Fourier transforms and iterated function systems

Let us consider still the IFS

Write \xi = s e^{t} for some s \in \mathbb{R} and t > 0 and consider the words \mathcal{W}_t of potentially different lengths where for all \mathbf{a} \in \mathcal{W}_t we have

Thus we replace in (?) the average over \{1,2\}^n by a weighted sum over \mathcal{W}_t:

which is possible because the words \mathcal{W}_t form a partition and splitting of the integration was done with some \delta = \delta(\xi) \to 0 as |\xi| \to \infty. The term \delta^{\varepsilon_1} comes from the fact that \mu is non-atomic self-similar measure, so for all \delta > 0, we have

for some \varepsilon_1 > 0 [FL]. Taking logarithms, this translates the study of the large |\xi| limit in (Proof) to understanding the limit of the distributions

as t \to \infty, where X_k = \log 2 with probability 1/2 and X_k = \log 3 with probability 1/2. Here n_t := n_t(w), w \in \{1,2\}^\mathbb{N}, is the stopping time, that is, the smallest n such that

In other words, setting

we see in (Proof), once x,y are fixed, that

where \mathbb{E}_t is the expectation associated to the probability measure \sum_{ \mathbf{a} \in \mathcal{W}_t } 2^{-|\mathbf{a}|}\delta_\mathbf{a} on \mathcal{W}_t.

The limiting distribution of \sum_{k = 1}^{n_{t}} X_k-t as t \to \infty can be found using renewal theory. In particular, the irrationality of \frac{\log 2}{ \log 3} and the renewal theorem for stopping times (e.g. Kesten’s renewal theorem [Kesten1974] from 1974) guarantees the limit distribution of \sum_{k = 1}^{n_{t}} X_k-t as t \to \infty is some absolutely continuous measure \lambda, so

Now, by the definition of g_{s,x,y}, the oscillating integral \int g_{s,x,y}(z) \, d\lambda(z) is actually the Fourier transform of push-forward of \lambda under e^{-z} at frequency s(x-y), so if |s(x-y)| is arbitrarily large, Riemann-Lebesgue lemma guarantees

This leads to \widehat{\mu}(\xi) \to 0 as |\xi| \to \infty since \xi = s e^t. Now to make this argument more formal, one would need to choose s, t and \delta depending on \xi in a way we can take a double limit in this procedure.

Let \mu be a non-atomic self-conformal measure with equal weights 1/2 for the IFS

Compared to the self-similar case, recalling (?), we can iterate \mu = \frac{1}{2}f_1(\mu) + \frac{1}{2}f_2(\mu) up to some n = c \log |\xi|, for some c > 0, to obtain

where f_\mathbf{a}(x) = f_{a_1} \circ \dots \circ f_{a_n}(x). Then fixing \varepsilon > 0, in (Proof) we consider only the “regular” words \mathcal{R}_n(\varepsilon) formed of those \mathbf{a} \in \{1,2\}^n for which

for all x \in [0,1], where \lambda = \int \log |G'(x)| \, d\mu(x) is the Lyapunov exponent associated to the IFS B_2. By the large deviation principle, we know that most words \mathbf{a} satisfy this property, so in particular as n = c \log |\xi| the bound for |\widehat{\mu}(\xi)| in (Proof) is bounded by

for some \delta > 0, where

Compare this to the stopping time bound in the self-similar case (Proof).

Then to go from the self-conformal measure \mu to Lebesgue measure, we use an idea motivated by the large sieve inequalities in analytic number theory (e.g. (4) in [BakerFirst]), exploiting the Frostman regularity of \mu enable us to bound \int |S_\xi(x)| \, d\mu(x) in terms of the L^\infty norm of S_\xi' and L^2 norm of S_\xi in terms of the Lebesgue measure:

with suitable choices of constants \varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2,\varepsilon_3 > 0. Here \|S_\xi'\|_\infty grows in |\xi|, so in order to get Fourier decay, we need to ensure \|S_\xi\|_2^2 decays rapidly enough. This is where the non-linearity of the inverse branches manifests itself.

