Slice Characterisation of Plurisubharmonic Functions (Theorem # 3676)
Theorem
Let $\Omega \subseteq \mathbb{C}^n$ be open and let $\phi: \Omega \to [-\infty, \infty)$ be upper semicontinuous and not identically $-\infty$ on any connected component of $\Omega$. For each pair $(a, v) \in \Omega \times \mathbb{C}^n$, set
\begin{align*}
S_{a,v} &:= \{\zeta \in \mathbb{C} : a + \zeta v \in \Omega\},
\end{align*}
which is open in $\mathbb{C}$. Then $\phi$ is plurisubharmonic on $\Omega$ if and only if for every $(a, v) \in \Omega \times \mathbb{C}^n$, the affine slice
\begin{align*}
\phi_{a,v}: S_{a,v} &\to [-\infty, \infty) \\
\zeta &\mapsto \phi(a + \zeta v)
\end{align*}
is subharmonic on every connected component of $S_{a,v}$ on which it is not identically $-\infty$.
Discussion
This theorem characterizes plurisubharmonic functions by checking subharmonicity on every complex line slice. It is useful because it reduces a multivariable convexity condition to a family of one-variable tests.
Proof
[proofplan]
The forward implication is immediate: the affine map $\zeta \mapsto a + \zeta v$ is holomorphic, so composition with $\phi$ inherits subharmonicity from the disc-invariance definition of plurisubharmonicity. The reverse implication splits into two parts. We first treat smooth $\phi$, where slice subharmonicity at each point in each direction is precisely non-negativity of the Levi form at that point in that direction, and the Levi Form Criterion converts this to plurisubharmonicity. For general upper semicontinuous $\phi$, we approximate by truncating from below at $-M$ and convolving with a smooth radial mollifier; the resulting approximants are smooth and inherit slice subharmonicity from $\phi$, hence are plurisubharmonic by the smooth case. Stability of plurisubharmonic functions under decreasing limits then transfers the property to $\phi$.
[/proofplan]
[step:Forward direction via composition with affine holomorphic maps]
Suppose $\phi$ is plurisubharmonic on $\Omega$. Fix $a \in \Omega$ and $v \in \mathbb{C}^n$. The map
\begin{align*}
\iota_{a,v}: S_{a,v} &\to \Omega \\
\zeta &\mapsto a + \zeta v
\end{align*}
is holomorphic on $S_{a,v}$ (its components are affine in $\zeta$). Let $V$ be any connected component of $S_{a,v}$. Then $\iota_{a,v}|_V$ is a holomorphic map from $V \subseteq \mathbb{C}$ into $\Omega$. By the definition of plurisubharmonicity, $\phi \circ \iota_{a,v}|_V = \phi_{a,v}|_V$ is subharmonic on $V$ (where, as standard, "subharmonic" allows the degenerate case of being identically $-\infty$ on $V$).
[guided]
The disc-invariance definition of plurisubharmonicity says: $\phi$ is plurisubharmonic on $\Omega$ if and only if $\phi$ is upper semicontinuous and $\phi \circ g$ is subharmonic on $U$ for every open $U \subseteq \mathbb{C}$ and every holomorphic $g: U \to \Omega$. So the forward direction reduces to exhibiting affine slices as a special class of holomorphic maps. Fix $a$ and $v$, and let
\begin{align*}
\iota_{a,v}: S_{a,v} &\to \Omega \\
\zeta &\mapsto a + \zeta v.
\end{align*}
Each component $(\iota_{a,v})_j(\zeta) = a_j + \zeta v_j$ is a polynomial in $\zeta$ of degree $\le 1$, hence holomorphic. The domain $S_{a,v}$ is open because it is the preimage of $\Omega$ under the continuous map $\zeta \mapsto a + \zeta v$. On each connected component $V$ of $S_{a,v}$, the restriction $\iota_{a,v}|_V: V \to \Omega$ is holomorphic, so the definition applies and gives $\phi \circ \iota_{a,v}|_V = \phi_{a,v}|_V$ subharmonic on $V$.
[/guided]
[/step]
[step:Reverse direction, smooth case via the Levi form]
Assume $\phi \in C^2(\Omega)$ and that $\phi$ has the slice subharmonicity property. Fix $a \in \Omega$ and $v \in \mathbb{C}^n$. Because $\phi \in C^2$, the slice $\phi_{a,v}: S_{a,v} \to \mathbb{R}$ is $C^2$ near $\zeta = 0$, and the chain rule for Wirtinger derivatives gives
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 \phi_{a,v}}{\partial \zeta \, \partial \bar\zeta}(0)
&= \sum_{j,k=1}^n \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial z_j \, \partial \bar z_k}(a)\, v_j\, \overline{v_k}
= L_\phi(a)(v, v),
\end{align*}
where $L_\phi(a)$ denotes the Levi form of $\phi$ at $a$. Subharmonicity of $\phi_{a,v}$ on the component of $S_{a,v}$ containing $0$ implies $\Delta_\zeta \phi_{a,v}(0) \ge 0$, and $\Delta_\zeta = 4 \partial_\zeta \partial_{\bar\zeta}$, so
\begin{align*}
L_\phi(a)(v, v) = \tfrac{1}{4} \Delta_\zeta \phi_{a,v}(0) \ge 0.
\end{align*}
Since $a \in \Omega$ and $v \in \mathbb{C}^n$ were arbitrary, the Levi form of $\phi$ is non-negative on all of $\Omega$. By the [Levi Form Criterion for Smooth PSH Functions](/theorems/3403), $\phi$ is plurisubharmonic on $\Omega$.
[guided]
For a $C^2$ function the Levi form
\begin{align*}
L_\phi(a)(v, w) = \sum_{j,k=1}^n \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial z_j \, \partial \bar z_k}(a)\, v_j\, \overline{w_k}
\end{align*}
is a Hermitian form on $\mathbb{C}^n$, and the Levi Form Criterion (theorem 3403) says: a $C^2$ function on $\Omega$ is plurisubharmonic if and only if $L_\phi(a)(v, v) \ge 0$ for all $a \in \Omega$, $v \in \mathbb{C}^n$. So we just need to deduce non-negativity of the Levi form from slice subharmonicity.
The link is the Wirtinger chain rule. For $f(\zeta) = a + \zeta v$, we have $\partial f_j / \partial \zeta = v_j$ and $\partial f_j / \partial \bar\zeta = 0$, so for any $C^2$ function $\phi$ on $\Omega$:
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \zeta}\bigl[\phi(a + \zeta v)\bigr]
&= \sum_j \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z_j}(a + \zeta v)\, v_j, \\
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \bar\zeta \, \partial \zeta}\bigl[\phi(a + \zeta v)\bigr]
&= \sum_{j,k} \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial \bar z_k \, \partial z_j}(a + \zeta v)\, v_j\, \overline{v_k}
= L_\phi(a + \zeta v)(v, v).
\end{align*}
Evaluating at $\zeta = 0$:
\begin{align*}
\tfrac{1}{4}\Delta_\zeta \phi_{a,v}(0) = \frac{\partial^2 \phi_{a,v}}{\partial \bar\zeta \, \partial \zeta}(0) = L_\phi(a)(v, v).
\end{align*}
Now subharmonicity of $\phi_{a,v}$ at $0$ — concretely, the local sub-mean-value inequality — forces $\Delta_\zeta \phi_{a,v}(0) \ge 0$ because $\phi_{a,v}$ is $C^2$ (a $C^2$ subharmonic function has non-negative Laplacian, since otherwise a Taylor expansion would produce a strict super-mean-value at a small radius). Now subharmonicity of $\phi_{a,v}$ at $0$ — concretely, the local sub-mean-value inequality — forces $\Delta_\zeta \phi_{a,v}(0) \ge 0$. Indeed, since $\phi_{a,v}$ is $C^2$ near $0$, Taylor expansion in polar coordinates gives
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\phi_{a,v}(re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta) = \phi_{a,v}(0) + \frac{r^2}{4}\Delta_\zeta\phi_{a,v}(0) + o(r^2) \quad \text{as } r \to 0^+,
\end{align*}
since the linear terms vanish upon angular averaging and the second-order terms collect as $\frac{r^2}{4}\Delta_\zeta\phi_{a,v}(0)$. If $\Delta_\zeta\phi_{a,v}(0) < 0$, the right-hand side would be strictly less than $\phi_{a,v}(0)$ for all sufficiently small $r > 0$, contradicting the sub-mean-value inequality. Hence $L_\phi(a)(v, v) \ge 0$. As $a, v$ are arbitrary, the Levi form is non-negative semidefinite at every point. Theorem 3403 now closes the loop: a $C^2$ function with everywhere non-negative semidefinite Levi form is plurisubharmonic.
[/guided]
[/step]
[step:Truncate from below to control the polar set]
Now treat general upper semicontinuous $\phi$ satisfying the slice subharmonicity hypothesis. For each $M > 0$, define
\begin{align*}
\phi^M: \Omega &\to \mathbb{R} \\
z &\mapsto \max\{\phi(z), -M\}.
\end{align*}
Then $\phi^M$ is upper semicontinuous (the maximum of two upper semicontinuous functions is upper semicontinuous), takes values in $[-M, \infty)$, and is therefore locally bounded. For any $a \in \Omega$, $v \in \mathbb{C}^n$, and any component $V$ of $S_{a,v}$:
- If $\phi_{a,v}|_V$ is subharmonic, then $\max\{\phi_{a,v}|_V, -M\}$ is subharmonic on $V$, since the maximum of a subharmonic function and a constant is subharmonic.
- If $\phi_{a,v}|_V \equiv -\infty$, then $\max\{\phi_{a,v}|_V, -M\} \equiv -M$, which is subharmonic because every real-valued constant function satisfies the sub-mean-value inequality with equality.
In either case, $(\phi^M)_{a,v}|_V$ is subharmonic. Thus $\phi^M$ is upper semicontinuous, locally bounded, and slice-subharmonic in the strong sense (subharmonic on every component, no degenerate cases).
[guided]
The mollification step ahead requires the integrand to be locally integrable. The raw function $\phi$ may take the value $-\infty$ on a large set in principle (the slice hypothesis controls $\{\phi = -\infty\}$ only along complex lines), and $\int \phi(z - w) \eta_\varepsilon(w)\, d\mathcal{L}^{2n}(w)$ need not be well-defined a priori. Truncation from below sidesteps this issue cleanly: $\phi^M$ is bounded below by $-M$ and bounded above locally by upper semicontinuity, so it is locally bounded, hence in $L^\infty_{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega)$. We will mollify $\phi^M$, send $\varepsilon \to 0$ to get plurisubharmonicity of $\phi^M$, then send $M \to \infty$ to recover plurisubharmonicity of $\phi$.
The check that $\phi^M$ inherits slice subharmonicity uses two stability facts for subharmonic functions of one complex variable: (i) the maximum of a subharmonic function and a constant is subharmonic (because the constant is itself subharmonic and the maximum of two subharmonic functions is subharmonic), and (ii) constant functions are subharmonic. The first handles components where $\phi_{a,v}$ is genuinely subharmonic; the second handles components where $\phi_{a,v} \equiv -\infty$ (the slice hypothesis allows this exceptional case, and on such a component $\max\{-\infty, -M\} = -M$ is constant).
[/guided]
[/step]
[step:Mollify $\phi^M$ and inherit slice subharmonicity]
Choose a non-negative radial mollifier $\eta \in C_c^\infty(B(0,1))$ on $\mathbb{C}^n \cong \mathbb{R}^{2n}$ with $\int_{\mathbb{C}^n} \eta\, d\mathcal{L}^{2n} = 1$, and set $\eta_\varepsilon(w) = \varepsilon^{-2n} \eta(w/\varepsilon)$. Let
\begin{align*}
\Omega_\varepsilon &:= \{z \in \Omega : \operatorname{dist}(z, \partial \Omega) > \varepsilon\}
\end{align*}
and define
\begin{align*}
\phi^M_\varepsilon: \Omega_\varepsilon &\to \mathbb{R} \\
z &\mapsto \int_{B(0,\varepsilon)} \phi^M(z - w)\, \eta_\varepsilon(w)\, d\mathcal{L}^{2n}(w).
\end{align*}
Because $\phi^M$ is locally bounded, the integral converges absolutely and $\phi^M_\varepsilon \in C^\infty(\Omega_\varepsilon)$ by the standard properties of convolution with a $C_c^\infty$ kernel.
[claim:$\phi^M_\varepsilon$ is slice-subharmonic on $\Omega_\varepsilon$]
For every $a \in \Omega_\varepsilon$ and $v \in \mathbb{C}^n$, the affine slice $\zeta \mapsto \phi^M_\varepsilon(a + \zeta v)$ is subharmonic on every connected component of $\{\zeta \in \mathbb{C} : a + \zeta v \in \Omega_\varepsilon\}$.
[/claim]
[proof]
Fix $a \in \Omega_\varepsilon$, $v \in \mathbb{C}^n$, and a component $V$ of $\{\zeta : a + \zeta v \in \Omega_\varepsilon\}$. For each $w \in B(0,\varepsilon)$, define
\begin{align*}
\psi_w: V &\to \mathbb{R} \\
\zeta &\mapsto \phi^M(a - w + \zeta v).
\end{align*}
For $\zeta \in V$ we have $a + \zeta v \in \Omega_\varepsilon$ and $|w| < \varepsilon$, so $a - w + \zeta v \in \Omega$; thus $\psi_w$ is well-defined on $V$. Moreover $\psi_w$ is the restriction of the affine slice $(\phi^M)_{a - w, v}$ to the [open set](/page/Open%20Set) $V \subseteq S_{a-w, v}$. Since $V$ is connected and contained in $S_{a-w, v}$, it lies in a single component of $S_{a-w, v}$, on which $(\phi^M)_{a-w, v}$ is subharmonic by Step 3. Restriction of a subharmonic function to an open subset is subharmonic, so $\psi_w$ is subharmonic on $V$.
By a translation of integration variables ($w \leftrightarrow$ same $w$, no change), for $\zeta \in V$,
\begin{align*}
\phi^M_\varepsilon(a + \zeta v)
&= \int_{B(0,\varepsilon)} \phi^M\bigl((a + \zeta v) - w\bigr)\, \eta_\varepsilon(w)\, d\mathcal{L}^{2n}(w)
= \int_{B(0,\varepsilon)} \psi_w(\zeta)\, \eta_\varepsilon(w)\, d\mathcal{L}^{2n}(w).
