Microlocal Methods for The Elastic Travel Time Tomography Problem for Transversely Isotropic Media

It suffices to show, for every p\in\partial X, that V is a C^{\infty}(U) vector field for some neighborhood U of p. Choosing (U,(y_{i_1},\dots,y_{i_n})) to be a coordinate chart, as is possible from the hypothesis, and letting \{\partial_{y_{i_1}},\dots,\partial_{y_{i_n}}\} be the corresponding partial derivative vector fields on U, we have that

Since V(y_{i_j})\in C^{\infty}(X) for each j, it follows that the coefficients of V are in C^{\infty}(U), i.e. V is a C^{\infty}(U) vector field, as desired.

In light of Lemma 2.1, it suffices to compute d_{\Sigma}V (or V itself if it is tangent to S) applied to the functions

Note that V can be written as a C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}) combination of the vector fields

while if it is furthermore tangent to S, then it can be written as a combination of

We now note that x\partial_x(x) = x, \partial_{y_i}(y_i)=1, and all of the other preceding vector fields applied to x (resp. y_i) yield 0; in addition, x\partial_x and \partial_{y_i} applied to the remaining functions in (Proof) also yield zero. It thus remains to compute the vector fields \rho\partial_{\rho} and d_{\Sigma}\partial_{\tau_j} against the functions d_{\Sigma}, \tilde\tau_i, and \tilde\rho. We have

and

and

All of these functions are in C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1), and moreover \rho\partial_{\rho} and d_{\Sigma}\partial_{\tau_j} applied to d_{\Sigma} and \tilde\rho result in C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1) multiples of the respective boundary-defining functions, i.e. they are tangent to \partial\mathscr{X}_1. Moreover, since \tau_i\partial_{\tau_j} = \tilde\tau_i d_{\Sigma}\partial_{\tau_j}, it follows that if V is tangent to S, then V itself applied to the functions in (Proof) are in C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1), with V applied to the boundary-defining functions of \partial\mathscr{X}_1 resulting in multiples of the respective boundary-defining functions, and since x\partial_x(\tilde\tau_k) = \partial_{y_j}(\tilde\tau_k) = 0 and

it follows that V(\tilde\tau_k) vanishes at \tilde\tau=0. Hence, its C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1)-lift is tangent to S_1 = \{\tilde\tau=0\}.

Let V\in\mathcal{V}_1. We can write

where, to make sense of the RHS as a vector field on \mathscr{X}, we interpret V\rho as (\beta_1)^*V\rho, etc.. Note that all coefficients are in C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1); moreover as \partial_y is tangent to \partial\mathscr{X}_1 (and is a C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}) vector field on \mathscr{X}), it follows that (Vy)\cdot\partial_y\in C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1)\otimes\mathcal{V}_{1,\beta_1}. Furthermore, since x is still a boundary-defining function for one of the faces in \partial\mathscr{X}_1, it follows (because V is tangent to \partial\mathscr{X}_1) that Vx = xa where a\in C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1), and x\partial_x is tangent to \mathscr{X}_1, so (Vx)\partial x = a\cdot x\partial_x\in C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1)\otimes\mathcal{V}_{1,\beta_1}. The same ends up being true for \rho, since \{\rho=0\} is contained in the boundary of \partial\mathscr{X} (more specifically, since \rho = \tilde{\rho}d_{\Sigma}^2 where \tilde{\rho}\in C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1), it follows that

noting that \tilde{\rho} and d_{\Sigma} are boundary-defining functions of two of the faces in \partial\mathscr{X}, it follows that V\tilde{\rho} and Vd_{\Sigma} are C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1) multiples of \tilde{\rho} and d_{\Sigma}, respectively, so that overall V\rho is a C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1) multiple of \tilde{\rho}d_{\Sigma}^2 = \rho). Hence, (V\rho)\partial_{\rho} is a C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1) multiple of \rho\partial_{\rho}.

It remains to analyze the term (V\tau)\cdot\partial_{\tau}. Since

it follows that (V\tau)\cdot\partial_{\tau} is a sum of the terms (Vd_{\Sigma})\tilde\tau\cdot\partial_{\tau}, which is a C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1) multiple of d_{\Sigma}\tilde\tau\cdot\partial_{\tau} = \tau\cdot\partial_{\tau} since Vd_{\Sigma} is a smooth multiple of d_{\Sigma}, as well as d_{\Sigma}(V\tilde\tau)\cdot\partial_{\tau}, which is a sum of C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1) multiples of d_{\Sigma}\partial_{\tau_i} (i.e. of the form b_jd_{\Sigma}W_j in the lemma statement).

Finally, we note that if V is tangent to S_1, then V\tilde\tau_i = \sum{a_j\tilde\tau_j} for some a_j\in C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1), in which case

and hence is a sum of C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1) multiples of \tau_j\partial_{\tau_i}.

