text:
# Ultrafast deterministic generation of entanglement in a time-dependent asymmetric two-qubit-cavity system

## Abstract

We present an efficient scheme for the controlled generation of pure two-qubit states possessing any desired degree of entanglement and a prescribed symmetry in two cavity QED based systems, namely, cold trapped ions and flying atoms. This is achieved via on-resonance ion/atom-cavity couplings which are time-dependent and asymmetric, leading to a trapping vacuum state condition which does not arise for identical couplings. A duality in the role of the coupling ratio yields states with a given concurrence but opposing symmetries. The experimental feasibility of the proposed scheme is also discussed.

Entanglement is one of the most subtle but striking quantum phenomena. In the quantum information processing (QIP) field, it is considered as a physical resource which can be quantified and manipulated. The power of this quantum resource has been demonstrated in various applications such as state teleportation, quantum cryptography and quantum dense coding rwnature02 . A crucial ingredient for any QIP protocol is the controlled and accurate generation of entangled multi-qubit states. A fast and deterministic generation process is highly desirable in order to minimize decoherence effects.

Strongly coupled ion/atom-photon systems are prime candidates for QIP rwnature02 . Many schemes have been proposed for entangling atomic qubits using cavity QED, with some even being implemented experimentally plenio99 ; guan-guo00 ; osnaghi01 . Zheng $`et`$ $`al.`$ proposed entanglement via a virtually excited cavity mode guan-guo00  which was later experimentally realized osnaghi01 . Specifically, two atoms crossing a non-resonant cavity are entangled by coherent energy exchange. However, resonant cavity QED is likely to offer faster entanglement schemes. Plenio $`et`$ $`al.`$ considered singlet-state generation through continuous observation of the cavity field in resonance with two two-level atoms plenio99 . The resulting entanglement generation is, however, comparatively slow and probabilistic, requiring efficient active measurements. Most theoretical studies on cavity-assisted entanglement assume identical qubit-cavity couplings. Nevertheless, it is known that spatial and/or temporal variations of the ion/atom-field coupling arise experimentally walther01 ; eschner01 ; duan03 . Zhou $`et`$ $`al.`$ recently considered entanglement within a non-symmetric two-atom system coupled to a thermal cavity state q-guo03 , and found that the entanglement is maximum for a particular static asymmetry in the coupling. However the full consequences of having dynamical qubit-cavity couplings, are unknown. Indeed, most existing proposals are aimed at the generation of maximally entangled two-qubit states without explicit reference to the resulting state’s symmetry. This motivates us to explore systems in which the interplay between entanglement and state symmetry can be studied directly, with a view to extracting these states for QIP and to gain insight into physical mechanisms for entangling large numbers of quantum subsystems.

Here we propose a scheme to generate and control two-qubit entangled states possessing a definite symmetry which can be chosen a priori. Our results are obtained using a generalized Dicke model with time-dependent qubit-cavity couplings, thereby mimicking actual experimental conditions walther01 ; eschner01 ; duan03 . The resulting diversity of coupling profiles and timescales, offers a natural mechanism for manipulating the collective qubit dynamics and hence controlling the entanglement. We show that it is the geometric mean of the individual couplings which dominates the entanglement’s dynamical evolution. Exploiting a particular trapping vacuum condition weidinger99  in which the cavity-qubit state becomes separable but the two-qubit state remains entangled, we show how full control of the quantum correlations can be achieved. We then demonstrate the deterministic generation of a pure two-qubit state with any degree of entanglement and a prescribed symmetry. Our scheme has the following advantages: (i) since it is resonance-based, the entanglement generation requires a significatively shorter operation time than both the ion/atomic dipole decay time and the radiation decay time; (ii) the resulting generation of pure states with an arbitrary degree of entanglement, is deterministic and does not require final state projection – hence it is accurate; (iii) since the system is non-symmetric with respect to qubit exchange, the final-state symmetry can be controlled by choosing which qubit should initially be in its excited state. This final-state symmetry can therefore be used to encode any quantum information present in the initial atomic state.

We investigate the dynamical evolution of the concurrence $`C(\rho _{a,a})`$ which measures the degree of two-qubit entanglement wooters98 , and the two-qubit correlation function $`\sigma _2^+\sigma _1^{}`$ which measures the degree of qubit exchange symmetry. For a singlet state $`\sigma _2^+\sigma _1^{}=1/2`$, while for a maximally-entangled triplet state $`\sigma _2^+\sigma _1^{}=1/2`$. Hence negative values for $`\sigma _2^+\sigma _1^{}`$ are associated with an anti-symmetric-like behavior while positive values are related to a symmetric-like behavior. Furthermore, we also investigate the qubit-field correlations $`\sigma _i^+a`$ and find relations between these quantum correlations and the qubit-field entanglement.

We consider two possible scenarios: (i) cold trapped ions inside a high-finesse cavity where the Lamb-Dicke localization limit is assumed semiao02  and (ii) flying two-level atoms crossing a cavity hennrich00 . In both cases, given that the atomic transitions are on resonance with the single-mode cavity field, the Hamiltonian in the interaction picture and rotating-wave approximation becomes ($`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$`H_I={\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}f_i(t_i,t,\tau _i)\{a^{}\sigma _i^{}+\sigma _i^+a\}`$ (1)
where $`\sigma _i^+=|e_ig_i|`$, $`\sigma _i^{}=|g_ie_i|`$ with $`|e_i`$ and $`|g_i`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ being the excited and ground states of the $`i`$’th qubit. Here $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$ are respectively the creation and annihilation operators for the cavity photons. The time-dependent coupling of the cavity field with the $`i`$’th qubit, which is injected at $`t_i`$ and interacts during a time $`\tau _i`$, is given by a time-window function,

$`f_i(t_i,t,\tau _i)=[\mathrm{\Theta }(t\tau _i)\mathrm{\Theta }(t\tau _it_i)]\gamma _i(t)`$ (2)
where $`\gamma _i(t)`$ is the time-dependent qubit-field coupling strength. We focus here on the situation in which the qubits interact simultaneously with the cavity mode such that $`t_1=t_2=0`$ and $`\tau _1=\tau _2=\tau `$.

In the case of identical time-dependent couplings $`f_1(t_1,t,\tau _1)=f_2(t_2,t,\tau _2)=f(0,t,\tau )`$, the Hamiltonian is symmetric with respect to qubit exchange and hence commutes with the pseudo-spin operator $`J^2=J_x^2+J_y^2+J_z^2`$ where $`J_{x,y,z}`$ are the usual angular momentum operators. The dynamical evolution of the state does not mix different $`J`$sectors. $`H_I`$ commutes with itself at different times as well as with the operator $`V=_{i=1,2}\{a^{}\sigma _i^{}+\sigma _i^+a\}`$. The combined qubit-field system follows a unitary time evolution generated by the operator $`U=exp(i\varphi (t)V)`$, where $`\varphi (t)=_0^t\gamma (t^{})𝑑t^{}`$ represents the net effect of the time-dependence in the qubit-field interaction. For different but time-independent couplings, i.e. $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$, the Hamiltonian has two important properties. First, it no longer commutes with $`J^2`$ and second, it is non-symmetric with respect to qubit-exchange. We will show how these features can be exploited to control the total pseudo-spin and hence the symmetry of the two-qubit state. The time-evolution of the system is more complex for the case of different but time-dependent couplings, since generally the Hamiltonian does not commute with itself at different times. Hence a history-dependent dynamics arises, governed by $`U=Texp(i_0^tH_I(t^{})𝑑t^{})`$ where $`T`$ denotes the time-ordering operator. In all these cases, the number of excitations $`𝒩=a^{}a+_{i=1,2}\sigma _i^+\sigma _i^{}`$ is a conserved quantity. This implies separable dynamics within subspaces having a prescribed eigenvalue $`N`$ of $`𝒩`$. For $`N=1`$ a basis is given by $`\{|e_1,g_2,0,|g_1,e_2,0,|g_1,g_2,1\}`$, while for $`N2`$ a basis is given by $`\{|e_1,e_2,N2,|e_1,g_2,N1,|g_1,e_2,N1,|g_1,g_2,N\}`$. The third label denotes the number of photons. For simplicity, we will restrict ourselves to consider $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=|e_1,g_2,0`$ as the initial state so that the system’s dynamical evolution is confined to the single excitation subspace. The whole system’s quantum state at any time can be expressed as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(t\right)=a_1\left(t\right)|e_1,g_2,0+a_2\left(t\right)|g_1,e_2,0+a_3\left(t\right)|g_1,g_2,1`$ (3)
Clearly the cavity mode acts as a third qubit, hence the single-qubit-field entanglement can be quantified by the concurrence qubit1,2-field as well. We have found simple relations between these quantities: $`C(\rho _{a,a})(t)=2|\sigma _2^+(t)\sigma _1^{}(t)|=2|a_1^{}(t)a_2(t)|`$, $`C(\rho _{a1,f})(t)=2|\sigma _1^+(t)a(t)|=2|a_1^{}(t)a_3(t)|`$ and $`C(\rho _{a2,f})(t)=2|\sigma _2^+(t)a(t)|=2|a_2^{}(t)a_3(t)|`$. We consider the situation in which $`\gamma _1(t)=r\gamma _2(t)`$, where $`r`$ is a constant. The unitary evolution is given by

$`a_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`1+ra_2(t)`$
$`a_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha \mathrm{Sin}^2[\theta (t)/2]`$ (4)
$`a_3(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{r\alpha }\mathrm{Sin}[\theta (t)]`$
where $`\theta (t)=_0^t\omega (t^{})𝑑t^{}`$ is the effective vacuum Rabi angle. The time-dependent frequency of the collective qubit mode coupled to the cavity field is given by $`\omega ^2(t)=\gamma _1(t)^2+\gamma _2(t)^2`$, and $`\alpha =\gamma _1(t)\gamma _2(t)/\omega ^2(t)=r/(1+r^2)`$ denotes the relative geometric mean of the couplings.

To help understand the physics for non-symmetric couplings, we express $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=A(t)|\mathrm{\Phi }^{},0+B(t)|\mathrm{\Phi }^+,0+a_3(t)|g_1,g_2,1`$ (5)
where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm =[|e_1,g_2\pm |g_1,e_2]/\sqrt{2}`$, $`A(t)=[a_2(t)a_1(t)]/\sqrt{2}`$, and $`B(t)=[a_2(t)+a_1(t)]/\sqrt{2}`$. From Eqs. (4) and (5) it is clear that when $`\theta (\tau ^{})=\pi `$ the qubit-field state is separable and is given by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau ^{})=[A(\tau ^{})|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+B(\tau ^{})|\mathrm{\Phi }^+]|0`$. Therefore, at this special time a trapping vacuum state condition holds, i.e. the cavity photon number is unchanged. For identical couplings, i.e. $`r=1`$, the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{},0`$ is an eigenstate of $`H_I(t)`$, thus the coefficient $`A(t)`$ remains constant in time, i.e. $`A(t)=A(0)=1/\sqrt{2}`$. Additionally for $`t=\tau ^{}`$, $`B(\tau ^{})=1/\sqrt{2}`$ such that the system’s state becomes fully separable, i.e. $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau ^{})=|g_1,e_2,0`$, hence there is no entanglement in the qubit subsystem nor between the qubits and the field. Figure 1 shows the dynamical evolution of the two-qubit concurrence and the qubit-field concurrences, for the case of identical time-dependent couplings. The initially excited qubit becomes entangled with the cavity field faster than the initially non-excited qubit. Nevertheless, there is a symmetry in the dynamics of individual qubit-field entanglements – both qubits become identically entangled with the field but at different times. At $`t=\tau ^{}/2`$ when the individual qubit-field entanglements are identical, i.e. $`C(\rho _{a1,f})=C(\rho _{a2,f})`$, the two-qubit concurrence reaches its maximum value $`C(\rho _{a,a})(\tau ^{}/2)=1/2`$ corresponding to the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau ^{}/2)=[|\mathrm{\Phi }^{},0i|g_1,g_2,1]/\sqrt{2}`$. Hence for $`r=1`$, two-qubit entanglement requires the existence of qubit-field entanglement as well.

With different couplings, the symmetry with respect to qubit exchange is broken. Hence the coefficients $`A(t)`$ and $`B(t)`$ can be fully controlled by choosing adequate values for the coupling ratio $`r`$. In particular at $`t=\tau ^{}`$, any allowed superposition of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ is obtainable in such a way that any prescribed two-qubit entangled state can be achieved. Figure 2 shows the two-qubit concurrence as a function of $`r`$. Two important physical consequences follow from Figure 2. First, the symmetry of the two-qubit state is controlled by the parameter $`r`$. If the initially excited qubit is interacting with the cavity through the weakest coupling ($`r1`$), the two-qubit state is in the anti-symmetric sector ($`\sigma _2^+(\tau ^{})\sigma _1^{}(\tau ^{})<0`$ (Fig.2(a)); otherwise it is in the symmetric sector ($`\sigma _2^+(\tau ^{})\sigma _1^{}(\tau ^{})0`$ (Fig.2(b)). Second, when the trapping vacuum condition is met ($`t=\tau ^{}`$), it is always possible to get two different matter states with identical concurrences: one has a positive correlation ($`r>1`$) while the other has a negative correlation ($`1/r`$). However, these two two-qubit states have the same value of the relative geometric mean of the couplings $`\alpha =r/(1+r^2)`$. Note that $`\alpha 1/2`$, where the equality holds for the identical coupling case. Therefore for any given value of $`\alpha `$, two-qubit states with identical concurrence but different symmetries can be found. In particular, $`r=\sqrt{2}+1`$ and $`r=\sqrt{2}1`$ yield the same $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}`$ for which $`C(\rho _{a,a})=1`$. Hence two maximally entangled states can be generated from a single excitation: the symmetric one for the former value of $`r`$ and the fully anti-symmetric one (singlet state) for the latter value of $`r`$. Thus, $`\alpha `$ is the relevant control parameter for generating a two-qubit state with any prescribed degree of entanglement. In Fig.2(c) the two-qubit concurrence is shown as a function of $`\alpha `$. It is a non-monotonic function of $`\alpha `$ as given by $`C(\rho _{a,a})(\alpha )=4\alpha \sqrt{14\alpha ^2}`$.

Figures 3 and 4 show the dynamics of formation of maximally-entangled qubit states with different time-dependent couplings. The two-qubit concurrence and qubit-field concurrences are shown as a function of time for $`r=\sqrt{2}1`$ (Fig.3) and $`r=\sqrt{2}+1`$ (Fig.4). In the formation of the singlet, the state remains within a negative region of symmetry (Fig.3(b)), while for the $`r>1`$ case the degree of symmetry evolves from negative to positive (Fig.4(b)). In both cases, the maximal two-qubit concurrence is reached at the moment when both individual qubit-field concurrences vanish. It is worth noting that the time formation for the anti-symmetric state is always larger than the time required for obtaining the symmetric one. For example, for the time-dependent couplings depicted in Fig.3(a) and given by $`\gamma _1(t)=\gamma _{max}sin^2(\pi t/\tau ^{})`$, the formation time for the anti-symmetric state is $`\tau _{as}^{}=(2\pi /\gamma _2^{max})\sqrt{\alpha /r}`$ and the time required to obtain the corresponding symmetric entangled state is $`\tau _s^{}=r\tau _{as}^{}`$ (N.B. $`r<1`$). Although a similar dynamics can also be observed with time-independent couplings by keeping the same coupling ratio $`r`$ (trapping condition time $`\tau ^{}=\pi /\omega `$), it is interesting to note that time-varying couplings yield to a switching behavior of the two-qubit concurrence dynamics which could be important for minimizing decoherence effects (Fig.3(c)).

In the experimental set-up described in Ref. walther01 , scanning of an optical field is performed by translating the cavity assembly relative to the trapped ions’ position. Therefore, deterministic control of the spatial/temporal variation of the ion-field coupling is feasible. This experimental situation is likely to generate couplings of order $`\gamma _{max}=2\pi \times 3.9`$MHz for calcium ions (D3/2 to P1/2) with a dipole decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi \times 1.7`$MHz and a cavity-photon decay rate $`\kappa =2\pi \times 0.24`$MHz wolfgang03 . The interaction time required to generate a symmetric maximally entangled state ($`r=\sqrt{2}+1`$) is $`\tau _s^{}=10^7s`$, which is one order of magnitude shorter than the photon decay time $`T_r=1.3\times 10^6s`$. We note that the required time to obtain an entangled state with $`C(\rho _{a,a})=0.48`$ ($`\alpha =0.12`$), in the symmetric region $`(r=8)`$, is even shorter: $`\tau _s^{}=3\times 10^8s`$. Our proposal could also be realized with flying atoms sent simultaneously through a resonant cavity, in such a way that they follow different paths hence yielding different temporal coupling profiles. Off-resonance coherent control of the collision of two Rydberg atoms has been experimentally implemented osnaghi01 . For these atomic Rydberg states, with principal quantum numbers $`n=51`$ $`(|e)`$ and $`n=50`$ $`(|g)`$, interacting with a cavity of quality factor $`Q=7\times 10^7`$ and corresponding photon lifetime $`T_r=2\times 10^4s`$, couplings of order $`\gamma _{max}=2\pi \times 50`$KHz were achieved. In this experimental scenario we estimate $`\tau _s^{}=10^5s`$ for $`r=\sqrt{2}+1`$ and $`\tau _s^{}=2\times 10^6s`$ for $`r=8`$. These times are obviously much shorter than the photon decay time. The flying-atoms scheme opens up the intriguing possibility of producing a stream of atomic pairs, where each one has a different entanglement and/or symmetry.

In summary, we have proposed a scheme to generate pure two-qubit states with an arbitrarily prescribed degree of entanglement and symmetry. Unlike previous cavity-based schemes, the present one takes advantage of spatial and temporal variations in the ion/atom-field coupling. It is achievable within very short operation times since the qubits are on resonance with the cavity field. In particular, our scheme is realizable with present experimental methods and hence opens up the prospect of real-time engineering of multi-qubit entanglement in asymmetric time-varying ion/atom-cavity systems.

We acknowledge funding from the Clarendon Fund and ORS (AOC), DTI-LINK (NFJ), and COLCIENCIAS project 1204-05-13614 (LQ).


format: text

text:
# The INTEGRAL IBIS/ISGRI System Point Spread Function and Source Location AccuracyBased on observations with INTEGRAL, an ESA project with instruments and science data centre funded by ESA member states (especially the PI countries: Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Spain), Czech Republic and Poland, and with the participation of Russia and the USA.

## 1 Introduction

The IBIS telescope (Imager on Board of the INTEGRAL Satellite) (Ubertini et al. 2003), launched onboard the major ESA gamma-ray space mission INTEGRAL (Winkler et al. 2003) on October 2002, is a hard X-ray / soft $`\gamma `$-ray telescope based on a coded aperture imaging system (Goldwurm et al. 2001). The IBIS imaging system and the IBIS scientific data analysis are described in Goldwurm et al. (2003). Here we discuss more in detail the specific image data analysis procedures used to evaluate the point source locations and we present the characteristics of the System Point Spread Function obtained with the implemented analysis. We also provide preliminary results on the source location accuracy obtained from the first in-flight calibration data of ISGRI, the low energy (15-1000 keV) detector of IBIS (Lebrun et al. (2003)).

## 2 The IBIS image decoding and the associated System Point Spread Function

In coded aperture telescopes (Dicke 1968, Fenimore & Cannon 1978, Caroli et al. 1987, Goldwurm 1995), the source radiation is spatially modulated by a mask of opaque and transparent elements before being recorded on a position sensitive detector. Reconstruction of the sky image is generally based on a correlation procedure between the recorded image and a decoding array derived from the mask pattern. For the IBIS system, where the mask is built by the replication of a Modified Uniformly Redundant Array (MURA) basic pattern (Gottesman $`\&`$ Fenimore 1989) of the size of the detection plane, the raw image projected on the detector by a source in the Fully Coded Field of View (FCFOV) (sky region from where the recorded source radiation is fully modulated by the mask) will be a shifted version of the mask basic pattern. A source in the Partially Coded FOV (PCFOV) will instead project only a part of the mask pattern. The total recorded image (the shadowgram) is therefore the sum of the shadows projected by all sources in the FOV plus a background term. For those masks patterns for which a correlation inverse matrix exists, the case of the IBIS system (Goldwurm et al. 2003), the sky image is reconstructed by correlation of the shadowgram with a decoding array obtained from its correlation inverse matrix (Fenimore $`\&`$ Cannon 1981). For those systems (and with a perfect detector) the resulting sky image of a single point-like source in the FCFOV will have a main peak at the source position, flat side lobes in the FCFOV and coding noise with 8 main source ghosts in the PCFOV. For a PCFOV source, a main peak will still be present at the source position but coding noise can extend all over the image starting from the close proximity of the main peak and ghosts will appear in the FOV. The distribution of the coding noise does depend on the mask pattern used. For example URA masks built from quadratic residues (Fenimore & Cannon 1978) have a high degree of symmetry along the axis of the mask, unlike those built from Hadamard arrays (Proctor et al. 1979). This leads the coding noise to concentrate along the image axis passing through the source main peak, producing positive and negative sidelobes (see Fig. 3 in Goldwurm et al. 2003).

We refer to the System Point Spread Function (SPSF) as the spatial response of the system to a point-like source after image deconvolution, i.e. considering the decoding process (Fenimore & Cannon (1978). We will discuss here the SPSF relative to the type of deconvolution described in Goldwurm et al. (2003), used in the IBIS standard data analysis and optimized to obtain the best signal to noise (S/N) for point-like sources. This is basically a kind of balanced finely sampled cross correlation (Fenimore & Cannon 1981) extended to the PCFOV (Goldwurm 2001, Goldwurm et al. 2003) and in which the sampling of the decoding array is performed in such a way to weigh the detector pixels with the fraction of transparent or opaque area projected by the mask elements (sect. 3).

The algorithm implemented is fully described in sect. 2 of Goldwurm et al. (2003). From the mask array $`M`$ ($`=0`$ for opaque elements and $`=1`$ for transparent elements) two decoding array $`G^+`$ and $`G^{}`$ are obtained projecting the arrays $`M`$ and $`1M`$ over a detector pixel grid and padding the zones outside the mask with 0s. Then the sky image $`S`$ is derived from the detector image $`D`$ by appling the following operation for each $`i,j`$ sky pixel and where sums run over all $`k,l`$ detector pixels

$$S_{ij}=\underset{kl}{}G_{i+k,j+l}^+W_{kl}D_{kl}B_{ij}\underset{kl}{}G_{i+k,j+l}^{}W_{kl}D_{kl}$$

where $`B_{ij}=\frac{_{kl}G_{i+k,j+l}^+W_{kl}}{_{kl}G_{i+k,j+l}^{}W_{kl}}`$ is the balance array and the array $`W`$ is set to 0 for dead or noisy pixels and to 1 for active good pixels. The correlation performed is balanced in the sense that in absence of sources and with a constant background term, the reconstructed images are flat. The decoded images are then properly renormalized to the reconstructed counts in the FCFOV.

