Curvature and sharp growth rates of log-quasimodes on compact manifolds

Inequality (1.1) for q\in (2,q_c) just follows via interpolation from the q=q_c estimate we just obtained and the fact that the projection operators are bounded on L^2(M) with norm one.

Thus, we only have to prove the subcritical bounds in (1.1) for q\in (2,q_c), assuming as there that all of the sectional curvatures of M are negative. By interpolation ,

we see that it suffices to prove the estimates for q\in (2,\tfrac{2(n+2)}n]. We make this reduction in order to use (2.3), which as we noted before is an estimate over all of M (unlike (2.3)). As before, in order to prove (1.1) for q in the above range, it suffices to show that when f is L^2-normalized as in (?) we have

for T as in (?) with c_0>0 sufficiently small depending on our manifold M of negative curvature.

If we use (2.3) in place of (2.3), and repeat the proof of (?) we obtain

Since, as we just exploited, (2.4) is valid for all \alpha\in {\mathbb N} under our curvature assumption, by (2.4) the first term in the right hand side is O(T^{-1/2}\lambda^{\mu(q)}), which yields (?) and completes the proof.

We first note that by (?) and (2.3) we have

since \|\rho_\lambda\|_{2\to2}=O(1). Consequently, to prove the bounds in it suffices to show that the first term in the right is dominated by the right side of (2.1) when all of the sectional curvatures of M are nonpositive and by the right side of (2.1) if they all are negative. We recall that we are assuming as in (?) that f is L^2-normalized.

We first note that, since \mu(q_c)=1/q_c, by using (?), (2.2) and (2.2), we obtain

using also Hölder’s inequality in the last line.

By Young’s inequality, we can bound the second to last term as follows

If \delta>0 is small enough so that C\tfrac2{q_c}\delta^{\frac{q_c}2} is smaller than 1/2, we can absorb the contribution of the first term in the right side of the preceding inequality into the left side of (?) and conclude that

using (?) in the last line. Next, if we use (?) along with the L^{q_c} almost orthogonality bounds in (2.2) we can control the nontrivial term on the right as follows

If we combine (Proof)–(?), we conclude that

If the sectional curvatures of M are all nonpositive we conclude from Lemma 2.5 that (2.4) is valid for \alpha=\tfrac{n-1}2, and so, by (2.4) in Proposition 2.4 we obtain in this case

which along with the earlier bound (?) yields (1.1) for q=q_c=\tfrac{2(n+1)}{n-1}.

If all of the sectional curvatures of M are negative, then Lemma 2.5 says that (2.4) is valid for any \alpha\in {\mathbb N} and so we can use the more favorable case of (2.4) involving T^{-1/2}. As a result, if we repeat the arguments leading to (?) we conclude that if all the sectional curvatures of M are negative we have

which along with (?) yields (1.1) for the critical index q=q_c.

To prove (2.2) we note that, by interpolation, it suffices to prove the inequality for q=2 and q=\infty. The estimate for q=2 just follows from the fact that the S^0_{7/8,1/8} operators \{A^{\theta_0}_\nu\} are almost orthogonal due to (?). The estimate for q=\infty follows from the fact that the kernels satisfy

To see (Proof), we note that in addition to (?) we have that \partial_r^k a(x,r\omega)=\lambda^{-k}, if \omega\in S^{n-1}, by (?) since a^\theta_\nu(x,\xi) is homogeneous of degree zero in \xi. So, if, as we shall shortly do, we work in local Fermi normal coordinates so that the projection of \gamma_\nu onto M is the nth coordinate axis, using these estimates for radial derivatives, (?) and a simple integration by parts argument yields that

for all N which of course yields (Proof).

Since (2.2) follows via duality from (2.2) we are just left with proving (2.2). To do this we recall that by (?) the symbol B(x,\xi)=B_\lambda(x,\xi) \in S^{0}_{1,0} vanishes when |\xi| is not comparable to \lambda. In particular, it vanishes if |\xi| is larger than a fixed multiple of \lambda, and it belongs to a bounded subset of S^0_{1,0}. Furthermore, if a^{\theta_0}_\nu(x,\xi) is the principal symbol of our zero-order dyadic microlocal operators, we recall that by (?) we have that for \delta>0 small enough

where \Phi_t: \, T^*M\, \backslash 0 \to T^*M \, \backslash 0 denotes geodesic flow in the cotangent bundle.

