text:
# Anisotropic spin splitting and spin relaxation in asymmetric zinc-blende semiconductor quantum structures

## I Introduction

The spin degree of freedom of electrons in solids has recently attracted much interest DiVincenzo (1995); Prinz (1998); Kikkawa and Awschalom (1998, 1999); Kikkawa et al. (1997) in the perspective of spintronic devices, which require long spin relaxation times. Thus, a quantitative understanding of the dependence of spin-relaxation times on the system parameters is needed for the desired engineering of systems with the required properties as well as for the interpretation of measured values. Tackeuchi et al. (1996); Terauchi et al. (1999); Malinowski et al. (2000); Adachi et al. (2001) It is generally accepted Pikus and Titkov (1984) that in bulk zinc-blende type semiconductors and in quantum well (QW) structures based on these materials electronic spin relaxation is governed by the D’yakonov-Perel’ D’yakonov and Perel’ (1971, 1972) (DP) and the Bir-Aronov-Pikus Bir et al. (1976) mechanisms. The former mechanism becomes dominant in n-doped (001)-grown QW systems, which we consider here. The DP mechanism is intimately related with the spin splitting of the electronic subbands caused by the lacking inversion symmetry. Averkiev et al. (2002a) It can result from the bulk crystal structure (bulk inversion asymmetry, BIA Dresselhaus (1955)) but also from the QW structure (structural inversion asymmetry, SIA Bychkov and Rashba (1984)). Making use of this relation, Averkiev et al. Averkiev and Golub (1999); Averkiev et al. (2002a) employ a simple variational calculation for a triangular potential model of n-doped GaAs heterostructures and include BIA and SIA terms as a perturbation to calculate spin-splitting and DP spin-relaxation rates. The simplicity of this approach raises the question of the reliability of these results in view of a more rigorous calculation, as will be presented in this paper.

In this contribution, we determine the electron spin relaxation rates for longitudinal (in growth direction) and transverse (in-plane) spin components in asymmetric n-doped (001)-grown zinc-blende semiconductor quantum structures using the anisotropic spin splitting obtained from self-consistent calculations in the multi-band envelope-function approximation (EFA). Winkler and Rössler (1993) We investigate the dependence of these rates on the QW width and carrier concentration for the material systems AlGaAs/GaAs and AlGaSb/InAs, and compare our results for the former system with those of Ref. Averkiev et al., 2002a.

## II DP mechanism and spin splitting

The DP spin relaxation is described in a single band approach by considering the time evolution of the electron spin-density vector

$$𝑺=\mathrm{tr}(\rho _𝒌𝝈)=\underset{𝒌}{}\mathrm{tr}(\rho _𝒌𝝈),$$
(1)
where $`𝒌`$ is the electron wave vector, $`𝝈`$ the vector of Pauli spin matrices, and $`\rho _𝒌`$ the $`2\times 2`$ electron spin-density matrix. The dynamics of $`\rho _𝒌`$ is ruled by a Bloch equation containing the spin-orbit coupling $`H_{\mathrm{so}}=\mathrm{}𝝈𝛀(𝒌)`$ and the (spin independent) momentum scattering, e.g., with phonons, (nonmagnetic) impurities or other electrons Glazov and Ivchenko (2002); Brand et al. (2002) characterized by a momentum scattering time $`\tau _p`$. The spin-orbit coupling is analogous to a Zeeman term, but with an effective magnetic field $`𝛀(𝒌)`$ that depends on the underlying material and geometry and on the electron wave vector $`𝒌`$. The vector $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho _𝒌𝝈)`$ precesses about $`𝛀(𝒌)`$ which eventually results in spin relaxation. However, momentum scattering changes $`𝒌`$ and thus the direction and magnitude of $`𝛀(𝒌)`$ felt by the electrons. Therefore, frequent scattering (on the time scale of $`|𝛀(𝒌)|^1`$) suppresses the precession and consequently the spin relaxation. This is the motional-narrowing behavior that is typical for the DP mechanism, according to which the spin relaxation rate $`\tau _s^1\tau _p`$. D’yakonov and Perel’ (1972)

Due to time reversal invariance we have $`𝛀(0)=0`$. At finite $`𝒌`$ the spin-orbit coupling $`H_{\mathrm{so}}`$ causes a spin splitting $`2\mathrm{}|𝛀(𝒌)|`$ of the subband structure. It exists already in bulk semiconductors with broken inversion symmetry. In this article we focus on semiconductors with a zinc-blende structure where the BIA spin splitting of the electron states is characterized in leading order by the Dresselhaus or $`k^3`$ term Dresselhaus (1955); Braun and Rössler (1985)

$$𝛀_{\mathrm{BIA}}(𝒌)=\frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}k_x\left(k_y^2k_z^2\right)\\ k_y\left(k_z^2k_x^2\right)\\ k_z\left(k_x^2k_y^2\right)\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
where $`\gamma `$ is a material dependent parameter. In the following we will assume that the $`z`$ axis is perpendicular to the QW plane. In asymmetric QW’s SIA gives rise to a second contribution to spin-orbit coupling. Its leading term, linear in $`𝒌_{}=(k_x,k_y,0)`$ is frequently called the Rashba term. Bychkov and Rashba (1984) It is characterized by the effective field

$$𝛀_{\mathrm{SIA}}(𝒌_{})=\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}k_y\\ k_x\\ 0\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
with a prefactor $`\alpha `$ that depends on the material parameters of the underlying semiconductor bulk material (like $`\gamma `$) but in addition also on the asymmetry of the QW in growth direction. In first order perturbation theory for (001) oriented QW’s the terms $`k_z`$ (and powers thereof) in the BIA term are replaced by expectation values with respect to the subband function, thus one has Dyakonov and Kachorovskii (1986)

$$𝛀(𝒌_{})=\frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}k_x\left(k_y^2k_z^2\right)\\ k_y\left(k_z^2k_x^2\right)\\ 0\end{array}\right)+𝛀_{\mathrm{SIA}}(𝒌_{}).$$
(4)
Within the DP mechanism the relaxation of the components of $`𝑺`$ are ruled by D’yakonov and Perel’ (1972)

$$\frac{}{t}S_i=\frac{1}{\tau _i}S_i$$
(5)
with $`i=z,+,`$ corresponding to the components of $`𝑺`$ along $`[001]`$, $`[110]`$, and $`[\overline{1}10]`$, $`S_\pm =1/\sqrt{2}(S_x\pm S_y)`$, and spin-relaxation rates Averkiev et al. (2002a)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\tau _p}{\mathrm{}^2}}[(\gamma ^2k_z^2^2+\alpha ^2)k_F^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2k_z^2k_F^4}{2}}`$ (6a)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2k_F^6}{8}}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _\pm }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\tau _p}{\mathrm{}^2}}[k_F^2(\pm \alpha \gamma k_z^2)(\pm \alpha \gamma k_z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}k_F^2)`$ (6b)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2k_F^6}{8}}].`$
Here we have assumed an isotropic momentum scattering and a degenerate electron system. The rates (6) depend explicitly on the carrier density $`n`$ via the radius $`k_F`$ of the Fermi circle and implicitly via the self-consistent subband functions in the expectation values of $`k_z^2`$.

In a previous evaluation of Eq. (6) in n-doped (001) grown GaAs heterostructures, Averkiev et al. Averkiev et al. (2002a) employed the triangular potential model and the variational subband function of Ref. Fang and Howard, 1966, thus assuming an infinite barrier at the interface and working in the single-band approximation. In their model, the electric field varies linearly with the carrier density $`n`$, which results in $`\alpha n`$. Using Eq. (6) and a tabulated value of $`\gamma =27\mathrm{eV}`$Å (appropriate for bulk GaAs) these authors calculate the relaxation rates for carrier densities up to $`2.5\times 10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. (Their results for a smaller range of $`n`$ are reproduced in Fig. 5.) However, carrier densities in real AlAs/GaAs quantum structures with occupation of the lowest subband only are limited to $`n8\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (see Ref. Hamilton et al., 1995 and discussion below). Moreover, the approach of Averkiev et al. does not yield full self-consistency nor does it include nonparabolic corrections or effects due to the barrier material, which have to be taken into account for finite barriers.

In order to overcome these deficiencies we perform fully self-consistent calculations of the subband spin splitting in the multiband EFA (considering five levels or 14 bands Winkler and Rössler (1993)) in application to (001) oriented AlGaAs/GaAs and AlGaSb/InAs QW’s, n-doped on one side. Such calculations include in a systematic way the BIA nonparabolicity modified by the QW confinement and the SIA or Rashba term. They have successfully explained the anisotropic spin splitting measured with inelastic light-scattering. Wissinger et al. (1998) Figure 1 shows a typical polar plot of the calculated spin splitting in the $`(k_x,k_y)`$ plane (solid contour). The striking feature is the pronounced anisotropy with the strongly reduced spin splitting in the $`[\overline{1}10]`$ direction. From the numerically calculated spin splitting $`𝛀_{\mathrm{num}}(𝒌_{})`$ we extract the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ by fitting $`𝛀_{\mathrm{num}}(𝒌_F)`$ to Eq. (4) using $`k_F=\sqrt{2\pi n}`$. The expectation value $`k_z^2`$ is evaluated using the EFA wave functions. The quality of this approach is demonstrated by the dashed contour in Fig. 1. In Fig. 2 we show $`k_z^2`$ as a function of the density $`n`$ together with the estimate $`k_z^2n^{2/3}`$ used in Ref. Averkiev et al., 2002a. Figures 3 and 4 show how the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ change as a function of $`n`$.111The kinks in Figs. 3 and 4 around $`n0.3\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ are due to higher order terms that are included in the EFA calculations, but not accounted for in the model of Eq. (4). For $`\alpha `$ this dependence is expected since $`\alpha `$ contains the expectation value of the electric field. Our more realistic calculations yield absolute values of the Rashba coefficient that are substantially larger than those used in Ref. Averkiev et al., 2002a. The dependence of $`\gamma `$ on $`n`$ (which is only moderate) reflects higher order nonparabolicity corrections with increasing Fermi energy known from the bulk material. Rössler (1984) For our set of band parameters, the bulk values of $`\gamma `$ are $`19.7\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{\AA }^3`$ for GaAs222The difference between the value of $`\gamma =27\mathrm{eV}`$Å from Ref. Averkiev et al., 2002a and our value is due to taking into account the coupling parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ (see Ref. Mayer and Rössler, 1991).  and $`18.5\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{\AA }^3`$ for AlAs.

Recently Lau et al.Lau et al. (2001) have performed similar calculations, yet for symmetrically doped QW’s in order to compare with experimental data obtained from multiple QW’s. Terauchi et al. (1999) Our focus here is on asymmetric single QW’s and the interplay between SIA and BIA terms, which require fully self-consistent EFA calculations.

The simpler 8-band model, which takes into account BIA only perturbatively, yields qualitatively the same spin splitting as the 14-band Hamiltonian. However, the magnitude of the spin splitting is about 10–20% larger in the 8-band model. Wissinger et al. (1998) Therefore, all results given in this paper are based on the more realistic 14-band model.

