Global Well-Posedness near Rayleigh-Jeans Equilibria for the Cubic NLS Wave Kinetic Equation

First we assume that g \in C_c^\infty(0,\infty), so that the symmetrisation procedure above is well-justified (Fubini is allowed). We will in the end extend the operator L_\mu uniquely to a bounded self-adjoint operator on L^2(\sqrt{\omega}).

As a first step, we bound the square in the integrand as follows:

which implies that

and using the symmetry in all four variables of the integral kernel, it suffices to bound the first term

We are then going to show that in fact the interior double integral is uniformly bounded in \omega_0>0, i.e. that

for some finite constant C_\mu. Then, given (?), we are ready to conclude since for g \in C_c^\infty(0,\infty):

which by symmetry implies that

Then polarisation gives that for g, h \in C_c^\infty (0,\infty) we have

Since C_c^\infty(0,\infty) is dense in L^2(\sqrt{\omega} d \omega), the bilinear form \mathcal{D}_\mu(g,h) extends uniquely by density to a bounded bilinear form on all of L^2(\sqrt{\omega})\times L^2(\sqrt{\omega}). So by Riesz representation, there exists a unique bounded operator still denoted by L_\mu so that

Also there holds

In the rest of the proof we show the (?):

Case 1: Let \mu>0. We notice first that without loss of generality we may assume that \mu=1. Indeed otherwise we can rescale \omega = \mu x, \omega_1 = \mu y, \omega_2= \mu z which gives that

Now if x\geq 1: We set

Then a,b>0, c>0, and y+z-x=xc, dydz=x^2\ da db. Moreover,

and the denominator becomes

Thus the quantity we want to estimate is written as

Since now x> 1, we have 1+x^{-1}\le 2, and the denominator is lower bounded by ab(a+b-1). Altogether give the upper bound

This is now finite. Indeed, the only possible singularities occur at a=0, b=0, or c=0. When a=0 and c=0, we have b=1+c-a\sim 1, and the integrand is upper-bounded by

This is, locally around 0, integrable, since splitting in cases a<c and a>c we have:

where we changed the integration variables from (a,b) to (a,c). The right-hand side is then finite, for example

and the second term is identical. The case when b=0 and c=0 is analogous by symmetry.

Away from the c=0 - case: we cannot have both a and b to be close to 0 due to the restrictions of the domain (we need a+b>1).
When only a is close to 0, the singularity is of order a^{-1/2} which is integrable as well.
By symmetry the same happens when only b is close to 0.
When a\sim 0 while b \to \infty we have c \to \infty and the integrand is

for which the integral is also finite:

Finally for large a,b, we have

which is integrable when a,b\ge 1, since

which is finite. We get then that

Now if 0<x<1: Since the minimum is always less than \sqrt{x} we may bound our main quantity by

where in the inequality we applied the bound y+z+1\leq 2 (y+z-x+1), which holds since y+z>x and x<1. Then we write for s=y+z:

since s>0, and then we conclude because the last integral is finite.

Altogether we have that indeed

Case 2: Let \mu=0. As before we rescale: \omega_1= a \omega, \omega_2= b \omega, \omega_3= \omega(a+b-1), for a,b>0 and a+b>1. Then the quantity we aim to estimate uniformly in \omega_0, is

since we check that all the powers of \omega_0 cancel. This integral was already examined above, as it is the case where the large x\geq 1 case essentially boiled down to. Repeating verbatim, we conclude that it is finite.

We conclude then that (?) holds for all \mu \geq 0.

Let \mu>0: We define the unitary operator U_\lambda : L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d} \omega) \to L^2(\sqrt{\omega} \, {\rm d} \omega) by the dilation (U_{\lambda}f)(\omega):= \lambda^{-\frac{3}{4}} f \left( \frac{\omega}{\lambda}\right). This is indeed unitary in this space since:

after changing the variable \omega = \lambda x. We now notice that the operator K_{\tfrac{\mu}{\lambda}} is the operator defined by the conjugation

Indeed: We look for example at the first piece K_{1,\mu} (the second piece is similar) and we write

for \omega_1 = \lambda x, \omega_2 = \lambda y, \omega = \lambda z, since the Jacobian cancels the \lambda^2 factor from the denominator. Now we proceed by a contradiction argument. We consider a smooth function localised away from the origin, say 0\leq f \in C_c^\infty([a,b]), with K_0 f \neq 0. Then we define the sequence

Since the operator is unitary we have for all n,

and then

since f is supported away from zero. Now, if the operator K_\mu was compact, we would have that K_\mu \psi_n \to 0 strongly, or equivalently using the properties discussed above, compactness would imply that

But we also have that for a.e. \omega \in (0,\infty): \Big[ K_{\tfrac{\mu}{\lambda_n}} f\Big] (\omega) \to [K_0 f] (\omega) for the f we considered here.

Therefore

where for the inequality we applied Fatou’s lemma and the last limit follows from (?). This is a contradiction since the left-hand side is strictly positive. Thus the operator K_{\mu} cannot be compact in L^2(\sqrt{\omega}d\omega).

If we suppose that \mu =0 then

As in the previous case, if the operator K_0 was compact, we would have \|K_0\psi_n\|_{ L^2(\sqrt \omega d\omega ) }\to 0 as n\to \infty and

That contradiction shows that K_0 is not compact.

We have

Since f \geq 0 by assumption, all three integrands are nonnegative and also n_{\mu,j} = \frac{1}{\omega_j+\mu} is increasing in \mu and n_{\mu,j} \uparrow n_{0,j}=\frac{1}{\omega_j} as \mu\downarrow 0. And so, each of the integrands increases to the corresponding integrands for \mu=0. The Monotone Convergence Theorem then gives

It remains to check that the three individual integrals K_{0,j}f are finite so that it makes sense to add and subtract them in order to conclude that K_{\mu}f(\omega) \to K_{0}f(\omega). We start with K_{0,1}f:

where we changed the variables from (\omega_1, \omega_2) \to (\omega_2, \omega_3). Now the last integral is finite, since near 0:

Same argument holds for the term K_{0,2}f by symmetry. Finally for K_{0,3}f:

where we changed the variables from (\omega_1, \omega_2) \to (\omega_1, \omega_3). This is again finite, arguing as above for the possible singularities at zero, since

For all \lambda >0,

since \langle f, L_\mu f\rangle_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega})}\leq 0. Then -L_\mu is accretive. Moreover, for any f\in L^2(\sqrt \omega d\omega ) and \lambda>0,there exists g\in L^2 such that g-\lambda L_\mu(g)=f. If we define a(g, h)=\langle g-\lambda L_\mu(g), h\rangle this is a bilinear form on L^2(\sqrt \omega \, {\rm d}\omega )\times L^2(\sqrt \omega \, {\rm d}\omega ) continuous and coercive since a(g, g)=\|g\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega})}^2-\lambda \langle L_\mu(g), g)\rangle_{\sqrt{\omega}} \ge \|g\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega})}^2. By Lax-Milgram there exists g\in L^2(\sqrt{\omega} \, {\rm d} \omega) such that a(g, h)=\langle f, h\rangle for all h\in L^2(\sqrt{\omega} \, {\rm d} \omega) and then such that g-\lambda L_\mu(g)=f.

The existence of the semigroup of contractions and properties (i), (ii) follow from classical results (cf. [brezis2011]).

Now for (iii): For every f\in L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d}\omega), (I-\Pi)f \in \big( \operatorname{Ker}(L_\mu ) \big)^\perp and as L_\mu is self-adjoint in L^2(\sqrt{\omega}), \overline{\operatorname{Ran}(L_\mu )} =\big( \operatorname{Ker}(L_\mu) \big)^\perp. By basic properties of closure, for all \varepsilon>0 we may find h \in L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d} \omega) so that

We turn now to the quantity we want to estimate:

where we commuted S_t=e^{t L_\mu} with L_\mu for the second term, and for the first term we used the contractivity of S_t.

From the spectral theorem we have then

since \sigma(L_\mu) \subset (-\infty, 0] and since \lambda e^{-t \lambda} is maximised at \lambda=t^{-1}. Thus since \varepsilon > 0 is arbitrary, we conclude that

and so S_t f converges strongly to \Pi f.

\widetilde g \in \operatorname{Ker}(L_\mu) if and only if \langle \widetilde L_\mu \widetilde g,\widetilde g\rangle_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)}=0. This is equivalent to

for almost every resonant quadruple. Notice also that \Phi=(|\textbf{k}|^2+\mu) \widetilde g \in L^2_{\text{loc}}(\mathbb{R}^3), since \widetilde g\in L^2(\mathbb{R}^3) and (|\textbf{k}|^2+\mu) is bounded on every compact subset of \mathbb{R}^3.

From this, we are going to determine the form of \Phi.

We have from the resonant conditions that

Let us write \textbf{k}_1-\textbf{k}:=a \in \mathbb{R}^3 and \textbf{k}_2-\textbf{k}:=b \in \mathbb{R}^3. Then the energy conservation yields

A collision invariant \Phi satisfies

We first assume that \Phi\in C^2(\mathbb{R}^3) and we differentiate in a and then in b. Say that a=s \hat{e_i} and b=t \hat{e_j} for two orthogonal directions \hat{e_i}, \hat{e_j}. We first get from our functional identity that

We then differentiate in t where the first term is zero and we get

In other words, all the mixed directions vanish (all the off-diagonal terms of the Hessian are zero) since \partial_{ij} \Phi( \textbf{k} ) = [\nabla^2 \Phi ( \textbf{k} )]_{ij}=0 for all i\neq j.

Moreover, if we apply the same argument for the vectors u=\frac{e_i+e_j}{2},v=\frac{e_i-e_j}{2}, for i\neq j (which are vertical to each other and so the argument applies), we see that \frac{1}{2}(\partial_{ii}\Phi - \partial_{jj}\Phi) = u^T \nabla^2\Phi \cdot v =0 and thus the diagonal entries of the Hessian are all equal to each other.

Thus the Hessian is a multiple of the identity:

Now \lambda(\textbf{k})=\lambda has to be a constant: Indeed if we differentiate \Phi once more in a direction \hat{e_i} for i\neq j we get on the one hand

and on the other hand that \partial_{ijj}\Phi = \partial_i( \partial_{jj}\Phi) =\partial_i \lambda(k). So \partial_i \lambda(k)=0 and i, j were arbitrary. Thus

Thus

and finally

We now remove the regularity assumption on \Phi. As noted above, \Phi \in L^2_{\text{loc}}(\mathbb{R}^3) and it satisfies

We now consider the standard mollifier \eta_\varepsilon and \Phi_\varepsilon:= \eta_\varepsilon \ast \Phi which approximates \Phi in the L^2_{\text{loc}} topology: \Phi_\varepsilon \to \Phi in L^2_{\text{loc}} as \varepsilon \downarrow 0. Then we notice

since the integrand is 0 for \textbf{k}'=\textbf{k}-y \in \mathbb{R}^3 whenever a\perp b. Also since \Phi_\varepsilon is smooth, the left-hand side is continuous in (\textbf{k},a,b) on a\perp b, and so the identity (?) extends to holding from a.e. (\textbf{k},a,b) to every such triple. Apply now the previous argument to the smooth \Phi_\varepsilon to get that

Since the subspace \operatorname{Span}\{1, k_1, k_2, k_3, |\textbf{k}|^2\} is finite dimensional it is closed in L^2_{\text{loc}}. Thus any limit is in that space and so we conclude.

The other direction is automatic: if \Phi(\textbf{k}) is a linear combination of 1, \textbf{k}, |\textbf{k}|^2, then it is clearly zero, due to the resonance conditions. Therefore we have concluded the first part of the statement that indeed \operatorname{Ker}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)}(\widetilde L_\mu) = \widetilde n_\mu (\textbf{k}) \operatorname{Span}\{1, \textbf{k}, |\textbf{k}|^2\} \cap L^2(\mathbb{R}^3).