By Sobolev estimates for M, in order to prove (2.2), it suffices to show that for q\in (2,q_c]

To prove this we recall that by (?) and (?)

Therefore by Minkowski’s integral inequality, we would have (?) if

Next, to be able to use Egorov’s theorem, we write

Since e^{-itP} also has L^2-operator norm one, we would obtain (?) from

By Egorov’s theorem (see e.g. Taylor [TaylorPDO, § VIII.1])

is a one-parameter family of zero-order pseudo-differential operators, depending on the parameter t, whose principal symbol is a^{\theta_0}_\nu(\Phi_{-t}(x,\xi)). By (?) and the composition calculus of pseudo-differential operators the principal symbol of B_\lambda A_{\nu,t}^{\theta_0} and B_\lambda A^{\theta_0}_\nu both equal B_\lambda(x,\xi)a^{\theta_0}_\nu(x,\xi) if |t|\le 2\delta. If \theta=1 then A^\theta_\nu \in S^0_{1,0}, and, so, in this case we would have that B_\lambda (e^{-itP}A^{\theta}_\nu e^{itP}) -B_\lambda A^\theta_\nu would be a pseudo-differential operator of order -1 with symbol vanishing for |\xi| larger than a fixed multiple of \lambda (see e.g., [SoggeHangzhou, Theorem 4.3.6]). Since we are assuming that \theta_0=\lambda^{-1/8}, by the way they were constructed, the symbols A^{\theta_0}_\nu belong to a bounded subset of S^0_{7/8,1/8}. So, by [TaylorPDO, p. 147], for |t|\le 2\delta, B_\lambda (e^{-itP}A^{\theta_0}_\nu e^{itP}) -B_\lambda A^{\theta_0}_\nu belong to a bounded subset of S^{-3/4}_{7/8,1/8} with symbols vanishing for |\xi| larger than a fixed multiple of \lambda due to the fact that the symbol B_\lambda(x,\xi) has this property (see e.g., [TaylorPDO, p. 46]).

We also need to take into account the other operator inside the norm in (?). Since (\sqrt{I+P^2})^{n(\frac12-\frac1q)} is a standard pseudo-differential operator of order n(\tfrac12-\tfrac1q) the operators in the left of (?) belong to a bounded subset of S^{n(\frac12-\frac1{q})-\frac34}_{7/8,1/8} (M) with symbols vanishing for |\xi| larger than a fixed multiple of \lambda. Consequently, the left side of (?) is O(\lambda^{n(\frac12-\frac1{q})-\frac34}). Since \mu(q)=\tfrac{n-1}2(\tfrac12-\tfrac1q) for q\in (2,q_c], a simple calculation shows that n(\tfrac12-\tfrac1q)-\tfrac34\le \mu(q)-\tfrac14 for such q, which yields (2.2) and completes the proof of the lemma.

Let q=\tfrac{2(n+2)}n as in Lemma 5.2 and note that q<q_c. Also,

As a result, taking h=\rho_\lambda f and norms over A_- as in (2.3),

To estimate II we use (5.2), the ceiling for A_- in (?) and the fact that, by (?), \tilde \sigma_\lambda =\tilde \rho_\lambda f, to conclude that

Here \delta_n>0 since (q_c-q)(\tfrac{3(n-1)}{16}-\tfrac18)>0, and we also used the fact that \|h\|_2=\|\rho_\lambda f\|_2=O(1) by (?).

Since we may take \varepsilon<\delta_n, II^{1/q_c} is dominated by the last term in (2.3). Consequently, to finish the proof of this inequality, we just need to see that we also have suitable bounds for I^{1/q_c}. To do so we use Hölder’s inequality followed by Young’s inequality and (5.1) to see that

Since \tfrac{q_c-q}{q_c}<1, the first term in the right can be absorbed in the left side of (Proof), and this along with the earlier estimate for II yields (2.3) when n\ge3.

If n=2, we shall still use (Proof), and note that the estimate for the term II also hold for n=2, so it suffices to modify the arguments for the first term I. Since , q=\frac{2(n+2)}{n}=4 and q_c=6 if n=2, by (?), we have

To estimate B we use (5.2), the ceiling for A_- in (?) and the fact that, by (?), \tilde \sigma_\lambda =\tilde \rho_\lambda f, to conclude that

Since we may take \varepsilon<\frac18, B^{1/6} is dominated by the last term in (2.3). Thus, we just need to see that we also have suitable bounds for A^{1/6}. By Hölder’s inequality, Young’s inequality and (5.1), we have

The first term in the right can be absorbed in the left side of (Proof), and this along with the earlier estimates yields (2.3) when n=2.

The proof of (2.3) is much simpler since we do not have to restrict to the set A_{-}. Since

we have

Thus (2.3) simply follows from applying (5.1) for the first term and (5.2) for the second term on the right side.

If Uf(x,\nu)=A_\nu \rho_\lambda f(x), then (2.4) is equivalent to

with

If we use (2.2) and (2.2) along with (?) we obtain

which is better than the bounds in (Proof) if \alpha<\tfrac{n+1}2 and agrees with them for \alpha>\tfrac{n+1}2.

To finish the proof of (Proof), we also need to estimate the N-summands in (Proof),

By (?) we clearly have

So, if we use (2.2) and (2.2) for q=2 the preceding argument yield for 2\le 2^j=N

We also obtain from (2.4)

If we interpolate between these two estimates we obtain

Whence,

If we combine (Proof), (?) and (?), we obtain (Proof). The same argument yields (2.4) which finishes the proof of Proposition 2.4.

Note that

One gets (3.2) by integrating by parts in \xi if c_0 in (?) is small enough. One obtains (3.2) by integrating by parts in \xi' and using (?).

Let us define the wider cutoffs, after recalling (?) and (?), by setting

If C_0 is fixed large enough we then clearly have

if \tilde A^{\theta_0}_\nu(x,D) is the operator with symbol \tilde A^{\theta_0}_\nu(x,\xi).

For later use, let us also recall that, by (?) and (?), for each fixed x the support of \xi\to A^{\theta_0}_\nu(x,\xi) is contained in a cone of aperture \lesssim\theta_0= \lambda^{-1/8}. So if (\nu,\nu')\in \Xi_{\theta_0} then both \xi \to A^{\theta_0}_\nu(x,\xi) and \xi \to A^{\theta_0}_{\nu'}(x,\xi) are supported for every fixed x in a common cone of aperture O(\lambda^{-1/8}) since \nu-\nu'=O(\lambda^{-1/8}) when (\nu,\nu')\in \Xi_{\theta_0}. Thus, it is not difficult to check we can also fix C_0 large enough so that that we also have that

for some fixed constant c>0. In what follows we fix C_0 large enough so that we have (Proof) and (?).

To use (Proof) we note that, since (?) yields \|\tilde \sigma_\lambda\|_{2\to q_c}=O(\lambda^{1/q_c}), we conclude that, in order to prove (5.1), it suffices to prove

To do this we require the following variant of (2.2)

which follows from the same argument that was used to obtain (2.2).

Since the proof of (2.2) also yields due to (Proof)

we can use this inequality for r=2 along with (?) to see that we would obtain (?) if we could show that

Next, if we take r=(q_c/2)' so that r is the conjugate exponent, we conclude that it suffices to show that

To do this, we note that by (?) and a simple integration by parts argument we have

Thus, modulo O(\lambda^{-N}\|h\|_2^2) errors, the left side of (?) is dominated by

using Hölder’s inequality, the fact that if \nu is fixed there are just O(1) indices \nu' with (\nu,\nu')\in \Xi_{\theta_0}, followed by (?) for the estimate of (\sum_\nu \|\tilde A^{\theta_0}_\nu f\|^r_r)^{1/r}) and the fact that q_c\le 4 if n\ge3 and so r\ge2. Based on this, modulo O(\lambda^{\frac2{q_c}-}\|h\|_2^2), the left side of (?) is dominated by (\sum_\nu \|A^{\theta_0}_\nu \tilde \sigma_\lambda \tilde A^{\theta_0}_\nu h\|_{q_c}^{q_c})^{2/q_c}. So, if we repeat the earlier arguments and use (Proof) again we conclude that this last expression is dominated by (\sum_\nu \|\tilde \sigma_\lambda A^{\theta_0}_\nu h\|_{q_c}^{q_c})^{2/q_c}+O(\lambda^{\frac2{q_c}-}\|h\|_2^2), which yields (5.1).

The proof of (5.1) is exactly the same, one can just repeat the arguments and use the following variant of (?),

which is a consequence of interpolation between (?) and the trivial L^2\rightarrow L^2 estimates. Also note that in (5.1) holds for all n\ge 2, since we are assuming q\le \frac{2(n+2)}{n}, which implies that q\le 4 for all n\ge 2, and thus r\ge 2 in (?).

Now we shall prove (5.1), we have to treat the n=2 case separately due to the failure of (?) when q_c=6. If we repeat the arguments in (Proof)-(?), it suffices to show that

Here (\nu_1, \nu'_1)\in \Xi_{\theta_0}, (\nu_2, \nu'_2)\in \Xi_{\theta_0}, and the set \overline\Xi_{\theta_0} is as in (?). So \nu_1, \nu'_1, \nu_2, \nu'_2 in (?) satisfy |\nu_1-\nu'_1|+|\nu_1-\nu_2|+|\nu_1-\nu'_2|=O(\lambda^{-1/8}). Thus, if we choose C_0 in (Proof) large enough, by a simple integration by parts argument we have

Thus, modulo O(\lambda^{-N}\|h\|_2^4) errors, the left side of (?) is dominated by

using Hölder’s inequality, the fact that if \nu_1 is fixed there are just O(1) indices \nu'_1, \nu_2 and \nu'_2 with (\nu_1,\nu_2)\in \overline\Xi_{\theta_0}, (\nu_1,\nu'_1)\in \Xi_{\theta_0} and (\nu_2,\nu'_2)\in \Xi_{\theta_0}, followed by (?) with r=3. Based on this, modulo O(\lambda^{\frac2{3}-}\|h\|_2^4), the left side of (?) is dominated by (\sum_\nu \|A^{\theta_0}_\nu \tilde \sigma_\lambda \tilde A^{\theta_0}_\nu h\|_{6}^{6})^{2/3}. So, if we repeat the earlier arguments and use (Proof) again we conclude that this last expression is dominated by (\sum_\nu \|\tilde \sigma_\lambda A^{\theta_0}_\nu h\|_{6}^{6})^{2/3}+ O(\lambda^{\frac2{3}-}\|h\|_2^4), which yields (5.1) and completes the proof of Lemma 5.1.

The straightforward proof is almost identical to that of Lemma 3.2 in [BlairSoggeRefined] or Lemma 4.3 in [SBLog]; however, we shall present it for the sake of completeness. Note note that when \theta\approx 1, this result is standard. See, e.g., Lemma 4.3 in [SFIO2], and the proof of our results are just a small variation on that of this standard one.

We recall that

Since \bigl(Be^{-itP}\bigr)(x,y) is smooth near (x,y,t) if d_g(x,y)\ne |t| and \Hat \rho(t)=0 for |t-\delta|>\delta_0, we clearly have the first part of (5.4). The second part similarly comes from the fact that by (?) the symbol of A^{c_0\theta}_\mu, \mu=\nu,\nu', vanishes if \xi is not in a small conic neighborhood of (0,\dots,0,1).

Recall B\in S^0_{1,0} has symbol B(x,\xi) vanishing when |\xi| is not comparable to \lambda or when (x,\xi) is not in a small conic neighborhood of (0,(0,\dots,0,1)) if \delta is small. Therefore, using the calculus of Fourier integrals for |t|<2\delta with \delta as in (?), modulo smoothing errors,

where \alpha\in S^0_{1,0} also vanishes when |\xi| is not comparable to \lambda or (x,\xi) is not in a small conic neighborhood of (0,(0,\dots,0,1)). Also, the phase function here S is homogeneous of degree one in \xi and is a generating function for the half-wave group e^{-itP}. Thus, S solves the eikonal equation,

and, if \Phi_t here denotes the Hamilton flow in T^*M\backslash 0 associated with p(x,\xi),

and

Additionally, by the above facts regarding \alpha\in S^0_{1,0}, for |t|<2\delta we have

for some uniform constant C.

By (?) and (?), we have

This implies that

By (?) and a simple integration by parts argument we have K^{c_0\theta}_{\lambda,\mu}(x,y) =O(\lambda^{-N}) if d_g(y,\overline{\gamma}_\mu)\ge C_1c_0\theta, \mu=\nu,\nu'.

If \mu=\nu, let us prove that this is the case also if d_g(x,\overline{\gamma}_\nu)\ge C_1c_0\theta, for large enough C_1. To do so, we note that by (?) and the fact that we are working in Fermi normal coordinates about \overline{\gamma}_\nu, we have

Note that for such x_0,z_0 we have t_0=d_g(x_0,z_0).

