Abstract
In this paper, we consider \(L^p\)- estimate for a class of oscillatory integral operators satisfying the Carleson–Sjölin conditions with further convex and straight assumptions. As applications, the multiplier problem related to a general class of hypersurfaces with nonvanishing Gaussian curvature, local smoothing estimates for the fractional Schrödinger equation and the sharp resolvent estimates outside of the uniform boundedness range are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Let \(n \ge 2\), \(a \in C_c^{\infty }({\mathbb {R}}^n \times {\mathbb {R}}^{n-1})\) be non-negative and supported in \(B^n_1(0) \times B^{n-1}_1(0)\) and \(\phi :B^n_1(0) \times B^{n-1}_1(0) \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) be a smooth function which satisfies the following Carleson–Sjölin conditions:
-
(H1)
\(\mathrm{rank}\, \partial _{\xi x}^2 \phi (x,\xi ) = n-1\) for all \((x,\xi ) \in B^n _1(0)\times B^{n-1}_1(0)\);
-
(H2)
Defining the map \(G :B^n_1(0) \times B^{n-1}_1(0) \rightarrow S^{n-1}\) by \(G(x,\xi ) := \frac{G_0(x,\xi )}{|G_0(x,\xi ) |}\) where
$$\begin{aligned} G_0(x,\xi ) := \bigwedge _{j=1}^{n-1} \partial _{\xi _j} \partial _x\phi (x,\xi ), \end{aligned}$$the curvature condition
$$\begin{aligned} \det \partial ^2_{\xi \xi } \langle \partial _x\phi (x,\xi ),G(x, \xi _0)\rangle |_{\xi = \xi _0} \ne 0 \end{aligned}$$holds for all \((x, \xi _0) \in \mathrm{supp}\,a\).
For any \(\lambda \ge 1\), define the operator \(T^{\lambda }\) by
where \(f :B^{n-1}_1(0) \rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}, a(x,\xi )\in C_c^\infty (B_{1}^{n}(0)\times B_1^{n-1}(0))\) and
We say \(T^\lambda \) is a Hörmander type operator if \(\phi \) satisfies the conditions (H1) and (H2). A typical example for the Hörmander-type operator is the following extension operator E defined by
with
Hörmander conjectured that if \(\phi \) satisfies conditions \(\mathrm{H}_1,\mathrm{H}_2\), then
for \(p>\frac{2n}{n-1}\). Hörmander [19] proved the above conjecture for \(n=2\). For the higher dimensional case, Stein [26] proved (1.3) for \(p\ge 2\frac{n+1}{n-1}\) and \(n\ge 3\). Later, Bourgain [2] disproved Hörmander’s conjecture by constructing a kind of counterexample. Furthermore, he showed that Stein’s result is sharp in the odd dimensions. For the even dimensions, up to the endpoint case, Bourgain, Guth [4] proved the sharp result. In summary, we may state the results as follows.
Theorem 1.1
[4, 26] Let \(n\ge 3\) and \(T^\lambda \) be a Hörmander type operator. For all \(\varepsilon >0,\lambda \ge 1\),
holds whenever
Lee [23] observed that if we further impose the following convex condition
-
(H3)
The eigenvalues of the Hessian
$$\begin{aligned} \partial ^2_{\xi \xi } \langle \partial _x\phi (x,\xi ),G(x, \xi _0)\rangle |_{\xi = \xi _0} \end{aligned}$$are all positive for \((x, \xi _0) \in \mathrm{supp}\,a\);
on the phase, the range of p can be obtained beyond that in (1.5). Recently, Guth–Hickman–Iliopoulou [15] proved the sharp results for the operator \(T^\lambda \) with a convex phase. To be more precise, they showed
Theorem 1.2
[15] Let \(n\ge 3\) and \(T^\lambda \) be a Hörmander type operator satisfying the convex condition. For all \(\varepsilon >0,\lambda \ge 1\),
holds whenever
The primary difference between the translation invariant case (1.2) and (1.1) is that the main contribution of \(T^\lambda f\) may be concentrated in a small neighborhood of a lower dimensional submanifold which features slightly differently between the odd and even dimensions. However, such phenomena can not happen for the extension operator E if the Kakeya conjecture holds. The difference between Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 arises from the fact that in the convex setting, such concentration lies in an at least \(\lambda ^{1/2}\) neighborhood of a submanifold which can be manifested by the transverse equidistribution property, while for the general phase, it can be further squeezed into an 1-neighborhood of a submainifold.
As one can see, the Kakeya compression phenomena prohibit the sharp range of p in (1.5), (1.7) to be matched with the conjectured range \(p>\frac{2n}{n-1}\). Therefore, it is natural to conjecture the potentially possible range of p in (1.3) will be \(p>\frac{2n}{n-1}\) if the Kakeya compression phenomena does not happen. A probable way to preclude the Kakeya compression phenomena is to impose the following straight condition on the phase.
-
H4)
For given \(\xi \), \( G(x,\xi )\) keeps invariant when x changes.
Formally, we may formulate the following conjecture.
Conjecture 1.3
Let \(n\ge 3\) and \(T^{\lambda }\) be a Hörmander type operator with the straight condition. For all \(\varepsilon >0\), the estimate
holds uniformly for \(\lambda \ge 1\) whenever \(p>\frac{2n}{n-1}\).
Obviously, Conjecture 1.3 implies the restriction conjecture, and thus the Kakeya conjecture. Furthermore, we may see later Conjecture 1.3 also has many other applications. For example, Conjecture 1.3 implies the Bochner–Riesz conjecture related to a class of general hypersurfaces with nonvanishing Gaussian curvature and the local smoothing conjecture for the fractional Schrödinger equation and the sharp resolvent estimates outside of the uniform boundedness range.
In this paper, we prove certain \(L^p\) estimate for \(T^\lambda \) being a Hörmander type operator with the convex and straight conditions. Define \(p_n\) as followsFootnote 1
The exponent \(p_n\) originally comes from the work [18] of Hickman and Zahl. For some lower dimensional cases, the value of \(p_n\) may be found in Fig. 2 of [18]. We state our main results as follows.
Theorem 1.4
Let \(n\ge 3\) and \(T^{\lambda }\) be a Hörmander type operator with the convex and straight conditions. For all \(\varepsilon >0\) the estimate
holds uniformly for \(\lambda \ge 1\) whenever \(p\ge p_{n}\).
Under the straight conditions, from the Fig. 2 in [18], we may break the sharp range of p in [15] for oscillatory integrall operators satisfying the Carleson–Sjölin and convex conditions in some dimensions.
The proof of Theorem 1.4 relies on the polynomial partitioning method which was introduced by Guth [13, 14] to handle the restriction problem. Since then, it has been also used to study the pointwise convergence problem for the Schrödigner operator, Bochner–Riesz conjecture, Kakeya conjecture and local smoothing conjecture for the wave equation and the fractional Schrödinger equation, one may refer to [5, 9, 12, 17, 29] and references therein for more details. Technically speaking, the straight condition can not be kept under the change of variables in the spatial space which can be explicitly demonstrated in the Sect. 2.1. To overcome this obstacle, we need to work with a more general class of functions which satisfy the straight condition up to a diffeomorphism in the spatial variables. It should be noted that the proof of Theorem 1.4 is obtained by adapting the arguments in [12, 15]. Thus we only streamline the structure of the proof when there are too many overlaps.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Sect. 2, we will show the applications of conjecture 1.3 to the multiplier problem, local smoothing estimates for the fractional Schrödinger equation and the sharp resolvent estimates outside of the uniform boundedness range. In Sect. 3, we perform some reductions. In particular, we introduce a special class of functions to make the induction arguments completed. In Sect. 4, we introduce the wave packet decomposition which is an important tool. In Section 5, we prepare some useful ingredients which play important roles in the proof of the broad “norm” estimate in Sect. 6. With the above preparations, finally, we prove Theorem 1.4 in Sect. 7.
