ON THE POSITIVITY OF PROPAGATOR DIFFERENCES

Transcription

1 ON THE POSTVTY OF PROPAGATOR DFFERENCES ANDRÁS VASY Astract We discuss positivity properties of certain distinguished propagators, ie distinguished inverses of operators that frequently occur in scattering theory and wave propagation We relate this to the work of Duistermaat and Hörmander on distinguished parametrices (approximate inverses), which has played a major role in quantum field theory on curved spacetimes recently 1 ntroduction n this short paper we discuss positivity properties of the differences of propagators, ie inverses of operators of the kind that frequently occur in scattering theory and wave propagation Concretely, we discuss various settings in which there are function spaces, corresponding to the distinguished parametrices of Duistermaat and Hörmander [6], on which these operators are Fredholm; in the case of actual invertiility one has inverses and one can ask aout the positivity properties of their differences As we recall elow, Duistermaat and Hörmander analyzed possiilities for choices of parametrices (approximate inverses modulo smoothing) possessing such positivity properties; here we show that certain of the actual inverses possess these properties, namely the Feynman and anti-feynman propagators, and we give a new proof of the Duistermaat-Hörmander theorem when our Fredholm setup is applicale Such a result is relevant to quantum field theory on curved spacetimes, with work in this direction, relying on the Duistermaat-Hörmander framework, initiated y Radzikowski [25]; see the work of Brunetti, Fredenhagen and Köhler [2, 3], of Dappiaggi, Moretti and Pinamonti [4, 24, 5] and of Gérard and Wrochna [10, 11] for more recent developments t turns out that the positivity properties are closely connected to the positivity of spectral measure for the Laplacian in scattering theory ndeed, for simplicity, for P = + V λ, V real and appropriately decaying at infinity on R n, λ > 0, ɛ > 0 ı ( (P + ıɛ) 1 (P ıɛ) 1) = 2ɛ(P + ıɛ) 1 (P ıɛ) 1 = 2ɛ(P + ıɛ) 1 ((P + ıɛ) 1 ) 0 and the limiting asorption principle (existence of the limit as ɛ 0 in appropriate function spaces) gives that ı ( (P +ı0) 1 (P ı0) 1) (which is the spectral measure up to a factor of 2π) is positive; the latter positivity statement on the other hand is a special case of our results We do not set up our prolems as limits, in some cases, 2000 Mathematics Suject Classification Primary 58J40; Secondary 58J50, 35P25, 35L05, 58J47 Key words and phrases Positivity, distinguished parametrices, Feynman propagators, pseudodifferential operators, asymptotically Minkowski spaces, asymptotically de Sitter spaces The author gratefully acknowledges partial support from the NSF under grant numers DMS and DMS

2 2 ANDRAS VASY such as that of Section 3, uniform estimates for such deformed families (analogous to adding ıɛ) have een discussed in different contexts, such as Wick rotations; the deformation procedure via ıɛ however is very sensitive to the order of the operator P in the relevant senses As ackground, we first recall that in elliptic settings, or microlocally (in T X\o) where a pseudodifferential operator P on a manifold X is elliptic, there are no choices to make: parametrices (as well as inverses when one has a gloally wellehaved fully elliptic prolem and these exist) are essentially unique; here for parametrices uniqueness is up to smoothing terms On the other hand, if P is scalar with real principal symol p (with a homogeneous representative), or simply has real scalar principal symol, then Hörmander s theorem [20] states that singularities of solutions to P u = f propagate along icharacteristics (integral curves of the Hamilton vector field H p ) in the characteristic set Σ, in the sense that WF s (u) \ WF s m+1 (P u) Σ is invariant under the Hamilton flow; here m is the order of P n terms of estimates, the propagation theorem states that one can estimate u in H s microlocally at a point α T X \ o if one has an a priori estimate for u in H s at γ α (t) for some t > 0, where γ α is the icharacteristic through α, and if one has an a priori estimate for P u in H s m+1 microlocally along γ α [0,t] ; the analogous statement for t < 0 also holds Such a propagation statement is empty where H p is radial, ie is a multiple of the radial vector field in T X \ o, with the latter eing the infinitesimal generator of dilations in the fiers of T X \ o However, these radial points also have een analyzed, starting with the work of Guillemin and Schaeffer [12] in the case of isolated radial points, further explored y Hassell, Melrose and Vasy [14, 15] inspired y the work of Herst [17] and Herst and Skisted [18] on a scattering prolem, y Melrose [22] for Lagrangian sumanifolds of normal sources/sinks in scattering theory, and y Vasy [32] in a very general situation (more general than radial points), with a more detailed analysis y Haer and Vasy in [13]; see also the work of Dyatlov and Zworski [7] for their role in dynamical systems (n a more complicated direction, in N-ody scattering these correspond to the propagation set of Sigal and Soffer [27]; see [9] for a discussion that is microlocal in the radial variale and see [29] for a fully microlocal discussion) n order to make the picture very clear, following [32, Section 2], consider the Hamilton flow on S X = (T X \ o)/r + rather than on T X \ o This is possile if m = 1 since the Hamilton vector field then is homogeneous of degree 0 and thus can e thought of as a vector field on S X For general m one can reduce to this case y multiplying y a positive elliptic factor; the choice of the elliptic factor changes the Hamilton vector field ut within Σ only y a positive factor; in particular the icharacteristics only get reparameterized Thus a radial point is a critical point for the Hamilton vector field on S X (ie where the vector field vanishes); in the cases discussed here it is a non-degenerate source or sink n fact, it is etter to think of S X as fier infinity T X on the fier compactification of T X Here recall that if V is a k-dimensional vector space, it has a natural compactification V otained y gluing a sphere, namely (V \ 0)/R + to infinity Explicitly this can e done eg y putting a (positive definite) inner product on V, so V \ 0 is identified with R + r S k 1, with r the distance from 0, and using reciprocal polar coordinates (ρ, ω) (0, ) S k 1, ρ = r 1, to glue in the sphere at ρ = 0, so that the resulting manifold is covered with the two (generalized)