By (?) we have for t_0\approx \delta and z_0\in \overline{\gamma}_\nu and x near x_0

By (?) and (?) this implies that we must have for t_0\approx \delta

for some constant c>0 if C_1 is fixed large enough. Since \theta\ge \lambda^{-1/8}, we obtain (5.4) for \mu=\nu from this and (?) via a simple integration by parts argument. We similarly obtain (5.4) for \mu=\nu' if we work in Fermi normal coordinates about \overline{\gamma}_{\nu'}. We obtain (5.4) from (5.4) since we are assuming that \nu-\nu'=O(1) which forces the O(c_0\theta) tubes described in (5.4) about \overline{\gamma}_\nu and \overline{\gamma}_{\nu'} to be a O(\theta) distance apart, and (x_1,\dots,x_{n-1})=0 on \overline{\gamma}_\nu.

It remains to prove that the kernels are as in (5.4) with amplitudes satisfying (5.4). Let

be the phase function in the oscillatory integral in (?). Then, at a stationary point where

we must have y=z and hence \Psi=d_g(x,y), due to the fact that S(t,x,\xi)-z\cdot \xi=0 and, as we just pointed out, t=d_g(x,y) at points where the \xi-gradient vanishes. Additionally, it is straightforward to see that

This follows from the proof of Lemma 5.1.3 in [SFIO2]. It also clearly implies that the (3n+1) \times (3n+1) Hessian of the phase function in (?) satisfies

Also, considering the z-gradient, we have \xi=\eta at stationary points. Thus, by (?), the oscillatory integral in (?) has an expansion (see Hörmander [HV1, Theorem 7.7.5]) where the leading term is a dimensional constant times

Thus, here \xi=\xi(x,y)\in S^*_y\Omega is the unit covector over y of the unit-speed geodesic in S^*\Omega which passes through (x,\zeta) at time t=d_g(x,y), t\in \text{supp } \Hat \rho, and starts at (y,\xi) .

Consequently, since we are working in Fermi normal coordinates about \overline{\gamma}_\nu, it follows that \xi ((0,\dots,0,x_n),(0,\dots,0,y_n))\equiv (0,\dots,0,1) when (x_1,\dots,x_{n-1}) =(y_1,\dots,y_{n-1})=0. Consequently, we have \partial_{x_n}^j\partial^k_{y_n}\xi_\ell(x,y)=O(\theta), \ell=1,\dots,n-1, if the kernels are not O(\lambda^{-N}). Therefore, it follows from from (?) that

satisfies the bounds in (5.4)

if (x,y) are not in the regions described in (5.4), (5.4) or (5.4) where the kernels are O(\lambda^{-N}). Thus, the leading term in the stationary phase expansions for the oscillatory integrals in (?) have the desired form. The same will be true for the other terms which involve increasing powers of \lambda^{-3/4} by a straightforward variant of [HV1, (7.7.1)].

The first assertion in (5.5) follows trivially from (5.4). To see the other part, we note that by (5.4) if the product of the amplitudes in (5.5) is nonzero then we must have, for a fixed constant C_1, x\in {\mathcal T}_{C_1c_0\theta}(\overline{\gamma}_\nu) \cap {\mathcal T}_{C_1c_0\theta}(\overline{\gamma}_{\nu'}), y\in {\mathcal T}_{C_1c_0\theta}(\overline{\gamma}_\nu) and z\in {\mathcal T}_{C_1c_0\theta}(\overline{\gamma}_{\nu'}). By (5.4), we must also have that d_g(x,y), d_g(x,z)\in [\delta-2\delta_0\delta, \delta+2\delta_0\delta] for our small \delta_0>0. Since we are assuming (5.3) the tubes of width \approx c_0\theta intersect at angle \approx \theta, which implies that |y'-z'|\approx \theta if the product in (5.5) is nonzero and c_0 and \theta are small.

The other, assertion, (?) just follows from (5.4) and (5.4) if \theta is small enough.

Recall that by (?) and (?) \tilde \varphi(x,y)=d_g(x,y)-(x_n-y_n). As a result,

Since we are working in Fermi normal coordinates we have d_g(x,y)=|x-y|+O(|x-y|^2) if x'=0. From this we deduce that

which yields (5.6) if \delta,\delta_0>0 in (?) are small since then d_g(x,y)\approx \delta on the support of the amplitudes. Since we similarly have

we similarly obtain (5.6) and (5.6) if \delta, \delta_0 are small.