--- abstract: 'We study regularity of bound states pertaining to embedded eigenvalues of a self-adjoint operator $H$, with respect to an auxiliary operator $A$ that is conjugate to $H$ in the sense of Mourre. We work within the framework of singular Mourre theory which enables us to deal with confined massless Pauli-Fierz models, our primary example, and many-body AC-Stark Hamiltonians. In the simpler context of regular Mourre theory our results boils down to an improvement of results obtained recently in @CGH.' author: - | Jeremy Faupin[^1] [^2]\ Institut de Math<span>é</span>matiques de Bordeaux\ Universit<span>é</span> de Bordeaux 1\ France\ - | Jacob Schach M<span>ø</span>ller[^3] Erik Skibsted[^4]\ Department of Mathematical Sciences\ Aarhus University\ Denmark title: Regularity of Bound States --- Introduction ============ This paper is the first in a series of two dealing with embedded eigenvalues and their bound states, in the context of local commutator methods. In this paper we study regularity of bound states with respect to a conjugate operator, in the context of singular Mourre theory. In the second paper @FMS we use the results obtained here to do second order perturbation theory of embedded eigenvalues, in particular we establish the validity of Fermi's golden rule for an abstract class of Hamiltonians. We remark that by singular Mourre theory we refer to the situation where the first commutator is not controlled by the Hamiltonian itself, as in @DJ [@Go; @GGM1; @GGM; @MS; @Sk]. Regular Mourre theory refers to the setup considered in @ABG. See also @AHS [@BFSS; @DG; @FGS; @GJ; @HS; @Mo]. Our main motivation is applications to massless models from quantum field theory. In particular our results apply to the massless confined Nelson model at arbitrary coupling strength. We can deal with infrared singularities that are slightly weaker than the physical one, that is we can handle singularities of the form $|k|^{-\frac12 + \epsilon}$, for some $\epsilon>0$. As a by-product of our methods we also establish that all bound states are in the domain of the number operator. In Section \[sec\_models\] we in fact deal with a larger class of quantum field theory models, sometimes called Pauli-Fierz models, which includes the Nelson model. For simplicity we present our results here in the context of the Nelson model, which we introduce in Subsection \[subsec-NelsonIntro\] below. The reader can also consult @GGM [Subsection 2.3] for a discussion of the models considered in this paper and its sequel. In Section \[AC–Stark model\] we apply the results of this paper to many-body AC-Stark Hamiltonians where we obtain new regularity results. See Subsection \[The AC–Stark model\] below for a formulation of the model and the result. The Nelson Model {#subsec-NelsonIntro} ---------------- The model describes a confined atomic system coupled to a massless scalar quantum field. The Hamiltonian $K$ of the atomic system is $$\label{K} K = \sum_{i=1}^P \frac1{2m_i}\Delta_i + \sum_{i<j} V_{ij}(x_i-x_j) + W(x_1,\dots,x_P)$$ acting on ${\mathcal{K}}= L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{3 P})$. Here $m_i>0$ denotes the mass of the $i$'th particle located at $x_i\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^3$. We write $x = (x_1,\dots,x_P)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{3P}$. The external potential $W$ is the confinement and must satisfy - $W\in L^2_{\mathrm{loc}}({{\mathbb{R}}}^{3P})$ and there exist positive constants $c_0,c_1$ and $\alpha>2$ such that $W(x)\geq c_0 |x|^{2\alpha} - c_1$. As for the pair potentials $V_{ij}$, they should satisfy - The $V_{ij}$'s are $\Delta$-bounded with relative bound $0$. The Hilbert space for the scalar bosons is the symmetric Fock-space ${\mathcal{F}}= \Gamma(L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^3))$ and the kinetic energy for the massless bosons is ${{\rm d}}\Gamma(|k|)$, the second quantization of the operator of multiplication with the massless dispersion relation $|k|$. The uncoupled Hamiltonian, describing the atomic system and the scalar field is $K\otimes{\bbbone}_{{\mathcal{F}}} + {\bbbone}_{\mathcal{K}}\otimes {{\rm d}}\Gamma(|k|)$, as an operator on the full Hilbert space $${\mathcal{H}}= {\mathcal{K}}\otimes{\mathcal{F}}.$$ Our next task is to introduce a coupling of the form $$\label{Irho} I_\rho(x) = \sum_{i=1}^P \phi_\rho(x_i),$$ where $\phi_\rho(y)$ is an ultraviolet and infrared regularized field operator $$\phi_{\rho}(y) = \frac1{\sqrt{2}} \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^3} \big(\rho(k) {{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}k\cdot y} a^*(k) + \overline{\rho(k)}{{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}k\cdot y} a(k)\big) {{\rm d}}k.$$ We assume purely for simplicity that $\rho$ only depends on $k$ through its modulus. To conform with the notation used in @GGM, we introduce $$\tilde{\rho}(r) = r \rho(r,0,0), \ \ \textup{such that} \ \ |k|\rho(k) = \tilde{\rho}(|k|).$$ For the interacting Hamiltonian, indexed by the coupling function $\rho$, $$\label{HrhoNel} H_\rho^{\mathrm{N}}= K\otimes {\bbbone}_{\Gamma({\mathfrak{h}})} + {\bbbone}_{\mathcal{K}}\otimes {{\rm d}}\Gamma(|k|) + I_\rho(x)$$ to be essentially self-adjoint on ${\mathcal{D}}(K)\otimes\Gamma_{\mathrm{fin}}(C_0^\infty({{\mathbb{R}}}^3))$, we need the following basic assumption on $\rho$. - $\int_0^\infty (1+r^{-1})|\tilde{\rho}(r)|^2 {{\rm d}}r <\infty$. Here $\Gamma_{\mathrm{fin}}(V)$ denotes the subspace of ${\mathcal{F}}$ consisting of elements $\eta$ with only finitely many $n$-particle components $\eta^{(n)}$ nonzero, and those that are nonzero lie in the $n$-fold algebraic tensor product of the subspace $V\subseteq L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^3)$. Note that $\Gamma_{\mathrm{fin}}(V)$ is dense in ${\mathcal{F}}$ if $V$ is dense in $L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^3)$. In order to formulate the remaining assumption on $\rho$ we introduce a function $d\in C^\infty((0,\infty))$, which measures the amount of infrared regularization carried by $\rho$. It should, for some $C_d>0$, satisfy $$\label{d1} d(r) = 1, \ \textup{for} \ r\geq 1, \ \ -C_d\frac{d(r)}{r} \leq d^\prime(r) < 0 , \ \ \lim_{r\to 0+} d(r) = +\infty.$$ Note that the conditions above imply that $1\leq d(r)\leq r^{-C_d}$, for $r\in (0,1]$. In order to simplify some expressions below we make the additional assumption that $$\label{d2} \forall r\in (0,1]: \ \ d(r) \leq C_d^\prime r^{-\frac12},$$ for some $C_d'>0$. In practice we want to construct a $d$ with as weak a singularity as possible, so this extra assumption is no restriction. We formulate the remaining conditions on $\rho$, of which the two first also appeared in @GGM. - $\int_0^\infty (1+r^{-1}) d(r)^2 [r^{-2}|\tilde{\rho}(r)|^2 + |\frac{{{\rm d}}\tilde{\rho}}{{{\rm d}}r}(r)|^2] {{\rm d}}r <\infty$. - $\int_0^\infty |\frac{{{\rm d}}^2 \tilde{\rho}}{{{\rm d}}r^2}(r)|^2 {{\rm d}}r <\infty$. - $\int_0^\infty r^4 |\tilde{\rho}(r)|^2 dr <\infty$. We remark that <span>**($\rho$2)**</span> and <span>**($\rho$4)**</span> implies <span>**($\rho$1)**</span>. A typical form of $\rho$, and hence $\tilde{\rho}$, would be $$\label{Nelson-rho} \rho(k) = {{\rm e}}^{-\frac{|k|^2}{2\Lambda^2}} |k|^{-\frac12 + \epsilon}, \ \ \tilde{\rho}(r) = {{\rm e}}^{-\frac{r^2}{2\Lambda^2}} r^{\frac12 + \epsilon}.$$ One can construct a $d$ by gluing together the functions $1$ and $r^{-\epsilon'}$, with $0<\epsilon' < \min\{\epsilon,1/2\}$. The parameters $\Lambda$ and $\epsilon$ are the ultraviolet respectively infrared regularization parameters. Ideally we would like to have $\Lambda = \infty$ and $\epsilon=0$. For the conditions (<span>**$\rho$1**</span>)–(<span>**$\rho$4**</span>) to be satisfied we must have $0< \Lambda<\infty$ and $\epsilon> 1$. Observe that it is the condition <span>**($\rho$3)**</span> on the second derivative of $\tilde{\rho}$ that causes the strongest restriction on $\epsilon$. Observe that the set of $\rho$'s satisfying (<span>**$\rho$1**</span>) – (<span>**$\rho$4**</span>) is a complex vector space ${\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{N}}(d)\subseteq L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^3)$, which can be equipped with a norm matching the four conditions. That is $$\label{normNel} \|\rho\|^2_{\mathrm{N}}:= \int_0^\infty \Big\{(r^4+d(r)^2 r^{-3})|\tilde{\rho}(r)|^2 +(1+r^{-1})d(r)^2\big|\frac{{{\rm d}}\tilde{\rho}}{{{\rm d}}r}(r)\big|^2 + \big| \frac{{{\rm d}}^2 \tilde{\rho}}{{{\rm d}}r^2}(r)\big|^2 \Big\} {{\rm d}}r.