1: \documentclass[12pt]{amsart}

2: %\usepackage[notcite]{showkeys}

3: 

4: \usepackage{color}

5: 

6: \usepackage{amssymb}

7: \usepackage{graphicx}  

8: \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pstex,.eps}

9: %\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf}

10: 

11: \newcommand{\PSbox}[1]{\includegraphics[0in,0in][3in,3in]{#1}}

12: 

13: 

14: \setlength{\textheight}{8in} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.0in}

15: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.0in} \setlength{\textwidth}{6.4in}

16: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.18in} \setlength{\headheight}{0.18in}

17: \setlength{\marginparwidth}{1.0in}

18: \setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{0.2in}

19: 

20: \setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{0.2in}

21: 

22: \setlength{\parskip}{0.05in}

23: 

24: 

25: \pagestyle{headings}

26: \newcommand{\F}{{\mathcal F}} 

27: \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}}

28: \newcommand{\CI}{{\mathcal C}^\infty }

29: \newcommand{\CIc}{{\mathcal C}^\infty_{\rm{c}} }

30: \newcommand{\Oo}{{\mathcal O}} 

31: \newcommand{\D}{{\mathcal D}}

32: \newcommand{\ZZ}{{\mathbb Z}}

33: \newcommand{\Q}{{\mathbb Q}}

34: \newcommand{\RR}{{\mathbb R}}

35: \newcommand{\TT}{{\mathbb T}}

36: \newcommand{\SP}{{\mathbb S}}

37: \newcommand{\defeq}{\stackrel{\rm{def}}{=}}

38: \newcommand{\HH}{{\mathcal H}}

39: \newcommand{\NN}{{\mathbb N}}

40: \newcommand{\Tr}{\operatorname{Tr}}

41: \newcommand{\vol}{\operatorname{vol}}

42: \newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}

43: \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}

44: \renewcommand{\l}{\lambda}

45: \newcommand{\supp}{\operatorname{supp}}

46: \newcommand{\kerr}{\operatorname{ker}}

47: \newcommand{\itA}{\operatorname{it}}

48: \newcommand{\comp}{\operatorname{comp}}

49: \newcommand{\loc}{\operatorname{loc}}

50: \newcommand{\Diff}{\operatorname{Diff}}

51: \newcommand{\tr}{\operatorname{tr}}

52: \newcommand{\Spec}{\operatorname{Spec}}

53: \newcommand{\Res}{\operatorname{Res}}

54: \newcommand{\rest}{\!\!\restriction}

55: \newcommand{\ttt}{|\hspace{-0.25mm}|\hspace{-0.25mm}|}

56: \renewcommand{\Re}{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}

57: \renewcommand{\Im}{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}

58: \newcommand{\ad}{\operatorname{ad}}

59: \newcommand{\spec}{\operatorname{spec}}

60: 

61: 

62: \theoremstyle{plain}

63: \def\Rm#1{{\rm#1}}

64: \newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}

65: \newtheorem{prop}{Proposition}[section]

66: \newtheorem{cor}[prop]{Corollary}

67: \newtheorem{lem}[prop]{Lemma}

68: 

69: \theoremstyle{definition}

70: \newtheorem{ex}{EXAMPLE}[section]

71: \newtheorem*{exmple}{Example}

72: \newtheorem{rem}{Remark}[section]

73: \newtheorem{defn}[prop]{Definition} 

74: 

75: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

76: \newcommand{\thmref}[1]{Theorem~\ref{#1}}

77: \newcommand{\secref}[1]{Section~\ref{#1}}

78: \newcommand{\lemref}[1]{Lemma~\ref{#1}}

79: \newcommand{\exref}[1]{Example~\ref{#1}}

80: \newcommand{\corref}[1]{Corollary~\ref{#1}}

81: \newcommand{\propref}[1]{Proposition~\ref{#1}}

82: \def\bbbone{{\mathchoice {1\mskip-4mu {\rm{l}}} {1\mskip-4mu {\rm{l}}}

83: { 1\mskip-4.5mu {\rm{l}}} { 1\mskip-5mu {\rm{l}}}}}

84: \newcommand{\mn}[1]{\Vert#1\Vert}

85: \def\squarebox#1{\hbox to #1{\hfill\vbox to #1{\vfill}}} 

86: \newcommand{\stopthm}{\hfill\hfill\vbox{\hrule\hbox{\vrule\squarebox 

87:                  {.667em}\vrule}\hrule}\smallskip} 

88: \newcommand{\sech}{\textnormal{sech}}

89: 

90: % Justin's macros and packages

91: \newcommand{\indentalign}{\hspace{0.3in}&\hspace{-0.3in}}

92: \newcommand{\la}{\langle}

93: \newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}

94: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}

95: \newcommand{\nlso}{\textnormal{NLS}_0}

96: \newcommand{\nlsq}{\textnormal{NLS}_q}

97: \newcommand{\trans}{\textnormal{tr}}

98: \newcommand{\refl}{\textnormal{ref}}

99: \newcommand{\R}{\textnormal{Re}\,}

100: %\usepackage{amsthm}

101: \usepackage{amsxtra}

102: 

103: \title

104: [Fast soliton scattering by delta impurities]

105: {Fast soliton scattering by delta impurities}

106: 

107: \author[J. Holmer]

108: {Justin Holmer}

109: %\email{holmer@math.berkeley.edu}

110: \author[J. Marzuola]

111: {Jeremy Marzuola}

112: %\email{marzuola@math.berkeley.edu}

113: \author[M. Zworski]

114: {Maciej Zworski}

115: %\email{zworski@math.berkeley.edu}

116: \address{Mathematics Department, University of California \\

117: Evans Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}

118: 

119: 

120: \begin{document}    

121:    

122: \maketitle   

123: 

124: \begin{abstract}

125: We study the Gross-Pitaevskii equation with a repulsive delta function potential.  We show that a high velocity incoming soliton is split into a transmitted component and a reflected component.   The transmitted mass ($L^2$ norm squared) is shown to be in good agreement with the quantum transmission rate of the delta function potential.  We further show that the transmitted and reflected components resolve into solitons plus dispersive radiation, and quantify the mass and phase of these solitons.

126: \end{abstract}

127:    

128: \section{Introduction}   

129: \label{in}

130: 

131: We study the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (NLS) with a repulsive delta function potential ($q>0$)

132: \begin{equation}

133: \label{eq:nls}

134: \left\{

135: \begin{aligned}

136: &i\partial_t u + \tfrac{1}{2}\partial_x^2 u -q\delta_0(x)u +u|u|^2 = 0\\

137: &u(x,0) = u_0(x)

138: \end{aligned}

139: \right.

140: \end{equation}

141: As initial data we take a fast soliton approaching the impurity from the left:

142: \begin{equation}

143: \label{eq:init}

144:  u_0 ( x ) = e^{ i v x } \sech ( x - x_0 ) \,, \ \ v \gg 1 \,,

145: \ \  x_0 \ll 0.

146: \end{equation}

147: Because of the homogeneity of the problem this covers the case of the general soliton profile $ A \sech ( A x ) $.  The quantum transmission rate at velocity $ v $ is given by the square of the absolute value of the transmission coefficient, 

148: see  \eqref{eq:tr} below,

149: \begin{equation}

150: \label{eq:tqv}

151:   T_q ( v ) = | t_q ( v ) |^2 = \frac{ v^2}{ v^2 + q^2 } \,.

152: \end{equation}

153: For the soliton scattering the natural definition of the transmission rate is given by 

154: \begin{equation}

155: \label{eq:tqs} 

156:  T_q^{\rm{s}} ( v ) = \lim_{ t\rightarrow \infty } 

157: \frac{ \| u ( t ) \rest_{ x > 0 } \|_{L^2} ^2 }{ \| u ( t )  \|_{ L^2}^2} 

158:  =  \frac{1} 2  \lim_{ t\rightarrow \infty } 

159: { \| u ( t ) \rest_{ x > 0 } \|_{L^2} ^2 }

160: \,,\end{equation}

161: provided that the limit exists.   We expect that it {\em does} and that for fixed $q/v$, there is a $\sigma>0$ such that 

162: \begin{equation}

163: \label{eq:conj}

164: T^{\rm{s}}_q(v) = T_q(v) + {\mathcal O}(v^{-\sigma}),   

165: \quad \text{as }v\to +\infty  \,.

166: \end{equation}

167: Based on the comparison with the linear case (see \eqref{eq:rem} below)

168: and the numerical evidence \cite{HMZ2} we expect \eqref{eq:conj} with $ \sigma = 2$.

169: 

170: 

171: \begin{figure}

172: \scalebox{0.5}{\input{snap1a.pstex_t}} \hfill \scalebox{0.5}{\input{snap1b.pstex_t}}

173: \scalebox{0.5}{\input{snap1c.pstex_t}} \hfill \scalebox{0.5}{\input{snap1d.pstex_t}}

174: 

175: \caption{\label{f:solv3} Numerical simulation of the case $q=v=3$, $x_0=-10$, at times $t=0.0, 2.7, 3.3, 4.0$.  Each frame is a plot of amplitude $|u|$ versus $x$.}

176: \end{figure}

177: 

178: 

179: Towards this heuristic claim we have

180: 

181: \begin{thm}

182: \label{th:1}

183: % Let $q>0$ and 

184: Let $ \delta $ satisfy $\frac{2}{3}<\delta<1$.  

185: If $u(x,t)$ is the solution of \eqref{eq:nls} with initial condition 

186: \eqref{eq:init} and $x_0\leq -v^{1-\delta}$, then for fixed $q/v$,

187: \begin{equation}

188: \label{eq:th}

189:  \frac12 \int_{x>0} |u(x,t)|^2 \, dx = \frac{v^2}{v^2+q^2} 

190: + \mathcal{O}(v^{1-\frac32\delta}), \quad \text{as }v \to +\infty\,, 

191: \end{equation}

192: uniformly for 

193: %``post-interaction'' times

194: $$\frac{|x_0|}{v} + v^{-\delta} \leq t \leq (1-\delta)\log v$$

195: \end{thm}

196: 

197: We see that by taking $\delta$ very close to $1$, we obtain an asymptotic rate 

198: just shy of $v^{-1/2}$.  More precisely, we show that there exists 

199: \[ v_0 = v_0 ( q/v , \delta ) \,,\]

200: diverging   to $+\infty$ as $\delta \uparrow 1$ and $q/v \to +\infty$, 

201: such that for fixed $ q/v $, if $v\geq v_0$, then

202: $$\left| \frac{1}{2} \int_{x>0} |u(x,t)|^2 dx - \frac{v^2}{v^2+q^2} \right| \leq cv^{1-\frac{3}{2}\delta} .$$

203: The constant $c$ appearing here is 

204: independent of all parameters ($q$, $v$, and $\delta$).  

205: 

206: We have conducted a numerical verification of Theorem \ref{th:1} -- see Fig.\ \ref{f:nice}.  It shows that the approximation given by \eqref{eq:th} is very good even for velocities as low as $\sim 3$, at least for 

207: \[ 0.6 \leq \alpha \defeq q/v \leq 1.4 \,.\] 

208: A more elaborate numerical analysis will appear 

209: in our forthcoming paper \cite{HMZ2}.

210: 

211: \begin{figure}

212: \scalebox{0.8}{\input{vasymp.pstex_t}}

213: \caption{\label{f:nice} A plot of the numerically obtained transmission $T_q^{\text{s}}(v)$ versus velocity $v$ for five values of $\alpha =q/v=0.6,0.8,1.0,1.2,1.4$.  The dashed lines are the corresponding theoretical $v\to +\infty$ asymptotic values given by $1/(1+\alpha^2)$.}

214: \end{figure}

215: 

216: Our second result shows that the scattered solution is given, on the same time scale, by a sum of a reflected and a transmitted soliton, and of a time decaying (radiating) term -- see the fourth frame of Fig.\ \ref{f:solv3}. This is further supported by a forthcoming numerical study \cite{HMZ2}.  In previous works in the physics literature (see for instance \cite{CM}) the resulting waves were only described as ``soliton-like''.

217: 

218: \begin{thm}

219: \label{th:2} 

220: Under the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{th:1} and for 

221: $$ \frac{|x_0|}{v}+1 \leq  t  \leq (1-\delta) \log v, $$ 

222: we have, as $v\to +\infty$, 

223: \begin{gather}

224: \label{eq:th2}

225: \begin{gathered}

226: u(x,t)  = u_T ( x , t) + u_R ( x , t ) 

227:  + \mathcal{O}_{L_x^\infty}\left(\left(t-{|x_0|}/{v}\right)^{-1/2}\right) 

228: + {\mathcal O}_{L_x^2}( v^{1-\frac{3}{2}\delta})  \,,  \\

229:  u_T ( x , t )  =  e^{ i \varphi_T} 

230: e^{ixv + i  ( A_T^2 - v^2 )t /2 }  A_T \, \sech(A_T(x-x_0-tv)) \,, \\

231: u_R ( x, t)   =  e^{i \varphi_R} 

232:  e^{-ixv + i  ( A_R^2 - v^2 ) t/2 } A_R \, \sech(A_R(x+x_0+tv)) \,, 

233: \end{gathered}

234: \end{gather}

235: where $ A_T = (2|t_q(v)|-1)_+  $, $ A_R = (2|r_q(v)|-1)_+ $, and

236: \begin{gather}

237: \label{eq:th3}

238: \begin{gathered}

239: \varphi_T = \arg t_q ( v ) + \varphi_0(|t_q(v)|) + (1-A_T^2)|x_0|/2v \,, 

240: \\

241: \varphi_R = \arg r_q ( v ) + \varphi_0(|r_q(v)|) + (1-A_R^2)|x_0|/2v \,, 

242: \end{gathered}

243: \end{gather}

244: $$\varphi_0(\omega) =  \int_0^\infty \log\left( 1 + \frac{\sin^2\pi \omega}{\cosh^2\pi \zeta} \right) \frac{\zeta}{\zeta^2+(2\omega-1)^2} \, d\zeta \,. $$

245: Here $ t_q ( v ) $ and $ r_q ( v ) $ are the transmission and reflection coefficients of the delta-potential (see \eqref{eq:tr}).  When $ 2 | t_q ( v ) | =1 $ or $ 2 | r_q ( v ) | = 1 $ the first error term in \eqref{eq:th2} is modified to $ {\mathcal O}_{ L^\infty_x } ( (\log  ( t - |x_0|/v ))/( t - |x_0|/v ))^{\frac12} ) $.  

246: \end{thm}

247: Here and later we use the standard notation

248: \begin{equation}

249: \label{eq:sta}  a_+^k =

250: \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} a^k & a \geq 0 \,, \\

251:   0 & a < 0 \,. \end{array} \right. 

252: \end{equation}

253: 

254: This asymptotic description holds for $v$ greater than some threshold depending on $q/v$ and $\delta$, as in Theorem \ref{th:1}.  The implicit constant in the $\mathcal{O}_{L_x^2}$ error term is entirely independent of all parameters ($q$, $v$, and $\delta$), although the implicit constant in the $\mathcal{O}_{L_x^\infty}$ error term depends upon $q/v$, or more precisely, the proximity of $|t_q(v)|$ and $|r_q(v)|$ to $\frac{1}{2}$.

255: 

256: A comparison of the transmission and reflection coefficients \eqref{eq:tqv} of the $ \delta $ potential, and of the soliton transmission and reflections coefficients \eqref{eq:th3}, is shown in Figure \ref{f:lnl}.

257: 

258: \begin{figure}

259: \begin{center}

260: \scalebox{0.7}{\input{lnl.pstex_t}}

261: \end{center}

262: \caption

263: {\label{f:lnl} Comparison of linear and nonlinear scattering 

264: coefficients as functions of $ \alpha \defeq q / v $.}

265: \end{figure}

266: 

267: Scattering of solitons by delta impurities is a natural model explored extensively in the physics literature -- see for instance \cite{CM},\cite{GHW}, and references given there.  The heuristic insight that at high velocities ``linear scattering'' by the external potential should dominate the partition of mass is certainly present there.  In the mathematical literature the dynamics of solitons in the presence of external potentials has been studied in high velocity or semiclassical limits following the work of Floer and Weinstein \cite{FlWe}, and Bronski and Jerrard \cite{BJ} -- see \cite{FrSi} for recent results and a review of the subject. Roughly speaking, the soliton evolves according to the classical motion of a particle in the external potential. That is similar to the phenomena in other settings, such as the motion of the Landau-Ginzburg vortices.

268: 

269: The possible novelty in \eqref{eq:th} and \eqref{eq:th2} lies in seeing {\em quantum} effects of the external potential strongly affecting soliton dynamics. As shown in Fig.\ \ref{f:nice}, Theorem \ref{th:1} gives a very good approximation to the transmission rate already at  low velocities.  Fig.\ \ref{f:solv3} shows time snapshots of the evolution of the soliton, and the last frame suggests the 

270: soliton resolution \eqref{eq:th2}. We should stress that the asymptotic 

271: solitons are resolved at a much larger time -- see \cite{HMZ2}.

