Scattering of radial solutions to the Inhomogeneous Nonlinear Schr\"odinger Equation
Luccas Campos

TL;DR
This paper proves scattering for radial solutions of the focusing inhomogeneous nonlinear Schrödinger equation below the mass-energy threshold, extending previous results to a broader parameter range and including the classical case.
Contribution
It generalizes existing scattering results to a wider set of parameters for the inhomogeneous NLS and introduces a modified approach to handle inhomogeneity.
Findings
Established scattering below the threshold for a broader parameter range.
Extended the method to the classical NLS case ($b=0$).
Validated the approach for radial solutions in all intercritical cases.
Abstract
We prove scattering below the mass-energy threshold for the focusing inhomogeneous nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation \begin{equation} iu_t + \Delta u + |x|^{-b}|u|^{p-1}u=0, \end{equation} when and in the intercritical case . This work generalizes the results of Farah and Guzm\'an [9], allowing a broader range of values for the parameters and . We use a modified version of Dodson-Murphy's approach [6], allowing us to deal with the inhomogeneity. The proof is also valid for the classical nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation (), extending the work in [6] for radial solutions in all intercritical cases.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Scattering of radial solutions to the Inhomogeneous Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation
Luccas Campos
Department of Mathematics, UFMG, Brazil and Department of Mathematics, FIU, USA
Abstract.
We prove scattering below the mass-energy threshold for the focusing inhomogeneous nonlinear Schrödinger equation
[TABLE]
when and in the intercritical case . This work generalizes the results of Farah and Guzmán [FG_Scat], allowing a broader range of values for the parameters and . We use a modified version of Dodson-Murphy’s approach [MD_New], allowing us to deal with the inhomogeneity. The proof is also valid for the classical nonlinear Schrödinger equation (), extending the work in [MD_New] for radial solutions in all intercritical cases.
The author thanks Luiz Gustavo Farah (UFMG) and Svetlana Roudenko (FIU) for their valuable comments and suggestions which helped improve the manuscript. This work was done when the first author was visiting Florida International University in 2018-19 under the support of Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES), for which the author is very grateful as it boosted the energy into the research project. L. C. was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.
1. Introduction
In this work, we consider the Cauchy problem for the focusing inhomogeneous nonlinear Schrödinger equation (INLS)
[TABLE]
as well as its homogeneous version (NLS)
[TABLE]
where , , , and
[TABLE]
The homogeneous case has been extensively studied over the past decades (for a textbook treatment, we refer the reader to Bourgain [Bo99], Cazenave [cazenave], Linares-Ponce [LiPo15], Tao [TaoBook]).
The inhomogeneous version of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation arises as a model in optics, in the form
[TABLE]
The potential accounts for the inhomogeneity of the medium. We refer to Gill [Gill], Liu and Tripathi [Liu] for the physical motivation. The particular case appears naturally as a limiting case of potentials that decay as at infinity (Genoud and Stuart [g_8]).
We briefly review the literature about (1.1) and (1.2). It is well-known that the Cauchy problem for (1.2) is locally well-posed in , (Ginibre and Velo [GV79], Kato [Kato87]). More precisely, given , there exists and a unique solution to the NLS equation (1.2), where is the intersection of all -admissible spaces (see Definition 2.1 below).
For the case , Genoud and Stuart [g_8] proved that (1.1) is locally well-posed in , for . More recently, Guzmán [Boa] established the local well-posedness of (1.1) based on Strichartz estimates. In particular, defining
[TABLE]
he proved that, for and , the initial value problem (1.1) is locally well-posed in . Dinh [Boa_Dinh] extended Guzmán’s results in dimension for and . Note that, in the results of Guzmán [Boa] and Dinh [Boa_Dinh], the ranges of are more restricted than those in the results of Genoud and Stuart [g_8] (mainly due to the natural restrictions on Sobolev embeddings). However, Guzmán and Dinh give more detailed information on the solutions, showing that there exists such that .
