text:
# 1 (a): In this figure we see the running of the dimensionful mass 𝑚_𝑘, the boundary condition is given in the text. (b): Here we focus on the flow well on the right of the crossover region where we recognize the UV scaling, 𝑚_𝑘∼1/𝑘³.

RG generated fermion mass
Vincenzo Branchina111branchin@physx22.u-strasbg.fr

Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Louis Pasteur University

3 rue de l’Université 67087 Strasbourg, Cedex, France

Abstract

Chiral symmetry breaking in a purely fermionic theory is investigated by the help of the renormalization group method. The RG equation for the running mass $`m_k`$ admits a solution with vanishing bare mass and finite physical mass. The running Fermi coupling constant, $`G_k`$, converges to a finite (renormalized) physical value. It is also shown that the RG equation for $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$, the dimensionless Fermi coupling, has an UV fixed point $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{UV}`$. Contrary to a previous result however, it is proven that the chiral symmetry breaking point $`\stackrel{~}{G}_c`$ does not coincide with $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{UV}`$.

The problem of the dynamical generation of a fermion mass has been studied over the years by several authors. Nambu and Jona-Lasinio (NJL) considered a purely fermionic model in the mean field approximation and found a non trivial solution for the fermion mass, for values of the Fermi constant larger than a critical one . The non perturbative nature of this approximation is obvious as the chiral symmetry of the model forbids the appearance of a mass term at any order of perturbation theory.

Here I study a fermionic model by the help of a different non-perturbative technique, the renormalization group method. It is widely recognized that the approach pioneered by Wilson provides a powerful method to study quantum and statistical field theories. In the Wegner-Houghton realization it is implemented by establishing an exact integro-differential flow equation for the Wilsonian effective action $`S_k`$. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an UV scale, in the $`k\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limit (and eventually $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$) $`S_k`$ corresponds to the bare UV action, while $`S_{k=0}`$ is the physical effective action. The Wegner-Houghton equation as it stands is actually an intractable one, a systematic approximation scheme can be built by the help of the derivative expansion. At its lowest order it gives the so called Local Potential Approximation (LPA).

By considering the LPA for a fermionic model with discrete $`\gamma _5`$ symmetry of the bare action and potential truncated to the quadrifermionic interaction term, I show (for the first time at the best of my knowledge) that :

\- The RG equation for the running mass, $`m_k`$, admits a solution vanishing in the $`k\mathrm{}`$ limit and finite at $`k=0`$, i.e. a solution breaking the discrete $`\gamma _5`$ symmetry of the bare theory ;

\- The RG equation for the running Fermi coupling constant, $`G_k`$, admits a solution having the canonical scaling in the UV region, $`G_k\frac{1}{k^2}`$, and flowing to a finite value in the IR, i.e. the theory can be renormalized.

By freezing the dimensionless Fermi coupling constant to a given fixed value, I also consider the RG equation for the running mass alone. According to the value of the Fermi constant, I find that a non vanishing physical mass, $`m_{ph}=m_{k=0}0`$, may or may not be generated from the chirally invariant bare theory. Clearly with this additional approximation we get close to the approach of the original NJL paper. There are however important differences between our approach and that of Ref..

In this latter paper the quantum fluctuations (responsible for the dynamical generation of the fermion mass) are taken into account by the help of a mean field approximation that allows to establish the gap equation for a constant (momentum independent) mass function. As they were dealing with a (perturbatively) non renormalizable theory, the authors of Ref. restricted themselves to consider the cut-off theory. Being the mass function approximated by a constant, the one-loop integral obviously receives a quadratically divergent contribution.

In our approach the quantum fluctuations are taken into account through the resummation operated by the RG equation, the momentum dependence of the mass function being given by the running scale. The solution to our RG equation, $`m_k`$, vanishes in the UV and the $`k\mathrm{}`$ limit does not generate divergent contributions. A quantitative and detailed comparison between our approach and the NJL approximation will be presented in a forthcoming paper. It is sufficient to add here that, within a certain approximation, our RG equation for the running mass $`m_k`$ reproduces the NJL result.

A related aspect of our analysis is that of the existence of a continuum limit.

In massless QED the lowest order approximation to the gap equation, for values of the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ larger than a critical one, $`\alpha _c=\frac{\pi }{3}`$, gives for the dynamically generated fermion mass   :

$$m=\mathrm{\Lambda }f(\alpha ),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the UV cut-off and $`f(\alpha )`$ is a known function of $`\alpha `$. Miransky suggested that this equation should be regarded as defining the UV flow of the running coupling constant $`\alpha =\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, the fermion mass $`m`$ being fixed. From the specific form of the function $`f(\alpha )`$ it is immediately found that $`\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ flows toward $`\alpha _c`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. This interpretation has received lot of attention as it seemed the only possibility to evade the conclusion that the physics of the dynamical generation of a fermion mass actually occurs at the cut-off scale. Miransky also extended it to other gauge theories as well as to the quadrifermionic theory . Following this suggestion several models have been constructed and the phase structure of certain theories investigated.

In the quadrifermionic theory the result of the mean field approximation can be written again as $`m=\mathrm{\Lambda }f(\stackrel{~}{G})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the UV cut-off, $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is the dimensionless Fermi coupling and $`f(\stackrel{~}{G})`$ a known function of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. The UV flow of the Fermi constant $`\stackrel{~}{G}=\stackrel{~}{G}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is defined as before and accordingly it is found that the critical point $`\stackrel{~}{G}_c`$ coincides with an UV fixed point $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{UV}`$ .

This interpretation however is not the result of a RG analysis. It rather comes from the attempt to define a continuum limit out of the results of the gap equation.

By studying for the first time this problem in a real RG framework, I show that contrary to the Miransky suggestion the two points $`\stackrel{~}{G}_c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{UV}`$ are well separated, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_c`$ being smaller than $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{UV}`$.

The (euclidean) wilsonian action for our model at the scale $`k`$ in the LPA has the form :

$$S_k=d^4x\left[\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu _\mu \psi +U_k(\overline{\psi }\psi )\right].$$
(2)
Expanding the potential $`U_k(\overline{\psi }\psi )`$ in powers of $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ and retaining terms up to $`(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2`$, i.e. up to the quadrifermionic interaction term,

$$U_k(\overline{\psi }\psi )=m_k\overline{\psi }\psi \frac{G_k}{2}(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2,$$
(3)
the RG equation for $`S_k`$ actually reduces to a system of differential equations for the running mass $`m_k`$ and the running Fermi coupling constant $`G_k`$.

The goal is to see whether a solution for $`m_k`$ exists such that for a vanishing bare mass $`m_B`$, the UV limit of the running mass, a finite physical mass, $`m_{ph}=m_{k=0}=finite`$, is obtained.

It is often convenient to move to dimensionless variables. Introducing the dimensionless scale parameter $`t=ln\frac{\mu }{k}`$, where $`\mu `$ is a given boundary value of $`k`$, together with the dimensionless running mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}_t`$ and running Fermi coupling constant $`\stackrel{~}{G}_t`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_t=\frac{m_k}{k}\mathrm{and}\stackrel{~}{G}_t=k^2G_k,$$
(4)
the flow equations for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_t`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_t`$, obtained after integration of the degrees of freedom in the momentum shell $`[t,t+\delta t]`$ and taking the $`\delta t0`$ limit, are :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_t}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_t\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}_t}{(1+m_t^2)}}\right]`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{G}_t}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{G}_t\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}_t}{(1+m_t^2)^2}}\right].`$ (6)
At a first sight it could seem from Eq.(5) that given the boundary $`m_{t_0}=0`$ at an UV scale $`t_0`$, the only possible solution to this equation is $`\stackrel{~}{m}_t=0`$ for any value of $`t`$. This in turn would imply that $`m_{ph}=0`$, the symmetry is not broken and no mass term is generated.

The above reasoning is correct if this boundary value is assigned at a finite value $`t_0`$. If however it is given for $`t_0\mathrm{}`$ (that corresponds to the UV limit $`k\mathrm{}`$), a symmetry breaking solution $`m_{ph}=finite`$ exists.

The complete analysis of the system (5)-(6) can be performed only numerically. However the UV ($`t\mathrm{}`$) and the IR ($`t+\mathrm{}`$) asymptotic regions can be studied analytically.

Let’s start with the UV region and suppose that a solution exists such that for $`t\mathrm{}`$, $`m_t^2`$ vanishes more rapidly than $`\stackrel{~}{G}_t`$. Under this assumption the system becomes :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_t}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_t\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{~}{G}_t}{8\pi ^2}}\right]`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{G}_t}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{G}_t\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}_t}{8\pi ^2}}\right]`$ (8)
Eq.(8) has the solution :

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_t=\frac{8\pi ^2}{1+Ce^{2t}},$$
(9)
where $`C`$ is an integration constant. We note here that, in terms of the dimensionful Fermi constant, this UV flow is :

$$G_k_k\mathrm{}\frac{8\pi ^2}{k^2}.$$
(10)
To study the behavior of Eq.(7) in the $`t\mathrm{}`$ region, we can now replace in this equation the asymptotic value $`\stackrel{~}{G}_t8\pi ^2`$. Eq.(7) then becomes :

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_t}{dt}4\stackrel{~}{m}_t=0$$
(11)
whose solution is trivially (A is an integration constant) :

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_t=Ae^{4t}.$$
(12)
The assumption that lead us to the approximated system (7)-(8) is consistent with Eqs.(9) and (12), consequently these are asymptotic solutions to the original system (5)-(6). We also see that the system (5)-(6) possesses the UV ($`t=\mathrm{}`$) fixed point :

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_{UV}=0,\stackrel{~}{G}_{UV}=8\pi ^2.$$
(13)
Moreover, as $`k=\mu e^t`$, from Eq.(12) we have :

$$m_k_k\mathrm{}A\frac{\mu ^4}{k^3},$$
(14)
that gives : $`m_B=lim_k\mathrm{}m_k=0`$.

Eq.(14) is a potentially interesting result, we have found a running mass $`m_k`$ vanishing in the $`k\mathrm{}`$ limit.

Let’s move now to the IR region. By simple inspection we see that in the asymptotic region $`t\mathrm{}`$, a solution to the system (5)-(6) exists such that :

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_t`$ $`_t\mathrm{}`$ $`e^t`$ (15)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_t`$ $`_t\mathrm{}`$ $`e^{2t}.`$ (16)
This again is a potentially interesting result. Moving to dimensionful parameters, Eqs.(15) and (16) in fact give :

$`m_{ph}`$ $`=\underset{k0}{lim}m_k=finite`$ (17)
$`G_{ph}`$ $`=\underset{k0}{lim}G_k=finite.`$ (18)
We don’t know yet however whether a solution $`\{\stackrel{~}{m}_t,\stackrel{~}{G}_t\}`$ to the system (5)-(6) exists possessing both the IR and the UV behavior respectively given by Eqs.(15)-(16) and (9)-(12). That such a solution exists is the main result of this paper and will be proven numerically later.

Before moving to the numerical solution of the system (5)-(6) however, we want to consider an additional approximation under which it is possible to find an analytical solution. We freeze the value of the Fermi constant to a given fixed value and restrict ourselves to consider the evolution of the running mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}_t`$ alone.

This approximation to our RG equations is already worth to study. In the RG framework, the flow equation for the running mass plays the same role as the gap equation for the mass function in the Schwinger-Dyson approach. Moreover, as we have pointed out before, it can be proven  that in a certain limit it reproduces the mean field result.

Let’s freeze $`\stackrel{~}{G}_t`$ to its UV fixed point value found above, namely $`\stackrel{~}{G}_t=\stackrel{~}{G}_{UV}=8\pi ^2`$. Under this approximation our original system (5)-(6) reduces to the differential equation for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_t`$ :

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_t}{dt}=\stackrel{~}{m}_t\left[1+\frac{3}{1+\stackrel{~}{m}_t^2}\right],$$
(19)
that we can conveniently rewrite as,

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_t^2}{dt}=2\stackrel{~}{m}_t^2\left[1+\frac{3}{1+\stackrel{~}{m}_t^2}\right].$$
(20)
We have already seen that a solution to Eq.(20) exists such that in the UV limit, i.e. for $`t\mathrm{}`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_t^2e^{8t}$$
(21)
(see Eq. (12) above).

