sum of the three contributions looks similar to the flavor creation term.

### IV.5 The Transverse Momentum Asymmetry

FIG. 18 shows the predictions of PYTHIA for the $`p_T`$ asymmetry, $`A=(p_{T1}p_{T2})/(p_{T1}+p_{T2})`$, for events with a $`b`$-quark with $`p_{T1}>0`$ and $`|y_1|<1`$ and a $`\overline{b}`$-quark with $`p_{T2}>5\text{GeV/c}`$ and $`|y_2|<1`$. If there were no initial-state radiation (see FIG. 1) and no “intrinsic” transverse momentum, the flavor creation terms would produce zero asymmetry. Also, as one would expect (FIG. 3), the flavor excitation terms have, on the average, a large transverse momentum asymmetry. Requiring $`p_T`$ asymmetries with a magnitude greater than around $`60\%`$ isolates the flavor excitation contribution.

### IV.6 Double Differential Cross Section

FIG. 19 shows the predictions of PYTHIA for the transverse momentum, $`p_{T2}`$, of a $`\overline{b}`$-quark with $`|y_2|<1`$ for events with a b-quark with $`p_{T1}>5\text{GeV/c}`$ and $`|y_1|<1`$. As the transverse momentum asymmetry in FIG. 18 indicated, the flavor creation contribution peaks at $`p_{T2}5\text{GeV/c}`$ (i.e., small $`p_T`$ asymmetry), while the flavor excitation and shower/fragmentation contributions peak at low $`p_T`$ (i.e., larger $`p_T`$ asymmetry).

FIG. 20 shows the predictions of PYTHIA for the integrated $`b\overline{b}`$ pair cross section for a $`\overline{b}`$-quark with $`p_{T2}>p_{T2}(\mathrm{min})`$ and $`|y_2|<1`$ and b-quark with $`p_{T1}>5\text{GeV/c}`$ and $`|y_1|<1`$. Notice how the three terms contribute in different proportions to the $`b\overline{b}`$ pair cross section in FIG. 20 and the inclusive single $`b`$-quark cross section in FIG. 9. Flavor excitation is a major contributor to the single inclusive cross section, while flavor creation dominates the pair cross section.

## V Summary and Conclusions

The leading-log order QCD hard scattering Monte-Carlo models of HERWIG, ISAJET, and PYTHIA have been used to study the sources of $`b`$-quarks at the Tevatron. The reactions responsible of producing $`b`$-quarks are separated into flavor creation, flavor excitation, and shower/fragmentation.

Flavor Creation

The production of a $`b\overline{b}`$ pair via gluon fusion or annihilation of light quarks is easy to generate and all three QCD Monte-Carlo models (with the same structure functions) predict roughly the same cross section and similar $`b\overline{b}`$ correlations from these terms. At the Tevatron all three Monte-Carlo models predict that the flavor creation contribution to $`b`$-quark production is less than $`35\%`$ of the overall inclusive b-quark production rate ($`p_T`$$`>5\text{GeV/c}`$, $`|y|<1`$) from all three sources.

Flavor Excitation

The source of $`b`$-quarks resulting from the scattering of a $`b`$-quark or $`\overline{b}`$-quark out of the initial-state into the final-state by a gluon or by a light quark or antiquark is difficult to generate and depends sensitively on the parton distribution functions. The QCD Monte-Carlo model predictions differ somewhat, however, it seems likely that at the Tevatron the flavor excitation contribution to the inclusive $`b`$-quark cross section is comparable to or greater than the contribution from flavor creation. The $`b\overline{b}`$ correlations resulting from the flavor excitation term are much different than those arising from flavor creation. In particular, the distribution in the azimuthal angle, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$, between the $`b`$ and the $`\overline{b}`$-quark peaks sharply in the “backward” ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi |`$$`>90^{}`$) region for flavor creation, while flavor excitation produces an approximately flat $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi |`$ distribution. Also, the flavor excitation terms have, on the average, a large transverse momentum asymmetry between the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$-quark, while the flavor creation terms produce a $`p_T`$ asymmetry near zero.

Shower/Fragmentation

The production of $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs within a parton-shower or during the fragmentation process of gluons and light quarks and antiquarks is an important source at the Tevatron. The QCD Monte-Carlo models predictions differ considerably for this contribution. However, at the Tevatron the shower/fragmentation contribution to the inclusive b-quark cross section might be comparable to the contribution from flavor creation. This source can be isolated by looking for $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs with $`R<1`$, where $`R`$ is the distance in $`\eta `$-$`\varphi `$ space between the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$-quark.

The QCD Monte-Carlo model leading-log estimates of the flavor excitation and the shower/fragmentation contributions to $`b`$-quark production are uncertain and should not be taken too seriously. However, it seems likely that at the Tevatron all three sources of $`b`$-quarks, flavor creation, flavor excitation, and shower/fragmentation are important TS . One does not expect precise agreement from leading-log estimates. On the other hand, the qualitative agreement shown indicates that probably nothing unusual is happening in $`b`$-quark production at the Tevatron. Furthermore, in Run II at the Tevatron we should be able to isolate experimentally the individual contributions to $`b`$-quark production by studying $`b\overline{b}`$ correlations in detail.

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank the CDF B Group for several stimulating discussions. Also, I would like to thank Henry Frisch, Michelangelo Mangano, and Torbjörn Sjöstrand for helpful remarks.


text:
# Spiral cracks in drying precipitates

\[

## Abstract

We investigate the formation of spiral crack patterns during the desiccation of thin layers of precipitates in contact with a substrate. This symmetry-breaking fracturing mode is found to arise naturally not from torsion forces, but from a propagating stress front induced by the fold-up of the fragments. We model their formation mechanism using a coarse-grain model for fragmentation and successfully reproduce the spiral cracks. Fittings of experimental and simulation data show that the spirals are logarithmic, corresponding to constant deviation from a circular crack path. Theoretical aspects of the logarithmic spirals are discussed. In particular we show that this occurs generally when the crack speed is proportional to the propagating speed of stress front.

(Last revised )

\]

Fracture of solids produces a large variety of fascinating patterns. Straight and wiggling cracks in fragmented dried out fields, rocks, tectonic plates and paintings, and the self-affine fractured surfaces are just a few well studied examples. Understanding fracture and fragmentation phenomena is of increasing interest in physics and engineering . Many recent studies have analyzed the morphology of fractured surfaces and fracture lines , most of which showing a cellular and hierarchical pattern. Concomitantly, successful models have been proposed to describe crack propagation and to reproduce the observed structures .

Apart from the cellular type, spiral, helical and in general smoothly curving fracturing modes are known in material science . Most of the known spiral cracks are either due to imposed torsion (twist) as in the spiral fracture of the tibia , or due to geometric constraints as in the fracture of pipes . Spiral cracks can, however, also arise in situations where no obvious twisting is applied, so that the symmetry is spontaneously broken. An example of this was recently given by Hull  in the study of the shrinkage of silica based sol-gel. Similar structures were reported by us for the post-fragmentation process of a thin layer of drying precipitate . The formation of spiral cracks under specific conditions was also recently considered by Xia and Hutchinson . In this letter, the mechanism leading to this special cracking mode shall be investigated and modeled. We shall discuss some mathematical properties in the shape of the spiral and reproduce them by computer simulations.

The experimental conditions leading to such structures are simple, one can do that without a laboratory. The first step is to produce by chemical reactions a fine suspension of precipitate. The spiral cracks are not restricted to one peculiar material, as we obtain them with different compounds, including nickel phosphate ($`Ni_3(PO_4)_2`$, from the reaction between $`NiSO_4`$ and $`Na_3PO_4`$), ferric ferrocyanide ($`Fe_4[Fe(CN)_6]_3`$, from $`K_4[Fe(CN)_6]`$ and $`FeCl_3`$) and ferric hydroxide ($`Fe(OH)_3`$ from $`FeCl_3`$ and $`NaOH`$). The reacting salts are diluted in distiled water to concentrations between $`0.310\%`$ for all reactions. Mixing the two reacting solutions produces the desired compound. The solution is then left to sediment and the dissolved ions ($`Na^+`$, $`K^+`$, $`Cl^{}`$, $`SO_4^{}`$,…) are removed by rinsing with distiled water. This gives us an aqueous suspension, which is then poured into a Petri-dish and let dry. During drying a thin solidified layer is formed which is then fragmented into isolated parts (Fig. 1a).

For fine and thin precipitate (grain-size smaller than a few hundreds of nm and layer thickness between 0.2 to 0.5 mm), regular spirals as well as other smoothly curving cracks (such as circles, ellipses, and intersecting arcs) finally show up inside the fragments (Fig. 1b). Depending on the grain size and layer thickness the size of these fascinating structures varies widely, ranging from several hundred microns to about 5mm. Easily overlooked by naked eye, they are revealed under a microscope (Fig. 1c). Moreover, after removal of the layer, they leave beautiful marks on the glass surface (Fig. 1d).

By digitally analyzing their shape we found that all those spirals are approximately logarithmic, i.e., described by the functional form

$$r(\theta )=r_0e^{k\theta },$$
(1)
where $`r_0`$ and $`k`$ are constants, with $`k`$ determining the overall tightness of the spiral. $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ are the polar coordinates in plane (in our convention $`\theta `$ can take any real value, not restricted to $`[0,2\pi ]`$.) A characteristic fit is presented in Fig. 2, showing their logarithmic nature.

