
TL;DR
This paper proves quantum ergodicity for eigenfunctions of the pseudo-Laplacian on certain Riemannian surfaces with hyperbolic cusps, linking spectral properties to classical ergodic dynamics.
Contribution
It establishes quantum ergodicity results for pseudo-Laplacians on surfaces with hyperbolic cusps, extending understanding of eigenfunction distribution in these geometries.
Findings
Eigenfunctions become uniformly distributed in the high-energy limit.
Quantum ergodicity holds for pseudo-Laplacians on surfaces with hyperbolic cusps.
The geodesic flow's ergodicity influences eigenfunction behavior.
Abstract
We prove quantum ergodicity for the eigenfunctions of the pseudo-Laplacian on Riemannian surfaces with finitely many hyperbolic cusps and ergodic geodesic flow.
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.
Quantum ergodicity for pseudo-Laplacians
Elie Studnia
Abstract.
We prove quantum ergodicity for the eigenfunctions of the pseudo-Laplacian on surfaces with hyperbolic cusps and ergodic geodesic flows.
Quantum ergodicity states that for quantum systems with ergodic classical flow, almost all high-frequency eigenfunctions are equidistributed in phase-space. Quantum unique ergodicity corresponds to equidistribution of all high-frequency eigenfuctions. The main examples are given by compact Riemannian manifolds with ergodic geodesic flows, where one considers eigenfunctions of the Laplacian associated to the metric, and negatively curved metrics are the typical models for ergodic geodesic flows.
The first mathematical results in this direction are due to Schnirelman [Sc], and later by Zelditch [Ze1] and Colin de Verdière [CdV4], who proved quantum ergodicity for closed manifolds with ergodic geodesic flows. In the case of manifolds with boundary, similar results were shown by Gérard-Leichtnam [GeLe] and Zelditch-Zworski [ZeZw].
In this work, we consider cases of non-compact manifolds, and the first examples one has in mind are surfaces with finite volume. In general, non-compactness often produces an essential spectrum for the Laplacian, and this is indeed the case for the simplest model of finite volume surfaces, namely hyperbolic surfaces realised as quotients of the hyperbolic plane by Fuchsian subgroups with a finite index. In that setting, there is however a way to get rid of this essential spectrum by a simple modification of the Laplacian, that is called pseudo-Laplacian, introduced by Colin de Verdière [CdV1, CdV2] (and related to the work Cartier-Hejhal [CaHe]). This operator was very useful for obtaining a meromorphic extension of the Eisenstein series and the resolvent of the Laplacian, with important generalisation to the higher rank case by Müller [Mu89]. There is however a different route in the setting of hyperbolic surfaces with finite volume that was taken by Zelditch [Ze2], who proved a quantum ergodicity statement for the Laplacian, but it involves the contribution of the continuous spectrum through the Eisenstein series. The proof has been recently generalised by Bonthonneau-Zelditch [BoZe] to variable curvature and all dimensions, while Jakobson [Ja] and Luo-Sarnak [LuSa] proved some quantum unique ergodicity in the case of the modular surface. The problem of quantum ergodicity for the eigenfunctions of the pseudo-Laplacian was first proposed by S. Zelditch [Ze-Pr]. This means that in this paper, we deal with the case of the pseudo-Laplacian, that we denote by , which is defined as an unbounded operator on ,with domain and that has discrete spectrum. Here, will denote a semiclassical quantization for compactly supported symbols, see section . Our main result is the following quantum ergodicity statement for this operator:
Theorem 1**.**
Let be a Riemannian surface with a finite number of constant curvature hyperbolic cusps such that the geodesic flow on is ergodic. Let be an orthonormal family of eigenfuctions of with eigenvalues , covering all the eigenvalues of except a finite number of non-positive ones. Let be compactly supported in space.
Then, as , we have
[TABLE]
where and .
For a precise review of the geometry of the considered Riemannian manifolds, we refer to Section 1.1, while for the definition of the pseudo-Laplacian this is done in Section 1.2. There are very natural examples of such manifolds given by negatively curved surfaces with finite volume and hyperbolic cusps.
