text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, great efforts have been devoted to the investigation of the possibility of measuring some tiny general relativistic effects in the gravitational field of the Earth by analyzing the laser–ranged data to some existing or proposed geodetic laser–tracked (SLR) satellites.

The most famous experiment is that peformed with LAGEOS and LAGEOS II \[Ciufolini et al., 1998\] and aimed to the detection of the gravitomagnetic Lense–Thirring drag of inertial frames \[Lense and Thirring, 1918; Ciufolini and Wheeler, 1995\] in the gravitational field of the Earth. The analysis of the orbits of the LAGEOS satellites could allow also for an alternative measurement of the gravitoelectric perigee advance \[Ciufolini and Wheeler, 1995\] to be performed in the gravitational field of the Earth \[Iorio, 2002; Iorio et al., 2002a\]. Moreover, the possibility of including also the data from other existing SLR satellites in these analysis is currently investigated \[Iorio, 2002\]. The proposed LAGEOS–LARES mission \[Ciufolini, 1986\], whose original configuration is currently being reanalyzed \[Iorio et al., 2002b\] in view of the inclusion of more orbital elements of various SLR satellites in the observable to be adopted, should be of great significance for both gravitomagnetic and gravitoelectric tests \[Iorio et al., 2002a; Iorio et al., 2002b\]. Satellite laser ranging could be the natural candidate also for the implementation of a space–based experiment aimed to the detection of the so called gravitomagnetic clock effect \[Mashhoon et al., 1999; Iorio et al., 2002c\], which is sensitive to the direction of motion of two counter–orbiting satellites along identical orbits in the gravitational field of a central rotating mass.

In all such performed or proposed experiments it is of the utmost importance to reliably assess the error budget. Indeed, the terrestrial space environment is rich of competing classical perturbing forces of gravitational and non–gravitational origin which in many cases are far larger than the general relativistic effects to be investigated. In particular, it is the impact of the systematic errors induced by the mismodelling in such various classical perturbations which is relevant in determining the total realistic accuracy of an experiment like those previously mentioned.

The general relativistic effects of interest here are linear trends affecting the perigee $`\omega `$ and the node $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the orbit of a satellite and amounting to $`10^1`$$`10^3`$ milliarcseconds per year (mas/y in the following) for the gravitomagnetic and the gravitoelectric effects, respectively.

In this context the most important source of systematic error is represented by the secular classical precessions of the node and the perigee induced by the mismodelled even ($`l=2n,n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$) zonal ($`m=0`$) harmonics $`\delta J_2,\delta J_4,\delta J_6,\mathrm{}`$ of the multipolar expansion of the terrestrial gravitational field, called geopotential. Indeed, while the time–varying orbital tidal perturbations \[Iorio, 2001; Iorio and Pavlis, 2001; Pavlis and Iorio, 2002\] and non–gravitational orbital perturbations \[Lucchesi, 2001; 2002\], according to their periods $`P`$ and to the adopted observational time span $`T_{\mathrm{obs}}`$, can be viewed as empirically fitted quantity and can be removed from the signal, this is not the case of the classical even zonal secular precessions and of certain subtle non–gravitational secular effects of thermal origin \[Lucchesi, 2002\]. Their mismodelled linear trends act as superimposed effects which may alias the recovery of the genuine general relativistic features. Such disturbing trends cannot be removed from the signal without cancelling also the general relativistic signature, so that one can only assess as more accurately as possible their impact on the measurement. Then, the systematic error induced by the mismodelled part of the geopotential can be viewed as a sort of unavoidable, lower bound of the total systematic error.

In this paper we calculate explicitly, up to $`l=20`$, the expressions of the coefficients of the classical secular precessions on the node and the perigee due to the geopotential (section 2). Their explicit, analytic form, although rather cumbersome, may turn out to be useful in designing suitably alternative relativistic observables which are not sensitive, at least in part, to such classical aliasing effects \[Iorio and Lichtenegger, 2002; Iorio and Lucchesi, 2002\]. In section 3 we work out the numerical values of the mismodelled precessions for the existing SLR geodetic satellites and of the proposed LARES and compare them to the general relativistic effects. The errors for the spherical harmonics coefficients are those of EGM96 gravity model \[Lemoine et al., 1998\] and of the recent EIGEN–1S (see http://op.gfz-potsdam.de/champ/results/) which includes the first data from CHAMP mission111It should be pointed out that the values employed in the following for the errors $`\delta J_l`$ by EIGEN-1S are the formal, uncalibrated standard deviations. Moreover, EIGEN-1S is based only on the satellites tracking data.. These estimates can be useful in assessing the systematic errors in various possible observables, built up with such Keplerian orbital elements, which are sensitive to some relativistic effects. E.g., someone could look at the relativistic perturbations of the radial, along–track and cross–track components of the position and velocity vectors of a satellite; they can be obtained from suitable combinations of the Keplerian orbital elements. The same holds also for the range and range–rate perturbations in intersatellite tracking missions like GRACE \[Cheng, 2002\]. In section 4 we review the strategy of combining the orbital residuals of the nodes and the perigees of different laser–ranged satellites which allows for a reduction of the impact of the geopotential’s error and yield preliminary estimates of the errors affecting two gravitomagnetic combinations based on the first results from EIGEN–1S. They are useful in order to get an insight of the improvements which will take place when the full new gravity models will become available. Section 5 is devoted to the conclusions.

In Tab. 1 we quote the orbital parameters of the existing spherical passive geodetic laser-ranged satellites Ajisai, Stella, Starlette, WESTPAC1, ETALON1, ETALON2, LAGEOS, LAGEOS II and of the proposed LARES. In it $`a`$ is the semimajor axis, $`e`$ is the eccentricity, $`i`$ is the inclination and $`n=\sqrt{GMa^3}`$, where $`G`$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant and $`M`$ is the mass of the central body, is the Keplerian mean motion. It is worth noting that the perigees of many of them, except for Starlette, cannot be employed for any relativistic tests due to the notable smallness of their eccentricities.

## 2 The orbital classical precessions

Here we show the explicitly calculated coefficients

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2n}\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{class}}^{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{zonal}}}{(J_{2n})}$$
($`1`$)
and

$$\dot{\omega }_{.2n}\frac{\dot{\omega }_{\mathrm{class}}^{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{zonal}}}{(J_{2n})}$$
($`2`$)
of the satellites’ classical nodal and apsidal precessions due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential up to $`l=20`$. The classical precessions of the node and the perigee due to the even zonal harmonics of geopotential can be written as

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{class}}^{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{zonal}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{}}\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2n}\times J_{2n},`$ ($`3`$)
$`\dot{\omega }_{\mathrm{class}}^{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{zonal}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{}}\dot{\omega }_{.2n}\times J_{2n}.`$ ($`4`$)
As we shall see later, the coefficients $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2n}`$ and $`\dot{\omega }_{.2n}`$ depend only on the orbital parameters of the satellites. Recall that $`J_lC_{l0},l=2n,n=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$ where the unnormalized adimensional Stokes coefficients $`C_{lm}`$ of degree $`l`$ and order $`m`$ can be obtained from the normalized $`\overline{C}_{lm}`$ with

$$C_{lm}=N_{lm}\overline{C}_{lm}.$$
($`5`$)
In it

$$N_{lm}=\left[\frac{(2l+1)(2\delta _{0m})(lm)!}{(l+m)!}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
($`6`$)
The general expressions of the classical rates of the near Earth satellites’ Keplerian orbital elements due to the geopotential $`\dot{a}_{\mathrm{class}},\dot{e}_{\mathrm{class}},\dot{i}_{\mathrm{class}},\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{class}},\dot{\omega }_{\mathrm{class}},\dot{}_{\mathrm{class}}`$, and of the inclination functions $`F_{lmp}(i)`$ and of the eccentricity functions $`G_{lpq}(e)`$ can be found in \[Kaula, 1966\]. The coefficients $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2n}`$ and $`\dot{\omega }_{.2n}`$ are of crucial importance in the evaluation of the systematic error due to the mismodelled even zonal harmonics of the geopotential; moreover, they enter the combined residuals’ coefficients $`c_i`$ about which we speak in section 4. Since the general relativistic effects investigated are secular perturbations, we have considered only the perturbations averaged over one satellite’ s orbital period. This has been accomplished with the condition $`l2p+q=0`$ which allows for canceling out the rate of the mean anomaly $``$. Since the eccentricity functions $`G_{lpq}`$ are proportional to $`e^{\left|q\right|}`$, for a given value of $`l`$ we have considered only those values of $`p`$ which fulfil the condition $`l2p+q=0`$ with $`q=0`$, i.e. $`p=\frac{l}{2}`$. This implies that in the summations

$$\underset{p=0}{\overset{l}{}}\frac{dF_{l0p}}{di}\underset{q=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}G_{lpq}$$
($`7`$)
and

$$\underset{p=0}{\overset{l}{}}F_{l0p}\underset{q=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dG_{lpq}}{de}$$
($`8`$)
involved in the expressions of the classical rates we have considered only $`F_{l0\frac{l}{2}}`$ and $`G_{l\frac{l}{2}0}`$. Moreover, in working out the $`G_{l\frac{l}{2}0}`$ we have neglected the terms of order $`𝒪(e^k)`$ with $`k>2`$.

### 2.1 The nodal coefficients

The nodal coefficients, proportional to

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}i}\underset{q=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}G_{lpq}\underset{p=0}{\overset{l}{}}\frac{dF_{lmp}}{di},$$
($`9`$)
are ($`R`$ is the Earth’s mean equatorial radius)

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}n\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}i}{(1e^2)^2}},`$ ($`10`$)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.4}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{3}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^2}}\left(7\mathrm{sin}^2i4\right)\right],`$ ($`11`$)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.6}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{35}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^4{\displaystyle \frac{(1+5e^2)}{(1e^2)^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{33}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^4i{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2i+1\right)\right],`$ ($`12`$)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.8}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2}[{\displaystyle \frac{105}{16}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^6{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{21}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^6}}({\displaystyle \frac{715}{64}}\mathrm{sin}^6i{\displaystyle \frac{143}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^4i+`$ ($`13`$)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{33}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2i1)],`$
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.10}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2}[{\displaystyle \frac{1,155}{128}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^8{\displaystyle \frac{(1+18e^2)}{(1e^2)^8}}({\displaystyle \frac{4,199}{128}}\mathrm{sin}^8i{\displaystyle \frac{1,105}{16}}\mathrm{sin}^6i`$ ($`14`$)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{195}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^4i13\mathrm{sin}^2i+1)],`$
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.12}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2}[{\displaystyle \frac{3,003}{256}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{10}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{55}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^{10}}}({\displaystyle \frac{52,003}{512}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i{\displaystyle \frac{33,915}{128}}\mathrm{sin}^8i`$ ($`15`$)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8,075}{32}}\mathrm{sin}^6i{\displaystyle \frac{425}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^4i+{\displaystyle \frac{75}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2i1)],`$
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.14}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2}[{\displaystyle \frac{15,015}{1,024}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{12}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{91}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^{12}}}({\displaystyle \frac{334,305}{1,024}}\mathrm{sin}^{12}i{\displaystyle \frac{260,015}{256}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i`$ ($`16`$)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{156,009}{128}}\mathrm{sin}^8i{\displaystyle \frac{11,305}{16}}\mathrm{sin}^6i+{\displaystyle \frac{1,615}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^4i{\displaystyle \frac{51}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2i+1)],`$
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.16}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2}[{\displaystyle \frac{36,465}{2,048}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{14}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{105}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^{14}}}({\displaystyle \frac{17,678,835}{16,384}}\mathrm{sin}^{14}i`$ ($`17`$)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3,991,995}{1,024}}\mathrm{sin}^{12}i+{\displaystyle \frac{2,890,755}{512}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i{\displaystyle \frac{535,325}{128}}\mathrm{sin}^8i+{\displaystyle \frac{107,065}{64}}\mathrm{sin}^6i`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2,793}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^4i+{\displaystyle \frac{133}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2i1)],`$
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.18}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2}[{\displaystyle \frac{692,835}{32,768}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{16}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+68e^2)}{(1e^2)^{16}}}({\displaystyle \frac{119,409,675}{32,768}}\mathrm{sin}^{16}i`$ ($`18`$)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{30,705,345}{2,048}}\mathrm{sin}^{14}i+{\displaystyle \frac{6,513,255}{256}}\mathrm{sin}^{12}i{\displaystyle \frac{1,470,735}{64}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{760,725}{64}}\mathrm{sin}^8i{\displaystyle \frac{28,175}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^6i+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1,127}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^4i42\mathrm{sin}^2i+1)],`$
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.20}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2}[{\displaystyle \frac{1,616,615}{65,536}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{18}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{171}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^{18}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1,641,030,105}{131,072}}\mathrm{sin}^{18}i`$ ($`19`$)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1,893,496,275}{32,768}}\mathrm{sin}^{16}i+{\displaystyle \frac{460,580,175}{4,096}}\mathrm{sin}^{14}i{\displaystyle \frac{30,705,345}{256}}\mathrm{sin}^{12}i`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{19,539,765}{256}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i{\displaystyle \frac{1,890,945}{64}}\mathrm{sin}^8i+{\displaystyle \frac{108,675}{16}}\mathrm{sin}^6i`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1,725}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^4i+{\displaystyle \frac{207}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2i1)].`$
### 2.2 The perigee coefficients

