, , ,

Recall that the Bergman metric on the unit ball

B = {z \in C^{n}; | z |^{2} < 1}

is the Kähler metric whose associated

(1, 1)

-form is

ω_{B} = - (n + 1) d d^{c} λ,

where

λ = log (1 - | z |^{2}) - \frac{n}{n + 1} log (n + 1)

and in our convention

d^{c} = \frac{\sqrt{- 1}}{2} (\bar{\partial} - \partial) .

The weighted Bergman spaces on the Bergman ball are

ℌ^{2} (B, κ) : = {F \in O (B); \int_{B} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} < + \infty} .

In this paper we shall make the minor assumption that

e^{- κ}

C^{2}

. (This assumption can be reduced by regularization to the case where

e^{- κ}

and

κ

are

L_{ℓ o c}^{1}

.) The case

κ = - (n + 1) log (1 - | z |^{2})

corresponds to the classical Bergman space of holomorphic functions that are square integrable with respect to Lebesgue measure.

Given a smooth closed hypersurface

W \subset B

, we let

ℌ^{2} (W, κ) : = {f \in O (W); \int_{W} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} < + \infty} .

Definition 1.1.

(a) We say that $W$ is an interpolation hypersurface if for each $f \in ℌ^{2} (W, κ)$ there exists $F \in ℌ^{2} (B, κ)$ such that $F | W = f$ .

(b) We say that

W

is a sampling hypersurface if there exists a constant

A > 1

such that for every

F \in ℌ^{2} (B, κ)

\begin{matrix} \frac{1}{A} \int_{B} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} \leq \int_{W} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} \leq A \int_{B} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} . \end{matrix}

(1)

Let

F_{a}

denote a holomorphic involution of

B

sending

0

a

(see Section 2 ). We define the total density tensor of

W

in the ball of radius

r

to be the

(1, 1)

-form

ϒ_{r}^{W} (z) = \frac{1}{V_{n} (r)} (\int_{B (0, r)} \frac{\partial^{2} log | T (F_{z} (ζ)) |^{2}}{\partial z^{i} \partial {\bar{z}}^{j}} ω_{B}^{n}) \sqrt{- 1} d z^{i} \land d {\bar{z}}^{j} .

Here

V_{n} (r) = \int_{B (0, r)} ω_{B}^{n} .

Let us denote by

[W]

the current of integration along

W

, and by

[W]_{ɛ}

the average (see Section 6 ) of

[W]

over the Bergman-Green ball of radius

ɛ

Definition 1.2.

(I) Let P W ( B ) denote the set of ( n − 1 , n − 1 ) -forms θ on B with the following properties.
- (a) $θ \land ω_{B} \geq c e^{n λ} ω_{B}^{n}$ for some constant $c > 0$ .
- (b) For each $ɛ > 0$ there exists $C > 0$ such that $[W]_{ɛ} \land θ \leq C [W]_{ɛ} \land ω_{B}^{n - 1}$ .
- (c) $d d^{c} θ = 0$ .
(II) For $θ \in P_{W} (B)$ , let $D_{B}^{+} (W, κ) [θ] = {limsup}_{r \to 1} {sup}_{z \in B} \frac{(ϒ_{r}^{W} + \frac{n}{n + 1} ω_{B}) \land θ}{\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ \land θ}$ and $D_{B}^{-} (W, κ) [θ] = {liminf}_{r \to 1} {inf}_{z \in B} \frac{(ϒ_{r}^{W} + \frac{n}{n + 1} ω_{B}) \land θ}{\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ \land θ}$
(III) The upper and lower densities of $W$ are $D_{B}^{+} (W, κ) = {sup}_{θ \in P_{W} (B)} D_{B}^{+} (W, κ) [θ]$ and $D_{B}^{-} (W, κ) = {sup}_{θ \in P_{W} (B)} D_{B}^{-} (W, κ) [θ]$

From here on out we assume that

W

is uniformly flat (see Section 4 ) and that

0 < \frac{1}{C} ω_{B} \leq \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ \leq C ω_{B} .

Our main results are the following two theorems.

Theorem 1. If

D_{B}^{+} (W, κ) < 1

, then

W

is an interpolation hypersurface.

Theorem 2. If

D_{B}^{-} (W, κ) > 1

, then

W

is a sampling hypersurface.

By now Theorems 1 and 2 carry with them a rich history. Most recently, results analogous to Theorems 1 and 2 have been established for the case of

C^{n}

in the paper [OSV] , which we refer to for further historical remarks regarding interpolation and sampling problems for Bergman spaces.

There are similarities and differences between our approach and the approach of [OSV] .

The most obvious difference comes about from the fact that the Bergman ball is negatively curved. Thus for interpolation, we need to solve a

\bar{\partial}

-problem that requires weaker curvature conditions than those needed in Hörmander's Theorem. Such a

\bar{\partial}

theorem was proved by Ohsawa. If one considers submanifolds

W

having less than optimal density, then an adaptation of the method of Ohsawa-Takegoshi can be used to extend holomorphic functions from

W

to the ball

B

, and thus establish the interpolation property for

W

. The method has the aesthetic advantage that a function is extended at once, instead of being extended locally and then patched back together. This approach is interesting in its own right. Surprisingly, we have not been able to apply the Ohsawa-Takegoshi approach to the case of optimal density conditions. Vaguely speaking, the issue can be described as follows. In order to do extension, the positivity required to patch together local solutions must be contained in the Ohsawa-Takegoshi procedure. On the other hand, the negativity of the Ricci curvature of the Bergman metric must also be compensated for by this procedure. It is precisely the combination of these two positivity contributions that we have been unable to realize with the right a priori (twisted) estimate. It would be interesting to see if the appropriate a priori estimate is possible.

By contrast with [OSV] , our approach to sampling is closer in spirit to the technique that has been used in the one-variable case in [BO-95] . We feel that this approach is more intuitive, as well as more elementary than the Beurling-inspired approach used in [OSV] .

The paper is organized as follows.

Contents

Acknowledgment. We are grateful to Jeff McNeal and Quim Ortega-Cerdà for many stimulating discussions.

2 Rapid review of Bergman geometry

Bergman geometry is one of the oldest and most studied areas of complex geometry.

Therefore we content ourselves with stating facts, and provide few proofs.

Bergman metric

As already mentioned, the Bergman metric is

ω_{B} = - (n + 1) d d^{c} λ .

It is easy to see that, with

ω_{E} = d d^{c} | z |^{2}

denoting the Euclidean metric,

{ω_{B} |}_{z = 0} = (n + 1) {ω_{E} |}_{z = 0} a n d ω_{B}^{n} = e^{- (n + 1) λ} ω_{E}^{n},

and in particular,

R i c c i (ω_{B}) = - ω_{B} .

Basics of Aut(B)

For the reader's convenience, we recall that Aut

(B)

contains the involutions

F_{a} (z) = \frac{a - P_{a} z - s_{a} Q_{a} z}{1 - 〈 z, a 〉}, a \in B,

where

P_{a} = | a |^{- 2} a a^{†}

Q_{a} = I - P_{a}

and

s_{a} = \sqrt{1 - | a |^{2}}

. Moreover, the Schwarz Lemma shows that any automorphism of

B

is of the form

U F_{a}

F_{a} U

for some unitary

U

. Note that

F_{a} (0) = a

and

1 - | F_{a} (z) |^{2} = \frac{(1 - | z |^{2}) (1 - | a |^{2})}{| 1 - 〈 z, a 〉 |^{2}} .

Thus

A u t (B)

acts transitively on the ball and

ω_{B}

is Aut

(B)

-invariant. (For much more detail on this and the next paragraph, the reader is referred to [R-80] or [St-94] .)

Basic potential theory of the Bergman metric

Recall that the Bergman Laplacian

Δ_{B}

associated to

ω_{B}

is the

ω_{B}

-trace of

d d^{c}

(Δ_{B} g) ω_{B}^{n} = d d^{c} g \land ω_{B}^{n - 1} .

Definition 2.1. The Green's function with pole at

a \in B

is the function

G_{B} (z, a)

satisfying

Δ_{B} (G_{B} (\cdot, a)) = δ_{a} a n d G_{B} (\cdot, a) | \partial B = 0 .

Using Aut

(B)

-invariance, it is easily seen that

G (z, a) = G (F_{a} (z), 0)

and that

n (n + 1) (Δ_{B} g) (a) = t r a c e (D F_{a} (0)^{†} D^{1, 1} g (a) D F_{a} (0)) .

Here

D^{1, 1} g

is the matrix of the

(1, 1)

-form

\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} g

in Euclidean coordinates. Setting

γ_{B} = G_{B} (\cdot, 0),

we see from unitary invariance that

γ_{B} (z) = f (| z |^{2})

for some function

f

Substitution into the Bergman-Laplace equation and solving the resulting ODE shows that

f (r) = - C_{n} \int_{r}^{1} \frac{(1 - u)^{n - 1}}{u^{n}} d u,

where

C_{n} = (2 π)^{- n} (n + 1)^{- (n - 1)} .

