text:
# Dirac spinor fields in the teleparallel gravity: comment on “Metric-affine approach to teleparallel gravity”

We show that the coupling of a Dirac spinor field $`\psi `$ with the gravitational field in the teleparallel equivalent of general relativity is consistent. For an arbitrary SO(3,1) connection $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$ there are two possibilities for the coupling of $`\psi `$ with the gravitational field. The problems of consistency raised by Y. N. Obukhov and J. G. Pereira in the paper Metric-affine approach to teleparallel gravity \[gr-qc/0212080\] take place only in the framework of one particular coupling. By adopting an alternative coupling the consistency problem disappears.

PACS numbers: 04.20.Cv, 04.20.Fy, 04.90.+e

(\*) e-mail: wadih@fis.unb.br

The gravitational field can be described both by the usual Riemannian geometry or by the teleparallel geometry. Although the two geometrical frameworks are rather distinct, it is well known that in each of them we may obtain Einstein’s equations provided we specify the appropriate Lagrangian density. Therefore all the successful results of general relativity that have been accomplished in the Riemannian geometry are also achievements of the same theory in the teleparallel equivalent description.

The teleparallel geometry is a suitable framework to address the notions of energy, momentum and angular momentum of any space-time that admits a 3+1 foliation. The principle of equivalence is still subjacent to the idea, still endorsed by many physicists, that the gravitational energy is not localizable. However, it is unquestionable that the results so far obtained in the realm of the teleparallel equivalent of general relativity (TEGR) are relevant and deserve a throrough and continued investigation.

The description of the gravitational field in the teleparallel geometry is not unique. One can either establish a Lagrangian density that is invariant under the global or the local SO(3,1) Lorentz group. Alternatively, we may adopt tetrad fields $`e_\mu ^a`$ that either transform under the global or local Lorentz group (Notation: space-time indices $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ and SO(3,1) indices $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ run from 0 to 3. Time and space indices are indicated according to $`\mu =0,i,a=(0),(i)`$. The flat, Minkowski space-time metric is fixed by $`\eta _{ab}=e_{a\mu }e_{b\nu }g^{\mu \nu }=(+++)`$). In the context of metric-affine gravitational theories (MAG) it is natural to require the local symmetry for the Lagrangian density. If the latter symmetry is required, then one has to introduce a set of flat connection fields $`\omega _{\mu ab}=\omega _{\mu ba}`$. The zero curvature condition $`R_{ab\mu \nu }(\omega )=0`$ is imposed by means of Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda ^{ab\mu \nu }`$ in the action integral.

Therefore in empty space-time the TEGR can be described by the Lagrangian density

$$L_1(e,\omega ,\lambda )=ke\left(\frac{1}{4}T^{abc}T_{abc}+\frac{1}{2}T^{abc}T_{bac}T^aT_a\right)+\lambda ^{ab\mu \nu }R_{ab\mu \nu }(\omega ),$$
$`(1)`$
where $`k=1/(16\pi G)`$, $`e=det(e_\mu ^a)`$, $`T_{abc}=e_b^\mu e_c^\nu T_{a\mu \nu }`$ and the trace of the torsion tensor is given by $`T_b=T_{ab}^a.`$ $`L_1`$ displays a local invariance under the SO(3,1) group. The torsion and curvature tensors are defined by

$$T_{\mu \nu }^a(e,\omega )=_\mu e_\nu ^a_\nu e_\mu ^a+\omega _\mu ^a{}_{b}{}^{}e_{\nu }^{b}\omega _\nu ^a{}_{b}{}^{}e_{\mu }^{b},$$
$`(2)`$
$$R_{b\mu \nu }^a=_\mu \omega _\nu ^a{}_{b}{}^{}_\nu \omega _\mu ^a{}_{b}{}^{}+\omega _\mu ^a{}_{c}{}^{}\omega _{\nu }^{c}{}_{b}{}^{}\omega _\nu ^a{}_{c}{}^{}\omega _{\mu }^{c}{}_{b}{}^{},$$
$`(3)`$
respectively.

Alternatively, the TEGR can also be described by the following Lagrangian density,

$$L_2(e)=ke\left(\frac{1}{4}T^{abc}T_{abc}+\frac{1}{2}T^{abc}T_{bac}T^aT_a\right),$$
$`(4)`$
where the definitions for $`k`$ and $`e`$ are the same as in Eq. (1). However, the definition for $`T_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is now simply given by

$$T_{\mu \nu }^a(e)=_\mu e_\nu ^a_\nu e_\mu ^a.$$
$`(5)`$
The description of the gravitational field given by $`L_2`$ is certainly simpler than the one given by $`L_1`$. Moreover, the theory defined by $`L_2`$ is - as it must be \- invariant under coordinate transformations, a basic requirement of the general theory of relativity. However, despite the rigid structure regarding the frame invariance of $`L_2`$ (the symmetry group is the global SO(3,1)), one can choose any frame in the description of any solution of Einstein’s equations. Any global frame yields a viable teleparallel geometry of the space-time and allows the definition of distant parallelism, which is the prominent feature of the teleparallel geometry. In a space-time with an underlying tetrad field two vectors at distant points are called parallel if they have identical components with respect to the local tetrads at the points considered. Thus consider a vector field $`V^\mu (x)`$. At the point $`x^\lambda `$ its tetrad components are given by $`V^a(x)=e_\mu ^a(x)V^\mu (x)`$. For the tetrad components $`V^a(x+dx)`$ it is easy to show that $`V^a(x+dx)=V^a(x)+DV^a(x)`$, where $`DV^a(x)=e_\mu ^a(_\lambda V^\mu )dx^\lambda `$. The covariant derivative $``$ is constructed out of Cartan’s connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda =e^{a\lambda }_\mu e_{a\nu }`$ (the torsion tensor given by Eq. (5) is related to the torsion tensor of Cartan’s connection). Therefore the vanishing of such covariant derivative defines a condition for absolute parallelism in space-time.

In the interesting analysis given in Ref.  it is shown that the Lagrange multipliers are determined from the field equations only up to an ambiguity. In this framework there are field equations not only for $`e_{a\mu }`$, but also for $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$ and $`\lambda ^{ab\mu \nu }`$. By working out this larger set of field equations one arrives at an inconsistency in the coupling of a Dirac spinor field with the gravitational field. It is shown in this latter reference that one can only consistently couple the gravitational field to a spinless matter or to a matter with a conserved spin tensor. This is a quite strong statement. We will show that if the coupling is suitably defined, the interaction of $`e_{a\mu }`$ with the Dirac field can be consistently carried out.

Let us consider a Dirac spinor field $`\psi (x)`$ and a set of Dirac matrices $`\gamma ^a`$ that satisfy $`\gamma ^a\gamma ^b+\gamma ^b\gamma ^a=2\eta ^{ab}`$. For an appropriate representation of $`\gamma ^a`$ the quantities $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}=i/2[\gamma ^a,\gamma ^b]`$ are the generators of the SO(3,1) group. We will consider initially an arbitrary SO(3,1) connection $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$, in the spirit of the MAG approach. Out of $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$ we construct the derivative $`D_\mu (\omega )`$, covariant under local SO(3,1) transformations,

$$D_\mu (\omega )\psi =_\mu \psi \frac{i}{4}\omega _{\mu ab}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}\psi .$$
$`(6a)`$
Similarly for $`\overline{\psi }=\psi ^{}\gamma ^{(0)}`$ we have

$$D_\mu (\omega )\overline{\psi }=_\mu \overline{\psi }+\frac{i}{4}\omega _{\mu ab}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}.$$
$`(6b)`$
With the help of Eqs. (6a,b) we establish the real valued Lagrangian density $`L_{M1}`$ for a Dirac field of mass $`m`$,

$$L_{M1}(\psi ,\overline{\psi },\omega )=e\left[\frac{i}{2}\left(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu D_\mu (\omega )\psi (D_\mu (\omega )\overline{\psi })\gamma ^\mu \psi \right)m\overline{\psi }\psi \right],$$
$`(7)`$
where $`\gamma ^\mu (x)=e_a^\mu \gamma ^a`$. Variation of $`L_{M1}`$ with respect to $`\psi `$ yields the Dirac equation,

$$i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu (\omega )\psi m\psi +\frac{i}{2}e^{a\lambda }T_{a\mu \lambda }(e,\omega )\gamma ^\mu \psi =0.$$
$`(8)`$
The theory considered by Obukhov and Pereira is equivalent to the one defined by the Lagrangian density $`L=L_1+L_{M1}`$. In the framework of this latter Lagrangian there arises the consistency problem indicated in Ref. . However, a different approach to the coupling of $`\psi `$ with $`e_\mu ^a`$ is possible.

