text:
# Replica Treatment of the Calogero–Sutherland Model

## 1 Introduction

The model of one–dimensional particles interacting via the inverse square potential, known as the Calogero–Sutherland model (CSM) , has attracted a great deal of attention . It has long been realized  that for the three special values of the interaction parameter $`\lambda =1/2,1,2`$ the CSM is closely related to the random matrix theory (RMT)  of the three Wigner–Dyson ensembles: orthogonal, unitary and symplectic respectively. Recently, using the method of Jack polynomials, Forrester  found the correlation functions of the CSM for any integer $`\lambda `$. The method was latter generalized by Ha  to any rational $`\lambda =p/q`$, where $`p`$ and $`q`$ are mutual primes. In the latter case the density–density correlation function of the model may be written as the $`(p+q)`$–fold integral over momenta of $`p`$ hole and $`q`$ particle excitations . This seemingly makes the answer a highly irregular function of the coupling strength $`\lambda `$.

In this paper we employ the replica method, borrowed from the theory of disordered systems  and specifically RMT , to treat the CSM at an arbitrary value of $`\lambda `$. The idea is to write the particle density operator as the $`n`$–th power of the characteristic polynomial in the limit $`n0`$. In the context of the CSM, this appears to be a particularly simple operator which creates at most $`n`$ holes and no other excitations . As a result, for an integer $`n`$, the correlation function of the characteristic polynomials may be expressed as an $`n`$–fold integral over hole momenta for any coupling constant, $`\lambda `$.

Mathematically, this statement boils down to the powerful asymptotic ($`N\mathrm{}`$) identity between the $`N`$–fold coordinate average of the $`n`$–th power of the characteristic polynomial and the $`n`$–fold momenta integral. For $`\lambda =1`$ (unitary RMT) such integral representation has been obtained earlier by Verbaarschot and Zirnbauer  by mapping the problem onto the non–linear $`\sigma `$–model. We derive here the identity valid for any $`\lambda `$ employing the Forrester–Ha method of Jack polynomials. As of today we are not aware if this identity has a geometrical or field–theoretical derivation apart from $`\lambda =1/2,1,2`$. The simplicity of the final expression suggests the possibility that such a derivation exists. We stress, however, that for any $`\lambda `$ the identity has clear quantum–mechanical interpretation. We hope also that it may prove to be useful in the theory of the Coulomb gases.

The calculation requires evaluation of the resulting $`n`$–fold integral for any integer $`n`$. We accomplish this goal in the asymptotic regime $`x1`$ ($`x`$ is the scaled distance) by summing up contributions on $`n+1`$ saddle points ($`n1`$ of these saddle points may be dubbed as “replica non–symmetric”). The subsequent analytic continuation, $`n0`$, is analogous to the one employed recently in the RMT context . Some mathematical aspects of this procedure are not completely clear at the moment . For rational coupling constants $`\lambda `$ our procedure is in exact agreement with the existing results  and allows one to obtain them in a much simpler way. In addition it leads to expressions formally valid for any $`\lambda `$.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we define the CSM and introduce the replica method. In section 3 we derive the integral identity discussed above. Section 4 is devoted to the calculation of the $`n`$–fold integral in the large $`x`$ limit and analytical continuation, $`n0`$. Finally, our results and some conclusions are summarized in section 5. Technical details are presented in three appendices.

## 2 CSM and replica

### 2.1 Eigenstates of CSM

Consider $`N`$ interacting particles on the unit circle. The CSM  is defined by the following Hamiltonian:

$$H=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(z_j_j\right)^2+2\underset{j<i}{}\frac{\lambda (\lambda 1)}{|z_jz_i|^2},$$
(1)
where $`z_j=e^{i\theta _j}`$ are the coordinates of the $`j`$-th particle, $`_j=/z_j`$ and $`\lambda `$ is the coupling constant. The first term is the usual kinetic energy, while the second one describes inverse square interactions. The spectrum and the many–body eigenfunctions of the model may be found exactly using the theory of the symmetric functions . For the sake of completeness and to set notations we present here the basic features of this solution (for more details see Appendix A).

The ground state wave-function of the CSM  is

$$z|0=\mathrm{\Psi }_0(z)=\sqrt{𝒩}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_N(z)\right]^\lambda ,$$
(2)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_N(z)\underset{j<i}{}\left(z_iz_j\right)$$
(3)
is the $`N\times N`$ Vandermonde determinant and the normalization constant is given by

$$𝒩=𝒩(\lambda ,N)=(2\pi )^{2N}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^N(1+\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\lambda N)}.$$
(4)
Excited states are labeled by the quantum numbers (essentially momenta) $`(\kappa )=(\kappa _1,\kappa _2,\mathrm{},\kappa _N)`$, where the non–negative integers $`\kappa _j`$ are ordered as $`\kappa _1\mathrm{}\kappa _N0`$. In the mathematical literature the quantum numbers $`(\kappa )`$ are called partitions  and represented by the Young diagrams, with $`\kappa _j`$ cells in $`j`$-th row. The example of the Young diagram for the partition $`(\kappa )=(7,6,5,5,3,2)`$ sometimes written as $`(7,6,5^2,3,2)`$ is presented in Fig. 1.

In our case number of rows in a Young diagram cannot exceed $`N`$, whereas number of columns is unlimited. The state $`(\kappa )`$ has well defined total momentum, whose value is given by the number of cells in the corresponding Young diagram and denoted as $`|\kappa |_{j=1}^N\kappa _j`$. The coordinate representation wave-function of the excited state corresponding to a given partition $`(\kappa )`$ may be written as

$$z|(\kappa )=\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\kappa )}(z)=\sqrt{𝒩_{(\kappa )}}J_{(\kappa )}^{1/\lambda }(z)\times \left[\mathrm{\Delta }_N(z)\right]^\lambda ,$$
(5)
where the symmetric functions $`J_{(\kappa )}^{1/\lambda }(z)=J_{(\kappa )}^{1/\lambda }(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ are known as Jack polynomials . Definitions and some properties of Jack polynomials along with the normalization constants, $`𝒩_{(\kappa )}`$, are presented in Appendices A, B.

### 2.2 Correlation functions

We focus first on the ground state, static density–density correlation function of the CSM:

$$R(\theta )\rho _0^20|\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\theta )\stackrel{~}{\rho }(0)|0,$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\theta )=\rho (\theta )\rho _0`$ denotes the fluctuating part of the density operator $`\rho (\theta )=_j\delta (\theta \theta _j)`$ and $`\rho _0=N/2\pi `$ is the mean density. Due to the translational invariance of the model this correlation function depends only on the relative angle between the two points. One may represent the fluctuating part of the density operator as the Fourier series:

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\theta )=\underset{k0}{}\rho _ke^{ik\theta },$$
(7)
where the Fourier coefficients of the density, $`\rho _k=\overline{\rho }_k`$, are given by

$$2\pi \rho _k=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{ik\theta _j}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}z_j^k.$$
(8)
In the theory of symmetric functions the Fourier coefficients $`2\pi \rho _k`$ are referred to as power sums of variables $`z_j`$. Since the Jack polynomials constitute a complete basis in the ring of symmetric polynomials the power sums $`\rho _k`$ can be decomposed into linear combinations of $`J_{(\kappa )}^{1/\lambda }(z)`$, which is the basis of Ha’s  approach. Here we employ a different method.

Let us define the characteristic polynomial (or vertex) operator as

$$Z(\theta )\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(1e^{i(\theta \theta _j)}\right)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(1e^{i\theta }z_j\right).$$
(9)
In the RMT this object is known as the characteristic polynomial of the unitary matrix with eigenvalues $`z_j`$ or spectral determinant.

Rewriting the characteristic polynomial in the form

$$Z(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{ln}(1e^{i\theta }z_j)\right\}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\rho _ke^{ik\theta }}{k}\right\},$$
(10)
one notices that the fluctuating part of the density is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\theta )=\frac{1}{\pi }_\theta \text{Im}\mathrm{ln}Z(\theta ).$$
(11)
To ensure convergence of the series in Eq. (10) one should assume an infinitesimal negative imaginary part of $`\theta `$: $`\theta \theta i0`$. The correlation function Eq. (6) may be expressed therefore through the correlation of logarithms of the spectral determinants:

$$R(\theta )=\frac{\rho _0^2}{2\pi ^2}_\theta ^2\text{Re}0|\mathrm{ln}\overline{Z}(\theta )\mathrm{ln}Z(0)|0.$$
(12)
The replica trick is to write the logarithm as

$$\mathrm{ln}Z=\underset{n0}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\left(Z^n1\right).$$
(13)
As a result one finally obtains for the correlation function

$$R(\theta )=\underset{n0}{lim}\frac{1}{2\pi ^2n^2}\frac{^2}{(\rho _0\theta )^2}\text{Re}0|\overline{Z}^n(\theta )Z^n(0)|0,$$
(14)
If one was able to calculate the expectation value on the r.h.s. for any real $`n`$ the limiting procedure would be straightforward. The non–trivial aspects of the replica method show up if the calculation is possible only for positive  integer $`n`$. As we shall see in the next section this is indeed the case.

## 3 Correlations of characteristic polynomials

In this section we calculate the large $`N`$ limit of the correlation function of the characteristic polynomials for integer $`n`$. In the coordinate representation it takes the form of the following $`N`$–fold integral

$$0|\overline{Z}^n(\theta )Z^n(0)|0=𝒩\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}d^N\theta |\mathrm{\Delta }_N(z)|^{2\lambda }\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(1e^{i\theta }\overline{z}_j\right)\left(1z_j\right)\right]^n,$$
(15)
where the normalization constant is given by Eq. (4).