Read from the slope, the values of $`k`$ from 14 instances of spirals are summarized below, for two different compounds and five different layer thickness. For ferric ferrocyanide we got: $`0.075`$ (sample I.), $`0.067`$ (sample I.), $`0.080`$ (sample I.), $`0.082`$ (sample I.), $`0.086`$ (sample I.), $`0.059`$ (sample II.), $`0.072`$ (sample II.); for nickel phosphate: $`0.078`$ (sample III.), $`0.075`$ (sample III.), $`0.063`$ (sample III.), $`0.061`$ (sample III.), $`0.061`$ (sample IV.), $`0.078`$ (sample V.), $`0.058`$ (Sample V.) Some observations can be made at this point:

(i) The logarithmic spiral, also known as the equiangular spirals, has been studied extensively since the 17th century by Descartes, Torricelli and Jacques Bernoulli. In addition to the well-known example in nautilus shells, it also describes the shapes of the arms of some spiral galaxies such as NGC 6946 , and the flight path of a peregrine falcon to its prey.

(ii) The apparent length-scale $`r_0`$ from equation (1) can be absorbed in the phase: $`r(\theta )=e^{k(\theta \theta _0)}`$, with $`\theta _0=ln(r_0)/k`$. This demonstrates that the logarithmic spirals are scale-free.

(iii) Surprisingly, the majority of experimentally measured values of $`k`$ fall between 0.06 and 0.08. The fluctuation among different spirals of the same sample is of the same magnitude as that among different samples with different compounds and thickness. This indicates a mechanism independent of layer thickness and precipitate type for the formation of the observed spiral cracks.

(iv) There are pronounced oscillations accompanying the linear trend in all our fittings, as exemplified in Fig. 2. These oscillations are almost periodical, and increases with $`r`$ (note the logarithmic scale.)

In-situ observations under microscope during the desiccation process suggests the following mechanism. The spirals and circle-shaped structures are formed only after the primary fragmentation process is over. Due to the humidity gradient across the thickness, the fragments gradually fold up and detach from the substrate (Fig. 3a-3b), generating large tensile stress in the radial direction, at and normal to the front of detachment. The extend of the attached area shrinks as the ring-shaped front advances inward due to ongoing desiccation. When the stress at the front exceeds the local material strength, a crack is nucleated (Fig. 3c). Since the nucleation is seldom symmetrical with respect to the boundaries, the crack tends to propagate along the front in one preferred direction where more stresses can be released. In the absence of further nucleation event, by the time the crack growth completes a cycle the front has already advanced, forcing the crack to turn further inward, resulting eventually in a spiral crack (Fig. 3d). Since the stresses on the top of the layer are mostly relieved by folding, they are concentrated at the layer-substrate interface. Therefore, the spiral runs like a tunnel, with $`2060\%`$ penetration into the layer thickness. The patterns being largely spiral means that crack propagation is favored over nucleation, for otherwise we would have observed more cylindrical concentric structures.

We now investigate in more detail the conditions under which the logarithmic spiral cracks can be produced. Denote the speed of the inward propagating drying front by $`u`$ and the speed of the crack tip by $`v`$. We choose the origin as the center of the spiral. The trajectory of the crack is parameterized by the linear distance $`s`$, the radial distance $`r`$, and the polar angle $`\theta `$, as shown in Fig. 4.

For infinitesimal $`d\theta `$, we have $`dl=rd\theta `$, $`(ds)^2=(dr)^2+(dl)^2`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Phi }=dr/dl`$. Then:

$`u^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dt}}\right)^2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{dr}{d\theta }}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{dt}}\right)^2,`$ (2)
$`v^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ds}{dt}}\right)^2=\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{dr}{d\theta }}\right)^2+r^2\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{dt}}\right)^2.`$ (3)
Eliminating $`d\theta /dt`$ from (2) and (3) we obtain:

$$\frac{dr}{d\theta }=\frac{ur}{\sqrt{v^2u^2}}=kr,$$
(4)
where

$$k\frac{u}{\sqrt{v^2u^2}}=\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(5)
For constant $`k`$, we get (1), i.e., a logarithmic spiral. Physically, since $`k(u,v)`$ is a function of $`u/v`$ alone, this result implies that the general condition for a logarithmic spiral to occur is to have a constant ratio between the two velocities, despite the possibility that the actual dynamics may be very complicated and neither speed is constant. In other words, the logarithmic spiral structure is surprisingly robust to dynamical details. On the other hand since it is reasonable to expect a quasi-static crack to follow the direction of maximal stress relief, the geometric result of a constant angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ suggests that the orientation of the maximal stress component is constantly bending away from the instantaneous direction of propagation. The fact that all fitted values of $`k`$ fall within a narrow range means that the degree of such bending is insensitive to details like the thickness or the chemical composition. More theoretically, one could ask if the Cotterell and Rice criterion  applies here: whether the stress intensity factor, $`K_{II}`$, vanishes along a constant inclination as the crack propagates under the influence of a radially symmetric stress field. If so, a logarithmic spiral is naturally expected.

Now we turn our attention to the oscillations that decorate the logarithmic behavior, as displayed in Fig. 2. Such oscillations indicate the departure from radial symmetry in the underlying stress field. It can be explained on the basis of boundary effects. Clearly the shape of a typical fragment is generally polygonal, not circular, and so its free boundaries will modify the shape of the shrinking stress front, more so the closer the front is to the boundaries. This leads to periodic variations in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and hence oscillation in $`k`$. For rectangular fragments we expect to see two cycles of oscillation per revolution of the spiral. This is indeed roughly the case in our fits. Moreover, the observed diminishing amplitude of oscillation at smaller $`r`$ is also in agreement.

To confirm and test the robustness of our proposed mechanism, we implement it in a mesoscopic spring-block model  which describes fracture of an overlayer on a frictional substrate. In this model, the grains in the layer are represented by blocks which form a triangular array of linear size $`L`$ with interconnecting bundles each of which has $`H`$ bonds (Hookean springs). The bond has a breaking strength $`F_c`$ and a relaxed length $`l`$. While $`H`$ plays the role of thickness, the initial block spacing $`a`$ prescribes the residual strain $`s=(al)/a`$. Each block has the same slipping threshold $`F_s`$ such that whenever the magnitude of the resultant force $`\stackrel{}{F}`$ on a block exceeds $`F_s`$, the block slips to an equilibrium position defined by $`\stackrel{}{F}=0`$. The temporally increasing stress in the layer during desiccation can be modeled by increasing the stiffness of the bonds. This is however equivalent to the case of constant stiffness but decreasing $`F_s`$ and $`F_c`$, with fixed $`\kappa F_c/F_s`$. In this way, the competition between stick-and-slip and bond breaking, quantified by the set of parameters $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{s,\kappa ,H,L\}`$, was shown to give rise to realistic fragmentation and select the emerged scale.

Here we focus instead on what happens after the fragmentation process has settled. The simulated system is thus assumed to represent a fragment stable against the primary fragmentation (ensured by choosing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ properly), but susceptible to secondary curved crackings induced by an advancing stress front. Therefore, an inhomogeneous stress field is imposed, with a profile constant everywhere at $`\sigma _0`$ except on an annular region of radius $`R`$, where there is a hump of height $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ and width $`w`$ (see upper inset of Fig. 5). By decreasing $`R`$ at a constant speed $`u`$, we model the advancing front of stress field caused by detachment. In a rather narrow parameter region (mainly small $`u`$, large $`\kappa `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \sigma _0`$ and $`wa`$), the desired spiral cracks are successfully reproduced (lower inset of Fig. 5). Consistent with experiment, the simulated spirals also follow a logarithmic form as illustrated in Fig. 5. The value of $`k`$ depends on the parameters of the model. In particular, imposing smaller penetration results in tighter-binding spirals and hence smaller $`k`$. This is consistent with the screening effects of the existing crack on the stress field that influences further propagation of the crack.

In conclusion, spiral crack, an astonishing member of the family of fascinating patterns produced by fracture, is realized in a surprisingly simple setup of desiccating precipitate. Their formation is argued to be driven by an unusual stress relaxation process governed by the fold-up of the fragments. A discrete spring-block model incorporating such a driving appears to capture successfully the observed phenomena. The spirals have interesting properties, of which several quantitative aspects can be understood theoretically.

The work of K.-t.Leung is supported by the National Science Council of R.O.C. and the work of Z. Neda is sponsored by the Bergen Computational Physics Laboratory. We are grateful for the professional advices and comments from Professor Derek Hull.


text:
# Holomorphic extension of smooth CR-mappings between real-analytic and real-algebraic CR-manifolds

## 1. Introduction and results

The classical Schwarz reflection principle states that a continuous map $`f`$ between real-analytic curves $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ in $``$ that locally extends holomorphically to one side of $`M`$, extends also holomorphically to a neighborhood of $`M`$ in $``$. It is well-known that the higher-dimensional analog of this statement for maps $`f:MM^{}`$ between real-analytic CR-submanifolds $`M^N`$ and $`M^{}^N^{}`$ does not hold without additional assumptions (unless $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are totally real). In this paper, we assume that $`f`$ is $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth and that the target $`M^{}`$ is real-algebraic, i.e. contained in a real-algebraic subset of the same dimension. If $`f`$ is known to be locally holomorphically extendible to one side of $`M`$ (when $`M`$ is a hypersurface) or to a wedge with edge $`M`$ (when $`M`$ is a generic submanifold of higher codimension), then $`f`$ automatically satisfies the tangential Cauchy-Riemann equations, i.e. it is CR. On the other hand, if $`M`$ is minimal, any CR-map $`f:MM^{}`$ locally extends holomorphically to a wedge with edge $`M`$ by Tumanov’s theorem \[Tu88\] and hence, in that case, the extension assumption can be replaced by assuming $`f`$ to be CR.

Local holomorphic extension of a CR-map $`f:MM^{}`$ may clearly fail when $`M^{}`$ contains an (irreducible) complex-analytic subvariety $`E^{}`$ of positive dimension and $`f(M)E^{}`$. Indeed, any nonextendible CR-function on $`M`$ composed with a nontrivial holomorphic map from a disc in $``$ into $`E^{}`$ yields a counterexample. Our first result shows that this is essentially the only exception. Denote by $`^{}`$ the set of all points $`p^{}M^{}`$ through which there exist irreducible complex-analytic subvarieties of $`M^{}`$ of positive dimension. We prove:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`M^N`$ and $`M^{}^N^{}`$ be connected real-analytic and real-algebraic CR-submanifolds respectively. Assume that $`M`$ is minimal at a point $`pM`$. Then for any $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map $`f:MM^{}`$, at least one of the following conditions holds:

1. $`f`$ extends holomorphically to a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`^N`$;
2. $`f`$ sends a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`M`$ into $`^{}`$.

If $`M^{}`$ is a real-analytic hypersurface, the set $`^{}`$ consists exactly of those points that are not of finite type in the sense of D’Angelo \[D82\] (see Lempert \[L86\] for the proof) and, in particular, $`^{}`$ is closed. The same fact also holds if $`M^{}`$ is any real-analytic submanifold or even any real-analytic subvariety (see \[D91\]). However, in general, $`^{}`$ may not even be a real-analytic subset (see Example 2.1). As an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.1, we have:

###### Corollary 1.2.

Let $`M^N`$ and $`M^{}^N^{}`$ be connected real-analytic and real-algebraic CR-submanifolds respectively. Assume that $`M`$ is minimal at a point $`pM`$ and that all positive-dimensional irreducible complex-analytic subvarieties in $`M^{}`$ are contained in a fixed (complex-analytic) subvariety $`V^{}M^{}`$. Then any $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map $`f:MM^{}`$ that does not send a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`M`$ into $`V^{}`$ extends holomorphically to a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`^N`$.

In view of an example due to Ebenfelt \[E96\], the minimality assumption on $`M`$ at $`p`$ in Corollary 1.2 cannot be replaced by the assumption that $`M`$ is minimal somewhere. On the other hand, if $`M`$ is also real-algebraic, this replacement is possible:

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`M^N`$ and $`M^{}^N^{}`$ be connected real-algebraic CR-submanifolds with $`pM`$ and let $`V^{}M^{}`$ be as in Corollary 1.2. Then the conclusion of Corollary 1.2 holds provided $`M`$ is minimal somewhere.

In the setting of Theorem 1.3, any $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map $`f:MM^{}`$ that does not send a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`M`$ into $`V^{}`$ extends even algebraically to a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`^N`$ by a result of \[Z99\] (see §7). Since the subset $`^{}M^{}`$ is always closed, Corollary 1.2 and Theorem 1.3 imply:

###### Corollary 1.4.

Let $`M^N`$ and $`M^{}^N^{}`$ be connected real-analytic and real-algebraic CR-submanifolds respectively. Assume that $`M`$ is minimal at a point $`pM`$ and that $`M^{}`$ does not contain any irreducible complex-analytic subvariety of positive dimension through a point $`p^{}M^{}`$. Then any $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map $`f:MM^{}`$ with $`f(p)=p^{}`$ extends holomorphically to a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`^N`$. The same conclusion holds at a point $`pM`$ if $`M`$ is real-algebraic and only somewhere minimal.

In the case when $`M^N`$ is a real hypersurface, the first part of Corollary 1.4 is due to Pushnikov \[P90a, P90b\] (see also Coupet-Pinchuk-Sukhov \[CPS00\] for a similar result). A prototype of a target real-algebraic CR-submanifold with no nontrivial complex-analytic subvariety is given by the unit sphere $`𝕊^{2N^{}1}^N^{}`$. Even in that case, Corollary 1.4 is new. Indeed, we have:

###### Corollary 1.5.

Let $`M^N`$ be a connected real-analytic CR-submanifold, minimal at a point $`pM`$. Then any $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map $`f:M𝕊^{2N^{}1}`$ extends holomorphically to a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`^N`$. The same conclusion holds for any point $`pM`$ if $`M`$ is real-algebraic and only somewhere minimal.

For $`f`$ of class $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$, Corollary 1.5 extends results of Webster \[W79\], Forstnerič \[F86, F89, F92\], Huang \[H94\] and Baouendi-Huang-Rothschild \[BHR96\]. (On the other hand, in their setting, they prove holomorphic extension of $`f`$ of class $`𝒞^k`$ for appropriate $`k`$.)

If we restrict ourselves to submersive CR-maps (i.e. maps for which the differential is surjective), a known obstruction to their holomorphic extension is the holomorphic degeneracy of the submanifolds. Recall that a real-analytic CR-submanifold $`M`$ is holomorphically degenerate (see Stanton \[S96\]) at a point $`pM`$ if there is a nontrivial holomorphic vector field in a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`^N`$ whose real and imaginary parts are tangent to $`M`$. The existence of such a vector field and a nonextendible CR-function on $`M`$ at $`p`$ yields nonextendible local self CR-diffeomorphic maps of $`M`$ near $`p`$ (see \[BHR96\]). It is known (see \[BER96\]) that $`M`$ is holomorphically degenerate at $`p`$ if and only if it is holomorphically degenerate everywhere on the connected component of $`p`$. Our next result shows that for source minimal CR-submanifolds, holomorphic degeneracy is essentially the only obstruction for submersive CR-maps to be holomorphically extendible.

###### Theorem 1.6.

Let $`M^N`$ and $`M^{}^N^{}`$ be connected real-analytic and real-algebraic CR-submanifolds respectively with $`pM`$. Assume that $`M`$ is everywhere minimal and $`M^{}`$ is holomorphically nondegenerate. Then any $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map $`f:MM^{}`$ which is somewhere submersive extends holomorphically to a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`^N`$.

In the case when $`M^N`$ is a real hypersurface, a similar result is due to \[CPS00\]. Example 2.2 below shows that the assumption that $`M`$ is everywhere minimal cannot be replaced in Theorem 1.6 by the weaker assumption that $`M`$ is minimal at $`p`$. On the other hand, if $`M`$ is real-algebraic, a replacement with even weaker assumption on $`M`$ is possible:

###### Theorem 1.7.

Let $`M^N`$ and $`M^{}^N^{}`$ be connected real-algebraic CR-submanifolds with $`pM`$. Then the conclusion of Theorem 1.6 holds provided $`M`$ is somewhere minimal and $`M^{}`$ is holomorphically nondegenerate.

In the setting of Theorem 1.7, any $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map $`f:MM^{}`$ extends in fact algebraically to a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`^N`$ by a result of \[Z99\] (see §7). Theorem 1.7 extends a result of Baouendi-Huang-Rothschild \[BHR96\] who obtained the same conclusion for $`M,M^{}^N`$ real-algebraic hypersurfaces and of Kojcinovic \[K00\] for $`M,M^{}^N`$ generic submanifolds of equal dimension. For further related results and history on the analyticity problem for CR-mappings, the reader is referred to \[F93, BER99, H01\].

We shall derive the above results in §7 from the following statement that relates analyticity properties of a smooth CR-map with geometric properties of its graph:

###### Theorem 1.8.

Let $`M^N`$ and $`M^{}^N^{}`$ be connected real-analytic and real-algebraic CR-submanifolds respectively and $`f:MM^{}`$ a $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map whose graph is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$. Assume that $`M`$ is minimal at a point $`pM`$ and that $`f`$ does not extend holomorphically to any neighborhood of $`p`$. Then there exists an integer $`1nN^{}1`$ and a real-analytic subset $`AM\times M^{}`$ through $`(p,f(p))`$ containing a neighborhood $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`(p,f(p))`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ and satisfying the following straightening property: for any point $`(q,f(q))`$ in a dense open subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, there exists a neighborhood $`U_q`$ of $`(q,f(q))`$ in $`^N\times ^N^{}`$ and a holomorphic change of coordinates in $`U_q`$ of the form $`(\stackrel{~}{z},\stackrel{~}{z}^{})=(z,\phi (z,z^{}))^N\times ^N^{}`$ such that

(1.1)
$$AU_q=\{(z,z^{})U_q:zM,\stackrel{~}{z}_{n+1}^{}=\mathrm{}=\stackrel{~}{z}_N^{}^{}=0\}.$$

Theorem 1.8 will follow from the more general Theorem 6.1, where, similarly to \[CPS00\], the target $`M^{}^N^{}`$ is assumed to be a real-algebraic subset and an estimate for the number $`n`$ (in Theorem 1.8) is given. Our approach follows partially the techniques initiated in \[P90a, P90b\] and further extended in \[CPS00\] in the case when $`M`$ is a hypersurface. A crucial point in the proof of Theorem 1.8 consists of showing (after possible shrinking $`M`$ around $`p`$) that near a generic point of the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$, the intersection of $`M\times ^N^{}`$ with the local Zariski closure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ at $`(p,f(p))`$ (see §4 for the definition) is contained in $`M\times M^{}`$ (see Theorem 6.1 and Proposition 6.2). Here the arguments of \[P90a, P90b, CPS00\] (e.g. the proof of Proposition 4.1 in \[CPS00\]) do not seem to apply in our case and we have to proceed differently. In §3 we give preliminary results based on a meromorphic extension property obtained by the authors in the previous work \[MMZ01\]. §46 are devoted to the proof of Theorem 1.8.

Acknowledgment. The authors would like to thank H.-M. Maire for his interest to the paper and many helpful discussions.