Since the second blow-down \beta_2 is a diffeomorphism away from \Gamma in \mathscr{X}_1, it suffices to analyze V in a neighborhood of \Gamma. In particular, (x,y,d_{\Sigma},\tilde\tau) forms local coordinates of \mathscr{X}_1 near \Gamma, so vector fields in \mathcal{V}_1 can be written as C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_1) combinations of the vector fields x\partial_x, \partial_{y_j}, d_{\Sigma}\partial_{d_{\Sigma}}, and \partial_{\tilde\tau_j} for 1\le j\le n-1 near \Gamma; furthermore, vector fields which are also tangent to S_1 can be written as a combination of x\partial_x, \partial_{y_j}, d_{\Sigma}\partial_{d_{\Sigma}}, and \tilde\tau_i\partial_{\tilde\tau_j} for 1\le i,j\le n-1.

We test vector fields like d_{\Sigma}\partial_{d_{\Sigma}}, d_{\Gamma}\partial_{\tilde\tau_j}, and x\partial_x against the functions

(Note that we can ignore the vector fields \partial_{y_j} and the coordinates functions y_i for similar reasons as before.)

Thus, we first apply the vector fields to d_{\Gamma}, to get

Note that all of the functions on the right-hand sides are smooth on \mathscr{X}_2 and vanish at \{d_{\Gamma} = 0\}.

We now check

These functions are smooth on \mathscr{X}_2 and vanish at \{\frac{d_{\Sigma}}{d_{\Gamma}} = 0\}.

We now check

These functions are smooth on \mathscr{X}_2 and vanish at \{\frac{x}{d_{\Gamma}^2} = 0\}.

Finally, we check

These functions are smooth on \mathscr{X}_2. This implies that d_{\Gamma}V lifts to a C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_2) vector field on \mathscr{X}_2.

Furthermore, since \tilde\tau_i\partial_{\tilde\tau_j} = \frac{\tilde\tau_i}{d_{\Gamma}}\cdot d_{\Gamma}\partial_{\tilde\tau_j}, it follows that if V is tangent to S_1, then V itself lifts to a C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_2) vector field on \mathscr{X}_2.

We proceed similarly to the Lemma 2.3. Since the blowdown \beta_2 is a diffeomorphism away from the second front face (corresponding to \Gamma = \partial S_1 in \mathscr{X}_1), it suffices to analyze (\beta_2)_*V for V\in\mathcal{V}_2 in a neighborhood of S_1. Valid coordinates in that neighborhood are given by d_{\Sigma}, \tilde\tau_i, x, and y. For V\in\mathcal{V}_2, we have

Since \partial_y is still tangent to \partial\mathscr{X}_1, it follows that (Vy)\cdot\partial_y is of the form a_iV_i above. Furthermore, since \{d_{\Sigma} = 0\} and \{x=0\} are still contained in \partial\mathscr{X}_2, it follows similar from arguments above that Vd_{\Sigma} and Vx are C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_2) multiples of d_{\Sigma} and x, respectively, so (Vd_{\Sigma})\partial_{d_{\Sigma}} + (Vx)\partial_x is of the form \sum{a_iV_i} above. Finally, we have

the first term is of the form b_jd_{\Gamma}W_j while the second term is of the form a_iV_i, since Vd_{\Gamma} is a C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_2) multiple of d_{\Gamma}, i.e. \frac{Vd_{\Gamma}}{d_{\Gamma}}\in C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_2).

From Lemma 2.7, we have that V\in\mathcal{V}_2 can be written as V = \left(\sum_i{a_i\tilde{V}_i}\right) + \left(\sum_j{b_jd_{\Gamma}\tilde{W}_j}\right), with \tilde{V}_i a \beta_2-lift of a vector field in \mathcal{V}_{1} which is also tangent to S_1, and d_{\Gamma}\tilde{W}_j a \beta_2-lift of d_{\Gamma} times a vector field in \mathcal{V}_1. From Lemma 2.3, we know that \beta_2^*\tilde{V}_i is itself a \beta_1-lift of a vector field in \mathcal{V} tangent to S, while \beta_2^*\tilde{W}_j = \sum{\tilde{a}_kV'_{j,k}}+\sum{\tilde{b}_ld_{\Sigma}W'_{j,l}}, with V'_{j,k}\in\mathcal{V}_{1,\beta_1} and d_{\Sigma}W'_{j,l} a \beta_1-lift of d_{\Sigma} times a vector field in \mathcal{V} not necessarily tangent to S. It follows that

The terms in the first parentheses are all in C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_2)\otimes\mathcal{V}_{2,\beta}, giving the form claimed in the Corollary.