By expanding the square and using the triangle inequality, we can bound

It is interesting to compare this to the self-similar case, namely (Proof) achieved using the stopping time and Cauchy-Schwarz, where one studied the phases of the form f_\mathbf{a}(x) - f_\mathbf{a}(y) for the same word \mathbf{a} but pairs of x and y, we now use same x, but pairs of words \mathbf{a} and \mathbf{b}. This creates a conceptual difference in the proofs. Thus we can reduce the problem of bounding \|S_\xi\|_2^2 to decay of oscillatory Lebesgue integrals with the non-linear phase

which we can control using a kind of stationary phase approximation, which requires us to bound from below the derivative of the phase function \psi_{\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}}(x). This is the first time the unique properties of the Gauss map appear. Crucially we have:

where

and q_n(\mathbf{a}) is the nth continuant associated to the word \mathbf{a}, that is, writing the continued fraction expansion associated to \mathbf{a}, we obtain a rational number p_n(\mathbf{a})/q_n(\mathbf{a}), and the continuant is the denominator of this rational number. Thus q_n(\mathbf{a}) \neq q_n(\mathbf{b}) and q_{n-1}(\mathbf{a}) \neq q_{n-1}(\mathbf{b}), depending on how large |q_{n}(\mathbf{a}) - q_{n}(\mathbf{b})| is compared to |q_{n-1}(\mathbf{a}) - q_{n-1}(\mathbf{b})|, we can use the integration by parts to bound

by

for some \varepsilon_4 > 0.

To then get enough decay when summing over \mathbf{a} and \mathbf{b}, we just need to bounds for |q_{j}(\mathbf{a}) - q_{j}(\mathbf{b})| for j = n-1,n from below and the number of pairs (\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}) for which q_{n-1}(\mathbf{a}) = q_{n-1}(\mathbf{b}) and q_n(\mathbf{a}) = q_n(\mathbf{b}). The latter is trivial: it can only happen when \mathbf{a} = \mathbf{b}. In the former case, just because the continuants are integers, we always have |q_{n}(\mathbf{a}) - q_{n}(\mathbf{b})| \geq 1 or |q_{n-1}(\mathbf{a}) - q_{n-1}(\mathbf{b})| \geq 1. These easy bounds are already enough to prove polynomial Fourier decay for self-conformal measures \mu with Hausdorff dimension greater than 2/3. But performing more careful analysis of the cardinality of the set of pairs (\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}) for which

for some \varepsilon_5 > 0 (which requires us to use the property that q_{n}(\mathbf{a}) = q_n(\overline{\mathbf{a}}) and q_{n-1}(\mathbf{a}) = p_{n-1}(\overline{\mathbf{a}}) for the reverse \overline{\mathbf{a}} = a_n \dots a_1 of \mathbf{a} = a_1\dots a_n), following an argument due to Queffélec and Ramaré [QetR], we can improve the decay allowing us to include cases of \mu with dimension near 1/2. This includes the set B_2.

By taking a suitable mollifier \tau_N for N \approx |\xi| where the additive convolution \tau_N \ast \mu satisfies \|\tau_N \ast \mu\|_\infty \lesssim N^{1-\kappa} and an integer r \geq 1, we can bound

Thus, as long as we can find integers k,r \geq 2 such that

integration by parts with respect to Lebesgue measure produces a term |\xi|^{-1} in front on the right-hand side of (Proof), by \|\tau_N \ast \mu\|_\infty \lesssim N^{1-\kappa} we get the required estimate for |\widehat{\mu^{\odot k}}(\xi)| with k replaced by k+1. We note in [OSS], that improved [Bourgain2010], is that r can be made equal to 2 in (Proof), which would allow us to optimise k in terms of \kappa.

To find k and r such that (Proof) holds one has to study the numbers \sigma_{k,r} > 0 defined by the expression

The numbers \sigma_{k,r} are essentially decreasing both in k and r, so one looks for large enough k and r that we can use. It turns out that the discretised sum-product theorem [Bourgain2010] gives the existence of \varepsilon_1 > 0 such that \sigma_{2k,\overline{r}} < \sigma_{k,2r} - \varepsilon_1/2 for a suitable choice \overline r \approx c_3 r^2, where c_3 > 0 is chosen appropriately. Thus iterating this with respect to k and r, we can find k and r such that \sigma_{k,2r} < \kappa/2 giving (Proof).

