arxiv: v2 [math.ap] 11 Jul 2018

Transcription

1 LOGARITHMIC IMPROVEMENTS IN L p BOUNDS FOR EIGENFUNCTIONS AT THE CRITICAL EXPONENT IN THE PRESENCE OF NONPOSITIVE CURVATURE arxiv: v [math.ap] 11 Jul 018 MATTHEW D. BLAIR AND CHRISTOPHER D. SOGGE Abstract. We consider the problem of proving L p bounds for eigenfunctions of the Laplacian in the high frequency limit in the presence of nonpositive curvature and more generally, manifolds without conjugate points. In particular, we prove estimates at the critical exponent p c = d+1), where a spectrum of scenarios for phase space concentration must be ruled out. Our wor establishes a gain of an inverse power d 1 of the logarithm of the frequency in the bounds relative to the classical L p bounds of the second author. 1. Introduction Let M, g) be a boundaryless, compact, connected Riemannian manifold with d = dimm) and g the associated negative Laplace-Beltrami operator. The spectrum of g is discrete and we let e λ denote any L - normalized eigenfunction 1.1) g + λ )e λ = 0, e λ L M) = 1. Here L p M) is the space of L p functions with respect to Riemannian measure dv g. The frequency λ thus parameterizes the eigenvalues of P := g. We are concerned with L p bounds on eigenfunctions e λ in the high frequency limit λ and more generally, spectral clusters, meaning sums of eigenfunctions in the range of a spectral projector 1 [λ,λ+hλ)] P ), the operator which projects a function onto all the eigenspaces of P whose corresponding eigenvalue lies in a band of width hλ) to the right of λ. In [Sog88], the second author showed that for < p, with hλ) 1 1.) 1 [λ,λ+1] P ) L M) L p M) λδp,d), λ 1, 1.3) δp, d) = { d 1 d p, p c p, d p ), p p c, p c := d + 1) d 1. The first author was supported in part by the National Science Foundation grants DMS and DMS , and the second by the National Science Foundation grant DMS

2 M. D. BLAIR AND C. D. SOGGE Note that δp c, d) = 1/p c. The case p = here can be seen as a consequence of classical pointwise Weyl laws. One of the ey contributions of [Sog88] was to treat these bounds at the critical exponent p c, so that interpolation yields the remaining cases. This gives a discrete analog of the Stein-Tomas Fourier restriction bound for the sphere [Sog93, p.135] or more precisely the adjoint bound). Given 1.), any eigenfunction as in 1.1) satisfies 1.4) e λ L p M) λ δp,d), λ 1. As observed in [Sog86], the exponent δp, d) in 1.4) cannot be improved when M, g) is the round sphere. The zonal harmonics provide a sequence of eigenfunctions saturating the bound when p c p and the highest weight spherical harmonics saturate it when < p p c. This is not surprising since the spectrum of P in this setting is nearly arithmetic, meaning the projector in 1.) is essentially the same as projection onto an eigenspace. However, the geometries for which the corresponding eigenfunctions saturate 1.4) are in some sense exceptional, and if it does occur then the geodesic flow expects to have similar dynamics to that of the sphere. Well nown classical Gaussian beam constructions show that when M, g) has a stable elliptic orbit, then there are highly accurate approximate eigenfunctions that saturate 1.) when < p p c. The wors [SZ0], [STZ11], [SZ16] characterize geometries which saturate 1.4) when p =, showing, for instance, that in the real analytic case, this will only occur if the unit speed geodesics emanating from a point x M loop bac to a point at a common time. These features are absent from several Riemannian manifolds of interest such as manifolds without conjugate points. When M, g) has nonpositive sectional curvatures, it is nown that 1.5) 1 [λ,λ+log λ) 1 ]P ) L M) L p M) p λ δp,d) log λ) σp,d), p p c, for some exponent σp, d) > 0. For p c < p, a wor of Hassell and Tacy [HT15] shows that one can tae σp, d) = 1 here1, though the implicit constant tends to infinity as p p c. Their wor draws from a classical wor of Berard [Bér] on the remainder in the pointwise Weyl law which already implies the p = case). When < p < p c, the bounds 1.5) result from the authors wors [BS17], [BS18], but the exponents obtained satisfy lim p pc σp, d) = 0, again leaving the critical p = p c case open. In particular, [BS17] shows that the left hand side of 1.5) is dominated by socalled Kaeya-Niodym averages, which bound the mass of these spectral clusters within shrining tubular neighborhoods about a geodesic segment. The wor [BS18] then shows that these averages are then seen to exhibit a logarithmic gain in the presence of nonpositive curvature cf. 5.6) below). The two strategies outlined here are therefore very effective towards obtaining a logarithmic gain in the L M) L p M) bounds on the projector 1 The wors [Bér], [Bon16] show this also holds if M, g) merely lacs conjugate points.

3 LOGARITHMIC GAIN IN CRITICAL L p BOUNDS 3 in 1.5) when p p c : they either rule out mass concentration similar to the zonal harmonics, yielding improvements for p c < p, or concentration similar to the highest weight spherical harmonics, yielding improvements for < p < p c. However, by themselves they do not seem to give an effective strategy for obtaining a logarithmic gain at the critical exponent p c. We also remar that a wor of Hezari and Rivière [HR16] uses quantum ergodicity methods to show a logarithmic gain in the L p bounds on eigenfunctions in the presence of negative curvature for all < p, but this is only for a full density subsequence of them. In the present wor, we are interested in bounds satisfied by the full sequence. A breathrough on this critical problem came from the second author in [Sog17], who demonstrated a gain of an inverse power of log log λ in the L M) L pc M) bounds on this spectral projector. The strategy there was to instead consider bounds on the projector in wea-l p spaces, which in turn yields strong L p bounds after interpolation with Lorentz space bounds of Ba and Seeger [BS11]. The wea bounds were then treated by methods analogous to Bourgain s approach to Fourier restriction to the sphere in [Bou91, 6]. We outline the strategy of [Sog17] in below. In the present wor, we show that the log log λ gain exhibited in [Sog17] can be improved to a log λ gain. This is significant as the latter essentially corresponds to the largest time scale over which the frequency localized wave ernel is currently understood in the setting of nonpositive curvature, closely related to considerations involving the Ehrenfest time in quantum mechanics. In what follows, ρ is an even, real valued function satisfying ρ SR), ρ0) = 1, supp ρ) { t 1/4, 1/)}. We also assume that ρt) 1 for every t R so that for any τ, λ > 0 1.6) ρτλ P )) L M) L M) 1. Throughout the wor, we let c 0 > 0 be a sufficiently small but fixed constant and define T = T λ) by 1.7) T := c 0 log λ. Theorem 1.1. Suppose M, g) has nonpositive sectional curvatures. There exists ε 0 > 0 such that 1.8) ρt λ P )) L M) L pc M) λ1/pc log λ) ε, p d + 1) c = 0 d 1. Consequently, 1.9) 1 [λ,λ+log λ) 1 ]P ) L M) L pc M) λ1/pc log λ) ε 0. and in particular, any eigenfunction as in 1.1) satisfies e λ L pc M) = Oλ 1/pc log λ) ε 0 ).