The above deconvolution for a perfect URA coded mask system would provide for a source in the FCFOV a SPSF close to a pyramidal function with totally flat sidelobes in the FCFOV (Fenimore & Cannon 1978). However since the coding is not perfect, due to several instrumental effects like those produced by dead zones between pixels and detector modules and by the supporting structures, the reconstructed image will contain source sidelobes. In the PCFOV sidelobes are inherent to the decoding process even for a perfect detector system and the reconstructed source peak for this decoding procedure can be larger or distorted because of the imperfect coding (sect. 4). Because of the presence of the ghosts and of the coding noise, the general sky image reconstruction process is an iterative procedure that combine the initial decoding process to the analysis, modelling and cleaning of sidelobes for each source detected in the field. In crowded fields the initial source localization may be disturbed by the presence of other source sidelobes, but as the modelling of the sky is improved during the iterations the localization can improve. However the performances of the localization in this case depends on the number and distribution of sources in the FOV and the performances of the iterative procedure including the convergence criteria used. We present here the characteristics of the SPSF at the first step of the iterative procedure after the first decoding and before the sidelobe cleaning, and we focus on the characteristics of the main peak of the SPSF around the source position.

The main peak angular width will be approximately of the projected angular size of the mask element, i.e. for the IBIS telescope $``$ 12 (FWHM). However the exact shape of the SPSF depends also on the detector spatial resolution, the real features of the telescope (e.g. presence of dead and off-pixel zones, mask thickness, etc.) and on the decoding algorithm.

## 3 Analytical approximation and fitting procedure of the SPSF

The pixels of the IBIS detectors are smaller than the mask elements. The ratio $`R`$ of the linear mask element size to the linear pixel size is 2.43 for ISGRI. In order to better sample the shadowgram, the corresponding decoding array is also sampled at the pixel scale by redistributing its values according to the fraction of pixel area covered by a given projected mask element. The resulting decoded image has pixels of the angular size of the detector pixels ($``$ 4.94). This way of sampling the decoding array before deconvolution optimizes the signal to noise ratio of point-like sources in the reconstructed image, as it takes into account the blurring induced by the finite spatial resolution of the detector (discrete pixels) (Cook et al. 1984).

For this reconstruction the theoretical SPSF peak in the FCFOV is space-invariant and given by the convolution of two square-pyramidal functions with FWHM’s equal to $`w_\mathrm{m}`$, mask element size, and $`w_\mathrm{p}`$, linear pixel size, respectively. Using the central limit theorem we see that the convolution of these functions can be approximated by a bi-dimensional Gaussian with a width of $`w_{\mathrm{spsf}}`$ $`\sqrt{w_\mathrm{m}^2+w_\mathrm{p}^2}`$. For IBIS/ISGRI, using pixel units, $`w_\mathrm{p}`$=1, $`w_\mathrm{m}`$=2.43, $`w_{\mathrm{spsf}}`$ = 2.62. This is slightly worse than the theoretical angular resolution of one projected mask element $`w_\mathrm{m}`$. The standard imaging analysis procedure of the IBIS data performs, for each detected significant excess in the deconvolved image, a $`\chi ^2`$ fit between an image sector around the source peak and a bi-dimensional Gaussian. The free parameters are the centroid position of the Gaussian (2 parameters), the 2 (variable in PCFOV) widths along the 2 axis, the amplitude of the Gaussian and a constant level (background).

In Fig. 1 we show the reconstructed peak of a strong point-like source for the IBIS/ISGRI system, versus the best fitted bi-dimensional Gaussian, in both the FCFOV (left) and the PCFOV (right). The source is the well known Crab (nebula and pulsar) which was observed with INTEGRAL in February 2003. The best fit Gaussian width is about 2.65 pixels which is compatible with $`w_{\mathrm{spsf}}`$. A bi-dimensional Gaussian function is a reasonable approximation of the SPSF peak except for the negative wings around the source, due to the non perfect coding of the detector plane (in the FCFOV mainly due to the dead zones). These side lobes will be corrected using the source model once its fine position is determined. Fig. 1 shows also the shape of the peak obtained from the deconvolution of the source model computed a posteriori for the position obtained with the Gaussian fit. One can see that the SPSF shape (including the wings) is well reproduced by the model. However, the computation of such a model and its deconvolution is time consuming and thus difficult to use for fine determination of the source position. The source location is therefore determined by a fitting procedure with a Gaussian function and the errors by the standard computation involving the curvature matrix (Press et al. 1996). The error computation assumes gaussian distribution of the counts and also independence between pixels. In such decoded image the sky pixels are instead highly correlated in particular on length scales of the mask elements. Moreover the residual background structures may make the distribution highly non-gaussian. While the optimization procedure is still valid, the derived goodness of the fit and error determination may suffer of these conditions. The computed formal statistical error can be underestimated and systematic errors may be dominant, therefore it is important to evaluate the uncertainties using in-flight data and studying the systematic effects in the procedure.

## 4 The shape of the SPSF in the PCFOV

Outside the FCFOV the SPSF is not space invariant even if the detector plane were perfect, because the optimum properties of the MURA mask are not respected. The shape of the SPSF we obtain for the decoding process applied can be distorted or enlarged (Fig. 1, right). We have studied the properties of the SPSF in the total FOV of the telescope and the performances and limitations of the Gaussian fitting procedure using the source model. Fig. 2 shows the fitted width of the SPSF on both axis for source positions all along the FOV. The width is approximately constant in the FCFOV and ranges around 2.6. In the PCFOV however it increases up to values of about 4 pixels ($``$ 20). The behavior is symmetric with respect to the image center and similar along the two axis. As a consequence off-axis sources can appear elongated or spread in the reconstructed images.

By studying the offset between the fitted and input source model position, we have derived a measure of the systematic bias introduced by the approximation made for the form of the SPSF. The effect is not large ($`<`$ 0.5) and can be estimated. An automatic correction of the bias has been included in the localization procedure.

From the first analysis of in flight IBIS/ISGRI data, a systematic offset between the IBIS telescope axis and the axis of the satellite star sensors used to reconstruct the absolute spacecraft attitude was found. This predominant ($``$ 8-10) effect, was measured using the localization procedure described here and the available INTEGRAL data. A matrix for misalignement correction was computed (Walter et al. 2003) and included in the localization algorithms which operate the conversion between sky pixels and celestial coordinates. The imaging software has already provided good results for the source absolute positioning with IBIS/ISGRI data (see this volume for a number of results).

In the following we characterize the performance of the system (the telescope and the software) in term of the point source location accuracy obtained with the most recent version of the IBIS/ISGRI specific analysis software that will be implemented in the October 2003 release of the ISDC Off-line Scientific Analysis (OSA 3.0). The location algorithms have been improved and provide now location accuracies for off-axis sources comparable to those of on-axis sources, therefore with better results than previously reported (Walter et al. 2003).

## 5 The IBIS point source location error

From the formal errors computed through the curvature matrix, it can be shown that the average Point Source Location (statistical) Error (PSLE) for an optimum coded aperture system with a defined SPSF depends on the source signal to noise ratio (S/N) as $`PSLE÷\frac{1}{R\times (S/N)}`$. The S/N is the ratio between the reconstructed source peak and the computed statistical standard deviation associated to the peak pixel. Using computation of such error and simulations performed on a perfect system with the geometrical characteristics of the IBIS/ISGRI telescope, we derived the expected PSLE dependence on the S/N (Goldwurm et al. 2001). This curve represents the best theoretical accuracy of point-like source location which can be attained by such a system.

With the described analysis software we have derived the locations of several strong known sources, for different pointings and energy bands. This has provided us with a number of measured source locations in a wide range of S/N ratios and angles from the telescope axis. We have computed the offsets between the derived and catalogue source positions and compared their 90$`\%`$ confidence level dispersion to the theoretical PSLE values. Fig. 3(left) shows the results obtained combining all measures performed for source S/N $`6`$. The S/N bin widths were defined to include a constant number of measured offset values, in order to have similar precision in each bin. Sources at any distance from the telescope axis were measured and no dependence with axis angle or energy is observed. It can be seen that measured offsets are typically comprised between $`3^{}`$ and $`20^{\prime \prime }`$ and are better than $`1^{}`$ for S/N $`>`$ 30. Although the points do not exactly follow the theoretical PSLE curve, there is a clear trend compatible with the expected dependence on S/N (see derived parameters in Fig. 3). At high S/N the dispersion reaches a constant level of about 20$`\mathrm{"}`$ which shows the maximal accuracy obtained. Residual systematic effects (for example due to background structures) may still influence the dispersion, and work is in progress to fully evaluate their impact on the source location determination.

In Fig. 3 (right) we report the error radius versus a measured S/N rather than the pure statistical S/N. The measured S/N is obtained using a standard deviation computed directly from the reconstructed sky image. In our analysis we measured the standard deviation in a region of 2.5 $`\times `$ 2.5 around the source after cleaning the side lobes of all sources detected in the FOV and neglecting the source peak regions. This way to evaluate the S/N includes an estimate of the residual systematic errors. The derived offsets are now much closer to the theoretical PSLE curve and indicate that an even better evaluation of location error may be obtained when systematic effects will be fully accounted for.

We stress that these results involve fields with few detected sources. For crowded fields the location estimate may depend on the efficiency of the iterative cleaning algorithm and a full detailed evaluation is not yet available. On the other hand, we have verified that the location accuracy obtained by applying the same algorithm and approximation of the SPSF to mosaicked images (Goldwurm et al. 2003) is further improved. The results we have obtained for selected sources in combined images show that their localization indeed improves for a given statistical S/N. This may be due to the fact that the systematic effects present in single pointings are smoothed when images are summed. Using Cyg X-1 data, offsets of the order of $`5^{\prime \prime }`$-$`10^{\prime \prime }`$ have been obtained for S/N values $`>`$ 300.

These results show that the IBIS/ISGRI telescope coupled to the analysis procedures we have developed provide point-like source locations with accuracies which fully comply with the expected performance of the instrument.

###### Acknowledgements.

A. Gros and J. R. acknowledge financial support from the French Space Agency (CNES). L. F. and M. D. S. acknowledge financial support from the Italian Space Agency (ASI) and the hospitality of the ISDC.


text:
# Qualms regarding “Non-extensive Hamilton systems follow Boltzmann’s principle not Tsallis statistics–phase transitions, second law of Thermodynamics” by D. H. E. Gross, Physica A 305 (2002) 99

## Abstract

A number of elementary misconceptions on the part of the author are corrected.

The author contends that all that is needed in statistical mechanics is Boltzmann’s principle

$$S=k\mathrm{ln}W$$
(1)
where $`S`$ is the entropy in a *microcanonical* ensemble in the space $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_m`$, and $`Wdx_1,\mathrm{}dx_m`$ is the total number of microstates in the range $`dx_1\mathrm{}dx_m`$. The author boldy states “I take the principle as *the fundamental, generic definition of entropy.*” In particular, the author discards the fundamental property of concavity .

Yet, his stability criterion is determined by the positive definiteness of the Hessian

$$\left(\frac{^2S}{E^2}\right)_{N,V}\left(\frac{^2S}{N^2}\right)_{E,V}\left(\frac{^2S}{EN}\right)_V\left(=\lambda _1\lambda _2\right)0.$$
(2)
Had he considered the full set of independent, extensive variables, $`S=S(E,V,N)`$, he would have found that the Hessian vanishes . However, (2) is not sufficient to guarantee that a twice differentiable function should be concave. It is also necessary that

$$\left(\frac{^2S}{E^2}\right)_{N,V}0\text{and}\left(\frac{^2S}{N^2}\right)_{E,V}0.$$
(3)
Taken together, (2) and (3) imply that the quadratic form

$$\left(\frac{^2S}{E^2}\right)_{N,V}u^2+2\left(\frac{^2S}{EN}\right)_Vuv+\left(\frac{^2S}{N^2}\right)_{E,V}v^2$$
(4)
be negative for all $`u,v`$. This is a necessary and sufficient condition that $`S(E,V,N)`$ be concave in any two of its variables . These conditions are well-known in thermodynamics , and show that the concavity criterion is crucial to thermodynamic stability.