It suffices to consider the case (m,l,k,j)=(m',l',k',j')=(0,0,0,0). Noting that V(ab) = (Va)b+a(Vb), it follows by induction that for a product V^{\alpha} of vector fields in \mathcal{V}_2, we have that V^{\alpha}(ab) is a sum of products of the form (V^{\beta}a)(V^{\gamma}b) for some products V^{\beta}, V^{\gamma} of vector fields in \mathcal{V}_2. All of these terms satisfy the uniform estimates, so V^{\alpha}(ab) does as well.

If (m,l,k,j) = (0,0,0,0), then this follows easily from the definition. Otherwise, take a = \rho^{-m}x^{-l}d_{\Sigma}^{-k}d_{\Gamma}^{-j}\tilde{a}, with \tilde{a}\in S^{0,0,0,0}. It suffices to prove the statement for |\alpha|=1 as the general case then follows by induction. Since \rho, x, d_{\Sigma}, and d_{\Gamma} are all products of boundary-defining functions of \mathcal{X}_2, it follows that for V\in\mathcal{V}_2 we have

Hence

as desired.

From the above proposition, if a\in S^{m,l,k,j}, then V^{\alpha}a\in S^{m,l,k,j}, and hence it equals \rho^{-m}x^{-l}d_{\Sigma}^{-k}d_{\Gamma}^{-j} times a function in S^{0,0,0,0}, which satisfies uniform estimates, so overall V^{\alpha}a wil satisfy the desired estimate above. Conversely, if a satisfies the above estimates, we’d like to show that \rho^mx^ld_{\Sigma}^kd_{\Gamma}^ja is in S^{0,0,0,0}. Similar arguments from the above paragraphs show that V^{\alpha}(\rho^mx^ld_{\Sigma}^kd_{\Gamma}^ja) has the form

for some functions b_{\beta}\in C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_2). Then by hypothesis we have that \rho^mx^ld_{\Sigma}^kd_{\Gamma}^j(V^{\beta}a) satisfies zeroth-order uniform estimates (i.e. the symbol estimates for S^{0,0,0,0} symbols), while the b_{\beta} also satisfy zeroth-order estimates, and hence overall V^{\alpha}(\rho^mx^ld_{\Sigma}^kd_{\Gamma}^ja) satisfies zeroth-order estimates, i.e. \rho^mx^ld_{\Sigma}^kd_{\Gamma}^ja\in S^{0,0,0,0}, as desired.

For any product V^{\alpha} of vector fields in \mathcal{V}_2, we have that V^{\alpha}a\in S for any a\in S by repeated applications of the second property in the hypothesis. The first property in the hypothesis then gives |V^{\alpha}a|\le C_{\alpha}\rho^{-m}x^{-l}d_{\Sigma}^{-k}d_{\Gamma}^{-j}, as desired.

Let \tilde{S} = S^{0,0,0,0}\otimes S. Then \tilde{S} satisfies the hypothesis in Lemma 3.8, so \tilde{S}\subset S^{m,l,k,j}. Since S\subset\tilde{S} as well since 1\in S^{0,0,0,0}, it follows that S\subset S^{m,l,k,j}, as desired.

It suffices by induction to show this when |\alpha|=1. In that case, we can write V = \sum{b_iV_i} with b_i\in S^{0,0,0,0} and V_i\in\mathcal{V}_2, in which case b_iV_ia \in S^{m,l,k,j} as V_ia\in S^{m,l,k,j}.

We first show that \rho\partial_{\tau_j} and x^{1/2}\rho^{1/2}\partial_{\tau_j} do belong to \mathcal{V}_{2,c}. Indeed, since

\rho\in S^{-1,0,0,0}\subset S^{0,0,-1,-1} and x^{1/2}\rho^{1/2}\in S^{-1/2,-1/2,0,0}\subset S^{0,0,-1,-1}, it follows that both \rho and x^{1/2}\rho^{1/2} are S^{0,0,0,0} multiples of d_{\Sigma}d_{\Gamma}, and hence these vector fields are a S^{0,0,0,0} multiple of d_{\Sigma}d_{\Gamma}\partial_{\tau_j}, which are in \mathcal{V}_2.

From Corollary 2.9, it now suffices to show that d_{\Gamma}d_{\Sigma}\partial_{\tau_j} can be obtained as a S^{0,0,0,0} combination of the vector fields \rho\partial_{\tau_j}, x^{1/2}\rho^{1/2}\partial_{\tau_j}, and \tau_i\partial_{\tau_j}; in particular it suffices to show that d_{\Sigma}d_{\Gamma} can be written as a S^{0,0,0,0} combination of \rho, \rho^{1/2}x^{1/2}, and \tau_i. Note