By using the Green-Stokes identity

\begin{matrix} \int_{\partial D} (g_{1} d^{c} g_{2} - g_{2} d^{c} g_{1}) \land ω^{n - 1} = \int_{D} (g_{1} d d^{c} g_{2} - g_{2} d d^{c} g_{1}) \land ω^{n - 1}, \end{matrix}

(2)

where

(D, ω)

is an

n

dimensional Kähler manifold with boundary and

g_{1}, g_{2} : D \to C

are functions, we obtain the following Lemma.

Lemma 2.2. Let

h

be a function such that

Δ_{B} h \geq 0

. Then

\begin{matrix} h (0) \leq \frac{1}{(2 π)^{n}} \int_{\partial B} h (r z) d^{c} | z |^{2} \land ω_{E}^{n - 1} (z) . \end{matrix}

(3)

Moreover, equality holds when

Δ_{B} h \equiv 0

Proof. Apply ( 2 ) with $D = B (0, r)$ , $r < 1$ , $g_{1} = h$ and $g_{2} = γ_{r} (z) = γ_{B} (z) + C_{n} \int_{r^{2}}^{1} \frac{(1 - t)^{n - 1}}{t^{n}} d t,$ observing that $γ_{r} | \partial B (0, r) \equiv 0$ and $d d^{c} γ_{r} \land ω_{B}^{n - 1} = δ_{0} .$ The result now follows from direct computation. □

Corollary 2.3. Let

f

be a function such that

Δ_{B} f \geq 0

. Then for all

r < 1

\begin{matrix} f (0) \leq \frac{1}{V_{n} (r)} \int_{B (0, r)} f ω_{B}^{n} . \end{matrix}

(4)

Moreover, equality holds in ( 4 ) when

Δ_{B} f \equiv 0

3 The density conditions again

3.1 Reformulation of the density conditions

It will be useful to rewrite the positivity of the upper and lower densities in terms of the positivity of certain associated differential forms.

Lemma 3.1. Let the notation be as above.

1. If $D_{B}^{+} (W, κ) < 1$ , then there is a positive constant $c$ such that $\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ - \frac{n}{n + 1} ω_{B} - ϒ_{r}^{W} \geq c \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ$ in the sense of currents.
2. If $D_{B}^{-} (W, κ) > 1$ , then there exists $θ \in P_{W} (B)$ and $c > 0$ such that $(ϒ_{r}^{W} + \frac{n}{n + 1} ω_{B} - \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ) \land θ \geq c e^{n λ} ω_{B}^{n} .$

Proof. After using condition (a) in the definition of

P_{W} (B)

, assertion 2 is trivially true from the definition of the lower density.

To see assertion 1, choose any

v \in T_{B, p}

. Choose holomorphic Euclidean coordinates

x^{1}, . . ., x^{n}

C^{n}

(where the ball lies) such that

v = c \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{1}}

. (These are just obtained from the coordinates we started with by a unitary transformation of

C^{n}

.) Consider the

(n - 1, n - 1)

-form

θ = θ_{v} : = (\sqrt{- 1})^{n - 1} d x^{2} \land d {\bar{x}}^{2} \land \dots \land d x^{n} \land d {\bar{x}}^{n} .

We claim that

θ \in P_{W} (B)

. Indeed,

\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} θ = 0

so condition (c) in the definition of

P_{W} (B)

holds. Condition (b) is trivial. Condition (a) can be seen as follows:

\begin{matrix} θ \land ω_{B} & = & C θ \land (\frac{ω_{E}}{1 - | x |^{2}} + \frac{\sqrt{- 1} \partial | x |^{2} \land \bar{\partial} | x |^{2}}{(1 - | x |^{2})^{2}}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & C e^{- λ} ω_{E}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & C e^{n λ} ω_{B}^{n} . \end{matrix}

By the density condition there exists

δ > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} 1 - δ & \geq & \frac{(ϒ_{r}^{W} + \frac{n}{n + 1} ω_{B}) \land θ}{\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ \land θ} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \frac{(ϒ_{r}^{W} (v, v) + \frac{n}{n + 1} ω_{B} (v, v))}{\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ (v, v)} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

This completes the proof. □

3.2 A seemingly better notion of density

In the paper [OSV] , the approach taken to solve the interpolation and sampling problems was quite different. To begin with, a different notion of density was used. As a consequence, the method of proof was very different from the one used in the present paper. The purpose of this section is to demonstrate the equivalence of these two notions of density.

Let us define the Bergman ball analogues of the densities used in [OSV] . One first sets

D_{z, r} (W, κ) : = {sup}_{v \neq 0} \frac{ϒ_{r}^{W} (v, v) + \frac{n}{n + 1} ω_{B} (v, v)}{\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ (v, v)} .

Then one takes

D^{+} (W, κ) : = {limsup}_{r \to 1} {sup}_{z \in B} D_{z, r} (W, κ)

and

D^{-} (W, κ) : = {liminf}_{r \to 1} {inf}_{z \in B} D_{z, r} (W, κ)

Note that

D_{z, r} (W, κ)

is the maximum eigenvalue of the

(1, 1)

-form

ϒ_{r}^{W} + \frac{n}{n + 1} ω_{B}

with respect to the positive

(1, 1)

-form

\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ

Lemma 3.2. Let

α

be a non-negative

(n - 1, n - 1)

form on a Hermitian manifold

M

of dimension

n

and Hermitian form

ω

. Then for each

p

there exists a vector

v \in T_{M, p}^{1, 0}

such that for any real

(1, 1)

-form

β

, one has

α \land β_{p} = β_{p} (v, \bar{v}) ω^{n} .

The Lemma says that the mapping

\sqrt{- 1} v \land \bar{v} \mapsto θ_{v}

, with

θ_{v}

as in the proof of Lemma 3.1 , is a pointwise isomorphism.

Proof. We shall use linear algebra on $T_{M, p}$ . To this end, choose a unitary basis $e^{1}, . . ., e^{n}$ for $(T_{M, p}^{*})^{1, 0}$ and $e_{1}, . . ., e_{n}$ its dual basis. Let $α^{i \bar{j}}$ be a basis for $Λ^{n - 1, n - 1} (T_{M, p}^{*})$ such that $\sqrt{- 1} e^{k} \land {\bar{e}}^{ℓ} \land α^{i \bar{j}} = δ^{i k} δ^{\bar{j} \bar{ℓ}} \frac{ω^{n}}{n!} .$ Let $A$ (resp. $B$ ) be the Hermitian matrix with entries $a_{i \bar{j}}$ (resp. $b_{i \bar{j}}$ ) such that at the point $p$ , $α = a_{i \bar{j}} α^{i \bar{j}} (resp. β = b_{i \bar{j}} \sqrt{- 1} e^{i} \land {\bar{e}}^{j}) .$ Then $α \land β_{p} = Trace (A B^{†}) \frac{ω^{n}}{n!} and β_{p} (v, \bar{v}) = v^{†} B v .$ After a unitary rotation, we may assume that the basis $e^{1}, . . ., e^{n}$ diagonalizes $A$ . Thus, since $α$ is positive, there exist non-negative numbers $λ_{1}, . . ., λ_{n}$ such that $Trace (A B^{†}) = \sum_{k = 1}^{n} λ_{k} b_{k k} .$ Taking $v = \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \sqrt{λ_{k}} e_{k}$ completes the proof. □

Proposition 3.3.

(a) $D^{+} (W, κ) = D^{+} (W, κ)$ .
(b) $D^{-} (W, κ) \leq D^{-} (W, κ)$ .

Proof. (a) Fix

z \in B

and

r \in [0, 1)

. By definition of

D^{+} (W, κ)

, we have that for any

θ \in P_{W} (B)

\begin{matrix} D^{+} (W, κ) & \geq & D_{z, r} (W, κ) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & \frac{ϒ_{r}^{W} \land θ (z) + \frac{n}{n + 1} ω_{B} \land θ (z)}{\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ \land θ (z)} . \end{matrix}

(In the second inequality we have used Lemma 3.2 .) Taking the supremum over

z

and them the

limsup

r \to 1

, we see that

D^{+} (W, κ) \geq D^{+} (W, κ) [θ] .

Finally, taking the supremum of the right hand side over all

θ \in P_{W} (B)

shows that

D^{+} (W, κ) \geq D^{+} (W, κ)

To obtain the reverse inequality, fix

ɛ > 0

. Then there exist

z \in B

r \in [0, 1)

and

v \in C^{n}

such that

\begin{matrix} D^{+} (W, κ) - ɛ & \leq & \frac{ϒ_{r}^{W} (v, v) + \frac{n}{n + 1} ω_{B} (v, v)}{\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ (v, v)} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \frac{ϒ_{r}^{W} \land θ_{v} (z) + \frac{n}{n + 1} ω_{B} \land θ_{v} (z)}{\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ \land θ_{v} (z)} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & D^{+} (W, κ) [θ_{v}] \leq D^{+} (W, κ), \end{matrix}

where

θ_{v}

is defined as in the proof of Lemma 3.1 . Since

ɛ

is arbitrary, 1 is proved.