$$ In order to formulate our main theorem, we need to introduce an operator conjugate to $H_\rho^{\mathrm{N}}$. We use the one constructed in @GGM, for which a Mourre estimate has been established under the assumptions above. Let $\chi\in C_0^\infty({{\mathbb{R}}})$, with $0\leq \chi\leq 1$, $\chi(r) = 1$ for $|r|<1/2$, and $\chi(r)=0$ for $|r|>1$. For $0<\delta\leq 1/2$ we define a function on $(0,\infty)$ by $$s_\delta(r) = \chi(r/\delta) d(\delta)r^{-1} + (1-\chi)(r/\delta)d(r)r^{-1}.$$ Using this function we construct a vector-field by $\vec{s}_\delta(k) = s_\delta(|k|)k$, which equals $k/|k|$ for $|k|>1$ and $d(\delta)k/|k|$ for $|k|<\delta/2$. The conjugate operator on the one-particle sector is $$\label{Eq-adeltaPhys} a_\delta = \frac12(\vec{s}_\delta \cdot {{\rm i}}\nabla_k + {{\rm i}}\nabla_k \cdot \vec{s}_\delta).$$ The operator is symmetric and closable on $\{f\in C_0^\infty({{\mathbb{R}}}^3) | f(0)=0\}$. We denote again by $a_\delta$ its closure which is a maximally symmetric operator, but not self-adjoint. It is a modification, near $k=0$, of the generator of radial translations $a=(\frac{k}{|k|}\cdot {{\rm i}}\nabla_k + {{\rm i}}\nabla_k \cdot\frac{k}{|k|})/2$. The conjugate operator is now the maximally symmetric operator $$A_\delta = {\bbbone}_{{\mathcal{K}}}\otimes {{\rm d}}\Gamma(a_\delta).$$ The second quantization ${{\rm d}}\Gamma(a)$ of the generator of radial translations works as conjugate operator if one stays close to the uncoupled system. See @DJ [@Go; @Sk]. It is not known if one really needs the modified generator of radial translations $A_\delta$ in order to get a Mourre estimate at arbitrary coupling. For an eigenvalue $E\in\sigma_{{\rm pp}}(H_{\rho}^{\mathrm{N}})$ we write $P_{\rho}$ for the associated eigenprojection. It is known from @GGM that $P_{\rho}$ has finite dimensional range. Finally we need the number operator $${\mathcal{N}}= {\bbbone}_{{\mathcal{K}}}\otimes {{\rm d}}\Gamma({\bbbone}_{L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^3)}).$$ We will make use of the same notation for the (usual) number operator on ${\mathcal{F}}$. Our main result of this paper, formulated in terms of the Nelson model, is \[Main-Nelson\] Suppose <span>(</span><span>**W0**</span><span>)</span> and <span>(</span><span>**V0**</span><span>)</span>. Let $E_0\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $\rho_0\in {\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{N}}(d)$ be given. There exist $0<\delta\leq 1/2$, $r>0$ and $C>0$ such that for any $\rho\in {\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{N}}(d)$, with $\|\rho-\rho_0\|_{\mathrm{N}}\leq r$, and $E\in \sigma_{{{\rm pp}}}(H^{\mathrm{N}}_{\rho})\cap (-\infty,E_0]$ we have $$P_{\rho}:{\mathcal{H}}\to {\mathcal{D}}\big({\mathcal{N}}^\frac12 A_\delta\big)\cap {\mathcal{D}}\big(A_\delta{\mathcal{N}}^\frac12\big)\cap {\mathcal{D}}\big({\mathcal{N}}\big)$$ and $$\big\|{\mathcal{N}}^\frac12 A_\delta P_{\rho}\big\| + \big\|A_\delta{\mathcal{N}}^\frac12 P_{\rho}\big\| + \big\|{\mathcal{N}}P_{\rho}\big\| \leq C.$$ We remark that for any $\delta>0$ small enough, one can find $r$ and $C$ such that the conclusion of the theorem holds. See Theorem \[Thm-MainPF\]. The above suffices for our purpose and is a cleaner statement. We can implement a unitary transformation, the so-called Pauli-Fierz transform, which has the effect of smoothening the infrared singularity. Let $U_{\rho} = {{\rm exp}}(-{{\rm i}}P\phi_{{{\rm i}}\rho/|k|}(0))$ be the unitary transformation with $$U_{\rho} a(k) U_\rho^* = a(k) - \frac{P\rho(k)}{\sqrt{2}|k|} \ \textup{and} \ U_\rho a^*(k) U_\rho^* = a^*(k) - \frac{P\overline{\rho(k)}}{\sqrt{2}|k|}.$$ For the transformation $U_\rho$ to be well-defined we must require that $\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^3} |k|^{-2}|\rho(k)|^2{{\rm d}}k<\infty$. To achieve this we strengthen (<span>**$\rho$1**</span>) to read - $\int_0^\infty (1+r^{-2})|\tilde{\rho}(r)|^2{{\rm d}}r <\infty$. We then get $$\label{HrhoNelPrime} H^{{\mathrm{N}}'}_\rho = ({\bbbone}_{\mathcal{K}}\otimes U_\rho) H^{\mathrm{N}}_\rho ({\bbbone}_{\mathcal{K}}\otimes U_\rho)^* = K_\rho\otimes{\bbbone}_{\mathcal{F}}+ {\bbbone}_{\mathcal{K}}\otimes {{\rm d}}\Gamma(|k|) +I_\rho(x)-I_\rho(0),$$ where $$\label{Krho} K_\rho = K - \sum_{i=1}^P v_\rho(x_i) + \frac{P^2}2\int_0^\infty r^{-1}|\tilde{\rho}(r)|^2 {{\rm d}}r {\bbbone}_{\mathcal{K}}$$ and $$\label{vrho} v_\rho(y) = P \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^3} \frac{|\rho(k)|^2}{|k|}\cos(k\cdot y){{\rm d}}k.$$ Observe that $$\phi_\rho(y) - \phi_\rho(0) = \frac1{\sqrt{2}} \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^3} \big(\rho(k) ({{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}k\cdot y}-1) a^*(k) + \overline{\rho(k)}({{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}k\cdot y}-1) a(k)\big) {{\rm d}}k.$$ The estimate $$\label{PFtransbnd} |{{\rm e}}^{\pm {{\rm i}}k\cdot y}-1| \leq \max\{2,|k||y|\} \leq 2\frac{|k|}{{\langle}k {\rangle}}{\langle}y{\rangle},$$ with ${\langle}\eta{\rangle}= (1+|\eta|^2)^{1/2}$, enables us to extract an extra infrared regularization using the decay in $x$ supplied by the confinement condition (<span>**W0**</span>). Keeping and (<span>**$\rho$1'**</span>) in mind, the remaining two assumptions on $\rho$ now weaken to - $\int_0^\infty |\frac{{{\rm d}}\tilde{\rho}}{{{\rm d}}r}(r)|^2{{\rm d}}r <\infty$. - $\int_0^\infty r^2 |\frac{{{\rm d}}^2 \tilde{\rho}}{{{\rm d}}r^2}(r)|^2/(1+r^2){{\rm d}}r<\infty$. The condition <span>**($\rho$4)**</span>, being an ultraviolet condition, is unchanged. For the choice to satisfy (<span>**$\rho$1'**</span>)–(<span>**$\rho$3'**</span>) and <span>**($\rho$4)**</span> we must have $0< \Lambda<\infty$ and $\epsilon > 0$. Here the first three conditions on $\rho$ all require $\epsilon>0$. Observe again that the set of $\rho$ satisfying (<span>**$\rho$1'**</span>)–(<span>**$\rho$3'**</span>) and <span>**($\rho$4)**</span> is a complex vector space ${\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{N}}^\prime(d)$. We introduce the natural norm $$\|\rho\|^2_{{\mathrm{N}}'} := \int_0^\infty \Big\{(r^4+r^{-2})|\tilde{\rho}(r)|^2 +\big|\frac{{{\rm d}}\tilde{\rho}}{{{\rm d}}r}(r)\big|^2 + \frac{r^2}{1+r^2} \big| \frac{{{\rm d}}^2 \tilde{\rho}}{{{\rm d}}r^2}(r)\big|^2 \Big\} {{\rm d}}r.$$ Fix a $\rho_0\in {\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{N}}^\prime(d)$. There are now two avenues one can follow. Either one can continue as above, and for each $\rho$ in a $\|\cdot\|_{{\mathrm{N}}'}$-ball around $\rho_0$ we apply the transformation $U_\rho$ to arrive at the more regular Hamiltonian $H^{{\mathrm{N}}'}_\rho$ that we can fit into our class of Pauli-Fierz models. A second option would be to apply the same transformation $U_{\rho_0}$ regardless of $\rho$ chosen near $\rho_0$. The advantage of this is two-fold: Firstly, we would be working in the same coordinate system for all $\rho$'s, which in the context of perturbation theory, cf. @FMS, is the most natural. Secondly, in this way the Hamiltonian will have a linear dependence on the 'perturbation' $\rho-\rho_0$, which is a requirement in @FMS. The drawback is that $\rho-\rho_0$ has to be an element of ${\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{N}}(d)$, and for example cannot be a small multiple of $\rho_0$. To implement the latter approach, we now let $\rho = \rho_0+\rho_1$, with $\rho_1\in {\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{N}}(d)$, the space of regular interactions. We then employ the transformation $U_{\rho_0}$ which yields the transformed Hamiltonian $$\label{HrhoNelDPrime} H_\rho^{{\mathrm{N}}''} = ({\bbbone}_{\mathcal{K}}\otimes U_{\rho_0}) H^{\mathrm{N}}_\rho ({\bbbone}_{\mathcal{K}}\otimes U_{\rho_0})^* = H^{{\mathrm{N}}'}_{\rho_0} + I_{\rho_1}(x) - \sum_{i=1}^P v_{\rho_0,\rho_1}(x_i),$$ where $$\label{vrho0rho1} v_{\rho_0,\rho_1}(y) = P\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^3}{{\rm Re}\,}\left\{ \frac{\rho_1(k) \overline{\rho_0(k)}}{|k|} e^{-{{\rm i}}k\cdot y}\right\} {{\rm d}}k.$$ For an eigenvalue $E\in\sigma_{{\rm pp}}(H^{{\mathrm{N}}}_{\rho})$ we write $P'_{\rho} = ({\bbbone}_{\mathcal{K}}\otimes U_\rho) P_\rho ({\bbbone}_{\mathcal{K}}\otimes U_\rho)^*$ for the associated eigenprojection for $H_\rho^{{\mathrm{N}}'}$, and $P_\rho^{\prime\prime} =({\bbbone}_{\mathcal{K}}\otimes U_{\rho_0})P_\rho({\bbbone}_{\mathcal{K}}\otimes U_{\rho_0})^*$ for the associated eigenprojection for $H_\rho^{{\mathrm{N}}''}$. Again $P'_{\rho}$ and $P_\rho^{\prime\prime}$ have finite dimensional ranges. Theorem \[Thm-MainPF\] can be applied to the transformed Hamiltonian and we arrive at the following theorem. \[Main-NelsonPrime\] Suppose <span>(</span><span>**W0**</span><span>)</span> and <span>(</span><span>**V0**</span><span>)</span>. Let $E_0\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $\rho_0\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{N}}^\prime(d)$ be given. There exist $0<\delta\leq 1/2$, $r>0$ and $C>0$ such that 1) for any $\rho\in {\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{N}}^\prime(d)$ with $\|\rho-\rho_0\|_{{\mathrm{N}}^\prime}\leq r$ and $E\in \sigma_{{\rm pp}}(H_\rho^{{\mathrm{N}}})\cap (-\infty, E_0]$ we have $$P'_{\rho}:{\mathcal{H}}\to {\mathcal{D}}\big({\mathcal{N}}^\frac12 A_\delta\big)\cap {\mathcal{D}}\big(A_\delta{\mathcal{N}}^\frac12\big)\cap {\mathcal{D}}\big({\mathcal{N}}\big)$$ and $$\big\|{\mathcal{N}}^\frac12 A_\delta P'_{\rho}\big\| + \big\|A_\delta{\mathcal{N}}^\frac12 P'_{\rho}\big\| + \big\|{\mathcal{N}}P'_{\rho}\big\| \leq C.