Let us consider the SO(3,1) connection $`{}_{}{}^{o}\omega _{\mu ab}^{}`$ given by

$${}_{}{}^{o}\omega _{\mu ab}^{}=\frac{1}{2}e_\mu ^c(\mathrm{\Omega }_{abc}\mathrm{\Omega }_{bac}\mathrm{\Omega }_{cab}),$$
$`(9)`$
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{abc}=e_{a\nu }(e_b^\mu _\mu e_c^\nu e_c^\mu _\mu e_b^\nu ),$$

This connection allows the definition of the SO(3,1) covariant derivative

$$D_\mu (^o\omega )\psi =_\mu \psi \frac{i}{4}^o\omega _{\mu ab}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}\psi .$$
$`(10a)`$
Likewise, for $`\overline{\psi }=\psi ^{}\gamma ^{(0)}`$ we have

$$D_\mu (^o\omega )\overline{\psi }=_\mu \overline{\psi }+\frac{i}{4}^o\omega _{\mu ab}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}.$$
$`(10b)`$
In similarity to $`L_{M1}`$ we construct the Lagrangian density

$$L_{M2}(\psi ,\overline{\psi },^o\omega )=e[\frac{i}{2}(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu D_\mu (^o\omega )\psi (D_\mu (^o\omega )\overline{\psi })\gamma ^\mu \psi )m\overline{\psi }\psi ].$$
$`(11)`$
The Lagrangian density that we will adopt in the framework of the TEGR is similar to Eq. (11). In order to verify this issue, let us consider a totally arbitrary SO(3,1) connection $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$. It is well known that this connection can be identically written as

$$\omega _{\mu ab}=^o\omega _{\mu ab}+K_{\mu ab},$$
$`(12)`$
where $`K_{\mu ab}`$ is the usual contorsion tensor,

$$K_{\mu ab}=\frac{1}{2}e_a^\lambda e_b^\nu (T_{\lambda \mu \nu }+T_{\nu \lambda \mu }T_{\mu \nu \lambda }).$$

The torsion tensor in this expression is given by (2).

In Eq. (12) both $`\omega _{\mu ab}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{o}\omega _{\mu ab}^{}`$ transform as SO(3,1) connections and $`K_{\mu ab}`$ transforms as a tensor. A vanishing connection $`\omega _{\mu ab}=0`$ is a possible solution of the field equations that follow from $`L_1`$. Now, if we require $`\omega _{\mu ab}=0`$ in Eq. (12), the local SO(3,1) symmetry is reduced to the global SO(3,1) symmetry, and $`L_1(e,\omega ,\lambda )`$ reduces to $`L_2(e)`$. From Eq. (12) we find that

$${}_{}{}^{o}\omega _{\mu ab}^{}=K_{\mu ab},$$
$`(13)`$
and in this case the covariant derivatives (10a,b) become

$$D_\mu (^o\omega )\psi =_\mu \psi +\frac{i}{4}K_{\mu ab}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}\psi ,$$
$`(14a)`$
$$D_\mu (^o\omega )\overline{\psi }=_\mu \overline{\psi }\frac{i}{4}K_{\mu ab}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab},$$
$`(14b)`$
which is precisely the covariant derivative presented in Ref. . In Eqs. (13) and (14) the contorsion tensor is defined in terms of the torsion tensor given by Eq. (5).

Therefore in the presence of Dirac spinor fields the total Lagrangian density in the TEGR may be given by $`L_2+L_{M2}`$, where $`L_{M2}`$ is constructed either with Eqs. (10a,b) or (14a,b).

It turns out that $`L_T=L_2+L_{M2}`$ yields a consistent set of field equations. It has been shown by Coote and Macfarlane that the energy-momentum tensor that arises from $`L_T=keR(e,\omega )+L_{M2}`$ is symmetric. More precisely, we have

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{e}e_{a\nu }\frac{\delta L_{M2}}{\delta e_a^\mu }=T_{\nu \mu }.$$
$`(15)`$
Coote and Macfarlane have shown that anti-symmetric components on the right hand side of the equations

$$R_{\lambda \mu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\lambda \mu }R=\frac{1}{2k}T_{\mu \nu },$$
$`(16)`$
vanish in virtue of the Dirac equation,

$$i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu (^o\omega )\psi m\psi =0,$$
$`(17)`$
that is obtained from the action integral determined by Eq. (11). Therefore the anti-symmetric part of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ does not pose any extra conditions or restrictions on the field quantities. The resulting field equations are just Einstein and Dirac equations.

In the framework of the TEGR a similar situation takes place. Variation of $`L_T=L_2+L_{M2}`$ with respect to $`e^{a\mu }`$ yields

$$\frac{\delta L_2}{\delta e^{a\mu }}=e_{a\lambda }e_{b\mu }_\nu (e\mathrm{\Sigma }^{b\lambda \nu })e\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_a^{b\nu }T_{b\nu \mu }\frac{1}{4}e_{a\mu }T_{bcd}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{bcd}\right)=\frac{1}{4k}eT_{a\mu },$$
$`(18)`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{abc}=\frac{1}{4}(T^{abc}+T^{bac}T^{cab})+\frac{1}{2}(\eta ^{ac}T^b\eta ^{ab}T^c).$$

In view of the identity

$$\frac{\delta L_2}{\delta e^{a\mu }}\frac{1}{2}e\left\{R_{a\mu }(e)\frac{1}{2}e_{a\mu }R(e)\right\},$$

we conclude that the field equations derived from $`L_T=L_2+L_{M2}`$ are just Eqs. (16) and (17) only. Therefore the Dirac spinor field can be consistently coupled to $`e_\mu ^a`$. It must be noted that the result obtained by Coote and Macfarlane does not depend on the local SO(3,1) symmetry of the Lagrangian density $`L_T=keR(e,\omega )+L_{M2}`$ or of the field equations. Therefore it applies to $`L_T=L_2+L_{M2}`$ as well.

In conclusion, the total Lagrangian density defined by Eqs. (4) and (11), the latter constructed out of the covariant derivatives (14a,b), yields a consistent coupling of the Dirac and gravitational fields.


format: text

text:
# On the maximal scarring for quantum cat map eigenstates

## 1. Introduction

We are interested in the semiclassical properties of quantum maps on the two-dimensional torus $`𝕋^2`$, that is the unitary transformations $`\widehat{M}_h`$ which quantize a symplectic map $`M`$ on $`𝕋^2`$ ($`h=2\pi \mathrm{}`$ is Planck’s constant). More precisely, we focus of maps $`M`$ having a chaotic dynamics (that is, at least ergodic w.r.to the Lebesgue measure), and investigate the phase space properties of the eigenstates of $`\widehat{M}_h`$ in the semiclassical limit $`h0`$. To any sequence of eigenstates $`\{|\psi _h\}_{h0}`$ corresponds a sequence of probability measures on the torus $`\{\mu _h\}_{h0}`$. In the weak-$``$ topology, the set of Borel probability measures on the torus is compact so the sequence $`\{\mu _h\}_{h0}`$ admits at least one accumulation point $`\mu `$; such a $`\mu `$ is called a “semiclassical measure” (also a “quantum limit”) of the map $`M`$, related with the sequence $`\{|\psi _h\}_{h0}`$. From Egorov’s theorem, the measure $`\mu `$ is invariant through the classical map $`M`$. A natural question is the following:

> \<\<For any $`M`$-invariant probability measure $`\nu `$, does there exist a sequence of eigenstates of the quantized map $`\widehat{M}_h`$ admitting $`\nu `$ as semiclassical measure ?\>\>

If the answer is negative, then one wants to determine the set of semiclassical measures generated by all possible sequences of eigenstates.

