format: text

text:
# Curvature-induced bound states for a 𝛿 interaction supported by a curve in ℝ³

## 1 Introduction

Relations between the geometry and spectral properties are one of the vintage topics of mathematical physics. In the last decade they attracted attention also in the context of quantum mechanics. A prominent example is the curvature-induced binding in infinite tube like regions \[EŠ, GJ, DE, RB\]. This effect appears to be a robust one: it has been demonstrated recently that bends can produce localized states not only if the transverse confinement is hard, i.e. realized by a Dirichlet condition, but also when it is weaker corresponding to a potential well or a $`\delta `$ interaction \[EI\].

The result is appealing, not only because it concerns an interesting mathematical problem, but also in view of applications in mesoscopic physics where such operators are used as a natural model for semiconductor “quantum wires”. Since in the latter electrons are trapped due to interfaces between two different materials representing finite potential jumps, by tunneling effect they can be found outside the wire, albeit not too far because the exterior is (for the energies in question) the classically forbidden region.

The main result of the paper \[EI\] concerns nontriviality of the discrete spectrum for a class of operators in $`L^2(^2)`$ which can be formally written as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \delta (x\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ with $`\alpha >0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a curve which is not a straight line but it is asymptotically straight in a suitable sense. A question naturally arises whether a similar result is valid for a curve in $`^3`$. Such an extension is not trivial, because the argument in \[EI\] relies on the resolvent formula of \[BEKŠ\] representing in a sense a generalization of the Birman-Schwinger theory. The said formula is valid for singular perturbations of the Laplacian which can be treated by means of a quadratic-form sum, i.e. as long as the codimension of the manifold supporting the perturbation is one.

Thus if we want to address the stated question, we are forced to look for other tools. One possibility is to employ the resolvent formula for a curve in $`^3`$ derived in \[Ku\]. However, since it uses rather strong regularity hypotheses about the curve we take another route and begin instead with an abstract formula for strongly singular perturbations due to A. Posilicano \[Po\]. When it is specified to our particular case, it contains again an embedding operator into a space of functions supported on the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, however, this time it is not the “naive” $`L^2`$ but rather a suitable element from the scale of Sobolev spaces. Of course, one can regard it as a generalization of Krein’s formula; recall that such a way of expressing the resolvent can be used not only to describe $`\delta `$ interaction perturbations but also more general dynamics supported by zero measure sets \[Ka, KK, Ko\].

Another aspect of the absence of a description in terms of the quadratic-form sum concerns the very definition of the operator we want to study. We have to employ boundary conditions which relate the corresponding generalized boundary values in the normal plane to the curve modeled after the usual two-dimensional $`\delta `$ interaction \[AGHH\], which requires us to impose stronger regularity conditions on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Furthermore, a modification of the Birman-Schwinger technique used in \[EI\] demands stronger restrictions on the regularity of the curve. On the other hand, apart of these technical hypotheses our main result – stated in Theorem 5.6 below – is analogous to that of \[EI\], namely that for any curve which is asymptotically straight but not a straight line the corresponding operator has at least one isolated eigenvalue. This conclusion is by no means obvious having in mind how different are the point interactions in one and two dimensions.

## 2 The resolvent formula

As a preliminary let us show how self-adjoint extensions of symmetric operators can be characterized in terms of a Krein-type formula derived in \[Po\]; we refer to this paper for the proof and a more detailed discussion. With a later purpose on mind we do not strive for generality and restrict ourselves to the case of the Hilbert space $`:=L^2(^3)L^2`$ and the Laplace operator, $`\mathrm{\Delta }:D(\mathrm{\Delta })L^2`$, which is well known to be self-adjoint on the domain $`D(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ which coincides with the usual Sobolev space $`H^2(^3)H^2`$.

For any $`z`$ belonging to the resolvent set $`\varrho (\mathrm{\Delta })=[0,\mathrm{})`$ we define the resolvent as the bounded operator $`R^z:=(\mathrm{\Delta }z)^1:L^2H^2`$. Consider a bounded operator

$$\tau :H^2𝒳$$

into a complex Banach space $`𝒳`$ and its adjoint in the dual space $`𝒳^{}`$. Recall that for a closed linear operator $`A:𝒳𝒴`$ the adjoint is defined by $`(A^{}l)(x)=l(Ax)`$ for all $`xD(A)`$ and $`lD(A^{})𝒴^{}`$. Then we can introduce the operators

$$R_\tau ^z=\tau R^z:L^2𝒳,\stackrel{˘}{R}_\tau ^z=(R_\tau ^{\overline{z}})^{}:𝒳^{}L^2,$$

which are obviously bounded too. Let $`Z`$ be an open subset of $`\varrho (\mathrm{\Delta })`$ symmetric w.r.t. the real axis, i.e. such that $`zZ`$ implies $`\overline{z}Z`$. Suppose that for any $`zZ`$ there exists a closed operator $`Q^z:D𝒳^{}𝒳`$ satisfying the following conditions,

$`Q^zQ^w=(zw)R_\tau ^w\stackrel{˘}{R}_\tau ^z,`$ (2.1)
$`l_1,l_2D,l_1(Q^{\overline{z}}l_2)=\overline{l_2(Q^zl_1)}.`$ (2.2)
It will be used to construct a family of self-adjoint operators which coincide with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ when restricted to $`\mathrm{ker}\tau `$. They can be parametrized by symmetric operators $`\mathrm{\Theta }:D(\mathrm{\Theta })𝒳^{}𝒳`$. To this end, we define

$`Q_\mathrm{\Theta }^z=\mathrm{\Theta }+Q^z:D(\mathrm{\Theta })D𝒳^{}𝒳,`$
$`Z_\mathrm{\Theta }:=\{z\rho (\mathrm{\Delta }):(Q_\mathrm{\Theta }^z)^1,(Q_\mathrm{\Theta }^{\overline{z}})^1\mathrm{exist}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{are}\mathrm{bounded}\}.`$
With this notation we can state the result we want to borrow from \[Po\].

###### Theorem 2.1

Assume that the conditions

$$Z_\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{}$$
(2.3)
and

$$\mathrm{Ran}\tau ^{}L^2=\{0\}$$
(2.4)
are satisfied. Then the bounded operator

$$R_{\tau ,\mathrm{\Theta }}^z:=R^z\stackrel{˘}{R}_\tau ^z(Q_\mathrm{\Theta }^z)^1R_\tau ^z,zZ_\mathrm{\Theta },$$

is the resolvent of the self-adjoint operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\tau ,\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ defined by

$`D(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\tau ,\mathrm{\Theta }})=\{fL^2:f=f_z\stackrel{˘}{R}_\tau ^z(Q_\mathrm{\Theta }^z)^1\tau f_z,f_zD(\mathrm{\Delta })\},`$
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\tau ,\mathrm{\Theta }}z)f:=(\mathrm{\Delta }z)f_z,`$
which coincides with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on the $`\mathrm{ker}\tau `$.

## 3 Singular perturbation on a curve in $`^3`$

Henceforth, we will be interested in a specific class of perturbations of the Laplacian on $`=L^2(^3)`$. The free resolvent

$$R^z=(\mathrm{\Delta }z)^1:L^2(^3)H^2(^3),z\varrho (\mathrm{\Delta }),$$

is an integral operator with the kernel

$$G^z(xy)=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\sqrt{z}\left|xy\right|}}{4\pi \left|xy\right|}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^3`$ be a curve defined as a graph of a continuous function which is assumed to be piecewise $`C^1`$. Recall that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ admits a natural parametrization by the arc length which is unique up to a choice if the reference point; we denote the parameter as $`s`$ and use the symbol $`\gamma (s):^3`$ for the corresponding function. Then we have

$$\left|\gamma (s)\gamma (s^{})\right|\left|ss^{}\right|.$$
(3.1)
To specify further the family of curves which we will consider, we introduce for any $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }(0,1)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }>0`$ the set

$`S_{\stackrel{~}{\omega },\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }}:=\{(s,s^{}):\stackrel{~}{\omega }<{\displaystyle \frac{s}{s^{}}}<\stackrel{~}{\omega }^1`$ $`\mathrm{if}`$ $`\left|s+s^{}\right|>\xi (\stackrel{~}{\omega })\stackrel{~}{\epsilon },`$
$`\mathrm{and}\left|ss^{}\right|<\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }`$ $`\mathrm{if}`$ $`|s+s^{}|<\xi (\stackrel{~}{\omega })\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }\},`$
where $`\xi (\stackrel{~}{\omega }):=\frac{1+\stackrel{~}{\omega }}{1\stackrel{~}{\omega }}`$. We adopt the following assumptions:

(a1) there exists a $`c(0,1)`$ such that $`\left|\gamma (s)\gamma (s^{})\right|c\left|ss^{}\right|`$,

(a2) there are $`\omega (0,1)`$, $`\mu 0`$ and positive $`\epsilon ,d`$ such that the inequality

$$1\frac{\left|\gamma (s)\gamma (s^{})\right|}{\left|ss^{}\right|}d\frac{\left|ss^{}\right|}{(\left|ss^{}\right|+1)(1+(s^2+s^2)^\mu )^{1/2}}$$

holds for all $`(s,s^{})S_{\omega ,\epsilon }`$.

The first condition means, in particular, that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has no cusps and self-intersections. The second assumption is basically a requirement of asymptotic straightness (see Remark 5.7), but in contrast to \[EI\] it restricts also the behaviour of $`|\gamma (s)\gamma (s^{})|`$ at small distances; it is straightforward to check that the bound cannot be satisfied unless $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is $`C^1`$-smooth.

To make use of Theorem 2.1 we take $`𝒳=L^2()`$ and denote the corresponding scalar product by $`(,)_l`$ (see also Remark 3.1 below). The operator $`\tau :H^2(^3)L^2()`$ which we will employ in our construction is a trace map defined in the following way:

$$\tau \varphi (s):=\varphi (\gamma (s));$$

it is a standard matter to check that the definition makes sense and the operator $`\tau `$ is bounded \[BN\]. The adjoint operator $`\tau ^{}:L^2()H^2(^3)`$ is determined by the relation

$$\tau ^{}h,\omega =(h,\tau \omega )_l,hL^2(),\omega H^2(^3),$$

where $`,`$ stands for the duality between $`H^2(^3)`$ and $`H^2(^3)`$, in other words, we can write

$$\tau ^{}h=h\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

where $`\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Dirac measure supported by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Since $`\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }L^2(^3)`$ we get

$$\mathrm{Ran}\tau ^{}L^2(^3)=\{0\},$$

so condition (2.4) is satisfied.

###### Remark 3.1

Notice that the map $`\tau `$ as introduced above is not surjective. Indeed, since $`\gamma (s)`$ is a Lipschitz function we have $`\mathrm{Ran}\tau =H^1()`$ – cf. \[BN\]. However, we lose nothing by keeping $`𝒳=L^2()`$ in the further discussion.

The problem at hand is to define an operator $`Q^z:DL^2()L^2()`$ satisfying the conditions (2.1) and (2.2). To this end some preliminaries are needed. Since our considerations concern spectral properties at the negative halfline, it suffices for further discussion to restrict ourselves to $`z=\kappa ^2`$ with $`\kappa >0`$. In such a case it is convenient to modify slightly the used notation by introducing

$$𝐐^\kappa :=Q^{\kappa ^2},𝐑_\tau ^\kappa :=R_\tau ^{\kappa ^2},\stackrel{˘}{𝐑}_\tau ^\kappa :=\stackrel{˘}{R}_\tau ^{\kappa ^2}.$$

and similarly

$$𝐆^\kappa (ss^{}):=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa \left|ss^{}\right|}}{4\pi \left|ss^{}\right|},𝐆^\kappa (\gamma (s)\gamma (s^{}))=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa \left|\gamma (s)\gamma (s^{})\right|}}{4\pi \left|\gamma (s)\gamma (s^{})\right|}.$$

The difference of these two kernels,

$$B_\kappa (s,s^{})=𝐆^\kappa (\gamma (s)\gamma (s^{}))𝐆^\kappa (ss^{}),$$

defines the integral operator $`B_\kappa :D(B_\kappa )L^2()`$ with the domain $`D(B_\kappa )=\{fL^2():B_\kappa fL^2()\}`$. A key observation is that this operator has a definite sign: in view of (3.1) and of the fact that the function $`\xi \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa \xi }}{\xi }`$ decreases monotonically for $`\kappa ,\xi `$ positive, we have

$$B_\kappa (s,s^{})0.$$
(3.2)
The operator $`B_\kappa `$ is related obviously with the deviation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from a straight line; below we shall demonstrate that properties for a curve satisfying the assumptions (a1) and (a2) with any $`\mu 0`$ is bounded (see Remark 5.4).