$$ 2) for any $\rho_1\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{N}}(d)$ with $\|\rho_1\|_{\mathrm{N}}\leq r$ and $E\in \sigma_{{\rm pp}}(H_{\rho}^{{\mathrm{N}}})\cap (-\infty,E_0]$, where $\rho = \rho_0+\rho_1$, we have $$P''_{\rho}:{\mathcal{H}}\to {\mathcal{D}}\big({\mathcal{N}}^\frac12 A_\delta\big)\cap {\mathcal{D}}\big(A_\delta{\mathcal{N}}^\frac12\big)\cap {\mathcal{D}}\big({\mathcal{N}}\big)$$ and $$\big\|{\mathcal{N}}^\frac12 A_\delta P''_{\rho}\big\| + \big\|A_\delta{\mathcal{N}}^\frac12 P''_{\rho}\big\| + \big\|{\mathcal{N}}P''_{\rho}\big\| \leq C.$$ Unfortunately the transformation $U_\rho$, with $\rho\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{N}}^\prime(d)$, is too singular to allow for a recovery of the full set of regularity results for the original Hamiltonian $H^{\mathrm{N}}_{\rho}$, as in Theorem \[Main-Nelson\]. The only thing that remains after undoing the transformation is the following corollary to Theorem \[Main-NelsonPrime\] 1). The same argument using Theorem \[Main-NelsonPrime\] 2) would give a weaker result. Theorem \[Main-NelsonPrime\] 2) will however play a role in @FMS. Suppose <span>(</span><span>**W0**</span><span>)</span> and <span>(</span><span>**V0**</span><span>)</span>. Let $E_0\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $\rho_0\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{N}}^\prime(d)$ be given. There exist $0<\delta\leq 1/2$, $r>0$ and $C>0$ such that for any $\rho\in {\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{N}}^\prime(d)$ with $\|\rho-\rho_0\|_{{\mathrm{N}}^\prime}\leq r$ and $E\in \sigma_{{\rm pp}}(H_\rho^{{\mathrm{N}}})\cap (-\infty, E_0]$ we have $$P_{\rho}:{\mathcal{H}}\to {\mathcal{D}}\big({\mathcal{N}}\big) \ \textup{and} \ \big\|{\mathcal{N}}P_{\rho}\big\| \leq C.$$ We make a number of remarks concerning the results above. The domain of $a_\delta$ is independent of $\delta$, and in fact equals the domain of the generator of radial translations. The same is (presumably) false for the second quantized versions. This is the reason for the somewhat unpleasant formulation of the theorems in terms of $A_\delta$. It should be read in the context of Mourre's commutator method, and in @FMS we need the regularity formulated in terms of $A_\delta$. The statement that bound states are in the domain of the number operator is new. Previously it was only known that bound states are in the domain of ${\mathcal{N}}^{1/2}$. See @GGM. The reader should first and foremost read the results above with $\rho=\rho_0$. In the sequel @FMS we need the locally uniform version to deduce a Fermi golden rule under minimal assumptions. In traditional approaches to Fermi's golden rule, one typically require unperturbed bound states to be in the domain of the square of the conjugate operator. See @AHS [@HS; @MS]. In @FMS we reduce the requirement to bound states $\psi$ being in the domain of the conjugate operator itself, at the expense of a need for the norm $\|A_\delta\psi\|$ to be bounded uniformly in $\rho$ in a ball around the unperturbed coupling function $\rho_0$ and uniformly in $E$ running over eigenvalues of $H_\rho$ in a fixed compact interval. This motivates the somewhat unorthodox formulation in Theorem \[Main-Nelson\]. The conditions (<span>**$\rho$3**</span>) and (<span>**$\rho$3'**</span>) come from a need of handling the double commutator $[[H_\rho,A_\delta],A_\delta]$. It is not a priori obvious that we should be able to place bound states in the domain of $A_\delta$ with control of just two commutators. In the context of regular Mourre theory the question is addressed in @CGH where the authors need three commutators to conclude a result of this type. In view of the infrared singularity, it is crucial to minimize the number of commutators needed. The following example illustrates that if one desires bound states to be in the domain of the $k$'th power of a conjugate operator, one needs at least control of $k+1$ commutators. \[RegExample\] Consider the one-dimensional Schr<span>ö</span>dinger operator $H=-\triangle +V$ on $\mathcal{H}=L^2({{\mathbb{R}}})$ given by a rank-one potential $V=|\phi\rangle \langle \phi|$ where $\phi \in \mathcal{H}$ obeys the following properties: Suppose that (in momentum space) $\hat \phi=\hat \phi_1+\hat \phi_2$, where $\hat \phi_1\in C^\infty_c(]-1,1[)$, $\hat\phi_2\in C^\infty(]1,\infty[)$ and for some $R>1$ the support ${\operatorname{supp}}\hat\phi_2\subseteq [1, R]$. Suppose there exists $\epsilon\in ]0,\tfrac12[$ such that for all $k\in {{\mathbb{N}}}\cup\{0\}$ $$\frac{{{\rm d}}^k}{{{\rm d}}\xi^k}\Big\{\hat{\phi}_2(\xi)-(\xi^2-1)^{k_0+\tfrac12+\epsilon}\Big\} =O\Big((\xi^2-1)^{k_0-k+\tfrac32+\epsilon}\Big)\textup{ as }|\xi|\searrow 1.$$ Finally suppose $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}|\hat \phi(\xi)|^2(\xi^2-1)^{-1}{{\rm d}}\xi=-1.$$ Then $\psi=(-\triangle-1)^{-1}\phi$ is a bound state (with eigenvalue $\lambda=1$). Let $A=\tfrac12(p\cdot x+x\cdot p)$ be the generator of dilations. We have $\phi\in {\mathcal{D}}(A^{k_0+1})$ and $\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}(A^{k_0})$, while indeed $\psi\notin {\mathcal{D}}(A^{k_0+1})$ (intuitively it should be expected that in fact $\psi\notin {\mathcal{D}}(\langle A\rangle ^{k_0+ \epsilon'})$ for $\epsilon'\geq\epsilon$). In Section \[Sec-AbstractResults\] our abstract regularity results are formulated. In the context of regular Mourre theory, as considered in @CGH, we need control of one less commutator, which given the example above is optimal. Singular Mourre Theory ---------------------- Consider the operator $M_\omega$ of multiplication in the momentum space $L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^d)$ by a dispersion relation $\omega$ assumed to be locally Lipschitz. The connection between dynamics and structure of the spectrum of a self-adjoint operator is fairly well understood, starting from Kato-smoothness and the RAGE theorem @RS. When looking for a conjugate operator, one should study the dynamics of the operator $M_\omega$. It is natural to identify what states have (at least) ballistic motion, that is find states $\psi_0$ satisfying $${\langle}x^2{\rangle}_{\psi_t} \geq c t^2,$$ for some $c>0$. Here $\psi_t = {{\rm exp}}(-{{\rm i}}t M_\omega)\psi_0$. The position operator $x$ is equal to ${{\rm i}}\nabla_k$. We can compute this quantity explicitly and we get $$\begin{aligned} {\langle}x^2{\rangle}_{\psi_t} & = {\langle}x^2{\rangle}_{\psi_0} + \int_0^t {\langle}x\cdot\nabla\omega + \nabla\omega\cdot x {\rangle}_{\psi_s}{{\rm d}}s\\ & = {\langle}x^2{\rangle}_{\psi_0} +t{\langle}x\cdot\nabla\omega + \nabla\omega\cdot x {\rangle}_{\psi_0} + t^2 {\langle}|\nabla\omega|^2{\rangle}_{\psi_0}.\end{aligned}$$ We observe that if $\psi_0$ has support away from zeroes of $\nabla\omega$, then the motion is at least ballistic. More precisely this is the case if $\mathrm{essinf}_{k\in{\operatorname{supp}}{\psi_0}} |\nabla \omega(k)|\geq c>0$. If $\omega = k^2$, the standard non-relativistic dispersion relation, we find that $\psi_0$ should be localized away from $0$ in momentum space. Since $|\nabla\omega|^2 = 4\omega$, the requirement on $\psi_0$ can also be expressed as $\psi_0\in E_{M_{\omega}}([c/4,\infty))L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^d)$, where $E_{M_\omega}$ denotes the spectral projections associated with the self-adjoint operator $M_\omega$. We observe that the energy $0$ has a special significance for the case $\omega= k^2$ and is called a threshold, in the sense that states localized in energy near a threshold may not have strict ballistic motion. A second example is $\omega =|k|$. Here we observe that $|\nabla\omega| = 1$, and hence all states $\psi_0$ will exhibit ballistic motion. In other words this dispersion relation does not have thresholds. This of course reflects the constant (momentum independent) speed of light. See @GGM1 [Subsection 1.2] for a discussion of general dispersion relations. When picking a conjugate operator in Mourre theory, one is precisely looking for an observable $a$ with at least ballistic growth. The choice often used is the Heisenberg derivative of $x^2$, where $x$ is some suitably chosen position observable. That is, one would naturally be lead to consider $$a = \frac12( x\cdot\nabla\omega + \nabla\omega\cdot x).