text:
# Untitled Document

Statement ≥of ≥the

Alexandru ≥Conjecture

The purpose of this text is to add (at least conjecturally) some more items to the list of analogies between the category $``$ of Harish-Chandra modules and the category $`𝒪`$ of Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand which has been established by Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand, Vogan, Beilinson, Ginzburg, Soergel and others. These analogies have been suggested by confronting some observations about $`p`$-integrable harmonic forms on real hyperbolic space with results of the people mentioned above about the category $`𝒪`$. To the reader more familiar with $`L^p`$ harmonic forms than with the category $`𝒪`$ my advice is to read in parallel Parts A and B of section 1 (Part B being a detailed example).

1. The ≥main ≥statements

Part A. The Weak Alexandru Conjecture

(1.1) Setting.

$`G`$ is a connected semisimple Lie group $`G`$ with finite center,

$`KG`$ is a maximal compact subgroup,

$`𝔤𝔨`$ are the complexified Lie algebras of $`G`$ and $`K`$,

$`𝔟𝔤`$ is a Borel subalgebra,

$`𝔥`$ a Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ contained in $`𝔟`$.

For any pair $`𝔪𝔩`$ of (complex) Lie algebras and any $`𝔩`$-module $`V`$, say that $`V`$ is $`𝔪`$-finite if it is a sum of finite dimensional sub-$`𝔪`$-modules, and that $`V`$ is an $`(𝔩,𝔪)`$-module if it is $`𝔪`$-finite and $`𝔪`$-semisimple. The category $`𝒪`$ of BGG-modules is the full subcategory of $`𝔤`$-mod whose objects are the $`𝔟`$-finite $`(𝔤,𝔥)`$-modules of finite length ; whereas the category $``$ of Harish-Chandra modules is the full subcategory of $`𝔤`$-mod whose objects are those $`(𝔤,𝔨)`$-modules of finite length $`V`$ such that for any finite dimensional $`𝔨`$-invariant subspace $`FV`$ the action of $`𝔨`$ on $`F`$ exponentiates to $`K`$. The categories $`𝒪`$ and $``$ are $`\mathrm{}`$-categories in the sense of Bass \[B\] page 57.

For any $`\mathrm{}`$-category $`𝒞`$ let

$$=(𝒞)$$

be the set of isomorphism classes of simple objects of $`𝒞`$ \[assume it is a set\], for each $`i`$ choose a representative

$$L_ii$$

and let

$$\mathrm{}(i)$$

be the projective dimension of $`L_i`$ \[i.e. the supremum in $`\mathrm{}\{+\mathrm{}\}`$ of the set $`\{n\mathrm{}|Ext^n(L_i,)0\}`$\].

(1.2) Definition. The $`𝒞`$-ordering is the smallest partial ordering $``$ on $``$ satisfying

$$\begin{array}{c}i,j\\ \\ \mathrm{}(j)=\mathrm{}(i)+1<\mathrm{}\\ \\ Ext^1(L_j,L_i)0\end{array}\}ij.$$

(1.3) Definition. The subcategory generated by the subset $`𝒥`$ of $``$ is the full sub-$`\mathrm{}`$-category $`𝒥_𝒞`$ of $`𝒞`$ characterized by the condition that an object $`V`$ of $`𝒞`$ belongs to $`𝒥_𝒞`$ iff each simple subquotient of $`V`$ is isomorphic to $`L_j`$ for some $`j𝒥`$.

(1.4) Definition. If $`𝒞`$ is a $`\mathrm{}`$-category and $``$ a full sub-$`\mathrm{}`$-category, say that $``$ is Ext-full in $`𝒞`$ if for all $`V,W`$ the natural morphism

$$Ext_{}^{}(V,W)Ext_𝒞^{}(V,W)$$

is an isomorphism.

\[If all objects of $``$ have finite length it suffices to check the above isomorphism for $`V`$ and $`W`$ simple (because of the long exact sequences and the five-lemma).\] Recall that a subset $`𝒥`$ of $``$ is an initial segment iff

$$\begin{array}{c}i,j\\ \\ j𝒥\\ \\ ij\end{array}\}V𝒥.$$

(1.5) Definition. In the above notation $`𝒞`$ is a Guichardet category if the subcategory generated by any initial segment is Ext-full in $`𝒞`$.

Let Setting (1.1) be in force, denote by $`I`$ the annihilator of the trivial module in the center of $`U(𝔤)`$ and for any sub-$`\mathrm{}`$-category $`𝒞`$ of $`𝔤`$-mod let

$$𝒞_\rho $$

be the full sub-$`\mathrm{}`$-category of $`𝒞`$ whose objects are annihilated by some power of $`I`$.

(1.6) Weak Alexandru Conjecture. The category $`_\rho `$ is a Guichardet category.

Part (a) of the theorem below is due to Cline, Parshall and Scott, and part (b) to Fuser.

(1.7) Theorem.

(a) The category $`𝒪_\rho `$ is a Guichardet category,

(b) the Weak Alexandru Conjecture holds for $`_\rho `$ with $`G=SL(3,\mathrm{})`$, $`\text{Spin}(n,1)`$ or $`SU(n,1)`$.

The next item on the agenda is the Strong Alexandru Conjecture (SAC). Hoping to make it more digest I first give a set of statements of a somewhat geometric flavor which imply the SAC for $`\text{Spin}(2n+1,1)`$; more precisely the setting of the SAC is dual to the one described here. I’ll use horizontal lines to set off this part of the text \[which is merely motivational\].

Part B. A detailed example

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k^p`$ be the space of those $`p`$-forms on hyperbolic $`(2n+1)`$-space which are killed by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^p`$ the union of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k^p`$ ; put

$$:=\{p\mathrm{}|0pn\},$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }:=\underset{p}{}\mathrm{\Omega }^p.$$

As a general notation if $`V`$ is a vector space, $`W`$ a vector subspace and $`\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _k`$ endomorphisms of $`V`$, set

$$W(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _k):=W\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}Ker\phi _i\right).$$

Let $`d`$ be the differential and $`d^{}`$ be the codifferential, and put for $`p`$

$$L_p:=\mathrm{\Omega }^p(d,d^{}),$$

$$M_p:=\mathrm{\Omega }^p(d^{}),$$

$$\overline{M}_p:=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Omega }^p(\mathrm{\Delta },d^{})& \text{ if }& p<n,\\ \\ L_n& \text{ if }& p=n.\end{array}$$

Equip $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k^p`$ with the $`C^0`$-topology and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^p`$ with the inductive limit topology ; let $`G`$ be the group of orientation preserving hyperbolic isometries ; denote by $`𝒞`$ the category defined by the rule that an object of $`𝒞`$ is a topological $`G`$-module $`V`$ which is isomorphic to a close subspace of some $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{p_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{p_r}`$, and a morphism in $`𝒞`$ is a $`G`$-equivariant continuous linear map. The following facts are known :

$``$The category $`𝒞`$ is a $`\mathrm{}`$-category.

$``$The modules introduced above belong to it ; any simple object of $`𝒞`$ is isomorphic to $`L_p`$ for a unique $`p`$ in $``$.

$``$The $`𝒞`$-ordering on $``$ is opposite to the natural ordering ; the projective dimension of $`L_p`$ is $`2n+1p`$.

$``$The category $`_\rho `$ is equivalent to the subcategory of $`𝒞`$ whose objects have finite length, or equivalently are annihilated by some power of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

$``$This subcategory — which I abusively denote by $`_\rho `$ for a short while — is Ext-full in $`𝒞`$ and contains $`\overline{M}_p`$.

$``$The objects of $`𝒞`$ have injective hulls and therefore minimal injective resolutions.

\[In this parenthesis I give a reminder of what’s meant here by minimal resolution and offer to the reader unfamiliar with homological algebra a cheap definition of Ext-groups in this context. Given $`V`$ in $`𝒞`$ there are elements $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$ of $``$ and an isomorphism from the socle of $`V`$ onto $`_{i=1}^kL_{p_i};`$ this isomorphism extends to an embedding $`\phi :VI^0:=_{i=1}^k\mathrm{\Omega }^{p_i}`$ (this statement is sometimes called Frobenius reciprocity). Since the cokernel of $`\phi `$ is again in $`𝒞`$ this process can be iterated, giving rise to an injective resolution $`VI^0I^1\mathrm{}`$, which is clearly minimal. Moreover for each pair of integers $`(j,p)`$ with $`j0`$ and $`p`$ there is a finite dimensional vector space $`Ext^j(L_p,V)`$ acted on trivially by $`G`$ such that $`I^j_pExt^j(L_p,V)_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }^p`$.\]

$``$The injective hull of $`L_p`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }^p`$.

$``$The vector spaces $`Ext^{}(V,W)`$ are finite dimensional for $`V,W𝒞`$.

