\section{Introduction}
\indent
The existence of instanton solution requires the QCD Lagrangian with the theta vacuum:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}
=
\sum_f
\bar{q}_f(\gamma_{\nu}D_{\nu}+m_f)q_f
+
\frac{1}{4g^2}F^a_{\mu\nu}F^a_{\mu\nu}
-
i\theta\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\sigma\rho}F^a_{\mu\nu}F^a_{\sigma\rho},
\label{L_QCD}
\end{equation}
\noindent
in Euclidean spacetime.
Though the angle $\theta$ can take any arbitrary value theoretically,
experimental measurements of neutron dipole moment give the upper limit of theta, $|\theta |<10^{-9}$\cite{Baker,Kawarabayashi}.
Why should $\theta$ be so small?
This long-standing puzzle is called the strong $CP$ problem.
\\
\indent
Since the upper limit is determined only at zero temperature, the behavior
is nontrivial for finite temperature. Hence
the first-principle lattice simulation is needed, but
it has the sign problem for finite $\theta$,
since the action is complex there.
For this reason the lattice simulation is only performed
by Taylor expansion around $\theta =0$ or analytic continuation
from the imaginary $\theta$ region
where the action is real~\cite{Negro}.
On the other hand, after making $U_A(1)$ transformation
\begin{equation}
q=e^{i\gamma_5\frac{\theta}{2N_f}}q',
\end{equation}
\noindent
$\theta$ dependence appears only through the mass term
\begin{eqnarray}
m_f(\theta )
=
m_f\cos (\theta /N_f)+m_fi\gamma_5\sin (\theta /N_f),
\end{eqnarray}
in the transformed Lagrangian
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}
=
\sum_f
\bar{q}_f(\gamma_{\nu}D_{\nu}+m_f(\theta))q_f
+
\frac{1}{4g^2}F^a_{\mu\nu}F^a_{\mu\nu}.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The $P$-odd mass term including $i\gamma_5$
makes the fermion determinant complex.
\\
\indent
We propose the following approach in order to circumvent this sign problem\cite{Sasaki-theta}.
Performing $SU_A(3)\otimes U_A(1)$ transformation,
\begin{equation}
q_u=e^{i\gamma_5\frac{\theta}{4}}q_u^{~\prime}~,~~q_d=e^{i\gamma_5\frac{\theta}{4}}q_d^{~\prime}~,~~q_s=q_s^{~\prime},
\label{31_trans}
\end{equation}
\noindent
one can find that Lagrangian (\ref{L_QCD}) becomes the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}
&=&
\sum_{l=u,d}
\bar{q}_l^{~\prime}\mathcal{M}_l(\theta )q_l^{~\prime}
+
\bar{q}_s^{~\prime}\mathcal{M}_sq_s^{~\prime}
+
\frac{1}{4g^2}F^a_{\mu\nu}F^a_{\mu\nu},
\\
\mathcal{M}_l(\theta )
&=&
\gamma_{\nu}D_{\nu}+m_l\cos (\theta /2)+m_li\gamma_5\sin (\theta /2),
\\
\mathcal{M}_s
&=&
\gamma_{\nu}D_{\nu}+m_s.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Here $\theta$ dependence appears only in the light-quark-mass term and
the sign problem is induced by the $P$-odd term.
However, the scale of this $P$-odd term is much smaller than $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ and hence this term is expected to be negligible.
If the $P$-odd mass term is neglected in the reference theory of
the reweighting method, the expectation value of operator $\mathcal{O}$
is obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
\braket{\mathcal{O}}
&=&
\int\mathcal{D}A~\mathcal{O}^{~\prime}({\rm det}\mathcal{M}_l^{~\prime}(\theta ))^2{\rm det}\mathcal{M}_se^{-S_g},
\label{reweight}
\\
\mathcal{M}_l^{~\prime}(\theta )
&=&
\gamma_{\nu}D_{\nu}+m_l\cos (\theta /2),
\\
\mathcal{O}^{~\prime}
&=&
\mathcal{O}
\frac{({\rm det}\mathcal{M}_l(\theta ))^2}{({\rm det}\mathcal{M}'_l(\theta ))^2},
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
with the gluon part $S_g$ of the QCD action.
If this reference system is good, we can expect $\mathcal{O}^{~\prime}\approx\mathcal{O}$ and calculate $\braket{\mathcal{O}}$ with good accuracy.
\\
\indent
In order to justify our proposal, we use effective models and investigate vacuum condensates.
First, we compare two results with and without the $P$-odd mass term and examine the effect of the neglect.
Secondary, we investigate the phase structure in the $\theta$-$T$-$\mu$ space and $\theta$ dependence of transition temperatures.
This work is mainly based on the Ref. \cite{Sasaki-theta}.
\section{Model setting}
\indent
We use the three-flavor Polyakov-loop extended Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (PNJL) model
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}
&=&
\bar{q}_f(\gamma_{\nu}D_{\nu}+\hat{m}_f-\gamma_4\hat{\mu})q_f
-G_{\rm S}\sum^8_{a=0}\left[
(\bar{q}\lambda_aq)^2+(\bar{q}i\gamma_5\lambda_aq)^2
\right]
\nonumber
\\
&&
+G_{\rm D}\left[
{\rm det}\bar{q}_f(1-\gamma_5)q_{f'}
+
{\rm det}\bar{q}_f(1+\gamma_5)q_{f'}
\right]
+
\mathcal{U}(T,\Phi [A],\Phi^*[A]),
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $D_{\nu}=\partial_{\nu}-i\delta_{\nu 4}A_4$ and the Gell-Mann matrices $\lambda_a$ act on the flavor space.
The three-flavor quark fields $q=(q_u,q_d,q_s)$ have masses $\hat{m}_f={\rm diag}(m_u,m_d,m_s)$,
and the chemical potential matrix $\hat{\mu}={\rm diag}(\mu , \mu , \mu )$ is defined with the quark-number chemical potential $\mu$.
Parameters $G_{\rm S}$ and $G_{\rm D}$ denote coupling constants of the scalar-type four-quark and
the Kobayashi-Maskawa-'t Hooft (KMT) determinant interaction \cite{tHooft,Kobayashi-Maskawa}, respectively,
where the determinant runs in the flavor space.
The KMT determinant interaction breaks the $U_A(1)$ symmetry explicitly.
We use the Polyakov potential $\mathcal{U}$ of Ref. \cite{Roessner}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mathcal{U}(T,\Phi [A],\Phi^*[A])}{T^4}
&=&
\left[
-\frac{a(T)}{2}\Phi^*\Phi+b(T)\ln \left(
1-6\Phi^*\Phi+4(\Phi^3+\Phi^{*3})-3(\Phi^*\Phi )^2
\right)
\right],
\\
a(T)&=&a_0+a_1\left(\frac{T_0}{T}\right)+a_2\left(\frac{T_0}{T}\right)^2
~,~~
b(T)=b_3\left(\frac{T_0}{T}\right)^3,
\end{eqnarray}
as a function of the traced Polyakov-loop $\Phi$.
\\
\indent
The four-quark vertex $G_{\rm S}$ is originated in a one-gluon exchange between quarks and its higher-order diagrams hence the $G_{\rm S}$ can depend on $\Phi$.
We simply assume the following form for $G_{\rm S}$ \cite{Sakai-epnjl},
\begin{equation}
G_{\rm S}
\rightarrow
G_{\rm S}(\Phi )
=
G_{\rm S}\left[
1-\alpha_1\Phi^*\Phi
-\alpha_2 (\Phi^3+\Phi^{*3})
\right]
\end{equation}
\noindent
which preserves the chiral symmetry, the charge conjugation ($C$) symmetry and the extended $\mathbf{Z}_3$ symmetry \cite{Sakai-Z3}.
The effective vertex $G_{\rm S}$ is called the entanglement vertex and the PNJL model with this vertex is the EPNJL model.
It is expected that dependence of $G_{\rm S}$ will be determined in future by the accurate method such as the exact renormalization group method\cite{Kondo,Braun,Wetterich}.
The parameters $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are fitted to $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)=(0.25,0.1)$, to reproduce the result of degenerate three-flavor LQCD with imaginary chemical potential\cite{Sasaki-Columbia}.
\\
\indent
The EPNJL model has good consistency with lattice results.
For the transition temperature, the PNJL model is good for the deconfinement transition but overestimates the lattice data for the chiral transition.
However the EPNJL model well reproduces both of the lattice data.
Additionally, properties of QCD in the pure imaginary potential region are important.
In this region, it has a periodicity in ${\rm Im}(\mu )/T$ called the Roberge-Weiss (RW) periodicity\cite{RW}.
The PNJL and EPNJL models also have the periodicity.
At boundaries of the RW period, there is a critical point called the RW endpoint.
Recently, quark-mass dependence of this endpoint was investigated by lattice simulations\cite{Forcrand,DElia}.
The EPNJL model is successful in reproducing the LQCD result, while the PNJL model cannot reproduce this property\cite{Sasaki-Columbia}.
\\
\indent
$\theta$ dependence of the EPNJL model is introduced through the KMT interaction:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}
&=&
\bar{q}_f(\gamma_{\nu}D_{\nu}+\hat{m}_f-\gamma_4\hat{\mu})q_f
-G_{\rm S}(\Phi )\sum^8_{a=0}\left[
(\bar{q}\lambda_aq)^2+(\bar{q}i\gamma_5\lambda_aq)^2
\right]
\nonumber\\
&&+G_{\rm D}\left[
e^{i\theta}
{\rm det}\bar{q}_f(1-\gamma_5)q_{f'}
+
e^{-i\theta}
{\rm det}\bar{q}_f(1+\gamma_5)q_{f'}
\right]
+
\mathcal{U}(T,\Phi [A],\Phi^*[A]).
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Performing the chiral transformation (\ref{31_trans}), one can get
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}
&=&
\bar{q}_f^{~\prime}(\gamma_{\nu}D_{\nu}+m_f(\theta )-\gamma_4\hat{\mu})q_f^{~\prime}
-G_{\rm S}(\Phi )\sum^8_{a=0}\left[
(\bar{q}^{~\prime}\lambda_aq^{~\prime})^2+(\bar{q}^{~\prime}i\gamma_5\lambda_aq^{~\prime})^2
\right]
\nonumber\\
&&
+G_{\rm D}\left[
{\rm det}\bar{q}_f^{~\prime}(1-\gamma_5)q_{f'}^{~\prime}
+
{\rm det}\bar{q}_f^{~\prime}(1+\gamma_5)q_{f'}^{~\prime}
\right]
+
\mathcal{U}(T,\Phi [A],\Phi^*[A]),
\\
m_l(\theta )
&=&
m_l\cos (\theta /2)+m_li\gamma_5\sin (\theta /2),
\\
m_s(\theta )
&=&
m_s.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Here $\theta$ dependence appears only in the mass term for light quarks.
The $P$-odd term has a much smaller scale than $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$.
\\
\indent
Since $P$ symmetry is broken at finite $\theta$, we consider $P$-even and $P$-odd condensates,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_f^{~\prime}&\equiv&\braket{\bar{q}_f^{~\prime}q_f^{~\prime}}\\
\eta_f^{~\prime}&\equiv&\braket{\bar{q}_f^{~\prime}i\gamma_5q_f^{~\prime}}
\end{eqnarray}
with $f=l,s$ and assume isospin symmetry ($\sigma_u^{~\prime}=\sigma_d^{~\prime}\equiv\sigma_l^{~\prime},\eta_u^{~\prime}=\eta_d^{~\prime}\equiv\eta_l^{~\prime}$).
The vacuum condensates $X=\sigma_f^{~\prime}, \eta_f^{~\prime}, \Phi$ and $\Phi^*$ are determined by the stationary conditions,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial{\Omega}}{\partial X}=0,
\end{equation}
where $\Omega$ is thermodynamic potential calculated with the mean field approximation.
\section{Numerical results}
\indent
Figure \ref{fig1} shows $\theta$ dependence of condensates at $T=\mu =0$.
Since $\Phi =0$ at zero temperature, the PNJL and EPNJL models give the same result as each other.
In Fig. \ref{fig1}(a), the $P$-odd mass is taken into account.
Solid and dashed lines show the $P$-even condensates for light and strange quarks,
while dotted and dot-dashed lines correspond to the $P$-odd condensates.
Since $P$-odd condensates are much smaller than $P$-even condensates,
$P$-odd mass is expected to be negligible for this case.
In Fig. \ref{fig1}(b), the $P$-odd mass term is neglected.
$P$-odd condensates ($\eta_l{}',\eta_s{}'$) become zero, but $P$-even condensates ($\sigma_l{}',\sigma_s{}'$) are not affected by the neglect.
Therefore it is expected that vacua with and without the $P$-odd mass term are similar to each other and the reweighting method (\ref{reweight}) works well.
\\
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textheight,bb= 85 50 240 210,clip]{21f-prime.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textheight,bb= 85 50 240 210,clip]{nosin-prime.eps}
\caption{
$\theta$ dependence of the order parameters at $T=\mu =0$ in the EPNJL model.
Panel (a) shows a result with the $P$-odd mass and panel (b) corresponds to a result without the $P$-odd mass.
}
\label{fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent
Figure \ref{fig2} show phase diagrams in the $T$-$\mu$ plane as a function of $\theta$ obtained by (a)the PNJL and (b)the EPNJL model.
Solid lines show the first order chiral transition and dashed lines correspond to the chiral crossover.
Hence, point A is a critical endpoint at $\theta =0$.
The endpoint slightly moves to smaller $\mu$ and higher $T$ when $\theta$ is increased from $0$ to $\pi$.
In the PNJL model, the critical endpoint does not disappear even for $\theta =\pi$.
However, for the EPNJL model, this movement is much faster and there is no critical endpoint at large $\theta$.
This means a possibility that the cosmic evolution is changed at QCD epoch by the first order transition if $\theta$ is large.
\\
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth,bb= 50 50 210 165,clip]{souzu-pnjl.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth,bb= 50 50 210 165,clip]{souzu-epnjl.eps}
\caption{
Phase diagram of the chiral transition in the $\mu$-$\theta$-$T$ space.
Panel (a) shows a result of the PNJL model and panel (b) corresponds to a result of the EPNJL model.
}
\label{fig2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent
Figure \ref{fig3} shows $\theta$ dependence of transition temperatures at $\mu =0$.
Dashed and dotted lines show EPNJL model results for the deconfinement and the chiral transition temperature, respectively.
Solid line shows a result of lattice simulations\cite{Negro}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{T_c(\theta )}{T_c(0)}
&=&
1-R_{\theta}\theta^2+O(\theta^4),
\\
R_{\theta}
&=&
0.0175(7).
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The coefficient $R_{\theta}$ has been determined by lattice simulations of pure Yang-Mills theory with imaginary $\theta$ parameter,
and the constant $T_c(0)$ is fixed to that of EPNJL model.
Compared with the lattice result, $\theta$ dependence of model result is much smaller.
This result shows that lattice simulations with dynamical quarks are crucial for theta vacuum effects.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textheight,bb= 70 50 250 210,clip]{vs-lattice.eps}
\caption{
$\theta$ dependence of transition temperatures at $\mu =0$.
The solid line shows the lattice result for the deconfinement transition\cite{Negro}.
Dashed (dotted) lines correspond to result of the EPNJL model for the deconfinement (chiral) transitions.
}
\label{fig3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary}
\indent
The QCD Lagrangian with $\theta$ vacuum has the sign problem
because of the topological term.
This term can be vanished by the chiral transformation (\ref{31_trans}),
but the transformed Lagrangian has theta dependence in its
light-quark mass terms.
Using the fact that the $P$-odd mass has a much smaller scale than
$\Lambda_{QCD}$, we have proposed a way of circumventing
the sign problem.
The reweighting method defined by (\ref{reweight}) may allow us to do LQCD calculations and get definite results on dynamics of $\theta$ vacuum.
\\
\indent
Furthermore, we have investigated effects of the theta vacuum on the
phase diagram for the realistic 2 + 1 flavor system, using the three-flavor PNJL and EPNJL models.
Particularly in the EPNJL model that is more reliable than the PNJL model, the transition becomes first-order even at $\theta =0$ when $\theta$ is large.
This result is important.
If the chiral transition becomes first order at $\mu =0$, it will change the scenario of cosmological evolution.
For example, the first-order transition allows us to think the inhomogeneous Big-Bang nucleosynthesis model or a new scenario of baryogenesis.
\acknowledgments
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 23-2790.
The numerical calculations were performed on the HITACHI SR16000 at Kyushu University
and the NEC SX-9 at CMC, Osaka University.


\section{Introduction}

The free $2$-step nilpotent Lie group $N_{3,2}$ on $3$ generators is the simply connected, connected nilpotent Lie group defined by the relations
\[[X_1,X_2] = Y_3, \quad [X_2,X_3] = Y_1, \quad [X_3,X_1] = Y_2,\]
where $X_1,X_2,X_3,Y_1,Y_2,Y_3$ is a basis of its Lie algebra (that is, the Lie algebra of the left-invariant vector fields on $N_{3,2}$). In exponential coordinates, $N_{3,2}$ can be identified with $\R^3_x \times \R^3_y$, where the group law is given by
\[(x,y) \cdot (x',y') = (x+x',y+y' + x\wedge x'/2)\]
and $x \wedge x'$ denotes the usual vector product of $x,x' \in \R^3$.
The family $(\delta_t)_{t > 0}$ of automorphic dilations of $N_{3,2}$, defined by
\[\delta_t(x,y) = (tx, t^2 y),\]
turns $N_{3,2}$ into a stratified group of homogeneous dimension $Q = 9$.

Let $L = -(X_1^2 + X_2^2 + X_3^2)$ be the homogeneous sublaplacian on $N_{3,2}$. $L$ is a self-adjoint operator on $L^2(N_{3,2})$, hence a functional calculus for $L$ is defined via spectral integration and, for all Borel functions $F : \R \to \C$, the operator $F(L)$ is bounded on $L^2(N_{3,2})$ whenever the ``spectral multiplier'' $F$ is a bounded function. Here we are interested in giving a sufficient condition for the $L^p$-boundedness (for $p \neq 2$) of the operator $F(L)$, in terms of smoothness properties of the multiplier $F$.

Let $W_2^s(\R)$ denote the $L^2$ Sobolev space of (fractional) order $s$. Then our main result reads as follows.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:mhn32}
Suppose that a function $F : \R \to \C$ satisfies
\[\sup_{t > 0} \|\eta \,F(t \cdot) \|_{W_2^s} < \infty\]
for some $s > 6/2$ and some nonzero $\eta \in C^\infty_c(\leftopenint 0,\infty \rightopenint)$. Then the operator $F(L)$ is of weak type $(1,1)$ and bounded on $L^p(N_{3,2})$ for all $p \in \leftopenint 1,\infty\rightopenint$.
\end{thm}

Observe that the general multiplier theorem for homogeneous sublaplacians on stratified Lie groups by Christ \cite{christ_multipliers_1991} and Mauceri and Meda \cite{mauceri_vectorvalued_1990} requires the stronger regularity condition $s > Q/2 = 9/2$. To the best of our knowledge, in the case of $N_{3,2}$ none of the results and techniques known so far allowed one to go below the condition $s > Q/2$. Our result pushes the regularity assumption down to $s > d/2 = 6/2$, where $d = 6$ is the topological dimension of $N_{3,2}$. We conjecture that this condition is sharp.

The problem of $L^p$-boundedness for spectral multipliers on nilpotent Lie groups has a long history, and the theorem by Christ and Mauceri and Meda is itself an improvement of a series of previous results (see, e.g., \cite{de_michele_heisenberg_1979,folland_hardy_1982,de_michele_mulipliers_1987}). Nevertheless it is still an open question, whether the homogeneous dimension in the smoothness condition may always be replaced by the topological dimension.

It has been known for a long time \cite{hebisch_multiplier_1993,mller_spectral_1994} that such an improvement of the multiplier theorem holds true in the case of the Heisenberg and related groups (more precisely, for direct products of M\'etivier and abelian groups; see also \cite{hebisch_multiplier_1995,martini_joint_2012}). This class of groups, however, does not include $N_{3,2}$, nor any free $2$-step nilpotent group $N_{n,2}$ on $n$ generators (see \cite[\S3]{rothschild_hypoelliptic_1976} for a definition), except for the smallest one, $N_{2,2}$, which is the $3$-dimensional Heisenberg group. The free groups $N_{n,2}$ have in a sense the maximal structural complexity among $2$-step groups, since every $2$-step nilpotent Lie group is a quotient of a free one. Our result should then hopefully shed some new light and contribute to the understanding of the problem for general $2$-step nilpotent Lie groups.

\section{Strategy of the proof}

The sublaplacian $L$ is a left-invariant operator on $N_{3,2}$, hence any operator of the form $F(L)$ is left-invariant too. Let $\Kern_{F(L)}$ then denote the convolution kernel of $F(L)$. As shown, e.g., in \cite[Theorem 4.6]{martini_joint_2012}, the previous Theorem~\ref{thm:mhn32} is a consequence of the following $L^1$-estimate.

\begin{prp}\label{prp:l1estimate}
For all $s > 6/2$, for all compact sets $K \subseteq \leftopenint 0,\infty \rightopenint$, and for all functions $F : \R \to \C$ such that $\supp F \subseteq K$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:l1estimate}
\|\Kern_{F(L)}\|_1 \leq C_{K,s} \|F\|_{W_2^s}.
\end{equation}
\end{prp}

Let $|\cdot|_\delta$ be any $\delta_t$-homogeneous norm on $N_{3,2}$; take, e.g., $|(x,y)|_\delta = |x| + |y|^{1/2}$. The crucial estimate in the proof of \cite{mauceri_vectorvalued_1990} of the general theorem for stratified groups, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:standardl2}
\|(1+|\cdot|_\delta)^{\alpha} \Kern_{F(L)}\|_2 \leq C_{K,\alpha,\beta} \|F\|_{W_2^\beta}
\end{equation}
for all $\alpha \geq 0$ and $\beta > \alpha$, implies \eqref{eq:l1estimate} when $s > 9/2$, by H\"older's inequality. In order to push the condition down to $s > 6/2$, here we prove an enhanced version of \eqref{eq:standardl2}, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:weightedl2model}
\|(1+|\cdot|_\delta)^{\alpha} \, w^r \, \Kern_{F(L)}\|_2 \leq C_{K,\alpha,\beta,r} \|F\|_{W_2^\beta},
\end{equation}
for some ``extra weight'' function $w$ on $N_{3,2}$, and suitable constraints on the exponents $\alpha,\beta,r$.

A similar approach is adopted in the mentioned works on the Heisenberg and related groups. However, in \cite{mller_spectral_1994} the extra weight $w$ is the full weight $1+|\cdot|_\delta$, while \cite{hebisch_multiplier_1993} employs the weight $w(x,y) = 1+|x|$. Here instead the weight $w(x,y) = 1+|y|$ is used, and \eqref{eq:weightedl2model} is proved under the conditions $\alpha \geq 0$, $0 \leq r < 3/2$, $\beta > \alpha+r$ (see Proposition~\ref{prp:improvedl2estimate} below).

The proof of \eqref{eq:weightedl2model} when $\alpha = 0$ is based on a careful analysis exploiting identities for Laguerre polynomials, somehow in the spirit of \cite{de_michele_heisenberg_1979,mller_spectral_1994,mller_marcinkiewicz_1996}, but with additional complexity due, inter alia, to the simultanous use of generalized Laguerre polynomials of different types. The estimate for arbitrary $\alpha$ is then recovered by interpolation with \eqref{eq:standardl2}. An analogous strategy is followed in \cite{martini_grushin2}, where identities for Hermite polynomials are used in order to prove a sharp spectral multiplier theorem for Grushin operators.

\section{A joint functional calculus}

It is convenient for us to embed the functional calculus for the sublaplacian $L$ in a larger functional calculus for a system of commuting left-invariant differential operators on $N_{3,2}$. Specifically, the operators
\begin{equation}\label{eq:operators}
L,-iY_1,-iY_2,-iY_3
\end{equation}
are essentially self-adjoint and commute strongly, hence they admit a joint functional calculus (see, e.g., \cite{martini_spectral_2011}).

If $\vecY$ denotes the ``vector of operators'' $(-iY_1,-iY_2,-iY_3)$, then we can express the convolution kernel $\Kern_{G(L,\vecY)}$ of the operator $G(L,\vecY)$ in terms of Laguerre functions (cf.\ \cite{fischer_gelfand_2009}). Namely, for all $n,k \in \N$, let
\[L_n^{(k)}(u) = \frac{u^{-k} e^u}{n!} \left( \frac{d}{du} \right)^n (u^{k+n} e^{-u})\]
be the $n$-th Laguerre polynomial of type $k$, and define
\[\Ell_n^{(k)}(t) = 2(-1)^n e^{-t} L_n^{(k)}(2t).\]
Further, for all $\eta \in \R^3 \setminus \{0\}$ and $\xi \in \R^3$, define $\xi^\eta_\parallel$ and $\xi^\eta_\perp$ by
\[\xi^\eta_\parallel = \langle \xi, \eta/|\eta| \rangle, \qquad \xi^\eta_\perp = \xi - \xi^\eta_\parallel \eta/|\eta|.\]

\begin{prp}\label{prp:kernel}
Let $G : \R^4 \to \C$ be in the Schwartz class, and set
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reparametrization}
m(n,\mu,\eta) = G((2n+1)|\eta| + \mu^2, \eta),
\end{equation}
for all $n \in \N$, $\mu \in \R$, $\xi,\eta \in \R^3$ with $\eta \neq 0$. Then
\[
\Kern_{G(L,\vecY)}(x,y) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{6}} \int_{\R^3} \int_{\R^3} \sum_{n \in \N} m(n,\xi^\eta_\parallel,\eta)
\, \Ell_n^{(0)}(|\xi^\eta_\perp|^2 /|\eta|)
\, e^{i \langle \xi, x \rangle} \, e^{i \langle \eta, y \rangle} \,d\xi \,d\eta.
\]
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
For all $\eta \in \R^3 \setminus \{0\}$, choose a unit vector $E_\eta \in \eta^\perp$, and set $\bar E_\eta = (\eta/|\eta|) \wedge E_\eta$; moreover, for all $x \in \R^3$, denote by $x_1^\eta$, $x_2^\eta$, $x_\parallel^\eta$ the components of $x$ with respect to the positive orthonormal basis $E^\eta$, $\bar E^\eta$, $\eta/|\eta|$ of $\R^3$.

For all $\eta \in \R^3 \setminus \{0\}$ and all $\mu \in \R$, an irreducible unitary representation $\pi_{\eta,\mu}$ of $N_{3,2}$ on $L^2(\R)$ is defined by
\[
\pi_{\eta,\mu}(x,y) \phi(u) = e^{i \langle \eta , y \rangle} e^{i |\eta| (u + x_1^\eta/2) x_2^\eta} e^{i \mu x_\parallel^\eta} \phi(x_1^\eta + u)
\]
for all $(x,y) \in N_{3,2}$, $u \in \R$, $\phi \in L^2(\R)$.
Following, e.g., \cite[\S2]{astengo_hardys_2000}, one can see that these representations are sufficient to write the Plancherel formula for the group Fourier transform of $N_{3,2}$, and the corresponding Fourier inversion formula:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:groupinversion}
f(x,y) = (2\pi)^{-5} \int_{\R^3 \setminus \{0\}} \int_{\R} \tr (\pi_{\eta,\mu}(x,y) \, \pi_{\eta,\mu}(f)) \, |\eta| \, d\mu \, d\eta
\end{equation}
for all $f : N_{3,2} \to \C$ in the Schwartz class and all $(x,y) \in N_{3,2}$, where $\pi_{\eta,\mu}(f) = \int_{N_{3,2}} f(z) \, \pi_{\eta,\mu}(z^{-1}) \,dz$.

Fix $\eta \in \R^3 \setminus \{0\}$ and $\mu \in \R$. The operators \eqref{eq:operators} are represented in $\pi_{\eta,\mu}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:repops}
d\pi_{\eta,\mu}(L) = - \partial_u^2 + |\eta|^2 u^2 + \mu^2, \qquad d\pi_{\eta,\mu}(-iY_j) = \eta_j.
\end{equation}
If $h_n$ is the $n$-th Hermite function, that is,
\[
h_n(t) = (-1)^n (n! \, 2^n \sqrt{\pi})^{-1/2} e^{t^2/2} \left(\frac{d}{dt}\right)^n e^{-t^2},
\]
and $\tilde h_{\eta,n}$ is defined by
\[
\tilde h_{\eta,n}(u) = |\eta|^{1/4} h_n(|\eta|^{1/2} u),
\]
then $\{\tilde h_{\eta,n}\}_{n \in \N}$ is a complete orthonormal system for $L^2(\R)$, made of joint eigenfunctions of the operators \eqref{eq:repops}; in fact,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eigenvalues}
\begin{aligned}
d\pi_{\eta,\mu}(L) \tilde h_{\eta,n} &= (|\eta|(2n+1) + \mu^2) \tilde h_{\eta,n}, \\
d\pi_{\eta,\mu}(-iY_j) \tilde h_{\eta,n} &= \eta_j \tilde h_{\eta,n}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Moreover the corresponding diagonal matrix coefficients $\varphi_{\eta,\mu,n}$ of $\pi_{\eta,\mu}$ are given by
\[\begin{split}
\varphi_{\eta,\mu,n}(&x,y) = \langle \pi_{\eta,\mu}(x,y) \tilde h_{\eta,n}, \tilde h_{\eta,n} \rangle \\
&= e^{i \langle \eta , y \rangle} e^{i \mu x_\parallel^\eta} |\eta|^{1/2} \int_\R e^{i |\eta| u x_2^\eta} \, h_{n}(|\eta|^{1/2} (u+x_1^\eta/2)) \, h_{n}(|\eta|^{1/2} (u-x_1^\eta/2)) \,du.
\end{split}\]
The last integral is essentially the Fourier-Wigner transform of the pair $(h_n,h_n)$, whose Fourier transform has a particularly simple expression (cf.\ \cite[formula (1.90)]{folland_harmonic_1989}); the parity of the Hermite functions then yields
\[\begin{split}
\varphi_{\eta,\mu,n}(&x,y) =
e^{i \langle \eta , y \rangle} e^{i \mu x_\parallel^\eta} \frac{(-1)^n}{\pi |\eta|} \int_{\R^2} e^{i v_2 x_2^\eta} e^{i v_1 x_1^\eta} \\
&\qquad \times \int_\R e^{-it (2v_1/ |\eta|^{1/2}) } \, h_{n}(t+v_2/|\eta|^{1/2}) \, h_{n}(t-v_2/|\eta|^{1/2}) \,dt \,dv ,\\
\end{split}\]
that is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:diagonalcoefficients}
\varphi_{\eta,\mu,n}(x,y) = \frac{1}{2\pi |\eta|} e^{i \langle \eta , y \rangle} e^{i \mu x_\parallel^\eta} \int_{\R^2} e^{i v_1 x_1^\eta} e^{i v_2 x_2^\eta} \Ell_n^{(0)}(|v|^2/|\eta|) \,dv
\end{equation}
(see \cite[Theorem 1.3.4]{thangavelu_lectures_1993} or \cite[Theorem 1.104]{folland_harmonic_1989}).

Note that $\Kern_{G(L,\vecY)} \in \Sz(N_{3,2})$ since $G \in \Sz(\R^4)$ (see \cite[Theorem 5.2]{astengo_gelfand_2009} or \cite[\S4.2]{martini_multipliers_2010}). Moreover
\[\pi_{\eta,\mu}(\Kern_{G(L,\vecY)}) \tilde h_{\eta,n} = G(|\eta|(2n+1) + \mu^2,\eta) \tilde h_{\eta,n}\]
by \eqref{eq:eigenvalues} and \cite[Proposition 1.1]{mller_restriction_1990}, hence
\[\langle \pi_{\eta,\mu}(x,y) \pi_{\eta,\mu}(\Kern_{G(L,\vecY)}) \tilde h_{\eta,n}, \tilde h_{\eta,n} \rangle = m(n,\mu,\eta) \, \varphi_{\eta,\mu,n}(x,y).\]
Therefore, by \eqref{eq:groupinversion} and \eqref{eq:diagonalcoefficients},
\[\begin{split}
&\Kern_{G(L,\vecY)}(x,y) \\
&\quad= (2\pi)^{-5} \int_{\R^3 \setminus \{0\}} \int_{\R} \sum_{n \in \N} m(n,\mu,\eta) \, \varphi_{\eta,\mu,n}(x,y) \, |\eta| \, d\mu \, d\eta \\
&\quad= (2\pi)^{-6} \int_{\R^3} \int_{\R^3} \sum_{n \in \N} m(n,\xi_3,\eta) \, e^{i \langle \eta , y \rangle}
e^{i \langle \xi, (x_1^\eta,x_2^\eta,x_\parallel^\eta) \rangle}  \Ell_n^{(0)}((\xi_1^2+\xi_2^2)/|\eta|) \,d\xi \,d\eta.
\end{split}\]
The conclusion follows by a change of variable in the inner integral.
\end{proof}

\section{Weighted estimates}

For convenience, set $\Ell_n^{(k)} = 0$ for all  $n < 0$. The following identities are easily obtained from the properties of Laguerre polynomials (see, e.g., \cite[\S10.12]{erdelyi_higher2_1981}).

\begin{lem}
For all $k,n,n' \in \N$ and $t \in \R$,
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:laguerrepm} \Ell_n^{(k)}(t) = \Ell_{n-1}^{(k+1)}(t) + \Ell_n^{(k+1)}(t), \\
\label{eq:laguerred} \frac{d}{dt} \Ell_n^{(k)}(t) = \Ell_{n-1}^{(k+1)}(t) - \Ell_{n}^{(k+1)}(t),\\
\label{eq:laguerreo} \int_{0}^{\infty} \Ell_n^{(k)}(t) \, \Ell_{n'}^{(k)}(t) \, t^k \,dt = \begin{cases}
\frac{(n+k)!}{2^{k-1} n!} &\text{if $n=n'$,}\\
0 &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{gather}
\end{lem}

We introduce some operators on functions $f : \N \times \R \times \R^3 \to \C$:
\begin{align*}
\tau f(n,\mu,\eta) &= f(n+1,\mu,\eta), \\
\delta f(n,\mu,\eta) &= f(n+1,\mu,\eta) - f(n,\mu,\eta), \\
\partial_\mu f(n,\mu,\eta) &= \frac{\partial}{\partial \mu} f(n,\mu,\eta), \\
\partial_\eta^\alpha f(n,\mu,\eta) &= \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta}\right)^\alpha f(n,\mu,\eta),
\end{align*}
for all $\alpha \in \N^3$. For all multiindices $\alpha \in \N^3$, we denote by $|\alpha|$ its length $\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\alpha_3$. We set moreover $\langle t \rangle = 2|t|+1$ for all $t \in \R$.

Note that, for all compactly supported $f : \N \times \R \times \R^3 \to \C$, $\tau^l f$ is null for all sufficiently large $l \in \N$; hence the operator $1+\tau$, when restricted to the set of compactly supported functions, is invertible, with inverse given by
\[
(1+\tau)^{-1} f = \sum_{l \in \N} (-1)^l \tau^l f,
\]
and therefore the operator $(1+\tau)^q$ is well-defined for all $q \in \Z$.

\begin{prp}
Let $G : \R^4 \to \C$ be smooth and compactly supported in $\R \times (\R^3 \setminus \{0\})$, and let $m(n,\mu,\eta)$ be defined by \eqref{eq:reparametrization}.
For all $\alpha \in \N^3$,
\begin{multline}\label{eq:weightedl2}
\int_{N_{3,2}} |y^\alpha \, \Kern_{G(L,\vecY)}(x,y)|^2 \,dx\,dy \\
\leq C_\alpha \sum_{\iota \in I_\alpha} \sum_{n \in \N} \int_{\R^3} \int_\R |\partial_\eta^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \delta^{k_\iota} (1+\tau)^{|\beta^\iota|-k_\iota} m(n,\mu,\eta)|^2 \\
\times  \mu^{2b_\iota} \, |\eta|^{2|\gamma^\iota|-2|\alpha|-2k_\iota+|\beta^\iota|+1} \langle n \rangle^{|\beta^\iota|} \,d\mu \,d\eta,
\end{multline}
where $I_\alpha$ is a finite set and, for all $\iota \in I_\alpha$,
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gamma^\iota \in \N^3$, $l_\iota, k_\iota \in \N$, $\gamma^\iota \leq \alpha$, $\min\{1,|\alpha|\} \leq |\gamma^\iota| + l_\iota + k_\iota \leq |\alpha|$,
\item $b_\iota \in \N$, $\beta^\iota \in \N^3$, $b_\iota + |\beta^\iota| = l_\iota + 2k_\iota$, $|\gamma^\iota| + l_\iota + b_\iota \leq |\alpha|$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Proposition~\ref{prp:kernel} and integration by parts allow us to write
\begin{multline}\label{eq:weightedkernel}
y^\alpha \Kern_{G(L,\vecY)}(x,y) \\
 = \frac{i^{|\alpha|}}{(2\pi)^{6}} \int_{\R^3} \int_{\R^3} \left[ \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta}\right)^\alpha \sum_{n \in \N} m(n,\xi^\eta_\parallel,\eta)
\, \Ell_n^{(0)}(|\xi^\eta_\perp|^2 /|\eta|) \right]
\, e^{i \langle \xi, x \rangle} \, e^{i \langle \eta, y \rangle} \,d\xi \,d\eta.
\end{multline}
From the definition of $\xi^\eta_\parallel$ and $\xi^\eta_\perp$, the following identities are not difficult to obtain:
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta_j} \xi_\parallel^\eta = (\xi_\perp^\eta)_j \frac{1}{|\eta|},
\qquad
\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta_j} (\xi_\perp^\eta)_k = - \xi_\parallel^\eta \frac{\partial}{\partial \eta_j} \frac{\eta_k}{|\eta|} - (\xi_\perp^\eta)_j \frac{\eta_k}{|\eta|^2}, \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta_j} \frac{|\xi_\perp^\eta|^2}{|\eta|} = - \xi_\parallel^\eta (\xi_\perp^\eta)_j \frac{2}{|\eta|^2} - |\xi_\perp^\eta|^2 \frac{\eta_j}{|\eta|^3}.
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
The multiindex notation will also be used as follows:
\[(\xi^\eta_\perp)^\beta = (\xi^\eta_\perp)_1^{\beta_1} (\xi^\eta_\perp)_2^{\beta_2} (\xi^\eta_\perp)_3^{\beta_3}\]
for all $\xi,\eta \in \R$, with $\eta \neq 0$, and all $\beta \in \N^3$; consequently
\[|\xi^\eta_\perp|^2 = (\xi^\eta_\perp)^{(2,0,0)} + (\xi^\eta_\perp)^{(0,2,0)} + (\xi^\eta_\perp)^{(0,0,2)}.\]
Via these identities, one can prove inductively that, for all $\alpha \in \N^3$,
\begin{multline}\label{eq:kernelderivative}
\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta}\right)^\alpha \sum_{n \in \N} m(n,\xi^\eta_\parallel,\eta) \, \Ell_n^{(0)}(|\xi^\eta_\perp|^2 /|\eta|) \\
= \sum_{\iota \in I_\alpha} \sum_{n \in \N} \partial_\eta^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \delta^{k_\iota} m(n,\xi_\parallel^\eta,\eta) \, (\xi_\parallel^\eta)^{b_\iota} \, (\xi_\perp^\eta)^{\beta^\iota} \, \Theta_\iota(\eta) \, \Ell_n^{(k_\iota)}(|\xi_\perp^\eta|^2/|\eta|),
\end{multline}
where $I_\alpha$, $\gamma^\iota$, $l_\iota$, $k_\iota$, $b_\iota$, $\beta^\iota$ are as in the statement above, while $\Theta_\iota : \R^3 \setminus \{0\} \to \R$ is smooth and homogeneous of degree $|\gamma^\iota| - |\alpha| - k_\iota$. For the inductive step, one employs Leibniz' rule, and when a derivative hits a Laguerre function, the identity \eqref{eq:laguerred} together with summation by parts is used.

Note that, for all compactly supported $f : \N \times \R \times \R^3 \to \C$,
\[
\sum_{n \in \N} f(n,\mu,\eta) \, \Ell_n^{(k)}(t) = \sum_{n \in \N} (1+\tau) f(n,\mu,\eta) \, \Ell_n^{(k+1)}(t),
\]
by \eqref{eq:laguerrepm}. Since $1+\tau$ is invertible, simple manipulations and iteration yield the more general identity
\[
\sum_{n \in \N} f(n,\mu,\eta) \, \Ell_n^{(k)}(t) = \sum_{n \in \N} (1+\tau)^{k'-k} f(n,\mu,\eta) \, \Ell_n^{(k')}(t),
\]
for all $k,k' \in \N$. This formula allows us to adjust in \eqref{eq:kernelderivative} the type of the Laguerre functions to the exponent of $\xi_\perp$, and to obtain that
\begin{multline*}
\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta}\right)^\alpha \sum_{n \in \N} m(n,\xi^\eta_\parallel,\eta) \, \Ell_n^{(0)}(|\xi^\eta_\perp|^2 /|\eta|) \\
= \sum_{\iota \in I_\alpha} \sum_{n \in \N} \partial_\eta^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \delta^{k_\iota} (1+\tau)^{|\beta^\iota|-k_\iota} m(n,\xi_\parallel^\eta,\eta) \, (\xi_\parallel^\eta)^{b_\iota} \, (\xi_\perp^\eta)^{\beta^\iota} \, \Theta_\iota(\eta) \, \Ell_n^{(|\beta^\iota|)}(|\xi_\perp^\eta|^2/|\eta|),
\end{multline*}

By plugging this identity into \eqref{eq:weightedkernel} and exploiting Plancherel's formula for the Fourier transform, the finiteness of $I_\alpha$ and the triangular inequality, we get that
\begin{multline*}
\int_{N_{3,2}} |y^\alpha \Kern_{G(L,\vecY)}(x,y)|^2 \,dx \,dy \\
\leq C_\alpha \sum_{\iota \in I_\alpha} \int_{\R^3} \int_{\R} \int_{\R^2} \left|\sum_{n \in \N} \partial_\eta^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \delta^{k_\iota} (1+\tau)^{|\beta^\iota|-k_\iota} m(n,\mu,\eta)  \, \Ell_n^{(|\beta^\iota|)}(|\zeta|^2/|\eta|) \right|^2 \\
\times \mu^{2b_\iota} \, |\zeta|^{2|\beta^\iota|} \, |\eta|^{2|\gamma^\iota| - 2|\alpha| - 2k_\iota}
 \,d\zeta \,d\mu \,d\eta
\end{multline*}
A passage to polar coordinates in the $\zeta$-integral and a rescaling then give that
\begin{multline*}
\int_{N_{3,2}} |y^\alpha \Kern_{G(L,\vecY)}(x,y)|^2 \,dx \,dy \\
\leq C_\alpha \sum_{\iota \in I_\alpha} \int_{\R^3} \int_{\R} \int_0^\infty \left|\sum_{n \in \N} \partial_\eta^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \delta^{k_\iota} (1+\tau)^{|\beta^\iota|-k_\iota} m(n,\mu,\eta)  \, \Ell_n^{(|\beta^\iota|)}(s) \right|^2 s^{|\beta^\iota|} \,ds \\
\times \mu^{2b_\iota} \, |\eta|^{2|\gamma^\iota| - 2|\alpha| - 2k_\iota+|\beta^\iota|+1} \,d\mu \,d\eta,
\end{multline*}
and the conclusion follows by applying the orthogonality relations \eqref{eq:laguerreo} for the Laguerre functions to the inner integral.
\end{proof}

Note that $\tau f(\cdot,\mu,\eta)$, $\delta f(\cdot,\mu,\eta)$ depend only on $f(\cdot,\mu,\eta)$; in other words, $\tau$ and $\delta$ can be considered as operators on functions $\N \to \C$. The next lemma will be useful in converting finite differences into continuous derivatives.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:discretecontinuous}
Let $f : \N \to \C$ have a smooth extension $\tilde f : \leftclosedint 0,\infty \rightopenint \to \C$, and let $k \in \N$. Then
\[\delta^k f(n) = \int_{J_k} \tilde f^{(k)}(n+s) \,d\nu_k(s)\]
for all $n \in \N$, where $J_k = \leftclosedint 0,k\rightclosedint$ and $\nu_k$ is a Borel probability measure on $J_k$. In particular
\[|\delta^k f(n)|^2 \leq \int_{J_k} |\tilde f^{(k)}(n+s)|^2 \,d\nu_k(s)\]
for all $n \in \N$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Iterated application of the fundamental theorem of integral calculus gives
\[\delta^k f(n) = \int_{\leftclosedint 0,1\rightclosedint^k} \tilde f^{(k)}(n+s_1+\dots+s_k) \,ds.\]
The conclusion follows by taking as $\nu_k$ the push-forward of the uniform distribution on $\leftclosedint 0,1\rightclosedint^k$ via the map $(s_1,\dots,s_k) \mapsto s_1+\dots+s_k$, and by H\"older's inequality.
\end{proof}

We give now a simplified version of the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:weightedl2}, in the case where we restrict to the functional calculus for the sublaplacian $L$ alone. In order to avoid divergent series, however, it is convenient at first to truncate the multiplier along the spectrum of $\vecY$.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:weightedplancherel}
Let $\chi \in C^\infty_c(\R)$ be supported in $\leftclosedint 1/2,2 \rightclosedint$, $K \subseteq \leftopenint 0, \infty \rightopenint$ be compact and $M \in \leftopenint 0, \infty \rightopenint$. If $F : \R \to \C$ is smooth and supported in $K$, and $F_M : \R \times \R^3 \to \C$ is given by
\[F_M(\lambda,\eta) = F(\lambda) \, \chi(|\eta|/M),\]
then, for all $r \in \leftclosedint 0, \infty \rightopenint$,
\[\int_{N_{3,2}} | |y|^r \, \Kern_{F_M(L,\vecY)}(x,y) |^2 \,dx \,dy \leq C_{K,\chi,r} \, M^{3-2r} \|F\|_{W_2^r}^2.\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We may restrict to the case $r \in \N$, the other cases being recovered a posteriori by interpolation. Hence we need to prove that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:weightedmultiindex}
\int_{N_{3,2}} | y^\alpha \, \Kern_{F_M(L,\vecY)}(x,y) |^2 \,dx \,dy \leq C_{K,\chi,\alpha} \, M^{3-2|\alpha|} \|F\|_{W_2^{|\alpha|}}^2
\end{equation}
for all $\alpha \in \N^3$. On the other hand, if
\[m(n,\mu,\eta) = F( |\eta| \langle n \rangle + \mu^2 ) \, \chi(|\eta|/M),\]
then the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:weightedmultiindex} can be majorized by \eqref{eq:weightedl2}, and we are reduced to proving
\begin{multline}\label{eq:weightedsummand}
\sum_{n\in \N}\int_{\R^3} \int_\R |\partial_\eta^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \delta^{k_\iota} (1+\tau)^{|\beta^\iota|-k_\iota} m(n,\mu,\eta)|^2
\, \mu^{2b_\iota} \, |\eta|^{2|\gamma^\iota|-2|\alpha|-2k_\iota+|\beta^\iota|+1} \\
\times \langle n \rangle^{|\beta^\iota|} \,d\mu \,d\eta
\leq C_{K,\chi,\alpha} \, M^{3-2|\alpha|} \|F\|_{W_2^{|\alpha|}}^2
\end{multline}
for all $\iota \in I_\alpha$.

Consider first the case $|\beta^\iota| \geq k_\iota$. A smooth extension $\tilde m : \R \times \R \times \R^3 \to \C$ of $m$ is defined by
\[\tilde m(t,\mu,\eta) = F( |\eta| (2t+1) + \mu^2 ) \, \chi(|\eta|/M).\]
Then, by Lemma~\ref{lem:discretecontinuous},
\begin{multline*}
\partial_\eta^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \delta^{k_\iota} (1+\tau)^{|\beta^\iota|-k_\iota} m(n,\mu,\eta) \\
= \sum_{j=0}^{|\beta^\iota| - k_\iota} \binom{|\beta^\iota|-k_\iota}{j} \int_{J_\iota} \partial_{\eta}^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \partial_t^{k_\iota} \tilde m(n+j+s,\mu,\eta) \,d\nu_\iota(s),
\end{multline*}
where $J_\iota = \leftclosedint 0,k_\iota \rightclosedint$ and $\nu_\iota$ is a suitable probability measure on $J_\iota$; consequently \eqref{eq:weightedsummand} will be proved if we show that
\begin{multline}\label{eq:weightedsummand2}
\sum_{n \in \N} \int_{\R^3} \int_\R |\partial_\eta^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \partial_t^{k_\iota} \tilde m(n+s,\mu,\eta)|^2
\, \mu^{2b_\iota} \, |\eta|^{2|\gamma^\iota|-2|\alpha|-2k_\iota+|\beta^\iota|+1} \\
\times \langle n \rangle^{|\beta^\iota|} \,d\mu \,d\eta
\leq C_{K,\chi,\alpha} \, M^{3-2|\alpha|} \|F\|_{W_2^{|\alpha|}}^2
\end{multline}
for all $s \in \leftclosedint 0,|\beta^\iota|\rightclosedint$. On the other hand, it is easily proved inductively that
\begin{multline*}
\partial_\eta^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \partial_t^{k_\iota} \tilde m(t,\mu,\eta) \\
= \sum_{r=\lceil l_\iota/2\rceil}^{l_\iota} \sum_{v=0}^{|\gamma^\iota|} \sum_{q=0}^{|\gamma^\iota| - v} \Psi_{i,v,q}(\eta) \, \langle t \rangle^{v} \mu^{2r-l_\iota} M^{-q} F^{(k_\iota+v+r)}(|\eta|\langle t \rangle + \mu^2) \, \chi^{(q)}(|\eta|/M)
\end{multline*}
for all $t \geq 0$, where $\Psi_{i,q,v} : \R^3 \setminus \{0\} \to \R$ is smooth and homogeneous of degree $k_\iota + v + q - |\gamma^\iota|$; hence
\begin{multline}\label{eq:multiplierderivatives}
|\partial_\eta^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \partial_t^{k_\iota} \tilde m(t,\mu,\eta)|^2
\leq C_{\chi,\alpha} \sum_{r=\lceil l_\iota/2\rceil}^{l_\iota} \sum_{v=0}^{|\gamma^\iota|} M^{2k_\iota+2v-2|\gamma^\iota|}
\langle t \rangle^{2v} \mu^{4r-2l_\iota} \\
\times |F^{(k_\iota+v+r)}(|\eta|\langle t \rangle + \mu^2)|^2 \, \tilde\chi(|\eta|/M),
\end{multline}
where $\tilde\chi$ is the characteristic function of $\leftclosedint 1/2,2\rightclosedint$, and we are using the fact that $|\eta| \sim M$ in the region where $\tilde\chi(|\eta|/M) \neq 0$. Consequently the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:weightedsummand2} is majorized by
\[\begin{split}
C_{\chi,\alpha} &\sum_{r=\lceil l_\iota/2\rceil}^{l_\iota} \sum_{v=0}^{|\gamma^\iota|} M^{2v-2|\alpha| + |\beta^\iota| + 1} \sum_{n\in \N} \langle n \rangle^{|\beta^\iota|} \langle n+s \rangle^{2v} \\
&\qquad\times \int_{\R^3} \int_{\R} |F^{(k_\iota+v+r)}(|\eta|\langle n+s \rangle + \mu^2)|^2 \, \mu^{2b_\iota + 4r-2l_\iota} \, \tilde\chi(|\eta|/M) \,d\mu \,d\eta \\
&\leq C_{\chi,\alpha} \sum_{r=\lceil l_\iota/2\rceil}^{l_\iota} \sum_{v=0}^{|\gamma^\iota|} M^{2v-2|\alpha| + |\beta^\iota| + 3} \sum_{n\in \N} \langle n+s \rangle^{|\beta^\iota|+2v} \\
&\qquad\times \int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty |F^{(k_\iota+v+r)}(\rho\langle n+s \rangle + \mu^2)|^2 \, \mu^{2b_\iota + 4r-2l_\iota} \, \tilde\chi(\rho/M) \,d\mu \, \,d\rho \\
&\leq C_{\chi,\alpha} \sum_{r=\lceil l_\iota/2\rceil}^{l_\iota} \sum_{v=0}^{|\gamma^\iota|} M^{2v-2|\alpha| + |\beta^\iota| + 3}
\int_{0}^\infty \int_{0}^\infty |F^{(k_\iota+v+r)}(\rho + \mu^2)|^2 \\
&\qquad\times \mu^{2b_\iota + 4r- 2l_\iota} \,
\sum_{n\in \N} \langle n+s \rangle^{|\beta^\iota| + 2v - 1} \tilde\chi(\rho/(\langle n+s \rangle M)) \,d\mu \,d\rho,
\end{split}\]
by passing to polar coordinates and rescaling. The last sum in $n$ is easily controlled by $(\rho/M)^{|\beta^\iota|+2v}$, hence the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:weightedsummand2} is majorized by
\begin{multline*}
C_{\chi,\alpha} \, M^{3-2|\alpha|} \sum_{r=\lceil l_\iota/2\rceil}^{l_\iota} \sum_{v=0}^{|\gamma^\iota|}
\int_{0}^\infty \int_{0}^\infty |F^{(k_\iota+v+r)}(\rho + \mu^2)|^2 \mu^{2b_\iota + 4r-2l_\iota} \, \rho^{|\beta^\iota| + 2v} \,d\mu \,d\rho \\
\leq C_{K,\chi,\alpha} \, M^{3-2|\alpha|} \sum_{r=\lceil l_\iota/2\rceil}^{l_\iota} \sum_{v=0}^{|\gamma^\iota|}
\sup_{u \in \leftclosedint 0,\max K\rightclosedint} \int_{0}^\infty |F^{(k_\iota+v+r)}(\rho + u)|^2 \,d\rho,
\end{multline*}
because $2b_\iota + 4r-2l_\iota \geq 0$ and $|\beta^\iota| + 2v \geq 0$ if $r$ and $v$ are in the range of summation, and $\supp F \subseteq K$. Since moreover $k_\iota+v+r \leq k_\iota+\gamma^\iota+l_\iota \leq |\alpha|$, the last integral is dominated by $\|F\|_{W_2^{|\alpha|}}$ uniformly in $r,v,u$, and \eqref{eq:weightedsummand2} follows.

Consider now the case $|\beta^\iota| < k_\iota$. Via the identity
\[(1+\tau)^{-1} = (1-\tau) (1-\tau^2)^{-1} = - \delta (1-\tau^2)^{-1} = -\delta \sum_{j=0}^\infty \tau^{2j},\]
together with Lemma~\ref{lem:discretecontinuous}, we obtain that
\begin{multline}\label{eq:quasifinitesum}
\partial_\eta^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \delta^{k_\iota} (1+\tau)^{|\beta^\iota|-k_\iota} m(n,\mu,\eta) \\
= (-1)^{k_\iota-|\beta^\iota|} \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} {\textstyle \binom{j+k_\iota-|\beta^\iota|-1}{k_\iota-|\beta^\iota|-1}} \int_{J_\iota} \partial_{\eta}^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \partial_t^{2k_\iota-|\beta^\iota|} \tilde m(n+2j+s,\mu,\eta) \,d\nu_\iota(s),
\end{multline}
where $J_\iota = \leftclosedint 0,2k_\iota -|\beta^\iota|\rightclosedint$ and $\nu_\iota$ is a suitable probability measure on $J_\iota$. Note that, because of the assumptions on the supports of $F$ and $\chi$, the sum on $j$ in the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:quasifinitesum} is a finite sum, that is, the $j$-th summand is nonzero only if $\langle n +2j \rangle \leq 2 M^{-1} \max K$; consequently, by applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to the sum in $j$, and by \eqref{eq:multiplierderivatives},
\begin{multline*}
|\partial_\eta^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \delta^{k_\iota} (1+\tau)^{|\beta^\iota|-k_\iota} m(n,\mu,\eta)|^2 \\
\leq C_{K,\alpha} \, M^{1+2|\beta^\iota|-2k_\iota} \sum_{j=0}^\infty \int_{J_\iota} |\partial_{\eta}^{\gamma^\iota} \partial_\mu^{l_\iota} \partial_t^{2k_\iota-|\beta^\iota|} \tilde m(n+2j+s,\mu,\eta)|^2 \,d\nu_\iota(s) \\
\leq C_{K,\chi,\alpha} \sum_{r=\lceil l_\iota/2\rceil}^{l_\iota} \sum_{v=0}^{|\gamma^\iota|} M^{1+2k_\iota+2v-2|\gamma^\iota|}
\sum_{j=0}^\infty \int_{J_\iota} \langle n+2j+s \rangle^{2v} \mu^{4r-2l_\iota} \\
\times |F^{(2k_\iota-|\beta^\iota|+v+r)}(|\eta|\langle n+2j+s \rangle + \mu^2)|^2 \, \tilde\chi(|\eta|/M) \,d\nu_\iota(s).
\end{multline*}
Remember that $|\eta| \sim M$ in the region where $\tilde\chi(|\eta|/M) \neq 0$. Hence the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:weightedsummand} is majorized by
\[\begin{split}
&C_{K,\chi,\alpha} \sum_{r=\lceil l_\iota/2\rceil}^{l_\iota} \sum_{v=0}^{|\gamma^\iota|} \int_{J_\iota} \sum_{n\in\N} \sum_{j \in \N} \langle n+2j+s \rangle^{2v} \langle n \rangle^{|\beta^\iota|} \int_{\R^3} \int_{\R}  M^{2+2v-2|\alpha|+|\beta^\iota|} \\
&\quad\times \mu^{2b_\iota + 4r-2l_\iota} \, |F^{(2k_\iota-|\beta^\iota|+v+r)}(|\eta|\langle n+2j+s \rangle + \mu^2)|^2 \, \tilde\chi(|\eta|/M) \,d\mu \,d\eta \,d\nu_\iota(s) \\
&\leq C_{K,\chi,\alpha} \sum_{r=\lceil l_\iota/2\rceil}^{l_\iota} \sum_{v=0}^{|\gamma^\iota|} \int_{J_\iota} \sum_{n\in\N} \sum_{j \in \N} \langle n+2j+s \rangle^{2v+|\beta^\iota|} \int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty  M^{4+2v-2|\alpha|+|\beta^\iota|} \\
&\quad\times \mu^{2b_\iota + 4r-2l_\iota} \, |F^{(2k_\iota-|\beta^\iota|+v+r)}(\rho \langle n+2j+s \rangle + \mu^2)|^2 \, \tilde\chi(\rho/M) \,d\mu \,d\rho \,d\nu_\iota(s) \\
&\leq C_{K,\chi,\alpha} \sum_{r=\lceil l_\iota/2\rceil}^{l_\iota} \sum_{v=0}^{|\gamma^\iota|} M^{4+2v-2|\alpha|+|\beta^\iota|}
\int_{0}^\infty \int_{0}^\infty |F^{(2k_\iota-|\beta^\iota|+v+r)}(\rho + \mu^2)|^2 \\
&\quad\times \mu^{2b_\iota + 4r-2l_\iota} \int_{J_\iota} \sum_{(n,j)\in\N^2} \langle n+2j+s \rangle^{2v+|\beta^\iota|-1} \tilde\chi(\rho/(\langle n + 2j + s \rangle M)) \,d\nu_\iota(s) \,d\mu \,d\rho,
\end{split}\]
by passing to polar coordinates and rescaling. The sum in $(n,j)$ is dominated by $(\rho/M)^{2v+|\beta^\iota|+1}$, uniformly in $s \in J_\iota$, and moreover $\supp F \subseteq K$. Therefore the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:weightedsummand} is majorized by
\[\begin{split}
C_{K,\chi,\alpha} \, M^{3-2|\alpha|} \sum_{r=\lceil l_\iota/2\rceil}^{l_\iota} \sum_{v=0}^{|\gamma^\iota|} \sup_{u \in \leftclosedint 0,\max K\rightclosedint} \int_0^\infty |F^{(2k_\iota-|\beta^\iota|+v+r)}(\rho + u)|^2 \,d\rho.
\end{split}\]
On the other hand, $b_\iota + |\beta^\iota| = l_\iota + 2k_\iota$, hence $2k_\iota-|\beta^\iota|+v+r \leq 2k_\iota-|\beta^\iota| + |\gamma^\iota| + l_\iota = b_\iota + |\gamma^\iota| \leq |\alpha|$ if $r$ and $v$ are in the range of summation, therefore the last integral is dominated by $\|F\|_{W_2^{|\alpha|}}$ uniformly in $r,v,u$, and \eqref{eq:weightedsummand} follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{prp}\label{prp:weightedl2}
Let $F : \R \to \C$ be smooth and such that $\supp F \subseteq K$ for some compact set $K \subseteq \leftopenint 0, \infty \rightopenint$. For all $r \in \leftclosedint 0, 3/2 \rightopenint$,
\[
\int_{N_{3,2}} \left| (1+|y|)^r \, \Kern_{F(L)}(x,y) \right|^2 \,dx \,dy \leq C_{K,r} \|F\|_{W_2^r}^2.
\]
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Take $\chi \in C^\infty_c(\leftopenint 0,\infty \rightopenint)$ such that $\supp \chi \subseteq \leftclosedint 1/2,2 \rightclosedint$ and $\sum_{k \in \Z} \chi(2^{-k} t) = 1$ for all $t \in \leftopenint 0,\infty \rightopenint$. Note that, if $(\lambda,\eta)$ belongs to the joint spectrum of $L,\vecY$, then $|\eta| \leq \lambda$. Therefore, if $k_K \in \Z$ is sufficiently large so that $2^{k_K-1} > \max K$, and if $F_M$ is defined for all $M \in \leftopenint 0,\infty \rightopenint$ as in Lemma~\ref{lem:weightedplancherel}, then
\[F(L) = \sum_{k \in \Z , \, k \leq k_K} F_{2^{k}}(L,\vecY)\]
(with convergence in the strong sense). Hence an estimate for $\Kern_{F(L)}$ can be obtained, via Minkowski's inequality, by summing the corresponding estimates for $\Kern_{F_{2^{k}}}(L,\vecY)$ given by Lemma~\ref{lem:weightedplancherel}. If $r < 3/2$, then the series $\sum_{k \leq k_K} (2^{k})^{3/2-r}$ converges, thus
\[
\int_{N_{3,2}} \left| |y|^r \, \Kern_{F(L)}(x,y) \right|^2 \,dx \,dy \leq C_{K,r} \|F\|_{W_2^r}^2.
\]
The conclusion follows by combining the last inequality with the corresponding one for $r = 0$.
\end{proof}

Recall that $|\cdot|_\delta$ denotes a $\delta_t$-homogeneous norm on $N_{3,2}$, thus $|(x,y)|_\delta \sim |x|+|y|^{1/2}$. Interpolation then allows us to improve the standard weighed estimate for a homogeneous sublaplacian on a stratified group.

\begin{prp}\label{prp:improvedl2estimate}
Let $F : \R \to \C$ be smooth and such that $\supp F \subseteq K$ for some compact set $K \subseteq \leftopenint 0, \infty \rightopenint$. For all $r \in \leftclosedint 0, 3/2 \rightopenint$, $\alpha \geq 0$ and $\beta > \alpha + r$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:improvedl2estimate}
\int_{N_{3,2}} \left| (1+|(x,y)|_\delta)^\alpha \, (1+|y|)^r \, \Kern_{F(L)}(x,y) \right|^2 \,dx \,dy \leq C_{K,\alpha,\beta,r} \|F\|_{W_2^\beta}^2.
\end{equation}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Note that $1+|y| \leq C (1+|(x,y)|_\delta)^2$. Hence, in the case $\alpha \geq 0$, $\beta > \alpha + 2r$, the inequality \eqref{eq:improvedl2estimate} follows by the standard estimate \cite[Lemma 1.2]{mauceri_vectorvalued_1990}. On the other hand, if $\alpha = 0$ and $\beta \geq r$, then \eqref{eq:improvedl2estimate} is given by Proposition~\ref{prp:weightedl2}. The full range of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ is then obtained by interpolation (cf.\ the proof of \cite[Lemma 1.2]{mauceri_vectorvalued_1990}).
\end{proof}

We can finally prove the fundamental $L^1$-estimate, and consequently Theorem~\ref{thm:mhn32}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prp:l1estimate}]
Take $r \in \leftopenint 9/2-s,3/2 \rightopenint$. Then $s-r > 3/2 + 3-2r$, hence we can find $\alpha_1 > 3/2$ and $\alpha_2 > 3-2r$ such that $s - r > \alpha_1 + \alpha_2$. Therefore, by Proposition~\ref{prp:improvedl2estimate} and H\"older's inequality,
\[
\|\Kern_{F(L)} \|_1^2  \leq C_{k,s} \|F\|_{W_2^s}^2 \int_{N_{3,2}} (1+|(x,y)|_\delta)^{-2\alpha_1-2\alpha_2} \, (1+|y|)^{-2r} \,dx \,dy.
\]
The integral on the right-hand side is finite, because $2\alpha_1 > 3$, $\alpha_2 + 2r > 3$, and
\[(1+|(x,y)|_\delta)^{-2\alpha_1-2\alpha_2} \, (1+|y|)^{-2r} \leq C_s (1+|x|)^{-2\alpha_1} \, (1+|y|)^{-\alpha_2 - 2r},\]
and we are done.
\end{proof}

\bibliographystyle{amsabbrv}