3 ON THE POSTVTY OF PROPAGATOR DFFERENCES 3 coordinate charts V and [0, ) ρ S k 1 with overlap V \ 0, resp (0, ) ρ S k 1, identified as aove This process gives a smooth structure independent of choices, and correspondingly it can e applied to compactify the fiers of T X For standard microlocal analysis the relevant location is fier infinity, so one may instead simply work with S X [0, ɛ) ρ, if one so desires, with the choice of a homogeneous degree 1 function ρ on T X \ o giving the identification The advantage of this point of view is that the Hamilton vector field in fact induces a vector field H p = ρ m 1 H p on T X, tangent to T X, whose linearization at radial points in T X is well defined This includes the normal to the fier oundary ehavior, ie that on homogeneous degree 1 functions on T X \ o, via components ρ ρ of the vector field; this disappears in the quotient picture We are then interested in sumanifolds Λ of critical points that are sources/sinks within Σ even in this extended sense, so (1) H p ρ = ρ m+2 β 0, where ρ is a oundary defining function, eg a positive homogeneous degree 1 function on T X \ o near T X, and where β 0 > 0 at sources, β 0 < 0 at sinks We recall from [32, Section 22] that the precise requirement is that the source/sink sumanifold e non-degenerate in the normal direction in the sense that there is a non-negative quadratic defining function (ie vanishing quadratically, ut nondegenerately, at Λ) ρ Λ of Λ within Σ, which we may take to e homogeneous of degree 0, and β 1 > 0, such that (2) ±H p ρ Λ β 1 ρ Λ 0 at Λ modulo cuically vanishing terms at Λ, and where the sign is + for sources, for sinks, see especially the discussion around Equations (23)-(24) in the reference Such ehavior is automatic for Lagrangian sumanifolds of radial points (these are the maximal dimensional sets of non-degenerate radial points), see [13, Section 21] The typical asic result, see [32, Section 24], is that there is a threshold regularity s 0 such that for s < s 0 one has a propagation of singularities type result: if a punctured neighorhood U \ Λ of a source/sink type radial set Λ is disjoint from WF s (u) and the corresponding neighorhood U is disjoint from WF s m+1 (P u), then Λ WF s (u) =, ie one can propagate estimates into Λ, while if s > s 1 > s 0, and WF s1 (u) Λ = then one can gets for free H s regularity at Λ, ie WF s (u) Λ = Here we emphasize that all of the results elow hold in the more general setting discussed in [32, Section 22], where Λ are normal sources/sinks, ut need not consist of actual radial points, ie there may e a non-trivial Hamilton flow within Λ this is the case for instance in prolems related to Kerr-de Sitter spaces Furthermore, the setup is also stale under general pseudodifferential (small!) perturations of order m (with real principal symol), even though the dynamics can change under these; this is due to the staility of the estimates (and the corresponding staility of the normal dynamics in a generalized sense) see [32, Section 27] Now, the estimates given y the propagation theorem let one estimate u somewhere in terms of P u provided one has an estimate for u somewhere else But where can such an estimate come from? A typical situation for hyperolic equations is Cauchy data, which is somewhat awkward from the microlocal analysis perspective and indeed is very ill-suited to Feynman type propagators A more natural place is from radial sets: if one is in a sufficiently regular (aove the threshold)

4 4 ANDRAS VASY Soolev space, one gets regularity for free there in terms of a weaker (ut stronger than the threshold) Soolev norm (This weaker norm is relatively compact in the settings of interest, and thus is irrelevant for Fredholm theory) This can then e propagated along icharacteristics, and indeed can e propagated into another radial set provided that we use Soolev spaces which are weaker than the threshold regularity there This typically requires the use of variale order Soolev spaces, ut as the propagation of singularities still applies for these, provided the Soolev order is monotone decreasing in the direction in which we propagate our estimates (see [1, Appendix]), this is not a prolem Note that in order to otain Fredholm estimates eventually we need analogous estimates for the adjoint (relative to L 2 ) P on dual (relative to L 2 ) spaces; since the dual of aove, resp elow threshold regularity is regularity elow, resp aove threshold regularity, for the adjoint one will need to propagate estimates in the opposite direction Notice that within each connected component one has to have the same direction of propagation relative to the Hamilton flow, ut of course one can make different choices in different connected components This general framework was introduced y the author in [32], further developed with Baskin and Wunsch in [1], with Hintz in [19] and with Gell-Redman and Haer in [8] Returning to the main theme of the paper, we recall that in their influential paper [6] Duistermaat and Hörmander used the Fourier integral operators they just developed to construct distinguished parametrices for real principal type equations: for each component of the characteristic set, one chooses the direction in which estimates, or equivalently singularities of forcing (ie of f for u eing the parametrix applied to f) propagate along the Hamilton flow in the sense discussed aove Here the direction is most conveniently measured relative to the Hamilton flow in the characteristic set Thus, with k components of the characteristic set, there are 2 k distinguished parametrices Notice that there are two special choices for the distinguished parametrices: the one propagating estimates forward everywhere along the H p -flow, and the one propagating estimates ackward everywhere along the H p -flow; these are the Feynman and anti-feynman parametrices (defined up to smoothing operators) Duistermaat and Hörmander showed that, if the operator P is formally self-adjoint, one can choose these parametrices (which are defined modulo smoothing operators a priori) so that they are all formally skew-adjoint, and further such that ı times the difference etween any of these parametrices and the Feynman, ie the H p -forward, parametrix is positive They also stated that they do not see a way of fixing the smoothing amiguity, though the paper suggests that this would e important in view of the relationship to quantum field theory, as suggested to the authors y Wightman The purpose of this paper is to show how, under a natural additional assumption on the gloal dynamics, the amiguity can e fixed for all propagators, and exact positivity can e shown for the extreme difference of propagators A yproduct is a simple proof of the positivity for a suitale choice of distinguished parametrices (not just the extreme difference), giving a different proof of the Duistermaat-Hörmander result However, one cannot expect in general in our setup that the differences other than the extreme difference are actually positive; thus, if positivity is desired, the only natural choice is that of the Feynman propagators The structure of the paper is the following: we consider the well-defined inverses and the positivity questions in four different settings n Section 2 we consider

5 ON THE POSTVTY OF PROPAGATOR DFFERENCES 5 compact manifolds without oundary This is the setting with the lowest overhead, though of course actual wave equations do not make sense in this setting (it is the space-time that would e compact!) However, all the analytic issues arise here already; the arguments apply essentially veratim in the other settings we consider n Section 3 we extend the results to Melrose s -pseudodifferential algera, and in particular to wave equations of Lorentzian scattering metrics n Section 4 we consider Melrose s scattering algera, and in particular extend the results to Klein- Gordon equations of these Lorentzian scattering metrics We also explain the relationship to the incoming and outgoing resolvents in asymptotically Euclidean scattering theory in this section Finally, in Section 5 we consider asymptotically de Sitter metrics via a construction that glues hyperolic caps to the conformal compactification Via the gluing, this setting actually is that of Section 2, so in this sense the compact manifold without oundary section in fact is directly relevant to Klein-Gordon prolems 2 Compact manifolds with oundary n order to fix the amiguity in the choice of propagators and show the positivity of the extreme difference of the propagators, the simplest setting is that of compact manifolds without oundary, X n this setting, we require a non-trapping dynamics for the formally self-adjoint operator P of order m Here non-trapping is understood in the sense that the characteristic set Σ of P has connected components Σ j, j = 1,, k, in each of which one is given smooth conic sumanifolds Λ j,± (with Λ ± = j Λ j,± ) which act as normal sources ( ) or sinks (+) for the icharacteristic flow within Σ j in a precise sense descried aove, and all icharacteristics in Σ j except those in Λ j,±, tend to Λ j,+ in the forward and to Λ j, in the ackward direction (relative to the flow parameter) along the icharacteristic flow, see Figure 1 (As recalled aove, this setup can e generalized further, for instance it is stale under general perturations in Ψ m (X) even though the details of the dynamics are not such in general) n this case, on variale order weighted Soolev spaces H s, with s monotone increasing/decreasing in each component of the characteristic set along the Hamilton flow, and satisfying threshold inequalities at Λ j,±, P : X Y is Fredholm, where (3) X = {u H s : P u H s m+1 }, Y = H s m+1 Here the Fredholm estimates take the form u H s C( P u H s m+1 + u H r), (4) v H s C( P v H s m+1 + v H r ), for appropriate r, r with compact inclusion H s H r, H s H r, where we take s = s + m 1, so s m + 1 = s Note that with this choice of s the space on the left hand side, resp in the first term on the right hand side, of the first inequality is the dual (relative to L 2 ) of the first space of the right hand side, resp the left hand side of the second inequality, as required for the functional analytic setup Here (4) is an estimate in terms of Soolev spaces (which Y is, ut X is not), ut it implies the Fredholm property (3); see [32, Section 26] f P = P, then the threshold regularity is (m 1)/2, ie s can e almost constant, ut it has to e slightly elow (m 1)/2 at one end of each icharacteristic, and slightly aove (m 1)/2 at the other Assuming that these prolems

6 6 ANDRAS VASY are invertile, the inverse is independent of the choice of s in a natural sense, as long as the increasing/decreasing direction of s is kept unchanged along each component of the characteristic set (see [32, Remark 29]) Note that in the case of invertiility, the compact term of (4) can e dropped, and one concludes that P 1 : H s m+1 H s, (P ) 1 : H s H s+m 1 are ounded maps, with (P ) 1 = (P 1 ) (Here invertiility is not a serious issue for our purposes; see Remark 4) Letting {1,, k} = e the suset on which s is increasing (ie where estimates are propagated ackwards), we denote y P 1 : Y X the corresponding inverse; here X, Y stand for the spaces X, Y aove for any choice of s compatile with Thus, P 1 is the Feynman, or forward propagator, ie it propagates estimates H p -forward along the icharacteristics, so for φ C (X), WF(P 1 φ) jλ j,+, while P 1 is the ackward, or anti-feynman, propagator For general φ H s m+1, WF(P 1 φ) is contained in the union of the image of WF(φ) under the forward Hamilton flow (interpreted so that the image of the sources under the forward flow is all icharacteristics emanating from them) with the sinks j Λ j,+ ; the analogous statement for the ackward flow holds for WF(P 1 φ) Such a setup is explained in detail in [32, Section 2] L = /R + L + = + /R + Figure 1 The characteristic set Σ (here connected) and the Hamilton dynamics for a prolem satisfying our assumptions Here Σ is a torus, with the left and right, as well as the top and ottom, edges identified An example is the multiplication operator y a real valued function on a compact manifold with non-degenerate zeros This is closely related to the Fourier transform of the asic Euclidean scattering prolem, λ, λ > 0, which is multiplication y ξ 2 λ The dynamics is exactly as shown aove when the zero set is a circle We recall an example, which will also e used elow, from [32], given in this form in [34] f one considers the Minkowski wave operator g on R n+1 z,t, or more conveniently x (n 1)/2 2 g x (n 1)/2, with x = ( z 2 + t 2 ) 1/2, then the Mellin transform of this operator in the radial variale on R n+1, or its reciprocal x, is a family of operators on the sphere S n ; here S n arises as a smooth transversal to the dilation orits on R n+1 \ o This family P σ, depending on the Mellin dual parameter σ, is an example of this setup with X = S n As explained in [34], in

7 ON THE POSTVTY OF PROPAGATOR DFFERENCES 7 fact P σ is elliptic/hyperolic in the region of S n interior/exterior of the Minkowski light cone; it turns out to e related to the spectral family of the Laplacian on hyperolic space, resp the d Alemertian on de Sitter space This example, and natural generalizations, such as the spectral family of Laplacian and the Klein- Gordon operator on even asymptotically hyperolic and de Sitter spaces (even on differential forms), respectively, discussed in [31] and [30], will arise again later in this paper The asic idea of such a compact dynamical setup first appeared in Melrose s work on scattering [22], where P = λ, is the Laplacian of a scattering metric (large end of a cone), λ > 0 n that case there are only two propagators, whose difference is essentially the spectral measure, so the positivity statement is that of the spectral measure for Recall that, eyond formal self-adjointness of P, self-adjointness is essentially an invertiility requirement for P ± ı, so in particular P itself is not expected to possess any invertiility properties and even if it does, the inverse need not e formally self-adjoint ndeed, notice that P 1 is not going to e formally self-adjoint on our function spaces (as soon as the characteristic set is non-trivial), since the adjoint propagates estimates always the opposite way (corresponding to having to work in dual function spaces) However, one still has a positivity property analogous to these spectral measures ndeed, from a certain perspective, the proof given elow is inspired y an analogous proof in scattering theory, related to Melrose s oundary pairing [22, Section 13], though in that setting there are more standard proofs as well We refer to the discussion around Theorem 10 for more detail The main result is the following Theorem 1 Suppose P = P Ψ m (X) is as aove (ie X is compact, without oundary, the principal symol p is real, the Hamilton dynamics is non-trapping), possily acting on a vector undle with scalar principal symol f P 1, P 1 exist (rather than P eing merely Fredholm etween the appropriate spaces) then the operator ı(p 1 ) is positive, ie it is symmetric (5) ı(p 1 and for all φ C (X), 1 )φ, ψ = φ, ı(p (6) ı(p 1 )ψ, φ, ψ C (X), )φ, φ 0 Remark 2 t is a very interesting question (raised y one of the referees) whether P is necessarily essentially self-adjoint or at least self-adjoint on some natural domain in the cases considered here This is expected to e dependent on the order m of the operator; certainly if m 0 the operator is self-adjoint on L 2, and in fact for m = 0 the Feynman and anti-feynman choice of function spaces (P ıɛ) 1 and (P +ıɛ) 1 have uniform estimates down to ɛ = 0 form ɛ > 0; here ıɛ acts as complex asorption (see [32, Section 25]) (Notice that in this case, m = 0, for ɛ > 0 the statement (P ıɛ)u H s+1 gives, y elliptic regularity, u H s+1, ut of course the corresponding estimate is not uniform as ɛ 0! Also, for ɛ > 0, y ellipticity, the choice of s does not affect the inverse, so eg it does not matter whether one is a priori considering Feynman or anti-feynman choices of s) Thus, in fact (when the inverse actually exists) P 1 = (P ı0) 1 and P 1 = (P +ı0) 1 on C (X) On the other hand, when m > 1, the presence of a term ıɛ is irrelevant, ie one has Fredholm prolems for any ɛ on any of the function spaces discussed aove for P Moreover,

8 8 ANDRAS VASY it is not hard to see (y a scattering theory type construction, constructing an infinite dimensional space of approximate microlocal solutions at Λ and using the Feynman propagator to solve the error away finite rank non-solvaility issues are irrelevant here) that there is an infinite dimensional distriutional nullspace of P ± ıɛ that lies in L 2 (since m 1 2 > 0 now) Thus, self-adjointness of P (on some well-ehaved domain) is at the very least a delicate question Remark 3 We connect this statement to the work of Duistermaat and Hörmander [6, Theorem 662] in particular commenting on the notational differences Thus, (6) is the same formula (in particular the sign matches) as in the work of Duistermaat and Hörmander [6, Theorem 662] (taking into account that we have inverses, while they had well-chosen parametrices) in the case Ñ = ñ (which is one of the cases considered there) Here recall that SÑ of [6, Theorem 662] is, up to smoothing, E + Ñ E+, the difference of the Feynman (E+!) and anti-feynman parametrices, Ñ see the eginning of Section 66 there for the notation and concretely [6, Equation (664)] for the description of SÑ Note also that the proof given elow also shows the symmetry of ı(p 1 c ) for any, assuming these inverses exist (rather than P eing just Fredholm etween the corresponding spaces) although positivity properties are lost However, see Corollary 5 for a parametrix statement, and Remark 4 regarding invertiility Remark 4 As the following proof shows, only minor changes are needed if P is merely Fredholm etween the appropriate spaces Namely for each let W e a complementary suspace to the finite dimensional suspace Ker P = KerP of X Then for φ Ran P = Ran P Y there exists a unique u W such that P u = φ; we may define P 1 φ = u Then (5) holds if we require in addition φ, ψ Ran P Ran Jk P and (6) holds if we require φ Ran P Ran Jk P, as follows immediately from the proof we give elow (These are finite codimension conditions!) Note that different choices of W do not affect either of the inner products (5)-(6) since P 1 applied to an element φ of Ran P is eing paired with an element of Ran c P, and the latter annihilates (ie is orthogonal with respect to the L 2 pairing) Ker P, ie changing P 1 φ y an element of Ker P leaves the inner product unchanged We now discuss what happens under an additional hypothesis, Ker P, Ker Jk P C (X) n this case, Ker P = Ker Jk P (since elements of oth are simply elements of C (X) which are mapped to 0 y P ); denote this finite dimensional space y F n this case one can use the L 2 -orthocomplements of F to define W and W Jk in X, resp X Jk That is, W, resp W Jk are the suspaces of X, resp X Jk, consisting of distriutions L 2 -orthogonal to F (which is a suset of oth of these spaces!); this makes sense since F is a suspace of C (X) Similarly, F gives orthocomplements to Ran P and Ran Jk P in Y, resp, Y Jk Thus, one can define P 1 φ, φ Y, =,, y defining it to e P 1 φ 1, φ = φ 1 + φ 2 Ran P + F, where P 1 takes values in W n this case, the inner products (5)-(6) are unaffected y the second component of the function in oth slots, and thus they remain true for all φ, ψ C (X) While the assumption Ker P, Ker Jk P C (X) may seem unnatural, one expects it to hold in analogy with scattering theory: there (in scattering theory) incoming or outgoing elements of the tempered distriutional nullspace of the operator necessarily vanish, giving that any such element is necessarily Schwartz,

9 ON THE POSTVTY OF PROPAGATOR DFFERENCES 9 which is the analogue of C (X) when X is compact The analogous property (namely eing in C (X)) can in fact e proved in the present setting as well using the functional calculus for an elliptic operator; since this is a it involved we defer this to another paper, and we choose to discuss this here only in the setting of Theorem 10 for differential operators, where this is straightforward since the role of the elliptic operator is played y the weight x Proof The symmetry statement is standard; one can arrange the function spaces so that P 1 is exactly the inverse of P = P on (essentially) the duals of the spaces (in reversed role) on which P 1 inverts P, so P 1 = (P 1 ), see [32, Section 2] and (4) aove Here essentially refers to the fact that the Fredholm estimates (4), with the compact terms dropped as remarked aove, due to invertiility, give ounded maps P 1 : H s m+1 H s, (P ) 1 : H s H s+m 1, with (P ) 1 = (P 1 ) Correspondingly, the symmetry actually holds for any φ, ψ H s H s m+1, s satisfying the requirements for the -inverse We turn to the proof of positivity, with = to minimize doule suscripts Let J r, r (0, 1) e a family of (finitely) smoothing operators, converging to J 0 = d as r 0 in the usual manner, so J r Ψ N (X), N > 1 for r (0, 1), J r, r (0, 1) is uniformly ounded in Ψ 0 (X), converging to d in Ψ ɛ (X) for all ɛ > 0 Concretely, with ρ a defining function of S X = T X (eg homogeneous of degree 1 away from the zero section), we can let the principal symol j r of J r e (1 + rρ 1 ) N, N > 1 Let u = P 1 φ, u = P 1 φ Then for φ C (X), as P u = φ = P u, ı(p 1 )φ, φ = ı(u u ), P u = lim r 0 ıj r (u u ), P u = lim r 0 ı[p, J r ](u u ), u Now note that [P, J r ] is uniformly ounded in Ψ m 1 (X), converging to [P, d] = 0 in Ψ m 1+ɛ (X), ɛ > 0, so [P, J r ] 0 strongly as a ounded operator H σ H σ m+1 By a standard microlocal argument aout distriutions with disjoint wave front set, using also the aove statements on [P, J r ], we have (7) lim r 0 ı[p, J r ]u, u = 0 To see this claim, let Λ ± = j Λ ±,j, Q + Ψ 0 (X) e such that WF (d Q + ) Λ + =, WF (Q + ) Λ =, ie Q + is microlocally the identity at Λ +, microlocally 0 at Λ, we have (as = ) Q + u C (X), (d Q + )u C (X) since WF(u ) Λ +, WF(u ) Λ Define Q similarly, with Λ ± interchanged, and such that WF (d Q + ) WF (d Q ) = (so at each point at least one of Q ± is microlocally the identity); then Q u C (X) and (d Q )u C (X) Thus, ı[p, J r ]u, u = ı[p, J r ]Q + u, u + ıq [P, J r ](d Q + )u, u + ı(d Q )[P, J r ](d Q + )u, u Now the first term goes to 0 as r 0 since Q + u C (X) in view of the stated strong convergence of the commutator to 0, while the second term goes to 0 similarly due to Q u C (X) and the stated strong convergence of the commutator to 0 Finally, in view of the disjoint wave front set of d Q + and d Q, thus d Q + and d Q, (d Q )[P, J r ](d Q + ) is in fact uniformly ounded in Ψ k (X) for any k, and indeed converges to 0 in Ψ k (X), so the third term also goes to 0 This proves (7)

10 10 ANDRAS VASY So it remains to consider ı[p, J r ]u, u But the principal symol of ı[p, J r ] is H p j r = Nrρ 2 (1 + rρ 1 ) 1 (H p ρ)j r which takes the form c 2 rj r at the sources (as H p ρ = ρ m+2 β 0 with β 0 positive there), and c 2 rj r at the sinks n our case, the wave front set of u is at the sinks Λ +, so we are concerned aout this region Let c r e a symol with square Nrρ 2 (1+rρ 1 ) 1 (H p ρ)χ 2 +, where χ + is a cutoff function, identically 1 near Λ +, supported close to Λ +, and letting C r e a quantization of this with the quantization arranged using local coordinates and a partition of unity; these are eing specified so that C r is uniformly ounded in Ψ (m 1)/2 (X), and still tends to 0 in Ψ (m 1)/2+ɛ (X) for ɛ > 0 Similarly, let E r e a quantization of Nrρ 2 (1 + rρ 1 ) 1 (H p ρ)(1 χ 2 +) Then we have ı[p, J r ] = Cr J r J r C r + E r + F r, where the principal symol of Jr is the square root of that of J r, where the family E r is uniformly ounded in Ψ m 1 (X), has (uniform!) wave front set disjoint from Λ +, while F r is uniformly ounded in Ψ m 2 (X), and further oth E r and F r tend to 0 in higher order pseudodifferential operators The disjointness of the uniform wave front set of E r from Λ +, thus from the wave front set of u, and further that it tends to 0 as r 0 in the relevant sense, shows y an argument similar to the proof of (7) that lim E ru, u = 0 r 0 On the other hand, as u is in H (m 1)/2 ɛ for all ɛ > 0, the fact that F r 0 in Ψ m 2+ɛ, ɛ > 0, and thus F r 0 strongly as a family of operators H (m 1)/2 ɛ H (m 1)/2+ɛ, ɛ < 1/2, yields that Finally, for all r, so ı(p 1 This proves the theorem lim F ru, u = 0 r 0 Cr J r J r C r u, u 0 )φ, φ = lim ı[p, J r](u u ), u r 0 = lim Cr J r J r C r u, u 0 r 0 Before proceeding, we now discuss generalized inverses for P when P is not invertile, rather merely Fredholm Note that since C (X) is dense in Y = H s m+1, the closed suspace of finite codimension Ran P has a complementary suspace Z C (X) in Y : indeed, the orthocomplement of Ran P in the Hilert space Y is finite dimensional, and approximating an orthonormal asis for it y elements of C (X) gives the desired complementary space We now can decompose an aritrary f Y as f = f 1 + f 2, f 1 Ran P, f 2 Z and then, letting W e a complementary suspace of X to Ker P, f 1 = P u for a unique u W ; we let P 1 f = u, so P 1 is a generalized inverse for P Note that as Z C (X), WF σ (f 1 ) = WF σ (f) for all σ The propagation of singularities, for f H σ, σ > (m 1)/2, P u = f 1, u X shows that WF σ+m 1 (u) j Λ j, j cλ j,+ This suffices for all the arguments elow An immediate corollary of Theorem 1 is the Duistermaat-Hörmander theorem:

11 ON THE POSTVTY OF PROPAGATOR DFFERENCES 11 Corollary 5 (cf Duistermaat and Hörmander [6, Theorem 662]) Suppose that P is as in Theorem 1 (in particular, P, P Jk are invertile) For all, there exists an operator S such that P 1 differs from S y an operator that is smoothing away from Λ ± in the sense that φ C (X), WF σ (φ) (Λ + Λ ) =, σ > (m 1)/2, implies WF((P 1 S )φ) Λ + Λ, and such that S is skew-adjoint and ı S is positive (Thus, S is a parametrix, ie an approximate isolution) Here, if P is not invertile (ie is only Fredholm), the statement holds if in addition φ Ran P in the sense of Remark 4, and more generally for all φ as aove if P 1 is a generalized inverse of P defined on Y using a complement Z to Ran P which is a suspace of C, as defined aove Thus, here the smoothing property is understood eg as a statement that for φ H σ (X), where σ > (m 1)/2, the operator in question maps to C (X), microlocally away from Λ ± n fact, as all the operators in question can naturally e applied to distriutions with wave front set away from Λ ± (y suitale choice of the order function s), which is the context of the Duistermaat-Hörmander result, and the smoothing property holds in this extended context as well, as stated in the corollary P 1 Also note that the wave front set containment can e strengthened to WF((P 1 S )φ) Λ + j Λ j, as is immediate from the proof elow; it is worth noting that even for Σ j, j c, where P 1 and P 1 are the same microlocally in terms of the function spaces they are acting on, the output is not the same ut differs y an outgoing term (wave front set in Λ j,+ ) This is very similar to how in Euclidean scattering theory a compactly supported potential typically gives rise to a non-trivial (in the sense of scattering wave front set) outgoing spherical wave even though at the characteristic set (which is at infinity, see Section 4) the two operators are identical Remark 6 n the case of P and P Jk, in Remark 4 we showed that if Ker P, Ker Jk P C (X), then we have canonical generalized inverses P 1, P 1 which satisfy the properties (5)-(6) Thus, relaxing the invertiility hypothesis for P, P Jk, ut under this additional assumption on the kernels of these operators, the conclusion of this Corollary still holds Proof n the following discussion we assume that P is invertile n fact, all the arguments go through for a generalized inverse as in the statement of the theorem, ut it is more convenient to not have to write out repeatedly decompositions with respect to which the generalized inverse is taken We use a microlocal partition of unity k j=0 B j, B j = Bj, with B 0 having wave front set in the elliptic set, B j, j 1 having wave front set disjoint from the components Σ l, l j, of the characteristic set Let Then for any, T j = B j (P 1 S = j )B j has the required properties, with skew-adjointness of S and positivity of ı S following from the main theorem aove T j

12 12 ANDRAS VASY To see the parametrix property, note that for j 0, B j = d microlocally near Σ j, while B l = 0 microlocally near Σ j for l j Thus, for φ H σ (X), where σ > (m 1)/2, P (P 1 + S )φ = φ + j [P, B j ](P 1 )B jφ, with the wave front set of the commutator, and thus of all ut the first term, eing in the elliptic set of P But P (P 1 )B jφ = 0, so microlocal elliptic regularity shows that [P, B j ](P 1 )B jφ C (X) Notice that microlocal elliptic regularity also shows that all parametrices are microlocally the same in the elliptic set: if P u P v C (X), then u v has wave front set disjoint from the elliptic set of P So in order to analyze our parametrix, it suffices to consider the characteristic set Microlocally near Σ j, P 1 1 f, resp P f, f H σ (X), solve P u f C (X), with WF σ+m 1 (u) Λ +,j, resp WF σ+m 1 (u) Λ,j Further P 1 f has the same property as one of these, depending on whether j / or j n particular, for j /, u = P 1 φ φ solves P u = 0, with WFσ+m 1 (u) Σ j Λ +,j, which implies y propagation of singularities (including the version at the radial points in Λ,j, where u is a priori in a etter space than the threshold Soolev regularity) that in fact WF(u) Σ j Λ +,j Since microlocally near Σ j, (P 1 + S )φ is the same as P 1 1 φ if j /, we deduce that P (P 1 + S ) is smoothing near such j, in the sense that in this neighorhood of Σ j, WF(P 1 φ (P 1 + S )φ) is contained in Λ +,j, so we only need to consider j Since B j φ and φ are the same microlocally near Σ j, y the propagation of singularities, again using the a priori etter than threshold Soolev regularity at Λ +,j, u = P 1 (φ B j φ) has WF(u) Σ j Λ,j, and similarly for P 1 (φ B jφ) (for Λ +,j ) n view of B j eing microlocally the identity near Σ j, and trivial near Σ k, k j, we deduce that the intersection of the wave front set of P 1 φ B jp 1 B jφ with Σ j is in Λ +,j Similar arguments give that for j the intersection of the wave front set of P 1 φ B j P 1 B j φ with Σ j is in Λ,j The conclusion is that, microlocally near Σ j, j, the wave front set of (P 1 + S )φ P 1 φ is in Λ +,j Λ,j This proves that P 1 differs from S y an operator that is smoothing away from Λ ±, completing the proof of the corollary Notice that while it is a distinguished parametrix in the Duistermaat-Hörmander sense, P 1 + S is in principle not necessarily one of our distinguished inverses, P 1 ndeed, while P 1 maps φ C (X) to have wave front set disjoint from Λ j,+ for j, on the other hand, for j the difference of P 1 φ and B jp 1 B jφ at Λ j,+ is not necessarily smooth, though it does have wave front set (locally) contained in Λ j,+ (ie the difference is smoothing away from Λ j,+ within Σ j ) f B j can e arranged to commute with P, however, this statement can e improved in that one otains a isolution S 3 Positivity in Melrose s -pseudodifferential algera There are natural extensions to - and scattering settings of Melrose (see [23] for a general treatment of the -setting, [22] for the scattering setting), such as the wave equation and the Klein-Gordon equation on asymptotically Minkowski spaces,