These equations are invariant under scaling. Indeed, if is a solution to (1.1), then
[TABLE]
is also a solution. Computing the homogeneous Sobolev norm, we obtain
[TABLE]
The Sobolev index which leaves the scaling symmetry invariant is called the critical index and is defined as
[TABLE]
Note that the condition (1.3) is equivalent to .
Solutions to the Cauchy problem (1.1) conserve mass and energy , defined by
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Note that mass and energy are not scale-invariant quantities when . However, the interpolation quantity defined by Holmer and Roudenko [holmer2007blow] is invariant under scaling, and plays a crucial role in the description of global behavior of solutions to (1.1).
The global behavior of solutions to (1.1) is related to the existence of standing waves , where satisfies the elliptic equation
[TABLE]
Standing waves of particular interest are given by solutions of (1.11) which are positive and radial, also known as ground states. Questions about existence and uniqueness of ground states were answered in Berestycki and Lions [BL83], Gidas et al. [Gidas81], Kwong [Kwong89] for the case . For the inhomogeneous case, existence of ground state was proved in Genoud [g_5, g_6], Genoud and Stuart [g_8], while uniqueness was handled in Yanagida [g_19], Genoud [g_7]. Existence and uniqueness of , the radial, positive solution to (1.11) hold for and .
Remark 1.1*.*
It is worth mentioning that if and decays exponentially.
Before stating our main result, we give the scattering criterion, which was first proved for the cubic NLS equation by Tao [Tao_Scat].
Theorem 1.2** (Scattering criterion).**
Let , and . Consider a spherically symmetric solution to (1.1) defined on and assume the a priori bound
[TABLE]
There exist constants and depending only on , , and (but never on or ) such that if
[TABLE]
then there exists a function such that
[TABLE]
i.e., scatters forward in time in .
Remark 1.3*.*
The notation instead of is intentional, since we allow to be arbitrarily close to . At least in the radial case, it is possible to define Sobolev spaces with non-integer , as in this case the dimension becomes just a parameter. It is also mathematically convenient, as this flexibility is useful in some harder proofs. We mention here the work of Kopell and Landman [KL95] in which they constructed a blow-up profile for equation (1.2) in the cubic case when the dimension is exponentially asymptotically close to 2. In [MRS10], Merle, Raphael and Szeftel constructed stable blow-up solutions in the cubic case when . Later, Rottshafer and Kaper [RK02] improved the construction in [KL95] to allow the dimension to be polynomially close to 2.
The criterion above is used to prove scattering in below the mass-energy threshold, as in the following theorem. We emphasize that the main aim of this paper is to show that a different approach, based on Dodson-Murphy’s method, instead of the classic Kenig-Merle’s concentration-compactness-rigidity technique, can be applied to the INLS equation. Moreover, our method extends the range of parameters in which scattering can be proved.
Theorem 1.4**.**
Let , , , and be such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then the solution to (1.1) is defined on and scatters in in both time directions.
Remark 1.5*.*
The above result is known for and proved in Holmer and Roudenko [HR_Scat] Duyckaerts et al. [DHR_Scat], Fang et al. [FXC_Scat], Guevara [Guevara].
The case is considered by Farah and Guzmán [FG_Scat] with the assumption , for . In the theorem above, not only we employ a new method to prove scattering, but we actually extend the range of in dimensions , allowing in this case. Moreover, we extend the range of in the case . Indeed, the result proved in Farah and Guzmán [FG_Scat] considered , while here we allow to be in all the intercritical range for the 3d case.
Remark 1.6*.*
The proofs in [HR_Scat, DHR_Scat, FXC_Scat, FG_Scat, Guevara] use the so-called concentration-compactness-rigidity approach, pionereed by Kenig and Merle [KM_Glob] in the context of the energy-critical () NLS equation. More recently, Dodson and Murphy [MD_New] developed a new approach, based on Tao’s scattering criterion in [Tao_Scat] and on Virial/Morawetz estimates. We develop here a modification of Dodson-Murphy’s approach, replacing estimates by local-in-time Strichartz estimates which, together with small data theory, makes it possible to handle the inhomogeneity. Since our estimates also hold in the case , we immediately extend the proof in [MD_New], to , (see also Arora [AndyScat]). In lower dimensions, this approach fails due to the slow decay on time of the Schrödinger operator .