If the map $`M`$ is ergodic (w.r.to the Lebesgue measure on $`𝕋^2`$), it admits a unique absolutely continuous invariant measure, namely the Lebesgue measure itself (which is also the Liouville measure on the symplectic manifold $`𝕋^2`$). On the other hand, each periodic orbit of $`M`$ supports an invariant Dirac (atomic, pure point) measure. As a result, if $`M`$ is an Anosov map (i.e. uniformly hyperbolic on $`𝕋^2`$), the space of invariant pure point measures is infinite-dimensional (its closure yields the full set of invariant probability measures $`𝔐_M`$ ).

We now review some results obtained so far on this issue. Schnirelman’s theorem provides a partial answer to the above question, in the case of an ergodic map: “almost all sequences” of eigenstates admit for semiclassical measure the Lebesgue measure . This phenomenon is called “quantum ergodicity” in the mathematics literature. Still, this theorem does not exclude “exceptional sequences” of eigenstates converging to a different semiclassical measure.

Extensive numerical studies have shown that many eigenstates of quantum hyperbolic systems show an enhanced concentration on one or several (unstable) periodic orbits . Still, it is commonly believed that this enhancement (called “scarring”) is weak enough to allow the concerned eigenstates to converge (in the weak-$``$ sense) to the Liouville measure. Thus, “scarring” must not be mistaken with “strong scarring”, that is the existence of a sequence of eigenstates, the semiclassical measure of which contains a pure point component on some periodic orbit.

“Quantum unique ergodicity”, that is, the absence of any exceptional sequence of eigenstates, was proven for some families of ergodic linear parabolic maps on $`𝕋^2`$ , using the fact that for these maps the Lebesgue measure is the unique invariant measure. On the opposite, a special class of ergodic piecewise affine transformations on $`𝕋^2`$ have been studied and quantized in , for which every classical invariant measure is a semiclassical measure. In both these cases, the maps are only “weakly chaotic”, in particular they are not mixing and have no periodic point.

In the continuous-time framework, precise results have been obtained for the eigenstates of the Laplace-Beltrami operator on arithmetic manifolds of constant negative curvature in dimension 2 or 3 ; the corresponding classical dynamics, namely the geodesic flows on the manifolds, are known to be of Anosov type. E. Lindenstrauss  recently proved quantum unique ergodicity for sequences of joint eigenstates of the Laplacian and the Hecke operators on arithmetic surfaces (all eigenstates of the Laplacian are conjectured to be of this type).

In this paper, we restrict ourselves to a very special family of Anosov maps on the torus, namely the linear hyperbolic automorphisms of the 2-torus, also called generalized Arnold’s cat maps. For any automorphism $`A`$ of the form $`A\mathrm{Id}mod4`$ and any value of $`h`$, Rudnick and Kurlberg have defined a family of “Hecke operators” commuting with the quantum map $`\widehat{A}_h`$, and proven unique quantum ergodicity for the sequences of joint eigenstates . However, as opposed to the case of arithmetic surfaces, many eigenstates of $`\widehat{A}_h`$ are not Hecke eigenstates, leaving open the possibility of exceptional sequences. In , Bonechi and De Bi vre have shown that for any automorphism $`A`$, a semiclassical measure of $`A`$ cannot be completely localized (or completely “scarred”), in that the weight of its pure point component is bounded above by $`\left(\sqrt{5}1\right)/20.62`$ (their proof, which assumes this component to be supported on *finitely many* periodic points, also applies to ergodic automorphisms on higher-dimensional symplectic tori). In , sequences of eigenstates of $`\widehat{A}_h`$ were explicitly constructed, for which the semiclassical measure has a pure point component of weight $`1/2`$ localized on a finite set of periodic orbits, the remaining part of the measure being Lebesgue. In this paper we improve the results of  as follows:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`A`$ be a hyperbolic automorphism of $`𝕋^2`$, and $`\mu `$ be a normalized semiclassical measure of $`A`$. Splitting $`\mu `$ into its pure point, Lebesgue and singular continuous components, $`\mu =\mu _{pp}+\mu _{Leb}+\mu _{sc}`$, the following inequalities hold between the weigths of these components: $`\mu _{Leb}(𝕋^2)\mu _{pp}(𝕋^2)`$, which implies $`\mu _{pp}(𝕋^2)1/2`$.

The states constructed in  saturate this upper bound: they are “maximally scarred”.

After recalling the definition of the quantized automorphisms (Section 2), we prove in Section 3 two “dynamical” propositions (the first one was proven in  in a more general context). They both deal with the evolution through $`\widehat{A}_h`$ up to the “Ehrenfest time” $`T|\mathrm{log}h|/\lambda `$, of quantum states with prescribed initial localization properties. Using these propositions, we then show in Section 4 that for any finite union $`𝒮`$ of periodic orbits, any semiclassical measure $`\mu `$ of $`A`$ satisfies $`\mu (𝒮)\mu _{Leb}(𝕋^2)`$ (Theorem 4.1), from where the above theorem is a straightforward corollary. In final remarks, we draw consequences of the above theorem, concerning the determination of the set $`𝔐_{A,\mathrm{SC}}`$ of semiclassical measures for the automorphism $`A`$. We also discuss possible extensions of these results to a broader class of Anosov systems.

## 2. Quantum hyperbolic automorphisms on $`𝕋^2`$

### 2.1. Quantum mechanics on $`𝕋^2`$

We briefly describe the quantum mechanics on the 2-torus phase space as defined in . The Hilbert space of quantum states corresponding to Planck’s constant $`h`$ will be called $`_h`$: quantum states can be identified with distributions $`\psi (q)𝒮^{}()`$ such that $`\psi (q+1)=\psi (q)`$ and $`(\psi )(k+h^1)=(\psi )(k)`$, where $``$ is the Fourier transform. $`_h`$ is a nontrivial vector space iff $`h^1^{}`$, and then $`_h^{h^1}`$. In what follows, $`h`$ will always be taken of that form; the semiclassical limit is therefore defined as the limit $`h0`$, $`h^1`$.

For any classical observable $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(𝕋^2)`$, we note respectively $`\widehat{f}=Op_h(f)`$ its Weyl quantization and $`\widehat{f}^{AW}=Op_h^{AW}(f)`$ its anti-Wick quantization on $`_h`$ . The anti-Wick quantized operator satisfies the property $`\widehat{f}^{AW}f_{\mathrm{}}=sup_{𝕋^2}(|f|)`$. To any state $`|\psi _h_h`$ correspond the Wigner and Husimi measures $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h`$, $`\mu _h`$ defined as

(2.1) $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h(f)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{𝕋^2}}𝑑xW_{\psi _h}(x)f(x)=\psi _h|\widehat{f}|\psi _h,`$
(2.2) $`\mu _h(f)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{𝕋^2}}𝑑xH_{\psi _h}(x)f(x)={\displaystyle _{𝕋^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{h}}|\psi _h|x|^2f(x)=\psi _h|\widehat{f}^{AW}|\psi _h.`$
The ket $`|x`$ denotes the (asymptotically normalized) coherent state in $`_h`$ localized at the point $`x=(q,p)`$, with widths $`\mathrm{\Delta }q\mathrm{\Delta }p\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2}`$. While the Husimi density $`H_{\psi _h}(x)`$ is a non-negative smooth function on $`𝕋^2`$, the “Wigner function” $`W_{\psi _h}(x)`$ is a finite combination of delta peaks with real (possibly negative) coefficients.

We now consider an infinite sequence of states $`\{|\psi _h_h\}_{h0}`$. By definition, the corresponding sequence of Husimi measures $`\{\mu _h\}`$ weak-$``$ converges to $`\mu `$ iff for any smooth observable $`f`$, one has $`\mu _h(f)\stackrel{h0}{}\mu (f)`$. The sequence of signed measures $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h\}`$ then admits the same weak-$``$ limit ($`\mu _h`$ is the convolution of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h`$ by a Gaussian kernel of width $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}}`$). The limit (Borel) measure $`\mu `$ is then called the semiclassical measure of the sequence $`\{|\psi _h\}_{h0}`$ (by a slight abuse of language, we also say that the sequence of states $`\{|\psi _h\}_{h0}`$ converges to $`\mu `$).

If the states $`|\psi _h`$ are (normalized) eigenstates of a quantized map $`\widehat{M}_h`$, then $`\mu `$ is called a semiclassical measure for $`M`$. In that case, Egorov’s property, that is the semiclassical commutation of time evolution and quantization:

(2.3)
$$t,\widehat{M}_h^tOp_h(f)\widehat{M}_h^tOp_h(fM^t)\stackrel{h0}{}0,$$

implies that $`\mu `$ is an invariant measure for the classical map $`M`$.

A sequence of states $`\{|\psi _h\}_{h0}`$ is said to be equidistributed if it converges semiclassically to (a multiple of) the Lebesgue measure on $`𝕋^2`$ (noted $`dx`$), i.e. iff for a certain $`C>0`$ and for any observable $`f`$, $`\mu _h(f)`$ (equivalently $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h(f)`$) converges to $`C_{𝕋^2}𝑑xf(x)`$. On the opposite, a sequence $`\{|\psi _h\}_{h0}`$ is called localized iff it converges to a pure point measure on $`𝕋^2`$, that is if there exists a countable set of points $`\{x_i\}`$ and weights $`\alpha _i>0`$, $`_i\alpha _i<\mathrm{}`$ such that for any observable $`f`$, $`\mu _h(f)\stackrel{h0}{}_i\alpha _if(x_i)`$.

### 2.2. Quantum hyperbolic automorphisms

An automorphism of $`𝕋^2`$, or generalized cat map, is the diffeomorphism on $`𝕋^2`$ defined by the action of a matrix $`A\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ on the point $`x=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{q}{p}\right)𝕋^2`$. The map itself will also be denoted by $`A`$. It is uniformly hyperbolic on $`𝕋^2`$ (therefore of Anosov type) iff $`|\mathrm{tr}(A)|>2`$. Depending on the sign of the trace, the eigenvalues of $`A`$ are of the form $`\{\pm \mathrm{e}^\lambda ,\pm \mathrm{e}^\lambda \}`$, where $`\lambda >0`$ is the Lyapounov exponent. The corresponding eigenaxes define the unstable/stable directions at any point $`x𝕋^2`$, and their projections on the torus make up the unstable and stable manifolds of the origin (which is an obvious fixed point). We will use the property that the slopes of these axes are irrational, so that both manifolds are dense on $`𝕋^2`$.

Under the condition $`A\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ or $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)mod2`$, the linear automorphism $`A`$ can be quantized on any $`_h`$, yielding a unitary matrix $`\widehat{A}_h`$ of dimension $`h^1`$ . For simplicity, we will assume in the following sections that $`A`$ is of that form. Yet, this restriction can easily be lifted: any matrix $`A\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ can be quantized on $`_h`$ if we restrict $`h^1`$ to take $`even`$ values, or extend the definition of $`_h`$ to allow nontrivial “Bloch angles” . All our results can be straightforwardly generalized to those cases.

Let us call $`T_𝐯`$ the classical translation by the vector $`𝐯^2`$. It can be naturally quantized as a unitary matrix $`\widehat{T}_𝐯`$ on $`_h`$ iff $`𝐯`$ belongs to the square lattice $`(h)^2`$, that is iff $`𝐯=h𝐤`$ for a certain $`𝐤^2`$. The operator $`\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}`$ can also be interpreted as the Weyl quantization $`Op_h(F_𝐤)`$ of the complex-valued observable $`F_𝐤(q,p)=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \mathrm{i}(k_1pk_2q)\right)`$ on $`𝕋^2`$.

For any $`h`$, the following intertwining relation holds between the quantum automorphism $`\widehat{A}_h`$ and the quantized translations:

(2.4)
$$𝐤^2,\widehat{A}_h\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}\widehat{A}_h^1=\widehat{T}_{hA𝐤}\widehat{A}_hOp_h(F_𝐤)\widehat{A}_h^1=Op_h(F_𝐤A^1).$$

Comparing with Eq. (2.3), we see that the above identity realizes an exact Egorov property: quantization exactly commutes with time evolution, for arbitrary times $`t`$ and arbitrary $`h`$ . This exact equality is *characteristic of linear maps*, and will be crucial in the next sections.

## 3. Localized states evolve into equidistributed states

We define the Ehrenfest time or log-time corresponding to the quantum map $`\widehat{A}_h`$ by

$$T=\left[\frac{\left|\mathrm{log}h\right|}{\lambda }\right],$$

where $`[.]`$ denotes the integer part (we will always omit to indicate the $`h`$-dependence of $`T`$).

Consider a set of $`n`$ points $`𝒮=\left\{x_i\right\}_{i=1n}`$ on $`𝕋^2`$, such that for a certain integer $`d>0`$, all vectors $`(x_ix_j)`$ belong to the lattice $`\frac{1}{d}^2`$. Assign to each point $`x_i`$ a weight $`\alpha _i>0`$, with $`_i\alpha _i=1`$, and define the Dirac probability measure $`\delta _{𝒮,\alpha }=_{i=1}^n\alpha _i\delta _{x_i}`$ on the torus.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Suppose that a sequence of states $`\{|\phi _h_h\}_{h0}`$ converges to the measure $`\delta _{𝒮,\alpha }`$. Then the sequence of states $`\{|\phi _h^{}=\widehat{A}_h^T|\phi _h\}`$ is semiclassically equidistributed.

This property has been proven in a more general setting (higher dimensional automorphisms, time $`T`$ replaced by a time interval) in \[2, Theorem 5.1\]. To be self-contained, we give below a “fast” proof of this proposition for our case.

###### Proof.

As a first step, we draw consequences from the assumption $`\mu _h\stackrel{h0}{}\delta _{𝒮,\alpha }`$, where $`\mu _h`$ is the Husimi measure of $`|\phi _h`$. Denoting by $`D(x_i,a)`$ the disk of radius $`a>0`$ centered at $`x_i`$, and by $`D(𝒮,a)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}_{i=1}^nD(x_i,a)`$ the corresponding neighbourhood of $`𝒮`$, the weak-$``$ convergence of $`\mu _h`$ implies that $`\mu _h(𝕋^2)\stackrel{h0}{}1`$ and that for any $`a>0`$, $`\mu _h\left(𝕋^2D(𝒮,a)\right)\stackrel{h0}{}0`$. From a standard diagonal argument, one can then construct a decreasing sequence $`a_h>0`$, $`a_h\stackrel{h0}{}0`$ such that

(3.1)
$$|\mu _h\left(𝕋^2\right)1|a_h\text{and}\mu _h\left(𝕋^2D(𝒮,a_h)\right)a_h.$$

In a second step, we remark that proving the equidistribution of the sequence $`\left\{|\phi _h^{}\right\}`$ amounts to prove that for any fixed $`𝐤^2`$,

(3.2)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h^{}(F_𝐤)=\phi _h^{}|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}|\phi _h^{}\stackrel{h0}{}_{𝕋^2}F_𝐤(x)𝑑x=\delta _{𝐤,\mathrm{𝟎}}.$$

The case $`𝐤=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is obvious since $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h^{}(𝕋^2)=\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h(𝕋^2)=\mu _h(𝕋^2)\stackrel{h0}{}1`$ by assumption. We now select a fixed wave vector $`\mathrm{𝟎}𝐤^2`$, and study the above LHS. The intertwining relation (2.4) allows us to rewrite it as

(3.3)
$$\phi _h^{}|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}|\phi _h^{}=\phi _h|\widehat{A}_h^T\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}\widehat{A}_h^T|\phi _h=\phi _h|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤_h^{}}|\phi _h,$$

with the vector $`𝐤_h^{}=A^T𝐤`$. From the definition of the Ehrenfest time, the ‘large’ eigenvalue of $`A^T`$ is $`(\pm e^\lambda )^T=\pm C(h)\frac{1}{h}`$, where the prefactor satisfies $`e^\lambda C(h)1`$. The decomposition of that vector in the eigenbasis of $`A`$ then reads:

(3.4)
$$h𝐤_h^{}=\pm e^{\lambda T}h𝐤^{stable}\pm e^{\lambda T}h𝐤^{unstable}=\pm C(h)𝐤^{stable}+𝒪(h^2).$$

The vector $`h𝐤_h^{}`$ thus has a finite length (bounded from above and from below uniformly in $`h`$), and is asymptotically parallel to the stable axis. Because the slope of that axis is irrational, the distance between $`h𝐤_h^{}`$ and the lattice $`\frac{1}{d}^2`$ is bounded from below by a constant $`c(𝐤)>0`$ uniformly w.r.to $`h`$.

To finish the proof, we write the above overlap as a coherent state integral:

(3.5)
$$|\phi _h|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤_h^{}}|\phi _h|=\left|_{𝕋^2}\frac{dx}{h}\phi _h|xx|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤_h^{}}|\phi _h\right|_{𝕋^2}\frac{dx}{h}|x|\phi _h||xh𝐤_h^{}|\phi _h|,$$

We then split the integral on the RHS between $`D(𝒮,a_h)`$ and its complement. The integral on $`D(𝒮,a_h)`$ is estimated through a Cauchy-Schwarz inequality:

$$_{D(𝒮,a_h)}\frac{dx}{h}|x|\phi _h||xh𝐤_h^{}|\phi _h|\sqrt{\mu _h\left(D(𝒮,a_h)\right)\mu _h\left(D(𝒮,a_h)h𝐤_h^{}\right)}.$$

Due to above-mentioned property of $`h𝐤_h^{}`$ and the fact that $`x_ix_j\frac{1}{d}^2`$, for small enough $`a_h`$ the set $`D(𝒮,a_h)h𝐤_h^{}`$ has no intersection with $`D(𝒮,a_h)`$. As a consequence, using (3.1), the second factor on the RHS is bounded above by $`\sqrt{a_h}`$, and the full RHS by $`\sqrt{a_h(1+a_h)}`$. The remaining integral over $`𝕋^2D(𝒮,a_h)`$ admits the same upper bound for similar reasons. ∎

###### Proposition 3.2.

Let $`(𝒮,\alpha )`$ be a finite weighted set of $`A`$-periodic points, and $`\nu `$ an $`A`$-invariant probability measure satisfying $`\nu (𝒮)=0`$. Suppose that the sequence $`\{|\phi _{𝒮,h}\}_{h0}`$ converges semiclassically to the measure $`\delta _{𝒮,\alpha }`$, and that a second sequence $`\{|\phi _{\nu ,h}\}_{h0}`$ converges to $`\nu `$. Then the states $`|\phi _{𝒮,h}^{}=\widehat{A}_h^T|\phi _{𝒮,h}`$, $`|\phi _{\nu ,h}^{}=\widehat{A}_h^T|\phi _{\nu ,h}`$ satisfy:

$$𝐤^2,\phi _{𝒮,h}^{}|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}|\phi _{\nu ,h}^{}\stackrel{h0}{}0.$$

###### Proof.

We use similar methods as for the previous proposition. Namely, as in Eq. (3.3) we rewrite the overlap as

(3.6)
$$\phi _{𝒮,h}^{}|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}|\phi _{\nu ,h}^{}=\phi _{𝒮,h}|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤_h^{}}|\phi _{\nu ,h}=_{𝕋^2}\frac{dx}{h}\phi _{𝒮,h}|xx|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤_h^{}}|\phi _{\nu ,h}$$

with $`h𝐤_h^{}`$ given by Eq. (3.4). We want to cut this integral into two parts. Using the same notations as above, the assumptions of the proposition imply the existence of a decreasing sequence $`a_h\stackrel{h0}{}0`$ such that the Husimi mesures of $`\phi _{𝒮,h}`$ and $`\phi _{\nu ,h}`$ satisfy

$$\mu _{𝒮,h}\left(𝕋^2D(𝒮,a_h)\right)a_h,\mu _{𝒮,h}\left(𝕋^2\right)1+a_h\text{and}\mu _{\nu ,h}\left(𝕋^2\right)1+a_h.$$

These inequalities also hold if we replace $`a_h`$ by any decreasing sequence $`b_ha_h`$, $`b_h0`$. We can now bound the part of the integral (3.6) over the set $`𝕋^2D(𝒮,b_h)`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left|_{𝕋^2D(𝒮,b_h)}\frac{dx}{h}\phi _{𝒮,h}|xx|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤_h^{}}|\phi _{\nu ,h}\right|& \sqrt{\mu _{𝒮,h}\left(𝕋^2D(𝒮,b_h)\right)\mu _{\nu ,h}\left(𝕋^2\right)}\hfill \\ & \sqrt{b_h(1+b_h)}\stackrel{h0}{}0.\hfill \end{array}$$

The second part of the integral is also estimated by Cauchy-Schwarz:

$$\left|_{D(𝒮,b_h)}\frac{dx}{h}\phi _{𝒮,h}|xx|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤_h^{}}|\phi _{\nu ,h}\right|\sqrt{\mu _{𝒮,h}\left(𝕋^2\right)\mu _{\nu ,h}\left(D(𝒮,b_h)h𝐤_h^{}\right)}.$$

We now show that the sequence $`b_h`$ can be chosen such that the second factor under the square root vanishes in the semiclassical limit, so that the full RHS vanishes as well. Indeed, using Eq. (3.4) and the bound on $`C(h)`$, one realizes that for $`h`$ small enough, the set $`D(𝒮,b_h)h𝐤_h^{}`$ is contained in the thin “tube”

$$T_{b_h}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}D(𝒮,2b_h)+\left([1,\mathrm{e}^\lambda ][e^\lambda ,1]\right)𝐤^{stable}.$$

As $`b_h0`$, this tube decreases to $`T_0=𝒮+\left([1,\mathrm{e}^\lambda ][e^\lambda ,1]\right)𝐤^{stable}`$, that is a union of segments of the stable manifold. The following simple lemma is proven in Appendix B.

###### Lemma 3.3.

For any invariant probability measure $`\nu `$, any finite set of periodic points $`𝒮`$ and any $`0<a<b<\mathrm{}`$, one has $`\nu (𝒮+[a,b]𝐞^{stable})=0`$, where $`𝐞^{stable}`$ is a unit vector in the stable direction.