## III Calculated spin relaxation rates

In this section we present our results for the spin-relaxation rates obtained from Eq. (6) with the parameters $`k_z^2`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ determined within the 14-band EFA calculations. This is done by assuming a momentum-scattering time $`\tau _p=0.1\mathrm{ps}`$. As all rates are proportional to $`\tau _p`$ they may be readily rescaled. For all calculations presented in this paper the range of $`n`$ is chosen such that only the lowest (spin-split) subband is occupied. In Fig. 5 our results are shown for a AlAs/GaAs heterostructure in comparison with the data from Ref. Averkiev et al., 2002a. (Note that in Ref. Averkiev et al., 2002a $`\tau _+`$ and $`\tau _{}`$ are interchanged 333 We choose our coordinate system such that the electric field points in $`[001]`$ direction, whereas in Ref. Averkiev et al., 2002a the electric field points in the opposite direction, which leads to an interchange of $`\tau _+`$ and $`\tau _{}`$. .) Both in Ref. Averkiev et al., 2002a and in our calculation, the rates $`\tau _z^1`$ and $`\tau _+^1`$ increase monotonously with the carrier density and are close to each other over the whole range. For the higher densities ($`n0.4\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^2`$) our results for $`\tau _z^1`$ and $`\tau _+^1`$ coincide with the respective data from Ref. Averkiev et al., 2002a, whereas our relaxation rates are generally much larger for small $`n`$. This can be attributed to the fact that in Ref. Averkiev et al., 2002a it was assumed that $`k_z^2n^{2/3}`$, while in our calculations $`k_z^2`$ does not tend towards zero for small $`n`$ (Fig. 2). Our results for $`\tau _{}^1`$ are generally much smaller than those of Ref. Averkiev et al., 2002a and show also a pronounced nonmonotonous behavior around $`n0.4\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, which is not present444 The nonmonotonous dependence visible in Fig. 3 of Ref. Averkiev et al., 2002a is a consequence of the approximation that a Boltzmann distribution is used for an almost degenerate electron system. in Ref. Averkiev et al., 2002a. A detailed explanation of the origin of this feature will be given below. The small oscillations below and above the dip at $`n0.4\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ are numerical noise.

Spin relaxation rates calculated as a function of the QW width $`L`$ and carrier density $`n`$ are shown in Fig. 6 for single-side n-doped QW’s with (001) orientation for the material systems Al0.35Ga0.65As/GaAs and Al0.3Ga0.7Sb/InAs. With increasing $`L`$ the asymmetric single-side doped QW’s become more and more similar to a single heterostructure, and therefore the results for $`L200`$Å are almost the same as for a heterostructure. Similar to the GaAs/AlAs system of Fig. 5 the rates $`\tau _z^1`$ and $`\tau _+^1`$ are close to each other in all cases, while $`\tau _{}^1`$ is distinctly smaller (frequently more than an order of magnitude) and shows the nonmonotonous dependence on $`n`$. Both the GaAs and the InAs QW’s show qualitatively the same behavior.

In Fig. 6 we have a dip in the density dependence of $`\tau _{}^1`$ that is most pronounced for the InAs QW’s. This feature, not seen in Ref. Averkiev et al., 2002a, appears here due to the differences in $`k_z^2`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ (see Figs. 2,3,4). They cause in our calculations the first term in the expression defining $`\tau _{}^1`$ \[Eq. (6b)\] to become negative in a certain range of $`n`$ and therefore lead to a nonmonotonous behavior.

The origin of the dip in $`\tau _{}^1`$ can be understood more clearly within a picture of the DP mechanism, where we assume that the spin relaxation rate for the spin component in the direction $`𝒆`$ is only effected by those components of the effective field $`𝛀(𝒌_{})`$ that are perpendicular to $`𝒆`$. In analogy with the behavior of spin relaxation rates for nuclear magnetic resonance Slichter (1963) the spin relaxation rate $`\tau _{}^1`$ of the spin component in the direction $`[\overline{1}10]`$ should be proportional to the average of the squared effective field components perpendicular to that direction:

$$\tau _{}^1\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{[110]}^2(k_F)+\mathrm{\Omega }_{[001]}^2(k_F)\right),$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{[110]}^2(k_F)`$ represents an average over the Fermi contour

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{[110]}^2(k_F)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\phi \mathrm{\Omega }_{[110]}^2(𝒌_F(\phi ))$$
(8a)
and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{[110]}(𝒌_F(\phi ))`$ denotes a projection of $`𝛀(𝒌_F(\phi ))`$ on the direction $`[110]`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{[110]}(𝒌_F(\phi ))`$ $`=`$ $`𝛀(𝒌_F(\phi ))\left(\begin{array}{c}1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 0\end{array}\right),`$ (8e)
$`𝒌_F(\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`k_F\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\phi \\ \mathrm{sin}\phi \\ 0\end{array}\right).`$ (8i)
As the projection of $`𝛀(𝒌_{})`$ onto the $`[001]`$ direction vanishes, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{[001]}^2(k_F)`$ is equal to zero. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{[110]}^2(k_F)`$ is a measure of the relaxation rate $`\tau _{}^1`$. In fact, by calculating this quantity as a function of $`n`$ (Fig. 7) we obtain the same behavior as for $`\tau _{}^1`$, thus confirming the given interpretation. In the same line of arguments $`\tau _+^1`$ is essentially determined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{[\overline{1}10]}^2(k_F)`$ and, in fact, this quantity exhibits a monotonous dependence on $`n`$ similar to $`\tau _+^1`$ in Figs. 5 and 6.

## IV Proposed Measurements

Our calculations indicate a large difference of the spin relaxation times for spins oriented in $`\pm `$ and $`z`$ direction. This feature is quite universal; it appears both in GaAs- and InAs-based systems over a wide range of well widths and carrier densities. In a certain density range (”dips” in Fig. 6) the spin relaxation times can differ by more than two orders of magnitude. Therefore, we expect that this difference can be observed experimentally.

The creation of spins oriented in $`z`$ direction using optical orientation techniques and the measurement of their relaxation has already been demonstrated. Tackeuchi et al. (1996); Terauchi et al. (1999); Malinowski et al. (2000); Adachi et al. (2001) For the creation of an in-plane spin orientation a spin-injection technique similar to the paradigmatic spin transistor Datta and Das (1990) can be used. Here the carrier density can be varied by means of a gate electrode and the spin relaxation can be detected via the source-drain current.

Another way to determine in-plane spin relaxation is provided by measurements of the Hanle effect Averkiev et al. (2002b).

We propose a second scheme for the creation of in-plane excess spins and the measurement of their relaxation time: In a first step, spins oriented in $`z`$ direction are created with conventional optical orientation techniques. These can be rotated into the plane of the QW by means of a so-called tipping pulse, as demonstrated by Gupta *et al.* Gupta et al. (2001) After a certain delay, the spins are rotated back into the $`z`$ direction, so that the magnitude of the remaining spin polarization can be measured. By changing the delay time the spin relaxation for an arbitrary in-plane direction can be analyzed. A substantial difference between the spin relaxation times can be expected for spins oriented along the in-plane directions  and $`[\overline{1}10]`$.

We propose that such a system can be used as a “spin storage”: The rotation of spins from the $`z`$ direction into the $`[\overline{1}10]`$ direction effectively stores the spins because the relaxation time for the latter direction is larger by orders of magnitude.

## V Conclusion

Starting from a realistic model for the anisotropic spin splitting in GaAs/AlGaAs and InAs/AlGaSb quantum structures we calculate the parameters which determine the longitudinal ($`\tau _z^1`$) and transverse ($`\tau _\pm ^1`$) spin-relaxation rates and determine their dependence on QW width and carrier concentration. We quantify the previously predicted Averkiev and Golub (1999) giant anisotropy of spin relaxation by our more realistic calculation of the spin splitting. In contrast with previous investigations our accurate calculations predict a pronounced nonmonotonous behavior of $`\tau _{}^1(n)`$, which can be understood by ascribing the spin relaxation to the transverse components of the effective magnetic field. Future work will include calculations for different material systems, growth directions and doping profiles. For comparison with room-temperature experiments the temperature dependence and the effects of different scattering mechanisms have to be considered. Furthermore, the microscopic interface asymmetry, that has been identified as an additional mechanism of spin splitting, Rössler and Kainz (2002) will be taken into account.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank L. E. Golub for valuable discussions. This work has been supported by the DFG via Forschergruppe 370 Ferromagnet-Halbleiter-Nanostrukturen.


format: text

text:
# Harmonic and superharmonic majorants on the disk

## 1. Definitions and statements

Let $`𝔻`$ stand for the open unit disk in the complex plane, and $`H^+(𝔻)`$ for the cone of positive harmonic functions on $`𝔻`$. We would like to describe the functions $`\phi :𝔻_+`$ which admit a harmonic majorant, that is, $`hH^+(𝔻)`$ such that $`h\phi `$. This question arises in problems about the decrease of bounded holomorphic functions in the unit disk, as well as in the description of free interpolating sequences for the Nevanlinna class (see \[HMNT\]). In that paper, an answer is given in terms of duality with the measures that act on positive harmonic functions. The aim of this note is to reduce this problem first to the finiteness of a certain best Lipschitz majorant function, and then to the existence of a merely superharmonic (nontrivial) majorant.

Let the hyperbolic (or Poincaré) distance $`\rho `$ on the disk be defined by $`d\rho (z):=(1|z|^2)^1|dz|`$. This is invariant under biholomorphic maps from the disk to itself. Explicitly, if we first define the pseudohyperbolic (or Gleason) distance by

$$d(z,w):=\left|\frac{zw}{1z\overline{w}}\right|,$$

then

(1.1)
$$\rho (z,w)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{1+d(z,w)}{1d(z,w)}.$$

For $`hH^+(𝔻)`$, the classical Harnack inequality reads, for $`0<r<1`$, $`\theta `$,

$$\frac{1r}{1+r}h(0)h(re^{i\theta })\frac{1+r}{1r}h(0).$$

This implies that the function $`\mathrm{log}h`$ is Lipschitz with constant $`2`$ with respect to the hyperbolic distance. We will say that a positive valued function $`F`$ is *Log-Lipschitz* (with constant $`C`$) if and only if $`|\mathrm{log}F(z)\mathrm{log}F(w)|C\rho (z,w)`$ for all $`z,w𝔻`$.

###### Theorem 1.

If $`\phi `$ admits a superharmonic and Log-Lipschitz majorant with constant $`C2`$, then $`\phi `$ admits a harmonic majorant.

Since the infimum of two harmonic functions is not in general harmonic, there is no smallest harmonic majorant for a given function. On the other hand, the cone $`Sp(𝔻)`$ of superharmonic functions is stable under finite infima. Denote by $`R(\phi )`$ the reduced function of $`\phi `$, i.e.

$$R(\phi )(z):=inf\{u(z):uSp(𝔻),u\phi \text{ on }𝔻\}$$

(see e.g. \[Es\]). We use the convention that $`R(\phi )\mathrm{}`$ if there is no (non identically infinite) superharmonic majorant. The reduced function could also be called “superharmonic envelope” as in \[Ra\]. The reduced function is not in general superharmonic, because it can fail to be lower semicontinuous. J. W. Green \[Gr, Theorem 2\] proved that when $`\phi `$ is continuous, then $`R(\phi )`$, if finite, is also continuous, therefore superharmonic, so the infimum in its definition is really a minimum; furthermore, it is harmonic in the open set $`\{z:R(\phi )(z)>\phi (z)\}`$.

If instead of taking the infimum of all superharmonic functions above $`\phi `$, we restrict ourselves to those which are Log-Lipschitz with a given constant $`C`$, the corresponding infimum $`R_C(\phi )`$ (if finite) will again be Log-Lipschitz with constant $`C`$, hence will be the smallest Log-Lipschitz superharmonic majorant of $`\phi `$ with constant $`C`$. Theorem 1 means that $`\phi `$ amits a harmonic majorant if and only if $`R_C(\phi )`$ is finite.

In order to study the finiteness of $`R_C(\phi )`$, it would be nice to be able to proceed in two steps, first dealing with the Lipschitz property, then with superharmonicity. The smallest Log-Lipschitz majorant with constant $`C`$ of a given nonnegative function $`\phi `$ is (see \[McS\], or \[HU\] for a more recent survey)

$$L_C(\phi )(z)=\mathrm{exp}\{\underset{w𝔻}{sup}(\phi (w)C\rho (w,z))\}.$$

Clearly, $`L_C(\phi )R_C(\phi )`$, thus $`R(L_C(\phi ))R_C(\phi )`$. That inequality can be strict when $`C<2`$.

###### Proposition 2.

For every $`0<\gamma \beta <2`$ there exists a bounded positive function $`H`$ on the disc such that

$$R(L_\gamma (H))R_\beta (H).$$

But we don’t know whether $`R(L_C(\phi ))=R_C(\phi )`$ holds for $`C2`$. Nevertheless, if a Log-Lipschitz function admits a superharmonic majorant $`s`$, then the invariant averages of $`s`$ will provide us with a superharmonic majorant with a weak Log-Lipschitz property, and finally we obtain the following result.

###### Theorem 3.

If there exists $`C>0`$ such that $`L_C(\phi )`$ admits a superharmonic majorant, then $`\phi `$ admits a harmonic majorant.

Note that it would not help to perform our two steps in the reverse order. Typical data for many problem of harmonic majorants are functions $`\phi `$ which vanish everywhere except on a discrete subset \[HMNT\]. For such $`\phi `$, $`R(\phi )=\phi `$.

Of course, Theorem 3 begs the question of criteria to ensure the finiteness of the reduced function of Log-Lipschitz data. In this general direction, one should note results of Koosis \[Ko, p. 77\] and Cole and Ransford \[CR, Theorem 1.3\] which imply that when $`\phi `$ is merely continuous,

$$R\phi (x)=sup\{\phi 𝑑\mu :\mu I_x\}=sup\{\phi 𝑑\mu :\mu H_x\},$$

where $`I_x`$ denotes the set of Jensen measures for $`x`$, and $`H_x`$ denotes the set of harmonic measures for $`x`$ with respect to a domain $`\omega 𝔻`$. A perhaps more computable characterization of $`R\phi `$ is given by \[Ko, Théorème, p. 80\] : let $`D_H(z,r)`$ stand for the disc of center $`z`$ and radius $`r`$ with respect to the hyperbolic distance $`\rho `$, and $`d\beta (z):=(1|z|^2)^2d\lambda _2(z)`$ be the invariant measure on the disk. Given a real-valued continuous function on $`𝔻`$, let

$$MF(z):=\underset{r>0}{sup}\frac{1}{\beta (D_H(z,r))}_{D_H(z,r)}F(w)𝑑\beta (w),$$

and define $`F^{(0)}:=F`$, $`F^{(k+1)}:=MF^{(k)}`$. Then, arguing as in \[Ko\], one can check that

$$R\phi (z)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi ^{(n)}(z).$$

So, Theorem 3 says that $`\phi `$ admits a harmonic majorant if and only if the sequence $`L_C(\phi )^{(n)}(0)`$ remains bounded.

Counterexamples.

We want to see that the a priori assumption of superharmonicity upon the data, in contrast to the assumption of a Lipschitz type property, does not improve the prospect for the existence of a harmonic majorant. A result of that type can be given as follows. First recall that a necessary condition for the existence of a harmonic majorant can be given in terms of nontangential maximal functions.

The Stolz angle with vertex at some point $`\zeta 𝔻`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (\zeta ):=\{z𝔻:|z\zeta |\alpha (1|z|^2)\}.$$

Given a function $`f`$ from $`𝔻`$ to $`_+`$, the nontangential maximal function is defined as

$$Mf(\zeta ):=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (\zeta )}{\mathrm{max}}f.$$

Finally, for a function $`g`$ from some measure space $`(X,\mu )`$ to $`_+`$, we write that $`gL_w^1(X)`$ (“weakly integrable functions”) if and only if there is $`C>0`$ such that

$$\mu (g\lambda )C/\lambda ,\text{ for all }\lambda >0.$$

It is a well-known and easy fact that if $`\phi `$ admits a harmonic majorant, then $`M\phi L_w^1(𝔻)`$ (see \[HMNT, Proposition 1.5\], \[PT1, Lemma 14, p. 6\], \[PT2, Lemma 5, p. 6\]). This condition can’t be improved in a quantitative way, even for superharmonic data.

For notational convenience, the examples below are given in the upper-half plane $`U_+:=\{z:\text{Im}z>0\}`$. Stolz angles are then defined as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (t):=\{z=x+iyU_+:|xt|\alpha y\}.$$

###### Proposition 4.

For any decreasing function $`s`$ from $`_+^{}`$ to $`_+^{}`$ such that $`lim_t\mathrm{}s(t)=0`$ and $`_1^{\mathrm{}}s(t)𝑑t=\mathrm{}`$, there exists a positive superharmonic function $`\phi `$ on $`U_+`$ such that

$$\left|\{\xi :M\phi (\xi )>t\}\right|s(t)\text{ for any }t>0\text{ large enough,}$$

but there does not exist any harmonic function $`hHa(U_+)`$ such that $`h(z)\phi (z)`$ for all $`zU_+`$.

Here, as in various further instances, $`||`$ stands for one-dimensional Lebesgue measure on the real line or on the circle.

Examples of the same type allow us to show that no condition relying solely on the rate of increase of $`\phi `$ near the boundary can be sufficient to imply that $`\phi `$ is dominated by some harmonic function, even assuming as above that $`\phi `$ be superharmonic.

###### Proposition 5.

For any decreasing function $`s`$ from $`_+^{}`$ to $`_+^{}`$ such that $`lim_{t0}s(t)=\mathrm{}`$, there exists a positive superharmonic function $`\phi `$ on $`U_+`$ such that

$$\phi (x+iy)s(y),\text{ for any }x+iyU_+,y\text{ small enough },$$

but there does not exist any harmonic function $`hHa(U_+)`$ such that $`h(z)\phi (z)`$ for all $`zU_+`$.

Observe that Proposition 5 would be very easy if we allowed $`\phi `$ to be subharmonic; then it would be enough to select $`\phi (x+iy):=s_1(y)`$, with $`s_1`$ the lower convex envelope of $`s`$. This remark is made to stress the difference between our problem and the more classical question of harmonic majorants of subharmonic functions.

The paper is organized as follows. The next section is devoted to studying the dyadic analogue of the problem of harmonic majorants. Theorems 1 and 3 are proved in sections 3 and 5 respectively. Proposition 2 is proved in section 4. The other counterexamples are given in the last section of the paper.

## 2. A discrete model

Recall that any positive harmonic function $`h`$ is the Poisson integral of a finite positive measure $`\mu `$ on the boundary of the disk, $`h(z)=_0^{2\pi }P_z(e^{i\theta })𝑑\mu (\theta )`$, where

$$P_z(e^{i\theta }):=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{(1|z|^2)}{|ze^{i\theta }|^2}.$$

The following considerations concern the simpler case of functions which are generated by the “square” kernel

$$K_z(e^{i\theta }):=\frac{1}{|I_z|}\chi _{I_z}(e^{i\theta }),\text{ where }I_z:=\{e^{i\theta }:z\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (e^{i\theta })\}.$$

Here $`\chi _E`$ stands for the characteristic function of the set $`E`$. The “square” integral of a finite measure $`\mu `$ is defined by $`_0^{2\pi }K_z(e^{i\theta })𝑑\mu (\theta )=\mu (I_z)/|I_z|`$.

Consider the usual partition of $`𝔻`$ in dyadic arcs, for any $`n`$ in $`_+`$:

$$I_{n,k}:=\{e^{i\theta }:\theta [2\pi k2^n,2\pi (k+1)2^n)\},0k<2^n.$$

Note that $`|I_{n,k}|=2\pi 2^n`$. To this subdivision we associate the Whitney partition in “dyadic squares” of the unit disk :

$$Q_{n,k}:=\{re^{i\theta }:e^{i\theta }I_{n,k},12^nr<12^{n1}\}.$$

It is well known and easy to see that there exists a constant $`c_\alpha `$ such that for any $`zQ_{n,k}`$,$`P_zc_\alpha K_{I_{n,k}}`$. This implies that sufficient conditions for majorization by “$`K`$-harmonic functions” yield sufficient conditions for majorization by (true) harmonic functions.

###### Theorem 6.

Given a collection of nonnegative data $`\{p_{n,k}\}_+`$, there exists a finite positive measure $`\mu `$ on $`𝔻`$ such that

$$\frac{\mu (I_{n,k})}{|I_{n,k}|}p_{n,k}$$

if and only if there exists a constant $`S`$ such that

(2.1)
$$p_{n,k}|I_{n,k}|S$$

where the sum is taken over any disjoint family of dyadic arcs $`\{I_{n,k}\}`$.

###### Proof.

The condition is clearly necessary with $`S=\mu (𝔻)`$. To prove the converse direction, let us consider the following modified data:

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_{n,k}:=\frac{1}{|I_{n,k}|}sup\left\{p_{q,j}|I_{q,j}|\right\},$$

where the supremum is taken over any disjoint family $`\{I_{q,j}\}`$ of dyadic subintervals of $`I_{n,k}`$. Observe that $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{n,k}p_{n,k}`$, and that $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{n,k}`$ verifies the following discrete superharmonicity property :

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_{n,k}\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{p}_{n+1,2k}+\stackrel{~}{p}_{n+1,2k+1}).$$

Assuming (2.1) we will construct a sequence of positive measures $`\mu _n`$ of bounded total mass, uniformly distributed on each interval $`I_{n,j}`$, such that for all $`mn`$,

(2.2)
$$\mu _n(I_{m,k})|I_{m,k}|\stackrel{~}{p}_{m,k}.$$

Let $`\mu _0`$ be the uniform measure of total mass $`S`$ on the interval $`I_{0,0}=𝔻`$. The hypothesis (2.1) coincides with (2.2) in this case. Suppose that $`\mu _m`$, $`mn`$ have already been constructed satisfying (2.2), we will choose $`\mu _{n+1}`$. Fix $`j`$, $`0j<2^n`$. Then $`I_{n,j}=I_{n+1,2j}I_{n+1,2j+1}`$, so (2.2) implies in particular that

$$\mu _n(I_{n,j})|I_{n+1,2j}|\stackrel{~}{p}_{n+1,2j}+|I_{n+1,2j+1}|\stackrel{~}{p}_{n+1,2j+1},$$

so we find $`\alpha `$, $`\beta 0`$ such that

$$\mu _n(I_{n,j})=\alpha +\beta ,\alpha |I_{n+1,2j}|\stackrel{~}{p}_{n+1,2j},\beta |I_{n+1,2j+1}|\stackrel{~}{p}_{n+1,2j+1}.$$

We set $`\mu _{n+1}(I_{n+1,2j})=\alpha `$, $`\mu _{n+1}(I_{n+1,2j+1})=\beta `$. This defines a measure $`\mu _{n+1}`$ which verifies (2.2) at rank $`n+1`$ for $`m=n+1`$. It also satisfies

$$\mu _{n+1}(I_{m,j})=\mu _n(I_{m,j}),mn,$$

so (2.2) is verified by $`\mu _{n+1}`$ for all $`mn+1`$. This bounded sequence of measures contains a weakly convergent subsequence, whose limit $`\mu `$ will satisfy the condition in the Theorem. ∎

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1

We will prove the following slightly more general fact, which will be useful in Section 5.

###### Proposition 7.

Let $`u`$ be a positive superharmonic function on the disk satisfying that for any $`z`$, $`w𝔻`$,

(3.1)
$$\left|\mathrm{log}v(z)\mathrm{log}v(w)\right|C_1(1+\rho (z,w)).$$

Then there exists $`hH^+(𝔻)`$ such that $`hu`$.