We can achieve \sigma_{2k,\overline{r}} < \sigma_{k,2r} - \varepsilon_1/2 by studying measures

where \mu^{\ast r} is the additive self-convolution of \mu and \mu_{-} is the push-forward of \mu under x \mapsto -x. Then

Thus if we can find \varepsilon_1 > 0 such that there is an N^{-\varepsilon_1} gain:

then with some effort one can deduce that this estimate gives us \sigma_{2k,\overline{r}} < \sigma_{k,2r} - \varepsilon_1/2 by using a covering argument on points \eta \in \mathbb{R} with |\widehat{\mu}_k(\eta)| > N^{-\kappa_0} for \kappa_0 = 2 c_3^{-1} r^{-2}.

The estimate (?) follows from Bourgain’s discretised sum-product theorem [Bourgain2010] from 2010. Set \nu := \nu_{r,k}. If (?) fails for \nu, then any small \varepsilon > 0, we have

for a scale N^{-1} discretisation S = \bigcup_{j = 1}^M B(z_j,N^{-1-\varepsilon}) of the support of \nu^{\ast 2} for some 1/N separated points z_j in the support of \nu^{\ast 2}. Thus we can find many 1/N separated points y_k from the support of \nu such that |z_{j_1} - y_k z_{j_k}| is large for many pairs (z_{j_1},z_{j_2}). This can then be turned into a lower bound on the number of quadruples (\log |z_{j_1}|,\log |z_{j_2}|,\log |z_{j_3}|,\log |z_{j_4}|) \in (\log |S|)^4 for which

In other words, \log |S| has a large additive energy, so by the Balog-Szemerédi-Gowers theorem (see e.g. [Gowers]) there exists a large subset \mathcal{F}_1 of S such that \mathcal{F}_1 \cdot \mathcal{F}_1 can be covered by at most N^{\varepsilon_3}|\mathcal{F}_1| intervals of size 1/N for a suitable \varepsilon_3> 0. On the other hand, as S comes from the support of the additive self-convolution \nu^{\ast 2}, by summing a mollifier of \nu^{\ast 2} over points in \mathcal{F}_1 \subset S, Cauchy-Schwarz implies that \mathcal{F}_1 also has large additive energy, so again by Balog-Szemerédi-Gowers theorem we can find a further large subset \mathcal{F}_2 \subset \mathcal{F}_1 such that \mathcal{F}_2 + \mathcal{F}_2 can be covered by at most N^{\varepsilon_4}|\mathcal{F}_2| intervals of size 1/N for a suitable \varepsilon_4 > 0. As the sets \mathcal{F}_2 \subset \mathcal{F}_1 are large subsets of S, this is impossible by the discretised sum-product theorem [Bourgain2010].

When \Gamma is a convex co-compact subgroup, it has an associated Schottky structure [Bor, Section 15.1], which allows us to code the limit set \Lambda_\Gamma using matrices \gamma_\mathbf{a} \in \mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R}), which we can identify as Möbius transformations acting on the hyperbolic plane \mathbb{H} and contracting real analytic maps on the boundary of \mathbb{H}. Here \mathbf{a} \in \mathcal{W}, where \mathcal{W} \subset \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \mathcal{A}^n is the set of allowed finite words from some index set \mathcal{A} that satisfy rules defined by the Schottky structure. This also allows us to realise the Patterson-Sullivan measure \mu_\Gamma as a Gibbs measure associated to a subshift of an IFS.