13 ON THE POSTVTY OF PROPAGATOR DFFERENCES 13 in the sense of Lorentzian scattering metrics of Baskin, Vasy and Wunsch, see [1] and [19, Section 5] This in particular includes the physically relevant example of Minkowski space (and perturations of an appropriate type) that motivated this part of the Duistermaat-Hörmander work Since no new analytic work is necessary in these new settings (ie one essentially veratim repeats the proof of Theorem 1 and Corollary 5, changing various undles, etc), we only riefly recall the setups and state the corresponding theorems, explaining any (minor) new features Before proceeding, we recall that Melrose s -analysis is induced y the analysis of totally characteristic, or -, differential operators, ie ones generated (over C (M), as finite sums of products) y vector fields V V (M) tangent to the oundary of a manifold with oundary M Locally near some point in X = M, with the oundary defined y a function x (so it vanishes non-degenerately and exactly at M), and with y j, j = 1,, n 1, local coordinates on X, extended to M, these vector fields are linear cominations of the vector fields x x and yj with smooth coefficients, ie are of the form a 0 (x x ) + a j yj Correspondingly, they are exactly the set of all smooth sections of a vector undle, T M Thus, the dual undle T dx M has smooth sections locally of the form 0 x + j dy j, with j smooth Then (classical) -pseudodifferential operators P Ψ m (M) have principal symols p which are homogeneous degree m functions on T M \ o Thus, in the -setting, where this setup was descried y Baskin, Vasy and Wunsch, and Gell-Redman, Haer and Vasy [1, 8], we require for the strengthened Fredholm framework that P Ψ m (M) is formally self-adjoint, and the icharacteristic dynamics in S M is as efore, ie with sources and sinks at L = L + L S M = ( T M \o)/r + (with L + = Λ + /R + in the previous notation, where Λ was conic) Examples include a modified conjugate of the Minkowski wave operator, and more generally non-trapping Lorentzian scattering metrics, namely if x is a oundary defining function, then the relevant operator is P = x (n 2)/2 2 g x (n 2)/2 (formally self-adjoint with respect to the -density x n dg ); see [19] Notice here n 2 rather than n 1 is used in the exponent ecause M is n-dimensional unlike R n+1 considered elow Figure 1 earlier Note that in [1, 8] only the particular examples noted aove are discussed, ut the proofs of the general radial point estimates, under the assumptions completely analogous to (1) and (2), involving a defining function ρ = ρ of S M in T M and a quadratic defining function ρ Λ of Λ within Σ TX M, together with H px = ββ 0 x, with β 0 as in (1) and β > 0, are similar to those of [32, Section 24], cf the saddle point extension of [32, Section 24] to the -setting considered in [19, Section 211] where one has H p x = ββ 0 x instead Now the characteristic set Σ satisfies Σ S M, and is a union of connected components Σ j, j = 1,, k, just as in the oundaryless setting Again, choosing a suset of, we require the order s to e increasing along the H p -flow on Σ j, j, decreasing otherwise, so in Σ j, j estimates are propagated ackwards, for j c forwards The additional ingredient is to have a weight l R; we then work with the variale order -Soolev spaces H s,l The actual numerology of the function spaces arises from the sources and sinks, namely with x eing a oundary defining function as efore and ρ eing a defining function of fier infinity in T M (so eg can e taken as a homogenous degree 1 function on T M away from the zero section), oth H p x and H p ρ play a role A general numerology is discussed in [19, Proposition 21] for saddle points, with an analogous numerology also availale for other sources/sinks ut is discussed only for P = x (n 2)/2 2 g x (n 2)/2

14 14 ANDRAS VASY in [19, Section 5] Thus, here for simplicity, we only consider the numerology of P = x (n 2)/2 2 g x (n 2)/2, though we remark that for ultrahyperolic equations corresponding to quadratic forms on R n the numerology is identical The requirement at L then for otaining the estimates needed to estalish Fredholm properties is s + l > (m 1)/2 (with m = 2 for the wave operator) at the components L ±,j from which one wants to propagate estimates, and s + l < (m 1)/2 to which one wants to propagate estimates This (plus the required monotonicity of s along icharacteristics) is still not sufficient, it only gives estimates of the form u H s,l C( P u H s m+1,l + u H s,l), with s < s; here the prolem is that the inclusion H s,l H s,l is not compact, ecause there is no gain in the decay order, l Thus, one needs an additional condition involving the Mellin transformed normal operator, ˆP () One arrives at the normal operator y freezing coefficients at X = M, namely y using a collar neighorhood X [0, ɛ) x of X, including it in X [0, ), otaining an operator y evaluating the coefficients of P at x = 0 (which can e done in a natural sense) and then regarding the resulting N(P ) as a dilation invariant operator on X R +, with dilations acting in the second factor The Mellin transform then is simply the Mellin transform in the R + -factor Thus, the Mellin transformed normal operator is a family of operators, C σ ˆP (σ), on X = M n fact, this is an analytic Fredholm family y the oundaryless analysis explained aove (with the dynamical assumptions on P implying those for ˆP (σ)), which in addition has the property that for any C > 0 it is invertile in m σ < C for σ large (with large depending on C), due to the high energy, or semiclassical version, of these Fredholm estimates The poles of the inverse are called resonances and form a discrete set of C, with only finitely many in any strip m σ < C f l is chosen so that there are no resonances with m σ = l, and if the requirement on s is strengthened to s + l 1 > (m 1)/2 at the components from which we propagate estimates then P : X Y is Fredholm, where X = {u H s,l : P u H s m+1,l }, Y = H s m+1,l (Here the stronger requirement s + l 1 > (m 1)/2 enters when comining the normal operator estimates with the symolic estimates, see [19, Proposition 23 and Section 5] and [8, Theorem 33]) Again, for given l, if P is actually invertile, P 1 only depends on the choice of (modulo the natural identification), so we write P 1 ; if we allow l to vary it is still independent of l as long as we do not cross any resonances, ie if l and l are such that there are no resonances σ with m σ [l, l ] (if l < l ) Then the arguments given aove, with regularization J r needed only in the differentiaility (not decay) sense, so J r Ψ N (M) for r > 0, uniformly ounded in Ψ 0 (M), converging to d in Ψɛ (M) for any ɛ > 0 apply if we take the decay order to e l = 0, ie work with spaces H s,0, the point eing that [P, J r ] 0 in Ψ m 1+ɛ then (there is no extra decay at X), so we need to make sure that u lie in a weighted space with weight 0 to get the required oundedness and convergence properties n summary, this show immediately the following theorem and corollary, with the analogue of Remark 4 also valid: Theorem 7 Suppose P = P Ψ m (M) is as aove (Hamilton dynamics connecting sumanifolds of nondegenerate sources/sinks), and suppose that no resonances of the Mellin transformed normal operator lie on the real line, m σ = 0

15 ON THE POSTVTY OF PROPAGATOR DFFERENCES 15 f P 1, P 1 spaces) then the operator ı(p 1 φ C (M), exist (rather than P eing merely Fredholm etween the appropriate ) is positive, ie it is symmetric and for all ı(p 1 )φ, φ 0 Remark 8 A slightly sutle point of the proof of Theorem 7 when following the proof of Theorem 1 is that in this case the Fredholm estimates of P require that at the points to which we propagate the estimates for P (say, Λ + for P 1, this is from where we propagate the estimates for P then) we have s l 1 > (m 1)/2 (with l = 0), ie s + 1 < (m 1)/2, and not merely s < (m 1)/2 However, propagation of singularities (after all, we may have aritrarily high regularity from where we propagate the estimates!) then still recovers that P 1, say, in fact maps C (M) into H s m+1,0 for all s < (m 1)/2, and thus the arguments with E r, F r in Section 2 go through without change Corollary 9 (cf Duistermaat and Hörmander [6, Theorem 662]) Suppose that P is as in Theorem 7 (in particular, P, P Jk are invertile) For all, there exists an operator S such that P 1 differs from S y an operator that is smoothing away from L ± in the sense that WF σ,0 (φ) (L + L ) =, σ > 1 m 1 2, implies that WF,0 ((P 1 S )φ) L + L, and such that S is skew-adjoint and ı S is positive f P is not invertile, P 1 is understood as a generalized inverse, using a C (M)-complement to Ran P, similarly to the discussion preceding Corollary 5 4 Positivity in Melrose s scattering pseudodifferential algera The scattering setting, P Ψ m sc(m) (one can also have a weight l; this is irrelevant here), is analogous to the -setting, except that all the principal symols are functions (there is no normal operator family), ut they are ojects on two intersecting oundary hypersurfaces of the cotangent undles: fier infinity sc S M, and ase infinity sc T M M, and (full) ellipticity is the invertiility of oth of these (Note that these two parts of the principal symol agree at the corner sc S M M = sc T M M of sc T M) While here we used the invariant formulation, an example to which it can always e locally reduced is the radial compactification M = R n of R n ; in that case sc T M = R n R n with asis of sections of sc T M given y the lifts of the standard coordinate differentials dz j, j = 1,, n, and sc T M = R n R n This is the setting which Melrose introduced for studying the scattering theory of asymptotically Euclidean spaces [22]; these are compactified Riemannian manifolds M (so one has a Riemannian metric on M ) which are asymptotically the large ends of cones For Melrose s prolem, the operator P = λ is elliptic at fier infinity, sc S M; note that λ is not lower order than in the sense of the relevant principal symol, namely at ase infinity For such scattering prolems (meaning the operator is elliptic in the usual sense) the previous discussion can e repeated almost veratim Here one works with variale order scattering Soolev spaces Hsc s,l (M), with l eing necessarily variale now due to the ellipticity at sc S M, see [33] Again, the relevant dynamical assumption is source/sink undles L ±, where now since we have ellipticity at sc S M, we have L ± sc T M M sc T M M, where now the requirement is l > 1/2 at the components from which we want to propagate estimates, and l < 1/2 at the components

16 16 ANDRAS VASY towards which we want to propagate estimates (For a general operator of order l, the threshold would e (l 1)/2, ie l simply plays the analogue of the differential order m discussed in the compact setting X) Actually as aove, one can weaken the assumptions on the dynamics significantly, so one does not even need a source/sink manifold: one needs a source/sink region, with suitale ehavior in the normal variales, ut we do not consider this case here (We remark though, for instance, the more typical lower dimensional sources/sinks/saddles of [15] are fine as well for this analysis; one regards the whole region on the outgoing side a sink, on the incoming side a source, regardless of the detailed dynamical ehavior) We remark here that for the microlocal analysis one can localize near points on M, use the Fourier transform via a coordinate identification with a suset of R n, to reduce to standard microlocal analysis, ie that considered in Section 2; one of course needs fully microlocal estimates at the radial sets then, such as those presented in [13] n any case, one has in this setting that P : X Y is Fredholm, where X = {u H s,l sc : P u Hsc s m,l+1 }, Y = Hsc s m,l+1 Now our smoothing J r is actually just decay gaining, ie spatial regularization, corresponding to l; this does not affect the proof of the analogue of the main theorem We thus have, with the aove notation, with the analogue of Remark 4 also holding: Theorem 10 Suppose P = P Ψ m sc(m) is as aove, in particular elliptic at sc S M, with Hamilton flow connecting non-degenerate sources/sinks in sc T M M f P 1, P 1 exist (rather than P eing merely Fredholm etween the appropriate spaces) then the operator ı(p 1 φ C (M), ) is positive, ie it is symmetric and for all ı(p 1 )φ, φ 0 Corollary 11 (cf Duistermaat and Hörmander [6, Theorem 662]) Suppose that P is as in Theorem 10 (in particular, P, P Jk are invertile) For all, there exists an operator S such that P 1 differs from S y an operator that is smoothing away from L ± in the sense that WFsc s m,µ (φ) (L + L ) =, µ > 1/2, implies WF sc ((P 1 S )φ) L + L, and such that S is skew-adjoint and ı S is positive f P is not invertile, P 1 is understood as a generalized inverse, using a C (M)-complement to Ran P, similarly to the discussion preceding Corollary 5 Notice that in this setting in fact P is actually self-adjoint on L 2 sc(m) = H 0,0 sc (M) as an unounded operator, which in turn follows from the invertiility of P ± ı : H s,l sc H s m,l sc for any s, l; note that P ± ı is fully elliptic so invertiility as a map etween any such pair of Soolev spaces is equivalent to invertiility etween any other pair n the case of P = g + V λ, g as scattering metric, V xc (M) real, this prolem was studied y Melrose [22], ut of course there is extensive literature in Euclidean scattering theory from much earlier Then for λ > 0 the limits (P ± ı0) 1 = lim ɛ 0 (P ± ıɛ) 1