Next we need to show how the free resolvent kernel behaves when one of the three dimensions is integrated out. By a direct computation one can show that for all $`\kappa ,\kappa ^{}>0`$ and $`f_1,f_2L^2()`$ the following relation,

$`{\displaystyle _^2}f_1(s)\overline{f_2(s^{})}[𝐆^\kappa (ss^{})𝐆^\kappa ^{}(ss^{})]𝑑s𝑑s^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle _^2}f_1(s)\overline{f_2(s^{})}[\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_\kappa (ss^{})\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_\kappa ^{}(ss^{})]𝑑s𝑑s^{},`$
is valid, where

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_\kappa (ss^{}):=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}_{}\mathrm{ln}(p^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{e}^{ip(ss^{})}dp.$$
(3.3)
This result means, in particular, that

$$_^2f_1(s)\overline{f_2(s^{})}𝐆^\kappa (ss^{})𝑑s𝑑s^{}_^2f_1(s)\overline{f_2(s^{})}\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_\kappa (ss^{})𝑑s𝑑s^{}$$
(3.4)
is $`\kappa `$-independent. Let $`T_\kappa :D(T_\kappa )L^2()`$ be the integral operator with the domain $`D(T_\kappa )=\{fL^2():_{}\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_\kappa (ss^{})f(s^{})𝑑s^{}L^2()\}`$ and the kernel $`T_\kappa (ss^{}):=\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_\kappa (ss^{})+\frac{1}{2\pi }(\mathrm{ln}2+\psi (1))`$ where $`\psi (1)0.577`$ is Euler’s number. Then $`T_k`$ is self-adjoint and we can define the operator

$$𝐐^\kappa f=(T_\kappa +B_\kappa )f:DD(T_\kappa )L^2(),$$

which is also self-adjoint and has the needed properties:

###### Lemma 3.2

The operators $`Q^{\kappa ^2}𝐐^\kappa `$ satisfy the conditions (2.1), (2.2).

Proof. Let $`f_1,f_2D`$, then a direct computation yields

$`(\kappa ^2\kappa ^2)(f_1,𝐑_\tau ^\kappa ^{}\stackrel{˘}{𝐑}_\tau ^\kappa f_2)_l`$
$`={\displaystyle _^2}f_1(s)\overline{f_2(s^{})}[𝐆^\kappa (\gamma (s)\gamma (s^{}))𝐆^\kappa ^{}(\gamma (s)\gamma (s^{}))]𝑑s𝑑s^{}.`$
On the other hand, by definition of $`𝐐^\kappa `$ and the $`\kappa `$-independence of the expression (3.4) we find that $`(f_1,(𝐐^\kappa 𝐐^\kappa ^{})f_2)_l`$ is also given by the right-hand side of the last formula, which proves (2.1). Since $`𝐐^\kappa `$ is self-adjoint, the condition (2.2) is satisfied too.

The operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }:L^2()L^2()`$ appearing in Theorem 2.1 will be identified here with the multiplication by a real number, $`\mathrm{\Theta }f=\alpha f`$ with $`\alpha `$ and the sign convention made with a later purpose on mind. Then the operator

$$𝐐_\mathrm{\Theta }^\kappa =\mathrm{\Theta }+𝐐^\kappa :DL^2()$$

is closed and by Proposition 1 of Ref. \[Po\] we conclude that (2.3) is satisfied.

For simplicity we identify in the following the symbols of the operators $`\tau ,\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with $`\gamma ,\alpha `$, respectively. In this notation Theorem 2.1 says the following: if $`\kappa Z_\alpha `$, i.e. if the operator $`(𝐐_\alpha ^\kappa )^1=(𝐐^\kappa \alpha )^1:L^2()L^2()`$ exists and is bounded, then

$$𝐑_{\gamma ,\alpha }^\kappa =𝐑^\kappa \stackrel{˘}{𝐑}_\gamma ^\kappa (𝐐^\kappa \alpha )^1𝐑_\gamma ^\kappa $$
(3.5)
is the resolvent of a self-adjoint operator which we denote as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha }`$. It coincides with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`\mathrm{ker}\tau =\{gH^2(^3):g(x)=0,x\mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ and

$`D(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha })=\{fL^2:f=f_\kappa \stackrel{˘}{𝐑}_\gamma ^\kappa (𝐐^\kappa \alpha )^1\tau f_k,f_\kappa D(\mathrm{\Delta })\},`$
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha }+\kappa ^2)f=(\mathrm{\Delta }+\kappa ^2)f_\kappa .`$
## 4 The interaction in terms of boundary <br>conditions

To proceed further we have to impose slightly stronger regularity requirement on the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . Specifically, we assume that it is given by a function $`\gamma (s):^3`$ which is $`C^1`$ everywhere and piecewise $`C^2`$, and satisfies the condition (a1). Then we can introduce, apart of a discrete set, the Frenet’s frame for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, i.e. the triple $`(t(s),b(s),n(s))`$ of the tangent, binormal and normal vectors, which are by assumption piecewise continuous functions of $`s`$. Given $`\xi ,\eta `$ we denote $`r=(\xi ^2+\eta ^2)^{1/2}`$ and define the set the “shifted” curve

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^{\xi \eta }:=\{\gamma _r(s)\gamma _r^{\xi \eta }(s):=\gamma (s)+\xi b(s)+\eta n(s)\}.$$

It follows from the smoothness of $`\gamma `$ in combination with (a1) that there exists an $`r_0>0`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{}`$ holds for each $`r<r_0`$.

Since any function $`fH_{loc}^2(^3\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is continuous on $`^3\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ its restriction to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r,r<r_0`$ is well defined; we denote it as $`f_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_r}(s)`$. In fact, we can regard $`f_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_r}(s)`$ as a distribution from $`D^{}()`$ with the parameter $`r`$. We shall say that a function $`fH_{loc}^2(^3\mathrm{\Gamma })L^2(^3)`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ if the following limits

$`\mathrm{\Xi }(f)(s)`$ $`:=`$ $`\underset{r0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}r}}f_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_r}(s),`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }(f)(s)`$ $`:=`$ $`\underset{r0}{lim}\left[f_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_r}(s)+\mathrm{\Xi }(f)(s)\mathrm{ln}r\right],`$
exist a.e. in $``$, are independent of the direction $`\frac{1}{r}(\xi ,\eta )`$, and define functions from $`L^2()`$. The limits here are understood in the sense of the $`D^{}()`$ topology. With these prerequisites we are able now to characterize the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha }`$ discussed above in terms of (generalized) boundary conditions, postponing the proof to the appendix.

###### Theorem 4.1

With the assumption stated above we have

$`D(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha })`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_\alpha :=\{g\mathrm{{\rm Y}}:\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Xi }(g)(s)=\mathrm{\Omega }(g)(s)\},`$ (4.1)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha }f`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }f\mathrm{for}x^3\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$
## 5 Curvature-induced bound states

Let us first find the spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _0,\alpha }`$ where $`\gamma _0`$ is a linear function describing a straight line. Since $`B_\kappa =0`$ holds in this case we have $`𝐐^\kappa =T_\kappa `$. Then the resolvent formula (3.5) yields

$$\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _0,\alpha })=\{\kappa ^2:\alpha \sigma (T_\kappa )=\sigma _{\mathrm{ac}}(T_\kappa )\}.$$

Using the momentum representation of $`T_\kappa `$ we immediately get

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{ac}}(T_\kappa )=(\mathrm{},s_\kappa ],$$

where $`s_\kappa :=\frac{1}{2\pi }(\psi (1)\mathrm{ln}(\kappa /2))`$. Hence the spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _0,\alpha }`$ is given by

$$\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _0,\alpha })=\sigma _{\mathrm{ac}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma _0,\alpha })=[\zeta _0,\mathrm{}),$$

where $`\zeta _0=4\mathrm{e}^{2(2\pi \alpha +\psi (1))}`$ as we expect with the spectrum of a two-dimensional $`\delta `$ interaction \[AGHH\] and the natural separation of variables in mind.

To find the spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha }`$ for a non-straight curve we treat the respective operator $`𝐐^\kappa `$ as a perturbation of the one corresponding to a straight line. First we have to localize the essential spectrum. Following step by step the argument given in the proof of Proposition 1 of Ref. \[EI\] we get

###### Lemma 5.1

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a curve given by a function $`\gamma (s)`$ satisfying (a1) and (a2) with $`\mu >1/2`$. Then $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ess}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha })=[\zeta _0,\mathrm{})`$.

Next we observe that a nontrivial bending pushes the upper bound of the spectrum of $`𝐐^\kappa `$ up.

###### Lemma 5.2

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not a straight line we have

$$sup\sigma (𝐐^\kappa )>s_\kappa .$$
(5.1)
Proof. Let $`\varphi `$ be a positive function from $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^3)`$. Given $`\lambda >0`$ we set $`\varphi _\lambda (s):=\lambda ^{1/2}\varphi (\lambda s)`$. To show (5.1) it suffices to check the following inequality

$$(𝐐^\kappa \varphi _\lambda ,\varphi _\lambda )_ls_\kappa (\varphi _\lambda ,\varphi _\lambda )_l>0,$$

which is easily seen to be equivalent to

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }_{}\mathrm{ln}(1+\left(\frac{\lambda u}{\kappa }\right)^2)^{1/2}|\widehat{\varphi }(u)|^2du+\lambda _^2B_\kappa (s,s^{})\varphi (\lambda s)\varphi (\lambda s^{})dsds^{}>0,$$
(5.2)
where $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ stands for the Fourier transform of $`\varphi `$. The first term in the last expression can expanded as

$$\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(\frac{\lambda }{\kappa }\right)^2_{}u^2\left|\widehat{\varphi }(u)\right|^2𝑑u+𝒪(\lambda ^4).$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not straight by assumption the inequality (3.2) is sharp in an open subset of $`^2`$, so there is $`D>0`$ such that $`\lambda _^2B_\kappa (s,s^{})\varphi (\lambda s)\varphi (\lambda s^{})𝑑s𝑑s^{}D\lambda `$ as $`\lambda 0`$. Consequently, for all sufficiently small $`\lambda `$ the inequality (5.2) is satisfied.

On the other hand, the part of the spectrum in $`(s_\kappa ,\mathrm{})`$ added in this way is at most discrete provided the curve has the asymptotic straightness properties expressed by the assumption (a2) with $`\mu `$ large enough.

###### Lemma 5.3

If $`\mu >1/2`$ then $`B_k`$ are Hilbert-Schmidt operators. Moreover, norms $`B_\kappa _{HS}`$ are uniformly bounded with respect $`\kappa \kappa _0=\left|\zeta _0\right|^{1/2}`$.