###### Proof.

The Riesz representation theorem tells us that there exists a positive measure $`\nu =\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ in the sense of distributions, and a positive harmonic function $`h_0`$ such that

$$u(z)=h_0(z)+_𝔻\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{d(z,w)}d\nu (w)=:h_0(z)+u_0(z).$$

Let $`\delta (0,1)`$ to be chosen later, then

$$\begin{array}{c}u_0(z)=_{\{w:d(z,w)\delta \}}\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{d(z,w)}d\nu (w)+_{\{w:d(z,w)>\delta \}}\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{d(z,w)}d\nu (w)\hfill \\ \hfill =:u_1(z)+u_2(z).\end{array}$$

For $`d(z,w)>\delta `$, we have

$$\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{d(z,w)}C_\delta \frac{1|zw|^2}{|1z\overline{w}|^2}(1|w|^2),$$

which is harmonic in $`z`$. Note that

(3.2)
$$\mathrm{}>u(0)_𝔻\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{|w|}d\nu (w)_𝔻(1|w|)𝑑\nu (w),$$

so that the harmonic fuction

$$h_2(z):=C_\delta _𝔻\frac{1|zw|^2}{|1z\overline{w}|^2}(1|w|^2)𝑑\nu (w)$$

is bigger than $`u_2`$. Now we only need to find a harmonic majorant for the remaining term $`u_1`$.

A sequence $`\{z_k\}𝔻`$ is called *uniformly dense* if there exists $`0<r_1<r_2`$ satisfying

1. $`D_H(z_j,r_1)D_H(z_k,r_1)=\mathrm{}`$ for any $`jk`$,
2. $`𝔻_kD_H(z_k,r_2)`$.

Recall that $`D_H(z,r)`$ is the hyperbolic disk with center $`z`$ and radius $`r`$.

###### Lemma 8.

For $`\delta (0,1)`$ a properly chosen absolute constant, there exist a uniformly dense sequence $`\{z_k\}`$ and a positive harmonic function $`h_1`$ such that for any $`k`$, $`u_1(z_k)h_1(z_k)`$.

Accepting this Lemma, we can easily finish the proof : if we write $`h_3:=h_0+h_1+h_2`$, we see that we have $`u(z_k)h_3(z_k)`$, for any $`k`$. Now by Harnack’s inequality, for any $`zD_H(z_k,r_2)`$, $`h_3(z)e^{2r_2}h_3(z_k)`$; while by (3.1) —note that this is the only step in this argument where this hypothesis is used—

$$u(z)\mathrm{exp}[C_1(1+r_2)]u(z_k)\mathrm{exp}[C_1(1+r_2)]h_3(z_k)\mathrm{exp}[C_1(1+r_2)]e^{2r_2}h_3(z).$$

So we have found a harmonic majorant of $`u`$. ∎

Proof of Lemma 8

First let $`T_{n,j}:=\{zQ_{n,j}:\rho (z,Q_{n,j})>\delta \}`$. For $`\delta `$ small enough, denoting by $`m`$ the $`2`$-dimensional Lebesgue measure on the plane,

$$m(Q_{n,j})m(T_{n,j})C(\delta )m(Q_{n,j}).$$

Choose in each $`T_{n,j}`$ a point $`z_{n,j}`$ such that

$$u_1(z_{n,j})\frac{1}{m(T_{n,j})}_{T_{n,j}}u_1(\zeta )𝑑m(\zeta ).$$

It is enough to estimate this last average. We apply Fubini’s theorem:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{m(T_{n,j})}_{T_{n,j}}u_1(z)𝑑m(z)=\frac{1}{m(T_{n,j})}_{T_{n,j}}_{\{w:d(z,w)\delta \}}\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{d(z,w)}d\nu (w)𝑑m(\zeta )\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{m(T_{n,j})}_{Q_{n,j}}\left(_{T_{n,j}}\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{d(z,w)}dm(z)\right)𝑑\nu (w)C_{Q_{n,j}}𝑑\nu (w),\end{array}$$

where the last inequality is due to the following explicit estimate : for $`wQ_{n,j}`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}_{T_{n,j}}\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{d(z,w)}dm(z)\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{2^{k1}}m\left(\{z:2^{k1}<d(w,z)2^k\}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill C\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}k2^{2n2k}C2^{2n}Cm(T_{n,j}).\end{array}$$

Now we set

$$p_{n,j}:=\frac{1}{|I_{n,j}|}_{Q_{n,j}}(1|w|)𝑑\nu (w)_{Q_{n,j}}𝑑\nu (w).$$

Since the “squares” $`Q_{n,j}`$ are disjoint, the condition (3.2) implies that

(3.3)
$$\underset{n,j}{}|I_{n,j}|p_{n,j}<\mathrm{}.$$

Hence, $`\{p_{n,j}\}`$ satisfies (2.1) and Theorem 6 provides a positive measure $`\mu `$ on the unit circle such that for any dyadic arc $`I_{n,j}`$,

(3.4)
$$\mu (I_{n,j})|I_{n,j}|p_{n,j}.$$

However, whenever condition (3.3) is verified, a more direct construction can be applied. Namely, one may take $`d\mu =f(e^{i\theta })d\theta `$ where

$$f(e^{i\theta }):=\underset{I_{n,k}e^{i\theta }}{}p_{n,k}.$$

Observe that $`_0^{2\pi }f(e^{i\theta })𝑑\theta =|I_{n,k}|p_{n,k}`$, and since $`f(e^{i\theta })p_{n,k}`$ whenever $`e^{i\theta }I_{n,k}`$, the measure $`\mu `$ satisfies (3.4).

Then, by the remarks before Theorem 6, there exists a harmonic function $`h_1`$ such that

$$h_1(z_{n,j})Cp_{n,j}C_{Q_{n,j}}𝑑\nu (w)u_1(z_{n,j}).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 4. Proof of Propostion 2

The gist of this proof is that the Poisson kernel itself cannot be log-Lipschitz with a constant better than $`2`$.

Denote $`f(z)=\text{Re}\frac{1+z}{1z}=P_z(1)`$. Fix $`\gamma >0`$. For small $`\delta >0`$ consider the function

$$g(z)=f((1\delta )z),$$

positive and harmonic in $`\frac{1}{1\delta }𝔻`$. For $`0<\epsilon <\delta /2`$ consider

$$g_\epsilon (z)=g\left(\frac{z}{1\epsilon }\right),z𝔻.$$

Denote

$$M_\delta =\underset{0<\epsilon <\delta /2,z𝔻}{sup}(\mathrm{log}g_\epsilon )(z).$$

Put

$$h(z)=g_\epsilon (z),z(1\epsilon )𝔻.$$

Claim. For sufficiently small $`\epsilon <\delta /2`$, for any $`w(1\epsilon )𝔻`$, $`z𝔻`$, then

$$\left|\mathrm{log}g_\epsilon (w)\mathrm{log}g_\epsilon (z)\right|M_\delta |zw|\gamma \rho (z,w),$$

where $`\rho `$ is defined as in (1.1).

Applying this to the special case where $`z(1\epsilon )𝔻`$, we see that for sufficiently small $`\epsilon `$, $`\mathrm{log}h`$ satisfies the Lipschitz condition with respect to $`\rho `$ with constant $`\gamma `$.

Consider the $`\gamma `$-$`\mathrm{log}`$-Lipschitz (with respect to $`\rho `$) extension of $`h`$ to $`𝔻`$:

$$H(z)=\underset{w(1\epsilon )𝔻}{sup}h(w)e^{\gamma \rho (w,z)}.$$

It also follows from the Claim that for sufficiently small $`\epsilon <\delta /2`$,

$$Hg_\epsilon \text{on }𝔻.$$

Proof of the Claim.

To prove the second inequality, note that if $`\left|\frac{zw}{1z\overline{w}}\right|\frac{1}{2}`$, then $`|1z\overline{w}|u(\epsilon )0`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$, and then (since $`\mathrm{log}\frac{1+s}{1s}2s`$, $`0s<1`$)

$$2\rho (w,z)2\left|\frac{zw}{1z\overline{w}}\right|\frac{2}{u(\epsilon )}|zw|.$$

If $`\left|\frac{zw}{1z\overline{w}}\right|>\frac{1}{2}`$, and $`|zw|\frac{\gamma }{2M_\delta }`$, then

$$2\rho (w,z)\mathrm{log}3>1\frac{2M_\delta }{\gamma }|zw|.$$

Finally, if $`|zw|>\frac{\gamma }{2M_\delta }`$, then

$$\left|\frac{zw}{1z\overline{w}}\right|1u_1(\epsilon ,\frac{\gamma }{2M_\delta }),$$

where $`u_1(\epsilon ,\frac{\gamma }{2M_\delta })0`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$, and

$$2\rho (w,z)\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{u_1(\epsilon ,\frac{\gamma }{2M_\delta })}\frac{2M_\delta }{\gamma },$$

as $`\epsilon 0`$. This completes the proof of our Claim.

By definition of $`H`$, we have $`L_\gamma (H)=H`$.

Since $`R(H)`$ is superharmonic, and $`H`$ coincides with $`g_\epsilon `$ on $`(1\epsilon )𝔻`$, with $`g_\epsilon `$ harmonic in $`𝔻`$, we obtain

$$R(H)g_\epsilon \text{on }(1\epsilon )𝔻.$$

Furthermore, since $`Hg_\epsilon `$ on $`𝔻`$,

$$R(H)g_\epsilon \text{on }𝔻.$$

As a result,

$$R(H)=g_\epsilon \text{on }(1\epsilon )𝔻,$$

and

$$\frac{}{x}(\mathrm{log}R(H))(0)=\frac{}{x}(\mathrm{log}g_\epsilon )(0)=\frac{1\delta }{1\epsilon }\frac{}{x}(\mathrm{log}f)(0)=2\frac{1\delta }{1\epsilon }.$$

Therefore, the function $`R(H)`$ is no better than $`2\frac{1\delta }{1\epsilon }`$-$`\mathrm{log}`$-Lipschitz, and

$$R(L_\gamma (H))=R(H)R_c(H),c<2\frac{1\delta }{1\epsilon }.$$

This completes the proof.

## 5. Comparison of upper envelopes

The aim of this section is to prove Theorem 3. Proposition 7 shows that it will follow from the following result.

###### Lemma 9.

Given $`C_0>0`$, there is a $`C_1C_0`$ such that if $`\phi `$ is Log-Lipschitz with constant $`C_0`$, and admits a non-trivial superharmonic majorant, then there exists a superharmonic function $`v`$ such that $`v\phi `$ and $`v`$ verifies (3.1) with constant $`C_1`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`uSp(𝔻)`$ such that $`u\phi `$. We will notice (Lemma 10) that an averaged version of $`u`$ always satisfies (3.1), and that (up to a multiplicative constant) it provides the regular superharmonic majorant we are looking for.