We note that \rho^{1/2}\in S^{-1/2,0,0,0}\subset S^{0,0,-1,0}, and hence d_{\Sigma}+\rho^{1/2}\in S^{0,0,-1,0}, and is elliptic as an element of S^{0,0,-1,0} since |d_{\Sigma}+\rho^{1/2}|\ge d_{\Sigma}; hence we have \frac{1}{d_{\Sigma}+\rho^{1/2}}\in S^{0,0,1,0}. Moreover, from (?), we have \tau_i\in S^{0,0,-1,-1}. Thus, we have

Similarly, we have

As before, we have that d_{\Gamma}+x^{1/2} is elliptic as an element of S^{0,0,0,-1}, and hence \frac{1}{d_{\Gamma}+x^{1/2}}\in S^{0,0,0,1}. Hence,

and

Hence, we have

Thus we have

Noting that a_i\in S^{0,0,0,-1}\implies d_{\Gamma}a_i\in S^{0,0,0,-2}\subset S^{0,0,0,0} and \rho^{1/2}\in S^{0,0,-1,0}, c_i\in S^{0,0,1,0}\implies \rho^{1/2}c_i\in S^{0,0,0,0}, we see that d_{\Gamma}d_{\Sigma} can indeed be written as a S^{0,0,0,0} combination of x^{1/2}\rho^{1/2}, \rho, and \tau_i.

For the first inclusion(For the case m = l = 0, the statement is just that distributions conormal to \partial \mathscr{X} are also distributions conormal to \partial \mathscr{X}_2 by identifying the interiors of \mathscr{X} and \mathscr{X}_2. This is a standard fact using that the blow-down map \beta:\mathscr{X}_2\to\mathscr{X} is a b-map, cf. Chapter 6 in [daomwc]), we note that any a\in S_0^{m,l} certainly satisfies the estimate in (3.12), as it satisfies the stronger estimate |W^{\alpha}V^{\beta}a|\le C\rho^{-m}x^{-l} that does not depend on whether the vector fields being applied are tangent to S or not. Hence, by Corollary 3.12, we have that a\in S^{m,l,0,0}.

For the second inclusion, we use Proposition 3.4 and Part 4 of Proposition 3.5 (with s = 0 and t = 1) to note that if V^{\alpha} is a product of vector fields tangent to \partial \mathscr{X}, we have

and hence |V^{\alpha}a|\le C_{\alpha}\rho^{-(m+|\alpha|/2)}x^{-(l+|\alpha|)}. This shows a\in S_{1/2}^{m,l}.

Since

for any N> 0, it follows that we have S^{-N,-N}\subset S^{m,l,k,j} for N sufficiently large. Any element in S^{-\infty,-\infty} belongs to S^{-N,-N} for any N>0, so it follows that any element in S^{-\infty,-\infty} belongs in S^{m,l,k,j}. The same logic applies to S^{m-i,l-i,k+i,j+i} for any i\ge 0, so we have the inclusion S^{-\infty,-\infty}\subset S^{m-i,l-i,k+i,j+i}.

Conversely, if a\in\cap_{i\ge 0}{S^{m-i,l-i,k+i,j+i}}, we’d like to show that a\in S^{-N,-N} for any fixed N. We thus need to show that for any product V^{\alpha} of vector fields tangent to \partial\mathscr{X}, we have

Using Propositions 3.13 and 3.5, we have

so it follows that by taking i sufficiently large we have

But then this would give

as desired.

For \tilde{a}\in S^{m,l,k,j}_{full}, let a = \mathcal{F}_{(X,Y)\to(\xi,\eta)}(K_{\tilde{a}}). We want to show that a\in S^{m,l,k,j} and a-\sum_{|\alpha|<N}{\frac{i^{|\alpha|}}{\alpha!}\partial_{(\xi,\eta)}^{\alpha}\tilde{a}|_{(X,Y)=(0,0)}}\in S^{m-N,l-N,k+N,j+N} for any N. The former involves showing that, for any product V^{\beta} of vector fields in \mathcal{V}_2, we have |V^{\beta}a|\le C\rho^{-m}x^{-l}d_{\Sigma}^{-k}d_{\Gamma}^{-j}.

By Lemma 4.2, for any N>0 we can write K_{\tilde{a}} = K_{a_N}+ K_{\tilde{a}_N} where

for N' sufficiently large and \tilde{a}_N\in S^{-N,-N,0,0}; we’ll consider N very large. In particular, we’ll take N large enough such that

Then we have

Hence, we have

The term |V^{\beta}a_N| is bounded by C\rho^{-m}x^{-l}d_{\Sigma}^{-k}d_{\Gamma}^{-j} since a_N\in S^{m,l,k,j}. By Lemma 4.3, the second term |V^{\beta}\left(\mathcal{F}_{(X,Y)\to(\xi,\eta)}(K_{\tilde{a}_N})\right)| is bounded by C\rho^{N-(|\beta|/2+n+1)}x^N, which in turn is bounded by C\rho^{-m}x^{-l}d_{\Sigma}^{-k}d_{\Gamma}^{-j} since we assume N is sufficiently large. Thus overall we have the bound |V^{\beta}a|\le C\rho^{-m}x^{-l}d_{\Sigma}^{-k}d_{\Gamma}^{-j}, as desired. This shows that a\in S^{m,l,k,j}.