4 4 M. D. BLAIR AND C. D. SOGGE That 1.9) follows from 1.8) is standard. Indeed, taing c 0 sufficiently small, ρt λ P )) is invertible on the range of 1 [λ,λ+log λ) 1 ]P ) with inverse uniformly bounded on L M). We are thus focused on proving 1.8). Remar 1.. The argument shows that in fact 4, d 4, 3d+1) ) ε 0 = 1 48 d = 3 1 7, d =, where in the d = 3 case the minus sign means that the exponent can be taen strictly less than but arbitrarily close to 1/48. As noted in Remar.4 below, this exponent can be improved when d =, 3 if it is assumed that M, g) has strictly negative sectional curvatures, leading to an exponent of ε 0 = 1 36 when d = and a removal of the loss when d = 3 so that ε 0 = To gain an appreciation as to why treating the case of critical exponents is subtle, it is helpful to consider the analog of 1.) for the constant coefficient Laplacian on R d, which amounts to considering the Fourier multiplier onto frequencies {ξ R d : λ ξ λ + 1}. Correspondingly, tae f λ,θ L R d ), f λ,θ L = 1, to be defined as the function whose Fourier transform is the characteristic function of the set { } 1.11) ξ R d : λ ξ λ + 1, ξ 1, 0,..., 0) ξ θ, multiplied by an L -normalization constant c λ,θ λ d 1 θ d 1. When θ = λ 1/, a linearization of the phase function of the Fourier integral e ix ξ ˆfλ,λ 1/ξ)dξ shows that f λ,λ 1/x) λ d 1 4 on the set { } 1.1) x = x 1, x ) R R d 1 : x ελ 1/, x 1 ε, for some ε > 0. It is then easily verified that f λ,λ 1/ L p λ d p ), resulting in a function analogous to the Knapp example from Fourier restriction theory. On the other hand, when θ = 1, stationary phase suggests 1.13) f λ,1 x) λ d λ x ) d 1, x1 x, for sufficiently many x so that f λ,1 L p λ d 1 d p when p > d d 1. This yields families of functions which saturate the exponent in 1.) when < p p c and p c p respectively. However, by carefully splitting into oscillatory regions where stationary phase can be applied and θ-dependent non-oscillatory regions similar to 1.1), it can be seen that at p = p c, f λ,θ L pc λ 1/pc for any θ [λ 1/, 1], hence its designation as the critical exponent. These computations were carried out rigorously in [Tac18]. Analogous constructions can be carried out for suitable approximations to 1 [λ,λ+1] P ) on any M, g), only now the x 1 axis is replaced by a geodesic segment and Riemannian distance replaces Euclidean see [Sog93, Ch.5]).

5 LOGARITHMIC GAIN IN CRITICAL L p BOUNDS 5 Moreover, localization analogous to that in 1.11) can be achieved by pseudodifferential operators PDOs). These considerations demonstrate that in order to show 1.9) at the critical exponent, one must rule out a spectrum of scenarios for phase space concentration: simply disproving either maximal mass concentration in λ 1/ tubular neighborhoods or decay ain to 1.13) as in previous wors is not enough by itself. We shall see that the method in [Sog17] is effective in proving nonconcentration for θ λ 1/+ε for any fixed ε 0, 1/). A ey idea in the present wor to accomplish this for microlocalized modes corresponding to the remaining cases θ λ 1/, λ 1/+ε ). Unlie [Sog17], the present wor does not rely on the nown bounds 1.5) when < p < p c. The bounds in Theorem 1.1 can be interpolated with the p = case to show L p bounds for this range of p. As noted above, the exponent σp, d) vanishes as p p c so the interpolation yields an improved exponent for p interval to the left of p c, but not all values of < p < p c. Outline of the wor. In, we review the method introduced in [Sog17]. We then show how to generate improvements on this approach for modes microlocalized to a conic sector about a fixed covector field, analogous to the angular localization in 1.11). This adapts the approach in [BS18]. The third section then details a proof by contradiction for our main result, Theorem 1.1. The arguments here are partially inspired by strategies in nonlinear PDE, particularly dispersive ones, which see to characterize the phase space concentration of solutions which develop a singularity, then disprove the possibility of such concentration. While the present wor does not develop an explicit profile decomposition for spectral clusters, ain to those which are common for nonlinear Schrödinger equations, the approach here is reminiscent of wors in that vein such as [Bou98], [BV07]. In 3.1, we review the local structure of spectral multipliers which roughly project onto frequency bands of width 1 and then define an almost orthogonal decomposition adapted to these operators which achieves the microlocalization considered in. This culminates in the statement of Theorem 3., which bounds the wea-l pc quasi-norms of such spectral multipliers by the mass of the elements in the decomposition. The contradiction is then finalized in 3.. The proof of Theorem 1.1 thus relies in a crucial way on Theorem 3. and the improvements from, in particular Corollary.. Together these are the central developments in the present wor. The fourth section sets the stage for bilinear estimates on approximate projections onto bands of width 1, which will yield the proof of Theorem 3.. We then need to show how the elements of our decomposition behave under these approximate projections, which is done in 4.. The bilinear estimates can then be concluded. The final subsection 4.3 then shows that products of the members of the decomposition obey an almost orthogonality principle in L r spaces, a crucial lemma in the proof of the bilinear bounds. The fifth and final section then considers results for geometric hypotheses on M, g) weaer than nonpositive curvature.

6 6 M. D. BLAIR AND C. D. SOGGE Semiclassical analysis. This wor uses a modest amount of semiclassical analysis, though instead of using the notation h commonly used in this practice, we use λ = h 1 as the frequency parameter. The primary use is to quantize various compactly supported pseudodifferential symbols q λ x, ξ) so that Q λ =Opq λ ) is the operator with Schwartz ernel 1.14) Q λ x, y) = λd π) d e iλx y) ξ q λ x, ξ) dξ standard quantization). In the present wor, one will be able to view these operations as the result of taing a classical symbol, compactly supported where ξ λ with uniform estimates in S1,0 0, S0 7/8,1/8, and applying the rescaling ξ λξ. Such a rescaling yields symbols in the classes S 0, S 1/8 respectively in the sense of [Zwo1, 4.4] The semiclassical Fourier transform is thus defined consistently by F λ f)ξ) = ˆfλξ) with inverse F 1 λ f)x) = λd ˇfλx) where ˆf, ˇf are the classical Fourier transform and its inverse respectively. The use of semiclassical quantization maes for a convenient use of stationary phase. Notation. We tae the common convention that A B means that A CB for some large constant C which depends only on M, g) and in particular is uniform in λ and possibly other parameters except when they are given in the subscript of. Similarly, A B means that A cb for some small uniform constant c. The notation A B means that A B and B A. Certain variables may be reassigned when the analysis in a given section is independent of prior sections. Throughout, ρ λ abbreviates the operator ρt λ P )) in 1.8), where T is as in 1.7). We will also use local projectors σ λ defined by ρ c 0 λ P )) for some fixed, but sufficiently small constant c 0 much less than the injectivity radius of M, g)). When these operators are restricted to some sequence of λ, we abbreviate ρ λ, σ λ as ρ, σ respectively. Finally, we use Θ g x, y) to denote the Riemannian distance between two points x, y on M. Acnowledgement. The authors are grateful to the anonymous referee for numerous comments which improved the exposition in this wor.. Review of [Sog17] and improved wea bounds for microlocalized modes.1. Review of [Sog17]. We review the arguments of the second author in [Sog17] used to prove 1.8) with log λ replaced by log log λ. We begin by recalling wea-l p and Lorentz spaces on M, g) with respect to Riemannian measure. The wea-l p functions are the measurable functions for which the following quasi-norm is finite f L p, M) = sup α {x M : fx) > α} 1 p, α>0 where the bars are used denote the Riemannian measure. The well-nown Chebyshev inequality shows that functions in L p M) are also in wea-l p

