arXiv reader

Improved existence time for the Whitham equation and a Whitham-Boussinesq system

Didier Pilod, Sigmund Selberg, Nadia Skoglund Taki and Achenef Tesfahun

arXiv
2508.08809v2 · PDF · 22 September 2025
Categories
math.AP
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the time of existence of the solutions to two full dispersion models derived from the water waves equations in the shallow water regime: the Whitham equation and a Whitham-Boussinesq system in dimension one and two. The regime is characterized by the nonlinearity parameter \epsilon\in(0,1] and the shallow water parameter \mu\in(0,1]. We extend the lifespan of the solution beyond the hyperbolic time \epsilon^{-1}. More precisely, we establish well-posedness on the timescale of order \mu^{\frac{1}{4}^-}\epsilon^{(-\frac{5}{4})^+} in the one-dimensional case, and of order \mu^{\frac{1}{4}^-}\epsilon^{(-\frac{3}{2})^+} in dimension two. We emphasize that for the two-dimensional case, we obtain a time of existence of order \epsilon^{-\frac54} in the long wave regime \mu \sim \epsilon. This kind of result seems to be new, even for the Boussinesq systems. The proofs combine energy methods with Strichartz estimates. Here, a key ingredient is to obtain new refined Strichartz estimates that include the small parameter \mu. These techniques are robust and could be adapted to improve the lifespan of solutions for other equations and systems of the same form.

Items 49

Theorem

Theorem 1.1

NKA9

Let s > \frac{13}{8}, \epsilon,\mu \in (0,1], and \eta_0 \in H^s(\mathbb{R}). Then there exists a positive time

\begin{aligned} T_{\epsilon,\mu}= c^{-1} \epsilon^{-1} \Big(\frac{\mu}{\epsilon}\Big)^{\frac{1}{4}^-} (\lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^s_x})^{(-\frac{5}{4})^+} \end{aligned}

such that (?) has a unique solution

\begin{aligned} \eta \in C([0,T_{\epsilon,\mu}];H^s(\mathbb{R})) \cap C^1([0,T_{\epsilon,\mu}];H^{s-1}(\mathbb{R})) \end{aligned}

satisfying the initial condition \eta(0) = \eta_0. Moreover,

\begin{aligned} \sup_{t\in[0,T_{\epsilon,\mu}]} \lVert\eta(t)\rVert_{H^s_x} \lesssim \lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^s_x}. \end{aligned}

Further, there exists a neighborhood \mathcal{U} of \eta_0 in H^s(\mathbb{R}) such that the flow map

\begin{aligned} F_{\epsilon,\mu} : \mathcal{U} \rightarrow C([0,\frac{T_{\epsilon,\mu}}{2}];H^s(\mathbb{R})), \ \ \ \ \eta_0 \mapsto \eta \end{aligned}

is continuous.

Used by Remark 1.9
Proof (Proof of the Theorem 1.1) of Theorem 1.1

Arguing as in [Saut1979] and [Bona1975], one get the following local well-posedness result for the Whitham equation (?):

Prop.

Let s>\frac{3}{2}, \epsilon,\mu \in (0,1], and \eta_0 \in H^{s}(\mathbb{R}). Then there exists a positive time T = T(\lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^s_x}), decreasing with respect to its arguement, such that there is a unique \eta \in C([0, T ] ; H^s(\mathbb{R})) solving (?) with initial condition \eta(0) = \eta_0. Moreover,

\begin{aligned} \sup_{t\in [0,T]} \lVert\eta(t)\rVert_{H^s_x} \lesssim\lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^s_x}, \end{aligned}

and the flow map is continuously dependent on the initial datum. Furthermore, higher regularity persists. That is, if \eta_0 \in H^r(\mathbb{R}) for some r > s, then \eta belongs to the space C([0, T ] ; H^r(\mathbb{R})) (with the same T).

Remark.

The time of existence of order 1/\epsilon was obtained in [Klein2018].

We only need to prove that the time of existence is of order \epsilon^{-1} (\mu/\epsilon)^{\frac{1}{4}^-}.

Indeed, the uniqueness, continuous dependence on the data, and persistence of higher regularity are local-in-time properties and follow directly from Proposition Proof; see Remarks ?–? below.

We notice that a consequence of Proposition Proof, the initial datum \eta_0 \in H^s(\mathbb{R}), for s> \frac{3}{2}, gives the rise to a solution to (?), \eta \in C([0,T^\ast);H^s(\mathbb{R})), where T^\ast \geq T(\lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^s_x}) is the maximal time of existence. Here, T is a decreasing function of its argument. Then it also follows that the solution satisfies the blow-up alternative:

\begin{aligned} \text{If } \ \ T^\ast <\infty, \text{ then } \limsup_{t\nearrow T^\ast} \lVert\eta(t)\rVert_{H^s_x} = \infty \end{aligned}

(see, e.g., [Iorio2001, Section 5.2]).

With Proposition Proof, we may now obtain the a priori estimates and prove that the solution exists on a larger timescale. This is summarized in the lemma below.

Lem.

Let s>\frac{13}{9} and \epsilon,\mu \in (0,1]. Then there exists a positive time

\begin{aligned} T_0 = c^{-1} \epsilon^{-1} \left( \frac{\mu}{\epsilon} \right)^{\frac{1}{4}^-} \lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^s_x}^{(-\frac{5}{4})^+} \end{aligned}

such that T^\ast > T_0 and

\begin{aligned} \sup_{t\in [0,T_0]}\lVert\eta(t)\rVert_{H^s_x} \leq 4 \lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^s_x} . \end{aligned}
Proof.

We will argue by contradiction by defining

\begin{aligned} \Tilde{T} := \sup \{ T \in (0,T^\ast) : \sup_{t\in [0,T]} \lVert\eta(t)\rVert_{H^{s}_x} \leq 4 \lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^{s}_x} \} \end{aligned}

and assuming that \Tilde{T} \leq T_0. Obtaining an estimate inside the ball in (?) for the time T_0 defined in (?) will lead to a contradiction.

Fix T_1 \in (0,\Tilde{T}), then we utilize (4.3), (4.4), and the assumption T_1 <\Tilde{T} \leq T_0 to obtain

\begin{aligned} \lVert\eta(t)\rVert_{H^{s}_x}^2 &\leq \mathrm{e}^{c\epsilon T_1^\frac{1}{2} \lVert\partial_x \eta\rVert_{L^2_{T_1}L^\infty_x} } \lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^{s}_x}^2\\ &\leq \mathrm{e}^{c \mu^{(-\frac{1}{5})^+} \epsilon T_0^{\frac{4}{5}^+} \lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^{s}_x} + c \mu^{(-\frac{2}{5})^+} \epsilon^2 T_0^{\frac{8}{5}^+} \lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^{s}_x}^2 } \lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^{s}_x}^2\\ &=: \mathrm{e}^{c(\delta + \delta^2)} \lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^{s}_x}^2 \end{aligned}

for all t\in [0,T_1] and s>\frac{13}{8}. Choosing T_0>0 small enough such that

\begin{aligned} 2c \delta < \log 2, \end{aligned}

yielding c(\delta + \delta^2) < 2c \delta and (?), implies

\begin{aligned} \lVert\eta(t)\rVert_{H^{s}_x} & \leq 2\lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^{s}_x} \end{aligned}

for all t\in [0,T_1]. As a consequence of (?), we have that T_1< T^\ast. Then by the continuity of the solution \eta(t) for t\in [0,T^\ast) from the definition of T^\ast, there exists a time \tau \in [\Tilde{T},T^\ast) such that

\begin{aligned} \lVert\eta(\tau)\rVert_{H^s_x} \leq 3\lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^s_x}. \end{aligned}

But this leads to a contradiction of the definition of \Tilde{T} in (?). We may therefore conclude that indeed T_0 < \Tilde{T}, where T_0 is defined in (?). \overset{\text{Lemma \ref{lem:bootstrap_wb}}}{\ensuremath{\Box}}\overset{\text{Lemma \ref{lem:bootstrap_whitham}}}{\ensuremath{\Box}}

tocConclusion. We conclude the proof of Theorem 1.1 with some remarks on uniqueness, continuous dependence on data, and persistence of higher regularity. All these properties are known for some positive time by the local existence and uniqueness result, Proposition Proof, and they therefore extend to the larger time interval [0,T_0] by standard arguments which we briefly recall in the following remarks. In these remarks we assume that \eta,\tilde\eta \in C([0,T];H^s(\mathbb{R})) are two solutions of the Whitham equation with initial data \eta_0,\tilde\eta_0\in H^s(\mathbb{R}), respectively. Here T > 0 is completely arbitrary.

Remark.

For uniqueness, assume that \eta_0=\tilde\eta_0. If uniqueness fails, then for some S \in (0,T) we have \eta=\tilde\eta in [0,S] while this fails on [S,S+\delta] for all \delta > 0. But applying Proposition Proof with initial time t=S, this contradicts the uniqueness part of the proposition.

Remark.

For continuous dependence on the data, we must show that given any \varepsilon > 0 there exists \delta > 0 such that if \lVert\eta_0-\tilde\eta_0\rVert_{H^s_x} < \delta, then \sup_{t \in [0,T]} \lVert\eta(t)-\tilde\eta(t)\rVert_{H^s_x} < \varepsilon. Choose R > 0 so large that \lVert\eta(t)\rVert_{H^s_x}, \lVert\tilde\eta(t)\rVert_{H^s_x} \le R for all t \in [0,T]. Now let S=S(R) > 0 be the time in Proposition Proof. We may assume that S=T/N for a large integer N. Then applying the continuous dependence on the data in Proposition Proof first at the initial time t_1:=T-S, we find first \delta_1 > 0 such that if \lVert\eta(t_1)-\tilde\eta(t_1)\rVert_{H^s_x} < \delta_1, then \sup_{t \in [t_1,T]} \lVert\eta(t)-\tilde\eta(t)\rVert_{H^s_x} < \varepsilon. Next, repeating the argument at the initial time t_2:=t_1-S=T-2S we obtain \delta_2 \in (0,\delta_1] such that if \lVert\eta(t_2)-\tilde\eta(t_2)\rVert_{H^s_x} < \delta_2, then \sup_{t \in [t_2,t_1]} \lVert\eta(t)-\tilde\eta(t)\rVert_{H^s_x} < \delta_1, etc.

Remark.

For persistence of higher regularity, assume that \eta_0 belongs to H^r(\mathbb{R}) for some r > s. Choose R > 0 so large that \lVert\eta(t)\rVert_{H^s_x} \le R for all t \in [0,T], let S=S(R) > 0 be the time in Proposition Proof, and assume that S=T/N for an integer N. Applying the persistence property in Proposition Proof on the successive time intervals [0,S], [S,2S] etc., we conclude that \eta belongs to C([0,T];H^r(\mathbb{R})).

Uses Lemma 5.2
Remark

Remark 1.2

E1FT

The result in [Ehrnstrom2022] provides a larger time of existence in the small data regime \mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{SD}}, namely T \sim \epsilon^{-2} \ge \epsilon^{-\frac{5}{4}}. In comparison, our result incorporates the additional small parameter \mu and lowers the regularity for the initial data to s>\frac{13}{8}. Moreover, in the long wave regime \mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{LW}}, we recover the hyperbolic timescale \epsilon^{-1}. Although our result does not reach the timescale achieved in [Ehrnstrom2022], the proof is both robust and conceptually straightforward, relying solely on Strichartz estimates. Combining a normal form transformation with the techniques in this paper will be an objective for future work.

Definition

Definition 1.3 (Non-cavitation condition)

QG6P

Let d\in \{1,2\}, s>\frac{d}{2}, and \epsilon\in (0,1]. We say that the initial surface elevation \eta_0 \in H^s(\mathbb{R}^d) satisfies the non-cavitation condition if there exists a constant h_0 \in (0,1) such that

\begin{aligned} 1 + \epsilon\eta_0(x) \geq h_0 \end{aligned}

for all x \in \mathbb{R}^d.

Used by Proof
Definition

Definition 1.4

ZOKS

We define the solution space V_\mu^s(\mathbb{R}^d) via the norm

\begin{aligned} \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{V_\mu^s}^2 := \lVert\eta\rVert_{H^s_x}^2 + \lVert\mathbf{v}\rVert_{H^s_x}^2 + \sqrt{\mu} \lVert|D|^\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{v}\rVert_{H^s_x}^2. \end{aligned}
Remark

Remark 1.5

OOCX

We observe that

\begin{aligned} \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{V_\mu^s}^2 \sim \lVert\eta\rVert_{H^s_x}^2 + \lVert\mathcal{T}_\mu^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v}\rVert_{H^s_x}^2 \end{aligned}

(see [Paulsen2022, Corollary 2.6]).

Used by Proof, Proof
Theorem

Theorem 1.6

IP72

Let d\in \{1,2\}, s>1+\frac{5d}{8}, and \epsilon,\mu \in (0,1]. Assume that the initial data (\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0) \in V^s_\mu(\mathbb{R}^d) satisfy (1.3) and that \mathrm{curl}\:\mathbf{v}_0=0 if d=2. Then there exists a positive time

T_{\epsilon,\mu,d}= c^{-1}\epsilon^{-\frac{d+3}{4}} \Big(\frac{\mu}{\epsilon}\Big)^{\frac{1}{4}^-} (\lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{V^s_\mu})^{(-\frac{d+4}{4})^+},

for some c=c\bigl(d,s,h_0, 1+\epsilon\lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{L^\infty_x\times L^\infty_x}\bigr) > 0, such that (?) and (?) admits a unique solution

\begin{aligned} (\eta,\mathbf{v}) \in C([0,T_{\epsilon,\mu,d}];V_\mu^s(\mathbb{R}^d)) \cap C^1([0,T_{\epsilon,\mu,d}];V_\mu^{s-1}(\mathbb{R}^d)) \end{aligned}

satisfying the initial conditions \eta(0) = \eta_0 and \mathbf v(0) = \mathbf v_0. Moreover,

\begin{aligned} \sup_{t\in[0,T_{\epsilon,\mu,d}]} \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})(t)\rVert_{V_\mu^s} \lesssim \lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{V_\mu^s}, \end{aligned}

where the implicit constant may depend on the non-cavitation parameter h_0 and 1+\epsilon\lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{L^\infty_x\times L^\infty_x}. Furthermore, the flow map depends continuously on the initial data.

Used by Remark 1.9
Proof (Proof of Theorem 1.6 for d=2) of Theorem 1.6

We first recall a local well-posedness result for (?) and (?).

Thm.

For d\in \{1,2\} with s>\frac{d}{2}+1 and \epsilon,\mu \in (0,1]. Assume that (\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\in V^s_\mu(\mathbb{R}^d) satisfy the non-cavitation condition (1.3). If d=2, we additionally assume that \mathrm{curl}\: \mathbf{v}_0 = 0. Then there exists a positive time

T = T(\lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{V^s_\mu})= \frac{1}{ c(d,s,h_0,H_0) \lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{V^s_\mu}}

with H_0 = 1+ \epsilon\lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{L^\infty_x\times L^\infty_x} such that (?) and (?) have a unique solution

\begin{aligned} (\eta,\mathbf{v}) \in C([0,T];V^s_\mu(\mathbb{R}^d) ) \cap C^1([0,T];V^{s-1}_\mu(\mathbb{R}^d) ) \end{aligned}

that satisfies

\begin{aligned} \sup_{t\in [0,T]} \lVert (\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^s_\mu} \lesssim \lVert (\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{V^s_\mu}. \end{aligned}

Here, the implicit constant depends on h_0 and H_0. Additionally, the flow map is continuous with respect to the initial data. Furthermore, higher regularity persists. That is, if (\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0) \in V^r_\mu(\mathbb{R}^d) for some r > s, then (\eta,\mathbf{v}) belongs to C([0, T ] ; V^r_\mu(\mathbb{R}^d)) (with the same T).

Remark.

The above theorem was proved on the timescale 1/\epsilon under the condition

\begin{aligned} 0<\epsilon c \lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{V^s_\mu} \leq 1 \end{aligned}

for s>\frac{d}{2}+1 in [Paulsen2022, Theorem 1.11]. However, one can use the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma ? below, where one has to substitute the refined Strichartz estimates (Proposition 5.14) with a classical Sobolev embedding to obtain the well-posedness result for arbitrary data.

It will suffice to show that the solution exists on the timescale \epsilon^{-\frac{5}{4}} (\mu/\epsilon)^{\frac{1}{4}^-} to complete the proof of Theorem 1.6 as the rest follows by Theorem Proof. Indeed, the uniqueness, continuous dependence on the data, and persistence of higher regularity are local-in-time properties (see Remarks ?–?).

From Theorem Proof, it follows that an initial datum (\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\in V^s_\mu(\mathbb{R}^2), for s>2, generate a solution to (?), (\eta,\mathbf{v}) \in C([0,T^\ast);V^s_\mu(\mathbb{R}^2)), where T^\ast\geq T(\lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{V^s_\mu}) is the maximal time of existence. Since T is a decreasing function of its argument, we may deduce classically that the solution of (?) satisfies the blow-up alternative:

\begin{aligned} \text{If } \ \ T^\ast <\infty, \text{ then } \limsup_{t\nearrow T^\ast} \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})(t)\rVert_{V^s_\mu} = \infty. \end{aligned}
Lem.

Let s>\frac{9}{4} and \epsilon,\mu\in (0,1].

Then there exists a time

\begin{aligned} T_1 = \epsilon^{-\frac{5}{4}} \Big(\frac{\mu}{\epsilon}\Big)^{\frac{1}{4}^-} (C_1)^{-1}\lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{V^s_\mu}^{(-\frac{3}{2})^+} \end{aligned}

such that T^\ast > T_1 and

\begin{aligned} \sup_{t\in [0,T_1]}\lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})(t)\rVert_{V^s_\mu} \leq 5 c \sqrt{\frac{H_0}{h_0}} \lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{V^s_\mu} \end{aligned}

where H_0 = 1+ \epsilon\lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{L^\infty_x\times L^\infty_x}, h_0 \in (0,1), and C_1 =C_1(h_0,H_0) is a positive constant fixed in the proof.

Proof.

We define

\begin{aligned} \Tilde{T} := \sup \{ T \in (0,T^\ast) : \sup_{t\in [0,T]} \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^s_\mu} \leq 5 c \sqrt{\frac{H_0}{h_0}} \lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{V^s_\mu} \} \end{aligned}

for some c>0. To obtain the result, we will argue by contradiction by assuming that \Tilde{T} \leq T_1.
For simplicity in notation, we denote

\begin{aligned} A(t) &:= \lVert(\eta,\mathbf v)(t)\rVert_{V^s_\mu}^2,\\ H(t) &:= 1 + \epsilon \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})(t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x \times L^\infty_x}, \intertext{and} h(t) &:= \inf_{x \in \mathbb{R}^2} \left\{ 1+ \epsilon\eta(x,t) \right\}. \end{aligned}

We also write A(0) := A_0, H(0) := H_0, and h(0) := h_0, where the non-cavitation condition can then be restated as h_0 > 0. We fix T_2 \in (0,\Tilde{T}) and claim that

h(t) \geq \frac{h_0}{2} \quad \text{and} \quad \sup_{t\in [0,T_2]} H(t) \leq 2H_0

for all t \in [0,T_2] implying that the condition (5.13) holds. Then, using (5.13), the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in time, and the claim (?) yields

A(t) \leq 4c_2 \frac{H_0}{h_0} A_0 \mathrm{e}^{c H_0 \epsilon T_2^\frac{1}{2}\lVert\mathcal{P}\rVert_{L^2(0,T_2)}} ,

where c_2>0 is the constant in (5.13) and \mathcal{P}(t) = \lVert\nabla \eta(t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x} +\lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}(t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x} + \lVert\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D)\nabla \mathbf{v}(t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x}. From (?) and the assumption T_2 < \Tilde{T}\leq T_1, it follows that, if s > \frac{9}{4}, then

\begin{aligned} \epsilon T_2^\frac{1}{2} \lVert\mathcal{P}\rVert_{L^2(0,T_2)} &\lesssim \epsilon \mu^{(-\frac{1}{6})^+} T_2^{\frac{2}{3}^+}\lVertA\rVert_{L^\infty(0,T_2)}^{\frac{1}{2}} + \epsilon^2 \mu^{(-\frac{1}{3})^+} T_2^{\frac{4}{3}^+} \lVertA\rVert_{L^\infty(0,T_2)} \\ &\lesssim \epsilon \mu^{(-\frac{1}{6})^+} T_1^{\frac{2}{3}^+} \sqrt{\frac{H_0}{h_0} A_0} + \epsilon^2 \mu^{(-\frac{1}{3})^+} T_1^{\frac{4}{3}^+} \frac{H_0}{h_0} A_0\\ &=: \delta + \delta^2, \end{aligned}

where

\begin{aligned} \delta = c \epsilon \mu^{(-\frac{1}{6})^+} T_1^{\frac{2}{3}^+} \sqrt{\frac{H_0}{h_0} A_0}. \end{aligned}

Gathering the above, we have

A(t) \le 4c_2\frac{H_0}{h_0} A_0 \mathrm{e}^{ \delta + \delta^2}

for all t\in [0,T_2]. We choose T_1 > 0 so small that

4 c \delta \leq \frac{4 c H_0}{h_0} \delta < \frac{\log 2}{2},

that is,

\begin{aligned} \frac{ 5c H_0}{h_0} c \epsilon \mu^{(-\frac{1}{6})^+} T_1^{\frac{2}{3}^+} \sqrt{ \frac{H_0}{h_0} A_0} < \frac{\log 2}{2}, \end{aligned}

which is the same as (?). We remark that (?) implies \delta < 1, so that \delta+\delta^2 < 2\delta. This gives us

\begin{aligned} A(t) \le 8c_2\frac{H_0}{h_0} A_0 \end{aligned}

for all t\in [0,T_2] implying

\begin{aligned} \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})(t)\rVert_{V^s_\mu} \leq 3\sqrt{c_2\frac{H_0}{h_0}}\lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{V^s_\mu}. \end{aligned}

Consequently, we have from the blow-up alternative (?) that T_2< T^\ast. From (?), it follows that the solution (\eta,\mathbf{v}) is continuous for t\in [0,T^\ast). Thus, there exists a time \tau \in [\Tilde{T},T^\ast) such that

\begin{aligned} \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})(\tau)\rVert_{V^s_\mu} \leq 4 \sqrt{c_2\frac{H_0}{h_0}}\lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{V^s_\mu}, \end{aligned}

which contradicts with the definition of \Tilde{T} (?). Hence, T_1 < \Tilde{T}, where T_1 is as seen in (?). Proof of the claim (?) We start by verifying the last inequality of (?). From the fundamental theorem of calculus and Hölder’s inequality in time, we have that

\begin{aligned} H(t) = 1+ \epsilon\lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})(t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x \times L^\infty_x} &\leq H_0 + \epsilon T_2^\frac{1}{2} \Big( \lVert\partial_t\eta\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x} + \lVert\partial_t\mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x}\Big). \end{aligned}