$$ This is for example the case for the $N$-body problem, see e.g. @AHS [@Ca; @CGH; @HS], and in the case of field theory see @DG [@DJ; @FGSch1; @FGSch2; @GGM; @Sk], where the position is the Newton-Wigner position ${{\rm d}}\Gamma(x)$. The free energy is ${{\rm d}}\Gamma(M_\omega)$, and we get as conjugate operator $A = {{\rm d}}\Gamma(a)$, where $a$ is as above. It is often advantageous to modify the so obtained conjugate operator, to simplify proofs, or circumvent some technical issues. In this paper we need the modified generator of translations $A_\delta$ from @GGM in order to deal with the confined massless Nelson model, and more generally confined massless Pauli-Fierz models. There are two issues that come up naturally when following the above guidelines for massless field theory models, like the Nelson model. One is already apparent in the one-particle setup discussed above. If $\omega(k) = |k|$, the resulting conjugate operator $a$, the generator of radial translations, does not have a self-adjoint realization. This appears to be a purely technical complication, that becomes a serious issue when one is in need of localizations in the operator $a$. The operator is not normal, so we do not have spectral calculus at hand, only resolvents. This has so far not been a serious issue when dealing with the limiting absorption principle @DJ [@GGM; @HuSp; @HS; @Sk], and perturbation theory around an uncoupled system @DJ [@Go]. It does however become an obstacle when one tries to apply the conjugate operator $a$ in the context of scattering theory @G. In the present paper, non-self-adjointness of $a$ is also a serious obstacle, which we overcome, as in @G, by passing to a so called expanded Hamiltonian. The idea is to write $L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^d) \sim L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}_+)\otimes L^2(S^{d-1})$ and double the Hilbert space to $L^2({{\mathbb{R}}})\otimes L^2(S^{d-1})$. The dispersion relation in polar coordinates is just multiplication by $r$, which when extended linearly to negative $r$ gives rise to the self-adjoint conjugate operator ${{\rm i}}\partial/\partial r\otimes {\bbbone}$. We thus work with an expanded Hamiltonian, and in the end pull our results back to the physical Hamiltonian. The reader should keep this in mind when going through the abstract conditions in the following section. However passing to an expanded Hamiltonian is not a silver bullet, it comes with a price. The operator of multiplication by $r$ is no longer bounded from below, making it hard to utilize energy localizations. For this reason we have to develop an abstract theory which does not demand that any naturally occurring object can be controlled by the (expanded) Hamiltonian. The second feature we want to discuss does not occur on the one-particle level, but only after second quantization. The free commutator becomes $${{\rm i}}[{{\rm d}}\Gamma(|k|),A] = {\mathcal{N}},$$ where ${\mathcal{N}}$ is the number operator. In the standard (regular) commutator based methods, one typically has the commutator bounded at least as a form on ${\mathcal{D}}(H)$. (This is for example a consequence of a $C^1(A)$ assumption.) This is not the case here and we call such a situation *singular*. One could of course avoid this issue by observing that the operators involved conserve particle number, and then rescale $A$ by $1/n$ on the $n$-particle sector. However, perturbations are typically expressed in terms of field operators, and straying from second quantized conjugate operators give rise to terms from the commutator with the perturbation, that have so far not been controllable. The ${{\rm d}}\Gamma(|k|)$-unboundedness of the number operator, has led authors to use a different conjugate operator instead, namely the second quantized generator of dilation given by ${{\rm d}}\Gamma((x\cdot k+ k\cdot x)/2)$, normally associated with the dispersion relation $k^2$. Here the commutator with ${{\rm d}}\Gamma(|k|)$ is ${{\rm d}}\Gamma(|k|)$ itself, so the issue disappears. However, this choice induces an artificial threshold at photon energy $0$, which for a coupled system turns all eigenvalues of the atomic system into artificial thresholds. In order to circumvent this problem one can modify the generator of dilation by building the level shift from Fermi's golden rule into the conjugate operator. This was done in @BFSS and gives rise to positive relatively bounded commutators, at weak coupling. There are however disadvantages to this approach. It does not cover situations where symmetries may cause embedded eigenvalues to persist to second order in perturbation theory. For the $N$-body problem in quantum mechanics one can for example show that the underlying spectrum is absolutely continuous without a priori imposing Fermi's golden rule, which can then subsequently be established @AHS [@HS]. Works employing this choice of conjugate operator has, so far, not been able to address what happens outside the regime of weak coupling, which may be an issue since coupling constants typically are explicitly given numbers. In electron-photon models, the coupling constant involve the feinstructure constant $1/137$ and in electron-phonon models from solid state physics, the coupling constants occurring may even be of the order $1$. Effective coupling constants may also depend on an ultraviolet cutoff, thus imposing apparently artificial limitations on the size of the cutoff. Finally the restriction on the size of the coupling constant is always locally uniform in energy. That is, all statements of this type holds only below a fixed $E_0$. Papers employing the generator of dilation include @BFS [@BFSS; @FGS]. We remark that in @Go, the author modifies the generator of radial translation, as it was done in @BFSS for the generator of dilations, in order to establish Fermi's golden rule. We have no need for this construction since we follow the strategy of @AHS [@HS; @MS]. Instead of viewing the unboundedness of the first commutator with respect to ${{\rm d}}\Gamma(|k|)$ as a technical problem, one can also adopt the point of view that it is a feature of the model which can be exploited. This is most obviously done for small coupling constants, where one gets a positive commutator globally in energy, modulo a compact error. This was done in @DJ [@FGSch2; @Go; @Sk]. In @GGM the extra positivity of the commutator is directly utilized to prove a Mourre estimate at arbitrary coupling constant, the first (and so far only) such result for massless models. Another piece of information one can extract is that the number operator has finite expectation in bound states. This was done in @Sk for small coupling constants and generally in @GGM. A more subtle property is that one can obtain a stronger limiting absorption principle, see @GGM1 [@MS], which has so far not found an application. Here we prove in particular that bound states are in the domain of the number operator, not just in its form domain. We have not discussed positive temperature models, where one has a similar situation, except that so far no positive commutator estimates at arbitrary coupling has been proven, regardless of choice of conjugate operator. See e.g. @FM and references therein. The AC–Stark model {#The AC--Stark model} ------------------ The model describes a system of $N$ charged particles in a nonzero time-periodic Stark-field with zero mean (AC-Stark field). The particles are here taken three-dimensional and we assume that the field is $1$-periodic and, for simplicity, that it is continuous i.e. that $\tilde {\mathcal{E}}\in C([0,1];{{\mathbb{R}}}^3)$. The Hamiltonian is of the form $$\label{eq:57} \tilde h(t)=\sum_{i=1}^{N }{ \big ( \tfrac{ p_i^2}{2m_i}-q_i\tilde {\mathcal{E}}(t)\cdot x_i\big )}+V;$$ here $x_i$, $m_i$ and $q_i$ are the position, the mass and the charge of the <span>*i*</span>'th particle, respectively, and $p_i=-{{\rm i}}\nabla_{x_i}$ is its momentum. The potential is of the form $$\label{eq:58} V=\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq N}v_{ij}(x_i-x_j),$$ where the pair-potentials obey \[cond:ac-stark-model23\] Let $k_0\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ be given. For each pair $(i,j)$ the pair-potential $ {{\mathbb{R}}}^3 \ni y\to v_{ij}(y) \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$ splits into a sum $v_{ij}=v_{ij}^1+v_{ij}^2$ where 1. \[item:4ib\]Differentiability: $v_{ij}^1\in C^{k_0+1}({{\mathbb{R}}}^3)$ and $v_{ij}^2\in C^{k_0+1}({{\mathbb{R}}}^3\setminus\{0\})$. 