Recovery of coefficients in a Schrödinger system with nonlinear coupling

Using Theorem 2.3 in Chapter 4 of [LM1972], we have that there exists v_{2} \in H^{m+2,m+2}(Q) such that

for integers 0 \leq k < m + (3/2) and that g = v_{2}|_{\Sigma}. The same theorem in tandem with the Bounded Inverse Theorem (e.g. Theorem 8.34 in [RR2004]) implies the inequality

for some constant C = C(\Omega, T) > 0. We also have from Proposition 2.3 in Chapter 4 of [LM1972] the fact that

for some constant C = C(\Omega, T) > 0. Since p \in W^{m,\infty}(Q), we have that -(i\partial_{t} + \Delta + p)v_{2} \in H^{m}(Q). We will now consider the solution v_{1}(x,t) to

and show that v \coloneqq v_{1} + v_{2} satisfies the estimate in (2.2).
From Lemma 2.1, we know that (Proof) has a unique solution in L^{\infty}(0, T; L^{2}(\Omega)) satisfying the estimate

for some constant C = C\left(\Omega, T, \left\Vert p \right\Vert_{W^{1,\infty}(Q)}\right) > 0 provided that F(\cdot,0) = 0. In fact, recall that we have assumed \partial^{k}_{t}h(\cdot, 0) = 0 for integers 0 \leq k \leq m. So, it follows from (Proof) that \partial^{k}_{t}F(\cdot,0) = 0 for integers 0 \leq k \leq m.
We will now show that

where \beta is a multi-index and C = C(\Omega, T, \left\Vert p \right\Vert_{W^{m,\infty}(Q)}) > 0. Indeed, (Proof) holds when \alpha + |\beta| = 0 by the estimate in (Proof) and the initial data in (Proof). Seeking to apply strong induction, suppose that the statements in (Proof) hold for 0 \leq \alpha + |\beta| \leq m-1. By differentiating (Proof) and rearranging terms, we have that when \alpha + |\beta| = m,

Thus, the induction hypothesis implies that \partial^{\alpha}_{t}\partial^{\beta}_{x}v_{1}(\cdot, 0) = 0. Again considering the equation obtained by differentiating (Proof), we have (with \alpha + |\beta| = m) that

The claimed estimate in (Proof) now follows from (Proof) and the induction hypothesis. We conclude that

for a constant C = C(\Omega, T, \Vert p \Vert_{W^{m,\infty}(Q)}) > 0, which combined with (Proof) yields (2.2). The fact that \partial^{k}_{t}v(\cdot, 0) = 0 for integers 0 \leq k \leq m is a result of (Proof) and (Proof).

The proof relies on a standard argument based on the Contraction Mapping Principle. We refer the readers to [AZ2025, LLZ2023, LUY2024, LOST2022] for related examples.

Step 1 (A Fixed Point Equation).
We seek to show that there is a solution of the form (u_{1}, u_{2}) \coloneqq (\tilde{u}_{1} + w_{1}, \tilde{u}_{2} + w_{2}) where \tilde{u}_{j} satisfies

and w_{j} satisfies

For g_{j} \in \mathcal{H}^{9/2,9/2}(\Sigma) (recall that this space was defined in (?)), Theorem 2.2 (with m = 3) implies that (Proof) has a unique solution in H^{3}(Q) satisfying the estimate

for a constant C = C\left(\Omega, T, \Vert p_{j} \Vert_{W^{3,\infty}(Q)}\right) > 0. Moreover, we have that

Suppose also that

With reference to the source term in (Proof), one then has that

and as a result, we can apply the results of Theorem 2.2 to (Proof). In particular, we have the estimate

for a constant C = C\left(\Omega, T, \Vert p_{j} \Vert_{W^{3,\infty}(Q)}\right) > 0.
For r > 0, define the neighborhood

For some g_{j} \in \mathcal{B}_{r}(0) that is fixed and w_{j} \in \mathcal{C}_{r}(0) (where r > 0 will be fixed later), consider the unique solution to (Proof), which we denote by S_{j}(u_{1}, u_{2}) \coloneqq S(f_{j}(u_{1},u_{2})) \in H^{3}(Q). We seek to find a fixed point (w_{1},w_{2}) such that

We will show that (Proof) has a fixed point by showing that the solution map

is a contraction map on (\mathcal{C}_{r}(0))^{2} when r > 0 is sufficiently small and g_{j} \in \mathcal{B}_{r}(0).

Step 2 (Closure of the Solution Map).
We begin by checking that if (g_{1},g_{2}) \in (\mathcal{B}_{r}(0))^{2} and (w_{1}, w_{2})\in (\mathcal{C}_{r}(0))^{2} for r > 0 sufficiently small, then S(f_{1},f_{2}) \in (\mathcal{C}_{r}(0))^{2}. Indeed, as a result of the estimates in (Proof) and (Proof) along with the fact that H^{3}(Q) is a Banach algebra, we have

for an appropriate choice of r \in (0, 1).

Step 3 (Verifying the Contraction Mapping Property).
Now, we will show that if r \in (0, 1) is sufficiently small and

then there exists C \in (0, 1) such that

When we apply Theorem 2.2 to (Proof), we obtain the following estimate for each component of the solution map:

To further develop the estimate in (Proof), we recall the definition of f_{j} in (Proof) and note the following for the coupled source term:

In (Proof), we used the Banach algebra property of H^{3}(Q) and the assumptions in (Proof). Now, by adding and subtracting (\tilde{u}_{\iota(j)} + w_{\iota(j)})(\overline{\tilde{u}_{\iota(j)} + W_{\iota(j)}}) inside the last term on the right-hand side of (Proof), one can show that

Taking r \in (0, 1) sufficiently small and similarly estimating the terms in (Proof) resulting from the uncoupled source term in (Proof), the claimed inequality in (Proof) follows.
So, the Contraction Mapping Principle implies that there is a unique fixed point (w_{1}, w_{2}) \in (\mathcal{C}_{r}(0))^{2} satisfying (Proof) and thus a unique solution of the form (u_{1}, u_{2}) \coloneqq (\tilde{u}_{1} + w_{1}, \tilde{u}_{2} + w_{2}) to (?). From equations (Proof) and (Proof) regarding the vanishing derivatives of \tilde{u}_{j} and w_{j}, we have the fact that \partial^{k}_{t}u_{j}(\cdot, 0) = 0 for 0 \leq k \leq 3.

Step 4 (Proof of the Stability Estimate).
From the first inequality in (Proof) and the assumptions that

we can write

After taking r \in (0, 1) sufficiently small and applying (Proof) to estimate \Vert \tilde{u}_{j} \Vert_{H^{3}(Q)}, equation (Proof) becomes

Now, the fact that u_{j} \coloneqq \tilde{u}_{j} + w_{j} yields the stability estimate in (2.3). We see from Theorem 2.2 and the use of the Banach algebra property to absorb contributions from \left\Vert q_{j} \right\Vert_{H^{3}(Q)}, \left\Vert \tilde{q}_{j} \right\Vert_{H^{3}(Q)} that the constants C, r depend on the parameters \Omega, T, \left\Vert p_{j} \right\Vert_{W^{3,\infty}(Q)}, \left\Vert q_{j} \right\Vert_{H^{3}(Q)}, \left\Vert \tilde{q}_{j} \right\Vert_{H^{3}(Q)}.

From (?)-(?), we have that if (3.1) holds, then R_{j,k} satisfies

This a result of the fact that

which can be checked by a direct calculation. Since q_{j,k}, \tilde{q}_{j,k}, u_{j,k}, \mathcal{L}_{j} \in H^{3}(Q), the Banach algebra property of H^{3}(Q) implies that the source term in (Proof) belongs to H^{3}(Q). In view of (?) and (3.1), (Proof) has a unique solution in H^{3}(Q) by Theorem 2.2.
The calculation leading to (3.1) makes use of the fact that u_{j,k} - \mathcal{L}_{j} satisfies (?) but with trivial initial and boundary data. Then, for example in the first source term in (Proof), we can add and subtract terms to obtain

The estimates from Theorem 2.2-2.3 say that

for a constant C = C\left(\Omega, T, \left\Vert p_{j} \right\Vert_{W^{3,\infty}(Q)}, M_{j}\right) > 0. The Banach algebra property of H^{3}(Q) was applied to obtain the last inequality in (Proof). We also used (?) to absorb the contribution of the nonlinear coefficient q_{j,k} into the constant. If we use (Proof) to estimate the right-hand side of (Proof) and also treat the second source term in (Proof) similarly, we obtain the inequality in (3.1).

The function \chi(x)w^{(1,2,3)}_{j}(x,t) satisfies (?) with source term

Let us now multiply both sides of the equation satisfied by \chi w^{(1,2,3)}_{j} by \overline{v_{0,j}} and integrate both sides over \Omega \times (0, T^{*}). Integrating by parts on the resulting left-hand side, we obtain

The boundary integral in (Proof) vanishes since w^{(1,2,3)}_{j} \equiv 0 on \mathcal{O}^{(j)} \times (0, T^{*}) (owing to the fact that q_{j,1}-q_{j,2} \equiv \tilde{q}_{j,1} - \tilde{q}_{j,2} \equiv 0 on \mathcal{O}^{(j)} \times (0, T^{*}) from the assumption in (?)).
Again integrating by parts, note that

The boundary integral in (Proof) vanishes again using the fact that w^{(1,2,3)}_{j} \equiv 0 on \mathcal{O}^{(j)} \times (0, T^{*}). Then, since w^{(1,2,3)}_{j}(\cdot,0) \equiv 0 and v_{0,j}(\cdot,T^{*}) \equiv 0, (Proof) becomes

The right-hand side of (Proof) vanishes by (?) assuming that p_{j} is real-valued. As a result, we obtain the identity in (4.1). We point out that the calculations in (Proof)-(Proof) are justified since we had taken \mathcal{S}^{(1,2,3)}_{j}, \tilde{\mathcal{S}}^{(1,2,3)}_{j}, w^{(1,2,3)}_{j}, v_{0,j} \in H^{3}(Q).

Our primary tool will be the estimate of \Vert \theta_{h} \Vert_{W^{j,\infty}(\mathbb{R})} provided in (?).

(I) We first consider a_{0} = \theta_{h}(t) (whence a_{1} = -(1/2)|\omega|^{-2}(\partial_{t}\theta_{h})(x \cdot \omega) from (?)). In this case, when k' = 0 or 1, the amplitude estimate in (4.2) follows directly from (?).

For 2 \leq k' \leq N, it follows by (?) and induction that the highest order derivative of p arises from \Delta^{k'-2}p while the highest order (nonzero) derivative of \theta_{h} arises from (i\partial_{t})^{k'-1}a_{1}. Indeed, if this is true for some 2 \leq k' \leq N, (?) shows that in a_{k' + 1}, the highest order derivative of p is due to \Delta a_{k'-1}, thus \Delta\left(\Delta \right)^{k'-2}p. Likewise, the highest order (nonzero) derivative of \theta_{h} in a_{k' + 1} is due to (i\partial_{t})a_{k'-1}, thus (i\partial_{t})^{k'}a_{1}.
Since h \in (0, \min\{1, T^{*}/4\}), it follows from (?) and the preceding derivative count that for 0 \leq k' \leq N:

for 0 \leq \alpha + |\beta| \leq m and constants C = C\left(\Omega, \Vert p \Vert_{W^{2(N-2),\infty}(Q)}\right) > 0, \tilde{C} = \tilde{C}\left(\Omega, \Vert p \Vert_{W^{2(N-2) + m,\infty}(Q)}\right) > 0. This completes the proofs of the amplitude estimates in (4.2)-(4.2).
To prove the remainder estimates in (4.2)-(4.2), we apply Lemma 2.1 and Theorem 2.2 to (?), which (when combined with the Sobolev Embedding Theorem) yield the inequalities

