Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter October 18, 2020

Exponential stability of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with locally distributed damping on compact Riemannian manifold

  • Fengyan Yang , Zhen-Hu Ning EMAIL logo and Liangbiao Chen

Abstract

In this paper, we consider the following nonlinear Schrödinger equation:

iut+Δgu+ia(x)u|u|p1u=0(x,t)M×(0,+),u(x,0)=u0(x)xM, (0.1)

where (𝓜, g) is a smooth complete compact Riemannian manifold of dimension n(n = 2, 3) without boundary. For the damping terms −a(x)(1 − Δ)−1a(x)ut and ia(x)(Δ)12a(x)u, the exponential stability results of system (0.1) have been proved by Dehman et al. (Math Z 254(4): 729-749, 2006), Laurent. (SIAM J. Math. Anal. 42(2): 785-832, 2010) and Cavalcanti et al. (Math Phys 69(4): 100, 2018). However, from the physical point of view, it would be more important to consider the stability of system (0.1) with the damping term ia(x)u, which is still an open problem. In this paper, we obtain the exponential stability of system (0.1) by Morawetz multipliers in non Euclidean geometries and compactness-uniqueness arguments.

MSC 2010: 58J45; 93D20

1 Introduction

1.1 Notations

Suppose that (𝓜, g) is a smooth complete compact Riemannian manifold of dimension n(n = 2, 3) without boundary.

Denote

X,Yg=g(X,Y),|X|g2=X,Xg,X,YMx,xM. (1.1)

Let D be the Levi-Civita connection of the metric g and H be a vector field. The covariant differential DH of the vector field H is a tensor field of order 2 as follow:

DH(X,Y)(x)=DYH,Xg(x)X,YMx,xM. (1.2)

Finally, we set divg, ∇g and Δg as the divergence operator, the gradient operator and the Laplace−Beltrami operator of (𝓜, g), respectively.

1.2 Nonlinear Schrödinger equation

We consider the following system: %initial-boundary value problem:

iut+Δgu+ia(x)u|u|p1u=0(x,t)M×(0,+),u(x,0)=u0(x)xM, (1.3)

where 1 < p < +∞ for dimension n = 2, 1 < p ≤ 3 for dimension n = 3. And a(x) ∈ C1(𝓜) is a nonnegative real function.

Define the energy of system (1.3) by

E(t)=12M|u|2+|gu|g2dxg+1p+1M|u|p+1dxg, (1.4)

where dxg denotes the volume element of (𝓜, g) and

|u|2=uu¯,|gu|g2=gu,gu¯g. (1.5)

There are extensive available literatures on the estimates of solutions of the Schrödinger equation on Riemannian manifold. See [6, 9, 18, 20, 30] for Strichartz estimates, [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 21, 27, 28, 29, 32] for local energy decay and [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 24] for stability results on compact manifold or Euclidean space.

When dimension n = 2, the exponential stability of the following system

iut+Δua(x)(1Δ)1a(x)ut=P(|u|2)u(x,t)M×[0,T],u(x,0)=u0(x)xM (1.6)

has been proved by [19] and the exponential stability of the following system

iut+Δuf(|u|2)u+ia(x)(Δ)12a(x)u=0(x,t)M×(0,+),u(x,0)=u0(x)xM (1.7)

has been obtained in [13].

When dimension n = 3, the exponential stability of the following system:

iut+Δgua(x)(1Δg)1a(x)ut=(1+|u|2)u(x,t)M×(0,T),u(x,0)=u0(x)xM, (1.8)

has been established in x[24].

In fact, from the physical point of view, it would be more important to consider the damping term like ia(x)u. When dimension n = 2, asymptotic stability of the system (1.3) has been proved by [13]. It is said that the energy of system (1.3) goes to zero as time goes to infinity. However, the exact stability (especially the exponential stability) of system (1.3) is still an open problem. In this paper, under suitable geometric assumptions, we obtain the exponential stability of system (1.3) by Morawetz multipliers in non Euclidean geometries and compactness-uniqueness arguments.

Our paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we will state our main results. Then, multiplier identities and key lemmas are presented in Section 3. Finally, we prove the exponential stability of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation in Section 4.

