text:
# The pluripolar hull of the graph of a holomorphic function with polar singularities

## 1. Introduction

Levenberg, Martin and Poletsky  have conjectured that if $`f`$ is a holomorphic function, which is defined on its maximal domain of existence $`D`$, then the graph

(1.1)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_f=\{(z,f(z)):zD\}$$

of $`f`$ over $`D`$ is a complete pluripolar subset of $`^2`$, i.e. there exists a plurisubharmonic function on $`^2`$ such that it equals $`\mathrm{}`$ precisely on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ (see e.g. ). Supports for this conjecture can be found in .

In the same direction is one of the results of the paper.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`A`$ be a closed polar set in a domain $`D`$ and let $`f`$ be a holomorphic function on $`DA`$ (we shall write $`f𝒪(DA)`$). Then the set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f(A\times )`$ is complete pluripolar in $`D\times `$. Moreover, if $`f`$ does not extend holomorphically over $`A`$, then the set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f(A^{}\times )`$ is complete pluripolar in $`D\times `$, where $`A^{}`$ is the set of density points of $`A`$ in $`D`$.

In case $`A^{}=\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. $`A`$ is a discrete subset of $`D`$), we see that the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ of $`f`$ on $`DA`$ is complete pluripolar in $`D\times `$. Hence, Theorem 1.1 is a generalization of the main result of .

Nevertheless, in  we have shown that the conjecture is false. Moreover, for any non-empty set $`A^{}`$ there exists a holomorphic function defined on $`DA`$, which is nowhere extendable over $`A`$, such that the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ of $`f`$ on $`DA`$ is not complete pluripolar in $`D\times `$. The main purpose of the paper is to clarify this phenomenon.

To study completeness of the graph we need more definitions. Following  (see also ) we introduce for a pluripolar set $`E`$ in a domain $`D`$ its pluripolar hull in $`D`$  as

(1.2)
$$E_D^{}:=\{zD:\text{ for all }u\mathrm{PSH}(D):u|_E=\mathrm{}u(z)=\mathrm{}\}.$$

It is well-known that a polar set $`P`$ in $``$ is complete polar if and only if $`P`$ is of $`G_\delta `$-type . In higher dimension, the situation is more complicated. It is easy to see that any complete pluripolar set is of $`G_\delta `$-type. The following result of A. Zeriahi is a useful counterpart of the one-dimensional case.

###### Theorem 1.2 (see ).

Let $`E`$ be a pluripolar subset of a pseudoconvex domain $`D^n`$. If $`E_D^{}=E`$ and $`E`$ is of $`G_\delta `$\- and $`F_\sigma `$-type, then $`E`$ is complete pluripolar in $`D`$.

The next result is the main one of this paper. It is a one-variable necessary and sufficient condition on holomorphic functions on a domain in $``$ that guarantees that the graph of such a function is complete pluripolar.

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`D`$ be a domain in $``$ and let $`A`$ be a closed polar subset of $`D`$. Suppose that $`f𝒪(DA)`$ and that $`z_0A`$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`(\{z_0\}\times )(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_{D\times }^{}=\mathrm{}`$;
2. the set $`\{zDA:|f(z)|R\}`$ is not thin at $`z_0`$ for any $`R>0`$.

Moreover, if the set $`\{zDA:|f(z)|R\}`$ is thin at $`z_0`$ for some $`R>0`$, then there exists a $`w_0`$, $`|w_0|R`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ is not pluri-thin at $`(z_0,w_0)`$ (and therefore $`(z_0,w_0)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_{D\times }^{}`$).

For the definition of thinness and pluri-thinness see (3.5) below and cp. .

Since any graph is of $`G_\delta `$\- and $`F_\sigma `$-type, as a corollary of Theorems 1.21.3 we obtain the following.

###### Corollary 1.4.

Let $`D`$ be a domain in $``$ and let $`A`$ be a closed polar subset of $`D`$. Suppose that $`f𝒪(DA)`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ is complete pluripolar in $`D\times `$ if and only if for all $`R>0`$ the set $`\{zDA:|f(z)|R\}`$ is not thin at any point of A.

By Theorem 1.1 (see also ) in case $`A`$ has no limit point in $`D`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ is complete pluripolar (and in particular the regularity condition is satisfied) for every $`f𝒪(DA)`$, which does not extend holomorphically over $`A`$.

For example, the corollary applies to the function $`f(z)=\mathrm{exp}(1/z)`$, which is in $`𝒪(\{0\})`$ and does not extend holomorphically to $`0`$. Moreover, $`\{z\{0\}:\mathrm{Re}(1/z)\mathrm{ln}R\}`$ is not thin at $`0`$ for any $`R>0`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ is complete pluripolar in $`^2`$ as was already proven in , . More interestingly, consider the function $`f(z)=1/\mathrm{sin}(\pi /z)`$ in $`𝒪(A)`$, where $`A=\{0\}\{1/n:n\}`$. It is an amusing exercise to verify that in this case for any $`R>0`$ the set $`\{zA:|f(z)|R\}`$ is not thin at any point of $`A`$ showing again that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ is complete pluripolar in $`^2`$.

The first named author thanks Marek Jarnicki and Peter Pflug for very helpful remarks. A conversation we had with Włodzimierz Zwonek was very useful too.

## 2. Pluripolar completeness

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a domain in $`^n`$. We say that a plurisubharmonic function $`u:\mathrm{\Omega }[\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ is continuous if $`e^u:\mathrm{\Omega }[0,\mathrm{})`$ is a continuous function and write $`u\mathrm{PSHC}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

The hart of this section is Theorem 2.1. Together with Corollary 3.2 and Theorem 3.3 it leads easily to Corollary 3.4. This in turn forms a basic ingredient in the proof of Theorem 1.3.

###### Theorem 2.1 (cf. ).

Let $`K`$ be a compact polar set in a domain $`D`$ and let $`f𝒪(DK)`$. Then there exists a continuous plurisubharmonic function $`u\mathrm{PSHC}(D\times )`$ such that

$$\{(z,w)D\times :u(z,w)=\mathrm{}\}=\{(z,f(z)):zDK\}(K\times ).$$

We postpone the proof Theorem 2.1 and start with some auxiliary results leading to Proposition 2.4.

Put $`𝔻_r(z_0):=\{z:|zz_0|<r\}`$, $`r>0`$, $`𝔻_r:=𝔻_r(0)`$, and $`𝔻:=𝔻_1`$.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`K`$ be a compact set in the unit disk $`𝔻`$ and let $`f`$ be a holomorphic function in $`𝔻K`$. Then there exist $`f_1𝒪(𝔻)`$ and $`f_2𝒪(K)`$ such that

(2.1)
$$f=f_1+f_2\text{ on }𝔻K$$

and $`lim_{|z|+\mathrm{}}f_2(z)=0`$.

###### Proof.

Take $`r(0,1)`$ such that $`f`$ is holomorphic in the annulus

$$A(r):=\{z:r<|z|<1\}.$$

Then

(2.2)
$$f(z)=\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_kz^k,zA(r).$$

Take $`\stackrel{~}{f}_1(z):=_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}a_kz^k`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_2(z):=_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_kz^k`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{f}_1`$ extends holomorphically to $`𝔻`$ (we denote the extension by $`f_1`$) and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_2`$ extends holomorphically to $`\overline{𝔻}_r`$ (we denote the extension by $`f_2`$). We extend $`f_2`$ to $`\overline{𝔻}_rK`$ by the formula

$$f_2(z)=f(z)f_1(z),z\overline{𝔻}_rK.$$

Note that $`f_2𝒪(K)`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`A`$ be a polar set in $`𝔻`$. Then there exist a sequence $`r_n1`$ such that

$$A\{z𝔻:|z|=r_n\}=\mathrm{},n1.$$

###### Proof.

This easily follows from the fact that linear measure (i.e., 1-dimensional Hausdorff measure) of $`A`$ is zero (see , Theorem III.19). ∎

###### Proposition 2.4.

Let $`K`$ be a compact polar set in a domain $`D`$ and let $`f𝒪(DK)`$. Then there exist $`f_1𝒪(D)`$ and $`f_2𝒪(K)`$ such that

(2.3)
$$f=f_1+f_2\text{ on }DK$$

and $`lim_{|z|\mathrm{}}f_2(z)=0`$.

###### Proof.

For any $`z_0K`$ there exists $`r_0>0`$ such that $`𝔻_{r_0}(z_0)D`$ and $`𝔻_{r_0}(z_0)K=\mathrm{}`$ (use Lemma 2.3). From the compactness of $`K`$ it follows that there exist points $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_NK`$ and $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_N>0`$ such that

a) $`K_{j=1}^N𝔻_{r_j}(z_j)`$,

b) $`𝔻_{r_j}(z_j)K=\mathrm{}`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$.

Now, we construct functions $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_N𝒪(K)`$ such that $`f(g_1+\mathrm{}+g_N)𝒪(D)`$.

By Lemma 2.2 there exists $`g_1𝒪(K_1)`$, where $`K_1=K𝔻_{r_1}(z_1)`$, such that $`fg_1𝒪(𝔻_{r_1}(z_1))`$.

Again by Lemma 2.2 there exists $`g_2𝒪(K_2)`$, where $`K_2=(K𝔻_{r_2}(z_2))K_1`$, such that $`fg_1g_2𝒪(𝔻_{r_1}(z_1)𝔻_{r_2}(z_2))`$. Repeating this process, we construct $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_N𝒪(K)`$ such that $`f(g_1+\mathrm{}+g_N)𝒪(_{j=1}^N𝔻_{r_j}(z_j))`$. ∎

For the proof of Theorem 2.1 we need the following result. The use of Jacobi series in this setting is well-known, cf. , .

###### Proposition 2.5.

Let $`K`$ be a compact polar set in $``$ and let $`f𝒪(K)`$. Then there exist rational functions $`r_n(z)=\frac{p_n(z)}{q_n(z)}`$ of degree $`n`$ (i.e., $`\mathrm{deg}p_nn`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}q_nn`$) with singularities in $`K`$ (i.e., the zeros of $`q_n`$ lie in $`K`$) such that for any compact set $`LK`$ we have

(2.4)
$$fr_n_L^{\frac{1}{n}}0,\text{if }n\mathrm{}.$$

Here $`_L`$ means $`sup`$-norm in $`L`$.

###### Proof of Proposition 2.5.

According to Proposition 2.4 there exist $`f_1𝒪()`$ and $`f_2𝒪(K)`$ such that $`f=f_1+f_2`$ on $`K`$ and $`f_2(z)0`$ when $`|z|\mathrm{}`$. So, we may assume that $`f(z)0`$ when $`|z|\mathrm{}`$.

Let $`U_n=\{z:\mathrm{dist}(z,K)<\frac{1}{n}\}`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Then $`U_{n+1}U_n`$ and $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}U_n=K`$.

Let $`q_m`$ denote the $`m`$-th Fekete polynomial (see e.g. ). Since $`K`$ is polar, $`q_m_K^{\frac{1}{m}}0`$, $`m\mathrm{}`$.

Take $`n`$ so large that $`LU_n`$ and next $`m(n)`$ such that $`q_m_K^{\frac{1}{m}}<\frac{1}{n^4}`$ for $`mm(n)`$. Then for $`zU_{n^2}`$

$$|q_m(z)|=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}|zz_i|n^{2m}>n^{2m}q_m_K=:\rho _m,$$

while for $`zU_n`$

$$|q_m(z)|n^m>n^m\rho _m.$$

Put $`V_m=\{z:|q_m(z)|>\rho _m\}`$. Then $`LU_n^cU_{n^2}^cV_m`$. Set

$$\begin{array}{c}F_m(z,w)=\frac{1}{2\pi iq_m(z)}_{V_m}\frac{f(\zeta )}{wq_m(\zeta )1}\frac{q_m(\zeta )q_m(z)}{\zeta z}𝑑\zeta ,\hfill \\ \hfill zV_m,|w|<\frac{1}{\rho _m}.\end{array}$$

Then $`F_m𝒪\left(V_m\times 𝔻(\frac{1}{\rho _m})\right)`$ and

$$F_m(z,\frac{1}{q_m(z)})=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{V_m}\frac{f(\zeta )}{\zeta z}𝑑\zeta =f(z),$$

for $`zV_m`$, because $`f`$ vanishes at $`\mathrm{}`$. Put

$$c_{mk}(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{V_m}f(\zeta )q_m^k(\zeta )\frac{q_m(\zeta )q_m(z)}{\zeta z}𝑑\zeta .$$

Observe that $`c_{mk}`$ is a polynomial of degree $`m1`$ and that

$$F(z,w)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{c_{mk}(z)}{q_m(z)}w^k.$$

Therefore,

$$f(z)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{c_{mk}(z)}{q_m^{k+1}(z)}.$$

Put $`f_N(z)=_{k=0}^{N1}\frac{c_{mk}(z)}{q_m^{k+1}(z)}`$. This is a rational function of degree $`mN`$. Let us estimate $`ff_N`$ on $`LU_n^c`$. We have

$$|f(z)f_N(z)|\underset{k=N}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}M_1\frac{\rho _m^k}{\mathrm{min}_L|q_m(z)|^{k+1}}M_2\underset{k=N}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{n^{2m}}{n^{3m}}\right)^kM_3\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^{mN}.$$

where $`M_j>0`$ may depend on $`n,m`$ but are independent of $`N`$. Hence, for sufficiently big $`N`$ we have $`|f(z)f_N(z)|^{\frac{1}{mN}}\frac{1}{n}`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 2.1.

In view of Proposition 2.4 we may assume that $`D=`$.

By Theorem 2.5 there exist rational functions $`r_n=\frac{p_n}{q_n}`$ of degree $`n`$, $`n1`$, such that

$$fr_n_L^{\frac{1}{n}}0$$

for any compact set $`LK`$. We may assume that $`q_n(z)=(za_{n1})\mathrm{}(za_{nm_n})`$, where $`a_{n1},\mathrm{},a_{m_nn}K`$, $`m_nn`$.

Put

$$h_n(z,w):=\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\left|\left(wr_n(z)\right)q_n(z)\right|.$$

Then $`h_n`$ is a continuous plurisubharmonic function in $`\times `$.

We may assume that $`K𝔻`$. For any $`\nu 2`$ we put

$$D_\nu =\{z𝔻_\nu :\mathrm{dist}(z,K)>\frac{1}{\nu }\}.$$

Note that $`D_\nu D_{\nu +1}`$ and $`_\nu D_\nu =K`$.

For $`zD_\nu `$ and $`n`$ we have

(2.5)
$$\begin{array}{c}h_n(z,f(z))=\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}|(f(z)r_n(z))q_n(z)|=\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}|f(z)r_n(z)|\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}|q_n(z)|\mathrm{log}fr_n_{D_\nu }^{\frac{1}{n}}+\mathrm{log}(\nu +1)\\ \hfill =\mathrm{log}\left((\nu +1)fr_n_{D_\nu }^{\frac{1}{n}}\right).\end{array}$$

Recall that $`fr_n_{D_\nu }^{\frac{1}{n}}0`$, when $`n0`$. Hence, for any $`\nu `$ there exists $`n_1(\nu )`$ such that for any $`nn_1(\nu )`$

(2.6)
$$h_n(z,f(z))\nu ,zD_\nu .$$

Fix $`\nu `$. For $`zD_\nu `$, $`w𝔻_\nu `$, with $`|wf(z)|>\frac{1}{\nu }`$ and $`nn_1(\nu )`$ we have, using (2.6)

(2.7)
$$\begin{array}{c}h_n(z,w)=\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}|(wf(z))q_n(z)+(f(z)r_n(z))q_n(z)|\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\left|\left(\frac{1}{\nu }\right)^{n+1}e^{\nu n}\right|\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{\nu })^{n+1}.\end{array}$$

Hence, there exists $`n_2(\nu )n_1(\nu )`$ such that for $`nn_2(\nu )`$ we have

(2.8)
$$h_n(z,w)\mathrm{log}(\nu +1).$$

Let us estimate $`h_n`$ on $`𝔻_\nu \times 𝔻_\nu `$. Since $`fr_n_{\{z:|z|=\nu \}}^{\frac{1}{n}}0`$, for sufficiently big $`n`$ we have

$$\underset{|z|\nu }{\mathrm{max}}|p_n(z)|=\underset{|z|=\nu }{\mathrm{max}}|p_n(z)|C_\nu \underset{|z|=\nu }{\mathrm{max}}|q_n(z)|,$$

where $`C_\nu =\mathrm{max}_{|z|=\nu }|f(z)|+1`$. Hence, there exists $`n_3(\nu )n_2(\nu )`$ such that

(2.9)
$$\begin{array}{c}h_n(z,w)=\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}|wq_n(z)p_n(z)|\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\left(\nu (\nu +1)^n+C_\nu (\nu +1)^n\right)\mathrm{log}(\nu +2),\\ \hfill nn_3(\nu ),(z,w)𝔻_\nu \times 𝔻_\nu .\end{array}$$

For any $`\nu `$ fix an $`n(\nu )n_3(\nu )`$. Now, we consider the plurisubharmonic functions

$$u_\nu (z,w)=\mathrm{max}\{h_{\nu (n)}(z,w)\mathrm{log}(\nu +2),\nu \mathrm{log}(\nu +2)\}.$$

As $`u_\nu `$ is negative on $`𝔻_\nu \times 𝔻_\nu `$, the series

(2.10)
$$u(z,w):=\underset{\nu =2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\nu ^2}u_\nu (z,w).$$

represents a plurisubharmonic function. It is not identically $`\mathrm{}`$ because of (2.8), while (2.6) shows that it is $`\mathrm{}`$ on the graph of $`f`$. Finally, the function $`u(z,w)+H(z)`$, where $`H(z)`$ is the Evans’ potential of $`K`$ (see e.g. ), satisfies all our conditions. ∎

## 3. Results from potential and pluripotential theories

In 3.1 we assemble some results mainly of Levenberg and Poletsky, . Next, in 3.2 we turn to potential theory in $``$. We will obtain some auxiliary results that look very classical. Yet we could not find them in the literature.

### 3.1. Pluripotential theory

For a pluripolar set $`E`$ in a domain $`D`$ in $`^n`$, Levenberg and Poletsky define the negative pluripolar hull of $`E`$ in $`D`$ as

$$E_D^{}:=\{zD:\text{ for all }u\mathrm{PSH}(D),u0:u|_E=\mathrm{}u(z)=\mathrm{}\}.$$

We have the following relation between pluripolar and negative pluripolar hulls.

###### Theorem 3.1 (see ).

Let $`D`$ be a pseudoconvex domain in $`^n`$ and let $`ED`$ be pluripolar. Suppose that $`D=_jD_j`$, where $`D_jD_{j+1}`$ form an increasing sequence of relatively compact pseudoconvex subdomains of $`D`$. Then

$$E_D^{}=\underset{j}{}(ED_j)_{D_j}^{}.$$

As an immeadiate corollary of Theorem 3.1 we get the following.

###### Corollary 3.2.

Let $`G`$ be a domain in $``$ and let $`EG\times `$ be a pluripolar set, which is of $`F_\sigma `$\- and $`G_\delta `$-type. Then $`E`$ is complete pluripolar in $`G\times `$ iff $`E(D\times )`$ is complete pluripolar in $`D\times `$ for any domain $`DG`$.

###### Proof.

Note that if $`E`$ is complete pluripolar in $`G\times `$ then $`E`$ is complete pluripolar in any smaller domain.

Take a sequence of domains $`D_1D_2\mathrm{}G`$ such that $`G=_{\nu =1}^{\mathrm{}}D_\nu `$. By Theorem 1.2 $`E`$ is complete pluripolar in $`G\times `$ iff $`E_{G\times }^{}=E`$. By Theorem 3.1 we have

$$E_{G\times }^{}=_{\nu =1}^{\mathrm{}}\left(E(D_\nu \times 𝔻_\nu )\right)_{D_\nu \times 𝔻_\nu }^{}.$$

We know that

$$\left(E(D_{\nu +1}\times )\right)_{D_{\nu +1}\times }^{}\left(E(D_\nu \times 𝔻_\nu )\right)_{D_\nu \times 𝔻_\nu }^{},\nu =1,2,\mathrm{}$$

So, if $`\left(E(D_{\nu +1}\times )\right)_{D_{\nu +1}\times }^{}=E(D_{\nu +1}\times )`$, then $`E_{G\times }^{}=E`$. ∎

In view of Theorem 2.1 recall the following result of A. Zeriahi (see ).

###### Theorem 3.3.

Let $`D`$ be a pseudoconvex domain in $`^n`$ and let $`Z`$ be a closed complete pluripolar set in $`D`$. Then there exists a continuous plurisubharmonic function $`u\mathrm{PSHC}(D)`$ such that $`\{zD:u(z)=\mathrm{}\}=Z`$.

As a corollary of Theorems 2.1 and 3.3, Corollary 3.2 we get the following.

###### Corollary 3.4.

Let $`A`$ be a closed polar set in a domain $`D`$ and let $`f𝒪(DA)`$. Then there exists a continuous plurisubharmonic function $`u\mathrm{PSHC}(D\times )`$ such that

$$\{(z,w)D\times :u(z,w)=\mathrm{}\}=\{(z,f(z)):zDA\}(A\times ).$$

In particular, $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_{D\times }^{}\left[(DA)\times \right]=\mathrm{\Gamma }_f\left[(DA)\times \right]`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`GD`$ be a domain such that $`GA=\mathrm{}`$. Then $`AG`$ is a compact polar subset of $`G`$. By Theorem 2.1 the set $`\{(z,f(z)):zGA\}\left((AG)\times \right)`$ is complete pluripolar in $`G\times `$. Using Corollary 3.2 we get that $`\{(z,f(z)):zDA\}(A\times )`$ is complete pluripolar in $`D\times `$. The existence of a continuous plurisubharmonic function follows from Theorem 3.3. ∎

Let $`E`$ be a subset of a domain $`D^n`$. The pluriharmonic measure of $`E`$ relative to $`D`$ (or, relative extremal function) is defined as follows

(3.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}\omega (z,E,D)=sup\{u(z):u\mathrm{PSH}(D)\text{ and }u1\text{ on }E,u0\text{ on }D\},\hfill \\ \hfill zD.\end{array}$$

We refer to  for details. Note that relative extremal function can be defined as in (3.1) for an open set $`D`$. In that case we have $`\omega (z,E,D)=\omega (z,ED_j,D_j)`$, $`zD_j`$, where $`D=_jD_j`$, $`D_j`$ are disjoint and connected.

Recall the following important result.

###### Theorem 3.5 (see ).

Let $`D`$ be a domain in $`^n`$ and let $`E`$ be a pluripolar set in $`D`$. Then

$$E_D^{}=\{zD:\omega (z,E,D)>0\}.$$

The next localization principle is an important tool in our theory. A very special case of this principle can be found in .

###### Theorem 3.6.

Let $`G`$ be a domain in $`^n`$ and let $`E`$ be a pluripolar subset of $`G`$. Assume that $`u`$ is a plurisubharmonic function on $`G`$ such that

(3.2)
$$Z=\{zG:u(z)=\mathrm{}\}E$$

and $`u`$ is locally bounded on $`GZ`$ (e.g. $`u\mathrm{PSHC}(G)`$). Then for any domain $`DG`$ and any neighborhood $`UZ`$ we have

(3.3)
$$\omega (z,ED,D)=\omega (z,ED,UD),zUD.$$

###### Proof.

Fix a domain $`DG`$. Since $`UDD`$, we have the inequality ”$``$”.

Let us show the inequality ”$``$”. Note that $`Z\overline{D}`$ is a compact set. Assume that $`h\mathrm{PSH}(DU)`$ is such that $`h1`$ on $`ED`$ and $`h0`$ on $`UD`$. Fix $`ϵ>0`$. Then there exist $`\alpha >0`$, $`\beta `$ such that $`\alpha u+\beta <0`$ on $`D`$, $`\alpha u+\beta ϵ`$ on $`(U)\overline{D}`$.

Consider the function

$$v_ϵ(z):=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{max}\{h(z)ϵ,\alpha u(z)+\beta \}\hfill & \text{if }zDU,\hfill \\ \alpha u(z)+\beta \hfill & \text{if }zDU.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that $`v_ϵ\mathrm{PSH}(D)`$ is a negative plurisubharmonic function such that $`v_ϵ1`$ on $`ED`$. Hence,

$$\omega (z,ED,D)v_ϵ(z)h(z)ϵ,zDU.$$

Let $`ϵ0`$. Then $`\omega (z,ED,D)h(z)`$, $`zDU`$. And, therefore,

$$\omega (z,ED,D)\omega (z,ED,UD).$$

### 3.2. Potential theory

The following result from potential theory is very important in our considerations. Since we could not find the proof in the literature, we give the proof.

###### Theorem 3.7.

Let $`D`$ be a bounded domain in $``$ and let $`SD`$ be a closed disc. Assume that $`KD`$ is a compact polar set. Then

$$\omega (z,S,D)=inf\{\omega (z,S,DU):KU\text{ open}\},zD.$$

Moreover, if $`zK`$ is a regular boundary point of $`D`$ then

$$inf\{\omega (z,S,DU):KU\text{ open}\}=0.$$

###### Proof.

To prove the first statement, it is clear that for each $`zD`$

$$\omega (z,S,D)inf\{\omega (z,S,DU):KU\text{ open}\}.$$

Next, because $`K`$ is a compact polar set, there exists a subharmonic function $`h0`$ that is defined in a neighborhood of $`\overline{D}`$ and such that $`h(w)=\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`wK`$. Let $`zD`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$. Let $`U_0`$ be a small neighborhood of $`K`$, such that $`\epsilon h<1`$ on $`U_0`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}inf\{\omega (z,S,DU):KU\text{ open}\}+\epsilon h(z)\hfill \\ \hfill \omega (z,S,DU_0)+\epsilon h(z)\omega (z,S,D),\end{array}$$

because $`\omega (z,S,DU_0)+\epsilon h(z)`$ is a subharmonic function on $`DS`$ with boundary values less than the boundary values of $`\omega (z,S,D)`$. Since $`h(z)`$ is a fixed finite value, and $`\epsilon `$ is arbitrary $`>0`$, we have

$$\omega (z,S,D)inf\{\omega (z,S,DU):KU\text{ open}\}.$$

and the first statement is established.

For the second statement we first observe that for every $`\epsilon >0`$ the set

$$F_U^\epsilon =\{z\overline{DU}:\underset{\zeta z}{lim\; sup}\omega (\zeta ,S,DU)\epsilon \}$$

is a compact connected subset of $`\overline{DU}`$. Moreover, if $`U_1U_2`$ then $`F_{U_1}^\epsilon F_{U_2}^\epsilon `$. We set $`F^\epsilon =_UF_U^\epsilon `$. Then $`F^\epsilon `$ is a compact connected subset of $`\overline{D}`$.

Now let $`zK`$ be a regular boundary point of $`D`$. Then

(3.4)
$$\underset{\zeta z,\zeta D}{lim}\omega (\zeta ,S,D)=0,$$

because it is the solution of a Dirichlet problem with continuous boundary values. Moreover, if $`zK`$, then for sufficiently small neighborhoods $`U`$ of $`K`$ we find that $`z`$ is a regular boundary point of $`DU`$. We conclude that $`F^\epsilon D`$ is a subset of the union of $`K`$ and the irregular boundary points of $`D`$, hence $`F_\epsilon D`$ is a polar set and therefore totally disconnected.

To reach a contradiction, suppose that

$$inf\{\omega (z,S,DU):KU\text{ open}\}=\epsilon >0,$$

then $`zF^\epsilon `$. Note that for any decreasing sequence $`\{U_i\}`$ of neighborhoods of $`K`$ with $`K=U_i`$, the functions $`\omega (z,S,DU_i)`$ form a decreasing sequence of harmonic functions on $`DS`$ and therefore converge uniformly on compact sets in $`DS`$ to $`\omega (z,S,D)`$.

In view of (3.4) we conclude that there is a neighborhood $`V`$ of $`z`$ such that $`F^\epsilon VD`$. Thus $`F^\epsilon V`$ is totally disconnected and $`\{z\}`$ is a component of $`F^\epsilon `$, which is a contradiction. ∎

Let $`S`$ be a subset of $``$ and let $`\zeta `$. Recall (cf. ) that $`S`$ is called thin at $`\zeta `$ if $`\zeta `$ is not a point of density of $`S`$ or there exists a subharmonic function $`u`$ defined in a neighborhood of $`\zeta `$ with

(3.5)
$$\underset{\stackrel{z\zeta }{zS\zeta }}{lim\; sup}u(z)<u(\zeta ).$$

The definition of pluri-thin is entirely analogous: Instead of working in $``$ one works in $`^n`$, and the subharmonic function $`u`$ must be replaced by a plurisubharmonic function.

It is known that it is equivalent to demand in (3.5) that the limsup equals $`\mathrm{}`$, compare the proof of the Wiener criterion in , and for the several variable case .

Next we see that thin boundary points behave as interior points as far as harmonic measure is concerned.

###### Proposition 3.8.

Let $`D`$ be a domain in $``$ and let $`BD`$ be a closed subset. Suppose that $`z_0D`$ is such that $`B`$ is thin at $`z_0`$. Then there exist a sequence of radius $`\{r_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}(0,1)`$, $`r_n0`$, and a sequence $`\{z_k\}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}DB`$, $`z_kz_0`$, such that $`𝔻(z_0,r)D`$, $`𝔻(z_0,r)DB`$, and

$$\omega (z_k,𝔻(z_0,r_n),𝔻(z_0,r_n)B)\frac{1}{2},n,k=1,2,$$

###### Proof.

Since $`B`$ is thin at $`z_0`$, we can find a subharmonic function $`u`$ defined on a neighborhood of $`z_0`$ such that

$$\underset{\stackrel{zz_0}{zB\{z_0\}}}{lim\; sup}u(z)=\mathrm{}<u(z_0).$$

Moreover, by scaling and adding a constant, we can assume that $`u(z_0)=\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`u<0`$ on a small ball $`𝔻(z_0,ϵ)`$.

It is an immediate consequence of Wieners criterion that there exists a sequence of radii $`r_n0`$ such that the circles $`𝔻(z_0,r_n)`$ do not intersect $`B`$ (see e.g. \[11, Theorem 5.4.2.\]). Pick $`n_0`$ so big that $`u|_{B\{0<|zz_0|<r_{n_0}\}}1`$. We assume that $`nn_0`$. We use the fact that $`D`$ is non-thin at $`z_0`$ to find a sequence $`\{z_k\}DB`$ tending to $`z_0`$ such that $`u(z_k)u(z_0)`$. We assume that $`u(z_k)\frac{1}{2}`$. Note that

$$\omega (z,𝔻(z_0,r_n),𝔻(z_0,r_n)B)+u(z)1,z𝔻(z_0,r_n)B.$$

In particular, $`\omega (z_k,𝔻(z_0,r_n),𝔻(z_0,r_n)B)\frac{1}{2}`$. ∎

## 4. Proofs of main results

The next result gives the proof of implication $`(1)(2)`$ and the second part of Theorem 1.3.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`D`$ be a domain in $``$, let $`A`$ be a closed polar subset of $`D`$, and let $`f𝒪(DA)`$. Assume that there exist a $`z_0A`$ and an $`R>0`$ such that $`\{zDA:|f(z)|R\}`$ is thin at $`z_0`$. Then there exists a $`w_0`$, $`|w_0|R`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ is not pluri-thin at $`(z_0,w_0)`$ (and, therefore, $`(z_0,w_0)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_{D\times }^{}`$).

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`z_0=0`$. Put $`B=A\{zDA:|f(z)|R\}`$. Note that $`B`$ is a closed subset of $`D`$ thin at $`0`$. By Proposition 3.8 there exist a sequence of radius $`\{r_n\}`$, $`r_n0`$, and a sequence $`\{z_k\}DB`$ tending to $`0`$ such that

$$\omega (z_k,𝔻_{r_n},𝔻_{r_n}B)\frac{1}{2}.$$

Let $`w_0`$ be a limit point of $`\{f(z_k)\}`$; clearly $`|w_0|R`$. By passing to a subsequence we can assume that $`f(z_k)w_0`$.

We shall show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ is not pluri-thin at $`(0,w_0)`$. Indeed, assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ is pluri-thin at $`(0,w_0)`$. Then there exists a plurisubharmonic function $`u\mathrm{PSH}(^2)`$ such that

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_f(z,w)(0,w_0)}{lim\; sup}u(z,w)=\mathrm{}<u(0,w_0).$$

Consider the subharmonic functions

$$h_k(z)=u(zz_k,f(z)+w_0f(z_k))$$

defined on $`DA`$. We have $`h_k(z_k)=u(0,w_0)`$.

Put $`H=sup_{|z|2,|w|3R}u(z,w)`$ and put $`C_{nk}=sup_{z𝔻_{r_n}}h_k(z)`$, $`n,k`$. Note that $`C_{nk}C_n=sup_{z𝔻_{r_n}}u(z,f(z))`$, when $`k\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, $`C_n\mathrm{}`$ when $`n\mathrm{}`$.

We have $`h_kH`$ for $`z𝔻_{r_n}B`$. We estimate $`u(0,w_0)=h_k(z_k)`$ using the two-constants theorem:

$$u(0,w_0)=h_k(z_k)H(HC_{nk})\omega (z_k,𝔻_{r_n},𝔻_{r_n}B)\frac{H+C_{nk}}{2}.$$

Now we let $`k\mathrm{}`$. So, $`u(0,w_0)\frac{H+C_n}{2}`$. If we let $`n\mathrm{}`$, we get $`u(0,w_0)=\mathrm{}`$. A contradiction. ∎

For the proof of implication $`(2)(1)`$ in Theorem 1.3 we need the following technical result, which follows from the localization principle (Theorem 3.6), Theorem 3.7, and Corollary 3.4.

###### Corollary 4.2.

Let $`D`$ be a domain in $``$ and let $`A`$ be a closed polar subset of $`D`$. Assume that $`f𝒪(DA)`$ and that $`SDA`$ is a closed disc. Then for any domain $`GD`$ and any $`R_2>R_1>0`$ such that $`SG`$, $`AG=\mathrm{}`$, $`R_1>\mathrm{max}_{zS}|f(z)|`$ we have

$$\omega (z,S,G_{R_1})\omega ((z,f(z)),\mathrm{\Gamma }_S,G\times 𝔻_{R_2})\omega (z,S,G_{R_2}),zG_{R_1},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S=\{(z,f(z)):zS\}`$ and $`G_R=\{zGA:|f(z)|<R\}`$. Moreover, if $`z_0A`$ is a regular point of $`G_{R_2}`$ then

$$\omega ((z_0,w_0),\mathrm{\Gamma }_S,G\times 𝔻_{R_1})=0,\text{ for any }w_0𝔻_{R_1}.$$

###### Proof.

Note that $`Z=\mathrm{\Gamma }_f(A\times )`$ is a closed complete pluripolar set in $`D\times `$ (use Corollary 3.4).

Fix a neighborhood $`V`$ of $`AG`$. Put $`\stackrel{~}{V}=V(D\overline{G})`$ and put

$$\begin{array}{c}U=\left(\{zDA:|f(z)|<R_2\}\stackrel{~}{V}\right)\times \hfill \\ \hfill \{zDA:|f(z)|>R_1\}\times \{w:|w|>R_1\}.\end{array}$$

Note that $`U`$ is a neighborhood of $`Z`$. According to the localization principle we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\omega ((z,w),\mathrm{\Gamma }_S,G\times 𝔻_{R_1})=\omega ((z,w),\mathrm{\Gamma }_S,(G\times 𝔻_{R_1})U),\hfill \\ \hfill (z,w)\left(G\times 𝔻_{R_1}\right)U.\end{array}$$

We have $`(G\times 𝔻_{R_1})U=\left(G_{R_2}V\right)\times 𝔻_{R_1}`$, hence

$$\begin{array}{c}\omega ((z,w),\mathrm{\Gamma }_S,G\times 𝔻_{R_1})=\omega ((z,w),\mathrm{\Gamma }_S,(G_{R_2}V)\times 𝔻_{R_1}),\hfill \\ \hfill (z,w)\left(G_{R_2}V\right)\times 𝔻_{R_1}.\end{array}$$

Now it suffices to use the inequalities

$$\omega ((z,f(z)),\mathrm{\Gamma }_S,G\times 𝔻_{R_1})\omega (z,S,G_{R_1}),zG_{R_1},$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}\omega ((z,w),\mathrm{\Gamma }_S,(G_{R_2}V)\times 𝔻_{R_1})\omega (z,S,G_{R_2}V),\hfill \\ \hfill (z,w)\left(G_{R_2}V\right)\times 𝔻_{R_1},\end{array}$$

and Theorem 3.7. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.3.

Note that all we have to prove is the implication $`(2)(1)`$.

Let $`S`$ be a closed disc in $`DA`$. Put

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_S:=\{(z,f(z)):zS\}.$$

Let $`M`$ be the maximum of $`|f|`$ on $`S`$ and let $`R_\nu +\mathrm{}`$.

Fix domains $`D_\nu D_{\nu +1}D`$ such that $`_\nu D_\nu =D`$ and $`D_\nu A=\mathrm{}`$. According to Corollary 4.2

$$\omega ((z_0,w_0),\mathrm{\Gamma }_S,D_\nu \times 𝔻_{R_\nu })=0,\text{ for any }w_0𝔻_{R_\nu },\nu .$$

Hence, $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_S)_{D_\nu \times R_\nu }^{}(\{z_0\}\times )=\mathrm{}`$, for any $`\nu `$. So, $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_S)_{D\times }^{}(\{z_0\}\times )=\mathrm{}`$. It suffices to remark that $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_S)_{D\times }^{}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_{D\times }^{}`$. ∎

Theorem 1.1 immediately follows from the following more general result.

###### Theorem 4.3 (cf. ).

Let $`A`$ be a closed polar set in a domain $`D`$ and let $`f𝒪(DA)`$. Let $`B`$ be a subset of $`A`$ such that $`BA^{}=\mathrm{}`$. Assume that $`f`$ does not extend holomorphically to any point of $`B`$. Then the set

$$\{(z,f(z)):zDA\}\left((AB)\times \right)$$

is complete pluripolar in $`D\times `$.

###### Proof.

Note that the set $`B`$ has only isolated points. According to Corollary 3.4 we know that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f(A\times )`$ is complete pluripolar. Since $`\{zDA:|f(z)|R\}`$ is not-thin at any point of $`B`$ (because $`f`$ has isolated singularities at any point of $`B`$), by Theorem 1.3 we have the proof. ∎

The following result gives some information on the set $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_{D\times }^{}`$ in case $`f`$ is not extandable over a polar subset $`A`$.

###### Theorem 4.4.

Let $`D`$ be a domain in $``$ and let $`AD`$ be a closed polar subset. Assume that $`f𝒪(DA)`$ and $`f`$ does not extend holomorphically over $`A`$. Then there exists a dense subset $`BA`$ such that $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_{D\times }^{}(B\times )=\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof.

According to a result from  there exists a dense subset $`BA`$ with the following property: for any $`bB`$ there exists a continuous curve $`\gamma :(0,1]DA`$ such that $`\gamma (t)b`$ and $`|f\left(\gamma (t)\right)|\mathrm{}`$ when $`t0`$. Hence, for any $`bB`$ and any $`R>0`$ the set $`\{zDA:|f(z)|R\}`$ is not thin at $`b`$. So, the result follows from Theorem 1.3

## 5. Examples

In case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_{D\times }^{}`$, it is natural to try to determine the non-trivial part of $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_{D\times }^{}`$. In Proposition 5.2 we will compute the pluripolar hull of particular examples. We introduce some notation for this section. Let $`A=\{a_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝔻\{0\}`$ be a sequence such that $`a_n0`$ and let $`\{c_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\{0\}`$. Put

$$f(z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{c_n}{za_n}.$$

We will suppose that $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}|c_n|<+\mathrm{}`$ and that $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\left|\frac{c_n}{a_n}\right|`$ is convergent. We also introduce $`\gamma _N=_{n=N}^{\mathrm{}}|c_n|`$. Note that $`f𝒪\left((A\{0\})\right)`$ and that $`f(0)`$ is well-defined. First let us show the following result.

###### Proposition 5.1.

Suppose that there exists a sequence $`N_m\mathrm{}`$ such that

(5.1)
$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{_{n=1}^{N_m}\mathrm{log}|a_n|}{\mathrm{log}\gamma _{N_m+1}}=0.$$

Then

$$(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_^2^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_f\left\{(0,f(0))\right\}.$$

###### Proof.

Since $`a_n0`$, $`lim_N\mathrm{}\frac{1}{N}_{n=1}^N\mathrm{log}|a_n|=\mathrm{}`$. Hence, from (5.1) we have $`lim_m\mathrm{}\frac{1}{N_m}\mathrm{log}\gamma _{N_m+1}=\mathrm{}`$. Put

$$f_N(z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{c_n}{za_n}$$

and

$$h_N(z,w)=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{log}\left|\left(wf_N(z)\right)\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}(za_n)\right|.$$

Note that $`h_N`$ is a plurisubharmonic function on $`^2`$. Fix $`R>0`$ and let $`|z|,|w|<R`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}h_N(z,w)\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{log}\left(R\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}(R+|a_n|)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{|c_k|}{R+|a_k|}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}(R+|a_n|)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{N}\mathrm{log}\left(R+\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{|c_k|}{R}\right)+\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{log}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}(R+|a_n|)\right):=M_N.\end{array}$$

Observe that $`M_N\mathrm{log}R`$ when $`N\mathrm{}`$.

Fix a closed disc $`\overline{𝔻}(z_0,2r_0)\overline{A}`$. Let us estimate $`h_N(z,f(z))`$ for $`z𝔻(z_0,r_0)`$. We have

$$h_N(z,f(z))\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{log}\left(\left(\underset{n=N+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{|c_n|}{r_0}\right)\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}(r_0+|a_n|)\right):=K_N.$$

Note that

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\frac{1}{N_m}\mathrm{log}\gamma _{N_m+1}}{K_{N_m}}=1.$$

Put $`v_N(z,w)=\frac{M_Nh_N(z,w)}{M_NK_N}`$. If $`wf(0)`$ then

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}v_{N_m}(0,w)=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{_{n=1}^{N_m}\mathrm{log}|a_n|}{\mathrm{log}\gamma _{N_m+1}}=0.$$

From the definition we have

$$\omega ((z,w),\mathrm{\Gamma }_S,𝔻_R\times 𝔻_R)v_N(z,w),z,w𝔻_R,$$

where $`S=\overline{𝔻}(z_0,r_0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S=\{(z,f(z)):zS\}`$. So, if $`wf(0)`$ and $`w𝔻_R`$ then

$$0\omega ((0,w),\mathrm{\Gamma }_S,𝔻_R\times 𝔻_R)\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}v_{N_m}(0,w)=0.$$

Hence, $`(0,w)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_^2^{}`$. ∎

###### Proposition 5.2.

Suppose that $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{log}|a_n|}{\mathrm{log}\gamma _n}<+\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_^2^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_f\left\{(0,f(0))\right\}.$$

###### Proof.

Fix $`N>k>1`$. Note that

$$\frac{_{n=1}^N\mathrm{log}|a_n|}{\mathrm{log}\gamma _{N+1}}\frac{_{n=1}^k\mathrm{log}|a_n|}{\mathrm{log}\gamma _{N+1}}+\underset{n=k+1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{log}|a_n|}{\mathrm{log}\gamma _n}.$$

From this inequality we get that condition (5.1) is satisfied and by Proposition 5.1 we have $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_^2^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_f\left\{(0,f(0))\right\}`$.

So, it suffices to show that $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_^2^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$. It is not difficult to see that $`\frac{|a_n|}{\sqrt{\gamma }_n}\mathrm{}`$, when $`n\mathrm{}`$. Hence, there exists a constant $`C>0`$ such that $`|a_n|>r_n`$ for any $`n`$, where $`r_n=C\sqrt{\gamma _n}`$. Because $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{|\mathrm{log}\gamma _n|}<\mathrm{}`$, we find

$$R:=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{|c_n|}{r_n}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{\gamma _n}\frac{|c_n|}{C\gamma _n}=\frac{1}{C}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{\gamma _n}<+\mathrm{}.$$

Put $`A=\{0\}\{a_n:n\}`$ and put $`F:=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\overline{𝔻(a_n,r_n)}`$. We have

$$\{zA:|f(z)|R\}F.$$

According to Theorem 1.3, it suffices to show that $`F`$ is thin at $`0`$. But this is a variation on Wiener’s criterion, see e.g. . Indeed, there exists a sequence $`\alpha _n\mathrm{}`$ such that

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _n\frac{\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{|a_n|}{1+|a_n|}\right)}{\mathrm{log}r_n}<+\mathrm{}.$$

Consider the function

$$u(z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha _n}{\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{r_n}}\left[\mathrm{log}|za_n|\mathrm{log}(1+|a_n|)\right].$$

Note that $`u`$ is a negative subharmonic function on $`𝔻`$ and that $`u(0)>\mathrm{}`$. We have

$$u(z)\frac{\alpha _n}{\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{r_n}}\left[\mathrm{log}r_n\mathrm{log}(1+|a_n|)\right],z\overline{𝔻(a_n,r_n)}.$$

Hence,

$$\underset{Fz0}{lim\; sup}u(z)\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\alpha _n}{\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{r_n}}\left[\mathrm{log}r_n\mathrm{log}(1+|a_n|)\right]=\mathrm{}<u(0).$$

We obtain that $`F`$ is thin at $`0`$. ∎

###### Example 5.3.

Take $`a_n=\frac{1}{n}`$ and $`c_n=e^{n^2}/n^2`$, $`n`$. Put

$$f(z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{c_n}{za_n}.$$

Then by Propostion 5.2 we have $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_f)_^2^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_f\left\{(0,f(0))\right\}`$.


format: text

text:
# Decoherence of charge states in double quantum dots due to cotunneling

## Abstract

Solid state quantum bits are a promising candidate for the realization of a scalable quantum computer, however, they are usually strongly limited by decoherence. We consider a double quantum dot charge qubit, whose basis states are defined by the position of an additional electron in the system of two laterally coupled quantum dots. The coupling of these two states can be controlled externally by a quantum point contact between the two dots. We discuss the decoherence through coupling to the electronic leads due to cotunneling processes. We focus on a simple Gedanken experiment, where the system is initially brought into a superposition and then the inter-dot coupling is removed nonadiabatically. We treat the system by invoking the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation in order to obtain a transformed Hamiltonian describing the cotunneling, and then obtain the dynamics of the density matrix using the Bloch-Redfield theory. As a main result, we show that there is energy relaxation even in the absence of inter-dot coupling. This is in contrast to what would be expected from the Spin-Boson model and is due to the fact that a quantum dot is coupled to two distinct baths.

Quantum dots (“artificial atoms”) are prototype systems for studying the properties of discrete levels embedded in a solid-state environment Ashoori . In particular, various schemes for realizing quantum bits, fully controlled quantum coherent two-state systems, using quantum dots have been brought forward. Next to using optically excited charge states in quantum dots Rossi  and electronic quantum dots used for spin manipulation Loss , it has been proposed Blick  to use the charge states of a double quantum dot as a computational basis.

The proposed setup is sketched in Figure 1. In order to minimize the inevitable decoherence through coupling to the electronic leads, the system can be brought into the Coulomb blockade regime where sequential tunneling is supressed. We are going to discuss in this article, how the inevitable cotunneling still decoheres the system in this regime. The calculation is carried out for one specific Gedanken experiment which should capture the most generic features, the decay of a superposition state when the coupling between the dots is switched off. A more complete treatment of this setup is in preparation UdoFrankPrep .

We restrict our analysis on spin-polarized electrons. The relevant Hilbert space is characterized by four basis states, written as $`|i,j`$, which denotes $`i`$ additional electrons on the left dot, $`j`$ additional electrons on the right dot. The two states $`|1,0`$ and $`|0,1`$ define the computational basis Nielsen . In order to describe cotunneling, we use the closest energetically forbidden states as virtual intermediate states. These are $`|v_0=|0,0`$ and $`|v_2=|1,1`$. Zero- and two electron states with internal polarization are energetically even less favorable due to the high charging energy of the individual dots.

The Hamiltonian of this system can be written as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+H_1`$ (1)
$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}(\widehat{n}_l\widehat{n}_r)ϵ_\alpha \widehat{n}_{v_0}+ϵ_\beta \widehat{n}_{v_2}`$ (2)
$`+\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(a_n^La_n^R+a_n^Ra_n^L)+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}^Lb_\stackrel{}{k}^Lb_\stackrel{}{k}^L+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}^Rb_\stackrel{}{k}^Rb_\stackrel{}{k}^R`$
$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`t_c{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},n}{}}(a_n^Lb_\stackrel{}{k}^L+a_n^Lb_\stackrel{}{k}^L)+t_c{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},m}{}}(a_m^Rb_\stackrel{}{k}^R+a_m^Rb_\stackrel{}{k}^R)`$ (3)
Note, that the sum over dot states only runs over the restricted Hilbert space described above. $`H_0`$ describes the energy spectrum of the uncoupled system, whereas the tunneling part $`H_1`$ describes the coupling of each dot to its lead and will be treated as a perturbation. $`\widehat{n}_{l/r}`$ are the number operators for the additional electrons on either dot. The asymmetry energy $`ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}`$ describes the difference between the energy level for the additional electron in left dot and the corresponding energy level in the right dot. It can be tuned through via the gate voltages which are applied at each dot. $`ϵ_\beta `$ and $`ϵ_\alpha `$ are the energy differences towards the higher level $`|v_2`$ and the lower level $`|v_0`$ respectively. $`\gamma `$ is the tunable inter-dot coupling. The $`a^{()}`$s and $`b^{()}`$s denote the creation/destruction operators in the dots and leads. In $`H_1`$ the symbol $`t_c`$ represents the coupling constant concerning the coupling of the dots to the leads, which should be small compared to the asymmetry energy. Note, that we have chosen a slightly asymmetric notation in order to highlight the physical model: For the actual calculation, $`H_1`$ is also expressed in the eigenstate basis of the dot.

For our Gedanken experiment, we assume that first the inter-dot coupling $`\gamma `$ is large ($`\gamma ϵ_{\mathrm{as}},V`$) such that the system relaxes into the ground state, which is a molecular superposition state of the form $`|g=(|0,1|1,0)/\sqrt{2}`$. Then the gate voltage that controls the inter-dot coupling is switched to high values, so that the coupling is practically zero. After this, the system dephases and relaxes into a thermal mixture of the localized eigenstates of the new system.

Thus, in order to describe decoherence, we only have to consider the case $`\gamma =0`$ K. This means, that $`H_0`$ is already diagonal, i.e. the states $`|1,1`$, $`|1,0`$, $`|0,1`$ and $`|0,0`$ are eigenstates of our system.

The decoherence is analyzed applying the well-established Bloch-Redfield theory, which is based on the Born approximation in the system-bath coupling. As we are in the Coulomb blockade regime, the rates evaluated from the original coupling Hamiltonian $`H_1`$ vanish in that order. In order to treat cotunneling with this formalism, we perform a generalized Schrieffer-Wolf transformation swtrafo ; Cohen . This transformation maps our original Hamiltonian $`H_1`$, which is zero in the computational basis but couples the computational states to the $`|v_{0/2}`$ onto a Hamiltonian which does not have this coupling to higher states but which has nonzero matrix elements in the computational basis. The new terms in the Hamiltonian describe the amplitude of transitions between the basis states via the intermediate states. We perform this transformation perturbatively up to second order, i.e. all processes involving at most one intermediate state are taken into account.

The new Hamiltomian $`H_I`$ in our special case then can be written as

$`H_{I,++}`$ $`=`$ $`A(R,R,++)b_m^Rb_n^R+A(L,L,++)b_l^Lb_k^L`$ (4)
$`H_{I,}`$ $`=`$ $`A(L,L,)b_k^Lb_l^L+A(R,R,)b_n^Rb_m^R`$ (5)
$`H_{I,+}`$ $`=`$ $`A(R,L,+)b_m^Rb_l^L+A(L,R,+)b_l^Lb_m^R`$ (6)
$`H_{I,+}`$ $`=`$ $`A(L,R,+)b_k^Lb_n^R+A(R,L,+)b_n^Rb_k^L.`$ (7)
The $`+`$ and $``$ signs are indizes for the states $`|1,0`$ resp. $`|0,1`$. We call the $`A`$s Schrieffer-Wolff coefficients, they are calculated along the lines of Cohen  using mainly second order perturbation theory. For example, $`A(R,R,++)`$ is

$$A(R,R,++)=\frac{t_c^2}{2}[\frac{1}{ϵ_m^R(ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}+ϵ_\beta )}\frac{1}{ϵ_n^R(ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}ϵ_\beta )}].$$
(8)
We now use the Bloch-Redfield equations Weiss ; Blum

$$\dot{\rho }_{nm}(t)=i\omega _{nm}\rho _{nm}\underset{k,l}{}R_{nmkl}\rho _{kl}(t)$$
(9)
where $`R_{nmkl}`$ are the elements of the Redfield tensor. These equations of motion for the reduced density matrix are obtained within Born approximation in the effective system-bath coupling, so after the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation, $`R`$ is of order $`t_c^4`$. Let us remark that our perturbation theory naturally breaks down below the Kondo temperature, which can however be made arbitrarily small by lowering $`t_c`$ through pinching off the contacts to the reservoirs.

The Bloch-Redfield equations are of Markovian form, however, by properly using the free time evolution of the system, they take into account all bath correlations which are relevant within the Born approximation Hartmann .

The Redfield tensor has the form

$$R_{nmkl}=\delta _{lm}\underset{r}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nrrk}^{(+)}+\delta _{nk}\underset{r}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lrrm}^{()}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lmnk}^{(+)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lmnk}^{()}.$$
(10)
The rates entering the Redfield tensor elements are given by the following Golden-Rule expressions

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lmnk}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑te^{i\omega _{nk}t}\stackrel{~}{H}_{I,lm}(t)\stackrel{~}{H}_{I,nk}(0)`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lmnk}^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑te^{i\omega _{lm}t}\stackrel{~}{H}_{I,lm}(0)\stackrel{~}{H}_{I,nk}(t)`$ (12)
where $`H_I`$ appears in the interaction representation (written as $`\stackrel{~}{H}_I`$). In our formalism, it is of crucial importance that the expectation values over $`H_I`$ vanish, i.e. that the bath produces only noise. As a number of expectation values of $`H_I`$ turns out to be finite, we tacitly replace $`H_I`$ by $`H_IH_I`$ in eqs. (11) and (12) and use the finite expectation values to renormalize the diagonalized, unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H_0H_0+H_I`$. In our case, the effect of this renormalization is of the order of $`0.1`$ % of the original matrix elements of $`H_0`$.
After a straightforward calculation of the above Golden-Rule rates, one gets in the general case a (large) sum over terms with the generic form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`c\{{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{ϵ_bϵ_a2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}}}[f_1(ϵ_b2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}})(1f_2(ϵ_b))f_1(ϵ_a)(1f_2(ϵ_a\pm 2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}))]+`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n_1(\mu _22ϵ_{\mathrm{as}})}{ϵ_bϵ_a2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}}}[\psi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\beta }{2\pi }}(ϵ_b2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}\mu _1))\psi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\beta }{2\pi }}(ϵ_a\mu _1))`$
$`\psi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\beta }{2\pi }}(ϵ_b\mu _2))+\psi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\beta }{2\pi }}(ϵ_a\pm 2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}\mu _2))]\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`c\{{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{ϵ_bϵ_a2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}}}[f_2(ϵ_b)(1f_1(ϵ_b2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}))f_2(ϵ_a\pm 2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}})(1f_1(ϵ_a))]+`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n_2(\mu _1\pm 2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}})}{ϵ_bϵ_a2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}}}[\psi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\beta }{2\pi }}(ϵ_b2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}\mu _1))+\psi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\beta }{2\pi }}(ϵ_a\mu _1))+`$
$`+\psi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\beta }{2\pi }}(ϵ_b\mu _2))\psi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\beta }{2\pi }}(ϵ_a\pm 2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}\mu _2))]\}`$
where $`c=\frac{t_c^4\pi V^2m_{}^2}{4\mathrm{}(2\pi \mathrm{}^2)^2}`$. One can express the coupling to the leads $`t_c`$ by $`t_c=\sqrt{\frac{g}{8\pi ^2}}\frac{E_F}{n}`$, where $`g`$ is a conductance in terms of the quantum conductance, $`E_F`$ is the Fermi energy of the leads and $`n`$ is the number of electrons in the leads. Consequently, $`c`$ is then changed to $`c=\frac{t_c^2g}{32\pi \mathrm{}}`$. The $`ϵ_a`$ and $`ϵ_b`$ are terms containing varying sums or differences of $`ϵ_\beta `$, $`ϵ_\alpha `$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}`$. Due to the multitude of possibilities for virtual transitions, each element of the Redfield tensor contains a number of terms of this generic structure.

In the above equations, the terms containing the Fermi function $`f(ϵ)`$ only play a role close to resonance and can be neglected in the Coulomb blockade Koenig . The $`n_{l/r}`$’s represent Bose functions for the electron-hole pairs (excitons) that are generated during the virtual processes. The $`\psi `$’s denote Digamma functions and hence diverge logarithmically at low temperatures.

By solving equation (9), one finds that the off-diagonal elements decay towards zero on a time scale $`\tau _\varphi `$ (dephasing time) whereas the diagonal density matrix elements equilibrate on a time scale $`\tau _r`$ (relaxation time).

Using the above expressions, we find the rates as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r`$ $`=`$ $`2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{++}^{(+)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{++}^{(+)})`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_r}{2}}+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{++++}^{(+)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{(+)}2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{++}^{(+)})`$ (16)
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{++}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{++}^{()}=c(n_r(\mu _l+2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}))Z`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{++}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{++}^{()}=c(n_l(\mu _r2ϵ_{\mathrm{as}}))Z`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{++++}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{++++}^{()}=c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}Y_1`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{()}=c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}Y_1`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{++}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{++}^{()}=c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}Y_{1,1}.`$ (21)
$`Z`$ is a function containing several $`\psi `$-functions (or logarithms). $`Y_1`$, $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_{1,1}`$ are different functions of several $`\psi `$’-(Trigamma-) functions (or reciprocals), however, these functions only have a very weak temperature dependence. The most important part of the temperature dependence comes in through $`\frac{1}{\beta }`$ and in $`n_{l/r}`$ and is summarized in Figure 2.

We find in Figure 2 that the temperature dependence is similar to the Spin-Boson case Grifoni . This can be confirmed by inspection of the formulas (17)-(21): For the relaxation rate, one has only Bose functions taken at the finite amount energy which is dissipated. In case of the dephasing rate, there are also terms that are proportional to $`T`$, which represent dephasing processes which do not change the energy of the qubit, i.e. cotunneling processes which originate and end in the same state. This explains the observed behaviour. Note, that in the Spin-Boson case, where there is only one lead, the situation corresponding to our Gedanken-experiment (no tunneling between the classical states) would correspond to pure dephasing, whereas in our system relaxation is always possible by extracting an electron on one side and adding one on the other side from the other lead.

The numerical values for the relaxation and dephasing times are comparedly huge, on the order of 100 milliseconds as compared to the experimentally measured times, which are in the order of nanoseconds. Other possibilities to explain the small decoherence time are phononic and/or photonic baths Brandes1 ; Brandes2 ; Alex , or the influence of the whole electronic circuitry.

We analyzed relaxation and dephasing processes in a system of two laterally coupled quantum dots which is coupled to two electronic (i.e. fermionic) baths. We showed that even in the case of vanishing inter-dot coupling, the system’s energy can relax, unlike in the Spin-Boson model. On top of that, the temperature dependence of the rates resembles that of the Spin-Boson model. We identify, that this originates in the fact that the cotunneling rates are mostly sensitive to the distribution function of excitons.

As a next step, the case where the inter-dot coupling $`\gamma `$ has finite values will be considered UdoFrankPrep . We thank J. von Delft, L. Borda, J. König, R.H. Blick, A.W. Holleitner, A.K. Hüttel and E.M. Höhberger for clarifying discussions. We acknowledge financial support from ARO, Contract-Nr. P-43385-PH-QC.


text:
# Tests of the nature and of the gluon content of the 𝜎(0.6) from 𝐷 and 𝐷_𝑠 semileptonic decays

## Tests of the nature and of the gluon content of the $`\sigma (0.6)`$ from $`D`$ and $`D_s`$ semileptonic decays

Hans Guenter Dosch
Institut für Theoretische Physik
University of Heidelberg
Philosophenweg
Germany
Email: h.g.dosch@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de

Stephan Narison
Laboratoire de Physique Mathématique
Université de Montpellier II
Place Eugène Bataillon
34095 - Montpellier Cedex 05, France
Email: qcd@lpm.univ-montp2.fr

Abstract

We summarize the different features which show that QCD spectral sum rule analyses of the scalar two- and three-point functions do not favour the $`\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d`$ interpretation of the broad and low mass $`\sigma (0.6)`$ and emphasize that a measurement of the $`D_s`$ semileptonic decays into $`\pi \pi `$ can reveal in a model-independent way its eventual gluon component $`\sigma _B`$. The analysis also implies that one expects an observation of the $`K\overline{K}`$ final states from the $`\sigma _B`$ which may compete (if phase space allowed) with the one from a low mass $`\overline{s}s`$ state assumed in the literature to be the SU(3) partner of the observed $`\sigma (0.6)`$ if the latter is a $`\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d`$ state.

## 1 Introduction

The nature of scalar mesons is an intriguing problem in QCD. Experimentally, there are well established scalar mesons with isospin $`I=1`$, the $`a_0(980)`$, with isospin $`I=1/2`$ $`K_0^{}(1410)`$ meson, and with isospin $`I=0`$, the $`f_0`$-mesons at 980, 1370 and 1500 MeV . Besides these resonances there are recent experimental  and theoretical  indications for a low lying scalar isoscalar state, the famous $`\sigma `$. The isoscalar scalar states are especially interesting in the framework of QCD since, in this $`U(1)_V`$ channel, their interpolating operator is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor:

$$\theta _\mu ^\mu \theta _g+\theta _q=\frac{1}{4}\beta (\alpha _s)G^2+\underset{i}{}\left(1+\gamma _m(\alpha _s)\right)m_i\overline{\psi }_i\psi _i,$$
(1)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is the gluon field strengths, $`\psi _i`$ is the quark field; $`\beta (\alpha _s)`$ and $`\gamma _m(\alpha _s)`$ are respectively the QCD $`\beta `$-function and quark mass-anomalous dimension. In the chiral limit $`m_i=0`$, $`\theta _\mu ^\mu `$ is dominated by its gluon component $`\theta _g`$, like is the case of the $`\eta ^{}`$ for the $`U(1)_A`$ axial-anomaly, explaining why the $`\eta ^{}`$-mass does not vanish like other Goldstone bosons for $`m_i=0`$. In this sense, it is natural to expect that these $`I=0`$ scalar states are glueballs/gluonia or have at least a strong glue admixture in their wave function. QCD spectral sum sum rules (QSSR) are an important analytical tool of nonperturbative QCD and especially well suited to address the question of the quark-gluon mixing since the principal nonperturbative ingredients are the quark condensate, the gluon condensate and the mixed quark-gluon condensate.

In this note we summarize some essential features of previous sum rule analyses and especially point out the relevance of semileptonic $`D`$ and $`D_s`$-decays for obtaining information on the gluon content of the scalar mesons.

## 2 Instantons and tachyonic gluon effects to the $`S_2(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)`$

Masses and couplings of unmixed scalar $`\overline{q}q`$ mesons and gluonia have been extensively studied in the past and more recently  reviewed using QSSR within the standard Operator Product Expansion (OPE) of the diagonal two-point correlator:

$$\psi (q^2)=id^4xe^{iqx}0|𝒯J(x)J(0)^{}|0,$$
(2)
associated to the quark or/and the gluonic currents.

It has been emphasized that the mass of the scalar $`S_2\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d`$ meson is about 1 GeV, in agreement with the one of the observed $`a_0(980)`$, and with good $`SU(2)`$ symmetry implying a degeneracy between the isovector $`a_0`$ and isoscalar state $`S_2`$, while its width into $`\pi \pi `$ has been found to be about 100 MeV . On the other hand, the mass of the mesons containing a strange quark is above 1 GeV due to $`SU(3)`$ breaking, which explains successfully the well-known $`\varphi `$$`\rho `$ and $`K^{}`$$`\rho `$ mass splittings 111A more complete spectrum of different scalar mesons from QSSR analysis are given in details in ..

Contributions outside the usual OPE do not alter this result. The $`1/q^2`$-renormalon contribution introduced by a tachyonic gluon mass  from the linear term of the short distance part of the QCD potential 222A linear term of the potential at all distances has been recently proposed by ’t Hooft  as a possible way to solve the confinement problem. are very small. Instanton contributions  to the scalar current as studied in  improve the stability for the sum rule of the decay constant, but do not lower the mass of the $`S_2`$ in a stable way.

In Figure 1 we show the results for the mass of the $`S_2(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)`$ as function of the Borel/Laplace parameter $`M^2`$ for the leading contributions (a), with the inclusion of the two loop corrections and the tachyonic mass contribution (b, dashed line) and also including the instanton conribution (b, solid line). The continuum threshold is 1.4 GeV2 in all cases 333This value is analogous to the ones obtained from the QSSR analysis of some other scalar channels ..

## 3 Nature of the $`\sigma (0.6)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$

From the previous analysis, one can already conclude that the observed $`\sigma `$ cannot be a pure $`\overline{q}q`$ state.
$``$ A QSSR analysis in the gluonium channel, using the subtracted sum rule sensitive to the constant $`\psi _G(0)16\beta _1/\pi \alpha _sG^2`$, (where $`\beta _1=1/2(112n/3)`$ and $`\alpha _sG^20.07`$ GeV4 ) and the unsubtracted sum rule , requires two resonances for a consistent saturation of the two sum rules, where the lowest mass gluonium $`\sigma _B`$ should be below 1 GeV.
$``$ A low energy theorem for the vertex $`\pi |\theta _\mu ^\mu |\pi `$ also shows that the $`\sigma _B`$ can be very wide with a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ width of about $`(0.20.8)`$ GeV corresponding to a mass of $`(0.71)`$ GeV and the $`g_{\sigma \pi \pi }`$ coupling behaves as $`M_\sigma ^2`$. A such result shows a huge violation of the OZI rule analogous to the one encountered in the $`\eta ^{}`$-channel .
$``$ From this result, a natural quarkonium-gluonium mixing (decay mixing 444This has to be contrasted with the small mass-mixing coming from the off-diagonal two-point function .) scheme has been proposed in the $`I=0`$ scalar sector  to explain the observed spectra and widths of the possibly wide $`\sigma (<1`$ GeV) and the narrow $`f_0(0.98)`$. The data are well fitted with a nearly maximal mixing angle $`|\theta _S|40^0,`$ indicating that the $`\sigma `$ and $`f_0`$ have equal numbers of quark and gluon in each of their wave functions. This mixing scenario also implies a strong coupling of the $`f_0`$ to $`\overline{K}K`$ (without requiring to a four-quark $`\overline{s}s(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)`$ state model) with a strength : $`g_{f_0K^+K^{}}=2g_{f_0\pi ^+\pi ^{}},`$ as supported by the data. The physical on-shell $`f_0`$ is narrow $`(<134`$ MeV) due to a destructive mixing, whilst the $`\sigma (.71.)`$ can be $`(0.40.8)`$ GeV wide (constructive mixing). Compared to the four-quark states and/or $`\overline{K}K`$ molecules models (see e.g. ), this quarkonium-gluonium mixing scenario includes all QCD dynamics based on the properties of the scale anomaly $`\theta _\mu ^\mu `$, which comes from QCD first principles. It is certainly interesting to find some further tests of this scenario, which we propose in the following.

## 4 $`D_{(s)}`$ semileptonic decays

### $`S_2(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)`$ meson productions

A theoretically very clean way to investigate hadronic resonances is the analysis of semileptonic decays of charmed mesons. Though there is much better statistics for non-leptonic decays, the complicated final state interaction both on the quark and on the hadronic level make the analysis here difficult and poses many puzzles
$``$ If the scalar mesons were simple $`\overline{q}q`$ states, the semileptonic decay width could be calculated quite reliably using the QCD sum rule approach. The relevant diagram is given in Fig. 2, to which nonperturbative contributions are added. This has been done with a good success for the semileptonic decays of the $`D`$ and $`D_s`$ into pseudoscalar and vector mesons . For the production of a pseudoscalar or scalar $`\overline{q}q`$ states several groups ,  predict all form factors to be: $`f_+(0)0.5,`$ where a similar value has been obtained from a completely independent approach  based on the constituent quark model. This yields a decay rate:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(DS_2l\nu )=(8\pm 3)10^{16}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(3)
for $`M_{S_2}600`$ MeV.

$``$ However, because of the enigmatic nature of the $`\sigma `$, one has also considered, in , the case that the quark-antiquark current occuring in Fig. 2 does not couple to a resonance but rather to an uncorrelated quark-antiquark pair. In that case the decay rate is reduced by a factor 2, but in the spectral distribution nevertheless there is a broad bump visible with a maximum near the presumed $`\sigma `$ mass of 600 MeV (see Figure 4 of ). Unfortunately even in high stastistics experiments the estimated decay rates of the $`D`$-meson are at the edge of observation since the decays into an isocalar are CKM-suppressed due to the $`c`$-$`q`$ transition at the weak vertex.

### Scalar gluonium and/or $`\overline{s}s`$ productions

The diagrams for a semileptonic decay into a gluonium state, are given in Fig. 3. Unfortunately the evaluation of these diagrams is more involved than in the $`\overline{q}q`$ case. Therefore, we can give only semi-qualitative results which however are model independent.
$``$ The only way to obtain a non-CKM suppressed isoscalar is to look at the semileptonic decay of the $`D_s`$-meson. As shown in Figs. 2 and 3, the quark $`q_1`$ is a strange one and an isoscalar $`s\overline{s}`$ or gluonium state can be formed.

$``$ If the $`\overline{s}s`$ is relatively light ($`<1`$ GeV), which might be the natural partner of the $`\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d`$ interpreted to be a $`\sigma (0.6)`$ as often used in the literature, then, one should produce a $`\overline{K}K`$ pair through the isoscalar $`\overline{s}s`$ state. The QSSR prediction for this process is under quite good control . The non-observation of this process will disfavour the $`\overline{q}q`$ interpretation of the $`\sigma `$ meson.
$``$ If a gluonium state is formed it will decay with even strength into $`\pi \pi `$ and a $`K\overline{K}`$ pairs. Therefore a gluonium formation in semileptonic $`D_s`$ decays should result in the decay patterns:

$$D_s\sigma _B\mathrm{}\nu \pi \pi \mathrm{}\nu D_s\sigma _B\mathrm{}\nu K\overline{K}\mathrm{}\nu ,$$
(4)
with about the same rate up to phase space factors. The observation of the semileptonic $`\pi \pi `$ decay of the $`D_s`$ would be a unique sign for glueball formation.
$``$ A semi-qualitative estimate of the above rates can be obtained by working in the large heavy quark mass limit $`M_c`$. Using e.g. the result in , the one for light $`\overline{q}q`$ quarkonium production behaves as:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_sS_q(\overline{q}q)l\nu )|V_{cq}|^2G_F^2M_c^5|f_+(0)|^2.$$
(5)
$``$ For the $`\sigma _B(gg)`$ production, we study the $`1/M_c`$ behaviour of the $`WWgg`$ box diagram in Fig. 3, where it is easy to find that the dominant (in $`1/M_c`$) contribution comes from the one in Fig. 3a. Therefore the production amplitude can be described by the Euler-Heisenberg effective interaction :

$$_{eff}\frac{g_W\alpha _s}{p^2M_c^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }G_{\alpha \beta }G^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{permutations}+𝒪(\frac{1}{M_c^4})$$
(6)
where $`g_W`$ is the electroweak coupling and $`p^2M_{\sigma _B}^2`$ is the typical virtual low scale entering into the box diagram. Using dispersion techniques similar to the one used for $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma _B\gamma `$ processses , one obtains, assuming a $`D_s`$ and $`\sigma _B`$-dominances:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s\sigma _B(gg)l\nu )|V_{cs}|^2G_F^2M_c^3\frac{1}{M_c^4M_\sigma ^4}|0|\alpha _sG^2|\sigma _B|^2$$
(7)
The matrix element $`0|\alpha _sG^2|\sigma _B`$ is by definition proportional to $`f_\sigma M_\sigma ^2`$, where $`f_\sigma `$ is hopefully known from two-point function QSSR analysis . Using $`f_\sigma 0.8`$ GeV, one then deduce:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s\sigma _B(gg)l\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_sS_q(\overline{q}q)l\nu )}\frac{1}{|f_+(0)|^2}\left(\frac{f_\sigma }{M_c}\right)^2𝒪(1)$$
(8)
This qualitative result indicates that the gluonium production rate can be of the same order as the $`\overline{q}q`$ one contrary to the naïve perturbative expectation of the $`\alpha _s^2`$ suppression rate. This result being a consequence of the OZI-rule violation of the $`\sigma _B`$ decay.
However, it also indicates that, due to the (almost) universal coupling of the $`\sigma _B`$ to Goldstone boson pairs, one also expects a production of the $`K\overline{K}`$ pairs, which can compete with the one from $`\overline{s}s`$ quarkonium state, and again renders more difficult the identification of the such state $`\overline{s}s`$ if allowed by phase space.

## 5 Conclusions

After reminding the different features from QCD spectral analysis of the scalar two- and three-point functions which do not favour the $`\overline{q}q`$ interpretation of the broad and low mass $`\sigma (0.6)`$, we have emphasized that a measurement of the $`D_s`$ semileptonic decays into $`\pi \pi `$ can reveal in a clean, unique and model-independent way the eventual gluon component of the $`\sigma `$ meson. The analysis also implies that one expects an observation of the $`K\overline{K}`$ final states from the $`\sigma _B`$ which can compete (if any) with the one expected from a $`\overline{s}s`$ state assumed in the literature to be the SU(3) partner of the observed $`\sigma (0.6)`$ often interpreted as a $`\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d`$ state.

## Acknowledgements

S.N. wishes to thank the Alexander Von Humboldt Foundation which provides the grant for visiting the Institut für Theoretische Physik of the University of Heidelberg where this work has been initiated.


text:
# Quantum games and social norms. The quantum ultimatum game

## Abstract

The noncooperative Nash equilibrium solution of classical games corresponds to a rational expectations attitude on the part of the players. However, in many cases, games played by human players have outcomes very different from Nash equilibria.

A restricted version of quantum games is proposed to implement, in mathematical games, the interplay of self-interest and internalized social norms that rules human behavior.

Keywords: Quantum games, Social norms, Ultimatum

Classical game theory is a mathematical framework for decision problems with rational rules and rational players. It is used in many situations in economics, social sciences and communication. An important item, leading to a solution, is the notion of noncooperative Nash equilibrium $`x^{}`$,

$$x^{}Px^{}xPx^{}$$

$`P`$ being the payoff matrix and $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ mixed strategy vectors. It means that $`x^{}`$ is an ideal strategy when played against itself or that no player can improve his payoff by changing his strategy, when the strategies of the other players are fixed.

The Nash equilibrium solutions correspond to the purely self-interested attitude where, given any environment situation, each player tries to maximize his gains regardless of what happens to the other players. It is the rational expectations attitude of what has been called the Homo oeconomicus, a notion which is at the basis of many theoretical economics constructs. It is therefore important to check the applicability of such notion in human societies. Experiments have been carried out and the problem is that in many cases, when played by human players, games have outcomes very different from the Nash equilibrium points. An interesting case is the ultimatum game. A simplified version of this game is the following:

One of the players (the proposer) receives 100 coins which he is told to divide into two non-zero parts, one for himself and the other for the other player (the responder). If the responder accepts the split, it is implemented. If the responder refuses, nothing is given to the players. Consider, for example, a simple payoff matrix corresponding to two different proposer offers

|  | $`R_0`$ | $`R_1`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`P_0`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}|00\hfill \\ a,c\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}|01\hfill \\ 0,0\hfill \end{array}`$ |
| $`P_1`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}|10\hfill \\ b,b\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}|11\hfill \\ 0,0\hfill \end{array}`$ |

(1)
with $`ac`$, $`a+c=2b`$ (for example $`a=99,c=1,b=50`$). For future reference the players moves are labelled $`|`$.

It is clear that the unique Nash equilibrium is $`|00`$, corresponding to the greedy proposal $`(a,c)`$. However, when the game is played with human players, such greedy proposals are most often refused, even in one-shot games where the responder has no material or strategic advantage in refusing the offer. Based on this and similar results in other situations (public goods games, etc), Bowles and Gintis  developed the notion of strong reciprocity (Homo reciprocans) as a better model for human behavior. Homo reciprocans would come to social situations with a propensity to cooperate and share but would respond to selfish behavior on the part of others by retaliating , even at a cost to himself and even when he could not expect any future personal gains from such actions.

Going a step further, the same authors in collaboration with a group of anthropologists conducted a very interesting “ultimatum game experiment” in many small-scale societies around the world. Consistently different results are obtained in different societies and the authors conclude that Homo oeconomicus is rejected in all cases, the players’ behavior being strongly correlated with existing social norms and market structure in their societies. Apparently human decision problems involve a mixture of self-interest and a background of (internalized) social norms.

But how does one code for social norms in mathematical games? It is here that quantum games (or a restricted version thereof) may be of help. In a full quantum game the players have at their disposal an Hilbert space of strategies rather than a discrete set (or a simplex in the case of mixed strategies). In practical terms one considers an initial vector in the tensor product space of moves and then each player can act on his part of the space by arbitrary unitary operations. In a restricted quantum game (RQG) version, the initial state is again an arbitrary vector but the players operations are restricted to classical moves, that is, to permutations of their basis states.

The restricted version is probably the most appropriate for human decision problems, because it is not clear how to interpret general unitary operations in terms of human decisions. On the other hand the choice of the initial state might be a useful tool to code for the background of social norms on which classical human moves take place.

For the simplified ultimatum example corresponding to the payoff matrix (1) the Hilbert space is spanned by $`\{|00,|01,|10,|11\}`$, a general initial state is

$$\varphi =c_{00}|00+c_{01}|01+c_{10}|10+c_{11}|11$$
(2)
with $`\left|c_{00}\right|^2+\left|c_{01}\right|^2+\left|c_{10}\right|^2+\left|c_{11}\right|^2=1`$ and the (classical) players moves are the matrices $`M_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ and $`M_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ or probabilistic combinations thereof for mixed strategies.

If the initial $`\varphi `$ state is a factorized one, the outcome is the same as in the classical game but not if it is an entangled state. It is easy to interpret this effect. It means that when some action is taken (for example a purely selfish action) in one of the components of the entangled state that will affect the other components as well and the resulting payoff. Individual decisions have entangled consequences and the entanglement is defined by the social environment norms, which in mathematical terms corresponds to the choice of the $`\varphi `$ state.

With the general initial state in (2) the game becomes equivalent to a three-parameter family of classical games with payoffs

|  | $`R_0`$ | $`R_1`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`P_0`$ | $`a\left|c_{11}\right|^2+b\left|c_{01}\right|^2,c\left|c_{11}\right|^2+b\left|c_{01}\right|^2`$ | $`a\left|c_{10}\right|^2+b\left|c_{00}\right|^2,c\left|c_{10}\right|^2+b\left|c_{00}\right|^2`$ |
| $`P_1`$ | $`b\left|c_{11}\right|^2+a\left|c_{01}\right|^2,b\left|c_{11}\right|^2+c\left|c_{01}\right|^2`$ | $`b\left|c_{10}\right|^2+a\left|c_{00}\right|^2,b\left|c_{10}\right|^2+c\left|c_{00}\right|^2`$ |

(3)
Each member of the family must have at least a Nash equilibrium in pure or mixed strategies. Let $`(\mu ,1\mu )`$ and $`(\nu ,1\nu )`$ be the probabilities for proposer and responder to use moves $`M_0`$ and $`M_1`$. Then, their payoffs are, respectively

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_P\hfill & =\hfill & \mu \left(ab\right)\left\{\nu \left(\left|c_{11}\right|^2\left|c_{01}\right|^2\right)+\left(1\nu \right)\left(\left|c_{10}\right|^2\left|c_{00}\right|^2\right)\right\}+f\left(\nu \right)\hfill \\ _R\hfill & =\hfill & \nu \left(\left|c_{11}\right|^2\left|c_{10}\right|^2\right)\left(\mu c+\left(1\mu \right)b\right)+\nu \left(\left|c_{01}\right|^2\left|c_{00}\right|^2\right)\left(\mu b+\left(1\mu \right)c\right)+g\left(\mu \right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
with $`f\left(\nu \right)=\nu b\left(\left|c_{11}\right|^2\left|c_{10}\right|^2\right)+\nu a\left(\left|c_{01}\right|^2\left|c_{00}\right|^2\right)+b\left|c_{10}\right|^2+a\left|c_{00}\right|^2`$ and $`g\left(\mu \right)=\mu \left(cb\right)\left(\left|c_{10}\right|^2\left|c_{00}\right|^2\right)+b\left|c_{10}\right|^2+c\left|c_{00}\right|^2`$

From (3) one sees that the game is invariant for the replacements $`\left(c_{11}c_{01},c_{10}c_{00}\right)`$ or $`\left(c_{11}c_{10},c_{01}c_{00}\right)`$ and has two different classes of Nash equilibria.

(i) If $`\left|c_{11}\right|^2\left|c_{01}\right|^2`$ and $`\left|c_{10}\right|^2\left|c_{00}\right|^2`$ are both $`0`$ or $`0`$ , because of the symmetry one may choose $`\left|c_{11}\right|^2\left|c_{01}\right|^2`$ and $`\left|c_{10}\right|^2\left|c_{00}\right|^2`$. Then, a Nash equilibrium is obtained for $`\mu =1`$ and also for a pure responder strategy $`\nu =1`$ or $`0`$ depending on the sign of $`\nu c\left(\left|c_{11}\right|^2\left|c_{10}\right|^2\right)+\nu b\left(\left|c_{01}\right|^2\left|c_{00}\right|^2\right)`$. The payoff of the responder is the largest of $`c\left|c_{11}\right|^2+b\left|c_{01}\right|^2`$ or $`c\left|c_{10}\right|^2+b\left|c_{00}\right|^2`$ with corresponding proposer payoffs $`a\left|c_{11}\right|^2+b\left|c_{01}\right|^2`$ or $`a\left|c_{10}\right|^2+b\left|c_{00}\right|^2`$.

An example in this class is

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{|11+|01\right\}$$
(5)
for which the Nash equilibrium payoffs are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_P\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{2}\left(a+b\right)\hfill \\ _R\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{2}\left(c+b\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
(ii) If $`\left|c_{11}\right|^2\left|c_{01}\right|^2`$ and $`\left|c_{10}\right|^2\left|c_{00}\right|^2`$ have opposite signs, choosing $`\left|c_{11}\right|^2\left|c_{01}\right|^2`$ and $`\left|c_{10}\right|^2\left|c_{00}\right|^2`$ the strategy of the proposer now depends on $`\nu `$ and Nash equilibria are obtained for pure or mixed strategies depending on the values of the coefficients. An example is

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{|11+|00\right\}$$
(7)
which has a Nash equilibrium for the mixed strategy $`\mu =\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$ and payoffs

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_P\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{4}\left(a+b\right)\hfill \\ _R\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{4}\left(c+b\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

A even wider range of possibilities and payoff structures may be simply obtained by increasing the number of possible proposer moves in the original payoff matrix.

In conclusion: One sees that the restricted quantum game (RQG) structure, while keeping the rational self-interest choice characteristic of the Nash equilibria, does so in a background that allows for the coding of social norms. This occurs because of the entangled nature of the $`\varphi `$ state.

As shown, a RQG is equivalent to a family of classical games. Therefore one might code social norms (as well as player contracts) directly on the family of classical games without any reference to quantum games. Nevertheless the coding of non-trivial members of the family by a simple choice of an entangled $`\varphi `$ vector seems to be an useful compact way to characterize such families.


text:
# HD-THEP-02-27hep-ph/0208175The perturbative odderon in elastic 𝑝𝑝 and 𝑝𝑝̄ scattering

## 1 Introduction

The evidence for the existance of an odderon  remains scarce. To date, the best evidence comes from the differential cross section in elastic $`pp`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ scattering. The $`pp`$ data show a dip structure at $`t1.3`$GeV2 while the $`p\overline{p}`$ data only flatten off at that point. The odderon, being odd under charge conjugation, couples with different signs to protons and antiprotons and can hence account for that difference.

We describe the odderon in leading order perturbation theory, as a perturbative three-gluon exchange in a $`C=1`$ state. We assume that the scale $`1.3`$GeV2 is large enough for perturbation theory to be valid; and we do no $`\mathrm{log}s`$ resummation. We consider three different models for the odderon-proton coupling: one proposed by Fukugita and Kwieciński, one proposed by Levin and Ryskin and a geometrical model which allows an estimation of the size of a possible diquark cluster in the proton.

## 2 Method of calculations

### 2.1 The framework

The data for the differential cross section in $`pp`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ elastic scattering are well described by the Donnachie-Landshoff (DL) fit . The authors use a number of contributions: Pomeron ($`𝒫`$), Reggeon, triple gluon (odderon), $`𝒫`$$`𝒫`$, $`𝒫`$$`𝒫`$$`𝒫`$, $`𝒫`$+Reggeon, and $`𝒫`$+double gluon exchange. Their perturbative triple-gluon exchange contribution is charge conjugation odd due to the colour structure of the single Feynman graph taken into account, hence an odderon.

We use the DL fit as a framework for comparing different odderon contributions to experimental data. To that end we replace their triple-gluon exchange amplitude by one of the model odderon contributions. We retain the original parameter values of the fit and make no attempt to improve it.

### 2.2 A position-space model

Our prime interest was to investigate the influence of the proton structure on the odderon-exchange amplitude and hence on the differential cross section. The scattering amplitude in position space is given by

$`T_𝒪(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`2s{\displaystyle d^2𝒃e^{i𝒒𝒃}d^2𝑹_1d^2𝑹_2}`$
$`\times |\psi (𝑹_1)|^2|\psi (𝑹_2)|^2J(𝒃,𝑹_1,𝑹_2).`$
The two latter integrations are over the size and orientation of the protons in transverse position space. $`\psi `$ is the proton wave funtion. $`J=S1`$ is the reduced scattering amplitude or $`T`$-Matrix element. It is computed with a method developed by Nachtmann  based on the functional representation of scattering matrix elements and the WKB approximation. For a complete presentation of this method, please refer to .

In our case, it leads to a correlator of six integrals over gluon fields along the paths of the quarks. We then project out the $`C=1`$ part to obtain the odderon. See  for more details.

We use a Gaussian wave function for the proton,

$$\psi (𝑹)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\frac{1}{S}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|𝑹|^2}{S^2}\right).$$
(2)
The parameter $`S`$ is the proton size, which we set to 0.8 fm.

In addition to the wave function we make a model for the position of the quarks inside the proton. Two of the quarks form a diquark cluster as shown in Fig. 1. The diquark size is a free parameter. By comparing with experiment, we will be able to place a bound on it.

### 2.3 Momentum space impact factors

Two impact factors we took from the literature are defined in momentum space. In momentum space, the odderon exchange amplitude is computed by folding two odderon-proton impact factors with the propagators of the three gluons which make up the odderon:

$`T_𝒪(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{32}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝜹_{1t}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝜹_{2t}}{(2\pi )^2}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_p^2(𝜹_{1t},𝜹_{2t},𝚫_t)}{𝜹_{1t}^2𝜹_{2t}^2(𝚫_t𝜹_{1t}𝜹_{2t})^2}}.`$
The $`𝜹_{it}`$ are the transverse gluon momenta; $`𝚫_t=𝜹_{1t}+𝜹_{2t}+𝜹_{3t}`$ is the transverse momentum of the odderon.

For reasons of gauge invariance the impact factor has to be of the form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_p(𝜹_{1t},𝜹_{2t},𝚫_t)=8(2\pi )^2g^3[F(𝚫_t,0,0)`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}F(𝜹_{it},𝚫_t𝜹_{it},0)+2F(𝜹_{1t},𝜹_{2t},𝜹_{3t})],`$
where $`F`$ is a form factor.

One of the form factors we used was proposed by Fukugita and Kwieciński :

$$F_{FK}(𝜹_{1t},𝜹_{2t},𝜹_{3t})=\frac{A^2}{A^2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{ik}{}(𝜹_{it}𝜹_{kt})^2}.$$
(5)
The constant $`A`$ determines the width of the form factor and equals half the rho mass. The other form factor was published by Levin and Ryskin :

$$F_{LR}(𝜹_{1t},𝜹_{2t},𝜹_{3t})=\mathrm{exp}\left(R^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝜹_{it}^2\right).$$
(6)
$`R=0.33`$fm is the proton radius used by the authors. We did not attempt to fit the parameters of either form factor but kept the values supplied by the authors.

## 3 Results

As can be seen from Figs. 2 and 3, all models provide a satisfactory description of the data provided their parameters are adjusted correctly. The data do not favour one model over the others.

In the case of the geometrical model, there are two parameters, the diquark size and the coupling constant. Since the precise value of the coupling constant is unknown in a leading-order calculation, we fitted the diquark size for several values of $`\alpha _s`$ which are common in the literature at the scale given by $`t1.3`$GeV2 in the dip region.

Table 1 shows the results. For $`\alpha _s0.3`$ the diquark size is $`0.35`$fm. This result is of great importance for nonperturbative calculations where the proton is often described as a colour dipole. For such a small diquark size this is legitimate since soft gluons cannot resolve the diquark.

In the calculations with momentum space impact factors, the only free parameter is the coupling constant. The best fit was $`\alpha _s=0.3`$ for the Fukugita-Kwieciński (FK) form factor and $`\alpha _s=0.5`$ for the Levin-Ryskin form factor. With a larger value for the coupling constant, eg $`\alpha _s=1`$, the curves would overshoot the data by more than an order of magnitude over nearly the whole $`t`$ range.

This casts some doubt on predictions of diffrative $`\eta _c`$ production. Three groups  have used the FK impact factor with a value of $`\alpha _s=1`$ in calculations of the diffractive $`\eta _c`$ production amplitude. In view of our results, this looks like a significant overestimation.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my collaborators H. G. Dosch and C. Ewerz for their contributions to the results presented here.

## Discussion

M. Boutemeur (Munich): Your model does not describe the $`t`$ distributions at higher energies. Do you have in mind other ingredients to your model to make it fit the data better?

V. Schatz: The DL fit is less good at higher energies, but the odderon alone cannot remedy that. Due to the uncertainties in our calculations—the unkown exact value of the coupling, the possibility of non-perturbative effects playing a role—we were not interested in a precision fit. There is a better fit due to Gauron, Leader and Nicolescu, but it is incompatible with the odderon contributions we investigated.

L. Leśniak (Krakow): The momentum transfer distribution $`d\sigma /dt`$ in $`pp`$ or $`p\overline{p}`$ scattering can depend on five different spin amplitudes. Is the spin dependence of the $`pp`$ or $`p\overline{p}`$ amplitudes included in your model or do you use only one spin independent amplitude?

V. Schatz: The different spin amplitudes are contained in our amplitudes for the various contributions. However, we did not try to extract or investigate the interplay of different spin amplitudes.