arxiv: v3 [math.ap] 17 Jul 2018

Transcription

1 SEMICLASSICAL MEASURES ON HYPERBOLIC SURFACES HAVE FULL SUPPORT SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN arxiv: v3 [mat.ap] 17 Jul 2018 Abstract. We sow tat eac limiting semiclassical measure obtained from a sequence of eigenfunctions of te Laplacian on a compact yperbolic surface is supported on te entire cospere bundle. Te key new ingredient for te proof is te fractal uncertainty principle, first formulated in [DyZa16] and proved for porous sets in [BoDy18]. Let (M, g) be a compact (connected) yperbolic surface, tat is a Riemannian surface of constant curvature 1. Denote by te (nonpositive) Laplace Beltrami operator. We fix a semiclassical quantization procedure (see 2.2) a C 0 (T M) Op (a) : L 2 (M) L 2 (M), > 0. Assume tat u j is a sequence of eigenfunctions of wit eigenvalues 2 j : ( 2 j I)u j = 0, u j L 2 = 1, j > 0, j 0 as j. (1.1) We say tat u j converge semiclassically to some probability measure µ on T M if Op j (a)u j, u j L 2 a dµ as j for all a C0 (T M). T M We say µ is a semiclassical defect measure (or in sort, semiclassical measure) if µ is te semiclassical limit of some sequence of eigenfunctions. It is well-known (see for instance [Zw12, 5.1,5.2]) tat eac semiclassical defect measure is supported on te cospere bundle S M T M and it is invariant under te geodesic flow ϕ t : S M S M. However not every invariant measure can be a semiclassical defect measure as follows from our first result: Teorem 1. Let µ be a semiclassical defect measure. Ten supp µ = S M, tat is for every nonempty open set U S M we ave µ(u) > 0. If a C (M) depends only on x, ten Op (a) is te multiplication operator by a. Terefore Teorem 1 implies tat te support of any weak limit of te measures u j 2 d vol g (often called quantum limit) is equal to M. Te quantum ergodicity teorem of Snirelman, Zelditc, and Colin de Verdière [S74, Ze87, CdV85] (see also Helffer Martinez Robert and Zelditc Zworski [HMR87, ZZ96] 1

2 2 SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN for more general versions) implies tat tere is a density one sequence of eigenvalues of suc tat te corresponding eigenfunctions converge weakly to te Liouville measure µ L. Te quantum unique ergodicity (QUE) conjecture of Rudnick and Sarnak [RuSa94] states tat µ L is te only semiclassical measure. Tis conjecture was proved for Hecke forms on aritmetic surfaces (suc as te modular surface) by Lindenstrauss and Soundararajan [Li06, So10]. For te related setting of Eisenstein series see Luo Sarnak and Jakobson [LuSa95, Ja94]. For te istory of te QUE conjecture we refer te reader to te reviews of Marklof [Ma06], Zelditc [Ze09], and Sarnak [Sa11]. In te more general setting of manifolds wit Anosov geodesic flows, restrictions on possible semiclassical measures ave been obtained by Anantaraman and Anantaraman Nonnenmacer [An08, AnNo07]; see also Rivière [Ri10a, Ri10b] and Anantaraman Silberman [AnSi13]. In particular, [AnNo07, Teorem 1.2] sows tat every semiclassical measure on a yperbolic surface as Kolmogorov Sinai entropy 1/2. For comparison, te Liouville measure as entropy 1 and te delta measure on a closed geodesic as entropy 0. Examples of manifolds wit ergodic but non-anosov geodesic flows wit quasimodes and eigenfunctions wic violate QUE ave been constructed by Donnelly [Do03] and Hassell [Ha10]; see also Faure Nonnenmacer de Bièvre [FNB03]. Teorem 1 is in some sense ortogonal to te entropy bounds discussed above. For instance, Teorem 1 excludes te case of µ supported on a set of dimension 3 ε, wic migt ave entropy very close to 1. On te oter and, it does not exclude te case µ = αµ L + (1 α)µ 0, were µ 0 is a delta measure on a closed geodesic and 0 < α 1, wile te entropy bound excludes suc measures wit α < 1/2. Teorem 1 also does not exclude te case wen µ is a countable linear combination of te measures δ γk were {γ k } k=1 are all te closed geodesics: for instance, µ = k=1 2 k δ γk satisfies supp µ = S M. Our second result is a more quantitative version of Teorem 1: Teorem 2. Assume tat a C 0 (T M) and a S M 0. Ten tere exist constants C(a), 0 (a) > 0 depending only on M, a suc tat for 0 < < 0 (a) and all u H 2 (M) u L 2 C(a) Op (a)u L 2 + C(a) log(1/) ( 2 I)u L 2. (1.2) Teorem 1 follows immediately from Teorem 2. Indeed, take a C0 (T M) suc tat a S M 0 but supp a S M U. Let u j, j satisfy (1.1). Ten (1.2) implies tat Op j (a)u j L 2 C(a) 1 for large j. However, if u j converge semiclassically to some measure µ, ten Op j (a)u j 2 L a 2 dµ as j. 2 T M It follows tat a 2 dµ > 0 and tus µ(u) > 0.

3 SEMICLASSICAL MEASURES ON HYPERBOLIC SURFACES 3 Te above argument sows tat Teorem 1 still olds if we replace te requirement ( 2 j I)u j = 0 in (1.1) by ( 2 j I)u j L 2 = o( j / log(1/ j )), tat is it applies to o(/ log(1/)) quasimodes. Tis quasimode strengt is almost sarp; indeed, Brooks, Eswaratasan Nonnenmacer, and Eswaratasan Silberman [Br15, EsNo17, EsSi17] construct a family of O(/ log(1/)) quasimodes wic do not converge to µ L. In particular, [EsNo17, Proposition 1.9] gives O(/ log(1/)) quasimodes wic converge semiclassically to te delta measure on any given closed geodesic. We remark tat te factor 1 log(1/) in (1.2) is reminiscent of te scattering resolvent bounds on te real line for mild yperbolic trapping, see [Zw17, 3.2] and te references tere. Teorem 2 as applications to control for te Scrödinger equation [Ji17a] and its proof can be adapted to sow exponential energy decay for te damped wave equation [Ji17b]. We would also like to mention a recent result of Logunov Malinnikova [LoMa17] giving a bound of te following form for an eigenfunction u, ( 2 I)u = 0: sup Ω u C 1( vol g (Ω)/C ) C/ sup u (1.3) M were C is a constant depending only on M. Te bound (1.3) olds on any closed Riemannian manifold and for any subset Ω M of positive volume. For yperbolic surfaces and Ω aving nonempty interior, Teorem 2 togeter wit te unique continuation principle give te bound u L 2 (Ω) c Ω u L 2 (M) (1.4) were c Ω > 0 is a constant depending on M, Ω but not on. Unlike (1.3), te bound (1.4) cannot old for general Riemannian manifolds: if M is te round spere and Ω lies strictly inside one emispere, ten tere exists a sequence of Gaussian beam eigenfunctions u concentrating on te equator wit u L 2 (Ω) e C/ u L 2 (M) Outline of te proof. We give a roug outline of te proof of Teorem 2, assuming for simplicity tat ( 2 I)u = 0. We write u = A X u + A Y u were A X, A Y are constructed from two fixed pseudodifferential operators A 1, A 2 conjugated by te wave propagator for times up to 2ρ log(1/), see (3.7) and (3.16). Te parameter ρ is cosen less tan 1 but is very close to 1, see te remark following Proposition 3.5. Te operators A X, A Y formally correspond to symbols a X, a Y suc tat for some small parameter α > 0 for (x, ξ) supp a X, at most 2α log(1/) of te points ϕ j (x, ξ), j = 0, 1,..., 2ρ log(1/) (1.5)

4 4 SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN lie in {a 0}. Tat is, te geodesic ϕ t (x, ξ), 0 t 2ρ log(1/) spends very little time in {a 0}; for (x, ξ) supp a Y, at least 1 α log(1/) points (1.5) lie in {a 0}. 10 To explain te intuition beind te argument, we first consider te case wen α = 0, tat is for (x, ξ) supp a X none of te points (1.5) lie in {a 0}. (In te argument for general α leading to (1.8), putting α = 0 is equivalent to taking α 1/ log(1/).) One can view {a 0} as a ole in S M and supp a X is contained in te set of forward trapped geodesics (tat is, tose tat do not go troug te ole). On te oter and, points (x, ξ) in supp a Y are controlled in te sense tat ϕ j (x, ξ) lies in te ole for some j [0, 2ρ log(1/)]. Terefore one opes to control A Y u in terms of Op (a)u using Egorov s teorem and te fact tat u is an eigenfunction of te Laplacian see (1.7) below. Te operator A X is not pseudodifferential because it corresponds to propagation for time 2ρ log(1/) wic is muc larger tan te Erenfest time log(1/). However, conjugating A X by te wave group we obtain a product of te form A A + were te symbols a ± corresponding to A ± satisfy ϕ j (supp a ± ) {a 0} = for all j = 0, 1,..., ρ log(1/). Tat is, supp a is forward trapped and supp a + is backward trapped. Te operators A ± lie in te calculi associated to te weak unstable/stable Lagrangian foliations on T M \ 0 similar to te ones developed by Dyatlov Zal [DyZa16], see 2.3 and te Appendix. More precisely, te symbol a + is regular along te weak unstable foliation and a is regular along te weak stable foliation. Te constant curvature condition plays an important role in defining tese calculi associated to Lagrangian foliations. On a general surface wit negative curvature, te weak unstable/stable Lagrangian foliations are only Hölder continuous instead of smoot. Using unique ergodicity of orocyclic flows due to Furstenberg [Fu73] we sow tat supp a + is porous in te stable direction and supp a is porous in te unstable direction (see Definition 5.6 and Lemma 5.10). Ten te fractal uncertainty principle of Bourgain Dyatlov [DyZa16] implies tat A A + L 2 L 2 Cβ for some β > 0 and tus (see Proposition 3.5) A X u L 2 C β u L 2. (1.6) We stress tat just like te operator A X, te product A A + is not a pseudodifferential operator since it corresponds to propagation for time ρ log(1/) > 1 log(1/) in bot 2 time directions. (In fact, if A A + were pseudodifferential wit symbol a a +, we would expect te left-and side of (1.6) to be asymptotic to sup a a + = 1.) However since ρ < 1 eac of te operators A ±, corresponding to propagation for time ρ log(1/) in one time direction, is still pseudodifferential in an anisotropic class, see 2.3 (but te product A A + is not pseudodifferential since te calculi in wic A and A + lie

5 SEMICLASSICAL MEASURES ON HYPERBOLIC SURFACES 5 are incompatible wit eac oter). Te norm estimate (1.6) uses fractal uncertainty principle, wic is a tool from armonic analysis, and in some sense goes beyond te classical/quantum correspondence. To estimate A Y u in te case α = 0, we can break it into pieces, eac of wic corresponds to te condition ϕ j (x, ξ) {a 0} for some j = 0, 1,..., 2ρ log(1/). Since ( 2 I)u = 0, u is equivariant under te wave propagator; terefore, eac piece can be controlled by Op (a)u. Summing over j, we get A Y u L 2 C log(1/) Op (a)u L 2 + O( ) u L 2. (1.7) Combining (1.6) and (1.7) we get (1.2), owever te term Op (a)u L 2 comes wit an extra factor of log(1/). To remove tis factor, we take α small, but positive. Te estimate (1.6) still olds as long as α is cosen small enoug depending on te fractal uncertainty exponent β, see (3.19). Moreover, we get te following improved version of (1.7) for some ε > 0 (see Proposition 3.4; one can take ε = 1/8) A Y u L 2 C α Op (a)u L 2 + O( ε ) u L 2. (1.8) Combining (1.6) and (1.8) gives te required bound (1.2). Te estimate (1.8) is delicate because A Y is not pseudodifferential. To prove it, we adapt some of te metods of [An08]. More precisely, if we replace 2ρ log(1/) by ε log(1/) for small enoug ε > 0 in te definition of A Y, ten A Y is pseudodifferential in a mildly exotic calculus and one can use a semiclassical version of te Cebysev inequality (see Lemma 4.6) to establis (1.8). To pass from sort logaritmic times to time 2ρ log(1/), we use a submultiplicative estimate, see te end of Preliminaries 2.1. Dynamics of geodesic and orocyclic flows. Let (M, g) be a compact yperbolic surface and T M \ 0 consist of elements of te cotangent bundle (x, ξ) T M suc tat ξ 0. Denote by S M = { ξ g = 1} te cospere bundle. Define te symbol p C (T M \ 0; R) by Te Hamiltonian flow of p, is te omogeneous geodesic flow. p(x, ξ) = ξ g. (2.1) ϕ t := exp(th p ) : T M \ 0 T M \ 0 (2.2) Hencefort we assume tat M is orientable; if not, we may pass to a double cover of M. We use an explicit frame on T M \ 0 consisting of four vector fields H p, U +, U, D C ( T M \ 0; T (T M \ 0) ). (2.3)

6 6 SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN Here H p is te generator of ϕ t and D = ξ ξ is te generator of dilations. Te vector fields U ± are defined on S M as stable (U + ) and unstable (U ) orocyclic vector fields and extended omogeneously to T M \ 0, so tat [U ±, D] = [H p, D] = 0. (2.4) See for instance [DFG15, (2.1)]. Te vector fields U ± are tangent to te level sets of p and satisfy te commutation relations [H p, U ± ] = ±U ±. (2.5) Tus on eac level set of p, te flow ϕ t as a flow/stable/unstable decomposition, wit U + spanning te stable space and U spanning te unstable space; see for instance [DFG15, (3.14)]. We use te following notation for te weak stable/unstable spaces: L s := span(h p, U + ), L u := span(h p, U ) T (T M \ 0). (2.6) Ten L s, L u are Lagrangian foliations, see [DyZa16, Lemma 4.1]. Te next statement, used in 5.3 to establis te porosity condition, is a consequence of te unique ergodicity of orocyclic flows, see [Fu73, Ma75, Ra92, Co09, HuMi10]. Proposition 2.1. Let U S M be a nonempty open set. Ten tere exists T > 0 depending only on M, U suc tat for all (x, ξ) S M, {e su ± (x, ξ) 0 s T } U. (2.7) Proof. We focus on te case of U + ; te same proof applies to U. Denote by µ L te Liouville probability measure on S M. By te unique ergodicity of te orocyclic flow e su +, µ L is te only probability measure on S M invariant under e su +. Let f C(S M) be a continuous function. Ten we ave uniform convergence f T := 1 T f e su + ds f µ := f dµ L as T. (2.8) T 0 Indeed, assume tat (2.8) is false. Ten tere exists ε > 0 and sequences T k, (x k, ξ k ) S M suc tat f Tk (x k, ξ k ) f µ ε. (2.9) S M Consider te probability measures ν k on S M defined by g dν k = g Tk (x k, ξ k ) for all g C(S M). S M Passing to a subsequence, we may assume tat ν k converge weakly to some probability measure ν. Since T k, te measure ν is invariant under te flow e su +, tus ν = µ L. However, f dν f dµ L by (2.9), giving a contradiction. Tis finises te proof of (2.8).

7 SEMICLASSICAL MEASURES ON HYPERBOLIC SURFACES 7 Now, coose f C(S M) suc tat supp f U, f µ = 1. By (2.8), tere exists T > 0 suc tat f T > 1/2 everywere. Tis implies (2.7) Operators and propagation. We use te standard classes of semiclassical pseudodifferential operators wit classical symbols Ψ k (M), wit Ψcomp (M) denoting operators A Ψ k (M) suc tat te wavefront set WF (A) is a compact subset of T M. We refer te reader to te book of Zworski [Zw12] for an introduction to semiclassical analysis used in tis paper, to [Zw12, ] for pseudodifferential operators on manifolds, and to [DyZw, E.1.5] and [DyZa16, 2.1] for te classes Ψ k (M) used ere. Denote by S k (T M) te corresponding symbol classes, and by σ : Ψ k (M) S k (T M), Op : S k (T M) Ψ k (M) te principal symbol map and a (non-canonical) quantization map. For A, B Ψ k (M) and an open set U T M, we say tat A = B + O( ) microlocally on U, if WF (A B) U =. We ave te following norm bound: A Ψ 0 (M), sup σ (A) 1 = A L 2 L2 1 + C. (2.10) Indeed, applying te sarp Gårding inequality [Zw12, Teorem 4.32] to te operator I A A we get for all u L 2 (M) wic gives (2.10). u 2 L 2 Au 2 L 2 = (I A A)u, u L 2 C u 2 L 2 Te operator 2 lies in Ψ 2 (M) and, wit p defined in (2.1), σ ( 2 ) = p 2. For us it will be convenient to ave an operator wit principal symbol p, since te corresponding Hamiltonian flow is omogeneous. Of course, we ave to cut away from te zero section as p is not smoot tere. We tus fix a function and define te operator ψ P C 0 ((0, ); R), ψ P (λ) = λ for 1 16 λ 16, P := ψ P ( 2 ), P = P. (2.11) By te functional calculus of pseudodifferential operators, see [Zw12, Teorem 14.9] or [DiSj99, 8], we ave P Ψ comp (M), σ (P ) = p on {1/4 ξ g 4}. (2.12)

8 8 SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN To quantize te flow ϕ t, we use te propagator ( U(t) := exp itp ) : L 2 (M) L 2 (M). (2.13) Te operator U(t) is unitary on L 2 (M). For a bounded operator A : L 2 (M) L 2 (M), define A(t) := U( t)au(t). (2.14) If A Ψ comp (M), WF (A) {1/4 < ξ g < 4}, and t is bounded uniformly in, ten Egorov s teorem [Zw12, Teorem 11.1] implies tat A(t) Ψ comp (M); σ (A(t)) = σ (A) ϕ t. (2.15) 2.3. Anisotropic calculi and long time propagation. If A Ψ comp (M) and t grows wit ten A(t) will generally not be pseudodifferential in te class Ψ comp since te derivatives of te symbol σ (A) ϕ t may grow exponentially wit t. In tis section we introduce a more general calculus wic contains te operators A(t) for t ρ log(1/), ρ < 1. (More precisely, we will ave two calculi, one of wic works for t 0 and te oter, for t 0.) Our calculus is similar to te one developed in [DyZa16, 3], wit remarks on te differences of tese two calculi and te proofs of some of te properties of te calculus contained te Appendix. Fix ρ [0, 1) and let L {L u, L s } were te Lagrangian foliations L u, L s are defined in (2.6). Define te class of -dependent symbols S comp L,ρ (T M \ 0) as follows: a S comp L,ρ (T M \ 0) if (1) a(x, ξ; ) is smoot in (x, ξ) T M \ 0, defined for 0 < 1, and supported in an -independent compact subset of T M \ 0; (2) sup x,ξ a(x, ξ; ) C for some constant C and all ; (3) a satisfies te derivative bounds sup Y 1... Y m Z 1... Z k a(x, ξ; ) C ρk ε, 0 < 1 (2.16) x,ξ for all ε > 0 and all vector fields Y 1,..., Y m, Z 1,..., Z k on T M \ 0 suc tat Y 1,..., Y m are tangent to L. Here te constant C depends on Y 1,..., Y m, Z 1,..., Z k, and ε but does not depend on. Tis class is sligtly larger tan te one in [DyZa16, Definition 3.2] because we require (2.16) to old for all ε > 0, wile [DyZa16] ad ε := 0. We use te following notation: f() = O( α ) if f() = O( α ε ) for all ε > 0.

9 SEMICLASSICAL MEASURES ON HYPERBOLIC SURFACES 9 In terms of te frame (2.3), te derivative bounds (2.16) become sup H k p U+U l m D n a(x, ξ; ) = O( ρ(m+n) ) for L = L s, (2.17) x,ξ H k p U U l + m D n a(x, ξ; ) = O( ρ(m+n) ) for L = L u. (2.18) sup x,ξ If a C 0 (T M \0) is an -independent symbol, ten it follows from te commutation relations (2.4) and (2.5) tat Terefore Similarly H k p U l +U m D n (a ϕ t ) = e (m l)t (H k p U l +U m D n a) ϕ t. a ϕ t S comp L s,ρ (T M \ 0) uniformly in t, 0 t ρ log(1/). (2.19) a ϕ t S comp L u,ρ (T M \ 0) uniformly in t, 0 t ρ log(1/). (2.20) Let Ψ comp,l,ρ (T M \ 0), L {L u, L s }, be te classes of pseudodifferential operators wit symbols in S comp L,ρ defined following te same construction as in [DyZa16, 3]. Tey satisfy similar properties to te operators used in [DyZa16], in particular tey are pseudolocal and bounded on L 2 (M) uniformly in. However, te O( 1 ρ ) remainders ave to be replaced by O( 1 ρ ) because of te relaxed assumptions on derivatives (2.16). We denote by Op L : a S comp L,ρ (T M \ 0) Op L (a) Ψ comp,l,ρ (T M \ 0) a (non-canonical) quantization procedure. See A.4 for more details. Te Ψ comp,l,ρ calculus satisfies a version of Egorov s Teorem, Proposition A.8. It states tat for A = Op (a) were a C0 ({1/4 < ξ g < 4}) is independent of, uniformly in t [0, ρ log(1/)]. A(t) = Op Ls (a ϕ t) + O( 1 ρ ) L 2 L2, (2.21) A( t) = Op Lu (a ϕ t) + O( 1 ρ ) L 2 L 2 (2.22) 3. Proof of Teorem 2 In tis section we give te proof of Teorem 2. It uses two key estimates, Proposition 3.4 and Proposition 3.5, wic are proved in 4 and 5 respectively.

10 10 SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN 3.1. Partitions and words. We assume tat a C 0 (T M) and a S M 0 as in te assumptions of Teorem 2. Fix conic open sets U 1, U 2 T M \ 0, U 1, U 2, U 1 U 2 =, U 2 S M {a 0}. (Te sets U j and te conditions (3.2) below are used in te proof of Proposition 3.5.) We introduce a pseudodifferential partition of unity suc tat (see Figure 1): I = A 0 + A 1 + A 2, A 0 Ψ 0 (M), A 1, A 2 Ψ comp (M) A 0 is microlocalized away from te cospere bundle S M. More specifically, we put A 0 := ψ 0 ( 2 ) were ψ 0 C (R; [0, 1]) satisfies Tis implies tat supp ψ 0 [1/4, 4] =, supp(1 ψ 0 ) (1/16, 16). WF (A 0 ) {1/2 ξ g 2} =, WF (I A 0 ) {1/4 < ξ g < 4}. A 1, A 2 are microlocalized in an energy sell and away from U 1, U 2, tat is WF (A 1 ) WF (A 2 ) {1/4 < ξ g < 4}, (3.1) WF (A 1 ) U 1 = WF (A 2 ) U 2 =. (3.2) A 1 is controlled by a on te cospere bundle, tat is WF (A 1 ) S M {a 0}. (3.3) To construct A 1, A 2, note tat (3.1) (3.3) are equivalent to WF (A j ) Ω j were Ω 1 := ( {1/4 < ξ g < 4} \ U 1 ) ( {a 0} (T M \ S M) ), Ω 2 := {1/4 < ξ g < 4} \ U 2 are open subsets of T M suc tat WF (I A 0 ) {1/4 < ξ g < 4} Ω 1 Ω 2. It remains to use a pseudodifferential partition of unity to find A 1, A 2 suc tat (3.1) (3.3) old and A 1 +A 2 = I A 0. (For instance, one can write I A 0 = Op (b)+o( ) were supp b Ω 1 Ω 2, split b = a 1 + a 2 for some symbols a 1, a 2 wit supp a j Ω j, and put A j := Op (a j ).) We moreover coose A 1, A 2 so tat 0 a l 1 were a l := σ (A l ), l = 0, 1, 2. (3.4) We next dynamically refine te partition A j. For eac n N 0, define te set of words of lengt n, W(n) := {1, 2} n = { w = w 0... w n 1 w 0,..., w n 1 {1, 2} }. For eac word w = w 0... w n 1 W(n), using te notation (2.14) define te operator A w = A wn 1 (n 1)A wn 2 (n 2) A w1 (1)A w0 (0). (3.5)

11 SEMICLASSICAL MEASURES ON HYPERBOLIC SURFACES 11 A 0 { ξ g = 4} A 1 { ξ g = 2} {a 0} S M A 2 A 2 { ξ g = 1/2} A 0 { ξ g = 1/4} U 1 U 2 Figure 1. Te sets U 1, U 2, WF (A j ) (saded), and {a 0} inside T M. Te vertical direction corresponds to dilating ξ. If n is bounded independently of, ten by Egorov s Teorem (2.15) we ave A w (M) and σ (A w ) = a w were Ψ comp n 1 ( ) a w = awj ϕ j. (3.6) For a subset E W(n), define te operator A E and te symbol a E by A E := w E j=0 A w, a E := w E a w. (3.7) Since A 1 + A 2 = I A 0 and P are bot functions of, tey commute wit eac oter. Terefore, A 1 + A 2 commutes wit U(t) wic implies A W(n) = (A 1 + A 2 ) n. (3.8) Tis operator is equal to te identity microlocally near S M, implying Lemma 3.1. We ave for all n 0 and u H 2 (M), u (A 1 + A 2 ) n u L 2 C ( 2 I)u L 2. (3.9)

12 12 SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN Proof. Since A 1 + A 2 = I A 0 = I ψ 0 ( 2 ) we ave u (A 1 + A 2 ) n u = ψ 1 ( 2 )( 2 I)u, ψ 1 (λ) := 1 (1 ψ 0(λ)) n. λ 1 Since 1 / supp ψ 0 we ave sup λ R ψ 1 (λ) C for some constant C independent of n, and (3.9) follows Long words and key estimates. Take ρ (0, 1) very close to 1, to be cosen later (in Proposition 3.5), and put ρ N 0 := 4 log(1/) N, N 1 := 4N 0 ρ log(1/). Ten words of lengt N 0 and N 1 give rise to pseudodifferential operators in te calculus discussed in 2.3: Ψ comp,l,ρ Lemma 3.2. For eac w W(N 0 ) we ave (wit bounds independent of w) a w S comp L s,ρ/4 (T M \ 0), If instead w W(N 1 ), ten a w S comp L s,ρ (T M \ 0), A w = Op Ls (a w) + O( 3/4 ) L 2 L2. (3.10) A w = Op Ls (a w) + O( 1 ρ ) L 2 L2. (3.11) Proof. We prove (3.11); te proof of (3.10) is identical, replacing ρ by ρ/4. First of all, by (2.19) and (3.4) we ave uniformly in j = 0,..., N 1 1 a wj ϕ j S comp L s,ρ (T M \ 0), sup a wj ϕ j 1. (3.12) Recalling te definition (3.6), we ave a w S comp L (T s,ρ M \ 0) by Lemma A.1, were we put a j := a wj ϕ j. Here we use te relation (A.2) of te classes S comp L s,ρ,ρ used in te Appendix to te class S comp L s,ρ used ere. Next, by Lemma A.8 we ave uniformly in j = 0,..., N 1 1 A wj (j) = Op Ls (a w j ϕ j ) + O( 1 ρ ) L 2 L2. (3.13) Applying Lemma A.6 wit A j := A wj (j), we get A w = Op Ls (a w)+o( 1 ρ ) L 2 L 2. Now, define te density function F : W(N 0 ) [0, 1], F (w 0... w N0 1) = #{j {0,..., N 0 1} w j = 1} N 0. (3.14) Fix small α (0, 1) to be cosen later (in (3.21)) and define Z := {F α} W(N 0 ). (3.15) We call words w Z controlled because for eac (x, ξ) supp a w, at least αn 0 of te points ϕ 0 (x, ξ), ϕ 1 (x, ξ),..., ϕ N0 1(x, ξ) lie in supp a 1 and due to (3.3) are controlled by a.

13 SEMICLASSICAL MEASURES ON HYPERBOLIC SURFACES 13 We cose N 0 sort enoug so tat te operators A w, w W(N 0 ) are pseudodifferential and Egorov s Teorem (3.10) olds wit remainder O( 3/4 ). Tis will be convenient for te estimates in 4 below, in particular in Lemma 4.4 (explaining wy we did not replace N 0 wit N 1 ). However, to apply te fractal uncertainty principle (Proposition 3.5), we need to propagate for time 2N 1 = 8N 0 2ρ log(1/). To bridge te resulting gap, we define te set of controlled words Y W(2N 1 ) by iterating Z. More specifically, writing words in W(2N 1 ) as concatenations w (1)... w (8) were w (1),..., w (8) W(N 0 ), define te partition W(2N 1 ) = X Y, X := {w (1)... w (8) w (l) / Z for all l}, Y := {w (1)... w (8) tere exists l suc tat w (l) Z} (3.16) In our argument te parameter α will be taken small so tat X as few elements. Te size of X is estimated by te following statement (wic is not sarp but provides a bound sufficient for us) Lemma 3.3. Te number of elements in X is bounded by (ere C may depend on α) #(X ) C 4 α. (3.17) Proof. Te complement W(N 0 ) \ Z consists of words w = w 0... w N0 1, w j {1, 2}, suc tat te set S w = {j w j = 1} as no more tan αn 0 elements. We add arbitrary elements to te set S w to ensure it as size exactly αn 0. Eac coice of S w corresponds to at most 2 αn 0 α/4 words w, and by Stirling s formula ( ) N0 #{S w w W(N 0 ) \ Z} C exp ( ) (α log α + (1 α) log(1 α))n 0. αn 0 Since (α log α + (1 α) log(1 α)) α for 0 α 1 we ave #(W(N 0 ) \ Z) C α/4 α/4 C α/2. Since #(X ) = #(W(N 0 ) \ Z) 8, we obtain (3.17). Now we state te two key estimates used in te proof. Te first one, proved in 4, estimates te mass of an approximate eigenfunction on te controlled region Y: Proposition 3.4. We ave for all u H 2 (M), wit A Y defined by (3.7) A Y u L 2 C α Op (a)u L 2 + C log(1/) ( 2 I)u L 2 + O( 1/8 ) u L 2 (3.18) α were te constant C does not depend on α. Te second estimate, proved in 5 using a fractal uncertainty principle, is a norm bound on te operator corresponding to every single word of lengt 2N 1 2ρ log(1/):

14 14 SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN Proposition 3.5. Tere exist β > 0, ρ (0, 1) depending only on M, U 1, U 2 suc tat sup A w L 2 L 2 Cβ. w W(2N 1 ) Remark. Since te proof of [BoDy18, Proposition 4.2] uses te triangle inequality, te estimate on te norm of A w is O( β 2(1 ρ) ) for some β > 0 depending on M, U 1, U 2, tus ρ as to be close enoug to 1 depending on β to get decay of tis norm. On te oter and we cannot put ρ = 1 since te calculus described in 2.3 only works for ρ < End of te proof of Teorem 2. Take β, ρ from Proposition 3.5; we may assume tat β < 1/8. Since A X + A Y = A W(2N1 ) = (A 1 + A 2 ) 2N 1 by (3.8), we ave for all u H 2 (M) u L 2 A X u L 2 + A Y u L 2 + u (A 1 + A 2 ) 2N 1 u L 2. Combining Lemma 3.3 wit Proposition 3.5 and using te triangle inequality, we ave A X u L 2 = O( β 4 α ) u L 2. (3.19) Combining tis wit Proposition 3.4 and Lemma 3.1 we obtain u L 2 C α Op (a)u L 2 + C log(1/) ( 2 I)u L 2 + O( β 4 α ) u L 2. (3.20) α Coosing α := β2 64, β 4 α = β 2 (3.21) and taking small enoug to remove te O( β/2 ) term on te rigt-and side of (3.20), we obtain (1.2), finising te proof. 4. Te controlled region In tis section we prove Proposition 3.4, estimating an approximate eigenfunction u on geodesics wic spend a positive fraction of teir time inside {a 0}. Te proof uses tools similar to [An08, 2] Control and propagation. Recall te operator A 1 Ψ comp (M) constructed in 3.1. We first use te wavefront set restriction (3.3) to estimate A 1 u: Lemma 4.1. We ave for all u H 2 (M) A 1 u L 2 C Op (a)u L 2 + C ( 2 I)u L 2 + C u L 2. (4.1)

