format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years our knowledge of heavy quarkonia in the framework of perturbative QCD has developed significantly. On one hand computations of new higher-order corrections to various physical quantities appeared . On the other hand the discovery of the mechanism of the renormalon cancellation in the quarkonium spectrum  led to a drastic improvement of the convergence of the perturbative expansion of the energy levels. As important applications up to date, the theory enabled precise determinations of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-mass of the bottom quark  and (in the future) of the top quark  from (mainly) the energy spectra of the lowest-lying states. The main uncertainty comes, in the bottomonium case, from the (essentially) unknown non-perturbative contributions. These are generally claimed to be around 100 MeV and ultimately set the precision of the prediction.

As for the structure of the higher quarkonium levels, the Coulomb potential seems to be unable to explain it (for a review see ). For instance, the spacing between two consecutive $`nS`$ levels does not decrease with $`n`$ and appears roughly constant. For this reason several confining potentials have been introduced in the literature over the last decades. We refer to  for one of the most recent phenomenological study on several of them. Progress in this direction seems to be no longer possible, as far as the relation of the confining potentials with QCD remains obscure. This relation has been elucidated recently in  where a complete and systematic parametrization inside QCD of perturbative and non-perturbative effects of the heavy quarkonium interaction has been realized. The parametrization depends on the mutual relation between the scale of non-perturbative physics, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, and the other dynamical scales in the specific heavy quarkonium system under study. A way to determine it and the size and nature of the non-perturbative contributions, consists in establishing to which extent perturbative QCD can consistently and successfully describe the system. This is the aim of the present paper, which investigates the range of validity of perturbative QCD on the heavy quarkonium spectroscopy and consequently extracts upper bounds to the non-perturbative contributions by comparing the perturbative predictions, at the current best accuracy, with the experimental data.

One of the main problems in having a consistent (i.e. convergent) perturbative expansion for the quarkonium energy levels has been for a long time its bad behaviour when expressed in terms of the pole mass (see, for instance, the poor convergence of the computations reported in ). The reason has been understood in the renormalon language: the pole mass  and the QCD static potential , respectively, contain renormalon contributions of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, which get cancelled in the total energy of a color singlet quark-antiquark system . The solution then consists in making explicit this cancellation by substituting in the energy expansion a short-range mass (free from infrared ambiguities) for the pole mass. In  this approach has been used in order to calculate the bottom quark mass by means of sum rules. However, an analysis of the consistency between the whole level structure of perturbative QCD and the experimental data is lacking and will be done in the present work. In order to make explicit the renormalon cancellation we will express the quarkonium energies in terms of the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ masses and rearrange the perturbative series in the so-called $`\epsilon `$ expansion . This will be the key ingredient of our analysis. We note that according to a formal argument, the residual uncertainty of the perturbative expansion due to the next-to-leading renormalon contribution is estimated to be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}\times (a_X\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})^2`$ for a bound-state $`X`$ of size $`a_X`$ , e.g. it amounts to 5–20 MeV for the $`1S`$ bottomonium state. Provided this argument applies, in principle the predictions of perturbative QCD can be made precise down to this accuracy by sufficiently increasing the orders of the perturbative expansion.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 we set up the formalism and the computational strategy. In Sec. 3 we perform the numerical analysis and in Sec. 4 we discuss the errors. In Sec. 5 we interpret our result and in Sec. 6 we draw some conclusions.

## 2 Perturbative Expansions

We assume that the system is non-relativistic, $`v1`$, where $`v`$ is the typical size of the heavy quark velocity in a quarkonium state. Also, we assume that the soft scale $`mv`$ is much larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. Under these assumptions, the energy (mass) of a quarkonium state $`X`$ is given as a series expansion in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ coupling constant $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )`$ defined in the theory with $`n_l`$ massless quarks only. We write a general expression valid also when the masses of the quark and antiquark are different. The reduced mass is defined from the pole masses by $`m_r=m_{1,\mathrm{pole}}m_{2,\mathrm{pole}}/(m_{1,\mathrm{pole}}+m_{2,\mathrm{pole}})`$. Moreover, we define $`x=14m_r/(m_{1,\mathrm{pole}}+m_{2,\mathrm{pole}})`$; when the two masses are equal, $`x=0`$. Up to $`𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{s}^4m)`$ the energy of a heavy quarkonium state $`X`$, identified by the quantum numbers $`n,l,s`$ and $`j`$, is given by*** The full formula up to $`𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{s}^4m)`$ for the $`S`$ state spectrum was derived in  and later confirmed in ; additional corrections necessary for the spectrum of $`l1`$ states can be found in ; the formula for the unequal mass case was derived in .

$`E_X(\mu ,\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu ),m_{i,\mathrm{pole}})=m_{1,\mathrm{pole}}+m_{2,\mathrm{pole}}+E_{\mathrm{bin},X}(\mu ,\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu ),m_{i,\mathrm{pole}}),`$ (1)
$`E_{\mathrm{bin},X}(\mu ,\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu ),m_{i,\mathrm{pole}})={\displaystyle \frac{8}{9n^2}}\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )^2m_r{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{2}{}}}\epsilon ^{k+1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )}{\pi }}\right)^kP_k(L_{nl}),`$ (2)
where $`\epsilon =1`$ is the parameter that will be used in order to properly organize the perturbative expansion in view of the $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$ renormalon cancellation. $`P_k(L_{nl})`$ is a $`k`$-th-degree polynomial of $`L_{nl}\mathrm{log}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}n\mu /(8\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )m_r)]+S_1(n+l)+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}`$, and the harmonic sums are defined as $`S_p(q){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{q}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^p}}`$. It is convenient to decompose the polynomials into renormalization-group invariant subsets:

$`P_0`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (3)
$`P_1`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _0L_{nl}+c_1,`$ (4)
$`P_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\beta _0^2L_{nl}^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\beta _1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\beta _0c_1\right)L_{nl}+c_2.`$ (5)
Here, $`\beta _k`$’s denote the coefficients of the QCD beta function, $`\beta _0=112n_l/3`$, $`\beta _1=10238n_l/3`$, and $`c_k`$’s are given by

$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`4,`$ (6)
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2\left\{2s(s+1)(1x)+3x\right\}}{27n}}\delta _{l0}{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi ^2\left(D_S+3X_{LS}\right)}{9nl\left(l+1\right)\left(2l+1\right)}}\left(1\delta _{l0}\right)+\beta _0^2\nu (n,l)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(11+x\right)\pi ^2}{9n^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{68\pi ^2}{9n\left(2l+1\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{473}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9\pi ^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{33\zeta _3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{9\pi ^4}{32}}n_l\left({\displaystyle \frac{109}{72}}+{\displaystyle \frac{13\zeta _3}{6}}\right),`$
with

$`D_S3{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{S})^2}{r^2}}\stackrel{}{S}^2={\displaystyle \frac{2l(l+1)s(s+1)3X_{LS}6X_{LS}^2}{(2l1)(2l+3)}},`$ (8)
$`X_{LS}\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[j(j+1)l(l+1)s(s+1)\right],`$ (9)
$`\nu (n,l)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_2(n+l)+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n+l)!}{(nl1)!}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(nl+k1)!}{(n+l+k)!k^3}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(nl1)!}{2(n+l)!}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{nl1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2l+k)!(2k+2ln)}{(k1)!(k+ln)^3}}.`$ (10)
It is understood that the last term of Eq. (10) is zero if $`nl<2`$.The infinite sum in Eq. (10) can be easily evaluated analytically in terms of $`\zeta _3`$, etc. for given values of $`n`$ and $`l`$, e.g. by using Mathematica.

Next we rewrite the series expansion of $`E_X`$ in terms of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ masses. This is done by expressing the pole masses $`m_{i,\mathrm{pole}}`$ in terms of the renormalization–group-invariant $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ masses $`\overline{m}_im_{i,\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(m_{i,\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})`$:

$`m_{i,\mathrm{pole}}=\overline{m}_i\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\overline{m}_i)}{\pi }}+\epsilon ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\overline{m}_i)}{\pi }}\right)^2d_1+\epsilon ^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\overline{m}_i)}{\pi }}\right)^3d_2\right\}.`$ (11)
The coefficient $`d_1`$ is given in , while the analytic expression of $`d_2`$ can be derived from the result of , the renormalization-group evolutions of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )`$ and $`m_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(\mu )`$, and the matching condition . Note that the counting in $`\epsilon `$ in Eq. (2) and Eq. (11) does not reflect the order in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ but the wanted renormalon cancellation. One way to understand this is to consider that in the sum of the pole-quark masses and the static QCD potential, $`_im_{i,\mathrm{pole}}+V_{\mathrm{QCD}}(r)`$, the renormalon cancellation takes place without reordering of power counting in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ . The extra power of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ comes in the energy level expansion when the dynamical variable $`r^1`$ is replaced by the dynamical scale $`nlsj\left|r^1\right|nlsjC_F\alpha _\mathrm{s}m_r/n`$. Since the soft scale is, in perturbative QCD, the only scale involved in the calculation of the binding energy, $`E_{\mathrm{bin},X}`$, up to $`𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{s}^4m)`$, we may absorb the extra $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ by reexpressing $`E_{\mathrm{bin},X}`$ in terms of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )`$ and the soft scales $`\mu _{i,\mathrm{soft}}=\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )\overline{m}_i`$. Then the order counting in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )`$ coincides with the order counting in $`\epsilon `$ given here. Moreover, in order to realize the renormalon cancellation at each order of the expansion, it is necessary to expand $`m_{i,\mathrm{pole}}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{bin},X}`$ in the same coupling , therefore we express $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\overline{m}_i)`$ in (11) in terms of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )`$:

$$\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\overline{m}_i)=\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )\left\{1+\epsilon \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )}{\pi }\frac{\beta _0}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mu }{\overline{m}_i}\right)+\epsilon ^2\left(\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )}{\pi }\right)^2\left[\frac{\beta _0^2}{4}\mathrm{log}^2\left(\frac{\mu }{\overline{m}_i}\right)+\frac{\beta _1}{8}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mu }{\overline{m}_i}\right)\right]\right\}.$$
(12)
Substituting Eqs. (12) and (11) into Eqs. (2) and (1) we get an expression for the energy levels of the heavy quarkonium states, which depends on $`\mu `$, $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )`$ and $`\overline{m}_i`$, that we can organize as an expansion in $`\epsilon `$ up to order $`\epsilon ^3`$:

$`E_X(\mu ,\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu ),\overline{m}_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{m}_1+\overline{m}_2+E_X^{(1)}(\mu ,\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu ),\overline{m}_i)\epsilon +E_X^{(2)}(\mu ,\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu ),\overline{m}_i)\epsilon ^2`$ (13)
$`+E_X^{(3)}(\mu ,\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu ),\overline{m}_i)\epsilon ^3+\mathrm{}`$
Since the counting in $`\epsilon `$ explicitly realizes the order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ renormalon cancellation, and since $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\overline{m}_i`$ are short-range quantities, the obtained perturbative expansion (13) is expected to show a better convergence with respect to the original expansion (2).