The coefficients of the classical perigee precession are much more involved because they are proportional to

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{cos}i}{\mathrm{sin}i}\right)\underset{q=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}G_{lpq}\underset{p=0}{\overset{l}{}}\frac{dF_{lmp}}{di}+\frac{(1e^2)}{e}\underset{q=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dG_{lpq}}{de}\underset{p=0}{\overset{l}{}}F_{lmp}.$$
($`20`$)
We can pose $`\dot{\omega }_{.2n}=\dot{\omega }_{.2n}^a+\dot{\omega }_{.2n}^b`$.

The first set is given by ($`R`$ is the Earth’s mean equatorial radius)

$`\dot{\omega }_{.2}^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}n\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2i}{(1e^2)^2}},`$ ($`21`$)
$`\dot{\omega }_{.4}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\omega }_{.2}^a\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{3}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^2}}\left(7\mathrm{sin}^2i4\right)\right],`$ ($`22`$)
$`\dot{\omega }_{.6}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\omega }_{.2}^a\left[{\displaystyle \frac{35}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^4{\displaystyle \frac{(1+5e^2)}{(1e^2)^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{33}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^4i{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2i+1\right)\right],`$ ($`23`$)
$`\dot{\omega }_{.8}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\omega }_{.2}^a[{\displaystyle \frac{105}{16}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^6{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{21}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^6}}({\displaystyle \frac{715}{64}}\mathrm{sin}^6i`$ ($`24`$)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{143}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^4i+{\displaystyle \frac{33}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2i1)],`$
$`\dot{\omega }_{.10}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\omega }_{.2}^a[{\displaystyle \frac{1,155}{128}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^8{\displaystyle \frac{(1+18e^2)}{(1e^2)^8}}({\displaystyle \frac{4,199}{128}}\mathrm{sin}^8i{\displaystyle \frac{1,105}{16}}\mathrm{sin}^6i`$ ($`25`$)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{195}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^4i13\mathrm{sin}^2i+1)],`$
$`\dot{\omega }_{.12}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\omega }_{.2}^a[{\displaystyle \frac{3,003}{256}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{10}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{55}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^{10}}}({\displaystyle \frac{52,003}{512}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i{\displaystyle \frac{33,915}{128}}\mathrm{sin}^8i`$ ($`26`$)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8,075}{32}}\mathrm{sin}^6i{\displaystyle \frac{425}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^4i+{\displaystyle \frac{75}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2i1)],`$
$`\dot{\omega }_{.14}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\omega }_{.2}^a[{\displaystyle \frac{15,015}{1,024}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{12}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{91}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^{12}}}({\displaystyle \frac{334,305}{1,024}}\mathrm{sin}^{12}i{\displaystyle \frac{260,015}{256}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i+`$ ($`27`$)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{156,009}{128}}\mathrm{sin}^8i{\displaystyle \frac{11,305}{16}}\mathrm{sin}^6i+{\displaystyle \frac{1,615}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^4i`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{51}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2i+1)],`$
$`\dot{\omega }_{.16}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\omega }_{.2}^a[{\displaystyle \frac{36,465}{2,048}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{14}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{105}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^{14}}}({\displaystyle \frac{17,678,835}{16,384}}\mathrm{sin}^{14}i{\displaystyle \frac{3,991,995}{1,024}}\mathrm{sin}^{12}i`$ ($`28`$)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2,890,755}{512}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i{\displaystyle \frac{535,325}{128}}\mathrm{sin}^8i+{\displaystyle \frac{107,065}{64}}\mathrm{sin}^6i`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2,793}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^4i+{\displaystyle \frac{133}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2i1)],`$
$`\dot{\omega }_{.18}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\omega }_{.2}^a[{\displaystyle \frac{692,835}{32,768}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{16}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+68e^2)}{(1e^2)^{16}}}({\displaystyle \frac{119,409,675}{32,768}}\mathrm{sin}^{16}i`$ ($`29`$)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{30,705,345}{2,048}}\mathrm{sin}^{14}i+{\displaystyle \frac{6,513,255}{256}}\mathrm{sin}^{12}i{\displaystyle \frac{1,470,735}{64}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{760,725}{64}}\mathrm{sin}^8i{\displaystyle \frac{28,175}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^6i+{\displaystyle \frac{1,127}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^4i`$
$``$ $`42\mathrm{sin}^2i+1)],`$
$`\dot{\omega }_{.20}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\omega }_{.2}^a[{\displaystyle \frac{1,616,615}{65,536}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{18}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{171}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^{18}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1,641,030,105}{131,072}}\mathrm{sin}^{18}i`$ ($`30`$)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1,893,496,275}{32,768}}\mathrm{sin}^{16}i+{\displaystyle \frac{460,580,175}{4,096}}\mathrm{sin}^{14}i{\displaystyle \frac{30,705,345}{256}}\mathrm{sin}^{12}i`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{19,539,765}{256}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i{\displaystyle \frac{1,890,945}{64}}\mathrm{sin}^8i+{\displaystyle \frac{108,675}{16}}\mathrm{sin}^6i`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1,725}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^4i+{\displaystyle \frac{207}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2i1)].`$
The second set is given by ($`R`$ is the Earth’s mean equatorial radius)

$`w_{.2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}n\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^2,`$ ($`31`$)
$`\dot{\omega }_{.2}^b`$ $`=`$ $`w_{.2}\left\{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1e^2)^2}}\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2i1\right)\right\},`$ ($`32`$)
$`\dot{\omega }_{.4}^b`$ $`=`$ $`w_{.2}\{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^2[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{(1e^2)^3}}+7{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{3}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^4}}]({\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^4i`$ ($`33`$)
$``$ $`2\mathrm{sin}^2i+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}})\},`$
$`\dot{\omega }_{.6}^b`$ $`=`$ $`w_{.2}\{{\displaystyle \frac{35}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^4[{\displaystyle \frac{10}{(1e^2)^5}}+11{\displaystyle \frac{(1+5e^2)}{(1e^2)^6}}]({\displaystyle \frac{33}{48}}\mathrm{sin}^6i`$ ($`34`$)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^4i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{21}})\},`$
$`\dot{\omega }_{.8}^b`$ $`=`$ $`w_{.2}\{{\displaystyle \frac{105}{16}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^6[{\displaystyle \frac{21}{(1e^2)^7}}+15{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{21}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^8}}]({\displaystyle \frac{715}{512}}\mathrm{sin}^8i`$ ($`35`$)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{143}{48}}\mathrm{sin}^6i+{\displaystyle \frac{33}{16}}\mathrm{sin}^4i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}})\},`$
$`\dot{\omega }_{.10}^b`$ $`=`$ $`w_{.2}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1,155}{128}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^8[{\displaystyle \frac{36}{(1e^2)^9}}+19{\displaystyle \frac{(1+18e^2)}{(1e^2)^{10}}}]({\displaystyle \frac{4,199}{1,280}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i`$ ($`36`$)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1,105}{128}}\mathrm{sin}^8i+{\displaystyle \frac{195}{24}}\mathrm{sin}^6i{\displaystyle \frac{13}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^4i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{55}})\},`$
$`\dot{\omega }_{.12}^b`$ $`=`$ $`w_{.2}\{{\displaystyle \frac{3,003}{256}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{10}[{\displaystyle \frac{55}{(1e^2)^{11}}}+23{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{55}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^{12}}}]({\displaystyle \frac{52,003}{6,144}}\mathrm{sin}^{12}i`$ ($`37`$)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6,783}{256}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i+{\displaystyle \frac{8,075}{256}}\mathrm{sin}^8i{\displaystyle \frac{425}{24}}\mathrm{sin}^6i+{\displaystyle \frac{75}{16}}\mathrm{sin}^4i`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{78}})\},`$
$`\dot{\omega }_{.14}^b`$ $`=`$ $`w_{.2}\{{\displaystyle \frac{15,015}{1,024}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{12}[{\displaystyle \frac{91}{(1e^2)^{13}}}+27{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{91}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^{14}}}]\times `$ ($`38`$)
$`\times `$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{334,305}{14,336}}\mathrm{sin}^{14}i{\displaystyle \frac{260,015}{3,072}}\mathrm{sin}^{12}i+{\displaystyle \frac{156,009}{1,280}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{11,305}{128}}\mathrm{sin}^8i+{\displaystyle \frac{1,615}{48}}\mathrm{sin}^6i{\displaystyle \frac{51}{8}}\mathrm{sin}^4i+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{105}})\},`$
$`\dot{\omega }_{.16}^b`$ $`=`$ $`w_{.2}\{{\displaystyle \frac{36,465}{2,048}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{14}[{\displaystyle \frac{105}{(1e^2)^{15}}}+31{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{105}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^{16}}}]\times `$ ($`39`$)
$`\times `$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{17,678,835}{262,144}}\mathrm{sin}^{16}i{\displaystyle \frac{570,285}{2,048}}\mathrm{sin}^{14}i+{\displaystyle \frac{963,585}{2,048}}\mathrm{sin}^{12}i`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{107,065}{256}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i+{\displaystyle \frac{107,065}{512}}\mathrm{sin}^8i{\displaystyle \frac{931}{16}}\mathrm{sin}^6i+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{133}{16}}\mathrm{sin}^4i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{136}})\},`$
$`\dot{\omega }_{.18}^b`$ $`=`$ $`w_{.2}\{{\displaystyle \frac{692,835}{32,768}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{16}[{\displaystyle \frac{136}{(1e^2)^{17}}}+35{\displaystyle \frac{(1+68e^2)}{(1e^2)^{18}}}]\times `$ ($`40`$)
$`\times `$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{39,803,225}{196,608}}\mathrm{sin}^{18}i{\displaystyle \frac{30,705,345}{32,768}}\mathrm{sin}^{16}i+{\displaystyle \frac{930,465}{512}}\mathrm{sin}^{14}i`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{490,245}{256}}\mathrm{sin}^{12}i+{\displaystyle \frac{152,145}{128}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i{\displaystyle \frac{28,175}{64}}\mathrm{sin}^8i+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1,127}{12}}\mathrm{sin}^6i{\displaystyle \frac{21}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^4i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{171}})\},`$
$`\dot{\omega }_{.20}^b`$ $`=`$ $`w_{.2}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1,616,615}{65,536}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{a}}\right)^{18}[{\displaystyle \frac{171}{(1e^2)^{19}}}+39{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{171}{2}e^2)}{(1e^2)^{20}}}]\times `$ ($`41`$)
$`\times `$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{328,206,021}{524,288}}\mathrm{sin}^{20}i{\displaystyle \frac{210,388,475}{65,536}}\mathrm{sin}^{18}i+{\displaystyle \frac{460,580,175}{65,536}}\mathrm{sin}^{16}i`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{30,705,345}{3,584}}\mathrm{sin}^{14}i+{\displaystyle \frac{6,513,255}{1,024}}\mathrm{sin}^{12}i{\displaystyle \frac{378,189}{128}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}i+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{108,675}{128}}\mathrm{sin}^8i{\displaystyle \frac{575}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^6i+{\displaystyle \frac{207}{16}}\mathrm{sin}^4i`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{210}})\}.`$
## 3 The mismodelled classical precessions

The results obtained in the previous section can be used in working out explicitly the contributions of the mismodelled classical nodal and apsidal precessions up to degree $`l=20`$ of the existing spherical passive laser-ranged geodetic satellites and of the proposed LARES. They are of the form $`\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{(2n)}=\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2n}\times \delta J_{2n}`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}10`$ and $`\delta \dot{\omega }_{(2n)}=\dot{\omega }_{.2n}\times \delta J_{2n}`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}10`$. The coefficients $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2n}`$ and $`\dot{\omega }_{.2n}`$ are worked out in section 2 and the values employed for $`\delta J_{2n}=\sqrt{4n+1}\times \delta \overline{C}_{2n0}`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}10`$ are those quoted in the adopted Earth’s gravity model.