From (?), Proposition 5.14, and T_2<\Tilde{T}, we obtain

\begin{aligned} \epsilon T_2^\frac{1}{2} \lVert\partial_t\eta\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x} &\leq \epsilon T_2^\frac{1}{2} \Big(\lVert\nabla \cdot \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x} + \epsilon \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x}\lVert\mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_{T_2} L^\infty_x} + \epsilon \lVert\nabla \cdot \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x}\lVert\eta\rVert_{L^\infty_{T_2} L^\infty_x}\Big) \\ &\leq \epsilon T_2^\frac{1}{2} \lVertH\rVert_{L^\infty(0,T_2)}\lVert\mathcal{P}\rVert_{L^2(0,T_2)}\\ &\leq 2\lVertH\rVert_{L^\infty(0,T_2)} \delta \end{aligned}

for s>\frac{9}{4}, where \delta is defined in (?). Next, (?) and

\begin{aligned} (\mathbf{v} \cdot \nabla)\mathbf{v} = (v_1\partial_{x_1} v_1 + v_2 \partial_{x_2}v_1, v_1\partial_{x_1} v_2 + v_2 \partial_{x_2}v_2)^\mathrm{T} \end{aligned}

yields

\begin{aligned} \epsilon T_2^\frac{1}{2} \lVert\partial_t\mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x} &\leq \lVert\mathcal{T}_\mu(D)\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x} + \epsilon \lVert(\mathbf{v}\cdot\nabla) \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x} \\ &\leq \lVertH\rVert_{L^\infty(0,T_2)}\Big( \lVert\mathcal{T}_\mu(D)\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x} + \lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x}\Big). \end{aligned}

The first term can be estimated by slightly modifying the proof of \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x} in Proposition 5.14, where one has to utilize (5.8). Then from Proposition 5.14, we obtain

\begin{aligned} \epsilon T_2^\frac{1}{2} \lVert\partial_t\mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x} &\leq 2\lVertH\rVert_{L^\infty(0,T_2)} \delta \end{aligned}

for s>\frac{9}{4}. Gathering the above calculations gives us

\begin{aligned} (1-4\delta) \lVertH\rVert_{L^\infty(0,T_2)} \leq H_0, \end{aligned}

which requires

\begin{aligned} 4 \delta < \frac12, \end{aligned}

but this is satisfied due to (?).
Lastly, we will verify that \eta satisfies the non-cavitation condition. From the fundamental theorem of calculus, the non-cavitation condition on \eta_0 (1.3), and Hölder’s inequality, we obtain

\begin{aligned} 1+ \epsilon\eta(x,t) = 1 + \epsilon \eta_0+ \epsilon \int_0^t \partial_t\eta(x,s) \:\mathrm{d} s \geq h_0 - \epsilon T_2^{\frac{1}{2}} \lVert\partial_t\eta\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x} \end{aligned}

for all (x,t)\in \mathbb{R}^2 \times [0,T_2]. It is enough to prove that

\begin{aligned} \epsilon T_2^{\frac{1}{2}} \lVert\partial_t\eta\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x} \leq \frac{h_0}{2}. \end{aligned}

From the first equation in (?), Hölder’s inequality, the second inequality in (?) (verified above), Proposition 5.14, and the assumption T_2<\Tilde{T}\leq T_1, we obtain

\begin{aligned} \epsilon T_2^{\frac{1}{2}}\lVert\partial_t\eta\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x} &\leq \lVert\nabla \cdot \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x} + \epsilon \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x}\lVert\mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_{T_2} L^\infty_x} + \epsilon \lVert\nabla \cdot \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^2_{T_2} L^\infty_x}\lVert\eta\rVert_{L^\infty_{T_2} L^\infty_x} \\ &\leq 2H_0 \epsilon T_2^{\frac{1}{2}}\lVert\mathcal{P}\rVert_{L^2(0,T_2)} \\ &\leq 4cH_0 \delta \end{aligned}

for s>\frac{9}{4}. So, we need

\begin{aligned} 4c \frac{H_0}{h_0} \delta < \frac12 \end{aligned}

to conclude, which holds by (?).

\overset{\text{Lemma \ref{lem:bootstrap_wb}}}{\ensuremath{\Box}}\overset{\text{Lemma \ref{lem:bootstrap_wb}}}{\ensuremath{\Box}}

Conclusion. It remains to comment on the uniqueness, continuous dependence of the initial data, and the persistence of higher regularity. All these properties are known for some positive time by the local well-posedness result, Theorem Proof, and they therefore extend to the larger time interval [0,T_1] by standard arguments (see Remarks ?–? for more details). This concludes the proof of the theorem for d=2.

Remark

Remark 1.7

9AMH

In the one-dimensional case, we recover the result in [Paulsen2022, Theorem 1.11] in the long wave regime \mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{LW}}, and moreover, we improve the lifespan of the solution whenever \epsilon < \mu.

Remark

Remark 1.8

9HFW

In the two-dimensional case, we improve the result in [Paulsen2022, Theorem 1.11] when 0<\epsilon < \sqrt{\mu}. It is worth noting that in the long wave regime \mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{LW}}, we obtain a lifespan of order \epsilon^{-\frac{5}{4}}. To our knowledge, results in which the lifespan exceeds the hyperbolic timescale \epsilon^{-1} in the long wave regime appear to be new, even for the classical Boussinesq systems (?) (see, for example, [Saut2012, Burtea2016] where hyperbolic techniques are used). This improvement might be a consequence of the dispersive nature of the zero-order wave system in (?), which we exploit through Strichartz estimates(We refer to [Sideris1997] for a long time existence result for the compressible Euler system which relates to the shallow water system corresponding to \mu=0 in (?) in the divergence free case.). Such property might also be true for some versions of the Boussinesq systems (?). This would answer a question raised by Jean-Claude Saut to the first author several years ago.

Remark

Remark 1.9

E95W

The water waves equations were proved to be well-posed on the timescale 1/\epsilon in the seminal work by Alvarez-Samaniego and Lannes [Alvarez2008]. Since Theorems 1.1 and 1.6 provide a larger time of existence in the weakly nonlinear regime \epsilon<\mu, one might naturally ask whether (?), (?), and (?) continue to approximate the solution to the water waves equations over these extended timescales with the same precision as in [Emerald2021, Emerald2021_siam]. To complete the justification, one also needs to prove well-posedness of the water waves equations on these larger timescales. These are prospects for future work.

Uses Theorem 1.1, Theorem 1.6
Remark

Remark 1.10

UGYS

To obtain the enhanced lifespan in Theorems 1.1 and 1.6, we rely on Strichartz estimates for the linear part of the Whitham equation (?) that include the small parameter \mu. These estimates were proved independently by Tesfahun [Tesfahun2024] and Melinand [Melinand2024]. In Section ?, we explain how they can be directly deduced from the case \mu=1 (see [Dinvay2020]) by a simple scaling argument. However, the main novelty of this paper is to combine new refined Strichartz estimates with the energy method to improve the existence time.

Definition

Definition 1.11

V47D

Let \epsilon,\mu\in (0,1] and let J^s be the Bessel potential of order -s. We define the energy functional associated with (?) as

\begin{aligned} E_s(\eta,\mathbf{v}) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \Big\{ \Big( J^s \eta \Big)^2 + (1+\epsilon\eta)\Big|J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v} \Big|^2 \Big\} \:\mathrm{d} x. \end{aligned}
Theorem

Theorem 2.1

CWP5

Let d\in \mathbb{N}\backslash\{0\} and T>0. Assume that u : \mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} solves (?) for a given symbol M(\xi) \in \mathbb{R}, and that for some fixed pair (q,r) \in [2,\infty] \times [2,\infty) the associated unitary group S(t) = e^{itM(D)} satisfies (?) for all \lambda >0 dyadic, for given A(\lambda) \in (0,\infty). Then

\begin{aligned} \lVertu\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} &\lesssim \omega^{d(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{\Tilde{r}})} T^{\frac{1}{2}} \lVertJ^{\Tilde{\theta}} P_{\le \omega} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \\ &+ \omega^{-\gamma} T^{\frac{1}{2}} \lVertJ^{\theta+\gamma} \rho(\vert D \vert)^{-\frac{1}{q}} A(\vert D \vert)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r}} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \\ &+ \lVertJ^\theta \rho(\vert D \vert)^{1-\frac{1}{q}} A(\vert D \vert)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r}} F\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^2} \end{aligned}

for any \Tilde{r}\in [2,\infty), \Tilde{\theta} > d/\Tilde{r}, \theta > d/r, and arbitrarily small \gamma > 0. Here we are free to choose \omega > 0 and \rho(\lambda) \in (0,T].

Used by Proof
Proof (Proof of Theorem 2.1) of Theorem 2.1

For a number \omega > 0 to be chosen, we split into low and high frequencies:

\begin{aligned} u = P_{\le \omega} u + \sum_{\lambda > \omega} P_\lambda u =: u_1 + u_2 , \end{aligned}

giving us

\begin{aligned} \lVertu\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} \leq \lVertu_1\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} +\lVertu_2\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty}. \end{aligned}

Control of \lVertu_1\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} in (Proof) By a Sobolev embedding and Bernstein’s lemma in x, and Hölder’s inequality in time, the low-frequency part is estimated by

\lVertu_1\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} \lesssim \lVert J^{\Tilde{\theta}} P_{\le \omega} u\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^{\Tilde{r}}} \lesssim \omega^{d(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{\Tilde{r}})} T^{\frac{1}{2}} \lVertJ^{\Tilde{\theta}} P_{\le \omega} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2}

for any \Tilde{r}\in [2,\infty) and \Tilde{\theta} > d/\Tilde{r}. Control of \lVertu_2\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} in (Proof) By a Sobolev embedding, the Littlewood-Paley square function theorem, and Minkowski’s integral inequality, we obtain

\lVertu_2\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} \lesssim \lVertJ^\theta u_2\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^r} \lesssim \lVert\sqrt{ \sum_{\lambda > \omega} \left\vert P_\lambda J^\theta u \right\vert^2 } \rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^r} \lesssim \sqrt{ \sum_{\lambda > \omega} \lVert P_\lambda J^\theta u \rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^r}^2 }

for any \theta > d/r. Fix \lambda > \omega and write [0,T] = \bigcup_{j \in J} I_j where I_j = [a_j,b_j] are almost disjoint, \vert I_j \vert = \rho and \# J = T/\rho, where \rho=\rho(\lambda) \in (0,T] remains to be chosen. Then, applying Hölder’s inequality in time, we estimate

\lVert P_\lambda J^\theta u \rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^r} = \lVert \lVert P_\lambda J^\theta u \rVert_{L_{I_j}^2 L_x^r } \rVert_{\ell^2_{j\in J}} \le \rho^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q}} \lVert\lVert P_\lambda J^\theta u \rVert_{L_{I_j}^q L_x^r} \rVert_{\ell^2_{j\in J}}.

On I_j we write

u(t) = S(t-a_j) u(a_j) + i \int_{a_j}^t S(t-s) F(s) \, ds

and apply (?) to obtain

\begin{aligned} \lVert P_\lambda J^\theta u \rVert_{L_{I_j}^q L_x^r} &\lesssim A(\lambda)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r}} \left( \lVertP_\lambda J^\theta u(a_j)\rVert_{L_x^2} + \int_{a_j}^t \lVertP_\lambda J^\theta F(s)\rVert_{L_x^2} \, ds \right) \\ &\lesssim A(\lambda)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r}} \left( \lVertP_\lambda J^\theta u\rVert_{L_{I_j}^\infty L_x^2} + \rho^{\frac{1}{2}} \lVertP_\lambda J^\theta F\rVert_{L_{I_j}^2 L_x^2} \right). \end{aligned}

Taking the \ell^2_{j\in J} norm, we conclude that

\begin{aligned} \lVert P_\lambda J^\theta u \rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^r} &\lesssim \rho^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q}} A(\lambda)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r}} \left( \sqrt{\# J} \lVertP_\lambda J^\theta u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} + \rho^{\frac{1}{2}} \lVertP_\lambda J^\theta F\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^2} \right) \\ &\lesssim \rho^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q}} A(\lambda)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r}} \left( T^{\frac{1}{2}} \rho^{-\frac{1}{2}} \lVertP_\lambda J^\theta u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} + \rho^{\frac{1}{2}} \lVertP_\lambda J^\theta F\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^2} \right). \end{aligned}

Finally, squaring and summing over dyadic \lambda > \omega we obtain

\begin{aligned} \lVertu_2\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} &\lesssim T^{\frac{1}{2}} \left( \sum_{\lambda > \omega} \lambda^{-2\gamma} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \sup_{\lambda} \lVertP_\lambda J^{\theta+\gamma} \rho(\vert D \vert)^{-\frac{1}{q}} A(\vert D \vert)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r}} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \\ &+ \lVertP_\lambda J^\theta \rho(\vert D \vert)^{1-\frac{1}{q}} A(\vert D \vert)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r}} F\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^2} \end{aligned}

for any \gamma > 0. Thus

\begin{aligned} \lVertu_2\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} &\lesssim \omega^{-\gamma} T^{\frac{1}{2}} \lVertJ^{\theta+\gamma} \rho(\vert D \vert)^{-\frac{1}{q}} A(D)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r}} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \\ &+ \lVertP_\lambda J^\theta \rho(\vert D \vert)^{1-\frac{1}{q}} A(\vert D \vert)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r}} F\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^2} \end{aligned}

for \theta > \frac{d}{r} and arbitrarily small \gamma > 0.
Combining (Proof) and (Proof) with (Proof) concludes the proof.

Remark

Remark 2.2

WT2S

The proof is inspired by the works in [Tataru2000], [Burq2004, Lemma 3.6], [Koch2003, Lemma 2.1], [Kenig2003, Proposition 2.8], [Linares2014, Proposition 2.3], and [Pilod2021, Lemma 4.1]. Compared to these results, we are concerned with enhanced lifetime. This requires a different splitting of the high and low frequencies \omega and size of the small time intervals \rho(\lambda) to obtain Corollary 3.4. Here, both \omega and \rho will be chosen to depend on the small parameter \mu, which will result in the enhanced lifespans in Theorems 1.1 and 1.6.

Lemma

Lemma 2.3 (Bernstein’s lemma)

8ZER

For \alpha > 0 , we have the estimate

\lVertP_{\leq \alpha} f\rVert_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)} \lesssim \alpha^{d(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q})} \lVertP_{\leq \alpha} f\rVert_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)}

for 1 \le p \le q \le \infty.

Lemma

Lemma 3.1 (Frequency-localized dispersive estimates)

65AP

Let d\in\{1,2\} and \mu \in (0,1]. Then the dispersive decay bound

\lVertS_{\mu,d}(t) P_\lambda f\rVert_{L^\infty_x(\mathbb{R}^d)} \lesssim \mu^{-\frac{1}{2}} \vert t \vert^{-\frac{d}{2}} \lambda^{\frac{d}{2}-1} \langle{\sqrt{\mu} \lambda}\rangle^{\frac{d}{4}+1} \lVertf\rVert_{L^1_x(\mathbb{R}^d)}

holds for \lambda > 0 and t\in \mathbb{R}\backslash\{0\}. Here, S_{\mu,d}(t) is defined in (?).

Remark

Remark 3.2

IUNO

The bound (3.1) for d=2 was proved in [Tesfahun2024, Lemma 4]. Alternatively one could apply (?) to reduce to the case \mu=1, where the bound was proved in [Dinvay2020, Lemma 10] (for \lambda > 1, to be precise, but the proof applies for \lambda \le 1).

Proof of Remark 3.2

In view of the preceding remark we only need to consider the case d=1, and by (?) we may take \mu=1.

Writing

S_{1,1}(t) P_\lambda f = I_{\lambda,1}(t) * f,

where

I_{\lambda,1}(x,t) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} e^{ix \xi + it m_1(\xi)} \beta(\vert \xi \vert/\lambda) \:\mathrm{d}\xi,

one has

\lVertS_{1,1}(t) P_\lambda f\rVert_{L^\infty_x(\mathbb{R})} \le \lVertI_{\lambda,1}(x,t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x(\mathbb{R})} \lVertf\rVert_{L^1_x(\mathbb{R})},

so it suffices to check that

\left\vert I_{\lambda,1}(x,t) \right\vert \lesssim \vert t \vert^{-\frac{1}{2}} \lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}} \langle{\lambda}\rangle^{\frac{5}{4}}.

The bound (?) was proved in [Dinvay2020, Lemma 10] for \lambda > 1, but the proof also applies for \lambda \le 1, as one can check. (As an alternative we remark that a simplified argument that appeals to the van der Corput lemma is possible). With (?) and the estimates (Proof)–(?), we obtain

\begin{aligned} \lVertS_{\mu,1}(t) P_\lambda f\rVert_{L^\infty_x(\mathbb{R})} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu}}\lVertS_{1,1}\left( \frac{t}{\sqrt{\mu}} \right) P_{\sqrt{\mu} \lambda} \sigma_{\sqrt{\mu}} f\rVert_{L^\infty_x(\mathbb{R})}\\ &\lesssim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu}} \left\vert \frac{t}{\sqrt{\mu}} \right\vert^{-\frac{1}{2}} (\sqrt{\mu}\lambda)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \langle{\sqrt{\mu}\lambda}\rangle^{\frac{5}{4}} \lVert\sigma_{\sqrt{\mu}} f\rVert_{L^1_x(\mathbb{R})}\\ &= c \mu^{-\frac{1}{2}} \vert t \vert^{-\frac{1}{2}} \lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}} \langle{\sqrt{\mu}\lambda}\rangle^{\frac{5}{4}} \lVertf\rVert_{L^1_x(\mathbb{R})} \end{aligned}

as desired.

Lemma

Lemma 3.3 (Frequency-localized Strichartz estimates)

761D

Let d \in \{1,2\} and \mu \in (0,1]. Assume that 2 < q \le \infty and 2 \le r \le \infty satisfy

\frac{2}{q} = d \left( \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{r} \right).

Then

\lVertS_{\mu,d}(t) P_\lambda f\rVert_{L^q(\mathbb{R} ;L^r(\mathbb{R}^d))} \lesssim \left( \mu^{-\frac{1}{2}} \lambda^{\frac{d}{2}-1} \langle{\sqrt{\mu} \lambda}\rangle^{\frac{d}{4}+1} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r}} \lVertP_\lambda f\rVert_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}

holds for all \lambda > 0, where S_{\mu,d}(t) is defined in (?).

Used by Proof
Corollary

Corollary 3.4 (Refined Strichartz estimates)

V39X

Let d\in\{1,2\}, \mu \in(0,1], and T>0, and let u :\mathbb{R}^d \times [0,T] \rightarrow \mathbb{R} solve

\begin{aligned} \begin{dcases} i\partial_t u -\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu}}m_d(\sqrt{\mu}D) u = F, \\ u(x,0) = f(x), \end{dcases} \end{aligned}

where the symbol m_d(D) is defined in (?)–(?). Then for d=1, we have

\begin{aligned} \lVertu\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} &\lesssim \mu^{-\frac{1}{5}+\frac{2\theta}{5}} T^{\frac{3}{10}+\frac{2\theta}{5}} \Big(\lVertJ^\theta \vert D \vert^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3\theta}{2}} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} + \lVertJ_\mu^{\frac{5}{8}} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2}\Big) \\ &+ \mu^{-\frac{2}{5}+\frac{\theta}{5}} T^{\frac{3}{5}+\frac{\theta}{5}} \lVert \vert D \vert^{-1} J_\mu^{\frac{5}{8}} F\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^2} \end{aligned}

and for d=2, it holds

\begin{aligned} \lVertu\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} & \lesssim \mu^{-\frac{1}{6} + \frac{5\theta}{36}} T^{\frac{1}{6} + \frac{5\theta}{18}} \Big(\lVertJ^{\theta} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} + \lVert\vert D \vert^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\theta}{3}} J^{2\theta} J_\mu^{\frac{3}{4}} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2}\Big) \\ &+ \mu^{-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{\theta}{9}} T^{\frac{1}{3}+\frac{2\theta}{9}} \lVert\vert D \vert^{-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\theta}{3}} J^\theta J_\mu^{\frac{3}{4}} F\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^2} \end{aligned}

for \theta > 0 arbitrarily small.

Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Corollary 3.4

We split the proof into two parts: one for d=1 and another for d=2. Proof of (?) We start by fixing q=4^+ and r=\infty^-. More precisely, for \theta > 0 arbitrarily small we take \frac{1}{q} = \frac{1}{4}-\frac{\theta}{4} and \theta=\frac{2}{r}. Then from Lemma 3.3 with

A(\lambda) = A_{\mu,1}(\lambda) = \mu^{-\frac{1}{2}} \lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}} \langle{\sqrt{\mu} \lambda}\rangle^{\frac{5}{4}},

the bound (2.1) now becomes

\begin{aligned} \lVertu\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} &\lesssim \omega^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\theta}{2}} T^{\frac{1}{2}} \lVertJ^\theta P_{\le \omega} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \\ &+ \omega^{-\theta} \mu^{-\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\theta}{4}} T^{\frac{1}{2}} \lVert\rho(\vert D \vert)^{-\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\theta}{4}} \vert D \vert^{-\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\theta}{4}} J^{2\theta} J_\mu^{\frac{5}{8}} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \\ &+ \mu^{-\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\theta}{4}} \lVert\rho(\vert D \vert)^{\frac{3}{4}+\frac{\theta}{4}} \vert D \vert^{-\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\theta}{4}} J^\theta J_\mu^{\frac{5}{8}} F\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^2}. \end{aligned}

We take \rho(\lambda) = T^{\frac{4}{5}} \mu^{-\frac{1}{5}} \lambda^{-1}. To get \rho \le T, we need \lambda \ge \mu^{-\frac{1}{5}} T^{-\frac{1}{5}}, so we choose

\omega = (\mu T)^{-\frac{1}{5}}.

This yields

\begin{aligned} \lVertu\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} &\lesssim \mu^{-\frac{1}{10}+\frac{\theta}{10}} T^{\frac{2}{5}+\frac{\theta}{10}} \lVertJ^\theta P_{\le \omega} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \\ &+ \mu^{-\frac{1}{5}+\frac{2\theta}{5}} T^{\frac{3}{10}+\frac{2\theta}{5}} \lVertJ^{2\theta} J_\mu^{\frac{5}{8}} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \\ &+ \mu^{-\frac{2}{5}+\frac{\theta}{5}} T^{\frac{3}{5}+\frac{\theta}{5}} \lVertJ^{\theta} \vert D \vert^{-1} J_\mu^{\frac{5}{8}} F\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^2}. \end{aligned}

To match the powers of \mu and T in the first two terms on the right-hand side, we estimate

\lVertJ^\theta P_{\le \omega} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} = \lVertJ^\theta \vert D \vert^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{3\theta}{2}} \vert D \vert^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3\theta}{2}} P_{\le \omega} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \lesssim \omega^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{3\theta}{2}} \lVertJ^\theta \vert D \vert^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3\theta}{2}} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2}

so that finally

\begin{aligned} \lVertu\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} &\lesssim \mu^{-\frac{1}{5}+\frac{2\theta}{5}} T^{\frac{3}{10}+\frac{2\theta}{5}} \lVertJ^\theta \vert D \vert^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3\theta}{2}} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \\ &+ \mu^{-\frac{1}{5}+\frac{2\theta}{5}} T^{\frac{3}{10}+\frac{2\theta}{5}} \lVertJ^{2\theta} J_\mu^{\frac{5}{8}} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \\ &+ \mu^{-\frac{2}{5}+\frac{\theta}{5}} T^{\frac{3}{5}+\frac{\theta}{5}} \lVert J^{\theta}\vert D \vert^{-1} J_\mu^{\frac{5}{8}} F\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^2} \end{aligned}

for \theta > 0 sufficiently small. Proof of (?) We choose q= 2^+ and r= \infty^-. So, for \theta > 0 arbitrarily small, we take \frac{1}{q} = \frac{1}{2}-\frac{\theta}{3} and \theta=\frac{3}{r}. We also let \frac{1}{\Tilde{r}}=\frac{5\theta }{12} and \Tilde{\theta} =\theta. Then from Lemma 3.3, we have

A(\lambda) = A_{\mu,2}(\lambda) = \mu^{-\frac{1}{2}} \langle{\sqrt{\mu} \lambda}\rangle^{\frac{3}{2}}.

Consequently, the bound (2.1) gives us

\begin{aligned} \lVertu\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} &\lesssim \omega^{1-\frac{5\theta}{6}} T^{\frac{1}{2}} \lVertJ^{\theta} P_{\le \omega} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \\ &+ \omega^{-\frac{\theta}{6}} \mu^{-\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\theta}{6}} T^{\frac{1}{2}} \lVert\rho(\vert D \vert)^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\theta}{3}} J^{2\theta} J_\mu^{\frac{3}{4}} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \\ & + \mu^{-\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\theta}{6}} \lVert\rho(\vert D \vert)^{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\theta}{3}} J^\theta J_\mu^{\frac{3}{4}} F\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^2}. \end{aligned}

We let \rho(\lambda) = T^{\frac{2}{3}} \mu^{-\frac{1}{6}} \lambda^{-1}. Then it requires \lambda \ge \mu^{-\frac{1}{6}} T^{-\frac{1}{3}} to maintain \rho \le T, so we take

\omega = \mu^{-\frac{1}{6}} T^{-\frac{1}{3}}.

This gives us

\begin{aligned} \lVertu\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} & \lesssim \mu^{-\frac{1}{6} + \frac{5\theta}{36}} T^{\frac{1}{6} + \frac{5\theta}{18}} \lVertJ^{\theta} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \\ &+ \mu^{-\frac{1}{6}+\frac{5\theta}{36}} T^{\frac{1}{6}+\frac{5\theta}{18}} \lVert\vert D \vert^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\theta}{3}} J^{2\theta} J_\mu^{\frac{3}{4}} u\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \\ &+ \mu^{-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{\theta}{9}} T^{\frac{1}{3}+\frac{2\theta}{9}} \lVert\vert D \vert^{-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\theta}{3}} J^\theta J_\mu^{\frac{3}{4}} F\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^2} \end{aligned}

for \theta > 0 small enough.

Uses Lemma 3.3, Theorem 2.1
Proposition

Proposition 4.1 (Kato-Ponce estimates)

Y5EM

Let s \geq 0, p\in (1,\infty), f\in H^s(\mathbb{R}^d), and g\in H^{s-1}(\mathbb{R}^d). Then

\begin{aligned} \lVert[J^s,f] g\rVert_{L^p_x} \lesssim \lVert\nabla f\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \lVertJ^{s-1} g\rVert_{L^p_x} + \lVertJ^s f\rVert_{L^p_x} \lVert g\rVert_{L^\infty_x}. \end{aligned}

Moreover, let p_1,p_4 \in (1,\infty] and p_2,p_3\in (1,\infty) be such that \frac{1}{p}= \frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} = \frac{1}{p_3} + \frac{1}{p_4}. Then

\begin{aligned} \lVertJ^s(f g)\rVert_{L^p_x} \lesssim \lVertf\rVert_{L^{p_1}_x} \lVertJ^{s} g\rVert_{L^{p_2}_x} + \lVertJ^s f\rVert_{L^{p_3}_x} \lVert g\rVert_{L^{p_4}_x} \end{aligned}

for f,g\in H^s(\mathbb{R}^d).

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof, Proof
Proposition

Proposition 4.2

DB1Z

Let s>\frac{3}{2} and \epsilon,\mu \in (0,1]. Let r \ge s+1 and T > 0. Then for any solution \eta \in C([0,T];H^r(\mathbb{R})) to (?) on the time interval [0,T] we have

\begin{aligned} \frac{\:\mathrm{d}}{\:\mathrm{d} t} (\lVert\eta(t)\rVert_{H^s_x}^2) \le c \epsilon \lVert\partial_x \eta(t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \lVert\eta(t)\rVert_{H^s_x}^2 \end{aligned}

for t\in(0,T).

Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 4.2

From (?), we have

\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{2}\frac{\:\mathrm{d}}{\:\mathrm{d} t} (\lVert\eta\rVert_{H^s_x}^2) &= \big({J^s \eta},{J^s \partial_t \eta}\big)_{L^2_x} \\ &= - \big({J^s \eta},{J^s \sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D) \partial_x \eta}\big)_{L^2_x} - \epsilon \big({J^s \eta},{J^s (\eta\partial_x \eta)}\big)_{L^2_x}. \end{aligned}

Here, the first term is skew-symmetric, and the second term can be estimated by Hölder’s inequality, the Kato-Ponce commutator estimate (4.1), and integration by parts. So, we obtain

\begin{aligned} \frac{\:\mathrm{d}}{\:\mathrm{d} t} (\lVert\eta\rVert_{H^s_x}^2) &\leq 2\epsilon |\big({J^s \eta},{[J^s ,\eta]\partial_x \eta}\big)_{L^2_x}| + 2\epsilon |\big({J^s \eta},{\eta J^s \partial_x \eta}\big)_{L^2_x}|\\ &\le c \epsilon \lVert\partial_x \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \lVert\eta\rVert^2_{H^s_x} \end{aligned}

as desired.

Uses Proposition 4.1
Corollary

Corollary 4.3

08IP

Let s>\frac{3}{2}, T > 0 and \epsilon,\mu \in (0,1]. Then for any solution \eta \in C([0,T];H^s(\mathbb{R})) to (?) on [0,T] with \eta(0)=\eta_0 we have

\lVert\eta(t)\rVert_{H^s_x}^2 \le \mathrm{e}^{c \epsilon \int_0^t \lVert\partial_x \eta(\tau)\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \!\:\mathrm{d} \tau} \lVert\eta_0\rVert_{H^s_x}^2

for t\in [0,T].

Used by Proof
Proof of Corollary 4.3

First we notice that it suffices to prove (4.3) for an arbitrarily small T > 0, since this result can then be iterated to cover any time interval. By the local existence theorem, Proposition Proof below, there exists a time T > 0 such that the following holds. Taking r=s+1 and choosing an approximating sequence \eta_{0}^{(n)} \in H^r(\mathbb{R}) such that \eta_{0}^{(n)} \to \eta_0 in H^s(\mathbb{R}) as n \to \infty, there exist corresponding solutions \eta^{(n)}\in C([0,T];H^r(\mathbb{R})), and by the continuous dependence on the data we have that \eta^{(n)} \to \eta in C([0,T];H^s(\mathbb{R})). From Proposition 4.2 it follows that (4.3) holds with \eta replaced by \eta^{(n)}, and passing to the limit n \to \infty we get the inequality also for \eta.

Uses Proposition 4.2
Proposition

Proposition 4.4

0S7P

Let \epsilon,\mu\in (0,1], r>\frac{13}{8}, and T>0. Let \eta \in C([0,T];H^{r}(\mathbb{R})) be a solution to (?). Then

\begin{aligned} \lVert\partial_x \eta\rVert_{L^2_TL^\infty_x} &\lesssim \mu^{(-\frac{1}{5})^+ } T^{\frac{3}{10}^+} \lVert\eta\rVert_{L^\infty_TH^{r}_x} + \epsilon \mu^{(-\frac{2}{5})^+} T^{\frac{11}{10}^+} \lVert\eta\rVert_{L^\infty_T H^{r}_x}^2. \end{aligned}
Proof of Proposition 4.4

We observe that the Whitham equation (?) has the same form as (?) for u=\eta and F = -i\frac{\epsilon}{2}\partial_x( \eta^2). With these choices, we have from (?) and Hölder’s inequality in time that

\begin{aligned} \lVert\partial_x \eta\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^\infty} &\lesssim \mu^{-\frac{1}{5}+\frac{2\theta}{5}} T^{\frac{3}{10}+\frac{2\theta}{5}} \Big(\lVertJ^\theta \vert D \vert^{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3\theta}{2}} \eta\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} + \lVertJ_\mu^{\frac{5}{8}} |D| \eta\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2}\Big) \\ &+ \epsilon \mu^{-\frac{2}{5}+\frac{\theta}{5}} T^{\frac{11}{10}+\frac{\theta}{5}} \lVert J_\mu^{\frac{5}{8}} |D| (\eta^2)\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} \end{aligned}

for sufficiently small \theta >0. Then by the Kato-Ponce inequality (4.1) and a Sobolev embedding we obtain (4.4) for r>\frac{13}{8}.

Uses Corollary 3.4, Proposition 4.1
Definition

Definition 5.1 (Symbol class )

KCTB

We say that a symbol \sigma(D) is an element of the symbol class \mathtt{S}^s with s\in \mathbb{R}, if \xi \in \mathbb{R}^d \mapsto \sigma (\xi) \in \mathbb{C} is smooth and satisfies

\begin{aligned} \forall \alpha \in \mathbb{N}^d, \ \ \sup_{\xi \in \mathbb{R}^d} \ \langle{\xi}\rangle^{|\alpha|- s} \Big| \frac{\partial^\alpha}{\partial\xi^\alpha} \sigma(\xi) \Big| < \infty. \end{aligned}

We also introduce the following semi-norm

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{N}^s(\sigma) = \sup_{\alpha\in \mathbb{N}^d, \: |\alpha| \leq 2+d+\lceil\frac{d}{2} \rceil}\: \sup_{\xi \in \mathbb{R}^d} \ \langle{\xi}\rangle^{|\alpha|-s} \Big| \frac{\partial^\alpha}{\partial \xi^\alpha } \sigma(\xi) \Big|. \end{aligned}
Used by Proof
Lemma

Lemma 5.2

EWK2

Let s\geq 0, t_0>\frac{d}{2}, and \sigma \in \mathtt{S}^s. If f\in H^s(\mathbb{R}^d)\cap H^{t_0+1}(\mathbb{R}^d) and g\in H^{s-1}(\mathbb{R}^d) \cap H^{t_0}(\mathbb{R}^d), then

\begin{aligned} \lVert[\sigma(D),f]g\rVert_{L^2_x} &\lesssim \mathcal{N}^s(\sigma) (\lVert\nabla f\rVert_{L^\infty_x}\lVertg\rVert_{H^{s-1}_x} + \lVert\nabla f\rVert_{H^{s-1}_x}\lVertg\rVert_{L^\infty_x}). \end{aligned}
Used by Proof, Proof, Proof
Lemma

Lemma 5.3

O2XV

Let \mu \in (0,1]. Then the symbol \mathcal{T}_\mu(\xi) defined in (?) satisfies

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{T}_\mu (\xi) \langle{\sqrt{\mu}\xi}\rangle &\sim 1, \\ \Big|\frac{\partial^\alpha}{\partial \xi^\alpha}\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu (\xi)} \Big| &\lesssim \mu^{\frac{|\alpha|}{2}} \langle{\sqrt{\mu}\xi}\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2} - |\alpha|} \end{aligned}

for any \alpha\in \mathbb{N}^d.

Used by Proof
Corollary

Corollary 5.4

0SQT

Let \mu \in (0,1]. Then the symbol \sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu(\xi)} defined in (?) satisfies

\begin{aligned} \Big|\frac{\partial^\alpha}{\partial \xi^\alpha}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu (\xi)}} \Big| & \lesssim \mu^{\frac{|\alpha|}{2}} \langle{\sqrt{\mu}\xi}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}- |\alpha|} \end{aligned}

for any \alpha\in \mathbb{N}^d.

Used by Proof
Lemma

Lemma 5.5

6NC3

Let \mu \in (0,1], s\geq 0, t_0>\frac{d}{2}, f\in H^s(\mathbb{R}^d)\cap H^{t_0+1}(\mathbb{R}^d), and g\in H^{s-1}(\mathbb{R}^d) \cap H^{t_0}(\mathbb{R}^d), then

\begin{aligned} \lVert[J^s\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D),f] g\rVert_{L^2_x} &\lesssim \lVert\nabla f\rVert_{L^\infty_x}\lVertJ^{s-1} g\rVert_{L^2_x} + \lVertJ^s f\rVert_{L^2_x}\lVertg\rVert_{L^\infty_x}. \end{aligned}
Used by Proof, Proof
Remark

Remark 5.6

HDFP

The calculations for the verification of J^s\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D) \in \mathtt{S}^s and \mathcal{N}^s(J^s \sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}) \lesssim 1 uniformly in \mu\in(0,1] are similar to those found in [Paulsen2022, p. 6344] for s=0. However, since we require sharper commutator estimates than those presented in [Paulsen2022], we include the calculations for the convenience of the reader. In particular, we need energy estimates with one part in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d) to utilize the refined Strichartz estimates (see Corollary 3.4 and Proposition 5.14). This will be a key part of achieving an enhanced lifespan.

Proof of Remark 5.6

We will use (5.2) to obtain the commutator estimate (5.5). In other words, we need to verify that J^s \sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu} \in \mathtt{S}^s and calculate \mathcal{N}^s(J^s \sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}), which are defined in Definition 5.1. From the Leibniz rule and (5.3), it follows that

\begin{aligned} \langle{\xi}\rangle^{|\alpha|-s} \Big| \frac{\partial^\alpha}{\partial\xi^\alpha} \Big( \sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu(\xi)} \langle{\xi}\rangle^{s}\Big) \Big| \lesssim \langle{\xi}\rangle^{|\alpha|-s} \sum_{\gamma\in \mathbb{N}^d\: : \: \gamma\leq \alpha} \mu^{\frac{|\alpha|-|\gamma|}{2}} \langle{\sqrt{\mu}\xi}\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2} - (|\alpha|-|\gamma|)} \langle{\xi}\rangle^{s-|\gamma|} \lesssim 1, \end{aligned}

where the implicit constant is independent of \mu \in (0,1]. Consequently, J^s\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu} \in \mathtt{S}^s and \mathcal{N}^s(J^s\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu} ) \lesssim 1 uniformly in \mu. Then, we have from (5.2) that

\begin{aligned} \lVert[J^s \sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D),f] g\rVert_{L^2_x} &\lesssim \lVert\nabla f\rVert_{L^\infty_x}\lVertg\rVert_{H^{s-1}_x} + \lVertf\rVert_{H^s_x}\lVertg\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \end{aligned}

as desired.

Uses Lemma 5.2, Lemma 5.5, Definition 5.1, Lemma 5.3
Lemma

Lemma 5.7

04GS

Let \mu\in(0,1], s\geq 0, t_0 >\frac{d}{2}, f\in H^s(\mathbb{R}^d)\cap H^{t_0+1}(\mathbb{R}^d), and g\in H^{s-1}(\mathbb{R}^d) \cap H^{t_0}(\mathbb{R}^d). Then

\begin{aligned} \lVert[ J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) , f]g\rVert_{L^2_x} &\lesssim \lVert\nabla f\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \lVertJ^{s-1} J^\frac{1}{2}_\mu g\rVert_{L^2_x} + \lVertJ^s J^\frac{1}{2}_\mu f\rVert_{L^2_x}\lVertg\rVert_{L^\infty_x} . \end{aligned}
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 5.7

Let \chi^{(j)} \in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^d) be Fourier multipliers for j=1,2, that is,

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{F}(\chi^{(j)}(D)f)(\xi) = \chi^{(j)}(|\xi|) \widehat{f}(\xi) \end{aligned}

for all f\in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^d) such that

\begin{aligned} 0\leq \chi^{(j)}(|\xi|) \leq 1, \ \ \ \chi^{(1)}(|\xi|) + \chi^{(2)}(|\xi|) = 1 \end{aligned}

on \mathbb{R}^d with the support

\begin{aligned} \mathrm{supp} \: \chi^{(1)}(|\xi|) \subset [-2,2], \ \ \ \mathrm{supp} \: \chi^{(2)}(|\xi|) \subset \mathbb{R}\backslash[-1,1]. \end{aligned}

We let

\begin{aligned} \chi^{(j)}_\mu(|\xi|) := \chi^{(j)}(\sqrt{\mu}|\xi|) \end{aligned}

be the scaled version. With these smooth cut-off functions, we can write

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) &=(\chi^{(1)}_\mu \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}})(D) + (\chi^{(2)}_\mu \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}})(D) . \end{aligned}

It then follows that

\begin{aligned} \lVert[ J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) , f]g \rVert_{L^2_x} &\leq \lVert[J^s (\chi^{(1)}_\mu \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}})(D) , f]g\rVert_{L^2_x} +\lVert[J^s (\chi^{(2)}_\mu \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}})(D) , f]g\rVert_{L^2_x} \\ &=: \mathscr{A}_1 + \mathscr{A}_2. \end{aligned}

To obtain (5.7), we will estimate each of these terms separately, utilizing (5.2). tocControl of \mathscr{A}_1 in (?) We start by estimating \mathscr{A}_1, i.e., verifying that J^s(\chi^{(1)}_\mu \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}})\in \mathtt{S}^{s} and \mathcal{N}^s(J^s(\chi^{(1)}_\mu \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}})) \lesssim 1 uniformly in \mu \in (0,1]. We first make the observation that

\begin{aligned} \mu^\frac{|\gamma|}{2}\langle{\xi}\rangle^{|\gamma|} \Big|\Big( \frac{\partial^\gamma}{\partial \xi^\gamma}\chi_\mu^{(1)}\Big)(\sqrt{\mu}|\xi|) \Big| \lesssim 1 \end{aligned}

for \gamma \in \mathbb{N}^d. Additionally, on the support of \chi^{(1)}_\mu and its derivatives, the estimate (5.4) becomes

\begin{aligned} \Big| \frac{\partial^\gamma}{\partial\xi^\gamma}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu(\xi)}} \Big| & \lesssim \mu^{\frac{|\gamma|}{2}} \langle{\sqrt{\mu}\xi}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2} - |\gamma|} \lesssim \langle{\xi}\rangle^{-|\gamma|}. \end{aligned}

Then, the Leibniz rule gives us

\begin{aligned} \Big| \frac{\partial^\gamma}{\partial\xi^\gamma} \Big(\chi^{(1)}_\mu(|\xi|)\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu(\xi)}} \Big) \Big| &\lesssim \sum_{\kappa \in \mathbb{N}^d \: : \: \kappa \leq \gamma} \mu^\frac{|\gamma|-|\kappa|}{2} \Big|\Big( \frac{\partial^{\gamma-\kappa}}{\partial \xi^{\gamma-\kappa}}\chi^{(1)}\Big)(\sqrt{\mu}|\xi|) \Big| \langle{\xi}\rangle^{-|\kappa|}. \end{aligned}

With the above estimate, the Leibniz rule, and (?), we obtain

\begin{aligned} \langle{\xi}\rangle^{|\alpha|-s} \Big| \frac{\partial^\alpha}{\partial\xi^\alpha} \Big(\langle{\xi}\rangle^s \chi^{(1)}_\mu\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu(\xi)}}\Big) \Big| &\lesssim \sum_{\gamma\leq \alpha} \sum_{\kappa\leq \gamma} \mu^\frac{|\gamma|-|\kappa|}{2} \Big|\Big( \frac{\partial^{\gamma-\kappa}}{\partial \xi^{\gamma-\kappa}}\chi^{(1)}\Big)(\sqrt{\mu}|\xi|) \Big| \langle{\xi}\rangle^{|\gamma|-|\kappa|} \lesssim 1. \end{aligned}

Then (5.2) yields

\begin{aligned} \mathscr{A}_1 &\lesssim \lVert\nabla f\rVert_{L^\infty_x}\lVertJ^{s-1} g\rVert_{L^2_x} + \lVertJ^s f\rVert_{L^2_x}\lVertg\rVert_{L^\infty_x}\\ &\lesssim \lVert\nabla f\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \lVertJ^{s-1} J^\frac{1}{2}_\mu g\rVert_{L^2_x} + \lVertJ^s J^\frac{1}{2}_\mu f\rVert_{L^2_x}\lVert g\rVert_{L^\infty_x}. \end{aligned}

tocControl of \mathscr{A}_2 in (?) The term \mathscr{A}_2 in (?) will also be estimated with the help of Lemma 5.2. To verify that J^s(\chi^{(2)}_\mu \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}) \in \mathtt{S}^{s+\frac{1}{2}}, it suffices to show that

\begin{aligned} \sup_{\xi\in\mathbb{R}^d} \langle{\xi}\rangle^{|\alpha| - (s+\frac{1}{2})} \Big| \frac{\partial^\alpha}{\partial\xi^\alpha} \Big(\langle{\xi}\rangle^s \chi^{(2)}_\mu \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu(\xi)}}\Big) \Big| \lesssim \mu^\frac{1}{4}. \end{aligned}

We first write

\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu(\xi)}}&= \mu^\frac{1}{4}|\xi|^\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{(\tanh(\sqrt{\mu}|\xi|))^\frac{1}{2}}. \end{aligned}

Then, on the support of \chi^{(2)} and its derivative, we have that \frac{1}{(\tanh(\sqrt{\mu}|\xi|))^\frac{1}{2}} and its derivatives are uniformly bounded, and |\xi| \geq \sqrt{\mu}|\xi|>1. In other words, J^s(\chi^{(2)}_\mu \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}) \in \mathtt{S}^{s+\frac{1}{2}} and \mathcal{N}^{s+\frac{1}{2}}(J^s(\chi^{(2)}_\mu \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}))\lesssim \mu^\frac{1}{4}. Thus, we conclude by (5.2) that

\begin{aligned} \mathscr{A}_2 &\lesssim \mu^\frac{1}{4} \lVert\nabla f\rVert_{L^\infty_x}\lVertg\rVert_{H^{s-\frac{1}{2}}_x} + \mu^\frac{1}{4}\lVert\nabla f\rVert_{H^{s-\frac{1}{2}}_x}\lVert g\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \\ &\lesssim \lVert\nabla f\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \lVertJ^{s-1} J^\frac{1}{2}_\mu g\rVert_{L^2_x} + \lVertJ^s J^\frac{1}{2}_\mu f\rVert_{L^2_x}\lVert g\rVert_{L^\infty_x}. \end{aligned}

We complete the proof of (5.7) by combining (?) with (?) and (?).

Uses Lemma 5.2, Corollary 5.4
Corollary

Corollary 5.8

WETU

Let f\in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^d), \mu \in (0,1], and s\in \mathbb{R}. Then

\begin{aligned} \lVert\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D) f\rVert_{L^2_x} &\leq \lVertf\rVert_{L^2_x}, \\ \lVert\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D)J^\frac{1}{2}_\mu f\rVert_{L^2_x} &\sim \lVertf\rVert_{L^2_x}, \\ \lVertJ^\frac{1}{2}_\mu f\rVert_{H^s}^2 &\sim \lVertf\rVert_{H^s_x}^2 + \sqrt{\mu} \lVert|D|^\frac{1}{2} f\rVert_{H^s_x}^2, \intertext{and} \lVert\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) f\rVert_{H^s_x}^2 &\sim \lVertf\rVert_{H^s_x}^2 + \sqrt{\mu} \lVert|D|^\frac{1}{2} f\rVert_{H^s_x}^2. \end{aligned}
Used by Proof, Proof
Lemma

Lemma 5.9

DHY6

For 1<p<\infty, it holds that

\begin{aligned} \lVertR_jf\rVert_{L^p_x} \lesssim \lVertf\rVert_{L^p_x} \end{aligned}

for j=1,2 and

\begin{aligned} |D| &= \mathbf{R} \cdot \nabla. \end{aligned}
Used by Proof
Proposition

Proposition 5.10

UU6J

Let s >2, \epsilon,\mu \in(0,1], r\geq s+1, and (\eta,\mathbf{v}) \in C([0,T];V_\mu^r(\mathbb{R}^2)) be a solution to (?) on a time interval [0,T] for some T>0. Assume that there exists a h_0\in(0,1) such that

\begin{aligned} h_0 - 1 \leq \epsilon \eta(x,t) \ \text{ for all } (x,t)\in \mathbb{R}^2 \times [0,T] . \end{aligned}

Additionally, assume that \mathrm{curl}\: \mathbf{v} = 0. Then, the energy defined in (?) satisfies

\begin{aligned} h_0\lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})(t)\rVert_{V_\mu^s}^2 \lesssim E_s(\mathbf{U}(t)) \lesssim H(t) \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})(t)\rVert_{V_\mu^s}^2 \end{aligned}

and

\begin{aligned} \frac{\:\mathrm{d}}{\:\mathrm{d} t} E_s(\mathbf{U}(t)) &\lesssim \epsilon H(t) \mathcal{P}(t) E_s(\mathbf{U}(t)) \end{aligned}

for all t\in (0,T), where

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{P}(t) &:= \lVert\nabla \eta(t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x} +\lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}(t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x} + \lVert\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D)\nabla \mathbf{v}(t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \intertext{and} H(t) &:= 1+ \epsilon\lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})(t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x \times L^\infty_x}. \end{aligned}
Used by Proof
Remark

Remark 5.11

BRCC

Compared to [Paulsen2022, Proposition 3.3], we need sharper estimates to obtain an enhanced lifespan. For this, we need the L^\infty-bounds in (5.10), which changes the proof of [Paulsen2022, Proposition 3.3] (see the estimate for \mathcal{A}_{21}). We therefore include all the details in these calculations. To simplify the calculations, we have slightly modified the energy in [Paulsen2022, Equation (3.13)].

Remark

Remark 5.12

LO66

The estimate in (5.10) will be used to derive a priori estimates on the enhanced lifespan, where we will need to estimate \lVert\mathcal{P}\rVert_{L^2(0,T)} (see Proposition 5.14 below). We will therefore need to use these estimates for s>\frac{9}{4}.

Proof of Remark 5.12

To verify that E_s(\mathbf{U}) defined in (?) satisfies the equivalence (5.10). The non-cavitation condition (5.10) and (1.5) implies

\begin{aligned} E_s(\mathbf{U}) &\geq \lVert\eta\rVert_{H^s_x}^2 + h_0 \lVert\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v}\rVert_{H^s_x}^2 \gtrsim h_0 \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert^2_{V^s_\mu}. \end{aligned}

We obtain the reverse inequality by Hölder’s inequality and the estimate (1.5). Indeed, we obtain

\begin{aligned} E_s(\mathbf{U}) &\leq \lVert\eta\rVert_{H^s_x}^2 + (1+\epsilon\lVert\eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x} ) \lVert\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v}\rVert_{H^s_x}^2 \lesssim H(t) \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert^2_{V^s_\mu}. \end{aligned}

We will now prove (5.10) by using (?). From the fact that \mathcal{Q}(\mathbf{U},D) is symmetric and (?), we can write

\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{2} \frac{\:\mathrm{d}}{\:\mathrm{d} t} E_s(\mathbf{U}) &= - \big({J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathcal{M}(\mathbf{U},D) \mathbf{U}},{\mathcal{Q}(\mathbf{U},D)J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{U}}\big)_{L^2_x} \\ &+ \frac{1}{2} \big({J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{U}},{(\partial_t\mathcal{Q}(\mathbf{U},D)) J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{U}}\big)_{L^2_x}\\ &=: -\mathcal{I} + \mathcal{II}. \end{aligned}

tocControl of \mathcal{I} With the definitions (?)–(?), the term \mathcal{I} can be written as

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{I} &= \epsilon\big({J^s (\mathbf{v}\cdot \nabla \eta)},{J^s \eta}\big)_{L^2_x} + \big({J^s \big((1+\epsilon\eta) \nabla \cdot \mathbf{v}\big)},{J^s \eta}\big)_{L^2_x} \\ &+ \big({J^s \sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D) \nabla \eta },{(1+\epsilon\eta)J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v} }\big)_{L^2_x} \\ &+\epsilon \big({J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \big( (\mathbf{v}\cdot \nabla) \mathbf{v}\big)},{ (1+\epsilon\eta)J^s\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D)\mathbf{v}}\big)_{L^2_x} \\ &=: \mathcal{A}_{11} +\mathcal{A}_{12} + \mathcal{A}_{21} + \mathcal{A}_{22}. \end{aligned}

tocEstimating \mathcal{A}_{11} We decompose

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{A}_{11} &= \epsilon \big({[J^s,\mathbf{v}]\cdot\nabla \eta },{J^s \eta}\big)_{L^2_x} + \epsilon \big({\mathbf{v}\cdot J^s \nabla \eta },{J^s \eta}\big)_{L^2_x}\\ &=: \mathcal{A}_{11}^1 + \mathcal{A}_{11}^2. \end{aligned}

From the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the Kato-Ponce commutator estimate (4.1), we have

\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{A}_{11}^1| &\leq \epsilon \sum_{j=1,2} \lVert[J^s,v_j]\partial_{x_j} \eta\rVert_{L^2_x} \lVert\eta\rVert_{H^s_x}\\ &\lesssim \epsilon \sum_{j=1,2}\Big(\lVert\nabla v_j\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \lVert\eta \rVert_{H^s_x} + \lVert\partial_{x_j} \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \lVertv_j \rVert_{H^s_x}\Big) \lVert\eta\rVert_{H^s_x} \\ &\lesssim \epsilon \Big(\lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x} + \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x}\Big) \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^s_\mu}^2. \end{aligned}

Next, the term \mathcal{A}_{11}^2 can be estimated from integration by parts and Hölder’s inequality. This yields

\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{A}_{11}^2| &\leq \frac{\epsilon}{2} \lVert\nabla \cdot \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \lVertJ^s \eta \rVert^2_{L^2_x} \leq \epsilon \lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^s_\mu}^2. \end{aligned}

Combining these estimates gives us

\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{A}_{11} | \lesssim \epsilon \big( \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x} +\lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \big) \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^s_\mu}^2. \end{aligned}

tocEstimating \mathcal{A}_{12} + \mathcal{A}_{21} We can write \mathcal{A}_{12} as

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{A}_{12} &= \epsilon \big({[J^s ,\eta] \nabla \cdot \mathbf{v} },{J^s \eta }\big)_{L^2_x} + \big({(1+\epsilon \eta) J^s \nabla \cdot \mathbf{v} },{J^s \eta }\big)_{L^2_x}\\ &=: \mathcal{A}_{12}^1 + \mathcal{A}_{12}^2. \end{aligned}

From the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the Kato-Ponce commutator estimate (4.1), we obtain

\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{A}_{12}^1| &\leq \epsilon \lVert[J^s,\eta] \nabla \cdot \mathbf{v} \rVert_{L^2_x} \lVertJ^s \eta \rVert_{L^2_x}\\ &\lesssim \epsilon \big(\lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x} + \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x}\big) \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^s_\mu}^2. \end{aligned}

We cannot estimate \mathcal{A}_{12}^{2} on its own, but it will be absorbed by \mathcal{A}_{21}. Next, we observe from integration by parts that

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{A}_{21} &= - \epsilon\big({J^s \sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D) \eta },{\nabla\eta\cdot J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v}}\big)_{L^2_x} - \big({J^s\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D) \eta },{(1+\epsilon \eta)J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \nabla \cdot \mathbf{v} }\big)_{L^2_x}\\ &=: \mathcal{A}_{21}^1 + \mathcal{A}_{21}^2. \end{aligned}

From Hölder’s inequality, (5.8), and (1.5), we obtain

\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{A}_{21}^1| &\leq \epsilon \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x}\lVertJ^s \sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D) \eta \rVert_{L^2_x} \lVertJ^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v} \rVert_{L^2_x}\\ &\lesssim \epsilon \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert^2_{V^s_\mu}. \end{aligned}

For the term \mathcal{A}_{21}^2, we first need to rewrite it as

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{A}_{21}^2 &=\epsilon \big({J^s \sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D) \eta },{[J^s,\eta] \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \nabla\cdot \mathbf{v}}\big)_{L^2_x} - \big({J^s \sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D) \eta },{J^s( (1+\epsilon \eta)\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \nabla\cdot \mathbf{v} ) }\big)_{L^2_x} \\ &= : \mathcal{A}_{21}^{2,1} + \mathcal{A}_{21}^{2,2}. \end{aligned}

This approach is needed due to the fact that we cannot close the estimates with \lVertJ^s \nabla\cdot \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x} or \lVert\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D)\eta\rVert_{H^s_x} on the right-hand side. We will therefore use the commutator estimate (5.5) to handle \mathcal{A}_{21}^{2,2}. We start by treating \mathcal{A}_{21}^{2,1}. From the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, (5.8), the Kato-Ponce commutator estimate (4.1), and (5.8), we have

\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{A}_{21}^{2,1}| &\leq \epsilon \lVertJ^s \sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D) \eta \rVert_{L^2_x} \lVert[J^s,\eta] \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \nabla \cdot \mathbf{v} \rVert_{L^2_x} \\ &\lesssim \epsilon \lVert\eta\rVert_{H^s_x} \Big( \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \lVertJ^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v} \rVert_{L^2_x} + \lVertJ^s \eta\rVert_{L^2_x} \lVert\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \nabla\cdot \mathbf{v} \rVert_{L^\infty_x} \Big) \\ &\lesssim \epsilon \Big( \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x} +\lVert\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \nabla \mathbf{v} \rVert_{L^\infty_x} \Big) \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^s_\mu}^2. \end{aligned}

Lastly, we look at the term \mathcal{A}_{21}^{2,2}. We observe that

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{A}_{21}^{2,2} &=- \epsilon\big({J^s \eta },{[\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D)J^s,\eta ]\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \nabla\cdot \mathbf{v} }\big)_{L^2_x} - \big({J^s \eta },{ (1+\epsilon \eta) J^s \nabla\cdot \mathbf{v} }\big)_{L^2_x} \\ &=:\mathcal{A}_{21}^{2,2,1} + \mathcal{A}_{21}^{2,2,2}. \end{aligned}

The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the commutator estimate (5.5), and (5.8) applied to \mathcal{A}_{21}^{2,2,1} yields

\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{A}_{21}^{2,2,1}| &\leq \epsilon \lVertJ^s \eta \rVert_{L^2_x} \lVert[\sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D)J^s,\eta ]\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \nabla\cdot \mathbf{v} \rVert_{L^2_x}\\ &\lesssim \epsilon \lVert\eta\rVert_{H^s_x} \Big( \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x}\lVertJ^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^2_x} + \lVertJ^s \eta\rVert_{L^2_x}\lVert \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \nabla\cdot \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \Big)\\ &\lesssim \epsilon \Big( \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x} +\lVert\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \nabla\cdot \mathbf{v} \rVert_{L^\infty_x} \Big) \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^s_\mu}^2. \end{aligned}

We make the observation that \mathcal{A}_{21}^{2,2,2} = - \mathcal{A}_{12}^{2}. So we may gather the above estimates to obtain