\end{align*}
Fix a closed disc $\overline{B}(\zeta_0, r) \subset V$. For each $w$, the sub-mean-value inequality for the subharmonic function $\psi_w$ on $V$ gives
\begin{align*}
\psi_w(\zeta_0) \le \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} \psi_w(\zeta_0 + r e^{i\theta})\, d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta).
\end{align*}
Multiplying by $\eta_\varepsilon(w) \ge 0$, integrating over $w \in B(0,\varepsilon)$, and applying [Fubini's theorem](/theorems/2961) (upper semicontinuity of $\phi^M$ implies Borel measurability, so $(w, \theta) \mapsto \psi_w(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\, \eta_\varepsilon(w)$ is Borel-measurable on $B(0,\varepsilon) \times [0, 2\pi]$; it is bounded above by $\|\eta_\varepsilon\|_\infty\sup_K \phi^M$ and below by $-M\|\eta_\varepsilon\|_\infty$, where $K := a + \overline{B}(\zeta_0,r)v - \overline{B}(0,\varepsilon) \subset \Omega$ is compact, so it is absolutely integrable):
\begin{align*}
\phi^M_\varepsilon(a + \zeta_0 v)
&= \int_{B(0,\varepsilon)} \psi_w(\zeta_0)\, \eta_\varepsilon(w)\, d\mathcal{L}^{2n}(w) \\
&\le \int_{B(0,\varepsilon)} \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} \psi_w(\zeta_0 + r e^{i\theta})\, d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta)\, \eta_\varepsilon(w)\, d\mathcal{L}^{2n}(w) \\
&= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} \phi^M_\varepsilon(a + (\zeta_0 + r e^{i\theta}) v)\, d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta).
\end{align*}
This is the sub-mean-value inequality for $\zeta \mapsto \phi^M_\varepsilon(a + \zeta v)$ at $\zeta_0$ on radius $r$. Combined with continuity of $\phi^M_\varepsilon$ (hence upper semicontinuity) and that $\phi^M_\varepsilon$ is not identically $-\infty$ (it is real-valued), this proves $(\phi^M_\varepsilon)_{a,v}|_V$ is subharmonic.
[/proof]
By the smooth case (Step 2), $\phi^M_\varepsilon$ is plurisubharmonic on $\Omega_\varepsilon$.
[guided]
First we verify that the convolution is a legitimate smooth function. The truncated function
\begin{align*}
\phi^M: \Omega &\to \mathbb{R} \\
z &\mapsto \max\{\phi(z),-M\}
\end{align*}
is locally bounded by the preceding step. The mollifier is the smooth compactly supported function
\begin{align*}
\eta_\varepsilon: \mathbb{C}^n &\to [0,\infty) \\
w &\mapsto \varepsilon^{-2n}\eta(w/\varepsilon),
\end{align*}
with support contained in $B(0,\varepsilon)$ and total integral $1$ with respect to $\mathcal{L}^{2n}$. Therefore the map
\begin{align*}
\phi^M_\varepsilon: \Omega_\varepsilon &\to \mathbb{R} \\
z &\mapsto \int_{B(0,\varepsilon)} \phi^M(z-w)\,\eta_\varepsilon(w)\,d\mathcal{L}^{2n}(w)
\end{align*}
is well-defined and real-valued. Standard convolution regularity applies because the kernel is $C_c^\infty$ and the integrand is locally bounded on every compact subset of $\Omega$; hence $\phi^M_\varepsilon \in C^\infty(\Omega_\varepsilon)$.
Now fix $a \in \Omega_\varepsilon$, $v \in \mathbb{C}^n$, and a connected component $V$ of
\begin{align*}
\{\zeta \in \mathbb{C}: a+\zeta v \in \Omega_\varepsilon\}.
\end{align*}
For each $w \in B(0,\varepsilon)$ define the translated slice
\begin{align*}
\psi_w: V &\to \mathbb{R} \\
\zeta &\mapsto \phi^M(a-w+\zeta v).
\end{align*}
This is well-defined because if $\zeta \in V$, then $a+\zeta v \in \Omega_\varepsilon$, so $\operatorname{dist}(a+\zeta v,\partial\Omega)>\varepsilon$; since $|w|<\varepsilon$, the point $a-w+\zeta v$ lies in $\Omega$. Moreover $V \subseteq S_{a-w,v}$, because every $\zeta \in V$ satisfies $a-w+\zeta v\in\Omega$. Since $V$ is connected, it is contained in one connected component of $S_{a-w,v}$. The preceding truncation step says that $(\phi^M)_{a-w,v}$ is subharmonic on that component, and restriction of a subharmonic function to an open subset remains subharmonic. Thus $\psi_w$ is subharmonic on $V$ for every $w \in B(0,\varepsilon)$.
For each $\zeta \in V$, the definition of convolution gives the identity
\begin{align*}
\phi^M_\varepsilon(a+\zeta v)
&= \int_{B(0,\varepsilon)} \phi^M((a+\zeta v)-w)\,\eta_\varepsilon(w)\,d\mathcal{L}^{2n}(w) \\
&= \int_{B(0,\varepsilon)} \psi_w(\zeta)\,\eta_\varepsilon(w)\,d\mathcal{L}^{2n}(w).
\end{align*}
So the slice of the mollified function is a non-negative weighted average of the subharmonic functions $\psi_w$. To prove subharmonicity directly, take a closed disc $\overline{B}(\zeta_0,r)\subset V$. For each fixed $w\in B(0,\varepsilon)$, the sub-mean-value inequality for $\psi_w$ gives
\begin{align*}
\psi_w(\zeta_0)
\le \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\psi_w(\zeta_0+re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta).
\end{align*}
Multiplying by the non-negative weight $\eta_\varepsilon(w)$ and integrating over $B(0,\varepsilon)$ yields
\begin{align*}
\int_{B(0,\varepsilon)}\psi_w(\zeta_0)\eta_\varepsilon(w)\,d\mathcal{L}^{2n}(w)
\le \int_{B(0,\varepsilon)}\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\psi_w(\zeta_0+re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta)\,\eta_\varepsilon(w)\,d\mathcal{L}^{2n}(w).
\end{align*}
We may apply [Fubini's theorem](/theorems/2961) to the right-hand side. Indeed, upper semicontinuity of $\phi^M$ implies Borel measurability, so the map
\begin{align*}
(w,\theta) \mapsto \psi_w(\zeta_0+re^{i\theta})\eta_\varepsilon(w)
\end{align*}
is Borel-measurable on $B(0,\varepsilon)\times[0,2\pi]$. It is bounded below by $-M\|\eta_\varepsilon\|_\infty$. It is bounded above by $\|\eta_\varepsilon\|_\infty\sup_K\phi^M$, where
\begin{align*}
K := a+\overline{B}(\zeta_0,r)v-\overline{B}(0,\varepsilon) \subset \Omega
\end{align*}
is compact and $\sup_K\phi^M<\infty$ by upper semicontinuity on a compact set. Hence the integrand is absolutely integrable with respect to $\mathcal{L}^{2n}\otimes\mathcal{L}^1$. Fubini gives
\begin{align*}
\phi^M_\varepsilon(a+\zeta_0v)
&= \int_{B(0,\varepsilon)}\psi_w(\zeta_0)\eta_\varepsilon(w)\,d\mathcal{L}^{2n}(w) \\
&\le \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{B(0,\varepsilon)}\psi_w(\zeta_0+re^{i\theta})\eta_\varepsilon(w)\,d\mathcal{L}^{2n}(w)\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta) \\
&= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\phi^M_\varepsilon(a+(\zeta_0+re^{i\theta})v)\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta).
\end{align*}
This is exactly the sub-mean-value inequality for the slice $\zeta\mapsto\phi^M_\varepsilon(a+\zeta v)$ on $V$. Since $\phi^M_\varepsilon$ is smooth, the slice is continuous, hence upper semicontinuous, and it is real-valued, so it is not identically $-\infty$. Therefore the slice is subharmonic on $V$.
We have proved that $\phi^M_\varepsilon$ is smooth and slice-subharmonic on $\Omega_\varepsilon$. Applying the smooth case already proved, equivalently the [Levi Form Criterion for Smooth PSH Functions](/theorems/3403) through Step 2, gives that $\phi^M_\varepsilon$ is plurisubharmonic on $\Omega_\varepsilon$.
[/guided]
[/step]
[step:Pass to the limit $\varepsilon \to 0$ to obtain plurisubharmonicity of $\phi^M$]
Fix $M > 0$. We claim $\phi^M_\varepsilon \searrow \phi^M$ pointwise on $\Omega$ as $\varepsilon \searrow 0$ (where for each fixed $z \in \Omega$ the statement is interpreted for $\varepsilon < \operatorname{dist}(z, \partial \Omega)$).
For a radial mollifier $\eta_\varepsilon$, write $\eta(w) = h(|w|)$ for some $h \in C_c^\infty([0,1))$ with $h \ge 0$. Switching to polar coordinates on $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ with $w = r u$, $r \ge 0$, $u \in S^{2n-1}$, the polar formula $d\mathcal{L}^{2n}(w) = r^{2n-1}\, d\mathcal{H}^{2n-1}(u)\, d\mathcal{L}^1(r)$ gives
\begin{align*}
\phi^M_\varepsilon(z) = \int_0^\varepsilon \varepsilon^{-2n} h(r/\varepsilon)\, r^{2n-1} \biggl( \int_{S^{2n-1}} \phi^M(z - r u)\, d\mathcal{H}^{2n-1}(u) \biggr) d\mathcal{L}^1(r).
\end{align*}
Set $\sigma_{2n-1} := \mathcal{H}^{2n-1}(S^{2n-1})$ and define the spherical mean
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{M}(\phi^M, \cdot, \cdot): \{(z, r) : z \in \Omega,\ 0 < r < \operatorname{dist}(z, \partial\Omega)\} &\to \mathbb{R} \\
(z, r) &\mapsto \frac{1}{\sigma_{2n-1}} \int_{S^{2n-1}} \phi^M(z + r u)\, d\mathcal{H}^{2n-1}(u).
\end{align*}
By radial symmetry of $\eta$ (substituting $u \mapsto -u$),
\begin{align*}
\phi^M_\varepsilon(z) = \int_0^\varepsilon \varepsilon^{-2n} h(r/\varepsilon)\, r^{2n-1}\, \sigma_{2n-1}\, \mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r)\, d\mathcal{L}^1(r).
\end{align*}
The normalisation $\int_{\mathbb{C}^n} \eta_\varepsilon\, d\mathcal{L}^{2n} = 1$ rewrites as $\int_0^\varepsilon \varepsilon^{-2n} h(r/\varepsilon)\, r^{2n-1}\, \sigma_{2n-1}\, d\mathcal{L}^1(r) = 1$, so $\phi^M_\varepsilon(z)$ is a weighted average of $\mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, \cdot)$ over $r \in (0, \varepsilon)$.
[claim:Monotonicity of spherical means]
For each $z \in \Omega$, the map $r \mapsto \mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r)$ is non-decreasing on $(0, \operatorname{dist}(z, \partial \Omega))$.
[/claim]
[proof]
Identify $S^{2n-1} \subset \mathbb{C}^n$ as the disjoint union of circles $\{e^{i\theta} u : \theta \in [0, 2\pi)\}$ as $u$ ranges over the base of the Hopf fibration $S^{2n-1} \to \mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ given by the $S^1$-action $\theta \cdot u = e^{i\theta} u$. Let $\nu$ denote the unique $S^1$-invariant Borel probability measure on $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$. Disintegration of $\mathcal{H}^{2n-1}$ along this fibration (each fibre carries arc-length measure on a circle of radius $1$, total mass $2\pi$) gives the equality
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r) = \int_{\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}} \biggl( \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} \phi^M(z + r e^{i\theta} u)\, d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta) \biggr) d\nu(u),
\end{align*}
where the normalising constants on the two sides match because $\nu$ is a probability measure and the inner integral is normalised by $1/(2\pi)$.
For each fixed $u \in S^{2n-1}$, the inner integral
\begin{align*}
A_u(r) := \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} \phi^M(z + r e^{i\theta} u)\, d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta)
\end{align*}
is the circular mean at radius $r$ of the slice $\zeta \mapsto \phi^M(z + \zeta u)$ along the complex line through $z$ in direction $u$. By Step 3 (slice subharmonicity of $\phi^M$), this slice is subharmonic on the open disc $\{\zeta \in \mathbb{C} : |\zeta| < \operatorname{dist}(z, \partial \Omega)\}$ (which is contained in $S_{z, u}$); circular means of a subharmonic function are non-decreasing in the radius. Thus $r \mapsto A_u(r)$ is non-decreasing for $r < \operatorname{dist}(z, \partial \Omega)$. Integrating over $u$ against the non-negative probability measure $\nu$ preserves the monotonicity, so $r \mapsto \mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r)$ is non-decreasing.
[/proof]
For fixed $z$, the weighting in $\phi^M_\varepsilon(z)$ concentrates near $r = 0$ as $\varepsilon \searrow 0$, and the integrand $\mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r)$ is non-decreasing in $r$; hence $\varepsilon \mapsto \phi^M_\varepsilon(z)$ is non-decreasing in $\varepsilon$ (equivalently, non-increasing as $\varepsilon \searrow 0$). Indeed, for $0 < \varepsilon_1 < \varepsilon_2 < \operatorname{dist}(z, \partial \Omega)$, applying the substitution $r = \varepsilon_i s$ (so $d\mathcal{L}^1(r) = \varepsilon_i\, d\mathcal{L}^1(s)$, and the domain $r \in (0, \varepsilon_i)$ maps to $s \in (0, 1)$) in each integral gives:
\begin{align*}
\phi^M_{\varepsilon_i}(z) = \int_0^1 h(s)\, s^{2n-1}\, \sigma_{2n-1}\, \mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, \varepsilon_i s)\, d\mathcal{L}^1(s),
\end{align*}
and since $\mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, \varepsilon_1 s) \le \mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, \varepsilon_2 s)$ pointwise by monotonicity, $\phi^M_{\varepsilon_1}(z) \le \phi^M_{\varepsilon_2}(z)$.
To identify the limit, upper semicontinuity of $\phi^M$ gives $\limsup_{r \to 0^+} \mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r) \le \phi^M(z)$. We apply the reverse [Fatou lemma](/theorems/510) to the family $u \mapsto \phi^M(z + r u)$ on $(S^{2n-1}, \mathcal{H}^{2n-1})$ as $r \to 0^+$. The hypothesis of reverse Fatou is a uniform integrable upper bound: by local boundedness of $\phi^M$, there exist $\rho > 0$ and $C \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $\phi^M(y) \le C$ for every $y \in \overline{B}(z, \rho)$; the constant function $C$ is $\mathcal{H}^{2n-1}$-integrable on $S^{2n-1}$ (which has finite measure $\sigma_{2n-1}$); and for $r < \rho$ we have $\phi^M(z + r u) \le C$ for every $u \in S^{2n-1}$. Reverse Fatou then gives
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{r \to 0^+} \frac{1}{\sigma_{2n-1}} \int_{S^{2n-1}} \phi^M(z + r u)\, d\mathcal{H}^{2n-1}(u)
\le \frac{1}{\sigma_{2n-1}} \int_{S^{2n-1}} \limsup_{r \to 0^+} \phi^M(z + r u)\, d\mathcal{H}^{2n-1}(u)
\le \phi^M(z),
\end{align*}
where the last inequality uses $\limsup_{r \to 0^+} \phi^M(z + r u) \le \phi^M(z)$ for every $u$ by upper semicontinuity of $\phi^M$ at $z$. Combined with the sub-mean-value inequality $\phi^M(z) \le \mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r)$ (which holds for subharmonic functions of one complex variable applied to slices, then averaged as above), we get $\lim_{r \to 0^+} \mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r) = \phi^M(z)$. Hence $\phi^M_\varepsilon(z) \to \phi^M(z)$ as $\varepsilon \to 0^+$. Combined with monotonicity, $\phi^M_\varepsilon \searrow \phi^M$.
By [Stability Properties of PSH Functions](/theorems/3404), the decreasing limit of plurisubharmonic functions on a fixed [open set](/page/Open%20Set) is either plurisubharmonic on that set or identically $-\infty$ on each connected component of that set. We apply this fact one $\varepsilon$-shell at a time. Fix $\varepsilon_0 > 0$. For every $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0]$, $\Omega_{\varepsilon_0} \subseteq \Omega_\varepsilon$, and $\phi^M_\varepsilon$ is plurisubharmonic on $\Omega_\varepsilon$ by Step 4, hence its restriction is plurisubharmonic on $\Omega_{\varepsilon_0}$. The sequence $(\phi^M_\varepsilon|_{\Omega_{\varepsilon_0}})_{\varepsilon \le \varepsilon_0}$ is decreasing with pointwise limit $\phi^M|_{\Omega_{\varepsilon_0}}$. Since $\phi^M \ge -M > -\infty$, the identically $-\infty$ alternative is excluded on every component, so $\phi^M$ is plurisubharmonic on $\Omega_{\varepsilon_0}$. As $\varepsilon_0 > 0$ was arbitrary and $\Omega = \bigcup_{\varepsilon_0 > 0} \Omega_{\varepsilon_0}$, plurisubharmonicity at every point of $\Omega$ follows from the local nature of plurisubharmonicity (each $z \in \Omega$ has a neighbourhood contained in some $\Omega_{\varepsilon_0}$). Thus $\phi^M$ is plurisubharmonic on $\Omega$.
[guided]
We need two ingredients to push the smooth approximation $\phi^M_\varepsilon$ down to the original $\phi^M$: (i) monotone convergence $\phi^M_\varepsilon \searrow \phi^M$, and (ii) closure of plurisubharmonicity under decreasing limits (theorem 3404).
For (i), the key is the [polar decomposition](/theorems/3074). Writing the mollifier as a function of $r = |w|$ via $\eta(w) = h(r)$, the convolution $\phi^M_\varepsilon(z)$ becomes a weighted integral of the spherical mean $\mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r)$ over $r \in (0, \varepsilon)$. If $r \mapsto \mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r)$ is non-decreasing, then concentrating the weight near $r = 0$ (by shrinking $\varepsilon$) gives a decreasing function of $\varepsilon$. The one-line computation that makes this precise is the change of variables $r = \varepsilon s$, $d\mathcal{L}^1(r) = \varepsilon\, d\mathcal{L}^1(s)$, which transforms
\begin{align*}
\phi^M_\varepsilon(z) = \int_0^\varepsilon \varepsilon^{-2n} h(r/\varepsilon)\, r^{2n-1}\, \sigma_{2n-1}\, \mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r)\, d\mathcal{L}^1(r)
\end{align*}
into
\begin{align*}
\phi^M_\varepsilon(z) = \int_0^1 h(s)\, s^{2n-1}\, \sigma_{2n-1}\, \mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, \varepsilon s)\, d\mathcal{L}^1(s).
\end{align*}
The weight $h(s) s^{2n-1} \sigma_{2n-1}$ is now independent of $\varepsilon$ and non-negative, while the only dependence on $\varepsilon$ sits inside $\mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, \varepsilon s)$, which is non-decreasing in $\varepsilon$ for each fixed $s$ by the monotonicity of spherical means. Hence $\varepsilon \mapsto \phi^M_\varepsilon(z)$ is non-decreasing in $\varepsilon$, equivalently non-increasing as $\varepsilon \searrow 0$.
The monotonicity of spherical means in $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ from slice subharmonicity in $\mathbb{C}^n$ is the heart of the argument. The sphere $S^{2n-1} \subset \mathbb{C}^n$ has a natural $S^1$-action (multiplication by $e^{i\theta}$ in $\mathbb{C}^n$). The orbits are circles $\{e^{i\theta} u : \theta \in [0, 2\pi)\}$ — each orbit lies in a complex line through the origin, namely $\mathbb{C} \cdot u$. Disintegrating the spherical measure along this fibration writes $\mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r)$ as a $\nu$-average over $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ of circular means $A_u(r)$ of $\phi^M$ along complex lines through $z$. Each $A_u(r)$ is the circular mean of the subharmonic slice $\phi^M_{z,u}|_{\{|\zeta| < r\}}$ at radius $r$, which is non-decreasing in $r$ by the standard property of subharmonic functions of one complex variable. Averaging over $u$ preserves monotonicity.
For the identification of the limit: USC gives $\limsup_{r \to 0^+} \mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r) \le \phi^M(z)$ via reverse Fatou (the integrand is uniformly bounded above near $z$ because $\phi^M$ is locally bounded, and USC says $\limsup_{y \to z}\phi^M(y) \le \phi^M(z)$ which integrates against the surface measure on small spheres). The reverse inequality $\phi^M(z) \le \mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r)$ comes from the sub-mean-value inequality on each slice: $\phi^M(z) = \phi^M_{z, u}(0) \le A_u(r)$, then average over $u$. So $\mathcal{M}(\phi^M, z, r) \to \phi^M(z)$ as $r \to 0^+$, and consequently $\phi^M_\varepsilon(z) \to \phi^M(z)$ as $\varepsilon \to 0^+$.
For (ii), theorem 3404 packages the standard fact that if $(u_k)$ is a decreasing sequence of plurisubharmonic functions on $\Omega$, then $u := \lim u_k = \inf u_k$ is either plurisubharmonic or identically $-\infty$ on each connected component. Here $\phi^M \ge -M$, so the identically-$-\infty$ alternative is excluded, and we conclude $\phi^M$ is plurisubharmonic on each $\Omega_\varepsilon$ — hence on all of $\Omega$, since plurisubharmonicity is local and $\Omega = \bigcup_\varepsilon \Omega_\varepsilon$.
[/guided]
[/step]
[step:Pass to the limit $M \to \infty$ to recover plurisubharmonicity of $\phi$]
As $M \to \infty$, $\phi^M = \max\{\phi, -M\}$ is a decreasing sequence of plurisubharmonic functions on $\Omega$ (each plurisubharmonic by Step 5) with pointwise limit
\begin{align*}
\lim_{M \to \infty} \phi^M(z) = \phi(z) \quad \text{for every } z \in \Omega
\end{align*}
(if $\phi(z) > -\infty$ then $\phi^M(z) = \phi(z)$ for all $M > -\phi(z)$; if $\phi(z) = -\infty$ then $\phi^M(z) = -M \to -\infty$). By hypothesis, $\phi$ is not identically $-\infty$ on any connected component of $\Omega$. By [Stability Properties of PSH Functions](/theorems/3404), the decreasing limit $\phi$ is plurisubharmonic on $\Omega$.
This completes the reverse direction and the proof.
[/step]
Prerequisites (0/1 completed)
Prerequisites Graph
Interactive dependency map showing how this theorem builds on foundational concepts
Loading dependency graph...
Theorem
Definition
Current
Requires
Definitions & Concepts
Explore Further
Convolution
Definition
Cousin II and Line Bundles
analysis
Global Ideal Generation on Stein Manifolds
analysis
Extremal Characterisation of the Bergman Kernel on the Diagonal
analysis
Bochner–Kodaira–Nakano Identity
analysis
Halmos–von Neumann Theorem
analysis
Higher-Degree Hörmander $L^2$ Existence Theorem
analysis
Biholomorphic Invariance of the Bergman Metric
analysis
Divergence Theorem
analysis