Notations. For nonnegative quantities X and Y, we will write \(X\lesssim Y\) to denote the inequality \(X\le C Y\) for some \(C>0\). If \(X\lesssim Y\lesssim X\), we will write \(X\sim Y\). Dependence of implicit constants on the spatial dimensions or integral exponents such as p will be suppressed; dependence on additional parameters will be indicated by subscripts. For example, \(X\lesssim _u Y\) indicates \(X\le CY\) for some \(C=C(u)\). We write \(A(R)\le \mathrm{RapDec}(R) B\) to mean that for any power \(\beta \), there is a constant \(C_\beta \) such that
We will also often abbreviate \(\Vert f\Vert _{L_x^r({\mathbb {R}}^n)}\) to \(\Vert f\Vert _{L^r}\). For \(1\le r\le \infty \), we use \(r'\) to denote the dual exponent to r such that \(\tfrac{1}{r}+\tfrac{1}{r'}=1\). Throughout the paper, \(\chi _E\) is the characteristic function of the set E. We usually denote by \(B_r^n(a)\) a ball in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\) with center a and radius r. We will also denote by \(B_R^n\) a ball of radius R and arbitrary center in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\). Denote by \(A(r):=B_{2r}^n(0){\setminus } B_{r/2}^n (0)\). We denote \(w_{B^{n}_{R}(x_0)}\) to be a nonnegative weight function adapted to the ball \(B^{n}_{R}(x_0)\) such that
for some large constant \(M\in {\mathbb {N}}\).
We define the Fourier transform on \({\mathbb {R}}^n\) by
and the inverse Fourier transform by
These help us to define the fractional differentiation operators \(\vert \nabla \vert ^s\) and \(\langle \nabla \rangle ^s\) for \(s\in {\mathbb {R}}\) via
In this manner, we define the Sobolev norm of the space \(L^p_{\alpha }({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) by
2 Applications
In this section, we talk about the relations of Conjecture 1.3 to other associated problems. In particular, the multiplier problem with respect to a general class of hypersurfaces with non-vanishing Gaussian curvature, local smoothing conjecture for the fractional Schrödinger and the sharp resovent estimate outside of uniform boundedness range will be discussed.
Let \(\psi :{\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) be a smooth function with
and
where N is a large constant. Therefore, by inverse function theorem, there exists locally a function \(g:{\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\) such that
2.1 Multiplier problem
Let \(\delta \ge 0,\xi =(\xi ',\xi _n)\) and \(m^\delta (\xi ):=(\xi _n-\psi (\xi '))^\delta _{+}\chi (\xi ')\), where \(\chi \) is a smooth compactly supported function with \(\mathrm{supp} \chi \subset B_2^{n-1}(0)\) and
We consider the following multiplier problem: for which \(\delta \) and p such that
It is conjectured that
Conjecture 2.1
For \(\delta \ge 0\) and \(1\le p\le \infty \), then
We will show how Conjecture 1.3 implies Conjecture 2.1. Let \(p>\frac{2n}{n-1}\) and \(\eta :{\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) be a smooth compactly supported function, with \(\mathrm{supp} \eta \subset (1/2,1)\) satisfying
We break \(m^\delta \) into pieces
where \(r(\xi )\) is a smooth function with \(\mathrm{supp}r\subset B_2^n(0)\).
Define an operator \(m_j^\delta (D)\) as follows:
Let \(K_j^\delta (x)\) be the kernel of the multiplier \(m_j^\delta (D)\), i.e.
Through changing of variables, we may reformulate \(K_j^\delta (x)\) as follows:
where
For convenience, define
To handle the inner part of the integral with respect to \(\xi '\), we use the stationary phase method. For this purpose, we borrow the following lemma from [22] with a slight modification. One may refer to [22] for the proof.
Lemma 2.2
Define
then
-
If \(|x_n|\ge 1/2\) and \(2^5|x'|\le |x_n|\), then for every \(M\in {\mathbb {N}}\) satisfying \(2M\le N\) we have
$$\begin{aligned} I_{\psi }(x)=\frac{c_n}{\sqrt{|K|}}e^{2\pi i\left( x'\cdot g\left( \frac{x'}{x_n}\right) +x_n\psi \left( g\left( \frac{x'}{x_n}\right) \right) \right) } \times \sum _{j=0}^{M-1} {\mathcal {D}}_j \chi (\xi ')|_{\xi ' =g\left( \frac{x'}{x_n}\right) }|x_n|^{-\frac{n-1}{2}-j}+{\mathcal {E}}_M(x), \end{aligned}$$(2.4)where \(c_n\) is a constant depending on n, K denotes the Gaussian curvature of the hypersurface \((\xi ',\psi (\xi '))\) at point \((g(\frac{x'}{x_n}),\psi (g(\frac{x'}{x_n})))\), \({\mathcal {D}}_0 \chi =\chi \) and \({\mathcal {D}}_j\) is a differential operator in \(\xi '\) of order 2j. For \({\mathcal {E}}\), we have the estimate
$$\begin{aligned} |{\mathcal {E}}_M(x)|\lesssim _{M,\psi } |x_n|^{-M}. \end{aligned}$$ -
If \(2^6|x'|\ge |x_n|\) or \(|x_n|\le 2\), then for every \(0\le M\le N\) there exists a constant \(C_M\), such that
$$\begin{aligned} |I_\psi (x)|\le C_M(1+|x|)^{-M}. \end{aligned}$$
Let \(\widetilde{\chi }\in C_c^\infty ({\mathbb {R}})\) with \(\mathrm{supp} \widetilde{\chi } \subset (-2^{-5},2^{-5})\) equaling to 1 in \((-2^{-6},2^{-6})\), \(\beta \in C_0^\infty ({\mathbb {R}})\) with \(\mathrm{supp} \beta \subset [-9/8,-3/8]\cup [3/8,9/8]\) and
We split \(K_j\) as follows:
where
Using Lemma 2.2, we have
For \(\ell \ge 1\), the main contribution to \(K_{j,\ell }\) comes from \(\widetilde{K}_{j,\ell }\) defined by
Thus it suffices to show
where \(\widetilde{T}_{j,\ell }\) is defined by
Then by a standard optimization argument, we have
Therefore, by a localization argument, it suffices to show
Note that
where
and
It’s easy to show that
Indeed, since \(\partial ^{\alpha }_x\Big (\widetilde{\beta }(x_n-y_n) \widetilde{\chi }\Big (\frac{x'-y'}{x_n-y_n}\Big )\Big )\) is bounded for any \(|\alpha |\ge 0\), it suffices to show
By integration by parts, (2.8) follows easily.
For fixed \(y_n\), by changing of variables
under the new coordinates, the phase \((x'-y')\cdot g\Big (\frac{x'-y'}{x_n-y_n}\Big )+(x_n-y_n)\psi \Big (g\Big (\frac{x'-y'}{x_n-y_n}\Big )\Big )\) becomes
A direct computation shows that the associated Gauss map \(G(x,y')\) related to the hypersurface \(\{\partial _x\Psi (x,y')\}\) at \(y'\) is given by
which is obviously independent of the spatial variables x. Indeed, suppose that \(g(\xi )=(g_1(\xi ), g_2(\xi ), \cdots ,g_{n-1}(\xi )), \xi \in {\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\). For \(1\le i\le n-1\),
here we have used the fact that \((\partial _j\psi )(g(x^\prime -x_ny^\prime ))=x_n y_j-x_j\) which follows from (2.1). We also have
Therefore, for \(1\le i,k\le n-1\),
and
Then it is obvious that for each x, \((y',1)\) is orthogonal to \(\partial _{y_k}\partial _x \Psi (x,y'), 1\le k\le n-1\). Hence we can get (2.10). Furthermore, \(\Psi (x,y')\) satisfies the Carleson–Sjölin conditions by our assumption that the Hessian of \(\psi \) is nondegerate.
Recall (2.7), we may use Conjecture 1.3 to obtain that
uniformly for \(y_n\). Finally, integrating with respect to \(y_n\), we will obtain the desired results.
If we impose an additional condition that all eigenvalues of the Hessian of \(\psi \) are positive, then \(\Psi (x,y')\) also satisfies the convex condition. From the above discussion, as a direct consequence of Theorem 1.4, we also have
Corollary 2.3
Let \(1\le p\le \infty , \psi :{\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\longrightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) be smooth and \(\Big (\frac{\partial ^2\psi }{\partial \xi _i\partial \xi _j}\Big )_{(n-1)\times (n-1)}\) has \((n-1)\) positive eigenvalues, then
for all p such that \(\max \{p,p'\}>p_n\) and \(\delta >\delta (p)\).
