1: %\pdfoptionpdfminorversion=5

2: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

3: \usepackage[english]{babel}

4: \pagestyle{headings}

5: %\usepackage{tikz}

6: \usepackage{sfmath}

7: \usepackage{relsize} 

8: \usepackage{amssymb}

9: \usepackage{natbib}

10: \usepackage[leqno]{mathtools}

11: \usepackage{upgreek}

12: %\usepackage[leqno]{amsmath}

13: 

14: \usepackage{amsthm}

15: 

16: %\usepackage{hyperxmp}

17: \usepackage{xr-hyper}

18: \usepackage[bookmarks,pdfnewwindow,plainpages=false]{hyperref}

19: 

20: \hypersetup{

21: colorlinks=true,

22: linkcolor=black,

23: citecolor=black,

24: pdfauthor={Victor Ivrii},

25: pdftitle={Sharp Spectral Asymptotics for four-dimensional Schr\"odinger operator with a strong  magnetic field. II},

26: pdfsubject={Sharp Spectral Asymptotics},

27: pdfkeywords={Microlocal Analysis, Magnetic Schr\"odinger Operator},

28: %baseurl={http://www.math.toronto.edu/ivrii/Research/preprints/},

29: }

30: \newcommand\MW{{\rm {MW}}}

31: 

32: \externaldocument[IRO3-]{IRO3}[http://www.math.toronto.edu/ivrii/Research/preprints/IRO3.pdf]

33: 

34: \externaldocument[IRO4-]{IRO4}[http://www.math.toronto.edu/ivrii/Research/preprints/IRO4.pdf]

35: \externaldocument[IRO6-]{IRO6}[http://www.math.toronto.edu/ivrii/Research/preprints/IRO6.pdf]

36: \externaldocument[IRO8-]{IRO8}[http://www.math.toronto.edu/ivrii/Research/preprints/IRO8.pdf]

37: \externaldocument[IRO16-]{IRO16}[http://www.math.toronto.edu/ivrii/Research/preprints/IRO16.pdf]

38: 

39: \usepackage{graphicx,color}

40: 

41: %\usepackage[color]{showkeys}

42: %\definecolor{refkey}{rgb}{0,0,1}

43: %\definecolor{labelkey}{rgb}{1,0,0}

44: 

45: \usepackage{eso-pic}

46: \definecolor{lightgray}{gray}{.90}

47: \definecolor{verylightgray}{gray}{.93}

48: 

49: \usepackage{subfigure}

50: \usepackage{placeins}

51: 

52: \usepackage{enumitem}

53: 

54: %%%%%%%%%

55: %%	romans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

78: \newcommand\W{{\rm W}}

79: 

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

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

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

83: \newcommand\Def{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}}

84: \newcommand\redef{{\overset {\rm {redef}}{\ =\ }}}

85: 

86: \newcommand\out{{\rm {out}}}

87: \newcommand\inn{{\rm {inn}}}

88: \newcommand\per{{\rm {per}}}

89: \newcommand\const{{\rm {const}}}

90: \newcommand\dist{{\rm {dist}}}

91: %\newcommand\eff{{\rm {eff}}}

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

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

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

95: 

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

97: \newcommand\new{{\rm {new}}}

98: 

99: \newcommand\corr{{\rm {corr}}}

100: \newcommand\st{{\rm {st}}}

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

102: \newcommand\w{{\rm w}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

109: 

110: %%	barred

111: %%%%%%%%%

112: 

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

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

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

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

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

118: 

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

120: 

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

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

123: 

124: %%	boldsymbols

125: %%%%%%%%%

126: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

135: %\newcommand\blangle{{\boldsymbol \langle }}

136: %\newcommand\brangle{{\boldsymbol \rangle }}

137: %\newcommand\bv{{\boldsymbol | }}

138: 

139: %%	operatornames

140: %%%%%%%%%

141: 

142: \newcommand\Ad{\operatorname{Ad}}

143: \newcommand\Span{\operatorname{Span}}

144: \newcommand\codim{\operatorname{codim}}

145: \newcommand\diag{\operatorname{diag}}

146: 

147: \newcommand\Hess{\operatorname{Hess}}

148: 

149: \renewcommand\Im{\operatorname{Im}}

150: 

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

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

153: \newcommand\Dom{\operatorname{Dom}}

154: \newcommand\mes{\operatorname{mes}}

155: 

156: \newcommand\rank{\operatorname{rank}}

157: \renewcommand\Re{\operatorname{Re}}

158: 

159: \newcommand\sign{\operatorname{sign}}

160: \newcommand\Spec{\operatorname{Spec}}

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

162: \newcommand\supp{\operatorname{supp}}

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

164: \newcommand\tr{\operatorname{tr}}

165: \newcommand\Tr{\operatorname{Tr}}

166: \newcommand\sing{{\operatorname{sing}}}

167: \newcommand\Res{\operatorname{Res}}

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

169: \newcommand\vol{\operatorname{vol}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

177: 

178: %%	special symbols

179: %%%%%%%%%

180: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

187: 

188: %%	mathbbb symbols

189: %%%%%%%%%

190: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

200: %

201: 

202: %%	mathcal symbols

203: %%%%%%%%%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

230: 

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

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

233: 

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

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

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

237: 

238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

239: 

240: \theoremstyle{definition}

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

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

243: 

244: \newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}

245: 

246: \theoremstyle{remark}

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

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

249: 

250: \setcounter{section}{-1}

251: 

252: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

253: 

254: \newenvironment{claim}[1][{\rm(\theequation)}]{\refstepcounter{equation}%

255: \begin{trivlist}

256: \item[{\hskip\labelsep#1}]}{\end{trivlist}\addvspace{10pt}}

257: 

258: \newcounter{note}

259: 

260: \newenvironment{note}[1]{\refstepcounter{note}{\color{red}$^{\thenote}$}\reversemarginpar

261: \marginpar{ \hskip-40pt\colorbox{yellow}{\begin{minipage}{70pt} {\color{red}$^{\thenote}$\ #1}\end{minipage}}}}

262: 

263: \newenvironment{highlight}[1]{\colorbox{yellow}{#1}}

264: 

265: \newenvironment{claim*}[1]{\medskip

266: \begin{trivlist}

267: \item[{\hskip\labelsep#1}]}{\medskip\end{trivlist}}

268: 

269: \newenvironment{phantomequation}[1][]{\refstepcounter{equation}}{}

270: 

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

272: \renewcommand\subsubsection{\paragraph{\thesubsubsection}\refstepcounter{subsubsection}}

273: 

274: 

275: \begin{document}

276: 

277: %\AddToShipoutPicture*{%

278: %    \AtTextCenter{%

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

280: %        \rotatebox{55}{\textsf{\textbf{\color{lightgray} Final}}}}} 

281: %    }

282: %  }

283: %  

284: %  

285: 

286:  

287: 

288: \title{\

289: Sharp spectral asymptotics for generic 4-dimensional Schr\"odinger operator with the strong magnetic field}

290: \author{Victor Ivrii}

291: \date{\today}

292: 

293: \maketitle

294: 

295: {\abstract%

296: I consider 4-dimensional Schr\"odinger operator with the generic non-degenerating magnetic field and for a generic potential I derive spectral asymptotics with the remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ and the principal part $\asymp h^{-4}$ where $h\ll 1$ is Planck constant and $\mu \gg 1$ is the intensity of the magnetic field. For general potentials remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ is achieved.

297: \endabstract}

298: 

299: \section{Introduction}

300: 

301: Sharp spectral asymptotics for multidimensional Magnetic Schr\"odinger were obtained in \cite{IRO4, IRO5} in full- and non-full-rank cases respectively\footnote{\label{foot-1} I mean the rank of magnetic intensity matrix $(F_{jk})$.}. The results, as one could expect from the analysis of 2- and 3-dimensional cases, were rather different.

302: 

303: However there are two problems with these papers: first, the rank of the magnetic intensity matrix there was supposed to be constant which is not necessarily the case even if  only generic magnetic fields are considered; second, while both the maximal rank\footnote{\label{foot-2} I mean that the rank of $(F_{jk})$ is $2\lfloor d/2\rfloor$ at each point.} and microhyperbolicity\footnote{\label{foot-3} Which was assumed in \cite{IRO4}.} conditions  are stable with respect to the small perturbations, they both are not generic in the sense that even in a small but fixed domain   a general Magnetic Schr\"odinger operator is not necessarily approximated by operators satisfying any of these conditions: exactly in the same way as stationary points are not necessarily removable. 

304: 

305: However the analysis of \cite{IRO4} and \cite{IRO6} leads me to the following conjecture for even-dimensional Magnetic Schr\"odinger operators:

306: 

307: \begin{conjecture}\label{conj} As $\mu \le ch^{-1}$ the main part of asymptotics is given by $\cE^\MW$ while 

308: \begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]

309: 

310: \item For fixed $(g^{jk})$ and general $(V_j), V$ the remainder estimate  is $O(\mu h^{1-d})$;

311: 

312: \item For fixed $(g^{jk})$ and generic $(V_j)$ (i.e. $(V_1,\dots, V_d)\notin {\mathfrak A}_g$ which is nowhere dense closed set) and general $V$ the remainder estimate is  $O(\mu ^{-1} h^{1-d}+\mu^{d/2}h^{-d/2})$ as $(F_{jk})$ has the full rank everywhere and $O(\mu ^{-1/2} h^{1-d}+\mu^{d/2}h^{-d/2})$ otherwise;

313: 

314: \item For fixed $(g^{jk})$ and generic $(V_j,V)$ (i.e. $(V_1,\dots, V_d;V)\notin {\mathfrak B}_g$ which is nowhere dense closed set)  the remainder estimate is  $O(\mu ^{-1} h^{1-d})$ as $(F_{jk})$ has the full rank everywhere and $O(\mu ^{-1/2} h^{1-d})$ otherwise.

315: \end{enumerate}

316: \end{conjecture}

317: 

318: While (i) is trivial, (ii) and (iii) are rather difficult and

319: my goal is rather limited: to prove them  as $d=4$. For $d=2$ it was done in \cite{IRO6, IRO16}). Further, in the small vicinity of the set 

320: $\{x: \rank (F_{jk})(x)\le 2\}$ it was done in \cite{IRO8}. So, I will need to investigate the case of $\rank (F_{jk})=1$ at every point.

321: 

322: So, operator in question is

323: \begin{equation}

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

325: \label{0-1}

326: \end{equation}

327: with smooth\footnote{\label{foot-4} Smooth means either infinitely smooth or belonging to $C^K$ with large enough $K$.}  symmetric positive definite matrix $(g^{jk})$ and smooth real-valued potentials  $(V_1,\dots, V_d;V)$ and $\mu \gg1$, $h\ll 1$. Assuming that $A$ is self-adjoint, let $E(\tau)$ be the spectral projector of $A$ and $e(x,y,\tau)$ be its Schwartz' kernel. These assumptions are fulfilled during the whole article.

328: 

329: Magnetic field is characterized by a skew-symmetric matrix $(F_{jk})$, $F_{jk}=\partial_jV_k-\partial_kV_j$ and more precisely  by $(F^j_k)=(g^{j*})(F_{*k})$ and its eigenvalues $\pm if_j$, $f_j\ge 0$. As $d=4$ these are $f_1$ and $f_2$. 

330: 

331: It is proven \cite{Ma} that 

332: 

333: \begin{claim}\label{0-2} For generic $(V_1,\dots,V_4)$ $f_1$ and $f_2$ do not vanish simultaneously.

334: \end{claim}

335: 

336: \begin{remark}\label{rem-0-1}  (i) If  one of $f_1,f_2$ vanishes then (for generic $(V_1,\dots,V_4)$ locally situation of \cite{IRO8} occurs and the remainder estimate is $O(\mu^{-1/2}h^{-3})$ for generic $V$  and 

337: $O(\mu^{-1/2}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ for general $V$ (detailed assumptions see in 

338:  \cite{IRO8}) and I exclude this case from the analysis, assuming that

339:  \begin{equation}

340: f_1 \ge \epsilon_0,\ f_2\ge \epsilon_0.

341: \label{0-3}

342: \end{equation}

343: 

344: \medskip

345: \noindent

346: (ii) As condition (\ref{0-4}) is fulfilled and $\mu h \ge c$ then the main part of asymptotics is $0$ and the remainder estimate is $O(\mu^{-s})$ with an arbitrarily large exponent $s$ (see f.e. \cite{IRO3}) and therefore in what follows I assume that

347: \begin{equation}

348: 1\le \mu \le ch^{-1}.

349: \label{0-4}

350: \end{equation}

351: \end{remark}

352: 

353: My goal is to prove two following theorems:

354: 

355: \begin{theorem}\label{thm-0-2}

356: Let $(g^{jk})$ be fixed and $(V_1,\dots,V_4)$ be generic. Further, let conditions $(\ref{0-3}),(\ref{0-4})$ be fulfilled and $\psi$ be a smooth function. Then

357: \begin{equation}

358: |\int \bigl( e (x,x,0)-\cE^\MW (x,0)\bigr)-\cE_\corr^\MW (x,0)\bigr)\psi (x)\,dx| \le C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+ C\mu^2 h^{-2}

359: \label{0-5}

360: \end{equation}

361: where

362: \begin{multline}

363: \cE^\MW (x,\tau)= \\(2\pi)^{-2}\mu^2h^{-2}\sum _{(m,n)\in \bZ^{+\,2} } \theta \bigl(2\tau+V- (2m+1)\mu h f_1 - (2n+1)\mu hf_2\bigr) f_1 f_2 \sqrt g

364: \label{0-6}

365: \end{multline}

366: is Magnetic Weyl Expression, $g=\det (g^{jk})^{-1}$, $\cE_\corr^\MW$ is a correction term, defined by $(\ref{4-23})$.

367: \end{theorem}

368: 

369: \begin{theorem}\label{thm-0-3}

370: Let $(g^{jk})$ be fixed and $(V_1,\dots,V_4;V)$ be generic. Further, let conditions $(\ref{0-3}),(\ref{0-4})$ be fulfilled and $\psi$ be a smooth function. Then

371: \begin{equation}

372: |\int \bigl( e (x,x,0)-\cE^\MW (x,0)\bigr)\psi (x)\,dx| \le C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}.

373: \label{0-7}

374: \end{equation}

375: \end{theorem}

376: 

377: \begin{remark}\label{rem-0-4} (i) More precise conditions describing conditions for  $(V_1,\dots, V_d)$ in Theorem \ref{thm-0-2}  and for $(V_1,\dots, V_d;V)$ in Theorem \ref{thm-0-3} will be formulated below in section \ref{sect-4}.

378: 

379: \medskip

380: \noindent

381: (ii) I was able to prove that one can skip $\cE_\corr^\MW (x,0)$ and preserve remainder estimate (\ref{0-5}) unless $h^{-1/3+\delta}\le \mu \le h^{-1/3-\delta}$; in the latter case the remainder estimate (\ref{0-6}) should be replaced by $h^{-8/3-\delta}$; however I suspect that one can always skip $\cE_\corr^\MW (x,0)$ and preserve remainder estimate (\ref{0-5}).

382: 

383: \medskip

384: \noindent

385: (iii)  With the exception of section \ref{sect-5} I assume that 

386:  \begin{equation}

387: V\ge \epsilon_0.

388: \label{0-8}

389: \end{equation}

390: In section \ref{sect-5} I will get rid off this condition.

391: \end{remark}

392: 

393: \paragraph{Plan of the paper.} Section \ref{sect-1} is devoted to the geometry (discussion of what is the generic case) and the preliminary analysis in the cases when results of \cite{IRO4} imply  theorem \ref{thm-0-3} immediately. 

394: 

395: In section \ref{sect-2} I tackle the weak magnetic field case ($\mu\le h^{-\delta_0}$ with sufficiently small exponent $\delta_0>0$)  proving the standard Weyl formula with the remainder $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$.

396: 

397: Sections   \ref{sect-3}, \ref{sect-4} are devoted to the case when $ h^{-\delta_0}\le \mu \le ch^{-1}$ with arbitrarily small exponent ${\bar\delta}>0$ and one can reduce operator to the microlocal canonical form. More precisely, in section \ref{sect-3} I prove asymptotics with the announced remainder estimates but with the implicitly given main part

398: \begin{equation}

399: h^{-1}\sum_{\iota}\int_{-\infty}^0 \Bigl( F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_{T_\iota}(t) \Gamma uQ_{\iota y}^t\Bigr)\,d\tau

400: \label{0-9}

401: \end{equation}

402: where $u$ is the Schwartz' kernel of the propagator $e^{ih^{-1}tA}$ and $Q_\iota$ are pseudo-differential partition elements (see details in my previous papers); in this proof estimate of

403: \begin{equation}

404: |\Bigl( F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_{T_\iota}(t) \Gamma uQ_{\iota y}^t\Bigr)|

405: \label{0-10}

406: \end{equation}

407: plays the crucial role.

408: 

409: In section \ref{sect-4} I replace (\ref{0-10}) by the standard Magnetic Weyl formula and estimate an error arising from this.

410: 

411: Finally, in section  \ref{sect-5} I consider the case when condition (\ref{0-8}) is violated.

412: 

413: \section{Geometry and Preliminary Analysis}\label{sect-1}

414: 

415: \subsection{Geometry}\label{sect-1-1}

416: 

417: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-1} Let either $g^{jk}$ be fixed and then $V_j$ be generic, or,  alternatively, $V_j$ be fixed and then $g^{jk}$ be generic. Further, let $(\ref{0-3})$ be fulfilled. Then

418: \begin{claim}\label{1-1}

419: $\Sigma\Def\{x:f_1=f_2\}$  is a smooth 2-dimensional manifold: $\Sigma=\{x:v_1=v_2=0\}$ with appropriate smooth functions $v_1$ and $v_2$ such that $\nabla v_1$ and $\nabla v_2$ linearly independent at any point of $\Sigma$ and 

420: \begin{equation}

421: \dist (x,\Sigma)\asymp|f_1-f_2| = 2  (v_1^2+v_2^2)^{1/2};

422: \label{1-2}

423: \end{equation}

424: furthermore, $f_1+f_2$ and $(f_2-f_1)^2$ are  smooth functions;

425: \end{claim} 

426: 

427: \begin{claim}\label{1-3} Consider symplectic form corresponding to $F_{jk}$

428: \begin{equation}\label{1-4}

429: \omega={\frac 1 2}\sum_{jk}F_{jk}dx_j\wedge dx_k;

430: \end{equation}

431: then  $\omega|_\Sigma$ is either non-degenerate or it is generic degenerate\footnote{\label{foot-5}  Exactly as $\Sigma$ was  in  \cite{IRO6}.} i.e. $\Theta_1\Def\{x\in \Sigma,\ \{v_1,v_2\}=0\}$ is a submanifold of dimension $1$ and  $\nabla_\Sigma \{v_1,v_2\}$ is disjoint from 0 at $\Theta_1$;

432: \end{claim}

433: 

434: \begin{claim}\label{1-5} Function $f_1f_2^{-1}$ has only non-degenerate critical points outside of $\Sigma$ and near $\Sigma$ $|\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|$ is disjoint from $0$.

435: \end{claim}

436: \end{proposition}

437: 

438: \begin{proof} I leave an easy proof to the reader.

439: \end{proof}

440: 

441: \subsection{Microhyperbolicity Condition}

442: \label{sect-1-2}

443: 

444: \subsubsection{}

445: \label{sect-1-2-1}

446: First, let me discuss the case when magnetic intensities $f_1$ and $f_2$ are disjoint. Then they are smooth. It still does not exclude third-order resonances 

447: $f_1=2f_2$ and $f_2=2f_1$\,\footnote{\label{foot-6} Higher-order resonances are not a problem according to \cite{IRO4}, at least under microhyperbolicity condition.}.

448: 

449: Then there are two cyclotron movements and the drift with the velocity $O(\mu^{-1})$ which I want to calculate. Let 

450: \begin{equation}

451: p_j=\xi_j - \mu V_j.

452: \label{1-6}

453: \end{equation}

454: Note that 

455: \begin{align}

456: &x'_j \Def x_j-\mu^{-1}\sum_l\phi^{jl}p_l,\label{1-7}\\

457: &(\phi^{**})\Def (F_{**})^{-1}\label{1-8}

458: \end{align}

459: satisfy 

460: \begin{equation}

461: \{p_k,x_j'\}=-\mu^{-1}\sum_l \{p_k,\phi^{jl}\}p_l

462: \label{1-9}

463: \end{equation}

464: and therefore 

465: \begin{multline}

466: \Bigl\{{\frac 1 2}\sum_{k,m} g^{km}p_kp_m, x'_j\Bigr\}= {\frac 1 2}\sum_{k,m} \{g^{km},x'_j\} p_kp_m -\mu^{-1}\sum_{k,m,l}  g^{km} \{p_k,\phi^{jl}\}p_mp_l=\\

467: \mu^{-1} \sum_{k,m,l}\Bigl(   {\frac 1 2}\phi^{jl}\{p_l,g^{km}\} -\{p_l,\phi^{jk}\}g^{ml}

468: \Bigr)p_kp_m

469: \label{1-10}

470: \end{multline}

471: 

472: \begin{proposition}

473: Let $f_1\ne f_2$ in $\Omega$; then one can correct 

474: \begin{equation}

475: x_j'\mapsto x_j''\Def x_j' -{\frac 1 2}\mu^{-1}\sum_{k,m}\beta^{jkm}p_kp_m

476: \label{1-11}

477: \end{equation}

478: so that 

479: \begin{equation}

480: \Bigl\{{\frac 1 2}\sum_{k,m} g^{km}p_kp_m, x''_j\Bigr\}= 

481: \mu^{-1}\Bigl(\{f_1,x_j\}_F b_1 + \{f_2,x_j\}_F b_2\Bigr)+ O(\mu^{-2})

482: \label{1-12}

483: \end{equation}

484: where in the Birkhoff normal form $a=f_1 b_1+f_2b_2+\dots$ and 

485: \begin{equation}

486: \{w_1,w_2\}_F\Def \sum_{k,l}\phi^{kl}\partial_k w_1\cdot \partial_l w_2 

487: \label{1-13}

488: \end{equation}

489: are Poisson brackets associated with symplectic form $\omega=\omega_F$.

490: \end{proposition}

491: 

492: \subsubsection{}\label{sect-1-2-2}

493: \emph{Microhyperbolicity condition\/} of \cite{IRO4} then means for $d=4$ and $f_1\ne f_2$  that

494: \begin{multline}

495: |V-(2p+1)f_1\mu h - (2n+1)f_2\mu h|\le \epsilon \implies\\

496: |\langle \ell,\nabla \bigl(V-(2p+1)f_1\mu h - (2n+1)f_2\mu h\bigr)\rangle|\ge \epsilon

497: \label{1-14}

498: \end{multline}

499: where $\ell$ ($|\ell|\asymp 1$) is the \emph{microhyperbolicity direction\/} (at the given point $x$) and $(n,p)$ are \emph{magnetic indices\/}. However there actually were two microhyperbolicity conditions in \cite{IRO4}: in the weaker condition $\ell$ could depend not only on $x$ but also on magnetic indices while in the stronger one it was assumed that $\ell$ is the same for all pairs $(n,p)$ connected by the third order resonance. Respectively, the remainder estimates derived in \cite{IRO4} were $O(h^{1-d})$ under weaker condition and $O(\mu^{-1}h^{1-d})$ under stronger one.

500: 

501: In the relatively simple case of $d=4$ the resonance means $kf_1=lf_2$ where $k,l\in \bZ^+$ are coprimes, $(k+l)$ is the \emph{order  of the resonance\/}. So under the stronger microhyperbolicity condition if either $2f_1-f_2=0$ or $f_1-2f_2=0$ at $x$ then $\ell$ should not depend on $(n,p)$ satisfying the the left-hand inequality in (\ref{1-14}).

502: 

503: \begin{remark}\label{rem-1-3} Case $d=4$ is relatively simple  because there are only two magnetic intensities $f_1$ and $f_2$ and thus it is impossible to have 

504: collisions between two second-order resonances (of the type $f_j=f_k$), two third order resonances (of the types $f_j=2f_k$ or $f_j=f_k+f_l$) or the second and the third order resonances.

505: 

506: Further, as $|kf_1-lf_2|\le \epsilon$ there could be other resonances only  of order $m(\epsilon)$ or higher; $m(\epsilon)\to +\infty$ as $\epsilon\to +0$.

507: \end{remark}

508: 

509: So, as $d=4$ and $f_1$ is disjoint from $f_2$ and $\mu h\le \epsilon_1$ (where $\epsilon_1>0$ depends on $\epsilon$ in the microhyperbolicity condition) both microhyperbolicity conditions are equivalent  to

510: \begin{equation}

511: | \nabla\bigl( \alpha\log f_1+(1-\alpha)\log f_2- \log V\bigr)|\ge \epsilon\qquad \forall \alpha: 0\le \alpha\le 1.

512: \label{1-15}

513: %\label{1-22}

514: \end{equation}

515: On the other hand, as $\mu h\ge \epsilon_1$ condition (\ref{1-15}) should be checked only at points where \emph{ellipticity condition\/}

516: \begin{equation}

517: |V-(2p+1)f_1\mu h - (2n+1)f_2\mu h|\ge \epsilon  \qquad \forall (p,n)\in \bZ^{+\,2}

518: \label{1-16}

519: \end{equation}

520: is violated.

521: 

522: \begin{remark}\label{rem-1-4} I remind that under condition (\ref{1-16}) on $\supp\psi$ the remainder estimate is $O(\mu^{-s}h^s)$ with an arbitrarily large exponent $s$ and the similar result would hold in any dimension provided $\rank (F_{jk})=d$ at each point.

523: \end{remark}

524: 

525: So, main theorems \ref{IRO4-thm-0-3}, \ref{IRO4-thm-0-5}, \ref{IRO4-thm-0-7}   of \cite{IRO4} imply 

526: 

527: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-5} Let $d=4$ and  conditions $(\ref{0-8})$, $f_1\ne f_2$ and  $(\ref{1-15})$ be fulfilled at $\supp\psi$.  Then  the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ while the main part of asymptotics is given by  the Magnetic Weyl formula.