Proof. Denote $`\rho \rho (s,s^{}):=\left|\gamma (s)\gamma (s^{})\right|`$ and $`\sigma \sigma (s,s^{}):=\left|ss^{}\right|`$. In this notation the assumptions (a1), (a2) can be written as

(a1) there is a $`c(0,1)`$ such that $`\rho (s,s^{})c\sigma (s,s^{})`$,

(a2) there are $`\omega (0,1)`$, $`\mu 0`$ and $`\epsilon ,d>0`$ s.t. for all $`(s,s^{})S_{\omega ,\epsilon }`$ we have

$$1\frac{\rho (s,s^{})}{\sigma (s,s^{})}\frac{d\sigma (s,s^{})}{(\sigma (s,s^{})+1)(1+(s^2+s^2)^\mu )^{1/2}}.$$

Next we notice that the perturbation kernel is monotonous with respect to the spectral parameter,

$$B_\kappa (s,s^{})B_\kappa ^{}(s,s^{})\mathrm{for}\kappa ^{}<\kappa ,$$

thus to prove lemma it suffices to show that $`B_{\kappa _0}`$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator. Since the function $`\upsilon \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0\upsilon }}{\upsilon }`$ is strictly decreasing and convex in $`(0,\mathrm{})`$, we have the following estimate,

$$0\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0\rho }}{\rho }\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0\sigma }}{\sigma }\left[\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0\sigma _c}}{\sigma _c}\right]^{}(\sigma \rho ),$$

where $`\sigma _c:=c\sigma `$ and $`c`$ is the constant appearing in (a1). Thus we get

$$0\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0\rho }}{\rho }\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0\sigma }}{\sigma }(\kappa _0\sigma _c+1)\frac{\sigma \rho }{\sigma _c^2}\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0\sigma _c},$$
(5.3)
and moreover, the assumption (a1) gives the bound

$$\frac{\sigma \rho }{\sigma }1c.$$

In view of (a2), there exists a positive $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ such that

$$\sigma (s,s^{})\stackrel{~}{c}.$$

holds for any $`(s,s^{})^2S_{\omega ,\epsilon }`$. Combining the last three inequalities we have in $`^2S_{\omega ,\epsilon }`$ the estimate

$$\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0\rho }}{\rho }\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0\sigma }}{\sigma }\right]M_1\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0\sigma _c}$$
(5.4)
with $`M_1:=(4\pi )^1(1c)c^2(\kappa _0c+\stackrel{~}{c}^1)`$. On the other hand using (5.3) and (a2) we get

$$\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0\rho }}{\rho }\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0\sigma }}{\sigma }\right]M_2\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0\sigma _c}\frac{1}{(1+(s^2+s^2)^\mu )^{1/2}}$$
(5.5)
for $`(s,s^{})S_{\omega ,\epsilon }`$, where $`M_2:=(4\pi )^1dc^2\mathrm{max}\{1,\kappa _0c\}`$. Putting now the estimates (5.4), (5.5) together we find

$`{\displaystyle _^2}B_k(s,s^{})^2𝑑s𝑑s^{}`$
$`M_1^2{\displaystyle _{^2S_{\omega ,\epsilon }}}\mathrm{e}^{2\kappa _0c\left|ss^{}\right|}𝑑s𝑑s^{}+M_2^2{\displaystyle _{S_{\omega ,\epsilon }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{2\kappa _0c\left|ss^{}\right|}}{1+(s^2+s^2)^\mu }}𝑑s𝑑s^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega }{1\omega }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0cu}u𝑑u+M_2^2{\displaystyle _{S_{\omega ,\epsilon }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{2\kappa _0c\left|ss^{}\right|}}{1+(s^2+s^2)^\mu }}𝑑s𝑑s^{}<\mathrm{},`$
which proves the result because the last integral converges for $`\mu >1/2`$.

###### Remark 5.4

As we have said, the assumption (a2) includes a decay of the quantity characterizing the non-straightness at large distances within $`S_{\omega ,\epsilon }`$ as well as a restriction for $`s`$ close to $`s^{}`$. The latter (which is independent of $`\mu `$) ensures the boundedness of $`B_\kappa `$ uniformly w.r.t. $`\kappa `$. As in the proof of the above lemma the uniformity is easy; it suffices to check that $`B_{\kappa _0}`$ is bounded. To this end we employ the Schur-Holmgren bound: we have $`B_{\kappa _0}_lB_{\kappa _0}_{SH}`$, where the right-hand side of the last inequality is for integral operators with symmetric positive kernels defined as

$$B_{\kappa _0}_{SH}=\underset{s}{sup}_{}B_{\kappa _0}(s,s^{})𝑑s^{}.$$

Let us use the notation from the previous proof. If $`\sigma \epsilon `$, then by assumption (a2) there exists for any $`\mu 0`$ a $`C_1>0`$ such that

$$B_{\kappa _0}(s,s^{})C_1.$$

On the other hand, if $`\sigma >\epsilon `$ then by (5.3) we can find $`C_2>0`$ such that

$$B_{\kappa _0}(s,s^{})C_2\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0\sigma _c}.$$

Combining the above two inequalities we get the following estimate,

$$_{}B_{\kappa _0}(s,s^{})𝑑s^{}C_1_{s\epsilon }^{s+\epsilon }𝑑s^{}+2C_2_{s+\epsilon }^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0c\left|ss^{}\right|}𝑑s^{}=2(C_1\epsilon +C_2\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa _0c\epsilon }}{\kappa _0c}),$$

which shows that $`B_{\kappa _0}_{SH}`$ is finite.

###### Lemma 5.5

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be defined as before. Then the function $`\kappa 𝐐^\kappa `$ is continuous in the norm operator in $`(\kappa _0,\mathrm{})`$, and moreover,

$$\underset{\kappa \mathrm{}}{lim}sup\sigma (𝐐^\kappa )=\mathrm{}.$$
(5.6)
Proof. First we observe that the function $`\kappa T_\kappa `$ is continuous in the norm operator. Indeed, for any $`fD`$ we have

$`(T_\kappa T_\kappa ^{})f_l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle _{}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2+\kappa ^2}{p^2+\kappa ^2}}\right)^2|\widehat{f}(p)|^2𝑑p`$ (5.7)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(2\pi )^3}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\kappa ^{}}}\right)^2f_l^20.`$
as $`\kappa ^{}\kappa `$. On the other hand, in analogy with \[EI\] we can estimate

$$\left|(B_\kappa B_\kappa ^{})(s,s^{})\right|^22(B_\kappa (s,s^{})^2+B_\kappa ^{}(s,s^{})^2)4B_{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}(s,s^{})^2,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }:=\mathrm{min}\{\kappa ,\kappa ^{}\}`$ arriving therefore at

$$\underset{\kappa ^{}\kappa }{lim}B_\kappa B_\kappa ^{}_{HS}0;$$
(5.8)
from (5.7) and (5.8) we get the norm-operator continuity. Let further $`fD`$. The limiting relation (5.6) follows directly from the bound

$`(𝐐^\kappa f,f)_l={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle _{}}(\mathrm{ln}(p^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+\mathrm{ln}2+\psi (1))|\widehat{f}(p)|^2dp`$
$`+(B_\kappa f,f)_l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}+\psi (1))f_l^2+Sf_l^2,`$
where $`S:=sup_{\kappa \kappa _0}B_k_l<\mathrm{}`$.

Now we are in position to state and prove our main result.

###### Theorem 5.6

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a curve determined by a function $`\gamma :^3`$ which is $`C^1`$ and piecewise $`C^2`$, and satisfies the conditions (a1), (a2) with $`\mu >1/2`$. Then the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha }`$ has at least one isolated eigenvalue in $`(\mathrm{},\zeta _0)`$.

Proof. By Lemma 5.2 we have $`sup\sigma (𝐐^\kappa )>s_\kappa `$, while by Lemma 5.3 this operator has only isolated eigenvalues of a finite multiplicity in $`(s_\kappa ,\mathrm{})`$. Let $`\lambda (\kappa )`$ be such an eigenvalue of $`𝐐^\kappa `$. Using then Lemma 5.5 we conclude that the function $`\lambda ()`$ is continuous and $`\lambda (\kappa )\mathrm{}`$ as $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$. Consequently, there is $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }>\left|\zeta _0\right|^{1/2}`$ such that $`\lambda (\stackrel{~}{\kappa })=\alpha `$. From the resolvent formula (3.5) we then infer that $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2(\mathrm{},\zeta _0)`$ is an eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha }`$.

###### Remarks 5.7

(a) It is clear that the claim holds without the $`C^2`$ assumption, however, the latter is needed if we want to interpret the $`\delta `$ interaction on the curve in the spirit of Theorem 4.1. Furthermore, we see that any deviation from a straight $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ pushes the spectrum threshold below the value $`\zeta _0`$ but without the assumption (a2) we cannot be sure about the nature of this added part of the spectrum.
(b) One may ask what the requirement of asymptotic straightness expressed by (a2) means. Suppose that $`\gamma `$ is $`C^2`$ smooth. Then the curvature of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is everywhere defined and can expressed as $`k(s)=\left(_{i=1}^3k_i(s)^2\right)^{1/2}`$, where $`k_i(s):=\epsilon _{ijk}\gamma _j^{}(s)\gamma _k^{\prime \prime }(s)`$ with the summation convention for the indices of the Levi-Civita tensor. It allows us estimate the distance between $`\gamma (s)`$ and $`\gamma (s^{})`$ in the following way,

$`\left|\gamma (s)\gamma (s^{})\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =0}{\overset{1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle _{i=1}^3}{\displaystyle _s^{}^s}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle _s^{}^{s_1}}k_i(s_2)𝑑s_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \nu }{2}}\right)𝑑s_1\right)^2\right]^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _{i=1}^3}{\displaystyle _s^{}^s}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle _s^{}^{s_1}}k_i(s_2)𝑑s_2\right)^2\right)𝑑s_1,`$
where we assume without loss of generality that $`s>s^{}`$. Suppose that there are positive $`\beta ,c_i`$ such that $`\left|k_i(s)\right|c_i\left|s\right|^\beta `$. Then $`\left|k(s)\right|3c\left|s\right|^\beta `$, where $`c=\mathrm{max}_i\{c_i\}`$ and one can estimate

$`1{\displaystyle \frac{\left|\gamma (s)\gamma (s^{})\right|}{\left|ss^{}\right|}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\left|ss^{}\right|}}{\displaystyle _s^{}^s}\left[{\displaystyle _s^{}^{s_1}}k(s_2)𝑑s_2\right]^2𝑑s_1`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3c^2}{2\left|ss^{}\right|}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|s^{}\right|^{2\beta }}}{\displaystyle _s^{}^s}\left|s^{}s_1\right|^2𝑑s_1{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|s^{}s\right|^2}{\left|s^{}\right|^{2\beta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|s^{}\right|^{2\beta 2}}}.`$
Thus the conclusion is the same as in the two-dimensional case discussed in \[EI\]: the assumption (a2) with $`\mu >1/2`$ is satisfied if $`\beta >5/4`$.