(b) Fix

ɛ > 0

. By definition of

D^{-} (W, κ)

, there exists

θ \in P_{W} (B)

such that

D^{-} (W, κ) \leq D^{-} (W, κ) [θ] + \frac{ɛ}{2} .

Moreover, by the definition of

D^{-} (W, κ) [θ]

, we have that for all

z \in B

, and all

r \in [0, 1)

sufficiently large,

D^{-} (W, κ) [θ] \leq \frac{ϒ_{r}^{W} \land θ (z) + \frac{n}{n + 1} ω_{B} \land θ (z)}{\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ \land θ (z)} + \frac{ɛ}{2} .

But by Lemma 3.2 and definition of

D_{z, r} (W, κ)

\frac{ϒ_{r}^{W} \land θ (z) + \frac{n}{n + 1} ω_{B} \land θ (z)}{\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ \land θ (z)} \leq D_{z, r} (W, κ) .

This proves (b). □

Theorem 3.

D^{-} (W, κ) \geq D^{-} (W, κ) .

Proof. We introduce the notation

Ω_{δ} : = ϒ_{r}^{W} + \frac{n}{n + 1} ω_{B} - (D^{-} (W, κ) - δ) \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ .

Let

δ > 0

be given. For

r > > 0

we are going to construct a form

θ \in P_{W} (B)

such that

Ω_{δ} \land θ \geq 0 .

If this is done, the proof is complete.

By definition of

D^{-} (W, κ)

, there exists a locally finite open cover

U_{j}

B

and constant

(n - 1, n - 1)

-forms (i.e., forms of the type

θ_{v}

defined in the proof of Lemma 3.1 )

θ_{j}

U_{j}

such that

Ω_{δ / 2} \land θ_{j} \geq 0 on U_{j} .

By the uniform flatness of

W

, we may choose the cover

{U_{j}}

such that any point of

B

is contained in some finite number of neighborhoods, this number depending only on the dimension. Moreover, by the continuity of the forms

Ω_{ɛ}

we may choose the forms

θ_{j}

so that if

U_{j} \cap U_{k} \neq \emptyset

then

θ_{j} - θ_{k}

is as small as we like. In fact, by elementary anti-differentiation we may take forms

μ_{j}

depending quadratically on the (global Euclidean) coordinates in

B

such that if

U_{j} \cap U_{k} \neq \emptyset

then

| | μ_{j} - μ_{k} | |_{ℭ^{2} (U_{j} \cap U_{k})}

is as small as we like, where

| | \cdot | |_{ℭ^{2}}

denotes

ℭ^{2}

-norm.

The argument we present here requires a little more precision. Later we will have to control the size of the neighborhoods

U_{j}

in order to make the

θ_{j} - θ_{k}

small enough. To this end, we choose the

U_{j}

to be balls (or polydisks) of diameter

ɛ

, measured with respect to the Bergman-Green distance

d_{B} (z, w) = | F_{w} (z) |

. We indicate this dependence on

ɛ

by writing

U_{j, ɛ}

μ_{j, ɛ}

and

θ_{j, ɛ}

. Observe that if we take

μ_{j, ɛ}

to be quadratic and use coordinates emanating from the origin of

U_{j, ɛ}

, then the uniform estimates for

μ_{j, ɛ}

scale by

ɛ^{2}

, those for

D μ_{j, ɛ}

ɛ

, and those from

θ_{j, ɛ}

are invariant with respect to

ɛ

Let

{ψ_{j, ɛ}}

be a partition of unity subordinate to the cover

{U_{j, ɛ}}

. We may choose this partition so that

\sum_{j} | | ψ_{j, ɛ} μ_{j, ɛ} | |_{ℭ^{2}} \leq C

for some constant

C

independent of

ɛ

. Indeed, as the neighborhoods

U_{j, ɛ}

scale by

ɛ

, the estimates for

D ψ_{j, ɛ}

scale by

ɛ^{- 1}

while those for

D^{2} ψ_{j, ɛ}

scale by

ɛ^{- 2}

. Thus the desired estimate follows from the product rule

D^{2} (ψ_{j, ɛ} μ_{j, ɛ}) = μ_{j, ɛ} D^{2} ψ_{j, ɛ} + (D μ_{j, ɛ}) (D ψ_{j, ɛ}) + ψ_{j, ɛ} D^{2} μ_{j, ɛ} .

Thus is is clear that we have scale invariant estimates. To simplify the exposition, we shall drop the notational dependence on

ɛ

We would like to correct the local forms

θ_{j}

so that they can be pieced together to give us an element of

P_{W} (B)

with the desired density. We shall use cocycles to do this. To this end, the obstruction to the

θ_{j}

piecing together to give a global form is carried by the 1-cocycle

α_{j k} = θ_{j} - θ_{k} = \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} (μ_{j} - μ_{k})

supported on

U_{j} \cap U_{k}

. By our choice of the

θ_{j}

, the

α_{j k}

are small in

ℭ^{0}

-norm. We now define

η_{j} = \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} (\sum_{k} ψ_{k} (μ_{j} - μ_{k}) | U_{j} \cap U_{k}) .

By modifying our choices of the

μ_{j}

we may make the

η_{j}

as small as we like. Moreover,

\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} η_{j} = 0

and

\begin{matrix} η_{j} - η_{ℓ} & = & \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} \sum_{k} ψ_{k} (μ_{j} - μ_{k} + μ_{k} - μ_{ℓ}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} \sum_{k} ψ_{k} (μ_{j} - μ_{ℓ}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & α_{j ℓ} . \end{matrix}

It follows that

θ = θ_{j} - η_{j} on U_{j}

is well defined and belongs to

P_{W} (B)

. Moreover, by choosing the

μ_{j} - μ_{k}

even smaller if necessary, we see that

Ω_{δ} \land θ \geq 0,

as desired. □

4 Uniform flatness

In [OSV] a notion of uniform flatness was developed for closed smooth hypersurfaces in

C^{n}

. Here we define the analogous notion for the ball with its Bergman geometry.

Let

N_{ɛ}^{B} (W) = {z \in B | {inf}_{w \in W} | F_{z} (w) | < ɛ}

Definition 4.1. We define a smooth divisor

W

B

to be uniformly flat if there exists an

ɛ_{0} > 0

such that

N_{ɛ_{0}}^{B} (W)

is a tubular neighborhood of

W

The following consequence of uniform flatness is useful.

Lemma 4.2. If a closed hypersurface

W \subset B

is uniformly flat, then there exist

ɛ_{0} > 0

and

C > 0

such that for each

z \in W

the set

F_{z} (W) \cap B (0, ɛ_{0})

is a graph, over the Euclidean

ɛ_{0}

-neighborhood of the origin in the tangent space

T_{F_{z} (W), 0} = d F_{z} (T_{W, z})

, of some function

f

such that

| f (x) | \leq C | x |^{2}, | x | < ɛ_{0} .

The proof is left to the reader.

5 Interpolation

5.1 A negative function singular along a hypersurface

Recall that

V_{n} (r) : = \int_{B (0, r)} ω_{B}^{n} .

As the Bergman metric is invariant under automorphisms, one sees that for each

a \in B

V_{n} (r)

is also the Bergman volume of the set

E (a, r) : = F_{a} (B (0, r)) .

In view of the form of the Green's function for the Bergman Laplacian, we call the sets

E (a, r)

Bergman-Green balls.

Let

\begin{matrix} Γ_{r} (z, ζ) = G_{B} (z, ζ) - \frac{1}{V_{n} (r)} \int_{E (z, r)} G_{B} (x, ζ) ω_{B}^{n} (x) \end{matrix}

Since

Δ_{B} G (\cdot, ζ) \equiv 0

B - {ζ}

, we see from Corollary 2.3 that

Γ_{r}

is non-negative and supported on the neighborhood

{(z, ζ) \in B \times B | | F_{z} (ζ) | < r}

of the diagonal in

B \times B

We define the function

\begin{matrix} s_{r} (z) & : = & \int_{B} Γ_{r} (z, ζ) ω_{B}^{n - 1} (ζ) \land d d^{c} log | T |^{2} (ζ) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{{ζ; | F_{z} (ζ) | < r}} Γ_{r} (z, ζ) ω_{B}^{n - 1} (ζ) \land d d^{c} log | T |^{2} (ζ) . \end{matrix}

By the Lelong-Poincaré identity,

s_{r} (z) = 2 π \int_{W_{z, r}} (G_{B} (z, ζ) - \frac{1}{V (r)} \int_{E (z, r)} G_{B} (x, ζ) ω_{B}^{n} (x)) ω_{B}^{n - 1} (ζ),

where

W_{z, r} = W \cap {ζ; | F_{z} (ζ) | < r}

Proposition 5.1. Let

T \in O (B)

be a holomorphic function so that

W = T^{- 1} (0)

and

d T

is nowhere zero on

W

. Then

s_{r} (z) = log | T (z) |^{2} - \frac{1}{V_{n} (r)} \int_{E (z, r)} log | T (ζ) |^{2} ω_{B}^{n} (ζ) .