But now notice that since at infinity \widetilde n_\mu(\textbf{k}) \sim |\textbf{k}|^{-2}, k_i \widetilde n_\mu(\textbf{k}) and |\textbf{k}|^2 \widetilde n_\mu(\textbf{k}) \notin L^2(\mathbb{R}^3). So finally we must have that indeed \operatorname{Ker}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)}(\widetilde L_\mu)=\operatorname{Span}\{\widetilde n_\mu\}.

We remind that the equation reads

and L_\mu: L^2(\sqrt{\omega}) \to L^2(\sqrt{\omega}) is a bounded operator. First the nonlinear map \Gamma_\mu+Q_\mu is locally Lipschitz on L^2(\sqrt{\omega}): Indeed, let g,h\in L^2(\sqrt{\omega} d\omega). Then we check directly that

and thus from Prop. 3.1

Similarly, we check that

and therefore from Prop. 3.1,

So, if we define the ball

we have

Now fix g_0\in L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d}\omega), and for T>0, let X_T:=C([0,T];L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d} \omega)) with the norm \|g\|_{X_T}:=\sup_{0\le t\leq T}\|g(t)\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega} \, {\rm d}\omega)}. Then we choose R = 2 \|g_0\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d}\omega)} + 1 and define the (closed) ball

Then the map

satisfies for T sufficiently small: is a contraction and \Phi(B_R)\subset B_R. Indeed for g\in B_R, the nonlinear estimates in Prop. 3.1, and the boundedness of L_\mu, give

Thus \Phi(B_R)\subset B_R, provided T\Big[\|L_\mu\|_{\mathscr{L}(L^2(\sqrt{\omega}))}R + C_\mu(R^2+R^3)\Big] \leq R-\|g_0\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega})}. Similarly for the contraction: for g,h\in B_R, using (Proof), we obtain

To conclude that \Phi is a contraction on B_R, we choose T>0 so that

Thus existence of a unique solution in C^1([0,T];L^2(\sqrt{\omega})) follows immediately from Banach fixed point theorem. Finally, by repeatedly applying the local result, the solution extends uniquely to a maximal interval [0,T_{\max}) from where we conclude the blow-up alternative.

We look at the relative density 1+g = f/n_\mu and we decompose 1+g = (1+g)^+ - (1+g)^-. We define \overline{g}=\max\{g,-1\} = g + (1+g)^- = (1+g)^+-1 and notice that both (1+g)^- and \overline{g} \in L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d} \omega) since 0\leq (1+g)^- \leq |g| and 0\leq |\overline{g}| \leq |g|, and so \|(1+g)^-\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d} \omega )}, \|\overline{g}\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d} \omega)} \leq \|g\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d} \omega)}.

We define the functional

and then we time-differentiate

where in the second line we added and subtracted the \mathcal{F}_\mu(\overline{g}_t)-term. Now we claim that

Indeed we see this by an application of Lemma 3.3, with h_1=\overline{g}_t, h_2 = (1+g_t)^-.

We fix T <T_{max} and set R:=\sup_{0\leq t\leq T }\|g(t)\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d} \omega)}. By (Proof) and (Proof), \mathcal{F}_\mu is locally Lipschitz on L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d} \omega ) and

with C_{\mu,R} = \|L_\mu\|_{\mathcal{L}(L^2(\sqrt{\omega}d\omega ))} + C_\mu (R+R^2). Thus combining it with Cauchy-Schwarz, we get

Grönwall’s inequality then yields \mathcal{E}(t)\leq e^{2 C_{\mu,R} t} \mathcal{E}(0). Assuming that f_0\geq 0 means that g_0 \geq -1 and so (1+g_0)^-=0 or that \mathcal{E}(0)=0. Therefore \mathcal{E}(t)=0 and so 1+g(t,\omega)\geq 0 on [0,T_{max}] and for a.e. \omega, from where we conclude the Proposition.

We have to be a bit careful since for RJ, each separate integral of the collisional operator may diverge. So in order to prove the lemma, we first consider this operator for truncated frequencies, \mathcal{F}_{N,\mu}, and then pass to the limit. In particular, we may consider a symmetric compact frequency cutoff 0 \leq X_N(\omega, \omega_1, \omega_2, \omega_3)\leq 1 which is supported whenever \omega_i\in [N^{-1}, N] for all i=0,1,2,3: e.g. Let \chi_N\in C_c^\infty((0,\infty)) satisfy 0 \leq\chi_N \leq 1, and \operatorname{supp}\chi_N \subset[N^{-1},N]. We define the symmetric frequency cutoff

and the truncated nonlinear operator

For fixed N, all frequencies are restricted to a compact subset of (0,\infty), and this collision integral is well defined. Set

On the set where h_2>0, the relation h_2(1+h_1)=0 implies 1+h_1=0, and so f_0^{h_1}=0. Therefore, using the definition of q,

Consequently, on the set \{h_2>0\},

Since h_2 \geq 0, it follows that

We now pass to the limit N\to\infty. First, if h\in C_c^\infty((0,\infty)), since X_N \to 1 pointwise and 0 \leq X_N\leq 1, dominated convergence (which we can apply since the proofs of the corresponding operator estimates gives us the integrable majorants) gives

Now for a general h\in L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d}\omega): by density, choose h^{(m)}\in C_c^\infty((0,\infty)) such that h^{(m)}\to h in L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d}\omega).

Moreover, the proof of Proposition 3.1 applies verbatim to the truncated operators. Indeed, the same algebraic cancellations are preserved and, after taking absolute values, the common factor X_N can be discarded since 0\leq X_N\leq1. Consequently, on every ball of radius R,

with a constant independent of N.

Choosing R so that h and the sequence h^{(m)} belong to the ball of radius R, we have

First choosing m sufficiently large and then letting N\to\infty proves the limit. Applying this for h=h_1, we may pass to the limit in (Proof) and conclude:

We argue by contradiction. If the spectral gap inequality does not hold, then there exists a sequence (g_n)_n with g_n \perp \operatorname{Ker}(L_\mu), \|g_n\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d}\omega)}=1 and

Due to the boundedness of (g_n)_n and weak compactness of the unit ball, we can find a weak limit, there exists g so that g_n \rightharpoonup g. Now since L_\mu is self-adjoint, non positive, and bounded we also have that \|-L_\mu g_n\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d}\omega)}^2 = \langle L_\mu^2 g_n,g_n \rangle \leq \|L_\mu\| \langle (-L_\mu g_n),g_n \rangle (since -L_\mu \leq \|L_\mu\| I which is finite since L_\mu is bounded). This gives that \|-L_\mu g_n\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d}\omega)}^2 \to 0 and thus L_\mu g_n \to 0 strongly in L^2(\sqrt{\omega}). But also, -L_\mu g_n \rightharpoonup -L_\mu g and so uniqueness of weak limits implies L_\mu g=0. Thus g \in \operatorname{Ker}(L_\mu) ( Equivalently for this argument, we can go through \sqrt{-L_\mu} (since -L_\mu is bounded, self-adjoint and nonnegative and so its square root is well-defined and bounded). Then D_\mu(g_n)=\|\sqrt{-L_\mu} g_n\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d}\omega)}^2\to 0. If g_n\rightharpoonup g in {L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d}\omega)}, then by continuity \sqrt{-L_\mu} g_n \rightharpoonup \sqrt{-L_\mu} g, and the left-hand side converges strongly to 0. We conclude \sqrt{-L_\mu} g=0, and thus g\in\ker L_\mu.). On the other hand, at the same time g_n\perp \operatorname{Ker}(L_\mu), which is weakly closed (since the operator is closed) and so g \perp \operatorname{Ker}(L_\mu). Therefore g has to be 0:

We will then show that g_n \to 0 strongly, by combining the local compactness with the coercivity in low and high frequencies, which will give us a contradiction.

From \langle (-L_\mu g_n),g_n \rangle \to 0 we have that \langle A_\mu g_n, g_n\rangle - \langle K_\mu g_n, g_n\rangle \to 0, and using Lemma 4.1 we get

If K_\mu were compact we would be done. But it is not, so now the idea is to localise by introducing \chi_{[M_1,M_2]} for 0<M_1<M_2<\infty. Then

The first term involves a compact operator, and so

since \chi_{[M_1,M_2]} K_\mu \chi_{[M_1,M_2]} is compact, see Lemma 4.5, and g_n \rightharpoonup 0.

For the rest of the terms we will use that K_\mu is bounded and the tightness property at both infinity and zero from Propositions 4.2 and 4.4 that give that no mass concentrates at neither 0 nor infinity, i.e.

and

then we’d have that for all \varepsilon >0: we can find M_1, M_2 sufficiently small and large respectively so that \limsup_{n \to \infty} \| \chi_{(0,M_1)\cup(M_2, \infty)}g_n\||_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega}d\omega)}^2< \varepsilon or that

(since the whole mass is 1: \|g_n\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega}d\omega)}=1). This implies that for the mixed terms in (?):

and

Also regarding the last term, we write

Then altogether we have that

and since \varepsilon>0 was arbitrary, we conclude that

But at the same time we have from (?) that

and now the right-hand side tends to zero, which contradicts the mass one assumption. Thus a spectral gap has to exist, for every g \perp \operatorname{Ker} L_\mu. For arbitrary g \in L^2(\sqrt{\omega}\, {\rm d}\omega), we may decompose g = \Pi g + (I-\Pi)g, where \Pi is the projection on the \operatorname{Ker}(L_\mu) and use that D_\mu(g) = D_\mu((I-\Pi)g) (since L_\mu is self-adjoint), to see the statement of the Theorem.

The function a_\mu(\omega ) is

with,

Since, by definition, \omega _1+\omega _2\ge \omega on D(\omega ), it follows

Let us consider the g_1-term in K_\mu. The g_2-term is identical. We write:

Then

We estimate the inner \omega_2-integral: For 0<\omega\le\mu/2, we get

By Cauchy-Schwarz in (Proof),

since given the computation in (Proof), the above integral is finite uniformly in 0<\omega\le\mu/2: Indeed, near 0, the integrand behaves like \omega_1^{-1/2}, and near infinity it behaves like (\log \omega_1)^2\omega_1^{-5/2}.

For the g_3-term, we argue similarly. First for fixed \omega_3, we obtain

and finally again by Cauchy-Schwarz we conclude that

Therefore,

which concludes the first claim, (4.2) of the Proposition.

For the rest, we use the decomposition A_\mu g=-L_\mu g+K_\mu g, and the lower bound a_\mu\ge \frac{\pi^2}{6} from Lemma 4.1. Then

Now since -L_\mu is bounded, self-adjoint and nonnegative, it admits a bounded nonnegative square root, and so

Thus

This concludes the second claim, (4.2), of the Proposition. The last claim (4.2) is immediate after taking the \limsup_n.

We start with proving (4.3). We consider the problem in the new Fourier variables \omega =e^x and define G(x) := h(e^x) e^{-x/4} so that

In these variables, the collisional integrand is

while for the Jacobian we have \omega^{-3/2}\, {\rm d}\omega = e^{-x/2}\, {\rm d} x. Then by Plancherel, and since

we have that

To complete the proof, it remains to show that

Indeed if we know that then combining it with (Proof), we immediately obtain (4.3).

In order to see that (Proof) holds: First we observe that we have a pointwise positivity: for every fixed \xi \in \mathbb{R}, the double integral is positive. Indeed, if not then F_\xi (\alpha, \beta):= \alpha^{1/4+i\xi} + \beta^{1/4+i\xi}- (\alpha+\beta-1)^{1/4+i\xi}-1=0 for a.e. pair (\alpha, \beta) \in \mathcal{R}. By continuity of F_\xi, in fact the identity should hold for all pairs (\alpha, \beta) \in \mathcal{R}. And if we differentiate w.r.t. \alpha for example, we have (1/4+i\xi)\alpha^{i\xi -3/4} = (\alpha+\beta-1)^{-3/4+i\xi}(1/4+i\xi), which is true only if i\xi=3/4, but \xi \in \mathbb{R}, so it is impossible.

Now to pass to a rather uniform lower bound we need to show that

since as a function of \xi this is continuous and pointwise positive and thus if (?) is also true then \lambda_{\mathcal{R}}>0.

For (?): If we expand the square, we get two kinds of terms: four of the form \ell^{1/4+i\xi}\overline{\ell^{1/4+i\xi}} = \ell^{1/2}, for \ell\in\{\alpha,\beta, \gamma, 1\}, and six mixed term that will vanish by non-stationary phase. Indeed these mixed terms are of the form either \pm 2 \ell^{1/4+i\xi} \overline{\kappa^{1/4+i\xi}} = 2 (\ell\kappa)^{1/4}e^{i \xi \log (\ell/\kappa)} or \pm \ell^{1/4}e^{i \xi \log (\ell)} for \ell, \kappa \in\{\alpha,\beta, \gamma\}. So these cross terms lead to oscillatory integrals of the form

with each of the phases \phi (The possible phases are \log\alpha, \log\beta, \log\gamma, \log(\alpha/\beta), \log(\alpha/\gamma), \log(\beta/\gamma).) having non vanishing gradient on the rectangle \mathcal{R}. And since for example e^{i\xi \phi(\alpha, \beta)} = \partial_\alpha (e^{i\xi \phi(\alpha, \beta)}) \frac{1}{i \xi\partial_\alpha \phi }, by integration by parts (each time integrate by parts in the appropriate variable), each of these terms will behave as \mathcal{O}(|\xi|^{-1}). Thus the mixed terms vanish as |\xi| \to \infty. In other words,

as |\xi| \to \infty, and so the claim follows.

To see the second claim (4.3), we will compare the integral kernel of D_\mu^{restr} at \mu>0 with the one at \mu=0, D_0^{restr}, and will apply the first part of the Lemma. Indeed

We are going to lower bound that product on the RHS using that all the frequencies are comparable on \mathcal{R} =[R_1,R_2]^2.

For functions supported in [M^*,\infty) with the integrand of D_0^{restr}(h_\mu) nonzero, means that at least one of \omega,\alpha\omega, \beta\omega, \gamma\omega are in [M^*,\infty). Also since we are restricted on the bounded rectangle \mathcal{R} =[R_1,R_2]^2 with 1\leq R_1\leq \alpha, \beta \leq R_2, 2R_1-1\leq \gamma\leq 2R_2-1 and so for M^* \geq C(\mathcal{R}) \mu, with C(\mathcal{R}):=\sup_{(\alpha, \beta) \in \mathcal{R} } \max\{1,\alpha,\beta,\gamma\}<\infty, we have:

This yields

Thus

where in the second inequality we applied the lower bound on the integral kernel computed just above, in the third inequality we applied the first part of the Proposition, (4.3), and then that h_\mu(z)=(z+\mu)g(z).

We only show (4.4), since the second claim follows immediately.

We are going to build a smooth cut off function, 0\leq \eta_M \leq 1 \in C^\infty((0,\infty)), for a rescaled \eta \in C^\infty([0,\infty))) with 0 \leq \eta \leq 1, \eta(r)=1 when r\geq 1 and \eta(r)=0 when r\leq 1/2. And so that the product

for some M^*>0. Given that we have this function then we consider the product \eta_M h_\mu for which the collisions in the Dirichlet from become

An application of (4.3) for \eta_M g yields

and using the computation above in (?) together with the fact that |y_1 + \dots + y_4|^2 \le 4 \sum_{j=1}^4|y_j|^2, the left-hand side is

where for the first line, we bounded the cutoff function to recreate the whole Dirichlet form. In the line below used that h_\mu(\ell\omega) = (\ell\omega + \mu)g(\ell\omega).

Now for the last line we use that 1\leq \ell \leq C(\mathcal{R}):=\sup_{(\alpha, \beta) \in \mathcal{R} } \max\{1,\alpha,\beta,\gamma\}<\infty to get that \omega+\mu \leq (\ell\omega+\mu)\leq C_{\mathcal{R}} (\omega+\mu). Thus it is bounded by

since \omega^2/(\omega+\mu)^2 \leq \mathcal{O}(1). Finally if our cutoff function is built so that it additionally satisfies

for some error term \mathcal{E}\text{rr}(M), we may take the cutoff term outside of the integral as it will be bounded uniformly in \omega. Therefore under this additional condition, we may conclude that

after changing the variable \ell\omega = \omega' and applying the mean value theorem: | \eta_M (\omega) - \eta_M(\ell\omega)|\leq \int_{\omega}^{\ell\omega}| \eta_M'(s)| \, {\rm d} s\leq \mathcal{E}\text{rr}(M) |\log (\ell)| \lesssim_{\mathcal{R}} \mathcal{E}\text{rr}(M) since \ell is bounded above and below on \mathcal{R}.

Before we build this cutoff, let us show how we conclude: Combining (?), (?), (?), (?) gives

which concludes the claim (4.4).

Finally, for the cutoff that does the job, take for M\geq M_*,

which is 0 whenever \omega \leq M \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{1/\varepsilon_M} and is 1 whenever \omega\geq M. We then choose \varepsilon_M so that we have precisely the desired support property (Proof): \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{1/\varepsilon_M} = M^*/M, equivalently \varepsilon_M = \log2/\log(M/M^*), which tends to 0 as M \to \infty, which in turn implies that \mathcal{E}\text{rr}(M) from (?) does as well. Before we finish let us comment that if one considers rather the standard cutoff with \varepsilon_M=1, then we would not get a uniform-in-\omega bound!

This operator is in fact Hilbert-Schmidt and thus compact. Indeed by explicit calculations similar to 4.2 show that the integral kernels of all three pieces of K_\mu, are bounded on the finite square [M_1,M_2]^2. Also in this square the norm on the flat L^2 and on the weighted L^2(\sqrt{\omega}) are equivalent.

Standard energy estimate on \| (I-\Pi) g_t\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega})} together with the Poincaré Inequality yields:

And then Grönwall implies the claim.

First we observe that the orthogonality to the \operatorname{Ker}(L_\mu) is propagated by the nonlinear flow. Indeed, if \psi \in \operatorname{Ker}(L_\mu), then \psi=n_\mu \phi where \phi is collisional invariant (by characterization of the kernel in Prop. 1.1). We compute

by conservation of the collision invariant \phi.

So, for as long as the solution g_t exists, it remains orthogonal to the kernel, if it does so initially.

Since g_t\perp \operatorname{Ker} L_\mu, the spectral gap and the nonlinear estimates from Proposition 3.1 give

Now if \|g_t\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega})} < \rho(\mu,\delta), with C_\mu\big(\rho(\mu,\delta)+ \rho(\mu,\delta)^2 \big)\leq \lambda_\mu-\delta, then

Now it remains to show that \|g_t\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega})} < \rho(\mu,\delta) for 0<t<T_{\max}, where T_{\max} is the maximal time of existence that we get from the local well-posedness, cf Theorem 3. First note that by the same Theorem 3 we have the blow-up criterion:

which we will use to conclude that the solution is extended uniquely to a global one.

By continuity of t\mapsto g_t, we may assume that there exists a first time after t=0, say t_*, so that \|g_{t_*}\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega})}=\rho(\mu,\delta). It has to be that t_*>0 by continuity and for all \tau<t_*, (?) holds. In particular as t \uparrow t_*:

which is a contradiction. Thus the solution g_t has to remain bounded for as long as it exists:

or in other words \sup_{0\leq t < T_{max}} \|g_{t}\|_{L^2(\sqrt{\omega})} < \rho(\mu,\delta). Finally from the standard blow-up criterion above, we conclude that T_{max}=\infty.

By Duhamel’s formula the convergence rate is then improved up to \lambda_\mu.