\section{Section 1: Metal-diamond metallodielectric grating structures}
The SPP-RWA hybrid mode of the PQSM creates a vertically extended field down to about 5 \textmu m in depth (Fig.\,\ref{fig:Sfig1}a), and exhibits a quality factor of 935 (Fig.\,\ref{fig:Sfig1}b).
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{SFigure1_v2.png}
    \caption{Silver-diamond metallodielectric grating (a) Total electric field intensity with an extended y-range (b) The spectrum obtained by Fourier transform of the time decay of the field at 287.8 THz shows Q = 935.618.}
    \label{fig:Sfig1}
\end{figure}

The dispersion for SPPs under the Bragg grating coupling condition (i.e., surface plasmon polariton-Bloch wave (SPP-BW) modes) is given by Eq.\,\ref{eq:Seq1} \cite{Barnes2004-hl}.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Seq1}
    \text{Re}\Big[\frac{\omega}{c}\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon_\text{m}\epsilon_\text{d}}{\epsilon_\text{m}+\epsilon_\text{d}}}\Big]=\Big|k_x+m\frac{2\pi}{p}\Big|
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_\text{m/d}$ is the permittivity of metallic/dielectric material of the metallodielectric grating structure and $m$ is the integer denoting specific SPP modes \cite{Gao2009-fk,Barnes2004-hl}.
While RWA modes are independent of metal properties, the SPP-RWA hybrid becomes highly dependent on the properties of the plasmonic material. The SPPs play a role in creating a large field enhancement in the metallodielectric grating structure, and a dramatic reduction in the electric field intensity is observed when silver is replaced with a weak plasmonic material, palladium (Fig.\,\ref{fig:Sfig2}b). It is evident that the RWA is responsible for creating a vertically extended electric field as it is maintained even when silver is replaced with a perfect electric conductor (PEC), which cannot support SPPs (Fig.\,\ref{fig:Sfig2}).

\begin{figure}[hbt!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{SFigure2.png}
    \caption{Field distribution, Re($E_y$), of a grating structure made with diamond - (a) PEC (b) palladium and (c) silver with $p$ = 434 nm, $w$ = 125 nm, and $t$ = 125nm.}
    \label{fig:Sfig2}
\end{figure}

Without changing geometric parameters of the PQSM, we can couple in the green laser excitation, which is necessary to populate the singlet state, by inducing a grating resonance at 532 nm via a off-normal incidence (i.e., compensating for the momentum mismatch, $k_x$). For example, for the given structure geometry studied in this work, TM-polarized illumination at 532 nm from the backside with $\theta_i$ = 2.9$^\circ$ satisfies the condition for the RWA mode for $m$ = 2. Figure\,\ref{fig:Sfig3} shows the electric field intensity profile, and the corresponding spatially averaged electric field intensity, $\braket{|E/E_0|^2}$, is 1.98.

\begin{figure}[hbt!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{SFigure3.png}
    \caption{Total electric field intensity of a Ag-diamond grating structure with $p$ = 434 nm, $w$ = 125 nm, and $t$ = 125 nm under TM-polarized illumination at 532 nm from the backside with an off-normal incidence ($\theta_i$ = 2.9$^\circ$).}
    \label{fig:Sfig3}
\end{figure}

\section{Section 2: Rate equations for the 8-level scheme}
The local density of each sublevel, $n_{\ket{i}}$, is calculated based on the coupled rate equations (Eq.\,\ref{eq:n1} - Eq.\,\ref{eq:n8}) under the assumption of spin-conserving optical transition. We impose a number conservation constraint (i.e., $\sum\limits_{i} n_{\ket{i}}=n_\text{NV}$, where $n_\text{NV}$ is the total NV density).

\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
    \frac{dn_{\ket{1}}}{dt} &= -(W_\text{pump}+W_\text{MW})n_{\ket{1}}+W_\text{MW}n_{\ket{2}}+k_{31}n_{\ket{3}}+k_{61}n_{\ket{6}}+k_{71}n_{\ket{7}}\label{eq:n1}\\
    \frac{dn_{\ket{2}}}{dt} &= W_\text{MW}n_{\ket{1}}-(W_\text{pump}+W_\text{MW})n_{\ket{2}}+k_{42}n_{\ket{4}}+k_{62}n_{\ket{6}}+k_{72}n_{\ket{7}}\label{eq:n2}\\
    \frac{dn_{\ket{3}}}{dt} &= W_\text{pump}n_{\ket{1}}-(k_{31}+k_{35}+k_{38})n_{\ket{3}}\label{eq:n3}\\
    \frac{dn_{\ket{4}}}{dt} &= W_\text{pump}n_{\ket{2}}-(k_{42}+k_{45}+k_{48})n_{\ket{4}}\label{eq:n4}\\
    \frac{dn_{\ket{5}}}{dt} &= k_{35}n_{\ket{3}}+k_{45}n_{\ket{4}}-(\gamma_\text{nr}+F_p\gamma_\text{r}+\gamma_\text{quenching}+W_\text{probe})n_{\ket{5}}+W_\text{probe}n_{\ket{6}}\label{eq:5}\\
    \frac{dn_{\ket{6}}}{dt} &= (\gamma_\text{nr}+F_p\gamma_\text{r}+\gamma_\text{quenching}+W_\text{probe})n_{\ket{5}}-(W_\text{probe}+k_{61}+k_{62})n_{\ket{6}}\label{eq:n6}\\
    \frac{dn_{\ket{7}}}{dt} &= -(\Gamma_{\text{NV}^0}+k_{72}+k_{71})n_{\ket{7}}+W_{\text{NV}^0}n_{\ket{8}}\label{eq:n7}\\
    \frac{dn_{\ket{8}}}{dt} &= k_{38}n_{\ket{3}}+k_{48}n_{\ket{4}}+\Gamma_{\text{NV}^0}n_{\ket{7}}-W_{\text{NV}^0}n_{\ket{8}}\label{eq:n8}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}

$k_{ij}$ is the transition rate constant from state $\ket{i}$ to state $\ket{j}$. $\Gamma_{\text{NV}^0}$ is the decay rate from $\ket{7}$ to $\ket{8}$, and $\Gamma=\gamma_\text{nr}+F_p\gamma_\text{r}+\gamma_\text{quenching}$ is the decay rate from $\ket{5}$ to $\ket{6}$, where $F_p$ is the Purcell factor, $\gamma_\text{quenching}$ is the quenching rate, and $\gamma_\text{nr}$ and $\gamma_\text{r}$ are the non-radiative and radiative decay rates of state $\ket{5}$,  respectively. $W_\text{pump/probe}$ is the optical excitation rate of the triplet/singlet transition given by $\frac{\sigma_\text{t/s}I_\text{t/s}}{\hbar\omega_\text{t/s}}$, where $\sigma$ is the absorption cross sectional area, $I$ is the laser intensity, and $\omega$ is the angular frequency of the corresponding transition. The PQSM enhances the $W_\text{pump/probe}$ by a factor of $\sim\braket{|E/E_0|^2}$ at $\lambda$ = 532 nm/1042 nm. $W_\text{MW}$ is the microwave transition rate approximated as $\Omega_R^2 T_2^*/2$, where $\Omega_R$ is the Rabi angular frequency and $T_2^*$ is the electron spin dephasing time \cite{Dumeige2013-wf}. All of the relevant parameters are listed in Table 1 of the main manuscript.

\section{Section 3: Derivation for SNR of the PQSM}
The intrinsic rate of absorption can be written in terms of the intrinsic absorption cross section of the singlet state transition, $\sigma_\text{s}$ (Eq.\,\ref{eq:Seq10}).
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Seq10}
    \Gamma_0=\frac{\sigma_\text{s}I_s}{\hbar\omega_0}
\end{equation}
The plasmonic structures explored in this work enhance the rate of absorption of an emitter at the position ($x$,$y$,$z$) by a factor of $|E(x,y)/E_0|^2$, where $E_0$ is the electric field in a homogeneous environment and $E(x,y)$ is the electric field induced by the SPP-RWA hybrid mode of the PQSM, invariant in z-direction. The fractional change in IR intensity due to NV absorption, $I_\text{NV}(I_t,\Omega_R)$, for a given pixel size of $L^2$ illuminated with $I_s$ is defined as Eq.\,\ref{eq:Seq12}.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Seq12}
\begin{split}
    I_\text{NV}(I_t,\Omega_R)&=\frac{I_\text{out}(0,0)-I_\text{out}(I_t,\Omega_R)}{I_\text{out}(0,0)}\\
    &=\frac{I_s}{I_\text{out}(0,0)}\frac{\sigma_\text{s}N_\text{NV}(I_t,\Omega_R)}{L^2}\frac{\int_0^{d_\text{NV}}\int_{-p/2}^{p/2} |\frac{E(x,y)}{E_0}|^2dx dy}{\int_0^{d_\text{NV}}\int_{-p/2}^{p/2}dx dy}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $N_\text{NV}(I_t,\Omega_R)$ is the total net NV population in the ground singlet state for a given $V_\text{pixel}$, which is given by $(n_{\ket{6}}-n_{\ket{5}})V_\text{pixel}$. The net population of the singlet ground state (i.e., $n_{\ket{6}}-n_{\ket{5}}$) is used to account for stimulated emission. The SNR is proportional to $I_\text{NV}(I_t,\Omega_R)-I_\text{NV}(I_t,0)$, which is expressed as Eq.\,\ref{eq:Seq13} in the limit of low contrast (i.e., $I_\text{out}(I_t,\Omega_R) \approx I_\text{out}(I_t,0) \approx I_\text{out}(0,0)$).

\begin{equation}\label{eq:Seq13}
\begin{split}
    I_\text{NV}(I_t,\Omega_R)-I_\text{NV}(I_t,0)&=\frac{\sigma_\text{s}[(n_{\ket{6}}-n_{\ket{5}})_{\Omega_R}-(n_{\ket{6}}-n_{\ket{5}})_0]V_\text{pixel}}{L^2 R_0}\frac{\int_0^{d_\text{NV}}\int_{-p/2}^{p/2} |\frac{E(x,y)}{E_0}|^2dx dy}{\int_0^{d_\text{NV}}\int_{-p/2}^{p/2}dx dy}\\
    &\propto \braket{|E/E_0|^2}V_\text{pixel}n_\text{NV}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $R_0$ is the reflection of the PQSM. Thus, the SNR of the pixelated plasmonic imaging surface under the assumption of the shot noise limit is given by Eq.\,\ref{eq:Seq14}.

\begin{equation}\label{eq:Seq14}
    \text{SNR}=\sqrt{\frac{I_s\Delta t_\text{mea}L^2}{2R_0\hbar\omega_0}}\frac{\sigma_\text{s}[(n_{\ket{6}}-n_{\ket{5}})_{\Omega_R}-(n_{\ket{6}}-n_{\ket{5}})_0]}{p}\int_0^{d_\text{NV}}\int_{-p/2}^{p/2} |\frac{E(x,y)}{E_0}|^2dx dy
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}[hbt!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{SFigure4.png}
    \caption{Spatially averaged electric field intensity, $\braket{|E/E_0|^2}$ (left), and the figure of merit, $\braket{|E/E_0|^2}d_\text{NV}$ (right), of the PQSM.}
    \label{fig:Sfig4}
\end{figure}

The performance of an ensemble-based sensor scales with $\braket{|E/E_0|^2}V_\text{pixel}$. Although the electric field is highly concentrated near the metal surface as shown in the plotted $\braket{|E/E_0|^2}$ (Fig. S4), the figure of merit, $\braket{|E/E_0|^2}V_\text{pixel}$, increases with $d_\text{NV}$ (or $V_\text{pixel}$ for a given pixel size of $L^2$).