This lemma implies that $`\nu (T_0)=0`$. Since $`b_h0`$, the regularity of the Borel measure $`\nu `$ entails:

$$\underset{b_h0}{lim}\nu (T_{b_h})=\nu (T_0)=0.$$

Since by assumption the Husimi measures $`\mu _{\nu ,h}`$ converge towards $`\nu `$, one can by a diagonal argument choose the sequence $`b_h0`$ (making sure that $`b_ha_h`$) such that:

$$\mu _{\nu ,h}\left(T_{b_h}\right)\stackrel{h0}{}0.$$

This finally implies that $`\mu _{\nu ,h}\left(D(𝒮,b_h)h𝐤_h^{}\right)\stackrel{h0}{}0`$. ∎

## 4. Maximal localization of the semiclassical measures

We call $`\tau `$ a periodic orbit of $`A`$ of period $`T_\tau `$, and denote its associated measure by

$$\delta _\tau =\frac{1}{T_\tau }\underset{x\tau }{}\delta _x.$$

We consider a finite set $``$ of periodic orbits, associate a weight $`w_\tau >0`$ to each orbit ($`_\tau w_\tau =1`$), and construct the pure point invariant measure

$$\delta _{,w}=\underset{\tau }{}w_\tau \delta _\tau .$$

All periodic points of $`A`$ have rational coordinates, so this measure is a particular instance of the measure $`\delta _{𝒮,\alpha }`$ considered in Proposition 3.1. Indeed, grouping the periodic orbits of $``$ together yields the set of rational points $`𝒮=𝒮_{}=_\tau \tau =\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$, and the weight allocated to each point $`x_i`$ reads $`\alpha _i=\frac{w_\tau }{T_\tau }`$. From now on, the two notations $`\delta _{,w}`$ and $`\delta _{𝒮,\alpha }`$ will refer to the same invariant measure. We now state the central result of this article.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`\mu `$ be a normalized $`A`$-invariant Borel measure of $`A`$, and $`(,w)`$ a finite weighted set of periodic orbits. $`\mu `$ may be decomposed into $`\mu =\beta \delta _{,w}+(1\beta )\nu `$, where $`\nu `$ is a normalized invariant measure satisfying $`\nu (𝒮_{})=0`$. If $`\mu `$ is a semiclassical measure of $`A`$, then its Lebesgue component has a weight $`\beta `$, which in turn implies $`\beta 1/2`$.

Any invariant Borel measure $`\mu 𝔐_A`$ can obviously be decomposed in the above way, with $`0\beta 1`$. We do not assume the measure $`\nu `$ to be continuous, but allow it to contain a pure point component localized on a (possibly countable) set of periodic orbits disjoint with $``$. The statement of the theorem is of course stronger if we include in $`(,w)`$ as many orbits as possible. By a simple limit argument, one may eventually take for $`\nu `$ the continuous component of $`\mu `$, allowing $`(,w)`$ to be a countable weighted set of orbits (still taking $`_\tau w_\tau =1`$): one then obtains Theorem 1.1 as a simple corollary of the one above.

###### Proof of Theorem 4.1:.

There are two steps in the proof. Let $`\{|\psi _h\}_{h0}`$ be a sequence of eigenstates of $`\widehat{A}_h`$ admitting $`\mu `$ as semiclassical measure. Our first objective is to decompose the state $`|\psi _h`$ into $`|\psi _{𝒮,h}+|\psi _{\nu ,h}`$, such that the sequence $`\{|\psi _{𝒮,h}\}`$ (resp. $`\{|\psi _{\nu ,h}\}`$) converges to the measure $`\beta \delta _{𝒮,\alpha }`$ (resp. the measure $`(1\beta )\nu `$). This decomposition will be obtained by “projecting” $`|\psi _h`$ on appropriate ($`h`$-dependent) small neighboorhoods of $`𝒮`$.

In the second part we will be guided by the following simple idea. Because $`|\psi _h`$ is an eigenstate of $`\widehat{A}_h`$, $`|\psi _h\widehat{A}_h^t|\psi _h=\widehat{A}_h^t|\psi _{𝒮,h}+\widehat{A}_h^t|\psi _{\nu ,h}`$ for any $`t`$, in particular for the Eherenfest time $`t=T`$. From Proposition 3.1, the sequence of states $`\{\widehat{A}_h^T|\psi _{𝒮,h}\}`$ is equidistributed; together with Proposition 3.2, that implies that the semiclassical measure of $`\widehat{A}_h^T|\psi _h`$ (that is, $`\mu `$) contains a Lebesgue part of weight $`\beta `$.

### First part: splitting the eigenstates

To “project” the eigenstates in a small neighbourhood of $`𝒮`$, we will use a function $`\vartheta C^{\mathrm{}}(^2)`$ satisfying $`0\vartheta (x)1`$ on $`^2`$, $`\vartheta (x)=0`$ outside the disk $`D(0,2)`$ and $`\vartheta (x)=1`$ inside the disk $`D(0,1)`$.

For any (small) $`r>0`$, and any point $`x_i𝒮`$, let $`\vartheta _{i,r}(x)=_{𝐧^2}\vartheta \left(\frac{xx_in}{r}\right)`$, which can be seen as a smooth function on $`𝕋^2`$, localized around $`x_i`$. We will also need the function $`\vartheta _r=_{i=1}^n\vartheta _{i,r}`$ to take all points of $`𝒮`$ into account: this function is supported in the neighbourhood $`D(𝒮,2r)`$ of $`𝒮`$. There is an $`r_0>0`$ such that the disks $`D(x_i,2r_0)`$ do not overlap each other, which implies $`\vartheta _{i,r}\vartheta _{j,r}0`$ if $`ij`$.

Fixing $`0<rr_0`$, we consider the anti-Wick quantization of these functions, $`\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r}^{AW}`$ and use them to decompose $`|\psi _h`$. We first observe that for any $`x_i𝒮`$,

$$\psi _h|\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r}^{AW}|\psi _h\stackrel{h0}{}\beta \delta _{𝒮,\alpha }(\vartheta _{i,r})+(1\beta )\nu (\vartheta _{i,r})=\beta \alpha _i+(1\beta )\nu (\vartheta _{i,r}).$$

Furthermore, one has for any pair $`x_i,x_j𝒮`$,

$$\psi _h|\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r}^{AW}\widehat{\vartheta }_{j,r}^{AW}|\psi _h\stackrel{h0}{}\beta \delta _{𝒮,\alpha }(\vartheta _{i,r}\vartheta _{j,r})+(1\beta )\nu (\vartheta _{i,r}\vartheta _{j,r})=\delta _{ij}\left(\beta \alpha _i+(1\beta )\nu (\vartheta _{i,r}^2)\right).$$

On the other hand, the regularity of the (Borel) measure $`\nu `$ entails:

$$x_i𝒮,\nu (\vartheta _{i,r})\stackrel{r0}{}\nu (𝒮)=0\text{and similarly}\nu (\vartheta _{i,r}^2)\stackrel{r0}{}0.$$

From the above limits, one can construct by a diagonal argument a decreasing sequence of radii $`r(h)\stackrel{h0}{}0`$ such that

(4.1)
$$x_i,x_j𝒮,\psi _h|\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r(h)}^{AW}|\psi _h\stackrel{h0}{}\beta \alpha _i\text{and}\psi _h|\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r(h)}^{AW}\widehat{\vartheta }_{j,r(h)}^{AW}|\psi _h\stackrel{h0}{}\delta _{ij}\beta \alpha _i.$$

We now show that the two sequences of vectors

(4.2)
$$|\psi _{𝒮,h}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\widehat{\vartheta }_{r(h)}^{AW}|\psi _h,|\psi _{\nu ,h}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left(\mathrm{Id}\widehat{\vartheta }_{r(h)}^{AW}\right)|\psi _h$$

provide the desired decomposition of $`|\psi _h`$, that is the corresponding sequences respectively converge to the measures $`\beta \delta _{𝒮,\alpha }`$ and $`(1\beta )\nu `$. The first statement $`\mu _{𝒮,h}\stackrel{h0}{}\beta \delta _{𝒮,\alpha }`$ seems quite natural: the operator $`\widehat{\vartheta }_{r(h)}^{AW}`$ acts as a “microlocal projector” onto the set $`𝒮`$. This property is precisely expressed in the following lemma, which we prove in Appendix A.

###### Lemma 4.2.

For any $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(𝕋^2)`$ and for any $`x_i𝒮`$, one has

$$\widehat{f}^{AW}\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r(h)}^{AW}f(x_i)\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r(h)}^{AW}\stackrel{h0}{}0,$$

where $`.`$ is the operator norm on $`_h`$.

