text:
# Smoothing effect for Schrödinger boundary value problems

## 1. Introduction

Consider $`u=e^{it\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0`$ solution of the Schrödinger equation

(1.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (i_t+\mathrm{\Delta })u& =0\text{ in }\times ^d,\hfill \\ \hfill u|_{t=0}& =u_0L^2(^d).\hfill \end{array}$$

It is well known that $`uL^{\mathrm{}}(_t;L^2(^d))`$ satisfies the following smoothing effect (for any $`s>1/2`$ if $`d3`$)

(1.2)
$$u_{L^2(_t;\dot{H}_s^{1/2}(^d))}Cu_0_{L^2},$$

where

(1.3)
$$\dot{H}_s^{1/2}=\{u𝒟^{}(^d);x^s\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/4}uL^2(^d)\}.$$

This result, which can be proved by explicit calculations, has been extended to more complicated operators, satisfying a non trapping assumption (see the results of Constantin - Saut , Ben-Artzi - Devinatz , Ben-Artzi - Klainerman , Doï , and Kato - Yajima ). It has been recently extended to the case of boundary value problems by Gérard, Tzvetkov and the author .

On the other hand, in  Doï has proved that, for Schrödinger operators in $`^d`$, the non trapping assumption is necessary for the $`H^{1/2}`$ smoothing effect.

In this paper we extend this latter result to the case of boundary value problems. Our first result reads as follows:

###### Theorem 1.

Consider an arbitrary smooth domain with boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }^d`$, with no infinite order contact with its boundary (see the precise definition in Section 3), and $`P`$ a second order self adjoint operator on $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, with domain $`DH_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and such that the boundary is non characteristic. Denote by $`\phi _s:^bT^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\{0\}^bT^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\{0\}`$ the bicharacteristic flow of the operator $`P`$ (given by the integral curves of the Hamiltonian vector field of the principal symbol of $`P`$ reflecting on the boundary according to the law of geometric optics–see Section 3–) defined on the boundary cotangent bundle. Let $`A\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1/2)}`$ be a classical tangential pseudodifferential operator of order $`1/2`$. Suppose that $`(z_0,\zeta _0)^bT^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\{0\}`$ satisfy the trapping assumption:

(1.4)
$$_{\mathrm{}}^0|\sigma _{1/2}(A)(\phi _s(x_0,\zeta _0)|^2ds=+\mathrm{},$$

where $`\sigma _{1/2}(A)`$ is the principal symbol of the operator $`A`$. Then for any $`t_0>0`$ the map

(1.5)
$$u_0C_0^{\mathrm{}}L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })Ae^{itP}u_0L^2([0,t_0];L^2(M))$$

is not bounded (even for data with fixed compact support).

###### Remark 1.1.

The assumption (1.4) can be essentially fulfilled in two distinct cases

1. If $`A`$ is compactly supported (in the $`z`$ variable), then (1.4) means that the bicharacteristic starting from $`(z_0,\zeta _0)`$ spends an infinite time in the support of $`A`$, which corresponds to a “trapped trajectory”
2. If $`A`$ is not compactly supported, a typical example is (in the case $`P=\mathrm{\Delta }`$) $`A(z,D_z)=a(|z|)|D_z|^{1/2}`$, then (1.4) might correspond to a lack of decay of $`a(x)`$ at infinity: suppose that the trajectory starting from $`(z_0,\zeta _0)`$ is not trapped; hence it leaves any compact set and for $`\pm s+\mathrm{}`$, $`(z(s),\zeta (s))(s\zeta _\pm ,\zeta _\pm )`$ and (1.4) is equivalent to $`|a|^2L^1()`$ (and we recover the usual assumption required for proving the smoothing effect, see ).

###### Remark 1.2.

We could have added lower order terms to $`P`$ and supposed that the Cauchy problem is well posed in $`L^2`$ (in case of first order terms). The condition (1.4) has in this case to be modified.

###### Remark 1.3.

In , Doï proves this result in the case of a manifold without boundary and gives some variants of this result for operators of higher order, and with weights in times. The proof we present below is essentially self contained in this case and it can also handle these variants modulo slight modifications. The proof in presence of a boundary is much more technical.

###### Remark 1.4.

For $`P=\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ the $`x`$-projection of the integral curves of $`H_p`$ are the geodesics for the metric $`g`$.

###### Remark 1.5.

The smoothness assumption can be relaxed to $`C^2`$ coefficients and $`C^3`$ domains (and even to $`C^1`$ coefficients, but the assumption (1.4) is then more complicated since the Hamiltonian flow is no more well defined). We also can prove Theorem 1 for systems (see Remark 3.1).

Having Theorem 1 in mind, a natural question is whether a weakened version of (1.2) might hold for some trapping geometries. In the case of a stable (elliptic) trapped trajectory, the existence of quasi-modes well localized along this trajectory shows that no such result may hold (see Remark 4.2). However in the case of hyperbolic trapped trajectories, we do obtain such a weak smoothing effect:

###### Theorem 2.

Consider $`\mathrm{\Theta }=_{i=1}^N\mathrm{\Theta }_i^d`$ a finite union of strictly convex obstacles satisfying the assumptions of Section 4. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Theta }^c`$ its complement. Then for any $`\epsilon >0`$ and $`\chi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d)`$ there exists $`C>0`$ such that for any $`u_0L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$,

(1.6)
$$\chi e^{it\mathrm{\Delta }_D}u_0_{L^2(_t;H^{1/2\epsilon }(\mathrm{\Omega })}Cu_0_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}$$

###### Remark 1.6.

This result was proved in  with no $`\epsilon `$ loss under the non trapping assumption: “any geodesic of the metric $`g`$ reflecting on the boundary according to the laws of geometric optics goes to the infinity” which is clearly no fulfilled here.

To prove Theorem 1 we will follow the same kind of strategy as in Doï’s paper . However we will replace in his argument the use of Egorov’s theorem by the use of the theorem of propagation of Wigner measures, which has three advantages: first it simplifies the rest of the proof, second it allows to relax assumptions (on the regularity of the coefficients) and finally the proof holds also for a (system of) boundary value problem (whereas Egorov’s Theorem is not true in these cases)

To prove Theorem 2 we reduce, following , the estimate (1.6) to obtaining estimates for the outgoing resolvent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }(z\pm i0))^1`$. Then we show that these estimates can be deduced from a combination of other estimates proved by M. Ikawa  and some form of the maximum principle.

The article is written as follows: in Section 2 we recall the definition of Wigner measures which will be used in the sequel and we prove Theorem 1 in the simpler case where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{}`$. In Section 3 we give the necessary modifications required to handle the general case $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{}`$. In Section 4 we prove Theorem 2. Finally we have stated at the end of Section 4 an application of our smoothing result to the global existence of non linear Schrödinger equations.

Acknowledgements : I would like to thank C. Zuily for discussions about the results in this article and the referees whose observations lead to substantial improvements in the exposition. This work was completed during a stay at the Department of Mathematics of the University of California, Berkeley, partially funded by a N.A.T.O. fellowship and the Miller Institute for Basic Research in Sciences. I thank these institutions.

## 2. Proof of Theorem 1: the case of empty boundary

### 2.1. Wigner measures

In this section we recall the definition of Wigner measures (or semi-classical measures) introduced by Gérard – Leichtnam  and Lions – Paul  (see also the survey by Gérard – Markowich – Mauser – Poupaud ). We work in the context of functions of $`1+d`$ variables ($`(t,z)`$) in $`L_{\text{loc}}^2(_t;L^2(_z^d))=^2`$ and we have adapted the definitions in  to fit our purpose.

###### Definition 2.1.

We will say that a sequence of functions $`(f_n)^2`$ is bounded in $`^2`$ if for any $`\phi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(_t)`$, the sequence $`(\phi f_n)`$ is bounded in $`L^2`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

We will say that an operator $`A`$ is bounded on $`^2`$ if there exists $`\phi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(_t)`$ such that for any $`f^2`$,

$$Af_{L_{t,z}^2}C\phi f_{L_{t,z}^2}.$$

Denote by $`(x,\xi )=(t,z,\tau ,\zeta )`$ a point in $`T^{}^{d+1}`$; and consider for $`a(x,\xi )C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^{2d+2})`$ and $`\phi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(_t)`$ equal to $`1`$ near the support of $`a`$, the operator $`\text{ Op}_\phi (a)(x,hD_x)`$ defined on $`^2`$ by

(2.1) $`\text{Op}_\phi (a)(x,hD_x)f`$ $`=\text{Op}_\phi (a)(t,z,hD_t,hD_z)f`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d+1}}}{\displaystyle e^{i(t\tau +z\zeta )}a(t,z,h\tau ,h\zeta )\widehat{\phi (t)f}(\tau ,\zeta )𝑑\tau 𝑑\zeta }.`$
The operator $`\text{ Op}(a)_\phi (t,z,hD_t,hD_z)`$ is (uniformly with respect to $`0<h<1`$) bounded on $`^2`$ and we have the following weak form of the Gårding inequality

###### Proposition 2.3.

For any $`aC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^{2d+2})`$ and any sequence $`(f_n)`$ bounded in $`^2`$ and $`(h_n)]0,1]`$; $`lim_{n+\mathrm{}}h_n=0`$,

(2.2)
$$a(x,\xi )0\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\text{Re}(\text{ Op}(a)_\phi (x,h_nD_x)f_n,f_n)_{L^2(^{d+1})}0.$$

To prove this result consider for $`\epsilon >0`$, $`\psi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^{2d+2})`$ equal to $`1`$ near the $`(t,z,\tau ,\zeta )`$ projection of the support of $`a`$ and $`b=\phi (t)\sqrt{\epsilon +a}\psi (t,z,\tau ,\zeta )C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^{2d+2})`$. Then the symbolic calculus shows

(2.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}0(\text{ Op}(b)_\phi ^{}\text{ Op}(b)_\phi f_n,f_n)\hfill \\ \hfill =(\text{ Op}(a)_\phi (x,h_nD_x)f_n,f_n)_{L^2}+\epsilon (\phi (t)\psi ^2(x,h_nD_x)\phi (t)f_n,f_n)_{L^2}+𝒪(h_n),\end{array}$$

hence, taking the $`lim\; inf`$ and using that $`lim\; inf(\alpha _n+\beta _n)lim\; inf(\alpha _n)+lim\; sup(\beta _n)`$, we get

(2.4)
$$\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\text{Re}(\text{ Op}(a)(x,h_nD_x)f_n,f_n)_{L^2(^d)}+\epsilon \underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\psi (x,h_nD_x)\phi (t)f_n^20.$$

When $`\epsilon >0`$ tends to $`0`$ we obtain Proposition 2.3.