\section{Section 4: Optimizing homodyne detection condition}
To find the optimal operating condition for homodyne detection, a combination of $R$ and $\Delta\phi_\text{LO}$ that maximizes SNR/$\sqrt{L^2}$ (Eq. S14) is found numerically for given $I_s$ and $I_t$,  while $I_\text{out}(I_t,\Omega_R)$ is replaced by $I_\text{out}(I_t,\Omega_R,R,\Delta\phi_\text{LO})$ (Eq. 6 in the main manuscript). Figure\,\ref{fig:Sfig6} shows the contour plot of the area-normalized SNR as a function of $\Delta\phi_\text{LO}$ and $R$ for given $I_s$, $I_t$, and $\Delta t_\text{mea}$. The optimal condition for homodyne detection is found at $\Delta\phi_\text{LO}$ = 1.28$\pi$ and $R$ = 0.87.

\begin{figure}[hbt!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.35\columnwidth]{SFigure5.png}
    \caption{Homodyne detection. $P_0$ is the incident power at 1042 nm given by $I_sL^2$. The metasurface signal, $|r_{0/\text{NV}}|^2 P_0$, and the local oscillator signal, $P_0$, are the input signals to a beam splitter (BS) with a power splitting ratio of $R$, and the interfered signal is detected by a CCD camera.}
    \label{fig:Sfig5}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[hbt!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{SFigure6.png}
    \caption{Contour plot of SNR normalized by the pixel area of $L^2$ as a function of $R$ and $\Delta\phi_\text{LO}$ for given $I_s$ = 1 mW/\textmu m$^2$, $I_t$ = 0.1 mW/\textmu m$^2$, and $\Delta t_\text{mea}$ = 10 \textmu s. The maximum is found at $\Delta \phi_\text{LO}$ = 1.28$\pi$ and $R$ = 0.87, indicated by the crossover of the two dotted lines.}
    \label{fig:Sfig6}
\end{figure}

\section{Section 5: Optimal readout condition for pulsed measurements}
As shown in Fig. 4a of the main manuscript, in pulsed measurements, the system achieves maximum spin contrast within the first 1 \textmu s of readout and finally loses polarization with increasing readout time, limited by the lifetime of the ground singlet state. Thus, there exists an optimal readout time that gives the maximum time-averaged signal. For given $I_t$ and $I_s$, the optimal readout time, $\Delta t_\text{mea}$, that maximizes the quantity of Eq.\,\ref{eq:Seq15} is found, and the result is plotted in Fig.\,\ref{fig:Sfig7}.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Seq15}
    \frac{\int_0^{t_\text{mea}}[(n_{\ket{6}}(t))_{\Omega_R}-(n_{\ket{6}}(t))_0]dt}{\int_0^{t_\text{mea}}dt}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{SFigure7.png}
    \caption{Optimal readout time for pulsed measurements for a given $d_\text{NV}$ = 5 \textmu m.}
    \label{fig:Sfig7}
\end{figure}

\section{Introduction}

The ability to optically measure quantities such as electric field, magnetic field, temperature, and strain under ambient conditions makes the NV system appealing for a range of wide-field sensing applications, from imaging biological systems \cite{Barry2016-rc} and electrical activity in integrated circuits \cite{Turner2020-rq} to studying quantum magnetism and superconductivity in quantum materials \cite{Thiel2016-yf,Tetienne2015-uv,Du2017-xr,Ku2020-ev}. NV-based magnetometers have shown exceptional sensitivity at room temperature, but conventional fluorescence-based readout methods result in sensitivity values far from the spin projection noise limit primarily due to background fluorescence, poor photon collection efficiency, and low spin-state contrast \cite{Barry2020-ec}. These limitations can be overcome by probing the infrared singlet transition near 1042 nm by absorption. However, this absorption-based readout has only been demonstrated for bulk diamond samples with a large optical path length of millimeters \cite{Dumeige2013-wf,Chatzidrosos2017-vf} to centimeters \cite{Bougas2018-ej,Jensen2014-xu} due to the small absorption cross section of the singlet state transition. This long-pathlength requirement presents the central challenge in IR readout to imaging microscopy, where the sensing depth should commonly be below the micron-scale. The plasmonic quantum sensing metasurface (PQSM) solves this problem by confining vertically incident IR probe light in a few-micron-thick diamond layer with a quality factor near 1,000. The PQSM consists of a metallodielectric grating that couples surface plasmon polariton (SPP) excitations and Rayleigh-Wood anomaly (RWA) modes \cite{Gao2009-fk,Steele2003-nj}. The localized plasmonic resonance causes local field concentration as well as a wavelength-scale field enhancement when coupled with the RWA modes. Unlike fluorescence, the directional reflection (or transmission) can be captured with near-unity efficiency. In particular,  detection of the reflected coherent probe light with a standard camera enables shot-noise limited detection, eliminating the need of single photon detectors. Taken together, our analysis predicts that the PQSM coupled to NV sensing layers can enable a sensitivity below 1 nT Hz$^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ per \textmu m$^2$ of sensing area.

\begin{figure*}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{Figure1_v2.png}
    \caption{(a) Plasmonic quantum sensing metasurface (PQSM) consisting of a metallodielectric grating and proposed homodyne-detection-based sensing scheme. TM-polarized incoming light induces a SPP-RWA hybrid mode, creating a vertically extended field profile as shown in the the overlapping Re($E_y$). With an applied microwave magnetic field, the PQSM generates spin-dependent reflection with an additional phase change, $\Delta\phi_\text{NV}$. The spin-dependent signal, $|E_\text{sig}|^2$, is separated from the un-diffracted beam, $|E_\text{ud}|^2$, in a dark-field excitation geometry and interferes with a local oscillator, $|E_\text{LO}|^2$. The interfered output beam, $I_\text{out}(I_t,\Omega_R,R,\Delta\phi_\text{LO})$, is detected by a CCD camera.  (c) Total electric field intensity of RWA-SPP resonances upon normal incidence at $\lambda_0$ = 1042 nm with $p$ = 434 nm, $w$ = 125 nm, and $t$ = 125 nm. The arrow plot shows the magnetic field generated by a uniform driving current in an infinite array of plasmonic Ag wires.}
    \label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure*}

\section{Results}
\subsection{IR-absorption-based detection scheme}
The principle of NV-based magnetometers lies in the Zeeman energy shift of the NV defect spin sublevels that can be polarized and measured optically. As illustrated in Fig.\,\ref{fig:fig1}c, the spin sublevels m$_\text{s}$ = 0 and m$_\text{s}$ = $\pm1$ of the $^3$A$_2$ ground triplet state, labelled as $\ket{1}$ and $\ket{2}$, respectively, are separated by a zero-field splitting of D = 2.87 GHz, whose transition can be accessed with a resonant microwave field. Upon spin-conserving off-resonant green laser excitation, a fraction of the population decays non-radiatively into the $^1$A$_1$ metastable singlet state, $\ket{5}$, predominantly from $\ket{4}$ as k$_{45}$ $\gg$ k$_{35}$, where k$_\text{ij}$ indicates the decay rate from level i to level j. After a sub-ns decay from $\ket{5}$ to $\ket{6}$, the shelving time at $\ket{6}$ exceeds 200 ns at room temperature \cite{Acosta2010-cp}. Therefore, the population of $\ket{6}$ can be measured by absorption of the singlet state transition resonant at 1042 nm. \par
Figure\,\ref{fig:fig1}a shows the proposed PQSM for the IR-absorption-based detection scheme. The sensing surface is pumped with a green laser at 532 nm for NV spin  initialization and illuminated with transverse magnetic (TM) polarized probe light at $\lambda_0$ = 1042 nm for IR readout. The PQSM-NV layer causes a spin-dependent phase and amplitude of the IR reflection. The spatially well-defined signal beam is separated from the incident probe field in a dark-field excitation geometry (i.e., k-vector filtering). By interfering with a local oscillator,  phase-sensitive homodyne detection at the camera enables measurement at the photon shot noise limit. The PQSM doubles as a wire array for NV microwave control \cite{Shalaginov2020-sd,Ibrahim2020-ru}: with a subwavelength spacing, an array of the silver wires produces a homogeneous transverse magnetic field, $\vec{B}$, as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:fig1}b. Local excitation and probing of NVs within a pixel are possible by running a current through an individual wire.

\subsection{Metasurface design}
Here we discuss photonic design criteria to maximize the IR signal of spin ensemble sensors. The IR absorption readout has only been successfully implemented with bulk diamond samples due to the intrinsic absorption cross sectional area that is about an order of magnitude smaller than that of the triplet state transition \cite{Dumeige2013-wf,Jensen2014-xu}. This weak light-matter interaction can be enhanced by modifying the electromagnetic environment of quantum emitters. The rate of absorption of a quantum emitter under an oscillating electromagnetic field with frequency, $\omega_0$, can be expressed following Fermi's golden rule.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq1}
    \Gamma_\text{abs}=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}|\braket{5|\vec{\mu}\cdot\vec{E}|6}|^2\rho(\omega_0)
\end{equation}
where $\vec{\mu}=e\cdot \vec{r}$ is the transition dipole moment operator, $\vec{E}$ is the electric fields, and $\rho(\omega)=\frac{1}{\pi\hbar}\frac{\frac{1}{2}\gamma^*}{(\omega-\omega_0)^2+(\frac{1}{2}\gamma^*)^2}$ is the electronic density of states, which is modeled as a continuum of final states with a Lorentzian distribution centered at $\omega_0$ with linewidth $\gamma^*$. The equation shows that the rate can be enhanced by increasing the electric field at the emitter position. Plasmonic structures can focus light intensity at subwavelength scales, and thus, they have  been used to increase spontaneous emission rates of single emitters or ensembles of emitters confined in a nanometer-scale volume \cite{Choy2013-bx,Akselrod2014-gx,Hoang2015-en,Karamlou2018-cv,Bogdanov2017-uu,De_Leon2012-ee,Hausmann2013-ob,Jun2010-wb,Russell2012-cn}. However, this field concentration comes with the trade-off of reducing the number of NV centers, $N_\text{NV}$, that are coupled to the optical field. Balancing this trade-off depends on the use case: sensing applications with a spatial resolution below the grating period benefit from highly localized SPP-like modes, while applications with larger lateral resolution benefit from more RWA-like modes that average over a larger $N_\text{NV}$. To guide the PQSM optimization, we adopt a figure of merit addressing the latter of $\braket{|E/E_0|^2}V_\text{pixel}n_\text{NV}$, where $\braket{|E/E_0|^2}=\int_\text{pixel}|E/E_0|^2dV/\int_\text{pixel}dV$ is the spatially averaged optical field enhancement over the single-pass field without plasmonic structure, $E_0$, $d_\text{NV}$ is the thickness of the diamond sensing layer with NV density of $n_\text{NV}$ , and $V_\text{pixel} =L^2 d_\text{NV}$  is the sensing volume.\par
The SPP-RWA resonance delocalizes the plasmonic modes, creating a large field enhancement within a few-micron-thick surface layer of diamond, as shown in the corresponding spatially-resolved electric field intensity profile (Fig.\,\ref{fig:fig1}b). The structure dimensions can be chosen to find the desired balance between SPP modes and RWA modes: stronger SPP localization resulting in more localized sensing can be traded against better sensitivity, and vice versa. SPPs do not couple with free-space light without satisfying the momentum matching conditions. An incoming far-field optical excitation can excite SPPs modes via a grating structure with period $p$ given by $G = 2 m/p$ where $m$ is an integer. To form a metallodielectric grating, the plasmonic nanostructures are arranged periodically with a period of $\lambda_0/n$, where $\lambda_0$ is 1042 nm and $n$ is the refractive index of diamond. As evident in the dispersion relation of RWA (Eq.\,\ref{eq:eq2}), this period satisfies the condition for first-diffraction-order RWA mode under normal incidence (i.e., $k_x = 0$).
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq2}
    \frac{\omega}{c}n=k_x+m\frac{2\pi}{p}
\end{equation}
where $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum, $k_x =k_0\sin(\theta_i)$ is the momentum component of free-space light in the direction of grating period, and $m$ denotes the diffraction order \cite{Gao2009-fk,Steele2003-nj}. When the RWA mode is excited, the incident electromagnetic wave diffracts parallel to the grating surface and creates a field profile that extends vertically away from the grating surface \cite{Wood1935-wq,Rayleigh1907-tp}. Thus, the SPP-RWA hybrid mode shows the electric field intensity profile extending a few microns from the grating surface while maintaining a large field concentration near the Ag-diamond interface as shown in  Fig.\,\ref{fig:fig1}b. While the RWA mode alone does not depend on the properties of the plasmonic material (Eq.\,\ref{eq:eq2}), the SPP-RWA hybrid mode is highly dependent on the dispersive permittivity of the plasmonic material. When silver is replaced with palladium (Pd), a weak plasmonic material, the electric field enhancement is heavily suppressed (refer to SI Section 1). As the SPP-RWA mode delocalizes the field away from the lossy material, this PQSM exhibits a quality factor of 935 at 1042 nm, an exceptionally high value for a plasmonic coupled mode. \par
To determine the signal from a pixel of the PQSM containing an ensemble of emitters, the rate of absorption is averaged over all four orientations of NV emitters. For a given angle, $\theta$, between the emitter’s transition dipole orientation and the electric field created by the PQSM in the diamond layer, Eq.\,\ref{eq:eq1} can be expressed as Eq.\,\ref{eq:eq3} in terms of the spontaneous emission rate of the singlet state transition, $\gamma=\frac{\omega_0^3|\braket{5|\vec{\mu}|6}|^2}{3\pi\epsilon\hbar c^3}$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq3}
    \Gamma_\text{abs}=\frac{3}{\pi^2\hbar}\frac{\gamma}{\gamma^*}(\frac{\lambda_0}{n})^3\cdot\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_0\epsilon|\vec{E}|^2\cos^2(\theta)
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is the relative permittivity of diamond. For a [100] diamond plane, all four orientations of NVs are expected to have equal contributions for the given SPP-RWA-induced field profile. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the pixelated plasmonic imaging surface is given by Eq.\,\ref{eq:eq4} under the assumption of the shot noise limit.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq4}
\begin{split}
    \text{SNR}&=\frac{|N_0-N_1|}{\sqrt{N_0+N_1}} \\
    &=\sqrt{\frac{\Delta t_\text{mea}L^2}{\hbar\omega_0}}\frac{I_\text{out}(I_t,0)-I_\text{out}(I_t,\Omega_R)}{\sqrt{I_\text{out}(I_t,0)+I_\text{out}(I_t,\Omega_R)}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $N_0$ and $N_1$ are the average numbers of photons detected from the m$_\text{s}$ = 0 and m$_\text{s}$ = $\pm1$ states, respectively, per measurement, $\Delta t_\text{mea}$ is the total readout time, and $I_\text{out}(I_t,\Omega_R)$ is the reflected intensity under green laser intensity, $I_t$, and  an applied microwave Rabi field, $\Omega_R$. In the limit of low contrast, the SNR can be re-written as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq5}
\begin{split}
    \text{SNR}&=\sqrt{\frac{I_\text{out}(0,0)\Delta t_\text{mea}L^2}{2\hbar\omega_0}}(I_\text{NV}(I_t,\Omega_R)-I_\text{NV}(I_t,0)) \\
    &\propto \braket{|E/E_0|^2}V_\text{pixel}n_\text{NV}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $I_\text{NV}(I_t,\Omega_R)=\frac{I_\text{out}(0,0)-I_\text{out}(I_t,\Omega_R)}{I_\text{out}(0,0)}$ is the fractional change in IR intensity due to NV absorption, and $I_\text{NV}(I_t,\Omega_R)-I_\text{NV}(I_t,0)\propto\braket{|E/E_0|^2}V_\text{pixel}n_\text{NV}$ as described in detail in SI Section 3. Thus, the SNR scales with both spatially averaged electric field intensity enhancement factor and sensing volume  for a given NV density. The PQSM  combines a large field enhancement of the SPP mode and delocalization of the RWA mode, making the SPP-RWA hybrid mode well suited for ensemble-based sensing.