The obtained quarkonium mass $`E_X`$ depends on the scale $`\mu `$, due to our incomplete knowledge of the perturbative series. We fix the scale $`\mu `$ by demanding stability against variation of the scale:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}E_X(\mu ,\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu ),\overline{m}_i)|_{\mu =\mu _X}=0.`$ (14)
When we do this, we expect that the convergence properties of the series become optimal, and that the scale becomes close to the inverse of the physical size of the bound-state $`X`$. If the scale fixed by Eq. (14) evidently does not fulfill these expectations, then the theoretical predictions obtained in this way will be considered unreliable. We will show that this typically happens when the coupling constant becomes bigger than one.

Based on the formalism developed in , in principle three scenarios are possible under the assumption $`v1`$ and $`mv\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$: 1) The energy or ultrasoft scale $`mv^2`$ is much larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. In this case the potential is entirely perturbative and non-perturbative corrections are parameterized by local condensates of the Voloshin–Leutwyler type . 2) The energy scale $`mv^2`$ is of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. The potential is entirely perturbative and non-perturbative corrections are parameterized by non-local condensates. 3) The energy scale, $`mv^2`$, is smaller than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. In this case short-range non-perturbative corrections affect the potential. They are parameterized by non-local condensates. A perturbative treatment of the energy levels is consistent only if these are small compared to the Coulomb potential. Explicit formulas for the non-perturbative contributions in all these three cases can be found in . However, their sizes in an actual calculation of the heavy quarkonium spectrum are affected by large uncertainties. The best known case is 1): The leading non-perturbative contribution is $`1.44n^6\alpha _\mathrm{s}F^2(0)/(m^3\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )^4)`$. It runs out of control for $`n>1`$, so the estimate is suitable only for the heavy quarkonium ground states. It is quite sensitive to the value of the gluon condensate and of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$. It is also numerically sensitive to the replacement of the strong coupling constant in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme in the denominator with the coupling constant in some other scheme (e.g. the $`V`$ scheme or similar) as used by some authors . Non-local condensates, which are suitable for the situations 2) and 3), are even less known. Moreover, they get entangled with higher-order perturbative corrections (starting at order $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^5m\mathrm{log}\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ ) and in particular with the $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3)`$ renormalon . Due to these uncertainties a direct evaluation of non-perturbative and higher-order contributions will not be included in the present investigation. Neither we will distinguish among the three different scenarios outlined above. Our approach consists in looking only at the perturbative spectrum up to $`𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{s}^4m)`$, under the general assumption that $`mv\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. The internal consistency of the perturbative series (i.e. its convergence) and the comparison with the experimental data will provide indirect, but more stringent, contraints on the size of non-perturbative and higher-order corrections.

## 3 Numerical Analyses

In this section we examine the series expansions of the quarkonium spectra, Eq. (13), numerically. The input value is $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1181`$ . We evolve the coupling and match it to the couplings of the theory with $`n_l=4`$ and 3 successively following §§§ We take the matching scales as $`\overline{m}_b`$ and $`\overline{m}_c`$, respectively. and solving the renormalization-group equation numerically (4-loop running). In this section we do not take into account effects of the non-zero charm mass in the $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`b\overline{c}`$ systems.

Since we expect the ground states of the $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`c\overline{c}`$ systems to be the states less affected by non-perturbative corrections, we fix $`\overline{m}_b`$ and $`\overline{m}_c`$ through the conditions

$`E_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)}(\mu _X,\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu _X),\overline{m}_b)`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)}^{exp}=9.460\text{GeV},`$ (15)
$`E_{J/\psi }(\mu _X,\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu _X),\overline{m}_c)`$ $`=`$ $`E_{J/\psi }^{exp}=3.097\text{GeV},`$ (16)
where the experimental values of the vector ground states have been taken from . We assume, for the moment, that this identification is not affected by non-perturbative corrections. From Eqs. (15), (16) and (14) we determine $`\mu _X`$ (see Tab. 1), and the $`b`$ and $`c`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ masses:

$`\overline{m}_bm_b^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(m_b^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})=4.203\mathrm{GeV},`$ (17)
$`\overline{m}_cm_c^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(m_c^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})=1.243\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (18)
These values are in good agreement with recent estimates based on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$  and charmonium  sum rules respectively.

Using these masses as input and Eq. (14), we can calculate the energy levels of other observed quarkonium states. These are given in Tab. 1. The series expansions for the charmonium $`1^1S_0`$ state and for the $`1^3S_1`$, $`1^3P_j`$, $`2^3S_1`$, $`2^3P_0`$ and $`3^3S_1`$ bottomonium states converge well. For these states the differences of the theoretical predictions and the experimental data are typically $`30`$$`70`$ MeV. Convergence of the series expansions is poor for the $`2P_1`$, $`2P_2`$ and $`4S`$ bottomonium states as well as for the other charmonium states. We consider that the theoretical predictions for these levels are unreliable and marked the corresponding theoretical predictions with sharps ($`\mathrm{}`$) in the case of the bottomonium. In the charmonium case unreliable predictions are not displayed. The differences $`E_X^{exp}E_X`$ are rather large for the states with sharps. Notice that for these states the corresponding $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu _X)`$ becomes larger than one, indicating a breakdown of the perturbative series. We also computed the mass of the $`B_c(^1S_0)`$ state. The theoretical prediction is consistent with the experimental value, although the experimental error is large. Generally, for states, which we consider reliably calculable in the above perturbative approach, the scale dependence decreases as we include more terms of the perturbative series. For states, whose predictions we consider unreliable, the series becomes much more convergent if we would choose a scale different from (typically larger than) $`\mu _X`$.

The value of $`\mu _X`$ for the $`1^3S_1`$ state of $`b\overline{b}`$ is close to the central value (2.575 GeV) used in , while the value for the $`1^3S_1`$ state of $`c\overline{c}`$ is lower than the central value (1.57 GeV) used by the same authors. The value of $`\mu _X`$ used in Tab. 1 for the $`1^1S_0`$ state of the $`b\overline{c}`$ is close to the central value (1.6 GeV) used in . We also notice a remarkable agreement with their value of the $`B_c`$ mass. This supports the idea that the scale of minimal sensitivity is, indeed, close to the characteristic scale of the system, which may be identified with the inverse of its size.

Fig. 1 compares the experimental values of the bottomonium spectrum with theoretical predictions after eliminating those states, which are not reliably calculable ($`2^3P_1`$, $`2^3P_2`$ and $`4^3S_1`$ states). If we take an average of the $`S`$-wave and $`P`$-wave levels corresponding to each principal quantum number $`n`$, the theoretical predictions with $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(M_Z)=0.1181`$ reproduce the experimental values fairly well. On the other hand, the predictions for the $`S`$$`P`$ splittings and the fine splittings are smaller than the experimental values.

## 4 Error Estimates

Besides non-perturbative corrections, there are three different kinds of uncertainties in our theoretical predictions for the quarkonium spectra, listed below and in Tab. 2. We examine them separately. Also these examinations indicate that the theoretical predictions for the $`2^3P_1`$, $`2^3P_2`$ and $`4^3S_1`$ bottomonium states are quite unstable, while the prediction for the $`2^3P_0`$ state is at the boundary.

* Uncertainty of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^{(5)}(M_Z)`$. We analyzed the quarkonium spectra varying the input parameter within the range given in : $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1181\pm 0.0020`$. The level spacings become wider for larger $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^{(5)}(M_Z)`$, which is consistent with our naive expectation. We find that the central value $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1181`$ reproduces the whole level structure better than $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1201`$ or 0.1161.
* Charm Mass Effects. We have also made an analysis of the bottomonium spectrum including finite charm mass effects. Since they deserve a detailed analysis of their own, including new calculations, we will report the full results in a separate paper . Here we only summarize some of the qualitative features of the effects and include them as a part of the uncertainties of our present analysis. The corrections to the reliable predictions turn out to be positive and to become larger for higher states, ranging up to $`200`$ MeV. Much of the effects, however, may be reabsorbed by the uncertainties in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^{(5)}(M_Z)`$ (as given above). We note that the sensitivities of the higher levels to a variation of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^{(5)}(M_Z)`$ increase by the charm mass effects due to the decoupling of the charm quark.
* Uncertainties from Higher-Order Corrections. We take the maximum value of the following five estimates as an estimate of uncertainties from unknown higher-order corrections for each series expansion: (i) The difference between the theoretical predictions computed using $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu )`$ as obtained by solving the renormalization-group equation perturbatively at 4 loops (Eqs. (3) and (11) of Ref. ) and numerically at 4 loops (the data of Tab. 1). (Note that the number of energy levels that can be determined in a reliable way is larger with the former definition of the running coupling constant. Also in that case, reliable predictions turn out to be close to the experimental values.) (ii) The difference between the theoretical predictions computed using the 3-loop and the 4-loop (as in Tab. 1) running coupling constants, fixing $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1181`$. (iii) The difference between the theoretical estimates obtained by fixing $`\mu _X`$ on the minimum of $`|E^{(3)}|`$ and the results of Tab. 1, obtained by fixing $`\mu _X`$ via the condition (14). (iv) The contribution $`\pm |E_X^{(3)}|`$ from Tab. 1. (v) For the $`1S`$ states we consider the $`𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{s}^5m)`$ corrections calculated in the large-$`\beta _0`$ approximation in .
For comparison, we list more conservative error estimates. These are the variations of $`\overline{m}_{b,c}`$ and $`E_X`$ when we fix the scale as twice If we fix the scale as half of the minimal sensitivity scale, $`\mu =\mu _X/2`$, the predictions for the $`n=2`$ bottomonium states appear to be meaningless, since the scales are quite close to the infrared singularity of the runnning coupling constant, and the predictions for the $`n3`$ states do not exist, since the scales lie below the infrared singularity.  of the minimal sensitivity scale: $`\mu =2\mu _X`$, where $`\mu _X`$ is determined from Eq. (14).