2 Main results

When n = 2, the well-posedness of system (1.3) has been proved by Theorem 1.4 in [13]. When n = 3, the unique global weak solution of system (1.3) has been given by [8] and the well-posedness of system (1.3) in Bourgain spaces has been proved by [3]. Throughout the paper, we assume that the system (1.3) is well-posed such that

uC[0,+),H1(M). (2.1)

The followings are the main assumptions of this paper.

Assumption (A)

There exists a C2 vector field H on 𝓜 such that

DH(X,X)δ|X|g2,XMx,xΩ¯, (2.2)

where δ > 0 is a constant and Ω ⊂ 𝓜 is an open set with smooth boundary.

Moreover, a(x) satisfies

a(x)a0>0,xMΩ, (2.3)

where a0 > 0 is a constant.

Remark 2.1

The vector field given by assumption (A) is called escape vector field and it was introduced by Yao [33] for the controllability of the wave equation with variable coefficients, which is also a useful condition for the controllability and the stabilization of the quasilinear wave equation (see [17, 34, 36]). Existence of escape vector field depends on the sectional curvature of the Riemannian manifold (𝓜, g). There are a number of methods and examples in [35] to find out escape vector field. The explicit expression of Drr in Riemannian manifold (ℝn, g) is given by [25, 26].

Assumption (B)

(Unique continuation) Let Ω ⊂ 𝓜 be an open set with smooth boundary and ωΩ be an open subset. Assume that ω satisfies the geometric control condition:

(GCC) There exists constant T0 > 0 such that for any xΩ and any unit-speed geodesic y (t) of (𝓜, g) starting at x, there exists t < T0 such that y (t) ⊂ ω.

As a consequence, for every T > 0, the only solution in C([0, T], H1(Ω)) to the system

iut+Δgu+b1(x,t)u+b2(x,t)u¯=0(x,t)Ω×(0,T),u=0(x,t)ω×(0,T), (2.4)

is the trivial one u ≡ 0, where b1(x, t) and b2(x, t) ∈ L([0, T], L3(Ω)).

Remark 2.2

Let H = , where H is given by (2.2) and φ is a strictly convex function, then assumption (B) follows from Proposition B.3 in [24]. It can also be proved in particular cases by Carleman estimates in Euclidean space, see [22, 23, 31].

Theorem 2.1

Let assumption (A) and assumption (B) hold true. Given constant E0 > 0. Assume thatu0L2(𝓜)E0. Then there exist positive constants C1 and C2, which are only dependent on E0, such that

E(t)C1eC2tE(0),t>0. (2.5)

3 Multiplier Identities and Key Lemmas

We need to establish several multiplier identities, which are useful for our problem.

Lemma 3.1

Suppose that u(x, t) solves the following equation:

iut+Δgu+ia(x)u|u|p1u=0(x,t)M×(0,+). (3.1)

Let 𝓗 be a C1 vector field defined on 𝓜. Then

0=12MImuH(u¯)dxg|0T+0TMReDH(gu¯,gu)dxgdt+0TMIma(x)uH(u¯)dxgdt+120TMIm(uu¯t)gug22p+1|u|p+1divgHdxgdt. (3.2)

Moreover, assume that the real function PC1(𝓜). Then

0TMIm(uu¯t)gug2|u|p+1Pdxgdt=120TMgP(|u|2)dxgdt. (3.3)

Proof

Multiplying the Schrödinger equation in (3.1) by 𝓗(ū) and then integrating over 𝓜 × (0, T), we deduce that

ReiutH(u¯)=ImutH(u¯)=12ImutH(u¯)u¯tH(u)=12Im(uH(u¯))tH(uu¯t)=12ImuH(u¯)t+12ImH(uu¯t)=12ImuH(u¯)t+12Imdivg(uu¯tH)12Im(uu¯tdivgH), (3.4)
ReH(u¯)Δgu)=RedivgH(u¯)guguH,gu¯g=RedivgH(u¯)guReguH,gu¯g=RedivgH(u¯)guReDH(gu¯,gu)ReD2u¯(H,gu)=RedivgH(u¯)guReDH(gu¯,gu)ReD2u¯(gu,H)=RedivgH(u¯)guReDH(gu¯,gu)12H(|gu|g2)=RedivgH(u¯)guReDH(gu¯,gu)12divg(|gu|g2H)+12|gu|g2divgH, (3.5)

and

Reia(x)u|u|p1uH(u¯)=Ima(x)uH(u¯)1p+1divg|u|p+1H+|u|p+1p+1divgH. (3.6)

The equality (3.2) follows from Green’s formula.