Moreover, the same argument shows the asymptotic series statement: indeed, for a fixed N_0, for sufficiently large N we have S^{-N,-N,0,0}\subset S^{m-N_0,l-N_0,k+N_0,j+N_0}, in which case

where \tilde{a}_N\in S_{full}^{-N,-N,0,0}, and hence from the above result we now know that \mathcal{F}_{(X,Y)\to(\xi,\eta)}(K_{\tilde{a}_N})\in S^{-N,-N,0,0}\subset S^{m-N_0,l-N_0,k+N_0,j+N_0}. Since we can arrange for

for N' sufficiently large (in particular larger than N_0), it follows that {a-\sum_{|\alpha|<N}{\frac{i^{|\alpha|}}{\alpha!}\partial_{(\xi,\eta)}^{\alpha}\partial_{(X,Y)}^{\alpha}\tilde{a}|_{(X,Y)=(0,0)}}}\in S^{m-N_0,l-N_0,k+N_0,j+N_0}, as desired.

The proof is the same as the classical case: if we write Z = (X,Y) and suppress all other variables, then we use Taylor’s theorem with remainder to write

where

Note that if \tilde{a}\in S^{m,l,k,j}_{full}, then R_{\beta}\tilde{a}\in S^{m,l-|\beta|,k,j}_{full} for any \beta. It follows that

Notice that \xi and \eta derivatives are \rho times a vector field tangent to \partial\mathscr{X}, so \partial^{\alpha}_{(\xi,\eta)}\partial^{\alpha}_Z\tilde{a}(0)\in S^{m-|\alpha|,l-|\alpha|,k+|\alpha|,j+|\alpha|}, and \partial^{\beta}_{(\xi,\eta)}R_{\beta}(Z)\in S^{m-|\beta|,l-|\beta|,k+|\beta|,j+|\beta|}_{full} = S^{m-(N'+1),l-(N'+1),k+(N'+1),j+(N'+1)}_{full} when |\beta|=N'+1. We note that, for a fixed N>0, we have

for sufficiently large N'. Thus, for N' sufficiently large, if we let

then a_N\in S^{m,l,k,j}, \tilde{a}_N\in S^{-N,-N,0,0}_{full}, and K_{\tilde{a}} = K_{a_N}+K_{\tilde{a}_N}, as desired.

We recall from Lemma 3.11 that \mathcal{V}_{2,c} is generated over S^{0,0,0,0} by the vector fields

Rewriting these vector fields in the (\xi,\eta) coordinates, we see that \mathcal{V}_{2,c} is generated over S^{0,0,0,0} by the vector fields

It suffices to prove the lemma when V^{\beta} is a product of the above vector fields. We have the Fourier transform commutation relations

and

We have similar relations in applying differentiation/multiplication in (X,Y) to (?); the only difference is that the symbol also depends on (X,Y), so applying a derivative in (X,Y) results in another term. Nonetheless, we have

and

Thus, we have

i.e. for V = \eta_i\partial_{\eta_j} we have

where \tilde{a}'\in S^{-N,-N-1,0,0}_{full}. It follows that \tilde{a}'' = V\tilde{a}+\tilde{a}'\in S^{-N,-N,0,0}_{full}, and hence V(\mathcal{F}_{(X,Y)\to(\xi,\eta)}K_{\tilde{a}}) = \mathcal{F}_{(X,Y)\to(\xi,\eta)}K_{\tilde{a}''} with \tilde{a}''\in S^{-N,-N,0,0}_{full}. More generally, the same logic applies if V is one of the following vector fields:

It follows that if V^{\beta} is a product of the above vector fields (i.e. a product of any of the vector fields in (Proof) except x^{1/2}\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{1/2}\partial_{\xi} and x^{1/2}\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{1/2}\partial_{\eta_i}), then

In addition, we have

with \eta_j\tilde{a}+D_{Y_j}\tilde{a}\in S^{-N+1,-N,0,0}_{full}+S^{-N,-N-1,0,0}_{full}\in S^{-N+1,-N,0,0}_{full}. Thus in general we have

If \tilde{a}\in S^{m,l,0,0}_{full} with m<-n, then the integrand in the Fourier transform is absolutely integrable, and hence we can crudely bound |(\mathcal{F}_{(X,Y)\to(\xi,\eta)}K_{\tilde{a}'})|\le Cx^{-l}, and hence