By the symbolic calculus, the operator $`\text{ Op}(a)_\phi `$ is modulo operators bounded on $``$ by $`𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})`$, independent of the choice of the function $`\phi `$. For conciseness, we will drop in the sequel the index $`\phi `$. As in  (see also ) we can prove:

###### Proposition 2.4.

Consider a sequence $`(f_n)`$ bounded in $`^2`$. There exist a subsequence $`(n_k)`$ and a positive Radon measure on $`^{2d+2}`$, $`\mu `$, such that for any $`aC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^{2d+2})`$

(2.5)
$$\underset{k+\mathrm{}}{lim}(\text{Op}(a)(x,h_{n_k}D_x)f_{n_k},f_{n_k})_{L^2}=\mu ,a(x,\xi ).$$

The idea for extracting such a sequence is to fix $`a`$ and consider the bounded sequence $`(L(a)_n)=(\text{Op}(a)(x,h_nD_x)f_n,f_n)_{L^2}`$. By compactness we can extract a subsequence which converges. Iterating this process for a sequence $`(a_j)`$ dense in $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}`$, we obtain, by diagonal extraction, a sequence $`(f_{n_k})`$ such that the limit exists for any $`a_j`$. By (2.2) the limit defines a positive functional on a dense subset of $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ (hence this limit is continuous for the $`C^0`$ topology). It is consequently a Radon measure and the limit (2.5) exists for any $`aC_0^{\mathrm{}}`$. For the sake of conciseness we shall denote again by $`(f_n)`$ the extracted subsequences.

The measure $`\mu `$ represents at points $`(x_0,\xi _0)`$ the oscillations of the sequence $`(f_n)`$ at point $`x_0`$ and scale $`\xi _0/h_n`$. The oscillations at frequencies smaller than $`h_n^1`$ are concentrated in $`\{\xi _0=0\}`$ whereas the oscillations at higher ($`>>h_n^1`$) frequencies are lost.

### 2.2. Invariance of the Wigner measure

#### 2.2.1. Elliptic regularity

Suppose that the sequence $`(f_n)`$ is solution of the equation

(2.6)
$$(ih_n_t+h_n^2P)f_n=𝒪(h_n)_^2$$

Take $`aC_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ and consider first

(2.7)
$$(\text{Op}(a)(x,h_nD_x)(ih_n_t+h_n^2P)f_n,f_n)_{L^2}=o(1).$$

Taking into account that the operator $`\text{Op}(a)(x,h_nD_x)(ih_n_t+h_n^2P)`$ is equal to $`\text{Op}(a\times (\tau +p(z,\zeta ))(x,hD_x)`$ modulo an operator bounded by $`𝒪(h_n)`$ on $`^2`$ and passing to the limit in (2.7) we obtain

(2.8)
$$\mu ,a(x,\xi )(\tau +p(z,\zeta ))=0$$

from which we deduce:

###### Proposition 2.5.

The measure $`\mu `$ is supported in the semi-classical characteristic set of the operator:

(2.9)
$$\text{Char}(ih_n_t+h_n^2P)=\{(x,\xi )=(t,z,\tau ,\zeta );\tau =p(z,\zeta )\}$$

###### Remark 2.6.

Suppose that the sequence $`(f_n)`$ is solution of the equation (2.6). Then for any $`aC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^{2d})`$, the function

(2.10)
$$t(\text{Op}(a)(z,h_nD_z)f_n_t,f_n_t)_{L^2(_z^d)}(t)$$

is, according to (2.6), locally uniformly equicontinuous. Hence using Ascoli’s theorem, it is possible to extract a subsequence $`(f_{n_k})`$ (independent of $`t`$) such that there exist a family of positive measures $`\mu _t`$ continuous with respect to $`t`$ and such that for any $`t`$ and any $`aC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^{2d})`$ we have

(2.11)
$$\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}(\text{Op}(a)(z,h_nD_z)f_n,f_n)_{L^2(_z^d)}(t)=\mu _t,a.$$

Of course, from $`\mu _t`$ one can recover the measure $`\mu `$ (assuming that the extracted sequences are the same):

(2.12)
$$\mu =dt\delta _{\tau =p(z,\zeta )}\mu _t.$$

#### 2.2.2. Propagation of the Wigner measure

Suppose now that

(2.13)
$$(ih_n_t+h_n^2P)f_n=o(h_n)_^2.$$

Consider the bracket ($`P^{}=P`$)

(2.14) $`h_n^1`$ $`([\text{Op}(a)(x,h_nD_x),ih_n_t+h_n^2P]f_n,f_n)_{L^2}`$
$`=h_n^1((ih_n_t+h_n^2P)\text{Op}(a)(x,h_nD_x)f_n,f_n)_{L^2}+o(1),`$
$`=o(1).`$
Taking into account that the operator

(2.15)
$$h_n^1[\text{Op}(a)(x,D_x),ih_n_t+h_n^2P]$$

is equal to

(2.16)
$$\frac{1}{i}\{a,\tau +p(z,\zeta )\}(x,h_nD_x)+𝒪(h_n)_{(^2)},$$

where the Poisson bracket of $`a`$ and $`q`$, $`\{a,q\}`$, is defined by

(2.17)
$$\{a,q\}=_{\tau ,\zeta }a_{t,z}q_{t,z}a_{\tau ,\zeta }q,$$

we can pass to the limit in (2.14) and obtain:

(2.18)
$$\mu ,\{a,\tau +p(z,\zeta )\}=0,$$

or equivalently (with $`H_{\tau p(z,\zeta )}`$ the Hamiltonian vector field of $`\tau p`$)

(2.19)
$$H_{\tau p(z,\zeta )}(\mu )=(_tH_p)\mu =0.$$

Gathering Proposition 2.5 and (2.19), we have proved

###### Proposition 2.7.

The measure $`\mu `$ is invariant along the integral curves of the vector field $`H_{\tau p}`$ drawn on the surface $`\{\tau =p(z,\zeta )\}`$. Equivalently, if we denote by $`\phi _s`$ the Hamiltonian flow of the function $`p(z,\zeta )`$ on $`T^{}^2`$ and if $`\mu _t`$ is as in (2.12), we have the equality for any $`s`$

(2.20)
$$\mu _s=\phi _s^{}(\mu _0)\mu _s,a\phi _s=\mu _0,a.$$

### 2.3. Proof of Theorem 1 in the case $`\mathrm{\Omega }=^d`$

Take $`(z_0,\zeta _0)`$ satisfying the assumption (1.4) and consider $`\phi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d)`$ such that $`|\phi |^2=1`$ and

(2.21)
$$u_{0,n}=n^{d/4}\phi (n^{1/2}(zz_0))e^{in(zz_0)\zeta _0}.$$

Denote by $`v_n=e^{itP}u_{0,n}`$ the corresponding solution of the Schrödinger equation. To prove Theorem 1, we are going to show:

(2.22)
$$\epsilon >0\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}A(z,D_z)v_n_{L^2([0,\epsilon ]\times ^d)}=+\mathrm{}$$

if $`AS^{1/2}(^{2d})`$ satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 1.

For this we compute, with $`h_n=1/n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^{2d})`$, $`0\mathrm{\Psi }1`$ equal to $`1`$ near $`0`$ and $`\alpha >0`$ fixed,

(2.23) $`A(z,D_z)v_n_{L^2([0,\epsilon ]\times ^d)}^2`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^\epsilon }(A^{}(z,D_z)A(z,D_z)v_n,v_n)_{L^2(_z^d)}𝑑t`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^\epsilon }(\mathrm{\Psi }(\alpha z,\alpha h_nD_z)A^{}(z,D_z)A(z,D_z)\mathrm{\Psi }(\alpha z,\alpha h_nD_z)v_n,v_n)_{L^2(_z^d)}𝑑t`$
$`C`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^\epsilon }(h_n^1b^{}(z,h_nD_z)b(z,h_nD_z)v_n,v_n)_{L^2(_z^d)}𝑑tC,`$
with $`b(z,\zeta )=\sigma _{1/2}(A)(z,\zeta )\mathrm{\Psi }(\alpha z,\alpha \zeta )`$.

But, for any $`T`$, if $`n`$ is large enough

(2.24)
$$_0^\epsilon (h_n^1b^{}(z,h_nD_z)b(z,h_nD_z)v_n,v_n)_{L^2(_z^d)}𝑑t_0^{h_nT}(h_n^1b^{}(z,h_nD_z)b(z,h_nD_z)v_n,v_n)_{L^2(_z^d)}𝑑t.$$

Denote by $`u_n(s,z)=v(h_ns,z)`$, the solution of the semi-classical Schrödinger equation

(2.25)
$$(ih_n_s+h_n^2P)u_n=0$$

we obtain for any $`T>0`$

(2.26)
$$_0^\epsilon (h_n^1b^{}(z,h_nD_z)b(z,h_nD_z)v_n,v_n)_{L^2(_z^d)}𝑑t_0^T(b^{}(z,h_nD_z)b(z,h_nD_z)u_n,u_n)_{L^2(_z^d)}𝑑s.$$

According to (2.21), the Wigner measure, $`\mu _0`$, of the sequence $`(u_n_{t=0})`$ is equal to

$$\delta _{(z,\zeta )=(z_0,\zeta _0)}.$$

From Proposition 2.7 and (2.12), we deduce that the Wigner measure, $`\mu _s`$, of $`(u_n_{t=s})`$ is equal to $`\delta _{(z,\zeta )=\phi _s(z_0,\zeta _0)}`$, where $`\phi _s`$ is the flow of $`H_p`$.

Hence (for $`T`$ fixed)

(2.27)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}_0^T(b^{}(z,h_nD_z)b(z,h_nD_z)u_n,u_n)_{L^2(^d)}𝑑t\hfill \\ \hfill \begin{array}{cc}& =_0^T\mu _s,b𝑑s\hfill \\ & =_0^T|b|^2(\phi _s(z_0,\zeta _0))𝑑s\hfill \\ & =_0^T|\sigma _{1/2}(A)(\phi _s(z_0,\zeta _0))|^2|\mathrm{\Psi }(\alpha \phi _s(z_0,\zeta _0))|^2𝑑s.\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$

From (2.23), (2.24), (2.26) and (2.27) we deduce (if $`\alpha `$ is chosen small enough) that for any $`T>0`$ and with a fixed constant $`C`$ independent of $`T`$:

(2.28)
$$\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}A(z,D_z)v_n_{L^2([0,\epsilon ]\times ^d)}^2_0^T|\sigma _{1/2}(A)(\phi _s(z_0,\zeta _0))|^2𝑑sC$$

Letting $`T`$ tend to the infinity (and using the assumption (1.4)), we obtain (2.22).