Let us make several remarks about the Theorem. First, by a standard argument (see for instance [Zw, Section 15.5]) Theorem 1 implies that
[TABLE]
for a sequence of density one, when has compact support. Moreover, since we are only interested in quantizing symbols with a compact support in the space variable, we can use a standard quantization procedure, see for instance [Zw, Section 14.2]. That means however that the estimates are not uniform far in the cusp.
In the same geometric setting, we also mention that there are other works by Dyatlov [Dy] and Bonthonneau [Bo] on the microlocal limits of non- eigenfunctions of the Laplacian but with complex eigenvalues, where one instead get a sort of “quantum unique ergodicity”.
For simplicity, the proof will be presented in the case where there is one cusp, the argument being the same with several cusps. The method of proof follows the scheme from [ZeZw] and has two steps:
- a pointwise “ellipticity bound” that states that the eigenfunctions are microlocalized on the cosphere bundle. This implies that in the limit ,
[TABLE]
is controlled by .
- Taking a symbol with average zero, we propagate it by the geodesic flow to get a new symbol that is small on the cosphere bundle (by the ergodic theorem); we have to prove that this does not modify much : this is the point of the “flow invariance” theorems.
We stress that working with a pseudo-Laplacian entails new difficulties, as compared to the compact setting. For the first step, since we are working with a pseudo-Laplacian, the pointwise ellipticity bound (and the subsequent microlocalization) works only outside the singular circle, and we need to prove that the needed correction is small enough. This requires a precise control of the eigenfunctions of the pseudo-Laplacian.
For the second step, it is important to notice that the eigenfunctions we are interested in are not eigenfunctions of the propagator we are using for the proof. We are able to prove that does not change much when replacing by if is the geodesic flow, but we have to assume that the symbol is supported quite far away from the singular circle. Since the admissible support has full measure, the control of we still get at step leads to the same result.
Finally, [ZeZw] work with a compact manifold, and thus vanishes. This is not the case for us since we only use symbols with a compact support in space. Our proof has a third step which consists in finding symbols with average close to such that is arbitrarily close to zero. For that purpose, we shall prove that the modes of the eigenfunctions of the pseudo-Laplacian are microlocalized in the cusp.
Acknowledgements This work was written during a visit at UC Berkeley, under the direction of S. Dyatlov and M. Zworski. We thank this institution and S. Dyatlov and M. Zworski for their help, suggestions and comments. We also thank C. Guillarmou for helpful comments on a first version of the paper. Partial support form the National Science Foundation grant DMS-1500852 is also acknowledged.
1. Preliminaries
1.1. Notations
We let be a Riemannian surface with one hyperbolic cusp, i.e. a cusp with constant curvature. This means that can be split into two parts, , where is a compact Riemannian surface with boundary, and with metric . Using the notation for cotangent vectors in , the Hamiltonian induced by the metric in the cusp is given by
[TABLE]
In , any function can be expanded into Fourier series in the variable:
[TABLE]
where the are in . The metric induces a natural measure , called Liouville measure, on the unit cotangent bundle and for simplicity we shall normalize it so that it is a probability measure. The projection on the base will be denoted by . Finally, will denote a generic constant that is independent of the parameters we consider (except when indicated), and that will change from line to line.
1.2. Definition of the pseudo-Laplacian
Definition 1.1**.**
Let . Let us denote (resp. ) the space of all (resp. ) such that for every . The pseudo-Laplacian is the unbounded non-negative self-adjoint operator on defined by the quadratic form using the Friedrichs method
[TABLE]
The Riemannian measure and the gradient are with respect to .
We note that the spaces and are closed vector subspaces of , and . The circle in will be referred to as the singular circle.
The following results are proved in [CdV3, Theorem 2].
Proposition 1.2**.**
The operator is an unbounded, non-negative, self-adjoint operator with compact resolvent and discrete spectrum.
We will denote an orthonormal family of eigenfunctions with positive eigenvalues of , that is, , where is a positive, non-decreasing sequence going to . Note that the orthogonal of in is a finite-dimensional space that possesses an orthonormal basis of eigenfuctions of . We will denote, for each , .
Note that we extend as an unbounded self-adjoint operator from to with compact resolvent by declaring that whenever has support in and does only depend on .
1.3. Review of semiclassical analysis
We shall use the following semiclassical quantization procedure, which is similar to [Zw, Chapter 14.2]: we fix a cover by countably may open sets of , , with diffeomorphisms , where the are open sets, and take a partition of unity associated with it. A compactly supported symbol is a smooth function whose support projects to into a compact set and satisfying uniform bounds
[TABLE]
for all multi-indices . Then for any symbol with compact space support, and , we define
[TABLE]
where means the Weyl quantization. When (which always happen but for a finite number of ), does not contribute to the sum, because . In any case, .
The specific choice of the partition of unity is not important, because the difference between two different such quantizations is then an for any symbol. We shall thus make the following choices:
- •
- •
and is the Identity.
- •
and is a shift in the second coordinate only.
- •
and are only -dependent.
- •
For every , in .
- •
Every is convex.
With this procedure all the useful properties (about composition, Lie brackets, operators bounds for quantized symbols) hold: the proofs from [Zw, Chapters 14, 15] still apply when the symbols are compactly supported in , however the constants depend on the size of the supports.
2. Estimates on the singular circle
2.1. Riemannian Laplacian of the eigenfunctions
In this section, we study the the family . We will denote by the Lebesgue measure with total mass on the circle of the cusp of .
The following lemma is an easy application of Stokes’s theorem.
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let be a smooth function on such that in the cusp on for some , where is smooth. Assume that , then .
Now, we can write the Laplacian of as a function of its zero mode.
Corollary 2.2**.**
For and , we have for some in the region , it vanishes when , and
[TABLE]
where .
Proof.
On , is an eigenfunction of the positive Riemannian Laplacian with eigenvalue . In our coordinates, . On the zero Fourier mode of , acts as [math], thus . Setting yields . The boundary condition then gives the formula for .
From the proof of Theorem in [CdV3],
[TABLE]
is a non- eigenfunction of the positive Laplacian with eigenvalue . Therefore, using lemma 2.1,
[TABLE]
This completes the proof. ∎
To estimate the , we need an adequate description of the constants from Corollary 2.2.
Proposition 2.3**.**
There exists a smooth compactly supported function on , and a sequence such that (it is the inner product) for every and .
Proof.
Let be any smooth compactly supported function on such that:
- •
on
- •
- •
for every , .
Let (and is zero outside the cusp), such that is well-defined on , smooth, compactly supported. Now, since has no non-zero -Fourier mode, using its support property and the nature of the hyperbolic metric, we know that , where
[TABLE]
Set : there exists such that if and if (recall that all derivatives of odd order of vanish at [math]). Then
[TABLE]
and we are done. ∎
Corollary 2.4**.**
We have:
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since as goes to infinity, and since for some constant , we find that is positive and is equivalent to (with the above notations). Now, since the forms an orthonormal family in ,
[TABLE]
which proves the claim. ∎
2.2. Pseudo-differential operators acting on
Following up on the previous subsection, we have:
Proposition 2.5**.**
Let with . Then, for some not depending on , for every ,
[TABLE]
where is some seminorm (in every estimate of that kind in the following, the seminorm will have to be universal).
Lemma 2.6**.**
Let , with . Let be smooth and zero outside . Let . Then, for some universal constant ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
We may assume that is compactly supported, if we find out that does not depend on the support of . A computation gives
[TABLE]
Let . is a smooth function from to , and its gradient is zero at the only point . Besides, at that point, the Hessian matrix of is
[TABLE]
so it has full rank and we see from the stationary phase method (say, [Zw, Theorem 3.16]), that for some constants ,
[TABLE]
The conclusion is easily drawn from this. ∎
Now let us prove proposition 2.5:
Proof.
Let be a smooth function on such that on , and on . Then write . The support is at distance at most and at least from . Therefore, , for some universal constant . Now, apply lemma 2.6 to the explicit quantization (as explained in section ) of (where the only non-vanishing terms are for the charts [math] and ). ∎
3. Ellipticity and variance bound
In this section, we complete what we have called in the introduction the first step. We use the results of the former section, as well as an ellipticity estimate similar to the one from [ZeZw], to prove that the microlocalization of the eigenfunctions on the energy surface still holds, albeit on average only.
Definition 3.1**.**
We define, for any symbol and for any , ,
[TABLE]
Remark**.**
The bound holds, and similarly for .
Let us mention the following very important result:
Proposition 3.2** (Weyl law for Pseudo-Laplacians).**
There is a constant such that as . As a consequence, there is such that for all small
[TABLE]
Proof.
Actually, is, up to some additive constant, the number of eigenvalues of that are not greater than . The result is then proved in [CdV3, Theorem 6]. ∎
3.1. Ellipticity in the mean
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let be a symbol and assume that . Then
[TABLE]
where the constant in the depends only on some seminorms of and on , is universal and is the constant of Corollary 2.2.
Proof.
Write , where and have same (compact) space support and is . Then , the referring to operator norm, and the constant satisfies the relevant dependencies.
Thus, . Let be a smooth function from to that is everywhere, except on , and that is zero on . Therefore, we may write .
Now, since the phase space support of does not meet the wave front set of (which is ), is a smooth function (with the required dependencies for the constants). Besides, proposition 2.5 gives us the upper bound for . ∎
Proposition 3.4** (Ellipticity in the mean).**
Let for every and assume that for some fixed compact set and that the family is bounded in . Assume that for each , . Then
[TABLE]
where is some seminorm, and is universal.
Proof.
Let be the supremum over of the
[TABLE]
where is the constant in (1) and is the constant in the of (1). Then, using Weyl’s law and corollary 2.4:
[TABLE]
and we conclude by considering that for some suitable , . ∎
3.2. Bound on the variance
In this section, we shall prove some bounds on the variance defined in Definition 3.1.
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let . Then, there is some universal constant such that for all small
[TABLE]
Proof.
We write
[TABLE]
where are smooth functions such that is compact, and for each . Here means the Hilbert-Schmidt norm. We finally apply the trace formula in A.1 (in the appendix). ∎
Proposition 3.6**.**
Let . There is a universal constant such that for all small,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let us denote for any and any symbol . Let be such that , where is real valued such that on . From Proposition 3.4 (with the symbols ), , so . So we may focus on .
Now, since (because of the quantization procedure), let us denote . Then,
[TABLE]
Since by the previous lemma, it is enough to prove that
[TABLE]
Now, since , the are bounded in , have a uniform support in space support, the results follows from Proposition 3.4. ∎
Proposition 3.7** (Variance bound).**
If , then for some universal constant ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let . Let , where is as above. Then using Cauchy Schwartz for the term and Proposition 3.6, we get
[TABLE]
where the sum is over the such that, for some integer , : in particular, if (ie ), the corresponding term does not contribute.
We conclude using again Proposition 3.2. ∎
4. Egorov theorem
This section deals with step : similarly to [ZeZw], we want to prove that propagating some symbol through the geodesic flow does not change too much. The main difference here is the fact that the operator we study (ie the pseudo-Laplacian) is not the generator of the propagator we use. From a geometric point of view, we solve this by requiring that our symbols have a support far from the singular circle.
The main result of this section is proposition 4.4, which gives a precise statement about the idea above.
4.1. A good set for propagation
We define
[TABLE]
where is the geodesic flow on and the region where the coordinate is defined in the cusp.
Proposition 4.1**.**
* is an open set of full measure.*
Proof.
Let . Then the set is at positive distance from , say . Since the , are equicontinuous (the proof is the same as Heine’s theorem), there exists such that if is at distance at most from , for every , and are at distance at most , thus, is at distance at least from . Therefore, .
It remains to prove the ”full measure” part: one easily notes that
[TABLE]
Now, has null measure, thus its complement has full measure, and so has because is a diffeomorphism. ∎
4.2. Flow invariance of the eigenfunctions
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let , let with . Then there exists some constant , depending only on and , such that for every , and every ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let , then we have , and is (see the beginning of section for the definition) and is in (Proposition 2.4) hence bounded. Let ; every is smooth, and
[TABLE]
In this computation, for every , is a pseudodifferential operator satisfying
[TABLE]
Therefore . Next, we get
[TABLE]
Let us notice that , while is at positive distance from (uniformly in ). Therefore, , where is bounded by some . Thus for some constant depending only on and , . Finally,
[TABLE]
so let us write , where . Thus
[TABLE]
The same argument as for the bound on can be re-used to get , ie . So we have uniformly in , where clearly depend only on and . Now, this yields when integrating. ∎
A direct consequence is the following:
Corollary 4.3**.**
Let , let with . There exists some constant such that for every ,
[TABLE]
with .
An easy argument then yields (taking into account the fact that has average zero):
Proposition 4.4**.**
Let , let with . Then, as , .
5. Analysis far in the cusp
If we joined the main results of sections and , we would be able to prove the main theorem for symbols with average zero. This will be done in section .
But if we want to prove the main theorem for general symbols in , we have to find some symbols with non-zero average for which the result holds. A direct proof turns out to be difficult: so we will exhibit symbols with average arbitrarily close to some non-zero constant and such that is arbitrarily close to [math].
Before, we need to introduce some cutoff functions: let us set some , and be a smooth nondecreasing function such that
[TABLE]
Let be a smooth function that is zero outside the cusp and such that if , . Note that .
We will show the following:
Proposition 5.1**.**
There exists a universal constant such that for any ,
[TABLE]
Our first step is to understand where the mass of the is localized.
Let us write, for every ,
[TABLE]
This is similar to the expansion of as a Fourier series in , but the coefficients were renormalized, so that .
Let be a smooth nondecreasing function such that on , and on . We will now denote . This function is going to be used to weaken the growth of the function , that is not a symbol: indeed, as soon as .
Let be a smooth non-negative compactly supported function such that on , and outside , and .
We first have the following straightforward formula: for , we have in the cusp,
[TABLE]
Corollary 5.2**.**
For , the following bounds hold true:
[TABLE]
Proof.
For the bound (3), we estimate
[TABLE]
The bound (4) is a direct consequence of the fact that . As for (5), note that in the cusp, , so
[TABLE]
and the proof is complete.∎
Let now be very small, and . Let , for every such that (we say that is in the range): then, if is small enough, is between and .
Lemma 5.3**.**
In the cusp region ,
[TABLE]
We can therefore extend as a smooth function of the whole real line with the same properties.
This means that microlocally, the mass of is concentrated near the curve :
Lemma 5.4**.**
There exists a constant depending only on (and not on ) such that for every in the range, for every ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let us denote here
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Now, using [Zw, Theorem 4.23], (remember that inside the symbol, when , the term destroys everything, so all relevant seminorms are bounded uniformly in , , , as long as and is in the range) we may write, for some constant depending only on :
[TABLE]
Now, when is small, , is in the range, the symbols
[TABLE]
are bounded by a constant depending only on in respectively the class of symbols , , (using the notation of [Zw, Section 4.4.1]), thus by [Zw, Theorems 4.18, 4.23] we have , for some constant depending only on . Therefore, we get that for some constant depending only on ,
[TABLE]
∎
Corollary 5.5**.**
There exists a constant depending only on such that when is in the range
[TABLE]
Proof.
It is a consequence of the previous lemma and of corollary 5.2, more precisely estimates (4) and (5). ∎
The result hereafter is the main property of localization we were aiming at: it tells us that each is localized along his lowest modes in the cusp, and each of these modes is microlocalized in a compact zone that depends very little on : that is, is microlocalized in the zone , .
Let us first define the operator .
Proposition 5.6**.**
Let be in the range. For some universal constant , and some constant depending only on ,
[TABLE]
We split the proof in several steps.
Lemma 5.7**.**
Let be in the range. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Using (3), we obtain the sequence of inequalities
[TABLE]
which proves the claim. ∎
Lemma 5.8**.**
Let be in the range. Then the following holds true:
[TABLE]
Proof.
Using again (3),
[TABLE]
which proves the claim. ∎
Now, we can prove Proposition 5.6:
Proof of Proposition 5.6.
One easily sees that:
[TABLE]
Now, we split the sum between the , the sum of which is not greater than (Lemma 5.7), and the . Moreover, if ,
[TABLE]
From Lemma 5.8 we see that the first term contributes only as , now we have to assess the second term. Now,
[TABLE]
We saw from Corollary 5.5 that the second term contributes only as , where depends only on , and this ends the proof. ∎
Now, we turn the pointwise localization estimate we have on the into an average estimate on . Thanks to Hilbert-Schmidt norm estimates (operators will always be considered as from the relevant spaces into themselves) we obtain significantly better results.
Let us define the operator , then let
[TABLE]
for every , where .
Proposition 5.9**.**
There exist constants universal, and depending on only such that:
[TABLE]
Proof.
From Proposition 5.6, we know that for any in range, . So, using Weyl’s law, and the fact the the are orthonormal,
[TABLE]
Now, let be an orthonormal basis of , let be an orthonormal basis of . Then the family of all and the , is an orthonormal basis of . Therefore, when is an element of this orthonormal basis, we realize that only when , , does not vanish. Besides, it will always be lower or equal than . From this, it follows that
[TABLE]
which completes the proof. ∎
Now, it is easy to give an upper bound on the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of the operators, and to turn it into a complete estimate:
Proposition 5.10**.**
The following bound holds true for :
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let , be its Fourier transform with respect to its second variable. Let . For any ,
[TABLE]
therefore
[TABLE]
Now, we obtain
[TABLE]
This completes the proof. ∎
Corollary 5.11**.**
The following estimate holds true:
[TABLE]
where is universal and depends only on .
Proof.
Using Stirling’s formula, assuming that (else anyway the sum is just zero and the bound holds), for some universal constant ,
[TABLE]
∎
Corollary 5.12**.**
For some universal constant and some constant depending only on , one has .
Proof.
It is a consequence of all that precedes. ∎
Proof of Proposition 5.1.
We write
[TABLE]
The second term is lower than some for some constant independent of , because . The first term is not greater than
[TABLE]
which by Corollary 5.12 is not greater than (using again Weyl’s law)
[TABLE]
This concludes the proof. ∎
6. Proof of the main theorem
Let and assume first that . We let and . We may write , where is satisfies , and . Then, as ,
[TABLE]
where we used Proposition 3.7 for the last inequality. So we let go to zero first, and then go to and the ergodic theorem proves the result.
In the general case, let and let . Let us denote, for every , . Then , thus, if is large enough, belongs to with
[TABLE]
Thus we have as . Now, by Proposition 5.1
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
Letting yields and the proof of Theorem 1 is complete.
Appendix A Trace of a pseudo-differential operator
Proposition A.1**.**
Let . Then is trace class and
[TABLE]
Proof.
We may assume that is real-valued. Let . Let , let be such that . Using a change of variables, the following holds:
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
is the linear mapping from into such that the thus enhanced is a symplectomorphism, .
[TABLE]
the measure being the Liouville measure. The integral is convergent because has compact support.
Let be the set of all indices such that the space support of meets ; is finite. For every , ; for every , is continuous, hence bounded; thus, is in .
Thus, the operator
[TABLE]
is bounded and vanishes at , so vanishes on , and we have
[TABLE]
hence
[TABLE]
∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[Bo] Y. Bonthonneau, Long time quantum evolution of observables on cusp manifolds , Communications in Mathematical Physics 343 (2016), no. 1, 311–359.
- 2[Bo Ze] Y. Bonthonneau, S. Zelditch, Quantum Ergodicity for Eisenstein functions , Comptes Rendus Mathématique 354 (2016), no 9, 907–911.
- 3[Ca He] P. Cartier, D. Hejhal, Sur les zéros de la fonction zêta de Selberg , preprint IHES 1979.
- 4[Cd V 1] Y. Colin de Verdière, Une nouvelle démonstration du prolongement méromorphe des séries d’Eisenstein , C.R.A.S. 293 (1981), 361–363.
- 5[Cd V 2] Y. Colin de Verdière, Pseudo-Laplaciens , Annales de l’institut Fourier 32 (1982), no 3, 275–286.
- 6[Cd V 3] Y. Colin de Verdière Pseudo-laplaciens. II Annales de l’institut Fourier, 33 (1983), 87–113.
- 7[Cd V 4] Y. Colin de Verdière, Ergodicité et fonctions propres du Laplacien , Comm. Math. Phys. 102 (1985), 497–502.
- 8[Dy] S. Dyatlov, Microlocal limits of Eisenstein functions away from the unitarity axis , Journal of Spectral Theory 2 (2012), 181–202.