This lemma together with the properties (4.1) immediately yield the required limits:

(4.3) $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(𝕋^2),\psi _{𝒮,h}|\widehat{f}^{AW}|\psi _{𝒮,h}`$ $`\stackrel{h0}{}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\beta \alpha _if(x_i)=\beta \delta _{𝒮,\alpha }(f),`$
(4.4) $`\psi _{\nu ,h}|\widehat{f}^{AW}|\psi _{\nu ,h}`$ $`\stackrel{h0}{}\mu (f)\beta \delta _{𝒮,\alpha }(f)=(1\beta )\nu (f).`$
### Second part: playing with time evolution

We will follow a strategy close to the one used to prove Proposition 3.1. We consider a fixed $`𝐤^2`$, and focus on the overlap $`\psi _h|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}|\psi _h`$. From the semiclassical assumption on $`\{|\psi _h\}`$, one has

(4.5)
$$\psi _h|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}|\psi _h\stackrel{h0}{}\mu (F_𝐤)=\beta \delta _{𝒮,\alpha }(F_𝐤)+(1\beta )\nu (F_𝐤).$$

On the other hand, since $`|\psi _h=|\psi _{𝒮,h}+|\psi _{\nu ,h}`$ is an eigenstate of $`\widehat{A}_h`$, one may rewrite

(4.6) $`\psi _h|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}|\psi _h`$ $`=\psi _h|\widehat{A}_h^T\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}\widehat{A}_h^T|\psi _h`$
(4.7) $`=\psi _{𝒮,h}^{}|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}|\psi _{𝒮,h}^{}+2\mathrm{}\left(\psi _{\nu ,h}^{}|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}|\psi _{𝒮,h}^{}\right)+\psi _{\nu ,h}^{}|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}|\psi _{\nu ,h}^{},`$
with the notation $`|\psi _{𝒮,h}^{}=\widehat{A}_h^T|\psi _{𝒮,h}`$, $`|\psi _{\nu ,h}^{}=\widehat{A}_h^T|\psi _{\nu ,h}`$ and $`T`$ is the Ehrenfest time. We are now in position to collect the dynamical results of Section 3:

* From the asymptotic localization (4.3) of $`|\psi _{𝒮,h}`$ and Proposition 3.1, the first term in (4.7) converges to $`\beta dx(F_𝐤)=\beta \delta _{𝐤,\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ as $`h0`$.
* From the properties (4.3-4.4) and Proposition 3.2, the cross-terms in (4.7) vanish in the semiclassical limit: $`\psi _{\nu ,h}^{}|\widehat{T}_{h𝐤}|\psi _{𝒮,h}^{}\stackrel{h0}{}0`$.

Using Eq. (4.5), the last term in (4.7) has therefore the semiclassical behaviour

$$\psi _{\nu ,h}^{}|Op_h(F_𝐤)|\psi _{\nu ,h}^{}\stackrel{h0}{}\mu (F_𝐤)\beta dx(F_𝐤).$$

Since this limit holds for any $`𝐤^2`$, it means that the the sequence $`\{|\psi _{\nu ,h}^{}\}_{h0}`$ admits the semiclassical measure $`\mu \beta dx`$. Because semiclassical measures are limits of Husimi measures, they cannot contain any negative part. Therefore, $`\mu \beta dx`$ must be a positive measure, which implies that the Legesgue component of $`\mu `$ has a weight $`\beta `$. This component being contained in $`(1\beta )\nu `$, one has finally $`(1\beta )\beta \beta 1/2`$. ∎

## 5. Remarks and comments

### 5.1. On the set of semiclassical measures

Theorem 1.1 constrains the set of semiclassical measures $`𝔐_{A,\mathrm{SC}}`$ to be a *proper subset* of the set $`𝔐_A`$ of invariant Borel measures. One can easily show that $`𝔐_{A,\mathrm{SC}}`$ is a *closed set* of $`𝔐_A`$. Indeed, if for any $`n>0`$ the sequence $`S_n=\{|\psi _{h,n}\}_{h0}`$ converges towards a normalized semiclassical measure $`\mu _n`$, and that in turn the measures $`\mu _n`$ weak-$``$ converge to a measure $`\mu `$, then one can extract a function $`n(h)\stackrel{h0}{}\mathrm{}`$ such that $`\{|\psi _{h,n(h)}\}_{h0}`$ converges to $`\mu `$.

Every open neighbourhood of $`𝔐_A`$ contains a pure point measure of type $`\delta _\tau `$ ($`\tau `$ a periodic orbit) , therefore Theorem 1.1 implies that the set $`𝔐_{A,\mathrm{SC}}`$ is *nowhere dense* in $`𝔐_A`$ (i.e. its interior is empty).

On the other hand, the results of  show that $`𝔐_{A,\mathrm{SC}}`$ contains all measures of the type $`\frac{\delta _\tau +dx}{2}`$. Since the measures $`\{\delta _\tau \}`$ are dense in $`𝔐_A`$ and the set $`𝔐_{A,\mathrm{SC}}`$ is closed, this implies

$$\nu 𝔐_A,\frac{\nu +dx}{2}𝔐_{A,\mathrm{SC}}.$$

This inclusion together with the constraint imposed by Thm. 1.1 do not suffice to fully identify the set $`𝔐_{A,\mathrm{SC}}`$. We do not know if a singular continuous invariant measure $`\nu `$ can be a semiclassical measure. The set of invariant continuous measures is dense in $`𝔐_A`$ , so in any case $`𝔐_{A,\mathrm{SC}}`$ cannot contain all continuous invariant measures.

### 5.2. About the Ehrenfest time

Proposition 3.1 means that any sequence of localized states $`\{|\phi _h\}_{h0}`$ evolves towards a sequence of equidistributed states at the Ehrenfest time $`T=\frac{|\mathrm{log}h|}{\lambda }+𝒪(1)`$. To achieve this goal, the prefactor $`1/\lambda `$ defining $`T`$ is crucial, and cannot be modified without stronger assumptions on the localization of $`|\phi _h`$. Indeed, for any $`ϵ>0`$, one can construct a sequence of states $`|\phi _h`$ semiclassically localized at the origin, such that the evolved states $`|\psi _h=\widehat{A}^{(1ϵ)T}|\phi _h`$ are still localized at the same point. Explicitly, consider the coherent state at the origin $`|0=|0_h`$, and take the sequences

$$|\phi _h\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\widehat{A}_h^{(1ϵ)T/2}|0,|\psi _h=\widehat{A}_h^{(1ϵ)T}|\phi _h=\widehat{A}_h^{(1ϵ)T/2}|0.$$

At the “microscopic scale”, the states $`|\phi _h`$ and $`|\psi _h`$ are very different: the former is stretched along the stable axis, the latter along the unstable axis. However, the “length” of both states is of the order $`h^{ϵ/2}`$, so this difference of shape is invisible at the measure-theoretic level, and both sequences admit the semiclassical measure $`\delta _0`$.

On the other hand, there exist an infinite sequence of Planck’s constants $`h_k^1`$, $`h_k0`$ such that starting from the states $`\{|\psi _{h_k}\}`$ defined above (localized at the origin), the evolved states $`\{\widehat{A}^{(1+ϵ)T}|\psi _{h_k}\}`$ are localized at the origin as well. These special values of $`h`$ correspond to “short quantum periods” of the quantized cat map . Let us remind that for any $`h^1`$, the quantum cat map $`\widehat{A}_h`$ is periodic, meaning that there exists $`P_h`$ and $`\theta _h[0,2\pi ]`$ such that $`\widehat{A}_h^{P_h}=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _h}\mathrm{Id}_h`$ . Besides, there exists an infinite subsequence $`h_k0`$ for which these periods are as short as $`P_{h_k}=2T_{h_k}+𝒪(1)`$. As a result, one has

$$\widehat{A}_{h_k}^{(1+ϵ)T}|\psi _{h_k}=\widehat{A}_{h_k}^{3(1+ϵ)T/2}|0=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _{h_k}}\widehat{A}_{h_k}^{3(1+ϵ)T/2P_k}|0=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _{h_k}}\widehat{A}_{h_k}^{(1+ϵ)T/2+𝒪(1)}|0.$$

The state on the RHS is close to $`|\phi _{h_k}`$ at the microscopic level, and therefore admits $`\delta _0`$ for semiclassical measure. In conclusion, the time $`(1ϵ)T`$ would be too short, and $`(1+ϵ)T`$ too long to produce transition localized$``$equidistributed described in Prop. 3.1.