15 SEMICLASSICAL MEASURES ON HYPERBOLIC SURFACES 15 Proof. By (3.3) we ave supp a 1 S M {a 0} were a 1 = σ (A 1 ). Since p 2 1 is a defining function for S M, tere exist b, q C 0 (T M) suc tat a 1 = ab+q(p 2 1). It follows tat A 1 = Op (b) Op (a) + Op (q)( 2 I) + O() L 2 L2. (4.2) It remains to apply (4.2) to u and use te fact tat Op (b), Op (q) are bounded on L 2 uniformly in. Next, if we control Au for some operator A, ten we also control A(t)u were A(t) is defined using (2.14): Lemma 4.2. Assume tat A : L 2 (M) L 2 (M) is bounded uniformly in. Ten tere exists a constant C suc tat for all t R and u H 2 (M) A(t)u L 2 Au L 2 + C t ( 2 I)u L 2. (4.3) Proof. Recall from (2.14) tat A(t) = U( t)au(t) were U(t) = exp( itp/) and P Ψ comp (M) is defined in (2.11). Since integrating from 0 to t we ave Ten t ( e it/ U(t) ) = i eit/ U(t)(P I), U(t)u e it/ u L 2 = e it/ U(t)u u L 2 t (P I)u L 2. A(t)u L 2 = AU(t)u L 2 Au L 2 + C t (P I)u L2. (4.4) We ave P I = ψ E ( 2 )( 2 I) were ψ E (λ) = (ψ P (λ) 1)/(λ 1). Terefore (P I)u L 2 C ( 2 I)u L 2. (4.5) Combining (4.4) and (4.5) we obtain (4.3). Combining Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2, we obtain Lemma 4.3. For all t R and u H 2 (M), we ave A 1 (t)u L 2 C Op (a)u L 2 + C t ( 2 I)u L 2 + C u L 2 (4.6) were t := 1 + t 2 and te constant C is independent of t and.

16 16 SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN 4.2. Operators corresponding to weigted words. By Lemma 3.2, for eac w W(N 0 ) te operator A w is pseudodifferential modulo an O( 3/4 ) L 2 L2 remainder. However, for a subset E W(N 0 ) te operator A E defined in (3.7) is te sum of many operators of te form A w and tus a priori migt not even be bounded on L 2 uniformly in. In tis section we sow tat A E is still a pseudodifferential operator plus a small remainder, using te fact tat te corresponding symbol a E is bounded. More generally one can consider operators obtained by assigning a coefficient to eac word. For a function c : W(N 0 ) C, define te operator A c and te symbol a c by A c := c(w)a w, a c := c(w)a w. (4.7) w W(N 0 ) w W(N 0 ) Note tat for E W(N 0 ) we ave A E = A 1E were 1 E is te indicator function of E. Te next lemma sows tat te operator A c is pseudodifferential modulo a small remainder. Recall te symbol classes S comp L s,ρ,ρ (T M \ 0) introduced in A.1. Lemma 4.4. Assume sup c 1. Ten a c S comp L s,1/2,1/4 (T M \ 0), A c = Op Ls (a c) + O( 1/2 ) L 2 L2. (4.8) Te S comp L s,1/2,1/4 seminorms of a c and te constant in O( 1/2 ) are independent of c. Proof. We first sow tat a c S comp L s,1/2,1/4 (T M \ 0). Since a 1, a 2 0 and a 1 + a 2 = 1 a 0 1, we ave for all (x, ξ) T M \ 0 a c (x, ξ) a W(N0 )(x, ξ) = (a 1 + a 2 )(ϕ j (x, ξ)) 1. N 0 1 It remains to sow tat for m + k > 0 and all vector fields Y 1,..., Y m, Z 1,..., Z k on T M \ 0 suc tat Y 1,..., Y m are tangent to L s we ave j=0 sup Y 1... Y m Z 1... Z k a c C k/2 m/4. (4.9) By te triangle inequality te left-and side of (4.9) is bounded by sup Y 1... Y m Z 1... Z k a w. w W(N 0 ) By (3.10) eac summand is bounded by C k/ were C is independent of w. Te number of summands is equal to 2 N 0 1/ Terefore te left-and side of (4.9) is bounded by C (k+1)/4 C k/2 m/4, giving (4.9). Finally, by (3.10) we ave A c = c(w) ( Op Ls (a ) w) + O( 3/4 ) L 2 L 2 = Op L s (a c) + O( 1/2 ) L 2 L 2 w W(N 0 ) finising te proof.

17 SEMICLASSICAL MEASURES ON HYPERBOLIC SURFACES 17 Combining Lemma 4.4 wit te sarp Gårding inequality (Lemma A.4) we deduce te following almost monotonicity property for norms of te operators A c : Lemma 4.5. Assume c, d : W(N 0 ) R and c(w) d(w) 1 for all w W(N 0 ). Ten for all u L 2 (M) we ave A c u L 2 A d u L 2 + C 1/8 u L 2 were te constant C is independent of c, d. Proof. By (4.8) we may replace A c, A d by Op Ls (a c), Op Ls (a d). It is ten enoug to prove Op Ls (a c)u 2 L 2 OpLs (a d)u 2 L + 2 C1/4 u 2 L 2. Tis is equivalent to Bu, u L 2 C 1/4 u 2 L 2, B := OpLs (a d) Op Ls (a d) Op Ls (a c) Op Ls (a c). (4.10) Recall tat a c, a d S comp L s,1/2,1/4 (T M \ 0). By (A.23) and (A.24) we ave B = Op Ls (a2 d a 2 c) + O( 1/4 ) L 2 L2. (4.11) Since c(w) d(w) for all w, we ave 0 a 2 d a2 c S comp L (T s,1/2,1/4 M \ 0). Ten by Lemma A.4 Re Op Ls (a2 d a 2 c)u, u L 2 C 1/4 u 2 L2. (4.12) Combining (4.11) and (4.12), we get (4.10), finising te proof Proof of Proposition 3.4. We first estimate A Z u were Z W(N 0 ) is te set of controlled words defined in (3.15): Lemma 4.6. We ave for all u H 2 (M), wit te constant C independent of α A Z u L 2 C α Op (a)u L 2 + C log(1/) ( 2 I)u L 2 + O( 1/8 ) u L 2. (4.13) α Proof. Recall te density function F from (3.14). By definition, te indicator function 1 Z satisfies 0 α1 Z F 1. Tus by Lemma 4.5 (were A F is defined by (4.7)) α A Z u L 2 A F u L 2 + O( 1/8 ) u L 2. (4.14) Using te definition (3.14) togeter wit (3.8) we rewrite A F as follows: A F = 1 N 0 1 N 0 j=0 w W(N 0 ),w j =1 A w = 1 N 0 1 (A 1 + A 2 ) N0 1 j A 1 (j)(a 1 + A 2 ) j. N 0 Recall tat A 1 + A 2 L 2 L2 1, see te proof of Lemma 3.1. Ten j=0 A F u L 2 max 0 j<n 0 A 1 (j)(a 1 + A 2 ) j u L 2.

18 18 SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN Since A 1 (j) L 2 L 2 = A 1 L 2 L 2 C and (A 1 + A 2 ) j u u can be estimated by Lemma 3.1, we get A F u L 2 max 0 j<n 0 A 1 (j)u L 2 + C ( 2 I)u L 2. Estimating A 1 (j)u by Lemma 4.3, we get A F u L 2 C Op (a)u L 2 + C log(1/) ( 2 I)u L 2 + O() u L 2. (4.15) Combining (4.14) and (4.15), we obtain (4.13). We now finis te proof of Proposition 3.4. Recalling (3.16), we write 8 Y = Y l, Y l := {w (1)... w (8) w (l) Z, w (l+1),..., w (8) W(N 0 ) \ Z}. l=1 Ten A Y = 8 l=1 A Y l. Let Q := W(N 0 ) \ Z, ten using (3.8) we ave te following factorization: A Yl = A Q (7N 0 ) A Q (ln 0 )A Z ( (l 1)N0 ) (A1 + A 2 ) (l 1)N 0. By Lemma 4.4 we ave A Q L 2 L 2, A Z L 2 L 2 C. Estimating (A 1 +A 2 ) (l 1)N 0 u u by Lemma 3.1, we get 8 ( ) A Y u L 2 C AZ (l 1)N0 u L 2 + C ( 2 I)u L 2. (4.16) l=1 We ave by Lemma 4.2 ( ) AZ (l 1)N0 u L 2 A Z u L 2 + C log(1/) ( 2 I)u L 2. (4.17) Using Lemma 4.6 to bound A Z u L 2 and combining (4.16) wit (4.17), we obtain (3.18), finising te proof. 5. Fractal uncertainty principle In tis section we prove Proposition 3.5 using te fractal uncertainty principle establised in [BoDy18] Fractal uncertainty principle for porous sets in R. We start by adapting te result of [BoDy18] to te setting of porous sets, by embedding tem into Alfors David regular sets of some dimension δ < 1. Here we define porous sets as follows: Definition 5.1. Let ν (0, 1) and 0 < α 0 α 1. We say tat a subset Ω of R is ν-porous on scales α 0 to α 1 if for eac interval I of size I [α 0, α 1 ], tere exists a subinterval J I wit J = ν I suc tat J Ω =.