272: 

273: The proof of the two theorems, given below in \S\ref{proof}--\ref{resolution}, proceeds by approximating the solution during the ``interaction phase'' (the interval of time during which the solution significantly interacts with the delta potential at the origin) by the corresponding linear flow.  This approximation is achieved, uniformly in $q$, by means of Strichartz estimates established in \S\ref{ros}.  The use of the Strichartz estimates as an approximation device, as opposed to say energy estimates, is critical since the estimates obtained depend only upon the $L^2$ norm of the solution, which is conserved and \textit{independent} of $v$.  Thus, $v$ functions as an asymptotic parameter; larger $v$ means a shorter interaction phase and a better approximation of the solution by the linear flow.  Theorem 2 combines this analysis with the inverse scattering method. The delta potential splits the incoming soliton into two waves which become single {\em solitons}.

274: 

275: 

276: \medskip

277: 

278: \noindent

279: {\sc Acknowledgments.} We would like to thank Mike Christ, Percy Deift, 

280: and Michael Weinstein for helpful discussions during the preparation of this paper. The work of the first author was supported in part by an NSF postdoctoral fellowship, and that

281: of the second and third author by NSF grants  DMS-0354539 and DMS-0200732.

282: 

283: \section{Scattering by a delta function}

284: \label{ros}

285: 

286: Here we present some basic facts about scattering by a delta-function potential on the real line.  Let $ q \geq 0  $ and put

287: \[ H_q = - \frac{1}2 \frac{d^2}{dx^2} + q \; \delta_0 ( x ) \,.\]

288: We define special solutions, $ e_\pm ( x , \lambda ) $,

289: to $ ( H_q - \lambda^2 /2 ) e_\pm  = 0 $, using notation given in \eqref{eq:sta}:

290: \begin{equation}

291: \label{211}

292: e_{\pm}(x,\l) = t_q (\l)e^{\pm i \l x} x_{\pm}^0 

293: + (e^{\pm i \l x} + r_q (\l)e^{\mp i\l x}) x_{\mp}^0  \,, 

294: \end{equation}

295: where $ t_q $ and $ r_q $ are the 

296: the transmission and reflection coefficients:

297: \begin{equation}

298: \label{eq:tr}

299: t_q ( \lambda ) = \frac{ i \lambda } { i \lambda - q } \,, \ \ 

300: r_q ( \lambda ) = \frac{ q} {i \lambda - q } \,.

301: \end{equation}

302: They satisfy two equations, one standard (unitarity) 

303: and one due to the special structure of the potential:

304: \begin{equation}

305: \label{eq:trpr} | t_q ( \lambda ) |^2 + | r_q ( \l ) |^2 = 1 \,, \ \ 

306: t_q ( \lambda ) = 1 + r_q ( \lambda ) \,.\end{equation}

307: We use the representation of the propagator in terms of the generalized eigenfunctions-- see for instance the notes \cite{TZ} covering scattering by compactly supported

308:  potentials.   The resolvent 

309: \[ R_q ( \lambda ) \defeq ( H_q - \lambda^2 / 2 )^{-1} \,,\]

310: has kernel given by 

311: \[R_q ( \l)(x,y) =\frac{1}{i\l t_q (\l)}\,

312: \big(e_+(x,\l)e_-(y,\l)(x-y)^0_+ +

313:   e_+(y,\l)e_-(x,\l)(x-y)^0_-\big) \,.\]

314: This gives an explicit formula for the spectral projection, and hence the Schwartz kernel of the propagator:

315: \begin{equation}

316: \label{eq:sppr}

317: \exp ( - i t H_q )  = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int^\infty_0 

318: e^{- i t \lambda^2/2 } 

319:  \left(e_+(x,\l)\overline{e_+(y,\l)} + e_-(x,\l)  

320: \overline{e_-(y,\l)}\right) \,d\l \,.

321: \end{equation}

322: The propagator for $ H_q  $ is described in the following

323: 

324: \begin{lem}

325: \label{L:lin}

326: Suppose that $ \varphi \in L^1 $ and that $ \supp \varphi \subset ( -\infty , 0] $.

327: Then 

328: \begin{equation}

329: \label{eq:prop}

330: \begin{split}

331: &  \exp ( - i t H_q ) \varphi ( x ) = 

332: \\ 

333: & \ \ \ \exp ( - i t H_0 ) ( \varphi * \tau_q ) ( x ) 

334: x_+^0 + 

335: ( \exp ( - i t H_0 ) \varphi ( x ) + \exp ( - it H_0 ) ( \varphi * \rho_q ) ( - x) 

336: ) x_-^0  \,, 

337: \end{split}

338: \end{equation}

339: where 

340: \begin{equation}

341: \label{eq:ftr}  \rho_q ( x) = - q \exp(qx) x_-^0  \,, \ \ \tau_q 

342: ( x  ) = \delta_0 ( x) + \rho_q ( x ) \,. 

343: \end{equation}

344: \end{lem}

345: \begin{proof}

346: All we need to do is to combine \eqref{211} and \eqref{eq:sppr}.

347: Using the support property of $ \varphi $ we compute,

348: \[ \begin{split}

349: &  \int \varphi ( y ) \overline{e_+ ( y , \lambda ) } dy = r_q ( - \lambda ) 

350: \hat \varphi ( - \lambda ) + \hat \varphi ( \lambda ) \,, \\

351: & \int \varphi ( y ) \overline{ e_- ( y , \lambda ) } dy = t_q ( - \lambda ) 

352: \hat \varphi ( - \lambda )  \,,

353: \end{split} \]

354: so that 

355: \[\begin{split} \left( \exp ( - i t H_q ) \varphi \right) \rest_{ x > 0 } & = 

356: \frac{1}{2 \pi } \int_0^\infty e^{ - i t \lambda^2/2 } 

357: \left( t_q ( \lambda ) e^{ i \lambda x } ( r_q ( - \lambda ) 

358: \hat \varphi ( - \lambda ) + \hat \varphi ( \lambda ) ) \; + \ \right. \\

359: & \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  

360: \left. ( r_q ( \lambda ) e^{ i \lambda x } + e^{- i \lambda x } ) t_q ( - 

361: \lambda ) \hat \varphi ( - \lambda ) \right) d \lambda \\ 

362: & = \; \frac{1}{ 2 \pi } \int_\RR e^{ - i t \lambda^2/2 } t_q ( \lambda ) 

363: \hat \varphi ( \lambda ) e^{ i \lambda x } d \lambda \\

364: & = \exp ( - i t H_0 ) ( \tau_q * \varphi ) ( x ) 

365: \,, \ \ \widehat \tau_q ( \lambda ) = t_q ( \lambda ) \,,

366: \end{split} \]

367: where we used the fact that $ r_q ( - \lambda ) t_q ( \lambda ) + 

368: r_q ( \lambda ) t_q ( - \lambda ) = 0 $.

369: 

370: Similarly, using $ r_q ( - \lambda ) r_q ( \lambda ) + 

371: t_q (- \lambda ) t_q ( \lambda ) = 1 $, we have 

372: \[ \begin{split} \left( \exp ( - i t H_q ) \varphi \right) \rest_{ x < 0 } & = 

373: \frac{1}{ 2 \pi } \int_0^\infty e^{ - i

374:  t \lambda^2/2 } \left( 

375: \hat \varphi ( \lambda ) e^{ i \lambda x } + r_q ( \lambda ) \hat \varphi ( \lambda ) 

376: e^{ - i \lambda x } \right) d\lambda \\

377: & = \; \exp( - i t H_0 ) \varphi ( x ) + \exp ( - i t H_0 ) ( \varphi * \rho_q ) ( - x ) 

378: \,, \ \ \widehat {\rho_q} ( \lambda ) = r_q ( \lambda ) \,. 

379: \end{split} \] 

380: A simple computation gives \eqref{eq:ftr} concluding the proof.

381: \end{proof}

382: 

383: We have two simple applications of Lemma \ref{L:lin}:  the Strichartz estimates  (Proposition \ref{p:Str}) and the asymptotics of the linear flow $\exp(-itH_q)$ as $ v \rightarrow +\infty $ (Proposition \ref{p:as}).  We start with the Strichartz estimate, which will be used several times in the various approximation arguments of \S\ref{proof}.  Since it is particularly simple in our setting, we give a complete proof (see \cite{KT} for references and the general version).

384: \begin{prop}

385: \label{p:Str}

386: Suppose  $q\geq 0$ and 

387: \begin{equation}

388: \label{eq:eq}

389:  i \partial_t u ( x , t ) + \tfrac{1}{2}\partial_{x}^2 u ( x, t ) 

390: - q \delta_0 ( x ) u ( x , t ) = f ( x , t ) \,, \ \ u ( x , 0 ) = \varphi ( x ) 

391: \,.\end{equation}

392: Let the indices $p,r$, $\tilde p$, $\tilde r$ satisfy

393: \begin{equation}

394: \label{eq:adm}

395: 2 \leq p, r \leq \infty \,, \ \ 1 \leq \tilde p , \tilde r \leq 2 \,, \ \

396: \frac 2 p + \frac 1 r = \frac 12 \,, \ \ \ \frac 2 {\tilde p }

397: + \frac 1 {\tilde r} = \frac 52

398: \end{equation}

399: and fix a time $T>0$.  Then

400: \begin{equation}

401: \label{eq:Str}

402: \| u \|_{ L^p_{[0,T]} L^r_x } \leq c \| \varphi \|_{L^2} + c \| f \|_{ L_{[0,T]}^{\tilde p} L_x^{\tilde r} }

403: \end{equation}

404: The constant $c$ is independent of $q$ and $T$.  Moreover, in \eqref{eq:eq}, we can take $f(x,t) = g(t)\delta_0(x)$ and, on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:Str}, replace $\| f \|_{ L_{[0,T]}^{\tilde p} L_x^{\tilde r} }$  with $\|g\|_{L_{[0,T]}^\frac{4}{3}}$.

405: \end{prop}

406: \begin{proof}

407: We put $ U_q ( t ) \defeq \exp ( - i t H_q ) $, so that $ U_q ( t ) $ is 

408: a unitary group on $ L^2 (\RR ) $. For $ \varphi \in L^1 ( \RR ) $ we have,

409: using Lemma \ref{L:lin},

410: \begin{equation}

411: \label{eq:utl}

412: \begin{split} 

413: \| U_q ( t ) \varphi \|_{ L^\infty } & \leq \sum_{\pm } \| U_q ( t ) ( \varphi x_\pm^0 ) 

414: \|_{L^\infty } \\

415: & \leq  \sum_{ \pm } \| U_0 ( t ) \|_{ L^1 \rightarrow L^\infty } ( \| 

416: ( \varphi x_\pm^0 ) * \tau_q \|_{L^1 } + 

417:  \| ( \varphi x_\pm^0 ) * \rho_q \|_{L^1 } ) \\ 

418: & \leq \frac{ 1}{ \sqrt {\pi |t|} }  ( 1 + 2\| \rho_q \|_{L^1} )

419:  \| \varphi\|_{L^1} \\

420: & \leq \frac{3}{\sqrt{ \pi |t|}} \| \varphi \|_{ L^1} \,. 

421: \end{split}

422: \end{equation}

423: By the Riesz-Thorin interpolation theorem (see for instance \cite[Theorem 7.1.12]{Hor1}) we have

424: \begin{equation}

425: \label{eq:rith} \| U ( t )  \|_{ L^{r'} \rightarrow L^r } 

426: \leq C | t |^{ -\frac 1 2 \left( 1 - \frac 2 r \right)   } \,, \ \ 

427: 1 \leq r' \leq 2 \,, \ \ \frac 1 r + \frac 1 {r'}= 1\,. 

428: \end{equation}

429: 

430: The estimate \eqref{eq:Str} with $ f \equiv 0 $ reads

431: \[ \| U ( t ) g  \|_{ L^p_t L^r_x } \leq 

432: C \| g \|_{L^2 ( \RR)}  \,, \]

433: which by duality is equivalent to 

434: \begin{equation}

435: \label{eq:Str1}

436: \left\| \int_\RR U ( - s ) F ( s) ds \right\|_{L^2 ( \RR ) } 

437: \leq C \| F \|_{ L^{p'}_t L^{r'}_x } \,.

438: \end{equation}

439: The two equivalent estimates together give (\eqref{eq:Str1} is applied with $p'$, $r'$ replaced by $\tilde p$, $\tilde r$ -- it is easily checked that \eqref{eq:adm} still holds)

440: \[  \left\| \int_\RR U ( t - s ) F ( s) ds \right\|_{L^p_t L^r_x }

441:  \leq  \| F \|_{ L^{\tilde p}_t L^{\tilde r}_x } \,,\]

442: Putting

443: $ F ( s ) = \bbbone_{ [0 ,t] } ( s )  f ( s, x ) $ we obtain  \eqref{eq:Str} for $ u_0 = 0 $. Hence it suffices to prove \eqref{eq:Str1}. 

444: 

445: Put 

446: \[ T F ( x ) \defeq \int_\RR U ( - s ) F ( s , x ) d s \,,\]

447: and note that $ T^*  g (s,  x ) := U ( s) g ( x ) $.

448: The estimate \eqref{eq:Str1} is equivalent to

449: \[  \langle T^* T G , F \rangle_{ L^2_{t,x} } \leq C

450:  \| G \|_{  L^{p'}_t L^{r'}_x } \| F \|_{  L^{p'}_t L^{r'}_x   } \,,\]

451: which is the same as

452: \begin{equation}

453: \label{eq:utus0}

454: \left| \int_\RR \! \! \!  \int_\RR  \langle G ( t ) ,\

455:  U ( t - s ) F ( s ) \rangle

456: \; dt ds \right| 

457:  \leq C \| G \|_{ L^{p'}_t L^{r'}_x  }

458: \| F \|_{  L^{p'}_t L^{r'}_x   } \,.

459: \end{equation}

460: 

461: To obtain \eqref{eq:utus0} from 

462: \eqref{eq:rith} we apply 

463: the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality 

464: which says that if $ K_a ( t ) = | t|^{-1/a } $ and $ 1 < a < \infty  $ 

465: then 

466: \begin{gather*}

467:  \| K_a * F \|_{L^{\alpha}  ( \RR ) } \leq C \| F \|_{ L^{\beta } ( \RR ) } 

468: \,, \ \ \frac1\alpha = \frac1\beta - \frac1a \,, \ \ 

469: 1 < \beta < \alpha  \,, 

470: \end{gather*} 

471: see for instance \cite[Theorem 4.5.3]{Hor1}. We apply it with 

472: \[  \frac 1 a = \frac12 \left( 1 - \frac 2 r  \right) \,,  \quad  \alpha =p \,, \quad \beta = p' \,, \]

473: which is the admissibility condition \eqref{eq:adm}.

474: \end{proof}

475: 

476: We now turn to the large velocity asymptotics of the linear flow $\exp(-itH_q)$.\begin{prop}

477: \label{p:as}

478: Let $\theta \in C^\infty ( \RR ) $  be bounded , together will  all of 

479: its derivatives.  Let $\varphi\in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$, $v>0$, and suppose 

480: $\supp  [\theta( \bullet )\varphi( \bullet -x_0)] 

481: \subset (-\infty,0]$.  Then for $2|x_0|/v \leq t \leq 1$,

482: \begin{equation}

483: \label{E:as2}

484: e^{-itH_q}[e^{ixv}\varphi(x-x_0)] =

485: \begin{aligned}[t]

486: & t(v)e^{-itH_0}[e^{ixv}\varphi(x-x_0)] \\

487: &+ r(v) e^{-itH_0}[e^{-ixv}\varphi(-x-x_0)] \\

488: &+ e(x,t)

489: \end{aligned}

490: \end{equation}

491: where, for any $k\geq 0$,

492: $$\|e(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2} \leq 

493: \begin{aligned}[t]

494: &\frac{1}{v}\|\partial_x [\theta(x)\varphi(x-x_0)]\|_{L^2}\\

495: &+\frac{c_k}{(tv)^k} \| \la x \ra^k \varphi(x) \|_{H^k}\\

496: &+4\|(1-\theta(x))\varphi(x-x_0)\|_{L_x^2}

497: \end{aligned}$$

498: \end{prop}

499: In \S \ref{proof}, Proposition \ref{p:as} will be applied with $\theta(x)$ a smooth cutoff to $x<0$, and $\varphi(x)=\sech x$ with $x_0=-v^{1-\delta} \ll 0$.  

500: 

501: Before proving Proposition \ref{p:as}, we need the following

502: \begin{lem}

503: \label{p:as0}

504: Let $\psi\in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ with $\supp \psi \subset (-\infty,0]$.  Then

505: \begin{equation}

506: \label{E:as1}

507: e^{-itH_q}[e^{ixv}\psi(x)](x) =

508: \begin{aligned}[t]

509: &e^{-itH_0}[e^{ixv}\psi(x)](x)\, x_-^0 \\

510: &+t(v)e^{-itH_0}[e^{ixv}\psi(x)](x) \, x_+^0 \\

511: &+r(v)e^{-itH_0}[e^{-ixv}\psi(-x)](x) \, x_-^0\\

512: &+e(x,t)

513: \end{aligned}

514: \end{equation}

515: where 

516: $$\|e(x,t)\|_{L_x^2} \leq \frac{1}{v}\|\partial_x \psi\|_{L^2}$$

517: uniformly in $t$.

518: \end{lem}

519: 

520: \begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{p:as0}]

521: By \eqref{eq:prop} with $\varphi(x)=e^{ixv}\psi(x)$,

522: $$e(x,t) =

523: \begin{aligned}[t]

524: &[e^{-itH_0}(\varphi\ast (\tau - t(v)\delta_0))(x)]\, x_+^0 \\

525: &+[e^{-itH_0}(\varphi\ast (\rho - r(v)\delta_0))(-x)]\, x_-^0 

526: \end{aligned}

527: $$

528: and thus it suffices to show

529: \begin{equation}

530: \label{E:101}

531: \|e^{-itH_0}(\varphi\ast (\tau - t(v)\delta_0))(x)\|_{L_x^2} \leq \frac{1}{v}\|\partial_x \psi\|_{L_x^2}

532: \end{equation}

533: and

534: $$\|e^{-itH_0}(\varphi\ast (\rho - r(v)\delta_0))(x)\|_{L_x^2} \leq \frac{1}{v}\|\partial_x \psi\|_{L_x^2}$$

535: 

536: The proofs of these two estimates are similar, so we only carry out the proof of \eqref{E:101}. By unitarity of $ e^{ - i t H _0 } $ and 

537: the Plancherel's identity, 

538: \begin{equation}

539: \label{E:100}

540: \|e^{itH_0}[\varphi\ast (\tau - t(v)\delta_0)](x)\|_{L_x^2} = 

541: \| \hat{\psi}(\lambda -v)( t(\lambda)-t(v))\|_{L_\lambda^2} \,. 

542: \end{equation}

543: Since

544: $$ t (\lambda)-t(v) = \frac{-iq(\lambda-v)}{(i\lambda-q)(iv-q)}$$

545: we have $| t(\lambda)-t(v)| \leq (\lambda -v )/v$.  Using this to estimate the right-hand side of \eqref{E:100} and applying Plancherel's 

546: identity again yields \eqref{E:101}.

547: \end{proof}

548: 

549: \begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{p:as}]

550: Apply \eqref{E:as1} to $\psi(x)=\theta(x)\varphi(x-x_0)$ to obtain

551: \begin{equation}

552: \label{E:102}

553: e^{-itH_q}[e^{ixv}\varphi(x-x_0)](x) =

554: \begin{aligned}[t]

555: &e^{-itH_0}[e^{ixv}\varphi(x-x_0)](x)\, x_-^0 \\

556: &+t(v)e^{-itH_0}[e^{ixv}\varphi(x-x_0)](x) \, x_+^0 \\

557: &+r(v)e^{-itH_0}[e^{-ixv}\varphi(-x-x_0)](x) \, x_-^0\\

558: &+e_1(x,t)+e_2(x,t)

559: \end{aligned}

560: \end{equation}

561: where $e_1(x,t)$ is as in Lemma \ref{p:as0} and (putting $f(x)=e^{ixv}(1-\theta(x))\varphi(x-x_0)$)

562: $$e_2(x,t) = 

563: \begin{aligned}[t]

564: &+e^{-itH_q}f(x) - e^{-itH_0}f(x) \, x_-^0 \\

565: &-t(v)e^{-itH_0}f(x)\, x_+^0 - r(v) e^{-itH_0}[f(-x)](x) \, x_-^0

566: \end{aligned}

567: $$

568: By Lemma \ref{p:as0},

569: $$\|e_1(x,t)\|_{L_x^2} \leq \frac{1}{v}\|\partial_x[\theta(x)\varphi(x-x_0)]\|_{L_x^2}$$

570: uniformly for all $t$, and by unitarity of the linear flows,

571: $$\|e_2(x,t) \|_{L_x^2} \leq 4\|(1-\theta(x))\varphi(x-x_0)\|_{L_x^2}$$

572: also uniformly in all $t$.  Now restrict to the time interval $2|x_0|/v \leq t \leq 1$.  By \eqref{E:102}, it remains to show that 

573: \begin{gather}

574: \label{E:103} \|e^{-itH_0}[e^{ixv}\varphi(x-x_0)](x)\|_{L_{x<0}^2} \leq \frac{c_k}{(tv)^k}\|\la x \ra^k\varphi(x)\|_{H_x^k} \\

575: \notag\|e^{-itH_0}[e^{-ixv}\varphi(-x-x_0)](x)\|_{L_{x>0}^2} \leq \frac{c_k}{(tv)^k}\|\la x \ra^k\varphi\|_{H^k}

576: \end{gather}

577: The second of these is in fact equivalent to the first, since for any function $g(x)$, 

578: $$e^{-itH_0}[g(-x)](x) = e^{-itH_0}[g(x)](-x)\,.$$  

579: Now we establish \eqref{E:103}.  Since 

580: $${ [{e^{i \bullet v}\varphi( \bullet -x_0) } ]} \, \hat{} \,  (\lambda) 

581: = e^{-ix_0(\lambda-v)}\hat{\varphi}(\lambda-v) \,, $$  

582: \begin{align*}

583:  e^{-itH_0}[e^{ixv}\varphi(x-x_0)](x) 

584: &=\frac{1}{2\pi} \int e^{ix\lambda} e^{-ix_0(\lambda-v)}e^{-it\lambda^2/2}\hat{\varphi}(\lambda-v)\, d\lambda\\

585: &=e^{-itv^2/2}e^{ixv}\frac{1}{2\pi} \int e^{i\lambda(x-x_0-tv)}e^{-it\lambda^2/2}\hat{\varphi}(\lambda) \, d\lambda

586: \end{align*}

587: By $k$ applications of integration by parts in $\lambda$,

588: $$\int e^{i\lambda(x-x_0-tv)}e^{-it\lambda^2/2}\hat{\varphi}(\lambda) \, d\lambda = \left( \frac{i}{x-x_0-tv} \right)^k \int e^{i\lambda(x-x_0-tv)}\partial_\lambda^k[e^{-it\lambda^2/2}\hat{\varphi}(\lambda)] \, d\lambda$$

589: Since $2|x_0|/v \leq t$, we have $-x_0-tv<0$ and thus $|x-x_0-tv| \geq |-x_0-tv| \geq tv/2$ for $x<0$.  Hence

590: \begin{align}

591: \label{eq:hence}

592: \indentalign \int_{-\infty}^0 |e^{-itH_0} [e^{ixv}\varphi(x-x_0)](x)|^2 \, dx 

593: \nonumber \\

594: &\leq \frac{c_k}{(tv)^k} \left\| \int e^{i\lambda(x-x_0-tv)}\partial_\lambda^k[e^{-it\lambda^2/2}\hat{\varphi}(\lambda)] \, d\lambda \right\|_{L_x^2} \\

595: & =  \frac{c_k}{(tv)^k} \left\| \partial_\lambda^k[e^{-it\lambda^2/2}\hat{\varphi}(\lambda)] \right\|_{L_\lambda^2} \nonumber 

596: \end{align}

597: from which the result follows by applying the Leibniz product rule and 

598: the Plancherel identity once again (and using that $t\leq 1$).

599: \end{proof}

600: 

601: \medskip

602: 

603: \noindent{\bf Remark.} Suppose that 

604: \[  u ( x , t ) = e^{ - i t H_q } [e^{ixv}\psi ( x ) ] \,, \ \ 

605: \psi \in {\mathcal S} ( \RR ) \,, \ \ \supp \psi \subset ( - \infty , 0) 

606:  \,, \ \ \| \psi \|_{L^2 } = 1 \,.\]

607: Then for $ t \gg 1 $ and as $ v \rightarrow + \infty $,

608: \begin{equation}

609: \label{eq:rem} \int_0^\infty | u ( x , t ) |^2 dx = \frac{v^2}{ v^2 + q^2} 

610: + {\mathcal O} \left( \frac 1 {v^2} \right) \,. 

611:  \end{equation}

612: In fact using \eqref{eq:prop} and an estimate similar to \eqref{eq:hence}

613: we see that for $ t \geq 1 $

614: \[ \begin{split} 

615: \int_0^\infty | u ( x , t ) |^2 dx & = \| e^{ - i t H_0 } ( ( e^{ i \bullet 

616: v } \psi ) * \tau_q  ) x_+^0 \|^2 = \|  ( e^{ i \bullet 

617: v } \psi ) * \tau_q \|_2^2 + {\mathcal O } ( v^{-\infty } ) \\

618: & = \frac{1}{ 2 \pi } \| i \lambda \hat \psi ( \lambda - v ) / ( 

619: i \lambda - q ) \|^2 + {\mathcal O } ( v^{-\infty } ) \\

620: & = \frac{1}{ 2 \pi } \int_{ |\lambda - v | \leq \sqrt v } 

621:  \frac{  \lambda^2 } { \lambda^2 + q^2 } 

622: | \hat \psi ( \lambda - v ) |^2 d \lambda  + {\mathcal O } ( v^{-\infty } )  

623: %\\

624: %& = \frac{ v^2 }{ v^2 + q^2 } \frac{1}{ 2 \pi } \int_{ |\tau | \leq \sqrt v }  

625: %\frac{ 1 + ( \tau / v)^2 + 2 \tau / v  } { 1 + ( 1 + ( q/v)^2)^{-1} 

626: %( ( \tau/v )^2 + 2 \tau / v ) } | \hat \psi ( \tau ) |^2 d \tau 

627: % + {\mathcal O } ( v^{-\infty } )  \,.

628: \end{split} \] 

629: An expansion in powers of $ ( \lambda - v )  /v $ gives \eqref{eq:rem}.

630: 

631: 

632: \section{Soliton scattering}

633: \label{proof}

634: 

635: In this section, we prove Theorem \ref{th:1}.  We recall the notation for operators from Sect.\ref{ros} and

636: introduce short hand notation for the nonlinear flows:

637: \begin{itemize}

638: \item $H_0=-\frac{1}{2} \partial_x^2$.  The flow $e^{-itH_0}$ is termed the ``free linear flow''

639: \medskip

640: \item $H_q = -\frac{1}{2} \partial_x^2+q\delta_0(x)$.  The flow $e^{-itH_q}$ is termed the ``perturbed linear flow''

641: \medskip

642: \item $\nlsq(t)\varphi$, termed the ``perturbed nonlinear flow'' is the evolution of initial data $\varphi(x)$ according to the equation $i\partial_tu + \tfrac{1}{2}\partial_x^2 u - q\delta_0(x)u + |u|^2u=0$

643: \medskip

644: \item $\nlso(t)\varphi$, termed the ``free nonlinear flow'' is the evolution of initial data $\varphi(x)$ according to the equation $i\partial_th + \tfrac{1}{2}\partial_x^2 h + |h|^2h=0$

645: \end{itemize}

646: 

647: From Sect.\ref{in} we recall the form of the initial condition:  $u_0(x) = e^{ixv}\sech(x-x_0)$, $v \gg 1$, $x_0 \leq -v^{1-\delta}$, $\frac{2}{3}<\delta<1$, and we put $u(x,t) = \nlsq(t)u_0(x)$.

648: 

649: We begin by outlining the scheme, and will then supply the details.  The $\mathcal O$ notation always means $L_x^2$ difference, uniformly on the time interval specified, and up to a multiplicative factor that is independent of $q$, $v$, and $\delta$ (any such dependence will be exhibited explicitly).

650: 

651: \noindent\textbf{Phase 1 (Pre-interaction)}.  Consider $0\leq t \leq t_1$, where $t_1 = |x_0|/v - v^{-\delta}$ so that $x_0+vt_1=-v^{1-\delta}$.  The soliton has not yet encountered the delta obstacle and propagates according to the free nonlinear flow

652: \begin{equation}

653: \label{E:approx1}

654: u(x,t) = e^{-itv^2/2}e^{it/2}e^{ixv}\sech(x-x_0-vt) + \mathcal{O}(qe^{-v^{1-\delta}}), \quad 0\leq t\leq t_1

655: \end{equation}

656: The analysis here is valid provided $v$ is greater than some absolute threshold (independent of $q$, $v$, or $\delta$).  But if we further require that $v$ be sufficiently large so that $v^{-3/2}e^{v^{1-\delta}} \geq \alpha$ (recall $\alpha=q/v$), then $qe^{-v^{1-\delta}} \leq v^{-1/2}\leq v^{-\delta/2}$.  This is the error that arises in the main argument of Phase 2 below.

657: 

658: \noindent\textbf{Phase 2 (Interaction)}.  Let $t_2 = t_1+2v^{-\delta}$ and consider $t_1\leq t \leq t_2$.  The incident soliton, beginning at position $-v^{1-\delta}$, encounters the delta obstacle and splits into a transmitted component and a reflected component, which by time $t=t_2$, are concentrated at positions $v^{1-\delta}$ and $-v^{1-\delta}$, respectively.  More precisely, at the conclusion of this phase (at $t=t_2$),

659: \begin{equation}

660: \label{E:approx4}

661: u(x,t_2) = 

662: \begin{aligned}[t]

663: &t(v)e^{-it_2v^2/2}e^{it_2/2}e^{ixv}\sech(x-x_0-vt_2)\\

664: &+r(v)e^{-it_2v^2/2}e^{it_2/2}e^{-ixv}\sech(x+x_0+vt_2) \\

665: &+ \mathcal{O}(v^{-\frac{1}{2}\delta})

666: \end{aligned}

667: \end{equation}

668: 

669: This is the most interesting phase of the argument, which proceeds by using the following three observations

670: \begin{itemize}

671: \item The perturbed nonlinear flow is approximated by the perturbed linear flow for $t_1\leq t \leq t_2$.

672: \item The perturbed linear flow is split as the sum of a transmitted component and a reflected component, each expressed in terms of the free linear flow of soliton-like waveforms.

673: \item The free linear flow is approximated by the free nonlinear flow on $t_1\leq t \leq t_2$.  Thus, the soliton-like form of the transmitted and reflected components obtained above is preserved.

674: \end{itemize}

675: The brevity of the time interval $[t_1,t_2]$ is critical to the argument, and validates the approximation of linear flows by nonlinear flows.

676: 

677: \noindent\textbf{Phase 3 (Post-interaction)}.  Let $t_3=t_2+(1-\delta)\log v$, and consider $[t_2,t_3]$.  The transmitted and reflected waves essentially do not encounter the delta potential and propagate according to the free nonlinear flow, 

678: \begin{equation}

679: \label{E:post}

680: u(x,t) = 

681: \begin{aligned}[t]

682: & e^{-itv^2/2}e^{it_2/2}e^{ixv}\nlso(t-t_2)[t(v)\sech(x)](x-x_0-tv) \\

683: &+ e^{-itv^2/2}e^{it_2/2}e^{-ixv}\nlso(t-t_2)[r(v)\sech(x)](x+x_0+tv) \\

684: &+\mathcal{O}(v^{1-\frac{3}{2}\delta}), \qquad t_2\leq t \leq t_3

685: \end{aligned}

686: \end{equation}

687: This is proved by a perturbative argument that enables us to evolve forward a time $(1-\delta)\log v$ at the expense of enlarging the error by a multiplicative factor of $e^{(1-\delta)\log v} = v^{1-\delta}$.  The error thus goes from $v^{-\delta/2}$ at $t=t_2$ to $v^{1-\frac{3}{2}\delta}$ at $t=t_3$.

688: 

689: Now we turn to the details.

690: 

691: \subsection{Phase 1}

692: 

693: Let $u_1(x,t) = \nlso(t)u_0(x)$ and $u(x,t)=\nlsq(t)u_0(x)$.  Let $w= u-u_1$.  Recall that $t_1= |x_0|/v-v^{-\delta}$ so that $x_0+vt_1=-v^{1-\delta}$.  Note that

694: $$u_1(x,t) = e^{-itv^2/2}e^{it/2}e^{ixv}\sech(x-x_0-tv)$$

695: We will need the following perturbation lemma.

696: 

697: \begin{lem}

698: \label{L:approx1}

699: If $t_a<t_b$, $t_b-t_a \leq c_1$, and $\|w(\cdot,t_a)\|_{L^2}+q\|u_1(0,t)\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty} \leq 1$, then 

700: $$\|w\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2} \leq c_2(\|w(\cdot, t_a)\|_{L_x^2}+q\|u_1(0,t)\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty})$$ 

701: where the constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ depend only on constants appearing in the Strichartz estimates and are, in particular, independent of $q$ and $v$.

702: \end{lem}

703: 

704: \begin{proof}

705: $w$ solves

706: \begin{align*}

707: i\partial_t w + \partial_x^2w -q\delta_0(x)w &= -|w+u_1|^2(w+u_1) +|u_1|^2u_1 + q\delta_0(x)u_1\\

708: &=-\underbrace{|w|^2w}_{\textnormal{cubic}} - \underbrace{(2u_1|w|^2 + \bar u_1 w^2)}_{\textnormal{quadratic}} - \underbrace{(2|u_1|^2w + u_1^2 \bar w)}_{\textnormal{linear}} +q \delta_0(x)u_1\\

709: \end{align*}

710: From this equation, $w$ is estimated using Proposition \ref{p:Str}.  For the cubic nonlinear term we take $\tilde p  = \tilde r = 6/5$ and estimate by H\"older as

711: $$\| |w|^2 w\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^{6/5}L_x^{6/5}} \leq (t_b-t_a)^{1/2}\|w\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^6L_x^6}^2 \|w\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2}$$

712: Since complex conjugates becomes irrelevant in the estimates, both quadratic terms are treated identically.  In Proposition \ref{p:Str}, we take $\tilde p  = \tilde r = 6/5$ and estimate by H\"older as

713: \begin{align*}

714: \| u_1 w^2 \|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^{6/5}L_x^{6/5}} &\leq (t_b-t_a)^{1/2}\|w\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^6L_x^6}^2 \|u_1\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2} \\

715: &\leq \sqrt 2(t_b-t_a)^{1/2} \|w\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^6L_x^6}^2

716: \end{align*}

717: For the linear terms (both of the form $u_1^2w$), we take $\tilde p  = \tilde r = 6/5$ in Proposition \ref{p:Str} and estimate as

718: \begin{align*}

719: \| u_1^2 w \|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^{6/5}L_x^{6/5}} &\leq (t_b-t_a)^{1/2}\|w\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^6L_x^6} \|u_1\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^6 L_x^6} \|u_1\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2} \\

720: &\leq 2(t_b-t_a)^{2/3} \|w\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^6L_x^6}

721: \end{align*}

722: The delta term is estimated by the concluding sentence of Proposition \ref{p:Str} as 

723: $$q\|u(0,t)\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^{4/3}} \leq q (t_b-t_a)^{3/4} \|u(0,t)\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty}$$

724: Since $t_b-t_a \leq 1$, collecting the above estimates we have (taking $\|w\|_X = \|w\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2} + \|w\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^6L_x^6}$),

725: $$\|w\|_X \leq c\|w(\cdot, t_a)\|_{L_x^2} + c(t_b-t_a)^{1/2}(\|w\|_X +\|w\|_X^2 + \|w\|_X^3) + cq\|u(0,t)\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty}$$

726: Provided $(t_b-t_a)^{1/2} \leq 1/(2c)$ above, the linear term on the right can be absorbed by the left as

727: $$\|w\|_X \leq 2c\|w(\cdot, t_a)\|_{L_x^2} + 2c(t_b-t_a)^{1/2}(\|w\|_X^2 + \|w\|_X^3) + 2cq\|u(0,t)\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty}$$

728: Continuity of $\|w\|_{X(t_b)}$ as a function of $t_b$ shows that provided $2c(t_b-t_a)^{1/2}(4c\|w(\cdot,t_a)\|_{L^2}+4cq\|u_1(0,t)\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty}) \leq 1/2$, the above estimate implies 

729: $$\|w\|_X \leq 4c\|w(\cdot, t_a)\|_{L_x^2} + 4cq\|u(0,t)\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty}$$

730: concluding the proof.

731: \end{proof}

732: 

733: Now we proceed to apply Lemma \ref{L:approx1}.  The constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ will, for convenience of exposition, be taken to be $c_1=1$ and $c_2=2$.

734: Let $k\geq 0$ be the integer such that $k \leq t_1 < k+1$.  (Note that $k=0$ if the soliton starts within a distance $v$ of the origin, i.e. $-v-v^{1-\delta}\leq x_0\leq -v^{1-\delta}$, and the inductive analysis below is skipped.) Apply Lemma \ref{L:approx1} with $t_a=0$, $t_b=1$ to obtain (since $w(\cdot,0)=0$)

735: $$\|w\|_{L_{[0,1]}^\infty L_x^2} \leq 2q\|u_1(0,t)\|_{L_{[0,1]}^\infty}\leq 2q\sech(x_0+v)$$

736: Apply Lemma \ref{L:approx1} again with $t_a=1$, $t_b=2$ to obtain

737: \begin{align*}

738: \|w\|_{L_{[1,2]}^\infty L_x^2} &\leq 2(\|w(\cdot,1)\|_{L_x^2}+ q\|u_1(0,t)\|_{L_{[1,2]}^\infty}) \\

739: &\leq 2^2q\sech(x_0+v)+2^1q\sech(x_0+2v)

740: \end{align*}

741: We continue inductively up to step $k$, and then collect all $k$ estimates to obtain the following bound on the time interval $[0,k]$

742: $$\|w\|_{L_{[0,k]}^\infty L_x^2} \leq 2q \sum_{j=1}^k 2^{k-j}\sech(x_0+jv)$$

743: The estimate $\sech \alpha \leq 2e^{-|\alpha|}$ reduces matters to bounding

744: $$2^kq e^{x_0+v}\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}2^{-j}e^{jv}$$

745: and, after summing the geometric series, we obtain

746: $$\|w\|_{L_{[0,k]}^\infty L_x^2} \leq c2^k e^{x_0+v} \frac{(2^{-1}e^{v})^k-1}{2^{-1}e^v-1} \leq cqe^{x_0+kv}$$

747: where the last inequality requires $2^{-1}e^v \geq 2$.  Finally, applying Lemma \ref{L:approx1} on $[k,t_1]$,

748: $$\|w\|_{L_{[0,t_1]}^\infty L_x^2} \leq c(qe^{x_0+kv}+q\sech(x_0+t_1v)) \leq cq e^{-v^{1-\delta}}$$

749: As a consequence, \eqref{E:approx1} follows.

750: 

751: \subsection{Phase 2}

752: 

753: We shall need a lemma stating that the free nonlinear flow is approximated by the free linear flow, and that the perturbed nonlinear flow is approximated by the perturbed linear flow.  Both estimates are consequences of the corresponding Strichartz estimates (Proposition \ref{p:Str}).  Crucially, the hypotheses and estimates of this lemma depend only on the $L^2$ norm of the initial data $\varphi$.  Below, \eqref{E:approxq} is applied with $\varphi(x)=u(x,t_1)$, and $\|u(x,t_1)\|_{L_x^2}=\|u_0\|_{L^2}$ is independent of $v$; thus $v$ does not enter adversely into the analysis.

754: 

755: \begin{lem}

756: \label{L:approx}

757: If $\varphi\in L^2$ and $0<t_b$ such that $t_b<c_1\|\varphi\|_{L^2}^{-4}$, then

758: \begin{equation}

759: \label{E:approx0}

760: \|\nlso(t)\varphi - e^{-itH_0}\varphi\|_{L_{[0,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2} \leq c_2t_b^{1/2}\| \varphi\|_{L^2}^3

761: \end{equation}

762: \begin{equation}

763: \label{E:approxq}

764: \|\nlsq(t)\varphi - e^{-itH_q}\varphi\|_{L_{[0,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2} \leq c_2t_b^{1/2} \| \varphi\|_{L^2}^3

765: \end{equation}

766: where $c_1$ and $c_2$ depend only on constants appearing in the Strichartz estimates.  In particular, they are independent of $q$.

767: \end{lem}

768: 

769: \begin{proof}

770: Estimate \eqref{E:approx0} is in fact a special case of \eqref{E:approxq} obtained by taking $q=0$.  Let $h(t)=\nlsq(t)\varphi$ so that 

771: $$i\partial_t h +\tfrac{1}{2}\partial_x^2 h - q\delta_0(x) h + |h|^2h =0$$

772: with $h(x,0)=\varphi(x)$. Let us define 

773: \[ X = L_{[0,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2 \cap L_{[0,t_b]}^6L_x^6 \,,\]

774: with the natural norm, $ \| \bullet \|_X $. 

775: We apply Proposition \ref{p:Str} with, in the notation of that proposition,  $u(t)=h(t) - e^{-itH_q}\varphi$, $f=-|h|^2h$, $p=r=6$, $\tilde p = \tilde r = 6/5$, and then again with $p=\infty$, $r=2$, $\tilde p = \tilde r = 6/5$, to obtain

776: \[  \|h(t)  - e^{-itH_q}\varphi\|_X \leq c\| |h|^2 h\|_{L_{[0,t_b]}^{6/5}L_x^{6/5}} 

777: \,. \]

778: The generalized H\"older inequality, 

779: $$ \| h_1 h_2 h_3 \|_p \leq

780: \| h_1 \|_{q_1} \|h_2\|_{q_2} \|h_3\|_{q_3} \,, \ \ \frac{1}{p} = \frac{1}{

781: q_1} + \frac{1}{ q_2} + \frac{1 } {q_3} \,, $$

782: applied with $ h_j = h $, 

783: $ p = 6/5 $ and $ q_1 = q_2 = 6 $, $ q_3 = 2 $, gives

784: \begin{equation}

785: \label{E:110}

786: \begin{split}

787:  \|h(t)  - e^{-itH_q}\varphi\|_X 

788:  &\leq C \|h\|_{L_{[0,t_b]}^6L_x^6}^2 \|h\|_{L^2_{[0,t_b]} L_x^2 }  \\

789:  &\leq C t_b^{1/2}\|h\|_{L_{[0,t_b]}^6L_x^6}^2 \|h\|_{L_{[0,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2} \\

790:  &\leq C t_b^{1/2}\|h\|_X^3\,.

791: \end{split}

792: \end{equation}

793: Another application of the homogeneous Strichartz estimate shows that

794: \[ \| e^{ - i t H_q } \varphi \|_X \leq C \| \varphi \|_{L^2} \,, \]

795: and consequently,

796: $$\|h \|_X \leq c  \|\varphi\|_{L^2} +  ct_b^{1/2}\|h\|_X^3$$

797: By continuity of $\|h\|_{X(t_b)}$ in $t_b$, if $ct_b^{1/2}(2c\|\varphi\|_{L^2})^2 \leq 1/2$,

798: $$\| h\|_X \leq 2c\|\varphi\|_{L^2}$$

799: Substituting into \eqref{E:110} yields the result.

800: \end{proof}

801: 

802: Now we proceed to apply Lemma \ref{L:approx}.  Set $t_2=t_1+2v^{-\delta}$, and apply \eqref{E:approxq} on $[t_1,t_2]$ to obtain

803: \begin{align*}

804: u(\cdot,t) &= \nlsq(t-t_1)[u(\cdot,t_1)] \\

805: &= e^{-i(t-t_1)H_q}[u(\cdot,t_1)] + \mathcal O(v^{-\delta/2})

806: \end{align*}

807: By combining this with \eqref{E:approx1},

808: \begin{equation}

809: \label{E:approx2}

810: u(\cdot,t) = e^{-it_1v^2/2}e^{it_1/2}e^{-i(t-t_1)H_q}[e^{ixv}\sech(x-x_0-t_1v)] + \mathcal O(v^{-\delta/2})

811: \end{equation}

812: 

813: By Proposition \ref{p:as} with $\theta(x)=1$ for $x\leq -1$ and $\theta(x)=0$ for $x\geq 0$, $\varphi(x) = \sech(x)$, and $x_0$ replaced by $x_0+t_1v$,

814: \begin{equation}

815: \label{E:approx3}

816: \begin{aligned}

817: \indentalign e^{-i(t_2-t_1)H_q}[e^{ixv}\sech(x-x_0-vt_1)](x) \\

818: &=

819: \begin{aligned}[t]

820: &t ( v ) e^{-i(t_2-t_1)H_0}[e^{ixv}\sech(x-x_0-vt_1)](x) \\

821: &+ r ( v )  e^{-i(t_2-t_1)H_0}[e^{-ixv}\sech(x+x_0+vt_1)](x)  \\

822: &+ {\mathcal O} (v^{-1}) 

823: \end{aligned}

824: \end{aligned}

825: \end{equation}

826: By combining \eqref{E:approx2}, \eqref{E:approx3} and \eqref{E:approx0},

827: $$u(\cdot,t) =

828: \begin{aligned}[t]

829: &t(v)e^{-it_1v^2/2}e^{it_1/2}\nlso(t_2-t_1)[e^{ixv}\sech(x-x_0-vt_1)](x) \\

830: &+r(v)e^{-it_1v^2/2}e^{it_1/2}\nlso(t_2-t_1)[e^{-ixv}\sech(x+x_0+vt_1)](x)\\

831: &+\mathcal{O}(v^{-\delta/2})

832: \end{aligned}

833: $$

834: By noting that

835: \begin{align*}

836: \indentalign \nlso(t_2-t_1)[e^{ixv}\sech(x-x_0-t_1v)] \\

837: &= e^{-i(t_2-t_1)v^2/2}e^{i(t_2-t_1)/2}e^{ixv}\sech(x-x_0-t_2v)

838: \end{align*}

839: and

840: \begin{align*}

841: \indentalign \nlso(t_2-t_1)[e^{-ixv}\sech(x+x_0+t_1v)] \\

842: &= e^{-i(t_2-t_1)v^2/2}e^{i(t_2-t_1)/2}e^{-ixv}\sech(x+x_0+t_2v)

843: \end{align*}

844: we obtain \eqref{E:approx4}.

845: 

846: \subsection{Phase 3}

847: 

848: Let $t_3=t_2+(1-\delta) \log v$.  Label

849: $$u_\trans(x,t) =e^{-itv^2/2}e^{it_2/2}e^{ixv}\nlso(t-t_2)[t(v)\sech(x)](x-x_0-tv)$$

850: for the transmitted (right-traveling) component and

851: $$u_\refl(x,t) = e^{-itv^2/2}e^{it_2/2}e^{-ixv}\nlso(t-t_2)[r(v)\sech(x)](x+x_0+tv)$$

852: for the reflected (left-traveling) component.  By Appendix \ref{localization}, for each $k\in \mathbb{N}$, there is a constant $c(k)>0$ and an exponent $\sigma(k)>0$ such that

853: \begin{equation}

854: \label{E:trans}

855: \|u_\trans(x,t)\|_{L_{x<0}^2}+ \|u_\refl(x,t)\|_{L_{x>0}^2} + |u_{\tr}(0,t)| + |u_{\refl}(0,t)| \leq \frac{c(k)(\log v)^{\sigma(k)}}{v^{k(1-\delta)}}

856: \end{equation}

857: uniformly on the time interval $[t_2,t_3]$.  We shall need the following perturbation lemma, again a consequence of the Strichartz estimates.

858: 

859: \begin{lem}

860: \label{L:approx6}

861:   Let $w=u-u_\trans-u_\refl$.

862: If $t_a<t_b$, $t_b-t_a \leq c_1$, and 

863: $$\|w(\cdot,t_a)\|_{L_x^2} + \frac{c(k)\la q\ra(\log v)^{\sigma(k)}}{v^{k(1-\delta)}} \leq 1

864: \,, $$ 

865:  then

866: \begin{align*}

867: \|w\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2} &\leq c_2\left(\|w(\cdot,t_a)\|_{L_x^2} + \frac{c(k)\la q\ra(\log v)^{\sigma(k)}}{v^{k(1-\delta)}}\right)

868: \end{align*}

869: The constants $c_1$, $c_2$ depend only on constants appearing in the Strichartz estimates and are in particular independent of $q$ and $v$.

870: \end{lem}

871: 

872: \begin{proof}

873: We write the equation satisfied by $w$:

874: \begin{align*}

875: \indentalign i\partial_t w + \tfrac{1}{2}\partial_x^2 w - q\delta_0(x)w \\

876: &= 

877: \begin{aligned}[t]

878: &-|w+u_\trans+u_\refl|^2(w+u_\trans+u_\refl) + |u_\trans|^2u_\trans + |u_\refl|^2u_\refl\\

879: &+q\delta_0(x)u_\trans -q\delta_0(x)u_\refl \\

880: \end{aligned}\\

881: &=

882: \begin{aligned}[t]

883: &-|w|^2w - (2(u_\trans+u_\refl)|w|^2 + (\bar u_\trans + \bar u_\refl)w^2) - (2|u_\trans+u_\refl|^2w + (u_\trans+u_\refl)^2\bar w)\\

884: &-\underbrace{(u_\trans^2\bar u_\refl + 2u_\refl|u_\trans|^2 +u_\refl^2\bar u_\trans + 2u_\trans|u_\refl|^2)}_{\trans-\refl\textnormal{ interaction}}+\underbrace{q\delta_0(x)u_\trans}_{\trans-\textnormal{delta}} -\underbrace{q\delta_0(x)u_\refl}_{\refl-\textnormal{delta}} \\

885: \end{aligned}

886: \end{align*}

887: $w$ is estimated using Proposition \ref{p:Str} and Proposition \ref{p:Str}.  The cubic, quadratic, and linear in $w$ terms on the first line are estimated exactly as was done in the proof of Lemma \ref{L:approx1}.  For the ``$\trans-\refl$ interaction terms'' (taking $u_\refl|u_\trans|^2$ as a representative example), we apply Proposition \ref{p:Str} with $\tilde p = 4/3$, $\tilde r = 1$ and estimate as

888: \begin{equation}

889: \label{E:120}

890: \| u_\refl |u_\trans|^2 \|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^{4/3}L_x^1} \leq c(t_b-t_a)^{3/4}\|u_\trans\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2}\|u_\refl u_\trans\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2}

891: \end{equation}

892: $\|u_\trans\|_{L_x^2} = \sqrt 2 |t(v)|$ by mass conservation for the free nonlinear flow, and

893: \begin{align*}

894: \|u_\trans u_\refl\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2} &\leq \|u_\trans u_\refl\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_{x<0}^2} + \|u_\trans u_\refl\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_{x>0}^2}\\

895: &\leq \|u_\refl\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_x^\infty} \|u_\trans\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_{x<0}^2} + \|u_\trans\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_x^\infty} \|u_\refl\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_{x>0}^2}

896: \end{align*}

897: Now

898: \begin{align*}

899: \|u_\refl\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^\infty} &= \|\nlso(t)[r(v)\sech](x)\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^\infty} \\

900: &\leq \|\nlso(t)[r(v)\sech](x)\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^2}^{1/2} \|\partial_x \nlso(t)[r(v)\sech](x)\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^2}^{1/2} \\

901: &\leq c

902: \end{align*}

903: by mass and energy conservation of the free nonlinear flow.  Similarly, $\|u_\trans\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^\infty} \leq c$.  By this and \eqref{E:trans}, the above yields

904: $$\|u_\trans u_\refl\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2} \leq \frac{ c(k)(\log v)^{\sigma(k)}}{v^{k(1-\delta)}}$$

905: Thus, by \eqref{E:120},

906: \begin{equation}

907: \label{E:121}

908: \| u_\refl |u_\trans|^2 \|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^{4/3}L_x^1} \leq \frac{c(k)(\log v)^{\sigma(k)}}{v^{k(1-\delta)}}

909: \end{equation}

910: and similarly for all other ``$\trans-\refl$ interaction'' terms.  Now we address the ``$\trans-$delta'' and ``$\refl-$delta'' terms (working with $q\delta_0(x)u_\trans$ as the representative of both).  By Proposition \ref{p:Str}, we estimate as

911: $$q \|u_\trans(0,t)\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^{4/3}} \leq c(t_b-t_a)^{3/4}q \|u_\trans(0,t)\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty}$$

912: By \eqref{E:trans},

913: \begin{equation}

914: \label{E:122}

915: q \|u_\trans(0,t)\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^{4/3}} \leq c(k)q(t_b-t_a)^{3/4} \frac{(\log v)^{\sigma(k)}}{v^{k(1-\delta)}}

916: \end{equation}

917: Collecting \eqref{E:121}, \eqref{E:122}, and the estimates for cubic, quadratic, and linear terms in $w$ (as exposed in Lemma \ref{L:approx1}), we have, with $\|w\|_X = \|w\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^\infty L_x^2} + \|w\|_{L_{[t_a,t_b]}^6 L_x^6}$

918: $$\|w\|_X \leq c\|w(\cdot, t_a)\|_{L^2} + c(t_b-t_a)^{1/2}(\|w\|_X+\|w\|_X^2+\|w\|_X^3) + \frac{c(k)\la q\ra(\log v)^{\sigma(k)}}{v^{k(1-\delta)}}$$

919: If $c(t_b-t_a)^{1/2}\leq \frac{1}{2}$, then the first-order $w$-term on the right side can be absorbed by the left, giving

920: $$\|w\|_X \leq 2c\|w(\cdot, t_a)\|_{L^2} + 2c(t_b-t_a)^{1/2}(\|w\|_X^2+\|w\|_X^3) + \frac{2c(k)\la q\ra(\log v)^{\sigma(k)}}{v^{k(1-\delta)}}$$

921: By continuity of $\|w\|_{X(t_b)}$ in $t_b$, if 

922: $$2c(t_b-t_a)^{1/2}\left( 4c\|w(\cdot,t_a)\|_{L^2} + \frac{4c(k)\la q\ra (\log v)^{\sigma(k)}}{v^{k(1-\delta)}} \right) \leq \frac{1}{2}$$

923: we have

924: $$\|w\|_X \leq 4c\|w(\cdot, t_a)\|_{L^2} + \frac{4c(k) \la q\ra(\log v)^{\sigma(k)}}{v^{k(1-\delta)}}$$

925: completing the proof.

926: \end{proof}

927: 

928: Assume that $\alpha = q/v$ has been fixed.  Choose $k=k(\delta)$ large so that $k(1-\delta)\geq 3$.  Then the coefficient appearing in Lemma \ref{L:approx6} is bounded by

929: $$\frac{c(k)\la q \ra(\log v)^{\sigma(k)}}{v^{k(1-\delta)}} \leq c(k) \left< \frac{q}{v}\right> \frac{(\log v)^{\sigma(k)}}{v^2}$$

930: Now take $v$ sufficiently large in terms of $\la q/v \ra$ and $k$ (thus in terms of $\delta$) so that the above is bounded by $v^{-1}$.

931: 

932: Now we implement Lemma \ref{L:approx6}.  For convenience of exposition, we take $c_1=1$, $c_2=2$.  Let $\ell$ be the integer such that $\ell <(1-\delta)\log v < \ell+1$.  We then apply Lemma \ref{L:approx6} successively on the intervals $[t_2,t_2+1], \ldots, [t_2+\ell-1,t_2+\ell]$ as follows.  Applying Lemma \ref{L:approx6} on $[t_2,t_2+1]$, we obtain

933: $$\|w(\cdot,t)\|_{L_{[t_2,t_2+1]}^\infty L_x^2} \leq 2(\|w(\cdot,t_2)\|_{L_x^2} + v^{-1})$$

934: Applying Lemma \ref{L:approx6} on $[t_2+1,t_2+2]$ and combining with the above estimate,

935: $$\|w(\cdot,t)\|_{L_{[t_2+1,t_2+2]}^\infty L_x^2} \leq 2^2\|w(\cdot,t_2)\|_{L_x^2} + (2^2+2)v^{-1}$$

936: Continuing up to the $\ell$-th step and then collecting all of the above estimates,$$\|w(\cdot,t)\|_{L_{[t_2,t_3]}^\infty L_x^2} \leq 2^\ell\|w(\cdot,t_2)\|_{L_x^2} + (2^\ell + \cdots +2)v^{-1} $$

937: Since $\|w(\cdot, t_2)\|_{L_x^2} \leq v^{-\delta/2}$ and $2^\ell \leq v^{1-\delta}$, 

938: \begin{equation}

939: \label{E:approx7}

940: \|w(\cdot,t)\|_{L_{[t_2,t_3]}^\infty L_x^2} \leq cv^{1-\frac{3}{2}\delta}

941: \end{equation}

942: thus proving \eqref{E:post}. 

943:  

944: Now we complete the proof of the main theorem and obtain \eqref{eq:th}.  By \eqref{E:approx7} and \eqref{E:trans},

945: \begin{equation}

946: \label{E:approx8}

947: \|u(\cdot,t)-u_\trans(\cdot,t)\|_{L_{x>0}^2} \leq \|w(\cdot,t)\|_{L_{x>0}^2}  + \|u_\refl(\cdot,t)\|_{L_{x>0}^2} \leq cv^{1-\frac{3}{2}\delta}

948: \end{equation}

949: Since $\|u_\trans(\cdot,t)\|_{L_x^2} = t(v)$, \eqref{E:trans} implies $\|u_\trans(\cdot,t)\|_{L_{x>0}^2} = t(v) + \mathcal{O}(v^{1-\frac{3}{2}\delta})$, which combined with \eqref{E:approx8} gives \eqref{eq:th} and proves Theorem \ref{th:1}.

950: 

951: \section{Resolution of outgoing waves}

952: \label{resolution}

953: 

954: In this section, we prove Theorem \ref{th:2}.  We note that the proof of Theorem \ref{th:1} presented in \S\ref{proof} in fact provided a more complete long-time description of the solution:

955: \begin{equation}

956: \label{E:asymp}

957: u(x,t) = 

958: \begin{aligned}[t]

959: & e^{-itv^2/2}e^{it_2/2}e^{ixv}\nlso(t-t_2)[t(v)\sech](x-x_0-tv) \\

960: &+ e^{-itv^2/2}e^{it_2/2}e^{-ixv}\nlso(t-t_2)[r(v)\sech](x+x_0+tv) \\

961: &+\mathcal{O}_{L_x^2}(v^{1-\frac{3}{2}\delta}), \qquad \frac{|x_0|}{v} +v^{-\delta}\leq t \leq c(1-\delta)\log v

962: \end{aligned}

963: \end{equation}

964: where $t(v)$, $r(v)$ are defined in \eqref{eq:tr} and $\nlso(t)\varphi$ denotes the solution to the NLS equation $i\partial_th + \tfrac{1}{2}\partial_x^2h + |h|^2h =0$ (without potential) and initial data $h(x,0) = \varphi(x)$.  It thus suffices to obtain the resolution of $\nlso(t-t_2)[t(v)\sech]$ and $\nlso(t-t_2)[r(v)\sech]$ into solitons plus radiation decaying in $L_x^\infty$.  By the phase invariance of the free nonlinear flow

965: $$ \nlso(t-t_2)[t(v)\sech] = \frac{t(v)}{|t(v)|}\nlso(t-t_2)[|t(v)|\sech]$$

966: and similarly for $\nlso(t-t_2)[r(v)\sech]$.

967: Since $0\leq |t(v)|, |r(v)| \leq 1$, we apply asymptotics \eqref{eq:apb} proved of Appendix \ref{alphasech} using the  inverse scattering method. When 

968: $ | t ( v) | $ or $ | r ( v ) | $ is equal to $ 1/2 $ we use the result

969: of \cite{Ka} recalled in \eqref{eq:apb1}.  The result obtained by these substitutions differs from that stated in Theorem \ref{th:2} by a factor of 

970: \begin{equation}

971: \label{E:deltashift}

972: \exp \left(i \, \frac{1-A_T^2}{2} \cdot v^{-\delta}\right)

973: \end{equation}

974: for $u_T(x,t)$, owing to the fact that $t_2=|x_0|/v+ v^{-\delta}$.  But \eqref{E:deltashift} differs from $1$ by $\sim v^{-\delta}$, and thus omitting it only introduces a discrepancy of $v^{-\delta}$ in both $L_x^2$ and $L_x^\infty$.  There is a similar inconsequential disparity in the $u_R(x,t)$ part.

975: 

976: 

977: \appendix

978: \section{Spatial localization of the free nonlinear propagation}

979: \label{localization}

980: 

981: Let $\varphi \in \mathcal{S}$ and 

982: \begin{equation}

983: \left\{

984: \begin{aligned}

985: &i \partial_t h + \tfrac{1}{2} \partial_x^2 h + |h|^2 h  =  0, \\

986: &h(x,0)  =  \varphi(x).

987: \end{aligned}

988: \right.

989: \end{equation}

990: \textbf{Notational conventions}.  We denote $\partial_x$ by $\partial$ hereafter.  The $x$ and $t$ dependence of $h(x,t)$ will be routinely dropped.  The constants $c(k)$, $\sigma(k)$, and the polynomials $g_\gamma(t)$ that appear below may change (enlarge) from one line to the next without comment. The constants $ c( k ) $ depend on the fixed function $ \varphi \in {\mathcal S} $.

991: 

992: The solution $h$ satisfies conservation of mass and conservation of energy, which means that the integrals

993: $$ E_0 = \int_\RR  |h|^2 dx \,, \ \ 

994:  E_2 = - \int_\RR  (| \partial h |^2 - |h|^4) dx \,, $$

995: are independent of time $ t$.  Since $\|h\|_{L^\infty}^2 \leq \|h\|_{L^2}\|\partial h\|_{L^2}$, we have $\|h\|_{L^4}^4 \leq \|h\|_{L^2}^3\|\partial h\|_{L^2}$ and it follows from the $E_2$ and $E_0$ conservation that $\|\partial h\|_{L^2} \leq c$, where $c$ depends on $\|\varphi\|_{L^2}$ and $\|\partial \varphi \|_{L^2}$.

996: 

997: In fact, there are an infinite number of conserved integrals, $ E_k $, with 

998: integrands defined inductively as follows

999: \begin{equation}

1000: \label{E:A3}

1001: f_0  = |h|^2  \,, \ \ \

1002:  f_{k+1} =  h \partial \left( \frac{1}{h} f_k \right) + \sum_{j_1+j_2=k-1} 

1003: f_{j_1} f_{j_2}, 

1004: \end{equation}

1005: see \cite[\S 8]{ZS72} for a proof of this fact (rescaling time and putting 

1006: $ \kappa = 2 $ produces an agreement with our slightly different 

1007: convention).  The inductive definition of $f_k$ and the Sobolev 

1008: embedding theorem can now be used to show that, for $\ell\geq 2$, 

1009: \begin{equation}

1010: \label{E:A4}

1011:  E_{2 \ell}  = ( -1)^{\ell} \int_{\RR } | \partial^\ell h ( x) |^2 d x 

1012: + {\mathcal O} ( ( 1 + \| h \|_{H^{\ell - 1}_x } ) ^{2\ell + 2} ) \,, 

1013: \end{equation}

1014: and hence for $\ell\geq 0$, we have

1015: \begin{equation}

1016: \label{E:ZS}

1017: \|\partial^\ell h \|_{L^2} \leq c(\ell)

1018: \end{equation}

1019: where $c(\ell)$ depends upon Sobolev norms of the initial data $\varphi$ of at most order $\ell$.

1020: We now elaborate on how to obtain \eqref{E:A4}.  An inductive argument using \eqref{E:A3} shows that for $k\geq 0$, $f_k$ is of the form

1021: \begin{equation}

1022: \label{E:A6}

1023: f_k = h\partial^k \bar h + h \sum_{j\geq 1,\; 2j\leq k} p(2j+1,k-2j)

1024: \end{equation}

1025: where $p(n,m)$ indicates a linear combination of terms of degree $n$ and \textit{cumulative} order $m$, or more precisely terms of the form

1026: \begin{equation}

1027: \label{E:A5}

1028: \partial^{\alpha_1}\tilde h  \, \partial^{\alpha_2}\tilde h\cdots \partial^{\alpha_n}\tilde h, \quad \alpha_1+\cdots+\alpha_n=m

1029: \end{equation}

1030: and $\tilde h$ is either $h$ or $\bar h$.  To prove \eqref{E:A4} for $\ell\geq 2$, one uses \eqref{E:A6} for $k=2\ell$ and it only remains to verify that for any $n\geq 4$ and $m\leq 2\ell-2$,

1031: \begin{equation}

1032: \label{E:A7}

1033: \int  p(n,m) \, dx \leq \|h\|_{H^{\ell-1}}^n

1034: \end{equation}

1035: We now show this.   Note that in \eqref{E:A5}, we may assume without loss of generality that $\alpha_1\leq \alpha_2 \leq \cdots \leq \alpha_n$.  

1036: 

1037: \noindent\textbf{Case 1}.  $\alpha_n\leq \ell-1$.  It follows that $\alpha_j \leq \ell-2$ for all $j\leq n-2$ and $\alpha_{n-1}\leq \ell-1$.  We estimate as:

1038: $$\left| \int \partial^{\alpha_1}\tilde h  \, \partial^{\alpha_2}\tilde h\cdots \partial^{\alpha_n}\tilde h \, dx\right| \leq \left( \prod_{j=1}^{n-2} \|\partial^{\alpha_j} h\|_{L^\infty} \right) \|\partial^{\alpha_{n-1}}h\|_{L^2} \|\partial^{\alpha_n}h\|_{L^2}\leq c\|h\|_{H^{\ell-1}}^n$$

1039: by Sobolev embedding.

1040: 

1041: \noindent\textbf{Case 2}.  $\alpha_n\geq \ell$.  In this case, we begin by integrating by parts to obtain

1042: \begin{equation}

1043: \label{E:A8}

1044: (-1)^{\alpha_n-\ell+1}\int \partial^{\alpha_n-\ell+1}( \partial^{\alpha_1}\tilde h  \cdots \partial^{\alpha_{n-1}}\tilde h) \; \partial^{\ell-1}\tilde h \, dx

1045: \end{equation}

1046: The Leibniz rule expansion is

1047: \begin{equation}

1048: \label{E:A9}

1049: \partial^{\alpha_n-\ell+1}( \partial^{\alpha_1}\tilde h  \cdots \partial^{\alpha_{n-1}}\tilde h) = \sum c_\mu \partial^{\mu_1+\alpha_1}\tilde h \cdots \partial^{\mu_{n-1}+\alpha_{n-1}}\tilde h

1050: \end{equation}

1051: where the sum is over $(n-1)$-tuples $\mu$ such that $\mu_1+\cdots+\mu_{n-1} = \alpha_n-\ell+1$ and $c_\mu$ is some constant depending on $\mu$.  By adding the $\alpha$ and $\mu$ constraints, we obtain that $(\mu_1+\alpha_1)+\cdots +(\mu_{n-1}+\alpha_{n-1}) \leq \ell-1$ and thus there is at most one index $j_*$  ($1\leq j_* \leq n-1$) such that $\mu_{j_*}+\alpha_{j_*} = \ell-1$ and for all remaining $j$ ($1\leq j\leq n-1$, $j\neq j_*$) we have $\mu_j+\alpha_j \leq \ell-2$.  (If no such $j_*$ exists, take $j_*$ to be any fixed index $1\leq j_*\leq n-1$.)   By substituting \eqref{E:A9} into \eqref{E:A8}, we estimate as

1052: $$\left|\int \partial^{\alpha_1}\tilde h  \, \partial^{\alpha_2}\tilde h\cdots \partial^{\alpha_n}\tilde h \, dx \right| \leq \left( \prod_{j=1, j\neq j_*}^{n-1} \|\partial^{\mu_j+\alpha_j} h\|_{L^\infty} \right) \|\partial^{\mu_{j_*}+\alpha_{j_*}}h\|_{L^2}\|\partial^{\ell-1}h\|_{L^2} \leq c\|h\|_{H^{\ell-1}}^n$$

1053: again by Sobolev embedding.  This concludes the proof of \eqref{E:A7}, thus \eqref{E:A4}, and thus \eqref{E:ZS}.

1054: 

1055: Using that the commutator $[(x+it\partial),i\partial_t+\tfrac{1}{2}\partial^2]=0$  and some integration by parts manipulations, we have the pseudoconformal conservation law:

1056: $$

1057: \int_x |(x+it\partial) h(x,t)|^2 dx - t^2 \int_x |h(x,t)|^4 dx + \int_0^t s \int_x |h(x,s) |^4 dx ds = \int_x |x \varphi(x)|^2 dx.

1058: $$

1059: From this, \eqref{E:ZS} for $\ell=0,1$, and the Gagliardo-Nirenberg estimate $\|h\|_{L^4}^4 \leq \|h\|_{L^2}^3\|\partial h\|_{L^2}$, we have

1060: $$ \| x h \|_{L^2}  \leq  c \langle t \rangle$$

1061: where $c$ depends on $\|x\varphi\|_{L^2}$, $\|\varphi\|_{L^2}$, and $\|\partial \varphi\|_{L^2}$.  We want to show that more generally, for each $k\in \mathbb{Z}$, $k\geq 0$, we have

1062: \begin{equation}

1063: \label{E:kthbound}

1064: \| x^\alpha \partial^\beta h \|_{L^2} \leq c(k) \la t \ra^{\sigma(k)} \qquad \text{for }\alpha+\beta =k, \; \alpha,\beta \geq 0, \; \alpha,\beta \in \mathbb{Z}

1065: \end{equation}

1066: Here $c(k)$ is a constant depending on $k$ and weighted Sobolev norms of the initial data $\varphi$ (up to order $2k$), and $\sigma(k)$ is a positive exponent depending upon $k$.  We are not concerned with obtaining the optimal value of $\sigma(k)$; the mere fact that the bound in \eqref{E:kthbound} is power-like in $t$, as opposed to exponential in $t$, suffices for our purposes.  In our proof, both $c(k)$ and $\sigma(k)$ will be increasing with $k$, and will go to $+\infty$ as $k\to +\infty$.

1067: 

1068: Let $\Lambda_0 = \partial$ and $\Lambda_1 = (x+it\partial)$.  Note that both operators have the commutator property

1069: \begin{equation}

1070: \label{E:comm}

1071: [\Lambda_j, (i\partial_t + \tfrac12\partial^2)]=0\,, \ \ j=0, 1\,. 

1072: \end{equation}

1073: We first claim that for each $k\geq 0$,  there exists a constant $c(k)>0$ and an exponent $\sigma(k)>0$ such that 

1074: \begin{equation}

1075: \label{E:A1}

1076: \| \Lambda_{j_1} \Lambda_{j_2} \cdots \Lambda_{j_k} h \|_{L^2} \leq c(k)\la t \ra^{\sigma(k)} \text{ for all }j_1, \ldots j_k \in \{ 0, 1\} \,. 

1077: \end{equation}

1078:  When we wish to consider a composition of the form $\Lambda_{j_1} \Lambda_{j_2} \cdots \Lambda_{j_k}$ and do not care to report whether each operator in the composition is $\Lambda_0$ or $\Lambda_1$, we will instead write the composition as $\Lambda^k$.  We prove \eqref{E:A1} by induction on $k$ .  When $k=0$, \eqref{E:A1} is just the mass conservation law.  Suppose that \eqref{E:A1} holds for $0, \ldots, k-1$; we aim to prove it holds for $k$.  The main ingredient (in addition to the inductive hypothesis) is \eqref{E:ZS}.  Fix $j_1, \ldots j_k \in \{0,1\}$, and apply the operator $\Lambda_{j_1}\cdots \Lambda_{j_k}$ to the equation, pair with $-i \overline{ \Lambda_{j_1}\cdots \Lambda_{j_k} h}$, integrate in $x$, take twice the real part, and appeal to \eqref{E:comm} to obtain

1079: \begin{equation}

1080: \label{E:A2}

1081: \partial_t \| \Lambda_{j_1} \cdots \Lambda_{j_k} h \|_{L^2}^2 = 2\Re i\int  \Lambda_{j_1} \cdots \Lambda_{j_k} |h|^2h \;\;  \overline{\Lambda_{j_1}\cdots \Lambda_{j_k} h} \, dx

1082: \end{equation}

1083: Note that

1084: $$\Lambda_0 \, F(h,\bar h)h = \partial F(h,\bar h) \; h + F(h,\bar h) \; \Lambda_0 h$$

1085: and

1086: $$\Lambda_1 \, F(h,\bar h)h = it\partial F(h,\bar h) \; h + F(h,\bar h) \; \Lambda_1 h$$

1087: Both of these product rules take the form

1088: $$\Lambda \, |h|^2h = g(t)\partial F(h,\bar h) \; h + F(h,\bar h) \; \Lambda h$$

1089: where $g(t)$ is a polynomial in $t$ of degree $\leq 1$.  Thus we see that

1090: $$\Lambda_{j_1} \cdots \Lambda_{j_k} \, |h|^2h = |h|^2 \Lambda_{j_1} \cdots \Lambda_{j_k}h + \sum_{\substack{\gamma_1+\gamma_2 =k \\ \gamma_2 \leq k-1}} g_\gamma(t) \partial^{\gamma_1}|h|^2 \; \Lambda^{\gamma_2}h$$

1091: where $g_{\gamma}(t)$ is a polynomial in $t$.  Substituting into \eqref{E:A2}, we obtain two terms: the first is zero since it is the real part of a purely imaginary number; the second is estimated by the H\"older inequality to obtain:

1092: $$| \, \partial_t \| \Lambda_{j_1} \cdots \Lambda_{j_k} h \|_{L^2}^2 \, | \leq c(k) \la t \ra^{\sigma(k)} \left( \sup_{j\leq k-1} \|\partial^j |h|^2 \|_{L^\infty}\right) \left(\sup_{j\leq k-1}\| \Lambda^jh\|_{L^2}\right)\|\Lambda_{j_1} \cdots \Lambda_{j_k} h \|_{L^2} $$

1093: By Sobolev embedding estimates, \eqref{E:ZS}, and the induction hypothesis, we have

1094: $$| \, \partial_t \| \Lambda_{j_1} \cdots \Lambda_{j_k} h \|_{L^2}^2 \, | \leq c(k) \la t \ra^{\sigma(k)} \|\Lambda_{j_1} \cdots \Lambda_{j_k} h \|_{L^2}$$

1095: from which \eqref{E:A1} follows.

1096: 

1097: Now to deduce \eqref{E:kthbound} from \eqref{E:A1}, we just note that since $x=\Lambda_1-it\Lambda_0$, there are polynomials $g_j(t)$ such that the following relation holds:

1098: $$x^\alpha \partial^\beta = \sum_{j\in\{0,1\}^{\alpha+\beta}} g_j(t)\Lambda_{j_1}\cdots \Lambda_{j_{\alpha+\beta}}$$

1099: 

1100: Let us now consider the application of \eqref{E:kthbound} to obtain \eqref{E:trans} in the Phase 3 analysis.  We have $x_0+tv \geq v^{1-\delta}$ for $t\geq t_2$.  If $x<0$, then

1101: $$v^{k(1-\delta)} \leq (x_0+tv)^k \leq |x-x_0-tv|^k$$

1102: Thus

1103: \begin{align*}

1104: v^{k(1-\delta)}\|u_{\tr}(x,t)\|_{L^2_{x<0}} &\leq  \|(x-x_0-tv)^k \nlso(t-t_2)[t(v)\sech](x-x_0-tv)\|_{L_x^2} \\

1105: &= \|x^k \nlso(t-t_2)[t(v)\sech](x)\|_{L_x^2} \\

1106: &\leq c(k)\la t-t_2 \ra^{\sigma(k)}

1107: \end{align*}

1108: by \eqref{E:kthbound}, which gives the first estimate in \eqref{E:trans}.  The second is obtained similarly.  To obtain the third, we note that for $t\geq t_2$,\begin{align*}

1109: |u_{\tr} (0,t)|^2 &= |\nlso(t-t_2)[t(v)\sech](-x_0-tv)|^2\\

1110: &= -\int_{-\infty}^0 \partial_x |\nlso(t-t_2)[t(v)\sech](x-x_0-tv)|^2 \, dx

1111: \end{align*}

1112: and this can be estimated by 

1113: \[  \| \nlso(t-t_2)[t(v)\sech](x-x_0-tv) \|_{L_{x<0}^2} \| \partial_x \nlso(t-t_2)[t(v)\sech](x-x_0-tv) \|_{L_{x<0}^2}  \,. 

1114: \]

1115: Using \eqref{E:kthbound} as before establishes

1116: $$v^{k(1-\delta)} \| \partial_x^j 

1117: \nlso(t-t_2)[t(v)\sech] (x-x_0-tv) \|_{L_{x<0}^2} 

1118: \leq c(k+j) \la t-t_2 \ra^{\sigma(k+j)}$$

1119: Replacing $(c(k)c(k+1))^{1/2}$ by $c(k)$ and $\frac{1}{2}(\sigma(k)+\sigma(k+1))$ by $\sigma(k)$, we obtain the bound \eqref{E:trans}.  

1120: Finally, we note that the fourth bound in \eqref{E:trans} is similar to the third.

1121: 

1122: \section{Free nonlinear evolution of $ \alpha \, \sech $}

1123: \label{alphasech}

1124: 

1125: This appendix is devoted to showing that for $ 0 < \alpha < 1 $

1126: \begin{equation}

1127: \label{eq:apb}

1128: \nlso ( \alpha \, \sech ) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 

1129: \nlso ( ( 2 \alpha - 1 ) \sech ( ( 2 \alpha - 1)

1130: \bullet ) ) + {\mathcal O}_{L^\infty } ( t^{-\frac12} ) 

1131: & 1/2 < \alpha < 1 \,, \\

1132: {\mathcal O}_{L^\infty } ( t^{-\frac12} ) &  0 < \alpha < 1/2 \,. 

1133: \end{array} \right.

1134: \end{equation}

1135: 

1136: A more precise understanding of error terms is possible thanks

1137: to advances in the study asymptotics for integrable nonlinear waves

1138: \cite{DIZ}, \cite{Ka}. Since we do not know an exact reference

1139: for \eqref{eq:apb} we present a proof of this 

1140: simpler asymptotic result. It is based on the now classical work 

1141: on the inverse scattering method initiated for NLS by 

1142: Zakharov-Shabat \cite{ZS72} -- see \cite{DIZ},\cite{FT}

1143: for discussion and references. For the reader's convenience, 

1144: especially in view of different conventions used in different

1145: sources for our argument, we review all the needed aspects of the method.

1146: 

1147: In the case of $ \alpha = 1/2 $

1148: we can use the result of \cite{Ka} to conclude that 

1149: \begin{equation}

1150: \label{eq:apb1} 

1151: \nlso ( \alpha \, \sech ) =

1152: {\mathcal O}_{L^\infty } ( ( \log t /t) ^{\frac12} )\,. 

1153: \end{equation}

1154: A slightly inaccurate 

1155: statement similar to \eqref{eq:apb} was given in \cite{M81} and

1156: the calculation of the scattering matrix in that paper was our

1157: starting point in obtaining \eqref{eq:apb}.

1158: 

1159: \subsection{Inverse scattering method}

1160: We present a quick review of this celebrated method.

1161: Thus, let us consider two operators acting on $ {\mathcal S}' ( 

1162: \RR ; \CC^2 ) $:

1163: $$  L = -iJ\partial_x + iJ Q \,, \ \

1164:   A = J\partial_x^2 - \frac 12 JQ_x -JQ\partial_x - \frac 12 Q^2J \,, $$ 

1165: where

1166: $$Q = Q (t,  x ) = \begin{bmatrix} \ \ 0 & u ( t, x )  

1167: \\ - \overline {u  ( t, x )}

1168:   &  \ 0 \end{bmatrix}\,, \ \ 

1169: u ( t, \bullet ) \in {\mathcal S} ( \RR ) \,, 

1170: \qquad J = \begin{bmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1\end{bmatrix}\,. $$

1171: Then 

1172: $$[  L,   A] = - \frac i 2 Q_{xx} + iQ^3$$

1173: which is checked by using

1174: $$

1175: JQJ = -Q\,, \ \ J^2=I \,, \ \ 

1176: Q^2 = \begin{bmatrix} -|u|^2 & 0 \\ 0 & -|u|^2 \end{bmatrix}\,. $$

1177: It is now the case that 

1178: \begin{equation}

1179: \label{eq:evolb} 

1180:  \partial_t   L = i[  L,  A]  \ 

1181: \Longleftrightarrow \ i\partial_t u + \frac12 \partial_x^2 u + |u|^2u=0 \,,

1182: \end{equation} 

1183: and, since we are solving NLS,

1184: we assume that these equivalent equations hold.

1185: 

1186: %Hence, if $ \psi ( t) $ is a $t$-dependent family in 

1187: %$ {\mathcal S}' ( \RR, \CC^2 ) $, then 

1188: %\begin{equation}

1189: %\label{eq:evolb}

1190: % L ( 0 ) \psi ( 0) = \lambda \psi ( 0) \,, \ \ 

1191: %\exists \, \mu, \ \

1192: %i \partial_t \psi ( t ) =  ( A + \mu ) \psi ( t ) \ \Longleftrightarrow \

1193: %L ( t ) \psi ( t ) = \lambda \psi ( t ) \,, \ \ t \in \RR \,.  

1194: %\end{equation} 

1195: %Scattering theory for the time dependent operator $ L ( t ) $ 

1196: %produces the reflection coefficient, $ r ( \lambda , t ) $, and the 

1197: %inverse scattering method gives a way of reconstructing $ L ( t) $,

1198: %and hence $ u ( t, x ) $, from $ r $ and some additional scattering

1199: %data -- see \eqref{eq:datab} below.

1200: %The equation $ i \partial_t \psi ( t ) = (A + \mu) \psi ( t ) $ provides 

1201: %simple evolution equations for the scattering data.

1202: 

1203: We now consider scattering theory for the time dependent operator

1204: $ L $. For that we introduce

1205: %To define the reflection coefficient we consider

1206: special solutions to $ L \psi = \lambda \psi $ with prescribed

1207: asymptotic behaviour:

1208: \begin{equation}

1209: \begin{split}

1210: \label{eq:Jost} 

1211: & \bar \psi ( x , \lambda ) \simeq \left[ \begin{array}{l}

1212: e^{-i x \lambda } \\ \  0 \end{array} \right] \,, \ \ 

1213: \psi ( x , \lambda ) \simeq \left[ \begin{array}{l}

1214:  \ 0 \\    e^{i x \lambda }  \end{array} \right] \,, \ \ 

1215: x \longrightarrow + \infty  \\

1216: & \varphi ( x , \lambda ) \simeq \left[ \begin{array}{l}

1217:  e^{-i x \lambda } \\  \  0 \end{array} \right] \,, \ \ 

1218: \bar \varphi ( x , \lambda ) \simeq \left[ \begin{array}{l}

1219: \ 0 \\  e^{i x \lambda }  \end{array} \right]\,,  \ \ 

1220: x \longrightarrow -  \infty \,,

1221: \end{split}

1222: \end{equation}

1223: see instance \cite[Sect.I.5]{FT}. 

1224: Here for vector valued functions, 

1225: $ \bar \varphi \defeq [ \bar \varphi_2 , - \bar \varphi_1 ]^t $, if

1226: $ \varphi = [ \varphi_1 , \varphi_2 ]^t $.

1227: Each pair

1228: of solutions forms a basis for the solution set and, for $ \lambda 

1229: \in \RR $, 

1230: \begin{equation}

1231: \label{eq:relb}

1232: \begin{split}

1233: & \varphi ( x, \lambda ) = a ( \lambda ) \bar \psi ( x , \lambda ) 

1234: + b ( \lambda ) \psi  ( x , \lambda) \,, \\

1235: & \bar \varphi  ( x, \lambda ) = \bar a ( \lambda )  \psi ( x , \lambda ) 

1236: - \bar b ( \lambda ) \bar \psi ( x , \lambda) \,, \\

1237: &   \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | a ( \lambda ) |^2 + | b ( \lambda ) |^2 = 1 \,. 

1238: \end{split} \end{equation}

1239: Another consequence comes from \eqref{eq:evolb}. If $ L( t ) \psi ( t ) 

1240: = \lambda \psi ( t) $ then we see that 

1241: \[ ( L - \lambda ) ( i \partial_t \psi - A \psi ) = 0 \]

1242: and hence

1243: \[  i \partial_t \psi ( t )  - A \psi ( t ) =  c_1 ( t ) \psi ( t ) 

1244: + c_2 \bar \psi ( t ) \,.\]

1245: Now we note that for $ u ( t , \bullet ) \in {\mathcal S} 

1246: ( \RR ) $, $ A \simeq J \partial_x^2 $, as $ |x| \rightarrow \infty $, 

1247: and  the asymptotic behaviour  \eqref{eq:Jost} 

1248: gives $ c_1 ( t ) \equiv \lambda^2 $, $ c_2 ( t ) \equiv 0 $. 

1249: More generally we conclude that 

1250: \begin{equation}

1251: \label{eq:moreg} \begin{split}

1252:  & i \partial_t \psi = ( A + \lambda^2 ) \psi \,, \ \

1253: i \partial_t \bar \psi = ( A - \lambda^2 ) \bar \psi \,, \\

1254:  & i \partial_t \varphi = ( A + \lambda^2 ) \varphi \,, \ \

1255: i \partial_t \bar \varphi = ( A - \lambda^2 ) \bar \varphi \,. 

1256: \end{split}

1257: \end{equation}

1258: 

1259: The solutions $ \psi $ and $ \varphi $ have analytic extensions in 

1260: $ \lambda $ to the upper half plane and $ \bar \psi $ and $ \bar \varphi $ 

1261: to the

1262: lower half plane. Same is true for $ a( \lambda ) $ and 

1263: $ \overline{ a ( \lambda ) } $ respectively. Except in very special 

1264: cases (such as our potential $ \alpha \, \sech x $) $ b ( \lambda ) $

1265: does not have an analytic extension off the real axis. The 

1266: reflection coefficient is defined as 

1267: \[  r ( \lambda ) = \frac{ b ( \lambda ) } { a ( \lambda )}\,.\]

1268: 

1269: We assume that $ a ( \lambda ) $ has at most one zero and that it can 

1270: only lie in $ \Im \lambda > 0 $, $ \Re \lambda = 0 $. That zero, 

1271: $ \lambda_0 $, corresponds to an $ L^2 $ eigenfuction of $ L $, and 

1272: at $ \lambda = \lambda_0 $, the two solutions 

1273: are proportional:

1274: \begin{equation}

1275: \label{eq:defga}

1276:  \varphi ( x , \lambda_0 ) = \gamma_0 \psi ( x , \lambda_0 ) \,. 

1277: \end{equation}

1278: The scattering data is given by the triple 

1279: \begin{equation}

1280: \label{eq:datab}

1281: u ( t , x ) \longmapsto \{ r ( \lambda , t) \,, \lambda_0 \,, 

1282: \gamma_0 ( t ) \} \,.

1283: \end{equation}

1284: 

1285: The evolution of the scattering data 

1286: is easily obtained from \eqref{eq:moreg}:

1287: \begin{equation}

1288: \label{eq:evol1b}

1289: r ( \lambda , t ) = e^{ 2 i t \lambda^2} r ( \lambda , 0 ) \,, \ \ 

1290: \gamma_0 ( t ) =  e^{ 2 i t \lambda^2} \gamma_0 ( 0 ) \,.

1291: \end{equation}

1292: In fact, we can 

1293: use \eqref{eq:relb} \eqref{eq:moreg} to see

1294: \[ \begin{split}  ( A - \lambda^2 ) \varphi &  =  

1295: i\partial_t \varphi   = i\partial_t a  

1296:  \bar \psi  + a    i \partial_t \bar \psi   + 

1297: i \partial_t b   \psi   + b  

1298: i \partial_t \psi \\ &  = 

1299: i \partial_t a   \bar \psi+ ( i \partial_t 

1300: b  + 2 \lambda^2 b )  \psi   + ( A - \lambda^2) \varphi   

1301:   \,.

1302: \end{split} \]

1303: Independence of $ \psi $ and $ \bar \psi $ shows that, remarkably,

1304: \[ \partial_t a ( \lambda, t ) = 0 \,, \ \ \partial_t b ( \lambda , t ) 

1305: = 2 i \lambda^2 b ( \lambda , t) \,, \]

1306: which gives the first part of \eqref{eq:evol1b}.

1307: From \eqref{eq:defga} we see that,

1308: \[   \gamma_0 ( A - \lambda^2 ) \psi ( \lambda_0 ) =  

1309: i \partial_t \varphi ( \lambda_0 ) 

1310: =  i \partial_t \gamma_0 

1311: \psi ( \lambda_0 ) + \gamma_0 ( A + \lambda^2) \psi ( \lambda_0 )  \,, \]

1312: so that, 

1313: \[  \partial_t \gamma_0 ( t )  = 2 i \lambda^2 \gamma_0 ( t ) \,. \]

1314: That gives \eqref{eq:evol1b}.

1315: The justification of this formal calculation depends on 

1316: $ u ( t , \bullet ) \in {\mathcal S} ( \RR ) $ and we refer to, for

1317: instance, \cite[Section I.7]{FT} for a full proof.

1318: 

1319: 

1320: \subsection{The Riemann Hilbert problem}

1321: It is now universally acknowledged that the best way to obtain 

1322: long time asymptotics for the inverse of

1323: \eqref{eq:datab} and \eqref{eq:evol1b}

1324: is by solving 

1325: a Riemann-Hilbert problem  \cite{DIZ}, \cite[Chapter II]{FT}.

1326: To recall this method let us consider the following 

1327: matrix valued function of $ \lambda \in \CC \setminus \RR $, depending 

1328: parametrically on $ x \in \RR $:

1329: \begin{equation}

1330: \label{eq:RH0}  \Psi ( \lambda, x ) \defeq \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

1331: { [} a (  \lambda )^{-1}  \varphi ( x , \lambda ) 

1332: e^{  i \lambda x } , 

1333:  \psi ( x, \lambda  ) e^{- i \lambda x } ], & \Im \lambda > 0 \\ 

1334: \ & \ \\

1335: { [ } \bar \psi ( x , \lambda ) e^{  i \lambda x } , 

1336: \bar a( \bar \lambda)^{-1} \bar \varphi ( x , \lambda ) 

1337: e^{ - i \lambda x } {]},

1338:  & \Im \lambda <  0 \end{array}

1339: \right. \end{equation}

1340: The properties of $ \psi $ and $ \varphi $ (see for instance 

1341: \cite[Section I.5]{FT}) imply that 

1342: \begin{equation}

1343: \label{eq:RH1}

1344:  \Psi ( \lambda  ) = I + {\mathcal O} ( | \lambda|^{-1}  ) \,, \ \

1345: |\lambda | \rightarrow \infty \,,  \end{equation}

1346: where the decay rate may depend on $ x$, uniformly in compact sets.

1347: From \eqref{eq:relb} we see that 

1348: \[ \begin{split}

1349: &   \Psi ( \lambda + i 0 , x )  = 

1350: [ \bar \psi  ( x , \lambda ) 

1351: e^{  i \lambda x } , 

1352:  \psi ( x, \lambda  ) e^{- i \lambda x } ] \left[ \begin{array}{ll} 

1353: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 & 0 \\

1354:  r ( \lambda ) e^{ 2 i ( \lambda x + \lambda^2 t ) } & 1 \end{array}

1355: \right] \,, \\ 

1356: &   \Psi ( \lambda - i 0 , x )  = 

1357: [ \bar \psi  ( x , \lambda ) 

1358: e^{  i \lambda x } , 

1359:  \psi ( x, \lambda  ) e^{- i \lambda x } ] \left[ \begin{array}{ll} 

1360: 1 & -  { \bar r ( \lambda ) } e^{ - 2 i ( \lambda x + \lambda^2 t ) }  \\

1361: 0 & \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \end{array}

1362: \right] \,, \ \ \lambda \in \RR \,. \end{split} \]

1363: Hence, the boundary values of $ \Psi ( \lambda ) $

1364: satisfy

1365: \begin{gather}

1366: \label{eq:RH2}  

1367: \begin{gathered}

1368: \Psi ( \lambda + i 0 ) = \Psi ( \lambda - i 0 ) V_{x,t} ( \lambda ) 

1369: \,, \ \

1370: \lambda \in \RR \,, \\

1371: V_{x,t} \defeq \left[ \begin{array}{ll}

1372: \ 1 + | r ( \lambda )|^2   & { \bar r ( \lambda ) } e^{ - 2 i ( \lambda x + \lambda^2 t ) } \\ 

1373:  r ( \lambda ) e^{ 2 i ( \lambda x + \lambda^2 t ) } & 

1374: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1\end{array} \right] \,. 

1375: \end{gathered}

1376: \end{gather}

1377: If $ a ( \lambda ) $ has no zeros in $ \Im \lambda \geq 0 $ then

1378: the Riemann-Hilbert problem is to construct $ \Psi ( \lambda ) $ 

1379: satisfying \eqref{eq:RH1} and \eqref{eq:RH2}. Liouville's theorem

1380: readily shows that it is unique. If $ a ( \lambda ) $ has a zero

1381: in $ \Im \lambda  > 0 $, and in our presentation we allow at most one, 

1382: $ \lambda_0 $, we have to consider a Riemann-Hilbert problem in which

1383: $ \Psi ( \lambda ) $ is allowed to have singularities at $ \lambda_0 $

1384: and $ \bar \lambda_0 $. The structure of that singularity can be

1385: seen in \eqref{eq:RH0}:

1386: \begin{equation}

1387: \label{eq:resb}

1388: \begin{split}

1389: &  \Res_{ \lambda = \lambda_0 } \Psi = \Psi ( \lambda_0 ) \left[ 

1390: \begin{array}{ll} \ \ \ \  0 & 0\\

1391: e^{ 2 i \lambda_0 x } \gamma_0' & 0 \end{array} \right] \,, \\

1392: & \Res_{ \lambda = \bar \lambda_0 } \Psi = \Psi ( \bar \lambda_0 ) \left[ 

1393: \begin{array}{ll} 0 & 

1394: e^{ - 2 i \bar{\lambda_0} x } \bar \gamma_0'  \\

1395: 0 & \ \ \ \ 0 \end{array} \right] \,, \ \

1396:  \gamma_0' \defeq \frac{\gamma_0 }{ a' ( \lambda_0 ) }\,.

1397: \end{split}

1398: \end{equation}

1399: Since $ a ( \lambda ) $ can be reconstructed from $ r ( \lambda ) $

1400: and $ \lambda_0 $ (see for instance \cite[Chapter I, (6.23)]{FT}; 

1401: in our case it will be explicit) the Riemann-Hilbert problem in the 

1402: case of one singularity is to find $ \Psi $ which in addition to 

1403: \eqref{eq:RH1} and \eqref{eq:RH2} satisfies \eqref{eq:resb}.

1404: 

1405: 

1406: A standard way to read off $ u ( t , x) $ from $ \Psi ( \lambda , x) $

1407: follows from high frequency asymptotics of $ \psi ( x, \lambda )$ 

1408: (see for instance \cite[(18)]{ZS72}):

1409: \begin{equation}

1410: \label{eq:asyb} \psi ( x , \lambda ) e^{ - i \lambda x } \simeq 

1411: \left[ \begin{array}{l} 1 \\ 0 \end{array} \right] +

1412: \frac{1}{ 2 i \lambda } \left[ \begin{array}{l} \ \ \ \ \  u (t,  x )  \\ 

1413: \int_x^\infty | u ( t, y ) |^2 dy  \end{array} \right] + 

1414: {\mathcal O} \left( \frac1 {| \lambda|^2 } \right) \,,

1415: \end{equation}

1416: so that 

1417: \begin{equation}

1418: \label{eq:recon}

1419:   u ( x , t ) = \lim_{\lambda \rightarrow \infty } 2 i \lambda \Psi_{12} (

1420: \lambda , x ) \,.

1421: \end{equation}

1422: 

1423: We conclude this brief review by describing a reduction of the 

1424: problem with prescribed singularities \eqref{eq:resb} to a problem

1425: with $ \Psi $ analytic in $ \CC \setminus \RR $. To do that we

1426: follow \cite[Section II.2]{FT} by considering a 

1427: reformulation of the Riemann-Hilbert problem:

1428: \begin{gather*}

1429: G_{ \pm } ( \lambda )^{\mp 1 } \defeq \Psi ( \lambda) \left[

1430: \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \ \ \ 0 \\ 0 & a_{\pm}( \lambda ) 

1431: ^{\mp 1 } \end{array} \right] 

1432: \,,\ \ a_+ ( \lambda ) \defeq  a ( \lambda) \,, \ \ 

1433: a_- ( \lambda ) \defeq \bar a ( \bar \lambda ) \,,  \ \  \pm \Im \lambda > 0 \,, \\

1434: G_+ ( \lambda + i 0 ) G_-( \lambda -i0 ) = G ( \lambda ) \,, \ \ 

1435: G ( \lambda ) \defeq \left[ \begin{array}{ll} 

1436: \ \ \ 1 & - \bar b ( \lambda ) \\ - b ( \lambda ) & \ \ \ 1 \end{array}

1437: \right] \,. 

1438: \end{gather*}

1439: The operators $ G_\pm ( \lambda ) $ are now analytic in $ \Im \lambda 

1440: \pm > 0 $ 

1441: (in fact, $ G_+^* ( \lambda ) = G_- (  \bar \lambda) $) 

1442: but their ranks drop precisely at $ \lambda = \lambda_ 0 $

1443: and $ \bar \lambda_0 $ respectively. The condition \eqref{eq:resb} 

1444: becomes 

1445: \begin{equation}

1446: \label{eq:resb2} \Im G_+ ( \lambda_0 ) = {\rm span}_\CC \left[ \begin{array}{l}

1447: \ \ \ \ 1 \\  \gamma_0 e^{ 2 i \lambda_0 x } \end{array} \right] \,, \ \

1448:  \kerr G_- ( \bar \lambda_0 ) = {\rm span}_\CC \left[ \begin{array}{l}

1449: - \bar \gamma_0  e^{ - 2 i \bar \lambda_0 x } 

1450: \\ \ \ \ \ 1 \end{array}\right] \,.

1451: \end{equation}

1452: We now look for $ B ( \lambda ) $, analytic in 

1453: $ \Im \lambda >  0 $, with $ B( \lambda )^{-1} $ analytic in 

1454: $ \Im \lambda < 0 $, $ B ( \lambda ) = I + {\mathcal O} ( 1/|\lambda | ) $,

1455: and such that 

1456: \[ \widetilde G_+ ( \lambda ) \defeq G_+ ( \lambda ) B ( \lambda )^{-1} \,, \ \

1457: \widetilde G_- ( \lambda ) = B ( \lambda ) G_+ ( \lambda ) \,, \ \ 

1458: \pm \Im \lambda > 0 \,, \]

1459: are nonsingular matrices. We note this requires $ B( \lambda) ^{-1} $

1460: to have a pole at $ \lambda_0 $ and $ B( \lambda ) $, at $ \bar \lambda_0 $.

1461: That is natural since we are adding to the ranks of $ G_\pm ( \lambda ) $. 

1462: The condition \eqref{eq:resb2} mean that 

1463: \begin{equation}

1464: \label{eq:resb3} 

1465:  \Im B ( \lambda_0 ) =  {\rm span}_\CC \widetilde G_+^{-1} ( \lambda_0 ) 

1466:  \left[ \begin{array}{l}

1467: \ \ \ \ 1 \\  \gamma_0 e^{ 2 i \lambda_0 x } \end{array} \right] \,, \ \

1468: \kerr B ( \bar \lambda_0 ) =  {\rm span}_\CC \widetilde G_- ( \bar 

1469: \lambda_0 )  \left[ \begin{array}{l}

1470: - \bar \gamma_0  e^{ - 2 i \bar \lambda_0 x } 

1471: \\ \ \ \ \ 1 \end{array}\right] \,. \end{equation}

1472: This determines $ B ( \lambda) $ uniquely as a {\em Blaschke-Potapov

1473: factor}:

1474: \begin{gather}

1475: \label{eq:bp}

1476: \begin{gathered}

1477:   B (\lambda ) = I + \frac{ \bar \lambda_0 - \lambda_0 }{ 

1478: \lambda - \bar \lambda_0 } P \,, \ \ P^* = P \,, \ \ P^2 = P \,, \\

1479: P = \frac{1}{  1 + |\beta|^2 } \begin{bmatrix} | \beta|^2 & \beta\\

1480:  \bar \beta &  1 \end{bmatrix}\,, \ \

1481: \beta ( x ) = \frac{  \widetilde G_-^{(11)} ( \bar \lambda_0 , x )  

1482: \gamma_0 e^{ - 2 i \bar \lambda_0 

1483: x } + \widetilde G_{-}^{(12)} ( \bar \lambda_0 , x ) } 

1484: { \widetilde G_-^{(21)} ( \bar \lambda_0 , x )  \gamma_0 e^{ - 2 i \bar \lambda_0 

1485: x } + \widetilde G_{-}^{(22)} (\bar  \lambda_0 , x ) } \,,\end{gathered}

1486: \end{gather}

1487: see \cite[Chapter II, (2.17)-(2.27)]{FT}.

1488: 

1489: Hence to solve the Riemann-Hilbert problem \eqref{eq:RH2},\eqref{eq:resb}

1490: we first solve the problem 

1491: \begin{equation}

1492: \label{eq:pstb} \widetilde \Psi ( \lambda + i 0 ) = 

1493: \widetilde \Psi ( \lambda - i 0 ) V_{x,t} ( \lambda ) \,, \ \

1494: \widetilde \Psi = I + {\mathcal O} ( 1/ | \lambda | ) \,, \ \ 

1495: \text{ $ \widetilde \Psi $ analytic in $ \CC \setminus \RR $}\,. 

1496: \end{equation}

1497: We then define 

1498: \[  \widetilde G_- ( \lambda ) = \widetilde \Psi ( \lambda ) 

1499:  \left[

1500: \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \ \ \ 0 \\ 0 & \bar a( \bar \lambda ) 

1501: ^{\mp 1 } \end{array} \right]\,, \ \

1502: \widetilde G_+ ( \lambda ) = \widetilde G_- ( \bar \lambda ) ^* \,, \ \

1503: \Im \lambda < 0 \,, \]

1504: from which, using \eqref{eq:bp}, we construct $ B ( \lambda ) $.

1505: Then 

1506: \begin{equation}

1507: \label{eq:resb4}

1508:   \Psi ( \lambda ) = B ( \lambda )^{-1} \widetilde \Psi ( \lambda ) \,,

1509: \end{equation}

1510: and we can finally use \eqref{eq:recon} to obtain $ u ( t, x ) $.

1511: In particular the long time behaviour of $ u ( t , x ) $ is determined by

1512: the longtime behaviour of $ \widetilde \Psi ( \lambda ) $.

1513: 

1514: \subsection{Manakov ansatz}

1515: 

1516: The basic structure of the long time behaviour of $ \widetilde 

1517: \Psi $ solving \eqref{eq:pstb} can be obtained from the 

1518: {\em Manakov ansatz} for the solution of \eqref{eq:pstb} -- see

1519: \cite[Section 2]{DIZ} and references given there. To describe it

1520: we define

1521: \begin{gather*}  m_\pm ( \lambda , x, t ) \defeq

1522:  \frac{1}{ 2 \pi i } \int_\RR \frac{ r_\pm ( \zeta) \delta  ( \zeta+ i 0 )^{

1523: \pm 1 } \delta ( \zeta -i0 )^{ \pm 1 } }{ \zeta - \lambda } 

1524: e^{ \mp 2 (  i t \zeta^2 + x \zeta ) } d \zeta \,, \end{gather*}

1525: where $ r_+ ( \zeta ) = r ( \zeta ) $, $ r_- ( \zeta ) = 

1526: \bar r ( \zeta ) $, and 

1527: \begin{gather*}

1528: \delta ( \lambda, x, t ) 

1529: \defeq \exp \left\{ \frac 1 {2 \pi i } \int_{-\infty}^{-x/2t}

1530: \frac{ \log ( 1 + | r ( \zeta )|^2 ) } { \zeta - \lambda } d \zeta

1531: \right\} \,, 

1532: \end{gather*}

1533: solves a scalar Riemann-Hilbert problem,  

1534: \begin{gather*}

1535: \delta ( \zeta + i 0 ) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \delta ( \zeta 

1536: - i 0 ) ( 1+ | r ( \zeta)|^2 ) \,, & \zeta < -x/2t \\

1537: \ \ \ \delta( \zeta - i 0 ) \,, & \zeta > -x/2t \,, \end{array}

1538: \right.  \end{gather*}

1539: see \cite[Proposition 2.12]{DZ} for a detailed list of properties

1540: of $ \delta ( z ) $ (stated in the defocusing case $ \log ( 1 - 

1541: | r ( \zeta ) |^2 ) $). 

1542: The Manakov ansatz is then given by 

1543: \begin{equation}

1544: \label{eq:manak}

1545: \widehat \Psi ( \lambda , x,  t) \defeq 

1546: \begin{bmatrix} \ \ \ 1 & m_+ ( \lambda , x , t ) \\

1547: m_- ( \lambda , x , t) & \ \ \ 1 \end{bmatrix} 

1548: \begin{bmatrix} \delta ( \lambda , x , t ) & \ \  1 \\ 

1549:  \ \ 1 &  \delta ( \lambda , x , t )^{-1} \end{bmatrix} \,. 

1550: \end{equation}

1551: To see the properties of $ \widehat \Psi $ we use the following 

1552: elementary lemma:

1553: \begin{lem} 

1554: \label{lb:1} 

1555: Suppose that $ f \in C^\infty ( ( 0 , \RR ) ) $, $ f' \in L^1 ( [ 0 ,

1556: \infty ) $, $ x^k f^{(l)} \in  L^\infty( [ 1 , \infty ) ) 

1557: $, for all $ k$ and $ l$. 

1558: Then, as $ \lambda \rightarrow \pm \infty $,

1559: \[ \frac{1}{ 2 \pi i } \int_{\, 0}^\infty \frac{ f ( y) e^{ 

1560: i \lambda  y^2 }} { y - x - i 0 } = 

1561: \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} f ( x) e^{ i \lambda x^2 } + 

1562: {\mathcal O} ( |\lambda|^{-\frac12} |x|^{-1} ) & 

1563: \ \text{ $x > 0 $ and $ \lambda > 0 $} \\

1564: \ & \ \\

1565: {\mathcal O} ( |\lambda|^{-\frac12} |x|^{-1} ) & 

1566: \ \text{ otherwise.} \end{array} \right. \]

1567: \end{lem}

1568: Using this lemma one checks that 

1569: \[ \widehat \Psi ( \lambda - i 0, x , t )^{-1}\widehat \Psi ( \lambda + i 0 , x , t) 

1570: = V_{x, t} ( \lambda ) + {\mathcal O} \left( \frac{1}{ \sqrt t 

1571: | \lambda + x/2t | } \right) \,, \]

1572: from which it follows as in \cite[Section 2]{DIZ} that 

1573: \[ \widetilde \Psi ( \lambda ) = ( I + {\mathcal O} ( 1/\sqrt t) )

1574: \widehat \Psi ( \lambda ) \,.\]

1575: If we defined $ \tilde u ( t , x) $ by putting $ \widetilde \Psi  $ in

1576: \eqref{eq:recon} this shows that $ \tilde u ( t ,x ) = 

1577: {\mathcal O} ( 1 / \sqrt t ) $, and in fact a more precise 

1578: statement can be obtained by using the second component in 

1579: \eqref{eq:asyb}. 

1580: 

1581: We can now use \eqref{eq:bp} to obtain an approximation to 

1582: $ B ( \lambda ) $ as $ t \rightarrow \infty $:

1583: \[  B( \lambda ) = \widehat B ( \lambda ) + {\mathcal O} ( t^{-1/2} 

1584: |\lambda|^{-1} ) \,, \ \ 

1585: \widehat B ( \lambda ) = I -  \frac{ \bar \lambda_0 - \lambda_0 }{ 

1586: \lambda - \bar \lambda_0 } \widehat P \,, \]

1587: where $ \widehat P $ is as in \eqref{eq:bp} with $ \beta $ replaced by 

1588: \[ \hat \beta = \gamma_0 \exp ( - 2 \bar \lambda_0 x ) 

1589: \exp  \left\{ \frac 1 { \pi i } \int_{-\infty}^{\, 0}

1590: \frac{ \log ( 1 + | r ( \zeta )|^2 ) } { \zeta - \lambda_0 } d \zeta

1591: \right\} \,.\]

1592: Hence to obtain a long time approximation for a solution we 

1593: apply the procedure of \cite[Section II.5]{FT} to $ B_0 ( \lambda )$

1594: since that corresponds to using \eqref{eq:recon} with 

1595: \[ \Psi ( \lambda ) = B ( \lambda )^{-1} \widetilde\Psi ( \lambda ) 

1596: = B ( \lambda)^{-1} ( I + {\mathcal O} ( t^{-1/2} ) ) \widehat \Psi 

1597: ( \lambda ) = B_0 ( \lambda )^{-1} ( I + {\mathcal O}(t^{-1/2}|\lambda|^{-1}

1598:  ) ) \,.\]

1599: This gives 

1600: \begin{lem}

1601: \label{lb:2}

1602: Suppose that $ u ( 0 , \bullet ) \in {\mathcal S} ( \RR ) $ and that

1603: the scattering data \eqref{eq:datab} for $ u ( 0 , \bullet ) $ is 

1604: given by $ r ( \lambda ) $, $ \gamma_0 $ and $ \lambda_0  $, 

1605: $ \Im \lambda > 0 $. Then 

1606: \begin{gather}

1607: \label{eq:lb2}

1608: \begin{gathered}

1609: u ( x, t ) = e^{ i \varphi_0 } \nlso \left( e^{ 2 i \Re \lambda_0 \, \bullet } 

1610: 2 \Im \lambda_0 \, \sech ( 2 \Im \lambda_0 \,  ( \bullet - x_0) ) \right) 

1611: + {\mathcal O}_{L^\infty}  ( t^{-1/2} ) \,, \ \ 

1612: \end{gathered}

1613: \end{gather}

1614: where 

1615: \[ x_0 = \frac{1}{ 2 \Im \lambda_0 } \left( \log | \gamma_0 | - 

1616: \log | a' ( \lambda_0 ) | - \log (2 \Im \lambda_0 ) 

1617: - \frac{\Im \lambda_0 }{ \pi } \int_{-\infty}^{\, 0 }

1618: \frac{ \log ( 1 + | r ( \zeta )|^2 ) } { ( \zeta - \Re \lambda_0) 

1619: ^2 + \lambda_0^2 } d \zeta \right) \,, \]

1620: and 

1621: \[ \varphi_0 = \arg \gamma_0 - \arg a' ( \lambda_0 ) + \frac{1}{ \pi} 

1622:  \int_{-\infty}^{\, 0 }

1623: \frac{ \log ( 1 + | r ( \zeta )|^2 ) } { ( \zeta - \Re \lambda_0) 

1624: ^2 + \lambda_0^2 } ( \zeta - \Re \lambda_0 ) d \zeta  \,. 

1625: \]

1626: \end{lem}

1627: We state this important result as a lemma to stress the fact

1628: that a better error estimates seem available if more advanced methods

1629: \cite{DZ},\cite{DIZ} are used.

1630: 

1631: 

1632: \subsection{Scattering matrix}

1633: We now apply Lemma \ref{lb:2} to obtain \eqref{eq:apb}. For that

1634: we need to find the scattering data 

1635: \eqref{eq:datab} for $ u ( 0 ,x ) = \alpha \sech x $. That is done

1636: by a well known computation \cite{M81},\cite[Sect.3.4]{Maib} 

1637: which reappears in many scattering theories, from the free

1638: $S$-matrix 

1639: in automorphic scattering, to Eckhardt barriers in quantum chemistry. 

1640: We quote the results:

1641: \[ a ( \lambda ) = \frac{ \Gamma ( \frac12 - i \lambda ) }

1642: {\Gamma ( \frac 12 + \alpha - i \lambda ) \Gamma ( \frac12 - 

1643: \alpha - i \lambda ) } \,, \ \ 

1644:  b ( \lambda ) = i \frac {\sin \pi \alpha }{ \cosh \pi \lambda } \,, \ \ 

1645: r ( \lambda ) = \frac{ b ( \lambda ) } { a ( \lambda ) } \,. \]

1646: We note that in this special case $ b $ and $ r $ are meromorphic

1647: in $ \CC $ (with infinitely many ``nonphysical'' poles).

1648: Also, 

1649: \[ \lambda_0 = 2 \alpha -1 \ \ \text{ if $ 1/2 < \alpha < 1 \,, \ $ \ and } \

1650: \ \gamma_0 = b ( \lambda_0 ) = i \,.\]

1651: We need to compute $ x_0 $ and $ \varphi_0 $. In general when $ u ( 0 ,x ) $

1652: is even then $ x_0 = 0 $ by symmetry considerations. Here we see 

1653: it by using \cite[Chapter II, (2.6)]{FT} which shows that

1654: \[ \begin{split} \log| a' ( \lambda_0 )|  & 

1655: =  \log( 2 \Im \lambda_0 ) + 

1656:  \frac{ \Im \lambda_0}{ 2 \pi  }

1657:  \int_{-\infty}^{\infty }

1658: \frac{ \log ( 1 + | r ( \zeta )|^2 ) } { \zeta^2 + \Im \lambda_0^2 } 

1659: d \zeta   \\

1660: & = \frac{\Im \lambda_0}{\pi}  

1661:  \int_{-\infty}^{0}

1662: \frac{ \log ( 1 + | r ( \zeta )|^2 ) } { \zeta^2 + \Im \lambda_0^2 } 

1663: d \zeta \,. \end{split} \]

1664: Thus the formula in Lemma \ref{lb:2} results in $ x_0 = 0 $. 

1665: To compute $ \varphi_0 $ we need to find the following integral

1666: \[ 

1667: \int_0^\infty \log \left( 1 + \frac{ \sin^2 \pi \alpha }{ \cosh^2 

1668:  \pi \zeta  } \right) \frac{ \zeta}{ \zeta^2 + ( 2 \alpha -1)^2 } 

1669: d \zeta \,, \ \ 1/2 < \alpha < 1 \,. \]

1670: 

1671: 

1672: \begin{thebibliography}{XX}

1673: 

1674: %\bibitem{DiSj} M. Dimassi and J. Sj\"ostrand, {\em Spectral Asymptotics in

1675: %the semiclassical limit,} Cambridge University Press, 1999.

1676: 

1677: \bibitem{BJ} J. C. Bronski and R. L. Jerrard, 

1678: {\em Soliton dynamics in a potential,} Math. Res. Lett. 

1679: {\bf 7}(2000), 329-342. 

1680: 

1681: \bibitem{CM} X.D. Cao and B.A. Malomed, {\em Soliton-defect collisions in the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation,}

1682: Physics Letters A {\bf 206}(1995), 177--182.

1683: 

1684: \bibitem{DZ}  P.A. Deift and X. Zhou, {\em Long-time asymptotics for

1685: solutions of the NLS equation with initial data in weighted Sobolev

1686: spaces,}  Comm. Pure Appl. Math. {\bf 56} (2003), 1029--1077.

1687: 

1688: \bibitem{DIZ} P.A. Deift, A.R. Its, and X. Zhou, 

1689: {\em Long-time asymptotics for integrable nonlinear wave

1690: equations}, in {\em Important developments in soliton theory},  181--204, Springer Ser. Nonlinear Dynam., Springer, Berlin, 1993.

1691: 

1692: \bibitem{FT} L.D. Faddeev and L.A. Takhtajan, 

1693: {\em Hamiltonian Methods in the Theory of Solitons, Part One} 

1694: Springer Verlag, 1987.

1695: 

1696: \bibitem{FlWe} A. Floer and A. Weinstein, {\em Nonspreading wave packets for the cubic Schr\"odinger equation with a bounded potential}, 

1697: J. Funct. Anal. {\bf 69}(1986), 397--408. 

1698: 

1699: %\bibitem{Fokit} A.S. Fokas and A.R. Its, {\em Soliton generation for

1700: %initial value problems,} Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}(1992), 3117--31120.

1701: 

1702: \bibitem{FrSi} J. Fr\"olich, S. Gustafson, B.L.G. Jonsson, and

1703: I.M. Sigal, {\em Solitary wave dynamics in an external potential,}

1704: Comm. Math. Physics, {\bf 250}(2005), 613--642.

1705: 

1706: \bibitem{GHW} R.H. Goodman, P.J. Holmes, and M.I. Weinstein, 

1707: {\em Strong NLS soliton-defect interactions,}

1708: Physica D {\bf 192}(2004), 215--248.

1709: 

1710: \bibitem{HMZ2} J. Holmer, J. Marzuola, and M. Zworski, 

1711: {\em Numerical study of soliton scattering by delta impurities,}

1712: in preparation.

1713: 

1714: \bibitem{Hor1} L. H\"ormander, {\em The Analysis of Linear Partial

1715: Differential Operators, vol.I,II}, Springer Verlag, 1983.

1716: 

1717: %\bibitem{Hor2} L. H\"ormander, {\em The Analysis of Linear Partial 

1718: %Differential Operators, vol.III,IV,} Springer Verlag, 1985.

1719: 

1720: \bibitem{KT} M. Keel and T. Tao, {\em Endpoint Strichartz estimates,}

1721: Amer. J. Math.  {\bf 120}(1998), 955--980.

1722: 

1723: \bibitem{Ka} S. Kamvissis, {\em Long time behavior for the focusing nonlinear Schroedinger equation with real spectral singularities,}

1724: Comm. Math. Phys. {\bf 180}(1996), 325--341.

1725: 

1726: \bibitem{Lax68} P.D.\ Lax, {\em Integrals of nonlinear equations of evolution and solitary waves}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. {\bf 21} (1968), 467--490.

1727: 

1728: \bibitem{Maib} A.I. Maimistov and M. Basharov,

1729: {\em Nonlinear Optical Waves,} 

1730: Fundamental Theories of Physics, {\bf 104}

1731: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1999

1732: 

1733: \bibitem{M81} J.W.\ Miles, {\em An envelope soliton problem,} SIAM J. Appl. Math. {\bf 41} (1981), no. 2, 227--230.

1734: 

1735: %\bibitem{SPR} T. Paul, K. Richter, and P. Schlagheck, 

1736: %{\em Nonlinear Resonant Transport of Bose-Einstein Condensates,}

1737: %Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}(2005), 020404.

1738: 

1739: \bibitem{TZ} S.H. Tang and M. Zworski, 

1740: {\em Potential scattering on the real line,} Lecture notes,

1741: \newline

1742: {\tt http://www.math.berkeley.edu/$\sim$zworski/tz1.pdf}

1743: 

1744: \bibitem{ZS72} V.E.\ Zakharov and A.B.\ Shabat, {\em Exact theory of two-dimensional self-focusing and one-dimensional self-modulation of waves in nonlinear media,} Soviet Physics JETP {\bf 34} (1972), no. 1, 62--69.

1745: 

1746: \end{thebibliography}    

1747:    

1748: \end{document}   

1749: