1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: 

3:     

4: \pagestyle{headings}

5: 

6: 

7: 

8: 

9: \usepackage{amssymb}

10: \usepackage[leqno]{amsmath}

11: \usepackage{amsthm}

12: 

13: \usepackage{graphicx,color}

14: 

15: %\usepackage{eso-pic}

16: %\definecolor{lightgray}{gray}{.85}

17: \usepackage{subfigure}

18: %\usepackage{showlabels}

19: 

20: 

21: 

22: 

23: %%%%%%%%%

24: %%	romans

25: 

26: %\newcommand\A{{\rm A}}

27: %\newcommand\B{{\rm B}}

28: %\newcommand\C{{\rm C}}

29: %\newcommand\D{{\rm D}}

30: %\newcommand\E{{\rm E}}

31: %\newcommand\F{{\rm F}}

32: %\newcommand\G{{\rm G}}

33: %\newcommand\H{{\rm H}}

34: %\newcommand\I{{\rm I}}

35: %\newcommand\J{{\rm J}}

36: %\newcommand\K{{\rm K}}

37: %\newcommand\L{{\rm L}}

38: %\newcommand\M{{\rm M}}

39: %\newcommand\N{{\rm N}}

40: %\newcommand\O{{\rm O}}

41: %\newcommand\P{{\rm P}}

42: %\newcommand\Q{{\rm Q}}

43: %\newcommand\R{{\rm R}}

44: %\newcommand\S{{\rm S}}

45: %\newcommand\TT{{\rm T}}

46: %\newcommand\U{{\rm U}}

47: %\newcommand\V{{\rm V}}

48: \newcommand\W{{\rm W}}

49: \newcommand\MW{{\rm {MW}}}

50: %\newcommand\X{{\rm X}}

51: %\newcommand\Y{{\rm Y}}

52: %\newcommand\Z{{\rm Z}}

53: \newcommand\Def{{\overset {\rm {def}}{\ =\ }}}

54: \renewcommand\And{{\rm {and\;\;}}}

55: \newcommand\as{{\rm {as}\;\;}}

56: \newcommand\at{{\rm {at}\;}}

57: \newcommand\out{{\rm {out}}}

58: \newcommand\inn{{\rm {inn}}}

59: \newcommand\per{{\rm {per}}}

60: 

61: 

62: \newcommand\const{{\rm {const}}}

63: \newcommand\dist{{\rm {dist}}}

64: \newcommand\eff{{\rm {eff}}}

65: %\newcommand\either{{\rm {either}}}

66: %\newcommand\ess{{\rm {ess}}}

67: %\newcommand\even{{\rm {even}}}

68: %\newcommand\sc{{\rm {sc}}}

69: \newcommand\for{{\rm {for}\;}}

70: %\newcommand\h{{\rm h}}

71: \newcommand\In{{\rm {in\;}}}

72: %\newcommand\If{{\rm {if\;}}}

73: %\newcommand\inter{{\rm {int}}}

74: %\newcommand\loc{{\rm {loc}}}

75: \newcommand\new{{\rm {new}}}

76: %\newcommand\odd{{\rm {odd}}}

77: %\newcommand\old{{\rm {old}}}

78: \newcommand\Or{{\rm {or}}}

79: %\newcommand\on{{\rm {on\;}}}

80: %\newcommand\TF{{\rm {TF}}}

81: %\newcommand\SS{{\rm {SS}}}

82: %\newcommand\HS{{\rm {HS}}}

83: %\newcommand\sc{{\rm {sc}}}

84: %\newcommand\app{{\rm {app}}}

85: %\newcommand\el{{\rm {el}}}

86: \newcommand\corr{{\rm {corr}}}

87: %\newcommand\provided{{\rm {provided\;}}}

88: %\newcommand\reg{{\rm {reg}}}

89: \newcommand\st{{\rm {st}}}

90: %\newcommand\with{{\rm {with}\;}}

91: \newcommand\w{{\rm w}}

92: %\newcommand\x{{\rm x}}

93: %\newcommand\x{{\rm x}}

94: %\newcommand\z{{\rm z}}

95: %\newcommand\OF{{\rm {OF}}}

96: %\newcommand\WF{{\rm {WF}}}

97: %\newcommand\Weyl{{\underline {\rm {Weyl}}}}

98: 

99: %%	barred

100: %%%%%%%%%

101: 

102: \newcommand\balpha{{\bar \alpha}}

103: \newcommand\bsigma{{\bar {\mathstrut \sigma}}}

104: \newcommand\bl{{\bar {\mathstrut l}}}

105: \newcommand\bx{{\bar {\mathstrut x}}}

106: \newcommand\by{{\bar {\mathstrut y}}}

107: %\newcommand\bt{{\bar {\mathstrut t}}}

108: %\newcommand\btau{\bar {\mathstrut \tau }}

109: \newcommand\bz{{\bar {\mathstrut z}}}

110: %\newcommand\bgamma{\bar {\mathstrut \gamma }}

111: \newcommand\bareta{{\bar {\mathstrut \eta }}}

112: \newcommand\bxi{\bar {\mathstrut \xi}}

113: %\newcommand\btau{\bar {\mathstrut \tau }}

114: %\newcommand\bep{\bar {\mathstrut \epsilon }}

115: %\newcommand\bgamma{\bar {\mathstrut \gamma }}

116: %\newcommand\brho{\bar {\mathstrut \rho }}

117: 

118: %%	boldsymbols

119: %%%%%%%%%

120: 

121: %\newcommand\boldalpha{{\boldsymbol \alpha }}

122: %\newcommand\boldbeta {{\boldsymbol \nu }}

123: %\newcommand\boldrho{{\boldsymbol \rho }}

124: %\newcommand\boldpi{{\boldsymbol \pi }}

125: %\newcommand\boldsigma{{\boldsymbol \sigma }}

126: %\newcommand\boldgamma{{\boldsymbol \gamma }}

127: %\newcommand\boldPhi{{\bold\Phi }}

128: %\newcommand\boldPsi{{\bold\Psi }}

129: \newcommand\blangle{{\boldsymbol \langle }}

130: \newcommand\brangle{{\boldsymbol \rangle }}

131: \newcommand\bv{{\boldsymbol | }}

132: 

133: 

134: %%	operatornames

135: %%%%%%%%%

136: 

137: \newcommand\Ad{\operatorname{Ad}}

138: %\newcommand\Char{\operatorname{Char}}

139: %\newcommand\codim{\operatorname{codim}}

140: %\newcommand\deg{\operatorname{deg}}

141: \newcommand\diag{\operatorname{diag}}

142: %\newcommand\diam{\operatorname{diam}}

143: %\newcommand\dim{\operatorname{dim}}

144: %\newcommand\graph{\operatorname{graph}}

145: %

146: %\newcommand\Hess{\operatorname{Hess}}

147: %\newcommand\Hom{\operatorname{Hom}}

148: \renewcommand\Im{\operatorname{Im}}

149: %\newcommand\ind{\operatorname{ind}}

150: %\newcommand\indM{\operatorname{ind_\M}}

151: \newcommand\Ker{\operatorname{Ker}}

152: \newcommand\Ran{\operatorname{Ran}}

153: %\newcommand\mes{\operatorname{mes}}

154: %\newcommand\mod{\operatorname{mod}}

155: %\newcommand\Op{\operatorname{Op}}

156: %\newcommand\Opw{\operatorname{Op^\w}}

157: %\newcommand\Ran{\operatorname{Ran}}

158: \newcommand\rank{\operatorname{rank}}

159: \renewcommand\Re{\operatorname{Re}}

160: %\newcommand\sgn{\operatorname{sgn}}

161: \newcommand\sign{\operatorname{sign}}

162: \newcommand\Spec{\operatorname{Spec}}

163: %\newcommand\Specess{\operatorname{Spec_\ess}}

164: \newcommand\supp{\operatorname{supp}}

165: %\newcommand\symb{\operatorname{symb}}

166: \newcommand\tr{\operatorname{tr}}

167: \newcommand\Tr{\operatorname{Tr}}

168: %\newcommand\vrai{\operatorname{vrai}}

169: \newcommand\Res{\operatorname{Res}}

170: \newcommand\ResR{\operatorname{Res_\bR}}

171: %\newcommand\Vol{\operatorname{vol}}

172: %\newcommand\Voll_#1{\operatorname{vol_#1}}

173: %\newcommand\Trr_#1{\operatorname{Tr_#1}}

174: %\newcommand\t_#1{\operatorname{tr_#1}}

175: %\newcommand\TTrr^#1{\operatorname{Tr^#1}}

176: %\newcommand\t^#1{\operatorname{tr^#1}}

177: %\newcommand\Hes_#1{\operatorname{Hess_{#1}}}

178: %\newcommand\Hessigma {\operatorname{Hess ^\sigma }}

179: 

180: %%	special symbols

181: %%%%%%%%%

182: 

183: %\newcommand\bi{{\bar \imath}}

184: %\newcommand\bj{{\bar\jmath}}

185: %\newcommand\hi{{\hat\imath}}

186: %\newcommand\hj{{\hat\jmath}}

187: %\newcommand\ti{{\tilde \imath}}

188: %\newcommand\tj{{\tilde \jmath}}

189: 

190: %%	mathbbb symbols

191: %%%%%%%%%

192: 

193: \newcommand\bR{{\mathbb R}}

194: \newcommand\bC{{\mathbb C}}

195: \newcommand\bH{{\mathbb H}}

196: \newcommand\bK{{\mathbb K}}

197: %\newcommand\bN{{\mathbb N}}

198: %\newcommand\bR{{\Bbb R}}

199: \newcommand\bS{{\mathbb S}}

200: \newcommand\bT{{\mathbb T}}

201: \newcommand\bZ{{\mathbb Z}}

202: %

203: 

204: %%	mathbbb symbols

205: %%%%%%%%%

206: \newcommand\cA{{\mathcal A}}

207: \newcommand\cB{{\mathcal B}}

208: \newcommand\cC{{\mathcal C}}

209: \newcommand\cD{{\mathcal D}}

210: \newcommand\cE{{\mathcal E}}

211: \newcommand\cF{{\mathcal F}}

212: \newcommand\cG{{\mathcal G}}

213: \newcommand\cH{{\mathcal H}}

214: \newcommand\cI{{\mathcal I}}

215: \newcommand\cJ{{\mathcal J}}

216: \newcommand\cK{{\mathcal K}}

217: \newcommand\cL{{\mathcal L}}

218: \newcommand\cM{{\mathcal M}}

219: \newcommand\cN{{\mathcal N}}

220: \newcommand\cO{{\mathcal O}}

221: \newcommand\cP{{\mathcal P}}

222: \newcommand\cQ{{\mathcal Q}}

223: \newcommand\cR{{\mathcal R}}

224: \newcommand\cS{{\mathcal S}}

225: \newcommand\cT{{\mathcal T}}

226: \newcommand\cU{{\mathcal U}}

227: \newcommand\cV{{\mathcal V}}

228: \newcommand\cW{{\mathcal W}}

229: \newcommand\cX{{\mathcal X}}

230: \newcommand\cY{{\mathcal Y}}

231: \newcommand\cZ{{\mathcal Z}}

232: 

233: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{{\arabic{footnote})}}

234: 

235: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]

236: 

237: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}

238: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}

239: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

240: 

241: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

242: 

243: \theoremstyle{definition}

244: 

245: \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

246: \newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}

247: \newtheorem{condition}[theorem]{Condition}

248: \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}

249: 

250: 

251: \newenvironment{claim}[1][(\theequation)]{\refstepcounter{equation}\smallskip

252: \begin{trivlist}

253: \item[{\hskip\labelsep#1}]}{\smallskip\end{trivlist}}

254: 

255: \usepackage[bookmarks,pdfnewwindow]{hyperref}

256: 

257: 

258: 

259: 

260: 

261: \setcounter{section}{-1}

262: \newcommand{\sect}[1]{\setcounter{equation}{0}\section{#1}}

263: 

264: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

265: 

266: 

267: \setlength{\textwidth}{163truemm}

268: 

269: %\overfullrule=0pt

270: 

271: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

272: %%% BEGIN %

273: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

274: 	

275: 

276: \begin{document}

277: 

278: 

279: 

280: 

281: \title{%

282: Sharp Spectral Asymptotics for two-dimensional Schr\"odinger operator with a strong degenerating magnetic field.}

283: 

284: \author{%

285: Victor Ivrii

286: \footnote{Work was partially supported by NSERC grant OGP0138277.}

287: }

288: \maketitle

289: 

290: {\abstract

291: This paper is a continuation of \cite{IRO1} and \cite{Ivr1, IRO2,IRO3, IRO4, IRO5}. I consider two-dimensional Schr\"odinger operator with  degenerating magnetic field and in the generic situation I derive spectral asymptotics 

292: as $h\to +0$ and $\mu\to +\infty$ where $h$ and $\mu$ are Planck and coupling parameters respectively. The remainder estimate is $O(\mu^{-{\frac 1 2}}h^{-1})$

293: which is between $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-1})$ valid as magnetic field non-degenerates and $O(h^{-1})$ valid as magnetic field is identically 0. As $\mu$ is close to its maximal reasonable value $O(h^{-2})$ the principal part contains correction terms associated with short periodic trajectories of the corresponding classical dynamics.

294: \endabstract}

295: 

296: %\AddToShipoutPicture*{%

297: %    \AtTextCenter{%

298: %      \makebox(0,0)[c]{\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%

299: %        \rotatebox{55}{\textsf{\textbf{\color{lightgray} Preliminary Analysis}}}}} 

300: %   }

301: %  }

302: %

303: 

304: 

305: 

306: \sect{Introduction}

307: 

308: \setcounter{subsection}{-1}

309: 

310: \subsection{Preface}

311: We consider spectral asymptotics of

312: \begin{equation}

313: A= {\frac 1 2}\Bigl(\sum_{j,k}P_jg^{jk}(x)P_k -V\Bigr),\qquad P_j=D_j-\mu V_j

314: \label{0-1}

315: \end{equation}

316: where $g^{jk}$, $V_j$, $V$ are smooth real-valued functions of $x\in \bR^2$ and

317: $(g^{jk})$ is positive-definite matrix, $0<h\ll 1$ is a Planck parameter and 

318: $\mu \gg1$ is a coupling parameter. We assume that $A$ is a self-adjoint operator.

319: 

320: In contrast to my recent papers \cite{IRO3, IRO4, IRO5} I assume that all the coefficients are very smooth and in contrast to \cite{IRO4} I consider only two-dimensional case here. However degeneration of the magnetic field makes result much more interesting and difficult than I expected when I started this work.

321: 

322: I hope to investigate similar even-dimensional case in the future; odd-dimensional results are much easier and of no special interest because only in the even-dimensional full-rank case magnetic field can improve the remainder estimate.

323: 

324: \subsection{Assumptions and notations}

325: Let $g=\det (g^{jk})^{-1}$, $F_{12}=\partial_{x_1}V_2-\partial_{x_2}V_1$ and

326: $f=F_{12}g^{-{\frac 1 2}}V^{-1}$. Note that both $F_{12}g^{-{\frac 1 2}}$ and $f$ are coordinate independent. In \cite{IRO3} and in earlier papers I assumed that

327: $F$ disjoint from 0 but I will not assume this anymore; however I assume that

328: degenerations are generic, namely

329: \begin{align}

330: &V\ge \epsilon_0,\label{0-2}\\

331: &|F_{12}|+|\nabla F_{12}|\ge \epsilon_0,\label{0-3}

332: \end{align}

333: (condition (\ref{0-2}) will be dropped in the very end by rescaling arguments).

334: Then $\Sigma =\{x: F_{12}(x)=0\}$ is a smooth curve. One can introduce a coordinate $x_1$ as a Riemannian distance from $x$ to $\Sigma$; then $g^{11}=1$. One can always change $x_2$ to keep $g^{12}=0$ and then

335: \begin{equation}

336: A= {\frac 1 2}\Bigl(P_1^2 +P_2g^{-1}P_2-V\Bigr),\qquad P_j=D_j-\mu V_j.

337: \label{0-4}

338: \end{equation}

339: Furthermore, without any loss of the generality one can assume locally that \begin{equation}

340: V_1=0, \qquad V_2\asymp |x_1|^\nu

341: \label{0-5}

342: \end{equation}

343: with $\nu =2$; one can achieve this by the gauge transformation. Actually instead I consider operator (\ref{0-4}) with positive integer $\nu\ge 2$ and in the classical dynamics I even take any real $\nu\ge2$.

344: 

345: What I am interested is an asymptotics as $h\to +0$, $\mu\to +\infty$ of

346: \begin{equation}

347: \int e(x,x,0)\psi (x)\,dx

348: \label{0-6}

349: \end{equation}

350: where $e(x,y,\tau)$ is the Schwartz kernel of the spectral projector $E(\tau)$ of operator $A$. I will prove later that (\ref{0-6}) will be $O(\mu^{-s})$ as

351: $\mu \ge C_0h^{-\nu}$ and therefore I will assume that

352: \begin{equation}

353: \mu \le C_0h^{-\nu}.

354: \label{0-7}

355: \end{equation}

356: The natural answer coming from the non-degenerate case is

357: $\int \cE^\MW(x,0)\psi(x)\, dx$ where

358: \begin{equation}

359:  \cE^\MW={\frac 1 {2\pi}} \sum_{n\ge 0}

360: \theta \bigl(2\tau +V-(2n+1)\mu h F\bigr) \mu h ^{-1}F\sqrt{g}

361: \label{0-8}

362: \end{equation}

363: (with $\theta(\tau)=0,1$ as $\tau\le 0$, $\tau>0$ respectively) which implies that there are actually two different cases 

364: \begin{align}

365: &1\le \mu \le h^{-1}\label{0-9},\\

366: \intertext{and}

367: &h^{-1}\le \mu \le C_0h^{-\nu}\label{0-10}

368: \end{align}

369: when the answer will be of magnitude $h^{-2}$ and 

370: $(\mu h)^{-{1/(\nu-1)}}h^{-2}$ respectively; in the latter case the contribution to the answer will be given by the strip

371: \begin{equation}

372: Z=\{x: |x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_1= C_0(\mu h)^{-{\frac 1 {\nu-1}}}\}.

373: \label{0-11}

374: \end{equation}

375: 

376: The standard rescaling procedure applied to results of \cite{IRO3} implies

377: \begin{equation}

378: \cR \Def |\int \Bigl(e(x,x,0)-\cE^\MW (x,0)\Bigr)\psi(x)\,dx|\le

379: Ch^{-1}

380: \label{0-12}

381: \end{equation}

382: but an aim of this paper is much better estimate, up to 

383: $O(\mu^{-{\frac 1 \nu}}h^{-1})$.

384: 

385: I am going to improve this remainder estimate.

386: 

387: 

388: \subsection{Results}

389: 

390: \begin{theorem}\label{thm-0-1} Let conditions $(\ref{0-2})$, $(\ref{0-3})$ and $(\ref{0-5})$ be fulfilled and let $\psi$ be supported in the small enough neighborhood of $\{x_1=0\}$. Then 

391: 

392: \smallskip

393: \noindent

394: (i) As $1\le \mu \le \mu^*_1= C h^{-\nu/3}$ estimate $\cR\le C\mu^{-1/\nu}h^{-1}$ holds; under some nondegeneracy assumptions one can push $\mu^*_1$ up;

395: 

396: \smallskip

397: \noindent

398: (ii)  As $ h^{-\nu/3}\mu \le \mu ^*_2= C h^{-\nu}$  estimate 

399: \begin{multline}

400: \cR^* \Def |\int \Bigl(e(x,x,0)-\cE^\MW (x,0)\Bigr)\psi(x)\,dx-\int \cE^\MW _\corr (x_2,0)\psi (0,x_2,0)\,dx_2 |\le\\

401: C\mu^{-1/\nu}h^{-1} +C h^{-\delta}

402: \label{0-13}

403: \end{multline}

404: holds  with arbitrarily small exponent $\delta>0$.

405: Here and below correction term $\cE^\MW_\corr$ is defined by $(\ref{3-42})$ in the terms of the eigenvalue counting function ${\bf n}_0$ of the axillary 1-dimensional Schr\"odinger operator with semiclassical parameter $\hbar= \mu^{1/\nu}h$.

406: 

407: 

408: \smallskip

409: \noindent

410: (iii) Under non-degeneracy condition \ref{2-105} for $W(x_2)=V(0,x_2)$ (see below) as 

411: $\mu \le \epsilon h^{-\nu}$  with small enough constant $\epsilon=\epsilon(\epsilon_0,m)$ (where $\epsilon_0$ is a constant in \ref{2-105}) and under non-degeneracy condition $(\ref{4-15})$ as $\epsilon h^{-\nu}\le \mu \le Ch^{-\nu}$ one can skip the last term in the right-hand expression of $(\ref{0-13})$;

412: 

413: \smallskip

414: \noindent

415: (iv) As $\mu \ge Ch^{-\nu}$\;   $|e(x,x,0)|\le C'\mu^{-s}$ with arbitrarily large exponent $s$.

416: \end{theorem}

417: 

418: \begin{remark}\label{rem-0-2} With some error making estimate sometimes not that sharp one can replace ${\bf n}_0$  by Bohr-Sommerfeld approximation for it, providing formulae (\ref{3-52}), \ref{3-52-*}, \ref{3-52-**} for $\cE^\MW_\corr$.

419: \end{remark}

420: 

421: 

422: \subsection{Plan}

423: I start from Classical Dynamics which is useful both for understanding and proofs of our main results. In Section 2 I consider corresponding quantum (semiclassical) dynamics and the remainder estimates. It appears that there will be \emph{forbidden zone\/} $\{|x_1|\ge {\bar \gamma}_1=C(\mu h)^{1/(\nu -1)}\}$ 

424: \footnote{\label{foot-1} Only as $Ch^{-1}\le \mu \le Ch^{-\nu}$; otherwise ${\bar\gamma}_1$ is artificially set to $\epsilon$.} \footnote{\label{foot-2} Here and below coordinate $x_1$ is defined so that $\Sigma=\{x_1=0\}$.}, \emph{outer zone\/} 

425: $\cZ_\out=\{{\bar \gamma}_0=C\mu^{-1/\nu}\le |x_1|\le {\bar \gamma}_1\}$ and inner zone $\cZ_\inn=\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_0\}$ divided in \emph{non-periodic zone\/} and \emph{periodic zone\/} with the analysis in the latter one the most difficult and interesting. The width (in the phase space) of the periodic zone is defined by the uncertainty principle and it increases as $\mu$ grows. 

426: 

427: In Section 3 I instead of implicit main part of asymptotics derived in Section 2 provide much more explicit answer $\cE^\MW+\cE^\MW_\corr$. 

428: 

429: All the analysis in sections 2,3 is under assumption 

430: $\mu\le h^{-\nu+\delta}$ while  section 4 is devoted to the similar analysis in the case of \emph{superstrong magnetic field\/} 

431: $h^{-\nu+\delta}\le \mu \le \epsilon h^{-\nu}$ which is in some sense easier and in some sense more difficult than the previous one because $\hbar$ is not very small anymore. Also in Section 4 I consider \emph{ultra-strong magnetic field\/} $\epsilon h^{-\nu}\le \mu\le Ch^{-\nu}$ when $\hbar$ is not even small anymore; as I mentioned case $\mu\ge Ch^{-\nu}$ is trivial.

432: 

433: Finally, Section 5 is devoted to generalization for vanishing $V$ and discussion of other generalizations.

434: 

435: 

436: 

437: \sect{Classical dynamics}

438: In this section I consider classical dynamics on energy level 0 described by Hamiltonian

439: \begin{equation}

440: a= {\frac 1 2}\Bigl(\sum_{j,k}g^{jk}(x)p_jp_k -V\Bigr),\qquad p_j=\xi_j-\mu V_j

441: \label{1-1}

442: \end{equation}

443: where all conditions of subsection 0.1 are assumed to be fulfilled.

444: 

445: \subsection{Pilot-model}

446: 

447: Let us consider first a model

448: \begin{equation}

449: a={\frac 1 2}\Bigl(\xi_1^2 + \bigl(\xi_2- {\frac 1 \nu}|x_1|^\nu\bigr)^2-1\Bigr)

450: \label{1-2}

451: \end{equation}

452: with $\nu\ge 2$, corresponding to $\mu=1$, $V=1$.

453: 

454: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-1} For symbol $(\ref{1-2})$ 

455: 

456: \smallskip

457: \noindent

458: (i) Along trajectories  $\xi_2=\const$, and 

459: \begin{description}

460: 

461: \item{(a)} if $\xi_2 >1$   on energy level $0$ these trajectories  oscillate \underline{either} between $x_1=b_1$ and  $x_1=b_2$ \underline{or}

462: between $x_1=-b_1$ and $x_1=-b_2$ with $b_1=\bigl((\xi_2-1)\nu\bigr)^{1/\nu}$, $b_2=\bigl((\xi_2+1)\nu\bigr)^{1/\nu}$; 

463: 

464: \item{(b)} if $\xi_2=1$ these trajectories vary between $b_1=0$ and $b_2=1$ 

465: or between $-1$ and $0$; there is also exceptional trajectory $x_1=\xi_1=0$, 

466: $x_2=t+\const$;

467: 

468: \item{(c)} if $-1<\xi_2<1$ these trajectories oscillate between $x_1=b_1=-b_2$ and $x_1=b_2$;  

469: 

470: \item{(d)} if $\xi_2=-1$ energy level 0 degenerates into $\{x_1=\xi_1=0\}$ and this trajectory is $x_1=\xi_1=0$, $x_2=\xi_2t+\const$; 

471: 

472: \item{(e)} energy level 0 is empty as $\xi_2<-1$;

473: 

474: \end{description}

475: 

476: \smallskip

477: \noindent

478: (ii) Along each of these trajectories  

479: $(x_1,\xi_1)$ are periodic with period  

480: \begin{equation}

481: T(\xi_2)=2\int_{b_1}^{b_2} {\frac 1 {\sqrt{1-(k-|y|^\nu/\nu)^2}}}\,dy

482: \label{1-3}

483: \end{equation}

484: and 

485: $x_2(t)=v(\xi_2)t+ {\tilde x}_2(t)$ where $v=T^{-1}I$,

486: \begin{equation}

487: I(\xi_2)=\int_{b_1}^{b_2} {\frac {k- |y|^\nu/\nu} {\sqrt{1-(k-|y|^\nu/\nu)^2}}}\,dy,

488: \label{1-4}

489: \end{equation}

490: and  ${\tilde x}_2(t)$ is $T(\xi_2)$-periodic function.

491: \end{proposition}

492: 

493: \begin{proof} Proof is obvious consequence of the fact that evolution in $(x_1,\xi_1)$ is described by 1-dimensional Hamiltonian (\ref{1-2}) while $\xi_2=k=\const$. Potential 

494: $W=W(k)=(k- {\frac 1 \nu}|x|_1^\nu)^2-1$ has two wells as $k>0$ and one well as 

495: $k\le 0$; as $k=0$ it has a flat bottom. Note that the bottoms of the potential are in $\pm b(k)$, $b(k)=(k\nu)^{1/\nu}$. 

496: 

497: \begin{figure}[h]

498: \centering

499: \subfigure[$k=1.5$, two wells]{

500: \label{fig-1a}

501: Ê\includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{well4.eps}}

502: \subfigure[$k=1$, two touching wells]{

503: ÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-1b}

504: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{well5.eps}}

505: \subfigure[$k=0.9$, one well]{

506: ÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-1c}

507: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{well6.eps}}

508: \caption{Graphs of $W(k)$, 1-st pilot-model}

509: \end{figure}

510: 

511: Further, as $k>1$ we have $W(0)>0$ and thus the particle lives in one well

512: oscillating either between $b_1(k)=( (k-1)\nu)^{1/\nu}$ and 

513: $b_2(k)=( (k+1)\nu)^{1/\nu}$ or between $-b_2(k)$ and $-b_1(k)$. As $k<1$ we have either one-well potential or $W(0)<0$ so particle oscillates between $b_1(k)=-b_2(k)$ and $b_2(k)$. As $k=1$ particle moves between $b_1(k)=0$ (as 

514: $t\to \pm\infty$) and $\pm b_2(k)$ (as long as $\nu \ge 2$).

515: \end{proof}

516: 

517: 

518: 

519: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-2} (i)  $v(k)>0$ and

520: both $T(k)$ and $v(k)$ are decreasing functions of $k>1$. 

521: 

522: \smallskip

523: \noindent

524: (ii)   The width of the wells is $\sim 2b^{(1-\nu)/\nu}$ as $k\to +\infty$;

525:  $T(k)\sim 2\pi b^{1-\nu}$, $v(k)\sim {\frac 1 2}(\nu-1)b^{-\nu}$ as 

526: $k\to +\infty$, $b(k)= (k\nu )^{1/\nu}$;

527: 

528: \smallskip

529: \noindent

530: (iii)  $T\sim 2\bigl|\log |k-1|\bigr|$ (for $\nu=2$),

531: $T\sim \const |k-1|^{{\frac 1 \nu} -{\frac 1 2}}$ (for $\nu>2$) and 

532: $v\sim 1$ as $k\to 1+0$.

533: \end{proposition}

534: 

535: \begin{proof} Changing $z=y^\nu/\nu-k$ we arrive to

536: \begin{align}

537: T=&2\int_{-1}^1 ((k+z)\nu)^{{\frac 1 \nu}-1}(1-z^2)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\,dz,

538: \label{1-5}\\

539: I=&-2\int_{-1}^1 z((k+z)\nu)^{{\frac 1 \nu}-1}(1-z^2)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\,dz=

540: \label{1-6}\\

541: &\int_{-1}^1 

542: z\Bigl( ((k-z)\nu)^{{\frac 1 \nu}-1} - ((k+z)\nu)^{{\frac 1 \nu}-1}\Bigr) 

543: (1-z^2)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\,dz,\notag

544: \end{align}

545: which implies that $I>0$ as $k>1$.  Asymptotics 

546: $T\sim 2\pi (k\nu)^{{\frac 1 \nu}-1}$,

547: $I\sim \pi (\nu -1)(k\nu)^{{\frac 1 \nu}-2}$ as $k\to +\infty$ follow from

548: (\ref{1-5}),(\ref{1-6}) as well.

549: 

550: Also (\ref{1-5}),(\ref{1-6}) imply that

551: \begin{align}

552: {\frac {\partial T}{\partial k}}=&

553: -2(\nu-1)\int_{-1}^1 \bigl((k+z)\nu\bigr)^{{\frac 1 \nu}-2}

554: (1-z^2)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\,dz, \label{1-7}\\

555: {\frac {\partial I}{\partial k}}=&

556: -2(\nu-1)\int_{-1}^1 z\bigl((k+z)\nu\bigr)^{{\frac 1 \nu}-2}

557: (1-z^2)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\,dz,

558: \label{1-8}\\

559: {\frac {\partial v}{\partial k}}=& 

560: -\nu(\nu-1)T^{-2}\int_{-1}^1\int_{-1}^1(z-z_1)^2 

561: \bigl((k+z)\nu\bigr)^{{\frac 1 \nu}-2}

562: \bigl((k+z_1)\nu\bigr)^{{\frac 1 \nu}-2}\times\label{1-9}\\

563: &\hskip220pt(1-z^2)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\,dz,\notag

564: \end{align}

565: implying monotonicity properties.

566: 

567: Asymptotics as $k\to 1+0$ follow directly from (\ref{1-3}),(\ref{1-4}).

568: \end{proof}

569: 

570: \begin{remark}\label{rem-1-3} In the strong magnetic field the drift is described by ${\frac 1 2}\cL f^{-1}=(\partial_{x_2}f,-\partial_{x_1}f)=(0,(\nu-1)x_1^{-\nu})$

571: (where ${\frac 1 2}$ comes from this factor in the front of Hamiltonian)

572: and this matches to asymptotics of $v$ as $\xi_2\to +\infty$.

573: \end{remark}

574: 

575: As $-1<k<1$ one can rewrite

576: \begin{align}

577: &T=4\int_0^{b_2}\Bigl(1-(k-y^\nu/\nu)^2\Bigr)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\, dy=\label{1-10}\\

578: &\qquad\qquad\qquad

579: 4(k+1)^{{\frac  1 \nu}-{\frac 1 2}} \nu^{\frac 1 \nu}

580: \int_0^1(1-y^\nu)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\Bigl(2-(k+1)(1-y^\nu)\Bigr)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\,dy=

581: \notag\\

582: &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

583: 4(k+1)^{{\frac  1 \nu}-1} \nu^{\frac 1 \nu}

584: \int_0^1(1-y^\nu)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\varphi (u,y^\nu)\,dy

585: \notag\\

586: \intertext{and}

587: &I=4\int_0^{b_2}(k-y^\nu/\nu)

588: \Bigl(1-(k-y^\nu/\nu)^2\Bigr)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\, dy=\label{1-11}\\

589: &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

590: 4((k+1)\nu)^{\frac 1 \nu}

591: \int_0^1  (1-y^\nu)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\varphi_1 (u,y^\nu)\,dy

592: \notag

593: \end{align}

594: with $u= k /(k+1) \in(-\infty,{\frac 1 2})$, 

595: $\varphi (u,z)=(1-2u+z)^{-{\frac 1 2}}$, 

596: $\varphi_1 (u,z)=(u-z )(1-2u+z)^{-{\frac 1 2}}$.

597: 

598: Let $T_1(u)$, $I_1(u)$ denote integrals in the right-hand expressions

599: of (\ref{1-10}), (\ref{1-11}). Then 

600: ${\frac{\partial T_1}{\partial u}}>0$, 

601: ${\frac{\partial I_1}{\partial u}}=  (1-u) {\frac{\partial T_1}{\partial u}}>0$

602: because ${\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial u}}=(1-2u+z)^{-{\frac 3 2}}$,

603: ${\frac{\partial \varphi_1}{\partial u}}=(1-u)(1-2u+z)^{-{\frac 3 2}}$.

604: 

605: Also

606: \begin{equation*}

607: {\frac{\partial\ }{\partial u}}{\frac {I_1}{T_1}}=

608: 4T_1^{-2}{\frac{\partial T_1}{\partial u}}\times 

609: \int_0^1 (1-y^\nu)^{-{\frac 1 2}} \bigl(1-2u+y^\nu\bigr)^{\frac 1 2}\,dy

610: > 1

611: \end{equation*}

612: due to Cauchy inequality and therefore

613: \begin{equation*}

614: {\frac{\partial v}{\partial k}}=

615: (1-u){\frac{\partial\ }{\partial u}}{\frac {I_1}{T_1}} + 

616: {\frac {I_1}{T_1}} > {\frac 1{T_1}}\bigl(I_1+(1-u)T_1\bigr)=

617: {\frac 4 {T_1}}

618: \int_0^1 (1-y^\nu)^{\frac 1 2} \bigl(1-2u+y^\nu\bigr)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\,dy >0.

619: \end{equation*}

620: 

621: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-4} (i) There exists $k^*=k^*_\nu \in (0,1)$

622: such that $v(\xi_2)(\xi_2-k^*)^{-1}>0$ and it is both bounded and disjoint from $0$ as $k\in (-1+\epsilon, 1)$;

623: 

624: \smallskip

625: \noindent

626: (ii) $v(k)$ is monotone increasing at $(-1,1)$;

627: 

628: \smallskip

629: \noindent

630: (iii)  $T(k)\sim  \const (k+1)^{\frac 1 \nu} $  and $v(k)\sim -1$ as 

631: $k\to -1+0$; 

632: 

633: \smallskip

634: \noindent

635: (iv)  $T\sim 4\bigl|\log |k-1|\bigr|$ (for $\nu=2$),

636: $T\sim 2\const |k-1|^{{\frac 1 \nu} -{\frac 1 2}}$ (for $\nu>2$) and 

637: $v\sim 1$ as $k\to 1+0$.

638: \end{proposition}

639: 

640: \begin{proof} (ii) is already proven; (iii),(iv) are easy and (i) follows from

641: (ii)-(iii) and from $v(0)<0$.

642: \end{proof}

643: 

644: \begin{remark}\label{rem-1-5}

645: (i) $T(k)$ is monotone decreasing function of $k$ for $\nu=2$; not sure if this is  the case for larger $\nu$;

646: 

647: \smallskip

648: \noindent

649: (ii) ${\frac{dx_2}{dt}}>0$ iff  $|x_1|< (k\nu)^{\frac 1 \nu}$;

650: in particular  ${\frac{dx_2}{dt}}<0$ on the whole trajectory iff

651: $-1<k<0$;

652: 

653: \smallskip

654: \noindent

655: (iii) One can prove easily that 

656: ${\frac{\partial v}{\partial k}}\sim 

657: \mp \const |k-1|^{-{\frac 1 \nu}-{\frac 1 2}}|\log |k-1||^{-2\delta_{\nu 2}}$ as $k\to 1\pm 0$;

658: 

659: \smallskip

660: \noindent

661: (iv) In particular, $x_2(t)$ is periodic iff $\xi_2=k^*$;

662: 

663: \smallskip

664: \noindent

665: (v) Since 

666: \begin{equation*}

667: {\frac{\partial I_1}{\partial \nu}}=

668: \int_0^1 (u-1)^2(1-y^\nu)^{-{\frac 3 2}}(1-2u+y^\nu)^{-{\frac 3 2}}

669: y^\nu (-\log y)\,dy >0

670: \end{equation*}

671: we conclude that $k^*_\nu$ monotonically decreases; one can see easily that 

672: $k^*_\nu\to +0$ as $\nu \to +\infty$;

673: 

674: \smallskip

675: \noindent

676: (vi) Maple experiments show that $k^*_2\approx 0.65$ (but not $2/3$).

677: \end{remark}

678: 

679: The following series of figures \ref{fig-2} show $(x_1,x_2)$-trajectories at level $0$ for different values of $\xi_2=k$ as $\nu=2$. In particular figure \ref{fig-2g} shows periodic curve.

680: 

681: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-6}

682: There exist  functions $Z=Z(x_1,\xi_1)$, $\alpha=\alpha(x_1,\xi)$

683: and $\beta=\beta (x_1,\xi_2)$, such that

684: \begin{equation}

685: \{a, x_2-Z\}=\xi_2-\{a,Z\}=\alpha (\xi_2-k^*)+\beta a(x_1,\xi).

686: \label{1-12}

687: \end{equation}

688: Further, $Z$ is odd and $\alpha$, $\beta$ are even with respect  to each of $x_1$, $\xi_1$.

689: \end{proposition}

690: 

691: \begin{proof}

692: Consider now periodic curve as $\xi_2=k^*$ with the ``center'' at 0. It is described by equations in $(x,\xi)$-phase space

693: \begin{equation}

694: \xi_2=k^*,\quad a(x_1,\xi)=0,\quad x_2=Z(x_1,\xi_1)

695: \label{1-13}

696: \end{equation}

697: with smooth odd with respect to each $x_1$, $\xi_1$ function $Z$. We cannot express it via $x_1$ or $\xi_1$ alone. Then

698: \begin{equation*}

699: \{a, x_2-Z\}=\xi_2-\{a,Z\}=0\qquad {\text as\ } \xi_2=k^*,\ a(x_1,\xi)=0.

700: \end{equation*}

701: Note that $d a$ and $d\xi_2$ are linearly independent unless $\xi_1=0$ and

702: $(\xi_2-|x_1|^\nu/\nu)x_1=0$ which for $a=0$ means that $\xi_2=\pm 1$. Therefore 

703: we arrive to (\ref{1-12}).

704: \end{proof}

705: 

706: \begin{remark}\label{rem-1-7}

707: For even integer $\nu$ all these functions are analytic.

708: \end{remark}

709: 

710: 

711: 

712: \begin{figure}

713: \centering

714: \subfigure[$k=10$,  $w\approx 0.34$]{

715: ÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-2a}

716: ÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{traj1.eps}}

717: \subfigure[$k=2$,  $w\approx 0.73$ ]{

718: ÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-2b}

719: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{traj2.eps}}\\

720: 

721: \vspace{.3in}

722: %\hspace{.1in}

723: \subfigure[$k=1.1$,  $w\approx 1.13$]{

724: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-2c}

725: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{traj3.eps}}

726: \subfigure[$k=1$,  $w\approx 1.13$, first critical case]{

727: \label{fig-2d}

728: \includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{traj4.eps}}

729: 

730: \caption{\label{fig-2} Drift up; and rotation clockwise,

731: each figure has its mirror with respect to $x_2$-axis with drift up and rotation counter-clockwise; $w=\sqrt{k+1}-\sqrt{k-1}$ is the width;}

732: \end{figure}

733: \setcounter{figure}{1}

734: \setcounter{subfigure}{4}

735: 

736: \begin{figure}

737: \centering

738: \subfigure[$k=0.9$,  $w\approx  4.32$]{

739: ÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-2e}

740: ÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{traj5.eps}}

741: \subfigure[$k=0.7$,  $w\approx 3.78$]{

742: ÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-2f}

743: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{traj6.eps}}\\

744: 

745: \vspace{.3in}

746: %\hspace{.1in}

747: \subfigure[$k \approx 0.65$,  $w\approx  3.65$]{

748: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-2g}

749: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{traj7.eps}}

750: \subfigure[$k=0.6$,  $w\approx 3.52$, second critical case]{

751: \label{fig-2h}

752: \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{traj8.eps}}

753: 

754: \caption{\label{fig-2+} (continued) As $k$ decreases drift up changes to drift down; on

755: \ref{fig-2g} movement is periodic; $w=2\sqrt{k+1}$ is the width;}

756: \end{figure}

757: 

758: \setcounter{figure}{1}

759: \setcounter{subfigure}{8}

760: 

761: \begin{figure}

762: \centering

763: \subfigure[$k=0.4$,  $w\approx 2.28$]{

764: ÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-2i}

765: ÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{traj9.eps}}

766: \subfigure[$k=0$,  $w=2$]{

767: ÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-2j}

768: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[,width=.49\textwidth]{traj10.eps}}\\

769: 

770: \vspace{.3in}

771: %\hspace{.1in}

772: \subfigure[$k=-0.5$,  $w\approx 1.41$]{

773: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-2k}

774: ÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{traj11.eps}}

775: \subfigure[$k=-0.9$,  $w\approx 0.63$]{

776: \label{fig-2l}

777: \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{traj12.eps}}

778: 

779: \caption{\label{fig-2++}(continued) As $k$ decays movement is straighten; drift is down.}

780: \end{figure}

781: 

782: \subsection{Another pilot-model}

783: 

784: Consider now another model

785: \begin{equation}

786: a={\frac 1 2}

787: \Bigl(\xi_1^2 + \bigl(\xi_2- {\frac 1 \nu}|x_1|^\nu\sign (x)\bigr)^2-1\Bigr)

788: \label{1-14}

789: \end{equation}

790: with $\nu\ge 2$, corresponding to $\mu=1$, $V=1$. Again we are looking at energy level 0.  Consider again the graph of potential.

791: \begin{figure}[h]

792: \centering

793: \subfigure[$k=1.5$,  well in $x_1>0$]{

794: \label{fig-3a}

795: Ê\includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{well1.eps}}

796: \subfigure[$k=1$, well touches $x_1=0$]{

797: ÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-3b}

798: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{well2.eps}}

799: \subfigure[$k=0.9$, well contains $x_1=0$]{

800: ÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-3c}

801: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{well3.eps}}

802: \caption{Graphs of $W(k)$, 2-nd pilot-model}

803: \end{figure}

804: 

805: 

806: In the similar way movement in $(x_1,\xi_1)$ is described by Hamiltonian with one-well potential and if $k\ge 1$ or $k\le -1$ this particle moves only in $\{x_1\ge 0\}$ or $\{x_1\le 0\}$ respectively and in the former case the evolution coincides with given in the previous subsection while in the latter it one needs to replace $k$ by $-k$, take a mirror-symmetric picture but now the directions ``up'' and ``down'' are switched while direction of rotation does not change. So outer zone is described exactly as we did (see figures \ref{fig-2}a-d) but in the inner zone for $-1<k<1$ we get a kind of combined picture (see figure \ref{fig-4}).

807: 

808: \begin{figure}

809: \centering

810: \subfigure[$k=0.9$]{

811: ÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-4e}

812: ÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{traj21.eps}}

813: \subfigure[$k=0.5$]{

814: ÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-4f}

815: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{traj22.eps}}\\

816: 

817: \vspace{.3in}

818: %\hspace{.1in}

819: \subfigure[$k=0.1$]{

820: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-4g}

821: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{traj23.eps}}

822: \subfigure[$k=0$]{

823: \label{fig-4h}

824: \includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{traj24.eps}}

825: 

826: \caption{Drift is up and movement clockwise. As $k$ decays from $1$ to $0$  drift up slows down; \ref{fig-4h} corresponds to periodic case; we skip $k\ge 1$ which repeat those at figure \ref{fig-2}a-d, $k\le -1$ which will be mirror-symmetric to them with movement down and also clockwise and $-1<k<0$ as symmetric to given there.}

827: \label{fig-4}

828: \end{figure}

829: 

830: Then

831: \begin{equation*}

832: T(k)={\frac 1 2}\bigl(T_+(k)+T_+(-k)\bigr),\qquad

833: I(k)={\frac 1 2}\bigl(I_+(k)-I_+ (-k)\bigr)

834: \end{equation*}

835: where $T_+(k)$, $I_+(k)$ are exactly what we introduced for Hamiltonian (\ref{1-2}). However due to monotonicity of $|y|^\nu\sign(y)$ we can apply idea of proposition \ref{prop-1-2}: introducing $z=|y|^\nu\sign(y)-k$ we arrive to

836: \begin{align}

837: T(k)=\hphantom{-} 2&\int_{-1}^1 |(k+z)\nu|^{{\frac 1 \nu}-1} (1-z^2)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\,dz, \label{1-15}\\

838: I(k)=-2&\int_{-1}^1 z|(k+z)\nu|^{{\frac 1 \nu}-1} (1-z^2)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\,dz=

839: \label{1-16}\\

840: &2\int_0^1 z\Bigl( |(k-z)\nu|^{{\frac 1 \nu}-1}-|(k+z)\nu|^{{\frac 1 \nu}-1}\Bigr) (1-z^2)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\,dz\notag

841: \end{align}

842: and obviously $\epsilon_0  I(k)/k\le c_0$ as $k\ne 0$. 

843: 

844: Thus we arrive to 

845: 

846: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-8} Consider on level $0$ trajectories of Hamiltonian $(\ref{1-14})$ with $\xi_2=k\in (-1,1)$. Along them

847: 

848: \smallskip

849: \noindent

850: (i) Variables $(x_1,\xi_1)$ are $T(k)$-periodic and $x_1$ oscillates between $b_1=-((1-k)\nu)^{1/\nu}$ and $b_2=((1+k)\nu)^{1/\nu}$;

851: 

852: \smallskip

853: \noindent

854: (ii) $x_2(t)={\tilde x}_2(t)+v(k)t$ with $T$-periodic ${\tilde x}_2(t)$ and $v(k)=I(k)/T(k)$;

855: 

856: \smallskip

857: \noindent

858: (iii) $\epsilon_0  I(k)/k\le c_0$ as $k\ne 0$;

859: 

860: \smallskip

861: \noindent

862: (iv) Therefore the only periodic trajectory is with $k=0$;

863: 

864: \smallskip

865: \noindent

866: (v) Proposition \ref{prop-1-6} holds with $k^*=0$ but $Z$ is even and $\alpha,\beta$ are odd with respect to $\xi_1$;

867: 

868: \smallskip

869: \noindent

870: (vi) For odd integer $\nu\ge 3$, $Z$, $\alpha$, $\beta$ are analytic.

871: \end{proposition}

872: 

873: 

874: 

875: \subsection{Pilot-models perturbed}

876: The periodic trajectories of our pilot-models are very fragile and one can destroy them easily. Consider \emph{heuristically\/} the same Hamiltonians with $V=\alpha x_1$ with $\alpha >0$ instead of $V=1$. Then 

877: ${\frac {d\xi_2}{dt}}={\frac 1 2}\partial_{x_2}V= {\frac 1 2}\alpha$ and thus

878: $\xi_2 =c_0 + {\frac 1 2}\alpha t$. Then the averaged movement along $y=x_2$ is described by 

879: \begin{equation*}

880: {\frac {d\ }{dt}}y = V^{\frac 1 2} v\bigl(\xi_2(t)V^{-{\frac 1 2}}\bigr)\sim

881: (\alpha y)^{\frac 1 2}

882: v\bigl( {\frac 1 2} \alpha t (\alpha y)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\bigr) \iff 

883: {\frac {d\ }{dt}}z\sim v(tz^{-1})

884: \end{equation*}

885: with $z=2\sqrt {y/\alpha t}$. This ``equation'' has a solution $z=\beta_\pm^{-1}  t$ as $\pm t>0$ as

886: $ \beta_\pm v(\beta_\pm )=1$ and $\pm \beta_\pm >0$. 

887: 

888: In the second pilot-model this equation  has solutions with $-\beta_-=\beta_+>1$ and therefore  on them ``in average'' $x_1 \sim (\nu \xi_2V^{-{\frac 1 2}})^{\frac 1 \nu}V^{\frac 1 {2\nu}}\sim \rho y^{\frac 1 \nu}$. In the first pilot-model $\beta_-=-1$. These observations 

889: explain the evolutions in vertical direction on figures \ref{fig-5}a-b.

890: 

891: \begin{figure}[t]

892: \centering

893: \subfigure[First pilot-model perturbed]{

894: ÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-5a}

895: ÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{traj31.eps}}

896: \subfigure[Second pilot-model perturbed]{

897: ÊÊÊÊÊ\label{fig-5b}

898: ÊÊÊÊÊÊ\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{traj32.eps}}\\

899: 

900: \caption{Both pilot-models are perturbed by a weak electric field  directed up

901: ($V=\alpha x_2$)}

902: \label{fig-5}

903: \end{figure}

904: 

905: \subsection{General case. Remarks}

906: 

907: We are going to consider

908: \begin{equation}

909: a={\frac 1 2}\Bigl(\xi_1^2 + \sigma(x)^2 \bigl(\xi_2-\mu \phi (x) \varrho_\nu(x_1)/\nu \bigr)^2 -V(x)\Bigr)

910: \label{1-17}

911: \end{equation}

912: with coefficients

913: \begin{equation}

914: \sigma \ge \epsilon_0,\quad\phi\ge \epsilon_0,\quad V\ge \epsilon_0

915: \label{1-18}

916: \end{equation}

917: and all of them are smooth and with $\varrho_\nu=|x_1|^\nu$ or $\varrho_\nu=|x_1|^\nu\sign x_1$, $\nu\ge 2$.

918: 

919: Let

920: \begin{equation}

921: p_1=\xi_1,\quad p_2=\xi_2-\mu \phi (x) \varrho_\nu(x_1)/\nu;

922: \label{1-19}

923: \end{equation}

924: then

925: \begin{equation}

926: \{p_1,p_2\}= -\mu \partial_{x_1}\bigl(\phi (x) \varrho_\nu(x_1)/\nu\bigr)=

927: -\mu \phi(x)\varrho_{\nu -2}(x_1)x_1 \bigl(1+O(x_1)\bigr).

928: \label{1-20}

929: \end{equation}

930: 

931: We want to consider trajectories on level $\{a=0\}$ (and thus on any level $\{a=\tau\}$) and thus we can multiply $a$ by any smooth factor disjoint from 0; 

932: then we can assume that 

933: \begin{equation}

934: \sigma |_\Sigma =\phi|_\Sigma =1.

935: \label{1-21}

936: \end{equation}

937: Really, starting from (\ref{1-17}) we can multiply $a$ by smooth function $\omega^2$ and redefine $x_1$ according to the new metrics; then we redefine $x_2$ to get rid of the mixed term. Then (\ref{1-17}) will still hold but with

938: $V\mapsto \omega^2V$, $\sigma |_\Sigma\mapsto (\sigma \omega^2)|_\Sigma$, 

939: $\phi|_\Sigma \mapsto (\phi \omega ^\nu)|_\Sigma$ and picking up 

940: $\omega = (\sigma \phi)^{-1/(\nu +1)}$ we arrive to the case

941: $(\sigma \phi)|_\Sigma =1$ with

942: \begin{equation}

943: V\mapsto V^*= (\sigma \phi)^{-2/(\nu +1)}V.

944: \label{1-22}

945: \end{equation}

946: Finally, replacing $x_2$ by $\rho(x_2)$ we can achieve $\sigma |_\Sigma=1$ and thus (\ref{1-21}).

947: 

948: 

949: \subsection{General case. Outer zone}

950: 

951: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-9} For general Hamiltonian $(\ref{1-17})$  in $B(0,1)$ satisfying $(\ref{1-18})$

952: 

953: \smallskip

954: \noindent

955: (i) There exists $b=b(x ,p_1,p_2)$, such that as $|a|\le \epsilon_0$ and 

956: $|f|\ge {\bar\gamma}=C\mu^{-1/\nu}$

957: \begin{align}

958: &C_0^{-1} \le {\frac b f}\le C_0,\label{1-23}\\

959: &|\{a,b\}|\le C_0\mu^{-1}|f|^{-1} \label{1-24};

960: \end{align}

961: 

962: \smallskip

963: \noindent

964: (ii) Trajectories starting at $t=0$ from 

965: $(\bx,\bxi) \in B(0,{\frac 1 2})\cap  \{x, \pm f(x)=\gamma \ge {\bar\gamma}\}$ for time 

966: $|t|\le T_1 = \epsilon _0\mu f({\bar x})^2$ remain in $B(0,1)$ and along them

967: $\epsilon \le \pm f(x(t))/\gamma \le C$;

968: 

969: \smallskip

970: \noindent

971: (iii) Trajectories starting at $t=0$ from 

972: $(\bx,\bxi) \in B(0,{\frac 1 2})\cap  \{x, |f(x)|\le \gamma = {\bar\gamma}\}$ for time $|t|\le T_1 = \epsilon $ remain in $B(0,1)$ and along them

973: $|f(x(t))| \le C_1 {\bar\gamma}$.

974: \end{proposition}

975: 

976: \begin{proof}

977: Let us consider trajectory starting at 

978: $(\bx,\bxi)$ with ${\bar x}\in B(0,{\frac 1 2})$, $a\le c$, 

979: $\gamma = |{\bar x}_1|\ge {\bar\gamma}=C_0\mu^{-1/\nu}$.  Consider this trajectory as long as it is contained in $B(0,1)$ but not further than 

980: $T_1=\epsilon \mu \gamma^\nu$\,\footnote{\label{foot-3}Then 

981: $T_1\asymp 1$ as $|{\bar x}_1|\asymp {\bar\gamma}$ and $T_1\asymp \mu$ as $|{\bar x}_1|\asymp 1$.}

982: 

983: Along this trajectory

984: \begin{equation}

985: {\frac {d\xi_2} {dt}}=

986: \{a,\xi_2\}=\sigma^2(x)p_2 \phi_{x_2} (x)\times \mu \varrho_\nu(x_1)/\nu + O(1).

987: \label{1-25}

988: \end{equation}

989: Then for $X=\xi_2-\beta (x) p_1$

990: \begin{equation}

991: {\frac {dX} {dt}}=\{a,X\}=\sigma^2 p_2 \mu \varrho_\nu (x_1) 

992: \bigl({\frac 1 \nu}\phi_{x_2}(x)  -\phi(x) \beta x_1^{-1} \bigr) + O(1)

993: \label{1-26}

994: \end{equation}

995: (as $a=0$)  and therefore ${\frac {d\ }{dt}}X=O(1)$ 

996: for \begin{equation}

997: X=\xi_2-\beta (x) p_1,\qquad \beta =  {\frac 1 \nu} x_1\phi_{x_2}\phi ^{-1}=

998: {\frac 1 \nu} x_1\partial_{x_2}\log |\phi(x)|.

999: \label{1-27}

1000: \end{equation}

1001: Therefore $|X(x)-X({\bar x})|\le CT\le C\epsilon \mu\gamma ^\nu$,  which together with inequality $|p_2|\le c$ imply that 

1002: $|\xi_2-{\bar\xi}_2 |\le C\epsilon \mu \gamma^\nu $;

1003:  for   small enough constant $\epsilon>0$ we also get

1004: $\epsilon_1\mu \gamma^\nu \le |\xi_2|\le  c_1\mu \gamma^\nu $ 

1005: (I remind that $\mu \gamma^\nu \ge C$) and thus

1006: $\epsilon_1^{-1}\gamma \le |x_1|\le c_1\gamma$. 

1007: 

1008: So, trajectory remains  in the strip described above and since the drift speed according to \cite{IRO3} does not exceed 

1009: $C_0(\mu \gamma^\nu )^{-1}$ there we are insured that trajectory remains in $B(0,1)$ for time $T$. This proves (ii).

1010: 

1011: On the other hand, if trajectory starts in $(\bx,\bxi)$ with 

1012: $|{\bar x}_1|\le {\bar\gamma}$, it remains in $B(0,1)$ for time $T=\epsilon$ since the speed does not exceed $C_0$ and due to above arguments it cannot get into zone $\{x_1\ge C{\bar\gamma}\}$. This proves (iii).

1013: 

1014: To prove (i) consider $b=(\mu^{-1}X)^{1/\nu}$; then as

1015: $|x_1|\ge {\bar\gamma}$ obviously $b\asymp |x_1|$ and furthermore

1016: $|\{a,b\}|\le C(\mu^{-1}|\xi_2|)^{1/ \nu} |\xi_2|^{-1}\le

1017: c\mu^{-1}|x_1|^{1-\nu}$ which is exactly (\ref{1-24}).

1018: \end{proof}

1019: 

1020: Obviously ${\frac {d\ }{dt}}x_2=\sigma^2 p_2$ and for 

1021: $Y=x_2-\mu^{-1}\varrho_{-\nu}(x_1)x_1\beta'p_1$ we have

1022: \begin{equation*}

1023: {\frac {dY}{dt}}=\sigma^2\bigl(1-\beta'\phi \bigr)p_2 +

1024:  (\nu -1)\beta'\mu^{-1}\varrho_{-\nu}(x_1)p_1^2 +

1025: O(\mu^{-1}|x_1|^{1-\nu}).

1026: \end{equation*}

1027: So, let $\beta'=\phi^{-1}$; then 

1028: \begin{equation*}

1029: {\frac {dY}{dt}}=

1030: {\frac 1 2}(\nu -1)\beta' \mu^{-1}\varrho_{-\nu}(x_1) (a -V) + 

1031: {\frac 1 2}(\nu -1)\beta' \mu^{-1}\varrho_{-\nu}(x_1)(p_1^2-\sigma^2p_2^2)+

1032: O(\mu^{-1}|x_1|^{1-\nu})

1033: \end{equation*}

1034: and redefining 

1035: \begin{equation}

1036: Y= x_2-\mu^{-1}\varrho_{-\nu}(x_1) x_1\beta'p_1 - \mu^{-2}\varrho_{-2\nu}(x_1) x_1p_1p_2

1037: \label{1-28}

1038: \end{equation}

1039: we arrive to 

1040: \begin{equation}

1041: {\frac {dY}{dt}}=-{\frac 1 2}(\nu -1)\beta' \mu^{-1}\varrho_{-\nu} (x_1)+ O\bigl(\mu^{-2}|x_1|^{-2\nu}+\mu^{-1}|x_1|^{1-\nu}\bigr),

1042: \label{1-29}

1043: \end{equation}

1044: and we arrive to

1045: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-10}

1046: Along trajectories in outer zone $\{\epsilon \ge |x_1|\ge {\bar\gamma}\}$ 

1047: \begin{equation}

1048: \epsilon_0 (\mu \gamma ^\nu)^{-1}|t|\le \pm \varrho_0({\bar x}) \bigl(Y(t)-Y(0)\bigr)\le 

1049: C (\mu \gamma ^\nu)^{-1}|t|

1050: \label{1-30}

1051: \end{equation}

1052: as $0\le \pm t \le \epsilon \mu\gamma^\nu$.

1053: \end{proposition}

1054: 

1055: 

1056: \subsection{General case. Inner zone}

1057: 

1058: Now we need to consider trajectories lying in inner zone 

1059: $\cZ_\inn=\{x:|x_1|\le C{\bar\gamma}\}$. Here function $X$ is still defined but  $Y$ is not and according to subsection 1.1 the important role is played by $X(x,p)V(0,x_2)^{-{\frac 1 2}}$.

1060: 

1061: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-11}

1062: Let conditions  $(\ref{1-18})$, $(\ref{1-21})$,  $|\xi_2(0)|\le C$

1063: be fulfilled and let condition

1064: \begin{equation}

1065: \varsigma\bigl( \xi_2-k^*|V|^{\frac 1 2}\bigr)\ge \epsilon _1, \qquad \varsigma=\pm 1

1066: \label{1-31}

1067: \end{equation}

1068: be satisfied as $t=0$. Then 

1069: 

1070: \smallskip

1071: \noindent

1072: (i) For $|t|\le T=\epsilon$ this condition  is satisfied (with  $\epsilon_1$ replaced by $\epsilon_1/2$);

1073: 

1074: \smallskip

1075: \noindent

1076: (ii) Moreover

1077: \begin{equation}

1078: \epsilon_2 |t|\le \pm \varsigma \bigl(x_2(t)-x_2(0)\bigr)\le c_2 |t|

1079: \qquad\qquad {\text as}\quad

1080: c{\bar\gamma }\le \pm t\le T

1081: \label{1-32}

1082: \end{equation}

1083: and 

1084: \begin{equation}

1085: \epsilon_2|t|\le |x(t)-x(0)|+|p(t)-p(0)|\le c_2|t|\qquad{\text as}\quad |t|\le c{\bar\gamma}.

1086: \label{1-33}

1087: \end{equation}

1088: \end{proposition}

1089: 

1090: \begin{proof} Proof of (i) is obvious; (\ref{1-32}) and (\ref{1-33}) then follow from comparison of the general and pilot-model system. 

1091: \end{proof}

1092: 

1093: So there are no $T$-periodic trajectories with $0<T\le \epsilon$ unless

1094: \begin{equation}

1095: \rho=| \xi_2-k^* V ^{\frac 1 2}| \le \epsilon _1.

1096: \label{1-34}

1097: \end{equation}

1098: Note that now

1099: \begin{equation}

1100: {\frac {d\xi_2}{dt}}= {\frac 1 2}V_{x_2}+O({\bar\gamma})

1101: \label{1-35}

1102: \end{equation}

1103: which immediately yields

1104: 

1105: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-12} Let conditions $(\ref{1-18})$, $(\ref{1-21})$, $(\ref{1-34})$ be fulfilled and

1106: \begin{equation}

1107: \varsigma \partial_{x_2}V \ge \epsilon_0\qquad \text{with\quad} \varsigma =\pm 1

1108: \label{1-36}

1109: \end{equation}

1110: Then trajectories on level $0$ satisfy

1111: \begin{equation}

1112: \pm \varsigma\bigl(\xi_2(t)-\xi_2(0)\bigr)\ge \epsilon |t|\qquad  {\text as}\quad 0\le \pm  T\le \epsilon.

1113: \label{1-37}

1114: \end{equation}

1115: \end{proposition}

1116: 

1117: In what follows we will consider more precisely trajectories satisfying (\ref{1-34}) and also $|\partial_{x_2}V |\le \epsilon_0$.

1118: 

1119: We still want to consider such trajectories as long as they are in a certain vicinity of the original point $x(0)$. For the pilot-models this vicinity is $B(0,1)$

1120: and $T=\epsilon \rho^{-1}$ as $|\xi_2 - k^*|=\rho $ but for other Hamiltonians

1121: both vicinity and time are smaller.

1122: 

1123: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-13} For any of two pilot-models with coupling constant $\mu \ge 1$ and potential $V=1\pm \zeta t$, $0\le\zeta\le \epsilon$ 

1124: 

1125: \smallskip

1126: \noindent

1127: (i) Trajectory starting at $(\bx,\bxi)$ satisfying $(\ref{1-34})$  remains in $B(0,1)$ and satisfies  $(\ref{1-34})$ with $2\epsilon_1$ as long

1128: $|t|\le T= \epsilon \min\bigl(\zeta ^{-{\frac 1 2}}, \rho^{-1}\bigr)$;

1129: 

1130: \smallskip

1131: \noindent 

1132: (ii) Along it 

1133: \begin{equation}

1134: |x_2(t)-x_2(0)|\le C(\zeta |t|^2 + \rho |t|)+C{\bar \gamma},\qquad 

1135: \xi_2(t) -\xi_2(0)= \pm {\frac 1 2}\zeta t

1136: \label{1-38}

1137: \end{equation}

1138: and in at least one time direction 

1139: \begin{equation}

1140: |x_2(t)-x_2(0)|\ge \epsilon (\zeta |t|^2 + \rho |t|)-C{\bar \gamma};

1141: \label{1-39}

1142: \end{equation}

1143: \end{proposition}

1144: 

1145: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-14} For general Hamiltonian $(\ref{1-17})$, satisfying $(\ref{1-18})$, $(\ref{1-21})$ and

1146: \begin{equation}

1147: \bigl|\partial_{x_2}V|_\Sigma \bigr|\le \zeta

1148: \label{1-40}

1149: \end{equation}

1150: 

1151: \smallskip

1152: \noindent  

1153: (i) Statement (i) of proposition \ref{prop-1-13} holds as 

1154: \begin{equation}

1155: \rho \ge {\bar\gamma}, \qquad \zeta\ge {\bar\gamma} 

1156: \label{1-41}

1157: \end{equation}

1158: and $|\xi_2- k^*V^{\frac 1 2}|\le \rho$;

1159: 

1160: \smallskip

1161: \noindent 

1162: (ii) Assuming $(\ref{1-41})$, if

1163: \begin{equation}

1164: \bigl|\partial_{x_2}V|_\Sigma \bigr|\ge \epsilon_1\zeta

1165: \label{1-42}

1166: \end{equation}

1167: then 

1168: \begin{equation}

1169: |\xi_2 (t)-\xi_2(0)|\ge \epsilon \zeta |t|;

1170: \label{1-43}

1171: \end{equation}

1172: 

1173: \smallskip

1174: \noindent 

1175: (iii) Assuming $(\ref{1-41})$, if

1176: \begin{equation}

1177: \bigl| \xi_2 (0)-k^* V(x(0))^{\frac 1 2} \bigr|\ge \epsilon_1\rho

1178: \label{1-44}

1179: \end{equation}

1180: then in at least one time direction

1181: \begin{equation}

1182: |x_2 (t)-x_2(0)|\ge \epsilon \rho|t|.

1183: \label{1-45}

1184: \end{equation}

1185: \end{proposition}

1186: 

1187: \begin{proof} Proofs are obvious.

1188: \end{proof}

1189: 

1190: 

1191: 

1192: \subsection{Hamiltonian maps}

1193: 

1194: Now we need to analyze more precisely what happens in the periodic zone

1195: $\cZ_\per=\{x, |x_1|\le c{\bar\gamma}, |\xi_2 - k^*V^{\frac 1 2}|\le \rho\}$

1196: where $\rho$ will be specified in the next section.

1197: Let us consider pilot-models first.

1198: 

1199: If on each energy level $\tau$, $|\tau|\le \epsilon$ all the trajectory were periodic with period $T=T(\tau)$ then replacing Hamiltonian $a$ by $g(a)$ with

1200: $g(\tau)= \int ^\tau T(\tau)\,d\tau$ we would get 1-periodic Hamiltonian flow. 

1201: 

1202: However it is not the case: on each energy level $\tau$ the only periodic trajectory is one with $\xi_2= \xi_2(\tau)=k^* (1+2a\tau)^{\frac 1 2}$ and period is $T(\tau)=T^*(1+2\tau)^{(\nu -1)/2\nu}$. Still defining $g(\tau)$ accordingly let us consider the Hamiltonian $g(a)$.

1203: 

1204: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-15} For a pilot-model symbol $a$ given by $(\ref{1-2})$ or $(\ref{1-14})$

1205: \begin{align}

1206: &e^{T^*H_{g(a)}}=e^{H_b}, \label{1-46}\\

1207: &g(\tau)={\frac 1 {2\kappa}}(1+2\tau )^\kappa - {\frac 1 {2\kappa}},\qquad \kappa={\frac {\nu +1}{2\nu}},

1208: \label{1-47}\\

1209: &b={\bar b}(\xi_2,a)=(1+2a)^\kappa \Bigl(\frac {\xi_2} {(1+2a)^{\frac 1 2}}-k^*\Bigr)^2 

1210: \omega \Bigl(\frac {\xi_2} {(1+2a)^{\frac 1 2}}\Bigr)

1211: \label{1-48}

1212: \end{align}

1213: where $T^*$ is an elementary period and  

1214: \begin{equation}

1215: \omega(k^*)= {\frac 1 2} \partial_k I(k)\bigr|_{k=k^*}.

1216: \label{1-49}

1217: \end{equation}

1218: \end{proposition}

1219: 

1220: 

1221: \begin{proof} As $a$ is a pilot-model Hamiltonian then taking $\xi_2=k^*$, $a=0$ we would conclude that the Hamiltonian trajectories  are periodic with period $T^*$. As $a=\tau$ disjoint from $-{\frac 1 2}$ we have both period $T(\tau)$ and $K^*(\tau)$ defined by

1222: \begin{equation}

1223: T (\tau)= T^* \cdot (1+2\tau)^{(\nu -1)/(2\nu)},\qquad 

1224: K^*(\tau)= k^* \cdot (1+2\tau)^{\frac 1 2}.

1225: \label{1-50}

1226: \end{equation}

1227: To get period which is independent on energy level one must replace $a$ by $g(a)$  with $g(\tau)=\int ^\tau T (\tau)\,d\tau$: then $e^{T^*H_{g(a)}}=I$ as $\xi_2= K^*(a)$;

1228: period is $T^*$ rather than 1  since we define $g(a)$ without factor $T^*$.  

1229: 

1230: As $\xi_2\ne K^*(a)$ periodicity is broken. Since $H_a$ and $H_{\xi_2}$ near $\{a=0\}$ are linearly independent we conclude that

1231: $e^{T^*H_{g(a)}}=I+2(\xi_2-K^*(a)) \omega _1(x_1,\xi_1,\xi_2)$. However since it is a symplectic map it must be of the form $e^{H_b}$ with 

1232: \begin{equation*}

1233: b= (\xi_2-K^*(a))^2 \omega _2(x_1,\xi_1,\xi_2)+ \lambda (x_1,\xi_1).

1234: \end{equation*}

1235: We know that as $\xi_2=K^*(a)$ we have $e^{H_b}=e^{H_\lambda}=I$ and since $\lambda$ is ``small'' we conclude that $\lambda=\const$ (and thus we can take it 0). 

1236: 

1237: Since $e^{H_b}$ commutes with $e^{H_a}$ we conclude that $\omega=\omega(\xi_2,a)$ and due to homogeneity properties 

1238: $\omega_2 = \omega \bigl(\xi_2(1+2a)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\bigr)(1+2a)^{\kappa-1}$.

1239: Then $x_2$-shift as $a=0$ and $\xi_2\approx k^*$ is 

1240: $2\omega (k^*)(\xi_2-k^*)+O\bigl( (\xi_2-k^*)^2\bigr)$ which implies (\ref{1-50}).

1241: \end{proof}

1242: 

1243: 

1244: If we consider pilot-model but with $\mu\ne 1$ one needs to replace (\ref{1-46})

1245: by

1246: \begin{equation}

1247: e^{{\bar\gamma}T^*g(a)}=e^{{\bar\gamma}H_b}.

1248: \label{1-51}

1249: \end{equation}

1250: Consider now trajectories  residing in $B(0,C_0{\bar\gamma})$ and corresponding to these Hamiltonians but with potential $V=1+\zeta x_2$. One can see easily that (\ref{1-51}) will remain true with $b={\bar b}- {\frac 1 2}T^*W + b'$, $W=V(0,x_2)$  and $b'$satisfying (\ref{1-53}) below. Then for the general Hamiltonians one can prove

1251: 

1252: 

1253: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-16} For general symbol $(\ref{1-17})$ with $\sigma, \phi$ satisfying $(\ref{1-21})$ and with $V$, $V(0)=1$, satisfying in $C_0{\bar\gamma}$-vicinity of \ $0$

1254: \begin{equation}

1255: |\partial _{x_2} V|\le \zeta 

1256: \label{1-52}

1257: \end{equation}

1258: with $\zeta \ge C{\bar\gamma}$, equality $(\ref{1-51})$ holds with symbol 

1259: $b={\bar b}- {\frac 1 2}T^*W(x_2) + b'$

1260: where ${\bar b}={\bar b}(\xi_2,a)$ is defined by $(\ref{1-48})$,  and 

1261: \begin{equation}

1262: |\partial_x ^\alpha  b' |\le 

1263: C \bigl(\zeta (\zeta+\rho)+{\bar\gamma}\bigr){\bar\gamma}^{1-|\alpha|}, \qquad |\alpha|\le 1.

1264: \label{1-53}

1265: \end{equation}

1266: \end{proposition}

1267: 

1268:   

1269: \sect{Quantum dynamics}

1270: 

1271: \subsection{Preliminary notes. Forbidden zone}

1272: 

1273: Starting from this section $\nu\ge2$ is an integer and magnetic potential is $(0, \phi (x) \varrho_\nu(x_1) /\nu)$ where  $\varrho_\nu(x_1) = x_1^\nu$.

1274: Thus we have different pilot-models for even and odd $\nu$. 

1275: 

1276: In this subsection we consider $\mu \ge h^{-1}$ and \emph{forbidden\/} zone is defined by (\ref{2-1}). Also we consider $\xi_2$-localization which is useful 

1277: when $\mu$ is close to $h^{-\nu}$.

1278: 

1279: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-1} Let $\mu \ge h^{-1}$ and 

1280: \begin{equation}

1281: \mu h f -V \ge \epsilon

1282: \label{2-1}

1283: \end{equation}

1284: in $B({\bar x}, \gamma)$ with

1285: \begin{equation}

1286: \gamma \ge \max \bigl(h ,{\bar\gamma}\bigr),\qquad 

1287: {\bar\gamma}=C\mu^{-{\frac 1 \nu}}.

1288: \label{2-2}

1289: \end{equation}

1290: Then 

1291: \begin{equation}

1292: |e(x,x,0)|\le C\gamma^{-2}\bigr(\mu ^{-1}h\gamma^{-\nu -1}\bigr)^s\qquad 

1293: {\text in}\quad B({\bar x}, \gamma).

1294: \label{2-3}

1295: \end{equation}

1296: \end{proposition}

1297: 

1298: \emph{Proof\/} is just by rescaling. In particular, as 

1299: \begin{equation}

1300: h^{-1}\le \mu \le C_0h^{-\nu}

1301: \label{2-4}

1302: \end{equation}

1303: the total contribution  to 

1304: $\int e(x,x,0)\psi (x)\,dx$ of the \emph{forbidden zone\/} defined by (\ref{2-1}) does not exceed  $C{\bar\gamma}_1^{-1}(\mu h^\nu)^s$. Thus we need to consider only \emph{allowed zone\/} $\mu h f-V\le \epsilon$ and there

1305: \begin{equation}

1306: \gamma \le {\bar\gamma}_1=C_0(\mu h)^{-{\frac 1 {\nu -1}}}.

1307: \label{2-5}

1308: \end{equation}

1309: 

1310: This result is not very useful as 

1311: $\mu\ge h^{-\nu+\delta}$. However using logarithmic uncertainty principles and related arguments one can prove easily

1312: 

1313: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-2}

1314: Let conditions $(\ref{2-1})$, $(\ref{2-4})$ be fulfilled and

1315: \begin{equation}

1316: \gamma \ge \max \bigl(Ch|\log h| ,{\bar\gamma}\bigr).

1317: \label{2-6}

1318: \end{equation}

1319: with $C=C_s$. Then 

1320: \begin{equation}

1321: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_T(t)\psi u|\le CT h^s

1322: \qquad \forall \tau\le \epsilon\quad \forall T\ge Ch|\log h|

1323: \label{2-7}

1324: \end{equation}

1325: and therefore

1326: $e(x,x,0)\le Ch^s$ in $B({\bar x},\gamma)$.

1327: \end{proposition}

1328: 

1329: In particular, (\ref{2-6}) is fulfilled automatically as 

1330: $|x_1|\ge {\bar\gamma}_1$ provided 

1331: \begin{equation}

1332: \mu \le \epsilon (h|\log h|)^{-\nu}

1333: \label{2-8}

1334: \end{equation}

1335: while the \emph{super-strong magnetic field\/} case when (\ref{2-8}) is violated requires some special consideration based on the analysis operators with operator-valued symbols. We need axillary

1336: 

1337: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-3} Let $\lambda=\lambda_n(z)$ be eigenvalues of one-dimensional Schr\"odinger operator 

1338: \begin{equation}

1339: {\mathbf a}(z)^0=D_1^2 + (z-\mu \varrho_\nu(x_1)\nu /\nu)^2

1340: \label{2-9}

1341: \end{equation}

1342: in $L^2(\bR)$; here we assume only that $2\le \nu \in \bR$ and either

1343: $\varrho_\nu(x_1)= |x_1|^\nu$ or $\varrho_\nu(x_1)= |x_1|^\nu\cdot\sign(x_1)$. 

1344: Then

1345: 

1346: \smallskip

1347: \noindent

1348: (i) $\lambda_n(z)> 0$;

1349: 

1350: \smallskip

1351: \noindent

1352: (ii) Assume that either $z\ge 0$ or $\varrho_\nu = |x_1|^\nu\sign (x_1)$. Then for $n\le \epsilon |z|^{\frac {\nu +1} \nu}$

1353: \begin{align}

1354: &\lambda_n \asymp |z|^{\frac {nu -1} \nu } n\label{2-10},\\

1355: &{\frac {\partial\ }{\partial z}}\lambda_n \cdot \sign (z) \asymp 

1356: |z|^{-{\frac 1 \nu }} n;\label{2-11}

1357: \end{align}

1358: 

1359: \smallskip

1360: \noindent

1361: (iii) Assume that $z<0$ and $\varrho_\nu = |x_1|^\nu$. Then 

1362: \begin{equation}

1363: \lambda_n \asymp z^2+n^{\frac {2\nu}{\nu +1}}.

1364: \label{2-12}

1365: \end{equation}

1366: \end{proposition}

1367: 

1368: \begin{proof} Proof of (i) is obvious; (ii),(iii) easily follow from the semiclassical character of the spectrum as $|z|+n\gg 1$, $n\gg 1$ respectively. Easy details are left to the reader.

1369: \end{proof}

1370: 

1371: Furthermore, using operators with operator-valued symbols one can prove easily

1372: 

1373: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-4}  Let $\mu \ge Ch^{-\nu}$. Then

1374: \begin{equation}

1375:  |e(x,x,\tau)| \le C\mu ^{-s}\qquad \for 

1376:  \tau \le \epsilon \bigl(\mu h^\nu\bigr)^{\frac 2 {\nu+1}}.

1377:  \label{2-13}

1378: \end{equation}

1379: \end{proposition}

1380: 

1381: So, \emph{in what follows  can assume that $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu}$}. In what follows

1382: $u=u(x,y,t)$

1383: is the \emph{propagator\/}, i.e. the Schwartz kernel of operator $e^{ih^{-1}tA}$.

1384: 

1385: 

1386: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-5} Let $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu}$ and 

1387: let $\varphi \in C^\infty(\bR)$, $\varphi (t)=1$ as $t\ge 2$, $\varphi(t)=0$ as $t\le 1$. Then 

1388: 

1389: \smallskip

1390: \noindent

1391: (i) The following inequality holds

1392: \begin{multline}

1393: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_T(t) 

1394: \varphi  \bigl(\pm\epsilon (\mu h^\nu)^{\frac 1 {\nu -1}}hD_{x_2} \bigr)\psi u| \le C(T+1)h^s\qquad \forall \tau\le \epsilon\quad \forall T\ge Ch|\log h|

1395:  \label{2-14}

1396: \end{multline}

1397: and therefore

1398: \begin{equation}

1399: |\varphi  \bigl(\pm\epsilon (\mu h^\nu)^{\frac 1 {\nu -1}}hD_2 \bigr)e(x,y,0)| \le Ch^s;

1400:  \label{2-15}

1401:  \end{equation}

1402:  here and below $x,y\in B(0,1-\epsilon)$;

1403:  

1404: \smallskip

1405: \noindent

1406: (iii) Furthermore, for even $\nu$ 

1407:  \begin{equation}

1408: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_T(t) 

1409: \varphi  \bigl(-\epsilon  hD_2 \bigr)\psi u| \le C(T+1)h^s\qquad

1410: \forall \tau\le \epsilon\quad \forall T\ge Ch|\log h|

1411:  \label{2-16}

1412:  \end{equation}

1413: and therefore 

1414:  \begin{equation}

1415: |\varphi   \bigl(-\epsilon hD_2 \bigr)e(x,y,0)| \le Ch^s.

1416:  \label{2-17}

1417:  \end{equation}

1418: \end{proposition}

1419: 

1420: Easy proofs are left to the reader. Inequalities (\ref{2-14}) and (\ref{2-16}) are proved by the standard elliptic methods. Then inequalities (\ref{2-15}) and (\ref{2-17}) are proved by the standard Tauberian methods.

1421: 

1422: Thus in what follows we localized $u$ with respect to  $hD_{x_2}$ (and thus with respect to $hD_{y_2}$ as well due to symmetry. This localization is more precise than $x_1,y_1$ localization as $\epsilon (h|\log h|)^{-\nu}\le \mu \le Ch^{-\nu}$; as $\mu\le \epsilon (h|\log h|)^{-\nu}$ both localizations are equivalent. 

1423: 

1424: \subsection{Outer zone}

1425: 

1426: In this subsection we consider \emph{outer zone\/} 

1427: $\cZ_\out=\{C_0{\bar\gamma}\le|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_1\}$ with 

1428: \begin{equation*}

1429: {\bar\gamma}_1=\min \bigl(\epsilon, C(\mu h)^{-1/(\nu -1)}\bigr).

1430: \end{equation*}

1431: This definition works fine under (\ref{2-8})

1432: but should be modified as 

1433: \begin{equation}

1434: \epsilon (h|\log h|)^{-\nu}\le \mu \le C_0h^{-\nu}

1435: \label{2-18}

1436: \end{equation}

1437: to 

1438: \begin{equation*}

1439: \cZ_\out= \{ C_0 \le |\xi_2|\le C(\mu h^\nu)^{-\frac 1{\nu -1}}\}

1440: \end{equation*}

1441: (and  in addition $\{\xi_1 \ge C_0\}$ as $\nu$ is even)\footnote

1442: {\label{foot-4}Restriction to $|x_1|$ will be $|x_1|\le Ch|\log h|$.}.

1443: 

1444: Our first statement is that in the quantum dynamic in this zone the magnitude of $x_1$ (and $\xi_2$) persists.

1445: 

1446: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-6} (i)  Let 

1447: ${\bar x}\in B(0,{\frac 1 2})\cap  \{x, \pm x_1\ge C{\bar\gamma}\}$,

1448: $\gamma =\epsilon |{\bar x}_1|$ satisfy $(\ref{2-6})$ and 

1449: $\psi\in C_0^\infty (B(\bx,\gamma))$ be a rescaling of the standard function. Let $\psi_1$ be $\gamma$-admissible and supported in 

1450: $\{1/(2C_0)\le x_1/{\bar x}_1\le 2C_0\}$ and equal $1$ in 

1451: $\{1/C_0\le x_1/{\bar x}_1 \le 2C_0\gamma\}$. Let $T_1=\epsilon \mu\gamma^\nu$. Then for $T=T_1$

1452: \begin{equation}

1453: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_T(t)(1-\psi_{1\,x})u\psi_y |\le Ch^s.

1454: \label{2-19}

1455: \end{equation}

1456: 

1457: \smallskip

1458: \noindent

1459: (ii) Let $ {\bar\xi}_2=\pm \rho$, $\rho \ge C$ and 

1460: $\varphi\in C_0^\infty ([{\frac 3 4},{\frac 3 4}])$ and 

1461: $\varphi_1\in C_0^\infty$, $\varphi_1=1$ on $[{\frac 1 2}, {\frac 3 2}]$ be  the standard functions. Let $T_1= \epsilon \rho$. Then for $T=T_1$

1462: \begin{equation}

1463: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_T(t)\Bigl

1464: (1-\varphi _1\bigl({\frac 1 {{\bar \xi}_2}} hD_x\bigr)\Bigr)u

1465: \varphi \bigl( {\frac 1 {{\bar \xi}_2}} hD_x\bigr) |\le Ch^s.

1466: \label{2-20}

1467: \end{equation}

1468: \end{proposition}

1469: 

1470: \begin{proof} Note that both statements are equivalent as 

1471: $\rho \asymp \mu \gamma^\nu$ so we will prove (ii). As $|x_1|\ge {\bar\gamma}$ we constructed by $(\ref{1-27})$ symbol which after rescaling becomes $X=\xi_2-\mu^{-1}x_1^{1-\nu}\beta (x) p_1$ such that 

1472: \begin{equation}

1473: |\{a,X\}-\alpha a |\le C_0

1474: \label{2-21}

1475: \end{equation}

1476: Then using arguments of the proof of theorem 3.1 \cite{IRO1} with symbol

1477: \begin{equation}

1478: \varpi (\varsigma Ct \pm X )

1479: \label{2-22}

1480: \end{equation} 

1481: where $\varpi$ is the same function $\chi$ as in this proof and 

1482: $\varsigma=\pm 1$, one can easily prove (ii) as long as symbol (\ref{2-22}) is quantizable; this condition is equivalent to (\ref{2-6}).

1483: 

1484: Surely one needs to check that in time $T_1$ we stay in $B(0,1)$ but it will be done in the next proposition.

1485: 

1486: If (\ref{2-6}) is violated (and thus (\ref{2-8}) is violated as well) we can quantize with respect to $(x_2,\xi_2)$ but not with respect to $(x_1,\xi_1)$ unless $x_1\ge Ch|\log h|$ and instead we note that 

1487: \begin{equation*}

1488: \{a, \xi_2\}=\alpha a+\sigma ^2 \bigl(\xi_2 - \phi \varrho_\nu/\nu\bigr) +O(1)

1489: \end{equation*}

1490: and then $X= \omega \xi_2$ with $\omega =\phi (0,x_2)^{-1}$ satisfies (\ref{2-21}) and therefore the same arguments of the proof of theorem 3.1 \cite{IRO1} remain valid but we consider $h$-pdo with operator-valued symbols (in the axillary space $\bK=L^2(\bR^1)$).

1491: \end{proof}

1492: 

1493: The following  proposition estimates by $C_0\mu^{-1}\gamma^{-\nu}$ and

1494: $C_0\rho^{-1}$ $x_2$-speed of the propagation from above; the same result will hold for inner zone as well.

1495: 

1496: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-7} (i) In frames of proposition \ref{prop-2-6}(i) let $\psi $ be supported in $\ell$-vicinity of ${\bar y}$ and $\psi_2=\psi_2(x_2)$ satisfy

1497: \begin{equation}

1498: \psi_2=1\qquad {\text in}\quad

1499: \bigl\{ | y_2-{\bar y}_2|\le C_0 (\mu \gamma^\nu)^{-1}T+C_0\ell\bigr\}

1500: \label{2-23}

1501: \end{equation}

1502: with $\ell=C_0\mu^{-1}\gamma ^{1-\nu}$.

1503: 

1504: Then  for ${\bar T}_0= C_0 h|\log h| \le T\le T_1$

1505: \begin{equation}

1506: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_T(t)

1507: (1-\psi_{2\,x})u\psi_y |\le Ch^s\qquad\forall \tau\in (-\epsilon,\epsilon);

1508: \label{2-24}

1509: \end{equation}

1510: 

1511: \smallskip

1512: \noindent

1513: (ii) In frames of proposition \ref{prop-2-6}(ii) let $\psi =\psi(x_2)$ be supported in $\ell$-vicinity of ${\bar y}_2$, $\varphi=\varphi (\xi_2)$ in $\epsilon\rho$-vicinity of ${\bar \xi}_2$ and $\psi_2$ satisfy $(\ref{2-22})$. Let 

1514: \begin{equation}

1515: \ell \rho \ge Ch|\log h|.

1516: \label{2-25}

1517: \end{equation}

1518: Then for  ${\bar T}_0 \le T\le T_1$

1519: \begin{equation}

1520: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_T(t)

1521: (1-\psi_{2\,x})u\psi_y \varphi ^t(hD_{y_2})|\le Ch^s\qquad\forall \tau\in (-\epsilon,\epsilon).

1522: \label{2-26}

1523: \end{equation}

1524: \end{proposition}

1525: 

1526: \begin{proof} Both statements are equivalent under condition (\ref{2-6}). 

1527: 

1528: \smallskip

1529: \noindent

1530: (i) Assume first that (\ref{2-6}) holds. Then  symbol 

1531: \begin{equation}

1532: Y=x_2-\phi^{-1}\mu ^{-1}x_1^{1-\nu}\xi_1

1533: \label{2-27}

1534: \end{equation}

1535: satisfies 

1536: \begin{equation}

1537: |\bigl\{ a, Y\bigr\}|\le C_0\rho^{-1}

1538: \label{2-28}

1539: \end{equation}

1540: with $\rho=\mu \gamma^\nu$ and symbols

1541: \begin{equation}

1542: \varpi \bigl(C_0\varsigma {\frac t T} \pm {\frac Y {\rho^{-1} T}}\bigr)

1543: \label{2-29}

1544: \end{equation}

1545: ($\varsigma = \pm 1$) are quantizable as long as 

1546: \begin{equation}

1547: T\ge T_0 = C\bigl(\gamma h |\log h|\bigr)^{\frac 1 2}

1548: \label{2-30}

1549: \end{equation}

1550: and then standard energy estimates method (see theorem 3.1 \cite{IRO1}) implies (\ref{2-25}) with $\psi$, and $\psi_2$ replaced by $h$-pdo supported and equal 1 respectively in domains

1551: \begin{align*}

1552: &\bigl\{ (y, \eta): |y_1-{\bar y}_1|\le \epsilon \gamma,

1553: |Y(y,\eta_1)-Y(\bar y,\bar\eta_1)|\le \ell\bigr\},\\

1554: &\bigl\{ (x, \xi): |y_1-{\bar y}_1|\le \epsilon \gamma,

1555: |Y(x,\xi_1)-Y(\bar y,\bxi_1)|\le \ell+C\mu^{-1}\gamma^{-\nu} T\bigr\},

1556: \end{align*}

1557: as $T_0\le T \le T_1 = C\mu \gamma^\nu $ and

1558: \begin{equation}

1559: \ell_0=C\bigl(\gamma h |\log h|\bigr)^{\frac 1 2} \rho^{-1} \le \ell \le \epsilon.

1560: \label{2-31}

1561: \end{equation}

1562: Original estimate (\ref{2-24}) follows from this because $|Y(x,\xi_1)-x_2|\le C_0\ell$.

1563: 

1564: As (\ref{2-24}) is proven for $T=T_0$ it is valid also for 

1565: $T\in [{\bar T}_0,T_0]$.

1566: 

1567: \smallskip

1568: \noindent

1569: (ii) Assume now that (\ref{2-6}) is violated. Then $x_1$ is localized only in $Ch|\log h|$-vicinity of $0$ rather than in $\gamma$-vicinity of it and $x_1$ is not separated from $0$. However a naive idea that $\mu \phi x_1^\nu/\nu$ should be replaced by $\xi_2$ and thus we should define 

1570: \begin{equation}

1571: Y=x_2-\nu^{-1}x_1\xi_1\xi_2^{-1}

1572: \label{2-32}

1573: \end{equation}

1574: instead of (\ref{2-27}) works; (\ref{2-28}) and (\ref{2-29}) are preserved, also  (\ref{2-30}) becomes

1575: $T_0=Ch|\log h|$ and (\ref{2-31})  becomes (\ref{2-25}).

1576: \end{proof}

1577: 

1578: The following  proposition estimates by $\epsilon_0\mu^{-1}\gamma^{-\nu}$ (and almost equivalently) by

1579: $\epsilon_0\rho^{-1}$ $x_2$-speed of the propagation from below; this result would fail in the inner zone unless far from periodic trajectories.

1580: 

1581: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-8} (i) In frames of proposition \ref{prop-2-6}(i) let $\psi $ be supported in $\gamma$-vicinity of ${\bar y}$ and $\psi_2=\psi_2(x_2)$ satisfy

1582: \begin{equation}

1583: \psi_2=1\qquad {\text in}\quad

1584: \{ | y_2-{\bar y}_2|\ge

1585: \epsilon_0 (\mu \gamma^\nu)^{-1}T-C_0\ell\}

1586: \label{2-33}

1587: \end{equation}

1588: with $\ell=\mu^{-1}\gamma ^{1-\nu}$.

1589: 

1590: Then  for $T'_0= C_0 \gamma \le T\le T_1$ inequality $(\ref{2-25})$ holds.

1591: 

1592: \smallskip

1593: \noindent

1594: (ii) In frames of proposition \ref{prop-2-6}(ii) let $\psi =\psi(x_2)$ be supported in $\ell$-vicinity of ${\bar y}_2$, $\varphi=\varphi (\xi_2)$ in $\epsilon\rho$-vicinity of ${\bar \xi}_2$ and $\psi_2$ satisfy $(\ref{2-32})$. Let $\ell$ satisfy $(\ref{2-26})$.

1595: 

1596: Then for  ${\bar T}_0 =C_0h|\log h| \le T\le T_1$ inequality $(\ref{2-27})$ holds.

1597: \end{proposition}

1598: 

1599: \begin{proof} One needs to apply the standard arguments with

1600: \begin{equation}

1601: \varpi \bigl(C_0\varsigma {\frac Y {\rho^{-1} T}}\pm {\frac t T} \bigr)

1602: \label{2-34}

1603: \end{equation}

1604: assuming that inequality (\ref{2-29})  is reversed to

1605: \begin{equation}

1606: |\bigl\{ a, Y\bigr\}|\ge \epsilon_0\rho ^{-1}.

1607: \label{2-35}

1608: \end{equation}

1609: In frames of (\ref{2-6}) one needs to modify $Y$ in the spirit of (\ref{1-28}) which would be equivalent to the following modification in frames of (ii). Namely, note that as $\gamma \ll 1$, $\rho \gg 1$

1610: \begin{equation*}

1611: \{a,Y\}= \xi_2^{-1}\bigl(-\nu^{-1}p_1^2 + p_2^2\bigr)+o(\rho^{-1})=

1612: {\frac 1 2}(1+\nu^{-1})\xi_2^{-1}(p_2^2-p_1^2)+

1613: {\frac 1 2}(1-\nu^{-1})\xi_2^{-1}(p_2^2+p_1^2)

1614: \end{equation*}

1615: and if we redefine $Y$ as

1616: \begin{equation}

1617: Y=x_2-\nu^{-1}x_1\xi_1\xi_2^{-1}+ {\frac 1 2}\nu^{-1}(1+\nu^{-1})x_1\xi_1p_2 \xi_2^{-2}

1618: \label{2-36}

1619: \end{equation}

1620: we arrive to

1621: \begin{equation}

1622: \{a,Y\}=

1623: {\frac 1 2}(1-\nu^{-1})\xi_2^{-1}(p_2^2+p_1^2) +o(\rho^{-1})=

1624: {\frac 1 2}(1-\nu^{-1})\xi_2^{-1} (a+V) +o(\rho^{-1})

1625: \label{2-37}

1626: \end{equation}

1627: which implies (\ref{2-36}) and also symbols (\ref{2-35}) are quantizable.

1628: \end{proof}

1629: 

1630: From the proof of proposition \ref{prop-2-8} immediately follows that (\ref{2-26}) holds with $\psi(x_2)$, $\psi_2(x_2)$ replaced by $\psi(Y(x,\xi))^\w$, $\psi_2(Y(x,\xi))^\w$ with assumption $\ell=C_0\mu^{-1}\gamma^{1-\nu}$ replaced by (\ref{2-25}) i.e. 

1631: \begin{equation}

1632: \ell = C_0\mu^{-1}\gamma^{-\nu}h|\log h|.

1633: \tag*{$(\ref{2-25})'$}\label{2-25-'}

1634: \end{equation}

1635: Then we immediately get

1636: 

1637: \begin{corollary}\label{cor-2-9}

1638: (i) In frames of proposition \ref{prop-2-6}(i)

1639: \begin{equation}

1640: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}\chi_T(t)  \Gamma \bigl(u\psi \bigr)|\le Ch^s\qquad \forall \tau\in (-\epsilon,\epsilon);

1641: \label{2-38}

1642: \end{equation}

1643: as ${\bar T}_0=Ch|\log h| \le T\le T_1$ and thus

1644: \begin{equation}

1645: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} \bigl({\bar\chi}_{T_1}(t)-{\bar\chi}_{{\bar T}_0}(t)\bigr)

1646: \Gamma \bigl(u\psi\bigr) |\le Ch^s 

1647: \label{2-39}

1648: \end{equation}

1649: where I remind that ${\bar\chi}$ is supported in $[-1,1]$ and equal $1$ in $[-{\frac 1 2},{\frac 1 2}]$.

1650: 

1651: \smallskip

1652: \noindent

1653: (ii) In frames of proposition \ref{prop-2-6}(ii) $(\ref{2-38}),(\ref{2-39})$ hold with $\psi (x_1,x_2)$ replaced by $\psi (x_2)\varphi (hD_2)$ with $\varphi$ supported in $\{|\xi_2|\ge C\}$.

1654: \end{corollary}

1655: 

1656: Assume now that (\ref{2-6}) is fulfilled.  Then  we arrive to

1657: \begin{equation}

1658: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma (u\psi ) |\le 

1659: C\gamma h^{-1} \qquad \forall T\in [T_0,T_1]

1660: \label{2-40}

1661: \end{equation}

1662: as $\psi=\psi'(x_1)\psi'(x_2)$ is an element of $\gamma$-admissible partition with respect to $x_1$; really  this estimate holds with $T=T_0$ due to the non-degenerating  results rescaled (\cite{IRO3}): $x\mapsto x/\gamma$, $h\mapsto h'=h/\gamma$, 

1663: $t\mapsto t/\gamma$ and $\mu \mapsto \mu'=\mu \gamma^\nu$ with $\mu' h'\le 1$.

1664: Then contribution of each element of $\gamma$-admissible (sub)partition with respect to $x$ contributes $C(h/\gamma)^{-1}\times \gamma $ with extra-factor $\gamma$ coming from $dt$ in Fourier transform $F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}$. After summation with respect to all $\asymp \gamma^{-1}$ such subelements we get (\ref{2-40}),

1665: 

1666: After (\ref{2-40}) is established we can apply  Tauberian arguments and conclude immediately that the contribution of $\psi$ to the remainder estimate does not exceed

1667: \begin{equation}

1668: CT_1^{-1}\times h^{-1} \gamma= 

1669: C(\mu \gamma^\nu)^{-1}h^{-1}\gamma =C\mu^{-1}\gamma^{1-\nu}

1670: \label{2-41}

1671: \end{equation}

1672: while the principal part is given by formula

1673: \begin{equation}

1674: h^{-1}\int _{-\infty}^0 \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma \bigl(u\psi\bigr)\Bigr)\,d\tau

1675: \label{2-42}

1676: \end{equation}

1677: with arbitrary $T\in \in [T_0,T_1]$. 

1678: 

1679: Then  summation of (\ref{2-41}) over  zone $|x_1|\ge \gamma$ results in $C\mu^{-1}h^{-1}\gamma^{1-\nu}$ coinciding with $C{\bar\gamma} h^{-1}$ as $\gamma={\bar\gamma}$ and we arrive to

1680: 

1681: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-10} Under condition $(\ref{2-8})$ contribution of the whole outer zone $\cZ_\out=\{x:|x_1|\ge C_0{\bar\gamma}\}$ to the remainder estimate

1682: \begin{equation}

1683: \cR = |\Gamma (e\psi) - h^{-1}\int _{-\infty}^0 \Bigl( F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma (u\psi)\Bigr)\,d\tau |

1684: \label{2-43}

1685: \end{equation}

1686: does not exceed $C{\bar \gamma}h^{-1}$ where 

1687: $\psi=1-\phi \bigl(x_1/(C_0{\bar\gamma})\bigr)\psi'(x_1)\psi''(x_2)$ with all functions regular, $\omega$ supported $[-1,1]$ and equal $1$ on $[-{\frac 1 2},{\frac 1 2}]$. 

1688: \end{proposition}

1689: 

1690: The similar results as condition (\ref{2-8}) violated will be derived later in sections 4, 5. I will replace (\ref{2-42}) by more explicit expression in section 3. Basically it will be the answer prescribed by the non-vanishing magnetic field theory but for $\mu$ large enough some correction will be needed.

1691: 

1692: \subsection{Inner zone. I}

1693: 

1694: Inner zone is $\cZ_\inn=\{|\xi_2|\le C_0\}$ or under condition (\ref{2-8}) equivalently (around energy level 0) $\cZ_\inn =\{|x_1|\le C_0\gamma\}$; under condition (\ref{2-18}) $|x_1|\le C_0h|\log h|$ in the microlocal sense in this zone. For a sake of simplicity of notations we use $\gamma$ instead of ${\bar\gamma}$ until the end of the section.

1695: 

1696: Let us start from the confinement of propagation in the inner zone and a finite speed of propagation; proofs repeating those of the corresponding propositions of the previous subsection are left to the reader. Just to remark that in this zone we study $\xi_2$ and $x_2$ directly without going to $X$ and $Y$.

1697: 

1698: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-11}\footnote{\label{foot-5}Cf proposition \ref{prop-2-6}.} (i)

1699: Let condition  $(\ref{2-8})$ be fulfilled. Let 

1700: ${\bar x}\in B(0,{\frac 1 2})\cap  \{x, |x_1|\le  \gamma\}$ and 

1701: $\psi\in C_0^\infty (B({\bar x},\gamma))$ be a rescaling of the standard function.  Let $\psi_1$ be $\gamma$-admissible, supported in 

1702: $\{|x_1|\le 3C_0\gamma\}$ and equal $1$ in 

1703: $\{|x_1|\le 2C_0\gamma\}$. Let $T_1=\epsilon $. Then estimate $(\ref{2-19})$ holds with $T=T_1$.

1704: 

1705: \smallskip

1706: \noindent

1707: (ii) Without condition $(\ref{2-8})$ let 

1708: $\psi\in C_0^\infty \bigl(({\frac 1 2},{\frac 1 2})\bigr)$, 

1709: $\varphi \in C_0^\infty \bigl((-C_0,C_0)\bigr)$, 

1710: $\varphi_1 \in C_0^\infty \bigl((-3C_0,3C_0)\bigr)$

1711: and equal $1$ in $(-2C_0,2C_0)$. Then estimate $(\ref{2-20})$ holds with ${\bar\xi_2}=1$ and $T=T_1$.

1712: \end{proposition}

1713: 

1714: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-12}\footnote{\label{foot-6}Cf proposition \ref{prop-2-7}.}

1715: (i) In frames of proposition \ref{prop-2-11}(i)  let $\psi_1=\psi(x_2)$,

1716: \begin{equation*}

1717: \psi_1=1\qquad {\text in}\quad

1718: \{  | y_2-{\bar y}_2|\le C_0 T\}.

1719: \end{equation*}

1720: Then for $T_0= C_0\gamma  \le T\le T_1$ inequality 

1721: \begin{equation}

1722: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_T (t)

1723: (1-\psi_{1\,x})uQ_y |\le Ch^s\qquad\forall \tau\in (-\epsilon,\epsilon);

1724: \label{2-44}

1725: \end{equation}

1726: holds with $Q_y=\psi_y$.

1727: 

1728: \smallskip

1729: \noindent

1730: (ii) Without condition $(\ref{2-8})$ this estimate holds with 

1731: $Q_y=\psi(y_2)\varphi (-hD_{y_2})$ with 

1732: $\varphi \in C_0^\infty \bigl((-C_0,C_0)\bigr)$.

1733: \end{proposition}

1734: 

1735: Now we are studying the finite speed with respect to $\xi_2$ and the proof repeats those of proposition \ref{prop-2-7}:

1736: 

1737: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-13}

1738: Let $\psi=\psi(x_2)\in C_0^\infty \bigl((-{\frac 1 2},{\frac 1 2})\bigr)$,

1739: $\varphi \in C_0^\infty \bigl(B({\bar \eta}_2,\rho )\bigr)$ and

1740: $\varphi _1\in C_0^\infty \bigl(B({\bar \eta}_2,3\rho )\bigr)$ is equal to $1$ in $B({\bar \eta}_2,3\rho )$ be standard functions rescaled. Let 

1741: \begin{equation}

1742: \rho \ge C_1h|\log h|+C_1\gamma

1743: \label{2-45}

1744: \end{equation}

1745: 

1746: Then for $T_0= C_2\gamma  \le T\le T_1(\rho)=\epsilon \rho$ inequality 

1747: \begin{equation}

1748: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_T (t)

1749: \bigl(1-\varphi_1(hD_{x_2})\bigr) u\psi_y \varphi(-hD_{y_2})|\le Ch^s\qquad\forall \tau\in (-\epsilon,\epsilon);

1750: \label{2-46}

1751: \end{equation}

1752: holds.

1753: \end{proposition}

1754: 

1755: We will make more specific statements later. Now we want to prove that as $\xi_2$ is disjoint from $k^*V^{\frac 1 2}$ there is a drift with the velocity $\asymp (\xi_2-k^*V^{\frac 1 2})$ (with the correct sign). Let $\varphi=\varphi(\xi_2)\in C_0^\infty \bigl(B({\bar\eta}_2,\rho)\bigr)$ and

1756: $\psi =\psi (x_2)\in C_0^\infty (B({\bar y}_2,\ell)$, $\ell =\epsilon_1 \rho$

1757: be standard functions rescaled. Assuming that

1758: \begin{equation}

1759: \rho \ge C(h|\log h|)^{\frac 1 2}+ C_0\gamma

1760: \label{2-47}

1761: \end{equation}

1762: we conclude from propositions \ref{prop-2-12}, \ref{prop-2-13} that

1763: \begin{equation*}

1764: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau } {\bar\chi}_T(t)\bigl(1- \varphi_1(hD_{x_2})\psi_2(x_2)\bigr)u\psi(y_2) \varphi(-hD_{y_2})|

1765: \le Ch^s\qquad \forall\tau\in (-\epsilon,\epsilon) 

1766: \end{equation*}

1767: as long as $T\le \epsilon \rho$.

1768: 

1769: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-14}  

1770: Let  conditions $(\ref{2-8})$ and $(\ref{1-21})$ be fulfilled. Let

1771: $\psi=\psi(x_2)\in C_0^\infty\bigl(B({\bar y}_2,\ell)\bigr)$ and

1772: $\varphi \in C_0^\infty \bigl(B( {\bar\eta}_2,\rho)\bigr)$ be also standard function rescaled, with $\rho\le C_0$, 

1773: \begin{equation}

1774: {\bar \eta }_2- k^*V(0,{\bar y}_2)^{\frac 1 2}=\pm \rho .

1775: \label{2-48}

1776: \end{equation}

1777: Let $\psi_1= \psi_1(x_2)$ be also a standard function rescaled and equal $1$ in 

1778: $\{|x_2-{\bar y}_2|\ge \epsilon_0\rho T-C_0\ell\}$.

1779: 

1780: Then estimate $(\ref{2-44})$ holds with $Q_y=\psi (y_2)\varphi (-hD_{y_2})$ as $|\tau |\le \epsilon\rho$,  $\ell\ge\gamma$, 

1781: \begin{align}

1782: &\rho\ell \ge Ch|\log h|,\label{2-49}\\

1783: &T\ge C_0{\frac \ell \rho}\label{2-50}.

1784: \end{align}

1785: \end{proposition}

1786: 

1787: \begin{proof} With no loss of the generality we can assume that 

1788: $V(0,{\bar y}_2)=1$. Let us consider 

1789: \begin{equation}

1790: Y= x_2- \gamma({\frac {x_1} \gamma}, \xi_1)

1791: \label{2-51}

1792: \end{equation}

1793: where $Z$ is a function introduced in proposition \ref{prop-1-6} and pick up $\gamma=\mu^{-{1/ \nu}}$ exactly. Then

1794: $|\{a, Y\} -\beta (\xi_2-k^*) - \alpha a  |\le \epsilon' \rho$ with a constant $\epsilon'$ which one can make arbitrarily small.

1795: 

1796: Then we can apply standard arguments with

1797: \begin{equation}

1798: \varpi \Bigl( 

1799: C_0\varsigma {\frac 1 \ell}\bigl(Y(x,\xi)- Y(y,\eta) )\bigr)\pm {\frac t T}\Bigr)

1800: \label{2-52}

1801: \end{equation}

1802: as long as $T\rho \ge C\ell $; symbol (\ref{2-52}) is obviously quantizable.

1803: \end{proof}

1804: 

1805: It follows from the proof that estimate (\ref{2-44}) holds with 

1806: $Q_y=\psi (Y)^\w \phi(-hD_2)$ and $\psi_1$ replaced by $\psi_1(Y)^\w$ without assumption $\ell \ge \gamma$; this estimate immediately implies

1807: 

1808: \begin{corollary}\label{cor-2-15}  In frames of proposition \ref{prop-2-14}

1809: estimate $(\ref{2-56})$ (see below) holds with  the standard function $\psi$ and

1810: $|\tau| \le \epsilon \rho$ as long as

1811: \begin{align}

1812: &\rho \ge C_0 (h|\log h|)^{\frac 1 2},\label{2-53}\\

1813: &T_0 \Def {\frac {C_0h|\log h|}{\rho^2}}\le T\le T_1=\epsilon \rho.\label{2-54}

1814: \end{align}

1815: \end{corollary}

1816: 

1817: Note that $T_0\le \epsilon \gamma$ as long as 

1818: \begin{equation}

1819: \rho \ge {\bar\rho}_1 \Def C \bigl({\frac h \gamma}\bigr)^{\frac 1 2}

1820: \label{2-55}

1821: \end{equation}

1822: and we arrive to

1823: 

1824: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-16} Let conditions $(\ref{2-8}),(\ref{1-21})$ and $(\ref{2-55})$ be fulfilled. 

1825: 

1826: Then 

1827: 

1828: \smallskip

1829: \noindent

1830: (i) Estimates 

1831: \begin{equation}

1832: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}\chi_T(t)  \Gamma \bigl(\varphi(hD_2)\psi  u\bigr)|\le Ch^s, 

1833: \label{2-56}

1834: \end{equation}

1835: and

1836: \begin{equation}

1837: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} \bigl({\bar\chi}_{T_1}(t)-{\bar\chi}_{{\bar T}_0}(t)\bigr)

1838: \Gamma \bigl(\varphi(hD_2)\psi  u\bigr) |\le Ch^s 

1839: \label{2-57}

1840: \end{equation}

1841: hold with $|\tau|\le \epsilon\rho$ and ${\bar T}_0\le T\le T_1=\epsilon \rho$.

1842: 

1843: \smallskip

1844: \noindent

1845: (ii) Furthermore

1846: \begin{equation}

1847: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_{T_1}(t)\Gamma (\varphi(hD_2)\psi  u)|\le Ch^{-1}\gamma \rho.

1848: \label{2-58}

1849: \end{equation}

1850: \end{proposition}

1851: 

1852: \begin{proof}  We need to cover $T\le \epsilon \gamma$ only.

1853: After rescaling $x \mapsto x/\gamma$, $t\mapsto t/\gamma$, 

1854: $h\mapsto \hbar= h/\gamma$ we find ourselves in frames of the standard propagation and therefore estimate (\ref{2-38}) with $h$ replaced by $\hbar$ would hold as long as $C_0 \hbar |\log \hbar | \le T/\gamma \le \epsilon$.

1855: Then if $\hbar \le h^\delta$ or equivalently $\mu \le h^{\delta -\nu}$ with arbitrarily small exponent $\delta>0$ we arrive to original (\ref{2-38}) with indicated $T$, $\tau$. 

1856: 

1857: Further, these arguments imply (\ref{2-58}) with no such restriction.

1858: 

1859: For $h^{\delta-\nu}\le \mu \le \epsilon (h|\log h|)^{-\nu}$ we instead can make a fine $(\epsilon'\gamma, \epsilon')$-subpartition with respect to $(x_1,\xi_1)$ and then depending on subelement apply standard arguments with one of 

1860: \begin{equation}

1861: \varpi \Bigl(C_0\varsigma {\frac 1 T}(x_1-y_1) \pm {\frac t T}\Bigr),\qquad

1862: \varpi \Bigl(C_0\varsigma {\frac 1 T}(\xi_1-\eta_1) \pm {\frac t T}\Bigr)

1863: \label{2-59}

1864: \end{equation}

1865: which are quantizable. Easy details are left to the reader.

1866: \end{proof}

1867: 

1868: Then applying Tauberian arguments we conclude that contribution of this element to the remainder estimate does not exceed 

1869: $Ch^{-1}\gamma \rho /T_1\asymp Ch^{-1}\gamma$. After summation over partition in $\rho \ge \epsilon_1$ we get remainder estimate $Ch^{-1}\gamma$; we will cover smaller values of $\rho$ in the next subsection. Thus we arrive to

1870: 

1871: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-17} Under conditions $(\ref{2-8}),(\ref{1-21})$ contribution of zone 

1872: \begin{equation*}

1873: \bigl\{|x_1|\le \gamma, 

1874: |\xi_2- k^*V(x_2)^{\frac 1 2}|\ge \epsilon_0\bigr\}

1875: \end{equation*}

1876: to the remainder estimate does not exceed 

1877: $C_\epsilon\mu^{-{ 1 /\nu}}h^{-1}$. 

1878: \end{proposition}

1879: 

1880: 

1881: \subsection{Inner zone. II}

1882: 

1883: Now we need to consider ``near-periodic'' zone

1884: \begin{equation*}

1885: \bigl\{|x_1|\le \gamma, 

1886: |\xi_2- k^*V(x_2)^{\frac 1 2}|\le \epsilon_0\bigr\}.

1887: \end{equation*}

1888: 

1889: Let us investigate this case under condition (\ref{1-21}), assuming first that 

1890: $\partial_{x_2} V$ is disjoint from 0. We consider a bit more general case: namely $\partial_{x_2} V \asymp \zeta$ with large enough parameter $\zeta$. We consider first propagation assuming that that $|\partial_{x_2} V |\le  \zeta$.

1891: 

1892: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-18} Let conditions $(\ref{2-8}),(\ref{1-21})$   be fulfilled and

1893: \begin{equation}

1894:  |\partial_{x_2} V|\le \zeta

1895:  \qquad {\text as\ } x_1=0

1896: \label{2-60}

1897: \end{equation}

1898: with 

1899: \begin{equation}

1900: \zeta \ge C_0\gamma.

1901: \label{2-61}

1902: \end{equation}

1903: Let $\psi=\psi(x_2)\in C_0^\infty (B(0,{\frac 1 2}))$  be a standard function  and $\varphi  =  \varphi (\xi_2)$ be a standard function rescaled supported in $\{|\xi_2 -k^*V^{\frac 1 2}(0)|\le \rho\}$\,\footnote{\label{foot-7}Then 

1904: under condition (\ref{2-62})\; $|\xi_2 -k^*V^{\frac 1 2}(0,x_2)|\le 2\rho$ for all $x_2$.} with

1905: \begin{equation}

1906: \rho \ge C_0\zeta.

1907: \label{2-62}

1908: \end{equation}

1909: Let $\varphi_1=\varphi_1(\xi_2)$ be also a standard function rescaled, equal $1$ as $|\xi_2 -k^*V^{\frac 1 2}(0,x_2)|\le 3\rho$. Then 

1910: 

1911: \smallskip

1912: \noindent

1913: (i) Estimate $(\ref{2-46})$ holds as $|\tau |\le \epsilon \zeta$ and 

1914: $Ch\zeta^{-1}|\log h| \le T \le \epsilon$;

1915: 

1916: \smallskip

1917: \noindent

1918: (ii) In addition, if

1919: \begin{equation}

1920: \rho\ge{\bar\rho}_1\Def (C\gamma^{-1}h|\log h|)^{\frac 1 2}+C\gamma.

1921: \label{2-63}

1922: \end{equation}

1923: estimate $(\ref{2-46})$ holds as $|\tau |\le \epsilon \zeta$ and

1924: \begin{equation}

1925: Ch\zeta^{-1}|\log h| \le T \le 

1926: \epsilon\min\bigl( {\frac 1 \rho},{\frac \rho \zeta}\bigr).

1927: \label{2-64}

1928: \end{equation}

1929: \end{proposition}

1930: 

1931: \begin{proof} I leave to the reader a standard proof based on the axillary symbol

1932: \begin{equation*}

1933: \varpi\Bigl( C_0\varsigma {\frac t T} \pm {\frac 1 \rho}(\xi_2-\eta_2)\Bigr).

1934: \end{equation*}

1935: (which under our assumptions is quantizable) that the speed of propagation with respect to $\xi_2$ does not exceed $C\zeta$. This implies (i).

1936: 

1937: To prove (ii) one needs to show in addition that the ``averaged'' speed of propagation with respect to $x_2$ does not exceed $\rho$; under condition (\ref{2-64}) one can easily do it for $t=T^*V(0)^{1/2}$ by means of the standard microlocal analysis. I leave details to the reader. More delicate analysis of subsections 2.6--2.9 will also imply results of this subsection.

1938: \end{proof}

1939: 

1940: It immediately implies

1941: 

1942: \begin{corollary}\label{cor-2-19} Under conditions $(\ref{2-18}),(\ref{1-21}),(\ref{2-60})-(\ref{2-63})$

1943: propagation remains confined to

1944: \begin{equation*}

1945: \{|x_2|\le {\frac 3 4}, |\xi_2-k^*V(0)^{\frac 1 2}|\le \rho+\zeta +\zeta T\}

1946: \end{equation*}

1947: as $T\le \epsilon \min\bigl(\rho^{-1}, \zeta^{-{\frac 1 2}}\bigr)$.

1948: \end{corollary}

1949: 

1950: Now let us estimate from below the propagation speed with respect to $\xi_2$.

1951: 

1952: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-20} Let conditions $(\ref{2-8}),(\ref{1-21}),(\ref{2-63})$   be fulfilled and

1953: \begin{equation}

1954: \epsilon_0\zeta\le  |\partial_{x_2} V|\le \zeta

1955:  \qquad {\text as\ } x_1=0

1956: \label{2-65}

1957: \end{equation}

1958: with $\zeta \ge C_0\gamma$. Let $\varphi =\varphi (\xi_2)$ be a standard function rescaled supported in  $\rho $-vicinity of 

1959: ${\bar \eta}_2=k^*V(0)^{\frac 1 2}$.

1960: Then estimate $(\ref{2-46})$ holds as $|\tau |\le \epsilon \zeta$, 

1961: \begin{equation}

1962: T_0\Def C\rho \zeta^{-1} \le T \le T_1\Def 

1963: \epsilon \min\bigl(\rho^{-1}, \zeta^{-{\frac 1 2}}\bigr),

1964: \label{2-66}

1965: \end{equation}

1966: $\varphi_1=1-\varphi$.

1967: \end{proposition}

1968: 

1969: \begin{proof}  I leave to the reader a standard proof based on axillary symbol

1970: \begin{equation*}

1971: \varpi\Bigl( C_0\varsigma  {\frac 1 \rho}(\xi_2-\eta_2)\pm {\frac t T} \Bigr)

1972: \end{equation*}

1973: which under our assumptions is quantizable.

1974: \end{proof}

1975: 

1976: Then in frames of this proposition (\ref{2-56}) holds. 

1977: Note that $T_0\le \epsilon \gamma$ as 

1978: \begin{equation}

1979: \zeta \ge C\gamma^{-1}h|\log h|

1980: \label{2-67}

1981: \end{equation}

1982: and due to the same arguments as in proposition \ref{prop-2-16} we arrive to 

1983: 

1984: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-21}

1985: Let conditions of proposition \ref{prop-2-20} and $(\ref{2-67})$ be fulfilled. Then estimates $(\ref{2-56}),(\ref{2-57}),(\ref{2-58})$  hold as 

1986: ${\bar T}_0=Ch|\log h|\le T\le T_1$

1987: with $T_1$ defined by $(\ref{2-66})$. 

1988: \end{proposition}

1989: 

1990: Then due to Tauberian arguments we arrive immediately to

1991: 

1992: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-22} Under conditions $(\ref{2-8}),(\ref{1-21})$ and $(\ref{2-67})$ the contribution of the inner zone to the remainder estimate $\cR$ does not exceed $C\mu^{-{1/ \nu}}h^{-1}$. 

1993: \end{proposition}

1994: 

1995: 

1996: In particular $\zeta \asymp 1$ satisfies (\ref{2-67}) under condition (\ref{2-8}).

1997: Case of smaller $\zeta\le Ch\gamma^{-1}|\log h|$ will be considered in subsection 2.7.

1998: 

1999: 

2000: 

2001: \subsection{Inner zone. III}

2002: 

2003: Let us finish analysis in the ``near-periodic'' but not ``periodic'' zone. To do this I am going to analyze elements of $(x_2,\xi_2)$ partitions on which either $|\xi_2- V^{1/2}k^*|+|\partial _{x_2}V|\ge C{\bar\rho}_1$ branding the rest as ``periodic zone''.

2004: 

2005: The following results would be the results of the previous subsection rescaled but some conditions are more relaxed because after rescaling 

2006: $x \mapsto  x/\ell$, $\gamma\mapsto\gamma/\ell$. $\zeta\mapsto \zeta\ell$ our new symbols have smaller derivatives (with a factor $\ell$) with respect to $x_1$ than it was assumed there.

2007: 

2008: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-23}\footnote{\label{foot-8}Cf. proposition\ref{prop-2-18} and corollary \ref{cor-2-19}.}

2009: Let conditions $(\ref{2-8}),(\ref{1-21}),(\ref{2-63})$ be fulfilled. 

2010: Consider point  $(\bar y_2,\bar\eta_2)$ and assume that 

2011: \begin{align}

2012: &|{\bar\eta}_2-k^* V^{\frac 1 2}(0,\bar y_2)|\le \rho,\label{2-68}\\

2013: &|\partial_{x_2}^\alpha V|\le C_\alpha\zeta\ell^{1-|\alpha|}

2014: \qquad \text{as\ }x_1=0,\ |x_2-{\bar y}_2|\le \ell\qquad \forall\alpha:|\alpha|\le K, \label{2-69}\\

2015: &\ell \rho \ge Ch|\log h|,\label{2-70}\\

2016: &\ell \zeta \le {\frac 1 2}\rho\label{2-71},\\

2017: &\ell \ge C_0\gamma,\quad \rho \ge C_0\gamma, \quad \zeta\ge C_0\gamma+C_0h^{1-\delta}.  \label{2-72}

2018: \end{align}

2019: Then for $|\tau|\le \rho$, 

2020: \begin{equation}

2021: |t|\le T_1\Def \epsilon \min\bigl({\frac \ell \rho},{\frac \rho \zeta}\bigr)

2022: \label{2-73}

2023: \end{equation}

2024: quantum evolution starting from 

2025: $\{|y_2-{\bar y}_2|\le {\frac 1 3}\ell, 

2026: |\eta_2-{\bar\eta}_2|\le {\frac 1 3}\rho\}$ is confined to

2027: $\{|y_2-{\bar y}_2|\le\ell,|\eta_2-{\bar\eta}_2|\le {\frac 1 2}\rho\}$.

2028: \end{proposition}

2029: 

2030: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-24}\footnote{\label{foot-9}Cf. proposition \ref{prop-2-20}.} Let conditions of proposition \ref{prop-2-23} be fulfilled.

2031: 

2032: \smallskip

2033: \noindent

2034: (i) If 

2035: \begin{equation}

2036: |{\bar\eta}_2-k^* V^{\frac 1 2}(0,\bar y_2)|\le \rho,\label{2-74}

2037: \end{equation}

2038: then estimate $(\ref{2-56})$ holds for $|\tau|\le \rho$, 

2039: \begin{equation}

2040: T_0\Def C{\frac {h|\log h|}{\rho^2}}\le T\le T_1;

2041: \label{2-75}

2042: \end{equation}

2043: 

2044: \smallskip

2045: \noindent

2046: (ii) If $(\ref{2-65})$ is fulfilled as $x_1=0$, $|x_2-{\bar y}_2|\le \ell$ then

2047: estimate $(\ref{2-56})$  holds for $|\tau|\le \rho$, 

2048: \begin{equation}

2049: T_0\Def C{\frac {h|\log h|}{\zeta \ell}}\le T\le T_1.

2050: \label{2-76}

2051: \end{equation}

2052: \end{proposition}

2053: 

2054: Now, given point $(\bar y_2,\bar\eta_2)$ let us define

2055: \begin{equation}

2056: \ell=\rho=\zeta=\varrho(\bar y_2,\bar\eta_2),\qquad \varrho(x_2,\xi_2)\Def \epsilon 

2057: \Bigl(|\xi_2-k^*V(0,x_2)^{\frac 1 2}|+|\partial _{x_2}V(0,x_2)|\Bigr).

2058: \label{2-77}

2059: \end{equation}

2060: Note that (\ref{2-70}), (\ref{2-72}) become equivalent to (\ref{2-63}) and thus   propositions \ref{prop-2-23}, \ref{prop-2-24} hold with $T_1=\epsilon$ under condition (\ref{2-63}). Also note that  $T_0\le \epsilon \gamma$ is equivalent to condition (\ref{2-63}).

2061: 

2062: Then using the same arguments as above we get  (\ref{2-56}) with 

2063: ${\bar T}_0=Ch|\log h|\le T\le T_1$ and also estimate

2064: \begin{equation}

2065: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar \chi}_T(t) \Gamma \bigl(\varphi(hD_2)\psi u\bigr)|\le Ch^{-1}\rho \gamma \ell\qquad\forall \tau:|\tau|\le \epsilon \rho 

2066: \label{2-78}

2067: \end{equation}

2068: and ${\bar T}_0\le T\le T_1$.

2069: 

2070: Therefore due to Tauberian arguments contribution of

2071: $(\ell,\rho)$-vicinity of $(\bar y_2,\bar\eta_2)$ to the remainder estimate does not exceed the right-hand expression of (\ref{2-78}) multiplied by $CT_1^{-1}$, i.e. $Ch^{-1}\gamma \rho \ell $; I remind that $\ell=\rho$ here. Then for given $\rho$ the contribution of zone 

2072: $\bigl\{ (x_2,\xi_2), {\frac 1 2}\rho \le \varrho(x_2,\xi_2)\le \rho\bigr\}$ to the remainder estimate does not exceed $Ch^{-1}\rho\gamma$.

2073: Finally, summation over $\varrho$ results in 

2074: $Ch^{-1}\gamma$. This yields statement (i) of the following proposition:

2075: 

2076: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-25} Under conditions $(\ref{2-8}),(\ref{1-21})$ 

2077: 

2078: \smallskip

2079: \noindent

2080: (i) Contribution of zone $\{(x_2,\xi_2):\varrho (x_2,\xi_2) \ge {\bar\varrho}_1\}$ to the remainder estimate $(\ref{2-43})$ with any $T\in [{\bar T}_0,\epsilon]$ does not exceed

2081: $C\mu^{-{1 /\nu}}h^{-1}$;

2082: 

2083: \smallskip

2084: \noindent

2085: (ii) The total remainder estimate $(\ref{2-43})$ does not exceed 

2086: \begin{equation}

2087: C\mu^{-{\frac 1 \nu}}h^{-1} + C {\bar\rho}_1 h^{-1};

2088: \label{2-79}

2089: \end{equation}

2090: 

2091: \smallskip

2092: \noindent

2093: (iii) In particular, as ${\bar\rho}_1 \le {\bar\gamma}$ which is equivalent to 

2094: \begin{equation}

2095: \mu \le C(h|\log h|)^{-{\frac \nu 3}}

2096: \label{2-80}

2097: \end{equation}

2098: the total remainder estimate $(\ref{2-43})$ does not exceed 

2099: $C\mu^{-{1/ \nu}}h^{-1}$.

2100: \end{proposition}

2101: 

2102: \begin{proof} To prove (ii) one needs to estimate the contribution of \emph{periodic zone\/} $\{\varrho \le C{\bar\rho}_1\}$. One can take 

2103: $T_1= \epsilon \gamma$ there and thus its contribution does not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\rho}_1\gamma \times \gamma^{-1}$.

2104: \end{proof}

2105: 

2106: 

2107: 

2108: \subsection{Periodic orbits. I. Pilot-model} 

2109: 

2110: Therefore one needs to consider contribution of the {\sl periodic zone\/}

2111: \begin{equation}

2112: \cZ_\per =\bigl\{ (x_2,\xi_2), \varrho(x_2,\xi_2)\le {\bar\varrho}_1= 

2113: C(\gamma^{-1}h|\log h|)^{\frac 1 2}\bigr\}

2114: \label{2-81}

2115: \end{equation}

2116: as (\ref{2-80}) is violated i.e. as

2117: \begin{equation}

2118: C(h|\log h|)^{-{\frac \nu 3}}\le \mu \le \epsilon (h|\log h|)^{-\nu}.

2119: \label{2-82}

2120: \end{equation}

2121: 

2122: Assume that proposition \ref{prop-2-24} remains valid\footnote{\label{foot-10} Actually it does but with a twist.} as

2123: \begin{equation}

2124: {\bar\rho}_0 =C(h|\log h|)^{\frac 1 2}+C\gamma \le \varrho \le {\bar\rho}_1.

2125: \label{2-83}

2126: \end{equation}

2127: Then for particular partition element inequality

2128: \begin{equation}

2129: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau }{\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma \bigl(\varphi(hD_2)\psi(x_2)u\bigr)| \le Ch^{-2}\varrho^2\gamma \times  {\frac {h|\log h|}{\varrho^2}}= 

2130: Ch^{-1}\gamma|\log h|

2131: \label{2-84}

2132: \end{equation}

2133: holds as $|\tau|\le \epsilon \rho$, $Ch\rho^{-1}\log h|\le T\le T_1=\epsilon$ where the second factor in the middle expression of (\ref{2-84}) is just $T_0$. Inequality (\ref{2-84}) leads to the estimate of the contribution of the given element to the remainder,  equal to the right-hand expression of (\ref{2-84}) (since $T_1\asymp 1$). Then the total contribution of 

2134: zone $\{(x_2,\xi_2):{\frac 1 2}\rho \le \varrho (x_2,\xi_2)\le \rho\}$ is equal to $Ch^{-1}\gamma\rho^{-1}|\log h|$. This estimate is not only is not good enough for the sharp remainder estimate but is much worse than estimates we had before\footnote {\label{foot-11} One can increase $T_1$ and decrease ${\bar\rho}_0$ in the pilot model cases improving this estimate but (\ref{2-84}) should be improved as well.}. 

2135: 

2136: To improve the estimates above let us start from the pilot-model operator. However  let us consider first 1-dimensional operator

2137: \begin{equation}

2138: L(k)= {\frac 1 2}\Bigl(\hbar^2D_1^2 + \bigl(k- x_1^\nu/\nu\bigr)^2-1\Bigr)

2139: \label{2-85}

2140: \end{equation}

2141: with $\hbar=h/\gamma$.

2142: 

2143: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-26} As $\hbar \ll 1$ 

2144: \begin{equation}

2145: \Spec \bigl(L(k)\bigr) \cap [-\epsilon,\epsilon]= 

2146: {\check g}\Bigl({\frac {2\pi} {T(k)}}(n+{\frac 1 2})\hbar;k,\hbar\Bigr)+ O(\hbar^2), \qquad n\in \bZ

2147: \label{2-86}

2148: \end{equation}

2149: and consists of simple eigenvalues where ${\check g}(\tau;k,\hbar)$ is an analytic function of all its arguments as 

2150: $|\tau|< \epsilon, \hbar< \epsilon, |k-k^*|<\epsilon$, inverse (with respect to $\tau$) to

2151: \begin{equation}

2152: g(\tau;k,\hbar)= 

2153: T(k)^{-1} \int T\bigl( k(1+2\tau)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\bigr) (1+2\tau)^{\frac {1-\nu}{2\nu}} \,d\tau 

2154:  - {\frac1 2}\hbar + O(\hbar^2)

2155: \label{2-87}

2156: \end{equation}

2157: where $T(k)$ is an elementary period  of section 1 calculated as $\mu=1$, $\tau=0$.

2158: 

2159: In particular

2160: \begin{equation}

2161: e^{i\hbar^{-1}T(k) g(L;k,\hbar)}{\bar \chi}_\epsilon (L)={\bar \chi}_\epsilon (L) I.

2162: \label{2-88}

2163: \end{equation}

2164: \end{proposition}

2165: 

2166: \begin{proof} Note that for $L(k)$ Hamiltonian flow on the energy level $\tau$ is periodic with period

2167: $T(\tau,k)=

2168: T\bigl( k(1+2\tau)^{-{\frac 1 2}}\bigr) (1+2\tau)^{\frac {1-\nu}{2\nu}}$.

2169: 

2170: Proof now follows from Bohr-Sommerfeld formula. To derive asymptotics with $O(\hbar^2)$ error one should note that subprincipal symbol of $L(k)$ is 0 and Maslov' index $\iota_M$ of the trajectory in $(x_1,\xi_1)$ space is $2$.

2171: 

2172: \begin{figure}[h]

2173: \centering

2174: \subfigure[First pilot-model, $\nu=2$, $k=0.65$]{

2175: \label{fig-6a}

2176: \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{lagrange1.eps}}

2177: \subfigure[Second pilot-model, $\nu=2$, $k=0$]{

2178: \label{fig-6b}

2179: \includegraphics[width=.34\textwidth]{lagrange2.eps}} \\

2180: \label{fig-6}

2181: \end{figure}

2182: 

2183: \end{proof}

2184: 

2185: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-27} Let condition $(\ref{2-8})$ be fulfilled and let $Q=\varphi(hD_2)$ be a partition element supported in 

2186: $B(k^*,\rho)$. Let us  assume for simplicity that $V(0)=1$. Let $A$ be the pilot-model operator:

2187: \begin{equation}

2188: A= {\bar A} \Def 

2189: {\frac 1 2}\Bigl(\hbar^2D_1^2 + (hD_2- \mu x_1^\nu/\nu)^2-1\Bigr)

2190: \label{2-89}

2191: \end{equation}

2192: Assume that $\gamma \ge Ch|\log h|$. Then modulo negligible operator

2193: \begin{align}

2194: &e^{ih^{-1}\gamma t^* \cA}Q{\bar\chi}_\epsilon (\cA)

2195: \equiv e^{i h^{-1}\gamma B}

2196: Q{\bar\chi}_\epsilon (\cA),\label{2-90}\\

2197: &\cA= g(A,k^*,\hbar), \quad T^*=T(k^*),\label{2-91}

2198: \end{align}

2199: $B=\beta( hD_2,A,\hbar)$ such that 

2200: \begin{equation}

2201: \beta ( \xi_2,\tau,\hbar)= 

2202: \kappa ( \xi_2,\hbar)

2203: \bigl(\xi_2-k_\hbar ^* \bigr)^2 + \kappa_1 (\hbar)+O(|\tau|)

2204: \label{2-92}

2205: \end{equation}

2206: and function $\beta (\xi_2,\tau,0)$ coincides with $b$ defined by $(\ref{1-48})$.

2207: Further, $k_\hbar^*=k^*+O(\hbar)$, $\kappa_1=O(\hbar)$ are analytic functions as $\hbar\ll 1$.

2208: \end{proposition}

2209: 

2210: \begin{proof} Proof immediately follows from propositions \ref{prop-1-15}, \ref{2-26}. 

2211: \end{proof}

2212: 

2213: \begin{remark}\label{rem-2-28}

2214: From now in the analysis of periodic zone $k^*=k^*_\hbar$ and respectively $\rho=|\xi_2-k^*_\hbar|$ or $\rho=|\xi_2-k^*_\hbar V^{1/2}|$

2215: \end{remark}

2216: 

2217: 

2218: Now (\ref{2-90}) implies that

2219: \begin{multline}

2220: e^{ih^{-1}t\cA}Q{\bar \chi}_{\epsilon\rho} (A) \equiv 

2221: e^{ih^{-1}t''\cA} e^{ih^{-1}t'B}Q{\bar \chi}_{\epsilon\rho} (A),\qquad

2222: t'=\gamma \lfloor {\frac t \gamma }\rfloor, \ t''=t - t'\\

2223: \text{as\ }|t|\le T_1 = \epsilon \rho^{-1}.

2224: \label{2-93}

2225: \end{multline}

2226: 

2227: Here important thing is that on the partition element in question operator $e^{ih^{-1}t'B}$ is a proper FIO as long as 

2228: \begin{equation}

2229: |t'|\le T'_1\Def {\frac \gamma {\rho^2}}

2230: \label{2-94}

2231: \end{equation}

2232: which is greater than $T'_0=C\rho^{-2}h|\log h|$. Then repeating corresponding analysis of subsections 2.4, 2.5 one can prove easily

2233: 

2234: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-29} Let $\rho$ be defined as in remark \ref{rem-2-28}. Then

2235: proposition \ref{prop-2-18}(ii), corollary \ref{cor-2-19} and proposition \ref{prop-2-24} remains valid with $(\ref{2-63})$ replaced by $(\ref{2-83})$.

2236: \end{proposition}

2237: 

2238: These statements extended allow to prove 

2239: 

2240: 

2241: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-30} In frames of proposition \ref{prop-2-27}

2242: assume that $\supp (\varphi)\cap B(k^*_\hbar,\rho/2)=\emptyset$ and that $\psi$ is a fixed admissible function. Then

2243: \begin{equation}

2244: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau }{\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma \bigl(\varphi(hD_2)\psi(x_2)u\bigr)|

2245: \le C\rho^{-1}|\log h|^2.

2246: \label{2-95}

2247: \end{equation}

2248: \end{proposition}

2249: 

2250: \begin{proof} Due to proposition \ref{prop-2-24} extended by proposition \ref{prop-2-29} it is sufficient to consider $T=T_0$ only. Consider left-hand expression of (\ref{2-95}) with ${\bar\chi}_T(t)$ replaced by $\chi_n(t)={\bar\chi}_\gamma (t-n T^*\gamma)$, 

2251: $|n|\le T_0/T^*\gamma$. Note that then $e^{ih^{-1}\gamma n B}$ is $h$-pdo with symbol which will be regular after rescaling $x_1\mapsto x_1/(\gamma |\log h|)$,

2252: $\xi_1\mapsto \xi_1/|\log h|$, $\xi_2\mapsto \xi_2/|\log h|$. Therefore

2253: \begin{equation}

2254: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau }\chi_n(t)\Gamma \bigl(\varphi (hD_2)\psi (x_2)u\bigr)|=

2255: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} \chi_0(t) \Gamma \bigl(Q_nu\bigr)|

2256: \label{2-96}

2257: \end{equation}

2258: with $Q_n = e^{ih^{-1}\gamma n B}\varphi (hD_2)\psi (x_2)$ and therefore expression (\ref{2-96}) does not exceed 

2259: $C\rho \gamma h^{-2}\times h|\log h|= C\rho\gamma h^{-1}|\log h|$ due to the standard theory. 

2260: 

2261: After summation by $n:|n|\le CT_0/\gamma$ we get 

2262: $C\rho \gamma h^{-1}|\log h| \times h\rho^{-2}\gamma^{-1}|\log h|$ which is exactly the right-hand expression of (\ref{2-95}). 

2263: \end{proof}

2264: 

2265: I believe that factor $|\log h|^2$ is superficial and one can get rid of it: one  factor $|\log h|$ is due to an inaccuracy in the estimate of (\ref{2-95}) modified and another due to the lost factor 

2266: $\bigl(1+n\gamma/{\bar T}'_0\bigr)^{-s}$ in the same estimate (with 

2267: ${\bar T}'_0=C\rho^{-2}h$). However even such weakened estimate is sufficient for our needs unless $\mu$ is really close to $h^{-\nu}$ and the latter special case will be considered separately.

2268: 

2269: Really, after (\ref{2-95}) is proven,  Tauberian theorem implies that the contribution of this partition element to the remainder estimate does not exceed 

2270: $C\rho^{-1}|\log h|^2 \times T_1^{-1}= C|\log h|^2$ and thus the total contribution of zone $\{|\xi_2-k^*-\hbar|\ge C\gamma\}$ does not exceed this expression integrated over $\rho^{-1}\,d\rho$ resulting in $C|\log h|^3$ while contribution of zone 

2271: $\{|\xi_2-k^*-\hbar|\le C\gamma\}$ does not exceed $C\gamma h^{-1}$ as we already know. Thus we arrive to 

2272: 

2273: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-31} For operator coinciding with the pilot-model $(\ref{2-89})$ in $B(0,1)$ remainder estimate\footnote{\label{foot-12}Which still means $\cR$  given by $(\ref{2-43})$.} is $C\gamma h^{-1}$ as 

2274: $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-2\nu}$.

2275: \end{proposition}

2276: 

2277: \subsection{Periodic orbits. II. Another example}

2278: 

2279: Consider now the pilot-model (\ref{2-89}) perturbed by potential $V(x_2)$ satisfying

2280: \begin{equation}

2281: \epsilon_0\zeta \le |\partial_{x_2}V|\le \zeta \qquad\forall x.

2282: \label{2-97}

2283: \end{equation}

2284: Then we can apply the same arguments as above for partition elements with $\rho^2 \ge \zeta$ thus covering completely case $\zeta\le C\gamma^2$. On the other hand, as $\zeta\ge \gamma^2$ we replace $\rho$ by

2285: $\varrho = \max (\zeta^{\frac 1 2}, \rho)$ and on partition elements with $\varrho= \zeta^{\frac 1 2}$ we again can apply the same arguments with $T_1=\epsilon \zeta^{-{\frac 1 2}}$, $T'_0=\epsilon h\zeta^{-1} |\log h|$.

2286: 

2287: So, we arrive to

2288: 

2289: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-32} For operator coinciding in $B(0,1)$ with pilot-model perturbed by potential $V(x_2)$ satisfying $(\ref{2-90})$ remainder estimate does not exceed $O(\gamma h^{-1})$ as long as 

2290: $\zeta^{\frac 1 2}+\gamma\ge Ch|\log h|^3$ i.e. either 

2291: $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-3\nu}$ or 

2292: $\zeta \ge Ch^2|\log h|^6$.

2293: \end{proposition}

2294: 

2295: 

2296: 

2297: \subsection{Periodic orbits. III. General case}

2298: 

2299: Consider now general case. Let $\varphi (\xi_2)$ and $\psi(x_2)$ are two $\rho$- and $\ell$-admissible functions supported in $\rho/3$- and $\ell/3$-vicinities of ${\bar \xi}_2$ and ${\bar x}_2$ respectively. Let us assume that conditions (\ref{2-68})--(\ref{2-72}) are fulfilled.

2300: 

2301: Then due to proposition \ref{prop-2-24} extended by proposition \ref{prop-2-29} as 

2302: \begin{equation}

2303: |t|\le T_1 \Def \epsilon \min \bigl({\frac \ell \rho}, {\frac \rho \zeta}\bigr)\asymp \epsilon \rho \ell \bigl(\rho^2 +\ell\zeta\bigr)^{-1}

2304: \label{2-98}

2305: \end{equation}

2306: propagation started from $\supp \varphi\times \supp \psi$ is confined to $(\rho/3, \ell/3)$-vicinity of it. 

2307: 

2308: Now we can easily generalize proposition \ref{prop-2-27}:

2309: 

2310: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-33} Let conditions $(\ref{2-8}),(\ref{1-21}),(\ref{2-68})-(\ref{2-72})$ be fulfilled. Assume for simplicity that $V(0)=1$

2311: 

2312: \smallskip

2313: \noindent

2314: (i) Identity $(\ref{2-90})$ holds as $\cA$ is defined by $(\ref{2-91})$;

2315: 

2316: \smallskip

2317: \noindent

2318: (ii) Therefore $(\ref{2-93})$ holds.

2319: \end{proposition}

2320: 

2321: \begin{proof} Proof  repeats one of proposition \ref{prop-2-27}. I leave details to the reader.\end{proof}

2322: 

2323: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-34} Let conditions $(\ref{2-8}),(\ref{1-21}),(\ref{2-68})-(\ref{2-72})$ be fulfilled. Assume for simplicity that $V(0)=1$. Then estimate

2324: \begin{equation}

2325: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma \bigl(\varphi (hD_2)\psi (x_2)u\bigr)|\le CT\rho  \ell h^{-1} |\log h|

2326: \label{2-99}

2327: \end{equation}

2328: holds as 

2329: \begin{equation}

2330: \gamma \le T\le T'_0 \Def C_1 h|\log h| (\rho^2+\zeta \ell)^{-1}.

2331: \label{2-100}

2332: \end{equation}

2333: \end{proposition}

2334: 

2335: 

2336: \begin{proof} Let us  note that for $|t'|\le T'_0$ operator $e^{ih^{-1}t'B}$ remains legitimate $h$-PDO and therefore contribution of the time interval 

2337: $[t_1,t_2]$ with $|t_j|\le T'_0$, $|t_2-t_1|=\epsilon\gamma$ does not exceed $C\rho\ell \gamma h^{-1}|\log h|$ and therefore the contribution of 

2338: $\asymp T/\gamma$ of such intervals does not exceed the right-hand expression of (\ref{2-99}).

2339: \end{proof}

2340: 

2341: It immediately implies

2342: 

2343: \begin{corollary}\label{cor-2-35} Let in frames of the previous propositions 

2344: either 

2345: \begin{align}

2346: &|\xi_2-k^*_\hbar V(0,{\bar x}_2)|\ge \rho,\label{2-101}\\

2347: \intertext{or}

2348: &|\partial_{x_2}V|\ge \epsilon_0\zeta\label{2-102}

2349: \end{align}

2350: in $\ell$-vicinity of ${\bar x}_2$. Then 

2351: 

2352: \smallskip

2353: \noindent

2354: (i) Left-hand expression $(\ref{2-99})$ with $T\le T_1$ does not exceed $CT'_0\rho \ell h^{-1}|\log h|^2$;

2355: 

2356: \smallskip

2357: \noindent

2358: (ii) Contribution of the partition element $\varphi(hD_2)\psi(x_2)$ to the remainder estimate does not exceed $C|\log h|^2$.

2359: \end{corollary}

2360: 

2361: \begin{proof}

2362: Statement (i) immediately follows from propositions \ref{prop-2-24} extended and \ref{prop-2-34}; statement (ii) follows from the Tauberian arguments: contribution of this element to the remainder estimate does not exceed 

2363: $Ch^{-1}\rho\ell |\log h|\times T'_0/T_1= C|\log h|^2$

2364: since $T'_0/T_1= Ch|\log h|/(\rho\ell)$.

2365: \end{proof}

2366: 

2367: Assume now that 

2368: \begin{equation}

2369: |\partial _{x_2}V|+|\partial^2_{x_2}V|\ge \epsilon_0.

2370: \label{2-103}

2371: \end{equation}

2372: Let us introduce functions $\varrho$ by (\ref{2-76}) and let us consider $\varrho$-admissible partition in $(x_2,\xi_2)$ and apply the same arguments with $\rho=\zeta=\ell=\varrho$; then on each partition element either

2373: $|\xi_2M- k^*_\hbar V(0,x_2)|\ge \epsilon_0 \varrho$ or 

2374: $|\partial_{x_2}V(0,x_2)|\ge \epsilon \varrho$ and everything works as long as 

2375: \begin{equation}

2376: \varrho \ge C\gamma, \qquad \varrho \ge C(h|\log h|)^{\frac 1 2}

2377: \label{2-104}

2378: \end{equation}

2379: where the second inequality is equivalent to $C\ell\rho\ge Ch|\log h|$.

2380: 

2381: We know that the contribution of each such  element to the remainder estimate does not exceed $C|\log h|^2$ and therefore the total contribution of all such elements does not exceed $C\log h|^2 I$ with 

2382: $I=\int \varrho^{-2}\,dx_2 d\xi_2\asymp C|\log h|$ due to condition (\ref{2-103}).

2383: 

2384: On the other hand, as $\varrho \le {\bar\varrho}=

2385: C\gamma + C(h|\log h|)^{\frac 1 2}$ let us redefine $\varrho$ as ${\bar\varrho}$. Then contribution of each such partition element to the remainder estimate does not exceed 

2386: $C{\bar\varrho}^2h^{-1}= C\gamma^2h^{-1}+C|\log h|^2$

2387: and  again due to condition (\ref{2-103}) there is no more than $C$ of such elements. Thus we arrive to

2388: 

2389: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-36} For operator satisfying in $B(0,1)$ conditions  $(\ref{1-21})$ and $(\ref{2-103})$ the remainder estimate is $O(\gamma h^{-1})$ as long as  $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-3\nu}$.

2390: \end{proposition}

2391: 

2392: On the other hand, exactly the same approach but without condition $(\ref{2-103})$ results in the remainder estimate

2393: \begin{equation*}

2394: C{\bar\varrho}^{-1}|\log h|^2 + C{\bar\varrho}h^{-1}

2395: \end{equation*}

2396: where the first term is an upper estimate  of $C|\log h|^2 I$ with integral over $\{\varrho \ge {\bar\varrho}\}$ and the second term is the contribution of elements with $\varrho\asymp {\bar\varrho}$. Picking up 

2397: ${\bar\varrho}=C\max(\gamma, h^{\frac 1 2}|\log h|)$ we arrive to

2398: estimate 

2399: \begin{equation*}

2400:  C\gamma h^{-1}+ Ch^{-{\frac 1 2}}|\log h|

2401: \end{equation*}

2402: which is our target $C\gamma h^{-1}$ as long as 

2403: $\gamma \ge h^{\frac 1 2}|\log h|$ i.e.

2404: $\mu \le Ch^{-{\frac \nu 2}}|\log h|^{-\nu}$. Thus we arrive to

2405: 

2406: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-37} For operator satisfying in $B(0,1)$ condition  $(\ref{1-21})$  

2407: 

2408: \smallskip

2409: \noindent

2410: (i) The remainder estimate is $O(\gamma h^{-1})$ as long as  

2411: $\mu \le h^{-{\frac \nu 2}}|\log h|^{-\nu}$; 

2412: 

2413: \smallskip

2414: \noindent

2415: (ii) The remainder estimate is $O(h^{-{\frac 1 2}}|\log h|)$ as long as $h^{-{\frac \nu 2}}|\log h|^{-\nu}\mu \le Ch^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-\nu}$.

2416: 

2417: \subsection{Periodic orbits. IV. General case (continuation)}

2418: 

2419: Finally  I am going to prove the most general

2420: 

2421: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-38} Under conditions $(\ref{2-8}),(\ref{1-21})$ and

2422: \addtocounter{equation}{1}

2423: \begin{equation}

2424: \sum_{1\le k\le m}|\partial_{x_2}^kW|\ge \epsilon_0.

2425: \label{2-105}

2426: \tag*{$(\theequation)_m$}

2427: \end{equation}

2428: with $W(x_2)=V(0,x_2)$ the remainder does not exceed 

2429: $C\bigl(|\log h|^{m+1}+\gamma h^{-1}\bigr)$ and thus the remainder estimate $O(\bigl(\gamma h^{-1}\bigr)$ as long as $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-(m+1)\nu}$;

2430: 

2431: \medskip

2432: \noindent 

2433: (ii) Without condition \ref{2-105} the remainder  does not exceed 

2434: $C\bigl(\gamma ^{-\delta_1}+\gamma h^{-1}\bigr)$ and thus the remainder estimate is $O(\bigl(\gamma h^{-1}\bigr)$ as long as $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu +\delta_1}$ with arbitrarily small $\delta_1>0$.

2435: \end{proposition}

2436: 

2437: \begin{proof} Let us consider the scaling function

2438: \addtocounter{equation}{1}

2439: \begin{equation}

2440: \ell (x_2) = \epsilon_1 \Bigl(\sum_{1\le k\le m-1}

2441: |\partial_{x_2}^k W(x_2)|^{\frac m {m-k}}\Bigr)^{\frac 1 m}+{\bar\ell}

2442: \tag*{$(\theequation)_m$}

2443: \label{2-106}

2444: \end{equation}

2445: with small enough constant $\epsilon_1>0$  such that 

2446: $|\partial_{x_2} \ell|\le {\frac 1 2}$. Let us consider $\ell$-admissible covering of $(-1,1)$.

2447: 

2448: Then 

2449: \begin{equation}

2450: |\partial_{x_2}^kW|\le C_0\ell(x_2) ^{m-k}\qquad \forall k:k=1,\dots,m-1;

2451: \label{2-107}

2452: \end{equation} 

2453: further, on each element with $\ell \ge 2{\bar\ell}$  one of these inequalities could be reversed with $C_0$ replaced by $1$:

2454: \begin{equation}

2455: \addtocounter{equation}{1}

2456: |\partial_{x_2}^kW|\le C_0\ell(x_2) ^{m-k}\qquad k=1,\dots,m-1.

2457: \tag*{$(\theequation)_k$}

2458: \label{2-108}

2459: \end{equation} 

2460: 

2461: 

2462: Furthermore, under condition \ref{2-105} there is no more than $C_0$ of $\ell$-elements with $\ell \in (l,2l)$ for each $l$ and thus no more than 

2463: $C|\log {\bar\ell}|$ elements in total while without   condition \ref{2-105} the corresponding estimates are $C l^{-1}$ and $C{\bar\ell}^{-1}$ respectively.

2464: 

2465: On each $\ell$-element oscillation of $W(x_2)$ does not exceed $C\ell^m$ and thus we can ponder condition 

2466: \begin{equation*}

2467: |\xi_2-k^*_\hbar W({\bar y})^{\frac 1 2}|\asymp \rho

2468: \end{equation*}

2469: with  $\rho \ge C\ell^m$ and ${\bar y}$ the center of this element. As this condition is fulfilled and also $\rho\ell\ge Ch|\log h|$, $\rho \ge h^{1-\delta}$ we can apply corollary \ref{cor-2-35}(ii) and conclude that the contribution of this element to the remainder estimate does not exceed $C|\log h|^2$. 

2470: 

2471: Now we need to sum contributions of all such elements. To do it in the most efficient way we redefine 

2472: \addtocounter{equation}{1}

2473: \begin{equation}

2474:  \ell(x_2,\xi_2)= \epsilon_1 \Bigl(|\xi_2-k^*_\hbar W^{\frac 1 2}(x_2)|+

2475: \sum_{1\le k\le m-1}

2476: |\partial_{x_2}^k W(x_2)|^{\frac m {m-k}}\Bigr)^{\frac 1 m}+{\bar\ell}.

2477: \tag*{$(\theequation)_m$}

2478: \label{2-109}

2479: \end{equation}

2480: Then for each given $\rho$ the total contribution of all elements of this type would not exceed $C|\log h|^2$ and $C\rho^{-{\frac 1 m}}|\log h|^2$ under condition  \ref{2-105} and without it respectively; after integration with respect to $\rho^{-1}d\rho$ we get $C|\log h|^3$ and 

2481: $C{\bar\ell}^{-1}|\log h|^2$ respectively and both these expressions do not exceed stated in (i),(ii) remainder estimates\footnote{\label{foot-13}Provided $m$ is large enough in (ii) which we assume.} as we pick up

2482: \begin{equation}

2483: {\bar \ell}= C_1\gamma^{1/(m-1)} +C_1(h|\log h|)^{1/(m+1)}.

2484: \label{2-110}

2485: \end{equation}

2486: 

2487: \smallskip

2488: On the other hand, the contribution of each  element with 

2489: $\ell\asymp {\bar\ell}$ does not exceed $C{\bar\ell}^{m+1}h^{-1}|\log h|^2$ and the total contribution  of such elements does not exceed 

2490: $C{\bar\ell}^{m+1}|\log h|^2h^{-1}$ and 

2491: $C{\bar\ell}^m|\log h|^2h^{-1}$ under condition \ref{2-105} and without it respectively and these expressions do not exceed remainder estimates announced  in (i),(ii) respectively.

2492: 

2493: \smallskip

2494: Thus we need to consider only elements with $\rho \le C\ell^m$ and 

2495: $\ell\ge 2{\bar\ell}$ with $\ell$ given by \ref{2-106} rather than \ref{2-109}. Let us consider one such element 

2496: $({\bar y}-{\frac 1 2}\ell,{\bar y}+{\frac 1 2}\ell)$; after rescaling 

2497: \begin{equation*}

2498: x\mapsto (x-{\bar y})/\ell,\; 

2499: W(x_2)-W({\bar y})\mapsto \bigl(W(x_2)-W({\bar y})\bigr)/\ell^m,\;

2500: \rho \mapsto \rho \ell^{-m}

2501: \end{equation*}

2502: we find ourselves in frames of $(2.105)_{m-1}$.

2503: 

2504: So in the rescaled coordinates let us define scaling function $\ell'_1$ by $(2.109)_{m-1}$ and redefine $W$ as $\ell^{-m}W$. However, as we return to the original scale this new rescaling function $\ell_1 =\ell'_1\ell$ will be defined by $(2.109)_{m-1}$ with original $W$. Now we can repeat the same arguments as before with ${\bar\ell}_1$ defined by $(\ref{2-110})$ with $m$ replaced by $(m-1)$. However now in the total partition there is no more than $C_1$ of $\ell_1$ elements with $\ell_1\in (l,2l)$ if original condition \ref{2-105} was fulfilled and no more than $C_1l^{-1}$ of them otherwise because as I mentioned after rescaling of the elements in question $(2.105)_{m-1}$ always is fulfilled. Then we eliminate elements of $\ell_1$ partition with $\ell_1\le 2{\bar\ell}_1$ and with $\rho \ge C_1\ell_1^{m-1}$ estimating their total contribution by 

2505: $C|\log h|^{m+1}+C\gamma h^{-1}$ and 

2506: $C|\log h|^{m+1} + C {\bar\ell}_1^{m+1}{\bar\ell}^{-1}h^{-1}$ in frames of (i), (ii) respectively which do not exceed  remainder estimates announced there.

2507: 

2508: We will continue this process as long as our scaling function $\ell_k$ is defined just by $(2.109)_{m-k}$ i.e. until $k=m-2$. Then all elements remaining are eliminated by corollary \ref{cor-2-35}(ii) under condition 

2509: $|\partial_{x_2} W|\asymp \zeta$.

2510: \end{proof}

2511: 

2512: Thus I have covered the case 

2513: \begin{equation}

2514: \mu \le h^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-\nu N}

2515: \label{2-111}

2516: \end{equation}

2517: leaving the case of superstrong magnetic field

2518: $h^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-\nu N}\le \mu \le Ch^{-\nu}$ for section 4.

2519: \end{proposition}

2520: 

2521: 

2522: \sect{Calculations}

2523: 

2524: So far we recovered good remainder estimates but the asymptotical expression (\ref{2-42}) I derived was implicit. In this section I am going to rewrite it in more explicit form as either 

2525: \begin{equation}

2526: \int \cE^\MW (x,0)\psi (x)\,dx   

2527: \label{3-1}

2528: \end{equation}

2529: which is of magnitude $h^{-2}\bigl(1+\mu h\bigr)^{-1/(\nu -1)}$ or the same expression but with a smaller correction term. Again I consider only the case (\ref{2-111}) leaving the case of superstrong magnetic field for section 4.

2530: 

2531: 

2532: \begin{remark}\label{rem-3-1} With no loss of the generality one can assume that $\psi=\psi_2(x_2)\psi_1(x_1)$ with fixed admissible functions $\psi_j$; moreover, one can take $\psi_=1$ as $\mu\ge Ch^{-1}$. Really, it follows from the analysis of subsection 0.1 that for fixed $\psi $ vanishing as $x_1=0$ the remainder estimate is $O({\bar\gamma}h^{-1})$ while the principal part is given by (\ref{3-1}).

2533: \end{remark}

2534: 

2535: \subsection{Outer Zone}

2536: 

2537: 

2538: I remind that the outer zone 

2539: $\cZ_\out = \bigl\{C{\bar\gamma}\le |x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_1\bigr\}$ and in this subsection $\gamma$ ranges from ${\bar\gamma}$ to ${\bar\gamma}_1$ as well. I also I remind that according to subsection 2.2 we can take here $T=Ch|\log h|$ in (\ref{3-1}).

2540: 

2541: 

2542: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-2} Let  condition $(\ref{2-8})$ be fulfilled. Then

2543: \begin{multline}

2544: |h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 

2545: \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}{\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma 

2546: \bigl(\psi (1-\psi_1)u\bigr)\Bigr)\,d\tau -\\

2547: \int  \cE^\MW (x,0)\bigl(\psi (1-\psi_1)\bigr)\,dx|\le

2548: C(\mu h+1)^{1/(\nu-1)}

2549: \label{3-2}

2550: \end{multline}

2551: for $T=Ch|\log h|$, fixed function $\psi$ and $\psi_1(x_1)={\bar\psi}_1(x_1/{\bar\gamma})$ with a fixed admissible function ${\bar\psi}$, supported in $(-2,2)$ and equal $1$ in $(-1,1)$.

2552: 

2553: In particular we get $C{\bar\gamma}h^{-1}$-estimate as $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu^2/(2\nu-1)}$.

2554: \end{proposition}

2555: 

2556: \begin{proof} It follows from analysis of \cite{IRO3} that for 2-dimensional Schr\"odinger operator with non-degenerate magnetic field, binding parameter $\mu$ and semiclassical parameter $h$ under non-degeneracy condition $|\nabla V/F|\ge \epsilon_0$ the following asymptotic expansion holds

2557: \begin{equation}

2558: h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 

2559: \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}{\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma 

2560: \bigl(\psi u\bigr)\Bigr)\,d\tau \sim \sum_{m,n\ge 0} 

2561: \kappa_{mn} h^{-2+2n+2m } \mu^{2m}

2562: \label{3-3}

2563: \end{equation}

2564: as $\mu \le h^{\delta-1}$ where 

2565: \begin{equation}

2566: \sum_{m\ge 0} \kappa_{m0} h^{-2}(\mu h)^{2m}\sim 

2567: \int  \cE^\MW (x,0)\psi (x)\,dx

2568: \label{3-4}

2569: \end{equation}

2570: and therefore one can replace (\ref{3-3}) by (\ref{3-4}) with an error $\kappa_{02}  +O((\mu h)^2)$.

2571: 

2572: It also follows that in the same settings but with $h^{\delta-1}\le \mu\le Ch^{-1}$ another asymptotic expansion holds  

2573: \begin{equation*}

2574: h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 

2575: \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}{\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma 

2576: \bigl(\psi u\bigr)\Bigr)\,d\tau \sim

2577: \sum_{m,n\ge 0} \kappa'_{m,n} h^{-2+2n+2m } +

2578: \sum_{m,n\ge 0} \kappa''_{m,n} \mu^{-2-2m} h^{-2+2n}

2579: \end{equation*}

2580: and comparison of this two expression with (\ref{3-3}) where they overlap implies that 

2581: $\kappa''_{**}=0$ and an error in question is given again by $\kappa_{02}  +O((\mu h)^2)$.

2582: 

2583: Therefore in our setting  the contribution (to this error) of any element of $\gamma$-partition in the outer zone will be of magnitude 1. To calculate the total contribution of the outer zone one must integrate the latter expression  over $\gamma^{-2}d\gamma$  resulting in $O({\bar\gamma}^{-1})$ which is not as good as 

2584: $O({\bar\gamma}_1^{-1})$ with ${\bar\gamma}_1=\min (1, (\mu h)^{-1/(\nu-1)}$ 

2585: which I claimed. However plugging $\mu\mapsto \mu\gamma^\nu$, 

2586: $h\mapsto h/\gamma$ into $O((\mu h)^2)$ and integrating produces $O({\bar\gamma}_1^{-1})$ which is exactly what I claimed and one needs just to calculate explicitly the correction appearing from $\kappa_{02}$-term.

2587: 

2588: In the non-degenerate settings this latter correction does not depend on $\mu$   and therefore one can calculate it as $\mu=0$. But  this is non-magnetic case and then due to the standard theory and condition $|V|\ge \epsilon_0$

2589: \begin{equation*}

2590: h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} \bigl({\bar\chi}_T(t)u\bigr)\Bigr)\,d\tau \sim

2591: \sum_{n\ge 0} \varkappa _n(x) h^{-2+2n}

2592: \end{equation*}

2593: (without integration with respect to $dx$) with 

2594: $\varkappa_0 (x) h^{-2}= \cE^\W (x,0)$ and therefore the total contribution of this correction term is $O(1)$.

2595: \end{proof}

2596: 

2597: Now I am going to derive a bit sharper remainder estimate; to do this I must appeal to the spectral projector of the corresponding one-dimensional Schr\"odinger operator:

2598: 

2599: 

2600: 

2601: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-3} Let condition $(\ref{1-21})$ be fulfilled and let $\psi_1$ be an even function, $\psi=\psi(x_2)$. Then as 

2602: $h^{-\nu^2/(2\nu-1)}\le \mu \le \epsilon (h|\log h|)^{-\nu}$, $T=\epsilon {\bar\gamma}$  the following estimate holds:

2603: \begin{multline}

2604: |h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 

2605: \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}{\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma 

2606: \bigl(\psi (1-\psi_1)u\bigr)\Bigr)\,d\tau -\\

2607: \int \Bigl( \cE^\MW(x,0)-\cE_0^\MW(x,0)\Bigr) \psi (x_2)(1-\psi_1(x_1))\,dx -\\

2608: (2\pi h)^{-1}\int {\rm e}_0(x_1, x_1;x_2, \xi_2, 0, \hbar) \psi (x_2) \bigl(1-{\bar\psi}_1(x_1)\bigr)\,dx d\xi_2| \le \\

2609: Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+C|\log h|^K

2610: \label{3-5}

2611: \end{multline}

2612: where ${\rm e}_0(x_1,y_1;x_2,\xi_2,\tau,\hbar)$ is the Schwartz kernel of the spectral projector ${\bf e}_0(x_2,\xi_2,\tau,\hbar)$ for 1-dimensional Schr\"odinger operator

2613: \begin{equation}

2614: {\bf a}_0(x_2,\xi_2,\hbar)= {\frac 1 2}\Bigl(\hbar^2 D_1^2 + (\xi_2- x_1^\nu/\nu )^2 -W(x_2)\Bigr)

2615: \label{3-6}

2616: \end{equation}

2617: with $\hbar=h/{\bar\gamma}$, while 

2618: \begin{equation}

2619: \cE_0^\MW (x,0)= {\frac 1 {2\pi}} \sum_{n\ge 0}

2620: \theta \Bigl(2\tau +V(x_2)-(2n+1)\mu h x_1^{\nu-1}\Bigr) \mu h ^{-1}x_1^{\nu-1}

2621: \label{3-7}

2622: \end{equation}

2623: is   Magnetic Weyl approximation for corresponding pilot-model operator.

2624: \end{proposition}

2625: 

2626: \begin{proof} (i) To calculate $u(x,y,t)$ let us apply first 

2627: the method of  successive approximations with unperturbed operator ${\bar A}$ obtained from $A$ by freezing $x_2=y_2$ in $V$, $\sigma$, $\phi$:

2628: \begin{equation}

2629: {\bar A}=

2630: {\frac 1 2}\Bigl(h^2D_1^2 + {\bar\sigma}(x_1)^2 \bigl(\xi_2-\mu {\bar\phi }(x_1) x_1^\nu )/\nu \bigr)^2 -{\bar V}(x_1)\Bigr),

2631: \label{3-8}

2632: \end{equation}

2633: ${\bar\sigma}=\sigma(x_1,y_2)$, ${\bar\phi}=\phi(x_1,y_2)$, 

2634: ${\bar V}=V(x_1,y_2)$.

2635: 

2636: 

2637: Then the first term of  

2638: \begin{equation}

2639: h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 

2640: \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}{\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma 

2641: \bigl(\psi (1-\psi_1)u\bigr)\Bigr)\,d\tau

2642: \label{3-9}

2643: \end{equation}

2644: is also given by formula (\ref{3-9}) but for operator ${\bar A}$ instead of $A$ and it is $O\bigl(h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}_1T_0\bigr)=O\bigl(h^{-2}{\bar\gamma}_1|\log h|\bigr)$ \footnote{\label{foot-14}Actually factor $|\log h|$ is superficial and the first term is of magnitude $h^{-2}{\bar\gamma}_1$; further, all logarithmic factors below are superficial}.

2645: 

2646: The estimate for the second term gains the factor $CT_0^2/h\asymp Ch|\log h|^2$ 

2647: provided $\phi =1$ identically or factor 

2648: \begin{equation*}

2649: CT_0^2 \bigl(1+ \mu {\bar\gamma}_1^{\nu+1}h\bigr)/h\asymp C\bigl(h+{\bar\gamma}_1^2\bigr)|\log h|^2

2650: \end{equation*}

2651: in the general case (I remind that then $\phi=1$ as $x_1=0$); therefore the second term does not exceed  

2652: $Ch^{-2}{\bar\gamma}_1\bigl(h+{\bar\gamma}_1^2\bigr)|\log h|^3$.

2653: 

2654: Finally, in two-term approximation the remainder gains one more such factor and thus does not exceed 

2655: $Ch^{-2}{\bar\gamma}_1(h^2+{\bar\gamma}_1^4)|\log h|^5$.  One can check easily that this is less than $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ unless $\nu = 2$ and 

2656: $\mu \le h^{-\nu^2/(2\nu -1)}|\log h|^K$ in which \emph{special case\/}  there will be an extra 

2657: $|\log h|^K $ factor (rather superficial); then we consider three-term approximation and one can see easily that the remainder estimate will be $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$.

2658: 

2659: So we are left only with expression (\ref{3-9})  for

2660: \begin{align}

2661: &u\mapsto {\bar u}=-ih\sum_{\varsigma=\pm }

2662: {\bar G}^{\varsigma}\delta(t)\delta(x_2-y_2)\delta (x_1-y_1)\label{3-10}\\

2663: \intertext{where here and below ``$\mapsto$'' means ``replaced by'' and two extra terms given by (\ref{3-9}) again for} 

2664: &u\mapsto {\bar u}_1=-ih\sum_{\varsigma=\pm } 

2665: {\bar G}^{\varsigma}A_1{\bar G}^{\varsigma}

2666: \delta(t)\delta(x_2-y_2)\delta (x_1-y_1),\label{3-11}\\

2667: &u\mapsto {\bar u}_2=-ih\sum_{\varsigma=\pm } 

2668: {\bar G}^{\varsigma}A_1{\bar G}^{\varsigma}

2669: A_1{\bar G}^{\varsigma}\delta(t)\delta(x_2-y_2)\delta (x_1-y_1)\label{3-12}

2670: \end{align}

2671: where ${\bar G}^\pm$ are corresponding parametrices and $A_1=A-{\bar A}$. 

2672: 

2673: Also, note that replacing in (\ref{3-11}) $A_1$ by 

2674: ${\bar A}_1=(x_2-y_2)\cdot B_1$, $B_1=(\partial_{x_2} A)|_{x_2=y_2}$ one gets a proper remainder estimate with the exception of the special case in which in addition to terms due to (\ref{3-10})-(\ref{3-12}) one must consider also an extra term given by (\ref{3-9}) for 

2675: \begin{equation}

2676: u\mapsto {\bar u}'_2=-ih\sum_{\varsigma=\pm } 

2677: {\bar G}^{\varsigma}A_2{\bar G}^{\varsigma}

2678: \delta(t)\delta(x_2-y_2)\delta (x_1-y_1)

2679: \label{3-13}

2680: \end{equation}

2681: with ${\bar A}_2= {\frac 1 2}(x_2-y_2)^2\cdot (\partial^2_{x_2} A)|_{x_2=y_2}$.

2682: 

2683: \smallskip

2684: \noindent

2685: (ii) I will tackle  terms due to (\ref{3-11})-(\ref{3-13}) later; now let us concentrate on the main term due to (\ref{3-10}). After this term is derived with $T=Ch|\log h|$ one can increase $T$ to $T_1$ where 

2686: $T_1=\epsilon \mu \gamma^\nu $; however arguments of subsection 2.2 applied to ${\bar A}$  (whose coefficients does not depend on $x_2$) imply that now one can take even $T=+\infty$. 

2687: 

2688: With $T=+\infty$  one can rewrite this term (before integration by $\psi$ and integration over $x_2$) as

2689: \begin{equation}

2690: (2\pi h)^{-1} \int {\rm e} (x_1, x_1;x_2, \xi_2, 0, \hbar) 

2691: \bigl(1-{\bar\psi}_1(x_1)\bigr)\,dx_1 d\xi_2

2692: \label{3-14}

2693: \end{equation}

2694: where $ {\rm e} (x_1, y_1;x_2, \xi_2, 0, \hbar)$ is the Schwartz kernel of 1-dimensional Schr\"odinger operator ${\bf a}(x_2,\xi_2,\hbar)$

2695: obtained from ${\bar A}$ by change of variables $x_1\mapsto {\bar\gamma}x_1$ (and thus $\mu\mapsto 1$) and $hD_2\mapsto \xi_2$ while $e^\W (x_1;x_2,\xi_2,\hbar)$ would be   Weyl approximation for its restriction to diagonal. 

2696: 

2697: 

2698: 

2699: However I would like to refer to a canonical operator ${\bf a}_0$ rather than to more general operator ${\bf a}$ and thus few extra steps are needed. I will delay them slightly.

2700: 

2701: \smallskip

2702: \noindent

2703: (ii) Consider now the second term corresponding to (\ref{3-11}); I remind it does not exceed $Ch\gamma |\log h|^2$ with superficial logarithmiic factor factor. I claim that

2704: 

2705: 

2706: \begin{claim}\label{3-15}

2707: The total contribution of the second term is 0 modulo 

2708: $C\mu^{-1/\nu}h^{-1}+|\log h|^K$.

2709: \end{claim}

2710: 

2711: Really, note first that one can assume that $\mu \le h^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-K}$, otherwise the total contribution $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}_1|\log h|^2$ is less than announced. Let us apply rewrite  the term in question as

2712: \begin{align}

2713: u \mapsto {\bar u}_1=&-ih\sum_{\varsigma=\pm }{\bar G}^\varsigma  B_1

2714: {\bar G}^\varsigma [{\bar A}, x_2-y_2] {\bar G}^\varsigma \delta(t)\delta (x_2-y_2)\delta(x_1-y_1)\label{3-16}\\

2715: &-ih\sum_{\varsigma=\pm }{\bar G}^\varsigma [x_2-y_2, B_1] {\bar G}^\varsigma \delta(t)\delta (x_2-y_2)\delta(x_1-y_1).\notag

2716: \end{align}

2717: Let us apply to (\ref{3-16}) the method of successive approximations with unperturbed operator frozen as $x_1=y_1$; then each next term will acquire factor $C \mu \gamma^{\nu-1}h |\log h|\asymp 

2718: (\gamma^/{\bar \gamma}_1)^{\nu-1}|\log h|$ and therefore the second term does not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}|\log h|^{-K_1}$ as long as  

2719: $\gamma \le {\bar\gamma}|\log h|^{K_2}$. On the other hand the leading term of is just a Weyl expression without any auxillary operators; this expression is odd with respect to $(\xi_2-\mu x_1^\nu/\nu)$ produces 0 after integration with respect to $\xi_2$. 

2720: 

2721: On the other hand, as $\gamma \ge C{\bar\gamma}|\log h|^{K_2}$ one can apply successive approximation method with unperturbed operator ${\hat A}$ is obtained from ${\bar A}$ by $\mu x_1\nu/\nu  \mapsto \xi_2 + \mu z_1^{\nu-1}(x_1-z_1)$,

2722: $z_1= (\mu^{-1}\nu \xi_2)^{1/\nu}$ and the same is true for commutator 

2723: $[{\bar A}, x_2-y_2]$ and $[B_1, x_2-y_2]$. Then since both $x_1$ and $y_1$ are confined to interval of the length $\beta = (\mu \gamma^{\nu-1})^{-1})$, each next term acquires factor 

2724: $\beta \gamma^{-1}|\log h|\asymp \mu^{-1} h|\log h|\gamma^{-\nu}$ and therefore the second term does not exceed $C\mu^{-1}h^{-1}|\log h|^2 \gamma^{1-\nu}$ and 

2725: its total contribution does not exceed what is announced as 

2726: $\gamma \ge {\bar\gamma}|\log h|^{K_2}$. 

2727: 

2728: On the other hand the leading term corresponds to harmonic oscillator and obviously sums to $0$ as $x_1=y_1$ runs through $\cR$.

2729: 

2730: So I will keep $T=Ch|\log h|$ for a while. In the  analysis below I am going to consider (\ref{3-9}) with $\Gamma$ replaced by $\Gamma'$ which contains integration with respect to $x_1$ but not $x_2$; then one can assume with no loss of the generality that 

2731: 

2732: \begin{claim}\label{3-17}

2733: $V$, $\sigma$, $\phi$ do not depend on $x_2$. 

2734: \end{claim}

2735: 

2736: It is convenient to have $\phi=1$; one can always reach it now changing $x_1\mapsto x_1+O(x_1^2)$ and paying the price: now

2737: \begin{equation}

2738: {\bar A}= {\frac 1 2}\Bigl(\sigma_1(x_1)^2 (hD_1)^2 + 

2739: \sigma (x_1)^2\bigl(hD_2 -\mu x_1^\nu/\nu \bigr)^2-V(x_1)\Bigr)

2740: \label{3-18}

2741: \end{equation}

2742: with $\sigma=\sigma_1=1$ as $x_1=0$.

2743: 

2744: Let us apply the method of successive approximations again this time using as unperturbed operator ${\bar A}_0$ obtained from ${\bar A}$ by freezing $x_1=0$ in $V$, $\sigma$ and $\sigma_1$:

2745: \begin{equation}

2746: {\bar A}_0= {\frac 1 2}\Bigl((hD_1)^2 + \bigl(hD_2 -\mu x_1^\nu/\nu \bigr)^2-V(0)\Bigr).

2747: \label{3-19}

2748: \end{equation}

2749: In these successive approximations the first term is still $O\bigl(h^{-2}{\bar\gamma}_1|\log h|\bigr)$  and an estimate for each subsequent term is gaining an extra factor $CT_0{\bar\gamma}_1 /h\asymp {\bar\gamma}_1 |\log h|$;  therefore $(n+1)$-th term does not exceed

2750: $Ch^{-2}{\bar\gamma}_1^n |\log h|^n$ which is small for large $n$  since ${\bar\gamma}_1\le h^{(\nu-1)/(2\nu-1)}$ due to our assumption $\mu \ge h^{-\nu^2/(2\nu-1)}$. Note that we can write

2751: \begin{equation*}

2752: A \sim \sum_{k=0}^K x_1 ^k {\bar A}_k \qquad \text{with\ }  {\bar A}_k = {\bar A}_k(x_1, x_2,hD_1,hD_2;h,\mu)\quad \text{as\ }\ k\ge 1,

2753: \end{equation*}

2754: ${\bar A}_0$ is already defined by (\ref{3-19}). Plugging it into successive approximation formula we get many terms but the first term  results in

2755: \begin{equation}

2756: (2\pi h)^{-1} \int {\rm e}_0 (x_1, x_1;x_2, \xi_2, 0, \hbar) \bigl(1-{\bar\psi}_1(x_1)\bigr)\,dx_1 d\xi_2

2757: \label{3-20}

2758: \end{equation}

2759: (after finally I take $T=+\infty$ instead of $T=Ch|\log h|$) and the second term will be one for the approximation 

2760: $A={\bar A}_0+x_1{\bar A}_1$. 

2761: 

2762: But then the contribution to  (\ref{3-14}) of this refined second term would be 0 because it is equal to (before integration over $\psi \,dx_2$)

2763: \begin{equation}

2764: \int \Tr_1 \bigl(b(\xi_2){\bar\psi}_1\bigr)\,d\xi_2

2765: \label{3-21}

2766: \end{equation}

2767: where $b(\xi_2)$ is an operator in $\bH=L^2(\bR)$, $\Tr_1$ is the trace in this auxiliary space and $\cT b(\xi_2)\cT = -b (\xi'_2)$ with 

2768: $\xi'_2=(-1)^\nu \xi_2$, $(\cT v)(x_1)=v(-x_1)$.

2769: 

2770: \smallskip

2771: \noindent

2772: (iii) Now let us consider terms in this successive approximation with $n\ge 3$; they will be still too large just to be skipped.  Let us apply to them the  successive approximations method  taking as unperturbed operator 

2773: ${\hat A}_0$ with $x_1^\nu/\nu$ replaced by $y_1^\nu/\nu + y_1^{\nu-1}(x-x_1)$:

2774: \begin{equation}

2775: {\hat A}_0= {\frac 1 2}\Bigl((hD_1)^2 + \bigl(hD_2 -

2776: \mu \bigl(y_1^\nu/\nu + y_1^{\nu-1}(x-x_1)\bigr) \bigr)^2-V(0)\Bigr).

2777: \label{3-22}

2778: \end{equation}

2779: One can see easily that each successive term of this approximation is gaining factor 

2780: $\mu \gamma^{\nu-2} T^3/h \asymp \mu \gamma^{\nu-2}h^2 |\log h|^3$. Further, contributions of the second terms to (\ref{3-14}) will be equal 0 again after easy calculations. Finally the remainder will be then less than

2781: \begin{equation*}

2782: Ch^{-2}{\bar\gamma}_1^3 \times (\mu h^2 {\bar \gamma}_1^{\nu -2})^2|\log h|^K

2783: \asymp C{\bar\gamma}_1 |\log h|^K\le 1

2784: \end{equation*}

2785: where the first factor is the estimate of the 3-rd term in the previous approximations and the second factor is what we gained now. So we can leave only the first terms in these last approximations.

2786: 

2787: Now when we sum all these terms with $n\ge 3$, we get

2788: $\bigl(\cE^\MW -\cE_0^\MW\bigr)$ (multiplied by $\psi (1-\psi_1)$ and integrated in the end of the day) where

2789: $\cE_0^\MW$ is what we would get for the first term if we ran last round of successive approximations for it; and this is exactly

2790: $\cE^\MW_0(x_1,x_2,\tau,\mu,h)$.

2791: 

2792: However since we did not do it we have the same expression but with a correction term

2793: \begin{equation}

2794: (2\pi h)^{-1}\int {\rm e}_0 (x_1/{\bar\gamma}; \xi_2, \tau,\hbar)\, d\xi_2 - 

2795: \cE_0^\MW (x_1,x_2,\tau,\mu,h).

2796: \label{3-23}

2797: \end{equation}

2798: 

2799: \smallskip

2800: \noindent

2801: (iv)  Consider now the second term given by (\ref{3-9}) with $u$ replaced by ${\bar u}_1$ defined by (\ref{3-11}). This term does not exceed 

2802: $Ch^{-1}\gamma |\log h|^2$ (with a superficial logarithmic factor).

2803: Again applying the successive approximations of (ii) one can see that replacing ${\bar G}^\varsigma$ by ${\bar G}_0^\varsigma$ brings the  extra factor 

2804: $\gamma |\log h|^K$ and therefore all the terms but the first one do not exceed

2805: $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}_1^2 |\log h|^K$ which is less than the right-hand expression of of (\ref{3-5}) (unless in frames of the special case). Similarly one can replace $A_1$ by

2806: \begin{equation*}

2807: {\bar A}_1=-\mu (x_2-y_2)\beta(y_2)x_1^{\nu+1} \bigl( hD_2 - \mu x_1^\nu/\nu\bigr) -

2808: {\frac 1 2}(x_2-y_2) w(y_2).

2809: \end{equation*}

2810: 

2811: Or even let us consider the  original second term; I remind it does not exceed

2812: $Ch^{-1}\gamma |\log h|$. Let 

2813: 

2814: 

2815: 

2816: 

2817: \smallskip

2818: \noindent

2819: (v) Now there is a special case when one needs to consider extra terms due to (\ref{3-12}), (\ref{3-13}) and the second term in approximation of (iv); all these terms do not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}_1^2|\log h|^K$ and one needs only to ret rid off this logarithmic factor. 

2820: 

2821: Replacing ${\bar G}^\zeta$, 

2822: ${\bar G}_0^\zeta$ by ${\hat G}_0^\zeta$ linked to ${\hat A}_0$ defined by (\ref{3-22}) brings errors less than the right-hand expression of (\ref{3-5}). On the other hand calculations after this substitution show that these terms do not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}_1^2$ (so there is no logarithmic factor) which even in the special case does not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$. Easy but tedious calculations I leave to the reader.

2823: \end{proof}

2824: 

2825: 

2826: 

2827: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-4} (i) Let condition $(\ref{1-21})$ be fulfilled and let $\psi_1$ be an even function, $\psi=\psi(x_2)$. Then as 

2828: $Ch^{-1}\le \mu \le h^{-\nu^2/(2\nu-1)}$

2829: \begin{multline}

2830: |(2\pi h)^{-1} \int {\rm e}_0(x_1, x_1;x_2, \xi_2, 0, \hbar) \bigl(1-{\bar\psi}_1(x_1)\bigr)\,dx_1 d\xi_2\\

2831: -\int \cE_0^\MW(x_1,x_2, \xi_2, 0, \hbar)  \bigl(1-\psi_1(x_1)\bigr)\,dx_1| \le 

2832: C{\bar\gamma}h^{-1}.

2833: \label{3-24}

2834: \end{multline}

2835: 

2836: \noindent 

2837: (ii) Therefore estimate $(\ref{3-5})$ holds for $Ch^{-1}\le \mu \le h^{-\nu^2/(2\nu-1)}$ as well.

2838: \end{proposition}

2839: 

2840: \begin{proof} (i) instantly follows from proposition \ref{prop-3-2} for 

2841: $A={\bar A}_0$ and (ii) follows from proposition \ref{prop-3-2} and statement (i).\end{proof}

2842: 

2843: \subsection{Inner zone. I}

2844: 

2845: Now I need to consider an inner zone $\cZ_\inn=\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}\}$. In this subsection I consider 

2846: \begin{equation}

2847: h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 \Bigl( F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}{\bar\chi}_T\Gamma\bigl(\psi \psi_1 u\bigr)\Bigr)\,d\tau

2848: \label{3-25}

2849: \end{equation}

2850: with $T=Ch|\log h|$ even if this formula does not represent

2851: $\Gamma (\psi\psi_1e)|_{\tau=0}$ with a desired precision, leaving the necessary correction for the rest of the section. In the end of this subsection 

2852: I will list cases (due to section 2) when  provides the desired precision.

2853: 

2854: Running an absolutely standard method of successive approximations (i.e. taking as unperturbed operator with $x=y$) one can recover Weyl asymptotics with $C{\bar\gamma}h^{-2}\times\hbar ^2=C{\bar\gamma}^{-1}$ error with 

2855: $\hbar= h/{\bar\gamma}$ while the contribution of the whole inner zone to the asymptotics is of magnitude $h^{-2}{\bar\gamma}$\,\footnote{\label{foot-15}It is easy to get rid off superficial logarithmic factors in this case.}. This $C{\bar\gamma}^{-1}$ error does not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ as long as

2856: ${\bar\gamma}\ge \epsilon h^{\frac 1 2}$ which means exactly that

2857: $\mu \le Ch^{-{\frac \nu 2}}$. 

2858: 

2859: 

2860: This is not extremely strong condition, much weaker than condition 

2861: ${\bar\gamma}\ge (h|\log h|)^{\frac 1 3}$ arising as 

2862: $h^{-1}(\hbar|\log h|)^{\frac 1 2}\le h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ to provide remainder estimate $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$  for the spectral asymptotics in the general case. Moreover, it is even weaker a bit than condition 

2863: ${\bar\gamma}\ge (h|\log h|)^{\frac 1 2}$ arising as 

2864: $h^{-1}(\hbar|\log h|)\le h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ to provide remainder estimate $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ for the spectral asymptotics under condition $(\ref{2-103})$. 

2865: 

2866: And in the inner zone I can write a standard Weyl approximation or magnetic Weyl approximation to my sole discretion\footnote{\label{foot-16}Which would not be the case in the outer zone where we must use magnetic Weyl at least as $\mu \ge h^{-1}$.}. 

2867: 

2868: Note that both Weyl expressions are actually more precise in the inner zone than I have written before, giving an error not exceeding $Ch^{-2}{\bar\gamma}\times \hbar^4$. Really, when we write the complete decomposition in powers of $\mu $ and $h$ fixing ${\bar\gamma}\asymp {\bar\mu}^{-1/\nu}$ but considering $\mu\le {\bar\mu}$ as variable, we realize that terms with $\mu^{2k}h^{-2+2k}$ all are in magnetic Weyl approximation, terms without $\mu$ are produced by  Weyl expression for non-singular operator and thus are estimated by $Ch^{-2+2k}{\bar\gamma}$ rather than by $Ch^{-2}\hbar^{2k}{\bar\gamma}$ and unaccounted terms contain factor $\mu^{2k}h^{2l}$ with $l\ge k\ge 1$ and thus an error term does not exceed 

2869: $Ch^{-2}\hbar ^4{\bar\gamma}=Ch^2{\bar\gamma}^{-3}$. 

2870: 

2871: Note that $Ch^2{\bar\gamma}^{-3}\le Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ as ${\bar\gamma}\ge h^{3/4}$ or equivalently $\mu \le Ch^{-3\nu/4}$. Further, we get 

2872: \begin{equation*}

2873: \int {\frac T h}{\hat{\bar\chi}}\bigl(-{\frac T h}\tau\bigr)\int \cE^\MW (x,0)\psi_1(x)\psi(x)\,dx\,d\tau

2874: \end{equation*}

2875: which can be rewritten as (\ref{3-26}) with $O(1)$ error.

2876: Therefore we arrive to

2877: 

2878: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-5}\footnote{\label{foot-17}Cf. proposition \ref{prop-3-2}.}  With an error $Ch^2{\bar\gamma}^{-3}$ one can rewrite $(\ref{3-25})$ with $T=Ch|\log h|$ as

2879: \begin{equation}

2880: \int \cE^\MW (x,0)\psi_1(x)\psi (x)\,dx.

2881: \label{3-26}

2882: \end{equation}

2883: \end{proposition}

2884: 

2885: 

2886: Therefore due to subsection 2.3-2.5 we arrive to 

2887: 

2888: \begin{corollary}\label{cor-3-6} (i) In the general case the contribution of the inner zone to the spectral remainder estimate with the principal part $(\ref{3-26})$

2889: does not exceed 

2890: $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+Ch^{-1}(h|\log h|/{\bar\gamma})^{\frac 1 2}$;

2891: in particular as $\mu\le (h|\log h|)^{-{\frac \nu 3}}$ the remainder estimate is $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$;

2892: 

2893: \smallskip

2894: \noindent

2895: (ii) Under conditions $(\ref{1-21})$, $(\ref{2-103})$  the contribution of the inner zone to the remainder estimate with the principal part $(\ref{3-26})$ does not exceed  

2896: $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+C |\log h|{\bar\gamma}^{-1}$; in particular as $\mu\le (h|\log h|)^{-{\frac \nu 2}}$ this remainder estimate is $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$;

2897: 

2898: \smallskip

2899: \noindent

2900: (iii) Under conditions $(\ref{1-21})$, $(\ref{2-97})$ with 

2901: $\zeta \ge Ch |\log h|/{\bar\gamma}+C{\bar\gamma}$ the contribution of the inner zone to the remainder estimate with the principal part $(\ref{3-26})$ does not exceed  

2902: $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+ Ch^2{\bar\gamma}^{-3}$; in particular as $\mu\le h^{-{\frac 3 4}\nu}$ this remainder estimate is $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$.

2903: \end{corollary}

2904: 

2905: Then combining with the result of the outer zone analysis we arrive to

2906: 

2907: \begin{theorem}\label{thm-3-7} Let condition $(\ref{2-8})$  be fulfilled. Then

2908: 

2909: \smallskip

2910: \noindent

2911: (i) In the general case

2912: $\cR$ defined by $(\ref{0-12})$ does not exceed 

2913: $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+Ch^{-1}(h|\log h|/{\bar\gamma})^{\frac 1 2}$; in particular $\cR$ does not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ as $\mu \le C(h|\log h|)^{-\nu/3}$;

2914: 

2915: \smallskip

2916: \noindent

2917: (ii) Under conditions  $(\ref{1-21})$ and  $(\ref{2-103})$  $\cR$ does not exceed 

2918: $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+C{\bar\gamma}|\log h|$; in particular $\cR$ does not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ as $\mu \le C(h|\log h|)^{-\nu/2}$;

2919: 

2920: \smallskip

2921: \noindent

2922: (iii) Under conditions $(\ref{1-21})$ and $(\ref{2-97})$ with 

2923: $\zeta \ge Ch |\log h|/{\bar\gamma}+C{\bar\gamma}$ $\cR$ does not exceed 

2924: $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+C(\mu h+1)^{1/(\nu -1)}$; in particular $\cR$ does not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ as $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu^2/(2\nu-1)}$.

2925: \end{theorem}

2926: 

2927: On the other hand repeating (almost all) arguments of the proof of proposition 

2928: \ref{prop-3-3} one can prove easily

2929: 

2930: \begin{proposition} \label{prop-3-8} In frames of proposition \ref{prop-3-3}

2931: \begin{multline}

2932: |h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 

2933: \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}{\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma 

2934: \bigl(\psi \psi_1u\bigr)\Bigr)\,d\tau -\\

2935: \int \Bigl( \cE^\MW(x,0)-\cE_0^\MW(x,0)\Bigr) \psi (x_2)\psi_1(x_1)\,dx -\\

2936: (2\pi h)^{-1}\int {\frac T h} {\hat{\bar\chi}}\bigl(-{\frac T h}\tau)\bigr)

2937: \int {\rm e}_0(x_1, x_1;x_2, \xi_2, \tau, \hbar) \psi (x_2) {\bar\psi}(x_1)\,dx d\xi_2\,d\tau| \le \\

2938: Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+C|\log h|^K

2939: \label{3-27}

2940: \end{multline}

2941: \end{proposition}

2942: 

2943: Combining with the results of the previous subsection we arrive to

2944: 

2945: \begin{theorem}\label{thm-3-9} Let conditions $(\ref{1-21})$  and $(\ref{2-97})$ with $\zeta \ge Ch |\log h|/{\bar\gamma}+C{\bar\gamma}$ be fulfilled, $\psi=\psi(x_2)$. Then for $h^{-\nu^2/(2\nu-1)}\le \mu \le h^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-K}$

2946: \begin{equation}

2947: |\int \Bigl( e(x,x,0)-

2948:  \cE^\MW(x,0)\Bigr) \psi (x )\,dx - 

2949:  \int  \cE_\corr^\MW(x_2,0)\psi (x_2)\,dx_2|\le 

2950: Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+C|\log h|^K

2951: \label{3-28}

2952: \end{equation}

2953: with

2954: \begin{equation}

2955: \cE^\MW_\corr =

2956:  (2\pi h)^{-1}

2957: \int {\rm e}_0(x_1, x_1;x_2, \xi_2, \tau, \hbar) \,dx_1 d\xi_2-

2958: \int \cE^\MW_0 (x,\tau)\,dx_1.

2959: \label{3-29}

2960: \end{equation}

2961: \end{theorem}

2962: 

2963: \subsection{Inner zone. II}

2964: 

2965: In section 2  we derived asymptotics with the principal part which is the sum of 

2966: \begin{equation}

2967: \sum_m h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} 

2968: {\bar\chi}_{T_m}(t)

2969: \Gamma (\psi_1 \psi Q_m u)\Bigr) \,d\tau

2970: \label{3-30}

2971: \end{equation}

2972: where $Q_m$ are elements of partition (in $hD_2$ and may be $x_2$) and 

2973: $T_m = C h |\log h|  /\varrho_m^2$. We can rewrite (\ref{3-30}) as the sum of

2974: (\ref{3-25}) with $T={\bar T}=\epsilon{\bar\gamma}$ and 

2975: \begin{equation}

2976: \sum_m h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} 

2977: \bigl({\bar\chi}_{T_m}(t)- {\bar\chi}_{\bar T}(t)\bigr)

2978: \Gamma (\psi_1 \psi Q_m u)\Bigr) \,d\tau.

2979: \label{3-31}

2980: \end{equation}

2981: 

2982: Consider now (\ref{3-25}) with $T=\epsilon{\bar\gamma}$. Also due to propagation results of section 2 one can replace there $T=\epsilon{\bar\gamma}$  by $T=Ch|\log h|$; then all the results of the

2983: previous subsection are applicable. It includes  (\ref{3-27}) as well where one can replace back $T=Ch|\log h|$ by $T=\epsilon {\bar\gamma}$ in  the first and/or the last term of the left-hand expression.

2984: 

2985: 

2986: Moreover again due to propagation results of section 2, all terms in (\ref{3-31}) with $\varrho_m \ge C{\bar\rho}_1$ are negligible and therefore one can rewrite (modulo negligible) expression (\ref{3-30}) as the sum of (\ref{3-25}) with $T=Ch|\log h|$ and (\ref{3-31}) with ${\bar T}=\epsilon{\bar\gamma}$ with summation with respect to $m$ such that $\varrho_m \le C{\bar\rho}_1$.

2987: 

2988: 

2989: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-10} (i) With an error not exceeding $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+C{\bar\gamma}_1^{-1}$ one can rewrite $(\ref{3-30})$ as

2990: the sum of $(\ref{3-26})$ and $(\ref{3-31})$ with ${\bar T}=\epsilon {\bar\gamma}$ and $Q_m$ partition of unity in the periodic zone only.

2991: 

2992: \smallskip

2993: \noindent

2994: (ii) In particular, as $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu^2/(2\nu-1)}$ this error  does not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$.

2995: \end{proposition}

2996: 

2997: As $\mu \ge Ch^{-\nu^2/(2\nu-1)}$ I need a bit more complicated analysis:

2998: 

2999: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-11} (i) With an error not exceeding $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+C|\log h|^K$ one can rewrite $(\ref{3-30})$ as

3000: the sum of the following three expressions:

3001: \begin{multline}

3002: \int \Bigl( \cE^\MW(x,0)-\cE_0^\MW(x,0)\Bigr) \psi (x_2)\psi_1(x_1)\,dx +\\

3003: \int {\rm e}_0(x_1, x_1;x_2, \xi_2, 0, \hbar) \psi (x_2) {\bar\psi}(x_1)\,dx d\xi_2

3004: \label{3-32}

3005: \end{multline}

3006: where the first term is actually less than the remainder estimate,

3007: \begin{equation}

3008: (2\pi h)^{-1}\int \Bigl({\frac T h} {\hat{\bar\chi}}\bigl(-{\frac T h}\tau)\bigr)-\delta (\tau)\Bigr)

3009: \int {\rm e}_0(x_1, x_1;x_2, \xi_2, \tau, \hbar) \psi (x_2) {\bar\psi}(x_1)\,dx d\xi_2\,d\tau 

3010: \label{3-33}

3011: \end{equation}

3012: with $T={\bar T}=\epsilon {\bar\gamma}$, Dirac $\delta$-function \underbar{and}  $(\ref{3-31})$ where now  $\{Q_m\}$ is a partition of unity in the periodic zone only;

3013: 

3014: \smallskip

3015: \noindent

3016: (ii) Further, one can rewrite $(\ref{3-33})$ as

3017: \begin{multline}

3018: \sum_m (2\pi h)^{-1}\int \Bigl({\frac T h} {\hat{\bar\chi}}\bigl(-{\frac T h}\tau)\bigr)-\delta (\tau)\Bigr)\times \\

3019: \int {\rm e}_0(x_1, x_1;x_2, \xi_2, \tau, \hbar) \psi (x_2) {\bar\psi}(x_1)Q_m(x_2,\xi_2)\,dx d\xi_2\,d\tau 

3020: \label{3-34}

3021: \end{multline}

3022: where now  $\{Q_m\}$ is a partition of unity in the periodic zone only.

3023: \end{proposition} 

3024: 

3025: \begin{proof} Proposition follows from proposition \ref{prop-3-8} and propagation results of section 2 with the only exception that in (\ref{3-34}) summation is taken over all $m$, and one needs to prove that the corresponding terms are negligible in non-periodic zone where condition

3026: \begin{equation}

3027: \bigl(|\xi_2-V^{\frac 1 2}k^*_\hbar |+|\partial_{x_2}V|\bigr)\asymp \rho \le C{\bar\rho}_1

3028: \label{3-35}

3029: \end{equation}

3030: is violated.

3031: 

3032: Note that the expression in question is the sum of

3033: \begin{multline}

3034: (2\pi T)^{-1}{\hat\chi} \bigl(-{\frac h T}\tau\bigr)\int {\rm e}_0(x_1, x_1;x_2, \xi_2, \tau, \hbar) \psi (x_2) {\bar\psi}(x_1)Q_m(x_2,\xi_2)\,dx d\xi_2\,d\tau =\\

3035: \int h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 \Bigr(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} \chi_T(t) \bigl(\Gamma'\psi_1(x_1) Q_m (y_2,hD_2) {\bar u}_0\bigr)\Bigr) \psi(y_2)\,dy_2

3036: \label{3-36}

3037: \end{multline}

3038: with $T$ running from $\epsilon{\bar\gamma}$ to $+\infty$ and ${\bar u}_0$

3039: defined for operator ${\bar A}_0$.

3040: 

3041: If $|\xi_2-V^{\frac 1 2}k^*_\hbar |\ge \rho$ on partition element $Q_m$ then (\ref{3-36}) does not exceed $Ch^s(T+1)^{-s}$  as $T\ge C_0h|\log h|/\rho^2$ just due to propagation results of section 2 applied to ${\bar u}_0$ and ${\bar A}_0$ and since for $C_0 h|\log h|/\rho^2 \le \epsilon {\bar\gamma}$ as 

3042: $\rho \ge {\bar\rho}_1$, these elements are covered.

3043: 

3044: On the other hand if $|\partial_{x_2}V|\asymp \rho$ on the partition element in question, one can notice that ${\bar A}_0$ depends on $y_2$ via 

3045: $-{\frac 1 2}W(y_2)$ only and introducing new variable $y'_2=-{\frac 1 2}W(y_2)$

3046: we get mollification with respect to the spectral parameter and thus (\ref{3-36}) does not exceed $Ch^s(T+1)^{-s}$ as well. I leave details to the reader.

3047: \end{proof}

3048: 

3049: \subsection{Periodic and near-periodic orbits. I. Pilot-model}

3050: 

3051: 

3052: Thus I need to analyze periodic zone $\cZ_\per$ more accurately defining it by (\ref{3-35}) rather than by 

3053: \begin{equation}

3054: |\xi_2-V^{\frac 1 2}k^*_\hbar|\asymp \rho \le C{\bar\rho}_1

3055: \label{3-37}

3056: \end{equation}

3057: in the case when magnetic field is strong enough to prevent corollary \ref{cor-3-6} from presenting a sharp remainder estimate.

3058: 

3059: Namely I need to consider  term

3060: \begin{equation}

3061: h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} 

3062: \bigl({\bar\chi}_T(t)- {\bar\chi}_{\bar T}(t)\bigr)

3063: \Gamma (\psi_1 \psi Q u)\Bigr) \,d\tau

3064: \label{3-38}

3065: \end{equation}

3066: with partition element $Q=Q(x_2,hD_2)$, $T=T_1$ where $T_0$ and $T_1$ are defined in subsections 2.8-2.9 and  ${\bar T}=C_0h|\log h|$. Here due to propagation results of these subsections I can take any $T\in [T_0,T_1]$ to my discretion, in particular $T=T_0$.

3067: 

3068: Let consider a pilot-model first; more precisely let us assume that operator under consideration coincides with a pilot-model in $B(0,1)$. Then 

3069: $T_0= C\rho^{-2}h|\log h|$ and $T_1=\epsilon \rho$ with 

3070: $|\xi_2-k^*_\hbar|\asymp \rho$

3071: on $\supp Q$.

3072: 

3073: Then (\ref{3-38}) will be the same (modulo negligible) if one replaces $u$ by ${\bar u}$ constructed for operator coinciding with pilot-model in $\bR^2$. But then one can replace $T=\epsilon \rho^{-1}$ by $T=\infty$. Also one can remove restriction from below on $\rho: \rho \ge {\bar\gamma}$. 

3074: 

3075: Also in this case one can replace ${\bar\psi}_1$ by $1$ since contribution to (\ref{3-38}) of the outer  zone is negligible due to propagation results there and contribution of the forbidden zone is negligible as well. Further, one does not need to integrate over $\psi(x_2)dx_2$ in (\ref{3-38}) anymore.

3076: 

3077: After all these modifications there is no need to consider a partition and then correction (\ref{3-38}) is transformed to  

3078: \begin{equation}

3079:  h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} 

3080: \bigl(1- {\bar\chi}_{\bar T}(t)\bigr)\Gamma'  {\bar u}\Bigr)\, d\tau

3081: \label{3-39}

3082: \end{equation}

3083: where I remind $\Gamma' v= \int v(x_1,x_2;x_1,x_2)\,dx_1$; in our case $\cE^\MW_\corr$ does not depend on $x_2$. 

3084: 

3085: Obviously

3086: \begin{equation}

3087: h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} 

3088: \Gamma'  {\bar u}\Bigr)\, d\tau=(2\pi h)^{-1}\int  {\bf n}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)\,d\xi_2

3089: \label{3-40}

3090: \end{equation}

3091: with ${\bf n}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)$ the number of negative eigenvalues of operator 

3092: ${\bf a}={\bf a}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)$  with $W=1$. On the other hand, 

3093: \begin{equation}

3094: h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_{\bar T}(t)

3095:  \Gamma'  {\bar u}\Bigr)\, d\tau \equiv\int \cE_0^\MW (x,0)\, dx_1 \qquad

3096: \mod O\bigl({\bar\gamma}_1^{-1}\bigr)

3097: \label{3-41}

3098: \end{equation}

3099: and therefore

3100: \begin{equation}

3101: \cE^\MW_\corr\equiv (2\pi h)^{-1}\int  {\bf n}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)\,d\xi_2 - 

3102: \int \cE_0^\MW (x,0)\, dx_1.

3103: \label{3-42}

3104: \end{equation}

3105: The error in (\ref{3-42}) does not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ even if 

3106: ${\bar\gamma}_1^{-1}\ge h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ because in this case I already made

3107: an error replacing left-hand expression of (\ref{3-41}) by its right-hand-expression in the analysis of subsection 3.1 and now I just compensated  it by adding the skipped term. One can consider (\ref{3-42}) as a definition of the correction term for the model operator. Thus we arrive to

3108: 

3109: 

3110: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-12} For operator coinciding with pilot model in 

3111: $(-1,1)\times \bR$

3112: \begin{equation}

3113: \int e(x,x,0)\,dx_1 \equiv \int \cE^\MW_0\,dx_1 +\cE^\MW_\corr

3114: \qquad \mod O\bigl(h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}\bigr)\label{3-43}

3115: \end{equation}

3116: in $(-{\frac 1 2},{\frac 1 2})$ where $\cE^\MW_\corr$ is defined by $(\ref{3-42})$.

3117: \end{proposition}

3118: 

3119: Expression (\ref{3-42}), multiplied by $\psi(x_2)dx_2$ and integrated will be used in two next subsections in the general case as well. However to get more explicit even if less precise expression one can replace  (\ref{3-39})  by 

3120: \begin{equation}

3121:  h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} 

3122: \bigl(1- {\bar\chi}_{\bar T}(t)\bigr)\Gamma'  \phi (hD_2){\bar u}\Bigr)\, d\tau

3123: \label{3-44}

3124: \end{equation}

3125: with $\phi $ supported in $[-2C_0,2C_0]$ and equal 1 in $[-C_0,C-0]$, making 

3126: $O\bigl({\bar\gamma}_1^{-1}\bigr)$ error.

3127: 

3128: Using

3129: \begin{align}

3130: &h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} 

3131: \Gamma'  \phi(hD_2){\bar u}\Bigr)\, d\tau=

3132: (2\pi h)^{-1}\int  {\bf n}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)\phi(\xi_2)\,d\xi_2,\label{3-45}\\

3133: &h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_{\bar T}

3134: \Gamma'  \phi(hD_2){\bar u}\Bigr)\, d\tau\equiv

3135: (2\pi h)^{-1}\int  n^\W_0(\xi_2,\hbar)\phi(\xi_2)\,d\xi_2

3136: \label{3-46}

3137: \end{align}

3138: with the second equality modulo $O\bigl({\bar\gamma}^{-3}h^2\bigr)$ with 

3139: \begin{equation}

3140: n_0^\W (\xi_2,\hbar)=(\pi \hbar)^{-1}\int \Bigl(1-\bigl(\xi_2-x_1^\nu/\nu\bigr)^2\Bigr)_+^{\frac 1 2}\,dx_1

3141: \label{3-47}

3142: \end{equation}

3143: the Weyl approximation of ${\bf n}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)$, we arrive to

3144: 

3145: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-13} For operator coinciding with pilot model in 

3146: $(-1,1)\times \bR$

3147: \begin{equation}

3148: \cE^\MW_\corr \equiv (2\pi h)^{-1} \int \Bigl( {\bf n}_0 (\xi_2,\hbar)- 

3149: n^\W_0 (\xi_2,\hbar)\Bigr)\phi (\xi_2)\,d\xi_2

3150: \qquad \mod O\bigl({\bar\gamma}_1^{-1}\bigr)

3151: \label{3-48}

3152: \end{equation}

3153: in $(-{\frac 1 2},{\frac 1 2})$.

3154: \end{proposition}

3155: 

3156: To calculate (\ref{3-48}) more explicitly I need to calculate eigenvalues $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ of operator ${\bf a}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)$ and I am interested in those eigenvalues which are close to 0 as $\xi_2$ is close to $k^*_\hbar$.

3157: 

3158: These eigenvalues are defined modulo $O(\hbar^2)$ from Bohr-Sommerfeld condition

3159: \begin{align}

3160: &{\frac 1 {2\pi \hbar} }S(\xi_2,\tau) + {\frac 1 4}\iota_ M \bigl(\cL(\xi_2,\tau)\bigr)\in \bZ\qquad \text{as\ } \tau=\lambda_n\label{3-49}\\

3161: \intertext{where}

3162: &S(\xi_2,\lambda)= \oint_{\cL(\xi_2,\lambda)} \xi_1\,dx_1

3163: \label{3-50}

3164: \end{align}

3165: and $\iota_M \bigl(\cL(\xi_2,\tau)\bigr)$ is Maslov' index of the closed  trajectory $\cL(\xi_2,\tau)$ (on 2-dimensional phase plane) on the energy level $\tau$; $\iota_M \bigl(\cL(\xi_2,\tau)\bigr)=2$ as $\tau\approx 0$. Since

3166: $\partial_\tau S(\xi_2, \tau) |=T (\xi_2,\tau)$ due to Hamiltonian mechanics, 

3167: the spacing between two consecutive eigenvalues is $2\pi \hbar/T(\xi_2,\tau) +O(\hbar^2)$. Further, all these eigenvalues $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ are uniformly analytic functions of 

3168: $\xi_2, |\xi_2|\ll 1$, $\hbar\ll 1$ as $|\lambda_n |\ll 1$ and also

3169: $\partial_{\xi_2}^2 \lambda_n\ge \epsilon_0$. This yields immediately

3170: 

3171: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-14} As $\mu \le \epsilon (h|\log h|)^{-\nu}$

3172: 

3173: \smallskip

3174: \noindent 

3175: (i) $|\cE^\MW_\corr |\le Ch^{-1}\hbar^{\frac 1 2}$; in particular, 

3176: $|\cE^\MW_\corr |\le Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ as $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu/3}$;

3177: 

3178: \smallskip

3179: \noindent 

3180: (ii) One can calculate $\cE^\MW_\corr$ with an error not exceeding $Ch^{-1}\hbar$ (which does not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ as $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu/2}$) replacing $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ by its approximation  modulo 

3181: $O\bigl( \eta^4+\hbar^2\bigr)$  where here and below $\eta = \xi_2-k^*_\hbar$;

3182: 

3183: \smallskip

3184: \noindent 

3185: (iii) One can calculate $\cE^\MW_\corr$ with an error not exceeding $Ch^{-1}\hbar^{3/2}$ (which does not exceed 

3186: $C\bigr(h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+ {\bar\gamma}_1^{-1}\bigl)$ as $\nu \ge 3$) replacing $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ by its approximation modulo  $O\bigl( \eta^6+\hbar^3\bigr)$; 

3187: 

3188: 

3189: \smallskip

3190: \noindent 

3191: (iv) As $\nu=2$ one can calculate $\cE^\MW_\corr$ with an error not exceeding $Ch^{-1}\hbar^2$ (which does not exceed $C{\bar\gamma}_1^{-1})$) replacing $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ by its approximation  modulo  $O\bigl( \eta^8+\hbar^8\bigr)$.

3192: \end{proposition}

3193: 

3194: To exploit (ii) one can replace $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ by its approximate value 

3195: \begin{equation}

3196: \lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar) \equiv {\bar\lambda}(\xi_2) + {\frac {(2 n+1)\pi\hbar} {T (\xi_2)}}.

3197: \label{3-51}

3198: \end{equation}

3199:   Here ${\bar\lambda}(\xi_2)$ is a  ``classical eigenvalue'' corresponding to 

3200: $n=0$ and Maslov index 0 (instead of 2) and one can find it  from (\ref{3-49}) as $\tau=0$;  then 

3201: ${\bar\lambda}(\xi_2)= -S(\xi_2, \tau)/\partial_\tau S\bigr|_{\tau=0}$. 

3202: 

3203: 

3204: I remind that $(\partial_\tau S)\bigr|_{\tau=0}=T(\xi_2)$,  

3205: $\partial_{\xi_2} S =I(\xi_2)$ with $I(\xi_2)$ defined by (\ref{1-4}) for even $\nu$ and similar formula for odd $\nu$; further, 

3206: $I(k^*)=0$, $\partial_{\xi_2} I(k^*)=\kappa >0$. Then

3207: \begin{align}

3208: \cE^\MW_\corr\equiv &(2\pi h)^{-1}\int \Bigl(

3209: {\frac 1 {2\pi\hbar}}  S(\xi_2) - \Bigl\lfloor {\frac 1 {2\pi\hbar}}  S(\xi_2)+{\frac 1 2} \Bigr\rfloor

3210: \Bigr)\,d\xi_2

3211: \equiv 

3212: \label{3-52}\\

3213: &(2\pi h)^{-1}\int \Bigl(

3214: {\frac 1 {2\pi\hbar}}  \bigl(S_0 + {\frac 1 2}\kappa \eta^2\bigr)

3215: - \Bigl\lfloor {\frac 1 {2\pi\hbar}}  \bigl(S_0 + {\frac 1 2}\kappa \eta^2\bigr) +{\frac 1 2} \Bigr\rfloor\Bigr)\,d\eta =

3216: \notag\\

3217: &(2\pi)^{-{\frac 3 2}} h^{-1}\hbar^{\frac 1 2}\kappa^{-{\frac 1 2}} 

3218: G\bigl({\frac {S_0}{2\pi\hbar}}\bigr)\qquad \mod O(h^{-1}\hbar)\notag

3219: \end{align}

3220: with function $G$ defined by

3221: \begin{equation}

3222: G(t) = \int_\bR \Bigl(t+{\frac 1 2}\eta^2 - \bigl\lfloor t+{\frac 1 2}\eta^2 +{\frac 1 2}\bigr\rfloor \Bigr)\,d\eta

3223: \label{3-53}

3224: \end{equation}

3225: with the converging integral in the right-hand expression.

3226: 

3227: One can prove easily that

3228: \begin{equation}

3229: G\not\equiv 0,\quad G(t+1)=G(t),\qquad\int_0^1G(t)\,dt=0,\qquad 

3230: G \in C^{\frac 1 2}.

3231: \label{3-54}

3232: \end{equation}

3233: 

3234: To exploit proposition  \ref{prop-3-14}(iii),(iv) one can use more precise version of (\ref{3-51})

3235: \begin{equation}

3236: \lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar) \equiv {\bar\lambda}(\xi_2) + {\frac {(2 n+1)\pi\hbar} {T (\xi_2)}} + \varkappa_1 (\xi_2 )\hbar^2 + \varkappa_2 (\xi_2 )\hbar^3

3237: \label{3-55}

3238: \end{equation}

3239: and after obvious calculations (\ref{3-52}) is adjusted to

3240: \begin{align}

3241: &\cE^\MW_\corr \equiv 

3242: (2\pi)^{-{\frac 3 2}} h^{-1}\hbar^{\frac 1 2}\kappa^{-{\frac 1 2}} 

3243: G\bigl({\frac {S_0}{2\pi\hbar}}+\kappa _1\hbar\bigr)

3244:  \qquad\qquad\mod O\bigl(h^{-1}\hbar^{\frac 3 2}\bigr), \tag*{$(3.52)^*$}\label{3-52-*}\\

3245: &\cE^\MW_\corr \equiv (2\pi)^{-{\frac 3 2}} h^{-1}\hbar^{\frac 1 2}\kappa^{-{\frac 1 2}} 

3246: \Bigl( G(t)+ \kappa_3 \hbar G(t) + \kappa_4 \hbar G_1(t)\Bigr)

3247: \Bigr|_{\displaystyle t={\frac {S_0}{2\pi\hbar}}+\kappa _1\hbar+\kappa_2\hbar^2}\tag*{$(3.52)^{**}$}\label{3-52-**}\\

3248: &\hskip300pt\mod 

3249: O\bigl(h^{-1}\hbar^2\bigr)

3250: \notag

3251: \end{align}

3252: with some constants $\kappa_1,\dots,\kappa_4$ and 

3253: \begin{equation}

3254: G_1(t) =\int_0^t G(t')\,dt' - \int_0^1 (1-t')G(t')\,dt',

3255: \label{3-56}

3256: \end{equation}

3257: $G_1\in C^{3/2}$ satisfying (\ref{3-54}). Thus we arrive to

3258: 

3259: 

3260: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-15}

3261: For operator coinciding in $B(0,1)$ with pilot-model with potential $V=1$ and fixed $\psi$, $\psi_1$ ($\psi_1=1$ as $|x_1|\le \epsilon$) in asymptotics 

3262: $(\ref{3-47})$ 

3263: 

3264: \smallskip

3265: \noindent

3266: (i) Modulo $O\bigl(h^{-1}\hbar^{1/2}\bigr)$, $O\bigl(h^{-1}\hbar\bigr)$, $O\bigl(h^{-1}\hbar^{3/2}\bigr)$ and $O\bigl(h^{-1}\hbar^2\bigr)$ one can respectively skip correction term $\cE^\MW_\corr$ or to define it by $(\ref{3-52})$,  \ref{3-52-*}, \ref{3-52-**};

3267: 

3268: \smallskip

3269: \noindent

3270: (ii) In particular, uncorrected asymptotics has sharp remainder estimate if and only if $\hbar^{\frac 1 2}\le C{\bar\gamma}$ i.e. $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu/3}$. Further, one can skip define $\cE^\MW_\corr$ by $(\ref{3-52})$  without spoiling remainder estimate as $Ch^{-\nu/3}\le \mu \le Ch^{-\nu/2}$.

3271: \end{proposition}

3272: 

3273: \begin{remark}\label{rem-3-16}

3274: (i) One can then generalize proposition \ref{prop-3-15} immediately to a  pilot-model with potential $V=W=\const$ instead of $V=1$ by replacing $h\mapsto h W^{-1/2}$, 

3275: $\mu \mapsto \mu W^{-1/2}$ and therefore 

3276: $\hbar \mapsto \hbar W^{-(\nu+1)/2\nu}$ just modifying (\ref{3-52}) to

3277: \begin{equation}

3278: \cE^\MW_\corr \equiv 

3279: (2\pi)^{-{\frac 3 2}}h^{-1} \hbar^{\frac 1 2}\kappa^{-{\frac 1 2}}

3280: W^{\frac {\nu - 1}{4\nu}}

3281: G\Bigl({\frac {S_0W^{\frac {\nu +1}{2\nu}}}{2\pi\hbar} }\Bigr)

3282: \label{3-57}

3283: \end{equation}

3284: and similarly modifying \ref{3-52-*}, \ref{3-52-**}.

3285: 

3286: \smallskip

3287: \noindent

3288: (ii) One should expect the similar correction for the general operators as well but one can see easily that under condition $|\partial_{x_2}W|\ge \epsilon$ integrated correction term 

3289: \begin{equation}

3290: \int \cE^\MW_\corr (x)\psi \,dx_2

3291: \label{3-58}

3292: \end{equation}

3293: is negligible, and under condition (\ref{2-103}) it should not exceed $Ch^{-1}\hbar$ (and be of this magnitude if there are critical points of $W$) with integrated versions of (\ref{3-52}), \ref{3-52-*} valid modulo $O(h^{-1}\hbar^{\frac 3 2})$, $O(h^{-1}\hbar^2)$ respectively.

3294: \end{remark}

3295: 

3296: 

3297: \subsection{Periodic orbits. II. General settings}

3298: 

3299: Now let us consider inner zone in frames of subsections 2.8--2.9 when we managed to prove sharp remainder estimate $C{\bar\gamma}h^{-1}$ as 

3300: $\mu \le h^{\delta -\nu}$ producing the final result as the sum of expressions (\ref{3-30})

3301: taken over partitions $\psi=\psi_m(x_2)$ and $Q=Q_m(hD_2)$ of unity; I remind that $\psi_m$ is $\ell$-admissible and $Q_m$ is $\rho$-admissible

3302: with $\ell $, $\rho$ satisfying some conditions the most important of which are (\ref{2-70})-(\ref{2-72}); here $\ell$ denotes the function associated with the finest of subpartitions and we assume that on this element 

3303: \begin{equation}

3304: |\nabla V|\le C_0\zeta, \qquad |\xi_2- k^*_\hbar V(0,x_2)|\le C_0\rho

3305: \label{3-59}

3306: \end{equation}

3307: with one of these inequalities being reversible (with $\epsilon_0$ instead of $C_0$);  then one can take in (\ref{3-30}) any $T$ ranging from 

3308: \begin{equation}

3309: T_0= Ch|\log h| \min \bigl({\frac 1 {\rho^2}}, {\frac 1{\ell\zeta}}\bigr) =

3310: C\epsilon^{-1}h|\log h| \times T_1

3311: \label{3-60}

3312: \end{equation}

3313: to $T_1$.

3314: 

3315: There are also exceptional elements with $T={\bar T}=Ch|\log h|$ but they will be treated easily in the same manner. 

3316: 

3317: Therefore I need to consider expression $(\ref{3-30})$ with 

3318: $T={\bar T}=Ch|\log h|$ and also correction terms (\ref{3-38}) with arbitrarily $T\in [T_0,T_1]$ depending on the partition element; index $m$ indicating partition element I am skipping. 

3319: 

3320: One can replace then 

3321: $\bigl({\bar\chi}_T(t)- {\bar\chi}_{\bar T}(t)\bigr)$ by the sum of $\chi_T(t)$

3322: with $T$ running from ${\bar T}$ to $T_0$ and with $\chi$ supported in $(-1,-{\frac 1 2})\cup ({\frac 1 2},1)$ thus replacing (\ref{3-38}) with the sum of terms

3323: \begin{equation}

3324: h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} 

3325: \chi_T(t)

3326: \Gamma (\psi_1 \psi Q u)\Bigr) \,d\tau = iT^{-1}

3327: F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} 

3328: {\check\chi}_T(t) \Gamma (\psi_1 \psi Q u)

3329: \label{3-61}

3330: \end{equation}

3331: with ${\check\chi}(t)=t^{-1}\chi(t)$ and $T\in [{\bar T}, T_0]$.

3332: 

3333: Further, one needs to consider only $T$ ranging from 

3334: ${\bar T}'=\epsilon {\bar\gamma}$ to $T_0$ because terms (\ref{3-61}) with $T$ ranging from ${\bar T}$ to ${\bar T}'$ are negligible; therefore partition elements with 

3335: $T_0\le {\bar T}'$\,\footnote{\label{foot-18} Or equivalently with 

3336: $(\zeta\ell +\rho^2){\bar\gamma}\ge Ch|\log h|$.} will be eliminated.

3337: 

3338: \begin{remark}\label{rem-3-17}

3339: (i) Obviously (\ref{3-61}) does not exceed $Ch^{-2}{\bar\gamma}\rho\ell$ and thus   (\ref{3-38}) does not exceed $Ch^{-2}{\bar\gamma}\rho\ell|\log h|$;

3340: 

3341: \smallskip

3342: \noindent

3343: (ii) Further, one can decompose (\ref{3-61}) in the same way as in the proof of proposition \ref{prop-2-30}; therefore (\ref{3-61}) does not exceed 

3344: $Ch^{-2}{\bar\gamma}\rho\ell\times h|\log h|/{\bar\gamma}= Ch^{-1}\rho\ell\times |\log h|$ and thus (\ref{3-38}) does not exceed $Ch^{-1}\rho\ell|\log h|^2$. 

3345: 

3346: Even if this is the remainder estimate obtained by taking $T=\epsilon{\bar\gamma}$ in the Tauberian arguments (with a superficial logarithmic factor), it provides a solid ground for the further estimates.

3347: \end{remark}

3348: 

3349: Let us consider regular elements and apply successive approximation method freezing in unperturbed operator $x_2=y_2$ as usual. However to estimate approximation terms I will not commute $(x_2-y_2)$ with $G^\pm, {\bar G}^\pm$ but simply remember that $|x_2-y_2|\le C\rho T_0+C{\bar \gamma}$ on the partition element in question in propagation as $T\le T_0$; this is due to proposition \ref{2-24} extended according to proposition \ref{prop-2-33}. 

3350: 

3351: \emph{In this subsection I consider  the case when condition  $(\ref{2-103})$ is fulfilled leaving the most general case for the next one\/}. 

3352: 

3353: Then $\rho=\zeta=\ell$ and $T_0=C\rho^{-2}h|\log h|$ and hence

3354: $|x_2-y_2|\le C\rho T_0+{\bar\gamma}$. Therefore perturbation $R_1=(x_2-y_2)\partial_{x_2}A+O\bigl(|x_2-y_2|^2\bigr)$ does not exceed 

3355: \begin{equation*}

3356: C\zeta (\rho T_0 +{\bar\gamma})+  C(\rho T_0 +{\bar\gamma})^2\asymp r \Def \bigl(h|\log h|+\rho {\bar\gamma})+ \rho^{-2}h^2|\log h|^2+{\bar\gamma}^2\bigr).

3357: \end{equation*}

3358: Therefore while the first term of what is  obtained when one plugs approximations into (\ref{3-61}) does not exceed 

3359: $Ch^{-1}\rho\ell|\log h| =Ch^{-1}\rho^2|\log h|$, each next term acquires a factor \begin{equation}

3360: r\times T/h \asymp  \bigl(h|\log h|+\rho {\bar\gamma}+ \rho^{-2}h^2|\log h|^2+{\bar\gamma}^2\bigr)\times \rho^{-2}|\log h|;

3361: \label{3-62}

3362: \end{equation}

3363: to keep this factor less than 1 one needs to consider

3364: \begin{equation}

3365: \rho \ge \rho^*_0\Def Ch^{\frac 1 2}|\log h|

3366: \label{3-63}

3367: \end{equation}

3368: which is greater than $C{\bar\gamma}$ because under condition (\ref{2-103}) and  ${\bar\gamma}\ge \rho^*_0$ remainder estimate $O\bigl(h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}\bigr)$

3369: is already proven without any correction terms. Under condition (\ref{3-63}) expression (\ref{3-62}) is of magnitude of $\rho^{-2}h|\log h|^2$.

3370: 

3371: Now the second term of approximations does not exceed 

3372: \begin{equation*}

3373: Ch^{-1}\rho^2|\log h|\times \rho^{-2}h|\log h|^2 \asymp |\log h|^3.

3374: \end{equation*}

3375: Finally, summation with respect to all partition results in $C|\log h|^K$ which does not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ under condition (\ref{2-111}).

3376: 

3377: On the other hand, contribution of \emph{core} $\{\rho \le \rho^*_0\}$ to the remainder estimate due to Tauberian arguments with $T=\epsilon{\bar\gamma}$ does not exceed $Ch^{-1}\rho^{*\,2}_0\le C|\log h|^K$.

3378: 

3379: \smallskip

3380: 

3381: 

3382: So, one needs to consider only the first term of approximation.

3383: Therefore, under conditions $(\ref{2-103})$ and $\mu \le h^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-K}$ remainder estimate $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ still holds with $u$ replaced in the principal part (\ref{3-30}) by the first term of this successive approximation procedure. 

3384: 

3385: Thus we can take $T_0=\infty$ thus arriving to 

3386: \begin{multline}

3387: \cE^\MW_{\corr,Q} = 

3388: \int \Bigl( (2\pi h)^{-1} {\bf e}(x_1,x_1,0;x_2,\xi_2,\hbar,\mu) -\\ 

3389: h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}{\bar\chi}_{\bar T}(t)

3390: \Gamma _x\bigl ({\bar U}\bigr)\,d\tau\Bigr)\psi(x_2){\bar\psi}_1(x) \varphi(\xi_2)\,dx_1dx_2d\xi_2

3391: \label{3-64}

3392: \end{multline}

3393: where ${\bf e}={\bf e}(x_1,y_1,\tau ; x_2,\xi_2,\hbar,\mu)$ is a Schwartz kernel of the spectral projector, associated with one-dimensional Schr\"odinger operator 

3394: ${\bf a}={\bf a}(x_2,\xi_2,\hbar,\mu)$ which is obtained from $A$ by replacement $hD_2\mapsto \xi_2$ and subsequent change of variables $x_1\mapsto x_1/{\bar\gamma}$ but not setting $\sigma=\phi=1$, $V=W$ and $U=U(x_1,y_1,t;x_2,\xi_2,\hbar,\mu)$ is a corresponding propagator, i.e. Schwartz kernel of $e^{i\hbar^{-1}t{\bf a}}$.

3395: Here and below $Q=\psi(x_2)\varphi(\xi_2)$ denotes partition element.

3396: 

3397: However after summation over $x_1$-partition remembering that as $|x_1|\ge C$

3398: on $\supp {\bar\psi}_1$ we get negligible terms, we can replace ${\bar\psi}_1$ by $1$ thus arriving to

3399: \begin{multline}

3400: \cE^\MW_{\corr,Q} = 

3401: \int \Bigl( (2\pi h)^{-1}{\bf n}(0;x_2,\xi_2,\hbar,\mu) -\\ 

3402: h^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^0 F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}{\bar\chi}_{\bar T}(t)

3403:  \Gamma '\bigl ({\bar U}\bigr)\,d\tau \Bigr)\psi(x_2) 

3404: \varphi(\xi_2)\, dx_2d\xi_2

3405: \label{3-65}

3406: \end{multline}

3407: with ${\bf n}$   eigenvalue counting function associated with the same operator ${\bf a}$; I remind that $\Gamma'$ includes integration with respect to $x_1$.

3408: 

3409: Without the last term formula (\ref{3-64}) delivers the correct principal part of asymptotics which after summation over all partitions (including non-periodic and outer zones) is

3410: \begin{equation}

3411: (2\pi h)^{-1}\int    {\bf e}(x_1,x_1,0;x_2,\xi_2,\hbar,\mu) \psi(x_2) \psi_1(x_1)\,dx_1dx_2d\xi_2

3412: \label{3-66}

3413: \end{equation}

3414: which as we show in the next section is a correct answer without condition (\ref{2-103}) as well.

3415: 

3416: \smallskip

3417: However, I would like to replace the reference to operator ${\bf a}$ by the reference to operator ${\bf a}_0$. To do this I need the following

3418: 

3419: 

3420: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-18}  Let condition $(\ref{2-103})$ be fulfilled. Let $\rho \ge C\rho^*_0$. Then

3421: 

3422: \smallskip

3423: \noindent

3424: (i) Eigenvalues $\lambda_n$ of ${\bf a}$  satisfy inequality

3425: \begin{equation}

3426: |\nabla _{x_2,\xi_2}\lambda_n|\asymp \rho

3427: \label{3-67}

3428: \end{equation}

3429: as  $|\lambda_n|\le \epsilon \rho^2$;

3430: 

3431: \smallskip

3432: \noindent

3433: (ii) As $\rho \ge C{\bar\gamma}$ 

3434: \begin{align}

3435: &|\lambda_n(x_2,\xi_2) -\lambda^0_n(x_2,\xi_2)|\le C {\bar\gamma}^2\qquad 

3436: &&\nu \text{ is even},\label{3-68}\\

3437: &|\lambda_n(x_2,\xi_2) -\lambda^0_n(x_2,\xi_2)-\beta (x_2,\xi_2)\xi_2 |\le C {\bar\gamma}^2, \quad |\beta|\le C{\bar\gamma}\qquad 

3438: &&\nu \text{ is odd},\label{3-69}

3439: \end{align}

3440: where $\lambda^0_n$ are corresponding eigenvalues of ${\bf a}_0$.

3441: \end{proposition}

3442: 

3443: \begin{proof} Note that ${\bf a}={\bf a}_0 + t{\bf a}'$ with ${\bf a}'$ bounded 

3444: by $C{\bar\gamma}\bigl({\bf a}+C_0\bigr)$ and $t=1$ therefore due to Rellich decomposition one needs to prove that 

3445: $|\partial_t \lambda^t_n|\le C{\bar\gamma}^2$ as $t=0$. As $\nu$ is even eigenfunctions $\Upsilon_n$ of ${\bf a}_0$ are either even or odd and therefore $\langle {\bf a}'_{{\rm odd}} \Upsilon _n,\Upsilon_n\rangle =0$ while

3446: $|\langle {\bf a}'_{{\rm even}} \Upsilon _n,\Upsilon_n\rangle |\le C{\bar\gamma}^2$.

3447: 

3448: Consider odd $\nu$. Then $k^*_\hbar=0$ just due to symmetry and the above arguments are applicable for $k=0$. On the other hand 

3449: $\lambda_n \equiv \lambda_{n,\text{sc}}$, 

3450: $\lambda^0_n \equiv \lambda^0_{n,\text{sc}}$ $\mod O\bigl(h^2\bigr)$ with semiclassical expressions $ \lambda_{n,\text{sc}}$, $\lambda^0_{n,\text{sc}}$ and we need to prove (\ref{3-69}) for these expressions; due to analyticity etc these equalities are true as ${\bar\gamma}\ge Ch|\log h|$ i.e. in our assumptions. Since $\lambda^t_{n,\text{sc}}$ is analytic with respect to $\hbar, t,\xi_2$, coincides with $\lambda^0_{n,\text{sc}}$ modulo $O({\bar\gamma})$ 

3451: and also coincides with $\lambda^0_{n,\text{sc}}$ modulo $O({\bar\gamma}^2)$ as $\xi_2=0$, we get (\ref{3-69}).

3452: \end{proof}

3453: 

3454: I want to remind that also 

3455: \begin{equation}

3456: \cE^\MW_{\corr, Q}=

3457: h^{-1}\int \Bigl(\int_{-\infty}^0 F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}

3458: \bigl({\bar\chi}_T (t)-{\bar\chi}_{\bar T}(t)\bigr) \Gamma ' ({\bar U})\,d\tau\Bigr)

3459: \varphi(\xi_2)\psi(x_2)\,dx_2d\xi_2

3460: \label{3-70}

3461: \end{equation}

3462: and one can rewrite it as the sum of

3463: \begin{equation}

3464: T^{-1}\int \Bigl(\int_{-\infty}^0 F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}

3465: {\check\chi}(t) \Gamma ' ({\bar U})\,d\tau\Bigr)

3466: \varphi(\xi_2)\psi(x_2)\,dx_2d\xi_2.

3467: \label{3-71}

3468: \end{equation}

3469: 

3470: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-19} In frames of proposition \ref{prop-3-18}

3471: as $h^{-\nu/2}\le \mu \le h^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-K}$

3472: 

3473: \smallskip

3474: \noindent

3475: (i) With an error not exceeding $C\rho {\bar\gamma} h^{-1}$ one can replace in the right-hand expressions of $(\ref{3-70})$ ${\bar U}$ by ${\bar U}_0$ associated with operator ${\bf a}_0(x_2,\xi_2,\hbar)$; therefore in  $(\ref{3-65})$ one can replace ${\bf n}$  by ${\bf n}_0$ and simultaneously ${\bar U}$ by ${\bar U}_0$;

3476: 

3477: \smallskip

3478: \noindent

3479: (ii) $|\cE^\MW_{\corr,I} |\le C{\bar\gamma}^{-1}$ and this estimate cannot be improved unless $V(0,x_2)$ has no critical points. In particular, as $\mu\le C h^{-\nu/2}$ and only then one can skip $\cE^\MW_\corr$ without deteriorating remainder estimate $C{\bar\gamma}h^{-1}$.

3480: \end{proposition}

3481: 

3482:  \begin{proof}  I remind that under condition (\ref{2-103})  the contribution of the partition element to the correction term does not exceed $Ch^{-1}\rho^2|\log h|^K$. Then running successive approximation method with unperturbed operator  ${\bf a}_0$ and using proposition \ref{prop-3-18} one can see easily that each next term gains factor 

3483:  $C\rho  {\bar \gamma}\times T_0 /h= C\rho ^{-1}{\bar \gamma}|\log h|$

3484:  and thus the error does not exceed

3485: \begin{equation*}

3486:  Ch^{-1}\rho^2|\log h|^K \times \rho ^{-1}{\bar \gamma}|\log h|= Ch^{-1} \rho {\bar\gamma}|\log h|^K

3487: \end{equation*}

3488: and summation over partition results in 

3489: $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma} {\bar\rho}_1|\log h|^{K+2}\ll h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$. 

3490: 

3491: Then (ii) follows from (i) and the calculations similar to those of the previous subsection. I leave easy details to the reader.

3492: \end{proof}

3493: 

3494: Then we arrive to

3495: 

3496: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-20} Under conditions $(\ref{2-103})$ as

3497: $h^{-\nu/2}\le \mu \le h^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-K}$ 

3498: 

3499: \smallskip

3500: \noindent

3501: (i) Asymptotics 

3502: \begin{equation}

3503: \int e(x,x,0)\psi (x)\,dx \equiv \int \cE_\corr^\MW (x)\psi (x)\,dx +

3504: \int \cE^\MW (x_2)\psi(x_2)\,dx_2 \quad \mod O\bigl(h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}\bigr)

3505: \label{3-72}

3506: \end{equation}

3507: holds with $\cE^\MW_\corr$ defined by $(\ref{3-42})$;

3508: 

3509: \smallskip

3510: \noindent

3511: (ii) Moreover, with 

3512: $O\bigl(h^{-1}\hbar^{3/2}+{\bar\gamma}_1^{-1} \bigr)$-error one can replace $\cE^\MW_\corr$ by expression $(\ref{3-57})$ and with $O\bigl({\bar\gamma}_1^{-1} \bigr)$-error one can replace $\cE^\MW_\corr$ by  expression \ref{3-52-*} modified in the same way.

3513: \end{proposition}

3514: 

3515: \subsection{Periodic orbits. III. General settings (continuation)}

3516: 

3517: Let us consider more general settings. Then,  as I have shown in the previous subsection, for any regular partition element described in subsection 2.9 its contribution to the correction term does not exceed $Ch^{-1}\ell\rho |\log h|^K$ (where actually $K$ should be equal to 1).

3518: 

3519: Let us consider a successive approximation method with unperturbed operator obtained by fixing $x_2=y_2$ in the coefficients. Again as before $|x_2-y_2|$

3520: does not exceed $C(\rho T_0 + {\bar\gamma})$ and  perturbation is $(x_2-y_2)B$

3521: with $B=(\partial_{x_2}A|_{x_2=z_2}$ calculated at some point $z_2$ of the same partition element (containing both $y_2$ and $x_2$) and thus can be estimated by $C\zeta$; thus the perturbation is estimated by 

3522: $C\zeta (\rho T_0 + {\bar\gamma})$ and the contribution of the second term to the correction term is estimated by

3523: 

3524: \begin{multline}

3525: Ch^{-1}\rho\ell |\log h|^K\times \zeta\bigl(\rho  T_0 +{\bar\gamma}\bigr)\times T_0/h \le \\

3526: C\ell \zeta \Bigl(\rho^2  (\rho^2+\zeta\ell)^{-2} + h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}\rho (\rho^2+\zeta\ell)^{-1}\Bigr) |\log h|^{K+2} \le \\

3527: C\Bigl(1+ h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}\rho\Bigr)|\log h|^{K+2}\le 

3528: Ch^{-{\frac 1 2}}{\bar\gamma}^{\frac 1 2}|\log h|^{K+3}

3529: \label{3-73}

3530: \end{multline}

3531: as $T_0=Ch(\rho^2+\zeta\ell)^{-1}|\log h|$. 

3532: 

3533: This was a contribution of the regular $(\ell,\rho)$-element. This element was actually a subelement of some more rough element and then the contribution of this larger element would be a sum over finer subpartition. So in frames of subsection 2.9 as long as we use nondegeneracy condition \ref{2-105} contribution of this larger element would be 

3534: $Ch^{-{\frac 1 2}}{\bar\gamma}^{\frac 1 2}|\log h|^{K+4}$ as well. Continue this process  until the very top we get 

3535: $Ch^{-{\frac 1 2}}{\bar\gamma}^{\frac 1 2}|\log h|^{2K}$ with 

3536: $\ell_m\asymp 1$ thus resulting in $C|\log h|^K$. So, under nondegeneracy condition \ref{2-105} we arrive to a proper error estimate $O\bigl(h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}\bigr)$ as 

3537: $\mu \le h^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-N\nu}$.

3538: 

3539: On the other hand, without nondegeneracy condition \ref{2-105} we still have this condition fulfilled until the very top when we join regular elements to $B(0,1)$; then we arrive to the error estimate $O\bigl(h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+h^{-\delta}\bigr)$ with arbitrarily small exponent $\delta>0$.

3540: 

3541: On the other hand contribution of the irregular elements to the correction terms are less than $C|\log h|^K$, $Ch^{-\delta}$ with/without non-degeneracy condition \ref{2-105} respectively.

3542: 

3543: Thus we arrive to

3544: 

3545: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-21} Let $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-N}$. Then

3546: 

3547: \smallskip

3548: \noindent

3549: (i) Under nondegeneracy condition \ref{2-105} asymptotics holds with the principal part defined by $(\ref{3-66})$ and the remainder estimate $O\bigl(h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}\bigr)$;

3550: 

3551: \smallskip

3552: \noindent

3553: (ii) Without nondegeneracy condition \ref{2-105} asymptotics holds with the principal part defined by $(\ref{3-66})$ and the remainder estimate $O\bigl(h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+h^{-\delta}\bigr)$.

3554: \end{proposition}

3555: 

3556: Our next step is

3557: 

3558: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-22}\footnote{\label{foot-19} Cf proposition \ref{prop-3-18}}  Let $\rho \ge C{\bar\gamma}$. Then

3559: eigenvalues $\lambda_n$ of ${\bf a}$  satisfy inequalities

3560: \begin{equation}

3561: \rho^{-1}|\nabla _{\xi_2}\lambda_n|+\zeta^{-1}|\nabla _{x_2}\lambda_n| \le C

3562: \label{3-74}

3563: \end{equation}

3564: and $(\ref{3-68}$ or $(\ref{3-69})$ as $|\lambda_n|\le \epsilon \rho^2$.

3565: \end{proposition}

3566: 

3567: \begin{proof}

3568: Proof of (\ref{3-74}) is obvious and (\ref{3-68}),(\ref{3-69}) are already proven.

3569: \end{proof}

3570: 

3571: 

3572: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-23} Let $\mu \le Ch^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-N}$. Then

3573: 

3574: \smallskip

3575: \noindent

3576: (i) Under nondegeneracy condition \ref{2-105} asymptotics $(\ref{3-72}$ holds with the correction term defined by $(\ref{3-42})$ and the remainder estimate $O\bigl(h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}\bigr)$;

3577: 

3578: \smallskip

3579: \noindent

3580: (ii) Without  nondegeneracy condition \ref{2-105} asymptotics $(\ref{3-72}$ holds with the correction term defined by $(\ref{3-42})$ and the remainder estimate $O\bigl(h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}+h^{-\delta}\bigr)$.

3581: 

3582: \smallskip

3583: \noindent

3584: (iii)  Moreover, with 

3585: $O\bigl(h^{-1}\hbar +{\bar\gamma}_1^{-1} \bigr)$-error one can replace $\cE^\MW_\corr$ by expression $(\ref{3-52})$ and with $O\bigl(h^{-1}\hbar^{3/2}+{\bar\gamma}_1^{-1} \bigr)$-, $O\bigl({\bar\gamma}_1^{-1} \bigr)$-error  one can replace $\cE^\MW_\corr$ by  expressions \ref{3-52-*}, \ref{3-52-**} respectively modified in the same way

3586: \footnote{\label{foot-20} Surely under condition \ref{2-104} better estimates  (depending on $m$) holds.}.

3587: \end{proposition}

3588: 

3589: 

3590: \begin{proof} I remind that contribution of the regular $(\ell,\rho)$ partition element to the correction term is $O\bigl( h^{-1}\rho\ell\bigr)$.

3591: For even $\nu$ application of the successive approximation method brings in every step factor 

3592: $C{\bar\gamma}^2\times T_0/h =C{\bar\gamma}^2\rho^{-2}|\log h|$ and the contribution of the second term is 

3593: $O\bigl(h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}^2\rho ^{-1}\ell |\log h| \bigr)$. Then summation over partition with $\rho \ge {\bar\rho}_0=C{\bar\gamma}|\log h|^N$ results in $O\bigl(h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}^2 {\bar\rho}_0^{-1}|\log h|^K\bigr)= O\bigl(h^{-1}{\bar\gamma}\bigr)$. 

3594: 

3595: For odd $\nu$ application of the successive approximation method brings in every step factor $C{\bar\gamma}\rho^{-1}|\log h|$ and all above estimates remain true for the third term in successive approximations and even for the the second term with the single exception of its part which is of magnitude 

3596: $O\bigl(h^{-1} {\bar\gamma}\ell |\log h|\bigr)$ and which emerges from the linear with respect to $\xi_2$ term in formula (\ref{3-69}). One can see easily that this exceptional term becomes 0 after integration with respect to $\xi_2$.

3597: 

3598: Now in the both cases one needs to look at contribution of zone $\{|\xi_2-k^*_\hbar|\le {\bar\rho}_0\}$ which is $O(h^{-1}{\bar\rho}_0L)$ where $L$ is the total length of the corresponding $x_2$ intervals and thus is $O(h^{-1}{\bar\gamma})$ under condition \ref{2-105}; otherwise it has a superficial logarithmic factor we need to get rid of.

3599: 

3600: When looking at such narrow zone due to above arguments one can skip all the $O(\rho^3)$ terms in $\lambda_n-\lambda^0_n$ and thus we can assume with no loss of the generality that both $\lambda_n$ and $\lambda^0_n$ are quadratic forms with respect to $\eta=\xi_2-k^*_\hbar$ and ${\bar\gamma}$ with coinciding coefficient at $\eta^2$ and after obvious transformations we can assume\footnote{\label{foot-21}This assumption is valid only if we are interested in the difference of correction terms.} that 

3601: $\lambda^0_n= \varkappa \eta^2 +\varkappa_0$, 

3602: $\lambda_n= \varkappa \eta^2 +\varkappa_1$ with $\varkappa_1-\varkappa_0=O({\bar\gamma}^2)$.  Then we can take integration with respect to  $\xi_2$ all over $\bR$. But then both correction terms would be of the form $c_1 h^{-1}\hbar ^{1/2} G (c_2+ c_3 \varkappa _j/\hbar)$ with $j=1,2$ and equal coefficients $c_k$, $k=1,2,3$; since $G\in C^{1/2}$  the difference does not exceed $Ch^{-1}\hbar ^{1/2}\times ({\bar\gamma}^2/\hbar)^{1/2}= Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$. 

3603: \end{proof}

3604: 

3605: 

3606: Thus all main theorems are proven as $\mu \le h^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-K}$.

3607: 

3608: 

3609: 

3610: \sect{Superstrong Magnetic Field}

3611: 

3612: In this section I assume  that $\mu$ is close to $h^{-\nu}$; more precisely I assume first that 

3613: \begin{equation}

3614:  h^{\delta -\nu}\le \mu \le \epsilon h^{-\nu}

3615:  \label{4-1}

3616: \end{equation}

3617: with very small exponent $\delta>0$ constant $\epsilon$ and I leave the case $\epsilon h^{-\nu}\le \mu\le C_0h^{-\nu}$ for subsection 4.5. Under assumption (\ref{4-1})  parameter $\hbar=h/{\bar\gamma}$ is small but not very small: 

3618: $h^\delta \le \hbar\ll 1$. Moreover, as 

3619: $\hbar \ge \epsilon |\log h|^{-1}$ variable $x_1$ is no more microlocal.

3620: 

3621: I am going to consider operator in frames of pdo theory with operator valued symbols in the axillary space $\bH=L^2(\bR)$ with inner product $\blangle.,.\brangle$ and norm $\bv .\bv$. 

3622: 

3623: \subsection{Outer zone}

3624: 

3625: Propagation estimates in the outer zone are basically done: as 

3626: $\mu \le \epsilon h^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-\nu}$ I  already proved that the propagation trace $F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}\chi_T(t)\Gamma (\psi Qu)$ is negligible  as $T\in [T_0,T_1]$ with $T_0= Ch|\log h|$ and  

3627: $T_1=\epsilon' \rho $, where $\psi=\psi(x_2)$ and $Q=Q(hD_2)$ with $\rho\le |\xi_2|\le 2\rho$ on the support of $Q$ and 

3628: $C\le \rho \le C\bigl(\mu h^\nu\bigr)^{-1/(\nu -1)}$. Further, as 

3629: $\rho \ge C\bigl(\mu h^\nu\bigr)^{-1/(\nu -1)}$ the standard ellipticity arguments imply that the propagation trace is negligible even as $\chi_T(t)$ is replaced by ${\bar\chi}_T(t)$.

3630: 

3631: Also I proved that as $\epsilon h^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-\nu}\le \mu \le C h^{-\nu}$

3632: propagation trace  $F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}\chi_T(t)\Gamma (\psi Qu)$ is negligible  as $T\in [T_0,T_1]$ with the same $T_0,T_1$ and $C\le \rho \le C|\log h|^\nu$ 

3633: while ellipticity arguments work as $\rho \ge C|\log h|^\nu$. 

3634: 

3635: But then one can prove estimate 

3636: \begin{equation}

3637: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}{\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma (\psi Qu)|\le 

3638: Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma }\rho^{1/\nu}|\log h|

3639: \label{4-2}

3640: \end{equation}

3641: which is ``almost perfect'':  the problem here lies only with the logarithmic factor.

3642: 

3643: 

3644: To improve  estimate (\ref{4-2}) let us  launch launch successive approximation method, fixing in the coefficients of unperturbed operator $x_2=y_2$ as usual and also fixing $x_1=0$ there but not in $\mu x_1^\nu/\nu$. Then one can estimate easily the final contribution of the first term  by the same

3645: $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma }\rho^{1/\nu}|\log h|$ as before and also estimate by $C$ contribution of all other terms. Therefore \emph{in the estimate part  only the first term should be counted}.  But then one need to consider

3646: \begin{equation}

3647: h^{-1}\int \Bigl(F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} \bigl(\Gamma' U(t;\xi_2)\bigr)\Bigr)Q(\xi_2)\,dx_2d\xi_2

3648: \label{4-3}

3649: \end{equation}

3650: where 

3651: \begin{equation}

3652: U=U(x_1,y_1,t;x_2,\xi_2)=\sum_n e^{ih^{-1}\lambda_n(x_2,\xi_2,\hbar)t}\Upsilon_n(x_1;x_2,\xi_2,\hbar)

3653: \Upsilon_n(y_1;x_2,\xi_2,\hbar)

3654: \label{4-4}

3655: \end{equation}

3656: is a propagator for 1-dimensional operator which after change of variable $x_1\mapsto x_1/{\bar\gamma}$ is just ${\bf a}_0={\bf a}_0(x_2,\xi_2,\hbar)$. In the below arguments let us skip integration over $x_2$ and $x_2$ in notations . So, $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ are just eigenvalues of 

3657: ${\bf a}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)$ and $\Upsilon_n (x_1;\xi_2,\hbar)$ are orthonormalized eigenfunctions. Plugging (\ref{4-4}) into (\ref{4-3}) I arrive to 

3658: \begin{equation}

3659:  \sum_n h^{-1}T\int

3660: {\hat{\bar\chi}}\Bigl({\frac T h}\bigl(\tau -\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)\bigr)\Bigr)

3661: Q(\xi_2)\,d\xi_2

3662: \label{4-5}

3663: \end{equation}

3664: and in the case of even $\nu$ I will consider separately sums with respect to eigenvalues corresponding to eigenfunctions odd and even with respect to $x_1$.

3665: 

3666: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-1} As $\hbar\ll 1$ eigenvalues $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ of 

3667: ${\bf a}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)$ have the following properties as $|\xi_2|\ge C_1$:

3668: 

3669: \smallskip

3670: \noindent

3671: (i) $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar) \ge \Delta \Def 

3672: \epsilon_0\hbar |\xi_2|^{(\nu -1)/\nu}-C_0$;

3673: 

3674: \smallskip

3675: \noindent

3676: (ii) For even $\nu$ and $\xi_2\le -\epsilon$ all eigenvalues are larger than $C_0\epsilon^2$;

3677: 

3678: \smallskip

3679: \noindent

3680: (iii) Spacing between two consecutive eigenvalues\footnote{\label{foot-22} As $\nu$ is even I consider two series of eigenvalues separately: those with even with respect to $x_1$ eigenfunctions and those with odd eigenfunctions.} $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ and $\lambda_{n+1}(\xi_2,\hbar)$ belonging to interval $(-\epsilon_0,\epsilon_0)$ is not less than $\Delta$; 

3681: 

3682: \smallskip

3683: \noindent

3684: (iv) Also for these eigenvalues 

3685: \begin{equation}

3686: C_0\ge \xi_2\partial_{\xi_2}\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)\ge \epsilon_0,

3687: \label{4-6}

3688: \end{equation}

3689: \end{proposition}

3690: 

3691: \begin{proof} Proof of (i)-(iii)  follows from Bohr-Sommerfeld theory with the semiclassical parameter $h'=\hbar\rho^{(\nu-1)/\nu}$ when it is small enough. 

3692: Note that zone $\{|x_1|\le \epsilon {\bar\gamma}\rho^{1/\nu}\}$ is classically forbidden with the smaller parameter $h''=\hbar/\rho$.

3693: 

3694:  The easiest way to prove (\ref{4-6}) is to note that propagation results of subsection 2.2 basically are equivalent to these inequalities as 

3695:  $\mu \le \epsilon h^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-\nu}$; however this condition could be replaced just by $\hbar\le \epsilon'$ because $e_0(x_1,y_1,.,.)$ depends  on $\hbar$, $\xi_2$ rather than $\mu, h$ separately.

3696: \end{proof}

3697: 

3698: Let us consider (\ref{4-5}). Since ${\hat{\bar\chi}}$ is fast-decaying at infinity, each term in (\ref{4-5}) does not exceed

3699: \begin{equation*}

3700: h^{-1}T\int \bigl(1+ T|\tau-\lambda_n(\xi_2)|h^{-1}\bigr)^{-s}\,d\xi_2 \asymp

3701: \rho

3702: \end{equation*}

3703: due to (\ref{4-6}); on the other hand the number of terms in (\ref{4-5}) does not exceed $C\Delta^{-1}\asymp \hbar^{-1}\rho^{(1-\nu)/\nu}$. Therefore 

3704: 

3705: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-2}As $\hbar\ll 1$ and $\rho\ge C$ expression $(\ref{4-5})$ does not exceed $C\hbar^{-1}\rho^{1/\nu}$.

3706: \end{proposition}

3707: 

3708: So, I got rid of the logarithmic factor in (\ref{4-2}). Then dividing by $T_1=\epsilon \rho$  I conclude that the contribution of this partition element $Q$ to the remainder estimate does not exceed $C\hbar^{-1}\rho^{(1-\nu)/\nu}$. After integration over $d\rho/\rho$ I conclude that  the contribution of the whole outer zone to the remainder estimate does not exceed $C\hbar^{-1}=Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$. So I arrive to 

3709: 

3710: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-3} Under condition $(\ref{4-1})$ contribution of the outer zone $\cZ_\out=\{|\xi_2|\ge C\}$ to the remainder estimate does not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$.

3711: \end{proposition}

3712: 

3713: 

3714: \subsection{Inner zone. I. Estimates}

3715: 

3716: So far I have no results in this zone 

3717: $\cZ_\inn=\{|\xi_2|\le C_0\}$ as $\mu \ge \epsilon h^{-\nu}|\log h|^{-\nu}$. Thus  I cannot even refer to operator ${\bf a}_0$ directly. However let us start from the properties of ${\bf a}_0={\bf a}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)$ with potential $V=1$. Let us first to move through $\xi_2=1$ or $\xi_2=\pm 1$ for even/odd $\nu$ respectively.

3718: 

3719: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-4} Let $\hbar \le \epsilon$ and 

3720: $1-\epsilon\le |\xi_2 |\le C_0$ with small enough constant $\epsilon >0$. Then 

3721: operator ${\bf a}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)$ is microhyperbolic with respect to $\xi_2$ on energy level $0$; more precisely

3722: \begin{equation}

3723: \xi_2 \blangle \partial_{\xi_2}{\bf a}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)v,v\rangle \ge 

3724: \epsilon \bv v\bv^2 - C\hbar^{-r}\bv{\bf a}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)v\bv^2

3725: \qquad \qquad \forall v\in D({\bf a}_0)

3726: \label{4-7}

3727: \end{equation}

3728: with large enough exponent $r$.

3729: \end{proposition}

3730: 

3731: 

3732: \begin{proof} Let us consider $\xi_2\ge 1-\epsilon$ in the both cases; case 

3733: $\xi_2\le -1+\epsilon$ and odd $\nu$ is treated due to the symmetry. It is sufficient to prove (\ref{4-7}) for $v\in 

3734: \bigl({\bf E}(\xi_2,\hbar; \epsilon \hbar^r)-

3735: {\bf E}(\xi_2,\hbar; -\epsilon\hbar^r)\bigr)\bH$ where ${\bf E}(\xi_2,\hbar;\lambda,\hbar)$ is the spectral projector of 

3736: ${\bf a}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)$. Then the standard WKB approach implies that for any $v$ described above with 

3737: $\bv v\bv =1$ and $\varepsilon >0$ one can approximate $v$ by WKB solution as $x_1>\varepsilon$:

3738: $\bv v - w\bv_{\{x_1\ge \epsilon_1\}} \le C\hbar ^{r-2}$ where $w$ is a WKB solution constructed for $\lambda=0$, $C=C(\epsilon_1)$, and 

3739: $\bv w\bv_{\{x_1\ge \epsilon_1\}} \le 2$. Then 

3740: \begin{equation*}

3741: |w|^2 = \varkappa \Bigl( {\frac 1 {\sqrt{1-(\xi_2-x_1^\nu/\nu)^2}}}-o(1)\Bigr)

3742: \end{equation*}

3743: with $0\le \varkappa \le c$.

3744: 

3745: 

3746: Then, from explicit the WKB calculations it follows that 

3747: \begin{equation*}

3748: \blangle \partial_{\xi_2}{\bf a}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)w,w\rangle_{\{x_1\ge \varepsilon\}} = \const \Bigl(\int_\varepsilon^{b(\xi_2)}  {\frac {(\xi_2-x_1^\nu/\nu)\, dx_1}{\sqrt{1-(\xi_2-x_1^\nu/\nu)^2}}}-o(1)\Bigr)\ge 

3749: 3\epsilon \bv w\bv_{\{x_1\ge \varepsilon\}} ^2\end{equation*}

3750: {and therefore}

3751: \begin{equation}

3752: \blangle \partial_{\xi_2}{\bf a}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)v,v\rangle_{\{x_1\ge 

3753: \varepsilon \}} \ge 

3754: 2\epsilon \bv v\bv_{\{x_1\ge \varepsilon \}} ^2 -C\hbar^{r-2}.

3755: \label{4-8}

3756: \end{equation}

3757: The last inequality holds for domain $\{x_1\le -\varepsilon \}$ as well because it is either classically forbidden (for odd $\nu$) or just due to symmetry (for even $\nu$). Furthermore (\ref{4-8}) obviously holds for domain 

3758: $\{|x_1|\le \varepsilon \}$. After summation I arrive to (\ref{4-8}) with integration over $\bR\ni x_1$.

3759: 

3760: Easy details linked to WKB calculations I leave to the reader. 

3761: \end{proof}

3762: 

3763: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-5} $\hbar \le \hbar_0(\epsilon_0)$.  

3764: 

3765: \medskip

3766: \noindent

3767: (a) Further, let  $\nu $ be even. Then

3768: 

3769: \smallskip

3770: \noindent

3771: (i) As $1+\epsilon \le  \xi_2\le C_0$ spacing between eigenvalues\footnote{\label{foot-23} In this proposition I consider only eigenvalues belonging to $[-\epsilon, \epsilon]$.} $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ and $\lambda_{n+1}(\xi_2,\hbar)$ (since $\nu$ is even I separate two series of eigenvalues; see footnote $^{\ref{foot-22}}$) is at least $\epsilon \hbar $ where here and below $\epsilon$ is a small positive constant;

3772: 

3773: \smallskip

3774: \noindent

3775: (ii) As $\epsilon_0\le \xi_2 \le 1-\epsilon_0$ spacing between eigenvalues $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ and $\lambda_{n+1}(\xi_2,\hbar)$ (I do not separate two series of eigenvalues anymore) is at least $\epsilon \hbar$;

3776: 

3777: \smallskip

3778: \noindent

3779: (iii) As $| \xi_2 |\le \epsilon_0$ spacing between eigenvalues $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ and $\lambda_{n+1}(\xi_2,\hbar)$  is at least 

3780: $\epsilon \hbar^{2\nu/(\nu+1)}$;

3781: 

3782: \medskip

3783: \noindent

3784: (b) On the other hand, let $\nu$ be odd. Then

3785: 

3786: \smallskip

3787: \noindent

3788: (iv) As $1+\epsilon \le  |\xi_2|\le C_0$ spacing between eigenvalues $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ and $\lambda_{n+1}(\xi_2,\hbar)$  is at least 

3789: $\epsilon \hbar $;

3790: 

3791: \smallskip

3792: \noindent

3793: (v) As $|\xi_2 |\le 1-\epsilon_0$ spacing between eigenvalues $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ and $\lambda_{n+1}(\xi_2,\hbar)$  is at least 

3794: $\epsilon \hbar$.

3795: \end{proposition}

3796: 

3797: 

3798: \begin{proof} All cases but (iii) follow easily from the standard WKB method. Moreover, (iii) follows from the standard WKB method and rescaling.

3799: \end{proof}

3800: 

3801: So spacing between eigenvalues is rather large - larger than  $\epsilon \hbar^2$ (as $\hbar^2\ge h^{-\delta}$) and therefore their derivatives of order $\alpha$ could be estimated by $C_\alpha\hbar^{-2\alpha}$. Further, $|\partial_{\xi_2,\hbar}\lambda_n(\xi_2)|$ is bounded.

3802: 

3803: Then decomposing $u(x,y,t)$ into $\Upsilon_n(x_1/{\bar\gamma};hD_2,\hbar)$\,\footnote{\label{foot-24} Where $\Upsilon_n(x_1,\xi_2,\hbar)$ are eigenfunctions of ${\bf a}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)$.} which are functions of $x_1$ but also $h$-pdo theory with respect to $x_2$ 

3804: \begin{equation}

3805: u(x,y,t)\equiv \sum_{n,l}{\bar\gamma}^{-1}

3806: \Upsilon_n\bigl({\frac {x_1}{\bar\gamma}};hD_{x_2},\hbar\bigr) u_{n l}(x_2,y_2,t)

3807: \Upsilon_l\bigl({\frac {y_1}{\bar\gamma}};hD_{y_2},\hbar\bigr)^\dag

3808: \label{4-9}

3809: \end{equation}

3810: one can rewrite the basic equation $(hD_t-A)u=0$ as a system

3811: \begin{align}

3812: &\Bigl(hD_t -\Lambda_n(x_2,hD_2,\hbar) \Bigr) u_{nl}\equiv\sum_k \cB_{kl}u_{kl},\label{4-10}\\

3813: &\Lambda_n(x_2,hD_2,\hbar)=\lambda_n(hD_2,\hbar) - {\frac 1 2}W(x_2)+{\frac 1 2}

3814: \label{4-11}

3815: \end{align}

3816: with operators $\cB_{kl}$ estimated by $Ch \hbar^{-K}$ where I increase $K$ if needed.

3817: 

3818: Let us  consider $\epsilon \hbar^2$-sized intervals with respect to $x_2$ and $\tau$.  On each such interval  at most one of operators $hD_t -\Lambda_n(x_2,hD_2,\hbar)$ fails to be elliptic there (with the ellipticity constant $\epsilon \hbar^2$). There is one exception: if $\nu$ is even and $\xi_2\ge 1-\epsilon$ ``odd'' and ``even'' eigenvalues\footnote{\label{foot-25} I.e. eigenvalues corresponding to eigenfunctions even or odd with respect to $x_1$} could be pretty close to one another and then there are at most two such operators with numbers $n$ and $n+1$ (I cannot separate eigenvalues anymore; $n$ corresponds to even eigenfunctions and $(n+1)$ to odd ones).

3819: 

3820: Let $n$ be such exceptional number.

3821: Then one can rewrite system (\ref{4-10}) either as a single equation

3822: \begin{equation}

3823: \Bigl(hD_t -\Lambda_n(x_2,hD_2,\hbar)  - \cB'_{n}\Bigr) u_{nl}\equiv 0

3824: \label{4-12}

3825: \end{equation}

3826: where $u_{kn}$ with $k\ne n$ are expressed via $u_{nl}$ and 

3827: $\cB'_n \equiv \cB_{nn}$ modulo operators not exceeding $h^2\hbar^{-K}$, or as a $2\times2$-system with $\Lambda_n$ replaced by 

3828: $\begin{pmatrix}\Lambda_n &0\\ 0&\Lambda_{n+1}\end{pmatrix}$ and with $2\times2$ matrix operator $\cB'_n$.

3829: 

3830: 

3831: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-6} In frames of proposition \ref{prop-4-5} 

3832: \;$\pm \partial_{\xi_2}\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)\ge \epsilon_1$\; as long as 

3833: $\pm (\xi_2-k^*)\ge\epsilon_0$ and 

3834: $|\lambda_n(\xi_2)|\le \epsilon_1$.

3835: \end{proposition}

3836: 

3837: \begin{proof} Proof immediately follows from Bohr-Sommerfeld approximation for $\lambda_n$.

3838: \end{proof}

3839: 

3840: So far propositions \ref{prop-4-5}, \ref{prop-4-6} were proven for $W=1$ but they obviously hold for any $W\ge \epsilon $ with the critical values $\pm 1, k^*$ replaced by $\pm W^{1/2}$, $k^*W^{1/2}$ respectively. Then one can easily recover all the results similar to those of subsection 2.3 and thus one can set $T_1=\epsilon$, $T_0=C\hbar^{-r}h|\log h|$ in inner but not periodic zone 

3841: $\cZ_\inn\setminus\cZ_\per=\{\epsilon_0\le |\xi_2-k^*W^{\frac 1 2}|\le C_0\}$. These propagation results imply immediately estimate

3842: \begin{equation*}

3843: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}{\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma (Q\psi u)|\le 

3844: C\hbar^{-r}h^{-1-\delta M} {\bar\gamma}|\log h|\le Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}.

3845: \end{equation*}

3846: However one can  engage the  successive approximation method as in subsection 4.1 (with $\rho=1$ now); then one needs to consider only the first term of it  and following arguments of subsection 4.1 one can see easily that  

3847: $|F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}{\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma (Q\psi u)|\le Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$. Thus estimate immediately leads to 

3848: 

3849: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-7} For fixed $\epsilon_0$ contribution of zone $\cZ_\inn\setminus\cZ_\per=\{\epsilon_0\le |\xi_2-k^*W^{\frac 1 2}|\le C_0\}$ to the remainder estimate does not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ as $\mu \le \epsilon h^{-\nu}$ with small enough constant $\epsilon=\epsilon (\epsilon_0)$.

3850: \end{proposition}

3851: 

3852: 

3853: 

3854: \subsection{Periodic zone. I. Estimates}

3855: 

3856: Now I need to treat periodic zone 

3857: $\cZ_\per=\{|\xi_2-k^*W^{\frac 1 2}|\le \epsilon_0\}$.

3858: However now I have just one equation due to proposition \ref{prop-4-5} and the construction after it. 

3859: 

3860: We need

3861: 

3862: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-8} Let ${\bf a}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)$ be a model operator with the potential $V=1$ and $\hbar \le \epsilon=\epsilon(\epsilon_0)$. Then

3863: \begin{equation}

3864:  \partial^2_{\xi_2}\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)\ge \epsilon_1\qquad\qquad 

3865:  \forall \xi_2: |\xi_2-k^*|\le \epsilon_0\quad 

3866:  \forall n: |\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)|\le \epsilon.

3867:  \label{4-13}

3868:  \end{equation}

3869: \end{proposition}

3870: 

3871: \begin{proof} Proof follows from Bohr-Sommerfeld approximation and propositions \ref{prop-1-4} and \ref{prop-1-8} for even and odd $\nu$ respectively.

3872: \end{proof}

3873: 

3874: 

3875: 

3876: Now one can apply our standard rescaling technique as in section 3 (but in the simpler form)  with unperturbed operator $\lambda_n(hD_2,\hbar)+{\frac 1 2}-{\frac 1 2}W(x_2)$ leading to

3877: 

3878: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-9} Contribution of zone 

3879: $\cZ_\per=\{ |\xi_2-k^*W^{1/ 2}|\le \epsilon_0\}$ to the remainder estimate does not exceed $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ as non-degeneracy condition \ref{2-105} is fulfilled and $Ch^{-1+\delta}{\bar\gamma}$ otherwise with arbitrarily small exponent $\delta>0$.

3880: \end{proposition}

3881: 

3882: \subsection{Calculations}

3883: 

3884: Now let us apply our standard successive approximation technique as in section 3  with an unperturbed operator 

3885: ${\bf a}_0(hD_2,\hbar)+{\frac 1 2}-{\frac 1 2}W(y_2)$ in the outer and inner non-periodic zones and with an unperturbed operator $\lambda_n(hD_2,\hbar)+{\frac 1 2}-{\frac 1 2}W(y_2)$ in 

3886: the inner periodic zone leading exactly to

3887: 

3888: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-10} Under condition $(\ref{4-1})$ with the remainder estimate  equal to $Ch^{-1}{\bar\gamma}$ as non-degeneracy condition \ref{2-105} is fulfilled and $Ch^{-1+\delta'}{\bar\gamma}$ otherwise with arbitrarily small exponent $\delta'>0$ asymptotics 

3889: \begin{equation}

3890:  \int e(x,x,0)\psi(x_2)\,dx \equiv

3891:  (2\pi h)^{-1}\int {\bf n}_0(x_2,\xi_2,0) \psi(x_2)\, dx_2d\xi_2.

3892: \label{4-14}

3893: \end{equation}

3894: \end{proposition}

3895: 

3896: Since  $\cE^\MW \equiv \cE^\MW_0$ $\mod O(1)$ under condition (\ref{4-1}) this proposition finalize the proof of Theorem \ref{thm-0-1} under condition (\ref{4-1}).

3897: 

3898: 

3899: 

3900: \subsection{Ultra-strong magnetic field}

3901: 

3902: Now we are left with the case 

3903: \begin{equation}

3904: \epsilon  h^{-\nu}\le \mu \le C_0h^{-\nu}

3905: \label{4-15}

3906: \end{equation}

3907: when $\hbar$ is not a small parameter anymore and when all the eigenvalues of ${\bf a}_0(\xi_2,\hbar)$ which are less than $C$ are separated by a small constant.

3908: 

3909: Then one can reduce the analysis to those of 1-dimensional scalar operators $\Lambda_n(x_2,hD_2,\hbar)$ and the problem is that we don't know how $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ depends on $\xi_2$.

3910: 

3911: So far I can prove  unconditionally only

3912: 

3913: 

3914: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-11}

3915: Under condition 

3916: \begin{equation}

3917: |\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar) +{\frac 1 2} -{\frac 1 2}W|+|\partial_{x_2}W|\ge \epsilon_1

3918: \qquad\forall n,\xi_2,x_2

3919: \label{4-16}

3920: \end{equation}

3921: asymptotics $(\ref{4-14})$ holds modulo $O(1)$.

3922: \end{proposition}

3923: 

3924: Note that for even $\nu$ perturbations $\cB_{nn}(x_2,\xi_2)$ are $O(h^2)$ since terms of the order $h$ could appear only from multiplication by $x_1$ in the first power but due to the parity of eigenfunctions these terms are 0. For odd $\nu$ we can conclude that $\cB_{nn}(x_2,\xi_2)=O(h^2)$ as $\xi_2=0$ but I want to make conjecture

3925: 

3926: \begin{equation}

3927: \cB_{nn}(x_2,\xi_2)=O(h^2)\qquad\text{as}\;\partial_{\xi_2}\lambda_n=\partial_{x_2}\lambda_n=0

3928: \label{4-17}

3929: \end{equation}

3930: since I don't know if there are other critical points but $0$. 

3931: 

3932: Then according to  \cite{Ivr1}, section 4.4 the remainder estimate should be $O(1)$ under conditions

3933: \begin{equation}

3934: \sum_{1\le k\le l} |\partial_{\xi_2}^k\lambda_n| \ge \epsilon_1\qquad \forall \xi_2, n

3935: \label{4-18}

3936: \tag*{$(4.18)_l$}

3937: \end{equation}

3938: with $l=2$ and  nondegeneracy condition $(\ref{2-103})$. Further, note that condition \ref{4-18} is fulfilled with some $l$ due to the analyticity of $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)$ with respect to $\xi_2$ and the fact that $\lambda_n(\xi_2,\hbar)\to \infty$ as $|\xi_2|\to \infty$. Then according to  \cite{Ivr1}, section 4.4 remainder estimate   $O(h^{-\delta'})$ in the general case is guaranteed but to avoid contribution of junior symbols into the principal part one should make additional assumptions.

3939: 

3940: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-12} (i) Under conditions $(\ref{4-15}),(\ref{4-17})$, $(4.18)_2$  and $(\ref{2-103})$ asymptotics $(\ref{4-14})$ holds with the remainder estimate $O(1)$.

3941: 

3942: \smallskip

3943: \noindent

3944: (ii) Under conditions $(\ref{4-15}),(\ref{4-17})$ and  $(4.18)_2$  asymptotics $(\ref{4-14})$ holds with the remainder estimate $O(h^{-\delta})$.

3945: \end{proposition}

3946: 

3947: However analysis of to  \cite{Ivr1}, section 4.4 shows that the the remainder estimate must be $O(h^{-\delta})$ under \ref{4-18} with any $l$ and non-degeneracy condition \ref{2-105} with any $m$ but there would be indefinite correction of magnitude $O(h^{2/l+2/m-1})$. Further, under condition $(2.105)_2$ remainder estimate is $O(1)$. Therefore we arrive to

3948: 

3949: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-13} (i)

3950: Under conditions $(\ref{4-15})$, $(\ref{4-17})$, \ref{4-18}  with $l\ge 3$ and $(2.105)_2$  asymptotics $(\ref{4-14})$ holds modulo $O(1)$;

3951: 

3952: \smallskip

3953: \noindent

3954: (ii) Under conditions $(\ref{4-15})$, $(\ref{4-17})$, \ref{4-18}  with $l\ge 3$ and \ref{2-105} with $m\ge 3$  asymptotics $(\ref{4-14})$ holds modulo $O\bigl(h^{2/l+2/m-1}\bigr)$.

3955: \end{proposition}

3956: 

3957: 

3958: 

3959: 

3960: \sect{Generalizations}

3961: 

3962: 

3963: \subsection{Vanishing $V$}

3964: 

3965: We can also generalize all our results to the case of $V$ vanishing:

3966: 

3967: \begin{theorem}\label{thm-5-1} Theorem \ref{thm-0-1} remains true if condition $(\ref{0-2})$ is replaced by

3968: \begin{equation}

3969: |\partial_{x_2}V|\ge \epsilon_0.

3970: \label{5-1}

3971: \end{equation}

3972: \end{theorem}

3973: 

3974: 

3975: \begin{proof} Consider $\ell$-admissible partition with $\ell=\epsilon |V|$.

3976: 

3977: \smallskip

3978: \noindent

3979: (i) First, consider elements on which $\ell \le \epsilon_1 |x_1|$. Then rescaling  $x\mapsto x/\ell$ and diving by $\ell$ we arrive to the situation of non-vanishing magnetic field $\mu_\eff=\mu \gamma_1^{\nu-1} \ell^{1/2}$ with 

3980: $F_\eff = F\gamma^{-\nu}$ and $V_\eff = V\ell^{-1}$ with a parameter 

3981: $\gamma \asymp |x_1|$. 

3982: 

3983: Further, after rescaling

3984: $V_\eff/F_\eff = (V/F) \cdot (\gamma^\nu/\ell)\asymp 1$ and also

3985: $\ell |\nabla V_\eff/F_\eff|\asymp 1$.

3986: 

3987:  To apply ``non-vanishing'' theory with $h_\eff = h\ell^{-3/2}$ and $\mu_\eff$ one must assume that $h_\eff\le 1$, $\mu_\eff\ge 1$ or equivalently

3988: \begin{equation}

3989: \ell \ge C_0\max \bigl(h^{\frac 2 3}, 

3990: (\mu \gamma^{\nu-1})^{-2}\bigr)={\bar\ell}.

3991: \label{5-2}

3992: \end{equation}

3993: Then the  contribution of such element to remainder estimate does not exceed 

3994: $C\mu_\eff^{-1}h_\eff^{-1}=C\mu ^{-1}h^{-1}\ell \gamma ^{1-\nu}$.

3995: 

3996: After summation over partition with fixed  $\gamma$ one gets due to condition (\ref{5-1}) the same expression but with $\ell=\gamma$ i.e.

3997: $C\mu ^{-1}h^{-1}  \gamma ^{2-\nu}$. One must assume that condition (\ref{5-2}) is fulfilled for this top $\ell$, which is equivalent to 

3998: \begin{equation}

3999: \gamma \ge  C_0\max \bigl(h^{\frac 2 3}, \mu^{-2/(2\nu-1)}\bigr)=L.

4000: \label{5-3}

4001: \end{equation}

4002: Then summation over $x_1$-partition satisfying this condition results in 

4003: $\mu^{-1}h^{-1}L^{2-\nu}$ which as one can check easily does not exceed

4004: $C\mu^{-1/\nu}h^{-1}$.

4005: 

4006: \smallskip

4007: \noindent

4008: (ii) One needs also to consider elements satisfying (\ref{5-3}) but not (\ref{5-2}). Let us  unify such elements, so in fact I redefine $\ell$ setting it  $\ell =\epsilon |V|+{\bar\ell}$. Then on  elements with $\ell\asymp {\bar\ell}$ either $\mu_\eff \asymp 1$ or $h_\eff\asymp 1$. In the former case 

4009: the condition of a potential being disjoint from 0 is not needed 

4010: while in the latter case  element in question is  forbidden as 

4011: $\mu_\eff \ge C_1$ and the condition of a potential being disjoint from 0 is not needed again. The contribution to the remainder estimate of of each of these elements is either $C h_\eff^{-1}$ (as $\mu_\eff \asymp 1$) or $C\mu_\eff^{-s}$ (as $h_\eff\asymp 1$)  and in any case it does not exceed 

4012: $C\mu^{-1}_\eff h_\eff $ again.  Repeating summation procedure of (a) one can see that the total contribution of such elements does not exceed $C\mu^{-1/\nu}h^{-1}$.

4013: 

4014: 

4015: So one needs to consider two other types of elements.

4016: 

4017: \smallskip

4018: \noindent 

4019: (iii) Consider first elements on which 

4020: \begin{equation}

4021: |x_1|\le C \ell, \qquad \ell=\epsilon |W|.

4022: \label{5-4}

4023: \end{equation}

4024: Then rescaling $x\mapsto x/\ell$ and dividing by $\ell$ brings us to the frames of our main theory with $\mu_\eff = \mu \ell^{\nu -1/2}$, $h_\eff=h\ell^{-3/2}$ and one must assume that 

4025: \begin{equation}

4026: \ell \ge C_0\max\bigl( h^{\frac 2 3}, \mu ^{-2/(2\nu -1)}\bigr).

4027: \label{5-5}

4028: \end{equation}

4029: Then contribution of each element to the remainder estimate does not exceed $C\mu_\eff^{-1/\nu}h_\eff^{-1}= C\mu^{-1/\nu}h^{-1}\ell^{(\nu+1)/2}$ and the sum over partition results in $C\mu^{-1/\nu}h^{-1}$. The exceptional elements will be covered in the next paragraph.

4030: 

4031: \smallskip

4032: \noindent 

4033: (iv) So, we are left with the analysis of the zone $\{|x_1|+|W|\le L\}$ with $L$ defined by (\ref{5-3}). Due to condition (\ref{5-1}) with no loss of the generality this zone could be replaced by 

4034: $\{|x|\le L\}$. Rescaling $x\mapsto x/L$ and dividing by $L$ we arrive to the same situation as we started but with $h_\eff= hL^{-3/2}$, 

4035: $\mu_\eff = \mu L^{\nu -{\frac 1 2}}$ instead of $h,\mu$ i.e. with either $h_\eff\le 1$, $\mu_\eff\asymp 1$ or with $h_\eff\asymp 1$, $\mu_\eff\ge 1$.

4036: 

4037: In the former case I just refer to the classical theory: contribution of this zone to the remainder estimate does not exceed 

4038: $O\bigl(h_\eff^{-1}=Ch^{-1}L^{3/2}\le Ch^{-1}\mu^{-1/\nu}$. In the latter case contribution of this zone to the whole asymptotics does not exceed $C\mu_\eff^{-s}$ as this zone is ``forbidden''; one can prove it easily going to the axillary space $L^2(\bR_{x_1})$.

4039: \end{proof}

4040: 

4041: \subsection{Remark about higher dimensions}

4042: 

4043: 3-dimensional case is rather boring because the best remainder estimate if magnetic field does not degenerate is $O(h^{-2})$ and applying the standard rescaling arguments one will arrive to $O\bigl(h^{-2}\int \gamma^{-1}\,dx\bigr)$

4044: and in the generic case $\gamma $ is the distance to the finite set, thus resulting in $O(h^{-2})$ again (as $\mu \le h^{-1})$). As $\mu \ge h^{-1}$ and $|F|\asymp \gamma$ the principal part will be of magnitude $h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}_1^3$ and the remainder estimate of magnitude $h^{-2}{\bar\gamma}_1^2$ with ${\bar\gamma}_1=(\mu h)^{-1}$ as $h^{-1}\le \mu \le Ch^{-2}$. One can expect the similar results in higher dimensions too.

4045: 

4046: Even-dimensional case (I will treat it in one of forthcoming papers) is much more interesting but still less than the special 2-dimensional case. First of all as it follows from Martinet \cite{Ma} in the generic case as $d\ge 2$ magnetic matrix $F$ never vanishes and thus $\Tr^+g^{-1}F>0$ (where $\Tr^+g^{-1}F$ is the sum of positive eigenvalues of $ig^{-1}F$ and $g$ is a metrics matrix); therefore unless we replace $V$ by $V+\mu h\Tr^+F$ the principal part will be just 0 and the remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-s})$ as $\mu\ge Ch^{-1}$ thus cutting us from the case in which one expects the periodic zone to be important.

4047: 

4048: Canonical form of $F$ in the generic case is known due to \cite{Ma} and Roussarie; first of all if $f_1$ is the smallest positive eigenvalue then $f_1\asymp x_1$ in the appropriate coordinate system. Further, in dimension 4 $F$ has no more than 2 degenerating eigenvalues while 2 others are disjoint from 0 and thus 4-dimensional case seems to be nothing but the lift-off of 2-dimensional (as $\mu\le Ch^{-1}$). It is not that simple in particular because there appears a very special submanifold of codimension 3,  but likely the above assertion is correct.

4049: 

4050: In dimension $d\ge 6$ more than 2 eigenvalues can degenerate but the degeneration happens on the manifold of codimension 6 and it seems to be too thin to have any effect. It does not mean that the proofs are going to be easy but that one should not expect any surprises.

4051: 

4052: 

4053: \input IRO6.bbl

4054: 

4055: 

4056: 

4057: 

4058: 

4059: \end{document}

4060: