, ,

Let

Ω \subset \subset C^{n}

be a smoothly bounded domain. Suppose that

p \in b Ω

is a point in the boundary of

Ω

, and that

b Ω

is pseudoconvex near

p

. We shall show that the existence of a certain family of functions near the boundary point

p

implies that a subelliptic estimate for the

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann operator holds near that point.

The

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann operator

N_{p, q}

is the inverse of the complex Laplacian

\bar{\partial} \bar{\partial} ◆ + \bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial}

for

(p, q)

-forms. Establishing the existence of the

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann operator leads to a particular solution of the Cauchy-Riemann equations, but just in the

L^{2}

-sense. Thus one is not just interested in the existence of such an

L^{2}

-solution

u

for given data

f

, but one is also interested in the kind of regularity statements that can be made about

u

when

f

is regular; for notation and details on the

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann problem see section 2 .

On domains with certain geometric conditions on the boundary, the question of existence of a solution to the

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann problem was settled through the works of Hörmander [H¨r] , Kohn [Koh1, Koh2] and Morrey [Mor] . In fact,Hörmander's results in [H¨r] imply that there exists a bounded operator

N_{p, q}

L_{p, q}^{2} (Ω)

, which inverts the complex Laplacian under the assumption that

Ω

is a bounded, pseudoconvex domain. In the following, we will be concerned only with the local regularityquestion for the

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann problem, i.e. conditions on

Ω

which imply that

u : = N_{p, q} f

is smooth wherever

f

is. A fundamental step concerning thisquestion was done by Kohn and Nirenberg. They showed in [Koh-Nir] that, ifa so-called subelliptic estimate of order

ε

holds for the

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann problemon a neighborhood

V

of a given point

p

b Ω

, then

f_{|_{V}} \in H_{p, q}^{s} (V)

implies

N_{p, q} f_{|_{V^{'}}} \in H_{p, q}^{s + 2 ε} (V^{'})

for

V^{'} \subset \subset V

; here

H_{p, q}^{s}

denotes the

L^{2}

-Sobolev space of order

s

(p, q)

-forms. Thus it is natural to inquire about subellipticestimates for the

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann problem. Denote by

D^{p, q} (V \cap \bar{Ω})

the set of smooth

(p, q)

-forms

u

, which are supportedin

V \cap \bar{Ω}

, such that

u

belongs to the domain of

\bar{\partial} ◆

. A subelliptic estimateof order

ε > 0

near

p \in b Ω

is said to hold, if

\begin{matrix} | | | u | | |_{ε}^{2} \leq C (∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥^{2}) for all u \in D^{p, q} (V \cap \bar{Ω}), \end{matrix}

(1.1)

where the norm on the left hand side is the tangential

L^{2}

-Sobolev norm oforder

ε

. The most general result concerning subelliptic estimates for the

\bar{\partial}

-Neumannproblem was obtained by Catlin [Cat] . He showed that the existence of acertain, uniformly bounded family of functions

{λ δ}

on a pseudoconvexdomain is sufficient for a subelliptic estimate to hold. Moreover, Catlinproved that one can construct such a family of functions on any smoothlybounded, pseudoconvex domain, which is of finite type in the sense ofD'Angelo [D'An] . We extend Catlin's sufficiency result by replacing the boundedness conditionon the weight functions

λ δ

with that of self-bounded complex gradient, aweaker condition which allows unbounded families of functions. This notionwas introduced by McNeal in [McN2] .

Definition 1.2. Let

Ω \subset \subset C^{n}

be a smoothly bounded domain. Aplurisubharmonic function

φ \in C^{2} (Ω)

is said to have a self-boundedcomplex gradient, if there exists a constant

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial φ}{\partial z_{k}} (z) ξ_{k} |^{2} \leq C \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} φ}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} (z) ξ_{k} {\bar{ξ}}_{l} \end{matrix}

(1.3)

holds for all

ξ \in C^{n}

z \in Ω

. We write

| \partial φ |_{i \partial \bar{\partial} φ} \leq \sqrt{C}

when we mean ( 1.3 ).

Notice that, if

λ \in C^{2} (Ω)

is plurisubharmonic and bounded, then

φ = e^{λ}

has a self-bounded complex gradient with

C = {sup}_{z \in Ω} e^{λ (z)}

. Furthermore, notice the behavior of inequality ( 1.3 ) under scaling; replacing

φ

t φ

for

t > 0

, the left hand side of ( 1.3 ) is quadratic in

t

, while the right hand side is linear in

t

The main result in this paper is the following:

Theorem 1.4. Let

Ω \subset \subset C^{n}

be a smoothly bounded domain. Let

p

be a given point in

b Ω

and suppose that

b Ω \cap U

is pseudoconvex, where

U

is a neighborhood of

p

. Denote by

S δ

the set

{z \in Ω | - δ < r (z) < 0}

, where

r

is a fixed, smooth defining function of

Ω

. Assume that for all

δ > 0

sufficiently small there exists a plurisubharmonic function

φ δ \in C^{2} (\bar{Ω} \cap U)

, such that

(i) $| \partial φ δ |_{i \partial \bar{\partial} φ δ}^{2} \leq C$ , where the constant $C > 0$ is independent of $δ$ ,

(ii) for all smooth

(p, q)

-forms u,

z \in S δ \cap U

and for some

ε \in (0, \frac{1}{2}]

\begin{matrix} \sum'_{| I | = p, | J | = q - 1} \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} φ δ}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} (z) u_{I, k J} {\bar{u}}_{I, l J} \geq c δ^{- 2 ε} | u |^{2}, \end{matrix}

where the constant

c > 0

does not depend on

δ

u

Then there exists a neighborhood

V \subset \subset U

p

such that a subelliptic estimate of order

ε

holds.

The only difference between Theorem 1.4 and Catlin's sufficiency result is that we substituted the uniform boundedness condition on

{λ δ}

by condition (i). The existence of Catlin's family of functions

{λ δ}

implies the existence of the above family

{φ δ}

by setting

φ δ = e^{λ δ}

. One reason, however, to generalize the Theorem of Catlin is to establish sharper subelliptic estimates in various geometric situations.

The uniform boundedness of

{λ δ}

is crucial for Catlin's proof as it lets him transform estimates with weights of the form

e^{- λ δ}

into unweighted estimates. Families of functions which have a self-bounded complex gradient are in general not uniformly bounded, and so Catlin's proof does not work.

However, McNeal found a duality argument in [McN2] , which allows one to pass to unweighted estimates from estimates with weights, when the weight functions have a self-bounded complex gradient.

The paper is structured as follows. In section 2 we review briefly the setting of the

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann problem. In section 3 we derive two weighted

L^{2}

-inequalities, which are specific for weights having a self-bounded complex gradient. Using those inequalities we obtain two versions of compactness estimates on

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}

and

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q + 1}

in section 4 . In section 5 we convert these compactness estimates to a family of

L^{2}

-estimates in terms of the Dirichlet form. With those estimates at hand we complete the proof of Theorem 1.4 in section 6 . In the last section we consider an example domain to see how the functions

{φ δ}

can be constructed.

I am deeply indebted to J.D. McNeal for his support and encouragement.

I have enjoyed and greatly benefitted from our discussions during the last years.

2 Preliminaries

Let

Ω \subset \subset C^{n}

be a smoothly bounded domain, i.e.

Ω

is bounded and there is a smooth function

r

such that

Ω = {z \in C^{n} | r (z) < 0}

and

\nabla r \neq 0

whenever

r = 0

Let

0 \leq p, q \leq n

. We write an arbitrary

(p, q)

-form

u

\begin{matrix} u = \sum'_{| I | = p, | J | = q} u_{I, J} d z^{I} \land d {\bar{z}}^{J}, \end{matrix}

(2.1)

where

I = {i_{1}, . . ., i_{p}}

J = {j_{1} . . ., j_{q}}

and

d z^{I} = d z^{i_{1}} \land \cdot \cdot \cdot \land d z^{i_{p}}

d {\bar{z}}^{J} = d {\bar{z}}^{j_{1}} \land \cdot \cdot \cdot \land d {\bar{z}}^{j_{q}}

. Here

\sum^{'}

means that we only sum over strictly increasing index sets. We define the coefficients

u_{I, J}

for arbitrary index sets

I

and

J

, so that the

u_{I, J}

's are antisymmetric functions of

I

and

J

Let

Λ^{p, q} (\bar{Ω})

and

Λ_{c}^{p, q} (Ω)

denote the

(p, q)

-forms with coefficients in

C^{\infty} (\bar{Ω})

and

C_{c}^{\infty} (Ω)

, respectively. We use the pointwise inner product

〈 ., . 〉

defined by

〈 d z^{k}, d z^{l} 〉 = δ_{l}^{k} = 〈 d {\bar{z}}^{k}, d {\bar{z}}^{l} 〉

. By linearity we extend this inner product to

(p, q)

-forms. The global

L^{2}

-inner product on

Ω

is defined by

\begin{matrix} (u, v)_{Ω} = \int_{Ω} 〈 u, v 〉 d V, \end{matrix}

where

d V

is the euclidean volume form. The

L^{2}

-norm of a

u \in Λ_{c}^{p, q} (Ω)

Ω

is then given by

∥ u ∥_{Ω}^{2} = (u, u)_{Ω}

and we define

L_{p, q}^{2} (Ω)

to be the completion of

Λ_{c}^{p, q} (Ω)

under the

L^{2}

-norm; we drop the subscript

Ω

, when there is no reason for confusion.

φ \in C^{2} (\bar{Ω})

, we denote by

L_{p, q}^{2} (Ω, φ)

the space of

(p, q)

-forms

u

such that

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ∥_{φ, Ω}^{2} = (u, u)_{φ, Ω} : = ∥ u e^{- \frac{φ}{2}} ∥_{Ω}^{2} = \int_{Ω} 〈 u, u 〉 e^{- φ} d V < \infty . \end{matrix}

Notice that the weighted

L^{2}

-space,

L_{p, q}^{2} (Ω, φ)

, equals

L_{p, q}^{2} (Ω)

Let

u \in Λ^{p, q} (\bar{Ω})

, then the

\bar{\partial}

-operator is defined as

\begin{matrix} {\bar{\partial}}_{p, q} u = \bar{\partial} u : = \sum'_{| I | = p, | J | = q} \sum_{k = 1}^{n} {\bar{\partial}}_{k} u_{I, J} d {\bar{z}}^{k} \land d z^{I} \land d {\bar{z}}^{J}, \end{matrix}

where

{\bar{\partial}}_{k} : = \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bar{z}}_{k}}

, and

u

is expressed as in ( 2.1 ). Observe that

{\bar{\partial}}^{2} = 0

. We extend the differential operator

\bar{\partial}

, still denoted by

\bar{\partial}

, to act on non-smooth forms in the sense of distributions. Then, by restricting the domain of

\bar{\partial}

to those forms

g \in L_{p, q}^{2} (Ω)

, where

\bar{\partial} g

in the distributional sense belongs to

L_{p, q + 1}^{2} (Ω)

\bar{\partial}

becomes an operator on Hilbert spaces at each form level.