## 2. Preliminaries and examples

### 2.1. CR-submanifolds and CR-maps

A real submanifold $`M^N`$ is called a CR-submanifold if the dimension of the complex tangent space $`T_p^cM:=T_pMiT_pM`$ is independent of $`pM`$; $`M`$ is called generic if for any point $`pM`$, one has $`T_pM+iT_pM=T_p^N`$. For a CR-submanifold $`M`$ we write $`T^{0,1}M:=T^{0,1}^NTM`$, where $`T^{0,1}^N`$ is the bundle of $`(0,1)`$ tangent vectors in $`^N`$. A function $`h:M^N^{}`$ of class $`𝒞^1`$ is called a CR-function if for any section $`L`$ of the CR-bundle, $`Lf=0`$. If $`h`$ is merely continuous, $`h`$ is still called CR if it is annihilated by all vector fields $`L`$ as above in the sense of distributions. A continuous map $`f:MM^{}`$ between CR-submanifolds $`M^N`$ and $`M^{}^N^{}`$ is called a CR-map if all its components are CR-functions.

A CR-submanifold $`M^N`$ is called minimal (in the sense of Tumanov) at a point $`pM`$ if there is no real submanifold $`SM`$ through $`p`$ with $`\mathrm{dim}S<\mathrm{dim}M`$ and such that $`T_q^cMT_qS`$, for all $`qS`$. It is well-known that if $`M`$ is real-analytic, the minimality condition of $`M`$ is equivalent to the finite type condition in the sense of Kohn and Bloom-Graham (see \[BER99\]).

A real (resp. complex) submanifold $`M^N`$ is real-algebraic (resp. algebraic) if it is contained in a real-algebraic (resp. complex-algebraic) subvariety with the same real (resp. complex) dimension as that of $`M`$. A map $`f:MM^{}`$ between real submanifolds $`M^N`$ and $`M^{}^N^{}`$ is real-algebraic if its graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f:=\{(z,f(z)):zM\}`$ is a real-algebraic submanifold of $`^N\times ^N^{}`$. Similarly, a holomorphic map between open subsets $`\mathrm{\Omega }^N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}^N^{}`$ is called algebraic if its graph is a complex-algebraic submanifold of $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times \mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$.

### 2.2. Examples

The following example shows that, even if $`M^{}^N^{}`$ is a real-analytic hypersurface, the subset $`^{}M^{}`$ of all points that are not of finite D’Angelo type is not real-analytic in general.

###### Example 2.1.

Consider the tube real-analytic hypersurface $`M^{}^4`$ given by

(2.1)
$$(\mathrm{𝖱𝖾}z_1)^2(\mathrm{𝖱𝖾}z_2)^2+(\mathrm{𝖱𝖾}z_3)^2=(\mathrm{𝖱𝖾}z_4)^3$$

near the point $`(1,1,0,0)M^{}`$. We claim that the subset $`^{}M^{}`$ is given by $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾}z_40`$ and is therefore not analytic. Indeed, every intersection of $`M^{}`$ with $`\{z_4=\mathrm{const},\mathrm{𝖱𝖾}z_40\}`$ contains complex lines through each point and is hence everywhere of D’Angelo infinite type. On the other hand, if $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾}z_4<0`$, the coordinate $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾}z_2`$ can be expressed as a strictly convex function of the other coordinates. Therefore, $`M^{}`$ is strictly pseudoconvex at each such point and thus of D’Angelo finite type.

The following example shows that a somewhere submersive $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map $`f:MM^{}`$ between connected real-analytic hypersurfaces in $`^2`$ can be real-analytic on some connected component of the set of minimal points of $`M`$ and not real-analytic in another component. In particular, the assumption of Theorem 1.6 that $`M`$ is everywhere minimal cannot be replaced by the weaker assumption that $`M`$ is minimal at $`p`$.

###### Example 2.2.

As in Ebenfelt’s example \[E96\], let $`M,M^{}^2`$ be connected real-analytic hypersurfaces through $`0`$ given respectively by

$$\mathrm{𝖨𝗆}w=\theta (\mathrm{arctan}|z|^2,\mathrm{𝖱𝖾}w),\mathrm{𝖨𝗆}w=(\mathrm{𝖱𝖾}w)|z|^2,$$

where $`t=\theta (\xi ,s)`$ is the unique solution of the algebraic equation $`\xi (t^2+s^2)t=0`$ with $`\theta (0,0)=0`$ given by the implicit function theorem. Note that $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are minimal precisely outside the complex line $`\{w=0\}`$ and that $`M^{}`$ is real-algebraic, but $`M`$ is not. For every $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-function $`\phi `$ on $`M`$, define a map $`f_\phi :M^2`$ by

(2.2)
$$f_\phi (z,w):=\{\begin{array}{cc}(z,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})\hfill & \mathrm{𝖱𝖾}w=0\hfill \\ (z,e^{1/w})\hfill & \mathrm{𝖱𝖾}w>0\hfill \\ (z+\phi (z,w)e^{1/w},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})\hfill & \mathrm{𝖱𝖾}w<0.\hfill \end{array}$$

By similar arguments as in \[E96\] it follows that $`f_\phi `$ is always a $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$. Suppose we can choose $`\phi `$ not holomorphically extendible to any neighborhood in $`^2`$ of a fixed minimal point $`p_0=(z_0,w_0)M`$ with $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾}w_0<0`$. Then it is easy to see that $`f_\phi `$ is somewhere submersive but does not extend holomorphically to any neighborhood of the minimal point $`p_0M`$.

To show that the above choice of $`p_0`$ and $`\phi `$ is possible, observe that $`\theta `$ can be factored as $`\theta (\xi ,s)=s^2\xi (1+\stackrel{~}{\theta }(\xi ,s))`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ analytic and vanishing at the origin. Hence $`\mathrm{𝖨𝗆}w0`$ for every sufficiently small $`(z,w)M`$. Then, for any real sufficiently small $`x_00`$, the point $`p_0:=(0,x_0)M`$ is minimal and a suitable branch of $`e^{1/(wx_0)^{1/3}}`$ extends to a $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-function $`\phi `$ on $`M`$ that is not holomorphically extendible to any neighborhood of $`p_0`$.

## 3. A result on meromorphic extension and its applications

In what follows, for any subset $`V^k`$, $`V^{}`$ denotes the set $`\{\overline{z}:zV\}`$ and, as usual, for any ring $`A`$, we denote by $`A[X]`$, $`X=(X_1,\mathrm{},X_s)`$, the ring of polynomials in $`s`$ indeterminates with coefficients in $`A`$. An important role in the proof of Theorem 1.8 will be played by the following meromorphic extension result from \[MMZ01, Theorem 2.6\].

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^N`$, $`V^k`$ be open subsets, $`M\mathrm{\Omega }`$ a connected generic real-analytic submanifold, $`G:MV`$ a continuous CR-function and $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }:V^{}\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$ holomorphic functions. Assume that $`M`$ is minimal at every point and that there exists a nonempty open subset of $`M`$ where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\overline{G(z)},z)`$ does not vanish and where the quotient

$$H(z):=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{G(z)},z)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(\overline{G(z)},z)}$$

is CR. Then $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\overline{G(z)},z)`$ does not vanish on a dense open subset $`\stackrel{~}{M}M`$ and $`H`$ extends from $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ meromorphically to a neighborhood of $`M`$ in $`^N`$.

Results in the spirit of Theorem 3.1 have been important steps in proving regularity results for CR-mappings (see e.g. \[P90a, P90b, BHR96, CPS99, CPS00, MMZ01\]).

For a generic real-analytic submanifold $`M^N`$, denote by $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ the ring of $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth functions on $`M`$, by $`𝒪(M)`$ the ring of restrictions of holomorphic functions to $`M`$ and by $`𝒪_p(M)`$ the corresponding ring of germs at a point $`pM`$. Similarly to \[CPS99\] (see also \[P90a, P90b, CPS00, MMZ01\]), define a subring $`𝒜(M)𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ as follows: a function $`\eta 𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ belongs to $`𝒜(M)`$ if and only if, near every point $`pM`$, it can be written in the form $`\eta (z)\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{G(z)},z)`$, where $`G`$ is a $`^k`$-valued $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-function in a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`M`$ for some $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a holomorphic function in a neighborhood of $`(\overline{G(p)},p)`$ in $`^k\times ^N`$. Note that the ring $`𝒞^\omega (M)`$ of all real-analytic functions on $`M`$ is a subring of $`𝒜(M)`$. We have the following known properties (see e.g. \[MMZ01\]):

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`M^N`$ be a connected generic real-analytic submanifold that is minimal at every point. Then for any $`u𝒜(M)`$ the following hold:

1. if $`u`$ vanishes on a nonempty open subset of $`M`$, then it vanishes identically on $`M`$;
2. if $`L`$ is a real-analytic $`(0,1)`$ vector field on $`M`$, then $`Lu𝒜(M)`$.

The following proposition is a consequence of Theorem 3.1 and will be essential for the proof of Theorem 1.8. In the proof we follow the approach of \[P90b\] (see also \[CMS99, Proposition 5.1\]).

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $`M^N`$ be a connected generic real-analytic submanifold that is minimal at every point. Let $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_r`$ be $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-functions on $`M`$ satisfying one of the following conditions:

1. the restrictions of $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_r`$ to a nonempty open subset of $`M`$ satisfy a nontrivial polynomial identity with coefficients in $`𝒜(M)`$;
2. the restrictions of $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_r,\overline{F_1},\mathrm{},\overline{F_r}`$ to a nonempty open subset of $`M`$ satisfy a nontrivial polynomial identity with coefficients in $`𝒞^\omega (M)`$.

Then for any point $`qM`$, the germs at $`q`$ of $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_r`$ satisfy a nontrivial polynomial identity with coefficients in $`𝒪_q(M)`$.

