<ph f="cmbx">A Sufficient Condition for Subellipticity of the </ph> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mover> <mrow> <mo>∂</mo> </mrow> <mrow> <mo>¯</mo> </mrow> </mover> </math> <ph f="cmbx">-Neumann Operator</ph>

Anne-Katrin Herbig

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

1 Introduction

Let Ω C n   be a smoothly bounded domain. Suppose that p 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 ¯   -Neumann operator holds near that point.
The
¯   -Neumann operator N p , q   is the inverse of the complex Laplacian ¯ ¯ + ¯ ¯   for ( p , q )   -forms. Establishing the existence of the ¯   -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 ¯   -Neumann problem see section  2 .
On domains with certain geometric conditions on the boundary, the question of existence of a solution to the
¯   -Neumann problem was settled through the works of Hörmander [H¨r, Kohn [Koh1, Koh2and Morrey [Mor. In fact,Hörmander's results in [H¨rimply that there exists a bounded operator N p , q   on 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 ¯   -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-Nirthat, ifa so-called subelliptic estimate of order ε   holds for the ¯   -Neumann problemon a neighborhood V   of a given point p   in b Ω   , then f | V H p , q s ( V )   implies N p , q f | V H p , q s + 2 ε ( V )   for V V   ; here H p , q s   denotes the L 2   -Sobolev space of order s   on ( p , q )   -forms. Thus it is natural to inquire about subellipticestimates for the ¯   -Neumann problem. Denote by D p , q ( V Ω ¯ )   the set of smooth ( p , q )   -forms u   , which are supportedin V Ω ¯   , such that u   belongs to the domain of ¯   . A subelliptic estimateof order ε > 0   near p b Ω   is said to hold, if
| | | u | | | ε 2 C ( ¯ u 2 + ¯ u 2 ) for all u D p , q ( V Ω ¯ ) , (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 ¯   -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 C n   be a smoothly bounded domain. Aplurisubharmonic function φ C 2 ( Ω )   is said to have a self-boundedcomplex gradient, if there exists a constant C > 0   such that
| k = 1 n φ z k ( z ) ξ k | 2 C k , l = 1 n 2 φ z k z ¯ l ( z ) ξ k ξ ¯ l (1.3)
holds for all ξ C n   , z Ω   . We write | φ | i ¯ φ C   when we mean ( 1.3 ).
Notice that, if λ C 2 ( Ω )   is plurisubharmonic and bounded, then φ = e λ   has a self-bounded complex gradient with C = sup z Ω e λ ( z )   . Furthermore, notice the behavior of inequality ( 1.3 ) under scaling; replacing φ   by 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 C n   be a smoothly bounded domain. Let p   be a given point in b Ω   and suppose that b Ω U   is pseudoconvex, where U   is a neighborhood of p   . Denote by S δ   the set { z 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 C 2 ( Ω ¯ U )   , such that
Then there exists a neighborhood V U   of 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 ¯   -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 ¯ N q   and ¯ 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 C n   be a smoothly bounded domain, i.e. Ω   is bounded and there is a smooth function r   such that Ω = { z C n | r ( z ) < 0 }   and r 0   whenever r = 0   .
Let
0 p , q n   . We write an arbitrary ( p , q )   -form u   as
u = | I | = p , | J | = q u I , J d z I d z ¯ J , (2.1)
where I = { i 1 , . . . , i p }   , J = { j 1 . . . , j q }   and d z I = d z i 1 d z i p   , d z ¯ J = d z ¯ j 1 d z ¯ j q   . Here   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 ( Ω ¯ )   and Λ c p , q ( Ω )   denote the ( p , q )   -forms with coefficients in C ( Ω ¯ )   and C c ( Ω )   , respectively. We use the pointwise inner product . , .   defined by d z k , d z l = δ l k = d z ¯ k , d z ¯ l   . By linearity we extend this inner product to ( p , q )   -forms. The global L 2   -inner product on Ω   is defined by
( u , v ) Ω = Ω u , v d V ,
where d V   is the euclidean volume form. The L 2   -norm of a u Λ c p , q ( Ω )   on 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.
If
φ C 2 ( Ω ¯ )   , we denote by L p , q 2 ( Ω , φ )   the space of ( p , q )   -forms u   such that
u φ , Ω 2 = ( u , u ) φ , Ω : = u e φ 2 Ω 2 = Ω u , u e φ d V < .
Notice that the weighted L 2   -space, L p , q 2 ( Ω , φ )   , equals L p , q 2 ( Ω )   .
Let
u Λ p , q ( Ω ¯ )   , then the ¯   -operator is defined as
¯ p , q u = ¯ u : = | I | = p , | J | = q k = 1 n ¯ k u I , J d z ¯ k d z I d z ¯ J ,
where ¯ k : = z ¯ k   , and u   is expressed as in ( 2.1 ). Observe that ¯ 2 = 0   . We extend the differential operator ¯   , still denoted by ¯   , to act on non-smooth forms in the sense of distributions. Then, by restricting the domain of ¯   to those forms g L p , q 2 ( Ω )   , where ¯ g   in the distributional sense belongs to L p , q + 1 2 ( Ω )   , ¯   becomes an operator on Hilbert spaces at each form level.
Note that
¯   is a densely defined operator on L p , q 2 ( Ω )   , since the compactly supported forms Λ c p , q ( Ω )   are in Dom ( ¯ )   . Moreover, ¯   is a closed operator, because differentiation is a continuous map in the distributional sense.
Thus we can define the Hilbert space adjoint,
¯   , to ¯   with respect to the L 2   -inner product on the appropriate form level in the usual way:
we say that
u L p , q + 1 2 ( Ω )   belongs to the domain of ¯   , i.e. u Dom ( ¯ )   , if there exists a constant C > 0   so that
| ( ¯ w , u ) | C w holds for all w Dom ( ¯ ) . (2.2)
By the Riesz representation theorem it follows, that, if u Dom ( ¯ )   , there exists a unique v L p , q 2 ( Ω )   , such that
( w , v ) = ( ¯ w , u )
holds for all w Dom ( ¯ )   ; we write ¯ u   for v   . This reveals that certain boundary conditions must hold on any smooth ( p , q + 1 )   -form, which belongs to Dom ( ¯ )   . In fact, one can show that u D p , q + 1 ( Ω ) : = Dom ( ¯ ) Λ p , q + 1 ( Ω ¯ )   holds if and only if
k = 1 n u I , k J r z k = 0 on b Ω
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,
¯ φ   , to ¯   with respect to the L 2 ( Ω , φ )   -inner product is defined by ¯ φ = e φ ¯ e φ   . In view of ( 2.2 ) it is easy to see that Dom ( ¯ ) = Dom ( ¯ φ )   holds.
Now we are ready to formulate the
¯   -Neumann problem. It is the following:
given
f L p , q 2 ( Ω )   , find u L p , q 2 ( Ω )   such that the following holds
{ ( ¯ ¯ + ¯ ¯ ) u = f u Dom ( ¯ ) Dom ( ¯ ) ¯ u Dom ( ¯ ) , ¯ u Dom ( ¯ ) (2.3)
The complex Laplacian, p , q : = ¯ ¯ + ¯ ¯   , is itself elliptic, but the boundary conditions, which are implied by membership to Dom ( ¯ )   , are not.
The ellipticity of
p , q   implies that G a ˚   rding's inequality holds in the interior of Ω   , i.e.
u 1 2 ¯ u 2 + ¯ u 2 for u Λ c p , q ( Ω ) , (2.4)
where . 1   denotes the usual L 2   -Sobolev 1   -norm. We remark, though, ( 2.4 ) does not hold for general u D p , q ( Ω )   . However, a substitute estimate, ( 2.5 ) below, does hold for u D p , q ( Ω )   .
Let
p b Ω   . We may choose a neighborhood U   of p   and a local coordinate system ( x 1 , , x 2 n 1 , r ) R 2 n 1 × 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   by ξ   , and define x , ξ : = j = 1 2 n 1 x j ξ j   .
For
f C c ( U Ω ¯ )   we define the tangential Fourier transform of f   by
f ~ ( ξ , r ) : = R 2 n 1 e 2 π i x , ξ f ( x , r ) d x .
Via the tangential Bessel potential Λ t s   of order s   ,
( Λ t s f ) ( x , r ) : = R 2 n 1 e 2 π i x , ξ ( 1 + | ξ | 2 ) s 2 f ~ ( ξ , r ) d ξ ,
we can define the tangential L 2   -Sobolev norm of f   of order s   by
| | | f | | | s 2 : = Λ t s f 2 = 0 R 2 n 1 ( 1 + | ξ | 2 ) s | f ~ ( ξ , r ) | 2 d ξ d r .
A subelliptic estimate of order ε > 0   holds if there exists C > 0   such that
| | | u | | | ε 2 C ¯ u 2 + ¯ u 2 (2.5)
for u 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 ) : = ( ¯ u , ¯ v ) + ( ¯ u , ¯ v )   for u , v D 0 , q ( Ω )   .
For quantities
A   and B   we use the notation | A | | B |   to mean | A | 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 | η A 2 + 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 C n   be a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain, and suppose that φ C 2 ( Ω ¯ ) P S H ( Ω )   . If | φ | i ¯ φ 1   , then
1 2 | I | = q 1 Ω k , l = 1 n 2 φ z k z ¯ l u k I u ¯ l I e 2 φ d V ¯ u 2 φ 2 + 3 ¯ φ u 2 φ 2 (3.2)
holds for all u 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 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 C n   be a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain, and suppose that φ C 2 ( Ω ¯ ) P S H ( Ω )   satisfies | φ | i ¯ φ 1 24   .
Then for all
u Λ c 0 , q ( Ω )   , it holds that
u e φ 1 2 ¯ u 2 φ 2 + ¯ φ u 2 φ 2 , (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 ( Ω ¯ ) Λ n p , n q ( Ω ¯ )  
defined by ψ φ = ψ , φ d V   for ψ , φ Λ p , q ( Ω ¯ )   . The basic properties of the Hodge-Star Operator are summarized in the following lemma.
Lemma 3.5.
A proof of Lemma  3.5 can be found in [Che-Sha, chapter 9.
Since the L 2   -Sobolev 1   -norm dominates the L 2   -norm, ( 3.4 ) implies that
u e φ 2 ¯ u 2 φ 2 + ¯ φ u 2 φ 2
holds for all u Λ c 0 , q ( Ω )   . In the following, we show that this inequality is in fact true for all u D 0 , q ( Ω )   .
Proposition 3.6. Let Ω C n   be a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain, and suppose that φ C 2 ( Ω ¯ ) P S H ( Ω )   satisfies | φ | i ¯ φ 1 2   .
Then for
u D 0 , q ( Ω )   it holds that
u 2 φ 2 ¯ u 2 φ 2 + ¯ φ u 2 φ 2 . (3.7)

4 Estimates for ¯ N q  

By a compactness estimate for ¯ N q   we mean the following: for all η > 0   there exists a C ( η ) > 0   such that
¯ N q α η α + C ( η ) α s (4.1)
for all α 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   or C ( η )   .
The family of estimates (
 4.1 ) is equivalent to ¯ N q   being a compact operator from L 0 , q 2 ( Ω )   to L 0 , q 1 2 ( Ω )   ; for a proof see for instance [McN2. We remark that for compactness of ¯ N q   it is sufficient to establish ( 4.1 ) for ¯   -closed forms α 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 ¯ 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 U   , where U   is a neighborhood of a given p 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 C n   is a smoothly bounded domain. Let p   be a point in b Ω   and suppose that b Ω U   is pseudoconvex, where U   is a neighborhood of p   . Then there exists a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain Ω a Ω U   with Ω a U   satisfying the following properties
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 | φ δ | i ¯ φ δ 1 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 U   of p   , such that for α L 0 , q 2 ( Ω a )   , ¯   -closed and supported in V Ω ¯ a   , the following estimate holds:
¯ N q Ω a α Ω a 2 δ 2 ε α Ω a 2 + δ 2 + 2 ε α 1 , Ω a 2 . (4.4)
The constant in   neither depends on α   nor δ   .
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 U   of p   such that for all β L 0 , q + 1 ( Ω a )   , which are ¯   -closed and supported in V Ω ¯ a   , the following estimate holds
¯ N q + 1 Ω a β 2 δ 2 ε β Ω a 2 + δ 2 + 2 ε β 1 , Ω a 2 . (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 ¯ N q Ω a   and ¯ N q + 1 Ω a   to usable estimates on D 0 , q ( Ω )   , we shall need exact regularity of the operator ¯ ¯ N q Ω a   . By exact regularity we mean that ¯ ¯ N q Ω a   preserves the L 2   -Sobolev spaces.
Kohn showed in
[Koh3, that exact regularity of ¯ ¯ N q Ω   follows from compactness of N q Ω   on L 0 , q 2 ( Ω )   , if Ω   is a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain. It is an easy consequence of the formula
N q = ( ¯ N q 1 ) ( ¯ N q ) + ( ¯ N q + 1 ) ( ¯ N q ) ,
that compactness of the operators ¯ N q   and ¯ 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 ¯   -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 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 ¯   -Neumann operator N q 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 C n   is a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain, such that its ¯   -Neumann operator, N q   , is compact on L 0 , q 2 ( Ω )   . Let s > 0   , then the following holds
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 ¯ ¯ N q   and N q ¯   in the L 2   -Sobolev spaces of negative order. In particular, the following holds.
Lemma 5.2. Suppose Ω C n   is a smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain, such that its ¯   -Neumann operator, N q   , is compact on L 0 , q 2 ( Ω )   . Then, if α Λ 0 , q ( Ω ¯ )   , it follows that
¯ N q α 1 α 1 , (5.3)
¯ ¯ N q α 1 α 1 . (5.4)
Recall that we showed in Proposition  4.11 that the ¯   -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 U   of p   , such that for all sufficiently small δ > 0   and η > 0  
u Ω 2 δ 2 ε η ( ¯ u Ω 2 + ¯ u Ω 2 + δ 2 ¯ u 1 , Ω 2 ) + η δ 2 u 1 , Ω 2
holds for u D 0 , q ( Ω )   supported in W Ω ¯   . Here, the constant in   does depend on η   but not on δ   .

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 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 b Ω   is pseudoconvex. Suppose that
u 2 δ 2 ε η ( Q ( u , u ) + δ 2 ¯ u 1 2 ) + η δ 2 u 1 2 (6.2)
holds for all u D 0 , q ( Ω )   supported in V Ω ¯   , and for all η , δ > 0   sufficiently small. Let W V   be a neighborhood of p   . Then
| | | u | | | ε 2 Q ( u , u )
holds for all u D 0 , q ( Ω )   which are supported in W 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   be a sequence of functions on R   satisfying the following conditions:
We can choose the p k   's such that | p k ( t ) | C 2 k   holds for all k N 0   , t 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 0 }   and S ( R 2 n )   be the restriction of S ( R 2 n )   to R 2 n   .
For
f S ( R 2 n )   define the operators P k   by
P k f ~ ( ξ , r ) : = p k ( | ξ | ) f ~ ( ξ , r ) ,
where f ~   is the tangential Fourier transform, that is
f ~ ( ξ , r ) = R 2 n 1 e 2 π i x , ξ f ( x , r ) d x .
On ( 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 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 S ( R 2 n )   and s = s 1 + s 2   it holds that
| | | f | | | s 2 = k = 0 2 2 k s 1 | | | P k f | | | s 2 2 .
Suppose u = | J | = q v J d z ¯ J   is in D 0 , q ( Ω )   and supported in V Ω ¯   , where V   is a special boundary chart near a boundary point p   . Then we can write
u = | I | = q u I d x I ,
where I = { i 1 , . . . , i q }   with 1 i l 2 n   . The operator P k   acting on a ( 0 , q )   -form u   means the following:
P k u = | I | = q ( P k u I ) d x I .
We remark that u D 0 , q ( Ω )   if and only if u I ( x , 0 ) = 0   for x R 2 n 1   whenever 2 n I   . This leads to another crucial property of the operator P k   , that is: P k u D 0 , q ( Ω )   whenever u 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 S ( R 2 n )   and σ R   , then
k = 0 2 2 k σ [ P k , f ] g 2 | | | g | | | σ 1 2 ,
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 ( R 2 n )   acting on smooth q   -forms, let χ S ( R 2 n )   and σ > 0   . Then
k = 0 2 2 k σ D ( χ P k u ) σ 2 D u 2 + u 2 + | I | = q | | | u I x 2 n | | | 1 2 .
holds for all q   -forms u   with coefficients in S ( R 2 n )   . Here, the constant in   does not depend on u   .
Having collected the basic facts concerning the P k   's, we are ready to prove Theorem  6.1 .

7 An Example

Consider the domain D = { w 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 )   is 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 1 8 η   holds for any η > 0   near the origin. Instead of constructing the { φ δ }   on D   , we consider Ω = { z C 3 | r ( z ) < 0 }   , where
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 ,
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 = w 3 + 1 1 w 3   . We claim that
φ δ ( z ) = log ( r ( z ) + δ ) log ( log ( | z 1 | 2 + δ 1 4 ) )
log ( log ( | z 2 | 2 + δ 1 2 + η ) )
= ψ 0 ( z ) + ψ 1 ( z ) + ψ 2 ( z )
satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem  1.4 on Ω ¯ U   with ε = 1 8 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
i ¯ φ δ ( z ) ( ξ , ξ ) C δ 1 4 + η | ξ | 2 (7.1)
holds for all ξ C 3   and z S δ U   . One computes
i ¯ 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
+ ( 1 + | z 1 2 z 2 | 2 + | z 2 | 4 ) | ξ 3 | 2
+ 2 Re ( ( 2 ( 1 + z 3 ) 2 z 2 z ¯ 2 2 ( z 3 1 ) ( z ¯ 1 2 z ¯ 2 ) ) ξ 2 ξ ¯ 3 )
+ 4 Re ( ( 1 + z 3 ) z 1 ξ 1 ( ( z ¯ 1 2 z ¯ 2 ) ξ ¯ 3 ( z ¯ 3 1 ) ξ ¯ 2 ) .
Denote the last term on the right hand side by (I). Estimating (I) we obtain
( I ) 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
+ 2 Re ( ( z 3 1 ) ξ 2 ( z ¯ 1 2 z ¯ 2 ) ξ ¯ 3 ) .
It follows easily that
i ¯ r ( z ) ( ξ , ξ ) | z 2 | 2 | ξ 2 | 2 + 1 2 | ξ 3 | 2 . (7.2)
This estimate implies that if z S δ U   , then
i ¯ ψ 0 ( z ) ( ξ , ξ ) | z 2 | 2 | ξ 2 | 2 + 1 2 | ξ 3 | 2 r ( z ) + δ 1 4 ( δ 1 2 | ξ 2 | 2 + δ 1 | ξ 3 | 2 ) ,
where the first estimate on the right hand side only holds if | z 2 | 2 δ 1 2   . If | z 2 | 2 δ 1 2   , then
i ¯ ψ 2 ( z ) ( ξ , ξ ) δ 1 2 + η | ξ 2 | 2 log ( | z 2 | 2 + δ 1 2 + η ) ( | z 2 | 2 + δ 1 2 + η ) 2 δ 1 4 | ξ 2 | 2 .
Similarly, we obtain i ¯ ψ 1 ( z ) ( ξ , ξ ) 1 4 δ 1 4 + η | ξ 1 | 2   for | z 1 | 2 δ 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 S δ U   with | z 1 | 2 δ 1 4   . For that we shall use a different estimate for the complex Hessian of r   , that is
i ¯ r ( z ) ( ξ , ξ ) 1 2 | z 1 | 2 | ξ 1 | 2 4 | z 3 1 | 2 | ξ 2 | 2 . (7.3)
Then, if z S δ   and | z 1 | 2 δ 1 4   , we obtain by using ( 7.3 ) and ( 7.2 )
( δ 1 2 + η + 1 2 ) i ¯ ψ 0 ( z ) ( ξ , ξ ) C δ ( δ 3 4 + η | ξ 1 | 2 + ( | z 2 | 2 16 δ 1 2 + η | z 3 1 | 2 ) | ξ 2 | 2 ) .
Thus we obtain ( 7.1 ) for all z S δ   as long as | z 2 | 2 16 δ 1 2 + η | z 3 1 | 2   .
If the latter inequality is not true, then we can assume that
| z 2 | 2 δ 1 2 + η   .
However, in that case
1 2 i ¯ ψ 2 ( z ) ( ξ , ξ ) 16 δ 1 2 + η | z 3 1 | 2 | ξ 2 | 2 0 ,
which completes the proof of ( 7.1 ).
With a construction similar to the above one obtains for the domains
D k , l , m , n = { w C 3 | Re w 3 + | w 1 k w 2 l w 3 m | 2 + | w 2 n | 2 < 0 } , k , l , m , n N
a subelliptic estimate of order 1 M η   , η > 0   , where M   is the maximum 1   -type near the origin.
References

  1. D. Catlin, Subelliptic estimates for the ¯   -Neumann problem on pseudoconvex domains, Ann. of Math. 126 (1987), 131-191
  2. S.C. Chen and M.-C. Shaw, Partial differential equations in several complex variables, AMS/IP, Studies in Adv. Math. 19 (2001)
  3. J.P. D'Angelo, Real hypersurfaces, orders of contact and applications, Ann. of Math. 115 (1982), 615-637
  4. L. Hörmander, L 2   estimates and existence theorems for the ¯   operator, Acta Math. 113 (1965), 89-152
  5. J.J. Kohn, Harmonic integrals on strongly pseudoconvex manifolds, I, Ann. of Math. 78 (1963), 112-148
  6. J.J. Kohn, Harmonic integrals on strongly pseudoconvex manifolds, II, Ann. of Math. 79 (1964), 450-472
  7. J.J. Kohn, A survey of the ¯   -Neumann problem, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 41, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI (1984), 137-145
  8. J.J. Kohn and L. Nirenberg, Non-coercive boundary value problems, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 18 (1965), 443-492
  9. J.D. McNeal, Lower bounds on the Bergman metric near a point of finite type, Ann. of Math. 136 (1992), 339-360
  10. J.D. McNeal, A sufficient condition for compactness of the ¯   -Neumann operator, J. Funct. Anal. 195 (2002), 190-205
  11. 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