Consider the ground state expectation value of the $`s`$-th power of the characteristic polynomials, where $`s`$ is an arbitrary real number. Inserting resolution of unity, one finds

$$0|\overline{Z}^s(\theta )Z^s(0)|0=\underset{(\kappa )}{}0|\overline{Z}^s(\theta )|(\kappa )(\kappa )|Z^s(0)|0=\underset{(\kappa )}{}|(\kappa )|Z^s(0)|0|^2e^{i|\kappa |\theta }.$$
(16)
where the sum runs over all possible partitions (with number of rows less than $`N`$). The last equality in Eq. (16) is a trivial consequence of the translational invariance and the fact that the state $`|(\kappa )`$ carries momentum $`|\kappa |`$. Since $`Z^s(0)`$ is a symmetric function of $`z`$ it may be expanded in the basis of Jack polynomials. Employing the orthogonality relation for Jack polynomials, one obtains the matrix elements $`(\kappa )|Z^s(0)|0`$. Details of this calculation are given in Appendix B. The result is

$$0|\overline{Z}^s(\theta )Z^s(0)|0=\underset{(\kappa )}{}|A_{(\kappa )}(\lambda ,N)|^2\left(\{s\}_{(\kappa )}^\lambda \right)^2e^{i|\kappa |\theta },$$
(17)
where $`A_{(\kappa )}(\lambda ,N)`$ is an $`s`$–independent factor, which is given in Appendix B and the symbol $`\{s\}_{(\kappa )}^\lambda `$ is defined as

$$\{s\}_{(\kappa )}^\lambda =\underset{j,a(\kappa )}{}\left(s\lambda (j1)+(a1)\right).$$
(18)
Here the product runs over all cells of the Young diagram for a given partition $`(\kappa )`$ with $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$ being the vertical coordinate and $`a=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ the horizontal coordinate of the cell.

At this point the advantage of the replica approach may be appreciated. One notices that for $`s=n`$ – positive integer, the factor $`\{n\}_{(\kappa )}^\lambda `$ defined by Eq. (18) is zero for any partition $`(\kappa )`$ which has more than $`n`$ columns in its Young diagram. Indeed, for $`j=1`$ (the upper row) and $`a=n+1`$ the factor on the r.h.s of Eq. (18) nullifies for any $`\lambda `$. As a result the set of partitions which contribute to the correlation function, Eq. (17), is greatly reduced. It contains only partitions which have not more than $`N`$ rows and not more than $`n`$ columns in their Young diagrams.

The similar drastic reduction in the number of contributing partitions takes place in the Ha’s approach . However, in that case it happens only for rational $`\lambda =p/q`$ and the geometry of the relevant Young diagrams is determined by $`p`$ and $`q`$. In the replica approach the fact that $`n`$ is integer takes care of diagrams selection, whereas $`\lambda `$ may be arbitrary. In other words, the operator $`Z^n`$ is a particularly simple one: by acting on the ground state it creates not more than $`n`$ hole–type excitations. As a result, number of partitions (excited states) needed to represent $`Z^n|0`$ is finite and each partition can be parametrized by the heights of its $`n`$ columns.

The next step is to take the thermodynamic limit, $`N\mathrm{}`$. To this end we parameterize the relevant partitions by the height of the columns in their Young diagrams. This introduces the dual partition $`(\stackrel{~}{\kappa })=(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_1,\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_n)`$ whose Young diagram is just a transposition of the diagram for the partition $`(\kappa )`$. Since Young diagram of $`(\kappa )`$ has no more than $`N`$ rows and no more than $`n`$ columns, $`0\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_aN`$ and $`a=1,2\mathrm{}n`$. Physically $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a`$ describe momenta of $`n`$ holes; each cannot exceed $`N`$ since the “Fermi” sea is bound (recall that $`\kappa _j`$ describe unbounded momenta of $`N`$ particles). In the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ one may pass from summations over $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a`$ in Eq. (17) to integration over $`k_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a/N`$, where $`0k_a1`$, simultaneously taking the limit in $`A_{(\kappa )}(\lambda ,N\mathrm{})`$. The corresponding procedure is described in details in Appendix C. As a result one finds in the large $`N`$ limit:

$$0|\overline{Z}^n(\theta )Z^n(0)|0=N^{\frac{n^2}{\lambda }}𝒞(\lambda ,n)\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}d^nk\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_n(k)\right|^{2/\lambda }\left[\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_a(1k_a)\right]^{1/\lambda 1}\mathrm{exp}\left\{iN\theta \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_a\right\},$$
(19)
where the normalization constant is

$$𝒞(\lambda ,n)=\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+1/\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a/\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(a/\lambda )}.$$
(20)
Finally, employing Eqs. (15) and (4), one may express the result as the identity of the two integrals

$`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}N^{\frac{n^2}{\lambda }}𝒩(\lambda ,N)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}d^N\theta |\mathrm{\Delta }_N(z)|^{2\lambda }\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(1e^{2\pi ix/N}\overline{z}_j\right)\left(1z_j\right)\right]^n`$
$`=𝒞(\lambda ,n)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}d^nk\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_n(k)\right|^{2/\lambda }\left[{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}k_a(1k_a)\right]^{1/\lambda 1}\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi ix{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}k_a\right\},`$ (21)
where we have introduced the scaling variable $`x\rho _0\theta =N\theta /(2\pi )`$ which measures distance in units of the mean inter-particle separation, to emphasize that the left hand side has a well defined thermodynamic limit.

For $`\lambda =1`$ (unitary RMT), the identity Eq. (21) was derived by Verbaarschot and Zirnbauer , using fermionic replica  and mapping the random matrix problem onto the non–linear $`\sigma `$–model on the coset space $`U(2n)/U(n)\times U(n)`$. In that formulation parameters $`k_a`$ play the role of the (compact) angular coordinates on the coset. In a similar way one may derive Eq. (21) for $`\lambda =1/2`$ and $`2`$ (orthogonal and symplectic RMT) . It would be extremely interesting to see if there is geometrical field–theoretical interpretation of Eq. (21) for other $`\lambda `$.

The integral identity Eq. (21) is exact for any $`\theta `$. In particular, for $`x=0`$ its right hand side may be evaluated with the help of the Selberg integral  leading to

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}N^{\frac{n^2}{\lambda }}0|\overline{Z}^n(0)Z^n(0)|0=\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a/\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left((a+n)/\lambda \right)}:$$
(22)
result obtained previously by Keating  for $`\lambda =1`$. For $`x0`$ the integral on the r.h.s. can not be evaluated exactly. In the next section we shall evaluate it in the asymptotic limit $`x1`$ employing the stationary phase method as suggested by Forrester  and Yurkevich and Lerner .

## 4 Replica Limit

For $`x1`$ the dominant contribution to the integral on the r.h.s. of Eq. (21) comes from the end points of the interval. We expand the integrand in $`l`$ variables about 1 and in remaining $`nl`$ variables about 0 to leading order. Extending limits of integration to infinity, one obtains for the integral:

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}\right)I_{nl}(2\pi ix)I_l(2\pi ix)e^{2\pi ixl},$$
(23)
where $`I_m`$ are Selberg integrals  :

$$I_m(z)=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d^mk|\mathrm{\Delta }_m(k)|^{2/\lambda }\underset{a=1}{\overset{m}{}}k_a^{1/\lambda 1}e^{zk_a}=z^{\frac{m^2}{\lambda }}\underset{a=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a/\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }(a/\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+1/\lambda )}.$$
(24)
As a result, one obtains for the correlation function of the characteristic polynomials in the asymptotic limit $`N\mathrm{},x1`$

$$0|\overline{Z}^n(\theta )Z^n(0)|0=N^{\frac{n^2}{\lambda }}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[F_n^l(\lambda )\right]^2\frac{e^{2\pi ixl}}{(2\pi ix)^{\frac{(nl)^2}{\lambda }}(2\pi ix)^{\frac{l^2}{\lambda }}},$$
(25)
where

$$F_n^l(\lambda )\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}\right)\frac{\underset{a=1}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a/\lambda )\underset{a=1}{\overset{nl}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a/\lambda )}{\underset{j=a}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a/\lambda )}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}\right)\underset{a=1}{\overset{l}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a/\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+(na+1)/\lambda \right)}$$
(26)
and $`F_n^0(\lambda )=1`$. We have extended summation over $`l`$ to infinity in Eq. (25), since for an integer $`n`$ the binomial coefficient $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}\right)`$ is identically zero for $`l>n`$. For RMT ( $`\lambda =1/2,1,2`$ ) Eq. (25) was derived recently from the saddle point treatment of the non–linear $`\sigma `$–model . In that case the factor $`F_n^l(\lambda )`$ is the volume of the degenerate coset space manifold $`G(n)/G(l)G(nl)`$, where $`G`$ is an appropriate symmetry group, $`G=Sp,U,O`$ for $`\lambda =1/\mathrm{2.1.2}`$ correspondingly.

Up to this moment all our calculations were performed for integer $`n`$ only. Next we shall continue analytically Eq. (25) to arbitrary real $`n`$ and then take the replica limit $`n0`$. To this end we notice that

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+n)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+l)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+nl)}n\frac{(1)^{l+1}}{l},n0$$
(27)
This expression guarantees cancellation of the factor $`n^2`$ in Eq. (14) for small $`n`$. As a result one obtains for $`l1`$ and $`n0`$

$$F_n^l(\lambda )=n\frac{(1)^{l+1}}{l}\underset{a=1}{\overset{l}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a/\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1(a1)/\lambda )}+O(n^2).$$
(28)
Finally, employing Eq. (14) and taking the replica limit, one finds for the correlation function

$$R(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2\lambda x^2}+2\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d_l^2(\lambda )}{(2\pi x)^{2l^2/\lambda }}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi lx),$$
(29)
where

$$d_l(\lambda )=\frac{\underset{a=1}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a/\lambda )}{\underset{a=1}{\overset{l1}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1a/\lambda )}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{l}{\lambda }\right)\underset{a=1}{\overset{l1}{}}\left(\frac{a}{\pi \lambda }\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi a}{\lambda }\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left(\frac{a}{\lambda }\right).$$
(30)
The first term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (29) comes from the $`l=0`$ contribution. It may be called replica symmetric, since all $`n`$ integrals are calculated around $`k_a=0`$ (the left “Fermi” point). The oscillatory contributions on the r.h.s. of Eq. (29) may be dubbed “replica non–symmetric”, since in $`l`$ out of $`n`$ replica contribution to the integral comes from the vicinity of $`k_a=1`$ (the right“Fermi” point).