The author claims that a single phase exists if $`\lambda _1<0`$ since $`\lambda _1\lambda _2`$, and this makes the Hessian, (2) positive definite. This is false since all three conditions, (2) and (3), are required. According to the author, the criterion for a transition of first-order with phase separation is $`\lambda _1>0`$. The flattening of the entropy potential at the critical point corresponds to a failure of the concavity requirements. According to the generally accepted classification of phase transitions , first-order phase transitions are those in which the energy and volume change discontinuously, whereas phase transitions of the second kind manifest singularities in the derivatives of the energy and volume with respect to the temperature and pressure, (*i.e.*, heat capacity at constant volume, coefficient of thermal expansion, and isothermal compressibility), while the energy and volume vary continuously.111The distinction between transitions of the second kind and those of second-order is that the latter term implies that the compliance coefficients have discontinuities at the critical temperature, but have finite values in both phases. In transitions of the second kind, the compliance coefficients become singular .

The eigenvalues of the quadratic form,

$$\lambda _{1,2}=\frac{1}{2}(S_{NN}+S_{EE})\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(S_{NN}S_{EE})^2+4S_{NE}^2},$$

where the subscripts indicate partial derivatives, are devoid of any physical meaning. Rather, one must complete the square in order to obtain coefficients of a quadratic form that are given in terms of the principal minors of the compliance matrix . Hence, the condition that $`\lambda _1=0`$ is not a condition for a critical point, contrary to what the author claims.

Gross also mentions that in the canonical ensemble the mean value of the energy is fixed by the temperature, $`1/\beta `$. Rather, it is $`\beta `$ which is the estimable parameter , and since the canonical distribution belongs to the exponential family, any energy of a sample system belonging to a population that is believed to be at uniform $`\beta `$, or the average of the energies of the sample systems of the entire population, is a sufficient statistic to estimate $`\beta `$. That is to say, a finer division of the system does not give a better estimate of $`\beta `$.

Furthermore, the statement that in order to agree with the microcanonical ensemble, $`e^{\beta E}W(E)`$ must be sharp in $`E`$ has no meaning since $`\beta `$ is not defined in a microcanonical ensemble. Recall that there are two very distinct operations after $`W`$ has been equated to the thermodynamic probability . Firstly, determining the maximum of $`W`$ fixes the most probable state of the isolated system by itself. That is, the greatest number of complexions that correspond to a single macroscopic state. Secondly, the system is placed in thermal contact with the outside world, and the second law $`S/E=1/T`$ relates the thermodynamic entropy, determined by the maximum of $`W`$, to the temperature $`T`$ of the outside world.

Gross also asserts that the extensivity (additivity) of the entropy is not required since Boltzmann’s principle “*is all that Statistical Mechanics demands*”. For a statistically independent assemblies, the joint probability reduces to the product of the individual probabilities

$$W_{12}=W_1W_2.$$
(5)
Then by Boltzmann’s principle (1) it follows that

$$S_{12}=S_1+S_2.$$
(6)
Hence, extensivity (additivity) is already incorporated in Boltzmann’s principle. The argument is based on the fact that the thermodynamic probability $`W`$ is to be treated as a true probability, which it is not. Any attempt to normalize it leads to a term which for all intent and purposes is unity . Moreover, we know that the entropies of two bodies add when surface interactions are neglected and both are at the same temperature. Again Fowler questions the fact that the two bodies cannot be statistically independent because one body ‘knows’ the temperature of the other. Yet, if we consider initially one body as isolated and place it in thermal contact with a second body which represents the outside world then the temperature of the first body will be equal to the second body, which acts as a heat reservoir, when thermal equilibrium is achieved. This is the second step in Boltzmann’s argument. In any event, extensivity (additivity) is built into Boltzmann’s principle through the logarithmic relation between entropy and probability.

Finally, to rely completely on Boltzmann’s principle to construct a complete statistical mechanics is inadequate since Boltzmann’s principle provides only part of the probability distribution. On account of the logarithmic dependence (1), this probability distribution turns out to be an error law for an extensive variable which equates the most probable value of this quantity to the arithmetic mean of the measurements .


text:
# Global 𝐿²-boundedness theorems for a class of Fourier integral operators

## 1. Introduction

We consider (Fourier integral) operators, which can be globally written in the form

(1.1)
$$Tu(x)=_^n_^ne^{i\varphi (x,y,\xi )}a(x,y,\xi )u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi (x^n),$$

where $`a(x,y,\xi )`$ is an amplitude function and $`\varphi (x,y,\xi )`$ is a real phase function of the form

$$\varphi (x,y,\xi )=x\xi +\phi (y,\xi ).$$

Note that, by the equivalence of phase function theorem, Fourier integral operators with the local graph condition can always be written in this form locally. Although, due to the nontriviality of the Maslov cohomology class, globally defined Fourier integral operators can not be written in this form with a globally defined phase $`\varphi `$, it is nevertheless convenient to still call them Fourier integral operators. It will be clear below how such operators naturally arise in global smoothing problems if we use an adaptation of the Egorov theorem.

Local $`L^2`$ mapping property of the operator (1.1) has been established in Hörmander  and in Eskin . One of the aims of this paper is to establish the global $`L^2`$-boundedness properties of operators (1.1). Analogous properties can be then easily obtained for adjoint operators as well.

We will try to make as few assumptions as possible in the spirit of global $`L^2`$-estimates for pseudo-differential operators (see Calderón–Vaillancourt , Childs , Coifman-Meyer , Cordes ). In fact, our Corollary 2.4 will not only extend these $`L^2`$-boundedness results to more general operators (1.1), but will also reduce the number of assumptions on the amplitude in the case of pseudo-differential operators, compared to the above mentioned papers (see also Sugimoto ). Global $`L^2`$-boundedness of operators (1.1) has been previously studied by Asada-Fujiwara , Kumano-Go . However, there one had to make a quite restrictive and not always natural assumption on the boundedness of $`_\xi _\xi \varphi ,`$ which fails in many important cases. In Coriasco  and Boggiato-Buzano-Rodino  such results are applied to obtain global estimates of solutions to some classes of hyperbolic equations. Here again one requires quite strong decay properties of derivatives of both phase and amplitude. We will remove all these assumptions and will give general $`L^2`$-estimates. In fact, in global estimates of Section 2 we will actually impose only a finite number of conditions on the phase and the amplitude, compared to infinitely many in the above mentioned papers.

As a consequence of our $`L^2`$-estimates, we can treat canonical transforms. Operators that appear there are of the form (1.1) with phase function

(1.2)
$$\varphi (x,y,\xi )=x\xi yp(\xi )\frac{p(\xi )}{\left|p(\xi )\right|},$$

where $`p(\xi )`$ is a positively homogeneous function of degree $`1`$. If we take $`p(\xi )=|\xi |`$, then we have $`\varphi (x,y,\xi )=x\xi y\xi `$, and the operator $`T`$ defined by (1.1) is a pseudo-differential operator. Furthermore, the operator $`T`$ with general (1.2) is used to transform the Fourier multiplier

$$L_p=p(D_x)^2=F_\xi ^1p(\xi )^2F_x$$

to the Laplacian $`\mathrm{}`$, where $`F_x`$ ($`F_\xi ^1`$ resp.) denotes the (inverse resp.) Fourier transform. In fact, we have a relation

$$T(\mathrm{})T^1=L_p$$

under a certain condition on $`p(\xi )`$ if we take $`1`$ as the amplitude function $`a(x,y,\xi )`$ (see Section 4). The $`L^2`$-property of the Laplacian is well known in various situations. Our objective is to know the $`L^2`$-property of the operator $`T`$, so that we can extract the $`L^2`$-property of the operator $`L_p`$ from that of the Laplacian. This approach allows to give a general treatment of several smoothing problems, including those treated by e.g. Ben-Artzi and Klainerman , Simon , Kato and Yajima , or Walther .

We should mention here that the global $`L^2`$-boundedness with example (1.2) is not covered by previous results, for example, Asada and Fujiwara , and Kumano-go . The result of  is motivated by the construction of fundamental solution of Schrödinger equation in the way of Feynman’s path integral, and it requires the boundedness of all the derivatives of entries of the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}_x_y\varphi & _x_\xi \varphi \\ _\xi _y\varphi & _\xi _\xi \varphi \end{array}\right).$$

For the details, see  and references cited there. With our example (1.2), the boundedness of the entries of $`_\xi _\xi \varphi `$ fails. On the other hand, the result of  is used to construct the fundamental solution of hyperbolic equations, and it requires that $`J(y,\xi )=\varphi (x,y,\xi )(xy)\xi `$ satisfies

$$\left|_y^\alpha _\xi ^\beta J(y,\xi )\right|C_{\alpha \beta }\left(1+|\xi |\right)^{1|\beta |}$$

for all $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. Our example (1.2) does not satisfy these estimates with $`\alpha =0`$.

In this paper, we develop a new $`L^2`$-theory which does not require these decay assumptions. In particular, it includes the case of example (1.2). For $`m`$, let $`L_m^2(^n)`$ be the set of functions $`f`$ such that the norm

$$f_{L_m^2(^n)}=\left(_^n\left|x^mf(x)\right|^2𝑑x\right)^{1/2};x^m=\left(1+|x|^2\right)^{m/2}$$

is finite. The following is a simplified version of our main result (Theorem 3.1) which is expected to have many applications:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let the operator $`T`$ be defined by (1.1), where $`\phi (y,\xi )C^{\mathrm{}}\left(_y^n\times _\xi ^n\right)`$ is a real-valued function, and $`a(x,y,\xi )C^{\mathrm{}}\left(_x^n\times _y^n\times _\xi ^n\right)`$. Assume that

$$\left|det_y_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right|C>0,$$

and all the derivatives of entries of $`_y_\xi \phi `$ are bounded. Also assume that

$`\left|_\xi ^\alpha \phi (y,\xi )\right|C_\alpha y\text{for all }|\alpha |1,`$
$`\left|_x^\alpha _y^\beta _\xi ^\gamma a(x,y,\xi )\right|C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }x^{|\alpha |}\text{for all }\alpha \text{}\beta \text{, and }\gamma .`$
Then $`T`$ is bounded on $`L_m^2(^n)`$ for any $`m`$.

This theorem says that, if amplitude functions $`a(x,y,\xi )`$ have some decaying properties with respect to $`x`$, we do not need the boundedness of $`_\xi _\xi \varphi `$ for the $`L^2`$-boundedness, as required in , and we can have weighted estimates, as well. (The same is true when both phase and amplitude functions have some decaying properties with respect to $`y`$. See Theorem 3.1.)

We explain the plan of this paper. In Section 2, we show the global $`L^2`$-boundedness of a class of oscillatory integral operators, which generalizes a standard local result explained in Stein . By using it, we prove various type of the $`L^2`$-boundedness of Fourier integral operators. Some of them are extension of previous results on the $`L^2`$-boundedness of pseudo-differential operators with non-regular symbols. It is worth mentioning that, in general, we do not necessarily need the standard homogeneity assumption for the phase function in the frequency variable. In addition, we impose the boundedness condition on only a finite number of the derivatives of phase functions, while infinitely many in  and .

In Section 3, we state and prove our main result Theorem 3.1. We remark that it (together with Theorem 2.5) substantially weaken the assumptions for the $`L^2`$-boundedness of SG pseudo-differential (as in Cordes ) and SG Fourier integral operators (as in Coriasco ). These operators are used to handle the SG hyperbolic partial differential equations (roughly speaking, certain equations with coefficients of polynomial growth). The class of symbols $`SG^{m_1,m_2}`$ is defined as a space of smooth functions $`a=a(y,\xi )C^{\mathrm{}}(_y^n\times _\xi ^n)`$ satisfying the estimate

$$|_y^\beta _\xi ^\gamma a(y,\xi )|C_{\beta \gamma }y^{m_1|\beta |}\xi ^{m_2|\gamma |}\text{for all }\beta \text{ and }\gamma .$$

SG Fourier integral operators are operators of the form

$$Tu(x)=_^ne^{i(x\xi +\phi (y,\xi ))}a(y,\xi )u(y)𝑑\xi 𝑑y$$

(or its adjoint), where $`aSG^{m_1,m_2}`$ and $`\phi SG^{1,1}`$, which also satisfies

$$C_1y_\xi \phi C_2y,C_1\xi _y\phi C_2\xi ,$$

for some $`C_1,C_2>0`$. A result in  for SG pseudo-differential and its extension in  for SG Fourier integral operators states that under these assumptions on the phase $`\varphi `$, and for $`aSG^{0,0}`$, the corresponding operator $`T`$ is bounded on $`L^2(^n)`$. Without going much into detail, let us mention here that statements of our results replace the strong decay assumptions $`\varphi SG^{1,1}`$, $`aSG^{0,0}`$, by (a finite number of) boundedness conditions, for $`T`$ to be still bounded in $`L^2(^n)`$.

In Section 4, we exhibit an example of how to use our main result. We mainly focus on the problem of global smoothing property of generalized Schrödinger equations

(1.3)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}\left(i_t+Q(D)\right)u(t,x)=0,\hfill \\ u(0,x)=f(x).\hfill \end{array}$$

Ben-Artzi and Devinatz  showed a global smoothing estimate to equation (1.3), where the symbol $`Q(\xi )`$ of $`Q(D)`$ is a real polynomial of principal type. Walther  consider the case of radially symmetric $`Q(\xi )`$. By using our result Theorem 3.1, we can treat more general case (see Theorem 4.2). More refined applications to this subject will be shown in our forthcoming paper . In subsequent work , we will establish properties of operators (1.1) in weighted Sobolev spaces, which will have several further applications of these results to hyperbolic equations as well as global canonical transforms.

## 2. Global $`L^2`$-estimates

First of all, we confirm a basic result on the $`L^2`$-boundedness of a class of oscillatory integral operators, based on the argument of Fujiwara , which is a global version of a proposition in Stein \[23, p.377\]. Here and hereafter, the capital $`C`$ (sometimes with some suffices) always denotes a positive constant which may differ on each occasion.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let the operator $`I_\phi `$ be defined by

(2.1)
$$I_\phi u(x)=_^ne^{i\phi (x,y)}a(x,y)u(y)𝑑y,$$

where $`a(x,y)C^{\mathrm{}}\left(_x^n\times _y^n\right)`$, and $`\phi (x,y)C^{\mathrm{}}\left(_x^n\times _y^n\right)`$ is a real-valued function. Assume that

$$\left|_x^\alpha _y^\beta a(x,y)\right|C_{\alpha \beta },$$

for $`|\alpha |,|\beta |2n+1`$. Also assume that, on $`\mathrm{supp}a(x,y)`$,

$$\left|det_x_y\phi (x,y)\right|C>0$$

and each entry $`h(x,y)`$ of the matrix $`_x_y\phi (x,y)`$ satisfies

$$\left|_x^\alpha h(x,y)\right|C_\alpha ,\left|_y^\beta h(x,y)\right|C_\beta $$

for $`|\alpha |,|\beta |2n+1`$. Then the operator $`I_\phi `$ is $`L^2(^n)`$-bounded, and satisfies

$$I_\phi _{L^2L^2}C\underset{|\alpha |,|\beta |2n+1}{sup}_x^\alpha _y^\beta a(x,y)_{L^{\mathrm{}}\left(_x^n\times _y^n\right)}.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`gC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ be a real-valued positive function such that $`\{g_k(x)\}_{k^n}`$, where $`g_k(x)=g(xk)`$, forms a partition of unity. We decompose the operator $`I_\phi `$ as

$$I_\phi =\underset{(j,k)^n\times ^n}{}I_{(j,k)},$$

where $`I_{(j,k)}=g_jI_\phi g_k`$, that is,

$$I_{(j,k)}u(x)=g_j(x)e^{i\phi (x,z)}a(x,z)g_k(z)u(z)𝑑z.$$

We denote the adjoint of $`I_{(j,k)}`$ by $`I_{(j,k)}^{}`$, that is,

$$I_{(j,k)}^{}u(z)=g_k(z)e^{i\phi (y,z)}\overline{a(y,z)}g_j(y)u(y)𝑑y.$$

Then we have

$$I_{(j,k)}I_{(l,m)}^{}u(x)=K_{(j,k),(l,m)}(x,y)u(y)𝑑y,$$

where

$$K_{(j,k),(l,m)}(x,y)=g_j(x)g_l(y)e^{i\left(\phi (x,z)\phi (y,z)\right)}a(x,z)\overline{a(y,z)}g_k(z)g_m(z)𝑑z.$$

By integration by parts, we have

$`{\displaystyle e^{i\left(\phi (x,z)\phi (y,z)\right)}a(x,z)\overline{a(y,z)}g_k(z)g_m(z)𝑑z}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle e^{i\left(\phi (x,z)\phi (y,z)\right)}L^{2n+1}\left(a(x,z)\overline{a(y,z)}g_k(z)g_m(z)\right)𝑑z},`$
where $`L`$ is the transpose of the operator

$${}_{}{}^{t}L=\frac{1}{i}\frac{_z\phi (x,z)_z\phi (y,z)}{\left|_z\phi (x,z)_z\phi (y,z)\right|^2}_z$$

From the assumptions, and using that

$$_z\varphi (x,z)_z\varphi (y,z)=_x_z\varphi (w,z)(xy)$$

for some $`w`$, we obtain

$$\left|_z\phi (x,z)_z\phi (y,z)\right|C|xy|$$

and

$$\left|_z^\beta \phi (x,z)_z^\beta \phi (y,z)\right|C_\beta |xy|$$

for $`1|\beta |2n+2`$. Hence, we have

$$|K_{(j,k),(l,m)}(x,y)|CA^2\frac{g_j(x)g_l(y)}{1+|xy|^{2n+1}}h(km),$$

where $`hC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ is a positive function ($`h(x)=g(zx)g(z)𝑑z`$), and

$$A=\underset{|\alpha |,|\beta |2n+1}{sup}_x^\alpha _y^\beta a_{L^{\mathrm{}}\left(_x^n\times _y^n\right)}.$$

Then we have

$`\underset{x}{sup}{\displaystyle |K_{(j,k),(l,m)}(x,y)|𝑑y}CA^2{\displaystyle \frac{h(km)}{1+|jl|^{2n+1}}},`$
$`\underset{y}{sup}{\displaystyle |K_{(j,k),(l,m)}(x,y)|𝑑x}CA^2{\displaystyle \frac{h(km)}{1+|jl|^{2n+1}}},`$
which implies

$$I_{(j,k)}I_{(l,m)}^{}_{L^2L^2}CA^2\frac{h(km)}{1+|jl|^{2n+1}}.$$

Here we have used the following lemma (see Stein \[23, p.284\]):

###### Lemma 2.1.

Suppose $`S`$ is given by

$$(Sf)(x)=s(x,y)f(y)𝑑y,$$

where the kernel $`s(x,y)`$ satisfies

$$\underset{x}{sup}|s(x,y)|𝑑y1,\underset{y}{sup}|s(x,y)|𝑑x1.$$

Then $`S_{L^2L^2}1`$.

By the same discussion, we have

$$I_{(j,k)}^{}I_{(l,m)}_{L^2L^2}CA^2\frac{h(jl)}{1+|km|^{2n+1}}.$$

Then we have

$$I_{(j,k)}I_{(l,m)}^{}_{L^2L^2},I_{(j,k)}^{}I_{(l,m)}_{L^2L^2}CA^2\left\{\gamma (jl,km)\right\}^2,$$

where

$$\gamma (j_1,j_2)=\sqrt{\left\{\frac{h(j_2)}{1+|j_1|^{2n+1}}+\frac{h(j_1)}{1+|j_2|^{2n+1}}\right\}}$$

and it satisfies the estimate

$$\underset{(j_1,j_2)^n\times ^n}{}\gamma (j_1,j_2)<\mathrm{}.$$

We have the desired result, by the following Cotlar’s lemma (see Calderón and Vaillancourt , Stein \[23, Chapter VII, Section 2\]):

###### Lemma 2.2.

Assume a family of $`L^2`$-bounded operators $`\{T_j\}_{j^r}`$ and positive constants $`\{\gamma (j)\}_{j^r}`$ satisfy

$$T_i^{}T_j_{L^2L^2}\left\{\gamma (ij)\right\}^2,T_iT_j^{}_{L^2L^2}\left\{\gamma (ij)\right\}^2,$$

and

$$M=\underset{j^r}{}\gamma (j)<\mathrm{}.$$

Then the operator

$$T=\underset{j^r}{}T_j$$

satisfies

$$T_{L^2L^2}M.$$

By using Theorem 2.1 on oscillatory integral operators (2.1), we can easily show the $`L^2`$-boundedness of Fourier integral operators of special forms. Let us begin with the case when the amplitude $`a(x,y,\xi )`$ is independent of the variable $`y`$.

###### Theorem 2.2.

Let the operator $`T`$ be defined by

(2.2)
$$Tu(x)=_^n_^ne^{i(x\xi +\phi (y,\xi ))}a(x,\xi )u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi ,$$

where $`a(x,\xi )C^{\mathrm{}}\left(_x^n\times _\xi ^n\right)`$ and $`\phi (y,\xi )C^{\mathrm{}}\left(_y^n\times _\xi ^n\right)`$. Assume that the pseudo-differential operators $`a(X,D)`$ defined by

$$a(X,D)u(x)=(2\pi )^n_^n_^ne^{i(xy)\xi }a(x,\xi )u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi $$

and the oscillatory integral operator $`I_\phi `$ defined by

$$I_\phi u(\xi )=_^ne^{i\phi (y,\xi )}\chi _E(\xi )u(y)𝑑y$$

are both $`L^2(^n)`$-bounded, where $`\chi _E`$ is the characteristic function of the set

(2.3)
$$E=\underset{x^n}{}E_x;E_x=\mathrm{supp}a(x,)^n.$$

Then $`T`$ is $`L^2(^n)`$-bounded, and satisfies

$$T_{L^2L^2}\left(2\pi \right)^{n/2}a(X,D)_{L^2L^2}I_\phi _{L^2L^2}.$$

###### Proof.

We remark that $`T=\left(2\pi \right)^na(X,D)F^1I_\phi `$, where $`F^1`$ is the inverse Fourier transform. The $`L^2\left(^n\right)`$-boundedness of $`T`$ is obtained from the assumptions and Plancherel’s theorem. ∎

As a corollary, we have the result announced in Ruzhansky and Sugimoto . Now we recall the definition of the Besov space $`B_{p,q}^{(𝐬,𝐬^{})}`$ for $`0<p,q\mathrm{}`$ and multi-indices $`(𝐬,𝐬^{})`$, where $`𝐬=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_N)`$ and $`𝐬^{}=(s_1^{},\mathrm{},s_N^{}^{})`$. Let $`𝐧=(n_1,\mathrm{},n_N)`$, $`𝐧^{}=(n_1^{},\mathrm{},n_N^{}^{})`$ be splitting of $`_x^n`$ and $`_\xi ^n`$, respectively:

$$n=n_1+\mathrm{}+n_N=n_1^{}+\mathrm{}+n_N^{}^{}.$$

Then $`fB_{p,q}^{(𝐬,𝐬^{})}=B_{p,q}^{(𝐬,𝐬^{})}(^{(𝐧,𝐧^{})})`$ if $`f=f(x,\xi )𝒮^{}(^{2n})`$ and

$$f_{B_{p,q}^{(𝐬,𝐬^{})}}=\left\{\underset{𝐣,𝐤0}{}\left(_^n_^n|2^{𝐣𝐬+𝐤𝐬^{}}^1\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝐣,𝐤}f(x,\xi )|^p𝑑x𝑑\xi \right)^{q/p}\right\}^{1/q}<\mathrm{}.$$

Here $`𝐣=(j_1,\mathrm{},j_N)`$, $`𝐤=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_N^{})`$, $``$ is the Fourier transform with respect to $`(x,\xi )`$, $`^1`$ is the inverse Fourier transform with respect to the dual variable $`(y,\eta )`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝐣,𝐤}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝐣,𝐤}(y,\eta )=\mathrm{\Theta }_{j_1}(y_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{j_N}(y_N)\mathrm{\Theta }_{k_1}(\eta _1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{k_N^{}}(\eta _N^{})`$. Here we split variables $`y,\eta ^n`$ following the splitting $`𝐧`$, $`𝐧^{}`$. Functions $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i(z)𝒮`$ form the dyadic system of the corresponding dimension: $`\mathrm{supp}\mathrm{\Theta }_0\{z;|z|2\}`$, $`\mathrm{supp}\mathrm{\Theta }_i\{z;2^{i1}|z|2^{i+1}\}`$ for $`i`$, $`_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Theta }_i(z)=1`$, and $`2^{i|\alpha |}|^\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }_i(z)|C_\alpha `$ for all $`i0`$ and all $`z`$. A natural modification is needed for $`p,q=\mathrm{}`$, see .

###### Corollary 2.3.

Let $`2p\mathrm{}`$. Let the operator $`T`$ be defined by (2.2), where $`\phi (y,\xi )C^{\mathrm{}}\left(_y^n\times _\xi ^n\right)`$ is a real-valued function, and $`a(x,\xi )B_{p,1}^{(1/21/p)(𝐧,𝐧^{})}`$. Assume that, on $`^n\times E`$,

$$\left|det_y_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right|C>0$$

and each entry $`h(y,\xi )`$ of the matrix $`_y_\xi \phi (y,\xi )`$ satisfies

$$\left|_y^\alpha h(y,\xi )\right|C_\alpha ,\left|_\xi ^\beta h(y,\xi )\right|C_\beta $$

for $`|\alpha |,|\beta |2n+1`$, where $`E`$ is the set defined by (2.3). Then $`T`$ is $`L^2(^n)`$-bounded, and satisfies

$$Tu_{L^2(^n)}Ca(x,\xi )_{B_{p,1}^{(1/21/p)(𝐧,𝐧^{})}}u_{L^2(^n)}.$$

###### Proof.

The $`L^2`$-boundedness of $`T`$ follows from Theorems 2.1, 2.2, and the fact that pseudo-differential operators $`a(X,D)`$ with $`a(x,\xi )B_{p,1}^{(1/21/p)(𝐧,𝐧^{})}`$ are $`L^2`$-bounded. See Sugimoto . ∎

Corollary 2.3 is rather general but its conditions may be hard to check. On the other hand, conditions of the corollary below can be checked in various situations.

###### Corollary 2.4.

Let the operator $`T`$ be defined by (2.2), where $`\phi (y,\xi )C^{\mathrm{}}\left(_y^n\times _\xi ^n\right)`$ is a real-valued function. Assume that, on $`^n\times E`$,

$$\left|det_y_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right|C>0$$

and each entry $`h(y,\xi )`$ of the matrix $`_y_\xi \phi (y,\xi )`$ satisfies

$$\left|_y^\alpha h(y,\xi )\right|C_\alpha ,\left|_\xi ^\beta h(y,\xi )\right|C_\beta $$

for $`|\alpha |,|\beta |2n+1`$, where $`E`$ is the set defined by (2.3). Also assume that $`a(x,\xi )`$ belongs to the symbol class $`S_{0,0}^0`$ (that is, $`_x^\alpha _\xi ^\beta a(x,\xi )L^{\mathrm{}}(_x^n\times _\xi ^n)`$ for all $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$). Otherwise assume one of the following conditions:

* $`_x^\alpha _\xi ^\beta a(x,\xi )L^{\mathrm{}}(_x^n\times _\xi ^n)`$ for $`\alpha ,\beta \{0,1\}^n`$.
* $`_x^\alpha _\xi ^\beta a(x,\xi )L^{\mathrm{}}(_x^n\times _\xi ^n)`$ for $`|\alpha |,|\beta |[n/2]+1`$.
* $`_x^\alpha _\xi ^\beta a(x,\xi )L^{\mathrm{}}(_x^n\times _\xi ^n)`$ for $`|\alpha |[n/2]+1`$, $`\beta \{0,1\}^n`$.
* $`_x^\alpha _\xi ^\beta a(x,\xi )L^{\mathrm{}}(_x^n\times _\xi ^n)`$ for $`\alpha \{0,1\}^n`$, $`|\beta |[n/2]+1`$.
* There exist real numbers $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}>n/2`$ such that $`(1\mathrm{\Delta }_x)^{\lambda /2}(1\mathrm{\Delta }_\xi )^{\lambda ^{}/2}a(x,\xi )L^{\mathrm{}}(_x^n\times _\xi ^n)`$.
* There exist a real number $`\lambda >1/2`$ and a constant $`C`$ such that

$$\delta _x^\alpha (h)\delta _\xi ^\beta (h^{})a(x,\xi )_{L^{\mathrm{}}(_x^n\times _\xi ^n)}C\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}|h_i|^{\alpha _i\lambda }|h_j^{}|^{\beta _j\lambda }$$

holds for all $`\alpha ,\beta \{0,1\}^n`$ and all $`h=(h_1,\mathrm{},h_n),h^{}=(h_1^{},\mathrm{},h_n^{})^n`$. Here $`\delta _x^\alpha (h)=\delta _{x_1}^{\alpha _1}(h_1)\mathrm{}\delta _{x_n}^{\alpha _1}(h_n)`$ is the difference operator, with

$$\delta _{x_i}^0(h_i)a(x,\xi )=a(x,\xi ),\delta _{x_i}^1(h_i)a(x,\xi )=a(x+h_ie_i,\xi )a(x,\xi ),$$

where $`e_i`$ is the $`i`$-th standard basis vector in $`^n`$. The definition of $`\delta _\xi ^\beta `$ is similar.
* There exists a real number $`2p<\mathrm{}`$ such that $`_x^\alpha _\xi ^\beta a(x,\xi )L^p(_x^n\times _\xi ^n)`$ for $`|\alpha |,|\beta |[n(1/21/p)]+1`$.

Then $`T`$ is $`L^2(^n)`$-bounded.

Corollary 2.4 with $`\phi (y,\xi )=y\xi `$ is a refined version of known results on the $`L^2`$-boundedness of pseudo-differential operators with non-regular symbols; (1) with $`\alpha ,\beta \{0,1,2,3\}^n`$ is due to Calderón and Vaillancourt , (2) and (5) are due to Cordes , the difference condition (6) is due to Childs , and conditions (3) with $`|\alpha |[n/2]+1`$, $`\beta \{0,1,2\}^n`$, (7) with $`\alpha [n(1/21/p)]+1`$, $`|\beta |2n`$ are due to Coifman and Meyer .

###### Proof.

The $`L^2`$-boundedness under all conditions follows from Corollary 2.3 with different choices of $`p`$ and splitting of the spaces. In fact, conditions (1)–(6) are obtained with $`p=\mathrm{}`$ ($`N=N^{}=1`$ in conditions (2), (5); $`N=N^{}=n`$ in (1), (6); $`N=1,N^{}=n`$ in (3), and $`N=n,N^{}=1`$ in (4)). Condition (7) is obtained from Corollary 2.3 by taking the same $`p`$ and $`N=N^{}=1`$. For more relations between symbol classes and Besov spaces, we refer to Sugimoto  and Triebel . ∎

We have a theorem for amplitudes which are independent of the variable $`x`$, as well.

###### Theorem 2.5.

Let the operator $`T`$ be defined by

(2.4)
$$Tu(x)=_^n_^ne^{i(x\xi +\phi (y,\xi ))}a(y,\xi )u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi ,$$

where $`a(y,\xi )C^{\mathrm{}}\left(_y^n\times _\xi ^n\right)`$, and $`\phi (y,\xi )C^{\mathrm{}}\left(_y^n\times _\xi ^n\right)`$ is a real-valued function. Assume that

$$\left|_y^\alpha _\xi ^\beta a(y,\xi )\right|C_{\alpha \beta },$$

for $`|\alpha |,|\beta |2n+1`$. Also assume that, on $`\mathrm{supp}a(y,\xi )`$,

$$\left|det_y_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right|C>0$$

and each entry $`h(y,\xi )`$ of the matrix $`_y_\xi \phi (y,\xi )`$ satisfies

$$\left|_y^\alpha h(y,\xi )\right|C_\alpha ,\left|_\xi ^\beta h(y,\xi )\right|C_\beta $$

for $`|\alpha |,|\beta |2n+1`$. Then the operator $`T`$ is $`L^2(^n)`$-bounded, and satisfies

$$T_{L^2L^2}C\underset{|\alpha |,|\beta |2n+1}{sup}_y^\alpha _\xi ^\beta a(y,\xi )_{L^{\mathrm{}}\left(_y^n\times _\xi ^n\right)}.$$

###### Proof.

We remark that $`T=(2\pi )^nF^1I_\phi `$, where $`F^1`$ is the inverse Fourier transform and $`I_\phi `$ is the oscillatory integral operator defined by

$$I_\phi u(\xi )=e^{i\phi (y,\xi )}a(y,\xi )u(y)𝑑y.$$

The result is obtained from Theorem 2.1 and Plancherel’s theorem. ∎

As a corollary of Theorems 2.2 and 2.5, we have a result for amplitudes which are of the product type.

###### Corollary 2.6.

Let the operator $`T`$ be defined by

$`Tu(x)={\displaystyle _^n}{\displaystyle _^n}e^{i(x\xi +\phi (y,\xi ))}a(x,y,\xi )u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi ,`$
$`a(x,y,\xi )=a_1(x,\xi )a_2(y)\text{or}a(x,y,\xi )=a_2(x)a_1(y,\xi ),`$
where $`a_1C^{\mathrm{}}\left(^n\times ^n\right)`$, $`a_2L^{\mathrm{}}\left(^n\right)`$, and $`\phi (y,\xi )C^{\mathrm{}}\left(_y^n\times _\xi ^n\right)`$ is a real-valued function. Assume that

$$\left|_x^\alpha _\xi ^\beta a_1(x,\xi )\right|C_{\alpha \beta }$$

for $`|\alpha |,|\beta |2n+1`$. Also assume that, on $`^n\times \stackrel{~}{E}`$,

$$\left|det_y_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right|C>0,$$

and each entry $`h(y,\xi )`$ of the matrix $`_y_\xi \phi (y,\xi )`$ satisfies

$$\left|_y^\alpha h(y,\xi )\right|C_\alpha ,\left|_\xi ^\beta h(y,\xi )\right|C_\beta $$

for $`|\alpha |,|\beta |2n+1`$, where

$$\stackrel{~}{E}=\underset{x,y^n}{}E_{x,y};E_{x,y}=\mathrm{supp}a(x,y,).$$

Then $`T`$ is $`L^2(^n)`$-bounded, and satisfies

$$T_{L^2L^2}C\underset{|\alpha |,|\beta |2n+1}{sup}_y^\alpha _\xi ^\beta a(y,\xi )_{L^{\mathrm{}}\left(_y^n\times _\xi ^n\right)}.$$

###### Proof.

Note that $`T`$ is a product of the multiplication of the function $`a_2`$ and the operator defined by (2.2) or (2.4), which are all $`L^2`$-bounded by the assumption. ∎

## 3. Weighted $`L^2`$-estimates

Asada and Fujiwara  proved Corollary 2.6 without the product type assumption for $`a(x,y,\xi )`$, but assumed the boundedness of all the derivatives of $`a(x,y,\xi )`$ and that of each entry of the matrix $`_\xi _\xi \phi `$. The following theorem, which is a generalized version of Theorem 1.1, says that we do not need the boundedness assumption for $`_\xi _\xi \phi `$ if $`a(x,y,\xi )`$ has a decaying property. In this case, we have weighted estimates as follows. For $`m`$, we use the notation

$$x^m=\left(1+|x|^2\right)^{m/2},$$

and let $`L_m^2(^n)`$ be the set of functions $`f`$ such that the norm

$$f_{L_m^2(^n)}=\left(_^n\left|x^mf(x)\right|^2𝑑x\right)^{1/2}$$

is finite.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Suppose $`m_1,m_2`$. Let the operator $`T`$ be defined by

(3.1)
$$Tu(x)=_^n_^ne^{i(x\xi +\phi (y,\xi ))}a(x,y,\xi )u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi ,$$

where $`a(x,y,\xi )C^{\mathrm{}}\left(_x^n\times _y^n\times _\xi ^n\right)`$, and $`\phi (y,\xi )C^{\mathrm{}}\left(_y^n\times _\xi ^n\right)`$ is a real-valued function. Assume that

$$\left|det_y_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right|C>0\text{on }^n\times \stackrel{~}{E},$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{E}=\underset{x,y^n}{}E_{x,y};E_{x,y}=\mathrm{supp}a(x,y,).$$

Also assume one of the followings:

1. For all $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\gamma `$,

$$\left|_x^\alpha _y^\beta _\xi ^\gamma a(x,y,\xi )\right|C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }x^{m_1|\alpha |}y^{m_2},$$

and for all $`|\alpha |1`$ and $`|\beta |1`$,

$$\left|_\xi ^\beta \phi (y,\xi )\right|C_\beta y,\left|_y^\alpha _\xi ^\beta \phi (y,\xi )\right|C_{\alpha \beta }\text{on}^n\times \stackrel{~}{E}.$$
2. For all $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\gamma `$,

$$\left|_x^\alpha _y^\beta _\xi ^\gamma a(x,y,\xi )\right|C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }x^{m_1}y^{m_2|\beta |},$$

and for all $`\alpha `$ and $`|\beta |1`$,

$$\left|_y^\alpha _\xi ^\beta \phi (y,\xi )\right|C_{\alpha \beta }y^{1|\alpha |}\text{on}^n\times \stackrel{~}{E}.$$

Then $`T`$ is bounded from $`L_{m+m_1+m_2}^2(^n)`$ to $`L_m^2(^n)`$ for any $`m`$.

###### Remark 3.1.

From the assumptions for phase functions $`\phi `$ in Theorem 3.1, we obtain the estimate

(3.2)
$$C_1y_\xi \phi (y,\xi )C_2y\text{on }^n\times \stackrel{~}{E}$$

for some $`C_1,C_2>0`$. In fact, the estimate $`_\xi \phi (y,\xi )C_2y`$ is obtained from any assumptions (1) or (2). Especially, we have $`_\xi \phi (0,\xi )C`$. From the expression

$$_\xi \phi (y,\xi )_\xi \phi (0,\xi )=_y_\xi \phi (z,\xi )y$$

with some $`z^n`$, we obtain

$`|y|`$ $`C\left|_\xi \phi (y,\xi )_\xi \phi (0,\xi )\right|`$
$`C\left|_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right|+C\left|_\xi \phi (0,\xi )\right|`$
by the assumptions for $`\phi `$. Hence we have the estimate $`C_1y_\xi \phi (y,\xi )`$, as well.

###### Proof.

We show the $`L^2`$-boundedness of the operator $`T_b`$ defined by

$$T_bu(x)=e^{i(x\xi +\phi (y,\xi ))}b(x,y,\xi )u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi ,$$

where

$$b(x,y,\xi )=x^ma(x,y,\xi )y^{(m+m_1+m_2)}.$$

By using the cut-off function $`\chi (x)C_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(|x|1/2\right)`$ which is equal to one near the origin, we decompose $`b`$ into two parts:

$`b^I(x,y,\xi )=b(x,y,\xi )\chi \left(\left(x+_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right)/_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right),`$
$`b^{II}(x,y,\xi )=b(x,y,\xi )\left(1\chi \right)\left(\left(x+_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right)/_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right).`$
The corresponding decomposition of the operator $`T_b`$ is denoted by $`T^I`$ and $`T^{II}`$ respectively.

On the support of $`b^I(x,y,\xi )`$, we have $`\left|x+_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right|(1/2)_\xi \phi (y,\xi )`$, hence we have the estimates

$$|x|\left|_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right|+\frac{1}{2}_\xi \phi (y,\xi ),\left|_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right||x|+\frac{1}{2}_\xi \phi (y,\xi ).$$

From the first estimate and estimate (3.2), we obtain $`xCy`$. From the second estimate, we obtain $`_\xi \phi (y,\xi )2x+(1/2)_\xi \phi (y,\xi )`$, hence $`_\xi \phi (y,\xi )4x`$, which implies $`yCx`$ by (3.2) again. Thus we have the equivalence of $`y`$ and $`x`$, and obtain

(3.3)
$$\left|_x^\alpha _y^\beta _\xi ^\gamma b^I(x,y,\xi )\right|C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }x^{|\alpha |}$$

or

(3.4)
$$\left|_x^\alpha _y^\beta _\xi ^\gamma b^I(x,y,\xi )\right|C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }y^{|\beta |}$$

from the assumptions (1) and (2) respectively.

We assume estimate (3.3). Otherwise, assume (3.4) and just change the role of $`x`$ and $`y`$ below. Let real-valued positive functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x/2^k)`$ ($`k`$) form a partition of unity which satisfy $`\mathrm{supp}\mathrm{\Phi }_0\{x;|x|<2\}`$, $`\mathrm{supp}\mathrm{\Phi }\{x;1/2<|x|<2\}`$. We decompose $`b^I`$ into the sum of $`b_k^I(x,y,\xi )=\mathrm{\Phi }_k(x)b^I(x,y,\xi )`$. By the equivalence of $`x`$ and $`y`$ on the support of $`b^I`$, we can write

$$b_k^I(x,y,\xi )=\mathrm{\Phi }_k(x)b^I(x,y,\xi )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_k(y)$$

with functions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_kC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ which are of the from $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_k(y)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(y/2^k)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^n0)`$ with large $`k`$. Furthermore, we have

$$b_k^I(2^kx,y,\xi )=\mathrm{\Psi }_k(2^kx)\underset{l^n}{}e^{ilx}b_{kl}(y,\xi )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_k(y),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_k`$ is the characteristic function of the support of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$, and

$`b_{kl}(y,\xi )`$ $`={\displaystyle e^{ilx}b_k^I(2^kx,y,\xi )𝑑x}`$
$`=\left(1+|l|^2\right)^n{\displaystyle e^{ilx}\left(1\mathrm{}_x\right)^n\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }_k(2^kx)b^I(2^kx,y,\xi )\right\}𝑑x}`$
is the Fourier coefficients of the function $`b_k^I(2^kx,y,\xi )`$ in the variable $`x`$. Then, by estimate (3.3), we have

$$\left|_y^\alpha _\xi ^\beta b_{kl}(y,\xi )\right|C_{\alpha \beta }\left(1+|l|^2\right)^n,$$

where $`C_{\alpha \beta }`$ is independent of $`k,l^n`$. Thus we have the decomposition

$$T^I=\underset{l^n}{}\underset{k^n}{}e^{ilx/2^k}\mathrm{\Psi }_kT_{kl}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_k,$$

where

$$T_{kl}v(x)=e^{i(x\xi +\phi (y,\xi ))}b_{kl}(y,\xi )v(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi .$$

We remark that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k^n}{}}e^{ilx/2^k}\mathrm{\Psi }_kT_{kl}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_ku_{L^2}^2`$ $`C{\displaystyle \underset{k^n}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_kT_{kl}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_ku_{L^2}^2`$
$`C\underset{k^n}{sup}T_{kl}_{L^2L^2}^2{\displaystyle \underset{k^n}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_ku_{L^2}^2`$
$`C\left(1+|l|^2\right)^{2n}u_{L^2}^2`$
by Corollary 2.6. Hence we have

$`T^I_{L^2L^2}`$ $`C{\displaystyle \underset{l^n}{}}\left(1+|l|^2\right)^n`$
$`C,`$
that is, the $`L^2`$-boundedness of $`T^I`$.

Next, we show the boundedness of $`T^{II}`$. Let $`\rho C_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a real-valued function which satisfies

$$\underset{k^n}{}\rho (\xi k)=1.$$

We decompose $`b^{II}(x,y,\xi )`$ into the sum of

$$b_k^{II}(x,y,\xi )=b^{II}(x,y,\xi )\rho (\xi k)$$

and set

$$T_ku(x)=_^n_^ne^{i(x\xi +\phi (y,\xi ))}b_k^{II}(x,y,\xi )u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi .$$

We claim, we may replace $`b_k^{II}(x,y,\xi )`$ by the symbol (denoted by $`b_k^{II}(x,y,\xi )`$ again) which has the same (or smaller) support and satisfies the estimate

(3.5)
$$\left|_x^\alpha _y^\beta _\xi ^\gamma b_k^{II}(x,y,\xi )\right|C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }x^{(n+1)}y^{(n+1)},$$

where $`C_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is independent of $`k^n`$. Indeed, by integration by parts we have

$$T_ku(x)=e^{i(x\xi +\phi (y,\xi ))}L^Nb_k^{II}(x,y,\xi )u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi ,$$

where $`L`$ is the transpose of the operator

$${}_{}{}^{t}L=\frac{x+_\xi \phi }{i\left|x+_\xi \phi \right|^2}_\xi $$

and $`N`$ is a positive integer. We have $`_\xi \phi (y,\xi )C\left|x+_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right|`$ on the support of $`b^{II}(x,y,\xi )`$, hence we have

$`x\left|x+_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right|+2_\xi \phi (y,\xi )C\left|x+_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right|,`$
$`yC_\xi \phi (y,\xi )C\left|x+_\xi \phi (y,\xi )\right|`$
by estimate (3.2). Thus $`\left|x+_\xi \phi \right|^1`$ is dominated by $`x^1`$ and $`y^1`$, and we can justify our claim by taking large $`N`$.

Let $`T_k^{}`$ be the adjoint of $`T_k`$, and we have

$$T_kT_l^{}v(x)=K_{kl}(x,y)v(y)𝑑y,T_k^{}T_lv(x)=\stackrel{~}{K}_{kl}(x,y)v(y)𝑑y,$$

where

$`K_{kl}(x,y)={\displaystyle e^{i\left\{x\xi y\eta +\phi (z,\xi )\phi (z,\eta )\right\}}b_k^{II}(x,z,\xi )\overline{b_l^{II}(y,z,\eta )}𝑑z𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta },`$
$`\stackrel{~}{K}_{kl}(x,y)={\displaystyle e^{i\left\{\phi (y,\xi )\phi (x,\eta )+z(\xi \eta )\right\}}b_l^{II}(z,y,\xi )\overline{b_k^{II}(z,x,\eta )}𝑑z𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta }.`$
By integration by parts, we have

$`{\displaystyle e^{i\left(\phi (z,\xi )\phi (z,\eta )\right)}b_k^{II}(x,z,\xi )\overline{b_l^{II}(y,z,\eta )}𝑑z}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle e^{i\left(\phi (z,\xi )\phi (z,\eta )\right)}L^{2n+1}\left(b_k^{II}(x,z,\xi )\overline{b_l^{II}(y,z,\eta )}\right)𝑑z},`$
where $`L`$ is the transpose of the operator

$${}_{}{}^{t}L=\frac{1}{i}\frac{_z\phi (z,\xi )_z\phi (z,\eta )}{\left|_z\phi (z,\xi )_z\phi (z,\eta )\right|^2}_z.$$

