arXiv:1608.07750v1 [math.FA] 27 Aug 2016

Resolvent Estimates and Smoothing for
Homogeneous Operators on Graded Lie Groups
Marius Măntoiu ∗

Abstract
By using commutator methods, we show uniform resolvent estimates and obtain globally smooth
operators for self-adjoint injective homogeneous operators H on graded groups, including Rockland
operators, sublaplacians and many others. Left or right invariance is not required. Typically the
globally smooth operator has the form T = V |H|1/2 , where V only depends on the homogeneous
structure of the group through Sobolev spaces, the homogeneous dimension and the minimal and
maximal dilation weights. For stratified groups improvements are obtained, by using a Hardy-type
inequality. Some of the results involve refined estimates in terms of real interpolation spaces and are
valid in an abstract setting. Even for the commutative group RN some new classes of operators are
treated.

Address: Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad de Chile,
Las Palmeras 3425, Casilla 653, Santiago, Chile.
e-mail: mantoiu@uchile.cl

Acknowledgements:
The author has been supported by Proyecto Fondecyt 1160359 and the Núcleo Milenio de Fı́sica
Matemática RC120002.

∗
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 22E25, 47F05, Secondary 22E30.
Key Words: graded Lie group, Rockland operator, sublaplacian, limiting absorption principle, smoothing estimate

1

1 Introduction
Let G be a stratified Lie group of dimension N and homogeneous dimension M and ∆ a (positive)
sublaplacian [14, 27, 13] on G , seen as an unbounded self-adjoint operator in the Hilbert space L2 (G) .
For α > 0 one defines the (fractional) power ∆α by the usual functional calculus; it is still an unbounded
self-adjoint positive operator. In particular, we set |D| := ∆1/2 . We are going to study unbounded selfadjoint homogeneous operators on the Hilbert space H := L2 (G) . This includes the operators ∆α
or their generalizations, positive fractional powers of Rockland operators on graded Lie groups [13].
Actually any injective self-adjoint homogeneous operator on an arbitrary Hilbert space is covered by
our method, but our examples belong to the setting of graded groups endowed with their well-known
homogeneous structures.
We start by describing two of our results. In a stratified group there is an action of the multiplicative
group (R+ , ·) by dilations, that we will specify below; let νN ∈ {1, 2, . . . } be the largest exponent
(weight) of this action. We choose an homogeneous qusi-norm [·] : G → R+ and denote by [x]
the operator of multiplication by the function x → [x] in L2 (G) . The object to study is a self-adjoint
operator H in L2 (G) which is supposed injective and homogeneous of strictly positive order with respect
to the mentioned dilations (left or right invariance is not needed). The absolute value |H| and the
strongly continuous unitary group eitH | t ∈ R generated by H are defined via the functional calculus.
Proposition 6.2 says that for any θ ∈ (1/2, 1] there is a positive constant Cθ such that for any u ∈ L2 (G)
one has
Z
2
(1 + [x])−θ(νN −ν1 ) [x]−θν1 (Id + |D|)−θ(νN −ν1 ) |D|−θν1 |H|1/2 eitH u dt ≤ Cθ k u k2 . (1.1)
R

One also has to impose M ≥ 3 ; but all the non-commutative stratified Lie groups satisfy this. The
number ν1 = 1 is the smallest exponent of the action by dilations. In our proofs it appears because we
are using the generator of dilations, which contains vector fields Xj which are homogeneous of various
orders belonging to {ν1 = 1, 2, . . . , νN } . It seemed to us that including it explicitly in (1.1) is also a
hint to the way parameters connected to the group are involved: For example the function λ → ϕθ (λ)
defining the |D|-depending factor decays as λ−θνN at infinity and is singular as λ−θν1 close to the origin.
Similarly for the space behavior, expressed by a function applied to the homogeneous quasi-norm.
In the larger setting of graded Lie groups, sublaplacians are replaced by the more general concept
of Rockland operator. If one chooses such an operator R0 , positive and homogeneous of degree q , then
1/q
D := R0 plays the same role as the operator |D| ; in particular it serves to define admissible norms
on the homogeneous and non-homogeneous Sobolev spaces L̇21 (G) and L21 (G) , respectively. Then, if H
is a self-adjoint injective homogeneous operators on the graded group, we show in Proposition 5.3 and
Corollary 5.4 the estimate
Z
2
(1.2)
(1 + [x])−θνN (Id + D)−θνN |H|1/2 eitH u dt ≤ Cθ′ k u k2 .
R

The factors singular at the origin are no longer present. Note again that the unbounded operator |H|1/2 is
involved. As far as we know, these are the first results of this type for such operators on non-commutative
Lie groups.
The abstract form of (1.1) and (1.2) is given by

2

Definition 1.1. Let H be a self-adjoint operator in the Hilbert space H and T a densely defined operator
with domain Dom(T ) . One says that T is (globally) H-smooth if, for some constant C ≥ 0 , one has
Z
2
(1.3)
T eitH v dt ≤ C k v k2 , ∀ v ∈ H .
R

Thus, under the stated requirements, (1.1) tells us that the operator
Uθ (H) := (1 + [x])−θ(νN −ν1 ) [x]−θν1 (Id + |D|)−θ(νN −ν1 ) |D|−θν1 |H|1/2

(1.4)

is H-smooth. Note that Uθ (H) = Vθ |H|1/2 , where
Vθ := (1 + [x])−θ(νN −ν1 ) [x]−θν1 (Id + |D|)−θ(νN −ν1 ) |D|−θν1
only depends on the group G , through the parameters νN and ν1 (the maximal and the minimal homogeneity degrees), the homogeneous quasi-norm [·] and the Sobolev-admissible operator |D| . Similar
facts are true for (1.2).
This concept of smoothness is due to T. Kato [20], see also [26, XIII.7], and has a lot of interesting
applications. There are weaker local notions that we do not discuss. Estimation (1.3) is non-trivial
even for bounded operators T ; note, for example, that Id is never H-smooth. An important issue is
to get examples of unbounded H-smooth operators T and then (1.3) will be seen as a strong property
of regularization of the evolution group of H with respect to the domain of T . Even ignoring the
exigent square integrability, if (1.3) holds, then, for every v ∈ H , the vector eitH v should belong to
Dom(T ) for almost all the values of t ∈ R . So one aims at getting ”large” H-smooth operators and
hope that for vectors v , membership of eitH v to Dom(T ) and the estimation (1.3) happens to be a
transparent and/or interesting properties. Since usually the smooth operators one obtains are products
between a multiplication operator and a function of the derivatives, the interpretation is in terms of
spatial behaviour and/or smoothing (gain of derivatives). Our operator H can be very general; but
if H = ∆α , for instance, one has in (1.1) a factor behaving as |D|α−θνN at infinity ”in the spectral
repesentation of |D|” .
The theory of smooth operators, including plenty of types of operators H and concrete examples
T , has a long history that we cannot review here. Most of the results (but not all) are for G = RN ,
eventually seen as an Abelian Lie group. Staying mainly in the realm of ”constant coefficient differential
operators”, we mention references [9, 21, 2, 33, 3, 22, 32, 11, 18, 19, 6, 28, 7, 29, 30, 31], but there are
many other articles dedicated to this topic.
If G = RN is Abelian, then M = N , the dilations are the standard ones, ν1 = νN = 1 and
2 is the usual (positive) Laplace operator. Instead of [·] one can take any of the
∆ := −∂12 − · · · − ∂N
n
usual norms | · | on R . So, if H is a self-adjoint injective homogeneous operator in L2 (RN ) and N ≥ 3
and θ ∈ (1/2, 1] , then |x|−θ ∆−θ/2 |H|1/2 is globally H-smooth by our Proposition 6.2. We believe
that for such general operators H this result is new even in the commutative case: note that H is not
supposed to be invariant or, if it is, H = b(D) needs no assumption of ellipticity or dispersiveness of
the symbol b . We also mention Corollary 3.5, saying that (id + |A|)−θ |H|1/2 is H-smooth, where H
verifies the same conditions as before, A is the generator of dilations in RN and θ > 1/2 . Actually one
can take θ = 1/2 + 0+ in a certain sense, made precise by real interpolation; see Corollary 3.4. And
these results are in fact valid for every graded group.
In particular |x|−θ ∆(α−θ)/2 is ∆α -smooth if α > 0 , θ ∈ (1/2, 1] and N ≥ 3 . Initially, Kato and
Yajima have shown this result for α = 1 in [21] . We refer to [30, Th. 5.2] for a better result, containing
3