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1 for a Dirichlet problem

In this section we are going to give the outline of the proof of Theorem 1 in the general case. In fact the proof is essentially the same as in the previous section. The differences are that we have to define Wigner measures for sequences bounded in $`L_{\text{loc}}^2(_t;L^2(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$ and prove the elliptic (Proposition 2.5) and propagation (Proposition 2.7) results for these measures. Then we will construct a sequence of initial data whose Wigner measure is $`\delta _{(z_0,\zeta _0)}`$ where $`(z_0,\zeta _0)`$ satisfies the assumption (1.4) and the sequence of solutions of the Schrödinger equation with these initial data will prove the result. Fortunately, all these constructions have already been done (see the works by Gérard – Leichtnam , Miller , Burq – Lebeau  and Burq ) in some slightly different settings. All that we have to do is to adapt these constructions to our framework and to glue the pieces together.

For the sake of completeness, we are going to give an outline of the constructions. However, we insist on the fact that in this section, most of the material is taken from the works cited above.

###### Remark 3.1.

For simplicity, we have restricted the study to the case of a scalar equation; however, following , it would not be much more difficult to prove the result for systems.

### 3.1. Geometry

Denote by $`M=_t\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`x=(t,z)M`$ and by $`{}_{}{}^{b}TM`$ the bundle of rank $`d+1`$ whose sections are the vector fields tangent to $`M`$, $`{}_{}{}^{b}T_{}^{}M`$ the dual bundle (Melrose’s compressed cotangent bundle) and $`j:T^{}M{}_{}{}^{b}T_{}^{}M`$ the canonical map. In any coordinate system where $`M=\{x=(x_n>0,x^{})\}`$), the bundle $`{}_{}{}^{b}TM`$ is generated by the fields $`\frac{}{x^{}}`$, $`x_n\frac{}{x_n}`$ and $`j`$ is defined by

(3.1)
$$j(x_n,x^{},\xi _n,\xi ^{})=(x_n,x^{},v=x_n\xi _n,\xi ^{}).$$

Denote by $`\text{Car}\stackrel{~}{P}`$ the semi-classical characteristic manifold of $`\stackrel{~}{P}=ih_t+h^2P`$ and $`Z`$ its projection

(3.2)
$$\text{Car}\stackrel{~}{P}=\{(x,\xi )=(t,z,\tau ,\zeta )T^{}^d_{\overline{M}};p(x,\xi )=\tau \},Z=j(\text{Car}\stackrel{~}{P}).$$

The set $`Z`$ is a locally compact metric space.

Consider, near a point $`x_0M`$ a geodesic system of coordinates for which $`x_0=(0,0)`$, $`M=\{(x_n,x^{})^+\times ^d\}`$ and the operator $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ has the form (near $`x_0`$)

(3.3)
$$\stackrel{~}{P}=h^2D_{x_n}^2+R(x_n,x^{},hD_x^{})+hQ(x,hD_x),$$

with $`R`$ a second order tangential operator and $`Q`$ a first order operator.

We recall now the usual decomposition of $`T^{}M`$ (in this coordinate system). Denote by $`r(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{})`$ the semi-classical principal symbol of $`R`$ and $`r_0=r_{x_n=0}`$. Then $`T^{}M`$ is the disjoint union of $`𝒢`$ with

(3.4)
$$=\{r_0<0\},𝒢=\{r_0=0\},=\{r_0>0\}.$$

Remark that $`j`$ gives a natural identification between $`Z_M`$ and $`𝒢T^{}M`$. In $`𝒢`$ we distinguish between the diffractive points $`𝒢^{2,+}=\{r_0=0,r_1=_{x_n}r_{x_n=0}>0\}`$ and the gliding points $`𝒢^{}=\{r_0=0,r_1=_{x_n}r_{x_n=0}0\}`$. We will make the assumption ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has no infinite order contact with its tangents) that for any $`\varrho _0T^{}M`$, there exists $`N`$ such that

$$H_{r_0}^N(r_1)0$$

The definition of the generalized bicharacteristic flow, $`\phi _s`$ associated to the operator $`P`$ is essentially the definition given in :

###### Definition 3.2.

A generalized bicharacteristic curve $`\gamma (s)`$ is a continuous curve from an interval $`I`$ to $`Z`$ such that

1. if $`s_0I`$ and $`\gamma (s_0)T^{}M`$ then close to $`s_0`$, $`\gamma `$ is an integral curve of the Hamiltonian vector field $`H_{\stackrel{~}{p}}`$
2. If $`s_0I`$ and $`\gamma (s_0)𝒢^{2,+}`$ then there exists $`\epsilon >0`$ such that for $`0<|ss_0|<\epsilon `$, $`x_n(\gamma (s))>0`$
3. If $`s_0I`$ and $`\gamma (s_0)𝒢^{}`$ then for any function $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}^{d+1}_{\overline{M}})`$ satisfying the symmetry condition

(3.5)
$$\varrho _0Z,\widehat{\varrho _0},\stackrel{~}{\varrho _0}j^1(\varrho _0)\text{Car}(\stackrel{~}{P}),f(\widehat{\varrho _0})=f(\stackrel{~}{\varrho _0})$$

then

$$\frac{d}{ds}f(j(\gamma (s))_{s=s_0}=H_{\stackrel{~}{p}}_{j^1(\gamma (s_0))}f(j^1(\gamma (s_0)))$$

It is proved in  that under the assumption of no infinite order contact, through every point $`\varrho _o{}_{}{}^{b}T_{}^{}M\{0\}`$ there exists a unique generalized bicharacteristic (which is furthermore a limit of bicharacteristics having only hyperbolic contacts with the boundary). This defines the flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Finally remark that since $`\stackrel{~}{p}=p\tau `$ We have consequently a natural flow, $`\phi `$ on $`\text{Char}P{}_{}{}^{b}T_{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (the generalized flow of $`p(z,\zeta )`$) given by

(3.6)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_s(t,\tau ,z,\zeta )=(ts,\tau ,\phi _s(z,\zeta ))$$

### 3.2. Wigner measures

Consider functions $`a=a_i+a_{}`$ with $`a_iC_0^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}M)`$, and $`a_{}C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^{2d1})`$. Such symbols are quantized in the following way: take $`\phi _iC_0^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ (resp $`\phi _{}C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d)`$) equal to $`1`$ near the $`x`$-projection of $`\text{supp}(a_i)`$ (resp the $`x`$-projection of $`\text{supp}(a_{})`$) and define

(3.7)
$$\begin{array}{c}\text{Op}_{\phi _i,\phi _{}}(a)(x,hD_x)f=\frac{1}{(2\pi h)^d}e^{i(xy)\xi /h}a_i(x,\xi )\phi _i(y)f(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi \hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{1}{(2\pi h)^{d1}}e^{i(x^{}y^{})\xi ^{}/h}a_\delta (x_n,x^{},\xi )\phi _\delta (x_n,y^{})f(x_n,y^{})𝑑y^{}𝑑\xi ^{}.\end{array}$$

Remark that according to the symbolic semi-classical calculus, the operator $`\text{Op}_{\phi _i,\phi _{}}(a)`$ does not depend on the choice of functions $`\phi _i,\phi _{}`$, modulo operators on $`^2`$ of norms bounded by $`O(h^{\mathrm{}})`$. As in the previous section, we shall in the sequel drop the index $`\phi _i,\phi _{}`$

Denote by $`𝒜`$ the space of the operators which are a finite sum of operators obtained as above in suitable coordinate systems near the boundary and for $`A𝒜`$, by $`a=\sigma (A)`$ the semiclassical symbol of the operator $`A`$. For such functions $`a`$ we can define $`\kappa (a)C^0(Z)`$ by

(3.8)
$$\kappa (a)(\rho )=a(j^1(\rho ))$$

(the value is independent of the choice of $`j^1(\rho )`$ since the operator is tangential).

The set

(3.9)
$$\{\kappa (a),a=\sigma (A),A𝒜\}$$

is a locally dense subset of $`C_c^0(Z)`$.

### 3.3. Elliptic regularity

Consider a sequence $`(f_k)`$ bounded in $`^2=L_{\text{loc}}^2(_t;L^2(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$, solution of the equation (with $`lim_{k+\mathrm{}}h_k=0`$)

(3.10)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (ih_k_t+h_k^2P)f_k& =o(h_n)_{L_{\text{loc}}^2(_t;L^2(\mathrm{\Omega }))}\hfill \\ \hfill u_\mathrm{\Omega }& =0.\hfill \end{array}$$

The same argument as in section 2.2.1 shows:

###### Proposition 3.3.

If $`a_i`$ is equal to $`0`$ near $`\text{Car}\stackrel{~}{P}`$ then

(3.11)
$$\underset{k+\mathrm{}}{lim}(\text{Op}(a_i)(x,h_kD_x)f_k,f_k)_{L^2}=0,$$

and the analysis of the boundary value problem shows:

###### Proposition 3.4.

If $`a_{}`$ is equal to $`0`$ near $`Z`$ (i.e. $`a_i`$ is supported in the elliptic region) then

(3.12)
$$\underset{k+\mathrm{}}{lim}(\text{Op}(a_{})(x_n,x^{},h_kD_x^{})f_k,f_k)_{L^2}=0.$$

### 3.4. Definition of the measure

The analog of proposition 2.4 is:

###### Proposition 3.5.

There exists a subsequence $`(k_p)`$ and a Radon positive measure $`\mu `$ on $`Z`$ such that

(3.13)
$$Q𝒜\underset{p\mathrm{}}{lim}(Qf_{k_p},f_{k_p})_{L^2}=\mu ,\kappa (\sigma (Q)).$$

The proof of this result in the interior of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the same as in Section 2 and near a boundary point, it relies on the Gårding inequality for tangential operators (see G. Lebeau  for a proof in the classical context and  for the semi-classical construction). As before, we denote again by $`(f_k)`$ the extracted sequence.