Proof. Let

α : [0, \infty) \to [0, 1]

be a smooth function with compact support which is identically 1 on

[0, 1]

. Then for

R > r

\begin{matrix} s_{r} (z) & = & \int_{B} Γ (z, ζ) ω_{B}^{n - 1} (ζ) \land d d^{c} log | T |^{2} (ζ) = \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{B} α (\frac{| F_{ζ} (z) |}{R}) Γ (z, ζ) ω_{B}^{n - 1} (ζ) \land d d^{c} log | T |^{2} (ζ) \end{matrix}

the latter equality following from the fact that

Γ_{r} (\cdot, ζ)

is supported on

{z; | F_{z} (ζ) | < r}

An application of the Green-Stokes Identity ( 2 ) then gives

s_{r} (z) = \int_{B} d d^{c} (α (\frac{| F_{ζ} (z) |}{R}) Γ (z, ζ)) \land log | T (ζ) |^{2} \land ω_{B}^{n - 1},

where the boundary terms have disappeared because the forms are compactly supported.

Letting

R \to \infty

we obtain

s_{r} (z) = \int_{B} log | T (ζ) |^{2} d d^{c} Γ_{r} (z, ζ) \land ω_{B}^{n - 1},

and the proof is complete. □

Lemma 5.2. The function

s_{r} (z)

has the following properties:

1. It is non-positive
2. For each $r, ε > 0$ there exist a constant $C_{r, ε}$ such that if $δ_{B} (z, W) > ε$ then $s_{r} (z) > - C_{r, ε}$ .
3. The function $e^{- s_{r}}$ is not locally integrable at any point of W.

Here

δ_{B} (z, W) = inf {| F_{z} (w) |; w \in W}

Proof. By Corollary 2.3 and the fact that

Δ_{B} G (\cdot, ζ) \equiv 0

B - {ζ}

Γ_{r} \leq 0

and 1 follows. Moreover, 3 is an immediate consequence of Proposition 5.1 .

To see 2, we first note that since

δ_{B} (z, W) > ɛ

G_{B} (z, ζ) > A_{ɛ}

. Thus it suffices to obtain an estimate

- \int_{E (z, r)} G_{B} (x, ζ) ω_{B}^{n} (x) = - \int_{B (0, r)} G_{B} (x, y) ω_{B}^{n} (x) \leq D_{r}

for some

D_{r} > 0

and all

y = F_{z} (ζ) \in B (0, r)

. To do this, it is enough to estimate the integral

I (r) : = - \int_{B (0, (r + 1) / 2)} G_{B} (x, y) ω_{B}^{n} (x) .

Fix

y \in B (0, r)

. Let

ρ > 0

be the largest number such that

B (y, ρ) \subset B (0, (r + 1) / 2) .

One has

n_{r} \leq ρ \leq \frac{r + 1}{2}

for some

n_{r} > 0

depending on

r

but not on

y

Write

I (r) = I_{1} (r) + I_{2} (r),

where

I_{1} (r) : = - \int_{E (y, ρ)} G_{B} (x, y) ω_{B}^{n} (x)

and

I_{2} (r) : = - \int_{B (0, (r + 1) / 2) - E (y, ρ)} G_{B} (x, y) ω_{B}^{n} (x) .

Now

I_{1} (r) = - \int_{B (0, ρ)} γ_{B} (x) ω_{B}^{n} (x)

is clearly bounded by a constant independent of

y

Next, note that for

x \in B (0, (r + 1) / 2) - E (y, ρ)

one has the estimate

| F_{y} (x) | \geq ρ \geq n_{r} .

It follows that for such

x

G (x, y) \geq - N_{r}

for some

N_{r} \in R

independent of

y

. Thus

\begin{matrix} I_{2} (r) & \leq & N_{r} \int_{B (0, (r + 1) / 2) - E (y, ρ)} ω_{B}^{n} (x) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & N_{r} \int_{B (0, (r + 1) / 2)} ω_{B}^{n} (x), \end{matrix}

and the latter is independent of

y

. Thus 2 follows. □

Remark. There is a direct proof of Lemma 5.2 .3 that does not use the formula of Proposition 5.1 . Since we will make use of the calculation needed, we present this proof now.

We may assume that

W

is the coordinate hyperplane

z_{n} = 0

and

z = z^{n} e_{n}

for

| λ | \leq ɛ

with

ɛ

sufficiently small. By the proof of Lemma 5.2 .2 and the form of the Green's function, we see that

\begin{matrix} s_{r} (z) & = & 2 π \int_{U \cap W} Γ_{r} (z, ζ) ω_{B}^{n - 1} (ζ) + O (1) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & 2 π C_{n} (n + 1)^{n - 1} A_{n - 1} \int_{0}^{α} - \frac{2 r^{2 n - 3} d r}{{(r^{2} + | z^{n} |^{2})}^{n - 1}} + O (1) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & log | z^{n} |^{2} + O (1) \end{matrix}

where

U

is some neighborhood of the origin and

α > 0

. □

5.2 One-time extension for hypersurfaces with smaller density.

In this subsection we prove that hypersurfaces whose density is slightly smaller than the optimal density are interpolating. As mentioned in the introduction, this result is weaker than the one we will prove in the next subsection. However, the method is interesting in its own right, and it would be an advance to be able to modify this approach to work for those hypersurfaces whose density is optimal.

To be specific, we will prove the following result.

Theorem 4. Let

W \subset B

be a properly embedded, codimension-1 complex submanifold. Assume that for some

c > 0

\begin{matrix} ϒ_{r}^{W} + ω_{B} \leq (1 - c) \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ . \end{matrix}

(5)

Then

W

is an interpolation hypersurface.

Tubular limits

For each

Ω \subset \subset B

, let

Ω_{ɛ} : = Ω \cap {s_{r} < log ɛ^{2}} .

Lemma 5.3. Let

W \subset B

be uniformly flat. Then there exists a positive constant

C > 0

such that for all

Ω \subset \subset B

and all

f

holomorphic in

\bar{Ω}

{limsup}_{ɛ \to 0} \frac{1}{ɛ^{2}} \int_{Ω_{ɛ}} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} \leq C \int_{Ω \cap W} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} .

Sketch of proof. We may assume the right hand side is finite. Moreover, we can take $Ω = E (a, ɛ)$ for some $a \in W$ , with $ɛ$ so small that $W \cap Ω$ is the graph of a quadratic hypersurface. By uniform flatness, $ɛ$ can be taken independent of $a$ .
Consider first the case $a = 0$ . Then $Ω = B (0, ɛ)$ , and the result follows after an elementary analysis of the properties of $s_{r}$ as in the proof of (2) and (3) in Lemma 5.2 .
If we now apply the automorphism $F_{a}$ to $B (0, ɛ)$ , then Lemma 4.2 and the Aut $(B)$ -invariance of $ω_{B}$ show that the same estimates hold on $E (a, ɛ)$ . □

The twisted Bochner-Kodaira Technique

We fix a smoothly bounded pseudoconvex domain

Ω \subset \subset B

. Let us denote by

{\bar{\partial}}_{ν}^{*}

the formal adjoint of

\bar{\partial}

in the Hilbert space of

(0, 1)

-forms on

Ω

, square integrable with respect to a weight

e^{- ν} ω_{B}^{n}

. For a

(0, 1)

-form

u = u_{\bar{α}} d {\bar{z}}^{α}

, one has

{\bar{\partial}}_{ν}^{*} u = - e^{ν + (n + 1) λ} \partial_{α} (e^{- (ν + (n + 1) λ)} u^{α}) .

Recall that for

(0, 1)

-forms

u

the Bochner-Kodaira Identity, often also referred to as the basic estimate, is

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} {| {\bar{\partial}}_{ν}^{*} u |}^{2} e^{- ν} ω_{B}^{n} + \int_{Ω} {| \bar{\partial} u |}^{2} e^{- ν} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

(6)

\begin{matrix} = \int_{Ω} ((\partial_{α} \partial_{\bar{β}} (ν + (n + 1) λ)) u^{α} \bar{u^{β}}) e^{- ν} ω_{B}^{n} + \int_{Ω} {| \bar{\nabla} u |}^{2} e^{- ν} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{\partial Ω} (\partial_{α} \partial_{\bar{β}} ρ) u^{α} \bar{u^{β}} e^{- ν} d^{c} (- (n + 1) λ) \land ω_{B}^{n - 1}, \end{matrix}

where

ρ

is a defining function for

Ω

such that

| d ρ | \equiv 1

\partial Ω

. (See, for example, [Siu-82] .) The term

(n + 1) λ

comes from the Ricci curvature of

ω_{B}

. Writing

e^{- ψ} = \frac{e^{- ν}}{τ}

we obtain

{\bar{\partial}}_{ν}^{*} u = {\bar{\partial}}_{ψ}^{*} u - \frac{(\partial_{α} τ) u^{α}}{τ} a n d \partial_{α} \partial_{\bar{β}} ψ = \partial_{α} \partial_{\bar{β}} ν + \frac{\partial_{α} \partial_{\bar{β}} τ}{τ} - \frac{(\partial_{α} τ) (\partial_{\bar{β}} τ)}{τ^{2}} .

Substitution into ( 6 ), followed by some simple manipulation, gives the so-called Twisted Bochner-Kodaira Identity for

(0, 1)

-forms: If

u

is a

(0, 1)

-form in the domain of

{\bar{\partial}}^{*}

, then

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} τ {| {\bar{\partial}}_{ψ}^{*} u |}^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} + \int_{Ω} τ {| \bar{\partial} u |}^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

(7)

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{Ω} (τ (\partial_{α} \partial_{\bar{β}} (ψ + (n + 1) λ)) u^{α} \bar{u^{β}} - (u^{α} \bar{u^{β}} \partial_{α} \partial_{\bar{β}} τ) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + 2 R e ((\partial_{α} τ) u^{α} \bar{{\bar{\partial}}_{ψ}^{*} u})) e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} + \int_{Ω} τ {| \bar{\nabla} u |}^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{\partial Ω} τ (\partial_{α} \partial_{\bar{β}} ρ) u^{α} \bar{u^{β}} e^{- ψ} d^{c} (- (n + 1) λ) \land ω_{B}^{n - 1} . \end{matrix}

We now use positivity of the last two integrals on the right hand side, together with the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality applied to the first term in the third line, to obtain the so-called Twisted basic estimate: If

u

is a

(0, 1)

-form in the domain of

{\bar{\partial}}^{*}

, then

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} (τ + A) {| {\bar{\partial}}_{ψ}^{*} u |}^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} + \int_{Ω} τ {| \bar{\partial} u |}^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

(8)

\begin{matrix} \geq \int_{Ω} (τ (\partial_{α} \partial_{\bar{β}} (ψ + (n + 1) λ)) u^{α} \bar{u^{β}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - \partial_{α} \partial_{\bar{β}} τ u^{α} \bar{u^{β}} - \frac{1}{A} {| (\partial_{α} τ) u^{α} |}^{2}) e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} . \end{matrix}

Choice of $ψ$ , $τ$ and $A$

From the very beginning, we choose

ψ = κ + s_{r} .

From the density hypothesis (via Lemma 3.1 .1) one has

\begin{matrix} \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} (ψ + (n + 1) λ) & = & \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} (κ + (n + 1) λ + s_{r}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & c \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ \end{matrix}

Next, fix

γ > 1

. We define

ξ = log (e^{s_{r}} + ɛ^{2}),

with

ɛ > 0

so small that

γ - ξ \geq 1

. One has

\begin{matrix} \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} ξ & = & \sqrt{- 1} \partial (\frac{e^{s_{r}}}{e^{s_{r}} + ɛ^{2}} \bar{\partial} s_{r}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \frac{e^{s_{r}}}{e^{s_{r}} + ɛ^{2}} \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} s_{r} + \frac{ɛ^{2}}{(e^{s_{r}} + ɛ^{2})^{2}} e^{s_{r}} \sqrt{- 1} \partial s_{r} \land \bar{\partial} s_{r} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \frac{- e^{s_{r}}}{e^{s_{r}} + ɛ^{2}} ϒ_{r}^{W} + \frac{4 ɛ^{2}}{(e^{s_{r}} + ɛ^{2})^{2}} \sqrt{- 1} \partial (e^{\frac{1}{2} s_{r}}) \land \bar{\partial} (e^{\frac{1}{2} s_{r}}), \end{matrix}

where the last equality follows since

\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} s_{r} = [W] - ϒ_{r}^{W}

and

e^{s_{r}} | W \equiv 0

Let

0 < α < < 1

and set

a = γ - α ξ .

Observe that

a \geq 1 .

Moreover, we have

\begin{matrix} - \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} a & = & α \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & - α ϒ_{r}^{W} + α \frac{4 ɛ^{2}}{(e^{s_{r}} + ɛ^{2})^{2}} \sqrt{- 1} \partial (e^{\frac{1}{2} s_{r}}) \land \bar{\partial} (e^{\frac{1}{2} s_{r}}) \end{matrix}

Now let

τ = a + log a and A = (1 + a)^{2} .

Then

τ \geq 1

and we have

\partial τ = (1 + \frac{1}{a}) \partial a and \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} τ = (1 + \frac{1}{a}) \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} a - \frac{1}{a^{2}} \sqrt{- 1} \partial a \land \bar{\partial} a,

and thus

- \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} τ - \frac{\sqrt{- 1} \partial τ \land \bar{\partial} τ}{A} = (1 + \frac{1}{a}) (- \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} a) \geq - \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} a .

It follows that

\begin{matrix} τ \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} (ψ + (n + 1) λ) - \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} τ - \frac{| \partial τ |^{2}}{A} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & c \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ - α ϒ_{r}^{W} + α \frac{4 ɛ^{2}}{(e^{s_{r}} + ɛ^{2})^{2}} \sqrt{- 1} \partial (e^{\frac{1}{2} s_{r}}) \land \bar{\partial} (e^{\frac{1}{2} s_{r}}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & α \frac{4 ɛ^{2}}{(e^{s_{r}} + ɛ^{2})^{2}} \sqrt{- 1} \partial (e^{\frac{1}{2} s_{r}}) \land \bar{\partial} (e^{\frac{1}{2} s_{r}}), \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

provided we take

α

sufficiently small. (For example, by the density hypothesis ( 5 ) we may take

α = c

.) Substituting into the twisted basic estimate ( 8 ), we obtain the following lemma.

Lemma 5.4. If

u

is a

(0, 1)

-form in the domain of

{\bar{\partial}}^{*}

, then

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} (τ + A) {| {\bar{\partial}}_{ψ}^{*} u |}^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} + \int_{Ω} τ {| \bar{\partial} u |}^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq c \int_{Ω} \frac{4 ɛ^{2}}{(e^{s_{r}} + ɛ^{2})^{2}} {| \partial (e^{\frac{1}{2} s_{r}}) (u) |}^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} . \end{matrix}

An a priori estimate

We write

Ω_{j} = B (0, \frac{j}{1 + j})

. Suppose given

f \in ℌ^{2} (W, κ)

. Since

W

is a closed submanifold of

B

, there exists a holomorphic extension

\tilde{f}

f

B

. We write

W_{j} = W \cap Ω_{j}, f_{j} = f | W_{j} a n d {\tilde{f}}_{j} = \tilde{f} | Ω_{j} .

Observe that

\int_{W_{j}} | f_{j} |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} \leq \int_{W} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} < + \infty .

Let

χ \in C_{0}^{\infty} ([0, 1))

be such that

0 \leq χ \leq 1, χ | [0, 1 / 3] \equiv 1 a n d {sup}_{[0, 1)} | χ^{'} | \leq 2 .

We set

χ_{ɛ} = χ (\frac{e^{σ_{r}}}{ɛ^{2}})

and define the 1-forms

α_{ɛ, j}

Ω_{j}

α_{ɛ, j} = \bar{\partial} χ_{ɛ} {\tilde{f}}_{j} .

Observe that

α_{ɛ, j}

is supported on the tubular neighborhood

Ω_{ɛ, j} : = Ω_{j} \cap {e^{\frac{1}{2} s_{r}} \leq ɛ}

W_{j}

Ω_{j}

. Thus, for a

(0, 1)

-form

u

with compact support on

Ω_{j}

, we have

\begin{matrix} {| (α_{ɛ, j}, u) |}^{2} & = & {| \int_{Ω_{j}} 〈 χ^{'} (\frac{e^{s_{r}}}{ɛ^{2}}) \frac{\bar{\partial} (e^{s_{r}})}{ɛ^{2}} {\tilde{f}}_{j}, u 〉 e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} |}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & {(\frac{2}{ɛ^{2}} \int_{Ω_{j}} | χ^{'} (\frac{e^{s_{r}}}{ɛ^{2}}) | | \bar{\partial} (e^{\frac{1}{2} s_{r}}) (u) | | {\tilde{f}}_{j} | e^{- \frac{1}{2} s_{r}} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n})}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \frac{16}{ɛ^{4}} (\int_{Ω_{ɛ, j}} | {\tilde{f}}_{j} |^{2} \frac{(e^{s_{r}} + ɛ^{2})^{2}}{4 ɛ^{2}} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \times \int_{Ω_{j}} \frac{4 ɛ^{2}}{(e^{s_{r}} + ɛ^{2})^{2}} {| \partial (e^{\frac{1}{2} s_{r}}) (u) |}^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \frac{16}{c} C_{ɛ, j} (| | T^{*} u | |^{2} + | | S u | |^{2}), \end{matrix}

where

T u = \bar{\partial} (\sqrt{τ + A} u) a n d S u = \sqrt{τ} (\bar{\partial} u),

and

C_{ɛ, j} = \frac{1}{ɛ^{2}} \int_{Ω_{ɛ, j}} | {\tilde{f}}_{j} |^{2} e^{- φ} ω_{B}^{n} .

Thus the last inequality follows from Lemma 5.4 .

By the standard

L^{2}

theory, we have the following

L^{2}

twisted-

\bar{\partial}

theorem.

Theorem 5. There exists a function

h_{j, ɛ}

Ω_{j}

such that

T h_{ɛ, j} = α_{ɛ, j} a n d \int_{Ω_{j}} | h_{ɛ, j} |^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} \leq \frac{16}{c} C_{ɛ, j} .

In particular,

h_{ɛ, j} | W \equiv 0 .

Proof. It remains only to prove the last assertion. But by Lemma 5.2 .3, $e^{- ψ}$ is not locally integrable at any point of $W$ , and thus the vanishing of $h_{ɛ, j} | W$ follows. □

Conclusion of the proof of Theorem 4

Observe first that by Lemma 5.3 there exists a constant

C > 0

such that

{limsup}_{ɛ \to 0} C_{ɛ, j} \leq C \int_{W} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} .

We set

F_{j, ɛ} = χ_{ɛ} {\tilde{f}}_{j} - \sqrt{(τ + A)} h_{ɛ, j} o n Ω_{j} .

By Theorem 5 ,

F_{ɛ, j}

is holomorphic on

Ω_{j}

and

F_{ɛ, j} | W_{j} - f_{j} \equiv 0

. Moreover there exists a constant

M

such that

\int_{Ω_{j}} | F_{ɛ, j} |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} \leq M (o (1) + \int_{W} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1}), ɛ \sim 0 .

Indeed, the integral

\int_{Ω_{j}} | χ_{ɛ} \tilde{f} |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n}

is negligible for small

ɛ

, since the integrand is locally integrable and supported on a set of arbitrarily small measure. On the other hand,

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω_{j}} (τ + A) | h_{ɛ, j} |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} & = & \int_{Ω_{j}} e^{s_{r}} (τ + A) | h_{ɛ, j} |^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & ({sup}_{Ω_{j}} e^{s_{r}} (τ + A)) \int_{Ω_{j}} | h_{ɛ, j} |^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C_{ɛ, j} e^{\frac{γ}{α}} ({sup}_{Ω_{j}} e^{- \frac{1}{α} a} (a + log (a) + (1 + a)^{2})) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & K C_{ɛ, j} \end{matrix}

for some universal constant

K

depending only on the density of

W

. The last estimate holds since

a \geq 1

By Corollary 2.3

F_{j} = {lim}_{ɛ \to 0} F_{ɛ, j}

exists, in the compact open topology, for each fixed

j

. Moreover, since

F_{ɛ, j} = f

W_{j}

and

F_{ɛ, j} \to F_{j}

pointwise, the same is true of

F_{j}

. We thus have a sequence of holomorphic functions

F_{j}

such that

F_{j} | W = f

and

\int_{Ω_{j}} | F_{j} |^{2} e^{- φ} ω^{n} \leq C \int_{W} | f |^{2} e^{- φ} ω^{n - 1} .

Moreover, the constant

C

does not depend on

j

. Letting

j \to \infty

, we obtain, for the same reasons as above, a holomorphic function

F

that also agrees with

f

W

, and furthermore satisfies

\int_{B} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} \leq C \int_{W} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} .

This completes the proof of Theorem 1

5.3 Sharper results using Cousin I

In this subsection we prove Theorem 1 by using the solution of Cousin I problems with

L^{2}

-bounds, together with Ohsawa's

\bar{\partial}

-theorem in the ball.

Local extensions

Let

κ

be a plurisubharmonic function in

B

such that

\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ \leq K ω_{B}

for some constant

K

. denote by

H

the hyperplane

z^{n} = 0

C^{n}

. Let

Ω \subset \subset B

be a domain containing the origin, and write

H_{Ω} = P_{H} (Ω),

where

P_{H}

denotes the (Euclidean) orthogonal projection onto

H

. Assume

Ω

is sufficiently small that there exists a complex disk

D_{Ω}

so that

H_{Ω} \times D_{Ω} \subset \subset B .

Let

R < 1

be such that

H_{Ω} \times D_{Ω} \subset B (0, R) .

We have the following Lemma.

Lemma 5.5. There is a constant

C > 0

, depending only on

K

and

R

, such that for any holomorphic function

f \in O (H_{Ω})

there is a function

F \in O (Ω)

such that

F | H \cap Ω = f

and

\int_{Ω} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} \leq C \int_{H_{Ω}} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1},

provided the right hand side is finite.

Proof. In fact, we will construct

F \in O (H_{Ω} \times D_{Ω})

. To this end, a result of N. Lindholm [L-01,Lemma6] provides us with a function

u

B (0, R)

such that

(1) $u$ is bounded in $B (0, R)$ by a constant depending only on $K$ and $R$ , and
(2) $\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} u = \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ .$

Define

h = κ - u

. Since

h

is pluriharmonic there is a function

g \in O (B (0, R))

such that

R e g = h

. Writing

z = (z^{'}, z^{n}) \in C^{n - 1} \times C

, let

F (z^{'}, z^{n}) : = f (z^{'}) e^{\frac{1}{2} (g (z^{'}, z^{n}) - g (z^{'}, 0))} .

Then

F \in O (H_{Ω} \times D_{Ω})

F | H_{Ω} = f

, and we have

\begin{matrix} | F (z) |^{2} e^{- κ (z)} & = & | f (z^{'}) |^{2} exp (h (z^{'}, z_{n}) - h (z^{'}, 0)) e^{- κ (z)} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & | f (z^{'}) |^{2} exp (- u (z) + u (z^{'}, 0) - κ (z^{'}, 0)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & M | f (z^{'}) |^{2} e^{- κ (z^{'}, 0)} . \end{matrix}

The result follows. □

Take

ɛ > 0

sufficiently small so that

D_{ɛ} = B^{n - 1} (0, ɛ) \times D (0, ɛ) \subset B .

Define

D (a, ɛ) = F_{a} (D_{ɛ}) .

Then we have the following Lemma.

Lemma 5.6. Let

ɛ < ɛ_{0}

, where

ɛ_{0}

is as in Definition 4.1 . There exists a constant

C

, depending only on

ɛ

and

K

such that the following holds.

For all

a \in B

and all

f \in O (F_{a} (B^{n - 1} (0, ɛ)))

with

\int_{F_{a} (B^{n - 1} (0, ɛ))} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} < + \infty,

there exists

F \in O (D (a, ɛ))

such that

F | F_{a} (B^{n - 1} (0, ɛ) = f a n d \int_{D (a, ɛ)} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} \leq C \int_{F_{a} (B^{n - 1} (0, ɛ))} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} .

Proof. By uniform flatness and group invariance, it suffices to prove the result when $a = 0$ , and then it is a consequence of Lemmas 5.5 and 4.2 . □

Ohsawa's $\bar{\partial}$ theorem

We are going to solve a Cousin problem with

L^{2}

estimates. However, for the estimates we need, the usual Hörmander Theorem will not suffice. Instead, we shall need the following Theorem of Ohsawa.

Theorem 6. (Ohsawa) There exists a constant

C_{0} > 0

, depending only on the density of

W

, such that the following holds. For any

\bar{\partial}

-closed

(0, 1)

-form

α

such that

I (α) : = \int_{B} | α |^{2} e^{- (κ + s_{r})} ω_{B}^{n} < + \infty

there exists a function

U

such that

\bar{\partial} U = α a n d \int_{B} | U |^{2} e^{- (κ + s_{r})} ω_{B}^{n} \leq C_{0} I (α) .

In particular,

U | W \equiv 0

Remark. We remind the reader that the norm

| α |

is calculated with respect to

ω_{B}

. Since

α

is a

1

-form, this norm involves the inverse of the metric.

Proof of Ohsawa's Theorem. With the work done in subsection 5.2 , it is now quite straightforward to give the proof of Ohsawa's Theorem. Indeed, Let

τ = e^{λ}, A = \frac{τ}{δ} a n d ψ = κ + s_{r} - λ .

Then some straight-forward manipulation followed by substitution into ( 8 ) gives

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} (1 + \frac{1}{δ}) τ {| {\bar{\partial}}_{ψ}^{*} u |}^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} + \int_{Ω} τ {| \bar{\partial} u |}^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq \int_{Ω} τ (\partial_{α} \partial_{\bar{β}} (κ + (n + δ) λ + s_{r})) u^{α} \bar{u^{β}} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq c \int_{Ω} τ | u |^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

for some

c > 0

sufficiently small. The second inequality follows from the density hypothesis and taking

δ > 0

sufficiently small.

Now, one has

| (α, u) |^{2} \leq {| | \frac{1}{\sqrt{τ}} α | |}^{2} {| | \sqrt{τ} u | |}^{2},

and thus we can solve the equation

\bar{\partial} (τ h) = α

with estimate

\int | h |^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} \leq C_{δ} \int_{Ω} \frac{1}{τ} | α |^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} = C_{δ} \int_{Ω} | α |^{2} e^{- (κ + s_{r})} ω_{B}^{n} .

Letting

U = τ h

completes the proof. □

Construction of the interpolating function

Fix an

f \in ℌ^{2} (W, κ)

, and let

ɛ < \frac{ɛ_{0}}{2}

. Take a sequence

{w_{j}; j = 1, 2, . . .} \subset W

of distinct points such that

N_{ɛ}^{B} (W) \subset^{\infty} ⋃_{j = 1} E (w_{j}, ɛ)

and such that each point of

W

is contained in at most a fixed, finite number of the sets

E (w_{j}, 2 ɛ)

. (We say that the cover is uniformly locally finite.) For ease of exposition, write

E_{j} = E (w_{j}, ɛ)

. Let

E_{0} = B - N_{\frac{ɛ}{2}}^{B} (W)

so that

{E_{j}; j \geq 0}

is a uniformly locally finite open cover of the ball. Let

{χ_{j}}

be a partition of unity subordinate to this cover. We can also assume that

\sum_{j} | d χ_{j} | \leq C

for some

C > 0

, where

| \cdot |

is the

ω_{B}

-norm.

For

j \geq 1

, let

F_{j}

denote the extension to

E_{j}

of the function

f | W \cap E (w_{j}, 2 ɛ)

, given by Lemma 5.6 . We take

F_{0} = 0

. Since the covering

{E_{j}}

is locally uniformly finite, we have

\int_{B} \sum 1_{j} | F_{j} |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} \leq \int_{W} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1},

where

1_{j}

denotes the characteristic function of

E_{j}

Define

G_{i j} = F_{i} - F_{j} .

Then, with

E_{i j} = E_{i} \cap E_{j}

, we obtain

G_{i j} | W \cap B_{i j} \equiv 0, G_{i j} + G_{j k} + G_{k i} \equiv 0 i n E_{i} \cap E_{j} \cap E_{k}

and

\int_{B} \sum_{i j} 1_{i} 1_{j} | G_{i j} |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} ≲ \int_{W} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} .

Let

{\tilde{G}}_{i} = \sum_{j} χ_{j} G_{i j} \in C^{\infty} (E_{i}) .

Then

{\tilde{G}}_{i} | W \cap E_{i} \equiv 0

and

\bar{\partial} ({\tilde{G}}_{i} - {\tilde{G}}_{k}) = \sum_{j} \bar{\partial} χ_{j} (G_{i j} - G_{k j}) = G_{i k} \bar{\partial} (\sum_{j} χ_{j}) = 0 .

Thus the

\bar{\partial}

-closed 1-form

α = \bar{\partial} {\tilde{G}}_{i} o n E_{i}

is well defined, and has norm

\int_{B} | α |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} \leq C \int_{W} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} .

But in fact, more holds.

Lemma 5.7. The form

α

satisfies the following estimate.

\int_{B} | α |^{2} e^{- (κ + s_{r})} ω_{B}^{n} \leq C \int_{W} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} .

Given Lemma 5.7 , Ohsawa's Theorem 6 provides us with a function

U

such that

\int_{B} | U |^{2} e^{- (κ + s_{r})} ω_{B}^{n} \leq C \int_{W} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} .

The finiteness of these integrals implies that

U | W \equiv 0

. It follows that

G_{i} = {\tilde{G}}_{i} - U

is a holomorphic function satisfying

G_{i j} = G_{i} - G_{j} a n d G_{i} | W \equiv 0 .

Thus the function

Φ = F_{i} - G_{i} o n E_{i}

satisfies

Φ | W = f a n d \int_{B} | Φ |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} ≲ \int_{W} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} .

To establish Lemma 5.7 , and thus complete the proof of Theorem 1 we shall need the following result, which will also be used later on.

Lemma 5.8. Let

φ

be a subharmonic function on the unit disk

D

. Then there exist a positive constant

K

and a holomorphic function on

G \in O (D (0, \frac{1}{2}))

such that

G (0) = 0

and

{sup}_{D (0, \frac{1}{2})} | φ - φ (0) - 2 R e G | \leq K .

Moreover, if

φ

depends smoothly on a parameter, then so does

G

The proof of this lemma can be found in [BO-95] . It follows from Lemma 5.8 that if

g

is holomorphic on the unit disk

D

and

ψ

is a weight such that

Δ ψ \leq K

, then

\int_{D} | g |^{2} e^{- ψ} \leq C \int_{\frac{1}{2} < | z | < 1} | g |^{2} e^{- ψ} .

Indeed, the result is an elementary application of Bergman's inequality (i.e., the

L^{2}

Cauchy estimates) when

ψ = 0

. In the general case, Lemma 5.8 reduces us to this case, since we may replace

g

g h

, and

| g h |^{2} ≃ | g |^{2} e^{- ψ} .

Of course, this also applies to

g

that depends on a parameter.

Proof of Lemma 5.7 . We claim that

\begin{matrix} \int_{E_{i j}} | G_{i j} |^{2} e^{- (κ + s_{r})} ω_{B}^{n} & ≲ & \int_{E_{i j} - N_{\frac{1}{2} ɛ} (W)} | G_{i j} |^{2} e^{- (κ + s_{r})} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≃ & \int_{E_{i j} - N_{\frac{1}{2} ɛ} (W)} | G_{i j} |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ & \int_{E_{i j} \cap W} | f |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} . \end{matrix}

The only inequality requiring proof is the first. To see how it follows, note that by Lemma 5.1

s_{r} = log | T |^{2} - λ_{r}

, where

λ_{r} (z) = \frac{1}{V_{n} (r)} \int_{E (z, r)} log | T |^{2} ω_{B}^{n} .

Letting

ψ_{r} = κ - λ_{r},

we have

| G_{i j} |^{2} e^{- (κ + s_{r})} = {| \frac{G_{i j}}{T} |}^{2} e^{- ψ_{r}}

and

\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} ψ_{r} ≃ ω_{B} .

Now,

G_{i j} / T

is holomorphic in

E_{i j}

. We let

W_{i j} = E_{i j} \cap W

, and observe that

E_{i j} ≃ W_{i j} \times D (0, ɛ)

, which allows us to integrate along the fibers, where we can apply the one dimensional calculations above. □

6 Sampling

6.1 Restriction from tubes and the upper inequality

Proposition 6.1. Let

W

be a uniformly flat smooth hypersurface. Then there exists a constant

C > 0

such that for all

ɛ > 0

sufficiently small and all

Φ \in H^{2} (N_{ɛ}^{B} (W), κ)

one has

C ɛ^{2} \int_{W} | Φ |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} \leq \int_{N_{ɛ}^{B} (W)} | Φ |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} .

Proof. Let

D (0, ɛ) = {(z^{'}, z^{n}) \in C^{n - 1} \times C; | z^{'} | \leq ɛ, | z^{n} | < ɛ} .

By uniform flatness, it suffices to prove that for some

ɛ > 0

and all

a \in W

C ɛ^{2} \int_{D (0, ɛ) \cap F_{a} (W)} | Φ |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} \leq \int_{D (0, ɛ)} | Φ |^{2} e^{- κ} .

After a change of variables, we may assume

F_{a} (W) \subset C^{n - 1} \times {0}

Now, by Lemma 5.8 there exists a function

G

, holomorphic in

z^{n}

, such that

G (z^{'}, 0) | \equiv 0 a n d e^{- κ (z^{'}, 0) + 2 R e G (z^{'}, z^{n})} \leq c e^{- κ (z^{'}, z^{n})}

for some

c > 0

. We then have

\begin{matrix} \int_{B (0, ɛ) \cap C^{n - 1} \times {0}} | Φ |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} & = & \int_{B (0, ɛ) \cap C^{n - 1} \times {0}} | Φ e^{G} |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \frac{1 - ɛ^{2}}{2 π n ɛ^{2}} \int_{D (0, ɛ)} | Φ e^{G} |^{2} e^{- κ (z^{'}, 0)} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \frac{1 - ɛ^{2}}{2 π n ɛ^{2}} \int_{D (0, ɛ)} | Φ |^{2} e^{- κ (z^{'}, 0) + 2 R e G} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \frac{1}{C ɛ^{2}} \int_{D (0, ɛ)} | Φ |^{2} e^{- κ (z^{'}, z^{n})} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

The first inequality follows from the sub-mean value property for radial measures in the disk (see also Corollary 4 ) together with

ω_{B}^{n} (z) = n ω_{B}^{n - 1} (z^{'}) \otimes ω_{B} (z^{n}) a n d \int_{D (0, ɛ)} ω_{B} = \frac{2 π ɛ^{2}}{1 - ɛ^{2}} .

This completes the proof. □

Corollary 6.2. If

W

is a uniformly flat hypersurface then there exists a constant

M

such that for all

Φ \in H^{2} (B, κ)

\int_{W} | Φ |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} \leq M \int_{B} | Φ |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} .

