text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

This paper is a sequel to a previous paper with the same title (, hereafter referred to as I) where we studied the theory of scattering and proved the existence of modified wave operators for the Wave-Schrödinger (WS) system

$$\{\begin{array}{c}i_tu=(1/2)\mathrm{\Delta }uAu(1.1)\hfill \\ \\ A=|u|^2(1.2)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`u`$ and $`A`$ are respectively a complex valued and a real valued function defined in space time $`IR^{3+1}`$. We refer to the introduction of I for general background and references and we give here only a general overview of the problem.

The main result of I was the construction of modified wave operators for the WS system, with no size restriction on the solutions. That construction basically consists in solving the Cauchy problem for the WS system with infinite initial time, namely in constructing solutions with prescribed asymptotic behaviour at infinity in time. That asymptotic behaviour is imposed in the form of suitable approximate solutions of the WS system. One then looks for exact solutions, the difference of which with the given approximate ones tends to zero at infinity in time in a suitable sense, more precisely in suitable norms. The approximate solutions are obtained as low order iterates in an iterative resolution scheme of the WS system. In I we used second order iterates. They are parametrized by data $`(u_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ which play the role of (actually are in simpler cases) initial data at time zero. Those data constitute the asymptotic state for the actual solution.

An inherent difficulty of the WS system is the difference of propagation properties of the wave equation and of the Schrödinger equation. Because of that difficulty, we had to impose in I a support condition on the Fourier transform $`Fu_+`$ of the Schrödinger asymptotic state $`u_+`$, saying in effect that $`Fu_+`$ vanishes in a neighborhood of the unit sphere, so that $`u_+`$ generates a solution of the free Schrödinger equation which is asymptotically small in a neighborhood of the light cone. Such a support condition is unpleasant because it cannot be satisfied on a dense subspace of any reasonable space where one hopes to solve the problem, typically with $`u`$ in $`FH^k`$ for $`k>1/2`$ ($`H^k`$ is the standard $`L^2`$ based Sobolev space).

The theory of scattering and the existence of modified wave operators can also be studied for various equations and systems including the WS system by a method simpler than that of I, proposed earlier by Ozawa . Contrary to that of I, that method is restricted to the case of small data and small solutions. It has been applied to various systems, in particular to the Klein-Gordon-Schrödinger (KGS) system in dimension 2, which is fairly similar to the WS system in dimension 3 from the point of view of scattering . Similar propagation difficulties also appear for that system, thereby again requiring a support condition on $`Fu_+`$ in the treatment given in .

A progress on that problem was made recently by Shimomura   who was able to remove the previous support condition in the construction of the modified wave operators by the Ozawa method in the case of the KGS system in dimension 2  and of the WS system in dimension 3 . The key of that progress consists in using an improved asymptotic form for the Schrödinger function, obtained by adding a term depending on $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ which partly cancels the contribution of the asymptotic field for $`A`$ in the Schrödinger equation.

Although the method used in I is more complicated than the Ozawa method (so as to accomodate arbitrarily large data and solutions), it turns out that the improved asymptotic form of $`u`$ used in  can be transposed into the framework of the method of I, thereby allowing to remove the support condition on $`Fu_+`$ assumed in I, at least in a restricted interval of values of the parameters defining the regularity of the solutions. The purpose of the present paper is to implement that improvement, namely to rederive the main results of I without assuming the support condition used in I, by using the improved asymptotic form of the solution inspired by that of .

In the remaining part of this introduction, we shall briefly review the method used in I in the modified form used in the present paper. We refer to Section 2 of I for a more detailed exposition. The main result of this paper will be stated in semi heuristic terms at the end of this introduction. The first step in that method consists in eliminating the wave equation (1.2) by solving it for $`A`$ and substituting the result into the Schrödinger equation, which then becomes both non linear and non local in time. One then parametrizes the Schrödinger function $`u`$ in terms of an amplitude $`w`$ and a phase $`\phi `$ and one replaces the Schrödinger equation by an auxiliary system consisting of a transport equation for the amplitude and a Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the phase. One solves the Cauchy problem at infinity, namely with prescribed asymptotic behaviour, for the auxiliary system, and one finally reconstructs the solution of the original WS system from that of the auxiliary system. We now proceed to the technical details. We restrict our attention to positive time, actually to $`t1`$.

We first eliminate the wave equation. We define

$$\omega =(\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2},K(t)=\omega ^1\mathrm{sin}\omega t,\dot{K}(t)=\mathrm{cos}\omega t$$

and we replace (1.2) by

$$A=A_0+A_1(|u|^2)$$
$`(1.3)`$
where

$$A_0=\dot{K}(t)A_++K(t)\dot{A}_+,$$
$`(1.4)`$
$$A_1(|u|^2)=_t^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t^{}K(tt^{})|u(t^{})|^2.$$
$`(1.5)`$
Here $`A_0`$ is a solution of the free wave equation with initial data $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ at time $`t=0`$. The pair $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ is the asymptotic state for $`A`$.

We next perform the change of variables mentioned above on $`u`$. The unitary group

$$U(t)=\mathrm{exp}(i(t/2)\mathrm{\Delta })$$
$`(1.6)`$
which solves the free Schrödinger equation can be written as

$$U(t)=M(t)D(t)FM(t)$$
$`(1.7)`$
where $`M(t)`$ is the operator of multiplication by the function

$$M(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(ix^2/2t\right),$$
$`(1.8)`$
$`F`$ is the Fourier transform and $`D(t)`$ is the dilation operator

$$D(t)=(it)^{n/2}D_0(t)$$
$`(1.9)`$
where

$$\left(D_0(t)f\right)(x)=f(x/t).$$
$`(1.10)`$
We parametrize $`u`$ in terms of an amplitude $`w`$ and of a real phase $`\phi `$ as

$$u(t)=M(t)D(t)\mathrm{exp}[i\phi (t)]w(t).$$
$`(1.11)`$
Substituting (1.11) into (1.1) yields an evolution equation for $`(w,\phi )`$, namely

$$\left\{i_t+(2t^2)^1\mathrm{\Delta }i(2t^2)^1(2\phi +\mathrm{\Delta }\phi )+t^1B+_t\phi (2t^2)^1|\phi |^2\right\}w=0$$
$`(1.12)`$
where we have expressed $`A`$ in terms of a new function $`B`$ by

$$A=t^1D_0B.$$
$`(1.13)`$
Corresponding to the decomposition (1.3) of $`A`$, we decompose

$$B=B_0+B_1(w,w)$$
$`(1.14)`$
where $`A_0=t^1D_0B_0`$ and $`A_1=t^1D_0B_1`$. One computes easily

$$B_1(w_1,w_2)=_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu \nu ^3\omega ^1\mathrm{sin}((\nu 1)\omega )D_0(\nu )(\mathrm{Re}\overline{w}_1w_2)(\nu t).$$
$`(1.15)`$
At this point, we have only one evolution equation (1.12) for two functions $`(w,\phi )`$. We arbitrarily impose a second equation, namely a Hamilton-Jacobi (or eikonal) equation for the phase $`\phi `$, thereby splitting the equation (1.12) into a system of two equations, the other one of which being a transport type equation for the amplitude $`w`$. For that purpose, we split $`B_0`$ and $`B_1`$ into a long range and short range parts as follows. Let $`\chi 𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(IR^3,IR)`$, $`0\chi 1`$, $`\chi (\xi )=1`$ for $`|\xi |1`$, $`\chi (\xi )=0`$ for $`|\xi |2`$ and let $`0<\beta _0`$, $`\beta <1`$. We define

$$B_0=B_{0L}+B_{0S},B_1=B_L+B_S$$
$`(1.16)`$
where

$$\{\begin{array}{c}FB_{0L}(t,\xi )=\chi (\xi t^{\beta _0})FB_0(t,\xi ),\hfill \\ \\ FB_L(t,\xi )=\chi (\xi t^\beta )FB_1(t,\xi ).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.17)`$
The splitting (1.16) (1.17) differs from that made in I in two respects. First and more important is the fact that we perform that splitting both on $`B_0`$ and on $`B_1`$, whereas in I it was done only on $`B_1`$. Second, we use here a smooth cut-off $`\chi `$ instead of a sharp one. The smooth cut-off is actually needed only for $`B_0`$. For $`\beta =\beta _0`$, the splitting is the same for $`B_0`$ and $`B_1`$ and can therefore be performed on $`B`$ without any reference to the asymptotic state $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$. The parameters $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta `$ will have to satisfy various conditions which will appear later, all of them compatible with $`\beta =\beta _0=1/3`$.

We split the equation (1.12) into the following system of two equations.

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_tw=i(2t^2)^1\mathrm{\Delta }w+t^2Q(\phi ,w)+it^1(B_{0S}+B_S(w,w))w\hfill \\ \\ _t\phi =(2t^2)^1|\phi |^2t^1B_{0L}t^1B_L(w,w)\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.18)`$
where we have defined

$$Q(s,w)=sw+(1/2)(s)w$$
$`(1.19)`$
for any vector field $`s`$. The first equation of (1.18) is the transport type equation for the amplitude $`w`$, while the second one is the Hamilton-Jacobi type equation for the phase $`\phi `$. Since the right-hand sides of (1.18) contain $`\phi `$ only through its gradient, we can obtain from (1.18) a closed system for $`w`$ and $`s=\phi `$ by taking the gradient of the second equation, namely

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_tw=i(2t^2)^1\mathrm{\Delta }w+t^2Q(s,w)+it^1(B_{0S}+B_S(w,w))w\hfill \\ \\ _ts=t^2sst^1B_{0L}t^1B_L(w,w).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.20)`$
Once the system (1.20) is solved for $`(w,s)`$, one recovers $`\phi `$ easily by integrating the second equation of (1.18) over time. The system (1.20) will be referred to as the auxiliary system.

The construction of the modified wave operators follows the same pattern as in I. The first task is to construct solutions of the auxiliary system (1.20) with suitably prescribed asymptotic behaviour at infinity, and in particular with $`w(t)`$ tending to a limit $`w_+=Fu_+`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. That asymptotic behaviour is imposed in the form of a suitably chosen pair $`(W,\varphi )`$ and therefore $`(W,S)`$ with $`S=\varphi `$ with $`W(t)`$ tending to $`w_+`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. For fixed $`(W,S)`$, we make a change of variables in the system (1.18) from $`(w,\phi )`$ to $`(q,\psi )`$ defined by

$$(q,\psi )=(w,\phi )(W,\varphi )$$
$`(1.21)`$
or equivalently a change of variables in the system (1.20) from $`(w,s)`$ to $`(q,\sigma )`$ defined by

$$(q,\sigma )=(w,s)(W,S),$$
$`(1.22)`$
and instead of looking for a solution $`(w,s)`$ of the system (1.20) with $`(w,s)`$ behaving asymptotically as $`(W,S)`$, we look for a solution $`(q,\sigma )`$ of the transformed system with $`(q,\sigma )`$ (and also $`\psi `$) tending to zero as $`t\mathrm{}`$. Performing the change of variables (1.22) in the auxiliary system (1.20) yields the following modified auxiliary system for the new variables $`(q,\sigma )`$

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_tq=i(2t^2)^1\mathrm{\Delta }q+t^2(Q(s,q)+Q(\sigma ,W))+it^1B_{0S}q\hfill \\ \\ +it^1B_S(w,w)q+it^1\left(2B_S(W,q)+B_S(q,q)\right)WR_1(W,S)\hfill \\ \\ _t\sigma =t^2(s\sigma +\sigma S)t^1\left(2B_L(W,q)+B_L(q,q)\right)R_2(W,S),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.23)`$
where the remainders $`R_1(W,S)`$ and $`R_2(W,S)`$ are defined by

$$R_1(W,S)=_tWi(2t^2)^1\mathrm{\Delta }Wt^2Q(S,W)it^1(B_{0S}+B_S(W,W))W$$
$`(1.24)`$
$$R_2(W,S)=_tSt^2SS+t^1B_{0L}+t^1B_L(W,W)$$
$`(1.25)`$
and the dependence of the remainders on $`B_0`$ has been omitted in the notation. For technical reasons, it is useful to consider also a partly linearized version of the system (1.23), namely

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_tq^{}=i(2t^2)^1\mathrm{\Delta }q^{}+t^2(Q(s,q^{})+Q(\sigma ,W))+it^1B_{0S}q^{}\hfill \\ \\ +it^1B_S(w,w)q^{}+it^1\left(2B_S(W,q)+B_S(q,q)\right)WR_1(W,S)\hfill \\ \\ _t\sigma ^{}=t^2(s\sigma ^{}+\sigma S)t^1\left(2B_L(W,q)+B_L(q,q)\right)R_2(W,S).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1.26)`$
The construction of solutions $`(w,s)`$ of the auxiliary system (1.20) defined for large time and with prescribed asymptotic behaviour $`(W,S)`$ proceeds in two steps. The first step consists in solving the system (1.23) for $`(q,\sigma )`$ tending to zero at infinity under suitable boundedness properties of $`B_0`$ and $`(W,S)`$ and suitable time decay properties of the remainders $`R_1(W,S)`$ and $`R_2(W,S)`$, by a minor variation of the method used in I. That method consists in first solving the linearized system (1.26) for $`(q^{},\sigma ^{})`$ with given $`(q,\sigma )`$, and then showing that the map $`(q,\sigma )(q^{},\sigma ^{})`$ thereby defined has a fixed point, by the use of a contraction method. The second step consists in constructing $`(W,S)`$ with $`W(t)`$ tending to $`w_+`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$ and satisfying the required boundedness and decay properties. This is done by solving the auxiliary system (1.20) by iteration to second order as in I and then adding to $`W`$ an additional term of the same form as that used in . The detailed form of $`(W,S)`$ thereby obtained is too complicated to be given here and will be given in Section 3 below (see (3.25)-(3.29) and (3.31)).