From Tab. 2 it is interesting to note that for the satellites orbiting at lower altitudes than the LAGEOS satellites the impact of the mismodelled part of the geopotential does not reduce to the first two or three even zonal harmonics. This feature is very important in calculating the error budget, especially if the nodes of low–orbiting satellites are to be considered. Moreover, while for the LAGEOS family a calculation up to $`l=20`$ is rather adequate, this is not the case for the other satellites for which the even zonal harmonics of degree $`l>20`$ should be considered as well. In regard to this topic, the choice of the Earth gravity model becomes crucial because EGM96, for example, does not seem to be particularly reliable at degrees higher than 20. The same considerations hold also for the perigee whose mismodelled classical precessions are quoted in Tab. 3. We have considered only LAGEOS II, Starlette and the LARES due to the extreme smallness of the eccentricity of the other satellites.

From both Tab. 2 and Tab. 3 the relevant impact of the first two or three even zonal harmonics, at least for the LAGEOS satellites, is quite apparent. The situation for the lower orbiting satellites is far more unfavorable.

In Tab. 4 and Tab. 5 we repeat the analysis with the very recently released EIGEN–1S gravity model which includes the first data from CHAMP.

From an inspection of Tab. 2–Tab. 5 it turns out very clearly that, if the orbital elements of satellites other than those of LAGEOS family are to be considered, the observable which would account for them must cope with the problem of reducing the impact also of the degrees higher than 4.

## 4 The systematic zonal error

A possible strategy for reducing the impact of the geopotential’s error consists of suitable combinations of the orbital residuals of the rates of the nodes and the perigees of different SLR satellites \[Ciufolini, 1996; Iorio, 2002\]. Such combinations can be written in the form

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_if_i=X_{\mathrm{GR}}\mu _{\mathrm{GR}},$$
($`42`$)
in which the coefficients $`c_i`$ are, in general, suitably built up with the orbital parameters of the satellites entering the combinations, the $`f_i`$ are the residuals of the rates of the nodes and the perigees of the satellites entering the combination, $`X_{\mathrm{GR}}`$ is the slope, in mas/y, of the general relativistic trend of interest and $`\mu _{\mathrm{GR}}`$ is the solve–for parameter, to be determined by means of usual least–square procedures, which accounts for the general relativistic effect. For example, in the case of the Lense–Thirring–LAGEOS experiment \[Ciufolini, 1996\] $`X_{\mathrm{LT}}=60.2`$ mas/y, while for the gravitoelectric perigee advance \[Iorio, 2002\] $`X_{\mathrm{GE}}=3,348`$ mas/y. More precisely, the combinations of eq. ($`42`$) are obtained in the following way. The equations for the residuals of the rates of the $`N`$ chosen orbital elements are written down, so to obtain a non homogeneous algebraic linear system of $`N`$ equations in $`N`$ unknowns. They are $`\mu _{\mathrm{GR}}`$ and the first $`N1`$ mismodelled spherical harmonics coefficients $`\delta J_l`$ in terms of which the residual rates are expressed. The coefficients $`c_i`$ and, consequently, $`X_{\mathrm{GR}}`$ are obtained by solving for $`\mu _{\mathrm{GR}}`$ the system of equations. So, the coefficients $`c_i`$ are calculated in order to cancel out the contributions of the first $`N1`$ even zonal mismodelled harmonics which, as we have seen in the previous section, represent the major source of uncertainty in the Lense–Thirring and gravitoelectric precessions \[Ciufolini, 1996; Iorio, 2002\]. The coefficients $`c_i`$ can be either constant 222In general, the coefficient of the first orbital element entering a given combination is equal to 1, as for the combinations in \[Ciufolini, 1996; Iorio, 2002\].  or depend on the orbital elements of the satellites entering the combinations through the coefficients $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{.2n}`$ and $`\dot{\omega }_{.2n}`$ worked out in section 2.

Now we expose how to calculate the systematic error due to the mismodelled even zonal harmonics of the geopotential for the combinations involving the residuals of the nodes and the perigees of various satellites.

In general, if we have an observable $`q`$ which is a function $`q=q(x_j)`$, $`j=1,2\mathrm{}M`$ of $`M`$ correlated parameters $`x_j`$ the error in it is given by

$$\delta q=\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}\left(\frac{q}{x_j}\right)^2\sigma _j^2+2\underset{hk=1}{\overset{M}{}}\left(\frac{q}{x_h}\right)\left(\frac{q}{x_k}\right)\sigma _{hk}^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
($`43`$)
in which $`\sigma _j^2C_{jj}`$ and $`\sigma _{hk}^2C_{hk}`$ where $`\{C_{hk}\}`$ is the square matrix of covariance of the parameters $`x_j`$.

In our case the observable $`q`$ is any residuals’ combination

$$q=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_if_i(x_j),j=1,2\mathrm{}10,$$
($`44`$)
where $`x_j,j=1,2\mathrm{}10`$ are the even zonal geopotential’s coefficients $`J_2,J_4\mathrm{}J_{20}`$. Since

$$\frac{q}{x_j}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_i\frac{f_i}{x_j},j=1,2\mathrm{}10,$$
($`45`$)
by putting eq. ($`45`$) in eq. ($`43`$) one obtains, in mas/y

$$\delta q=\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{10}{}}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_i\frac{f_i}{x_j}\right)^2\sigma _j^2+2\underset{hk=1}{\overset{10}{}}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_i\frac{f_i}{x_h}\right)\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_i\frac{f_i}{x_k}\right)\sigma _{hk}^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
($`46`$)
The percent error, for a given general relativistic trend and for a given combination, is obtained by taking the ratio of eq. ($`46`$) to the slope in mas/y of the general relativistic trend for the residual combination considered.

The validity of eq. ($`46`$) has been checked by calculating with it and the covariance matrix of EGM96 gravity model the systematic error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential of the gravitomagnetic LAGEOS experiment; indeed the result

$$\delta \mu _{\mathrm{LT}}=12.9\%\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}$$
($`47`$)
claimed in \[Ciufolini et al., 1998\] has been obtained again. For the EGM96–induced systematic error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential of alternative proposed gravitomagnetic and gravitoelectric experiments, see \[Iorio, 2002; Iorio et al., 2002a\].

A very important point to stress is that the forthcoming new data on the Earth’s gravitational field by CHAMP, which has been launched in July 2000, and GRACE, which has been launched in March 2002, will have a great impact on the reduction of the systematic error due to the mismodelled part of geopotential.

In order to get a preliminary insight of what the improvement due to the new Earth gravity models might be, let us consider, for example, the usual observable by Ciufolini \[Ciufolini, 1996\] for the detection of the Lense–Thirring drag

$$\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{L1}}+0.295\times \delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{L2}}0.35\times \delta \dot{\omega }^{\mathrm{L2}}60.2\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}.$$
($`48`$)
The root–sum–square error due to geopotential, according to the diagonal part only of the covariance matrix of EGM96 model, amounts to 46.5$`\%`$ 333It reduces to 12.9$`\%`$ by considering also the correlation among the spherical harmonics coefficients, according to EGM96, as stated before.; according to the diagonal part only of the covariance matrix of EIGEN–1S (at present, its full covariance matrix is not yet publicly available), it reduces to 10.5$`\%`$.

If we consider the combination proposed in \[Iorio, 2002\]

$$\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{L1}}+0.444\times \delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{L2}}0.027\times \delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{Aj}}0.341\times \delta \dot{\omega }^{\mathrm{L2}}61.2\mu _{\mathrm{LT}},$$
($`49`$)
in this case the root–sum–square error due to geopotential, according to the diagonal part only of the covariance matrix of EGM96 model, amounts to 64.2$`\%`$ 444It reduces to 10.8$`\%`$ by considering also the correlation among the spherical harmonics coefficients, according to EGM96 \[Iorio, 2002\].; according to the diagonal part only of the covariance matrix of EIGEN–1S, it reduces to 15.5$`\%`$.

It should be noted that, according to \[Ries et al., 1998\], it would not be entirely correct to automatically extend the validity of the full covariance matrix of EGM96, which is based on a multi–year average that spans the 1970, 1980 and early 1990 decades, to any particular time span like that, e.g., of the LAGEOS–LAGEOS II Lense–Thirring analysis which extends from the middle to the end of the 1990 decade. Indeed, there would not be assurance that the errors in the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential during the time of the LAGEOS–LAGEOS II Lense–Thirring experiment remained correlated exactly as in the EGM96 covariance matrix, in view of the various secular, seasonal and stochastic variations that we know occur in the terrestrial gravitational field and that have been neglected in the EGM96 solution. Then, the use of the diagonal part only of the covariance matrix of EGM96 should yield more conservative results. However, since it turns out that such seasonal effects would mainly affect just the first even zonal harmonic coefficients of the geopotential, the uncertainty related to them should be very small for residual combinations which, by construction, cancel out just the first even zonal harmonic coefficients of the geopotential. On the other hand, if we cancel out as many even zonal harmonics as possible, the uncertainties in the evaluation of the systematic error based on the remaining correlated even zonal harmonics of higher degree should be greatly reduced, irrespectively of the chosen time span. This would have a relevant importance, e.g., for those even zonal harmonics like $`J_6`$ and $`J_8`$ whose favorable correlation in the covariance matrix of EGM96 seems to be the source of the perhaps optimistic evaluation of the systematic error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential in the case of the LAGEOS–LAGEOS II Lense–Thirring experiment \[Ries et al., 1998\]. The LAGEOS–LAGEOS II–LARES proposed combination of \[Iorio et al., 2002b\] would cancel out, apart from $`\delta J_2`$ and $`\delta J_4`$, just $`\delta J_6`$ and $`\delta J_8`$.

## 5 Conclusions

The systematic error induced by the mismodelled static part of the geopotential is the major source of uncertainty in many proposed or performed tests of General Relativity in the gravitational field of the Earth via Satellite Laser Ranging.

In this paper we have explicitly calculated the expressions of the coefficients of the classical secular precessions of the node and the perigee induced by the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential up to degree $`l=20`$. The explicit expressions of the classical precessions may be useful, e.g., in getting insights for designing suitably new relativistic observables which are not too sensitive to such disturbing effects.

Subsequently, we have compared the mismodelled precessions, according to EGM96 gravity model and EIGEN–1S preliminary gravity model which includes 88 days of data from CHAMP, to the general relativistic gravitomagnetic and gravitoelectric secular trends affecting the same orbital elements of the existing or proposed laser–ranged geodetic satellites. Since such satellites are the natural candidates for a number of relativistic tests in the gravitational field of the Earth, the presented calculations are useful in order to get an idea of the level of aliasing induced by the geopotential on the relativistic signatures of possible observables which may be built up with the orbital elements of such satellites. Of course, the obtained results could turn out to be useful also for other nonrelativistic investigations. While for the LAGEOS satellites a calculation up to $`l=20`$ is well adequate, for the other satellites orbiting at lower altitudes also the other harmonics of higher degrees should be carefully considered. The need for reducing the impact of the mismodelled classical precessions on the relativistic signals is quite apparent.