## 5 Interpretation

The most non-trivial feature of the present theoretical predictions for the bottomonium spectrum is that the level spacings between consecutive $`n`$’s are almost constant, whereas in the Coulomb spectrum the level spacings decrease as $`1/n^2`$.*** If we consider, for instance, the ratio $`(E_{3S}E_{2S})/(E_{2S}E_{1S})`$, then we obtain experimentally $`0.59`$, from the data of Tab. 1, $`0.71`$, while from a pure Coulomb interaction $`0.19`$. Conventionally, this same difference between the Coulomb spectrum and the observed quarkonium spectra motivated people to construct various potential models. It is, therefore, imperative to elucidate how the above perturbative QCD calculation is able to reproduce such a level structure. We will focus on two points: (1) the leading renormalon cancellation, which implies that infrared physics decouples; this is essential to obtain convergent series expansions; (2) the meaning of the scale $`\mu _X`$ chosen by the scale-fixing prescription (14).

Let us approximate each term on the right-hand-side of Eq. (1) (in the equal-mass case) as

$`2m_{\mathrm{pole}}2\overline{m}+\text{ }{\displaystyle }\text{ }\left|\stackrel{}{q}\right|<\overline{m}\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^3}}|V_{\mathrm{QCD}}(q)|=2\overline{m}+{\displaystyle \frac{2C_F}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\overline{m}}}𝑑q\alpha _V(q),`$ (19)
$`E_{\mathrm{bin},X}X\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{m_{\mathrm{pole}}}}+V_{\mathrm{QCD}}\right|X.`$ (20)
Here, $`V_{\mathrm{QCD}}(q)=C_F4\pi \alpha _V(q)/q^2`$ is the QCD static potential in momentum space; $`|X`$ denotes the Coulomb wave function (the zeroth-order approximation) and $`C_F=4/3`$. The first approximation follows from the fact that the dominant contribution to the pole-$`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass relation can be read from the infrared region, loop momenta $`q\overline{m}`$, of the QCD static potential . The second approximation is more obvious. Let us note that also the right-hand-side of Eq. (20) incorporates and is dominated by the leading renormalon contribution to the static potential. From Eqs. (19) and (20) we obtain

$$E_X2\overline{m}+\frac{2C_F}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑q\alpha _V(q)f_X(q)+X\left|\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{m_{\mathrm{pole}}}\right|X2\overline{m}+\frac{2C_F}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑q\alpha _V(q)f_X(q).$$
(21)
The last approximation follows from the fact that the kinetic energy contribution to the bottomonium levels turns out to be numerically smallIt is about 17% of $`E_X^{(1)}`$ for the $`X=1S`$ state, 6% of $`E_X^{(1)}`$ for the $`X=2S`$ state, 4% of $`E_X^{(1)}`$ for the $`X=3S`$ state. Moreover, these contributions tend to cancel each other in the level spacings. (notice that this does not contradict the virial theorem, since the static potential we are considering here incorporates the running of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ and therefore is not simply of the form $`1/r`$). The support function $`f_X`$ is

$`f_X(q)=\theta (\overline{m}q){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr^2|R_X(r)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(qr)}{qr}},`$ (22)
where $`R_X(r)`$ is the radial part of the Coulomb wave-function of $`X`$. $`f_X(q)`$ is almost unity in the region $`1/a_X\text{ }<\text{ }q<\overline{m}`$, where $`a_X`$ is the inverse of the dumping scale of $`f_X`$ and may be interpreted as the size of the bound-state $`X`$. According to Eq. (21), $`1/a_X`$ acts as an infrared cut off in the computation of the energy level. We may compare it with a qualitative picture where the gluons, whose wavelengths are much larger than the size of the color-singlet bound-state, cannot couple to it. For the $`1S`$ state $`f_X(q)`$ dumps slowly as $`q`$ decreases. For other states $`f_X(q)`$ dumps rapidly from scales which are somewhat smaller than the naive expectations $`(C_F\alpha _\mathrm{s}m_{\mathrm{pole}})/n_X`$. Eq. (21) tells that the major contribution to the energy levels comes from the region $`1/a_X`$  $`<`$$``$  $`q`$  $`<`$$``$  $`\overline{m}`$ of the self-energy corrections of quark and antiquark (apart from the constant contribution $`2\overline{m}`$). In Fig. 2 we show $`f_X`$ for different states calculated with $`m_{\mathrm{pole}}=5`$ GeV and $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\mu _X)`$ taken from Tab. 1. The corresponding values of $`\mu _X`$ are also displayed. For those states which we consider the predictions reliable, $`\mu _X`$ is located within the range where $`f_X(q)1`$ (close to the infrared edge); for those states with unreliable predictions, $`\mu _X`$ is located out of this range but far in the infrared region. In Fig. 2 also $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(q)`$ is shown. We see that as $`n_X`$ increases from 1 to 3, the coupling $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(q)`$, close to the dumping scale of $`f_X(q)`$, grows rapidly. According to Eq. (21), this is the very reason for the widening of the level spacings in excited states in comparison to the Coulomb spectrum.

Summarizing the above discussion we may draw the following qualitative picture of the structure of the bottomonium spectrum:

* The energy levels of bottomonium are mainly determined by (i) the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ masses of $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$, and (ii) contributions to the self-energies of $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ from gluons with wavelengths $`1/\overline{m}\text{ }<\text{ }\lambda \text{ }<\text{ }a_X`$. The latter contributions may be regarded as the difference between the (state-dependent) constituent quark masses and the current quark masses.
* Level spacing between consecutive $`n`$’s increases rapidly with $`n`$ as compared to the Coulomb spectra. This is because the self-energy contributions (ii) grow rapidly as the physical size of the bound-state increases.

## 6 Conclusions

For all the bottomonium states, where the predictions of perturbative QCD can be made reliably (i.e. $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}<1`$), our results are consistent with the experimental data within the estimated uncertainties of the theoretical predictions. The obtained value for $`\overline{m}_b`$ is in good agreement with the recent sum-rule calculations. The theoretical uncertainties given in Tab. 2 are numerically of the same size as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}\times (a_X\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})^2`$, i.e. of the effect of the $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3)`$ renormalons: if we approximate $`1/a_X\mu _X`$, take the values of Tab. 1, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=300500`$ MeV, we obtain for the $`1S`$ state a contribution of order $`\pm (520)`$ MeV, for the $`n=2`$ states a contribution of order $`\pm (20110)`$ MeV and for the $`3S`$ state a contribution of order $`\pm (50250)`$ MeV. Since the mass $`\overline{m}_b`$ has been fixed on the vector ground state and has not been adjusted for higher states, the data at our disposal suggest that: 1) the bulk of the bottomonium spectrum is accessible by perturbative QCD up to some of the $`n=3`$ states; 2) non-perturbative contributions do not need to be larger than $`250`$ MeV for the reliable $`n=3`$ states, than $`100`$ MeV for the $`n=2`$ states and than $`20`$ MeV for $`\overline{m}_b`$ and may be of the type associated with the $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3)`$ renormalon. These upper bounds to the non-perturbative corrections are conservative and their true sizes may be considerably smaller; note that for reliable predictions all of $`|E_X^{exp}E_X|`$ in Tab. 1 are smaller than 80 MeV. The existence of non-perturbative corrections of the above sizes may also explain the discrepancy observed in Tab. 1 between the theoretical estimates and the experimental data of the fine structure and the $`2S`$-$`1P`$ splittings. However, before making any definitive statement, an analysis including higher-order corrections is necessary.

The reliability of the perturbative calculations and the agreement with the experimental data indicates that the assumptions made at the end of Sec. 2 are, indeed, satisfied by the $`n=1`$, $`n=2`$ and some of the $`n=3`$ bottomonium states. Hence, non-perturbative contributions are encoded into non-local condensates, which may reduce to local ones for the ground states. These are expected to reabsorb the $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3)`$ renormalon  and are of the order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}\times (a_X\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})^2`$. The agreement noticed above, between this estimate and the uncertainties of the perturbative series given in Tab. 2, shows the consistency of our conclusions.

For what concerns the $`c\overline{c}`$ system, with the present method we are not in the condition to make reliable predictions for states higher than the ground state, and, therefore, we cannot extrapolate from consistency arguments the size (and the nature) of the non-perturbative corrections. We have noticed, however, that our estimate for $`\overline{m}_c`$ is in good agreement with recent sum-rule calculations. From the prediction of the $`\eta _c`$ mass we may guess non-perturbative contributions to be, in this case, of the order of $`100`$ MeV. Also this figure is consistent with the $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3)`$ renormalon effect ($`20110`$ MeV).

## Acknowledgements

Y.S. is grateful to fruitful discussions with K. Hikasa and T. Tanabashi. Y.S. was supported in part by the Japan-German Cooperative Science Promotion Program.


text:
# Covering theorems and Lebesgue integration

## 1 Introduction

An attractive feature of the Riemann and Henstock integrals is that they can be defined in terms of Riemann sums. Suppose we wish to integrate a real-valued function $`f`$ over a set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to a measure $`\mu `$. If we have disjoint measurable sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_N`$ with union $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (i.e., a partition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$), then we may try to define an integral as the limit of sums $`_{i=1}^Nf(z_i)\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }_i)`$ for appropriate points $`z_i\mathrm{\Omega }`$. One would hope that taking the sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ small enough and $`N`$ large enough would make these sums close to the same value, which we then define to be the integral $`_\mathrm{\Omega }f𝑑\mu `$. When $`\mathrm{\Omega }^d`$, this is done in the Riemann case for Lebesgue measure and a bounded function $`f`$ and bounded set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by choosing for the partition sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ uniformly small cubes and then choosing arbitrary points $`z_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$. With the Henstock integral, $`f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ need no longer be bounded. For this case, the sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ are intervals satisfying a gauge condition. This means to begin with that we have a function $`\delta :\mathrm{\Omega }(0,R)`$ for some positive $`R`$; the mapping is called a gauge function, and we say the pair $`(z_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)`$ is $`\delta `$-fine if $`z_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ is contained in the closed ball with center $`z_i`$ and radius $`\delta (z_i)`$. (When $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is unbounded, the partition need only cover $`\mathrm{\Omega }B(0,R)`$ where $`B(0,R)`$ is a ball with center at the origin and large enough radius $`R`$ determined by $`\delta `$.) We obtain the McShane integral by dropping the restriction that $`z_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$. See  for a discussion of these integrals.

