Arxiv:2007.04491V3 [Math.AP] 24 Aug 2020 Hoe 1.1

arXiv:2007.04491v3 [math.AP] 24 Aug 2020 hoe 1.1. Theorem that prove and ouin otennierequations. nonlinear the to solutions (1.2) has one space Sobolev certain hr xssaconstant a exists there (1.4) (1.1) qain sNS ti elkon e o xml,[] 1] htfrt for that [15], [1], example, for see known, well is n It of propagator model NLS. typical One is equations. equations dispersive nonlinear of study the 1.1. (1.3) 85,47A40. 58J50, (2010) Classification Subject Mathematics Keywords smttclybhvslk ierslto.Ti en n a find can one means This solution. linear a like behaves asymptotically yerslswihsaeta h solution the that state which results type and te ad edntne u nta aai n weighted any in data initial our need don’t we hand, other hrigteaayi nti ril,bttemto nti ril cann article this in method the but article, this in H analysis the sharping aefrdfcsn asciia L hc a eyqikaffirmat quick very a has which NLS critical mass defocusing for case Remark Remark 1 esatwt eouigeeg rtclNSin NLS critical es energy recover defocusing can with one start sense We what in that be may question natural One nteohrhn,i h edo eouigNS hr r aysc many are there NLS, defocusing of field the in hand, other the On ∩ H ttmn fmi results. main of Statement L EA SIAE O OLNA SCHR NONLINEAR FOR ESTIMATES DECAY 3 1 ouin f3 uni,3 ui L,ad2 uni L (non NLS quintic 2d and NLS, cubic equations). 3d quintic, 3d of solutions Abstract. omo h aa u lodpnso h rfieo nta data initial of profile the on depends also but data, the of norm 1.3 1.2 aa oeipraty hsconstant this importantly, More data. olna croigreuto,dcyestimate decay Schrödinger equation, Nonlinear : . e . it n a s iia usin o te L oes hr saspecial a is There models. NLS other for questions similar ask may One n a eal olwrterglrt fiiildt itebtby bit little a data initial of regularity the lower to able be may One ∆ fSh¨dne qainin Schrödinger equation of Let nti hr oe epeetsm ea siae o nonli for estimates decay some present we note, short this In u solves C u k 0 u HNI A N EU ZHAO ZEHUA AND FAN CHENJIE ( ( eedn on depending t u ( ) k i∂ (1.3) (0 − e || it t u x , e ∆ ∆ + 1. ( it ,x t, u EQUATIONS = ) ∆ ihiiildata initial with 0 Introduction u iprieetmtspa udmna oein role fundamental a play estimates Dispersive k R ) L + || 3 u x ∞ ) k L 0 H u ( x ∞ ˙ u . x 1 x s = 0 ) ≤ u R uhthat such , → k ∈ | u d u C otedfcsn olna equations, nonlinear defocusing the to n has one , 0 H 0 | u k 4 C , 0 rmr:3Q5 eodr:35R01, Secondary: 35Q55; Primary: u, L 3 u t as x 1 ∩ R − 0 t osntol eedo the on depend only not does , − 3 3 2 L u t . d 2 ihrltvl ieiiildata, initial nice relatively with 0 1 ∞ → hc sin is which , . , . L x 2 ierSchrödingerlinear space. ODINGER ¨ nierdispersive onlinear H iae(.)for (1.1) timate 3 v nwr at answer, ive u ∩ + near u ota in that so , L 0 thandle ot elinear he 1 nthe On . Then, . attering L x 1 2 CHENJIE FAN AND ZEHUA ZHAO least for d ≤ 3 when the nonlinearity is relatively regular. The observation is: let u be a solution to defocusing mass critical NLS with Schwarz initial data in Rd, 4 (1.5) iut + ∆u = |u| d u, ,u(0, x)= u0. then via pseudo-conformal transformation, one can write u as 1 1 x 2 (1.6) u(t, x)= v¯( , )ei|x| /4t td/2 t t where v also solves the mass critical NLS global in time, with smooth initial data, ∞ and in particular kvkLx . 1. Note that in this case, not only does Cu0 exists so that ∞ −3/2 |u(t, x)kL ≤ Cu0 t , but also this Cu0 only depends on certain norms of u0, rather than its profile. We also obtain similar results for 3d cubic NLS and 2d quintic NLS. Consider 2 (i∂t + ∆R3 ) u = |u| u, (1.7) 4 1 (u(0, x)= u0(x) ∈ H ∩ L , we have 4 1 Theorem 1.4. Let u solves (1.7) with initial data u0, which is in H ∩ L , Then there exists a constant Cu0 , depending u0, so that 3 ∞ − 2 (1.8) ||u(t, x)||Lx ≤ Cu0 t .

Remark 1.5. Again, this Cu0 depends on the proﬁle of the initial data. [7] also gives decay for this model, with diﬀerent assumptions. In some sense, they need more integrability in space but less regularity of the data. It should also be noted, by conjugate pseudo-conformal symmetry and energy conservation law, in the same spirit of [7], one can directly get time decay for certain Lp norm. We thank Jason Murphy for helpful discussion on this point. Also consider 4 (i∂t + ∆R2 ) u = |u| u, (1.9) 3 1 (u(0, x)= u0(x) ∈ H ∩ L , we have 3 1 Theorem 1.6. Let u solves (1.9) with initial data u0, which is in H ∩ L , Then there exists a constant Cu0 , depending u0, so that

∞ −1 (1.10) ||u(t, x)||Lx ≤ Cu0 t . 1.2. Background and some further discussions. Equation (1.3) is called energy critical because its Hamiltonian/Energy 1 1 (1.11) E(u(t)) := |∇u(t, x)|2 + |u(t, x)|6dx, 2 6 Z is invariant under the natural scaling. The local theory is classical, see, for example, textbooks [1], [15]. It is indeed highly nontrivial, even for Schwarz initial data, that one can have a global flow for (1.3). Nevertheless, it is proven in the seminal work, [2], see also reference therein, that all H1 initial data gives a global flow. We summarize their results in the following Proposition 1.7 (Scattering, global time-space bound and persistence of regularity). Initial value problem (1.3) is globally well-posed and scattering. More precisely, for 1 0 1 any u0 with finite energy, u0 ∈ H , there exists a unique global solution u ∈ Ct (Hx)∩ 10 Lx,t such that ∞ 10 (1.12) |u(t, x)| dxdt ≤ Cku0k 1 , R3 H Z−∞ Z DECAY ESTIMATES FOR NONLINEAR SCHRODINGERSOLUTIONS¨ 3

s for some constant C(ku0kH1 ) that depends only on ku0kH1 . And if u0 ∈ H for some s> 1, then u(t) ∈ Hs for all time t, and one has the uniform bounds

(1.13) sup ||u(t)|| s ≤ C ||u || s . H ku0kH1 0 H t∈R In particular, via this proposition, we may assume in our article, that there exists M1 such that,

∞ 3 (1.14) ||u(t)||Lt Hx ≤ M1, where u solves (1.3). Parallel results hold for equation (1.7). If one works on initial data in H1, the scattering result is indeed easier. Much stronger low regularity results holds for equation (1.7), [3], [9], see also [4] and reference therein. As a corollary of lower regularity results [3], [9], one has Proposition 1.8. Initial value problem (1.7) is globally well-posed and scattering in 1 1 H space. More precisely, for any u0 with ﬁnite energy, u0 ∈ H , there exists a 0 1 5 unique global solution u ∈ Ct (Hx) ∩ Lx,t such that ∞ 5 (1.15) |u(t, x)| dxdt ≤ Cku0k 1 , R3 H Z−∞ Z s for some constant C(ku0kH1 ) that depends only on ku0kH1 . And if u0 ∈ H for some s> 1, then u(t) ∈ Hs for all time t, and one has the uniform bounds

(1.16) sup ||u(t)|| s ≤ C ||u || s . H ku0kH1 0 H t∈R By the above proposition, one may assume

∞ 4 (1.17) ||u(t)||Lt Hx ≤ M1. where u solves (1.7). For the 2d quintic case, one also has the parallel result, [13][16], Proposition 1.9. Initial value problem (1.9) is globally well-posed and scattering in 1 1 H space. More precisely, for any u0 with ﬁnite energy, u0 ∈ H , there exists a 0 1 8 unique global solution u ∈ Ct (Hx) ∩ Lx,t such that ∞ 8 (1.18) |u(t, x)| dxdt ≤ Cku0k 1 , R2 H Z−∞ Z s for some constant C(ku0kH1 ) that depends only on ku0kH1 . And if u0 ∈ H for some s> 1, then u(t) ∈ Hs for all time t, and one has the uniform bounds

(1.19) sup ||u(t)|| s ≤ C ||u || s . H ku0kH1 0 H t∈R By the above proposition, one may assume

∞ 3 (1.20) ||u(t)||Lt Hx ≤ M1. where u solves (1.9). The proof for three different models follows a similar scheme. Compare to the energy critical model in R3, 3d cubic model needs an extra trick to deal with fact the nonlinearity is not of power high enough, and 2d quintic model needs an (different) extra trick to deal with the fact in dimension 2, the dispersive estimate is not strong enough. The method in this paper relies on an important observation from [8], that in dimension d ≥ 3, since the dispersive estimate (1.1) gives a decay t−d/2 which is integrable in time, then it is possible to treat things in a more perturbative way. However, in this article, we don’t necessarily need d ≥ 3. The reason is that if one wants to view the nonlinear |u|pu as Vu, then from the view point of bootstrap or 4 CHENJIE FAN AND ZEHUA ZHAO from the results one wants to prove, this V is decaying in time, thus, compensating the non-integrability of t−1 when d =2. It turns out Lin and Strauss already studied and obtained the decay of L∞ norm of 3d NLS in their classical paper, [12], and our scheme is similar to theirs. They have different assumptions, but more or less that is due to at that time, the scattering behavior for NLS is not as well understood as today. Their approaches are revisited by a more modern language in the proof of Corollary 3.4 in [6] for the 3d cubic Hartree equations.1 It may be possible to apply vector filed methods and using commutator type estimates to approach those types of problems, see for example, [10]. One main difference 2 1 s is it may require the data lives in some weighted Lx space. One difficulty to use L ∩H initial data may be the following. Consider for example, energy critical NLS, it will fall into a perturbative regime, in some sense, after evolving time L long enough. However, it is not easy to propagate the L1 information from the initial data to time L. On the other hand, if one assumes initial data is in some weighted L2 space so m n 2 that x D u0 is in L , this information is relative easier to be propagated to time L. See [11], [14]. See also, in particular, [7], where various decaying estimate are derived for several different NLS models. As last, we mention that [5] concerns the decay estimate as well. In their paper, they prove global existence of small solutions to NLS by space-time resonance method. By similar treatments of this article, one can indeed obtain similar results for energy critical NLS in 4d with nice initial data. Also, for in dimension 3 or 4, when the nonlinearity is of higher power and algebraic, one may obtain similar results assuming the critical Sobolev norm stays bounded and associated conditional scattering holds. One may also extend to focusing case, when under certain mass/energy constraint, such a solution is known to scatter. We leave this to interested readers. 1.3. Notation. Throughout this note, we use C to denote the universal constant and C may change line by line. We say A . B, if A ≤ CB. We say A ∼ B if A . B and B . A.

Several parameters M1,M,δ,L will be involved in the analysis. M1, ku0kL1 is fixed all time. All the parameters M,δ,L may depend on M1, ( and universal constant C). Essentially, one first choose M, then chooses δ, then chooses L. And we only consider L ≥ 100M. We also use notation CB to denote a constant depends on B. We use usual Lp spaces and Sobolev spaces Hs. 1.4. Acknowledgment. We thank Benjamin Dodson, Zihua Guo, Carlos Kenig and Gigliola Staffilani for helpful comments. C.F. is funded in part by an AMS-Simons Foundation travel grant.

2. Proof of Theorem 1.1 Let us deﬁne

3/2 ∞ (2.1) A(τ) := sup s ku(s)kLx . s≤τ Note that A(τ) is monotone increasing. One aim to prove there is some constant, depending on u0, so that,

(2.2) A(τ) ≤ Cu0 , ∀t ≥ 0.

Recall we have (1.14), thus for any given l, one can ﬁnd Cl so that,

(2.3) A(τ) ≤ Cl, 0 ≤ τ ≤ l.

1We get notiﬁed of the work [6] after we ﬁnish the current article, which lead us to detail of the work [12]. The current article basically illustrates how to get dispersive decay, given one already knows the scattering result. It also covers the 2d quintic case. DECAY ESTIMATES FOR NONLINEAR SCHRODINGERSOLUTIONS¨ 5 and the solution is continuous in time in L∞ since we are working on high regularity data. Thus, Theorem 1.1 follows from the following bootstrap lemma.

Lemma 2.1. There exists a constant Cu0 , for that if one has A(τ) ≤ Cu0 , then one Cu0 has A(τ) ≤ 2 .

Now we turn to the proof of Lemma 2.1. The way to choose Cu0 will become clear in the proof. Fix τ, we only need to prove for any t ≤ τ, one has

Cu0 −3/2 (2.4) ku(t)k ∞ ≤ t . Lx 2 We recall here, by bootstrap assumption, we can apply the following estimates in the proof

∞ −3/2 (2.5) ku(t)kLx ≤ Cu0 t . Observe, any δ, we can choose L, so that for one has

∞ 1 10 10 (2.6) kuk 10 ≤ δ. Lx ZL/2 We will ﬁx two special δ, L in the proof, through the exact way choice of those two parameters will only be made clear later. We will only study t ≥ L, and estimate all t ≤ L directly via

∞ −3/2 (2.7) ku(t)kLx ≤ A(L)t ,t ≤ L. Now we ﬁx L ≤ t ≤ τ. By Duhamel’s Formula, we can write the nonlinear solution u(t, x) as follows, t it∆ i(t−s)∆ 4 (2.8) u(t, x)= e u0 + i e (|u| u)(s)ds = ul + unl. Z0 Dispersive estimate gives for some constant C0

∞ −3/2 1 (2.9) kul(t)kLt ≤ C0t ku0kLx .

Now, we need an extra parameter M, and we split unl into

(2.10) unl = F1 + F2 + F3, where M i(t−s)∆ 4 F1(t)= i e (|u| u)(s)ds, Z0 t−M i(t−s)∆ 4 (2.11) F2(t)= i e (|u| u)(s)ds, M Z t i(t−s)∆ 4 F3(t)= i e (|u| u)(s)ds. Zt−M It will be clear how to choose the value of M, when we estimate F2. And it will be clear how to choose the value of δ, (depending on M), when we estimate F3. And one chooses L, depending on δ so that (2.6) holds. We will estimate F1 as M ∞ i(t−s)∆ 4 ∞ kF1(t)kLx ≤ ke |u| u(s)kLx Z0 −3/2 5 . 1 M(t − M) sup ku (s)kLx (2.12) s −3/2 5 . Mt sup ku(s)kH3 s 5 −3/2 . MM1 t . 6 CHENJIE FAN AND ZEHUA ZHAO

For F2, we will apply (2.5), and use pointwise estimate (2.13) i(t−s)∆ 4 −3/2 4 4 −3/2 −3/2 ∞ 3 ∞ ke |u(s)| u(s)kLx . (t − s) ku(s)kH ku(s)kLx . Cu0 M1 (t − s) s .

And one estimate F2 via t−M ∞ 4 −3/2 −3/2 (2.14) kF2(t)kLx ≤ CCu0 M1 (t − s) s ds. ZM Now, choosing M, so that t−M 1 (2.15) CM 4 (t − s)−3/2s−3/2ds ≤ t−3/2, 1 10 ZM and we can estimate F2 as

1 −3/2 (2.16) kF (t)k ∞ ≤ C t . 2 Lx 10 u0 The estimate of F3 will be the most tricky part. We ﬁrst state the following technical Lemma, Lemma 2.2. Let f be a H3 function in R3, with

2 3 (2.17) kfkLx ≤ a, kfkH ≤ b, then one has 2 3 1/5 (2.18) kfkL∞ . (a b ) . We will present the proof of Lemma 2.2 in the Appendix.

2 3 3 Following Lemma 2.2, we estimate the L -norm and H -norm of F3. Note that H i(t−s)∆ 3 is a Banach algebra, and e is unity in H , we directly estimate kF3(t)kH3 as 5 (2.19) kF3(t)kH3 ≤ MM1 .

2 For ||F3(t)||Lx , we will use the fact t − M ≥ L/2 and rely on (2.6). Also note t − M ∼ t since t ≥ L ≥ 100M. We estimate as t t i(t−s)∆ 4 4 e |u| uds 2 ≤ |||u| u||L2 ds Lx x Zt−M Zt−M t 15 5 5 8 2 8 ≤ ||u|| 10 · ||u|| ∞ · ||u|| 2 ds Lx Lx Lx Zt−M t (2.20) 5 3 5 15 8 − 2 2 8 ≤ CM (Cu0 t ) ||u|| 10 ds 1 Lx Zt−M 5 3 5 15 13 8 − 2 2 8 16 ≤ CM (Cu0 t ) · ||u|| 10 10 · M 1 Lt [t−M,t]Lx 5 13 15 3 5 8 16 8 − 2 2 ≤ CM1 M δ (Cu0 t ) . Thus, via Lemma 2.2, we derive t 5 13 15 3 5 2 3 i(t−s)∆ 4 8 16 8 − 2 2 5 5 5 e |u| uds ∞ ≤ CM M δ (Cu0 t ) · (M1 M) Lx 1 (2.21) Zt−M 2 37 13 3 3 5 40 3 4 − 2 ≤ C M M1 δ (Cu0 t ).

Thus, by choosing δ small enough, according to M,M1, we can ensure

1 −3/2 (2.22) kF (t)k ∞ ≤ C t . 3 Lx 10 u0 We note that we choose L, depending on δ, so that (2.6) holds .

We remark here, the choice of M,L does not depend on Cu0 . Indeed, we will choose

Cu0 depending on M,L.

To summarize, for all t ≤ τ, assuming A(τ) ≤ Cu0 , we derive DECAY ESTIMATES FOR NONLINEAR SCHRODINGERSOLUTIONS¨ 7

• For t ≤ L, one has (2.23) u(t) ≤ A(L)t−3/2. • For L ≤ t ≤ τ, one has, via (2.9), (2.12), (2.16), (2.22) 1 1 1 5 −3/2 (2.24) u(t) ≤{C(ku0k + MM )+ Cu0 + Cu0 }t . Lx 1 10 10 Thus, if one choose

1 5 (2.25) Cu0 := 10A(L)+ C(ku0kLx + MM1 ), then the desired estimates follows. This ends the proof of Lemma 2.1. Thus proves Theorem 1.1.

3. Proof of Theorem 1.4 The proof of Theorem 1.4 follows the same strategy as Theorem 1.1, but needs different idea to treat F3. Comparing the two models, the dimensions are the same but the nonlinearities are obviously different. We will briefly overview the setting, discuss the treatment of F3 term explicitly and skip other same treatments. Firstly, by Duhamel’s Formula, we write the nonlinear solution u(t, x) to (1.7) as follows, t it∆ i(t−s)∆ 2 (3.1) u(t, x)= e u0 + i e (|u| u)(s)ds = ul + unl. Z0 Clearly dispersive estimate gives for some constant C0,

∞ −3/2 1 (3.2) kul(t)kLt ≤ C0t ku0kLx .

Then, we split unl into

(3.3) unl = F1 + F2 + F3 where M i(t−s)∆ 2 F1(t)= i e (|u| u)(s)ds, Z0 t−M i(t−s)∆ 2 (3.4) F2(t)= i e (|u| u)(s)ds, M Z t i(t−s)∆ 2 F3(t)= i e (|u| u)(s)ds. Zt−M The process of handling the F1 term and the F2 term are similar to the quintic model case so let’s focus on the F3 term.

Recall, we need to prove, given M,M1, there exists δ > 0 (small enough and to be decided), such that if L is chosen, so that,

(3.5) kuk 5 <δ Lt,x[L/2,∞] then,

Cu0 −3/2 (3.6) kF (t)k ∞ ≤ t . 3 L 10 We need to improve Lemma 2.2 to Lemma 3.1. Let f(x) be a H4 function in R3, with

2 2 4 (3.7) kfkL ≤ a1, k∇fkLx ≤ a2, kfkH ≤ b. Then one has 2/5 6/25 ∞ 9/25 (3.8) kfkL ≤ a1 a2 b . 8 CHENJIE FAN AND ZEHUA ZHAO

We will present the proof of Lemma 3.1 in the Appendix.

4 2 2 Now the strategy is to estimate ||F3||H , ||F3||Lx and ||∇F3||Lx respectively. Then we can apply Lemma 3.1. Note that H4 is a Banach algebra, and ei(t−s)∆ is unity in 4 H , we directly estimate kF3(t)kH4 as 3 (3.9) kF3(t)kH4 ≤ MM1 .

2 Then we turn to the estimate for ||F3||Lx . t t i(t−s)∆ 2 2 e |u| uds 2 ≤ |||u| u||L2 ds Lx x Zt−M Zt−M t 7 13 8 6 10 15 ≤ ||u|| 5 · ||u|| ∞ · ||u|| 2 ds Lx Lx Lx Zt−M t (3.10) 8 3 13 7 15 − 2 10 6 ≤ CM (Cu0 t ) ||u|| 5 ds 1 Lx Zt−M 8 3 13 7 23 15 − 2 10 6 30 ≤ CM (Cu0 t ) · ||u|| 5 5 · M 1 Lt [t−M,t]Lx 8 23 7 3 13 15 30 6 − 2 10 ≤ CM1 M δ (Cu0 t ) .

2 Also, we can deal with the estimate for ||∇F3||Lx as follows. t t i(t−s)∆ 2 2 e ∇(|u| u)ds 2 ≤ ||∇(|u| u)||L2 ds Lx x Zt−M Zt−M t (3.11) 2 ≤ ||∇u|| 2 · ||u|| ∞ ds Lx Lx t−M Z 3 2 2 ≤ MM1 · (Cu0 t ) . At last, putting the above estimates together and applying Lemma 3.1, we have, (3.12) t 8 23 7 3 13 2 3 6 9 i(t−s)∆ 2 15 30 6 − 2 10 5 2 2 25 3 25 e |u| uds ∞ ≤ CM1 M δ (Cu0 t ) · (MM1 · (Cu0 t ) ) · (M1 M) Lx Zt−M 2 23 68 7 3 5 25 75 15 2 ≤ C M1 M δ (Cu0 t ).

Thus, by choosing δ small enough, according to M,M1, we can ensure

1 −3/2 (3.13) kF (t)k ∞ ≤ C t , 3 Lx 10 u0 as desired.

4. Proof of Theorem 1.6 The proof of Theorem 1.6 follows the same strategy as Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.4, but needs diﬀerent idea to treat F2 (since the decay is not enough for the 2d case). We will brieﬂy overview the 2d setting, discuss the treatment of the F2 term in detail and skip other same treatments.

Let us deﬁne

∞ (4.1) A(τ) := sup sku(s)kLx . s≤τ Note that A(τ) is monotone increasing. One aim to prove there is some constant, depending on u0, so that,

(4.2) A(τ) ≤ Cu0 , ∀t ≥ 0. Similar to the previous two cases, Theorem 1.6 follows from the following bootstrap lemma. DECAY ESTIMATES FOR NONLINEAR SCHRODINGERSOLUTIONS¨ 9

Lemma 4.1. There exists a constant Cu0 , for that if one has A(τ) ≤ Cu0 , then one Cu0 has A(τ) ≤ 2 . Now we turn to the proof of Lemma 4.1. Firstly, by Duhamel’s Formula, we write the nonlinear solution u(t, x) to (1.9) as follows, t it∆ i(t−s)∆ 4 (4.3) u(t, x)= e u0 + i e (|u| u)(s)ds = ul + unl. Z0 Clearly dispersive estimate gives for some constant C0,

∞ −1 1 (4.4) kul(t)kLt ≤ C0t ku0kLx .

Then, we split unl into

(4.5) unl = F1 + F2 + F3 where M i(t−s)∆ 4 F1(t)= i e (|u| u)(s)ds, Z0 t−M i(t−s)∆ 4 (4.6) F2(t)= i e (|u| u)(s)ds, M Z t i(t−s)∆ 4 F3(t)= i e (|u| u)(s)ds. Zt−M The process of handling the F1 term and the F3 term are quite similar to the 3d quintic model so let’s focus on the F2 term. We recall the following fact according to Proposition 1.9. +∞ 8 (4.7) ku(s)k 8 ds < ∞. Lx Z0 We start with a pointwise estimate applying the bootstrap assumption, together with the H¨older and the Sobolev inequality as follows (4.8) i(t−s)∆ 4 −1 3 3 −1 −1 ∞ . 3 8 ∞ . 8 ke |u(s)| u(s)kLx (t−s) ku(s)kH ku(s)kLx ku(s)kLx Cu0 M1 (t−s) s ku(s)kLx .

And one estimate F2 via t−M ∞ 3 −1 −1 8 kF2(t)kLx ≤ CCu0 M1 (t − s) s ku(s)kLx ds M Z t 2 3 −1 −1 8 ≤ CCu0 M1 (t − s) s ku(s)kLx ds ZM t−M 3 −1 −1 8 + CCu0 M1 (t − s) s ku(s)kLx ds t Z 2 t 2 3 −1 −1 8 (4.9) ≤ 2CCu0 M1 t s ku(s)kLx ds ZM t−M 3 −1 −1 8 +2CCu0 M1 t (t − s) ku(s)kLx ds t Z 2 t 2 8 7 8 3 −1 − 7 8 ≤ 2CC 0 M t s ds ·ku(s)k u 1 Lt,x ZM t−M 8 7 8 3 −1 − 7 8 +2CCu0 M1 t (t − s) ds ·ku(s)kL . t t,x Z 2 10 CHENJIEFANANDZEHUAZHAO

Now, choosing M, so that ∞ 8 7 8 1 3 −1 − 7 8 −1 (4.10) 4CCu0 M t s ds ·ku(s)k ≤ Cu0 t . 1 Lt,x 10 ZM Thus eventually we can estimate F2 as

1 −1 (4.11) kF (t)k ∞ ≤ C t . 2 Lx 10 u0 5. Appendix We record the proof for Lemma 2.2 and Lemma 3.1 in this section.

1 c Proof of Lemma 2.2. Indeed, assume |f(x0)| = c > 0, for |x − x0| ∼ 100 b , one still has |f(x)|∼ c since k∇f(x)kL∞ ≤kfkH3 ≤ b. Thus, one has 3 2 c 2 2 (5.1) c . kfk 2 ≤ a . b3 Lx And the desired estimate follows. Proof of Lemma 3.1. Apply Lemma 2.2, one derive 2/5 ∞ 3/5 (5.2) k∇fkL ≤ a2 b . Now, following the proof of Lemma 3.1, one derives 2/5 2/5 2/5 6/25 ∞ 3/5 3/5 9/25 (5.3) kfkL . a1 (a2 b ) = a1 a2 b .

References 1. Thierry Cazenave, Semilinear Schrödinger equations, vol. 10, American Mathematical Soc., 2003. 2. James Colliander, Markus Keel, Gigiola Staffilani, Hideo Takaoka, and Terence Tao, Global well- posedness and scattering for the energy-critical nonlinear Schrödinger equation in R3, Annals of Mathematics (2008), 767–865. 3. James Colliander, Markus Keel, Gigliola Staffilani, Hideo Takaoka, and Terence Tao, Global existence and scattering for rough solutions of a nonlinear schrödinger equation on R3, Com- munications on Pure and Applied Mathematics: A Journal Issued by the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences 57 (2004), no. 8, 987–1014. 4. Benjamin Dodson, Global well-posedness for the defocusing, cubic nonlinear schr {\” o} dinger equation with initial data in a critical space, arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09618 (2020). 5. Pierre Germain, Nader Masmoudi, and Jalal Shatah, Global Solutions for 3D Quadratic Schrdinger Equations, International Mathematics Research Notices 2009 (2008), no. 3, 414– 432. 6. M Grillakis and M Machedon, Pair excitations and the mean field approximation of interacting bosons, i, Communications in Mathematical Physics 324 (2013), no. 2, 601–636. L∞C Rn 7. Nakao Hayashi and Masayoshi Tsutsumi, t ( )-decay of classical solutions for nonlinear schrödinger equations, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Section A: Mathematics 104 (1986), no. 3-4, 309–327. 8. J-L Journé, Avi Soffer, and Christopher D Sogge, Decay estimates for schrödinger operators, Communications on Pure and Applied mathematics 44 (1991), no. 5, 573–604. 9. Carlos Kenig and Frank Merle, Scattering for H1/2 bounded solutions to the cubic, defocusing nls in 3 dimensions, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 362 (2010), no. 4, 1937–1962. 10. Sergiu Klainerman, Uniform decay estimates and the lorentz invariance of the classical wave equation, CPAM 38 (1985), 321–332. 11. Sergiu Klainerman and Gustavo Ponce, Global, small amplitude solutions to nonlinear evolution equations, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 36 (1983), no. 1, 133–141. 12. Jeng-Eng Lin and Walter A Strauss, Decay and scattering of solutions of a nonlinear schrödinger equation, Journal of Functional Analysis 30 (1978), no. 2, 245–263. 13. Fabrice Planchon and Luis Vega, Bilinear virial identities and applications, Annales scientifiques de l’Ecole normale supérieure, vol. 42, 2009, pp. 261–290. 14. Jalal Shatah, Global existence of small solutions to nonlinear evolution equations, Journal of Differential equations 46 (1982), no. 3, 409–425. DECAY ESTIMATES FOR NONLINEAR SCHRODINGERSOLUTIONS¨ 11

15. Terence Tao, Nonlinear dispersive equations: local and global analysis, vol. 106, American Math- ematical Soc., 2006. 16. Xueying Yu, Global well-posedness and scattering for the defocusing H˙ 1/2-critical nonlinear schrodinger equation in R2, arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03230 (2018).

Chenjie Fan AMSS, China/University of Chicago, U.S.A. E-mail address: [email protected]

Zehua Zhao University of Maryland, U.S.A. E-mail address: [email protected]