19 SEMICLASSICAL MEASURES ON HYPERBOLIC SURFACES 19 As for Alfors David regular sets, we recall Definition 5.2. [BoDy18, Definition 1.1] Let δ [0, 1], C R 1, and 0 α 0 α 1. We say tat a closed nonempty subset X of R is δ-regular wit constant C R on scales α 0 to α 1 if tere exists a Borel measure µ X on R suc tat: (1) µ X is supported on X: µ X (R \ X) = 0; (2) for any interval I wit α 0 I α 1, we ave µ X (I) C R I δ ; (3) if in addition I is centered at a point in X, ten µ X (I) C 1 R I δ. We use te following version of fractal uncertainty principle for δ-regular sets. Hencefort for X R and s > 0, X(s) = X + [ s, s] denotes te s-neigborood of X. Proposition 5.3. [BoDy18, Proposition 4.3]. Let B = B() : L 2 (R) L 2 (R) be defined as Bf(x) = 1/2 e iφ(x,y)/ b(x, y)f(y)dy (5.1) were Φ C (U; R), b C 0 (U), U R 2 is open, and 2 xyφ 0 on U. Let 0 δ < 1 and C R 1. Ten tere exist β > 0, ρ (0, 1) depending only on δ, C R and tere exists C > 0 depending only on δ, C R, b, Φ suc tat for all (0, 1) and all X, Y R wic are δ-regular wit constant C R on scales 0 to 1, 1l X( ρ ) B() 1l Y ( ρ ) L 2 (R) L 2 (R) C β. (5.2) Altoug porous sets need not be regular, we can always embed a porous set Ω in a neigborood of a δ-regular set X wit δ < 1. Te set X is constructed by a Cantor-like procedure wit some large base L, were at k-t step we remove intervals of size L k 1 wic do not intersect Ω. Lemma 5.4. For eac ν (0, 1) tere exist δ = δ(ν) (0, 1) and C R = C R (ν) 1 suc tat te following olds. Let Ω be a ν-porous set on scales α 0 to 1. Ten tere exists a set X wic is δ-regular wit constant C R on scales 0 to 1 suc tat Ω X(α 0 ). Proof. Put L := 2/ν N. We use te tree of intervals I m,k = [ml k, (m + 1)L k ], m, k Z. Let k 0 0 be te unique integer suc tat L 1 k 0 < α 0 L k 0. Take m, k wit 0 k k 0. We claim tat tere exists n = n(m, k) suc tat I n,k+1 I m,k, I n,k+1 Ω =. (5.3) Indeed, since Ω is ν-porous, tere exists a subinterval J I m,k suc tat J = ν I m,k 2L k 1 and J Ω =. Ten one can find n suc tat I n,k+1 J, and tis value of n satisfies (5.3). Wen k > k 0, we put n(m, k) := Lm, so tat te condition I n(m,k),k+1 I m,k still olds.

20 20 SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN We now define te set X as follows: X := k=0 X k, X k := R \ m Z I n(m,k),k+1. Note tat for eac k 1 tere exists a set M(k) Z suc tat k 1 l=0 X l = m M(k) I m,k. We set M(0) := Z. Ten for all k 0 and m we ave #{m M(k + 1) I m,k+1 I m,k } = { L 1, m M(k); 0, oterwise. (5.4) We claim tat Ω X(α 0 ). Indeed, by (5.3) we ave Ω X k wen 0 k k 0. Take x Ω, ten x lies in k 0 k=0 X k, wic implies tat x I m,k0 +1 for some m M(k 0 + 1). Since L 2, by induction using (5.4) tere exists a sequence (m k M(k)) k k0 +1 wit m k0 +1 = m and I mk+1,k+1 I mk,k. Te intersection k I m k,k consists of a single point y X. Since x, y I m,k0 +1 we ave x y L k0 1, tus x X(L k0 1 ) X(α 0 ) as required. It remains to prove tat X is δ-regular wit some constant C R on scales 0 to 1, were we put log(l 1) δ := (0, 1). log L Let µ X be te natural Cantor-like measure supported on X. More precisely, by (5.4) tere exists a unique Borel measure µ X on R satisfying for all m and k 0 { (L 1) k = L δk, m M(k); µ X (I m,k ) = 0, oterwise. Take an interval I of size I 1, and fix te unique integer k 0 suc tat L k 1 < I L k. Ten tere exists m suc tat I I m,k I m+1,k. It follows tat µ X (I) µ X (I m,k ) + µ X (I m+1,k ) 2L δk 2L I δ. (5.5) Next, assume tat I is an interval of size I 1 centered at a point x X. Fix te unique integer k 0 suc tat 2L k 1 I < 2L k and coose m M(k + 1) suc tat x I m,k+1. Ten I m,k+1 I and tus µ X (I) µ X (I m,k+1 ) = L δ(k+1) I δ 2L. (5.6) Recalling Definition 5.2, we see tat (5.5) and (5.6) imply tat X is δ-regular wit constant C R := 2L on scales 0 to 1. Tis finises te proof.

21 SEMICLASSICAL MEASURES ON HYPERBOLIC SURFACES 21 Combining Proposition 5.3 and Lemma 5.4, we obtain te following fractal uncertainty principle for ν-porous sets: Proposition 5.5. Let K > 0 and ν (0, 1) be fixed and B() : L 2 (R) L 2 (R) be as in Proposition 5.3. Ten tere exist β > 0, ρ (0, 1) depending only on ν and tere exists C depending only on ν, K, b, Φ suc tat for all (0, 1) and all Ω ± R wic are ν-porous on scales K ρ to 1, 1l Ω (K ρ ) B() 1l Ω+ (K ρ ) L 2 L 2 Cβ. (5.7) Proof. By Lemma 5.4, tere exist X, Y R wic are δ-regular wit constant C R on scales 0 to 1 for some δ = δ(ν) (0, 1), C R = C R (ν) suc tat Ten Ω X(K ρ ), Ω + Y (K ρ ). 1l Ω (K ρ ) B() 1l Ω+ (K ρ ) L 2 L 2 1l X(2K ρ ) B() 1l Y (2K ρ ) L 2 L 2. It remains to apply Proposition 5.3 were we increase ρ sligtly to absorb te constant 2K Fractal uncertainty principle for porous sets in T M. We next use Proposition 5.5 to prove a fractal uncertainty principle for subsets of T M \ 0, were M is a compact orientable yperbolic surface. Let H p, U +, U, D be te frame on T M \0 defined in (2.3). For v = (v 1, v 2, v 3 ) R 3, define te vector fields V ± v = v 1 H p + v 2 D + v 3 U ±. For (x, ξ) T M \ 0 and ν 0, ν 1 > 0, we define te stable (ν 0, ν 1 ) slice centered at (x, ξ) as follows: Σ + ν 0,ν 1 (x, ξ) := {exp(v v) exp(su + )(x, ξ): s ν 0, v ν 1 }. Similarly define te unstable (ν 0, ν 1 ) slice centered at (x, ξ): Σ ν 0,ν 1 (x, ξ) := {exp(v + v) exp(su )(x, ξ): s ν 0, v ν 1 }. Definition 5.6. Let be a closed set and fix Z {1/4 ξ g 4} T M \ 0 ε 0, ν 1, τ 0 (0, 1]. We say tat Z is (ε 0, ν 1 )-porous along U ± up to scale τ 0, if for eac (x, ξ) T M \0 and eac τ [τ 0, 1], tere exists s 0 [0, τ] suc tat (see Figure 2) Σ ± ε 0 τ,ν 1 (e s 0U ± (x, ξ)) Z =.

22 22 SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN U + τ (x, ξ) e s0u (x, ξ) e τu (x, ξ) 2ν 1 2ε 0 τ H p, D Figure 2. An illustration of Definition 5.6 of an (ε 0, ν 1 )-porous set along U. Te blue cylinder is te unstable slice Σ ε 0 τ,ν 1 (e s 0U (x, ξ)). (We ignore ere te fact tat H p, U ±, D do not commute and tus do not give rise to a coordinate system.) Our fractal uncertainty principle for subsets of T M \ 0 is formulated in terms of te Ψ comp,l,ρ (T M \ 0) calculus introduced in 2.3: Proposition 5.7. Fix ε 0, ν 1 (0, 1]. Ten tere exist β > 0 and ρ (0, 1) depending only on M, ε 0, ν 1 suc tat te following olds. Suppose tat a + S comp L u,ρ (T M \ 0), a S comp L s,ρ (T M \ 0), and supp a ± is (ε 0, ν 1 )-porous along U ± up to scale K 1 ρ for some constant K 1. Ten for all Q Ψ 0 (M) Op Ls (a )Q Op Lu (a +) L 2 L 2 Cβ (5.8) were C depends only on M, ε 0, ν 1, K 1, Q, and some S,ρ comp seminorms of a ±. In te rest of tis subsection, we prove Proposition 5.7. We begin by straigtening out weak stable/unstable Lagrangian foliations similarly to [DyZa16, 4.4]. Denote by H 2 te yperbolic plane; it is te universal cover of M. Let κ ± : (x, ξ) T H 2 \ 0 (w, y, θ, η) T (R + w S 1 y) be te exact symplectomorpisms constructed in [DyZa16, Lemma 4.7] mapping L s, L u to te vertical foliation L 0 on T (R + S 1 ): (κ + ) L u = (κ ) L s = L 0 = ker(dw) ker(dy). U

23 SEMICLASSICAL MEASURES ON HYPERBOLIC SURFACES 23 y x w ξ 2η w y Figure 3. Te coordinates (w, y, θ, η) = κ (x, ξ) in te Poincaré disk model of H 2. Here w is te lengt of ξ, y is te limit of te geodesic starting from (x, ξ) at t, θ is determined from te Poisson kernel P(x, y), and η is determined from te stereograpic projection pictured. By (5.9) te value of y does not cange if we deform (x, ξ) along te stable, flow, or dilation direction. More precisely, in te Poincaré disk model of H 2, we ave w = p(x, ξ) = ξ g, y = B (x, ξ) is te limit of te projection to H 2 of te geodesic e thp (x, ξ) as t on te boundary S 1 = H 2, θ = ± log P(x, B (x, ξ)), were P(x, y) = 1 x 2 x y 2, x H2, y S 1 is te Poisson kernel, and η = ±G (x, ξ) = ±p(x, ξ)g(b (x, ξ), B ± (x, ξ)) T B (x,ξ)s 1 were (see [DyZa16, (1.19)]) G(y, y ) = y (y y )y 1 y y T y S 1 T y S 1 R 2, y, y S 1, y y is alf te stereograpic projection of y wit base y. See Figure 3. It follows from te definition of B ± (x, ξ) tat (V ± v)b ± = 0 for all v R 3. (5.9) By a microlocal partition of unity and since supp a ± {1/4 ξ g 4}, we can assume tat WF (Q) V were V is a sufficiently small neigborood of any given point (x 0, ξ 0 ) T M \ 0. We assume tat diam(v ) ν 1 /C 0 (5.10)

24 24 SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN were C 0 is a large constant depending only on M to be cosen in Lemma 5.8 below. We lift V T M \ 0 to a subset of T H 2 \ 0 and use κ ± to define te symplectomorpisms onto teir images κ ± 0 : V T (R + S 1 ). Note tat we can make κ ± 0 (V ) contained in a compact subset of T (R + S 1 ) wic only depends on M. We next quantize κ 0 ± by Fourier integral operators wic conjugate Op Ls (a ) and Op Lu (a +) to operators on R + S 1. Following [DyZa16, 4.4, Proof of Teorem 3], we consider operators B ± I comp (κ 0 ± ), B ± I comp ((κ 0 ± ) 1 ) quantizing κ ± 0 near κ ± 0 (WF (Q)) WF (Q) in te sense of (A.16). Consider te following operators on L 2 (R + S 1 ): A := B Op Ls (a )B, Ten similarly to [DyZa16, (4.58)] A + := B + Q Op Lu (a +)B +, B = B B +. Op Ls (a )Q Op Lu (a +) = B A BA + B + + O( ) L 2 L 2. Moreover, by (A.22) tere exist ã ± S comp L 0,ρ (T (R + S 1 )) suc tat A ± = Op L 0 (ã ±) + O( ) L 2 L 2, supp ã ± κ ± 0 (V supp a ± ). (5.11) Terefore in order to establis (5.8) it suffices to prove tat Op L 0 (ã )B Op L 0 (ã +) L 2 (R + S 1 ) L 2 (R + S 1 ) C β. (5.12) Using te porosity of supp a ± along U ±, we get te following one-dimensional porosity statement for projections of supp ã ± : Lemma 5.8. Tere exists a constant C 0 > 0 depending only on M suc tat te following olds. Define te projections of supp ã ± onto te y variable Ω ± := { y S 1 w, θ, η : (w, y, θ, η) supp ã ± } S 1. Ten Ω ± (more precisely, teir lifts to R) are ν-porous on scales α 0 to 1 in te sense of Definition 5.1 were ν := ε 0 ν 1 /C 0 and α 0 := C 0 ν 1 1 K 1 ρ. Proof. We sow te porosity of Ω +, wit te case of Ω andled similarly. Denote by C 1 > 0 a large constant depending only on M and put C 0 := C 4 1. Denote W := κ 0 + (V ). Let V be te ν 1 /C1-neigborood 2 of V and V be te ν 1 /C1-neigborood 2 of V. Lifting V to T H 2 \ 0 and using κ +, we extend κ 0 + to a symplectomorpism κ + 0 : V W, V W

25 SEMICLASSICAL MEASURES ON HYPERBOLIC SURFACES 25 for some open sets W, W T (R + S 1 ). Note tat by (5.10) diam(w ) C 1 10 diam(v ) ν 1 /C 1. (5.13) Moreover, te ν 1 /C 3 1-neigboroods of W, W are contained in W, W respectively. Let I S 1 be an interval wit α 0 I 1 centered at some y 0 S 1. Assume first tat te y-projection of W does not contain y 0. Ten, since supp ã + W by (5.11), we see tat y 0 lies distance at least ν 1 /C 0 away from Ω +. Tus te interval of size ν I centered at y 0 does not intersect Ω + and verifies te porosity condition in Definition 5.1. We encefort assume tat te y-projection of W does contain y 0. Coose w 0, θ 0, η 0 suc tat (w 0, y 0, θ 0, η 0 ) W. Let (x 0, ξ 0 ) := (κ + 0 ) 1 (w 0, y 0, θ 0, η 0 ) V. Put τ := C 3 1 ν 1 I, K 1 ρ τ ν 1 /C Since supp a + is (ε 0, ν 1 )-porous along U + up to scale K 1 ρ, tere exists s 0 [0, τ] suc tat Σ + ε 0 τ,ν 1 (x 1, ξ 1 ) supp a + = were (x 1, ξ 1 ) := e s 0U + (x 0, ξ 0 ) V. (5.14) Since C 1 is large and H p, U +, U, D form a frame, we ave a diffeomorpism Θ : Ũ W (, (s, v) κ 0 + exp(v v) exp(su + )(x 1, ξ 1 ) ) were Ũ is some neigborood of (0, 0) in R R3. By (5.9) we see tat for (w, y, θ, η) = Θ(s, v), te value of y does not cange if we cange v. Terefore te y-component of Θ(s, v) is equal to Θ 1 (s) for some smoot diffeomorpism Θ 1 defined on a subset of R. Applying κ + 0 However, by (5.13) we ave to (5.14) and using (5.11), we get {Θ(s, v): (s, v) Ũ, s ε 0τ, v ν 1 } supp ã + =. (5.15) diam(ũ) C 1 diam(w ) ν 1 10 and tus te condition v ν 1 in (5.15) is not needed. Terefore Denote and consider te interval Θ 1 1 (Ω + ) [ ε 0 τ, ε 0 τ] =. (5.16) (w 1, y 1, θ 1, η 1 ) := Θ(0, 0) = κ + 0 (x 1, ξ 1 ) W. J := [ y 1, y 1 + ν I ], J = ν I. We ave y 0 y 1 C 1 s 0 C1 2 ν 1 I. Terefore J I. Moreover, since Θ 1 (0) = y 1 and diam(θ 1 1 (J)) C 1 ν I ε 0 τ, (5.16) implies tat J Ω + =. Tis gives te required porosity condition on Ω +.

26 26 SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN We ( are ready to finis te proof of Proposition 5.7. Te operator B = B B + lies in κ (κ + ) 1). By [DyZa16, Lemma 4.9] we can write I comp B = A B χ + O( ) L 2 L 2 for some A Ψcomp (R + S 1 ) were χ C 0 (S 1 y S 1 y ), supp χ {y y }, and B χ : L 2 (R + S 1 ) L 2 (R + S 1 ) is given by B χ v(w, y) = B χ,w (v(w, ))(y) were B χ,w v(y) = (2π) 1/2 y y 2iw/ χ(y, y )v(y ) dy, w > 0. 2 S 1 Here y y denotes te Euclidean distance between y, y S 1 R 2. Since supp a ± {1/4 ξ g 4}, we ave supp ã ± {1/4 w 4}. We can write Op L 0 (ã )B Op L 0 (ã +) = Op L 0 (a ) B χ Op L 0 (a +) + O( ) L 2 L 2 (5.17) were a ± S comp L 0,ρ (T (R + S 1 )) satisfy supp a ± {1/4 w 4, y Ω ± }. (5.18) In fact, a = ã #σ (A) and a + = ã +. By [DyZa16, Lemma 3.3] tere exist symbols χ ± (y; ) suc tat k y χ ± C k ρk, supp(1 χ ± ) Ω ± =, supp χ ± Ω ± ( ρ ). Take also χ w (w) C0 ((1/8, 8)) suc tat χ w = 1 near [1/4, 4]. Ten it follows from (5.17) and (5.18) tat Op L 0 (ã )B Op L 0 (ã +) = Op L 0 (a )χ w χ Bχ χ + Op L 0 (a +) + O( ) L 2 L 2. Terefore (5.12) follows from te estimate wic in turn follows from χ w χ Bχ χ + L 2 (R + S 1 ) L 2 (R + S 1 ) C β sup 1l Ω ( ρ ) B χ,w 1l Ω+ ( ρ ) L 2 (S 1 ) L 2 (S 1 ) C β. (5.19) w [1/8,8] Te operator B χ,w as te form (5.1) wit Φ(y, y ) = 2w log y y w log 4, y, y S 1, y y, were we pass from operators on S 1 to operators on R by taking a partition of unity for χ. Te mixed derivative yy 2 Φ does not vanis as verified for instance in [BoDy18, 4.3]. Terefore (5.19) follows from te one-dimensional fractal uncertainty principle, Proposition 5.5, were te porosity condition for Ω ± as been verified in Lemma 5.8.

27 SEMICLASSICAL MEASURES ON HYPERBOLIC SURFACES Proof of Proposition 3.5. We now prove Proposition 3.5. Take an arbitrary word w W(2N 1 ) and write it as a concatenation of two words in W(N 1 ): Define te operators Ten w = w + w, w ± W(N 1 ). A + := A w+ ( N 1 ), A := A w. We relabel te letters in te words w ± as follows: and define te symbols a ± by Recall from (3.5) tat A w = U( N 1 )A A + U(N 1 ). (5.20) w + = w + N 1... w + 1, N 1 a + = (a w + ϕ j ), a = j=1 j w = w 0... w N 1 1 N 1 1 j=0 (a w j ϕ j ). A = A w (N 1 1)A N 1 1 w (N 1 2) A N 1 2 w (1)A 1 w (0), 0 A + = A w + ( 1)A 1 w + ( 2) A 2 w + (1 N 1 )A N 1 1 w + ( N 1 ). N 1 Lemma 5.9. Te symbols a ± and te operators A ± satisfy a + S comp L u,ρ (T M \ 0), a S comp L s,ρ (T M \ 0); A + = Op Lu (a +) + O( 1 ρ ) L 2 L 2, A = Op Ls (a ) + O( 1 ρ ) L 2 L 2. Proof. Te statement for a and A follows directly from Lemma 3.2. Te statement for a + and A + can be obtained similarly by reversing te flow ϕ t wic excanges te stable and unstable foliations. By Lemma 5.9 and (5.20), to sow Proposition 3.5 it suffices to prove te estimate Op Ls (a ) Op Lu (a +) L 2 L 2 Cβ. Te latter follows from te version of te fractal uncertainty principle in Proposition 5.7 (wit Q = I) were te porosity condition is establised by te following Lemma Tere exist ε 0, ν 1, K 1 > 0 depending only on M, U 1, U 2 suc tat te sets supp a ± are (ε 0, ν 1 )-porous up to scale K 1 ρ along U ± in te sense of Definition 5.6. Proof. We sow te porosity of supp a. Te porosity of supp a + can be proved in te same way, by reversing te direction of te flow ϕ t. Recall from (3.2) tat supp a 1 U 1 = supp a 2 U 2 = were U 1, U 2 are nonempty open conic subsets of T M \ 0. Fix nonempty open conic subsets U 1, U 2 T M \ 0 suc tat U w S M U w, w = 1, 2.

28 28 SEMYON DYATLOV AND LONG JIN By Proposition 2.1 and since te vector field U is omogeneous, tere exists T > 1 depending only on M, U 1, U 2 suc tat for eac (x, ξ) T M \ 0, tere exist s w = s w (x, ξ) [0, T ], w = 1, 2, suc tat exp(s w U )(x, ξ) U w. We put K 1 := 3T. Take arbitrary (x, ξ) T M \ 0 and τ suc tat K 1 ρ τ 1. Let j be te unique integer suc tat e j 1 τ < T e j τ, ten 1 j N 1 1. Denote w := w j {1, 2}, so tat supp a ϕ j (U w ) =. (5.21) Since e j τ T, we see tat tere exists s 0 := e j s w (ϕ j (x, ξ)) [0, τ] suc tat q := ϕ j ( exp(s0 U )(x, ξ) ) = exp(e j s 0 U ) ( ϕ j (x, ξ) ) U w. (5.22) Here we used te commutation relations (2.5). For v R 3 and s R we ave ϕ j ( exp(v+ v) exp((s + s 0 )U )(x, ξ) ) = exp(v + v ) exp(e j su )(q) (5.23) were v = (v 1, v 2, e j v 3 ), in particular v v. Now, coose ν 1 > 0 suc tat for w = 1, 2 max( v, s ) ν 1 = e V +v e su (U w) U w and put ε 0 := ν 1 /(3T ). By (5.22) and (5.23) we ave Σ ε 0 τ,ν 1 (e s 0U (x, ξ)) ϕ j (U w ). By (5.21) we ten ave Σ ε 0 τ,ν 1 (e s 0U (x, ξ)) supp a =. Tis finises te proof of te porosity of supp a. Appendix: Calculus associated to a Lagrangian foliation In tis appendix, we establis properties of te Ψ comp,l,ρ pseudodifferential calculus introduced in 2.3. We follow [DyZa16, 3], indicating te canges necessary. We present te calculus in te general setting of a Lagrangian foliation on an arbitrary manifold. A.1. Symbols. We assume tat M is a manifold, U T M is an open set, and L is a Lagrangian foliation, tat is for eac (x, ξ) U, L (x,ξ) T (x,ξ) (T M) is a Lagrangian subspace depending smootly on (x, ξ) and te family (L (x,ξ) ) (x,ξ) U is integrable. See [DyZa16, Definition 3.1]. To keep track of powers of in te remainders, we introduce a sligtly more general class of symbols tan te one used in 2.3. Fix two parameters 0 ρ < 1, 0 ρ ρ 2, ρ + ρ < 1. We say tat an -dependent symbol a lies in te class S comp L,ρ,ρ (U) if (1) a(x, ξ; ) is smoot in (x, ξ) U, defined for 0 < 1, and supported in an -independent compact subset of U;