All of these integration schemes revolve around finding a partition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which of course requires rather specialized sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$. Breaking this pattern, the Vitali Covering Theorem was used in  to define the Lebesgue integral with respect to Lebesgue measure on a finite interval of the real line. There the idea, given any $`\eta >0`$, is to use a finite number of intervals so that $`\lambda ([a,b]_{i=1}^NI_i)<\eta `$. Here, we too will apply covering theory, but now to a measurable set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in a finite dimensional normed space $`X`$. We will obtain the Lebesgue integral with respect to a Radon measure as a series $`f(z_i)\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }_i)`$, where the sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_iX`$ are disjoint and cover all but a null set of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ will be made small with respect to a gauge function. They can be balls or starlike sets (described in Section 2 below). It is the Besicovitch Covering Theorem for balls and the Morse Covering Theorem for starlike sets that enables us to fulfill the condition $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i)=0`$. For this it is essential that we are working in a finite dimensional normed space, not just a metric space. These covering results are discussed below, and simplified proofs of strengthened versions are provided. We also note that by omitting a small part of the overall sum $`f(z_i)\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }_i)`$, we are able to restrict the points $`z_i`$ to the set of points of approximate continuity of $`f`$, defined in terms of Morse covers in Section 3.

In the theory of Henstock and McShane integration, the appearance of the gauge function is rather mysterious: For all $`\epsilon >0`$ there is a gauge function $`\delta :\mathrm{\Omega }(0,\mathrm{})`$ such that for all $`\delta `$-fine partitions $`\{(z_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_i)\}_{i=1}^N`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we have $`|_{i=1}^Nf(z_i)\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }_i)_\mathrm{\Omega }f𝑑\mu |<\epsilon `$. We show in proving Theorem 12 how the properties of Lebesgue points can be used to determine the gauge $`\delta `$. An even simpler result extending the Riemann integral is obtained in Section 5 for the case that $`f`$ is continuous at $`\mu `$-almost all points of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

## 2 Covering Theorems

Let $`(X,)`$ be a normed vector space of dimension $`d<\mathrm{}`$ over the real numbers $``$. Then $`X`$ is a separable, locally compact Hausdorff space with open sets determined by the open balls. The open ball with center $`𝐚X`$ and radius $`r>0`$ is denoted by $`U(𝐚,r):=\{𝐱X:𝐱𝐚<r\}`$; the closed ball with center $`𝐚X`$ and radius $`r>0`$ is $`B(𝐚,r):=\{𝐱X:𝐱𝐚r\}`$. Since the dimension of $`X`$ is finite, its closed balls are compact.

The integration results to follow will use coverings by balls and sets more general than balls in $`(X,)`$, and for this we will need the Besicovitch and Morse covering theorems. Strengthened versions of these theorems are as easy to state and prove as the original results. This was done at a real-analysis meeting in Rolla, Missouri in 1995, and the work was included in the report of that meeting as the note by the first author in . Since all of that report is now essentially unavailable, we will sketch these improved results and proofs here for the reader’s convenience.

For general finite dimensional normed vector spaces, the Besicovitch Covering Theorem uses covers by closed metric balls; it gives a constant that is independent of measure. Besicovitch’s result is much stronger than the familiar Vitali Covering Theorem. It was originally established for disks in the plane in 1945-46 , and was extended by A. P. Morse  in 1947 to more general shapes in finite dimensional normed spaces. The constructions used in both the Besicovitch and Morse results are modified here so that better theorems are obtained. In the modified theorems, the original cover of a set $`A`$ by closed sets can still be reduced to a subcover $``$ such that $``$ can be partitioned into $`n`$ subfamilies of pairwise disjoint sets and $`n`$ is bounded above by a global constant depending only on the space. The construction of $``$ is arranged, however, so that $`A`$ is actually contained in the union of the interiors of the sets in $``$. To obtain this result, we have modified the following definition taken from .

###### Definition 1

Fix $`\tau >1`$. Let $`\{S_i:1in\}`$ be an ordered collection of subsets of $`X`$ with each $`S_i`$ having finite diameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(S_i)`$ and containing a point $`a_i`$ in its interior, $`int(\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{i})`$. We say that the ordered collection of sets $`S_i`$ is in $`\tau `$-satellite configuration with respect to the ordered set of points $`a_i`$ if i) For all $`in`$$`S_iS_n\mathrm{}`$ and ii) For all pairs $`i<jn`$, $`a_jint(S{}_{i}{}^{})`$ and$`\mathrm{\Delta }(S_j)<\tau \mathrm{\Delta }(S_i)`$.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`A`$ be an arbitrary subset of $`X`$. With each point $`aA`$, associate a set $`S(a)`$ containing $`a`$ in its interior so that the diameters have a finite upper bound. Assume that for some $`\tau >1`$, there is an upper bound $`\kappa `$ to the cardinality of any ordered set $`\{a_i:1in\}A`$ with respect to which the ordered set $`\{S(a_i):1in\}`$ is in $`\tau `$-satellite configuration. Then for some $`m\kappa `$, there are pairwise disjoint subsets $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_m`$ of $`A`$ such that $`A_{j=1}^m_{aA_j}int(S(a))`$ and for each $`j`$, $`1jm`$, the elements of the collection $`\{S(a):aA_j\}`$ are pairwise disjoint.

Proof: Let $`T`$ be a choice function on the nonempty subsets $`B`$ of $`A`$ such that $`T(B)`$ is a point $`bB`$ with $`\tau \mathrm{\Delta }(S(b))>sup_{aB}\mathrm{\Delta }(S(a))`$. Form a one-to-one correspondence between an initial segment of the ordinal numbers and a subcollection of $`A`$ as follows. Set $`B_1=A`$ and $`a_1=T(B_1)`$. Having chosen $`a_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha <\beta `$, let $`B_\beta =A_{\alpha <\beta }int(S(a_\alpha ))`$. If $`B_\beta \mathrm{}`$, set $`a_\beta =T(B_\beta )`$. There exists a first ordinal $`\gamma `$ for which $`B_\gamma =\mathrm{}`$; that is, $`A_{\alpha <\gamma }int(S(a_\alpha ))`$. Note that for $`\alpha <\beta <\gamma `$, we have $`a_\beta int(S(a_\alpha ))`$and$`\mathrm{\Delta }(S(a_\beta ))<\tau \mathrm{\Delta }(S(a_\alpha ))`$. Let $`A_c=\{a_\alpha :\alpha <\gamma \}`$, and let $``$ denote the well-ordering on $`A_c`$ inherited from the ordinals.

Given any nonempty subset $`B`$ of $`A_c`$, form a one-to-one correspondence between an initial segment of the ordinal numbers and a subset $`V(B)`$ of $`B`$ as follows. Set $`B_1=B`$, and let $`a(1)`$ be the first element (with respect to $``$) of $`B_1`$. Having chosen $`a(\alpha )`$ for $`\alpha <\beta `$, let

$$B_\beta =\{bB:\alpha <\beta ,S(b)S(a(\alpha ))=\mathrm{}\}.$$

If $`B_\beta \mathrm{}`$, let $`a(\beta )`$ equal the first element (with respect to $``$) of $`B_\beta `$. There exists a first ordinal $`\gamma `$ for which $`B_\gamma =\mathrm{}`$. Let $`V(B)=\{a(\alpha ):\alpha <\gamma \}`$.

Now for $`i1`$, form sets $`A_iA_c`$ as follows. Set $`A_1=V(A_c)`$. Having chosen $`A_i`$ for $`1in`$, let $`B_n=A_c_{i=1}^nA_i`$. Stop if $`B_n=\mathrm{}`$. Otherwise, set $`A_{n+1}=V(B_n)`$. Note that for each $`bB_n`$ and each $`i`$ between $`1`$ and $`n`$, there is a first (with respect to $``$) $`a_iA_i`$ with $`S(a_i)S(b)\mathrm{}`$; clearly, $`a_ib`$ in $`A_c`$. It now follows that the set $`\{S(a_1),\mathrm{},S(a_n),S(b)\}`$ is in $`\tau `$-satellite configuration with respect to the set $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n,b\}`$ when each set is given the ordering inherited from $`A_c`$. Therefore, $`B_n=\mathrm{}`$ for some $`n\kappa `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3

For any finite Borel measure $`\mu `$ on $`X`$, there is a $`j`$ with $`1jm`$ and a finite subset $`A_\mu A_j`$ such that

$$\mu ^{}(A)2\kappa \underset{aA_\mu }{}\mu (int(S(a))).$$

Proof: Take the first $`jm`$ that maximizes the sum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{aA_j}\mu (int(S(a)))`$. We can then choose a finite subset $`A_\mu A_j`$ so that $`\frac{1}{2}_{aA_j}\mu (int(S(a)))_{aA_\mu }\mu (int(S(a)))`$$`\mathrm{}`$

What is the upper bound $`\kappa `$ for our vector space $`X`$? For balls and values of $`\tau `$ close to $`1`$, there is an upper bound $`K`$ for $`\kappa `$ established by Zoltán Füredi and the first author in . It is the maximum number of points that can be packed into the closed ball $`B(\mathrm{𝟎},2)`$ when one of the points is at $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and the distance between distinct points is at least $`1`$. That value is no more than $`5^d`$, where $`d`$ is the dimension of $`X`$. Applying Theorem 2 with $`\kappa =K`$ to a cover by balls yields an open version of Besicovitch’s theorem for $`X`$. The constant $`K`$ is the best constant for the Besicovitch Theorem in terms of all known proofs. With obvious modifications, the construction in  is already appropriate for the improved result that yields a cover by open balls.

To use Theorem 2 to establish an open version of Morse’s Covering Theorem for $`(X,)`$, we need some geometric results. The proofs are modifications of arguments in  and . The bound obtained is not as simple as the one for balls, but the shapes to which it applies are more general than balls or even convex sets. For these geometric arguments, we use boldface to denote points.

For each $`\gamma 1`$, we let $`N(\gamma )`$ be an upper bound for the number of points that can be packed into the closed ball $`B(\mathrm{𝟎},1)`$ when the distance between distinct points is at least $`1/\gamma `$ and one point is at $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$. We write $`N_S(\gamma )`$ for the similar constant when all points are on the surface of $`B(\mathrm{𝟎},1)`$. Given nonzero points $`𝐛`$ and $`𝐜`$ in $`X`$, we set $`V(𝐛,𝐜):=\frac{𝐛}{𝐛}\frac{𝐜}{𝐜}`$.

###### Proposition 4

Fix $`\tau `$ with $`1<\tau 2`$. Also fix an ordered set $`\{S_i:1in\}`$ of bounded subsets of $`X`$ each containing a ball $`B(𝐚_i,r_i)`$. Assume that $`\{S_i:1in\}`$ is in $`\tau `$-satellite configuration with respect to the ordered set of centers $`\{𝐚_i:1in\}`$. Translate so that $`𝐚_n=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Fix $`\lambda \mathrm{max}_{1in}\mathrm{\Delta }(S_i)/(2r_i)`$. Suppose the resulting configuration has the following property in terms of two constants $`C_01`$ and $`C_11:`$ If $`𝐚_i`$ and $`𝐚_j`$ are centers with the properties that $`C_0r_n<𝐚_i𝐚_j`$ and $`V(𝐚_i,𝐚_j)1/C_1`$, then $`𝐚_i`$ must be in the interior of $`S_j`$. It then follows that

$$nN(2\lambda C_0)+N(8\lambda ^2)N_S(C_1).$$

Proof: Set $`r:=r_n`$ and $`S:=S_n`$. For $`1i<jn`$, we have

$$𝐚_i𝐚_jr_i\mathrm{\Delta }(S_i)/(2\lambda )\mathrm{\Delta }(S)/(4\lambda )r/(2\lambda ).$$

Scaling by $`1/(C_0r)`$, one sees that there can be at most $`N(2\lambda C_0)`$ indices $`i`$ for which $`𝐚_iC_0r`$. We only have to show, therefore, that there are at most $`N(8\lambda ^2)N_S(C_1)`$ indices in the set $`J:=\{j<n:C_0r<𝐚_j\}`$. Suppose $`ij`$ are members of $`J`$ with $`𝐚_iint(S{}_{j}{}^{})`$. Then $`i<j`$ and

$$𝐚_jB(𝐚_i,\mathrm{\Delta }(S_j))B(𝐚_i,2\mathrm{\Delta }(S_i))B(𝐚_i,4\lambda r_i).$$

Moreover, $`𝐚_j𝐚_ir_ir_i/(2\lambda )`$. If also $`j<k`$ in $`J`$, and $`𝐚_iint(S{}_{k}{}^{})`$, then $`𝐚_kB(𝐚_i,4\lambda r_i)`$ and

$$𝐚_k𝐚_jr_j\mathrm{\Delta }(S_j)/(2\lambda )𝐚_j𝐚_i/(2\lambda )r_i/(2\lambda )\text{.}$$

Scaling by $`1/(4\lambda r_i)`$, it follows that for each $`iJ`$, the cardinality $`Card\{jJ:𝐚_iint(S{}_{j}{}^{})\}N(8\lambda ^2)`$. Now construct $`J^{}J`$ by induction as follows. Set $`J_1=J`$. At the $`k^{\text{th}}`$ step for $`k1`$, if $`J_k`$ is empty, stop. Otherwise, choose the first $`i_kJ_k`$ so that for all $`jJ_k`$, $`𝐚_{i_k}𝐚_j`$. Put $`i_k`$ in $`J^{}`$. Form the set $`J_{k+1}`$ by discarding from $`J_k`$ the index $`i_k`$ and all other indices $`j`$ such that $`𝐚_{i_k}int(S{}_{j}{}^{})`$. Now, if $`ij`$ in $`J^{}`$, $`V(𝐚_i,𝐚_j)>1/C_1`$. Therefore, $`Card(J^{})N_S(C_1)`$, and so $`Card(J)N(8\lambda ^2)N_S(C_1)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Given $`\lambda 1`$ and $`𝐚X`$, we let $`𝒮_\lambda (𝐚)`$ denote the collection of all sets $`SX`$ for which there exists an $`r>0`$ such that $`B(𝐚,r)SB(𝐚,\lambda r)`$ and $`S`$ is starlike with respect to every $`𝐲B(𝐚,r)`$. This means that for each $`𝐲B(𝐚,r)`$ and each $`𝐱S`$, the line segment $`\alpha 𝐲+(1\alpha )𝐱`$, $`0\alpha 1`$, is contained in $`S`$. This is the general shape considered by Morse in . To improve his result, as well as for work in a later section, we will need the following fact about such a set $`S`$; the result, along with the next theorem, will finish our proof of the “open” Morse’s Covering Theorem.

###### Proposition 5

If $`𝐲𝐚<r`$, i.e., if $`𝐲`$ is in the interior of $`B(𝐚,r)`$, and $`𝐱`$ is in the closure, $`cl(S)`$, of $`S`$, then every point of the form $`\alpha 𝐲+(1\alpha )𝐱`$, $`0<\alpha 1`$, is in the interior of $`S`$.

Proof: Fix $`\rho >0`$ so that $`B(𝐲,\rho )B(𝐚,r)`$, and fix $`\alpha `$ with $`0<\alpha 1`$. Assume first that $`𝐱S`$, and translate so that $`𝐱=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Then the ball $`B(\alpha 𝐲,\alpha \rho )S`$ since

$`\alpha 𝐲𝐳`$ $`\alpha \rho 𝐲\frac{1}{\alpha }𝐳\rho \frac{1}{\alpha }𝐳B(𝐚,r)`$
$`𝐳=\alpha \left(\frac{1}{\alpha }𝐳\right)+(1\alpha )\mathrm{𝟎}S\text{.}`$
Now for the case that $`𝐱cl(S)`$, choose a point $`𝐰S`$ so that $`\frac{1\alpha }{\alpha }𝐱𝐰<\rho `$. The result follows from the previous case since

$$\alpha 𝐲+(1\alpha )𝐱=\alpha \left(𝐲+\frac{1\alpha }{\alpha }\left(𝐱𝐰\right)\right)+(1\alpha )𝐰\text{}\mathrm{}$$

###### Theorem 6

Fix $`\lambda 1`$ and fix $`\tau `$ with $`1<\tau 2`$. If $`\{S_i:1in\}`$ is an ordered collection of subsets of $`X`$ in $`\tau `$-satellite configuration with respect to an ordered set $`\{𝐚_i:1in\}X`$, and if for $`1in`$, $`S_i𝒮_\lambda (𝐚_i)`$, then

$$nN(64\lambda ^3)+N(8\lambda ^2)N_S(16\lambda ).$$

Proof: For $`1in`$, fix $`r_i>0`$ so that $`B(𝐚_i,r_i)S_iB(𝐚_i,\lambda r_i)`$ and $`S_i`$ is starlike with respect to every $`𝐲B(𝐚_i,r_i)`$. Translate so that $`𝐚_n=\mathrm{𝟎}`$; set $`r=r_n`$ and $`S=S_n`$. Suppose $`i`$ and $`j`$ are indices such that $`32\lambda ^2r<𝐚_i𝐚_j`$ and $`V(𝐚_i,𝐚_j)1/(16\lambda )`$. By Proposition 4, we only have to show that $`𝐚_i`$ must be in the interior of $`S_j`$. To simplify notation, let $`𝐛=𝐚_i`$ and $`𝐜=𝐚_j`$. Fix $`𝐱SS_j`$. Since $`𝐱\lambda r<32\lambda ^2r<𝐛`$, $`𝐱𝐛`$. Let $`s=𝐜/𝐛`$ and $`t=1/s`$. Set $`𝐲=(1s)𝐱+s𝐛`$. Then $`𝐛=(1t)𝐱+t𝐲`$. To show that $`𝐛int(S{}_{j}{}^{})`$, we only have to show that$`𝐲𝐜<r_j`$. Now $`16\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }(S)32\lambda ^2r<𝐛`$, whence $`𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }(S)\mathrm{min}(𝐛/(16\lambda ),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{\Delta }(S_j))`$. Therefore, since $`\left|1s\right|=s1<s`$,

$`𝐲𝐜`$ $`=(1s)𝐱+𝐜\left(\frac{𝐛}{𝐛}\frac{𝐜}{𝐜}\right)`$
$`<s𝐱+𝐜/(16\lambda )`$
$`s𝐛/(16\lambda )+𝐜/(16\lambda )=𝐜/(8\lambda )`$
$`\left(𝐜𝐱+𝐱\right)/(8\lambda )`$
$`<\mathrm{\Delta }(S_j)/(2\lambda )r_j.\mathrm{}`$
## 3 Measures

Recall that we are working with a normed vector space $`(X,)`$ of dimension $`d<\mathrm{}`$ over the real numbers $``$. Let $`\mu `$ be a measure on a $`\sigma `$-algebra $``$ of subsets of $`X`$. We say that $`\mu `$ is a Radon measure on $`X`$ if:

(i) All Borel sets are measurable, i.e., $``$ contains the Borel sets.

(ii) Compact sets have finite measure.

(iii) $`\mu `$ is inner and outer regular, i.e., for all $`E`$

$`\mu (E)`$ $`=sup\{\mu (K):KE\text{ and }K\text{ is compact}\},`$
$`\mu (E)`$ $`=inf\{\mu (G):GE\text{ and }G\text{ is open}\}.`$
We will call a set or function $`\mu `$-measurable, or when $`\mu `$ is understood just measurable, if it is measurable with respect to the $`\mu `$-completion of $``$.

Since every open set in $`X`$ is $`\sigma `$-compact, inner and outer regularity follow from assuming merely that $`\mu `$ is a Borel measure on $`X`$ and closed balls have finite measure; see Theorem 2.18 in . (For general spaces, the requirement of inner regularity is restricted to open sets and sets of finite measure; see Theorem 2.14 in .)

Given $`\lambda 1`$ and $`aX`$, we say that a set $`S_\lambda (a)X`$ is a Morse set associated with $`a`$ and $`\lambda `$ if there is an $`r>0`$ such that $`B(a,r)S_\lambda (a)B(a,\lambda r)`$ and $`S_\lambda (a)`$ is starlike with respect to $`B(a,r)`$. We also say that $`S_\lambda (a)`$ is a $`\lambda `$-Morse set. Recall that a gauge function is a mapping $`\delta :X(0,R)`$ for some $`R>0`$. We will say that the Morse set $`S_\lambda (a)`$ is $`\delta `$-fine with respect to a gauge function $`\delta `$ if $`\lambda r\delta (a)`$; in this case, we will also call $`a`$ the tag for $`S_\lambda (a)`$. Note that putting $`\lambda =1`$ forces a Morse set to be a closed ball. Also note that the closure $`cl(S_\lambda (a))`$ of a $`\lambda `$-Morse set $`S_\lambda (a)`$ is again a $`\lambda `$-Morse set since when $`yB(a,r)`$, $`xcl(S_\lambda (a))`$ and $`\left\{x_n\right\}`$ is a sequence converging to $`x`$, we have for any $`\alpha [0,1]`$, $`\alpha y+\left(1\alpha \right)x_n\alpha y+\left(1\alpha \right)x`$.

