Paracomposition Operators and Paradifferential Reducibility
Abstract
Reducibility methods, aiming to simplify systems by conjugating them to those with constant coefficients, are crucial for studying the existence of quasiperiodic solutions. In KAM theory for PDEs, these methods help address the invertibility of linearized operators that arise in a Nash-Moser/KAM type scheme. The goal of this paper is to prove paradifferential reducibility results, enabling the reduction of nonlinear equations themselves, rather than just their linearizations, to constant coefficient form, modulo smoothing terms. As an initial application, we demonstrate the existence of quasiperiodic solutions for certain hyperbolic systems. Despite the small denominator problem, our proof does not rely on traditional Nash-Moser/KAM-type schemes, but instead on the Banach fixed point theorem. To achieve this, we develop two key toolsets. The first focuses on the calculus of paracomposition operators introduced by Alinhac, interpreted as the flow map of a paraproduct vector field. We refine this approach to establish new estimates that precisely capture the dependence on the diffeomorphism in question. The second toolset addresses two classical reducibility problems, one for matrix differential operators and the other for nearly parallel vector fields on torus. We resolve these problems by paralinearizing the conjugacy equation and exploiting, at the paradifferential level, the specific algebraic structure of conjugacy problems, akin to Zehnder's approximate Nash-Moser approach.
Cite
@article{arxiv.2410.17211,
title = {Paracomposition Operators and Paradifferential Reducibility},
author = {Thomas Alazard and Chengyang Shao},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17211},
year = {2025}
}
Comments
Proof of Proposition 3.4 corrected. Presentation of part 2 significantly improved. With the extension Lemma 5.1, equations are transformed into Banach fixed point form depending on parameter $\omega$, equivalent to the original ones if $\omega$ is in a certain Diophantine set. Proof of Theorem 1.1 in Section 7 simplified in this vein, especially in the last subsection