2.2 Local smoothing estimates for the fractional Schrödinger equation
Let \(u:{\mathbb {R}}^{n}\times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\) be the solution to the following equation
where \(\alpha \in (0,1)\cup (1,\infty )\) and f is a Schwartz function. The solution u can be expressed by
We are concerned with \(L^p\)-regularity of the solution u. For a fixed time t, Fefferman and Stein [7], Miyachi [24] showed the following optimal \(L^p\) estimate:
It is conjectured that:
Conjecture 2.4
(Local smoothing for the fractional Schrödinger operator) Let \(\alpha \in (0,1)\cup (1,\infty ),p>2+\frac{2}{n}\) and \(s\ge \alpha n(\tfrac{1}{2}-\tfrac{1}{p})-\frac{\alpha }{p}\). Then
We will show Conjecture 1.3 implies Conjecture 2.4. Indeed, following the reduction in [10], up to the endpoint regularity, to show (2.15), it suffices to prove
where \(\psi \) also satisfies
-
\(\psi (0)=0,\nabla \psi (0)=0\);
-
For \(\xi _0 \in B_1^n(0)\), the absolute value of all eigenvalues of the Hessian \(\Big (\frac{\partial ^2\psi }{\partial \xi _i\partial \xi _j}\Big )|_{\xi =\xi _0}\) falls into [1/2, 1).
By a localization argument, we may also assume \(\mathrm{supp}f\subset B_{R^2}^n\). Note that
where \(a\in C_c^\infty ({B_2^n(0)})\). We denote K(x, t, y) the kernel of the operator \(e^{it\psi (D)}\), then
Through a standard stationary phase argument, we have
where g is defined as in (2.1) with \(n-1\) being replaced by n. Note \(t\sim R^2\), therefore, it suffices to consider the following oscillatory integral operators
By changing of variables,
we have
Performing change of variables as follows
the corresponding phase under the new coordinates becomes
By our assumption, \(\Psi (x,t,y)\) satisfies the straight condition, as well as the Carleson–Sjölin conditions. Therefore, by Conjecture 1.3, we have
Thus, we complete the proof.
It should be noted that Gan–Oh–Wu [8] considered the local smoothing problem for the fractional Schrödinger equation via a different approach and mentioned essentially the same method as above discussed. Furthermore, it is possible to further improve Gan-Oh-Wu’s result by considering the Hörmanger type operator with the convex and straight conditions using Wang’s method [28] at least in dimension \(n=2\).
2.3 Sharp resolvent estimates outside of the uniform boundedness range
The resolvent estimate for the Laplatian is of the form
This inequality and its variants have been applied to study the problems of uniform Sobolev estimates, unique continuation properties and limiting absorption principles, etc, one may refer to [6, 11, 21] for more details.
Let’s briefly review the results related to (2.19). In [21], Kenig, Ruiz and Sogge showed, for \(z\in {\mathbb {C}}\backslash [0,\infty )\) and
with \(n\ge 3\), the constant \(C(p,q,n)>0\) can be obtained independent of z. By homogeneity, a simple calculation shows that
For \(z\in {\mathbb {S}}^1\backslash \{1\}\), Guti\(\acute{e}\)rrez [16] obtained the optimal range of p, q with \(n\ge 3\) in the sense that the constant C(p, q, n) is independent of z. To be more precise, if \(z\in {\mathbb {S}}^1\backslash \{1\}\) and \((\frac{1}{p}, \frac{1}{q})\) lies in the set
the sharp constant C(p, q, z) in (2.19) can be obtained uniformly independent of z.
To formally state results regarding C(z, p, q) with \(z\in {\mathbb {S}}^1\backslash \{1\}\) and \((\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q})\) lying outside of the uniform boundedness range, let’s firstly introduce some notations. Let \(I^2\) be a closed square defined by
For each \((x,y)\in I^2\), define
Similarly, for any subset \({\mathcal {R}}\subset I^2\), define \({\mathcal {R}}'\) to be
Definition 2.5
For \(X_1,\ldots ,X_\ell \in I^2\), we denote by \([X_1,\ldots ,X_\ell ]\) the convex hull of the points \(X_1,\ldots , X_\ell \). In particular, [X, Y] will denote the closed line segment jointing X and Y. We also denote by (X, Y) and [X, Y) for the open interval \([X,Y]\backslash \{X,Y\}\) and the half-open interval \([X,Y]\backslash \{Y\}\) respectively.
Set \(C=(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\) and
and
It is conjectured that:
Conjecture 2.6
Let \(n\ge 2\). If \((\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q})\) lies in \({\mathcal {R}}_0\backslash \Big ([B, E]\cup [B',E']\cup [D,C) \cup [D',C)\Big )\),
then
holds for \(z\in {\mathbb {C}}\backslash [0,\infty )\), where \(\gamma _{p,q}\) is defined as follows:
Remark 1
If \(\left( \frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q}\right) \in \{B,B'\}\), the restricted weak type estimate
holds. One may refer to [22] for more details.
From [22], we know that the lower bounded of (2.20) is true for all \(n\ge 2\). For \(n=2\), this conjecture has been completely established, one may refer to [22]. However, for \(n\ge 3\), only partial positive results of Conjecture 2.6 have been proved, see Fig. 1. More presicely, for \(n\ge 3\), setting
Kown–Lee [22] showed Conjecture 2.20 holds except for \(\left( \frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q}\right) \in {\mathcal {R}}_1\cup {\mathcal {R}}_1'\). Among other things, following the proof of Proposition 4.1 in [22], we have
Theorem 2.7
Let \(T^\lambda \) be a Hörmander type operator with the convex and straight conditions. If \(p>\frac{2n}{n-1}\) and
then
Remark 2
Indeed, the proof of (2.24) can be reduced to showing a multiplier estimate
where\(\tilde{\chi }\in C_0^\infty (1-2\delta _0,1+2\delta _0)\) for a small \(\delta _0>0\) and \(0<|\delta |\ll 1\). Using the Carleson–Sjölin reduction as displayed in Sect. 2.1, an important ingredient in the approach is the following oscillatory integral operator estimate
where \(\Psi \) is defined as in (2.9) and \(a\in C_c^\infty (B_1^{n}(0)\times B_1^{n-1}(0))\). Since \(\Psi (x,y')\), up to a diffemorphism in x, satisfies the conditions \(\mathrm{H}_1,\mathrm{H}_2,\mathrm{H}_3,\mathrm{H}_4\), we may apply Conjecture 1.3 to get the desired results.
As a direct consequence of Theorem 2.7 and (2.22), by interpolation and the epsilon removal arguments, up to a pair of intervals \((B,D)\cup (B',D')\), we obtain Conjecture 1.3 implies Conjecture 2.6. Furthermore, we may use the new oscillatory integral estimates in Theorem 1.4 to further improve the range of p in (2.24).
3 Reductions
Typically speaking, the phase \(\phi (x,\xi )\) which satisfies the conditions \(\mathrm{H}_1,\mathrm{H}_2, \mathrm{H}_3,\mathrm{H}_4\) can be viewed as a small perturbation of the translation invariant case. More precisely, through changing of variables, it can be rewritten as
where h and \({\mathcal {E}}\) are smooth functions, h is quadratic in \(\xi \) and \({\mathcal {E}}\) is quadratic in \(x,\xi \). However, under the new coordinate, the formula of \(\phi \) in (3.1) may not satisfy the straight condition, even though \(\mathrm{H}_1,\mathrm{H}_2,\mathrm{H}_3\) can be ensured. In other words, the straight condition may not be kept under a general diffeomorphism in the spatial variables. Therefore, we should be careful when performing the change of variables in x and, meanwhile, keeping track of the straight condition.
Basic reductions As mentioned above, the straight condition may be destroyed while performing a diffeomorphism with respect to the spatial variables, which inspires us to consider a wider class of functions which, upon a diffeomorphism in the spatial variables, satisfy the straight condition. To formalize that, we introduce a notion of \(\varvec{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cs}}\).
Definition 3.1
We say a function \(\phi (x,\xi )\) lies in the class \(\varvec{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cs}}\), if, modulo a diffeomorphism in the spatial variables x, \(\phi (x,\xi )\) satisfies the conditions \(\mathrm{H}_1,\mathrm{H}_2,\mathrm{H}_3,\mathrm{H}_4\).
Remark 3
In terms of \(\varvec{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cs}}\), it is an interesting problem to investigate the influence of the higher order terms of \(\phi (x,\xi )\) in x.
Example 3.2
In [2], Bourgain disproved Hormander’s conjecture by constructing a counterexample where the Kakeya compression phenomena happen which roughly say that the main contribution to the oscillatory integral may be concentrated in a lower dimensional submanifold. Next we will analyse Bourgain’s counterexample to vividly show that there does not exist a diffeomorphism in the spatial variables such that the Gauss map \(G(x,\xi )\) is invariant when x changes.