2. \[item:5ib\] Global bounds: For all $\alpha$ with $|\alpha|\leq k_0+1$ there are bounds $|y|^{|\alpha|}\,|\partial^\alpha_yv_{ij}^1(y)|\leq C$. 3. \[item:6ib\] Decay at infinity: $|v_{ij}^1(y)| + |y\cdot\nabla_y v_{ij}^1(y)|=o(1)$. 4. \[item:7ib\]Local singularity: $v_{ij}^2$ is compactly supported and for all $\alpha$ with $|\alpha|\leq k_0+1$ there are bounds $|y|^{|\alpha|+1}\,|\partial^\alpha_yv_{ij}^2(y)|\leq C$; $y\neq 0$. In the above conditions, the letter $\alpha$ denotes multiindices. Note that and with $v_{ij}(y)=q_iq_j|y|^{-1}$ conform with Condition \[cond:ac-stark-model23\] for any $k_0$. Introducing the inner product $x\cdot y=\sum_i2m_ix_i\cdot y_i$ for $x=(x_1,\dots,x_N)$, $y=(y_1,\dots,y_N)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{3N}$ we can split $${{\mathbb{R}}}^{3N}=X_{\rm CM}\oplus X;\; X_{\rm CM}=\big\{x\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^{3N}\big| \,x_1=\cdots =x_N\big\}.$$ There is a corresponding splitting $$\tilde{h}(t) = h_{\text{CM}}(t)\otimes I + I\otimes h(t), \qquad\text{on }L^2(X_{\rm CM})\otimes L^2(X),$$ where $$h_{\text{CM}}(t) = p^2_{\rm CM} - {\mathcal{E}}_{\text{CM}}(t)\cdot x,{\text{ and }}h(t) = p^2 - {\mathcal{E}}(t)\cdot x + V.$$ Here $${\mathcal{E}}_{\text{CM}} =\frac{Q}{2M}\big(\tilde{{\mathcal{E}}},\dots,\tilde{{\mathcal{E}}} \big) {\text{ and }}{\mathcal{E}}= \left(\Big(\frac{q_1}{2m_1}-\frac{Q}{2M}\Big)\tilde{{\mathcal{E}}},\dots, \Big(\frac{q_N}{2m_N}-\frac{Q}{2M}\Big)\tilde{{\mathcal{E}}}\right),$$ where $Q=q_1+\cdots+q_N$ and $M=m_1+\cdots + m_N$ are the total charge and mass of the system, respectively. In the special case where all the particles have identical charge to mass ratio, we see that the center of mass Hamiltonian is just an ordinary time-independent $N$-body Hamiltonian. Otherwise the Hamiltonian $h(t)$ depends non-trivially on the time-variable $t$. We denote by $\tilde U(t,s)$, $U_{\text{CM}}(t,s)$ and $U(t,s)$ the dynamics generated by $\tilde h(t)$, $ h_{\text{CM}}(t)$ and $ h(t)$, respectively, and observe that $$\tilde{U}(t,s) = U_{\text{CM}}(t,s)\otimes U(t,s).$$ We shall address spectral properties of the <span>*monodromy operator*</span> U(1,0). Note that this is a unitary operator on $L^2(X)$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be the set of all cluster partitions $a = \{C_1,\dots, C_{\#a}\}$, $1\leq \#a\leq N$, each given by splitting the set of particles $\{1,\dots, N\}$ into non-empty disjoint clusters $C_i$. The spaces $X_a$, $a\in{\mathcal{A}}$, are the spaces of configurations of the $\#a$ centers of mass of the clusters $C_i$ (in the center of mass frame). The complement $$X^a = X^{C_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus X^{C_{\#a}}$$ is the space of relative configurations within each of the clusters $C_i$. More precisely $$X^{C_i} = \big\{x\in X \big| x_j=0, j\notin C_i\big\}{\text{ and }}X_a = \big\{x\in X \big| k,l\in C_i \Rightarrow x_k=x_l\big\}.$$ We will write $x^a$ and $x_a$ for the orthogonal projection of a vector $x$ onto the subspace $X^a$ and its orthogonal complement respectively. Notice the natural ordering on ${\mathcal{A}}$: $a\subset b$ if and only if any cluster $C\in a$ is contained in some cluster $C^\prime\in b$. Clearly the minimal and maximal elements are $ a_{\rm min}= \{(1),\dots,(N)\}$ and $ a_{\rm max}=\{(1,\dots,N)\}$, respectively. Any pair $(i,j)$ defines an $N-1$ cluster decomposition $(ij)\in {\mathcal{A}}$ by letting $C=\{i,j\}$ constitute a cluster and all others being one-particle clusters. For each $a\neq a_{\rm max}$ the sub-Hamiltonian monodromy operator is $U^a(1,0)$; it is defined as the monodromy operator on ${\mathcal{H}}^a=L^2(X^a)$ constructed for $a\neq a_{\rm min}$ from $h^a=(p^a)^2- {\mathcal{E}}(t)^a\cdot x^a +V^a$, $V^a=\sum_{(ij)\subset a} v_{ij}(x_i-x_j)$. If $a= a_{\mathrm{min}}$ we define $U^a(1,0)={\bbbone}$ (implying $\sigma_{\mathrm{pp}}(U^{a_{\mathrm{min}}}(1,0)) = \{1\}$). The condition $\int_0^1{\mathcal{E}}(t){{\rm d}}t=0$ leads to the existence of a unique $1$-periodic function $b$ such that $$\tfrac{{{\rm d}}}{{{\rm d}}t}b(t)={\mathcal{E}}(t){\text{ and }}\int_0^1\,b(t){{\rm d}}t=0.$$ The set of <span>*thresholds*</span> is $$\label{eq:52la} {\mathcal{F}}(U(1,0)) = \bigcup_{a\neq a_{\rm max}} {{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}\alpha_a}\sigma_{\rm pp}(U^a(1,0));\; \alpha_a=\int_0^1\,|b(t)_a|^2{{\rm d}}t.$$ We recall from @MS that the set of thresholds is closed and countable, and non-threshold eigenvalues, i.e. points in $\sigma_{\rm pp}(U(1,0))\backslash {\mathcal{F}}(U(1,0))$, have finite multiplicity and can only accumulate at the set of thresholds. Moreover any corresponding bound state is exponentially decaying, the singular continuous spectrum $\sigma_{\rm sc}(U(1,0)) = \emptyset$ and there are integral propagation estimates for states localized away from the set of eigenvalues and away from ${\mathcal{F}}(U(1,0))$. These properties are known under Condition \[cond:ac-stark-model23\] with $k_0=1$. For completeness of presentation we mention that some of the results of @MS hold under more general conditions, in particular the exponential decay result does not require that the Coulomb singularity of each pair-potential (if present) is located at the origin (this applies to Born-Oppenheimer molecules in an AC-Stark field). Letting $$\label{eq:59} A(t)=\tfrac12 { \big ( x\cdot (p-b(t))+(p-b(t))\cdot x\big )},$$ and using a different frame, we prove in Section \[AC–Stark model\] \[thm:ac-stark-type2dd\] Suppose Conditions \[cond:ac-stark-model23\], for some $k_0\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$. Let $\phi$ be a bound state for $U(1,0)$ pertaining to an eigenvalue ${{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}\lambda}\notin {\mathcal{F}}(U(1,0))$. Then 1. \[item:8\] $\phi\in {\mathcal{D}}(A(1)^{k_0})$ where $A(t)$ is given by . 2. \[item:9\] If for all pairs $(i,j)$ the term $v_{ij}^2=0$ then $\phi\in {\mathcal{D}}(|p|^{k_0+1})$. The result (\[item:8\]) is new for $k_0>1$ while it is essentially contained in @MS for $k_0=1$, see @MS [Proposition 8.7 (ii)]. We remark that the highest degree of smoothness known in general in the case $v_{ij}^2\neq 0$ is $\phi\in{\mathcal{D}}(|p|)$, cf. @MS [Theorem 1.8]. This holds without the non-threshold condition. The result (\[item:9\]) overlaps with @KY [Theorem 1.2]. This is for $N=2$ and "$k_0=\infty$". Assumptions and Statement of Regularity Results {#Sec-AbstractResults} =============================================== For a self-adjoint operator $A$ on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$, we will make use of the $C^1(A)$ class of operators. This class consists a priori of bounded operators $B$ with the property that $[B,A]$ extends from a form on ${\mathcal{D}}(A)$ to a bounded form on ${\mathcal{H}}$. The class is (consistently) extended to self-adjoint operators $H$, by requiring that $(H-z)^{-1}$ is of class $C^1(A)$, for some (and hence all) $z\in\rho(H)$, the resolvent set of $H$. We will use the notation $H\in C^1(A)$ to indicate that an operator $H$ is of class $C^1(A)$. If $H$ is of class $C^1(A)$ then ${\mathcal{D}}(H)\cap{\mathcal{D}}(A)$ is dense in ${\mathcal{D}}(H)$ and the form $[H,A]$ extends by continuity from the form domain ${\mathcal{D}}(H)\cap{\mathcal{D}}(A)$ to a bounded form on ${\mathcal{D}}(H)$. The extension is denoted by $[H,A]^0$, and is also interpreted as an element of ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{D}}(H),{\mathcal{D}}(H)^*)$. If in addition $[H,A]^0$ extends by continuity to an element of ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{D}}(H),{\mathcal{H}})$, then we say it is of class $C^1_{\mathrm{Mo}}(A)$. Note that being of class $C^1_{\mathrm{Mo}}(A)$ is equivalent to having the conditions of Mourre @Mo satisfied for the first commutator. See @GG. \[cond:condition\] Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ be a complex Hilbert space. Suppose there are given some self-adjoint operators $H, A$ and $N$ as well as a symmetric operator $H'$ with ${\mathcal{D}}(H')={\mathcal{D}}(N)$. Suppose $N\geq {\bbbone}$. Let $R(\eta)=(A-\eta)^{-1}$ for $\eta\in {{\mathbb{C}}}\setminus{{\mathbb{R}}}$. 1. \[item:2i0a\] The operator $N$ is of class $C^1_{\mathrm{Mo}}(A)$. We abbreviate $N^\prime={{\rm i}}[N,A]^0$. 2. \[item:2\] The operator $N$ is of class $C^1(H)$, and there exists $0<\kappa\leq \frac12$ such that the commutator obeys $$\label{eq:20} {{\rm i}}[N,H]^0\in {\mathcal{B}}(N^{-\frac12+\kappa}{\mathcal{H}},N^{\frac12-\kappa}{\mathcal{H}}).