###### Proposition 3.6 (First properties of the measure $`\mu `$).

(3.14)
$$\mu ()=0,$$

(3.15)
$$\underset{k+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}|(\text{ Op}(a)h_kD_{x_n}f_k,f_k)_{L^2}|C\underset{\varrho \text{ supp}(a)}{sup}|r|^{1/2}|a|.$$

The relation (3.14) is a simple consequence of the micro-local analysis of the boundary problem near a point $`\varrho _0`$, for which a parametrix for the solution can be written in terms of a semi-classical Fourier integral operator, by geometric optics methods. To prove (3.15) compute (with $`\phi C_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ equal to $`1`$ near the $`t`$-projection of the support of $`a`$)

(3.16) $`\left|(\text{ Op}(a)h_kD_{x_n}f_k,f_k)_{L^2}\right|`$ $`\text{ Op}(a)h_kD_{x_n}f_k_{L^2}\phi (t)f_k_{L^2}`$
$`(h_kD_{x_n}\text{ Op}(a)^{}\text{ Op}(a)h_kD_{x_n}f_k,f_k)_{L^2}^{1/2}\phi (t)f_k_{L^2}`$
$`(\text{ Op}(a)^{}\text{ Op}(a)h_k^2D_{x_n}^2f_k,f_k)_{L^2}^{1/2}\phi (t)f_k_{L^2}+o(1)`$
$`(\text{ Op}(a)^{}\text{ Op}(a)(R\stackrel{~}{P})f_k,f_k)_{L^2}^{1/2}\phi (t)f_k_{L^2}+o(1)`$
$`(\text{ Op}(a)^{}\text{ Op}(a)Rf_k,f_k)_{L^2}^{1/2}\phi (t)f_k_{L^2}+o(1)`$
and we obtain

(3.17)
$$\underset{k+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left|(\text{ Op}(a)h_kD_{x_n}f_k,f_k)_{L^2}\right|C|\mu ,a^2r|^{1/2}C\underset{\varrho \text{ supp}(a)}{sup}|a||r|^{1/2}.$$

### 3.5. Invariance of the measure

Consider now a sequence $`(f_k)`$ bounded in $`L_{\text{loc}}^2(_t;L^2(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$, solution of the equation (with $`lim_{k+\mathrm{}}h_k=0`$)

(3.18)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (ih_k_t+h_k^2P)f_k& =o(h_k)_{L_{\text{loc}}^2(_t;L^2(\mathrm{\Omega }))}\hfill \\ \hfill u_\mathrm{\Omega }& =0\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proposition 3.7.

Consider $`qC^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}^{d+1}_{\overline{M}})`$ satisfying the symmetry condition (3.5). In general $`\{\stackrel{~}{p},q\}=2\xi _n_{x_n}q+\{r,q\}`$ is not a function defined on $`Z`$ (because of the $`\xi _n`$ dependence). To obtain a function on $`Z`$, we take the convention

(3.19)
$$\{\stackrel{~}{p},q\}_{}\stackrel{def}{=}2\xi _n_{x_n}q1_\varrho +\{r,q\}.$$

This function is $`\mu `$-integrable and, thanks to (3.14), $`\mu `$-almost everywhere continuous.

Then, with this convention, the measure $`\mu `$ satisfies

(3.20)
$$\mu ,\{\stackrel{~}{p},q\}_{}=0$$

The proof of Proposition 3.7 is simply integration by parts (and some carefull study of the terms arising). We give it below:

Since in $`M`$, the equation (3.20) is simply (2.18), we restrict the study to the case where $`q`$ is supported near a point $`\varrho _0T^{}M`$. Suppose first only that $`qC^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}^{d+1}_{\overline{M}})`$. From Malgrange preparation theorem, there exist functions $`q_0(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{}),q_1(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{})C^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that

(3.21)
$$q_{\text{Car}\stackrel{~}{P}}=q_0_{\text{Car}\stackrel{~}{P}}+\xi _nq_1_{\text{Car}\stackrel{~}{P}}.$$

Let $`Q=\text{Op}(q_0)+\text{Op}(q_1)hD_{x_n}`$ and compute ($`P^{}=P`$)

(3.22)
$$h_k^1((\stackrel{~}{P}QQ\stackrel{~}{P})f_k,f_k)_{L^2}.$$

Two integrations by part, (3.3) and the boundary condition $`f_k_{x_n=0}=0`$ show that

(3.23) $`h_k^1([\stackrel{~}{P},Q]f_k,f_k)_{L^2}`$ $`=h_k^1(\stackrel{~}{P}Qf_k,f_k)_{L^2}+o(1)`$
$`=i(Q_1_{x_n=0}h_kD_{x_n}f_k_{x_n=0},h_kD_{x_n}f_k_{x_n=0})_{L^2(_x^{}^{d1})}.`$
On the other hand $`[\stackrel{~}{P},Q]`$ can be written under the form

$$\frac{i}{h_k}[\stackrel{~}{P},Q]=A_0+A_1h_kD_{x_n}+A_2\stackrel{~}{P}+hA_3$$

where $`A_0`$, $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are tangential operators, $`A_3`$ is differential of order at most $`1`$ in $`D_{x_n}`$, and on $`\text{Car}\stackrel{~}{P}`$ we have

(3.24)
$$a_0+a_1\xi _n=\{\stackrel{~}{p},q\}.$$

From (3.14) we deduce that $`\mu `$-almost everywhere

(3.25)
$$a_0+a_1\xi _n1_{x_n>0}=\{\stackrel{~}{p},q\}.$$

Consequently

(3.26)
$$\begin{array}{c}h_k^1([\stackrel{~}{P},Q]f_k,f_k)_{L^2}=h_k^1(\stackrel{~}{P}Qf_k,f_k)_{L^2}+o(1)\hfill \\ \hfill =(i(A_0+A_1h_kD_{x_n}+A_2\stackrel{~}{P}+o(1))f_k,f_k)_{L^2}+o(1).\end{array}$$

Passing to the limit in (3.26) we obtain

(3.27)
$$\underset{k+\mathrm{}}{lim}((A_0+A_1h_kD_{x_n}+A_2(\stackrel{~}{P})f_k,f_k)_{L^2}=\mu ,a_0+\underset{k+\mathrm{}}{lim}(A_1h_kD_{x_n}f_k,f_k)_{L^2}.$$

Take $`\epsilon >0`$ and $`\phi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(]1,1[)`$ equal to $`1`$ near $`0`$. Decompose

(3.28)
$$\begin{array}{c}A_1=(1\phi (\frac{x_n}{\epsilon }))A_1+\text{Op}\left(\phi (\frac{x_n}{\epsilon })\phi (\frac{r(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{})}{\epsilon })\right)A_1\hfill \\ \hfill +\text{Op}\left(\phi (\frac{x_n}{\epsilon })(1\phi (\frac{r(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{})}{\epsilon }))\right)A_1.\end{array}$$

The first term in the right hand side of (3.28) is supported in the interior of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$; its contribution to the limit in (3.27) is equal to

(3.29)
$$\mu ,(1\phi (\frac{x_n}{\epsilon }))a_1\xi _n$$

The contribution of the second term is, according to (3.15), smaller than

(3.30)
$$C\underset{\varrho \text{supp}(\phi (\frac{x_n}{\epsilon })(\phi (\frac{r(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{})}{\epsilon })))}{sup}|r|^{1/2}|a_1|C\epsilon ^{1/2}$$

and the contribution of the last term is smaller than

(3.31)
$$\begin{array}{c}h_kD_{x_n}f_kA_1^{}\text{Op}\left(\phi (\frac{x_n}{\epsilon })(1\phi (\frac{r(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{})}{\epsilon }))\right)^{}f_k\hfill \\ \hfill C\mu ,|a_1|^2\phi ^2(\frac{x_n}{\epsilon })(1\phi (\frac{r(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{})}{\epsilon }))^2^{1/2}+o(1)\end{array}$$

Passing to the limit $`\epsilon 0`$ we obtain that the contribution of the first term is equal to

(3.32)
$$\mu ,a_1\xi _n1_{x_n>0},$$

the contribution of the second term is (according to (3.30)) equal to $`0`$ and the contribution of the last term is, according to (3.14), smaller than

(3.33)
$$\mu ,a_1^21_{x_n=0}1_{r0}=\mu ,a_1^21_\varrho =0.$$

Finally we have proved

(3.34)
$$\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}i(Q_1_{x_n=0}h_kD_{x_n}f_k_{x_n=0},h_kD_{x_n}f_k_{x_n=0})_{L^2(_x^{}^{d1})}=i\mu ,\{\stackrel{~}{p},q\}.$$

But, if $`q`$ satisfies the symmetry condition (3.5), the function $`q_{x_n=0}`$ is independent of $`\xi _n`$ on $`\text{Car}P`$. Hence $`q_1_{x_n=0}=0`$ on $``$ and consequently on $`\overline{H}=𝒢`$; and the left hand side in (3.34) tends to $`0`$, which proves Proposition 3.7.

###### Proposition 3.8 (see  and ).

We have

(3.35)
$$\mu (𝒢^{2,+})=0$$

Consider a point $`\varrho _0𝒢^{2,+}`$. Apply (3.34) to a family of functions $`q=\xi _n\times q_\epsilon `$ with

(3.36)
$$q_\epsilon =\phi (\frac{x_n}{\epsilon ^{1/3}})\phi (\frac{(r(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{}))}{\epsilon })a(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{}).$$

Then we get

(3.37)
$$\begin{array}{c}lim_{n+\mathrm{}}(\phi (\frac{(r(0,x^{},h_kD_x^{}))}{\epsilon })a(0,x^{},h_kD_x^{})h_kD_{x_n}f_k_{x_n=0},h_kD_{x_n}f_k_{x_n=0})_{L^2(_x^{}^{d1})}\hfill \\ \hfill =\mu ,2\xi _n^2_{x_n}(\phi (\frac{x_n}{\epsilon ^{1/3}})\phi (\frac{(r(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{}))}{\epsilon })a(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{}))\\ \hfill \mu ,_{x_n}r\phi (\frac{x_n}{\epsilon ^{1/3}})\phi (\frac{(r(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{}))}{\epsilon })a(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{})+\xi _n\{r,q_\epsilon \}^{},\end{array}$$

where $`\{r,q_\epsilon \}^{}`$ is the Poisson bracket with respect to the $`x^{},\xi ^{}`$ variables. On the support of the measure $`\mu `$, $`\xi _n^2=r(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{})`$. Hence we can apply the dominated convergence theorem and obtain that the right hand side in (3.37) tends to

(3.38)
$$\mu ,_{x_n}r(0,x^{},\xi ^{})a(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{})1_{x_n=0}1_{r=0}=\mu ,_{x_n}r(0,x^{},\xi ^{})a(x_n,x^{},\xi ^{})1_{\rho 𝒢}$$

According to the assumption $`\varrho _0𝒢^{2,+}`$, $`_{x_n}r>0`$ at the point $`\varrho _0`$ . If the support of $`a`$ is chosen small enough so that $`_{x_n}r>0`$ on this support, then the right hand side in (3.38) is non positive. On the other hand by Gårding inequality the limit on the left hand side is non negative. Both sides are then equal to $`0`$. This implies Proposition 3.8.