Instead of now trying to iterate transfer operator up to words of length n as in the case of Gauss map (recall (?)), Bourgain and Dyatlov [BD1] instead apply blocks of length k and k+1 formed of words of lengths n. The k is precisely the k that will arise from Theorem 3.4. Now, fix a suitable \varepsilon_1 > 0 such that \tau \approx |\xi|^{-\varepsilon_1} and words \mathcal{W}(\tau) \subset \mathcal{W} such that any \mathbf{a} \in \mathcal{W}(\tau) satisfy that the lengths |\gamma_\mathbf{a}[0,1]| \approx \tau. Then, as \mu_\Gamma is Ahlfors-David regular, Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (compare to (Proof) in the self-similar case), mean value theorem and the fact that the contractions \gamma_\mathbf{a} exhibit bounded distortions, there exists suitable constants \varepsilon_2 > 0 and C > 0 such that

where \mathcal{B}(\mathbf{A}) are the collection of blocks of words in \mathcal{W}(\tau) that are allowed in the Schottky structure depending \mathbf{A}, words \mathbf{a} = a_1\dots a_n and we use the notations \mathbf{a}' = a_1\dots a_{n-1} and x_\mathbf{a} as the center point of \gamma_\mathbf{a}[0,1]. Now we see that the right hand-side of (?) is a multiplicative convolution of the discrete measures

for some finite sets \mathcal{Z}_j. Thus by adapting Theorem 3.4 to multiplicative convolutions of several \nu_j, having polynomial Fourier decay bound reduces by (?) to proving the Frostman condition required by Theorem 3.4 for each \nu_j. This means that we need to prove that the normalised derivatives \tau^{-2} \gamma_{\mathbf{a}_j' \mathbf{b}'}' (x_\mathbf{a}), \mathbf{b} \in \mathcal{W}(\tau), do not concentrate near a point.

Let us now argue the non-concentration of the numbers \tau^{-2} \gamma_{\mathbf{a}_j' \mathbf{b}'}' (x_\mathbf{a}), \mathbf{b} \in \mathcal{W}(\tau). Fixing b \in \mathcal{A}, we write I_b = [x_0,x_1]. Then we can write \gamma_\mathbf{a}(x) = S_b \gamma_{\alpha_{\mathbf{a},b}}T_{\mathbf{a},b}^{-1}, where T_{\mathbf{a},b} and S_b are affine maps such that T_{\mathbf{a},b}([0,1]) = \gamma_\mathbf{a}(I_b) and S_b([0,1]) = I_b and

is the distortion of \gamma_\mathbf{a} in I_b. Thus

so using bounded distortions we can reduce the non-concentration properties of \tau^{-2} \gamma_{\mathbf{a}_j' \mathbf{b}'}' (x_\mathbf{a}) to non-concentrations of \gamma_{\mathbf{a}_j' \mathbf{b}'}^{-1}(\infty). As with the Gauss map, if we consider the reverse word \overline{\mathbf{a}} of \mathbf{a}, the lengths

The Schottky structure was defined so that \gamma_{\mathbf{a}_j' \mathbf{b}'}^{-1}(\infty) = \gamma_{\overline{\mathbf{a}_j' \mathbf{b}'}}(\infty) \in \gamma_{\overline{\mathbf{b}'}}[0,1], which has a length approximately the same as |\gamma_{\mathbf{b}'}[0,1]| \approx \tau. Given \mathbf{a}_j, y \in \mathbb{R} and \varrho > \tau, we can thus cover B(y,\varrho) \cap \{\gamma_{\mathbf{a}_j' \mathbf{b}'}^{-1}(\infty) : \mathbf{b} \in \mathcal{W}(\tau)\}, by the disjoint intervals \gamma_{\mathbf{b}'}[0,1] that intersect B(y,\varrho). This implies an upper bound for the number of \gamma_{\mathbf{a}_j' \mathbf{b}'}^{-1}(\infty), \mathbf{b} \in \mathcal{W}(\tau), with \gamma_{\mathbf{a}_j' \mathbf{b}'}^{-1}(\infty) \in B(y,\varrho).

The idea of the proof of Theorem 4.1 was communicated to the author by P. Varjú. Write \xi = R z for R > 1 and z \in \mathbb{S}^{d-1}. Define the Fourier restriction \widehat{\mu}_{R} : \mathbb{S}^{d-1} \to \mathbb{C},

Let R_0 := \lambda^{n_0} R for some n_0 \in \mathbb{N} we will choose later. Since \mu = \sum_{j \in \mathcal{A}} p_j f_j(\mu) and f_j = \lambda \theta_j + b_j, we have

Thus by iterating this n_0 times, we have

Note that here we identify T also as an operator on L^2(\mathbb{S}^{d-1}) as follows: if f \in L^2(\mathbb{S}^{d-1}) and z \in \mathbb{S}^{d-1}, then write Tf(z) := \sum_{j \in \mathcal{A}} p_j f(\theta_j^{-1} z). Since for any z \in \mathbb{S}^{d-1}, we can always find \sigma_z \in \mathrm{SO}(d), which maps 1 to z, we have Tf(z) = T \tilde f (\sigma_z), where \tilde f(g) := f(g 1), g \in \mathrm{SO}(d). Moreover, \|\tilde f\|_{L^2(G)} = \|f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{d-1})} and

for any k \geq 1.

Now, decompose L^2(G) with respect to the Haar measure dg on G as a direct sum with irreducible representations V_v < L^2(\mathrm{SO}(d)) of weight v, that is, L^2(\mathrm{SO}(d)) = \bigoplus_{v} V_v, where v=0 corresponds to constant functions. Let r \geq 1, which we will choose later. Then, by Lemma 19 by Varjú [Varju3], there exists a function h_r \in \bigoplus_{|v| \leq r} V_v such that \int h_r(g) \, dg = 1, \|h_r\|_2 \lesssim r^{\dim \mathrm{SO}(d) / 4}, where \dim \mathrm{SO}(d) = \frac{d(d-1)}{2} and

Consider the convolution |\widehat{\mu}_{R_0}| \ast h_r \in L^2(\mathbb{S}^{d-1}), defined by

Then we can write

where H(z) = (|\widehat{\mu}_{R_0}| \ast h_r)(z) - \int (|\widehat{\mu}_{R_0}| \ast h_r)(v) \, dv and F(z) = |\widehat{\mu}_{R_0}|(z) - |\widehat{\mu}_{R_0}| \ast h_r(z). Combining (?) with (Proof), we have the bound

To finish the argument, we need to bound the constant term and have an L^\infty bound in z of

which is possible by an L^2 bound combined with a \mathrm{Lip} norm bound, where the Lipschitz norm \|G\|_{\mathrm{Lip}} := \|G'\|_\infty.

For the constant term of (?), it was shown by Mattila [Mattila3] (see Lemma 3.15 of [Mattila95]) that for any Borel measure \tau on \mathbb{R}^d, we have

where I_\delta(\tau) = \int\hspace{-0.1in}\int |x-y|^{-\delta} \, d\mu(x) \, d\mu(y) for any 0 < \delta < (d-1)/2. Now, for a self-similar measure \mu, we know that I_{\varepsilon_1}(\mu) < \infty for some \varepsilon_1 > 0, e.g. following the argument of Feng and Lau [FL] from 2009 as \mu has no atoms. Thus by Cauchy-Schwarz

By the 1-Lipschitz continuity of the exponential, we have:

Since \|H + F\|_{\mathrm{Lip}} \lesssim R_0 and that T does not increase \|\cdot\|_{\mathrm{Lip}}, we have \|G\|_{\mathrm{Lip}} = \|T^{n_0}H + T^{n_0 }F\|_{\mathrm{Lip}} \lesssim R_0.

For the L^2 norm of G, since

using 1-Lipschitz continuity we have \|F\|_2 \lesssim R_0 r^{-1/2}. Thus by triangle inequality

Next, as h_r \in \bigoplus_{|v| \leq r} V_v, \int H = 0, and as H comes from a convolution with h_r, we can use the contraction of T^n in L^2_0(\mathrm{SO}(d)) that depends on r, i.e. Theorem 6 of Varjú [Varju3] from 2013 implying for some c_0,c_0' > 0 and 0 < A \leq 2 such that

Here by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have by the L^2 decay on spheres (like we argued for the constant term in (?)) that \|H\|_2 \lesssim R_0^{-\varepsilon_1}.

Having bounds for \|G\|_{\mathrm{Lip}} and \|G\|_{2}, we obtain L^\infty bound:

Choose now constant c_1 > 0 possibly depending on \lambda such that when R_0 = e^{c_1 (\log R)^{1/3}} (which also fixes n_0 as \lambda^{n_0} R = R_0) and r = e^{10 c_1(\log R)^{1/3}} we have

for some constant c > 0. Thus the proof is complete.