## Appendix: proof of Theorem 4.1

First we check the inclusion $`D(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha })\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_\alpha `$. Suppose that $`fD(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha })`$, i.e. that there is $`f_\kappa D(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ such that

$$f=f_\kappa \stackrel{˘}{𝐑}_\gamma ^\kappa (𝐐^\kappa \alpha )^1\tau f_\kappa .$$
(A.1)
Denote $`h:=(𝐐^\kappa \alpha )^1\tau f_\kappa L^2()`$, so $`f=f_\kappa 𝐑^\kappa \tau ^{}h`$. Since $`f_\kappa H^2(^3)`$ and $`\tau ^{}hH^2(^3)`$ is a measure supported by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we can conclude that $`fH_{loc}^2(^3\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ – see \[RS\]. Using properties of the Macdonald function $`K_0(\varsigma )`$ and the following relation

$$\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa (r^2+(ss^{})^2)^{1/2}}}{(r^2+(ss^{})^2)^{1/2}}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}_{}K_0((p_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}r)\mathrm{e}^{ip_1(ss^{})}𝑑p_1$$

we can check that

$$\underset{r0}{lim}\left[\frac{1}{4\pi }_{}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa (r^2+(ss^{})^2)^{1/2}}}{(r^2+(ss^{})^2)^{1/2}}h(s^{})𝑑s^{}+\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}rh(s)\right]=T_\kappa h(s).$$

Now it is easy to demonstarte that the function

$$(\stackrel{˘}{𝐑}_\gamma ^\kappa h)(x)=\frac{1}{4\pi }_{}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\kappa \left|x\gamma (s)\right|}}{\left|x\gamma (s)\right|}h(s)𝑑s$$

satisfies the limiting relation

$$\underset{r0}{lim}\left[(\stackrel{˘}{𝐑}^\kappa h)_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_r}(s)+\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}rh(s)\right]=T_\kappa h(s)+B_\kappa h(s)$$
(A.2)
with respect to families of “shifted” curves described in Sec. 4. The above limits are understood in distributional sense. It follows from (A.1) and (A.2) that

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(f)(s)=\frac{1}{2\pi }h(s).$$
(A.3)
On the other hand, since $`f_\kappa D(\mathrm{\Delta })=H^2(^3)`$ the same relations (A.1) and (A.2) yield

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(f)(s)=(\tau f_\kappa )(s)(𝐐_\kappa h)(s)=\alpha h(s).$$
(A.4)
Combining (A.3) and (A.4) we obtain that $`f\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and $`2\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Xi }(f)(s)=\mathrm{\Omega }(f)(s)`$. Conversely, one can show by analogous considerations that any function from $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_\alpha `$ can be represented in the form $`f=f_\kappa \stackrel{˘}{𝐑}_\gamma ^\kappa (𝐐^\kappa \alpha )^1\tau f_\kappa `$ with $`f_\kappa D(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, so $`D(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha })=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_\alpha `$. Moreover, since

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha }+\kappa ^2)f=(\mathrm{\Delta }+\kappa ^2)f_\kappa $$

and $`\tau ^{}hH^2(^3)`$ is a measure supported by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we infer that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\alpha }f(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }f(x),x^3\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }.$$

This completes the proof.

### Acknowledgments

The work was supported by GAAS under the contract #1048101.

Department of Theoretical Physics

Nuclear Physics Institute

Academy of Sciences

25068 Řež near Prague, Czech Republic

E-mail: exner@ujf.cas.cz, kondej@ujf.cas.cz


text:
# Weak UCP and perturbed monopole equations

## 1. Introduction

We outline the content and motivation of the paper. The first part of the paper presents a proof of weak Unique Continuation Property for perturbed Dirac operators, based on classical methods revolving around the Carleman inequality. In the second part we give an application to the Morse–Smale–Witten complex for the Chern–Simons–Dirac functional, whose homology defines a gauge–theoretic invariant of 3–manifolds.

### 1.1. UCP and Dirac operators

A linear or non-linear operator $`𝔇`$, acting on functions or sections of a bundle over a compact or non-compact manifold $`M`$ has the weak Unique Continuation Property (UCP) if any solution $`u`$ of the equation $`𝔇u=0`$ has the following property: if $`u`$ vanishes on a non–empty open subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`M`$, it vanishes on the whole connected component of $`M`$ containing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

There is also a notion of strong UCP, where, instead of assuming that a solution $`u`$ vanishes on an open subset, one assumes only that $`u`$ vanishes ‘of high order’ at a point. The concepts of weak and strong UCP extend a fundamental property of analytic functions to some elliptic equations other than the Cauchy–Riemann equation, see also §2.2 below.

Up to now, (almost) all work on UCP goes back to two seminal papers ,  by Torsten Carleman, establishing a Carleman–type inequality (cf. our inequalities (2.3) and (4.1) below). In this approach, the difference between weak and strong UCP and the possible presence of more delicate non–linear perturbations are related to different choices of the weight function in the inequality, and to whether $`L^2`$–estimates suffice or $`L^p`$– and $`L^q`$–estimates are required.

There are different notions of operators of Dirac type. We shall not discuss the original hyperbolic Dirac operator (in the Minkowski metric), but restrict ourselves to the elliptic case related to Riemannian metrics.

Recall that, if $`(M,g)`$ is a compact smooth Riemannian manifold (with or without boundary) with $`dimM=m`$, we denote by $`l(M)=\{l(TM_x,g_x)\}_{xM}`$ the bundle of Clifford algebras of the tangent spaces. For $`EM`$ a smooth complex vector bundle of Clifford modules, the Clifford multiplication is a bundle map $`𝐜:l(M)\mathrm{Hom}(E,E)`$ which yields a representation $`𝐜:l(TM_x,g_x)\mathrm{Hom}_{}(E_x,E_x)`$ in each fiber. We may assume that the bundle $`E`$ is equipped with a Hermitian metric which makes the Clifford multiplication skew–symmetric

(1.1)
$$𝐜(v)s,s^{}=s,𝐜(v)s^{}\text{ for }vTM_x\text{ and }sE_x.$$

Any choice of a smooth connection

$$:\mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{}}(M;E)\mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{}}(M;T^{}ME)$$

defines an operator of Dirac type $`𝔇:=𝐜`$ under the Riemannian identification of the bundles $`TM`$ and $`T^{}M`$. In local coordinates we have $`𝔇:=_{j=1}^m𝐜(e_j)_{e_j}`$ for any orthonormal base $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_m\}`$ of $`TM_x`$. Actually, we may choose a local frame in such a way that

$$_{e_j}=\frac{}{x_j}+\text{ zero order terms}$$

for all $`1jm`$. So, locally, we have

(1.2)
$$𝔇:=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}𝐜(e_j)\frac{}{x_j}+\text{ zero order terms }.$$

It follows at once that the principal symbol $`\sigma _1(𝔇)(x,\xi )`$ is given by Clifford multiplication with $`i\xi `$, so that any operator $`𝔇`$ of Dirac type is elliptic with symmetric principal symbol. Actually, if the connection $``$ is compatible with Clifford multiplication (i.e. $`𝐜=0`$), then the operator $`𝔇`$ itself becomes symmetric. We shall, however, admit non–compatible metrics. Moreover, the Dirac Laplacian $`𝔇^2`$ has principal symbol $`\sigma _2(𝔇^2)(x,\xi )`$ given by the Riemannian metric $`\xi ^2`$. So, it is scalar real (i.e. a real multiple of the identity) and elliptic.

### 1.2. Motivation

Our main motivation for investigating weak UCP for perturbed Dirac equations is an application to gauge theory of 3–manifolds. We outline briefly the context in which the question arises.

Seiberg–Witten Floer homology is an invariant of 3–manifolds defined as the homology of a Morse–Smale–Witten complex for the Chern–Simons–Dirac functional, defined on an infinite dimensional space of $`U(1)`$–connections and spinor sections. A detailed construction of Seiberg–Witten Floer homology along with an analysis of its main properties is given in .

Several interesting analytical problem are connected to the construction of this invariant. One source of technical difficulties is finding a suitable perturbation theory for the functional, in order to have the Morse (or Morse–Bott) condition for the critical points, and transversality of the spaces of flow lines. There are different ways of treating this problem.

One possible approach is the one followed in . First one realizes that it is fairly easy to achieve transversality for the set of critical points of the Chern–Simons–Dirac functional (moduli space of gauge classes of 3–dimensional Seiberg–Witten monopoles), while it is more difficult to achieve transversality for moduli spaces of flow lines. This observation leads to the idea of perturbing the functional just enough to achieve transversality at critical points, and then introducing a class of perturbation of the 4–dimensional Seiberg–Witten monopole equations, which does not come from a perturbation of the functional. The perturbations constructed this way have to satisfy a certain list of properties \[14, §2.3\], ensuring that the resulting moduli spaces of flow lines have the desired transversality properties, so that the boundary operator in the Morse–Smale–Witten complex can be defined by a counting of flow lines.

In this approach, all the perturbations can be chosen so that, in the Seiberg–Witten monopole equations, only the curvature equation is perturbed, while leaving the Dirac equation unchanged. A class of perturbations with these properties was introduced by Frøyshov in .

Though this approach is effective in providing a working definition of Floer homology and in the proof of topological invariance (in the equivariant case) , it is very unnatural to use different perturbations for critical points and flow lines which do not come from a perturbation of the functional. Moreover, with the perturbation defined by Frøyshov, it is hard to have good control of the effect on the equations when the underlying 3–manifold is modified, for instance by stretching a long cylinder, as in problems related to cutting and pasting (surgery formulae). In the interest of deriving formulae of this sort, it is better to investigate other possible perturbation theories, which arise directly as perturbations of the Chern–Simons–Dirac functional. A class of such perturbation was proposed by Kronheimer in . Since these affect both the curvature and the Dirac equation, and are both non–local and non–linear, the question arises of how much delicate properties of the Dirac operator, such as the Unique Continuation Property, may be affected by the presence of perturbation. In particular, since the weak UCP plays a role in all the transversality arguments, this seems an important technical point that needs to be understood.

This is the main point in our paper. We apply our elementary proof of weak UCP for perturbed Dirac operators to a class of perturbations for Seiberg–Witten Floer theory that combines the perturbations introduced in  and .

Finally, it should be mentioned that a version of Seiberg–Witten Floer theory that avoids the use of perturbations and deals directly with the resulting excess intersection was developed recently by Manolescu .

Acknowledgment. We thank Hubert Kalf for his generous help and many extremely useful comments and suggestions.

## 2. Weak UCP for perturbed Dirac operators

Clearly, not any arbitrary perturbation by a 0th order term preserves the Unique Continuation Property (UCP) as one can see by standard cases from first order ordinary differential equations, such as $`\dot{u}2\sqrt{|u|}=0`$, or $`\dot{u}3u^{2/3}=0`$. With a little more work, it is possible to produce examples with non–uniqueness of smooth solutions.

In the affirmative, weak UCP can be proved in the following case.

###### Theorem 2.1.

The weak UCP (i.e. UCP from open subsets) for solutions of a possibly tensored Dirac equation $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}u=0`$ on a smooth (not necessarily compact) manifold $`M`$ is preserved under perturbation with a non–linear and/or global term of 0th order of the form $`𝔓(u)`$ which can be estimated in the following way:

* $`\left|𝔓(u)(x)\right|P(u,x)|u(x)|`$ with a real valued non–negative locally bounded function $`P(u,)`$ on $`M`$.

### 2.1. Guide to the Literature

We review briefly three ways to prove Theorem 2.1.

#### 2.1.1.

We can replace the Dirac operator by its square, the Dirac Laplacian. It has diagonal and real principal symbol. So we can apply the legendary parallel papers  and  by Aronszajn and Cordes. Of course, in principle, a perturbation of a differential operator of first order by a 0th order term is essentially more delicate than a perturbation of a second order operator by 0th order. Fortunately, the two mentioned papers admit non–linear perturbations of first order of precisely that type which our 0th order perturbation of the Dirac operator will yield by squaring the perturbed operator.

Strictly speaking, Aronszajn and Cordes derived their results only for scalar equations and not for systems, but they mentioned that the proofs are similar for systems. Moreover, it should be mentioned that these methods are extremely hard because the goal of the two famous papers was the strong UCP (from a point). However, for the applications in Seiberg–Witten–Floer theory, weak UCP suffices. Finally, from a geometric point of view it seems inappropriate to destroy the beautiful geometric first–order structure of the Dirac operator by squaring.

#### 2.1.2.

For weak UCP, an alternative and much simpler proof was given by Weck,  for any first order system of generalized Dirac type and a non–linear smooth perturbation satisfying the condition of Theorem 2.1. He transforms to a particular second order system and then establishes weak UCP for that system relatively easily.

#### 2.1.3.

In the following we shall explain a third and completely direct proof method, where all arguments are carried out on the level of the perturbed Dirac operator, without resorting to second order operators.