\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{A}_{12} + \mathcal{A}_{21}| \lesssim \epsilon \Big( \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x} + \lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x} + \lVert\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \nabla \mathbf{v} \rVert_{L^\infty_x}\Big) \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^s_\mu}^2. \end{aligned}

toc Estimating \mathcal{A}_{22} We first observe that

\begin{aligned} (\mathbf{v} \cdot \nabla)\mathbf{v} = (v_1\partial_{x_1} v_1 + v_2 \partial_{x_2}v_1, v_1\partial_{x_1} v_2 + v_2 \partial_{x_2}v_2)^\mathrm{T} \end{aligned}

which allows us to write

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{A}_{22} &= \epsilon \sum_{j,\ell = 1,2} \big({J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) (v_j \partial_{x_j} v_\ell)},{ (1+\epsilon\eta)J^s\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D)v_\ell}\big)_{L^2_x}\\ &=\epsilon \sum_{j,\ell = 1,2} \big({[J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) , v_j] \partial_{x_j} v_\ell},{ (1+\epsilon\eta)J^s\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D)v_\ell}\big)_{L^2_x} \\ &+ \epsilon \sum_{j,\ell = 1,2} \big({v_jJ^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \partial_{x_j} v_\ell},{ (1+\epsilon\eta)J^s\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D)v_\ell}\big)_{L^2_x} \\ &=: \mathcal{A}_{22}^1 + \mathcal{A}_{22}^2. \end{aligned}

With the help of Hölder’s inequality, the commutator estimate (5.7), and (5.8)–(5.8), we have

\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{A}_{22}^1| &\leq \epsilon \sum_{j,\ell = 1,2} \lVert[J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) ,v_j] \partial_{x_j} v_\ell \rVert_{L^2_x}(1+\epsilon \lVert\eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x})\lVertJ^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) v_\ell \rVert_{L^2_x}\\ &\lesssim H(t) \epsilon\sum_{j,\ell = 1,2} \Big( \lVert\nabla v_j\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \lVertJ^\frac{1}{2}_\mu v_\ell\rVert_{H^s_x} + \lVert\partial_{x_j} v_\ell\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \lVertJ^\frac{1}{2}_\mu v_j\rVert_{H^s_x} \Big)\lVertJ^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) v_\ell \rVert_{L^2_x}\\ &\lesssim \epsilon H(t) \lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x}\lVert(\eta, \mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^s_\mu}^2. \end{aligned}

The term \mathcal{A}_{22}^2 is treated by integration by parts, Hölder’s inequality, and (5.8). This gives us

\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{A}_{22}^2| &\leq \frac{\epsilon}{2} \sum_{j,\ell = 1,2}\Big| \big({ (\partial_{x_j}v_j)J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) v_\ell},{ (1+\epsilon\eta)J^s\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D)v_\ell}\big)_{L^2_x}\Big| \\ &+ \frac{\epsilon^2 }{2} \sum_{j,\ell = 1,2}\Big| \big({ v_j J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) v_\ell },{(\partial_{x_j} \eta) J^s \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) v_\ell }\big)_{L^2_x}\Big|\\ &\lesssim \epsilon H(t)\Big(\lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x}+\lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x}\Big)\lVert(\eta, \mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^s_\mu}^2. \end{aligned}

We gather the estimates for \mathcal{A}_{22}^1 and \mathcal{A}_{22}^2 to obtain

\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{A}_{22}| &\lesssim \epsilon H(t)\Big(\lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x}+ \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x}\Big)\lVert(\eta, \mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^s_\mu}^2. \end{aligned}

Combining (?)–(?) yields

\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{I}| \lesssim \epsilon H(t) \Big( \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x} + \lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x} + \lVert\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D)\nabla \mathbf{v} \rVert_{L^\infty_x}\Big) \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^s_\mu}^2. \end{aligned}

tocControl of \mathcal{II} From (?) and (?), we can write

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{II} &=\frac{\epsilon}{2} \big({J^s\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v}},{(\partial_t \eta) J^s\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v}}\big)_{L^2_x}\\ &= -\frac{\epsilon}{2} \big({J^s\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v}},{(\nabla \cdot \mathbf{v}) J^s\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v}}\big)_{L^2_x} -\frac{\epsilon^2}{2} \big({J^s\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v}},{(\nabla\cdot(\eta \mathbf{v})) J^s\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{v}}\big)_{L^2_x}. \end{aligned}

Then from Hölder’s inequality and (1.5), we obtain

\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{II}|&\lesssim \epsilon \Big(\lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x} + \lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x}\Big) \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^s_\mu}^2. \end{aligned}

Combining (?) with (?)–(?) gives us (5.10), which concludes this proof.

Uses Proposition 5.10, Remark 1.5, Definition 1.3, Proposition 4.1, Corollary 5.8, Lemma 5.5, Lemma 5.7
Corollary

Corollary 5.13

TTNM

Let s >2, \epsilon,\mu\in(0,1], and T>0. Assume that there exists a h_0\in(0,1) such that

\begin{aligned} h_0 - 1 \leq \epsilon \eta(x,t) \ \text{ for all } (x,t)\in \mathbb{R}^2 \times [0,T] \end{aligned}

and that \mathrm{curl}\: \mathbf{v} = 0. Then, for any solution (\eta,\mathbf{v}) \in C([0,T];V_\mu^s(\mathbb{R}^2)) to (?) on [0,T] with (\eta(0),\mathbf{v}(0))=(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0) we have

\lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})(t)\rVert_{V_\mu^s}^2 \lesssim H(t) h_0^{-1} \mathrm{e}^{c \epsilon \int_0^tH(\tau) \mathcal{P}(\tau) \!\:\mathrm{d} \tau} \lVert(\eta_0,\mathbf{v}_0)\rVert_{V_\mu^s}^2

for t\in [0,T], where

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{P}(t) &= \lVert\nabla \eta(t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x} +\lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}(t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x} + \lVert\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D)\nabla \mathbf{v}(t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \intertext{and} H(t) &= 1+ \epsilon\lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})(t)\rVert_{L^\infty_x \times L^\infty_x}. \end{aligned}
Proof of Corollary 5.13

The proof follows the same arguments as Corollary 4.3; we therefore omit this proof.

Uses Corollary 4.3
Proposition

Proposition 5.14

KYAD

Let \epsilon,\mu\in (0,1], r>\frac{9}{4}, and T>0. Let (\eta,\mathbf{v}) \in C([0,T];V_\mu^{r}(\mathbb{R}^2)) be a solution to (?). Then

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{P} := \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_x} +\lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x} + \lVert\mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D)\nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^\infty_x} \end{aligned}

satisfies

\begin{aligned} \lVert\mathcal{P}\rVert_{L^2(0,T)} &\lesssim \mu^{(-\frac{1}{6})^+ } T^{\frac{1}{6}^+} \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{L^\infty_TV^{r}_\mu} + \epsilon \mu^{(-\frac{1}{3})^+} T^{\frac{5}{6}^+} \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{L^\infty_T V^{r}_\mu}^2. \end{aligned}
Proof of Proposition 5.14

From (?), we obtain

\begin{aligned} \lVert\nabla\eta\rVert_{L^2_TL^\infty_x} &= \lVert \nabla (u^+ + u^-) \rVert_{L^2_TL^\infty_x} \\ &\leq \lVert\nabla u^+\rVert_{L^2_TL^\infty_x} + \lVert \nabla u^-\rVert_{L^2_TL^\infty_x}\\ &=: \sum_\pm \lVert \nabla u^\pm \rVert_{L^2_TL^\infty_x}. \end{aligned}

With the help of (?) in Corollary 3.4 for u= \nabla u^\pm and F = -i\frac{\epsilon}{2}\nabla \mathcal{B}^\pm (\eta,\mathbf{v}) (with \mathcal{B}^\pm (\eta,\mathbf{v}) defined in (?)), we obtain

\begin{aligned} \lVert\nabla \eta\rVert_{L^2_TL^\infty_x} &\lesssim \mu^{-\frac{1}{6} + \frac{5\theta}{36}} T^{\frac{1}{6} + \frac{5\theta}{18}} \sum_\pm \Big( \lVertJ^{\theta} |D|u^\pm\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2} + \lVert\vert D \vert^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{\theta}{3}} J^{2\theta} J_\mu^{\frac{3}{4}} u^\pm\rVert_{L_T^\infty L_x^2}\Big) \\ & + \mu^{-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{\theta}{9}} T^{\frac{1}{3}+\frac{2\theta}{9}} \sum_\pm\lVert\vert D \vert^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\theta}{3}} J^\theta J_\mu^{\frac{3}{4}} \mathcal{B}^\pm (\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{L_T^2 L_x^2}\\ &=:\mu^{-\frac{1}{6}+\frac{5\theta}{36}} T^{\frac{1}{6}+\frac{5\theta}{18}} I_1 +\mu^{-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{\theta}{9}} T^{\frac{1}{3}+\frac{2\theta}{9}} I_2. \end{aligned}

for \theta>0 small. Using (?), (5.9), and (1.5) implies

\begin{aligned} I_1 &\lesssim \lVertJ^\frac{3}{4}_\mu J^{\frac{3}{2} +\frac{5\theta}{3}} \eta\rVert_{L^\infty_TL^2_x} + \lVertJ^\frac{3}{4}_\mu J^{\frac{3}{2} +\frac{5\theta}{3}} \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \mathbf{R} \cdot \mathbf{v} \rVert_{L^\infty_TL^2_x}\\ &\lesssim \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{L^\infty_TV^{r}_\mu} \end{aligned}

for r>\frac{9}{4}. To estimate I_2 in (?), we use (5.8), Hölder’s inequality, the Kato-Ponce inequality (4.1), a Sobolev embedding, and (5.8). This yields

\begin{aligned} I_2 &\lesssim \lVertJ^\frac{3}{4}_\mu J^{\theta} |D|^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{\theta}{3}} (\eta \mathbf{v})\rVert_{L^2_TL^2_x} + \lVertJ^\frac{3}{4}_\mu J^\theta \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) |D|^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{\theta}{3}}(|\mathbf{v}|^2)\rVert_{L^2_TL^2_x} \\ &\lesssim T^\frac{1}{2}\Big( \lVertJ^{r} (\eta\mathbf{v})\rVert_{L^\infty_TL^2_x} + \lVertJ^{r} (|\mathbf{v}|^2)\rVert_{L^\infty_TL^2_x} + \mu^\frac{1}{4}\lVertJ^{r+\frac{1}{2}}(|\mathbf{v}|^2)\rVert_{L^\infty_TL^2_x}\Big) \\ &\lesssim T^\frac{1}{2} \lVert(\eta,\mathbf{v})\rVert_{V^{r}_\mu}^2 \end{aligned}

for r>\frac{9}{4}. Gathering the estimates of I_1 and I_2 in (?) gives us (?).
Next, from (?), we have

\begin{aligned} \lVert\nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^2_TL^\infty_x} + \lVert \mathcal{T}_{\mu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(D) \nabla \mathbf{v}\rVert_{L^2_TL^\infty_x} &\leq \sum_\pm \lVert \sqrt{\mathcal{T}_\mu}(D) \nabla\mathbf{R} u^\pm \rVert_{L^2_TL^\infty_x} + \sum_\pm \lVert\nabla\mathbf{R} u^\pm \rVert_{L^2_TL^\infty_x}. \end{aligned}

Utilizing (?) in Corollary 3.4, (5.8), and (5.9), we obtain the estimate in the same way as (?)–(?).

Uses Corollary 3.4, Lemma 5.9, Remark 1.5, Corollary 5.8, Proposition 4.1

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2508.08809v2 by Didier Pilod, Sigmund Selberg, Nadia Skoglund Taki and Achenef Tesfahun, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2508/2508.08809.jsonl.