Note that

\bar{\partial}

is a densely defined operator on

L_{p, q}^{2} (Ω)

, since the compactly supported forms

Λ_{c}^{p, q} (Ω)

are in

Dom (\bar{\partial})

. Moreover,

\bar{\partial}

is a closed operator, because differentiation is a continuous map in the distributional sense.

Thus we can define the Hilbert space adjoint,

\bar{\partial} ◆

, to

\bar{\partial}

with respect to the

L^{2}

-inner product on the appropriate form level in the usual way:

we say that

u \in L_{p, q + 1}^{2} (Ω)

belongs to the domain of

\bar{\partial} ◆

, i.e.

u \in Dom (\bar{\partial} ◆)

, if there exists a constant

C > 0

so that

\begin{matrix} | (\bar{\partial} w, u) | \leq C ∥ w ∥ holds for all w \in Dom (\bar{\partial}) . \end{matrix}

(2.2)

By the Riesz representation theorem it follows, that, if

u \in Dom (\bar{\partial} ◆)

, there exists a unique

v \in L_{p, q}^{2} (Ω)

, such that

\begin{matrix} (w, v) = (\bar{\partial} w, u) \end{matrix}

holds for all

w \in Dom (\bar{\partial})

; we write

\bar{\partial} ◆ u

for

v

. This reveals that certain boundary conditions must hold on any smooth

(p, q + 1)

-form, which belongs to

Dom (\bar{\partial} ◆)

. In fact, one can show that

u \in D^{p, q + 1} (Ω) : = Dom (\bar{\partial} ◆) \cap Λ^{p, q + 1} (\bar{Ω})

holds if and only if

\begin{matrix} \sum_{k = 1}^{n} u_{I, k J} \frac{\partial r}{\partial z_{k}} = 0 on b Ω \end{matrix}

for all

I

and

J

which are strictly increasing index sets of length

p

and

q

, respectively. Here,

r

is a defining function of

Ω

The Hilbert space adjoint,

\bar{\partial} ◆ φ

, to

\bar{\partial}

with respect to the

L^{2} (Ω, φ)

-inner product is defined by

\bar{\partial} ◆ φ = e^{φ} \bar{\partial} ◆ e^{- φ}

. In view of ( 2.2 ) it is easy to see that

Dom (\bar{\partial} ◆) = Dom (\bar{\partial} ◆ φ)

holds.

Now we are ready to formulate the

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann problem. It is the following:

given

f \in L_{p, q}^{2} (Ω)

, find

u \in L_{p, q}^{2} (Ω)

such that the following holds

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} (\bar{\partial} \bar{\partial} ◆ + \bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial}) u = f \\ u \in Dom (\bar{\partial}) \cap Dom (\bar{\partial} ◆) \\ \bar{\partial} u \in Dom (\bar{\partial} ◆), \bar{\partial} ◆ u \in Dom (\bar{\partial}) \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(2.3)

The complex Laplacian,

□_{p, q} : = \bar{\partial} \bar{\partial} ◆ + \bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial}

, is itself elliptic, but the boundary conditions, which are implied by membership to

Dom (\bar{\partial} ◆)

, are not.

The ellipticity of

□_{p, q}

implies that G

\overset{˚}{a}

rding's inequality holds in the interior of

Ω

, i.e.

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ∥_{1}^{2} ≲ ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥^{2} for u \in Λ_{c}^{p, q} (Ω), \end{matrix}

(2.4)

where

∥ . ∥_{1}

denotes the usual

L^{2}

-Sobolev

1

-norm. We remark, though, ( 2.4 ) does not hold for general

u \in D^{p, q} (Ω)

. However, a substitute estimate, ( 2.5 ) below, does hold for

u \in D^{p, q} (Ω)

Let

p \in b Ω

. We may choose a neighborhood

U

p

and a local coordinate system

(x_{1}, \dots, x_{2 n - 1}, r) \in R^{2 n - 1} \times R

, such that the last coordinate is a local defining function of the boundary. Call

(U, (x, r))

a special boundary chart.

We shall denote the dual variable of

x

ξ

, and define

〈 x, ξ 〉 : = \sum_{j = 1}^{2 n - 1} x_{j} ξ_{j}

For

f \in C_{c}^{\infty} (U \cap \bar{Ω})

we define the tangential Fourier transform of

f

\begin{matrix} \tilde{f} (ξ, r) : = \int_{R^{2 n - 1}} e^{- 2 π i 〈 x, ξ 〉} f (x, r) d x . \end{matrix}

Via the tangential Bessel potential

Λ_{t}^{s}

of order

s

\begin{matrix} (Λ_{t}^{s} f) (x, r) : = \int_{R^{2 n - 1}} e^{2 π i 〈 x, ξ 〉} (1 + | ξ |^{2})^{\frac{s}{2}} \tilde{f} (ξ, r) d ξ, \end{matrix}

we can define the tangential

L^{2}

-Sobolev norm of

f

of order

s

\begin{matrix} | | | f | | |_{s}^{2} : = ∥ Λ_{t}^{s} f ∥^{2} = \int_{- \infty}^{0} \int_{R^{2 n - 1}} (1 + | ξ |^{2})^{s} | \tilde{f} (ξ, r) |^{2} d ξ d r . \end{matrix}

A subelliptic estimate of order

ε > 0

holds if there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | | | u | | |_{ε}^{2} \leq C ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

(2.5)

for

u \in D^{p, q} (Ω)

supported near the boundary point

p

From here on, we restrict our considerations to

(0, q)

-forms. The system ( 2.3 ) does not see the

d z

's and the general case for

(p, q)

-forms can be derived easily. For notational ease we shall write

u_{J}

, instead of

u_{0, J}

, for the components of a

(0, q)

-from

u

. We shall denote the Dirichlet form associated to

□_{0, q}

as usual by

Q (., .)

, i.e.

Q (u, v) : = (\bar{\partial} u, \bar{\partial} v) + (\bar{\partial} ◆ u, \bar{\partial} ◆ v)

for

u, v \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

For quantities

A

and

B

we use the notation

| A | ≲ | B |

to mean

| A | \leq C | B |

for some constant

C > 0

, which is independent of relevant parameters. It will be specifically mentioned or clear from the context, what those parameters are. Furthermore, we call the elementary inequality

| A B | \leq η A^{2} + \frac{1}{4 η} B^{2}

for

η > 0

the (sc)-(lc) inequality.

3 Basic estimates

In this section, we derive two basic weighted inequalities for forms in

D^{0, q} (Ω)

. We will make extensive use of these inequalities in our proof of subellipticity. Our starting point is the following Proposition 3.1 , which has been derived by McNeal in [McN2] .

Proposition 3.1. Let

Ω \subset \subset C^{n}

be a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain, and suppose that

φ \in C^{2} (\bar{Ω}) \cap P S H (Ω)

. If

| \partial φ |_{i \partial \bar{\partial} φ} \leq 1

, then

\begin{matrix} \frac{1}{2} \sum'_{| I | = q - 1} \int_{Ω} \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} φ}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} u_{k I} {\bar{u}}_{l I} e^{- 2 φ} d V \leq ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + 3 ∥ {\bar{\partial}}_{φ}^{◆} u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} \end{matrix}

(3.2)

holds for all

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

We remark that inequality ( 3.2 ) is one of the key points leading to the subelliptic estimate. In fact, this inequality will be used in section 4 enabling us to obtain “good” estimates near the boundary. In the following, we derive a G

\overset{˚}{a}

rding-like weighted inequality. This inequality is also crucial as it will give us “good” estimates in the interior.

Proposition 3.3. Let

Ω \subset \subset C^{n}

be a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain, and suppose that

φ \in C^{2} (\bar{Ω}) \cap P S H (Ω)

satisfies

| \partial φ |_{i \partial \bar{\partial} φ} \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{24}}

Then for all

u \in Λ_{c}^{0, q} (Ω)

, it holds that

\begin{matrix} ∥ u e^{- φ} ∥_{1}^{2} ≲ ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2}, \end{matrix}

(3.4)

where

∥ . ∥_{1}

denotes the

L^{2}

-Sobolev

1

-norm on

Ω

For the proof of Proposition 3.3 we need to introduce the Hodge-Star Operator

◆

, that is the map

◆ : Λ^{p, q} (\bar{Ω}) ⟶ Λ^{n - p, n - q} (\bar{Ω})

defined by

ψ \land ◆ φ = 〈 ψ, φ 〉 d V

for

ψ, φ \in Λ^{p, q} (\bar{Ω})

. The basic properties of the Hodge-Star Operator are summarized in the following lemma.

Lemma 3.5.

(i) $◆ ◆ = (- 1)^{p + q} id$ on $Λ^{p, q} (\bar{Ω})$ ,
(ii) $| φ | = | ◆ φ |$ for $φ \in Λ^{p, q} (\bar{Ω})$ , where $| φ |^{2} = 〈 φ, φ 〉$ ,
(iii) $\bar{\partial} ◆ = - ◆ \bar{\partial} ◆$ on $Λ_{c}^{p, q} (\bar{Ω})$ .

A proof of Lemma 3.5 can be found in [Che-Sha] , chapter 9.

Proof of Proposition 3.3 . Let

u \in Λ_{c}^{0, q} (\bar{Ω})

. By G

\overset{˚}{a}

rding's inequality ( 2.4 ), we have

\begin{matrix} ∥ u e^{- φ} ∥_{1}^{2} ≲ ∥ \bar{\partial} (u e^{- φ}) ∥^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ (u e^{- φ}) ∥^{2} = ∥ \bar{\partial} (u e^{- φ}) ∥^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Thus we just need to consider the term

∥ \bar{\partial} (u e^{- φ}) ∥^{2}

. For that define

v \in Λ_{c}^{n, n - q} (\bar{Ω})

v = ◆ u

. Here we denote the coefficients of

v

v_{J}

for

| J | = n - q

. Then, by Lemma 3.5 and commuting, it follows

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} (u e^{- φ}) ∥^{2} & = & ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ (v e^{- φ}) ∥^{2} ≲ ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ v ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + ∥ [\bar{\partial} ◆, φ] v ∥_{2 φ}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & ∥ - ◆ \bar{\partial} ◆ v ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + \sum'_{| J | = n - q - 1} ∥ \sum_{l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial φ}{\partial z_{l}} v_{l J} ∥_{2 φ}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + \sum'_{| J | = n - q - 1} \int_{Ω} \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} φ}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} v_{k J} {\bar{v}}_{l J} e^{- 2 φ} d V, \end{matrix}

where the last step follows from

φ

having a self-bounded complex gradient.