In addition, we multiply the Schrödinger equation in (3.1) by and integrate over 𝓜 × (0, T). It gives that

ReiPutu¯=ImPutu¯=ImPuu¯t, (3.7)
RePu¯Δgu=RedivgPu¯gugu(Pu¯)=RedivgPu¯guP|gu|g212gP(|u|2), (3.8)

and

Reia(x)u|u|p1uPu¯=Reia(x)P|u|2P|u|p+1=P|u|p+1. (3.9)

The equality (3.3) follows from Green’s formula. □

The following lemma shows the relationship between the metric g and the geometric control condition.

Lemma 3.2

Let Ω ⊂ 𝓜 be a bounded domain. Assume that there exists a C1 vector field H on 𝓜 such that

DH(X,X)δ|X|g2,XMx,xΩ¯, (3.10)

where δ > 0 is a constant.

Then, for any xΩ and any unit-speed geodesic y (t) starting at x, if

y(t)Ω,0tt0, (3.11)

we have

t02δsup|H|g(x)|xΩ¯. (3.12)

Proof

Note that

|y(t)|g=1,Dy(t)y(t)=0. (3.13)

Then

H,y(t)g|0t0=0t0y(t)H,y(t)gdt=0t0DH(y(t),y(t))dtδt0. (3.14)

Hence

t02δsup|H|g(x)|xΩ¯. (3.15)

Lemma 3.3

Let u(x, t) solve the system (1.3). Then

M|u|2dxg|0T=20TMa(x)|u|2dxgdt, (3.16)
M|gu|g2+2p+1|u|p+1dxg|0T=20TMa(x)|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdt0TMga(x)(|u|2)dxgdt, (3.17)

for any T > 0.

Proof

After multiplying the Schrödinger equation in (1.3) by 2ū and integrating over 𝓜 × (0, T), the equality (3.16) holds.

Multiplying the Schrödinger equation in (1.3) by 2ūt and integrating over 𝓜 × (0, T), we obtain

M|gu|g2+2p+1|u|p+1dxg|0T=20TMIm(a(x)uu¯t)dxgdt. (3.18)

Let P = a(x) in (3.3). Substituting (3.3) into (3.18), we have

M|gu|g2+2p+1|u|p+1dxg|0T=20TMa(x)|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdt0TMga(x)(|u|2)dxgdt. (3.19)

4 Exponential stability of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation

From Lemma 3.2, the following lemma holds true.

Lemma 4.1

Let assumption (A) hold true. Then, there exists t0 > 0, for any xΩ and any unit-speed geodesic y (t) starting at x, there exists t < t0 such that

y(t)Ω. (4.1)

The following lemmas follow from assumption (B).

Lemma 4.2

(Unique continuation) Let assumption (B) hold true. Let Ω ⊂ 𝓜 be an open set with smooth boundary and ωΩ be an open subset. Assume that ω satisfies the geometric control condition:

(GCC) There exists constant T0 > 0 such that for any xΩ and any unit-speed geodesic y (t) of (𝓜, g) starting at x, there exists t < T0 such that y (t) ⊂ ω.

Accordingly, for every T > 0, the only solution in C([0, T], H1(Ω)) to the system

iut+Δgu=0(x,t)Ω×(0,T),u=0(x,t)ω×(0,T), (4.2)

is the trivial one u ≡ 0.

Lemma 4.3

(Unique continuation) Let assumption (B) hold true. Let Ω ⊂ 𝓜 be an open set with smooth boundary and ωΩ be an open subset. Assume that ω satisfies the geometric control condition:

(GCC) There exists constant T0 > 0 such that for any xΩ and any unit-speed geodesic y (t) of (𝓜, g) starting at x, there exists t < T0 such that y (t) ⊂ ω.

Therefore, for every T > 0, the only solution in C([0, T], H1(Ω)) to the system

iut+Δgu|u|p1u=0(x,t)Ω×(0,T),u=0(x,t)ω×(0,T), (4.3)

is the trivial one u ≡ 0.

Proof

Let

b1(x,t)=|u|p1u,b2(x,t)=0,(x,t)Ω×(0,T). (4.4)

Note that

E(t)=E(0),forallt[0,T], (4.5)

and

H1(Ω)L3(p1)(Ω). (4.6)

Hence

b1(x,t),b2(x,t)L([0,T],L3(p1)(Ω)). (4.7)

It follows from assumption (B) that u ≡ 0. □

Lemma 4.4

For any ϵ > 0, there exists Cϵ > 0 such that

|ga(x)|g2Cϵa(x)+ϵ,forallxM, (4.8)

where a(x) is given by (1.3).

Proof

We prove (4.8) by contradiction. If (4.8) doesn’t hold true, then there exist constant ε0 > 0 and {xk}k=1M such that

|ga(x)|g2ka(xk)+ε0. (4.9)

Therefore, there exists x0 and a subset of {xk}k=1 , still denoted by {xk}k=1 , such that

limk+xk=x0. (4.10)

Note that

a(x)0,xM, (4.11)

and

supxM|ga(x)|g2<+. (4.12)

It follows from (4.9) that

a(x0)=0, (4.13)

and

|a(x0)|ε0. (4.14)

With (4.11) and (4.13), we obtain

a(x0)=0, (4.15)

which contradicts (4.14). □

Lemma 4.5

Let assumption (A) hold true. Let u(x, t) solve the system (1.3). Then

E(0)+0TE(t)dtC0TMa(x)|u|2+|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdt+C0TM|u|2dxgdt, (4.16)

for sufficiently large T.

Proof

Note that a(x) ∈ C1(𝓜), then there exists an open set Ω0 ∈ 𝓜, such that

Ω0¯Ω, (4.17)
a(x)a02,xMΩ0. (4.18)

Let b(x) ∈ C(𝓜) be a nonnegative function satisfying

b(x)=1,xΩ0andb(x)=0,xMΩ. (4.19)

Let

H(x)=b(x)H,xM. (4.20)

Note that

DH(X,X)δ|X|g2forallXMx,xΩ0, (4.21)
divgH=trDHnδforallxΩ0. (4.22)

It follows from (3.2) that

012ΩImuH(u¯)dxg|0T+δ0TΩ0|gu|g2dxgdtC0TΩΩ0|gu|g2dxgdt+0TΩIma(x)uH(u¯)dxgdt+120TΩIm(uu¯t)gug22p+1|u|p+1divgHdxgdt=12ΩImuH(u¯)dxg|0T+δ0TΩ0|gu|g2dxgdtC0TΩΩ0|gu|g2dxgdt+0TΩIma(x)uH(u¯)dxgdt+120TΩIm(uu¯t)gug2|u|p+1divgHdxgdt+0TΩ(p1)divgH2(p+1)|u|p+1dxgdt. (4.23)

Let P=divgH2 in (3.3). Substituting (3.3) into (4.23), we obtain

12ΩImuH(u¯)dxg|0T+140TΩgP(|u|2)dxgdt+0TΩIma(x)uH(u¯)dxgdt+δ0TΩ0|gu|g2dxgdt+0TΩ0δn(p1)2(p+1)|u|p+1dxgdtC0TΩΩ0|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdt. (4.24)

Then

0TΩ0|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdtC(E(0)+E(T))+C0TΩa(x)|u|2+|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdt+0TΩCϵ|u|2+ϵ|gu|g2dxgdt. (4.25)

Therefore

0TΩ0|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdtC(E(0)+E(T))+C0TΩa(x)|u|2+|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdt+C0TΩ|u|2dxgdt. (4.26)

Hence

0TE(t)dtC(E(0)+E(T))+C0TMa(x)|u|2+|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdt+C0TM|u|2dxgdt. (4.27)

With (3.16) and (3.17), we deduce that

CE(T)=CE(0)C0TMa(x)|u|2+|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdtC20TMga(x)(|u|2)dxgdt, (4.28)

and

4CE(0)=04CE(t)dt04C(E(t)E(0))dt04CE(t)dt+4C04CMa(x)|u|2+|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdt+4C04CMga(x)g|u||gu|gdxgdt. (4.29)

Substituting (4.28) and (4.29) into (4.27), for T > 5C, we have

E(0)+0TE(t)dtC0TMa(x)|u|2+|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdt+0TΩCϵ|u|2+ϵ|gu|g2dxgdt. (4.30)

Therefore

E(0)+0TE(t)dtC0TMa(x)|u|2+|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdt+C0TΩ|u|2dxgdt. (4.31)

The estimate (4.16) holds true. □

Lemma 4.6

Let assumption (A) and assumption (B) hold true. Let T be sufficiently large. Then for anyu0L2(𝓜)E0, there exists positive constant C(E0, T) such that

E(0)+0TE(t)dtC(E0,T)0TMa(x)|u|2+|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdt. (4.32)

Proof

We apply compactness-uniqueness arguments to prove the conclusion. It follows from (4.16) that

E(0)+0TE(t)dtC0TMa(x)|u|2+|gu|g2+|u|p+1dxgdt+C0TM|u|2dxgdt. (4.33)

Then, if the estimate (4.16) doesn’t hold true, there exist {uk}k=1 satisfying (1.3) and

uk0L2(M)E0, (4.34)
0TΩ0|uk|2dxgdtk0TMa(x)|uk|2+|guk|g2+|uk|p+1dxgdt. (4.35)

Thus,

Ek(0)+0TEk(t)dtCE0, (4.36)

where

Ek(t)=12M|uk|2+|guk|g2dxg+1p+1M|uk|p+1dxg. (4.37)

It follows from (3.16), (3.17) and (4.36) that there exists C(T) > 0 such that

Ek(t)C(T)E0,t[0,T],1k<+, (4.38)

which implies

{uk}areboundedinL([0,T],H1(M)). (4.39)

Therefore, there exists û and a subset of {uk}k=1 , still denoted by {uk}k=1 , such that

uku^weaklyinL2([0,T],H1(M)), (4.40)

and

uku^stronglyinL2(M)forarbitrarilyfixedt[0,T]. (4.41)

Note that

uku^L2(M)2C^(T)E0,t[0,T],1k<+. (4.42)

Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem yields

uku^stronglyinL2(M×(0,T)). (4.43)

  1. 0TM|u^|2dxgdt>0. (4.44)

    Note that

    H1ML2pM. (4.45)

    Therefore, it follows from (4.39) that

    {|uk|p1uk}areboundedinL2(M×(0,T)). (4.46)

    Hence, there exists a subset of {uk}k=1 , still denoted by {uk}k=1 , such that

    |uk|p1uk|u^|p1u^weaklyinL2(M×(0,T)). (4.47)

    It follows from (4.34) and(4.35) that

    a(x)u^=0(x,t)M×(0,T). (4.48)

    Therefore, with (4.40) and (4.47), we obtain

    iu^0t+Δgu^|u^|p1u^=0(x,t)M×(0,T),a(x)u^=0(x,t)M×(0,T). (4.49)

    With (4.1) and Lemma 4.3, we have

    u^0onM×(0,T), (4.50)

    which contradicts (4.44).

  2. u^0onM×(0,T). (4.51)

Denote

vk=ukckfork1, (4.52)

where

ck=0TM|uk|2dxgdt. (4.53)

Then vk satisfies

ivkt+Δgvk+ia(x)vk|uk|p1vk=0(x,t)M×(0,T), (4.54)

and

0TM|vk|2dxgdt=1. (4.55)

It follows from (4.35) that

1k0TMa(x)|vk|2+|gvk|g2+|uk|p1|vk|2dxgdt. (4.56)

Therefore, it follows from (4.33) that

E^k(0)+0TE^k(t)dt1+1k2, (4.57)

where

E^k(t)=12M|vk|2+|gvk|g2+2p+1|uk|p1|vk|2dxg. (4.58)

With (4.38), (4.52) and (4.57), we obtain

E^k(t)C(T)E^k(0)2C(T),t(0,T),1k<+, (4.59)

which implies

{vk}areboundedinL([0,T],H1(M)). (4.60)

Hence, there exist and a subset of {vk}k=1 , still denoted by {vk}k=1 , such that

vkv^weaklyinL2([0,T],H1(M)), (4.61)

and

vkv^stronglyinL2(M)foranyfixedt[0,T]. (4.62)

Then by Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, we have

vkv^stronglyinL2(M×(0,T)). (4.63)

Note that

H1ML2pM. (4.64)

Therefore, it follows from (4.60) that

{|vk|p1vk}areboundedinL([0,T],L2(M)). (4.65)

Hence

M|uk|p1|vk|2dxg=ckp1M|vk|2dxgckp1C(T). (4.66)

With (4.51) and (4.53), we obtain

|uk|p1|vk|0stronglyinL([0,T],L2(M)). (4.67)

It follows from (4.55), (4.56) and (4.63) that

0TMv^2dxgdt=1, (4.68)

and

a(x)v^=0(x,t)M×(0,T). (4.69)

Therefore, it follows from (4.54), (4.61) and (4.67) that

iv^t+Δgv^=0(x,t)M×(0,T),a(x)v^=0(x,t)M×(0,T). (4.70)

With (4.1) and Lemma 4.2, we have

v^0onM×(0,T), (4.71)

which contradicts (4.68). □

Proof of Theorem 2.1

Let T be sufficiently large. It follows from (3.16) that ∥u∥L2(𝓜) is non-increasing. It follows from (4.8), (3.16), (3.17) and (4.16) that

E(0)+0TE(t)dtC(E0,T)E(0)E(T)+0TM|ga(x)|g|u||gu|gdxgdtC(E0,T)E(0)E(T)+Cϵ0TMa(x)|u|2dxgdt+ϵ0TM|u|2+|gu|g2dxgdt=C(E0,T)E(0)E(T)Cϵ2M|u|2dxg|0T+ϵ0TM|u|2+|gu|g2dxgdt. (4.72)

Therefore

E(0)C(E0,T)E(0)E(T)C^(E0,T)M|u|2dxg|0T. (4.73)

Denote

E~(t)=E(t)+C^(E0,T)M|u|2dxg. (4.74)

From (4.73), we obtain

E~(0)C~(E0,T)(E~(0)E~(T)). (4.75)

Then

E~(T)C~(E0,T)1C~(E0,T)E~(0). (4.76)

It follows from (3.16), (3.17) and (4.74) that there exists (T) > 0 such that

E~(t)C~(E0,T)E~(0),0tT. (4.77)

Note that ∥uL2(𝓜) is non-increasing. Therefore, it follows from (4.76) that (t) is of exponential decay. Hence, there exist C1(E0), C2(E0) > 0 such that

E(t)C1(E0)eC2(E0)tE(0),t>0. (4.78)

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the referee and editor for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions.

This work is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, NO.BLX201924, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grants NO.61573342 and NO.11901329, the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Provience under grant No.ZR2019BA022 and Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, CAS, NO.QYZDJ-SSW-SYS011.

References

[1] L. Aloui, Smoothing effect for regularized Schrödinger equation on compact manifolds, Collect. Math. 59(2008), no. 1, 53-62.10.1007/BF03191181Search in Google Scholar

[2] L. Aloui, Smoothing effect for regularized Schrödinger equation on bounded domains, Asymptotic Anal. 59(2008), no. 3-4, 179-193.10.3233/ASY-2008-0892Search in Google Scholar

[3] L. Aloui and M. Khenissi, Stabilization of Schrödinger equation in exterior domains, ESAIM, Control Optim. Calc. Var. 13(2007), no. 3, 570-579.10.1051/cocv:2007024Search in Google Scholar

[4] L. Aloui and M. Khenissi, Boundary stabilization of the wave and Schrödinger equations in exterior domains, Discrete and continuous dynamical systems 27(2010), no. 3, 919-934.10.3934/dcds.2010.27.919Search in Google Scholar

[5] J. F. Bony and D. Häfner, Local energy decay for several evolution equations on asymptotically Euclidean manifolds, Annales Scientifiques de l’ école Normale Supérieure 45(2012), no. 2, 311-335.10.24033/asens.2166Search in Google Scholar

[6] J. M. Bouclet and N. Tzvetkov, On global Strichartz estimates for non-trapping metrics, J. Funct. Anal. 254(2008), no. 6, 1661-1682.10.1016/j.jfa.2007.11.018Search in Google Scholar

[7] J. M. Bouclet, Low frequency estimates and local energy decay for asymptotically Euclidean laplacians, Comm. Part. Diff. Equations 36(2011), no. 6, 1239-1286.10.1080/03605302.2011.558553Search in Google Scholar

[8] N. Burq, Semi-classical estimates for the resolvent in nontrapping geometries, Int. Math. Res. Not. 5(2002), no. 6, 221-241.10.1155/S1073792802103059Search in Google Scholar

[9] N. Burq, Global Strichartz estimates for nontrapping geometries: About an article by H. F. Smith and C. D. Sogge, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 28(2003), no. 6, 1675-1683.10.1081/PDE-120024528Search in Google Scholar

[10] N. Burq, Smoothing effect for Schrödinger boundary value problems, Duke Math. J. 123(2004), no. 2, 403-427.10.1215/S0012-7094-04-12326-7Search in Google Scholar

[11] N. Burq, P. Gérard and N. Tzvetkov, On nonlinear Schrödinger equations in exterior domains. [Equations de Schrödinger non linéaires dans des domaines extérieurs.] Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 21(2004), no. 3, 295-318.10.1016/j.anihpc.2003.03.002Search in Google Scholar

[12] N. Burq, P. Gérard and N. Tzvetkov, Strichartz inequalities and the nonlinear Schrödinger equation on compact manifolds, Am. J. Math. 126(2004), no. 3, 569-605.10.1353/ajm.2004.0016Search in Google Scholar

[13] M. M. Cavalcanti, V. N. Domingos Cavalcanti and M. R. Astudillo Rojas, Asymptotic behavior of cubic defocusing Schrödinger equations on compact surfaces, Z. Angew. M ath. Phys. 69(2018), no. 4, 69-100.10.1007/s00033-018-0985-ySearch in Google Scholar

[14] M. M. Cavalcanti, V. N. Domingos Cavalcanti, R. Fukuoka and F. Natali, Exponential stability for the 2-D defocusing Schröinger equation with locally distributed damping, Differential Integral Equations 22(2009), no. 7-8, 617-636.Search in Google Scholar

[15] M. M. Cavalcanti, V. N. Domingos Cavalcanti, J. A. Soriano and F. Natali, Qualitative aspects for the cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equations with localized damping: exponential and polynomial stabilization, J. Differential Equations. 248(2010), no. 12, 2955-2971.10.1016/j.jde.2010.03.023Search in Google Scholar

[16] M. M. Cavalcanti, W. J. Corrêa, V. N. Domingos Cavalcanti and L. Tebou, Well-posedness and energy decay estimates in the Cauchy problem for the damped defocusing Schrödinger equation, J. Differ. Equ. 262(2017), no. 3, 2521-2539.10.1016/j.jde.2016.11.002Search in Google Scholar

[17] S. G. Chai and K. S. Liu, Observability inequalities for the transmission of shallow shells, Systems Control Lett. 55(2006), no. 9, 726-735.10.1016/j.sysconle.2006.02.004Search in Google Scholar

[18] H. Christianson, Dispersive estimates for manifolds with one trapped orbit, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 33(2008), no. 7, 1147-1174.10.1080/03605300802133907Search in Google Scholar

[19] B. Dehman, P. Gérard and G. Lebeau, Stabilization and control for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation on a compact surface, Math. Z. 254(2006), no. 4, 729-749.10.1007/s00209-006-0005-3Search in Google Scholar

[20] A. Hassell, T. Tao and J. Wunsch, Sharp Strichartz estimates on non-trapping asymptotically conic manifolds, Amer. J. Math. 128(2006), no. 6, 963-1024.10.1353/ajm.2006.0033Search in Google Scholar

[21] M. Khenissi and J. Royer, Local energy decay and the smoothing effect for the damped Schrödinger equation, Analysis&PDE 10(2017), no. 6, 1285-1315.10.2140/apde.2017.10.1285Search in Google Scholar

[22] I. Lasiecka, R. Triggiani and X. Zhang, Global uniqueness, observability and stabilization of nonconservative Schrödinger equations via pointwise Carleman estimates. I. H1(Ω)-estimates, J. Inverse Ill-Posed Probl. 12(2004), no. 1, 43-123.10.1515/1569394042530919Search in Google Scholar

[23] I. Lasiecka, R. Triggiani and X. Zhang, Global uniqueness, observability and stabilization of nonconservative Schrödinger equations via pointwise Carleman estimates. II. L2(Ω)-estimates, J. Inverse Ill-Posed Probl. 12(2004), no. 2, 183-231.10.1515/1569394042530919Search in Google Scholar

[24] C. Laurent, Global controllability and stabilization for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation on some compact manifolds of dimension 3, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 42(2010), no. 2, 785-832.10.1137/090749086Search in Google Scholar

[25] Z. H. Ning, Asymptotic behavior of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation on exterior domain, Mathematical Research Letters, in press. arXiv:1905.09540 [math.AP].10.4310/MRL.2020.v27.n6.a11Search in Google Scholar

[26] Z. H. Ning, F. Yang and X. Zhao, Escape Metrics and its Applications, arXiv:1811.12668 [math.AP].Search in Google Scholar

[27] J. Rauch, Local decay of scattering solutions to Schrödinger’s equation, Commun. Math. Phys. 61(1978), no. 2, 149-168.10.1007/BF01609491Search in Google Scholar

[28] J. Rauch and M. Taylor, Exponential decay of solutions to hyperbolic equations in bounded domains, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 24(1974), no. 1, 79-86.10.1512/iumj.1975.24.24004Search in Google Scholar

[29] J. Royer, Exponential decay for the Schrödinger equation on a dissipative wave guide, Ann. Henri Poincaré 16(2015), no. 8, 1807-1836.10.1007/s00023-014-0361-1Search in Google Scholar

[30] H. F. Smith and C. D. Sogge, Global Strichartz estimates for nontrapping perturbations of the Laplacian, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 25(2000), no. 11-12, 2171-2183.10.1080/03605300008821581Search in Google Scholar

[31] D. Tataru, Carleman estimates and unique continuation for solutions to boundary value problems, J. Math. Pures & Appl. 8(1996), no. 4, 367-408.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Y. Tsutsumi, Local energy decay of solutions to the free Schrödinger equation in exterior domains, J. Fac. Sci., Univ. Tokyo, Sect. I A 31(1984), no. 6, 97-108.Search in Google Scholar

[33] P. F. Yao, On the observability inequalities for the exact controllability of the wave equation with variable coefficients, SIAM J. Control Optim. 37(1999), no. 6, 1568-1599.10.1137/S0363012997331482Search in Google Scholar

[34] P. F. Yao, Boundary controllability for the quasilinear wave equation, Appl. Math. Optim. 61(2010), no. 2, 191-233.10.1007/s00245-009-9088-7Search in Google Scholar

[35] P. F. Yao, Modeling and Control in Vibrational and Structural Dynamics: A Differential Geometric Approach, Chapman and Hall/CRC Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Science Series, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[36] Z. F. Zhang and P. F. Yao, Global smooth solutions of the quasi-linear wave equation with internal velocity feedback, SIAM J. Control Optim. 47(2008), no. 4, 2044-2077.10.1137/070679454Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-12-02
Accepted: 2020-08-23
Published Online: 2020-10-18

© 2021 Fengyan Yang et al., published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 28.4.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/anona-2020-0149/html
Scroll to top button