Global Well-Posedness and Scattering for the Elliptic-Elliptic Davey-Stewartson System at $L^{2}$-Critical Regularity

TL;DR

This paper proves global well-posedness and scattering for the elliptic-elliptic Davey-Stewartson system at critical regularity, resolving a longstanding open problem for large initial data in both defocusing and focusing cases.

Contribution

It introduces a novel frequency cube decomposition and bilinear estimates to handle the nonlinearity, advancing the analysis of the system at critical regularity.

Findings

Established global well-posedness for large data at critical regularity.

Proved scattering results for the system in both defocusing and focusing cases.

Developed new bilinear Strichartz estimates suited to the system's nonlinearity.

Abstract

In this paper, we prove global well-posedness and scattering of the Cauchy problem for the elliptic-elliptic Davey-Stewartson system (eeDS) for initial data $u_{0}\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ in the defocusing case and for $u_{0}\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ with mass below that of the ground state in the focusing case. This result resolves the large data problem at the scaling-critical regularity left open by Ghidaglia and Saut in their work initiating the mathematical study of the Cauchy problem for the system. Our proof uses the concentration compactness/rigidity road map of Kenig and Merle together with the long-time Strichartz estimate approach of Dodson. Due to the failure of the endpoint $L_{t}^{2}L_{x}^{\infty}$ Strichartz estimate, we rely heavily on bilinear Strichartz estimates. We overcome the obstruction to applying such estimates caused by the lack of permutation invariance of the eeDS nonlinearity under frequency decomposition by introducing a new frequency cube decomposition of the nonlinearity and proving bilinear estimates suited to this decomposition. In both the defocusing and focusing cases, we overcome the lack of an a priori interaction Morawetz estimate by exploiting the spatial and frequency localization of the minimal counterexamples which we reduce to considering.