First we recall some features of the direct proof of weak UCP for solutions of the Dirac equation, given in  and . Later on we explain the modifications necessary to cover also the non–linear case.

### 2.2. The Unique Continuation Property - The Unperturbed Case

The weak UCP is one of the basic properties of an operator of Dirac type $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}`$. For $`M=M_0_\mathrm{\Sigma }M_1`$ , it guarantees that there are no ghost solutions of $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}u=0`$, that is, there are no solutions which vanish on $`M_0`$ and have non–trivial support in the interior of $`M_1`$. This property is also called UCP from open subsets or across any hypersurface. For Euclidean (classical) Dirac operators (i.e., Dirac operators on $`^m`$ with constant coefficients and without perturbation) the property follows by squaring directly from the well–established UCP for the classical (constant coefficients and no potential) Laplacian.

In \[2, Chapter 8\] a very simple proof of the weak UCP for operators of Dirac type is given, inspired by \[15, Sections 6-7, in particular the proof of inequality (7.11)\] and \[17, Section II.3\]. We refer to  for a further slight simplification and a broader perspective. The proof does not use advanced arguments of the Aronszajn/Cordes type regarding the diagonal and real form of the principal symbol of the Dirac Laplacian, but only the following product property of Dirac type operators (besides Gårding’s inequality, see Remark 4.1).

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a closed hypersurface of $`M`$ with orientable normal bundle. Let $`t`$ denote a normal variable with fixed orientation such that a bicollar neighborhood $`N`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is parameterized by $`[ϵ,+ϵ]\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then any operator of Dirac type can be rewritten in the form

(2.1)
$$\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}|_N=𝐜(dt)\left(\frac{}{t}+B_t+C_t\right),$$

where $`B_t`$ is a self–adjoint elliptic operator on the parallel hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, and $`C_t:S|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}S|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}`$ a skew–symmetric operator of $`0`$th order, actually a skew–symmetric bundle homomorphism.

###### Remark 2.3.

(a) It is worth mentioning that the product form (2.1) is invariant under perturbation by a bundle homomorphism. More precisely: Let $`𝔇`$ be an operator on $`M`$ which can be written in the form (2.1) close to any closed hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ , with $`B_t`$ and $`C_t`$ as explained in the preceding Lemma. Let $`R`$ be a bundle homomorphism. Then

$$\left(𝔇+R\right)|_N=𝐜(dt)\left(\frac{}{t}+B_t+C_t\right)+𝐜(dt)S|_N$$

with $`S|_N:=𝐜(dt)^{}R|_N`$. Splitting $`S=\frac{1}{2}(S+S^{})+\frac{1}{2}(SS^{})`$ into a symmetric and a skew–symmetric part and adding these parts to $`B_t`$ and $`C_t`$, respectively, yields the wanted form of $`\left(𝔇+R\right)|_N`$.

(b) For operators of Dirac type, it is well known that a perturbation by a bundle homomorphism is equivalent to modifying the underlying connection of the operator. This gives an alternative argument for the invariance of the form (2.1) for operators of Dirac type under perturbation by a bundle homomorphism.

(c) By the preceding arguments (a), respectively (b), establishing weak UCP for sections belonging to the kernel of a Dirac type operator respectively an operator which can be written in the form (2.1) implies weak UCP for all eigensections. Warning: for general linear elliptic differential operators, weak UCP for “zero-modes” does not imply weak UCP for all eigensections.

To prove the weak UCP, in combination with the preceding lemma, the standard lines of the UCP literature can be radically simplified, namely with regard to the weight functions and the integration order of estimates. In Section 2.2 we shall see that exactly these simplifications make it very easy to generalize the weak UCP to the perturbed case. We recall some decisive steps of the simplified proof in the unperturbed case.

We want to show that, if $`u\mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{}}(M,S)`$ is a solution of $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}u=0`$, which vanishes on a non–empty open subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`M`$, then it vanishes on the whole connected component of the manifold.

#### 2.2.1.

First we localize and convexify the situation and we introduce spherical coordinates (see Figure 1). Without loss of generality we may assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is maximal, namely the union of all open subsets where $`u`$ vanishes. If the solution $`u`$ does not vanish on the whole connected component containing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we consider a point $`x_0\mathrm{supp}u\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We choose a point $`p`$ inside of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that the ball around $`p`$ with radius $`r:=\mathrm{dist}(x_0,p)`$ is contained in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. We call the coordinate, running from $`p`$ to $`x_0`$ , the normal coordinate and denote it by $`t`$. The boundary of the ball around $`p`$ of radius $`r`$ is a hypersphere and will be denoted by $`𝒮_{p,0}`$. It goes through $`x_0`$ which has a normal coordinate $`t=0`$.

Correspondingly, we have larger hyperspheres $`𝒮_{p,t}M`$ for $`0tT`$ with $`T>0`$ sufficiently small. In such a way we have parameterized an annular region $`N_T:=\{𝒮_{p,t}\}_{t[0,T]}`$ around $`p`$ of width $`T`$ and inner radius $`r`$, ranging from the hypersphere $`𝒮_{p,0}`$ which is contained in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, to the hypersphere $`𝒮_{p,T}`$ which cuts deeply into $`\mathrm{supp}u`$, if $`\mathrm{supp}u`$ is not empty.

#### 2.2.2.

Next, we replace the solution $`u`$ by a cutoff

(2.2)
$$v(t,y):=\phi (t)u(t,y)$$

with a smooth bump function $`\phi `$ with $`\phi (t)=1`$ for $`t0.8T`$ and $`\phi (t)=0`$ for $`t0.9T`$. Then $`\mathrm{supp}v`$ is contained in $`N_T`$ . More precisely, it is contained in the annular region $`N_{0.9T}`$ . Moreover, $`\mathrm{supp}(\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}v)`$ is contained in the annular region $`0.8Tt0.9T`$ .

We recall the following Lemma (cf. Lemma 5 and Lemma 6 in ). The weak UCP for the unperturbed Dirac operator $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}`$ will then follow immediately from this result.

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}:\mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{}}(M,E)\mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{}}(M,E)`$ be a linear elliptic differential operator of order 1 which can be written on $`N_T`$ in the product form (2.1). Let $`v`$ be a spinor section in the domain of $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}`$, such that $`\mathrm{supp}(v)N_T`$.

(a) Then for $`T`$ sufficiently small there exists a constant $`C`$ such that the Carleman inequality (see ,  for the original form)

(2.3)
$$R_{t=0}^T_{𝒮_{p,t}}e^{R(Tt)^2}|v(t,y)|^2𝑑y𝑑tC_{t=0}^T_{𝒮_{p,t}}e^{R(Tt)^2}|\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}v(t,y)|^2𝑑y𝑑t$$

holds for any real $`R`$ sufficiently large.

(b) Let $`u`$ be a solution of $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}u=0`$, with $`\mathrm{supp}(\phi u)N_{0.9T}`$, for $`\phi `$ the cutoff function as in (2.2). If (2.3) holds for any sufficiently large $`R>0`$, then $`u`$ is equal $`0`$ on $`N_{T/2}`$ .

Notice that, in the proof of (2.3) we do not assume $`v`$ is a solution, and we do not even assume it is smooth: the Carleman inequality is valid for any section with sufficiently small support, whether it is the cutoff of a solution of the homogeneous equation or not.

In the following section, we will return to some special features of the proof of the preceding lemma and show that the lemma remains true when an admissible (i.e. suitably bounded) perturbation is introduced.

### 2.3. The Perturbed Case

We replace the equation $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}u=0`$ by

(2.4)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}}u:=\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}u+𝔓_A(u)=0,$$

where $`𝔓_A`$ is an admissible perturbation, in the following sense.

###### Definition 2.5.

A perturbation is admissible if it satisfies the following estimate:

(2.5)
$$\left|𝔓_A(u)|_x\right|P(u,x)|u(x)|\text{for }xM$$

with a real–valued function $`P(u,)`$ which is locally bounded on $`M`$ for each fixed $`u`$.

###### Example 2.6.

Some typical examples of perturbations satisfying the admissibility condition of Definition 2.5 are:

* Consider a non–linear perturbation

$$𝔓_A(u)|_x:=\omega (u(x))u(x),$$

where $`\omega (u(x))|_{xM}`$ is a (bounded) function which depends continuously on $`u(x)`$, for instance, for a fixed (bounded) spinor section $`a(x)`$ we can take

$$\omega (u(x)):=u(x),a(x)$$

with $`,`$ denoting the Hermitian product in the fiber of the spinor bundle over the base point $`xM`$. This satisfies (2.5).
* Another interesting example is provided by (linear) non–local perturbations with

$$\omega (u,x)=\left|k(x,z)u(z)𝑑z\right|$$

with suitable integration domain and integrability of the kernel $`k`$. These also satisfy (2.5).
* Clearly, an unbounded perturbation may be both non–linear and global at the same time. This will, in fact, be the case in our main application. In all these cases the only requirement is the estimate (2.5) with bounded $`\omega (u())`$.

We now show that (admissible) perturbed Dirac operators always satisfy the weak Unique Continuation Property.

###### Theorem 2.7.

Let $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}`$ be an operator of Dirac type and $`𝔓_A`$ an admissible perturbation. Then any solution $`u`$ of the perturbed equation (2.4) vanishes identically on any connected component of the underlying manifold if it vanishes on a non–empty open subset of the connected component.

###### Proof.

Let $`u`$ be a solution of the perturbed equation which vanishes on an open non–empty set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We make the same construction as in the unperturbed case with a point $`x_0\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{supp}(u)`$, a point $`p`$ nearby in the interior of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, a normal coordinate $`t`$, hyperspheres $`𝒮_{p,t}`$, a small positive number $`T`$, a cut–off function $`\phi `$ with $`\phi (t)=1`$ for $`t0.8T`$ and $`\phi (t)=0`$ for $`t0.9T`$. Then we consider the cut–off solution $`v=\phi u`$. Note that the support of $`v`$ is in the interior of the hypersphere $`𝒮_{p,T}`$ but $`v`$ is not a true solution.

We argue very much like in \[3, Proof of Lemma 6\]. To begin with, we have

(2.6)
$$\begin{array}{c}e^{RT^2/4}_0^{\frac{T}{2}}_{𝒮_{p,t}}u(t,y)^2𝑑y𝑑t=_0^{\frac{T}{2}}_{𝒮_{p,t}}e^{RT^2/4}|u(t,y)|^2𝑑y𝑑t\hfill \\ \hfill _0^T_{S_{p,t}}e^{R(Tt)^2}|\phi u(t,y)|^2dydt=:I\end{array}$$

We apply the Carleman type inequality of Lemma 2.4

(2.7)
$$I=_{t=0}^T_{𝒮_{p,t}}e^{R(Tt)^2}|\phi u(t,y)|^2𝑑y𝑑t\frac{C}{R}_{t=0}^T_{𝒮_{p,t}}e^{R(Tt)^2}|\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}(\phi u)(t,y)|^2𝑑y𝑑t.$$

We assume that $`u`$ is a solution of the perturbed equation $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}u+𝔓_A(u)=0`$, hence

$$\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}(\phi u)=\phi \mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}u+𝐜(dt)\phi ^{}u=\phi 𝔓_A(u)+𝐜(dt)\phi ^{}u.$$

Inserting in (2.7) yields

$$I\frac{2C}{R}_{t=0}^T_{𝒮_{p,t}}e^{R(Tt)^2}\left(|\phi (t)𝔓_A(u)(t,y)|^2+|𝐜(dt)\phi ^{}(t)u(t,y)|^2\right)𝑑y𝑑t.$$

Now we exploit our assumption

(2.8)
$$\left|𝔓_A(u)(x)\right|P(u,x)|u(x)|\text{for }xM$$

about the perturbation with locally bounded $`P(u,)`$, say

$$|P(u,(t,y))|C_0:=\underset{xK}{\mathrm{max}}|P(u,x)|\text{for all }y𝒮_{p,t},t[0,T]$$

where $`K`$ is a suitable compact set. We obtain at once

$`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2CC_0}{R}}\right)I`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2C}{R}}{\displaystyle _{t=0}^T}{\displaystyle _{𝒮_{p,t}}}e^{R(Tt)^2}|𝐜(dt)\phi ^{}(t)u(t,y)|^2𝑑y𝑑t`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2C}{R}}e^{RT^2/25}{\displaystyle _{t=0}^T}{\displaystyle _{𝒮_{p,t}}}|𝐜(dt)\phi ^{}(t)u(t,y)|^2𝑑y𝑑t.`$
Here we use that $`\phi ^{}(t)=0`$ for $`0t0.8T`$ so that we can estimate the exponential and pull it in front of the integral. Returning to (2.6) yields

$$_0^{\frac{T}{2}}_{S_t}u(t,y)^2𝑑y𝑑t\frac{R}{R2CC_0}\frac{2C}{R}e^{21RT^2/100}_0^T_{𝒮_{p,t}}|𝐜(dt)\phi ^{}(t)u(t,y)|^2𝑑y𝑑t,$$

which gives the result as $`R\mathrm{}`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.8.