It is now possible to prove as in \[8, Théorème 1\] (see also ), by measure theory methods, that the invariance of the measure $`\mu `$ along the generalized bicharacteristic flow is equivalent to Propositions 3.7 and 3.8 (in fact the proof of this result is presented in \[8, Section 3.3\] for classical measures, in the more general context of systems, but the proof for semi-classical measures is the same word by word).

### 3.6. Proof of Theorem 1

All that remains to do to complete the proof of Theorem 1 in the case of a Dirichlet boundary value problem is to construct a sequence of initial data $`(u_{0,n})`$ and a sequence $`h_n;lim_{n+\mathrm{}}h_n=0`$, such that the sequence of solutions of the semi-classical Schrödinger equations admits

(3.39)
$$dt\delta _{\tau =p(z_0,\zeta _0)}\delta _{(z,\zeta )=(\phi _t(z_0,\zeta _0))}$$

as Wigner measure.

In the case where the bicharacteristic starting from $`(t_0=0,\tau _0=p(z_0,\zeta _0),z_0,\zeta _0)`$ has an interior point $`(t_1,\tau =\tau _0,z_1\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta _1)`$, we perform the construction as in the previous section, since by finite speed of propagation (modulo $`𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})`$), the boundary is not seen, (3.39) is satisfied close to $`(t_1,\tau =\tau _0,z_1,\zeta _1)`$. Using the propagation result, we deduce that (3.39) is satisfied everywhere.

In the case where the bicharacteristic starting from $`(t_0=0,\tau =\tau _0,z_0,\zeta _0)`$ has no interior point, we know that it can be approximated by bicharacteristics $`\gamma _k`$ which have an interior point (see ). For these bicharacteristics, we can construct sequences of initial data $`(u_{n,k})`$ associated to $`(h_{n,k});lim_{n+\mathrm{}}h_{n,k}=0`$. Taking $`(u_{n_k,k})`$ with $`n_k`$ large enough, as initial data matches our aim.

The rest of the proof of the estimate (2.22) in the case of a boundary value problem is now the same as in Section 2.

## 4. Smoothing effect

In this section we prove a weaker smoothing effect for a class of trapping obstacles.

### 4.1. Assumptions

Consider $`\mathrm{\Theta }^d`$ a compact smooth obstacle whose complement, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Theta }^c`$ is connected. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$ be the Laplace operator acting on $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, with domain $`D=H^2(\mathrm{\Omega })H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Denote, for $`u_0L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, by $`e^{it\mathrm{\Delta }_D}u_0=u`$ the solution of the Schrödinger equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions:

(4.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (i_t\mathrm{\Delta })u& =0\text{ on }_t\times \mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ \hfill u_\mathrm{\Omega }& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill u_{t=0}& =u_0.\hfill \end{array}$$

We suppose that $`\mathrm{\Theta }=_{i=1}^N\mathrm{\Theta }_i^d`$ is the union of a finite number of strictly convex obstacles, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$ satisfying:

* For any $`1i,j,kN`$, $`ij`$, $`jk`$, $`ki`$, one has

(4.2)
$$\text{Convex Hull}(\mathrm{\Theta }_i\mathrm{\Theta }_j)\mathrm{\Theta }_k=\mathrm{}.$$
* Denote by $`\kappa `$ the infimum of the principal curvatures of the boundaries of the obstacles $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$, and $`L`$ the infimum of the distances between two obstacles. Then if $`N>2`$ we assume that $`\kappa L>N`$ (no assumption if $`N=2`$).

###### Remark 4.1.

If there are only two obstacles, then the assumptions are automatically fulfilled. The first assumption is essentially technical, whereas the second one is an assumption about the strong hyperbolicity of the dynamical system given by the billiard flow.

In this case, since there are trapped trajectories (for example any line minimizing the distance between two obstacles is trapped), we have shown in Section 3 that the plain smoothing effect $`H^{1/2}`$ does not hold. However, the result below (a more precise version of Theorem 2) shows that the smoothing effect with a logarithmic loss still holds.

###### Theorem 3.

Under the assumptions above, for any $`\chi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d)`$ there exists $`C>0`$ such that the solution of

(4.3)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (i_t\mathrm{\Delta })u& =0\text{ on }_t\times \mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ \hfill u_{t=0}& =u_0,\hfill \\ \hfill u_\mathrm{\Omega }& =0\hfill \end{array}$$

and the solution of

(4.4)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (i_t\mathrm{\Delta })v& =\chi f;\text{ }\chi f\text{ compactly supported in time},\hfill \\ \hfill v_{t<<0}& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill v_\mathrm{\Omega }& =0\hfill \end{array}$$

satisfy:

(4.5) $`\chi u_{L^2(_t;H_D^{1/2,}(\mathrm{\Omega }))}`$ $`Cu_0_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })},`$
$`\chi v_{L^2(_t;H_D^{1/2,}(\mathrm{\Omega }))}`$ $`C\chi f_{L^2(_t;H_D^{1/2,+}(\mathrm{\Omega }))},`$
where $`H_D^{1/2,}=D((\text{Id}\mathrm{\Delta }_D)^{1/4}\mathrm{log}^{1/2}(2\text{Id}\mathrm{\Delta }_D))`$ and $`H^{1/2,+}=(H_D^{1/2,})^{}`$. In particular

$$\epsilon >0,H^{1/2+\epsilon }(\mathrm{\Omega })H_D^{1/2,+}H^{1/2}(\mathrm{\Omega }),H^{1/2}(\mathrm{\Omega })H_D^{1/2,}H^{1/2\epsilon }(\mathrm{\Omega })$$

with continuous injections.

###### Remark 4.2.

In the case where there exist an elliptic (stable) periodic trajectory, it is possible to construct quasi modes with compact support, i.e. functions $`(e_n)_n`$ with compact supports associated to a particular sequence $`(\lambda _n)+\mathrm{}`$ and satisfying

(4.6) $`\mathrm{\Delta }e_n`$ $`=\lambda _ne_n+r_n,`$
$`r_n_{H^N}`$ $`C_{N,M}\lambda _n^M,N,M.`$
From this we deduce easily that the sequence of solutions of the Schrödinger equation with initial data $`(e_n)`$ is, for any $`\epsilon >0,s>0`$, not bounded in $`L^1([0,\epsilon [;H_{\text{loc}}^s)`$; which implies that no smoothing effect at all is true any more. Under the assumptions of Theorem 3, the periodic trajectories are hyperbolic (unstable), which forbids the construction of such well localized quasi-modes.

Theorem 3 is deduced from the following estimate of the cut-off resolvent:

###### Proposition 4.3.

Suppose that the obstacle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ satisfies the assumptions in Theorem 3 above. Then the resolvent of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_D\lambda )^1`$ (which is analytic in $`^+`$) satisfies:

(4.7)
$$\begin{array}{c}\chi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^2),C>0;\lambda ,0<\epsilon <<1,\\ \chi (\mathrm{\Delta }_D(\lambda \pm i\epsilon ))^1\chi _{L^2L^2}\frac{C\mathrm{log}(2+|\lambda |)}{1+\sqrt{|\lambda |}}.\end{array}$$

We are going to prove this estimate for $`\lambda >>1`$. The proof for $`|\lambda |<<1`$ can be found in \[4, Annexe B.2\]; whereas the result for $`c|\lambda |C`$ follows from the Rellich uniqueness Theorem (see or \[4, Annexe B.1\]) and the result for $`\lambda <\epsilon `$ is clear because in this case the operator is semi-classically elliptic.

Let us perform a change of variables $`\lambda =\tau ^2`$ and consider $`\chi (\mathrm{\Delta }_D(\tau ^2))^1\chi `$ which is holomorphic in $`\{\text{Im}\tau <0\}`$ and satisfies there (according to the standard estimate for self adjoint operators),

(4.8)
$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_D(\tau ^2))^1_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\frac{1}{|\tau ||\text{Im}\tau |}.$$

M. Ikawa proved in  and more precisely in \[18, Theorem 2.1\] (see also the work by C. Gérard  where such an estimate is implicit) that under the assumptions above, the following estimate on the cut-off resolvent holds:

###### Theorem 4 (Ikawa, \[18, Theorem 2.1\]).

The cut-off resolvent: $`\chi (\mathrm{\Delta }_D(\lambda \pm i\epsilon ))^1\chi `$ admits a holomorphic continuation in a strip of the upper half plane

(4.9)
$$\{\tau ;|\tau |>1,\text{Im}\tau \alpha \},\alpha >0$$

and satisfies there (for a large $`N`$):

(4.10)
$$\chi (\mathrm{\Delta }_D(\tau ^2))^1\chi _{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}C|\tau |^N$$

###### Remark 4.4.

In \[18, Theorem 2.1\] the proof is done with the additional assumption that the dimension of space is equal to $`3`$ (which is the relevant dimension the author had in mind for applications to the wave equation). However the proof could be equally performed in any space dimension $`d2`$ (see  in the case $`N=2`$, $`d2`$).

Using (4.8) and (4.10) (and writing $`\tau =h^1z`$, $`z1`$, $`h0`$), one easily sees, with

(4.11)
$$f(h,z)=(\chi (h^2\mathrm{\Delta }_Dz^2)^1\chi u,v)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })};u,vL^2(\mathrm{\Omega })$$

that (4.7) for large $`|\lambda |`$ follows from Theorem 4 and the following semi-classical maximum principle (a variant of Phrägmen Lindelöf principle) adapted from the work by Tang–Zworski :

###### Lemma 4.5.

Suppose that $`f(h,z)`$ is a family of holomorphic functions defined for $`0<h<1`$ in a neighbourhood of

(4.12)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }(h)=[1/2,3/2]\times i[h\alpha ,h\alpha ]$$

such that

(4.13) $`|f(h,z)|`$ $`Ch^M\text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }(h),`$
$`|f(h,z)|`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\text{Im}z|}}\text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }(h)\{\text{Im}z<0\}.`$
Then there exists $`h_0>0`$, $`C>0`$, such that for any $`0<h<h_0`$

(4.14)
$$|f(h,z)|C\frac{\mathrm{log}(h^1)}{h}\text{on }[4/5,6/5]$$

To prove this lemma, first consider the function

(4.15)
$$\phi (z,h)=(\pi h)^{1/2}e^{\frac{(xz)^2}{h}}\mathrm{\Psi }(x)𝑑x$$

where $`\mathrm{\Psi }C_0^{\mathrm{}}(]2/3,4/3[)`$ is non negative and equal to $`1`$ in $`[3/4,5/4]`$. Then the function $`\phi (z,h)`$ satisfies:

1. $`\phi (z,h)`$ is holomorphic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(h)`$,
2. $`|\phi (z,h)|C`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(h)`$,
3. $`|\phi (z,h)|c>0`$ in $`[4/5,6/5]`$,
4. $`|\phi (z,h)|Ce^{c/h}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }(h)\{|\text{Re}z1|1/2\}`$.

Then apply the maximum principle to the function $`g(z,h)=e^{iN\mathrm{log}(h)z/h}\phi (z,h)f(z,h)`$ on the domain

(4.16)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(h)=[1/2,3/2]\times i[h\alpha ,h/\mathrm{log}(h^1)].$$

Using the bounds (4.13) on $`f`$ and the properties of $`\phi `$ above, we can estimate $`g`$ by

(4.17) $`|g(z,h)|`$ $`Ch^{N\alpha M}\text{on }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(h)\{\text{Im}z=h\alpha \}\text{ },`$
$`|g(z,h)|`$ $`C_Ne^{c/h}\text{ on }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(h)\{\text{Re}x\{1/2,3/2\}\},`$
$`|g(z,h)|`$ $`C_N{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(h^1)}{h}}\text{on }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(h)\{\text{Im}z=\frac{h}{\mathrm{log}(h^1)}\}.`$
Taking $`N`$ large enough and applying the maximum principle we get

(4.18)
$$|g(z,h)|C^{}\frac{\mathrm{log}(h^1)}{h}\text{ on }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(h)\text{ }$$

which implies

(4.19)
$$|f(z,h)|C^{}\frac{\mathrm{log}(h^1)}{h}\text{ on }[4/5,6/5]\text{}$$

and ends the proof of Lemma 4.5.

We deduce from (4.7):

(4.20)
$$\chi (\mathrm{\Delta }_D(\lambda \pm i\epsilon ))^1\chi _{H^{1/2,+}H^{1/2,}}C.$$

Indeed, for bounded $`\lambda `$, integrations by parts show that we can in fact replace $`H^{1/2,}`$ by $`H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`H^{1/2,+}`$ by $`H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and for large $`\lambda `$ we decompose, with $`\mathrm{\Psi }C_0^{\mathrm{}}(]1/2,2[)`$ equal to $`1`$ close to $`1`$,

(4.21)
$$u=(P\lambda )^1\chi f=\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda })u+(1\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda }))u.$$

We get by the functional calculus of self adjoint operators

(4.22)
$$(1\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda }))u_{H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}C(1\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda }))\chi f_{H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}.$$

On the other hand, the function $`v=\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda })u`$ satisfies

(4.23)
$$(P\lambda )v=\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda })\chi f.$$

If $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d)`$ is equal to one on the support of $`\chi `$, we have modulo negligible terms

(4.24)
$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda })\chi =\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda })\chi $$

because

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda })\chi \mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda })\chi =[\stackrel{~}{\chi },\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda })]\chi $$

and on the support of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, the operator $`P`$ is a differential operator and consequently $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda })`$ is a pseudodifferential operator on this set (see for example Sect.4 of ).

According to (4.23), (4.24) and Lemma 4.5, we get

(4.25)
$$\left(\frac{\sqrt{|\lambda |}}{\mathrm{log}(2+|\lambda |)}\right)^{1/2}\chi \mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda })u_{L^2}C\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}(2+|\lambda |)}{\sqrt{|\lambda |}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda })\chi f_{L^2}$$

to replace the weights in $`\lambda `$ above by the $`H^{\pm 1/2,}`$-norms (i.e. to replace the weights in $`\lambda `$ by weights in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$), it is enough to check that modulo negligible terms, if $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is a fonction equal to $`1`$ on the support of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$,

(4.26)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda })\chi \mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda })=\chi \mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_D}{\lambda })$$

which follows from the same arguments as above.

Following , Theorem 3 is now a consequence of (4.20). For the sake of completeness and since the argument is short, we recall it: firstly remark that by $`TT^{}`$ argument it suffices to study the second (inhomogeneous) case. Indeed denote by $`T=\chi e^{it\mathrm{\Delta }_D}`$. The continuity of $`T`$ from $`L^2`$ to $`L^2(_t;H^{1/2,})`$ is equivalent to the continuity of the adjoint operator

(4.27)
$$T^{}f=_{}e^{is\mathrm{\Delta }_D}\chi f(s)𝑑s$$

from $`L^2(_t;H^{1/2,+})`$ to $`L^2`$, which in turns is equivalent to the continuity of the operator $`TT^{}`$ from $`L^2(_t;H^{1/2,+})`$ to $`L^2(_t;H^{1/2,})`$. But

(4.28) $`TT^{}f(t)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{}}\chi e^{i(sts)\mathrm{\Delta }_D}\chi f(s)𝑑s`$
$`={\displaystyle _{s<t}}\chi e^{i(st)\mathrm{\Delta }_D}\chi f(s)𝑑s+{\displaystyle _{t<s}}\chi e^{i(st)\mathrm{\Delta }_D}\chi f(s)𝑑s`$
and (by time inversion), it clearly suffices to prove the continuity of any one of the terms in the right hand side, which is the second (inhomogeneous) part of Theorem 3.

Consider now $`(v,f)`$ solution of (4.4). By translation invariance we can suppose that $`f`$ (and hence $`v`$) is supported in $`\{t>0\}`$. The Fourier transforms of $`v`$ and $`f`$ are (according to the support property) holomorphic in the set $`\{\text{Im}z<0\}`$ and satisfy there, according to (4.4)

(4.29)
$$(z+\mathrm{\Delta })\widehat{u}(z,)=\chi \widehat{f}(z,).$$

Taking $`z=\tau i\epsilon `$, $`\tau `$ and having $`\epsilon `$ tend to $`0`$, using (4.20), we get

(4.30)
$$\chi \widehat{u}_{L^2(_\tau ;H^{1/2,})}C\chi \widehat{f}_{L^2(_\tau ;H^{1/2,+})}$$

and since the Fourier transform is an isometry on $`L^2(;H)`$ if $`H`$ is a Hilbert space, we get (4.5).

Finally, as in , we can deduce from Theorem 3:

###### Theorem 5 (Global existence for 2-d defocusing NLS).

Consider $`\mathrm{\Theta }^2`$ an obstacle which is the union of $`N`$ strictly convex obstacles satisfying the assumptions above. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Theta }^c`$ its complement and let $`P`$ be a polynomial with real coefficients. For every $`u_0H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, there exists a unique maximal solution $`uC(I,H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$ of the equation

(4.31) $`i_tu+\mathrm{\Delta }u=P^{}(|u|^2)u,u(0,x)=u_0(x).`$
Moreover we have:

1. If $`u_0_{H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$ is bounded from above, the length of $`I_\pm `$ is bounded from below by a positive constant.
2. For any finite $`p`$, $`uL_{loc}^p(I,L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$.
3. If $`P(r)+\mathrm{}`$ as $`r+\mathrm{}`$, $`I=`$.
4. If $`u_0H_D^s(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ for some $`s>1`$, $`uC(I,H_D^s(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$. In particular if $`u_0C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`uC^{\mathrm{}}(I\times \mathrm{\Omega })`$.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction — Top-Down and/or Bottom-Up?

## 1 Introduction — Top-Down and/or Bottom-Up?

The central problem in particle physics continues to be understanding the physics of electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB). Basically that means finding and studying the Higgs boson(s). Equally importantly we need to confirm (or not) that weak scale supersymmetry is an essential part of our low-scale world. Then the central problems become understanding the physics of supersymmetry breaking, and learning about the underlying, more fundamental, theory at the high scale, where forces unify.

I expect there will be little progress toward these goals without experimental data. Top down approaches are seldom successful in physics. One might think that theorists only need to write down string theories, try out compactifications, get a 4D effective field theory below the Planck scale, calculate predictions for low scale phenomena, and soon have the basic answer. Unfortunately, carrying out such a process is much more difficult than it first seems to be. Essentially any prediction for data, or understanding of masses, requires knowing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta ,`$ the ratio of the two Higgs vevs. But $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ does not exist in the high scale theory. It only arises as the EW symmetry is broken, as one approaches the low scale. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ must be calculated, and depends on many aspects of the high scale theory being correct. The origin of $`\mu `$ is equally important. In my view a major success of superstring theory is that $`\mu =0`$ occurs naturally in the superpotential because $`\mu `$ enters as a mass term and the low-scale theory is formulated from the string zero modes. Because of the non-renormalization theorem this is stable. But once supersymmetry is broken a $`\mu `$-term will be generated, perhaps by the Giudice-Masiero mechanism, or as a vev of a scalar field. In the former case the relevant contributions can occur as non-renormalizable contributions in the Superpotential or Kahler potential, terms that may not appear in lowest order and tree level. $`\mu `$ enters into many predictions, for the Higgs sector, for chargino and neutralino and sfermion masses and production cross sections and decay branching ratios, and more. If the origin of $`\mu `$ is not understood, a top-down approach will not be fruitful. In a top down approach the two equations from minimizing the Higgs potential and requiring it be bounded from below would be used to calculate $`m_Z`$ and $`tan\beta `$ in terms of $`\mu ,m_{H}^{}{}_{u}{}^{},m_{H}^{}{}_{d}{}^{}`$, and $`b`$, these four quantities all being determined by the underlying theory.

One might think there are sectors for which predictions might be made, such as the gluino mass, that do not depend on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ or $`\mu .`$ But it is more complicated. Many parameters get connected by the needed RGE running, which introduces dependence on squark masses, trilinear couplings $`A,`$ and b (the soft parameter coefficient of $`H_uH_d).`$ $`b`$ is very important in determining $`tan\beta `$, and its RGEs depend strongly on the trilinear couplings and gaugino masses. If any of these are not known it is not possible to make useful low scale predictions. Further, many of the soft parameters can be complex, and we now know that their phases can have large effects on not only CP violating phenomena but also on mass eigenvalues, production cross sections, decay branching ratios, virtual effects, etc. So the top-down approach must also include an understanding of the phases and the origins of CP violation, not only as a matter of principle but to do practical calculations. One might think that one could calculate charged lepton masses. The electron mass is too small to be meaningfully predicted — it is sensitive to many corrections from non-renormalizable operators and loops. Conceivably an approximate calculation of the ratio $`m_\mu /m_\tau `$ could make sense, but it has some dependence on non-renormalizable operators, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta ,`$ trilinears, RGEs, etc.

So top-down approaches can and will be very important for guiding thinking, but are unlikely to lead to detailed serious predictions that really test the stringy ideas, even at the level of the 4D field theory, since it will be necessary to make assumptions in order to get predictions. Then it is the assumptions that are being tested too (or mainly).

