, ,

<ph f="cmr"> </ph><ph f="cmbx">Monge-Ampère operators on compact Kähler surfaces</ph>

Vincent GUEDJ & Ahmed ZERIAHI

Abstract. We study the complex Monge-Ampère operator on compact Kähler surfaces. We give a complete description of its range on the set of $ω$ -psh functions with $L^{2}$ -gradient and finite self-energy, generalizing to this compact setting results of U.Cegrell from the local pluripotential theory.

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 32H50, 58F23, 58F15.

Introduction

Let

X

be a compact connected Kähler surface (

{dim}_{C} X = 2

) equipped with a Kähler form

ω

. Given a positive Radon measure

μ

X

, we want to study the complex Monge-Ampère equation

(M A)_{μ} (ω + d d^{c} φ)^{2} = μ,

where

φ

, the unknown function, is such that

ω_{φ} : = ω + d d^{c} φ

is a positive current. Such functions are called

ω

-plurisubharmonic. We refer the reader to [15] for their basic properties. Here

d = \partial + \bar{\partial}

and

d^{c} = \frac{1}{2 i π} (\bar{\partial} - \partial)

An obvious necessary condition to solve

(M A)_{μ}

is that

μ (X) = V o l_{ω} (X) : = \int_{X} ω^{2}

. In the sequel we always assume

ω

has been normalized so that

V o l_{ω} (X) = 1

, hence we only consider probability measures. Trying to solve

(M A)_{μ}

one immediately faces two problems. The Monge-Ampère operator

ω_{φ}^{2}

is not well defined on the set

P S H (X, ω)

of all

ω

-psh functions, hence one has to restrict to subclasses of

ω

-psh functions. In the whole article we only consider

ω

-psh functions with

L^{2}

-gradient: this is the class

ℰ (X, ω)

, on which the Monge-Ampère operator is well-defined, as was already observed by E.Bedford and A.Taylor in [4] (see [7] for a more recent account).

The second problem is that solutions to

(M A)_{μ}

are far from being uni que, e.g. if

μ

charges points. One has to further restrict to subclasses of

ℰ (X, ω)

in order to give an interesting description of the range of the Monge-Ampère operator. The first and cornerstone result in this direction is due to S.-T.Yau [26] who proved (see also [1]) the following

Theorem 0.1 (Yau 1978). If

μ

is a smooth volume form, then there exists a unique

φ \in P S H (X, ω) \cap C^{\infty} (X)

such that

ω_{φ}^{2} = μ and {sup}_{X} φ = - 1 .

This is the solution to a celebrated conjecture of E.Calabi [8], and it has important consequences in differential geometry (see [24], [25]).

From the point of view both of complex geometry and pluripotential theory, it is important to solve

(M A)_{μ}

for singular measures

μ

. A major contribution was made by S.Kolodziej [19], [20], who proved the following result.

Theorem 0.2 (Kolodziej, 1998). If

μ = f ω^{2}

has density

f \in L^{p} (X), p > 1

, then there exists a unique

φ \in P S H (X, ω) \cap C^{0} (X)

such that

ω_{φ}^{2} = μ and {sup}_{X} φ = - 1 .

For applications in complex geometry and complex dynamics one needs to allow unbounded solutions

φ

to Monge-Ampère equations

(M A)_{μ}

with more singular measures

μ

(see [12], [13] and [2], [14]). This is the main goal of this article. We consider the subclass

ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

ω

-psh functions

φ

with

L^{2}

-gradient and such that

φ \in L^{1} (ω_{φ}^{2})

. Our main result gives a full characterization of the Monge-Ampère operator on this class.

Theorem 0.3 (MAIN THEOREM). There exists a unique

φ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

such that

ω_{φ}^{2} = μ and {sup}_{X} φ = - 1 .

if and only if

ℰ^{1} (X, ω) \subset L^{1} (μ)

The class

ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

contains many unbounded functions, however these are not too singular (e.g. they have zero Lelong numbers), as follows from the condition

φ \in L^{1} (ω_{φ}^{2})

. A similar result was proved by U.Cegrell [9] in a local setting (for bounded hyperconvex domains in

C^{n}

). Our work originated from an attempt to understand Cegrell classes in the global context of

ω

-psh functions on compact Kähler manifolds. We would like to emphasize that surprinsingly the global and the local theory are quite different:

-There is no boundary condition in the compact setting. Integration by parts are much simpler, as well as compactness arguments. In particular Monge-Ampère masses are uniformly controlled by

V o l_{ω} (X) = 1

-The counterpart is that one looses the homogeneity of the Monge-Ampère operator

ω_{φ}^{2}

. If

φ \in P S H (X, ω)

then

λ φ \in P S H (X, ω)

for

0 \leq λ \leq 1

but not for

λ > 1

, and one has to get control on mixed terms

ω^{2}, ω \land ω_{φ}, ω_{φ}^{2}

, due to the affine part of

ω_{φ} = ω + d d^{c} φ

. This is an important source of difficulty.

Most of our results hold on any

n

-dimensional compact Kähler manifold.

We have restricted ourselves to the case of complex surfaces (

n = 2

) because it greatly simplifies both the definition of the Monge-Ampère operator and the computations. We also assume throughout the article that

ω

is a Hodge form, i.e. a Kähler form with integer cohomology class. In this case one can easily regularize

ω

-psh functions with no loss of positivity (see Appendix in [15] and [16]). All our results are true when

ω

is merely a Kähler form, but our estimates then have to be modified by a uniform constant.

We now describe the contents of the article more precisely. In section 1 we define and study the class

ℰ (X, ω)

ω

-psh functions whose gradient is in

L^{2} (X)

. We then define the Monge-Ampère operator

ω_{φ}^{2}

in section 2 and prove basic continuity results. The class

ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

is introduced in section 3. It is a starshaped convex set, stable under taking maximum (proposition 3.2). These properties are established through integration by parts which are justified thanks to an important continuity result (Theorem 3.1). We also prove (Theorem 3.4) that solutions to the Monge-Ampère equation

(M A)_{μ}

are unique -up to an additive constantin the class

ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

In section 4 we define and study several intermediate classes

ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

p \geq 1

. Not only are they interesting in themselves, but we need to solve first

(M A)_{μ}

with solutions in

ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

p > 1

, before producing solutions in

ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

. We prove our main result (Theorem 5.1) in section 5 where we give a complete characterization of the range of the Monge-Ampère operator

ω_{φ}^{2}

on each class

ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

p \geq 1

. Finally in section 6 we give several examples of functions in

ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

and measures of Monge-Ampère type by linking these integrability properties to the size of the sublevel sets

(φ < - t)

, estimated in terms of the Monge-Ampère capacity

C a p_{ω}

1 The gradient of qpsh functions

¿From now on we assume

X

is a compact complex projective surface (i.e.

of complex dimension 2) and

ω

is a Hodge form on

X

normalized so that

{Vol}_{ω} (X) : = \int_{X} ω^{2} = 1

. Recall that

P S H (X, ω) : = {φ \in L^{1} (X) / d d^{c} φ \geq - ω and φ is u.s.c.}

is the set of

ω

-psh functions (see [15]). We set

ℰ (X, ω) : = {φ \in P S H (X, ω) / φ \in L^{1} (ω \land ω_{φ})}

and

W^{1, 2} (X) : = {φ \in L^{2} (X) / \nabla φ \in L^{2} (X)},

endowed with the Sobolev norm

| | φ | |_{W^{1, 2}} = | | φ | |_{L^{2}} + | | \nabla φ | |_{L^{2}}

. To simplify notations all

L^{p}

-norms are computed with respect to the volume form

ω^{2}

unless otherwise specified. Here the

L^{2}

-norm of the gradient simply means

| | \nabla φ | |_{L^{2}} : = {(\int_{X} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω)}^{1 / 2} .

We shall denote

ℰ (X, ω)

ℰ

when no confusion can arise. Recall that every

ω

-psh function can be approximated by a decreasing sequence of smooth

ω

-psh functions (see Appendix in [15]). This motivates the following

Lemma 1.1. Let

φ_{j}, φ \in ℰ (X, ω)

1) If

φ_{j}

decreases towards

φ

, then

φ_{j} \to φ

in the Sobolev

W^{1, 2}

-norm.

2) If

φ_{j} \to φ

in the Sobolev

W^{1, 2}

-norm, then

φ_{j} ω_{φ_{j}} \to φ ω_{φ}

and

d φ_{j} \land d^{c} φ_{j} \to d φ \land d^{c} φ

in the sense of currents.

Proof. Assume first that $φ_{j} \to φ$ in the Sobolev norm. Then $d φ_{j} \land d^{c} φ_{j} \to d φ \land d^{c} φ$ and $φ_{j} d^{c} φ_{j} \to φ d^{c} φ$ in $L^{1}$ hence in the sense of currents. Let $θ$ be a smooth test form. We get $< φ_{j} d d^{c} φ_{j}, θ > = < d φ_{j} \land d^{c} φ_{j}, θ > - < φ_{j} d^{c} φ_{j}, d θ > \to < φ d d^{c} φ, θ >,$ thus $φ_{j} ω_{φ_{j}} \to φ ω_{φ}$ in the sense of currents.
Assume now $φ_{j}$ decreases towards $φ$ . By the monotone convergence theorem, $φ_{j} \to φ$ in $L^{2}$ , so the question is whether $\nabla (φ_{j} - φ) \to 0$ in $L^{2}$ . We have $0 \leq \int_{X} d (φ_{j} - φ) \land d^{c} (φ_{j} - φ) \land ω = \int_{X} - (φ_{j} - φ) (ω_{φ_{j}} - ω_{φ}) \land ω \leq \int_{X} (φ_{j} - φ) ω_{φ} \land ω .$ Now $φ_{j} - φ \in L^{1} (ω_{φ} \land ω)$ , so it follows from the monotone convergence theorem again that $\int_{X} (φ_{j} - φ) ω_{φ} \land ω \to 0$ . □

In the sequel we shall implicitly make computations on smooth approximants and then pass to the limit by using lemma 1.1.

Proposition 1.2. One has

ℰ (X, ω) = P S H (X, ω) \cap W^{1, 2} (X) .

Moreover

ℰ (X, ω)

is a closed subspace of

W^{1, 2} (X)

Proof. Let $φ \in P S H (X, ω)$ . We can assume w.l.o.g. $φ \leq 0$ . Let us recall that a $ω$ -psh function is $L^{p}$ -integrable for all $p \geq 1$ and has gradient in $L^{p}$ for all $p < 2$ (see [18] and inequality (2) below). It follows therefore from Hölder inequality that $φ d^{c} φ$ is a well defined current of degree 1 with $L^{1}$ coefficients. Observe that $d (φ d^{c} φ) + φ ω = d φ \land d^{c} φ + φ ω_{φ},$ where one of the currents on the right hand-side is well defined as soon as the other is. It follows therefore from Stokes theorem that $0 \leq \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω = | | φ | |_{L^{1}} + \int_{X} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω .$ Thus $φ \in ℰ (X, ω)$ iff $\nabla φ \in L^{2} (X)$ .
Clearly if $φ_{j} \in ℰ (X, ω)$ converges in the Sobolev $W^{1, 2}$ -norm towards $φ$ then $φ_{j} \to φ$ in $L^{2}$ so that $φ \in P S H (X, ω)$ and $\nabla φ \in L^{2} (X)$ so that $φ \in ℰ (X, ω)$ , i.e. $ℰ (X, ω)$ is closed in $W^{1, 2} (X)$ . □

Proposition 1.3. 1) If

φ, ψ \in ℰ (X, ω)

then

ψ \in L^{1} (ω_{φ} \land ω)

. Therefore

ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ}

is a well defined probability measure.

2) The set

ℰ (X, ω)

is star-shaped and convex.

3) Assume

φ, ψ \in P S H (X, ω)

with

φ \leq ψ

. If

φ \in ℰ (X, ω)

then

ψ \in ℰ (X, ω)

. In particular

ℰ (X, ω)

is stable under taking maximum.

Proof. Fix

φ, ψ \in ℰ

. We can assume

ψ \leq 0

. By Stokes theorem and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we get

\begin{matrix} 0 \leq \int (- ψ) ω_{φ} \land ω = \int (- ψ) ω^{2} + \int (- ψ) d d^{c} φ \land ω \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \int (- ψ) ω^{2} + \int d ψ \land d^{c} φ \land ω \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq \int (- ψ) ω^{2} + {(\int d ψ \land d^{c} ψ \land ω)}^{1 / 2} \cdot {(\int d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω)}^{1 / 2} < + \infty . \end{matrix}

The current

ψ ω_{φ}

is therefore well defined, hence so is

ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ} : = ω \land ω_{φ} + d d^{c} (ψ ω_{φ}) .

This yields a probability measure, as can be seen by approximating

φ

and

ψ

by smooth approximants and by using lemma 1.1.

We now show that

ℰ

is convex. Given

φ, ψ \in ℰ

, it suffices to check that

u = (φ + ψ) / 2

also belongs to

ℰ

. By symmetry we only need to show that

φ \in L^{1} (ω_{u} \land ω)

. Since

ω_{u} = (ω_{φ} + ω_{ψ}) / 2

and

φ \in L^{1} (ω_{φ} \land ω)

, this boils down to check that

φ \in L^{1} (ω_{ψ} \land ω)

, which is nothing but 1.3.1.

Assume

φ \in ℰ

and

λ \in [0, 1]

. Then

λ φ \in P S H (X, ω)

since

ω_{λ φ} = λ ω_{φ} + (1 - λ) ω \geq 0

. Also

\nabla (λ φ) = λ \nabla φ \in L^{2} (X)

, hence

λ φ \in ℰ

, i.e.

ℰ

is star-shaped.

It remains to prove 3). Let

φ, ψ \in P S H (X, ω)

with

φ \leq ψ

. We assume again

ψ \leq 0

. It follows then from Stokes theorem that

\begin{matrix} 0 \leq \int_{X} (- ψ) ω_{ψ} \land ω & \leq & \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{ψ} \land ω = \int_{X} (- φ) ω^{2} + \int_{X} (- φ) d d^{c} ψ \land ω \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{X} (ψ - φ) ω^{2} + \int_{X} (- ψ) ω_{φ} \land ω \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & | | ψ - φ | |_{L^{1}} + \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω . \end{matrix}

Therefore

φ \in ℰ \Rightarrow ψ \in ℰ

. □

Examples 1.4. 1)

L^{\infty} (X) \cap P S H (X, ω) \subset ℰ (X, ω)

Indeed

ℰ

obviously contains constant functions and if

φ \in P S H (X, ω)

is bounded from below by some constant

C

then

φ \in ℰ

by the previous proposition. Alternatively it may be useful to note the following inequality: if

0 \leq φ \leq 1 / 2

φ \in P S H (X, ω)

, then

d d^{c} (φ^{2}) = 2 d φ \land d^{c} φ + 2 φ d d^{c} φ \geq - ω

hence

φ^{2} \in P S H (X, ω)

with

| | \nabla φ | |_{L^{2}}^{2} = \int_{X} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω \leq \frac{1}{2} \int_{X} ω_{φ^{2}} \land ω = \frac{1}{2}

More generally if

χ : R \to R

satisfies

χ^{''} > 0

and

0 \leq χ^{'} \leq A

φ (X)

, then

χ \circ φ \in ℰ (X, A ω)

since

\begin{matrix} d d^{c} (χ \circ φ) = χ^{''} \circ φ d φ \land d^{c} φ + χ^{'} \circ φ d d^{c} φ . \end{matrix}

(1)

2) If

φ \in P S H (X, ω)

is bounded near some ample divisor

D

, then

φ \in ℰ

Indeed let

ω_{D}

be a Kähler form cohomologous to

[D]

, the current of integration along

D

. Integrability against

ω

is equivalent to integrability against

ω_{D}

; for simplicity we assume

ω_{D} = ω

. We can find

ω^{'}

a smooth positive closed

(1, 1)

form cohomologous to

ω

such that

ω^{'} \equiv 0

outside some small neighborhood

V

D

where

φ

is bounded. Fix

χ \geq 0

smooth such that

ω = ω^{'} + d d^{c} χ

and assume w.l.o.g.

φ \leq 0

. Then

\begin{matrix} 0 \leq \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω & = & \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω^{'} + \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ} \land d d^{c} χ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & | | φ | |_{L^{\infty} (V)} \int_{X} ω_{φ} \land ω^{'} + \int_{X} χ ω_{φ} \land (- d d^{c} φ) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & | | φ | |_{L^{\infty} (V)} + | | χ | |_{L^{\infty} (X)} < + \infty, \end{matrix}

since

- d d^{c} φ \leq ω

χ ω_{φ} \geq 0

and

\int_{X} ω_{φ} \land ω^{'} = \int_{X} ω_{φ} \land ω = \int_{X} ω^{2} = 1

These examples are analogous to the psh functions with compact singularities introduced and studied by N.Sibony [22] in the local theory (see the survey article [11] and references therein).

3) If

ω_{φ}

is the current of integration along some complex hypersurface

H

X

then

φ \equiv - \infty

H

hence

φ / \in ℰ

. One can also produce examples of functions

φ \in P S H (X, ω) \ ℰ

which have zero Lelong number at all points: let

φ [z_{0} : z_{1} : z_{2}] = log | z_{0} | - log | | (z_{0}, z_{1}, z_{2}) | | - 1 \leq - 1

. Then

φ \in P S H (P^{2}, ω)

, where

ω

denotes the Fubini-Study Kähler form on

X = P^{2}

. If

0 \leq α \leq 1

then

- (- φ)^{α} \in P S H (P^{2}, ω)

and a straightforward computation shows that

- (- φ)^{α} \in ℰ (P^{2})

iff

0 \leq α < 1 / 2

One can generalize example 1.4.3 as the following proposition shows:

Proposition 1.5. Assume

φ \in P S H (X, ω)

φ \leq - 1

and fix

0 \leq α < 1 / 2

Then

- (- φ)^{α} \in ℰ (X, ω)

. In particular every locally pluripolar set is included in the

- \infty

locus of a function in

ℰ (X, ω)

Proof. Set

φ_{α} : = - (- φ)^{α} = χ \circ φ

, where

χ (t) = - (- t)^{α}

. We assume first

0 \leq α < 1

. Observe that

0 \leq χ^{'} \circ φ \leq α \leq 1

and

χ ” \circ φ = α (1 - α) (- φ)^{α - 2} \geq 0

so that by (1),

φ_{α} \in P S H (X, ω)

with

\begin{matrix} 0 \leq \int_{X} \frac{1}{(- φ)^{2 - α}} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω \leq \frac{1}{1 - α} < + \infty . \end{matrix}

(2)

It is well-known that the gradient

\nabla φ

of a

ω

-psh function

φ

is in

L^{p}

for all

p < 2

(but does not belong to

L^{2}

in general, see example 1.4.3). Inequality (2) shows, more precisely, that

\nabla φ

belongs to a weighted version of

L^{2}

Observe now that

d φ_{β} \land d^{c} φ_{β} = β^{2} (- φ)^{2 - 2 β} d φ \land d^{c} φ

. If we set

β = α / 2 < 1 / 2

, it therefore follows from (2) that

\int_{X} d φ_{β} \land d^{c} φ_{β} \land ω \leq \frac{β^{2}}{1 - 2 β} < + \infty,

so that

φ_{β} \in ℰ (X, ω)

. □

This proposition implies, together with proposition 1.3, the following:

Corollary 1.6. Let

φ \in ℰ (X, ω)

. Then the measure

ω_{φ} \land ω

does not charge pluripolar sets.

2 The complex Monge-Ampere operator

The complex Monge-Ampère operator

ω_{φ}^{2}

can be easily defined for functions

φ \in ℰ (X, ω)

. This was already observed by Bedford and Taylor in the local context (see [4], [5]). Indeed if

φ \in ℰ (X, ω)

then we set

ω_{φ}^{2} : = ω \land ω_{φ} + d d^{c} (φ ω_{φ}) .

This is a well defined current of maximal bidegree

(2, 2)

which happens to be a probability measure (proposition 1.3.1). This operator is continuous on decreasing sequences, as follows from lemma 1.1.

In the context of quasiplurisubharmonic functions, convergence in the Sobolev norm and weak convergence are almost the same as the following result shows.

Theorem 2.1. Let

φ_{j}, φ \in ℰ (X, ω)

. Assume there exists

ψ \in ℰ (X, ω)

such that

φ_{j} \geq ψ

for all

j \in N

. Then the following are equivalent:

φ_{j} \to φ

W^{1, 2} (X)

φ_{j} \to φ

and

φ_{j} ω_{φ_{j}} \to φ ω_{φ}

in the sense of distributions.

φ_{j} \to φ

in the sense of distributions and

\int φ_{j} ω_{φ_{j}} \land ω \to \int φ ω_{φ} \land ω

Proof. Observe that

1) \Rightarrow 2)

follows from lemma 1.1 and

2) \Rightarrow 3)

is obvious.

So it remains to prove

3) \Rightarrow 1)

. It is a standard consequence of quasi-plurisubharmonicity that

φ_{j} \to φ

weakly iff

φ_{j} \to φ

L^{2}

; moreover for all

x \in X

limsup φ_{j} (x) \leq φ (x)

with equality off a pluripolar set (see [18]). Assume this is the case.

It follows that

(φ_{j})

is uniformly bounded from above. We can assume

φ_{j}, φ \leq 0

, hence our assumption yields a uniform bound

\begin{matrix} ψ \leq φ_{j} \leq φ_{j} - φ \leq - φ . \end{matrix}

(3)

A repeated application of Stokes theorem yields

\begin{matrix} 0 \leq \int_{X} d (φ - φ_{j}) \land d^{c} (φ - φ_{j}) \land ω = \int_{X} - (φ - φ_{j}) (ω_{φ} - ω_{φ_{j}}) \land ω \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \int_{X} (φ - φ_{j}) ω^{2} + 2 \int_{X} (φ_{j} - φ) ω_{φ} \land ω + \int_{X} (φ ω_{φ} - φ_{j} ω_{φ_{j}}) \land ω . \end{matrix}

The first integral converges to

0

since

φ_{j} \to φ

L^{2}

. The last one also by assumption 3). Thanks to

(3)

we can apply Fatou's lemma and get

limsup \int_{X} (φ_{j} - φ) ω_{φ} \land ω \leq 0,

hence actually

\int_{X} (φ_{j} - φ) ω_{φ} \land ω \to 0

and

φ_{j} \to φ

W^{1, 2} (X)

. □

Corollary 2.2. If

φ_{j} \in ℰ (X, ω)

increases towards

φ \in ℰ (X, ω)

, then

φ_{j} \to φ

in the Sobolev

W^{1, 2}

-norm, hence

ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \to ω_{φ}^{2}

Proof. Assume $(φ_{j}) \in ℰ$ is an increasing sequence which converges in $L^{2}$ towards $φ$ . Then $φ_{j} (x) \to φ (x)$ at every point of $X \ P$ , where $P$ is a pluripolar set (see [5]). We can assume w.l.o.g $φ_{j} \leq φ \leq 0$ .
Fix $p \in N$ and consider indices $j \geq p$ . Then $\int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}} \land ω \leq \int_{X} (- φ_{p}) ω_{φ_{j}} \land ω = \int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{p}} \land ω + \int_{X} (φ_{j} - φ_{p}) ω^{2} .$ Since $φ_{j} (x) ↗ φ (x)$ at $ω_{φ_{p}} \land ω$ (and $ω^{2}$ ) almost every point $x$ , we infer $limsup \int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}} \land ω \leq \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ_{p}} \land ω + \int_{X} (φ - φ_{p}) ω^{2} = \int_{X} (- φ_{p}) ω_{φ} \land ω .$ Now $φ_{p} ↗ φ$ as $p \to + \infty$ with pointwise convergence $ω_{φ} \land ω$ -almost everywhere. This shows ${limsup}_{j \to + \infty} \int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}} \land ω \leq \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω .$ It follows that the sequence of positive currents $(- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}$ has uniformly bounded mass. Let $S$ be a cluster point of this sequence. We have just shown $| | S | | \leq | | (- φ) ω_{φ} | |$ . We claim $S \geq (- φ) ω_{φ}$ . Indeed if $θ \geq 0$ is a positive test form, then $< φ_{j} ω_{φ_{j}}, θ > \leq < φ ω_{φ_{j}}, θ > \leq < φ^{ɛ} ω_{φ_{j}}, θ >,$ where $φ^{ɛ}$ denotes smooth $ω$ -psh functions that decrease towards $φ$ . Since $ω_{φ_{j}}$ weakly converges towards $ω_{φ}$ , we infer, $< S, θ > \geq < (- φ^{ɛ}) ω_{φ}, θ > \overset{ɛ \to 0}{⟶} < (- φ) ω_{φ}, θ >,$ therefore $S = φ ω_{φ}$ , i.e. $φ_{j} ω_{φ_{j}} \to φ ω_{φ}$ . By theorem 2.1 this shows $φ_{j} \to φ$ in the Sobolev $W^{1, 2}$ -norm. □

In [15] we have started to study the Monge-Ampère capacity associated to

ω

which is defined as follows:

C a p_{ω} (K) : = sup {\int_{K} ω_{u}^{2} / u \in P S H (X, ω), 0 \leq u \leq 1},

where

K

is any Borel subset of

X

. This capacity vanishes on pluripolar sets, more precisely

C a p_{ω} (φ < - t) \leq C_{φ} / t

for every fixed

ω

-psh function

φ

This estimate is sharp in the sense that

C a p_{ω} (φ < - t) \geq C_{φ}^{'} / t

when

ω_{φ}

is the current of integration along an hypersurface. However when

φ

belongs to

ℰ (X, ω)

, one can establish finer estimates as the following proposition shows.

Proposition 2.3. Assume

φ \in ℰ (X, ω)

. Then there exists

C_{φ} > 0

such that for all

t > 0

C a p_{ω} (φ < - t) \leq \frac{C_{φ}}{t^{2}} .

Proof. We can assume w.l.o.g.

φ \leq 0

. Fix

u \in P S H (X, ω)

with

- 1 \leq u \leq 0

By Chebyshev inequality,

\int_{(φ < - t)} ω_{u}^{2} \leq \frac{1}{t^{2}} \int_{X} φ^{2} ω_{u}^{2} = \frac{1}{t^{2}} [\int_{X} φ^{2} ω^{2} + \int_{X} φ^{2} ω \land d d^{c} u + \int_{X} φ^{2} d d^{c} u \land ω_{u}] .

So we need to get an upper bound on the last two integrals that is uniform in

u

. We first get a bound on

I_{u} = \int_{X} φ^{2} ω \land d d^{c} u

. Observe that

- d d^{c} (φ^{2}) = - 2 d φ \land d^{c} φ + 2 (- φ) d d^{c} φ \leq 2 (- φ) ω_{φ} .

It follows therefore from Stokes theorem that

I_{u} : = \int_{X} u d d^{c} φ^{2} \land ω \leq 2 \int_{X} (- u) (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω \leq 2 \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω .

Similarly one gets

\begin{matrix} I I_{u} : = \int_{X} φ^{2} d d^{c} u \land ω_{u} \leq 2 \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω_{u} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq 2 \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω + 2 \int_{X} (- u) ω_{φ}^{2} \leq 2 \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω + 2 . \end{matrix}

We infer

C a p_{ω} (φ < - t) \leq \frac{1}{t^{2}} [\int_{X} φ^{2} ω^{2} + 4 \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω + 2] .

□

Our aim in this paper is to describe the range of the Monge-Ampère operator on various subclasses of

ℰ (X, ω)

. It is an interesting open question to obtain a description of the set of probability measures

ℳ (X, ω) : = {ω_{φ}^{2} / φ \in ℰ (X, ω)} .

One can ask for instance if every probability measure on

X

belongs to

ℳ (X, ω)

? One of the difficulties lies in the lack of uniqueness of solutions

φ \in ℰ (X, ω)

to the equation

ω_{φ}^{2} = μ

, as the following example shows.

Example 2.4. Let

ω = ω_{F S}

be the Fubini-Study Kähler form on

X = P^{2}

. Let

0

be the origin in some affine chart

0 \in C^{2} \subset P^{2}

. We use

(z_{1}, z_{2})

as affine coordinates in

C^{2}

and let

[z_{0} : z_{1} : z_{2}]

denote the homogeneous cooordinates on

P^{2}

. Consider

φ [z_{0} : z_{1} : z_{2}] : = \int_{α \in P^{1}} log | α_{1} z_{1} + α_{2} z_{2} | d ν (α) - log | | (z_{0}, z_{1}, z_{2}) | |,

where

ν

denotes a probability measure on the Riemann sphere

P^{1} = {α = [α_{1} : α_{2}]}

. Then

φ \in P S H (P^{2}, ω)

and

φ \in ℰ (P^{2}, ω)

iff

ν

has finite self-energy (i.e. if its potentials have gradient in

L^{2}

Assume this is the case. Observe that

log | α_{1} z_{1} + α_{2} z_{2} |

is harmonic on each radial line through the origin, except at the origin, to conclude that

ω_{φ}^{2} = δ_{0} : = Dirac mass at point 0 \in C^{2} \subset P^{2} .

Thus the set of solutions

{φ \in ℰ (P^{2}, ω) / ω_{φ}^{2} = δ_{0}}

has infinite dimension and contains a subset isomorphic to

P S H (P^{1}, ω_{P^{1}}) \cap W^{1, 2} (P^{1})

, where

ω_{P^{1}}

denotes here the Fubini-Study Kähler form on the Riemann sphere

P^{1}

In the remaining part of this article, we are going to define and study several subclasses of

ℰ (X, ω)

on which solutions of Monge-Ampère equations are essentially unique. This is the key to the description of the range of

ω_{φ}^{2}

on these classes.

3 The class $ℰ^{1} (X, ω)$

Our main subject of interest in the sequel is the following class of qpsh functions,

ℰ^{1} (X, ω) : = {φ \in ℰ (X, ω) / φ \in L^{1} (ω_{φ}^{2})} .

When no confusion can arise, we shall simply denote

ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

ℰ^{1}

Of course bounded

ω

-psh functions belong to

ℰ^{1}

. We will exhibit in examples 6.3 below unbounded functions that belong to

ℰ^{1}

. These however have mild singularities: it follows from a result of J.-P.Demailly [11] that if

φ \in ℰ

has positive Lelong number at some point

a \in X

, then

ω_{φ}^{2}

has some positive Dirac mass at point

a

, so that

φ

cannot be integrable with respect to

ω_{φ}^{2}

Before establishing basic properties of the class

ℰ^{1}

, we start by proving a useful continuity result.

Theorem 3.1 (Continuity). Let

φ_{j} \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

be a decreasing sequence. Then the sequence

(\int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2})_{j}

is bounded if and only if

φ : = lim ↘ φ_{j} \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

, and in this case

(- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} ⟶ (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2} in the weak sense of currents .

Proof. We can assume w.l.o.g. that $φ_{j} \leq 0$ . Observe that $0 \leq \int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} = \int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω^{2} + \int_{X} d φ_{j} \land d^{c} φ_{j} \land ω + \int_{X} d φ_{j} \land d^{c} φ_{j} \land ω_{φ_{j}} .$ Since $d φ_{j} \land d^{c} φ_{j} \land ω_{φ_{j}} \geq 0$ , it follows that $(φ_{j})$ has bounded Sobolev norm, hence $φ_{j} \to φ$ in the Sobolev $W^{1, 2}$ -norm (so $φ \in ℰ^{0} (X, ω))$ and $ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \to ω_{φ}^{2}$ by Theorem 2.1.
Assume first that the sequence $(\int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2})$ is bounded. Let $ν$ be a cluster point of the sequence of positive measures $(- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}$ . It follows from standard arguments that $(- φ) ω_{φ}^{2} \leq ν$ , hence, in particular, $φ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)$ .
Indeed we can find smooth $ω$ -psh functions $(φ_{j}^{ɛ})_{ɛ > 0}$ that decrease towards $φ_{j}$ as $ɛ ↘ 0$ . Let $χ \geq 0$ be a test function, then for $j \geq p$ , we obtain $< (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}, χ > \geq < (- φ_{p}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}, χ > \geq < (- φ_{p}^{ɛ}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}, χ >,$ thus $< ν, χ > \geq < (- φ_{p}^{ɛ}) ω_{φ}^{2}, χ > \overset{ɛ \to 0}{⟶} < - φ_{p} ω_{φ}^{2}, χ > \overset{p \to + \infty}{⟶} < - φ ω_{φ}^{2}, χ >,$ by the monotone convergence theorem. We now show that $ν$ and $(- φ) ω_{φ}^{2}$ have the same mass. This will prove that $ν = (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2}$ is the unique cluster point, hence $φ_{j} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \to φ ω_{φ}^{2}$ . Since $- φ_{j} \leq - φ$ , it follows from Stokes theorem that $\int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} = \int_{X} (φ_{j} - φ) ω \land ω_{φ_{j}} + \int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ} \land ω_{φ_{j}} .$ The first integral converges to $0$ since $| | φ_{j} - φ | |_{W^{1, 2}} \to 0$ . We estimate the last one by using Stokes theorem again, $\int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ} \land ω_{φ_{j}} \leq \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω_{φ_{j}} \leq \int_{X} (φ_{j} - φ) ω \land ω_{φ} + \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2} .$ Since $\int_{X} (φ_{j} - φ) ω \land ω_{φ} \to 0$ , we infer $ν (X) \leq limsup \int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2} .$ Conversely if $φ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)$ , the proof above shows that ${limsup}_{j \to + \infty} \int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2} < + \infty,$ hence the sequence $(\int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2})$ is bounded and $φ_{j} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \to φ ω_{φ}^{2}$ . □

We shall make constant use of theorem 3.1 in what follows. Indeed every function

φ \in ℰ^{1}

is the decreasing limit of a sequence of smooth functions

φ_{j} \in ℰ^{1}

such that

\int (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}

is bounded. We can thus perform integration by parts in the class

ℰ^{1}

by working first with smooth approximants. This will be implicit in our forthcoming computations.

Proposition 3.2. 1) Let

φ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

φ \leq 0

, then

\int_{X} (- φ) ω^{2} \leq \int_{X} (- φ) ω \land ω_{φ} \leq \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2} .

2) If

φ, ψ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

then

ℰ^{1} (X, ω) \subset L^{1} (ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ})

3) The set

ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

is a star-shaped convex.

4) Assume

φ, ψ \in P S H (X, ω)

with

φ \leq ψ

. If

φ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

then

ψ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

. In particular

ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

is stable under taking maximum.

5) Let

φ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

φ \leq 0

. If

φ \in L^{2} (ω_{φ} \land ω)

, then

d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{φ}

is a well defined positive measure whose total mass is bounded by

\int_{X} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{φ} \leq \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2} .

Proof. Let

φ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

with

φ \leq 0

. Assume first that

φ

is smoooth.

Observing that

d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{φ}

is a positive measure, we infer from Stokes theorem that

\int_{X} (- φ) ω \land ω_{φ} \leq \int_{X} (- φ) ω \land ω_{φ} + \int_{X} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{φ} = \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2} .

A similar use of Stokes theorem yields the second inequality. The general case now follows by regularizing

φ

and by using theorems 2.1 and 3.1. This proves 1).

Let

φ, ψ, u \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

. That

ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ}

is a well defined probability measure follows from proposition 1.3. We can assume, w.l.o.g. that

φ, ψ, u \leq 0

. We are going to show that

u \in L^{1} (ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ})

by proving

\int_{X} (- u) ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ} \leq 6 M, M : = max (\int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2} \int_{X} (- ψ) ω_{ψ}^{2}; \int_{X} (- u) ω_{u}^{2}) .

By theorem 3.1 we can assume

φ, ψ, u

are smooth. Observe first that by Stokes theorem,

\begin{matrix} \int (- u) ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ} = \int (- u) ω \land ω_{ψ} + \int d u \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{ψ} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \int (- u) ω \land ω_{ψ} + {(\int d u \land d^{c} u \land ω_{ψ})}^{1 / 2} \cdot {(\int d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{ψ})}^{1 / 2}, \end{matrix}

where the last inequality follows from Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Now

\int d u \land d^{c} u \land ω_{ψ} = \int (- u) d d^{c} u \land ω_{ψ} \leq \int (- u) ω_{u} \land ω_{ψ} .

On the other hand it follows from Cauchy-Schwarz inequality again together with 3.2.1 that

\int (- u) ω \land ω_{ψ} = \int (- u) ω^{2} + \int d u \land d^{c} ψ \land ω \leq 2 M .

It suffices therefore to prove

\int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ} \leq 4 M

We decompose again

ω_{ψ} = ω + d d^{c} ψ

and integrate by parts to obtain

\int (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ} \leq M + M^{1 / 2} {(\int (- ψ) ω_{ψ} \land ω_{φ})}^{1 / 2} .

\int (- ψ) ω_{ψ} \land ω_{φ} \leq M

we are done, otherwise this yields

\begin{matrix} \int (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ} \leq 2 M^{1 / 2} {(\int (- ψ) ω_{ψ} \land ω_{φ})}^{1 / 2} . \end{matrix}

(4)

Similarly we obtain

\int (- ψ) ω_{ψ} \land ω_{φ} \leq M + M^{1 / 2} {(\int (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ})}^{1 / 2} .

Either

\int (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ} \leq M

and we are done, or this yields

\begin{matrix} \int (- ψ) ω_{ψ} \land ω_{φ} \leq 2 M^{1 / 2} {(\int (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ})}^{1 / 2} . \end{matrix}

(5)

Finally (4) and (5) yield the upper-bound

\int (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ} \leq 4 M

. This ends the proof of 2).

Now 3) follows straightforwardly from 2), as in the proof of proposition 1.2.2. We turn to 4). Assume

φ \leq ψ \leq 0

with

φ \in ℰ^{1}

. Then

\begin{matrix} 0 \leq \int (- ψ) ω_{ψ}^{2} & \leq & \int (- φ) ω_{ψ}^{2} = \int (- φ) ω \land ω_{ψ} + \int (- ψ) d d^{c} φ \land ω_{ψ} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \int (- φ) ω \land ω_{ψ} + \int (- φ) ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ} . \end{matrix}

Going on integrating by parts, using

d d^{c} φ \leq ω_{φ}

- ψ \leq - φ

and 4.2.1, we end up with

0 \leq \int_{X} (- ψ) ω_{ψ}^{2} \leq 4 \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2},

which proves 4).

It remains to prove 5). Let

φ_{j}

be smooth approximants of

φ

and compute

d φ_{j} \land d^{c} φ_{j} \land ω_{φ_{j}} = (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} - (- φ_{j}) ω \land ω_{φ_{j}} - d d^{c} (\frac{1}{2} φ_{j}^{2} ω_{φ_{j}})

Thanks to theorem 3.1, all the terms on the right hand side converge if

φ \in ℰ^{1}

and

φ \in L^{2} (ω \land ω_{φ})

. This shows that the measure

d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{φ}

is well defined in this case. Note that it is positive as a limit of positive measures. Moreover if

φ \leq 0

, then

(- φ) ω \land ω_{φ} \geq 0

, hence

\int_{X} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{φ} \leq \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2} .

□

Similar arguments as above now yield the following continuity result, whose proof is left to the reader.

Theorem 3.3. The operator

(φ, ψ, u) \mapsto u ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ}

is continuous under decreasing sequences in

ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

There is uniqueness of solutions to the Monge-Ampère equation in the class

ℰ^{1}

as the following result shows.

Theorem 3.4 (Uniqueness). Let

φ, ψ \in ℰ (X, ω)

be such that

ω_{φ}^{2} \equiv ω_{ψ}^{2}

φ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

, then

φ - ψ

is constant.

Proof. We first assume that

ψ

belongs to

ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

as well. Set

f = φ - ψ

and

h = (φ + ψ) / 2 \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

(proposition 3.2). We assume w.l.o.g.

φ, ψ \leq 0

We are going to prove that

\nabla f = 0

by establishing the following inequality

\begin{matrix} (†) \int_{X} d f \land d^{c} f \land ω \leq \int_{X} d f \land d^{c} f \land ω_{h} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + 4 {(\int_{X} d f \land d^{c} f \land ω_{h})}^{1 / 2} \cdot {(\int_{X} d h \land d^{c} h \land ω_{h})}^{1 / 2} . \end{matrix}

Observe that each integral on the right hand side is finite thanks to proposition 3.2 if

φ \in L^{2} (ω_{φ} \land ω)

and

ψ \in L^{2} (ω_{ψ} \land ω)

. Observe also that this yields the desired result in this case since

\int_{X} d f \land d^{c} f \land ω_{h} = \int_{X} (- f) d d^{c} f \land ω_{h} = \frac{1}{2} \int_{X} (- f) (ω_{φ}^{2} - ω_{ψ}^{2}) = 0,

ω_{φ}^{2} \equiv ω_{ψ}^{2}

.When

φ / \in L^{2} (ω_{φ} \land ω)

ψ / \in L^{2} (ω_{ψ} \land ω)

,we use smooth approximants

φ_{j}, ψ_{j}

and observe that

\int_{X} d h_{j} \land d^{c} h_{j} \land ω_{h_{j}} \leq \int_{X} (- h_{j}) ω_{h_{j}}^{2} \leq 4 \int_{X} (- h) ω_{h}^{2}

and

\int_{X} d f_{j} \land d^{c} f_{j} \land ω_{h_{j}} = \frac{1}{2} \int_{X} (ψ_{j} - φ_{j}) (ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} - ω_{ψ_{j}}^{2}) ⟶ 0

as follows from theorem 3.3.

We now establish

(†)

. Note that

d f \land d^{c} f \land ω = d f \land d^{c} f \land ω_{h} - d f \land d^{c} f \land d d^{c} h

, hence integrating by parts in the last term yields

\int_{X} d f \land d^{c} f \land ω = \int_{X} d f \land d^{c} f \land ω_{h} + \int_{X} d f \land d^{c} h \land (ω_{φ} - ω_{ψ}) .

Now it follows from Cauchy-Schwarz inequality that

| \int_{X} d f \land d^{c} h \land ω_{φ} | \leq 2 {(\int_{X} d f \land d^{c} f \land ω_{h})}^{1 / 2} \cdot {(\int_{X} d h \land d^{c} h \land ω_{h})}^{1 / 2} .

A similar control on

\int_{X} d f \land d^{c} f \land ω_{ψ}

yields

(†)

It remains to prove that

ψ

indeed belongs to

ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

. We can assume

ψ, φ \leq 0

. Observe first that

ψ \in L^{1} (ω_{ψ} \land ω_{φ})

0 \leq \int_{X} (- ψ) ω_{ψ} \land ω_{φ} = \int_{X} (φ - ψ) ω_{ψ} \land ω + \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{ψ}^{2} < + \infty

since

ω_{ψ}^{2} \equiv ω_{φ}^{2}

and

φ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

. We infer

\begin{matrix} \int_{X} (- ψ) ω_{ψ}^{2} = \int_{X} (- ψ) ω_{φ}^{2} = \int_{X} (- ψ) ω \land ω_{φ} + \int_{X} (- ψ) d d^{c} φ \land ω_{φ} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \int_{X} (- ψ) ω \land ω_{φ} + {(\int_{X} d ψ \land d^{c} ψ \land ω_{φ})}^{1 / 2} \cdot {(\int_{X} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{φ})}^{1 / 2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \int_{X} (- ψ) ω \land ω_{φ} + {(\int_{X} (- ψ) ω_{ψ} \land ω_{φ})}^{1 / 2} \cdot {(\int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2})}^{1 / 2} < + \infty . \end{matrix}

□

Remark 3.5. The idea of the proof of this uniqueness result goes back to E.Calabi [8] who used the positivity of

d f \land d^{c} f \land (ω_{φ} + ω_{ψ})

when

ω_{φ}, ω_{ψ}

are Kähler forms. The proof given above is a variation on an argument of Z.Blocki [6] who proved the uniqueness in case

φ, ψ

are bounded.

The next lemma will be quite useful in section 6. It gives a necessary condition for a probability measure to be the Monge-Ampère of a function that belongs to the class

ℰ^{1}

Lemma 3.6. Let

μ

be a probability measure on

X

. Then

ℰ^{1} (X, ω) \subset L^{1} (μ)

if and only if there exists

C_{μ} > 0

such that for all functions

φ \in P S H (X, ω) \cap L^{\infty} (X)

normalized by

{sup}_{X} φ = - 1

, one has

0 \leq \int_{X} (- φ) d μ \leq C_{μ} {(\int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2})}^{1 / 2} .

Proof. One direction is obvious. If there is such an inequality for all bounded

ω

-psh functions, then the inclusion

ℰ^{1} \subset L^{1} (μ)

follows from theorem 3.1.

Conversely assume the inequality is not satisfied, i.e. for all

j \in N

, one can find a bounded

ω

-psh function

φ_{j}

such that

{sup}_{X} φ_{j} = - 1

and

\int (- φ_{j}) d μ > 2^{j} {(\int (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2})}^{1 / 2} .

Assume first that the sequence

\int (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq M

is uniformly bounded from above. We set then

ψ : = \sum_{j \geq 1} 2^{- j} φ_{j}

. This is a well defined

ω

-psh function (as a decreasing sequence of

ω

-psh functions which does not converge uniformly towards

- \infty

thanks to the normalisation

{sup}_{X} φ_{j} = - 1

). Now it follows from the estimate in the proof of proposition 3.2.1 that

\int_{X} (- ψ) ω_{ψ}^{2} \leq 6 {sup}_{j \geq 1} \int_{X} (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} < + \infty

hence

ψ \in ℰ^{1}

, while

\int (- ψ) d μ = + \infty

by the monotone convergence theorem.

Assume now

M_{j} : = \int (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \to + \infty

. We set

ψ_{j} : = ɛ_{j} φ_{j}

, where

ɛ_{j} = M_{j}^{- 1 / 2}

is chosen so that

\int (- ψ_{j}) ω_{ψ_{j}}^{2} \leq M

is uniformly bounded. Indeed a straightforward computation yields

\begin{matrix} \int (- ψ_{j}) ω_{ψ_{j}}^{2} & \leq & ɛ_{j} \int (- φ_{j}) ω^{2} + 2 ɛ_{j}^{2} \int (- φ_{j}) ω \land ω_{φ_{j}} + ɛ_{j}^{3} \int (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≼ & ɛ_{j}^{2} \int (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq M, \end{matrix}

because

\int (- φ_{j}) ω^{2}

is uniformly bounded since

{sup}_{X} φ_{j} = - 1

and

\int (- φ_{j}) ω \land ω_{φ_{j}} \leq \int (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}

. We set now

ψ : = \sum 2^{- j} ψ_{j}

. This is a well defined function in

ℰ^{1}

such that

\int (- ψ_{j}) d μ = ɛ_{j} \int (- φ_{j}) d μ > 2^{j} ɛ_{j} {(\int (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2})}^{1 / 2} = 2^{j} .

Thus

\int (- ψ) d μ = + \infty

, so that

ℰ^{1}

is not included in

L^{1} (μ)

. □

When

μ = ω_{ψ}^{2}

is the Monge-Ampère of a function

ψ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

, it follows from proposition 3.2 that

ℰ^{1} (X, ω) \subset L^{1} (μ)

, hence there exists

C_{ψ} > 0

such that for all functions

φ \in P S H (X, ω) \cap L^{\infty} (X)

normalized by

{sup}_{X} φ = - 1

, one has

0 \leq \int_{X} (- φ) ω_{ψ}^{2} \leq C_{ψ} {[\int_{X} (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2}]}^{1 / 2} .

4 The classes $ℰ^{p} (X, ω)$

In this section we fix a real number

p \geq 1

Definition 4.1. We let

ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

denote the set of functions

φ \in ℰ (X, ω)

such that there exists a sequence

φ_{j} \in P S H (X, ω) \cap L^{\infty} (X)

with

φ_{j} ↘ φ and {sup}_{j \in N} (\int_{X} | φ_{j} |^{p} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}) < + \infty .

When no confusion can arise, we shall simply denote

ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

ℰ^{p}

Similar classes were introduced by U.Cegrell in the local context [9] as generalizations of the classical notion of subharmonic functions of finite energy. Observe that

ℰ (X, ω) = ℰ^{0} (X, ω) \supset ℰ^{p} (X, ω) \supset ℰ^{q} (X, ω)

whenever

p \leq q

. When

p = 1

this definition is equivalent to the one we gave in section 3, thanks to theorem 3.1. When

p > 1

we of course get the inclusion

ℰ^{p} (X, ω) \subset {φ \in ℰ (X, ω) / φ \in L^{p} (ω_{φ}^{2})},

however the reverse inclusion is not clear: we don't know how to produce a decreasing sequence with uniformly bounded energies. Indeed a delicate point in the analysis of the classes

ℰ^{p}

is that we don't know if a continuity result similar to theorem 3.1 still holds. We shall prove a weaker property in theorem 4.4 below, but we need first to establish some useful inequalities.

Lemma 4.2. Let

φ, ψ \in P S H (X, ω) \cap L^{\infty} (X)

with

φ \leq ψ \leq 0

. Then 1)

0 \leq \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω^{2} \leq \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω \land ω_{φ} \leq \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2}

0 \leq \int_{X} (- ψ)^{p} ω \land ω_{ψ} \leq (p + 1) \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω \land ω_{φ}

0 \leq \int_{X} (- ψ)^{p} ω_{ψ}^{2} \leq (p + 1)^{2} \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2} .

Proof. It suffices to establish these inequalities when

φ, ψ

are smooth. Indeed one can approximate

φ

ψ

by decreasing sequences of smooth

ω

-psh functions and then use classical continuity results of E.Bedford and A.Taylor [5].

In the sequel we thus assume

φ, ψ

are smooth. Observe that

d φ \land d^{c} φ \land T

is a positive measure whenever

T

is a smooth

(1, 1)

-form. It follows therefore from Stokes theorem that

\int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2} = \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω \land ω_{φ} + p \int_{X} (- φ)^{p - 1} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{φ} \geq \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω \land ω_{φ}

and, similarly,

\int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω \land ω_{φ} = \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω^{2} + p \int_{X} (- φ)^{p - 1} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω \geq \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω^{2} .

This proves 1). Now observe that

- d d^{c} (- φ)^{p} = p (- φ)^{p - 1} d d^{c} φ - p (p - 1) (- φ)^{p - 2} d φ \land d^{c} φ \leq p (- φ)^{p - 1} ω_{φ} .

It follows therefore from Stokes theorem that

\begin{matrix} \int (- ψ)^{p} ω \land ω_{ψ} & \leq & \int (- φ)^{p} ω \land ω_{ψ} = \int (- φ)^{p} ω^{2} + \int (- ψ) [- d d^{c} (- φ)^{p}] \land ω \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \int (- φ)^{p} ω^{2} + p \int (- φ)^{p} ω \land ω_{φ} \leq (p + 1) \int (- φ)^{p} ω \land ω_{φ}, \end{matrix}

which proves 2). The proof of the third inequality is similar and is left to the reader. □

Corollary 4.3. Let

φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

. Let

ψ_{j} \in P S H (X, ω) \cap L^{\infty} (X)

be any sequence decreasing towards

φ

. Then

{sup}_{j \in N} (\int_{X} | ψ_{j} |^{p} ω_{ψ_{j}}^{2}) < + \infty .

Proof. Let $φ_{j}$ be a sequence of bounded $ω$ -psh functions which decreases towards $φ$ and with bounded energies. We can assume w.l.o.g. that $φ_{j}, ψ_{k} \leq 0$ for all $j, k$ . We fix $k$ and consider the sequence $Φ_{j} : = max (φ_{j}, ψ_{k}) \in P S H (X, ω) \cap L^{\infty}$ . This is a sequence of uniformly bounded $ω$ -psh functions such that $Φ_{j} ↓ ψ_{k}$ as $j \to + \infty$ . It follows therefore from classical continuity results of Bedford and Taylor that $(- Φ_{j})^{p} ω_{Φ_{j}}^{2} \to (- ψ_{k})^{p} ω_{ψ_{k}}^{2}$ . Now $Φ_{j} \geq φ_{j}$ , so it follows from lemma 4.2 that $\int_{X} (- ψ_{k}) ω_{ψ_{k}}^{2} = {lim}_{j \to + \infty} \int_{X} (- Φ_{j})^{p} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq (p + 1)^{2} {sup}_{j \geq 1} \int_{X} (- φ_{j})^{p} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} .$ □

Recall that a sequence of

ω

-psh functions

(φ_{j})

converges in capacity towards

φ \in P S H (X, ω)

if for all

ɛ > 0

C a p_{ω} (| φ_{j} - φ | > ɛ) ⟶ 0 .

Following [25] we now show that convergence in capacity implies convergence of Monge-Ampère operators.

Theorem 4.4. Let

φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

and let

(φ_{j})

be a sequence of

ω

-psh functions that converges in capacity towards

φ

. If

sup (\int | φ_{j} |^{p} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}) < + \infty

, then for all

q < p

φ_{j} \in ℰ^{q} (X, ω)

and

(- φ_{j})^{q} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} ⟶ (- φ)^{q} ω_{φ}^{2} .

Proof. The result is true, even with $q = p$ , when the functions $φ_{j}$ are uniformly bounded (see [25]). We are going to reduce to that case by considering $φ^{(k)} : = max (φ, - k) and φ_{j}^{(k)} : = max (φ_{j}, - k) .$ Let $χ$ be a test function. We want to show that $< (- φ_{j})^{q} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}, χ > \to < (- φ)^{q} ω_{φ}^{2}, χ >$ . Decomposing in the obvious way, this boils down to establish good upper bounds on $\int_{(φ_{j} \leq - k)} (- φ_{j})^{q} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}, \int_{(φ_{j} \leq - k)} (- φ_{j}^{(k)})^{q} ω_{φ_{j}^{(k)}}^{2}, \int_{(φ \leq - k)} (- φ^{(k)})^{q} ω_{φ^{(k)}}^{2}$ that are uniform in $j$ . By Chebyshev inequality we get $\int_{(φ_{j} \leq - k)} (- φ_{j})^{q} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq \frac{1}{k^{p - q}} \int_{X} (- φ_{j})^{q} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq \frac{C}{k^{p - q}} .$ We make a similar use of Chebyshev inequality on the two other integrals.
Now it follows from lemma 4.2 and corollary 4.3 that $\int_{X} {(- φ_{j}^{(k)})}^{q} ω_{φ_{j}^{(k)}}^{2}, \int_{X} {(- φ^{(k)})}^{q} ω_{φ^{(k)}}^{2} \leq (p + 1)^{2} \int_{X} (- φ_{j})^{q} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} .$ □

Note that if

φ_{j} \in P S H (X, ω) \cap L^{\infty} (X)

decreases towards

φ

, then

φ_{j}

converges towards

φ

in capacity with

sup \int | φ_{j} |^{p} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} < + \infty

(by corollary 4.3). It follows therefore from theorem 4.4 that lemma 4.2 holds whenever

φ, ψ

are in

ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

Corollary 4.5. Lemma 4.2 holds with

φ, ψ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

. In particular

ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

is stable under taking maximum.

Proof. Theorem 4.4 and lemma 4.2 show that lemma 4.2 holds for any exponent $q < p$ and for any fixed function $φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)$ . Now letting $q$ increase towards $p$ yields the conclusion thanks to the monotone convergence theorem. This shows in particular that if $φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω))$ and $φ \leq ψ$ , $ψ \in P S H (X, ω)$ , then $ψ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω))$ . Thus $ℰ^{p} (X, ω))$ is stable under taking maximum. □

Proposition 4.6. 1) If

φ, ψ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

, then the probability measure

ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ}

satisfies

ℰ^{p} (X, ω) \subset L^{p} (ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ}) .

2) The set

ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

is a star-shaped convex.

3) If

φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

is such that

φ \in L^{p + 1} (ω \land ω_{φ})

, then the positive measure

(- φ)^{p - 1} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{φ}

is well defined and has total mass

\int_{X} (- φ)^{p - 1} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{φ} \leq \frac{1}{p} \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2} .

Proof. Assume

φ, ψ \in ℰ^{p}

. In particular

φ, ψ \in ℰ

ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ}

is a well defined probability measure. Let

u \in ℰ^{p}

; we assume w.l.o.g.

u, φ, ψ \leq 0

. We are going to give an upper bound on

\int (- u)^{p} ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ}

which only depends on

\int (- u)^{p} ω_{u}^{2}

\int (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2}

\int (- ψ)^{p} ω_{ψ}^{2}

. Using theorem 4.4 it suffices to establish this bound when

u, φ, ψ

are smooth. Recall that

- d d^{c} (- u)^{p} \leq p (- u)^{p - 1} ω_{u}

and

\int (- u)^{p} ω \land ω_{ψ} \leq \int (- u)^{p} ω_{u} \land ω_{ψ}

, so it follows from Stokes theorem and Hölder inequality that

\begin{matrix} \int & (- u)^{p} ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ} = \int (- u)^{p} ω \land ω_{ψ} + \int (- φ) [- d d^{c} (- u)^{p}] \land ω_{ψ} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & (p + 1) {[\int (- u)^{p} ω_{u} \land ω_{ψ}]}^{1 - 1 / p} {[max {\int (- u)^{p} ω_{u} \land ω_{ψ}; \int (- φ)^{p} ω_{u} \land ω_{ψ}}]}^{1 / p} . \end{matrix}

Reversing the roles of

u, φ

we infer

\int (- u)^{p} ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ} \leq (p + 1)^{\frac{p}{p - 1}} max [\int (- u)^{p} ω_{u} \land ω_{ψ}; \int (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ}] .

Thus it suffices to get an upper bound when

u = φ

. We set

M : = max [\int (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2}; \int (- ψ)^{p} ω_{ψ}^{2}] .

We use our last inequality with

u = ψ

to obtain

\int (- ψ)^{p} ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ} \leq (p + 1) M^{1 - 1 / p} {[max {M; \int (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ}}]}^{1 / p} .

Reversing the roles of

φ

and

ψ

, this yields

\int (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ} \land ω_{ψ} \leq (p + 1)^{\frac{p}{p - 1}} M,

which proves 1).

As in the proof of proposition 1.3.2,we infer straightforwardly from 1) that

ℰ^{p}

is a star-shaped convex. When

φ \in L^{p + 1} (ω \land ω_{φ})

, the positive current

(- φ)^{p + 1} ω_{φ}

is well defined and we compute

\frac{1}{(p + 1)} d d^{c} [(- φ)^{p + 1} ω_{φ}] = p (- φ)^{p - 1} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{φ} - (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2} + (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ} \land ω .

This allows us to define

(- φ)^{p - 1} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{φ}

as soon as

p > 0

. It then follows from Stokes theorem that

\int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2} = p \int_{X} (- φ)^{p - 1} d φ \land d^{c} φ \land ω_{φ} + \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ} \land ω,

which yields the desired upper bound 3). □

The next lemma is analogous to lemma 3.6; it will be quite useful in section 5 as it gives a necessary condition for a probability measure to be the Monge-Ampère of a function that belongs to

ℰ^{p}

Lemma 4.7. Let

μ

be a probability measure on

X

. Then

ℰ^{p} (X, ω) \subset L^{p} (μ)

if and only if there exists

C > 0

such that for all functions

φ \in P S H (X, ω) \cap L^{\infty} (X)

normalized by

{sup}_{X} φ = - 1

, one has

0 \leq \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} d μ \leq C {(\int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2})}^{\frac{p}{p + 1}} .

The proof is very similar to that of lemmas 3.6. We leave it to the reader.

We end this section with a result that will be crucial when solving Monge-Ampère equations in the next section.

Theorem 4.8. Let

φ_{j} \leq 0

be a sequence of functions in

ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

such that

{sup}_{j \in N} \int_{X} (- φ_{j})^{p} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} < + \infty .

Assume

φ_{j} \to φ

L^{1} (X)

. Then

φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

If moreover

\int_{X} | φ_{j} - φ | ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \to 0

, then

ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \to ω_{φ}^{2}

Proof. The bounded $ω$ -psh functions $ψ_{j} : = {({sup}_{k \geq j} max [φ_{k}, - k])}^{*}$ decrease towards $φ$ . Since $ψ_{j} \geq φ_{j}$ , it follows from corollary 4.5 that ${sup}_{j} \int (- ψ_{j})^{p} ω_{ψ_{j}}^{2} < + \infty$ , therefore $φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)$ .
We assume now that $\int | φ_{j} - φ | ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \to 0$ . Passing to a subsequence if necessary, we can assume $\int | φ_{j} - φ | ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq 1 / j^{2}$ . Consider $Φ_{j} : = max (φ_{j}, φ - 1 / j) \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω) .$ It follows from Hartogs' lemma that $Φ_{j} \to φ$ in capacity, hence $ω_{Φ_{j}}^{2} \to ω_{φ}^{2}$ by theorem 4.4. Thus we need to compare $ω_{Φ_{j}}^{2}$ and $ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}$ . It follows from a classical inequality of J.-P. Demailly [11] that $ω_{Φ_{j}}^{2} \geq 1_{{φ_{j} \geq φ - 1 / j}} \cdot ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} .$ Let $E_{j}$ denote the set $X \ {φ_{j} \geq φ - 1 / j}$ , i.e. $E_{j} = {φ - φ_{j} > 1 / j}$ . Our assumption implies that $1_{E_{j}} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \to 0$ , indeed $0 \leq \int_{E_{j}} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq j \int_{X} | φ - φ_{j} | ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq \frac{1}{j} .$ Therefore $0 \leq ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq ω_{Φ_{j}}^{2} + o (1)$ , hence $ω_{φ}^{2} = lim ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}$ . □

5 Range of the complex Monge-Ampere operator

In this section we prove our main result. This is the following

Theorem 5.1. Let

μ

be a probability measure on

X

and

p \geq 1

Then there exists a unique function

ψ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

such that

μ = ω_{ψ}^{2} and {sup}_{X} ψ = - 1

if and only if

ℰ^{p} (X, ω) \subset L^{p} (μ)

This result follows straightforwardly from lemmas 3.6, 4.7 together with the following theorem (applied with

α = p / (p + 1)

Theorem 5.2. Fix

p \geq 1

0 < α < 1

and

C > 0

. Let

μ

be a probability measure such that for all functions

φ \in P S H (X, ω) \cap L^{\infty} (X)

with

{sup}_{X} φ = - 1

, one has

0 \leq \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} d μ \leq C {(\int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2})}^{α} .

Then there exists a unique function

ψ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

s.t.

μ = ω_{ψ}^{2}

{sup}_{X} ψ = - 1

The uniqueness of the solution

ψ

, once normalized by

{sup}_{X} ψ = - 1

, follows from theorem 3.4. The proof of the existence will occupy the rest of this section. The strategy of the proof is as follows:

$∙$ We approximate $μ$ by smooth probability volume forms $μ_{j}$ using local convolutions and a partition of unity.
$∙$ We invoke Aubin-Yau's solution of the Calabi conjecture to find uniquely determined $ω$ -psh functions $φ_{j}$ such that $μ_{j} = ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}$ and ${sup}_{X} φ_{j} = - 1$ .
$∙$ Since $ω$ -psh functions $φ$ normalized by ${sup}_{X} φ = - 1$ form a compact subset of $L^{1} (X)$ , we can assume that $φ_{j} \to φ$ in $L^{1} (X)$ .
$∙$ The integrability condition on $μ$ guarantees ${sup}_{j} \int (- φ_{j})^{p} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} < + \infty$ , hence yields $φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)$ .
$∙$ The delicate point is then to show that $ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \to ω_{φ}^{2}$ . This is done by showing that $\int | φ_{j} - φ | d μ_{j} \to 0$ and invoking theorem 4.8. here we use the integrability assumption again with $p > 1$ in order to show first that $\int φ_{j} d μ \to \int φ d μ$ .
$∙$ The case $p = 1$ deserves special treatment.

Here follow the technical details. Let

{U_{i}}

be a finite covering of

X

by open sets

U_{i}

which are biholomorphic to the unit ball of

C^{2}

. In each

U_{i}

we let

μ_{ɛ}^{U_{i}} : = μ_{| U_{i}} * χ_{ɛ}

denote local regularization of

μ_{| U_{i}}

by means of convolution with radial nonnegative smooth approximations

χ_{ɛ}

of the Dirac mass. Let

{θ_{i}}

be a partition of unity subordinate to

{U_{i}}

and set

μ_{j} : = c_{j} [\sum_{i} θ_{i} μ_{ɛ_{j}}^{U_{i}} + ɛ_{j} ω^{n}],

where

ɛ_{j} ↘ 0

and

c_{j} ↗ 1

is chosen so that

μ_{j} (X) = 1

. Thus the

μ_{j}

's are smooth probability volume forms which converge weakly towards

μ

. It follows from the solution of the Calabi conjecture [1], [26], that there exists a unique function

φ_{j} \in P S H (X, ω) \cap C^{\infty} (X)

such that

μ_{j} = ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} and {sup}_{X} φ_{j} = - 1 .

Recall from proposition 1.7 in [15] that

ℱ : = {φ \in P S H (X, ω) / {sup}_{X} φ = - 1}

is a compact subset of

L^{1} (X)

. Passing to a subsequence if necessary, we can therefore assume

φ_{j} \to φ

L^{1} (X)

, where

φ \in P S H (X, ω)

with

{sup}_{X} φ = - 1

Lemma 5.3. There exists

C > 1

such that for all

j \in N

\int_{X} (- φ_{j})^{p} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq C \int_{X} (- φ_{j})^{p} d μ \leq C^{2} .

In particular

φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

Proof. Since $c_{j} \to 1$ and $ɛ_{j} \to 0$ , we can write $\int_{X} (- φ_{j})^{p} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} = \sum_{i} \int_{X} θ_{i} (- φ_{j})^{p} d μ_{ɛ_{j}}^{U_{i}} + o (1),$ where $\int_{X} θ_{i} (- φ_{j})^{p} d μ_{ɛ_{j}}^{U_{i}} = \int_{U_{i}} θ_{i} * χ_{ɛ_{j}} (- φ_{j} * χ_{ɛ_{j}})^{p} d μ + o (1) .$ Now $φ_{j} = u_{j}^{i} - γ_{i}$ in $U_{i}$ , where $γ_{i}$ is a smooth local potential of $ω$ in $U_{i}$ and $u_{j}^{i}$ is psh in $U_{i}$ . Therefore $- u_{i}^{i} * χ_{ɛ_{j}} \leq - u_{j}^{i}$ , while $γ_{i} * χ_{ɛ_{j}}$ and $θ_{i} * χ_{ɛ_{j}}$ both converge uniformly towards $γ_{i}$ and $θ_{i}$ . We infer $\int_{U_{i}} θ_{i} * χ_{ɛ_{j}} (- φ_{j} * χ_{ɛ_{j}})^{p} d μ \leq \int_{U_{i}} θ_{i} (- φ_{j})^{p} d μ + o (1)$ hence $\int (- φ_{j})^{p} d μ_{j} = \int (- φ_{j})^{p} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq \int (- φ_{j})^{p} d μ + o (1) .$ It follows now from the integrability assumption we made on $μ$ that ${sup}_{j \in N} {(\int_{X} (- φ_{j})^{p} ω_{φ_{j}}^{2})}^{1 - α} < + \infty,$ which yields the lemma. □

We now would like to apply theorem 4.8 to insure that

μ = ω_{φ}^{2}

. For this we need to assume

p > 1

in order to use the following:

Lemma 5.4. Assume

p > 1

. Then

\int_{X} φ_{j} d μ \to \int_{X} φ d μ and \int_{X} | φ_{j} - φ | d μ_{j} \to 0 .

Proof. When the $φ_{j}$ 's are uniformly bounded, the first convergence follows from standard arguments (see [9]). Set $φ_{j}^{(k)} : = max (φ_{j}, - k) and φ^{(k)} : = max (φ, - k) .$ We will be done with the first convergence if we can show that $\int | φ_{j}^{(k)} - φ_{j} | d μ \to 0$ uniformly in $j$ as $k \to + \infty$ . This is where we use the assumption $p > 1$ . Namely $0 \leq \int_{X} | φ_{j}^{(k)} - φ_{j} | d μ \leq 2 \int_{(φ_{j} < - k)} (- φ_{j}) d μ \leq \frac{2}{k^{p - 1}} \int_{X} (- φ_{j})^{p} d μ \leq \frac{C}{k^{p - 1}} .$ It remains to prove a similar convergence when $μ$ is replaced by $μ_{j}$ . It actually suffices to consider the case of measures $μ_{j}^{U} : = μ_{| U} * χ_{ɛ_{j}}$ . Now $\int_{U} | φ_{j} - φ | d μ_{j}^{U} = \int_{U} (\int_{U} | u_{j} (ζ) - u (ζ) | χ_{ɛ_{j}} (z - ζ) d λ (ζ)) d μ (z),$ where as above, $u_{j}$ , $u$ are psh functions in $U$ such that $φ_{j} = u_{j} - γ$ and $φ = u - γ$ in $U$ , $γ$ is a local potential of $ω$ in $U$ and $d λ$ denotes the Lebesgue measure in $U$ . The lemma will be proved if we can show that $\int w_{j} d μ \to 0$ , where $w_{j} (z) : = \int_{U} | u_{j} (ζ) - u (ζ) | χ_{ɛ_{j}} (z - ζ) d λ (ζ) .$ Define ${\tilde{u}}_{j} : = ({sup}_{k \geq j} u_{k})^{*}$ . This is a sequence of psh functions in $U$ which decrease towards $u$ . Observe that ${\tilde{u}}_{j} \geq max (u, u_{j})$ so that $w_{j} \leq 2 {\tilde{u}}_{j} * χ_{ɛ_{j}} - u * χ_{ɛ_{j}} - u_{j} * χ_{ɛ_{j}} \leq 2 ({\tilde{u}}_{j} * χ_{ɛ_{j}} - u) + (φ - φ_{j}) .$ It follows from the monotone convergence theorem that $\int ({\tilde{u}}_{j} * χ_{ɛ_{j}} - u) d μ \to 0$ , while $\int (φ_{j} - φ) d μ \to 0$ by the first part of lemma. Therefore $\int w_{j} d μ \to 0$ and we are done. □

It follows from previous lemma and theorem 4.6 that

μ = ω_{φ}^{2}

. This proves theorem 5.2 when

p > 1

. Assume now

p = 1

. Following an idea of U.Cegrell [9] we consider the set

C

of probability measures

ν

such that for all

φ \in P S H (X, ω) \cap L^{\infty} (X, ω)

{sup}_{X} φ = - 1

, one has

0 \leq \int_{X} (- φ)^{2} d ν \leq C_{0} {(\int_{X} (- φ)^{2} ω_{φ}^{2})}^{1 / 2},

where

C_{0} = C_{0} (X, ω)

is the constant given by lemma 5.5 below. The set

C

is a convex compact set of probability measures which contains all measures

ω_{u}^{2}

, where

u \in P S H (X, ω)

is such that

- 1 \leq u \leq 0

: this is the contents of lemma 5.5 below. It follows from a generalization of Radon-Nikodym theorem [21] that one can decompose

μ = f ν + σ, where ν \in C, f \in L^{1} (ν) and σ \in C^{⊥} .

Now

σ

is carried by a pluripolar set because

C

contains all the measures

ω_{u}^{2}

- 1 \leq u \leq 0

, and

μ

does not charge pluripolar sets because

ℰ^{1} (X, ω) \subset L^{1} (μ)

, thus

σ = 0

. Consider

μ_{j} : = δ_{j} min (f, j) ν,

where

δ_{j} ↘ 1

so that

μ_{j} (X) = 1

. It follows from theorem 5.2 (case

p = 2

) that there exists a unique

φ_{j} \in ℰ^{2} (X, ω)

with

{sup}_{X} φ_{j} = - 1

and

μ_{j} = ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}

We can assume

φ_{j} \to φ

L^{1} (X)

. Now

\int (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} \leq δ_{j} \int (- φ_{j}) d μ \leq C δ_{j} {[(- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2}]}^{α},

so that

{sup}_{j} \int (- φ_{j}) ω_{φ_{j}}^{2} < + \infty

hence

φ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

(see theorem 4.8). We set

Φ_{j} : = ({sup}_{k \geq j} φ_{k})^{*} and F_{j} : = {inf}_{k \geq j} δ_{k} min (f, k) .

Clearly

Φ_{j} \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

with

Φ_{j} ↘ φ

and

F_{j} ↗ f

. It follows from a classical inequality of J.-P.Demailly [11] that

ω_{Φ_{j}}^{2} \geq F_{j} ν .

We infer

ω_{φ}^{2} \geq μ

, whence equality since these are both probability measures.

This finishes the proof of theorem 5.2.

Lemma 5.5. There exists

C_{0} = C_{0} (X, ω) > 1

such that for all

φ \in P S H (X, ω)

{sup}_{X} φ = - 1

, and for all

u \in P S H (X, ω) \cap L^{\infty} (X)

- 1 \leq u \leq 0

, one has

0 \leq \int_{X} (- φ)^{2} ω_{u}^{2} \leq C_{0} {(\int_{X} (- φ)^{2} ω_{φ}^{2})}^{1 / 2} .

Proof. It follows from Stokes theorem and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality that

\begin{matrix} \int (- φ)^{2} ω_{u}^{2} - \int (- φ)^{2} ω^{2} & \leq & 2 \int (- φ) (- u) ω_{φ} \land [ω + ω_{u}] \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & 2 \sqrt{2} {(\int (- φ)^{2} ω_{φ} \land [ω + ω_{u}])}^{1 / 2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & 2 \sqrt{2} {(2 \int (- φ)^{2} ω_{φ}^{2} + \int (- φ)^{2} ω_{φ} \land d d^{c} u)}^{1 / 2} . \end{matrix}

Now

\int (- φ)^{2} ω_{φ} \land d d^{c} u \leq 2 \int (- u) (- φ) ω_{φ}^{2} \leq 2 \int (- φ)^{2} ω_{φ}^{2}

and

\int (- φ)^{2} ω^{2}

is bounded from above by a uniform constant that only depends on

X, ω

, since we have normalized

φ

{sup}_{X} φ = - 1

. The lemma follows. □

6 Capacity of sublevel sets

In this section we want to connect the condition

φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

to the size of the sublevel sets

(φ < - t)

measured by the complex Monge-Ampère capacity

C a p_{ω}

: the smaller

(φ < - t)

, the better the exponent

p

for which

φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

. This will allow us to give several examples of unbounded functions

φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

, as well as examples of probability measures

μ

such that

ℰ^{p} (X, ω) \subset L^{p} (μ)

. The basic tool to establish this connection is the comparison principle which we now recall (see [20] for a proof ).

Proposition 6.1. Let

φ, ψ \in P S H (X, ω) \cap L^{\infty} (X)

. Then

\int_{(φ < ψ)} ω_{ψ}^{2} \leq \int_{(φ < ψ)} ω_{φ}^{2} .

As earlier

p

denotes a real number

\geq 1

and

ω

-psh functions

φ

are normalized so that

{sup}_{X} φ = - 1

(unless otherwise specified). We set

e_{p} (φ) : = \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2} + 2 \int_{X} (- φ)^{p + 1} ω \land ω_{φ} + \int_{X} (- φ)^{p + 2} ω^{2} .

This is a well defined quantity as soon as

φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

and

φ \in L^{p + 1} (ω \land ω_{φ})

, for instance when

φ \in ℰ^{p + 1} (X, ω)

. In the sequel we shall say that a function

h \geq 1

belongs to

L^{q} (C a p_{ω})

if the following integral converges

0 \leq \int_{X} h^{q} d C a p_{ω} : = q \int_{1}^{+ \infty} t^{q - 1} C a p_{ω} (h > t) d t < + \infty .

The following lemma establishes the basic connection between capacity of sublevel sets and the energy

e_{p} (φ)

Lemma 6.2. Assume

φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω) \cap L^{p + 1} (ω \land ω_{φ})

is normalized so that

{sup}_{X} φ = - 1

. Then

\frac{p + 2}{p} \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2} \leq \int_{X} (- φ)^{p + 2} d C a p_{ω} \leq 2^{p + 2} e_{p} (φ) .

In particular if

ψ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

, then there exists

C_{ψ} > 0

s.t. for all

t \geq 1

C a p_{ω} (ψ < - t) \leq C_{ψ} / t^{p + 1} .

Conversely if there exists

C_{ψ} > 0

such that

C a p_{ω} (ψ < - t) \leq C_{ψ} / t^{p + 2}

for all

t \geq 1

, then

φ \in ℰ^{q} (X, ω)

for all

q < p

Proof. It follows from the comparison principle that for all

t \geq 1

\begin{matrix} \int_{(φ < - t)} ω_{φ}^{2} \leq t^{2} C a p_{ω} (φ < - t) . \end{matrix}

(6)

Indeed set

φ_{s} : = max (φ, - s)

, where

s > t

. Then

φ_{s} \in P S H (X, ω) \cap L^{\infty} (X)

and

φ_{s} = φ

near the boundary of

(φ < - t)

, hence

\int_{(φ < - t)} ω_{φ}^{2} = \int_{(φ < - t)} ω_{φ_{s}}^{2} .

Consider

u = φ_{s} / s \in P S H (X, ω)

. Then

- 1 \leq u \leq 0

and

s^{- 2} ω_{φ_{s}}^{2} \leq ω_{u}^{2}

, hence

\frac{1}{s^{2}} \int_{(φ < - t)} ω_{φ_{s}}^{2} \leq \int_{(φ < - t)} ω_{u}^{2} \leq C a p_{ω} (φ < - t),

which yields (6) by letting

s ↘ t

. We infer

\begin{matrix} 0 & \leq & \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2} = p \int_{1}^{+ \infty} t^{p - 1} ω_{φ}^{2} (φ < - t) d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & p \int_{1}^{+ \infty} t^{p + 1} C a p_{ω} (φ < - t) d t = \frac{p}{p + 2} \int_{X} (- φ)^{p + 2} d C a p_{ω} \end{matrix}

The second inequality also follows from the comparison principle. We need to estimate

C a p_{ω} (φ < - t)

from above, for

t \geq 1

. Fix

u \in P S H (X, ω)

with

- 1 \leq u \leq 0

and observe that

φ / t \in P S H (X, ω)

with

(φ < - 2 t) \subset (φ / t < u - 1) \subset (φ < - t) .

Therefore

\int_{(φ < - 2 t)} ω_{u}^{2} \leq \int_{(φ < - t)} ω_{φ / t}^{2}

. Now

ω_{φ / t} \leq ω + t^{- 1} ω_{φ}

, thus

\begin{matrix} C a p_{ω} (φ < - 2 t) \leq [ω^{2} + \frac{2}{t} ω \land ω_{φ} + \frac{1}{t^{2}} ω_{φ}^{2}] (φ < - t) . \end{matrix}

(7)

This yields the second inequality. The remaining assertions are straightforward consequences of (6), (7) and Chebyshev inequality. □

These estimates allow us to give now several examples of functions which belong to the classes

ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

Example 6.3. 1) Assume

X = P^{2}

is the complex projective space and

ω = ω_{F S}

is the Fubini-Study Kähler form. We let

[z_{0} : z_{1} : z_{2}]

denote the homogeneous coordinaets on

P^{2}

. Consider

φ [z_{0} : z_{1} : z_{2}] = log | | (z_{1}, z_{2}) | | - log | | (z_{0}, z_{1}, z_{2}) | | \in ℰ (X, ω)

. This is a

C^{\infty}

-smooth function in

P^{2} \ {a}

, where

a = [1 : 0 : 0]

, which has Lelong number

1

at point

a

, hence

φ / \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

. One can compute explicitly

C a p_{ω} (φ < - t) ≃ \frac{C}{t^{2}}

by comparing the capacity

C a p_{ω}

with the local Monge-Ampère capacity of Bedford and Taylor near point

a

(see [15]).

Consider now

φ_{α} : = - (- φ)^{α}

for

0 < α < 1

. Then

φ_{α} \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

for

α < 2 / (p + 2)

, as follows from lemma 6.2.

2) This first example can be slightly generalized as follows. Let

φ

be any

ω

-psh function such that

φ \leq - 1

. Then

φ_{α} : = - (- φ)^{α} \in P S H (X, ω)

whenever

0 \leq α \leq 1

. It follows moreover from lemma 5.2 that

φ_{α} \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

as soon as

α < 1 / (p + 2)

In the same vein observe that

Φ : = - log (- φ) \in P S H (X, ω)

φ \leq - 2

. Moreover

Φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

for all

p \geq 1

, although

Φ

is not necessarily bounded.

3) Assume

X = P_{x}^{1} \times P_{y}^{1}

and

ω (x, y) = α (x) + α (y)

, where

α

denotes the Fubini-Study Kähler form on

P^{1}

. Assume

φ (x, y) = u (x) + v (y)

where

u, v

come both from

α

-psh functions on

P^{1}

, with

u

smooth while

v

is singular. Then

ω_{φ} = α_{u} (x) + α_{v} (y)

and

ω_{φ}^{2} = 2 α_{u} (x) \land α_{v} (y)

so that

φ \in L^{p} (ω_{φ}^{2}) \Leftrightarrow v \in L^{p} (α_{v}) \Leftrightarrow φ \in L^{p} (ω \land ω_{φ}) .

In particular one can get

φ \in L^{p} (ω_{φ}^{2})

for some

p \geq 1

but

φ / \in L^{p + ɛ} (ω \land ω_{φ})

whenever

ɛ > 0

Observe that there are functions in examples 1 and 3 above that belong to

ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

for some

p \geq 1

, but not to

ℰ^{p + 1} (X, ω)

. The last example explains partially why there is a gap in the estimates given by lemma 5.2: we have the right exponent when

φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

also satisfies

φ \in L^{p + 1} (ω \land ω_{φ})

, but this integrability condition is not necessarily satisfied unless

φ \in ℰ^{p + 1} (X, ω)

It is satisfied however, when the function

φ

has singularities in a “small compact” (see example 1.4.2). More precisely we have the following:

Proposition 6.4. Assume

φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

is bounded near some ample divisor. Then

φ \in L^{p + 1} (ω \land ω_{φ})

Proof. Let

φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

φ \leq 0

, be bounded in a neighborhood

V

of some ample divisor

D

. We assume for simplicity that the current

[D]

of integration along

D

is cohomologous to

ω

. Let

ω^{'} \geq 0

be a smooth closed

(1, 1)

-form cohomologous to

ω

such that

ω^{'} \equiv 0

X \ V

. Fix

χ \leq 0

such that

ω = ω^{'} + d d^{c} χ

. Assume first

φ

is smooth. It follows from Stokes theorem that

\begin{matrix} 0 \leq \int_{X} (- φ)^{p + 1} ω \land ω_{φ} & = & \int_{X} (- φ)^{p + 1} ω^{'} \land ω_{φ} + \int_{X} (- φ)^{p + 1} ω_{φ} \land d d^{c} χ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & | | φ | |_{L^{\infty} (V)}^{p + 1} + (p + 1) | | χ | |_{L^{\infty} (X)} \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2} < + \infty . \end{matrix}

Now we can get a similar control on

| | φ | |_{L^{p + 1} (ω \land ω_{φ})}

by approximating

φ

by a decreasing sequence of smooth

ω

-psh functions and by using theorem 4.4. □

We now want to give some examples of probability measures which can be expressed as

ω_{ψ}^{2}

ψ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

. Observe first that if

P S H (X, ω) \subset L^{1} (μ)

, then in particular

ℰ^{1} (X, ω) \subset L^{1} (μ)

, hence

μ = ω_{ψ}^{2}

for some function

ψ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

. Every measure which decomposes as

μ = Θ + d d^{c} (R),

where

Θ

is a smooth form and

R

is a positive current of bidimension

(1, 1)

, satisfies

P S H (X, ω) \subset L^{1} (μ)

. There are several examples of such measures arising in complex dynamics [14]. We don't know if

ψ

is necessarily bounded in this case (this is trivially true in dimension

1

When

μ = f ω^{2}

has density

f \in L^{r} (X)

r > 1

, S.Kolodziej has proved [19] that

μ = ω_{ψ}^{2}

for some bounded

ω

-psh function

ψ

. This is because

μ

is strongly dominated by

C a p_{ω}

in this case (see proposition 6.5 below). When the density is only in

L^{1}

, this does not work. Consider for instance

μ = f ω^{2}

, where

f \in C^{\infty} (X \ {a})

is such that

f (z) ≃ \frac{1}{| | z | |^{4} (- log | | z | |)^{2}} - 1

near the point

a

(

= 0

in a local chart). Observe that

φ (z) : = ɛ χ (z) log | | z | | \in P S H (X, ω)

χ

is a cut-of function such that

χ \equiv 1

near

a = 0

, and

ɛ > 0

is small enough. Now

φ / \in L^{1} (μ)

but still

ℰ^{1} (X, ω) \subset L^{1} (μ)

. Therefore there exists

ψ \in ℰ^{1} (X, ω)

such that

μ = ω_{ψ}^{2}

, as follows from theorem 5.1. Note however that

ψ / \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

for

p > 2

. Indeed

φ_{α} : = - (- φ)^{α} \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

α < 2 / (p + 2)

(see example 6.3.1) and

φ_{α} \in L^{p} (μ)

implies

α p < 1

, hence

p \leq 2

Observe also that there are measures

μ = f ω^{2}

with

L^{1}

-density such that

ℰ^{1} (X, ω) ⊄ L^{1} (μ)

: one can consider for instance

f_{ɛ}

that looks locally near

a = 0

[| | z | |^{4} (- log | | z | |)^{1 + ɛ}]^{- 1}

, for

ɛ > 0

small enough. In order to give further examples, we need to relate integrability properties of

μ

to the way it is dominated by

C a p_{ω}

. This is the contents of the following:

Proposition 6.5. Let

μ

be a probability measure on

X

Assume there exists

α > p / (p + 1)

and

A > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} μ (E) \leq A C a p_{ω} (E)^{α}, \end{matrix}

(8)

for all Borel set

E \subset X

. Then

ℰ^{p} (X, ω) \subset L^{p} (μ)

Conversely assume

ℰ^{p} (X, ω) \subset L^{p} (μ)

. Then there exists

0 < α < 1

and

A > 0

such that

(8)

is satisfied.

Proof. We can assume w.l.o.g. that

α \leq 1

. Let

φ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

with

{sup}_{X} φ = - 1

. It follows from Hölder inequality that

\begin{matrix} 0 \leq \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} d μ = p \int_{1}^{+ \infty} t^{p - 1} μ (φ < - t) d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & p A \int_{1}^{+ \infty} t^{p - 1} {[C a p_{ω} (φ < - t)]}^{α} d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & p A {[\int_{1}^{+ \infty} t^{\frac{p - α (p + 1)}{1 - α} - 1} d t]}^{1 - α} \cdot {[\int_{1}^{+ \infty} t^{p} C a p_{ω} (φ < - t) d t]}^{α} . \end{matrix}

The first integral in the last line converges since

p - α (p + 1) < 0

and the last is dominated by

C_{p, α} {(\int (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2})}^{α}

by lemma 6.2. Therefore

ℰ^{p} (X, ω) \subset L^{p} (μ)

Assume conversely that

ℰ^{p} (X, ω) \subset L^{p} (μ)

. It follows from Theorem 5.1 that

μ = ω_{ψ}^{2}

for a unique function

ψ \in ℰ^{p} (X, ω)

such that

{sup}_{X} ψ = - 1

. We claim then that there exists

γ_{p} \in] 0, 1 [

and

A > 0

such that for all functions

φ \in P S H (X, ω)

with

- 1 \leq φ \leq 0

, one has

\begin{matrix} 0 \leq \int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω_{ψ}^{2} \leq A {[\int_{X} (- φ)^{p} ω_{φ}^{2}]}^{γ_{p}} . \end{matrix}

(9)

We leave the proof of this claim to the reader: an application of Hölder's inequality in the style of section 4 yields

γ_{p} = (1 - 1 / p)^{2}

p > 1

, while Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (in the style of lemma 3.6) yields

γ_{1} = 1 / 4

. We apply now (9) to the extremal function

φ = h_{E, ω}^{*}

introduced in [15]. It follows from theorem 3.2 in [15] that

0 \leq μ (E) \leq \int_{X} (- h_{E, ω}^{*})^{p} d μ \leq A C a p_{ω} (E)^{γ_{p}} .

□

This proposition allows to produce several examples of measures satisfying

ℰ^{p} (X, ω) \subset L^{p} (μ)

as in the local theory (see [19], [27]). It can also be used, together with theorem 5.1, to prove that functions from the local classes of Cegrell

ℰ^{r} (Ω)

Ω

a bounded hyperconvex domain of

C^{2}

, can be sub-extended as global functions

φ \in ℰ^{p_{r}} (P^{2}, ω_{F S})

(see [10] for similar results).

References

T.AUBIN: Équations du type Monge-Ampère sur les variétés kählériennes compactes. Bull. Sci. Math. (2) 102 (1978), no. 1, 63–95.
E.BEDFORD & J.DILLER: Energy and Invariant Measures for Birational Surface Maps. Preprint (2004), to appear in Duke Math. Journal.
E.BEDFORD & B.A.TAYLOR: The Dirichlet problem for a complex Monge-Ampère equation. Invent. Math. 37 (1976), no. 1, 1–44.
E.BEDFORD & B.A.TAYLOR: Variational properties of the complex Monge-Ampère equation. I. Dirichlet principle. Duke Math. J. 45 (1978), no. 2, 375–403.
E.BEDFORD & B.A.TAYLOR: A new capacity for plurisubharmonic functions. Acta Math. 149 (1982), no. 1-2, 1–40.
Z.BLOCKI: Uniqueness and stability for the Monge-Ampère equation on compact Kaehler manifolds. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 52 (2003), no. 6, 1697–1701.
Z.BLOCKI: On the definition of the Monge-Ampère operator in $C^{2}$ . Math. Ann. 328 (2004), no 3, 415-423.
E.CALABI: On Kähler manifolds with vanishing canonical class. Algebraic geometry and topology. A symposium in honor of S. Lefschetz, pp. 78–89. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N. J. (1957).
U.CEGRELL: Pluricomplex energy. Acta Math. 180 (1998), no. 2, 187–217.
U.CEGRELL & S.KOLODZIEJ & A.ZERIAHI: Subextension of plurisubharmonic functions with weak singularities. Preprint (2004). To appear in Math.Zeitschrift.
J.-P.DEMAILLY: Monge-Ampère operators, Lelong numbers and intersection theory. Complex analysis and geometry, 115–193, Univ. Ser. Math., Plenum, New York (1993).
J.-P.DEMAILLY: A numerical criterion for very ample line bundles. J. Differential Geom. 37 (1993), no. 2, 323–374
J.-P.DEMAILLY & M.PAUN: Numerical characterization of the Kähler cone of a compact Kähler manifold. Ann. of Math. (2) 159 (2004), no. 3, 1247–1274.
V.GUEDJ: Ergodic properties of rational mappings with large topological degree. To appear in Annals of Math.
V.GUEDJ & A.ZERIAHI: Intrinsic capacities on compact Kähler manifolds. Preprint arXiv/math.CV/0401302.
V.GUEDJ & A.ZERIAHI: Extension of quasiplurisubharmonic functions. Preprint (2005).
R.HARVEY & B.LAWSON: Projective hulls and the projective Gelfand transform. Preprint (2004).
L.HÖRMANDER: Notions of convexity, Birkhäuser (1994).
S.KOLODZIEJ: The complex Monge-Ampère equation. Acta Math. 180 (1998), no. 1, 69–117.
S.KOLODZIEJ: The Monge-Ampère equation on compact Kähler manifolds. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 52 (2003), no. 3, 667–686
J.RAINWATER: A note on the preceding paper. Duke Math. J. 36 (1969) 799–800.
N.SIBONY: Quelques problèmes de prolongement de courants en analyse complexe. Duke Math. J. 52 (1985), no. 1, 157–197
G.TIAN: Canonical metrics in Kähler geometry. Lectures in Mathematics ETH Zürich. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel (2000).
G.TIAN & X.ZHU: Uniqueness of Kähler-Ricci solitons. Acta Math. 184 (2000), no. 2, 271–305.
Y.XING: Continuity of the complex Monge-Ampère operator. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 124 (1996), no. 2, 457–467.
S.T.YAU: On the Ricci curvature of a compact Kähler manifold and the complex Monge-Ampère equation. I. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 31 (1978), no. 3, 339–411.
A.ZERIAHI: The size of plurisubharmonic lemniscates in terms of Hausdorff-Riesz measures and capacities. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 89 (2004), no. 1, 104–122.

Vincent Guedj & Ahmed Zeriahi Laboratoire Emile Picard UMR 5580, Université Paul Sabatier 118 route de Narbonne 31062 TOULOUSE Cedex 04 (FRANCE) guedj@picard.ups-tlse.fr zeriahi@picard.ups-tlse.fr