For rational coupling constant $`\lambda =p/q`$ the sine function in Eq. (30) vanishes for $`a=p`$. As a result, $`d_l(p/q)=0`$ for $`l>p`$ and therefore the series in Eq. (29) contain only $`p`$ oscillatory components. For this case our results Eqs. (29), (30) coincide exactly with the asymptotic expression for the density–density correlation function obtained by Ha . In Ref.  the coefficients $`d_l^2(\lambda )`$ are given in terms of the Dotsenko–Fateev integrals. One must employ the integral identity of Forrester and Zuk  to show the equivalence of coefficients in Ref.  and Eq. (30). In fact our approach together with Ref.  may be considered as an independent evaluation of some of the Dotsenko–Fateev integrals. We believe that for irrational $`\lambda `$ the series in Eq. (29) is an asymptotic one, but its exact meaning and possible re-summation procedure requires more study.

## 5 Discussion of the Results

Let us briefly discuss the generalization of the above procedure to the dynamical correlation function $`R(x,t)=\rho _0^20|\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)\stackrel{~}{\rho }(0,0)|0`$. The characteristic polynomials and replica are introduced in exactly the same way as for the static correlation function. One should take into account that operators at different times do not commute and that $`\rho _k(t)=\rho _k^{}(t)`$. As a result one finds (cf. Eqs. (14) and (16) )

$$R(x,t)=\underset{n0}{lim}\frac{1}{2\pi ^2n^2}\frac{^2}{x^2}\underset{(\kappa )}{}|(\kappa )|Z^n(0)|0|^2\mathrm{cos}(|\kappa |x/\rho _0)e^{it(E_{(\kappa )}E_0)},$$
(31)
where the energies of excited states, $`E_{(\kappa )}`$, are given in Appendix A. The matrix elements of $`Z^n(0)`$ and their thermodynamic limit are exactly the same as for the static case. The thermodynamic limit of the excitation energy in terms of hole momenta in the proper frame of reference is given by Eq. (46). As a result, the integral on the r.h.s. of Eq. (19) acquires the factor $`\mathrm{exp}\{2\pi i[v_st_ak_a(1k_a)x_ak_a]\}`$, where $`v_s2\pi \rho _0^2\lambda `$ is the sound velocity in the rescaled coordinates.

Asymptotic calculation of the $`n`$–fold momenta integral in the limit $`x1`$ and/or $`v_st1`$ follows closely the static case. The only difference is that the product of Selberg integrals $`2I_{nl}(2\pi ix)I_l(2\pi ix)`$ in Eq. (23) is substituted by $`I_{nl}(2\pi i[v_stx])I_l(2\pi i[v_st+x])+(xx)`$. Performing the analytical continuation $`n0`$ and employing Eq. (31), one finally finds for the dynamic correlation function

$$R(x,t)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2\lambda }\left(\frac{1}{(xv_st)^2}+\frac{1}{(x+v_st)^2}\right)+2\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d_l^2(\lambda )}{(4\pi ^2[x^2v_s^2t^2])^{l^2/\lambda }}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi lx),$$
(32)
where the coefficients $`d_l(\lambda )`$ are given by Eq. (30).

The method also enables one to calculate the single particle Green function of the model. As it was shown in Ref.  the annihilation operator of particle acting on the ground state of $`N+1`$ particles is proportional to the action of $`Z^\lambda `$ on the $`N`$ particle ground state, i.e.

$$0|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(0,0)|0=(N+1)\frac{𝒩(\lambda ,N+1)}{𝒩(\lambda ,N)}\underset{(\kappa )}{}|(\kappa )|Z^\lambda (0)|0|^2e^{i(2\pi |\kappa |/N\pi \lambda )xi(E_{(\kappa )}\mu )t},$$
(33)
Therefore to evaluate the Green function one has to perform analytical continuation of (25) from integer $`n`$ to $`n=\lambda `$. This yields in the large $`N`$ limit

$$0|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(0,0)|0=\frac{N}{2\pi }\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[F_\lambda ^l(\lambda )\right]^2\left(\frac{1}{2\pi i(v_stx)}\right)^{\frac{(l\lambda )^2}{\lambda }}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi i(v_st+x)}\right)^{\frac{l^2}{\lambda }}e^{i2\pi (l\lambda /2)x+i\mu t}$$
(34)
where the coefficients $`F_\lambda ^l(\lambda )`$ are still given by (26) with $`n\lambda `$. For rational $`\lambda =p/q`$ they vanish for $`l>p`$ as in the case of the density-density correlations, so the sum in (34) contains a finite number of terms.

In summary, the correlation functions of the integer powers $`n`$ of the spectral determinants may be evaluated as a sum over partitions with no more than $`n`$ columns. In the thermodynamic limit such a sum takes a form of the $`n`$–fold integral, which may be evaluated for the large inter-particle separation. The subsequent analytical continuation to non–integer $`n`$ results in the density–density correlation function ($`n0`$) or in the single particle Green function ($`n\lambda `$). These calculations do not require rational values of the coupling constant $`\lambda `$ and are formally valid for any $`\lambda `$. The final expressions, however, take the form of divergent series for irrational $`\lambda `$, whose exact meaning is not clear at the moment. For rational $`\lambda `$ the results coincide with those of Ref. .

Discussions with B. Altshuler initiated this project. We are also indebted to Y. Avron, J. Feinberg, S. Fishman, B. Simons M. Zirnbauer and A. Ludwig for valuable conversations. This research was supported in part by the U.S.–Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), by the Minerva Center for Non-linear Physics of Complex Systems, by the Israel Science Foundation, by the Niedersachsen Ministry of Science (Germany) and by the Fund for Promotion of Research at the Technion.

## Appendix A Eigenstates of the Calogero-Sutherland model

Consider action of the kinetic term of the Hamiltonian Eq. (1) on the ground state, Eq. (2), which is convenient to rewrite as $`\mathrm{exp}\{\lambda \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }(z)\}`$ :

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(z_j_j\right)^2[\mathrm{\Delta }(z)]^\lambda =\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\lambda \left(z_j_j\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }(z)+\lambda ^2\left(z_j_j\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }(z)\right)^2\right][\mathrm{\Delta }(z)]^\lambda .$$
(35)
The logarithmic derivatives are evaluated as follows:

$`z_j_j\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_j}{z_jz_i}};`$
$`\left(z_j_j\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_j}{z_jz_i}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_j^2}{(z_jz_i)^2}}.`$ (36)
As a result the action of kinetic term Eq. (35) is equivalent to the multiplication by the following factor

$$\lambda (\lambda 1)\underset{ij}{}\frac{z_iz_j}{(z_iz_j)^2}+\lambda ^2\left(\underset{ijk}{}\frac{z_i^2}{(z_iz_j)(z_iz_k)}+\frac{N(N1)}{2}\right).$$
(37)
The first term in this expression cancels exactly the action of the interaction term of the Hamiltonian Eq. (1), while the second term may be easily shown to be a constant. That proves that the wave-function Eq. (2) is indeed an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian Eq. (1) with the energy

$$E_0(\lambda )=\lambda ^2\left(\frac{N(N1)(N2)}{3}+\frac{N(N1)}{2}\right)=\frac{\lambda ^2N(N1)(2N1)}{6},$$
(38)
which may be considered as a sum of $`N`$ independent one-particle energies $`ϵ_j=\lambda ^2(Nj)^2`$ for $`j`$ running from $`1`$ to $`N`$. The normalization of the ground state wave function is obtained straightforwardly with the help of the Selberg integral

$$\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}\frac{d^N\theta }{(2\pi )^N}\underset{j<i}{}\left|e^{i\theta _i}e^{i\theta _j}\right|^{2\lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\lambda N)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^N(1+\lambda )}$$
(39)
resulting in the expression (2) for the normalized ground state.

To construct the excited states of the CSM one multiplies the ground state wave function by some symmetric polynomials $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z)J(z)\mathrm{\Psi }_0(z)`$. The action of the kinetic term on this wave function generates the term (37) through the action of derivatives on $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Psi }_0(z)`$ and the term, which involves the derivatives of $`\mathrm{ln}J(z)`$, leading to the eigenvalue equation:

$$\left(H_0+\lambda H_1\right)J(z)=\left(EE_0\right)J(z),$$
(40)
where

$$H_0=\underset{i}{}(z_i_i)^2,H_1=\underset{ij}{}\frac{z_i+z_j}{z_iz_j}(z_i_iz_j_j).$$
(41)
Solutions to this differential equation $`J(z)=J_{(\kappa )}^{1/\lambda }(z)`$ are the symmetric Jack polynomials  labeled by the quantum numbers $`(\kappa )=(\kappa _1,\kappa _2,\mathrm{}\kappa _N)`$. These numbers are non-negative integers organized in the non-increasing sequence $`\kappa _1\kappa _2\mathrm{}\kappa _N0`$ are known as parts of the partition $`(\kappa )`$. Since Jack polynomials are homogeneous functions, under translations $`z_j=e^{i\theta _j}uz_j=e^{i(\theta +\theta _j)}`$ they transform as

$$J_{(\kappa )}^{1/\lambda }(uz)=u^{|\kappa |}J_{(\kappa )}^{1/\lambda }(z).$$
(42)
The total momentum of an excited state is therefore

$$P_{(\kappa )}=P_0+|\kappa |,$$
(43)
where $`P_0=\lambda N(N1)/2`$ is the total momentum of the ground state and $`|\kappa |=\kappa _1+\kappa _2+\mathrm{}+\kappa _N`$. The energy of the excitation $`(\kappa )`$ is given by

$$E_{(\kappa )}=E_0+\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\kappa _j^2+2\lambda \kappa _j(Nj)\right).$$
(44)
Each term in this sum can be represented as an energy gain $`\left(\lambda (Nj)+\kappa _j\right)^2\left(\lambda (Nj)\right)^2`$ of particle excited by momentum $`\kappa _j`$ from its ground state momentum $`\lambda (Nj)`$.

It is customary to represent partitions $`(\kappa )`$ by Young diagrams, a graph with $`\kappa _j`$ cells in the $`j`$-th row. A dual partition is obtained by using the numbers of cells, $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a`$, in the $`a`$-th column of the Young diagram.

For example, the partition dual to $`(\kappa )=(7,6,5,5,3,2)`$ ( the one depicted in Fig. 1 ) is $`(\stackrel{~}{\kappa })=(6,6,5,4,4,2,1)`$. It can be represented by transposing the Young diagram for $`(\kappa )`$. The dual partition can be given a nice interpretation in terms of hole excitations. Consider another graphical representation of the eigenstates of the Calogero-Sutherland model shown in Fig. 2.

Each particle in the ground state is represented by black box of length $`\lambda `$, which corresponds to the momentum $`\lambda (Nj)`$ added to the ground state. The excited state described by partition $`(\kappa )`$ is represented by moving $`j`$-th particle ($`j=1`$ corresponds to the uppermost particle) by $`\kappa _j`$ units up. Some holes of integer length will appear between the particles. Recording the shifts of the holes from their ground state positions, one finds that they are described by the partition $`(\stackrel{~}{\kappa })`$ dual to $`(\kappa )`$ as depicted in Fig. 2. In terms of the dual partition $`(\stackrel{~}{\kappa })`$ the energy (44) of the excitation reads

$$E_{(\kappa )}E_0=\underset{a}{}\left(2\lambda \stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\left(N+j/\lambda (1+1/\lambda )/2\right)\lambda \stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a^2\right),$$
(45)
while the total momentum is given by $`P_{(\kappa )}P_0=|\stackrel{~}{\kappa }|`$, since the number of cells can be counted row-wise as well as column-wise. In the limit of large $`N`$ the leading behavior of Eq. (45) is obtained by rescaling $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a=Nk_a`$ and reads $`E_{(\kappa )}E_0N^2_a\lambda k_a(2k_a)`$. Here we must recall that we have chosen to work with the ground state with non–zero total momentum. That is equivalent to describing a system with zero–momentum ground state from the moving frame. Translation back to the frame where the ground state has zero momentum changes (only) expression for the excitation energy to

$$E_{(\kappa )}E_0N^2\underset{a}{}\lambda k_a(1k_a).$$
(46)
This is the expression we use to calculate the dynamical correlation function, which belongs therefore to the rest frame of the ground state.

The correspondence between dual partition and hole excitations is a non trivial fact and is crucial in our approach to the Calogero-Sutherland model.

## Appendix B Matrix Elements

Here we describe how various scalar products between symmetric functions can be represented in terms of partitions. Let us denote by $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$ the vertical coordinate and by $`a=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ the horizontal coordinate of the cell in a Young diagram. The cell $`(1,1)`$ is the upper left corner of the partition. Then the symbols $`\{\}_{(\kappa )}^\lambda `$ and $`[]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda `$ are defined by the following product over all cells in the Young diagram for $`(\kappa )`$:

$`\{s\}_{(\kappa )}^\lambda `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j,a(\kappa )}{}}\left(s\lambda (j1)+(a1)\right)`$ (47)
$`[s]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j,a(\kappa )}{}}\left(s+(a1)/\lambda (j1)\right).`$ (48)
The Jack polynomials are orthogonal with respect to the scalar product

$$\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}\frac{d^N\theta }{(2\pi )^N}\underset{j<l}{}\left|e^{i\theta _l}e^{i\theta _j}\right|^{2\lambda }J_{(\kappa )}^{1/\lambda }(\overline{z})J_{(\kappa ^{})}^{1/\lambda }(z)=\frac{j_{(\kappa )}^\lambda [N]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda }{[N+1/\lambda 1]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda }\delta _{(\kappa ),(\kappa ^{})},$$
(49)
where the factor $`j_{(\kappa )}^\lambda `$ may be written as the product over the cells of the Young diagram:

$$j_{(\kappa )}^\lambda =\underset{j,a(\kappa )}{}\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_aj+(\kappa _ja)/\lambda +1/\lambda \right)\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_aj+(\kappa _ja)/\lambda +1\right).$$
(50)
Employing these expressions, one finds for the normalization constant $`𝒩_{(\kappa )}`$ of excited states of the CSM (cf. Eq. (5)):

$$𝒩_{(\kappa )}=\frac{[N+1/\lambda 1]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda }{j_{(\kappa )}^\lambda [N]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda }.$$
(51)
Jack polynomials form an orthogonal basis in the vector space of symmetric functions and can be used to expand any symmetric function. For example, the power sums, representing the Fourier coefficients of the density operator, Eq. (8), are given by the following linear combination of Jack polynomials:

$$\underset{j}{}z_j^k=\frac{k}{\lambda }\underset{|\kappa |=k}{}\frac{[0^{}]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda }{j_{(\kappa )}^\lambda }J_{(\kappa )}^{1/\lambda }(z).$$
(52)
The prime in $`[0^{}]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda `$ denotes that the cell $`(1,1)`$ is not included in the product in Eq. (48). More important for our discussion is the expansion of any power of the characteristic polynomials:

$$Z^s(0)=\underset{j}{}(1z_j)^s=\underset{(\kappa )}{}\frac{\{s\}_{(\kappa )}^\lambda }{\lambda ^{|\kappa |}j_{(\kappa )}^\lambda }J_{(\kappa )}^{1/\lambda }(z).$$
(53)
In terms of normalized wave functions of the CSM, Eq. (5), the action of the $`s`$–power of the characteristic polynomial operator on the ground state may be written as the following linear combination:

$$Z^s(\theta )|0=\underset{(\kappa )}{}A_{(\kappa )}(\lambda ,N)\{s\}_{(\kappa )}^\lambda e^{i|\kappa |\theta }|(\kappa ),$$
(54)
where

$$A_{(\kappa )}(\lambda ,N)=\lambda ^{|\kappa |}\left(\frac{[N]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda }{j_{(\kappa )}^\lambda [N+1/\lambda 1]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda }\right)^{1/2}.$$
(55)
## Appendix C The large $`N`$ limit

In this appendix we evaluate the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ for the correlation function of the characteristic polynomials, Eq. (17). To this end we need to consider the partition–dependent coefficient

$$\frac{\lambda ^{2|\kappa |}}{j_{(\kappa )}^\lambda }\frac{[N]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda }{[N+1/\lambda 1]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda }\left[\{n\}_{(\kappa )}^\lambda \right]^2.$$
(56)
Let us start with $`\{n\}_{(\kappa )}^\lambda `$ given by the product (47) over cells of the Young diagram representing $`(\kappa )`$. It is clear from this definition that $`\{n\}_{(\kappa )}^\lambda =0`$ if $`\kappa _1>n`$. One can choose the heights $`0\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_aN;a=1,\mathrm{},n`$ of the first $`n`$ columns as the coordinates, since only the partitions with at most $`n`$ columns contribute. In these coordinates one can rewrite

$$\{n\}_{(\kappa )}^\lambda =(\lambda )^{|\kappa |}\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a}{}}\left((na+1)/\lambda +j1\right)=(\lambda )^{|\kappa |}\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left((na+1)/\lambda \right)_{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a}.$$
(57)
Here we have used the definition of the Pochhammer’s symbol:

$$(z)_nz(z+1)(z+2)\mathrm{}(z+n1)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(z+n)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)};(z)_0=1.$$
(58)
As a result, one finds

$$\left[\{n\}_{(\kappa )}^\lambda \right]^2=\lambda ^{2|\kappa |}\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a+(na+1)/\lambda \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left((na+1)/\lambda \right)}.$$
(59)
The factors $`[N]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda `$ and $`[N+1/\lambda 1]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda `$ are calculated in the same way by writing the products, Eq. (48), column-wise:

$`[N]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda ={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a}{}}}\left(N+(a1)/\lambda (j1)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N+a/\lambda +11/\lambda \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a+a/\lambda +11/\lambda \right)}};`$ (60)
$`[N+1/\lambda 1]_{(\kappa )}^\lambda ={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a}{}}}\left(N+a/\lambda j\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N+a/\lambda \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a+a/\lambda \right)}}.`$ (61)
Next we calculate the factor $`j_{(\kappa )}^\lambda `$ defined in Eq. (50). We divide the Young diagram representing the partition $`(\kappa )`$ into $`n`$ rectangles having the fixed width $`b=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ and height $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_{b+1}`$ as shown in Fig. 3.

Note that when $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_{b+1}`$ the rectangle $`b`$ has zero height. With these notations the expression (50) can be written as a product over the rectangles:

$`j_{(\kappa )}^\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{b}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_{b+1}+1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b}{}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_aj+(ba+1)/\lambda \right)\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_aj+1+(ba)/\lambda \right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{b}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_{b+1}+(ba+1)/\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_{b+1}+1+(ba)/\lambda \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b+(ba+1)/\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b+1+(ba)/\lambda \right)}}.`$ (62)
Renaming the running index $`b+1b`$ and changing the order of the products, the numerator of the last expression may be written as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_{n+1}+(n+1a)/\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_{n+1}+1+(na)/\lambda \right)`$ (63)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{b=a+1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b(ab)/\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b(ab)/\lambda +11/\lambda \right).`$
In the denominator of Eq. (62) the order of the products is interchanged and the terms with $`a=b`$ are factored out, the result is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^n(1/\lambda )\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{b=a+1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b(ab)/\lambda +1/\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b(ab)/\lambda +1\right).$$
(64)
Finally, using the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_{n+1}=0`$, one obtains

$`j_{(\kappa )}^\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^n(1/\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a+(na+1)/\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a+1+(na)/\lambda \right)`$ (65)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{b=a+1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b(ab)/\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b(ab)/\lambda +11/\lambda \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b(ab)/\lambda +1/\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b(ab)/\lambda +1\right)}}.`$
Combining the above expressions together one finally obtains for the coefficient Eq. (56):

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left((na+1)/\lambda \right)}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a+(na)/\lambda +1/\lambda \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a+(na)/\lambda +1\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a+a/\lambda \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a+a/\lambda +11/\lambda \right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N+a/\lambda +11/\lambda \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N+a/\lambda \right)}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{b=a+1}{\overset{n}{}}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b(ab)/\lambda +1/\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b(ab)/\lambda +1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b(ab)/\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_b(ab)/\lambda +11/\lambda \right)}}.`$ (66)
The thermodynamic limit, $`N\mathrm{}`$, is obtained with the help of the following asymptotic relation:

$$\underset{|z|\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(z+a)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)}=z^a.$$
(67)
Rescaling the column heights as $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_a=Nk_a`$, one obtains for the thermodynamic limit of the expression (66)

$$\frac{N^{\frac{n^2}{\lambda }}}{N^n}\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left((na+1)/\lambda \right)}\underset{1a<bn}{}(k_ak_b)^{2/\lambda }\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_a^{1/\lambda 1}(1k_a)^{1/\lambda 1}.$$
(68)
We relax the requirement $`k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_n`$ allowing all the variables to run independently between $`0`$ and $`1`$. To do so we have to divide by $`n!`$ and take the absolute value of the Vandermonde determinant:

$$\underset{1a<bn}{}(k_ak_b)^{2/\lambda }|\mathrm{\Delta }_n(k)|^{2/\lambda }.$$
(69)
Finally, changing the sum over partitions to the integrals over $`k_a`$ and absorbing the factor $`N^n`$ into the integration measure, one recovers Eqs. (19) and (20).


format: text

text:
# Hypersurfaces of prescribed Gauß Curvature in exterior Domains

## 1. Introduction

Hypersurfaces of prescribed curvature have been subject to intensive studies. To mention a few examples, compact convex hypersurfaces are considered in the closed case in , for Neumann boundary conditions in , and for Dirichlet boundary conditions in , based on the method of . In the non-compact case, complete convex hypersurfaces are found in , whereas  deal with equations of mean curvature type in exterior domains. In this paper, we consider the Dirichlet problem for convex hypersurfaces of prescribed Gauß curvature in exterior domains. More precisely, let $`\mathrm{}K^n`$, $`n2`$, be a compact set whose boundary $`K`$ is a smooth submanifold of $`^n`$. Then for $`0<fC^{\mathrm{}}((^n\stackrel{}{K})\times )`$ and $`u_0C^{\mathrm{}}(K)`$ we consider strictly convex hypersurfaces of prescribed Gauss curvature represented as graphs over $`^n\stackrel{}{K}`$, i. e. functions $`uC^{\mathrm{}}(^n\stackrel{}{K})`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 𝒦[u]\frac{detD^2u}{\left(1+|Du|^2\right)^{\frac{n+2}{2}}}& =& f(x,u)\hfill & \text{in }^nK,\hfill \\ \hfill u& =& u_0\hfill & \text{on }K.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.1)
The hypersurfaces should be close to a cone in the sense that

$$sup|ur|<\mathrm{}$$
(1.2)
with $`u=u(x)`$ and $`r|x|`$. A function $`\underset{¯}{u}C^{\mathrm{}}(^n\stackrel{}{K})`$ is called a subsolution if $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ is strictly convex and

$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 𝒦[\underset{¯}{u}]& & f(x,\underset{¯}{u})\hfill & \text{in }^nK,\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{¯}{u}& =& u_0\hfill & \text{on }K.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.3)
We prove the following main theorem.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`u_0C^{\mathrm{}}(K)`$ and $`0<fC^{\mathrm{}}((^n\stackrel{}{K})\times )`$ with

$$f_z0,sup\left(fr^{n+1}\right)+sup\left(\frac{|Df|+|D^2f|}{f}\right)<\mathrm{}.$$
(1.4)
Suppose that $`\underset{¯}{u}C^{\mathrm{}}(^n\stackrel{}{K})`$ is a subsolution (1.3) which is close to a cone and satisfies the following decay conditions at infinity,

$$|D(\underset{¯}{u}r)|=𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r}\right),|D^2(\underset{¯}{u}r)|+|D^3\underset{¯}{u}|=𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right).$$
(1.5)
Then there exists a smooth, strictly convex hypersurface of prescribed Gauß curvature (1.1) which is close to a cone (1.2).

Note that $`ur`$ has no prescribed values at infinity, because the property that $`u`$ is close to a cone determines the asymptotics only up to a bounded function. In particular, the function $`|u\underset{¯}{u}|`$ will in general not become small near infinity. Due to these weak assumptions on the asymptotics, we cannot expect uniqueness of our solutions.

We remark that the upper bound for $`f`$ in (1.4) is natural because the decay conditions for $`\underset{¯}{u}`$, (1.5), imply that $`f(x,\underset{¯}{u})=𝒪(r^{n1})`$. Namely, if $`\nu `$ and $`\tau ,\tau ^{}`$ denote unit vectors in radial and axial directions, respectively, the derivatives of $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ decay at infinity like $`|D_{\nu \nu }\underset{¯}{u}|,|D_{\nu \tau }\underset{¯}{u}|=𝒪(r^2)`$, $`|D_{\tau \tau ^{}}\underset{¯}{u}|=𝒪(r^1)`$. Thus $`detD^2\underset{¯}{u}=𝒪(r^{n1})`$, and the differential inequality (1.3) yields the claimed decay rate for $`f(x,\underset{¯}{u})`$.

The above theorem has the disadvantage that it involves the existence of a strictly convex subsolution. Therefore, we give methods to find subsolutions. In the special case when $`K=\overline{B_{\rho _1}}\overline{B_{\rho _1}(0)}`$ is a ball, the boundary values are zero, and $`f`$ decays even faster than in (1.4), we construct an explicit subsolution to get the following result.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`\rho _1>0`$ and $`a>2`$. If $`fC^{\mathrm{}}((^nB_{\rho _1})\times )`$ such that $`f_z0`$,

$$sup\left(\frac{|Df|+|D^2f|}{f}\right)<\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}<f(a1)\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}^{\frac{3n}{2}1}\rho _1^{a1}r^{1na},$$

then there exists a smooth, strictly convex hypersurface of prescribed Gauß curvature,

$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 𝒦[u]& =& f(x,u)\hfill & \text{in }^nB_{\rho _1},\hfill \\ \hfill u& =& 0\hfill & \text{on }B_{\rho _1},\hfill \end{array}$$

which is close to a cone.

A more general method for constructing a subsolution is to combine a subsolution in a bounded set with a subsolution near infinity, in the spirit of viscosity solutions.

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`0<fC^{\mathrm{}}((^n\stackrel{}{K})\times )`$. Assume that $`^nK=\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ is a bounded open set, $`K\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ an unbounded open set. Suppose that $`u_0`$ is a strictly convex subsolution in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$,

$$𝒦[u_0]f(x,u_0)\text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }_1,$$

and that $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ is a strictly convex subsolution in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, both smooth up to the boundary, without prescribed boundary values. Furthermore, we assume that

$`u_0`$ $`<`$ $`\underset{¯}{u}\text{on }(^nK)\mathrm{\Omega }_1,`$
$`\underset{¯}{u}`$ $`<`$ $`u_0\text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }_2,`$
that $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ is close to a cone, and (1.4), (1.5) are satisfied. Then there exists a smooth, strictly convex hypersurface of prescribed Gauß curvature (1.1) which is close to a cone.

This theorem can be applied to the situation when we have a subsolution with correct boundary values $`u_0`$ near $`K`$ and a subsolution $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ near infinity, which can be glued together as made precise above. For $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ one can for example take the subsolution used in the proof of Theorem 1.2, see Lemma 5.1.

The proof of Theorem 1.1 is outlined as follows. It is well known from  (see also ) that the Dirichlet problem for the prescribed Gauß curvature equation has a strictly convex solution on smooth compact domains for smooth data, provided that for the same boundary values there exists a smooth, strictly convex subsolution $`\underset{¯}{u}`$. Thus we choose $`R_0`$ such that $`KB_{R_0}`$ and consider for any $`R>4R_0`$ the Dirichlet problem

$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 𝒦\left[u^R\right]& =& f(x,u^R)\hfill & \text{in }B_RK,\hfill \\ \hfill u^R& =& \underset{¯}{u}\hfill & \text{on }B_RK.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.6)
Our main task is to show that the $`C^2`$-norms of $`u^R`$ are uniformly bounded in $`R`$. Namely, once this is established, standard Krylov/Shafanov and Schauder regularity theory yields locally uniform bounds for $`u^R`$ in any $`C^k`$-norm . Using a diagonal sequence argument, we get a subsequence $`u^{R_l}`$, $`R_l\mathrm{}`$, that converges locally smoothly to a strictly convex solution of our original problem. To obtain the required $`C^2`$-estimates, we first use barriers to uniformly bound $`u^R|x|`$. These $`C^0`$-estimates and the convexity of the hypersurfaces allow us to control the asymptotic behavior as $`R\mathrm{}`$ of the first derivatives of $`u^R(x)`$ in the region $`R/2|x|R`$. Using the inner maximum principle for the largest eigenvalue of $`u_{ij}`$ as well as standard a priori estimates for $`D^2u^R`$ on $`K`$, the $`C^2`$-estimates are reduced to controlling $`D^2u^R`$ on the outer boundary. We bound the tangential second derivatives from above and below by differentiating the Dirichlet boundary conditions and using the $`C^1`$-estimates. By adapting the barrier constructions of  with constants that have an appropriate scaling in $`R`$, we obtain estimates for the mixed second derivatives. In contrast to the compact case , the estimates mentioned so far are so strong that when putting them into the equation, we immediately get estimates for the second derivatives in normal direction.

Theorem 1.2 follows immediately from Theorem 1.1 by choosing an explicit subsolution $`\underset{¯}{u}`$, given in Lemma 5.1. To prove Theorem 1.3, we apply Lemma 5.2 to get the solution to the compact Dirichlet problem (1.6) and then proceed exactly as in the proof of Theorem 1.1.

## 2. Preliminary a priori Estimates

###### Notation 2.1.

In what follows, lower indices denote partial derivatives in $`^n`$. We denote the partial derivative of $`f`$ with respect to the second argument by $`f_z`$. We set $`(u^{ij})=(u_{ij})^1`$. All other indices are raised with respect to the Euclidean metric. Unless otherwise stated, we will use the Einstein summation convention. By $`c`$ we denote a constant independent of $`R`$ which may change its value from line to line throughout the text.

Without loss of generality we can assume that $`0\stackrel{}{K}`$. We choose a constant $`L>\underset{K}{\mathrm{max}}(u_0|x|)`$ and set

$$\overline{u}=|x|+L.$$
(2.1)
The functions $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ (as in Theorem 1.1) will be used as upper and lower barriers, respectively. Let $`u^R`$ be a solution of the Dirichlet problem (1.6).

###### Lemma 2.2.

As $`R\mathrm{}`$, the functions $`u^R`$ converge locally uniformly to a continuous function $`u`$. Moreover, $`\underset{¯}{u}u^R\overline{u}`$ in $`B_R\stackrel{}{K}`$.

###### Proof.

From the maximum principle we deduce that

$$\underset{¯}{u}u^R\overline{u}\text{in }B_RK.$$

Hence for $`R_1<R_2`$,

$$u^{R_1}u^{R_2}\text{on }B_{R_1}K,$$

and again from the maximum principle,

$$u^{R_1}u^{R_2}\text{in }B_{R_1}K.$$

We conclude that the $`u^R`$ are monotone in $`R`$. Their pointwise limit is convex and thus continuous. So they converge locally uniformly according to Dini’s theorem. ∎

From now on we omit the index $`R`$ and assume that $`u`$ is a solution of (1.6) with $`R`$ fixed sufficiently large.

###### Lemma 2.3.

$`|u|`$ is a priori bounded, uniformly in $`R`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`u`$ is strictly convex, $`|u|`$ attains its maximum at the boundary. Tangential derivatives are uniformly bounded there in view of the Dirichlet boundary conditions. The normal derivatives are estimated as follows. Let $`xK`$ and $`\nu `$ the outer unit normal to $`K`$ at $`x`$. We choose $`\lambda _0>0`$ independent of $`R`$ such that the line segment $`\{x+\lambda \nu ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0}\lambda \lambda _0\}`$ is contained in $`B_{R_0}K`$. Using the convexity of $`u`$ as well as the fact that $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ lies below $`u`$ and $`\underset{¯}{u}(x)=u(x)`$,

$$_\nu \underset{¯}{u}(x)_\nu u(x)\frac{u(x+\lambda _0\nu )u(x)}{\lambda _0}(\text{for }xK\text{)}$$

($`_\nu u`$ denotes the directional derivative). For $`xB_R`$ and $`\nu =x/|x|`$, we consider similarly the line segment $`\{\lambda \nu ,R_0\lambda R\}`$ and obtain

$$\frac{u(x)u(R_0\nu )}{RR_0}_\nu u(x)_\nu \underset{¯}{u}(x)(\text{for }xB_R\text{)}.$$

We finally use the uniform $`C^0`$ bounds of Lemma 2.2, in particular that $`|u(x)|x||c`$. ∎

The next lemma controls the asymptotic behavior of $`u`$ as $`R`$ gets large.

###### Lemma 2.4.

For $`\frac{R}{2}|x|R`$ let $`\nu =x/|x|`$ and $`\tau `$ be unit vectors parallel and orthogonal to $`x`$, respectively. Then there is a constant $`c`$ independent of $`R`$ such that

$`|_\nu (u\underset{¯}{u})(x)|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{R}}`$ (2.2)
$`|_\tau u(x)|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{R}}}.`$ (2.3)
###### Proof.

Since $`u`$ is convex and lies above $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ with $`u(R\nu )=\underset{¯}{u}(R\nu )`$,

$$\frac{u(x)u(R_0\nu )}{|x|R_0}_\nu u(x)_\nu \underset{¯}{u}(R\nu ),$$

and thus

$$\frac{u(x)|x|}{|x|R_0}\frac{u(R_0\nu )R_0}{|x|R_0}_\nu u(x)1_\nu \underset{¯}{u}(R\nu )1.$$

The $`C^0`$ estimates of Lemma 2.2 imply that $`|u(x)|x||c`$, and so the left hand side is $`𝒪(R^1)`$. According to (1.5), $`|_\nu \underset{¯}{u}(x)1|=𝒪(R^1)`$, and thus

$$|_\nu (u\underset{¯}{u})|=|_\nu u(x)1|+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{R}\right)\frac{c}{R}.$$

In order to derive (2.3), we consider $`u`$ and the barrier functions along the line segment $`\{x+\lambda \tau \}`$ parametrized by $`\lambda [\lambda _0,\lambda _0]`$, $`\lambda _0=\sqrt{R^2|x|^2}`$. The boundary values of $`u`$ are $`u(\pm \lambda _0)=\underset{¯}{u}(\pm \lambda _0)`$. Thus using that $`u`$ lies above $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ and is convex, we obtain the estimate

$$\underset{¯}{u}^{}(\lambda _0)u^{}(\lambda _0)u^{}(\lambda =0)u^{}(\lambda _0)\underset{¯}{u}^{}(\lambda _0),$$

and thus

$$|_\tau u(x)|=|u^{}(\lambda =0)|\mathrm{max}\{|\underset{¯}{u}^{}(\lambda _0)|,|\underset{¯}{u}^{}(\lambda _0)|\}.$$

Using (1.5),

$$\underset{¯}{u}^{}(\pm \lambda _0)=_\tau \underset{¯}{u}(x)|_{x=y}=_\tau (\underset{¯}{u}(x)|x|)|_{x=y}+_\tau |x||_{x=y}=𝒪\left(\frac{1}{R}\right)\pm \frac{\lambda _0}{R},$$

where we have set $`y=x\pm \lambda _0\tau `$. These estimates imply (2.3) provided that $`x`$ is sufficiently close to the outer boundary, more precisely if $`x`$ lies in the strip

$$R^2|x|^2=\lambda _0^2\kappa R,$$

where $`\kappa `$ is some constant independent of $`R`$. Now suppose that $`x`$ lies outside this strip, $`\lambda _0^2>\kappa R`$. We construct straight lines through $`(0,u(x))^2`$ which are tangential to the hyperbola $`(\lambda ,\overline{u}(\lambda ))=(\lambda ,\sqrt{|x|^2+\lambda ^2}+L)`$. A short explicit calculation shows that there are exactly two such lines, and that they go through the points $`(\pm \lambda _1,\overline{u}(\lambda ))`$ with

$$\lambda _1^2=\frac{|x|^4}{(u(x)L)^2}|x|^2.$$

Using that $`u|x|`$ is bounded uniformly in $`R`$, one sees that $`\lambda _1^2=𝒪(|x|)`$, and so we can by increasing $`\kappa `$ arrange that

$$\lambda _1^2\kappa R.$$
(2.4)
Thus $`\lambda _1^2<\lambda _0^2`$, meaning that the tangential points are inside the ball $`B_R`$. Since $`u`$ is convex and lies below $`\overline{u}`$, the line segments joining the points $`(\lambda =0,u(\lambda =0))`$ and $`(\pm \lambda _1,\overline{u}(\pm \lambda _1))`$, respectively, both lie above $`u`$. Moreover, these line segments are by construction tangential to the hyperbola $`(\lambda ,\overline{u}(\lambda ))`$ at $`\lambda =\pm \lambda _1`$. Hence

$$\overline{u}^{}(\lambda _1)u^{}(\lambda =0)\overline{u}^{}(\lambda _1).$$

Using (2.1), we obtain that

$$|_\tau u(x)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\frac{\lambda _1}{R},$$

and (2.4) gives (2.3). ∎

It remains to derive the $`C^2`$ a priori estimates. As in , one obtains that the second derivatives on $`K`$ are bounded uniformly in $`R`$. Furthermore, it is well known (see e. g. ) that considering

$$w=\frac{\beta }{2}|Du|^2+\mathrm{log}u_{\xi \xi }$$

in an interior maximum taken over $`(x,\xi )(\overline{B_RK})\times S^{n1}`$ yields that

$$\underset{B_RK}{\mathrm{max}}|D^2u|c+\underset{B_RK}{\mathrm{max}}|D^2u|.$$

Hence it suffices to bound $`|D^2u|`$ on the outer boundary $`B_R`$. It is here where we shall use the assumption $`sup(|Df|+|D^2f|)/f<\mathrm{}`$.

The following lemma gives an estimate for the tangential second derivatives. The mixed second derivatives will be treated in the next section, and the normal second derivatives in Section 4.

###### Lemma 2.5 (tangential second derivatives at the outer boundary).

Let $`x_0B_R`$ and $`\tau _1`$, $`\tau _2`$ be tangential directions at $`x_0`$. Then we have at $`x_0`$,

$$\left|u_{\tau _1\tau _2}|x|_{\tau _1\tau _2}\right|\frac{c}{R^2}.$$

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`x_0=Re_nR(0,\mathrm{},0,1)`$. Then $`B_R`$ is represented locally as $`\mathrm{graph}\omega `$, where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \omega :\widehat{B}_R\{\widehat{x}^{n1}:|\widehat{x}|<R\}& & ,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{x}& & \sqrt{R^2|\widehat{x}|^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$

According to the Dirichlet boundary conditions,

$$(u\underset{¯}{u})(\widehat{x},\omega (\widehat{x}))=0.$$

We differentiate twice with respect to $`\widehat{x}^i`$, $`\widehat{x}^j`$, $`1i,jn1`$ and obtain that at $`x_0`$,

$$(u\underset{¯}{u})_{ij}+(u\underset{¯}{u})_n\omega _{ij}=0.$$

According to the decay conditions at infinity (1.5),

$$\left|\underset{¯}{u}_{ij}|x|_{ij}\right|=𝒪\left(\frac{1}{R^2}\right),$$

and furthermore

$$\omega _{ij}(x_0)=\frac{\delta _{ij}}{R}.$$

Thus the result follows in view of Lemma 2.4. ∎

## 3. Mixed $`C^2`$-Estimates

###### Lemma 3.1 (Mixed second derivatives at the outer boundary).

For $`x_0B_R`$ let $`\tau `$ and $`\nu `$ be unit vectors in tangential and normal directions, respectively. Then

$$|u_{\tau \nu }|(x_0)\frac{c}{\sqrt{R}}.$$
(3.1)
The proof of this Lemma is split up into several lemmata.

As in the proof of Lemma 2.5 we may assume that $`x_0=Re_n`$ and represent $`B_R`$ locally as $`\mathrm{graph}\omega `$ with $`\omega (\widehat{x})=\sqrt{R^2|\widehat{x}|^2}`$. We take the logarithm of the differential equation in (1.6),

$$\mathrm{log}detu_{ij}\frac{n+2}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(1+|Du|^2\right)=\mathrm{log}f(x,u),$$

and differentiate with respect to $`x^k`$,

$$u^{ij}u_{ijk}\frac{n+2}{1+|Du|^2}u^iu_{ik}=\frac{f_k+f_zu_k}{f}.$$
(3.2)
This gives a motivation for introducing the linear differential operator $`L`$ by

$$Lw:=u^{ij}w_{ij}\frac{n+2}{1+|Du|^2}u^iw_i.$$

Furthermore, we define for $`t<n`$ the linear operator

$$T:=\frac{}{x^t}+\omega _{tr}(0)x^r\frac{}{x^n}\frac{}{x^t}\frac{x_t}{R}\frac{}{x^n},$$

where we used the convention $`\omega _{tn}=0`$ (thus we sum over $`r=1,\mathrm{},n1`$). In what follows we restrict attention to the domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta :=B_\delta (x_0)B_R`$ with $`\delta \frac{R}{2}`$, notice that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta B_RK`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

The function $`u\underset{¯}{u}`$ satisfies the following estimates,

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill |T(u\underset{¯}{u})|& & \frac{c}{\sqrt{R}}\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta ,\hfill \\ \hfill |T(u\underset{¯}{u})|& & \frac{c}{R^2}|xx_0|^2\hfill & \text{on }B_R,\hfill \\ \hfill |LT(u\underset{¯}{u})|& & c+\frac{c}{R^2}\mathrm{tr}u^{ij}\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta ,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{tr}u^{ij}u^{ij}\delta _{ij}`$.

###### Proof.

Note that $`|\omega _i|c`$, $`|\omega _{ij}|\frac{c}{R}`$ and $`|\omega _{ijk}|\frac{c}{R^2}`$. The first inequality follows directly from the $`C^1`$ estimates of Lemma 2.4, whereas for the second inequality we use furthermore that $`(u\underset{¯}{u})_t+(u\underset{¯}{u})_n\omega _t=0`$ on $`B_R`$, the decay properties of $`\omega _{ijk}`$, and the fact that $`u\underset{¯}{u}`$ vanishes on $`B_R`$. To prove the last inequality, we apply (3.2), the relation $`u^{ij}u_{jk}=\delta _k^i`$, and the $`C^1`$-estimates to obtain that

$$|LT(u\underset{¯}{u})|c\frac{|Df|}{f}+\frac{c}{R}+c|D^2\underset{¯}{u}|+c\mathrm{tr}u^{ij}\left(|D^3\underset{¯}{u}|+\frac{1}{R}|D^2\underset{¯}{u}|\right).$$

Now we use the conditions (1.4) and (1.5). ∎

The function $`\vartheta `$ introduced in the next Lemma will be the main part of a barrier function which we shall construct in what follows.

###### Lemma 3.3.

There exists a positive constant $`\epsilon `$ independent of $`R`$ such that

$$\vartheta :=(u\underset{¯}{u})+\frac{1}{\sqrt{R}}d\frac{1}{2R^{\frac{5}{4}}}d^2$$

fulfills the estimates

$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill L\vartheta & & \epsilon R^{\frac{3}{4n}}\epsilon R^{\frac{5}{4}}\mathrm{tr}u^{ij}\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta ,\hfill \\ \hfill \vartheta & & 0\hfill & \text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta ,\hfill \end{array}$$

provided that $`\delta =R^{\frac{3}{4}}`$ and $`R`$ is sufficiently large. Here $`d=R|x|`$ is the distance from $`B_R`$.

###### Proof.

It is obvious that $`\vartheta 0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta `$. We fix $`x_0\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta `$ and set $`\nu =x_0/|x_0|`$. Let $`\tau ,\tau ^{}`$ belong to an orthonormal basis for the orthogonal complement of $`\nu `$ which we choose such that the submatrix $`u^{\tau \tau ^{}}`$ is diagonal. Assume that $`\nu `$ and $`\tau `$, $`\tau ^{}`$ correspond to the indices $`n`$ and $`1,\mathrm{},n1`$, respectively. We use the Einstein summation convention for $`\tau ,\tau ^{}`$. The matrix $`u^{ij}`$ is positive, and thus testing with the vectors $`\nu \pm \tau `$ gives

$$|u^{\nu \tau }|\frac{1}{2}(u^{\nu \nu }+u^{\tau \tau }).$$
(3.3)
We introduce the abbreviation

$$\mathrm{tr}u^{\tau \tau ^{}}=u^{ij}\left(\delta _{ij}\frac{x_i}{|x|}\frac{x_j}{|x|}\right).$$

Direct computations using (1.5) and (3.3) give

$`Lu`$ $`=`$ $`u^{ij}u_{ij}(n+2){\displaystyle \frac{|Du|^2}{1+|Du|^2}}c,`$
$`L\underset{¯}{u}`$ $``$ $`c+u^{\tau \tau ^{}}\underset{¯}{u}_{\tau \tau ^{}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}u^{\tau \nu }\underset{¯}{u}_{\tau \nu }+u^{\nu \nu }\underset{¯}{u}_{\nu \nu }`$
$``$ $`c+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|}}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{|x|^2}}\right)\mathrm{tr}u^{\tau \tau ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{|x|^2}}u^{\nu \nu },`$
$`L\vartheta `$ $``$ $`c\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{R}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|}}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{|x|^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{R}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{R^{\frac{5}{4}}}}\right)\right)\mathrm{tr}u^{\tau \tau ^{}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^{\frac{5}{4}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{|x|^2}}\right)u^{\nu \nu },`$
and thus for $`R`$ sufficiently large,

$$L\vartheta c\frac{1}{2R}\mathrm{tr}u^{\tau \tau ^{}}\frac{1}{2R^{\frac{5}{4}}}u^{\nu \nu }.$$

Expanding the determinant and using that $`u^{\tau \tau ^{}}`$ is diagonal gives

$`detu^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`det\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}u^{11}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& u^{1n}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& u^{n1n1}& u^{n1n}\\ u^{1n}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& u^{n1n}& u^{nn}\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}u^{ii}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau }{}}|u^{n\tau }|^2{\displaystyle \underset{\tau ^{}\tau }{}}u^{\tau ^{}\tau ^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}u^{ii}.`$
Hence the inequality for geometric and arithmetic means as well as (1.6) and (1.4) show that for large values of $`R`$,

$`L\vartheta `$ $``$ $`c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}(detu_{ij})^{\frac{1}{n}}R^{\frac{n1}{n}\frac{5}{4}\frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4R^{\frac{5}{4}}}}\mathrm{tr}u^{ij}`$
$``$ $`c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}|x|^{\frac{n+1}{n}}R^{\frac{1}{n}\left((n1)+\frac{5}{4}\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4R^{\frac{5}{4}}}}\mathrm{tr}u^{ij}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}R^{\frac{3}{4n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4R^{\frac{5}{4}}}}\mathrm{tr}u^{ij}.`$
###### Lemma 3.4.

There exists a positive constant $`A`$ independent of $`R`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Theta }:=\vartheta +A\frac{1}{R^2}|xx_0|^2\pm T(u\underset{¯}{u})$$

satisfies the inequalities

$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill L\mathrm{\Theta }& & 0\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta ,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Theta }& & 0\hfill & \text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.5)
where $`\delta =R^{\frac{3}{4}}`$ and $`\vartheta `$ is as in Lemma 3.3.

###### Proof.

According to Lemma 3.3, the condition $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta `$ follows if

$$A\frac{1}{R^2}|xx_0|^2\pm T(u\underset{¯}{u})0\text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta .$$

In view of Lemma 3.2, this can be arranged by choosing $`A`$ sufficiently large. The property $`L\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ now follows from the inequality

$$\epsilon R^{\frac{3}{4n}}\epsilon R^{\frac{5}{4}}\mathrm{tr}u^{ij}+c\frac{A}{R}+c+c\frac{1+A}{R^2}\mathrm{tr}u^{ij}0,$$

which holds for $`R`$ sufficiently large. ∎

###### Proof of Lemma 3.1..

The maximum principle applied to (3.5) yields that $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta `$. Since $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0)=0`$, it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\nu (x_0)0$$

with $`\nu =\frac{x_0}{|x_0|}`$. Thus we obtain

$$\vartheta _\nu (x_0)|(T(u\underset{¯}{u}))_\nu |(x_0),$$

and this finally gives (3.1). ∎

## 4. Remaining A Priori Estimates

The decay rate in Lemma 3.1 has been chosen such that the following lemma follows immediately.

###### Lemma 4.1 (Double normal $`C^2`$-estimates at the outer boundary).

Under the assumptions of Lemma 3.1 and of one of our Theorems 1.1-1.3,

$$|u_{\nu \nu }|(x_0)c.$$

###### Proof.

We choose for fixed $`x_0B_R`$ an orthonormal basis as in Lemma 3.3, now such that the submatrix $`u_{\tau \tau ^{}}`$ is diagonal. We expand the determinant,

$`f(x,u)\left(1+|Du|^2\right)^{\frac{n+2}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`detu_{ij}=u_{nn}{\displaystyle \underset{i<n}{}}u_{ii}{\displaystyle \underset{k<n}{}}u_{kn}^2{\displaystyle \underset{ki<n}{}}u_{ii}`$
$`=`$ $`u_{nn}{\displaystyle \underset{i<n}{}}u_{ii}{\displaystyle \underset{i<n}{}}u_{ii}{\displaystyle \underset{k<n}{}}u_{kn}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_{kk}}}.`$
Now we substitute in the estimates of Lemma 2.5 and Lemma 3.1,

$`u_{nn}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{{\displaystyle \underset{i<n}{}}u_{ii}}}f(x,u)+{\displaystyle \underset{k<n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_{kn}^2}{u_{kk}}}`$
$``$ $`cR^{n1}R^{n1}+{\displaystyle \underset{k<n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{c}{\sqrt{R}}\right)^2}{\frac{c}{R}}}c.`$
## 5. Barrier Constructions

The following lemma gives a simple example of a barrier construction.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Let $`K=\overline{B_{\rho _1}}(0)`$ with $`\rho _1>0`$ and $`u_00`$. Suppose that $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(^n\stackrel{}{K})`$ satisfies

$$0<f(a1)\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}^{\frac{3n}{2}1}\rho _1^{a1}r^{1na}$$

with $`a>2`$. Then there is a strictly convex subsolution $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ which is close to a cone such that (1.5) is satisfied.

###### Proof.

We introduce functions $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ by

$`\phi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a1}{2}}\rho _1^{a1}r^a`$
$`\psi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\rho _1}^r}\left({\displaystyle _\rho ^{\mathrm{}}}\phi (\tau )𝑑\tau \right)𝑑\rho `$
and define $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ by

$$\underset{¯}{u}:^nB_{\rho _1}:x|x|\rho _1+\psi (|x|).$$

This $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ is zero on $`B_{\rho _1}`$, is close to a cone, and satisfies the regularity conditions (1.5). Furthermore,

$$0\psi ^{}(r)=_r^{\mathrm{}}\phi (\tau )𝑑\tau _{\rho _1}^{\mathrm{}}\phi (\tau )𝑑\tau =\frac{1}{2}.$$

We compute the Gauß curvature of $`\mathrm{graph}\underset{¯}{u}`$,

$`\underset{¯}{u}_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{|x|}}+\psi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{|x|}},|D\underset{¯}{u}|=1+\psi ^{},`$
$`\underset{¯}{u}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|}}(1+\psi ^{})\left(\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{|x|}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_j}{|x|}}\right)+\phi (|x|){\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{|x|}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_j}{|x|}}.`$
We conclude that in $`^nB_{\rho _1}`$

$`𝒦[\underset{¯}{u}]`$ $`=`$ $`\phi r^{1n}(1+\psi ^{})^{n1}\left(1+(1+\psi ^{})^2\right)^{\frac{n+2}{2}}`$
$``$ $`(a1)\rho _1^{a1}r^{1na}2^n2^{\frac{n+2}{2}}.`$
The above construction could be extended to more general domains and non-zero boundary values, provided that the boundary values are sufficiently close to a cone, i. e. $`|u_0|x||_{C^2}<\epsilon `$, and $`f`$ is sufficiently small. For non-zero boundary values, it seems preferable to use the following construction of a subsolution, based on the idea of viscosity subsolutions.

###### Lemma 5.2.

For a smooth domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ and a smooth positive function $`f:\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times `$ with $`f_z0`$, we assume that there exist two smooth, strictly convex subsolutions, i. e.

$$u_i:\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_i},𝒦[u_i]f(x,u_i)\text{ in }\mathrm{\Omega }_i,i=1,2,$$

such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\text{open})`$, $`u_i<u_{3i}\text{ on }\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, and $`\{u_1=u_2\}\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ (in particular $`\{u_1=u_2\}\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{}`$). Then there exists a smooth function $`u:\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 𝒦[u]& =& f(x,u)\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ \hfill u& =& \mathrm{max}\{u_1,u_2\}\hfill & \text{on }\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ \hfill u& & \mathrm{max}\{u_1,u_2\}\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

We choose a smooth, strictly convex function $`w:\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill w& & \mathrm{max}\{u_1,u_2\}\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ \hfill w& =& \mathrm{max}\{u_1,u_2\}\hfill & \text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill \end{array}$$

and define $`f_w(x):=𝒦[w](x)`$. Then $`w`$ is a solution of the Dirichlet problem

$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 𝒦[w]& =& f_w(x)\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ \hfill w& =& \mathrm{max}\{u_1,u_2\}\hfill & \text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill \end{array}$$

We may assume that $`f_w<f(,\mathrm{max}\{u_1,u_2\})`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ because otherwise we solve a Dirichlet problem (with small $`f`$) by using  with $`w`$ as the subsolution, and take the solution to this Dirichlet problem instead of $`w`$. Finally, we apply the continuity method and solve the Dirichlet problems

$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 𝒦\left[u^t\right]& =& (1t)f_w(x)+tf(x,u^t)\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ \hfill u^t& =& \mathrm{max}\{u_1,u_2\}\hfill & \text{on }\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ \hfill u^t& & \mathrm{max}\{u_1,u_2\}\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \end{array}$$

for smooth strictly convex functions $`u^t:\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, $`0t1`$. The solvability of this Dirichlet problem is a consequence of the a priori estimates of  and the fact that

$$u^t>\mathrm{max}\{u_1,u_2\}\text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }\text{ for }0t<1.$$

The last inequality follows from the maximum principle because $`(1t)f_w(x)+tf(x,\mathrm{max}\{u_1,u_2\})<f(x,\mathrm{max}\{u_1,u_2\})`$ for $`0t<1`$. For $`t=1`$ we obtain the function $`u`$ we are looking for. ∎

## Appendix A Notes

We remark that the $`C^2`$-estimates at the outer boundary $`B_R`$ cannot be obtained from the estimates on compact domains by a simple scaling argument. The reason is that if one considers the function $`\frac{1}{R}u(Rx)`$ near $`B_1\left(\frac{1}{R}K\right)`$, the corresponding rescaled function $`f`$ tends to zero near $`B_1`$ as $`R\mathrm{}`$.

The purpose of this paper was to find a method for proving the existence of strictly convex hypersurfaces of prescribed Gauß curvature in exterior domains. But for technical simplicity, we did not consider the most general situation to which our methods apply.

First of all, our regularity assumptions could be weakened; indeed, it is sufficient to assume the same regularity as in the compact case, i. e. similar to

$$KC^4,\underset{¯}{u}C^4(^n\stackrel{}{K}),fC^2((^n\stackrel{}{K})\times ).$$

Furthermore, it is possible to treat equations of the form

$$detu_{ij}=f(x,u,Du)$$

with $`f>0`$. We do not consider this case here because the explicit construction of a subsolution becomes more complicated for this more general ansatz.

Moreover, it is possible to remove the technical condition $`f_z0`$ by using a mapping degree argument and assuming that $`f_z0`$ only outside the set $`\{(x,z)(^nK)\times :\underset{¯}{u}(x)z\overline{u}(x)\}`$. But the uniqueness as described in Lemma 2.2 is lost, i. e. the limit of $`u^{R_k}`$ as $`R_k\mathrm{}`$ may depend on the choice of the subsequence. We also remark that the decay condition

$$sup\left(\frac{|Df|+|D^2f|}{f}\right)<\mathrm{}$$

is clearly only needed between the two barriers.

Finally, one could consider hypersurfaces of prescribed Gauß curvature which, instead of being close to a cone, have a different asymptotic behavior near infinity. One example would be to take a smooth convex domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{n1}`$, $`0\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and to consider hypersurfaces which are close to the cone $`_+(\mathrm{\Omega }\times \{1\})`$. It even seems possible to adapt our methods to hypersurfaces of prescribed Gauß curvature which are close to a more general convex hypersurface, provided that its Gauß curvature decays sufficiently fast at infinity, and that one can find barriers that give good $`C^1`$-estimates.