7 LOGARITHMIC GAIN IN CRITICAL L p BOUNDS 7 with f L p, M) f L p M). More generally, the Lorentz spaces are a family of interpolation spaces which include both L p M) and wea-l p. They are defined by first considering the distribution function for measurable functions as d f α) = {x M : fx) > α} then defining L p,q M) as being the measurable functions for which the following quasi-norm is finite f L p,q M) := p 1 q 0 [ d f s) 1/p s ] q ds s ) 1 q, 0 < q <. Lorentz spaces are often equivalently defined using the decreasing rearrangement of f. A well nown identity from measure theory shows f L p,p M) = f L p M). As suggested by the notation above, when q = the Lorentz space L p, M) is just the wea-l p functions. As observed in [Sog17, 4], an interpolation in Lorentz spaces yields recalling ρ λ := ρt λ P ))).1) ρ λ L M) L pc M) ρ λ 1 pc L M) L pc, M) ρ λ pc L M) L pc, M). 1 In [BS11, Corollary 1.3], Ba and Seeger showed ρ λ L Lpc, = Oλ pc ). Consequently, it suffices to obtain wea L pc bounds on ρ λ. We consider a slightly more general setting for the wea bounds, considering instead wea bounds for Q λ ρ λ where Q λ is either the identity or a semiclassical pseudodifferential operator as in 1.14) corresponding to a compactly supported symbol q λ S 1/8 in that α q α λ 1/8. Note that [Sog17] only considers the case where Q λ is the identity. Fix a unit vector f L M), then consider for α > 0 and some coordinate system Ω M the sets A α defined by.) A α := {x Ω : Q λ ρ λ )f) x) > α}, f L M) = 1. Denoting the Riemannian measure of this set as A α, we see a bound.3) α A α 1 pc λ 1 pc log λ) ε 1, ε 1 := ε 0p c p c = d + 1 ε 0. We begin by restricting attention to the case.4) λ d 1 4 log λ) 1 α. We now set.5) r := λα 4 d 1 log λ) d 1 so that λr 1 ) d 1 = α log λ. Given.4), r 1. At the cost of replacing A α by a set of proportional measure, we may write A α = j A α,j where da α,j, A α, ) > C 0 r in Euclidean distance for some C 0 > 0 sufficiently large when j. To see this, cover the original set A α by a lattice of nonoverlapping cubes of sidelength r. Then partition the cubes in this cover into O1) subcollections such that the centers of the cubes in each subcollection are separated by a distance

8 8 M. D. BLAIR AND C. D. SOGGE of at least 4 d C 0 r. By the pigeonhole principle, the intersection of at least one subcollection in the partition with A α must have measure comparable to A α. We may thus replace A α by its intersection with this subcollection of cubes. Now let 1 A denote the characteristic function of A, and a j = 1 Aj ψ λ where ψ λ is defined as { Qλ ρ λ )f)x) ψ λ x) = Q λ ρ λ )f)x), Q λ ρ λ )f) x) 0, 1, Q λ ρ λ )f) x) = 0. Since ρ λ is self-adjoint and f L M) = 1, ) 1 α A α Q λ ρ λ )f) ψ λ 1 Aα ρ λ Q λ )a j This now yields with ρ λ = ρ λ ρ λ ).6) α A α ρ λ Q λ )a j + Q λ ρ λ Q λ )a ja =: I + II. j j We now consider the consequences of.6) when Q λ is the identity and when this is a semiclassical PDO with q λ S 1/8 separately Consequences of.6) when Q λ is the identity. We further review the arguments in [Sog17], assuming Q λ is the identity. The arguments in [Bér], [HT15] used to prove 1.5) when p = also show that ρ λ L M) L M) λ d 1 log λ) 1/. In fact, this is a consequence of.10) below and duality. Hence A α as defined in.) is vacuous unless α λ d 1 log λ) 1/, meaning we only need to consider cases where r λ 1. In [Sog17, 30)], it is shown that ρ λ satisfies local L bounds over balls Bx, r) when λ 1 r injm).7) ρ λ L M) L Bx,r)) = ρ λ L Bx,r)) L M) r 1, where the implicit constant is independent of x and the equality holds since ρ λ is self-adjoint. Hence.8) I r a j r A α = λα 4 d 1 log λ) d 1 Aα. j j. Moreover, with Kw, z) denoting the integral ernel of ρ λ ).9) II sup sup Kw, z) a j L 1 a L 1 j w,z) A α,j A α, j ) sup j sup Kw, z) w,z) A α,j A α, A α.

9 LOGARITHMIC GAIN IN CRITICAL L p BOUNDS 9 Lemma 3.3 in [Sog17] then appeals to results of Bérard [Bér] to observe that there exists C = CM, g) sufficiently large such that.10) Kw, z) C T Recalling 1.7), we then have that II.11) λ λ 1 + Θ g w, z) ) d 1 C d 1 0 log λ) 1 λr 1 ) d 1 + λ Cc 0+ d 1 C d 1 0 α + λ Cc 0+ d 1 ) A α + Cλ d 1 expct ). ) A α Given.6),.8), and.11) we then have desirable bounds on A α when α λ d 1 4 +ε where ε can be made small by choosing c 0 much smaller and C 0 large. However, the smaller we wish to tae ε, the smaller we must tae c 0, which does have to be uniform in the proof. In [Sog17], this is remedied by taing T = c 0 log log λ and appealing to the results in [BS18], [BS17], to handle smaller values of α. This in turn only yields a gain of a power of log log λ) 1 in the final estimates. In the present wor, we assume c 0 is small enough so that the argument outlined here yields.1) α A α 1 pc λ 1 pc log λ) 1 d+1 for λ d α, so that the crucial matter is to treat the cases α < λ d The choice of ε = 1 8 is not crucial, but a convenient choice for the sae of concreteness as it does influence other parameters throughout the wor. We stress that in the remainder of this wor,.1) is only applied to the case Q λ = I..1.. Consequences of.6) when Q λ is a semiclassical PDO. We now reconsider the bounds on I and II just established in.1.1 but with Q λ now a semiclassical PDO with symbol in S 1/8. We would lie for.7) to yield.13) I r j Q λ a j r A α = λα 4 d 1 log λ) d 1 Aα. However, the ernel of Q λ is only rapidly decreasing outside a λ 7/8 neighborhood of the diagonal and hence this estimate does not follow at scales finer than r λ 7/8. But given.1), we will only need to bound I when α < λ d , meaning that r > λ 1 d 1) log λ) d 1, which always determines a much coarser scale of at least r λ 3/4. Hence in these cases, Q λ a jx) = Oλ N ) for any N outside a cube of sidelength r, so the local estimates in.7) do indeed yield.13). Turning to the bounds on II in.9), we now consider the effect of replacing the ernel Kw, z) of ρ λ there by the ernel of Q λ ρ λ Q λ as indicated by.6). In the next subsection, we will show that for suitable choices of