Since this holds for all \alpha with |\alpha|<N-n, then we have

Finally, for V = x^{1/2}\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{1/2}\partial_{\xi} and x^{1/2}\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{1/2}\partial_{\eta_i}, we crudely rewrite these as (x^{1/2}\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{1/2})(\partial_{\xi}) and (x^{1/2}\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{1/2})(\partial_{\eta_i}). Hence, if we consider a product V^{\beta}(\mathcal{F}_{(X,Y)\to(\xi,\eta)}K_{\tilde{a}}) where V^{\beta} may contain products of x^{1/2}\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{1/2}\partial_{\xi} or x^{1/2}\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{1/2}\partial_{\eta_i}, then if there are k of such products, we can rewrite V^{\beta}(\mathcal{F}_{(X,Y)\to(\xi,\eta)}K_{\tilde{a}}) as a C^{\infty}(\mathscr{X}_2)-combination of terms of the form x^{j/2}\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{j/2}\tilde{V}^{\beta}(\mathcal{F}_{(X,Y)\to(\xi,\eta)}K_{\tilde{a}}) for 0\le j\le k, where now \tilde{V}^{\beta} is a product of vector fields of the form (Proof) (by moving factors x^{1/2}\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{1/2} all the way to the left since commutators behave nicely). For each term we can bound

using (Proof) (note that j\le k\le |\beta|). Hence, overall we have

as claimed.

Since we can write the “(X,Y)-Schwartz kernel” K_A(x,y,X,Y) (satisfying
Au(x,y) = \int{K_A(x,y,X,Y)u(x+x^2X,y+xY)\,dX\,dY}) as

it will be helpful to obtain an expression for the “(X,Y)-Schwartz kernel” K_{A*} of the adjoint A^* in terms of K_A. We note that

as long as

Changing the roles of (x,y) and (x',y'), and noting that

and

it follows that

where

Note that in going from the second-to-last line to the last line we rescaled \xi and \eta to (1+xX)^2\xi and (1+xX)\eta, respectively.

We can now check that \tilde{a}\in S^{m,l,k,j}_{full}. The idea is that 1+xX is bounded from above and below in the support of a; moreover we can compute quantities like

and

to show that \tilde{a} indeed satisfies the desired estimates. We note that the principal symbol of \tilde{a} is given by

so that in particular if a(x,y,X,Y,\xi,\eta) is given by a left-reduced symbol a(x,y,\xi,\eta) times a cutoff in (xX,xY), then the principal symbol of the adjoint is given by \overline{a}(x,y,\xi,\eta), as expected.

Note that directly from Lemma 4.9 we have that a\# b satisfies the zeroth order symbol estimate |(a\# b)|\le C\rho^{-M}x^{-L}d_{\Sigma}^{-K}d_{\Gamma}^{-J}, so it suffices to show the same estimate holds after applying a product of vector fields V_1\dots V_N which are tangent to \partial\mathscr{X}_2. But by applying Lemma 4.10 repeatedly, we see that

where a_i\in S^{m_i,l_i,k_i,j_i} and b_i\in S^{m'_i,l'_i,k'_i,j'_i}_{full} with m_i+m'_i = M, l_i+l'_i = L, k_i+k'_i = K, and j_i+j'_i = J. Then, applying the zeroth order estimate in Lemma 4.9 gives

as desired. Hence, we have shown that a\# b\in S^{M,L,K,J} for a\in S^{m,l,k,j} and b\in S^{m',l',k',j'}_{full}.

To show the principal symbol statement, we observe that applying Lemma 4.8 with N=1 gives a\#b - ab|_{X=0,Y=0} = \sum_{i=1}^{N'}{a_i\# b_i} with a_i\in S^{m-1,l-1,k+1,j+1} and b_i\in S^{m',l',k',j'}_{full}. Applying the conclusion of the above paragraph gives a\#b-ab|_{X=0,Y=0}\in S^{M-1,L-1,K+1,J+1}, as desired.

The terms in the asymptotic series can be derived by applying the method of stationary phase; however in this case we can make a more direct integration by parts argument similar to the left reduction argument: indeed, letting Z=(X,Y) and suppressing the variables x, y, \xi, and \eta, we have

where

Note that \partial_Z^{\alpha}b(0)\in S^{m',l'-|\alpha|,k',j'} and R_{\beta}b\in S^{m',l'-|\beta|,k',j'}_{full}. It follows that

To evaluate the terms in the first sum, note that (\partial_{X,Y}^{\alpha}b)|_{(X,Y) = (0,0)} is independent of the variables of integration, so we can write the term as

For each term in the second sum, we apply the same integration by parts argument to rewrite the term as

By definition, this is (i^{|\beta|}\partial_{\xi,\eta}^{\beta}a)\#(R_{\beta}b). Noting that \partial_{\xi,\eta}^{\beta}a\in S^{m-|\beta|,l,k+|\beta|,j+|\beta|} = S^{m-N,l,k+N,j+N} and R_{\beta}b\in S^{m',l'-N,k',j'}, the desired statement follows by noting that we can multiply \partial_{\xi,\eta}^{\beta}a and divide R_{\beta}b by x^N without changing the overall integral.

We first prove the much weaker statement: for m_0\in\mathbb{N}, we have

By multiplying a by a power of x and b by powers of \rho, x, d_{\Sigma}, and d_{\Gamma}, we may assume that l=m'=l'=k'=j'=0. We can write the integral as

We note that \mathcal{F}^{-1}a(x,y,X,Y) is Schwartz in (X,Y) away from the origin (X,Y)=(0,0), and moreover it satisfies uniform Schwartz estimates in (x,y), since a is smooth uniformly in (x,y). Near the origin, we have that \mathcal{F}^{-1}a(x,y,X,Y) is in C^{m_0}, with uniformly bounded derivatives up to order m_0: indeed, note that

and for |\alpha|\le m_0 we have |(i(\xi,\eta))^{\alpha}a|\le C\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{|\alpha|+m} with |\alpha|+m\le m_0+m<-n, and hence the integral defining its inverse Fourier transform is uniformly integrable, i.e. \mathcal{F}^{-1}\left((i(\xi,\eta))^{\alpha}a\right) is uniformly bounded. As such, we note that for |\alpha|\le m_0 we have

Noting that D_{X,Y}^{\alpha}\left(\mathcal{F}_{(\xi',\eta')\to(X,Y)}^{-1}a(x,y,X,Y)b(x,y,X,Y,\xi,\eta)\right) is uniformly bounded near (X,Y)=(0,0) since \mathcal{F}^{-1}a is in C^{m_0} with |\alpha|\le m_0, and the term is also uniformly Schwartz away from (X,Y)=(0,0), it follows that (\xi,\eta)^{\alpha}(a\# b) is uniformly bounded for all |\alpha|\le m_0. This implies that \langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{m_0}(a\# b) is uniformly bounded, i.e. |(a\# b)|\le C\rho^{m_0}, as desired.

To show the lemma in full generality, we use the asymptotic expansion (4.8) to write, for any N,

where a_i\in S^{m-N,l-N,k+N,j+N} and b_i\in S^{m',l',k',j'}_{full}. Each term in the first sum is in S^{M-|\alpha|,L-|\alpha|,K+|\alpha|,J+|\alpha|}\subset S^{M-|\alpha|/2,L-|\alpha|/2,K,J} and hence bounded by C\rho^{-M}x^{-L}d_{\Sigma}^{-K}d_{\Gamma}^{-J}. For the terms a_i\# b_i in the remainder term, we note that if N is sufficiently large so that k+N and j+N are both positive, then we have

If we take m_0 sufficiently large so that m_0+m\ge (k_-)/2, and we take N sufficiently large so that m+k/2-N/2<-n-m_0, then by the weaker estimate proven above, we have

If we also require N to be sufficiently large so that N/2-j/2\ge (j_-)/2, then we have

Thus, if N is sufficiently large, we have that the remainder term is also bounded by C\rho^{-M}x^{-L}d_{\Sigma}^{-K}d_{\Gamma}^{-J}, thus showing the estimate in general.

Since the collection of vector fields tangent to \partial\mathscr{X}_2 are generated over S^{0,0,0,0} by the vector fields

and that furthermore c(a\# b) = a\#(cb) when c\in S^{0,0,0,0}, it suffices to show the lemma for the above vector fields.

For the horizontal vector fields V = x\partial_x,\partial_y, from (?) we have

Thus the lemma holds for these vector fields since symbols of a given order are preserved under V.

For the vertical vector fields, we rewrite (?) as

to show

For all j we have \partial_{\eta_j}a\in S^{m-1,l,k+1,j+1}\subset S^{m,l,k,j} and \partial_{\eta_j}b\in S^{m'-1,l,k'+1,j'+1}\subset S^{m',l',k',j'}_{full}, so the lemma holds for V = \partial_{\eta_j} (the same logic holds for \partial_{\xi} as well). Furthermore, since

it follows that for V = \eta_i\partial_{\eta_j} we can write

We again have \partial_{\eta_j}a\in S^{m-1,l,k+1,j+1}, while if i=2,\dots,n-1, then

Thus, \eta_ib\in S^{m'+1,l',k'-1,j'-1}_{full}, so the orders of \partial_{\eta_j}a and \eta_ib add to the desired quantities. Hence, the lemma holds for V = \eta_i\partial_{\eta_j} with i=2,\dots,n-1. The same argument holds for V = \xi\partial_{\xi},\eta_i\partial_{\xi}, and \xi\partial_{\eta_j}. For V = \eta_j\partial_{\eta_1}, we have

Noting that \partial_{\eta_1}a\in S^{m-1,l,k,j} since \partial_{\eta_1} is tangent to \{\tau = 0\}, and \eta_jb\in S^{m'+1,l',k',j'}, we see that the lemma holds here as well. Finally, for V = x^{1/2}\rho^{-1/2}\partial_{\eta_i}, we have

In the first term, we have \partial_{\eta_i}a\in S^{m-1,l,k+1,j+1}\subset S^{m-1/2,l+1/2,k,j} and x^{1/2}\rho^{-1/2}b\in S^{m'+1/2,l'-1/2,k',j'}, so the sum of the orders add to the desired quantities, while in the second term we have that Vb has the same orders as b. Hence the lemma holds here as well; the logic applies similarly to V=x^{1/2}\rho^{-1/2}\partial_{\xi}.

We take c_2 = \frac{1}{5\sqrt{C_0}}. In the region of support we have |\hat\lambda|\le Cx^{-\epsilon} = Cx^{1/2-\epsilon}x^{-1/2}, so by choosing c sufficiently small, we can arrange |\hat\lambda|\le (100c_2)^{-1}x^{-1/2} on the region of support. Then in the region |\hat{t}|\le c_2/x^{1/2} we have

i.e. x'\ge 0.99x, while similarly

so x'\le 1.06x. Note that when x'\le x, we have \frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{x'} = \frac{x'-x}{xx'}\ge\frac{x'-x}{0.99x^2} (since x'-x\le 0 there), while in x'\ge x we have \frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{x'}\ge \frac{x'-x}{1.06x^2}. Thus, we have

It thus suffices to obtain a lower bound on \frac{\hat\lambda^2}{2.12\alpha}+\frac{x'-x}{x^2} in this region. Note that we can bound

For sufficiently small \epsilon, we have 2(C_0-\epsilon)>1.06\alpha (since by assumption we will always have \alpha\le 1.01C_0), which then gives the desired lower bound.

On the other region |\hat{t}|\ge c_2x^{-1/2}, we have

Note that |\hat\lambda|\le (100c_2)^{-1}x^{-1/2} = \frac{1}{20}\sqrt{C_0}x^{-1/2}=\frac{C_0c_2}{4}x^{-1/2}\le \frac{C_0}{4}|\hat{t}|, so we have

i.e. x'\ge 1.03x in the region. Thus \frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{x'}\ge \left(1-\frac{1}{1.03}\right)\frac{1}{x}. Since on the region of support we have x|\hat{t}|\le T, we have \frac{1}{x}\ge|\hat{t}|/T. Thus, we have

as desired.

The quadratic vanishing of a_{-1} is well-known; the only comment is that the constant in the lower bound follows from the lower bound of the second derivative \partial^2_{\omega_{\parallel}}A. For the other quantities, we calculate the symbol at (\xi,\eta)\sim(0,\eta_0). This simplifies calculations, since in the decomposition a = a_{1,1} + a_{1,2} in the previous section, we only need the a_{1,1} term since \tilde\xi = 0. Thus, for the other two terms, it suffices to calculate the stationary phase expansions of

For (\xi,\eta) = \pm|(\xi,\eta)|(0,\eta_0), we have that the phase is |\eta|(\omega_{\parallel}\hat{t} + x\eta_0\cdot\beta\hat{t}^2). Thus the term a_{-2} equals

Note that A vanishes on the set \{\hat{t} = 0, \omega_{\parallel} = 0\}, and hence derivatives on the exponential factor times A will vanish except for the terms where both derivatives fall on A. Thus the term is(Note that this calculation implicitly assumes that \beta is a constant; however we can approximate \beta by its value at \{\hat{t} = 0, \omega_{\parallel} = 0\}; doing so will introduce an error of order O(x\omega_{\parallel}\hat{t}^2)+O(x\hat{t}^3) into the phase, and this error vanishes to sufficiently high degree at the critical set such that it will not affect the subprincipal behavior.)

By assumption, the integrand is bounded from below everywhere; moreover such a bound will vary C^2 in A and C^0 in the phase (due to the \beta term).

For the term a_{-3}, we calculate the term at x=0 and on \Sigma. At x=0, the phase is just \omega_{\parallel}\hat{t}, and the term x^{-1}-(x')^{-1} in the exponential is \hat\lambda\hat{t}+\alpha\hat{t}^2, and the cutoff \chi(x^{\epsilon}\hat\lambda) is 1. Hence the term a_{-3} is

(Note that the second line follows since the \hat{t} derivatives can only fall on the exponential term to produce a nonzero term, and the \omega_{\parallel} derivative must fall at least twice on A to produce a nonzero term since A vanishes to second order in \omega.) Since

it follows that

Note again that this depends continuously in the C^2 norm for A and in the C^0 norm for the phase (via \alpha).