\begin{figure*}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figure2.png}
    \caption{(a) The population of the ground singlet state as a function of 532 nm laser intensity with (solid) and without (dotted) an applied microwave field at a given sensing depth of 5 \textmu m. (b) Input-intensity-normalized NV absorption, $A_\text{pixel}$, per pixel (left y-axis) and corresponding phase changes of the spin-dependent reflected light, $\Delta\phi_\text{NV}$ (right y-axis). (c) SNR/$\sqrt{\Delta t_\text{mea}L^2}$ under steady state operation as a function of $I_t$ with varying $I_s$ for homodyne (solid) and direct (dotted) detection.}
    \label{fig:fig2}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Metasurface spin-dependent response}

The spin-dependent IR absorption depends on the population of the ground singlet state, and it can be obtained by calculating the local density of each sublevel, $n_{\ket{i}}$, based on the coupled rate equations described in SI Section 2.
As shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:fig1}c, we use an eight-level rate equation model that accounts for photoionization.
Under continuous wave (CW)-ODMR, Fig.\,\ref{fig:fig2}a shows the calculated $n_{\ket{6}}$, indicating that the population of the singlet states weakly depends on the IR probe intensity, $I_s$, until the absorption rate becomes comparable to the excited state decay rate.
The SPP-RWA-induced field enhancement modifies the absorption rate as well as the radiative decay rate by $\gamma_\text{rad}\rightarrow F_p\gamma_\text{rad}+\gamma_\text{quenching}$, where $F_p$ is the Purcell factor.
However, due to the low intrinsic quantum efficiency of the singlet state transition ($\frac{\gamma_\text{rad}}{\Gamma}\approx$0.1\% \cite{Ulbricht2018-yv}), the plasmonic structures have minimal effect on the overall excited state decay rate, $\Gamma$.
Because the lifetime of the ground state is approximately two orders of magnitude longer than that of the excited state \cite{Acosta2010-cp}, the singlet state transition has an exceptionally high saturation intensity, enabling each NV  to absorb multiple photons per cycle.
With resonant structures, the system can be brought to its saturation level at a lower incident intensity due to the transition rate enhanced by a factor of $\sim\braket{|E/E_0|^2}$.
Similarly, the current PQSM structure can induce a grating mode resonant at 532 nm with an off-normal back illumination (refer to SI Section 1).

Under an applied microwave field, an increase in the population of the m$_\text{s} = \pm1$ states incurs an increase in absorption at 1042 nm (i.e.,
$I_\text{NV}(I_t,\Omega_R) > I_\text{NV}(I_t,0)$).
This state-selective NV infrared absorption produces spin-dependent amplitude and phase changes in the IR probe field reflected from the PQSM.
The input-intensity-normalized NV absorption, $A_\text{pixel}$, (equivalently, $I_\text{NV}(I_t,\Omega_R)\times\frac{I_\text{out}(0,0)}{I_s}$) with varying sensing depth is shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:fig2}b.
To account for stimulated emission, a net population (i.e., $n_{\ket{6}}$-$n_{\ket{5}}$) is used to calculate the net spin-dependent NV absorption.
Based on the calculated $A_\text{pixel}$, the NV-induced corresponding phase change, $\Delta\phi_\text{NV}$, is obtained from the complex reflection coefficients simulated with FDTD method (Fig.\,\ref{fig:fig2}b).

The spin-dependent phase and amplitude changes of the signal allow for a phase-sensitive measurement.
Here, we implement a phase-sensitive coherent homodyne detection, where a local oscillator interferes with the spin-dependent signal from the PQSM. A combination of $R$ and $\Delta\phi_\text{LO}$ is chosen to maximize the SNR (refer to SI Section 4) and the readout fidelity. The incident-intensity-normalized interfered intensity detected by the camera is given by Eq.\,\ref{eq:eq6}.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq6}
\begin{split}
    &\frac{I_\text{out}(I_t,\Omega_R,R,\Delta\phi_\text{LO})}{I_s}=(1-R)+R|r(I_t,\Omega_R)|^2 \\
    &+2\sqrt{(1-R)R}|r(I_t,\Omega_R)|\cos(\Delta\phi_\text{LO}+\Delta\phi_\text{NV}(I_t,\Omega_R))
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $R$ is the power splitting ratio of the beam splitter, $r(I_t,\Omega_R)$ is the complex reflection coefficient of the PQSM, $\Delta\phi_\text{LO}$ is the relative phase difference between the LO and the reflected light of the PQSM when $I_t$ = 0 and $\Omega_R$ = 0, and $\Delta\phi_\text{NV}(I_t,\Omega_R)$ is an additional phase change incurred by the NV absorption.
Figure\,\ref{fig:fig2}c shows SNR that is normalized by the measurement time and pixel area of $L^2$.
Under the conditions considered in this work, the photon shot noise dominates, and a better SNR is achieved by biasing the interferometric readout with a controlled phase difference. Homodyne detection is particularly advantageous for fast imaging on focal plane arrays.

\section{Discussion}
\subsection{DC sensitivity}
The shot-noise-limited sensitivity of a CW-ODMR-based magnetometer per root area based on IR absorption measurement is given by Eq.\,\ref{eq:eq7}.\par
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq7}
    \eta_\text{CW}^{A}=\frac{\hbar\Gamma_\text{MW}}{g\mu_\text{B}}\frac{\sqrt{\Delta t_\text{mea}L^2}}{\text{SNR}}
\end{equation}
where $g\approx2.003$ is the electronic g-factor of the NV center, $\mu_\text{B}$ is the Bohr magneton, and $\Gamma_\text{MW}$ is the magnetic-resonance linewidth which can be approximated as $\Gamma_\text{MW}=2/T_2^*$, assuming no power broadening from pump or microwaves. For a given NV density of $\sim$16 ppm, the dephasing time is limited by paramagnetic impurities with the conversion efficiency conservatively approximately as 16\% \cite{Ulbricht2018-yv}. An alternative magnetometry method to CW-ODMR, such as pulsed ODMR or Ramsey sequences, can be exploited to achieve $T_2^*$-limited performance.\par
It is useful to compare the photon-shot-noise-limited sensitivity with the spin-projection-noise-limited sensitivity of an ensemble magnetometer consisting of non-interacting spins.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq8}
    \eta_\text{sp}^{A,\text{ensemble}}=\frac{\hbar}{g\mu_\text{B}\sqrt{n_\text{NV}d_\text{NV}\tau}}
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ is the free precession time per measurement. Figure\,\ref{fig:fig3}a shows that the PQSM can achieve sub-nT Hz$^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ sensitivity per \textmu m$^2$ sensing surface area for a given an NV layer thickness of $d_\text{NV}$ = 5 \textmu m and remaining experimental  parameters listed in Table\,\ref{tab:table1}. As expected, sensitivity improves with increasing green laser intensity until two-photon-mediated  photo-ionization processes start to become considerable.  Furthermore, as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:fig3}b, increasing the sensing depth from 500 nm to 10 \textmu m improves the sensitivity by a factor of up to $\sim$ 9. There exists a trade-off between achievable sensitivity and spatial resolution.
\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{Figure3.png}
    \caption{(a) Expected sensitivity per root sensing surface area with homodyne (solid) and direct  (dotted) detection as a function of $I_t$ with varying $I_s$ for a given $d_\text{NV}$ = 5 \textmu m. The dotted black line indicates 1 nT Hz$^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ sensitivity for a 1 \textmu m$^2$ sensing area. The solid black line indicates the spin-projection-noise-limited sensitivity. (b) Sensing-depth-dependent sensitivity with homodyne detection for a given $I_s$ = 1 mW/\textmu m$^2$.}
    \label{fig:fig3}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}\label{tab:table1
\caption{Physical parameters used in this work.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular} {lcc}
\textrm{Parameter}&
\textrm{Value}&
\textrm{Reference}\\
\colrule
$k_{31}$=$k_{42}$ & 66 \textmu s$^{-1}$ & \cite{Tetienne2012-ic} \\
$k_{35}$ & 7.9 \textmu s$^{-1}$ & \cite{Tetienne2012-ic} \\
$k_{45}$ & 53 \textmu s$^{-1}$ & \cite{Tetienne2012-ic} \\
$k_{61}$ & 1 \textmu s$^{-1}$ & \cite{Tetienne2012-ic} \\
$k_{62}$ & 0.7 \textmu s$^{-1}$ & \cite{Tetienne2012-ic} \\
$k_{38}$=$k_{48}$ & 41.8 MHz/mW & \cite{Tetienne2012-ic,Robledo2011-xg} \\
$k_{71}$=$k_{72}$ & 35.5 MHz/mW & \cite{Tetienne2012-ic,Robledo2011-xg} \\
$\Gamma$ & 1 ns$^{-1}$ & \cite{Acosta2010-cp}\\
$\Gamma_{\text{NV}^0}$ & 53 \textmu s$^{-1}$ & \cite{Tetienne2012-ic,Robledo2011-xg} \\
$\sigma_\text{t}$ & 3$\times$10$^{-21}$ m$^2$ & \cite{Wee2007-jo} \\
$\sigma_\text{s}$ & 3$\times$10$^{-22}$ m$^2$ & \cite{Dumeige2013-wf,Jensen2014-xu} \\
$\sigma_{\text{NV}^0}$ & 6$\times$10$^{-21}$ m$^2$ & \cite{Tetienne2012-ic,Robledo2011-xg} \\
$n_\text{NV}$ & 28$\times$10$^{23}$ m$^{-3}$ & \cite{Acosta2009-te} \\
$T_2^*$ & 200 ns & \cite{Acosta2009-te,Barry2020-ec} \\
$T_2$ & 2 \textmu s & \cite{Barry2020-ec} \\
$\Omega_R$ & 2$\pi$ $\times$ 1.5 MHz & \cite{Acosta2010-rp} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{AC sensitivity}
\begin{figure*}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figure4.png}
    \caption{(a) Population of the singlet ground state with (solid) and without (dotted) an applied microwave field as a function of readout time at $d_\text{NV}$ = 5 \textmu m for a given $I_s$ = 1 mW/\textmu m$^2$. (b) Readout fidelity and (c) AC sensitivity per root sensing surface area as a function of $I_t$ with varying $I_s$ at $d_\text{NV}$ = 5 \textmu m for homodyne (solid) and direct (dotted) detection. The solid black line indicates the spin-projection-noise-limited sensitivity given by Eq.\,\ref{eq:eq8}.}
    \label{fig:fig4}
\end{figure*}

Sources of the NV spin dephasing can be largely eliminated with coherent control techniques such as the Hahn echo sequence. With an added $\pi$-pulse halfway through the interrogation time, a net phase accumulated due to a static or slowly varying magnetic field cancels out, and the interrogation time can be extended to a value of $\sim$ $T_2$. Thus, the AC sensitivity can improve by a factor of approximately $\sqrt{T_2^*/T_2}$ at the cost of a reduced bandwidth and insensitivity to magnetic field with an oscillating period longer than $T_2$. The sensitivity per root area for an ensemble-based AC magnetometer is given by Eq.\,\ref{eq:eq9} \cite{Barry2020-ec}.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq9}
    \eta_\text{a.c.}^{A}=\frac{\hbar\sigma_\text{R} e^{\tau/T_2}}{g\mu_\text{B}\sqrt{n_\text{NV}d_\text{NV}\tau}}\sqrt{1+\frac{t_\text{I}+t_\text{R}}{\tau}}
\end{equation}
where $T_2$ is the characteristic dephasing time, $t_\text{I}$ is the initialization time, $t_\text{R}$ is the readout time, and $\sigma_\text{R}$ is the readout fidelity. For a given NV density of $\sim$ 16 ppm, $T_2$ is about an order of magnitude longer than $T_2^*$ \cite{Barry2020-ec}. Rate equations are solved as a function of time to obtain time-dependent population evolution as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:fig4}a. The system loses spin polarization after a few microseconds of readout time. For given $I_t$ and $I_s$, an optimal readout time that maximizes the time-integrated signal is calculated and is shown to be near 500 ns (refer to SI Section 5). An additional shot noise introduced by the optical readout is quantified with the parameter $\sigma_\text{R}$ (Eq.\,\ref{eq:eq10}), which is equivalent to an inverse of readout fidelity \cite{Barry2020-ec}.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq10}
    \sigma_\text{R}=\sqrt{1+\frac{2(a+b)}{(a-b)^2}}
\end{equation}
where $a$ and $b$ are the average numbers of photons detected from the m$_\text{s}$ = 0 and m$_\text{s}$ = $\pm1$ states per spin per measurement, respectively. The PQSM achieves spin readout fidelity near 0.5 per shot. Figure\,\ref{fig:fig4}c shows the AC sensitivity down to 10 pT Hz$^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ per 1-\textmu m$^2$ sensing surface area.

\section{Conclusion}
In summary, we report a diamond quantum sensing surface consisting of plasmonic nanostructures, which shows a sub-nT Hz$^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ sensitivity per a 1-\textmu m$^2$ sensing surface. This exceptional performance is achieved by the SPP-RWA resonance that optimizes an electric field enhancement within a micron-scale NV layer. The plasmonic structures of the PQSM also provide an optimal microwave control by generating a homogeneous magnetic field across a large sensing area. Combined with a homodyne detection, the PQSM makes a new type of quantum microscope that enables high-speed imaging measurements at the photon shot noise limit.\par
This PQSM has far-reaching implications in quantum science. The metasurface-coupled quantum emitter arrays can enable manipulation of accumulated phase and polarization at each position of a quantum emitter. By superposing spin-dependent reflection or transmission, it may even be possible to entangle different regions of the metasurface. The entangled quantum metasurface is useful in applications that demand measurements of correlated quantum fluctuation such as quantum spin liquids in quantum materials \cite{Meng2010-qp,Takagi2019-hl}. Such an approach can exploit entanglement-enhanced quantum sensing protocols to achieve performance beyond the standard quantum limit \cite{Cappellaro2009-os,Choi2017-lu}.

\section{Acknowledgements}
L.K. acknowledges support through an appointment to the Intelligence Community Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, administered by Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. H. C. acknowledges support through Claude E. Shannon Fellowship and the DARPA DRINQS, D18AC00014 program. M.E.T. acknowledges support through the Army  Research Laboratory ENIAC Distinguished Postdoctoral Fellowship. D.E. acknowledges support from the Bose Research Fellowship, the Army Research Office W911NF-17-1-0435, and the NSF CUA. We thank Dr. Jennifer Schloss and Jordan Goldstein for helpful discussions.


\section{Introduction}

A one-parameter semigroup is a family $(\phi_t)_{t \geq 0}$ of holomorphic functions in $\D$, where
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\phi_0$ is the identity map;
\item $\phi_{t+s}(z) = \phi_t \left( \phi_s (z) \right)$, for every $t,s \geq 0$ and $z \in \D$;
\item $\phi_t(z) \xrightarrow{t \to 0^{+}} z$, uniformly on compacta in $\D$.
\end{enumerate}

The introduction of the theory of one-parameter semigroups was made by Berkson and Porta in \cite{berksonporta}, where their strong connection with composition operators is emphasized. Later, one-parameter semigroups have been an issue of scientific interest, especially due to their application in other mathematical areas  such as dynamical systems, Markov stochastic processes, etc.
Recent advances in this area, as well as, the classical theory of semigroups can be found in \cite{BetsDescript, Booksem, AnalyticFlows, shoikhetelin, kelgiannis, shoikhet}.

By the continuous form of Denjoy-Wolff theorem, for every such one-parameter semigroup, there exists a unique attractive fixed point $\tau \in \overline{\D} $, which is called the \textit{Denjoy-Wolff point} of $(\phi_t)$; see \cite[Theorem 1.4.17]{abate}.
Fix $z \in \D$. Let's denote by $ \gamma_z$ the curve
$ \gamma_z: [0, + \infty)  \to \D$ with $\gamma_z(t)= \phi_t(z).$
This curve is called the \textit{trajectory} of $z$ and
\begin{equation}\label{limtraj}
\lim_{t \to + \infty} \gamma_z(t) =\lim_{t \to +\infty} \phi_t(z)= \tau.
\end{equation}

Depending on the position of $\tau$, we have the following classification of one-parameter semigroups.
Supposing that $\phi_t$ is not an elliptic automorphism of $\D$ for any $t \geq 0$, the semigroup $(\phi_t)$ is called \textit{elliptic}, if $\tau$ lies inside the unit disk.

In the present work, we are interested in the case where $(\phi_t)$ is a non-elliptic semigroup. Hence the Denjoy-Wolff point lies on the unit circle $\T$ and without loss of generality, we can assume that it is equal to $1$.

The angular derivative $\phi_t^{\prime}$ at $1$ is given by the limit
$$\phi_t^{\prime}(1):= \angle \lim_{z \to 1} \frac{\phi_t(z)-1 }{z-1} =e^{- \lambda t}\leq 1,$$
where the number $\lambda$ is the \textit{spectral value} of the semigroup.
If $\lambda>0$, the semigroup $(\phi_t)$ is called \textit{hyperbolic}, whereas, if $\lambda =0$, the semigroup $(\phi_t)$ is called \textit{parabolic}.

In \cite[\S\ 9.1, Theorem 9.1.2]{Booksem}, it was proved that
\begin{equation}\label{divrate}
\frac{\lambda}{2} = \lim_{t \to + \infty} \frac{d_{\D}(z, \phi_t(z))}{t}, \quad z \in \D
\end{equation}
where $d_{\D}$ denotes the hyperbolic distance in the unit disk.

The aim of the present work is to provide a characterization of the spectral value using the trajectory of a compact set instead of the trajectory of a point under the semigroup.
In order to achieve this, we use a variety of potential theoretic quantities such as the harmonic measure, the extremal length and the condenser capacity.

Suppose $K$ is a compact non-polar subset of $\D$. This means that its logarithmic capacity $\Capac K$ is strictly positive; see Subsection \ref{diameter}. Then $\phi_t(K)$ approaches the unit circle, as $t$ increases, and asymptotically, it shrinks to the Denjoy-Wolff point of the semigroup, due to \eqref{limtraj}.

For a point $z \in \D$, the harmonic measure $\omega (z, \phi_t (K), \D)$ is the Perron solution of the Dirichlet problem on $\D \setminus \phi_t(K)$ with boundary values $1$ on the boundary of $\phi_t(K)$ and $0$ on $\T$, as one can see in detail in Subsection \ref{harmonicmeasure}.
Using Beurling's estimate \cite[Theorem H.7]{margarnett}, as the reader may observe in detail in Section \ref{lemmas}, for every $z \in K$, there exists a constant $C$ such that
$$ \omega(z, \phi_t(K), \D) \leq C e^{- \pi \lambda_{\D}(K, \phi_t(K)) },$$
where $\lambda_{\D}(K, \phi_t(K))$ denotes the extremal distance between the compact sets $K$ and $\phi_t(K)$.
The extremal distance is the most natural way to measure the distance between sets inside a domain in a conformally invariant way.
We can say that it is in a way equivalent to the hyperbolic distance, when it comes to compact sets. For the definition and the properties of extremal distance, we refer to Subsection \ref{extremallength}.

The reciprocal of the extremal distance between $K$ and $\phi_t(K)$ can be expressed as the capacity of the generalized condenser $(\D, K, \phi_t(K))$ on the premise that both $K$ and $\phi_t(K)$ are non-polar; see Subsection \ref{extremallength}.
The capacity of $(\D, K, \phi_t(K))$ is defined as
$$ \Capac(\D, K, \phi_t(K)) = \int_{\D \setminus (K \cup \phi_t(K))} | \nabla u|^2 dA,$$
where $A$ is the Lebesgue measure on the complex plane and $u$ has boundary values $0$ on $\partial K$, $1$ on $\partial \phi_t(K)$ and $\frac{\partial u}{\partial n}=0$ on $\T$.
More information on generalized condensers follows in Section \ref{condensers}.

The question that we deal with is the inverse problem of the one addressed in the articles \cite{bkkp2} and \cite{kourou3}. Knowing how $\phi_t(K)$ behaves, as $t \to +\infty$, can we distinguish the type of the semigroup? Moreover, can we obtain an analogous form of the spectral value of a semigroup using compact sets instead of points?
In fact, we reach the following outcome.

\begin{theorem}\label{main}
Let $(\phi_t)$ be a non-elliptic semigroup of holomorphic self-maps of $\D$ and let $K$ be a compact non-polar subset of $\D$. Then, as $ t \to + \infty$,
\begin{enumerate}[\normalfont(i)]
\item $2 t^{-1} d_{\D}(z,\phi_t(w))\rightarrow \lambda$, for every $z,w \in \D$
\item $-t^{-1} \log g_{\D}(z, \phi_t(w)) \rightarrow   \lambda$, for every $z, w \in \D$
\item $-t^{-1} \log \omega (z, \phi_t(K), \D) \rightarrow  \lambda$, for every $z \in K$
\item $ \pi t^{-1} \lambda_{\D} (K, \phi_t(K))  \rightarrow  \lambda$
\item $\frac{1}{\pi} t \Capac(\D, K, \phi_t(K)) \rightarrow \frac{1}{\lambda}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

The spectral value, as seen in \eqref{divrate}, depends on the hyperbolic distance between a point and its image under $\phi_t$. We prove in Theorem \ref{main} that in the case where arbitrary compact non-polar sets are examined, the hyperbolic distance is substituted by the extremal distance in the unit disk.

To continue with, the class of parabolic semigroups is further partitioned into two categories with the use of the \textit{hyperbolic step}; \cite[Definition 9.1.5]{Booksem}. Let $u>0$.
The hyperbolic step of order $u$ of $(\phi_t)$ at $z \in \D$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{hyperbstep}
s_u(\phi_t,z):= \lim_{r \to + \infty} d_{\D}( \phi_r(z), \phi_{r+u}(z)).
\end{equation}

If $s_u(\phi_t,z)=0$, for all $u>0$ and $z \in \D$, the parabolic semigroup is of \textit{zero hyperbolic step}.
If $s_u(\phi_t,z)>0$, for some $u>0$ or $z \in \D$, then the parabolic semigroup is of \textit{positive hyperbolic step}.
There is an immediate connection between the spectral value and the hyperbolic step:
\begin{equation}\label{connection}
 \frac{\lambda}{2} = \lim_{u \to + \infty} \frac{s_u(\phi_t,z)}{u},
 \end{equation}
as we can see in \cite[Proposition 9.1.7]{Booksem}.

Combining Theorem \ref{main} with \eqref{connection}, we obtain that the extremal distance $\lambda_{\D}(K, \phi_t(K))$ and the hyperbolic step $s_u(\phi_t,z)$ have similar asymptotic behavior.

\begin{proposition}\label{asymptoticintegral}
As $u \to +\infty$, $$s_u( \phi_t, z) - \frac{\pi}{2} \lambda_{\D}(K, \phi_u(K)) = \smallO(u), \quad z \in K. $$
\end{proposition}

The article is structured in the following way. In Section \ref{background}, we provide some information concerning the tools that are used in the proofs. They mainly consist of conformally invariant quantities from potential theory. Afterwards, in Section \ref{lemmas}, some auxiliary lemmas are presented and proved, whereas, Theorem \ref{main} is proved in Section \ref{proof}. In addition, Proposition \ref{asymptoticintegral} is proved in Section \ref{proofprop}, where the reader may also find a connection between the extremal distance and the hyperbolic step of sufficiently large order.

\section{Background Material}\label{background}

\subsection{Koenigs function of a Semigroup}

For every semigroup $(\phi_t)$ with Denjoy-Wolff point $1$, there exists a conformal function $h$ that maps $\D$ onto a simply connected domain $\Omega$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{mapofh}
h(\phi_t(z) )= h(z)+t, \quad \forall z \in \D, \, \forall t \geq 0.
\end{equation}
This mapping is called \textit{Koenigs function} and its main property is to linearize the trajectories of the points in $\D$.
The simply connected domain $\Omega= h(\D)$ is \textit{convex in the horizontal direction}, as $\{ w+s: s>0 \} \subset \Omega$, for every $w \in \Omega$. This occurs since the trajectory of each point $z \in \D$ is mapped onto a half-line; see \eqref{mapofh}.

From \cite{AnalyticFlows}, the semigroup is hyperbolic if and only if $\Omega$ is contained in a horizontal strip.
Furthermore, according to \cite[Theorem 1]{BetsDescript}, if $(\phi_t)$ is parabolic of positive hyperbolic step, then $\Omega $ is contained in a horizontal half-plane. In both cases, we can find the smallest horizontal domain that contains $\Omega$, which is called the \textit{base space} of the semigroup.
The base space of a parabolic semigroup of zero hyperbolic step is the whole complex plane.
We denote by $\bs$ the associated base space of the semigroup, regardless of the type of the semigroup.

 \subsection{Generalized Condensers}\label{condensers}

Suppose $\Omega$ is a domain in $\mathbb{C}$.  The triple $\mathcal{C} := (\Omega, \{E_i \}_{i=1,2}, \{0,1\} )$, where $E_1$ and $E_2$ are closed non-polar pairwise disjoint sets in $\Omega$, is called \textit{generalized condenser}.
The set $\overline{\Omega} \setminus (E_1 \cup E_2)$ is called \textit{field of the condenser}, whereas $E_i$, $i=1,2$, are called \textit{plates of the condenser}.
In order to simplify the above notation, we denote the condenser by $\mathcal{C} := ( \Omega , E_1, E_2)$. The capacity of $\mathcal{C}$ is
$$ \Capac \mathcal{C} : = \int_{\Omega \setminus (E_1 \cup E_2)} | \nabla u|^2 dA,$$
where $A$ is the Lebesgue measure on the complex plane and $u$ is the \textit{equilibrium potential} of the condenser. More specifically, $u$ is the solution of the mixed Dirichlet-Neumann problem, with boundary values $0$ on $\partial E_1$, $u=1$ on $\partial E_2$ and $\frac{\partial u}{\partial n}=0$ on $\partial \Omega$.

An important property of condenser capacity is conformal invariance. If $f$ is a conformal mapping on the field of a condenser $\mathcal{C}$, then
\begin{equation}\label{confinvcapacity}
\Capac \mathcal{C} = \Capac f(\mathcal{C}).
\end{equation}

More information on condenser capacity can be found in \cite{dubininbook}.

\subsection{Euclidean $n$-th Diameter - Logarithmic capacity} \label{diameter}
Let $K$ be a compact subset of $\mathbb{C}$. The euclidean $n$-th diameter of $K$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eudiameter}
d_n (K) = \sup_{w_{\mu}, w_{\nu} \in K} \prod_{1 \leq \mu < \nu \leq n} |w_{\mu} - w_{\nu}|^{\frac{2}{n(n-1)}}
\end{equation}
and the supremum is attained, since $K$ is compact, for a $n$-tuple of points, which is called \textit{Fekete $n$-tuple} and it may not be unique; see \cite[Definition 5.5.1]{ransford}.
The \textit{logarithmic capacity} of $K$ is the limit
$$\Capac K= \lim_{ n \to + \infty} d_n(K). $$

If two sets $A,B \subset \mathbb{C}$ differ on a set of zero logarithmic capacity (meaning $\Capac( A \setminus B)= \Capac (B \setminus A)=0$) we say that they are nearly everywhere (n.e.) equal. Sets of zero logarithmic capacity are called \textit{polar sets} and they are negligible in the view of potential theory.

\subsection{Green function-Green capacity}

Let $D$ be a domain of the extended complex plane $\widehat{\mathbb{C}}$.
The \textit{Green function} of $D$ with \textit{pole} at $w \in D$  is denoted by $g_D(\cdot, w)$ and satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $g_D(\cdot,w) $ is positive harmonic on $D \setminus \{w \}$ and bounded outside every neighborhood of $w$
\item $g_D(\cdot,w)+ \log| \cdot -w|$ is harmonic on $D$
\item $g_D(w,w)=\infty$, and for $z \to w$
$$ g_D(z,w) =   \begin{cases}
 \log |z| + \mathcal{O} (1), \, w=\infty \\
	-\log|z-w| + \mathcal{O}(1), \, w \neq \infty
  \end{cases} $$
\item $g_D(\cdot,w) = 0$ on the boundary $ \partial D$.
\end{enumerate}

For instance, the Green function of the unit disk $\D$ is equal to
\begin{equation}\label{greenformula}
g_{\D}(z,w) = \log \left| \frac{1 - z \overline{w}}{z-w} \right|,
\end{equation}
for $z, w \in \D$; see \cite[p.109]{ransford}.
If the boundary of a domain $D$ is non-polar, then the Green function $g_{D}$ exists and it is unique. In this case, the domain $D$ is called \textit{Greenian}. The Green function is symmetric,
for every $z,w \in D$. Moreover, the Green function is conformally invariant; e.g. \cite[ Theorem 4.4.4]{ransford}.
For each measure $\mu$ with support in $D$, we can define its \textit{Green potential}
$$G_{\mu}^D(x) = \int g_D(x,y) d \mu (y) ,$$
for $x \in D$.
The Green potential is a superharmonic function on $D$ and harmonic on $D \setminus \supp \{ \mu \}$.

Let $E$ be a subset of $D$. The \textit{Green energy} of $E$ with respect to $D$ is defined as
$$ V(E,D) : =  \inf_{\mu} \int G_{\mu}^D (y) d \mu(y),$$
where the infimum is taken over all Borel measures $\mu$ with compact support in $E$ and $\mu(E)=1$.
If $E$ is compact, the infimum is attained for a Borel measure $\mu$, which is called \textit{Green equilibrium measure} of $E$.
For further information on Green potentials, we refer to \cite{margarnett, helms}.

\subsection{Extremal distance}\label{extremallength}

Another conformally invariant quantity that has a strong relation with condenser capacity is extremal length. Let $\{ \Gamma \}$ be a family of rectifiable curves in a domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{C}$.
Consider all the non-negative Borel measurable functions $\rho(z)$ on $\Omega$ such that the area
$$\Ar ( \rho, \Omega) = \iint_{\Omega} \rho(z)^2 dxdy \in (0, + \infty).$$
The $\rho$-length of $\{ \Gamma\}$ is
$$\Le \left(\rho, \{ \Gamma \} \right) = \inf_{ \gamma \in \{\Gamma \} } \int_{\gamma} \rho(z) |dz|. $$

The \textit{extremal length} of $\{ \Gamma \}$ is defined as
$$\lambda_{\Omega} ( \{ \Gamma \}) = \sup_{\rho} \frac{\Le (\rho, \{\Gamma \})^2}{\Ar (\rho, \Omega)}, $$
where the supremum is taken over all the functions $\rho$ with $0< \Ar (\rho, \Omega) < + \infty$.
The conformal invariance of extremal length is a direct aspect of the definition, as we can observe in \cite[p.130]{margarnett}.
The most important instance of extremal length is the \textit{extremal distance} between sets in a domain. Let $E,F \subset \overline{\Omega}$. The extremal distance from $E$ to $F$ is
\begin{equation}\label{extconj}
\lambda_{\Omega} (E,F) : = \lambda_{\Omega \setminus (E \cup F)} (E,F) = \lambda_{\Omega} (\{ \Gamma\}),
\end{equation}
where $\{\Gamma \}$ is the family of arcs or closed curves in $\Omega$ that join $E$ and $F$.
The \textit{conjugate extremal distance} between $E$ and $F$ is defined as $\lambda_{\Omega}^{\star}(E,F):= \lambda_{\Omega} ( \{ \Gamma^{\star} \}),$
where $\{ \Gamma^{\star} \}$ is the family of all curves that separate $E$ from $F$.
As we can see in \cite[p.491]{margarnett}, the conjugate and extremal distance satisfy the following relation
$$\lambda_{\Omega}(E,F) =\frac{ 1}{ \lambda_{\Omega}^{\star}(E,F)}.$$

Two basic examples of calculation of the extremal length are the cases of a rectangle and an annulus; see \cite[p.131-3]{margarnett}.
We will need the following two properties of extremal length.
\begin{lemma}[The extension rule]\cite[Theorem 4-1]{ahlforsconformal}\label{extension}
Let $\Omega$ be a domain in $\mathbb{C}$. If $\{ \Gamma \} \subset \{ \Gamma^{\prime} \}$ or equivalently, every $\gamma \in \{ \Gamma \}$ contains some $\gamma^{\prime} \in \{ \Gamma^{\prime} \}$, then $$\lambda_{\Omega} (\{ \Gamma^{\prime} \}) \leq \lambda_{\Omega} (\{ \Gamma \}).$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\cite[Theorem 2.8]{ohtsuka}\label{non-disjointparallel}
Let $\{ \Gamma_1 \},...,\{ \Gamma_n \}$ be families of rectifiable curves in a domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{C}$. Then
$$\lambda_{\Omega} \left( \bigcup_{k=1}^n \{\Gamma_k \} \right)^{-1} \leq \sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{1}{\lambda_{\Omega} (\{\Gamma_k \})}. $$

\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\cite[Theorem 4-5]{ahlforsconformal}
Suppose $K,E$ are two compact non-polar subsets of $\Omega$. The extremal distance $\lambda_{\Omega}(K,E)$ is the reciprocal of the Dirichlet integral $$D(u)= \iint_{\Omega} | \nabla u|^2 dA,$$
where $u$ solves the following mixed Dirichlet-Neumann problem:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Delta u=0$, on $\Omega \setminus (E \cup K)$
\item $u=0$, on $\partial K$ and $u=1$, on $\partial E$
\item $\frac{\partial u}{\partial n}=0$, on $\partial \Omega$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}

\begin{remark}
According to Section \ref{condensers}, the above Dirichlet integral coincides with the capacity of the generalized condenser $(\Omega, K,E)$. Hence
\begin{equation}\label{extdistcap}
\lambda_{\Omega}(K,E)=\frac{1}{\Capac(\Omega,K,E)}.
\end{equation}
\end{remark}

For further information on extremal length the reader may refer to \cite[Chapter 4]{ahlforsconformal}, \cite[Chapter IV]{margarnett} and \cite{ohtsuka}.

\subsection{Harmonic Measure}\label{harmonicmeasure}

Let $D$ be a proper subdomain of $\widehat{\mathbb{C}}$ with non-polar boundary and $\mathcal{B}(\partial D)$ be the $\sigma$-algebra of all Borel sets of $\partial D$.
Suppose $E \in \mathcal{B}(\partial D)$. The harmonic measure of $E$ at a point $z \in D$ is the solution of the generalized Dirichlet problem in $D$ with boundary values $1$ on $E$ and $0$ on $\partial D \setminus E$.
Moreover, the harmonic measure $ \omega (z, E, D)$ is the supremum of all subharmonic functions $u$ on $D$ that satisfy $$\limsup_{w \to \zeta} u(w) \leq \mathds{1}_E (\zeta), \quad \forall \zeta \in \partial \D. $$

For a fixed $E \in \mathcal{B}(\partial D)$, $\omega ( \cdot , E, D)$ is a harmonic and bounded function on $D$.
In addition, for a fixed point $z \in D$, the map
$ \omega ( z, \cdot, D) : \mathcal{B}(\partial D)  \to [0,1]$ with $E \mapsto \omega ( z, E , D)$
is a Borel probability measure on $\partial D$.
In addition, if $\zeta$ is a regular point of $\partial D$, which lies outside the relative boundary of $E$ in $\partial D$, then
$ \omega ( z, E, D) \xrightarrow{ z \to \zeta} \mathds{1}_E (\zeta)$.

Furthermore, the harmonic measure, as a probability measure, has an additional significant interpretation. Suppose $D$ is a domain on $\mathbb{C}$ and $E$ a Borel subset of $\partial D$. Let $B_t$, $t>0$, be a Brownian motion on the complex plane starting from a point $z \in D$. Let $t_0= \inf \{ t>0 : B_t \notin D \setminus E \}$ be the first exit time of $B_t$ from $ D \setminus E$. The harmonic measure $\omega(z, E, D)$ is the probability of $B_{t_0} \in E$.

A major property of the harmonic measure is conformal invariance; see \cite[\S\ 4.3]{ransford}.
For the sake of simplicity, if $E$ is a compact subset of $D$ with positive logarithmic capacity, we use the notation
$\omega(z, E, D) := \omega(z, \partial E, D \setminus E)$.
The following inequality provides us with a connection between harmonic measure and extremal length.
\begin{lemma}[Beurling's estimate]\cite[Theorem H.7]{margarnett}\label{h7}
Let $D$ be a domain and let $E$ be a finite union of arcs contained in one component $C_1$ of $\partial D$. Then
$$\omega(z_0, E, D) \leq \frac{8}{\pi} \exp \left\{-\pi \sup_{\sigma} \lambda_{D} (\sigma,E) \right\}, $$
where the supremum is taken over all Jordan arcs $\sigma$ in $\mathbb{C}$ connecting $z_0 \in D$ with $C_1 \setminus E$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{remark}
Let's denote by $\{ \Gamma_1 \}$ the family of curves that join $E$ with the arcs $\sigma$, which connect $z_0 \in D$ with $C_1 \setminus E$, as in Lemma \ref{h7}. Moreover, let's denote by $\{ \Gamma_2 \}$ the family of curves that join $E$ with the Jordan arcs $\sigma^{\prime}$, which connect $z_0$ with $\partial D \setminus E$.
Obviously, $\{ \Gamma_1 \} \subset \{ \Gamma_2 \}$ and according to Lemma \ref{extension}, $\lambda ( \{ \Gamma_1 \})\geq \lambda ( \{ \Gamma_2 \})$, which leads to $\sup_{\sigma} \lambda_{D} ( \sigma, E) \geq \sup_{\sigma^{\prime}} \lambda_D (\sigma^{\prime},E)$.
Thus, we obtain the following inequality
\begin{equation} \label{generh7}
\omega(z_0, E, D) \leq \frac{8}{\pi} \exp \left\{-\pi \sup_{\sigma^{\prime}} \lambda_{D} (\sigma^{\prime},E) \right\} ,
\end{equation}
where the supremum is taken over all Jordan arcs $\sigma^{\prime}$ connecting $z_0$ to $\partial D \setminus E$.
Hence \eqref{generh7} can substitute the inequality in Lemma \ref{h7}.
\end{remark}

\begin{proposition}[Markov Property for harmonic measure]\cite[p.88]{portstone}\label{markov}
Suppose $\Omega$ is a domain on $\mathbb{C}$. Let $S$ be a subdomain of $\Omega$, $z \in S$ and $A$ a Borel subset of $\partial \Omega$. Then
$$\omega(z,E,\Omega) =\int_{\partial S} \omega (z, da ,S) \cdot \omega(a,E, \Omega). $$
\end{proposition}

Information and detailed theory of harmonic measure can be found in \cite{ahlforsconformal, margarnett, ohtsuka} and \cite[Chapter 4]{ransford}.

\subsection{ Hyperbolic metric - Hyperbolic Capacity}\label{hypmetric}

The density of the hyperbolic metric in $\D$ is $ \lambda_{\D} (z)= (1-|z|^2)^{-1}$.
Suppose $f : \D \to U$ is a conformal mapping, where $U$ is a simply connected domain of $\mathbb{C}$.
The hyperbolic density on $U$ is equal to
\begin{equation}\label{confdens}
\lambda_U (f(z)) = \frac{ \lambda_{\D} (z)}{\left| f^{\prime}(z) \right| }.
\end{equation}

\begin{lemma}[Schwarz-Pick Lemma]\cite[Theorem 6.4]{bearmin}
Suppose $\Omega_1, \Omega_2$ are simply connected proper subregions of $\mathbb{C}$ and that $f: \Omega_1 \to \Omega_2$ is holomorphic. Then
$$\lambda_{\Omega_2}(f(z)) | f^{\prime}(z)| \leq \lambda_{\Omega_1}(z),$$
with equality holding if and only if $f$ is conformal.
\end{lemma}

The above Lemma easily implies that for $\Omega_1 \subset \Omega_2$, it holds
\begin{equation}\label{subhypden}
\lambda_{\Omega_2}(z) \leq \lambda_{\Omega_1}(z),
\end{equation}
for every $z \in \Omega_1$.
The hyperbolic distance in the unit disk, for $z,w \in \D$,
$$d_{\D}(z,w)= \inf_{\gamma} \int_{\gamma} \lambda_{\D}(z) |dz|, $$
where the infimum is taken over all curves $\gamma$ that join $z,w$ in $\D$.
In fact, it is equal to
\begin{equation}\label{hyperbolicdistance}
d_{\D} (z,w)= \arctanh \rho_{\D}(z,w),
\end{equation}
where $$\rho_{\D}(z,w) = \left| \frac{z-w}{1- \bar{z}w} \right| $$ is the pseudo-hyperbolic distance in the unit disk $\D$.
Hyperbolic distance is invariant under conformal mappings. Suppose $U$ is a simply connected domain of $\mathbb{C}$ and $f : \D \to U$ is conformal. Then $d_{\D} (z,w) = d_U (f(z),f(w)),$
for every choice of $z,w \in \D$.
Furthermore, for $z, w \in \D$, it is true that
\begin{equation}\label{greendist}
g_{\D} (z, w) = -\log \tanh d_{\D}(z,w)= - \log \rho_{\D}(z,w) .
\end{equation}

Moreover, for a compact set $K \subset \D$, its hyperbolic $n$-th diameter is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{hypdiameter}
d_{n,h}^{\D} (K)  = \sup_{w_{\mu}, w_{\nu} \in K} \prod_{1 \leq \mu < \nu \leq n}
\rho_{\D}(w_{\mu}, w_{\nu})^{\frac{2}{n(n-1)}},
\end{equation}
where the supremum is attained for a $n$-tuple of points that are distinct and lie on the boundary. This is called \textit{Fekete $n$-tuple} and in general, it may not be unique; see \cite[Theorem 1.22]{dubininbook}.
The \textit{hyperbolic capacity} of $K$ is
\begin{equation}\label{hypcapacity}
\caph K := \lim_{ n \to + \infty} d_{n,h}^{\D} (K) .
\end{equation}

Hyperbolic $n$-th diameter and hyperbolic capacity are invariant under conformal maps. Suppose $f: \D \to U $ is conformal and $K \subset \D$ is compact. Then
$$ d_{n,h}^U (f(K))= d_{n,h}^{\D}(K) \quad \text{and} \quad \caph_U f(K)= \caph K . $$

\section{Auxiliary Lemmas}\label{lemmas}

The first Lemma stated is a result that derives from elementary calculus.

\begin{lemma}\label{calculus}
The function $$\sigma(x) := \frac{\log ( -\log \tanh x)}{x}$$ is decreasing in $(0,+ \infty)$ with $\lim_{x \to + \infty} \sigma(x)=-2$. Moreover, there exists a point $x_0$ and a positive constant $c$ such that $$\sigma(x) \leq \frac{\log c}{x}-2, \quad x \geq x_0 . $$
\begin{proof}
With a change of variable, we can see that $\sigma$ has the same kind of monotonicity in $(0,+\infty)$ as the function $$h(x):=\frac{\log ( -\log x)}{\arctanh x}, \quad x \in (0,1).$$

The derivative $$h^{\prime }(x) = \frac{   \arctanh x- \frac{x \log x}{1- x^2} \log(-\log x)}{x \log x \arctanh^2 x}.$$
Hence $h^{\prime}$ has the opposite sign of the function
$$ g(x):=\arctanh x - \frac{x \log x}{1- x^2} \log(-\log x), \quad x \in (0,1)$$ considering the fact that $\log x <0$.
We can easily observe that $g(x)>0$, for $x \in (0, \frac{1}{e}]$.
We calculate $$ g^{\prime}(x)= - \frac{1}{(1-x^2)^2} \log(- \log x ) \left[(1+x^2) \log x +1-x^2 \right]$$ and we get that $g^{\prime}(x)<0$, for $x \in (\frac{1}{e},1)$. Therefore $g$ is a decreasing function of $x \in (\frac{1}{e}, 1)$ and greater than $$\lim_{x \to 1} g(x)= \lim_{x \to 1} \left[\arctanh x - \frac{x \log x}{1- x^2} \log(-\log x) \right]= \frac{\log 2}{2} >0 . $$
As a result, $h^{\prime}(x) < 0 $, $x \in (0,1)$, which leads to $h$ and $\sigma$ being decreasing functions.
With elementary calculations and by applying the De L'Hospital rule, the limit
$$\lim_{x \to + \infty} \frac{\log ( -\log \tanh x)}{x}$$
is equal to $-2$.
Also from calculus, it can be proved that there exist a positive constant $c$ and a point $x_0 > 0$ such that
$$ \log \frac{e^x+1}{e^x-1} \leq c e^{-x},$$
for every $x \geq x_0$.
The above inequality can easily be interpreted as
$$- \log \tanh \frac{x}{2} \leq c e^{-x}.$$
Therefore $$
\sigma(x) = h( \tanh x)  = \frac{\log ( -\log \tanh x)}{x}  \leq \frac{\log c -2x}{x} = \frac{\log c}{x}-2,  $$
for every $x \geq x_0$.
\end{proof}

\end{lemma}

We will also need the hyperbolic distance in the classical Koebe domain.

\begin{lemma}\label{greenkoebe}
Let $\Delta:= \mathbb{C} \setminus (- \infty, -\frac{1}{4}]$ be the Koebe domain.
Then for $z,w \in \Delta$, the hyperbolic distance is
\begin{equation}\label{greenkoebeformula}
 d_{\Delta}(z,w) = \arctanh \left| \frac{(4z+1)^{\frac{1}{2}}-(4w+1)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\overline{(4z+1)}^{\frac{1}{2}}+(4w+1)^{\frac{1}{2}}} \right|.
 \end{equation}

\begin{proof}
The Koebe function $k: \D \to D $ is written as
\begin{equation}\label{inversekoebe}
k(z)= \frac{z}{(1-z)^2}= \frac{1}{4} \left( \frac{1+z}{1-z} \right)^2 -\frac{1}{4} \Rightarrow k^{-1}(z) = \frac{\sqrt{4z+1}-1}{\sqrt{4z+1}+1}.
\end{equation}

Due to the conformal invariance of the Green function, we have
$$d_{\Delta}(z,w) = d_{\D}(k^{-1}(z),k^{-1}(w)) \underset{\eqref{hyperbolicdistance}}{=} \arctanh \left| \frac{k^{-1}(z) -k^{-1}(w) }{1- \overline{k^{-1}(z)}k^{-1}(w)}\right|.$$

Applying \eqref{inversekoebe} and doing elementary calculations, we get
\eqref{greenkoebeformula}.

\end{proof}

\end{lemma}

In what follows, we assume that $(\phi_t)$ is a semigroup of holomorphic self-maps of $\D$ and $K$ is a compact non-polar subset of $\D$.

\begin{lemma}\label{limcaph}
The limit $$ \lim_{t \to +\infty}\frac{ \log \caph \phi_t(K)}{t}=0.$$
\begin{proof}

In the case where the semigroup is either hyperbolic or parabolic of positive hyperbolic step, it is proved in \cite{bkkp2} that $\caph \phi_t(K) \xrightarrow{t \to + \infty} \caph_{\bs} h(K) \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$.
Thus the limit of $\frac{\log \caph \phi_t(K)}{t}$, as $t \to + \infty$, is, in fact, zero. So, we are left to calculate the limit in the case where  the semigroup $(\phi_t)$ is parabolic of zero hyperbolic step.

We use the associated Koenigs function $h$ of the semigroup $(\phi_t)$ and the associated planar domain $\Omega$.
Set $\delta := \dist(h(K),\partial \Omega)$. Let $w_1 \in \partial \Omega$ be a point such that $|w_1| = \delta$.
Due to the fact that $\Omega $ is convex in the horizontal direction, the half-line $\{ w_1 - s : s \geq 0 \} \subset \mathbb{C} \setminus \Omega $.
Hence $\Omega $ is included into a Koebe-type domain $\Delta_1 := \mathbb{C} \setminus \{ w_1 - s : s \geq 0 \}  $. We can find a linear mapping $f(z) = a z+ b $, with $a>0$ and $ b \in \mathbb{C}$, such that $\Delta_1$ is mapped conformally onto $\Delta := \mathbb{C} \setminus ( - \infty, - \frac{1}{4}]$. Due to the \eqref{subhypden} and the conformal invariance, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{greater}
\caph \phi_t(K) = \caph_{\Omega} (h(K)+t) \geq \caph_{\Delta_1}(h(K)+t)= \caph_{\Delta} f(h(K)+t).
\end{equation}

Fix $w_1, w_2$ two distinct points in $h(K)$. Set $c:=b+ \frac{1}{4}$ and $c^{\prime} : = \frac{c}{a}$.  The pseudo-hyperbolic distance in $\Delta$ is equal to
\begin{align*}
\rho_{\Delta}(f(z+t), f(w+t)) &= \rho_{\Delta} ( aw_1+ a t +b, aw_2+at+b) = \left|  \frac{\sqrt{aw_1+at+c}-\sqrt{aw_2+at+c}}{\overline{\sqrt{aw_1+at+c}}+\sqrt{a w_2+at+c}} \right|\\
& = |w_1-w_2| \left| \sqrt{w_1+t+ c^{\prime}}+ \sqrt{w_2+t+c^{\prime}} \right|^{-1} \left| \overline{\sqrt{w_1+t+c^{\prime}}}+ \sqrt{w_2+t+c^{\prime}} \right|^{-1}\\
&=  |w_1-w_2| \left| |w_1+t +c^{\prime}|+ w_2+ t+c^{\prime} + 2 \sqrt{ w_2+t + c^{\prime}} \RE \{\sqrt{w_1+t+c^{\prime }} \} \right|^{-1} .
\end{align*}

We can also write
\begin{align*}
&\left| |w_1+t +c^{\prime}|+ w_2+ t+c^{\prime} + 2 \sqrt{ w_2+t + c^{\prime}}  \RE \{\sqrt{w_1+t+c^{\prime }} \} \right|  =\\
& \quad \quad =   t \left| \left|\frac{w_1+c^{\prime}}{t}+1 \right|+ \frac{w_2+c^{\prime}}{t}+ 1 + 2 \sqrt{ \frac{w_2+ c^{\prime}}{t}+1 } \, \RE \left\{\sqrt{\frac{w_1+c^{\prime }}{t} +1} \right\} \right| \\
& \quad \quad \leq  t \left[ \left|\frac{w_1+c^{\prime}}{t}+1 \right|^{\frac{1}{2}} + \left| \frac{w_2+c^{\prime}}{t}+1 \right|^{\frac{1}{2}} \right]^2  \leq t \left[ 2 \sqrt{\frac{A}{t}+1}\right]^2 \leq 4A + 4t,
\end{align*}
considering the fact that $w_1, w_2$ lie on a compact set and $A:= \max \{|w+ c^{\prime}| : w \in h(K) \}$.
Hence,
\begin{equation} \label{ineq1}
\rho_{\Delta}(f(z+t), f(w+t)) \geq \frac{|w_1-w_2|}{4A+4t}.
\end{equation}

The hyperbolic $n$-th diameter of $h(K)+t$ with respect to $\Delta$ is given by
\begin{align*}
d_{n,h}^{\Delta}(a(h(K)+t)+b)^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}} & \, = \sup_{w_{\mu}, w_{\nu} \in h(K)+t } \prod_{1 \leq \mu < \nu \leq n} \rho_{\Delta}(a w_{\mu}+b, aw_{\nu}+b) \\
& \, = \sup_{w_{\mu}, w_{\nu} \in h(K) } \prod_{1 \leq \mu < \nu \leq n} \rho_{\Delta}(a w_{\mu}+ at+ b, aw_{\nu}+at +b) \\
& \underset{\eqref{ineq1}}{\geq} (4A+4t)^{- \frac{n(n-1)}{2}} \sup_{w_{\mu}, w_{\nu} \in h(K) } \prod_{1 \leq \mu < \nu \leq n}  |w_{\mu}- w_{\nu}| \\
& \underset{\eqref{eudiameter}}{=} (4A+4t)^{- \frac{n(n-1)}{2}} d_n (h(K))^{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}
\end{align*}
and hence, applying the logarithm we get
$$\log d_{n,h}^{\Delta}(a(h(K)+t)+b) \geq -\log(A+t)-\log 4 + \log  d_n (h(K)).$$
Taking the limit as $n\to +\infty$, we obtain
$$\log \caph_{\Delta} \left[ a(h(K)+t)+b \right] \geq -\log(A+t) - \log 4+ \log \Capac h(K)$$
and dividing by $t$,
\begin{equation}\label{ineq2}
\frac{\log \caph_{\Delta} \left[ a(h(K)+t)+b \right]}{t} \geq - \frac{\log(A+t) }{t} - \frac{\log 4}{t} + \frac{\log \Capac h(K)}{t}.
\end{equation}
Let's note that since $K$ is non-polar, then $h(K)$ is also non-polar (\cite[Corollary 3.6.6]{ransford}) and so, its logarithmic capacity is strictly positive.
As a result, combining \eqref{greater} and \eqref{ineq2}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{concl1}
\frac{\log \caph \phi_t(K)}{t} \geq - \frac{\log(A+t) }{t} - \frac{\log 4}{t} + \frac{\log \Capac h(K)}{t} \xrightarrow{t \to +\infty} 0.
\end{equation}

Bearing also in mind that $\caph \phi_t(K)$ is a decreasing function of $t$ and $\caph \phi_t(K) \xrightarrow{t \to + \infty} 0$, as proved in \cite{bkkp2}, it follows that for sufficiently large $t$, $\log \caph \phi_t(K) \leq 0$.
In conclusion, the limit of $ \frac{\log \caph \phi_t(K)}{t}$, as $t \to + \infty$,  exists and it is equal to $0$.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\cite[p.111]{margarnett}\label{111}
Let $E$ be a compact non-polar subset of $\D$ and let $\nu $ be its Green equilibrium measure.
For any $z \in \D \setminus E$,
$$ \omega (z, E, \D) =\caph E \cdot G_{\nu} (z)   .$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\label{inequality}
For every $ z \in K$, there exists a constant $\widetilde{C}$ such that
 $$ \omega(z, \phi_t(K), \D) \leq \widetilde{C} e^{- \pi \lambda_{\D}(K, \phi_t(K)) } .$$
\begin{proof}
Suppose $z \in K$. Consider the multiply connected domain $D:=\D \setminus \phi_t(K)$. From \eqref{generh7}, we have that $$\omega (z, \phi_t(K), \D) \leq \frac{8}{\pi} \exp \left\{ - \pi \sup_{ \sigma} \lambda_{D} (\sigma, \phi_t(K)) \right\}, $$
where $\sigma$ is any Jordan arc in $\D$ that joins $z$ with $\partial \D$.
As $t$ increases, $\phi_t(K)$ approaches the Denjoy-Wolff point $1$ and as $t \to + \infty$, it shrinks to a point. There exists $t_1 \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$ such that for all $t \geq t_1$, $K \cap \phi_t(K) \neq \emptyset$.
Pick $z_0 \in \partial K$ such that it minimizes the distance from $\phi_t(K)$.
Choose two arcs $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ in $\D \setminus (K \cup \phi_t(K))$, pairwise disjoint, which join $z_0$ with $\partial \D$. We further suppose that $\gamma := \sigma_1 \cup \sigma_2$ is a crosscut and $K$ and $\phi_t(K)$ lie on different components of $\D \setminus \gamma$.

For $i=1,2$, $$\lambda_{D}(\sigma_i,\phi_t(K))\leq \sup_{\sigma} \lambda_D (\sigma, \phi_t(K))$$ and since the extremal distance decreases as any of the sets increase (see \cite[Corollary p.54]{ahlforsconformal}), we obtain $$\lambda_{D} (\gamma, \phi_t(K)) = \lambda_{D}(\sigma_1 \cup \sigma_2,\phi_t(K))\leq \sup_{\sigma} \lambda_D (\sigma, \phi_t(K)). $$

\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{arcssigma.png}
\caption{Arcs $\sigma$}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Let $ \{ \Gamma^{\star} \}$ denote the family of rectifiable curves that separate $K$ from $\phi_t(K)$ and $ \{ \Gamma_{\gamma}^{\star} \}$ the family of rectifiable curves that separate $\gamma$ from $\phi_t(K)$. Let $\{ \Gamma_1^{\star} \} $ denote the family of rectifiable curves that separate $K$ from $\phi_t(K)$ but not $\phi_t(K)$ from $\gamma$.
Obviously, $\{ \Gamma^{\star} \}$ is the disjoint union $\{ \Gamma_{\gamma}^{\star} \} \cup \{ \Gamma_1^{\star} \} $.
From Lemma \ref{non-disjointparallel} and the definition of the conjugate extremal length,
$$\lambda_{D} ( K,\phi_t(K)) \leq \lambda_{D} (\gamma, \phi_t(K)) +\frac{1}{\lambda_D (\{ \Gamma_1^{\star} \}) } \leq \sup_{\sigma} \lambda_D (\sigma, \phi_t(K)) +\frac{1}{\lambda_D (\{ \Gamma_1^{\star} \}) }. $$

If the family $ \{ \Gamma_1^{\star} \}$ is empty, then $\lambda_D (\{ \Gamma_1^{\star} \})  = + \infty$ (\cite[p.70]{ohtsuka}) and the above inequality holds as equality.
In the case where $\lambda_D (\{ \Gamma_1^{\star}\})=0$, according to the definition, we get $$ \sup_{\rho} \frac{ \inf_{\gamma \in \{ \Gamma_1^{\star} \}} \Le( \gamma, \rho)^2 }{\Ar(\D, \rho)} =0 \Rightarrow \inf_{\gamma \in \{ \Gamma_1^{\star} \}} \Le( \gamma, \rho) =0 , $$
for any measurable function $\rho$.
The same holds for the euclidean metric on the unit disk, as $e(z)=1$ is a non-negative Borel measurable function on $\D$ with finite area $\Ar ( e, \D)= \pi$. Hence
$$\Le (\{\Gamma_1^{\star} \}, e)=0  \Leftrightarrow \inf_{\gamma \in \{\Gamma_1^{\star} \}} \int_{ \gamma} |dz| =0. $$
Therefore for every $\epsilon > 0 $, by the definition of the infimum, there exists at least one curve $\gamma \in \{ \Gamma_1^{\star} \} $ such that
$\int_{\gamma} |dz| <\epsilon. $
However such a curve cannot separate the compact sets $K$ and $\phi_t(K)$. Hence $ \lambda_D(\{ \Gamma_1^{\star} \})>0$. All the curves that separate $K$ and $\phi_t(K)$ have strictly positive euclidean length and so $ \lambda_D(\{ \Gamma_1^{\star} \})$ has a positive lower bound.
As a result, there exists a constant $C_1>0$ such that $\lambda_D (\{ \Gamma_1^{\star}\})  \geq C_1$ and
$$ \lambda_{\D} ( K,\phi_t(K))=\lambda_D( K,\phi_t(K)) \leq  \sup_{\sigma} \lambda_D (\sigma, \phi_t(K))+ \frac{1}{C_1} ,$$
where the first equality follows from the definition of extremal distance; see \eqref{extconj}.
We obtain
\begin{equation}
\omega (z_0, \phi_t(K), \D) \leq \frac{8 }{\pi} \exp \left\{- \pi \lambda_{\D}(K,\phi_t(K))+\frac{\pi}{C_1} \right\}.
\end{equation}
According to Harnack's inequality (see e.g. \cite[Definition 1.3.4]{ransford} and \cite[p.40]{margarnett}),
$$\tau^{-1}(z,z_0) \cdot \omega (z, \phi_t(K), \D) \leq \omega (z_0, \phi_t(K), \D) \leq \frac{8}{\pi} \exp \left\{- \pi \lambda_{\D}(K,\phi_t(K))+\frac{\pi}{C_1} \right\},$$
where $\tau$ denotes the Harnack distance in $\D \setminus \phi_t(K)$.
Set $c:= \sup_{w \in K} \tau(w,z_0) > 0$, which exists as maximum, since $K$ is compact and $\tau$ is continuous.
Hence
\begin{equation}\label{upperbound}
\omega (z, \phi_t(K), \D) \leq \frac{8 c}{ \pi} \exp \left\{- \pi \lambda_{\D}(K,\phi_t(K))+\frac{\pi}{C_1} \right\}  = :\widetilde{C} e^{- \pi \lambda_{\D}(K,\phi_t(K))} .
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{main}}\label{proof}

In what follows, we will prove Theorem \ref{main} and the convergence to the spectral value for every potential theoretic quantity.

\subsection{Hyperbolic Metric}

Fix $z \in K$. The limit of $\frac{d_{\D}(z, \phi_t(z))}{t}$, as $t \to + \infty$, exists and it is equal to $\frac{\lambda}{2}$, as seen in \eqref{divrate}.
Since $d_{\D}$ is a metric
\begin{align*}
\sup_{w \in K} \left| \frac{d_{\D}(z, \phi_t(w))}{t} - \frac{\lambda}{2} \right| & \leq \sup \bigg\{ \sup_{w \in K} \left| \frac{d_{\D}(z, \phi_t (z))}{t} - \frac{d_{\D}(\phi_t(z), \phi_t(w))}{t} -\frac{\lambda}{2} \right|,  \\
& \quad \quad \quad   \sup_{w \in K}  \left|  \frac{d_{\D}(z, \phi_t (z))}{t}+  \frac{d_{\D}(\phi_t(z), \phi_t(w))}{t} -\frac{\lambda}{2} \right| \bigg\}  \\
& \leq \left|\frac{d_{\D}(z, \phi_t (z))}{t} -\frac{\lambda}{2} \right| + \sup_{w \in K} \left| \frac{d_{\D}(\phi_t(z), \phi_t(w))}{t} \right| \\
& < \left|\frac{d_{\D}(z, \phi_t (z))}{t} -\frac{\lambda}{2} \right|+ \sup_{w \in K} \left| \frac{d_{\D}(z,w)}{t} \right|,
\end{align*}
where the last inequality follows from Schwarz-Pick lemma.
Since $z,w$ lie on a compact set, there exists a constant $c>0$ such that their hyperbolic distance $d_{\D}(z,w) \leq c$. Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{limhypmet}
\sup_{w \in K} \left| \frac{d_{\D}(z, \phi_t(w))}{t} - \frac{\lambda}{2} \right| < \left|\frac{d_{\D}(z, \phi_t (z))}{t} -\frac{\lambda}{2} \right|+ \frac{c}{t} \xrightarrow{ t \to + \infty} 0
\end{equation}
and so, $\frac{d_{\D}(z, \phi_t(w))}{t}$ converges uniformly in $w \in K$ to $\frac{\lambda}{2}$, as $t \to + \infty$. \qed

\subsection{Green Function}

Fix $z \in K$. For $w \in K$, set $$u_t(w) : = \frac{\log g_{\D} (z, \phi_t(w))}{ d_{\D} (z, \phi_t(w))} \underset{\eqref{greendist}}{=} \frac{\log [-\log \tanh d_{\D}(z, \phi_t(w))]}{d_{\D}(z, \phi_t(w))}.  $$
According to Lemma \ref{calculus}, the limit
$$ \lim_{t \to +\infty} u_t(w)  = -2$$
and hence $u_t$ converges pointwise to $-2$ on $K$.
We examine whether the convergence is also uniform.
Due to Lemma \ref{calculus}, we obtain
$$ 0 \leq u_t(w)+2 \leq \frac{\log c}{d_{\D}(z, \phi_t(w))}$$
and so,
$$   \sup_{w \in K} |u_t(w)+2 |  \leq \sup_{w \in K}  \left| \frac{\log c}{d_{\D}(z, \phi_t(w))} \right|  \leq  \frac{|\log c|}{\inf_{w \in h(K)} d_{\D}(z, \phi_t(w))} \xrightarrow{t \to + \infty} 0 ,$$
since $\phi_t(w) \xrightarrow{t \to + \infty} 1$, for every $w \in K$. As a result, $u_t$ converges uniformly in $w \in K$ to $-2$, as $t \to + \infty$.

For $t$ sufficiently large, we can verify that $d_{\D}(z, \phi_t(w)) > const. >0$, for any $w \in K$, both $\frac{d_{\D}(z, \phi_t(w))}{t}$ and $u_t(w)$ are bounded on $K$, and since they converge uniformly on $K$, their product also converges uniformly on $K$.
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{limgreenfunction}
 \frac{\log g_{\D}(z, \phi_t(w))}{t} \xrightarrow{t \to + \infty} - \lambda
\end{equation}
uniformly in $w \in K$. \qed

\subsection{ Harmonic Measure}

Fix $t \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$ sufficiently large.
Since $\phi_t (K)$ is compact and non-polar, it has a unique Green equilibrium measure $\mu_t$. Fix $z \in K$.
According to Lemma \ref{111},
\begin{equation}\label{eq111}
 \frac{\omega (z, \phi_t(K), \D)}{\caph \phi_t(K)} =  G_{ \mu_t} (z) = \int_{\phi_t(K)} g_{\D} (z, w) d \mu_t (w),
 \end{equation}
where $g_{\D}$ is the Green function in the unit disk.
Estimating the above integral, we obtain the following inequality
\begin{equation}\label{estimates}
 \mu_t(\phi_t(K))\inf_{w \in K} g_{\D}(z,\phi_t(w)) \leq \frac{\omega (z, \phi_t(K), \D)}{\caph \phi_t(K) } \leq \mu_t(\phi_t(K)) \sup_{w \in K} g_{\D}(z,\phi_t(w)).
\end{equation}
However, $\mu_t$ is a probability measure and so, $\mu_t(\phi_t(K))=1$.
Applying the logarithm, which is both continuous and increasing, we get
\begin{equation}\label{min,max}
\frac{\log \caph \phi_t(K)}{t}  +\inf_{w \in K}   \frac{\log g_{\D}(z,\phi_t(w))}{t} \leq \frac{\log \omega (z, \phi_t(K), \D)}{t}  \leq  \frac{\log \caph \phi_t(K)}{t} + \sup_{w \in K} \frac{\log g_{\D}(z,\phi_t(w))}{t}.
\end{equation}
From \eqref{limgreenfunction} and Lemma \ref{limcaph}, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{limha}
\lim_{t \to + \infty} \frac{\log \omega (z, \phi_t(K), \D)}{t} = -\lambda.
\end{equation}
\qed

\subsection{Extremal Length }

From Lemma \ref{inequality}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{upperbound1}
\pi \lambda_{\D}(K,\phi_t(K)) \leq \log \widetilde{C} - \log \omega(z, \phi_t(K),\D) \Rightarrow \pi \frac{\lambda_{\D}(K,\phi_t(K))}{t} \leq \frac{\log \widetilde{C}}{t} - \frac{\log \omega(z, \phi_t(K),\D)}{t}.
\end{equation}
Hence
\begin{equation}\label{ineqfinalext1}
 \limsup_{t \to + \infty} \frac{\lambda_{\D}(K,\phi_t(K))}{t} \leq \frac{\lambda}{\pi} .
\end{equation}

In order to find a lower bound, we use a technique with crosscuts from \cite[\S\ 2.19]{ohtsuka}. Let $h$ be the associated Koenigs function of the semigroup. Due to its linearization property, $h(\phi_t(K))= h(K)+t$.
Suppose $y:=\frac{1}{2} \left(\min \{\IM w :w \in h(K)\} + \max \{\IM w : w \in h(K)\}  \right)$ and take the horizontal line $L:= \{ z :  \IM z=y \}$. If $L \cap \partial \Omega \neq \emptyset$, fix $w \in \partial \Omega \cap L$ such that $\RE w = \max\{ \RE \widetilde{w} : \widetilde{w} \in \partial \Omega \cap L \} $.
In the case where $L \cap \partial \Omega = \emptyset$, fix $w \in \partial \Omega$ such that $\dist(w, h(K))= \dist (\partial \Omega, h(K))$; see Figures \ref{capnonempty} and \ref{capempty}.
Set $$z_t:= i y+ \frac{t+ \min_{\widetilde{w} \in h(K)} \RE \widetilde{w} + \max_{\widetilde{w} \in h(K)} \RE \widetilde{w}}{2} \in L$$ and $R_t:=|w -z_t|$.

\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
   \centering
     \begin{minipage}{0.45\linewidth}
     \begin{figure}[H]
     \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{capnonempty.jpg}
     \caption{$L \cap \partial \Omega \neq \emptyset$}
     \label{capnonempty}
     \end{figure}
      \end{minipage}
      \hspace{0.05\linewidth}
      \begin{minipage}{0.45\linewidth}
     \begin{figure}[H]
     \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Lcapboundary3.jpg}
     \caption{$L \cap \partial \Omega = \emptyset$}
     \label{capempty}
    \end{figure}
   \end{minipage}
 \end{minipage}
\vspace*{0.2cm}

Fix $t_0 := \inf \{ t \in \mathbb{R}^{+}: h(K) \subset D(w, R_t)\}$. The existence of such $t_0$ is guaranteed by the fact that $h(K)$ is compact and $R_t$ is increasing.
Moreover, for some $t_1>0$ onward, $D(w,R_t) \cap (h(K)+t )= \emptyset$. Take $\widetilde{t_0} = \max\{ t_0,t_1\}$.
Define $\widetilde{\theta_0}$ to be the crosscut in $\Omega $ that is the connected component of $\partial D(w, R_{\widetilde{t_0}}) \cap \Omega$, which passes through $z_{\widetilde{t_0}}$.
Then $\widetilde{\theta_0}$ separates $h(K)$ from $h(K)+\widetilde{t_0}$.

In the same way, we define a family of crosscuts $\{ \widetilde{ \theta_t} \}_{t \geq \widetilde{t_0}} $ in $\Omega$, each of which is the connected component of $\partial D(w, R_t) \cap \Omega$ that passes through $z_t$ and separates $h(K)$ from $h(K)+t$. As $t \to + \infty$, $z_t \to \infty$ and $R_t \to + \infty$. Hence the family of the disks $\{D(w, R_t)\}_t$ is increasing and covers the whole complex plane.
Let's also note that any two crosscuts of the family have distinct end-points and are pairwise disjoint.
Taking their pre-images with respect to the Koenigs function, we obtain a family of crosscuts $ \{\theta_t \}_t$ in $\D$, such that for each $t$, $\theta_t:= h^{-1} ( \widetilde{\theta_t} )$; see Figure \ref{cross}.
From \cite[Prop. 2.14]{pommerenke4}, the crosscuts $\theta_t$ have distinct endpoints on the unit circle and each separates $K$ from $\phi_t(K)$.

Due to connectedness, the domains $D_t:=h^{-1}(D(w,R_t) \cap \Omega)$ form an increasing family of domains that converges to $\D$, as $t \to + \infty$.
Moreover, as $t \to + \infty$, the euclidean diameter of $\theta_t$ tends to $0 $, so, $\{ \theta_t\}$ forms a null-chain that separates $z$ from  the the Denjoy-Wolff point of the semigroup.
For the detailed theory on crosscuts and null-chains, the reader may refer to \cite[\S\ 2.4]{pommerenke4}.

Set $\theta_0 := h^{-1} ( \widetilde{\theta}_0 )$. From \cite[Theorem 2.82]{ohtsuka}, it is true that
\begin{equation}\label{2.82ohtsuka}
\omega (z, \theta_t, D_t )= \exp \left\{ - \pi \lambda_{\D} (\theta_0, \theta_t) + \mathcal{O}(1) \right\},
\end{equation}
as $t \to + \infty$. According to \cite[Theorem III.5.1 and (5.3)]{margarnett} and since $\{D_t\}$ is an increasing family of domains, we get
\begin{equation}\label{lim1}
\lim_{t \to + \infty} \omega(z, \theta_t, D_t) = \omega (z, \{1\}, \D) = 0, \quad z \in K,
\end{equation}
as $\{1\}$ is a polar subset of $\partial \D$.
Moreover, for $z \in K$
$$\lim_{t \to + \infty} \omega(z, \phi_t(K), \D)  = \lim_{t \to +\infty} \omega (h(z), h(K)+t, \Omega) = \omega( h(z), \{ \infty \} , \mathbb{C})=0, $$
as $\{ \infty \}$ is polar.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{crosscuts.png}
\caption{Families of crosscuts $\{\theta_t \}$ and $\{ \widetilde{\theta}_t \}$}
\label{cross}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

From Proposition \ref{markov}, we observe that $\omega (h(z), \widetilde{\theta_{t}}, D(w,R_t) \cap \Omega )$ is a decreasing function of $t$.
Indeed, for $ \widetilde{t_0}  < t_1 < t_2$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\omega (h(z), \widetilde{\theta_{t_2}}, D(w,R_{t_2}) \cap \Omega) & =  \int_{\widetilde{ \theta_{t_1}}} \omega (h(z), ds,  D(w,R_{t_1}) \cap \Omega) \cdot \omega (s,\widetilde{ \theta_{t_2}} ,D(w,R_{t_2}) \cap \Omega) \\
& \leq \omega (h(z), \widetilde{ \theta_{t_1}},  D(w,R_{t_1}) \cap \Omega),
\end{align*}
where the inequality follows due to the fact that the harmonic measure is a probability measure.
Furthermore, using the probabilistic interpretation of harmonic measure (see Subsection \ref{harmonicmeasure}), we can observe that $ \omega(h(z), h(K)+t, \Omega)$ is also a decreasing function of $t$, since $h(K)+t$ moves towards infinity, as $t$ increases. Due to conformal invariance, it follows that both $\omega(z, \theta_t, D_t)$ and $\omega(z, \phi_t(K), \D)$ are decreasing functions of $t$ and hence, they satisfy Dini's criterion for uniform convergence on the compact set $K$. So, for every  $ \epsilon >0 $,
\begin{equation}\label{smallo}
\sup_{z \in K} | \omega(z, \phi_t(K), \D)  - \omega(z, \theta_t, D_t) |<  \epsilon .
\end{equation}

Let's denote by $\{ \Gamma_t^{\star}\}$ the family of curves that separate $\theta_0$ from $\theta_t$ and by $\{ \Gamma_K^{\star}\} $ the family of curves that separate $K$ from $ \phi_t(K)$. Obviously $\{ \Gamma_t^{\star} \} \subset \{ \Gamma_K^{\star} \}$. From Lemma \ref{extension}, $\lambda (\{ \Gamma_t^{\star} \}) \geq \lambda(\{ \Gamma_K^{\star} \})$, which leads to
$\lambda_{\D}^{\star} ( \theta_0, \theta_t) \geq \lambda_{\D}^{\star} (K, \phi_t(K))$. Therefore, as expected,
\begin{equation}\label{extdist}
\lambda_{\D}( \theta_0, \theta_t) \leq \lambda_{\D} (K, \phi_t(K)).
\end{equation}

Applying \eqref{smallo} to \eqref{2.82ohtsuka}, we get
\begin{equation} \label{lowerbound}
\omega (z, \phi_t(K), \D) > \omega(z, \theta_t, D_t) -  \epsilon =\exp \{ - \pi \lambda_{\D} ( \theta_0, \theta_t) + \mathcal{O}(1) \} -  \epsilon,
\end{equation}
for sufficiently large $t$. Also, for large enough $t$, $\mathcal{O}(1)$ is bounded from below by a constant $ \log C$, where $C>0$. Therefore, from \eqref{extdist} and \eqref{lowerbound},
$$
\omega (z, \phi_t(K), \D) \geq C  e^{ - \pi \lambda_{\D} (K, \phi_t(K)) }  -  \epsilon \Rightarrow \frac{\log \omega (z, \phi_t(K), \D)}{t} > \frac{ \log \left( C e^{-\pi \lambda_{\D} (K, \phi_t(K))} -  \epsilon \right)}{t}.$$
Using \eqref{limha}, we obtain for every $\epsilon >0$ and every sufficiently large $t$,
$$-\lambda+  \epsilon > \frac{ \log \left( C e^{-\pi \lambda_{\D} (K, \phi_t(K))} - \epsilon \right)}{t} \Rightarrow \log \frac{\epsilon + e^{ \epsilon t} e^{-\lambda t}}{C} > - \pi \lambda_{\D}(K, \phi_t(K)). $$
Dividing again by $t$, it follows
\begin{align}\label{ineqext1}
\frac{\lambda_{\D}(K, \phi_t(K))}{t} &> -\frac{1}{\pi t} \log \left(  \epsilon + e^{ \epsilon t} e^{-\lambda t } \right)  + \frac{\log C}{\pi t} \nonumber \\
& =-\frac{\epsilon}{\pi} - \frac{1}{\pi t} \log ( \epsilon e^{- \epsilon t } +  e^{-\lambda t })  + \frac{\log C}{\pi t}.  \nonumber
\end{align}
Note that for sufficiently large $t$, $\frac{1}{t}< \epsilon$ and so, $ \epsilon e^{-\epsilon t }< \epsilon e$. Choose $\epsilon < \frac{1}{e}$. Hence for every $\eta>0$,
$$\frac{\lambda_{\D}(K, \phi_t(K))}{t} >  -\frac{\epsilon}{\pi} - \frac{1}{\pi t} \log ( 1 +  e^{-\lambda t}  )  + \frac{\log C}{\pi t}> \frac{\lambda }{\pi}  - \eta, $$
as $ t^{-1} \log ( 1 +  e^{-\lambda t} ) \xrightarrow{t \to + \infty} -\lambda$. Therefore, we are led to
\begin{equation}\label{ineqfinalext2}
\liminf_{t \to + \infty} \frac{\lambda_{\D}(K, \phi_t(K))}{t}  \geq \frac{\lambda}{\pi}.
\end{equation}

As a result, combining \eqref{ineqfinalext1} and \eqref{ineqfinalext2}, we get
$\pi \frac{\lambda_{\D}(K,\phi_t(K))}{t} \to \lambda.$ \qed

\subsection{Condenser Capacity}
 From \eqref{extdistcap}, we obtain $ \frac{1}{t \Capac(\D, K, \phi_t(K))} \xrightarrow{t \to + \infty} \frac{\lambda }{\pi } .$
If the spectral value is positive, then we can write that
 \begin{equation}\label{limitcondencap}
 \lim_{t \to + \infty} t \Capac(\D, K, \phi_t(K)) = \frac{\pi}{ \lambda }.
 \end{equation}
In the case the spectral value is zero, then $ \frac{1}{t \Capac(\D, K, \phi_t(K))} \xrightarrow{t \to + \infty} 0 $ and since the condenser capacity is positive, we get $t \Capac(\D, K, \phi_t(K)) \xrightarrow{t \to + \infty} + \infty.$ Hence, the limit \eqref{limitcondencap} holds in the generalized form.   \qed

\section{Proof of Proposition \ref{asymptoticintegral}} \label{proofprop}

Combining Theorem \ref{main} with \eqref{connection}, we obtain that
$$ \frac{\pi}{2} \lim_{u \to + \infty} \frac{\lambda_{\D}(K, \phi_u(K))}{u}=  \lim_{u \to +\infty} \frac{s_u(\phi_t,z)}{u},$$
which leads to $  \lambda_{\D}(K, \phi_u(K))= \frac{2}{\pi} s_u(\phi_t,z) + \smallO(u)$, as $u \to +\infty$,
for any point $z \in \D$.
So, asymptotically the extremal distance between compact sets plays the role of the hyperbolic step. \qed

\section*{Acknowledgments}

The author wishes to thank the Department of Mathematics, University of Wuerzburg, where part of this research was carried out.

This research is co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Social Fund- ESF) through the Operational Programme ``Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning'' in the context of the project ``Reinforcement of Post-doctoral researchers - 2nd Cycle'' (MIS-5033021), implemented by the State Scholarships Foundation (IKY).

\medskip

\bibliographystyle{plain}