10 10 M. D. BLAIR AND C. D. SOGGE Q λ, the corresponding ernel Kw, z) satisfies Kw, z) 1 λ T λ 1 + Θ g w, z) ) d 1 + cλ)λ d 1, for some cλ) 0 at least as fast as an inverse power of log λ but no faster than log λ) 1 so that.4) is ultimately respected in this argument). Hence.11) can be improved to read.14) II C d 1 0 α + λ d 1 ) cλ) A α. Taing C 0 sufficiently large, we obtain an improvement on.1):.15) α A α 1 pc λ 1 pc log λ) 1 d+1 for λ d 1 4 cλ) 1 α λ d Improved wea estimates for microlocalized modes. Consider any local coordinate chart Ω on M. Suppose q λ x, ξ) is a semiclassical symbol such that for some unit covector field ωx), ωx) gx) = 1 with gx) the cometric, the inner product on the T M induced by the metric), { suppq λ ) x, ξ) T Ω : ξ/ ξ gx) ωx) } gx) λ 1/8, ξ 1,.16) ωx), d ξ j β x,ξ q λx, ξ) β,j λ β /8. The symbol q λ thus lies in the subcritical class S 1/8 as in [Zwo1, 4.4]). If one sets Q λ := Opq λ ) as in 1.14), we show the following improvement on.10) of the ernel of the composition Q λ ρ λ Q λ : Theorem.1. Let Kw, z) denote the ernel of Q λ ρ λ Q λ. We then have Kw, z) 1 ) d 1 λ + cλ)λ d 1, T Θ g w, z).17) log λ) 1/, if d =, cλ) = log λ) 1 log log λ, if d = 3, log λ) 1, if d 4. where the implicit constants can be taen independent of λ and depend only on finitely many of the derivative bounds in.16). Corollary.. Let Q λ, cλ) be as in Theorem.1, A α as in.). Then.18) α A α 1 pc λ 1 pc cλ) 1 d+1, 0 < α λ d Proof of Corollary.. Given.15), it suffices to assume α λ d 1 4 cλ) 1. But since Q λ ρ λ L M) L M) 1 uniformly, we have α A α 1 1, hence α A α 1 pc = α 1 pc by the upper bound on α. α A α 1 ) pc λ 1 pc cλ) 1 d+1, Again, the choice of 1/8 is not crucial here, only a convenient one.

11 LOGARITHMIC GAIN IN CRITICAL L p BOUNDS Consequences of the Hadamard parametrix and the proof of Theorem.1. Since ˆρ = ˆρ ˆρ is supported in [ 1, 1], the ey to.17) is to bound the following integral by the second term on the right hand side of.17):.19) 1 πt T T 1 β)t) ˆρ t/t )e iλt Q λ costp ) Q λ ) w, z) dt. where β is of sufficiently small compact support and identically one in a neighborhood of 0. Indeed, without the factor of 1 β in the integrand, this is the ernel of Q λ ρ λ Q λ, up to negligible errors, by Euler s formula. It is a classical result of Hörmander [Hör68] that if one replaces 1 β by β here, the resulting ernel is bounded by the first term on the right in.17). Since M, g) does not have conjugate points, the ernel of costp ) can be analyzed by lifting to the universal cover M, g) where g is defined by pulling the metric tensor g bac via the covering map. Fix a fundamental domain D M and let w, z denote the unique points in D which project onto w, z in M via the covering map. Recall that the classical Cartan-Hadamard theorem ensures that M is diffeomorphic to R d via the exponential map at any point. Here we tae global geodesic coordinates on M via the exponential map at w. We also assume that the geodesic in M from w with initial covector ω w) lies along the first coordinate axis and let γt) = t, 0,..., 0) denote this unit speed geodesic. If P = g, with g the Laplacian on M, g), we have costp )w, z) = α Γ cost P ) w, α z)) where Γ denotes the group of dec transformations which preserve the covering map 3. Note that by finite speed of propagation, we may restrict attention to the α B w, T ). For x D and ỹ R d, we first concern ourselves with V x, ỹ) := 1 πt T T 1 β)t) ˆρ t/t )e iλt cost P ) x, ỹ) dt. If we extend the ernel of Q λ to be periodic with respect to α Γ, we have with d x, dỹ implicitly the Riemannian measure with respect to g).0).19) = U α w, z), α Γ U α w, z) := Q λ w, x)v x, ỹ)q λ ỹ, α 1 z))d xdỹ. αd) D Using the Hadamard parametrix for the wave equation on R d, g) and stationary phase see for example, [BS15, Lemma 5.1], [BS18, 3], [CS14, 3 The proof of Theorem.1 is more or less independent of the other sections, so we temporarily reassign α as indexing Γ in the interest of consistency with prior wors.