528: \end{proposition}

529: 

530: \subsubsection{}\label{sect-1-2-3} This  leaves us with bad points where condition (\ref{1-15}) is violated.

531: So let us consider set $\Lambda_\alpha$ of critical points of 

532: \begin{equation}

533: \phi_\alpha\Def  \alpha\log f_1+(1-\alpha)\log f_2- \log V.

534: \label{1-17}

535: \end{equation}

536: 

537: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-6}  Let $g^{jk}$, $V_j$ be fixed and let 

538: $V$ be generic. Then 

539: 

540: \medskip

541: \noindent

542: {\rm (i)} $\Lambda_\alpha$ is a finite set, continuously depending on $\alpha\in [0,1]$;

543: 

544: \medskip

545: \noindent

546: {\rm (ii)} There exist $0<\alpha_1 < \alpha_2< \dots <\alpha_J<1$ such that for $\alpha \notin \{\alpha_1,\dots, \alpha_J\}$  function $\phi_\alpha$ has non-degenerate critical points, while for $\alpha=\alpha_j$ function  

547: $\phi_\alpha$ has also isolated critical points but in one of them $\rank \Hess \phi_\alpha=3$;

548: 

549: \medskip

550: \noindent

551: {\rm (iii)} As ${\bar\alpha}\in \{\alpha_1,\dots, \alpha_J\}$ and ${\bar x}$ is a critical point of $\phi_{\bar\alpha}$ with $\rank \Hess \phi_{\bar\alpha}({\bar x})=3$, in an appropriate (smooth) coordinate system in vicinity of ${\bar x}=0$

552: \begin{equation}

553: \phi_\alpha =   {\frac 1 3}x_1^3 -(\alpha -{\bar\alpha})x_1 

554: \pm_2 {\frac 1 2}x_2^2 \pm_3 {\frac 1 2}x_3^2  \pm_4 {\frac 1 2}x_4^2

555: \label{1-18}

556: \end{equation}

557: with independent signs $\pm_k$.

558: \end{proposition}

559: 

560: \begin{proof} An easy proof is left to the reader.

561: \end{proof}

562: 

563: \begin{remark}\label{rem-1-7} (i)  Assume that at some point ${\bar x}$

564: \begin{equation}

565:  |\nabla( f_1f_2^{-1}) |\ge \epsilon_0.

566: \label{1-19}

567: \end{equation}

568: Then in the vicinity of ${\bar x}$

569: \begin{equation}

570: |\nabla \phi_\alpha |\ge \epsilon |\alpha -{\bar\alpha}(x)|\qquad \forall \alpha: 0\le \alpha\le 1

571: \label{1-20}

572: \end{equation}

573: with smooth function ${\bar\alpha}(x)$.

574: 

575: \medskip

576: \noindent

577: (ii) On the other hand, if ${\bar x}$ is an isolated critical point of $f_1f_2^{-1}$ then as $V$ is generic  $|\nabla \phi_\alpha|\ge \epsilon$ for all $\alpha \in [0,1]$ in the vicinity of ${\bar x}$.

578: \end{remark}

579: 

580: \subsection{Analysis near $\Sigma$: Geometry}

581: \label{sect-1-3}

582: 

583: \subsubsection{}

584: \label{sect-1-3-1}

585: 

586: Consider now $\Sigma=\{x: f_1 =f_2\}$ assuming that (\ref{1-1}) holds; then the microhyperbolicity condition at point $x\in \Sigma$ means exactly that

587: \begin{equation}

588: {\frac 1 2}\ell \bigl((f_1+f_2)V^{-1}\bigr)\ge 

589: \bigl( (\ell v _1)^2+(\ell v_2)^2\bigr)^{1/2}V^{-1} +\epsilon

590: \label{1-21}

591: \end{equation}

592: where $\ell$ again is the microhyperbolicity direction, or, equivalently, 

593: \begin{equation}

594: |{\frac 1 2}\nabla  \bigl((f_1+f_2)V^{-1}\bigr) -(\beta_1 \nabla v_1 +\beta_2\nabla v_2)V^{-1}|\ge 

595: \epsilon \qquad \forall \beta =(\beta_1,\beta_2)\in \bR^2: |\beta|\le 1.

596: \label{1-22}

597: \end{equation}

598: 

599: \begin{remark}\label{rem-1-8} Note that the microhyperbolicity condition could be violated only at stationary points of $f_1V^{-1}|_\Sigma$ and only at those of them where 

600: \begin{equation}

601: {\frac 1 2}\nabla  \bigl((f_1+f_2)V^{-1}\bigr) =(\beta_1 \nabla v_1 +\beta_2\nabla v_2)V^{-1}

602: \label{1-23}

603: \end{equation}

604: with $\beta_1^2+\beta_2^2\le 1$.

605: \end{remark}

606: 

607: Let $\Sigma_0$ be the set of stationary points of $f_1V^{-1}|_\Sigma$; at each point of $\Sigma_0$ decomposition (\ref{1-23}) holds; let us denote by $\Sigma_0^+$, $\Sigma_0^-$, $\Sigma_0^0$ the subsets of $\Sigma_0$ where $\beta_1^2+\beta_2^2>1$, $\beta_1^2+\beta_2^2<1$ and $\beta_1^2+\beta_2^2=1$ respectively. Then the microhyperbolicity condition holds at $\Sigma_0^+$.

608: 

609: So, main theorems \ref{IRO4-thm-0-3}, \ref{IRO4-thm-0-5}, \ref{IRO4-thm-0-7}   of \cite{IRO4} imply 

610: 

611: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-9} Let $d=4$ and  conditions $(\ref{1-1})$ and $(\ref{0-8})$  be fulfilled.   Let $\psi$ be supported in the small vicinity of ${\bar x}\in \Sigma_0^+$. Then  the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ while the main part of asymptotics is given by  magnetic Weyl formula.

612: \end{proposition}

613: 

614: \subsubsection{}

615: \label{sect-1-3-2}

616: 

617: One can prove easily two following propositions:

618: 

619: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-10} Let $d=4$ and  condition $(\ref{1-1})$  be fulfilled.  Let $V$ be generic satisfying $(\ref{0-8})$. Then

620: \begin{claim}\label{1-24} $\Sigma_0$ consists of the finite number of non-degenerate stationary points of $f_1V^{-1}|_\Sigma$; these points are generic;\end{claim}

621: \begin{claim}\label{1-25}

622:  $0<\beta_1^2+\beta_2^2<1$ at each point of $\Sigma_0 \setminus \Sigma_0^+$.

623: \end{claim}

624: \end{proposition}

625: 

626: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-1-11} Let $d=4$ and  condition $(\ref{1-1})$  be fulfilled. Let ${\bar x}\in \Sigma_0^-$ with $0<\beta_1^2+\beta_2^2<1$ in decomposition $(\ref{1-23})$. Then in the vicinity of ${\bar x}$ 

627: \begin{equation}

628: \Lambda \Def  \bigl\{x: f_1\ne f_2 \text{ and } \exists \alpha\in [0,1]:\quad \nabla\phi_\alpha=0\bigr\}\cup \{{\bar x}\}

629: \label{1-26}

630: \end{equation}

631: is a smooth curve  passing through ${\bar x}$ and transversal to $\Sigma$; moreover  

632: \begin{equation}

633: {\bar\alpha}({\bar x}) = {\frac 1 2}\bigl(1\pm (\beta_1^2+\beta_2^2)^{1/2}\bigr)

634: \label{1-27}

635: \end{equation}

636: \end{proposition}

637: 

638: \section{Weak Magnetic Field Case}

639: \label{sect-2}

640: 

641: In this section I am going to prove the remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ for general $V$ as

642: \begin{equation}

643: c\le \mu \le h^{-\delta_0}

644: \label{2-1}

645: \end{equation}

646: with small exponent $\delta_0>0$.

647: 

648: \setcounter{subsection}{1}

649: \setcounter{subsubsection}{0} 

650: \subsubsection{}\label{sect-2-1-1} Assume first that condition (\ref{1-19}) is fulfilled.

651: 

652: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-1} Let conditions $f_1\ne f_2$ and  $(\ref{1-19})$ be fulfilled at $\supp\psi$.  Then under condition $(\ref{2-1})$ the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ while the main part of asymptotics is given by  Weyl formula.

653: \end{proposition}

654: 

655: \begin{proof}[Proof, Part I] (i) Assume first that there are no  resonances of order lesser than $M$ on $\supp \psi$:

656: \begin{equation}

657: |kf_1-lf_2|\ge \epsilon,\qquad \forall k,l\in \bZ^+: k+l\le M.

658: \label{2-2}

659: \end{equation}

660: Then one can reduce operator to the normal form without cubic and ``unbalanced'' fourth order terms and then along Hamiltonian trajectories 

661: \begin{equation}

662: {\frac {d\ }{dt}}x_j= {\frac {\partial\ }{\partial\xi_j}}a,\qquad

663: {\frac {d\ }{dt}}\xi_j= -{\frac {\partial\ }{\partial x_j}}a

664: \label{2-3}

665: \end{equation}

666: of

667: \begin{equation}

668: a(x,\xi)\Def {\frac 1 2}\Bigl(\sum_{j,k}p_jg^{jk}(x)p_k -V\Bigr),\qquad p_j=\xi_j-\mu V_j

669: \label{2-4}

670: \end{equation}

671: the following relations hold:

672: \begin{equation}

673: {\frac {d\ }{dt}}b_j=\{a , b_j\}= O(\mu^{-2})

674: \label{2-5}

675: \end{equation}

676: where $b_j = {\frac 1 2} (f_j \circ \Psi) (x_j^2+\xi_j^2)+O(\mu^{-2})$ are quadratic terms in the Birkhoff normal form; see details in \cite{IRO4} or below.

677: 

678: Therefore in the ``corrected'' coordinates $x''$  defined by (\ref{1-11}) along Hamiltonian trajectories 

679: \begin{equation}

680: {\frac {d\ }{dt}}x''_j= \mu^{-1}\bigl(\beta_{j1}(x'') b_1(x,\xi) + \beta_{j2}(x'')b_2(x,\xi)\bigr)+O(\mu^{-3})

681: \label{2-6}

682: \end{equation}

683: and 

684: \begin{equation}

685: |{\frac {d^2\ }{dt^2}}x''|\le C \mu^{-1}|{\frac {d\ }{dt}}x''|+C(\mu^{-4}).

686: \label{2-7}

687: \end{equation}

688: Thus as  

689: \begin{equation}

690: \mu |{\frac {d\ }{dt}}x''|\asymp \rho\ge C\mu^{-2}

691: \label{2-8}

692: %\label{2-6}

693: \end{equation}

694: then for time $T_1=\epsilon \mu $  this relation (\ref{2-8}) is retained and    also variation of $dx''/dt$ would be less than $C\epsilon \rho \mu^{-1}$. 

695: 

696: Then there is a fixed direction $\ell$, $|\ell |\asymp 1$ such that for $|t|\le T_1$

697: \begin{equation}

698: \langle\ell,{\frac {d\ }{dt}}x''\rangle \ge \epsilon_0 \mu^{-1}\rho;

699: \label{2-9}

700: %\label{2-8}

701: \end{equation} 

702: $\ell$ is a sort of the microhyperbolicity direction. Without any loss of the generality one can assume that $\ell=(1,0,0,0)$ and therefore  the shift  of $x''_1$ for time $T$ is exactly of magnitude $\rho \mu^{-1}T$.

703: 

704: According to the logarithmic uncertainty principle this shift is microlocally observable as 

705: \begin{equation}

706: \rho \mu^{-1}T \times \rho \ge Ch|\log h|

707: \label{2-10}

708: \end{equation}

709: Plugging $T=T_0=\epsilon\mu^{-1}$ one gets $\rho^2\ge C\mu^2h|\log h|$  which would hold for $\rho\ge C\mu^{-2}$ as $\mu\le h^{-\delta}$. 

710: 

711: Therefore in this case the contribution of zone  (\ref{2-6}) to the remainder does not exceed 

712: \begin{equation*}

713: Ch^{-3} \rho \times T_1^{-1} \asymp C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}\rho

714: \end{equation*}

715: where factor $\rho h^{-3}$ is due to the estimate of 

716: \begin{equation}

717: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}\bigl({\bar\chi}_{T_0}(t)\Gamma Q u\bigr)|\le C\rho h^{-3},

718: \label{2-11}

719: \end{equation}

720: $Q$ is the cut-off operator in zone (\ref{2-8}), $u$ is the Schwartz kernel of $e^{-ih^{-1}tA}$ and other  notations of \cite{IRO3,IRO8} are used.

721: 

722: To prove estimate (\ref{2-11}) let us make $\rho$-admissible partition in $\xi$; then one can prove easily that the contribution of each such element to  the left hand expression does not exceed $C\rho^3h^{-3}$ because the propagation speed with respect to $x$ is $\asymp 1$ as $|t|\le T_0$ and therefore one can trade $T_0$ to ${\bar T}=Ch\rho^{-1}|\log h|$ in the left hand expression of (\ref{2-11}) with a negligible error and in the estimate even to ${\bar T}=C\rho^{-1}h$ (one can prove easily by the rescaling). On the other hand, the number of the partition elements for each $x$ (and therefore in its vicinity) so that $hD_t-A$ is not elliptic and (\ref{2-8}) holds is obviously $O(\rho^{-2})$; so the left-hand expression of (\ref{2-11}) does not exceed $C\rho^3h^{-3}\times \rho^{-2}$.

723: 

724: Summation of $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ with respect to $\rho$ results in $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}$ and therefore I have proven that

725: 

726: \begin{claim}\label{2-12} In frames of proposition and (\ref{2-2}) the total contribution of zone 

727: \begin{equation}

728: \bigl\{ \mu |{\frac {d\ }{dt}}x''|\ge {\bar\rho}\Def  C\mu^{-2}\bigr\}

729: \label{2-13}

730: \end{equation}

731: to the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$.\end{claim}

732: 

733: On the other hand, contribution of zone 

734: \begin{equation}

735: \bigl\{ \mu |{\frac {d\ }{dt}}x''|\le {\bar\rho}=C\mu^{-2}\bigr\}

736: \label{2-14}

737: \end{equation}

738: to the remainder does not exceed 

739: $C{\bar\rho}h^{-3}\times T_0^{-1} =C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}$ where for cut-off operator in this zone estimate (\ref{2-11}) holds with $\rho={\bar\rho}$.

740: 

741: 

742: So, the remainder does not exceed $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}$ while the main part of the asymptotics is given by the standard Tauberian formula (\ref{0-9}) with $T=Ch|\log h|$. One can easily rewrite (\ref{0-9}) with  $T=Ch|\log h|$ as

743: \begin{equation*}

744: \int \cE^\W (x,0)\psi(x)\,dx + O(\mu^2h^{-2}).

745: \end{equation*}

746: 

747: Furthermore, ne can replace here $\cE^\W (x,0)$ by $\cE^\MW (x,0)$ with the same error. The proof is  standard, easy and left to the reader.\end{proof}

748: 

749: \subsubsection{}\label{sect-2-1-2} Let us allow resonances.

750: 

751: \begin{proof}[Proof, Part II]\label{pf-2-1-II}

752: (i) Let us consider now the case when $(kf_1-lf_2)$ is not disjoint from 0. I will analyze the third order resonance which is worst case scenario leaving the easier case of higher order resonances to the reader.

753: 

754: So, now $(f_1-2f_2)$ is not disjoint from $0$ (but then one can assume that $(kf_1-lf_2)$ is as $l\ne 2k$, $k\le M$). Then one can  reduce a operator to a (pre)canonical form 

755: \begin{equation}

756: {\frac 1 2}\Bigl(f_1(x')Z_1^*Z_1 + f_2(x')Z_2^*Z_2 + \mu^{-1}\Re \beta (x') Z_1^*Z_2^2\Bigr) + O(\mu^{-2})

757: \label{2-15}

758: %\label{2-32}

759: \end{equation}

760: with

761: \begin{align}

762: &\{Z_j,Z_k\}\equiv 0, \qquad  \{Z_j^*,Z_k\}\equiv 2\mu \delta_{jk}  &&\mod O(\mu^{-s}).\label{2-16}\\

763: &\{Z_j,x'_k\}\equiv \{Z_j,^*x'_k\}\equiv 0\qquad &&\mod O(\mu^{-s}),\label{2-17}\\

764: &\{x'_j,x'_k\}\equiv \mu^{-1}\phi^{jk}(x')\qquad &&\mod O(\mu^{-2})\label{2-18}\\

765: \intertext{where}

766: &x'\equiv x\qquad \mod O(\mu^{-1}).\label{2-19}

767: \end{align}

768: Due to (\ref{1-19}) one can assume without any loss of the generality that 

769: \begin{equation}

770:  f_1-2f_2=x_1.

771: %\label{2-36}

772: \label{2-20}

773: \end{equation}

774: 

775: \medskip

776: \noindent 

777: (ii) Now let us consider elements of the partition with 

778: \begin{equation}

779:  |x_1| \asymp \gamma, \qquad    \gamma \ge C\mu^{-1}.

780: %\label{2-36}

781: \label{2-21}

782: \end{equation}

783: Then one can get rid off the cubic term in (\ref{2-15}) by means of the transformation with the generating function 

784: $\gamma^{-1}\mu^{-2}\Re \beta Z_1^*Z_2^2$

785: with $\gamma$-admissible function $\beta$ (all other cubic terms are ``regular'' and one can get rid off them in the regular way), leading to the error which, as one can easily check, is the sum of terms of the types $\gamma^{-1}\mu^{-2}\Re \beta Z_j^*Z_j Z_2^*Z_2$ and also some smaller terms; one can continue this process getting rid of all ``unbalanced'' terms up to  order $M$. Also one can introduce corrected $x''$ so that

786: \begin{equation}

787: {\frac {d\ }{dt}}x''_j =\mu^{-1} \bigl(\beta_{j1}(x'') b_1 + \beta_{j2}(x'') b_2 \bigr) + O(\mu^{-3}\gamma^{-1})

788: \label{2-22}

789: \end{equation}

790: (compare with (\ref{2-6}); however this would be slightly short of what is needed and one can improve a term $O(\mu^{-3}\gamma^{-1})$ in (\ref{2-22}) to \begin{equation*}

791: \sum_{k+l=2}\beta_{kl}(x'')b_1^kb_2^l+ O(\mu^{-3-\kappa}\gamma^{-1-\kappa})

792: \end{equation*}

793: with $\kappa>0$. Then the contribution of the zone

794: \begin{equation*}

795: \bigl\{|x_1|\asymp \gamma, \ \mu |{\frac {d\ }{dt}}x''|\le C\mu^{-2-\kappa}\gamma^{-1-\kappa}\bigr\}

796: \end{equation*}

797: to the remainder does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}\gamma \times \mu^{-2-\kappa}\gamma^{-1-\kappa}\asymp C\mu^{-1-\kappa}h^{-3}\gamma^{-\kappa}$ where the first factor $\gamma$ is the measure. Proof is similar to one in Part I, with estimate (\ref{2-11}) replaced by

798: \begin{equation}

799: |F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau}\bigl({\bar\chi}_{T_0}(t)\Gamma Q u\bigr)|\le C\rho\gamma  h^{-3},

800: \label{2-23}

801: \end{equation}

802: now $Q$ is the cut-off operator in zone (\ref{2-8}) intersected with $\{|x_1|\asymp \gamma\}$. Obviously  summation with respect to $\gamma \ge C\mu^{-1}$ results in $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$.

803: 

804: So one needs to consider the zone where

805: \begin{equation}

806: \mu |{\frac {d\ }{dt}}x'' |\asymp \rho \ge C\mu^{-2-\kappa}\gamma^{-\kappa},

807: \label{2-24}

808: \end{equation}

809: which implies that 

810: \begin{equation}

811: |\mu {\frac {d\ }{dt}}\bigl(\beta_{j1}(x'') b_1 + \beta_{j2}(x'') b_2 \bigr) | \le C\rho + C\mu^{-K}\gamma^{-K}

812: \label{2-25}

813: \end{equation}

814: and therefore one can take 

815: \begin{equation}

816: T_1= \epsilon  \min (\mu\gamma \rho^{-1},\mu, \rho \mu^K\gamma^K)

817: \label{2-26}

818: \end{equation}

819: where the restriction $T\le \epsilon \gamma \rho^{-1}$ preserves the magnitude of $|x_1|$.

820: 

821: Therefore the contribution of the zone 

822: \begin{equation*}

823: \bigl\{|x_1|\asymp \gamma, \ \mu |{\frac {d\ }{dt}}x''|\asymp \rho \bigr\}

824: \end{equation*}

825: with $\gamma\ge C\mu^{-1}$, $\rho \ge C\mu^{-2-\kappa}\gamma^{-\kappa}$ to the remainder does not exceed 

826: \begin{equation}

827: C h^{-3}\rho \gamma \Bigl(\mu^{-1}\gamma ^{-1}\rho +1 + \mu^{-K} \gamma^{-K}\Bigr)\asymp C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}\Bigl(\rho^2 +\rho\gamma + \mu^{1-K}\gamma^{1-K}\Bigr).

828: \label{2-27}

829: \end{equation}

830: Obviously summation with respect to $\rho,\gamma$ results in $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}|\log \mu|$.

831: 

832: \medskip

833: \noindent

834: (iii) Now I want to improve this estimate getting rid off $\log \mu$ factor. Note first that  the second term in (\ref{2-25}) sums to $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$, while the first and third terms sum to $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ over zones complemental to $\{\rho \ge \max(\gamma,|\log \mu|^{-1/2})\}$ and $\{\gamma\le \min (\rho, \mu^{-1+\kappa})\}$ respectively.

835: 

836: However in the first zone  one can take $T_1=\epsilon \mu \gamma^{1-\kappa}$ since in an appropriate time direction $|x_1|\gtrsim \gamma$ for this time. Then an extra factor $\gamma^\kappa$ in the remainder estimate prevents appearance of the logarithmic factor.

837: 

838: Let us introduce $W(x')=Vf_1^{-1}|_{x_1=0}$ and a scaling function $\zeta = \epsilon |\nabla' W| +\gamma$. Then  one can upgrade $T_1$ to 

839: \begin{equation}

840: T_1= \epsilon  \min (\mu\gamma \zeta^{-1},\mu, \rho^{1-\kappa} \mu^K\gamma^K)

841: \label{2-28}

842: \end{equation}

843: Really, $\mu|{\frac {d\ }{dt}}x_1|\le C\zeta $ and one can select direction of time to replace $\rho$ by $\rho^{1-\kappa}$. Then the total contribution to the remainder of all partition elements with $\zeta\le \gamma^\kappa$ is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$. 

844: 

845: On the other hand, as $\zeta \ge \gamma^\kappa$ and $\gamma\le \mu^{-1+\kappa}$ one can obviously take $T_1=\epsilon \mu \zeta$ and then the total contribution of such partition elements to the remainder does not exceed $C\mu^{-1}\zeta^{-1}h^{-3}\gamma \ll \mu^{-1}h^{-3}$.

846: 

847: \medskip

848: \noindent

849: (iv) Finally, let us consider now zone where 

850: \begin{equation}

851:  |x_1| \le \gamma=C\mu^{-1}.

852:  \label{2-29}

853: %\label{2-38}

854: \end{equation}

855: Then I am not getting rid off the cubic terms and should take $T_1=\epsilon \rho$ which one can easily upgrade to $T_1=\epsilon \rho^{1-\kappa}$\,\footnote{\label{foot-7} One can see easily that in this zone ${\frac {d\ }{dt}}b_j=\{a,b_j\}=O(1)$ and $({\frac {d\ }{dt}})^2b_j=\{a,\{a,b_j\}\}=O(1)$; one can prove that the  microhyperbolicity is preserved with respect to the same vector $\ell\rho^{-1}$.} leading to the contribution of this zone to the remainder $C\mu^{-1} h^{-3}$ where factor $\mu^{-1}$ is the measure of zone defined by (\ref{2-29}).

856: \end{proof}

857: 

858: \subsubsection{}\label{sect-2-1-3} Now let us allow $f_1f_2^{-1}$ to have critical points; however  for the generic magnetic field these critical points are not resonances.

859: 

860: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-2} Let conditions $f_1\ne f_2$, $(\ref{2-2})$ and  

861: \begin{phantomequation}\label{2-30}\end{phantomequation}

862: \begin{multline}

863: |\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|\le \epsilon_0 \implies\\ \Hess  (f_1f_2^{-1})\, \text{has at least $q$ eigenvalues with absolute values greater than $\epsilon_0$}

864: \tag*{$(2.30)_q$}\label{2-30-q}

865: \end{multline}

866: be fulfilled at $\supp\psi$ with $q\ge3$.  Then under condition $(\ref{2-1})$  the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ while the main part of asymptotics is given by  Weyl formula.

867: \end{proposition}

868: 

869: \begin{proof} Let $\gamma =\epsilon |\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|+{\bar\gamma}$, ${\bar\gamma}=C\mu^{-1}$. Let us consider $\gamma$-admissible partition with respect to $x$. 

870: 

871: Then similarly to part (i) of the proof of proposition \ref{prop-2-1} one can take $T_1=\epsilon \mu \rho ^{2-\delta'}\gamma$ with $\rho$ defined by (\ref{2-8}).  Note that

872: \begin{equation}

873: |\alpha\nabla( f_1V^{-1})+(1-\alpha)\nabla(f_2V^{-1})|\ge \epsilon \gamma |\alpha -{\bar\alpha}(x)|\qquad \forall \alpha: 0\le \alpha\le 1 

874: \label{2-31}

875: \end{equation}

876: and therefore  the measure in $\xi$-space gets a factor $\gamma^{-1}$ but the measure in $x$-space gets a factor $\gamma^q$ due to condition condition \ref{2-30-q}. 