###### Proof.

We first observe that, for the rest of the proof, we can assume that the $`(0,1)`$ vector fields on $`M`$ are spanned by global real-analytic vector fields on $`M`$. Indeed, suppose we have proved Proposition 3.3 under this additional assumption, then we claim that Proposition 3.3 follows from that case. For this, for fixed $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_r`$ as in Proposition 3.3 (i) (or (ii)), let $`\mathrm{\Omega }M`$ be the set of all points $`qM`$ for which the conclusion holds. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is clearly open. After shrinking $`M`$ appropriately, we see that $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$ by the above weaker supposed version of Proposition 3.3. Analogously, shrinking $`M`$ around an accumulation point of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is closed and therefore $`\mathrm{\Omega }=M`$ as required.

Let now $`(T)`$ be a nontrivial polynomial in $`T=(T_1,\mathrm{},T_r)`$ over $`𝒜(M)`$ such that

(3.1)
$$(F)|_U0$$

for some nonempty open subset $`UM`$, where $`F:=(F_1,\mathrm{},F_r)`$. We write $`(T)`$ as a linear combination

(3.2)
$$(T)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}\delta _jr_j(T),$$

where each $`\delta _j0`$ is in $`𝒜(M)`$ and $`r_j`$ is a monomial in $`T`$. By Lemma 3.2, each $`\delta _j`$ does not vanish on a dense open subset of $`M`$. By shrinking $`U`$, we may assume that $`\delta _l`$ does not vanish at every point of $`U`$. We prove the desired conclusion by induction on the number $`l`$ of monomials in (3.2). For $`l=1`$, (3.1) and (3.2) and the choice of $`U`$ imply that $`r_1(F)|_U=0`$. Since $`r_1`$ is a monomial and each component of $`\overline{F}`$ is in $`𝒜(M)`$, it follows from Lemma 3.2 that $`F_j=0`$ for some $`j`$ which yields the required nontrivial polynomial identity with coefficients in $`𝒪(M)`$ (even in $``$).

Suppose now that the desired conclusion holds for any polynomial $``$ whose number of monomials is strictly less than $`l`$. In view of (3.1) and (3.2) we have

(3.3)
$$r_l(F)|_U+\left(\underset{j<l}{}\frac{\delta _j}{\delta _l}r_j(F)\right)|_U=0.$$

Let $`L`$ be any global CR vector field on $`M`$ with real-analytic coefficients. Applying $`L`$ to (3.3) and using the assumption that $`F_j`$ is CR for any $`j`$, we obtain

(3.4)
$$\left(\underset{j<l}{}L\left(\frac{\delta _j}{\delta _l}\right)r_j(F)\right)|_U=0.$$

By Lemma 3.2 (ii), each coefficient $`L(\delta _j/\delta _l)`$ can be written as a ratio of two functions in $`𝒜(M)`$. From (3.4), we are led to distinguish two cases. If for some $`j\{1,\mathrm{},l1\}`$, $`L(\delta _j/\delta _l)`$ does not vanish identically in $`U`$, then the required conclusion follows from the induction hypothesis.

It remains to consider the case when

(3.5)
$$L(\delta _j/\delta _l)=0,\mathrm{in}U,$$

for all $`j`$ and for all choices of $`(0,1)`$ vector field $`L`$. Then (3.5) implies that each ratio $`\delta _j/\delta _l`$ is CR on $`U`$ by the assumption at the beginning of the proof. Hence, by Theorem 3.1, it follows that each $`\delta _j/\delta _l`$ extends meromorphically to a neighborhood of $`M`$ in $`^N`$ and therefore, (3.3) can be rewritten as

(3.6)
$$r_l(F)|_U+\left(\underset{j<l}{}m_jr_j(F)\right)|_U=0,$$

with $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_{l1}`$ being restrictions to $`M`$ of meromorphic functions in a neighborhood of $`M`$. Since $`M`$ is connected and minimal everywhere, the identity

(3.7)
$$r_l(F(z))+\underset{j<l}{}m_j(z)r_j(F(z))=0$$

holds for every $`zM`$ outside the set $`S`$ consisting of the poles of the $`m_j`$’s. This proves the desired conclusion under the assumption (i).

For the statement under the assumption (ii), consider a nontrivial polynomial $`𝒫(T,\stackrel{~}{T})𝒞^\omega (M)[T,\stackrel{~}{T}]`$ such that $`𝒫(F,\overline{F})|_U=0`$ for a non-empty open subset $`UM`$. We write

(3.8)
$$𝒫(T,\stackrel{~}{T})=\underset{\nu ^r,|\nu |l}{}𝒫_\nu (\stackrel{~}{T})T^\nu ,$$

where each $`𝒫_\nu (\stackrel{~}{T})𝒞^\omega (M)[\stackrel{~}{T}]`$ and at least one of the $`𝒫_\nu `$’s is nontrivial. If there exists $`\nu _0^r`$ such that $`𝒫_{\nu _0}(\overline{F})`$ is not zero in the ring $`𝒜(M)`$, then it follows that the polynomial $`𝒬(T):=𝒫(T,\overline{F})𝒜(M)[T]`$ is nontrivial and satisfies $`𝒬(F)|_U=0`$. Then the condition (i) is fulfilled and the required conclusion is proved above.

It remains to consider the case when $`𝒫_\nu (\overline{F})=0`$ for any $`\nu ^r`$. Fix any $`\nu `$ such that $`𝒫_\nu (\stackrel{~}{T})`$ is nontrivial. Let $`\overline{𝒫_\nu }(T)`$ denote the polynomial in $`𝒞^\omega (M)[T]`$ obtained from $`𝒫_\nu `$ by taking the complex conjugates of its coefficients. Then $`\overline{𝒫_\nu }(T)`$ is a nontrivial polynomial in $`𝒜(M)[T]`$ and satisfies $`\overline{𝒫_\nu }(F)=0`$ on $`M`$. Here again, condition (i) is fulfilled and the desired conclusion follows. The proof is complete. ∎

## 4. Zariski closure of the graph of a CR-map

Throughout this section, let $`M^N`$ be a real-analytic generic submanifold, $`pM`$ a fixed point in $`M`$ and $`f:M^N^{}`$ a $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map. For $`q^N`$, denote by $`𝒪_q`$ the ring of germs at $`q`$ of holomorphic functions in $`^N`$. The goal of this section is to define and give some basic properties of the local Zariski closure of the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ at $`(p,f(p))`$ over the ring $`𝒪_p[z^{}]`$.

### 4.1. Definition of the local Zariski closure

For $`M`$, $`f`$ and $`p`$ as above, define the $`(`$local$`)`$ Zariski closure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ at $`(p,f(p))`$ with respect to the ring $`𝒪_p[z^{}]`$ as the germ $`𝒵_f^N\times ^N^{}`$ at $`(p,f(p))`$ of a complex-analytic set defined by the zero-set of all elements in $`𝒪_p[z^{}]`$ vanishing on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$. Note that since $`𝒵_f`$ contains the germ of the graph of $`f`$ through $`(p,f(p))`$, it follows that $`\mathrm{dim}_{}𝒵_fN`$. In what follows, we shall denote by $`\mu _p(f)`$ the dimension of the Zariski closure $`𝒵_f`$.

###### Remark 4.1.

Observe that if $`M`$ is furthermore assumed to be minimal at $`p`$, all the components of the map $`f`$ extend to a wedge with edge $`M`$ at $`p`$; in this case, it follows from unique continuation at the edge that $`𝒵_f`$ is locally irreducible with respect to the ring $`𝒪_p[z^{}]`$.

### 4.2. Dimension of the local Zariski closure and transcendence degree

In this section, we discuss a link between the dimension of the Zariski closure $`\mu _p(f)`$ defined above and the notion of transcendence degree considered in \[P90a, P90b, CMS99, CPS00\]. The reader is referred to \[ZS58\] for basic notions from field theory used here.

Since the ring $`𝒪_p(M)`$ is an integral domain, one may consider its quotient field that we denote by $`_p(M)`$. Recall that, by a theorem of Tomassini \[To66\], any germ in $`𝒪_p(M)`$ extends holomorphically to a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`^N`$. Hence an element belongs to $`_p(M)`$ if and only if it extends meromorphically to a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`^N`$. Note that if $`M`$ is moreover assumed to be minimal at $`p`$, it follows that the ring of germs at $`p`$ of $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-functions on $`M`$ is an integral domain, which allows one to introduce its quotient field containing $`_p(M)`$. Therefore, for a generic submanifold $`M`$ minimal at $`p`$, one may consider the finitely generated field extension $`_p(M)(f_1,\mathrm{},f_N^{})`$ over $`_p(M)`$ where $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_N^{}`$ are the components of $`f`$ considered as germs at $`p`$. (In the hypersurface case such a field extension has been studied by Pushnikov \[P90a, P90b\].) The transcendence degree $`m_p(f)`$ of the above field extension is called the transcendence degree of the CR-map $`f`$ at $`p`$ (see \[CMS99, CPS00\]). We have the following standard relation between $`m_p(f)`$ and $`\mu _p(f)`$:

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`M^N`$ be a generic real-analytic submanifold through some point $`pM`$ and $`f:M^N^{}`$ a $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map. Assume that $`M`$ is minimal at $`p`$. Then $`\mu _p(f)=N+m_p(f)`$.

###### Remark 4.3.

The minimality of $`M`$ is needed to guarantee that $`_p(M)(f_1,\mathrm{},f_N^{})`$ is a field so that the transcendence degree is defined.

The following well-known proposition shows the relevance of $`\mu _p(f)`$ for the study of the holomorphic extension of $`f`$.

###### Proposition 4.4.

Let $`M^N`$ be a generic real-analytic submanifold through a point $`p`$ and $`f:M^N^{}`$ a $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`\mu _p(f)=N`$;
2. $`f`$ is real-analytic near $`p`$.
3. $`f`$ extends holomorphically to a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`^N`$.

Proposition 4.4 is a consequence of theorems of Tomassini \[To66\] and of Malgrange \[M66\].

## 5. Local geometry of the Zariski closure

### 5.1. Preliminaries

We use the notation from §4 and assume that $`M`$ is minimal at $`p`$ and that

(5.1)
$$\mu _p(f)<N+N^{}$$

holds. By shrinking $`M`$ around $`p`$ if necessary, we may assume that $`M`$ is connected and minimal at all its points. In what follows, for an open subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }^k`$, $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ will denote the ring of holomorphic functions in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

In §4, we saw that $`\mu _p(f)N`$ and $`m:=m_p(f)=\mu _p(f)N`$ coincides with the transcendence degree of the field extension $`_p(M)_p(M)(f_1,\mathrm{},f_N^{})`$, where $`f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_N^{})`$. This implies that there exist integers $`1j_1<\mathrm{}<j_m<N^{}`$ such that $`f_{j_1},\mathrm{},f_{j_m}`$ form a transcendence basis of $`_p(M)(f)`$ over $`_p(M)`$. After renumbering the coordinates $`z^{}:=(\zeta ,w)^m\times ^{N^{}m}`$ and setting $`m^{}:=N^{}m`$, we may assume that

(5.2)
$$f=(g,h)_\zeta ^m\times _w^m^{},$$

where $`g=(g_1,\mathrm{},g_m)`$ forms a transcendence basis of $`_p(M)(f)`$ over $`_p(M)`$.

Since the components of the germ at $`p`$ of the CR-map $`h:M^m^{}`$ are algebraically dependent over $`_p(M)(g)`$, there exist monic polynomials $`P_j(T)_p(M)(g)[T]`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},m^{}`$, such that if $`h=(h_1,\mathrm{},h_m^{})`$, then

(5.3)
$$P_j(h_j)=0,j=1,\mathrm{},m^{},\mathrm{in}_p(M)(f).$$

As a consequence, there exist non-trivial polynomials $`\widehat{P_j}(T)𝒪_p(M)[g][T]`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},m^{}`$, such that

(5.4)
$$\widehat{P_j}(h_j)=0,j=1,\mathrm{},m^{}.$$

For every $`j=1,\mathrm{},m^{}`$, we can write

(5.5)
$$\widehat{P_j}(T)=\underset{\nu k_j}{}q_{j\nu }T^\nu ,$$

where each $`q_{j\nu }𝒪_p(M)[g]`$, $`q_{jk_j}0`$ and $`k_j1`$. Since each $`q_{j\nu }`$ is in $`𝒪_p(M)[g]`$, we can also write

(5.6)
$$q_{j\nu }=q_{j\nu }(z)=R_{j\nu }(z,g(z))$$

where $`R_{j\nu }(z,\zeta )𝒪_p(M)[\zeta ]`$. Note that each $`R_{j\nu }(z,\zeta )`$ can also be viewed as an element of $`𝒪_p[\zeta ]`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p^N`$ be a polydisc neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`^N`$ such that the analogues of (5.4) – (5.6) hold with germs replaced by their representatives in $`M\mathrm{\Delta }_p^N`$ (denoted by the same letters). Moreover, in view of Remark 4.1, we may assume that the Zariski closure $`𝒵_f`$ can be represented by an irreducible (over the ring $`𝒪_p[z^{}]`$) closed analytic subset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p^N\times ^N^{}`$ (also denoted by $`𝒵_f`$). By shrinking $`M`$ we may also assume that $`M`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p^N`$. Hence we have

(5.7)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_f𝒵_f\mathrm{\Delta }_p^N\times ^N^{}.$$

Define

(5.8)
$$\stackrel{~}{P_j}(z,\zeta ;T):=\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{k_j}{}}R_{j\nu }(z,\zeta )T^\nu 𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_p^N)[\zeta ][T],j=1,\mathrm{},m^{}.$$

It follows from (5.4) – (5.6) that one has

(5.9)
$$\stackrel{~}{P_j}(z,g(z);h_j(z))=0,zM,j=1,\mathrm{},m^{}.$$

Here each $`R_{j\nu }(z,\zeta )𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_p^N)[\zeta ]`$, $`k_j1`$, and

(5.10)
$$R_{jk_j}(z,g(z))0,zM.$$

Moreover, since $`𝒪_p[\zeta ][T]`$ is a unique factorization domain (see e.g. \[ZS58\]) and since $`M`$ is minimal at $`p`$, we may assume that the polynomials given by (5.8) are irreducible.

Consider the complex-analytic variety $`𝒱_f^N\times ^N^{}`$ through $`(p,f(p))`$ defined by

(5.11)
$$𝒱_f:=\{(z,\zeta ,w)\mathrm{\Delta }_p^N\times ^m\times ^m^{}:\stackrel{~}{P_j}(z,\zeta ;w_j)=0,j=1,\mathrm{},m^{}\}.$$

By (5.9), $`𝒱_f`$ contains the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ and hence the Zariski closure $`𝒵_f`$. In fact, since by Lemma 4.2, $`dim_{}𝒵_f=\mu _p(f)=N+m`$, it follows from the construction that $`𝒵_f`$ is the (unique) irreducible component of $`𝒱_f`$ (over $`𝒪_p[z^{}]`$) containing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$. Note that $`𝒱_f`$ is not irreducible in general and, moreover, can have a dimension larger than $`\mu _p(f)`$. (This may happen, e.g. if another component of $`𝒱_f`$ is of higher dimension than $`\mu _p(f)`$).

For $`j=1,\mathrm{},m^{}`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{D_j}(z,\zeta )𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_p^N)[\zeta ]`$ be the discriminant of the polynomial $`\stackrel{~}{P_j}(z,\zeta ;T)`$ (with respect to $`T`$). Consider the complex-analytic set

(5.12)
$$\stackrel{~}{𝒟}:=_{j=1}^m^{}\{(z,\zeta )\mathrm{\Delta }_p^N\times ^m:\stackrel{~}{D_j}(z,\zeta )=0\}.$$

By the irreducibility of each polynomial $`\stackrel{~}{P_j}(z,\zeta ;T)`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{D_j}(z,\zeta )0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p^N\times ^m`$, for $`j=1,\mathrm{},m^{}`$. Therefore from the algebraic independence of the components of the map $`g`$ over $`_p(M)`$, it follows that the graph of $`g`$ is not contained in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}`$, i.e. that for $`zM`$,

(5.13)
$$\stackrel{~}{D_j}(z,g(z))0,\mathrm{for}j=1,\mathrm{},m^{}.$$

By minimality of $`M`$ as before, the sets

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_j:=\{zM:\stackrel{~}{D_j}(z,g(z))=0\},j=1,\mathrm{},m^{},$$

are nowhere dense in $`M`$, and so is the set

(5.14)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }:=_{j=1}^m^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_j=\{zM:(z,g(z))\stackrel{~}{𝒟}\}.$$

### 5.2. Description of $`𝒵_f`$ on a dense subset of the graph of $`f`$

By the implicit function theorem, for any point $`z_0M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, there exist polydisc neighborhoods of $`z_0`$, $`g(z_0)`$ and $`h(z_0)`$, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_0}^N\mathrm{\Delta }_p^N^N`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{g(z_0)}^m^m`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{h(z_0)}^m^{}^m^{}`$ respectively and a holomorphic map

(5.15)
$$\theta (z_0;):\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_0}^N\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{g(z_0)}^m\mathrm{\Delta }_{h(z_0)}^m^{}$$

such that for $`(z,\zeta ,w)\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_0}^N\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{g(z_0)}^m\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{h(z_0)}^m^{}`$,

(5.16)
$$(z,\zeta ,w)𝒱_f(z,\zeta ,w)𝒵_fw=\theta (z_0;z,\zeta ).$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f𝒵_f`$ in view of (5.16), for every fixed $`z_0M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we have

(5.17)
$$h(z)=\theta (z_0;z,g(z)),zM\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_0}^N.$$

Let $`Z_fM\times ^N^{}`$ be the real-analytic subset given by

(5.18)
$$Z_f:=𝒵_f(M\times ^N^{}),$$

and, for every $`z_0M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, consider the real-analytic submanifold $`Z_f(z_0)Z_f`$ defined by setting

(5.19)
$$Z_f(z_0):=Z_f(\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_0}^N\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{g(z_0)}^m\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{h(z_0)}^m^{}).$$

Note that $`Z_f(z_0)`$ contains the graph of $`f`$ over $`M\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_0}^N`$ and that, by making the holomorphic change of coordinates $`(\stackrel{~}{z},\stackrel{~}{z}^{})=(z,\phi (z,z^{}))^N\times ^N^{}`$ where $`\phi (z,z^{})=\phi (z,(\zeta ,w)):=(\zeta ,w\theta (z_0;z,\zeta ))`$, the submanifold $`Z_f(z_0)`$ is given in these new coordinates by

(5.20)
$$Z_f(z_0)=\{(\stackrel{~}{z},\stackrel{~}{z}^{})\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_0}^N\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{g(z_0)}^m\times ^m^{}:\stackrel{~}{z}M,\stackrel{~}{z}_{m+1}^{}=\mathrm{}=\stackrel{~}{z}_N^{}^{}=0\},$$

where we write $`\stackrel{~}{z}^{}=(\stackrel{~}{z}_1^{},\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{z}_N^{}^{})`$.

We summarize the above in the following proposition.

###### Proposition 5.1.

Let $`M^N`$ be a generic real-analytic submanifold through a point $`pM`$ and $`f:M^N^{}`$ a $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map. Let $`𝒵_f`$ be the local Zariski closure at $`(p,f(p))`$ of the graph of $`f`$ as defined in §4.1. Assume that $`M`$ is minimal at $`p`$ and that $`\mu _p(f)<N+N^{}`$. Then after shrinking $`M`$ around $`p`$, the following holds. For $`z_0M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the nowhere dense open subset of $`M`$ given by (5.14), there exists a holomorphic change of coordinates near $`(z_0,f(z_0))`$ of the form $`(\stackrel{~}{z},\stackrel{~}{z}^{})=(z,\phi (z,z^{}))^N\times ^N^{}`$ such that the real-analytic subset $`𝒵_f(M\times ^N^{})`$ is given near $`(z_0,f(z_0))`$ by (5.20), with $`m=\mu _p(f)N`$.

For every $`z_0M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}`$ the (unique) connected component of $`(M\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_0}^N)\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{g(z_0)}^m`$ passing through $`(z_0,g(z_0))`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}`$ is connected, it makes sense to consider the quotient field of the ring of real-analytic functions $`𝒞^\omega (\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0})`$ that we denote by $`𝒦(z_0)`$. Let

$$j:𝒞^\omega (M)[\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }]𝒞^\omega (\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0})$$

be the restriction map and

$$𝒟:=\mathrm{Im}j𝒞^\omega (\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0})$$

be the image of $`j`$. Note that, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}`$ is open in $`M\times ^m`$, $`j`$ is an injective ring homomorphism and hence, one can identify $`𝒟`$ with $`𝒞^\omega (M)[\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }]`$ via $`j`$. Denote by $``$ the quotient field of $`𝒟`$. The field $``$ is naturally identified with the field of all rational functions in $`(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ with coefficients that extend as real-analytic functions on $`M`$. We have the field extension $`𝒦(z_0)`$.

The following lemma, which will be needed for the proof of Theorem 1.8, is a direct consequence of (5.16):

###### Lemma 5.2.

For every fixed $`z_0M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the restriction of the map $`\theta (z_0;z,\zeta )`$ $`(`$given by (5.16)$`)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}`$ satisfies a nontrivial polynomial identity with coefficients in $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_p^N)[\zeta ]`$.

## 6. Proof of Theorem 1.8

With all the tools defined in §4–§5 at our disposal, we are now ready to prove the following statement from which Theorem 1.8 will follow.

###### Theorem 6.1.

Let $`M^N`$ be a real-analytic generic submanifold through a point $`pM`$. Let $`f:M^N^{}`$ be a $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-map and $`𝒵_f`$ the local Zariski closure over $`𝒪_p[z^{}]`$ at $`(p,f(p))`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ as defined in §4.1. Suppose that $`M`$ is minimal at $`p`$ and $`f`$ maps $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$, where $`M^{}`$ is a proper real-algebraic subset of $`^N^{}`$. Then, shrinking $`M`$ around $`p`$ and choosing an appropriate union $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_f`$ of local real-analytic irreducible components of $`𝒵_f(M\times ^N^{})`$ at $`(p,f(p))`$ if necessary, one has the following:

1. $`\mu _p(f)<N+N^{}`$ for $`\mu _p(f)=dim𝒵_f`$;
2. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f\stackrel{~}{Z}_fM\times M^{}`$;
3. $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_f`$ satisfies the following straightening property: for any point $`q`$ in a dense subset of $`M`$, there exists a neighborhood $`U_q`$ of $`(q,f(q))`$ in $`^N\times ^N^{}`$ and a holomorphic change of coordinates in $`U_q`$ of the form $`(\stackrel{~}{z},\stackrel{~}{z}^{})=\mathrm{\Phi }(z,z^{})=(z,\phi (z,z^{}))^N\times ^N^{}`$ such that

(6.1)
$$\stackrel{~}{Z}_fU_q=\{(z,z^{})U_q:zM,\stackrel{~}{z}_{m+1}^{}=\mathrm{}=\stackrel{~}{z}_N^{}^{}=0\},$$

where $`m=\mu _p(f)N`$.

For the proof we shall need the following result.

###### Proposition 6.2.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 6.1, shrinking $`M`$ around $`p`$ if necessary, one has the following:

1. $`\mu _p(f)<N+N^{}`$;
2. For any point $`z_0M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the real-analytic submanifold $`Z_f(z_0)`$ is contained in $`M\times M^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the nowhere dense subset of $`M`$ given by (5.14) and $`Z_f(z_0)𝒵_f(M\times ^N^{})`$ is given by (5.19).

###### Proof of Proposition 6.2 (i).

We proceed by contradiction. Suppose that the dimension $`\mu _p(f)`$ of the local Zariski closure is $`N+N^{}`$. Since $`M^{}`$ is a proper real-algebraic subset of $`^N^{}`$, there exists a nontrivial polynomial $`\rho ^{}(z^{},\overline{z^{}})[z^{},\overline{z^{}}]`$ vanishing on $`M^{}`$. Since $`f`$ maps $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$, we have

(6.2)
$$\rho ^{}(f(z),\overline{f(z)})=0$$

for all $`zM`$. It follows from Proposition 3.3 (ii) (applied to $`F:=f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_N^{})`$) that the germs at $`p`$ of the components $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_N^{}`$ satisfy a nontrivial polynomial identity with coefficients in $`𝒪_p(M)`$. This contradicts the assumption $`\mu _p(f)=N+N^{}`$. The proof of Proposition 6.2 (i) is complete. ∎

In view of Proposition 6.2 (i), we may now assume to be in the setting of §4–§5. Since $`M^{}`$ is real-algebraic, it is given by

(6.3)
$$M^{}:=\{z^{}^N^{}:\rho _1^{}(z^{},\overline{z^{}})=\mathrm{}=\rho _l^{}(z^{},\overline{z^{}})=0\},$$

where each $`\rho _j^{}(z^{},\overline{z^{}})`$, for $`j=1,\mathrm{},l`$, is a real-valued polynomial in $`[z^{},\overline{z^{}}]`$. For $`j=1,\mathrm{},l`$, $`z_0M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`(z,\zeta )\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}`$, define

(6.4)
$$r_j(z,\overline{z},\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }):=\rho _j^{}(\zeta ,\theta (z_0;z,\zeta ),\overline{\zeta },\overline{\theta (z_0;z,\zeta )})𝒞^\omega (\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}),$$

where $`\theta (z_0;):\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}\mathrm{\Delta }_{h(z_0)}^m^{}`$ is the restriction to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}`$ of the holomorphic map given by (5.16) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}`$ is the open subset of $`M\times ^m`$ given in §5.2. We need the following lemma.

###### Lemma 6.3.

For every $`z_0M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`j=1,\mathrm{},l`$, the real-analytic function $`r_j`$ satisfies a nontrivial polynomial identity on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}`$ with coefficients in $`𝒞^\omega (M)[\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }]`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from Lemma 5.2 that each component of the restriction to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}`$ of $`\theta (z_0;)`$, considered as an element of $`𝒞^\omega (\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0})`$, is algebraic over the field $``$ defined in §5.2. Therefore, in view of the definition of $``$, it is also the case for each component of the restriction to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}`$ of $`\overline{\theta (z_0;)}`$. Since for $`j=1,\mathrm{},l`$, each $`\rho _j^{}(z^{},\overline{z^{}})`$ is a polynomial, it follows from (6.4) that each $`r_j`$ belongs to the field generated by $``$ and the components of the restriction to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}`$ of the maps $`\theta (z_0;)`$ and $`\overline{\theta (z_0;)}`$. Hence, by standard arguments from field theory (see e.g. \[ZS58\]), each $`r_j`$ is also algebraic over $``$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},l`$, which gives the desired statement of the lemma. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 6.2 (ii)..

By contradiction, assume that there exists $`z_0M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that the real-analytic submanifold $`Z_f(z_0)`$ given by (5.19) is not contained in $`M\times M^{}`$. In view of (5.16), (5.18), (5.19) and (6.4), this means that there exists $`j_0\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$ such that $`r_{j_0}0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}`$. By Lemma 6.3, there exists a nontrivial polynomial $`Q(z,\overline{z},\zeta ,\overline{\zeta };T)𝒞^\omega (M)[\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }][T]`$ such that

(6.5)
$$Q(z,\overline{z},\zeta ,\overline{\zeta };r_{j_0}(z,\overline{z},\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }))0,\mathrm{for}(z,\zeta )\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}.$$

Moreover, since $`r_{j_0}`$ does not vanish identically on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}`$ and $`M`$ is connected, we may choose $`Q`$ such that

(6.6)
$$Q(z,\overline{z},\zeta ,\overline{\zeta };0)0\mathrm{for}(z,\zeta )M\times ^m.$$

Recall that we write $`f=(g,h)`$ as in (5.2) and that the graph of $`g=(g_1,\mathrm{},g_m)`$ over $`M\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_0}^N`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_0}`$. Then (6.5) implies that for $`zM\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_0}^N`$,

(6.7)
$$Q(z,\overline{z},g(z),\overline{g(z)};r_{j_0}(z,\overline{z},g(z),\overline{g(z)}))0.$$

But since $`f`$ maps $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$, we have for $`j=1,\mathrm{},l`$,

(6.8)
$$\rho _j^{}(f(z),\overline{f(z)})\rho _j^{}(g(z),h(z),\overline{g(z)},\overline{h(z)})0,zM.$$

Therefore, in view of (5.17), (6.4) and (6.8), we obtain that for all $`zM\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_0}^N`$,

(6.9)
$$r_{j_0}(z,\overline{z},g(z),\overline{g(z)})0.$$

From (6.7) and (6.9), we conclude that for all $`zM\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_0}^N`$,

(6.10)
$$Q(z,\overline{z},g(z),\overline{g(z)};0)0.$$

In view of (6.6), condition (ii) in Proposition 3.3 is satisfied for the components $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_m`$ of $`g`$ that are $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth CR-functions on $`M`$. By Proposition 3.3, the germs at $`p`$ of $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_m`$ satisfy a nontrivial polynomial identity with coefficients in $`𝒪_p(M)`$. This contradicts the fact that $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_m`$ form a transcendence basis of $`_p(M)(f)`$ over $`_p(M)`$ (see §5.1). The proof is complete. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 6.1.