12 1 M. D. BLAIR AND C. D. SOGGE Lemma 3.1]), it is nown that.1) V x, ỹ) := λ d 1 T Θ g x, ỹ) d 1 e ±iλθ g x,ỹ) a λ,± x, ỹ) + R λ x, ỹ). ± Here a λ,±, R λ vanish for Θ g x, ỹ) T by finite speed of propagation and a λ,± also vanishes if Θ g x, ỹ) is sufficiently small since β vanishes in a neighborhood of the origin. The remainder can be taen so that R λ x, ỹ) λ. Moreover, a λ,± can be written as.) a λ,± x, ỹ) = ϑ x, ỹ)a λ,±,1 Θ g x, ỹ) ) + a λ,±, x, ỹ), where j ra λ,±,1 r) j r j and there exists C d so that for 0 < β < 16d,.3) β x,ỹ Θ g x, ỹ), λ β x,ỹ a λ,±, x, ỹ), β x,ỹ ϑ x, ỹ) expc dθ g x, ỹ)). The function ϑ x, ỹ) is the leading coefficient in the Hadamard parametrix. It is characterized by the property that dv g = ϑ x, ỹ)dl in normal coordinates at x, with L denoting Lebesgue measure on R d. Since M, g) has nonpositive sectional curvatures, it is observed in [SZ14] that ϑ is uniformly bounded as a consequence of the Günther comparison theorem. Moreover, if the curvatures are strictly negative and bounded above by κ, the same theorem implies ϑ x, ỹ) exp κd 1) Θ g x, ỹ)). Given the properties of the support of a ±,λ and R λ, there are at most Oe CT ) nonzero terms in the sum.0) as a consequence of lattice point counting arguments. As observed above, R λ x, ỹ) λ and hence by Sobolev embedding and L bounds on Q λ, we may restrict attention to the sum over ± in.1). We next observe that in our global coordinate system, we may assume that up to acceptable Oλ ) error, the ernel of Q λ is of the form λ d π) d e iλ w x) η q λ w, x, η) dη, } suppq λ ) { w, η) T D, x D : η/ η 1, 0,..., 0) λ 1 8, η 1. Here we have used a compound symbol, deviating slightly from 1.14) to ensure the ernel is supported in D D. We may assume the same for the support of the symbol qλ of the adjoint. Restricting attention to the main term in.1), U α w, z) is a sum over ±.4) λ 5d 1 π) d e iλϕ ± w, x,ỹ, z,η,ζ) q λ w, x, η)a ±,λ x, ỹ)qλ T ỹ, α 1 z), η) d xdỹdηdζ, ϕ ± w, x, ỹ, z, η, ζ) := w x) η ± Θ g x, ỹ) + ỹ α 1 z)) ζ, where as before the domain of integration is x, ỹ) D αd).

13 LOGARITHMIC GAIN IN CRITICAL L p BOUNDS 13 Applying stationary phase to.4) shows that for any α Bw, T ),.5) U α w, z) λ d 1 ϑ w, α z)) + λ ) 1 + Θ g w, α z))) d 1. T The main idea in the proof of.17) is that one can improve upon this bound when αd) is outside a tubular neighborhood of γ. The proof is similar to that in [BS18] where the authors made use of the following consequence of the Toponogov triangle comparison theorem see [BS18, Proposition.1] for further details). Lemma.3. Suppose R d, g) is the cover of M, g) given by the exponential map at w and that its sectional curvatures are bounded below by 1. Given T 1 and θ 1, let Cθ; T ) denote the set of points in the metric ball of radius T about w such that the geodesic through the point and w forms an angle less than θ with γ. Fix R sufficiently large. Then if T R := { x R d : Θ g x, γ) R}, we have Cθ T ; T ) T R if sin θ T ) = sinhr/) sinh T. Note that we may assume the sectional curvatures of M, g) and M, g) are bounded below by 1 by rescaling the metric in the outset of the proof. Fix R = 100 diamd). Given the lemma, we tae c 0 in 1.7) so that.6) Cλ 1/16 ; c 0 log λ) = Cλ 1/16 ; T ) T R, and hence ±d w Θ g w, ỹ) 1, 0,..., 0) λ 1 16, ỹ / TR.... Proof of Theorem.1. As in [BS18], set Γ TR := {α Γ : αd) T R }. The arguments on p. 0 in that wor then show that the cardinality of {α Γ TR : Θ g w, α z)) [, +1 ]} is O ). Therefore given.5),.7) U α w, z) λ T α Γ TR d 1 0 log λ Indeed, so geometric summation shows the inequality. We are now left to show that.8) U α w, z) 1, for α / Γ TR. d 1 cλ)λ d 1. Indeed, if this holds, then given 1.7) we have for some uniform constant C, U α w, z) e CT λ Cc0 cλ)λ d 1, α/ Γ TR since we tae c 0 sufficiently small. Next observe that with ϕ ± as in.4) d x ϕ ± = ±d x Θ g x, ỹ) η, d η ϕ ± = w x, d ζ ϕ ± = ỹ α 1 z).

14 14 M. D. BLAIR AND C. D. SOGGE Now recall.3) and the constant C d there. If we tae c 0 small so that λ C dc 0 λ 1/16, integration by parts in.4) yields U α w, z) sup x,ỹ,η,± λ 5d λ 7 8 ±d x Θ g x, ỹ) η + λ 7 8 ỹ α 1 z) + λ 7 8 w x ) 8d, where the supremum is over all points inside the support of the amplitude. However, there exists C such that d x Θ g x, ỹ) d w Θ g w, α 1 z)) e CT w x + ỹ α 1 z) ), so taing c 0 < 1 16C in 1.7), the constant on the right is λcc 0 λ 1/16, hence U α w, z) sup λ 5d λ 3 8d 4 ± d w Θ g w, α 1 z)) η ), η,± But since η 1, 0,..., 0) λ 1/8, and α / Γ TR, as a consequence of.6) the second factor is Oλ 3d ) which is stronger than.8). Remar.4. When the curvatures of M, g) are strictly negative, one can tae cλ) = log λ) 1 in Theorem.1 and its corollary in any dimension, leading to an improvement in the exponent ε 0 in Remar 1. when d =, 3 via the argument in 3. As observed above, ϑ decays exponentially in Θ g in this case, and hence the sum in.7) is Oλ d 1 / log λ) for any d. 3. The proof by contradiction To obtain a contradiction to Theorem 1.1, suppose there exists a sequence of triples {f, λ, B )} =1 such that f L M) = 1, B, λ such that 3.1) 0 < B λ 1/pc log λ ) ε < ρ f 1 L pc, M), ε 1 = ε 0p c p c = d + 1 ε 0, where ε 0 is in our main L pc estimate in Theorem 1.1 cf. Remar 1.) and as before, ρ = ρ λ. Indeed, if we had lim sup λ 1/pc log λ) ε 0 ρ λ L M) L pc M) =, λ then a similar inequality holds with different values of B, a strong L p bound replacing this wea one, and the larger log-exponent ε 1 replaced by ε 0. But then the Lorentz interpolation argument.1) yields 3.1). Taing ε 0 small enough so that ε 1 1 d+1, given the consequence.1) of the results in [Sog17], we may assume for each, there is α > 0 such that 3.) B λ 1/pc log λ ) ε 1 < α {x M : ρ fx) > α } 1 pc, α λ d In order to tae advantage of the improved microlocalized bounds in Theorem.1 and Corollary., we will appeal to methods emanating from the Fourier restriction problem and their relatives. In particular, we want to

15 LOGARITHMIC GAIN IN CRITICAL L p BOUNDS 15 control the L pc, quasi-norm of the ρ f by the L pc and L norm of expressions such as Q λ ρ f with Q λ being the pseudodifferential cutoff function as in Theorem.1 though the notation will change slightly below). While the operator ρ λ is still too poorly understood to apply such classical methods, we can instead use local operators σ = ρ c 0 λ P )) as in the notation section) in order to achieve this. This is in the same spirit of the authors previous wor, and that of others, where the local operators are treated in a way that mae them amenable to global analysis. The main idea is that I σ ) ρ is an acceptable error term. Indeed, since 1 ρ)0) = 0, we have 1 ρ) c 0 λ τ))ρt λ τ)) T T λ τ ) N, and hence the classical L L pc bounds 1.) for spectral projectors 1 [l,l+1] P ) imply 3.3) I σ ) ρ f L pc M) λ 1/pc log λ) 1. Since ε 1 < 1, we may assume that 3.) holds with σ ρ f replacing ρ f the former abbreviating σ ρ )f ). Now tae a finite partition of unity subordinate to an open cover of a suitable family of coordinate domains. By the pigeonhole principle, we may assume that at the cost of shrining the B and α by a uniform factor and passing to a subsequence of the triples indexed by there is a bump function ψ supported in a coordinate chart Ω R d centered at the origin for which B λ 1/pc log λ ) ε 1 < α {x Ω : ψx)σ ρ f )x) > α } 1 pc. After another harmless shrining of B, α, we may also assume that the measure here is the usual Lebesgue measure in coordinates instead of Riemannian measure. By a second application of the pigeonhole principle, we may assume that there exists a Fourier multiplier m S1,0 0 truncating to a conic sector of small aperture about a fixed vector such that 3.4) B λ 1/pc log λ ) ε 1 < α {x Ω : md)ψσ ρ f )x) > α } 1 pc. After a possible rotation of coordinates, we may further assume that the fixed vector is 1, 0,..., 0), that is, suppm) {ξ : ξ/ ξ 1, 0,..., 0) 1} Analysis of σ λ. We may assume that in the coordinate chart Ω, g ij 0) = δ ij and that for some ɛ > 0 sufficiently small 3.5) Ω = [ ɛ, ɛ] d We now recall the method for computing the ernel of σ λ = ρ c 0 λ P )) from [Sog93, Ch. 5]. There it is observed that σ λ can be realized as an

16 16 M. D. BLAIR AND C. D. SOGGE operator valued integral involving the wave ernel e itp σ λ = 1 π c 0 c0 c 0 e itλ e itp ρt/ c 0 ) dt. Using a Lax parametrix, it is well nown that for t c 0 there exists a phase function ϕt, x, ξ) and an amplitude vt, x, ξ) such that the Schwartz ernel of md)ψe itp is given by an oscillatory integral md)ψe itp ) x, y) = π c 0 e iϕt,x,ξ) y ξ) vt, x, ξ) ψy) dξ + error where the error is smoothing to a sufficient order and hence can be neglected in what follows. Here ψ is a bump function of slightly larger support and we may assume vt,, ξ), ψ are supported in the same coordinate chart Ω as above. Moreover, we may tae suppvt, x, )) {ξ : ξ/ ξ 1, 0,..., 0) 1}, for some conic sector of slightly larger aperture than the one containing suppm) cf. 3.4)). Up to negligible error, the ernel of md)ψσ λ is c0 e iλt+ϕt,x,ξ) y ξ) ρt/ c 0 )vt, x, ξ) dξ dt ψy) c 0 An integration by parts in t shows that the contribution of the region where ξ λ or ξ λ to this integral is Oλ N ) for any N and hence negligible. Hence we may assume that vt, x, ) is further supported where ξ λ. Rescaling ξ λξ, we are reduced to considering a semiclassical Fourier integral operator σ λ given by integration against the ernel c0 3.6) σ λ x, y) := λ d e iλt+ϕt,x,ξ) y ξ) ρt/ c 0 )vt, x, ξ) dξ dt ψy) c 0 where now vt, x, ) is supported where ξ 1 and in the same conic region as before. Therefore in what follows, we may assume that any function on which σ λ operates has its semiclassical Fourier transform supported in this region. Note that the operator σ λ is md)ψσ λ up to negligible error. We pause to remar that [Sog93, Lemma 5.1.3] uses stationary phase on 3.6) to show that σ λ is an oscillatory integral operator with Carleson-Sjölin phase see also the j 1 case of Lemma 4.3 below). As observed there, the L p theory for such operators due to Hörmander and Stein then yield the following linear estimates on σ λ, which in turn imply 1.): 3.7) σ λ L L pc λ 1 pc. We now want to decompose the identity into a family of pseudodifferential operators which have the effect of localizing a function in phase space in a fashion similar to Fourier multipliers defined by the characteristic functions in 1.11). However, this requires care as the operators must in some sense be invariant under the geodesic flow. We achieve this by fixing a hyperplane, namely the x 1 = 0 plane, then localizing the momenta so that it is within a

17 LOGARITHMIC GAIN IN CRITICAL L p BOUNDS 17 λ 1/8 neighborhood of a fixed vector as it passes through this hyperplane. In the construction, it is convenient to use the trivialization T Ω = Ω R d to define a family of constant covector fields along the hyperplane which serve as the centers of these neighborhoods constant in the sense that their expression in the coordinate frame is independent of position) Analysis of the geodesic flow. In preparation for the decomposition, we study χ t, which we denote as the flow on T Ω generated by the Hamiltonian vector field of px, ξ) = ξ gx). Hence χ t x, ξ) is the time t value of the integral curve of the Hamiltonian vector field of p with initial data x, ξ). Recall that the phase function ϕ in the construction above satisfies 3.8) χ t d ξ ϕt, x, ξ), ξ) = x, d x ϕt, x, ξ)). For initial data in the cosphere bundle S Ω defined by S Ω := {x, ξ) T Ω : ξ gx) = 1}, the integral curves of p coincide with geodesics of M, g) as curves in the cotangent bundle. We write x = x 1, x ) so that in particular 0, x ) gives coordinates on the x 1 = 0 hyperplane. Consider the restriction of this flow to a neighborhood of origin in the hyperplane x 1 = 0 and ξ in a conic neighborhood of 1, 0,..., 0) in SxΩ, the cosphere space at x. Assuming that ɛ in 3.5), and c 0 is sufficiently small, we have for t c 0, the mapping t, x, η) χ t 0, x, η) generates a diffeomorphism from the neighborhood to a conic neighborhood of 1, 0,..., 0) in the cosphere bundle S Ω. Indeed, recalling our assumption that g ij 0) = δ ij, the derivative of this mapping at 0, 0, 1, 0,..., 0)) is the identity. Denote the inverse as 3.9) ιx, ω), Φx, ω), Ψx, ω)) c 0, c 0 ) {y 1 = 0} S Φx,ω) Ω. Equivalently, these functions can be described in terms of the minimizing unit speed geodesic passing through x, ω): this geodesic passes through the y 1 = 0 plane at the point y = Φx, ω), the covector at this intersection point is given by Ψx, ω), and ιx, ω) = Θ g x, Φx, ω)). We note that we may further assume that for any x Ω, ω Ψx, ω) is an invertible mapping, and if η ωx, η) denotes the inverse, then ωx, η) is the unit covector along the geodesic through x whose covector at the intersection point with y 1 = 0 is η The almost orthogonal decomposition. Now let ν index a collection of vectors in a neighborhood of 1, 0,..., 0) on S d 1 separated by a distance of at least 1 λ 1/8. Define a corresponding partition of unity β ν ξ) such that suppβ ν ) is contained in a spherical cap of diameter λ 1/8 about ν and ν β νξ) = 1 for ξ S d 1. Then extend β ν ξ) to all of R d \ {0}, so that it is homogeneous of degree zero. Now define q ν x, ξ) = ψx)βν Ψx, ξ/ ξ gx) ) ) β ξ gx) ),