Let
Assume that there exists a diffeomorphism
such that for given \(\xi \), the associated \(G(x,\xi )\) keeps invariant when x changes, where \(x=(x_1,x_2,x_3)=(\kappa _1(\tilde{x}), \kappa _2(\tilde{x}),\kappa _3(\tilde{x}))\). Then the tangent space of the hypersurface \(\{\partial _{\tilde{x}}P(\tilde{x},y): y\in B_{1}^{n-1}(0)\}\) at point \((\tilde{x},y)\) can be spanned by the following two linear independent vectors
where
We claim that there does not exist a diffeomorphism \(\kappa \) such that
where \(C_1(y_1,y_2),C_2(y_1,y_2)\) only depend on \(y_1,y_2\). Indeed, if (3.3) holds, we have
By solving the equations, one has \(\kappa _1(\tilde{x})=-2y_2\kappa _3(\tilde{x}) -2y_1\kappa _3(\tilde{x})^2+\tilde{x}_1+C_1(y_1,y_2)\tilde{x}_3+C_3(y_1,y_2)\). Since \(C_1(y_1,y_2),C_3(y_1,y_2)\) are constants when \(y_1,y_2\) are fixed, we get
then \(\kappa _3(\tilde{x})+\kappa _3(\tilde{x})^2=c_1\tilde{x}_3+c_3\), where \(c_1=C_1(1,1)-C_1(1/2,1/2)\) and \(c_3=C_3(1,1)-C_3(1/2,1/2)\). By the same argument, \(\kappa _2(\tilde{x})=-2y_1\kappa _3(\tilde{x}) +\tilde{x}_2+C_2(y_1,y_2)\tilde{x}_3+C_4(y_1,y_2)\) and \(\kappa _3(\tilde{x})=c_2\tilde{x}_3+c_4\). Thus \(c_2\tilde{x}_3+c_4+(c_2\tilde{x}_3+c_4)^2=c_1\tilde{x}_3+c_3\) holds for all \(\tilde{x}_3\in {\mathbb {R}}\), which implies \(c_1=c_2=0\) and \(\kappa _3(\tilde{x})=c_4\), this is a contradiction since we assume \(\kappa \) is a diffemorphism.
In addition, we also assume some additional quantitative conditions on \(\phi \). Firstly, let’s introduce a notion of reduced form.
Definition 3.3
We say a function \(\phi (x,\xi )\) is of reduced form if \(\phi \in \varvec{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cs}}\) with the following conditions hold: let \(\varepsilon >0\) be a fixed constant and \(a(x,\xi )\) be supported on \(X\times \Omega \), where \(X:=X'\times X_n\) and \(X'\subset B^{n-1}_1(0), X_n\subset (-1,1)\) and \(\Omega \subset B^{n-1}_1(0)\), upon which the phase \(\phi \) has the form
with
here h and \({\mathcal {E}}\) are smooth functions and h is quadratic in \(\xi \), \({\mathcal {E}}\) is quadratic in \(x,\xi \) and \(N_{\mathrm{par}}\) is a given large constant.
Furthermore, \(\phi \) also satisfies the following conditions:
- \(\mathbf{C_1}:\):
-
The eigenvalues of the Hessian \(\Big (\tfrac{\partial ^2 h}{\partial \xi _i \partial \xi _j}\Big )_{(n-1)\times (n-1)}\) all fall into [1/2, 2].
- \(\mathbf{C_2}:\):
-
Let \(c_{\mathrm{par}}>0\) be a small constant, \(N_{\mathrm{par}}>0\) be a given large constant as above,
$$\begin{aligned} |\partial _x^\alpha \partial _\xi ^\beta {\mathcal {E}}(x,\xi )| \le c_{\mathrm{par}},\quad |\alpha |,|\beta |\le N_{\mathrm{par}}. \end{aligned}$$
Let \(1\le R\le \lambda , T^\lambda \) be defined with the reduced form and \(Q_p(\lambda , R)\) be the optimal constant such that
We claim that the proof of Theorem 1.4 can be reduced to showing that for \(p\ge p_n\) and for each \(\varepsilon >0\),
Indeed, we firstly claim that:
Claim: If \({\mathcal {T}}^\lambda \) is an operator satisfying the conditions \(\mathrm{H}_1,\mathrm{H}_2,\mathrm{H}_3,\mathrm{H}_4\), then
where \(T^\lambda \) is defined with the reduced form, \(\tilde{r}>0\) is an appropriate constant depending on \(\phi \) and
We take the above claim for granted and prove (3.6) implies Theorem 1.4. To be more precise, we need to show (3.6) implies
Indeed, by (3.6),(3.7), (3.8), we have
By taking \(f=\chi _E\), we get
Then the desired results follows by interpolation argument. Therefore, it suffices to verify the claim. For convenience, we just need to track the phase when changing of variables.
The proof can be obtained by modifying the associated part in [15]. Without loss of generality, we may assume
Otherwise, we take \(\phi \) to be
By Taylor’s formula, we have
where \(\rho (x,\xi )\) is quadratic in \(\xi \). By the condition \(\mathrm{H}_1\), we may assume \(\mathrm{rank}\partial _{x'\xi }\phi =n-1\) and \(G(0,0)=(0,\ldots ,1)\), thus we may find a smooth function \(\Phi (x',x_n,0)\) such that
By our assumption, one may also get
By changing of variables
thus it suffices to consider
Then taking another expansion in x and using (3.10) yield
Finally, from (3.10), one deduces that
Then by changing of variables
and taking \(h(\xi )=\partial _{x_n}\rho (0,\xi )\), we have
Since \(\Omega \subset B_1^{n-1}(0)\), we partition \(\Omega \) into a family of balls \(\{B_\alpha \}\) of radius r and center \(\xi _\alpha \), such that
By triangle inequality, it suffices to consider a single ball \(B_\alpha \). By changing of variables
where \(\tilde{r} \ge r\), under the new coordinates, we just need to consider \(\xi \in B_{r/\tilde{r}}^{n-1}(0)\) and
Since \(\phi (x,\xi )=\langle x',\xi \rangle +x_n h(\xi )+{\mathcal {E}}(x,\xi )\), we have
where
By another change of variables in x as follows
finally, it suffices to consider
where \(\bar{{\mathcal {E}}}(x,\xi ):=\widetilde{{\mathcal {E}}} (\Phi (\tilde{r}x',x_n,\xi _\alpha ),x_n,\xi )\).
From (3.12), \(\tilde{h}\) is quadratic in \(\xi \) and \(\bar{{\mathcal {E}}}(x,\xi )\) is quadratic in \(x,\xi \). Furthermore, through an affine change of variables in \(\xi \) and by choosing appropriate small \(\tilde{r}\) such that \(r/\tilde{r}\) is also sufficiently small, we may ensure the condition \(\mathrm{C}_1\) and \(\mathrm{C}_2\). Define \(T^\lambda \) with the phase in (3.13) and note that all the implicit constants arising when performing the change of variables depend on \(\phi \), we will obtain (3.7) and (3.8).
To prove (3.6), we use the induction approach. For \(\lambda \le 1000 \), (3.6) holds trivially by choosing the implicit constants sufficiently large.
3.1 Further remarks on the phase
Let \(\phi \) be of the reduced form, by our assumption, we may choose a smooth function p(x) such that \(\phi (p(x),\xi )\) satisfies the straight condition and
uniformly. Indeed, we may always choose a function \(p:{\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\) with \( |\partial _x p(x)|\lesssim 1 \) such that \(\phi (Ap(\frac{x}{A}),\xi )\) satisfies the straight condition where A is large enough to ensure (3.14).