What about bottom-up? It will be very exciting when superpartners are found, and it will tell us low scale supersymmetry is indeed the right direction for increased study, which knowledge is greatly needed. But it is crucial to realize that experimenters measure only information about masses of mass eigenstates, from kinematics of particles that enter the detector, and cross sections (times branching ratios). Of all the observables that can be measured, only one occurs in the Lagrangian a theorist would write, and that only approximately (the gluino mass) . The next stage is to study the pattern of superpartner properties to learn about the underlying theory. That will not be so simple — experimenters cannot communicate with string theorists, and vice versa, because they do not share a common language. Telling a string theorist a chargino mass or cross section will be of no use — those quantities are not in the theory directly, and we saw above that it is very unlikely there will be serious calculations for them. Telling an experimenter the high scale Lagrangian will not help with a comparison of theory and data.

So it will be necessary to deduce the low-scale Lagrangian from the low-scale data in order to connect experiment with theory. Unfortunately, that cannot in general be done! Every observable can be expressed in terms of a set of complex Lagrangian parameters, such as the gaugino masses, $`\mu ,`$ squark masses, etc. There is also always a dependence on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta .`$ By simply counting one can see that at any hadron collider the number of observables is always less than the number of Lagrangian parameters, so the equations cannot be inverted to solve for the parameters. Indeed, this is the most important reason why we need lepton colliders with polarized beams — with polarization one can double the number of measurements for non-zero cross sections, and add additional observables by running at two different energies (since the coefficients in the equations relating observables and Lagrangian parameters depend on energy).

At the Tevatron, which is all we will have for at least five years from this conference, the situation is worse because the Tevatron and its detectors are luminosity-limited, even assuming Fermilab can get it to work as well as was planned. And by their very nature superpartners do not give dramatic signals because every event has two escaping LSPs, so no kinematical variable can show a dramatic peak of the sort that made W and Z discovery relatively easy. Indeed, that is a testable prediction of supersymmetry. Instead, in several channels an excess of events will slowly accumulate. Probably no single signal will be statistically significant.

Of course, the basic lesson of the introduction is that top-down and bottom-up approaches are complementary, and must be merged to make progress.

## 2 Learning the Low-Scale Theory

In practice we may be lucky, and find that some parameters put us in a region of parameter space where measurements are possible. For example, if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is very large it may be possible to observe $`B_s\mu \mu `$ at the Tevatron and therefore get a measurement of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Data from the Higgs sector, the way the electroweak symmetry is broken, how the hierarchy problem is solved, gauge coupling unification, the absence of LEP signals, rare decays, cold dark matter detectors, $`g_\mu 2,`$ proton decay, the neutrino sector, and other non-collider physics will be very important to combine with collider data to make progress.

The key point is that since supersymmetry is a real theory it is possible to calculate its predictions for many processes and use them all to constrain parameters. Because of this even at hadron colliders the situation may not be so bad. By combining information from several channels each with almost-significant excesses we can learn a lot about the parameters and, more importantly, the basic theory. For example, the following table shows how different forms of supersymmetry breaking and mediation lead to qualitatively different “inclusive signatures”.

| Inclusive | $`\stackrel{~}{G}MSB,`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{G}MSB,`$ | $`GMSB,`$ | Unstable | Gluino | $`\underset{¯}{D}`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Signatures | large $`\mu `$ | small $`\mu `$ | low scale | LSP | Condensation |  |  |
| Large ET | yes | yes | yes | no |  |  |  |
| Prompt $`\gamma ^{}s`$ | no | sometimes | yes (but…) | no |  |  |  |
| Trilepton events | yes | no | no | no |  |  |  |
| Same-sign dileptons |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Long-lived LSP |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| $`\tau `$ rich |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| $`b`$ rich |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

One can add both rows and columns — this is work in progress. This approach also shows how to combine top-down and bottom up approaches — one uses top-down analysis to identify the columns and fill in the missing entries in the table. By simply identifying qualitative features of the channels with excesses one can focus on a few or even one type of theory. Then detailed study can let one zoom in on the detailed structure of the underlying theory and its high energy features. With such an approach one can partly bypass the problem of not being able to fully isolate the Lagrangian explicitly. One will not be able to prove that specific superpartners are being observed with this “inclusive” analysis, but we can gamble and leave the proof for later. In this table $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ stands for gravitino, and $`\stackrel{~}{G}MSB`$ for gravity-mediated supersymmetry breaking, $`GMSB`$ for gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking, $`D`$ for supersymmetry breaking by an D-term vev, etc. The key point is that each inclusive observation allows one to “carve” away part of the parameter space, and the remaining parts point toward the underlying high scale theory. One does not need to measure every soft parameter to make progress, because the patterns, the mass orderings, etc., imply much about the underlying theory — if one understands the theory.

Can we make progress while we know so little about string theory and how to find its vacuum state, and with very limited data? Perhaps history can provide guidance here. At the end of the 1960s particle physics was widely viewed as being in bad shape, with little hope for significant progress. Three years later the Standard Model existed, and most active workers were convinced it was correct. The progress was based on some seemingly isolated theoretical results, including Yang-Mills gauge theories, the Higgs mechanism, the Glashow electroweak model and the Weinberg lepton model, plus clues from the hadron spectrum. The experimental results were the knowledge that weak interactions occurred via V,A currents (rather than S,P,T), parity and charge conjugation violation (i.e. chiral fermions), knowing the weak interactions were weak, and the SLAC deep inelastic scattering data that implied constituents in the proton. It all fell into place with the proof of the renormalizability of the electroweak theory and asymptotic freedom. We may be in a similar situation once the existence of Higgs bosons and light superpartners is confirmed at the Tevatron. Sometimes people say we know too little about string theory to try to do phenomenology with it. I think it is the opposite — only if we learn from phenomenology what region of string theory space to focus on are we likely to make progress.

## 3 Obstacles

But there are a number of obstacles that can obscure the connection between low-scale data and low-scale theory, and the connection to the high-scale theory. These obstacles can be at least partly overcome by theoretical study — this is a fruitful area for research, particularly now that we are close to getting the data. Here I will list a number of obstacles and sometimes comment on how they might be studied.

* Most theories have intermediate scale matter that can affect RGE running even though the theory remains perturbative up to the high scale. We have to learn how to find ways to run up that are not sensitive to the intermediate scale matter, or find checks such as running two different ways that would give the same answer without intermediate scale matter but differ in its presence, or find other ways to either learn about such particles or bypass them. For example, some types of intermediate scale matter increase the fine-tuning needed to explain EWSB, so they can be excluded.
* We don’t know at what scales to start or end RGE running. In general the supersymmetry breaking scale will be different from the mediation scale. In string theories in general the string scale is different from the unification scale or the compactification scale. Certainly the literature is not consistent on this issue. Model studies should be carried out that clarify how to proceed in practice. Phenomenological results are certainly sensitive to these scales. In general we can expect patterns to emerge that will help settle such questions.
* Infrared fixed points would make it difficult to deduce high-scale quantities. This occurs when a range of high-scale input parameters flow to the same low-scale value, so a measurement of the low scale value implies a range of high-scale values. An important conclusion is that accurate low-scale measurements, such as can be obtained at linear colliders, will be important for deducing the high-scale theory. Further theoretical study is needed to learn how to combine measurements to avoid the ambiguities. The philosophy of fixed points is interesting. Some people view them as a good thing because one can predict or understand a low scale result even if we do not know the high scale theory. But actually it is the opposite — we want to learn the underlying high scale theory, so we need to get around fixed point behavior.
* Most soft terms can be complex. While there are constraints on their phases, suggesting some may be small, the phases may affect many observables such as the Higgs sector, superpartner cross sections, etc. If they are present but not included in analysis wrong conclusions will be drawn. EDM data, and the apparent success of the SM description of CP violation in the K and B systems, suggest the soft phases are small, but no known symmetry or principle implies that the soft phases should be small, so care is needed in how phases are included (or not included).
* Additional U(1) symmetries under which visible sector particles are charged may lead to D-terms that affect scalar masses even though the U(1) symmetry is broken at a high scale. That can shift sfermions, and in particular $`M_{H_u}^2`$ and $`M_{H_d}^2,`$ thus changing the way EWSB works, and therefore leading to changes in $`\mu ,`$ gaugino masses, CDM relic density and detectability, etc. Conversely, from the observed pattern of scalar masses once superpartners are observed it may be possible to deduce their U(1) charges and learn about the high-scale U(1)s.
* The theory may have an extended gauge group, i.e. a grand unification, and/or extra U(1)s. This can also lead to extra soft terms, larger mass matrices for neutralinos and for the Higgs sector, new gauge couplings, kinetic mixing, etc. If one does not include the larger gauge group in the analysis (because one does not know about it) the result may be misinterpretation of low-scale data and its implications. For example, the trace of the neutralino mass matrix is the sum of its eigenvalues. If it is 5x5 instead of 4x4, with an extra soft term $`M_1^{},`$ then the true trace would be $`M_1^{}+M_1+M_2`$ but this would be interpreted as just $`M_1+M_2,`$ so one would deduce incorrect values for $`M_1`$ and perhaps for $`M_2.`$ One can develop consistency checks to detect such departures from the simplest theories.
* High scale threshold corrections must be made, but of course cannot be made until the high scale spectrum is known. So their effects must be included in a way that allows them to be determined and does not lead to wrong conclusions about the implications of low energy phenomena.
* In general there will be non-renormalizable operators that affect small Yukawa couplings and therefore the CKM phase, calculation of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and other precision data, etc. If such operators are present it will be necessary to rescale gauge couplings and gaugino masses and even the ratio $`M_a/g_a^2,`$ if the gauge kinetic function and the Kahler potential have such operators.
* The Kahler potential can have flavor-dependent contributions that affect Yukawa couplings and thus the CKM angles and phase, and trilinear couplings, and thus the analysis of rare decays and lepton flavor-violating effects.

More obstacles can be listed. Perhaps it is best to think of them not as obstacles but as opportunities for research. By proceeding with a judicious combination of study of patterns in data and clues, plus models and top-down analysis, it may be possible to deal with the obstacles so they do not prevent progress toward learning the underlying theory.

## 4 Superpartners

If we are sure that low energy supersymmetry is part of the description of nature, the absence of effects in some processes contains a huge amount of information. So once direct evidence for the light Higgs sector and a few superpartners is obtained, we can draw many conclusions about the form of supersymmetry breaking and mediation, and the structure of the underlying theory and its stringy nature, not only from what is explicitly seen but also what is absent. Where are the superpartners? Is there reason to expect them to be found experimentally? This is of course an old question, which we revisit. We are motivated by the absence of superpartners at LEP on the one hand, and by increased theoretical understanding of supersymmetry theory on the other.