18 18 M. D. BLAIR AND C. D. SOGGE where β is a bump function such that ψx)vt, x, ξ) = ψx) β ξ gx) )vt, x, ξ) is supported where ξ 1 and in a slightly larger conic region than vt, x, ). Moreover, we tae ψ to be a bump function supported in Ω and identically one on ψ. This bump function means that q ν x, ξ) is not invariant under χ t, but we can assume that c 0 and the support is chosen suitably so that q ν χ t x, ξ)) = q ν x, ξ) when ψx)vt, x, ξ) 0 and t c 0. The function q ν thus defines a semiclassical symbol in the class S 1/8. It is of the form considered in Theorem.1 where the unit covector field ωx) = ωx, ν) is that of the minimizing geodesic passing through x such that its intersection with y 1 = 0 has the covector ν/ ν gx). We define Q ν = Opq ν ) as in 1.14) and hence up to error which is Oλ N ) in L for some N sufficiently large 3.10) σ λ h = σ λ Q ν h. ν Moreover, the selection of the indices ν ensures that there exists a constant C d such that for any fixed ν 3.11) #{ ν : suppq ν ) suppq ν ) } C d. In this wor we will exploit the almost orthogonality of the decomposition 3.10) at the level of L and also for products of these members in L r for 1 r. We begin by considering the former; the more general theory will be considered in Lemma 4. and is adapted to σ λ. We first observe that by appealing to the FBI transform as in [Zwo1, Theorem 13.3], we have for any symbol 4 q S 1/8 3.1) Opq) L R d ) L R d ) q + Oλ 3 4 ). Since we may restrict attention to sufficiently large λ, we have that for any subcollection F of the ν and an arbitrary sequence ɛ ν = ±1, 3.13) ɛ ν Q ν, I Q ν, Q ν L L. ν F L L ν F L L Proposition 3.1. Suppose h L R d ) and the semiclassical Fourier transform of h is supported where β = 1. Then for λ sufficiently large, 3.14) 4C d ) 1 h L Q ν h L 4 h L. ν Moreover, if F is any subcollection of the ν, 3.15) Q ν h L + h Q ν h 4 h L. ν F ν F L 4 This theorem can be applied to the rescaled symbol qλ 1/8 x, ξ)), which yields the decay rate of λ 3/4 for the error term upon return to the original coordinates. Since we are woring in a subcritical symbol class, the distinction between Weyl quantization and the standard one in 1.14) is inconsequential given change of quantization formulae.

19 LOGARITHMIC GAIN IN CRITICAL L p BOUNDS 19 Proof. We begin with the first inequality in 3.14). The symbolic calculus means that if suppq ν ) suppq ν ) =, then 3.16) Q ν Q ν L L N λ N. Taing N > d 1 4 here we see that for λ sufficiently large h L { Q ν h, Q ν h L : suppq ν ) suppq ν ) }. Indeed, 3.16) ensures that the contribution of the remaining terms is negligible. An application of Cauchy-Schwarz now show that the right hand side here is in turn bounded by 4C d ν Q νh L, where C d is as in 3.11). Turning to the second inequality in 3.14), this is essentially a consequence of 3.13) and the fact that the constant in Khintchine s inequality can be taen to be 1 when p =. More directly, consider the usual family of Rademacher functions r t) = sgnsin πt)), = 1,, 3,..., which are nown to form an orthonormal sequence in L [0, 1]). Hence for any injection ν ν), 3.13) gives that 1 Q ν h L = r ν) t)q ν hx) dxdt 4 h L. ν 0 R d ν To see 3.15), now consider an injection ν ν) defined on F such that ν) 1 for all ν F. The triangle inequality implies that for all t, r ν) t)q ν x, ξ) + r 1 t) 1 q ν x, ξ)) 1. ν F ν F Proceeding similarly, we now have Q ν h L + h Q ν h = ν F ν F L 1 r ν) t)q ν hx) + r 1 t)i Q ν )hx) ν F 0 R d ν F Note that 3.14) implies the crude bound 3.17) h L λ d 1 16 sup Q ν h L. In 4, we will prove the following theorem: ν dxdt 4 h L. Theorem 3.. Suppose h is supported in Ω with h L Ω) 4. Assume further that h satisfies 3.14), 3.17), and 3.10) without error term). Let σ λ be as in 3.6) and define à α = {x Ω : σ λ hx) > α}.

20 0 M. D. BLAIR AND C. D. SOGGE Let δ d = /d + 1) when d 3 and δ = 1/3 when d =. Then } 3.18) sup {α Ãα 1 pc : α 0, λ d ] λ 1 pc Q ν h δ d L max ν ) + λ 1 pc. Here the second term on the right means λ is raised to some given power which is strictly less than 1/p c. As we shall see in 4.8) below, the assumption α 0, λ d ] will allow us to exploit gains in bilinear estimates that correspond to the subcritical range of L q spaces with < q < p c. Indeed, 4.8) is a subtle but crucial observation in the present wor, showing that wea bounds can be combined with nown bilinear estimates to avoid the impediments presented by localizing the momenta in scales as fine as λ 1/ a necessary technical difficulty in [BS17]). The second term in the right side of 3.18) corresponds to the gain in the bilinear estimates corresponding to angular separation larger than λ 1/8 and the above assumptions on α, while the first term in the right side of 3.18) corresponds to the contribution to the bilinear estimate for neardiagonal terms corresponding to separation smaller than λ 1/8. As noted above, there is nothing special about the power 1/8. Any number between 0 and 1/ should wor after adjusting the power of α correspondingly. 3.. Finalizing the contradiction. Recall from 3.4), we have sequences B, λ and corresponding α satisfying B λ 1/pc log λ ) ε 1 < α { σ ρ f > α } 1 pc, 0 < α λ d Here we use the same notation convention σ = σ λ, and it is understood that the set on the right in the inequality is {x Ω : σ ρ f )x) > α }. Recall that the semiclassical wave front set of the ernel of σ is contained in Ω { ξ 1} given the localization of the symbol vt, x, ξ) above. We therefore mae a slight abuse of notation and assume that ρ f satisfies the assumptions on h in Theorem 3., including having support in Ω, though strictly speaing this only applies to a microlocalization of this function. In particular we assume ρ f satisfies 3.14), 3.17), and 3.10) at the cost of shrining the B and α one last time). By 3.15), for any set of {Q νl } L l=1 with ν l ν j when j l, L L 3.19) ρ f Q νl ρ f 4 ρ f L Ω) Q νl ρ f L Ω) l=1 L Ω) Let CC d ) δ d exceed the implicit constant in 3.18), where C d is defined in 3.11). Tae N N such that N Clog 4 λ ) ε ) 1 /δd < N. B l=1