Once the system (1.20) is solved for $`(w,s)`$, one can proceed therefrom to the construction of a solution $`(u,A)`$ of the original WS system. One first defines the phases $`\phi `$ and $`\varphi `$ such that $`s=\phi `$ and $`S=\varphi `$ and one reconstructs $`(u,A)`$ from $`(w,\phi )`$ by (1.11) (1.3) (1.5), thereby obtaining a solution of the WS system defined for large time and with prescribed asymptotic behaviour. The modified wave operator for the WS system is then defined as the map $`\mathrm{\Omega }:(u_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)(u,A)`$.

The main result of this paper is the construction of $`(u,A)`$ from $`(u_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ as described above, together with the asymptotic properties of $`(u,A)`$ that follow from that construction. It will be stated below in full mathematical detail in Proposition 4.1. We give here a heuristic preview of that result, stripped from most technicalities. We set $`\beta =\beta _0=1/3`$ for definiteness.

Proposition 1.1. Let $`\beta _0=\beta =1/3`$. Let $`(u_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ be such that $`w_+=Fu_+H^{k_+}`$ for sufficiently large $`k_+`$, that $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ be sufficiently regular, and that $`(FA_+,F\dot{A}_+)`$ be sufficiently small near $`\xi =0`$. Let $`(W,S)`$ be the approximate solution of the system (1.20) defined by (3.25)-(3.29) (3.31). Then

(1) There exists $`T=T(u_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$, $`1T<\mathrm{}`$, such that the auxiliary system (1.20) has a unique solution ($`w,s)`$ in a suitable space, defined for $`tT`$ and such that $`(wW,sS)`$ tends to zero in suitable norms when $`t\mathrm{}`$.

(2) There exists $`\phi `$ and $`\varphi `$ such that $`s=\phi `$, $`S=\varphi `$, $`\varphi (1)=0`$ and such that $`\phi \varphi `$ tends to zero in suitable norms when $`t\mathrm{}`$. Define $`(u,A)`$ by (1.11) (1.3) (1.5). Then $`(u,A)`$ solves the system (1.1) (1.2) for $`tT`$ and $`(u,A)`$ behaves asymptotically as $`(MD\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )W`$, $`A_0+A_1(|DW|^2))`$ in the sense that the difference tends to zero in suitable norms (for which each term separately is $`O(1)`$) when $`t\mathrm{}`$.

The unspecified condition that $`(FA_+,F\dot{A}_+)`$ be sufficiently small near $`\xi =0`$ can be shown to follow from more intuitive conditions in $`x`$-space, consisting of decay conditions at infinity in space, and, depending on the values of the parameters defining the relevant function spaces, of some moment conditions on $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$.

This paper relies on a large amount of material from I. In order to bring out the structure while keeping duplication to a minimum, we give without proof a shortened logically self-sufficient sequence of those intermediate results from I that are needed, and we provide a full exposition only for the parts that are new as compared with I. When quoting I, we shall use the notation (I.p.q) for equation (p.q) of I and Item I.p.q for Item p.q of I, such as Lemma, Proposition, etc.

The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we collect notation and some estimates of a general nature. In Section 3, we study the Cauchy problem at infinity for the auxiliary system (1.20). We recall from I the existence results of solutions under suitable boundedness properties of $`(W,S)`$ and suitable decay properties of the remainders, with the appropriate modifications (Proposition 3.1). We then define $`(W,S)`$ and prove that they satisfy the previous properties, concentrating on the terms in the remainders that are new as compared with I (Proposition 3.2). We then discuss the assumptions on $`(FA_+,F\dot{A}_+)`$ at $`\xi =0`$ mentioned above. Finally in Section 4, we construct the wave operators for the WS system (1.1) (1.2) and we derive the asymptotic properties of the solution $`(u,A)`$ in their range that follow from the previous estimates (Proposition 4.1).

## 2 Notation and preliminary estimates

In this section we introduce some notation and we collect a number of estimates which will be used throughout this paper. We denote by $`_r`$ the norm in $`L^rL^r(IR^3)`$ and we define $`\delta (r)=3/23/r`$. For any interval $`I`$ and any Banach space $`X`$ we denote by $`𝒞(I,X)`$ the space of strongly continuous functions from $`I`$ to $`X`$ and by $`L^{\mathrm{}}(I,X)`$ the space of measurable essentially bounded functions from $`I`$ to $`X`$. For real numbers $`a`$ and $`b`$ we use the notation $`ab=\mathrm{Max}(a,b)`$ and $`ab=\mathrm{Min}(a,b)`$. In the estimates of solutions of the relevant equations we shall use the letter C to denote constants, possibly different from an estimate to the next, depending on various parameters but not on the solutions themselves or on their initial data. We shall use the notation $`C(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{})`$ for estimating functions, also possibly different from an estimate to the next, depending on suitable norms $`a_1`$, $`a_2,\mathrm{}`$ of the solutions or of their initial data.

We shall use the Sobolev spaces $`\dot{H}_r^k`$ and $`H_r^k`$ defined for $`\mathrm{}<k<+\mathrm{}`$, $`1r\mathrm{}`$ by

$$\dot{H}_r^k=\{u:u;\dot{H}_r^k\omega ^ku_r<\mathrm{}\}$$

and

$$H_r^k=\{u:u;H_r^k<\omega >^ku_r<\mathrm{}\}$$

where $`\omega =(\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}`$ and $`<>=(1+||^2)^{1/2}`$. The subscript $`r`$ will be omitted if $`r=2`$.

We shall look for solutions of the auxiliary system (1.20) in spaces of the type $`𝒞(I,X^{k,\mathrm{}})`$ where $`I`$ is an interval and

$$X^{k,\mathrm{}}=H^k\omega ^1H^{\mathrm{}}$$

namely

$$X^{k,\mathrm{}}=\{(w,s):wH^k,sH^{\mathrm{}}\}$$
(2.1)
where it is understood that $`sL^2`$ includes the fact that $`sL^6`$, and we shall use the notation

$$w;H^k=|w|_k.$$
(2.2)
We shall use extensively the following Sobolev inequalities, stated here in $`IR^n`$, but to be used only for $`n=3`$.

Lemma 2.1. Let $`1<q`$, $`r<\mathrm{}`$, $`1<p\mathrm{}`$ and $`0j<k`$. If $`p=\mathrm{}`$, assume that $`kj>n/r`$. Let $`\sigma `$ satisfy $`j/k\sigma 1`$ and

$$n/pj=(1\sigma )n/q+\sigma (n/rk).$$

Then the following inequality holds

$$\omega ^ju_pCu_q^{1\sigma }\omega ^ku_r^\sigma .$$
(2.3)
The proof follows from the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev (HLS) inequality (, p. 117) (from the Young inequality if $`p=\mathrm{}`$), from Paley-Littlewood theory and interpolation.

We shall also use extensively the following Leibnitz and commutator estimates.

Lemma 2.2. Let $`1<r,r_1,r_3<\mathrm{}`$ and

$$1/r=1/r_1+1/r_2=1/r_3+1/r_4.$$

Then the following estimates hold

$$\omega ^m(uv)_rC\left(\omega ^mu_{r_1}v_{r_2}+\omega ^mv_{r_3}u_{r_4}\right)$$
(2.4)
for $`m0`$, and

$$[\omega ^m,u]v_rC\left(\omega ^mu_{r_1}v_{r_2}+\omega ^{m1}v_{r_3}u_{r_4}\right)$$
(2.5)
for $`m1`$, where $`[,]`$ denotes the commutator.

The proof of those estimates is given in   with $`\omega `$ replaced by $`<\omega >`$ and follows therefrom by a scaling argument.

We next give some estimates of $`B_{0L}`$, $`B_{0S}`$, $`B_S`$ and $`B_L`$ defined by (1.16) (1.17). It follows immediately from (1.16) (1.17) that

$$\omega ^mB_{0L}_2\left(2t_0^{\beta _0}\right)^{mp}\omega ^pB_{0L}_2\left(2t^{\beta _0}\right)^{mp}\omega ^pB_0_2$$
(2.6)
for $`mp`$ and

$$\omega ^mB_{0S}_2t^{\beta _0(mp)}\omega ^pB_{0S}_2t^{\beta _0(mp)}\omega ^pB_0_2$$
(2.7)
for $`mp`$. Similar estimates hold for $`B_L`$, $`B_S`$ with $`\beta _0`$ replaced by $`\beta `$. On the other hand it follows from (1.15) that

$$\omega ^{m+1}B_1(w_1,w_2)_2I_m\left(\omega ^m(\overline{w}_1w_2)_2\right)$$
(2.8)
where $`I_m`$ is defined by

$$\left(I_m(f)\right)(t)=_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu \nu ^{m3/2}f(\nu t).$$
(2.9)
We finally collect some estimates of the solutions of the free wave equation$`A_0=0`$ with initial data $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ at time zero, given by (1.4).

Lemma 2.3. Let $`k0`$. Let $`A_+`$ and $`\dot{A}_+`$ satisfy the conditions

$$A_+,\omega ^1\dot{A}_+H^k,^2A_+,\dot{A}_+H_1^k.$$
(2.10)
Then the following estimate holds :

$$\omega ^mA_0_rb_0t^{1+2/r}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}2r\mathrm{},$$
(2.11)
for $`0mk`$ and for all $`t>0`$, where $`b_0`$ depends on $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ through the norms associated with (2.10).

The estimate (2.11) can be expressed in an equivalent form in terms of $`B_0`$ defined by (1.13), namely

$$\omega ^mB_0_rb_0t^{m1/r}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}2r\mathrm{}.$$
(2.12)
Furthermore, it follows from (1.17) and (2.12) that

$$\omega ^mB_{0L}_rF^1\chi _1\omega ^mB_0_rCb_0t^{m1/r}$$
(2.13)
where we have used the Young inequality and the fact that the $`L^1`$-norm of $`F^1\chi `$ is invariant under the rescaling of $`\xi `$ by $`t^{\beta _0}`$ which occurs in (1.17). From (2.12) (2.13) and (1.16) it follows that also

$$\omega ^mB_{0S}_rCb_0t^{m1/r}.$$
(2.14)
In the applications, the estimate (2.12) will be used mostly through its consequence (2.14).

## 3 Cauchy problem at infinity for the auxiliary system

In this section, we solve the Cauchy problem at infinity for the auxiliary system (1.20) in the difference form (1.23). We first solve the system (1.23) for $`(q,\sigma )`$ tending to zero at infinity under suitable boundedness properties of $`(B_0,W,S)`$ and suitable time decay properties of the remainders $`R_1(W,S)`$ and $`R_2(W,S)`$. We then construct $`(W,S)`$ with $`W(t)`$ tending to $`w_+=Fu_+`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$ and satisfying the required boundedness and decay properties. The method closely follows that of Sections 6 and 7 of I.

We first estimate a single solution of the linearized auxiliary system (1.26) at the level of regularity where we shall eventually solve the auxiliary system (1.20). The following lemma is basically Lemma I.6.1, restricted to the case where $`1<k<3/2`$, and sharpened in order to take into account the fact that the $`W`$ used in this paper is less regular than that used in I (compare (3.1) below with (I.6.1)).

Lemma 3.1. Let $`1<k<\mathrm{}<3/2`$ and $`\beta >0`$. Let $`T1`$ and $`I=[T,\mathrm{})`$. Let $`B_0`$ satisfy the estimate (2.12) for $`0mk`$. Let $`(U(1/t))W,S)𝒞(I,X^{k+1,\mathrm{}+1})𝒞^1(I,X^{k,\mathrm{}})`$ and let $`W`$ satisfy

$$\underset{tI}{Sup}\{W_{\mathrm{}}W;H^{3/2}t^{1/2k}W;\dot{H}^{k+1}\}a<\mathrm{}.$$
(3.1)
Let $`(q,\sigma )`$, $`(q^{},\sigma ^{})𝒞(I,X^{k,\mathrm{}})`$ with $`qL^{\mathrm{}}(I,H^k)L^2(I,L^2)`$ and let $`(q^{},\sigma ^{})`$ be a solution of the system (1.26) in $`I`$. Then the following estimates hold for all $`tI`$ :

$`\left|_tq^{}_2\right|`$ $``$ $`C\{t^2a\sigma _2+t^{1\beta }a^2I_0(q_2)`$ (3.2)
$`+t^1aI_1(q_2q_3)\}+R_1(W,S)_2,`$
$`|_t\omega ^kq^{}_2|C\{b_0(\omega ^{k1}q^{}_2+t^{k1\delta /3}q^{}_r)`$
$`+t^2a\left(\omega ^k\sigma _2+t^{k1/2}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}\right)`$
$`+t^2\left(s_{\mathrm{}}+\omega ^{3/2}s_2\right)\omega ^kq^{}_2`$
$`+t^1a^2\left(I_{k1}\left(\omega ^{k1}q_2\right)+\omega ^{1/2}q^{}_2\right)`$
$`+t^1a\left(I_{k1}\left(\omega ^kq_2q_3\right)+I_{1/2}\left(\omega ^{1/2}q_2\right)\omega ^kq^{}_2\right)`$
$`+t^1I_{1/2}(q_2^2)\omega ^kq^{}_2\}+\omega ^kR_1(W,S)_2`$ (3.3)
where $`s=S+\sigma `$ and $`0<\delta =\delta (r)k`$.

$`|_t\omega ^m\sigma ^{}_2|Ct^2\{s_{\mathrm{}}\omega ^m\sigma ^{}_2+\omega ^ms_2\sigma ^{}_{\mathrm{}}`$
$`+\omega ^m\sigma _2S_{\mathrm{}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{}}\omega ^m^2S_2\}`$
$`+C\left\{t^{1+\beta (m+1)}aI_0\left(q_2\right)+t^{1+\beta (m+5/2)}I_{3/2}\left(q_2^2\right)\right\}`$
$`+\omega ^mR_2(W,S)_2`$ (3.4)
for $`0m\mathrm{}`$,

$$\left|_t\sigma ^{}_2\right|Ct^2\left\{s_{\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{}_2+\sigma _2\left(S_{\mathrm{}}+\omega ^{3/2}S_2\right)\right\}$$

$$+C\left\{t^{1+\beta }aI_0\left(q_2\right)+t^{1+5\beta /2}I_{3/2}\left(q_2^2\right)\right\}+R_2(W,S)_2.$$
$`(3.4)_0`$
Proof. (3.2) is identical with (I.6.2) and is proved in the same way. In order to prove (3), we start from (cf. I.6.9))

$`|_t\omega ^kq^{}_2|t^1[\omega ^k,B_{0S}]q^{}_2+t^2([\omega ^k,s]q^{}_2`$
$`+(s)\omega ^kq^{}_2+\omega ^k\left((s)q^{}\right)_2+\omega ^kQ(\sigma ,W)_2)`$
$`t^1\left([\omega ^k,B_S(w,w)]q^{}_2+\omega ^k\left(2B_S(W,q)+B_S(q,q)\right)W_2\right)`$
$`+\omega ^kR_1(W,S)_2`$ (3.5)
and we estimate the various terms in the RHS successively.

The contribution of $`B_0`$ is estimated exactly as in I and yields

$$[\omega ^k,B_{0S}]q^{}_2Cb_0\left(t\omega ^{k1}q^{}_2+t^{k\delta /3}q^{}_r\right).$$
(3.6)
The contribution of $`Q(s,q^{})`$ is estimated by Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 as

$`[\omega ^k,s]q^{}_2+(s)\omega ^kq^{}_2+\omega ^k\left((s)q^{}\right)_2`$
$`C\left(s_{\mathrm{}}+\omega ^{3/2}s_2\right)\omega ^kq^{}_2`$ (3.7)
in the same way as in I, in the case $`k<3/2`$.

The contribution of $`Q(\sigma ,W)`$ is estimated by Lemma 2.1 and 2.2 as

$$\omega ^kQ(\sigma ,W)_2C(\sigma _{\mathrm{}}\omega ^kW_2+\omega ^k\sigma _6W_3$$

$$+\omega ^k\sigma _2W_{\mathrm{}}+\sigma _r\omega ^kW_{3/k})$$

with $`\delta (r)=k`$,

$`\mathrm{}C\left(\sigma _{\mathrm{}}\omega ^kW_2+\omega ^k\sigma _2\left(W_{\mathrm{}}+\omega ^kW_{3/k}\right)\right)`$
$`Ca\left(t^{k1/2}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}+\omega ^k\sigma _2\right)`$ (3.8)
by (3.1).

The contribution of $`B_S`$ with $`w=W+q`$ yields a number of terms which we order by increasing powers of $`q`$, $`q^{}`$. We first expand

$$B_S(w,w)=B_S(W,W)+2B_S(W,q)+B_S(q,q).$$
(3.9)
By Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2, we estimate

$$[\omega ^k,B_S(W,W)]q^{}_2C\left(B_S(W,W)_{3/\epsilon }+\omega ^kB_S(W,W)_{3/(k1+\epsilon )}\right)$$

$$\times \omega ^{k1+\epsilon }q^{}_2$$

for $`\epsilon >0`$. Taking $`\epsilon =3/2k`$ yields

$`\mathrm{}C\omega ^{k+1}B_1(W,W)_2\omega ^{1/2}q^{}_2`$
$`CI_k\left(\omega ^kW_2W_{\mathrm{}}\right)\omega ^{1/2}q^{}_2`$
$`Ca^2\omega ^{1/2}q^{}_2`$ (3.10)
by Lemma 2.2 again and by (2.8) (3.1).

In a similar way, we estimate by Lemmas 2.1, 2.2 and by (2.8)

$$[\omega ^k,B_S(W,q)]q^{}_2C\left(B_S(W,q)_3\omega ^{k1}q^{}_6+\omega ^kB_S(W,q)_{3/k}q^{}_r\right)$$

with $`\delta (r)=k`$,

$`\mathrm{}C\omega ^{3/2}B_1(W,q)_2\omega ^kq^{}_2`$
$`CI_{1/2}\left(W_{\mathrm{}}\omega ^{1/2}q_2+\omega ^{1/2}W_6q_3\right)\omega ^kq^{}_2`$
$`CaI_{1/2}\left(\omega ^{1/2}q_2\right)\omega ^kq^{}_2.`$ (3.11)
In a similar way, we estimate

$`[\omega ^k,B_S(q,q)]q^{}_2C\left(B_S(q,q)_3+\omega ^kB_S(q,q)_{3/k}\right)\omega ^kq^{}_2`$
$`C\omega ^{3/2}B_1(q,q)_2\omega ^kq^{}_2`$
$`CI_{1/2}\left(\omega ^{1/2}q_3q_6\right)\omega ^kq^{}_2`$
$`CI_{1/2}\left(q_2^2\right)\omega ^kq^{}_2.`$ (3.12)
We next estimate in a similar way

$`\omega ^k(B_S(W,q)W)_2C\omega ^kB_1(W,q)_2\left(W_{\mathrm{}}+\omega ^kW_{3/k}\right)`$
$`Ca\omega ^kB_1(W,q)_2`$
$`CaI_{k1}\left(\left(W_{\mathrm{}}+\omega ^{k1}W_{3/(k1)}\right)\omega ^{k1}q_2\right)`$
$`Ca^2I_{k1}\left(\omega ^{k1}q_2\right).`$ (3.13)
Finally, we estimate in a similar way

$`\omega ^k(B_S(q,q)W)_2C\omega ^kB_1(q,q)_2\left(W_{\mathrm{}}+\omega ^kW_{3/k}\right)`$
$`CaI_{k1}\left(\omega ^{k1}|q|^2_2\right)`$
$`CaI_{k1}\left(\omega ^kq_2q_3\right).`$ (3.14)
Substituting (3.6)-(3) and (3)-(3) into (3) yields (3).

The estimates (3) and (3.4)<sub>0</sub> of $`\sigma ^{}`$ are identical with (I.6.4) and (I.6.4)<sub>0</sub> and have exactly the same proof. The additional term with $`B_{0L}`$ in the equation for $`\sigma ^{}`$ is included in $`R_2(W,S)`$ and does not appear explicitly at this stage.

$``$$``$

From there on, the treatment of the Cauchy problem at infinity for the auxiliary system follows that given in I verbatim. We need to estimate the difference of two solutions of the linearized auxiliary system (1.26), and that estimate, given by Lemma I.6.2, requires no modification because it uses regularity properties of $`W`$ which are weaker than (3.1). We then solve the Cauchy problem first for the linearized auxiliary system (1.26) with finite initial time by Proposition I.6.1, then at infinity by Proposition I.6.2, and then for the auxiliary system (1.20) or (1.23) by a contraction method, by Proposition I.6.3, part (2). The only difference in the proof of Propositions I.6.2 and I.6.3 is due to the term

$$t^2at^{k1/2}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}$$

in (3), which did not appear in Lemma I.6.1, and which is due to the fact that the assumption (3.1) is weaker than (I.6.1). That term generates an additional term

$$aZt^{1\lambda 3(1\beta )/2}$$

in the RHS of (I.6.59), with time decay strictly better than $`t^{1\lambda }`$ and therefore harmless.

We now state the first main result of this section, which corresponds to Proposition I.6.3, part (2).

Proposition 3.1. Let $`1<k<3/2<\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\lambda _0`$, $`\lambda `$ and $`\beta `$ satisfy the conditions

$$\lambda >0,(1<)\lambda +k<\lambda _0,$$
(3.15)
$$0<\beta <2/3,\beta (\mathrm{}+1)<\lambda _0.$$
(3.16)
Let $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ satisfy the conditions (2.10). Let $`(U(1/t)W,S)𝒞([1,\mathrm{}),X^{k+1,\mathrm{}+1})𝒞^1([1,\mathrm{}),X^{k,\mathrm{}})`$ and let $`(W,S)`$ satisfy the estimates

$$\underset{t1}{Sup}\{W_{\mathrm{}}W;H^{3/2}t^{1/2k}W;\dot{H}^{k+1}\}a<\mathrm{},$$
(3.17)
$$\omega ^mS_2bt^{1\eta +\beta (m3/2)}$$
(3.18)
for some $`\eta >0`$ and for $`0m\mathrm{}+1`$,

$$R_1(W,S)_2c_0t^{1\lambda _0},$$
(3.19)
$$\omega ^kR_1(W,S)_2c_1t^{1\lambda },$$
(3.20)
$$\omega ^mR_2(W,S)_2c_2t^{1\lambda _0+\beta (m+1)}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}0m\mathrm{}.$$
(3.21)
Then there exists $`T`$, $`1T<\mathrm{}`$ and positive constants $`Y_0`$, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$, depending on $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ through the norms in (2.10) and depending on $`k`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\beta `$, $`\lambda _0`$, $`\lambda `$, $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c_0`$, $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ such that the auxiliary system (1.20) has a unique solution $`(w,s)𝒞(I,X^{k,\mathrm{}})`$, where $`I=[T,\mathrm{})`$, satisfying the estimates

$$wW_2Y_0t^{\lambda _0},$$
(3.22)
$$\omega ^k(wW)_2Yt^\lambda ,$$
(3.23)
$$\omega ^m(sS)_2Zt^{\lambda _0+\beta (m+1)}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}0m\mathrm{},$$
(3.24)
for all $`tI`$.

We now turn to the construction of approximate solutions $`(W,S)`$ of the system (1.20) satisfying the assumptions of Proposition 3.1 and in particular the estimates (3.17) (3.18) of $`(W,S)`$ and the estimates (3.19)-(3.21) of the remainders. In I we took for $`(W,S)`$ the second order approximate solution of the system (1.20) in an iterative scheme not taking into account the terms containing $`B_0`$, thereby ending with an explicit $`B_0W`$ term in the remainder $`R_1(W,S)`$. Here, following , we improve that asymptotic form by adding one more term in $`W`$, so as to partly cancel the $`B_{0S}W`$ term in $`R_1(W,S)`$. Thus we define

$$W=w_0+w_1+w_2W_1+w_2,S=s_0+s_1$$
(3.25)
where $`w_0`$, $`s_0`$, $`w_1`$, $`s_1`$ are the same as in I, namely

$$w_0=U^{}(1/t)w_+,$$
(3.26)
$$s_0(t)=_1^t𝑑t^{}t^1B_L(w_0(t^{}),w_0(t^{})),$$
(3.27)
$$w_1(t)=U^{}(1/t)_t^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t^{}t^2U(1/t^{})Q(s_0(t^{}),w_0(t^{})),$$
(3.28)
$$s_1(t)=_t^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t^{}t^2s_0(t^{})s_0(t^{})+2_t^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t^{}t^1B_L(w_0(t^{}),w_1(t^{})).$$
(3.29)
In order to partly cancel $`B_{0S}W`$ in $`R_1(W,S)`$, we take $`w_2=hw_0`$, thereby obtaining a linear contribution of $`w_2`$ to $`R_1(W,S)`$

$`\left(_ti(2t^2)^1\mathrm{\Delta }\right)w_2`$ $`=`$ $`h\left(_ti(2t^2)^1\mathrm{\Delta }\right)w_0it^2hw_0+(_th)w_0`$ (3.30)
$`i(2t^2)^1(\mathrm{\Delta }h)w_0.`$
The first term in the RHS is small, actually zero, by the choice of $`w_0`$. We use the last term in the RHS to cancel the main contribution $`B_{0S}w_0`$ of $`B_{0S}W`$ by making the choice

$$w_2=hw_0,h=2t\mathrm{\Delta }^1B_{0S}.$$
(3.31)
Note that because of the short range cut-off in $`B_{0S}`$, $`h`$ is well defined, actually $`h𝒞([1,\mathrm{}),H^{k+2})`$. With that choice, the remainders become

$$R_i(W,S)=R_{i0}(W,S)+R_{i\nu }(W,S)i=1,2,$$
(3.32)
where $`R_{i0}(W,s)`$ are the parts not containing $`w_2`$ or $`B_{0L}`$, namely

$`R_{10}(W,S)`$ $`=`$ $`t^2\left(Q(S,w_1)+Q(s_1,w_0)\right)`$ (3.33)
$`it^1\left(B_{0S}w_1+B_S(W_1,W_1)W_1\right)`$
$$R_{20}(W,S)=t^2\left(s_0s_1+s_1s_0+s_1s_1\right)+t^1B_L(w_1,w_1),$$
(3.34)
while $`R_{i\nu }(W,S)`$ are the parts containing $`w_2`$ or $`B_{0L}`$, namely

$`R_{1\nu }(W,S)`$ $`=`$ $`t^2Q(S,w_2)it^1B_{0S}w_2+(_th)w_0it^2hw_0`$ (3.35)
$`it^1\left(B_S(W,W)w_2+B_S(W+W_1,w_2)W_1\right),`$
$$R_{2\nu }(W,S)=t^1B_{0L}+t^1B_L(W+W_1,w_2).$$
(3.36)
The parts $`R_{i0}`$ of the remainders are the remainders occurring in I, up to the replacement of $`B_0`$ by $`B_{0S}`$ and the disappearance of the term $`B_{0S}w_0`$, precisely the term which was responsible for the support condition in I. Up to a minor point (see below), $`(W_1,S)`$ and $`R_{i0}(W,S)`$ have been estimated in I as follows (see Lemma I.7.1).

Lemma 3.2. Let $`0<\beta <1`$, $`k_+3`$, $`w_+H^{k_+}`$ and $`a_+=|w_+|_{k_+}`$. Then the following estimates hold for all $`t1`$ :

$$|w_0|_{k_+}a_+,$$
(3.37)
$$\omega ^ms_0_2\{\begin{array}{cc}Ca_+^2\mathrm{}nt\hfill & \text{for}0mk_+\hfill \\ & \\ Ca_+^2t^{\beta (mk_+)}\hfill & \text{for}m>k_+,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.38)
$$|w_1|_{k_+1}Ca_+^3t^1(1+\mathrm{}nt),$$
(3.39)
$$\omega ^ms_1_2\{\begin{array}{c}Ca_+^4t^1(1+\mathrm{}nt)^2\text{for}0mk_+1\hfill \\ \\ Ca_+^4t^{1+\beta (m+1k_+)}(1+\mathrm{}nt)\hfill \\ \text{for}k_+1<m<k_+1+\beta ^1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.40)
$$\omega ^mR_{20}(W,S)_2\{\begin{array}{c}C(a_+)t^3(1+\mathrm{}nt)^3\text{for}0mk_+2\hfill \\ \\ C(a_+)t^{3+\beta (m+2k_+)}(1+\mathrm{}nt)^2\hfill \\ \text{for}k_+2<m<k_+2+\beta ^1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.41)
Let in addition $`0kk_+1`$ and let $`B_0`$ satisfy the estimate (2.12) for $`0mk`$. Then

$`\omega ^mR_{10}(W,S)_2`$ $``$ $`C(a_+)\left\{t^3(1+\mathrm{}nt)^2+t^{1\beta (k_+m+1)}\right\}`$ (3.42)
$`+Cb_0a_+^3t^{m5/2}(1+\mathrm{}nt)\text{for}0mk.`$
Proof. The estimates (3.37)-(3.42) are those of Lemma I.7.1 except for the estimate of the term $`t^1B_{0S}w_1`$ in $`R_{10}(W,S)`$ which is responsible for the last term in (3.42). We estimate that term by Lemma 2.1 and 2.2 and by (2.12) (3.39) as

$`\omega ^mB_{0S}w_1_2`$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}C\left(\omega ^mB_0_2w_1_{\mathrm{}}+B_{0S}_r\omega ^mw_1_{1/m}\right)\hfill & \text{for}m1/2\hfill \\ & \\ C\left(\omega ^mB_0_2w_1_{\mathrm{}}+B_{0S}_{\mathrm{}}\omega ^mw_1_2\right)\hfill & \text{for}m>1/2\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.46)
$``$ $`Cb_0a_+^3t^{m3/2}(1+\mathrm{}nt)`$ (3.47)
for $`0mk`$, and $`1/r=1/2m`$ for $`m1/2`$, which completes the proof of (3.42).

$``$$``$

We now turn to estimating $`R_{i\nu }(W,S)`$, $`i=1,2`$. We first reduce that question to that of estimating $`h`$ and $`B_{0L}`$, assuming for the moment a boundedness property of $`w_2`$ which is part of (3.17) and which we shall prove later. We define the auxiliary space

$$Y=L^{\mathrm{}}([1,\mathrm{}),L^{\mathrm{}}H^{3/2})$$
(3.48)
and we remark that for $`k_+>5/2`$, it follows from (3.37) (3.39) that $`W_1=w_0+w_1Y`$. We can now state the estimates of $`R_{i\nu }(W,S)`$.

Lemma 3.3. Let $`1<k<3/2`$ and $`k_+3`$, let $`w_+H^{k_+}`$ and let $`a_+=|w_+|_{k_+}`$. Assume that $`w_2Y`$ and let

$$W_1_YW_Ya<\mathrm{}.$$
(3.49)
Let $`B_0`$ satisfy the estimate (2.12) for $`0mk`$. Then the following estimates hold for all $`t1`$ :

$`R_{1\nu }(W,S)_2`$ $``$ $`C(a_+)t^2\mathrm{}nth_2+Ca_+\{b_0t^1h_2`$ (3.50)
$`+_th_2+a^2t^1(h_2+I_0(h_2))\},`$
$`\omega ^kR_{1\nu }(W,S)_2C(a_+)t^2\mathrm{}nt\left(\omega ^kh_2+\omega ^\delta h_2\right)`$
$`+Ca_+\{b_0(t^{k1\delta /3}\omega ^\delta h_2+t^1\omega ^kh_2)+\omega ^k_th_2+\omega ^\delta _th_2`$
$`+t^2(\omega ^{k+1}h_2+\omega ^2h_2)+t^1a^2(\omega ^kh_2+I_{k1}(\omega ^{k1}h_2))\}`$
for $`0<\delta <1/2`$,

$$\omega ^mR_{2\nu }(W,S)_2t^1\omega ^{m+1}B_{0L}_2+Caa_+t^{1+\beta m}I_0\left(h_2\right)$$
(3.52)
for all $`m0`$.

Proof. We first consider $`R_{1\nu }(W,S)_2`$. We estimate successively

$`Q(S,w_2)_2`$ $``$ $`S_{\mathrm{}}\left(w_0_{\mathrm{}}h_2+w_0_3h_6\right)`$ (3.53)
$`+S_3w_0_{\mathrm{}}h_6C(a_+)\mathrm{}nth_2`$
by (3.37) (3.38) (3.40) and Lemma 2.1,

$$B_{0S}w_2_2B_{0S}_{\mathrm{}}w_0_{\mathrm{}}h_2Cb_0a_+h_2,$$
(3.54)
by (2.14) and (3.37),

$$(_th)w_0_2w_0_{\mathrm{}}_th_2Ca_+_th_2,$$
(3.55)
$$hw_0_2w_0_{\mathrm{}}h_2Ca_+h_2,$$
(3.56)
$$B_S(W,W)w_2_2B_S(W,W)_{\mathrm{}}w_0_{\mathrm{}}h_2Ca_+a^2h_2,$$
(3.57)
by estimating $`B_S(W,W)`$ in a way similar to that in Lemma 3.1,

$`B_S(W+W_1,w_2)W_1_2CW_1_3\omega B_1(W+W_1,w_2)_2`$
$`CW_1_3W+W_1_{\mathrm{}}w_0_{\mathrm{}}I_0(h_2)Ca_+a^2I_0(h_2)`$ (3.58)
by Lemma 2.1 and by (2.8). Collecting (3.53)-(3) yields (3.50).

We next consider $`\omega ^kR_{1\nu }(W,S)`$. We estimate successively

$`\omega ^kQ(S,w_2)_2C\{w_0_{}S_{}\omega ^{k+1}h_2+(w_0_{}\omega ^{k+1}S_{3/(1+\delta )}`$
$`+\omega ^{k+1}w_0_{3/(1+\delta )}S_{})\omega ^\delta h_2\}`$
$`C(a_+)\mathrm{}nt\left(\omega ^kh_2+\omega ^\delta h_2\right)`$ (3.59)
by (3.37) (3.38) (3.40) and Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2, with

$$f_{}=f_{\mathrm{}}+f_3,$$

$`\omega ^k(B_{0S}w_2)_2C\{B_0_{\mathrm{}}w_0_{\mathrm{}}\omega ^kh_2+(\omega ^kB_0_{3/\delta }w_0_{\mathrm{}}`$
$`+B_0_{\mathrm{}}\omega ^kw_0_{3/\delta })\omega ^\delta h_2\}`$
$`Cb_0a_+\left(\omega ^kh_2+t^{k\delta /3}\omega ^\delta h_2\right)`$ (3.60)
by Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 and by (2.14) (3.37),

$`\omega ^k((_th)w_0)_2`$ $``$ $`C\left(w_0_{\mathrm{}}\omega ^k_th_2+\omega ^kw_0_{3/\delta }\omega ^\delta _th_2\right)`$ (3.61)
$``$ $`Ca_+\left(\omega ^k_th_2+\omega ^\delta _th_2\right)`$
by Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 and by (3.37),

$`\omega ^k(hw_0)_2`$ $``$ $`C\left(w_0_{\mathrm{}}\omega ^{k+1}h_2+\omega ^{k+1}w_0_3h_6\right)`$ (3.62)
$``$ $`Ca_+\left(\omega ^{k+1}h_2+\omega ^2h_2\right)`$
by Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 and by (3.37). We next estimate

$`\omega ^k(B_S(W,W)w_2)_2C\left(B_Sw_0_{\mathrm{}}+\omega ^k(B_Sw_0)_{3/k}\right)\omega ^kh_2`$
$`C\left(B_S_{\mathrm{}}+\omega ^kB_S_{3/k}\right)\left(w_0_{\mathrm{}}+\omega ^kw_0_{3/k}\right)\omega ^kh_2`$
$`Ca_+a^2\omega ^kh_2`$ (3.63)
where we have omitted the arguments in $`B_S`$, by Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 and by (3.37) (3.49), and after estimating $`B_S`$ in a way similar to that in Lemma 3.1. In the same way

$`\omega ^k(B_S(W+W_1,w_2)W_1)_2C\left(W_1_{\mathrm{}}+\omega ^kW_1_{3/k}\right)\omega ^kB_1(W+W_1,w_2)_2`$
$`CaI_{k1}\left(\omega ^{k1}h_2\left(w_0(W+W_1)_{\mathrm{}}+\omega ^{k1}(W+W_1)w_0_{3/(k1)}\right)\right)`$
$`Ca_+a^2I_{k1}\left(\omega ^{k1}h_2\right).`$ (3.64)
Collecting (3)-(3) yields (3).

We finally estimate $`R_{2\nu }`$. From (2.6) (2.8) we obtain

$$\omega ^mR_{2\nu }(W,S)_2t^1\omega ^{m+1}B_{0L}_2$$

$$+Ct^{1+\beta m}I_0\left(W+W_1_{\mathrm{}}w_0_{\mathrm{}}h_2\right)$$

which yields (3.52) by using (3.37) (3.49).

$``$$``$

In order to complete the estimate of the parts $`R_{i\nu }(W,S)`$, $`i=1,2`$, of the remainders, we now estimate $`h`$ and $`B_{0L}`$. Those estimates require some restrictions on the behaviour of $`(FA_+,F\dot{A}_+)`$ at $`\xi =0`$. Those restrictions are imposed in a dilation homogeneous way through the use of a parameter $`\mu (1,1)`$ in terms of quantities which have the same scaling properties as $`A_+;\dot{H}^{3/2\mu }`$ and $`\dot{A}_+;\dot{H}^{5/2\mu }`$. They will be further discussed at the end of this section.

Lemma 3.4. Let $`1<k<3/2`$ and $`1<\mu <1`$. Let $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ satisfy the conditions

$$A_+H^{k1},\dot{A}_+L^2,$$
(3.65)
$$xA_+H^{k1},x\dot{A}_+L^{3/2},$$
(3.66)
$$xA_+\dot{H}^{1/2\mu },A_+,x\dot{A}_+\dot{H}^{3/2\mu },\dot{A}_+\dot{H}^{5/2\mu }.$$
$`(3.63)_\mu `$
Let $`B_{0L}`$ and $`h`$ be defined by (1.17) and (3.31).

Then the following estimates hold :

$$\omega ^mB_{0L}_2Ct^{m1/2+(\beta _01)(m+3/2+\mu )}(A_+;\dot{H}^{3/2\mu }+\dot{A}_+;\dot{H}^{5/2\mu })$$
$`(3.64)`$
for all $`m0`$,

$$\omega ^mh_22t^{m3/2}(1t^{(\beta _01)(m1/2+\mu )})(A_+;\dot{H}^\rho +\dot{A}_+;\dot{H}^{\rho 1})$$
$`(3.65)`$
for all $`mk+1`$, where

$$\rho =(m2)(3/2\mu )=3/2\mu +(m1/2+\mu )0,$$
$`(3.66)`$
$$\omega ^m_th_2Ct^{m5/2}(1t^{(\beta _01)(m1/2+\mu )})(xA_+;\dot{H}^{\rho +1}$$

$$+x\dot{A}_+;\dot{H}^\rho +A_+;\dot{H}^\rho +\dot{A}_+;\dot{H}^{\rho 1})$$
$`(3.67)`$
for all $`mk`$ and $`\rho `$ given by (3.66),

$$h_{\mathrm{}}C(A_+,\dot{A}_+)$$
$`(3.68)`$
where the constant depends on $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ through the norms in (3.65) (3.63)<sub>μ</sub>.

Proof. (3.64) follows immediately from the definitions (1.4) (1.13) and (1.17) of $`A_0`$ and $`B_{0L}`$, from (2.6) and from (3.63)<sub>μ</sub>.

In order to derive the estimates of $`h`$, it is convenient to come back to the variable $`A_0`$. The definition (3.31) of $`h`$ can be rewritten as

$$h=2t^2\omega ^2D_0^1A_{0S}=D_0^1f$$
$`(3.69)`$
where

$$f=2\omega ^2A_{0S},$$
$`(3.70)`$
$`A_{0S}`$ is defined by

$$A_{0S}=t^1D_0^1B_{0S}=\chi _SA_0F^1\left(1\chi (\xi t^{1\beta _0})\right)FA_0$$
$`(3.71)`$
and $`\chi `$ is defined before (1.16).

(3.65). We estimate

$$\omega ^mh_2=t^{m3/2}\omega ^mf_2=2t^{m3/2}\omega ^{m2}A_{0S}_2$$

$$2t^{m3/2}\left(1t^{(\beta _01)(m1/2+\mu )}\right)\omega ^\rho A_0_2$$
$`(3.72)`$
and the result follows from the assumptions (3.65) $`(3.63)_\mu `$.

(3.66). We use in addition the commutation relations

$$t_t=D_0^1PD_0,P\omega ^j=\omega ^j(P+j),[P,e^{i\omega t}]=0$$
$`(3.73)`$
where $`P`$ is the dilation generator

$$P=t_t+x.$$

In particular

$$_th=t^1t_tD_0^1f=t^1D_0^1Pf.$$
$`(3.74)`$
Using the comm utation relations (3.73), we compute

$$\begin{array}{cc}(1/2)Pf\hfill & =\omega ^2(P+2)A_{0S}\hfill \\ & \\ & =\omega ^2\mathrm{cos}\omega t(P+2)\chi _SA_++\omega ^3\mathrm{sin}\omega t(P+3)\chi _S\dot{A}_+.\hfill \end{array}$$

Using the fact that $`P+3=t_t+x`$ and the commutation relation

$$[P,\chi _S]=\beta F^1\xi t^{1\beta }\chi (\xi t^{1\beta })F\stackrel{~}{\chi }$$

we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}(1/2)Pf\hfill & =\omega ^2\mathrm{cos}\omega t\chi _SxA_++\omega ^3\mathrm{sin}\omega t\chi _Sx\dot{A}_+\hfill \\ & \\ & +\omega ^2\mathrm{cos}\omega t(\stackrel{~}{\chi }\chi _S)A_++\omega ^3\mathrm{sin}\omega t\stackrel{~}{\chi }\dot{A}_+.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.75)`$
We then estimate

$$\omega ^m_th_2=t^{m5/2}\omega ^mPf_2$$
$`(3.76)`$
and we estimate the contribution of the various terms of (3.75) exactly as in the proof of (3.65), with $`(m,A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ replaced by $`(m1,xA_+,x\dot{A}_+)`$ in the first two terms, and with $`\chi _S`$ replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\chi _S`$ or by $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ in the last two terms. This yields (3.67).

(3.68). By Lemma 2.1,

$$h_{\mathrm{}}C\omega ^{3/2\epsilon }h_2^{1/2}\omega ^{3/2+\epsilon }h_2^{1/2}$$
$`(3.77)`$
and (3.68) follows from (3.65) with $`0<\epsilon (k1/2)(\mu +1)`$.

$``$$``$

We now collect the results of Lemmas 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 in order to exhibit a set of assumptions which imply those of Proposition 3.1

Proposition 3.2. Let $`1<k<3/2<\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\mu `$, $`\lambda _0`$, $`\lambda `$, $`\beta _0`$, $`\beta `$ and $`k_+`$ satisfy the conditions

$$1/4<\mu 1/2$$
$`(3.78)`$
$$\lambda >0,(1<)\lambda +k<\lambda _0<7/6+2\mu /3(3/2)$$
$`(3.79)`$
$$0<\beta _0\beta <2/3,\beta (\mathrm{}+1)<\lambda _0$$
$`(3.80)`$
$$\beta _0(1/2\mu )>\lambda _01\mu $$
$`(3.81)`$
$$\beta _0(\mu +5/2)<2+\mu \lambda _0$$
$`(3.82)`$
$$k_+k+2,\beta (k_++1)\lambda _0,\beta (\mathrm{}+3k_+)<1.$$
$`(3.83)`$
Let $`w_+H^{k_+}`$ and let $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ satisfy (2.10) (3.66) (3.63)<sub>μ</sub>. Let $`(W,S)`$ be defined by (3.25)-(3.29) (3.31).

Then $`(W,S)`$ satisfy the estimates (3.17) (3.18) (3.19) (3.20) (3.21) (with $`0<\eta <13\beta /2`$ in (3.18)) and all the assumptions of Proposition 3.1 are satisfied.

Proof. The contribution of the terms not containing $`w_2`$ or $`B_{0L}`$ in $`(W,S)`$ and in the remainders are estimated by Lemma 3.2 in the same way as in I. We concentrate on the remaining terms. The terms containing $`w_2`$ are estimated by Lemma 3.3 in terms of $`h`$, and $`h`$ and $`B_{0L}`$ are estimated by Lemma 3.4.

The condition (3.17) restricted to $`w_2=hw_0`$ follows from the fact that it holds for $`h`$ by (3.65) (3.68) and trivially for $`w_0`$, and that it is multiplicative. Together with (3.49) for $`W_1`$, it implies (3.49) for $`W`$.

We next consider $`R_{1\nu }(W,S)`$. Its $`L^2`$ norm is estimated by (3.50). By Lemma 3.4, it satisfies the estimate (3.19) provided

$$(1\beta _0)\left((1/2\mu )0\right)<3/2\lambda _0$$
$`(3.84)`$
which reduces to (3.81) for $`\mu 1/2`$.

Similarly, $`R_{1\nu }(W,S)`$ is estimated in $`\dot{H}^k`$ norm by (3) and satisfies the estimate (3.20) for $`\delta `$ sufficiently small under the condition (3.84) because the time decay of (3) is worse than that of (3.50) at worst by a factor $`t^{k+2\delta /3}`$ which is better than the allowed $`t^{\lambda _0\lambda }`$ for $`0<2\delta /3\lambda _0\lambda k`$.

We now turn to $`R_{2\nu }(W,s)`$. The contribution of $`B_{0L}`$ is estimated by (3.64) and satisfies the estimate (3.21) provided

$$m+1/2+(\beta _01)(m+7/2+\mu )1\lambda _0+\beta (m+1)$$
$`(3.85)`$
which is implied by (3.82) for $`\beta _0\beta `$.

The term containing $`w_2`$ is estimated by (3.52) and satisfies the estimate (3.21) by (3.65) under the condition (3.84).

We remark here that the upper bound on $`\lambda _0`$ in (3.79) is the compatibility condition of (3.81) (3.82). The remaining conditions in (3.78)-(3.83) come from I.

$``$$``$

We now comment briefly on the various parameters that occur in Proposition 3.2 and on the conditions (3.78)-(3.83) that they have to satisfy. The parameters $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ characterize the regularity of the spaces of resolution for $`(w,s)`$. As a consequence, $`k`$ also characterizes the regularity of $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ as given by (2.10). The parameter $`\mu `$ characterizes the behaviour of $`(\widehat{A}_+,\widehat{\dot{A}}_+)=(FA_+,F\dot{A}_+)`$ at $`\xi =0`$ through the condition (3.63)<sub>μ</sub>. The parameters $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\lambda `$ are the time decay exponents of the norms of $`q`$ in $`L^2`$ and in $`\dot{H}^k`$. The $`\mu `$ dependent upper bound on $`\lambda _0`$ in (3.79) ranges over $`(1,3/2]`$ when $`\mu `$ ranges over $`(1/4,1/2]`$. Since the condition (3.84) saturates at $`\lambda _0<3/2`$ for $`\mu 1/2`$, there is no point in considering values of $`\mu >1/2`$. The parameters $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta `$ characterize the splitting of $`B_0`$ and $`B_1`$ respectively into short range and long range parts, and therefore the splitting of the Schrödinger equation into transport and Hamilton-Jacobi equations. The parameter $`\beta `$ should not be too large and can be taken equal to $`\beta _0`$. The parameter $`\beta _0`$ satisfies two inequalities (3.81) and (3.82) in opposite directions, depending on $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\mu `$, and expressing the fact that $`B_{0S}`$ and $`B_{0L}`$ are not too large. The upper bound on $`\lambda _0`$ in (3.79) is the compatibility condition of those inequalities. Whenever it is satisfied, the value $`\beta _0=1/3`$ is allowed. Actually both (3.81) and (3.82) reduce to that upper bound for $`\beta _0=1/3`$. Finally $`k_+`$ characterizes the regularity of $`w_+`$ and should be sufficiently large, depending on $`k`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\beta `$.

Remark 3.1. For $`\mu =1/2`$ the short range restriction is no longer needed in the estimates of $`h`$ and $`_th`$ in Lemma 3.4, and therefore the splitting of $`B_0`$ into short range and long range parts is no longer needed, namely $`B_0`$ can be kept entirely in the equation for $`w`$.

We finally discuss the condition (3.63)<sub>μ</sub> of Lemma 3.4. That condition restricts the behaviour of the relevant functions for small $`|\xi |`$ in Fourier transformed variables. Let $`A`$ be any of the functions $`A_+`$, $`\dot{A}_+`$, $`xA_+`$, $`x\dot{A}_+`$ and define $`A_<`$ by $`\widehat{A}_<(\xi )=\chi (\xi )\widehat{A}(\xi )`$. Then the conditions on $`A_<`$ contained in (3.63)<sub>μ</sub> all take the form

$$A_<\dot{H}^{3/2\nu }$$
$`(3.86)`$
for $`\nu =\mu `$, $`\mu \pm 1`$. We first remark that in the proof of Lemma 3.4, all such conditions can be replaced by

$$|\xi |^\nu \widehat{A}_<L^{\mathrm{}}$$
$`(3.87)`$
at the expense of inserting an additional factor $`(\mathrm{}nt)^{1/2}`$ in (3.65) in the case of equality, namely for $`m=1/2\mu `$. This follows from the fact that

$$|\xi |^{m3/2}\widehat{A}_{S<}_2\{\begin{array}{cc}C|\xi |^\nu \widehat{A}_<_{\mathrm{}}\left(1t^{(\beta _01)(m+\nu )}\right)\hfill & \text{for}m\nu \hfill \\ & \\ C|\xi |^\nu \widehat{A}_<_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{}nt)^{1/2}\hfill & \text{for}m=\nu .\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.88)`$
The occurrence of the factor $`(\mathrm{}nt)^{1/2}`$ is harmless for the applications. The condition (3.86) is weaker than (3.87) as regards the behaviour of $`\widehat{A}_<`$ away from zero, since it requires only $`\widehat{A}_<L_{loc}^2`$ instead of $`\widehat{A}_<L_{loc}^{\mathrm{}}`$. Furthermore (3.86) almost follows from (3.87), up to a change of $`\nu `$ into $`\nu +\epsilon `$. In fact

$$|\xi |^{3/2\nu }\widehat{A}_<_2C\epsilon ^{1/2}|\xi |^{\nu \epsilon }\widehat{A}_<_{\mathrm{}}$$
$`(3.89)`$
for $`\epsilon >0`$. In addition, under the short range condition

$$|\xi |^{3/2\nu }\widehat{A}_{S<}_2C(\mathrm{}nt)^{1/2}|\xi |^\nu \widehat{A}_<_{\mathrm{}}$$
$`(3.90)`$
which is the special case $`m=\nu `$ of (3.88).

The restrictions on $`(\widehat{A}_+,\widehat{\dot{A}}_+)`$ at $`\xi =0`$ expressed by (3.86) have the unpleasant feature that for $`\nu 0`$ they cannot be ensured by imposing decay of $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ at infinity in space and that they require in addition some moment conditions. For instance even for $`A𝒮`$ one has

$$\omega ^{3/2\nu }A_<=C|x|^{3/2+\nu }A_<$$

for $`|\nu |<3/2`$ , which behaves as

$$|x|^{3/2+\nu }A𝑑x$$

as $`|x|\mathrm{}`$ and therefore cannot be in $`L^2`$ for $`\nu 0`$ unless $`A𝑑x=0`$. More generally when $`\nu `$ increases, vanishing of the $`n`$-th moment of $`A`$ is necessary as soon as $`\nu n`$. Actually the parameter $`\mu `$ in (3.63)<sub>μ</sub> has been introduced in order to minimize the number of such conditions by taking $`\mu `$ small.

We now give sufficient conditions on $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ in terms of space decay and vanishing of suitable moments so as to ensure the low frequency part of $`(3.63)_\mu `$.

Lemma 3.5. Let $`1<\mu <1`$. Let $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ satisfy (3.65) (3.66) and in addition

$$xA_+L^{3/(2+\mu )2},\dot{A}_+𝑑x=0,<x>^{1+\mu +\epsilon }\dot{A}_+L^1,$$
$`(3.91)`$
$$A_+,x\dot{A}_+L^{3/(3+\mu )}\text{for}\mu <0,$$
$`(3.92)`$
$$A_+dx=x\dot{A}_+dx=0,<x>^{\mu +\epsilon }A_+L^1\text{for}\mu 0.$$
$`(3.93)`$
Then $`(3.63)_\mu `$ holds.

Proof. The high frequency part of $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ is controlled by (3.65) (3.66) and it is sufficient to consider $`(A_{+<},\dot{A}_{+<})`$, although in some cases the high frequency parts are also controlled by (3.91) (3.92).

We first consider $`xA_+`$. For $`1/2\mu <1`$, we estimate

$$\omega ^{1/2\mu }xA_+_2CxA_+_{3/(2+\mu )}$$
$`(3.94)`$
by Lemma 2.1. For $`\mu 1/2`$, we estimate simply

$$\omega ^{1/2\mu }xA_{+<}_2CxA_+_2.$$
$`(3.95)`$
We next consider $`A_+`$ and $`x\dot{A}_+`$ together and we use $`A`$ to denote either of them. For $`1<\mu <0`$, we estimate

$$\omega ^{3/2\mu }A_2CA_{3/(3+\mu )}$$
$`(3.96)`$
by Lemma 2.1. For $`\mu 0`$, we estimate

$$|\xi |^{\mu \epsilon }|\widehat{A}(\xi )|=(2\pi )^{3/2}|\xi |^{\mu \epsilon }\left|𝑑x\left(\mathrm{exp}(ix\xi )1\right)A(x)\right|$$

$$C|x|^{\mu +\epsilon }A_1$$
$`(3.97)`$
for $`0\mu +\epsilon 1`$. The required estimate then follows from (3.65) (3.66) (3.91) (3.93).

We finally consider $`\dot{A}_+`$. For $`\mu <0`$, we apply the previous result with $`A`$ replaced by $`\dot{A}_+`$ and $`\mu `$ replaced by $`\mu 1`$. For $`\mu 0`$, we estimate

$$|\xi |^{1\mu \epsilon }|\widehat{\dot{A}}(\xi )|=(2\pi )^{3/2}|\xi |^{1\mu \epsilon }𝑑x\left(\mathrm{exp}(ix\xi )1ix\xi \right)\dot{A}_+(x)$$

$$C|x|^{1+\mu +\epsilon }\dot{A}_+_1$$
$`(3.98)`$
for $`0\mu +\epsilon 1`$. The required estimate then follows from (3.65) (3.91) (3.93).

$``$$``$

## 4 Wave operators and asymptotics for (u, A)

In this section we complete the construction of the wave operators for the system (1.1) (1.2) and we derive asymptotic properties of solutions in their range. The construction relies in an essential way on Propositions 3.1 and 3.2. So far we have worked with the system (1.20) for $`(w,s)`$ and the first task is to reconstruct the phase $`\phi `$. Corresponding to $`S=s_0+s_1`$, we define $`\varphi =\phi _0+\phi _1`$ where

$$\phi _0=_1^t𝑑t^{}t^1B_L(w_0(t^{}),w_0(t^{})),$$
(4.1)
$$\phi _1=_t^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t^{}(2t^2)^1|s_0(t^{})|^2+2_t^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t^{}t^1B_L(w_0(t^{}),w_1(t^{})),$$
(4.2)
so that $`s_0=\phi _0`$ and $`s_1=\phi _1`$.

Let now $`(w,s)`$ be the solution of the system (1.20) constructed in Proposition 3.1 and let $`(q,\sigma )=(w,s)(W,S)`$. We define

$`\psi ={\displaystyle _t^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t^{}(2t^2)^1\left(\sigma (\sigma +2S)+s_1(s_1+2s_0)\right)(t^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle _t^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t^{}t^1\left(B_L(q,q)+2B_L(W,q)+B_L(w_1,w_1)\right)(t^{})`$ (4.3)
which is taylored to ensure that $`\psi =\sigma `$, given the fact that $`s_0`$, $`s_1`$ and $`\sigma `$ are gradients. The integral is easily seen to converge in $`\dot{H}^1`$ (see I.8.4), and to satisfy

$$\psi _2=\sigma _2Ct^{\lambda _0}.$$
(4.4)
Finally we define $`\phi =\varphi +\psi `$ so that $`\phi =s`$, and $`(w,\phi )`$ solves the system (1.18). For more details on the reconstruction of $`\phi `$ from $`s`$, we refer to Section 8 of I.

We can now define the wave operators for the system (1.1) (1.2) as follows. We start from the asymptotic state $`(u_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ for $`(u,A)`$. We define $`w_+=Fu_+`$, we define $`B_0`$ by (1.4) (1.13), namely

$$A_0=\dot{K}(t)A_++K(t)\dot{A}_+=t^1D_0B_0,$$

and we define $`(W,S)`$ by (3.25)-(3.29) (3.31).

We next solve the system (1.20) with infinite initial time by Propositions 3.1 and 3.2 and we reconstruct $`\phi `$ from $`s`$ as explained above, namely $`\phi =\phi _0+\phi _1+\psi `$ with $`\phi _0`$, $`\phi _1`$ and $`\psi `$ defined by (4.1) (4.2) (4) with $`(q,\sigma )=(w,s)(W,S)`$. We finally substitute $`(w,\phi )`$ thereby obtained into (1.11) (1.3) thereby obtaining a solution $`(u,A)`$ of the system (1.1) (1.2). The wave operator is defined as the map $`\mathrm{\Omega }:(u_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)(u,A)`$.

In order to state the regularity properties of $`u`$ that follow in a natural way from the previous construction, we introduce appropriate function spaces. In addition to the operators $`M=M(t)`$ and $`D=D(t)`$ defined by (1.8) (1.9), we introduce the operator

$$J=J(t)=x+it,$$
(4.5)
the generator of Galilei transformations. The operators $`M`$, $`D`$, $`J`$ satisfy the commutation relation

$$iMD=JMD.$$
(4.6)
For any interval $`I[1,\mathrm{})`$ and any $`k0`$, we define the space

$`𝒳^k(I)`$ $`=`$ $`\{u:D^{}M^{}u𝒞(I,H^k)\}`$ (4.7)
$`=`$ $`\{u:<J(t)>^ku𝒞(I,L^2)\}`$
where $`<\lambda >=(1+\lambda ^2)^{1/2}`$ for any real number or self-adjoint operator $`\lambda `$ and where the second equality follows from (4.6).

We now collect the information obtained for the solutions of the system (1.1) (1.2) and state the main result of this paper as follows.

Proposition 4.1. Let $`1<k<3/2<\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\mu `$, $`\lambda _0`$, $`\lambda `$, $`\beta _0`$, $`\beta `$ and $`k_+`$ satisfy the conditions (3.78)-(3.83).

Let $`u_+FH^{k_+}`$, let $`w_+=Fu_+`$ and $`a_+=|w_+|_{k_+}`$. Let $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ satisfy (2.10) (3.66) (3.63)<sub>μ</sub>. Let $`(W,S)`$ be defined by (3.25)-(3.29) (3.31). Then

(1) There exists $`T`$, $`1T<\mathrm{}`$ such that the auxiliary system (1.20) has a unique solution $`(w,s)𝒞([T,\mathrm{}),X^{k,\mathrm{}})`$ satisfying

$$w(t)W(t)_2C(a_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)t^{\lambda _0},$$
(4.8)
$$\omega ^k(w(t)W(t))_2C(a_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)t^\lambda ,$$
(4.9)
$$\omega ^m(s(t)S(t))_2C(a_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)t^{\lambda _0+\beta m}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}0m\mathrm{}+1,$$
(4.10)
for all $`tT`$, where the constants $`C(a_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ depend on $`(A_+,\dot{A}_+)`$ through the norms associated with (2.10) (3.66) (3.63)<sub>μ</sub>.

(2) Let $`\varphi =\phi _0+\phi _1`$ be defined by (4.1) (4.2), let $`\phi =\varphi +\psi `$ with $`\psi `$ defined by (4) and $`(q,\sigma )=(w,s)(W,S)`$. Let

$$u=MD\mathrm{exp}(i\phi )w$$
$`(1.11)(4.11)`$
and define $`A`$ by (1.3) (1.4) (1.5). Then $`u𝒳^k([T,\mathrm{}))`$, $`(A,_tA)𝒞([T,\mathrm{}),H^kH^{k1})`$, $`(u,A)`$ solves the system (1.1) (1.2) and $`u`$ behaves asymptotically in time as $`MD\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )W`$ in the sense that it satisfies the following estimates :

$$u(t)M(t)D(t)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi (t))W(t)_2C(a_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)t^{\lambda _0},$$
$`(4.12)`$
$$|J(t)|^k\left(\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi (t,x/t))u(t)M(t)D(t)W(t)\right)_2C(a_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)t^\lambda ,$$
$`(4.13)`$
$$u(t)M(t)D(t)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi (t))W(t)_rC(a_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)t^{\lambda _0+(\lambda _0\lambda )\delta (r)/k}$$
$`(4.14)`$
for $`0\delta (r)=(3/23/r)k`$, for all $`tT`$.

Define in addition

$$A_2=AA_0A_1(|DW|^2).$$
$`(4.15)`$
Then A behaves asymptotically in time as $`A_0+A_1(|DW|^2)`$ in the sense that $`A_2`$ satisfies the following estimates :

$$A_2(t)_2C(a_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)t^{\lambda _0+1/2}$$
$`(4.16)`$
$$A_2(t)_2C(a_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)t^{2\lambda _01/2+(\lambda _0\lambda )3/2k}$$
$`(4.17)`$
$$\omega ^{2k1/2}A_2(t)_2C(a_+,A_+,\dot{A}_+)t^{2\lambda 2k+1}$$
$`(4.18)`$
for all $`tT`$.

(3) The solution $`(u,A)`$ also behaves asymptotically as $`(MD\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )W_1`$, $`A_0+A_1(|DW_1|)^2`$ in the sense that the estimates (4.12)-(4.14) and (4.16)-(4.18) also hold with $`W`$ replaced by $`W_1`$ (see (3.25)).

Sketch of proof. Part (1) is a restatement of the conclusions of Proposition 3.1 supplemented by (4.4) and follows from Propositions 3.1 and 3.2.

Part (2) follows from Part (1) and is proved in exactly the same way as Part (2) of Proposition I.8.1.

Part (3) is proved in the same way as Part (2). It follows from the fact that the only estimates of $`W`$ and $`q=wW`$ that are used in the proof of Part (2) are (3.49) which also holds for $`W_1`$ and (4.8) (4.9) which also hold for $`w_2`$. In fact, the latter estimates hold for $`h`$ by Lemma 3.4, especially (3.65), under the assumptions of Proposition 3.2 and follow therefrom for $`w_2`$ in a trivial way.

$``$$``$

Remark 4.1. It may seem surprising that the improved asymptotic form $`W`$ for $`w`$ does not give rise to better asymptotic estimates than the simpler form $`W_1`$ in the norms (4.12)-(4.14) and (4.16)-(4.18). The reason is that the additional term $`w_2`$ is small and gives rise to small contributions in terms of those norms. This does not prevent that term to give a large contribution to the time derivative $`_tw`$ in (1.20) through the derivative term $`t^2\mathrm{\Delta }w_2`$. That contribution is essential to allow for the solution of the system (1.20) without assuming the support condition. The same phenomenon appears in .

Acknowledgements. We are grateful to Dr. A. Shimomura for enlightening discussions.


format: text

text:
# Short-distance wavefunction statistics in one-dimensional Anderson localization

## 1 Introduction

Wave localization in a disordered potential is the most striking hallmark of systematic interference by multiple coherent scattering sheng ; berk ; Anderson ; review1 ; review2 ; review3 ; review4 ; review5 . Systematic constructive interference in a spatially localized region results in a confinement of the wavefunction, which decays exponentially away from the localization center (with a decay length $`l_{\mathrm{loc}}`$, the localization length), in contrast to the extended waves in constant or spatially periodic potentials. Localization comes along with large fluctuations of the wavefunction, which can be induced by changing the disorder configuration. The wavefunction statistics can be probed, e.g., globally across a system of finite length $`L_{\mathrm{sys}}`$ by the dimensionless conductance (transmission probability) $`g`$, and inside a semi-infinite system ($`L_{\mathrm{sys}}=\mathrm{}`$) by the local density of states $`\nu `$ at a distance $`L_{\mathrm{open}}`$ to the opening.

Theories of localization often focus on the long-distance wavefunction statistics, where a high degree of universality prevails. For instance, distribution functions are restricted to log-normal forms as a consequence of the central limit theorem, which leads to two-parameter scaling (TPS) shapiro2 . Consequentially, for the local density of states, the probability distribution function $`P(\nu )`$ is characterized by the mean logarithm $`C_1^{(\nu )}\mathrm{ln}\nu `$ and its variance $`C_2^{(\nu )}\mathrm{var}\mathrm{ln}\nu `$. The TPS observation has found many applications markoskramer1993 ; Deych1 ; Deych2 ; Deych3 ; luan ; kantelhardt ; queiroz . An even enhanced degree of universality arises in the random-phase approximation (RPA), where single-parameter scaling (SPS) applies abrahams ; anderson1980 ; alt0 ; slevin , and both parameters further are connected, e.g. by $`C_2^{(\nu )}2C_1^{(\nu )}`$ for one-dimensional systems abrikosov ; lifshitz ; altprig . (It was recognized very early that SPS breaks down for strong disorder, see, e.g., Ref. kappus .)

In this paper we point out a connection of the long-distance statistics to the short-distance statistics in the one-dimensional Anderson model of localization, probed by the local density of states $`\nu `$. Namely, we find that the distribution function $`P(\nu )`$ for short distances reliably can be approximated with the help of parameters that are extracted from the long-distance limit, including parameters (besides $`C_1^{(\nu )}`$ and $`C_2^{(\nu )}`$) that are irrelevant, from the perspective of TPS, for the long-distance wavefunction statistics themselves.

We start this paper by an analysis of $`P(\nu )`$ and $`P(g)`$ from the perspective of large-deviation statistics ellis , which goes beyond the central-limit theorem, and identify quantities $`C_n`$, $`n3`$, which are irrelevant for the long-distance wavefunction statistics, but will turn out to be useful for the short-distance wavefunction statistics. Each quantity defines its own length scale by its asymptotic slope $`c_n=lim_L\mathrm{}dC_n/dL`$ (where $`LL_{\mathrm{sys}}`$ for $`g`$ and $`LL_{\mathrm{open}}`$ for $`\nu `$), in analogy to the relation between $`C_12L/l_{\mathrm{loc}}`$ and and the localization length $`l_{\mathrm{loc}}`$. The length scales obtained from $`\nu `$ and $`g`$ coincide. The constant offsets $`d_n=lim_L\mathrm{}C_nLc_n`$ are shown to contain information on the reflection phase, which allows to test the RPA.

Then we discuss that $`P(\nu )`$ for short distances $`L_{\mathrm{open}}l_{\mathrm{loc}}`$ can be reconstructed from the parameters $`c_n`$ and $`d_n`$. This is in striking contrast to $`P(g)`$, for which the parameters show a transient behavior for small $`L_{\mathrm{sys}}`$ (where wavefunctions are not yet localized), as was pointed out very recently in Ref. Deych3  (see also Ref. schomerus2 ). Our observations for the short-distance statistics lead us to conclude that the cumulants $`C_n`$ are useful characteristics of localized wavefunctions, even though they are not relevant in the long-distance limit because of TPS.

Finally, we analytically and numerically investigate the parameters $`c_n`$ and $`d_n`$ in various regimes of the one-dimensional Anderson model.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we describe the general implications of large-deviation statistics for the scaling of the distribution functions $`P(g)`$ and $`P(\nu )`$, and identify the parameters $`c_n`$ ad $`d_n`$ in the cumulants $`C_n`$, $`n3`$. In Section 3 we specialize to the one-dimensional Anderson model. In order to motivate subsequent considerations, we first illustrate in Section 3.1 the length dependence of the cumulants $`C_n`$ by numerical simulations. Then (Section 3.2) we briefly review the analytical theory for the asymptotic slopes $`c_n`$ schomerus2 ; schomerus1  and extent it to the case of competition between onsite disorder and offsite disorder close to the band center. We also present the theory for the asymptotic offsets $`d_n`$. In Section 3.3 we investigate the dependence of the parameters in various regimes of the Anderson model. Our conclusions are given in Sec. 4.

In order to facilitate a parallel discussion of the statistics of $`g`$ and $`\nu `$, we use the common notation $`LL_{\mathrm{sys}}`$ when considering $`g`$ and $`LL_{\mathrm{open}}`$ when considering $`\nu `$. One has to bear in mind that in the latter case, $`L_{\mathrm{sys}}=\mathrm{}`$ and hence one always discusses localized wavefunctions, while in the former case this is true only for $`LL_{\mathrm{sys}}l_{\mathrm{loc}}`$.

## 2 Large-deviation statistics

Large-deviation statistics often is introduced as the third and final step in a progressively refined analysis of the asymptotic behavior of probability distribution functions, where the first step is the law of large numbers and the second is the central-limit theorem. In localization, the law of large numbers certifies that the Lyapunov exponent $`\gamma =C_1^{(g)}/2L`$ is self-averaging in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ oseledec , with asymptotic value $`lim_L\mathrm{}\gamma =l_{\mathrm{loc}}^1`$. The central-limit theorem delivers a statement about the finite-length corrections to this asymptotic value, which are characterized by $`C_2^{(g)}`$: The variance $`\mathrm{var}\gamma =C_2^{(g)}/L^2`$ decreases asymptotically as $`L^1`$. Presently, we find it useful not address the Lyapunov exponents, since these are defined with help of the system length $`L`$, but to rely on quantities that only involve $`g`$ or $`\nu `$, like $`C_1^{(g)}`$, $`C_2^{(g)}`$, $`C_1^{(\nu )}`$, and $`C_2^{(\nu )}`$. The law of large numbers and the central-limit theorem predict a linear growth of these quantities with $`L`$. The full picture is unfolded in the framework of large-deviation statistics ellis : All cumulants can increase linearly with length or distance,

$`C_n^{(g)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{ln}g)^nc_n^{(g)}L+d_n^{(g)}(Ll_{\mathrm{loc}}),`$ (1a)
$`C_n^{(\nu )}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{ln}\nu )^nc_n^{(\nu )}L+d_n^{(\nu )}(Ll_{\mathrm{loc}}),`$ (1b)
where the coefficients $`d_n`$ are the subleading corrections that can be neglected in the asymptotic limit, but will be seen to encode information on the reflection phase that allows to test the validity of the RPA. For the conductance $`g`$, the linear scaling of the cumulants $`C_n^{(g)}`$ with $`L`$ and the connection of the $`d_n^{(g)}`$ to reflection phases also has been found in a constructive theory by Roberts Roberts:1992 . The parameters $`c_n`$ can be extracted from the averages

$$c^{(g)}(\xi )=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{L}\mathrm{ln}g^\xi =\underset{n}{}\frac{\xi ^n}{n!}c_n^{(g)}$$
(2)
(or equivalently for $`\nu `$) as function of the continuous parameter $`\xi `$. Note the exponential dependence of the moments on $`L`$ due to localization, in contrast to the power-law dependence in the critical regime around a metal-insulator transition review4 .

This paper is centered around our numerical observation in Sec. 3 that Eq. (1b) holds even for short distances to the opening $`L_{\mathrm{open}}l_{\mathrm{loc}}`$, and hence can be used in regions where the central-limit theorem does not apply. This makes the parameters $`c_n`$ and $`d_n`$ with $`n3`$ observable in the distribution function $`P(\nu )`$, while in the long-distance behavior only $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are relevant parameters shapiro2 .

Presently, analytical results for the distribution function $`P(g)`$ and $`P(\nu )`$ for short distances are only available in the regime of single-parameter scaling. The local density of states obeys a strict log-normal distribution for all distances altprig ; mesodos , and hence complies with our central observation. Equation (1a) cannot be extended to short distances, even in the regime of single-parameter scaling abrikosov ; for studies outside this regime see, e.g., Refs. Deych3 ; schomerus2 .

## 3 One-dimensional Anderson model

The previous section 2 put forward some very general arguments from large-deviation statistics. The relevance of the asymptotically defined parameters $`c_n`$ (and $`d_n`$), $`n3`$ for finite-distance wavefunction statistics, and the question whether these parameters indeed contain information that is independent from what is encoded in the parameters $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$, only can be answered by a direct investigation. In the following we will analyze the wavefunction statistics in the one-dimensional Anderson model Anderson , given by the Schrödinger equation discretized on a chain (lattice constant $`a1`$)

$$t_{l1}\psi _{l1}+t_l\psi _{l+1}=(V_lE)\psi _l,$$
(3)
where the hopping matrix elements $`t_l`$ and the disorder potential $`V_l`$ are random. We assume box distributions with $`t_l=t`$, $`V_l=0`$, $`t_lt_m=t^2+\frac{1}{2}D_t\delta _{lm}`$, and $`V_lV_m=2D_V\delta _{lm}`$. Without any restriction we can set $`t=1`$, which fixes the energy scale in the dispersion relation $`E(k)=2\mathrm{cos}k`$ of the clean system ($`D_t=D_V=0`$). The disorder strength will be characterized by the perturbative mean-free path Thouless1979

$$l_{\mathrm{pert}}=(4E^2)/(D_V+D_t),$$
(4)
and the balance between onsite and offsite disorder will be characterized by the parameter

$$\delta =(D_VD_t)/(D_V+D_t).$$
(5)
First we will present the results of numerical simulations to illustrate the usefulness of the cumulants $`C_n`$. Next, in order to give a flavor for the mechanism behind the asymptotic linear growth (1) of the cumulants for the specific case of wavefunction localization, we extent the analytical theory of Refs. schomerus2 ; schomerus1  for the asymptotic slopes $`c_n`$ to the case of competition of onsite- and offsite disorder close to the band center $`E=0`$, and also present the theory for the offsets $`d_n`$. The extension equips us with a means to violate SPS, which is finally compared to other means in order to determine the mutual (in)dependence of the parameters $`c_n`$ and $`d_n`$.

### 3.1 Numerical illustration of the cumulants $`C_n`$

Here we illustrate the length dependence of the cumulants $`C_n`$ by the results of numerical computations in ensembles of $`10^610^8`$ disorder realizations. The results for different strengths of onsite disorder ($`\delta =1`$) are presented in Fig. 1 ($`l_{\mathrm{pert}}=300`$), Fig. 2 ($`l_{\mathrm{pert}}=24`$), and Fig. 3 ($`l_{\mathrm{pert}}=1.5`$). Three representative values of energy are chosen: (a) $`E=0`$ at the band center, (b) $`E=1`$ in the SPS region, (c) $`E=1.95`$ close to the band edge. \[The constant perturbative mean free path $`l_{\mathrm{pert}}`$ in any figure has been obtained by adjusting the disorder strength according to Eq. (4); for values see the figure captions.\] The significance of these three regions of energy will be discussed in the following Subsection 3.2. Plotted as a function of length are the cumulants $`C_n`$ calculated from $`g`$ and $`\nu `$, as well as from the ‘mesoscopic’ local density of states $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$, which is obtained from $`\nu `$ by averaging over a Fermi wavelength $`\lambda _\mathrm{F}=2\pi /\mathrm{arccos}(E/2)`$ (with $`\lambda _\mathrm{F}=4`$ for $`E=0`$, $`\lambda _\mathrm{F}=6`$ for $`E=1`$, and $`\lambda _F28`$ for $`E=1.95`$). The mesoscopic density of states accounts for a limited resolution that may be encountered in an experiment. It discards the nodes of the wavefunction (whose impact strongly depends on the dimensionality of the system) and only captures the smoothly varying envelope (which is more robust).

The cumulants all increase linearly for $`Ll_{\mathrm{loc}}`$, and one may associate a length scale $`lim_L\mathrm{}2L/C_n=2/c_n`$ to each of them. The slopes $`c_n`$ are identical for all three underlying objects, and hence for the sets of parameters $`\{c_n^{(g)}\}=\{c_n^{(\nu )}\}=\{c_n^{(\stackrel{~}{\nu })}\}\{c_n\}`$ coincide.

As advertised above, the cumulants $`C_n^{(\nu )}`$ and $`C_n^{(\stackrel{~}{\nu })}`$ increase linearly already for small $`Ll_{\mathrm{loc}}`$ (moreover, the offsets for $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ are vanishingly small), while the cumulants $`C_n^{(g)}`$ become linear only after some transient length, see Ref. Deych3  (these cumulants also have a finite offset $`d_n^{(g)}`$). This means that the asymptotically defined parameters $`c_n^{(\nu )}`$ and $`d_n^{(\nu )}`$ can be used to estimate the short-distance behavior of $`C_n^{(\nu )}`$ and $`C_n^{(\stackrel{~}{\nu })}`$. In order to estimate the distribution functions, parameters with $`n3`$ have to be included, since the central-limit theorem does not yet apply for short distances. This is displayed in Fig. 4, which compares $`P(\mathrm{ln}\nu )`$ for $`L=l_{\mathrm{loc}}/2`$, $`E=1`$, $`l_{\mathrm{pert}}=24`$ with a normal distribution, which only accounts for $`C_1^{(\nu )}`$ and $`C_2^{(\nu )}`$, and with a generalized normal distribution (the so-called Pearson system pearson ),

$`P(x)=C(a+bx+cx^2)^{1/2c}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(b+2cm)\mathrm{arctan}[(b+2cx)/\sqrt{4acb^2}]}{c\sqrt{4acb^2}}}\right],`$ (6)
which accounts for the first four cumulants by the four constants $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`m`$. The cumulants have been reconstructed from their asymptotics (1b) (hence, from the asymptotically defined quantities $`c_n^{(\nu )}`$ and $`d_n^{(\nu )}`$), and differ from the numerical values of the data by less than three percent.

### 3.2 Analytical theory for the slopes $`c_n`$ and offsets $`d_n`$

#### 3.2.1 Slopes $`c_n`$

Recently schomerus2 ; schomerus1 , we have been able to extent Halperin’s phase formalism halperin ; lifshitz , which allows to calculate $`l_{\mathrm{loc}}`$ and hence $`c_1`$, to all slopes $`c_n`$. This formalism can be applied for arbitrary $`\lambda _\mathrm{F}/l_{\mathrm{pert}}`$, i.e., also for relatively strong disorder, as long as $`l_{\mathrm{pert}}1`$ (the lattice constant, set to unity in this paper). Other formalisms like the supersymmetric $`\sigma `$ model and the Berezinskiǐ technique are rather more restrictive and cannot directly address the logarithm of $`g`$ and $`\nu `$. It turned out that three different regions of energy have to be distinguished in the one-dimensional Anderson model. For energies $`2|E|D^{2/3}`$ close to the band edge, corresponding to relatively strong disorder, the RPA fails and the distribution function deviates from the strict log-normal form schomerus1 . RPA fails also for energies $`|E|D`$ close to the band-center Stone , and the distribution function again deviates from the strict log-normal form schomerus2 , in generalization of the Kappus-Wegner anomaly of $`l_{\mathrm{loc}}`$ at $`E=0`$ kappus ; derrida ; goldhirsch . For other energies inside the band, the RPA is justified, and SPS holds, for weak disorder.

Offsite disorder adds another means to depart from SPS at the band center, since the balance parameter $`\delta `$ interpolates between the Kappus-Wegner anomaly at $`\delta =1`$ ($`D_t=0`$) and the Dyson singularity at $`\delta =1`$ ($`D_V=0`$), which results in total delocalization Dyson1a ; Dyson1b ; Dyson2a ; Dyson2b ; Bovier . In the vicinity of the band center, we derive the following Fokker-Planck equation for the joint distribution function $`P(u,\alpha ;L)`$ of $`u\mathrm{ln}g\mathrm{ln}\nu `$, and the phase $`\alpha `$ for reflection from the system:

$`(D_V+D_t)^1{\displaystyle \frac{P}{L}}=[_\alpha ({\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}s_{2\alpha }\epsilon )+_\alpha ^2(1+\delta c_\alpha ^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_u(1+\delta c_{2\alpha })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_u^2(1\delta c_{2\alpha })+_u_\alpha \delta s_{2\alpha }]P,`$ (7)
where $`s_x=\mathrm{sin}x`$, $`c_x=\mathrm{cos}x`$, $`\epsilon =E/(D_V+D_t)`$, and $``$ denotes partial derivatives. For $`\delta =1`$, this equation has been used to study the wavefunction statistics at the Kappus-Wegner anomaly schomerus1 . For $`\delta =1`$, $`E=0`$, one recovers the delocalization at the Dyson anomaly. At the balance point of onsite and offsite disorder $`\delta =0`$, the variables $`u`$ and $`\alpha `$ decouple. For $`L\mathrm{}`$ the reflection phase $`\alpha `$ becomes completely random, while $`P(u)`$ precisely takes the form of SPS, with asymptotic slopes $`c_2=2c_1`$ and $`c_n=0`$ for $`n3`$. Hence, somewhat surprisingly, we find that RPA and SPS hold true by a particularly simple mechanism just in between the two abovementioned anomalies.

Away from the novel SPS point $`\delta =0`$, but for disorder still small, the asymptotic behavior of the distribution function can be analyzed by introducing into Eq. (7) the large-deviation ansatz

$$P(u,\alpha ;L)=_i\mathrm{}^{+i\mathrm{}}\frac{d\xi }{2\pi i}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}[c(\xi )L\xi u]f(\alpha ;\xi ).$$
(8)
Here $`c(\xi )=_n\xi ^nc_n/n!`$ is the generating function of the slopes of the cumulants, see Eqs. (1) and (2), and $`f(\alpha ;\xi )`$ has to be periodic and normalizable with respect to $`\alpha `$. We arrive at a differential equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{c(\xi )f(\alpha ;\xi )}{D_V+D_t}}=[_\alpha ({\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}s_{2\alpha }\epsilon )+_\alpha ^2(1+\delta c_\alpha ^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}(1+\delta c_{2\alpha }2_\alpha \delta s_{2\alpha })+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{2}}(1\delta c_{2\alpha })]f(\alpha ;\xi ),`$ (9)
in which the slope-generating function $`c(\xi )`$ appears as an eigenvalue, while $`f(\alpha ;\xi )`$ appears as an eigenfunction. The slopes $`c_n`$ now can be calculated iteratively by expanding $`c(\xi )`$ and $`f(\alpha ;\xi )`$ order by order in $`\xi `$, following Refs. schomerus2 ; schomerus1 . Away from the SPS point $`\delta =0`$ but for $`|E|D_V+D_t`$, the slopes $`c_n`$ take finite values, in compliance with Eq. (1). Our analytical results are confirmed by numerical computations in Fig. 5.

#### 3.2.2 Constant offsets $`d_n`$

The offsets $`d_n^{(\nu )}C_n^{(\nu )}(L=0)`$ can be calculated by expressing the local density of states $`\nu (L)`$ in terms of the reflection coefficients $`r_\mathrm{R}`$ ($`r_\mathrm{L}`$) from the segment of the wire to the right (left) of the point $`L`$ at which $`\nu `$ is calculated mesodos ,

$$\nu (L)=\mathrm{Re}\frac{(1+r_\mathrm{L})(1+r_\mathrm{R})}{1r_\mathrm{L}r_\mathrm{R}},$$
(10)
where we normalized $`\nu (L)=1`$ (which amounts to multiplication by a constant factor $`\pi \sqrt{4E^2}`$). For $`L=0`$ and the opening of the wire oriented to the left, $`r_\mathrm{L}=0`$ because there is no reflection from the opening, and $`r_\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha )`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the phase of reflection from the semi-infinite system. Hence, the numbers

$$d_n^{(\nu )}C_n^{(\nu )}(L=0)=[\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{cos}\alpha )]^n$$
(11)
characterize the distribution of the reflection phase $`\alpha `$ of the semi-infinite system mesodos , and allow to assess the validity of the RPA, which predicts $`d_1^{(\nu )}=\mathrm{ln}2`$, $`d_2^{(\nu )}=\pi ^2/3`$, $`d_3^{(\nu )}=12\zeta (3)`$ (with the Riemann $`\zeta `$ function), $`d_4^{(\nu )}=14\pi ^4/15`$.

The offsets $`d_n^{(\stackrel{~}{\nu })}C_n^{(\stackrel{~}{\nu })}(L=0)`$ vanish independently of the RPA since in terms of the reflection matrices introduced above

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }(L)=\mathrm{Re}\frac{1+r_\mathrm{L}r_\mathrm{R}}{1r_\mathrm{L}r_\mathrm{R}},$$
(12)
and hence $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }(0)=1`$.

The offsets $`d_n^{(g)}`$ are obtained by considering the composition law $`t_{\mathrm{R}+\mathrm{L}}=t_\mathrm{R}(1r_\mathrm{L}r_\mathrm{R})^1t_\mathrm{L}`$ for the series transmission through two long segments R and L. The reflection coefficients now are equivalent phase factors $`r_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{L}}=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha _{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{L}})`$. We equate the cumulants of both sides and insert the asymptotics (1). The constant offsets follow as $`d_n^{(g)}=(1)^n\{\mathrm{ln}[22\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _\mathrm{R}+\alpha _\mathrm{L})]\}^n`$. In the RPA, $`d_1^{(g)}=0`$ and $`d_n^{(g)}=(1)^nd_n^{(\nu )}`$. This is clearly displayed in Fig. 1. Beyond the RPA, the $`d_n^{(g)}`$ and $`d_n^{(\nu )}`$ contain equivalent information on the reflection-phase distribution function $`P(\alpha )`$, but no longer are simply related.

### 3.3 Independence of the parameters

Now we turn to the question of the mutual independence of the parameters $`c_n`$, as we violate the conditions for SPS.

A convenient set of parameters beyond the SPS quantity $`C_1`$ is formed by the ratios $`X_n=C_n/C_1`$, which asymptotically acquire the constant values

$$\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}X_n=X_n^{(\mathrm{})}=c_n/c_1.$$
(13)
In RPA and SPS, only one effective parameter $`C_1`$ survives since $`c_2^{(g)}=c_2^{(\nu )}=2c_1^{(g)}=2c_1^{(\nu )}`$, i.e., $`X_2^{(\mathrm{})}=2`$, and moreover $`c_n^{(g)}=c_n^{(\nu )}=0`$ for $`n3`$, which gives a picture consistent with SPS. However, beyond this approximation the cumulants $`C_n`$ with $`n3`$ generally may increase linearly with $`L`$, and hence can be of the same order as $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$, such that all $`X_n^{(\mathrm{})}`$ are of order unity. Notice that the asymptotic value $`X_n^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is well approximated by $`X_n^{(\stackrel{~}{\nu })}`$ even for $`Ll_{\mathrm{loc}}`$, since the cumulants $`C_n^{(\stackrel{~}{\nu })}`$ are linear already for small $`L`$ and the offsets $`d_n^{(\stackrel{~}{\nu })}`$ vanish.

In Fig. 6 we plot the asymptotic ratios of cumulants $`X_3^{(\mathrm{})}`$ and $`X_4^{(\mathrm{})}`$ as function of $`X_2^{(\mathrm{})}`$, while we vary:

(a) the balance parameter $`\delta `$ at $`E=0`$ (a i) from 0 to 1 and (a ii) from 0 to $`1`$;

(b) energy for fixed onsite disorder (b i) around $`E=0`$ and (b ii) around $`|E|=2`$; and

(c) the disorder strength from $`l_{\mathrm{pert}}=300`$ to $`l_{\mathrm{pert}}=1.5`$ at $`\delta =1`$ for the three values of energy (c i) $`E=0`$, (c ii) $`E=1`$, and (c iii) $`E=1.95`$.

In the cases (a) and (b) we show the results of the analytical procedure described above, while for (c) we show the result of the numerical simulations. For illustration of the predictive power of the theory presented in the previous Sec. 3.2, numerical results are also displayed for case (a).

Of particular interest is the curve for case (b ii), for energies close to the band edge, which also applies to strong disorder, $`D^{2/3}2|E|`$ schomerus1 . \[See also the data points for case (c iii).\] In this case the curves $`X_n^{(\mathrm{})}(X_2^{(\mathrm{})})`$ depart from the seemingly unique functional behavior obtained in the other cases. Hence, we are led to conclude that at least for sufficiently strong disorder $`X_3^{(\mathrm{})}`$ and $`X_4^{(\mathrm{})}`$ are not uniquely determined by $`X_2^{(\mathrm{})}`$. Since the SPS quantity $`C_1`$ is always an independent scaling parameter, altogether more than two quantities are needed to characterize the distribution function $`P(\nu )`$ for short distances $`Ll_{\mathrm{loc}}`$ (where the central-limit theorem, and hence TPS, not yet applies).

## 4 Conclusions

We observed that the short-distance statistics of localized wavefunctions inside a long one-dimensional disordered system can be recovered from the long-distance statistics, but in general are characterized by more than the two parameters (a mean $`C_1`$ and a variance $`C_2`$) that suffice to describe the long-distance statistics themselves. These additional parameters have been obtained from the higher cumulants $`C_n`$ of $`\mathrm{ln}\nu `$, where $`\nu `$ is the local density in a semi-infinite system. The additional parameters in the $`C_n`$ can be neglected when considering the case of weak disorder and generic energies within the band: Then $`C_1C_2/2L`$, and also $`C_n=O(L^0)`$ for $`n3`$ take universal values, which results in a picture consistent with single-parameter scaling even in the short-distance wavefunction statistics.

With three-dimensional systems in mind, it would be desirable to investigate the relation of the parameters from large deviation statistics to the scaling parameters at the metal-insulator transition, which may be established by multi-fractal analysis when this transition is approached from the localized regime.

Another potential application of the higher cumulants is to use them for detecting spatial correlations in the disorder, since the higher cumulants are sensitive to higher-point wavefunction correlations. This offers a natural extension of a previous investigation Brenner:Fishman:1992 , which demonstrated that deviations from randomness due to spatial three-point correlations (such as displayed by a folded Fibonacci sequence) cannot be detected by the conventional wavefunction statistics.