A collection $`𝒮𝒫(X)`$ consisting of at least one Morse set associated with each point $`a`$ in a set $`\mathrm{\Omega }X`$ is called a Morse cover of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ provided the same $`\lambda 1`$ is used for each set in the cover and there is a finite upper bound to the diameters of the sets in the cover. We will also call such a cover a $`\lambda `$-Morse cover. A $`\lambda `$-Morse cover $`𝒮`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is called fine if for each $`a\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and arbitrarily small values of $`r>0`$ there are associated sets $`S_\lambda (a)𝒮`$ with $`B(a,r)S_\lambda (a)B(a,\lambda r)`$ such that $`S_\lambda (a)`$ is starlike with respect to $`B(a,r)`$. Given a Radon measure $`\mu `$, a $`\lambda `$-Morse cover of a measurable set $`\mathrm{\Omega }X`$ is called a $`\mu `$-a.e. cover of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if i) it is fine, ii) each set in the cover is $`\mu `$-measurable, and iii) for any $`\epsilon >0`$, and any strictly positive gauge function $`\delta `$ there is a finite or infinite sequence of disjoint, $`\delta `$-fine sets $`S_n𝒮`$ such that $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }_nS_n)=0`$ and $`\mu (_nS_n\mathrm{\Omega })<\epsilon `$. This concept is similar to that of Vitali covers, see .

We first extend Corollary 3 to show that a fine Morse cover consisting of closed sets is a $`\mu `$-a.e. cover for any given measurable subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`X`$. The same is true when the Morse sets are not necessarily closed provided that for each set $`E`$ in the cover, it does not increase the measure of $`E`$ to adjoin its closure points. For closed balls and sets of finite measure, the proof is standard (see  or ). We reproduce and extend it here.

###### Lemma 7

Let $`\mu `$ be a Radon measure on $`X`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }X`$ be measurable, and suppose that $`𝒮`$ is a fine Morse cover of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ consisting of $`\mu `$-measurable sets. Then $`𝒮`$ is a $`\mu `$ -a.e. cover of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if $`𝒮`$ consists of closed sets or if for each set $`E𝒮`$, $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }(cl(E)E))=0`$.

Proof: Fix $`\epsilon >0`$, and a gauge function $`\delta >0`$. We suppose first that $`𝒮`$ consists of closed, $`\delta `$-fine sets. If $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })<\mathrm{}`$, we may fix an open set $`O\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`\mu (O\mathrm{\Omega })<\epsilon `$, and we may assume that each set $`E𝒮`$ is a subset of $`O`$. Let $`\kappa `$ be the upper bound for the Morse Covering Theorem; recall that it depends only on $`X`$ and the parameter $`\lambda `$ for the cover. By Corollary 3, there is a finite subcollection $`_1𝒮`$ consisting of pairwise disjoint closed sets such that $`\mu (_1)\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })/(2\kappa )`$, whence $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }_1)(11/(2\kappa ))\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and $`𝒮_1=\{E𝒮:E\left(_1\right)=\mathrm{}\}`$. Then $`𝒮_1`$ is a fine Morse cover of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. Again, there is a finite disjoint subfamily $`_2𝒮_1`$ such that $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }^{}_2)(11/(2\kappa ))\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$, whence, $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }(_1_2))(11/(2\kappa ))^2\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Continuing in this manner, we have $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })=0`$ where $`=_i_i`$. Important for the next step, however, is the fact that for any $`\gamma >0`$, there is a finite, pairwise disjoint family $`^{}𝒮`$ such that $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }^{})<\gamma `$.

Now suppose that $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })=+\mathrm{}`$. Then since $`\mu `$ is a Radon measure, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ where each $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ is a set of finite measure and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }_j=\mathrm{}`$ for $`ij`$. For each $`i`$, fix an open set $`O_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ with $`\mu \left(O_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i\right)<\epsilon /2^i`$. We apply the above result to obtain a finite (or empty) family $`^1`$ covering all but a set of measure $`1`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ with all sets contained in $`O_1`$. At the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ stage, $`n>1`$, we obtain a finite (or empty) family $`^n`$ covering all but a set of measure $`1/n`$ of $`\left(_{i=1}^n\mathrm{\Omega }_i\right)_{i=1}^{n1}(^i)`$ with all sets contained in $`\left(_{i=1}^nO_i\right)\backslash _{i=1}^{n1}(^i)`$. Clearly, $`_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}^i`$ is the desired collection of disjoint sets in $`𝒮`$.

In the case that for each set $`E𝒮`$ , $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }(cl(E)E))=0`$, we apply the above result to the Morse cover formed by the closures of the sets in $`𝒮`$. We then replace each set $`cl(S_n)`$ in the resulting disjoint sequence with the original set $`S_n`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

When dealing with Morse sets that are not closed, the conditions in Lemma 7 are easily fulfilled when the Morse cover $`𝒮`$ is scaled. This means that for each $`S_\lambda (a)𝒮`$ and each $`p(0,1]`$, the set $`S_\lambda ^{(p)}(a)`$ is also in $`𝒮`$ where $`S_\lambda ^{(p)}(a)=\{a+px:a+xS_\lambda (a)\}`$.

###### Proposition 8

Let $`\mu `$ be a Radon measure on $`X`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a measurable subset of $`X`$ and suppose $`𝒮`$ is a scaled Morse cover of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ consisting of $`\mu `$-measurable sets. Then $`𝒮`$ is a $`\mu `$-a.e. cover of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Proof: Since $`𝒮`$ is a scaled Morse cover of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, it is certainly a fine cover of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let $`\lambda `$ be the parameter for the Morse cover $`𝒮`$. Let $`a\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and fix $`S_\lambda (a)𝒮`$; we write $`S`$ for $`S_\lambda (a)`$. We will show that for $`0<p<q1`$, $`S^{(p)}S^{(q)}=\mathrm{}`$. The result will then follow since for all but a countable number of values $`p`$, $`\mu (S^{(p)})=0`$. Since $`S^{(p)}=\left(S^{(q)}\right)^{(p/q)}`$, we may simplify notation by assuming that $`S^{(q)}=S`$; we may further simplify by translating so that $`a=0`$. The result now follows from Proposition 5 since for each $`xcl(S^{(p)})`$, $`(1/p)xcl(S)`$, so $`xint(S)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Example 9

Take all closed balls or all open balls in $`X`$ of radius at most $`1`$. For each center $`x`$ and radius $`r`$, let $`a(x,r)`$ in the interior of the ball be the tag of that ball, and set $`\omega (x,r):=xa(x,r)/r`$. Assume that $`\omega _0=sup_{x,r}\omega (x,r)<1`$. Given a Radon measure $`\mu `$, we have a $`\mu `$-a.e. cover of any $`\mu `$-measurable set in $`X`$, and $`(1+\omega _0)/(1\omega _0)`$ is the smallest permissible value of $`\lambda `$. As a special case, we may take each tag $`a(x,r)=x`$.

###### Example 10

Let $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_d\}`$ be a basis for $`X`$. Let $`a=_{i=1}^da_ie_iX`$. Let $`b`$, $`c_+^d=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)^d:x_i>0,1id\}`$ with $`c_1^2+\mathrm{}+c_d^2<1`$. Define a tagged interval by setting $`I(a,b,c):=\{_{i=1}^d(a_i+t_i)e_i:0<t_ib_i,1id\}`$ with tag at $`_{i=1}^d(a_i+b_ic_i)e_i`$. Fix $`c`$ as above and take $`k1`$. Given a Radon measure $`\mu `$, the collection $`𝒮=\{I(a,b,c):aX,b_+^d`$ such that $`\mathrm{max}_{1id}b_i/\mathrm{min}_{1id}b_ik\}`$ is a scaled, $`\mu `$-a.e. Morse cover of $`X`$.

Let $`K`$ be a compact subset of $`X`$ and let $`\mu `$ be a Radon measure such that each open ball with center at a point of $`K`$ has positive $`\mu `$-measure. We will want to use the fact that given a $`\lambda 1`$, any $`\mu `$-a.e., $`\lambda `$-Morse cover $`𝒮`$ of $`K`$ forms a differentiation basis on $`K`$ with respect to $`\mu `$. For our purposes here this means that if $`\nu `$ is a radon measure absolutely continuous with respect to $`\mu `$, i.e., $`\nu <<\mu `$, and $`𝒮(a)`$ is the collection of sets in $`𝒮`$ associated with $`aK`$, then

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}S𝒮(a)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }(S)0\end{array}}{lim}\frac{\nu (S)}{\mu (S)}=\frac{d\nu }{d\mu }(a)\text{for }\mu \text{-a.e. }aK,$$

where $`\frac{d\nu }{d\mu }`$ denotes the Radon-Nikodým derivative of $`\nu `$ with respect to $`\mu `$.

By the principal result in , the above equality follows from the fact that if $`E`$ is a measurable subset of $`K`$ and $`\nu `$ is a finite Radon measure with $`\nu <<\mu `$ and $`\nu (E)=0`$, then for $`\mu `$-a.e.$`aE`$, $`limsup_{SS(a),\mathrm{\Delta }(S)0}\nu (S)/\mu (S)1`$. As in , we can see that this is in fact the case by letting $`A`$ be the subset of $`E`$ where the reverse inequality holds, and letting $`\kappa `$ be the upper bound given by the Morse Covering Theorem. We fix $`\epsilon >0`$ and a nonempty compact set $`CXE`$ with $`\nu (XC)<\epsilon /\left(2\kappa \right)`$. By assumption, for each $`aA`$, there is a set $`S(a)𝒮(a)`$ with $`S(a)C=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu (S(a))\nu (S(a))`$. For the finite, disjoint subcollection $`S_n`$ of these sets given by Corollary 3 , we have

$$\mu ^{}(A)2\kappa \mathrm{\Sigma }_n\mu (S_n)2\kappa \mathrm{\Sigma }_n\nu (S_n)2\kappa \nu (XC)<\epsilon \text{.}$$

In the next section, we will want to exploit the fact that measurable functions are approximately continuous almost everywhere with respect to a given Radon measure $`\mu `$. That is, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a $`\mu `$-measurable subset of $`X`$, and let $`f:\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be $`\mu `$-measurable; set $`f0`$ on $`X\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Suppose $`𝒮`$ is a fine $`\lambda `$-Morse cover of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, so that the sets in $`𝒮`$ form a differentiation basis with respect to $`\mu `$ at points $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for which all balls $`B(x,r)`$ have positive $`\mu `$-measure. Then $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is called a point of approximate continuity of $`f`$ if for all positive $`\epsilon `$ and $`\eta `$ there is an $`R>0`$ such that if $`S(x)`$ is a set in $`𝒮`$ with tag $`x`$ and $`S(x)B(x,R)`$, then for $`E(x,\eta ):=\{yS(x):|f(x)f(y)|>\eta \}`$ we have $`\mu (E(x,\eta ))\epsilon \mu (S(x))`$. It is known that $`\mu `$-almost all points of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are points of approximate continuity of $`f`$ (see , 2.9.13). A related notion, defined and used below in the proof of Theorem 12, is the notion of a Lebesgue point for $`f`$; these also fill the space except for a set of measure $`0`$.