Note that

v \in D^{n, n - q} (Ω)

, since

v

is identically zero on the boundary of

Ω

Hence we can apply inequality ( 3.2 ):

\begin{matrix} \sum'_{| J | = n - q - 1} \int_{Ω} \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} φ}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} v_{k J} {\bar{v}}_{l J} e^{- 2 φ} d V \leq 2 ∥ \bar{\partial} v ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + 6 ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ v ∥_{2 φ}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Since

| \partial φ |_{i \partial \bar{\partial} φ} \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{24}}

, it follows that

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ v ∥_{2 φ}^{2} & \leq & 2 ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ v ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + 2 ∥ [\bar{\partial} ◆, φ] v ∥_{2 φ}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & 2 ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ v ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + 2 \sum'_{| J | = n - q - 1} ∥ \sum_{l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial φ}{\partial z_{l}} v_{l J} ∥_{2 φ}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & 2 ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ v ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + \frac{1}{12} \sum'_{| J | = n - q - 1} \int_{Ω} \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} φ}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} v_{k J} {\bar{v}}_{l J} e^{- 2 φ} d V . \end{matrix}

Thus we obtain

\begin{matrix} \sum'_{| J | = n - q - 1} \int_{Ω} \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} φ}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} v_{k J} {\bar{v}}_{l J} e^{- 2 φ} d V & \leq & 4 ∥ \bar{\partial} v ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + 24 ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ v ∥_{2 φ}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & 4 ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + 24 ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} \end{matrix}

where the second line holds by Lemma 3.5 . So we are left with estimating the term

∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2}

. As before, we just need to commute:

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} & ≲ & ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + ∥ [\bar{\partial} ◆, φ] u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} = ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + \sum'_{| I | = q - 1} ∥ \sum_{l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial φ}{\partial z_{l}} u_{l I} ∥_{2 φ}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + \sum'_{| I | = q - 1} \int_{Ω} \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} φ}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} u_{k I} {\bar{u}}_{l I} e^{- 2 φ} d V, \end{matrix}

which, again, follows by the self-bounded complex gradient condition of

φ

To finish we use inequality ( 3.2 ) again, that is

\begin{matrix} \sum'_{| I | = q - 1} \int_{Ω} \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} φ}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} u_{k I} {\bar{u}}_{l I} e^{- 2 φ} d V ≲ ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Collecting all our estimates, we obtain

∥ u e^{- φ} ∥_{1}^{2} ≲ ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} for u \in Λ_{c}^{0, q} (\bar{Ω}) .

□

Since the

L^{2}

-Sobolev

1

-norm dominates the

L^{2}

-norm, ( 3.4 ) implies that

\begin{matrix} ∥ u e^{- φ} ∥^{2} ≲ ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} \end{matrix}

holds for all

u \in Λ_{c}^{0, q} (Ω)

. In the following, we show that this inequality is in fact true for all

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

Proposition 3.6. Let

Ω \subset \subset C^{n}

be a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain, and suppose that

φ \in C^{2} (\bar{Ω}) \cap P S H (Ω)

satisfies

| \partial φ |_{i \partial \bar{\partial} φ} \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}

Then for

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

it holds that

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} ≲ ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} . \end{matrix}

(3.7)

Proof. Set

ψ_{t} (z) = φ (z) + t | z |^{2}

for

t > 0

. Then

ψ_{t}

is strictly plurisubharmonic, since for

ξ \in C^{n}

z \in Ω

it holds

\begin{matrix} \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} ψ_{t}}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} (z) ξ_{k} {\bar{ξ}}_{l} = \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} φ}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} (z) ξ_{k} {\bar{ξ}}_{l} + t | ξ |^{2} . \end{matrix}

Moreover, we observe that

\begin{matrix} | \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial ψ_{t}}{\partial z_{k}} (z) ξ_{k} |^{2} \leq 2 | \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial φ}{\partial z_{k}} (z) ξ_{k} |^{2} + 2 t^{2} | z |^{2} | ξ |^{2} . \end{matrix}

Since

Ω

is a bounded domain, we can choose a

t > 0

, such that

24 t | z |^{2} \leq 1

holds for all

z \in Ω

. Then

| \partial ψ_{t} |_{i \partial \bar{\partial} ψ_{t}} \leq 1

, and thus inequality ( 3.2 ) holds for

ψ_{t}

. That is

\begin{matrix} \frac{1}{2} \sum'_{| I | = q - 1} \int_{Ω} \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} ψ_{t}}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} u_{k I} {\bar{u}}_{l I} e^{- 2 ψ_{t}} d V \leq ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 ψ_{t}}^{2} + 3 ∥ {\bar{\partial}}_{ψ_{t}}^{◆} u ∥_{2 ψ_{t}}^{2} \end{matrix}

Note that

e^{- 2 t | z |^{2}}

is bounded from above by

1

and that

φ

is plurisubharmonic on

Ω

. Hence it follows that

\begin{matrix} \frac{1}{2} \int_{Ω} t | u |^{2} e^{- 2 ψ_{t}} d V & \leq & ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + 3 ∥ {\bar{\partial}}_{ψ_{t}}^{◆} u ∥_{2 ψ_{t}}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + 6 ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + 6 ∥ [\bar{\partial} ◆, (t | z |^{2})] u ∥_{2 ψ_{t}}^{2} . \end{matrix}

By our choice of

t

we can estimate the last term

\begin{matrix} 6 ∥ [\bar{\partial} ◆, (t | z |^{2})] u ∥_{2 ψ_{t}}^{2} = 6 \sum'_{| I | = q - 1} ∥ \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial (t | z |^{2})}{\partial z_{k}} u_{k I} ∥_{2 ψ_{t}}^{2} \leq \frac{1}{4} t ∥ u ∥_{2 ψ_{t}}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Therefore it holds that

\begin{matrix} \frac{1}{4} \int_{Ω} t | u |^{2} e^{- 2 ψ_{t}} \leq ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} + 6 ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} \end{matrix}

Since

e^{- t | z |^{2}}

is bounded from below on

Ω

, our claim follows. □

4 Estimates for $\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}$

By a compactness estimate for

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}

we mean the following: for all

η > 0

there exists a

C (η) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} α ∥ ≲ η ∥ α ∥ + C (η) ∥ α ∥_{- s} \end{matrix}

(4.1)

for all

α \in L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω)

. Here

∥ . ∥_{- s}

s > 0

, denotes the

L^{2}

-Sobolev norm of order

- s

. The constant in

≲

does depend on

s

but not on

α

η

C (η)

The family of estimates ( 4.1 ) is equivalent to

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}

being a compact operator from

L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω)

L_{0, q - 1}^{2} (Ω)

; for a proof see for instance [McN2] . We remark that for compactness of

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}

it is sufficient to establish ( 4.1 ) for

\bar{\partial}

-closed forms

α \in L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω)

, see [McN2] .

In this section, we derive with the aid of our weighted estimates from section 3 two versions of compactness estimates for

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}

. We start out with a quantified version of ( 4.1 ), i.e. we describe

C (η)

for each

η

Since the weight functions

{φ δ}

are just defined on

Ω \cap U

, where

U

is a neighborhood of a given

p \in b Ω

(see hypotheses in Theorem 1.4 ), we need to restrict our considerations to an approximating subdomain of

Ω

, which lies in

U

Proposition 4.2. Suppose that

Ω \subset C^{n}

is a smoothly bounded domain. Let

p

be a point in

b Ω

and suppose that

b Ω \cap U

is pseudoconvex, where

U

is a neighborhood of

p

. Then there exists a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain

Ω a \subset Ω \cap U

with

Ω a \subset \subset U

satisfying the following properties

(1) $b Ω \cap b Ω a$ contains a neighborhood of $p$ in $b Ω$ ,
(2) all points in $b Ω a \ b Ω$ are strongly pseudoconvex.

A proof of Proposition 4.2 can be found in [McN1] . We call such a domain

Ω a

an approximating subdomain associated to

(Ω, p, U)

. The crucial feature, for our current purposes, of such an approximating subdomain

Ω a

is that it is a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain. Therefore we can apply the inequalities ( 3.2 ), ( 3.4 ) and ( 3.7 ) on

Ω a

using the

φ δ

's as weight functions.

We remark that for using these inequalities a rescaling of the

φ δ

's might be necessary, so that

| \partial φ δ |_{i \partial \bar{\partial} φ δ} \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{24}}

holds for all

δ > 0

sufficiently small.

Theorem 4.3. Assume the hypotheses of Theorem 1.4 . Let

Ω a

be an approximating subdomain associated to

(Ω, p, U)

. Then there exists a neighborhood

V \subset \subset U

p

, such that for

α \in L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω a)

\bar{\partial}

-closed and supported in

V \cap {\bar{Ω}}_{a}

, the following estimate holds:

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}^{Ω_{a}} α ∥_{Ω_{a}}^{2} ≲ δ^{2 ε} ∥ α ∥_{Ω_{a}}^{2} + δ^{- 2 + 2 ε} ∥ α ∥_{- 1, Ω_{a}}^{2} . \end{matrix}

(4.4)

The constant in

≲

neither depends on

α

nor

δ

Proof. For notational ease we shall write

∥ . ∥

for

∥ . ∥_{Ω_{a}}

and

N_{q}

for

N_{q}^{Ω_{a}}

Let

W \subset \subset U

be a neighborhood of

p

, such that

W \cap Ω \subset Ω a

and

\bar{W} \cap b Ω a \subset \subset b Ω

. Also, let

V \subset \subset W

be a neighborhood of

p

and

α \in L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω a)

be a

\bar{\partial}

-closed form, which is supported in

V \cap {\bar{Ω}}_{a}

. Define the functional

F : ({e^{- \frac{φ δ}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u | u \in D^{0, q} (Ω a)}, ∥ . ∥_{φ δ}) ⟶ C

F (e^{- \frac{φ δ}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u) = (u, α)_{φ δ} .

We start with showing that

F

satisfies the following estimate

\begin{matrix} | F (e^{- \frac{φ δ}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u) | ≲ ∥ e^{- \frac{φ δ}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u ∥_{φ δ} (δ^{ε} ∥ α ∥ + δ^{- 1 + ε} ∥ α ∥_{- 1}) . \end{matrix}

(4.5)

Recall that

S_{δ} = {z \in Ω a | - δ < r (z) < 0}

, where

r

is the fixed defining function of

Ω

. Let

χ \in C_{c}^{\infty} (W)

such that

χ \equiv 1

V

and

χ \geq 0

. Recall that the support of

α

is in

V

. Then, by the generalized Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we obtain

\begin{matrix} | F (e^{- \frac{φ δ}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u) | & = & | (u, α)_{φ δ} | \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ & ∥ u e^{- φ δ} ∥^{W \cap S δ} ∥ α ∥ + ∥ e^{- φ δ} χ u ∥_{1}^{Ω a \ S δ} ∥ α ∥_{- 1} . \end{matrix}

In view of our claim ( 4.5 ) we need to estimate the terms

∥ u e^{- φ δ} ∥^{W \cap S δ}

and

∥ e^{- φ δ} χ u ∥_{1}^{Ω a \ S δ}

appropriately.

1. Estimating

∥ u e^{- φ δ} ∥^{W \cap S δ}

: Recall that

φ δ

has a self-bounded complex gradient on

Ω a \subset U \cap Ω

by hypothesis (i). Hence inequality ( 3.2 ) holds, and the plurisubharmonicity of

φ δ

implies then, that

\sum'_{| I | = q - 1} \int_{W \cap S δ} \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} φ δ}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} u_{k I} {\bar{u}}_{l I} e^{- 2 φ δ} d V ≲ ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2}

holds uniformly for all

δ > 0

small. Invoking hypothesis (ii) and noting that

W \subset U

yields

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{W \cap S δ} ≲ δ^{ε} (∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ δ} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u ∥_{2 φ δ}) . \end{matrix}

(4.6)

2. Estimating

∥ e^{- φ δ} χ u ∥_{1}^{Ω a \ S δ}

: Let

h_{δ} : R_{0}^{+} ⟶ [0, 1]

be a smooth function with

h_{δ} (x) = 0

for

x \in [0, \frac{δ}{2}]

and

h_{δ} (x) = 1

for

x \geq δ

. We can choose

h_{δ}

such that

| h_{δ}^{'} | ≲ δ^{- 1}

. Define

ζ δ \in C^{\infty} ({\bar{Ω}}_{a})

ζ δ (z) = h_{δ} (- r (z))

, where

r

is the fixed defining function of

Ω

. Note that

\begin{matrix} | \frac{\partial ζ δ}{\partial x_{j}} | ≲ δ^{- 1} | \frac{\partial r}{\partial x_{j}} | ≲ δ^{- 1} \end{matrix}

(4.7)

holds on

Ω a

for all

j \in {1, . . ., 2 n}

. Clearly, we have

\begin{matrix} ∥ e^{- φ δ} χ u ∥_{1}^{Ω a \ S δ} \leq ∥ e^{- φ δ} ζ δ χ u ∥_{1} . \end{matrix}

Since

ζ δ \cdot χ

is identically zero near the boundary of

Ω a

, we can use our weighted G

\overset{˚}{a}

rding's inequality ( 3.4 ) to start estimating

\begin{matrix} ∥ e^{- φ δ} ζ δ χ u ∥_{1}^{2} & ≲ & ∥ \bar{\partial} (ζ δ χ u) ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ (ζ δ χ u) ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ & ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2} + \sum_{j = 1}^{2 n} (∥ \frac{\partial ζ δ}{\partial x_{j}} χ u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2} + ∥ \frac{\partial χ}{\partial x_{j}} u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ & ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2} + \sum_{j = 1}^{2 n} {max}_{z \in {\bar{Ω}}_{a}} {| \frac{\partial ζ δ}{\partial x_{j}} |}^{2} (∥ u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{W \cap S δ})^{2} + ∥ u ∥_{2 φ}^{2} . \end{matrix}

The last estimate holds since

χ

is supported in

W

and

\frac{\partial ζ δ}{\partial x_{j}} = 0

Ω a \ S δ

By the inequalities ( 3.7 ) and ( 4.7 ), it follows

\begin{matrix} ∥ e^{- φ δ} ζ δ χ u ∥_{1}^{2} ≲ ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2} + δ^{- 2} (∥ u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{W \cap S δ})^{2} \end{matrix}

for all

δ > 0

small enough. Using the estimate ( 4.6 ) for

∥ u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{W \cap S δ}

, we obtain

\begin{matrix} ∥ e^{- φ δ} ζ δ χ u ∥_{1}^{2} ≲ δ^{- 2 + 2 ε} (∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2}), \end{matrix}

thus we can conclude

\begin{matrix} (∥ e^{- φ δ} χ u ∥_{1}^{Ω a \ S δ})^{2} ≲ δ^{- 2 + 2 ε} (∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2}) . \end{matrix}

(4.8)

Write

u = u_{1} + u_{2}

, where

u_{1} \in ker \bar{\partial}

and

u_{2} ⊥_{φ δ} ker \bar{\partial}

. Note that

u_{1} \in D^{0, q} (Ω a)

. Thus, since

α \in ker \bar{\partial}

, we get, using the estimates ( 4.6 ) and ( 4.8 ),

\begin{matrix} | (u, α)_{φ δ} | = | (u_{1}, α)_{φ δ} | ≲ ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u_{1} ∥_{2 φ δ} (δ^{ε} ∥ α ∥ + δ^{- 1 + ε} ∥ α ∥_{- 1}) . \end{matrix}

However,

u_{2} ⊥_{φ δ} ker \bar{\partial}

, therefore we get

∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2} = ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u_{1} ∥_{2 φ δ}^{2}

. Hence our claimed inequality ( 4.5 ) holds:

\begin{matrix} | F (e^{- \frac{φ δ}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u) | = | (u, α)_{φ δ} | ≲ ∥ e^{- \frac{φ δ}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u ∥_{φ δ} (δ^{ε} ∥ α ∥ + δ^{- 1 + ε} ∥ α ∥_{- 1}) . \end{matrix}

That is,

F

is a bounded linear functional on

({e^{- \frac{φ δ}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u | u \in D^{0, q} (Ω a)}, ∥ . ∥_{φ δ})

, which is a subset of

L_{0, q - 1}^{2} (Ω a, φ δ)

. By the Hahn-Banach Theorem,

F

extends to a bounded linear functional on

L_{0, q - 1}^{2} (Ω a, φ δ)

with the same bound. The Riesz representation theorem yields, that there exists a unique

v \in L_{0, q - 1}^{2} (Ω a, φ δ)

such that for all

g \in L_{0, q - 1}^{2} (Ω a, φ δ)

\begin{matrix} F (g) & = & (g, v)_{φ δ}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ∥ v ∥_{φ δ}^{2} & ≲ & δ^{2 ε} ∥ α ∥^{2} + δ^{- 2 + 2 ε} ∥ α ∥_{- 1}^{2} . \end{matrix}

In particular, we get for all

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω a)

\begin{matrix} (u, \bar{\partial} (e^{- \frac{φ δ}{2}} v))_{φ δ} = (e^{- \frac{φ δ}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ δ u, v)_{φ δ} = (u, α)_{φ δ} . \end{matrix}

Note that

D^{0, q} (Ω a)

is dense in

L_{(0, q)}^{2} (Ω a, φ δ)

. Hence, setting

s = e^{- \frac{φ δ}{2}} v

, it follows that

\bar{\partial} s = α

in the distributional sense and

\begin{matrix} ∥ s ∥^{2} ≲ δ^{2 ε} ∥ α ∥^{2} + δ^{- 2 + 2 ε} ∥ α ∥_{- 1}^{2} . \end{matrix}

But the minimal

L^{2} (Ω a)

-solution,

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} α

, to the

\bar{\partial}

-problem for

α

Ω a

must also satisfy this estimate; that is

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} α ∥^{2} ≲ δ^{2 ε} ∥ α ∥^{2} + δ^{- 2 + 2 ε} ∥ α ∥_{- 1}^{2} . \end{matrix}

(4.9)

□

Remark. Observe that the only point where the form level

q

of the

(0, q)

-forms comes into play, is in hypothesis (ii) of Theorem 1.4 . Notice that this condition on the complex hessian of

φ δ

near the boundary also holds for

(0, q + 1)

-forms. Thus by a proof analogous to the above, we obtain the following: there exists a neighborhood

V \subset \subset U

p

such that for all

β \in L_{0, q + 1} (Ω a)

, which are

\bar{\partial}

-closed and supported in

V \cap {\bar{Ω}}_{a}

, the following estimate holds

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q + 1}^{Ω_{a}} β ∥^{2} ≲ δ^{2 ε} ∥ β ∥_{Ω_{a}}^{2} + δ^{- 2 + 2 ε} ∥ β ∥_{- 1, Ω_{a}}^{2} . \end{matrix}

(4.10)

These families of estimates, ( 4.9 ) and ( 4.10 ), are the heart of the matter for our proof of subellipticity. But to convert these estimates on

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}^{Ω_{a}}

and

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q + 1}^{Ω_{a}}

to usable estimates on

D^{0, q} (Ω)

, we shall need exact regularity of the operator

\bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q}^{Ω_{a}}

. By exact regularity we mean that

\bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q}^{Ω a}

preserves the

L^{2}

-Sobolev spaces.

Kohn showed in [Koh3] , that exact regularity of

\bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q}^{Ω}

follows from compactness of

N_{q}^{Ω}

L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω)

, if

Ω

is a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain. It is an easy consequence of the formula

\begin{matrix} N_{q} = (\bar{\partial} N_{q - 1}) (\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}) + (\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q + 1}) (\bar{\partial} N_{q}), \end{matrix}

that compactness of the operators

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}

and

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q + 1}

implies compactness of

N_{q}

The estimates ( 4.9 ) and ( 4.10 ) do not imply compactness as they do not hold for all

\bar{\partial}

-closed forms in

L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω a)

and

L_{0, q + 1}^{2} (Ω a)

, respectively. However, we show below that

N_{q}^{Ω_{a}}

is a compact operator on

L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω a)

by using a proof similar to the one of Theorem 4.3 . The crucial property of the approximating subdomain

Ω_{a}

for this argument is that

Ω a

is strongly pseudoconvex off the boundary of

Ω

. In particular, we use Kohn's result that near a point in the boundary of strong pseudoconvexity a subelliptic estimate of order

\frac{1}{2}

holds.

Proposition 4.11. Assume that the hypotheses of Theorem 1.4 hold. Let

Ω a

be an approximating subdomain associated to

(Ω, p, U)

. Then the

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann operator

N_{q}^{Ω a}

is a compact operator on

L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω a)

Proof. As before, we write

N_{q}

for

N_{q}^{Ω a}

, and

∥ . ∥

for

∥ . ∥_{Ω_{a}}

. We start out with showing that

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}

is a compact operator. By the remark following ( 4.1 ) we obtain compactness of

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}

, if we can show that for all

η > 0

there exists a

C (η) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} α ∥ ≲ η ∥ α ∥ + C (η) ∥ α ∥_{- \frac{1}{2}} \end{matrix}

holds for all

\bar{\partial}

-closed

α \in L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω a)

Let

η > 0

be given. By our hypotheses there exists a function

φ η \in C^{2} ({\bar{Ω}}_{a}) \cap P S H (Ω a)

which has a self-bounded complex gradient and satisfies

\begin{matrix} \sum'_{| I | = q - 1} \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} φ η}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} (z) u_{k I} {\bar{u}}_{l I} \geq η^{- 2} | u |^{2} for u \in Λ^{0, q} (Ω a) \end{matrix}

(4.12)

on a strip

S_{η^{'}} = {z \in Ω a \cap Ω | - η^{'} < r (z) < 0}

for some

η^{'} > 0

chosen small enough, depending on

η

. Here

r

is the fixed defining function of

Ω

Let

α

be a

\bar{\partial}

-closed

(0, q)

-form with coefficients in

L^{2} (Ω a)

. Define the linear functional

F : ({e^{- \frac{φ η}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ η u | u \in D^{0, q} (Ω a)}, ∥ . ∥_{φ η}) ⟶ C

\begin{matrix} F (e^{- \frac{φ η}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ η u) = (u, α)_{φ η} . \end{matrix}

We shall show that

F

is a bounded functional satisfying

\begin{matrix} | F (e^{- \frac{φ η}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ η u) | ≲ ∥ e^{- \frac{φ η}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ η u ∥_{φ η} (η ∥ α ∥ + C (η) ∥ α ∥_{- \frac{1}{2}}) \end{matrix}

(4.13)

for some

C (η) > 0

. For that let

χ \in C^{\infty} (Ω a)

be a non-negative function such that

χ = 1

Ω a \ S_{η^{'}}

and

χ = 0

S_{\frac{η^{'}}{2}}

. Then

\begin{matrix} | F (e^{- \frac{φ η}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ η u) | & = & | (u, α)^{S_{η^{'}}} | + | (u, α)^{Ω a \ S_{η^{'}}} | \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ & ∥ u e^{- φ η} ∥^{S_{η^{'}}} ∥ α ∥ + ∥ χ u e^{- φ η} ∥_{\frac{1}{2}} ∥ α ∥_{- \frac{1}{2}}, \end{matrix}

where the second line follows by the generalized Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.

In view of our claimed inequality ( 4.13 ), we need to get control of the terms

∥ u e^{- φ η} ∥^{S_{η^{'}}}

and

∥ χ u e^{- φ η} ∥_{\frac{1}{2}}

Since

φ η \in C^{2} ({\bar{Ω}}_{a}) \cap P S H (Ω a)

has a self-bounded complex gradient and

Ω a

is pseudoconvex, we can use inequality ( 3.2 ) to estimate

∥ u e^{- φ η} ∥^{S_{η^{'}}}

\begin{matrix} \sum'_{| I | = q - 1} \int_{S_{η^{'}}} \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial^{2} φ η}{\partial z_{k} \partial {\bar{z}}_{l}} u_{k I} {\bar{u}}_{l I} e^{- 2 φ η} d V ≲ ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ η}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ η u ∥_{2 φ η}^{2} . \end{matrix}

By inequality ( 4.12 ) it follows

\begin{matrix} (∥ u e^{- φ η} ∥^{S_{η^{'}}})^{2} ≲ η (∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ η}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ η u ∥_{2 φ η}^{2}) . \end{matrix}

In order to estimate

∥ χ u e^{- φ η} ∥_{\frac{1}{2}}

, note that

supp χ \cap b Ω a \subset \subset b Ω a \ b Ω

and recall that, by our choice of

Ω a

, we have that

b Ω a \ b Ω

is strongly pseudoconvex. Thus an subelliptic estimate of order

\frac{1}{2}

holds for

χ u e^{- φ η}

\begin{matrix} ∥ χ u e^{- φ η} ∥_{\frac{1}{2}}^{2} & ≲ & ∥ \bar{\partial} (χ u e^{- φ η}) ∥^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ (χ u e^{- φ η}) ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ & C (η)^{2} (∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ η}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ η u ∥_{2 φ η}^{2} + ∥ u ∥_{2 φ η}^{2}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ & C (η)^{2} (∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{2 φ η}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ η u ∥_{2 φ η}^{2}), \end{matrix}

where the last line follows by inequality ( 3.7 ).

Now we are set up for proving inequality ( 4.13 ). Write

u = u_{1} + u_{2}

, where

u_{1} \in ker \bar{\partial}

and

u_{2} ⊥_{φ η} ker \bar{\partial}

. Thus, since

α \in ker \bar{\partial}

, we get, using our above estimates for the terms

∥ u e^{- φ η} ∥^{S_{η^{'}}}

and

∥ χ u e^{- φ η} ∥_{\frac{1}{2}}

\begin{matrix} | F (e^{- \frac{φ η}{2}} \bar{\partial} ◆ φ η u) | = | (u_{1}, α)_{φ η} | & ≲ & ∥ u_{1} e^{- φ η} ∥^{S_{η^{'}}} ∥ α ∥ + ∥ χ u_{1} e^{- φ η} ∥_{\frac{1}{2}} ∥ α ∥_{- \frac{1}{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ & ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ η u_{1} ∥_{2 φ η} (η ∥ α ∥ + C (η) ∥ α ∥_{- \frac{1}{2}}) . \end{matrix}

Recall that

∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ η u ∥_{2 φ η} = ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ φ η u_{1} ∥_{2 φ η}

holds, since

u_{2} ⊥_{φ η} ker \bar{\partial}

. This implies our claimed inequality ( 4.13 ). By arguments analogous to the ones in the proof of Theorem 4.3 it follows that

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} α ∥ ≲ η ∥ α ∥ + C (η) ∥ α ∥_{- \frac{1}{2}} . \end{matrix}

holds for all

\bar{\partial}

-closed forms

α \in L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω a)

. Thus

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}

is a compact operator from

L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω a)

L_{0, q - 1}^{2} (Ω a)

. A similar proof yields the compactness of

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q + 1}

. Therefore

N_{q}

, the

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann operator on

Ω a

, is a compact operator on

L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω a)

. □

5 Estimates on $D^{0, q} (Ω)$

In this section we convert the families of estimates, ( 4.9 ) and ( 4.10 ), obtained in section 4 to estimates for forms in

D^{0, q} (Ω)

. As already mentioned in section 4 , we need exact regularity to hold for operators related to

N_{q}^{Ω a}

We begin with a result of Kohn.

Proposition 5.1. Suppose

Ω \subset \subset C^{n}

is a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain, such that its

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann operator,

N_{q}

, is compact on

L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω)

. Let

s > 0

, then the following holds

(1) if $β \in H_{0, q}^{s} (Ω)$ , then $∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q} β ∥_{s} ≲ ∥ β ∥_{s}$ ,
(2) if $β \in H_{0, q - 1}^{s} (Ω)$ , then $∥ N_{q} \bar{\partial} β ∥_{s} ≲ ∥ β ∥_{s}$ .

Here, the constants in

≲

depend on

s

but not on

β

A proof of Proposition 5.1 is contained in [Koh3] . An easy consequence of Proposition 5.1 is the exact regularity of the

L^{2}

-adjoint operators of

\bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q}

and

N_{q} \bar{\partial}

in the

L^{2}

-Sobolev spaces of negative order. In particular, the following holds.

Lemma 5.2. Suppose

Ω \subset \subset C^{n}

is a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain, such that its

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann operator,

N_{q}

, is compact on

L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω)

. Then, if

α \in Λ^{0, q} (\bar{Ω})

, it follows that

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} α ∥_{- 1} & ≲ & ∥ α ∥_{- 1}, \end{matrix}

(5.3)

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} α ∥_{- 1} & ≲ & ∥ α ∥_{- 1} . \end{matrix}

(5.4)

Proof. Let

α \in Λ^{0, q} (\bar{Ω})

. Then

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} α ∥_{- 1} = sup {(\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} α, β) | β \in H_{0, q - 1}^{1} (Ω), ∥ β ∥_{1} \leq 1} . \end{matrix}

Since

β \in H_{0, q - 1}^{1} (Ω)

is in

Dom (\bar{\partial})

, we obtain

\begin{matrix} (\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} α, β) = (N_{q} α, \bar{\partial} β) = (α, N_{q} \bar{\partial} β) ≲ ∥ α ∥_{- 1} ∥ N_{q} \bar{\partial} β ∥_{1}, \end{matrix}

by the generalized Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Proposition 5.1 , part (2), yields exact regularity for

N_{q} \bar{\partial}

, in particular

∥ N_{q} \bar{\partial} β ∥_{1} ≲ ∥ β ∥_{1}

holds for all

β \in H_{0, q - 1}^{1} (Ω)

. Thus we have

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} α ∥_{- 1} ≲ sup {∥ α ∥_{- 1} ∥ β ∥_{1} | β \in H_{0, q - 1}^{1} (Ω), ∥ β ∥_{1} \leq 1} = ∥ α ∥_{- 1}, \end{matrix}

which proves ( 5.3 ).

The proof of ( 5.4 ) is very similar. Since

α = (\bar{\partial} \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} + \bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q}) α

, it holds that

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} α ∥_{- 1} = ∥ α - \bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q} α ∥_{- 1} \leq ∥ α ∥_{- 1} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q} α ∥_{- 1}, \end{matrix}

where

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q} α ∥_{- 1} = sup {(\bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q} α, β) | β \in H_{0, q}^{1} (Ω), ∥ β ∥_{1} \leq 1} . \end{matrix}

As before, note that

β \in H_{0, q}^{1} (Ω)

is in

Dom (\bar{\partial})

. Moreover, since

α \in Λ^{0, q} (\bar{Ω})

, it holds that

\bar{\partial} N_{q} α = N_{q + 1} \bar{\partial} α

. Thus we obtain

\begin{matrix} (\bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q} α, β) & = & (N_{q + 1} \bar{\partial} α, \bar{\partial} β) = (α, \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q + 1} \bar{\partial} β) = (α, \bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q} β) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ & ∥ α ∥_{- 1} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q} β ∥_{1} . \end{matrix}

Part (1) of Proposition 5.1 tells us that

∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q} β ∥_{1} ≲ ∥ β ∥_{1}

holds for all

β \in H_{0, q}^{1} (Ω)

. Hence it follows

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ \bar{\partial} N_{q} α ∥_{- 1} ≲ sup {∥ α ∥_{- 1} ∥ β ∥_{1} | β \in H_{0, q}^{1} (Ω), ∥ β ∥_{1} \leq 1} = ∥ α ∥_{- 1}, \end{matrix}

which proves ( 5.4 ). □

Recall that we showed in Proposition 4.11 that the

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann operator,

N_{q}^{Ω a}

, associated to the approximating subdomain

Ω a

is compact. Therefore, the exact regularity results ( 5.3 ) and ( 5.4 ) hold for

N_{q}^{Ω a}

. Now we are ready to derive estimates for forms in

D^{0, q} (Ω)

Proposition 5.5. Assume the hypotheses of Theorem 1.4 .

Then there exists a neighborhood

W \subset \subset U

p

, such that for all sufficiently small

δ > 0

and

η > 0

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ∥_{Ω}^{2} ≲ \frac{δ^{2 ε}}{η} (∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{Ω}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥_{Ω}^{2} + δ^{- 2} ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{- 1, Ω}^{2}) + η δ^{- 2} ∥ u ∥_{- 1, Ω}^{2} \end{matrix}

holds for

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

supported in

W \cap \bar{Ω}

. Here, the constant in

≲

does depend on

η

but not on

δ

Proof. Recall that Theorem 4.3 and the following remark say that if

Ω a

is an approximating subdomain associated to

(Ω, p, U)

, then there exists a neighborhood

V \subset \subset U

p

such that

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}^{Ω a} α ∥_{Ω a}^{2} & ≲ & δ^{2 ε} ∥ α ∥_{Ω a}^{2} + δ^{- 2 + 2 ε} ∥ α ∥_{- 1, Ω a}^{2}, \end{matrix}

(5.6)

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q + 1}^{Ω a} β ∥_{Ω a}^{2} & ≲ & δ^{2 ε} ∥ β ∥_{Ω a}^{2} + δ^{- 2 + 2 ε} ∥ β ∥_{- 1, Ω a}^{2} \end{matrix}

(5.7)

hold for all

α \in L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω a)

and

β \in L_{0, q + 1}^{2} (Ω a)

, which are

\bar{\partial}

-closed and supported in

V \cap {\bar{Ω}}_{a}

. For notational ease we denote the

L^{2}

-norm on

Ω a

∥ . ∥

and write

N_{q}

for the

\bar{\partial}

-Neumann operator on

Ω a

Recall that

V

in Theorem 4.3 was chosen such that

V \cap b Ω a \subset \subset b Ω

. Let

W \subset \subset V

be a neighborhood of

p

, and

ζ \in C_{c}^{\infty} (V)

ζ \geq 0

and

ζ \equiv 1

W

Let

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

be supported in

W \cap \bar{Ω}

. Then it follows that

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω a)

Since we can write

\begin{matrix} u = ζ u = ζ \bar{\partial} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u + ζ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q + 1} \bar{\partial} u, \end{matrix}

we obtain the estimate

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ∥^{2} ≲ ∥ ζ \bar{\partial} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q + 1} \bar{\partial} u ∥^{2} . \end{matrix}

Because

\bar{\partial} u

is a

\bar{\partial}

-closed

(0, q + 1)

-form supported in

W \subset \subset V

, we can use inequality ( 5.7 ) to estimate the last term in the above inequality, i.e.