4 wave packet decomposition
Let \(r \ge 1\) and \(\Theta _r\) be a collection of cubes \(\{\theta \}\) of sidelength \(\frac{9}{11}r^{-1/2}\) and center \(\xi _\theta \) which cover the ball \(B_2^{n-1}(0)\). Correspondingly, we take a smooth partition of unity \(\{\psi _\theta \}_{\theta \in \Theta _r}\) with respect to the cover \(\Theta _r\). Let \(\tilde{\psi }_\theta \) be a non-negative smooth cut-off function supported on \(\frac{11}{9}\theta \) and equal to 1 on \(\frac{11}{10}\theta \). Given a function g, by taking Fourier series expansion, we have
Define
Correspondingly, we may make the following decomposition
Let \(1\le r\le R\) and \(B_{r}^n(x_0)\subset B_R^n(0)\), define
By the assumption of the phase, there exists \(\gamma _{\theta ,v,x_0}^\lambda (x_n)\) such that
Given \(\theta , v\), define a tube \(T_{\theta ,v}=T_{\theta ,v}(x_0)\) to be
and
Thus, we have
We define a collection of tubes associated to the ball \(B_r^n(x_0)\) by
The main contribution of \(T^\lambda g_{T_{\theta ,v}}\) is concentrated on \(T_{\theta ,v}\) and rapidly decays outside of the tube which can be manifested in the following lemma.
Lemma 4.1
If \(x \in B_r^n(x_0)\backslash T_{\theta ,v}\), then
Proof
For convenience, we use T to denote \(T_{\theta ,v}\) and use \(g_{x_0}\) to denote \(ge^{2\pi i \phi ^\lambda (x_0,\xi )}\). Recall the definition of \(g_{T}\), we have
By changing of variables: \(\xi \longrightarrow r^{-1/2}\xi +\xi _\theta \), it suffices to consider the integral
Taking the derivative in \(\xi \), we get
Integration by parts, we will obtain the desired results. \(\square \)
We also have the following \(L^2\)-orthogonality properties.
Lemma 4.2
(\(L^2\)-orthogonality) For any \({\mathbb {T}}\subset {\mathbb {T}}[B_r^n(x_0)]\), it holds that
Moreover, if \({\mathbb {T}}\) is any collection of tubes with the same \(\theta \), then
Comparing wave-packet at different scales. Let \(r^{1/2}<\rho <r\). Consider another smaller ball \(B_\rho ^n(\tilde{x}_0)\subset B_r^n(x_0)\). Similarly, we may define the wave-packet decomposition with respect to the ball \(B_{\rho }^n(\tilde{x}_0)\). To distinguish the wave packet of different scales, we use \(\widetilde{{\mathbb {T}}}[B_\rho ^n (\tilde{x}_0)]\) to denote the smaller scale wave-packet.
Definition 4.3
We say a function h is concentrated on wave packets from a tube set \({\mathbb {T}}_\alpha \), if
Definition 4.4
Let \((\theta ,v)\in \Theta _r \times r^{1/2}{\mathbb {Z}}^{n-1}\) and let \((\tilde{\theta },\tilde{v})\in \Theta _\rho \times \rho ^{1/2}{\mathbb {Z}}^{n-1}\). We define a set \(\widetilde{{\mathbb {T}}}_{\theta , v}[B_\rho ^n(\tilde{x}_0)]\) collection of smaller tubes as follows
One may carry over the approach verbatim in [12] to obtain the following two lemmas.
Lemma 4.5
[12] Let \(T_{\theta ,v}\in {\mathbb {T}}[B_r^n(x_0)]\). Then it holds that
Lemma 4.6
[12] Assume \(T_{\theta ,v}\subset {\mathbb {T}}[B_r^n(x_0)]\). If \(\tilde{T}_{\tilde{\theta },\tilde{v}}\in \widetilde{{\mathbb {T}}}_{\theta ,v}[B_\rho ^n(\tilde{x}_0)]\), then it holds that
and
5 Transverse equidistribution property
Transverse equidistribution property is based on a simple observation which can be roughly stated as follows: if \(\mathrm{supp}\hat{g}\subset B_r^n(0), r>0\), then g can not be concentrated in a ball of radius less than \(r^{-1}\). Starting from this fact and other geometric assumptions, Guth [13] established the transverse equidistribution lemma for the extension operator. Then Guth–Hickman–Iliopoulou [15] extended it to the Hörmander type operator with the convex condition. It should be noted that the proof of the transverse equidistribution lemma in [15] relies on the phase that belongs to a category which may not satisfy the straight condition. To overcome this obstacle, we follow the approach in [12] which deals with the input function directly without recourse to a further operation under \(T^\lambda \). Since \(T^\lambda \) satisfies the straight condition (i.e., for given \(\xi \), \(G^\lambda (x,\xi )\) keeps invariant when x changes), we may use \(G(\xi )\) to denote \(G^\lambda (x,\xi )\). It is worth noting that there are still some differences between [12] and our case at this point, for example, in [12],
therefore, if \(V\subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\) is a subspace, then the set
falls into an affine subspace in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\). However, in general cases, for example,
where h is a smooth function with non-degenerate Hessian, the associated set \({\mathcal {S}}\) may be a curved submanifold which requires more technical handling.
Since \(\phi (x,\xi )\) satisfies the straight condition, in terms of the Gauss map, it suffices to consider the following class of varying hypersurfaces \(\{\partial _x\phi (x,\xi ):\xi \in \Omega \}\) at \(x=0\). By the condition \(\mathrm{H}_1\), we may find locally a function \(q:{\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\longrightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\) such that
Define
We may assume the hypersurface \(\{\partial _x\phi (0,\xi ):\xi \in \Omega \}\) can be reparameterized by \(\{(\xi ,h(\xi ): \xi \in \Omega )\}\) with
Otherwise, we can choose a non-degenerate matrix A such that
By choosing the support of \(\xi \) sufficiently small, it holds that
Correspondingly, we make another affine transformation in x and replace \(\phi (x,\xi )\) by \(\tilde{\phi }(x,\xi )\) which is defined by
Obviously, \(\tilde{\phi }(x,\xi )\) satisfies the straight conditions and
Definition 5.1
Let \(P_1,\ldots ,P_{n-m}:{\mathbb {R}}^n\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) be polynomials. We consider the common zero set
Suppose that for all \(z\in Z(P_1,\ldots ,P_{n-m})\), one has
Then a connected branch of this set, or a union of connected branches of this set, is called an m-dimensional transverse complete intersection. Given a set Z of the form (5.3), the degree of Z is defined by
where the minimum is taken over all possible representations of \(Z=Z(P_1,\ldots ,P_{n-m})\).
Definition 5.2
Let \(r\ge 1\) and Z be an m-dimensional transverse complete intersection. A tube \(T_{\theta ,v}(x_0)\in {\mathbb {T}}[B_{r}^n(x_0)]\) is said to be \(r^{-1/2+\delta _m}\)-tangent to Z in \(B_r^n(x_0)\) if it satisfies
-
\(T_{\theta ,v}(x_0)\subset N_{r^{1/2+\delta _m}}(Z)\cap B_r^n(x_0);\)
-
For every \(z\in Z\cap B_r^n(x_0)\), if there is \(y\in T_{\theta ,v}(x_0)\) with \(|z-y|\lesssim r^{1/2+\delta _m}\), then one has
$$\begin{aligned} \measuredangle (G(\theta ),T_zZ)\lesssim r^{-1/2+\delta _m}. \end{aligned}$$Here, \(T_zZ\) is the tangent space of Z at z and
$$\begin{aligned} G(\theta ):=\{G(\xi ):\xi \in \theta \}. \end{aligned}$$
Definition 5.3
Let \(1\le \rho \le r\) and Z be an m-dimensional transverse complete intersection and let \(B_{\rho }^n(\tilde{x}_0)\subset B_r^n(x_0)\). Define a collection of tangent tubes inside a ball as
Given an arbitrary translation \(b\in {\mathbb {R}}^n\), define
For simplicity, we also abbreviate \(T_Z\) and \(\widetilde{{\mathbb {T}}}_b\) for \({\mathbb {T}}_Z[B_r^n(x_0)]\) and \(\widetilde{{\mathbb {T}}}_b[B_\rho ^n(\tilde{x}_0)]\) respectively.
We may state our main results in this section as follows.
Lemma 5.4
Let \(|b|\lesssim r^{1/2+\delta _m}\). Suppose that h is concentrated on large wave packets from \({\mathbb {T}}_Z\cap {\mathbb {T}}_{\tilde{\theta },w}\) for some \((\tilde{\theta },w)\in \Theta _\rho \times r^{1/2}{\mathbb {Z}}^{n-1}\). Then for every \(\widetilde{W}\subset \widetilde{{\mathbb {T}}}_b\), we have
As a direct consequence of Lemma 5.4, we may obtain the following results.