21 LOGARITHMIC GAIN IN CRITICAL L p BOUNDS 1 If the middle expression is strictly less than 1/, tae N = 1. We note for future use that in either case, we have N = olog λ ) ε 1/δ d ). We claim there exists a selection of distinct Q ν1 ρ f,..., Q νn ρ f, with Q ν as in Theorem 3., which satisfies for sufficiently large ) B 1/δd 3.0) Clog λ ) ε Q ρ νl f 1, for any l = 1,..., N LΩ), { ) } B λ 1/pc log λ ) ε α L 1 σ ρ f Q νl ρ f > α 1/p c, 3.1) l=1 for any L = 1,..., N, and in the latter case, σ acts on the function in parentheses. We now show how to derive a contradiction assuming these two hold. Recall that the integral ernel of σ is supported in Ω Ω. Hence 3.1) and the classical L pc bounds of the second author on σ in 3.7) gives B λ 1/pc log λ ) ε λ1/pc 1 ρ N f Q νl ρ f L. l=1 Ω) We now multiply by λ 1/pc, square both sides, and apply 3.19) and 3.0) to obtain ) B N log λ ) ε 4 ρ 1 f L Ω) Q νl ρ f L Ω) 4 N B l=1 Clog λ ) ε 1 ) /δd. Here we have used that f L = 1 and our assumption ρ L 1 cf. 1.6)). Since N is selected so that the right hand side is negative, we obtain a contradiction. To see how to construct Q ν1 ρ f,..., Q νn ρ f, we proceed inductively. For any L = 1,..., N 1, we show how to select the successive function in the collection given the previously chosen Q ν1 ρ f,..., Q νl ρ f which satisfy 3.0), 3.1). The initial selection of Q ν1 is essentially the same, simply tae h = 0 in the following argument. Denote L h 1 = ρ f Q νl ρ f = L Q νl ρ f, h = Q νl ρ f, ν ν l l=1 where the second expression for h 1 is a sum over all ν distinct from the ν 1,..., ν L. Then, by our assumptions B λ 1/pc { 3.) log λ ) ε < α σ 1 h 1 > α } 1 pc + α { σ h > α } 1 pc. l=1

22 M. D. BLAIR AND C. D. SOGGE Our first main claim is that we can use Corollary. to see that { 3.3) α σ h > α } 1/p c ) = o λ 1/pc log λ ) ε 1. We initially observe the following L L pc commutator bounds 3.4) σ λ Q ν Q ν σ λ L Ω) L pc Ω) λ 1 4. Morally, this is Sobolev embedding and Egorov s theorem combined with the invariance of q ν under the flow χ t. However, we give a direct proof below that will be shown after the related Lemma 4.3. Assuming 3.4), we use properties of the distribution function and Chebyshev s inequality to get α pc { σ h > α } L l=1 α pc { Q νl σ ρ f > α 4L } + Lλ pc 4. Since the 1/p c power of the second term on the right is much stronger than the bounds in 3.3), we are left with estimating the first term on the right hand side. We next observe that for any p [1, ], Q νl L p Lp 1, which will allow us to eliminate σ and apply Corollary.. Indeed, given that q ν satisfies.16) with ωx) = ωx, ν), integration by parts in the expression for the integral ernel Q νl x, y) yields the pointwise bounds Q νl x, y) λ d 1) 1 + λ ωx, ν) x y) + λ 7 8 x y ) d+1). Hence the uniform bounds on L p follow from the generalized Young s inequality. By Chebyshev s inequality, 3.4), and 3.3), we now have { α pc Q νl σ ρ f > α } { α p c 4L Q νl ρ f > α } + λlog λ) p c, 8L and as before the last term on the right is of the desired size in 3.3). We may now use that Corollary. yields the following bound, 3.5) L l=1 α pc { Q νl ρ f > α 8L } L 1+p c λ cλ ) pc d+1 λ N 1+pc cλ ) pc d+1. To see that 3.3) now follows, tae p c -th roots of both sides here and recall that N = olog λ ) ε 1/δ d ). The condition on the exponent in Remar 1. and the relation ε 1 = d+1)ε 0 then implies ε 1 δ pc+1 p c ) 1 3 = ε 1, if d =, ε 3.6) 1 δ 3 pc+1 p c ) 1 4 < ε 1, if d = 3, ε 1 δ d pc+1 p c ) 1 d+1 = ε 1, if d 4. We show the details behind this when d 4 so that cλ) = log λ) 1, and note that the other cases are verified similarly. Given the prior observation

23 LOGARITHMIC GAIN IN CRITICAL L p BOUNDS 3 on the size of N, the p c -th root of the right hand side of 3.5) is ) ) 1 pc O λ N 1+ 1 pc cλ ) 1 1 d+1 pc = o λ log λ ) ε1 pc+1 δ d pc ) log λ ) 1 d+1. It is now an easy algebraic computation to see that the choice of ε 0 in Remar 1. means that ε 1 satisfies 3.6). The improvements on the exponent for negatively curved manifolds claimed in Remars 1. and.4 follow since the equation for d 4 in 3.6) is now satisfied for d =, 3. Given 3.) and 3.3), for large enough and independently of L, 3.7) 3 B λ 1/pc { 4 log λ ) ε < α 1 σ λ h 1 > α } 1 pc. We are now left to show that there exists Q νl+1, distinct from those previously chosen, such that Q νl+1 ρ f also satisfies the bounds in 3.0), i.e., 3.8) B 1 log λ ) ε 1 C Q ν L+1 ρ f δ d L Ω). Indeed, once this is shown 3.1) can be concluded by taing h 1 = ρ f L+1 l=1 Q ν l ρ f and h = L+1 l=1 Q ν l ρ f in 3.) and using 3.3) once again. Given 3.13), we have h 1 L 4 and hence by 3.7) and Theorem 3., there exists ν max such that 3 B λ 1/pc 3.9) 4 log λ ) ε < CC d) δ δ d d λ 1/pc 1 Q νmax Q ν ρ f, ν ν l L Ω) where the sum in the expression on the right is over all ν distinct from each of the ν l, l = 1,..., L. Here we have used our assumption that CC d ) δ d exceeds the implicit constant in 3.18). Now tae ν L+1 so that 3.30) Q νmax Q νl+1 ρ f L = max { Q νmax Q ν ρ f L : ν ν 1,..., ν L }, so that Q νl+1 is distinct from the previously chosen operators. Note that by the symbolic calculus 3.31) Q ν Q ν L L N λ N, if suppq ν ) suppq ν ) =. We therefore must have suppq νmax ) suppq νl+1 ) in 3.30), since otherwise 3.31) would imply a contradiction of 3.9). Hence 3.11), 3.30), and taing N > 1 + d 1 8 in 3.31) then yields for large enough Q νmax Q ν ρ f C d Q νmax Q νl+1 ρ f L + λ 1 ν ν l L Ω) C d Q νl+1 ρ f L + λ 1. Combining this with 3.9) then gives 3.8) for large enough.