Finally, we have shown how to calculate explicitly the static gravitational systematic error on suitably designed combinations involving the orbital residuals of different satellites. Preliminary estimates of the errors affecting such combinations with EGM96 and EIGEN–1S suggest that the future, more accurate terrestrial global gravity models from CHAMP and GRACE missions will have a notable impact on the improvement of, among other things, the precision of many general relativistic tests.

## Acknowledgements

L. Iorio is grateful to L. Guerriero for his support while at Bari. Special thanks also to the CHAMP and GRACE team of GFZ at Potsdam for their kind collaboration.


format: text

text:
# Truncated microsupport and holomorphic solutions of D-Modules

## 1 Introduction

The notion of microsupport of sheaves was introduced in the course of the study of the theory of linear partial differential equations (LPDE), and it is now applied in various domains of mathematics. References are made to .

For an object $`F`$ of the derived category of abelian sheaves on a real manifold $`X`$, its microsupport $`\mathrm{SS}(F)`$ is a closed conic subset of the cotangent bundle $`\pi :T^{}XX`$ which describes the direction of “non-propagation” of $`F`$. In particular, for a smooth closed submanifold $`Y`$ of $`X`$, the support $`\mathrm{Supp}(\mu _Y(F))`$ of the Sato microlocalization $`\mu _Y(F)`$ of $`F`$ along $`Y`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{SS}(F)T_Y^{}X`$, where $`T_Y^{}X`$ denotes the conormal bundle to $`Y`$ in $`X`$.

If $`X`$ is a complex manifold and $``$ is a system of LPDE, that is, a coherent module over the sheaf $`𝒟_X`$ of holomorphic differential operators, the complex $`F`$ of holomorphic solutions of this system is given by $`Rom_{𝒟_X}(,𝒪_X)`$, and the microsupport of $`F`$ is then the characteristic variety $`\mathrm{Ch}()`$ of $``$.

However some phenomena of propagation may happen in specific degrees, related to the principle of unique continuation for holomorphic functions, and this leads to a variant of the notion of microsupport, that of “truncated microsupport”, a notion introduced by the authors of  but never published.

Following a suggestion of these authors, F. Tonin  was able to regain in the language of the truncated microsupport a result of Ebenfelt-Khavinson-Shapiro . In their papers, these authors obtained the extension of holomorphic solutions of a differential operator when the solutions are defined on an open subset with smooth boundary non-characteristic outside a smooth complex hypersurface. Note that the problem of extending holomorphic solutions across non characteristic real hypersurfaces plays a crucial role in the theory of LPDE, and was initiated by J. Leray , followed by , ,  (see also  and  for an exposition of these results).

The truncated microsupport is defined as follows. Let $`𝐤`$ be a field, let $`X`$ be a real manifold and let $`FD^b(𝐤_X)`$ be an object of the derived category of sheaves of $`𝐤`$-vector spaces on $`X`$. For an integer $`k`$, a point $`pT^{}X`$ does not belong to the truncated microsupport $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)`$ if and only if $`F`$ is microlocally at $`p`$ isomorphic to an object of $`D^{>k}(𝐤_X)`$. Hence $`\{\mathrm{SS}_k(F)\}_k`$ is an increasing sequence, while $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)`$ is an empty set for $`k0`$ and $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)`$ coincides with $`\mathrm{SS}(F)`$ for $`k0`$.

In this paper, we give equivalent definitions of the truncated microsupport and we study its behavior under exterior tensor product, smooth inverse image and proper direct image. We introduce then the closed subset $`\mathrm{SS}_k^Y(F)`$ of $`\pi ^1(Y)`$ which describes the support of the microlocalization of $`F`$ along submanifolds of $`Y`$ and prove (see Theorem 5.3):

$`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)=\overline{\mathrm{SS}_k(F)\pi ^1(Y)}\mathrm{SS}_k^Y(F).`$
We then apply this result to the complex $`F=Rom_{𝒟_X}(,𝒪_X)`$ of holomorphic solutions of a coherent $`𝒟_X`$-module $``$ on a complex manifold $`X`$.

Let $`S`$ be a closed complex analytic subset of codimension greater than or equal to $`d`$ and let $`S^{}`$ be a closed complex analytic subset of $`S`$ of codimension greater than $`d`$ such that $`S_0:=SS^{}`$ is a smooth submanifold of codimension $`d`$. We first prove the estimate below (see Proposition 6.2):

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{SS}_{d1}(F)& =\overline{\mathrm{SS}_{d1}(F)\pi ^1(S)},\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{SS}_d(F)& =\overline{\mathrm{SS}_d(F)\pi ^1(S)}\overline{\mathrm{SS}_d(F)T_{S_0}^{}X}.\hfill \end{array}`$
In particular, if $`j:\mathrm{\Omega }X`$ is the embedding of a pseudo-convex open subset with smooth boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is transversal to $`S`$ (i.e. $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}X\overline{T_{S_0}^{}X}T_X^{}X`$) and non characteristic for $``$ outside of $`S`$, one has

$$xt_{𝒟_X}^j(,𝒪_X^+/𝒪_X)=0\text{for any }j<d\text{,}$$

where $`𝒪_X^+/𝒪_X=j_{}j^1𝒪_X/𝒪_X`$.

Next we calculate $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)`$ in terms of the characteristic variety of $``$ (see Theorem 6.7). Letting $`\mathrm{Ch}()=_{\alpha A}V_\alpha `$ be the decomposition of $`\mathrm{Ch}()`$ into irreducible components, one has

(1.2) $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)=\left(\underset{\mathrm{codim}\pi (V_\alpha )<k}{}V_\alpha \right)\left(\underset{\mathrm{codim}\pi (V_\alpha )=k}{}T_{\pi (V_\alpha )}^{}X\right).`$
In particular, if $`F`$ is a perverse sheaf (i.e., $``$ is holonomic), then letting $`\mathrm{SS}(F)=_{\alpha A}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ be the decomposition into irreducible components, one has

$$\mathrm{SS}_k(F)=\underset{\mathrm{codim}\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha )k}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha .$$

Conversely if $`FD^b(_X)`$ is $``$-constructible and if it satisfies

$`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)\mathrm{SS}_k(Rom_{}(F,_X)){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{codim}\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha )k}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha \text{for every }k,`$
then $`F`$ is a perverse sheaf.

Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank A. D’Agnolo for helpful discussion.

## 2 Notations and review

We will mainly follow the notations in .

Let $`X`$ be a real analytic manifold. We denote by $`\tau :TXX`$ the tangent bundle to $`X`$ and by $`\pi :T^{}XX`$ the cotangent bundle. We identify $`X`$ with the zero section of $`T^{}X`$ and set $`\dot{T}^{}X=T^{}XX`$. We denote by $`\dot{\pi }:\dot{T}^{}XX`$ the restriction of $`\pi `$ to $`\dot{T}^{}X`$. For a smooth submanifold $`Y`$ of $`X`$, $`T_YX`$ denotes the normal bundle to $`Y`$ and $`T_Y^{}X`$ the conormal bundle. In particular, $`T_X^{}X`$ is identified with $`X`$.

For a submanifold $`Y`$ of $`X`$ and a subset $`S`$ of $`X`$, we denote by $`C_Y(S)`$ the normal cone to $`S`$ along $`Y`$, a closed conic subset of $`T_YX`$.

For a morphism $`f:XY`$ of real manifolds, we denote by

$$f_\pi :X\times _YT^{}YT^{}Y\text{ and }f_d:X\times _YT^{}YT^{}X$$

the associated morphisms.

For a subset $`A`$ of $`T^{}X`$, we denote by $`A^a`$ the image of $`A`$ by the antipodal map $`a:(x;\xi )(x;\xi )`$. The closure of $`A`$ is denoted by $`\overline{A}`$. For a cone $`\gamma TX`$, the polar cone $`\gamma ^{}`$ to $`\gamma `$ is the convex cone in $`T^{}X`$ defined by

$$\gamma ^{}=\{(x;\xi )T^{}X;x\pi (\gamma )\text{ and }v,\xi 0\text{ for any }(x;v)\gamma \}.$$

Let $`𝐤`$ be a field. We denote by $`D(𝐤_X)`$ the derived category of complexes of sheaves of $`𝐤`$-vector spaces on $`X`$, and by $`D^b(𝐤_X)`$ the full subcategory of $`D(𝐤_X)`$ consisting of complexes with bounded cohomologies.

For $`k`$, we denote as usual by $`D^k(𝐤_X)`$ (resp. $`D^k(𝐤_X)`$) the full additive subcategory of $`D^b(𝐤_X)`$ consisting of objects $`F`$ satisfying $`H^j(F)=0`$ for any $`j<k`$ (resp. $`H^j(F)=0`$ for any $`j>k`$). The category $`D^{k+1}(𝐤_X)`$ is sometimes denoted by $`D^{>k}(𝐤_X)`$.

We denote by $`\tau ^k:D(𝐤_X)D^k(𝐤_X)`$ the truncation functor. Recall that for $`FD(𝐤_X)`$ the morphism $`\tau ^kFF`$ induces isomorphisms $`H^j(\tau ^kF)\stackrel{}{}H^j(F)`$ for $`jk`$ and $`H^j(\tau ^kF)=0`$ for $`j>k`$.

If $`F`$ is an object of $`D^b(𝐤_X)`$, $`\mathrm{SS}(F)`$ denotes its microsupport, a closed $`^+`$-conic involutive subset of $`T^{}X`$. For $`pT^{}X`$, $`D^b(𝐤_X;p)`$ denotes the localization of $`D^b(𝐤_X)`$ by the full triangulated subcategory consisting of objects $`F`$ such that $`p\mathrm{SS}(F)`$.

If $`Y`$ is a submanifold, $`\mu _Y(F)`$ denotes the Sato microlocalization of $`F`$ along $`Y`$. Recall that $`\mu _Y(F)D^b(𝐤_{T_Y^{}X})`$ and

(2.1)
$$H^j(\mu _Y(F))_p\underset{Z}{\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}}H_Z^j(F)_{\pi (p)}\text{ for }pT_Y^{}X\text{ and }j\text{,}$$

where $`Z`$ runs through the family of closed subsets of $`X`$ such that

(2.2)
$$C_Y(Z)_{\pi (p)}\{0\}\{v(T_YX)_{\pi (p)};v,p>0\}.$$

On a complex manifold $`X`$, we consider the sheaf $`𝒪_X`$ of holomorphic functions and the sheaf $`𝒟_X`$ of linear holomorphic differential operators of finite order. Concerning the theory of $`𝒟`$-modules, references are made to .

## 3 Truncated microsupport

We shall give here several equivalent definitions of the truncated microsupport.

For a closed cone $`\gamma ^n`$, one sets

$`Z_\gamma :=\{(x;y)^n\times ^n;xy\gamma \}.`$
Let $`q_1,q_2:^n\times ^n^n`$ be the first and the second projections.

One defines the integral transform with kernel $`𝐤_{Z_\gamma }`$,

$`𝐤_{Z_\gamma }:D^b(𝐤_^n)D^b(𝐤_^n),𝐤_{Z_\gamma }G=Rq_{1}^{}{}_{!}{}^{}(𝐤_{Z_\gamma }q_2^1G).`$
If $`G`$ has compact support, one has the following formula for the stalk of $`𝐤_{Z_\gamma }G`$ at $`x^n`$:

$`(𝐤_{Z_\gamma }G)_xR\mathrm{\Gamma }(^n;𝐤_{x+\gamma ^a}G).`$
Recall that a closed convex cone $`\gamma `$ is called proper if $`0\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^{})\mathrm{}`$.

For $`(x_0;\xi _0)^n\times (^n)^{}`$ and $`\epsilon `$ we set:

$`H_\epsilon (x_0,\xi _0)=\{x^n;xx_0,\xi _0>\epsilon \}.`$
If there is no risk of confusion, we write $`H_\epsilon `$ instead of $`H_\epsilon (x_0,\xi _0)`$ for short. The following result is proved in .

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`X`$ be an open subset of $`^n`$ and let $`GD^b(𝐤_X)`$. Let $`p=(x_0;\xi _0)T^{}X`$. Then $`p\mathrm{SS}(G)`$ if and only if there exist an open neighborhood $`W`$ of $`x_0`$, a proper closed convex cone $`\gamma `$ and $`\epsilon >0`$ such that $`\xi _0\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^{})`$, $`(W+\gamma ^a)\overline{H_\epsilon }X`$ and

$$H^j(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }G)=0\text{for any }j\text{ and }xW\text{.}$$

We shall give a similar version of the above lemma for the truncated microsupport.

###### Proposition 3.2.

Let $`X`$ be a real analytic manifold and let $`pT^{}X`$. Let $`FD^b(𝐤_X)`$ and $`k`$, $`\alpha _1\{\mathrm{},\omega \}`$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

1. There exists $`F^{}D^{>k}(𝐤_X)`$ and an isomorphism $`FF^{}`$ in $`D^b(𝐤_X;p)`$.
2. There exists $`F^{}D^{>k}(𝐤_X)`$ and a morphism $`F^{}F`$ in $`D^b(𝐤_X)`$ which is an isomorphism in $`D^b(𝐤_X;p)`$.
3. There exists an open conic neighborhood $`U`$ of $`p`$ such that for any $`x\pi (U)`$ and for any $``$-valued $`C^\alpha `$-function $`\phi `$ defined on a neighborhood of $`x`$ such that $`\phi (x)=0`$, $`d\phi (x)U`$, one has

(3.1)
$$H_{\{\phi 0\}}^j(F)_x=0\text{for any }jk\text{.}$$

When $`X`$ is an open subset of $`^n`$ and $`p=(x_0;\xi _0)`$, the above conditions are also equivalent to

1. There exist a proper closed convex cone $`\gamma ^n`$, $`\epsilon >0`$ and an open neighborhood $`W`$ of $`x_0`$ with $`\xi _0\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^{})`$ such that $`(W+\gamma ^a)\overline{H_\epsilon }X`$ and

(3.2)
$$H^j(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }F)=0\text{for any }jk\text{ and }xW\text{.}$$

###### Proof.

We may assume $`X=^n`$.

(ii)$`{}_{k}{}^{}`$ (i)k is obvious.

(i)$`{}_{k}{}^{}`$ (iv)k By the hypothesis, there exist distinguished triangles

$$GFK\stackrel{+1}{}\text{and}GF^{}K^{}\stackrel{+1}{}$$

in $`D^b(𝐤_X)`$ such that $`p\mathrm{SS}(K)`$ and $`p\mathrm{SS}(K^{})`$. By Lemma 3.1, there exist an open neighborhood $`W`$ of $`x_0`$, a proper closed convex cone $`\gamma `$ such that $`\xi _0\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^{})`$, and $`\epsilon >0`$ such that

$`H^j(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }K)=H^j(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }K^{})=0`$
for any $`j`$ and $`xW`$. Hence one has

$`H^j(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }F)H^j(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }F^{}).`$
Since $`𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }F^{}`$ belongs to $`D^{>k}(𝐤_X)`$, we get (3.2).

(i)$`{}_{k}{}^{}`$ (iii)$`{}_{k,}{}^{}_1`$ Same proof as (i)$`{}_{k}{}^{}`$ (iv)k, replacing $`H^j(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }G)`$ with $`H_{\{\phi 0\}}^j(G)_x`$ where $`G=F^{}`$, $`F`$, $`K`$, $`K^{}`$.

(iii)$`{}_{k,1}{}^{}`$ (iii)k,ω is obvious.

(iv)$`{}_{k}{}^{}`$(ii)k To start with, note that (3.2) entails

(3.3)
$$(𝐤_{Z_\gamma }F_{H_\epsilon })_WD^{>k}(𝐤_X).$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denote the diagonal of $`X\times X`$. Then the morphism $`𝐤_{Z_\gamma }𝐤_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ induces the morphism in $`D^b(𝐤_X)`$

(3.4)
$$𝐤_{Z_\gamma }F_{H_\epsilon }F_{H_\epsilon },$$

which is an isomorphism in $`D^b(𝐤_X;p)`$ by \[8, Theorem 7.1.2\]. Therefore, the composition

$`(𝐤_{Z_\gamma }F_{H_\epsilon })_W(F_{H_\epsilon })_WF`$
is an isomorphism in $`D^b(𝐤_X;p)`$ and $`(𝐤_{Z_\gamma }F_{H_\epsilon })_W`$ belongs to $`D^{>k}(𝐤_X;p)`$.

(iii)k,ω $``$(iv)k We already know that (iv)k is equivalent to (i)k for every $`k`$. Hence arguing by induction on $`k`$, we may assume that (i)k-1 holds. Therefore we may assume $`FD^k(𝐤_X)`$. Then we have

$$H^j(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }F)=0\text{for any }jk1$$

and

$`H^k(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }F)`$ $``$ $`H^0(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }H^k(F)),`$
$`H_{\{\phi 0\}}^k(F)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\{\phi 0\}}(H^k(F)).`$
We may assume that $`\mathrm{Int}(\gamma )\mathrm{}`$, $`W\times (\gamma ^{}\{0\}))U`$ and $`(W+\gamma ^a)\overline{H_\epsilon }W`$. Let $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }H^k(F))`$. Then there exists $`y^n`$ such that $`x+\gamma ^ay+\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^a)W(XH_\epsilon )`$ and $`s`$ extends to a section

$`\stackrel{~}{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }(y+\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^a);𝐤_{H_\epsilon }H^k(F))\mathrm{\Gamma }(y+\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^a);H^k(F)).`$
Set $`S=\mathrm{supp}(\stackrel{~}{s})H_\epsilon (y+\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^a))`$. Then the following lemma asserts $`S=\mathrm{}`$, and hence $`H^k(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }F)=0`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`\gamma `$ be a proper closed convex cone in $`^n`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be an open subset of $`^n`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }+\gamma ^a=\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and let $`S`$ be a closed subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`S^n`$. Assume the following condition: for any $`x^n`$ and a real analytic function $`\phi `$ defined on $`^n`$, the three conditions $`S\phi ^1(_{<0})=\mathrm{}`$, $`\phi (x)=0`$ and $`d\phi (x)\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^{})`$ imply $`xS`$.

Then $`S`$ is an empty set.

###### Proof.

If $`\gamma =\{0\}`$, then by taking $`\phi =0`$, the lemma is trivially true. Hence we may assume that $`\{0\}\gamma `$. Let us take $`\xi `$ such that $`\gamma ^{}\{0\}\{x;x,\xi >0\}`$. Then there is a real number $`a`$ such that $`S\{x;x,\xi >a\}`$. Set $`H_{}=\{x;x,\xi <a\}`$. By replacing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }H_{}`$, we may assume from the beginning $`H_{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

For a proper closed convex cone $`\gamma ^{}`$ such that $`\gamma \{0\}\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^{})`$, set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma ^{}=\{x\mathrm{\Omega };x+\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$ and $`S_\gamma ^{}=S_\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma ^{}`$. Since $`S=\underset{\gamma ^{}}{}S_\gamma ^{}`$, it is enough to show the assertion for $`S_\gamma ^{}`$. Since $`\gamma ^{}{}_{}{}^{}\{0\}\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^{})`$, by replacing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`S`$, $`\gamma `$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma ^{}^{}`$, $`S_\gamma ^{}`$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$, we may assume from the beginning

(3.5) $`\mathrm{Int}(\gamma )\mathrm{},`$
(3.6) $`S\phi ^1(_{<0})=\mathrm{}\text{}\phi (x)=0\text{ and }d\phi (x)\gamma ^{}\{0\}xS.`$
Let us set $`\psi (x)=\mathrm{dist}(x,\gamma ^a):=inf\{yx;y\gamma ^a\}`$. It is well known that $`\psi `$ is a continuous function on $`^n`$, and $`C^1`$ on $`^n\gamma ^a`$. More precisely for any $`x^n\gamma ^a`$, there exists a unique $`y\gamma ^a`$ such that $`\psi (x)=xy`$. Moreover $`d\psi (x)=xy^1(xy)\gamma ^{}\{0\}`$. Furthermore $`B_{\psi (x)}(y):=\{z^n;zy<\psi (x)\}`$ is contained in $`\{z^n;\psi (z)<\psi (x)\}`$.

For $`\epsilon >0`$, we set $`\gamma _\epsilon ^a=\{x^n;\psi (x)<\epsilon \}`$. Then $`\gamma _\epsilon ^a`$ is an open convex set. Moreover $`\gamma _\epsilon ^a+\gamma ^a=\gamma _\epsilon ^a`$. Set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon =\{x;x+\gamma _\epsilon ^a\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }=_{\epsilon >0}\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon `$. Set $`S_\epsilon =S\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon `$. It is enough to show that $`S_\epsilon =\mathrm{}`$.

Assuming $`S_\epsilon \mathrm{}`$, we shall derive a contradiction. Let us take $`x_0S_\epsilon `$ and $`v\mathrm{Int}(\gamma )`$. Set $`V_t=x_0+\gamma _{\epsilon /2}^a+tv`$ for $`t`$. Then one has

(3.7) $`V_t=_{t^{}<t}V_t^{}`$ and $`\overline{V_t}=_{t^{}>t}V_t^{}=_{t^{}>t}\overline{V_t^{}}`$,
(3.8) $`x_0V_tS`$ for $`t0`$, and $`V_tH_{}`$ for $`t0`$,
(3.9) $`\overline{V_t}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for any $`t0`$,
Hence, for any compact set $`K`$ and $`t`$ such $`K\overline{V_t}=\mathrm{}`$, there exists $`t^{}>t`$ such that $`KV_t^{}=\mathrm{}`$.

Let us set $`c=sup\{t;V_tS=\mathrm{}\}`$. Then $`c0`$ and $`V_cS=\mathrm{}`$. By (3.9), one has $`\overline{V_c}\overline{S}\overline{V_c}S`$. Since $`\overline{S}`$ is a compact set, there exists $`x_1SV_c`$. Here $`V_c:=\overline{V_c}V_c`$ is the boundary of $`V_c`$. As seen before, there exists a ball $`B_{\epsilon /2}(y):=\{x;xy<\epsilon /2\}`$ such that $`B_{\epsilon /2}(y)V_c`$, $`x_1y=\epsilon /2`$ and $`x_1y\gamma ^{}`$. This is a contradiction by taking $`\phi (x)=xy^2(\epsilon /2)^2`$. ∎

###### Definition 3.4.

1. Let $`FD^b(𝐤_X)`$. The closed conic subset $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)`$ of $`T^{}X`$ is defined by: $`p\mathrm{SS}_k(F)`$ if and only if $`F`$ satisfies the equivalent conditions in Proposition 3.2.
2. Let $`pT^{}X`$ and $`k`$. Then $`D^{>k}(𝐤_X;p)`$ denotes the full additive subcategory of $`D^b(𝐤_X;p)`$ consisting of $`F`$ satisfying $`p\mathrm{SS}_k(F)`$. We write sometimes $`D^k(𝐤_X;p)`$ for $`D^{>k1}(𝐤_X;p)`$.

Note that $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)T_X^{}X=\pi (\mathrm{SS}_k(F))=\mathrm{Supp}(\tau ^kF)`$.

###### Remark 3.5.

The truncated microsupport has the following properties, similarly to those of the microsupport.