For any $`\delta (0,\frac{1}{2}]`$, let $`D_H(z,\delta )`$ stand, as above, for a hyperbolic disk of radius $`\delta `$ centered at $`z`$. Let $`d\beta (z):=(1|z|^2)^2dm(z)`$ be the invariant measure on the disk. For any Möbius automorphism $`\varphi `$ of the disk, any measurable function $`f`$ and any measurable set $`E`$, we have (see e.g. \[St, (2.19), p. 19\])

$$_Ef\varphi 𝑑\beta =_{\varphi (E)}f𝑑\beta .$$

For any measurable function $`g`$ on the unit disk, let

$$g_\delta (z):=\frac{1}{\beta (D_H(z,\delta ))}_{D_H(z,\delta )}g𝑑\beta .$$

Since $`\phi `$ is Log-Lipschitz with constant $`C_0`$, we have $`\phi (w)e^{C_0\delta }\phi (z)`$ for any $`wD_H(z,\delta )`$, so that, being an average of such values, $`\phi _\delta (z)e^{C_0\delta }\phi (z)`$. Now $`\phi u`$ implies that

$$\phi (z)e^{C_0\delta }\phi _\delta (z)e^{C_0\delta }u_\delta (z).$$

The proof of Lemma 9 will conclude with the next two Lemmas. ∎

###### Lemma 10.

There exists an absolute constant $`\kappa `$ such that for any positive valued superharmonic function $`u`$, and for any $`z`$, $`w`$ in the unit disk such that $`d(z,w)\delta /4`$, one has $`u_\delta (w)\kappa u_\delta (z)`$, and therefore $`u_\delta `$ verifies (3.1).

###### Proof.

Recall that since $`u`$ is superharmonic, for any $`z𝔻`$ and $`r_1<r_2`$,

(5.1)
$$\frac{1}{\beta (D_H(z,r_1))}_{D_H(z,r_1)}u𝑑\beta \frac{1}{\beta (D_H(z,r_2))}_{D_H(z,r_2)}u𝑑\beta .$$

Pick a constant $`K<1`$ such that $`\rho (z,w)\delta /4`$ implies that $`D_H(w,K\delta )D_H(z,\delta )`$. Then (5.1) implies

$$u_\delta (w)u_{K_1\delta }(w)\frac{1}{\beta (D_H(w,K\delta ))}_{D_H(z,\delta )}u𝑑\beta ,$$

by the inclusion of discs and positivity of $`u`$. But

$$\frac{1}{\beta (D_H(w,K\delta ))}_{D_H(z,\delta )}u𝑑\beta \kappa \frac{1}{\beta (D_H(z,\delta ))}_{D_H(z,\delta )}u𝑑\beta =\kappa u_\delta (z),$$

since $`\beta (D_H(w,K\delta ))`$ and $`\beta (D_H(z,\delta ))`$ are comparable. ∎

###### Lemma 11.

Let $`u`$ be a positive superharmonic function on the disc. Then $`u_\delta `$ is also superharmonic.

###### Proof.

We will follow the notations and use the results of \[St, Chapter 4, pp. 34–39\], itself inspired by \[Ul\]. Let $`\varphi _z`$ denote the unique involutive Möbius automorphism of the disk which exchanges $`z`$ and $`0`$. Define the invariant convolution of two measurable functions by

$$fg(z):=_𝔻f(w)g\varphi _z(w)𝑑\beta (w),$$

whenever the integral makes sense. This operation is commutative \[St, bottom of page 34\]. If we set

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta (z):=\frac{1}{\beta (D_H(0,\delta ))}\chi _{D_H(0,\delta )}(z),$$

then $`f_\delta =f\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta `$. Note that $`D_H(0,\delta )=D(0,\mathrm{tanh}\delta )`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta `$ is a radial function.

The $``$-subharmonic functions defined in \[St, Chapter 4, (4.1)\] reduce for $`n=1`$ to ordinary subharmonic functions. The invariant Laplacian (Laplace-Beltrami operator for the Bergman metric of the ball) reduces in the case $`n=1`$ to

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=2(1|z|^2)^2\frac{^2}{z\overline{z}},$$

so that $`𝒞^2`$ superharmonic functions $`g`$ can be characterized as those such that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}g0`$. Since our function $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta `$ is not smooth, we need to perform an approximation argument. It will be enough to show that $`u\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta `$ can be approximated from below by an increasing sequence of $`𝒞^2`$ superharmonic functions. Pick an increasing sequence of smooth, nonnegative, radial functions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n}`$ so that $`lim_n\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta `$ almost everywhere. Then the monotone convergence theorem tells us that $`u\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n}`$ converges to $`u\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta `$, and the sequence is clearly increasing. For $`f𝒞^2(𝔻)`$, by \[St, (4.11), p. 36\],

$$(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}f)(a)=\underset{r0}{lim}\frac{4}{r^2}[(f\mathrm{\Omega }_r)(a)f(a)].$$

Now, twice applying Ulrich’s lemma about associativity of the invariant convolution when the middle element is radial \[St, Lemma 4.5, p. 36\], we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(u\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n})=\underset{r0}{lim}\frac{4}{r^2}\left[(u\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n})\mathrm{\Omega }_ru\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n}\right]=\underset{r0}{lim}\frac{4}{r^2}\left[u(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n}\mathrm{\Omega }_r)u\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n}\right]\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{r0}{lim}\frac{4}{r^2}\left[u(\mathrm{\Omega }_r\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n})u\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n}\right]=\underset{r0}{lim}\frac{4}{r^2}\left[(u\mathrm{\Omega }_r)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n}u\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n}\right]\\ \hfill =\underset{r0}{lim}\frac{4}{r^2}\left[(u\mathrm{\Omega }_ru)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n}\right].\end{array}$$

Since $`u`$ is superharmonic, $`u\mathrm{\Omega }_ru0`$, and since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n}0`$, we finally have $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(u\mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta ,n})0`$. ∎

## 6. Counterexamples

We recall that for $`z`$, $`wU_+`$, the Gleason distance is given by $`d(z,w)=\left|\frac{zw}{z\overline{w}}\right|`$, and again $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{1+d}{1d}`$. For a sequence $`\{z_k=x_k+iy_k\}`$, the Blaschke condition reads

$$\underset{k}{}\frac{y_k}{1+|z_k|^2}<\mathrm{},$$

which reduces to $`_ky_k<\mathrm{}`$ when the sequence is bounded. Finally, the Blaschke product with zeroes at the $`z_k`$ is

$$B(z):=\underset{k}{}\frac{zz_k}{z\overline{z}_k}.$$

### 6.1. Construction of the examples

We shall use a monotone increasing function $`f`$ from $`(0,1]`$ to $`(0,1]`$ satisfying $`f(t)t`$, $`lim_{t0}f(t)/t=0`$, and there exists a constant $`C_0>1`$ such that $`f(t/2)f(t)/C_0`$ and $`f(3t/2)C_0f(t)`$. For instance, any function of the form $`f(t)=t^m`$, for $`m>1`$ will satisfy those conditions.

Define an arc $`\gamma `$ in $`U_+`$ by $`\gamma (x):=x+if(x)`$, $`0<x1`$. Pick a sequence of points $`a_k:=x_k+if(x_k)`$ on $`\gamma `$ such that $`x_0=1`$, $`\{x_k\}`$ decreases towards $`0`$, and $`\rho (x_k,x_{k+1})=2\delta >0`$ is constant, with $`\delta <1/2`$ to be specified later.

It is easy to see that the sequence $`\{a_k\}`$ is interpolating (each Carleson window of size $`f(x_k)`$ around the point $`a_k`$ can contain at most a fixed finite number of other points in the sequence), so the Blaschke product $`B`$ associated to the sequence will verify

(6.1)
$$\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{|B(z)|}C_\delta +\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{d(a_k,z)},\text{ for any }zD_H(a_k,\delta ).$$

Now, given a decreasing function $`\sigma `$ from $`_+^{}`$ to $`_+^{}`$ with $`lim_{t0}\sigma (t)=\mathrm{}`$, if we set $`\phi _\sigma (x+iy):=\sigma (|x|+y)`$, we have $`M\phi _\sigma (\xi )=\sigma (|\xi |)`$, therefore $`|\{M\phi >t\}|=2\sigma ^1(t)`$ (where $`\sigma ^1`$ stands for the inverse function).

###### Lemma 12.

There exists $`k_0_+`$ such that if $`B_0`$ stands for the Blaschke product associated to the sequence $`\{a_k,kk_0\}`$, then the following function

$`\phi (z)`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|B_0(z)|}},\text{ if }z{\displaystyle \underset{kk_0}{}}D_H(a_k,\delta ),`$
$`\phi (z)`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|B_0(z)|}},\underset{D_H(a_k,\delta /2)}{\mathrm{min}}\phi _\sigma ),\text{ if }zD_H(a_k,\delta )\text{ for some }kk_0`$
is superharmonic on $`U_+`$.

Notice that the definition of $`\phi `$ and the fact that $`\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{|B_0|}`$ is bounded outside of $`_{kk_0}D_H(a_k,\delta )`$ imply that $`\phi \mathrm{max}(C_1,\phi _\sigma )`$ for some $`C_1>0`$, and therefore for $`t>C_1`$,

(6.2)
$$\left|\{\xi :M\phi (\xi )>t\}\right|2\sigma ^1(t).$$

Proof of Lemma 12:

Since $`\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{|B_0|}`$ is superharmonic, it will be enough to show that

(6.3)
$$\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{|B_0(z)|},\underset{D_H(a_k,\delta /2)}{\mathrm{min}}\phi _\sigma )=\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{|B_0(z)|}$$

in a neighborhood of $`D_H(a_k,\delta )`$ for each $`kk_0`$. For $`\rho (z,a_k)(3/4)\delta `$, we have from (6.1):

$$\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{|B_0(z)|}C_\delta +\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{\mathrm{tanh}\frac{3}{4}\delta },$$

while $`lim_k\mathrm{}\mathrm{min}_{D_H(a_k,\delta /2)}\phi _\sigma =\mathrm{}`$ because $`lim_{t0}\sigma (t)=\mathrm{}`$. So there exists $`k_0`$ so that (6.3) is achieved for $`3\delta /4d(a_k,z)\delta `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 6.2. Proofs

Proof of Proposition 4:

Suppose there exists some $`hHa(U_+)`$ such that $`h(z)\phi (z)0`$, for any $`zU_+`$. Then Harnack’s inequality implies that if $`z`$, $`wU_+`$ are such that $`\rho (z,w)<2\delta `$, we have $`h(w)C_\delta ^{}h(z)`$.

Provided $`k_0`$ is large enough, we have $`|x|+y2x_k`$ for any $`x+iyD_H(a_k,\delta /2)`$, so that $`\mathrm{min}_{D_H(a_k,\delta /2)}\phi _\sigma \sigma (2x_k)`$. Harnack’s inequality as used above then yields

$$h(z)C_\delta ^{}\sigma (2x_k),\text{ for all }zD_H(a_k,2\delta ).$$

Take any $`xx_{k_0}`$. There is a unique $`kk_0+1`$ such that $`x_{k+1}x<x_k`$. Since the whole curve $`\gamma `$ is covered by the disks $`D_H(a_j,2\delta )`$ we have either $`xD_H(a_{k+1},2\delta )`$ and $`h(z)C_\delta ^{}\sigma (2x_{k+1})C_\delta ^{}\sigma (2x)`$, or $`xD_H(a_k,2\delta )`$ and $`h(z)C_\delta ^{}\sigma (2x_k)`$ ; in this latter case we have

$$x_k>xx_kCf(x_k)\frac{1}{2}x_k$$

for $`k_0`$ large enough. So in each case we have

(6.4)
$$\frac{1}{C_\delta ^{}}h(x+if(x))\sigma (4x),\text{ for any }xx_{k_0}.$$

On the other hand, there exists $`c>0`$ and a positive measure $`\mu `$ on the real line with $`\frac{d\mu (t)}{1+t^2}<\mathrm{}`$ such that

$$h_1(x+iy):=\frac{1}{C_\delta ^{}}h(x+iy)=cy+_{}P_y(xt)𝑑\mu (t),$$

where $`P_y(t):=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{y}{y^2+t^2}`$ stands for the Poisson kernel. In particular, if $`|x|1`$, $`y1`$,

$$h_1(x+iy)_2^2P_y(xt)𝑑\mu (t)+c+_{|t|2}\frac{1}{1+t^2}𝑑\mu (t)_2^2P_y(xt)𝑑\mu (t)+C_2.$$

Therefore, again for $`k_0`$ large enough, (6.4) implies

$$_2^2P_{f(x)}(xt)𝑑\mu (t)h_1(x+if(x))C_2\sigma (4x)C_2\frac{1}{2}\sigma (4x).$$

Hence

(6.5)
$$_0^1\sigma (4x)𝑑x2_2^2\left(_0^1P_{f(x)}(xt)𝑑x\right)𝑑\mu (t).$$

Now we choose $`f(x)=x^2`$ (the choice of $`f`$ is inessential here). We claim that $`_0^1P_{x^2}(xt)𝑑xC`$. Indeed, let

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{(xt)^2+x^4}}dx`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{0x1,|xt|t^2/4}}+{\displaystyle _{0x1,t^2/4|xt|t}}+{\displaystyle _{0x1,t|xt|}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{(xt)^2+x^4}}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`:I+II+III.`$
Then

$$I_{|xt|t^2/4}\frac{dx}{x^2}2(t^2/4)(4/t^2)2,$$

$$II_{t^2/4|xt|t}\frac{x^2dx}{(xt)^2}Ct^2_{t^2/4|xt|}\frac{dx}{(xt)^2}Ct^2(t^2/4)^1<\mathrm{},$$

and, since $`t|xt|`$ implies that $`|xt|x/2`$,

$$III_{0x1}\frac{x^2}{(x/2)^2+x^4}𝑑x4.$$

The claim is proved.

Finally, (6.5) together with the claim says that

$$_0^1\sigma (4x)𝑑xC_2^2𝑑\mu (t)<\mathrm{},$$

therefore $`_0^1\sigma (x)𝑑x<\mathrm{}`$.

Now we choose $`\sigma :=s^1`$, where $`s`$ is the function given in Proposition 4. Since $`_0^1\sigma (x)𝑑x_{s^1(1)}^{\mathrm{}}s(t)𝑑t`$, we have a contradiction with $`_1^{\mathrm{}}s(t)𝑑t=\mathrm{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Proposition 5:

We construct a function $`\phi `$ as above with $`\sigma (t)=t^2`$. If there was a harmonic $`h`$ such that $`h\phi `$, Harnack’s inequality would imply as before (6.4), which is impossible because we would have $`Mh(\xi )C\xi ^2`$ for $`\xi >0`$ and small enough, which is not a weakly integrable function.

We must now check the growth property for $`\phi `$. As we have seen before, if $`z_{kk_0}D_H(a_k,\delta )`$, then $`\phi (z)`$ is bounded by a constant. So we can restrict ourselves to points in a hyperbolic neighborhood of the curve $`\gamma `$.

For points $`z\gamma `$ with $`z=x+if(x)`$, $`xx_{k_0}`$,

$$\phi (z)\phi _\sigma (x+if(x))=\sigma (x+f(x))\sigma (x),$$

therefore on the curve $`\gamma `$ we have $`\phi (x+iy)\sigma (f^1(y))`$.

In general, there is a $`x^{}`$ such that $`z=x+iyD_H(x^{}+if(x^{}),\delta )`$, and $`\phi (z)\phi (x^{}+if(x^{}))\sigma (x^{})`$. Now $`yCf(x^{})`$, so

$$\phi (z)\sigma (x^{})\sigma (f^1(y/C)).$$

With our choice of $`\sigma `$, one can check that choosing any $`f`$ so that

$$f(\xi )\frac{1}{C}s^1(\frac{1}{\xi ^2})$$

will yield $`\phi (z)s(y)`$, q.e.d. $`\mathrm{}`$

Alexander Borichev, LaBAG, Université Bordeaux 1, 351 cours de la Libération 33405 Talence CEDEX, France.

Alexander.Borichev@math.u-bordeaux.fr

Artur Nicolau, Departament de Matemàtiques, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain.

artur@mat.uab.es

Pascal J. Thomas, Laboratoire de Mathématiques Emile Picard, UMR CNRS 5580, Université Paul Sabatier, 118 route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse CEDEX, France.

pthomas@cict.fr


text:
# Narrow band survey for intragroup light in the Leo HI cloud,Based on observations carried out at the ESO MPI 2.2m telescope, La Silla, and at the VLT - UT4, Paranal, Chile.

## 1 Introduction

Very little is known about the fraction of the diffuse stellar component in low density environments, such as in galaxy groups. If most of the intracluster light (ICL) originated by being removed from galaxies through collisions (Moore et al. 1996), the fraction of intragroup light (IGL) could be significantly less than that seen in rich clusters. Numerical simulations of mass stripping in compact groups of galaxies predict a fraction of $`5\%25\%`$, depending on the initial conditions (Gómez-Flechoso & Domínguez-Tenreiro 2001). So far, the only observational evidence for the IGL in the intragroup region is for the M81 group, and results in less than 3$`\%`$ of the total stellar luminosity in the group galaxies (Feldmeier et al. 2002).

Recently, significant samples of photometric intracluster planetary nebulae (ICPNe) candidates in nearby clusters were obtained (Ciardullo et al. 1998; Feldmeier et al. 1998; Feldmeier 2000; Arnaboldi et al. 2002, 2003; Okamura et al. 2002; Aguerri et al. 2003), based on their strong emission in the \[OIII\] $`\lambda 5007`$ Å line. Subsequent spectroscopic surveys (Freeman et al. 2000; Ciardullo et al. 2002b; Arnaboldi et al. 2003) confirmed that the majority of these PN candidates are true ICPNe, based on the presence of the \[OIII\] doublet in these spectra. In the Virgo surveyed fields, the diffuse light may represent 10-40$`\%`$ of the total light of the cluster galaxies (Feldmeier et al. 1998; Ferguson, Tanvir & von Hippel 1998; Okamura et al. 2002; Arnaboldi et al. 2003; Aguerri et al. 2003).

In the present work we report on the results of a narrow band imaging survey for emission line objects in the Leo group. The Leo group consists of early-type galaxies, among which NGC 3379 (M105) and NGC 3384, and the spiral galaxies NGC 3368 (M96) and NGC 3351 (M95) (Schneider 1989). Our surveyed field is centred on the peak of the intergalactic HI emission, which was discovered by Schneider et al. (1983), and later shown to be part of the HI ring in rotation around M105 and NGC 3384 (Schneider et al. 1989).

The survey in the Leo group was carried out with the same instrumental set-up as for the Virgo surveys. Emission line objects were identified following the same procedure adopted for ICPN candidates in Virgo (Arnaboldi et al. 2002; Aguerri et al. 2003). We find that no ICPNe are present in the Leo field, as we will show in the following Sections. Thus we can set upper limits for the amount of old stellar light associated with the HI ring, and for the amount of intragroup light in Leo. In addition, this field can be used as a blank field, to derive estimates on the density of background emission line objects, which would fall in the narrow filter bandwidth used for the detection of ICPNe in Virgo.

This paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we present the photometric observations, and summarize the extraction procedure of the emission line objects. The spectroscopic follow-up of two emission line candidates are presented and discussed in Section 3. The implications for the luminosity associated with the HI cloud in Leo, the diffuse intragroup light in the Leo group, and the number density of Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters in Virgo-related surveys are discussed in Section 4. Conclusions are given in Section 5.

## 2 WFI survey in the Leo cloud

### 2.1 Observations

We observed a field in the Leo group centered at $`\alpha `$(J2000)=10h47m36s and $`\delta `$(J2000)=+12$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}_{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}56}^{\prime \prime }`$ (see Figure 1) in March 1999, during the Observatory of Capodimonte guaranteed time at the WFI mosaic camera, mounted on the ESO MPI 2.2 meter telescope at La Silla, Chile. The camera is mounted at the Cassegrain focus of the telescope, giving a field of view of $`34^{}\times 33^{}`$. It consists on a mosaic of 8 CCD detectors with narrow inter-chip gaps, yielding an area covering factor of 95.9 % and a pixel size of $`0^{\prime \prime }.24`$. The CCDs have read-out noise of 4.5 e- pix-1 and a gain of 2.0 e- ADU-1, on average.

To search for planetary nebulae in the intragroup region, we adopted the “on-off band” technique. This technique was developed by Ciardullo et al. (1989a,b) and Jacoby et al. (1990) for the detection of PNe in elliptical galaxies. Theuns & Warren (1997), Arnaboldi et al. (2002) and Feldmeier et al. (2003) adapted it for automatic detection on large mosaic images to search for ICPNe in nearby clusters. The Leo intragroup field was imaged in the broad band $`V`$ filter and in a 28.2 Å wide narrow band filter, centered at 5026.1 Å. The central wavelength and the bandwidth of this narrow band filter correspond to the redshifted \[OIII\]$`\lambda 5007`$ Å emission and the distribution of systemic velocities in the Leo group. The exposure time for each individual frames was 300 sec in the V band and 3000 sec in the narrow band \[OIII\] filter. A set of 6 frames were taken in each filter, so that the total exposure time is 1800 sec and 18000 sec for the off and on-band, respectively. These sequences were acquired in a dithered elongated-rhombi pattern. This strategy ensures the removal of CCD gaps in the final co-added image, a better flat fielding correction, and bad pixel/column removal. The atmospheric seeing was $`1.2^{\prime \prime }`$ on the final combined images.

### 2.2 Data Reduction

The data reduction was carried out using standard IRAF tasks from the MSCRED package (see Arnaboldi et al. 2002 for further details). The CCD mosaic frames were de-biassed, dark corrected, and flat-fielded. Flat-field images were constructed by combining a series of twilight sky and dome flat images, taken during each observing night. After flat-fielding we noticed that some residual structures were still present in the sky background, which had to be removed before the final co-added image would be produced. A “super-flatfield” image was constructed from the Leo science images, using a 3 $`\times \sigma `$ rejection algorithm for the removal of all sources in the field. The astrometric solution was computed for each image, and then they were corrected for geometric distortions111This effect is very important at the image borders because of their large size., sky subtracted, transparency corrected, and then combined (see Arnaboldi et al. 2002).

Landolt fields of standard stars were acquired for flux calibration in the V band: Landolt 98 and Landolt 107 (Landolt 1992); a spectrophotometric standard star – Hiltner 600 (Hamuy et al. 1992, 1994) was used for the calibration of the narrow band filter. The zero points for the narrow and broad band filters in the AB magnitude system are: Z\[OIII\]=20.38 and ZV=23.97 for a 1 s exposure. The integrated flux from the \[OIII\] line of a PN is usually expressed in the $`m_{5007}`$ magnitude system defined by Jacoby (1989); the AB system is defined by the flux per unit of frequency (Oke 1990). Hereafter we will refer to the \[OIII\] magnitude in the AB system as $`m_{OIII}`$. The relation between these two systems depends on the filter characteristics (Arnaboldi et al. 2002), and in our case we have:

$$m_{OIII}=m_{5007}3.54$$
(1)
Because the WFI is mounted at the Cassegrain focus of the ESO MPI 2.2m telescope (f/8), the effects of the converging beam on the trasmission properties of our interference filter can be neglected.

### 2.3 Catalog of emission line candidate objects

We have used SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996) to carry out the photometry of all sources in the field. This program is optimized to detect, measure and classify sources (star vs. galaxy) on astronomical images. It is very useful for the analysis of large extragalactic surveys. Monte-Carlo simulations were used to set the SExtractor parameters and optimize source detection. A background sky image for the \[OIII\] image was computed following Arnaboldi et al. (2002). A population of 1000 point-like objects, with a given luminosity function (LF), were then added on this image, at random positions. We then measured how many objects were detected, the number of spurious objects due to noise, and the faintest magnitude reached, for a given detection threshold. This procedure was repeated several times, with different SExtractor detection thresholds between 0.7$`\sigma `$ and 1.3$`\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ is the count RMS of the background sky image222 Detection is performed once the image is convolved with a Gaussian kernel reproducing the bright star PSF, and at least 5 pixels must be above threshold to trigger detection..

Table 1 shows the fraction of spurious vs. real objects retrieved in this field, and the corresponding \[OIII\] limiting magnitude, for several detection thresholds. This limiting magnitude is defined as the magnitude at which 50$`\%`$ of the input simulated objects are retrieved. Figure 2 shows a plot of the ratio of spurious vs. real objects, for different values of the detection threshold. For thresholds lower than 0.9$`\sigma `$, the fraction of spurious objects increases rapidly. In the following analysis we will adopt a conservative threshold of 1.0$`\sigma `$ for the source detection in our catalogs. With this adopted detection threshold, the limiting magnitude of the \[OIII\] narrow band image is 23.95 (in the AB system), which corresponds to m5007= 27.49. Figure 3 shows both the input and recovered LF of the simulated objects, the spurious and real objects detected, and the limiting magnitude at the 1.0$`\sigma `$ threshold.

Once the catalog of the \[OIII\] detected sources is obtained, we measure the V band flux at the \[OIII\] source position. Figure 4 shows the color-magnitude diagram (CMD) for the \[OIII\] detected sources in the Leo intragroup field. The limiting magnitude in the final V band mosaic image was calculated using the expression

$$m_V=2.5\mathrm{log}(4\pi \sigma {}_{}{}^{2}{}_{\mathrm{seeing}}{}^{}\sigma _{sky})+Z_V,$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{seeing}}`$ is the radius of the seeing disk, $`\sigma _{sky}`$ represents the RMS of the sky background in the V band333 CCD gaps and regions were the background RMS in the V and \[OIII\] images were high are masked. The masked total area is a negligible fraction of the area in the final images.. With this equation, the limiting magnitude is 24.73.

The selection of the most reliable emission line candidates was carried out following the same criteria as in Arnaboldi et al. (2002), i.e. these are point-like objects with $`EW>100`$ Å (including the photometric errors), and with broadband emission fainter than the V limiting magnitude. The final candidates are indicated with crosses and asterisks in the CMD in Figure 4. A total sample of 29 objects was obtained in the Leo field.

### 2.4 Luminosity function and nature of the candidates

The PN luminosity function (PNLF) has been used extensively as distance indicator in late and early-type galaxies (Ciardullo et al. 2002a). Observations in ellipticals, spirals, and irregular galaxies have shown a PNLF truncated at the bright end. The shape of this LF is given by the semi-empirical fit

$$N(M)=c_1e^{c_2M}[1e^{3(M^{}M)}]$$
(3)
where $`c_1`$ is a positive constant, $`c_2=0.307`$ and the cutoff $`M^{}(5007)=4.5`$ (Ciardullo et al. 1989b). In Figure 5, we plot the PNLF for NGC 3379, NGC 3384, NGC 3377 (Ciardullo et al. 1989a), NGC 3351 (Ciardullo et al. 2002b) and NGC 3368 (Feldmeier et al. 1997) which are located in the Leo group, near the HI cloud, at a distance of 10 Mpc. The LF of the spectroscopically confirmed ICPNe located in Virgo (from the FCJ field; Arnaboldi et al. 2002) is also reported in this Figure; its bright cutoff places the front edge of the Virgo cluster at 12.8 Mpc444All distances quoted have been determined using the PNLF, cf. Ciardullo et al. (1989a).. These PNLFs are then compared with the LF of the selected candidates in the Leo intragroup field. The bright edge of this LF is $`1.11.2`$ magnitudes fainter than the PNLFs in Leo galaxies and $`0.5`$ mag fainter than the PNLF for the spectroscopically confirmed ICPNe in our Virgo fields. Both values are much larger than the photometric errors, see Table 2. Given the well-studied properties of the PNLF in galaxies, this Figure shows that these emission line candidates are not a population of PNe at the distance of 10 Mpc, and are not associated with the HI cloud in the Leo intragroup region.

### 2.5 Comparison with the LF of field Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters

The bright edge of the LF for the point-like emission line candidates in the Leo field at $`m_{5007}=26.7`$ rules out PNe at a distance of 10 Mpc as a possible explanation for these sources. These objects must therefore be background emitters, either \[OII\] emitters at $`z0.34`$, or Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters at $`z3.1`$. Our criteria will select preferentially Ly$`\alpha `$ galaxies at $`z3.1`$, while \[OII\] emitters at $`z0.34`$ are unlikely because of the EW $`>100`$Å requirement (Hammer et al. 1997; Hogg et al. 1998). We must then compare the LF of our selected emission line objects with the LF of Ly$`\alpha `$ galaxies at $`z=3.1`$.

There is no well-sampled Ly$`\alpha `$ LF of such objects at $`z=3.1`$ in the literature. Very recent results for the Subaru deep field were obtained for the Ly$`\alpha `$ population at $`z=4.86`$ (Ouchi et al. 2003), but Arnaboldi et al. (2002) derived it from the work by Steidel et al. (2000). The resulting LF, scaled to our effective volume here555The filter FWHM for the Leo survey is a factor 2.83 narrower than for the Virgo survey by Arnaboldi et al. (2002)., is shown as full line in Figure 6. We have also added data points constructed from the Ly$`\alpha `$ blank field search done by Cowie & Hu (1998), and the spectroscopically confirmed Ly$`\alpha `$ sample from Kudritzki et al. (2000). Table 3 gives the data obtained for the different LF plotted on Figure 6. The resulting LFs for the field Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters at $`z3.1`$ agree very well with that computed from Steidel et al. (2000).

In these works (Cowie & Hu 1988; Steidel et al. 2000; Kudritzki et al. 2000) Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters are identified via their narrow line excess, regardless of whether their emission is point-like or resolved. Therefore we have produced a catalog of all objects with line excess ($`EW>100`$ Å), both point-like and extended, to be compared with the composite field Ly$`\alpha `$ LF at $`z=3.1`$. The LF of emission line candidates in the Leo field agrees well with both the inferred and the observed LF of Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters at $`z=3.1`$; however, the brightest Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters with $`25.7<m_{5007}<26.7`$ are not present in the surveyed Leo region.

From visual inspection of the candidate distribution in Figure 1, it seems poorly correlated with the HI density contours of the Leo gas cloud, and given the properties of their LF, which strengthen their association to Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters at $`z3.1`$, their clustering properties should be compared with the results of Ouchi et al. (2003). Unfortunately the clustering signal from a sample of 29 objects is very noisy; see Aguerri et al. (2003) for additional details.

## 3 Spectroscopic follow-up

### 3.1 Observations with FORS2 at UT4-VLT

The spectroscopic follow-up of two the emission line candidates in the Leo field was carried out in a subregion, centred at $`\alpha \text{(J200)}=10^h\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}48}^m\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}40.3}^s`$, $`\delta \text{(J2000)}=+12^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}52}^{\prime \prime }`$, as a backup program at UT4 of the VLT at Paranal, on the nights of the 13-14 of April 2002, with FORS2 in MOS mode. The FORS2 field of view covers an area of $`6.8^{}\times 6.8^{}`$ in standard resolution.

Our selected targets were each assigned a MOS slitlet (in MOS mode, up to 19 movable slitlets can be allocated within the field). Observations were carried out with GRISM-150I and the order separation filter GG435+81, giving a wavelength coverage of $`450010200`$ Å and a dispersion of $`6.7`$ Å pix-1. The angular scale across the dispersion is $`0^{\prime \prime }.126`$ pix-1. The nights were clear, but not photometric. The mean seeing was better than $`1^{\prime \prime }.0`$ despite strong northerly winds. Because the observations were done in blind offset mode, the slitlet width was chosen to be $`1^{\prime \prime }.4`$. Slitlets were positioned on the two objects listed in Table 4; IG1 and IG2. Three stars in the field were selected for pointing checks, and two stars were used to obtain the correct mask position and alignment, via the acquisition of their “through slit” image. The total exposure time was $`5\times 1800s`$. Spectrophotometric standard stars were observed at the beginning and end of the nights, but the conditions made the flux calibration uncertain.

IG1 is the second brightest object listed in Table 2. IG2 was not selected as a PN candidate for Table 2, because of its position in the CMD above the 97.5% line for EW$`=100\AA `$. Its position in the CMD is caused by errors in the narrow band photometry, see Figure 4.

Two-dimensional (2D) spectra of the selected targets are shown in Figure 7; IG2 turns out to be a multi-component emission, with an additional fainter source near the strongest emission source detected in our imaging survey. 1D-spectra for IG1 and IG2, wavelength and flux-calibrated, are shown in Figure 8 and 9.

In Table 5 we report on the parameters determined for the emission lines detected for IG1, IG2A, and IG2B, via a Gaussian fit. All detected lines near $`\lambda 5020`$ Å have a FWHM of several times the instrumental resolution.

### 3.2 Results

In the spectrum associated with IG2A, there is no emission at $`\lambda 4965.5`$ Å, which would correspond to the redshifted $`\lambda 4959`$ Å emission of the \[OIII\] doublet, had the strongest emission been the \[OIII\] $`\lambda 5007`$ Å PN emission. We can also exclude that this strong emission is a redshifted \[OII\] $`\lambda 3727`$ Å line of a starburst emitter at redshift $`z=0.345`$, because the redshifted H$`\beta `$ and \[OIII\] $`\lambda 5007`$ Å emissions should then be visible in the red part of the spectrum (respectively at $`\lambda 6539`$ and $`\lambda 6736`$ Å), and we can similarly exclude \[MgII\] $`\lambda 2798`$ Å at $`z=0.79`$. In addition, the observed line is broad and asymmetric. This object is most likely a Ly$`\alpha `$ emitter at $`z=3.12`$; see also Kudritzki et al. (2000), where similar findings are discussed for emission line objects in Virgo.

The 1D spectrum of the second (weaker) emission, labeled IG2B, is centred at $`\lambda 5006.2`$ Å. Similar considerations to those for IG2A suggest that this is also a Ly$`\alpha `$ emitter, at redshift $`z=3.11`$.

For IG1, again there are no additional lines in the optical, excluding redshifted \[OIII\] $`\lambda 5007`$ Å, \[OII\] $`\lambda 3727`$ Å, and \[MgII\] $`\lambda 2798`$ Å as identification for the observed emission at $`\lambda 5028.5`$ Å. This, and the fact that the observed line is broad and asymmetric, argue that we are seeing a Ly$`\alpha `$ line. The near-infrared part of the spectrum shows an additional weak emission line at $`\lambda 9191.0`$ Å. Both observed lines can be explained if the emission line object is a Ly$`\alpha `$ emitter at redshift $`z=3.126`$, in which case the second line is from red-shifted, Ly$`\alpha `$ fluorescent FeII UV emission at $`\lambda 2220`$ Å (Sigut & Pradhan 1998). The other strong lines then expected at longer wavelengths from fluorescent FeII are not detected in our spectrum. They would fall in the region of strong OH sky emission. These FeII UV multiplets are observed in the spectra of active galactic nuclei (AGN) with broad line regions, and the Ly$`\alpha `$ fluorescent excitation can more than double the FeII flux in the UV, producing ultrastrong UV FeII emission (Graham, Cloves & Campusano 1996). IG1 must then be an AGN at $`z3.1`$ and therefore be different from the metal-poor, almost dust-free Ly$`\alpha `$ galaxies observed by Kudritzki et al. (2000).

## 4 Discussion

The main conclusion of the present work is that there is no population of PNe at 10 Mpc associated with the intragroup HI cloud in the Leo group, because (i) the bright edge of luminosity function (LF) for the emission line objects in this field is $`1.2`$ magnitude fainter than the bright cut-off of PNLF for the main elliptical galaxies in Leo; (ii) the LF of the emission line candidates in the field agrees with the LF for Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters at $`z=3.1`$; and (iii) the spectra taken for two emission line candidates showed that they are Ly$`\alpha `$ objects. None of the acquired spectra showed the typical \[OIII\] doublet expected in real PNe.

### 4.1 Limits on the surface brightness of the Leo HI cloud

We can set an upper limit to the number of PNe at 10 Mpc, associated with the HI cloud, of $`1\pm 1`$ PN in the first 2 magnitudes fainter than the PNLF bright cut-off:

* The bright cut-off in the LF for a PN population at 10 Mpc would be at $`m_{5007}25.6`$. The brightest object out of our list of 29 objects down to $`m_{5007}=28`$ has $`m_{5007}=26.6`$. Given the shape the PNLF, we would expect more than 10 PN brighter than $`m_{5007}=26.6`$ if the objects we see were PNe. The absence of bright PNe is also not a consequence of absorption by dust in the HI cloud. With a typical column density of $`2\times 10^{19}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and the Galactic relation between absorption $`A_V`$ and column density (Bohlin, Savage & Drake 1978) we expect a typical absorption of $`A_V=0.01`$ mag.
* In addition, the comparison of the LF of the emission line objects in the Leo field with the Ly$`\alpha `$ LF at $`z=3.1`$ and the spectroscopic follow-up both indicate that our emission candidates are most likely Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters.

Thus we conclude that no PN are detected in the range $`25.6<m_{5007}<28`$.

We can use the upper limit of $`1\pm 1`$ PN in the Leo field to set an upper limit to the luminosity of an old stellar population associated with the Leo HI cloud. The relation between the two is contained in the luminosity-specific PN density $`\alpha `$. This measured quantity depends on the age and metallicity of the stellar population (Hui et al. 1993). The best estimate for an old bulge population comes from measurements of the PNLF in M31 (Ciardullo et al. 1989b), resulting in $`\alpha _{2B}=28.4\times 10^9PNL_B^1`$, where $`\alpha _{2B}`$ is the ratio of the number of PN in the first two magnitudes from the bright cutoff to the B-band luminosity of the population. From this, we obtain an upper limit to surveyed B-band luminosity in the field, which depends on the value assumed for $`\alpha _{2B}`$.

From observations of early-type galaxies, the luminosity-specific PN density can vary by a factor five (Hui et al. 1993), and the number adopted here is the average value. The upper limit on the surveyed luminosity is then $`L_{B,}<1PN\alpha _{2B}^1=3.5\pm _{2.1}^{5.2}\times 10^7L_B`$. The corresponding surface brightness limit is $`<4.4\pm _{2.6}^{6.6}\times 10^3L_B\mathrm{pc}^2`$ or $`\mu _{B,}>32.8\pm 1.0\mathrm{mag}\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$. Previous estimates of the HI cloud surface brightness were based on CCD photometry, and provided upper limits in the optical and NIR band. Skrutskie, Shure & Beckwith (1984) gave upper limits to $`\mu _{V,}=28.0`$ mag arcsec-2 and $`\mu _{K,}=22.8`$ mag arcsec-2. Then Pierce & Tully (1985) provided tighter limit in the B band, down to $`\mu _{B,}=30.2`$ mag arcsec-2. Adopting this upper limit for the surface brightness in the B band, we can compute the associated luminosity in our surveyed field, and compare it with our new estimate. From Pierce & Tully (1985), the total B luminosity in our survey field would be $`L_{B,}=5.1\times 10^8L_B`$. The fact that no PNe is found 2 magnitudes down the PNLF bright cut-off, implies a stronger limit on the total luminosity, i.e $`L_{B,}<3.5\times 10^7L_{,B}`$, which is an order of magnitude fainter than the Pierce & Tully (1985) estimates.

The mass estimates of Schneider et al. (1983) for the HI cloud can be combined with our surface brightness upper limit and provide a lower limit to the $`M(\mathrm{HI})/L_B`$ ratio. Our surface brightness limit at the position of the HI peak correspond to $`4.4\times 10^3`$ Lpc-2. The HI surface density at this position is at least $`0.5`$ Mpc-2, which gives a lower limit of $`M(\mathrm{HI})/L_B>110`$ M/L. This number is significantly higher than the $`M(\mathrm{HI})/L_B`$ values of dwarf galaxies, so the Leo HI cloud cannot be interpreted as a tidally disrupted gas rich dwarf galaxy, and may not have formed stars yet.

### 4.2 Upper limits on the diffuse stellar population in the Leo group

The upper limit on the B-band luminosity in our survey field also gives a constraint on the fraction of diffuse light in the Leo group. As described in Section 4.1, we have $`L_{B,}<3.5\pm _{2.1}^{5.2}\times 10^7L_{}`$ in the surveyed field, implying that the surface brightness of the diffuse stellar population in the field is $`\mu _{B,}>32.8\pm 1.0`$ mag arcsec-2. We can take this limit as characteristic for the inner $`6`$ deg2 region of the Leo group centred on the HI intragroup cloud, as discussed by Schneider (1989). There is evidence that ICL is not uniformly distributed in clusters, but the field-to-field fluctuations related the non-uniform distribution of ICPNe are smaller than the uncertainty in the observed $`\alpha _{2B}`$ values. The total luminosity from individual galaxies in this Leo region amounts to $`5.14\times 10^{10}L_{}`$; if this flux was distributed uniformly on the $`6`$ deg2 area, this would give a surface brightness of $`\mu _{B,gal}=28.3`$ mag arcsec-2. Comparing with the current limit of $`\mu _{B,}`$, we obtain an upper limit for the fraction of diffuse light in the inner Leo group of $`1.6\pm _{1.0}^{3.4}`$%.

This upper limit for the fraction of diffuse IGL is at least ten times smaller than recent measurements of the fraction of intracluster light in the Virgo cluster (Arnaboldi et al. 2002, 2003; Ciardullo et al. 2002b). This is an interesting result because the inner region of the Leo group consists of predominantly early-type galaxies, which during their possible merger formation might have lost a fraction of the progenitor stars.

### 4.3 The Leo field as a blank field: density of background sources

Given the absence of any intragroup PN at 10 Mpc, the Leo field can be used as a blank control field for computing the number of background line emitters which fall in the spectral range of the narrow band filters used for the detection of ICPNe in Virgo. The instrumentation and the selection criteria implemented for the Leo survey are the same as adopted by Arnaboldi et al. (2002) and Aguerri et al. (2003) for their study of the ICPN samples in Virgo. Their ICPN samples were obtained for three Virgo fields, which we shall refer to hereafter as RCN1, CORE and FCJ. The atmospheric seeing in the final combined images for all Virgo and Leo fields is $`1^{\prime \prime }.2`$. Also, the limiting magnitude in the off-band V photometry is very similar in all fields. Area covered, filter characteristics ($`\lambda _c`$, and FWHM) and limiting magnitude of the ICPN samples in these fields are summarized in Table 6.

We can scale the Leo results to the effectively surveyed volumes and limiting magnitudes of the Virgo fields, and derive the expected fraction of background emitters in the ICPN samples. From Table 6, the average fraction is 13.6%. Given the large EW criterium adopted in our Leo and Virgo surveys, the background line emitters are most likely Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters at z$`3.13`$. Arnaboldi et al. (2002) computed the LF of Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters in their sample from the work of Steidel et al. (2000). The fraction of the expected contamination by Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters in the first magnitude of their ICPN sample was $`15\%`$. This value is in agreement with the results from the Leo blank field.

Previous studies have investigated the fraction of background emission-line objects in the ICPN samples in Virgo. Freeman et al. (2000) provided an estimate of 26% based on the spectroscopic follow-up for an ICPN sample from Feldmeier et al. (1998). Ciardullo et al. (2002b) carried out a survey at $`\lambda 5019`$ Å for emission-line sources in a “blank-field” . Once their results are scaled to the Feldmeier et al. (1998) and Ciardullo et al. (1998) surveys, the reported fraction of high-redshift contaminants in their ICPN samples is 20%.

These independent estimates are all consistent with a range of $`525\%`$ for the fraction of background emitters in the Virgo ICPN samples in different fields. The mean value appears to be $`15\%`$; the range of values might be due to clustering of the background objects (Ouchi et al. 2003).

## 5 Conclusions

We have carried out a wide field (0.26 deg2) survey for emission line objects at $`\lambda 5026`$ Å associated with the intragroup HI cloud in the Leo group. A total sample of 29 unresolved emission line objects were selected according to the criteria adopted for ICPNe in Virgo. The luminosity function (LF) of these point-like sources shows a bright cut-off which is $`1.2`$ magnitude fainter than the bright cutoff of the planetary nebulae LF (PNLF) from the galaxies located in the Leo group. Therefore these emission-line objects cannot be associate with an intragroup PNe (IGPNe) population at the Leo cloud distance (10 Mpc). Most likely they are emission line objects at high redshift. The subsequent spectroscopic follow-up of two of these objects showed that they are Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters at $`z3.1`$.

The absence of PNe in this field constrain the amount of light associated with the Leo HI cloud. For an old stellar population, the upper limit to the B-band surface brightness is $`\mu _{B,}>32.8\pm 1.0`$ mag arcsec-2, about a factor of ten in flux fainter than previous limits. The corresponding lower limit on the HI mass to B-band luminosity ratio is $`M(\mathrm{HI})/L_B>110`$ M/L, much larger than for dwarf galaxies. This indicates that the intergalactic gas in Leo is primordial.

The absence of PNe in the Leo intragroup region, down to $`m_{5007}=28`$, also allows us to set an upper limit for the amount of intragroup light in the Leo group. Our data give $`L_{B,}<3.5\pm _{2.1}^{5.2}\times 10^7L_B`$ in this field. Assuming that this upper limit applies to the inner $`3^{}\times 2^{}`$ of the Leo group, the corresponding upper limit to the ratio of diffuse intragroup to galaxy light is $`<1.6\pm _{1.0}^{3.4}\%`$.

This survey can therefore be used as a blank field survey for high redshift emitters. We can compute the number of background emission line objects which lies in the spectral range of the narrow band filters used for the detection of ICPNe in the Virgo cluster. When scaled to the number density of ICPN candidates in the Virgo ICPN samples, the average fraction of high-z galaxies in these samples is 13.6$`\%`$, in agreement with the estimate of 15% by Arnaboldi et al. (2002) based on the Lyman break galaxy population at $`z=3`$. Including estimates from spectroscopic surveys, the fraction of background emitters in the Virgo ICPN samples in different fields ranges from $`525\%`$, with a mean value of about $`15\%`$. The range of values might be due to clustering of the background objects (Ouchi et al. 2003).

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank the referee, Dr. J. Feldmeier, whose comments have helped them to strengthen the paper. The authors thank the ESO 2.2m telescope team for their help and support during observations. M.A. and O.G. thank R. Scarpa for efficient help at UT4. N.C. wish to thank Francisco Garzón for his support and Norberto Castro-Rodríguez for his help in the computational part of this work. This article has made use of data products from NED and the CDS public catalogs. J.A.L.A was supported by Spanish DGC (Grant AYA2001-3939). This work has been supported by the Schweizerischer Nationalfonds and the Universidad de La Laguna-Cajacanarias fellowship (Canary Islands, Spain).