6.2 Regularization of the singular function $s_{r}$

Consider the function

s_{r, ɛ} (z) : = \frac{1}{V_{n} (ɛ)} \int_{E (z, ɛ)} s_{r} ω_{B}^{n} .

In this section we prove the following result.

Lemma 6.3. The function

s_{r, ɛ}

enjoys the following properties.

(1) ${lim}_{ɛ \to 0} \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} s_{r, ɛ} = [W] - ϒ_{r}^{W} .$
(2) For each $r$ there exists a constant $C_{r}$ such that if $0 < ɛ \leq ɛ_{1} < < 1$ and $d i s t (z, W) < ɛ$ , then $log ɛ^{2} - C_{r} \leq s_{r, ɛ} \leq 0 .$

Proof. Property 1 is a standard consequence of regularization. Property 2 may be established locally, and using group invariance and uniform flatness, we need only consider the case $z = 0$ . But then by the calculation in the proof of 3 of Lemma 5.2 we may assume that $s_{r} = log | ζ^{n} |^{2}$ , and thus 2 follows by simple integration . □

6.3 The proof of Theorem 2

A positivity lemma

The key idea behind the proof of the lower sampling inequality is a certain positivity lemma, which we now state and prove.

Lemma 6.4. Let

θ

be a positive

(n - 1, n - 1)

-form in

B

such that for some weight

ψ

and each

h \in ℌ^{2} (B, ψ)

\int_{B} | h |^{2} e^{- ψ} \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} θ < + \infty .

Then

\int_{B} | h |^{2} e^{- ψ} \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} ψ \land θ \geq - \int_{B} | h |^{2} e^{- ψ} \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} θ .

Proof. Letting

S = | h |^{2} e^{- ψ}

, one calculates that

\frac{\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} S}{S} = \frac{\sqrt{- 1} \partial S \land \bar{\partial} S}{S^{2}} + \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} log | h |^{2} - \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} ψ,

and thus

\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} S \land θ \geq - S \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} ψ \land θ .

Let

f : R \to [0, 1]

be a smooth function supported on

(- \infty, 3 / 4]

such that

f | (- \infty, 0] \equiv 1

. Consider the function

χ_{a} (z) = f (\frac{1 - | z |^{2}}{- a} + 1), a > 0 .

Then

\begin{matrix} \int_{B} \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} S \land θ & = & {lim}_{a \to 0 +} \int_{B} χ_{a} (z) \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} S \land θ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & {lim}_{a \to 0 +} \int_{B} S \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} (χ_{a} (z) \land θ) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & {lim}_{a \to 0 +} (\int_{B} χ_{a} (z) S \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} θ + O (a)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{B} S \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} θ, \end{matrix}

where the second equality follows from the Green-Stokes identity ( 2 ). □

Conclusion of the proof of Theorem 2

Let

ψ = κ + n λ + α s_{r, ɛ} .

In view of Lemmas 6.3 and 3.1 .2, for some

0 < < α < 1

c > 0

and

θ \in P_{W} (B)

we have

\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} ψ \land θ \leq - c e^{n λ} ω_{B}^{n} + C [W]_{ɛ} \land ω_{B}^{n - 1},

where

[W]_{ɛ}

denotes the regularization of the current

[W]

in the manner of Lemma 6.3 .

Let

F \in ℌ^{2} (B, κ)

. Then

\begin{matrix} \int_{B} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} & \leq & \int_{B} | F |^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C \int_{B} | F |^{2} e^{- ψ} [W]_{ɛ} \land ω_{B}^{n - 1} - C \int_{B} | F |^{2} e^{- ψ} \sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} ψ \land θ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C \int_{B} | F |^{2} e^{- ψ} [W]_{ɛ} \land ω_{B}^{n - 1}, \end{matrix}

where the last inequality follows from Lemma 6.4 and the definition of

P_{W} (B)

. Thus we have

\begin{matrix} \int_{B} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} & \leq & C \int_{B} | F |^{2} e^{- ψ} [W]_{ɛ} \land ω_{B}^{n - 1} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \frac{C}{ɛ^{2}} \int_{N_{ɛ} (W)} | F |^{2} e^{- ψ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \frac{C}{ɛ^{2 + 2 α}} \int_{N_{ɛ} (W)} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Our next task is to compare

\int_{N_{ɛ} (W)} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} w i t h \int_{W} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} .

To do this, we cover

W

by Bergman-Green balls

{E (p, ɛ_{p})}_{p \in W},

where

W \subset W

is a discrete set that is uniformly separated with respect to the Bergman-Green distance. We now employ Lemma 5.8 once more to obtain a function

N_{ɛ} (W) \cap E (p, ɛ_{p}) \sim = (W \cap E (p, ɛ_{p})) \times D (0, ɛ) ∋ (x, t) \mapsto H_{p} (x, t) \in C

that is holomorphic in

t

and satisfies

H_{p} (x, 0) = 0 a n d | 2 R e (H_{p} (x, t)) + κ (x, 0) - κ (x, t) | \leq C

where

C

is an absolute constant depending only on

\sqrt{- 1} \partial \bar{\partial} κ .

Let

F_{p} = F e^{- H_{p}}

. By Taylor's Theorem, for each

x

we have

\begin{matrix} | F_{p} (x, t) |^{2} \leq C | F (x, 0) |^{2} + ɛ^{2} {sup}_{| t | \leq ɛ} {| \frac{\partial F_{p}}{\partial t} |}^{2} \end{matrix}

We then obtain

\begin{matrix} \int_{N_{ɛ} (W) \cap E (p, ɛ_{p})} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \int_{N_{ɛ} (W) \cap E (p, ɛ_{p})} | F_{p} |^{2} e^{- κ (x, 0)} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C_{1} ɛ^{2} \int_{W \cap E (p, ɛ_{p})} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} + ɛ^{2} \int_{N_{ɛ} (W) \cap E (p, ɛ_{p})} {sup}_{| t | \leq ɛ} {| \frac{\partial F_{p}}{\partial t} |}^{2} e^{- κ (x, 0)} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C_{1} ɛ^{2} \int_{W \cap E (p, ɛ_{p})} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} + ɛ^{4} \int_{W \cap E (p, ɛ_{p})} {sup}_{| t | \leq ɛ} {| \frac{\partial F_{p}}{\partial t} |}^{2} e^{- κ (x, 0)} ω_{B}^{n - 1} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C_{1} ɛ^{2} \int_{W \cap E (p, ɛ_{p})} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} + C ɛ^{4} \int_{N_{ɛ_{o}} (W) \cap E (p, ɛ_{p})} | F_{p} |^{2} e^{- κ (x, 0)} ω_{B}^{n} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & ɛ^{2} \int_{W \cap E (p, ɛ_{p})} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω^{n - 1} + C ɛ^{4} \int_{N_{ɛ_{o}} (W) \cap E (p, ɛ_{p})} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n}, \end{matrix}

where

ɛ < ɛ_{o} / 2

and we have used the Cauchy estimates in the penultimate inequality.

Combining all of this, and summing over

p \in W

, we obtain

\int_{B} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n} \leq \frac{C}{ɛ^{2 α}} \int_{W} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n - 1} + C^{'} ɛ^{2 - 2 α} \int_{B} | F |^{2} e^{- κ} ω_{B}^{n},

which establishes the left inequality in ( 1 ) as soon as we take

ɛ

small enough. The right inequality was already established in Corollary 6.2 , and thus the proof of Theorem 2 is complete. □ References

Berndtsson, B.; Ortega Cerdà, J., On interpolation and sampling in Hilbert spaces of analytic functions. J. Reine Angew. Math. 464 (1995), 109–128.
Lindholm, Niklas, Sampling in weighted $L^{p}$ spaces of entire functions in $C^{n}$ and estimates of the Bergman kernel. J. Funct. Anal. 182 (2001), no. 2, 390–426.
McNeal, J., On large values of $L^{2}$ holomorphic functions. Math. Res. Lett. 3 (1996), no. 2, 247–259.
Ohsawa, T., On the extension of $L^{2}$ holomorphic functions. V. Effects of generalization. Nagoya Math. J. 161 (2001) 1-21.
Ortega-Cerdà, J., Schuster, A., Varolin, D., Interpolation and Sampling hypersurfaces for the Bargmann-Fock Space on $C^{n}$ , Preprint, 2004.
Rudin, W., Function Theory in the Unit Ball of $C^{n}$ . Springer-Verlag, 1980
Siu, Y.-T., Complex-analyticity of harmonic maps, vanishing and Lefschetz theorems. J. Diff. Geom. 17 (1982), no. 1, 55–138.
Siu, Y.-T., The Fujita conjecture and the extension theorem of Ohsawa-Takegoshi. Geometric complex analysis (Hayama, 1995), 577–592, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 1996.
Stoll, M. Invariant potential theory in the unit ball of $C^{n}$ . London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 199. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.

center Department of Mathematics, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, forgacs@uiuc.edu dror@uiuc.edu

Tamás Forgács

Dror Varolin