We can also immediately verify that in the IR, i.e. for $`t\mathrm{}`$, Eq.(20) has the asymptotic solution (B is an integration constant)

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_t^2=3+Be^{2t}Be^{2t}.$$
(22)
Moving to the dimensionful running mass we have :

$$m_{ph}^2=lim_{k0}m_k^2=B\mu ^2=finite.$$
(23)
Once more, we don’t know yet whether a solution to Eq.(20) exists with both the UV and the IR behavior of Eqs.(21) and (22) respectively. Fortunately the analytical solutions to Eq.(20) can be found and one of them is relevant to our problem. It has a quite long expression that we can write as :

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_t^2=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{6}\left[\frac{b_t^{\frac{1}{2}}}{a_t^{\frac{1}{6}}}+\frac{\left[24a_t^{\frac{1}{3}}b_t^{\frac{1}{2}}3a_t^{\frac{2}{3}}b_t^{\frac{1}{2}}+4e^{8(t+\alpha )}b_t^{\frac{1}{2}}+32c_t\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}}{a_t^{\frac{1}{6}}b_t^{\frac{1}{4}}}\right]3$$
(24)
where

$`a_t`$ $`=`$ $`8e^{8(t+\alpha )}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{9}}\left(e^{8(t+\alpha )}+27\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}1\right]`$
$`b_t`$ $`=`$ $`12a_t^{\frac{1}{3}}+3a_t^{\frac{2}{3}}4e^{8(t+\alpha )}`$
$`c_t`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{6}e^{4(t+\alpha )}\sqrt{\sqrt{3}(e^{8(t+\alpha )}+27)^{\frac{1}{2}}9},`$ (25)
and $`\alpha `$ is an integration constant.

A long but straightforward computation shows that the above solution, Eq.(24), has the required IR and UV asymptotic behavior.

This is one of our main results. The RG equation for the running mass $`m_k`$ admits a solution such that $`lim_k\mathrm{}m_k=0`$ and $`lim_{k0}m_k=finite`$. In other words the RG equation for $`m_k`$ generates a physical mass from the massless bare theory, thus breaking dynamically the chiral symmetry. Through a cross-over region the UV $`\frac{1}{k^3}`$ flow of the mass function is converted into an IR scaling giving rise to a finite value at $`k=0`$.

Of course the question arises concerning the existence of a critical value for the Fermi coupling constant.

We have just seen that for $`\stackrel{~}{G}=8\pi ^2`$ we have a symmetry breaking solution. As compared to the self consistent approach we do not have here an algebraic equation for $`m_{ph}`$ but rather a differential equation for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_t`$ (or, what amounts to the same thing, for $`m_k`$). We expect that there exists a critical value $`\stackrel{~}{G}_c`$ of the dimensionless Fermi constant $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ such that for $`\stackrel{~}{G}<\stackrel{~}{G}_c`$ we have $`m_{ph}=0`$, while for $`\stackrel{~}{G}>\stackrel{~}{G}_c`$ it is $`m_{ph}0`$. To find $`\stackrel{~}{G}_c`$ we should in principle replace $`\stackrel{~}{G}=8\pi ^2`$ in Eq.(20) with a generic value of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and seek for the solution $`\stackrel{~}{m}_t`$. Unfortunately it is not a trivial task to look for analytical solutions of Eq.(20) for arbitrary values of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Analytical solutions can only be obtained for certain specific values of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$.

It is now not too difficult to check that for $`\stackrel{~}{G}=4\pi ^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}=\frac{8\pi ^2}{3}`$ a solution $`\stackrel{~}{m}_t`$ vanishing in the UV and converging to a finite value in the IR exists, while for the value $`\stackrel{~}{G}=2\pi ^2`$ this solution is lost. Moreover, while for $`\stackrel{~}{G}=8\pi ^2`$ we have found that the UV behavior of the mass function is $`m_k\frac{1}{k^3}`$, for $`\stackrel{~}{G}=4\pi ^2`$ it is $`m_k\frac{1}{k^2}`$ and for $`\stackrel{~}{G}=\frac{8\pi ^2}{3}`$ it is $`m_k\frac{1}{k}`$. We are then lead to the conclusion that $`\stackrel{~}{G}_c`$ lies in the range $`[2\pi ^2,\frac{8\pi ^2}{3}]`$ 222From the specific form of the solution at $`\stackrel{~}{G}=\frac{8\pi ^2}{3}`$, I believe that $`\stackrel{~}{G}_c=\frac{8\pi ^2}{3}`$. In any case the precise location of the critical point is not our main concern here. What is important is the result that the UV fixed point, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{UV}`$, and the critical point, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_c`$, do not coincide..

This is another important result. Comparing with our previous result $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{UV}=8\pi ^2`$, we conclude that the UV fixed point $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{UV}`$ does not coincide with the critical point $`\stackrel{~}{G}_c`$.

Needless to say the existence and the location of an UV fixed point for $`\stackrel{~}{G}_t`$ can only be established from the RG equation for $`\stackrel{~}{G}_t`$ itself. Indications coming from other arguments have to be taken with caution. Our RG analysis has shown that the theory possesses an UV fixed point, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{UV}`$, that however does not coincide with the Miransky limit . In addition the correct UV scale dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_t`$, Eq.(9), is different from the one deduced from this interpretation of the gap equation. As the above criticism obviously extends to any other theory where this interpretation was applied, we claim that those phase diagrams and models based on it have to be reconsidered.

We conclude now by presenting the numerical solution of the system (5)-(6). As it is preferable to work directly with the dimensionful parameters, in Figs.(1) and (2) we show the running of $`m_k`$ and $`G_k`$ versus $`k`$. As boundary values we have taken $`m_k=10^6`$ and $`G_k=7.89510^5`$ at $`k=10^3`$.

In Fig.(1.a) we see the running of the mass parameter $`m_k`$ and observe the transition from the UV regime where $`m_k0`$ to the IR regime where $`m_k`$ converges to a finite value, the physical mass $`m_{ph}`$. The UV and IR asymptotic flows both coincide with our previous analytical results, Eqs.(14) and (22) respectively. Fig.(1.b) presents a magnification of the UV region where the $`1/k^3`$ UV behavior, found analytically in Eq.(14), is easily recognized.

Fig.(2.a) shows the running of $`G_k`$ versus $`k`$. In the UV region its flow is nothing but the UV $`1/k^2`$ canonical scaling, already found in Eq.(10). Through a crossover region this flow is converted to an IR scaling and $`G_k`$ converges to a finite value at $`k=0`$, as seen in Eq. (18). As for $`m_k`$ we have magnified the UV region to better show the UV $`1/k^2`$ scaling.

In summary we have found that the RG equation for the running mass $`m_k`$ admits a solution that breaks the original discrete $`\gamma _5`$ chiral symmetry of the bare theory and that the running Fermi coupling constant $`G_k`$ has the canonical scaling, $`G_k\frac{8\pi ^2}{k^2}`$, in the UV and flows to a renormalized value, $`G_{k=0}=finite`$, in the IR. It should not be underestimated here that for a theory in $`d=4`$ dimensions we have established non-perturbative renormalization group equations allowing to follow the renormalization flow of the running coupling constants all the way down from the UV to the IR. The theory, at least within the approximation considered in this paper, can be renormalized. There is certainly no need to remind the kind of (UV or IR) pathologies that are typically encountered in RG equations, think for instance of QED, $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ or QCD.

Finally we have also shown that an old result, concerning the coincidence between the chiral symmetry breaking point and the UV fixed point of the theory, actually turns out to be incorrect.

I would like to thank Veronique Bernard for many useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# A pseudo - perturbative expansions method; nonpolynomial, cutoff - Coulomb, and Coulomb plus logarithmic potentials

## 1 Introduction

The importance of rational nonpolynomial oscillator (NPO) potential,

$$V(q)=a_oq^2+\frac{aq^2}{1+bq^2},b>0,$$
(1)
arises in nonlinear Lagrangian field theory, laser theory, and elementary particle physics \[1-4\]. Only a class of exact analytical solutions for a certain parameter dependence $`a=a(b)`$ obtains \[3,5-7\]. Hence, it has been a subject of several investigations \[1-15\] ( exhaustive lists of these could be found in Ref.s).

On the other hand, the cutoff - Coulomb potential

$$V(q)=\frac{1}{q+c},c>0,$$
(2)
with the truncation parameter $`c`$, avoids the singularity at $`q=0`$ in the Coulomb potential ( the crux of divergence difficulties in quantum field theory \[16-18\]). It has been suggested  that if gravitational interactions of elementary particles are taken into acount, there would be a gravitational cutoff of Coulomb interaction. Equation (2) represents a nonrelativistic expression of this idea. It also serves as an approximation to the potential due smeared charge rather than a point charge.

The Schrödinger equation with such interactions, (1) and (2), belongs to the class of quantum mechanical systems which are nonexactly soluble in general. However, the solutions of exactly solvable potentials ( an interesting field of mathematical physics in itself ) can be used in perturbation and pseudoperturbation theories, or they can be combined with numerical calculations. Nevertheless, in the simplest case, analytical calculations can aid numerical studies in areas where numerical techniques might not be safely controlled. For example, when bound - state wave functions with arbitrary nodal zeros are required for certain singular potentials (a next level of complexity), analytical solutions can supply a basis for numerical calculations. Moreover, in many problems the Hamiltonian does not contain any physical parameter suitable for a perturbation expansion treatment. More often, the Hamiltonian contains physical parameters, but, typically, zeroth - order solutions for special values of these are not tractable or good starting approximations. Alternatively, one would resort to apparently artificial conversions to perturbation problems which have been shown to make progress \[21-35\].

The three - dimensional (3D) spherically symmetric NPO potential has been investigated  by means of the shifted large - N expansion technique (SLNT). However, Scherrer and co-workers  have employed a matrix continued fractions (MCF) method and concluded that SLNT  leads to dubiously accurate results in the critical range $`a^{1/2}/b0.130`$. Handy et al.  have used the eigenvalue moment method (EMM) to obtain upper and lower energy bounds, for $`l0`$, and compared their results with those of Roy et al.  by the suppersymmetric quantum mechanics (SSQM). Singh et al  have used a numerical integration method (NIM) to find the eigenvalues for the 3D cutoff - Coulomb potential. Hall and Saad  have used a smooth transformation (STM) and a numerical integration methods to obtain bound - states for the Coulomb plus a logarithmic perturbation term. Hence, apart from those of SLNT, results from convincingly powerful methods exist for comparison purposes.

Recently, we have introduced a pseudoperturbative shifted - $`l`$ ( $`l`$ is the angular momentum quantum number) expansion technique ( PSLET) to solve for nodeless states of Schrödinger equation. It simply consists of using $`1/\overline{l}`$ as a pseudoperturbation parameter, where $`\overline{l}=l\beta `$ and $`\beta `$ is a suitable shift. The shift $`\beta `$ is vital for it removes the poles that would emerge, at lowest orbital states with $`l`$=0, in our proposed expansions below. Our analytical, or often semianalytical, methodical proposal PSLET has been successfully applied to quasi - relativistic harmonic oscillator , spiked harmonic oscillator , and to anharmonic oscillators  potentials.

Encouraged by its satisfactory performance in handling nodeless states, we generalize PSLET recipe ( in section 2) for states with arbitrary number of nodal zeros, $`k0`$. Moreover, in the underlying ”radical” time - independent radial Schrödinger equation, in $`\mathrm{}=m=1`$ units,

$$\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dq^2}+\frac{l(l+1)}{2q^2}+V(q)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{k,l}(q)=E_{k,l}\mathrm{\Psi }_{k,l}(q),$$
(3)
the isomorphism between orbital angular momentum $`l`$ and dimensionality $`D`$ invites interdimensional degeneracies to obtain \[36-39\] (for more details the reader may refer to ref.s ). Hence, the symmetry of an attendant problem obviously manifests the admissibility of the quantum number $`l`$: In one-dimension (1D), $`l`$ specifies parity, $`(1)^{l+1}`$, with the permissible values -1 and/or 0 ( even and/or odd parity, respectively) where $`q=x(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$. For two-dimensional (2D) cylindrically symmetric Schrödinger equation one sets $`l=|m|1/2`$, where m is the magnetic quantum number and $`q=(x^2+y^2)^{1/2}(0,\mathrm{})`$. Finally, for three-dimensional (3D) spherically symmetric Schrödinger equation, $`l`$ denotes the angular momentum quantum number with $`q=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}(0,\mathrm{})`$.

In section 3, we investigate PSLET recipe and consider, for the sake of diversity, the potentials; (i) $`V(q)=A^2q^2/2`$, the harmonic osillator ( the limit of (1) when $`b\mathrm{}`$ and/or $`a0`$, with $`a_o=A^2/2`$), (ii) $`V(q)=1/q`$, the Coulomb ( the limit of (2) when $`c0`$, (iii) the NPO (2), (iv) the cutoff - Coulomb (2), and (v) the Coulomb perturbed by a logarithmic term, which has no experimental evidence, to the best of our knowledge, thus our calculations are only of academic interest. The last section is reserved for summary and remarks.

## 2 The generalization of PSLET

The construction of our PSLET starts with shifting the angular momentum in (3) to obtain

$$\left\{\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dq^2}+\frac{\overline{l}^2+(2\beta +1)\overline{l}+\beta (\beta +1)}{2q^2}+\frac{\overline{l}^2}{Q}V(q)\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }_{k,l}(q)=E_{k,l}\mathrm{\Psi }_{k,l}(q),$$
(4)
where Q is a constant that scales the potential $`V(q)`$ at large - $`l`$ limit ( the pseudoclassical limit ) and is set, for any specific choice of $`l`$ and $`k`$, equal to $`\overline{l}^2`$ at the end of the calculations. Next, we shift the origin of the coordinate system through $`x=\overline{l}^{1/2}(qq_o)/q_o`$, where $`q_o`$ is currently an arbitrary point to be determined below. Expansions about this point, $`x=0`$ (i.e. $`q=q_o`$), yield

$$\frac{1}{q^2}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n\frac{(n+1)}{q_o^2}x^n\overline{l}^{n/2},$$
(5)
$$V(x(q))=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{d^nV(q_o)}{dq_o^n}\right)\frac{(q_ox)^n}{n!}\overline{l}^{n/2}.$$
(6)
Obviously, the expansions in (5) and (6) localize the problem at an arbitrary point $`q_o`$ and the derivatives, in effect, contain information not only at $`q_o`$ but also at any point on $`q`$-axis, in accordance with Taylor’s theorem. It is then convenient to expand $`E_{k,l}`$ as

$$E_{k,l}=\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_{k,l}^{(n)}\overline{l}^n.$$
(7)
Equation (4) thus becomes

$$\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\frac{q_o^2}{\overline{l}}\stackrel{~}{V}(x(q))\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{k,l}(x)=\frac{q_o^2}{\overline{l}}E_{k,l}\mathrm{\Psi }_{k,l}(x),$$
(8)
with

$`{\displaystyle \frac{q_o^2}{\overline{l}}}\stackrel{~}{V}(x(q))`$ $`=`$ $`q_o^2\overline{l}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2q_o^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V(q_o)}{Q}}\right]+\overline{l}^{1/2}B_1x+B_2x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(2\beta +1)}{2}}`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`(2\beta +1){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)}{2}}x^n\overline{l}^{n/2}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}B_nx^n\overline{l}^{(n2)/2}`$
$`+`$ $`\beta (\beta +1){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)}{2}}x^n\overline{l}^{(n+2)/2},`$
$$B_n=(1)^n\frac{(n+1)}{2}+\left(\frac{d^nV(q_o)}{dq_o^n}\right)\frac{q_o^{n+2}}{n!Q}.$$
(10)
Equation (8), along with (9) and (10), is evidently the one - dimensional Schrödinger equation for a perturbed harmonic oscillator

$$\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\frac{1}{2}w^2x^2+\epsilon _o+P(x)\right]X_k(x)=\lambda _kX_k(x),$$
(11)
where $`w^2=2B_2`$,

$$\epsilon _o=\overline{l}\left[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{q_o^2V(q_o)}{Q}\right]+\frac{2\beta +1}{2}+\frac{\beta (\beta +1)}{2\overline{l}},$$
(12)
and $`P(x)`$ represents the remaining terms in eq.(9) as infinite power series perturbations to the harmonic oscillator. One would then imply that

$`\lambda _k`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{l}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q_o^2V(q_o)}{Q}}\right]+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta +1}{2}}+(k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})w\right]`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{l}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (\beta +1)}{2}}+\lambda _k^{(0)}\right]+{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\lambda _k^{(n1)}\overline{l}^n,`$
and

$$\lambda _k=q_o^2\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_{k,l}^{(n)}\overline{l}^{(n+1)}.$$
(14)
Hence, equations (13) and (14) yield

$$E_{k,l}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2q_o^2}+\frac{V(q_o)}{Q}$$
(15)
$$E_{k,l}^{(1)}=\frac{1}{q_o^2}\left[\frac{2\beta +1}{2}+(k+\frac{1}{2})w\right]$$
(16)
$$E_{k,l}^{(0)}=\frac{1}{q_o^2}\left[\frac{\beta (\beta +1)}{2}+\lambda _k^{(0)}\right]$$
(17)
$$E_{k,l}^{(n)}=\lambda _k^{(n)}/q_o^2;n1.$$
(18)
Where $`q_o`$ is chosen to minimize $`E_{k,l}^{(2)}`$, i. e.

$$\frac{dE_{k,l}^{(2)}}{dq_o}=0and\frac{d^2E_{k,l}^{(2)}}{dq_o^2}>0.$$
(19)
Hereby, $`V(q)`$ is assumed to be well behaved so that $`E_{k,l}^{(2)}`$ has a minimum $`q_o`$ and there are well - defined bound - states. Equation (19) in turn gives, with $`\overline{l}=\sqrt{Q}`$,

$$l\beta =\sqrt{q_o^3V^{^{}}(q_o)}.$$
(20)
Consequently, the second term in Eq.(9) vanishes and the first term adds a constant to the energy eigenvalues. It should be noted that the energy term $`\overline{l}^2E_{k,l}^{(2)}`$ corresponds roughly to the energy of a classical particle with angular momentum $`L_z`$=$`\overline{l}`$ executing circular motion of radius $`q_o`$ in the potential $`V(q_o)`$. It thus identifies the zeroth - order approximation, to all eigenvalues, as a classical approximation and the higher - order corrections as quantum fluctuations around the minimum $`q_o`$, organized in inverse powers of $`\overline{l}`$. The next correction to the energy series, $`\overline{l}E_{k,l}^{(1)}`$, consists of a constant term and the exact eigenvalues of the harmonic oscillator $`w^2x^2/2`$.The shifting parameter $`\beta `$ is determined by choosing $`\overline{l}E_{k,l}^{(1)}`$=0. This choice is physically motivated. In addition to its vital role in removing the singularity at $`l=0`$, it also requires the agreements between PSLET eigenvalues and eigenfunctions with the exact well known ones for the harmonic oscillator and Coulomb potentials. Hence

$$\beta =\left[\frac{1}{2}+(k+\frac{1}{2})w\right],w=\sqrt{3+\frac{q_oV^{^{\prime \prime }}(q_o)}{V^{^{}}(q_o)}}$$
(21)
where primes of $`V(q_o)`$ denote derivatives with respect to $`q_o`$. Then equation (9) reduces to

$$\frac{q_o^2}{\overline{l}}\stackrel{~}{V}(x(q))=q_o^2\overline{l}\left[\frac{1}{2q_o^2}+\frac{V(q_o)}{Q}\right]+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}v^{(n)}(x)\overline{l}^{n/2},$$
(22)
where

$$v^{(0)}(x)=B_2x^2+\frac{2\beta +1}{2},$$
(23)
$$v^{(1)}(x)=(2\beta +1)x+B_3x^3,$$
(24)
$`v^{(n)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`B_{n+2}x^{n+2}+(1)^n(2\beta +1){\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)}{2}}x^n`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (\beta +1)}{2}}(n1)x^{(n2)},n2.`$
Equation (8) thus becomes

$$\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}v^{(n)}\overline{l}^{n/2}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{k,l}(x)=\left[\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q_o^2E_{k,l}^{(n1)}\overline{l}^n\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{k,l}(x).$$
(26)
Up to this point, one would conclude that the above procedure is nothing but an imitation of the eminent shifted large-N expansion (SLNT) \[24-29,35\]. However, because of the limited capability of SLNT in handling large-order corrections via the standard Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory, only low-order corrections have been reported, sacrificing in effect its preciseness. Therefore, one should seek for an alternative and proceed by setting the wave functions with any number of nodes as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{k,l}(x(q))=F_{k,l}(x)exp(U_{k,l}(x)).$$
(27)
In turn, equation (26) readily transforms into the following Riccati equation:

$`F_{k,l}(x)[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(U_{k,l}^{^{\prime \prime }}(x)+U_{k,l}^{^{}}(x)U_{k,l}^{^{}}(x))+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}v^{(n)}(x)\overline{l}^{n/2}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q_o^2E_{k,l}^{(n1)}\overline{l}^n]F_{k,l}^{^{}}(x)U_{k,l}^{^{}}(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{k,l}^{^{\prime \prime }}(x)=0,`$ (28)
where the primes denote derivatives with respect to $`x`$. It is evident that this equation admits solution of the form

$$U_{k,l}^{^{}}(x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}U_k^{(n)}(x)\overline{l}^{n/2}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}G_k^{(n)}(x)\overline{l}^{(n+1)/2},$$
(29)
$$F_{k,l}(x)=x^k+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{p=0}{\overset{k1}{}}a_{p,k}^{(n)}x^p\overline{l}^{n/2},$$
(30)
where

$$U_k^{(n)}(x)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n+1}{}}D_{m,n,k}x^{2m1};D_{0,n,k}=0,$$
(31)
$$G_k^{(n)}(x)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n+1}{}}C_{m,n,k}x^{2m}.$$
(32)
Substituting equations (29) - (32) into equation (28) implies

$`F_{k,l}(x)[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(U_k^{(n)^{^{}}}\overline{l}^{n/2}+G_k^{(n)^{^{}}}\overline{l}^{(n+1)/2})`$ (33)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(U_k^{(m)}U_k^{(nm)}\overline{l}^{n/2}+G_k^{(m)}G_k^{(nm)}\overline{l}^{(n+2)/2}`$
$`+`$ $`2U_k^{(m)}G_k^{(nm)}\overline{l}^{(n+1)/2})+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}v^{(n)}\overline{l}^{n/2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q_o^2E_{k,l}^{(n1)}\overline{l}^n]`$
$``$ $`F_{k,l}^{^{}}(x)\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(U_k^{(n)}\overline{l}^{n/2}+G_k^{(n)}\overline{l}^{(n+1)/2}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{k,l}^{^{\prime \prime }}(x)=0`$
The above procedure obviously reduces to the one described by Mustafa and Odeh , for $`k=0`$. Moreover, the solution of equation (33) follows from the uniqueness of power series representation. Therefore, for a given $`k`$ we equate the coefficients of the same powers of $`\overline{l}`$ and $`x`$, respectively. For example, when $`k=1`$ one obtains

$$D_{1,0,1}=w,U_1^{(0)}(x)=wx,$$
(34)
$$C_{1,0,1}=\frac{B_3}{w},a_{0,1}^{(1)}=\frac{C_{0,0,1}}{w},$$
(35)
$$C_{0,0,1}=\frac{1}{w}\left(2C_{1,0,1}+2\beta +1\right),$$
(36)
$$D_{2,2,1}=\frac{1}{w}\left(\frac{C_{1,0,1}^2}{2}B_4\right),$$
(37)
$$D_{1,2,1}=\frac{1}{w}\left(\frac{5}{2}D_{2,2,1}+C_{0,0,1}C_{1,0,1}\frac{3}{2}(2\beta +1)\right),$$
(38)
$$E_{1,l}^{(0)}=\frac{1}{q_o^2}\left(\frac{\beta (\beta +1)}{2}+a_{0,1}^{(1)}C_{1,0,1}\frac{3D_{1,2,1}}{2}\frac{C_{0,0,1}^2}{2}\right),$$
(39)
etc. Here, we reported the nonzero coefficients only. One can then calculate the energy eigenvalues and eigenfunctions from the knowledge of $`C_{m,n,k}`$, $`D_{m,n,k}`$, and $`a_{p,k}^{(n)}`$ in a hierarchical manner. Nevertheless, the procedure just described is suitable for a software package such as MAPLE to determine the energy eigenvalue and eigenfunction corrections up to any order of the pseudoperturbation series, (7) and (29)-(30).

Although the energy series, equation (7), could appear divergent, or, at best, asymptotic for small $`\overline{l}`$, one can still calculate the eigenenergies to a very good accuracy by forming the sophisticated \[N,M\] Padé approximation

$`P_N^M(1/\overline{l})=(P_0+P_1/\overline{l}+\mathrm{}+P_M/\overline{l}^M)/(1+q_1/\overline{l}+\mathrm{}+q_N/\overline{l}^N)`$

to the energy series (7). The energy series is calculated up to $`E_{k,l}^{(8)}/\overline{l}^8`$ by

$$E_{k,l}=\overline{l}^2E_{k,l}^{(2)}+E_{k,l}^{(0)}+\mathrm{}+E_{k,l}^{(8)}/\overline{l}^8+O(1/\overline{l}^9),$$
(40)
and with the $`P_4^4(1/\overline{l})`$ Padé approximant it becomes

$$E_{k,l}[4,4]=\overline{l}^2E_{k,l}^{(2)}+P_4^4(1/\overline{l}).$$
(41)
Our recipe is therefore well prescribed.

## 3 Some applications

We begin with the harmonic oscillator potential $`V(q)=A^2q^2/2`$ and find $`q_o`$ from (20), along with (21). Once $`q_o`$ is determined, Eq.(15) reads

$$E_{k,l}^{(2)}\overline{l}^2=A\overline{l};\overline{l}=2k+l+3/2,$$
(42)
$$E_{k,l}^{(1)}\overline{l}=E_{k,l}^{(0)}=E_{k,l}^{(1)}\overline{l}^1=E_{k,l}^{(2)}\overline{l}^2=\mathrm{}=0,$$
(43)
Hence, the corresponding energies are

$$E_{0,l}=A\left(l+\frac{3}{2}\right),$$
(44)
the well known exact results. For $`k=0`$

$`U_{0,l}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(y{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y^3}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^4}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y^5}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^6}{6}}+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (45)
$`+\overline{l}\left(y{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y^3}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^4}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y^5}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^6}{6}}+\mathrm{}\right)`$
$`\overline{l}{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{2}}\overline{l}y;y=x\overline{l}^{1/2}.`$
Obviously the terms between brackets in equation (44) are the infinite geometric series expansions for $`ln(1+y)`$. Equation (44) can be recast as

$$U_{0,l}(x)=ln(1+y)^{1/2}+ln(1+y)^{\overline{l}}\overline{l}y\overline{l}\frac{y^2}{2},$$
(46)
which in turn implies the exact wave functions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{0,l}(q)=N_{0,l}q^{\overline{l}1/2}e^{Aq^2/2};\overline{l}=Aq_o^2,$$
(47)
where $`N_{0,l}`$ are the normalization constants.

Next we consider the Coulomb potential $`V(q)=1/q`$. In this case, Eq.(15) reads

$$E_{k,l}^{(2)}\overline{l}^2=\frac{1}{2\overline{l}^2};\overline{l}=k+l+1=q_o^2.$$
(48)
The reminder corrections are identically zeros, Eq.(43). Hence, one obtains the eigenvalues

$$E_{k,l}=\frac{1}{2(k+l+1)^2},$$
(49)
the well known exact energies for the Coulomb potential. For $`k=0`$

$$U_{0,l}(x)=\overline{l}y+ln(1+y)^{\overline{l}},$$
(50)
which in turn implies the exact wave functions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{0,l}(q)=N_{0,l}q^{\overline{l}}e^{\overline{l}q/q_o}.$$
(51)
Now let us consider the NPO potential (1), for which Eq.(21) implies

$$\beta =\frac{1}{2}[1+(2k+1)w];w=2\sqrt{\frac{(1+3bq_o^2+3b^2q_o^4+b^3q_o^6+a)}{(1+2bq_o^2+b^2q_o^4+a)(1+bq_o^2)}}.$$
(52)
In turn Eq.(20) reads

$$l+\frac{1}{2}[1+(2k+1)w]=\frac{q_o^2}{1+bq_o^2}\sqrt{1+a+bq_o^2+b^2q_o^4}.$$
(53)
Equation (43) is explicit in $`q_o`$ and evidently a closed form solution for $`q_o`$ is hard to find, though almost impossible. However, numerical solutions are feasible. Once $`q_o`$ is determined the coefficients $`C_{m,n}`$ and $`D_{m,n}`$ are obtained in a sequel manner. Consequently, the eigenvalues, Eq.(40), and eigenfunctions, Eqs.(29)-(32), are calculated in the same batch for each value of $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`l`$.

In order to make remediable analysis of our results we have calculated the first ten terms of the energy series. The effect of each term has been taken into account. We have also computed the Padé approximants $`E[N,M]`$ for $`N=2,3,4`$ and $`M=2,3,4`$. Therefore, the stability of the sequence of the Padé approximants was in point.

In tables 1 and 2 we list PSLET results $`E_P`$, Eq.(40), along with the  Padé approximants, Eqs.(41). The results of Roy et al., via SSQM, and Handy et al., via EMM, are also displayed for comparison. In tables 3-5 we compare our results with those of Scherrer et al., via MCF, and Varshni , via SLNT.

In tables 1 and 2 we have observed that, if the last two digits are neglected, the energy series Eq.(40) stabilizes at $`E_5`$ up to $`E_{10}`$. Where $`E_5`$ and $`E_{10}`$ denote that the energy is computed by the first five and first ten terms of the energy series, respectively. Yet for $`l=520`$ it stabilizes at $`E_3`$ up to $`E_{10}`$. While the Padé approximants for $`l=520`$ had no effect on the energy series their effect is not dramatic for $`l=13`$. Also it should be reported that the sequence of Padé approximants stabilizes at $`E[3,3]`$ for $`l=13`$ and at $`E[2,2]`$ for $`l=520`$. Therefore, one could confidently conclude that the results from the Padé approximants are exact provided that some uncertainty lies in the last two digits for $`l=13`$. Nevertheless, our results do not contradict with the upper and lower bounds computed from EMM . To a satisfactory extent they also agree with those from SSQM .

In tables 3 - 5 we list our results along with those of Scherrer , from MCF, and Varshni , from SLNT. Our results compare better with those of Scherrer than the results of SLNT. However, collecting only the first four terms of the energy series Eq.(40) we found that PSLET results are in exact accord with SLNT. Moreover, the trends of convergence of the energy series and the sequence of Padé approximants are similar to those for $`l=13`$ in tables 1 and 2.

In table 6 we display our results along with those from STM and direct numerical integration (DNI) reported in  for the Coulomb plus logarithmic potential. In table 7 we list our predictions for the cutoff - Coulomb and compare them with those of Singh et al. . Finally, we report the k=0 eigenvalues for the NPO and cutoff - Coulomb potentials in table 8 and 9, respectively.

## 4 Summary and Remarks

In this work we have introduced a pseudoperturbative shifted - $`l`$ expansion technique (PSLET) to deal with the calculation of the energy eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of Schrödinger equation in one batch. We have shown that it is an easy task to implement PSLET without having to worry about ranges of couplings and forms of perturbations in the potential involved. In contrast to the textbook Rayleigh - Schrödinger perturbation theory, an easy feasibility of computation of the eigenvalues and eigenfuctions has been demonstrated, and satisfactory accuracies have been obtained. Perhaps it should be noted that for each entry in tables 1-5 one can construct the wavefunction from the knowledge of $`C_{m,n}`$ and $`D_{m,n}`$. However, such a study lies beyond the scope of our methodical proposal.

The conclusion reached by Scherrer , via MCF method for the NPO potential Eq.(1), that SLNT  leads to dubiously accurate results in the critical range $`a^{1/2}/b0.130`$ has been confirmed in the present work. However, the natural extensions of SLNT or its variants \[8,16-21\], represented by PSLET or the modified SLNT , show that one could get convincingly reliable results. Moreover, the dubious accuracies of SLNT  should be attributed mainly to the limited capability of SLNT to calculate the energy series beyond the fourth - order term. Our results for the cutoff \- Coulomb and Coulomb plus logarithmic potentials are also very satisfactory.

A final remark is in point. The attendant method could be applied to systems at lower dimensions. Here is the recipe. Rewrite the centrifugal term in Eq.(2) as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Lambda }+1)/2q^2`$. Shift $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ through $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta `$ and expand in inverse powers of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ following exactly the same procedure described in section 2. In this case, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=l`$ in three dimensions ( with $`q0`$), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=m1/2`$ in two dimensions where $`m`$ is the magnetic quantum number ( with $`q0`$), and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ and/or 0 in one dimension ( with $`\mathrm{}<q<\mathrm{}`$) \[23-28\].


text:
# Global well-posedness for Schrödinger equations with derivative

## 1. Introduction

We consider the derivative nonlinear Schrödinger initial value problem (IVP)

(1)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}i_tu+_x^2u=i\lambda _x(|u|^2u),\hfill \\ u(x,0)=u_0(x),x,t,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\lambda `$. The equation in (1) is a model for the propagation of circularly polarized Alfvén waves in magnetized plasma with a constant magnetic field .

It is natural to impose the smallness condition

(2)
$$u_0_{L^2}<\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{\lambda }}$$

on the initial data, as this will force the energy to be positive via the sharp Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality. Note that the $`L^2`$ norm is conserved by the evolution.

Well-posedness for the Cauchy problem (1) has been studied by many authors . The best local well-posedness result is due to Takaoka , where a gauge transformation and the Fourier restriction method is used to obtain local well-posedness in $`H^s,s1/2`$. In  Takaoka showed this result is sharp in the sense that the data map fails to be $`C^3`$ or uniformly $`C^0`$ for $`s<1/2`$ (cf. Bourgain  and Biagioni-Linares ).

In  global well-posedness is obtained for (1) in $`H^1`$ assuming the smallness condition (2). The argument there is based on two gauge transformations performed in order to remove the derivative in the nonlinear term. This was improved by Takaoka , who proved global well-posed in $`H^s`$ for $`s>\frac{32}{33}`$ assuming (2). The method of proof is based on the idea of Bourgain  of estimating separately the evolution of low frequencies and of high frequencies of the initial data.

In this paper we improve the global well-posedness result further:

###### Theorem 1.1.

The Cauchy problem (1) is globally well-posed in $`H^s`$ for $`s>2/3`$, assuming the smallness condition (2).

The proof of Theorem 1.1 is based on the “I-method” used by the authors in other non-linear Cauchy problems in , , ,  (see also ). The basic idea is as follows. After a rescaling, we define a new energy $`E_N(u)(t)`$ for the solution $`u`$ that depends on a parameter $`N1`$. We prove a local well-posed result in the norm associated to $`E_N`$ on intervals of length $`1`$, and finally we perform an iteration on the time intervals. The reason why this iteration can be globally extended is that the increment of the energy $`E_N(u)(t)`$ over each time interval is very small. In other words the argument is successful because the energy $`E_N(u)(t)`$ is almost conserved.

After the proof of Theorem 1.1 is completed, we will briefly remark that using the same techniques one can also show that the 1D defocusing quintic nonlinear Schrödinger is global well-posed for initial data in $`H^s,s>2/3`$. The details of the proof of this fact will appear in a different paper.

The restriction $`s>2/3`$ is probably not sharp, and might be improvable either by more sophisticated multilinear estimates and better estimates on the symbols $`M_4`$, $`M_6`$, $`M_8`$ which appear in our argument, or by using the “correction term” strategy of . In fact one may reasonably conjecture that one could extend the global well-posedness result to match the local result at $`s>1/2`$. We will not pursue these matters here.

## 2. Notation

To prove Theorem 1.1 we may assume $`2/3<s<1`$, since for the $`s1`$ the result is contained in . Henceforth $`2/3<s<1`$ shall be fixed. Also, by rescaling $`u`$, we may assume $`\lambda =1`$.

We use $`C`$ to denote various constants depending on $`s`$; if $`C`$ depends on other quantities as well, this will be indicated by explicit subscripting, e.g. $`C_{u_0_2}`$ will depend on both $`s`$ and $`u_0_2`$. We use $`AB`$ to denote an estimate of the form $`ACB`$. We use $`a+`$ and $`a`$ to denote expressions of the form $`a+\epsilon `$ and $`a\epsilon `$, where $`0<\epsilon 1`$ depends only on $`s`$.

We use $`f_p`$ to denote the $`L^p()`$ norm, and $`L_t^qL_x^r`$ to denote the mixed norm

$$f_{L_t^qL_x^r}:=(f(t)_r^q𝑑t)^{1/q}$$

with the usual modifications when $`q=\mathrm{}`$.

We define the spatial Fourier transform of $`f(x)`$ by

$$\widehat{f}(\xi ):=_{}e^{ix\xi }f(x)𝑑x$$

and the spacetime Fourier transform $`u(t,x)`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{u}(\tau ,\xi ):=_{}_{}e^{i(x\xi +t\tau )}u(t,x)𝑑t𝑑x.$$

Note that the derivative $`_x`$ is conjugated to multiplication by $`i\xi `$ by the Fourier transform.

We shall also define $`D_x`$ to be the Fourier multiplier with symbol $`\xi :=1+|\xi |`$. We can then define the Sobolev norms $`H^s`$ by

$$f_{H^s}:=D_x^sf_2=\xi ^s\widehat{f}_{L_\xi ^2}.$$

We also define the spaces $`X^{s,b}(\times )`$ (first introduced in ) on $`\times `$ by

$$u_{X^{s,b}(\times )}:=\xi ^s\tau |\xi |^2^b\widehat{u}(\xi ,\tau )_{L_\tau ^2L_\xi ^2}.$$

We often abbreviate $`u_{s,b}`$ for $`u_{X^{s,b}(\times )}`$. For any time interval $`I`$, we define the restricted spaces $`X^{s,b}(I\times )`$ by

$$u_{X^{s,b}(I\times )}:=inf\{U_{s,b}:U|_{I\times }=u\}.$$

We shall take advantage of the Strichartz estimates

(3)
$$u_{L_t^6L_x^6}u_{0,1/2+}$$

and

(4)
$$u_{L_t^{\mathrm{}}L_x^2}u_{0,1/2+}$$

(see e.g. ). From (4) and Sobolev embedding we observe

(5)
$$u_{L_t^{\mathrm{}}L_x^{\mathrm{}}}u_{1/2+,1/2+}$$

In our arguments we shall be using the trivial embedding

$$u_{s_1,b_1}u_{s_2,b_2}\text{ whenever }s_1s_2,b_1b_2$$

so frequently that we will not mention this embedding explicitly.

We now give some useful notation for multilinear expressions. If $`n2`$ is an even integer, we define a *(spatial) multiplier of order $`n`$* to be any function $`M_n(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n)`$ on the hyperplane

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n:=\{(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n)^n:\xi _1+\mathrm{}+\xi _n=0\},$$

which we endow with the standard measure $`\delta (\xi _1+\mathrm{}+\xi _n)`$, where $`\delta `$ is the Dirac delta.

If $`M_n`$ is a multiplier of order $`n`$ and $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_n`$ are functions on $``$, we define the quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(M_n;f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(M_n;f_1,\mathrm{},f_n):=_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}M_n(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\widehat{f}_j(\xi _j).$$

We adopt the notation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(M_n;f):=\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(M_n;f,\overline{f},f,\overline{f},\mathrm{},f,\overline{f}).$$

Observe that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(M_n;f)`$ is invariant under permutations of the even $`\xi _j`$ indices, or of the odd $`\xi _j`$ indices.

If $`M_n`$ is a multiplier of order $`n`$, $`1jn`$ is an index, and $`k1`$ is an even integer, we define the elongation $`𝐗_j^k(M_n)`$ of $`M_n`$ to be the multiplier of order $`n+k`$ given by

$$𝐗_j^k(M_n)(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _{n+k}):=M_n(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _{j1},\xi _j+\mathrm{}+\xi _{j+k},\xi _{j+k+1},\mathrm{},\xi _{n+k}).$$

In other words, $`𝐗_j^k`$ is the multiplier obtained by replacing $`\xi _j`$ by $`\xi _j+\mathrm{}+\xi _{j+k}`$ and advancing all the indices after $`\xi _j`$ accordingly.

We shall often write $`\xi _{ij}`$ for $`\xi _i+\xi _j`$, $`\xi _{ijk}`$ for $`\xi _i+\xi _j+\xi _k`$, etc. We also write $`\xi _{ij}`$ for $`\xi _i\xi _j`$, $`\xi _{ijklm}`$ for $`\xi _{ij}\xi _{klm}`$, etc.

## 3. The Gauge Transformation and the conservation laws

In this section we apply the gauge transform used in  in order to improve the derivative nonlinearity.

###### Definition 3.1.

We define the non-linear map $`𝒢:L^2()L^2()`$ by

$$𝒢f(x):=e^{i_{\mathrm{}}^x|f(y)|^2𝑑y}f(x).$$

The inverse transform $`𝒢^1f`$ is then given by

$$𝒢^1f(x):=e^{i_{\mathrm{}}^x|f(y)|^2𝑑y}f(x).$$

This transform is well behaved on $`H^s`$:

###### Lemma 3.2.

The map $`𝒢`$ is a bicontinuous map from $`H^s`$ to $`H^s`$.

A similar statement holds for $`0s1/2`$, but we shall not need it here.

###### Proof.

We shall just prove the continuity of $`𝒢`$, as the continuity of $`𝒢^1`$ is proven similarly.

Define $`Lip`$ to be the space of functions with norm

$$f_{Lip}:=f_{\mathrm{}}+f^{}_L^{\mathrm{}}.$$

Since $`s>1/2`$, we see from Sobolev embedding that the nonlinear map $`fe^{i_{\mathrm{}}^x|f(y)|^2𝑑y}`$ continuously maps $`H^s`$ to $`Lip`$. It therefore suffices to show the product estimate

$$fg_{H^s}f_{H^s}g_{Lip}.$$

But this estimate follows immediately from the Leibnitz rule and Hölder when $`s=0`$ or $`s=1`$, and the intermediate cases then follow by interpolation. ∎

Set $`w_0:=𝒢u_0`$, and $`w(t):=𝒢u(t)`$ for all times $`t`$. A straightforward calculation shows that the IVP (1) can be transformed to

(6)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}i_tw+_x^2w=iw^2_x\overline{w}\frac{1}{2}|w|^4w,\hfill \\ w(x,0)=w_0(x),x,t,\hfill \end{array}$$

Also, the smallness condition (2) becomes

(7)
$$w_0_{L^2}<\sqrt{2\pi }.$$

By Lemma 3.2 we thus see that global well-posedness of (1) in $`H^s`$ is equivalent to that of (6). From , we know that both Cauchy problems are locally well-posed in $`H^s`$ and globally well-posed in $`H^1`$ assuming (7). By standard limiting arguments, we thus see that Theorem 1.1 will follow if we can show

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $`w`$ be a global $`H^1`$ solution to (6) obeying (7). Then for any $`T>0`$ we have

$$\underset{0tT}{sup}w(t)_{H^s}C_{w_0_{H^s},w_0_2,T}$$

where the right-hand side does not depend on the $`H^1`$ norm of $`w`$.

Just by looking at the equation in (6) it is not easy to understand why this should be better than the equation in (1). In fact we still see a derivative, and moreover a quintic nonlinearity has been introduced. But it was made clear in  how a derivative of the complex conjugate of the solution $`w`$ can be handled while a derivative of $`w`$ cannot. Also the quintic term is not going to introduce any extra trouble.

Let $`n2`$ be an even integer, and let $`M_n`$ be a multiplier of order $`n`$. From (6) we have

$$_tw=iw_{xx}w\overline{w}_xw+\frac{i}{2}w\overline{w}w\overline{w}w$$

and

$$_t\overline{w}=iw_{xx}\overline{w}w_x\overline{w}\frac{i}{2}\overline{w}w\overline{w}w\overline{w}.$$

Taking the Fourier transform of these identities, we obtain the useful differentiation law

(8)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _t\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(M_n;w(t))& =i\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(M_n\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^j\xi _j^2;w(t))\hfill \\ & i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n+2}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝐗_j^2(M_n)\xi _{j+1};w(t))\hfill \\ & +\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n+4}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{j1}𝐗_j^4(M_n);w(t))\hfill \end{array}$$

for any even integer $`n2`$ and any multiplier $`M_n`$ of order $`n`$.

We now turn to the conservation laws that the solution $`w`$ of (6) enjoys. What follows in this section was originally described by Ozawa in , however we have redone the computations in our own notation as this will prove useful later.

###### Definition 3.4.

If $`fH^1(`$), we define the energy $`E(f)`$ by

$$E(f):=_xf_x\overline{f}dx\frac{1}{2}\text{Im}f\overline{f}f_x\overline{f}dx.$$

By Plancherel, we may write $`E(f)`$ using the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ notation as

$$E(f)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\xi _1\xi _2;f)\frac{1}{2}\text{Im}\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(i\xi _4;f).$$

Expanding out the second term using $`\text{Im}(z)=(z\overline{z})/2i`$, and using symmetry, we may rewrite this as

(9)
$$E(f)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\xi _1\xi _2;f)+\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\xi _{1324};f).$$

###### Lemma 3.5.

 If $`w`$ is an $`H^1`$ solution to (6) for times $`t[0,T]`$, then we have

$$w(t)_2=w_0_2$$

and

$$E(w(t))=E(w_0)$$

for all $`t[0,T]`$.

###### Proof.

These conservation laws are proven in , however we give a proof based on the identity (8), as the proof here will be needed later on.

We of course have

$$w(t)_2^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(1;w(t)).$$

In the rest of this proof we shall drop the $`w(t)`$ from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ notation. Differentiating the previous and applying (8), we obtain

$$_tw(t)_2^2=i\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\xi _1^2\xi _2^2)i\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\xi _2+\xi _3)+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(11+11+11).$$

The first term vanishes since $`\xi _{12}=0`$. The second term can be symmetrized to $`\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\xi _{1234})`$ which vanishes. The third term clearly vanishes. This proves the $`L^2`$ conservation.

Now we prove energy conservation. From (9) we have

(10)
$$_tE(t)=_t\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\xi _1\xi _2)+\frac{1}{8}_t\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\xi _{1324})$$

and from (8)

$$_t\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\xi _1\xi _2)=i\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\xi _1\xi _2(\xi _1^2\xi _2^2))i\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\xi _{123}\xi _4\xi _2+\xi _1\xi _{234}\xi _3)+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\xi _{12345}\xi _6\xi _1\xi _{23456}).$$

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ term vanishes since $`\xi _{12}=0`$. To simplify the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ term we write $`\xi _{123}=\xi _4`$, $`\xi _{234}=\xi _1`$ and then symmetrize. To simplify the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_6`$ term we write $`\xi _{12345}=\xi _6`$, $`\xi _{23456}=\xi _1`$ and then symmetrize, to obtain

$$_t\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\xi _1\xi _2)=\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\xi _1^2\xi _3+\xi _2^2\xi _4+\xi _3^2\xi _1+\xi _4^2\xi _2)+\frac{i}{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\xi _1^2\xi _2^2+\xi _3^2\xi _4^2+\xi _5^2\xi _6^2).$$

We may simplify the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ term further, using the identity

$`\xi _1^2\xi _3+\xi _2^2\xi _4+\xi _3^2\xi _1+\xi _4^2\xi _2`$ $`=\xi _1\xi _3\xi _{13}+\xi _2\xi _4\xi _{24}`$
$`=\xi _{13}(\xi _1\xi _3\xi _2\xi _4)`$
$`=\xi _{13}(\xi _1\xi _{124}\xi _2\xi _4)`$
$`=\xi _{13}(\xi _1+\xi _2)(\xi _1+\xi _4)`$
$`=\xi _{12}\xi _{13}\xi _{14}`$
to obtain

(11)
$$_t\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\xi _1\xi _2)=\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\xi _{12}\xi _{13}\xi _{14})+\frac{i}{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\xi _1^2\xi _2^2+\xi _3^2\xi _4^2+\xi _5^2\xi _6^2).$$

We now consider the second component of the energy. From (8) we have

$`_t\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\xi _{1324})`$ $`=i\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\xi _{1324}(\xi _1^2\xi _2^2+\xi _3^2\xi _4^2))`$
$`i\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\xi _{123546}\xi _2+\xi _{152346}\xi _3+\xi _{134526}\xi _4+\xi _{132456}\xi _5)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_8(\xi _{12345768}\xi _{17234568}+\xi _{13456728}\xi _{13245678}).`$
The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_8`$ term symmetrizes to $`i\mathrm{\Lambda }_8(\xi _{12345678})`$ which vanishes. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_6`$ term can be rewritten as

$$2i\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\xi _{46}\xi _2\xi _{15}\xi _3+\xi _{26}\xi _4\xi _{13}\xi _5)$$

which we rewrite as

$$2i\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\xi _{246}\xi _2\xi _{135}\xi _3+\xi _{246}\xi _4\xi _{135}\xi _5)2i\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\xi _2^2\xi _3^2+\xi _4^2\xi _5^2).$$

The first term symmetrizes to $`\frac{4i}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\xi _{246}^2\xi _{135}^2)`$ which vanishes. The second term symmetrizes to

$$\frac{4i}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\xi _1^2\xi _2^2+\xi _3^2\xi _4^2+\xi _5^2\xi _6^2).$$

Finally, consider the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ term. We may factorize

$$\xi _{1324}(\xi _1^2\xi _2^2+\xi _3^2\xi _4^2)=\xi _{1324}(\xi _{12}\xi _{12}+\xi _{34}\xi _{34}).$$

Since $`\xi _{12}=\xi _{34}`$ and $`\xi _{13}=\xi _{24}`$, we may simplify this as

$$2\xi _{13}\xi _{12}(\xi _{12}\xi _{34})=4\xi _{12}\xi _{13}\xi _{14}.$$

Combining all these identities we thus have

$$\frac{1}{8}_t\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\xi _{1324})=\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\xi _{12}\xi _{13}\xi _{14})\frac{i}{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\xi _1^2\xi _2^2+\xi _3^2\xi _4^2+\xi _5^2\xi _6^2).$$

Combining this with (11) and (10) we obtain

$$_tE(w(t))=0$$

and the claim follows. ∎

Heuristically, the energy $`E(w(t))`$ has the same strength as $`w(t)_{H^1}^2`$. We can make this precise:

###### Lemma 3.6.

Let $`f`$ be an $`H^1`$ function on $``$ such that $`f_2<\sqrt{2\pi }`$. Then we have

(12)
$$_xf_2C_{f_2}E(f)^{1/2}$$

where $`C_{f_2}`$ depends only on $`f_2`$.

###### Proof.

Define the function

$$g(x):=\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{3}{4}_{\mathrm{}}^x|f(y)|^2𝑑y)f(x).$$

A routine computation shows that

$$g_2=f_2<\sqrt{2\pi }$$

and

$$E(f)=_xg_2^2\frac{1}{16}g_6^6.$$

From the sharp Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality

(13)
$$g_6^6\frac{4}{\pi ^2}g_2^4_xg_2^2$$

we therefore have

$$_xg_2C_{f_2}E(f)^{1/2}.$$

From the definition of $`g`$ we have

$$f(x)=\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{3}{4}_{\mathrm{}}^x|g(y)|^2𝑑y)g(x)$$

and so we have

$$_xf_2_xg_2+g^3_2.$$

By another application of (13) we thus obtain (12). ∎

## 4. The Almost Conserved Energy Norm

It remains to prove Proposition 3.3. Fix $`w`$, $`T`$. We also let $`N1`$ be a large parameter depending on $`T`$, $`w_0_2`$, and $`w_0_{H^s}`$ which we shall choose later.

Because we do not want to use the $`H^1`$ norm of $`w`$, we cannot directly use the energy $`E(w(t))`$ defined above. So we are looking for a substitute notion of “energy” that can be defined for a less regular solution and that has a very slow increment in time. In the frequency space let us consider an even $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ monotone multiplier $`m(\xi )`$ taking values in $`[0,1]`$ such that

(14)
$$m(\xi ):=\{\begin{array}{c}1,\text{ if }|\xi |<N,\hfill \\ \left(\frac{|\xi |}{N}\right)^{s1}\text{ if }|\xi |>2N.\hfill \end{array}$$

We define the multiplier operator $`I:H^sH^1`$ such that $`\widehat{Iw}(\xi ):=m(\xi )\widehat{w}(\xi )`$. This operator is smoothing of order $`1s`$; indeed we have

(15)
$$u_{s_0,b_0}Iu_{s_0+1s,b_0}N^{1s}u_{s_0,b_0}$$

for any $`s_0,b_0`$.

Our substitute energy will be defined by

$$E_N(w):=E(Iw).$$

Note that this energy makes sense even if $`w`$ is only in $`H^s`$.

In general the energy $`E_N(w(t))`$ is not conserved in time, but we will show that the increment is very small in terms of $`N`$. This will be accomplished in three stages. First, in Proposition 4.1 below, we write the increment of $`E_N(w(t))`$ as a multilinear expression in $`w`$. Then, in Lemma 6.1, we estimate these multilinear expressions in terms of the norm $`Iw_{1,1/2+}`$, gaining a power of $`N^{1+}`$ in the process. Finally, in Theorem 5.1 (and Lemma 3.6), we control the norm $`Iw_{1,1/2+}`$ back in terms of $`E_N(w(t))`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`w`$ be an $`H^1`$ global solution to (6). Then for any $`T`$ and $`\delta >0`$ we have

$$E_N(w(T+\delta ))E_N(w(T))=_T^{T+\delta }[\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(M_4;w(t))+\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(M_6;w(t))+\mathrm{\Lambda }_8(M_8;w(t))]𝑑t$$

where the multipliers $`M_4`$, $`M_6`$, $`M_8`$ are given by

$`M_4`$ $`:=C_1m_1m_2m_3m_4\xi _{12}\xi _{13}\xi _{14}+C_2(m_1^2\xi _1^2\xi _3+m_2^2\xi _2^2\xi _4+m_3^2\xi _3^2\xi _1+m_4^2\xi _4^2\xi _2)`$
$`M_6`$ $`:=C_3{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}}(1)^{j1}m_j^2\xi _j^2+C_4{\displaystyle \underset{\{a,c,e\}=\{1,3,5\},\{b,d,f\}=\{2,4,6\}}{}}m_am_bm_cm_{def}\xi _{ac}\xi _em_{abc}m_dm_em_f\xi _{df}\xi _b`$
$`M_8`$ $`:=C_5{\displaystyle \underset{\{a,c,e,g\}=\{1,3,5,7\};\{b,d,f,h\}=\{2,4,6,8\}}{}}m_am_bm_cm_{defgh}\xi _{acbdefgh}m_{abcde}m_fm_gm_h\xi _{abcdegfh}`$
where $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_5`$ are absolute constants and we adopt the abbreviations $`m_i`$ for $`m(\xi _i)`$, $`m_{ij}`$ for $`m(\xi _{ij})`$, etc. Furthermore, if $`|\xi _j|N`$ for all $`j`$, then the multipliers $`M_4`$, $`M_6`$, $`M_8`$ all vanish.

###### Proof.

From (9) we have

$$E_N(w(t))=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(m_1\xi _1m_2\xi _2;w(t))+\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\xi _{1324}m_1m_2m_3m_4;w(t)).$$

Henceforth we omit the $`w(t)`$ from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ notation. By (8) we have

$`_t\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(m_1\xi _1m_2\xi _2)`$ $`=i\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(m_1\xi _1m_2\xi _2(\xi _1^2\xi _2^2))`$
$`i\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(m_{123}\xi _{123}m_4\xi _4\xi _2+m_1\xi _1m_{234}\xi _{234}\xi _3)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(m_{12345}\xi _{12345}m_6\xi _6m_1\xi _1m_{23456}\xi _{23456}).`$
The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ term vanishes since $`\xi _{12}=0`$. To simplify the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ term, we use $`\xi _{123}=\xi _4`$ and $`\xi _{234}=\xi _1`$ and then symmetrize to obtain the second term of $`M_4`$. To simplify the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_6`$ term, we use $`\xi _{12345}=\xi _6`$ and $`\xi _{23456}=\xi _1`$ and then symmetrize to get the first term of $`M_6`$.

In a similar vein we have

$`_t\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\xi _{1324}m_1m_2m_3m_4)`$ $`=i\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\xi _{1324}m_1m_2m_3m_4(\xi _1^2\xi _2^2+\xi _3^2\xi _4^2))`$
$`i\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\xi _{123546}m_{123}m_4m_5m_6\xi _2+\xi _{152346}m_1m_{234}m_5m_6\xi _3`$
$`+\xi _{134526}m_1m_2m_{345}m_6\xi _4+\xi _{132456}m_1m_2m_3m_{456}\xi _5)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_8(\xi _{12345768}m_{12345}m_6m_7m_8\xi _{17234568}m_1m_{23456}m_7m_8`$
$`+\xi _{13456728}m_1m_2m_{34567}m_8\xi _{13245678}m_1m_2m_3m_{45678}).`$
The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ term is of the form of the first term of $`M_4`$, by the argument used to prove (11). To simplify the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_6`$ term, we use $`\xi _{123546}=2\xi _{46}`$ and similarly for the other four terms, then symmetrize to obtain the second term of $`M_6`$. Finally if we symmetrize the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_8`$ term we obtain $`M_8`$. The first part of the Proposition then follows from the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus applied to the function $`tE_N(w(t))`$.

If all the frequencies are $`N`$, then all the $`m_i`$, $`m_{ij}`$, etc. terms are equal to 1. In this case our calculations are identical to those in Lemma 3.5 and so our symbols $`M_4`$, $`M_6`$, $`M_8`$ will vanish by the computations given in that Lemma. ∎

## 5. Local estimates

In Lemma 6.1 we shall estimate the expression in Proposition 4.1. It turns out that one cannot estimate this expression effectively just by using spatial norms such as $`Iw_{H^1}`$ (as is done for some simple equations in ), but one must use spacetime norms such as $`Iw_{1,1/2+}`$. The purpose of this section is to obtain the required control on these spacetime norms:

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`w`$ be a $`H^1`$ global solution to (6), and let $`T`$ be such that

$$Iw(T)_{H^1}C_0$$

for some $`C_0>0`$. Then we have

$$Iw_{X^{1,1/2+}([T,T+\delta ]\times )}1$$

for some $`\delta >0`$ depending on $`C_0`$.

We now prove Theorem 5.1. We shall be able to exploit the estimates in . By standard iteration arguments (see e.g. , , , , ) it suffices to prove

###### Lemma 5.2.

We have

(16) $`I(w_1_x\overline{w_2}w_3)_{X_{1,b1}(\times )}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}Iw_i_{X_{1,1/2+}(\times )}`$
(17) $`I(w_1\overline{w_2}w_3\overline{w_4}w_5)_{X_{1,b1}(\times )}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}Iw_i_{X_{1,1/2+}(\times )}.`$
for all Schwarz functions $`w_i`$ and some $`b>1/2`$ (in fact we may take any $`1/2<b<5/8`$).

###### Proof.

By Plancherel and duality it suffices to show

$$|_{}\frac{m(\xi _4)\xi _4\tau _4+\xi _4^2^{b1}\xi _2}{_{j=1}^3m(\xi _j)\xi _j\tau _j(1)^{j1}\xi _j^2^{1/2+}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}F_j(\tau _j,\xi _j)|\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}F_j_{L_{\tau _j}^2L_{\xi _j}^2}$$

and

$$|_{}\frac{m(\xi _6)\xi _6\tau _6+\xi _6^2^{b1}}{_{j=1}^5m(\xi _j)\xi _j\tau _j(1)^{j1}\xi _j^2^{1/2+}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}F_j(\tau _j,\xi _j)|\underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}F_j_{L_{\tau _j}^2L_{\xi _j}^2}$$

for all functions $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_6`$, where $`_{}`$, $`_{}`$ denotes integration over the measure $`\delta (\tau _1+\mathrm{}+\tau _4)\delta (\xi _1+\mathrm{}+\xi _4)`$ and $`\delta (\tau _1+\mathrm{}+\tau _6)\delta (\xi _1+\mathrm{}+\xi _6)`$ respectively.

We may assume that the $`F_j`$ are all real and non-negative. We now observe the pointwise estimate

$$\frac{m(\xi _n)\xi _n^{1s}}{_{j=1}^{n1}m(\xi _j)\xi _j^{1s}}1$$

for $`n=4,6`$ and all $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n`$ such that $`\xi _1+\mathrm{}+\xi _n=0`$. To see this, we use symmetry to assume that $`|\xi _1|\mathrm{}|\xi _{n1}|`$, so that $`|\xi _n||\xi _1|`$. Since $`m(\xi )\xi ^{1s}`$ is essentially increasing in $`|\xi |`$, we thus see that

$$\frac{m(\xi _n)\xi _n^{1s}}{_{j=1}^{n1}m(\xi _j)\xi _j^{1s}}\frac{1}{_{j=2}^{n1}m(\xi _j)\xi _j^{1s}}.$$

Since $`m(\xi )\xi ^{1s}1`$ for all $`\xi `$, the claim follows.

Because of this estimate, we only need to show the estimates

(18)
$$|_{}\frac{\xi _4^s\tau _4+\xi _4^2^{b1}\xi _2}{_{j=1}^3\xi _j^s\tau _j(1)^{j1}\xi _j^2^{1/2+}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}F_j(\tau _j,\xi _j)|\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}F_j_{L_{\tau _j}^2L_{\xi _j}^2}$$

and

(19)
$$|_{}\frac{\xi _6^s\tau _6+\xi _6^2^{b1}}{_{j=1}^5\xi _j^s\tau _j(1)^{j1}\xi _j^2^{1/2+}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}F_j(\tau _j,\xi _j)|\underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}F_j_{L_{\tau _j}^2L_{\xi _j}^2}.$$

The estimate (18) is equivalent to the first estimate of Lemma 3.1 in  after undoing the duality and Plancherel, so it suffices to prove (19). By undoing the duality we can write this as

$$w_1\overline{w_2}w_3\overline{w_4}w_5_{s,b1}\underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}w_j_{s,1/2+}.$$

We may assume that the Fourier transforms $`\stackrel{~}{w}_j`$ are all real and non-negative. By using $`|\xi _1+\xi _2+\xi _3+\xi _4+\xi _5|^s_{i=1}^5|\xi _i|^s`$, it suffices to prove estimates of the form

$$(D_x^sw_1)\overline{w_2}w_3\overline{w_4}w_5_{0,b1}\underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}w_j_{s,1/2+},$$

plus similar estimates when $`D_x^s`$ falls on one of the other functions. We shall only prove the displayed estimate, as the others are similar. We may estimate the $`X^{0,b1}`$ norm by the $`L_t^2L_x^2`$ norm. But then the claim follows from three applications of (3) and two applications of (5), and Hölder (ensuring that the term with the $`D_x^s`$ is estimated using (3)). ∎

## 6. Proof of Proposition 3.3

We can now prove Proposition 3.3, which as remarked before will give Theorem 1.1. Let $`T`$, $`w`$ be as in the Proposition. Our constants may depend on $`w_0_2`$ and $`w_0_{H^s}`$.

We start by rescaling the solution $`w`$. Let $`\mu >0`$ be chosen later. We observe that $`w`$ is a solution for the IVP (6) if and only if

$$w^\mu (t,x)=\frac{1}{\mu ^{1/2}}w(\frac{t}{\mu ^2},\frac{x}{\mu })$$

is a solution for the IVP (6) with initial data $`w_0^\mu =\mu ^{1/2}w(\mu ^1x)`$. From Plancherel’s theorem and a simple computation we see that

$$I_xw_0^\mu _2\frac{N^{1s}}{\mu ^s}w_0_{H^s}.$$

while

$$Iw_0^\mu _2w_0^\mu _2=w_0_2<\sqrt{2\pi }.$$

We now choose $`\mu :=N^{\frac{1s}{s}}`$. From the previous we see that $`Iw_0^\mu _{H^1}1`$, so from Sobolev embedding (or Gagliardo-Nirenberg) we obtain

$$E(Iw_0^\mu )C_1$$

for some constant $`C_1>0`$.

Now suppose inductively that we have a time $`T`$ such that

$$E(Iw^\mu (T))C_1+C_2N^{1+}T$$

where $`C_2>0`$ is a constant depending on $`C_1`$ to be chosen later. If $`TN^1`$, we then have $`E(Iw^\mu (T))2C_1`$, which implies from Lemma 3.6 that

$$Iw^\mu (T)_{H^1}C_3$$

where $`C_3`$ depends on $`C_1`$. By Theorem 5.1 we thus have

$$Iw^\mu _{X^{1,1/2+}([T,T+\delta ]\times )}C_4$$

where $`C_4`$, $`\delta `$ depend on $`C_3`$.

In the next four sections we shall prove the key estimate

###### Lemma 6.1.

For any Schwartz function $`w`$, we have

(20)
$$|_T^{T+\delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_n(M_n;w(t))𝑑t|N^{1+}Iw_{X^{1,1/2+}([T,T+\delta ]\times )}^n$$

for $`n=4,6,8`$, where $`M_4`$, $`M_6`$, $`M_8`$ are defined in Proposition 4.1.

Assuming this estimate for the moment, we see from the previous and Proposition 4.1 that

$$E(Iw^\mu (T+\delta ))E(Iw^\mu (T))+C_5N^{1+}$$

where $`C_5`$ depends on $`\delta `$ and $`C_4`$. This allows us to close the induction hypothesis by setting $`C_2:=C_5`$. As a consequence we have thus shown that<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Strictly speaking, we have only shown this for $`T`$ being an integer multiple of $`\delta `$, however this can be easily remedied, e.g. by using the fact that the $`X^{1,1/2+}`$ norm controls the $`L_t^{\mathrm{}}H_x^1`$ norm on $`[T,T+\delta ]\times `$.

$$Iw^\mu (T)_{H^1}1$$

for all $`TN^1`$. From the definition of $`I`$ this implies that

$$w^\mu (T)_{H^s}C_N$$

for all $`TN^1`$. Undoing the scaling, this implies that

$$w(T)_{H^s}C_{N,\mu }$$

for all $`TN^1/\mu ^2`$. However, if $`s>2/3`$, then $`N^1/\mu ^2=N^{\frac{3s2}{s}}`$ goes to infinity as $`N\mathrm{}`$, and Proposition 3.3 follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 6.2.

An examination of the above argument shows also that the $`H^s`$ norm of $`w`$ (and of $`u`$) grows at most polynomially in time, however the order of this growth obtained by this argument goes to infinity as $`s2/3`$.

## 7. Proof of Lemma 6.1: preliminaries

To prove Lemma 6.1 we shall treat the cases $`n=4`$, $`n=6`$, $`n=8`$ separately. The idea will be first to obtain some good estimates on $`M_n`$ in terms of $`m(\xi _i)`$ and $`\xi _i`$, and then to bound the resulting multilinear expression using standard tools such as the Strichartz estimates (3), (5), the trivial estimate

(21)
$$u_{L_t^2L_x^2}u_{0,0},$$

and Hölder’s inequality. In addition to the above linear estimates, we shall also take advantage of the following bilinear improvement to Strichartz’ estimate in the case of differing frequencies (cf. )

###### Lemma 7.1.

For any Schwartz functions $`u,v`$ with Fourier support in $`|\xi |R`$, $`|\xi |R`$ respectively, we have that

$$uv_{L_t^2L_x^2}=u\overline{v}_{L_t^2L_x^2}R^{1/2}u_{0,1/2+}v_{0,1/2+}.$$

###### Proof.

This is an improved Strichartz estimate of the type considered in .

It is enough to show that if $`u`$ and $`v`$ are solutions of the free Schrödinger equation, that is $`u=e^{it_x^2}\varphi `$ and $`v=e^{it_x^2}\psi `$, then

(22)
$$D_x^{1/2}(uv)_{L^2}\varphi _{L^2}\psi _{L^2}.,$$

where $`D_x`$ is the operator such that $`\widehat{D_xf}(\xi )=\xi \widehat{f}(\xi )`$. If we use duality and the change of variable $`\xi _1+\xi _2=s`$ and $`|\xi _1|^2+|\xi _2|^2=r`$, the left hand side of (22) becomes

$`\underset{F_{L^2}1}{sup}{\displaystyle R^{1/2}F(\xi _1+\xi _2,|\xi _1|^2+|\xi _2|^2)\widehat{\varphi }(\xi _1)\widehat{\psi }(\xi _2)𝑑\xi _1𝑑\xi _2}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle R^{1/2}F(s,r)\frac{H(s,r)}{R}𝑑s𝑑r},`$
where $`H(s,r)`$ denotes the product of $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }`$ in the new variables. Notice that the change of variables introduced above has a Jacobian of size $`R`$. Now if we use Cauchy-Schwarz and we change the variables back to $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$, we obtain (22). ∎

In one of our sub-cases, we shall also take advantage of a trick (originally due to Bourgain ) of splitting the symbol $`|\xi _1|^2\mathrm{}+|\xi _n|^2`$ as a sum of $`\tau _j|\xi _j|^2`$.

Our estimates are not best possible, and it is likely that one can improve the $`N^{1+}`$ gain in our estimates, probably to $`N^{3/2+}`$. However this will fall short of the $`N^{2+}`$ gain needed to push the global well-posedness down to match the local well-posedness theory at $`s>1/2`$. However one can recover this by adding higher order correction terms to the energy $`E_N(w(t))`$, as in . If one does this, one will end up estimating $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_6`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_8`$ expressions rather than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$. This will be beneficial because such expressions will have fewer derivatives in their symbol and can therefore enjoy better decay in $`N`$. The details of this argument will appear in a later paper.

We set out some notation. Let $`n=4`$, $`6`$, or $`8`$, and let $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n`$ be frequencies such that $`\xi _1+\mathrm{}+\xi _n=0`$. Define $`N_i:=|\xi _i|`$, and $`N_{ij}:=|\xi _{ij}|`$. We adopt the notation that

$$1soprano,alto,tenor,baritonen$$

are the distinct indices such that

$$N_{soprano}N_{alto}N_{tenor}N_{baritone}$$

are the highest, second highest, third highest, and fourth highest values of the frequencies $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_n`$ respectively (if there is a tie in frequencies, we break the tie arbitrarily).

Since $`\xi _1+\mathrm{}+\xi _n=0`$, we must have $`N_{soprano}N_{alto}`$. Also, from Proposition 4.1 we see that $`M_n`$ vanishes unless $`N_{soprano}N`$.

## 8. Proof of Lemma 6.1 when $`n=4`$

We now estimate the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ expression. We begin by estimating the multiplier $`M_4`$.

###### Lemma 8.1.

Let $`\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3,\xi _4`$ be such that $`\xi _{1234}=0`$.

* If $`N_{tenor}N_{soprano}`$, then

(23)
$$|M_4(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3,\xi _4)|N^1(N/N_{soprano})^{1/10}\xi _{12}\xi _{14}^{1/2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\xi _jm(\xi _j).$$
* If $`N_{tenor}N_{soprano}`$, then

(24)
$$|M_4(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3,\xi _4)|N^1(N/N_{soprano})^{1/10}N_{soprano}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\xi _jm(\xi _j).$$

###### Proof.

Fix $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _4`$. If $`N_{soprano}N`$ then $`M_4`$ vanishes by the second part of Proposition 4.1, so we will assume that $`N_{soprano}N`$.

We split $`M_4=C_1M_4^{}+C_2M_4^{\prime \prime }`$, where

$$M_4^{}:=m_1m_2m_3m_4\xi _{12}\xi _{13}\xi _{14}$$

and

$$M_4^{\prime \prime }:=m_1^2\xi _1^2\xi _3+m_2^2\xi _2^2\xi _4+m_3^2\xi _3^2\xi _1+m_4^2\xi _4^2\xi _2.$$

In the $`N_{soprano}N`$ case we will not need to exploit cancellation between $`M_4^{}`$ and $`M_4^{\prime \prime }`$ (although such cancellation certainly exists), and shall estimate them separately.

Let us first prove (23). We begin with estimating $`M_4^{}`$. We have

$`|M_4^{}|`$ $`=N_{12}N_{13}N_{14}m(N_1)m(N_2)m(N_3)m(N_4)`$
$`N_{12}N_{14}N_{soprano}m(N_{soprano})^3`$
$`N_{12}N_{14}^{1/2}N_{soprano}^2m(N_{soprano})^3`$
$`N_{12}N_{14}^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(N/N_{soprano})^{1/10}N_{soprano}^3m(N_{soprano})^3`$
$`N^1(N/N_{soprano})^{1/10}N_{12}N_{14}^{1/2}N_{soprano}m(N_{soprano})N_{alto}m(N_{alto})N_{tenor}m(N_{tenor})`$
$`N^1(N/N_{soprano})^{1/10}N_{12}N_{14}^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}N_jm(N_j)`$
as desired.

It remains to estimate $`M_4^{\prime \prime }`$. We divide into two cases: $`N_{baritone}N_{soprano}`$ and $`N_{baritone}N_{soprano}`$.

Case 1: $`N_{baritone}N_{soprano}`$.

In this case all the frequencies are comparable to each other. By symmetry we may assume that $`N_{12}N_{14}`$, in which case it suffices to show

$$|M_4^{\prime \prime }|N^1(N/N_1)^{1/10}N_{12}N_1^4m(N_1)^4.$$

We can rewrite $`M_4^{\prime \prime }=f(0)f(h)`$, where

$$f(h):=m(\xi _1h)^2(\xi _1h)^2(\xi _3+h)+m(\xi _3+h)^2(\xi _3+h)^2(\xi _1h)$$

and $`h:=\xi _1+\xi _2`$. A routine calculation shows that

$$|f^{}(x)|m(N_1)^2N_1^2$$

for all $`x=O(N_1)`$, so by the mean value theorem and the assumption $`N_1N`$ we have

$$|M_4^{\prime \prime }|=|f(0)f(h)|N_{12}m(N_1)^2N_1^2N^1(N/N_1)^{1/10}N_{12}N_1^4m(N_1)^4$$

as desired (in fact we gain an additional power of $`N`$).

Case 2: $`N_{baritone}N_{soprano}`$.

By symmetry we may assume that $`baritone=4`$, thus $`N_1N_2N_3N_4`$. In this case $`N_{14}N_1`$, $`N_{12}=N_{34}N_1`$ and $`N_4m(N_4)1`$, so it suffices to show

$$|M_4^{\prime \prime }|N^1(N/N_1)^{1/10}N_1^4m(N_1)^3.$$

But we may crudely estimate the left-hand side by

$$|M_4^{\prime \prime }|m(N_1)^2N_1^3+m(N_4)^2N_4^2N_1m(N_1)^2N_1^3$$

which suffices since $`N_1N`$. This proves (23).

Now we show (24). Observe that

$$N_{12}N_{13}N_{14}N_{soprano}^2N_{tenor}$$

and hence

$`|M_4^{}|`$ $`N_{soprano}^2N_{tenor}m(N_{soprano})m(N_{alto})m(N_{tenor})m(N_{baritone})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}N_jm(N_j)`$
$`N^{1+}N_{soprano}^1{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}N_jm(N_j).`$
Thus it only remains to estimate $`M_4^{\prime \prime }`$. Since $`N_{baritone}m(N_{baritone})`$ and
$`m(N_{tenor})N^1(N/N_{soprano})^{1/10}N_{soprano}`$ are both $`1`$, it suffices to show

$$|M_4^{\prime \prime }|m(N_{soprano})^2N_{soprano}^2N_{tenor}.$$

By symmetry we may reduce to one of two cases.

Case 1: $`N_3=N_{tenor}`$ and $`N_4=N_{baritone}`$.

We crudely estimate

$$|M_4^{\prime \prime }(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3,\xi _4)|m(N_1)^2N_1^2N_3+m(N_2)^2N_2^2N_4+m(N_3)^2N_3^2N_1+m(N_4)^2N_4^2N_2m(N_1)^2N_1^2N_3$$

as desired.

Case 2: $`N_2=N_{tenor}`$ and $`N_4=N_{baritone}`$.

In this case we estimate

$`|M_4^{\prime \prime }|`$ $`|m_1^2\xi _1^2\xi _3+m_3^2\xi _3^2\xi _1|+m(N_2)^2N_2^2N_4+m(N_4)^2N_4^2N_2`$
$`=N_1N_3|m(\xi _1)^2\xi _1m(\xi _1+\xi _2+\xi _4)^2(\xi _1+\xi _2+\xi _4)|+O(m(N_1)^2N_1^2N_2).`$
The function $`m(\xi _1+h)^2(\xi _1+h)`$ has a derivative of $`O(m(N_1)^2)`$ whenever $`|h|N_1`$, thus by the mean value theorem we thus have

$$|M_4^{}(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3,\xi _4)|N_1N_3N_{24}m(N_1)^2+O(m(N_1)^2N_1^2N_2)m(N_1)^2N_1^2N_2$$

as desired. ∎

We now prove (20) in the $`n=4`$ case. It suffices to show that

$$_T^{T+\delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(M_4;w_1(t),\overline{w_2(t)},w_3(t),\overline{w_4(t)})𝑑tN^{1+}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}Iw_j_{1,1/2+}$$

for all Schwartz functions $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_4`$ on $`\times `$. Since $`M_4`$ vanishes for $`N_{soprano}N`$, it suffices by dyadic decomposition to show that

$$_T^{T+\delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(M_4\chi _{N_{soprano}2^k};w_1(t),\overline{w_2(t)},w_3(t),\overline{w_4(t)})𝑑tN^{1+}2^{(0+)k}(N/2^k)^{1/10}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}Iw_j_{1,1/2+}$$

for all integers $`k`$ for which $`2^kN`$. (The exact choice of the cutoff $`\chi _{N_{soprano}2^k}`$ is not important as we shall soon be taking absolute values everywhere anyway).

Fix $`k`$. Without loss of generality we may assume that the Fourier transforms $`\stackrel{~}{w}_j`$ are real and non-negative. We divide into the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ integral into the regions $`N_{tenor}N_{soprano}`$ and $`N_{tenor}N_{soprano}`$.

Case 1. $`N_{tenor}N_{soprano}`$.

We first perform some manipulations to eliminate the cutoff $`\chi _{[T,T+\delta ]}(t)`$. Write $`\chi _{[T,T+\delta ]}(t)=a(t)+b(t)`$, where $`a(t)`$ is $`\chi _{[T,T+\delta ]}(t)`$ convolved with a smooth approximation to the identity of width $`2^{100k}`$, and $`b(t)=\chi _{[T,T+\delta ]}(t)a(t)`$.

Let us first consider the contribution of $`b(t)`$. We crudely estimate $`M_4=O(2^{10k})`$ and estimate this contribution by

$$2^{10k}|b(t)||w_1(t,x)||w_2(t,x)||w_3(t,x)||w_4(t,x)|𝑑x𝑑t.$$

By Hölder, three applications of (3), one application of (4), and four applications of (15) we can bound this by

$$2^{10k}b_2\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}Iw_j_{1,1/2+}.$$

Since $`b_22^{50k}`$, the claim then follows.

Now consider the contribution of $`a(t)`$. We use

###### Lemma 8.2.

We have

$$a(t)w_1_{1,1/2+}2^{(0+)k}w_1_{1,1/2+}.$$

###### Proof.

By applying Plancherel, restricting to a single frequency $`\xi `$, and then undoing Plancherel, we see that it suffices to show that

$$a(t)f_{H_t^{1/2+}}2^{(0+)k}f_{H_t^{1/2+}}$$

for all functions $`f`$. But this follows from the routine calculation

$$a(t)_{H_t^{1/2+}}2^{(0+)k}$$

and the fact that $`H_t^{1/2+}`$ is closed under multiplication. ∎

It therefore suffices to show

$$|\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(M_4\chi _{N_{tenor}N_{soprano}2^k};w_1(t),\overline{w_2(t)},w_3(t),\overline{w_4(t)})𝑑t|N^1(N/2^k)^{1/10}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}Iw_j_{1,1/2+}.$$

Without loss of generality we may assume that the Fourier transforms $`\stackrel{~}{w}_j`$ are real and non-negative. By Plancherel and (23) we estimate the left-hand side by

$$N^1(N/2^k)^{1/10}|_{}\xi _{12}\xi _{14}^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{ID_xw_1}(\tau _1,\xi _1)\stackrel{~}{\overline{ID_xw_2}}(\tau _2,\xi _2)\stackrel{~}{ID_xw_3}(\tau _3,\xi _3)\stackrel{~}{\overline{ID_xw_4}}(\tau _4,\xi _4)|.$$

From the identity (cf. Bourgain  and Kenig-Ponce-Vega )

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(\tau _j(1)^{j1}\xi _j^2)`$ $`=\xi _1^2+\xi _2^2\xi _3^2+\xi _4^2`$
$`=\xi _{12}\xi _{21}+\xi _{34}\xi _{43}`$
$`=\xi _{12}(\xi _{21}\xi _{43})`$
$`=2\xi _{12}\xi _{14}`$
we see that

$$\xi _{12}\xi _{14}\tau _j(1)^{j1}\xi _j^2$$

for some $`j=1,2,3,4`$. We shall assume $`j=1`$; the argument for other values of $`j`$ is similar. We can then use duality and Plancherel to estimate the previous by

$$N^1(N/2^k)^{1/10}Iw_1_{1,1/2+}\overline{ID_xw_2}ID_xw_3\overline{ID_xw_4}_{L_t^2L_x^2}.$$

But this is acceptable by Hölder and three applications of (3).

Case 2. $`N_{tenor}N_{soprano}`$.

We shall assume that $`soprano=1`$ and $`alto=2`$; the reader may verify that the other cases follow by the same argument. We may then restrict $`w_1`$, $`w_2`$ to have Fourier support in $`|\xi |2^k`$ and $`w_3`$, $`w_4`$ to have Fourier support in the region $`|\xi |2^k`$.

By (24) we have

$$|M_4|N^1(N/2^k)^{1/10}2^k\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\xi _im(\xi _i).$$

The claim then follows from Hölder and two applications of Proposition 7.1.

## 9. Proof of Lemma 6.1 when $`n=6`$

We begin with the analogue of Lemma 8.1.

###### Lemma 9.1.

Let $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _6`$ be such that $`\xi _{123456}=0`$.

* If $`N_{tenor}N_{soprano}`$, then

(25)
$$|M_6(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3,\xi _4,\xi _5,\xi _6)|N^1\xi _{soprano}m(\xi _{soprano})\xi _{alto}m(\xi _{alto})\xi _{tenor}m(\xi _{tenor}).$$
* If $`N_{tenor}N_{soprano}`$, then

(26)
$$|M_6(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3,\xi _4,\xi _5,\xi _6)|N^{1+}N_{soprano}^1\xi _{soprano}m(\xi _{soprano})\xi _{alto}m(\xi _{alto}).$$

One can improve these estimates by exploiting further cancellation in the expression $`M_6`$, but we shall not need to do so because of the good smoothing properties of our equation (6).

###### Proof.

Since $`\xi _{123456}=0`$, we have $`N_{alto}N_{soprano}`$. We may also assume that $`N_{soprano}N`$ since $`M_6`$ vanishes otherwise.

We have the very crude estimate

$$|M_6|N_{soprano}^2.$$

If $`N_{tenor}N_{soprano}`$, we then have

$$|M_6|N_{soprano}^2N^1m(N_{soprano})N_{soprano}m(N_{alto})N_{alto}m(N_{tenor})N_{tenor}$$

(using the hypothesis $`s>2/3`$), and (25) follows.

Now suppose that $`N_{tenor}N_{soprano}`$. Then

$$|M_6|N_{soprano}^2N^{1+}N_{soprano}^1m(N_{soprano})N_{soprano}m(N_{alto})N_{alto}$$

(since $`s>1/2`$), and (26) follows. ∎

We now prove (20) for $`n=6`$. As in the previous section it suffices to show

$$_T^{T+\delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(M_6;w_1(t),\overline{w_2(t)},w_3(t),\overline{w_4(t)},w_5(t),\overline{w_6(t)})𝑑x𝑑tN^{1+}\underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}Iw_j_{1,1/2}$$

for all Schwartz functions $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_6`$ on $`\times `$. Without loss of generality we may assume that the Fourier transforms $`\stackrel{~}{w}_i`$ of $`w_i`$ are real and non-negative.

We again divide into the cases $`N_{tenor}N_{soprano}`$ and $`N_{tenor}N_{soprano}`$.

Case 1. $`N_{tenor}N_{soprano}`$.

By (25) and symmetry it suffices to show

$$_T^{T+\delta }\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}|D_xIw_j|\underset{j=4}{\overset{6}{}}|w_j|dxdt\underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}Iw_j_{1,1/2+}.$$

But this follows from Hölder, six applications of (3) first, and three applications of (15) after.

Case 2. $`N_{tenor}N_{soprano}`$.

We shall assume that $`soprano=1`$ and $`alto=2`$; the reader may verify that the other cases follow by the same argument.

First suppose that $`N_{soprano}2^k`$ for some integer $`k`$. Then $`w_1,w_2`$ have Fourier support on $`|\xi |2^k`$, while $`w_3,w_4,w_5,w_6`$ have Fourier support on $`|\xi |2^k`$.

We apply (26), and bound the contribution of this case by

$$N^{1+}2^{(1)k}_T^{T+\delta }\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}|D_xIw_j|\underset{j=3}{\overset{6}{}}|w_j|dxdt,$$

which we bound using Hölder by

$$N^{1+}2^{(1)k}(D_xIw_1)w_3_{L_t^2L_x^2}(D_xIw_2)w_4_{L_t^2L_x^2}w_5_{L_t^{\mathrm{}}L_x^{\mathrm{}}}w_6_{L_t^{\mathrm{}}L_x^{\mathrm{}}}.$$

By Lemma 7.1, (5), and (15) we can bound this by

$$N^{1+}2^{(0)k}\underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}Iw_j_{1,1/2+}$$

The claim then follows by summing in $`k`$.

## 10. Proof of Lemma 6.1 when $`n=8`$

We begin with the analogue of Lemma (8.1).

###### Lemma 10.1.

For any $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _6`$ with $`\xi _{123456}=0`$, we have

(27)
$$|M_8(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3,\xi _4,\xi _5,\xi _6,\xi _7,\xi _8)|N^1\xi _{soprano}m(\xi _{soprano})\xi _{alto}m(\xi _{alto}).$$

###### Proof.

As usual we may assume that $`N_{soprano}N_{alto}N`$. We crudely estimate

$$|M_8|N_{soprano}N^1N_{soprano}m(N_{soprano})N_{alto}m(N_{alto})$$

and the claim follows. ∎

To prove (20) for $`n=8`$ it suffices to show

$$_T^{T+\delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_8(M_8;w_1(t),\mathrm{},\overline{w_8(t)})𝑑tN^1\underset{j=1}{\overset{8}{}}Iw_j_{1,1/2+}$$

for all Schwartz functions $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_8`$ on $`\times `$. Without loss of generality we may assume that the Fourier transforms $`\stackrel{~}{w}_i`$ of $`w_i`$ are real and non-negative. By Lemma 10.1 and symmetry it thus suffices to show

$$_T^{T+\delta }|D_xIw_1||D_xIw_2|\underset{j=3}{\overset{8}{}}|w_j|dxdtN^1\underset{j=1}{\overset{8}{}}Iw_j_{1,1/2+}.$$

But this follows from Hölder, six applications of (3), and two applications of (5) and (15).

###### Remark 10.2.

As it was shown in Section 3, the gauge transform in Definition 3.1 introduces a quintic term in the initial value problem (6). Then one can ask if the same arguments we proposed above can be used in order to study the global well-posedness of the quintic nonlinear Schrödinger initial value problem

(28)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}i_tv+_x^2v+\lambda |v|^4v=0,\hfill \\ v(x,0)=v_0(x),x,t,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\lambda `$. In this case we define the energy

$$H(f):=|_xf(x)|^2𝑑x\frac{\lambda }{6}|f|^2𝑑x.$$

By Plancherel, we may write $`H(f)`$ using the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ notation as

$$H(f)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\xi _1\xi _2;f)\frac{\lambda }{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(1;f).$$

As in Lemma 3.5 one can prove that the energy $`H(v(t))`$ of the solution $`v`$ for (28) is constant. Now let’s define the new energy

$$H_N(v)=H(Iv)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\xi _1\xi _2m_1m_2;v)\frac{\lambda }{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6(\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}m_i;v).$$

just like we did in Secition 4. Then by the analogue of (8) $`_tH_N(v(t))`$ will involve terms of type $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_6`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{10}`$. Using the same ideas presented in the proof of Lemma 6.1 we can estimate in the appropriate way also the term involving $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{10}`$. If in (28) we assume that $`\lambda <0`$ (defocusing) or that the $`L^2`$ norm of the initial data is small (so that the Gagliardo-Niremberg inequality can be applied) then the energy $`H(v)(t)`$ stays positive for all times and global well-posedness in $`H^s`$ for $`s>2/3`$ will follow. We will present the details of the proof in a future paper. It has to be said here that global results for “small data” are already available for (28) through more standard arguments .