From the assumptions, we obtain

$$\left|_z\phi (z,\xi )_z\phi (z,\eta )\right|C|\xi \eta |$$

and

$$\left|_z^\beta \phi (z,\xi )_z^\beta \phi (z,\eta )\right|C_\beta |\xi \eta |$$

for all $`\beta `$. From this argument and (3.5), we obtain

$$|K_{kl}(x,y)|Cx^{(n+1)}y^{(n+1)}\left(1+|kl|^{2n+1}\right)^1,$$

where $`C`$ is independent of $`k,l^n`$. Then we have

$`\underset{x}{sup}{\displaystyle |K_{kl}(x,y)|𝑑y}C\left(1+|kl|^{2n+1}\right)^1,`$
$`\underset{y}{sup}{\displaystyle |K_{kl}(x,y)|𝑑x}C\left(1+|kl|^{2n+1}\right)^1`$
which implies, by Lemma 2.1,

$$T_kT_l^{}_{L^2L^2}C\left(1+|kl|^{2n+1}\right)^1.$$

Similarly, we have

$$T_k^{}T_l_{L^2L^2}C\left(1+|kl|^{2n+1}\right)^1$$

if we take

$${}_{}{}^{t}L=\frac{1}{i}\frac{\xi \eta }{\left|\xi \eta \right|^2}_z.$$

Then we have

$$T_kT_l^{}_{L^2L^2},T_k^{}T_l_{L^2L^2}C\left\{\gamma \left(kl\right)\right\}^2,$$

where

$$\gamma \left(j\right)=\left(1+|j|^{2n+1}\right)^{1/2}$$

and it satisfies the estimate

$$\underset{j^n}{}\gamma \left(j\right)<\mathrm{}.$$

By Lemma 2.2, we have the $`L^2`$-boundedness of $`T^{II}`$. ∎

## 4. Applications

In this section, we explain how to use Theorem 3.1 to show the smoothing effect of generalized Schrödinger equations. The main tool is a class of Fourier integral operators of the form

(4.1) $`T_\psi u(x)=(2\pi )^n{\displaystyle _^n}{\displaystyle _^n}e^{i(x\xi y\psi (\xi ))}u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi ,`$
$`T_\psi ^1u(x)=(2\pi )^n{\displaystyle _^n}{\displaystyle _^n}e^{i(x\xi y\psi ^1(\xi ))}u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi ,`$
where $`\psi ,\psi ^1:^n0^n0`$ are $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-maps satisfying $`\psi \psi ^1(\xi )=\psi ^1\psi (\xi )=\xi `$, $`\psi (\lambda \xi )=\lambda \psi (\xi )`$, and $`\psi ^1(\lambda \xi )=\lambda \psi ^1(\xi )`$ for all $`\lambda >0`$ and $`\xi ^n0`$. We remark that we have

(4.2)
$$T_\psi u(x)=F_\xi ^1\left[\left(F_xu\right)(\psi (\xi ))\right](x),T_\psi ^1u(x)=F_\xi ^1\left[\left(F_xu\right)(\psi ^1(\xi ))\right](x),$$

where $`F_x`$ ($`F_\xi ^1`$ resp.) denotes the (inverse resp.) Fourier transform. Hence, we have $`T_\psi ^1T_\psi =T_\psi T_\psi ^1=id`$, and the formula

(4.3)
$$T_\psi a(D)T_\psi ^1=\left(a\psi \right)(D),$$

where $`a(D)=F_\xi ^1a(\xi )F_x`$. By (4.2) and Plancherel’s theorem, the operators $`T_\psi `$ and $`T_\psi ^1`$ are $`L^2`$-bounded. Furthermore, as a corollary of Theorem 3.1, we have the following:

###### Corollary 4.1.

Suppose $`m`$ and $`|m|<n/2`$. Assume that $`\left|det\psi (\xi )\right|C>0`$. Then the operators $`T_\psi `$ and $`T_\psi ^1`$ defined by (4.1) are $`L_m^2(^n)`$-bounded.

###### Remark 4.1.

By Corollary 4.1 and the interpolation, we have the $`L_m^2(^n)`$-boundedness of $`T_\psi `$ and $`T_\psi ^1`$ with $`m`$ such that $`|m|[n/2]_{}`$ ($`[k]_{}`$ denotes the greatest integer less than $`k`$).

###### Proof.

We prove the boundedness of $`T_\psi `$, from which the boundedness of $`T_\psi ^1`$ follows. Let $`\chi (\xi )C_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a cut off function of the origin. By (4.2), we have

$$\left(1\chi (D)\right)T_\psi u(x)=(2\pi )^n_^n_^ne^{i(x\xi y\psi (\xi ))}\left(1\chi (\xi )\right)u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi .$$

Since $`\psi (\xi )`$ is smooth away from the origin, $`\left(1\chi (D)\right)T_\psi `$ is $`L_m^2`$-bounded by Theorem 3.1. On the other hand, if we note

$$e^{ix\xi }=\frac{1ix_\xi }{x^2}e^{ix\xi },e^{iy\xi }=\frac{1+iy_\xi }{y^2}e^{iy\xi },$$

we have, by change of variables and integration by parts,

(4.4) $`\chi (D)T_\psi u(x)`$
$`=(2\pi )^n{\displaystyle e^{i(x\xi y\psi (\xi ))}\chi (\xi )u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi }`$
$`=(2\pi )^n{\displaystyle e^{i(x\xi y\psi (\xi ))}\left(\frac{1+ix\chi (\xi )+x\chi (\xi ){}_{}{}^{t}\psi (\xi ){}_{}{}^{t}y}{x^2}\right)u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi }`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}T_\psi u+i{\displaystyle \frac{x}{x^2}}\chi (D)T_\psi u+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{x^2}}\chi (D){}_{}{}^{t}\psi (D)T_\psi \left({}_{}{}^{t}xu\right)`$
and

(4.5) $`\chi (D)T_\psi u(x)`$ $`=(2\pi )^n{\displaystyle e^{i(x\psi ^1(\xi )y\xi )}\chi \left(\psi ^1(\xi )\right)\left|det\psi ^1(\xi )\right|u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi }`$
$`=(2\pi )^n{\displaystyle e^{i(x\psi ^1(\xi )y\xi )}\left(\frac{1+𝐚(\xi )y+xA(\xi ){}_{}{}^{t}y}{y^2}\right)u(y)𝑑y𝑑\xi }`$
$`=d(D)T_\psi \left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{x^2}}\right)+|D|^1|D|𝐚\left(\psi (D)\right)d(D)T_\psi \left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{x^2}}u\right)`$
$`+xA(\psi (D))d(D)T_\psi \left({\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{t}x}{x^2}}u\right)`$
where

$`A(\xi )=\chi \left(\psi ^1(\xi )\right)\left|det\psi ^1(\xi )\right|\psi ^1(\xi ),𝐚(\xi )=i\left\{\chi \left(\psi ^1(\xi )\right)\left|det\psi ^1(\xi )\right|\right\},`$
$`d(\xi )=\left|det\psi (\xi )\right|.`$
We remember here that $`T_\psi `$ is $`L^2`$-bounded. Assume that $`T_\psi `$ is $`L_{\pm (k1)}^2`$-bounded with some $`k<n/2`$, $`k`$. We remark that $`\chi (D)`$, $`d(D)`$ and all entries of $`\chi (D)`$, $`\psi (D)`$, $`A(\psi (D))`$, $`|D|𝐚\left(\psi (D)\right)`$ are $`L_{\pm (k1)}^2`$-bounded, and $`|D|^1`$ is bounded from $`L_{(k1)}^2`$ to $`L_k^2`$. To justify these boundedness, use the results of Kurtz and Wheeden , Stein and Weiss . Using them, we obtain the $`L_k^2`$-boundedness of $`\chi (D)T_\psi `$ from (4.4), and $`L_k^2`$-boundedness from (4.5). Then, by induction, we have the desired result. ∎

Now, let $`p(\xi )C^{\mathrm{}}(^n0)`$ be a positive function which satisfies $`p(\lambda \xi )=\lambda p(\xi )`$ for all $`\lambda >0`$ and $`\xi ^n0`$, and let

$$L_p=p(D_x)^2=F_\xi ^1p(\xi )^2F_x$$

be the corresponding Fourier multiplier. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left\{\xi ;p(\xi )=1\right\}`$ has non-vanishing Gaussian curvature. We consider a generalized Schrödinger equation

(4.6)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}\left(i_t+L_p\right)u(t,x)=0,\hfill \\ u(0,x)=f(x).\hfill \end{array}$$

If we take

(4.7)
$$\psi (\xi )=p(\xi )\frac{p(\xi )}{\left|p(\xi )\right|},$$

we have the relation

(4.8)
$$T_\psi (\mathrm{}_x)T_\psi ^1=L_p$$

by (4.3), and the $`L_1^2`$-boundedness of the operators $`T_\psi `$ and $`T_\psi ^1`$ by Corollary 4.1. In fact, the curvature condition on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ means that the Gauss map

$$\frac{p}{\left|p\right|}:\mathrm{\Sigma }S^{n1}$$

is a global diffeomorphism and its Jacobian never vanishes (see Kobayashi and Nomizu ). Hence, we can construct the inverse $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-map $`\psi ^1(\xi )`$ of $`\psi (\xi )`$, and can justify the assumption of Corollary 4.1. Applying $`T_\psi ^1`$ defined by (4.1) with (4.7) to equation (4.6), and introducing $`v=T_\psi ^1u`$ and $`g=T_\psi ^1f`$, (4.6) can be transformed to the equation

(4.9)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}\left(i_t\mathrm{\Delta }_x\right)v(t,x)=0,\hfill \\ v(0,x)=g(x),\hfill \end{array}$$

by (4.8). It has been already known that classical Schrödinger equation (4.9) has the global smoothing estimate

(4.10)
$$\sigma (X,D)v_{L^2\left(_t\times _x^n\right)}Cg_{L^2\left(_x^n\right)},$$

where $`n3`$ and

$$\sigma (X,D)=x^1D^{1/2}.$$

See Ben-Artzi and Klainerman , Simon , Kato and Yajima , or Walther . From this fact, we can extract a similar estimate for generalized Schrödinger equation (4.6). In fact, we have

$$D^{1/2}u=M\left(1+p(D)^2\right)^{1/4}T_\phi v=MT_\phi D^{1/2}v$$

where

$$M=D^{1/2}\left(1+p(D)^2\right)^{1/4}.$$

Here we have used the formula (4.3) with $`a(\xi )=\left(1+|\xi |^2\right)^{1/4}`$. Hence we have

$$\sigma (X,D)u=x^1MT_\psi x\sigma (X,D)v.$$

Since $`M`$ is $`L_1^2(_x^n)`$-bounded by Theorem 1.1, and $`T_\psi `$ by Corollary 4.1, we obtain

$$\sigma (X,D)u_{L^2\left(_t\times _x^n\right)}Cf_{L^2\left(_x^n\right)}$$

from estimates (4.10) and

$$g_{L^2\left(_x^n\right)}=T_\psi ^1f_{L^2\left(_x^n\right)}Cf_{L^2\left(_x^n\right)}.$$

Thus, we have obtained the following result which was partially proved for a type of polynomial $`p(\xi )^2`$ by Ben-Artzi and Devinatz , and fully for radially symmetric $`p(\xi )^2`$ by Walther .

###### Theorem 4.2.

Suppose $`n3`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left\{\xi ;p(\xi )=1\right\}`$ has non-vanishing Gaussian curvature. Then the solution $`u(t,x)`$ to equation (4.6) has the estimate

$$x^1D^{1/2}u_{L^2\left(_t\times _x^n\right)}Cf_{L^2\left(_x^n\right)}.$$

In Theorem 4.2, the order $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}1\mathrm{"}`$ for the weight is the best possible one because of the estimate for the low frequency part (Walther , ). But, if we replace $`D^{1/2}`$ by $`|D|^{1/2}`$, we have another type of estimate

$$x^\delta |D|^{1/2}u_{L^2\left(_t\times _x^n\right)}Cf_{L^2\left(_x^n\right)}$$

for $`\delta >1/2`$. Chihara  obtained this type of estimates for rather general $`p(\xi )^2`$. In our forthcoming paper , we use our main result Theorem 3.1 to obtain a refinement of this estimate.