the case ∆α for commutative G . Clearly, there are many results for RN that cannot be obtained from
ours. We emphasis the non-commutative case in this article, which seems to be completely new. An
interesting question is if recent techniques [30, 31] using canonical transformations and comparison
principles could be pushed to the graded Lie group framework.
Most of the proofs concerning smooth operators rely on (i) Fourier analysis and restriction to submanifolds or (ii) resolvent estimates. It seems difficult to apply Fourier analysis for our non-commutative
group, so we deduce globally H-smooth operators from resolvent estimates which are uniform when we
get close to the real axis (a global Limiting Absorption Principle).
The Limiting Absorption Principle is proved in Section 2. Globality requires techniques different
but related to Mourre’s commutator methods [25, 1]. The model is our treatment in [5], directed towards
spectral analysis (see also [22, 18]). We give a full proof for the convenience of the reader and because
the setting is different from that of [5]. In particular we obtain refined estimates, involving real interpolation spaces A1/2,1 associated to dilations acting (as a non-unitary C0 -group) in a sort of homogeneous
Sobolev space; see also [1] in the different context of Mourre theory. The reader will notice that in this
section one only relies on the homogeneity, the positivity and the injectivity of our operator H acting in
some abstract Hilbert space.
Still in an abstract framework, Section 3 is dedicated to deducing global smooth operators (L2 -timedependent estimates) from the resolvent estimates. This is first done in Theorem 3.1, in a stadard way,
using the spaces involved in the Limiting Absorption Principle as it was proven in the previous section.
As said above, these spaces A1/2,1 are defined by dilations acting in a suitable homogeneous Sobolevtype space. In Lemma 3.3 is shown how to replace them by simpler real interpolation spaces A1/2,1 of
type (1/2, 1) between the basic Hilbert space H and the domain of the generator of the unitary dilation
group in H . As a consequence, the H-smooth operators have the form V |H|1/2 with V an operator
not depending on H . Corollary 3.4 gives conditions on an operator to be H-smooth, in terms of a
Littlewood-Paley realization or a resolvent description of the simpler interpolation space. Then, for the
sake of simplicity, we replace the real interpolation spaces of order (1/2, 1) by a complex interpolation
space of order 1/2+ε ; this is the origin of the parameter θ > 1/2 appearing in the subsequent statements
as well as in (1.1) and (1.2).
Section 4 recalls some basic facts about graded groups, their dilation structure and their Rockland
operators. It is not always easy to decide when a formally given operator is admissible for our treatment,
i. e. self-adjoint (on some convenient domain), injective and homogeneous. We indicate some classes of
examples.
After particularization to the group context, the results are still not so easy to grasp, because they
are stated in terms of the generator of dilations. So in Section 5 we weaken them and put into evidence
H-smooth operators that, besides the factor |H|1/2 , contain products of a multiplication operator and a
suitable function of |D| . In particular one gets the estimation (1.2). The setting requires a quite deep
result [10] on interpolation of analytic families of operators. For operators H which are, in addition, left
invariant, an improvement of the H-smooth operators is subject of Corollary 5.6. It involves a weighted
integration over left translations of the function (1 + [x])−θνN .
In the final section the Lie group is stratified, so sublaplacians (particular cases of positive homogeneous Rockland operator) are available. The main new fact is the existing of certain Hardy-type
inequalities proven by Ciatti, Cowling and Ricci [8], that allows a sharper approach. In this way one
gets the H-smoothness of the operators (1.4).

4

2 Global resolvent estimates for homogeneous operators
To
H in a Hilbert space H we associate canonically a scale of Hilbert spaces
 σa self-adjoint operator
σ
G | σ ∈ R , where G is the domain of |H|σ/2 (constructed via the functional calculus) with scalar
product
hv, wiG σ := hv, wi + |H|σ/2 v, |H|σ/2 w .
(2.1)

With this convention one has Dom(H) = G 2 , H = G 0 , and G 1 is the form-domain of H . One could
call the spaces G σ the abstract Sobolev spaces associated to the operator H ; we will be interested only
in the interval σ ∈ [−2, 2] . In the usual way, G −σ can be identified with the topological anti-dual of G σ
and the operator H can be seen as a symmetric element of B(G 1 , G −1 ) .

Let us assume now that the self-adjoint operator H is also injective. We define the homogeneous
abstract Sobolev spaces associated to H, denoted by Ġ σ , σ ∈ R . For positive σ , the space Ġ σ will be
the completion of G σ in the norm deduced from the scalar product
hv, wiĠ σ := |H|σ/2 v, |H|σ/2 w .

(2.2)

For negative σ one uses the same formula for the scalar product to complete the space |H|−σ G −σ ⊂ G σ .
To simplify notations, we set G := G 1 and G ∗ := G −1 , as well as Ġ := Ġ 1 and Ġ ∗ := Ġ −1 .

Assume now that we are given an unitary and strongly continuous group W in H such that W (t)G 2 ⊂
G 2 for every t ∈ R . Then, by suitable restrictions or extensions (justified by duality and interpolation),
it defines naturally C0 -groups in all the Hilbert spaces G σ and Ġ σ with σ ∈ [−2, 2] . Generally, they
are no longer unitary. We will be particularly interested in the one leaving in Ġ ∗ = Ġ −1 , denoted by
the same symbol W for simplicity. Its infinitesimal generator, also denoted by A , is a closed densely
defined operator in the Hilbert space Ġ ∗ . The domain A ≡ Dom(A; Ġ ∗ ) is endowed with the graph
scalar product
hv, wiA := hv, wiĠ ∗ + hAv, AwiĠ ∗
(2.3)
and its corresponding graph norm given by
k v k2A = k v k2Ġ ∗ + k Av k2Ġ ∗ =

|H|−1/2 v

2

+ |H|−1/2 Av

2

.

(2.4)

One gets a pair of Hilbert spaces (Ġ ∗, A) , with A ֒→ Ġ ∗ (dense continuous embedding), to which real
or complex interpolation can be applied.
Real interpolation spaces are usually defined via the K-method [4] but, due to the concrete feature
that A is the domain of the generator of the C0 -group W in the Hilbert space Ġ ∗ , we prefer to introduce
them via another admissible norm, cf. [1, Sect. 2.7] for instance. Considering only the relevant case
(θ, p) = (1/2, 1) , we set
∗

Ġ , A



1
,1
2

n

≡ A1/2,1 := v ∈ Ġ

Z

∗

which is a Banach space with the norm (ǫ0 > 0)
Z
k v kA1/2,1 := k v kĠ ∗ +

1
0

ǫ0
0

5

1

τ − 2 k W (τ )v − v kĠ ∗

1

τ − 2 k W (τ )v − v kĠ ∗

o
dτ
<∞ ,
τ

dτ
.
τ

(2.5)

(2.6)

Remark 2.1. As a rule, we will work in the sense of Banachisable (or Hilbertisable) spaces, i.e., even
if a norm (or a scalar product) is used to define a Banach space, we admit without many comments
equivalent norms. All the expressions (2.6), for different values of ǫ0 > 0 , define equivalent scalar
products. In Theorem 2.4 and its proof we will use a number ǫ0 conveniently defined.
Remark 2.2. In the proof of Theorem 2.4 we will need another point of view on the interpolation space
A1/2,1 , connected to the trace method [4, 1] ; we collect here just the useful part of the information,

see for instance [1, Prop. 2.3.3]: A vector u ∈ Ġ ∗, A 1/2,1 can be approximated by a smooth family

uǫ | ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ0 ) ⊂ A with a C 1 -dependence on ǫ in the weaker norm k · kĠ ∗ such that
Z ǫ0 h
i dτ
(2.7)
k u′τ kĠ ∗ + k Auτ kĠ ∗ √ ≤ c k u kA1/2,1
τ
0
and
k u − uǫ kĠ ∗ ≤ c ǫ1/2 k u kA1/2,1 .

(2.8)

The positive constant c is independent of u and ǫ .


Definition 2.3. Let H be a self-adjoint operator in the Hilbert space H , with domain G 2 . Let W (t) =
eitA | t ∈ R be an unitary strongly continuous group of operators in H with infinitesimal generator
A . We say that H is homogeneouos of order α ∈ R with respect to W (or with respect to A) if
• W (t)G 2 ⊂ G 2 ,

∀t ∈ R,

• W (−t)HW (t) = eαt H ,

∀t ∈ R.

A direct consequence is the commutator relation
i[H, A] = iαH.

(2.9)

One way to understand the left hand side is to say that it is a (suitable type of derivative) in t = 0 of the
function t 7→ W (−t)HW (t) . For us, the useful (and consistent) way is to say that
hi[H, A]u, vi := ihHu, Avi − ihAu, Hvi
(2.10)

if u, v belong to the domain Dom A; G 2 of the infinitesimal generator of W acting in G 2 . With a
suitable reinterpretation of the duality h·, ·i , this will be written for u, v ∈ A .
For convenience, we include a diagram describing the relations between various Banach spaces. The
arrows are linear, continuous and dense embeddings. The star denotes the topological anti-dual (or a
space isomorphic to it). All the spaces with no subscript are actually Hilbert.
G2

A∗ ✛

A∗1/2,1 ✛

✲ G = G1

✲ H

❄

✲ G ∗ = G −1
✻

Ġ ∗ ✛

Ġ

✲ G −2

A1/2,1 ✛

A

From the embedding A1/2,1 ֒→ G ∗ and the fact that, for Im z 6= 0 , (H − z)−1 makes sense as a
bounded operator : G ∗ → G , we see that the relation (2.11) below makes sense, the bracket h·, ·i meaning
the natural duality between G and G ∗ . We are going to use a single notation for various compatible
duality brackets.
6

Theorem 2.4. Let H be an injective self-adjoint operator in the Hilbert space H , homogeneous of order
α > 0 with respect to the generator A of the strongly continuous unitary group W . There exists C > 0
such that for every u ∈ A1/2,1 one has
sup sup (H − λ ∓ iµ)−1 u, u
λ∈R µ>0

≤ C k u k2A1/2,1 .

(2.11)

Remark 2.5. Of course, such a result is impossible for λ ∈ sp(H) and general u ∈ H . The need to
get an estimate uniform in λ makes Mourre’s commutator method [25, 1] unsuited. Uniformity in λ is
critical for obtaining globally H-smooth operators in Section 3.
Remark 2.6. The spectrum of a homogeneous operator H can only be one of the sets {0} , R , [0, ∞) or
(−∞, 0] . From the relation W (−t)HW (t) = eαt H it follows that sp(H) = sp(eαt H) = eαt sp(H) .
Since this is true for every t ∈ R , the assertion follows easily. But we obtain more. A standard
consequence of the Limiting Absorption Principle stated in Theorem 2.4 is the fact that, if H is injective,
it has only purely absolutely continuous spectrum.
We are now going to prove Theorem 2.4 by using a modification of the method of differential inequalities, invented by E. Mourre [25] (see also [1, 5]). Some arguments will rely on positivity, and
this requires some preparations. If, besides self-adjointness and homogeneity of H, the reader accepts
positivity as an assumption, the proof below would be somehow easier: in the next constructions one
could just take H = H> and some computations will be simpler. For the general case, let us decompose
H in a positive and a negative part, writting
H = H> + H< = HEH (0, ∞) + HEH (−∞, 0) ≡ HE> + HE< .

(2.12)

Here EH is the spectral measure of H ; since H is assumed injective, one has EH ({0}) = 0 and clearly
|H| = H> − H< . Setting H± := E± H one gets an orthogonal decomposition H = H> ⊕ H< which
is invariant under the functional calculus of H.

From homogeneity we deduce e−itA EH (B)eitA = EH eαt B for every t ∈ R and every real Borel
set B . Since the sets (−∞, 0) and (0, ∞) are invariant under dilations, we see that the spaces H> and
H< are also invariant under the group generated by A . In the proof of Theorem (2.4) we are going to
use the decomposition A = A> + A< corresponding to the invariant direct sum H = H> ⊕ H< and the
operator A := A> − A< , as well as simple commutator computations








(2.13)
A< , H> = 0 ,
A> , H< = 0 ,
A< , H< = iH< ,
A> , H> = iH> ,
based on homogeneity and definitions.
Proof. 1. For positive ǫ we set
Hǫ∓ := e∓iαǫ H> + e±iαǫ H< .
Let us show that for every µ > 0 and ǫ ∈ [0, π/α] the two operators Hǫ∓ − λ ∓ iµ are isomorphisms
: G 2 → H . We first check that they are bijections. One computes for v ∈ G 2
 2
 2

Hǫ∓ − λ ∓ iµ v = Hǫ∓ − λ v + µ2 k v k2 + 2 Re e∓iαǫ H> + e±iαǫ H< − λ v, ∓iµv





≥ µ2 k v k2 + 2 Re e∓iαǫ (±iµ) H> v, v + 2 Re e±iαǫ (±iµ) H< v, v
= µ2 k v k2 ∓ 2µ sin(∓αǫ) H> v, v ∓ 2µ sin(±αǫ) H< v, v


= µ2 k v k2 ± 2µ sin(±αǫ) H> v, v − H< v, v
= µ2 k v k2 +2µ sin(αǫ) |H|v, v ≥ µ2 k v k2 ,
7

(2.14)

which proves injectivity. Since the two closed operators are adjoint to each other, their ranges are dense.
By the computation (2.14), their inverses (defined on the ranges, respectively, and seen as operators
in H) are bounded. But the inverse of a closed operator is also closed. Then, by the Closed Graph
Theorem, their ranges are closed in H , so they coincide with H and the isomorphism is proven.
2. From (2.14) one clearly gets

(Hǫ∓ − λ ∓ iµ)−1

B(H)

≤ 1/µ .

(2.15)

Later on we will need a version of this inequality which reads
(Hǫ∓ − λ ∓ iµ)−1

B(G ∗,G)

≤ c(λ, µ) ,

uniformly in ǫ ≥ 0 .

(2.16)

If we prove this with k · kB(G ∗,G) replaced by k · kB(H,G 2 ) , by duality and interpolation one gets (2.16)
easily. For this it is enough to control H(Hǫ∓ − λ ∓ iµ)−1 B(H) . Using the invariant decomposition
H = H> ⊕ H< , this reduces to the control of e∓iαǫ H> (e∓iαǫ H> − z ∓ Id> )−1

tem, with > replaced by < . The identity
we leave the details to the reader.

K(K − z)−1

=

Id + z(K − z)−1

B(H> )

and of a similar

and (2.15) finishes the proof;

3. Starting from now, we are going to treat the sign − ; the sign + is similar. Let us define
−1
Fǫ ≡ Fǫ (λ, µ) := e−iαǫ H> + eiαǫ H< − λ − iµ
∈ B H, G 2 ) .



By transposition and interpolation, it can be seen as well-defined element of B G ∗ , G ⊂ B Ġ ∗, Ġ .
In the next computations, h·, ·i will denote the duality form between Ġ and Ġ ∗ . Then, for a sequence
{uǫ }ǫ∈(0,ǫ0 ) ⊂ A as in Remark 2.2, set
fǫ ≡ fǫ (λ, µ; uǫ ) := Fǫ uǫ , uǫ .
Using the basic rules of derivation and relations (2.13) one can write

d
fǫ = Fǫ iαe−iαǫ H> − iαeiαǫ H< Fǫ uǫ , uǫ + Fǫ u′ǫ , uǫ + Fǫ uǫ , u′ǫ
dǫ

= Fǫ e−iαǫ [A> , H> ] − eiαǫ [A< , H< ] Fǫ uǫ , uǫ + Fǫ u′ǫ , uǫ + Fǫ uǫ , u′ǫ

= − Fǫ [e−iαǫ H> + eiαǫ H< − λ − iµ, A> − A< ]Fǫ uǫ , uǫ + u′ǫ , Fǫ∗ uǫ + Fǫ uǫ , u′ǫ

= − Fǫ uǫ , Auǫ + Auǫ , Fǫ∗ uǫ + u′ǫ , Fǫ∗ uǫ + Fǫ uǫ , u′ǫ

= Fǫ uǫ , u′ǫ − Auǫ + u′ǫ + Auǫ , Fǫ∗ uǫ .

Note that k Auǫ kĠ ∗ = k Auǫ kĠ ∗ (use the orthogonal decomposition H = H> ⊕ H< , with respect to
which both A and A are diagonal). Since |hv, wi| ≤ k v kĠ k w kĠ ∗ for v ∈ Ġ and w ∈ Ġ ∗ , it follows that



fǫ′ ≤ k u′ǫ kĠ ∗ + k Auǫ kĠ ∗
Fǫ uǫ Ġ + Fǫ∗ uǫ Ġ .
(2.17)
4. We can write


1
1
Fǫ − Fǫ∗ = Fǫ [eiαǫ − e−iαǫ ]H> + [e−iαǫ − eiαǫ ]H< + 2iµ Fǫ∗
2i
2i
≥ sin(αǫ)Fǫ (H> − H< )Fǫ∗ = sin(αǫ)Fǫ |H|Fǫ∗
8

so, using the fact that sin τ /τ is close to one if τ is small enough, we easily get
Fǫ∗ uǫ

Ġ

= |H|Fǫ∗ uǫ , Fǫ∗ uǫ

1/2

≤p

1
hFǫ uǫ , uǫ i
sin(αǫ)

1/2

2
hFǫ uǫ , uǫ i
≤√
αǫ

1/2

,

assuming that ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ0 ) with ǫ0 > 0 small enough. Actually the argument works similarly for Fǫ and
leads to
2
1/2
Fǫ uǫ Ġ ≤ √ hFǫ uǫ , uǫ i
, ∀ ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ0 ) .
(2.18)
αǫ
5. Replacing (2.18) in (2.17) one gets the differential inequality
4 k u′ǫ kĠ ∗ + k Auǫ kĠ ∗
√
|fǫ |1/2 ,
fǫ′ ≤ √
α
ǫ

∀ ǫ ∈ (0, ǫ0 ) .