877: 

878: Then (\ref{2-11}) and (\ref{2-23}) are replaced by the similar estimate with the right hand expression $C\rho \gamma^{q-1}h^{-3}$.

879: 

880: 

881: So, the total contribution $(\rho,\gamma)$-elements to the remainder does not exceed

882: \begin{equation}

883: C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}\rho \gamma^{q-1} \times \rho^{\kappa-1}\gamma^{-1}\asymp C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}\gamma^{q-2}\rho^\kappa.

884: \label{2-32}

885: \end{equation}

886: Summation with respect to $(\rho,\gamma)$ results in $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}$ as 

887: $q\ge 3$ and in $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}|\log \mu|$ as $q=2$ and this is the total contribution of zone   $\{\rho \gamma \ge C\mu^{-2}\}$.

888: 

889: On the other hand, contribution of zone $\{\rho \gamma \le C\mu^{-2}\}$ to the remainder is $O(\mu h^{-3}\times \mu^{-2})$ since its measure is $O(\mu^{-2})$ under condition $(\ref{2-30})_3$; under condition $(\ref{2-30})_2$ an extra logarithmic factor appears as well.

890: \end{proof}

891: 

892: \begin{remark}\label{rem-2-3} Probably one can get rid off logarithmic factors as $q=2$ and derive some estimate as $q=1$. I leave it to the curious reader.

893: \end{remark}

894: 

895: \subsubsection{}\label{sect-2-1-4} 

896: Now let us consider the vicinity of $\Sigma=\{x:\ f_1=f_2\}$.  

897: 

898: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-4} Let $|f_1-f_2|\asymp \dist (x, \Sigma)$ where $\Sigma$ is a 2-dimensional manifold. Let $\psi$ be supported in the small vicinity of $\Sigma$. Then under condition $(\ref{2-1})$  the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ while the main part of asymptotics is given by  Weyl formula.

899: \end{proposition}

900: 

901: \begin{proof} Let us introduce a scaling function 

902: \begin{equation}

903: \gamma = \epsilon \dist (x,\Sigma)+{\frac 1 2}{\bar\gamma}, \qquad {\bar\ell}=C\mu^{-1}.

904: \label{2-33}

905: \end{equation}

906: Then 

907: \begin{equation}

908: |\alpha\nabla( f_1V^{-1})+(1-\alpha)\nabla(f_2V^{-1})|\ge \epsilon  |\alpha -{\bar\alpha}(x)|\qquad \forall \alpha: 0\le \alpha\le 1 

909: \label{2-34}

910: \end{equation}

911: holds with $\gamma$-admissible ${\bar\alpha}$ and  also  (\ref{2-8}),(\ref{2-9})  hold. Therefore  one can take $T_1=\epsilon\rho^{1-\kappa}\gamma \mu $. Then the contribution of all $(\gamma,\rho)$ elements to the remainder does not exceed (\ref{2-32}) with $q=3$\,\footnote{\label{foot-8} In comparison with proposition \ref{prop-2-2} there is no factor $\gamma$ in the right hand expression of (\ref{2-34}) and therefore no factor $\gamma^{-1}$ in the estimate of the measure in $\xi$ space.} and summation over $\{\gamma\ge C\mu^{-1}, \rho \gamma\ge C\mu^{-2}\}$ results in $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$. 

912: 

913: Meanwhile the contributions of zones $\{x: \gamma\ge C\mu^{-1}, \rho \gamma\le C\mu^{-2}\}$, $\{x: \gamma\le C\mu^{-1}\}$ to the remainder are $O(\mu h^{-3}\times \mu^{-2})=O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ since the measures of these zones are $O(\mu^{-2})$.

914: \end{proof}

915: 

916: \subsubsection{}\label{sect-2-1-5}

917: Summarizing what is proven one gets

918: 

919: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-5} Let $(g^{jk})$ be fixed and then $(V_j)$ be generic, more precisely:

920: 

921: \medskip

922: \noindent

923: {\rm (i)} Outside of $\Sigma=\{x:\ f_1=f_2\}$ critical points of $f_1f_2^{-1}$ satisfy $(\ref{2-30})_3$ and $(\ref{2-2})$;

924: 

925: \medskip

926: \noindent

927: {\rm (ii)} $\Sigma$ be smooth 2-dimensional manifold and $|f_1-f_2|\asymp \dist(x,\Sigma)$.

928: 

929: 

930: Finally, let $V$ be general but satisfying $(\ref{0-8})$ at $\supp\psi$. Then under condition $(\ref{2-1})$  the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ while the main part of asymptotics is given by  Weyl formula.

931: \end{proposition}

932: 

933: 

934: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-2-6} In frames of proposition \ref{prop-2-5} Weyl and Magnetic Weyl expressions differ by (far less than) $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$.

935: \end{proposition}

936: 

937: \begin{proof} An easy proof is left to the reader.

938: \end{proof}

939: 

940: \begin{remark}\label{rem-2-7} Definitely $M$ in condition (\ref{2-2}) ``critical points of $f_1f_2^{-1}$ are not resonances of order not exceeding $M$\,'' should not be too large and I leave to the curious reader to investigate it.

941: \end{remark}

942: 

943: 

944: \section{Stronger Magnetic Field Case: Estimates}

945: \label{sect-3}

946: 

947: \subsection{Canonical form}

948: \label{sect-3-1}

949: From now one can assume that

950: \begin{equation}

951: h^{-\delta_0}\le \mu \le ch^{-1}

952: \label{3-1}

953: \end{equation}

954: with some small fixed exponent $\delta_0>0$. Then I can reduce operator to a canonical form (depending on additional assumptions) and also make decomposition with respect to Hermite functions,  thus arriving to 2-parametric matrices of 2D $\mu^{-1}h$-PDOs $\cA_{pn}(x',\mu^{-1}hD')$ where ere and below $x'=(x_1,x_2)$.

955: 

956: More precisely, assuming that there are no resonances of order not exceeding $M$:

957: \begin{equation}

958: |kf_2-lf_1|\ge \epsilon \qquad \forall (k,l)\in \bZ^{+\,2}: k+l\le  M,

959: \label{3-2}

960: \end{equation}

961: a canonical form contains diagonal elements

962: \begin{multline}

963: \cA_{pn}= {\frac 1 2}\Bigl( f_1^\# (2p+1) \mu h + f_2^\# (2n+1)\mu h -V^\# +\\

964: \sum_{l+m+k+j\ge 2} b_{lmkj} \bigl((2p+1)\mu h\bigr)^l \bigl((2n+1)\mu h\bigr)^m  \mu^{3-2l-2m-2k-j}h^j\Bigr)

965: \label{3-3}

966: \end{multline}

967: with $f_j^\#=f_j^\#(x',\mu^{-1}hD')$, $V^\#=V^\#(x',\mu^{-1}hD')$,

968: $b_{lmkj}=b_{lmkj}(x',\mu^{-1}hD')$

969: while all  non-diagonal elements are $O(\mu^{2-M})$.

970: 

971: I will discuss later an alternative form as $M=2$.

972: 

973: \subsection{General estimates at regular points}

974: \label{sect-3-2}

975: 

976: Assume first that there are no resonances of order not exceeding large $M=M(\delta_0)$. Then under condition (\ref{3-1}) perturbation $O(\mu^{2-M})$ is negligible and (\ref{3-3}) is a true diagonal canonical form (with a negligible perturbation). 

977: 

978: \subsubsection{}

979: \label{sect-3-2-1} In this case an analysis is easy:

980: 

981: \begin{proposition}

982: \label{prop-3-1} Let  there be no resonances of order not exceeding (large enough) $M$ and condition $(\ref{1-19})$  be fulfilled at $\supp \psi$. Then 

983: under condition $(\ref{3-1})$

984: 

985: \medskip

986: \noindent

987: {\rm (i)} The standard implicit asymptotic formula $(\ref{0-9})$ holds with the remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$.

988: 

989: \medskip

990: \noindent

991: {\rm (ii)} In particular,  remainder estimate is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ as

992: $\mu \le h^{-1/3}$.

993: \end{proposition}

994: 

995: \begin{proof} (i)  Let us for each \emph{pair\/} $(p,n)$ introduce scaling function 

996: \begin{equation}

997: \rho_{pn}=\epsilon \bigl(|\cA_{pn}|+|\nabla\cA_{pn}|^2\bigr)^{1/2}+{\bar\rho},\qquad 

998: {\bar\rho}=C(\mu^{-1}h|\log h|)^{1/2}+C\mu^{-2}

999: \label{3-4}

1000: \end{equation}

1001: and a corresponding partition. Then 

1002: 

1003: \begin{claim}\label{3-5}

1004: The contribution of each \emph{group\/} $(p,n,{\sf element})$ to the main part of asymptotics is  $\lesssim \mu^2h^{-2}\rho^4$\,\footnote{\label{foot-9} And often enough is is of this amplitude, so summation results in the correct magnitude of the main part.}.

1005: \end{claim}

1006: On the other hand, one can take 

1007: \begin{equation}

1008: T_1=\epsilon \mu

1009: \label{3-6}

1010: \end{equation}

1011: since the propagation speed is of magnitude $\mu^{-1}$ and also

1012: \begin{equation}

1013: T_0=Ch\rho^{-2}|\log h|.

1014: \label{3-7}

1015: \end{equation}

1016: Note that $T_0\le \epsilon_0 \mu^{-1}$ provided

1017: \begin{equation}

1018: \rho\ge {\bar\rho}_1= C(\mu h|\log h|)^{1/2}

1019: \label{3-8}

1020: \end{equation}

1021: and in this case one can trade $T_0$ to ${\bar T}=Ch|\log h|$ in (\ref{0-9}) as $\sum Q_\iota=I$; there will be also the correction term arising from elements  failing condition (\ref{3-8}); see section \ref{sect-4}. Moreover, 

1022: 

1023: \begin{claim}\label{3-9}

1024: In the estimate of expression (\ref{0-10})  one can replace $T_0$ by $T_0^*=Ch\rho^{-2}$. 

1025: \end{claim}

1026: So, the contribution of an element  to the remainder does not exceed

1027: \begin{equation}

1028: C\mu ^2 h^{-2}\rho^4 \times h\rho^{-2} \times \mu^{-1}\times \bigl(\rho^2(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr) \times \bigl(\rho (\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\times \rho^{-4}

1029: \label{3-10}

1030: \end{equation}

1031: where  $Ch\rho^{-2}|\log h|$ and $Ch\rho^{-2}$   play the roles of $T_0$ and $T_0^*$ in formulae (\ref{0-9}) and (\ref{0-10}) respectively. Also the numbers of indices $n$\ \footnote{\label{foot-10} For which ellipticity is violated for a given $p$.} and $p$\ \footnote{\label{foot-11} Such that $\rho_{pn}\asymp \rho$ as $n$ violates ellipticity.} are estimated by 

1032: $C\bigl(\rho^2(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)$ and $C\bigl(\rho (\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)$ respectively. 

1033: 

1034: One can rewrite  expression (\ref{3-9})  as 

1035: \begin{equation}

1036: C\mu ^{-1} h^{-3} \rho + Ch^{-2}\rho^{-1}+C\mu  h^{-1} \rho^{-2}; 

1037: \label{3-11}

1038: \end{equation}

1039: then  in the zone

1040: \begin{equation}

1041: \bigl\{\rho \ge {\bar\rho}\Def C(\mu^{-1}h|\log h|)^{1/2}\bigr\}

1042: \label{3-12}

1043: \end{equation}

1044: the first term sums to $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}$ while the last two terms sum to their values as $\rho={\bar\rho}$, which are   $O(h^{-5/2}\mu^{1/2})=O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2 h^{-2})$ for sure and $O(\mu^2h^{-2})$ respectively.

1045: 

1046: \medskip

1047: \noindent

1048: (ii) Meanwhile with the same main part the total contribution to the remainder of all groups with $\{\rho \le{\bar\rho}\}$  trivially does not exceed

1049: \begin{equation}

1050: C\mu ^2 h^{-2} \bigl({\bar\rho}^2(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\times \bigl({\bar\rho}(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\le C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\rho} + C\mu^2 h^{-2}.

1051: \label{3-13}

1052: \end{equation}

1053: Obviously, this  expression is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ as $\mu \le C(h|\log h|)^{-1/3}$ and $O(\mu^2h^{-2})$ as $\mu \ge Ch^{-1/3}|\log h|^{1/3}$.

1054: 

1055: \medskip

1056: \noindent

1057: (iii) To finish the proof I need to reconsider contribution to the remainder of the elements with $\{\rho_{pn}\le {\bar\rho}\}$ in the border case

1058: \begin{equation}

1059: h^{-1/3}|\log h|^{-1/3}\le \mu \le h^{-1/3}|\log h|^{1/3}.

1060: \label{3-14}

1061: \end{equation}

1062: Let us introduce another scaling function 

1063: \begin{equation}

1064: \varrho= \epsilon |\nabla^2 \cA_{pn}|+{\frac 1 2}{\bar\varrho}, \qquad {\bar\varrho}=|\log h|^{-K},

1065: \label{3-15}

1066: \end{equation}

1067: calculated with $(p,n)$ delivering minimum to  $\rho_{pn}$ and let us introduce the corresponding partition. 

1068: 

1069: Then for any element with ${\varrho}\ge {\bar\varrho}$ one can calculate easily that the relative measure of the zone $\{(x',\xi'):\ \min_{p,n}\rho_{pn} \le C{\bar\rho}\}$ is $O({\bar\rho}|\log h|^K)$ and then the total contribution of zone $\{(x',\xi'):\ \rho \le {\bar\rho},\ \varrho \ge C{\bar\varrho}\}$ to the remainder is much less than $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$. 

1070: 

1071: On the other hand, let us consider elements with $\varrho\le C{\bar\varrho}$.

1072: Since the total contribution of subelements  with $\rho\le \rho^*_1\Def C(\mu h)^{1/2}$ to the remainder is estimated properly, one needs to consider only subelements with $\rho^*_1  \le \rho\le {\bar\rho}_1$.

1073: 

1074: But on such subelements $\rho\varrho^{-1}$ is a scaling function as well and using it one can easily decrease $T_0$ to  $Ch|\log h|{\bar\varrho}\rho^{-2}$ leaving $T_1=\epsilon \mu$ ; this will add an extra factor $|\log h|^{2-K}$ to the estimate of the contribution of this zone to the remainder and this factor leads to the needed estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$.

1075: \end{proof}

1076: 

1077: \subsubsection{}

1078: \label{sect-3-2-2} Assume now that the is a critical point of $f_1f_2^{-1}$:

1079: 

1080: \begin{proposition}

1081: \label{prop-3-2} Let  there be no resonances of order not exceeding (large enough) $M$ and condition $(\ref{2-30})_3$ be fulfilled at $\supp \psi$. Then 

1082: under condition $(\ref{3-1})$

1083: 

1084: \medskip

1085: \noindent

1086: {\rm (i)} The standard implicit asymptotic formula holds with the remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$.

1087: 

1088: \medskip

1089: \noindent

1090: {\rm (ii)} In particular, the remainder estimate is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ as $\mu\le C h^{-1/3}$.

1091: \end{proposition}

1092: 

1093: \begin{proof} (i) The arguments of the proof of proposition \ref{prop-3-1} still work without condition (\ref{1-19}) with the exception of the estimate $C\bigl(\rho (\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)$ of the number of the indices ``$p$''. 

1094: 

1095: However, let us introduce another scaling function

1096: \begin{equation}

1097: \gamma \Def \epsilon_1 |\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|

1098: \label{3-16}

1099: \end{equation}

1100: and if on some group $\rho_{pn}\le \gamma$ then the number of indices ``$p$'' should be estimated by $C\bigl(\rho (\gamma \mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)$; otherwise this number should be estimated by $C\bigl( ( \mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)$. 

1101: 

1102: Note that if condition $\rho_{pn}\lesssim \gamma$ (or $\rho_{pn}\gtrsim \gamma$) is fulfilled at some point of $\rho$-element, then the same condition (with another implicit constant) is fulfilled at any other point of this element.

1103: 

1104: Anyway, this modification adds no more than one factor $\gamma^{-1}$ to the estimate, but the factor $\gamma^q$ comes from condition \ref{2-30-q}; then summation over $\gamma$-partition results in the same estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ as $q\ge 2$ and in the same estimate but with an extra logarithmic factor as $q=1$. Since I do not use  microlocal $\gamma$-partition, no estimate of $\gamma $ from below  is needed.

1105: 

1106: Therefore,

1107: \begin{claim}\label{3-17}

1108: The total contribution of elements with $\rho_{pn}\ge {\bar\rho}$ to the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$.

1109: \end{claim}

1110: 

1111: 

1112: \medskip

1113: \noindent

1114: (ii) Meanwhile, the contribution of zone $\{x:\ \rho \le{\bar\rho},\ |\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})| \le \gamma\}$ to the remainder does not exceed 

1115: $C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\rho}\gamma^{q-1}+C\mu^2h^{-2}\gamma^q$ which sums to $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ 

1116: except in the border case (\ref{3-14}).  However even in  this case $q=2$ only a contribution of zone $\{x: |\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|\ge |\log h|^{-1}\}$ 

1117: is not properly estimated. However one can tackle it by the same arguments as in the part (iii) of the proof of proposition \ref{prop-3-1}.

1118: \end{proof}

1119: 

1120: \begin{remark}\label{rem-3-3} Probably one can get rid off logarithmic factors as $q=1$.

1121: \end{remark}

1122: 

1123: \subsection{Sharp asymptotics at regular points}

1124: \label{sect-3-3}

1125: 

1126: The purpose of this and the next odd-numbered subsections is to consider the case

1127: \begin{equation}

1128: ch^{-1/3}\le \mu \le ch^{-1}

1129: %\label{3C-44}

1130: %\label{3A-49}

1131: \label{3-18}

1132: \end{equation}

1133: and derive some under non-degeneracy condition remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$. 

1134: 

1135: \subsubsection{}

1136: \label{sect-3-3-1} Note first that

1137: 

1138: \begin{claim}\label{3-19}%\label{3C-45}%\label{3C-58}

1139: In the generic case  $\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})({\bar x})=0$ implies $\nabla (Vf_1^{-1})({\bar x})\ne 0$ and then microhyperbolicity condition holds with any $\ell$ such that $\langle \ell, \nabla (Vf_1^{-1})\rangle>0$

1140: \end{claim}

1141: and therefore the following statement is generic:

1142: 

1143: \begin{claim}\label{3-20}%\label{3C-46}

1144: Let $\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})({\bar x})=0$ and $\nabla (Vf_1^{-1})({\bar x})\ne 0$. Then for any $\psi$ supported in the small vicinity of ${\bar x}$ asymptotics with the magnetic Weyl main part and remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ holds.

1145: \end{claim}

1146: 

1147: \subsubsection{}

1148: \label{sect-3-3-2} Therefore in what follows one can assume that $\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})$ is disjoint from 0. Further, one should consider only vicinities of points  where microhyperbolicity condition (\ref{1-15}) is violated. 

1149: 

1150: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-4}%\label{prop-3C-6}

1151: Let conditions $(\ref{0-8})$ and $(\ref{3-18})$ be fulfilled. Moreover, let us assume that on $\supp\psi$ there are no resonances of order not exceeding $M$ and also $|\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|\ge \epsilon_0$. Furthermore, let condition

1152: \begin{phantomequation}\label{3-21}\end{phantomequation}

1153: \begin{multline}

1154: \nu (\rho)\Def \mes \bigl\{ (x,\alpha):\ 0\le \alpha\le 1,\\|\nabla\bigl( \alpha\log f_1+(1-\alpha)\log f_2- \log V\bigr)|\le \rho\bigr\}=O(\rho^q)\qquad

1155: \text{as\ }\ \rho\to+0

1156: \tag*{$(3.21)_q$}\label{3-21-q}%\label{3-18-q}

1157: \end{multline}

1158: be fulfilled with $q>1$. Then  asymptotics with the standard implicit main part $(\ref{0-9})$ and the remainder estimate 

1159: \begin{phantomequation}\label{3-22}\end{phantomequation}

1160: \begin{equation}

1161: O\bigl(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2 h^{-2}(\mu^{-1}h)^{(q-1)/2}|\log h|^{(q+1)/2}\bigr)

1162: %\label{3C-62}

1163: \tag*{$(3.22)_q$}\label{3-22-q}\end{equation}

1164: holds.

1165: \end{proposition}

1166: 

1167: \begin{proof}

1168:  As $T=Ch\rho^{-2}|\log h|$ the contribution to the remainder of $\rho$-elements does not exceed (\ref{3-10}) multiplied by $\nu (\rho)\rho^{-1}$

1169: \begin{multline*}

1170: C\mu  h^{-1} \rho^{-2} \bigl(\rho^2(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr) \times \bigl(\rho (\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\times \nu(\rho) \rho^{-1}\asymp \\

1171: C\mu h^{-1}\bigl( \rho^3(\mu h)^{-2}+\rho (\mu h)^{-1} +1\bigr) \nu(\rho)\rho^{-3}\le\\

1172: C\mu^{-1} h^{-3}  \rho^q + Ch^{-2} \rho^{q-2} +C \mu h^{-1}\rho^{q-3}

1173: \end{multline*}

1174: where the last factor in the left-hand expression is the total measure of $\rho$-elements.

1175: 

1176: Here the first term in the right-hand expression always sums to $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ while the second and the third factor sum to their values as $\rho=1$ (i.e. $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ for sure) plus their values as $\rho={\bar\rho}=C(\mu^{-1}h|\log h|)^{1/2}$ which do not exceed the second term in \ref{3-22-q}. As $q=2,3$ the second or the third term respectively acquires an extra logarithmic factor  but it does not change the estimate.

1177: 

1178: Furthermore, contribution of zone $\bigl\{\rho \le {\bar\rho}\bigr\}$ to the remainder does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}\nu ({\bar\rho})+ C\mu^2h^{-2}\nu ({\bar\rho}){\bar\rho}^{-1}$ which is the second term in \ref{3-22-q}.

1179: \end{proof}

1180: 

1181: \begin{corollary}\label{cor-3-5}  In frames of proposition \ref{prop-3-4}  remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ holds as   $q>3$.

1182: \end{corollary}

1183: 

1184: 

1185: \begin{remark}\label{rem-3-6}

1186: In the generic case condition $(\ref{3-21})_4$ is fulfilled.

1187: \end{remark}

1188: 

1189: \subsubsection{}

1190: \label{}

1191: Let us consider a special case 

1192: \begin{equation}

1193: \epsilon h^{-1}\le \mu \le ch^{-1}.

1194: %\label{3C-63}

1195: \label{3-23}

1196: \end{equation}

1197: 

1198: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-7}

1199: Let conditions $(\ref{0-8})$ and $(\ref{3-23})$ be fulfilled. Moreover, let us assume that on $\supp\psi$ there are no resonances of order not exceeding $M$ and also  $|\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|\ge \epsilon_0$. Furthermore, let condition

1200: \begin{phantomequation}\label{3-24}\end{phantomequation}

1201: \begin{multline}

1202: |(2p+1)\mu h f_1V^{-1}+(2n+1)\mu h f_2V^{-1}-1|+\\

1203: |\nabla\bigl( (2p+1)\mu h f_1V^{-1}+(2n+1)\mu h f_2V^{-1}-1\bigr)|\le \epsilon_0 \implies\\ \Hess  \bigl((2p+1)\mu h f_1V^{-1}+(2n+1)\mu h f_2V^{-1}-1\bigr)  \text{\ \ has at least $r$ eigenvalues  }\\ \text{with absolute values greater than $\epsilon_0$}

1204: \tag*{$(3.24)_r$}\label{3-24-r}

1205: \end{multline}

1206: be fulfilled with $r\ge 1$. Then asymptotics with the standard implicit main part $(\ref{0-9})$ and the remainder estimate $(\ref{3-22})_{r+1}$  i.e.

1207: $O(h^{-2}+h^{r-4}|\log h|^{(r+2)/2})$ holds.

1208: \end{proposition}

1209: 

1210: \begin{proof} Follows easily the proof of proposition \ref{prop-3-4}.

1211: \end{proof}

1212: 

1213: \begin{remark}\label{rem-3-8}

1214: One can get rid off the logarithmic factors in estimate \ref{3-22-q} but I do not care since I am interested only in the generic cases $q=4$, $r=4$.

1215: \end{remark}

1216: 

1217: \subsection{General asymptotics at resonances}

1218: \label{sect-3-4}

1219: 

1220: Now assume that there are $(k,l)$ resonances of order $m=k+l\ge 3$. However considering $\epsilon_1$-vicinity of any point one can assume that

1221: 

1222:  \begin{claim}\label{3-25}%\label{3C-15}

1223: There are no $(k',l')$-resonances with $k'+l'\le M$ unless $k'/k = l'/l \in \bZ$.

1224: \end{claim}

1225: 

1226: \subsubsection{}

1227: \label{sect-3-4-1} So, let us consider  

1228: \begin{equation}

1229: \Xi_{kl}=\{x:\ f_1k=f_2l\}

1230: \label{3-26}

1231: \end{equation}

1232: which under condition (\ref{3-4}) is a smooth surface. One can assume without any loss of the generality that the analogue of (\ref{2-20}) holds: $kf_1-lf_2=x_1$ while $(x_2,\xi_1,\xi_2)$ are coordinates on $\Xi_{kl}$. Let us introduce a scaling function 

1233: \begin{equation}

1234: \gamma =\epsilon |x_1|+{\frac 1 2}{\bar\gamma},\qquad

1235: {\bar\gamma}=\mu^{-1+\delta}

1236: \label{3-27}

1237: \end{equation}

1238: with arbitrarily small exponent $\delta>0$.

1239: 

1240: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-9} Let conditions $(\ref{3-25})$ with $k+l=m\ge3$   and $(\ref{1-19})$ be fulfilled at $\supp\psi$. 

1241: Then under condition $(\ref{3-1})$ asymptotics with the standard implicit main part $(\ref{0-9})$ and the remainder estimate  $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ holds.

1242: \end{proposition}

1243: 

1244: \begin{proof}[Proof, Part I]  I will give the proof working the worst-case scenario $m=3$; as $m\ge 4$ one can simplify the proof. In this part I am going to prove that

1245: \begin{claim}\label{3-28}

1246: The contribution of zone $\{|x_1|\ge {\bar\gamma}\}$ to the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$.

1247: \end{claim}

1248: After reduction to precanonical form with non-diagonal terms corresponding to resonances, in this zone one can get rid off non-diagonal terms (modulo $O(\mu^{-M})$).  Let us consider scaling function $\rho_{pn}$ introduced by (\ref{3-4}) for a full symbol of $\cA_{pn}$.

1249: 

1250: \medskip

1251: \noindent 

1252: (i) Consider first subzone

1253: \begin{equation}

1254: \bigl\{x:\ |x_1|\ge \max(\rho, {\bar\gamma})\bigr\}.

1255: \label{3-29}

1256: \end{equation}

1257: Then one can apply the same arguments as in the proof of proposition \ref{prop-3-1}; however there is a problem\footnote{\label{foot-12} It is not a problem at all as $m=5$ and rather a marginal problem as $m=4$ but for $d=3$ this requires a certain attention.}:   as function of $x_1$ \ $\rho_{pn}$ remains $\gamma$-admissible only as 

1258: \begin{equation}

1259: \gamma\ge {\bar\gamma}_1\Def \mu^{(4-2m)/3}.

1260: \label{3-30}

1261: \end{equation}

1262: So far the arguments as in the proof of proposition \ref{prop-3-1} result in\footnote{\label{foot-13} The border case (\ref{3-14}) (may be with the different powers of logarithm) should be covered only in zone $\{|\log h|^{-K_1}\le |x_1|\le \epsilon\}$.}

1263: 

1264: \begin{claim}\label{3-31}

1265: The contribution of zone $\bigl\{x:\ |x_1| \ge \max(\rho, {\bar\gamma}_1)\bigr\}$ with ${\bar\gamma}_1= \mu^{-2/3}$ to the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$.

1266: \end{claim}

1267: 

1268: \medskip

1269: \noindent

1270: (ii) Consider now subzone

1271: \begin{equation}

1272: \bigl\{\gamma \ge {\bar\gamma},\ \rho\ge \gamma ,\bigr\}.

1273: \label{3-32}

1274: \end{equation}

1275: Note that here the derivatives of $\cA_{pn}$ with respect to $x_1$ and to $(x_2,\xi_1,\xi_2)$ have different values: while the derivative with respect to $x_1$ measures speed with respect to $\xi_1$ and the shift with respect to $\xi_1$ is quantum observable as 

1276: $|\nabla_{x_1}\cA_{pn}|\times \gamma \ge C\mu^{-1}h|\log h|$  provided $\gamma$ is the scale with respect to $x_1$, other derivatives measure speed with respect to $(\xi_2, x_1,x_2)$ and the shift is quantum observable as 

1277: $|\nabla'\cA_{pn}|\times \zeta \ge C\mu^{-1}h|\log h|$,

1278: provided $\zeta$ is the scale with respect to these variable where here and below

1279: $\nabla'\Def \nabla_{x_2,\xi_1,\xi_2}$.

1280: 

1281: So, let us introduce the third scaling function 

1282: \begin{equation}

1283: \zeta_{pn}=\epsilon \bigl(|\cA_{pn}|+|\nabla'\cA_{pn}|^2\bigr)^{1/2}+

1284: (\rho\gamma)^{1/2}

1285: \label{3-33}

1286: \end{equation}

1287: where the last term will be actually included later.

1288: 

1289: Then one can make a $\zeta$-admissible partition. So I have now $(\gamma,\rho,\zeta)$ elements with $\gamma\le \zeta\le\rho$ where $\zeta$ is the scale with respect to $(x_2,\xi_1,\xi_2)$ and $\gamma$ is the scale with respect to $x_1$ while $\rho$ at this moment lost its scaling role. However while $\zeta$ is $\gamma$-admissible function with respect to $x_1$, $\rho$ preserves its magnitude in as $x_1$ varies by $O(\gamma)$ only under condition

1290: \begin{equation}

1291: \rho \ge \mu^{-2}\gamma^{-2}.

1292: \label{3-34}

1293: \end{equation}

1294: I claim that  that then 

1295: \begin{align}

1296: &T_0=Ch|\log h| \bigl(\rho\gamma +\zeta^2\bigr)^{-1},\qquad

1297: T_0^*=Ch \bigl(\rho\gamma +\zeta^2\bigr)^{-1}\label{3-35}\\

1298: \intertext{while}

1299: &T_1= \epsilon\mu  \min\bigl( \zeta\rho^{-1},\gamma\zeta^{-1}\bigr)\asymp \epsilon\mu \zeta\gamma\bigl( \rho\gamma+\zeta^2\bigr)^{-1}.\label{3-36}

1300: \end{align}

1301: Really, as  $\rho \gamma \asymp \zeta^2$ propagation speed with respect to  $\xi_1$ is $\asymp\rho$ it is dual to $x_1$ of the scale $\gamma$.  Meanwhile speeds with respect to all other variables are bounded by $C\zeta$ and for given $T_1$ magnitudes of $\zeta,\gamma,\rho$ are preserved. 

1302: 

1303: On the other hand, as $\rho \gamma \le \epsilon_1\zeta^2$ propagation speed with respect to $(x_1,x_2,\xi_2)$ is $\asymp \zeta$ and they are dual to $(\xi_1,\xi_2,x_2)$ of the scale $\zeta$ while propagation speed with respect to $\xi_1$ is bounded by $C\rho$ and for given $T_1$ magnitudes of $\zeta,\gamma,\rho$ are preserved. 

1304: 

1305: I leave to the reader the standard justification on the quantum level (based on energy estimates approach).

1306: 

1307: 

1308: Thus $T_0^*T_1^{-1}\asymp \mu ^{-1}h \gamma^{-1}\zeta^{-1}$; in virtue of the last term in the definition of $\zeta$   one can skip $\rho\gamma$ in $(\zeta^2+\rho\gamma)$ here and below.

1309: 

1310: Then the  total contribution of all $(\rho,\zeta,\gamma)$ elements to the remainder does not exceed

1311: \begin{equation}

1312: C\mu^2h^{-2}\times \gamma \times T_0^*T_1^{-1}\times

1313: \bigl((\rho\gamma+\zeta^2)(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\times \bigl(\rho (\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)

1314: \label{3-37}

1315: \end{equation}

1316: where $C\bigl((\rho\gamma+\zeta^2)(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\asymp C\bigl((\zeta^2(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)$ is an upper bound for a number of indices $n$ violating ellipticity for a given index $p$. 

1317: 

1318: If one picks up only ``$1$'' from both factors with the parentheses in (\ref{3-37}) and replaces $T_0T_1^{-1}$ by $1$, then summation with respect to partitions results in $C\mu^2h^{-2}$; on the other hand, since $\zeta^2\le \rho$, one can rewrite the above expression (\ref{3-37}) as

1319: \begin{equation}

1320: C\mu h^{-1}\times \zeta^{-1}

1321: \bigl(\zeta^2 (\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\times \rho (\mu h)^{-1}\asymp

1322: C h^{-2}  \bigl(\zeta  (\mu h)^{-1}+\zeta^{-1}\bigr)\rho .

1323: \label{3-38}

1324: \end{equation}

1325: Then summation with respect to $\zeta$ from $(\rho \gamma)^{1/2}$ to $\rho$ results in 

1326: \begin{equation}

1327: Ch^{-2}\rho 

1328: \bigl(\rho  (\mu h)^{-1}+\rho^{-1/2}\gamma^{-1/2}\bigr) \asymp 

1329: C\mu^{-1} h^{-3}\rho^2 + 

1330: Ch^{-2}\rho^{1/2}\gamma^{-1/2}.

1331: \label{3-39}

1332: \end{equation}

1333: The second term in the right hand expression sums with respect to $(\rho,\gamma)$ to $Ch^{-2}{\bar\gamma}^{-1/2}\ll C\mu^2 h^{-2}$. However the first term sums to $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}|\log h|$ and this logarithmic factor appears due to summation with respect to $\gamma$.

1334: 

1335: To get rid off this factor let us notice that only case $\mu \le h ^{-1/3}|\log h|^{1/3}$ needs to be addressed and only zone $\{\zeta \ge \gamma^\kappa\}$ should be reconsidered (with an arbitrarily small exponent $\kappa>0$); in this case $\zeta \gg (\rho\gamma)^{1/2}$. Moreover,  only term $Ch^{-4}\rho\zeta^2 \gamma\times T_0^*T_1^{-1}$ in (\ref{3-37}) should be reexamined.

1336: 

1337: However then one does not need to use the canonical form but rather a weak magnetic field approach and  take $T_0^*=h\zeta^{-2}$ and $T_1=\mu \zeta$ and the contribution of this zone to the term in question does not exceed $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}\int \zeta^{-1}\,d\gamma \le C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}$. Therefore

1338: \begin{claim}\label{3-40}

1339: The contribution of zone 

1340: $\bigl\{ \rho \ge \max (\gamma, \mu^{-2}\gamma^{-2}),\ \gamma \ge {\bar\gamma}\bigr\}$ to the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$.

1341: \end{claim}

1342: 

1343: \medskip

1344: \noindent

1345: (iii) Now let us consider the remaining part of the zone 

1346: $\{\epsilon\ge \gamma \ge {\bar\gamma}\}$. In this zone let us introduce the scaling function 

1347: \begin{equation}

1348: \eta = \mu ^2\gamma^3\rho.

1349: \label{3-41}

1350: \end{equation}

1351: Then $\rho$  as a function of $x_1$ is $\eta$-admissible. Let us modify definition (\ref{3-33}) etc replacing $\gamma$ by $\eta$:

1352: \begin{equation}

1353: \zeta_{pn}=\epsilon \bigl(|\cA_{pn}|+|\nabla'\cA_{pn}|^2\bigr)^{1/2}+

1354: (\rho\gamma)^{1/2}

1355: \tag*{$(3.33)^*$}

1356: \label{3-33-*}

1357: \end{equation}

1358: and then (\ref{3-35}), (\ref{3-36})  are also modified in the same way (anyway, terms $\rho\gamma$ originally and $\rho\eta$ now are not important): 

1359: \begin{equation}

1360: T_1= \epsilon\mu  \min\bigl( \zeta\rho^{-1},\eta\zeta^{-1}\bigr)\asymp \epsilon\mu \eta\zeta^{-1}

1361: \tag*{$(3.35)^*$}

1362: \label{3-35-*}

1363: \end{equation}

1364: and $T_0^*T_1^{-1}\asymp \mu^{-1}h \eta^{-1}\zeta^{-1}$.

1365: 

1366: Then modified (\ref{3-37}) and (\ref{3-38}) expressions

1367: \begin{equation}

1368: C\mu h^{-1}\times \zeta^{-1}

1369: \bigl(\zeta^2 (\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\times \rho (\mu h)^{-1}\gamma\eta^{-1}\asymp

1370: C h^{-2} \times 

1371: \bigl(\zeta  (\mu h)^{-1}+\zeta^{-1}\bigr)\rho \gamma\eta^{-1}

1372: \tag*{$(3.37)^*$}

1373: \label{3-37-*}

1374: \end{equation}

1375: estimate contribution of all $(\rho,\gamma,\eta,\zeta)$ elements. Here an (unpleasant) factor $\gamma\eta^{-1}$ appears since the measure of the strip remains $\gamma$ and  $\gamma^{-1}$ is replaced by $\eta^{-1}$ in $T_0^*T_1^{-1}$. 

1376: 

1377: Plugging $\eta$ into \ref{3-37-*} one gets 

1378: \begin{equation}

1379: C\mu^{-3}h^{-3}\gamma^{-2}\zeta +C\mu^{-2}h^{-2} \gamma^{-2}\zeta^{-1}

1380: \label{3-42}

1381: \end{equation}

1382: and the first term sums to $o(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$.

1383: 

1384: The second term sums with respect to $\zeta$ to its value at the smallest $\zeta$ satisfying conditions $T_1=\mu \eta \zeta^{-1}\ge T_0=h\zeta^{-2}$ and $\zeta \ge (\rho\eta)^{1/2}$:

1385: \begin{equation}

1386: \zeta = \max \bigl(\mu^{-1}h\eta^{-1}, (\rho\eta)^{1/2}\bigr)= \max \bigl(\mu^{-3}h\rho^{-1}\gamma^{-3}, \rho \mu \gamma^{3/2}\bigr)

1387: \label{3-43}

1388: \end{equation}

1389: so one gets 

1390: \begin{equation*}

1391: C\mu^{-2}h^{-2} \gamma^{-2}\min \bigl(  h^{-1}\rho \mu^3\gamma^3 , \rho^{-1}\mu^{-1}\gamma^{-3/2}\bigr)

1392: \end{equation*}

1393: which sums with respect to $\rho$ to $C\mu^{-1}h^{-5/2} \gamma^{-5/4}$ and then with respect to $\gamma$ to $O(\mu^{1/4} h^{-5/2})\ll \bigl(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+ \mu^2 h^{-2}\bigr)$.

1394: 

1395: Meanwhile if $T_1\le T_0$ then one just replaces $T_1$ by $T_0$ and gets 

1396: $C h^{-4}\zeta^2 \rho\gamma + C\mu h^{-3}\rho\gamma$ with $\zeta=(\rho\eta)^{1/2}$ i.e.

1397: \begin{equation}

1398: C h^{-4}(\rho \eta)^{1/2}\rho\gamma  + C\mu h^{-3}\rho\gamma\asymp 

1399: C h^{-4}\mu \rho^2\gamma^{5/2}  + C\mu h^{-3}\rho\gamma

1400: \label{3-44}

1401: \end{equation}

1402: and \emph{only} if $(\rho\eta)^{1/2}\le \mu^{-1}h\eta^{-1}$ or equivalently

1403: $\rho \le  {\bar\rho}\Def \mu^{-2}h^{1/2}\gamma^{-9/4}$. Plugging ${\bar\rho}$ in (\ref{3-44}) I get 

1404: $C \bigl(h^{-3}\mu ^{-3}\gamma^{-2}  + \mu ^{-1}h^{-5/2}\gamma^{-5/4}\bigr)$; summation with respect to $\gamma$ results in $o(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^{1/4}h^{-5/2})$. Therefore

1405: 

1406: 

1407: \emph{Statement $(\ref{3-28})$ is proven.} 

1408: \end{proof}

1409: 

1410: \begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition 3.9, Part II]\label{pf-3-9-II}  I am left with zone $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}\}$; its contribution to the remainder does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}=C\mu^\delta h^{-3}$ which is $O(\mu^2h^{-2})$ as $\mu\ge h^{-1/2-\delta'}$ and therefore only case $\mu \le h^{-1/2-\delta'}$ needs to be addressed. In this zone I use precanonical form with non-diagonal matrix elements but without singular terms. 

1411: 

1412: \begin{claim}\label{3-45} 

1413: Let $\cA^0_{pn}$ denote diagonal matrix elements,

1414: \end{claim}

1415: One can see easily that 

1416: \begin{equation}

1417: |\nabla '\cA^0_{pn}|\equiv  |\nabla ' \log (f_jV^{-1})|\quad \mod O(\gamma)\qquad \text{as\ \ } |x_1|\le \gamma

1418: \label{3-46}

1419: \end{equation}

1420: (as $\cA_{pn}$ is non-elliptic) does not actually depend on $p$; let us define

1421: \begin{equation}

1422: \zeta \Def |\nabla ' \log (f_jV^{-1}|\bigr|_{x_1=0} + (\rho \gamma)^{1/2}.

1423: \label{3-47}

1424: \end{equation}

1425: \begin{claim}\label{3-48} 

1426: Let us define $\rho_{pn}$  as before but with $\cA^0_{pn}$ instead of $\cA_{pn}$.

1427: \end{claim}

1428: in contrast to $\zeta$ $\rho_{pn}$ strongly depends on $p$.

1429: 

1430: Then, as before $\mu^{-1}\rho$ controls the propagation speed with respect to $x_1$ and thus bounds the propagation speed with respect to $\zeta$ while $\mu^{-1}\zeta$ controls the propagation speed with respect to $(x_1,x_2,\xi_2)$ as long as $\zeta\ge C\gamma$, $\rho\ge C\gamma$. I remind that $\gamma\ge C\mu^{-1}$.

1431: 

1432: However the propagation speed with respect to $\rho$ is a different matter. Considering commutator of 

1433: \begin{equation*}

1434: \cA= f_1V^{-1} Z_1^*Z_1+ f_2 Z_2^*Z_2+2\mu^{-1}\Re \bigl(\beta Z_1^*Z_2^2\bigr) +\dots

1435: \end{equation*}

1436: (assuming that resonance is $2f_2=f_1$) with 

1437: \begin{equation}

1438: \partial_{x_1}\cA^0 = \varkappa Z_1^*Z_1 + \omega \cA^0+\dots, \qquad \varkappa= f_1  \bigl(\partial_{x_1}(\log (f_1f_2^{-1})\bigr)

1439: \label{3-49}

1440: \end{equation}

1441: (with $\dots =O(\gamma)$) one can see easily that 

1442: \begin{equation}

1443: \varkappa \mu^{-1}

1444: \bigl[\cA, \partial_{x_1}\cA^0\bigr] \equiv \bigl[\Re \beta Z_1^*Z_2^2,Z_1^*Z_1\bigr]= 2\varkappa \Re \beta Z_1^*Z_2^2 \quad\mod O(\gamma)

1445: \label{3-50}

1446: \end{equation}

1447: which is bounded by $1$. Therefore 

1448: \begin{claim}\label{3-51}

1449: The propagation speed with respect to $\rho$ does not exceed $1$. Furthermore, $\rho$ is properly defined as $\rho\ge C\mu h|\log h|$  (the logarithmic uncertainty principle).

1450: \end{claim}

1451: Without nondegeneracy condition there is not much use of $\zeta$; let us consider elements with $\rho\ge C\gamma$. Due to (\ref{3-51}) I can pick up $T_1=\epsilon \rho$. Then the contribution to the remainder of all such elements does not exceed 

1452: \begin{equation}

1453: C\mu^2h^{-2}\gamma \times h\zeta^{-2}\rho^{-1}

1454: \bigl(\zeta^2  (\mu h)^{-1} +1\bigr) \times \bigl(\rho  (\mu h)^{-1} +1\bigr)

1455: \label{3-52}

1456: \end{equation}

1457: and as long I include $O(\mu^2h^{-2})$ into final remainder estimate I can skip ``$+1$'' in the last factor (due to the same arguments as before) resulting in

1458: \begin{equation}

1459: C\mu h^{-2}\gamma \zeta^{-2}

1460: \bigl(\zeta^2  (\mu h)^{-1} +1\bigr) \asymp Ch^{-3}\gamma + C\mu h^{-2}\zeta^{-2}\gamma\le Ch^{-3}\gamma + C\mu h^{-2}\rho^{-1};

1461: \label{3-53}

1462: \end{equation}

1463: as $\gamma={\bar\gamma}$ this expression does not exceed $Ch^{-3}{\bar\gamma}+C\mu h^{-2}\rho^{-1}$ which sums with respect to $\rho $ to

1464: $Ch^{-3}{\bar\gamma}|\log h|+ C\mu h^{-2}{\bar\rho}^{-1}$ and the last term is $O(\mu^2h^{-2})$. 

1465: 

1466: On the other hand, in the zone $\{\rho \le {\bar\rho}\}$ I pick up $T^*_0T_1^{-1}=1$ and its contribution to the remainder does not exceed $C{\bar\rho}^2{\bar\gamma}^2h^{-4}+ C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\rho}{\bar\gamma}+C\mu^2h^{-2}$.

1467: 

1468: Therefore, as $h^{-1/3-\delta'}\le \mu \le h^{-1/2-\delta'}$,  the contribution to the remainder of the zone $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}=\mu^{-1+\delta}\}$ with sufficiently small $\delta=\delta(\delta')>0$ does not exceed $C\mu^2h^{-2}$. In this case proposition \ref{prop-3-9} is also proven.

1469: \end{proof}

1470: 

1471: I will need the following 

1472: 

1473: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-10} Let conditions $(\ref{0-8})$ and $(\ref{3-1})$ and $|f_1-f_2|\ge \epsilon$ be fulfilled. Let us consider the precanonical form. Finally, let $\cQ$ be a $\rho$-admissible partition element element in $(q_1,q_2)$, then quantized as 

1474: $\cQ \bigl((h^2D_3^2+\mu^2x_3^2), (h^2D_4^2+\mu^2x_4^2)\bigr)$ with

1475: \begin{equation}

1476: \rho\ge C\mu h|\log h|+ C{\bar\gamma}_0^k\gamma^{1-k}

1477: \label{3-54}

1478: \end{equation}

1479: and $\psi$ be $\gamma$-admissible with respect to $x_1$, either supported in $\{|x_1|\asymp \gamma\}$ as $\gamma> {\bar\gamma}_0\Def C\mu^{-1}$ or supported in $\{|x_1|\lesssim \gamma\}$ as $\gamma={\bar\gamma}_0$.

1480: Then 

1481: \begin{align}

1482: &|F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} \chi_T(t)\Gamma \bigr(\psi \cQ u Q ^t_y\bigl)|\le Ch^s,

1483: \label{3-55}\\

1484: \intertext{and}

1485: &|F_{t\to h^{-1}\tau} {\bar\chi}_T(t)\Gamma \bigr(\psi \cQ u Q ^t_y\bigl)|\le  C\rho \gamma h^{-3}

1486: \label{3-56}

1487: \end{align}

1488: as $|\tau|\le \epsilon$

1489: \begin{equation}

1490: Ch|\log h|\rho^{-1}\le T\le \epsilon\mu^{-1}.

1491: \label{3-57}

1492: \end{equation}

1493: \end{proposition}

1494: 

1495: \begin{proof}

1496: Consider the propagation with respect to either $(x_3,\mu^{-1} hD_3)$ or

1497: $( x_4,\mu^{-1}hD_4)$. Due to (\ref{0-8}) on energy levels close to 0 at least one of $\mu^2x_j^2+h^2D_3^j$ is of magnitude 1 ($j=3,4$). The propagation speed with respect to $(x_3, x_4,\mu^{-1}hD_3,\mu^{-1}hD_4)$ is $\asymp 1$. Therefore one can trade $T\le \epsilon \mu^{-1}$ to ${\bar T}=Ch|\log h|$ and in the estimate of Fourier transform to ${\bar T}^*=Ch$. The remaining part of the proof is easy and left to the reader.

1498: \end{proof}

1499: 

1500: \begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition 3.9, Part III]\label{pf-3-9-III} Therefore only case $h^{-\delta_0}\le \mu \le h^{-1/3-\delta'}$ remains to be addressed where $\delta_0>0$ is small and fixed and $\delta'>0$ is arbitrarily small. It follows from Parts I,II that exponents $\delta>0$ in the definition of ${\bar\gamma}$ and $\delta'>0$ are \emph{independently\/} small. 

1501: 

1502: \medskip

1503: \noindent

1504: (i) Let us consider elements with $|\nabla 'V^{-1}f_j|\asymp \varsigma\ge C\gamma$. Then as $T_0= Ch|\log h|(\varsigma^2+\rho\gamma)^{-1}\le \epsilon \rho$, i.e. as

1505: \begin{equation}

1506: \rho \ge \varrho\Def C\min \bigl(h|\log h|\varsigma^{-2}, (\gamma^{-1}h|\log h|)^{1/2}\bigr)+C\gamma,

1507: \label{3-58}

1508: \end{equation}

1509: $\rho $ is preserved on the time interval $T_0$ which can be traded to $T_1=\epsilon\mu \varsigma$. Therefore the contribution to the remainder of all such elements does not exceed

1510: \begin{equation}

1511: C\rho\gamma (\varsigma^2+\mu h) h^{-4}T_0^* T_1^{-1} \asymp C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}\rho\gamma\varsigma^{-1}+ C h^{-2}\rho\gamma\varsigma^{-3};

1512: \label{3-59}

1513: \end{equation}

1514: summation with respect to $\varsigma,\rho, \gamma$ trivially results in $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$.

1515: 

1516: On the other hand, one can see easily that if (\ref{3-58}) is violated,  then $C\varrho$ remains an upper bound for $\rho$ at time $|t|\le T_0=Ch|\log h|\varsigma^{-1}$; therefore contribution of such elements to the remainder does not exceed

1517: \begin{equation}

1518: C\rho\gamma (\varsigma^2+\varrho\gamma+\mu h) h^{-4}T_0^* T_1^{-1} \asymp C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}\varrho\gamma  \varsigma^{-1}+

1519: C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}\varrho^2\gamma^2 \varsigma^{-3}+

1520: Ch^{-2}\rho\gamma  \varsigma^{-3}

1521: \label{3-60}

1522: \end{equation}

1523: which does not exceed the same expression with $\varsigma=\gamma$ and corresponding $\varrho$; one can see easily that 

1524: $\varrho\le \gamma h^{-5\delta'}$ and (\ref{3-60}) is $o(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$.

1525: 

1526: Therefore only elements with $|\nabla 'V^{-1}f_j|\le C\gamma$  

1527: remain to be treated, where either $|x_1|\le \gamma =C\mu^{-1}$ or 

1528: $C\mu^{-1}\le |x_1|\asymp \gamma\le \mu^{-1+\delta}$.

1529: 

1530: \medskip

1531: \noindent

1532: (ii)

1533: Let us consider the propagation speed with respect to $\rho$ more precisely. Note that as $|x_1|\asymp \gamma\ge C\mu^{-1}$ one can translate non-diagonal term $\mu^{-1}\Re (\omega Z_1^*Z_2^2)$ into 

1534: \begin{equation*}

1535: \mu^{-2}x_1^{-1}|\omega|^2 (Z_1^*Z_1-4z_2^*Z_2)Z_2^*Z_2+\dots

1536: \end{equation*}

1537: with 

1538: \begin{equation*}

1539: \rho= -\mu^{-2}x_2^{-1}|\omega|^2 (Z_1^*Z_1-4z_2^*Z_2)Z_2^*Z_2+\dots

1540: \end{equation*}

1541: Then 

1542: $[a,\rho]=O(\mu^{-s}\gamma^{-s}+\mu^{-1})$ and furthermore along trajectories 

1543: $[a,\rho](t)=[a,\rho](0)+O( (\mu^{-s}\gamma^{-s}|t|)$ (where $s$ is an arbitrarily large exponent and  $\delta=\delta(s)>0$ is small enough) and therefore 

1544: 

1545: \begin{claim}\label{3-61}

1546: $\rho$ preserves both its sign and the bound from below as $\rho(0)\ge C\mu^{-s}\gamma^{1-s}$ and $|t|\le T_1$ with

1547: \begin{equation}

1548: T_1\Def \epsilon \rho^{1/2}\mu^{s/2}\gamma^{s/2}\qquad \text{as\ } {\bar\gamma}_0= C\mu^{-1}\le \gamma \le {\bar\gamma},\ \rho\ge C\mu^{-s/2}\gamma^{1-s/2}

1549: \label{3-62}

1550: \end{equation}

1551: \end{claim}

1552: (where $\rho=\rho (0)$). Therefore the contribution of the corresponding strip to the remainder does not exceed

1553: \begin{equation*}

1554: G(\rho,\gamma)\Def C\mu^2h^{-2}\gamma\times h\rho^{-2} \times \bigl((\rho^2+\gamma^2)(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\times \rho (\mu h)^{-1}\times \rho^{-1/2}\mu^{-s/2}\gamma^{-s/2}.

1555: \end{equation*}

1556: Thus after summation over $\rho\ge C\mu^{-s/6}\gamma^{1-s/6}$ \ I arrive to  $G(1,\gamma)+G(\mu^{-s/6}\gamma^{1-s/2})$ and for large enough $s$ summation with respect to $\gamma$ results in $G(1,\mu^{-1})+G(\mu^{-1}\mu^{-1})$ which is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$.

1557: 

1558: Meanwhile the contribution of the zone $\{|x_1|\asymp\gamma, \rho \le\varrho\Def  C\mu^{-s/6}\gamma^{1-s/6}\}$ to the remainder due to proposition \ref{prop-3-10} does not exceed $C\varrho \gamma \mu h^{-3}\asymp C\mu^{-s/6}\gamma^{1-s/6}h^{-3}$ and summation with respect to $\gamma$ results in $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}$. Therefore

1559: \begin{claim}\label{3-63}

1560: Contribution of zone $\{{\bar\gamma}_0\le |x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}\}$ to the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$.

1561: \end{claim}

1562: 

1563: \medskip

1564: \noindent

1565: (iii) Similar arguments work for zones 

1566: $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_0,\ \rho\ge \varrho\Def C\mu^{-1}\}$ with $T_1= C\rho ^{1/2}$

1567: and for $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_0,\ \rho\le \varrho\}$ and therefore 

1568: Contribution of zone $\{ |x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_0\}$ to the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$.

1569: 

1570: This concludes Part III and the whole proof.\end{proof}

1571: 

1572: \subsection{Sharp asymptotics at resonances}

1573: \label{sect-3-5}

1574: 

1575: In this subsection I am going to prove sharp remainder estimate under generic assumptions to $V$. I know from proposition \ref{prop-1-6} that in the generic situation critical points of $\phi_\alpha=\alpha \log f_1+(1-\alpha)\log f_2 -\log V$ are non-degenerate except of discrete values of $\alpha=\alpha_j$. One can prove easily that

1576: 

1577: \begin{claim}\label{3-64}%\label{3N-51}%\label{3N-40}%\label{3C-65}

1578: In the generic case degenerate critical points $\alpha_j$  of $\phi_\alpha$ are not resonances.  Then as $\alpha \ne \alpha_j$   the set of critical points is a smooth 1-dimensional curve parametrized by $\alpha$ and resonance surface is 3D surface.

1579: \end{claim}

1580: \begin{claim}\label{3-65}%\label{3N-52}

1581: In the generic case these curve and resonance surface $\Xi_{kl}$ meet at isolated points and are transversal in them.

1582: \end{claim}

1583: Then

1584: \begin{phantomequation}\label{3-66}\end{phantomequation}

1585: \begin{multline}

1586: {\tilde\nu} (\rho,\zeta,\gamma)\Def \mes \Bigl\{ (x,\alpha):\ |kf_1-lf_2|<\gamma,\\  |\nabla'\bigl( \alpha\log f_1+(1-\alpha)\log f_2- \log V\bigr)|\le \zeta,\\

1587: \hskip83pt|\nabla \bigl( \alpha\log f_1+(1-\alpha)\log f_2- \log V\bigr)|\le \rho \Bigr\}\le C\rho^{q-r} \zeta^r\gamma  \\ 

1588: \text{as\ }\ \rho \ge  \gamma,\ \rho\ge \zeta \ge (\rho\gamma)^{1/2}

1589: \tag*{$(3.66)_{q,r}$}\label{3-66-q}

1590: \end{multline}

1591: with  $r=3$, $q=4$.

1592: 

1593: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-11} 

1594: Let us assume that $|f_1-f_2|\ge\epsilon_0$ and  $|\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|\ge \epsilon_0$ on $\supp\psi$. Furthermore, let conditions $(\ref{0-8})$, \ref{3-21-q} with $q>3$ and \ref{3-66-q} be fulfilled with $r>2$,   $q>3$. Then  under condition $(\ref{3-18})$ asymptotics with the standard implicit main part $(\ref{0-9})$ and the remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ holds.

1595: \end{proposition}

1596: 

1597: \begin{proof}[Proof, Part I]    I will follow the proof of proposition \ref{prop-3-7} and use the same numbering of its parts.  

1598: 

1599: \medskip

1600: \noindent

1601: (i) Repeating arguments leading to the proof of statements  of proposition \ref{prop-3-4} one can prove easily the following analogue of (\ref{3-40}):

1602: 

1603: \begin{claim}\label{3-67} Under condition \ref{3-21-q} the contribution of zone $\bigl\{x:\ |x_1| \ge \max(\rho, \mu^{-2/3})\bigr\}$ to the remainder does not exceed \ref{3-22-q}.

1604: \end{claim}

1605: 

1606: \medskip

1607: \noindent

1608: (ii) Consider zone: $\bigl\{\rho \ge \max(\gamma,\mu^{-2}\gamma^{-2},\ \gamma\ge {\bar\gamma}\bigr\}$.

1609: Then the total contribution of all $(\rho,\zeta,\gamma)$ elements does not exceed expression (\ref{3-38}) multiplied by ${\tilde\nu}(\rho,\zeta,\gamma)\rho^{-1}$:

1610: \begin{equation}

1611: C\mu h^{-1}\bigl(\zeta (\mu h)^{-1}+\zeta^{-1}\bigr)\times \bigl(\rho (\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr) \times \rho^{q-r-1}\zeta^r

1612: \label{3-68}

1613: \end{equation}

1614: where I used \ref{3-66-q} to estimate ${\tilde\nu}$. Then as $r>1$ summation with respect to $\zeta$ results in the same expression as $\zeta= \rho$;

1615: further as $q>3$ summation with respect to $\rho$ results in the same expression as $\rho=1$ which is $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}$ and summation with respect to $\gamma$ results in $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}|\log h|$. One can get rid of the logarithmic factor using the same arguments as in the Part I (ii) of proof of proposition \ref{prop-3-4}.

1616: 

1617: \medskip

1618: \noindent

1619: (iii) Consider the remaining part of zone $\{\epsilon \ge\gamma\ge{\bar\gamma}\}$ and introduce scaling function $\eta$ by (\ref{3-41}). Then one gets \ref{3-37-*} modified in the same way as in the Part I (iii) of proof of proposition \ref{prop-3-4} and  multiplied by $\eta\gamma^{-1} {\tilde\nu}(\rho\gamma)^{-1}$:

1620: \begin{equation}

1621: C\mu h^{-1} 

1622: \bigl(\zeta  (\mu h)^{-1}+\zeta^{-1}\bigr)\times \bigl(\rho (\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)

1623: \times \eta\gamma^{-1}\times \rho^{q-r-s-1}\zeta^r.

1624: \tag*{$(3.64)^*$}

1625: \label{3-68-*}

1626: \end{equation}

1627: Then as in (ii) summation with respect to $\zeta$ results in its value as $\zeta=\rho$:

1628: \begin{equation*}

1629: C\mu h^{-1} 

1630: \bigl(\rho  (\mu h)^{-1}+\rho^{-1}\bigr)\times \bigl(\rho (\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)

1631: \times \mu^2\varrho^{-2}\gamma^3\rho\gamma^{-1}\times \rho^{q-s-1}\gamma^{s-1}

1632: \end{equation*}

1633: and summation with respect to $\rho$ returns the above expression at its largest value which is $\mu^{-2}\gamma^{-2}\varrho^2$; the result does not exceed 

1634: $C\mu^{-1-\delta'}h^{-3}$ and summation with respect to $\gamma$ returns $o(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$,

1635: \end{proof}

1636: 

1637: \begin{remark}\label{rem-3-12} t

1638: (i) Again as the order of resonance $m\ge 4$, analysis of (iii) is not needed;

1639: 

1640: \medskip

1641: \noindent

1642: (iii) Furthermore,  the rough remainder estimate of zone $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}\}$ returns $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ as $m\ge5$ and $\mu\le h^{\delta'-1}$ and $O(\mu^{-1+\delta}h^{-3})$ as \underline{either} $m=4$  

1643: \underline{or} $m=5$, $h^{\delta'-1}\le \mu\le ch^{-1}$.

1644: \end{remark}

1645: 

1646: \begin{proof}[Proof, Part II]\label{pf-3-11-II} (i) Analysis in zone $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}\}$ is now  simpler.   Note first that the contribution of zone $\{\zeta\le {\bar\gamma}\}$ to the remainder does not exceed 

1647: $C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}^{r+1}=O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$  as $r>1$ and $\delta<\delta(r)$.

1648: 

1649: \medskip

1650: \noindent 

1651: (ii) Consider zone $\{\zeta \ge C{\bar\gamma}\}$. Then defining $T_0,T_0^*$ by (\ref{3-35}) and $T_1$ by (\ref{3-36}) one estimates contribution of $(\rho,{\bar\gamma},\zeta)$ elements by (\ref{3-52}) multiplied by ${\tilde\nu}(\rho{\bar\gamma})^{-1}$:

1652: \begin{equation}

1653: C\mu^2 h^{-2}{\bar\gamma} \times h\zeta^{-2}\times 

1654: \bigl(\zeta^2 (\mu h)^{-1}+ 1\bigr)\times \rho (\mu h)^{-1} \times 

1655: \bigl( \mu^{-1} {\bar\gamma} ^{-1/2}+\rho^{-1}\bigr)\times \rho^{q-r-2}\zeta^r

1656: \label{3-69}

1657: \end{equation}

1658: and summation with respect to $\zeta$ results in its value as $\zeta=\rho$ (now I need $r>2$)

1659: \begin{equation*}

1660: C\mu  h^{-2}{\bar\gamma} \times  

1661: \bigl(\rho^2 (\mu h)^{-1}+ 1\bigr)\times    

1662: \bigl( \mu^{-1} {\bar\gamma} ^{-1/2}+\rho^{-1}\bigr)\times \rho^{q-3}

1663: \end{equation*}

1664: and summation with respect to $\rho$ results in $Ch^{-3}{\bar\gamma}$ which is marginally worse than $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$. To improve it one can sum to $\zeta \le \mu^{-\kappa}$ and in zone $\{\zeta\ge \mu^{-\kappa}\}$ one can take $T_1=\epsilon \mu\zeta$.

1665: \end{proof}

1666: 

1667: \subsection{General estimates near $\Sigma$}

1668: \label{sect-3-6}

1669: 

1670: Now let us consider the vicinity of $\Sigma=\{f_1=f_2\}=\{v_1=v_2=0\}$ where

1671: \begin{claim}\label{3-70}

1672: $v_1|_\Sigma=v_2|_\Sigma=0$,  $(\nabla v_1)|_\Sigma$ and $(\nabla v_2)|_\Sigma$ are linearly independent

1673:  \end{claim} 

1674:  and near $\Sigma$

1675: \begin{equation}

1676: f_{1,2}=f\pm (v_1^2+v_2^2)^{1/2},\qquad f>0.

1677: \label{3-71}

1678: \end{equation}

1679: This analysis is simpler than near third  order resonances because codimension of $\Sigma$ is 2 and everywhere factor $\gamma^1$ reflecting measure should be replaced by $\gamma^2$. 

1680: 

1681: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-13} Let condition $(\ref{1-1})-(\ref{1-2})$ be fulfilled and let $\psi$ be  supported in the small vicinity of $\Sigma$.

1682: 

1683: The standard implicit asymptotic formula $(\ref{0-9})$ holds with the remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$.

1684: \end{proposition}

1685: 

1686: \begin{proof} (i) Note first that

1687: 

1688: \begin{claim}\label{3-72}%\label{3N-55}

1689: The contribution of zone $\{\dist (x,\Sigma)\le \gamma\}$ to the remainder does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}\gamma^2$ and as 

1690: \begin{equation}

1691: \gamma\Def\dist (x,\Sigma)\asymp  |f_1-f_2|\le {\bar\gamma}_1\Def c\mu^{-1}+ c(\mu h)^{1/2}

1692: \label{3-73}%\label{3N-56}

1693: \end{equation}

1694: this contribution is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$.

1695: \end{claim}

1696: 

1697: On the other hand, 

1698: 

1699: \begin{claim}\label{3-74}

1700: One can reduce operator to the canonical form without non-diagonal terms as long as

1701: \begin{equation}

1702: \gamma\ge {\bar\gamma}\Def  \mu^{-1/2}h^{1/2-\delta'}+\mu^{-2}h^{-\delta'}.

1703: \label{3-75}

1704: \end{equation}

1705: \end{claim}

1706: 

1707: The second term in (\ref{3-75})  appears because one  needs to get rid off terms $Z_1^iZ_1^{*\,j}Z_2^kZ_2^{*\,l}$ with $i+k=j+l$ but $(i,j)\ne (k,l)$ and these terms are of magnitude $O(\mu^{-2})$ unless $i+j+k+l=2$ in which case one just diagonalizes the quadratic form and it is where the first term in in (\ref{3-75})  comes from.

1708: 

1709: Important is that ${\bar\gamma}\le {\bar\gamma}_1$. In the quest for remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ one would need to take ${\bar\gamma}= c\mu^{-1}$ and ${\bar\gamma}\le {\bar\gamma}_1$ would hold as $\mu \le h^{\delta'-1}$.

1710: 

1711: \medskip

1712: \noindent 

1713: (ii) Making $\epsilon\gamma$-admissible partition and $\rho$-admissible subpartition with 

1714: \begin{equation}

1715: \rho =\epsilon |\nabla \phi_\alpha|\gamma + {\frac 1 2}{\bar\rho} ,\qquad {\bar\rho} =(C\mu^{-1}h|\log h| )^{1/2}

1716: \label{3-76}

1717: \end{equation}

1718: one can take 

1719: \begin{equation}

1720: T_0^*= Ch\rho^{-2}\gamma,\qquad T_1=\epsilon \mu\gamma

1721: \label{3-77}

1722: \end{equation}

1723: and  the total contribution to the remainder of $(\gamma,\rho)$ subelements with $\rho\ge \varrho $ to the remainder does not exceed

1724: \begin{multline}

1725: C\mu^2h^{-2}\times \mu^{-1}h\rho^{-2} \times \bigl(\rho^2(\mu h \gamma)^{-1}+1\bigr)\times \bigl(\rho (\mu h\gamma)^{-1}+1\bigr)\times \gamma^2\asymp\\

1726: C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}\rho  + C\rho^{-1}h^{-2}\gamma  + C \mu h^{-1} \rho^{-2}\gamma^2

1727: \label{3-78}

1728: \end{multline}

1729: where $\gamma^2$ is their total measure. The right-hand expression sums with respect to $\rho\in({\bar\rho} ,\gamma) $ to 

1730: $G(\gamma)\Def C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}\gamma  + Ch^{-2}{\bar\rho} ^{-1} \gamma+ C\mu h^{-1}{\bar\rho}^{-2}\gamma^2 $. Then with respect to $\gamma$   it sums to  

1731: $G(1)=O\bigl( \mu^{-1}h^{-3}+ \mu^{1/2}h^{-5/2} +\mu^2h^{-2}\bigr)$ where the middle term is less than the sum of two others.

1732: 

1733:  

1734: 

1735: \medskip

1736: \noindent 

1737: (iii) Meanwhile the total contribution to the remainder of $({\bar\rho} ,\gamma)$ subelements does not exceed

1738: \begin{multline}

1739: C\mu^2h^{-2}\times   \bigl({\bar\rho} ^2(\mu h \gamma)^{-1}+1\bigr)\times \bigl({\bar\rho}  (\mu h\gamma)^{-1}+1\bigr)\times \gamma^2\asymp\\

1740: Ch^{-4}{\bar\rho}^3  +C\mu h^{-3}\gamma {\bar\rho}  + C\mu^2h^{-2}\gamma^2.

1741: \label{3-79}

1742: \end{multline}

1743: This expression sums with respect to $\gamma$ to its value as $\gamma=1$ resulting in  

1744: \begin{equation*}

1745: C\mu^{-3/2} h^{-5/2}|\log h|^{3/2}+C\mu^{1/2}h^{-5/2}|\log h|^{1/2}+C\mu^2h^{-2}.

1746: \end{equation*}

1747: Note that the first and the third term are properly estimated and the second terms is properly estimated  save border case $h^{-1/3}|\log h|^{-K}\le \mu \le h^{-1/3}|\log h|^K$ which is treated as in the part (iii) of the proof of proposition \ref{prop-3-1}.

1748: 

1749: \medskip

1750: \noindent 

1751: (iv)

1752: Finally, as $\gamma\le {\bar\gamma}$ one does not need a subpartition; the contribution to the remainder does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}^2$ due to an analogue  of proposition \ref{prop-3-10} below: 

1753: \end{proof}

1754: 

1755: 

1756: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-14} Proposition \ref{prop-3-10} remains true near $\Sigma$ (i.e. without condition $|f_1-f_2|\ge \epsilon$ provided at point ${\bar x}$ main part of precanonical form is 

1757: $f_1(\mu^2x_3^2+h^2D_3^2)+f_2(\mu^2x_4^2+h^2D_4^2)$.

1758: \end{proposition}

1759: 

1760: \begin{proof}

1761: Proof basically repeats the one of proposition \ref{prop-3-10}.

1762: \end{proof}

1763: 

1764: 

1765: \subsection{Sharp asymptotics near $\Sigma$}

1766: \label{sect-3-7}

1767: 

1768: \subsubsection{}

1769: \label{sect-3-7-1}

1770: Now let us improve the results of the previous subsection. Let us note that

1771: \begin{claim}\label{3-80}%\label{3N-67}

1772: Microhyperbolicity condition holds at ${\bar x}\in \Sigma$ iff in frames of 

1773: $\nabla (fV^{-1})$ is not a linear combination of $\nabla (v_1V^{-1})$, 

1774: $\nabla (v_2V^{-1})$ with coefficients $(\beta_1,\beta_2)\in \bR^2\cap B(0,1)$ (\footnote{\label{foot-14} In the uniform sense, i.e. (\ref{1-22})}.

1775: \end{claim}

1776: 

1777: In virtue of \cite{IRO4} I have already

1778: 

1779: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-15}

1780: If $(\ref{1-22})$ is fulfilled on $\supp \psi$   then the standard formula holds with ${\bar T}=Ch|\log h|$.

1781: \end{proposition}

1782: 

1783: Now let us analyze the meaning of (\ref{1-22}). First of all, it is fulfilled as 

1784: $\nabla_\Sigma (fV^{-1})\ne 0$. So one needs to consider only set $\Sigma_0$ of the critical points of $fV^{-1}\bigr|_\Sigma$:

1785: \begin{equation}

1786: \Sigma_0=\bigl\{ x\in \Sigma,\ \nabla_\Sigma (fV^{-1})=0\bigr\}.

1787: \label{3-81}

1788: \end{equation}

1789: Then 

1790: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-16}

1791: For generic $V$ 

1792: \begin{claim}\label{3-82}%\label{3N-69}

1793:  $\Sigma_0$ consists of separate non-degenerate points;

1794:  \end{claim}

1795: \begin{claim}\label{3-83}%+5

1796: Magnetic form $\omega_F$ restricted to $\Sigma$ is the generic closed form on $\Sigma$ and thus degenerates on the smooth curve $\{ \{v_1,v_2\}=0\}$;

1797: \end{claim}

1798: \begin{claim}\label{3-84}%+6

1799: $\omega_M $ does not degenerate on $\Sigma_0$ (which is equivalent to $\{v_1,v_2\}\ne 0$ on $\Sigma_0$).

1800: \end{claim}

1801: \end{proposition}

1802: 

1803: One can write down many generic properties, but they  are overkill.

1804: 

1805: \subsubsection{}

1806: \label{sect-3-7-2} 

1807: First let us improve the remainder under condition (\ref{3-85}) below (I remind that $f={\frac 1 2}(f_1+f_2)$):

1808: 

1809: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-17}

1810: Let at some point ${\bar x}\in \Sigma$

1811: \begin{equation}

1812: |\nabla (fV^{-1})|\ge \epsilon_0.

1813: \label{3-85}

1814: \end{equation}

1815: Then as $\psi$ is supported in the small enough vicinity of ${\bar x}$

1816: the standard implicit formula holds with  remainder  

1817: $O\bigl(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+ \mu^{3/2}h^{-3/2}|\log h|\bigr)$.

1818: \end{proposition}

1819: 

1820: \begin{proof} (i) Note, that here in contrast to (\ref{1-22}) the complete gradient is considered. One needs to consider the case when microhyperbolicity condition is not fulfilled in ${\bar x}=0$; then

1821: \begin{equation}

1822: \nabla  (fV^{-1}) = \beta_1 \nabla (v_1V^{-1}) +\beta_2\nabla (v_2V^{-1})\qquad \text{at\ } {\bar x}, \quad  \beta =(\beta_1,\beta_2)\in \bR^2: 1\ge |\beta|\ge \epsilon_0

1823: \label{3-86}

1824: \end{equation} 

1825: where $|\beta|\ge\epsilon_0$ due to (\ref{3-85}).

1826: 

1827: Let us consider $\phi_\alpha=\alpha (f_1V^{-1})+(1-\alpha) (f_2V^{-1})$; note that one can extend $\beta_j$ to the vicinity of ${\bar x}$ so that  \begin{equation*}

1828: fV^{-1}={\tilde f}(w)+\beta_1 (w) v_1V^{-1}+\beta_2(w) v_2V^{-1}+O(|v|^2)

1829: \end{equation*}

1830: where $w=(w_1,w_2)$ are coordinates on $\Sigma$.  

1831: 

1832: Without any loss of the generality one can assume that $\beta_2(w)=0$; then 

1833: under  conditions (\ref{3-85}), (\ref{3-86}) 

1834: \begin{equation}

1835: |\nabla \phi_\alpha|\ge \epsilon_1

1836: \bigl(|(v_2-\omega v_1^2)(v_1^2+v_2^2)^{-1/2}|+ |\alpha-{\bar\alpha}|\bigr)

1837: \label{3-87}

1838: \end{equation}

1839: where $\omega=\omega(w,v_1)$ is a smooth function.

1840: 

1841: \medskip

1842: \noindent

1843: (ii) Let us follow  the proof of proposition \ref{prop-3-13}. In part (ii) estimate (\ref{3-78}) (for contribution of all elements with $\rho\ge\varrho$) gains a  factor $\rho\gamma^{-1}$ and becomes

1844: \begin{equation}

1845: C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}\rho^2\gamma^{-1}  + Ch^{-2} + C \mu h^{-1}\rho^{-1}\gamma.

1846: \tag*{$(3.78)^*$}\label{3-78-*}

1847: \end{equation}

1848: This expression sums with respect to $\rho$ ranging from ${\bar\rho}$ to $\gamma$ to

1849: \begin{equation*}

1850: C\mu^{-1}h^{-3} \gamma  + C  h^{-2} |\log h| + C \mu h^{-1} {\bar\rho}^{-1}\gamma.

1851: \end{equation*}

1852: Then summation with respect to $\gamma$ results in 

1853: \begin{equation*}

1854: C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}  + C h^{-2} |\log h|^2 + C \mu ^{3/2}h^{-3/2} 

1855: \end{equation*}

1856: which is less than the announced estimate.

1857: 

1858: \medskip

1859: \noindent 

1860: (iii) In part (ii) estimate (\ref{3-79}) (for contribution of all elements with $\rho\le{\bar\rho}$) gains a  factor ${\bar\rho}\gamma^{-1}$ and becomes

1861: \begin{equation}

1862: Ch^{-4}{\bar\rho}^4\gamma^{-1}  +C\mu h^{-3} {\bar\rho}^2  + C\mu^2h^{-2}{\bar\rho}\gamma.

1863: \tag*{$(3.79)^*$}\label{3-79-*}

1864: \end{equation}

1865: This expression sums with respect to $\gamma$ to 

1866: \begin{equation*}

1867: C\mu^{-2}h^{-2}|\log h|^2{\bar\gamma}^{-1}+C h^{-2}|\log h|^2+ C\mu^{3/2}h^{-3/2}|\log h|^{1/2}

1868: \end{equation*}

1869: which is also below than announced remainder estimate.

1870: 

1871: \medskip

1872: \noindent 

1873: (iv)

1874: Finally, as $\gamma\le {\bar\gamma}$ one does not need a subpartition; the contribution to the remainder does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}^2= C\mu^{-1}h^{-3} + C\mu^{-1/2}h^{\delta-5/2}$ and the second term here is obviously much less than the announced estimate.

1875: \end{proof}

1876: 

1877: So, condition (\ref{3-85}) is a kind of non-degeneracy condition, improving remainder estimate.

1878: 

1879: \subsubsection{}

1880: \label{sect-3-7-3} 

1881: Let us now use the remaining non-degeneracy conditions.

1882: 

1883: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-18} Let conditions $(\ref{3-18})$ and

1884: \begin{phantomequation}\label{3-88}\end{phantomequation}

1885: \begin{multline}

1886: |(2p+2)\mu h f V^{-1} -1|+

1887: |\nabla_\Sigma\bigl( (2p+2)\mu h f V^{-1}-1\bigr)|\le \epsilon_0 \implies\\ \Hess _\Sigma \bigl((2p+2)\mu h f V^{-1}-1\bigr)  \text{\ \ has at least $r$ eigenvalues  }\\ \text{with absolute values greater than $\epsilon_0$}

1888: \tag*{$(3.88)_r$}\label{3-88-r}

1889: \end{multline}

1890: be fulfilled. Then

1891: 

1892: \medskip

1893: \noindent 

1894: (i) The total  remainder is given by $(\ref{3-21})_{r+1}$ while the main part is given by the standard implicit formula $(\ref{0-9})$. 

1895: 

1896: \medskip

1897: \noindent 

1898: (ii) Under condition $(\ref{3-85})$ the total  remainder is given by $(\ref{3-21})_{r+2}$ as $r=1$ while the main part is given by the standard implicit formula $(\ref{0-9})$;

1899: 

1900: \medskip

1901: \noindent 

1902: (iii) Under conditions $(\ref{3-85})$ and $(\ref{3-84})$ the total  remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ as $r=2$ while the main part is given by the standard implicit formula $(\ref{0-9})$.

1903: \end{proposition}

1904: 

1905: \begin{proof} (a) Under condition (\ref{3-85}) the total contribution to the remainder of all $(\gamma,\rho)$-elements does not exceed \ref{3-78-*} i.e.

1906: \begin{phantomequation}\label{3-89}\end{phantomequation}

1907: \begin{equation}

1908: C \mu^{-1}h^{-3}\rho ^{k+1}\gamma^{-k} + C\rho^{k-1}\gamma^{1-k} h^{-2} +  C\mu h^{-1}\gamma^{2-k} \rho^{k-2}

1909: \tag*{$(3.89)_k$}\label{3-89-k}

1910: \end{equation}

1911: with $k=1$ while without it it does not exceed the same expression with $k=0$.

1912: 

1913: Further, under extra condition \ref{3-88-r} this expression acquires  factor $C\rho^r\gamma^{-r}$. Therefore again $(\ref{3-89})_q$  with $q=k+r$ gives a proper estimate for the total contribution of all $(\gamma,\rho)$-elements to the remainder. 

1914: 

1915: Consider summation with respect to ${\bar\rho}\le \rho \le\gamma\le 1$. The first term sums to $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}$ independently on $q$; the second term sums to $C h^{-2}|\log h|^2$ as $q=1$ and to $Ch^{-2}|\log h|$ as $q\ge 2$; the third term sums to $C\mu h^{-1}{\bar\rho}^{-1}$ as $q=1$, to $C\mu h^{-1}|\log h|^2$ as $q=2$ and to $C\mu h^{-1}|\log h|$ as $q=3$. 

1916: 

1917: Therefore in all cases but one the remainder estimate \ref{3-21-q} with $q=k+r$ is proven; this exceptional case is $q=3$, $\mu \ge h^{-1}|\log h|^{-1}$ when the  estimate $O(h^{-2}|\log h|)$ is recovered; I remind that only zone $\{\rho\ge {\bar\rho},\ \gamma\ge {\bar\gamma}\}$ is covered so far.

1918: 

1919: \medskip

1920: \noindent

1921: (b) To cover the remaining case let us introduce a scaling function $\zeta=\epsilon |\nabla_\Sigma fV^{-1}|+{\bar\rho}$ on $\Sigma$; one can extend this function to

1922: \begin{equation}

1923: \zeta=\epsilon |\nabla_\Sigma fV^{-1}|+\gamma.

1924: \label{3-90}

1925: \end{equation}

1926: Then in arguments above one can replace factor $\rho^2\gamma^{-2}$ by $\zeta^2$ and then contribution of zone $\{\zeta\le\gamma^{\delta'}\}$ would be $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ as $q=3$; so only subzone $\{\zeta\ge\gamma^{\delta'}\}$ remains to be treated. In this subzone one can take

1927: \begin{equation}

1928: T_0^*= Ch \zeta^{-2},\qquad T_1= \epsilon \mu \gamma

1929: \label{3-91}

1930: \end{equation}

1931: where one can take $T_0^*= Ch \zeta^{-2}$ rather than $T_0^*= Ch \zeta^{-1}\gamma^{-1}$ due to (\ref{3-84}). Then the total contribution of such $(\gamma,\zeta)$ elements to the remainder does not exceed

1932: \begin{equation*}

1933: C\mu^2h^{-2}\zeta^2\gamma^2 \times h\zeta^{-2}\times \mu^{-1}\zeta^{-1}\times \bigl( (\zeta^2+\gamma)(\mu h)^{-1} +1\bigr) \times (\mu h)^{-1}

1934: \end{equation*}

1935: where $\zeta^2\gamma^2$ is the measure and $(\mu h)^{-1}$ and 

1936: $\bigl( (\zeta^2+\gamma)(\mu h)^{-1} +1\bigr) $ are  estimates of the numbers of indices ``$p$'' and corresponding indices ``$n$''; noting that $\zeta^2\ge \gamma$ one can rewrite this expression as

1937: \begin{equation*}

1938: C  \mu^{-1}h^{-3}\gamma^2   \zeta + C  h^{-2}\gamma^2    \zeta^{-1}

1939: \end{equation*}

1940: and the summation with respect to $\zeta\ge \gamma^{\delta'}$ and $\gamma$ results in  $O(  \mu^{-1}h^{-3})$.

1941: 

1942: Thus estimate \ref{3-21-q} for contribution of zone $\{\rho\ge {\bar\rho},\ \gamma\ge {\bar\gamma}\}$ is established.

1943: 

1944: \medskip

1945: \noindent

1946: (c) Further, contribution of  $(\gamma,\rho)$ elements with $\rho\le {\bar\rho}$, $\gamma\ge {\bar\gamma}$ to the remainder does not exceed (\ref{3-78}) as $k=0$ or \ref{3-78-*} as $k=1$ multiplied by ${\bar\rho}^r\gamma^{1-r}$ i.e.

1947: \begin{phantomequation}\label{3-92}\end{phantomequation}

1948: \begin{equation}

1949: Ch^{-4}{\bar\rho} ^{q+3}\gamma^{-q} + C\mu h^{-3} {\bar\rho}^{q+1}\gamma^{1-q} + C \mu ^2h^{-2} {\bar\rho}^q\gamma^{3-q}

1950: \tag*{$(3.92)_q$}\label{3-92-q}

1951: \end{equation}

1952: and one can check easily that summation with respect to $\gamma\ge {\bar\gamma}$ results in expression not exceeding $(\ref{3-19})_q$. 

1953: 

1954: \medskip

1955: \noindent

1956: (d) Finally, contribution of zone $\{\gamma\le {\bar\gamma}\}$ to the remainder does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}^2$ which is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ unless $\mu \ge h^{2\delta-1}$ and even in this case it is less than $(\ref{3-19})_1$. 

1957: 

1958: Therefore as $q\ge 2$ I need some better arguments in this zone. Again, one needs to consider only part of it with $\{\zeta\ge \mu^{-\delta'}\}$ as contribution of zone $\{\zeta\le {\bar\zeta}\}$ does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}^2{\bar\zeta}^2$.

1959: 

1960: As using precanonical form the speed would be $O(\mu^{-1})$ and since only a magnitude of $\zeta$ is important for us and also inequality $\zeta\ge \gamma^{\delta'}$, one can take

1961: \begin{equation}

1962: T_0^*= Ch \zeta^{-1}{\bar\gamma}^{-1},\qquad T_1= \epsilon  \mu {\bar\gamma} ^{1-\delta''} 

1963: \label{3-93}

1964: \end{equation}

1965: where an appropriate time direction for this $T_1$ is taken. In these arguments I do not assume (\ref{3-84}) and and thus $T_0$ is not as it was in (b) (surely, some improvements are possible but not needed). 

1966: 

1967: Then the total contribution to the remainder of $\zeta$-elements does not exceed

1968: \begin{equation*}

1969: Ch^{-4}\zeta^r {\bar\gamma}^2 \times h\zeta^{-1}{\bar\gamma}^{-1}\times \mu^{-1}{\bar\gamma}^{\delta''-1} \asymp C\mu ^{-1}h^{-3}\zeta^{r-1}{\bar\gamma}^{\delta''}

1970: \end{equation*}

1971: which sums with respect to $\zeta$ to  $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}|\log h|{\bar\gamma}^{\delta''}=o(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ even as $r=1$.

1972: \end{proof}

1973: 

1974: \begin{remark}\label{rem-3-19} (i) Since in the generic case in the critical points of $fV^{-1}|_\Sigma$ are non-degenerate (i.e. (\ref{3-82})   is fulfilled) and also (\ref{3-83}),(\ref{3-84}) hold, the remainder estimate is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$.

1975: 

1976: \medskip

1977: \noindent 

1978: (ii) I think one can get rid off logarithmic factors in the above estimates but I do not care.

1979: \end{remark}

1980: 

1981: \subsection{Summary}

1982: \label{sect-3-8}

1983: 

1984: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-3-20} {\rm (I)} Let $(g^{jk})$ be fixed and then $(V_j)$ be   be generic, more precisely:

1985: 

1986: \medskip

1987: \noindent

1988: {\rm (i)} Outside of $\Sigma=\{x:\ f_1=f_2\}$ critical points of $f_1f_2^{-1}$ satisfy $(\ref{2-30})_3$ and $(\ref{2-2})$;

1989: 

1990: \medskip

1991: \noindent

1992: {\rm (ii)} $\Sigma$ be smooth 2-dimensional manifold and $|f_1-f_2|\asymp \dist(x,\Sigma)$.

1993: 

1994: 

1995: \medskip

1996: \noindent

1997:  Let  $V$ be general but satisfying $(\ref{0-8})$ at $\supp\psi$. Then under condition $(\ref{3-1})$  the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ while the main part of asymptotics is given by  implicit formula $(\ref{0-9})$.

1998: 

1999: \medskip

2000: \noindent

2001: {\rm (II)} Furthermore, let $V$ be generic i.e. 

2002: 

2003: \medskip

2004: \noindent

2005: {\rm (iii)} Outside of $\Sigma$ and resonances condition $(\ref{3-21}_4$ be fulfilled;

2006: 

2007: \medskip

2008: \noindent

2009: {\rm (iv)} Near resonances condition $(\ref{3-66})_{4,3}$ be fulfilled;

2010: 

2011: 

2012: \medskip

2013: \noindent

2014: {\rm (v)} At $\Sigma$ conditions $(\ref{3-82})-(\ref{3-85})$ be fulfilled\footnote{\label{foot-15} Actually these conditions should be fulfilled at $\Sigma_0^+\cup\Sigma_0^0$ only.}.

2015: 

2016: \medskip

2017: \noindent Let  $V$ satisfy $(\ref{0-8})$ at $\supp\psi$. Then under condition $(\ref{3-18})$  the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ while the main part of asymptotics is given by   implicit formula $(\ref{0-9})$.

2018: \end{proposition}

2019: 

2020: 

2021: \section{Calculations}

2022: \label{sect-4}

2023: 

2024: The purpose of this section is to pass from the implicit formula (\ref{0-9}) to more explicit one, namely either (\ref{0-7}) or (\ref{0-5}) with more or less explicit expression for $\cE^\MW_\corr$. It will be done by different methods depending on the magnitude of $\mu$ and also non-degeneracy conditions and the methods applied will be used in the classification. My main concern will be either no non-degeneracy condition or the generic non-degeneracy condition.

2025: 

2026: \subsection{Temperate magnetic field}

2027: \label{sect-4-1}

2028: 

2029: In this subsection I will use  formula (\ref{0-9}) with $T_0\le \epsilon \mu^{-1}$ and derive a remainder estimate. More precisely, if in section \ref{sect-3} $T$ was given by (\ref{0-9}) with $T_0\ge \epsilon \mu ^{-1}$ I replace it by $T_0=\epsilon \mu^{-1}$ and estimate an error. 

2030: 

2031: This error actually is the contribution of the affected domain to the remainder with some $T_0\ll \mu^{-1}$ (usually $T_0=Ch|\log h|$ under condition (\ref{0-8})) and $T_1=\epsilon \mu^{-1}$. 

2032: 

2033: Further, under condition (\ref{0-8}) I can trade $T \le \epsilon \mu^{-1}$ to $T= Ch|\log h|$ and then I can apply the standard approach; I will assume here by default that 

2034: \begin{equation}

2035: h^{-\delta_0}\le \mu \le h^{-1+\delta_0}

2036: \label{4-1}

2037: \end{equation}

2038: leaving case $\le h^{-1+\delta_0}\le \mu \le ch^{-1}$ for a separate consideration.

2039: 

2040: \subsubsection{}

2041: \label{sect-4-1-1} Let us consider regular points first. 

2042:  

2043: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-1}  Assume that  there are no resonances of order not exceeding $M$ and also $|\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|\ge \epsilon_0$  on $\supp\psi$. Further, assume that condition \ref{3-21-q} with $q\ge1$ is fulfilled. Then  under condition $(\ref{4-1})$ the remainder estimate is given by 

2044: \begin{phantomequation}\label{4-2}\end{phantomequation}

2045: \begin{equation}

2046: O\Bigl(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+ (\mu h)^{(q+2)/2}h^{-4}|\log h|^{q/2}\Bigr)

2047: \tag*{$(4.2)_q$}

2048: \label{4-2-q}

2049: \end{equation}

2050: while the main term of asymptotics given by $(\ref{0-9})$ with any $T\ge \epsilon \mu^{-1}$.

2051: \end{proposition}

2052: 

2053: \begin{proof} First of all, as $q=1$ this remainder estimate is $O\bigl(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+ (\mu h)^{3/2}h^{-4}|\log h|^{1/2}\bigr)$ which is no smaller than $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ given by proposition \ref{prop-3-1} and as $q>1$ remainder estimate \ref{4-2-q}  is no smaller than  \ref{3-22-q} given by proposition \ref{prop-3-4}; so both of these propositions could be applied and one needs to estimate a substitution $T_0\mapsto \epsilon \mu^{-1}$ error.

2054: 

2055: According to the proofs of these propositions $T_0=Ch \rho^{-2}|\log h|$ which is less than $\epsilon \mu^{-1}$  as 

2056: \begin{equation}

2057: \rho \ge {\bar\rho}_1\Def (C\mu h|\log h|)^{1/2};

2058: \label{4-3}

2059: \end{equation}

2060: So one can take there $T_0=\epsilon \mu^{-1}$.

2061: 

2062: On the other hand, contribution of zone $\{\rho \le {\bar\rho}_1\}$ to the remainder with $T=\epsilon \mu^{-1}$ does no exceed $C\mu h^{-3}\nu ({\bar\rho}_1)\le C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\rho}_1^q$ which is exactly the second term in \ref{4-2-q}.

2063: \end{proof}

2064: 

2065:  

2066: \begin{corollary}\label{cor-4-2}  Let conditions of  proposition \ref{prop-4-1} be fulfilled. Then under assumption $(\ref{0-8})$  

2067: 

2068: \medskip

2069: \noindent

2070: {\rm (i)} The remainder estimate is given by \ref{4-2-q} while the main term of asymptotics given by 

2071: \begin{equation}

2072: \int \cE^\MW(x,0)\psi (x)\, dx.

2073: \label{4-4}

2074: \end{equation}

2075: 

2076: \medskip

2077: \noindent

2078: {\rm (ii)} In particular  the remainder estimate is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ as $\mu \le {\bar\mu}_q\Def C(h|\log h|)^{-q/(q+4)}$ where in the general case 

2079: ${\bar\mu}_1= C(h|\log h|)^{-1/5}$ and in the generic case ${\bar\mu}_4= C(h|\log h|)^{-1/2}$.

2080: \end{corollary}

2081: 

2082: \begin{proof} According to proposition \ref{prop-4-1} with the remainder estimate \ref{4-2-q} the main part of asymptotics is given by (\ref{0-9}) with $T=\epsilon \mu^{-1}$. However then under condition (\ref{0-8}) one can trade $T=\epsilon \mu^{-1}$ to any $T\ge {\bar T}\Def Ch|\log h|$. The rest is proven by the standard successive approximation method, applied to the original operator (rather than to the canonical form); one can take as an unperturbed operator the same operator with the coefficients frozen at $y$ which leads to the Weyl expression perturbed by $\sum_{m\ge 0, n\ge 1}\kappa_{mn}h^{-4+2m+2n}\mu^{2n}$ where terms with $n\ge 2$ or $m\ge 1$ do not exceed the announced remainder estimate. Alternatively one can take as an unperturbed operator the same operator with $g^{jk}$, $V$ frozen at $y$ and with $V_j$ replaced by $V_j(y)+\sum_k (\partial_kV_j)(y)(x_k-y_k)$ which leads directly to Magnetic Weyl expression. Details see in (\ref{IRO3-1-11}) of \cite{IRO3}.

2083: \end{proof}

2084: 

2085: \subsubsection{}

2086: \label{sect-4-1-2}

2087: Now I want to improve the result in the general case and allow non-degenerate critical points of $f_1f_2^{-1}$.

2088: 

2089: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-3}  Assume that $f_1\ne f_2$ and there are no resonances of order not exceeding $M$  and also critical points of $f_1f_2^{-1}$  are non-degenerate on $\supp\psi$. Then under condition $(\ref{4-1})$ the remainder estimate is given by \ref{4-2-q} with  any $q<2$ arbitrarily close to $2$ while the main term of asymptotics given by the standard implicit formula with any $T\ge \epsilon \mu^{-1}$.

2090: \end{proposition}

2091: 

2092: \begin{proof} Again, this remainder estimate is no smaller than $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ given by proposition \ref{prop-3-2}, so again one needs to estimate an  error arising from the substitution $T_0\mapsto \epsilon \mu^{-1}$.

2093: 

2094: Proof follows ideas of the proof of proposition \ref{IRO8-prop-4-5} of \cite{IRO8}. Let us introduce functions $\ell_k$, $k=1,\dots,K$  in the same proof but with $\gamma=1$ and again let ${\bar\ell}_k= (\mu h|\log h|^J)^{1/(k+1)}$. 

2095: 

2096: \medskip

2097: \noindent

2098: (i) Assume first that $|\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|\ge \epsilon_0$. Then  the arguments of the mentioned proof survive with this simplification. 

2099: 

2100: \medskip

2101: \noindent

2102: (ii) Assume now that $f_1f_2^{-1}$ has one non-degenerate critical point ${\bar x}$.   Consider first zone where $\ell_K(x)\le \gamma(x) \Def {\frac 1 2}|x-{\bar x}|$. 

2103: 

2104: Then the number of indices ``$p$'' does not exceed 

2105: $C\bigl(\ell_k^K(\mu h \gamma)^{-1}+1\bigr)$ (where the second term is the smallest one) while the number of indices ``$n$'' for each $p$ does not exceed $C\bigl( \ell_K^{K+1}(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)$ and the total contribution to the asymptotics of all such elements with $\ell_K\asymp {\bar\ell}_K$ and fixed magnitude of $\gamma(x)\asymp \gamma$ for some $k$  does not exceed 

2106: \begin{equation*}

2107: C\mu^2h^{-2}h^{-2}\times \bigl( \ell_K^{K+1}(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr) \times \ell_k^K(\mu h \gamma)^{-1} \times \gamma^4 

2108: \end{equation*}

2109: where  $\gamma^4$ is the total measure of zone $\{\gamma(x)\asymp \gamma\}$.

2110: This expression does not exceed $C\mu^2h^{-2}{\bar\ell}_K^{-1}\gamma^3|\log h|^J$ and summation with respect to $\gamma$ results in 

2111: $C\mu^2h^{-2}{\bar\ell}_K^{-1}|\log h|^J\lesssim C(\mu h)^{2-\delta}h^{-4}$ as

2112: $\delta>1/K$.

2113: 

2114: On the other hand, repeating arguments of the proof of proposition \ref{IRO8-prop-4-5} of \cite{IRO8} one can see easily that the total contribution to the substitution error (when one replaces $T_0\ge \epsilon\mu^{-1}$ by $T_0=\epsilon \mu^{-1}$) of all elements with $\ell_K\ge C_0{\bar\ell}_K$ does not exceed $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+ C\mu^2 h^{-2}{\bar\ell}_K^{-1}$ which results in the same estimate.

2115: 

2116: \medskip

2117: \noindent

2118: (iii) Alternatively, assume that $\ell_j\le \gamma\le \ell_{j+1}$ for some $j\le K-1$. Again one needs to consider elements with $\ell_k \asymp {\bar\ell}_k\le \gamma $ for some $k\le j$. Then in virtue of the same arguments of the proof of proposition \ref{IRO8-prop-4-5} of \cite{IRO8} the contribution to the asymptotics does not exceed 

2119: \begin{equation*}

2120: C\mu^2h^{-2}\ell_k^{-1} \gamma^{-1}|\log h|^J\times \gamma^4\times \ell_k\gamma^{-1} \asymp C\mu^2h^{-2} |\log h|^J\gamma^2

2121: \end{equation*}

2122: where the last factor $\ell_k\gamma^{-1}$ is the upper bound of the relative measure of $\ell_k$ elements to $\gamma$.

2123: 

2124: Again summation with respect to $\gamma$ results in $C\mu^2h^{-2}|\log h|^J$.

2125: 

2126: \medskip

2127: \noindent

2128: (iv) Finally, consider elements with $\ell_1\ge \gamma$. Then I redefine $\gamma =\ell_1$ and only $\ell\asymp {\bar\ell}_1$ should be considered since otherwise $T_0\le \epsilon\mu^{-1}$.

2129: 

2130: Contribution of such elements to the remainder with $T_0=\epsilon\mu^{-1}$   does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\ell}_1^4=O(\mu^3h^{-1}|\log h|^J)$. 

2131: \end{proof}

2132: 

2133: \subsubsection

2134: \label{sect-4-1-3}

2135: Now I want to attack resonances. 

2136: 

2137: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-4}  Assume that that $|f_1-f_2|\ge \epsilon_0$ and  $|\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|\ge \epsilon_0$  on $\supp\psi$. Let consider asymptotics with the main part given by the standard implicit formula with any $T\ge \epsilon \mu^{-1}$. Then under condition $(\ref{4-1})$  

2138:  the remainder does not exceed $(\ref{4-2})_q'$\ \footnote{\label{foot-16} Where $'$ denotes that the power of $|\log h|$ could be larger.} with $q<2$ arbitrarily close to $2$.

2139: 

2140: \end{proposition}

2141: 

2142: \begin{proof} [Proof, Part I]\label{pf-4-4-I}

2143: Let us consider first zone $\{|x_1|\ge {\bar\gamma}\}$ and apply to the canonical form the same method as in the proof of proposition \ref{prop-4-3}.

2144: Again I assume that there is just one resonance surface $\Xi=\{x_1=0\}$. 

2145: 

2146: However, definition of $\ell_k$ involves derivatives of order $k$ and they are unbounded (with respect to $x_1$) as $\gamma^{k+1}\le \mu^{4-2m}$. To avoid this problem I rescale first $B(y,\gamma(y))$ into $B(0,1)$ and then apply this method. However, such rescaling would replace $\rho$ by $\rho \gamma$ and $\ell$ by $\ell\gamma$ and leave $\rho\ell\ge C\mu h|\log h|$ intact. However then the main part of remainder estimate gets factor $\gamma^{-1}$ since the number of indices ``$p$'' will be $\rho(\mu h\gamma)^{-1}$ because the derivative with respect to $x_1$ for ``$p$'' and ``$(p+1)$'' would differ by $\mu h\gamma$.

2147: 

2148: So, the contribution of zone $\{x: \gamma(x)\asymp \gamma\}$ to the error estimate in question does not exceed $C (\mu h)^qh^{-4}$ with $q<2$ arbitrarily close to $2$; factor $\gamma^{-1}$ discussed above is compensated by the  same factor coming from the measure. Summation with respect to $\gamma$ results in the similar answer (extra factor $|\log h|$ is covered by miniscule decrease of $q$).

2149: 

2150: This works as long as $|x_1|\ge {\bar\gamma}$ with

2151: \begin{equation}

2152: {\bar\gamma}=\mu^{2-m+\delta'}+\mu^{-2} 

2153: \label{4-5}

2154: \end{equation}

2155: where the last term dominates as $m\ge5$ only and guarantees that $\gamma\ge C\mu^{-1}h^{1-\delta}$.

2156: 

2157: Therefore,

2158: 

2159: \begin{claim}\label{4-6}

2160: Contribution of zone $\{{\bar\gamma}\le |x_1|\le \epsilon\}$ to the remainder does not exceed $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+C(\mu h)^q h^{-4}$.

2161: \end{claim}

2162: 

2163: In particular, as $m=5$ proposition is proven since the contribution of zone $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}$ to the remainder does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}$.

2164: \end{proof}

2165: 

2166: \begin{proof} [Proof of Proposition 4.4, Part II]\label{pf-4-4-II}

2167: On the other hand, in zone $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}\}$ one can use precanonical form and contribution of subzone  $\{\rho \ge {\bar\rho}\Def C\max ({\bar\gamma}, \mu h|\log h| {\bar\gamma}^{-1})\}$ to the error is negligible while contribution of subzone  

2168: $\{\rho \le {\bar\rho}\}$ to the remainder does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}{\bar\rho}= C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}^2 + C\mu ^2h^{-2} |\log h|$; picking ${\bar\gamma}$ as $m=4$ results in the proper estimate then.

2169: 

2170: \medskip

2171: However as $m=3$ one recovers only remainder estimate $C\mu^{-1+2\delta'} h^{-3}+C(\mu h)^qh^{-4}$ which is the required estimate as $\mu\ge h^{-1/3+\delta'}$ and only marginally worse otherwise. To recover proper estimate one needs to reexamine zone $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma},\rho\le {\bar\gamma}\}\setminus \{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_0,\rho\le {\bar\gamma}_0\}$

2172: since the contribution to the remainder of the latter does not exceed $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}$. Without any loss of the generality one can assume that non-diagonal term does not depend on $x_1$ since one can remove term divisible by $x_1$ by the same method as for $|x_1|\ge {\bar\gamma}$ was removed the whole term.

2173: 

2174: In subzone $\{\max(\rho,{\bar\gamma}_0)\le |x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}\}$ one can pick up $T_0= Ch|\log h|\rho^{-2}$ which is less than $\epsilon \mu^{-1}$ unless $\rho\le {\bar\rho}\Def C(\mu h|\log h|)^{1/2}$ (which is less than $\mu^{-1}$ and the contribution to the remainder of $\{ |x_1|\le {\bar\gamma},\ \rho \le  {\bar\rho}\}$ does not exceed 

2175: \begin{equation*}

2176: C\mu h^{-4}{\bar\rho}{\bar\gamma}= C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}\times \mu^{\delta}(\mu^3h|\log h|)^{1/2}\le C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}

2177: \end{equation*}

2178: as $\mu\le h^{-1/3+\delta'}$ and $\delta=\delta '$.

2179: 

2180: In subzones $\{|x_1|\asymp \gamma \le \rho \}$ with 

2181: ${\bar\gamma}_0\le \gamma\le {\bar\gamma}_1$ and $\{|x_1|\le \gamma ={\bar\gamma}_0\le \rho\}$ one can take $T_0=Ch|\log h|(\rho\gamma)^{-1}$ which is less than $\epsilon \mu^{-1}$ here for sure. 

2182: \end{proof}

2183: 

2184: \begin{remark}\label{rem-4-5} It can happen that $T_1$ described in section \ref{sect-3} is less than $\epsilon\mu^{-1}$. Then one can take $T_0\le \epsilon \mu^{-1}$ anyway. 

2185: \end{remark}

2186: 

2187: \subsubsection{}

2188: \label{sect-4-1-4}

2189: Let us derive sharp remainder estimates in the resonance case:

2190:  

2191:  \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-6}   Assume that that $|f_1-f_2|\ge \epsilon_0$ and also $|\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|\ge \epsilon_0$  on $\supp\psi$. Further, assume that conditions $(\ref{4-1})$ and \ref{3-21-q}  and fulfilled with $q> 2$ and that on (any) resonance surface $\Xi$

2192:  \begin{phantomequation}\label{4-7}\end{phantomequation}

2193: \begin{multline}

2194:  \Hess _\Xi \bigl(\mu h f V^{-1}-1\bigr)  \text{\ \ has at least $r$ eigenvalues  }\\ \text{with absolute values greater than $\epsilon_0$}

2195: \tag*{$(4.7)_r$}\label{4-7-r}

2196: \end{multline}

2197: with $r=q-1$. 

2198: 

2199: Then the remainder estimate is given by $(\ref{4-2})'_q$   while the main term of asymptotics given by the standard implicit formula with any $T\ge \epsilon \mu^{-1}$.

2200: \end{proposition}

2201: 

2202: \begin{proof} Due to proposition \ref{prop-4-3} one should cover only case $\mu \ge h^{-1/3+\delta'}$.  Assumptions of proposition imply that condition $(\ref{3-66})_{r+1,r}$ holds. While one can apply proposition \ref{prop-3-10} directly only as $r> 2$, the proof of it yields that  under condition $(\ref{4-7})$ with $r=1,2$ the remainder estimate $O\bigl(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+ \mu^{2-r/2}h^{2+r/2}|\log h|^J\bigr)$  holds, which is not worse than $(\ref{4-2})_{r+1}$.

2203: Let us apply the same partition to zones as in propositions \ref{prop-3-9}, \ref{3-10}.

2204: 

2205: 

2206: Then zone  

2207: \begin{equation*}

2208: \{\gamma \ge \max(\rho, {\bar\gamma}_2\Def C\max(\mu^{-2/3},(\mu h|\log h|)^{1/2}))\}

2209: \end{equation*}

2210: is covered by the arguments used in  the proof of proposition \ref{prop-4-1}; its contribution to the error does not exceed \ref{4-2-q}. Meanwhile in the subzone  $\{\rho \ge \gamma \ge  {\bar\gamma}_2)\}$ one can take $T_0= Ch|\log h|{\bar\gamma}_2^{-2}$ which is less than $\epsilon\mu^{-1}$.

2211: 

2212: Further, in subzone $\{{\bar\gamma}\le |x_1|\asymp \gamma \le {\bar\gamma}_2\}$ one can take $T_0= Ch|\log h|\zeta^{-2}$ which is less than $\epsilon\mu^{-1}$ unless $\zeta \le C(\mu h|\log h|)^{1/2}$. Similarly, in the subzone $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}\}$ one can take $T_0= Ch|\log h|\zeta^{-2}$ as well. Note that the contribution of the zone 

2213: \begin{equation*}

2214: \{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_2, \zeta \le {\bar\zeta}\Def C(\mu h|\log h|)^{1/2}\}

2215: \end{equation*}

2216: to the remainder does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}_2 {\bar\zeta}^r$ which does not exceed the second term in $(\ref{4-2})_{r+1}$ as ${\bar\zeta}\asymp {\bar\gamma}_2$ i.e. $\mu^{-2/3}\le C(\mu h|\log h|)^{1/2}$ i.e. as $\mu \ge C(h|\log h|)^{-3/7}$. 

2217: 

2218: As $\mu \le C(h|\log h|)^{-3/7}$ let us consider zone 

2219: $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_2\}$ and use the precanonical form here. Then 

2220: contribution of the subzone $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_2, \ \rho \le {\bar\rho}_2, \ \zeta\le {\bar\zeta} \}$ to the remainder does not exceed 

2221: $C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}_2 {\bar\rho}_2{\bar\zeta}^r$ which does not exceed the second term in $(\ref{4-2})_{r+1}$ as ${\bar\zeta}\ge {\bar\gamma}_2{\bar\rho}_2$. Therefore  one can pick up ${\bar\rho}_2={\bar\zeta}{\bar\gamma}_2^{-1}$; one can see easily that ${\bar\rho}_2\gg \mu^{-2/3}$ and ${\bar\rho}_2{\bar\gamma}_2\gg C\mu h|\log h|$ and then $T_0\le Ch|\log h|{\bar\rho}_2^{-1}{\bar\gamma}_2^{-1}\ll \epsilon \mu^{-1}$ and the contribution of the zones

2222: $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_2, \ \rho \ge {\bar\rho}_2 \}$ and

2223: $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_2,  \ \zeta\ge {\bar\zeta} \}$ to the error is negligible.

2224: \end{proof}

2225: 

2226: \subsubsection{}

2227: \label{sect-4-1-5} Finally, let us consider the vicinity of $\Sigma$.

2228: 

2229: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-7} Let condition $(\ref{1-1})-(\ref{1-2}),(\ref{4-1})$ be fulfilled and let $\psi$ be  supported in the small vicinity of $\Sigma$.

2230: 

2231: Then the remainder estimate is given by $(\ref{4-2})'_q$ with  any $q<2$ arbitrarily close to $2$ while the main term of asymptotics given by the standard implicit formula with any $T\ge \epsilon \mu^{-1}$.

2232: \end{proposition}

2233: 

2234: \begin{proof} Again this remainder estimate is no smaller than $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ delivered by proposition \ref{prop-3-13}. 

2235: 

2236: Applying the same approach as in the Part I of the proof of  proposition \ref{prop-4-4} (which is applicable as $\gamma \ge {\bar\gamma}_2\Def \max \bigl((\mu h|\log h|)^{1/2}, \mu^{-1}\bigr)$ now) I conclude after summation with respect to $\gamma$ that the contribution of the zone $\{x:\gamma (x)\asymp \gamma\}$ (where $\gamma(x)=\dist (x,\Sigma)\}$) to the error does not exceed $C(\mu h)^q h^{-4}\gamma$ with  $q<2$ arbitrarily close to $1$. Here an extra factor $\gamma$ appears because the measure of $\{x:\gamma(x)\asymp\gamma\}$ is $\asymp\gamma^2$ rather than $\asymp\gamma$ as it was before. Then after summation I conclude that

2237: 

2238: \begin{claim}\label{4-8}

2239: The contribution of the zone $\{x: \max ((\mu h, \mu^{-1})\le \gamma(x)\le \gamma\}$ to the error is $O\bigl((\mu h)^q h^{-4}\gamma\bigr)$. In particular, it is $O\bigl((\mu h)^q h^{-4}\bigr)$ as $\gamma =\epsilon$.

2240: \end{claim}

2241: 

2242: Meanwhile, the contribution of the zone $\{x: \gamma(x)\le {\bar\gamma}_2\}$ to the error does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3} {\bar\gamma}_2^2\asymp (\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$.

2243: \end{proof}

2244: 

2245: \subsubsection{}

2246: \label{sect-4-1-6}

2247: Let us improve the above estimate under generic conditions.

2248: 

2249: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-8} Let conditions $(\ref{1-1})-(\ref{1-2}),(\ref{4-1})$ and 

2250: \ref{3-88-r} with $r=1,2$ be fulfilled. Let $\psi$ be supported in the small enough vicinity of $\Sigma$. Then

2251: 

2252: \medskip

2253: \noindent 

2254: {\rm (i)} The total  remainder is given by $(\ref{4-2})'_{r+1}$ while the main part is given by the standard implicit formula with any $T\ge \epsilon \mu^{-1}$. 

2255: 

2256: \medskip

2257: \noindent 

2258: {\rm (ii)} Under condition $(\ref{3-85})$ the total  remainder is given by $(\ref{4-2})'_{r+2}$ as $r=0,1$ while the main part is given by the standard implicit formula with any $T\ge \epsilon \mu^{-1}$;

2259: 

2260: \medskip

2261: \noindent 

2262: {\rm (iii)} Under conditions $(\ref{3-85})$ and $(\ref{3-84})$ the total  remainder is given by $(\ref{4-2})'_{r+2}$  as $r=2$ while the main part is given by the standard implicit formula with any $T\ge \epsilon \mu^{-1}$.

2263: \end{proposition}

2264: 

2265: \begin{proof} Again let us note that the remainder estimate given by proposition \ref{prop-3-17} as $r=0$ and  \ref{prop-3-18} as $r=1,2$ is no worse than one announced here. 

2266: 

2267: In zone $\{\gamma \ge \max (\rho,(\mu h|\log h)^{1/2},\mu^{-1})\}$ the same arguments as in the proof of proposition \ref{prop-4-3} are applied, and conditions \ref{3-88-r}  and (\ref{3-85}) add factors $ (\mu h|\log h|)^{r/2}$ and  $ (\mu h|\log h|)^{1/2}\gamma^{-1}$ respectively to the measure of zone $\{\rho\le (\mu h|\log h|)^{1/2}$.  

2268: 

2269: Then after summation with respect to $\gamma$ one arrives to the estimate $(\ref{4-2})'_{r+k+1}$ of the contribution of this zone to the error estimate and $k=1$ under condition (\ref{3-85}) and $k=0$ otherwise. 

2270: 

2271: Meanwhile $T_0\le \epsilon\mu^{-1}$ in zone 

2272: $\{\rho\ge \gamma \ge C\max ((\mu h|\log h|)^{1/2} ,\mu^{-1})\}$ .

2273: 

2274: So, one needs to consider zone $\{\gamma\le C{\bar\gamma}_2\}$. In this zone condition (\ref{3-75}) has no value. Contribution of this zone to the remainder estimate obviously does not exceed $(\ref{4-2})'_2$. Therefore case $r+k\le 1$ is covered.

2275: Let us introduce $\zeta$ as before. As \emph{either} $\zeta\le \gamma$ \emph{or} condition (\ref{3-84}) is fulfilled, one can take $T_0= Ch\zeta^{-2}$ and then only subzone $\{\zeta \le C(\mu h|\log h|)^{1/2}\}$ should be considered; then condition \ref{3-88-r} adds an extra factor $(\mu h|\log h|)^{r/2}$ to the measure and to the estimate which becomes $(\ref{4-2})'_{r+2}$.

2276: 

2277: That leaves us with the analysis of zone $\{\zeta\ge \gamma\}\cap \{\gamma\le {\bar\gamma}_2\}$ and only without condition (\ref{3-84}), in which case only estimate $(\ref{4-2})'_4$ should be proven under condition $(\ref{3-88})_1$. However then one can take $T_0=C\mu h|\log h|\gamma^{-1}\zeta^{-1}$ and then only subzone $\zeta\le C\mu h|\log h|\gamma^{-1}$ remains to be considered. Its contribution to the remainder does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}\times \mu h|\log h|\gamma^{-1}\times \gamma^2$ which sums with respect to $\gamma$ ranging from 

2278: ${\bar\gamma}_1\Def \max(C\mu h|\log h|,\mu^{-1})$ to ${\bar\gamma}_2$ to $C\mu^2 h^{-2}|\log h|{\bar\gamma}_2$ which is properly estimated. Meanwhile contribution of $\{x:\gamma(x)\le {\bar\gamma}_1\}$ to the remainder does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}_1^2$ and is properly estimated as well.

2279: \end{proof}

2280: 

2281: \subsubsection{Conclusion}

2282: \label{sect-4-1-7}

2283: 

2284: \begin{corollary}\label{cor-4-9}  Let conditions of  one of propositions \ref{prop-4-3} -- \ref{prop-4-8} be fulfilled. Further, let condition $(\ref{0-8})$  be fulfilled. Then 

2285: 

2286: \medskip

2287: \noindent

2288: {\rm (i)} The remainder estimate is $(\ref{4-2})'_q$ where 

2289: \begin{enumerate}[label=\rm (\alph*)]

2290: \item $q<2$ is arbitrarily close to $2$ in the general case (propositions \ref{prop-4-3}, \ref{prop-4-4}, \ref{prop-4-7}) and 

2291: \item $q$ is described in the corresponding case (propositions \ref{prop-4-1}, \ref{prop-4-6}, \ref{prop-4-8}), 

2292: \end{enumerate}

2293: while the main part of asymptotics is given by $(\ref{4-4})$.

2294: 

2295: \medskip

2296: \noindent

2297: {\rm (ii)} In particular  the remainder estimate is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ as $\mu \le {\bar\mu}_q\Def Ch^{-q/(q+4)}|\log h|^{-K}$. In particular 

2298: \begin{enumerate}[label=\rm (\alph*)]

2299: \item in the general case ${\bar\mu}_1= Ch^{\delta-1/3}$ 

2300: \item in the generic case ${\bar\mu}_4= h^{-1/2}|\log h|^{-K}$.

2301: \end{enumerate}

2302: \end{corollary}

2303: 

2304: \begin{proof} Proof coincides with the proof of corollary \ref{cor-4-2}. \end{proof}

2305: 

2306: Then I get immediately 

2307: 

2308: \begin{corollary}\label{cor-4-10}  {\rm (i)} Theorem \ref{thm-0-2} is proven with $\cE^\MW_\corr=0$ as $\mu \le h^{\delta-1/3}$;

2309: 

2310: \medskip

2311: \noindent

2312: {\rm (ii)} Theorem \ref{thm-0-3} is proven  as $\mu \le Ch^{-1/2}|\log h|^{-K}$.

2313: \end{corollary} 

2314: 

2315: \subsection{Strong magnetic field}

2316: \label{sect-4-2}

2317: 

2318: In this subsection I assume that

2319: \begin{equation}

2320: h^{-1/3}\le \mu \le ch^{-1}

2321: \label{4-9}

2322: \end{equation}

2323: sometimes making separate considerations for the case of the \emph{superstrong\/} magnetic field  

2324: \begin{equation}

2325: h^{-1}|\log h|^{-K}\le  \mu \le ch^{-1}

2326: \label{4-10}

2327: \end{equation}

2328: as needed.   Also in the general case I consider a special range $h^{-1/3+\delta}\le \mu \le h^{-1/3-\delta}$.

2329: 

2330: \subsubsection{}

2331: \label{sect-4-2-1}

2332: I start from the regular points. 

2333: 

2334: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-11}  Assume that  there are no resonances of order not exceeding $M$ and also $|\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|\ge \epsilon_0$  on $\supp\psi$. Further, assume that condition \ref{3-21-q} with $q\ge 1$ is

2335: fulfilled and

2336: \begin{equation}

2337: \mu^{-1}h|\log h|\le \varepsilon \le \mu h

2338: \label{4-11}%+2

2339: \end{equation}

2340: with $\varepsilon = \mu^{-2}$ here.

2341: 

2342: Then  the remainder does not exceed

2343: \begin{phantomequation}\label{4-12}\end{phantomequation}

2344: \begin{equation}

2345: C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+  Ch^{-4}(\mu h|\log h|) ^{q/2} \varepsilon+ 

2346: \left\{\begin{aligned} 

2347: &0 \qquad &&q\ge 3,\\ 

2348: &\mu^2h^{-2}\varepsilon^{(q-1)/2} &&2\le q<3,\\

2349: &\bigl(\mu^2h^{-2}\varepsilon^{(q-1)/2} + \mu h^{-3}\varepsilon^{q/2}\bigr)\qquad&&1\le q<2

2350: \end{aligned}

2351: \right.

2352: \tag*{$(4.12)_q$}

2353: \label{4-12-q}

2354: \end{equation}

2355:  while the main term of asymptotics given by $(\ref{4-4})$.

2356: \end{proposition} 

2357: \begin{proof} 

2358: The proof follows the sequence of the proofs of propositions \ref{IRO8-prop-4-15}, \ref{IRO8-prop-4-17} with $\varepsilon=\mu^{-2}$, 

2359: \ref{IRO8-prop-4-20}(i) from \cite{IRO8}: 

2360: 

2361: \medskip

2362: \noindent

2363: (i) First, using the method of successive approximations, I rewrite the implicit formula as expression (\ref{4-4}) plus a (temporary) \emph{correction term\/}

2364: \begin{equation}

2365: \sum_{\iota} 

2366: \int \Bigl({\widehat\cE}^\MW_{\bar Q_\iota} (x,0)- \cE^\MW_{\bar Q_\iota} (x,0)\Bigr)\,dx

2367: \label{4-13}%+3

2368: \end{equation}

2369: with an integrand defined by (\ref{IRO8-4-33})-(\ref{IRO8-4-34}), \cite{IRO8}:

2370: \begin{equation}

2371: {\widehat\cE}^\MW_{\bar Q} (x,0) \Def  \const \sum_{n,p} \Bigl(\theta (\cA_{pn}){\bar Q}\Bigr)\Bigr|_{(x'',\xi'')=\Psi^{-1}(x)} \times 

2372: f_1(x)f_2(x) \mu^2h^{-2}

2373: \label{4-14}

2374: \end{equation}

2375: and

2376: \begin{multline}

2377: \cE^\MW_{\bar Q}(x,0)\Def \\\const \sum_{n,p} \theta\Bigl(V(x)- (2n+1)\mu hf_2(x)- (2p+1)\mu h f_1(x)\Bigr) f_1(x)f_2(x){\bar Q} \mu^2 h^{-2}

2378: \label{4-15}

2379: \end{multline}

2380: where $Q_\iota$ cover zone with $T_0\ge \epsilon\mu^{-1}$ (i.e. $\rho\le C(\mu h|\log h|)^{1/2}$); here $\const$ meant the same constant as in the definition of $\cE^\MW$.

2381: 

2382: \medskip

2383: \noindent

2384: (ii) Then I need to estimate  expression (\ref{4-13}). Now, however, one needs  only analysis which was used in \cite{IRO8} in the strictly outer zone. The crucial moment is the estimate of the correction term as in (\ref{IRO8-prop-4-17}) of \cite{IRO8} which was

2385: \begin{multline}

2386: C\mu^2h^{-2} \times h\rho^{-2}\times \varepsilon h^{-1}\times 

2387: \bigl(\rho^2(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\times \bigl(\rho(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\rho^{q-1}\asymp \\

2388: C\mu^2h^{-2} \varepsilon \bigl(\rho^2(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\times \bigl(\rho(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\rho^{q-3}

2389: \label{4-16}

2390: \end{multline}

2391: and one needs to sum this expression with respect to $\rho$ ranging from $\varepsilon^{1/2}$ ($=\mu^{-1/2}$  as $\varepsilon=\mu^{-2}$)  to ${\bar\rho}\Def C(\mu h|\log h|)^{1/2}$. Then 

2392: 

2393: \begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)] 

2394: 

2395: \item

2396: As $q>3$  expression (\ref{4-16}) sums to its value as $\rho={\bar\rho}$, which is exactly \newline$C\varepsilon (\mu h|\log h|)^{q/2}h^{-4}$. 

2397: 

2398: \item As $1<  q\le 3$ an extra term due to summation of $C\mu ^2 h^{-2}\varepsilon \rho ^{q-3}$ appears in the estimate.  As $q<3$ this results in the value of this term as $\rho=\varepsilon^{1/2}$ which is $C\mu ^2 h^{-2}\varepsilon ^{(q-1)/2}$ while as $q=3$ it results in 

2399: $C\mu^2h^{-2}\varepsilon \log (\mu h |\log h| \varepsilon^{-1})$.

2400: 

2401: \item Further, as $1\le q\le 2$ one should take in account also 

2402: $C\mu h^{-3}\varepsilon  \rho ^{q-2}$ which sums to 

2403: $C\mu h^{-3}\varepsilon  ^{q/2}$ as $1<q<2$ and $C\mu h^{-3}\varepsilon  |\log h|$ as $q=2$.

2404: \end{enumerate}

2405: 

2406: \noindent

2407: (iii) Finally  in zone $\{\rho \le \varepsilon^{1/2}\}$ one simply considers its contribution to the remainder with $T=\epsilon \mu^{-1}$ rather than to the correction:

2408: \begin{multline}

2409: C\mu^2h^{-2} \times 

2410: \bigl(\rho^2(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\times \bigl(\rho(\mu h)^{-1}+1\bigr)\rho^{q-1}\bigr|_{\rho=\varepsilon^{1/2}}\asymp \\

2411: C\mu h^{-3} \varepsilon^{q/2}+C\mu^2h^{-2} \varepsilon^{(q-1)/2}.

2412: \label{4-17}

2413: \end{multline}

2414: \end{proof}

2415: 

2416: To cover properly the case of the \emph{superstrong\/} magnetic field  (\ref{4-10}) let us  rewrite the implicit formula as

2417: \begin{equation} 

2418: \int {\widehat\cE}^\MW_I (x,0)\,dx

2419: \label{4-18}

2420: \end{equation}

2421: and then as $q>3$ rewrite it as the three term decomposition with respect to $\varepsilon$; then the third (remainder) term is $o(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ while the second term is given by a two-dimensional Riemannian sum proportional $\mu^{-2}$ with the steps $2f_1\mu h$ and $2f_2\mu h$.  Replacing this Riemannian sum by an integral one can see easily that again with an error $o(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ the second term is $\varkappa \mu^{-2}h^{-4}$ which disagrees with expression as $\mu \le h^{-1}|\log h|^{-K}$ unless $\varkappa=0$. Combining with the previous proposition I arrived to

2422: 

2423: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-12}

2424: In frames of proposition \ref{prop-4-11} with $q>3$ asymptotics with the main part $(\ref{4-4})$ and $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ remainder holds.

2425: \end{proposition}

2426: 

2427: Combining  propositions \ref{prop-4-11}, \ref{prop-4-12}, corollary \ref{cor-4-2} and results of section \ref{sect-2}  I conclude that 

2428: 

2429: \begin{claim}\label{4-19}

2430: in frames of proposition \ref{prop-4-11} in the generic case $q>3$ estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ is proven for the complete range of $\mu$ ($1\le \mu \le ch^{-1}$).  Meanwhile in the general case $q=1$ estimate $O(\mu^2h^{-2})$ is proven as $h^{-1/2}|\log h|^K\le \mu \le ch^{-1}$. 

2431: \end{claim}

2432: 

2433: \subsubsection{}

2434: \label{sect-4-2-2}

2435: Now I want to improve result in the general case.

2436: 

2437: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-13}  Assume that $f_1\ne f_2$ and there are no resonances of order not exceeding $M$  and also critical points of $f_1f_2^{-1}$  are non-degenerate on $\supp\psi$. Then as $\mu \ge h^{-1/3}$ the remainder estimate is given by \ref{4-12-q} with  any $q<2$ arbitrarily close to $2$ while the main term of asymptotics given by  $(\ref{4-4})$.

2438: \end{proposition}

2439: 

2440: \begin{proof} 

2441: Proof follows ideas of the proof of proposition \ref{IRO8-prop-4-22} of \cite{IRO8}. Let us introduce functions $\ell_k$, $k=1,\dots,K$  in the same proof but with $\gamma=1$ and again let ${\bar\ell}_k= (\mu h|\log h|^J)^{1/(k+1)}$. 

2442: 

2443: \medskip

2444: \noindent

2445: (i) Assume first that $|\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|\ge \epsilon_0$. Then  the arguments of the mentioned proof survive with this simplification. 

2446: 

2447: \medskip

2448: \noindent

2449: (ii) Assume now that $f_1f_2^{-1}$ has one non-degenerate stationary point ${\bar x}$.   Assume first that $\ell_K\le \gamma$ where $\gamma ={\frac 1 2}|x-{\bar x}|$. Then the number of indices ``$p$'' does not exceed $C\ell_k^k/(\mu h \gamma)$ and the contribution of all such elements with $\ell_k\asymp {\bar\ell}_k$ for some $k=1,\dots,(K-1)$ to the correction term does not exceed $C(\mu h)^{1-\delta}\cdot \mu^{-2} h^{-4}\gamma^{-1}\times \gamma^4|\log h|^J$ where $\gamma^4$ is the total measure of such elements, $\delta=1/K$ and $J$ is large enough. Summation with respect to $\gamma$ results in the announced estimate.

2450: 

2451: On the other hand, the total contribution to the correction of all elements with $\ell_k\ge C_0{\bar\ell}_k$ does not exceed $C\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+ C\mu  h^{-3}\cdot \mu^{-2}{\bar\ell}_K^{-1}$.

2452: 

2453: \medskip

2454: \noindent

2455: (iii) Alternatively, assume that $\ell_j\le \gamma\le \ell_{j+1}$. Again one needs to consider elements with $\ell_k \asymp {\bar\ell}_k\le \gamma $ for some $k\le j$. Then the contribution to the correction term does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3} \times \mu^{-2} \gamma^{-1}\times \gamma^4\times \gamma^{-1} |\log h|$ where the second factor $\gamma^{-1}$ appears since the relative measure of $\ell_k$ elements to $\gamma$ elements does not exceed $\ell_k\gamma^{-1}$. Again summation with respect to $\gamma$ results in $C\mu ^{-1} h^{-3}|\log h|^J$.

2456: 

2457: \medskip

2458: \noindent

2459: (iv) Finally, consider elements with $\ell_1\ge \gamma$. Then I redefine $\gamma =\ell_1$ and only $\ell_1\asymp {\bar\ell}_1$ should be considered. Contribution of such elements to the correction does not exceed $C h^{-4}\times\mu^{-2}{\bar\ell}_1^4=O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$. 

2460: \end{proof}

2461: 

2462: Therefore

2463: 

2464: \begin{claim}\label{4-20}%+9

2465: In the general case  asymptotics with the main part (\ref{4-4}) and the remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ holds unless 

2466: \begin{equation}

2467: h^{-1/3+\delta}\le \mu \le h^{-1/3-\delta}

2468: \label{4-21}

2469: \end{equation}

2470: in which case the remainder estimate is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3-\delta})$ containing an extra factor $h^{-\delta}$; $\delta>0$ is an arbitrarily small exponent. 

2471: \end{claim}

2472: 

2473: \subsubsection{}

2474: \label{sect-4-2-3}

2475: Let us  recover  remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ in the latter case (\ref{4-21}) (introducing some correction term). Using the same arguments as above I can purge from $\cA_{pn}$ in (\ref{4-14}) all terms which are even marginally less than $\mu^{-2}$; it includes higher order terms and also the difference between $\mu^{-2}\cB_{pn}$ and $\mu^{-2}\cB_{{\bar p},{\bar n}}$ where ${\bar p}=\alpha /(2f_1\mu h)$ and

2476: ${\bar n}=(1-\alpha)/(2f_2\mu h)$, $\alpha=\alpha(x)$ is the minimizer of $|\nabla \phi_\alpha|^2$.

2477: 

2478: Then $\cB_{pn}$ becomes $\cB_{{\bar p},{\bar n}}=\omega (x)$\,\footnote{\label{foot-17} Which is the smooth function outside of the critical points of $f_1f_2^{-1}$.}. However, let us include this modified term $\mu^{-2}\cB_{pn}$ for all $p$, $n$ and not only for those for which $T_0\ge \epsilon \mu^{-1}$. Then one needs to correct this alternation  by the term $\varkappa \mu^{-2}h^{-4}$ with $\varkappa$ selected so it would result in the correction term 0, if one replaces the Riemann sum by the corresponding integral because it would provide the result for $\mu \ge h^{-1/3-\delta}$ and it should agree with the results of the previous subsubsection. I leave the easy details to the reader.  Then I arrive to

2479: 

2480: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-14}  Assume that $f_1\ne f_2$ and there are no resonances of order not exceeding $M$  and also the critical points of $f_1f_2^{-1}$  are non-degenerate on $\supp\psi$. Then for $\mu$ satisfying $(\ref{4-21})$  the remainder estimate is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$  while the main part of the asymptotics is given by  

2481: \begin{equation}

2482: \int \Bigl(\cE^\MW(x,0)+ \cE_\corr^\MW(x,0)\Bigr) \psi (x)\, dx.

2483: \label{4-22}

2484: \end{equation}

2485: with

2486: \begin{align}

2487: \cE^\MW_\corr (x,\tau)=\qquad\qquad\ & \label{4-23}\\

2488: (2\pi)^{-2}\mu^2h^{-2}\sum _{(p,n)\in \bZ^{+\,2} } 

2489: \Bigr(&\theta \bigl(2\tau+V- (2p+1)\mu h f_1 - (2n+1)\mu hf_2-\omega (x)\mu^{-2}\bigr) -\notag\\

2490: &\theta \bigl(2\tau+V- (2p+1)\mu h f_1 - (2n+1)\mu hf_2\Bigr) f_1 f_2 \sqrt g+\notag \\

2491: &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad(4\pi)^{-2}\mu^{-2}h^{-4}(2\tau +V)\omega \sqrt g\notag.

2492: \end{align}

2493: \end{proposition}

2494: 

2495: \begin{remark}\label{rem-4-15} (i) Here 

2496: \begin{equation*}

2497: \int \cE^\MW_\corr (x,\tau)\psi(x)\, dx=O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3-\kappa})

2498: \end{equation*}

2499: with an arbitrarily small exponent $\kappa>0$\,\footnote{\label{foot-18} It follows from proposition \ref{prop-4-3}};

2500: 

2501: \medskip

2502: \noindent

2503: (ii)  Furthermore under nondegeneracy condition 

2504: \begin{equation}

2505: \sum_{|\beta|\le K}|\nabla^\beta \phi_\alpha|\ge \epsilon_0\qquad \forall x\ \forall \alpha\in[0,1]

2506: \label{4-24}

2507: \end{equation}

2508: with arbitrarily large $K$ one can skip a correction term  without deteriorating remainder estimate unless $h^{-1/3}|\log h|^{-J}\le \mu \le h^{-1/3}|\log h|^J$ and with the remainder estimate $O(h^{-8/3}|\log h|^J)$ in this border case

2509: \footnote{\label{foot-19} Notice   that  under  condition (\ref{4-24}) ${\bar\ell}_K\asymp 1$ in the proof  of propositions \ref{prop-4-3}, \ref{prop-4-13}.}. I suspect that one can get rid off logarithmic factors and to prove an  estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ even in the border case.

2510: 

2511: \medskip

2512: \noindent

2513: (iii) However I could not find any example demonstrating that this correction term is not superficial and without (\ref{4-24}) one cannot skip it without penalty.  Clarification of this would be interesting.

2514: 

2515: Correction term in \cite{IRO8} was not superficial for sure. 

2516: \end{remark}

2517: 

2518: 

2519: \subsubsection

2520: \label{sect-4-2-4}

2521: Now I want to attack resonances. I start from the generic case. First, after rescaling again in the same manner as before one can see easily that the contribution of zone $\{|x_1\asymp\gamma\}$ to an error does not exceed $C\mu h^{1-d}\varepsilon^{1-\kappa}$ where factor $\gamma^{-1}$ appearing from the calculation of the number of indices ``$p$'' is compensated by factor $\gamma$ appearing from the measure. Then this contribution does not exceed $C\mu h^{-3}(\mu^{4-2m}\gamma^{-1})^{(1-\kappa)}$ if 

2522: only terms originated from non-diagonal terms are removed and summation with respect to $\gamma\ge {\bar\gamma}$ results in the value of this expression as $\gamma={\bar\gamma}$ and as $m\ge 4$ it is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$. I remind that ${\bar\gamma}=\mu^{\delta-2}$ as $m=4$ and ${\bar\gamma}=C\mu^{-2}$ as $m\ge 5$. 

2523: 

2524: On the other hand in the zone $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}\}$ one can apply proposition \ref{prop-3-10} and get $C(\mu h)^{3/2}h^{-4}{\bar\gamma}|\log h|^J$ which is $o(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ as well (as $m\ge 4$). 

2525: 

2526: Now after singular terms from operator are removed it can be treated as if there was no resonance resulting in two following statements:

2527: 

2528: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-16}  Assume that $f_1\ne f_2$  and  $|\nabla(f_1f_2^{-1})|\ge \epsilon_0$   on $\supp\psi$. Furthermore, assume that there are no third-order resonances on $\supp\psi$.

2529: 

2530: Then 

2531: 

2532: \medskip

2533: \noindent

2534: {\rm (i)} As $\mu \ge h^{-1/3-\delta}$ the remainder estimate is $O(\mu^2h^{-2})$ while the main term of asymptotics given by  $(\ref{4-4})$;

2535: 

2536: \medskip

2537: \noindent

2538: {\rm (ii)} As $h^{-1/3+\delta}\le \mu \le h^{-1/3-\delta}$ statement (i) of remark \ref{rem-4-15} holds; further under condition $(\ref{4-24})$ one can skip correction term with $O(\mu^2h^{-2}|\log h|^J)$ penalty\footnote{\label{foot-20} Which is probably superficial.}.

2539: \end{proposition}

2540: 

2541: \subsubsection

2542: \label{sect-4-2-5}

2543: Consider resonances of order 3 now. As $\mu\ge h^{-1/3-\delta}$ in the virtue of the above arguments, the contribution of zone 

2544: \begin{equation}

2545: \bigl\{|x_1|\ge {\bar\gamma}_3\Def \mu^{-3}h^{-1-\delta}\bigr\}

2546: \label{4-25}

2547: \end{equation}

2548: to the correction does not exceed $C\mu^2h^{-2}$.

2549: 

2550: Moreover, contribution of zone 

2551: \begin{equation}

2552: \bigl\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_2 \Def (\mu h)^{1/2}|\log h|^{-1/2}\bigr\}

2553: \label{4-26}

2554: \end{equation}

2555: to the correction also

2556: does not exceed $C\mu^2h^{-2}$. However, zone

2557: \begin{equation}

2558: \bigl\{{\bar\gamma}_2 \le |x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}_3\bigr\}

2559: \label{4-27}

2560: \end{equation}

2561: needs to be reexamined; here ${\bar\gamma}_2\ge {\bar\gamma}$ as $\mu\ge h^{-1/3-\delta}$ and as $\mu \ge h^{-3/7-\delta'}$ zone (\ref{4-27}) disappears. In virtue of arguments of subsection \ref{4-2} the contribution of this zone does not exceed $C\mu^2h^{-2-\kappa}$ with arbitrarily small $\kappa>0$ and now I want to improve it marginally.

2562: 

2563: I claim that

2564: 

2565: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-17}

2566: For any $\delta>0$ there exists $K=K(\delta)$ such that if  $\mu^{-1+\delta}\le \gamma \le \mu^{-\delta}$ and $B(y,\gamma(y))$ with $\gamma(y)\asymp \gamma$ is rescaled to $B(0,1)$ then either

2567: \begin{align}

2568: &\sum_{|\alpha|\le K}  |\partial ^\alpha _z\cA_{pn}|\asymp \varsigma 

2569: \qquad \forall z\in B(0,1)

2570: \label{4-28}\\

2571: \intertext{with some $\varsigma$ or}

2572: &\sum_{|\alpha|\le K}  |\partial ^\alpha _z\cA_{pn}|\le \varsigma 

2573: \qquad \forall z\in B(0,1)

2574: \label{4-29}

2575: \end{align}

2576: with  $\varsigma=\mu h^{1-\kappa}\gamma $ where (continuous) parameters $p$ and $n$ are selected so 

2577: \begin{equation}

2578: \cA_{pn}(y)=\partial_{x_1}\cA_{pn}(y)=0.

2579: \label{4-30}

2580: \end{equation}

2581: \end{proposition}

2582: 

2583: \begin{proof}

2584: Note that before rescaling $\cA_{pn}=\cA_{pn}^0 + x_1^{-1}\mu^{-2}\cB_{pn} +\dots$ with smooth symbols. Then decomposing all smooth symbols into Taylor series at $y$ one can prove proposition easily since high powers of there contain high powers of $\gamma$ and thus are small.

2585: \end{proof}

2586: 

2587: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-18} In frames of proposition \ref{prop-4-17} contribution of zone $\{\mu^{-1+\delta}\le |x_1|\le \mu^{-\delta}\}$ to the error estimate estimate is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2}|\log h|^J)$.

2588: \end{proposition}

2589: 

2590: \begin{proof} Proof repeats those as I had before. One needs to construct $\ell_k$ corresponding to $\varsigma \cA_{pn}$ and then $(\mu h|\log h|)$ as minimal value for $\ell_k^{k+1}$ should be replaced by  $\varsigma^{-1}(\mu h|\log h|)$ and there will be no final division by ${\bar\ell}_K$ which would be $\asymp 1$. That will give $C\mu^2h^{-2}\times |\log h| \times |\log h|\gamma^{-1}\times \gamma$ where the factors $\gamma^{-1}$ and $\gamma$ appear from division by $(\mu h\gamma)$ and the measure. 

2591: 

2592: Then summation  with respect to $\gamma$ results in an extra $|\log h|$ factor.

2593: \end{proof}

2594: 

2595: \begin{remark}\label{rem-4-19} (i)   Under condition 

2596: \begin{equation}

2597: \sum_{|\beta|\le K}|\nabla_\Xi^\beta Vf_1^{-1}|\ge \epsilon_0\qquad \forall x\ 

2598: \label{4-31}

2599: \end{equation}

2600: with arbitrarily large $K$ one can skip a correction term  without deteriorating remainder estimate unless $h^{-1/3}|\log h|^{-J}\le \mu \le h^{-1/3}|\log h|^J$ and with the remainder estimate $O(h^{-8/3}|\log h|^J)$ in this border case.

2601: I suspect that one can get rid off logarithmic factors and to prove an  estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ even in the border case.

2602: 

2603: 

2604: \medskip

2605: \noindent

2606: (ii) One can easily construct a correction term in the case of third-order resonances but an expression seems  rather too complicated. So I leave it to the curious reader.

2607: \end{remark}

2608: 

2609: \subsubsection{}\label{sect-4-2-6} Let us consider the generic case now:

2610: 

2611: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-20}  Assume that that $|f_1-f_2|\ge \epsilon_0$ and also $|\nabla (f_1f_2^{-1})|\ge \epsilon_0$  on $\supp\psi$. Further let us assume that conditions $(\ref{3-21})_4$ and  $(\ref{4-7})_3$ are fulfilled. 

2612: 

2613: Then  the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ while the main term of asymptotics given by $(\ref{4-4})$.

2614: \end{proposition}

2615: 

2616: \begin{proof} Again it is sufficient to consider the case of the single resonance surface $\Xi=\{x_1=0\}$.

2617: 

2618: \medskip

2619: \noindent

2620: (i) Combining in zone $\{|x_1|\asymp \gamma \ge {\bar\gamma}\Def \mu^{\delta-1}\}$ arguments of the proofs of proposition \ref{prop-4-6} and \ref{prop-4-11} one can estimate contribution of it to the correction  terms by 

2621: $C(\mu h|\log h|)^{q/2}h^{-4}\gamma \times \mu^{-2}\gamma^{-1}$ which after summation with respect to $\gamma$ results in $C(\mu h |\log h|)^{q/2}\mu^{-2} h^{-4}|\log h|$, which in turn is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ as long as $\mu\le h^{-1}|\log h|^{-J}$.

2622: 

2623: \medskip

2624: \noindent

2625: (ii) In zone $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}\}$ one can use arguments of the proofs of proposition \ref{prop-4-7} and estimate the contribution of this zone to the correction term arising as $T\ge T_0$  is replaced by $T=\epsilon\mu^{-1}$ by $C(\mu h|\log h|)^{5/2}h^{-4}{\bar\gamma}$ which is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ as $\mu \le h^{-3/5+\delta'}$. 

2626: 

2627: \medskip

2628: \noindent

2629: (iii) Let $\mu \ge h^{-5/3+\delta'}$. In zone $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}\}$ one can consider precanonical form and then the contribution of this zone to the correction term does not exceed 

2630: $C(\mu h|\log h|)^{3/2}\mu^{-1}h^{-4}{\bar\gamma} $ which is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ as $\mu \le h^{-1+\delta'}$. 

2631: 

2632: The direct calculation shows that the first approximation term actually vanishes as it comes from the ``main perturbation term'' and is odd with respect to $x_1$, and its estimate contains an extra factor ${\bar\gamma}$ otherwise.

2633: 

2634: So the correction terms associated with zone $\{|x_1|\le {\bar\gamma}\}$ do not exceed 

2635: \begin{equation*}

2636: C(\mu h)^{3/2}\mu^{-1}h^{-4}{\bar\gamma}^2+ 

2637: C(\mu h)^{1/2}\mu^{-2}h^{-4}{\bar\gamma}=o(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})

2638: \end{equation*}

2639: 

2640: \medskip

2641: \noindent

2642: (iv) Finally, arguments of (i) should be slightly improved as $\mu\ge h^{-1}|\log h|^{-J}$. Namely the source of term containing logarithmic factor is the only perturbation of the type $C\mu^{-2}x_1^{-1}B(x',\mu^{-1}hD)$ but then if $\psi$ is even with respect to $x_1$ the results of calculation will be $0$ and if $\psi$ contains factor $x_1$ it would compensate $x_1^{-1}$ and no logarithm would appear.

2643: \end{proof}

2644: 

2645: \subsubsection{}\label{sect-4-2-7} Now I need to consider the vicinity of $\Sigma$. Let us start from the general case first. 

2646: 

2647: Then scaling $x\to x/\gamma$, $h\to h/\gamma$, $\mu \to \mu\gamma$ and applying 

2648: the same arguments as in the resonance case I estimate the contribution of zone

2649: $\{\gamma (x)\asymp \gamma\}$ to the correction by 

2650: \begin{equation*}

2651: C\mu h^{-3} \gamma^{-1}\times (\mu^{-2}\gamma^{-1})^{1-\kappa}\times \gamma^2

2652: \end{equation*}

2653: which in comparison to resonance case gains an extra factor $\gamma$ and thus sums to its values as $\gamma=1$, which is $C\mu^{-1+\kappa} h^{-3}$ which in turn is $O(\mu^2h^{-2})$ as $\mu \ge h^{-1/3-\delta'}$. I ignore again term which sums to $C\mu^2h^{-2}$ in the end of the day.

2654: 

2655: Meanwhile contribution of zone $\{\gamma(x)\le {\bar\gamma}\}$ does not exceed 

2656: $C\mu h^{-3}{\bar\gamma}^2= O(\mu ^2h^{-2})$. 

2657: 

2658: Thus I arrive to   the following statement:

2659: 

2660: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-21} Statement of proposition \ref{prop-4-3} remain true in the vicinity of $\Sigma$.

2661: \end{proposition}

2662: 

2663: \begin{remark}\label{rem-4-22}  (i) Under condition 

2664: \begin{equation}

2665: \sum_{|\beta|\le K}|\nabla_\Sigma^\beta Vf_1^{-1}|\ge \epsilon_0\qquad \forall x

2666: \label{4-32}

2667: \end{equation}

2668: with arbitrarily large $K$ one can skip a correction term  without deteriorating remainder estimate unless $h^{-1/3}|\log h|^{-J}\le \mu \le h^{-1/3}|\log h|^J$ and with the remainder estimate $O(h^{-8/3}|\log h|^J)$ in this border case.

2669: I suspect that one can get rid off logarithmic factors and to prove an  estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ even in the border case.

2670: 

2671: 

2672: \medskip

2673: \noindent

2674: (ii) One can easily construct a correction term in the case $\Sigma\ne\emptyset$ resonances but an expression seems  rather too complicated. So I leave it to the curious reader.

2675: \end{remark}

2676: 

2677: 

2678: \subsubsection{}\label{sect-4-2-8} Finally let us consider the generic case near $\Sigma$. Using the same arguments as before I arrive to

2679: 

2680: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-4-23}  Under non-degeneracy conditions $(\ref{3-84})$  and $(\ref{3-85})$ for $\psi$ supported in the vicinity of $\Sigma$, the remainder estimate is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ while the main part is given by the magnetic Weyl formula.

2681: \end{proposition}

2682: 

2683: \section{Vanishing $V$ Case}

2684: \label{sect-5}

2685: 

2686: \subsection{Generic Case}

2687: \label{sect-5-1}

2688: In the generic case, as $V=0$, $|\nabla V|\ge \epsilon$ and then the microhyperbolicity condition of \cite{IRO3} holds and then 

2689: 

2690: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-5-1}

2691:  Assume that 

2692:  \begin{equation}

2693:  |V|+|\nabla V|\ge \epsilon.

2694:  \label{5-1}

2695:  \end{equation}

2696: Then in  any dimension  without no condition to $F_{jk}$ other than 

2697: $|\det (F_{jk})|\ge \epsilon$ for $\psi$ supported in the small vicinity of 

2698:  \begin{equation}

2699: \Delta \Def \{x:\ V(x)=0\}

2700:  \label{5-2}

2701:  \end{equation}

2702:  the asymptotics  with the main part given by Magnetic Weyl expression and the remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{1-d})$ holds.

2703: \end{proposition}

2704: This covers the generic case completely.

2705: 

2706: \subsection{General Case}

2707: \label{sect-5-2}

2708: The general case however is more complicated. Let us introduce a scaling function

2709: \begin{equation}

2710: \ell = \epsilon \bigl(|V|+|\nabla V|^2\bigr)^{1/2}+ {\frac 1 2}{\bar\ell}, \qquad

2711: {\bar\ell} = \epsilon_0\max\bigl((\mu h)^{1/2},\mu^{-1}\bigr)

2712: \label{5-3}

2713: \end{equation}

2714: with  dominating the second and the first terms in  ${\bar\ell}$ as $\mu\le h^{-1/3}$

2715: and $\mu \ge h^{-1/3}$ respectively.

2716: 

2717: Let us apply scaling $x\mapsto x \ell$, $h\mapsto h\ell ^{-2}$, $\mu \mapsto \mu$, $V\mapsto V\ell^{-2}$: 

2718: 

2719: \begin{itemize}[label = - ]

2720: \item Let  $\ell\le \epsilon_0(\mu h)^{1/2}$. Then I am in the classically forbidden zone and the contributions of $\ell$-element to the principal part and the remainder estimate are 0 and negligible respectively. 

2721: 

2722: \item Let $\ell\ge{\bar\ell}$ and $|\nabla V|\asymp \ell$. Then after rescaling I am in frames of subsection \ref{sect-5-1} and the contribution of $\ell$-element to the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}\ell^6)$ and the total contribution of all 

2723: $\ell$-elements to the remainder is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}\ell^2)$ and I am done here. 

2724: 

2725: \item Also, the contribution of all elements with $\ell\asymp \mu^{-1}$ to the remainder is $O(\mu h^{-3}{\bar\ell}^2)$ which is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$. So case $\ell\asymp{\bar\ell}$ is completely covered.

2726: 

2727: \item Let us consider $V\asymp \ell^2$, $\ell\ge {\bar\ell}$; then condition $V\asymp 1$ is recovered after rescaling but now conditions to $F_{jk}$ could fail; actually these condition do not fail completely, but are replaced by somewhat weaker condition with extra factors $\ell$ or $\ell^2$  in the estimates from below. However in the weak magnetic field case this weakened condition is enough; I leave the details to the reader:

2728: \end{itemize}

2729: 

2730: 

2731: \begin{proposition}\label{prop-5-2}

2732: As $F_{jk}$ is generic and $\mu \le h^{-\delta}$ the remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3})$ holds.

2733: \end{proposition}

2734: 

2735: Now one can assume that $h^{-\delta}\le \mu \le ch^{-1}$. Then since in section \ref{sect-3} no condition ``$|V|\ge \epsilon$'' was required, the remainder estimate is $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu^2h^{-2})$ but the principal part is given by the implicit formula (\ref{0-9}) rather than by the magnetic Weyl expression (\ref{4-4}) and now I need to modify arguments of section \ref{sect-4} to pass from (\ref{0-9}) to (\ref{4-4}).

2736: 

2737: Note that  in this implicit formula one always can take $T_0=\epsilon \mu^{-1}$ with an arbitrarily small constant $\epsilon >0$. Then in the virtue of arguments of the proof of propositions \ref{prop-4-3} , \ref{prop-4-4} and \ref{4-8}  the remainder estimate $O(\mu^{-1}h^{-3}+\mu ^2h^{-2-\delta})$ with an arbitrarily small exponent $\delta>0$. However in contrast to the analysis in subsection \ref{sect-4-1}, without condition ``$|V|\ge \epsilon$'' it does not translates into $T_0=Ch|\log h|$ but rather into $T_0= Ch\ell^{-2}|\log h|$ after the above partition is applied. However this last implicit formula (\ref{0-9})  translates (with the same error) into Weyl or Magnetic Weyl formula. Therefore  \emph{ theorem \ref{thm-0-2} with correction term $0$ is proven for

2738: $\mu \le h^{-1/3-\delta}$ with an arbitrarily small exponent $\delta>0$\/}.

2739: 

2740: 

2741: The similar arguments work as $\mu \ge h^{-1/3-\delta'}$ since one again refers to any $T_0\le \epsilon\mu^{-1}$.

2742: So,

2743: 

2744: \begin{theorem}\label{thm-5-3} Both theorem \ref{thm-0-2} and  theorem \ref{thm-0-3}

2745: \end{theorem}

2746: 

2747: \input IRO9.bbl

2748: \end{document}

2749: 

2750: 

2751: 

2752: