format: text

text:
# Geometric control in the presence of a black box

## 1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to show how ideas coming from scattering theory (resolvent estimates) lead to results in control theory and to some closely related eigenfunction estimates.

The black box approach in scattering theory developed by Sjöstrand and the second author  puts scattering problems with different structures in one framework, and allows abstract applications of spectral results known for confined systems. One striking example is a reduction of scattering on finite volume surfaces to one dimensional black box scattering. In this paper we take the opposite point of view: a black box in a confined system is replaced by a scattering problem. That permits having isolated dynamical phenomena (such as only one closed orbit) impossible in confined systems. It also permits using some finer results of scattering theory directly.

We stress that this follows the well established trend (see Bardos-Lebeau-Rauch ) of using propagation of singularities results developed for scattering theory in geometric control theory. We also mention that the term “black box” is commonly used, in a similar context, in applied control theory .

Since the proofs are simple and since it is profitable to state the results in an abstract setting which requires a certain amount of preparation, in this section we will present some typical applications.

In geometric control theory for the Schrödinger equation (see Lebeau , and also , for earlier work and background) we are concerned with the following mixed problem:

(1.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}(i_t+\mathrm{\Delta })u=0\text{ in }\mathrm{\Omega }\text{ }\\ \begin{array}{cc}& u_{[0,T]\times \mathrm{\Omega }}=g1\mathrm{l}_{[0,T]\times \mathrm{\Gamma }}\hfill \\ & u_{t=0}=u_0.\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an open subset of $`^d`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is its boundary and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an open subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The question is to determine a (large) class of functions $`u_0`$ for which there exists a control $`g`$ such that $`u_{t=T}=0`$. In a geometric setting in which full geometric control fails, the following result was established by the first author in :

###### Theorem 1.

Consider $`\mathrm{\Theta }=_{j=1}^N\mathrm{\Theta }_j^d`$, a union of mutually disjoint closed sets with strictly convex smooth boundaries, and satisfying the assumptions in Sect.6.2 below. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ be a bounded domain with a smooth boundary and containing $`\mathrm{convhull}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. Then for any $`T,\epsilon >0`$ and any $`u_0H_0^{1+\epsilon }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ there exists $`gL^2([0,T]\times \mathrm{\Gamma })`$ such that in (1.3), with we have $`u_{t>T}0`$.

In Fig.1 on the left we have three convex obstacles inside of the boundary of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. Inside of the black box bounded by the dotted line the local geometry is the same as in the scattering problem on the right.

We are going to show how Theorem 1 can be obtained directly from estimates on the resolvent of the Laplace operator, which in turn can be deduced from semi-classical microlocal analysis or from known results in scattering theory. In the case quoted above, these come from the work of Ikawa  and in particular we can now avoid most of the delicate analysis of .

The next application generalizes a result of Colin de Verdière and Parisse  who considered a special case of an isolated trajectory lying on a segment of a constant negative curvature cylinder in dimension two:

###### Theorem 2.

Suppose that $`(X,g)`$ is a compact Riemannian manifold with a (possibly empty) boundary and $`\gamma X`$ is a closed hyperbolic geodesic (we allow broken geodesic flow as long as the reflections are all transversal). If $`\chi 𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(X,[0,1])`$ is supported in a sufficiently small neighbourhood of $`\gamma `$ then there exists a constant $`C=C(\gamma )`$ such that for any eigenfunction, $`u`$, of the Laplacian, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ with Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions, we have

(1.4)
$$C_X|u(x)|^2(1\chi )(x)𝑑\mathrm{vol}_g\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}\lambda }_X|u(x)|^2𝑑\mathrm{vol}_g,\mathrm{\Delta }_gu=\lambda u.$$

An example  of a cylinder segment with Dirichlet boundary conditions shows that the result is optimal.

The proof of Theorem 2 (see also Theorem 2) is based on putting the closed hyperbolic orbit into a microlocal black box, where that orbit becomes the only trapped orbit in a scattering problem. We can then use scattering estimates based on the quantum monodromy method , and the work of Gérard  and Gérard-Sjöstrand  to obtain estimates leading to (1.4).

We conclude with a brief discussion of another example related to eigenvalue scarring (see Theorem 9 below for a full discussion). While in Theorem 2 we eliminated the need for separation of variables, its use is essential in this case. For the Bunimovich cavity shown in Fig.2 the natural black box for constructing bouncing ball modes (two are shown in the same figure) is a rectangle constituting the central part of the cavity – see the recent discussion of this in  and . On one hand, our result shows that the crude error estimate

(1.5)
$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_D\lambda )u_\lambda =𝒪(1),u=1,$$

in the quasimodes obtained by truncating the rectangle modes is in fact the best possible and on the other hand that the eigenfunctions can not acumulate at high frequency only in the central part. This agrees with the experimental results  where it was stressed that phenomena shown in Fig.2 can occur only at low frequencies (see also  for a different discussion and references to the physics literature). For an exact eigenstate we have the following

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`u`$ be a Dirichlet eigenfunction of the Laplacian on the Bunimovich stadium $`M`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u=\lambda u,u_M=0$$

Let $`a(x)`$ be any continuous function identically $`1`$ on the non-rectangular part of $`M`$. Then there exists $`C>0`$ such that

(1.6)
$$C_M|a(x)u(x)|^2𝑑x_M|u(x)|^2𝑑x.$$

Stronger results (implying (1.6)) are presented in Theorems 3 and 9 in Sect.6.3. A self contained proof of Theorem 3 and a discussion of related mathematical and physical literature has been presented in . We stress that only the properties of the rectangular part used as a “black box” are needed for this result.

Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank the National Science Foundation for partial support under the grant DMS-0200732. They are also grateful to Steve Zelditch for informing them of  and  which expanded the breadth of this note, to Luc Miller for helpful comments on the first version of the paper, and to Victor Humphrey and Paul Chinnery for the permission to use their Fig.2. The first author thanks the Mathematical Science Research Institute for its hospitality during spring 2003.

## 2. Preliminaries

In this section we review some basic aspects of semiclassical microlocal analysis, following \[33, Section 3\]. Thus, let $`X`$ be a compact $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ manifold. We consider pseudo-differential operators as acting on half-densities, $`u(x)|dx|^{\frac{1}{2}}𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$, where we use the informal notation indicating how the half-densities change under changes of variables:

$$u(x)|dx|^{\frac{1}{2}}=v(y)|dy|^{\frac{1}{2}},y=\kappa (x)v(\kappa (x))|\kappa ^{}(x)|^{\frac{1}{2}}=u(x),$$

Consequently the symbols will also be considered as half-densities – see \[21, Sect.18.1\] for a general introduction and \[33, Appendix\] for a discussion of the semi-classical case. This way our results are more general and do not depend on the choice of a metric on $`X`$. If $`X`$ is a Riemannian manifold and the operator we consider its Laplace-Bertrami operator then the natural Riemannian density is all we need.

By symbols on $`X`$ we mean the following class:

$$S^{k,m}(T^{}X,\mathrm{\Omega }_{T^{}X}^{\frac{1}{2}})=\{a𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}X\times (0,1];\mathrm{\Omega }_{T^{}X}^{\frac{1}{2}}):|_x^\alpha _\xi ^\beta a(x,\xi ;h)|C_{\alpha ,\beta }h^m\xi ^{k|\beta |}\},$$

and the class corresponding pseudodifferential operators, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{m,k}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$, obtained from a local formula in $`^n`$:

(2.1)
$$\mathrm{Op}_h^w(a)u(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi h)^n}a(\frac{x+y}{2},\xi ,h)e^{ixy,\xi /h}u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi .$$

The principal symbol map,

$$\sigma _h:\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{m,k}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})S^{k,m}/S^{k1,m1}(T^{}X,\mathrm{\Omega }_{T^{}X}^{\frac{1}{2}}),$$

gives the left inverse of $`\mathrm{Op}_h^w`$ in the sense that $`\sigma _h\mathrm{Op}_h^w:S^{m,k}S^{m,k}/S^{m1,k1}`$ is the natural projection. We refer to  for a detailed discussion of the Weyl quantization and to  for a discussion in the case of manifolds.