$$ 3. \[item:2i0ue\]There exists a (large) $\sigma> 0$ such that for all $\eta\in {{\mathbb{C}}}$ with $|{{\rm Im}\,}\eta|\geq \sigma$ we have as a form on ${\mathcal{D}}(H)\cap {\mathcal{D}}(N^{1/2})$ $$\label{eq:1commu} {{\rm i}}[H, R(\eta)]=-R(\eta)H'R(\eta).$$ (Here it should be noticed that $N^{-1/2}H'N^{-1/2}$ and $N^{\mp1/2}R(\eta)N^{\pm1/2}$ are bounded if $\sigma$ is large enough, cf. Remark \[RemarkTo1\] 1).) 4. \[item:1\] The commutator form ${{\rm i}}[H',A]$ defined on ${\mathcal{D}}(A)\cap{\mathcal{D}}(N)$ extends to a bounded operator $$\label{eq:5o} H'':={{\rm i}}[H',A]^0\in {\mathcal{B}}(N^{-\frac12}{\mathcal{H}},N^{\frac12}{\mathcal{H}}).$$ \[cond:virial\] There are constants $C_1,C_2,C_3\in {{\mathbb{R}}}$ such that as a form on ${\mathcal{D}}(H)\cap {\mathcal{D}}(N^{1/2})$ $$\label{eq:virial} N\leq C_1H+C_2H'+C_3{\bbbone}.$$ \[cond:mourre\] For a given $\lambda\in {{\mathbb{R}}}$ there exist $c_0>0$, $C_4\in {{\mathbb{R}}}$, $f_\lambda\in C_c^\infty({{\mathbb{R}}})$ with $0\leq f_\lambda\leq 1$ and $f_\lambda=1$ in a neighborhood of $\lambda$, and a compact operator $K_0$ on ${\mathcal{H}}$ such that as a form on ${\mathcal{D}}(H)\cap {\mathcal{D}}(N^{1/2})$ $$\label{eq:Mourre} H'\geq c_0{\bbbone}- C_4f^{\bot}_\lambda(H)^2{\langle}H{\rangle}- K_0.$$ Here $f^{\bot}_\lambda:=1-f_\lambda$. \[RemarkTo1\] 1) It follows from Condition \[cond:condition\] (\[item:2i0a\]) and an argument of Mourre @Mo [Proposition II.3], that there exists $\sigma>0$ such that for $|{{\rm Im}\,}\eta|\geq \sigma$ we have $(A-\eta)^{-1}:{\mathcal{D}}(N)\subseteq{\mathcal{D}}(N)$ and $(A-\eta)^{-1}{\mathcal{D}}(N)$ is dense in ${\mathcal{D}}(N)$. By interpolation the same holds with $N$ replaced by $N^\alpha$, $0<\alpha<1$, cf. Lemma \[Lemma-StrongLimits\] below. 2) From Condition \[cond:condition\] (\[item:2\]) and Lemma \[HN1\] it follows that $N^{1/2}$ is of class $C^1_{\mathrm{Mo}}(H)$. In particular ${\mathcal{D}}(H)\cap {\mathcal{D}}(N^{1/2})$ is dense in ${\mathcal{D}}(N^{1/2})$. 3) Combining the above two remarks with Condition \[cond:condition\] (\[item:2i0ue\]) and , we find that given $H$, $A$ and $N$, there can at most be one $H'$ such that Condition \[cond:condition\] (\[item:2i0a\]), (\[item:2\]), and (\[item:2i0ue\]) are satisfied. 4) We remark that in practice we work with the weaker commutator estimate $$\label{Eq-WeakMourre} H'\geq c_0{\bbbone}-{{\rm Re}\,}\{B(H-\lambda)\} - K_0,$$ where $B=B(\lambda)$ is a bounded operator, with $B{\mathcal{D}}(N^{1/2})\cup B^*{\mathcal{D}}(N^{1/2})\subseteq{\mathcal{D}}(N^{1/2})$. The one in Condition \[cond:mourre\] is however more standard. To see that Condition \[cond:mourre\] implies the above bound choose $B = C_4 f_\lambda^\perp(H)^2\langle H \rangle(H-\lambda)^{-1}$ which under our Condition \[cond:condition\] satisfies the requirements on $B$ by Lemma \[lemma:HN\]. We call $H'$ the <span>*first derivative*</span> of $H$. Similarly $H''$ is the <span>*second derivative*</span> of $H$. The estimate (\[eq:virial\]) is called the <span>*virial estimate*</span>, while (\[eq:Mourre\]) is the <span>*Mourre estimate*</span> at $\lambda$. \[thm:mainresult\] Suppose Conditions \[cond:condition\], \[cond:virial\] and \[cond:mourre\], and let $\psi$ be a bound state, $(H-\lambda)\psi=0$ (with $\lambda$ as in Condition \[cond:mourre\]), obeying $$\label{eq:34} \psi \in {\mathcal{D}}(N^{\frac12}).$$ Then $\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}(A)$ and $A\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}( N^{1/2})$. By imposing assumptions on higher-order commutators between $H$ and $A$ we obtain a higher-order regularity result. For this we need the following condition, which coincides with Condition \[cond:condition\] (\[item:1\]) if $k_0=1$, but for $k_0\geq 2$ it is stronger. \[cond:conditioni\] There exists $k_0\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ such that the commutator forms ${{\rm i}}^\ell{{\operatorname{ad}}}_A ^\ell(H')$ defined on $ {\mathcal{D}}(A)\cap{\mathcal{D}}(N)$, $\ell=0,\dots, k_0$, extend to bounded operators $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:5oi} &{{\rm i}}^\ell{{\operatorname{ad}}}_A^\ell(H')\in {\mathcal{B}}(N^{-1}{\mathcal{H}},{\mathcal{H}});\;\ell=0,\dots,k_0-1.\\ &{{\rm i}}^{k_0}{{\operatorname{ad}}}_A^{k_0}(H')\in {\mathcal{B}}(N^{-\frac12}{\mathcal{H}},N^\frac12{\mathcal{H}}). \label{eq:5oim} \end{aligned}$$ We have the following extension of Theorem \[thm:mainresult\] to include higher orders \[thm:mainresulti\] Suppose Conditions \[cond:condition\]–\[cond:mourre\] and Condition \[cond:conditioni\], and let $\psi$ be a bound state, $(H-\lambda)\psi=0$ (with $\lambda$ as in Condition \[cond:mourre\]), obeying . Let $k_0$ be given as in Condition \[cond:conditioni\]. Then $\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}(A^{k_0})$, and for $k=1,\dots,k_0$ the states $A^k\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}(N^{1/2})$. It should be noted that under the assumptions imposed in Theorem \[thm:mainresult\] and Theorem \[thm:mainresulti\], it is crucial that $N^{1/2}$ is applied *after* the powers of $A$. The following result requires an additional assumption, and allows for arbitrary placement of $N^{1/2}$ amongst the at most $k_0$ powers of $A$. The new condition below is a generalization of Condition \[cond:condition\] (\[item:2i0a\]). \[cond:vir21\] Let $N'$ be given as in Condition \[cond:condition\] (\[item:2i0a\]). There exists $k_0\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ such that the commutator forms ${{\rm i}}^\ell{{\operatorname{ad}}}_A ^\ell(N')$ defined on $ {\mathcal{D}}(A)\cap{\mathcal{D}}(N)$, $\ell=0,\dots, k_0-1$, extend to bounded operators $$\label{eq:5oioo} {{\rm i}}^\ell {{\operatorname{ad}}}_A^\ell(N') \in {\mathcal{B}}(N^{-1}{\mathcal{H}},{\mathcal{H}});\;\ell=0,\dots,k_0-1.$$ Moreover there exists $\kappa_1>0$ such that the commutators (initially defined as forms on ${\mathcal{D}}(N)$) $$\label{eq:5oiooa} {{\rm i}}\,{{\operatorname{ad}}}_N \big( {{\rm i}}^\ell {{\operatorname{ad}}}_A^\ell (N')\big) \in {\mathcal{B}}(N^{-1}{\mathcal{H}},N^{1-\kappa_1}{\mathcal{H}});\;\ell=0,\dots,k_0-1.$$ We have \[cor:assumpt-stat-regul\]Suppose Conditions \[cond:condition\]–\[cond:mourre\], \[cond:conditioni\] and \[cond:vir21\] (with the same $k_0$ in Conditions \[cond:conditioni\] and \[cond:vir21\]). Let $\psi\in{\mathcal{D}}(N^{1/2})$ be a bound state, $(H-\lambda)\psi=0$ (with $\lambda$ as in Condition \[cond:mourre\]). For any $k,\ell\geq0$, with $k+\ell \leq k_0$, we have $\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}(A^k N^{1/2} A^\ell)$. We end with the following improvement of Theorem \[thm:mainresult\], which concludes in addition that bound states are in the domain of $N$. It requires the added assumption , with $k_0=1$. \[thm:mainresultk=1\] Suppose Conditions \[cond:condition\]–\[cond:mourre\] and for $k_0=1$, and let $\psi\in{\mathcal{D}}(N^{1/2})$ be a bound state $(H-\lambda)\psi=0$ (with $\lambda$ as in Condition \[cond:mourre\]). Then $\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}(N)$, the states $\psi, N^{1/2}\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}(A)$ and $A\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}( N^{1/2})$. In Subsection \[subsec-MoreNReg\] we in fact prove an extension of the above theorem, to include higher order estimates in $N$. These are applied in Section \[AC–Stark model\] to many-body AC-Stark Hamiltonians. \[remark:assumpt-stat-regul\] 1) \[item:1a0\] The condition that $N\geq {\bbbone}$ is imposed partly for convenience of formulation. Obviously one can obtain a version of the above results upon imposing only that $N$ is bounded from below (upon "translating" $N\to N+C\geq {\bbbone}$ at various points in the above conditions). 2) \[item:1a\] The 'standard' or 'regular' Mourre theory, considered for example in @CGH, fits in the semi-bounded case into the above scheme so that Theorem \[thm:mainresulti\] holds. In fact (assuming here for simplicity that $H$ is bounded from below) we have $N:=H+C\geq {\bbbone}$ for a sufficiently large constant $C$. Use this $N$ and the same 'conjugate operator' $A$ in Conditions \[cond:condition\] – \[cond:mourre\], \[cond:conditioni\] and \[cond:vir21\]. Note also that the standard Mourre estimate at energy $\lambda$ reads $$\label{eq:Mourrestand} f_\lambda(H){{\rm i}}[H,A]^0 f_\lambda(H)\geq c_0'f_\lambda^2(H) - K_0';\;c_0'>0, \;K_0'\textup{ compact}.