The crucial fact is that the factor multiplying |fǫ |1/2 is integrable on [0, ǫ0 ) . A version of Gronwall’s
Lemma [12, Th.5] implies that the limit f0 := limǫ→0 fǫ exists and satisfies the explicit inequality
f0 ≤



fǫ0

1/2

2
+√
α

ǫ0

Z

ǫ

k u′τ kĠ ∗ + k Auτ kĠ ∗
√
dτ
τ

2

.

Applying (2.7), this implies
f0 ≤



fǫ0

1/2

+ c1 k u kA 1 ,1
2

2

.

(2.19)

6. Now we estimate the first term in the r.h.s. of (2.19). From (2.18) one gets immediately
Fǫ uǫ

Ġ

≤

4
k uǫ kĠ ∗ .
αǫ

On the other hand, by (2.8),
k uǫ kĠ ∗ ≤ k uǫ − u kĠ ∗ + k u kĠ ∗ ≤ c ǫ1/2 k u kA 1 ,1+ k u kA 1 ,1 .
2

So
fǫ0

1/2

≤ Fǫ0

1/2
B(Ġ ∗ ,Ġ)

2

k uǫ0 kĠ ∗ ≤ c3 (ǫ0 ) k u kA 1 ,1 ,
2

which replaced into (2.19) leads to
f0 ≤ C k u k2A 1 ,

(2.20)

2 ,1

uniformly in λ ∈ R and µ > 0 .
7. We now compare f0 = limǫ→0 Fǫ uǫ , uǫ with hF0 u, ui = (H − λ − iµ)−1 u, u . One writes

Fǫ uǫ , uǫ − F0 u, u ≤ kF0 B(Ġ ∗,Ġ) k uǫ − u kĠ ∗ k u kĠ ∗ + k uǫ kĠ ∗ + kFǫ − F0 B(Ġ ∗,Ġ) k uǫ k2Ġ ∗

≤ kF0 B(G ∗,G) k uǫ − u kĠ ∗ k u kĠ ∗ + k uǫ kĠ ∗ + kFǫ − F0 B(G ∗,G) k uǫ k2Ġ ∗ .
From (2.16), that we write kFǫ
kFǫ − F0

B(G ∗ ,G)

B(G ∗ ,G)

≤ c(λ, µ) , one gets for every ǫ ≥ 0

e−iαǫ H> + eiαǫ H< −
B(G ∗ ,G)
c(λ, µ)2 |e−iαǫ − 1| k H> kB(G,G ∗ )

≤ kFǫ

H

≤

+|e

9

B(G,G ∗ )
iαǫ

kF0

B(G ∗ ,G)


− 1| k H< kB(G,G ∗ ) ,

which converges to 0 when ǫ → ∞ . Also using (2.8), we obtain finally (non-uniformly in λ, µ)
f0 := lim Fǫ (λ, µ)uǫ , uǫ = F0 (λ, µ)u, u = (H − λ − iµ)−1 u, u .
ǫ→0

Then, since (2.20) holds uniformly in λ and µ , one gets
(H − λ − iµ)−1 u, u

≤ C k u k2A 1 ,
2 ,1

∀ λ ∈ R , µ > 0 , u ∈ A 1 ,1 ≡ (Ġ ∗, A) 1 ,1 .
2

2

3 Globally smooth operators under homogeneity
Global smoothness has been defined in the Introduction. An equivalent definition of the H-smoothness
of the operator T is
Z
2

sup

kuk=1,µ6=0

R

T (H − λ ∓ iµ)−1 u dλ < ∞ ,

where it is assumed that for every u ∈ H and for every µ > 0 , one has (H − λ ∓ iµ)−1 u ∈ Dom(T )
for almost every λ ∈ R .
Comming back to our concrete setting, it is useful to recall the dense continuous embeddings
A ֒→ A1/2,1 ֒→ Ġ ∗ ֒→ G ∗ ≡ G −1 ֒→ G −2 .

(3.1)

It is known [26, Th. XIII.25] that if T is H-smooth then G 2 = Dom(H) ֒→ Dom(T ) , hence T can
be seen as a bounded linear operator T : G 2 → H . Therefore, its adjoint (after extension) can also be
regarded as a bounded linear operator T ∗ : H → G −2 . Then, taking (3.1) into account, it makes sense
∗
∗
to require that
 T H ⊂ A1/2,1 and that, seen as a linear map T : H → A1/2,1 , it is an element of
B H, A1/2,1 .
∗
Theorem 3.1.
 Let T be a densely defined operator in H such its adjoint T extends to an element of
B H, A1/2,1 . Then T is globally H-smooth.

Proof. By [26, Th. 3.25], the operator T is H-smooth if and only if
o
n 

v ∈ Dom(T ∗ ), k v k = 1, z ∈
/ R < ∞.
sup
(H − z)−1 − (H − z)−1 T ∗ v, T ∗ v

(3.2)

In Theorem 2.4 we obtained the uniform estimate
sup (H − z)−1 u, u
z ∈R
/

≤ C k u k2A 1

2 ,1

.

Setting u = T ∗ v with v ∈ H , this reads
sup (H − z)−1 T ∗ v, T ∗ v
z ∈R
/

≤ C k T ∗ v k2A 1 ≤ C(T ∗ ) k v k2 ,
2 ,1

(3.3)

which clearly implies (3.2). Here the interpretation of T ∗ is the one indicated before the Corollary;
but if boundeness of T ∗ with respect to the relevant topologies is granted, in (3.3) it is enough to take
v ∈ Dom(T ∗ ) .
10

Remark 3.2. For writing the condition of H-smoothness directly on T , it is useful to recallthe identification between the anti-dual A∗1/2,1 of the space A1/2,1 and the interpolation space A∗ , Ġ 1/2,∞ asso
ciated to the couple of Hilbert spaces Ġ ∼
= (Ġ ∗ )∗ ֒→ A∗ . One of the admissible norms on A∗ , Ġ
1/2,∞

is

i
h 1
w → sup √ k W (τ )w − w kA∗ .
τ
τ ∈(0,1]

0
Let us also set A01/2,∞ ≡ A∗ , Ġ 1/2,∞ for the closure of Ġ (or of G) in A∗ , Ġ 1/2,∞ . It is known [4]
that
h
i∗
0

A∗ , Ġ 1/2,∞ ∼
= Ġ ∗, A 1/2,1 =: A1/2,1 .

Then every operator T ∈ B A01/2,∞ , H is globally H-smooth.

Te space A1/2,1 is somehow intricate; it involves the homogeneous space Ġ ∗ and the generator A
of a C0 -group in Ġ ∗ which is not unitary and, very often, not even polynomially bounded. A useful
simplification is brought by the following lemma:
Lemma 3.3. Let us denote by A the domain of A = A∗ in the Hilbert space H (with the graph norm)
and by As,p = (H, A )s,p the real interpolation spaces associated to the couple (H, A ) , with s ∈ (0, 1)
and p ∈ [1, ∞] .
(i) The map |H|1/2 : H → Ġ ∗ restricts to a linear homeomorphism As,p → As,p .


(ii) L ∈ B H, As,p if and only if |H|1/2 L ∈ B H, As,p .

(iii) If L ∈ B H, A1/2,1 , then T := L∗ |H|1/2 is H-smooth.

Proof. Note first that |H|1/2 : H → Ġ ∗ is a (unitary) isomorphism. By the homogeneity relation
1

1

1

A|H|± 2 = |H|± 2 A ± (iα/2)|H|± 2
and the explicit graph norms, one shows immediately that
1

|H| 2

Dom(A; H) = A −→ A = Dom(A; Ġ ∗ )
is a linear homeomorphism. Then the assertion (i) follows from real interpolation and (ii) is a direct
consequence.
The point (iii) follows from (ii) (with (s, p) = (1/2, 1)) and Theorem 3.1.

So we are reduced to find interesting elements of B H, A1/2,1 . Since the group generated by A in
H is unitary, we have two other characterizations of the space A1/2,1 ; the first one is of Littlewood-Paley
type and the second involves the resolvent of the self-adjoint operator A .
(i) Let 0 < a < b < ∞ , let η ∈ C0∞ (R) such that η(λ) > 0 if |λ| ∈ (a, b) and η(λ) = 0 if
|λ| ∈
/ (a, b) and let ζ ∈ C0∞ (R) with ζ(λ) = 1 if λ ∈ [−b, b] . Then
Z 1
dλ
(3.4)
v → k ζ(A)v k +
k η(λA)v k 2
λ
0
defines an equivalent norm on A1/2,1 . In particular, different choices of the functions η and ζ
lead to equivalent norms. In (3.4), η(λA) is defined by through the functional calculus for the
self-adjoint operator λA .
11

(ii) There is also an admissible norm on A1/2,1 in terms of the resolvent of A :
k v k′1/2,1 := k v k +

Z

1

0

τ 1/2 A(Id − iτ A)−1 v

dτ
.
τ

Corollary 3.4. Let L ∈ B(H) an operator satisfying one of the two (equivalent) conditions:
(i) For some choices η, ζ as above and for some positive constant C, one has
Z 1
dλ
k η(λA)Lu k 2 ≤ C k u k , ∀u ∈ H .
λ
0
(ii)
Z

1
0

τ 1/2 A(Id − iτ A)−1 Lu

dτ
≤ C kuk ,
τ

∀u ∈ H .

Then L∗ |H|1/2 is an H-smooth operator.
Proof. The assertion follows from Lemma 3.3 (iii) and the two characterizations of the space A1/2,1
described above.
A simplification (but also a weakening) is possible by abstract properties of interpolation spaces:
Corollary 3.5. The operator (Id + |A|)−θ |H|1/2 is H-smooth for every θ > 1/2 .
Proof. We recall the continuous embeddings of real interpolation spaces
As,p ֒→ At,q

if s > t , p, q ∈ [1, ∞] .

In particular, we need the case Aθ,2 ֒→ A1/2,1 where θ > 1/2 . Since A is the domain of the self
adjoint operator A in the Hilbert space H , then Aθ,2 coincides with Aθ := Dom |A|θ (which can also
be defined by complex interpolation) and the norm in Aθ,2 is equivalent with the graph norm of |A|θ .
Thus


(Id + |A|)−θ ∈ B H, Aθ ⊂ B H, A1/2,1
and then we apply again Lemma 3.3 (iii).

4 Operators on graded Lie groups
The results of the previous sections can be applied to operators on homogeneous Lie groups, since (by
definition) these are endowed with a family of dilations leading to an interesting unitary group, crucial
in the development of their theory. We recall that homogeneous Lie groups are connected, simply
connected and nilpotent, and they almost coincide with this class of groups. Since there seems to be
little more to say than just copying the results above in this context, we prefer to turn to the smaller class
of graded groups, which allow more concrete statements. In this section we are going to review briefly
some basic facts. Much more information can be found in [13, Ch. 4].

12

Let G be a graded Lie group of step r, with unit e and Haar measure dx . Its Lie algebra can be
written as a direct sum of vector subspaces
g = v1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ vr ,
where [vk , vl ] ⊂ vk+l for every k, l ∈ {1, . . . , r} ; if k + l > r we just set vk+l = {0} . Then G is
a connected and simply connected nilpotent Lie group and thus the exponential map exp : g → G is a
diffeomorphism with inverse denoted by log . Let us set
Nk := dim vk ,

N := dim g = N1 + N2 + · · · + Nr ,

and define the homogeneous dimension
M := N1 + 2N2 + · · · + rNr .

We are going to use basis {X1 , . . . , XN } of g such that for every k the Nk vectors Xj | N1 + · · · +
Nk−1 < j ≤ N1 + · · · + Nk−1 + Nk generate vk (we set N0 = 0 for convenience) . For any x ∈ G
P
one decomposes log x = N
j=1 xj Xj , which defines coordinates on the group G ∋ x → (x1 , . . . , xN ) ∈
N
R .
Usually one introduces the dilations on the graded group G in terms of the multiplicative group
(R+ , ·) . Making use of the group isomorphism (R, +) ∋ t → et ∈ (R+ , ·) , we switch to an action of
the additive group R by automorphisms of the Lie algebra g = v1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ vr given by


dilt Y(1) , Y(2) , . . . , Y(r) := et Y(1) , e2t Y(2) . . . , ert Y(r) , t ∈ R , Y(k) ∈ vk , 1 ≤ k ≤ r .
One has

dilt (Xj ) = eνj t Xj ,

t ∈ R , 1 ≤ j ≤ N,

(4.1)

in terms of the dilation weights νj := k if N1 + · · · + Nk−1 < j ≤ N1 + · · · + Nk . Then we transfer
the dilations to the group by


dilt (x) := exp dilt (log x) , x ∈ G , t ∈ R .
(4.2)

This induces a unitary strongly continuous 1-parameter group on H := L2 (G) by




Mt
Mt
Dil(t)u (x) := e 2 u ◦ dilt (x) = e 2 u dilt (x) .

(4.3)

This will be the group W involved in the abstract constructions and results of sections 2 and 3. In terms
of the coordinate functions defined before, its infinitesimal generator, uniquely defined by Dil(t) = eitA ,
is given by
N
N
M
M
1X
1X
νj xj Xj +
νj Xj xj −
Id =
Id .
A=
i
2i
i
2i
j=1

j=1

The operator A depends on the homogeneous structure of G , but not on the chosen basis.
We discuss now homogeneous Rockland operators, both because they provide operators H to be
studied and because they are useful to express H-smoothness. By definition, a Rockland operator is a
(say left) invariant differential operator R on G such that, for every non-trivial irreducible representation
π : G → B(Hπ ) , the operator dπ(R) is injective on the subspace Hπ∞ of all smooth vectors of the
13

representation. It exists when the group G is graded, with positive integer weights νj . It is shown that
such operators also exist subject to the requirement to be homogeneous and positive: the homogeneity
reads, using (4.3)
Dil(−t)R Dil(t) = eqt R , ∀ t ∈ R .
The degree of homogeneity q is a multiple of any of the dilation weights. An important fact (that we
will not use) is that a left invariant homogeneous differential operator is hypoelliptic if and only if it is a
Rockland operator [17, 13].
We also assume that R is positive; by [13, Cor. 4.3.4] it is also injective, so 0 is not an eigenvalue.
As a consequence, it satisfies the strong positivity property
hRu, ui > 0 ,

∀ u ∈ Dom(R) \ {0} .

Example 4.1. If l ∈ N0 , the power Rl of a q-homogeneous positive Rockland operator is a qlhomogeneous positive Rockland operator. The transpose H † has the same properties as R . Concrete
positive examples of homogeneous degree q = 2p are
′

R :=

N
X

p
νj

2 νp

(−1) Zj

j

,

j=1

where {Zj }j=1,...,N is a basis as in [13, Lemma 3.1.14] and p is a commun multiple of the dilation
weights. The basis is such that Zj is νj -homogeneous, Z1 , . . . , ZN ′ generates g as a Lie algebra, while
ZN ′ +1 , . . . , ZN generates a vector space containing [g, g] .


We are not going to review the homogeneous L̇2σ (G) | σ ∈ R} and inhomogeneous L2σ (G) | σ ∈ R}
Sobolev spaces on the graded group G , since a clear and comprehensive presentation can be found in
[13, Sect. 4.4]. They can also be deduced from the way we introduced the spaces G σ and Ġ σ at the
beginning of Section 2: one just has to replace |H| with a suitable power of a positive homogeneous
Rockland operator. We recall that we allow different equivalent scalar products on these Hilbertizable
spaces.
The results of this article apply to self-adjoint injective homogeneous operators on graded Lie
groups. It is not our intention to explore these conditions in a very general setting, this being an arduous task. We only give some simple examples and indicate informly others that could be in principle
fully treated with extra work and/or imposing further requirements. We assume that the order β of
homogeneity is strictly positive, as we did before, but this in not important.
(i) First of all, H could be a multiplication operator H = m(x) with some continuous (or measurable) function m : G → R . Such an operator is self-adjoint on Dom(H) := {u ∈ L2 (G) |
mu ∈ L2 (G)} . The operator is homogeneous
of order β if and only if the function is homo
geneous of order −β , i.e. if m dil−t (x) = eβt m(x) for all x, t . It is injective if and only if
{x ∈ G | m(x) = 0} is negligible with respect to the Haar measure (and this is governed by
the behavior of m on ”the unit sphere”). Clearly, |H|1/2 is the operator of multiplication with the
function |m|1/2 . Particular cases are m(x) := p([x]) , where [·] is an homogeneous quasi-norm,
p : R+ → R is homogeneous in the usual sense and p(λ) 6= 0 for some (and thus for all) λ 6= 0 .
(ii) Rockland operators yield particular cases of operators H to which we can apply the already obtained results: If R is a positive Rockland operator of homogeneous degree q and µ > 0 , then the
14

fractional power H := Rµ is self-adjoint, injective and homogeneous of order β := µq . In terms
of Soblolev spaces one has the identifications
G ±2 = L2±β (G) ,

G ±1 = L2±β/2 (G) ,

Ġ = L̇2β/2 (G) ,

Ġ ∗ = L̇2−β/2 (G) .

More generally, even if R is not positive, H := p(R) is admissible if p : R+ → R is homogeneous
and p(λ) 6= 0 if λ 6= 0 . In particular, by Remark 2.6, we know that p(R) has purely absolutely
continuous spectrum.
(iii) In terms of our basis {X1 , . . . , XN } and a multi-index δ := (δ1 , . . . , δN ) , the operator X δ :=
δN
X1δ1 . . . XN
is homogeneous of degree ν1 δ1 + · · · + νN δN . One can combine such differential
operators with homogeneous multiplication operators from (i) and construct formally self-adjoint
homogeneous operators. But rigorous self-adjointness and injectivity can be very hard in general.
(iv) A large and interesting class of operators associated to a graded group have a pseudo-differential
nature and is described in [13, Sect. 5]; see also references therein. The construction involves
operator-valued symbols and the irreducible representation theory of the group and is too complicated to be mentioned here, needing the introduction of many notions of harmonic analysis.
But in [23, Sect. 8] (see also [24, 15, 16] for the invariant case) another (but equivalent) type
of pseudo-differential operators are built from scalar-valued symbols a defined on the cotangent
bundle T ∗ G ∼
= G × g∗ , where g∗ is the dual of the Lie algebra g of G . The quantization rule
makes use of the diffeomorphism log : G → g and the duality
g × g∗ ∋ (X, X ) → hX | X i := X (X)
and is given by
(Hu)(x) ≡ [Op(a)u](x) :=

Z Z
G

eihlog(y
g∗

−1 x) | X i

a(x, X )u(y)dydX

in terms of the Lebesgue measure dX , eventually normalized accordingly to {X1 , . . . , XN }, the
dual basis of {X1 , . . . , XN } . One computes formally
Z Z

Mt
−1
eihlog[dil−t (y x)] | X i a dil−t (x), Y u(y)dydY
[Dil(−t)Op(a)Dil(t)u](x) = e− 2
G

g∗

which, using the formula (4.2) and the natural dual action by dilations on g∗ can be written
Z Z

∗
−1
− M2 t
[Dil(−t)Op(a)Dil(t)u](x) = e
eihlog(y x) | dil−t (Y)i a dil−t (x), Y u(y)dydY
G

g∗

If {X1 , . . . , XN } is the dual basis of {X1 , . . . , XN } , from (4.1) one gets immediatly for every j
that dil∗−t (Xj ) = e−νj Xj , and after a change of variables this leads to

Dil(−t)Op(a)Dil(t) = Op(at ) , at (x, X ) := a dil−t (x), dil∗t (X ) ,

so the homogeneity of the pseudo-differential operator can be extracted from that of the symbol.
Note that, at least formally, the left-invariant operators are obtained letting a be independent on x
and they are right convolution operators by a suitable inverse Fourier transform of a . Once again
rigorous self-adjointness and injectivity are difficult to decide at such a general level.
15

(v) In the commutative case G = RN ≡ g , the operator A is just the generator of the usual dilations acting at the level of the group as (x1 , . . . , xN ) → (et x1 , . . . , et xN ) . One has M = N
and νN = 1 . In this case there is a rather general class of operators that can be treated with
precision. Formally it could be obtained from (iv) making suitable identifications and choosing a
independent of the first variable. Independently and rigorously, one picks a measurable function
b : Rn → R and define the self-adjoint operator H := b(D) by the functional calculus associated
to the family D := (D1 = −i∂1 , . . . , DN = −i∂N ) of N commuting self-adjoint operators.
It can also be seen as a convolution operator. Of course, if b is a polynomial, the outcome is a
differential operator with constant coefficients. The homogeneity of b is responsable for the homogeneity of the corresponding operator. The injectivity is equivalent to b−1 ({0}) being Lebesguenegligible, which, under the homogeneity assumption, is equivalent to b−1 ({0}) ∩ SRN being
negligible in the unit sphere. This is much weaker than the usual ellipticity condition b(ξ) 6= 0 if
ξ 6= 0 , implying in particular that b has a definite sign if N ≥ 2 . A symbol b which is admissible
for us could not be smooth. If it is, it could be dispersive ((∇b)(ξ) 6= 0 if ξ 6= 0) or not.

5 Global smoothness for operators on graded Lie groups
As said above, Rockland operators yield particular cases of operators H to which we can apply the
already obtained results. Besides this, another reason to mention Rockland operators is connected to
the necessity to simplify results as Corollary 3.5 and bring them to a form easier to compare with
the results known for G = RN . It is useful to fix a ”first order” defining operator D for Sobolev
spaces. For this we select (arbitrarily) a positive Rockland operator R0 of homogeneous order q and
1/q
set D := R0 . For G = RN for example, one could think of the (positive) Laplacian R0 = ∆ :=
2 and then D = ∆1/2 = |D| , where D := −i∇. The important property is that, for
−∂12 − · · · − ∂N
every σ , the following expressions define admissible norms on the Sobolev spaces (inhomogeneous and
homogeneous, respectively)
k u k2L2σ (G) ∼ k u k2 + k Dσu k2 ,

k u kL̇2 (G) ∼ k Dσu k .
σ

The operator of multiplication by a Borel function f : G → C in L2 (G) will be denoted by f (x) . We
are looking for H-smooth operators of the form f (x)g(D)|H|1/2 , having Lemma 3.3 in mind. Since D
is positive and 0 is not an eigenvalue, it will be enough to consider functions g only defined on (0, ∞) .
In the simplest case f and g are bounded function; but in the next section we will need the case in which
f (x)g(D) , a priori defined on a dense subset, extends to an element of B(H) without each factor being
bounded.
The next Lemma will be an important tool below. Recall that νN is the largest dilation weight.
Lemma 5.1. Let Φ : (0, ∞) → C \ {0} be a C 1 -function and Ψ : G \ {e} → C a continuous function,
such that the following functions are bounded for every j = 1, . . . , N :
λΦ′ (λ)Φ(λ)−1 ,

λνj Φ(λ) ,

xj Ψ(x) .

Assume in addition that Φ(D)Ψ(x) ∈ B(H) . Then the operator AΦ(D)Ψ(x) is bounded .
Proof. From the homogeneity of D with respect to A , written e−itA DeitA = et D , one deduces
e−itA Φ(D)eitA = Φ(et D) ,
16

t ∈ R.

(5.1)

Taking the derivative in t = 0 one gets
[A, Φ(D)] = iDΦ′ (D) ,
so we have to check that
Φ(D)A Ψ(x) + iDΦ′ (D)Ψ(x) ∈ B(H) .

(5.2)

The second term is easily seen to be bounded, writting it as
iDΦ′ (D)Φ(D)−1 Φ(D)Ψ(x) .
Taking into account the explicit form of the operator A and the fact that Φ(D)Ψ(x) is bounded , the first
one only requires
Φ(D)Xj xj Ψ(x) ∈ B(H) , ∀ j = 1, . . . , N.

The operator Xj is homogeneous of degree νj . By [13, Th. 4.4.16] it maps continuously L̇2s+νj (G) to
L̇2s (G) for any s ∈ R . Setting s = −νj and since D is defining for the homogeneous Sobolev spaces, it
follows immediately that D−νj Xj is bounded. So, using (5.1) once again, we have
Φ(D)Xj xj Ψ(x) = Φ(D)Dνj D−νj Xj xj Ψ(x) ∈ B(H) ,
finishing the proof.
Remark 5.2. It is easy to see from the proof that the norm k AΦ(D)Ψ(x) k only depends (linearly or
quadratically) on
sup |λΦ′ (λ)Φ(λ)−1 | , sup λνj |Φ(λ)| , sup |xj Ψ(x)| ,
λ>0

λ>0

x∈G

k Φ(D)Ψ(x) k .

(5.3)

Proposition 5.3. Let H be self-adjoint, injective and homogeneous. Let ϕ : (0, ∞) → (0, ∞) and
ψ : G → (0, ∞) be functions such that for j = 1, . . . , N




(5.4)
sup λ|ϕ′ (λ)|ϕ(λ)−1 < ∞ , sup λνj ϕ(λ) < ∞ , sup |xj ψ(x)| < ∞ .
λ>0

x∈G

λ>0

∞
, extends to an element of
Also assume that ϕ(D)σ ψ(x)σ , defined as a sesquilinear form on
 C0 (G)
∞
B(H) for any σ ∈ [0, 1] and that for any u, v ∈ C0 (G) the family ψ(x)z u, ϕ(D)z v | Re z ∈ (0, 1)
is holomorphic. Then for every θ ∈ (1/2, 1] the operator

Tθ (ϕ, ψ; H) := ψ(x)θ ϕ(D)θ |H|1/2
is globally H-smooth.
Proof. The adjoint of Tθ ≡ Tθ (ϕ, ψ; H) is Tθ∗ = |H|1/2 Lθ , whereLθ := ϕ(D)θ ψ(x)θ . By Lemma
3.3 (iii), it is enough to show that Lθ ∈ B H, Aθ ⊂ B H, A1/2,1 . This will be done by complex
interpolation of holomorphic families of operators, using the pairs (H, H) and (H, A ) of Hilbert spaces.
Let us set Ω := {z = σ + iτ ∈ C | τ ∈ [0, 1]} and define L : Ω → B(H, H) by
Lz := ϕ(D)z ψ(x)z = ϕ(D)iτ ϕ(D)σ ψ(x)σ ψ(x)iτ .

17

(5.5)

Recall that Aθ = [H, A ]θ is a complex interpolation space. By a deep result [10, Sect. 3], we get (an
extension) Lθ ∈ B H, Aθ if we show that
k Liτ kB(H,H) ,

k L1+iτ kB(H,A ) ∼ k L1+iτ kB(H) + k AL1+iτ kB(H)

(5.6)

are well-defined and have (say) at most an exponential growth in τ . A more precise and generous
condition, involving the Poisson kernel on the strip Ω [4, pag 93], is available in [10, Th. 2]. The fact
that H = L2 (G) is a separable Hilbert space is also important, in particular allowing to identify the two
different types of complex interpolation spaces used in [10].
It is clear that the first norm in (5.6) is equal to 1 . In the second norm, the first term is bounded
uniformly in τ as we said before. For the second term we apply our assumptions, Lemma 5.1 and
Remark 5.2 with Φ := ϕ1+iτ = ϕ ϕiτ and Ψ := ψ 1+iτ = ψ ψ iτ . In (5.3) the second, the third and the
forth expressions are finite and τ -independent, since they do not depend on the factors ϕiτ and ψ iτ . For
the first one we can write

′

sup λ ϕ(λ)1+iτ ϕ(λ)−1−iτ = sup λ (1 + iτ )ϕ′ (λ)ϕ(λ)iτ ϕ(λ)−1−iτ
λ>0

λ>0

= (1 + τ 2 )1/2 sup λ ϕ′ (λ) ϕ(λ)−1
λ>0

and this is largely enough for applying [10, Th. 2].
We recall that on any graded Lie group there exist homogeneous quasi-norms. We fix one of them
[·] : G → [0, ∞) ; by definition, it is continuous and one has
[x] = 0 ⇔ x = 0 ,

[dilt (x)] = et [x] ,

[x−1 ] = [x] ,

∀x ∈ G.

One could take
[x] := |x1 |1/ν1 + · · · + |xN |1/νN
for example. The precise choice will not be important below, and this is not unexpected: on one hand,
two homogeneous quasi-norms are always equivalent and on the other hand we did not specify the value
of the absolute constants in the H-smoothness estimates. Besides [·] , we can also use one of the usual
norms on g transported by log on G , as
|x| := |x1 | + · · · + |xN | .
Corollary 5.4. Let H be a self-adjoint, injective and homogeneous operator on the graded group G and
let θ ∈ (1/2, 1] . The operators
Sθ (H) := (1 + [x])−θνN (Id + D)−θνN |H|1/2
and
Sθ′ (H) := (1 + |x|)−θ (Id + D)−θνN |H|1/2
are globally H-smooth.
Proof. The coordinate function xj is homogeneous of degree νj ≤ νN . Then it is easy to check that the
function ϕ(λ) := (1 + λ)−νN and any of the functions ψ(x) := (1 + |x|)−1 or ψ(x) := (1 + [x])−νN
satisfy the assumptions of Proposition 5.3.
18

Remark 5.5. Suppose that our operator has the form H = Rµ with µ > 0 and R a positive Rockland
operator of homogeneous order m . Using R for the Sobolev defining operator D = R1/m and making
some easy changes in the arguments above, one gets that
(1 + [x])−θνN (Id + R)−θνN /m Rµ/2 is an Rµ −smooth operator.
The function R+ ∋ s → (1+s)−θνN /m sµ/2 is unbounded for some admissible θ if and only if mµ > νN .
Note that mµ is the homogeneous order of our operator H , while νN is intrinsically attached to the
graded group. For RN one has νN = 1 and for the Heisenberg group νN = 2 .
Corollary 5.6. Besides being homogeneous and injective, the operator H is also supposed left-invariant.
(i) Then the operator (1 + [y −1 x])−θνN (Id + D)−θνN |H|1/2 is globally H-smooth for each θ ∈
(1/2, 1] , uniformly in y ∈ G .
(ii) Let µ be a finite positive measure on G . For θ ∈ (1/2, 1] , let us set
Z
(1 + [y −1 x])−θνN dµ(y) .
gθ,µ (x) :=

(5.7)

G

Then the operator gθ,µ (x)(Id + D)−θνN |H|1/2 is globally H-smooth.


Proof. Let us denote by Λy the operator of left translation by y ∈ G , acting as Λy (u)](x) := u(y −1 x) ;
it defines a unitary operator in H := L2 (G) . Since D is a power of a Rockland operator, which is
left-invariant, (Id + D)−θνN commutes with Λy , while |H|1/2 and eitH also commute with Λy , by our
assumption. On the other hand, it is easy to check that
Λy (1 + [x])−θνN = (1 + [y −1 x])−θνN Λy

(both sides involving multiplication operators in the variable x) . Using Corollary 5.4, the unitarity of
left translations and setting B(t) := (Id + D)−θνN |H|1/2 eitH , one can write
Z
Z
2
2
−1
−θνN
dt
Λy (1 + [x])−θνN Λ−1
(1 + [y x])
B(t)u dt =
y B(t)u
R
R
Z
2
dt
(1 + [x])−θνN B(t)Λ−1
=
y u
R

2
2
≤ C k Λ−1
y uk = C kuk ,

showing H-smoothness with the same constant C. Then, using this and the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality,
Z hZ
Z
Z
i2
2
−1
−θνN
(1 + [y −1 x])−θνN B(t)u dµ(y) dt
dµ(y) B(t)u dt ≤
(1 + [y x])
G
R
R
G
Z h Z
1/2 i2
1/2  Z
2
dµ(y)
(1 + [y −1 x])−θνN B(t)u dµ(y)
dt
≤
G
G
R
Z Z
Z
2
(1 + [y −1 x])−θνN B(t)u dµ(y)dt
dµ(y)
=
R Z
G
G
2
Z
2
(1 + [y −1 x])−θνN B(t)u dt
dµ(y)
=
G

R

≤ µ(G)2 C k u k2 .

19

Remark 5.7. Setting hθ (x) := (1 + [x])−θνN , one checks by a short calculation in polar coordinates
that hθ ∈ Lp (G) if and only if θνN p > M . Then, by Young’s inequality,
gθ,µ = µ ∗ hθ ∈

∩

p>M/θνN

Lp (G) .

6 Global smoothness for operators on stratified groups
We assume now that the group G is stratified: in addition to being graded, this means that v1 generates
g as a Lie algebra. The first N1 := dim(v1 ) vectors of the basis will be chosen in v1 . Looking at the
elements of the Lie algebra as derivations in spaces of functions on G , one has the horizontal gradient
∇ := (X1 , . . . , XN1 ) and the horizontal sublaplacian
∆ := −

N1
X

Xj∗ Xj =

N1
X

Xj2 .

(6.1)

j=1

j=1

Note our sign convention: most often the operator defined in (6.1) is denoted by −∆ . It is known that
(our) ∆ is a self-adjoint positive operator in L2 (G) ; its domain is the Sobolev space L22 (G) . It can be
seen as a Rockland operator [13, Lemma 4.1.7]. Then ∆α is also a self-adjoint positive operator; its
domain is the Sobolev space L22α (G) and it is homogeneous of degree β = 2α . It is clear that a defining
operator D for the Sobolev spaces is |D| := ∆1/2 . The notation |D| is convenient having the case
G = RN in view; we do not claim anything special about it.
First we write down reformulations of Corollary 5.4 for this particular case:
Corollary 6.1. Assume that H is a self-adjoint injective homogeneous operator on the stratified group
G . For every θ ∈ (1/2, 1] the operators
−θνN
Sθ (H) := (1 + [x])−θνN Id + |D|
|H|1/2 ,
S̃θ (H) := (1 + [x])−θνN (Id + ∆)−θνN /2 |H|1/2

are globally H-smooth. In particular, this applies to H = ∆α for every α > 0 .
Proof. The first one is obtained just by particularization. The second is left as an exercice.
We work now on an improvement, based on a Hardy-type inequality and the fact that in Proposition
5.3 we did not ask the functions ϕ, ψ to be bounded. In the next result one supposes that ν1 = 1 < M/2 ;
for most of the stratified groups (but not for the commutative cases R and R2 ) this holds automatically.
Proposition 6.2. Suppose that G is a stratified group with a homogeneous quasi-norm [·] and H is a
self-adjoint injective homogeneous operator in L2 (G) . Assume that M ≥ 3 . For any θ ∈ (1/2, 1] the
operator
Uθ (H) := (1 + [x])−θ(νN −1) [x]−θ (Id + |D|)−θ(νN −1) |D|−θ |H|1/2
is globally H-smooth.

20

Proof. We have to show that the pair of functions
ϕ(λ) := λ−1 (1 + λ)−νN +1 ,

ψ(x) := [x]−1 (1 + [x])−νN +1

satisfies the conditions of Proposition 5.3.
Computing, one gets
h
λ i
ϕ(λ) ,
λϕ′ (λ) = − 1 + (1 − νN )
1+λ
so the first condition in (5.4) is verified. One has


λνj ϕ(λ) = λνj −1 (1 + λ)−νN +1 = λνj −1 (1 + λ)−νj +1 (1 + λ)νj −νN

and both factors are bounded, because 1 = ν1 ≤ νj ≤ νN for every j . Similarly

xj ψ(x) = xj [x]−1 (1 + [x])−νN +1 = xj [x]−νj [x]νj −1 (1 + [x])−νN +1
is bounded, since the coordinate xj is homogeneous of degree νj and [·] is homogeneous of degree 1 .
Recall that, by a Hardy estimate [8, Sect. 3], if γ ∈ [0, M/2) one has
∆−γ/2 [x]−γ = |D|−γ [x]−γ ∈ B(H) .

(6.2)

So, for σ ∈ [0, 1] ⊂ [0, M/2) one has
ϕ(|D|)σ ψ(x)σ = (Id + |D|)−σ(νN −1) |D|−σ [x]−σ (1 + [x])−σ(νN −1) ∈ B(H)
because of (6.2). For u, v ∈ C0 (G) , the holomorphy of the map z → hϕ(|D|)z ψ(x)z u, vi in the domain
{Re z ∈ (0, 1)} follows from [8, Sect. 3]. Applying Proposition 5.3 finishes the proof.
Example 6.3. For the Heisenberg group G := H2n+1 ∋ (a1 . . . , an ; b1 , . . . , bn ; s) one just has to put
N = 2n + 1 , M := 2n + 2 and νN = 2 . The canonical (positive) sublaplacian is
∆ := −

n 
X

n

∂ak

k=1

bk  2 X 
ak 2
− ∂s −
∂bk + ∂s
2
2
k=1

and for [·] one can choose the Koranyi homogeneous quasi-norm
[(a, b, t)] :=

n
 X
1/4
2
.
(a2k + b2k ) + s2
k=1

Example 6.4. If G = RN is Abelian, then M = N and ν1 = νN = 1 . So, if H is self-adjoint, injective
and homogeneous, then
Uθ (H) := |x|−θ |D|−θ |H|1/2
is globally H-smooth for every θ ∈ (1/2, 1] and for the usual absolute value | · | . If H := ∆α = |D|2α
we get that Uθ (∆α ) := |x|−θ |D|α−θ is ∆α -smooth if θ ∈ (1/2, 1] . The case α = 1 has been obtained
in [21]. We refer to [32, 30] for extensions.

21

References
[1] W. O. Amrein, A. Boutet de Monvel and V. Georgescu: C0 -Groups, Commutator Methods and
Spectral Theory of N -body Hamiltonians, Progress in Math., 135, Birkhäuser Basel, 1996.
[2] M. Ben-Artzi and A. Devinatz: Local Smoothing and Convergence Properties of Schroödinger
Type Equations, J. Funct. Anal. 101, 231-254, (1991).
[3] M. Ben-Artzi and S. Klainerman: Decay and Regularity for the Schrödinger Equation, J. Analyse Math. 58, 25-37, (1992).
[4] J. Bergh and J. Löfström: Interpolation Spaces. An Introduction. Springer-Verlag, New York,
1976.
[5] A. Boutet de Monvel, G. Kazantseva and M. Măntoiu: Some Anisotropic Schrödinger Operators
without Singular Spectrum, Helv. Phys. Acta, 69, 13–25, (1996).
[6] H. Chihara: Smoothing Effects of Dispersive Pseudodifferential Equations, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 27, 1953-2005, (2002).
[7] H. Chihara: Resolvent Estimates Related with a Class of Dispersive Equations, J. Fourier Anal.
Appl., 14, 301-325 (2008).
[8] P. Ciatti, M. G. Cowling and F. Ricci: Hardy and Uncertainty Inequalities on Stratified Lie
Group,. Adv. Math., 277, 365-387, (2015).
[9] P. Constantin and J. C. Saut: Local Smoothing Properties of Dispersive Equations, J. Amer.
Math. Soc. 1, 413-439, (1988).
[10] M. Cwikel and S. Janson: Interpolation of Analytic Families of Operators, Studia Math.
LIXXIX, 61–71, (1984).
[11] S. Doi: Commutator Algebra and Abstract Smoothing Effect, J. Funct. Anal, 168, 428–469,
(1999).
[12] S. Dragomir: Some Gronwall Type Inequalities and Applications, Nova Science Pub. Inc. Hauppage, NY, (2003).
[13] V. Fischer and M. Ruzhansky: Quantization on Nilpotent Lie Groups, Progress in Mathematics,
Birkhäuser, 2016.
[14] G. B. Folland and E. M. Stein: Hardy Spaces on Homogeneous Groups, Mathematical Notes,
28, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton N. J. 1982.
[15] P. Glowacki: The Melin Calculus for General Homogeneous Groups, Ark. Mat 45 (1), 31–48,
(2007).
[16] P. Glowacki: Invertibility of Convolution Operators on Homogeneous Groups, Rev. Mat.
Iberoam. 28 (1), 141–156, (2012).

22

[17] B. Helffer and J. Nourrigat: Caracterisation des opérateurs hypoelliptiqes homogènes invariants
agaughe sur un groupe de Lie nilpotent gradué, Comm. P. D. E. 4 (8), 899–958, (1979).
[18] T. Hoshiro: Mourre’s Method and Smoothing Properties of Dispersive Equations, Comm. Math.
Phys. 202, 255-265, (1999).
[19] T. Hoshiro: Decay and Regularity for Dispersive Equations with Constant Coefficients, J. Anal.
Math. 91, 211-230, (2003).
[20] T. Kato: Smooth Operators and Commutators, Studia Math., 31, 535–546, (1968).
[21] T. Kato and K. Yajima: Some Examples of Smooth Operators and the Associated Smoothing
Effect, Rev. Math. Phys. 1, 481496 (1989).
[22] M. Măntoiu and M. Pascu: Global Resolvent Estimates for Multiplication Operators, J. Operator
Theory 36, (2), (1996), 283–294.
[23] M. Măntoiu and M. Ruzhansky: Pseudo-differential Operators, Wigner Transform and Weyl
Systems on Type I Locally Compact Groups, Preprint ArXiV and submitted.
[24] A. Melin: Parametrix Constructions for Right Invariant Differential Operators on Nilpotent
Groups, Ann. Global Anal. Geom., 1 (1) 79–130, (1983).
[25] E. Mourre: Absence of Singular Continuum Spectrum for for Certain Self-adjoint Operators,
Commun. Math. Phys. 78, 391–408, (1981).
[26] M. Reed and B. Simon: Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics IV, Analysis of Operators,
Academic Press, London, 1979.
[27] F. Ricci: Sub-Laplacians on Nilpotent Lie Groups, Unpublished Lecture Notes, accessible at
http://homepage.sns.it/fricci/corsi.html.
[28] M. Ruzhansky and M. Sugimoto: A Smoothing Property of Schrödinger Equations in the Critical
Case, Math. Ann. 335, 645–673 (2006).
[29] M. Ruzhansky and M. Sugimoto: Structural Resolvent Estimates and Derivative Nonlinear
Schrödinger Equations, Comm. Math. Phys. 314, 281-304, (2012).
[30] M. Ruzhansky and M. Sugimoto: Smoothing Properties of Evolution Equations via Canonical
Transforms and Comparison Principle, Proc. London Math. Soc. 105, 393-423, (2012).
[31] M. Ruzhansky and M. Sugimoto: Smoothing Estimates for Non-Dispersive Equations, Math.
Ann. 365, 241–269, (2016).
[32] M. Sugimoto: Global Smoothing Properties of Generalized Schrödinger Equations, J.
d’Analyse Math. 76, 191–204, (1998).
[33] K. Watanabe: Smooth Perturbations of the Self-Adjoint Operator |∆|α/2 , Tokyo J. Math. 14,
239–250, (1991).

23