For $`aS^{m,k}(T^{}X\mathrm{\Omega }_{T^{}X}^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ we follow  in defining

$$\text{ess-supp}_haT^{}XS^{}X,S^{}X\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}(T^{}X0)/_+,$$

where the usual $`_+`$ action is given by multiplication on the fibers: $`(x,\xi )(x,t\xi )`$, as

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \text{ess-supp}_ha=\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\{(x,\xi )T^{}X:ϵ>0_x^\alpha _\xi ^\beta a(x^{},\xi ^{})=𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}}),d(x,x^{})+|\xi \xi ^{}|<ϵ\}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\{(x,\xi )T^{}X0:ϵ>0_x^\alpha _\xi ^\beta a(x^{},\xi ^{})=𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}}\xi ^{}^{\mathrm{}}),\hfill \\ & d(x,x^{})+1/|\xi ^{}|+|\xi /|\xi |\xi ^{}/|\xi ^{}||<ϵ\}/_+\hfill \end{array}.$$

For $`A\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{m,k}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$, then put

$$WF_h(A)=\text{ess-supp}_ha,A=\mathrm{Op}_h^w(a),$$

and this definition does not depend on the choice of $`\mathrm{Op}_h^w`$. For

$$u𝒞^{\mathrm{}}((0,1]_h;𝒟^{}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})),N_0,h^{N_0}u\text{ is bounded in }𝒟^{}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})\text{,}$$

we define the semi-classical wave front set as

$$WF_h(u)=\mathrm{}\{(x,\xi ):A\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{0,0}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})\sigma _h(A)(x,\xi )0,Auh^{\mathrm{}}𝒞^{\mathrm{}}((0,1]_h;𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}}))\}.$$

When $`u`$ is not necessarily smooth we can give a definition analogous to that of $`\text{ess-supp}_ha`$. In this paper we will work in a pure semi-classical setting and consequently only compact subsets of $`T^{}X`$ will be important. Consequently, this definition is sufficient for our purposes.

We also need to review the notion of microlocal equivalence of operators and other objects. Suppose that

$$T:𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}}),$$

and that for any semi-norm $`_1`$ on $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ there exists a semi-norm $`_2`$ and $`M_0`$ such that

$$Tu_1=𝒪(h^{M_0})u_2.$$

This condition makes $`T`$ semi-classically tempered. In the sequel all operators considered will be assumed to satisfy this temperence condition. For open sets, $`VT^{}X`$, $`UT^{}X`$, the operators defined microlocally near $`V\times U`$ are given by equivalence classes of tempered operators given by the relation

$$TT^{}A(TT^{})B=𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}}):𝒟^{}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}}),$$

for any $`A,B\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{0,0}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ such that

(2.4)
$$\begin{array}{c}WF(A)\stackrel{~}{V},WF(B)\stackrel{~}{U},\\ \overline{V}\stackrel{~}{V}T^{}X,\overline{U}\stackrel{~}{U}T^{}X,\stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{V}\text{ open}.\end{array}$$

We say that $`P=Q`$ microlocally near $`U\times V`$ if $`APBAQB=𝒪_{L^2L^2}(h^{\mathrm{}})`$, where because of the assumed pre-compactness of $`U`$ and $`V`$ the $`L^2`$ norms can be replaced by any other norms. For operator identities this will be the meaning of equality of operators in this paper, with $`U,V`$ specified (or clear from the context). Similarly, we say that $`B=T^1`$ microlocally near $`V\times V`$, if $`BT=I`$ microlocally near $`U\times U`$, and $`TB=I`$ microlocally near $`V\times U`$. More generally, we could say that $`P=Q`$ microlocally on $`WT^{}X\times T^{}X`$ (or, say, $`P`$ is microlocally defined there), if for any $`U,V`$, $`U\times VW`$, $`P=Q`$ microlocally in $`U\times V`$. We should stress that “microlocally” is always meant in this semi-classical sense in our paper.

Rather than review the definition of $`h`$-Fourier integral operators we will recall a characterization which is essentially a converse of Egorov’s theorem:

###### Proposition 2.1.

Suppose that $`U=𝒪(1):L^2(X)L^2(X)`$, and that for every $`A\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{0,0}(X)`$ we have

$$AU=UB,B\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{0,0}(X),\sigma (B)=\kappa ^{}\sigma (A),$$

microlocally near $`(m_0,m_0)`$ where $`\kappa :T^{}XT^{}X`$ is a symplectomorphism, defined locally near $`m_0`$, $`\kappa (m_0)=m_0`$. Then $`U`$ is, microlocally, near $`(m_0,m_0)`$, an $`h`$-Fourier integral operator of order zero, quantizing $`\kappa `$, that is associated to the graph of $`\kappa `$.

For the proof and further details we refer the reader to \[33, Lemma 3.4\]. We will use the following well known fact (see \[33, Proposition 3.5\] for the proof):

###### Proposition 2.2.

Suppose that $`P\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{0,k}(X)`$ has a real principal symbol which satisfies the condition

$$p=0dp0.$$

For any $`m_0p^1(0)`$ there exists an $`h`$-Fourier Integral Operator, $`F`$,

$$FP=hD_{x_1}F,\text{microlocally near }((0,0),m_0)$$

$$F^1\text{exists microlocally near }(m_0,(0,0)).$$

## 3. From resolvent estimates to time dependent control

In this section we will present a simple abstract argument showing how semi-classical resolvent estimates give a control result for the semi-classical Schrödinger operator. An adaptation of this argument to the classical control setting will be presented in Sect.5.

###### Theorem 4.

Let $`P(h)`$ be a family of self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space $``$, with a fixed domain $`𝒟`$. Let $`_1`$ be another Hilbert space, and suppose that for a bounded family operators, $`A(h):𝒟_1`$, we have

(3.1)
$$u_{}\frac{G(h)}{h}(P(h)+\tau )u_{}+g(h)A(h)u__1,$$

$`\tau I=(b,a)`$, $`1G(h)=𝒪(h^{N_0})`$, for some $`N_0`$. Fix $`\chi 𝒞_\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{}}((a,b))`$. There exists constants $`c_0`$, and $`C_0`$, such that for any $`T(h)`$ satisfying

(3.2)
$$\frac{G(h)}{T(h)}<c_0$$

we have for $`0<h<h_0(\delta )`$,

(3.3)
$$\chi (P(h))u_{}^2C_0\frac{g(h)^2}{T(h)}_0^{T(h)}A(h)e^{itP(h)/h}\chi (P(h))u__1^2𝑑t.$$

To motivate the abstract presentation we relate the notation of Theorem 4 to a concrete situation. Thus let $`P(h)=h^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the Dirichlet Laplacian on a compact manifold $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, with boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then

$$=L^2(\mathrm{\Omega }),𝒟=H^2(\mathrm{\Omega })H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We then define

$$_1=L^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }),𝒟uA(h)u=h_\nu u_\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,$$

where $`_\nu `$ denotes the inward pointing normal to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The estimate (3.3) is a typical observability estimate equivalent by duality to an exact control statement (see Sect.6.1). An abstract method for obtaining semi-classical estimates (3.1) will be presented in Sect.4.

###### Proof.

Let us put $`v(t)=\mathrm{exp}(itP(h)/h)\chi (P(h))u`$. We introduce a function $`\psi 𝒞_\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{}}(;[0,1])`$, and put

$$w(t)=\psi \left(\frac{t}{T(h)}\right)v(t).$$

Clearly,

$$(ih_tP)w(t)=\frac{ih}{T(h)}\psi ^{}\left(\frac{t}{T(h)}\right)v(t).$$

Because of the compact support we can take the (semi-classical) Fourier transform in $`t`$ which gives

$$(\tau +P)\widehat{w}(\tau )=\frac{ih}{T(h)}_{t\tau }(\psi ^{}(/T(h))v)(\tau ).$$

For $`\tau I`$ we can use (3.1) which gives

$$\widehat{w}(\tau )_{}\frac{G(h)}{T(h)}_{t\tau }(\psi ^{}(/T(h))v)(\tau )_{}+g(h)A(h)\widehat{w}(\tau )__1.$$

Using the generalized Plancherel theorem we obtain

$$_I\widehat{w}(\tau )_{}^2d\tau 2\frac{G(h)^2}{T(h)^2}\psi ^{}(/T(h))v_{L^2(_t;)}^2+2g(h)^2A(h)w_{L^2(_t;_1)}^2.$$

We now want to show that we can integrate over $``$ in place of $`I`$ in the left hand side. That follows from

(3.4)
$$\widehat{w}(\tau )1\mathrm{l}_I(\tau )_{}=𝒪\left(\left(\frac{h}{1+|\tau |}\right)^{\mathrm{}}\right)\chi (P)u_{},$$

which in turn follows from integration by parts in

$$\widehat{w}(\tau )=_{}e^{it(P+\tau )/h}\psi \left(\frac{t}{T}\right)\chi (P)u𝑑t=_{}((P+\tau )^1hD_te^{it(P+\tau )/h})\psi \left(\frac{t}{T}\right)\chi (P)u𝑑t,$$

using

$$\tau I(P+\tau )\chi (P)u_{}\frac{1}{C}\chi (P)u_{}.$$

Thus we obtained

$$w_{L^2(_t;)}^22\frac{G(h)^2}{T(h)^2}\psi ^{}(/T(h))v_{L^2(_t;)}^2+g(h)^2A(h)w_{L^2(_t;_1)}^2+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})\chi (P)u^2,$$

and the first term on the right can be absorbed on the left using (3.2). In fact, since

$$\underset{\varphi 𝒞_\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{}}((0,1))}{sup}\frac{_0^1\varphi (s)^2𝑑s}{_0^1\varphi ^{}(s)^2𝑑s}=\pi ^2,$$

we have from the definition of $`w`$, and for any $`ϵ>0`$,

$$\chi (P)u_{}2(\pi ^2+ϵ)\frac{G(h)^2}{T(h)^2}\chi (P)u_{}+2\frac{g(h)^2}{T(h)}A(h)w_{L^2(_t;_1)}^2+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})\chi (P)u_{}^2.$$

This completes the proof once we take $`h`$ small enough. ∎

## 4. Semiclassical black box resolvent estimates

In this section we will make assumptions under which resolvent estimates can be obtained in the semi-classical setting. For simplicity no boundary will be allowed here.

