On the defocusing semilinear wave equations in three space

dimension with small power

Dongyi Wei Shiwu Yang
arXiv:2104.11419v1 [math.AP] 23 Apr 2021

Abstract
By introducing new weighted vector fields as multipliers, we derive quantitative pointwise esti-
mates for solutions of defocusing semilinear wave equation in R1+3 with pure power nonlinearity for
all 1 < p ≤ 2. Consequently,
√ the solution vanishes on the future null infinity and decays in time
polynomially for all 2 < p ≤ 2. This improves the uniform boundedness result of the second author
when 32 < p ≤ 2.

1 Introduction
In this paper, we continue our study on the global pointwise behaviors for solutions to the energy sub-
critical defocusing semilinear wave equations

✷φ = |φ|p−1 φ, φ(0, x) = φ0 (x), ∂t φ(0, x) = φ1 (x) (1)

in R1+3 with small power 1 < p ≤ 2.

The existence of global solutions in energy space is well known since the work [5] of Ginibre-Velo for
the energy sub-critical case 1 < p < 5. The long time dynamics of these global solutions concerns mainly
two types of questions: The first type is the problem of scattering, namely comparing the nonlinear
solutions with linear solutions as time goes to infinity. A natural choice for the linear solution is the
associated linear wave. Since linear wave decays in time in space dimension d ≥ 2, the nonlinear solution
approaches to linear wave in certain sense for sufficiently large power p. This was shown by Strauss in
[14] for the super-conformal case 3 ≤ p < 5 in space dimension three. Extensions could be found for
example in [1], [6], [9], [13], [17]. The latest work [18] of the second author shows that the solution
scatters to linear wave in energy space for 2.3542 < p < 5 in R1+3 . However the precise asymptotics of
the solutions remains unclear for small power p. One of the difficulties is that the equation degenerates
to linear Klein-Gordon equation when p approaches to the end point 1.
Another question is to investigate the asymptotic behaviors of the solutions in the pointwise sense,
which is plausible in lower dimensions d ≤ 3. The obstruction in higher dimension is that taking suffi-
ciently many derivatives for energy sub-critical equations is not possible for general p. Even for energy
critical equations, the global regularity result only holds in space dimension d ≤ 9 (see for example [10]).
The energy super-critical case remains completely open (see recent breakthrough in [4] for the blowing
up result for the defocusing energy super-critical nonlinear Schrödinger equations). The scattering result
of Strauss is based on the time decay tǫ−1 of the solution, which has been improved in [2] by using
conformal compactification method. However this method only works for super-conformal case when
p ≥ 3. To study the asymptotic behaviors of the solutions with sub-conformal power p < 3, Pecher in
[13], [7] observed that the potential energy decays in time with a weaker decay rate (comparing to t−2
for the √super-conformal case). This allows him to obtain polynomial decay in time of the solutions when
2
p > 1+ 2d +4 in space dimension d = 2 and 3.
However, Pecher’s observation was based on the conformal symmetry of Minkowski spacetime, that is,
the time decay of the potential energy is derived by using the conformal Killing vector field as multiplier.
As we have seen, the smaller power p leads to the slower decay of the nonlinearity, hence making the
analysis more difficult. More precisely, the power p is closely related to the weights in the multipliers.

1
 d+3
For the super-conformal case p ≥ d−1 , one can use the conformal Killing vector field with weights t2 ,
−2
which leads to the time decay t of the potential energy. For the end point case p = 1, so far as we
know, there is no similar weighted energy estimates for linear Klein-Gordon equations, without appealing
to higher order derivatives. This suggests that it is important to use multipliers with proper weights
depending on the power p in order to reveal the asymptotic behaviors of the solutions. As the power p
varies continuously, it in particular calls for a family of weighted vector fields which are consistent with
the structure of the equations.
The robust new vector field method originally introduced by Dafermos and Rodnianski in [3] provides
such family of multipliers rγ (∂t + ∂r ) with 0 ≤ γ ≤ 2. Combined with the well known integrated local
energy estimates (see for example [12]), a pigeon-hole argument leads to the improved time decay of the
1
potential energy. This enables the second author in [18] to show that the solution decays at least t− 3 for
2 < p < 5 in three space dimension. The lower bound p > 2 arises due to the fact that the pigeon-hole
argument works only for γ > 1. However the multipliers can be used for all 0 ≤ γ ≤ 2 and hence uniform
boundedness (or spatial decay) of the solution holds for 32 < p ≤ 2. We see that there is a gap regarding
the time decay of the solutions between the cases p > 2 and p ≤ 2. Moreover this method fails in lower
dimensions d ≤ 2.
The philosophy that suitable weighted multiplier yields the time decay of the potential energy inspires
us to introduce new non-spherically symmetric weighted vector fields as multipliers in [16],[15] to show
the polynomial decay in time of the solution for all p > 1 in space dimension one and two. This in
particular extends the result of Lindblad and Tao in [11], where an averaged decay of the solution was
shown for the defocusing semilinear wave equation in R1+1 .
The aim of this paper is to investigate the asymptotic behaviors of the solutions in three space
dimension with small power p ≤ 2. Again, the essential idea is to introduce some new weighted vector
fields as multipliers, which are partially inspired by our previous work [15] in space dimension two. This√
allows us to obtain potential energy decay for all 1 < p < 5 and time decay of the solutions for all p > 2,
and hence filling the gap left in [18].
To state our main theorem, for some constant γ and integer k, define the weighted energy norm of
the initial data
XZ
Ek,γ = (1 + |x|)γ+2l (|∇l+1 φ0 |2 + |∇l φ1 |2 ) + (1 + |x|)γ |φ0 |p+1 dx.
l≤k R3

We prove in this paper that

Theorem 1.1. Consider the defocusing semilinear wave equation (1) with initial data (φ0 , φ1 ) such that
E1,2 is finite. Then for all 1 < p < 2, the solution φ to the equation (1) exists globally in time and verifies
the following asymptotic pointwise estimates

C(pE + E p+1 )(1 + |t| + |x|)− p−1
p p−1
p+1 (1 + |x| − |t|)− p+1 , |x| ≥ |t|;
1,2 0,2
|φ(t, x)| ≤
C(pE + E p+1 )(1 + |t| + |x|)− (p−1)
p 2 3−2p
p+1 (1 + |t| − |x|) p+1 , |x| ≤ |t|
1,2 0,2

for some constant C depending only on p. For the quadratic nonlinearity with p = 2, it holds that
p 2−ǫ
1−2ǫ 1−2ǫ
3(1−ǫ)
|φ(t, x)| ≤ Cǫ ( E1,2 + E0,2 )(1 + |t| + |x|)− 3 (1 + ||x| − |t||)− 3
1
for all 0 < ǫ < 2 with constant Cǫ depending only on ǫ.
We give several remarks.
Remark 1.1. The theorem implies that the solution decays along out going null curves (|t| − |x| is
constant) for all 1 < p ≤ 5 (see [18] for the case when 2 < p < 5 and [8] for the energy critical case). In
other words, the solution vanishes on the future (and past) null infinity and blowing up can only occur at
time infinity. It will be of great interest to see whether such blow up can happen particularly for p close
to 1.

2
Remark 1.2. In view of the energy conservation, one can easily conclude that the solution grows at most√
polynomially in time t with rate relying on the power p. The theorem√improves this growth for 1 < p ≤ 2
and shows that the solution decays inverse polynomially in time for 2 < p ≤ 2. In particular, it fills the
gap left in [18] by the second author, in which only uniform boundedness of the solution was obtained for
3 − 13
2 < p ≤ 2 while time decay with rate at least t was shown for 2 < p < 3.
Remark 1.3. The proof also indicates that the potential energy decays in time for all 1 < p ≤ 3, that is,
Z
|φ(t, x)|p+1 dx ≤ CE2,0 (1 + t)1−p
R3

with some constant C depending only on p. This time decay estimate is stronger than that in [17].
Now let’s review the main ideas for studying the asymptotic behaviors for defocusing semilinear wave
equations. The early pioneering works (for example [6], [13],[7]) relied on the following time decay of the
potential energy
Z
|φ|p+1 dx ≤ C(1 + t)max{4−2p,−2} , 1 < p < 5, (2)
R3

obtained by using the conformal Killing vector field t2 ∂t + r2 ∂r (r = |x|) as multiplier. The new vector
field method of Dafermos and Rodnianski can improve the above time decay in the following way: First
the r-weighted energy estimates derived by using the vector fields rγ (∂t +∂r ) with 0 ≤ γ ≤ 2 as multipliers
show that
ZZ
rγ−1 |φ|p+1 dxdt ≤ C, 0 < γ < p − 1.
R1+3

However in order to obtain time decay of the potential energy, one then needs to combine the r-weighted
energy estimate with the integrated local energy estimates. A pigeon-hole argument then leads to the
energy flux decay through the outgoing null hypersurface Hu (constant u hypersurface with u = t−r 2 )
Z
|φ|p+1 dσ ≤ C(1 + |u|)−γ .
Hu

Integrating in u, we end up with a weighted spacetime bound

ZZ
(1 + |u|)γ−1−ǫ |φ|p+1 dxdt ≤ C, ∀0 < ǫ < γ − 1
R1+3

by assuming γ > 1, which requires p > 2. In view of the above r-weighted energy estimate, one then
derives the time weighted spacetime bound
ZZ
(1 + t + |x|)γ−1−ǫ |φ|p+1 dxdt ≤ C.
R1+3

This improves the above time decay (2) for the sub-conformal case p < 3 and is sufficient to conclude the
time decay estimates of the solutions for p > 2 in [18].
However, the above new vector field method works only in space dimension d ≥ 3, due to the lack of
integrated local energy estimates in lower dimensions. To improve the asymptotic decay estimates of the
solution in space dimension two, we in [15] introduced non-spherically symmetric vector fields
p−1 p−1 p−1
−2 2 −1
X = u1 2 (∂t − ∂1 ) + u1 2 x2 (∂t + ∂1 ) + 2u1 2 x2 ∂2 , u1 = t − x1 + 1

as multipliers applied to regions bounded by the null hyperplane {t = x1 } and the initial hypersurface.
The advantage of using such non-spherically symmetric vector fields is that we can make use of the

3
reflection symmetry x1 → −x1 as well as rotation symmetries. This enables us to derive the time decay
of the potential energy
Z
p−1
|φ|p+1 dx ≤ C(1 + t)max{− 2 ,−2} , ∀p > 1
R2

in space dimension two. This decay rate is consistent with that in higher dimensions. However we
2
emphasize here that this method works for all p > 1 while a lower bound p > 1 + d−1 was required in
higher dimensions (see [17]).
For the three dimensional case when p ≤ 2, we observe that it is not likely to use multipliers with
weights higher than t. Although the vector fields rγ (∂t + ∂r ) can be used for all 0 ≤ γ ≤ 2, it does
not contain weights in time. In particular these vector fields can only lead to the spatial decay of the
solution instead of time decay. Inspired by our previous work in space dimension two, we introduce new
non-spherical symmetric weighted vector fields

X = u2 f (u)(∂t − ∂1 )+f (u)(x22 + x23 )(∂t + ∂1 ) + 2uf (u)(x2 ∂2 + x3 ∂3 ) + (2f (u) + 1)∂t ,
p−3
u = t − x1 , f (u) = (1 + | max{u, 0}|2) 2 .

as multipliers. By applying this vector field to the region bounded by the null hyperplane {t = x1 − 1},
the initial hypersurface and the constant t-hypersurface, we can derive that
Z
(1 + t)p−1 |φ(t, x)|p+1 dx ≤ CE2,0 .
x1 ≤0

Using the symmetry x1 → −x1 , we then conclude the time decay of the potential energy
Z
|φ(t, x)|p+1 dx ≤ CE2,0 (1 + t)1−p
R3

for all 1 < p ≤ 2. In view of this, we believe that such method can also lead to the time decay of potential
energy in higher dimensions for the full energy sub-critical case.
Regarding the pointwise decay estimates for the solution, we rely on the representation formula. To
control the nonlinearity, we apply the above vector fields to the region bounded by the backward light
cone N − (q) emanating from the point q ∈ R1+3 . To simplify the analysis, we can assume that q = (t0 , x0 ),
x0 = (r0 = |x0 |, 0, 0). This gives the weighted energy estimate
Z
x1 − r0 x1 − r0
(|t0 − r0 |p−1 (1 − ) + |t0 + r0 |p−1 (1 + ) + 1)|φ|p+1 dx ≤ CE0,2 ,
N (q)
− |x − x0 | |x − x0 |

which is sufficient to conclude the pointwise estimate for the solution in the interior region |x| ≤ t. The
better decay estimates in the exterior region are based on the weighted energy estimate
Z
x1 − r0
|r0 + t0 ||φ|p+1 dx ≤ CE0,1 .
N − (q)∩{x1 ≥t} |x − x0 |

obtained by using the Lorentz rotation vector field x1 ∂t + t∂1 as multiplier.

Acknowledgments. S. Yang is partially supported by NSFC-11701017.

2 Preliminaries and notations

Additional to the Cartesian coordinates (t, x) = (t, x1 , x2 , x3 ) for the Minkowski spacetime R1+3 , we will
also use the null frame
L1 = ∂t + ∂1 , L1 = ∂t − ∂1

4
with ∂i be shorthand for ∂xi . For fixed point q = (t0 , x0 ) ∈ R1+3 , let (t̃, x̃) be the new Cartesian
coordinates centered at q. More precisely, define
x̃
t̃ = t − t0 , x̃ = x − x0 , r̃ = |x̃|, ω̃ = , L̃ = ∂t̃ + ∂r̃ , L̃ = ∂t̃ − ∂r̃ .
|x̃|

By translation invariance, note that

∂t̃ = ∂t , ˜ = ω̃ · ∇.
∂r̃ = ω̃ · ∇

Here ∇ is the spatial gradient while ∇ ˜ is the associated one centered at q.

1+3
For vector fields X, Y in R , we use the geometric notation hX, Y i meaning the inner product of
these two vector fields under the flat Minkowski metric mµν with non-vanishing components

m00 = −1, mii = 1, i = 1, 2, 3.

Raising and lowering indices are carried out with respect to this metric in the sequel.
As the wave equation is time reversible, without loss of generality, we only consider the case in the
future t ≥ 0. For q = (t0 , x0 ) ∈ R1+3 , let J − (q) be the causal past

J − (q) := {(t, x)||x − x0 | ≤ t0 − t, t ≥ 0}.

The boundary contains the past null cone N − (q) emanating from q, that is,

N − (q) := {(t, x)|t0 − t = |x − x0 |, t ≥ 0}.

For r > 0, we use Bq (r) to denote the spatial ball centered at q = (t0 , x0 ) with radius r. More precisely

Bq (r) = {(t, x)|t = t0 , |x − x0 | ≤ r}.

The boundary of Bq (r) is the 2-sphere Sq (r).

Finally to avoid too many constants, we make a convention that A . B means there exists a constant
C, depending only on p and the small constant 0 < ǫ < 12 such that A ≤ CB.

3 Weighted energy estimates through backward light cones

Following the framework established early in [14] and developed in [13], [18], potential energy decay is
of crucial importance to deduce the asymptotic long time behavior for the solution. We begin with the
following weighted potential energy estimate through backward light cones.
Proposition 3.1. Assume that 1 < p ≤ 2. Let q = (t0 , r0 , 0, 0) be a point in R1+3 with t0 , r0 ≥ 0. Then
the solution φ of the nonlinear wave equation (1) verifies the following weighted energy estimates
Z
(|t0 − r0 |p−1 (1 − ω̃1 ) + |t0 + r0 |p−1 (1 + ω̃1 ) + 1)|φ|p+1 dσ ≤ CE0,2 , (3)
N − (q)
Z
|r0 + t0 ω̃1 ||φ|p+1 dσ ≤ CE0,1 (4)
N − (q)∩{x1 ≥t}

x1 −r0
for some constant C depending only on p. Here dσ is the surface measure and ω̃1 = √ .
(x1 −r)2 +x22 +x23

Proof. Recall the energy momentum tensor for the scalar field φ
1 2
T [φ]µν = ∂µ φ∂ν φ − mµν (∂ γ φ∂γ φ + |φ|p+1 ).
2 p+1

5
For any vector fields X, Y and any function χ, define the current
1 1
JµX,Y,χ [φ] = T [φ]µν X ν − ∂µ χ · |φ|2 + χ∂µ |φ|2 + Yµ .
2 2
Then for solution φ of equation (1) and any domain D in R1+3 , we have the energy identity
ZZ ZZ
1
∂ µ JµX,Y,χ [φ]dvol = div(Y ) + T [φ]µν πµν
X
+ χ∂µ φ∂ µ φ − ✷χ · |φ|2 + χ|φ|p+1 dvol. (5)
D D 2

Here π X = 21 LX m is the deformation tensor for the vector field X.

In the above energy identity, choose the vector fields X, Y and the function χ as follows:

X = u2 f (u)L1 + f (u)(x22 + x23 )L1 + 2uf (u)(x2 ∂2 + x3 ∂3 ) + (2f (u) + 1)∂t ,

Y = (L1 g)S − (Sg + 3g)L1 , χ = 2uf (u), g = f (u)|φ|2 , u = t − x1 ,
p−3
2
f (u) = 1 for u ≤ 0; f (u) = (1 + u ) 2 for u ≥ 0.

Here S = t∂t + r∂r is the scaling vector field and L1 = ∂t + ∂1 , L1 = ∂t − ∂1 . We then compute that

∇L1 X = 0, ∇j X = 2f (u)xj L1 + 2uf (u)∂j , j = 2, 3,

2 ′ ′
∇L1 X = 2(2uf (u) + u f (u))L1 + 2f (u)(x22 + x23 )L1 + 4(f (u) + uf ′ (u))(x2 ∂2 + x3 ∂3 ) + 4f ′ (u)∂t .
X
In particular the non-vanishing components of the deformation tensor πµν are
X
πL 1 L1
= −2(2uf (u) + (u2 + 1)f ′ (u)), X
πL 1 L1
= −4f ′ (u)(x22 + x23 + 1),
X
πL 1 ∂j
= 2uf ′ (u)xj , π∂Xj ∂j = 2uf (u), j = 2, 3.

We also have div(L1 ) = 0, div(S) = 4, [L1 , S] = L1 and

div(Y ) = SL1 g + 4L1 g − L1 (Sg + 3g) = −[L1 , S]g + L1 g = 0.

Since ✷χ = 0, we therefore can compute that

1
T [φ]µν πµν
X
+ χ∂µ φ∂ µ φ + χ|φ|p+1 − ✷χ|φ|2
2
2
= − (2uf (u) + (u2 + 1)f ′ (u))(|(∂2 , ∂3 )φ|2 + |φ|p+1 )
p+1
2
+ 2uf (u)(|(∂2 , ∂3 )φ|2 − ∂ µ φ∂µ φ − |φ|p+1 )
p+1
− f ′ (u)(x22 + x23 + 1)|L1 φ|2 − 2uf ′ (u)(x2 ∂2 φ + x3 ∂3 φ)L1 φ + 2uf (u)(∂µ φ∂ µ φ + |φ|p+1 )
2|φ|p+1
= − f ′ (u)(|(x2 , x3 )L1 φ + u(∂2 , ∂3 )φ|2 + |(∂2 , ∂3 , L1 )φ|2 ) + ((p − 3)uf (u) − (u2 + 1)f ′ (u)).
p+1
Since we are restricting to the range 1 < p ≤ 2 < 3, in view of the definition of the function f , we note
that when u ≤ 0,
f ′ (u) = 0, (p − 3)uf (u) = (p − 3)u ≥ 0,
and p−3
f ′ (u) = (p − 3)u(1 + u2 ) 2 ≤ 0, (p − 3)uf (u) = (u2 + 1)f ′ (u), u ≥ 0.
In particular we always have

f ′ (u) ≤ 0, (p − 3)uf (u) ≥ (u2 + 1)f ′ (u), (6)

which implies that the bulk integral is nonnegative.

6
 Now take the domain D to be J − (q) with boundary B(0,x0 ) (t0 ) ∪ N − (q). In view of Stokes’ formula,
the left hand side of the energy identity (5) is reduced to integrals on the initial hypersurface B(0,x0 ) (t0 )
and on the backward light cone N − (q). Since the bulk integral on the right hand side is nonnegative, we
conclude that
Z Z
iJ X,Y,χ [φ] dvol + iJ X,Y,χ [φ] dvol ≥ 0. (7)
N − (q) B(0,x0 ) (t0 )

For the integral on the initial hypersurface B(0,x0 ) (t0 ), we compute it under the coordinates (t, x)

1 1
iJ X,Y,χ [φ] dvol = − (J X,Y,χ [φ])0 dx = (T [φ]0ν X ν − ∂t χ|φ|2 + χ · ∂t |φ|2 + Y0 )dx
 2 2
1 2
= f (u) (x22 + x23 + u2 )(|∂t φ|2 + |∇φ|2 + |φ|p+1 ) + 2u∂t |φ|2
2 p+1


+2(x22 + x23 − u2 )∂t φ · ∂1 φ + 4u∂t φ(x2 ∂2 φ + x3 ∂3 φ) dx − (f (u) + uf ′ (u))|φ|2 dx
1 2
+ (2f (u) + 1)(|∂t φ|2 + |∇φ|2 + |φ|p+1 )dx + (Sg + 3g − tL1 g)dx
2 p+1
1
= f (u) |(x2 , x3 )(∂t φ + ∂1 φ) + u(∂2 , ∂3 )φ|2 + |u(∂t φ − ∂1 φ) + (x2 ∂2 + x3 ∂3 )φ + 2φ|2
2 
2(x22 + x23 + u2 ) p+1
+(x2 ∂3 φ − x3 ∂2 φ)2 + |φ| dx
p+1
1 2
+ (2f (u) + 1)(|∂t φ|2 + |∇φ|2 + |φ|p+1 )dx.
2 p+1
Here we used the relation L1 u = 0, Su = u and the following computation

Sg + 3g − tL1 g = S(f (u)|φ|2 ) + 3f (u)|φ|2 − tL1 (f (u)|φ|2 )

= f (u)S|φ|2 + (uf ′ (u) + 3f (u))|φ|2 − tf (u)L1 |φ|2
= f (u)(−u∂1 + x2 ∂2 + x3 ∂3 )|φ|2 + (uf ′ (u) + 3f (u))|φ|2 .

Since 0 < f (u) ≤ 1 and u = −x1 on B(0,x0 ) (t0 ), by using Hardy’s inequality to control |φ|2 , we can bound
the integral on the initial hypersurface by the initial weighted energy
Z
iJ X,Y,χ [φ] dvol ≤ CE0,2 . (8)
B(0,x0 ) (t0 )

Next we compute the boundary integral on the backward light cone N − (q). The surface measure is of
the form
1 1
−iJ X,Y,χ [φ] dvol = JL̃X,Y,χ [φ]dσ = (T [φ]L̃ν X ν − (L̃χ)|φ|2 + χ · L̃|φ|2 + YL̃ )dσ.
2 2

Here we recall that the null frame {L̃, L̃, ẽ1 , ẽ2 } is centered at the point q. Since

L1 u = 0, Su = u = −hS, L1 i,

we have

L1 g = L1 (f (u)|φ|2 ) = f (u)L1 |φ|2 ,

Sg + 3g = S(f (u)|φ|2 ) + 3f (u)|φ|2 = f (u)S|φ|2 + (uf ′ (u) + 3f (u))|φ|2 .

Note that
L̃u = L̃(t) − L̃(x1 ) = −hL̃, ∂t i − hL̃, ∂1 i = −hL̃, L1 i.

7
We therefore can compute that
1 1
− (L̃χ)|φ|2 + χ · L̃|φ|2 + YL̃
2 2
= −L̃(uf (u))|φ|2 + uf (u)L̃|φ|2 + (L1 g)hS, L̃i − (Sg + 3g)hL1 , L̃i
= −(L̃u)(f (u) + uf ′ (u))|φ|2 + uf (u)L̃|φ|2 + f (u)(L1 |φ|2 )hS, L̃i
+ (f (u)S|φ|2 + (uf ′ (u) + 3f (u))|φ|2 )L̃u
= f (u)(L1 |φ|2 )hS, L̃i + (f (u)S|φ|2 + 2f (u)|φ|2 )L̃u + uf (u)L̃|φ|2
= f (u)Z|φ|2 − f (u)(S|φ|2 + 2|φ|2 )hL̃, L1 i
 
e 2 − 2|φ|2 hL̃, L1 i .
= f (u) Z|φ|

e are given by
Here the vector fields Z, Z
Z = hS, L̃iL1 + uL̃ = hS, L̃iL1 − hS, L1 iL̃, e = Z − hL̃, L1 iS.
Z
Now we write the vector field X as
X = f (u)X0 + (2f (u) + 1)∂t , X0 = u2 (∂t − ∂1 ) + (x22 + x23 )(∂t + ∂1 ) + 2u(x2 ∂2 + x3 ∂3 ).
The vector field X0 can be further written as
X0 = (r2 − t2 )(∂t + ∂1 ) + 2uS = hS, SiL1 − 2hS, L1 iS.
Now we expand the current
1 1
JL̃X,Y,χ [φ] = T [φ]L̃ν X ν − (L̃χ)|φ|2 + χ · L̃|φ|2 + YL̃
2 2
e 2 − 2|φ|2 hL̃, L1 i)
= f (u)T [φ]L̃X0 + (2f (u) + 1)T [φ]L̃∂t + f (u)(Z|φ|
e 2 − 2|φ|2 hL̃, L1 i) + (2f (u) + 1)T [φ] .
= f (u)(T [φ]L̃X0 + Z|φ| L̃∂t

For the second term, note that

1 1 ˜ 2 2 1
T [φ]L̃∂t = |L̃φ|2 + (|∇
/ φ| + |φ|p+1 ) ≥ |φ|p+1 .
2 2 p+1 p+1
For the first term we claim that

e 2 − 2|φ|2 hL̃, L1 i ≥ −hL̃, X0 i |φ|p+1

T [φ]L̃X0 + Z|φ| . (9)
p+1
At any fixed point of the backward light cone N − (q), we prove the above claim by discussing three
different cases:
(i) If the vector field X0 vanishes, that is X0 = 0, then
0 = u = t − x1 = x2 = x3 .
In particular, we have
S = tL1 , −hL̃, L1 i = h∂r̃ − ∂t̃ , ∂t + ∂1 i = hr̃−1 ∂1 − ∂t , ∂t + ∂1 i = 1 + ω
e1 ≥ 0.
Here recall that q = (t0 , r0 , 0, 0) and x2 = x3 = 0 for this case. This implies that
e = hS, L̃iL1 − hL̃, L1 iS = 0,
Z
T [φ] e 2 − 2|φ|2 hL̃, L1 i = −2|φ|2 hL̃, L1 i ≥ 0.
+ Z|φ|
L̃X0

Hence the above claim holds.

8
(ii) If X0 6= 0 and the vector fields X0 , L̃ are linearly dependent, by comparing the coefficients of
∂t = ∂t̃ , we conclude that X0 = λL̃ with λ = u2 + x22 + x23 > 0. Recall the definition for the vector
e We can show that
fields X0 , Z.
λZe = hS, X0 iL1 − hS, L1 iX0 − hX0 , L1 iS
= −hS, SihS, L1 iL1 − hS, L1 iX0 + 2hS, L1 i2 S
= −2hS, L1 iX0 = 2uλL̃,
e = 2uL̃. Note that
which in particular implies that Z
− λhL̃, L1 i = −hX0 , L1 i = 2hS, L1 i2 = 2u2 .
We then can demonstrate that
e 2 − 2|φ|2 hL̃, L1 i = λ|L̃φ|2 + 2uL̃|φ|2 + 4u2 |φ|2 /λ = |λL̃φ + 2uφ|2 λ−1 ≥ 0.
T [φ]L̃X0 + Z|φ|

The above claim follows as hL̃, X0 i = 0.

(iii) The remaining case is when X0 6= 0 and the vector fields X0 , L̃ are linearly independent. We write
X0 = (u2 + x22 + x23 )(∂t + ω̂ · ∇), L̃ = ∂t − ω
e · ∇,
ω̂ = (x22 + x23 − u , 2ux2 , 2ux3 )/(u + x22 + x23 ),
2 2
|ω̂| = 1, ω̂ 6= −e
ω,
hL̃, L̃i = hX0 , X0 i = 0, −hL̃, X0 i = (u2 + x22 + x23 )(1 + ω̂ · ω
e ) > 0.
Here we may note that ∇ = ∇. ˜ In particular we see that L̃, X0 are null vectors which are linearly
independent. We thus can construct a null frame {X0 , L̃, ê1 , ê2 } such that hL̃, êj i = hX0 , êj i = 0,
hêj , êj i = 1, hê1 , ê2 i = 0 for j = 1, 2. Notice that
hZ, Si = hS, L̃ihL1 , Si − hS, L1 ihL̃, Si = 0, hZ, L̃i = hS, L̃ihL1 , L̃i,
e L̃i = hZ, L̃i − hL̃, L1 ihS, L̃i = 0,
hZ, L1 i = −hS, L1 ihL̃, L1 i, hZ,
e X0 i = hZ − hL̃, L1 iS, hS, SiL1 − 2hS, L1 iSi
hZ,
= hZ, L1 ihS, Si + hL̃, L1 ihS, L1 ihS, Si = 0.
e ∈ span{ê1 , ê2 }. We hence can write that
The above computation in particular shows that Z
e = a1 ê1 + a2 ê2 .
Z
On the other hand, we also have
hL̃, X0 i = hL̃, hS, SiL1 − 2hS, L1 iSi = hL̃, L1 ihS, Si − 2hL̃, SihS, L1 i,
e Zi
hZ, e = hZ, Zi + hL̃, L1 i2 hS, Si = −2hS, L̃ihL1 , L̃ihS, L1 i + hL̃, L1 i2 hS, Si = hL̃, X0 ihL1 , L̃i.
Let
p1 = −hL̃, X0 i, p2 = −hL1 , L̃i = 1 + ω̃1 .
Then the above computations show that
p1 > 0, p2 ≥ 0, p1 p2 = a21 + a22 .
We therefore can compute that
p+1
e 2 − 2|φ|2 hL̃, L1 i + hL̃, X0 i |φ|
T [φ]L̃X0 + Z|φ|
p+1
p+1
1
=L̃φX0 φ − hL̃, X0 i(∂ γ φ∂γ φ +
2 e 2 − 2|φ|2 hL̃, L1 i + hL̃, X0 i |φ|
|φ|p+1 ) + Z|φ|
2 p+1 p+1
1 1
=L̃φX0 φ − hL̃, X0 i(∂ X0 φX0 φ + ∂ L̃ φL̃φ) + p1 (|ê1 φ|2 + |ê2 φ|2 ) + 2(a1 ê1 φ + a2 ê2 φ)φ + 2p2 |φ|2
2 2
1 −1 2 −1 2
= p1 (|ê1 φ + 2p1 a1 φ| + |ê2 φ + 2p1 a2 φ| ) ≥ 0.
2

9
 This means that the above claim (9) always holds.
In view of the estimate (9), we then conclude that

−f (u)hL̃, X0 i + 2f (u) + 1 p+1

JL̃X,Y,χ [φ] ≥ |φ| .
p+1

Now we compute −hL̃, X0 i under the coordinates (t̃, x̃) centered at q = (t0 , r0 , 0, 0). We have

(t, x) = (t0 + e
t, r0 + x
e1 , x e3 ) = (t0 + e
e2 , x t, r0 + reω
e1 , reω
e2 , reω
e3 ).

Note that on the backward light cone N − (q), we also have e

t = −e
r . We thus can compute that

−hL̃, X0 i = (u2 + x22 + x23 ) + (x22 + x23 − u2 )e

ω1 + 2ux2 ω
e2 + 2ux3 ω
e3
= u2 (1 − ω
e1 ) + (x22 + x23 )(1 + ω
e1 ) + 2ue ω22 + ω
r(e e32 )
= u2 (1 − ω
e1 ) + re2 (1 − ω
e12 )(1 + ω e12 )
r(1 − ω
e1 ) + 2ue
e1 ))2 (1 − ω
= (u + re(1 + ω e1 )
= (t0 + t̃ − r0 − x e1 ))2 (1 − ω
e1 + re + x e1 )
= (t0 − r0 )2 (1 − ω
e1 ) ≥ 0

on N − (q). For the case when u ≤ 0, by the definition of f (u), we have the lower bound

−f (u)hL̃, X0 i + 2f (u) + 1 = 3 + (t0 − r0 )2 (1 − ω

e1 ) ≥ 1 + |t0 − r0 |p−1 (1 − ω
e1 )

ω1 | ≤ 1. For the case when u > 0, note that on N − (q)

as 1 < p ≤ 2 and |e

0 < u = t − x1 = t0 + t̃ − r0 − r̃e
ω1 = t0 − r0 − r̃(1 + ω
e1 ) ≤ t0 − r0 .

We therefore can bound that

p−3 p−3
−f (u)hL̃, X0 i + 2f (u) + 1 = 1 + 2(1 + u2 ) 2 + (t0 − r0 )2 (1 − ω
e1 )(1 + u2 ) 2

p−3
≥ 1 + (1 + (t0 − r0 )2 )(1 − ω
e1 )(1 + u2 ) 2

≥ 1 + |t0 − r0 |p−1 (1 − ω
e1 ).

Here again we used the assumption that p < 3. Hence in any case, we have shown that

−f (u)hL̃, X0 i + 2f (u) + 1 p+1 |t0 − r0 |p−1 (1 − ω

e1 ) + 1 p+1
JL̃X,Y,χ [φ] ≥ |φ| ≥ |φ| .
p+1 p+1
In other words, we have the lower bound for the integral on the backward light cone N − (q)
Z Z Z
X,Y,χ |t0 − r0 |p−1 (1 − ω
e1 ) + 1 p+1
− iJ X,Y,χ [φ] dvol = JL̃ [φ]dσ ≥ |φ| dσ,
N (q)
− N (q)
− N (q)
− p + 1

which together with estimates (7), (8) implies that

Z
|t0 − r0 |p−1 (1 − ω
e1 ) + 1 p+1
|φ| dx ≤ CE0,2 . (10)
N (q)
− p + 1

To conclude estimate (3) of the proposition, we make use of the reflection symmetry additional to the
spherical symmetry. More precisely, by changing variable x1 → −x1 in the above argument, that is,
setting u = t + x1 and L1 = ∂t − ∂1 , L1 = ∂t + ∂1 accordingly (the point q is still fixed), we also have
Z
|t0 + r0 |p−1 (1 + ω
e1 ) + 1 p+1
|φ| dx ≤ CE0,2 . (11)
N − (q) p+1

10
Alternative interpretation is that the above estimate (10) also holds at the point q − = (t0 , −r0 , 0, 0)
r0 < 0 (with positive sign of ω e1 ). Then by spherical symmetry, the associated estimate is valid at point
q = (t0 , r0 , 0, 0), which is exactly the estimate (11). These two estimates lead to (3).

To finish the proof for the Proposition, it remains to show estimate (4), which will be mainly used to
control the solution in the exterior region. Inspired by the method in [16], we make use of the Lorentz
rotation in this region.
In the energy identity (5), choose the vector fields and function χ as follows

X = x1 ∂t + t∂1 , Y = 0, χ = 0.

Then π X = 0 and
1
div(Y ) + T [φ]µν πµν
X
+ χ∂µ φ∂ µ φ + χφ✷φ − ✷χ|φ|2 = 0.
2
Let the domain D be J − (q) ∩ {x1 ≥ t} with boundary (B(0,x0 ) (t0 ) ∩ D) ∪ (N − (q) ∩ D) ∪ ({x1 = t} ∩ D).
By using Stokes’ formula, we have the weighted energy conservation adapted to these boundaries. For
the integral on the initial hypersurface B(0,x0 ) (t0 ), we have
Z Z
1 2
iJ X,Y,χ [φ] dvol = x1 (|∂t φ|2 + |∇φ|2 + |φ|p+1 )dx ≤ CE0,1 . (12)
B(0,x ) (t0 )∩D 2 B(0,x ) (t0 )∩D p+1
0 0

On the null hypersurface {x1 = t} ∩ D, we have

X = x1 ∂t + t∂1 = t(∂t + ∂1 ) = tL1 .

Thus the surface measure is of the form

−iJ X,Y,χ [φ] dvol = (J X,Y,χ [φ])L1 dσ = T [φ]XL1 dσ = tT [φ]L1 L1 dσ = t|L1 φ|2 dσ.

This in particular shows that

Z
−iJ X,Y,χ [φ] dvol ≥ 0. (13)
{x1 =t}∩D

Here keep in mind that we only consider the estimates in the future t ≥ 0.
Finally for the integral on the backward light cone N − (q) ∩ D, similarly, we first can write the surface
measure as

−iJ X,Y,χ [φ] dvol = −(J X,Y,χ [φ])L̃ dσ = T [φ]X L̃ dσ.

Now we need to write the vector field X under the new null frame {L̃, L̃, ẽ1 , ẽ2 } centered at the point q.
Note that

∂1 = ∂˜1 = ω̃1 ∂r̃ + ê1 · (∇

˜ − ω̃∂r̃ ), ê1 = (1, 0, 0).

Then we have
1 1
/˜ ) = (x1 + tω̃1 )L̃ + (x1 − tω̃1 )L̃ + tê1 · ∇
X = x1 ∂t + t∂1 = x1 ∂t̃ + t(ω̃1 ∂r̃ + ê1 · ∇ /˜ .
2 2

/˜ = ∇
Here ∇ ˜ − ω̃∂r̃ . Then we can compute the quadratic terms

1 1 2
/˜ φ|2 +
T [φ]X L̃ = (x1 − tω̃1 )|L̃φ|2 + (x1 + tω̃1 )(|∇ /˜ )φ.
|φ|p+1 ) + t(L̃φ)(ê1 · ∇
2 2 p+1

11
Since
q
/˜ )φ| = |((ê1 − ω̃1 ω̃) · ∇
|(ê1 · ∇ /˜ )φ| ≤ |ê1 − ω̃1 ω̃||∇
/˜ φ| = /˜ φ|,
1 − ω̃12 |∇

restricted to the region N − (q) ∩ D where x1 ≥ t ≥ 0, the pure quadratic terms are nonnegative
1 1
/˜ φ|2 + tL̃φ(ê1 · ∇
(x1 − tω̃1 )|L̃φ|2 + (x1 + tω̃1 )|∇ /˜ )φ
2  2 
q
1 2 ˜ 2 2 ˜
≥ t (1 − ω̃1 )|L̃φ| + (1 + ω̃1 )|∇ / φ| − 2 1 − ω̃1 |L̃φ||∇ / φ| ≥ 0.
2

In particular on N − (q) ∩ D, we have

x1 + tω̃1 p+1
T [φ]X L̃ ≥ |φ| .
p+1
This leads to the lower bound
Z Z
x1 + tω̃1 p+1
−iJ X,Y,χ [φ] dvol ≥ |φ| dσ. (14)
N − (q)∩D N − (q)∩D p+1

For such choice of vector fields, we have the weighted energy conservation
Z Z Z
iJ X,Y,χ [φ] dvol + iJ X,Y,χ [φ] dvol + iJ X,Y,χ [φ] dvol = 0.
N − (q)∩D {x1 =t}∩D B(0,x0 )∩D (t0 )

In view of the above estimates (12), (13), (14), we conclude that

Z
x1 + tω̃1 p+1
|φ| dσ ≤ CE0,1 . (15)
N (q)∩D
− p+1

Under the coordinates (t̃, x̃) centered at q = (t0 , r0 , 0, 0), we have

(t, x) = (t0 + e
t, r0 + x
e1 , x e3 ) = (t0 + e
e2 , x t, r0 + reω
e1 , reω
e2 , reω
e3 ).

Note that e r on N − (q). We then can write

t = −e

0 ≤ x1 + tω̃1 = r0 + reω
e1 + (t0 − re)ω̃1 = r0 + t0 ω̃1

on N − (q) ∩ D. The uniform bound (4) then follows from (15) by noting that

N − (q) ∩ D = N − (q) ∩ {x1 ≥ t}.

4 Asymptotic pointwise behaviors for the solutions

Following the framework developed in [18], we now use the weighted energy estimates through the back-
ward light cone obtained in the previous section to control the nonlinearity. For this purpose, we need
the following integration bound: for constants A > 0, B > 0, γ > 1, there holds
Z Z 1
((1 + ω̃1 )A + B)−γ dω̃ = 2π ((1 + ω̃1 )A + B)−γ dω̃1 ≤ CA−1 B 1−γ (16)
S(t0 −r̃,x0 ) (r̃) −1

with constant C depending only on γ.

12
 Now we prove the main Theorem 1.1. For any point q = (t0 , x0 ) in R1+3 , recall the representation
formula for linear wave equation
Z Z Z


4πφ(t0 , x0 ) = t0 φ1 (x0 + t0 ω̃)dω̃ + ∂t0 t0 φ0 (x0 + t0 ω̃)dω̃ − |φ|p−1 φ r̃dr̃dω̃. (17)
ω̃ ω̃ N − (q)

The first two terms are linear evolution, relying only on the initial data. Standard Sobolev embedding
leads the decay estimate
Z Z

p
| t0 φ1 (x0 + t0 ω̃)dω̃ + ∂t0 t0 φ0 (x0 + t0 ω̃)dω̃ | . (1 + t0 + |x0 |)−1 E1,2 .
ω̃ ω̃

We control the nonlinear term by using the weighted energy estimates derived in Proposition 3.1. Without
lose of generality (or by spatial rotation), we can assume that x0 = (r0 , 0, 0) with r0 = |x0 |. Let
u0 = |t0 − r0 | + 1, v0 = t0 + r0 + 1.
Since 0 < p − 1 ≤ 1, it holds that
1 + |t0 − r0 |p−1 ≥ (1 + |t0 − r0 |)p−1 = up−1
0 , 1 + |t0 + r0 |p−1 ≥ (1 + |t0 + r0 |)p−1 = v0p−1 .
Therefore we have the lower bound
e1 )v0p−1 + 2(1 − ω
2(|t0 − r0 |p−1 (1 − ω̃1 ) + |t0 + r0 |p−1 (1 + ω̃1 ) + 2) ≥ 2(1 + ω e1 )up−1
0

e1 )v0p−1 + 2up−1
≥ (1 + ω 0

e1 ∈ [−1, 1]. In view of Proposition 3.1, we derive that

for ω
Z
e1 )v0p−1 + up−1
((1 + ω 0 )|φ|p+1 dσ (18)
N (q)
−
Z
≤2 (|t0 − r0 |p−1 (1 − ω̃1 ) + |t0 + r0 |p−1 (1 + ω̃1 ) + 2)|φ|p+1 dσ
N − (q)

≤ CE0,2 .
We first consider the case when 1 < p < 2. In the exterior region when t0 ≤ r0 , note that the backward
light cone N − (q) entirely locates in the region {x1 ≥ t}. Moreover
4(1 + r0 + t0 ω e1 )v0 + 2(1 − ω
e1 ) = 2(1 + ω e1 )u0 ≥ (1 + ω
e1 )(v0 + u0 ) + (1 − ω
e1 )u0 = (1 + ω
e1 )v0 + 2u0
e1 ∈ [−1, 1]. Then by Proposition 3.1 as well as the standard energy estimate, we have
for ω
Z Z
p+1
e1 )v0 + u0 )|φ| dσ ≤ 4
((1 + ω e1 )|φ|p+1 dσ ≤ CE0,2 .
(1 + r0 + t0 ω
N − (q) N − (q)

Under the coordinates centered at q, the surface measure dσ can be written as r̃2 dr̃dω̃. By using the
integration bound (16) with γ = p, we can estimate that
Z
| |φ|p−1 φ r̃dr̃dω̃|
N − (q)
Z ! p+1
p
Z ! p+1
1

. e1 )v0 + u0 )|φ|p+1 r̃2 dr̃dω̃

((1 + ω · e1 )v0 + u0 )−p r̃1−p dr̃dω̃
((1 + ω
N − (q) N − (q)
Z t0  p+1
1
p
. (E0,2 ) p+1 v0−1 u1−p
0 r̃1−p dr̃
0
p
  p+1
1

. (E0,2 ) p+1 v0−1 u1−p

0 t2−p
0
p 1−p
. (E0,2 ) p+1 (u0 v0 ) p+1 .

13
In particular, the solution φ verifies the following decay estimate in the exterior region
1−p p 1−p 1 p
1
|φ(t0 , x0 )| . v0−1 (E1,2 ) 2 + (u0 v0 ) p+1 (E0,2 ) p+1 . (u0 v0 ) p+1 (E1,2
2 p+1
+ E0,2 ).

In the interior region when t0 ≥ r0 , we rely on the following improved weighted energy estimate
Z
((1 + ωe1 )(v0p−1 + r̃up−2
0 ) + up−1
0 )|φ|p+1 dσ ≤ CE0,2 . (19)
N − (q)

In fact, from the above weighted energy estimate (18), we conclude that
Z Z
e1 )r̃up−2
(1 + ω 0 |φ| p+1
dσ ≤ 2 up−1
0 |φ|p+1 dσ ≤ CE0,2 . (20)
N − (q)∩{(1+e
ω1 )r̃≤2u0 } N − (q)

On the other hand, for the point (t, x) ∈ N − (q) such that (1 + ω
e1 )r̃ ≥ 2u0 , note that

(t, x) = (t0 + e
t, r0 + x
e1 , x e3 ) = (t0 − re, r0 + reω
e2 , x e1 , reω
e2 , reω
e3 ), 0 ≤ re = −e
t ≤ t0

In particular we have
x1 − t = r0 − t0 + (1 + ω
e1 )r̃ ≥ 1 − u0 + 2u0 > 0.
This shows that
N − (q) ∩ {(1 + ω
e1 )r̃ ≥ 2u0 } ⊂ N − (q) ∩ {x1 ≥ t}.
Moreover note that
1 1
r0 + t0 ω̃1 = r0 − t0 + (1 + ω
e1 )t0 = 1 − u0 + (1 + ω
e1 )t0 ≥ − (1 + ω
e1 )r̃ + (1 + ω
e1 )r̃ = (1 + ω
e1 )r̃.
2 2
Since p ≤ 2 and u0 ≥ 1, by Proposition 3.1, we can show that
Z Z
e1 )r̃up−2
(1 + ω 0 |φ| p+1
dσ ≤ (1 + ωe1 )r̃|φ|p+1 dσ (21)
N (q)∩{(1+e
− ω1 )r̃≥2u0 } N (q)∩{(1+e
− ω1 )r̃≥2u0 }
Z
≤2 |r0 + t0 ω̃1 ||φ|p+1 dσ
N − (q)∩{x1 ≥t}

≤ CE0,2 .

The improved estimate (19) then follows from (18), (20) and (21).
Now using the integration bound (16) with γ = p, we can show that
Z
| |φ|p−1 φ r̃dr̃dω̃|
N − (q)
Z ! p+1
p

. ((1 + e1 )(v0p−1
ω + r̃up−2
0 ) + up−1
0 )|φ|p+1 2
r̃ dr̃dω̃ ·
N − (q)

Z ! p+1
1

((1 + e1 )(v0p−1
ω + r̃up−2
0 ) + up−1
0 )−p r̃1−p dr̃dω̃
N − (q)
Z t0  p+1
1
p −(p−1)2 1−p
.(E0,2 ) p+1 (v0p−1 + r̃up−2
0 )−1 u0 r̃ dr̃
0
  1
p
−(p−1)2 (p−2)2 −(p−1)2 p+1
.(E0,2 ) p+1 v0 u0 u0
2
p − (p−1)
p+1
3−2p
=(E0,2 ) p+1 v0 u0p+1 .

14
Here we used the fact that for positive constants A > 0, B > 0, it holds that
Z +∞ Z +∞
−1 1−p −1
(A + r̃B) r̃ dr̃ = A (A/B) 2−p
(1 + z)−1 z 1−p dz = Cp A1−p B p−2
0 0

for some constant Cp depending only on p.

Therefore the solution φ satisfies the following estimate in the interior region
2 2
1 − (p−1) 3−2p p
− (p−1) 3−2p 1 p

|φ(t0 , x0 )| . v0−1 E1,2

2
+ v0 p+1
u0p+1 E0,2
p+1
. v0 p+1
u0p+1 (E1,2
2 p+1
+ E0,2 ).

By our convention, the implicit constant relies only on p. Recall the definition of u0 , v0 , r0 . We have
shown the desired pointwise estimates for the solution of the main Theorem 1.1 for all 1 < p < 2.

Finally to finish the proof for the main Theorem, it remains to discuss the end point case when p = 2.
Fix time T > 0. Define

M= sup |φ(t, x)|.

0≤t≤T,x∈R3

In view of Remark 1.2, M is finite for all T > 0. Choose small constant ǫ such that 0 < ǫ < 21 . From the
weighted energy estimate (18) as well as the integration bound (16), similarly we can show that
Z Z
| |φ|φ r̃dr̃dω̃| ≤ M ǫ |φ|2−ǫ r̃dr̃dω̃
N − (q) N − (q)
Z ! 2−ǫ
3
ǫ 3 2
.M ((1 + ω
e1 )v0 + u0 )|φ| r̃ dr̃dω̃
N − (q)

Z ! 1+ǫ
3
− 2−ǫ − 1−2ǫ
· ((1 + ω
e1 )v0 + u0 ) 1+ǫ r̃ 1+ǫ dr̃dω̃
N − (q)
Z t0  1+ǫ
3
2−ǫ − 1−2ǫ 1−2ǫ
. M E0,2ǫ 3
v0−1 u0 1+ǫ r̃− 1+ǫ dr̃
0
 1−2ǫ 3ǫ
 1+ǫ
3
2−ǫ
−1 − 1+ǫ 1+ǫ
. M ǫ E0,2 3
v0 u0 t0
2−ǫ 1−2ǫ
. M ǫ E0,23 (u0 v0 )− 3 .

Since 0 < ǫ < 1/2, this shows that

1 2−ǫ 1−2ǫ 1 2−ǫ
|φ(t0 , x0 )| . v0−1 E1,2
2
+ M ǫ E0,23 (u0 v0 )− 3 . E1,2
2
+ M ǫ E0,23 .

Hence taking supreme in terms of t0 , x0 and in view of the definition for M , we derive that
1 2−ǫ
M . E1,2
2
+ M ǫ E0,23 ,

from which we conclude that

1 2−ǫ
3(1−ǫ)
M . E1,2
2
+ E0,2 .

Here we note that p = 2. This leads to the pointwise estimate for the solution for the case p = 2
1 2−ǫ 1 2−ǫ
1−2ǫ 1−2ǫ
|φ(t0 , x0 )| . v0−1 E1,2
2
+ M ǫ E0,23 (u0 v0 )− 3 . (u0 v0 )− 3 (E1,2
2 3(1−ǫ)
+ E0,2 ).

From the proof, we see that the implicit constant relies only on p and ǫ. We thus finished the proof for
the main Theorem 1.1.

15
References
[1] J. Baez, I. Segal, and Z. Zhou. The global Goursat problem and scattering for nonlinear wave
equations. J. Funct. Anal., 93(2):239–269, 1990.

[2] R. Bieli and N. Szpak. Large data pointwise decay for defocusing semilinear wave equations. 2010.
arXiv:1002.3623.
[3] M. Dafermos and I. Rodnianski. A new physical-space approach to decay for the wave equation with
applications to black hole spacetimes. In XVIth International Congress on Mathematical Physics,
pages 421–432. World Sci. Publ., Hackensack, NJ, 2010.

[4] F.Merle, P. Raphael, I. Rodnianski, and J. Szeftel. On blow up for the energy super critical defocusing
non linear Schrödinger equations . 2019. arXiv:1912.11005.
[5] J. Ginibre and G. Velo. The global Cauchy problem for the nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation. Math.
Z., 189(4):487–505, 1985.
[6] J. Ginibre and G. Velo. Conformal invariance and time decay for nonlinear wave equations. I, II.
Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Phys. Théor., 47(3):221–261, 263–276, 1987.

[7] R. Glassey and H. Pecher. Time decay for nonlinear wave equations in two space dimensions.
Manuscripta Math., 38(3):387–400, 1982.
[8] M. Grillakis. Regularity and asymptotic behaviour of the wave equation with a critical nonlinearity.
Ann. of Math. (2), 132(3):485–509, 1990.
[9] K. Hidano. Scattering problem for the nonlinear wave equation in the finite energy and conformal
charge space. J. Funct. Anal., 187(2):274–307, 2001.

[10] L. Kapitanski. Global and unique weak solutions of nonlinear wave equations. Math. Res. Lett.,
1(2):211–223, 1994.
[11] H. Lindblad and T. Tao. Asymptotic decay for a one-dimensional nonlinear wave equation. Anal.
PDE, 5(2):411–422, 2012.
[12] C. S. Morawetz. The limiting amplitude principle. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 15:349–361, 1962.
[13] H. Pecher. Decay of solutions of nonlinear wave equations in three space dimensions. J. Funct.
Anal., 46(2):221–229, 1982.
[14] W. Strauss. Decay and asymptotics for cmu = F (u). J. Functional Analysis, 2:409–457, 1968.
[15] D. Wei and S. Yang. On the global behaviors for defocusing semilinear wave equations in R1+2 .
Analysis & PDE. to appear.
[16] D. Wei and S. Yang. Asymptotic decay for defocusing semilinear wave equations in R1+1 . Ann.
PDE, 7(9):3, 2021.
[17] S. Yang. Global behaviors for defocusing semilinear wave equations. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér.
(4). to appear.
[18] S. Yang. Pointwise decay for semilinear wave equations in R1+3 . 2019. arXiv:1908.00607.

School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China

Email: jnwdyi@pku.edu.cn
Beijing International Center for Mathematical Research, Peking University, Beijing, China
Email: shiwuyang@math.pku.edu.cn

16