arxiv: v1 [math.ca] 14 Nov 2008

Transcription

1 FLAG PARAPRODUCTS arxiv: v [math.ca] 4 Nov 2008 CAMIL MUSCALU Abstract. We describe the theory of flag paraproducts and their relationship to the field of differential equations.. Short Introduction The main goal of the present paper is to describe the theory of a new class of multi-linear operators which we named paraproducts with flag singularities (or in short flag paraproducts ). These objects, which have been introduced in [] as being generalizations of the lacunary versions of the bi-est operators of [4], [5], [8], turned out in the meantime to have very natural connections to several problems in the theory of differential equations. While most of the article is expository, we also prove as a consequence of our discussion a new paradifferential Leibnitz rule, which may be of independent interest. In Section 2 we briefly recall the theory of classical paraproducts and then, in Section 3, we present the basic facts about the flag paraproducts. Sections 4, 5 and 6 are devoted to the description of the various connections of the flag paraproducts: first, to the AKNS systems of mathematical physics and scattering theory, then to what we called the grand Leibnitz rule for generic non-linearities and in the end to the theory of non-linear Schrödinger equations. The last section, Section 7, presents a setch of some of the main ideas needed to understand the boundedness properties of these flag paraproducts. Acnowledgements: The present article is based on the author s lecture at the 8th International Conference on Harmonic Analysis and PDE held in El Escorial - Madrid, in June We tae this opportunity to than the organizers once more for the invitation and for their warm hospitality during our stay in Spain. We are also grateful to the NSF for partially supporting this wor. 2. Classical Paraproducts If n, let us denote by T the n - linear singular integral operator given by T( f,..., f n )(x)= IR f (x t )... f n (x t n )K(t)dt, () n where K is a Calderón - Zygmund ernel [22]. Alternatively, T can also be written as T m ( f,..., f n )(x)= IR m(ξ) f (ξ )... f n (ξ n )e 2πix(ξ +...+ξ n ) dξ, (2) n where m(ξ) = K(ξ) is a classical multiplier, satisfying the well nown Marciniewicz - Mihlin - Hörmander condition

2 2 CAMIL MUSCALU α m(ξ) ξ α (3) for sufficiently many multi-indicesα. These operators play a fundamental role in analysis and PDEs and they are called paraproducts. 2 The following Coifman - Meyer theorem is a classical result in harmonic analysis [2], [8], [6]. Theorem 2.. For every m M(IR n ), the n-linear multiplier T m maps L p... L p n L p boundedly, as long as < p,..., p n, /p +...+/p n = /p and 0< p<. To recall some of the main ideas which appear in the proof of the theorem, let us assume that the ernel K(t) has the form K(t)= Φ (t )...Φ n (t n), (4) Z where eachφ j is an L - normalized bump function adapted to the interval [ 2, 2 ] 3. As a consequence, for any < p<, one has T m ( f,..., f n ) p = IR T m( f,..., f n )(x) f n+ (x)dx = ( f Φ IR )(x)...( f n Φ n )(x)( f n+ Φ n+ )(x)dx, (5) Z where f n+ is a well chosen function with f n+ p = (and /p+/p = ), while the family (Φ n+ ) is also as usual well chosen so that the above equality holds true. One should also recall the standard fact that since K is a Calderón - Zygmund ernel, one can always assume that at least two of the families (Φ j ) for j=,..., n+ are of Ψ type, in the sense that the Fourier transform of the corresponding th term is supported in [ 2 +, 2 ] [2, 2 + ], while all the others are of Φ type, in the sense that the Fourier transform of the corresponding th term is supported in [ 2 +, 2 + ]. For simplicity, we assume that in our case (Φ ) and (Φ 2 ) are of Ψ type 4. Then, (5) can be majorized by f Φ /2 IR (x) 2 f 2 Φ 2 (x) 2 /2 j,2 sup f j Φ j (x) dx We use the standard notation A B to denote the fact that there exists a constant C> 0 so that A C B. We also denote bym(ir n ) the class of all such multipliers. 2 It is easy to observe that in the particular case when m=, T m ( f,..., f n )(x) becomes the product of the n functions f (x)... f n (x). Also, as stated, the formulas are for functions of one variable, but the whole theory extends easily to an arbitrary euclidean space IR d. 3 In fact, modulo some technical issues, one can always assume that this is the case. 4 We will use this Ψ -Φ terminology throughout the paper.

3 FLAG PARAPRODUCTS 3 IR S f (x) S f 2 (x) M f j (x)dx where S is the Littlewood - Paley square function and M is the Hardy - Littlewood maximal function. Using now their boundedness properties [22], one can easily conclude that T m is always bounded from L p... L p n L p, as long as all the indices p,..., p n, p are strictly between and. The L case is significantly harder and it usually follows from the so called T - theorem of David and Journé [22]. Once the Banach case of the theorem has been understood, the quasi - Banach case follows from it by using Calderón - Zygmund decompositions for all the functions f,..., f n carefully [2], [8], [6]. j,2 3. Flag Paraproducts We start with the following concrete example T( f, g, h)(x)= IR 7 f (x α β )g(x α 2 β 2 γ )h(x α 3 γ 2 )K(α)K(β)K(γ)dαdβdγ (6) which is a prototype of a flag paraproduct. As one can see, there are now three ernels acting on our set of three functions. K(β) and K(γ) being ernels of two variables, act on the pairs ( f, g) and (g, h) respectively, while K(α) being a ernel of three variables acts on all three functions ( f, g, h) and all of them in a paraproduct manner. The point is that all these three actions happen simultaneously. Alternatively, one can rewrite (6) as T( f, g, h)(x)= IR m(ξ) f (ξ )ĝ(ξ 2 )ĥ(ξ 3 )e 2πix(ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 ) dξ 3 where m(ξ)=m (ξ,ξ 2 ) m (ξ 2,ξ 3 ) m (ξ,ξ 2,ξ 3 ) is now a product of three classical symbols, two of them inm(ir 2 ) and the third inm(ir 3 ). Generally, for n, we denote bym f lag (IR n ) the set of all symbols m given by arbitrary products of the form m(ξ) := m S (ξ S ) S {,...,n} where m S M(IR card(s ) ), the vectorξ S IR card(s ) is defined byξ S := (ξ i ) i S, whileξ IR n is the vectorξ := (ξ i ) n i=. Every such a symbol m M f lag(ir n ) defines naturally a generic flag paraproduct T m by the same formula (2). Of course, as usual, the goal is to prove Hölder type estimates for them 5. 5 A flag is an increasing sequence of subspaces of a vector space V: {0}=V 0 V... V = V. It is easy to see that a generic symbol inm f lag (IR n ) is singular along every possible flag of subspaces, spanned by the coordinate system of IR n. It is also interesting to note that in a completely different direction (see [9], [20]) singular integrals generated by flag ernels (this time) appear also naturally in the theory of several complex variables.

4 4 CAMIL MUSCALU Let us assume, as in the case of classical paraproducts briefly discussed before, that the ernels K(α), K(β), K(γ) are given by and In particular, the left hand side of (6) becomes T( f, g, h)(x)= K(α)= Φ (α )Φ (α 2 )Φ (α 3 ), K(β)= Φ 2 (β )Φ 2 (β 2 ) 2 K(γ)= Φ 3 (γ )Φ 3 (γ 2 ). 3, 2, 3 ( f Φ Φ 2 )(x) (g Φ Φ 2 Φ 3 )(x) (h Φ Φ 3 )(x) (7) and it should be clear by looing at this expression, that there are no easy Banach spaces estimates this time. Moreover, assuming that such estimates existed, using the Calderón - Zygmund decomposition as before to get the quasi - Banach estimates would not help either, because of the multi-parameter structure of the ernel K(α)K(β)K(γ). In other words, completely new ideas are necessary to understand the boundedness properties of these flag paraproducts. More on this later on, in the last section of the paper. We end the current one with the following result from []. Theorem 3.. Let a, b M(IR 2 ). Then, the 3 - linear operator T ab defined by the formula T ab ( f, f 2, f 3 )(x) := IR a(ξ,ξ 2 ) b(ξ 2,ξ 3 ) f (ξ ) f 2 (ξ 2 ) f 3 (ξ 3 )e 2πix(ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 ) dξ 3 maps L p L p 2 L p 3 L p boundedly, as long as < p, p 2, p 3 < and /p + /p 2 + /p 3 = /p. In addition, it has also been proven in [] that T ab maps also L L p L q L r, L p L L q L r, L p L q L L r and L L s L L s boundedly, as long as < p, q, s<, 0<r< and /p+/q = /r. The only L estimates that are not available, are those of the form L L L L, L L L s L s and L s L L L s. But this should be not surprising since such estimates are in general false, as one can easily see by taing f 2 to be identically equal to in the formula above. This operator T ab is the simplest flag paraproduct whose complexity goes beyond the one of a Coifman - Meyer paraproduct. However, as we remared in [], we believe that a similar result holds for generic flag paraproducts of arbitrary complexity, and we plan to address this general case in a future paper [2]. In the next three sections we will try to answer (at least partially) the question Why is it worthwhile to consider and study this new class of operators? by describing three distinct instances from the theory of differential equations, where they appear naturally.

5 FLAG PARAPRODUCTS 5 4. AKNSsystems Letλ IR,λ 0and consider the system of differential equations u = iλdu+nu (8) where u=[u,..., u n ] t is a vector valued function defined on the real line, D is a diagonal n n constant matrix with real and distinct entries d,..., d n and N = (a i j ) n i, j= is a matrix valued function defined also on the real line and having the property that a ii 0 for every i=,..., n. These systems play a fundamental role in mathematical physics and scattering theory and they are called AKNS systems []. The particular case n=2 is also nown to be deeply connected to the classical theory of Schrödinger operators [3], [4]. If N 0 it is easy to see that our system (8) becomes a union of independent single equations for =,..., n whose solutions are u = iλd u u λ (x)=c,λe iλd x and they are all L (IR)-functions. An important problem in the field is the following. Problem 4.. Prove (or disprove) that as long as N is a matrix whose entries are L 2 (IR) functions, then for almost every realλ, the corresponding solutions (u λ )n = are all bounded functions. 6 When N 0 one can use a simple variation of constants argument and write u (x) as u (x) := e iλd x v (x) for =,..., n. As a consequence, the column vector v=[v,..., v n ] t becomes the solution of the following system v = Wv (9) where the entries of W are given by w lm (x) := a lm (x)e iλ(d l d m )x. It is therefore enough to prove that the solutions of (9) are bounded as long as the entries a lm are square integrable. In the particular case when the matrix N is upper (or lower) triangular, the system (9) can be solved explicitly. A straightforward calculation shows that every single entry of the vector v(x) can be written as a finite sum of expressions of the form x <...<x <x f (x )... f (x )e iλ(# x +...+# x ) dx, (0) where f,..., f are among the entries of the matrix N, while #,..., # are various differences of type d l d m as before and satisfying the nondegeneracy condition 6 The conjecture is easy for L (IR) entries, holds true for L p (IR) entries when p<2, thans to the wor of Christ and Kiselev [3], [4] and is false for p>2, [2].

6 6 CAMIL MUSCALU j 2 # j 0 j= j for every j < j 2. Given the fact that all the entries of the matrix N are L 2 (IR) functions and using Plancherel, one can clearly conclude that the expression (0) is bounded for a. e.λ, once one proves the following inequality sup M ξ <...<ξ <M f (ξ )... f (ξ )e 2πix(# ξ +...+# ξ ) dξ A simpler, non-maximal variant of it would be (ξ )... f (ξ )e ξ <...<ξ f 2πix(# ξ +...+# ξ ) dξ L 2/ x L 2/ x f 2... f 2 <. () f 2... f 2 <. (2) The expression under the quasi-norm can be seen as a -linear multiplier with symbolχ ξ <...<ξ = χ ξ <ξ 2... χ ξ <ξ. Now, the lacunary variant of this multi-linear operator 7 is obtained by replacing every bi-linear Hilbert transform type symbolχ ξ j <ξ j [9] with a smoother one m(ξ j,ξ j ), in the classm(ir 2 ). The new resulted expression is clearly a flag paraproduct. 5. General Leibnitz rules The following inequality of Kato and Ponce [7] plays an important role in non-linear PDEs 8 D α ( f g) p D α f p g q + f p2 D α g q2 (3) for any < p i, q i, /p i + /q i = /p for i=, 2 and 0< p<. It is nown that the inequality holds for an arbitrary number of factors and it is also nown that it is in general false if one of the indices p i, q i is strictly smaller than one. Given (3), it is natural to as if one has similar estimates for more complex expressions, such as D α [D β ( f f 2 f 3 ) D γ ( f 4 f 5 )] p. (4) Clearly, one can first apply (3) for two factors and majorize (4) by D α+β ( f f 2 f 3 ) p D γ ( f 4 f 5 ) q + D β ( f f 2 f 3 ) p2 D α+γ ( f 4 f 5 ) q2 (5) and after that, one can apply (3) four more times for two and three factors, to obtain a final upper bound. However, this iterative procedure has a problem. It doesn t wor if one would 7 It is customary to do this, when one faces operators which have some type of modulation invariance. For instance, the lacunary version of the Carleson operator is the maximal Hibert transform, while the lacunary version of the bi-linear Hilbert transform is a paraproduct [9], [0]. The surprise we had in [4], [5] whith these operators is that even their lacunary versions hadn t been considered before. The reader more insterested in learning about these operators is refered to the recent paper [8]. 8 D α f (ξ) := ξ α for anyα>0

7 FLAG PARAPRODUCTS 7 lie to end up with products of terms involving (for instance) only L 2 norms, since then one has to have p = p 2 = 2/3 and q = q 2 = in (5), for which the corresponding (3) doesn t hold. The usual way to prove such paradifferential Leibnitz rules as the one in (3), is by reducing them to the Coifman - Meyer theorem mentioned before. Very briefly, the argument wors as follows. First, one uses a standard Littlewood - Paley decomposition [22] and writes both f and g as f= f Ψ and Z g= g Ψ where (Ψ ) is a well chosen family of Ψ type. In particular, one has f g= ( f Ψ )(g Ψ 2 )=, 2 Z I+ II+ III. 2 + << << := Then, one can write term II (for instance) as ( f Ψ )(g Ψ 2 )= ( f Ψ ) (g Ψ 2 ) := << 2 2 << 2 ( f Φ 2 )(g Ψ 2 )= ( f Φ )(g Ψ )= 2 [( f Φ )(g Ψ )] Ψ for a well chosen family ( Ψ ) of Ψ type, where (Φ ) is a Φ type family now. Denote by Π( f, g)= [( f Φ )(g Ψ )] Ψ. Then, we have D α (Π( f, g))= [( f Φ )(g Ψ )] D α Ψ := [( f Φ )(g Ψ )] 2 α Ψ = [( f Φ )(g 2 α Ψ )] Ψ := [( f Φ )(g D α Ψ )] Ψ =

8 8 CAMIL MUSCALU [( f Φ )(D α g Ψ )] Ψ := Π( f, D α g). Now, it is easy to see that bothπand Π are in fact bi-linear paraproducts whose symbols are and Φ (ξ ) Ψ (ξ 2 ) Ψ (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ ) Ψ (ξ 2 ) Ψ (ξ +ξ 2 ) respectively. Combining the above equality (betweenπand Π) with the Coifman - Meyer theorem and treating similarly the other two terms I and III, give the desired (3). What we ve learned from the calculations above, is that evey non-linearity of the form D α ( f g) can be mollified and written as a finite sum of various bi-linear paraproducts applied to either D α f and g or to f and D α g and this fact allows one to reduce inequality (3) to the Coifman - Meyer theorem on paraproducts. Let us consider now the non-linear expression D α (D β ( f g)h) which is the simplest non-linearity of the same complexity as the one in (4). Clearly, this non-linearity which we say is of complexity 2, can be seen as a composition of two non-linearities of complexity. In particular, this may suggest that one way to mollify it is by composing the mollified versions of its lower complexity counterparts, thus obtaining expressions of typeπ (Π (F, G), H) whereπ andπ are bi-linear paraproducts as before. This procedure reduces the problem of estimating D α (D β ( f g)h) p to the problem of estimating Π (Π (F, G), H) p, which can be done by applying the Coifman - Meyer theorem two times in a row. However, as we pointed out before, this point of view cannot handle the case when for instance both F and G are functions in an L +ǫ space forǫ> 0 a small number. To be able to understand completely these non-linearities of higher complexity one has to proceed differently. As we will see, the correct point of view is not to write D α (D β ( f g)h) as a sum of composition of paraproducts, but instead as a sum of flag paraproducts. Clearly, in order to achieve this, we need to understand two things. First, how to mollify an expression of typeπ(f, G)H and then, how to mollify D α (Π(F, G)H). Let us assume as before thatπ(f, G) is given by and decompose H as usual as As a consequence, we have Π(F, G)= << 2 (F Ψ )(G Ψ 2 ) H= H Ψ 3. 3

9 FLAG PARAPRODUCTS 9 Π(F, G)H= (F Ψ )(G Ψ 2 )(H Ψ 3 )= << 2 ; 3 << 2 ; 3 << 2 + << 2 ; << 2 << 3 := A+ B+C. It is not difficult to see that both A and B are simply 3-linear paraproducts, while C can be written as IR m(ξ,ξ 2,ξ 3 ) F(ξ )Ĝ(ξ 2 )Ĥ(ξ 3 )e 2πix(ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 ) dξ 3 where m(ξ,ξ 2,ξ 3 )= (ξ ) Ψ 2 (ξ 2 ) Ψ 3 (ξ 3 ) := << 2 << 3 Ψ 2 << 3 Φ 2 (ξ ) Ψ 2 (ξ 2 ) Ψ 3 (ξ 3 )= 2 << 3 Φ 2 (ξ ) Ψ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 3 (ξ 2 ) Ψ 3 (ξ 3 ) (6) for some well chosen family ( Φ 3 (ξ 2 )) 3 of Φ type. But then, one observes that (6) splits as Φ 2 (ξ ) Ψ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 3 (ξ 2 ) Ψ 3 (ξ 3 ) 2 3 since the only way in which Ψ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 3 (ξ 2 ) 0 is to have 2 << 3. This shows that the symbol of C can be written as a(ξ,ξ 2 )b(ξ 2,ξ 3 ) with both a and b inm(ir 2 ), which means that C is indeed a flag paraproduct. In order to understand now how to molify D α (Π(F, G)H), let us first rewrite (6) as 2 << 3 Φ 2 (ξ ) Ψ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 3 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Ψ 3 (ξ 3 ) Φ 3 (ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 ) (7) where as usual, Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ), Φ 3 (ξ +ξ 2 ) and Φ 3 (ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 ) have been inserted naturally into (6). The advantage of (7) is that the corresponding 3-linear operator can be easily written as [(F Φ 2 )(G Ψ 2 )] Φ 2 Φ 3 (F Ψ 3 ) Φ 3. (8) 3 2 << 3 Then, exactly as before one can write

10 0 CAMIL MUSCALU D α (Π(F, G)H)= [(F Φ 2 )(G Ψ 2 )] Φ 2 Φ 3 (F Ψ 3 ) Dα Φ 3 = 2 << 3 3 =...= [(F Φ 2 )(G Ψ 2 )] Φ 2 Φ 3 (D α F Ψ 3 ) Φ 3. 2 << 3 3 Now, this tri-linear operator has the symbol and this splits again as 2 << 3 Φ 2 (ξ ) Ψ 2 (ξ 2 ) Ψ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Ψ 3 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Ψ 3 (ξ 3 ) Ψ 3 (ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 )= 2 << 3 Φ 2 (ξ ) Ψ 2 (ξ 2 ) Ψ 3 (ξ 3 ) Ψ 3 (ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 )= 2 << 3 Φ 2 (ξ ) Ψ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 3 (ξ 2 ) Ψ 3 (ξ 3 ) Ψ 3 (ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 ) Φ 2 (ξ ) Ψ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 3 (ξ 2 ) Ψ 3 (ξ 3 ) Ψ 3 (ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 ) := 2 3 α(ξ,ξ 2 ) β(ξ,ξ 2,ξ 3 ) which is an element ofm f lag (IR 3 ). Since tri-linear operators of the form (8) give rise to model operators which have been understood in [], the above discussion proves the following grand Leibnitz rule for the simplest non-linearity of complexity 2 D α (D β ( f g)h) p D α+β f p g q h r + f p2 D α+β g q2 h r2 + D β f p3 g q2 D α h r3 + f p4 D β g q4 D α h r4 for every < p i, q i, r i < with /p i + /q i + /r i = /p for i=, 2, 3, 4.

11 FLAG PARAPRODUCTS 6. Flag Paraproducts and the non-linear Schrödinger equation In this section the goal is to briefly describe some recent study of Germain, Masmoudi and Shatah [5] on the non-linear Schrödinger equation. We are grateful to Pierre Germain who explained parts of this wor to us. In just a few words, the main tas of these three authors is to develop a general method for understanding the global existence for small initial data of various non-linear Schrödinger equations and systems of non-linear Schrödinger equations. Consider the following quadratic example t u+i u=u 2 (9) for (t, x) IR IR n 9. The Duhamel formula written on the Fourier side becomes û(t,ξ)=û 2 (ξ)e it ξ 2 + u t=2 = u 2 (20) t 2 e i(s t) ξ 2 û 2 (s,ξ)ds. Then, if one writes u=e it f, the above formula becomes f (t,ξ)= û 2 (ξ)+ t 2 e is( ξ 2 + η 2 + ξ η 2 ) f (s,η) f (s,ξ η)dsdη. (2) A significant part of the argument in [5] depends on how well one estimates the integral expression in (2). The idea would be to tae advantage of the oscillation of the term e isφ where Φ := ξ 2 + η 2 + ξ η 2. However,Φis too degenerate (i.e. Φ=0 wheneverξ=η or η=0) and as a consequence, the usual d { eisφ } argument doesn t wor. One needs a wiser ds iφ integration by parts, not only in the s variable but also in theηvariable. Denote by and Observe that P := η+ 2 ξ Z :=Φ+P ( η Φ). Z= ( η 2 + ξ η 2 ) which is identically equal to zero only whenξ=η=0. Alternatively, one has iz ( s+ P s η)e isφ = e isφ. In particular, the inverse Fourier transform of the integral term in (2) becomes 9 There are some technical reasons for which the authors prefered the initial time to be 2, related to the norm of the space X where the global existence taes place.

12 2 CAMIL MUSCALU F t 2 iz ( s+ P s η)e isφ f (s,ξ η) f (s,η)dsdη= I+ II. Using the fact that ξ η 2 /iz and η 2 /iz are both classical symbols inm(ir 2n ), Coifman - Meyer theorem proves that both I and II are smoothing expressions. To conclude, expressions of type t F e isφ m(ξ,η)ĝ(s,η)ĥ(s,ξ η)dsdη 2 for some m M(IR 2n ) appear naturally, and it is easy to see that if one eeps s fixed, the rest of the formula is just a bi-linear paraproduct. Coming bac to I, one of the expressions related to it (after the integration by parts) is of the form t F 2 e isφ m(ξ,η) s f (s,η) F(s,ξ η)dsdη (22) for a certain new function F. Since u=e is f it follows that f= e is u and then, by using the fact that u solves the equation, we deduce that s f= e is u 2 which means that e is η 2 e is η 2 η +η 2 =η e is η 2 s f (s,η)=e is η 2 û 2 (η)= η +η 2 =η û(η )û(η 2 )dη dη 2 = e is η 2 f (s,η )e is η 2 2 f (s,η 2 )dη dη 2 = e is τ 2 f (s,τ)e is η τ 2 f (s,η τ)dτ. Using this in (22) one obtains an expression of the form t F e is Φ m(ξ,η) f (s,τ) f (s,η τ) F(s,ξ η)dsdηdτ 2 where Φ := ξ 2 + ξ η 2 + τ 2 + η τ 2. Using now a similar integration by parts argument in all three variables this time one obtains as before expressions of type t F e is Φ m(ξ,η)m(ξ,η,τ) f (s,τ) f (s,η τ) F(s,ξ η)dsdηdτ. 2 The inner formula (for a fixed s) is of the form F m(ξ,η)m(ξ,η,τ)ĝ(τ) f (η τ)ĥ(ξ η)dsdηdτ and we claim that it is naturally related to the flag paraproducts we described earlier. Alternatively, one can rewrite it as

13 FLAG PARAPRODUCTS 3 IR 3 m(ξ,η)m(ξ,η,γ) f (η γ)ĝ(γ)ĥ(ξ η)e ixξ dξdηdγ. (23) Then, if we change variablesξ η :=ξ 3,η γ :=ξ andγ :=ξ 2 (23) becomes IR 3 m(ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3,ξ +ξ 2 )m(ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 2,ξ +ξ 2,ξ 2 ) f (ξ )ĝ(ξ 2 )ĥ(ξ 3 )e ix(ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 ) dξ := IR 3 m(ξ +ξ 2,ξ 3 ) m(ξ,ξ 2,ξ 3 ) f (ξ )ĝ(ξ 2 )ĥ(ξ 3 )e ix(ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 ) dξ (24) where m M(IR 2 ) while m M(IR 3 ). As it stands, (24) is not a flag paraproduct, but we will show that its analysis can be reduced to the analysis of a flag paraproduct. Assume for simplicity that we have m(ξ +ξ 2,ξ 3 )= Φ (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ 3 ) and m(ξ,ξ 2,ξ 3 )= Φ 2 (ξ ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ) 2 as before 0. Then, Clearly, we have two interesting cases: Case : 2 <<. m(ξ +ξ 2,ξ 3 ) m(ξ,ξ 2,ξ 3 )=, 2 Φ (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ 3 ) Φ 2 (ξ ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ). (25) Here, the only possibility is to have ( Φ (ξ 3 )) ofφtype in which case ( Φ (ξ +ξ 2 )) must be of Ψ type. Since (25) can also be written as 2 << Φ (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ 3 ) Φ 2 (ξ ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ) for a well chosen family ( Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 )) 2 we see that the only way in which Φ (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ + ξ 2 ) 0 is to have 2. But in this case, the multiplier belongs tom(ir 3 ) and we simply face a tri-linear paraproduct. Case 2: 2 >>. This time, the only possibility is to have ( Φ 2 (ξ 3 )) 2 of Φ type. Then, we can complete the expression in (25) as 0 Of course, everything is defined in IR n now, but the extensions to arbitrary euclidean spaces are straightforward

14 4 CAMIL MUSCALU 2 >> Φ 2 (ξ ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ) Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ 3 ) Φ (ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 ). (26) Now, for ( Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 )) 2 we have two options. Either it is of Ψ type, in which situation the only non-zero case would be when 2. But then, this means that we are again in a paraproduct setting. Or, ( Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 )) 2 is of Φ type but this can only happen when both ( Φ 2 (ξ )) 2 and ( Φ 2 (ξ 2 )) 2 are of Ψ type (and their oscillations cancel out). Since we also now that either ( Φ (ξ +ξ 2 )) or ( Φ (ξ 3 )) has to be of a Ψ type, it follows that (26) splits as Φ 2 (ξ ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ) Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ 3 ) Φ (ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 ). 2 But then, if we denote by T( f, g, h) the corresponding tri-linear operator, one has Λ T ( f, g, h, ) := T( f, g, h)(x)(x)dx= Φ 2 (ξ ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ) Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ 3 ) Φ (ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 ) 2 f (ξ )ĝ(ξ 2 )ĥ(ξ 3 ) ( ξ ξ 2 ξ 3 )dξ= Φ 2 ( ξ ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ) Φ 2 ( ξ ξ 2 ) Φ ( ξ ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ 3 ) Φ ( ξ ξ 2 ξ 3 ) 2 f (ξ )ĝ(ξ 2 )ĥ(ξ 3 ) ( ξ ξ 2 ξ 3 )dξ. Then, if we denote byλ := ξ ξ 2 ξ 3 the previous expression becomes Φ 2 (λ+ξ 2 +ξ 3 ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ) Φ 2 (λ+ξ 3 ) Φ (λ+ξ 3 ) Φ (ξ 3 ) Φ (λ) 2 f ( λ ξ 2 ξ 3 )ĝ(ξ 2 )ĥ(ξ 3 ) (λ)dξdλ := m(ξ 2,ξ 3,λ)m(ξ 3,λ)ĝ(ξ 2 )ĥ(ξ 3 ) (λ) f ( λ ξ 2 ξ 3 )dξdλ := Π f lag (g, h, )(x) f (x)dx. In conclusion, there exists a flag paraproductπ f lag so that Λ T ( f, g, h, )= Π f lag (g, h, )(x) f (x)dx

15 FLAG PARAPRODUCTS 5 which reduces the study of T to the study ofπ f lag. As far as we understood from [5], paraproducts appear in the study of the 3D quadratic NLS, while the flag paraproducts are in addition necessary to deal with the more delicate 2D quadratic NLS. 7. Remars about the proof of Theorem 3. Let us first recall that the symbol of the operator in question is a(ξ,ξ 2 )b(ξ 2,ξ 3 ). Split as before both a and b as and which means that a(ξ,ξ 2 )= Φ (ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) b(ξ 2,ξ 3 )= Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ) 2 a(ξ,ξ 2 )b(ξ 2,ξ 3 )= (ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 )., 2 Φ As usual, there are three cases. Either 2 or << 2 or 2 <<. The first one is easy, since it generates paraproducts and so we only need to deal with the second one, the third one being completly symmetric. The corresponding symbol is << 2 Φ (ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ). (27) Clearly, in this case we must have ( Φ 2 (ξ 2 )) 2 of Φ type. For reasons that will be clearer later on, we would have lied instead of (27) to face an expression of the form << 2 Φ (ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ). (28) Indeed, if we had to deal with (28) instead, we would have completed it as << 2 Φ (ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ). Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 ) (29) and then the 3-linear operator having this symbol could be coveniently rewritten as We should emphasize here that a similar problem appeared in the bi-est case [4], [5]. There, the solution came from the observation that inside a region of the form ξ ξ 2 << ξ 2 ξ 3, one simply has the equality χ ξ <ξ 2 χ ξ2 <ξ 3 =χ ξ <ξχξ 2 +ξ 2 2 <ξ 3. However, in our case a similar formula is not available unfortunately, since we are woring with generic multipliers. This is the main reason for which we will have to face later on not only discrete models of type (30) (which are the lacunary versions of the model operators in [4], [5]), but also the new ones described in (3).

16 6 CAMIL MUSCALU [( f Φ )(g Φ )] Φ Φ 2 (h Φ 2 ) Φ 2 2 << 2 which could be further discretized to become an average of model operators of the form where I B I ( f, g)= I /2 B I( f, g),φ I h,φ 2 I Φ 3 I, (30) J: J > I J /2 f,φ J g,φ 2 J Φ 3 J, whileφ i I andφi J are all L2 - normalized bump functions, adapted to dyadic intervals I and J respectively, which are either of Φ orψtype [] 2. Our next goal is to explain how can one bring the original (27) symbol to its better variant (28). The idea is that in the case when << 2, then Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) becomes very close to Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ), sinceξ must be in the support of Φ (ξ ), which lives at a much smaller scale. Therefore, using a Taylor decomposition, one can write M 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 )= Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 )+ Φ ( ξ )+ Φ ( ξ ) 2 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ ( ξ ) M +R M (ξ,ξ 2 ).! 2! M! Clearly, the 0th term gives rise to a model operator similar to the one before. Fix now 0<l M and consider an intermediate term Φ l 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) ( ξ l! ) l. If we insert it into (27) the corresponding multiplier becomes l Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) (ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) ( ξ ) l! << 2 Φ l Φ 2 (ξ 3 )= l 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) Φ ( ξ ) l Φ 2 (ξ 3 )= l! #=000 2 = +# #=000 2 = +# #=000 2 = +# #=000 2 #l Φ (ξ )( ξ ) l Φ (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 l (ξ +ξ 2 ) l! Φ 2 (ξ 3 ) := 2 l 2 2l Φ,l(ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) Φ 2,l(ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 )= 2 = +# Φ,l(ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) Φ 2,l(ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ). But then, the inner expression (for a fixed #) generates model operators of the form (see []) 2 In fact, at least two of the families (Φ i I ) I, i=, 2, 3 and at least two of the families (Φ i J ) J, i=, 2, 3 are of a Ψ type.

17 FLAG PARAPRODUCTS 7 where I B # I ( f, g)= I /2 B# I ( f, g),φ I h,φ2 I Φ3 I (3) J: J =2 # I J /2 f,φ J g,φ2 J Φ3 J. Finally, it is not difficult to see that the rest operator (the one which corresponds to R M (ξ,ξ 2 )) can be written as #=000 2 #M T # ( f, g, h) where the symbol m # of the operator T # satisfies an estimate of the type α m # (ξ) 2 # α ξ α for many multi-indicesα. As a consequence, Coifman - Meyer theorem implies that each T # is bounded with a bound of type O(2 00# ), which is acceptable if we pic M large enough. All of these show that one needs to understand the model operators (30) and (3), in order to prove our theorem. The 4-linear form associated to (30) can be written as where The above formula is of type I J Λ( f, g, h, )= I /2 B I( f, g),φ I h,φ2 I,Φ3 I = J /2 f,φ J g,φ2 J B J(h, ),Φ 3 J B J (h, ) := J J h,φ 2 I,Φ3 I Φ I. I: I < J J /2 a Ja 2 Ja 3 J where J is an arbitray collection of dyadic intervals and such expressions can be estimated by un upper bound of the form (see []) 3 [size J ((a i J ) J)] θ i [energy J ((a i J ) J)] θ i (32) i=

18 8 CAMIL MUSCALU for any 0 θ,θ 2,θ 3 < so thatθ +θ 2 +θ 3 = with the implicit constants depending on these theta parameters. The definitions of these sizes and energies are as follows: size J ((a i J ) a i J J) := sup J J J /2 if (a i J ) J is of Φ type (meaning that the corresponding implicitφ i J functions are of Φ type ), and size J ((a i J ) /2 J) := sup a i J 2 J J J χ J J J J;J J, if (a i J ) J is of Ψ type. Also, the energy is defined by energy J ((a i J ) J) := sup n Z sup D 2 n ( J ) wheredeither ranges over those collections of disjoint dyadic intervals J J for which a i J /2 2n J in the Φ case, or it ranges over the collection of disjoint dyadic intervals J Jhaving the property that /2 a i J 2 J χ J J 2 n, J J;J J in the Ψ case. In the case of ( f,φ J ) J or ( g,φ 2 J ) J sequences, there are ways to estimate further these sizes and energies, either by certain averages of f and g or by the L -norms of f and g []. The case of ( B J (h, ),Φ 3 J ) J is more complicated, since the inner function depends on the interval J. The main observation here (called the bi-est tric in [4], [5]) is that this dependence can actually be factored out. More precisely, assume that one wants to estimate the size of such a sequence, and that the suppremum is attained for an interval J 0. The size then becomes J 0 B J (h, ),Φ3 J ) 2 J J J;J J 0 J D χ J /2,. (33) From the definition of B J (h, ) we see that terms of type Φ I,Φ3 J for I < J are implicit in the above expression. By using Plancherel, one then sees that one must haveω 3 J ω I for such a term to be nonzero. Denote now byi 0 the set of all dyadic intervals I I for which there exists J J 0 so thatω 3 J ω 3 I. We then observe that 3 These omega intervals are the frequency intervals which support the Fourier transform of the corresponding functions.

19 FLAG PARAPRODUCTS 9 for any J J 0 where B J (h, ),Φ 3 J = B I 0 (h, ),Φ 3 J B I0 (h, ) := I /2 h,φ2 I,Φ3 I Φ I. I I 0 The reason for this is that if a pair of type Φ I,Φ3 J appears for which one has the opposite inclusionω I ω 3 J, for some I I 0 then, by the definition ofi 0 there exists another interval J J 0 so thatω 3 J ω I ω 3 J. But then,ω3 J andω 3 J would be one strictly inside the other, which contradicts the frequency structure of the (ω 3 J ) J intervals. This means that (33) equals to /2 B I0 (h, ),Φ3 J J 0 ) 2 χ J J J J;J J 0, which can be estimated in terms of a certain average of B I0 (h, ), which itself after a duality argument can be further estimated by using again this time a local variant of the general upper bound (32). And then, a similar reasoning (based on the bi-est tric ) helps to understand the energies. After that, to estimate the other 4-linear formλ # corresponding to (3), one applies again the same generic estimate (32) but this time the biest tric is no longer effective and some other ad hoc arguments are necessary. The point here is that all these forms can indeed be estimated with upper bounds which are independent on #, which maes the whole sum over # convergent in the end. For more details, see the original paper []. We would lie to end the article with the observation that the flag paraproduct which naturally appears in the study of the 2D quadratic NLS satisfies the same L p estimates as the operator T ab in Theorem 3.. More precisely, we have Theorem 7.. The flag paraproduct T( f, f 2, f 3 ) defined by T( f, f 2, f 3 )(x) := IR a(ξ,ξ 2 )b(ξ,ξ 2,ξ 3 ) f (ξ ) f 2 (ξ 2 ) f 3 (ξ 3 )e 2πix(ξ +ξ 2 +ξ 3 ) dξ 3 maps L p L p 2 L p 3 L p boundedly, for every < p, p 2, p 3 < with /p +/p 2 + p 3 = /p. Proof Before starting the actual proof, we should mention that the IR d variant of the theorem holds also true and that this extension to euclidean spaces of arbitrary dimension is really straightforward. We shall describe the argument in the one dimensional case, to be consistent with the rest of the paper. The main point is to simply realize that the discrete model operators studied in [] are enough to cover this case also. Let us assume that the symbols a(ξ,ξ 2 ) and b(ξ,ξ 2,ξ 3 ) are given by a(ξ,ξ 2 )= Φ (ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) and b(ξ,ξ 2,ξ 3 )= Φ 2 (ξ ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ) 2

20 20 CAMIL MUSCALU as usual 4. As a consequence, we have a(ξ,ξ 2 )b(ξ,ξ 2,ξ 3 )= (ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ). (34), 2 Φ The are two cases: Case : 2 <<. This case is simple since we must either have 2 (and the corresponding expression generates a classical paraproduct) or both ( Φ (ξ )) and ( Φ (ξ 2 )) are of Φ type which is impossible. Case 2: << 2. In this case we have that both ( Φ 2 (ξ )) 2 and ( Φ 2 (ξ 2 )) 2 are of Φ type which implies in particular that ( Φ 2 (ξ 3 )) 2 must be of Ψ type. We then rewrite (34) as a(ξ,ξ 2 )b(ξ,ξ 2,ξ 3 )= << 2 Φ (ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ). (35) As in the a(ξ,ξ 2 )b(ξ 2,ξ 3 ) case we would have lied instead of (35) to face an expression of type << 2 Φ (ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ). (36) Indeed, as before, if we faced this instead, we would have rewritten it as (ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 << 2 Φ (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ 2 3) (37) and this, as we have seen, generates discrete models of type (30) which have been understood in []. We show now how can one transform (35) into an expression closer to (36). The idea is once again based on using a careful Taylor decomposition, this time for the functions Φ 2 (ξ ) and Φ 2 (ξ 2 ). We write M 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ )= Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 )+ Φ ( ξ 2 )+ Φ ( ξ 2 ) 2 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ ( ξ 2 ) M +R M (ξ,ξ 2 )! 2! M! and similarly M 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 2 )= Φ 2 (ξ +ξ 2 )+ Φ ( ξ )+ Φ ( ξ ) 2 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ ( ξ ) M + R M (ξ,ξ 2 ).! 2! M! case. 4 Again, as we pointed out earlier, modulo some minor technical issues, one can always assume that this is the

21 FLAG PARAPRODUCTS 2 Now, if we insert these two formulae into (35), we obtain (most of the time) expressions whose general terms are of type 2 2l l 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ (ξ ) Φ (ξ 2 ) Φ ( ξ 2 ) l Φ l 2 (ξ +ξ 2 ) ( ξ ) l Φ 2 (ξ 3 ) := l! l! 2 2 l Φ (ξ )( ξ ) l Φ (ξ 2 )( ξ 2 ) l Φ 2,l(ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2, l (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ) := 2 l 2 l 2 2l 2 2 l Φ, l (ξ ) Φ,l(ξ 2 ) Φ 2,l, l (ξ +ξ 2 ) Φ 2 (ξ 3 ) for 0 l, l M. Since << 2, we can assume as before that 2 = + #, with # greater or equal than (say) 000. In particular, if at least one of l, l is strictly bigger than zero, the corresponding operator can be written as #=000 2 #(l+ l) T l, l #. Now, as we pointed out before, the analysis of each T l, l # can be reduced to the analysis of the model operators (3) which have been understood in []. They are all bounded, with upper bounds which are uniform in # and this allows one to simply sum the above implicit geometric sum. In the case when both l and l are equal to zero, then the corresponding symbol is precisely of the form (36) and the operator generated by it can be reduced (as we already mentioned) to the model operators (30) of []. Finally, the operators whose symbols are obtained when at least one of R M (ξ,ξ 2 ) or R M (ξ,ξ 2 ) enters the picture, can be all estimated by the Coifman - Meyer theorem. References [] Ablowitz M., Segur H., Solitons and the inverse scattering transform, SIAM Studies in Mathematics, [98]. [2] Coifman R. R., Meyer, Y., Opérateurs multilinéaire, Hermann, Paris, [99]. [3] Christ M., Kiselev A., WKB asymptotic behaviour of almost all generalized eigenfunctions of one dimensional Schrödinger operators, J. Funct. Anal., vol. 79, , [200]. [4] Christ M., Kiselev A., Maximal functions associated to filtrations, J. Funct. Anal., vol. 79, , [200]. [5] Germain P., Masmoudi N., Shatah J., Global solutions for 3D quadratic Schrödinger equations, preprint [2008]. [6] Grafaos L., Torres R., Multi-linear Calderón-Zygmund theory, Adv. Math., vol. 65, 24-64, [2002]. [7] Kato T., Ponce G., Commutator estimates and the Euler and Navier-Stoes equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., vol. 4, , [988]. [8] Kenig C., Stein E., Multilinear estimates and fractional integration, Math. Res. Lett., vol. 6, -5, [999]. [9] Lacey M., Thiele C., L p estimates on the bilinear Hilbert transform for 2< p<, Ann. of Math., vol. 46, pp , [997]. [0] Lacey M., Thiele C., On Calderon s conjecture, Ann. of Math., vol. 49, pp , [999]. [] Muscalu C., Paraproducts with flag singularities I. A case study, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, vol , [2007]. [2] Muscalu C., Paraproducts with flag singularities II. The general case, in preparation. [3] Muscalu C., Tao T., Thiele C., Multilinear operators given by singular symbols, J. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 5, , [2002].

22 22 CAMIL MUSCALU [4] Muscalu C., Tao T., Thiele C., L p estimates for the biest I. The Walsh case, Math. Ann., vol. 329, , [2004]. [5] Muscalu C., Tao T., Thiele C., L p estimates for the biest II. The Fourier case, Math. Ann., vol. 329, , [2004]. [6] Muscalu C., Pipher J., Tao T., Thiele C., Bi-parameter paraproducts, Acta Math., vol. 93, , [2004]. [7] Muscalu C., Pipher J., Tao T., Thiele C., Multi-parameter paraproducts, Revista Mat. Iberoamericana, vol 22, , [2006]. [8] Muscalu C., Tao T., Thiele C., Multi-linear multipliers associated to simplexes of arbitrary length, preprint [2007]. [9] Nagel A., Ricci F., Stein E., Singular integrals with flag ernels on quadratic CR manifolds, J. Funct. Anal.. vol. 8, 29-8, [200]. [20] Nagel A., Stein E., The b - complex on decoupled boundaries inc n, Ann. of Math. (2), vol. 64, , [2006]. [2] Simon B., Bounded eigenfunctions and absolutely continuous spectra for one-dimensional Schrödinger operators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 24, , [996]. [22] Stein E., Harmonic analysis: real-variable methods, orthogonality and oscillatory integrals, Princeton University Press, [993]. Department of Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY address: camil@math.cornell.edu