$$ From we readily conclude with $c_0= c_0'/2$, $K_0=K_0'$ an a suitable constant $C_4\geq 0$. Although we shall not elaborate we also remark that the method of proof of Theorem \[thm:mainresulti\] essentially can be adapted under the conditions of the standard Mourre theory, in fact only a simplified version is needed. Whence although we can not literately conclude from Theorem \[thm:mainresulti\] in the general non-semi-bounded case the result $\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}(A^{k_0})$ is still valid given standard conditions on repeated commutators ${{\rm i}}^k {{\operatorname{ad}}}_A^k(H)$ for $k\leq {k_0+1}$. 3) \[item:1b\] Theorem \[thm:mainresulti\] does <span>*not* </span> hold with one less commutator in Condition \[cond:conditioni\]. Alternatively, under the conditions of Theorem \[thm:mainresulti\] it is in general <span>*false* </span> that the bound state $\psi\in{\mathcal{D}}(A^{k_0+1})$. Based on considerations for discrete eigenvalues this statement may at a first thought appear surprising. See Example \[RegExample\]. Compared to @CGH our method works with one less commutator, cf. \[item:1a\]), although the overall scheme of ours and the one of @CGH are similar. 4) \[item:1bll\] The proofs of Theorems \[thm:mainresult\] and \[thm:mainresulti\], Corollary \[cor:assumpt-stat-regul\] and Theorem \[thm:mainresultk=1\] are constructive in that they yield explicit bounds. Precisely, if we have a positive lower bound of the constant $c_0$ in that is uniform in $\lambda$ belonging to some fixed compact interval $I$ as well as uniform bounds of the absolute value of the constants $C_1,\dots,C_4$ of and (uniform in the same sense) and similarly for all possible operator norms related to Conditions \[cond:condition\], \[cond:conditioni\] and \[cond:vir21\] (and the $B(\lambda)$ in Remark \[RemarkTo1\] if it is used) then there are bounds of the form, for example, $$\|N^{\frac12}A^k\psi\|\leq C \|N^{\frac12}\psi\|;\;C=C(k,I, K_0);$$ here $K_0=K_0(\lambda)$ is the compact operator of and $k\leq k_0$. Similar bounds are valid for the states $A^k N^{1/2}A^\ell\psi$ of Corollary \[cor:assumpt-stat-regul\] and for the state $N\psi$ of Theorem \[thm:mainresultk=1\]. In the context of perturbation theory typically $I$ will be a small interval centered at some (unperturbed) embedded eigenvalue $\lambda_0$ and $K_0=K_0(\lambda_0)$. Whence the constant will depend only on the interval. For various models one can verify the condition for all bound states $\psi$ by a 'virial argument', cf. @GGM [@MS; @Sk], along with a similar bound $$\|N^{\frac12}\psi\|\leq C (I)\|\psi\|.$$ This virial argument is in a concrete situation related to the virial estimate (\[eq:virial\]). Clearly the above bounds can be used in combination, and this is precisely how we in Section \[sec\_models\] arrive at the Theorems \[Main-Nelson\] and \[Main-NelsonPrime\]. In @MW the case of regular Mourre theory is considered where the derivation of the bounds is simpler, and care is taken to derive good explicit bounds, which in particular are independent of any proof technical constructions. The bounds are good enough to formulate a reasonable condition on the growth of norms of multiple commutators which ensures that bound states are analytic vectors with respect to $A$. Preliminaries {#Preliminaries} ============= In this section we establish basic consequences of Conditions \[cond:condition\], and introduce a calculus of almost analytic extensions taylored to avoid issues with $(A-\eta)^{-1}$, when $|{{\rm Im}\,}\eta|$ is small. Improved Smoothness for Operators of Class $C^1(A)$ --------------------------------------------------- For an operator $N$ of class $C^1(A)$ not much in the way of regularity can be expected, beyond the $C^1(A)$ property itself, and its equivalent formulations. See @ABG [@GGM1]. Often one requires some additional smoothness properties to manipulate and estimate expressions in the two operators. The typical way of achieving improved smoothness is to impose conditions on ${{\rm i}}[N,A]^0$ stronger than what is implied by the $C^1(A)$ property itself. This is what is done in Condition \[cond:condition\] (\[item:2i0a\]) and (\[item:2\]). This subsection is devoted primarily to the extraction of improved smoothness properties of the pair of operators $N,H$, afforded to us by Conditions \[cond:condition\]. \[HN0\] Let $N\geq {\bbbone}$ be of class $C^1(H)$ with $$[N,H]^0\in {\mathcal{B}}(N^{-1/2}{\mathcal{H}},N^{1/2}{\mathcal{H}}).$$ For any $\alpha\in ]0,1[$, the operator $N^\alpha$ is of class $C^1(H)$. Let $0<\alpha<1$. It suffices to check for one $\eta\in \rho(N^\alpha)$ that $(N^\alpha-\eta)^{-1}$ is of class $C^1(H)$. To this end we pick $\eta=0$, and use the representation formula $$\label{eq:26} N^{-\alpha} = c_\alpha\int_0^\infty t^{-\alpha} (N+t)^{-1}{{\rm d}}t, \ \ c_\alpha = \frac{\sin(\alpha \pi)}{\pi}.$$ Since $N\in C^1(H)$ we have for all $t>0$ that the operator $(N+t)^{-1}$ preserves ${\mathcal{D}}(H)$. In fact $$\label{eq:29} [H,(N+t)^{-1}]\phi=(N+t)^{-1} [N,H]^0(N+t)^{-1}\phi;\;\phi\in {\mathcal{D}}(H).$$ By combining and we can compute $[N^{-\alpha},H]$ considered as a form on ${\mathcal{D}}(H)$ as $$\label{eq:30} [N^{-\alpha},H]=c_\alpha \int_0^\infty t^{-\alpha}( N +t)^{-1}[N,H]^0(N+t)^{-1}{{\rm d}}t.$$ Notice that the integral is absolutely convergent for any $0<\alpha<1$. This completes the proof. \[HN1\] Assume $N\geq {\bbbone}$ and $H$ satisfy Condition \[cond:condition\] (\[item:2\]) and let $\alpha\in ]0,1[$. Then $N^\alpha\in C^1(H)$ and for $\tau_1,\tau_2\geq 0$, with $$\max\{0,\tfrac12-\kappa-\tau_1\} + \max\{0,\tfrac12-\kappa-\tau_2\} < 1-\alpha,$$ we have $[N^\alpha,H]^0\in {\mathcal{B}}(N^{-\tau_1}{\mathcal{H}},N^{\tau_2}{\mathcal{H}})$. In particular $N^{1/2}$ is of class $C^1_{\mathrm{Mo}}(H)$. That $N^\alpha\in C^1(H)$ follows from Lemma \[HN0\]. We compute as a form on ${\mathcal{D}}(N^\alpha)\cap{\mathcal{D}}(H)$ $$\label{eq:30ny} [N^\alpha,H] = c_{\alpha} \int_0^\infty t^\alpha(N + t)^{-1} [N,H]^0 (N+t)^{-1}{{\rm d}}t,$$ where we have used the strongly convergent integral representation formula $$\label{Eq-Thomas} N^\alpha = c_{\alpha} \int_0^\infty t^\alpha\big(t^{-1} - (N+t)^{-1}\big){{\rm d}}t,$$ which follows from (\[eq:26\]). We thus get for $\tau_1,\tau_2\geq 0$ $$\begin{aligned} |\langle\psi, [N^\alpha,H]\varphi\rangle|& \leq & C \int_0^\infty t^{\alpha} \|(N+t)^{-1} N^{\frac12-\kappa-\tau_1}\|\|(N+t)^{-1} N^{\frac12-\kappa-\tau_2}\|{{\rm d}}t\\ & & \ \ \times \|N^{\tau_1}\psi\| \|N^{\tau_2}\varphi\|.\end{aligned}$$ The integrand is of the order $O(t^{\alpha -2 + \theta})$, with $\theta = \max\{0,\frac12-\kappa-\tau_1\}+\max\{0,\frac12-\kappa-\tau_2\}$. It is integrable provided $\theta < 1-\alpha$, which proves the lemma. We shall need a boundedness result: \[lemma:HN\] Assume $N\geq {\bbbone}$ and $H$ satisfy Condition \[cond:condition\] (\[item:2\]) and let $\alpha\in ]0,1/2+\kappa[$. Suppose $f\in C^\infty ({{\mathbb{R}}})$ is given such that $${\frac{{{\rm d}}^k}{ {{\rm d}}t^k}}f(t)=O\big ({ \langle t\rangle}^{-k}\big );\;k=0,1,\dots$$ Then $$\label{eq:19} N^\alpha f(H) N^{-\alpha}\in{\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{H}}).$$ Let $\rho\in ]0,1/2+\kappa[$, where $0<\kappa\leq 1/2$ comes from Condition \[cond:condition\] (\[item:2\]). From Lemma \[HN1\] applied with $\tau_1=\max\{0,\rho-\kappa\}$ and $\tau_2 = 0$, we get $$\label{Nalphacomm} [N^{\rho},H]^0\in {\mathcal{B}}(N^{-\max\{0,\rho-\kappa\} }{\mathcal{H}},{\mathcal{H}}).$$ We recall from @Mo [Proposition II.3] that if an operator ${\widetilde{N}}$ is of class $C^1_{\mathrm{Mo}}(H)$, then $$\begin{aligned} &\exists \sigma>0: \ |{{\rm Im}\,}\eta|\geq \sigma\Rightarrow (H-\eta)^{-1}\textup{ preserves } {\mathcal{D}}({\widetilde{N}}) {\text{ and }}\nonumber \\ & {\widetilde{N}}(H-\eta)^{-1}\psi=(H-\eta)^{-1}{\widetilde{N}}\psi\label{eq:32}\\ &+{{\rm i}}(H-\eta)^{-1}{{\rm i}}[{\widetilde{N}}, H]^0 (H-\eta)^{-1}\psi\textup{ for all }\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}({\widetilde{N}}).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ We apply this to ${\widetilde{N}}= N^\rho$, $0<\rho<1/2+\kappa$. The assumption is satisfied by (\[Nalphacomm\]). We shall show a representation formula for the special case $f(x) =f_\eta(x) =(x-\eta)^{-1}$ with $v={{\rm Im}\,}\eta\neq 0$. Now fix $\alpha\in ]0,1/2+\kappa[$. Using (\[Nalphacomm\]) and (\[eq:32\]), multiple times with $\rho=\alpha-j\kappa$, we obtain for $|{{\rm Im}\,}\eta|$ sufficiently large and for all $\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}(N^{\alpha})$ $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber &N^{\alpha}(H-\eta)^{-1}\psi-(H-\eta)^{-1}N^{\alpha}\psi\label{eq:33}\\ &=\sum^{n}_{j=1} \big((H-\eta)^{-1}B_1\big)\cdots \big( (H-\eta)^{-1}B_j\big)(H-\eta)^{-1}N^{\alpha-j\kappa}\psi\\ \nonumber & \ \ + \big((H-\eta)^{-1}B_1\big)\cdots \big((H-\eta)^{-1}B_n\big)\big((H-\eta)^{-1} B_{n+1}\big)(H-\eta)^{-1}\psi,\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ is the biggest natural number for which $\alpha-n\kappa>0$ and the $B_j$'s are bounded and independent of $\eta$. Next by analytic continuation we conclude that (\[eq:33\]) is valid for all $\eta\in {{\mathbb{C}}}\setminus {{\mathbb{R}}}$. Hence we have verified the adjoint version of (\[eq:19\]) for $f =f_\eta$; $v\neq 0$. We shall now show in general. Define a new function by $h(t) = f(t)(t+{{\rm i}})^{-1}$, and let $\tilde{h}$ denote an almost analytic extension of $h$ such that (using the notation $\eta = u+ {{\rm i}}v$) $$\forall n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}:\ |\bar{\partial}\tilde{h}(\eta)| \leq C_n { \langle \eta\rangle}^{-n-2} |v|^n.$$ We shall use the representation $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:13} \nonumber f(H) & = \frac1{\pi}\int_{{{\mathbb{C}}}} ({{\bar\partial}}\tilde{h})(\eta)(H-\eta)^{-1}(H+{{\rm i}}){{\rm d}}u\, {{\rm d}}v\\ & = \frac1{\pi}\int_{{{\mathbb{C}}}} ({{\bar\partial}}\tilde{h})(\eta)\big({\bbbone}+(\eta+{{\rm i}})(H-\eta)^{-1}\big){{\rm d}}u\, {{\rm d}}v,\end{aligned}$$ which should be read as a strong integral on ${\mathcal{D}}(H)$. We multiply by $N^{\alpha}$ and $N^{-\alpha}$ from the left and from the right, respectively. Inserting (\[eq:33\]) we conclude the lemma. Observe that $N^{-\alpha}$ being $C^1(H)$ preserves ${\mathcal{D}}(H)$. It will be important to work with the following 'regularization' operators, cf. @Mo: Let for any given self-adjoint operator $\tilde A$ and any positive operator $\tilde N$ $$\label{eq:5} I_n(\tilde A)=-{{\rm i}}n (\tilde A-{{\rm i}}n)^{-1}{\text{ and }}I_{{{\rm i}}n}(\tilde N)= n (\tilde N+n)^{-1};\;n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}.$$ In particular we shall use $I_n(A)$ in conjunction with , $I_n(H)$ in conjunction with (\[eq:1commu\]), (\[eq:virial\]) and (\[eq:Mourre\]), while $I_{{{\rm i}}n}(N)$ will be used in conjunction with (\[eq:20\]). \[Lemma-StrongLimits\] Assume the pairs $N,A$ and $N,H$ satisfy Conditions \[cond:condition\] (\[item:2i0a\]) and (\[item:2\]) respectively. Then $$\begin{aligned} \label{strongI1} & {{\rm s-}\lim}_{n\to\infty} N^{\frac12} I_n(H) N^{-\frac12} = {\bbbone}\\ \label{strongI2} & {{\rm s-}\lim}_{n\to\infty} N I_n(A)N^{-1} = {\bbbone}\\ \label{strongI3} & {{\rm s-}\lim}_{n\to\infty} N^\frac12 I_n(A)N^{-\frac12} = {\bbbone}.\end{aligned}$$ Observe first that ${{\rm s-}\lim}I_n(A) = {\bbbone}$ and ${{\rm s-}\lim}A(A-{{\rm i}}n)^{-1}=0$, and similarly with $A$ replaced by $H$. The statements and now follows from (\[eq:32\]) and boundedness of the operators $[N^{1/2},H]^0 N^{-1/2}$ and $[N,A]^0 N^{-1}$. This argument appears also in @Mo. As for we observe first that $N(I_n(A)-{\bbbone})N^{-1}$ is bounded uniformly in $n$. By interpolation the same holds true for $N^{1/2}(I_n(A)-{\bbbone})N^{-1/2}$. The result now follows from observing that the result holds true strongly on the dense set ${\mathcal{D}}(N^{1/2})$ by . We end with a small technical remark \[IntersectionDense\] Suppose $N$ and $H$ are as in Lemma \[HN0\] and $0\leq \alpha<1$. Then ${\mathcal{D}}(H)\cap {\mathcal{D}}(N)$ is dense in ${\mathcal{D}}(H)\cap {\mathcal{D}}(N^\alpha)$ in the intersection topology. To see this let $\psi\in{\mathcal{D}}(H)\cap {\mathcal{D}}(N^\alpha)$. Then $\psi_n= I_{{{\rm i}}n}(N)\psi\in{\mathcal{D}}(H)\cap {\mathcal{D}}(N)$ since $N$ is of class $C^1(H)$. We claim that $\psi_n\to \psi$ in ${\mathcal{D}}(H)\cap {\mathcal{D}}(N^\alpha)$. Obviously $N^\alpha\psi_n\to N^\alpha\psi$, so it remains to consider $$H\psi_n = I_{{{\rm i}}n}(N) H\psi + \sqrt{\frac{N}{n}}I_{{{\rm i}}n}(N)\big(N^{-\frac12}[N,H]^0N^{-\frac12}\big) \sqrt{\frac{N}{n}} I_{{{\rm i}}n}(N) \psi.$$ As in the proof above, the last term goes to zero and the first term converges to $H\psi$ proving the claim. Iterated commutators with $N^{1/2}$ ----------------------------------- We address here the following question. Supposing Condition \[cond:condition\] and is satisfied for some $k_0\geq 1$. One could reasonably assume that $N^{1/2}$ is also of class $C^1_{\mathrm{Mo}}(A)$ and admits $k_0$ iterated $N^{1/2}$-bounded commutators. We have however not been able to establish this, but making the additional assumption we answer the question in the affirmative below. This permits us to deduce Corollary \[cor:assumpt-stat-regul\] from Theorem \[thm:mainresulti\]. The reader primarily interested in Theorem \[thm:mainresulti\] may skip this subsection. We begin with a technical lemma. Let $q\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$ and ${{\underline{\ell}}}\in ({{\mathbb{N}}}\cap\{0\})^q$, with $0\leq \ell_j < k_0$ for all $j=1,\dots,q$. We abbreviate $N^\prime_m = {{\rm i}}^{m}{{\operatorname{ad}}}_A^{m}(N^\prime)$, which is the iteratively defined $N$-bounded operator from . Let for $t\geq 0$ and $q, {{\underline{\ell}}}$ as above $$\label{Bqldef}4 B_q^{{\underline{\ell}}}(t) = t^\frac12\Big(\prod_{j=1}^q (N+t)^{-1} N^\prime_{\ell_j}\Big)(N+t)^{-1}.$$ Observe that $B_q^{{\underline{\ell}}}(t)$ is bounded for all $t$. Indeed it satisfies the bound $B_q^{{\underline{\ell}}}(t) = O(t^{-1/2})$ and is thus not norm integrable. However if $\varphi\in {\mathcal{D}}(N)$ we have $B_q^{{\underline{\ell}}}(t)\varphi = O(t^{-3/2})$. The extra assumption allows us to prove \[Lemma-N12Int\] Suppose Condition \[cond:condition\] and Condition \[cond:vir21\]. For any $q\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, ${{\underline{\ell}}}\in({{\mathbb{N}}}\cup\{0\})^q$ (with $0\leq \ell_j <k_0$ as above) and $\varphi\in{\mathcal{D}}(N)$ the map $t\to B_q^{{\underline{\ell}}}(t)\varphi$ is integrable and there exist constants $C_q^{{\underline{\ell}}}$ such that $$\Big\|\int_0^\infty B_q^{{\underline{\ell}}}(t)\varphi\, {{\rm d}}t \Big\|\leq C_q^{{\underline{\ell}}}\|N^{\frac12}\varphi\|.$$ We only have to prove the bound on the strong integral, since we already discussed strong integrability. We begin by analyzing the leftmost factors in $B_q^{{\underline{\ell}}}(t)$, namely the $N$-bounded operator $(N+t)^{-1}N_{\ell_1}^\prime$. We compute strongly on ${\mathcal{D}}(N)$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{LeftFactor} \nonumber (N+t)^{-1}N_{\ell_1}^\prime & = \big(N_{\ell_ 1}^\prime N^{-1}\big) N (N+t)^{-1}\\ \nonumber & \ \ \ -(N+t)^{-1}N\big(N^{-1}[N,N_{\ell_1}^\prime]N^{-1+\kappa_1}\big) N^{1-\kappa_1}(N+t)^{-1}\\ & = \big(N_{\ell_1}^\prime N^{-1}\big) N (N+t)^{-1} + O(t^{-\kappa_1}).\end{aligned}$$ The contribution to the integral $\int_0^\infty B_q^{{\underline{\ell}}}(t)N^{-1/2}{{\rm d}}t$ coming from the last term is $O(t^{-1-\kappa_1})$ and hence norm-integrable. If $q=1$ we can now finish the argument because the contribution to the integral coming from the first term on the right-hand side of is $$\big(N_{\ell_1}^\prime N^{-1}\big) t^\frac12(N+t)^{-2} N,$$ which on the domain of $N$ integrates to the $N^{1/2}$-bounded operator $ c N_{\ell_1}^\prime N^{-1/2}$, for some $c\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$. If $q>1$ we write $N(N+t)^{-1} = {\bbbone}-t(N+t)^{-1}$. We can now bring out the next term $N_{\ell_2}^\prime$, and again the commutators with $(N+t)^{-1}$ give norm-integrable contributions. Repeating this procedure successively until all the terms $N_{\ell_ j}^\prime$ are brought out to the left yields the formula $$B_q^{{\underline{\ell}}}(t) = \Big(\prod_{j=1}^q N_{\ell_j}^\prime N^{-1}\Big) t^\frac12({\bbbone}-t(N+t)^{-1})^{q-1}(N+t)^{-2} N + O(t^{-1-\kappa_1})N^\frac12.$$ We compute, by a change of variables, $$\int_0^\infty t^\frac12({\bbbone}-t(N+t)^{-1})^{q-1}(N+t)^{-2}\, {{\rm d}}t = c^\prime N^{-\frac12},$$ for some $c^\prime\in {{\mathbb{R}}}$. This implies the lemma. \[Prop-CommN12\] Assume Condition \[cond:condition\] and Condition \[cond:vir21\]. Then $N^{1/2}$ is of class $C^1_{\mathrm{Mo}}(A)$ and the iterated commutators ${{\rm i}}^p {{\operatorname{ad}}}_A^p (N^{1/2})$, $p\leq k_0$, extends from ${\mathcal{D}}(A)\cap {\mathcal{D}}(N^{1/2})$ to $N^{1/2}$-bounded operators. We already know from Lemma \[HN0\] that $N^{1/2}$ is of class $C^1(A)$. Hence we only need to establish that the iterated commutator forms extend to $N^{1/2}$-bounded operators. Recall also that ${\mathcal{D}}(A)\cap{\mathcal{D}}(N)$ is dense in ${\mathcal{D}}(A)\cap{\mathcal{D}}(N^{1/2})$, cf. Remark \[IntersectionDense\], which implies that it suffices to show that the iterated commutator forms extend from ${\mathcal{D}}(A)\cap{\mathcal{D}}(N)$ to $N^{1/2}$-bounded operators. By
{'source': 'arXiv_out/1006'}