Let me digress a tiny bit by stating the Weak Alexandru Conjecture in this setup. During this parenthetical comment $`p`$ shall be a fixed “number” satisfying $`1p\mathrm{}`$ \[not an element of $``$\]. Let $`K`$ be the stabilizer in $`G`$ of a given point of hyperbolic space, say that an object $`V`$ of $`_\rho `$ is $`p`$-integrable if its $`K`$-finite vectors are, and let $`^p`$ be the full subcategory of $`p`$-integrable objects of $`_\rho `$ ; then $`^p`$ is Ext-full in $`_\rho `$ \[more precisely a subcategory of $`_\rho `$ is generated by an initial segment iff it is of the form $`^p`$ — the number $`p`$ being of course in general nonunique.\]

Going back to the SAC, for $`q`$ consider the filtration $`F_0^q:=0F_1^q:=M_qF_2^q:=\mathrm{\Omega }^q`$ ; then $`d^{}`$ induces an isomorphism $`F_2^q/F_1^qM_{q1}`$ \[with the convention $`M_1=0`$\] ; this filtration is analogous to the filtration of projective modules by Verma modules in the category $`𝒪`$ and is encoded in Axiom (1.10) below. If $`E^{}`$ is a graded vector space let $`E^{}(t)`$ be its Poincar series. Define the $``$ by $``$ matrix $`a`$ with entries in $`\mathrm{}[t]`$ by

$$a_{pq}=Ext^{}(L_p,M_q)(t).$$

To compute this series note that the augmented complex

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}M_q& \mathit{}& \mathrm{\Omega }^q& \stackrel{d^{}}{}& \mathrm{\Omega }^{q1}& \stackrel{d^{}}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{d^{}}{}& \mathrm{\Omega }^0\end{array}$$

is “the” minimal injective resolution of $`M_p`$, whence

$$a_{pq}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}t^{qp}& \text{ if }& pq,\\ \\ 0& \text{ if }& q<p.\end{array}$$

Letting $`[V]`$ be the class of $`V`$ in the Grothendieck group $`[𝒞]`$ of $`𝒞`$ we have

$$\left[\overline{M}_p\right]=[L_p]+[L_{p+1}]$$

\[with $`L_{n+1}=0`$\] and

$$[L_p]=\underset{q=p}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{qp}\left[\overline{M}_q\right]=\underset{q}{}a_{pq}(1)\left[\overline{M}_q\right];$$

this corresponds to the Delorme formula in the category $`𝒪`$ and is encapsulated in Axiom (1.14). The inverse $`a^1=(a_{pq}^1)`$ of $`a`$ being given by

$$a_{pq}^1=\{\begin{array}{cc}(t)^{qp}& \text{if }pqp+1,\\ \\ 0& \text{otherwise}\end{array}$$

the number of occurrences of $`M_p`$ in the filtration $`F_{}^q`$ is $`a_{pq}^1(1)`$, which is an analog of the BGG duality in the category $`𝒪`$, and gives rise to Axiom (1.15) below. Let $`\overline{M}_{p,\text{soc}}^{}`$ the graded object of $`𝒞`$ associated to the socle filtration of $`\overline{M}_q`$ and $`\left[\overline{M}_{q,\text{soc}}^{}\right](t)`$ be its image in $`\mathrm{}[t]_{\mathrm{}}[𝒞]`$, then

$$\left[\overline{M}_{p,\text{soc}}^{}\right](t)=[L_p]+t[L_{p+1}]=\underset{q}{}a_{pq}^1[L_q].$$

The corresponding theorem in the realm of the category $`𝒪`$ is due to Beilinson, Ginzburg and Soergel, and the above formula suggests Axiom (1.16) below. Finally let’s compute $`Ext^{}(L_p,L_q)`$. To simplify the notation, if $`n<p2n+1`$ identify $`\mathrm{\Omega }^p`$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{2n+1p}`$ via the star operator, and decree that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^p=0`$ for $`p<0`$ or $`p>2n+1`$. “The” minimal resolution of $`L_q`$ being

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}L_q& & \mathrm{\Omega }^q& \stackrel{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{d^{}}\right)}{}& \mathrm{\Omega }^{q+1}\mathrm{\Omega }^{q1}& \stackrel{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d0}{0d^{}}\right)}{}& \mathrm{\Omega }^{q+2}\mathrm{\Omega }^{q2}& \stackrel{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d0}{0d^{}}\right)}{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

we have

$$Ext^{}(L_p,L_q)(t)=t^{|qp|}+t^{2n+1pq}.$$
$`()`$
Setting $`L:=_pL_p`$ and letting $`{}_{}{}^{t}a`$ be the transpose of $`a`$ and $`\delta `$ the diagonal matrix defined by

$$\delta _p=\{\begin{array}{cc}1+t& \text{if }p=n,\\ \\ 1t^2& \text{if }pn,\end{array}$$

$`()`$ reads

$$Ext^{}(L,L)(t)=a\delta {}_{}{}^{t}a.$$

The category $`𝒪`$ analog is the Beilinson-Ginzburg formula and the corresponding Axiom below is (1.18).

Part C. The Strong Alexandru Conjecture

Here are some preliminaries to state the Strong Alexandru Conjecture. Set

$$Z:=\mathrm{}[[z_1,\mathrm{},z_m]],$$

\[where $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_m`$ are indeterminates\] and let $`A`$ be a $`Z`$-algebra which is finitely generated over $`Z`$. Then there is a semisimple subalgebra $`A_0`$ of $`A`$ satisfying $`A=A_0\text{rad}(A)`$. Assume there is a finite set $`F`$ such that $`A_0`$ can — and will — be identified to the algebra $`\mathrm{}^F`$ of functions on $`F`$. For each $`iF`$ define $`e_iA_0`$ by $`e_i(j)=\delta _{ij}`$ \[Kronecker delta\]. As a general notation put

$$A\text{-fd}:=\text{ the category of finite dimensional }A\text{-modules}.$$

I’ll make free use of the facts that by a theorem of Casselman $`A`$-fd is Ext-full in $`A`$-mod and that by a result of BGG the categories $`𝒪_\rho `$ and $`_\rho `$ are equivalent to $`A`$-fd for some algebra $`A`$ as above — the $`\mathrm{}`$-algebra isomorphism class of $`A`$ being unique. It will be tacitly assumed that the category $`𝒞`$ of interest has been set to be $`𝒪_\rho `$ or $`_\rho `$, and that an algebra $`A`$ as above and an equivalence $`𝒞A`$-fd have been chosen, providing in particular an identification $`=F`$ ; the symbol $`L_i`$ denotes at the same time an object of $`𝒞`$ and “the” corresponding object in $`A`$-fd ; more generally I’ll allow myself to navigate rather freely between $`𝒞`$ and $`A`$-fd. Fix a family $`M=(M_i)_i`$ of $`A`$-modules.

(1.8) Definition. An $`M`$-filtration $`F_{}`$ of an $`A`$-module $`V`$ is a sequence

$$0=F_0F_1F_2\mathrm{}F_r=V$$

of submodules such that there exists an $`r`$-tuple $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_r)`$ of elements of $``$ satisfying $`F_p/F_{p1}M_{i_p}`$ for $`1pr`$. An $`A`$-module is $`M`$-filtrable if it admits an $`M`$-filtration.

Let $``$ be the $`𝒞`$-ordering on $``$ \[see Definition (1.2)\] ; form the small Verma module

$$M_i^{}(A):=Ae_i/\underset{ji}{}Ae_jAe_i$$

and the large Verma module

$$M_i^+(A):=Ae_i/\underset{j>i}{}Ae_jAe_i;$$

letting $`M_i`$ be as in Definition (1.8) set

$$\overline{M}_i:=M_i/\text{rad}(End_AM_i)M_i,$$

$$E^{}(t):=\text{Poincar series of the graded vector space }E^{}\text{,}$$

$$[V]:=\text{class of }V\text{ in the Grothendieck group.}$$

Let $`a`$ be the $``$ by $``$ matrix with entries in $`\mathrm{}[[t]]`$ defined by

$$a_{ij}(t):=Ext_A^{}(M_i,L_j)(t)$$

and if $`a`$ happens to be invertible let $`a_{ij}^1`$ be the $`(i,j)`$ entry of $`a^1`$. Let $`V`$ be in $`A`$-fd ; as a general notation set

$$V_{\text{rad}}^{}:=\left(\text{rad}(A)^iV/\text{rad}(A)^{i+1}V\right);$$

suppose $`V0`$ ; let $`S_1:=0S_1=`$ soc $`V\mathrm{}S_p=V`$ be the socle filtration of $`V`$, with $`S_{p1}V`$ ; say that the radical and socle filtrations coincide if

$$\text{rad}(A)^iV=S_{pi}i.$$

Let $`{}_{}{}^{t}b`$ denote the transpose of any matrix $`b`$ ; and consider the following conditions

(1.9) for each $`i`$ we have $`M_i^+(A)=M_i^{}(A)=M_i`$;

(1.10) for each $`i`$ the module $`Ae_i`$ is $`M`$-filtrable \[see Definition (1.8)\] ;

(1.11) for each $`i`$ in $``$ the module $`M_i`$ is flat over $`End_AM_i;`$

(1.12) for any $`i`$ there is a $`ji`$ such that

$$\mathrm{}(i)=sup\{n\mathrm{}|Ext^n(L_i,L_j)0\};$$

(1.13) there are polynomials $`p_{ij}`$ such that

$$a_{ij}(t)=t^{\mathrm{}(j)\mathrm{}(i)}p_{ij}(t^2),$$

$$p_{ij}0ijp_{ij}(0)=1,$$

$$p_{ii}=1,$$

$$degP_{x,y}<\frac{\mathrm{}(y)\mathrm{}(x)}{2}\text{ if }x<y;$$

in particular $`a`$ is invertible ;

(1.14) $`[L_j]=_ia_{ij}(1)\left[\overline{M}_i\right]`$ ;

(1.15) things can be arranged so that the number of occurrences of $`M_j`$ in the $`M`$-filtration of $`Ae_i`$ in (1.10) is $`a_{ij}^1(1)`$ ;

(1.16) the radical and socle filtrations of $`\overline{M}_j`$ coincide and we have

$$\left(e_i\overline{M}_{j,\text{rad}}^{}\right)(t)=a_{ij}^1(t);$$

(1.17) $`End_A\left(\overline{M}_i\right)=\mathrm{}`$ ≥;

(1.18) there is a diagonal $``$ by $``$ matrix $`d`$ such that

$$Ext_A^{}(A_0,A_0)(t)={}_{}{}^{t}ada.$$

The proposition below is essentially due to Cline, Parshall and Scott ; an elementary proof is given in section 1 \[recall that $`A`$-fd is the category of finite dimensional $`A`$-modules\].

(1.19) Proposition. In the above setting if Conditions (1.9)—(1.12) are satisfied then $`A`$-fd is a Guichardet category.

(1.20) Definitions. If $`A`$ satisfies Conditions (1.9)—(1.18) above, then $`A`$ is a BGG algebra. A beegeegee is a category which is equivalent to $`A`$-fd for some BBG algebra $`A`$.

The theorem below is due to BGG (see \[BGG\]), Beilinson and Ginzburg (see \[BGS\]) and Cline-Parshall-Scott (see statements (3.3.c), (3.5.a) and (3.9.a) in \[CPS\]).

(1.21) Theorem. The category $`𝒪_\rho `$ is a beegeegee.

(1.22) Strong Alexandru Conjecture. The category $`_\rho `$ is a beegeegee.

(1.23) Theorem (Fuser). The above conjecture holds for $`\text{Spin}(n,1),SU(n,1)`$ and $`SL(3,\mathrm{})`$.

The drawback \[at least one of them\] of all this stuff is that it’s almost never computable ! Here is a statement which, although as conjectural as the previous ones, can be submitted to numerical tests. It consists in a computable variant of \[a particular case of\] Condition (1.18), that is in a formula which would express, when $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔨`$ have the same rank, the Poincar series $`Ext_A^{}(A_0,A_0)(t)`$ in terms of computable things. In the Langlands classification $`L_i`$ occurs as the unique simple quotient of a module induced from some parabolic subgroup $`P_i`$ ; let $`𝔭_i=𝔪_i𝔞_i𝔫_i`$ be a Langlands decomposition of $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}\text{Lie}(P_i)`$ ; put

$$\stackrel{~}{d}_i:=\left(1t^2\right)^{dim𝔞_i};$$

let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}(i)`$ be the dimension of the $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$-orbit attached to $`i`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{p}_{ij})`$ the family of Kazhdan-Lusztig-Vogan polynomials, that is the one denoted $`(P_{\gamma ,\delta })`$ in \[V3\], section 6 ; and set

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_{ij}(t)=t^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}(j)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}(i)}\stackrel{~}{p}_{ij}(t^2).$$

(1.24) Conjecture. If $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔨`$ have the same rank then

$$Ext_A^{}(A_0,A_0)(t)={}_{}{}^{t}\stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{a}.$$

For a given group $`G`$ one can run the following numerical test.

(a) Compute $`{}_{}{}^{t}\stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{a}`$ ;

(b) look if this is compatible with what’s known of $`Ext_A^{}(A_0,A_0)(t)`$ \[in particular with the $`(𝔤,K)`$-cohomology, as computed by Vogan’s $`U_\alpha `$-algorithm\] ;

(c) pretend Conjecture (1.24) holds and use it to compute the $`_\rho `$-ordering ;

(d) check if there are matrices $`a`$ and $`d`$ such that $`a`$ is upper triangular with ones on the diagonal, $`d`$ is diagonal and we have $`{}_{}{}^{t}ada={}_{}{}^{t}\stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{a}`$.

If the test is successful no conclusion can be drawn ; if it fails then at least one of the involved conjectures is wrong. — In the real rank one case evidence suggests that the classical objects “with tildes” coincide with the nonclassical ones \[“without tildes”\] ; in the case of $`PSp(2,\mathrm{})`$ using results of Vogan \[V\], pp 251-255, one sees such is not the case — but the test is still successful. I think that in the case where the complex ranks of $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔨`$ are different there is a similar formula with $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ as above and $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ a certain polynomial valued diagonal matrix.

1. ≥Proof ≥of ≥Proposition ≥(1.19)

In the setting of Proposition (1.19) assume there are at least two elements in $``$ \[otherwise there is nothing to prove\], and consider the following setting
$$i\text{ is a maximal element of },$$

$$e:=e_i,$$

$$I:=AeA,$$

$$B:=A/I,$$

$$𝒥:=\backslash \{i\}.$$
Proposition (1.19) follows from Lemma (2.1) below, which will be proved at the end of the section.

(2.1) Lemma.

(a) The category $`B`$-mod is Ext-full in $`A`$-mod,

(b) The $`𝒞`$-ordering coincides on $`𝒥`$ with the $`𝒥_𝒞`$-ordering \[see (1.2) and (1.3)\],

(c) $`B`$ satisfies Conditions (1.9)—(1.12).

(2.2) Lemma. If $`ji`$ then $`M_jB`$-fd.

Proof of Lemma (2.2). The statement is an immediate consequence of the following observation. For any pair $`(𝒦,k)`$ with $`j𝒦`$ put

$$P(𝒦,k):=Ae_k/\underset{\mathrm{}𝒦}{}Ae_{\mathrm{}}Ae_k.$$

Then $`P(𝒦,k)`$ is a projective cover of $`L_k`$ in $`𝒦_{A\text{-fd.}}`$ If $`k𝒦`$ and $`P(𝒦,k)`$ is in $`_{A\text{-fd}}`$ then $`P(𝒦,k)=P(,\mathrm{})`$. QED

The following lemma is obvious.

(2.3) Lemma. The three conditions (a) $`j`$ is maximal,

(b) $`M_j=Ae_j`$,

(c) $`M_j`$ is projective

are equivalent. In particular $`M_i=Ae_i`$ is projective. QED

Let $``$ be the class of those $`A`$-modules which are isomorphic to a direct sum of finitely many copies of $`Ae_i`$.

(2.4) Lemma. Let $`V`$ be an $`M`$-filtrable $`A`$-module. Then there is an $`M`$-filtration $`F_{}`$ of $`V`$ and a nonnegative integer $`n`$ such that $`F_n`$ and $`e(V/F_n)=0`$.

Proof. The statement results from the fact easy to check that $`eM_j=0`$ for all $`ji`$ and from the observation that each occurrence of a projective into a given module as a subquotient is in fact an occurrence as a submodule. QED

In particular the above lemma provides for each $`j`$ an $`M`$-filtration $`F_{}^j`$ of $`Ae_j`$ by left subideals and a nonnegative integer $`n_j`$ such that $`F_{n_j}^j`$ and $`e(Ae_j/F_{n_j}^j)=0`$. Put

$$J:=\underset{j}{}F_{n_j}^j;$$

then there is a positive integer $`n`$ such that $`J`$ is isomorphic to the direct sum of $`n`$ copies of $`Ae_i`$ ; write this direct sum in the nonsensical form $`_{j=1}^nAe_i`$ ; choose an isomorphism

$$\phi :\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}Ae_i\stackrel{}{}J;$$

and set

$$A_i:=End_AAe,$$

$$C:=eAe=(A_i)^{op}.$$

We may — and will — view any left module over $`A_i`$ as a right module over $`C`$. Put

$$:=\underset{C}{}.$$

(2.5) Lemma.

(a) For $`ji`$ the multiplication map $`AeeAe_jAe_j`$ is an isomorphism,

(b) the natural map $`AeeAA`$ is one-to-one,

(c) we have $`J=I`$ and $`F_{n_j}^j=Ie_j`$. In particular $`Be_j:=Ae_j/Ie_j=Ae_j/F_{n_j}^j`$ is $`M`$-filtrable.

Proof. To prove (a) set $`f:=ee_j`$ and note that the canonical isomorphism $`AeeAeAe`$ is the direct sum of the multiplication maps $`AeeAe_jAe_j`$ and $`AeeAfAf`$. To check (b) consider the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}AeeA& \stackrel{\alpha _1}{}& A\\ \alpha _2& & \phi \\ AeeJ& & \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}Ae_i\\ \alpha _3& & \alpha _5\\ Ae\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}eAe_i& \underset{\alpha _4}{}& \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}AeAe_i,\end{array}$$

where $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _5`$ are defined as follows

$`\alpha _1`$ is the multiplication map,

$`\alpha _2`$ is the identity \[indeed $`e(A/J)=0eA=eJ`$\],

$`\alpha _3`$ is $`1\phi ^1`$,

$`\alpha _4`$ is the canonical map,

$`\alpha _5`$ is the multiplication map.

The maps $`\alpha _2,\alpha _3`$ and $`\alpha _4`$ are clearly isomorphisms and by (a) so is $`\alpha _5`$, whereas $`\phi `$ is one-to-one. Since the diagram commutes $`\alpha _1`$ is one-to-one and (b) is verified. To prove (c) observe $`I=Im\alpha _1=Im\phi =J`$. QED

(2.6) Lemma. Let $`A`$ be an algebra and $`e`$ an element of $`A`$ satisfying $`e^2=e1`$. Put $`I:=AeA`$, $`B:=A/I`$ and $`C:=eAe`$, let $`V`$ and $`W`$ be $`B`$-modules, and consider the following conditions

(a) the natural map $`Ae_CeAIA`$ is one-to-one and $`Ae`$ is right $`C`$-flat,

(b) $`I`$ is right $`A`$-flat,

(c) $`Tor_q^A(B,V)=0`$ for all $`q>0`$,

(d) $`Ext_B^n(V,W)Ext_A^n(V,W)`$ for all $`n`$ (natural isomorphism). Then (a) $``$ (b) $``$ (c) $``$ (d).

Proof. The implication (a) $``$ (b) is clear. The implication (b) $``$ (c) follows from the long (?) exact sequence obtained by applying “$`_AV`$” to the short exact sequence $`IAB`$. The implication (c) $``$ (d) follows from Proposition VI.4.1.3 of Cartan-Eilenberg \[CE\]. QED

Proof of Lemma (2.1). Part (a) \[the Ext-fullness of $`B`$-mod in $`A`$-mod\] follows from Lemma (2.6). In view of Condition (1.12) \[about projective dimensions\] part (b) \[the coincidence of the orderings\] results from (a). Let me prove part (c), claiming that $`B`$ satisfies Conditions (1.9)—(1.12). Condition (1.9) \[the coincidence of the Verma modules\] and Condition (1.11) \[the $`(End_BM_i)`$-flatness of $`M_i`$\] are consequences of part (b) and Lemma (2.2) \[$`M_jB`$-mod\] ; Condition (1.10) \[the $`M`$-filtrability\] follows from (2.5.c) ; Condition (1.12) results from (a). QED

* ≥\* ≥\*

\[B\] Bass H., Algebraic K-theory, Benjamin, New York 1968.

\[BGG\] Bernstein I.N., Gelfand I.M., Gelfand S.I., Category of g-modules, Funct. Anal. Appl. 10, 87-92 (1976).

\[BGS\] Beilinson A., Ginzburg V., Soergel W., Koszul duality patterns in representation theory, J. Am. Math. Soc. 9, No.2, 473-527 (1996).

\[CE\] Cartan H., Eilenberg S., Homological algebra, Princeton University Press, 1956.

\[CPS\] Cline E., Parshall B., Scott L., Finite dimensional algebras and highest weight categories, J. Reine Angew. Math. 391, 85-99 (1988).

\[D\] Delorme P., Extensions dans la catégorie $`𝒪`$ de Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand. Applications, manuscript, October 1978.

\[V\] Vogan D., The Kazhdan-Lusztig Conjecture for real reductive groups, in Representation theory of reductive groups, Proceedings of the University of Utah conference 1982, Trombi Peter C. (Ed.), Birkh user, 1983, Progress in mathematics Number 40.

\[V3\] Vogan, D., Irreducible characters of semisimple Lie groups. III : Proof of Kazhdan-Lusztig conjecture in the integral case, Invent. Math. 71 (1983) 381-417.

This text and others are available at http://www.iecn.u-nancy.fr/$``$gaillard


format: text

text:
# Lifschitz tail in a magnetic field: coexistence of classical and quantum behavior in the borderline case.

## 1 Introduction

The magnetic Lifschitz tail is the asymptotic behavior of the integrated density of states (IDS), $`N(E)`$, at energy $`E`$ near the bottom of the spectrum of the two dimensional random Schrödinger operator with a constant magnetic field $`B`$. The random potential, $`V_\omega `$, represents repulsive impurities that are modelled by a single-site potential profile $`V^{(0)}0`$ convolved with a homogeneous Poisson point process.

The low energy asymptotics of the IDS exhibits two qualitatively different behaviors. For long range $`V^{(0)}`$, the asymptotics of $`N(E)`$ is solely determined by the potential, i.e., by classical effects, hence it is called classical asymptotics or classical regime. In this regime, the low energy behavior of $`N(E)`$ is sensitive to the details of the tail of $`V^{(0)}`$ and it is insensitive to the strength of the magnetic field. For short range potentials, the asymptotics of $`N(E)`$ is determined by the quantum kinetic energy (quantum asymptotics or quantum regime) and it is universal; it depends only on the strength of the magnetic field, but it is insensitive to the potential profile $`V^{(0)}`$.

It has been established in  that potentials $`V^{(0)}`$ with algebraically decaying tail of any finite order belong to the classical regime if $`B0`$. The strength of the magnetic field does not appear in the leading term asymptotics of $`N(E)`$. This result is in contrast to the nonmagnetic case, where it has been shown (, , ) that an algebraic decay, $`V^{(0)}(x)|x|^{(d+2)}`$, discriminates between the classical and quantum regimes in $`d`$ dimensions.

Nevertheless, quantum regime does appear in the magnetic case as well, but the discriminating potential decay is much faster than algebraic; in fact it is Gaussian. The existence of the quantum regime for compactly supported potentials was proven in  and the Gaussian threshold was conjectured. This threshold has been verified in  relying on  for the most involved technical part. More precisely, it has been proven that stretched-Gaussian decay leads to the classical asymptotics, while super-Gaussian decay leads to the quantum asymptotics. Later, some refined results were obtained in .

The borderline case, when $`V^{(0)}`$ is asymptotically Gaussian, has not been settled conclusively, only two-sided estimates were given in . The lower bound indicates a coexistence of the classical and quantum effects, as it is determined by $`2\mathrm{}_B^2+\lambda ^2`$. Here $`\mathrm{}_B:=B^{1/2}`$ is the magnetic lengthscale representing the kinetic energy contribution, and $`\lambda `$ is the lengthscale of the Gaussian potential. The upper bound is determined by $`\mathrm{max}\{2\mathrm{}_B^2,\lambda ^2\}`$, indicating no coexistence of the two regimes. The conjecture of  was that the lower bound is the true asymptotics.

The purpose of this paper is to show this conjecture. We emphasize that in the Gaussian borderline case both classical and quantum effects are important, hence none of them can be neglected along the proof. This is the main novelty of the present paper, which is a extension of our earlier work .

### 1.1 Definitions

We consider a nonnegative potential function

$$V^{(0)}L_{loc}^2(𝐑^2),V^{(0)}0,$$
(1)
that is strictly positive on a non-empty open set, i.e.,

$$V^{(0)}(x)v\mathrm{𝟏}(|xx_0|a)$$
(2)
for some $`v,a>0`$ and $`x_0𝐑^2`$. Here $`\mathrm{𝟏}()`$ denotes the characteristic function. Let

$$V(x)=V_\omega (x):=\underset{i}{}V^{(0)}(xx_i(\omega ))$$
(3)
be a random potential, where $`x_i(\omega )`$ is the realization of the Poisson point process on $`𝐑^2`$ with a constant intensity $`\nu `$ (here $`\omega `$ refers to the randomness, but we shall usually omit it from the notations). The expectation with respect to this process is denoted by $``$.

We consider the following magnetic Schrödinger operator with a random potential $`V_\omega `$

$$H(B,V_\omega )=H_\omega =\frac{1}{2}\left[(iA)^2B\right]+V_\omega \text{on}L^2(𝐑^2),$$
(4)
where $`A:𝐑^2𝐑^2`$ is a deterministic vector potential (gauge) generating the constant $`B>0`$ magnetic field, i.e., $`\text{curl}A=B`$. The properties we are interested in are independent of the actual gauge choice, so, conveniently, we choose the standard gauge $`A(x):=\frac{B}{2}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x_2}{x_1}\right)`$. Here $`x=(x_1,x_2)𝐑^2`$. We subtracted the constant $`B/2`$ term in the kinetic energy both for physical reasons (spin coupling) and for mathematical convenience. The spectrum of the free operator $`H(B,V0)`$ is $`\{nB:n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$.

We also define $`H_{Q,\omega }=H_Q(B,V_\omega )`$ as the restriction of $`H_\omega `$ onto a domain $`Q𝐑^2`$ (with Dirichlet boundary conditions). In this paper, by domain we mean an open, bounded subset of $`𝐑^2`$ with regular (piecewise $`C^1`$) boundary, which is not necessarily connected.

We shall always assume that $`V^{(0)}`$ has sufficient decay so that $`V_\omega L_{loc}^2`$ with probability one, i.e., these operators are almost surely selfadjoint. Moreover, in all cases we consider it is easy to show that

$$inf\text{Spec}H(B,V_\omega )=0\text{almost surely.}$$
(5)
We define the integrated density of states (IDS) as

$$N(E):=\underset{Q𝐑^2}{lim}\frac{1}{|Q|}\text{Tr}P_E(H_{Q,\omega }),$$
(6)
where $`P_E`$ is the spectral projection onto the half line $`(\mathrm{},E]`$, and $`Q𝐑^2`$ is an increasing sequence of nested regular domains, say, squares or disks. The trace is over $`L^2(Q)`$. For the existence of this limit and equivalent definitions we refer to ,  and references therein.

Following , we assume that $`V^{(0)}`$ has one of the following behaviors at infinity:

Sub-Gaussian decay:

$$\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{|x|^2}{\mathrm{log}V^{(0)}(x)}=\mathrm{};$$

Gaussian decay:

$$\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{log}V^{(0)}(x)}{|x|^2}=\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}$$
(7)
for some $`0<\lambda <\mathrm{}`$;

Super-Gaussian decay:

$$\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{log}V^{(0)}(x)}{|x|^2}=\mathrm{}.$$

The sub-Gaussian decay leads to the classical regime where the potential determines the Lifschitz tail. Hence precise results require more definite tail behavior in this case. The following definition is taken from .

Regular $`(F,\alpha )`$-decay:

$$\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{F(1/V^{(0)}(x))}{|x|}=1$$

for some positive function $`F`$, which is regularly varying of index $`1/\alpha [0,\mathrm{}]`$ and is strictly increasing towards infinity. Recall that a positive measurable function $`F`$ is said to be regularly varying of index $`\gamma `$ if $`lim_t\mathrm{}F(ct)/F(t)=c^\gamma `$ for all $`c>0`$. Such class of functions is denoted by $`R_\gamma `$. Two important cases are:

Algebraic decay: $`lim_{|x|\mathrm{}}|x|^\alpha V^{(0)}(x)=\mu `$ with some exponent $`\alpha >2`$ and constant $`0<\mu <\mathrm{}`$. This corresponds to $`F(t)(\mu t)^{1/\alpha }`$.

Stretched Gaussian decay: $`lim_{|x|\mathrm{}}|x|^\alpha \mathrm{log}V^{(0)}(x)=\lambda ^\alpha `$ for some $`0<\lambda <\mathrm{}`$ and $`0<\alpha <2`$. This corresponds to $`F(t)\lambda (\mathrm{log}t)^{1/\alpha }`$.

### 1.2 Results

The result of  for algebraically decaying potential $`V^{(0)}`$ is

$$\underset{E0}{lim}E^{2/(\alpha 2)}\mathrm{log}N(E)=C(\alpha ,\mu ,\nu )$$

with an explicitly computed constant $`C(\alpha ,\mu ,\nu )`$.

The general regular $`(F,\alpha )`$-decaying sub-Gaussian case was discussed in details in . The Lifschitz tail is given by the de Bruijn conjugate $`f^\mathrm{\#}`$ of the function $`tf(t)=[t^{1/\alpha }F(t)]^{2\alpha /(2\alpha )}`$. Recall that the de Bruijn conjugate of a slowly varying function $`fR_0`$ is $`f^\mathrm{\#}R_0`$ such that $`f(t)f^\mathrm{\#}(tf(t))1`$ and $`f^\mathrm{\#}(t)f(tf^\mathrm{\#}(t))1`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. With this definition

$$\underset{E0}{lim}\frac{E^{2/(\alpha 2)}\mathrm{log}N(E)}{f^\mathrm{\#}(E^{\alpha /(2\alpha )})}=C(\alpha ,\nu )$$

with an explicit constant. In particular, for stretched-Gaussian potential $`V^{(0)}`$ this asymptotics is explicitly given as ()

$$\underset{E0}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{log}N(E)}{|\mathrm{log}E|^{2/\alpha }}=\pi \nu \lambda ^2.$$

For the super-Gaussian case it is proven in  that

$$\underset{E0}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{log}N(E)}{|\mathrm{log}E|}=2\pi \nu \mathrm{}_B^2=\frac{2\pi \nu }{B},$$
(8)
with the additional assumption (2). In particular, the super-Gaussian decay includes compactly supported potentials; the case for which (8) was proven in . In  a slightly more general definition of super-Gaussian decay was introduced:

$$\underset{R>0}{inf}\text{ess}\underset{|x|>R}{sup}\frac{\mathrm{log}V^{(0)}(x)}{|x|^2}=\mathrm{},$$
(9)
and (8) was proven for such potentials (in addition to the condition (2)).

Finally, the following estimates were given in  for the Gaussian case (7)

$$\pi \nu (\lambda ^2+2\mathrm{}_B^2)\underset{E0}{lim\; inf}\frac{\mathrm{log}N(E)}{|\mathrm{log}E|}\underset{E0}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{log}N(E)}{|\mathrm{log}E|}\pi \nu \mathrm{max}\{\lambda ^2,2\mathrm{}_B^2\}$$
(10)
and the upper bound was weakened to $`2\pi \nu \mathrm{}_B^2`$ in  if a more general definition of Gaussian decay is used that is analogous to (9). Our goal is to prove that the lower bound in (10) is the correct one as conjectured in .

###### Theorem 1.1

Suppose that $`V^{(0)}`$ satisfies (1) and (7). Then

$$\underset{E0}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{log}N(E)}{|\mathrm{log}E|}=\pi \nu (\lambda ^2+2\mathrm{}_B^2),\mathrm{}_B:=B^{1/2}.$$
(11)
Since the lower bound (10) has been proven in , we focus only on the upper bound. As usual, we define the Laplace transform of $`N(E)`$ as

$$L(t):=_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{Et}𝑑N(E)=e^{tH_\omega }(x,x).$$

Recall that the diagonal element of the averaged heat kernel is independent of $`x`$. For more details, see . Using a standard Tauberian argument (see for example Appendix of  for details), the upper bound in (11) follows from

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{log}L(t)}{\mathrm{log}t}\pi \nu (\lambda ^2+2\mathrm{}_B^2).$$
(12)
In the rest of the paper we prove (12). Several steps will be similar to , these will not be repeated in details. We give detailed proofs only for the new parts of the argument.

## 2 Localization

We use a two-step localization as in . The first localization is identical to the upper bound in Proposition 3.2 of  and the proof is the same.

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`M:=[m,m]^2`$ be a square box, then

$$L(t)\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{1}{|M|}\text{Tr}e^{tH_{M,\omega }}.\mathrm{}$$

For the second, more refined localization we cannot neglect the tail of the impurity potentials. We will define effective boundary potentials that estimate the potential tails inside a domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that come from impurities located outside of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

To prove (12), it is enough to show that

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{log}L(t)}{\mathrm{log}t}\pi \nu (L^2+2\mathrm{}_B^2)$$
(13)
for any $`L<\lambda `$. We fix two numbers, $`0<L<\overline{L}<\lambda `$, for the rest of the proof and we omit the dependence on $`L`$ and $`\overline{L}`$ of various quantities in the notation.

Using (7), there exists $`R1`$ such that

$$V^{(0)}(x)e^{|x|^2/\overline{L}^2}\text{for all}|x|R.$$
(14)
We also choose $`R=R(\overline{L},B)`$ so large that $`e^{(2R)^2/\overline{L}^2}B`$. For any domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we define the following boundary potentials ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ stands for the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$):

$$\overline{V}_\mathrm{\Omega }(x):=\mathrm{exp}\left[(\text{dist}(x,\mathrm{\Omega }))^2/\overline{L}^2\right]\mathrm{𝟏}(x\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{𝟏}(\text{dist}(x,\mathrm{\Omega })R),$$
(15)
$$V_\mathrm{\Omega }(x):=\mathrm{exp}\left[(\text{dist}(x,\mathrm{\Omega }))^2/L^2\right]\mathrm{𝟏}(x\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(16)
Similarly to Section 6 of  we fix parameters $`0<\beta <B/2`$, $`1sm`$ and let $`M:=[m,m]^2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}:=[ms,m+s]^2`$, $`S:=[s,s]^2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S}:=[\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2}]^2`$ and $`Q_z:=Q+z`$ for any square $`Q𝐑^2`$ and $`z𝐑^2`$. Finally, let $`\lambda _{S_z,\omega }^{(B+2\beta )}`$ be the lowest eigenvalue of

$$\overline{H}_{S_z,\omega }^{(B+2\beta )}:=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\left[i\frac{B+2\beta }{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}x_2\\ x_1\end{array}\right)\right]^2(B+2\beta )\right\}+V_\omega +\overline{V}_{S_z}$$

with Dirichlet boundary conditions on $`S_z`$. The magnetic field of $`\overline{H}_{S_z,\omega }^{(B+2\beta )}`$ is $`B+2\beta `$. Notice that this operator differs from its counterpart in Section 6 of  by the additional boundary potential $`\overline{V}_{S_z}`$. We have

###### Proposition 2.2

Assume that $`\beta <1/(2\overline{L}^2)`$, $`\beta s^2128`$ and $`s4R`$. For any $`z𝐑^2`$ there exists a function $`\eta _z`$ supported on $`S_z`$ such that for any $`fH_0^1(M)`$

$$f,H_{M,\omega }f\frac{\beta }{2\pi }_{\stackrel{~}{M}}dzf\eta _z,\overline{H}_{S_z,\omega }^{(B+2\beta )}f\eta _z65s^2e^{\beta s^2/8}f_{L^2(M)}.$$

Using this result, we obtain the following theorem from Proposition 2.1 exactly as Theorem 6.3 was proven in :

###### Proposition 2.3

Let $`\mathrm{}(t):=10(\mathrm{log}t/B)^{1/2}`$, $`s:=n_0\mathrm{}(t)`$ and $`S=[s,s]^2`$. For any fixed $`0<\beta <1/(2\overline{L}^2)`$ and $`n_0(B/\beta )^{1/2}`$, $`n_0𝐙`$

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{log}L(t)}{\mathrm{log}t}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}(\mathrm{log}t)^1\mathrm{log}\mathrm{exp}(t\lambda _{S,\omega }^{(B+2\beta )}).\mathrm{}$$
(17)
Proof of Proposition 2.2. Similarly to the proof of Proposition 6.1 in , we define

$$\phi _z(x):=e^{\beta (xz)^2/2}e^{i\beta (x_2z_1x_1z_2)}$$

and $`T_\beta :=i_1+_2+(B/2+\beta )x_2i(B/2+\beta )x_1`$. We use the following identity to localize the kinetic energy for $`fH_0^1(M)`$

$$f,H_{M,\omega }f=\frac{\beta }{\pi }dz\left\{\frac{1}{2}|T_\beta (\phi _zf)|^2+V_\omega |\phi _zf|^2\right\},$$

where we let $``$ denote $`_{𝐑^2}`$. This magnetic localization principle was first used in .

Fix a smooth function $`\theta (x)`$ such that $`\theta 1`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$, $`\theta 0`$ on $`𝐑^2[\frac{3s}{4},\frac{3s}{4}]^2`$, $`0\theta 1`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}8s^1`$. Let $`\theta _z(x):=\theta (xz)`$ and $`\eta _z:=\theta _z\phi _z`$. The function $`\theta _z`$ can be commuted with $`T_\beta `$ at the expense of an error of size $`\theta _z^2`$ on the support of $`\theta _z`$. The result is the analogue of (6.13) in

$$f,H_{M,\omega }f\frac{\beta }{2\pi }\left[_{\stackrel{~}{M}_z}\left\{\frac{1}{2}|T_\beta (\eta _zf)|^2+V_\omega |\eta _zf|^2\right\}dz128\pi \beta ^1s^2e^{\frac{\beta }{8}s^2}\right].$$
(18)
Finally, we estimate the boundary term $`dz\overline{V}_{S_z}|\eta _zf|^2`$ in $`\overline{H}_{S_z,\omega }^{(B+2\beta )}`$ using $`\overline{V}_{S_z}|\eta _zf|^2e^{(s/4\overline{L})^2}|\phi _z|^2|f|^2`$;

$$\frac{\beta }{2\pi }_{\stackrel{~}{M}_z}dz\overline{V}_{S_z}|\eta _zf|^2e^{s^2/(4\overline{L})^2}|f|^2,$$

which can be included into the error term in (18). $`\mathrm{}`$.

## 3 Enlargement of obstacles

We follow the basic strategy of Sznitman  and its magnetic version from  to estimate the lowest eigenvalue $`\lambda _{S,\omega }^{(B+2\beta )}`$ of $`\overline{H}_{S,\omega }^{(B+2\beta )}`$ by the lowest eigenvalue of a Hamiltonian with enlarged, hard-core obstacles. We need this argument for $`\overline{H}_{S,\omega }^{(B+2\beta )}`$, but the actual field does not play much role in this section, so for brevity we consider $`\overline{H}_{S,\omega }^{(B)}`$ and let $`\lambda _{S,\omega }^{(B)}`$ be its smallest eigenvalue.

The main novelty is that we cannot simply use Dirichlet boundary conditions for the ”enlarged obstacle” Hamiltonian, since the potential tail penetrating into the clearing regimes does influence the lowest eigenvalue. We add an appropriate Gaussian boundary potential to the hard-core Dirichlet wall, and we also keep the Gaussian tail of the original potentials. The obstacle configuration $`\omega `$ is fixed throughout this section.

The ”enlarged obstacle” Hamiltonian requires several definitions that were listed in Section 7.1 of . Here we recall only that four parameters, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`b`$, $`\epsilon >0`$ and $`r>0`$ have to be fixed. With these parameters, one defines (Section 7.1 of ) the set of ”good” points (their indices denoted by $`𝒢`$), clearing boxes and the set $`A^1`$, which is the $`\mathrm{}`$-neighborhood of clearing boxes. Recall that a point $`x_i`$ is ”good” if it is not isolated from other points in a certain hierarchical sense. Clearing boxes are squares of size $`\mathrm{}`$ that contain a large regular set (”clearing”) free of good points. Finally we define, for $`s>b`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }:=S\underset{i𝒢}{}\left[\overline{B}(x_i,2R)B(x_i,R)\right],\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b:=\left([s+b,sb]^2A^1\right)\underset{i𝒢}{}\overline{B}(x_i,b),$$
(19)
where $`B(x,\rho )`$ denotes the open ball of radius $`\rho `$ about $`x`$. We choose $`\delta =\frac{R}{100}`$. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is defined by removing annuli around the good points, unlike in , where balls were removed. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b`$ is the ”clearing set”, where the ”enlarged obstacle” Hamiltonian will be defined.

We let

$$U(x):=e^{|x|^2/\overline{L}^2}\mathrm{𝟏}(|x|R),\stackrel{~}{V}_\omega (x):=\underset{i𝒢}{}U(xx_i(\omega )),$$

then we clearly have $`V_\omega \stackrel{~}{V}_\omega `$. This definition of $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\omega `$ is different from (7.3) of . The role of $`v`$ in  will be played by the constant $`e^{(2R)^2/\overline{L}^2}`$; this is a lower bound on the potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\omega `$ in the annuli $`\{R|xx_i|2R\}`$ around the good points. The role of $`a`$ in  is played by $`2R`$. The specific upper bound $`a1`$ imposed in  will not be important.

We will estimate the lowest eigenvalue, $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$, of the Hamiltonian with potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\omega `$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_b`$, the lowest eigenvalue with hard core potential on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b`$. We add boundary potentials to both Hamiltonians. Since we work on multiply connected domains, we must take the gauge freedom into account as in Section 7.2 of . Hence both eigenvalues are defined as the infimum over all gauges on the complementary domain of the obstacles. We recall that for any $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }=\{\alpha _i\}_{i𝒢}[0,2\pi )^𝒢`$ we defined $`B_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}(x):=B+_{i𝒢}\alpha _iB^{}(xx_i)`$ and its radial gauge $`A_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$, $`\text{curl}A_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=B_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$, where $`B^{}:=(4/\pi )\mathrm{𝟏}_{B(0,1/2)}(x)`$ (the definition of $`B^{}`$ in  missed a $`\frac{1}{2\pi }`$ factor). The magnetic field $`B_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ includes flux tubes of strength $`\alpha _i`$ around the good points. We define

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(B):=\underset{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}{inf}\lambda _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }},\lambda _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}:=inf\text{Spec}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left[(iA_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }})^2B_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}\right]+\stackrel{~}{V}_\omega +\overline{V}_S\right)_S,$$
(20)
where the subscript refers to Dirichlet boundary conditions on $`S`$. Clearly $`\lambda _{S,\omega }^{(B)}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$. Similarly,

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_b=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_b(B):=\underset{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}{inf}\lambda _{b,\underset{¯}{\alpha }},\lambda _{b,\underset{¯}{\alpha }}:=inf\text{Spec}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left[(iA_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }})^2B_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}\right]+V_{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b}\right)_{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b},$$
(21)
again with Dirichlet boundary conditions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b`$. Notice that the decay of the boundary potential $`V_{\mathrm{\Omega }_b^+}`$ is slightly stronger than that of $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\omega +\overline{V}_S`$ since $`L<\overline{L}`$.

Let $`g_U`$ denote the Green’s function of any domain $`U`$, i.e., the solution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_U=1`$ on $`U`$ and $`g_U=0`$ on $`U`$. We let $`G_U:=\mathrm{max}_{x\overline{U}}g_U(x)`$.

The importance of these functions is that the lowest magnetic Dirichlet eigenvalue of a large domain $`U`$ is essentially $`e^{2BG_U}`$ (a factor 2 was missing on page 349 of ), and the eigenfunction is roughly $`e^{Bg_U}`$ with some cutoff near the boundary. Moreover, for ”round” domains, $`g_U`$ is roughly quadratic in the distance from the boundary. Hence, roughly,

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_b\mathrm{exp}(2BG_{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b})+_{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b}\mathrm{exp}\left(\left[\frac{\text{dist}(x,\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b)}{L}\right]^2\right)\left|\frac{\mathrm{exp}Bg_{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b}(x)}{\mathrm{exp}Bg_{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b}}\right|^2dx.$$

Here the first term represents the kinetic energy due to localization in the clearing. The second term is the interaction of the ”quantum” wavefunction with the ”classical” effect; the effective contribution of the potential tails. It turns out that the second term dominates. The main contribution comes from the interplay between the Gaussian character of the magnetic eigenfunction $`\mathrm{exp}Bg_{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b}`$ and the Gaussian potential.

The basic comparison result is the analogue of Corollary 7.3 in  (there are two misprints in (7.16) in ; $`r\mathrm{}`$ should be $`r0`$ and a minus sign is missing in front of $`\mathrm{log}K`$).

###### Proposition 3.1

For any fixed positive integer $`n_0`$ we let $`s:=n_0\mathrm{}`$ and let $`\varrho >0`$ be a positive number. For small enough $`r`$, $`\epsilon `$, there exist $`K=K(b,B,r,\mathrm{},s,L,\overline{L},\epsilon ,\varrho )`$ and $`w(r)`$ with $`lim_{r0}w(r)=1`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_b^{w(r)}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }/K`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\mathrm{min}\{4K,e^{\varrho BG_\mathrm{\Omega }}\}`$, and $`K`$ satisfies

$$\underset{r0}{lim\; sup}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b\mathrm{}}{\epsilon 0}}{lim\; sup}\underset{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{log}K}{\mathrm{}^2}=0.$$
(22)
The basic intuition behind this comparison is that if the lowest eigenvalue of $`H_{S,\omega }`$ is very small, then there must be a big clearing in the obstacle configuration, and the lowest eigenfunction is essentially supported in this clearing. Hence this eigenvalue can be estimated by the Dirichlet eigenvalue within the clearing even with enlarged obstacles. The inclusion of the boundary potential does not change this mechanism, but it changes both eigenvalues. The threshold for such eigenvalues is controlled by two different functions. The control given by $`K`$ is analogous to . The control $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }e^{\varrho BG_\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is new.

The proof of Proposition 3.1 is similar to that of Theorem 7.2 in , but we have to include the boundary potential. We first show that the increase of the eigenvalue due to the enlargement is given by the size of the eigenfunction near the boundary (Lemma 3.2). Then, by applying a probabilistic argument, we show that $`g_\mathrm{\Omega }(x)G_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is large and $`x`$ is close to the boundary (Lemma 3.3). In other words, the eigenvalue increases by at most a factor $`e^{o(BG_\mathrm{\Omega })}`$. For technical reasons we give these estimates for a slightly enlarged domain

$$\mathrm{\Theta }:=\mathrm{\Omega }+B(0,2\delta ).$$

In  (Lemma 7.7), we finally estimated $`G_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by the logarithm of the magnetic Dirichlet eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to show that $`e^{o(BG_\mathrm{\Omega })}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{o(1)}`$ and therefore $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_b\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{1o(1)}`$. The analogue of this estimate with a boundary potential is more complicated because it requires a control on $`g_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ not only near the boundary. But fortunately we do not need this estimate with a precise constant since it is used only in the error factor $`e^{o(BG_\mathrm{\Omega })}`$. So we choose an alternative method that estimates $`G_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by the logarithm of the magnetic Dirichlet eigenvalue without boundary potential, exactly as in . The new control $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }e^{\varrho BG_\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ stems from this modification.

We will state these lemmas precisely, but we give details of the proof only for the modifications compared with .

###### Lemma 3.2

There exist positive constants, $`c_1,c_2`$, depending only on $`B,L,\overline{L},R,b`$, such that

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_bc_1\stackrel{~}{\lambda }s^2e^{2B\eta },$$
(23)
whenever $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }c_2s^2e^{2B\eta }`$, $`s>2b40R`$, where

$$\eta =\mathrm{max}\left\{g_\mathrm{\Theta }(z):z\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{2b}\right\},\mathrm{\Theta }:=\mathrm{\Omega }+B(0,2\delta ),\delta :=\frac{R}{100}.$$

Proof. We fix $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }[0,2\pi )^𝒢`$ and let $`\phi _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ be the normalized eigenfunction belonging to $`\lambda _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$. We can assume that $`\lambda _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}c_2s^2e^{2B\eta }`$.

Let $`T_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}:=i_1+_2(A_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }})_1i(A_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }})_2`$, then by variational principle and integration by parts

$$\lambda _{b,\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=\underset{\psi H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b)}{inf}\frac{_{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b}\frac{1}{2}|T_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}\psi |^2+V_{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b}|\psi |^2}{_{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b}|\psi |^2}.$$

Let $`\theta `$ be a cutoff function such that $`\theta 1`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{2b}`$, $`\theta 0`$ on $`𝐑^2\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b`$, $`0\theta 1`$ and $`|\theta |4b^1`$. Then

$$\lambda _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=\frac{1}{2}_S|T_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}\phi _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}|^2+_S(\stackrel{~}{V}_\omega +\overline{V}_S)|\phi _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}|^2$$

$$\frac{1}{4}_S|T_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}(\theta \phi _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }})|^2\theta _{\mathrm{}}^2_{Ssupp(\theta )}|\phi _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}|^2+c_3^1_SV_{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b}|\phi _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}|^2,$$

using the pointwise inequality $`V_{\mathrm{\Omega }_+^b}(x)c_3\left[\stackrel{~}{V}_\omega (x)+\overline{V}_S(x)\right]`$ with some $`c_3=c_3(B,L,\overline{L},b)1`$. We use $`\psi :=\theta \phi _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}`$ as a trial function to obtain

$$\lambda _{b,\underset{¯}{\alpha }}\frac{2c_3\lambda _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}+16b^2_{S\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{2b}}|\phi _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}|^2}{1_{S\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{2b}}|\phi _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}|^2}$$

similarly to (7.19) in .

To complete the proof of (23), we need the upper estimate

$$_{S\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{2b}}|\phi _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}|^2c_4\lambda _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}s^2e^{2B\eta }$$

(with some $`c_4=c_4(B,\overline{L},R,b)`$) whose derivation is identical to the rest of the proof of Lemma 7.4 . The only difference is that the balls $`\overline{B}(x_i,a)`$ are replaced with the annuli $`\overline{B}(x_i,2R)B(x_i,R)`$, according to the new definition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in (19), and the constant $`v`$ is replaced with $`e^{(2R)^2/\overline{L}^2}`$. In particular

$$S\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{2b}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{2b}\right)\underset{i𝒢}{}\left[\overline{B}(x_i,2R)B(x_i,R)\right],$$

and we estimate

$$_{_{i𝒢}\left[\overline{B}(x_i,2R)B(x_i,R)\right]}|\phi _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}|^2\lambda _{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}e^{(2R)^2/\overline{L}^2}$$

instead of the second inequality in (7.20) in . The details are omitted. $`\mathrm{}`$

The next lemma is an analogue of Lemma 7.5 in . It states that near the boundary of the enlarged obstacles the Green’s function $`g_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is much smaller than its maximum $`G_\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

###### Lemma 3.3

Let $`20Rb`$, $`40b\mathrm{}s`$, $`r<1/4`$ and $`G_\mathrm{\Theta }c_5\mathrm{}`$ with some $`c_5=c_5(R)`$.

(i) For small enough $`\epsilon `$, there exist $`\mathrm{}_0(\epsilon ,b)>0`$ and $`0<k=k(\epsilon ,b)1/4`$ such that

$$\underset{x\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Theta }}{sup}g_\mathrm{\Theta }(x)\left(\frac{b}{\mathrm{}}\right)^kG_\mathrm{\Theta }\text{for}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_0(\epsilon ,b)$$
(24)
with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\left(\overline{S}_{}^{2\delta }S_+^{2b}\right)_{i𝒢}\overline{B}(x_i,2b)`$, where $`S_\pm ^c:=(s\pm c,sc)^2𝐑^2`$.

(ii) There exists a positive number $`c_0`$ such that

$$g_\mathrm{\Theta }(x)\left[(1c_0)^{1/r}G_\mathrm{\Theta }+c_0^1r^2\mathrm{}^2\right]+\underset{y\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Theta }}{sup}g_\mathrm{\Theta }(y)$$
(25)
for all $`x\mathrm{\Theta }`$, $`xA^1S`$.

Proof. The proof is almost identical to that of Lemma 7.5 . The only difference is that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is defined by removing annuli, hence the case $`xB(x_i,R+2\delta )`$, $`i𝒢`$, needs a separate estimate. For such $`x`$, the exit time from $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is at most the hitting time of the circle $`B(x_i,R+2\delta )`$, hence its expected value depends only on $`R`$. This estimate is taken into account in Lemma 3.3 by the extra requirement $`G_\mathrm{\Theta }c_5\mathrm{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We use the following lemma to establish that the maximal expected hitting time is essentially the same for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Omega }+B(0,2\delta )`$. The proof is identical to that of Lemma 7.6 ; the geometric condition used in  is satisfied for the new definition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (19) as well.

###### Lemma 3.4

There exists two constant $`c_6,c_7`$ depending on $`R`$ such that

$$G_\mathrm{\Omega }G_\mathrm{\Theta }c_6G_\mathrm{\Omega }+c_7.\mathrm{}$$
(26)
Now we are ready to prove Proposition 3.1. We note that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Omega }_+^{2b}\mathrm{\Sigma }(A^1)^c`$. Hence for large enough $`\mathrm{}`$, the combination of (24), (25) and (26) gives

$$\eta c_8\left[(1c_0)^{1/r}G_\mathrm{\Omega }+c_0^1r^2\mathrm{}^2\right]$$
(27)
with some $`c_8=c_8(R)`$, similarly to (7.43) in . This means that $`\eta G_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for small $`r`$ if $`G_\mathrm{\Omega }r^2\mathrm{}^2`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }e^{\varrho BG_\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, we see that $`e^{2B\eta }`$ is bounded by a small inverse power of $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$, so from (23) we get that $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_b\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{1o(1)}`$ as $`r0`$. The case $`G_\mathrm{\Omega }=O(r^2\mathrm{}^2)`$ can be included in the error factor $`K`$. The details are very similar to  and are left to the reader. $`\mathrm{}`$.

## 4 Proof of the upper bound in Theorem 1.1

We recall the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(B)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_b(B)`$ from (20) and (21). Using the notations and results of Section 3 for $`B`$ replaced with $`B+2\beta `$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(B+2\beta )\lambda _{S,\omega }^{(B+2\beta )}`$ with $`0\beta B/2`$, $`s=n_0\mathrm{}(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}(t)=10\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{log}t}{B}}`$. We will need $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined in (19) and we note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ depends on $`B`$, $`R`$, $`t`$, $`b`$, $`\epsilon `$, $`r`$ and $`n_0`$.

Combining Proposition 2.3 with Proposition 3.1, we see that

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{log}L(t)}{\mathrm{log}t}$$
(28)
$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}(\mathrm{log}t)^1\mathrm{log}\left[\mathrm{exp}(tK\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_b^{w(r)})+\mathrm{exp}\left(te^{\varrho (B+2\beta )G_\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)+\mathrm{exp}(4Kt)\right]$$

with $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_b=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_b(B+2\beta )`$. Since the $`n_0\mathrm{}`$ limit will always be taken before $`\beta 0`$, the condition $`n_0(B/\beta )^{1/2}`$ of Proposition 2.3 is satisfied. The last term in (28) is negligible for small enough $`\epsilon ,r`$ and large enough $`b`$, using (22). The estimates on the other two terms are given in the following propositions:

###### Proposition 4.1

For any magnetic field $`B>0`$

$$\underset{n_0\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\underset{r0}{lim\; sup}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b\mathrm{}}{\epsilon 0}}{lim\; sup}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}(\mathrm{log}t)^1\mathrm{log}\mathrm{exp}\left(tK\left[\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_b(B)\right]^{w(r)}\right)=\pi \nu (L^2+2B^1).$$
(29)
###### Proposition 4.2

For any magnetic field $`B>0`$

$$\underset{n_0\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\underset{r0}{lim\; sup}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b\mathrm{}}{\epsilon 0}}{lim\; sup}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}(\mathrm{log}t)^1\mathrm{log}\mathrm{exp}\left(te^{BG_\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)\frac{2\pi \nu }{B}.$$
(30)
Theorem 1.1 follows from these propositions via (12) just by choosing $`\varrho <2/(2+BL^2)`$, using Proposition 4.1 with a magnetic field $`B+2\beta `$ and Proposition 4.2 with a magnetic field $`\varrho (B+2\beta )`$, and finally letting $`\beta 0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Proposition 4.1. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be an arbitrary domain and let $`B>0`$ fixed. Let

$$\widehat{\lambda }^{(B)}(\mathrm{\Omega }):=inf\{inf\text{Spec}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left[(i\widehat{A})^2B\right]+V_\mathrm{\Omega }\right)_\mathrm{\Omega }:\widehat{A}𝒜(\mathrm{\Omega })C^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}),\text{curl}\widehat{A}=B\text{on}\mathrm{\Omega }\}$$

be the smallest eigenvalue of the magnetic Hamiltonian with boundary potential and Dirichlet boundary conditions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We also took the infimum over all possible gauges, which is unnecessary for simply connected $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Here $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the set of real analytic vectorfields on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

In Section 5 we show the following estimate for $`\widehat{\lambda }^{(B)}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$:

###### Proposition 4.3

For any $`\kappa >0`$, $`L>0`$, $`B>0`$ and any domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with volume $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|C(\kappa ,L,B)`$, we have

$$\widehat{\lambda }^{(B)}(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }|}{\pi (L^2+2B^1)}(1+\kappa )\right].$$
(31)
Using this estimate and that $`\widehat{\lambda }^{(B)}`$ is a monotone function of the domain, the proof of Proposition 4.1 is identical to the argument in Section 8 of . $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Proposition 4.2. We consider

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{}:=S\underset{i𝒢}{}\overline{B}(x_i,a)$$

with some fixed $`0<a<R`$, we let $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{}:=v\mathrm{𝟏}\left(x_{i𝒢}\overline{B}(x_i,a)\right)`$ with $`v=e^{(2R)^2/L^2}`$ and we let $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}(B)`$ be the infimum over $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }`$ of the lowest eigenvalue of $`\frac{1}{2}[(iA_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }})^2B_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}]+\stackrel{~}{V}^{}`$. These are exactly the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ and the eigenvalue $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ in , but here we use the star superscript to distinguish them from their counterparts used in the present paper.

We claim that for any fixed $`B>0`$, $`n_0,R,L,r,\epsilon ,b`$

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}(\mathrm{log}t)^1\mathrm{log}\mathrm{exp}\left(te^{BG_\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}(\mathrm{log}t)^1\mathrm{log}\mathrm{exp}\left(te^{BG_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}\right).$$
(32)
For the proof, we define

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\#}:=S\underset{i𝒢}{}\overline{B}(x_i,2R).$$

Clearly $`g_\mathrm{\Omega }(x)=g_{\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\#}}(x)`$ for any $`x_{i𝒢}\overline{B}(x_i,R)`$, while $`g_\mathrm{\Omega }(x)c_9(R)`$ if $`x\overline{B}(x_i,R)`$ for some $`i𝒢`$. Hence $`G_\mathrm{\Omega }G_{\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\#}}+c_9(R)G_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}+c_9(R)`$, where the second inequality follows from $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$.

We then recall that Section 8 of , from (8.1) through (8.8) actually gave the following bound (there $`B`$ was replaced by $`B+2\beta `$):

$$\underset{n_0\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\underset{r0}{lim\; sup}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b\mathrm{}}{\epsilon 0}}{lim\; sup}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}(\mathrm{log}t)^1\mathrm{log}e^{tN\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}(B)}\frac{2\pi \nu }{B}.$$
(33)
for any function $`N`$ satisfying

$$\underset{r0}{lim\; sup}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b\mathrm{}}{\epsilon 0}}{lim\; sup}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{log}N}{\mathrm{log}t}=0.$$

Using Lemma 7.7 of , stating that $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}`$ is smaller than $`e^{BG_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}`$ modulo negligible factors, we easily obtain (30) from (32) and (33). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Estimate on the magnetic eigenvalue with a boundary potential

In this section we prove Proposition 4.3. Let $`D`$ be the disk of radius $`R_\mathrm{\Omega }:=\pi ^{1/2}|\mathrm{\Omega }|^{1/2}`$ centered at the origin. For any function $`a(r)`$ with

$$02\pi a(r)rB\pi r^2,\text{for all}0rR_\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(34)
we define a radial gauge $`A_{rad}(x)=a(r)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)`$ (in polar coordinates, $`x=re^{i\theta }`$) that generates the radial magnetic field $`B_{rad}(x)=\text{curl}A_{rad}(x)=a^{}(r)+r^1a(r)`$. Condition (34) requires the flux of the magnetic field $`B_{rad}`$ to be not smaller than that of the constant $`B`$ field on all concentric disks $`B(0,r)`$.

Let $``$ and $`_D`$ be the Hilbert spaces of radially symmetric $`H^1(𝐑^2)`$ and $`H_0^1(D)`$ functions, respectively. Let

$$H(a):=\frac{1}{2}\left[(iA_{rad})^2B_{rad}\right]$$

be defined on $`_D`$, and let $`\lambda (a)`$ be its lowest eigenvalue. It is easy to see that the corresponding eigenfunction can be chosen nonnegative. In fact

$$f,H(a)f|f|,H(a)|f|=|f|,\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }+a^2B_{rad})|f|f_D.$$
(35)
Proposition 2.1 of  states that the lowest magnetic Dirichlet eigenvalue on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with a constant magnetic field $`B`$ is minorized by $`\lambda (a)`$ for some $`a(r)`$ that satisfies (34).

For any nonnegative function $`\psi `$ we denote its symmetric rearrangement by $`\psi ^{}`$, i.e., $`\psi ^{}`$ is the unique radial function with the property that $`|\{\psi c\}|=|\{\psi ^{}c\}|`$ for any $`c`$. It is not stated explicitly in , but actually the proof of Proposition 2.1 in  gives the following result from which the comparison of the eigenvalues has been derived.

###### Proposition 5.1

Let $`\widehat{A}𝒜(\mathrm{\Omega })C^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$, $`\text{curl}\widehat{A}=B`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and let $`\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2}\left[(i\widehat{A})^2B\right]`$. Then for any function $`fH_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ there exists a function $`a(r)`$ that satisfies (34) such that

$$f,\widehat{H}f|f|^{},H(a)|f|^{}.$$

For the proof one only has to notice that the radial trial function $`q(r)`$ defined on p. 289 of  as $`q(r)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(h^{}(r))`$ is actually the symmetric rearrangement of $`\psi =|f|`$ since $`h=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\psi )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is strictly monotone. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we include the boundary potential $`V_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (see (16)). We replace $`V_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by

$$\widehat{V}_\mathrm{\Omega }:=\frac{1}{\pi L^2}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{\Omega }^c}e^{||^2/L^2}$$

where $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{\Omega }^c}`$ is the characteristic function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^c`$ and $``$ denotes the convolution. It is straightforward that $`\widehat{V}_\mathrm{\Omega }V_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\widehat{V}_\mathrm{\Omega }1`$ everywhere.

By the Riesz rearrangement inequality,

$$f,(1\widehat{V}_\mathrm{\Omega })f=\frac{1}{\pi L^2}|f(x)|^2e^{|xy|^2/L^2}\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Omega }(y)dxdy\frac{1}{\pi L^2}\left(|f|^2\right)^{}(x)e^{|xy|^2/L^2}\mathrm{𝟏}_D(y)dxdy,$$

where the disk $`D`$ is the symmetric rearrangement of the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. A simple estimate yields

$$f,\widehat{V}_\mathrm{\Omega }f|f|^{},W_\eta |f|^{}$$

for any $`fL^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and any $`\eta >0`$ with

$$W_\eta (x):=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{exp}\left((1+\eta ^1)\frac{(R_\mathrm{\Omega }|x|)^2}{L^2}(1+\eta )\right),|x|R_\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

From these estimates and Proposition 5.1 we conclude that there exists a radial function $`a(r)`$, satisfying (34), such that

$$\widehat{\lambda }^{(B)}(\mathrm{\Omega })inf\text{Spec}\left(H(a)+W_\eta \right)\text{on}_D.$$

Next we claim that if $`a_1(r)a_2(r)`$ satisfy (34), then

$$inf\text{Spec}\left(H(a_1)+W_\eta \right)inf\text{Spec}\left(H(a_2)+W_\eta \right)\text{on}_D.$$

This is proven exactly as Lemma 3.1 in . It is easy to check that the inclusion of a bounded nonnegative radial potential $`W_\eta `$ does not alter the trial function argument.

Therefore $`H(a)+W_\eta `$ has the lowest eigenvalue if $`a(r)=Br/2`$, i.e., in case of the constant field. Using (35), this eigenvalue is the same as the lowest eigenvalue, $`\lambda _\eta `$, of

$$H_\eta :=H_{osc}+W_\eta ,\text{with}H_{osc}:=\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{Bx^2}{4}B\right]\text{on}_D.$$

Let $`\phi _0(x)=\sqrt{\frac{B}{2\pi }}e^{Bx^2/4}`$ span the kernel of the harmonic oscillator $`H_{osc}`$ on $``$, and let $`P:=|\phi _0\phi _0|`$ be the projection onto this kernel. It is well known that $`H_{osc}`$ has a gap of size $`B`$ above zero on $``$. We can estimate $`\lambda _\eta `$ by decomposing the eigenfunction $`f_D`$ as $`f=Pf+(IP)f`$:

$$\lambda _\eta =(IP)f,H_{osc}(IP)f+f,W_\eta fB(IP)f^2+f,W_\eta f.$$
(36)
Furthermore,

$$\lambda _\eta _DW_\eta |f|^2\frac{1}{2}_DW_\eta |Pf|^22_DW_\eta |(IP)f|^2\frac{1}{2}_DW_\eta |Pf|^2\lambda _\eta B^1,$$

using (36) and $`W_\eta 1/2`$. Hence

$$\lambda _\eta \frac{B}{2(B+1)}_DW_\eta |Pf|^2.$$
(37)
Since $`Pf^2+(IP)f^2=f^2=1`$ and $`(IP)f^2\lambda _\eta B^1`$ from (36), we have $`Pf^2=|f,\phi _0|^21\lambda _\eta B^1`$. We can assume that $`\lambda _\eta <B/2`$, otherwise Proposition 4.3 is trivial. Hence

$$\lambda _\eta \frac{B}{4(B+1)}_DW_\eta |\phi _0|^2=\frac{B^2}{16\pi (B+1)}e^{(1+\eta ^1)}_De^{(1+\eta )(R_\mathrm{\Omega }|x|)^2/L^2}e^{Bx^2/2}dx$$
(38)
$$C(B,L)\mathrm{exp}\left[(1+\eta ^1)\frac{R_\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{L^2+2B^1}(1+\eta )\right].$$

From this bound, Proposition 4.3 easily follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark: From the integration (38) one can see the interplay between the Gaussian eigenfunction $`\phi _0`$ and the Gaussian potential $`W_\eta `$. In particular, the main contribution comes from the intermediate regime around $`|x|\frac{2}{BL^2+2}R_\mathrm{\Omega }`$.