We shrink $`M`$ so that the conclusion of Proposition 6.2 holds. Define $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_f`$ to be the union of those irreducible real-analytic components of $`𝒵_f(M\times ^N^{})`$ that contain open pieces of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$. Then the conclusions (i) and (ii) of Theorem 6.1 follow from Proposition 6.2 and the straightening property (iii) follows from Proposition 5.1. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.8.

Without loss of generality, we may assume that $`M`$ is generic. Since $`f`$ does not extend holomorphically to any neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`^N`$, we have $`n:=\mu _p(f)N>0`$ by Proposition 4.4. Then Theorem 1.8 follows immediately from Theorem 6.1. ∎

## 7. Proofs of Theorems 1.1, 1.3, 1.6, 1.7

###### Proof of Theorem 1.1.

We need to prove that if $`f`$ does not extend holomorphically to any neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`^N`$, then necessarily $`f`$ maps a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`M`$ into $`^{}`$. By Theorem 1.8, there exists a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`p`$ in $`M`$ such that for all points $`q`$ in a dense open subset of $`U`$, one has $`f(q)^{}`$. Since the set $`^{}`$ is closed in $`M^{}`$ (see §1), it follows that $`f(U)^{}`$. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.3.

We may assume that $`M`$ is generic. Since $`M`$ is real-algebraic, connected and minimal somewhere, it is minimal outside a proper real-algebraic subset $`S`$. In view of Corollary 1.2, we may assume that $`pS`$.

If $`W`$ is a connected component of $`MS`$, then we claim that either $`f`$ is real-algebraic on $`W`$ or $`f(W)V^{}`$. Indeed, if $`f(W)V^{}`$, then $`f`$ extends holomorphically to a neighborhood in $`^N`$ of some point $`qW`$ by Corollary 1.2. Therefore, it is real-algebraic by a result of the third author \[Z99\], i.e. every component of $`f`$ satisfies a nontrivial polynomial identity in a neighborhood of $`q`$ in $`M`$. Then by Tumanov’s theorem and unique continuation, it follows that the same polynomial identities for the components of $`f`$ hold everywhere on $`W`$ and hence $`f`$ is real-algebraic on $`W`$.

By repeating the arguments from \[DF78, §6\] one can show that, near $`p^{}:=f(p)`$, the set $`V^{}`$ (which may be empty) is complex-algebraic, i.e. given by the vanishing of a vector-valued holomorphic polynomial $`P(z^{})`$, $`z^{}^N^{}`$. Then, by the above claim, $`Pf`$ is real-algebraic on each connected component of $`MS`$. It is known (see e.g. \[BR90\]) that some neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`M`$ intersects only finitely many connected components of $`MS`$. Hence $`Pf`$ is real-algebraic in a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`M`$ and therefore, since $`Pf`$ is $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth, it is real-analytic by Malgrange’s theorem (see \[M66\]).

If $`f`$ does not send a connected neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`M`$ into $`V^{}`$, the real-analytic map $`Pf`$ does not vanish identically on each of the components of $`MS`$ intersecting this neighborhood. Hence, by the above claim, $`f`$ is real-algebraic on each such component and therefore in a neighborhood of $`p`$. Then the required holomorphic extension of $`f`$ at $`p`$ follows from Malgrange’s and Tomassini’s theorems. ∎

For the proof of Theorem 1.6, it will be convenient to derive the following corollary from Theorem 1.8. For a given smooth map $`f:MM^{}`$ between real submanifolds $`M^N`$ and $`M^{}^N^{}`$ and a point $`pM`$, we denote by $`\mathrm{Rk}_pf`$ the maximal rank of $`f`$ in a sufficiently small neighborhood of $`p`$.

###### Corollary 7.1.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.8, there exists an integer $`1nN^{}1`$ and a real-analytic submanifold $`Y^{}M^{}`$ of dimension at least $`\mathrm{Rk}_pf`$ arbitrarily close to $`f(p)`$ which is biholomorphically equivalent to a product $`Y\times \omega `$, where $`Y^{N^{}n}`$ is a real-analytic submanifold and $`\omega `$ is an open subset in $`^n`$.

###### Proof of Corollary 7.1.

Let $`A,n`$ be given by Theorem 1.8, $`\pi ^{}:_z^N\times _z^{}^N^{}_z^{}^N^{}`$ the natural projection and fix a sufficiently small open neighborhood $`U^{}`$ of $`f(p)`$ in $`^N^{}`$. Choose a point $`qM`$ such that $`f`$ has rank $`\mathrm{Rk}_pf`$ at $`q`$ and $`f(q)U^{}`$. Let $`U_q,\phi `$ be as in Theorem 1.8 and set $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,z^{}):=(z,\phi (z,z^{}))`$. Shrinking $`U_q`$ if necessary, we may assume that $`f`$ is of maximal rank at every point of $`U_q`$ and that $`\pi ^{}(AU_q)U^{}`$. Choose a point $`(z_0,z_0^{})X_q:=AU_q`$ with $`z_0^{}U^{}`$, where $`\pi ^{}|_{X_q}:X_qM^{}U^{}`$ has maximal rank $`r^{}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_fU_qA`$ by Theorem 1.8, necessarily $`r^{}\mathrm{Rk}_pf`$. By the rank theorem, we may assume, after shrinking $`X_q`$ near $`(z_0,z_0^{})`$ if necessary, that $`Y^{}:=\pi ^{}(X_q)`$ is an $`r^{}`$-dimensional real-analytic submanifold in $`U^{}`$. By Theorem 1.8, there exists a neighborhood $`M_0M`$ of $`z_0`$ and an open subset $`\omega ^n`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(X_q)=M_0\times \omega \times \{0\}`$. Since $`\pi ^{}|_{X_q}`$ and $`\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^1|_{\{z_0\}\times \omega \times \{0\}}`$ are of maximal rank, there exists a real-analytic submanifold $`YM_0`$ such that, after shrinking $`Y^{}`$ and $`\omega `$ if necessary, $`\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ defines a real-analytic diffeomorphism between $`Y\times \omega \times \{0\}`$ and $`Y^{}`$. Since $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ are holomorphic in their respective ambient spaces, we obtain the desired result. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.6.

Let $`M`$, $`M^{}`$ and $`f`$ be as in Theorem 1.6. Then $`f`$ is submersive at a point $`p_0M`$. If $`f`$ were not holomorphically extendible to a neighborhood of $`p_0`$ in $`^N`$, there would exist an open holomorphically degenerate submanifold $`Y^{}M^{}`$ by Corollary 7.1. This would contradict the assumption that $`M^{}`$ is holomorphically nondegenerate. Hence $`f`$ is real-analytic at $`p_0`$. Now define $`\mathrm{\Omega }M`$ to be the maximal connected open subset containing $`p_0`$ where $`f`$ is real-analytic. Then $`f`$ is submersive on a dense subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We claim that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=M`$. Otherwise there would exist $`p\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ where $`f`$ is not real-analytic that would contradict Corollary 7.1 as before. Hence $`f`$ is real-analytic everywhere on $`M`$ and the proof is complete. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.7.

As in the proof of Theorem 1.3, we may assume that $`M`$ is generic and we let $`SM`$ be the real-algebraic subset of all nonminimal points. By assumption, $`f`$ is submersive at a point $`p_0M`$ which can be assumed minimal without loss of generality. By Theorem 1.6, $`f`$ extends holomorphically to a neighborhood in $`^N`$ of the connected component $`W_0`$ of $`p_0`$ in $`MS`$. Since both $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are real-algebraic, $`f`$ is real-algebraic on $`W_0`$ by a result of \[Z99\]. The same argument shows that, for every connected component $`W`$ of $`MS`$, either $`f`$ is real-algebraic or it is nowhere submersive on $`W`$.

As in the proof of Theorem 1.6, define $`\mathrm{\Omega }M`$ to be the maximal open connected subset containing $`p_0`$ where $`f`$ is real-analytic. Then $`f`$ is submersive on a dense subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Assume by contradiction that $`f`$ is not real-analytic everywhere on $`M`$ and hence that there exists a point $`p_1\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ where $`f`$ is not real-analytic. Fix local real-algebraic coordinates in $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ near $`p_1`$ and $`f(p_1)`$ respectively and denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ a minor of the Jacobian matrix of $`f`$ of the maximal size that does not vanish identically in any neighborhood of $`p_1`$. By the first part of the proof, we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is real-algebraic and hence real-analytic in a connected neighborhood $`U`$ of $`p_1`$ in $`M`$. In particular, $`f`$ is submersive on a dense subset of $`U`$. Hence $`f`$ is real-algebraic on every component of $`US`$ by the first part of the proof again, and hence, by Malgrange’s theorem, it follows that $`f`$ is real-analytic near $`p_1`$, which is a contradiction. This shows that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=M`$ and hence concludes the proof of the theorem. ∎