Should superpartners have been observed at LEP, or in Run I at the Tevatron? What emerges from study of modern models is that superpartners might have reasonably been in the LEP or Run I parameter region, but we would have been lucky if they were, in the sense that much of the reasonable parameter space puts the superpartners somewhat above those regions — for LEP it is the energy cutoff, while for the Tevatron it is the luminosity that was and is limited.

What do we know that can set a mass scale for superpartner masses? From a purely theoretical side we would have to understand supersymmetry breaking to set that scale, and our knowledge of the mass spectrum that would result from supersymmetry breaking is far from implying any particular mass scale for superpartners. We must use some physics input. We could of course just ignore the question and wait, but our view of what masses to expect can significantly affect what resources are available for the search, and what methods are used.

What physics do we know that is relevant? First, the value of $`m_h^2`$ is sensitive to the scale of new physics and essentially rises to that scale. Qualitatively this is the hierarchy problem, and tells us that the new physics, presumably the superpartner masses, are “around a TeV”, rather than tens of TeV or much higher, but is not quantitative enough to distinguish a TeV from 100 GeV.

Second, gauge coupling unification implies light superpartner masses and small $`\mu .`$ The latter is sometimes forgotten, but $`\mu `$ enters chargino and neutralino and squark and Higgs masses, so it significantly affects the gauge coupling running and the location of the thresholds where the supersymmetry beta functions enter the running. But again the results are not quantitative enough to pin down the superpartner masses within an order of magnitude. If the LSP is indeed the CDM then getting the right relic density provides constraints on the soft parameters, but there is a large range of parameters that give the right relic density, and we do not know how much of the relic density is the LSP.

It turns out that the only thing we know that quantitatively relates the soft masses to a measured number is radiative electroweak symmetry breaking, REWSB. IF supersymmetry indeed provides the explanation for how the electroweak symmetry is broken, to allow fermion and gauge boson masses, then it provides an equation relating $`M_Z`$ to soft masses,

$`M_Z^2=2\mu ^2+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{H_d}^2m_{H_u}^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 1}}\right)`$ (1)
at tree level. This is the only presently known connection of the supersymmetry parameters to data that is precise enough to be useful, and is extremely important, though not yet well understood. One can rewrite this in a useful form by expressing the quantities on the right hand side, which are here evaluated at the weak scale, in terms of high scale input. We do that in the general MSSM, with the full soft Lagrangian and no assumptions about gaugino or squark mass degeneracies, obtaining

$`M_Z^2=1.9\mu ^2+6.9M_3^20.3M_2^2+0.01M_1^21.2m_{H_u}^2+1.6M_Q^2+\mathrm{}`$ (2)
Here the soft masses (and $`\mu )`$ are evaluated at the unification scale. This equation is written for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5.`$

*IF* supersymmetry does indeed explain the origin of $`M_Z,`$ we would naively expect none of the terms on the right hand side to be much larger than $`M_Z^2.`$ Accidental cancellations do not explain basic results in physics. That implies upper limits on $`M_3,`$ $`\mu ,`$ etc. The limits are a little soft, but it turns out that because the coefficients are large even letting each term be a few $`M_Z^2`$ still leads to important upper limits on the superpartner masses. In the past people have gone through such reasoning and deduced that very light superpartners should exist. When they were not found at LEP people got confused about the arguments. But the past arguments were based on using assumed degeneracies. If the three gaugino masses are taken equal, $`M_3=M_2=M_1=M_{1/2},`$ then the first three terms combine into 6.6 $`M_{}^{2}{}_{1/2}{}^{}`$ so that $`M_{1/2}`$ is expected to be quite small, implying very light charginos and neutralinos that do not exist. Here we see that without the degeneracy assumption there are essentially no restrictions on $`M_1`$ and $`M_2,`$ so the absence of charginos and neutralinos at LEP should not be thought to be evidence against the argument based on REWSB, but rather evidence against gaugino mass degeneracy.

Sometimes people think gaugino mass degeneracy is implied by gauge coupling unification. But that is not so. Our best theoretical guide to such questions is to ask what happens in string theory. While tree level gaugino masses are often degenerate, they are often suppressed in string theories (see and references therein). The one-loop corrections are typically not degenerate and then lead to non-degenerate gaugino masses. At the same time, the gauge coupling leading contributions are not suppressed, so loop effects are small, and the leading contributions unify. More theoretically, $`M_a`$ and $`g_a^2`$ arise from vevs of different components of the dilaton multiplet, so there is no general connection at all. Sometimes people argue that the RGE invariance of $`M_a/g_a^2`$ implies gaugino mass degeneracy, but again it only holds at tree level. Phenomenologically one can make a strong statement. As remarked above, gaugino mass degeneracy plus some constraints on fine tuning imply that $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are light enough to be inconsistent with the absence of charginos and neutralinos at LEP. Thus gaugino mass degeneracy requires large fine tuning.

Are there possible loopholes that would allow one to evade the conclusion from equation 2 that $`M_3`$ and $`\mu `$ must be at most about $`M_Z`$ in size? We have recently pursued this question, both by examining models and by looking at how stringy approaches behave. It seems sensible to make stringy models by making plausible assumptions when needed, and examine how they explain EW symmetry breaking. Basically we find that $`\mu `$ and the various soft masses arise in such different ways physically that cancellations are extremely unlikely even in very general frameworks. One can see that the variation with $`m_{top}`$ is small, and the variation with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is mild for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}4`$. There are essentially four possibilities to discuss.

1. Could $`\mu `$ and $`M_3`$ be related so that their contributions cancel in the calculation of $`M_Z\mathrm{?}`$ Answering that requires an understanding of how $`\mu `$ arises. One of the phenomenological successes of supersymmetric string theory is in setting $`\mu `$ to zero naturally at the unification scale. Then $`\mu `$ can arise by a Giudice-Masiero like mechanism, from terms in the Kahler potential or non-renormalizable terms in the superpotential, or alternatively $`\mu `$ can arise from NMSSM type models where a scalar gets a vev, or stringy generalizations where scalars in non-renormalizable operators get vevs. Either way if one writes examples one sees that $`\mu `$ depends on very different physics from $`M_3`$. Particularly when one looks in examples with gauge coupling unification one finds that it is extremely hard to imagine any robust cancellation between $`M_3`$ and $`\mu .`$
2. Could there be cancellations among soft terms, either among gaugino masses or between gaugino masses and scalars? A cancellation among gaugino masses would require a huge non-degeneracy since the sizes of their contributions to $`M_Z`$ are so different. If the sizes are made less different by reducing $`M_3`$ that would give a light gluino as needed. What about the scalars and $`M_3`$? Again, that would require a large scalar non-degeneracy. More generally, one can see that the soft parameters are affected by supersymmetry breaking and by how the breaking is transmitted, introducing at least two mass scales. Or one can think of it in terms of dilaton dynamics (which strongly affects gaugino masses) and moduli dynamics (which strongly affects scalar masses). To have a significant cancellation would require special relations among these separate parts of the theory. If one thinks in terms of parameters, there would have to be a special relation among $`m_{3/2},`$ dilaton vevs, and moduli vevs.
3. Can the coefficients be made smaller? Yes. For example, one can run down from a lower scale, in which case the coefficient of $`M_3`$ is smaller. Or include various amounts of intermediate scale matter in such a way as to reduce the coefficients. But first, the coefficients do not get small, just smaller. More important, examining any particular approach that reduces the coefficients shows that the same physics also leads to lighter superpartner masses. For example, in the MSSM run down from the usual unification scale one finds the physical gluino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}3M_3^{UNIF},`$ while if one reduces the coefficient of $`M_3`$ from 6.9 by a factor of 10, allowing a larger $`M_3`$ for a given amount of fine tuning, the physical gluino mass in the reduced coefficient case turns out to be $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}0.4M_3^{UNIF}.`$ Thus the physical gluino is again light.
4. Another argument that superpartners are heavy compared to what is detectable at the Tevatron, or even at a 500 GeV linear collider, has emerged with the construction of so-called benchmark models in recent years. For example, only one of the widely publicized Snowmass models has superpartners light enough so they may possibly be detectable at the Tevatron. If such a result is generic it would be important. Fortunately, it is not generic. We have constructed some models that are well-motivated theoretically, based on the heterotic string. Of course one cannot yet derive the needed compactifications or deduce how supersymmetry is broken, but one can assume plausible mechanisms that could happen, and specialize to concrete models. We find sets of models that have less fine tuning than the minimal SUGRA type Snowmass or CERN models, and in particular have light enough gauginos so that some can always be detected at the Tevatron (and at a 500 GeV linear collider). The bottom line is that the concrete models that have been previously constructed are, for historical reasons, a very special set. They can only accommodate EWSB by having large cancellations, which casts doubt on their relevance. They may also be misleading for their implications for collider signatures and background studies. They do not imply that nature’s superpartners are heavy compared to what can be seen at the Tevatron.

## 5 Summary

From the points made here we can conclude that if superpartners are not produced at the Tevatron it is rather unlikely that supersymmetry and the usual radiative mechanism is the actual explanation for electroweak symmetry breaking. Then the constraints on superpartner masses are very weak. Gauge coupling unification depends on the same conditions as radiative EWSB, requiring $`\mu `$ and soft masses at the TeV scale, though it depends on the masses logarithmically rather than quadratically. Nevertheless, if superpartners are not produced at the Tevatron it is interesting to consider what arguments imply they should be seen at LHC.

If superpartners are observed at the Tevatron as should be expected, then considerable analysis and good thinking will be needed to deduce the Lagrangian at the weak scale from the measured masses and cross sections and branching ratios. Further innovative thinking and analysis will be needed to learn the unification scale Lagrangian, and to deduce properties of supersymmetry breaking and mediation from the low scale information. In both cases there are important research opportunities. Combining inclusive analysis of collider signals with information from rare decays, dark matter, neutrino physics, proton decay, baryogensis, dipole moments and more may allow us to bypass many apparent obstacles. One can imagine that it will be possible to guess the supersymmetric Standard Model from the resulting analysis, then the 4D effective string field theory, and perhaps even the 10D string theory.

## 6 Acknowledgments

I am grateful to my collaborators, and particularly to Lisa Everett, Lian-Tao Wang, James Wells, and Brent Nelson, for discussions and lessons. I want to thank the DESY Theory Group, and particularly Peter Zerwas, for their good hospitality.