This paper is organized as follows: in the next section, we introduce some notation and basic estimates. In Section , we prove the scattering criterion (Theorem 1.2). In Section , we apply this criterion, together with Morawetz/Virial estimates to prove Theorem 1.4.
2. Notation and basic estimates
We denote by the Holder’s conjugate of . We use to denote , where the constant only depends on the parameters (such as , , , as well as in (1.12)) and exponents, but never on or on . The notations and denote, respectively, and , for a fixed . We use to denote the critical exponent of the Sobolev embedding , that is, if , and if .
Definition 2.1**.**
If and , the pair is called -admissible if it satisfies the condition
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
In particular, if , we say that the pair is -admissible.
Definition 2.2**.**
Given , consider the set
[TABLE]
For and , consider also
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We define the following Strichartz norm
[TABLE]
and the dual Strichartz norm
[TABLE]
If , we shall write and . If , we will often omit .
2.1. Strichartz Estimates
In this work, we use the following versions of the Strichartz estimates:
The standard Strichartz estimates* (Cazenave [cazenave], Keel and Tao [KT98], Foschi [Foschi05]*)
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
The Kato-Strichartz estimate* (Kato [Kato94], Foschi [Foschi05]*)
[TABLE]
And a local-in-time estimate
[TABLE]
These relations are obtained from the decay of the linear operator (see, for instance, Linares and Ponce [LiPo15, Lemma 4.1])
[TABLE]
combined with Sobolev inequalities and interpolation. The inequalities (2.7)-(2.10) are standard in the theory [cazenave]. To prove (2.11), we recall the following definition.
Definition 2.3**.**
If , and , define the Riesz potential of order as
[TABLE]
The next theorem is well-known, and we refer the reader to Stein [steinbook, Page 119, Theorem 1] for a complete proof.
Theorem 2.4** (Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev).**
If , , and , then
[TABLE]
Proof of (2.11).
For , let , and be such that is an -admissible pair, and is an -admissible pair. If , assume additionally that . Consider and note that and . From Minkowski’s inequality, and the decay of the linear Schrödinger operator (2.12):
[TABLE]
From the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev Theorem, we get
[TABLE]
In particular, if , then and
[TABLE]
Note that (2.20) also immediately holds in the case . Now observe that, if and ,
[TABLE]
Therefore, as in Kato [Kato94, Theorem 2.1], we can interpolate (2.19) and (2.25) and use a density argument to obtain (2.11). ∎
2.2. Other useful estimates
We start recalling a couple of useful estimates for radial functions. The first one is the so-called Strauss lemma. The second estimate is a Gagliardo-Nirenberg-type estimate, which is an immediate consequence of the first inequality.
Lemma 2.5** (Strauss [Strauss77]).**
If , , then, for any ,
[TABLE]
Corollary 2.6**.**
If , , then, for any ,
[TABLE]
In what follows we also use the following standard estimates.
Lemma 2.7** (See Guzmán [Boa, Section 4]).**
Let , , and . Then there exists such that the following inequalities hold
[TABLE]
Proof.
Inequality (2.28) follows immediately from Hölder and Sobolev inequalities. To prove the remaining inequalities, consider the exponents
[TABLE]
Choosing if , and if , we have that , and . By Hölder and Sobolev inequalities (see [Boa, Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2] for details), we have
[TABLE]
so that (2.29) and (2.30) follow.
Consider now (2.31). If , then it follows directly from (2.35). For , define the pairs
[TABLE]
It is immediate to check that , , and that . Let be the unit ball centered at the origin, and let denote or . Since
[TABLE]
we estimate, by Hölder inequality
[TABLE]
where we choose
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Since for and , if we choose (and thus ) small enough, we conclude that , and that . In view of Hardy’s inequality (see [kufner1990hardy]),
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Therefore, (2.40) becomes
[TABLE]
Now, by splitting
[TABLE]
it is easy to see that . By Hölder and Sobolev inequalities
[TABLE]
Therefore, by Hölder inequality on the time variable:
[TABLE]
which finishes the proof of the lemma. ∎
Remark 2.8*.*
Inequalities (2.29)-(2.31) were proved in [Boa] for and with the additional restriction instead of in the 3d case. The proof we give here extends the range of and to the whole range where local well-posedness is proved. We expect that Lemma 2.7 can be used to extend the results in [Boa] using the concentration-compactness-rigidity tecnique.
The next lemma was proved in [Boa] with the same restrictions mentioned in Remark 2.8. In view of Lemma 2.7, the proof in [Boa] immediately extends to the new range of and .
Lemma 2.9** (Small data theory, see Guzmán [Boa, Theorem 1.8]).**
Let , and . Suppose . Then there exists such that if
[TABLE]
then the solution to (1.1) with initial condition is globally defined on . Moreover,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
3. Proof of the scattering criterion
We start this section with a remark.
Remark 3.1*.*
Under Definition 2.2, there exists a small (possibly depending on , , and ) such that, for a fixed
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for any pair .
For , fix the parameters
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Where is given in Lemma 2.7. The following result is the key to prove Theorem 1.2.
Lemma 3.2**.**
Let , , and be a radial -solution to (1.1) satisfying (1.12). If satisfies (1.13) for some , then there exists such that the following estimate is valid
[TABLE]
Proof.
From (2.8), there exists such that
[TABLE]
For to be chosen later, define , and let denote a smooth, spherically symmetric function which equals on and [math] outside . For any use to denote the rescaling .
From Duhamel’s formula
[TABLE]
we obtain
[TABLE]
where, for
[TABLE]
We refer to as the “recent past”, and to as the “distant past”. By (3.2), it remains to estimate and .
Step 1. Estimate on recent past.
By hypothesis (1.13), we can fix such that
[TABLE]
Given the relation (obtained by multiplying (1.1) by , taking the imaginary part and integrating by parts, see Tao [Tao_Scat, Section 4] for details)
[TABLE]
we have, from (1.12), for all times,
[TABLE]
so that, by (3.5), for ,
[TABLE]
If , then we have .
Let . Recalling that (see Remark 3.1), using interpolation and Sobolev inequalities and the decay of the norm of radial functions outside the ball (2.26), we get
[TABLE]
if is large enough. Note that, in the penultimate step, we used the embedding. Using the local-in-time Strichartz estimate (2.11), together with estimates (2.29) and (3), we bound
[TABLE]
where we used the definition of and the fact that .
Step 2. Estimate on distant past.
Let . Define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We claim that . Indeed, it is immediate to check that satisfies (2.1) with . Moreover, since
[TABLE]
we see, since is small, that , so that the pair is -admissible. We have
[TABLE]
Using Duhamel’s principle, write
[TABLE]
Thus, by the Strichartz estimate (2.7),
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Therefore, recalling that
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Hence, Lemma 3.2 is proved. ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.2.
Choose is small enough so that, by Lemma 3.2,
[TABLE]
where is given in Lemma 2.9. Thus, by small data theory, we have
[TABLE]
Define . Using (2.30) and (2.31), we estimate
[TABLE]
(Note that the same estimate ensures that ). Hence, we conclude that
[TABLE]
as desired. ∎
4. Proof of scattering
We now turn to Theorem 1.4. The main idea behind the proof is to combine radial decay with a truncated Virial identity. By choosing the right weight, and using bounds given by coercivity in large balls around the origin, one can control a time-averaged norm on these balls. Averaging is necessary due to the lack uniform estimates in time, since we are not employing concentration-compactness as in Holmer-Roudenko [HR_Scat, DHR_Scat].
We start with the following “trapping” lemmas, which can be found in Farah and Guzmán [FG_Scat, Lemma 4.2].
Lemma 4.1** (Energy trapping).**
Let and . If
[TABLE]
for some and
[TABLE]
then there exists such that
[TABLE]
for all , where is the maximal interval of existence of the solution to (1.1). Moreover, and is uniformly bounded in .
Lemma 4.2**.**
Suppose, for , , that
[TABLE]
Then there exists so that
[TABLE]
From now on, we consider to be a solution to (1.1) satisfying the conditions
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
In particular, by Lemma 4.1, is global and uniformly bounded in . Moreover, there exists such that
[TABLE]
In the spirit of Dodson and Murphy [MD_New], we prove a local coercivity estimate. We start with a preliminary result.
Lemma 4.3**.**
For , let be a smooth cutoff to the set and define . If , then
[TABLE]
In particular,
[TABLE]
Proof.
We first calculate directly
[TABLE]
Now, integrating by parts, we have
[TABLE]
Using the last two identities, we conclude (4.4). To obtain (4.5), we note that
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 4.4** (Local coercivity).**
For , let be a globally defined -solution to (1.1) satisfying (4.3). There exists such that, for any ,
[TABLE]
In particular, by Lemma 4.2, there exists such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
First note that
[TABLE]
for all . Thus, we only need to control the term. Using Lemma 4.3 and (4.3), we conclude
[TABLE]
Thus, by choosing large enough, depending on , , and , we bound the last expression by , which finishes the proof.
∎
We exploit the coercivity given by the previous lemma by making use of the Virial identity (see Dodson and Murphy [MD_New, Lemma 3.3], Farah and Guzmán [FG_Scat, Proposition 7.2])
Lemma 4.5** (Virial identity).**
Let be a smooth weight. If , define
[TABLE]
Then, if is a solution to (1.1), we have the following identity
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
We now have all the basic tools needed to prove scattering. Let to be determined below. We take to be a radial function satisfying
[TABLE]
In the intermediate region , we impose that
[TABLE]
Here, denotes the radial derivative, i.e., . Note that for , we have
[TABLE]
while, for , we have
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.6** (Virial/Morawetz estimate).**
For , let be a radial -solution to (1.1) satisfying (4.3). Then, for sufficiently large, and ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Choose as in Lemma 4.4. We define the weight as above and define as in Lemma 4.5. Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, and the definition of , we have
[TABLE]
As in Dodson and Murphy [MD_New, Proposition 3.4], we compute
[TABLE]
where we used the radiality of and . By the definition of , and the fact that ,
[TABLE]
Define , , as a smooth cutoff to the set that vanishes outside the set , and define . We will now estimate the first term in the last inequality.
[TABLE]
Using Lemma 4.3, we can write
[TABLE]
The inequalities (4.19), (4) and (4) can be rewritten as
[TABLE]
By Corollary 2.6 and by Lemma 4.4, we can write (4.24) as
[TABLE]
We can now make to obtain by dominated convergence. Hence,
[TABLE]
We finish the proof integrating over time, and using (4.14). We have
[TABLE]
since . ∎
We are now able to prove the energy evacuation.
Proposition 4.7** (Energy evacuation).**
Under the hypotheses of Proposition 4.6, there exist a sequence of times and a sequence of radii such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Using Proposition 4.6, choose and , so that
[TABLE]
Therefore, by the Mean Value Theorem, there is a sequence such that (4.28) holds. The proof is complete. ∎
Using Proposition 4.7, we can prove Theorem 1.4. We will prove only the case , as the case is entirely analogous.
Proof of Theorem 1.4.
Take and as in Proposition 4.7. Fix and as in Theorem 1.2. Choosing large enough, such that , Hölder’s inequality yields
[TABLE]
Therefore, by Theorem 1.2, scatters forward in time. ∎
References
