\section{Introduction}
Let $E$ be a holomorphic vector bundle of rank $r$ over a compact complex manifold $X$ of dimension $n$. Denote by $E^*$ the dual bundle of $E$. Let $P(E^*)$ be the projectivized bundle of $E^*$, $O_{P(E^*)}(-1)$ the tautological line bundle over $P(E^*)$, and denote by $O_{P(E^*)}(1)$ the dual bundle of $O_{P(E^*)}(-1)$. A vector bundle $E$ is said to be ample if the line bundle $O_{P(E^*)}(1)$ is ample, see \cite{Hart66}.

Meanwhile, for a Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle $(E,H)$, Griffiths \cite{Griff69} introduced a notion of positivity using the curvature of the metric $H$, which is now called Griffiths positivity. When $E$ is a line bundle, the existence of a Griffiths positive Hermitian metric on $E$ is equivalent to the ampleness of $E$; essentially by the Kodaira embedding theorem. When $E$ is of higher rank, the existence of a Griffiths positive metric implies ampleness (see e.g. \cite[p. 89]{MR909698} or \cite[p. 283]{demailly1997complex}); however, the converse statement known as the Griffiths conjecture is still open (see earlier results \cite{Umemura,CampanaFlenner} and recent developments \cite{naumann2017approach,demailly2020hermitianyangmills,pingali2021note,finski2020monge}).

On the other hand, Kobayashi \cite{Negfinsler} defined a notion of curvature for strongly pseudoconvex Finsler metrics on holomorphic vector bundles, and he showed that the dual bundle $E^*$ is ample if and only if $E$ has a strongly pseudoconvex Kobayashi negative Finsler metric. Moreover, he raised the question whether the ampleness of $E$ is equivalent to the existence of a strongly pseudoconvex Kobayashi positive Finsler metric on $E$. One direction is proved in \cite{feng2018complex} where the authors show the existence of such a Finsler metric on $E$ implies the ampleness of $E$.

The motivation of this paper is twofold. One is the remaining part of the Kobayashi conjecture, and the other is whether Kobayashi's conjecture implies Griffiths' conjecture. Although we do not solve either of the problems, some progress is made in the results below. Before we state our results, we recall a natural way to produce Hermitian metrics on direct image bundles.

Let $h$ be a Hermitian metric on $O_{P(E)}(1)$ and $\{\omega_z\}_{z\in X}$ be a family of Hermitian metrics on the fibers $P(E_z)$. Given a positive integer $k$, there is a canonical isomorphism $$\Phi_{k,z}:S^kE^*_z\to H^0(P(E_z),O_{P(E_z)}(k)), $$ see for example \cite[p. 278, Theorem 15.5]{demailly1997complex}. We can define an $L^2$-metric $H_k$ on $S^kE^*$ using $h^k$ and $\{\omega_z\}$
\begin{align}\label{L2 metric}
H_k(u,v):=\int_{P(E_z)} h^k(\Phi_{k,z}(u),\Phi_{k,z}(v) ) \omega_z^{r-1}, \textup{ for $u \textup{ and } v\in S^kE^*_z$.}
\end{align}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm dual}
If the Hermitian metric $H_k$ in (\ref{L2 metric}) is Griffiths negative for some $k$, then $E^*$ admits a convex Finsler metric that is strongly plurisubharmonic on  $E^*\setminus \{\text{zero section}\}$; moreover, the bundle $E$ admits a convex and strongly pseudoconvex Finsler metric with positive Kobayashi curvature.
\end{theorem}

The idea behind the proof of Theorem \ref{thm dual} is straightforward. The $k$-th root
of $H_k$ induces a Finsler metric $F_k$ on $E^*$. This Finsler metric is convex by the Minkowski inequality, and it is strongly plurisubharmonic on $E^*\setminus \{\text{zero section}\}$ by Griffiths negativity. The convexity of $F_k$ is of great importance (see \cite[Remark 2.7]{DemaillyMSRI} for the necessity of convexity). Adding a small Hermitian metric to $F_k$ and taking the dual, the resulting Finsler metric on $E$ is what we want (see Section \ref{sec thm1} for details).

Whether the assumption in Theorem \ref{thm dual} can be deduced from ampleness of $E$ is still unknown (of course, an affirmative answer would solve Kobayashi's conjecture). Nonetheless, we emphasize that the ampleness of $E$ does imply $S^kE^*$ has a Griffiths negative Hermitian metric $\mathcal{H}_k^*$ for $k$ large; such a Hermitian metric is the dual of  $\mathcal{H}_k$ on $S^kE$ constructed as in (\ref{L2 metric}) except one works on the dual side $O_{P(E^*)}(1)$ (this is the well-known positivity of direct image bundles, see \cite{Berndtsson09,MourouganeTaka, Takayama, positivityandvanishingthmliu,liu2014curvatures}).  However the $k$-th root of $\mathcal{H}^*_k$ is not convex (see Section \ref{sec convex} for examples). This lack of convexity is why we work on $O_{P(E)}(1)$ and use negativity of direct image bundles (see also \cite[Section 3]{berndtsson2009positivity}). Another natural approach is to take the $k$-th root of $\mathcal{H}_k$. The resulting Finsler metric on $E$ is convex by Minkowski's inequality, but it is unclear if this metric is Kobayashi positive. (One can perhaps utilize the intimate connection between the optimal $L^2$ estimates/extensions and the positivity of curvature e.g. \cite{GuanZhou,BoLem,Hacon,deng2018new,ZhouZhu}).

One case in which the assumption in Theorem \ref{thm dual} holds is when
$E$ has a strongly pseudoconvex Finsler metric with positive Kobayashi curvature. Indeed, such a Finsler metric induces a Hermitian metric $h$ on $O_{P(E)}(1)$ whose curvature has signature $(r-1,n)$ (see Lemma \ref{K positive}). Then following the observation in \cite[Section 4.2]{positivityandvanishingthmliu}, the curvature of $H_k$ in (\ref{L2 metric}) is Griffiths negative for $k$ large. We therefore have

\begin{corollary}\label{cor}
If $E$ has a strongly pseudoconvex Finsler metric with positive Kobayashi curvature, then $E$ admits a convex and strongly pseudoconvex Finsler metric with positive Kobayashi curvature.
\end{corollary}

Assuming Kobayashi's conjecture is true, Corollary \ref{cor} could be seen as a small step towards Griffiths' conjecture in the sense that the Finsler metric can be made convex, namely a norm, on each fiber (even if not a norm induced by an inner product).

Using Theorem \ref{thm dual} and Corollary \ref{cor}, we can give a different proof for the known direction in Kobayashi's conjecture (\cite{feng2018complex}). Indeed, given a strongly pseudoconvex Kobayashi positive Finsler metric on $E$, we can construct a Finsler metric on $E^*$ which is strongly plurisubharmonic on $E^*\setminus \{\text{zero section}\}$, so the induced metric on $O_{P(E^*)}(-1)$ has negative curvature, thus $E$ is ample.

We will go over the basics on Kobayashi curvature of Finsler metrics in Section \ref{sec review}. Theorem \ref{thm dual} and Corollary \ref{cor} are proved in Section \ref{sec thm1}. In Section \ref{sec convex}, we give explicit examples about convexity of inner products.
In the last section, we give an extremal characterization of Kobayashi curvature following \cite{LLmax,LLextrapolation}, where Lempert defined curvature for a much broader class of metrics.

I am indebted to L\'aszl\'o Lempert for many critical comments and suggestions. Part of the paper was done at Purdue University, and I would like to thank the support by NSF grant DMS-1764167.
I am grateful to I-Hsun Tsai and Xiaokui Yang for their interest in this work. Thanks are also due to Academia Sinica and National Center for Theoretical Sciences for providing a stimulating environment.

\section{Kobayashi curvature of Finsler metrics}\label{sec review}

There is a sizable literature for Finsler metrics on vector bundles, for example \cite{Negfinsler, ComplexFinsler, Aikoupartial,AikouMSRI,caowong,liuchern,liudonaldson}. Therefore, we will be very brief on the review; one can consult the above articles for details. We will use \cite{ComplexFinsler}, an updated version of \cite{Negfinsler}.
\subsection{Finsler metrics}
Let $E$ be a holomorphic vector bundle of rank $r$ over a compact complex manifold $X$ of dimension $n$. For a vector $\zeta\in E_z$, we will symbolically write $(z,\zeta)\in E$. A smooth Finsler metric $F$ on the vector bundle $E\to X$ is a real-valued function on $E$ such that
\begin{align*}
    &(1) \text{ $F$ is continuous on $E$ and smooth away from the zero section of $E$}.\\
    &(2) \text{ For $(z,\zeta)\in E$}, F(z,\zeta)\geq 0, \text{ and equality holds if and only if $\zeta=0$}.\\
    &(3) \text{ $F(z,\lambda\zeta)=|\lambda|F(z,\zeta)$,  for $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}$}.
\end{align*}
Since $F^2$ will be used more often than $F$ in our computations, we denote $F^2$ by $G$ throughout the paper.

Denote by $P(E)$ the projectivized bundle of $E$, and by $O_{P(E)}(-1)$ the tautological line bundle over $P(E)$. Let $p$ be the projection from $P(E)$ to $X$, and denote the pull-back bundle $p^*E$ by $\tilde{E}$. In summary,
\[
 \begin{tikzcd}
  O_{P(E)}(-1) \subset  \tilde{E}   \arrow{d}\arrow{r}{\tilde{p}} & E \arrow{d}\\
   P(E) \arrow{r}{p} & X.
  \end{tikzcd}
  \]
For a vector $\zeta\in E_z$, we denote by $[\zeta]$ the equivalence class of $\zeta$ in $P(E_z)$, and we will write $(z,[\zeta])\in P(E)$. The pull-back bundle $\tilde{E}=\coprod_{(z,[\zeta])\in P(E)}(z,[\zeta])\times E_z$, and we will denote an element in $\tilde{E}$ by $(z,[\zeta],Z)$ with $Z\in E_z$. There is a one-to-one correspondence between smooth Finsler metrics on $E$ and smooth Hermitian metrics on $O_{P(E)}(-1)$, furnished by $\tilde{p}$.
If $F$ is a Finsler metric on $E$ with $G=F^2$ and we denote the corresponding Hermitian metric on $O_{P(E)}(-1)$ by $h_G$, then the correspondence is
\begin{equation}\label{corres}
    h_G(z,[\zeta],\zeta)=G(z,\zeta).
\end{equation}

We use $(z_1,...,z_n)$ for local coordinates on $X$, and $(\zeta_1,...,\zeta_r)$ for local fiber coordinates on $E$ with respect to a holomorphic frame $\{s_1,...,s_r\}$. So $(z_1,...,z_n,\zeta_1,...,\zeta_r)$ is a coordinate system on $E$. Let $F$ be a Finsler metric on $E$ with $G=F^2$. We write
\begin{align*}
G_i=\partial G/\partial \zeta_i\,,\text{      }\text{  }G_{\bar{j}}=\partial G/\partial \bar{\zeta}_j\,,\text{      }\text{  } G_{i\Bar{j}}=\partial^2 G/\partial \zeta_i \partial\bar{\zeta}_{j}\,, \\    G_{i\alpha}=\partial G_i/\partial z_\alpha\,,\text{      }\text{  } G_{i\bar{j}\bar{\beta}}=\partial G_{i\bar{j}}/\partial \bar{z}_\beta\,,\text{ etc.,}
\end{align*}
with Latin letters $i,j$ for the fiber direction and Greek letters $\alpha,\beta$ for the base direction. The following formulas will be used later; their derivation can be found in \cite[p. 147]{ComplexFinsler}. For $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}$,
\begin{align}
&G_{k\bar{j}}(z,\lambda\zeta)=G_{k\bar{j}}(z,\zeta)\label{6}.\\
&G(z,\zeta)=\sum_i G_i(z,\zeta)\zeta_i=\sum_{i,j}G_{i\bar{j}}(z,\zeta)\zeta_i\bar{\zeta}_j\label{7}.
\end{align}

\subsection{Strongly pseudoconvex Finsler metrics}

A Finsler metric $F$ is said to be
\begin{align*}
(1) &\text{ strongly pseudoconvex if $(F_{i\bar{j}})$ is positive definite on $E\setminus \{\text{zero section}\}$}.\\
(2) &\text{ convex if $F$ restricted to each fiber $E_z$ is convex},\\ &\text{namely the fiberwise real Hessian of $F$ is positive semidefinite on $E\setminus \{\text{zero section}\}$}.\\
(3) &\text{ strongly convex if the fiberwise real Hessian of $G$ is positive on $E\setminus \{\text{zero section}\}$}.
\end{align*}
Note that in (1), the requirement $(F_{i\bar{j}})>0$ is equivalent to $(G_{i\bar{j}})>0$, which can be shown by using the formulas in \cite[(3.3) and (3.10)]{ComplexFinsler}. A Hermitian metric always satisfies (1), (2), and (3). Also notice that a 'convex' Finsler metric in \cite{Negfinsler} is what we call 'strongly pseudoconvex' here. Let us recall a lemma of strong pseudoconvexity (\cite[p. 150 Theorem (1)]{ComplexFinsler}).
\begin{lemma}\label{fiber neg}
 Let $F$ be a Finsler metric on $E$ and $h_G$ be its corresponding Hermitian metric on $O_{P(E)}(-1)$. Then $F$ is strongly pseudoconvex if and only if the curvature $\Theta(h_G)$ of $h_G$ restricted to each fiber of $P(E)\to X$ is negative definite.
\end{lemma}

In the rest of this subsection, we will assume the Finsler metric $F$ is strongly pseudoconvex. There is a natural Hermitian metric $\tilde{G}$ on the pull-back bundle $\tilde{E}$ (see \cite{Negfinsler}). In terms of local coordinates, the Hermitian metric $\tilde{G}$ is given by
$$\tilde{G}_{(z,[\zeta])}(Z,Z)=\sum_{i,j}G_{i\bar{j}}(z,\zeta)Z_i\bar{Z}_j, \text{ for $Z=\sum^r_{i=1}Z_i s_i(z)\in E_z$}.$$
By (\ref{7}), the metric $\tilde{G}$ restricted to $O_{P(E)}(-1)$ is the same as the Hermitian metric $h_G$ on $O_{P(E)}(-1)$ coming from $G$ on $E$ through the one-to-one correspondence (\ref{corres}).

Now $(\tilde{E},\tilde{G})$ is a Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle, so we can talk about its Chern curvature $\Theta$, an $\End \tilde{E}$-valued $(1,1)$-form on $P(E)$. With respect to the metric $\tilde{G}$, the bundle $\tilde{E}$ has a fiberwise orthogonal decomposition $O_{P(E)}(-1)\oplus O_{P(E)}(-1)^\perp$, and so $\Theta$ can be written as a block matrix. Let $\Theta|_{O_{P(E)}(-1)}$ denote the block in the matrix $\Theta$ corresponding to $\End(O_{P(E)}(-1))$. Since $O_{P(E)}(-1)$ is a line bundle, $\Theta|_{O_{P(E)}(-1)}$ is a $(1,1)$-form on $P(E)$.
\begin{definition}
The $(1,1)$-form $\Theta|_{O_{P(E)}(-1)}$ is called the Kobayashi curvature of the strongly pseudoconvex Finsler metric $F$. Kobayashi positivity (or negativity) means the positivity (or negativity) of $\Theta|_{O_{P(E)}(-1)}$.
\end{definition}

Following the computation in \cite[Section 5]{ComplexFinsler}, we have
\begin{lemma}\label{K positive}
Let $F$ be a strongly pseudoconvex Finsler metric on $E$ and $h_G$ be the corresponding Hermitian metric on $O_{P(E)}(-1)$. Then $F$ is Kobayashi positive (or negative) if and only if $\Theta(h_G)$ has signature $(n,r-1)$ (or $(0,n+r-1)$).
\end{lemma}

We give a local expression of the Kobayashi curvature that will be used in the final section. We focus on a local chart $\{(z,[\zeta]):\zeta_r\neq 0\}$ of $P(E)$, and let $\zeta_i/\zeta_r=w_i$ for $1\leq i\leq  r-1$. The curvature $\Theta$ of $\tilde{G}$
can be locally written as
\begin{equation*}
    \Theta=\sum_{\alpha,\beta}R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\,dz_\alpha\wedge d\bar{z}_\beta+\sum_{\alpha,l}P_{\alpha\bar{l}}\,dz_\alpha\wedge d\bar{w}_l+\sum_{k,\beta}\mathcal{P}_{k\bar{\beta}}\,dw_k\wedge d\bar{z}_\beta+\sum_{k,l}Q_{k\bar{l}}\,dw_k\wedge d\bar{w}_l,
\end{equation*}
where $R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}},P_{\alpha\bar{l}},\mathcal{P}_{k\bar{\beta}}$, and $Q_{k\bar{l}}$ are endomorphisms of $\tilde{E}$. Since $O_{P(E)}(-1)$ is a line bundle,
\begin{align*}
    \Theta|_{O_{P(E)}(-1)}&=\sum_{\alpha,\beta} \frac{\tilde{G}(R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\zeta,\zeta)}{\tilde{G}(\zeta,\zeta)} \,dz_\alpha\wedge d\bar{z}_\beta+\sum_{\alpha,l}\frac{\tilde{G}(P_{\alpha\bar{l}}\zeta,\zeta)}{\tilde{G}(\zeta,\zeta)}\,dz_\alpha\wedge d\bar{w}_l\\&+\sum_{k,\beta}\frac{\tilde{G}(\mathcal{P}_{k\bar{\beta}}\zeta,\zeta)}{\tilde{G}(\zeta,\zeta)}\,dw_k\wedge d\bar{z}_\beta+\sum_{k,l}\frac{\tilde{G}(Q_{k\bar{l}}\zeta,\zeta)}{\tilde{G}(\zeta,\zeta)}\,dw_k\wedge d\bar{w}_l,
\end{align*}
and by \cite[Formula (5.8)]{ComplexFinsler} the last three terms vanish, therefore
\begin{equation}\label{local for koba}
  \Theta|_{O_{P(E)}(-1)}=\sum_{\alpha,\beta} \frac{\tilde{G}(R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\zeta,\zeta)}{\tilde{G}(\zeta,\zeta)}\,dz_\alpha \wedge d\bar{z}_\beta.
\end{equation}

\section{Proofs of Theorem \ref{thm dual} and Corollary \ref{cor}}\label{sec thm1}
Recall that the $L^2$-metric $H_k$ on $S^kE^*$ is
\begin{align}\label{L2 metric in 3}
H_k(u,v):=\int_{P(E_z)} h^k(\Phi_{k,z}(u),\Phi_{k,z}(v) ) \omega_z^{r-1}, \textup{ for $u \textup{ and } v\in S^kE^*_z$,}
\end{align}
where $h$ is a Hermitian metric on $O_{P(E)}(1)$ and $\{\omega_z\}_{z\in X}$ is a family of Hermitian metrics on the fibers $P(E_z)$, and  $\Phi_{k,z}$ is the canonical isomorphism from $S^kE^*_z$ to $ H^0(P(E_z),O_{P(E_z)}(k))$.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm dual}]
According to the assumption, the Hermitian metric $H_k$ is Griffiths negative for some $k$; equivalently, $\log H_k(s,s)$ is strongly plurisubharmonic for any nonvanishing holomorphic section $s$ of $S^kE^*$.

If for a vector $v\in E^*$, we denote its $k$-th tensor power by $v^k\in S^k E^*$, then one can define a Finsler metric $F_k$ on $E^*$ by setting $F_k(v)=H_k(v^k,v^k)^{1/2k}$. By Griffiths negativity of $H_k$, $F_k$ is strongly plurisubharmonic on the total space $E^*\setminus \{\text{zero section}\}$.

Next, we will use the $L^2$-integral feature of $H_k$ to prove that the Finsler metric $F_k$ is convex i.e., it is convex on each fiber $E^*_z$. Fix $z\in X$ and two vectors $u,v\in E^*_z$. Let $\{s_1,...,s_r\}$ be a holomorphic frame of $E$ around $z$ with fiber coordinates $(\zeta_1,...,\zeta_r)$, and $\{t_1,...,t_r\}$ be the dual frame on $E^*$. The frame $\{t_i\}$ on $E^*$ induces a frame $\{t^\alpha\}$ on $S^kE^*$ with $t^\alpha=t_1^{\alpha_1}\cdot\cdot\cdot t_r^{\alpha_r}$ and $\alpha_1+...+\alpha_r=k$. On $P(E_z)$, we consider the chart $\{[\zeta_1,...,\zeta_r]: \zeta_r\neq 0\}$, then $$e:=\frac{\sum_i \zeta_i s_i}{\zeta_r}$$ is a holomorphic frame of $O_{P(E_z)}(-1)$ with dual frame $e^*$ for $O_{P(E_z)}(1)$ and frame $(e^*)^k$ for  $O_{P(E_z)}(k)$. The global section $
 \Phi_{k,z}(t^\alpha)\in  H^0(P(E_z),O_{P(E_z)}(k))$ can be locally written as $$\frac{\zeta^\alpha}{\zeta_r^k}(e^*)^k, \text{where $\zeta^\alpha=\zeta_1^{\alpha_1}\cdot\cdot\cdot \zeta_r^{\alpha_r}$.
}
$$
Therefore, if $E^*_z\ni u=\sum_i u_it_i$ and $v=\sum_i v_i t_i$ with $u_i,v_i\in \mathbb{C}$, then
\begin{equation}\label{u+v}
    \begin{aligned}
    h^k\big( \Phi_{k,z}((u+v)^k),\Phi_{k,z}((u+v)^k)  \big)=  \frac{\bigr|\sum_i (u_i+v_i) \zeta_i\bigr|^{2k}}{|\zeta_r|^{2k}}h(e^*,e^*)^k.
  \end{aligned}
\end{equation}
If we denote by $h^*$ the dual metric on $O_{P(E)}(-1)$, then $h(e^*,e^*)=|\zeta_r|^2/h^*(\sum_i\zeta_i s_i,\sum_i\zeta_i s_i)$. So (\ref{u+v}) becomes
\begin{align}\label{global}
    h^k\big( \Phi_{k,z}((u+v)^k),\Phi_{k,z}((u+v)^k)  \big)= \frac{\bigr|\sum_i (u_i+v_i) \zeta_i\bigr|^{2k}}{h^*(\sum_i\zeta_i s_i,\sum_i\zeta_i s_i)^k};
\end{align}
the right hand side of formula (\ref{global}) is meaningful on the entire $P(E_z)$, and we will abbreviate the denominator by $(h^*)^k$ in the computation below.

Using formula (\ref{global}), we have
\begin{align*}
  F_k(u+v)&=H_k\big((u+v)^k,(u+v)^k\big)^{1/2k}\\
  &=\bigr(\int_{P(E_z)}h^k\big( \Phi_{k,z}((u+v)^k),\Phi_{k,z}((u+v)^k)  \big) \omega_z^{r-1} \bigr)^{1/2k}\\
  &=\bigr(\int_{P(E_z)}\frac{ \bigr|\sum_i (u_i+v_i) \zeta_i\bigr|^{2k}}{(h^*)^k}  \omega_z^{r-1} \bigr)^{1/2k}\\
  &\leq \bigr(\int_{P(E_z)} \big( \frac{\bigr|\sum_i u_i\zeta_i\bigr|}{(h^*)^{1/2}}    + \frac{\bigr|\sum_i v_i \zeta_i\bigr|}{(h^*)^{1/2}}  \big) ^{2k}  \omega_z^{r-1} \bigr)^{1/2k}\\
  &\leq
  \bigr(\int_{P(E_z)} \frac{\bigr|\sum_iu_i\zeta_i\bigr|^{2k}}{(h^*)^k}\omega_z^{r-1}
  \bigr)^{1/2k}+
  \bigr(\int_{P(E_z)}\frac{ \bigr|\sum_iv_i\zeta_i\bigr|^{2k}}{(h^*)^k}\omega_z^{r-1}
  \bigr)^{1/2k}\\
  &=H_k(u^k,u^k)^{1/2k}+H_k(v^k,v^k)^{1/2k}
  \\
  &=F_k(u)+F_k(v),
\end{align*}
where the second inequality is due to the Minkowski inequality. We have just shown that $F_k(u+v)\leq F_k(u)+F_k(v)$, and this implies convexity $F_k(\theta u+(1-\theta) v)\leq \theta F_k(u)+(1-\theta)F_k(v)$ for $0\leq \theta \leq 1$. So $F_k$ is a convex Finsler metric which is strongly plurisubharmonic on $E^*\setminus \{\text{zero section}\}$.

For the second part of the theorem, since the Finsler metric $F_k$ from above is convex and strongly plurisubharmonic, after adding a small Hermitian metric we obtain a strongly convex and strongly plurisubharmonic Finsler metric on $E^*$, whose dual metric has transversal Levi signature $(r,n)$ according to \cite[Theorem 2.5]{DemaillyMSRI} and  \cite{Sommese} (see below for the definition of transversal Levi signature). By Lemma \ref{lem signature} below we obtain a convex and strongly pseudoconvex Kobayashi positive Finsler metric on $E$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem signature}
 If a Finsler metric $F$ has tranversal Levi signature $(r,n)$, then $F$ is strongly pseudoconvex and has positive Kobayashi curvature.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This lemma has appeared in Proposition 1.8 in the first version of  \cite{feng2018complex}. We give a simplified proof. Recall that a Finsler metric $F$ is said to have transversal Levi signature $(r,n)$, if at every point $(z,\zeta)\in E\setminus \{\text{zero section}\}$, the Levi form $i\partial\bar{\partial}F$ on $E$ is positive definite along the fiber $E_z$ and negative definite on some $n$-dimensional subspace $W\subset T^{1,0}_{(z,\zeta)}E$ which is transversal to the fiber $E_z$.

Since $F_{i\bar{j}}>0$, the metric $F$ is strongly pseudoconvex. Let $\pi:E\setminus\{\text{zero section}\}\to P(E)$ be the quotient map. It is not hard to verify $\pi^*\Theta(h_G)=-\partial \bar{\partial }\log G$. For any nonzero $e\in W$,
\begin{align*}
 \Theta(h_G)(\pi_*e,\overline{\pi_*e})=\pi^*\Theta(h_G)(e,\overline{e})
 =-2\partial \bar{\partial }\log F(e,\overline{e})\\
 =-2(\frac{\partial \bar{\partial }F}{F}-\frac{\partial F\wedge \bar{\partial}F }{F^2})(e,\overline{e})\geq -2\frac{\partial \bar{\partial }F}{F}(e,\overline{e})>0.
\end{align*}
As a consequence, $\pi_*W$ is of dimension $n$, and $\Theta(h_G)$ is positive definite on $\pi_*W$. By Lemma \ref{fiber neg} and a dimension count, $\Theta(h_G)$ has signature $(n,r-1)$, thus $F$ is Kobayashi positive by Lemma \ref{K positive}.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{cor}]

By Lemmas \ref{fiber neg} and \ref{K positive}, a strongly pseudoconvex Kobayashi positive Finsler metric $F$ on $E$ induces a Hermitian metric $h$ on $O_{P(E)}(1)$ such that the curvature $\Theta(h)$ restricted to each fiber $P(E_z)$ is positive, and $\Theta(h)$ has signature $(r-1,n)$. With this $h$ on $O_{P(E)}(1)$ and fixing a family of Hermitian metrics $\{\omega_z\}_{z\in X}$ on the fibers $P(E_z)$, we have the Hermitian metric $H_k$ in (\ref{L2 metric}) on $S^kE^*$.

Given a point $(z_0,\zeta_0)\in E$, we can find a frame $\{s_i\}$ of $E$ such that
$G_{i\bar{j}}(z_0,\zeta_0)=\delta_{ij}$ and $G_{i\bar{j}\alpha}(z_0,\zeta_0)=G_{i\bar{j}\bar{\beta}}(z_0,\zeta_0)=0$ (such a frame can be obtained by (5.11) in \cite{ComplexFinsler}). In this frame, $$\Theta(h)|_{(z_0,[\zeta_0])}=-\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\frac{\partial ^2\log h}{\partial z_\alpha \partial \bar{z}_\beta} dz_\alpha \wedge d\bar{z}_\beta-\sum_{i,j}\frac{\partial ^2\log h}{\partial w_i \partial \bar{w}_j} dw_i \wedge d\bar{w}_j.$$
Since $\Theta(h)|_{P(E_{z_0})}$ is positive and $\Theta(h)$ has signature $(r-1,n)$, the matrix $$\bigr(-\frac{\partial ^2\log h}{\partial z_\alpha \partial \bar{z}_\beta}\bigr)$$
is negative at $(z_0,[\zeta_0])$ hence negative in a neighborhood of $(z_0,[\zeta_0])$ in $P(E)$.

Therefore, $P(E)$ can be covered by a finite number of open sets $\{U_m\}$; each $U_m$ corresponds to a frame of $E$ such that the corresponding matrix $(-\partial ^2\log h/\partial z_\alpha \partial \bar{z}_\beta)$ is negative in $U_m$. For a fixed $U_m$, we write $$\omega_z=\sqrt{-1}\sum_{i,j}g_{i\bar{j}}(z,w)dw_i\wedge d\bar{w}_j,$$ so $\omega_z^{r-1}=\det (g_{i\bar{j}})\bigwedge_l(\sqrt{-1}dw_l\wedge d\bar{w}_l) $ that we will abbreviate as $\det(g) dw\wedge d\bar{w}$. By taking $k$ large, the following matrix can be made negative
\begin{equation}\label{k large}
\big(\frac{\partial^2 -k\log h-\log \det(g)}{\partial z_\alpha\partial \bar{z}_\beta}\big).
\end{equation}
Since there are only finitely many $U_m$, we can take $k$ large such that the corresponding (\ref{k large}) in each $U_m$ is negative.

For a fixed point $z_0\in X$, we partition $P(E_{z_0})=\bigcup_l V_l$ with $V_l$ in $U_m$ for some $m$. Let us denote the curvature of $H_k$ by $\Theta$ an $\End S^kE^*$-valued (1,1)-form. Given a nonzero $u\in S^kE^*_{z_0}$, we would like to show the (1,1)-form $H_k(\Theta u, u)$ is negative, namely, $H_k(\Theta u,u) (\eta,\bar{\eta})<0$ for $0\neq \eta\in T^{1,0}_{z_0}X$.  First, we extend $u$ to a local holomorphic section whose covariant derivative (with respect to $H_k$) at $z_0$ is zero. We still denote the holomorphic extension by $u$. A simple computation shows, at $z_0$, \begin{equation}\partial\label{right} \bar{\partial}H_k(u,u) (\eta,\bar{\eta})=-H_k(\Theta u,u) (\eta,\bar{\eta}).\end{equation}
Meanwhile, if we denote $p$ as the projection from $P(E)$ to $X$, then by definition
\begin{equation}\label{left}
\begin{aligned}
  \partial \bar{\partial}H_k(u,u)&=\partial \bar{\partial}p_*\big(h^k(\Phi_{k,z}(u),\Phi_{k,z}(u) ) \omega_z^{r-1}\big)=p_*\partial \bar{\partial}\big(h^k(\Phi_{k,z}(u),\Phi_{k,z}(u) ) \omega_z^{r-1}\big)\\
  &=\sum_l \int_{V_l}\partial \bar{\partial}\big(h^k(\Phi_{k,z}(u),\Phi_{k,z}(u) ) \omega_z^{r-1}\big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let us compute $\partial \bar{\partial}\big(h^k(\Phi_{k,z}(u),\Phi_{k,z}(u) ) \omega_z^{r-1}\big)$ in $U_m$. In $U_m$, we can write $\Phi_{k,z}(u)$ as $fe$ with $f$ a scalar-valued holomorphic function and $e$ a frame for $O_{P(E)}(k)$. So, $h^k(\Phi_{k,z}(u),\Phi_{k,z}(u) )=|f|^2h^k(e,e)$, and we will abbreviate $h^k(e,e)$ by $h^k$. Moreover, we have $\omega_z^{r-1}= \det(g) dw\wedge d\bar{w}$. Therefore, in $U_m$,  \begin{align*}
\partial \bar{\partial}\big(h^k(\Phi_{k,z}(u),\Phi_{k,z}(u) ) \omega_z^{r-1}\big)&= \partial \bar{\partial}\big(|f|^2h^k \det(g) dw\wedge d\bar{w}\big)\\
&=\sum_{\alpha,\beta} \frac{\partial^2 |f|^2h^k\det(g)}{\partial z_\alpha \partial\bar{z}_\beta}dz_\alpha\wedge d\bar{z}_\beta\wedge dw\wedge d\bar{w}.
\end{align*}
Let us denote $h^k\det (g)$ by $e^{-\phi}$ temporarily. Let $\eta=\sum_{\alpha}\eta_\alpha \partial/\partial z_\alpha\in T^{1,0}_{z_0}X$. A straightforward computation shows
\begin{equation}\label{curvature}
    \sum_{\alpha,\beta}\frac{\partial^2 |f|^2 e^{-\phi}}{\partial z_\alpha \partial\bar{z}_\beta}\eta_\alpha \bar{\eta}_\beta=\big(
    e^{-\phi}\bigr|\sum_\alpha \frac{\partial f}{\partial z_\alpha}\eta_\alpha-f\sum_\alpha \eta_\alpha \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z_\alpha}\bigr|^2-|f|^2e^{-\phi}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial z_\alpha\partial \bar{z}_\beta}\eta_\alpha \bar{\eta}_\beta
    \big).
\end{equation}
The matrix in the last term of (\ref{curvature})
$$\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial z_\alpha\partial \bar{z}_\beta}=\frac{\partial^2 -k\log h-\log \det(g)}{\partial z_\alpha\partial \bar{z}_\beta}$$
is negative by (\ref{k large}), so (\ref{curvature}) is positive, and
\begin{equation}\label{vm}
  \int_{V_l}\partial \bar{\partial}\big(h^k(\Phi_{k,z}(u),\Phi_{k,z}(u) ) \omega_z^{r-1}\big)(\eta,\bar{\eta})>0.
\end{equation}
Hence by (\ref{right}) and (\ref{left}), $H_k(\Theta u,u)(\eta,\bar{\eta})<0$. Therefore, the Hermitian metric $H_k$ on $S^kE^*$ is Griffith negative for $k$ large. The proof is complete by using Theorem \ref{thm dual}.

The above curvature computation is a combination of ideas from \cite[Section 4.2]{positivityandvanishingthmliu}, \cite[Section 3]{berndtsson2009positivity}.
\end{proof}

\section{Convexity of the $k$-th root of an inner product}\label{sec convex}

Given a complex vector space $V$ of dimension $r$, let $S^kV$ be the $k$-th symmetric power of $V$. For an inner product $H$ on $S^kV$, the map $V\ni v\mapsto H(v^k,v^k)$ is in general not convex, and $V\ni v\mapsto H(v^k,v^k)^{1/2k}$ is even less so.

\begin{example}
Take $r=2$ and a basis $\{e_1,e_2\}$ for $V$, then $\{e_1^2,e_2^2,e_1e_2\}$ is a basis for $S^2V$. Consider an inner product $H$ on $S^2V$ with matrix representation under $\{e_1^2,e_2^2,e_1e_2\}$ equal to
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
1/2 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1/2 & 0\\
0&0&1
\end{pmatrix}.
\] We write $v\in V$ as $v=v_1e_1+v_2e_2$ with $v_1=x_1+\sqrt{-1}y_1$, $v_2=x_2+\sqrt{-1}y_2$, and $x_j,y_j$ real. So $$H(v^2,v^2)= |v_1^2|^2/2+ |v_2^2|^2/2+|2v_1v_2|^2= (x_1^2+y_1^2)^2/2+ (x_2^2+y_2^2)^2/2+4(x_1^2+y_1^2)(x_2^2+y_2^2),$$
\[
\begin{pmatrix}\frac{\partial^2 H}{\partial x_i \partial x_j}\end{pmatrix}_{i,j}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4x_1^2+2(x_1^2+y_1^2)   +8(x_2^2+y_2^2) & 16x_1x_2\\
16x_1x_2 & 4x_2^2+2(x_2^2+y_2^2)  +8(x_1^2+y_1^2)
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
At $x_1=x_2=1$ and $y_1=y_2=0$, this 2-by-2 matrix equals
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
14 & 16\\
16 & 14
\end{pmatrix}
\] which is not semipositive. So the map $v\mapsto H(v^2,v^2)$ is not convex.
\end{example}

The next example shows that if the $k$-th root of an inner product is convex, the $k$-th root of the dual inner product is in general not convex.

\begin{example}
Let $V$ be a complex vector space of dimension two with basis $\{e_1,e_2\}$. Then $\{e_1^2,e_2^2,e_1e_2\}$ is a basis for $S^2V$. Let $\{e_1^*,e_2^*\}$ be the dual basis for $V^*$, and we use $(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)$ to denote vectors in $V^*$. Let $h$ be an inner product on $V^*$ such that $\{e_1^*,e_2^*\}$ is orthonormal. This $h$ induces on $O_{P(V
^*)}(1)$ a Hermitian metric which we still denote by $h$; the curvature $\omega$ of $h$ is a K\"ahler form on $P(V^*)$. Through the isomorphism $\Phi:S^2V\to H^0(P(V^*),O_{P(V^*)}(2))$, we define an inner product $H$ on $S^2 V$ by, for $\xi,\eta\in S^2V$,
$$
H(\xi,\eta)=\int_{P(V^*)}h^2(\Phi(\xi),\Phi(\eta))\omega.
$$
On the chart $\{[\zeta_1,\zeta_2]:\zeta_2\neq 0\}$ of $P(V^*)$, we have a local frame $$e:=\frac{\zeta_1}{\zeta_2}e_1^*+e_2^*$$ for $O_{P(V^*)}(-1)$, and a dual frame $e^*$ for $O_{P(V^*)}(1)$. Therefore, the global sections have local expressions
\begin{align}
    \Phi(e_1^2)=\frac{\zeta_1^2}{\zeta_2^2}(e^*)^2,\text{ } \Phi(e_2^2)=(e^*)^2,\text{ and } \Phi(e_1e_2)=\frac{\zeta_1}{\zeta_2}(e^*)^2.
\end{align}
Moreover, if we denote $\zeta_1/\zeta_2$ by $z$, then $h(e^*,e^*)=1/(|z|^2+1)$ and $\omega=dz\wedge d\bar{z}/(|z|^2+1)^2$. Having these information, one can compute the matrix representation of $H$ in terms of $\{e_1^2,e_2^2,e_1e_2\}$. For example,
\begin{align*}
  H(e_1^2,e_2^2)=\int_{\mathbb{C}}z^2\frac{1}{(|z|^2+1)^2}\frac{dz\wedge d\bar{z}}{(|z|^2+1)^2}=0,\\
  H(e_1^2,e_1^2)=\int_{\mathbb{C}}|z|^4\frac{1}{(|z|^2+1)^2}\frac{dz\wedge d\bar{z}}{(|z|^2+1)^2}=\frac{\pi}{3},
\end{align*}
and similarly $H(e_2^2,e_2^2)=\pi/3, H(e_1e_2,e_1e_2)=\pi/6, H(e_1^2,e_1e_2)=H(e_2^2,e_1e_2)=0$. Therefore, the matrix representation under $\{e_1^2,e_2^2,e_1e_2\}$ is
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\pi}{3}&0&0\\
0&\frac{\pi}{3}&0\\
0&0&\frac{\pi}{6}
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
The convexity of the map $V\ni v\mapsto H(v^2,v^2)$ follows by the Minkowski inequality as in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm dual}. But the dual metric $H^*$ has matrix representation under $\{{e^*_1}^2,{e^*_2}^2,e^*_1e^*_2\}$
\[
\frac{6}{\pi}\begin{pmatrix}
1/2&0&0\\
0&1/2&0\\
0&0&1
\end{pmatrix},
\]
and we know from the first example that $V^*\ni v\mapsto H^*(v^2,v^2)$ is not convex.
\end{example}

\section{Extremal characterization of the Kobayashi curvature}\label{sec extre}

In this section we discuss a different way of obtaining the Kobayashi curvature by following a curvature notion defined in \cite{LLmax,LLextrapolation} (see also \cite{rochberg1984}). Finsler metrics are assumed convex in \cite{LLmax,LLextrapolation}, while in our case we assume strong pseudoconvexity. This characterization has the potential to define curvature for Finsler metrics with weaker convexity.

Let $F$ be a strongly pseudoconvex Finsler metric on $E$ with $F^2=G$. For $z_0\in X$, $v\in T^{1,0}_{z_0} X$ and $0\neq\zeta\in E_{z_0}$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{inf}
K_v(\zeta)=-\inf \partial\bar{\partial}\log G(\phi)\bigr|_{z_0}(v,\bar{v}),
\end{equation}
the inf taken over local holomorphic sections $\phi$ of $E$ such that $\phi(z_0)=\zeta$.

Consider a tangent vector $\tilde{v}$  to $P(E)$ at $(z_0,[\zeta])$ such that $p_*(\tilde{v})=v$. By (\ref{local for koba}), $\Theta|_{O_{P(E)}(-1)}(\tilde{v},\bar{\tilde{v}})$ is independent of the lift $\tilde{v}$, so we will simply write $\Theta|_{O_{P(E)}(-1)}(v,\bar{v})$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem inf}
 $K_v(\zeta)=\Theta|_{O_{P(E)}(-1)}(v,\bar{v})$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Fix a frame $\{s_1,...,s_r\}$ of $E$ around $z_0$ such that
$G_{i\bar{j}}(z_0,\zeta)=\delta_{ij}$ and $G_{i\bar{j}\alpha}(z_0,\zeta)=G_{i\bar{j}\bar{\beta}}(z_0,\zeta)=0$ (see (5.11) in \cite{ComplexFinsler}). Since the vector $\zeta\in E_{z_0}$ is nonzero, without loss of generality we assume its $r$-th component $\zeta_r\neq 0$. Suppose $v=\sum v_\alpha\partial/\partial z_\alpha$. Under this local trivialization, the holomorphic section $\phi=(\phi_1,...,\phi_r)$ with $\phi_r\neq 0$ near $z_0$. The computation will be done on a chart $\{(z,[w_1,...,w_{r-1},1])\}$ of $P(E)$. The connection form of the Chern connection of $\tilde{G}$ is an $\End \tilde{E}$-valued $(1,0)$-form on $P(E)$ that we write as $\sum_\alpha A_\alpha dz_\alpha+\sum_i B_i dw_i$ with $A_\alpha$ and $B_i\in \End \tilde{E}$. Moreover, $A_\alpha(z_0,[\zeta])=0$ because of the choice of the frame
$\{s_i\}$.
By setting $D_{z_\alpha}=\partial/\partial z_\alpha+A_\alpha$ and $D_{w_i}=\partial/\partial w_i+B_i$, we have
\begin{align*}
  &\frac{\partial }{\partial z_\alpha}\tilde{G}_{(z,[w,1])}(\phi(z),\phi(z))=\tilde{G}_{(z,[w,1])}(D_{z_\alpha}\phi,\phi),\\
  &\frac{\partial }{\partial w_i}\tilde{G}_{(z,[w,1])}(\phi(z),\phi(z))=\tilde{G}_{(z,[w,1])}(D_{w_i}\phi,\phi).
\end{align*}

By (\ref{7}), $G(\phi)=G(z,\phi(z))=\tilde{G}_{(z,[\phi(z)])}(\phi(z),\phi(z))$ and we will suppress the subscript $(z,[\phi(z)])$ of $\tilde{G}$ for simplicity. Therefore, by chain rule
\begin{align*}
\partial\bar{\partial} G(z,\phi(z))(v,\bar{v})&=\sum^n_{\alpha,\beta=1}\frac{\partial^2  }{\partial z_\alpha \partial \bar{z}_\beta}\tilde{G}(\phi(z),\phi(z))v_\alpha \bar{v}_\beta\\
&=\big\|\sum_\alpha v_\alpha D_{z_\alpha}\phi+\sum_{i,\alpha}D_{w_i}\phi\frac{\partial (\frac{\phi_i}{\phi_r})}{\partial z_\alpha}v_\alpha\big\|^2_{\tilde{G}}\\
&-\sum_{\alpha,\beta}v_\alpha \bar{v}_\beta\big[\tilde{G}(R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\phi,\phi)+\sum^{r-1}_{i=1}\tilde{G}(P_{\alpha\bar{i}}\phi,\phi)\overline{\frac{\partial (\frac{\phi_i}{\phi_r})}{\partial z_\beta}}\\
&+\sum^{r-1}_{i=1}\tilde{G}(\mathcal{P}_{i\bar{\beta}}\phi,\phi)\frac{\partial (\frac{\phi_i}{\phi_r})}{\partial z_\alpha}+\sum^{r-1}_{i,j=1}\tilde{G}(Q_{i\bar{j}}\phi,\phi)\frac{\partial (\frac{\phi_i}{\phi_r})}{\partial z_\alpha}\overline{\frac{\partial (\frac{\phi_j}{\phi_r})}{\partial z_\beta}}\big].
\end{align*}
The last three terms involving $P,\mathcal{P}$, and $Q$ are zero by \cite[(5.8)]{ComplexFinsler}. Meanwhile, by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality
\begin{align*}
    \big| \sum_\alpha \frac{\partial}{\partial z_\alpha} G(z,\phi(z)) v_\alpha \big|^2=&\big|\tilde{G}\big(\sum_\alpha v_\alpha D_{z_\alpha}\phi+\sum_{i,\alpha}D_{w_i}\phi\frac{\partial (\frac{\phi_i}{\phi_r})}{\partial z_\alpha}v_\alpha,\phi\big)\big|^2\\
    \leq& \big\|\sum_\alpha v_\alpha D_{z_\alpha}\phi+\sum_{i,\alpha}D_{w_i}\phi\frac{\partial (\frac{\phi_i}{\phi_r})}{\partial z_\alpha}v_\alpha\big\|^2_{\tilde{G}} \|\phi\|^2_{\tilde{G}}.
\end{align*}
All added up, we see
\begin{align*}
    &\partial \bar{\partial}\log G(z,\phi(z))(v,\bar{v})\\
    &= \frac{1}{\|\phi\|^4_{\tilde{G}}}   \big(\big\|\sum_\alpha v_\alpha D_{z_\alpha}\phi+\sum_{i,\alpha}D_{w_i}\phi\frac{\partial (\frac{\phi_i}{\phi_r})}{\partial z_\alpha}v_\alpha\big\|^2_{\tilde{G}}  \| \phi \|^2_{\tilde{G}}   -\sum_{\alpha,\beta}v_\alpha \bar{v}_\beta \tilde{G}(R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\phi,\phi)\| \phi \|^2_{\tilde{G}}\\
    &- \big|\sum_\alpha \frac{\partial}{\partial z_\alpha} G(z,\phi(z)) v_\alpha \big|^2\big)\\
    &\geq -\frac{\sum_{\alpha,\beta}v_\alpha \bar{v}_\beta\tilde{G}( R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\phi,\phi)}{\|\phi\|^2_{\tilde{G}}}.
    \end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
    \partial \bar{\partial}\log G(z,\phi(z))(v,\bar{v})\geq -\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\frac{\tilde{G} (R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\zeta,\zeta)}{\tilde{G}(\zeta,\zeta)}v_\alpha\bar{v}_\beta;
\end{align*}
the equality holds if we choose $\phi(z)=(\zeta_1,...,\zeta_r)+ (\zeta_1,...,\zeta_r)\sum_\alpha(z-z_0)_\alpha$ under the frame $\{s_i\}$. Indeed,  $$\frac{\partial (\frac{\phi_i}{\phi_r})}{\partial z_\alpha}\bigr|_{z_0}=\frac{\frac{\partial \phi_i}{\partial z_\alpha}\phi_r-\phi_i \frac{\partial \phi_r}{z_\alpha}   }{\phi_r^2}\bigr|_{z_0}=0, \text{ and }  A_\alpha(z_0,[\zeta])=0. $$
So, at $(z_0,[\zeta])$,  $$\sum_\alpha v_\alpha D_{z_\alpha}\phi+\sum_{i,\alpha}D_{w_i}\phi\frac{\partial (\frac{\phi_i}{\phi_r})}{\partial z_\alpha}v_\alpha = \sum_\alpha v_\alpha \zeta \text{ is parallel with } \phi(z_0)=\zeta.$$
As a result, $$K_v(\zeta)=\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\frac{\tilde{G} (R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}}\zeta,\zeta)}{\tilde{G}(\zeta,\zeta)}v_\alpha\bar{v}_\beta=\Theta|_{O_{P(E)}(-1)}(v,\bar{v}).$$

\end{proof}

One immediate consequence of Lemma \ref{lem inf} is that the Kobayashi curvature is seminegative if and only if $\log G(z,\phi(z))$ is plurisubharmonic for any local holomorphic section $\phi$ (which is also equivalent to $G$ being plurisubharmonic on the total space $E$).

\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}


\section{Introduction}

Gravitational lensing is an important prediction of general relativity, providing both the test of the theory and a tool to detect faint but amplified sources and to measure masses also for lenses not detected by other means. The first confirmation of this effect came from the measurement of the displacement of star positions close to the Solar limb during a Solar eclipse \citep{dyson20}. Then, numerous examples of strong gravitational lensing with multiple images, arcs and rings were reported for lensed galaxies. In these cases the lenses and sources are extended and complex objects. For some applications, for example testing of general relativity, a point source lensed by a point-like lens (as already described by \citealt{chwolson24} and \citealt{einstein36}) would be more advantageous. However, until now only one star gravitationally lensed by another star has been resolved into  lensed images
\citep{dong19}.
This is because for a stellar lens (or a less massive object) the Einstein radius is too small to be resolved with current instrumentation, a problem already noted by \citet{einstein36}.
Lensing caused by stellar- and planetary-mass objects was detected many times with unresolved but amplified images of background stars, a phenomena called microlensing \citep{paczynski86b,paczynski96,udalski93,udalski05,wyrzykowski15,wyrzykowski20,mroz17,mroz18}.

For a galaxy lens a background star is too faint to be detected and distinguished from its host galaxy. Indeed, this was successful only for four stars (at $z=0.5$-$2$) lensed by clusters of galaxies or individual galaxies, the Refsdal supernova lensed into an Einstein cross and a delayed fifth image, predicted before its appearance \citep{kelly15,kelly16,diego16,grillo16,jauzac16}, two other supernovae \citep{goobar17,rodney21}, and a blue supergiant with a possible detection of a secondary image \citep{kelly18}.

A possibility to resolve a lensed image of an individual star is offered by the supermassive black hole (SMBH) in the center of the Milky Way, because it is massive and close enough for the Einstein ring to be resolved for some stars behind it. From the motion of stars around the SMBH, its mass was measured to be $4\times10^6\,\mbox{$M_\odot$}$ \citep{genzel96,genzel97,genzel00,eckart96,eckart97,eckart02,ghez98,ghez00,ghez05,ghez08}. However, even with this mass, the lensing of the orbiting stars is difficult to detect. The star S87 has the widest orbit explored so far with the semi-major axis of $2.74"$ \citep{gillessen17}. This corresponds to a maximum distance behind the SMBH of 0.05\,pc or 10\,000\,AU. At such a distance the Einstein radius is only 5\,milli-arcsec, an order of magnitude smaller than the best resolution currently achievable in the optical for stars as faint as those orbiting the SMBH. Moreover, detecting lensing signatures would require a near perfect alignment of a star with the direction towards the SMBH.

The future telescopes will reach resolution sufficient to resolve such small lensing signatures. \citet{bozza09} predicted that in 2062 the secondary lensed images of stars S6 and S27 will reach 20-22\,mag at a separation of 0.3--0.4 milli-arcsec from the shadow of the SMBH \citep[see also][]{wardle92,jaroszynski98,depaolis03,bozza04,bozza05,binnun10}. In 2047 the secondary image of star S14 will reach 23.5\,mag 0.14 milli-arcsec away. \citet{bozza12} also considered the possibility of detecting astrometric shifts of the primary images of orbiting stars due to lensing, with expected values of up to 0.3 milli-arcsec. There is also a possibility of detecting the amplification of stars behind the SMBH, but at the current sensitivity limit these events are rarer than one per century \citep{alexander99}.

The lensing signatures should however be stronger and easier to detect for background stars. The Einstein radius is $0.7$, $1.4$, and $1.6"$ for a star 1, 8, and 16\,kpc behind the SMBH, respectively. The major limitation is therefore not the resolution directly, but confusion caused by stars in the Galactic center and the number density of distant stars which could align almost perfectly with the SMBH and which could be lensed.
\citet{chaname01} predicted microlensing events by the SMBH of several stars down to the magnitude of 21--23\,mag (see also \citealt{alexander99} for microlensing rates at lower sensitivities without separating the images)\footnote{Lensing of stars by the SMBH in the center of M31 was also considered by \citet{bozza08}.}. However, they only considered bulge stars and their adopted limits are much shallower than what will soon be available.
The lensing of stars behind the SMBH in the Galactic center has therefore not been investigated so far in the context of future telescopes. Hence, the objective of this paper is to predict whether they will have sufficient sensitivity to detect strongly lensed stars in the background of the SMBH in the Galactic center, and what limiting magnitudes are necessary for this.

We adopt the observing wavelength of $2.2\,\mbox{$\mu$m}$ ($K$-band) and the Vega magnitude system, so we convert AB magnitudes by subtracting 1.85 \citep{blanton07}.

\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth,clip]{n_d_5hr.eps}
\caption{Cumulative number of resolved lensed images of background stars expected to be seen by high-resolution telescopes assuming $5\sigma$ limits in 5\,hr of integration (Table~\ref{tab:tel}). Solid lines correspond to an exponential disk, whereas dotted lines correspond to the bulge. Blue curves correspond to an optimistic case that the stars will be attenuated in the same way as stars orbiting the SMBH, red curves correspond to dust extinction rising linearly with distance, and  black curves correspond to the extinction model in which the dust density decreases exponentially with the distance from the Galactic center (eq.~\ref{eq:ak} in the appendix).
}
\label{fig:n_d}
\end{figure*}

\begin{table*}
    \centering
     \caption{Assumed spatial resolutions and limiting magnitudes (Vega, $5\sigma$) in 1\,hr and 5\,hr at 2.2\,micron.}
    \begin{tabular}{cccl}
    \hline\hline
    Telescope/instrument & Resolution (milli-arcsec) & Sensitivity (mag) & References\\
    \hline
    ELT/MICADO & 11 & 27.2/28.0 & \citet{micado10,micado18}\tablenotemark{1}  \\
    TMT/IRIS & 15 & 27.3/28.2 & \citet{iris20}, \citet{iris10}\tablenotemark{2}\\
    GMT/GMTIFS & 22 & 26.2/27.1 & \citet{gmt12}, \citet{gmtifs12}\tablenotemark{3}\\
    JWST/NIRCam & 71 & 27.3/28.2 & \citet{jwst14}\tablenotemark{4}
    \citet{jwst16}\tablenotemark{5} \\
    VLTI/GRAVITY & 3 & 19.0\tablenotemark{6} & \citet{gravity17} \\ & & & \citet{bozza12}\\
    Keck or VLT or NTT  & 50 & 19.0\tablenotemark{6} & \citet{ghez08}\\
    \hline
    \end{tabular}
    \tablenotetext{1}{\url{simcado.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html}}
    \tablenotetext{2}{\url{www.tmt.org/etc/iris}}
    \tablenotetext{3}{\url{www.mso.anu.edu.au/gmtifs/Performance/GMTIFS-Imager-ETC.html}}
    \tablenotetext{4}{\url{jwst-docs.stsci.edu/near-infrared-camera/nircam-predicted-performance/nircam-point-spread-functions}}
    \tablenotetext{5}{\url{jwst-docs.stsci.edu/near-infrared-camera/nircam-predicted-performance/nircam-imaging-sensitivity}}
    \tablenotetext{6}{The most optimistic limit for this instrument.}
    \label{tab:tel}
\end{table*}

\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,clip]{Nlim.eps}
\caption{Number of resolved lensed images of background stars expected to be seen by high-resolution telescopes as a function of $K$-band limiting magnitude. Solid line corresponds to an exponential disk, whereas dotted line corresponds to the bulge. The extinction model in which the dust density decreases exponentially with the distance from the Galactic center was assumed (eq.~\ref{eq:ak} in the appendix).
}
\label{fig:Nlim}
\end{figure*}

\section{Methods}
\label{sec:methods}

A star lensed by the SMBH can be identified if the secondary image on the other side of the SMBH is bright enough.
The detectability of the secondary image depends on the intrinsic (non-lensed) brightness of the star, the distance of the star behind the SMBH and the angular separation of the true image ($\beta$). Hence, we calculated the total number of detectable lensed stars by integrating along the distance from the SMBH and along the angular separation in the following steps.

\begin{enumerate}
    \item For each distance we calculated the angular size of the Einstein radius ($\mbox{$\theta_{\rm E}$}$) assuming the mass of the SMBH of $4.261\times10^6\,\mbox{$M_\odot$}$ and the observer-lens distance of $\mbox{$D_{\rm L}$}=8.247$\,kpc \citep{gravity20}.
    \item We considered only the distances from the SMBH for which the Einstein ring is larger by a factor of 5 than the resolution of a given telescope, so that the separation of the lensed images can be measured. This assumption has little impact on the calculations, because it excludes only very small distances and hence a very small volume. We integrated up to the lens-source distance $\mbox{$D_{\rm LS}$}=16$\,kpc from the SMBH, which we assume to be the radius of the Milky Way disk.
    \item For a given distance from the observer to the star $\mbox{$D_{\rm S}$}=\mbox{$D_{\rm L}$}+\mbox{$D_{\rm LS}$}$ and for a given limiting magnitude of the telescope, we calculated the absolute magnitude above which a secondary image can be detected.
    \item We corrected this absolute magnitude for dust extinction in three ways. First, for each star we applied the same correction as for stars orbiting the SMBH of $A_{K,{\rm SMBH}}=2.42$\,mag \citep{fritz11}. This effectively assumes that there is no dust behind the SMBH, so is a lower limit on dust extinction. Second, we assumed that extinction is linear with distance, so for a star 8.247\,kpc behind the SMBH the extinction is twice the value measured for the SMBH surroundings. Given that most of the dust along this line-of-sight is located close to the Galactic center, this likely overestimates the extinction for large distances.
    Finally, we assumed a more realistic model with dust density decreasing exponentially with the distance from the Galactic center, and the extinction proportional to the integral of this density (eq.~\ref{eq:ak} in the appendix). \label{item:dust}
    \item For each angular separation of the true position of the star and SMBH $\beta$, we calculated the amplification factor of the secondary image $\mu_-=(u^2+2)/(2u\sqrt{u^2+4})-0.5$, where $u=\beta/\mbox{$\theta_{\rm E}$}$ \citep{schneider92}. The absolute magnitude limit from the previous point was corrected for this amplification. We considered angular separations up to $5\mbox{$\theta_{\rm E}$}$ at which the secondary image has the flux of only 0.14\% of the un-lensed star. Most of the detectable lensed stars are located within $2\mbox{$\theta_{\rm E}$}$, but such wider angles resulted in non-negligible increase for deep limits. \label{item:ampl}
    \item For each angular separation $\beta$ and for a given distance $\mbox{$D_{\rm S}$}$ between the observer and the star, we calculated the volume between $\beta$ and $\beta+d\beta$ and between $\mbox{$D_{\rm S}$}$ and $\mbox{$D_{\rm S}$}+d\mbox{$D_{\rm S}$}$ as $2\pi\mbox{$D_{\rm S}$}^2\beta\, d\beta\, d\mbox{$D_{\rm S}$}$.
    \label{item:volume}
    \item In order to estimate the volume number density of stars we
    used the star luminosity function as measured
    within 100\,pc in the {\it Gaia} $G$ filter \citep{gaia21}. Each $G$-band absolute magnitude was converted to $K$-band using main-sequence colors \citep{pecaut12,pecaut13}\footnote{\url{www.pas.rochester.edu/$\sim$emamajek/EEM\_dwarf\_UBVIJHK\_colors\_Teff.txt}}. The result does not change significantly if we use a luminosity function measured directly in the $K$-band \citep[eq.~3 and table 2 in][]{mamon82}.
    Then we assumed that for stars in the disk this luminosity function only applies close to the Solar neighborhood and on the other side of the SMBH with $\mbox{$D_{\rm LS}$}=\mbox{$D_{\rm L}$}=8.247$\,kpc and scaled the number density at other distances to reflect an exponential disk, i.e.~by a factor $\exp[-(\mbox{$D_{\rm LS}$}-\mbox{$D_{\rm L}$})/h_{\rm disk}]$ with a scale length of $h_{\rm disk}=2.75$\,kpc \citep{zheng01}.
    We then considered the bulge applying the model of \citet{dwek95}, in which the star number density is proportional to $\exp[-0.5(\mbox{$D_{\rm LS}$}/\mbox{kpc})^2]$. The normalization was set so that at the Galaxy center the bulge has the number density a factor of $1.23/1.07=1.15$ higher than the disk \citep[table~2 of][]{batista11}. \label{item:model}
    \item To obtain a local number density of detectable stars at a given distance from the SMBH and at a given angular separation, we integrated this (scaled) star luminosity function above the limiting absolute magnitude derived in \ref{item:ampl}.
    \item We multiplied this number density by the volume element derived in \ref{item:volume} and obtained the number of detectable secondary images in this element.
    \item We added the contributions of each angular separation and each distance to derive the cumulative number of detectable lensed stars as a function of distance from the SMBH.
\end{enumerate}

We made these calculations for
the Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) with the Multi-Adaptive Optics Imaging Camera for Deep Observations (MICADO),
Thirty Meter Telescope with the Infrared Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS),
Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) with GMT Integral-Field Spectrograph (GMTIFS),
James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) with Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam),
and Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI) with GRAVITY. We also made the calculations for the parameters corresponding to the best existing images taken with the Keck Telescope, Very Large Telescope (VLT), or New Technology Telescope (NTT).
The angular resolutions and $5\sigma$ limiting magnitudes in 1 and 5\,hr hours of integration used in the calculations are shown in Table~\ref{tab:tel}. For ELT, TMT, and GMT the resolution reflects the diffraction limit at $2.2\,\mbox{$\mu$m}$.
For 4--8\,m-class telescopes and for VLTI/GRAVITY, instead of 1 and 5\,hr limits we used the most optimistic limit in order to show the maximum number of detectable lensed stars.

\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}

For each telescope listed in Table~\ref{tab:tel}, Fig.~\ref{fig:n_d} presents six cumulative numbers of lensed stars with detectable secondary images, corresponding to three choices of the extinction model (point \ref{item:dust} above), and two choices of the number density model, the disk and bulge (point \ref{item:model} above). We assumed $5\sigma$ limits in 5\,hr of integration for this figure, and in 1\,hr of integration for Fig.~\ref{fig:n_d_1hr} in the appendix.
For 4--8\,m-class telescopes and for VLTI/GRAVITY we show a single panel, because we adopt the same (most optimistic) limiting magnitude.
ELT, TMT, GMT, and JWST should detect lensed secondary images of around 100 (60) stars in the disk and 30 (20) stars in the bulge, down to 28 (27)\,mag (Vega) $5\sigma$ limits requiring 5 (1)\,hr of integration. The number depends mostly on adopted extinction, because it affects mostly larger distances at which the probed volume is larger. Most of the detected stars will be located within 5\,kpc behind the SMBH, because of the decreasing number density of stars in the disk.

VLTI/GRAVITY will not be able to see any secondary images of lensed stars, as their expected number is less than 0.1. Similarly, we predict that existing 4-10\,m telescopes should not have detected any of such images, consistently with the lack of such discovery using existing images.

Fig.~\ref{fig:Nlim} shows the number of detectable secondary images of lensed stars as a function of the limiting magnitude. In order to detect several such stars one needs the limit of at least 24\,mag.

\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}

We show that with future telescopes it will be possible to look for lensed images of background stars. One would need to identify two sources exactly on the other side of the position of the SMBH, whose  spectra and/or colours are identical and whose positions and fluxes satisfy the lensing equation.

The calculations show that sensitivity is a much more important factor to resolve lensed images of background stars than resolution (though sensitivity depends on resolution indirectly due to confusion, see below). Indeed, VLTI/GRAVITY has better resolution than 20--40\,m-class telescopes, but only the latter will be able to detect secondary images of lensed stars, because they will be 8--9 magnitudes more sensitive. Similarly, JWST/NIRCam has a resolution comparable to the existing images with the Keck telescope, but we predict it to be able to detect secondary images of lensed background  stars, due to its improved sensitivity (but see the confusion limitations below).

This is because all considered telescopes do have sufficient resolution to resolve lensed image separation, which is of the order of the Einstein radius. For a background star 1--16\,kpc behind the SMBH it is $0.7$--$1.6"$. The limitation is therefore the number of stars which are within such a small angular distance from the SMBH. In the vicinity of the SMBH the number density of stars is so high that several tens of such stars have been detected in the central arcsec; though the lensing signature for them is extremely small. For distances far enough so that the Einstein radius is larger, the number density of stars in the disk is very low. Hence, in order to detect any of them, a very deep image is required in order to probe intrinsically fainter, and hence more numerous, stars.

In these calculations we do not take into account confusion, which in principle is a limiting factor of this analysis. Most of the contribution to confusion will come from stars around the SMBH, because they are more numerous than those in the background or foreground. There are 57 stars within the central arcsec from the SMBH detected down to 19\,mag \citep[fig.~1 of][]{gillessen17}. In order to estimate the number of fainter stars in this population, first we calculated the absolute magnitudes at the distance of 8.247\,kpc (around the SMBH) for 19\,mag and the limiting magnitude listed in Table~\ref{tab:tel} and corrected them for dust extinction of $A_{K,{\rm SMBH}}=2.42$\,mag, as above. Then we integrated the luminosity function,
obtaining 70 times more stars down to the apparent magnitude of 27--28\,mag than to 19\,mag, i.e.~around 4000 stars brighter than 27--28\,mag within the central arcsec. This corresponds to $0.6$ stars per ELT beam, $1.0$ stars per TMT beam, $2.2$ stars per GMT beam, and $23$ stars per JWST beam (see Table~\ref{tab:tel}). This means that due to their unprecedented resolution, ELT, TMT, and GMT will only start to be confused at the listed limiting magnitudes towards the Galactic center. JWST will be heavily confused towards the Galactic center, so the possibility to detect lensed stars in the background will rely on the luck of the existence of a bright star in the background and accurate subtraction of stars around the SMBH. This may also turn out to be possible if the initial mass function in the Galactic center is much more top-heavy, with much fewer faint stars than we calculated above. Otherwise, only the limit of 20\,mag will result in one source near the Galactic center per JWST beam. However, at this shallower limit only up to 0.6 lensed background star is expected.

The detection of elongated arcs of lensed background stars will not be possible with any telescope. Taking an optimistic case of a giant with a radius ten times larger than that of the Sun only 0.5\,kpc behind the SMBH results in an angular size of 10 micro-arcsec. Hence, in order to detect the elongation of the image with the best future resolution, the star would need to be stretched by a factor of at least 1000. This requires an extremely accurate alignment of the star with the line towards the SMBH. The tangential magnification for a case of a point lens can be expressed as $\mu_t = x^2 / (x^2 - 1)$, where $x=\theta/\mbox{$\theta_{\rm E}$}$ and $\theta$ is the angular separation of the image and the lens \citep{schneider92}. Hence, $\mu_t=1000$ corresponds to $\theta=1.001\mbox{$\theta_{\rm E}$}$, so the image forms almost at the Einstein radius. Using the lens equation for a point lens $\beta=\theta-\mbox{$\theta_{\rm E}$}^2/\theta$, one obtains the true source separation from the lens of only $\beta=0.002\mbox{$\theta_{\rm E}$}$. Considering only the number of stars in such a narrow cone, one gets their total number a factor of $1000^2$ lower than for stars within $2\mbox{$\theta_{\rm E}$}$, calculated above and hence there will be no stars that close to the SMBH. The increased lensing amplification of the primary image will not help here, because at such small separations from the lens it is almost equal to the amplification of the secondary image, already considered in these calculations.

In order to look for or to confirm a pair of objects as lensed images, one can try to detect their rotation around the SMBH due to relative motion of the source and lens. Proper motion in units of milli-arcsec per year can be calculated from the linear velocity $v$ in {\mbox{km\,s$^{-1}$}} and distance $D$ in kpc as $v/(4.74D)$. Due to the orbital motion of the Sun around the Galactic center, the SMBH moves with respect to the Sun with a linear velocity of $200\,\mbox{km\,s$^{-1}$}$, whereas a background stars moves with a linear velocity of $400\,\mbox{km\,s$^{-1}$}$, assuming a flat rotation curve. Therefore for a star $\mbox{$D_{\rm LS}$}=1$, $3$, $10$, $16$\,kpc behind the SMBH, its relative proper motion with the SMBH is $\mu=400/(4.74\mbox{$D_{\rm S}$}) - 200/(4.74\times\mbox{$D_{\rm L}$})=4$, $2.4$, $0.5$, and $1.6$ milli-arcsec per year, respectively. The Einstein radius crossing time (Einstein timescale) is $t_E\equiv\mbox{$\theta_{\rm E}$}/\mu=170$, $440$, $3100$, and $1000$ years. Hence, especially for lensed stars not too far behind the SMBH, the comparison of images taken around a decade apart should reveal the rotation of the lensed images.

\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}

We show that  ELT, TMT, and GMT will resolve lensed images of around 100 (60) stars in the disk and 30 (20) stars in the bulge in the background of the SMBH down to 28 (27)\,mag (Vega) limits at $K$-band, requiring 5 (1)\,hr of integration.
In order to detect several such stars one needs the limit of at least 24\,mag.
With a decade-long monitoring one can also detect the rotation of the lensed images. JWST will likely be limited by the confusion caused by stars near the Galactic center. If these observations are successful, then together with the SMBH mass measurement from orbital motions of stars, this will provide a very clean test of general relativity, because both the source and the lens can be considered point-like. For such test the contribution of stars to the lensing signal will need to be taken into account. Within the central arcsec (0.2\,pc) the mass contribution of the SMBH is around 35 times higher than that of stars \citep{genzel97}, so this is not problematic, but may hide subtle deviations from general relativity. Moreover, the exact position and mass of the SMBH will be measured in an independent way. This will provide a cross-validation of measurements using orbital motions of stars. The effect of the SMBH spin will be of the order of 4 micro-arcsec for the first order \citep{sereno06}, so this will not be constrained by telescopes considered here.
The detection of stretched images of the lensed stars will not be possible, because given extremely small angular sizes of stars, the alignment with the SMBH would need to be better than $0.002\mbox{$\theta_{\rm E}$}$. The probability that a star happens to be in such a small volume is almost zero.

\acknowledgments

We wish to thank the referee for useful suggestions, and Joanna Baradziej, Mattia Negrello, Jean Surdej, and
\L ukasz Wyrzykowski for discussions and comments.
MJM acknowledges the discussion with Hong Du on gravitational lensing, which was a prompt to make calculations presented in the Letter.
MJM acknowledges the support of
the National Science Centre, Poland through the SONATA BIS grant 2018/30/E/ST9/00208.
This research has made use of
the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
the WebPlotDigitizer of Ankit Rohatgi ({\tt arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer})
and NASA's Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services.

\input{main.bbl}