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ∥^{2} ≲ ∥ ζ \bar{\partial} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥^{2} + δ^{2 ε} ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥^{2} + δ^{- 2 + 2 ε} ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{- 1}^{2}, \end{matrix}

(5.8)

So we are left with estimating

∥ ζ \bar{\partial} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥^{2}

\begin{matrix} ∥ ζ \bar{\partial} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥^{2} & = & ([ζ^{2}, \bar{\partial}] N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u, \bar{\partial} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u) + (\bar{\partial} ζ^{2} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u, \bar{\partial} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & ([ζ^{2}, \bar{\partial}] N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u, u - \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q + 1} \bar{\partial} u) + (\bar{\partial} ζ^{2} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u, N_{q} \bar{\partial} \bar{\partial} ◆ u), \end{matrix}

since

\bar{\partial} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u = N_{q} \bar{\partial} \bar{\partial} ◆ u

for

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω a)

. By our choice of the cut-off function

ζ

it follows, that the supports of

[ζ^{2}, \bar{\partial}] N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u

and

u

are disjoint.

Therefore

\begin{matrix} ∥ ζ \bar{\partial} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥^{2} ≲ {\underset{︸}{∥ [ζ^{2}, \bar{\partial}] \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} u ∥ ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q + 1} \bar{\partial} u ∥}}_{(A)} + {\underset{︸}{∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} (\bar{\partial} ζ^{2} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u) ∥ ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥}}_{(B)} . \end{matrix}

Using the (sc)-(lc) inequality, we get

\begin{matrix} (A) ≲ η ∥ [ζ^{2}, \bar{\partial}] \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} u ∥^{2} + \frac{1}{η} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q + 1} \bar{\partial} u ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

for

η > 0

. Recall that

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q + 1}

is a bounded map from

L_{(0, q + 1)}^{2} (Ω a)

L_{(0, q)}^{2} (Ω a)

, and also note that

[ζ^{2}, \bar{\partial}]

is a differential operator of order zero.

Using inequality ( 5.7 ) again, we obtain

\begin{matrix} (A) ≲ η ∥ u ∥^{2} + \frac{1}{η} (δ^{2 ε} ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥^{2} + δ^{- 2 + 2 ε} ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{- 1}^{2}) . \end{matrix}

To estimate term

(B)

note that

\bar{\partial} ζ^{2} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u

is a

\bar{\partial}

-closed

(0, q)

-form, which is supported in

V

. Thus, by our estimate ( 5.6 ) on

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}

, it follows

\begin{matrix} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} (\bar{\partial} ζ^{2} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u) ∥ ≲ δ^{ε} {\underset{︸}{∥ \bar{\partial} ζ^{2} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥}}_{(B_{1})} + δ^{- 1 + ε} {\underset{︸}{∥ \bar{\partial} ζ^{2} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥_{- 1}}}_{(B_{2})} . \end{matrix}

By commuting

\bar{\partial}

and

ζ^{2}

, we obtain for

(B_{1})

\begin{matrix} (B_{1}) \leq ∥ ζ^{2} \bar{\partial} \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} u ∥ + ∥ [ζ^{2}, \bar{\partial}] \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} u ∥ ≲ ∥ \bar{\partial} \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} u ∥ + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} u ∥ ≲ ∥ u ∥, \end{matrix}

The last step holds, since

\bar{\partial} \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}

is a bounded operator on

L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω a)

and

\bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q}

is a bounded operator from

L_{0, q}^{2} (Ω a)

L_{0, q - 1}^{2} (Ω a)

For estimating

(B_{2})

commute

\bar{\partial}

and

ζ^{2}

again, that is

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} (B_{2}) \leq ∥ ζ^{2} \bar{\partial} \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} u ∥_{- 1} & + ∥ [ζ^{2}, \bar{\partial}] \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} u ∥_{- 1} \\ ≲ ∥ \bar{\partial} \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} u ∥_{- 1} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ N_{q} u ∥_{- 1} ≲ ∥ u ∥_{- 1} . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

by ( 5.3 ) and ( 5.4 ). Combining our estimates for

(B_{1})

and

(B_{2})

, we get

\begin{matrix} (B) ≲ (δ^{ε} ∥ u ∥ + δ^{- 1 + ε} ∥ u ∥_{- 1} ∥) ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥ ≲ η (∥ u ∥^{2} + δ^{- 2} ∥ u ∥_{- 1}^{2}) + \frac{δ^{2 ε}}{η} ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥^{2}, \end{matrix}

where the last step, again, follows by the (sc)-(lc) inequality, and

η > 0

Recall that we need the above estimates on

(A)

and

(B)

to get control on the term

∥ ζ \bar{\partial} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥

. We now have

\begin{matrix} ∥ ζ \bar{\partial} N_{q - 1} \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥^{2} ≲ \frac{δ^{2 ε}}{η} (∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥^{2} + δ^{- 2} ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{- 1}^{2}) + η (∥ u ∥^{2} + δ^{- 2} ∥ u ∥_{- 1}^{2}) . \end{matrix}

Combining this last estimate with inequality ( 5.8 ), it follows that

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ∥^{2} ≲ \frac{δ^{2 ε}}{η} (∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥^{2} + δ^{- 2} ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{- 1}^{2}) + η (∥ u ∥^{2} + δ^{- 2} ∥ u ∥_{- 1}^{2}) \end{matrix}

holds uniformly for all

η > 0

. Finally, for all sufficiently small

η > 0

we can absorb the term

η ∥ u ∥^{2}

into the left hand side and obtain

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ∥^{2} ≲ \frac{δ^{2 ε}}{η} (∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥^{2} + δ^{- 2} ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{- 1}^{2}) + η δ^{- 2} ∥ u ∥_{- 1}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Recall that here

∥ . ∥

denotes the

L^{2}

-norm on

Ω a

. However,

Ω a \subset Ω

and

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

is supported in

W \cap Ω a

. Thus we can conclude

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ∥_{Ω}^{2} ≲ \frac{δ^{2 ε}}{η} (∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{Ω}^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥_{Ω}^{2} + δ^{- 2} ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{- 1, Ω}^{2}) + η δ^{- 2} ∥ u ∥_{- 1, Ω}^{2} . \end{matrix}

for all

η > 0

sufficiently small. □

6 Subelliptic estimate

In this section we show how to derive subelliptic estimates from the family of estimates obtained in Proposition 5.5 . We begin with stating the main result of this section.

Theorem 6.1. Let

Ω \subset \subset C^{n}

be a smoothly bounded domain,

p

a point on the boundary of

Ω

. Let

V

be a special boundary chart near

p

such that

V \cap b Ω

is pseudoconvex. Suppose that

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ∥^{2} ≲ \frac{δ^{2 ε}}{η} (Q (u, u) + δ^{- 2} ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{- 1}^{2}) + η δ^{- 2} ∥ u ∥_{- 1}^{2} \end{matrix}

(6.2)

holds for all

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

supported in

V \cap \bar{Ω}

, and for all

η, δ > 0

sufficiently small. Let

W \subset \subset V

be a neighborhood of

p

. Then

\begin{matrix} | | | u | | |_{ε}^{2} ≲ Q (u, u) \end{matrix}

holds for all

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

which are supported in

W \cap \bar{Ω}

For the proof of Theorem 6.1 we use a method from [Cat] . That is, we introduce a sequence of pseudo-differential operators, which represent a partition of unity in the tangential Fourier transform variables:

Let

{p_{k} (t)}_{k = 0}^{\infty}

be a sequence of functions on

R

satisfying the following conditions:

(1) $\sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} p_{k}^{2} (t) = 1$ for all $t \in R$ ,
(2) $p_{0} (t) = 0$ for all $t \geq 2$ , and $p_{k} (t) = 0$ for all $t / \in (2^{k - 1}, 2^{k + 1})$ , $k \geq 1$ .

We can choose the

p_{k}

's such that

| p_{k}^{'} (t) | \leq C 2^{- k}

holds for all

k \in N_{0}

t \in R

for some

C > 0

. Let

S (R^{2 n})

be the class of Schwartz functions on

R^{2 n}

. Denote by

R_{-}^{2 n}

the set

{(x_{1}, . . ., x_{2 n - 1}, r) | r \leq 0}

and

S (R_{-}^{2 n})

be the restriction of

S (R^{2 n})

R_{-}^{2 n}

For

f \in S (R_{-}^{2 n})

define the operators

P_{k}

\begin{matrix} \tilde{P_{k} f} (ξ, r) : = p_{k} (| ξ |) \tilde{f} (ξ, r), \end{matrix}

where

\tilde{f}

is the tangential Fourier transform, that is

\begin{matrix} \tilde{f} (ξ, r) = \int_{R^{2 n - 1}} e^{- 2 π i 〈 x, ξ 〉} f (x, r) d x . \end{matrix}

(0, q)

-forms we define the

P_{k}

's to act componentwise.

One of the crucial features of such operators

P_{k}

is that it makes the tangential Sobolev

s

-norm of a function

f \in S (R_{-}^{2 n})

comparable to a series involving

L^{2}

-norms of

P_{k} f

. In general, we have:

Lemma 6.3. For

f \in S (R_{-}^{2 n})

and

s = s_{1} + s_{2}

it holds that

\begin{matrix} | | | f | | |_{s}^{2} \sim = \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k s_{1}} | | | P_{k} f | | |_{s_{2}}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Proof. Let

f \in S (R_{-}^{2 n})

s = s_{1} + s_{2}

. From the definition of the tangential Sobolev

s

-norm and since

\sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} p_{k}^{2} = 1

holds, it follows that

\begin{matrix} | | | f | | |_{s}^{2} = \int_{- \infty}^{0} \int_{R^{2 n - 1}} (1 + | ξ |^{2})^{s} (\sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} p_{k}^{2} (| ξ |)) | \tilde{f} (ξ, r) |^{2} d ξ d r . \end{matrix}

Since

(1 + | ξ |^{2})^{s_{1}} \sim = 2^{2 k s_{1}}

as long as

| ξ |

is in the support of

p_{k}

, we obtain

\begin{matrix} | | | f | | |_{s}^{2} & \sim = & \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k s_{1}} \int_{- \infty}^{0} \int_{R^{2 n - 1}} (1 + | ξ |^{2})^{s_{2}} | p_{k} (| ξ |) \tilde{f} (ξ, r) |^{2} d ξ d r \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k s_{1}} | | | P_{k} f | | |_{s_{2}}^{2} . \end{matrix}

□

Suppose

u = \sum'_{| J | = q} v_{J} d {\bar{z}}^{J}

is in

D^{0, q} (Ω)

and supported in

V \cap \bar{Ω}

, where

V

is a special boundary chart near a boundary point

p

. Then we can write

\begin{matrix} u = \sum'_{| I | = q} u_{I} d x^{I}, \end{matrix}

where

I = {i_{1}, . . ., i_{q}}

with

1 \leq i_{l} \leq 2 n

. The operator

P_{k}

acting on a

(0, q)

-form

u

means the following:

\begin{matrix} P_{k} u = \sum'_{| I | = q} (P_{k} u_{I}) d x^{I} . \end{matrix}

We remark that

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

if and only if

u_{I} (x^{'}, 0) = 0

for

x^{'} \in R^{2 n - 1}

whenever

2 n \in I

. This leads to another crucial property of the operator

P_{k}

, that is:

P_{k} u \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

whenever

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

. However, the

P_{k}

's do not see the support of

u

, i.e. if

u

is compactly supported, we can not conclude the same for

P_{k} u

. Thus inequality ( 6.2 ) does not hold for

P_{k} u

in general.

We shall introduce an appropriately chosen cut-off function

χ

and consider

χ P_{k} u

. To be able to deal with certain error terms arising from inequality ( 6.2 ) applied to

χ P_{k} u

, we collect a few facts in the following lemmata.

Lemma 6.4. If

f, g \in S (R_{-}^{2 n})

and

σ \in R

, then

\begin{matrix} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} ∥ [P_{k}, f] g ∥^{2} ≲ | | | g | | |_{σ - 1}^{2}, \end{matrix}

where the constant in

≲

does not depend on

g

The proof of Lemma 6.4

Lemma 6.5. Let

D

be any differential operator of first order with coefficients in

C^{\infty} (R_{-}^{2 n})

acting on smooth

q

-forms, let

χ \in S (R_{-}^{2 n})

and

σ > 0

. Then

\begin{matrix} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} ∥ D (χ P_{k} u) ∥_{- σ}^{2} ≲ ∥ D u ∥^{2} + ∥ u ∥^{2} + \sum'_{| I | = q} | | | \frac{\partial u_{I}}{\partial x_{2 n}} | | |_{- 1}^{2} . \end{matrix}

holds for all

q

-forms

u

with coefficients in

S (R_{-}^{2 n})

. Here, the constant in

≲

does not depend on

u

Proof. Recall that

Λ_{t}^{- σ}

denotes the tangential Bessel potential of order

- σ

We obtain

\begin{matrix} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} ∥ D (χ P_{k} u) ∥_{- σ}^{2} & \leq & \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} | | | D (χ P_{k} u) | | |_{- σ}^{2} = \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} ∥ Λ_{t}^{- σ} D (χ P_{k} u) ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ & \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} ∥ χ Λ_{t}^{- σ} D P_{k} u ∥^{2} + \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} ∥ [Λ_{t}^{- σ} D, χ] P_{k} u ∥^{2}, \end{matrix}

where the last step follows by commuting. We note that

[Λ_{t}^{- σ} D, χ]

is of tangential order

- σ

and of normal order

0

. Therefore, invoking Lemma 6.3 , we get

\begin{matrix} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} ∥ [Λ_{t}^{- σ} D, χ] P_{k} u ∥^{2} ≲ \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} | | | P_{k} u | | |_{- σ}^{2} \sim = ∥ u ∥^{2} . \end{matrix}

Similarly, we obtain by commuting

\begin{matrix} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} & ∥ χ Λ_{t}^{- σ} D P_{k} u ∥^{2} ≲ \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} ∥ χ D Λ_{t}^{- σ} P_{k} u ∥^{2} + \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} | | | P_{k} u | | |_{- σ}^{2} & ≲ \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} ∥ P_{k} (χ D Λ_{t}^{- σ} u) ∥^{2} + \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} ∥ [χ D Λ_{t}^{- σ}, P_{k}] u ∥^{2} + ∥ u ∥^{2} & ≲ {\underset{︸}{| | | χ D Λ_{t}^{- σ} u | | |_{σ}^{2}}}_{(A)} + \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} {\underset{︸}{∥ [χ D Λ_{t}^{- σ}, P_{k}] u ∥^{2}}}_{(B_{k})} + ∥ u ∥^{2}, \end{matrix}

where the last line follows again by Lemma 6.3 . We write

\begin{matrix} χ D = \sum'_{| I | = q} \sum_{j = 1}^{2 n} a_{j}^{I} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}}, \end{matrix}

and estimate term (A) by commuting:

\begin{matrix} (A) & = & | | | χ D Λ_{t}^{- σ} u | | |_{σ}^{2} ≲ | | | Λ_{t}^{- σ} χ D u | | |_{σ}^{2} + | | | [χ D, Λ_{t}^{- σ}] u | | |_{σ}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ & ∥ D u ∥^{2} + \sum'_{| I | = q} \sum_{j = 1}^{2 n} | | | [a_{j}^{I} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}}, Λ_{t}^{- σ}] u_{I} | | |_{σ}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Since

\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}}

and

Λ_{t}^{- σ}

commute, it follows that

\begin{matrix} (A) & ≲ & ∥ D u ∥^{2} + \sum'_{| I | = q} \sum_{j = 1}^{2 n} | | | [a_{j}^{I}, Λ_{t}^{- σ}] \frac{\partial u_{I}}{\partial x_{j}} | | |_{σ}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ & ∥ D u ∥^{2} + ∥ u ∥^{2} + \sum'_{| I | = q} | | | \frac{\partial u_{I}}{\partial x_{2 n}} | | |_{- 1}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Here, the last estimate holds since

[a_{j}^{I}, Λ_{t}^{- σ}]

is of tangential order

- σ - 1

and

\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}}

is a tangential derivative if

j \in {1, \dots, 2 n - 1}

. We are left with estimating the terms

(B_{k})

. We first notice that

\begin{matrix} (B_{k}) ≲ \sum'_{| I | = q} \sum_{j = 1}^{2 n} ∥ [a_{j}^{I}, P_{k}] \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}} Λ_{t}^{- σ} u_{I} ∥^{2} . \end{matrix}

Lemma 6.4 implies now

\begin{matrix} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} (B_{k}) ≲ \sum'_{| I | = q} \sum_{j = 1}^{2 n} | | | \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}} Λ_{t}^{- σ} u_{I} | | |_{σ - 1}^{2} ≲ ∥ u ∥^{2} + \sum'_{| I | = q} | | | \frac{\partial u_{I}}{\partial x_{2 n}} | | |_{- 1}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Combining all our estimates we end up with the claimed inequality.

\begin{matrix} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k σ} ∥ D (χ P_{k} u) ∥_{- σ}^{2} ≲ ∥ D u ∥^{2} + ∥ u ∥^{2} + \sum'_{| I | = q} | | | \frac{\partial u_{I}}{\partial x_{2 n}} | | |_{- 1}^{2} . \end{matrix}

□

Having collected the basic facts concerning the

P_{k}

's, we are ready to prove Theorem 6.1 .

Proof of Theorem 6.1 . Let

V

be a special boundary chart near p such that inequality ( 6.2 ) holds, that is

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ∥^{2} ≲ \frac{δ^{2 ε}}{η} (Q (u, u) + δ^{- 2} ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥_{- 1}^{2}) + η δ^{- 2} ∥ u ∥_{- 1}^{2} \end{matrix}

holds for all

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

supported in

V \cap \bar{Ω}

. Let

W \subset \subset V

be a neighborhood of

p

, and

u \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

supported in

W \cap \bar{Ω}

. Let

χ \in C_{c}^{\infty} (V)

such that

χ = 1

W

and

χ \geq 0

. Then it follows by Lemma 6.3 and by commuting

\begin{matrix} | | | u | | |_{ε}^{2} = | | | χ u | | |_{ε}^{2} & ≲ & \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k ε} ∥ χ P_{k} u ∥^{2} + \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k ε} ∥ [P_{k}, χ] u ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ & \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k ε} ∥ χ P_{k} u ∥^{2} + | | | u | | |_{ε - 1}^{2}, \end{matrix}

where the last step follows by Lemma 6.4 . Since

ε \leq \frac{1}{2}

holds, we obtain

\begin{matrix} | | | u | | |_{ε}^{2} ≲ \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k ε} ∥ χ P_{k} u ∥^{2} + ∥ u ∥^{2} . \end{matrix}

Now inequality ( 6.2 ) comes into play. Since

χ P_{k} u \in D^{0, q} (Ω)

is supported in

V \cap \bar{Ω}

, it follows that

\begin{matrix} ∥ χ P_{k} u ∥^{2} ≲ \frac{δ^{2 ε}}{η} (Q (χ P_{k} u, χ P_{k} u) + δ^{- 2} ∥ \bar{\partial} (χ P_{k} u) ∥_{- 1}^{2}) + η δ^{- 2} ∥ χ P_{k} u ∥_{- 1}^{2} \end{matrix}

holds uniformly for all

k \in N_{0}

, for all positive

δ < δ_{0}

and

η < η_{0}

. Let

k_{0} \in N

such that

2^{- k_{0}} \leq δ_{0}

. Then we obtain for all

k \geq k_{0}

\begin{matrix} 2^{2 k ε} ∥ χ P_{k} u ∥^{2} ≲ \frac{1}{η} (Q (χ P_{k} u, χ P_{k} u) + 2^{2 k} ∥ \bar{\partial} (χ P_{k} u) ∥_{- 1}^{2}) + η 2^{2 k (1 + ε)} ∥ χ P_{k} u ∥_{- 1}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Observe that

\begin{matrix} \sum_{k = 0}^{k_{0} - 1} 2^{2 k ε} ∥ χ P_{k} u ∥^{2} \leq \sum_{k = 0}^{k_{0} - 1} 2^{2 k ε} ∥ u ∥^{2} ≲ ∥ u ∥^{2} . \end{matrix}

Thus we can sum up over

k \in N_{0}

, obtaining

\begin{matrix} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k ε} ∥ χ P_{k} u ∥^{2} & ≲ & \frac{1}{η} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} (Q (χ P_{k} u, χ P_{k} u)) + \frac{1}{η} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k} ∥ \bar{\partial} (χ P_{k} u) ∥_{- 1}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + η \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k (1 + ε)} ∥ χ P_{k} u ∥_{- 1}^{2} + ∥ u ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

Using Lemma 6.3 , we have

\begin{matrix} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k (1 + ε)} ∥ χ P_{k} u ∥_{- 1}^{2} ≲ \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k (1 + ε)} | | | P_{k} u | | |_{- 1}^{2} \sim = | | | u | | |_{ε}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Furthermore, applying Lemma 6.5 with