###### Remark 11

Clearly, a nonnegative, measurable, real-valued function $`f`$ is approximately continuous $`\mu `$-a.e. if for each $`n`$, $`\mathrm{min}(f,n+1)`$ is approximately continuous $`\mu `$-a.e. on the set where $`fn`$. That this is the case follows from the discussion of Lebesgue points in Section 3 of , since the constant for a Lebesgue point $`x`$ equals $`f(x)`$ for $`\mu `$-almost all $`x`$ (cf. Equation (2) below).

## 4 Integration

Again, we let $`(X,)`$ be a normed vector space of dimension $`d<\mathrm{}`$ over the real numbers $``$. Using our covering results we can formulate the Lebesgue integral as a type of Riemann sum defined by $`\mu `$-a.e. Morse covers. We do this first for nonnegative functions and later apply the result to measurable functions taking both positive and negative values.

###### Theorem 12

Let $`\mu `$ be a Radon measure on $`X`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a measurable subset of $`X`$, and let $`f`$ be a nonnegative, real-valued, measurable function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then $`_\mathrm{\Omega }f𝑑\mu `$ is finite and equals $`F`$ if the following condition holds for some $`\lambda 1`$ and some $`\mu `$-a.e., $`\lambda `$-Morse cover $`𝒮`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }:`$ For all $`\epsilon >0`$ there is a gauge function $`\delta :\mathrm{\Omega }(0,1]`$ such that for any finite or countably infinite disjoint sequence $`S_n(x_n)`$ of $`\delta `$-fine sets from $`𝒮`$ covering all but a set of measure $`0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we have

(1)
$$\left|_nf(x_n)\mu (S_n)F\right|<\epsilon .$$

Conversely, if $`_\mathrm{\Omega }f𝑑\mu `$ is finite and equals $`F`$, then the condition holds for any $`\lambda 1`$ and any $`\mu `$-a.e., $`\lambda `$-Morse cover $`𝒮`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Proof: We note first that for a given set $`A\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`\mu (A)=0`$, we may set our gauge to force an arbitrarily small sum for points $`x_iA`$, and also force, in the case that $`f`$ is assumed to be integrable, an arbitrarily small integral of $`f`$ over the union of the corresponding sets $`S_i`$. To show this, we fix $`\epsilon >0`$, and for each $`n`$ we set $`A_n=\{xA:n1f(x)<n\}`$. The sets $`A_n`$ are disjoint and $`\mu `$-null with union $`A`$. In the case that $`f`$ is assumed to be integrable, we may choose an open set $`GA`$ so that $`_Gf<\epsilon `$; otherwise, set $`G=X`$. For each $`n`$, fix an open set $`G_n`$ with $`G`$ $`G_nA_n`$ and $`\mu (G_n)<\epsilon /\left(n2^n\right)`$. (This is possible since $`\mu `$ is outer regular.) For each $`xA_n`$, we choose $`\delta (x)<sup\{s:B(x,s)G_n\}`$. Then a sum over $`\delta `$-fine, disjoint sets $`S_i`$ with all tags in $`A`$ satisfies the inequality

$$\underset{i}{}f(x_i)\mu (S_i)<\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(n\underset{x_iA_n}{}\mu (S_i)\right)\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\epsilon \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^n=\epsilon ,$$

and if $`f`$ is assumed to be integrable, its integral over $`_iS_i`$ is at most $`\epsilon `$.

Now suppose that $`_\mathrm{\Omega }f𝑑\mu `$ exists and equals $`F`$. Fix $`\lambda 1`$, a $`\mu `$-a.e., $`\lambda `$-Morse cover $`𝒮`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and an $`\epsilon >0`$. Set $`f0`$ on $`X\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Suppose $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a Lebesgue point for $`f`$ with respect to the Morse cover $`𝒮`$. This means that there is a constant, which (after redefining $`f`$ on a $`\mu `$-null set) we may assume is $`f(x)`$, such that the following condition holds: For any $`\epsilon _1>0`$ there is an $`R>0`$ so that if $`S(x)`$ is a set in $`𝒮`$ with tag $`x`$ and $`S(x)B(x,R)`$, then

(2)
$$\underset{yS(x)}{}|f(x)f(y)|𝑑\mu (y)\epsilon _1\mu (S(x)).$$

For such an $`x`$, let $`k(x)`$ be the first integer strictly larger than $`x`$. Set $`\delta (x)=R`$ where $`R`$ is chosen to be at most $`1`$ and satisfy Equation (2) with $`\epsilon _1=\epsilon \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{k(x)1}/\left[1+\mu (B(0,k(x)+1))\right]`$. Since $`𝒮`$ forms a differentiation basis, it follows that the non-Lebesgue points form a $`\mu `$-null set. (See, for example, Section 3 of .) We may, as just noted, choose positive values $`\delta (x)1`$ for such points $`x`$ so that their contribution to the sum in Equation (1) can be at most $`\epsilon /4`$ and the integral of $`f`$ over the union of the corresponding sets $`S(x)`$ will be at most $`\epsilon /4`$.

With this choice for the gauge $`\delta `$, we now let $`S_n(x_n)`$ be any finite or countably infinite disjoint sequence of $`\delta `$-fine sets from $`𝒮`$ covering all but a set of measure $`0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let $`L`$ denote the set of Lebesgue points of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then

(3) $`\left|{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}f𝑑\mu {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}f(x_n)\mu (S_n)\right|`$ $`=\left|{\displaystyle \underset{_nS_n}{}}f𝑑\mu {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}f(x_n)\mu (S_n)\right|`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{x_nL}{}}{\displaystyle _{S_n}}|f(x_n)f(y)|𝑑\mu (y)+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^\mathrm{}1}{1+\mu (B(0,\mathrm{}+1))}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}1x_n<\mathrm{}}{}}\mu (S_n)+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}`$
$`\epsilon .`$
Now fix a $`\lambda 1`$ and a $`\mu `$-a.e., $`\lambda `$-Morse cover $`𝒮`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ so that for any $`\epsilon >0`$ there is an appropriate gauge $`\delta 1`$ for $`f`$ and $`F`$; that is, for any finite or countably infinite disjoint sequence $`S_n(x_n)`$ of $`\delta `$-fine sets from $`𝒮`$ covering all but a set of measure $`0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, Equation (1) holds for $`\epsilon `$. For each $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$, let $`k(x)`$ be the first integer strictly larger than $`x`$, and set

$$\eta (x):=\frac{2^{k(x)}}{[1+\mu (B(0,k(x)+1))][1+f(x)]}.$$

For each $`m`$, fix $`\delta _m1`$ to work for $`f`$ and $`F`$ with $`\epsilon =1/m`$ in Equation (1). Let $`S_n^m(x_n^m)`$ be a finite or countably infinite disjoint sequence of $`\delta _m`$-fine sets from $`𝒮`$ covering all but a set of measure $`0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We may assume that each tag $`x_n^m`$ is a point of approximate continuity of $`f`$ and $`\mu (E_n^m)\eta _m(x_n^m)\mu (S_n^m)`$ where $`\eta _m(x_n^m)=\eta (x_n^m)/m`$ and

$$E_n^m:=\{xS_n^m:|f(x_n^m)f(x)|>\eta _m(x_n^m)\}\text{.}$$

Define a measurable function $`f_m`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as follows: If for some $`n`$, $`xS_n^mE_n^m`$, set $`f_m(x)=\mathrm{max}(f(x_n^m)\eta _m(x_n^m),0)`$; otherwise, set $`f_m(x)=0`$. Now the functions $`f_m`$ converge to $`f`$ in measure since,

$`\mu \left(\{x\mathrm{\Omega }:|f(x)f_m(x)|>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mu (E_n^m){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\eta _m(x_n^m)\mu (S_n^m)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{\mathrm{}}}{1+\mu (B(0,\mathrm{}+1))}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}1x_n^m<\mathrm{}}{}}\mu (S_n^m)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}.`$
Since any subsequence of the sequence $`f_m`$ has in turn a subsequence converging $`\mu `$-a.e. to $`f`$, it follows from Fatou’s lemma that

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}f𝑑\mu `$ $`lim\underset{m}{inf}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}f_m𝑑\mu `$
$`lim\underset{m}{inf}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}f(x_n^m)\mu (S_n^m)`$
$`lim\underset{m}{inf}(F+1/m)`$
$`=F<+\mathrm{}.`$
On the other hand, each $`f_mf`$ , so for each $`m`$,

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}f𝑑\mu `$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}f_m𝑑\mu `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[f(x_n^m)\eta _m(x_n^m)\right]\mu (S_n^mE_n^m)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}f(x_n^m)\mu (S_n^m){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}f(x_n^m)\mu (E_n^m){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\eta _m(x_n^m)\mu (S_n^mE_n^m)`$
$`F1/m{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\eta _m(x_n^m)f(x_n^m)\mu (S_n^m){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\eta _m(x_n^m)\mu (S_n^m)`$
$`F1/m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{\mathrm{}}}{1+\mu (B(0,\mathrm{}+1))}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}1x_n^m<\mathrm{}}{}}2\mu (S_n^m)`$
$`F3/m,`$
whence $`_\mathrm{\Omega }f𝑑\mu =F`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 13

With no loss of generality, we can restrict the points $`x_n`$ in Equation (1) to be points of approximate continuity or to be points outside of any given $`\mu `$-null set. Also, while we could work with the cover formed by all $`\mu `$-measurable $`\lambda `$-Morse sets, the gauge $`\delta `$ can in general be chosen larger when given a smaller $`\mu `$-a.e. Morse cover.

Let $`f`$ be a real-valued function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ taking both positive and negative values. As usual, we set $`f^+:=\mathrm{max}(f,0)`$ and $`f^{}:=\mathrm{max}(f,0)`$; given $`\mu `$, we say that $`f`$ is integrable if both $`f^+`$ and $`f^{}`$ have finite integrals with respect to $`\mu `$. Suppose now that $`𝒮`$ is the set of all closed balls in $`X`$ with tags at the center; i.e., $`\lambda =1`$. Even for this case, we cannot force the integrability of $`f`$ with the inequality

(4)
$$\left|\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f(x_n)\mu (B_n)F\right|<\epsilon .$$

The inequality does imply that $`|f(x_n)|\mu (B_n)`$ will be bounded for any appropriate sequence $`B_n`$, but the sums need not be uniformly bounded. The condition given by (4) will allow principal value integrals. For example, in $`^d`$ let $`e_1`$ be the unit vector in the positive direction along the first axis. For each $`n`$, let $`A_n`$ be the open ball $`U(\left((1)^n/n\right)e_1,1/(2n^2))`$. The balls $`A_n`$ are disjoint. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the union of the balls $`A_n`$ together with the origin, and let $`\mu `$ be the sum of the Dirac measure supported at the origin and Lebesgue measure restricted to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Set $`f(x)=\left((1)^n/n\right)\mu \left(A_n\right)`$ if $`xA_n`$, and let $`f(0)=0`$. Take the gauge function $`\delta :^d(0,1)`$ so that if $`xA_n`$ then $`B(x,\delta (x))A_n`$. Let $`F=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}(1)^n/n`$, i.e., $`F=\mathrm{ln}2`$. Given $`\epsilon >0`$, if we take $`\delta `$ small enough at $`0`$, then for any sequence of disjoint, $`\delta `$-fine balls $`B_n`$ satisfying $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }/_nB_n)=0`$, we have $`|f(x_n)\mu (B_n)F|<\epsilon `$. Any such sequence must contain a ball having the origin as its center. As we choose different sequences so that the radius of this ball shrinks to $`0`$ we have $`|f(x_n)|\mu (B_n)\mathrm{}`$.

It is the case, as we now show, that a real-valued, measurable $`f`$ is integrable if the sums $`_n\left|f(x_n)\right|\mu (S_n)`$ are uniformly bounded.

###### Corollary 14

Given $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as in the theorem, let $`f`$ be an arbitrary, measurable, real-valued function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then $`f`$ is integrable if the following condition holds for some $`\lambda 1`$ and some $`\mu `$-a.e., $`\lambda `$-Morse cover $`𝒮`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }:`$ There is a number $`M0`$ and a gauge function $`\delta :\mathrm{\Omega }(0,1]`$ such that for any finite or countably infinite disjoint sequence $`S_n(x_n)`$ of $`\delta `$-fine sets from $`𝒮`$ covering all but a set of measure $`0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we have

(5)
$$_n\left|f(x_n)\right|\mu (S_n)M\text{.}$$

Conversely, if $`f`$ is integrable, then the condition holds for all $`\lambda 1`$ and all $`\mu `$-a.e., $`\lambda `$-Morse covers $`𝒮`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In this case, for each such $`\lambda `$-Morse cover $`𝒮`$ and each $`\epsilon >0`$, there is a gauge function $`\delta :\mathrm{\Omega }(0,1]`$ so that for any finite or countably infinite disjoint sequence $`S_n(x_n)`$ of $`\delta `$-fine sets from $`𝒮`$ covering all but a set of measure $`0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we have

$$\left|_nf(x_n)\mu (S_n)_\mathrm{\Omega }f𝑑\mu \right|<\epsilon .$$

Proof: Fix a $`\lambda 1`$ and a $`\mu `$-a.e., $`\lambda `$-Morse cover $`𝒮`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and suppose there is an $`M0`$ and a gauge $`\delta 1`$ satisfying our condition including Equation (5). For each $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$, let $`k(x)`$ be the first integer strictly larger than $`x`$, and set $`\eta (x):=2^{k(x)}/\left(1+\mu (B(0,k(x)+1))\right)`$. For each $`m`$, let $`S_n^m(x_n^m)`$ be a finite or countably infinite disjoint sequence of $`\delta `$-fine sets from $`𝒮`$ covering all but a set of measure $`0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We may assume that each tag $`x_n^m`$ is a point of approximate continuity of $`\left|f\right|`$ and $`\mu (E_n^m)\eta _m(x_n^m)\mu (S_n^m)`$ where $`\eta _m(x_n^m)=\eta (x_n^m)/m`$ and

$$E_n^m:=\{xS_n^m:\left|\left|f(x_n^m)\right|\left|f(x)\right|\right|>\eta _m(x_n^m)\}\text{.}$$

Define a measurable function $`f_m`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as follows: If for some $`n`$, $`xS_n^mE_n^m`$, set $`f_m(x)=\mathrm{max}(\left|f(x_n^m)\right|\eta _m(x_n^m),0)`$; otherwise, set $`f_m(x)=0`$. As in the theorem, we have $`f_m|f|`$ in measure and

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }|f|𝑑\mu liminf_\mathrm{\Omega }f_m𝑑\mu liminf\underset{n}{}|f(x_n^m)|\mu (S_n^m)M,$$

whence $`f`$ is integrable.

Now assume that $`f`$ is integrable, and set $`F_1=_\mathrm{\Omega }|f|𝑑\mu `$. Applying the theorem, it follows that for any $`\lambda 1`$ and any $`\mu `$-a.e., $`\lambda `$-Morse cover $`𝒮`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the function $`\left|f\right|`$ satisfies our condition including Equation (5) with $`M=F_1+1`$. The rest follows for any given $`\epsilon >0`$ by applying the theorem separately to $`f^+`$and $`f^{}`$ with respect to $`\epsilon /2`$ and taking the smaller of the two gauges at each point. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 An Extension of the Riemann Integral

For the case that $`f`$ is real-valued and continuous almost everywhere, we can easily calculate the gauge $`\delta `$, and in the process obtain an extension of the Riemann integral that integrates some unbounded functions with respect to Radon measures on unbounded domains. Here too, we say that $`f`$ is integrable only when this is true for $`f^+`$ and $`f^{}`$.

###### Theorem 15

Let $`\mu `$ be a Radon measure on $`X`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a measurable subset of $`X`$, and let $`f`$ be a measurable, real-valued function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Set $`f0`$ on $`X`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ be the set of points in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ where $`f`$ is continuous. Let us suppose that $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_c)=0`$. For $`x\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$, let $`k(x)`$ be the smallest integer strictly greater than $`x`$, and for each $`\gamma >0`$ fix $`\rho (x,\gamma )`$ with $`0<\rho (x,\gamma )1`$ so that for all $`y`$ with $`\left|yx\right|<\rho (x,\gamma )`$, we have $`|f(y)f(x)|<\gamma `$. If $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })<\mathrm{}`$, then for each $`\epsilon >0`$ and each $`x\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ set $`\delta _\epsilon (x)=\rho (x,\epsilon [1+\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })]^1)`$; otherwise for each $`\epsilon >0`$ and each $`x\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ set $`\delta _\epsilon (x)=\rho (x,\epsilon 2^{k(x)}[1+\mu (B(0,k(x)+1))]^1)`$. Now, if $`f`$ is integrable, then for any $`\lambda 1`$, any $`\epsilon `$ with $`0<\epsilon 1`$ and any finite or countably infinite disjoint sequence $`S_n(x_n)`$ of $`\delta _\epsilon `$-fine, $`\lambda `$-Morse sets covering all but a set of measure $`0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and having tag points $`x_n\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ we have

$$\left|_nf^\pm (x_n)\mu (S_n(x_n))_\mathrm{\Omega }f^\pm 𝑑\mu \right|<\epsilon ,$$

whence

$$\left|_nf(x_n)\mu (S_n(x_n))_\mathrm{\Omega }f𝑑\mu \right|<2\epsilon .$$

On the other hand, $`f`$ is integrable if for some $`\lambda 1`$ and some finite or countably infinite disjoint sequence $`S_n(x_n)`$ of $`\delta _1`$-fine Morse sets, associated with $`\lambda `$ and tag points $`x_n\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$, and covering all but a set of measure $`0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we have

$$_n\left|f(x_n)\right|\mu (S_n)<+\mathrm{}.$$

Proof: Note that if $`\rho (x,\gamma )`$ works for $`f`$, then it works for $`f^+`$ and $`f^{}`$. Assume $`f`$ is integrable, and fix $`\lambda 1`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$. Let $`S_n(x_n)`$ be any finite or countably infinite disjoint sequence of $`\delta _\epsilon `$-fine, $`\lambda `$-Morse sets with tag points $`x_n`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ and covering all but a set of measure $`0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then for the case that $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{}`$ we have

$`\left|{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}f^+𝑑\mu {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}f^+(x_n)\mu (S_n)\right|`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle _{S_n}}|f^+(y)f^+(x_n)|𝑑\mu (y)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\mathrm{}}}{1+\mu (B(0,\mathrm{}+1))}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}1x_n<\mathrm{}}{}}\mu (S_n)\epsilon ,`$
with the obvious simplification for the case that $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })<\mathrm{}`$. A similar calculation works for $`f^{}`$.

Now fix $`\lambda 1`$, and assume there is a finite or countably infinite disjoint sequence $`S_n(x_n)`$ of $`\delta _1`$-fine Morse sets associated with $`\lambda `$ and tag points $`x_n\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ covering all but a set of measure $`0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`_n\left|f(x_n)\right|\mu (S_n)=M`$. Then for the case that $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{}`$,

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\left|f\right|𝑑\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle _{S_n}}\left|f\right|𝑑\mu `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\left|f(x_n)\right|+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\mathrm{}}}{1+\mu (B(0,\mathrm{}+1))}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}1x_n<\mathrm{}}{}}\mu (S_n)`$
$`M+1\text{.}`$
Again, we have the obvious simplification for the case that $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })<\mathrm{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note added in proof: It follows from Lusin’s Theorem and the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem for characteristic functions that this theory can be extended to Banach space valued functions. This will be the subject of a subsequent paper.