The preceding proof consists only of a short modification of the usual way one obtains weak UCP for the unperturbed equation from the Carleman estimate. The point of our proof for the perturbed case is that the unmodified Carleman estimate for the unperturbed operator suffices (Lemma 2.4a). In the Appendix to this Note we give an alternative proof of Theorem 2.7 by modifying Lemma 2.4 and establishing a new Carleman inequality.

### 2.4. Application to the linearization of Seiberg-Witten equations

As an immediate application of Theorem 2.7, we show that, at any solution to the Seiberg-Witten equations, the linearization operator also enjoys the weak UCP. We only give an account of such linearization in the 3-dimensional case, since the corresponding claim in the 4-dimensional case can be established by a similar argument.

Let $`Y`$ be a closed, oriented 3-manifold equipped with a Riemannian metric $`g`$ and a $`\mathrm{Spin}^\mathrm{c}`$ structure. A $`\mathrm{Spin}^\mathrm{c}`$ structure on $`(Y,g)`$ is a lift of the $`SO(3)`$–frame bundle on $`Y`$ to a $`\mathrm{Spin}^\mathrm{c}(3)`$-bundle $`P`$. Note that $`\mathrm{Spin}^\mathrm{c}(3)=U(2)`$. The determinant homomorphism $`\mathrm{Spin}^\mathrm{c}(3)U(1)`$ determines a principal $`U(1)`$-bundle, whose corresponding complex line bundle is called the determinant line bundle of the $`\mathrm{Spin}^\mathrm{c}`$ structure $`P`$.

Given a $`\mathrm{Spin}^\mathrm{c}`$ structure $`P`$, there is an associated $`\mathrm{Spin}^\mathrm{c}`$ bundle

$$W=P\times _{U(2)}^2,$$

which is a complex vector bundle and a module over the bundle of Clifford algebras on $`(Y,g)`$. The bundle of Clifford algebras on $`(Y,g)`$ can be identified with the bundle of exterior algebras on $`T^{}Y`$, but with a different algebra structure: the Clifford relation.

With the Levi-Civita connection $``$ on the cotangent bundle $`T^{}Y`$, a $`U(1)`$-connection $`A`$ on the determinant bundle $`det(W)`$ determines a connection $`_A`$ on $`W`$ such that, for $`v`$ and $`\psi `$ sections of $`T^{}Y`$ and $`W`$ respectively, $`_A`$ satisfies

$$_A(𝐜(v)\psi )=𝐜(v)\psi +𝐜(v)_A(\psi ).$$

Then $`_A`$ is called a $`\mathrm{Spin}^\mathrm{c}`$ connection on $`W`$. Applying the Clifford multiplication, we can define a Dirac operator $`/_A=𝐜_A:\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)`$.

The Seiberg-Witten equations on $`(Y,g)`$, for a pair $`(A,\psi )`$ consisting of a $`U(1)`$ connection $`A`$ on the determinant line bundle of $`𝔰`$ and a spinor section $`\psi `$ of $`W`$, is given by   :

(2.9)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}/_A\psi =0,\hfill \\ F_A=\sigma (\psi ,\psi ),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\sigma (\psi ,\psi )`$ is an $``$-bilinear form on sections of spinor bundle, an imaginary valued 1-form on $`Y`$ given by

$$\sigma (\psi ,\psi )=\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{}(𝐜(e_i)\psi ,\psi )e^i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i).$$

Note that these equations are gauge invariant under the action of gauge group $`𝒢=Map(Y,U(1))`$: $`u(A,\psi )=(A2u^1du,u\psi )`$ for any $`u𝒢=Map(Y,U(1))`$.

Let $`(A,\psi )`$ be a smooth solution to the Seiberg-Witten equations (2.9), then the spinor $`\psi `$ satisfies

(2.10)
$$|\psi |^2max_{yY}\{0,s(y)\}$$

where $`s(y)`$ is the scalar curvature for $`(Y,g)`$ .

The linearization of the Seiberg-Witten equations (2.9) at $`(A,\psi )`$, together with the linearization of the gauge action, gives rise to the following linear elliptic system of equations for $`(\alpha ,\varphi )`$ (a pair of an imaginary valued 1-form $`\alpha `$ and a spinor section):

(2.11)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}d^{}a+i\mathrm{}\psi ,\varphi =0,\hfill \\ d\alpha \sigma (\psi ,\varphi ),\hfill \\ /_A\varphi +\frac{1}{2}𝐜(\alpha )\psi =0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then we have the following weak unique continuation result for the linearization (2.11) of the Seiberg-Witten equations, whose proof follows from Theorem 2.7 and the pointwise bound in 2.10.

###### Corollary 2.9.

If $`(A,\psi )`$ is a solution of the Seiberg-Witten equations (2.9), then as a solution to (2.11), $`(\alpha ,\varphi )`$ satisfies the weak unique continuation property.

## 3. Perturbations of the Chern–Simons–Dirac functional

We consider perturbations of the Chern–Simons–Dirac functional of the form proposed in  and . The setup is as in the last paragraph: we have a closed compact connected oriented smooth 3–manifold $`Y`$, with a fixed $`\mathrm{Spin}^\mathrm{c}`$–structure $`𝔰`$, and with a choice of a Riemannian metric. We consider the configuration space $`𝒜`$ of pairs $`(A,\psi )`$ of a $`U(1)`$–connection and a spinor section, with the action of the gauge group $`𝒢`$ as above. The spaces $`𝒜`$ and $`Lie(𝒢)`$ are completed in suitable Sobolev norms (see e.g. ). Moreover, on the non–compact 4–manifold $`Y\times `$ we consider the $`\mathrm{Spin}^\mathrm{c}`$–structure obtained as pullback of $`𝔰`$ on $`Y`$, and the cylindrical metric. The configuration space is given by the set of finite energy pairs $`(𝔸,\mathrm{\Psi })`$ of a $`U(1)`$–connection and a spinor on $`Y\times `$, acted upon by the corresponding gauge group. The finite energy condition consists of the property that, after a gauge transformation that kills the $`dt`$ component of $`𝔸`$, the resulting $`(A(t),\psi (t))`$ has time derivative in $`L^2`$. In this case the configuration space can be topologized by suitable weighted Sobolev norms. Since we do not need the details here, we refer to .

### 3.1. Case I

We consider the space of functions

(3.1)
$$\underset{Nb_1,K>0}{}\mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{}}(^N,)\times \mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{}}(^K,),$$

where $`b_1`$ is the first Betti number of the 3-manifold $`Y`$.

In order to have the correct setup for transversality arguments, we need a Banach space of parameters, hence we select as perturbation parameter space $`𝒫`$ a subspace of (3.1) of functions $`(𝔭_1,𝔭_2)`$ with finite Floer $`ϵ`$-norm.

The Floer $`ϵ`$-norm of $`(𝔭_1,𝔭_2)`$ is defined as follows: choose $`\underset{¯}{ϵ}=(ϵ_k)_k`$ to be a given sequence of positive real numbers, and set

$$(𝔭_1,𝔭_2)_ϵ=\underset{k0}{}(ϵ_ksup|^k𝔭_1|+ϵ_ksup|^k𝔭_2|).$$

Following the argument of Lemma 5.1 of , the sequence $`\underset{¯}{ϵ}`$ can be chosen such that $`𝒫`$ is a Banach space and $`𝒫L_k^2`$ is dense in $`L_k^2`$. We require that $`𝔭_1`$ is invariant under the actions of $`H^1(Y,Z)`$ on $`^{b_1}`$.

#### 3.1.1.

For any 3-manifold $`Y`$, endowed with a Riemannian metric $`g`$ and a fixed $`\mathrm{Spin}^\mathrm{c}`$ structure $`𝔰`$, we choose a complete $`L^2`$–basis $`\{\nu _j\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of imaginary–valued 1–forms on $`Y`$. We also choose a complete $`L^2`$–basis $`\{\mu _j\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ for the co-closed (imaginary-valued) 1-forms on $`Y`$. Under the Hodge decomposition, we have

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{L^2}^1(Y,i)=H^1(Y,i)Im(d^{})Im(d),$$

and the $`\{\mu _j\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ span the space $`H^1(Y,i)Im(d^{})`$.

#### 3.1.2.

Fix a $`U(1)`$-connection $`A_0`$ on the determinant bundle $`det(𝔰)`$. To each co-closed 1-form $`\mu _j`$ we associate a function on the configuration space $`𝒜`$, defined as

$$\tau _j(A,\psi )=_Y(AA_0)\mu _j.$$

For simplicity, we assume that the $`\{\mu _j\}_{j=1}^{b_1}`$ form a basis of $`H^1(Y,i)`$, and $`[\mu _j]=0`$ for $`j>b_1`$. It is easy to see that the following properties are satisfied:

(1) $`\tau _j`$ is invariant under gauge transformations for $`j>b_1`$;

(2) the map

$$(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _{b_1}):𝒜^{b_1},$$

is equivariant with respect to the action of gauge transformations $`\lambda :YU(1)`$ on $`𝒜`$ and the action of the corresponding $`[\lambda ]H^1(Y,)^{b_1}`$ on $`^{b_1}`$ as a translation by

$$([\lambda ^1d\lambda ][\mu _1],[\lambda ^1d\lambda ][\mu _2],\mathrm{},[\lambda ^1d\lambda ][\mu _{b_1}])[Y].$$

#### 3.1.3.

To each imaginary-valued 1-form $`\nu _j`$, we associate a function $`\zeta _j`$ on $`𝒜`$, defined as the quadratic form in the spinor $`\psi `$,

$$\zeta _j(\psi ,\psi )=_Y𝐜(\nu _j)\psi ,\psi ,$$

where $`,`$ is the Hermitian metric on the space of spinors. It is easy to see that $`\zeta _j`$ is gauge invariant and real-valued.

#### 3.1.4.

Now we choose any function $`𝔭_1\mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{}}(^N,)`$ and $`𝔭_2\mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{}}(^K,)`$ (for $`Nb_1`$, $`K>0`$) where $`𝔭_1`$ is invariant under the action of $`H^1(Y,)`$ on $`^{b_1}^N`$. We can define a function on $`𝒜/𝒢`$ as

$$𝔭_1(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _N)+𝔭_2(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _K).$$

Let $`CSD`$ be the Chern-Simons-Dirac functional

(3.2)
$$CSD(A,\psi )=\frac{1}{2}_Y(AA_0)(F_A+F_{A_0})+_Y\psi ,/_A\psi ,$$

where $`/_A`$ is the self adjoint Dirac operator on the compact 3–manifold $`Y`$ twisted with the $`U(1)`$–connection $`A`$. We perturb this functional as

(3.3)
$$\stackrel{~}{CSD}(A,\psi )=CSD(A,\psi )+𝔭_1(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _N)+𝔭_2(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _K).$$

#### 3.1.5.

For each $`(𝔭_1,𝔭_2)𝒫`$, the gradient of (3.3), with respect to the $`L^2`$–metric on $`𝒜/𝒢`$, is computed in the following lemma .

###### Lemma 3.1.

Consider the perturbed functional (3.3) with

$$(𝔭_1,𝔭_2)𝒫\left(\mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{}}(^N,)\times \mathrm{C}^{\mathrm{}}(^K,)\right).$$

The $`L^2`$–gradient of (3.3) at $`(A,\psi )`$ is given by

(3.4)
$$\stackrel{~}{CSD}(A,\psi )=\{\begin{array}{c}F_A\sigma (\psi ,\psi )_{j=1}^N\frac{𝔭_1}{\tau _j}\mu _j\hfill \\ /_A\psi _{j=1}^K\frac{𝔭_2}{\zeta _j}𝐜(\nu _j)\psi \hfill \end{array}$$

#### 3.1.6.

There are two types of perturbed Dirac equations that we obtain from Lemma 3.1. In fact, the critical points equations for the functional (3.3) provide perturbed 3–dimensional Seiberg–Witten equations of the form

(3.5)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}F_A=\sigma (\psi ,\psi )+\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{𝔭_1}{\tau _j}\mu _j\hfill \\ /_A\psi =\underset{j=1}{\overset{K}{}}\frac{𝔭_2}{\zeta _j}𝐜(\nu _j)\psi ,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\sigma (\psi ,\psi )`$ is a quadratic form in the spinor given by $`_i𝐜(e_i)\psi ,\psi e^i`$, in dual local basis $`\{e_i\}`$ and $`\{e^i\}`$ of $`TY`$ and $`T^{}Y`$. Similarly, the gradient flow equations for the functional (3.3) correspond to perturbed 4–dimensional Seiberg–Witten equations (in a temporal gauge) of the form

(3.6)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{dA(t)}{dt}=F_{A(t)}+\sigma (\psi (t),\psi (t))+\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{𝔭_1}{\tau _j}\mu _j\hfill \\ \frac{d\psi (t)}{dt}=/_{A(t)}\psi (t)+\underset{j=1}{\overset{K}{}}\frac{𝔭_2}{\zeta _j}𝐜(\nu _j)\psi (t).\hfill \end{array}$$

#### 3.1.7.

We can prove the following weak unique continuation result for solutions of the perturbed Seiberg–Witten equations (3.5) and (3.6).

###### Theorem 3.2.

If $`(A,\psi )`$ is a solution of (3.5), and the spinor $`\psi `$ vanishes on a non-empty open set, then $`\psi `$ vanishes everywhere on the compact connected 3–manifold $`Y`$. Suppose then that $`(𝔸,\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is a pair of connection and spinor on the non–compact four–dimensional manifold $`Y\times `$, with cylindrical metric and spinor bundle $`S=S^+S^{}`$ obtained by pulling back the $`\mathrm{Spin}^\mathrm{c}`$–structure $`𝔰`$ on $`Y`$. If $`(𝔸,\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is gauge equivalent to $`(A(t),\psi (t))`$ in a temporal gauge, satisfying (3.6), and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ vanishes on a non-empty open set, then $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ vanishes everywhere on $`Y\times `$.

###### Proof.

The result follows in both cases directly from Theorem 2.7, with the non–linear and global perturbation

(3.7)
$$𝔓_A(\psi ):=\underset{j=1}{\overset{K}{}}\frac{𝔭_2}{\zeta _j}𝐜(\nu _j)\psi ,$$

so that the Dirac equation in (3.5) becomes of the form $`\stackrel{~}{/}_A\psi =0`$, with

$$\stackrel{~}{/}_A\psi =/_A\psi +𝔓_A(\psi ).$$

The Dirac equation in (3.6) can also be written as $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$, with the perturbation term $`𝔓_A(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ which only differs from (3.7) by a unitary operator $`𝐜(dt)`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\Psi }𝔓_A(\mathrm{\Psi }),$$

with $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}`$ the Dirac operator on $`Y\times `$ and $`𝔓_A(\mathrm{\Psi })={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{K}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝔭_2}{\zeta _j}}𝐜(\nu _j)\mathrm{\Psi }`$,

$$\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}:\mathrm{\Gamma }(Y\times ,S^+)\mathrm{\Gamma }(Y\times ,S^{}).$$

### 3.2. Case II

Here we consider a version of the perturbations introduced in , where, in addition to the perturbations $`𝔭_1(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _N)`$ and $`𝔭_2(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _K)`$ defined as in §3.1.2 and 3.1.4, we introduce further perturbations depending on both connection and spinor, described as follows.

#### 3.2.1.

Let $`G`$ be the Green operator for the ordinary Laplacian on $`Y`$. If $`𝒢_e`$ is the identity component of the gauge group $`𝒢`$, we can consider the subgroup $`𝒢_e`$

$$=\{\lambda =e^{if},f:Y\text{ such that }_Yf=0\},$$

with $`𝒢/U(1)\times H^1(Y,)`$. Consider also a fixed family of locally bounded spinors $`\{\psi _i\}_{i=1,2,\mathrm{}}`$ on $`Y`$. We choose the family $`\{\psi _i\}_{i=1,2,\mathrm{}}`$ so that they form a complete $`L^2`$–basis of the space of spinor sections, and they are eigenvectors of the fixed Dirac operator $`/_{A_0}`$, where $`A_0`$ is the fixed $`U(1)`$-connection that appears in the definition of Chern-Simons-Dirac functional (3.2). We set

(3.8)
$$\eta _i(A,\psi ):=e^{Gd^{}(AA_0)}\psi _i,\psi .$$

The following properties are satisfied:

(1) $`\eta _i`$ is invariant under $``$;

(2) the map

$$(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _L):𝒜^L$$

is equivariant with respect to the action of $`𝒢`$ on $`𝒜`$ and the corresponding action of $`U(1)\times H^1(Y,)`$ on $`^L`$.

#### 3.2.2.

We choose a class of functions $`𝔭_3:^L`$ which is invariant with respect to the action of $`U(1)\times H^1(Y,)`$. We consider the corresponding perturbation term

$$𝔭_3(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _L):𝒜,$$

and the resulting perturbed Chern–Simons–Dirac functional of the form

(3.9)
$$\stackrel{~}{CSD}(A,\psi )=CSD(A,\psi )+𝔭_1(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _N)+𝔭_2(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _K)+𝔭_3(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _L).$$

###### Lemma 3.3.

The $`L^2`$–gradient of the perturbed functional (3.9), with the additional perturbation $`𝔭_3`$, is given by

(3.10)
$$\stackrel{~}{CSD}(A,\psi )=\{\begin{array}{c}F_A\sigma (\psi ,\psi )_{j=1}^N\frac{𝔭_1}{\tau _j}\mu _j_{\mathrm{}=1}^L\frac{𝔭_3}{\eta _{\mathrm{}}}dG\left(i\mathrm{}e^{Gd^{}(AA_0)}\psi _{\mathrm{}},\psi \right)\hfill \\ /_A\psi _{i=1}^K\frac{𝔭_2}{\zeta _i}𝐜(\nu _i)\psi _{\mathrm{}=1}^L\frac{𝔭_3}{\eta _{\mathrm{}}}e^{Gd^{}(AA_0)}\psi _{\mathrm{}}\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, the Dirac equations derived from the perturbed critical point equations

$$\stackrel{~}{CSD}(A,\psi )=0$$

and perturbed flow lines equations

$$\frac{d}{dt}(A(t),\psi (t))+\stackrel{~}{CSD}(A(t),\psi (t))=0$$

for the functional (3.9) are, respectively, of the form

(3.11)
$$/_A\psi \underset{i=1}{\overset{K}{}}\frac{𝔭_2}{\zeta _i}𝐜(\nu _i)\psi \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{L}{}}\frac{𝔭_3}{\eta _{\mathrm{}}}e^{Gd^{}(AA_0)}\psi _{\mathrm{}}=0$$

on the compact 3–manifold $`Y`$ and, on the non–compact four–manifold $`Y\times `$,

(3.12)
$$\left(\frac{}{t}+/_{A(t)}\right)\psi (t)\underset{i=1}{\overset{K}{}}\frac{𝔭_2}{\zeta _i}𝐜(\nu _i)\psi (t)\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{L}{}}\frac{𝔭_3}{\eta _{\mathrm{}}}e^{Gd^{}(A(t)A_0)}\psi _{\mathrm{}}=0.$$

### 3.3. The UCP problem for Case II

Unlike the perturbations $`𝔭_1`$ and $`𝔭_2`$ of Case I, the problem of UCP is a lot more delicate for the perturbations $`𝔭_3`$ of Case II.

We begin with a very simple example, again taken from the theory of ordinary differential equations, which shows that UCP may fail for a toy model of the perturbations of Case II. More precisely, we consider perturbations of the form

(3.13)
$$𝔓_a(u)|_x:=u,aa(x),$$

for a fixed $`L^2`$–spinor $`a(x)`$, and with $`,`$ the $`L^2`$–inner product on spinors,

$$u,a=_Yu(x),a(x)𝑑v(x).$$

We take this class as a simplified version of (3.8), and of the resulting $`𝔭_3`$. In any case, we are only looking at the Dirac part of the Seiberg–Witten equations.

###### Example 3.4.

Let $`a:[0,2]`$ be a continuous function which vanishes for $`x[0,1]`$ and satisfies

$$_1^2a(s)𝑑s=\sqrt{2}.$$

Then the function

$$u(x):=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{for }x[0,1)\hfill \\ _1^xa(s)𝑑s\hfill & \text{for }x[1,2]\hfill \end{array}$$

belongs to $`C^1([0,2])`$ and satisfies

$$u^{}(x)=u,aa(x)\text{(for }x[0,2]\text{)},$$

since

$$u,a=_0^2u(t)a(t)𝑑t=\frac{1}{2}u^2(2)=1.$$

This shows that, already in the one–dimensional case and with the simplified perturbations of the form (3.13), weak UCP fails. This means that, in general, it will be difficult to expect (even weak) UCP for the perturbations of Case II.

However, there are special conditions under which perturbations of the form (3.13) do still satisfy weak UCP:

###### Lemma 3.5.

Assume that one of the following conditions is satisfied:

* the spinor $`a`$ does not vanish on any open subset, or
* The support of $`a`$ is contained in the interior of the support of the solution $`u`$ under consideration, or, alternatively put, there exists a positive constant $`C_0`$ such that $`|a(x)|C_0|u(x)|`$ for all $`xM`$.

Then the Dirac equation with a perturbation of the form (3.13) satisfies the weak UCP.

###### Proof.

The second listed condition makes our perturbation admissible in the sense of Definition 2.5 (cf. the second item of Example 2.6), and weak UCP follows from Theorem 2.7.

Now we deal with the first listed condition. Let $`u`$ be a solution of the perturbed equation

$$/_Au(x)+u,aa(x)=0,xM.$$

If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is open in $`M`$ and $`u`$ vanishes identically on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then either $`u,a`$ must vanish or $`a`$ must vanish identically on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In the first case we have no longer a perturbation and we are left with Lemma 2.3 which guarantees weak UCP.

The second case is excluded by the first listed condition of our lemma. ∎

By the choice of the $`\{\psi _i\}_{i=1,2,\mathrm{}}`$, we know that each $`\psi _i`$, as an eigenvector of the Dirac operator $`/_{A_0}`$, satisfies the weak UCP by the argument of Remark 2.3, so the additional perturbation in (3.11) and (3.12) satisfies the first condition of Lemma 3.5. The argument given in the proof of Lemma 3.5 for perturbations of the form (3.13) extends easily to the more general case of perturbed equations of the form (3.11) and (3.12).

Thus, we have proved the following weak unique continuation result for solutions of the perturbed Seiberg–Witten equations (3.11) and (3.12).

###### Theorem 3.6.

If $`(A,\psi )`$ is a solution of (3.11), and the spinor $`\psi `$ vanishes on an open set, then $`\psi `$ vanishes everywhere on the compact connected 3–manifold $`Y`$. Suppose then that $`(𝔸,\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is pair of a connection and spinor on the non–compact four–dimensional manifold $`Y\times `$, with cylindrical metric and spinor bundle $`S=S^+S^{}`$ obtained by pulling back the $`\mathrm{Spin}^\mathrm{c}`$–structure $`𝔰`$ on $`Y`$. If $`(𝔸,\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is gauge equivalent to $`(A(t),\psi (t))`$ in a temporal gauge, satisfying (3.12), and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ vanishes on an open set, then $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ vanishes everywhere on $`Y\times `$.

### 3.4. Linearizations

A detailed discussion of the transversality results for monopole moduli spaces resulting from these perturbed equations will be presented elsewhere. However, in view of such application, we state another result, which follows from Theorem 2.7. Recall that, in the proof of transversality for monopole equations (see \[14, §2.3\]), one argues that a possible element in the Cokernel of the linearization must in fact vanish identically. By varying the choice of the perturbation (transversality of the universal moduli space), the question can be reduced to an argument involving weak UCP for the adjoint of the (perturbed) Dirac operator (we refer to \[14, §2.3\] for details).

There is a conjecture by Laurent Schwartz  that weak UCP for an elliptic differential operator will always imply weak UCP for its formal adjoint. The matter was discussed in  in detail, but is still unsolved, see also \[3, Section 2.2\]. However, in the special case considered here we can prove similar results for the linearizations and their adjoints, applying Theorem 2.7.

Consider the linearization of equations (3.5) and (3.6). This gives linear operators $`𝔡_{(A,\psi )}`$ and $`𝔇_{(𝔸,\mathrm{\Psi })}`$ respectively. Notice that the linearization $`𝔡_{(A,\psi )}`$ or its adjoint $`𝔡_{(A,\psi )}^{}`$ acts on pairs of a 1–form and spinor $`(\alpha ,\varphi )`$, and it involves a term of the form $`\alpha \psi `$. Thus, this operator is not of the type directly considered in Theorem 2.7, hence we shall not apply directly the result to this operator. However, for the proof of transversality (see e.g. ) it is sufficient to know that the operators $`𝔡_{(A,\psi )}^{}`$ and $`𝔇_{(𝔸,\mathrm{\Psi })}^{}`$ acting on “pure spinor elements” $`(0,\varphi )`$ satisfy the UCP property, and this can be shown using Theorem 2.7. The case of $`𝔇_{(𝔸,\mathrm{\Psi })}`$ is completely analogous.

###### Corollary 3.7.

Let the linear operators $`𝔡_{(A,\psi )}^{}`$ and $`𝔇_{(𝔸,\mathrm{\Psi })}^{}`$ be the $`L^2`$–adjoint to the linearizations of equation (3.5) and equation (3.6), respectively. If an element $`(0,\varphi )`$ of pure spinor part is in the kernel of $`𝔡_{(A,\psi )}^{}`$ or $`𝔇_{(𝔸,\mathrm{\Psi })}^{}`$, and the spinor $`\varphi `$ vanishes on a non–empty open set, then $`\varphi `$ vanishes identically on $`Y`$ (or $`Y\times `$).

###### Proof.

The adjoint operators $`/_A^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}^{}`$ are again of Dirac type. In particular the adjoint operators $`𝔡_{(A,\psi )}^{}`$ and $`𝔇_{(𝔸,\mathrm{\Psi })}^{}`$, acting on elements of pure spinor part, are Dirac–type operators with admissible perturbations. Then the weak UCP for an element in the kernel of $`𝔡_{(A,\psi )}^{}`$ and $`𝔇_{(𝔸,\mathrm{\Psi })}^{}`$ follows from Theorem 2.7.

## 4. Appendix

In this Appendix we give an alternative proof of Theorem 2.7 which is also instructive, though longer than the one we have given in the paper.

We prove that the perturbed Carleman inequality

(4.1)
$$R_{t=0}^T_{𝒮_{p,t}}e^{R(Tt)^2}|v(t,y)|^2𝑑y𝑑tC_{t=0}^T_{𝒮_{p,t}}e^{R(Tt)^2}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}}v(t,y)|^2𝑑y𝑑t$$

holds for any real $`R`$ sufficiently large.

In order to make the various steps of the proof more transparent, we have subdivided the proof in short paragraphs.

#### 4.0.1.

First consider a few technical points. The Dirac operator $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}`$ has the form $`G(t)(_t+_t)`$ on the annular region $`\{𝒮_{p,t}\}_{t[0,T]}`$, and it is obvious that we have wUCP for the operator $`_t+_t`$ if and only if we have it for $`\mathrm{D}/_\mathrm{A}`$. Moreover, we have by Lemma 2.2 that $`_t=B_t+C_t`$ with a self–adjoint elliptic differential operator $`B_t`$ and an anti–symmetric operator $`C_t`$ of order zero, both on $`𝒮_{p,t}`$.

#### 4.0.2.

Now make the substitution $`v=:e^{R(Tt)^2/2}v_0`$ which replaces (4.1) by

(4.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}R_0^T_{𝒮_t}|v_0(t,y)|^2𝑑y𝑑t\hfill \\ \hfill C_0^T_{𝒮_t}\left|\frac{v_0}{t}+_tv_0+R(Tt)v_0+e^{\frac{R}{2}(Tt)^2}𝔓_A(v)\right|^2𝑑y𝑑t.\end{array}$$

We shall denote the integral on the left hand side by $`J_0`$ and the integral on the right hand side by $`J_1`$.

#### 4.0.3.

Now we prove (4.2). Decompose $`\frac{}{t}+_t+R(Tt)+𝔓_A`$ into its symmetric part $`B_t+R(Tt)+𝔓_A`$ and anti-symmetric part $`_t+C_t`$. This gives

$`J_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \left|\left(\frac{v_0}{t}+C_tv_0\right)+\left(B_tv_0+R(Tt)v_0+e^{\frac{R}{2}(Tt)^2}𝔓_A(v)\right)\right|^2𝑑y𝑑t}`$
$`=\underset{J_{\mathrm{skew}}}{\underset{}{{\displaystyle \left|\frac{v_0}{t}+C_tv_0\right|^2𝑑y𝑑t}}}+\underset{J_{\mathrm{sym}}}{\underset{}{{\displaystyle }|\left(B_t+R(Tt)\right)v_0}}`$
$`+e^{\frac{R}{2}(Tt)^2}𝔓_A(v)|^2dydt`$
$`+2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{v_0}{t}+C_tv_0,B_tv_0+R(Tt)v_0}+e^{\frac{R}{2}(Tt)^2}𝔓_A(v)dydt`$
$`=:J_{\mathrm{skew}}+J_{\mathrm{sym}}+J_{\mathrm{mix}}.`$
#### 4.0.4.

First we investigate the term $`J_{\mathrm{mix}}`$. We integrate by parts and use the identities for the real part

$$\mathrm{}f,Pf=\frac{1}{2}f,(P+P^{})f,$$

and

$$2\mathrm{}a,b2|a,b|\left(ϵ|b|^2+\frac{|a|^2}{ϵ}\right).$$

We get, almost like in \[3, p.30\],

(4.3)
$$J_{\mathrm{mix}}=RJ_0+J_3+J_{\mathrm{skew}.\mathrm{pert}}.$$

#### 4.0.5.

The first term on the right in (4.3) is

$$RJ_0=R_0^T|v_0|^2𝑑t.$$

The second term on the right in (4.3) is the most delicate and was thoroughly analyzed in the unperturbed case:

$$J_3:=v_0,\frac{B_t}{t}v_0+[B_t,C_t]v_0𝑑y𝑑t.$$

The third term on the right in (4.3) is

$`J_{\mathrm{skew}.\mathrm{pert}}`$ $`=2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{v_0}{t}}+C_tv_0,e^{\frac{R}{2}(Tt)^2}𝔓_A(v)dydt`$
$`{\displaystyle \left|\frac{v_0}{t}+C_tv_0\right|^2𝑑y𝑑t}{\displaystyle \left|e^{\frac{R}{2}(Tt)^2}𝔓_A(v)\right|^2𝑑y𝑑t}.`$
#### 4.0.6.

As a matter of fact the term $`J_{\mathrm{skew}}`$ was not used at all for establishing the Carleman inequality in the unperturbed case. Hence we can balance the first negative term in the preceding estimate for $`J_{\mathrm{skew}.\mathrm{pert}}`$ with $`J_{\mathrm{skew}}`$.

To balance the second negative term we decompose

$$\begin{array}{c}J_{\mathrm{sym}}=ϵ\left|\left(B_t+R(Tt)\right)v_0\right|^2𝑑y𝑑t\hfill \\ \hfill +(1ϵ)\left|\left(B_t+R(Tt)\right)v_0\right|^2𝑑y𝑑t\\ \hfill +\left|e^{\frac{R}{2}(Tt)^2}𝔓_A(v)\right|^2𝑑y𝑑t+J_{\mathrm{sym}.\mathrm{pert}}\end{array}$$

with

$`J_{\mathrm{sym}.\mathrm{pert}}`$ $`=2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \left(B_t+R(Tt)\right)v_0,e^{\frac{R}{2}(Tt)^2}𝔓_A(v)𝑑y𝑑t}`$
$`ϵ{\displaystyle \left|\left(B_t+R(Tt)\right)v_0\right|^2𝑑y𝑑t}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \left|e^{\frac{R}{2}(Tt)^2}𝔓_A(v)\right|^2𝑑y𝑑t}.`$
#### 4.0.7.

Now the second (negative) term in the estimate for $`J_{\mathrm{skew}.\mathrm{pert}}`$ balances exactly with the third term in the decomposition of $`J_{\mathrm{sym}}`$. Moreover, the first (negative) term in the estimate for $`J_{\mathrm{sym}.\mathrm{pert}}`$ balances exactly with the first term in the decomposition of $`J_{\mathrm{sym}}`$. Note, that a fraction of $`\left|\left(B_t+R(Tt)\right)v_0\right|^2𝑑y𝑑t`$ (say, the second term in the decomposition of $`J_{\mathrm{sym}}`$) was needed for balancing $`J_3`$ in the unperturbed case (see also Remark 4.1). So, we must choose $`ϵ`$ sufficiently small, say $`ϵ=\frac{1}{4}`$ .

To balance the second (negative) term in the estimate for $`J_{\mathrm{sym}.\mathrm{pert}}`$ we are left with the only positive term not yet (fully) used: $`RJ_0`$.

#### 4.0.8.

Let us first consider the case of admissible perturbations satisfying (2.5). Introducing the perturbation induces a final error

$$J_{\mathrm{err}}=_0^T_{𝒮_{p,t}}|v_0|^2\left(R\frac{1}{ϵ}|P(v)|^2\right)𝑑y𝑑t$$

with fixed $`ϵ`$. For fixed $`v`$ we can choose a positive $`R_0`$ such that the error term $`J_{\mathrm{err}}`$ becomes $`0`$ for all $`RR_0`$.

###### Remark 4.1.

In the unperturbed case, the completely elementary character of the arguments was made possible by exploiting one single non–elementary ingredient, Gårding’s inequality (here the equivalence of the first Sobolev norm to the graph norm of any linear first order elliptic differential operator). It was used for estimating the term $`J_3`$ by $`\frac{1}{2}J_{\mathrm{sym}}`$ and a fraction of $`J_0`$ . For the perturbed case, it is worth mentioning that we do not need any kind of non–linear elliptic estimate but can keep the necessary modifications on the elementary level.