for some constant C = C\left(\Omega, T, \left\Vert p \right\Vert_{W^{m,\infty}(Q)} \right) > 0. We point that (?) ensured that it was possible to apply Theorem 2.2 to (?).
By substituting (?) (with k' = N) into \Vert e^{i\Phi}(i\partial_{t} + \Delta + p)a_{N} \Vert_{H^{1}(0, T; L^{2}(\Omega))}, we see that the highest order derivative of p arises from \partial_{t}(\Delta a_{N}) (that is, \partial_{t}\Delta(\Delta^{N - 2}p)) while the highest order (nonzero) derivative of \theta_{h} arises from \partial_{t}\left(i\partial_{t}\left(i\partial_{t}\right)^{N-1}a_{1} \right). We also obtain a factor of \rho^{2} from \partial_{t}\left(e^{i\Phi} \right).
Likewise, in \Vert e^{i\Phi}(i\partial_{t} + \Delta + p)a_{N} \Vert_{H^{m}(Q)}, the highest order derivative of p arises from \partial^{\alpha}_{t}\partial^{\beta}_{x}(\Delta a_{N})\; (\alpha + |\beta| = m) (thus from \partial^{\alpha}_{t}\partial^{\beta}_{x}\Delta(\Delta^{N - 2}p)\; (\alpha + |\beta| = m)) while the highest order (nonzero) derivative of \theta_{h} arises from \partial^{m}_{t}\left(i\partial_{t}\left(i\partial_{t}\right)^{N-1}a_{1} \right). We obtain a factor of \rho^{2m} from \partial^{m}_{t}\left(e^{\Phi}\right).
These considerations, along with (?) and the fact that h \in (0, \min\{1, T^{*}/4\}), yield the estimates

for constants C = C\left(\Omega, T, \Vert p \Vert_{W^{2N - 1, \infty}(Q)}\right) > 0, \tilde{C} = \tilde{C}\left(\Omega, T, \Vert p \Vert_{W^{2(N-1) + m, \infty}(Q)} \right) > 0.

(II) The proofs of (4.2)-(4.2) when a_{0} = \theta_{h}(t)e^{i(t\tau + x \cdot \xi)} are similar except that we obtain factors of \left<\tau, \xi \right> from the exponential term. In what follows, we discuss the proofs of the \Vert r \Vert_{L^{\infty}(Q)} and \Vert r \Vert_{H^{m}(Q)} estimates in (4.2)-(4.2).

Let us apply (?) (with k' = N in the case of a_{0} = \theta_{h}(t)e^{i(t\tau + x \cdot \xi)}) in the first and second inequalities listed in (?). We observe that we obtain factors of \rho^{2}, \rho^{2m} due to \partial_{t}\left(e^{i\Phi}\right), \partial^{m}_{t}\left(e^{i\Phi}\right) in the first and second inequalities from (?) respectively. In \Vert e^{i\Phi}(i\partial_{t} + \Delta + p)a_{N} \Vert_{H^{1}(0, T; L^{2}(\Omega))}, we have that the highest order derivative of p arises from \partial_{t}(\Delta a_{N}) (thus from \partial_{t}\Delta(\Delta^{N-1}p) by inductively applying (?)). The highest order derivative of a_{0} with respect to t arises from \partial_{t}(i\partial_{t} a_{N}) (thus from \partial_{t}(\left(i\partial_{t}\right)^{N+1} a_{0})) while the highest order derivative of x arises from \Delta a_{N} (thus from \Delta^{N+1} a_{0}).
In \Vert e^{i\Phi}(i\partial_{t} + \Delta + p)a_{N} \Vert_{H^{m}(Q)}, the highest order derivative of p arises from \partial^{\alpha}_{t}\partial^{\beta}_{x}\Delta a_{N}\; (\alpha + |\beta| = m) (thus from \partial^{\alpha}_{t}\partial^{\beta}_{x}\Delta(\Delta^{N - 1}p)\; (\alpha + |\beta| = m)). The highest order derivative of a_{0} with respect to t arises from \partial^{m}_{t}(i\partial_{t} a_{N}) (thus from \partial^{m}_{t}(\left(i\partial_{t}\right)^{N+1} a_{0})) while the highest order derivative with respect to x arises from \partial^{\beta}_{x}\Delta a_{N}\; (|\beta| = m) (thus from \partial^{\beta}_{x}\Delta^{N+1} a_{0}\; (|\beta| = m)).
Now, by majorizing each factor of \tau or \xi that appears in these derivatives by \left< \tau, \xi \right> and invoking (?), we can develop the estimates in (?) into

for constants C = C\left(\Omega, T, \Vert p \Vert_{W^{2N + 1,\infty}(Q)} \right) > 0 and \tilde{C} = \tilde{C}\left(\Omega, T, \Vert p \Vert_{W^{2N + m,\infty}(Q)} \right).