### 5.3. More general maps?

Proposition 3.1 can be extended to a broad class of quantized ergodic automorphisms on tori of dimension $`2d`$ with $`d>1`$ \[2, Thm. 5.1\]. The precise conditions on the automorphism $`A`$ for the proposition to be satisfied are the following:

1. $`A`$ is ergodic (yet not necessarily hyperbolic), meaning that none of its eigenvalues is a root of unity.
2. $`A`$ does not leave invariant any non-trivial proper sublattice of $`^{2d}`$.
3. Let $`\mathrm{e}^\lambda `$ be the module of the largest eigenvalue(s) of $`A`$ and $`E_\lambda `$ the direct sum of the generalized eigenspaces corresponding to eigenvalues of modulus $`\mathrm{e}^\lambda `$. Then $`A`$ restricted to $`E_\lambda `$ must be diagonalizable.

The two last conditions are always satisfied for ergodic automorphisms in the case $`d=1`$, but not necessarily in higher dimension. One easily checks that Proposition 3.2 (and the Lemma 3.3 it depends on) also holds for higher-dimensional automorphisms satifying the above conditions.

As opposed to the proof of \[2, Thm. 1.2\], our Thm. 4.1 crucially relies on the two dynamical propositions of Section 3, while the remaining ingredient in the proof of the theorem (namely, the splitting of eigenstates into two parts) can be straightforwardly transposed to higher dimension. Therefore, Theorems 4.1 and 1.1 also hold in higher dimension for the class of ergodic automorphisms described above. We do not know if the upper bound $`1/2`$ is sharp in dimension $`d>1`$; in fact, the periods of the quantized automorphisms are then $`>>|\mathrm{log}h|`$ (Z. Rudnick, private communication), which makes the construction of  irrelevant.

Back to the 2-dimensional torus, a natural extension of the above results would concern the perturbations of the linear map $`A`$ of the form $`M=\mathrm{e}^{tX_H}A`$, where $`X_H`$ is the vector field generated by a Hamiltonian $`HC^{\mathrm{}}(𝕋^2)`$. For $`t`$ sufficiently small, this map is still Anosov. The challenge consists in generalizing Propositions 3.1 and 3.2 to those maps, with an appropriate definition of the Ehrenfest time. The trick (3.3) used in the linear case to prove these propositions cannot be used for a nonlinear perturbation, the problem starting from the poor control of Egorov’s property (2.3) for times of order $`T`$.

Finally, one may also try to prove a similar property for chaotic flows, e.g. the geodesic flow on a compact Riemann surface of negative curvature. In such a setting, some interesting results have been recently obtained by R. Schubert, pertaining to the long-time evolution of Lagrangian states, which is a first step towards the proof of Proposition 3.1 in this setting.

Acknowledgements: We have benefitted from insightful discussions with R. Schubert, and Y. Colin de Verdi re, whose remarks also motivated this work. Both authors acknowledge the support of the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (Berkeley) where this work was completed.

## Appendix A Proof of Lemma 4.2

We start by showing that for $`x`$ outside a small disk around $`x_i`$, the state $`\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r(h)}^{AW}|x`$ is asymptotically small (where $`|x`$ is a torus coherent state at the point $`x`$). More precisely, there exists a sequence of radii $`R(h)0`$ such that, for any $`x_i𝒮`$ and any sequence of points $`\{x_h𝕋^2\}`$ satisfying $`x_hD(x_i,R(h))`$, then $`\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r(h)}^{AW}|x_hh^2`$ for sufficiently small $`h`$.

First of all, we recall a couple of estimates on torus coherent states, valid for small enough $`h`$.

* for any $`x𝕋^2`$, $`|x2`$.
* for any $`x,y𝕋^2`$, one has $`|x|y|5\mathrm{exp}\{\pi |xy|^2/2h\}`$, where $`|xy|`$ denotes the torus distance between the points $`x,y`$.

Now, the operator $`\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r(h)}^{AW}`$ is a combination of projectors $`|xx|`$ for points $`x`$ in the disk $`D(x_i,2r(h))`$. Therefore, taking $`R(h)=2r(h)+\sqrt{2h|\mathrm{log}h|}`$ will do the job: any $`x_hD(x_i,R(h))`$ and any $`xD(x_i,2r(h))`$ satisfy $`|xx_h|\sqrt{2h|\mathrm{log}h|}`$, which implies for $`h`$ small enough $`|x|x_h|5\mathrm{exp}(2\pi h|\mathrm{log}h|/2h)h^3`$. One finally gets

$$\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r(h)}^{AW}|x_h_{D(x_i,2r(h))}\frac{dx}{h}|x|x|x_h|2h^2Vol(D(x_i,2r(h)))h^2.$$

We are now in position to estimate the operator product

$$\widehat{f}^{AW}\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r(h)}^{AW}=_{𝕋^2}\frac{dy}{h}|yf(y)y|\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r(h)}^{AW}$$

by separating the integral into two parts. On the one hand, the integral over $`𝕋^2D(x_i,R(h))`$ is bounded above by $`2hf_{\mathrm{}}`$ from the above results. On the other hand, on $`D(x_i,R(h))`$ the function $`f(y)`$ is equal to the function $`f(x_i)+g_h(y)`$, where $`g_h(y)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}(f(y)f(x_i))\vartheta _{i,R(h)}(y)`$. Since $`g_h(y)`$ is uniformly bounded on $`𝕋^2`$, the same arguments as above yield

$$\widehat{f}^{AW}\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r(h)}^{AW}=f(x_i)\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r(h)}^{AW}+\widehat{g}_h^{AW}\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r(h)}^{AW}+𝒪(h).$$

The function $`g_h`$ actually decreases uniformly with $`h`$ due to the smoothness of $`f`$:

$$g_h_{\mathrm{}}\underset{|yx_i|2R(h)}{sup}\left(|f(y)f(x_i)|\right)2df_{\mathrm{}}R(h).$$

This upper bound also applies to the anti-Wick quantization of $`g_h`$, so that
$`\widehat{g}_h^{AW}\widehat{\vartheta }_{i,r(h)}^{AW}2df_{\mathrm{}}R(h)\stackrel{h0}{}0`$. ∎

## Appendix B Proof of Lemma 3.3

We first replace $`𝒮`$ by the finite invariant set it generates, $`𝒮^{}=_nA^n(𝒮)`$. We then want to prove that if $`I_0\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}𝒮^{}+[a,b]𝐞^{stable}`$ with $`0<a<b`$, then $`\nu (I_0)=0`$ if $`\nu `$ is an invariant probability measure. Let $`n_0`$ be an integer such that $`a\mathrm{e}^{\lambda n_0}>b`$. Then, the sets

$$I_j\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}A^{jn_0}(I_0)=𝒮^{}+[a\mathrm{e}^{\lambda jn_0},b\mathrm{e}^{\lambda jn_0}]𝐞^{stable},j$$

are pairwise disjoint. The invariant measure $`\nu `$ will satisfy for any $`J0`$:

$$\nu \left(\underset{j=J}{\overset{J}{}}I_j\right)=\underset{j=J}{\overset{J}{}}\nu (I_j)=(2J+1)\nu (I_0).$$

Since $`\nu (𝕋^2)=1`$, one must therefore have $`\nu (I_0)=0`$. ∎

This lemma can be easily generalized to the case of the higher-dimensional ergodic toral automorphisms satisfying the conditions stated in section 5.3. It can also be extended to any Anosov map $`M`$ on $`𝕋^2`$, the straight segments making up $`I_0`$ being replaced by segments of the stable manifolds of a set of periodic points.