σ = 0

and

σ = 1

resp., we get

\begin{matrix} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} Q (χ P_{k} u, χ P_{k} u) + \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k} ∥ \bar{\partial} (χ P_{k} u) ∥_{- 1}^{2} ≲ Q (u, u) + ∥ u ∥^{2} + \sum'_{| I | = q} | | | \frac{\partial u_{I}}{\partial x_{2 n}} | | |_{- 1}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Note that

\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{2 n}}

can be expressed as a linear combination of the

\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bar{z}}_{j}}

's and a tangential vector field

T

. Then

\begin{matrix} | | | \frac{\partial u_{I}}{\partial x_{2 n}} | | |_{- 1}^{2} & ≲ & \sum_{j = 1}^{n} | | | \frac{\partial u_{I}}{\partial {\bar{z}}_{j}} | | |_{- 1}^{2} + | | | T u_{I} | | |_{- 1}^{2} ≲ \sum_{j = 1}^{n} ∥ \frac{\partial u_{I}}{\partial {\bar{z}}_{j}} ∥^{2} + ∥ u_{I} ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ≲ & ∥ \bar{\partial} u ∥^{2} + ∥ \bar{\partial} ◆ u ∥^{2} + ∥ u ∥^{2} ≲ Q (u, u) . \end{matrix}

Thus, by combining our estimates , we obtain

\begin{matrix} | | | u | | |_{ε}^{2} ≲ \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} 2^{2 k ε} ∥ χ P_{k} u ∥^{2} + ∥ u ∥^{2} ≲ \frac{1}{η} Q (u, u) + η | | | u | | |_{ε}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Choosing

η > 0

small enough, we can absorb the term

η | | | u | | |_{ε}^{2}

into the left hand side and it follows

| | | u | | |_{ε}^{2} ≲ Q (u, u)

. □

7 An Example

Consider the domain

D = {w \in C^{3} | ρ (w) : = Re w_{3} + | w_{1}^{2} - w_{2} w_{3} |^{2} + | w_{2}^{2} |^{2} < 0}

near the origin. The

1

-type (in the sense of D'Angelo [D'An] ) at

(0, 0, 0)

4

, but at any boundary point of the form

(0, 0, i ε)

ε > 0

, the

1

-type is

8

. In the following we show that a subelliptic estimate of order

\frac{1}{8} - η

holds for any

η > 0

near the origin. Instead of constructing the

{φ δ}

D

, we consider

Ω = {z \in C^{3} | r (z) < 0}

, where

\begin{matrix} r (z) = | z_{3} |^{2} - 1 + | (1 + z_{3}) z_{1}^{2} - z_{2} (z_{3} - 1) |^{2} + | 1 + z_{3} |^{2} | z_{2} |^{4} < 0, \end{matrix}

in a neighborhood

U

of the boundary point

p = (0, 0, 1)

. Notice that

D

near the origin is biholomorphic to

Ω

via the transformation

z_{1} = w_{1}

z_{2} = w_{2}

and

z_{3} = \frac{w_{3} + 1}{1 - w_{3}}

. We claim that

\begin{matrix} φ δ (z) & = & - log (- r (z) + δ) - log (- log (| z_{1} |^{2} + δ^{\frac{1}{4}})) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - log (- log (| z_{2} |^{2} + δ^{\frac{1}{2} + η})) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & ψ_{0} (z) + ψ_{1} (z) + ψ_{2} (z) \end{matrix}

satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 1.4 on

\bar{Ω} \cap U

with

ε = \frac{1}{8} - \frac{η}{2}

for

η > 0

A straightforward computation shows that

φ δ

is plurisubharmonic and has a self-bounded complex gradient near

p

. In the following we show that

\begin{matrix} i \partial \bar{\partial} φ δ (z) (ξ, ξ) \geq C δ^{- \frac{1}{4} + η} | ξ |^{2} \end{matrix}

(7.1)

holds for all

ξ \in C^{3}

and

z \in S δ \cap U

. One computes

\begin{matrix} i \partial \bar{\partial} r (ξ, ξ) & = & 4 | 1 + z_{3} |^{2} | z_{1} |^{2} | ξ_{1} |^{2} + (| z_{3} - 1 |^{2} + 4 | z_{2} |^{2} | 1 + z_{3} |^{2}) | ξ_{2} |^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + (1 + | z_{1}^{2} - z_{2} |^{2} + | z_{2} |^{4}) | ξ_{3} |^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + 2 Re ((2 (1 + z_{3})^{2} z_{2} {\bar{z}}_{2}^{2} - (z_{3} - 1) ({\bar{z}}_{1}^{2} - {\bar{z}}_{2})) ξ_{2} {\bar{ξ}}_{3}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + 4 Re ((1 + z_{3}) z_{1} ξ_{1} (({\bar{z}}_{1}^{2} - {\bar{z}}_{2}) {\bar{ξ}}_{3} - ({\bar{z}}_{3} - 1) {\bar{ξ}}_{2}) . \end{matrix}

Denote the last term on the right hand side by (I). Estimating (I) we obtain

\begin{matrix} (I) & \geq & - 4 | 1 + z_{3} |^{2} | z_{1} |^{2} | ξ_{1} |^{2} - | z_{3} - 1 |^{2} | ξ_{2} |^{2} - | z_{1}^{2} - z_{2} |^{2} | ξ_{3} |^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + 2 Re ((z_{3} - 1) ξ_{2} ({\bar{z}}_{1}^{2} - {\bar{z}}_{2}) {\bar{ξ}}_{3}) . \end{matrix}

It follows easily that

\begin{matrix} i \partial \bar{\partial} r (z) (ξ, ξ) \geq | z_{2} |^{2} | ξ_{2} |^{2} + \frac{1}{2} | ξ_{3} |^{2} . \end{matrix}

(7.2)

This estimate implies that if

z \in S δ \cap U

, then

\begin{matrix} i \partial \bar{\partial} ψ_{0} (z) (ξ, ξ) \geq \frac{| z_{2} |^{2} | ξ_{2} |^{2} + \frac{1}{2} | ξ_{3} |^{2}}{- r (z) + δ} \geq \frac{1}{4} (δ^{- \frac{1}{2}} | ξ_{2} |^{2} + δ^{- 1} | ξ_{3} |^{2}), \end{matrix}

where the first estimate on the right hand side only holds if

| z_{2} |^{2} \geq δ^{\frac{1}{2}}

. If

| z_{2} |^{2} \leq δ^{\frac{1}{2}}

, then

\begin{matrix} i \partial \bar{\partial} ψ_{2} (z) (ξ, ξ) \geq \frac{δ^{\frac{1}{2} + η} | ξ_{2} |^{2}}{- log (| z_{2} |^{2} + δ^{\frac{1}{2} + η}) (| z_{2} |^{2} + δ^{\frac{1}{2} + η})^{2}} \geq δ^{- \frac{1}{4}} | ξ_{2} |^{2} . \end{matrix}

Similarly, we obtain

i \partial \bar{\partial} ψ_{1} (z) (ξ, ξ) \geq \frac{1}{4} δ^{- \frac{1}{4} + η} | ξ_{1} |^{2}

for

| z_{1} |^{2} \leq δ^{\frac{1}{4}}

for all

δ > 0

sufficiently small. Thus it remains to show that ( 7.1 ) holds also in the directions involving

ξ_{1}

for

z \in S δ \cap U

with

| z_{1} |^{2} \geq δ^{\frac{1}{4}}

. For that we shall use a different estimate for the complex Hessian of

r

, that is

\begin{matrix} i \partial \bar{\partial} r (z) (ξ, ξ) \geq \frac{1}{2} | z_{1} |^{2} | ξ_{1} |^{2} - 4 | z_{3} - 1 |^{2} | ξ_{2} |^{2} . \end{matrix}

(7.3)

Then, if

z \in S δ

and

| z_{1} |^{2} \geq δ^{\frac{1}{4}}

, we obtain by using ( 7.3 ) and ( 7.2 )

\begin{matrix} (δ^{\frac{1}{2} + η} + \frac{1}{2}) i \partial \bar{\partial} ψ_{0} (z) (ξ, ξ) \geq \frac{C}{δ} (δ^{\frac{3}{4} + η} | ξ_{1} |^{2} + (| z_{2} |^{2} - 16 δ^{\frac{1}{2} + η} | z_{3} - 1 |^{2}) | ξ_{2} |^{2}) . \end{matrix}

Thus we obtain ( 7.1 ) for all

z \in S δ

as long as

| z_{2} |^{2} \geq 16 δ^{\frac{1}{2} + η} | z_{3} - 1 |^{2}

If the latter inequality is not true, then we can assume that

| z_{2} |^{2} \leq δ^{\frac{1}{2} + η}

However, in that case

\begin{matrix} \frac{1}{2} i \partial \bar{\partial} ψ_{2} (z) (ξ, ξ) - 16 δ^{- \frac{1}{2} + η} | z_{3} - 1 |^{2} | ξ_{2} |^{2} \geq 0, \end{matrix}

which completes the proof of ( 7.1 ).

With a construction similar to the above one obtains for the domains

\begin{matrix} D_{k, l, m, n} = {w \in C^{3} | Re w_{3} + | w_{1}^{k} - w_{2}^{l} w_{3}^{m} |^{2} + | w_{2}^{n} |^{2} < 0}, k, l, m, n \in N \end{matrix}

a subelliptic estimate of order

\frac{1}{M} - η

η > 0

, where

M

is the maximum

1

-type near the origin.

References

D. Catlin, Subelliptic estimates for the $\bar{\partial}$ -Neumann problem on pseudoconvex domains, Ann. of Math. 126 (1987), 131-191
S.C. Chen and M.-C. Shaw, Partial differential equations in several complex variables, AMS/IP, Studies in Adv. Math. 19 (2001)
J.P. D'Angelo, Real hypersurfaces, orders of contact and applications, Ann. of Math. 115 (1982), 615-637
L. Hörmander, $L^{2}$ estimates and existence theorems for the $\bar{\partial}$ operator, Acta Math. 113 (1965), 89-152
J.J. Kohn, Harmonic integrals on strongly pseudoconvex manifolds, I, Ann. of Math. 78 (1963), 112-148
J.J. Kohn, Harmonic integrals on strongly pseudoconvex manifolds, II, Ann. of Math. 79 (1964), 450-472
J.J. Kohn, A survey of the $\bar{\partial}$ -Neumann problem, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 41, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI (1984), 137-145
J.J. Kohn and L. Nirenberg, Non-coercive boundary value problems, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 18 (1965), 443-492
J.D. McNeal, Lower bounds on the Bergman metric near a point of finite type, Ann. of Math. 136 (1992), 339-360
J.D. McNeal, A sufficient condition for compactness of the $\bar{\partial}$ -Neumann operator, J. Funct. Anal. 195 (2002), 190-205
C.B. Morrey, The analytic embedding of abstract real analytic manifolds, Ann. of Math. 68 (1958), 159-201

Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 E-mail address : herbig@umich.edu

Anne-Katrin Herbig