Corollary 5.5
Let \(|b|\lesssim r^{1/2+\delta _m}\). Suppose that h is concentrated on large wave packet from \({\mathbb {T}}_Z\). Then for every \(\widetilde{W}\subset \widetilde{{\mathbb {T}}}_b\), we have
Proof
We may rewrite
such that \(h_{\tilde{\theta },w}\) is concentrated on wave packets from \({\mathbb {T}}_Z\cap {\mathbb {T}}_{\tilde{\theta },w}\). Then, we may apply (5.4) to each \(h_{\tilde{\theta },w}\) and recall the \(L^2\)-orthogonality in Lemma 4.2. \(\square \)
Let \(\tilde{x}_0:=(\tilde{x}_0',\tilde{x}_0^n)\), and define \(x_\gamma :=\gamma _{\tilde{\theta },\tilde{v},\tilde{x}_0}^\lambda (\tilde{x}_0^n)\), \(B:=B_{Cr^{1/2+\delta }}^{n-1}(x_\gamma )\). Let \(Z_0\) be the intersection of \(Z+b\) of the hyperplane \(\{x: x_n=\tilde{x}_0\}\). Up to a harmless small perturbationFootnote 2 in the \(x_n\) direction, we may assume \(Z_0\) is a transverse complete intersection in \({\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\). Define a smooth map \(\Phi : {\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\) as follows
Proposition 5.6
Let h be concentrated on bigger wave packets from \({\mathbb {T}}_{\tilde{\theta },w}\cap {\mathbb {T}}_Z\). Then
Proof
First we claim that
Claim: Let \(\tilde{T}_{\tilde{\theta },\tilde{v}} \in \widetilde{W}\), then
We firstly take the above claim for granted and continue the proof of (5.5). By the definition,
Therefore, by the orthogonality property, we have
By the Plancherel’s theorem, we get
Note that
Using Hölder’s inequality, we obtain
Then (5.5) follows from (5.6). Therefore, it remains to show the claim. By changing of variables: \(\xi \rightarrow \rho ^{-1/2}\xi +\xi _{\tilde{\theta }}\), we have
Recall that
A stationary phase argument shows that the above integral is essentially nontrivial when \(y\in B_{\rho ^{1/2+\delta _m}}^n (\tilde{v}-\partial _\xi \phi ^\lambda (\tilde{x}_0,\xi _{\tilde{\theta }}))\). By our assumption and definition, we have
Thus
where \(\Psi :{\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\) is defined by
Recall that
thus we obtain the desired results. \(\square \)
Proposition 5.7
Assume \(Z_0=(Z+b)\cap \{x_n=\tilde{x}_0^n\}\) and \(B=B_{r^{1/2+\delta _m}}^n(\tilde{x}_0)\). Suppose h is concentrated on scale r wave packets in \({\mathbb {T}}_{\tilde{\theta }, w}\cap {\mathbb {T}}_Z\). Then
The proof of Proposition 5.7 is left to the end of this section.
Define \(T_{Z,B,\tilde{\theta }}\) as follows
Let V be an m-dimensional subspace defined by
If \(\phi (x,\xi )=x'\cdot \xi +\frac{1}{2}x_n|\xi |^2\), then
It is easy to see that \( \{\xi \in {\mathbb {R}}^n : G(\xi )\in V\} \) defines an affine subspace. Therefore, the set
is contained in a \(Cr^{-1/2+\delta _m}\)-neighborhood of an affine subspace. However, if we only know \(\phi (x,\xi )\) satisfies the Carleson–Sjölin conditions with the convex and straight assumptions, things may be a little trickier. Since in the general setting, \(\{\xi \in {\mathbb {R}}^n: G(\xi )\in V\}\) may be a curved submanifold. Specially, for our case,
where \(h(\xi )\) is defined in (5.1) and satisfies (5.2). Let L denote the submanifold
by the implicit function theorem, we know the dimension of L is \(m-1\). Define \(V'\) to be the tangent space \(T_{\tilde{\xi } } L\) of L at a given point \(\tilde{\xi } \in L\) with \(\mathrm{dist}(\tilde{\xi },\tilde{\theta })\lesssim \rho ^{-1/2}\).
Lemma 5.8
The set
is contained in a \(Cr^{-1/2+\delta _m}\)-neighborhood of an affine subspace \(V'\).
Proof
Obviously, the set
is contained in a \(Cr^{-1/2+\delta _m}\)-neighborhood of L. Recall that
thus
Therefore, it suffices to show
Without loss of generality, we may assume \(\tilde{\xi }\) and L can be parametrized by (0, u(0)) and
respectively. Therefore, it remains to show : if \(|\xi '|\lesssim \rho ^{-1/2}\)
Indeed, (5.9) can be easily obtained from Taylor’s formula and the fact the second order derivatives of u can be uniformly bounded. \(\square \)
Define \(\widetilde{V}\) to be the orthogonal complement in \({\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\), that is \(\widetilde{V}:=(V')^{\perp },\) and \(\bar{V}\subset {\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\) to be identified with \(V\cap \{x_n=0\}\).
Lemma 5.9
Let V and \(\widetilde{V}\) be defined as above, then \(\widetilde{V}\) and V are transverse in the sense that
Proof
Since \(G(\tilde{\xi })\in V\), we may write it explicitly as follows
Define \(\alpha _i:=(a_{i,1},\ldots ,a_{i,n})\) and \(\alpha _i':=(a_{i,1},\ldots ,a_{i,n-1})\). From (5.11), we have
Since \(V'=T_{\tilde{\xi }} L\), and \(\widetilde{V}=(V')^{\perp }\), by (5.11), we have
To prove (5.10), it suffices to show: for each \(\bar{v} \in \bar{V}\backslash \{0\}\), then
Since
and
thus (5.12) follows immediately by choosing \(\varepsilon _0\) sufficiently small. \(\square \)
Lemma 5.10
[14] Suppose that \(G:{\mathbb {R}}^n\rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\) is a function, and \(\hat{G}\) is supported in a ball \(B_{r_1}^n(\xi _0)\) of radius \(r_1\). Then, for any ball \(B_{r_2}^n(x_0)\) of radius \(r_2\le {r_1}^{-1}\),
Finally, as a consequence of the above preparations, we have
Proposition 5.11
Let \(V,\bar{V},\widetilde{V},V'\) be defined as above. If g is concentrated on wave packets from \({\mathbb {T}}_{V,B,\tilde{\theta }}\), if \(\Pi \subset \{x_n=\tilde{x}_n^0\}\) is any affine subspace parallel to \(\widetilde{V}\) and \(y\in \Pi \cap \Phi (CB)\), then
Proof
Note that g is concentrated from \({\mathbb {T}}_{V,B,\tilde{\theta }}\), from the above discussion, we have g is supported in the \(r^{-1/2+\delta _m}\) neighborhood of \(V'\). Thus, \(\Big (\hat{g}|_{\Pi }\Big )^{\vee }\) is supported in an \(n-m\) dimensional \(r^{-1/2+\delta _m}\) ball centered at \(\mathrm{proj}_{\widetilde{V}}(\xi _V)\), by Lemma 5.10, we obtain the desired results. \(\square \)
Before the proof Proposition 5.7, we still needs some additional inputs. One may follow the approach in Section 6 of [12] to obtain
Proposition 5.12
-
1.
\(\Phi (Z_0)\) is quantitatively transverse to \(\widetilde{V}\) at every point \(z\in \Phi (Z_0)\cap \Phi (CB)\).
-
2.
\(\Phi ^{-1}(\Pi )\) is an \(n-1-\mathrm{dim}(V')\) dimensional transverse complete intersection in \({\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\).
-
3.
\(\Pi \cap N_{C\rho ^{1/2+\delta _m}}(\Phi (Z_0)\cap \Phi (CB))\) can be covered by \(\Big (\frac{r^{1/2}}{\rho ^{1/2}}\Big )^{\mathrm{dim}Z_0-\mathrm{dim}V_0}\) many balls in \(\Pi \) of radius \(\rho ^{1/2+\delta _m}\).
Proof of Proposition 5.7
Since the wave packets in \({\mathbb {T}}_{Z,B,\tilde{\theta }}\) are tangent to Z in B, thus
for every \(z\in Z\cap 2B\) and \(T_{\theta ,v}\in {\mathbb {T}}_{Z,B,\tilde{\theta }}\). There is a subspace V of minimal dimension and \(\mathrm{dim}V\le \mathrm{dim }Z\) such that for all \(\theta \) making contribution to \({\mathbb {T}}_{Z,B,\tilde{\theta }}\), we have
which indicates that h is concentrated on wave packets from \(T_{V,B,\tilde{\theta }}\). Therefore, by Lemma 5.11, we have
Finally, by Proposition 5.12, we get
Integrate over the affine subspace \(\Pi \) which is parallel to \(\widetilde{V}\), we will obtain the desired results. \(\square \)
6 Broad-norm estimate
In this section, we assume the operator \(T^\lambda \) satisfies the straight condition. In this setting, the tubes introduced in (4.1) is straight. To prove Theorem 1.4, we will use the broad-narrow analysis developed by Bourgain–Guth [4], which deduces the linear estimates from the multilinear ones. In [13], Guth observed that full power of the \(k-\)linear inequality could be replaced by a certain weakened version of the multilinear estimate for the Fourier extension operators known as \(k-\)broad “norm” estimates. Following the approach developed by Guth in [13], we shall divide \(T^\lambda f\) into narrow and broad parts in the frequency space, and one part is around a neighborhood of \((k-1)\)-dimensional subspace, another comes from its outside. We estimate the contribution of the first part through the decoupling theorem and an induction on scales argument, and then use the k-broad “norm” estimates to handle the broad part.
First, we shall introduce a notion of broad “norm”. Let \(V\subset {\mathbb {R}}^{n}\) be a \((k-1)\)-dimensional subspace. Assume \(\{{\tau }\}\) are a collection of balls in \({\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\) of radius \(K^{-1}\) which form a partition of \(B_1^{n-1}(0)\). We denote by \(\measuredangle (G(\tau ), V)\) the smallest angle between the non-zero vectors \(v\in V\) and \(v'\in G(\tau )\), where
Define
For each ball \(B_{K^2}^{n}\subset B_{R}^{n}\), define
where for each \(1\le \ell \le L\), \(V_{\ell }\) is a \((k-1)-\)dimensional subspace and \(\tau \notin V_\ell \) means \(\mathrm{Ang}(G(\tau ),V_{\ell })>K^{-1}\).
Let \(\{B_{K^2}^{n}\}\) be a collection of finitely overlapping balls which form a cover of \(B_{R}^n\). We define the k-broad “norm” by
We will establish the following broad norm estimate.
Theorem 6.1
Let \({\mathscr {T}}^\lambda \) be defined with \(\phi \) satisfying the conditions \(\mathrm{H}_1,\mathrm{H}_2,\mathrm{H}_3,\mathrm{H}_4\) and
-
The eigenvalues of the Hessian
$$\begin{aligned} \partial _{\xi \xi }\langle \partial _x\phi (x,\xi ),G(x,\xi _0)\rangle |_{\xi =\xi _0} \end{aligned}$$all fall into [1/2, 2] for \(x\in X, \xi _0\in \Omega \).
-
Let \(N_{\mathrm{par}}>0\) be a given large constant as above,
$$\begin{aligned} |\partial _x^\alpha \partial _\xi ^\beta \phi (x,\xi )|\le C_{\alpha ,\beta }, \quad |\alpha |,|\beta |\le N_{\mathrm{par}}. \end{aligned}$$
If \(2\le k\le n-1\) and
then for every \(\varepsilon >0\), there exits L such that
for every \(K\ge 1, 1\le R\le \lambda \). Furthermore, the implicit constant depends polynomially on K.
By combining the material in Sect. 4, 5 and using the polynomial partitioning method, we may obtain the proof of Theorem (6.1). At this point, there is no difference between our case and that in [12]. Therefore, one may refer to [12] for details.
7 Going from k-broad to linear estimates
Proposition 7.1
Let \(T^\lambda \) be defined with the reduced form and \({\mathscr {T}}^\lambda \) be defined as above. Suppose that for all \(K\geqslant 1,\varepsilon >0\), the operator \({\mathscr {T}}^\lambda \) obeys the k-broad inequality
for some fixed k, p, L and all \(R\ge 1\). If
then
Therefore, as a consequence of Theorem 6.1 and Proposition 7.1, Theorem 1.4 holds for all \(p\ge p_n\). To prove Proposition 7.1, we also need the decoupling inequality.
Lemma 7.2
(Decoupling inequality) Let \(T^\lambda \) be a Hörmander-type operator with the convex condition and \(V\subset {\mathbb {R}}^{n}\) be an m-dimensional linear subspace, then for \(2\leqslant p\leqslant 2m/(m-1)\) and \(\delta >0\), we have
Here, the sum over all caps \(\tau \) for which \(\measuredangle (G(\tau ),V)\leqslant K^{-1}\).
Heuristically, if \(K^2 \le \lambda ^{1/2-\delta }\) with \(0<\delta <1/2\), \(T^\lambda \) is essentially equivalent to the translation invariant case on \(B_{K^2}^n\), the fact can be seen by expanding the phase using Taylor’s formula. Then Lemma 7.2 can be obtained directly by using the sharp \(\ell ^2\)-decoupling theorem of Bourgain-Demeter [3] and Hölder’s inequality. For more details, One may refer to [1, 20].
Lemma 7.3
Let \({\mathcal {D}}\) is a maximal \(R^{-1}\)-separated discrete subset of \(\Omega \), then
for all \(F:{\mathcal {D}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\), where
for \(1\le p<\infty \) and \(p=\infty \) with a usual modification.
Proof
Here our proof is essentially the same as that of Lemma 11.8 in [15]. Let \(\eta \) be a bump smooth function on \({\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}\), which is supported on \(B_2^{n-1}(0)\) and equals to 1 on \(B_1^{n-1}(0)\). For each \(\xi _\theta \in {\mathcal {D}}\), we set \(\eta _{\theta }(\xi ):=\eta (10R(\xi -\xi _\theta )).\)
Then as in Lemma 11.8 of [15], we have
where \(T^\lambda \) is defined with the reduced form and
with \(\Vert c_{k,\theta }(\xi )\Vert _\infty \le 1\). By the definition of \(Q_p(\lambda , R)\) and (7.3),
The support of \(\eta _\theta \) are pairwise disjoint, for any \(q>0\), we have
Thus we get
\(\square \)
Lemma 7.4
(Parabolic rescaling) Let \(1\leqslant R\leqslant \lambda \), and f supported in a ball of radius \(K^{-1}\), where \(1\leqslant K\leqslant R\). Then for all \(p\geqslant 2\) and \(\delta >0\), we have
Proof
Without loss of generality, we may assume the ball to be \(B_{K^{-1}}^{n-1}(\bar{\xi })\). Doing the same argument as in Sect. 3, we obtain
where \(\widetilde{T}^{\lambda /K^2}\) is defined with phase \(\tilde{\phi }\) as in (3.13) and \(\tilde{D}_R\) is an ellipse with principle axes parallel to the coordinate axes and dimensions \(O(R/K)\times \cdots \times O(R/K) \times O(R/K^2)\) and \(\tilde{f}(\xi ):=K^{-(n-1)}f(\bar{\xi }+K^{-1}\xi )\), note that for each \(q>0\),
Then it suffice to show that
Since the phase \(\tilde{\phi }\) is also of reduced form, to ease notations, we just need to show
for all \(1\ll R\le R^\prime \le \lambda \) and \(\delta >0\), where
is an ellipse and \(T^\lambda \) is an operator with the reduced form. Choose a collection of essentially disjoint \(R^{-1}\)-caps \(\theta \) covers \(B^{n-1}\), denote the center of \(\theta \) by \(\xi _\theta \) and decompose f as \(f=\sum _\theta f_\theta \). Set
hence we have
Fix \(\delta >0\) to be sufficiently small for the purpose of the forthcoming argument. We may also write
for some choice of smooth, rapidly decreasing function \(\eta \) such that \(|\eta |\) admits a smooth rapidly decreasing majorant \(\zeta :{\mathbb {R}}^n\rightarrow [0,+\infty )\) which is locally constant at scale 1. In particular, one has
Cover \(D_R\) by finitely-overlapping R-balls, and let \(B_R^n\) be some member of this cover with the center denoted by \(\bar{x}\) , by the above observation, for \(z\in B_R^n(0)\), we have
By taking the \(L^p\)-norm in z and modifying the proof of Lemma 7.3 for the phase \(\phi ^\lambda (\bar{x}+\cdot ,\xi _\theta )\), we have
where we use \(\Vert a_{\theta }\Vert _{\ell ^p(\theta )}\) to denote \(\Big (\sum \limits _{\theta }|a_\theta |^p\Big )^{1/p}\).
By property (7.4), for \(z\in B_R^n(0)\)
Then we deduces that for all \(z\in B_R^n(0)\)
By raising both sides of this estimate to the pth power, averaging in z and summing over all balls \(B_R^n(0)\) in the covering, it follows that \(\Vert T^\lambda f\Vert _{L^p(D_R)}\) is dominated by
We have the trivial estimate
and
Hence \(\Vert T^\lambda f\Vert _{L^p(D_R)}\) is dominated by \( Q_p(\lambda ,R) R^{O(\delta )} \Vert f\Vert _{L^2}^{\frac{2}{p}} \Vert f\Vert _{L^\infty }^{1-\frac{2}{p}}\). \(\square \)
Proof of Proposition 7.1
Let \(T^\lambda \) be defined with the reduced form. Then there exits a smooth function p(x) such that \(\phi (p(x), \xi )\) satisfies the straight condition with (3.14) holding. For convenience, we denote \(\bar{\phi }(x,\xi ):=\phi (p(x),\xi )\) and \({\mathscr {T}}^\lambda \) be defined with \(\bar{\phi }\). Hence, we have
For a given ball \(B_{K^2}^n\), we chose a collection of \((k-1)\)- subspaces \(V_1, ..., V_L\) which achieve the minimum under the definition of k- board “norm”. Then
We can use the k-broad hypothesis to dominate the first term, indeed, let \({\mathcal {B}}_{K^2}\) be a collection of finitely overlapping balls of radius \(K^2\) which cover \(B_{CR}^n(0)\), then one has
where \(\varepsilon _1>0\) is a small constant which we will chose later.
By Lemma 7.2, for any \(\delta ^\prime \), we have
for each \(1\leqslant \ell \leqslant L\). Since \(w_{B_R^n(0)}=\sum _{B_{K^2}^n \in {\mathcal {B}}_{K^2}}w_{B_{K^2}^n}\), one has
For each \(\tau \), we take the same approach as in Sect. 3 which obtains the reduced form from a general phase. To ease the notations, under the new coordinates, we use \(T^\lambda f_\tau \) to denote the new operator which belongs to the reduced form and the new function. Therefore,
Note that \(w_{B_{CR}^n(0)}\) rapidly decay outside \(B_{2CR}^n(0)\), we get
Let \(\delta >0\) be a small number to be determined later. By a finitely-overlapping decomposition and translation, from Lemma 7.4, we obtain
Let
Recall
therefore, we have
Combining above estimates, we get
Then our induction assumption, it holds
When \(p\ge 2\frac{2n-k+2}{2n-k}\), \(e(k,p)\ge 0\), thus
If we choose \(K=K_0R^{\varepsilon ^2}\) where \(K_0>0\) is a sufficiently large constant depending on \(\varepsilon ,\delta ,p\), then
We choose \(\delta '=\varepsilon p,\delta =\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon ^3 p\) and \(K_0\) sufficiently large such that
Recall that \(C(K,\varepsilon _1,L)\) depends polynomially on K, then we will complete the proof by choosing suitable \(0<\varepsilon _1\ll \varepsilon \). \(\square \)
Notes
\(\Big [\frac{2n+4}{3}\Big ]^{}\) denotes the integer part of \(\frac{2n+4}{3}\).
see the appendix in [12]
References
Beltran, D., Hickman, J., Sogge, C.: Variable coefficient Wolff-type inequalities and sharp local smoothing estimates for wave equations on manifolds[J]. Anal. PDE 13(2), 403–433 (2020)
Bourgain, J.: \(L^p\)-estimates for oscillatory integrals in several variables. Geom. Funct. Anal. 1(4), 321–374 (1991)
Bourgain, J., Demeter, C.: The proof of the \(\ell ^2\) decoupling conjecture. Ann. Math. 182, 351–389 (2015)
Bourgain, J., Guth, L.: Bounds on oscillatory integral operators based on multilinear estimates. Geom. Funct. Anal. 21(6), 1239–1295 (2011)
Du, X., Guth, L., Li, X.: A sharp Schrödinger maximal estimate in \({\mathbb{R} }^2\). Ann. Math. 186(2), 607–640 (2017)
Eunhee, J., Kwon, Y., Lee, S.: Uniform Sobolev inequalities for second order non-elliptic differential operators. Adv. Math. 302, 323–350 (2016)
Feffermann, C., Stein, E.: \(H^p\) spaces of several variables. Acta Math. 129, 167–193 (1972)
Gan, S., Oh, C., Wu, S.: A note on local smoothing estimates for fractional Schrödinger equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05401
Gao, C., Liu, B., Miao, C., Xi, Y.: Improved local smoothing estimate for the wave equation in higher dimensions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.06870
Gao, C., Miao, C., Zheng, J.: Improved local smoothing estimate for the fractional Schrödinger operator. Arxiv preprint
Goldberg, M., Schlag, W.: A limiting absorption principle for the three-dimensional Schrödinger equation with \(L^p\) potentials[J]. Int. Math. Res. Not. 75, 4049–4071 (2004)
Guo, S., Oh, C., Wang, H., Wu, S., Zhang, R.: The Bochner–Riesz problem: an old approach revisited. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.11188
Guth, L.: A restriction estimate using polynomial partitioning[J]. J. Am. Math. Soc. 29(2), 371–413 (2016)
Guth, L.: Restriction estimates using polynomial partitioning II. Acta Math. 221(1), 81–142 (2018)
Guth, L., Hickman, J., Iliopoulou, M.: Sharp estimates for oscillatory integral operators via polynomial partitioning. Acta Math. 223, 251–376 (2019)
Gutirrez, S.: Non-trivial \(L^q\) solutions to the Ginzburg–Landau equation. Math. Ann. 328(1), 1–25 (2004)
Hickman, J., Rogers, K., Zhang, R.: Improved bounds for the Kakeya maximal conjecture in higher dimensions (2019). arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.05589
Hickman, J., Zahl, J.: A note on Fourier restriction and nested Polynomial Wolff axioms[J] (2020). arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02251
Hörmander, L.: Oscillatory integrals and multipliers on F\(L^p\). Arkiv för Matematik 11 1, 1–11 (1973)
Iosevich, A., Liu, B., Xi, Y.: Microlocal decoupling inequalities and the distance problem on Riemannian manifolds (2019). arXiv:1909.05171
Kenig, C., Ruiz, A., Sogge, C.: Uniform Sobolev inequalities and unique continuation for second order constant coefficient differential operators[J]. Duke Math. J. 55(2), 329–347 (1987)
Kwon, Y., Lee, S.: Sharp resolvent estimates outside of the uniform boundedness range[J]. Commun. Math. Phys. 374(3), 1417–1467 (2020)
Lee, S.: Linear and bilinear estimates for oscillatory integral operators related to restriction to hypersurfaces. J. Funct. Anal. 241(1), 56–98 (2006)
Miyachi, A.: On some singular Fourier multipliers for \(H^p(R^n\)). J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo. 28, 267–315 (1981)
Rogers, K.: A local smoothing estimate for the Schödinger equation [J]. Adv. Math. 219(6), 2105–2122 (2008)
Stein, E.: Oscillatory integrals in Fourier analysis, in Beijing Lectures in Harmonic Analysis (Beijing, 1984), Ann. of Math. Stud., 112, pp. 307-355. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ (1986)
Stein, E., Murphy, T.: Harmonic Analysis: Real-Variable Methods, Orthogonality, and Oscillatory Integrals[M]. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1993)
Wang, H.: A restriction estimate in \({\mathbb{R}}^{3}\) using brooms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.04312
Wu, S.: On the Bochner–Riesz operator in \({\mathbb{R}}^{3}\) (2020). arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.13043
Acknowledgements
This project originates from a summer school program held by Shaoming Guo, Bochen Liu and Yakun Xi at Zhejiang University and is partially supported by NSF China Grant NO. 12171424. We are grateful for all organizers for providing an opportunity to discuss the problem. The authors thank Prof. Shaoming Guo for constructive discussion and valuable suggestions. The first author is grateful for Prof. Gang Tian’s support. The authors thank the anonymous referee’s valuable suggestions. C. Gao was supported by Chinese Postdoc Foundation Grant 8206300279. L. Wang was supported by NSF China Grant 12071355.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Gao, C., Li, J. & Wang, L. A type of oscillatory integral operator and its applications. Math. Z. 302, 1551–1584 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00209-022-03127-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00209-022-03127-z