1. For any $`FD^b(𝐤_X)`$, one has $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F[n])=\mathrm{SS}_{k+n}(F)`$.
2. If $`F^{}FF^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{+1}{}`$ is a distinguished triangle, then one has

(3.12) $`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{SS}_k(F)\mathrm{SS}_k(F^{})\mathrm{SS}_k(F^{\prime \prime }),\hfill \\ \left(\mathrm{SS}_k(F^{})\mathrm{SS}_{k1}(F^{\prime \prime })\right)\left(\mathrm{SS}_k(F^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{SS}_{k+1}(F^{})\right)\mathrm{SS}_k(F).\hfill \end{array}`$

###### Remark 3.6.

1. If $`FD^{>k}(𝐤_X)`$, then $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)=\mathrm{}`$.
2. If $`FD^k(𝐤_X)`$, then $`\mathrm{SS}_{k+d_X}(F)=\mathrm{SS}(F)`$. Here $`d_X`$ is the dimension of $`X`$.

The last statement follows from the characterization (iv)k in Proposition 3.2 and the fact that $`H^j(X;F)`$ vanishes for any $`FD^k(𝐤_X)`$ and $`j>k+d_X`$.

###### Remark 3.7.

It is not true that $`FD^k(𝐤_X;p)`$ implies the existence of a morphism $`FF^{}`$ in $`D^b(𝐤_X)`$ which is an isomorphism in $`D^b(𝐤_X;p)`$ and $`F^{}D^k(𝐤_X)`$. For example take $`X=`$, $`p=(0;1)`$, $`Z=\{xX;x<0\}`$, $`F_1=𝐤_{\{0\}}`$ and $`F=𝐤_Z[1]`$. Then there is a morphism $`F_1F`$ which is an isomorphism in $`D(𝐤_X;p)`$. Hence one has $`FD^0(𝐤_X;p)`$. Assume that there is a morphism $`u:FF^{}`$ in $`D^b(𝐤_X)`$ which is an isomorphism in $`D^b(𝐤_X;p)`$ and $`F^{}D^0(𝐤_X)`$. Since $`H^0(F)=0`$, the morphism $`H^0(F_1)H^0(F^{})`$ vanishes, and hence the composition $`F_1F\stackrel{𝑢}{}F^{}`$ vanishes. This is a contradiction.

###### Examples 3.8.

1. One has

$`\mathrm{SS}_k(𝐤_X)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}\hfill & \text{for }k<0\text{,}\hfill \\ T_X^{}X\hfill & \text{for }k0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$
2. Let $`X=`$ and $`Z_1=\{xX;x0\}`$, $`Z_2=\{xX;x>0\}`$. Then one has

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{SS}_k(𝐤_{Z_1})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}\hfill & \text{for }k<0\text{,}\hfill \\ \{(x;\xi );\xi =0,x0\}\hfill & \\ \{(x;\xi );x=0,\xi 0\}\hfill & \text{for }k0\text{,}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \mathrm{SS}_k(𝐤_{Z_2})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}\hfill & \text{for }k<0\text{,}\hfill \\ \{(x;\xi );\xi =0,x0\}\hfill & \text{for }k=0\text{,}\hfill \\ \{(x;\xi );\xi =0,x0\}\hfill & \\ \{(x;\xi );x=0,\xi 0\}\hfill & \text{for }k1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$
3. Let $`X`$ be a complex manifold. Then

$`\mathrm{SS}_k(𝒪_X)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}\hfill & \text{for }k<0\text{,}\hfill \\ T_X^{}X\hfill & \text{for }k=0\text{,}\hfill \\ T^{}X\hfill & \text{for }k1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$
4. Let $`M`$ be a real analytic manifold, $`X`$ a complexification of $`M`$, $``$ a coherent $`𝒟_X`$-module, and let $`_M`$ denote the sheaf of Sato’s hyperfunctions on $`M`$. Regarding $`T^{}M`$ as a subset of $`T^{}X`$, one has

$$SS_0\left(Rom_{𝒟_X}(,_M)\right)\mathrm{Ch}()T^{}M.$$

This follows immediately from the Holmgren theorem.

## 4 Functorial properties

In this section, we study in Propositions 4.14.3 below, the behavior of $`\mathrm{SS}_k`$ under external tensor products, proper direct image and smooth inverse image. These properties are proved similarly to the corresponding properties of the microsupport (cf. Chapter V of ), using Proposition 3.2.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be real analytic manifolds. Then for $`FD^b(𝐤_X)`$, $`GD^b(𝐤_Y)`$ and $`k`$, one has

(4.1)
$$\mathrm{SS}_k(FG)\underset{i+j=k}{}\mathrm{SS}_i(F)\times \mathrm{SS}_j(G).$$

###### Proof.

Let us show that $`(p,p^{})_{i+j=k}\mathrm{SS}_i(F)\times \mathrm{SS}_j(G)`$ implies $`(p,p^{})\mathrm{SS}_k(FG)`$. Since $`\mathrm{SS}_k(FG)\mathrm{SS}(FG)\mathrm{SS}(F)\times \mathrm{SS}(G)`$, we may assume that $`(p,p^{})\mathrm{SS}(F)\times \mathrm{SS}(G)`$. Since $`\mathrm{SS}_i(F)=\mathrm{SS}(F)`$ for $`i0`$ and $`\mathrm{SS}_i(F)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`i0`$, there exists $`i`$ such that $`p\mathrm{SS}_i(F)`$ and $`p\mathrm{SS}_{i1}(F)`$. Set $`j=ki`$. Then $`p^{}\mathrm{SS}_j(G)`$. Hence there exist a morphism $`F^{}F`$ which is an isomorphism in $`D^b(𝐤_X;p)`$ with $`F^{}D^{>i1}(𝐤_X)`$, and and $`G^{}G`$ which is an isomorphism in $`D^b(𝐤_Y;p^{})`$ with $`G^{}D^{>j}(𝐤_X)`$. Hence $`F^{}G^{}FG`$ is an isomorphism in $`D^b(𝐤_{X\times Y};(p,p^{}))`$ and $`F^{}G^{}D^{>i+j}(𝐤_{X\times Y})`$. ∎

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a morphism of real analytic manifolds and let $`FD^b(𝐤_X)`$ such that $`f`$ is proper on the support of $`F`$. Then for any $`k`$,

(4.2)
$$\mathrm{SS}_k(Rf_{}(F))f_\pi f_{d}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\mathrm{SS}_k(F)).$$

The equality holds in case f is a closed embedding.

###### Proof.

We shall follow the method of proof of Proposition 5.4.4. of .

Let $`yY`$ and let $`\phi `$ be a real $`C^1`$-function on $`Y`$ such that $`\phi (y)=0`$ and $`d(\phi f)(x)\mathrm{SS}_k(F)`$ for every $`xf^1(y)`$. Therefore

$`H^jR\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\{\phi f0\}}(F)|_{f^1(y)}=0\text{for any }jk\text{.}`$
We have

$`H^jR\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\{\phi 0\}}(Rf_{}(F))_y`$ $``$ $`H^jRf_{}(R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\{\phi f0\}}(F))_y`$
$``$ $`H^j(f^1(y);R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\{\phi f0\}}(F))=0`$
for every $`jk`$. This proves (4.2).

Let us now assume that $`f`$ is a closed embedding. Let $`p\mathrm{SS}_k(Rf_{}F)`$. We may assume that $`Y`$ is a real vector space and $`X`$ is a linear subspace of $`Y`$. Let $`\gamma Y`$, $`WY`$, $`\epsilon `$ be chosen as in Proposition 3.2 (iv)k with respect to $`p`$ and $`Rf_{}F`$, that is,

$$H^j(Y;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }Rf_{}F)=0\text{for any }jk\text{ and }xW\text{.}$$

Since $`f`$ is a closed embedding, one has

$`H^j(Y;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }Rf_{}F)`$ $``$ $`H^j(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon X}F).`$
Hence one has

$`H^j(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^aX)(H_\epsilon X)}F)=0\text{for any }jk\text{,}`$
and the interior of the polar set of $`\gamma X`$ contains $`f_df_\pi ^1(p)`$, and therefore $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)f_df_\pi ^1(p)=\mathrm{}`$. ∎

###### Proposition 4.3.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be real analytic manifolds and let $`f:XY`$ be a smooth morphism. Let $`GD^b(𝐤_Y)`$. Then, for any $`k`$,

(4.3)
$$\mathrm{SS}_k(f^1G)=f_df_\pi ^1(\mathrm{SS}_k(G)).$$

###### Proof.

The problem being local on $`X`$, we may assume that $`X=Y\times Z`$, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ are vector spaces and $`f`$ is the projection. Then we have to show

(4.4) $`\mathrm{SS}_k(G𝐤_Z)=\mathrm{SS}_k(G)\times T_Z^{}Z.`$
The inclusion $``$ in (4.4) is a particular case of Proposition 4.1. Let us prove the converse inclusion. Since $`\mathrm{SS}_k(G𝐤_Z)\mathrm{SS}(G)\times T_Z^{}Z`$, it is enough to show that $`(p,p^{})\mathrm{SS}_k(G𝐤_Z)`$ ($`p^{}=(z_0;0)`$) implies $`p\mathrm{SS}_k(G)`$.

Setting $`p=(x_0;\xi _0)`$, there exist a proper closed convex cone $`\gamma `$ in $`X\times Z`$ and an open neighborhood $`W`$ of $`x_0`$ and $`\epsilon `$ such that $`(\xi _0,0)\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^{})`$ and

$$H^j(X\times Z;𝐤_{(H_\epsilon \times Z)((x,z_0)+\gamma ^a)}(G𝐤_Z))=0\text{for }jk\text{ and }xW\text{.}$$

One has

$`R\mathrm{\Gamma }(X\times Z;𝐤_{(H_\epsilon \times Z)((x,z_0)+\gamma ^a)}(G𝐤_Z))`$
$`R\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;Rf_{}\left(𝐤_{(H_\epsilon \times Z)((x,z_0)+\gamma ^a)}(G𝐤_Z)\right))`$
and $`Rf_{}\left(𝐤_{(H_\epsilon \times Z)((x,z_0)+\gamma ^a)}(G𝐤_Z)\right)Rf_{}(𝐤_{(x,z_0)+\gamma ^a})𝐤_{H_\epsilon }G`$. Since one has

$$Rf_{}(𝐤_{(x,z_0)+\gamma ^a})𝐤_{x+f(\gamma ^a)},$$

we obtain

$$H^j(X;𝐤_{H_\epsilon (x+f(\gamma )^a)}G)=0\text{for }jk\text{ and }xW\text{.}$$

Then the assertion follows from the fact that $`f(\gamma )`$ is a proper closed convex cone such that $`\xi _0\mathrm{Int}(f(\gamma )^{})`$. ∎

## 5 Estimates for the truncated microsupport

Let $`Y`$ be a smooth submanifold of $`X`$. In this section we will give an estimate for $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)\pi ^1(Y)`$. Recall that $`\mu _Y(F)`$ denotes the microlocalization of $`F`$ along $`Y`$. Note that for $`FD^k(𝐤_X)`$, $`H^k(\mu _Y(F))H^0\left(\mu _Y(H^k(F))\right)`$ is a subsheaf of $`\pi ^1H^k(F)|_{T_Y^{}X}`$ and

(5.1) $`H^k(\mu _Y(F))_p\{sH^k(F)_{\pi (p)};C_Y(\mathrm{supp}(s))_{\pi (p)}\{0\}`$
$`\{v(T_YX)_{\pi (p)};v,p>0\}\}`$
for $`pT_Y^{}X`$.

The following result is a generalization of \[7, Theorem 5.7.1\] to $`\mathrm{SS}_k`$.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`X`$ be a real analytic manifold and $`Y`$ a smooth submanifold. Let $`FD^b(𝐤_X)`$. Then

(5.2) $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)T_Y^{}X=\left(T_Y^{}X\overline{\mathrm{SS}_k(F)\pi ^1(Y)}\right)\mathrm{Supp}(\tau ^k\mu _Y(F)).`$
###### Proof.

It is evident that the right hand side of (5.2) is contained in the left hand side. Let us show the converse inclusion. Assuming that $`pT_Y^{}X`$ satisfies

$`p\overline{\mathrm{SS}_k(F)\pi ^1(Y)}\mathrm{Supp}\left(\tau ^k(\mu _Y(F))\right),`$
we shall prove $`p\mathrm{SS}_k(F)`$. Arguing by induction on $`k`$, one has $`p\mathrm{SS}_{k1}(F)`$ and by Proposition 3.2 (ii)k-1 we may assume that $`FD^k(𝐤_X)`$.

There exists an open conic neighborhood $`U`$ of $`p`$ in $`T^{}X`$ such that $`U\mathrm{SS}_k(F)\pi ^1(Y)`$ and $`H^j(\mu _Y(F))|_U=0`$ for any $`jk`$. Furthermore, we may assume that $`X=^n`$, $`Y`$ is a linear subspace of $`X`$, $`p=(x_0;\xi _0)`$. Let us take an open neighborhood $`W`$ of $`x_0`$, a proper closed convex cone $`\gamma `$ and $`\epsilon >0`$ such that $`W\times \mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^{})U`$, $`\xi _0\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^{})`$ and $`(W+\gamma ^a)\overline{H_\epsilon }W`$. Hence one has

$`H^j(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }F)H^{jk}(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }H^k(F))\text{for any }jk\text{.}`$
Thus it is enough to check that

(5.3) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }H^k(F))=0.`$
Let $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;𝐤_{(x+\gamma ^a)H_\epsilon }H^k(F))`$. Then there exists an open set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0+\gamma ^a=\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, $`x+\gamma ^a\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`s`$ extends to a section $`\stackrel{~}{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Omega }_0;𝐤_{H_\epsilon }H^k(F))`$. Moreover we may assume that $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_0\overline{H_\epsilon })\times \gamma ^{}U`$. Set $`S=\mathrm{supp}(\stackrel{~}{s})`$. Then $`S(Y+\gamma )`$ satisfies the condition in Lemma 3.3 with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0(Y+\gamma )`$. Hence we have $`S(Y+\gamma )=\mathrm{}`$ and hence $`SY+\gamma `$. Since $`H^k(\mu _Y(F))|_U=0`$ and

$$C_Y(Y+\gamma )Y\times (Y+\gamma )\{vT_YX;v,\xi _0>0\}(Y\times \{0\}),$$

the formula (5.1) implies $`\stackrel{~}{s}|_Y=0`$. One has therefore $`SY=\mathrm{}`$. Then $`S`$ satisfies the condition in Lemma 3.3, and we can conclude $`S=\mathrm{}`$, which implies $`s=0`$. ∎

We shall need the following definition:

###### Definition 5.2.

Let $`Y`$ be a closed submanifold of $`X`$, let $`k`$ and let $`FD^b(𝐤_X)`$. The closed subset $`\mathrm{SS}_k^Y(F)`$ of $`\pi ^1(Y)`$ is defined by: $`p\mathrm{SS}_k^Y(F)`$ if and only if there exists an open conic neighborhood $`U`$ of $`p`$ in $`\pi ^1(Y)`$ satisfying the following two conditions:

1. $`\tau ^k\mu _Y(F)|_{UT_Y^{}X}=0`$,
2. for any smooth real analytic hypersurface $`Z`$ of $`Y`$,

$$\tau ^k\mu _Z(F)|_{UT_Z^{}XT_Y^{}X}=0.$$

We remark that $`\mathrm{SS}_k^Y(F)`$ is a conic closed set obviously contained in $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)\pi ^1(Y)`$.

###### Theorem 5.3.

Let $`X`$ be a real analytic manifold and $`Y`$ a closed submanifold. Let $`FD^b(𝐤_X)`$. Then

(5.4) $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)=\overline{\mathrm{SS}_k(F)\pi ^1(Y)}\mathrm{SS}_k^Y(F).`$
###### Proof.

The left hand side obviously contains the right hand side. Let us prove the converse inclusion. Assuming that $`p\pi ^1(Y)`$ satisfies $`p\overline{\mathrm{SS}_k(F)\pi ^1(Y)}\mathrm{SS}_k^Y(F)`$, let us show $`p\mathrm{SS}_k(F)`$.

If $`pT_Y^{}X`$, Theorem 5.1 implies the assertion. Hence we may assume $`pT_Y^{}X`$. Let $`U`$ be an open conic neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`T^{}X`$ such that $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)U\pi ^1(Y)`$ and $`U\mathrm{SS}_k^Y(F)=\mathrm{}`$.

We may assume that $`X=\{x=(u,v,t);u^n,v^m,t\}`$, $`Y=\{(u,v,t)X;u=0\}`$ and $`p=((0,0,0);(0,0,1))`$. We may assume $`W\times \gamma ^{}U`$ with $`\gamma =\{t\sqrt{u^2+v^2}\}`$ and an open neighborhood $`W`$ of the origin. Set $`H_\epsilon =\{(u,v,t);t>\epsilon \}`$, and choose $`W`$ and a sufficiently small $`\epsilon `$ such that $`(x+\gamma ^a)\overline{H_\epsilon }W`$ for any $`xW`$.

By the induction on $`k`$, we may assume $`FD^k(𝐤_X)`$. It is enough to show for any $`x_0W`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_0+\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^a);𝐤_{H_\epsilon }H^k(F))=0.$$

Let $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_0+\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^a);𝐤_{H_\epsilon }H^k(F))`$. Set $`S=\mathrm{supp}(s)\left(x_0+\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^a)\right)H_\epsilon `$. Assuming $`S\mathrm{}`$, we shall derive a contradiction. Set $`x_0=(u_0,v_0,t_0)`$ and set $`\phi (x)=uu_0^2+vv_0^2(tt_0)^2`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=x_0+\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^a)=\{x;t<t_0,\phi (x)<0\}`$, and $`\phi (\mathrm{\Omega }H_\epsilon )`$ is bounded from below. Moreover one has $`d\phi (x)\mathrm{Int}(\gamma ^{})`$ for any $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`d\phi (x)T_Y^{}X`$ for any $`x\mathrm{\Omega }Y`$. Set $`c=inf\{\phi (x);xS\}<0`$. Since $`\phi |_S:S_{<0}`$ is a proper map, one has $`c\phi (S)`$. Let $`Z_c`$ be the closed subset $`\{x=(0,v,t)Y;t<t_0,\phi (x)=c\}`$ of $`Y`$ and set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }(Z_c+\gamma )`$. Since one has

$$Z_c+\gamma =\left\{(t,u,v);tt_0u\sqrt{vv_0^2+u_0^2+c}\right\},$$

$`\phi `$ takes values smaller than $`c`$ on $`Y(Z_c+\gamma )`$, and hence $`S^{}:=S\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ does not intersect $`Y`$. Therefore $`S^{}`$ satisfies the condition in Lemma 3.3. Hence $`S^{}=\mathrm{}`$, which means $`SZ_c+\gamma `$. Since $`C_{Z_c}(Z_c+\gamma )_x\{0\}\{d\phi (x)>0\}`$ for any $`xZ_c`$, $`H^0(\mu _{Z_c}H^k(F))|_{UT_Y^{}X}=0`$ implies $`s|_{Z_c}=0`$. Therefore $`SZ_c=\mathrm{}`$. Since $`\{x(Z_c+\gamma )\mathrm{\Omega };\phi (x)=c\}Z_c`$, one has $`c\phi (S)`$, which is a contradiction. ∎

## 6 Applications to $`𝒟`$ -Modules

In this section, $`X`$ denotes a complex manifold.

Before stating our main result, let us recall a classical lemma on the vanishing of the microlocalization of $`𝒪_X`$ along submanifolds.

###### Lemma 6.1.

Let $`Y`$ be a closed complex submanifold of codimension $`d`$ of $`X`$ and let $`S`$ be a smooth real analytic hypersurface of $`Y`$. Then

(6.1) $`H^k(\mu _Y(𝒪_X))=0\text{for any }kd,`$
(6.2) $`H^k(\mu _S(𝒪_X))|_{T_S^{}XT_Y^{}X}=0\text{for any }kd\text{.}`$
###### Proof.

The vanishing property (6.1) is proved in  and (by a different method) in , Proposition 11.3.4.

The vanishing property (6.2) follows from , Proposition 11.3.1. Let us recall this statement. Let $`pT_S^{}X`$. Set $`E_p=T_p(T^{}X)`$, $`\lambda _S=T_p(T_S^{}X)`$, $`\lambda _0=T_p(\pi ^1\pi (p))`$, and denote by $`\nu `$ the complex line in $`E_p`$, the tangent space to the Euler vector field in $`T^{}X`$ at $`p`$. Let $`c`$ be the real codimension of the real submanifold $`S`$ and let $`\delta `$ denote the complex dimension of $`\lambda _S\sqrt{1}\lambda _S\lambda _0`$.

The result of loc. cit. asserts that if the real dimension of $`\lambda _S\nu `$ is $`1`$, then

$`H^j(\mu _S(𝒪_X))_p=0\text{for }j<c\delta \text{.}`$
(The result in loc. cit. is more precise, involving the signature of the Levi form.) If $`pT_S^{}XT_Y^{}X`$, the real dimension of $`\lambda _S\nu `$ is $`1`$. Since $`c=2d+1`$ and $`\delta =d`$, we get the desired result. ∎

Now we are ready to prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 6.2.

Let $`X`$ be a complex manifold, let $``$ be a coherent $`𝒟_X`$-module and let $`S`$ be a closed complex analytic subset of $`X`$ with $`\mathrm{codim}_XSd`$. Set $`F=Rom_{𝒟_X}(,𝒪_X)`$. Then

1. $`\mathrm{SS}_{d1}(F)=\overline{\mathrm{SS}_{d1}(F)\pi ^1(S)}`$.
2. Let $`S^{}`$ be a closed complex analytic subset of $`S`$ such that $`\mathrm{codim}_XS^{}>d`$ and $`S_0:=SS^{}`$ is a non-singular subvariety of codimension $`d`$. Then

$`\mathrm{SS}_d(F)=\overline{\mathrm{SS}_d(F)\pi ^1(S)}\overline{\mathrm{Supp}\left(\tau ^d\mu _{S_0}(F|_{XS^{}})\right)}.`$
In particular one has

$$\mathrm{SS}_d(F)=\overline{\mathrm{SS}_d(F)\pi ^1(S)}\overline{\mathrm{SS}_d(F)T_{S_0}^{}X}.$$

###### Proof.

(i) By the induction on the codimension of $`S`$, we may assume that $`S`$ is non-singular. By Theorem 5.3 one has

$`\mathrm{SS}_{d1}(F)=\overline{\mathrm{SS}_{d1}(F)\pi ^1(S)}\mathrm{SS}_{d1}^S(F).`$
Hence it is enough to show that $`\mathrm{SS}_d^S(F)=\mathrm{}`$, or equivalently $`H^j(\mu _S(𝒪_X))=0`$ for $`j<d`$ and $`H^j(\mu _Z(𝒪_X))|_{T_Z^{}XT_S^{}X}=0`$ for $`j<d`$ for any real analytic hypersurface $`Z`$ of $`S`$. This is a consequence of Lemma 6.1.

(ii) By (i), we may assume that $`S`$ is non-singular of codimension $`d`$. Hence it is enough to show $`\mathrm{SS}_d^S(F)=\mathrm{Supp}\left(\tau ^d\mu _S(F)\right)`$. By the definition, we are reduced to proving $`H^j(\mu _Z(𝒪_X))|_{T_Z^{}XT_S^{}X}=0`$ for $`jd`$ and for any real analytic hypersurface $`Z`$ of $`S`$. This is again a consequence of Lemma 6.1. ∎

###### Remark 6.3.

When $`S`$ is a closed smooth hypersurface, the inclusion

$`\mathrm{SS}_1(F)\overline{\mathrm{SS}(F)\pi ^1(S)}(\mathrm{SS}(F)T_S^{}X)`$
was obtained in .

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be an open subset of $`X`$. We shall say for short that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has a smooth boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if there exists a real C1-function $`\phi `$ such that $`d\phi 0`$ on the set $`\{\phi =0\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{xX;\phi (x)<0\}`$.

###### Corollary 6.4.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be an open subset of $`X`$ with smooth boundary, let $``$, $`F`$, $`S`$ and $`S_0`$ be as in Proposition 6.2 and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a closed conic subset of $`T^{}X`$. Assume that

$`\mathrm{Ch}()\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^1(S),`$
$`\overline{T_{S_0}^{}X}T_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}XT_X^{}X,`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }T_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}XT_X^{}X.`$
Then one has

$`\mathrm{SS}_d(F)T_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}XT_X^{}X.`$
In particular one has

$`H^j(R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{X\mathrm{\Omega }}(F))|_\mathrm{\Omega }=0\text{for }jd\text{.}`$
###### Example 6.5.

Under the situation of Corollary 6.4, assume further that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is pseudo-convex. Let us denote by $`j:\mathrm{\Omega }X`$ the open embedding. Then $`H^k(Rj_{}j^1𝒪_X)=0`$ for $`k0`$, and $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{X\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝒪_X))|_\mathrm{\Omega }[1]`$ is concentrated in degree $`0`$. Let us set for short:

$`𝒪_X^+/𝒪_X`$ $`=`$ $`(j_{}j^1𝒪_X/𝒪_X)|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$``$ $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{X\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝒪_X))|_\mathrm{\Omega }[1].`$
Applying Corollary 6.4, we find that

$`xt_{𝒟_X}^j(,𝒪_X^+/𝒪_X)=0\text{for }j<d\text{.}`$
###### Example 6.6.

Let $`P`$ be a differential operator on $`X`$ whose principal symbol $`\sigma (P)`$ has the form $`a(x)q(x,\xi )`$ with $`a𝒪_X(X)`$ and $`q𝒪_{T^{}X}(T^{}X)`$. Then taking $`𝒟_X/𝒟_XP`$ as $``$, the solution complex $`F`$ is $`𝒪_X\stackrel{𝑃}{}𝒪_X`$, where $`𝒪_X`$ is at degree $`0`$ and $`1`$. Taking $`a^1(0)`$ and $`q^1(0)`$ as $`S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, Corollary 6.4 implies

$$\mathrm{SS}_1(F)q^1(0)\overline{\{(x;\xi );a(x)=0,\xi da(x)\}}.$$

By (3.12) and the distinguished triangle

$$\mathrm{Ker}(𝒪_X\stackrel{𝑃}{}𝒪_X)F\mathrm{Coker}(𝒪_X\stackrel{𝑃}{}𝒪_X)[1]\stackrel{+1}{},$$

one has also

$$\mathrm{SS}_1\left(\mathrm{Ker}(𝒪_X\stackrel{𝑃}{}𝒪_X)\right)q^1(0)\overline{\{(x;\xi );a(x)=0,\xi da(x)\}}.$$

Finally one has the following theorem which calculates $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{Ch}()`$. Here, for a closed complex subset $`Z`$ of $`X`$, $`T_Z^{}X`$ means $`\overline{T_{Z_{\mathrm{reg}}}^{}X}`$ where $`Z_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ is the non-singular locus of $`Z`$.

###### Theorem 6.7.

Let $``$ be a coherent $`𝒟_X`$-module, and let $`F`$ be the solution complex $`Rom_{𝒟_X}(,𝒪_X)`$. Let $`\mathrm{Ch}()=_{\alpha A}V_\alpha `$ be the decomposition of $`\mathrm{Ch}()`$ into irreducible components. Let $`Y_\alpha `$ be the irreducible complex analytic subset $`\pi (V_\alpha )`$ of $`X`$. Then for any integer $`k`$ one has

(6.3) $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)=\left(\underset{\mathrm{codim}Y_\alpha <k}{}V_\alpha \right)\left(\underset{\mathrm{codim}Y_\alpha =k}{}T_{Y_\alpha }^{}X\right).`$
###### Proof.

The inclusion $``$ is a consequence of Proposition 6.2. Let us show the converse inclusion. Note that both sides are empty sets for $`k<0`$. Hence arguing by induction on $`k`$, we can assume that (6.3) holds for $`k1`$. Hence it is enough to show:

(6.4.i) if $`\mathrm{codim}Y_\alpha =k1`$ and $`V_\alpha T_{Y_\alpha }^{}X`$, then $`V_\alpha \mathrm{SS}_k(F)`$,
(6.4.ii) if $`\mathrm{codim}Y_\alpha =k`$, then $`T_{Y_\alpha }^{}X\mathrm{SS}_k(F)`$.
In both cases, we may assume that $`Y:=Y_\alpha `$ is a non-singular subvariety. Let $`j:YX`$ be the inclusion map.

Proof of (6.4.i) It is enough to show that for any open subset $`U`$ of $`T^{}X`$ with a non empty intersection with $`V_\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)U`$ is non empty. We may assume that $`\mathrm{Ch}()U=V_\alpha U`$ and $`V_\alpha UY`$ is a smooth morphism. Since $`V_\alpha \pi ^1(Y)`$, we may assume, by shrinking $`U`$ if necessary, that $`_X^{}_{𝒟_X}|_U_{XY}^{}__Y𝒩|_U`$ for a coherent $`_Y`$-module $`𝒩`$ (). For any smooth complex hypersurface $`Z`$ of $`Y`$, one has by

$`H^k(\mu _Z(F))`$ $``$ $`om_{𝒟_X}(,H^k(\mu _Z(𝒪_X)))`$
$``$ $`om__X^{}(_X^{}_{𝒟_X},H^k(\mu _Z(𝒪_X)))`$
$``$ $`om__X^{}(_{XY}^{}__Y𝒩,H^k(\mu _Z(𝒪_X)))`$
$``$ $`j_d{}_{}{}^{}j_{\pi }^{1}om__Y(𝒩,H^1(\mu _Z(𝒪_Y)))`$
on $`UT_Z^{}X`$. Hence the result follows from the following lemma which is an easy consequence of the classification theorem for coherent $``$-modules at generic points of their supports.

###### Lemma 6.8.

Let $`V`$ be a non-empty (locally closed ) smooth submanifold of $`\dot{T}^{}Y`$ such that $`VY`$ is smooth, and let $`𝒩`$ be a coherent $`_Y`$-module defined on a neighborhood of $`V`$ such that $`\mathrm{Supp}(𝒩)=V`$. Then there is a smooth complex hypersurface $`Z`$ of $`Y`$ such that $`om__Y(𝒩,H^1(\mu _Z(𝒪_Y)))|_{VT_Z^{}X}0`$.

###### Proof.

By the generic classification theorem in , $`_Y^{\mathrm{}}__Y𝒩`$ is a de Rham system by shrinking $`V`$ if necessary. There exists a smooth complex hypersurface $`Z`$ of $`Y`$ such that $`T_Z^{}YV`$. Then by a quantized contact transform, $`_Y^{\mathrm{}}__Y𝒩`$ and $`H^1(\mu _Z(𝒪_Y))`$ are transformed to $`\left(_^n^{\mathrm{}}/(_{i=1}^s_^n^{\mathrm{}}_i)\right)^m`$ and $`H^1(\mu _{\{z_n=0\}}(𝒪_^n))`$ with $`s<n`$ and $`m>0`$. In this case, the assertion is obvious. ∎

Proof of (6.4.ii) The proof is similar to that of (6.4.i). Note that $`V_\alpha `$ contains $`T_Y^{}X`$. By shrinking $`Y`$ if necessary, we may assume that $`\mathrm{Ch}()`$ is equal to $`V_\alpha `$ on a neighborhood of a point $`p`$ in $`T_Y^{}X`$. Then on a neighborhood of $`p`$, $`_X^{}_{𝒟_X}`$ is isomorphic to $`_{XY}^{}_{𝒟_Y}𝒩`$ for a coherent $`𝒟_Y`$-module $`𝒩`$ with $`\mathrm{Supp}(𝒩)=Y`$ on a neighborhood of $`\pi (p)`$. One has then by

$`H^k(\mu _Y(F))`$ $``$ $`om_{𝒟_X}(,H^k(\mu _Y(𝒪_X)))`$
$``$ $`om__X^{}(_X^{}_{𝒟_X},H^k(\mu _Y(𝒪_X)))`$
$``$ $`om__X^{}(_{XY}^{}_{𝒟_Y}𝒩,H^k(\mu _Y(𝒪_X)))`$
$``$ $`\pi ^1om_{𝒟_Y}(𝒩,𝒪_Y)|_{T_Y^{}X}.`$
Hence the assertion follows from the following well-known result. ∎

###### Lemma 6.9.

If a coherent $`𝒟_X`$-module $``$ satisfies $`\mathrm{Supp}()=X`$, then one has $`\mathrm{Supp}(om_{𝒟_X}(,𝒪_X))=X`$.

By the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence of perverse sheaves and holonomic $`𝒟`$-modules, we have the following description of the truncated microsupport of perverse sheaves.

###### Corollary 6.10.

Let $`FD^b(_X)`$ and let $`\{X_\alpha \}_{\alpha A}`$ be a family of complex submanifolds such that $`\overline{X_\alpha }`$ and $`\overline{X_\alpha }X_\alpha `$ are closed complex analytic subsets and $`\mathrm{SS}(F)=_{\alpha A}\overline{T_{X_\alpha }^{}X}`$. If $`F`$ is a perverse sheaf (i.e. there is a holonomic $`𝒟_X`$-module $``$ such that $`FRom_{𝒟_X}(,𝒪_X)`$), then one has

(6.5) $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{codim}X_\alpha k}{}}\overline{T_{X_\alpha }^{}X}\text{for any }k\text{.}`$
Conversely if $`FD^b(_X)`$ is $``$-constructible and if it satisfies

(6.6) $`\mathrm{SS}_k(F)\mathrm{SS}_k(Rom_{}(F,_X)){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{codim}X_\alpha k}{}}\overline{T_{X_\alpha }^{}X}\text{for any }k\text{,}`$
then $`F`$ is a perverse sheaf.

###### Proof.

It is a direct consequence of Theorem 6.7 that the perversity of $`F`$ implies (6.5). Conversely assume (6.6). In order to prove that $`F`$ is a perverse sheaf, it is enough to show that $`F`$ is microlocally isomorphic to $`_{X_\alpha }[\mathrm{codim}X_\alpha ]^m`$ for some $`m`$ at a generic point of $`T_{X_\alpha }^{}X`$ by \[8, Theorem 10.3.12\]. By , $`F`$ is isomorphic to $`_{X_\alpha }[\mathrm{codim}X_\alpha ]K`$ at a generic point of $`T_{X_\alpha }^{}X`$ for some $`KD^b()`$. Since $`\mu _{X_\alpha }(F)`$ must be in $`D^{\mathrm{codim}X_\alpha }(_{T_{X_\alpha }^{}X})`$ and $`\mu _{X_\alpha }(F)_{T_{X_\alpha }^{}X}[\mathrm{codim}X_\alpha ]K`$, one has $`KD^0()`$. Similarly, $`\mu _{X_\alpha }\left(Rom_{}(F,_X)\right)_{T_{X_\alpha }^{}X}[\mathrm{codim}X_\alpha ]Rom_{}(K,)`$ implies $`KD^0()`$. ∎

Masaki Kashiwara
Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences,
Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502 Japan
masaki@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Teresa Monteiro Fernandes
Centro de Álgebra da Universidade de Lisboa, Complexo 2,
2 Avenida Prof. Gama Pinto, 1699 Lisboa codex Portugal
tmf@ptmat.lmc.fc.ul.pt

Pierre Schapira
Université Pierre et Marie Curie, case 82
Institut de Mathématiques
4, place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05 France
schapira@math.jussieu.fr
http://www.institut.math.jussieu.fr/~schapira/