Let $`X`$ be a compact $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ manifold. Let $`P(h)\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{2,0}(X;\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ be formally self-adjoint on $`L^2(X;\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$. We assume that, if $`p`$ is the principal symbol of $`P(h)`$ then

(4.1)
$$p=0dp0,p\xi ^2/C\text{ for }|\xi |C\text{,}$$

and that for some $`\delta >0`$

(4.2)
$$p^1([\delta ,\delta ])T^{}X.$$

Suppose that $`Q(h)`$ is a family of bounded operators on a Hilbert space $``$. Suppose that there exist bounded operators

$$\begin{array}{cc}& U_1(h):L^2(X;\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})\hfill \\ & U_2(h):L^2(X;\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}}),\hfill \\ & \chi ^{\mathrm{}}(h):,\hfill \end{array}$$

such that, microlocally near $`V`$, an open subset of $`p^1([\delta ,\delta ])`$, we have

(4.3)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& U_2(h)U_1(h)=Id,\hfill \\ & U_1(h)U_2(h)=\chi ^{\mathrm{}}(h),\hfill \\ & U_1(h)P(h)U_2(h)=Q(h)\chi ^{\mathrm{}}(h).\hfill \end{array}$$

In practice, the operators $`U_j(h)`$ are $`h`$-Fourier integral operators (see Proposition 2.1) but we do not need to make this assumption in the abstract presentation. Figure 3 shows our setup schematically in the case relevant for the proof of Theorem 2.

###### Theorem 5.

Let $`P(h)`$ and $`Q(h)`$ satisfy the assumptions above and $`V_0`$ be an open relatively compact subset of $`T^{}X`$. Suppose that $`A\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{0,0}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ is microlocally elliptic in $`V_0`$, and that there exists $`T>0`$ such that

(4.6)
$$\begin{array}{c}\rho p^1(0)V0<t<T,ϵ\{\pm 1\}\\ \mathrm{exp}(ϵsH_p)(\rho )p^1(0)V,0<s<t,\mathrm{exp}(ϵtH_p)(\rho )V_0.\end{array}$$

Suppose also that

(4.7)
$$\chi ^{\mathrm{}}(h)Q(h)^1\frac{G(h)}{h},G(h)1.$$

Then for $`u𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ we have

(4.8)
$$uC\frac{G(h)}{h}f+G(h)Au.$$

We start with the following standard:

###### Lemma 4.1.

Suppose that $`p,A`$, and $`V`$ satisfy (4.6). If $`B\mathrm{\Psi }^{0,0}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ and $`WF(B)T^{}XV`$ then

(4.9)
$$BuCh^1Pu+Au+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u.$$

###### Proof.

In view of the compactness of $`p^1(0)`$ we can replace $`V_0`$ by a precompact neighbourhood of $`V_0p^1(0)`$. The assumption (4.6) then shows that it is enough to prove a local version of the estimate. We can suppose that $`WF(A)U`$ where $`U`$ is a small neighbourhood of $`m_0V_0`$ and

$$WF(B)\underset{0tt_0}{}\mathrm{exp}(ϵtH_p)(U_1)T^{}XV,U_1U.$$

If $`t_0`$ is small enough we can apply Proposition 2.2, as the estimate is clear in the case of $`P=hD_{x_1}`$. In general, we can then split the interval $`[0,t_0]`$ into subintervals in which the $`t_0`$-small argument can be applied. ∎

Proof of Theorem 5. Suppose that $`B_1`$ satisfies

$$WF(B_1)V_1,VV_1,WF(IB_1)T^{}XV.$$

Then if $`V_1`$ is sufficiently close to $`V`$ then using the second part of (4.3) we have

(4.10)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill B_1u& =U_2\chi ^{\mathrm{}}U_1B_1u+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u\hfill \\ & =U_2\chi ^{\mathrm{}}Q^1QU_1B_1u+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u\hfill \end{array}$$

If we now apply (4.7) and then (4.3) again, we obtain

(4.11)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill B_1u& \frac{G(h)}{h}Q\chi ^{\mathrm{}}U_1B_1u_{}+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u\hfill \\ & C\frac{G(h)}{h}(Pu+[P,B_1]u)+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u\hfill \\ & C\frac{G(h)}{h}Pu+G(h)B_2u+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`B_2\mathrm{\Psi }^{0,0}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ satisfies

$$WF(B_2)V_1V,WF((IB_2)[P,B_1])=\mathrm{}.$$

Lemma 4.1 now shows that

$$B_1uC\frac{G(h)}{h}Pu+G(h)Au+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u.$$

We now choose $`B_3\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{0,0}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ such that $`WF(B_3)T^{}XV`$, and $`WF(IB_3)V_1`$. We can apply Lemma 4.1 with $`B=B_3`$ and that gives (4.8) as $`uB_1u+B_3u`$.

In some situations we can obtain improved estimates under a modified assumption on $`Q^1`$. This modification will be crucial in Sect.6 where we will prove (1.4). We present it separately not to obscure the simplicity of Theorem 5:

Theorem 5. Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 5 hold, and that in addition,

(4.12)
$$\chi ^{\mathrm{}}(h)Q^1U_1\varphi (h)\frac{g(h)}{h},$$

where $`\varphi (h)`$ is a microlocal cut-off to a neighbourhood of $`V_1V`$, where $`V_1V`$ is a small neighbourhood of $`V`$. Then we have,

(4.13)
$$uC\frac{G(h)}{h}Pu+g(h)Au.$$

###### Proof.

We revisit the proof of Theorem 5. Instead of moving instantly to (4.11) from (4.10) using (4.8), we apply the identities (4.3), and write

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill B_1u& C\chi ^{\mathrm{}}Q^1Q\chi ^{\mathrm{}}U_1B_1u_{}+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u\hfill \\ & =\chi ^{\mathrm{}}Q^1U_1(B_1Pu+[P,B_1]u)_{}+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u\hfill \\ & \chi ^{\mathrm{}}Q^1U_1B_1Pu_{}+\chi ^{\mathrm{}}Q^1U_1\varphi (h)[P,B_1]u_{}+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u,\hfill \end{array}$$

where we could insert the cut-off $`\varphi (h)`$ due to the microsupport properties of $`B_1`$.

If we apply (4.8) and (4.12) we obtain a local version of (4.13):

$$B_1uC\frac{G(h)}{h}Pu+\frac{g(h)}{h}[P,B_1]u.$$

The proof is then completed as in the case of Theorem 5. ∎

## 5. Estimates in the homogeneous case: classical control

In this section we will adapt the semi-classical arguments of Sect.4 to obtain a classical version of the estimate (4.8). We start by modifying the black box assumptions where we essentially follow , but change the ambient space from $`^n`$ to an arbitrary manifold.

Thus let $`X`$ be compact $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ manifold with a (possibly empty) boundary $`X`$. We consider an elliptic differential operator of order two,

$$P_0\mathrm{Diff}^2(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}}),$$

with a domain $`𝒟_0L^2(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$. The choice of the domain includes the possible boundary conditions.

Let $`YX`$ be an open set. We also consider an auxiliary manifold $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, which coincides with $`X`$ on a neighbourhood, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ of $`Y`$ – see Fig.4 for a visualization.

We then consider complex Hilbert spaces $``$, $`_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ with orthogonal decompositions

$$\begin{array}{cc}& =_YL^2(XY,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})\hfill \\ & _{\mathrm{bb}}=_YL^2(\stackrel{~}{X}Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{X}}^{\frac{1}{2}}).\hfill \end{array}$$

For $``$ the orthogonal projections on the two factors are denoted by $`1\mathrm{l}_Y`$ and $`1\mathrm{l}_{XY}`$ respectively. If $`\chi _j𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(X)`$ satisfy

(5.1)
$$\mathrm{supp}\chi _0\mathrm{}\mathrm{supp}(1\chi _1)\mathrm{supp}\chi _1\stackrel{~}{Y},\mathrm{supp}(1\chi _0)X\stackrel{~}{Y}$$

then multiplication by $`\chi _j`$ is well defined on $``$ and $`_{\mathrm{bb}}`$.

On $`L^2(X)`$ and $`_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ we have unbounded operators, $`P_0`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ respectively with domains

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝒟_0\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}𝒟(P_0)L^2(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})\hfill \\ & 𝒟_{\mathrm{bb}}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}𝒟(P_{\mathrm{bb}})_{\mathrm{bb}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

A self-adjoint operator, $`P:`$, has the domain $`𝒟`$, satisfying the following conditions:

$$1\mathrm{l}_{XY}𝒟=1\mathrm{l}_{XY}𝒟_0,1\mathrm{l}_Y𝒟=1\mathrm{l}_Y𝒟_{\mathrm{bb}},$$

$$(1\chi _1)P=(1\chi _1)P(1\chi _0)=(1\chi _1)P_0(1\chi _0)=(1\chi _1)P_0,$$

$$P\chi _0=\chi _1P\chi _0=\chi _1P_{\mathrm{bb}}\chi _0=P_{\mathrm{bb}}\chi _0,$$

for any functions satisfying (5.1). We use the notation from  and in particular write

$$𝒟^{\mathrm{}}=\underset{k}{}𝒟(P^k),𝒟^N=(𝒟^N)^{}.$$

We also make another standard “black box” assumption:

$$(P+i)^1\text{ is compact on }\text{.}$$

As in previous sections we have two types of results. To obtain the assumptions of an analogue of Theorem 4 we need resolvent estimates based on black box resolvent estimates. That is provided in

###### Theorem 6.

Suppose that $`A:𝒟(A)_1`$, $`A_{\mathrm{bb}}:𝒟(A_{\mathrm{bb}})_1`$, where $`_1`$ is a Hilbert space, $`𝒟(A)𝒟^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`𝒟(A_{\mathrm{bb}})𝒟_{\mathrm{bb}}^{\mathrm{}}`$, satisfy, for $`u𝒟^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`v𝒟_{\mathrm{bb}}^{\mathrm{}}`$,

(5.6)
$$\begin{array}{c}1\mathrm{l}_{XY}u_{}C\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}(P\lambda )u_{}+Au__1+𝒪(\lambda ^{\mathrm{}})u_{},\\ v_{_{\mathrm{bb}}}G(\lambda )\left(\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}(P_{\mathrm{bb}}\lambda )v_{_{\mathrm{bb}}}+A_{\mathrm{bb}}v__1\right),|\lambda |\mathrm{},\\ A\chi _0=\chi _1A\chi _0=\chi _1A_{\mathrm{bb}}\chi _0=A_{\mathrm{bb}}\chi _0,G(\lambda )1,\\ kC_k;A_{bb}\chi _0uC_k(Au__1+u_{𝒟^k})\end{array}$$

for any $`\chi _j`$’s satisfying (5.1). Then

(5.7)
$$u_{}C_1G(\lambda )\left(\lambda ^{1/2}(P\lambda )u_{}+Au__1\right).$$

###### Proof.

We first prove the following estimate:

(5.8)
$$\lambda ^{1/2}[P_0,\chi _0]u_{}C\left(\lambda ^{1/2}(P\lambda )_{}+u1\mathrm{l}_{XY}_{}\right)$$

Indeed, the ellipticity of $`P_0`$ gives

(5.9)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill u_{H^2(\text{supp}(\chi _0))}& C\left(P_0u_{L^2(XY)}+u_{L^2(XY)}\right)\hfill \\ & C\left((P\lambda )u_{L^2(XY)}+\lambda u_{L^2(XY)}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

Using the inequality $`u_{H^1}C\sqrt{u_{H^2}u_{L^2}}`$ we get (5.8).

We now turn to the proof of (5.7). The black box assumptions give

$$(P_{\mathrm{bb}}\lambda )\chi _0u=(P\lambda )\chi _0u=[P_0,\chi _0]u+\chi _0(P\lambda )u$$

Using (5.6) we obtain

$$\chi _0u_{}=\chi _0u_{_{\mathrm{bb}}}G(\lambda )\left(\lambda ^{1/2}(\chi _0(P\lambda )u_{_{\mathrm{bb}}}+[P_0,\chi _0]u_{_{\mathrm{bb}}})+A_{\mathrm{bb}}\chi _0u__1\right)$$

Above, we can replace the norms in $`_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ by norms in $``$ and, using (5.6) and (5.8), this implies

$$\chi _0u_{}CG(\lambda )\left(\lambda ^{1/2}(P\lambda )u_{}+Au__1+𝒪(\lambda ^{\mathrm{}})u_{}+u_{𝒟^k}\right)$$

To conclude the proof we use the first inequality in (5.6) and the fact that

$$u_{𝒟^k}=(P+i)^ku_{}C_k\left(\lambda ^ku_{}+(P\lambda )u_{}\right)$$

###### Remark 1.

In the proof above, the operators $`A`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ could depend on $`\lambda `$ as long as the assumptions are uniform in $`\lambda `$.

The difference between the semi-classical and classical control estimates, (3.3) and (5.13) below, is more serious. In the classical case the low energy contribution does not allow an explicit time dependent constant we have in (3.3) (compare (5.13) and (5.30) below). As investigated recently in  violent behaviour is expected when fast control is a goal.

###### Theorem 7.

Suppose that $`A:𝒟(A)_1`$, where $`_1`$ is a Hilbert space, $`𝒟(A)𝒟^{\mathrm{}}`$, satisfies the following condition: for all $`N`$ there exists $`C_N`$ such that for all $`k`$ and $`u𝒟^{\mathrm{}}`$,

(5.10)
$$A\psi (2^kP)u__1+A(1\psi )(2^kP)u__1C_N\left(Au__1+2^{kN}u_{𝒟^N}\right),$$

$`\psi C_0^{\mathrm{}}((1/2,2))`$.

Suppose also that for all $`\lambda `$ and $`u𝒟^{\mathrm{}}`$ we have

(5.11)
$$u_{}G(\lambda )(P\lambda )u_{}+g(\lambda )Au__1,$$

where $`G`$ and $`g`$ satisfy

(5.12)
$$\lambda ^1G(\lambda )\lambda ^{N_0},C\lambda ^{N_0}g(\lambda )C^{}\lambda ^{N_0},g(\lambda /2)Cg(\lambda )C^{}g(2\lambda ).$$

We also assume the following weak continuity property (see Remark 2 for a discussion) There exist $`N_1`$ and a Hilbert space $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`_1^{\mathrm{}}`$ continuously, and the operator $`Ae^{itP}`$ is continuous from $`𝒟^{N_0}`$ to $`H_{\text{loc}}^{N_1}(_t;^{\mathrm{}})`$.

Then there exist constants $`C_0`$ and $`C_1=C_1(T)`$ such that for any  $`T>C_1lim\; sup_{|\lambda |\mathrm{}}G(\lambda )`$ we have for $`u𝒟^{\mathrm{}}`$,

(5.13)
$$g(P)^1u_{}^2C_1(T)_0^Te^{itP}Au__1^2𝑑t.$$

###### Remark 2.

In the case where the operator $`P`$ is the Laplace operator with Dirichlet boundary conditions, the weak continuity is satisfied in the two following typical situations:

1. If $`A`$ is a pseudodifferential operator supported in the interior of $`X`$, then $`_1=L^2(X)`$ and we can take $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ to be another Sobolev space $`H^s(X)`$.
2. If $`Au=_nu_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`_n`$ is the normal derivative to the boundary. Then we can take $`^{\mathrm{}}=_1=L^2(X)`$ as standard trace regularity results for solutions of Schrödinger equations show that the assumptions hold with $`N_1`$ sufficiently large.

Proof of Theorem 7: We follow closely the proof of Theorem 4 observing first that, with $`\mathrm{\Psi }C_0^{\mathrm{}}(]1/2,2[)`$ equal to $`1`$ close to $`1`$, (5.11) and (5.10) imply

(5.14)
$$g(\lambda )^1\mathrm{\Psi }(P/\lambda )u_{}G(\lambda )g(\lambda )^1\mathrm{\Psi }(P/\lambda )(P\lambda )u_{}+CAu__1+C\lambda ^Nu_{𝒟^N}$$

which in turn implies

(5.15)
$$g(P)^1\mathrm{\Psi }(P/\lambda )u_{}G(\lambda )g(P)^1(P\lambda )u_{}+CAu__1+C\lambda ^Nu_{𝒟^N}.$$

The functional calculus of self adjoint operators gives

$$(1\mathrm{\Psi })(P/\lambda )g(P)^1u_{}\underset{\xi }{sup}\left|\frac{(1\mathrm{\Psi })(\xi /\lambda )}{\xi \lambda }\right|g(P)^1u_{}\frac{C}{1+|\lambda |}g(P)^1u_{},$$

which, using (5.10) again, and (5.12) implies (taking $`N`$ large enough) that for $`|\lambda |`$ large enough,

(5.16)
$$g(P)^1u_{}CG(\lambda )g(P)^1(P\lambda )u_{}+CAu__1.$$

Proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 4 we define $`v(t)=\mathrm{exp}(itP)u`$. We introduce a function $`\psi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(]0,1[)`$, and put

$$w(t)=\psi \left(\frac{t}{T}\right)v(t),$$

so that

$$(i_tP)w(t)=\frac{i}{T}\psi ^{}\left(\frac{t}{T}\right)v(t).$$

Because of the compact support we can take the Fourier transform in $`t`$ which gives

$$(\tau P)\widehat{w}(\tau )=\frac{i}{T}_{t\tau }(\psi ^{}(/T)v)(\tau ).$$

Let $`\varrho `$ be a large constant to be fixed later. For $`\tau \varrho /2`$ we estimate $`\widehat{w}(\tau )`$ using (5.16) which gives

(5.17)
$$g(P)^1\widehat{w}(\tau )_{}C\frac{G(\tau )}{T}g(P)^1_{t\tau }(\psi ^{}(/T)v)(\tau )_{}+CA\widehat{w}(\tau )__1,$$

For $`\tau \varrho /2`$ we simply write, with $`\chi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(]1,1[)`$ equal to $`1`$ on $`[1/2,1/2]`$,

(5.18)
$$\widehat{w}(\tau )=_te^{it(P\tau )}\psi \left(\frac{t}{T}\right)(\chi (P/\varrho )u+(1\chi (P/\varrho ))u)𝑑t$$

The contribution of the first term is bounded (in $``$) by $`(\chi (P/\varrho )u_{}`$ and by integrations by parts with the operator $`\frac{i_t}{P\tau }`$ we can bound the contribution of the second term by

(5.19)
$$C_N\frac{1}{(1+|T|+|\varrho |+P)^N}u_{}$$

From (5.17),(5.18),(5.19) and the bounds on the weight $`g`$, we get

(5.20)
$$\begin{array}{c}g(P)^1\widehat{w}(\tau )_{L^2(_\tau ;)}^2C\left(\frac{sup_{|\tau |\rho /2}G(\tau )}{T}\right)^2g(P)^1_{t\tau }(\psi ^{}(/T)v_{L^2(_\tau ;)}^2\hfill \\ \hfill +C_0^TAe^{itP}u__1^2𝑑t+C1\mathrm{l}_{P\rho }u_{}^2+C\varrho ^{N_0}u_{𝒟^{N_0}}^2\end{array}$$

Remark that

(5.21)
$$g(P)^1\widehat{w}(\tau )_{L^2(_\tau ;)}=T^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{L^2}g(P)^1u_{}$$

and

(5.22)
$$g(P)^1_{t\tau }(\psi ^{}(/T)v_{L^2(_\tau ;)}=T^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{L^2}g(P)^1u_{}$$

Consequently, taking $`\rho `$ large enough the assumption $`T>C_1lim\; sup_{|\lambda |\mathrm{}}G(\lambda )`$ ensures that we can eliminate the first and the last terms in the right hand side and get

(5.23)
$$g(P)^1u_{}C_0^TAe^{itP}u__1^2𝑑t+C1\mathrm{l}_{P\rho }u_{}^2$$

To eliminate the last term we use the compactness-uniqueness argument from  which we now recall. Proceeding by contradiction we obtain a sequence $`(u_n)`$ such that

(5.24)
$$C1\mathrm{l}_{P\rho }u_n_{}^21=g(P)^1u_n_{}^2n_0^TAe^{itP}u_n__1^2𝑑t$$

Define

(5.25)
$$H_T=\{u𝒟^{N_0}:g(P)^1u_{}^2+_0^TAe^{itP}u_n__1^2𝑑t<+\mathrm{}\}$$

with its natural norm (the definition makes sense because of the weak continuity property of $`Ae^{itP}`$). Due to the assumption (5.12) and the weak continuity property of $`Ae^{itP}`$, $`H_T`$ is a Hilbert space which is continuously embedded in $`𝒟^{N_0}`$. The sequence $`(u_n)`$ is bounded in $`H`$ and we can extract a subsequence converging weakly in $`H`$ to a limit $`u`$. Using the compactness of $`(P+i)^1`$, the operator $`1\mathrm{l}_{P\rho }`$ is also compact on $`𝒟^{N_0}`$. By passing to the limit we see that $`u`$ satisfies

(5.26)
$$C1\mathrm{l}_{P\rho }u_{}^21$$

and

(5.27)
$$0=_0^TAe^{itP}u__1^2𝑑t$$

The contradiction comes from the following:

###### Lemma 5.1.

Denote by

(5.28)
$$N=\{uH_T:\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}=_0^TAe^{itP}u__1^2𝑑t\}$$

Then $`N=\{0\}`$.

###### Proof.

We first show that $`N`$ is invariant under the action of the operator $`P`$. Using that $`Pe^{itP}u=i_te^{itP}u`$, the only thing to show is that if $`uN`$ then $`g(P)^1Pu_{}`$ is bounded.

We denote by $`v(t)=e^{itP}u`$ and apply (5.23) with $`T`$ replaced by $`T\epsilon _0`$ to the sequence of functions

(5.29)
$$v_\epsilon =i\frac{v(t+\epsilon )v(t)}{\epsilon }$$

we get for $`0<\epsilon <\epsilon _0`$

(5.30)
$$g(P)^1v_\epsilon _{t=0}_{}C1\mathrm{l}_{P\rho }v_\epsilon _{t=0}_{}^2$$

and using that $`v_\epsilon _{t=0}`$ converges to $`i_tu_{t=0}=Pu_{t=0}`$ in $`𝒟^{N_01}`$, we obtain that the right hand side is bounded as $`\epsilon `$ tends to $`0`$. Consequently, we can extract a subsequence $`v_\epsilon `$ converging in $`H_{T\epsilon _0}`$. The limit is necessarily (due to the weak continuity property) $`Pu`$ which implies that $`PuN`$. To conclude, remark that $`1\mathrm{l}_{P\rho }u_n_{}^2`$ is a norm on $`N`$ equivalent to the natural norm. Consequently $`N`$ is finite dimensional. The space $`N`$ is invariant by the operator $`P`$ which consequently has an eigenvector. But any eigenvector of $`P`$ in $`N`$ satisfies $`Au=0`$ and is equal to $`0`$ due to (5.11). Consequently $`N=\{0\}`$. ∎

## 6. Examples and applications

In this section we present several applications of our method, giving, in particular the proof of Theorems 1, 2 and 3 stated in the introduction.

### 6.1. Geometric control

As in the introduction we consider $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, a smooth domain in $`^d`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and we fix $`T>0`$. For any $`gL^2([0,T]\times \mathrm{\Gamma })`$, we denote by $`u=S(g)`$ the solution of the mixed problem (1.3). The goal is to find conditions on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ so that there exists a large class of functions $`u_0`$ which can be “controlled” by $`g`$, in the sense that

(6.1)
$$u_{t=T}=0.$$

The basic result was obtained by Lebeau  (see also  and ). It involves the natural concepts of the broken geodesic flow and of non-diffractive points (see , and also ):

###### Theorem 8.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ controls $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ geometrically, that is

(6.2)  $`L_0`$ such that every trajectory of length $`L_0`$ meets $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at a non-diffractive point,
where trajectories are with respect to the broken geodesic flow. Then for any $`T>0`$ and any $`u_1H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ there exists $`gL^2([0,T]\times \mathrm{\Gamma })`$ such that $`S(g)_{t>T}0`$.

###### Proof.

We first recall that as an application of Lions’s H.U.M. method  we see that Theorem 8 is equivalent to

(6.3)
$$C>0;u_0_{H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}C_n(e^{it\mathrm{\Delta }_D}u_0)_{[0,T]\times \mathrm{\Gamma }}_{L^2([0,T]\times \mathrm{\Gamma })}$$

This follows from Theorem 7 and the following resolvent estimate:

(6.4)
$$R(z)f_{H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}+\sqrt{|z|}R(z)f_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}C_nR(z)f_{L^2(\mathrm{\Gamma })}+Cf_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })},$$

where $`R(z)=(\mathrm{\Delta }_Dz)^1`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$, the Dirichlet Laplacian on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In fact, we can simply put $`Au=_nu_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`_1=L^2(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. To establish (6.4) we can use the microlocal defect measures arguments as in : we first prove (6.4) for large $`z`$ and argue by contradiction. We obtain sequences $`z_n+\mathrm{}`$ and $`u_n`$ solution of

(6.5)
$$(\mathrm{\Delta }z_n)u_n=f_n,u_n_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{z_n}}_xu_n_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}=1,$$

(6.6)
$$f_n_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}=o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{z_n}}\right)$$

(6.7)
$$_nf_{L^2(\mathrm{\Gamma })}=o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{z_n}}\right)$$

Denote by $`h_n=\sqrt{z_n}^1`$. Then, modulo the extraction of a subsequence (see ), there exists a positive Radon measure (a semi-classical defect measure) on $`T^{}^d`$ such that, if $`\underset{¯}{u_n}`$ is the extension of $`u_n`$ by $`0`$ outside of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, we have

1. For any $`h`$-pseudodifferential operator, $`A`$, on $`^d`$, we have

$$\mu ,\sigma _0(A)=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}(A(x,h_nD_x)\underset{¯}{u_n},\underset{¯}{u_n})_{L^2(^d}$$
2. The measure $`\mu `$ is supported in the semi-classical characteristic variety:

(6.8)
$$\text{supp}(\mu )T^{}^d\{(x,\xi );x\overline{M},|\xi |^2=1$$

Furthermore (see ), using (6.6) we obtain that this measure is invariant along the generalized bicharacteristic flow. In the interior, this property is straightforward, whereas, near the boundary, it is more involved. In particular, we can show that the measure of the hyperbolic set (corresponding to transversal reflections) is equal to $`0`$. This allows a definition of a bicharacteristic flow on the set (6.8), $`\mu `$ almost everywhere. Due to (6.7) the measure is equal to $`0`$ near any non diffractive point in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (see ); which, by (6.2) implies that the measure is identically null. Finaly the contradiction arises from the fact that according to (6.5) the measure has total mass $`1`$.

The proof of (6.4) for $`z1`$ is straightforward using elliptic estimates and for $`1zC`$, (6.4) is obtained by a contradiction argument (and compactness) and the classical uniqueness theorem for second order elliptic operators (for this point we simply use that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$). ∎

### 6.2. Ikawa’s black box

In the proof of Lebeau’s theorem we did not use any “black-box” technology. As illustrated by Fig.1 we can employ it in

Proof of Theorem 1: As in the proof of Theorem 8 we use H.U.M. method and Theorem 7 to reduce the argument to the following estimate:

$$R(z)f_{H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}+\sqrt{|z|}R(z)f_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}C\mathrm{log}(|z|)\left(_nR(z)f_{L^2(\mathrm{\Gamma })}+f_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right),$$

for $`Imz0`$. This follows from Theorem 6 and the following consequence of the work of Ikawa \[23, Theorem 2.1\]. Suppose that $`R_{\mathrm{bb}}(k)`$ is the outgoing<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The outgoing resolvent is the meromorphic continuation of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }k^2)^1`$ from $`Imk>0`$. resolvent for the Dirichlet problem in the exterior of the union of convex obstacles satisfying

* $`(\mathrm{convhull}\mathrm{\Theta }_j\mathrm{\Theta }_k)\mathrm{\Theta }_l=\mathrm{},jlk.`$
* 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 $`N=2`$).

Then there exist $`\alpha >0`$, $`C_0`$, and $`N_0`$ such that for $`Imk>\alpha `$ we have

$$\chi R_{\mathrm{bb}}(k)\chi _{L^2L^2}C_0k^{N_0},\chi 𝒞_c^{\mathrm{}}(^n).$$

An application of the maximum principle as in \[35, Lemma 2\] and \[8, Lemma 4.10\] (see also Lemma A.2 below) gives a bound

(6.9)
$$\chi R_{\mathrm{bb}}(k)\chi _{L^2L^2}C_1\frac{\mathrm{log}k}{k},$$

and that gives the “black-box” assumption (5.6) with $`G(\lambda )=\mathrm{log}\lambda `$ and $`A_{\mathrm{bb}}0`$.

### 6.3. Bunimovich stadium with the flat part as the black box

Our next control theoretical application is a new result about high frequency scarring in the case of the Bunimovich stadium<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2which is perhaps the most celebrated example of a convex chaotic billiard. The same argument applies also in recent examples related to quantum unique ergodicity , where the flat part “black box” needs to be replaced by a flat torus. The result which we use in the black box (see Proposition 6.1 below) applies to that case as well.

Theorem 3. Consider $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the Bunimovich stadium associated to a rectangle $`R`$, and $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ which controls a neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ geometrically. For any solution of the equation $`(\mathrm{\Delta }z)v=f`$, $`u_\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ we then have

(6.10)
$$v_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}C\left(f_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}+1\mathrm{l}_\omega v_{L^2(\omega )}\right)$$

We immediately deduce the following as a consequence of Theorem 7:

###### Theorem 9.

Consider $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the Bunimovich stadium associated to a rectangle $`R`$, and $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ which controls $`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ geometrically. Then there exist $`T>0`$ and $`C>0`$ such that

(6.11)
$$u_0_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}^2C_0^T1\mathrm{l}_\omega e^{it\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}^2$$

In fact, by using a temporal black box, we could prove Theorem 9 for any $`T>0`$.

We are going to deduce Theorem 9 from the following result  which is related to some earlier control results of Haraux  and Jaffard

###### Proposition 6.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the Dirichlet Laplace operator on the rectangle $`R=[0,1]_x\times [0,a]_y`$. Then for any open non-empty $`\omega R`$ of the form $`\omega =\omega _x\times [0,a]_y`$ , there exists $`C`$ such that for any solutions of

(6.12)
$$(\mathrm{\Delta }z)u=f\text{ on }R,u_R=0,z,$$

we have

(6.13)
$$u_{L^2(R)}^2C(f_{H^1([0,1]_x;L^2([0,a]_y))}^2+u_\omega _{L^2(\omega )}^2)$$

###### Proof.

We decompose $`u,f`$ in terms of the basis of $`L^2([0,a])`$ formed by the Dirichlet eigenfunctions $`e_k(y)=\sqrt{2/a}\mathrm{sin}(2k\pi y/a)`$,

(6.14)
$$u(x,y)=\underset{k}{}e_k(y)u_k(x),f(x,y)=\underset{k}{}e_k(y)f_k(x)$$

we get for $`u_k,f_k`$ the equation

(6.15)
$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_x\left(z+\left(2k\pi /a\right)^2\right)\right)u_k=f_k,u_k(0)=u_k(1)=0$$

Since $`\omega _x`$ controls geometrically $`[0,1]`$, a slight variant of (6.4) (or, in this simple case, a direct calculation) gives

(6.16)
$$u_k_{L^2([0,1]_x)}^2C(f_k_{H^1([0,1]_x)}^2+u_k_{\omega _x}_{L^2(\omega )}^2)$$

summing the squares on $`k`$ we get (6.13).<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3We remark that as noted in  the proof applies to any product manifold $`M=M_x\times M_y`$, and consequently Theorem 3’ holds also for that geometry as a black box.

Proof of Theorem 3$`^{}`$. Let us take $`x,y`$ as the coordinates on the stadium, so that $`x`$ is the longitudinal direction, $`y`$ the transversal direction, and the internal rectangle is $`[0,1]_x\times [0,a]_y`$. Let us then consider $`u,f`$ satisfying $`(\mathrm{\Delta }z)u=f`$, $`u=0`$ on the boundary of the stadium, and $`\chi (x)C_0^{\mathrm{}}(0,1)`$ equal to $`1`$ on $`[\epsilon ,1\epsilon ]`$. Then $`\chi (x)u(x,y)`$ is solution of

(6.17)
$$(\mathrm{\Delta }z)\chi u=\chi f+[\mathrm{\Delta },\chi ]u\text{ in }R$$

with Dirichlet boundary conditions on $`R`$. Applying Proposition 6.1, we get

(6.18)
$$\chi u_{L^2(R)}C(\chi f_{H_x^1;L_y^2}+u_{\omega _\epsilon }_{L^2(\omega _\epsilon )})$$

where $`\omega _\epsilon `$ is a neighbourhood of the support of $`\chi `$. Consequently we get for $`V`$ a neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$,

(6.19)
$$u_{L^2(R)}C(f_{L^2(R)}+u_V_{L^2(V)})$$

Finally, by standard propagation of semi-classical singularities as in Sect.6.1, we can replace in (6.19) $`V`$ by $`\omega `$.

### 6.4. Semi-classical control with a prescribed loss.

For completeness we present a natural class of examples in which $`G(h)`$ in Theorems 4 and 5 can essentially be a power of $`h`$:

$$G(h)=h^\alpha \mathrm{log}(1/h),\alpha =\frac{m1}{m+1},m=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$

For that consider the following set of Schrödinger operators on $`^2`$:

$$P_m(h)=h^2\mathrm{\Delta }+x_1^2x_2^{2m},m.$$

The Helffer-Sjöstrand theory of resonances  applies to this case (see also \[30, Sect.1\] where a discussion of a general polynomial is given). In particular, for the meromorphically continued resolvent, $`R_m(z,h)=(P_m(h)z)^1`$, we have the following bound for the cut-off resolvent:

(6.20)
$$\chi R_m(z,h)\chi Ch^{\frac{2m}{m+1}}\mathrm{log}(1/h).$$

In fact, a separation of variables argument and the rescaling $`x=h^{\frac{1}{m+1}}y`$ show that the resonances are at the distance $`h^{\frac{2m}{m+1}}`$ from the real axis. The same method shows that the resolvent is polynomially bounded in $`h^1`$ and hence the interpolation argument we used before gives (6.20).

\>From $`P_m(h)`$ we can construct a “black box” for an operator $`P(h)`$ to which Theorems 4 and 5 will be applicable with $`G(h)=h^{\frac{m1}{m+1}}\mathrm{log}(1/h)`$.

### 6.5. Closed hyperbolic orbits on manifolds.

We will now discuss the case occuring when the black box contains a hyperbolic orbit in more detail, leading to the proof of Theorem 2.

Thus suppose that the hypotheses of that theorem are satisfied. It is well known that we can find a coordinate system in a neighbourhood of $`\gamma `$, $`U𝕊^1\times V`$, $`V`$ a neighbourhood of $`0`$ in $`^{n1}`$, in which $`\gamma `$ is identified with $`𝕊^1`$ and the metric is given by

$$g=d\theta ^2+\underset{1i,jn1}{}h_{ij}(x,\theta )dx_idx_j,\theta 𝕊^1,xV.$$

Since $`\gamma `$ is hyperbolic we can assume that $`𝕊^1`$ is the only closed geodesic in $`U`$.

\>From this local construction we now build a global scattering problem by extending $`g`$ to a metric, $`g_{\mathrm{bb}}`$, defined on $`𝕊^1\times ^{n1}𝕊_\theta ^1\times 𝕊_\omega ^{n1}\times [0,\mathrm{})`$. We choose $`g`$ to be asymptotically Euclidean:

$$g_{\mathrm{bb}}dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2g_{𝕊^{n1}}(d\omega ),r\mathrm{},$$

and so that $`\gamma `$ is the only closed geodesic of $`g_{\mathrm{bb}}`$.

Because of the work of Ikawa , Gérard , and of Gérard-Sjöstrand , it is expected that the resolvent of the Laplacian of $`g_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ can be controlled using (6.9), as in Subsection 6.2. Since the two metrics agree in a neighbourhood of the closed geodecics, we can use the scattering problem as our “black box” and apply Theorem 5 with $`A=(1\chi )`$. That would give Theorem 2 with $`(\mathrm{log}\lambda )^2`$ in place of $`\mathrm{log}\lambda `$. To get the improved (and, thanks to an example in , optimal) statement we need an improved estimate for the resolvent so that Theorem 5 can be applied:

$$\chi R_{\mathrm{bb}}(k)\varphi _{L^2L^2}C_1\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}k}}{k},\varphi 𝒞_\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{supp}\varphi \gamma =\mathrm{}.$$

Since the needed results from scattering theory, although expected, are not yet available<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4In  only convex obstacles in the Euclidean case are studied, while in  an analyticity assumption is made. we take a simplified route and use a complex absorbing potential to construct a black box operator $`Q`$ in Theorem 5<sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5We remark however that the results of  and  would have been sufficient for the case of hyperbolic geodesics on constant negative curvature segments, if one takes the black box approach.. That is done in the Appendix with Theorem A furnishing us with the needed estimates. Since we can use a neighbourhood of the hyperbolic orbit of any Hamiltonian in phase space, we obtain a more general, fully semi-classical variant of Theorem 2:

Theorem 2.Suppose that $`X`$ is a compact $`n`$-manifold or $`^n`$, and $`P(h)\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{m,0}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ has the principal symbol, $`p`$, satisfying:

$$p^1([ϵ,ϵ])T^{}X,\text{ for some }ϵ>0\text{,}$$

$$p(\rho )=0dp(\rho )0,$$

$$C>0\xi Cp\xi ^m/C,$$

Let $`\gamma p^1(0)`$ be closed hyperbolic orbit of the Hamilton flow of $`p`$, in the sense that all eigenvalues of the linearized Poincaré map are real and different from one.

There exist constants $`C_0`$ and $`h_0`$, such that if $`u(h)L^2(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$ satisfies

$$P(h)u=f.$$

then for any $`A(h)\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{0,0}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{\frac{1}{2}})`$, with its essential support, $`WF(A)`$, contained in a small neighbourhood of $`\gamma `$, we have

$$C_0\left(h^2(\mathrm{log}(1/h))^2_X|f|^2+\mathrm{log}(1/h)_X|(IA(h))u|^2\right)_X|u|^2,h<h_0.$$

## Appendix

In this appendix we will construct an operator $`Q`$ appearing in Theorem 5 for a black box containing a hyperbolic orbit on a Riemannian manifold. Ideally, we would like $`Q`$ to be the complex scaled Laplacian, $`h^2\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta z`$ on an asymptotically Euclidean manifold having one closed hyperbolic geodesic as its trapped set. The results of , indicate that precise estimates of the type needed, and in fact, the full understanding of resonances in logarithmic neighbourhoods of the real axis, should be possible. Since we are dealing with the $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ case we will indicate here how the arguments of  apply to this case.

Let $`(X,g)`$ be a scattering manifold satisfying the assumptions of . In our application that means that near infinity $`X(0,ϵ]_x\times 𝕊_\omega ^{n2}\times 𝕊_\theta ^1`$, and the metric is $`g=dx^2/x^4+g_{𝕊^{n2}}/x^2+d\theta ^2/x^2`$, with infinity corresponding to $`x=0`$. We assume that $`\gamma X`$ is the only closed geodesic on $`X`$ and that it is hyperbolic.

Let $`a𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(X,[0,1])`$ be equal to $`0`$ in a neighbourhood of $`\gamma `$ and to $`1`$, in a neighbourhood of infinity. We then put

(A.1)
$$Q=Q(z)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}h^2\mathrm{\Delta }_gziha,z[1,2]+i[ϵ,ϵ].$$

The following result will allow applications of Theorem 5:

Theorem A. If $`Q(z)`$ is given by (A.1) and $`zI(0,\mathrm{})`$, then for $`h<h_0`$, we have

(A.2)
$$Q(z)^1_{L^2(X)L^2(X)}C\frac{\mathrm{log}(1/h)}{h}.$$

If $`\varphi 𝒞_\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{}}(X)`$ is supported away from $`\gamma `$ then we also have

(A.3)
$$Q(z)^1\varphi _{L^2(X)L^2(X)}C\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}(1/h)}}{h}.$$

To prove this theorem we will use the strategy of the proof of Theorem 5 which means that it will be reduced to a local estimate near $`\gamma `$. We start with the well known version of Egorov’s theorem. To state it we introduce an operator $`P\mathrm{\Psi }^{m,0}(X)`$ such that

$$P=p^w(x,hD_x;h)+iha(x),p(x,\xi ;h)S^{m,0}(T^{}X;),a𝒞_\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{}}(T^{};).$$

We assume that the principal symbol of $`p`$ satisfies $`p(x,\xi )\xi ^m/C`$ for $`|\xi |`$ large enough. Then $`\mathrm{exp}(itP/h)`$ is well defined and bounded on $`L^2(X)`$ either by the Hille-Yosida theorem or by a direct argument.

###### Lemma A.1.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}T^{}X`$, $`pS^{m,0}(T^{}X)`$ is real, and $`dp_{p^1(0)}0`$ in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. Suppose also that $`U\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and that $`\mathrm{exp}(tH_p)U\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for $`0<t<T`$. If $`p`$ is the principal symbol of $`P\mathrm{\Psi }^{m,0}`$ and $`WF(A)`$ is contained in $`U`$, $`A\mathrm{\Psi }^{0,0}(T^{}X)`$, $`\sigma _{m,0}(A)=a`$ then

(A.6)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}(itP/h)A\mathrm{exp}(itP/h)=\mathrm{Op}_h^w((\mathrm{exp}(tH_p))^{}a)+E(t),\\ E(t)_{L^2L^2}C_1m(A)e^{C_2t}h,0<t<T,\end{array}$$

where $`m(A)`$ depends on a finite number of seminorms of the full symbol of $`A`$, and $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ depend only on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`p`$.

Outline of the proof. Using Proposition 2.2 the result is obvious for $`U`$ small enough and $`t`$ such that $`_{0st}\mathrm{exp}(sH_p)U`$ is contained in a sufficiently small neighbourhood of U. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is precompact, the size of $`U`$ and $`t`$ can be fixed uniformly in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Assuming (as by a partitition of unity we may) that the $`U`$ in the lemma is this small, we can divide the interval $`[0,T]`$ into subintervals of desired smallness. The errors estimates, that is estimates on $`E(t)`$ in (A.6), are multiplicative when switching from one interval to another and that gives the exponential upper bound in $`t`$.

We can now show that we have control away from a small neighbourhood of $`\gamma `$. See Fig.6 for an illustration of the hypotheses of the following

###### Proposition A.1.

Suppose that $`ϵ`$ is small, and let $`\psi _ϵS_ϵ^0(T^{}X^{})𝒞_\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}X^{})`$ be a microlocal cut-off to an $`h^ϵ`$-neighbourhood of $`\pi ^1\gamma \{1/2g(x,\xi )3\}`$, where $`g`$ is the metric. Then, with $`Q(z)`$ as in (A.1), we have

(A.7)
$$Q(z)u=(1\psi _ϵ)f(1\psi _ϵ)uC\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}(1/h)}{h}\right)f+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u.$$

If $`ϵ=0`$ then we have an improved estimate:

(A.8)
$$Q(z)u=(1\psi _0)f(1\psi _0)uC\frac{1}{h}f+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u.$$

###### Proof.

We will first prove (A.8) and then show how it implies (A.7) using Lemma A.1. To see (A.8) we choose $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ so that $`(1\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0)(1\psi _0)=(1\psi _0)`$ and write

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill h_Xa|u|^2& =Im_XQ(z)u\overline{u}=_X(1\psi _0)f\overline{u}\hfill \\ & (1\psi _0)f\left((1\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0)u+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

where we use the same symbols to denote the operator Weyl quantizing the corresponding functions. Lemma 4.1 can be applied to $`Q(z)`$ since both the imaginary term $`ia(x)h`$ and $`z`$ are lower order terms, and we can choose $`Au\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}a(x)u`$. Hence

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill h_Xa|u|^2& C(1\psi _0)f\left(\frac{1}{h}(1\psi _0)f+au+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u\right)\hfill \\ & 2\frac{C}{\epsilon }h^1(1\psi _0)f^2+C\epsilon hau^2+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u,\hfill \end{array}$$

which proves (A.8).

We now move to (A.7). Let $`\phi _ϵ`$ be a new microlocal cut-off function localized to a annular neighbourhood, $`h^ϵ<d(,\gamma )<h^{ϵ/2}`$. Splitting it into incoming and outgoing parts with respect to the flow, we can, by forward and retarded propagation respectively, move it by $`\mathrm{exp}(itQ(h)/h)`$, $`|t|ϵ\mathrm{log}(1/h)`$ into a fixed size set, a finite distance from $`\gamma `$ and away from the support of $`a`$. The last condition guarantees that the propagator is microlocally unitary. We can then apply (A.8). We can continue by a dyadic decomposition argument, with the number of terms proportional to $`\mathrm{log}(1/h)`$. ∎

With the help of the above result we have essentially reduced the proof of Theorem A to the proof of the following

###### Proposition A.2.

With the notation of Proposition A.1 there exist $`c_0`$, $`h_0`$, and $`N_0`$ such that we have

(A.9)
$$Q(z)u=\psi _ϵf\psi _ϵuCh^{N_0}f+𝒪(h^{\mathrm{}})u$$

if $`z[1,2]+i(c_0h,+\mathrm{})`$ and $`h<h_0`$.

Outline of the proof. Using \[33, Proposition 5.1\] we can reduce the proof of (A.9) to an estimate for an operator involving the quantum monodromy operator, $`M(z)`$ (see \[33, Sect.4\], and, for a brief introduction, \[22, Sect.2, Appendix\]):

(A.10)
$$\psi _ϵ^{\mathrm{}}(IM(z))^1\psi _ϵ^{\mathrm{}}_{L^2(^{n1})L^2(^{n1})}=𝒪(h^{N_0+1}),z[1,2]+i(c_0h,c_0h),$$

where $`\psi _ϵ^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a microlocal cut-off to an $`h^ϵ`$-neighbourhood of $`(0,0)T^{}^{n1}`$, induced by $`\psi _ϵ`$ after the identification with the Poincaré section (see Fig.6), and the inverse of $`IM(z)`$ exists on a Hilbert space $`H_h^pL^2`$, and such that

$$\psi _ϵ^{\mathrm{}}=𝒪(h^{N(p)}):L^2H_h^p,\psi _ϵ^{\mathrm{}}=𝒪(h^{N(p)}):H_h^pL^2.$$

The operator $`M(z)`$ is of the same form as the operator $`e^{iz\mathrm{}(\gamma )/h}M_1`$, $`\mathrm{}(\gamma )`$ the length of $`\gamma `$, of \[15, Théorème 2.6\]. We need a translation from the large parameter setting of  to the semiclassical setting: $`\lambda =z/h`$, $`h=1/\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _1=Re\lambda `$. The spaces $`H_h^p`$ are defined in \[15, §3.1, §4.2\] and the estimates for the Grushin problem for $`IM(z)`$ are obtained in \[15, Théorème 4.11\] (the variable $`z`$ appearing there is $`\mathrm{exp}(iz\mathrm{}(\gamma )/h)`$ in our notation). Since in (A.10) we only need the invertibility of the resulting effective Hamiltonian for $`z[1,2]+i(c_0h,c_0h)`$, Gérard’s analysis gives that and much more.

To prove Theorem A we need the following lemma which, for possible future use, we state in a slightly excessive generality:

###### Lemma A.2.

Suppose that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are bounded self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space $``$,

$$A^2=A,BA=AB=A,$$

and $`F(z)`$ is a family of bounded operators satisfying

(A.14)
$$\begin{array}{c}F(z)^{}=F(\overline{z}),_zF_{}cId,c>0,\\ \text{ }BF(z)^1B\text{ is holomorphic in }[ϵ,ϵ]+i[\delta ,\delta ]\text{}\frac{\delta }{ϵ}1/\mathrm{log}M,\\ BF(z)^1BM,AF(z)^1A1.\end{array}$$

Then for $`|z|<ϵ/2`$, $`Imz=0`$ we have

(A.15)
$$BF(z)^1BC\frac{\mathrm{log}M}{\delta },BF(z)^1AC\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{log}M}{\delta }}.$$

###### Proof.

The first part of (A.15) works exactly as in \[35, Lemma 2\] and \[8, Lemma 4.2\]. To see the improved version we start by observing that the conditions on $`F`$ and $`A`$ imply that for $`Imz>0`$, small,

$$Imzu^2CImF(z)u,u.$$

If now $`F(z)u=Af`$, then by the assumptions on $`F`$, $`AuAf`$, and consequently,

$$Bu^2Cu^2\frac{1}{Imz}Af,Au\frac{1}{Imz}Af^2,$$

Here we used the facts that $`A^2=A=A^{}`$. Since $`u=F(z)^1Af`$, this, and the fact that $`BA=A`$, give

$$\begin{array}{cc}& BF(z)^1A\frac{C}{\sqrt{Imz}},Imz>0\hfill \\ & BF(z)^1ACBF(z)^1BCM,\hfill \end{array}$$

Interpolating as before gives (A.15). ∎

Proof of Theorem A. We first combine Propositions A.1 and A.2 to estimate $`(1\psi _\epsilon )Q^1(1\psi _\epsilon )`$ and $`\psi _\epsilon Q^1\psi _\epsilon `$ by $`h^N`$. Then, since

$$Q(1\psi _\epsilon )Q^1\psi _\epsilon f=[Q,\psi _\epsilon ]Q^1\psi _\epsilon f+(1\psi _\epsilon )\psi _\epsilon f$$

by using these estimates (for a different function $`\psi `$) we get an estimate of the same type for $`(1\psi _\epsilon )Q^1\psi _\epsilon `$ and consequently for $`Q^1`$. Finally we combine this latter estimate and (A.8) with Lemma A.2 applied to the family of operators $`wF(w)=(i/h)Q(z_0+hw)`$ and $`A=1\mathrm{l}_{\mathrm{supp}\varphi }`$, $`B=1`$. We can take $`\delta `$ independent of $`h`$ and $`ϵ=1/(Ch)`$ so that the assumption $`\delta /ϵ1/\mathrm{log}(1/h^N)`$ is easily satisfied.