## SCATTERING PROBLEM FOR THE GENERALIZED KORTEWEG-DE VRIES EQUATION

SATOSHI MASAKI AND JUN-ICHI SEGATA

Abstract. In this paper we study the scattering problem for the initial value problem of the generalized Korteweg-de Vries (gKdV) equation. The purpose of this paper is to achieve two primary goals. Firstly, we show small data scattering for (gKdV) in the weighted Sobolev space, ensuring the initial and the asymptotic states belong to the same class. Secondly, we introduce two equivalent characterizations of scattering in the weighted Sobolev space. In particular, this involves the so-called conditional scattering in the weighted Sobolev space. A key ingredient is incorporation of the scattering criterion for (gKdV) in the FourierLebesgue space by the authors [30] into the the scattering problem in the weighted Sobolev space.

## 1. Introduction

In this paper we study the scattering problem for the generalized Kortewegde Vries (gKdV) equation

$$( 1. 1 ) \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

under the initial condition

$$( 1. 2 ) \quad & \quad u ( 0, x ) = u _ { 0 } ( x ), \quad & x \in \mathbb { R }, \quad & \quad \quad x \in \mathbb { R }, \quad & \quad \quad \quad$$

where u : R × R → R is an unknown function, u 0 : R → R is a given function, and µ ∈ R \{ } 0 and α &gt; 0 are constants. We call that (1.1) is defocusing if µ &gt; 0 and focusing if µ &lt; 0. Equation (1.1) is a generalization of the Korteweg-de Vries equation which models long waves propagating in a channel [26] and the modified Korteweg-de Vries equation which describes a time evolution for the curvature of certain types of helical space curves [27].

Equation (1.1) has the following conservation laws: If u t ( ) is a solution to (1.1) on the time interval I with 0 ∈ I , then, u t ( ) has conservation of the mass

$$M [ u ( t ) ] & \coloneqq \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left \| u ( t, \cdot ) \right \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } ^ { 2 } = M [ u _ { 0 } ] \\ \cdot \quad \cdot \$$

and conservation of the energy

$$( 1. 4 ) \ \ E [ u ( t ) ] \coloneqq \frac { 1 } { 2 } \, \| \partial _ { x } u ( t, \cdot ) \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } ^ { 2 } + \frac { \mu } { 2$$

for any t ∈ I .

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 35Q53, 35B40; Secondary 35B30. Key words and phrases. generalized Korteweg-de Vries equation, scattering problem.

We take the initial data u 0 from the weighted Sobolev space H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , , where H 1 is the usual Sobolev space and H 0 1 , is the weighted L 2 space defined by

$$H ^ { 0, 1 } & = H ^ { 0, 1 } ( \mathbb { R } ) \coloneqq \{ f \in L ^ { 2 } ( \mathbb { R } ) \ ; \ \| f \| _ { H ^ { 0, 1 } } = \|$$

$$( 1. 5 ) \sum _ { \substack { \hat { L } ^ { r } = \hat { L } ^ { r } ( \mathbb { R } ) \coloneqq \{ f \in \mathcal { S } ^ { \prime } ( \mathbb { R } ) \ ; \ \| f \| _ { \hat { L } ^ { r } } = \| \hat { f } \| _ { L ^ { r ^ { \prime } } } < \infty \} \\ \dots, \ \, \, \, \cdots, \ \, \cdots, \ \, \cdots, \ \, \cdots, \ e$$

with 〈 x 〉 = √ 1 + | x | 2 . By the Sobolev embedding, one sees that the weighted space H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , is embedded into L r ∩ ˆ L r for any r ∈ [1 , ∞ ], where ˆ L r is the Fourier-Lebesgue space defined for 1 /lessorequalslant r /lessorequalslant ∞ by and r ′ denotes the H¨lder conjugate of o r .

The purpose of this paper is to achieve two primary goals. Firstly, we show small data scattering for (1.1)-(1.2) in the weighted Sobolev space, ensuring the initial and the asymptotic states belong to the same class. Secondly, we introduce two equivalent characterizations of scattering in the weighted Sobolev space. In particular, this involves the so-called conditional scattering in the weighted Sobolev space.

There are many results on the small data scattering problem for (1.1). Strauss [35] proved that if α &gt; (3+ √ 21) / 4, and u 0 ∈ L (2 α +2) (2 / α +1) , ∂ u x 0 ∈ L 2 are sufficiently small, then the solution to (1.1) is global and scatters in H 1 . Ponce and Vega [34] have shown a similar scattering result for α &gt; (5+ √ 73) / 8. Christ and Weintein [3] improved their results to α &gt; (19 -√ 57) / 8. Furthermore, Hayashi and Naumkin extended their results to α /greaterorequalslant 1, where they proved an usual scattering for (1.1) when α &gt; 1 [12] (see also Cˆ ote [5] for construction of large data wave operator) and a modified scattering for α = 1 [13, 14, 15] (See also Harrop-Griffiths [11], Germain, Pusateri and Rousset [9], Correia, Cˆ ote, and Vega [4] for other approaches). In those results, the classes of the initial states and the asymptotic states are different.

Form the physical perspective, it is natural that the initial and the asymptotic states belong to the same class. For this direction, Kenig, Ponce and Vega [20] proved the small scattering of (1.1) in the scaling critical space ˙ H s α for α /greaterorequalslant 2, where s α := 1 / 2 -1 /α is a scaling critical exponent (see also Strunk [36]). Since the scaling critical exponent s α is negative in the mass-subcritical case α &lt; 2, the scattering of (1.1) in the scaling critical space ˙ H s α becomes rather a difficult problem. Tao [37] proved global well-posedness and scattering for small data for (1.1) with the quartic nonlinearity µ∂ x ( u 4 ) in ˙ H s 3 / 2 . Later on, Koch and Marzuola [25] simplified Tao's proof and extended his result to a Besov space ˙ B s 3 / 2 ∞ , 2 . In [30], the authors proved small data scattering for (1.1) in the framework of the scaling critical Fourier-Lebesgue space ˆ L α for 8 / 5 &lt; α /lessorequalslant 2.

For the large initial data, Dodson [7] has shown the global well-posedness and scattering in L 2 for (1.1) with the defocusing and mass-critical nonlinearity (i.e., µ &gt; 0 and α = 2) by using the concentration compactness argument by Kenig and Merle [18] and the monotonicity formula for (1.1) by Tao [38] (see also Killip, Kwon, Shao and Vi¸ san [21] for the existence of the minimal non-scattering solution for (1.1) with the focusing, mass-critical nonlinearity). After that Farah, Linares, Pastor and Visciglia [8] proved the

global well-posedness and scattering in H 1 for (1.1) with the defocusing and mass-supercritical nonlinearity (i.e., µ &gt; 0 and α &gt; 2) by adapting the the concentration compactness argument into H 1 . For the mass-subcritical case α &lt; 2, the authors [31, 32] proved the existence of the minimal nonscattering solution for (1.1) with 5 / 3 &lt; α &lt; 2 by applying the concentration compactness argument in the Fourier-Bourgain-Morrey space. Furthermore, Kim [24] proved the conditional scattering in the Fourier-Bourgain-Morrey space for (1.1) when the nonlinear term is defocusing and mass-subcritical with 5 / 3 &lt; α &lt; 2. Note that for the case α = 1, it is well-known that (1.1) is completely integrable. By using the inverse scattering method, Deift-Zhou [6] obtained asymptotic behavior in time of solution to (1.1) with α = 1 and without smallness on the initial data.

- 1.1. Local well-posedness in a weighted space. In this paper, we use several notions of a solution to (1.1). Let { V ( ) t } t ∈ R be a unitary group generated by the -∂ 3 x . For an interval I ⊂ R , we define

$$\begin{matrix} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \end{matrix}$$

$$S ( I ) \ \coloneqq \ \{ u \colon I \times \mathbb { R } \to \mathbb { R } \ ; \ \| u \| _ { S ( I ) } < \infty \}, \\ \| u \| _ { S ( I ) } \ \coloneqq \ \| u \| _ { L ^ { \frac { 5 } { 2 } \alpha } _ { x } ( \mathbb { R } ; L ^ { 5 \alpha } _ { t } ( I ) ) }.$$

Definition 1.1 (a solution to (1.1)) . Let X = ˆ L α , X = H 1 ∩ ˆ L α , or X = H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , . For an interval I ⊂ R , we say a function u : I × R → R is a X -solution on I if V ( -t ) u t ( ) ∈ C I X ( ; ) , ‖ u ‖ S J ( ) &lt; ∞ for any compact J ⊂ I , and the identity holds for any t 1 , t 2 ∈ I .

$$& J \subset I, \, a n a \, \text{ne aeneuuy} \\ & ( 1. 7 ) & & V ( - t _ { 2 } ) u ( t _ { 2 } ) = V ( - t _ { 1 } ) u ( t _ { 1 } ) + \int _ { t _ { 1 } } ^ { t _ { 2 } } V ( - \tau ) \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) ( \tau ) d \tau \\ & \text{holds for anu t.t. } t _ { 2 } \in I.$$

Due to the modification in the definition of a solution, a natural extension of the initial condition (1.2) to an arbitrary time t 0 ∈ R is as follows:

$$V ( - t _ { 0 } ) u ( t _ { 0 } ) = \underset { \hat { - } } { V } ( - t _ { 0 } ) u _ { 0 } \in X. \underset { \hat { - } } { V } ( - t _ { 0 } ) u _ { 0 } \in X. \underset { \hat { - } } { V } ( - t _ { 0 } ) \end{vmatrix}$$

/negationslash

Remark 1.2 . V ( ) t is an isometry on ˆ L α or H 1 ∩ ˆ L α . Hence, V ( -t ) u t ( ) ∈ C I X ( ; ) is equivalent to u t ( ) ∈ C I X ( ; ) when X = ˆ L α or X = H 1 ∩ ˆ L α . Moreover, (1.7) is equivalent to the validity of the standard Duhamel formula. Furthermore, (1.8) is equivalent to u t ( 0 ) = u 0 ∈ X . However, V ( ) t is not a bounded operator from H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , to itself for any t = 0 and hence these modifications are essential in the case X = H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , . We also remark that the embedding

$$H ^ { 1 } \cap H ^ { 0, 1 } & \hookrightarrow H ^ { 1 } \cap \hat { L } ^ { \alpha } \hookrightarrow \hat { L } ^ { \alpha } \\ \cdots \cdots \, \mathfrak { m p d d d } \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \,.$$

holds for any 1 /lessorequalslant α /lessorequalslant ∞ . Hence, a H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution is a H 1 ∩ ˆ L α -solution and similarly a H 1 ∩ ˆ L α -solution is a ˆ L α -solution. Further, it is known that ˆ L α -solution is unique if 8 / 5 &lt; α &lt; 10 3 (see [30, Theorem 1.2]). /

Before the scattering problem, let us consider the local well-posedness. It is noteworthy that the local well-posedness in ˆ L α and H 1 ∩ ˆ L α are already established in [30]. We also have the local well-posedness in the weighted Sobolev space H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , .

Theorem 1.3 (Local well-posedness in H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , ) . The initial value problem (1.1) under (1.8) is locally well-posed in the weighted Sobolev space H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , . More precisely, suppose that V ( -t 0 ) u 0 ∈ H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , for some t 0 ∈ R . Then, there exist a interval I /owner t 0 and a unique H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution u t ( ) to (1.1) under (1.8) on I such that

$$\| V ( - t ) u \| _ { L _ { t } ^ { \infty } ( I ; H _ { x } ^ { 1 } \cap H _ { x } ^ { 0, 1 } ) } \lesssim \| V ( - t _ { 0 } ) u _ { 0 } \| _ { H _ { x } ^ { 1 } \cap H _ { x } ^ { 0, 1 } } + \langle t _ { 0 } \rangle \| u _ { 0 } \| _ { H _ { x } ^ { 1 } } ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 }. \\ \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \,.$$

↦

Moreover, the data-to-solution map V ( -t 0 ) u 0 → u is a continuous map from H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , to L ∞ ( I ; H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , ) .

Now, we turn to the global existence of a solution. To this end, we introduce the notion of the maximal lifespan of a solution. For a X -solution u t ( ) to (1.1) on an interval I , we define

$$T _ { \max } \ \coloneqq \ \sup \{ T \in \mathbb { R } ; \exists u \, \colon X \text{-solution to } ( 1. 1 ) \, \text{on } [ t _ { 0 }, T ] \}, \\ T \. \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \longrightarrow \ \inf T \subset \mathbb { D } \cdot \exists u \, \colon Y \text{-solution to } ( 1 \, 1 \, 1 \, \infty \, [ T \ \cdot ] \, \lambda$$

with a picked t 0 ∈ I . Note that these quantities are independent of the choice of t 0 ∈ I . Further, we refer I max = ( T min , T max ) to as the maximal lifespan of a solution u . A solution u on I max is referred to as a maximallifespan solution. We say a solution u is global for positive time direction (resp. negative time direction) if T max = ∞ (resp. T min = -∞ ).

$$T _ { \min } \ \coloneqq \ \inf \{ T \in \mathbb { R } ; \exists u \colon X \text{-solution to } ( 1. 1 ) \text{ on } [ T, t _ { 0 } ] \} \\ \prod \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \end{array}$$

It is obvious from the definition that I max depends on the choice of the notion of a solution, i.e., on X . However, those with X = ˆ L α and X = H 1 ∩ ˆ L α coincides each other. This property, which is called the persistence of H 1 -regularity, implies that if a ˆ L α -solution u satisfies u t ( ) ∈ H 1 at some time in its maximal lifespan (as a ˆ L α -solution) then u t ( ) ∈ H 1 holds in the whole maximal lifespan and further u is a H 1 ∩ ˆ L α -solution with the same maximal lifespan. Our next result shows that I max is also the same for H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution.

$$\lim _ { T \to T _ { \max } - 0 } \| u \| _ { S ( [ t _ { 0 }, T ) ) } = \infty.$$

Theorem 1.4 (Blowup alternative) . Let u be a maximal-lifespan H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution and I max = ( T min , T max ) be its maximal lifespan as a H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution. If T max &lt; ∞ then

A similar alternative holds for T min . In particular, I max is the same as those as a ˆ L α -and H 1 ∩ ˆ L α -solution.

This property reads as the persistence of the boundedness V ( -t ) u t ( ) ∈ H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , for ˆ L α -solutions. Due to this property, we use the notation I max without clarifying the notion of a solution.

1.2. Main results. Now, we consider the scattering problem. We give the definition of scattering in X .

Definition 1.5. Let X = ˆ L α , X = H 1 ∩ ˆ L α , or X = H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , . We say a X -solution u t ( ) scatters in X for positive time direction if T max = + ∞ and there exists a unique function u + ∈ X such that

$$\lim _ { t \to + \infty } \| V ( - t ) u ( t ) - u _ { + } \| _ { X } = 0.$$

The scattering for negative time direction is defined by a similar fashion.

Our first result is the scattering for small data.

Theorem 1.6 (Small data scattering) . Let 8 5 / &lt; α &lt; 2 . Then there exists ε 0 &gt; 0 such that if u 0 ∈ H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , ( R ) satisfies ‖ u 0 ‖ H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , /lessorequalslant ε 0 , then the unique H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution u to (1.1) given in Theorem 1.3 scatters in H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , for both time directions. Moreover,

$$\| V ( - t ) u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( \mathbb { R } ; H ^ { 1 } \cap H ^ { 0, 1 } ) } + \| u \| _ { S ( \mathbb { R } ) }$$

We remark that the scattering in ˆ L α and H 1 ∩ ˆ L α hold with a weaker smallness assumption for 8 / 5 &lt; α &lt; 2. More precisely, for u 0 ∈ ˆ L α if

$$\| V ( t ) u _ { 0 } \| _ { S ( \mathbb { R } ) } + \| | D _ { x } | ^ { \frac { 3 } { 4 } - \frac { 1 } { 2 \alpha } } V ( t )$$

is sufficiently small, then the unique ˆ L α -solution u t ( ) scatters in ˆ L α for both time directions. We emphasize that the smallness of ‖ u 0 ‖ ˆ L α is a sufficient condition for this assumption but not a necessary condition. By the persistence-of-regularity argument, one sees that if u 0 ∈ H 1 in addition then u t ( ) scatters in H 1 ∩ ˆ L α . Although Theorem 1.3 follows by a similar persistence-of-regularity type argument, a stronger smallness assumption is required in Theorem 1.6.

The second main result is the two equivalent characterizations of the scattering in the weighted Sobolev space.

Theorem 1.7 (Scattering criterion) . Assume 8 5 / &lt; α &lt; 2 . Let u t ( ) be a unique maximal-lifespan H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution of (1.1) under (1.8) . The following statements are equivalent:

- (i) u t ( ) scatters for positive time direction in H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , ;

$$\left ( 1. 1 0 \right ) \right ) \right ) _ { \substack { \dots \dots \end{pmatrix} } \left ( \begin{array} {$$

- (ii) u t ( ) is bounded in a weighted norm, i.e., for some t 0 ∈ I max ,

(iii) There exist κ &gt; α 3( α -1)(2 α +1) and t 0 ∈ I max such that

$$\| u \| _ { S ( [ t _ { 0 }, T _ { \max } ) ) } ^ { \cdot } + \sup _ { t \in [ t _ { 0 }, T _ { \max } ) } \langle t \rangle$$

Further, if one of the above is satisfied then T max = ∞ and

$$\| V ( - t ) u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) ; H ^ { 1 } \cap H ^ { 0, 1 } ) } + \| u \| _ { S ( [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) ) } + \sup _ { t \in [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) } \langle t \rangle ^ { \frac { 1 } { 3 } } \, \| u ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } } < \infty$$

for any t 0 ∈ I max . The similar statements are true for negative time direction.

Remark 1.8 . For a ˆ L α -solution, the boundedness ‖ u ‖ S ([ t 0 ,T max )) &lt; ∞ is a necessary and sufficient condition for scattering in ˆ L α for positive time direction. The equivalence of (i) and (iii) in Theorem 1.7 implies that the additional boundedness condition

$$\sup _ { t \in [ t _ { 0 }, T _ { \max } ) } \langle t \rangle ^ { \kappa } \| u \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { 2 ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) } } < + \infty$$

bridges the gap between scattering in ˆ L α and in H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , . This gap arises due to the weakness of our persistence result. A standard persistence-ofregularity argument shows that ‖ u ‖ S ([ t 0 ,T max )) &lt; ∞ is also an equivalent

characterization of scattering for positive time direction in H 1 ∩ ˆ L α for H 1 ∩ ˆ L α -solutions.

We remark that the implication '(ii) ⇒ (i)' in Theorem 1.7 reads as a conditional scattering result. Indeed, it establishes the scattering under the hypothesis of the a priori bound (1.10). As mentioned above, Kim [24] showed a conditional scattering result for 5 / 3 &lt; α &lt; 2 under the boundedness in H 1 and in a Fourier-Bourgain-Morrey space. Compared with the result, Theorem 1.7 covers a wider range 8 / 5 &lt; α &lt; 2 with a stronger boundedness assumption.

Let us compare the conditional scattering result Theorem 1.7 with the similar results for the mass-subcritical nonlinear Schr¨dinger equation: o where u : R × R d → C is an unknown function, u 0 : R d → C is a given function, and µ ∈ R \{ } 0 and 0 &lt; α &lt; 2 /d are constants. For (1.11) with the defocusing nonlinearity (i.e., µ &gt; 0), by utilizing the pseudo-conformal transform or pseudo-conformal conservation law, it is shown in [39, 16, 1, 33] that any H 0 1 , -solution scatters in H 0 1 , when α /greaterorequalslant α St := ( -d + 2 + √ d 2 +12 d +4) (4 ). As far as the authors know, this kind of transform or / d conservation law are not known for (1.1). As for the conditional scattering, Killip, Murphy, Vi¸ san and the first author [22, 23] proved scattering under the boundedness assumption with respect to a scaling critical homogeneous weighted norm or to a homogeneous Sobolev norm (see [28, 29] for similar study for µ &lt; 0).

$$& \text{similar results for the mass-subcritical nonlinear Scnrodinger equa} \\ & ( 1. 1 1 ) \quad \begin{cases} \ i \partial _ { t } u + \Delta u = \mu | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u, \quad t \in \mathbb { R }, x \in \mathbb { R } ^ { d }, \\ u ( 0, x ) = u _ { 0 } ( x ), \quad x \in \mathbb { R } ^ { d }, \end{cases} \\ & \text{where } u \cdot \mathbb { R } \, \succ \mathbb { R } ^ { d } \, \rightharpoonup \, \mathbb { C } \, \text{is an unknown function } u \cdot \, \mathbb { R } ^ { d } \, \rightharpoonup \, \mathbb { C } \, \text{i.s.}$$

1.3. Outline of the proof. To investigate the property V ( -t ) u t ( ) ∈ H 0 1 , , it is convenient to introduce the operator

$$J ( t ) \coloneqq V ( t ) x V ( - t ) = x - 3 t \partial _ { x } ^ { 2 }. \\ \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$$

One strategy is that, we establish a persistence-type property in the weighted Sobolev space by looking at the equation for Ju . This argument works well for the NLS equation (1.11). However, for the generalized KdV equation (1.1), the operator J t ( ) does not work well with the nonlinear term. To overcome this difficulty, as in Hayashi and Naumkin [12, 13, 14], we introduce another variable

$$& ( 1. 1 2 ) \quad \ v ( t ) \coloneqq J ( t ) u ( t ) + 3 \mu t | u ( t ) | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ( t ). \\ & \mathbb { m } \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \end{array}$$

Note that if u t ( ) is a solution to (1.1) then one has v t ( ) = ( x + 3 ∂ -1 x ∂ t ) u , at least formally. We would like to point out that our v does not involve an anti-derivative ∂ -1 x . A direct computation shows that v solves a KdV-like equation

$$& ( 1. 1 3 ) \quad \partial _ { t } v + \partial _ { x } ^ { 3 } v = ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \mu | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } \partial _ { x } v - 2 ( \alpha - 1 ) \mu | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u. \\ & \tau \colon \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \end{array}$$

It is noteworthy that the equation is written in the integral form and hence that one can utilize the Strichartz estimates to obtain various estimates for v .

The following notation will be used throughout this paper: We use A /lessorsimilar B to denote the estimate A /lessorequalslant CB where C is a positive constant. | D x | s =

( -∂ 2 x ) s/ 2 and 〈 D x 〉 s = ( I -∂ 2 x ) s/ 2 denote the Riesz and Bessel potentials of order -s , respectively. For 1 /lessorequalslant p, q /lessorequalslant ∞ and I ⊂ R , let us define a space-time Lebesgue spaces

$$\text{ce-time Lebesgue spaces} \\ L _ { t } ^ { q } L _ { x } ^ { p } ( I ) \ & = \ \{ u \colon I \times \mathbb { R } \to \mathbb { R } \ ; \ \| u \| _ { L _ { t } ^ { q } L _ { x } ^ { p } ( I ) } < \infty \}, \\ \| u \| _ { L _ { t } ^ { q } L _ { x } ^ { p } ( I ) } \ & = \ \| \| u ( t, \cdot ) \| _ { L _ { t } ^ { p } ( \mathbb { R } ) } \| _ { L _ { t } ^ { q } ( I ) }, \\ L _ { x } ^ { p } L _ { t } ^ { q } ( I ) \ & = \ \{ u \colon I \times \mathbb { R } \to \mathbb { R } \ ; \ \| u \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { p } L _ { t } ^ { q } ( I ) } < \infty \}, \\ \| u \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { p } L _ { t } ^ { q } ( I ) } \ & = \ \| \| u ( \cdot, x ) \| _ { L _ { t } ^ { q } ( I ) } \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { p } ( \mathbb { R } ) }. \\ \text{The rest of the paper is organized as follows.  In Section 2, we review} \,.$$

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review the well-posedness theory for (1.1) in the Fourier-Lebesgue space. Sections 3 is devoted to the proof of Theorems 1.3 and 1.4. In Sections 4 and 5, we prove Theorems 1.6 and 1.7, respectively.

## 2. Well-posedness in the Fourier-Lebesgue space

In this section, we review the well-posedness theory for (1.1) in the FourierLebesgue space ˆ L α . Furthermore, we prove the long time perturbation for (1.1) in the Fourier-Lebesgue space.

We first review the space-time estimates in ˆ L α of solution to the Airy equation where I ⊂ R is an interval, F : I × R → R and f : R → R are given functions. Let { V ( ) t } t ∈ R be an unitary group in L 2 defined by

$$& \text{equation} \\ & ( 2. 1 ) \quad \begin{cases} \ \partial _ { t } u + \partial _ { x } ^ { 3 } u = F ( t, x ), \quad & t \in I, x \in \mathbb { R }, \\ u ( 0, x ) = f ( x ), \quad & x \in \mathbb { R }, \end{cases} \\ & \text{where} \, I \subset \mathbb { R } \, \text{is an interval. } F \, \colon I \times \mathbb { R } \to \mathbb { R } \, \text{and } f \, \colon \mathbb { R } \to \mathbb { R } \, \text{ are even}$$

$$\Lambda _ { \ } ( \Lambda _ { \ } ) \} _ { t \in \mathbb { R } } & \text{ be an unitary group in } L \L \pmod { \text{med by} } \\ ( V ( t ) f ) ( x ) & = \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { 2 \pi } } \int _ { - \infty } ^ { \infty } e ^ { i x \xi + i t \xi ^ { 3 } } \hat { f } ( \xi ) d \xi. \\ \Lambda _ { \ } \text{sou run the solution to } ( 2. 1 ) \text{ can be written as}$$

Using the group, the solution to (2.1) can be written as

$$\text{roup, use solution } \colon ( 2. 1 ) \, \text{ can be written as} \\ u ( t ) = V ( t ) f + \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } V ( t - \tau ) F ( \tau ) d \tau. \\ \text{in 2.1} \, \text{homogeneous sense-time estimates} \} \, \text{ Let}$$

Proposition 2.1 (homogeneous space-time estimates) . Let I be an interval.

Let ( p, q ) satisfy

$$\int _ { \hat { \nu } } 0 \leqslant \frac { 1 } { p } < \frac { 1 } { 4 }, \quad 0 \leqslant \frac { 1 } { q } < \frac { 1 } { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { p }.$$

Then, for any f ∈ ˆ L r ,

$$\| | D _ { x } | ^ { s } V ( t ) f \| _ { L ^ { p } _ { x } L ^ { q } _ { t } ( I ) } \leqslant C \, \| f \| _ { \dot { L } ^ { r } } \,,$$

$$\| | D _ { x } | ^ { s } V ( t ) f \| _ { L ^ { p } _ { x } L ^ { q } _ { t } ( I ) } \leqslant C \, \| f \| _ { \hat { L } ^ { r } } \,,$$

where

$$\frac { 1 } { r } = \frac { 2 } { p } + \frac { 1 } { q }, \ \ s = - \frac { 1 } { p } + \frac { 2 } { q }$$

and positive constant C depends only on r and s .

Proof of Proposition 2.1. For the proof of (2.2) with ( p, q, r ) = (4 , ∞ , 2) or ( p, q, r ) = ( ∞ , 2 2), , see [19, Theorem 2.5] and [19, Theorem 4.1], respectively. For the proof of (2.2) with p = q and r &gt; 4 3, / see Gr¨nrock [10, u Corollary 3.6] or [30, Lemma 2.2]. The general case follows from the above cases and the interpolation. See [30, Proposition 2.1] for the detail. /square

Proposition 2.2 (inhomogeneous space-time estimates) . Let 4 3 / &lt; r &lt; 4 and let ( p , q j j ) ( j = 1 2 , ) satisfy

$$0 \leqslant \frac { 1 } { p _ { j } } < \frac { 1 } { 4 }, \quad 0 \leqslant \frac { 1 } { q _ { j } } < \frac { 1 } { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { p _ { j } } \,.$$

Then, the inequalities

$$& \text{I hen, the inequalities} \\ & ( 2. 3 ) \quad \left \| \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } V ( t - \tau ) F ( \tau ) d \tau \right \| _ { L _ { t } ^ { \infty } ( I ; \dot { L } _ { x } ^ { r } ) } \leqslant C _ { 1 } \| | D _ { x } | ^ { - s _ { 2 } } F \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { p _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } } L _ { t } ^ { q _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } } ( I ) }, \\ & \text{and} \\ &. \quad \|. \quad. \quad f ^ { t } \. \quad. \quad \| \dots \. \. \.$$

hold for any F satisfying | D x | -s 2 F ∈ L p ′ 2 x L q ′ 2 t with

$$& \text{and} \\ & ( 2. 4 ) \quad \left \| | D _ { x } | ^ { s _ { 1 } } \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } V ( t - \tau ) F ( \tau ) d \tau \right \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { p _ { 1 } } L _ { t } ^ { q _ { 1 } } ( I ) } \leqslant C _ { 2 } \| | D _ { x } | ^ { - s _ { 2 } } F \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { p _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } } L _ { t } ^ { q _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } } ( I ) } \\ & \text{hold for any } F \text{ satisfiesfig} \left | D _ { x } \right | ^ { - s _ { 2 } } F \in L _ { x } ^ { p _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } } L _ { t } ^ { q _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } } \text{ with} \\ & \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \end{array} \right \|$$

$$\frac { 1 } { r } = \frac { 2 } { p _ { 1 } } + \frac { 1 } { q _ { 1 } }, \ \ s _ { 1 } = - \frac { 1 } { p _ { 1 } } + \frac { 2 } { q _ { 1 } }$$

and

$$\frac { 1 } { r ^ { \prime } } = \frac { 2 } { p _ { 2 } } + \frac { 1 } { q _ { 2 } }, \ \ s _ { 2 } = - \frac { 1 } { p _ { 2 } } + \frac { 2 } { q _ { 2 } },$$

where the constant C 1 depends on r , s 2 and I , and the constant C 2 depends on r , s 1 , s 2 and I .

Proof of Proposition 2.2. (2.3) and (2.4) follow from Proposition 2.1 and Christ-Kiselev lemma [2] (see also [17, Lemma 2.5] for the space-time norm version of Christ-Kiselev lemma). See [30, Proposition 2.5] for the detail. /square

Next, we review the small data scattering in ˆ L α for (1.1) obtained by [30].

Lemma 2.3. Let 8 5 / &lt; α &lt; 2 . Then there exists ˜ ε &gt; 0 such that if u 0 ∈ ˆ L α x ( R ) satisfies ‖ u 0 ‖ ˆ L α x /lessorequalslant ˜ ε , then there exists a global ˆ L α -solution u to (1.1) satisfying

$$\| u \| _ { L _ { t } ^ { \infty } ( \mathbb { R } ; \hat { L } _ { x } ^ { \alpha } ) } + \| u \| _ { S ( \mathbb { R } ) } \leqslant 2 \| u _ { 0 } \| _ { \hat { L } _ { x } ^ { \alpha } }.$$

Further, u t ( ) scatters in ˆ L α for both time directions.

Proof of Lemma 2.3. See [30, Theorem 1.7].

/square

Next we prove the long time perturbation lemma for (1.1) in the FourierLebesgue space. We define

$$\circ \, \text{P-sources} \\ X ( I ) \ \coloneqq \ \{ u \colon I \times \mathbb { R } \to \mathbb { R } \ ; \ \| u \| _ { X ( I ) } < \infty \}, \\ \| u \| _ { X ( I ) } \ \coloneqq \ \| | D _ { x } | ^ { 8 } u \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { \frac { 2 0 \alpha } { 1 0 - 3 \alpha } } L _ { t } ^ { \frac { 1 0 } { 3 } } ( I ) }, \\ Y ( I ) \ \coloneqq \ \{ u \colon I \times \mathbb { R } \to \mathbb { R } \ ; \ \| u \| _ { Y ( I ) } < \infty \}, \\ \| u \| _ { Y ( I ) } \ \coloneqq \ \| | D _ { x } | ^ { 8 } u \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { \frac { 2 0 \alpha } { 1 0 + 1 3 \alpha } } L _ { t } ^ { \frac { 1 0 } { 7 } } ( I ) } \\ \circ \, - \, \frac { 3 } { 3 } - \frac { 1 } { 2 }$$

with s = 3 4 -1 2 α .

Proposition 2.4 (Long time perturbation) . Assume 8 5 / &lt; α &lt; 2 . For any M &gt; 0 there exists ε &gt; 0 such that the following property holds: Let t 0 ∈ R and let I ⊂ R be an interval such that t 0 ∈ I . Let ˜ u : I × R → R be a function such that ˜ u ∈ S I ( ) ∩ X I ( ) , where S I ( ) is given by (1.6). Put E := ( ∂ t + ∂ 3 x ) u -µ∂ x ( | u | 2 α u ) . Let u 0 ∈ ˆ L α . Suppose that

$$& \text{and} \\ & ( 2. 7 ) \quad \left \| V ( t - t _ { 0 } ) ( u _ { 0 } - \widetilde { u } ( t _ { 0 } ) ) - \int _ { t _ { 0 } } ^ { t } V ( t - \tau ) \mathcal { E } ( \tau ) d \tau \right \| _ { S ( I ) \cap X ( I ) } \leqslant \varepsilon. \\ & \text{Then, the unique } \hat { L } ^ { \alpha } \text{-solution } u ( t ) \text{ of } ( 1. 1 ) \text{ satisfies on } I \\ & \text{and satisfies}$$

˜ ˜ ˜ ‖ ˜ u ‖ S I ( ) ∩ X I ( ) /lessorequalslant M (2.6) and

Then, the unique ˆ L α -solution u t ( ) of (1.1) satisfying u t ( 0 ) = u 0 exists on I and satisfies

‖ u -˜ u ‖ S I ( ) ∩ X I ( ) /lessorsimilar M ε. To prove Proposition 2.4, we use the Leibniz rule for the fractional derivatives obtained by [3] and [20].

Lemma 2.5. Assume β ∈ (0 1) , . Let p, p 1 , p 2 , q, q 2 ∈ (1 , ∞ ) and q 1 ∈ (1 , ∞ ] satisfy 1 /p = 1 /p 1 + 1 /p 2 and 1 /q = 1 /q 1 + 1 /q 2 . We also assume F ∈ C 1 ( R R ; ) . Then for any interval I , the inequality

$$( 2. 8 ) \quad \| | D _ { x } | ^ { \beta } F ( f ) \| _ { L ^ { p } _ { x } L ^ { q } _ { t } ( I ) } \lesssim \| F ^ { \prime } ( f ) \| _ { L ^ { p _ { 1 } } _ { x } L ^ { q _ { 1 } } _ { t } ( I ) } \| | D _ { x } | ^ { \beta } f \| _ { L ^ { p _ { 2 } } _ { x } L ^ { q _ { 2 } } _ { t } ( I ) } \\ \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \ dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots$$

holds for any f satisfying F ′ ( f ) ∈ L p 1 x L q 1 t ( I ) and | D x | β f ∈ L p 2 x L q 2 t ( I ) , where the implicit constant depends only on β, p 1 , p 2 , q 1 , q 2 and I .

Proof of Lemma 2.5. See [3, Proposition 3.1] and [20, Theorem A.6]. Note that the alternative proof of the inequality (2.8) can be found in [30, Lemma 3.7]. /square

Lemma 2.6. Let β ∈ (0 1) , , β 1 , β 2 ∈ [0 , β ] satisfy β = β 1 + β 2 and let p, p 1 , p 2 , q, q 1 , q 2 ∈ (1 , ∞ ) satisfy 1 /p = 1 /p 1 +1 /p 2 and 1 /q = 1 /q 1 +1 /q 2 . Then for all interval I , the inequality

$$\| | D _ { x } | ^ { \beta } ( f g ) & - f | D _ { x } | ^ { \beta } g - g | D _ { x } | ^ { \beta } f \| _ { L ^ { p } _ { x } L ^ { q } _ { t } ( I ) } \\ & \leqslant \ C \| | D _ { x } | ^ { \beta _ { 1 } } f \| _ { L ^ { p _ { 1 } } _ { x } L ^ { q _ { 1 } } _ { t } ( I ) } \| | D _ { x } | ^ { \beta _ { 2 } } g \| _ { L ^ { p _ { 2 } } _ { x } L ^ { q _ { 2 } } _ { t } ( I ) }$$

$$\leqslant \ C \| | D _ { x } | ^ { \beta _ { 1 } } f \| _ { \substack { L _ { x } ^ { p _ { 1 } } L _ { t } ^ { q _ { 1 } } ( I ) \\ \omega \quad \dots \quad \dots \quad \omega \quad \omega } } \| | D _ { x } | ^ { \beta _ { 2 } } g \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { p _ { 2 } } L _ { t } ^ { q _ { 2 } } ( I ) }$$

holds for any f and g satisfying | D x | β 1 f ∈ L p 1 x L q 1 t ( I ) and | D x | β 2 g ∈ L p 2 x L q 2 t ( I ) , where the implicit constant depends only on β , β 1 2 , p 1 , p 2 , q 1 , q 2 and I .

Proof of Lemma 2.6.

$$\ n m a \ 2. 6. \ See \, [ 2 0, \text{Theorem } A. 8 ]. & & \Box$$

Proof of Proposition 2.4. It suffices to consider the case inf I = t 0 . The general case follows by splitting I = ( I ∩ [ t 0 , ∞ ∪ )) ( I ∩ -∞ ( , t 0 ]) and applying the time reversal symmetry to estimate the latter. Further, we may let t 0 = 0 without loss of generality by the time translation symmetry.

By the assumption (2.6), we see that for any η &gt; 0 there exist N = N M,η ( ) and a subdivision { t j } N j =0 of [0 , ∞ ) with 0 = t 0 &lt; t 1 &lt; · · · &lt; t N = + ∞ such that

$$\| \widetilde { u } \| _ { S ( I _ { j } ) } + \| \widetilde { u } \| _ { X ( I _ { j } ) } < \eta$$

holds for all i [1 , N ], where I j := [ t j -1 , t j

$$\cdot \text{sinks} \quad & \| \widetilde { u } \| _ { S ( I _ { j } ) } + \| \widetilde { u } \| _ { X ( I _ { j } ) } < \eta \\ \text{all $i\in[1,N]$, where $I_{j}\coloneqq[t_{j-1},t_{j})$.}$$

$$\text{Let us first consider the equation for } w \coloneqq u - \widetilde { u } \text{ on } I _ { 1 } = [ 0, t _ { 1 } ] \colon \\ ( 2. 9 ) \quad \ w ( t ) \ = \ \mu \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } V ( t - \tau ) \partial _ { x } ( | w + \widetilde { u } | ^ { 2 \alpha } ( w + \widetilde { u } ) - | \widetilde { u } | ^ { 2 \alpha } \widetilde { u } ) d \tau \\ + N ( t ), \\.$$

where

$$N ( t ) \coloneqq V ( t ) ( u _ { 0 } - \widetilde { u } ( 0 ) ) - \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } V ( t - \tau ) \mathcal { E } ( \tau ) d \tau. \\ \text{position 2.2 and Lemma } 2. 5, \, \text{we obtain}$$

By Proposition 2.2 and Lemma 2.5, we obtain

$$\| w \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) \cap X ( I _ { 1 } ) } & \leqslant \| N \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) \cap X ( I _ { 1 } ) } \\ & \quad + C ( \| w \| _ { X ( I _ { 1 } ) } + \| \widetilde { u } \| _ { X ( I _ { 1 } ) } ) ( \| w \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) } ^ { 2 \alpha - 1 } + \| \widetilde { u } \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) } ^ { 2 \alpha - 1 } ) \| w \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) } \\ & \quad + C ( \| w \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) } ^ { 2 \alpha } + \| \widetilde { u } \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) } ^ { 2 \alpha } ) \| w \| _ { X ( I _ { 1 } ) } \\ & \leqslant \varepsilon + C ( \| w \| _ { X ( I _ { 1 } ) } + \eta ) ( \| w \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) } ^ { 2 \alpha - 1 } + \eta ^ { 2 \alpha - 1 } ) \| w \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) } \\ & \quad + C ( \| w \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) } ^ { 2 \alpha } + \eta ^ { 2 \alpha } ) \| w \| _ { X ( I _ { 1 } ) } \\ & \leqslant \varepsilon + C \eta ^ { 2 \alpha } \| w \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) \cap X ( I _ { 1 } ) } + C \| w \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) \cap X ( I _ { 1 } ) } ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 }. \\ \quad \text{We remark that $C$ can be chosen indenondentlv of $M$ $n$ and $v$ $if $n$ is small}$$

We remark that C can be chosen independently of M η , , and ε . If η is small then this implies

$$\| w \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) \cap X ( I _ { 1 } ) } \leqslant 2 \varepsilon + 2 C \| w \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) \cap X ( I _ { 1 } ) } ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 }.$$

There exists a constant δ &gt; 0 such that if 2 ε /lessorequalslant δ then this implies that

$$\| w \| _ { S ( I _ { 1 } ) \cap X ( I _ { 1 } ) } \leqslant 4 \varepsilon.$$

Now, let j ∈ [2 , N ] and suppose that we can choose ε j -1 so that if ε /lessorequalslant ε j -1 then

$$\| w \| _ { S ( I _ { k } ) \cap X ( I _ { k } ) } \leqslant 4 ^ { k } \varepsilon \leqslant \eta$$

holds for k ∈ [1 , j -1]. Let us next consider the equation (2.9) for w on I j = [ t j -1 , t j ). We rewrite (2.9) as

$$\begin{array} { c c c } \psi & \psi & \psi \\ & & \\ & & w ( t ) = \mu \int _ { 0 } ^ { t _ { j - 1 } } V ( t - \tau ) \partial _ { x } ( | w + \widetilde { u } | ^ { 2 \alpha } ( w + \widetilde { u } ) - | \widetilde { u } | ^ { 2 \alpha } \widetilde { u } ) d \tau \\ & & & + \mu \int _ { t _ { j - 1 } } ^ { t } V ( t - \tau ) \partial _ { x } ( | w + \widetilde { u } | ^ { 2 \alpha } ( w + \widetilde { u } ) - | \widetilde { u } | ^ { 2 \alpha } \widetilde { u } ) d \tau + N ( t ). \end{array}$$

By Proposition 2.2, one has

Hence,

$$\text{SCATTERING FOR THE GENERALIZED KDV EQUATION} & & & & &$$

$$& \text{Hence}, \\ & \| w \| _ { S ( I _ {$$

Letting η even smaller if necessary, we have Cη 2 α /lessorequalslant 1 4 and hence

$$\| w \| _ { S ( I _ { j } ) \cap X ( I _ {$$

Hence, if ε /lessorequalslant min( 2 3 (1 + 2 3 4 j -1 ) -1 δ, 4 -j η, ε j -1 ) =: ε j then

$$\| w \| _ { S ( I _ { j } ) \cap X ( I _ {$$

Hence, by induction, we can choose ε N such that if ε /lessorequalslant ε N then

$$\begin{array} {$$

holds for j ∈ [1 , N ]. Combining this estimate and noting that N depends on M , we obtain

$$\| w \| _ { S ( I ) \cap X ( I ) } \lesssim _ { M } \varepsilon.$$

/square

In the end of this section, we prove the compactness of the embedding H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , ↪ → ˆ L α .

Proof of Lemma 2.7. It is an immediate consequence of the embedding H 3 4 / ∩ H 0 3 , / 4 ↪ → L 1 ∩ L ∞ holds and the fact that the embedding H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , ↪ → H 3 4 / ∩ H 0 3 , / 4 is compact. /square

Lemma 2.7. The embedding H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , ↪ → ˆ L α is compact for 1 /lessorequalslant α /lessorequalslant ∞ .

## 3. Proof of Theorems 1.3 and 1.4

In this section, we prove local well-posedenss and blowup alternative. Fix t 0 and u 0 ∈ H 1 such that J t ( 0 ) u 0 ∈ L 2 . Note that u 0 ∈ H 1 ∩ ˆ L α . Indeed,

Hence, by the local well-posedness result in ˆ L α ∩ H 1 [30, Theorem 1.5], one obtains a ˆ L α ∩ H 1 -solution u to (1.1) in a neighborhood I of t 0 . In particular, one has

$$\partial _ { 0 } \, \max \, \partial _ { 0 } \, \min \, \cos \, \max \, \partial _ { 0 } \, \min \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \max \, \partial _ { 0 } \, \min \, \colon \, \colon \, \colon \, \max \, \partial _ { 0 }, \\ \| \mathcal { F } u _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { \alpha ^ { \prime } } } & = \| \mathcal { F } V ( - t _ { 0 } ) u _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { \alpha ^ { \prime } } } \\ & \lesssim \| \mathcal { F } V ( - t _ { 0 } ) u _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } ^ { \frac { 3 \alpha - 2 } { 2 \alpha } } \| \partial _ { \xi } \mathcal { F } V ( - t _ { 0 } ) u _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } ^ { \frac { 2 - \alpha } { 2 \alpha } } \\ & = \| u _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } ^ { \frac { 3 \alpha - 2 } { 2 \alpha } } \| J ( t _ { 0 } ) u _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } ^ { \frac { 2 - \alpha } { 2 \alpha } } < \infty. \\ \text{ Hence, by the local well-posedness result in } \hat { L } ^ { \alpha } \cap H ^ { 1 } \, [ 3 0. \text{Theorem 1.5} ], \, \text{of}$$

$$\text{as} \| u \| _ { L _ { t } ^ { \infty } ( I ; H _ { x } ^ { 1 } ( \mathbb { R } ) ) } + \sum _ { k = 1 } ^ { 2 } \| \partial _ { x } ^ { k } u \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { \infty } ( \mathbb { R } ; L _ { t } ^ { 2 } ( I ) ) } & \lesssim \| u _ { 0 } \| _ { H ^ { 1 } }. \\ \text{ote that the size of the neighborhood is chosen so that } \| V ( t - t _ { 0 } ) u _ { 0 }$$

We note that the size of the neighborhood is chosen so that ‖ V ( t -t 0 ) u 0 ‖ S I ( ) is smaller than a universal constant. Hence, what we have to do is to show that the H 1 ∩ ˆ L α -solution u is a H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution. To this end, we estimate Ju by considering

$$v \coloneqq J u + 3 \mu t | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u \\ \dots \dots \iota \dots \iota \dots \iota \dots$$

defined in (1.12). We further introduce

$$P \coloneqq x \partial _ { x } + 3 t \partial _ { t }.$$

We have the identity

$$\partial _ { x } v & = P u + u.$$

Before the proof, let us derive an equation for Ju and Pu . We also confirm that v solves (1.13). Let L = ∂ t + ∂ 3 x . Suppose that u ∈ C I H ( ; 1 ) solves in the distribution sense. Let us note beforehand that the following calculation is valid in the distribution sense. Operating J to the both sides and noting [ L, J ] = 0, we see

$$L u = \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) \\ \Gamma \Gamma \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Psi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi \Phi$$

It holds that

$$L J u \ = \ \mu J \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ).$$

$$& ( 3. 3 ) & & J \partial _ { x } = P - 3 t L. \\ & \tau \quad \dots & \dots$$

Hence, we have

$$L J u \ & = \ \mu P ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) - 3 \mu t L ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) \\ & = \ ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \mu | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } P u - 3 \mu t L ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ).$$

Since [ J, ∂ x ] = -1, another use of the above identity yields

$$1 ) \mu | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } P u & - 3 \mu t L ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u \\ c \, \dots \quad \cdots \quad \cdots \quad \cdots$$

$$( 3. 5 ) \quad \ \ \ P u \ & = \ J \partial _ { x } u + 3 t L u = \partial _ { x } J u - u + 3 \mu t \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) \\ & = \ \ \partial _ { x } v - u. \\ \text{This is (3 2)} \ \ F i r t h e r m o r e \ \sin e \ [ I. t ] = 1 \ \text{we have}$$

This is (3.2). Furthermore, since [ L, t ] = 1, we have

$$t L ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) = L t ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) - | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u.$$

Substituting (3.5) and (3.6) into (3.4), we obtain

$$L v & = ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \mu | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } \partial _ { x } v - 2 ( \alpha - 1 ) \mu | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u, \\ \vdots \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \ \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \, \cdots \$$

which is nothing but (1.13). On the other hand, if we operate P to the equation for u , we obtain

$$P L u = \mu P \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ). \\ r 1 = \circ r \, \begin{array} { c } \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ). \\ \end{array}$$

$$L P u = 3 L u + \mu \partial _ { x } P ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) - \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u )$$

Using the relations [ P, L ] = -3 L and [ P, ∂ x ] = -∂ x , we obtain

$$= ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } P u ) + 2 \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ). \\ \dots \ e \dots \ e \times \ e \dots \ e$$

$$& + \mu \partial _ { x } P ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) - \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) \\ & + 1 ) \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } P u ) + 2 \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ).$$

Thus, we see from (3.4) that

$$& ( 3. 8 ) \quad \partial _ { t } ( J u ) + \partial _ { x } ^ { 3 } ( J u ) = ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \mu | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } P u - 3 \mu t ( \partial _ { t } + \partial _ { x } ^ { 3 } ) ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ). \\ & \pi \dots \omega \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$$

Further, by (3.7),

$$& ( 3. 9 ) \quad \partial _ { t } ( P u ) + \partial _ { x } ^ { 3 } ( P u ) = ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } P u ) + 2 \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ). \\ & \quad \tau \llcorner \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 2 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 0 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 3 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner 1 \llcorner }$$

The local well-posedness in the weighted Sobolev space H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , (Theorem 1.3) is a consequence of the following persistence-type result.

Lemma 3.1. Let t 0 ∈ R and let u 0 ∈ ˆ L α ∩ H 1 . Let u t ( ) be a ˆ L α ∩ H 1 -solution to (1.1) under (1.8) . There exists a constant δ &gt; 0 such that if V ( -t 0 ) u 0 ∈ H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , then u t ( ) is a H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution to (1.1) on any interval I /owner t 0 satisfying ‖ u ‖ S I ( ) /lessorequalslant δ . Further,

$$\| J u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I ) } + \| v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I ) } + \| \partial _ { x } v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( I ) } \\ \lesssim \ \| V ( - t _ { 0 } ) u _ { 0 } \| _ { H ^ { 1 } _ { x } } + \langle t _ { 0 } \rangle \, \| u _ { 0 } \| _ { H ^ { 1 } _ { x } } ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 }, \\ \text{ some in a defnod } h u ( 1 - 1 0 )$$

where v is defined by (1.12) .

Proof of Lemma 3.1. Let us prove that the H 1 ∩ ˆ L α -solution satisfies the desired weighted estimate. To this end, we obtain an estimate of v defined in (1.12) by solving (1.13) under the initial condition

$$v ( t _ { 0 } ) = v _ { 0 } \coloneqq J ( t _ { 0 } ) u _ { 0 } + 3 \mu t _ { 0 } | u _ { 0 } | ^ { 2 \alpha } u _ { 0 } \in L ^ { 2 }. \\ \circ \dots \alpha \, \cdots \, \circ \dots \, \alpha \dots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \end{array}$$

For R &gt; 0 and T &gt; 0, we define a complete metric space with the distance

$$Z _ { R, T } \coloneqq \{ v \in C ( I _ { T } ; L _ { x } ^ { 2 } ) \ ; \ \| v \| _ { Z ( I _ { T } ) } \leqslant R \}$$

$$d ( v _ { 1 }, v _ { 2 } ) = \| v _ { 1 } - v _ { 2 } \| _ { Z ( I _ { T } ) }, \\ \tilde { t } _ { \sim } + T \mathbb { M }$$

$$( 3. 1 0 ) & & \quad \| v \| _ { Z } \\ \mathfrak { w r } \quad \dots \quad \dots \quad \mathfrak { w r } \cdots c$$

where I T = ( t 0 -T, t 0 + T ),

We suppose that T &gt; 0 is small so that I T ⊂ I . Let us prove that the map Φ( ) defined by v

$$\| v \| _ { Z ( I ) } \coloneqq \| v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I ) } + \| \partial _ { x } v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( I ) }. \\ \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \cdot \omega \colon$$

$$\Psi ( v ) \ a e n n e a \ b y \\ \Phi ( v ) ( t ) \coloneqq V ( t - t _ { 0 } ) v _ { 0 } + & ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \mu \int _ { t _ { 0 } } ^ { t } V ( t - \tau ) ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } \partial _ { x } v ) ( \tau ) d \tau \\. &. &. & \ f ^ { t } _ { \_. } \quad.. \quad.. \quad.. \quad..$$

is a contraction map from Z R,T to itself.

$$\cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \\ - 2 ( \alpha - 1 ) \mu \int _ { t _ { 0 } } ^ { t } V ( t - \tau ) ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) ( \tau ) d \tau \\ \intertext { t i o n } \, \text{map from $Z_{R}$} \, \tau \text{ to itself}.$$

Pick v Z .

$$\Gamma \Lambda \, v \in \mathcal { Z } _ { R } ( T. \ D y \ r \ r \rho \text{positions} \, z. 1 \, \text{aur} \, z. 2, \\ \| \Phi ( v ) \| _ { Z ( I _ { T } ) } & \leqslant C \| v _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } + C \| | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } \partial _ { x } v \| _ { L ^ { \frac { 5 } { 4 } } _ { x } } \frac { \frac { 1 } { 9 } } { L _ { t } } + C \| | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) } + C \| u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } H ^ { 1 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) } ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 } \\ & \leqslant C \| v _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } + C \| u \| _ { S ( I _ { T } ) } ^ { 2 \alpha } R + C T \| u _ { 0 } \| _ { H ^ { 1 } _ { x } } ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 }. \\ \text{We first choose} \, T \leqslant 1 \, \text{so small that} \, C \| u \| _ { C ^ { \prime } r } ^ { 2 \alpha } \, \leqslant \frac { 1 } { 2 } \text{ and then we let}$$

$$\text{Pick $v\in Z_{R,T}$. By Propositions $2.1$ and $2.2$,} \\ \| \Phi ( v ) \| _ { Z ( I _ { T } ) } & \leqslant C \| v _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } + C \| | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } \partial _ { x } v \| _ { L ^ { \frac { 5 } { 4 } } _ { x } L ^ { \frac { 1 0 } { 9 } } _ { t } ( I _ { T } ) } + C \| | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) } \\ & \leqslant C \| v _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } + C \| u \| _ { S ( I _ { T } ) } ^ { 2 \alpha } \| \partial _ { x } v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( I _ { T } ) } + C T \| u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } H ^ { 1 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) } ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 } \\ & \times \frac { \pi \pi \pi } { \pi \pi } \frac { 1 } { 2 } \alpha + 1 }$$

We first choose T /lessorequalslant 1 so small that C u ‖ ‖ 2 α S I ( T ) /lessorequalslant 1 2 and then we let

$$R = 2 C ( \| v _ { 0 } \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { 2 } } + \| u _ { 0 } \| _ { H _ { x } ^ { 1 } } ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 } ). \\. \ x \cdot \ e \ e \ e.$$

Then, one sees that Φ is a map from Z R,T to itself. Similarly, for v , v 1 2 ∈ Z R,T , one obtains and hence, estimating as above, one sees that

$$\zeta _ { R, T }, \, & \text{one oovans} \\ \Phi ( v _ { 1 } ) - \Phi ( v _ { 2 } ) = ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \mu \int _ { t _ { 0 } } ^ { t } V ( t - \tau ) ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } \partial _ { x } ( v _ { 1 } - v _ { 2 } ) ) ( \tau ) d \tau \\ \text{and hence. estimating as above. one sees that}$$

$$d ( \Phi ( v _ { 1 } ), \Phi ( v _ { 2 } ) ) \leqslant C \| u \| _ { S ( I _ { T } ) } ^ { 2 \alpha } \| \partial _ { x } ( v _ { 1 } - v _ { 2 } ) \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { \infty } L _ { t } ^ { 2 } ( I _ { T } ) } \leqslant \frac { 1 } { 2 } d ( v _ { 1 }, v _ { 2 } ), \\ \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \colon$$

which shows that Φ is a contraction map. Thus, we see that v ∈ C I ( T ; L 2 x ) obeys the bound

$$\| v \| _ { Z ( I _ { T } ) } & \leqslant R \lesssim \| J ( t _ { 0 } ) u _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } + \langle t _ { 0 } \rangle \, \| u _ { 0 } \| _ { H ^ { 1 } _ { x } } ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 }. \\ \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \end{cases}$$

So far, we construct v as a solution to (1.13). Let us prove that v = Ju +3 µt u | | 2 α u holds in the distribution sense, which implies that J t u t ( ) ( ) ∈ C I ( T ; L 2 x ) and

$$\| J u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) } \lesssim \| v \| _ { Z ( I _ { T } ) } + \langle t _ { 0 } \rangle \| u \| ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 } _ { L ^ { \infty } ( I _ { T } ; H ^ { 1 } ) } \lesssim \| J ( t _ { 0 } ) u _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } + \langle t _ { 0 } \rangle \| u _ { 0 } \| ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 } _ { H ^ { 1 } _ { x } }.$$

To this end, we put

$$z = \partial _ { x } v - u, \quad w = v - 3 \mu t | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u. \\ \hat { \lambda } = \hat { \Phi } + \hat { \Phi } \Phi$$

By (1.13), one obtains

$$\begin{array} { c } \mu _ { \nu } & \dots \mu _ { \nu }, \dots & \dots \dots \\ ( \partial _ { t } + \partial _ { x } ^ { 3 } ) z & = \partial _ { x } ( ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \mu | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } \partial _ { x } v - 2 ( \alpha - 1 ) \mu | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) - \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) \\ & = ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } ( z + u ) ) - ( 2 \alpha - 1 ) \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) \\ & = ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } z ) + 2 \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ). \\ \end{array}$$

Hence, z solves (3.9) in the distribution sense. Together with z t ( 0 ) = ∂ v t x ( 0 ) -u t ( 0 ) = x∂ u x 0 +3 t 0 ( -∂ u 3 x 0 + µ∂ x ( | u 0 | 2 α u 0 )) = ( Pu )( t 0 ) , we see that z = Pu . Hence, we further obtain

$$& ) \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } z ) + 2 \mu \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u \\ & \omega _ { - } \ x \colon \cdots \omega _ { \dots } \colon \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$$

$$\text{we see} \, \text{unav} \, \text{--} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$--} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{there} \, \text{when} \, \text{unav} \, \text{vann} \\ \partial _ { t } w + \partial _ { x } ^ { 3 } w & = ( \partial _ { t } + \partial _ { x } ^ { 3 } ) v - 3 \mu | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u - 3 \mu t ( \partial _ { t } + \partial _ { x } ^ { 3 } ) ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) \\ & = ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \mu | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } \partial _ { x } v - ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \mu | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u - 3 \mu t ( \partial _ { t } + \partial _ { x } ^ { 3 } ) ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) \\ & = ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \mu | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } P u - 3 \mu t ( \partial _ { t } + \partial _ { x } ^ { 3 } ) ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ), \\ \text{i.e., } w \, \text{solves} \, ( 3. 8 ) \, \text{in the distribution sense. Since}$$

i.e., w solves (3.8) in the distribution sense. Since

$$w ( t _ { 0 } ) = v ( t _ { 0 } ) - 3 \mu t _ { 0 } | u _ { 0 } | ^ { 2 \alpha } u _ { 0 } = J ( t _ { 0 } ) u _ { 0 },$$

we see that w = Ju . Thus, v = Ju +3 µt u u

$$&, ( t _ { 0 } ) - 3 \mu t _ { 0 } | u _ { 0 } | ^ { 2 \alpha } u _ { 0 } = J ( t _ { 0 } ) u _ { 0 }, \\ & v = J u + 3 \mu t | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u \text{ holds.} \\ & \text{with the non-of of the room } 1 \, 4$$

We conclude this section with the proof of Theorem 1.4.

$$\Box$$

Proof of Theorem 1.4. Let u t ( ) be a maximal-lifespan H 1 ∩ ˆ L α -solution given in [30, Theorem 1.9]. Here, the maximal lifespan I max = ( -T min , T max ) is that as a H 1 ∩ ˆ L α -solution. Let us prove that this is also a maximal-lifespan in the sense of H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution. Recall that T max &lt; ∞ implies

$$\begin{array} { c c c } & \| u \| _ { S ( [ t _ { 0 }, T _ { \max } ) ) } = \infty \\ & \quad \dots & \end{array} \quad.$$

(see [30, Theorem 1.5]). Hence, it suffices to prove that, for any finite T &gt; t 0 ,

$$\| u \| _ { S ( [ t _ { 0 }, T ) ) } < \infty \Longrightarrow \| J u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( [ t _ { 0 }, T ) ) } < \infty. \\ \dots \cdots \cdots. \cdots. \cdots..........$$

Let δ &gt; 0 be the number given in Lemma 3.1. We can obtain a subdivision { t j } N j =1 of [ t 0 , T ):

so that N /lessorsimilar α, ‖ u ‖ S ([ t 0 ,T )) 1 and ‖ u ‖ S ([ t j -1 ,t j )) /lessorequalslant δ for all j ∈ [1 , N ]. By applying Lemma 3.1 to each interval [ t j -1 , t j ), we obtain ‖ Ju ‖ L ∞ t L 2 x ([ t j -1 ,t j )) &lt; ∞ for all j ∈ [1 , N ]. This implies the desired boundedness ‖ Ju ‖ L ∞ t L 2 x ([ t 0 ,T )) &lt; ∞ . This completes the proof. /square

$$& t _ { 0 } < t _ { 1 } < t _ { 2 } < \dots < t _ { N } = T \\ & \i \sim \partial \, \| \, \| \, \| \quad \times \, \| \, \dots \, \| \, \sin \, \colon$$

## 4. Proof of Theorem 1.6

To prove Theorem 1.6, we employ the well-posedness result of (1.1) in the Fourier-Lebesgue space ˆ L α ( R ) mentioned in Section 2.

Lemma 4.1. Let 8 5 / &lt; α &lt; 2 . Let t 0 ∈ R and suppose that V ( -t 0 ) u 0 ∈ H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , . There exists ε 1 &gt; 0 such that if ε = ‖ V ( -t 0 ) u 0 ‖ H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , /lessorequalslant ε 1 then the H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution to (1.1) under (1.8) is global and satisfies

$$\| u \| _ { S ( \mathbb { R } ) } \lesssim \varepsilon.$$

Proof of Lemma 4.1. By (3.1), we see that ‖ u 0 ‖ ˆ L α /lessorsimilar ε . Hence Lemma 2.3 yields that if ε is sufficiently small, then there exists a global ˆ L α -solution u satisfying (4.1). By Theorem 1.4, u is a global H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution. /square

Lemma 4.2. Let 8 5 / &lt; α &lt; 2 . Let t 0 ∈ R and suppose that V ( -t 0 ) u 0 ∈ H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , . Let u be the unique maximal-lifespan H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution to (1.1) under (1.8) . Then there exists δ 2 &gt; 0 such that if an interval I /owner t 0 satisfies I ⊂ I max and then it holds that

$$\| u \| _ { S ( I ) } \leqslant \delta _ { 2 }$$

$$& ( 4. 2 ) \quad \| u \| _ { L _ { t } ^ { \infty } H _ { x } ^ { 1 } ( I ) } + \| \partial _ { x } u \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { \infty } L _ { t } ^ { 2 } ( I ) } + \| \partial _ { x } ^ { 2 } u \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { \infty } L _ { t } ^ { 2 } ( I ) } \lesssim \| u _ { 0 } \| _ { H _ { x } ^ { 1 } }. \\ & \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \end{body}$$

In particular, there exists ε 2 ∈ (0 , ε 1 ] such that if ε = ‖ V ( -t 0 ) u 0 ‖ H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , /lessorequalslant ε 2 , then the solution is global and satisfies (4.1) and

$$\| u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } H ^ { 1 } _ { x } ( \mathbb { R } ) } + \| \partial _ { x } u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( \mathbb { R } ) } + \| \partial _ { x } ^ { 2 } u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( \mathbb { R } ) } \lesssim \varepsilon, \\. \quad. \. \. \. \. \. \.$$

where ε 1 is the number given in Lemma 4.1.

Proof of Lemma 4.2. The latter half follows from the former half and the previous lemma. Hence, let us prove the former part. We omit ( I ) in the norm, for simplicity.

By Propositions 2.1 and 2.2, we have

$$\begin{array} { c c c } ( 4. 4 ) & \| u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } H ^ { 1 } _ { x } } + \| \partial _ { x } u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } } + \| \partial _ { x } ^ { 2 } u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } } \\ & \quad \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \circ \Delta \prime \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \end{array}$$

$$\lesssim \ \| u _ { 0 } \| _ { H ^ { 1 } _ {$$

$$\lesssim \ \| u _ { 0 } \| _ { H ^ { 1 } _ {$$

$$+ \| u \| _ { S } ^ { 2 \alpha } \| \partial _ {$$

Since

$$\| \partial _ { x } u \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { 5 \$$

substituting this and Lemma 4.1 into (4.4), we obtain

$$\begin{array} {$$

$$\cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdots \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \colon$$

Hence if δ 2 is sufficiently small, then we have the desired estimate. /square

Corollary 4.3. Let 8 5 / &lt; α &lt; 2 . Let t 0 ∈ R and suppose that V ( -t 0 ) u 0 ∈ H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , . Let u be the unique maximal-lifespan H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution to (1.1) under (1.8) . If ‖ u ‖ S I ( ) &lt; ∞ holds for an interval I then we have

$$\| u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } H ^ { 1 } _ { x } ( I ) } + \| \partial _ { x } u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( I ) } + \| \partial _ { x } ^ { 2 } u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( I ) } < \infty. \\.. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \.$$

Proof of Corollary 4.3. We subdivide the interval I so that S -norm of the solution on each subinterval is smaller than the constant δ 2 in Lemma 4.2. Note that the number of the subinterval depends only on α and ‖ u ‖ S I ( ) . Then, a recursive use of Lemma 4.2 yields the result. /square

Now, let us turn to the global bound on Ju .

Lemma 4.4. Let 8 5 / &lt; α &lt; 2 . Let t 0 ∈ R and suppose that V ( -t 0 ) u 0 ∈ H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , . There exists ε 3 ∈ (0 , ε 2 ] such that if ε = ‖ V ( -t 0 ) u 0 ‖ H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , /lessorequalslant ε 3 , then the unique global H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution to (1.1) under (1.8) satisfies (4.1) , (4.3) , and

$$( 4. 5 ) \sup _ { t \in \mathbb { R } } \langle t \rangle ^ { \frac { 1 } { 3 } } \| u ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } } + \| J u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( \mathbb { R } ) } + \| v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( \mathbb { R } ) } + \| \partial _ { x } v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( \mathbb { R } ) } \lesssim \varepsilon,$$

where ε 2 is the number given in Lemma 4.2.

To prove Lemma 4.4, we show the Klainerman-Sobolev type inequality.

/negationslash

$$\| u \| _ { L ^ { p } _ { x } } & \lesssim | t | ^ { - \frac { 1 } { 3 } + \frac { 2 } { 3 p } } \| u \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } + \frac { 1 } { p } } \| J u \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { p } }. \\. \. \. \ \. \ \.$$

Lemma 4.5 (Klainerman-Sobolev type inequality) . Let t = 0 and p ∈ [2 , ∞ ] . For any u ∈ L 2 x satisfying J t u ( ) ∈ L 2 x , we have

Proof of Lemma 4.5. We consider the case p = ∞ . By the elementary property of the Airy function, we see

$$\| V ( t ) f \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { \infty } } \lesssim t ^ { - \frac { 1 } { 3 } } \| f \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { 1 } }.$$

Hence by the L 2 unitary property of the group V ( ), t

$$\mathbf y \text{ the } L ^ { * } \text{ unitary property of the group } V ( t ), \\ \| u ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } } \ & = \ \| V ( t ) V ( - t ) u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } } \\ & \lesssim \ t ^ { - \frac { 1 } { 3 } } \| V ( - t ) u \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { x } } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \| x V ( - t ) u \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \\ & = \ C t ^ { - \frac { 1 } { 3 } } \| u \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \| J ( t ) u \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } }. \\ \text{we obtain the } L ^ { \infty } \text{-estimate. Note that } L ^ { 2 } \text{-estimate is obvious}$$

Hence, we obtain the L ∞ -estimate. Note that L 2 -estimate is obvious by the unitary property of V ( ). t The general case follows by interpolation. /square

Proof of Lemma 4.4. Suppose that ε /lessorequalslant ε 2 . Then, the global solution u t ( ) satisfies (4.1) and (4.3). We prove the bound (4.5) on [0 , ∞ ).

By the definition of v ,

$$\| J u \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } & \lesssim \| v \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } + t \| | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } }. \\ \dots \dots \nu \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \end{cases}$$

$$& \text{By the Sobolev and the Kleinerman-Sobolev inequalities (Lemma 4.5),} \\ & \| u ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } } \lesssim \begin{cases} \ \| u \| _ { H ^ { 1 } _ { x } } \lesssim \varepsilon & \text{for $0\leqslant t\leqslant 1$,} \\ t ^ { - \frac { 1 } { 3 } } \| u \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \| J u \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \lesssim \varepsilon ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } t ^ { - \frac { 1 } { 3 } } \| J u \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } & \text{for $t\geqslant 1$.} \end{cases}$$

By the Sobolev and the Kleinerman-Sobolev inequalities (Lemma 4.5),

Hence

$$& ( 4. 6 ) \quad \| | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } \lesssim \mathbf 1 _ { [ 0, 1 ] } ( t ) \varepsilon ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 } + \mathbf 1 _ { [ 1, \infty ] } ( t ) \varepsilon ^ { \alpha + 1 } t ^ { - \frac { 2 } { 3 } \alpha } \| J u \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } ^ { \alpha }, \\ & \dots \dots \tilde { \bullet } \quad \colon \, \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \end{array} \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal{ H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal{\ H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal{{ H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal { H } \, \mathcal$$

where 1 A is a characteristic function on the set A . Therefore, for any T &gt; 1

$$( 4. 7 ) & \ \| J u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) } \lesssim \| v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) } + \varepsilon ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 } + \varepsilon ^ { \alpha + 1 } \| J u \| ^ { \alpha } _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) }, \\ & \quad \tau \quad \tau \cdots \tau \cdots \tau \cdots \tau \cdots \tau \cdots \tau \cdots \tau \cdots \tau \cdots$$

where I T = [0 , T ). By Propositions 2.1 and 2.2, (4.1), and (4.6),

- (4.8)

$$\sim \sum _ { \substack { \varepsilon + \varepsilon ^ { 2 \alpha } \| \partial _ { x } v \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { \infty } L _ { t } ^ { 2 } ( I _ { T } ) } + \varepsilon ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 } + \varepsilon ^ { \alpha + 1 } \| J u \| _ { L _ { t } ^ { \infty } L _ { x } ^ { 2 } ( I _ { T } ) } ^ { \alpha } } }.$$

$$\text{where } I _ { T } & = \{ v, L \}. \ D y \ r r o p o s i u n s \ r. 1 \ a u n \ r. 2, \{ v. 1 \}, \ a u n \{ v. 0 \}, \\ ( 4. 8 ) & \quad \| v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) } + \| \partial _ { x } v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( I _ { T } ) } \\ & \lesssim \ \| x u _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } + \| | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } \partial _ { x } v \| _ { L ^ { \frac { 5 } { 4 } } _ { x } L ^ { \frac { 1 0 } { 9 } } _ { t } ( I _ { T } ) } + \| | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) } \\ & \lesssim \ \| x u _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } } + \| u \| ^ { 2 \alpha } _ { S ( I _ { T } ) } \| \partial _ { x } v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( I _ { T } ) } + \| | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) } \\ & \lesssim \ \varepsilon + \varepsilon ^ { 2 \alpha } \| \partial _ { x } v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( I _ { T } ) } + \varepsilon ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 } + \varepsilon ^ { \alpha + 1 } \| J u \| ^ { \alpha } _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) }. \\ \mathfrak { m }. \ \stackrel { \sim } { m } \ \sim \ \frac { 1 } { 2 } \ \lambda \circ$$

By (4.7) and (4.8),

$$& \| J u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) } + \| v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) } + \| \partial _ { x } v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( I _ { T } ) } \\ & \lesssim \varepsilon + \varepsilon ^ { 2 \alpha } \| \partial _ { x } v \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( I _ { T } ) } + \varepsilon ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 } + \varepsilon ^ { \alpha + 1 } \| J u \| ^ { \alpha } _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( I _ { T } ) }. \\ I o n c o \, \text{lat+time} \, \| u \| \,. \quad = \, \| \, I u \| _ { \dots \dots } \, \cdots \, \perp \, \| u \| _ { \dots \dots \dots } \, \perp \, \| A \, u \| _ { \dots } \, \cdots \,.$$

$$\ast$$

Hence letting ‖ u ‖ A T := ‖ Ju ‖ L ∞ t L 2 x ( I T ) + ‖ v ‖ L ∞ t L 2 x ( I T ) + ‖ ∂ v x ‖ L ∞ x L 2 t ( I T ) , we have

$$\| u \| _ { A _ { T } } & \lesssim \varepsilon + \varepsilon ^ { 2 \alpha } \| u \| _ { A _ { T } } + \| u \| _ { A _ { T } } ^ { \alpha }. \\ \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \ dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots.$$

Hence if ε is sufficiently small, then this inequality implies that ‖ u ‖ A T /lessorsimilar ε . Since T &gt; 1 is arbitrary, we have ‖ u ‖ A ∞ /lessorsimilar ε . Finally, combining ‖ u ‖ A ∞ /lessorsimilar ε and Lemma 4.5, we have

$$\sup _ { t \in \mathbb { R } } \langle t \rangle ^ { \frac { 1 } { 3 } } \| u ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { \infty } } \lesssim \varepsilon.$$

This completes the proof of (4.5).

We now turn to the scattering in H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , .

/square

Lemma 4.6. Let 8 5 / &lt; α &lt; 2 . Let u be a maximal-lifespan H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution to (1.1) . Pick t 0 ∈ I max . If

$$\| u \| _ { S ( [ t _ { 0 }, T _ { \max } ) ) } + \| J u \| _ { L _ { t } ^ { \infty } L _ { x } ^ { 2 } ( [ t _ { 0 }, T _ { \max } ) ) } < \infty, \\ \frac { \frac { \sim } { \sim } } { \sim } \frac { \sim } { \sim } \frac { \sim } { \sim } \frac { \sim } { \sim } \frac { \sim } { \sim }.$$

then u t ( ) scatters in H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , for positive time direction. A similar statement holds for the negative time direction.

Proof of Lemma 4.6. By the blowup criteria, we have T max = ∞ . Hence, without loss of generality, we may suppose that t 0 &gt; 0. By Corollary 4.3, we have

$$\| u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } H ^ { 1 } _ { x } ( [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) ) } + \| \partial _ { x } u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) ) } + \| \partial _ { x } ^ { 2 } u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) ) } < \infty. \\ \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot$$

We shall show that V ( -t ) u t ( ) is a Cauchy sequence in H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , . As in the proof of Lemma 4.2, for t 0 /lessorequalslant s &lt; t , we have

$$\text{the proof of Lemma } 4. 2, \text{ for } t _ { 0 } \leqslant s < t, \text{ we have} \\ \| V ( - t ) u ( t ) - V ( - s ) u ( s ) \| _ { H ^ { 1 } _ { x } } \\ = \quad | \mu | \left \| \int _ { s } ^ { t } V ( - \tau ) \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) d \tau \right \| _ { H ^ { 1 } _ { x } } \\ \lesssim \quad \| \partial _ { x } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) \| _ { L ^ { \frac { 5 } { 4 } } _ { x } L ^ { \frac { 1 0 } { 9 } } _ { t } ( s, t ) } + \| \partial _ { x } ^ { 2 } ( | u | ^ { 2 \alpha } u ) \| _ { L ^ { \frac { 5 } { 4 } } _ { x } L ^ { \frac { 1 0 } { 9 } } _ { t } ( s, t ) ) } \\ \lesssim \quad \| u \| _ { S ( ( s, t ) ) } ^ { 2 \alpha } ( \| \partial _ { x } u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) ) } + \| \partial _ { x } ^ { 2 } u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } L ^ { 2 } _ { t } ( [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) ) } ) \\ \to \quad 0 \quad \text{as } s \to \infty. \\ \text{Let us turn to the estimate in } H ^ { 0, 1 }. \text{ By } ( 1. 1 2 ),$$

Let us turn to the estimate in H 0 1 , . By (1.12),

$$\| x ( V ( - t ) u ( t ) - V ( - s ) u ( s ) ) \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { x } }$$

$$\begin{array} {$$

By assumption and Lemma 4.5, we have ‖ u t ( ) ‖ L ∞ = O t ( -1 3 / ). Hence, together with the mass conservation (1.3), one sees that the last two terms in the right hand side of (4.9) vanish as s, t →∞ . Further, since v satisfies (1.13), Proposition 2.2 yields

$$( 1. 1 3 ), & \text{Proposition 2.2} \text{ yields}$$

$$\to 0 \quad \text{as $s\to\infty$}. \\. \$$

Plugging (4.10) to (4.9), we obtain

$$\begin{array} {$$

Therefore we have that V ( -t ) u t ( ) is a Cauchy sequence in H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , . This implies that u t ( ) scatters in H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , for positive time direction. /square

Proof of Theorem 1.6. Theorem 1.6 is an immediate consequence of Lemmas 4.4 and 4.6. /square

## 5. Proof of Theorem 1.7

In this section we prove Theorem 1.7.

Proof of Theorem 1.7. Let u t ( ) be a maximal-lifespan H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution.

Step 1. Let us prove '(iii) ⇒ (ii)'. Suppose that for some κ &gt; α 3( α -1)(2 α +1) and t 0 ∈ I max ,

$$R \coloneqq \| u \| _ { S ( [ t _ { 0 }, T$$

By Theorem 1.4, we see that T max = ∞ . Further, by Corollary 4.3, we obtain

$$\| u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( ( t _ { 0 }, \infty ) ; H _ { x } ^ { 1 } ) } < \infty. \\ \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$$

We claim that there exists ˜ κ &gt; 1 2 α +1 such that

$$\sup _ { t \geqslant t _ { 1 } } \langle t \rangle ^ { \tilde { \kappa } } \left \| u ( t ) \right \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { 2 ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) } } < \infty$$

for some t 1 /greaterorequalslant t 0 . We consider the case κ /lessorequalslant 1 2 α +1 since if κ &gt; 1 2 α +1 then this is trivial by choosing ˜ = κ κ . Let us consider the case κ &lt; 1 2 α +1 . Let δ 0 &gt; 0 be a constant to be determined later. For any choice of δ 0 &gt; 0, there exists t 1 ∈ I max ∩ [max( t 0 , 1) , ∞ ) such that

We apply Propositions 2.1 and 2.2, and the assumption to obtain

$$\| u \| _ { S ( ( t _ { 1 }, \infty ) ) } \leqslant \delta _ { 0 }. \\ \Gamma \circ \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamda \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gampr \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamma \circ \Gamder$$

$$\gamma \| _ { u } \| _ { \sim \sim } ^ { 2 \alpha } \| _ { u } \| _ { \sigma \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \kappa }$$

where Z I ( ) is as in (3.10). We choose δ 0 so that Cδ 2 α 0 /lessorequalslant 1 2 . Then, we see that

$$\cdots \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \nu _ { \nu \nu } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, \frac { \cdots } { \cdots } \, } \\ \| v \| _ { Z ( ( t _ { 1 }, T ) ) } & \leqslant C \| v ( t _ { 1 } ) \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } + C \| u \| _ { S ( ( t _ { 1 }, T ) ) } ^ { 2 \alpha } \| v \| _ { Z ( ( t _ { 1 }, T ) ) } + \| t ^ { - ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \kappa } \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { t } ( t _ { 1 }, T ) } R ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 } \\ & \leqslant C \| v ( t _ { 1 } ) \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } + C \delta _ { 0 } ^ { 2 \alpha } \| v \| _ { Z ( ( t _ { 1 }, T ) ) } + C R ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 } T ^ { 1 - ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \kappa }, \\ \text{where } Z ( I ) \text{ is as in } ( 3. 1 0 ). \text{ We choose } \delta _ { 0 } \text{ so that } C \delta _ { 0 } ^ { 2 \alpha } \leqslant \frac { 1 } { \kappa }. \text{ Then, we see}$$

$$\| v \| _ { Z ( ( t _ { 1 }, T ) ) } & \leqslant 2 C \| v ( t _ { 1 } ) \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } + 2 C R ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 } T ^ { 1 - ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \kappa } \\ \ n v \, T \subset ( t. \, \sim \, \lambda \, \text{In particular with} \, \text{do} \, \text{that}$$

$$& \| v ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } \lesssim t ^ { 1 - ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \kappa } \\ & \epsilon \dots \pi \kappa \sim \kappa / \dots \pi \kappa \dots \dots \epsilon \dots \epsilon \dots \epsilon \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kag \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kalpha \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kage \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kagger \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kak \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kaki \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kaka \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kk \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kack \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kairo \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kav \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kx \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \ktag \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \k67 \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \krak \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kray \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kay \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \karrow \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \dots \pi \kappa \$$

for any T ∈ ( t 1 , ∞ ). In particular, we obtain for all t /greaterorequalslant t 1 ( /greaterorequalslant 1). One then sees from this inequality, Lemma 4.5, and the mass conservation (1.3) that

$$& t ^ { \frac { 2 \alpha } { 3 ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) } } \| u ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { 2 ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) } } \leqslant \| u _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } ^ { \frac { \alpha + 1 } { 2 \alpha + 1 } } ( \| v ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } + t \| u ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { 2 ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) } } ^ { 2 \alpha + 1 } ) ^ { \frac { \alpha } { 2 \alpha + 1 } } \lesssim t ^ { \frac { \alpha } { 2 \alpha + 1 } - \alpha \kappa }. \\ & \mu _ { \lambda \lambda } \,.$$

Hence,

$$& ( 5. 3 ) & & t ^ { \kappa _ { 1 } } \| u ( t ) \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { 2 ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) } } \lesssim 1 \\ &. \cdots. \cdots. \cdots. \cdots. \cdots. \cdots. \cdots.$$

$$\iota \geqslant \iota _ { 1 }, \, & w \max \circ n _ { 1 } \, - \, \alpha n _ { 1 } \, \quad 3 ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) \, \cdots \, \cup \circ \cos \, \alpha \alpha \, \\ & \kappa _ { 1 } - \kappa = ( \alpha - 1 ) \left ( \kappa - \frac { \alpha } { 3 ( \alpha - 1 ) ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) } \right ) > 0$$

for all t /greaterorequalslant t 1 , where κ 1 := ακ -α 3(2 α +1) . One sees that

by assumption on κ . This implies that (5.3) is a better decay estimate. If κ 1 &lt; 1 2 α +1 then we repeat the above argument starting with the better estimate (5.3). Then, we obtain

$$t ^ { \kappa _ { 2 } } \| u ( t$$

for all t /greaterorequalslant t 1 , where t 1 is the exactly same one and κ 2 := ακ 1 -α 3(2 α +1) . Similarly, we construct κ j by induction. More precisely, if κ j &lt; 1 2 α +1 then we repeat the above argument to construct κ j +1 &gt; κ j by κ j +1 := ακ j -α 3(2 α +1) . Since

$$\text{inc} \quad & \quad \quad \quad$$

for every j , we have κ j /greaterorequalslant κ + ( j κ 1 -κ ). Hence, this induction procedure stops at a finite time, i.e., there exists finite j 0 such that κ j 0 -1 &lt; 1 2 α +1 , κ j 0 /greaterorequalslant 1 2 α +1 , and

$$t ^ { \kappa _ { j _ { 0 } } } \$$

holds for all t /greaterorequalslant t 1 . If κ j 0 &gt; 1 2 α +1 then we have (5.1) with the choice ˜ = κ κ j 0 . Let us consider the case κ j 0 = 1 2 α +1 . In this case, we replace κ j 0 by some number between α +3 3 α (2 α +1) and 1 2 α +1 , say

$$\omega _ { \alpha ( \alpha _ { \top T }$$

and apply the above argument once again. Then, one obtain (5.1) since

$$\kappa _ { j _ { 0 } + 1 } > \frac$$

The case κ = 1 2 α +1 is handled also in this way.

With the estimate (5.1) in hand, we obtain a refined estimate for v . Arguing as in the proof of (5.2), we have

$$\| v \| _ { Z ( ( t _ { 1 }, T ) ) } \le$$

for any T /greaterorequalslant t 1 . As ˜(2 κ α +1) &gt; 1, the third term in the right hand side is finite and bounded uniformly in T . Hence, we obtain

$$\| v \| _ { L _ { t } ^ { \infty } L _ { x$$

By combining ‖ u ‖ L ∞ t H 1 x ([ t 0 , ∞ )) &lt; ∞ , (5.1), and (5.4), one obtains

$$\| V ( - t ) u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t$$

This is property (ii) since t 1 ∈ I max and T max = ∞ . Thus, we complete the proof of '(iii) ⇒ (ii)'.

Step 2. We next prove '(ii) ⇒ (i)'. This part corresponds to the so-called conditional scattering.

Suppose that

$$\begin{array} {$$

for some t 0 ∈ I max . By the local well-posedness (Theorem 1.3), one sees that T max = ∞ . Hence, by replacing t 0 with a larger one if necessary, one may suppose that t 0 &gt; 1. Let us prove the bound

$$\begin{matrix} ( 5. 6 ) & & & & \\ & & & & \|$$

holds for some ˜ t 0 /greaterorequalslant t 0 . By Lemma 4.5, the assumption (5.5) and the mass conservation (1.3), one sees that

In particular, ‖ u t ( ) ‖ L 2 α +1 is bounded uniformly in t . Then, by the energy conservation (1.4) and the assumption (5.5) on u , we have

$$t ^ { \frac { 2 \alpha - 1 } { 3 ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) }$$

$$\sup _ { t \in [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) } \| V$$

Pick a time sequence { t n } n /greaterorequalslant 1 ⊂ [ t 0 , ∞ ) so that t n &lt; t n +1 →∞ as n →∞ . Then, by means of Lemma 2.7, one can choose a subsequence, which we denote again by { t n } , so that V ( -t n ) u t ( n ) converges (strongly) in ˆ L α . Let ψ + ∈ ˆ L α be the limit of the subsequence.

We let ˜( ) be a unique u t ˆ L α -solution to (1.1) which scatters to ψ + in ˆ L α , i.e.,

$$\| V ( - t ) \tilde { u } ( t ) - \psi _ {$$

as t →∞ . We choose T ∈ R so that ˜( ) exists on [ u t T, ∞ ). Without loss of generality, we may suppose that T /greaterorequalslant t 0 .

Note that

$$\begin{array} {$$

Let ε = ( ε M ) be the number given by long time perturbation (Proposition 2.4). Our next goal is to show that

$$\| u \| _ { S ( [ T, \infty ) ) \cap X ( [$$

We apply Proposition 2.4 with the choice ˜ u t ( ) := ˜( ), u t I := [ T, ∞ ), and t 0 := t n . Note that t 0 ∈ I for large n . (2.6) is satisfied with the above M . Further, since ˜ is a solution to (1.1), one has u E = 0. By Proposition 2.1,

$$& \leqslant \| V ( - t _ { n } ) u ( t _ { n } ) - V ( - t _ { n } ) \tilde { u } ( t _ { n } ) \| _ { \hat { L } ^ { \alpha } } \\ & \times \| \mathbf V \int \nolimits \lambda ( \lambda ) \int \nolimits \lambda ( \lambda ) \int \nolimits \lambda ( \lambda ) \int \nolimits \nu ( \nu )$$

$$& \| V ( t - t _ { n } ) ( u ( t _ { n } ) - \tilde { u } ( t _ { n } ) ) \| _ { S ( [ T, \infty ) ) \cap X ( [ T, \infty ) ) } \\ & \quad \times \| \mathcal { V } / \cdots \lambda / \cdots \mathcal { V } / \cdots \lambda / \cdots \| \,.$$

$$\leqslant \| V ( - t _ { n } ) u ( t _ { n } ) - \psi _ { + } \| _ { \hat { L } ^ { \alpha } } + \| \psi _ { + } - V ( - t _ { n } ) \tilde { u } ( t _ { n } ) \| _ { \hat { L } ^ { \alpha } } \to 0 \\ \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$$

$$\| u - \tilde { u } \| _ { S ( [ T, \infty ) ) \cap X ( [ T, \infty ) ) } \leqslant \varepsilon. \\ \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \end{cases}$$

as n →∞ . Hence, (2.7) is fulfilled for large n . Hence, one has

We have the desired conclusion by combining this with (5.8). Thus, we obtain (5.6) with the choice ˜ t 0 = T . By means of Lemma 4.6, (5.5) and (5.6) imply that u t ( ) scatters in H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , for positive time direction. Thus, we completes the proof of '(ii) ⇒ (i)'.

Step 3. Let us finally prove '(i) ⇒ (iii)'.

Suppose that a maximal-lifespan H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , -solution u scatters in H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , for positive time direction. This immediately implies that

$$\| u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } H ^ { 1 } _ { x } ( [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) ) } + \| J u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } L ^ { 2 } _ { x } ( [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) ) } \\ & \quad \lesssim \ \| V ( - t ) u ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { t } ( H ^ { 1 } _ { x } \cap H ^ { 0, 1 } _ { x } ) ( [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) ) } < \infty \\ \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \quad \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ } \. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat{ \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }.. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \Phi. \ \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi. \ \Phi$$

for any t 0 ∈ I max . We fix t 0 &gt; 1. By the embedding H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , ↪ → ˆ L α , we see that solution u scatters also in ˆ L α , which is equivalent to

$$& ( 5. 1 0 ) & & & \| u \| _ { S ( [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) ) } < \infty. \\ & \nu \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \colon$$

For t /greaterorequalslant t 0 ( &gt; 1), one sees from Lemma 4.5 and (5.9) that

$$& ( 5. 1 1 ) \ t ^ { \frac { 2 \alpha } { 3 ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) } } \| u ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { 2 ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) } _ { x } } \lesssim \| u ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } + \| J ( t ) u ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { 2 } } \leqslant C < \infty. \\ & \quad \cdots \quad \lambda \cdots \quad \lambda \cdots \quad \cdots.$$

Hence, combining (5.10) and (5.11), we obtain

$$\| u \| _ { S ( [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) ) } + \sup _ { t \geqslant t _ { 0 } } \langle t \rangle ^ { \frac { 2 \alpha } { 3 ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) } } \left \| u ( t ) \right \| _ { L _ { x } ^ { 2 ( 2 \alpha + 1 ) } } < \infty,$$

which is (iii). Note that 2 α 3(2 α +1) &gt; α 3( α -1)(2 α +1) if and only if α &gt; 3 2. / This completes the proof of '(i) ⇒ (iii)'.

Finally, suppose (i), (ii), and (iii) hold. T max = ∞ follows, for instance, from (i). We prove the bound. Since V ( -t ) u t ( ) converges in H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , as t →∞ it is bounded in H 1 ∩ H 0 1 , uniformly in t ∈ [ t 0 , ∞ ) for any t 0 ∈ I max . This also implies the L ∞ -decay estimate

$$\sup _ { t \in [ t _ { 0 }, \infty ) } \langle t \rangle ^ { \frac { 1 } { 3 } } \| u ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { \infty } _ { x } } \lesssim 1$$

by means of Lemma 4.5. The bound in S ([ t 0 , ∞ )) follows from (iii). /square

Acknowledgements. S.M. was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP23K20803, JP23K20805, and JP24K00529. J.S. was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP21K18588 and JP23K20805.

## References

- [1] Cazenave T. and Weissler F.B., Rapidly decaying solutions of the nonlinear Schr¨dinger equation o , Comm. Math. Phys. 147 (1992), 75-100.
- [2] Christ M. and Kiselev A., Maximal functions associated to filtrations , J. Funct. Anal. 179 (2001) 409-425.
- [3] Christ F.M. and Weinstein M.I., Dispersion of small amplitude solutions of the generalized Korteweg-de Vries equation , J. Funct. Anal. 100 (1991) 87-109.
- [4] Correia S, Cˆte R., and Vega L., o Self-similar dynamics for the modified Korteweg-de Vries equation , Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2021 (2021), 9958-10013.
- [5] Cˆ ote R., Large data wave operator for the generalized Korteweg-de Vries equations , Differential Integral Equations 19 (2006), 163-188.
- [6] Deift P. and Zhou X., A steepest descent method for oscillatory Riemann-Hilbert problems. Asymptotics for the MKdV equation , Ann. of Math. (2) 137 (1993), 295368.
- [7] Dodson B., Global well-posedness and scattering for the defocusing, mass-critical generalized KdV equation , Ann. PDE 3 (2017), Paper No. 5.
- [8] Farah L.G., Linares F., Pastor A., and Visciglia N., Large data scattering for the defocusing supercritical generalized KdV equation , Comm. Partial Differential Equations 43 (2018), 118-157.

- [9] Germain P., Pusateri F., and Rousset F., Asymptotic stability of solitons for mKdV , Adv. Math. 299 (2016), 272-330.
- [10] Gr¨ unrock A., An improved local well-posedness result for the modified KdV equation , Int. Math. Res. Not. 2004 (2004), 3287-3308.
- [11] Harrop-Griffiths B., Long time behavior of solutions to the mKdV , Comm. Partial Differential Equations 41 (2016), no.2, 282-317.
- [12] Hayashi N. and Naumkin P.I., Large time asymptotics of solutions to the generalized Korteweg-de Vries equation , J. Funct. Anal. 159 (1998) 110-136.
- [13] Hayashi N. and Naumkin P.I., Large time behavior of solutions for the modified Korteweg-de Vries equation , Internat. Math. Res. Notices 1999 (1999), 395-418.
- [14] Hayashi N. and Naumkin P.I., On the modified Korteweg-de Vries equation , Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. 4 (2001), 197-227.
- [15] Hayashi N. and Naumkin P.I., Final state problem for Korteweg-de Vries type equations , J. Math. Phys. 47 (2006), 16 pp.
- [16] Hayashi N. and Tsutsumi Y., Remarks on the scattering problem for nonlinear Schr¨dinger equations o , Lecture Notes in Math., 1285 (1987), 162-168.
- [17] Kenig C.E., and Koenig K., On the local well-posedness of the Benjamin-Ono and modified Benjamin-Ono equations , Math. Res. Lett. 10 (2003), 879-895.
- [18] Kenig C. E., and Merle F., Global well-posedness, scattering and blow-up for the energy-critical, focusing, non-linear Schr¨dinger equation in the radial case o , Invent. Math. 166 (2006), no. 3, 645-675.
- [19] Kenig C.E., Ponce G. and Vega L., Oscillatory integrals and regularity of dispersive equations , Indiana Univ.math J. 40 (1991), 33-69.
- [20] Kenig C.E., Ponce G. and Vega L., Well-posedness and scattering results for the generalized Korteweg-de Vries equation via the contraction principle , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 46 (1993) 527-620.
- [21] Killip R, Kwon S., Shao S. and Visan M., On the mass-critical generalized KdV equation , Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 32 (2012), 191-221.
- [22] Killip R., Masaki S., Murphy J., and Visan M., Large data mass-subcritical NLS: critical weighted bounds imply scattering , NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl. 24 (2017), Paper No. 38.
- [23] Killip R., Masaki S., Murphy J., and Visan M., The radial mass-subcritical NLS in negative order Sobolev spaces , Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 39 (2019), 553-583.
- [24] Kim T., On the scattering of subcritical defocusing generalized Korteweg-de Vries equation , Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 43 (2023), 2241-2269.
- [25] Koch H. and Marzuola J.L., Small data scattering and soliton stability in ˙ H -1 6 for the quartic KdV equation , Anal. PDE 5 (2012), 145-198.
- [26] Korteweg D. J. and de Vries G., On the change of form of long waves advancing in a rectangular canal, and on a new type of long stationary waves , Philos. Mag. 39 (1895), 422-443.
- [27] Lamb G.L.Jr., Solitons on moving space curves , J. Math. Phys. 18 (1977), 16541661.
- [28] Masaki S., A sharp scattering condition for focusing mass-subcritical nonlinear Schr¨dinger equation o , Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 14 (2015), 1481-1531.
- [29] Masaki S., On minimal nonscattering solution for focusing mass-subcritical nonlinear Schr¨dinger equation o , Comm. Partial Differential Equations 42 (2017), 626-653.
- [30] Masaki S. and Segata J., On well-posedness of generalized Korteweg-de Vries equation in scale critical ˆ L r space , Analysis &amp; PDE 9 (2016), no.3, 699-725.
- [31] Masaki S. and Segata J., Existence of a minimal non-scattering solution to the mass sub-critical generalized Korteweg-de Vriesequation , Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincar´/Analyse non lin´aire e e 35 (2018), 283-326.
- [32] Masaki S. and Segata J., Refinement of Strichartz estimate for Airy equation in nondiagonal case and its application , SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis 50 (2018), 2839-2866.
- [33] Nakanishi K. and Ozawa T., Remarks on scattering for nonlinear Schr¨dinger equao tions , NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl. 9 (2002), 45-68.

- [34] Ponce G. and Vega L., Nonlinear small data scattering for the generalized Kortewegde Vries equation , J. Funct. Anal. 90 (1990), 445-457.
- [35] Strauss W.A., Nonlinear scattering theory at low energy , J. Funct. Anal. 41 (1981), 110-133.
- [36] Strunk N., Well-posedness for the supercritical gKdV equation , Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 13 (2014), 527-542.
- [37] Tao T., Scattering for the quartic generalised Korteweg-de Vries equation , J. Differential Equations 232 (2007), 623-651.
- [38] Tao T., Two remarks on the generalised Korteweg-de Vries equation , Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 18 (2007), 1-14.
- [39] Tsutsumi Y., Scattering problem for nonlinear Schr¨dinger equations o , Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ Phys. Th´ eor. e 43 (1985), 321-347.

Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Kita 10, Nishi 8, Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-0810, Japan

Email address : masaki@math.sci.hokudai.ac.jp

Faculty of Mathematics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, 819-0395, Japan Email address : segata@math.kyushu-u.ac.jp
Satoshi Masaki Jun-ichi Segata
Scattering problem for the generalized Korteweg-de Vries equation
In this paper we study the scattering problem for the initial value problem
of the generalized Korteweg-de Vries (gKdV) equation. The purpose of this paper
is to achieve two primary goals. Firstly, we show small data scattering for
(gKdV) in the weighted Sobolev space, ensuring the initial and the asymptotic
states belong to the same class. Secondly, we introduce two equivalent
characterizations of scattering in the weighted Sobolev space. In particular,
this involves the so-called conditional scattering in the weighted Sobolev
space. A key ingredient is incorporation of the scattering criterion for (gKdV)
in the Fourier-Lebesgue space by the authors into the the scattering problem in
the weighted Sobolev space.