light ray - with examples - arxiv version

SUPPORT THEOREM FOR THE LIGHT RAY TRANSFORM OF VECTOR FIELDS

ON MINKOWSKI SPACES

SIAMAK RABIENIAHARATBAR

Abstract. We study the Light Ray transform of integrating vector fields on the Minkowski time-space

R1+n, n ≥ 2, with the Minkowski metric. We prove a support theorem for vector fields vanishing on anopen set of light-like geodesics. We provide examples to illustrate the application of our results to the inverse

problem for the hyperbolic Dirichlet-to-Neumann map.

1. Introduction

Let (M, g) be a Lorentzian manifold of dimension 1 + n, n ≥ 2, with a lorentzian metric g of signature(−,+, ...,+). Given a weight κ ∈ C∞(M × Sn−1), in general, the weighted Light Ray transform of a vectorfield f is defined by:

11 (1.1) Lκf(γ) =

∫κ(γ(s), γ′(s))fi(γ(s))γ′

i(s) ds,

where γ = γx,θ is the family of future pointing light-like geodesics (null-geodesics) on M in the direction of(1, θ), θ ∈ Sn−1. We choose a certain parametrization for the family of light-like geodesics γ. Since f is avector field of order one, it is invariant under the re-scaling.

Light Ray transform has been attracting a growing interest recently, due to its wide range of applications.One major application of this transform is in the study of hyperbolic equations with time-dependent coeffi-cients to recover the lower order terms from boundary or scattering information, see, e.g.,[36, 29, 28, 44, 45,30, 4, 13] and also recovering the lower order terms of time-independent hyperbolic equations [3,23].

In the case where f is a function and supported in the cylinder R × B(0, R) with tempered growth inthe Minkowski space, Stefanov in [34] has shown that Lf determines f uniquely. The fact that Lf recovers

the Fourier transform f of f (w.r.t. all variables) in the space-like cone |τ | < |ξ| in a stable way is usedto show that the potential in the wave equation is uniquely determined by the scattering data. Moreover,

since f(τ, ξ) is analytic in the ξ variable (with values distributions in the τ variable), then one can fill in themissing cone by analytic continuation in the ξ variable. In a recent work by Stefanov[35], analytic microlocalmethods is applied to show support theorems and injectivity of Lκ for analytic metrics and weights (on ananalytic manifolds M) for functions. In particular, the results in [36] are generalized to a local data andindependent of the tempered growth for large t.

Analytic microlocal method were already used in many works. Boman and Quinto in [6, 7] proved supporttheorems for Radon transforms with flat geometry and analytic weights (see also [27]). For related resultsusing same techniques, we refer to [19, 20] where the support theorem is proved on simple analytic manifolds(see also [9]). Uhlmann and Vasy in [42] used the scattering calculus to prove a support theorem in theRiemannian case near a strictly convex point of a hypersurface in dimensions n ≥ 3 without the analyticitycondition (see also [38, 39, 40]).

Analytic and non-analytic microlocal analysis have been used to prove the injectivity and stability esti-mates for tensor fields of order two and higher. For the tensor fields of order two, Pestov and Uhlmann in[25] proved the unique recovery of Riemannian metric on a compact and simple Riemannian surface withboundary. See also Sharafautdinov [33] for related results. More general result on injectivity up to potential

Date: November 3, 2016.Partly supported by a NSF Grant DMS 1301646 and DMS 1600327.

1

2 S. RABIENIAHARATBAR

fields of the geodesic ray transform for tensor fields of any order on Riemannian can be found in [24]. In[39, 40], a generic s-injectivity up to potential fields and a stability estimate are established on a compactRiemannian manifold M with non-necessarily convex boundary and with possible conjugate points. Mi-crolocal method for tomographic problems is used to detect singularities of the Lorentzian metric of theUniverse using measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation in [21]. It is describedin [22] which singularities are visible and which cannot be detected. In [20], a Helgasons type of supporttheorem is proved for the geodesic ray transform of symmetric 2-tensor fields on a Riemannian manifolds(with boundary) with a real-analytic metric g. It is shown that the tensor field can be recovered up to apotential fields. In [16], authors studied the problem of recovery of a co-vector fields on simple Riemannianmanifold with weight. Under some condition on weight, the recovery up to potential field and uniquenessare shown. See also [8], for the inversion of three dimensional X-ray transform of symmetric tensor fields ofany order with sources on a curve.

Our main goal in this paper is to study the local and analytic microlocal invertibility of the operator Lacting on vector fields on the Minkowski time-space R1+n when the weight κ is simply one. We study thefollowing operator L:

22 (1.2) Lf(x, θ) =

∫f(s, x+ sθ) · (1, θ) ds,

where γ = γx,θ = (s, x + sθ) is the family of future pointing light-like geodesics (null-geodesics) on theMinkowski time-space R1+n in the direction of (1, θ), with |θ| = 1. Note that above operator is a specialcase of the operator defined in (

11.1).

The main novelty of our work is that Lf is known only over an open set of light-like geodesics, Γ, on theMinkowski time-space R1+n (the Incomplete data case). Our results can be considered as a Helgason’s typesupport theorems. The global invertibility (injectivity) of the operator L (the Complete data case) up topotential fields is already established, see for example [8, 46].

We generalize the method used in [35] to study the stable recovery of the analytic wave front-set of vectorfield f instead of functions, and prove the support theorems in the Minkowski time-space R1+n. For ourpurpose, we first introduce the Transverse Ray transform studied by Sharafutdinov in [33], and apply theanalytic stationary phase approach by Sjostrand [34] already used by the Stefanov [35] and Uhlmann in [40](see also [9, 19, 20]), to prove our results.

This paper is organized as follow: Section one is an introduction. In section two we state some definitionsand our main result. Fourier analysis of the light ray transform L in the Minkowski time-space R1+n isstudied in section three. In section four, we consider the partial data and therefore apply analytic micro-local analysis and stationary phase method to recover the analytic wave front of vector field f . In sectionfive, we state an analytic continuation result and we prove our main theorem. Our examples in the lastsection illustrate how our result imply the inverse recovery of a smooth potential field for the hyperbolicDirichlet-to-Neumann map.

2. Main Result

We first state some definitions and a proposition which are necessary for our main results.

Definition 2.1. We call vectors v = (v0, v′) space-like if |v0| < |v′|. Vectors with |v0| > |v′| are called

time-like. Light-like vectors are those for which we have |v0| = |v′|. We have the same definition for theco-vectors.

Definition 2.2. We say the set K is Light-like convex if for any two pints in K, the light-like geodesicconnecting them lies in K.

Definition 2.3. Let K be a subset of Minkowski time-space R1+n. We say K expands with a speed lessthan one if

K ⊂ (t, x) : |x| 6 C|t|+R, for some 0 < C < 1 , R > 0.

SUPPORT THEOREM FOR THE LIGHT RAY TRANSFORM 3

This definition allows us to integrate over a compact interval. In fact, since γx,θ 6∈ supp f for (x, θ) near(x0, θ0), we may have the support as a compact set multiplying f by a smooth cut-off χ where χ = 1 in aneighborhood of (x0, θ0).

In what follows we study the operator (21.2) and state the following proposition, see [37, Proposition 2.8],

which motivates us to introduce the transverse ray operator I.

Proposition 2.1. Let f = (f0, f1, f2) ∈ C2(R3,C3) be such that |f | and |∂fi/∂xi| are bounded by C(1 +|x|)−1−ε with some C > 0, ε > 0. Then for any z,

33 (2.1) ∂1Lf(x, θ) =

∫γx,θ

(∂1f0 − ∂tf1) + θ2(∂1f2 − ∂2f1) ds =

∫γx,θ

−c2 + θ2c0 ds.

and

44 (2.2) ∂2Lf(x, θ) =

∫γx,θ

(∂2f0 − ∂tf2) + θ1(∂2f1 − ∂1f2) ds =

∫γx,θ

c1 − θ1c0 ds.

where (c0, c1, c2) =: Curl f .

Proof. Let n ≥ 2 be arbitrary first. Fix (1, θ) ∈ R×Sn−1, and let f ∈ C1(R1+n,C1+n) , and v ∈ Rn. Then

(v.∇x)Lf(x, θ) =

∫R

(v.∇x)f(s, x+ sθ).(1, θ)ds.

On the other hand, by the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus we have∫R

d

ds[f(s, x+ sθ).(0, v)] ds = 0.

Subtracting above identities, we get

(v.∇x)Lf(x, θ) =

∫R

((0, v).∇z)f(s, x+ sθ).(1, θ)− d

ds[f(s, x+ sθ).(0, v)] ds.

Now let n = 2, then for the R.H.S of above identity after simplification we get∫γx,θ

v1∂1f0 + v1θ2∂1f2 + v2∂2f0 + v2θ1∂2f1 − [v1∂tf1 + v2∂tf2 + v2θ1∂1f2 + v1θ2∂2f1] ds,

which can be written as

55 (2.3) (v.∇x)Lf(x, θ) =

∫γx,θ

−c2v1 + c1v2 + c0(v1θ2 − v2θ1) ds =

∫γx,θ

Curl f · (v · θ⊥, v⊥) ds

where (v · θ⊥, v⊥) ∈ R × S1, v = (v1, v2), θ⊥ = (θ2,−θ1), and γx,θ is the light-like geodesics parameterizedby their points of intersection with t = 0 and direction (1, θ). Note that (v · θ⊥, v⊥) · (1, θ) = 0.

Now take v = (1, 0) to have the first equality, and v = (0, 1) to get the second equality in the proposition.

Remark 2.1. i) Note that we may also have the above proposition for all n ≥ 3 when the light-like geodesicsare restricted to three dimensional planes.

ii) In (52.3) We may replace (v · θ⊥, v⊥) by general vectors ω orthogonal to (1, θ). To do so we need to find

v such that for a given ω ∈ (1, θ)⊥ we have

ω0 = v · θ⊥, and ω′ = v⊥.

Now setting v = −(ω′)⊥ solves the problem.

This motivates us to introduce the following operator I which is called the Transverse Ray transform [see33, Section 5.1]:

Ih(x, θ, ω) :=

∫γx,θ

h · ω ds, where x ∈ Rn, θ ∈ Sn−1, and ω ∈ (1, θ)⊥.


For n ≥ 3, h is the generalization of Curl given by the exterior derivative of the vector field f , df . In fact,one can associate a 1-form to the vector field f and then take the exterior derivative of the 1-form to get a2-form as follow:

df =∑

k<j=0,1,2,3,...,n

ck,j dxk ∧ dxj , where ck,j = ∂jfk − ∂kfj .

Now ck,j are the components of the generalized Curl of the vector field f .From now on, when n ≥ 3, by h = df we mean the generalized Curl as we pointed above. In the case

n = 2, h is just Curl f . Notice that the way the operator I is constructed in proposition 2.1, clearly Ih = 0when Lf = 0.

One major advantage of using the operator I instead of the operator L is the fact that we may drop thesolenoidal condition for the vector field as it will be clear in the following lemma. We may think of theoperator I as a vector valued operator with image projected to the space (1, θ)⊥. So we may drop the ω inIh(x, θ, ω) in the definition. From now on we always assume that ω is in the set (1, θ)⊥.

Our main result is a support theorem in the spirit of theorem 2.1 [35] as follow:

Theorem 2.1. Let f ∈ E ′(R1+n) be so that supp f expands with a speed less than one. Let (x0, θ0) be afixed light-like line in the Minkowski time-space and let G be an open and connected neighborhood of (x0, θ0)in Rn × Sn−1.If Lf(x, θ) = 0 in G and if γx0,θ0 does not intersect supp df, then none of the geodesics γx,θ, (x, θ) ∈ G,does.

3. Fourier Analysis in the Minkowski case

In this section we consider the case that we have a complete data of the light ray transform over thelight-like geodesics. This will allow us to do the Fourier Analysis by fixing the initial point and stay in asmall neighborhood of the direction (1, θ). As we mentioned above, this case has been already studied. Wedo this analysis to have some insight for the microlocal analysis part of our study.

The following lemma is some preliminary results that the operator I recovers the Fourier transform of thefield h, F(h), in the space-like cone (τ, ξ) : |τ | < |ξ|.

Proposition 3.1. Let h ∈ S(R1+n).i) For n = 2, if Ih(x, θ, ω) = 0 for all x and ω, for θ near ±θ0, then F(h) = 0 for ζ close ζ0, where ζ0 is

the unique space-like vector up to re-scaling with the property (1,±θ0) · ζ0 = 0.

ii) For n ≥ 3, if Ih(x, θ, ω) = 0 for all x and ω, for θ near θ0, then F(h) = 0 for all ζ near the setζ∣∣(1, θ) · ζ = 0.

Proof. i) Case 1: n = 2.Let ζ0 = (τ0, (ξ1)0, (ξ2)0) be a fixed space-like vector and without loss of generality assume that θ0 =

±e2 ∈ R2 such that (1,±θ0) · ζ0 = 0. One has

τ0 ± (ξ2)0 = 0 which implies that τ0 = (ξ2)0 = 0.

So this shows that ζ0 has to be in the form of (0, (ξ1)0, 0) which means that up to re-scaling that is theunique ζ0 with property (1,±θ0)⊥ζ0 = 0. Therefore one may choose ζ0 = e1 ∈ R1+2. Note that this choiceof ζ0 can be done since we may apply Lorentz transform to any fixed space-like vector and transform it toe1.

Since Ih(x, θ, ω) = 0, by the Vectorial Fourier Slice theorem, we have

66 (3.1) ω · h(ζ) = 0, ∀(1, θ)⊥ζ, ∀ω⊥(1, θ).

Clearly ω = (1,−θ) solves ω · (1, θ) = 0, so for ζ0 and θ0 we have

77 (3.2) (1, 0,∓1) · h(e1) = 0, which implies that h0(e1) = h2(e1) = 0.


On the other hand, ω = (0, θ⊥) ∈ (1, θ)⊥, so plugging into (63.1) we get

(0, θ⊥) · h(ζ) = 0.(3.3)

Now our choice of fixed ζ0 = e1 implies that h1(ζ0) = 0, and therefore F(h)(ζ0) = 0.Now let ζ = (τ, ξ) be any nonzero space-like vector. For ξ ∈ R2, having the equation (1, θ) · ζ = 0, we

solve for θ. Set θ = aξ + bξ⊥.

−τ = θ · ξ = (aξ + bξ⊥) · ξ = a|ξ|2 =⇒ a =−τ|ξ|2

.

On the other hand,

1 = |θ|2 = (a2 + b2)|ξ|2 =⇒ b = ± 1

|ξ|2√−τ2 + |ξ|2.

For ξ ∈ R2, we set

88 (3.4) θ = θ±(ζ) =1

|ξ|2(−τξ1 ∓

√−τ2 + |ξ|2ξ2,−τξ2 ±

√−τ2 + |ξ|2ξ1).

Clearly (1, θ±(ζ)) · ζ = 0 and θ± are the only two choices with the property |θ±(ζ)| = 1. In order to have ζclose to ζ0 = e1: we need to have θ1

± = 0, so we have

−τξ1 ∓√−τ2 + |ξ|2ξ2 = 0.

Now since ζ is a space-like vector,√−τ2 + |ξ|2 is non-zero which implies that τξ1 = ξ2 = 0. Now ξ1 cannot

be zero as we would have√−τ2. So this implies that τ = 0 which shows ζ close to ζ0 = e1. This implies

that θ = θ±(ζ) is analytic near ζ0 = e1 ∈ R1+2 with θ±(ζ0) = θ0 = ±e2 ∈ R2, and therefore θ±(ζ) is withina neighborhood of ±θ0, θ ≈ ±θ0, if ζ is within a neighborhood of ζ0, ζ ≈ ζ0. Considering our choices ofdirection θ±(ζ), (

63.1) can be written as

99 (3.5) h0(ζ) +1

|ξ|2(−τξ1 +

√−τ2 + |ξ|2ξ2)h1(ζ) +

1

|ξ|2(−τξ2 −

√−τ2 + |ξ|2ξ1)h2(ζ) = 0,

and

1010 (3.6) h0(ζ) +1

|ξ|2(−τξ1 −

√−τ2 + |ξ|2ξ2)h1(ζ) +

1

|ξ|2(−τξ2 +

√−τ2 + |ξ|2ξ1)h2(ζ) = 0.

Subtracting (93.5) and (

103.6) we get

1111 (3.7) ξ2h1(ζ)− ξ1h2(ζ) = 0.

Multiplying (93.5) by ξ1 and using (

113.7), we get

1212 (3.8) τ h1(ζ)− ξ1h0(ζ) = 0.

Similarly multiplying (93.5) by ξ2 and using (

113.7) we get

1313 (3.9) τ h2(ζ)− ξ2h0(ζ) = 0.

Now the way the operator I is constructed, ω is normal to (1, θ), so in (63.1) we may choose ω = ζ. Therefore

we get

1414 (3.10) ζ · h(ζ) = τ h0 + ξ1h1 + ξ2h2 = 0.

Now multiplying equation (143.10) by ξ1 and using Equations (

113.7), (

123.8), and (

133.9) we have

1515 (3.11) 0 = ξ1(τ h0 + ξ1h1 + ξ2h2) = (τ2 + (ξ1)2 + (ξ2)2)h1 = |ζ|2h1.

Since ζ is a space-like vector and therefore nonzero, we get h1 = 0. Now using equations (113.7), (

123.8), and

(133.9) again we get F(h)(ζ) = 0

ii) Case 2: n > 3.


For now let n = 3 and ζ = ζ0 be a fixed nonzero space-like vector. Applying the Lorentz transformation,we may assume that ζ0 = e2 := (0, 0, 1, 0) ∈ R1+3. Now we set

θ1 = sin(a)e1 + cos(a)e3 = (sin(a), 0, cos(a)).

Clearly∣∣θ1(a)| = 1, θ0 = θ1(0) = e3, and (1, θ1(a)) · ζ0 = 0.

Since Ih(x, θ) = 0, by Vectorial Fourier slice theorem, equation (63.1), for ω = (1,−θ) near a = 0 we have

1616 (3.12) (1,−θ1(a)) · h(ζ0) = 0.

We may rewrite (163.12) as

1717 (3.13) h0(ζ0)− sin(a)h1(ζ0)− cos(a)h3(ζ0) = 0.

Differentiate w.r.t a we get

1818 (3.14) − cos(a)h1(ζ0) + sin(a)h3(ζ0) = 0.

Differentiate one more time w.r.t a we get

1919 (3.15) sin(a)h1(ζ0) + cos(a)h3(ζ0) = 0.

So near a = 0 for a fixed co-vetor ζ0 = e2, one may conclude that, h0(ζ0) = h1(ζ0) = h3(ζ0) = 0. On theother hand, by similar argument as for equation (

143.10), we may choose ω = ζ in (

63.1) to get

0 = ζ · h(ζ) = τ h0 + ξ1h1 + ξ2h2 + ξ3h3,

and our choice of fixed ζ0 = e2 implies that h2(ζ0) = 0, and therefore F(h)(ζ0) = 0.

To have the result for an arbitrary ζ, we use the fact that the Lorentz transformation is transitive androtates every space-like vector to a space-like vector. Let Lζ0 be a Lorentzian transformation with theproperty Lζ0ζ = ζ0 = e2 and let L with Ly = x be a lorentz trasformation whose representation in Fourierdomain is given by Lζ0 . By the definition of Fourier transform one has

2020 (3.16) F(hL(.))(ζ) =

∫h(Ly)eiy·ζdy =

∫h(x)eiL

−1x·ζ∣∣detL−1∣∣dx =

∫h(x)e

ix·L−Tζ0

ζ∣∣detL−1∣∣dx.

Therefore

2121 (3.17) F(hL(.))(ζ) =∣∣detL−1

∣∣F(h)(L−T ζ).

But LT = L and L−1(ζ) = ζ0, hence

2222 (3.18) F(hL(.))(ζ) =∣∣detL−1

∣∣F(h)(ζ0) = 0,

since F(h)(ζ0) = 0. This proves for any space-like co-vector ζ near ζ0, the Fourier transform of h vanishesas desired.

In general case n > 3, let θk(a) = cos(a)e1 + sin(a)ek+1 ∈ Rn∣∣k = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n − 2 be a collection of

independent unit vectors with θ0 = θk(0) = (1, 0, . . . , 0) = e1 ∈ Rn(only n− 2 independent unit vectors areneeded.)

Now differentiating (163.12) once and twice (as we did for the case n = 3) for all (1, θk(a))⊥ζ, k =

1, 2, 3, . . . , n−2, near a = 0, we conclude that hi vanishes for a fixed co-vector ζ0 = en (i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , n−1).Now for any arbitrary ζ, similar what we discussed above, we may apply a Lorentzian transformation totransform the coordinate system to our fixed system of coordinate to conclude that F(h)(ζ) = 0.

Corollary 3.1. Let f ∈ C∞0 (R1+n).

i) For n = 2, if Lf(x, θ) = 0 for θ near ±θ0, then f is a smooth potential field with compact support, i.e.,f = dφ with some φ(x)→ 0, as |x| → ∞.


ii) For n > 3, if Lf(x, θ) = 0 for θ near θ0, then f is a smooth potential field with compact support, i.e.,f = dφ with some φ(x)→ 0, as |x| → ∞.

Proof. i) Set h = Curl f . By assumption Lf(x, θ) = 0 near ±θ0 so Ih(x, θ, ω) = 0. By the first part ofproposition 3.1 we get F(Curl f) = 0. Since f ∈ C∞0 (R1+2), we extend f as zero outside of the supp f .Now by analyticity of Fourier transform, F(Curl f) is zero every where. Applying inverse Fourier transformimplies that Curl f = 0 every where. Now since the space R1+2 is a simply connected domain, there existsa finite smooth function φ such that f = dφ; In fact let x ∈ supp f and x0 be a point outside of supp f , andassume c(t) be a path connecting x0 to x. We define φ as follow:

φ(x) =

∫ x

x0

f(c(t)) · c′(t)dt+ φ(x0).

ii) Set h = df . Similar argument as part (i) proves df = 0 and therefore f is a smooth potential vectorfield with compact support.

Remark 3.1. Notice that, by Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the potential field is in the kernel of theoperator L, so one could only hope to recover Curl f for n = 2, and work on subspaces ro recove df whenn ≥ 3.

Remark 3.2. For n = 2 there are two discrete choices of directions, ±θ0, and this is necessary to have theresult. For n ≥ 3, however, only one direction is enough as we may consider a one parameter family, θ(a),near θ0.

Now we give an example which shows that one cannot decrease the number of directions from two to one.Let ζ be a space-like vector and φ ∈ S be supported in the interior of open cone |τ | < |ξ|. Now set

2323 (3.19) η = f(ζ) = (1,ξ2√

−τ2 + |ξ|2,

−ξ1√−τ2 + |ξ|2

)φ(ζ).

Clearly η is a non-zero vector field in the Schwartz space S and is in the kernel of the light ray transform

as it solves (1, θ+(ζ)) · f(ζ) = 0 but not (1, θ−(ζ)) · f(ζ) = 0, where θ± is defined by (83.4). Note that this

example does not provide a compactly supported vector field.So, it is insufficient to have only one direction to recover the vector field. This is due the fact that, in the

Minkowski space of signature 1 + 2 the intersection of light-like cone and time variable is just two points.This is an obstruction to consider only one ray and stay close to it to do the reconstruction. As we seebelow, this is not the case for the Minkowski space of signature 1 + 3 or higher as we can stay close to afixed direction and do the recovering process.

In the next section we state a theorem on the recovery of analytic space-like singularities in the Minkowskicase which is a tool to prove our main result.

4. Microlocal Recovery of Analytic wave frontset

We, here, mainly follow the analytic microlocal analysis argument to show that we can recover all space-like analytic singularities of h co-normal to the light-like lines along with integration for operator I. (seealso [35, lemma 3.1])

Theorem 4.1. Let h ∈ E ′(R1+n) and let γx0,θ0 be a fixed light-like line so that γx,θ(s) 6∈ supph for |s| ≥ 1/Cwith some C for all (x, θ) near (x0, θ0). Assume that

i) For n = 2, if Ih(x, θ, ω) = 0 for all x, θ near (x0,±θ0), then WFA(h) contains no space-like co-vectorsco-normal to γx0,±θ0 .

ii) For n > 3, if Ih(x, θ, ω) = 0 for all x, θ near (x0, θ0), then WFA(h) contains no space-like co-vectorsco-normal to γx0,θ0 .


Proof. i) Let n = 2 and Ih = 0 only near γx0,θ0 so the localization is needed. We choose a local chart forthe geodesics close to γx0,θ0 , and without loss of generality we may assume that x0 = 0 and θ0 = ±e2. Sowe have γ0 = γ0,e2 = (s, 0, s).

Let ζ0 6= 0 be a space-like vector, co-normal to γ0 at x0 = 0, with (1, θ0)⊥ζ0. Applying the Lorentztransformation, we may assume that ζ0 = e1 := (0, 1, 0) ∈ R1+2. Our goal is to show that (0, ζ0) 6∈WFA(h).

Let χN ∈ C∞0 (R2) be supported in B(0, ε), ε > 0, with χN = 1 near x0 = 0 so that

2424 (4.1) |∂αxχN | ≤ (CN)|α|, for |α| ≤ N.

Then for 0 < ε 1, λ > 0, and θ close to θ0,

0 =

∫eiλx·ξ(χNIh)(x, θ, ω) dx =

∫∫eiλx·ξχN (x)h(γx,θ(s)) · ω dsdx.

If (1, θ) · ζ = 0 with ζ = (τ, ξ), then γx,θ · ζ = (s, x + sθ) · ζ = x · ξ. Make a change of variables z = γx,θ inthe integral above to get

2525 (4.2) 0 =


∫eiλx(z,θ)·ξaN (z, θ)hi(z)ω

i,dz =

∫eiλz·ζaN (z, θ)hi(z)ω

i,dz,

if (1, θ) · ζ = 0 and for all ω⊥(1, θ). Notice that aN (0, θ) = 1.Now let ζ be a space-like co-vector near ζ0 and set θ = θ±(ζ) as we introduced in (

83.4). As it is mentioned

earlier, ω = (1,−θ) ∈ (1, θ)⊥. So we set

ω = ω(ζ) = (1,−θ±(ζ)) = (1, θ∓(ζ)),

and plug it into in the equation (254.2) to get

2626 (4.3)

∫eiλz·ζ aN (z, ζ)hi(z)(1, θ∓(ζ))i dz = 0, near ζ = e1.

Note that aN (z, ζ) = aN (z, θ) where aN (0, ζ) = 1. Note also that for ζ ≈ ζ0, we have ω(ζ) ≈ (1,±θ0). As itwill be clear later, we make another setting for ω to have an elliptic system to conclude the first part of thetheorem.

In the next step we will apply the complex stationary phase method [of Sjostrand [34], similar to the casewhere it is applied to the Caldern problem with partial data in [17] and to the integral geometry problem in[9, 40].] Therefore we need to analyze the phase function and its critical points.

Fix 0 < δ 1 and let χδ be the characteristic function of the unit ball B(0, δ) in R1+2. With some w,η ∈ R1+2 close to w = 0, η = e1, multiply the l.h.s. of (

264.3) by

2727 (4.4) χδ(ζ − η)eiλ(i(ζ−η)2/2−w·ζ)

and integrate w.r.t. ζ to get

2828 (4.5)

∫∫eiλΦ(z,w,ζ,η)bN (z, ζ, η)hi(z)(1, θ∓(ζ))i dz dζ = 0,

where bN = χδ(ζ − η)aN is a new amplitude and

Φ = (z − w) · ζ + i(ζ − η)2/2.

Now consider the phase function ζ → Φ. If w = z, there is a unique real critical point ζc = η, and it satisfies=Φζζ > 0 at ζ = ζc. For w 6= z, the phase Φ, as function of ζ, has a unique critical point ζc = η + i(z − w).

Now we split the z integral (284.5) into two parts: over z; |z − w| 6 δ/C0, for some C0 > 1, and then

over the complement of that set. Since |Φζ | has a (δ-dependent) positive lower bound for |z − w| > δ/C0(for ζ real) and there is no real critical point for the function ζ → Φ in this set, we can estimate that part ofintegral. Since

2929 (4.6) eiλΦ =(Φ)c

ζ · ∂ζiλ|Φζ |2

eiλΦ,


using estimate (244.1), integration by parts N-times w.r.t. ζ, and the fact that on the boundary |ζ − η| = δ,

the factor eiλΦ is exponentially small with λ, we get

3030 (4.7)∣∣∣ ∫∫

|z−w|>δ/C0

eiλΦ(z,w,ζ,η)bN (z, ζ, η)hi(z)(1, θ∓(ζ))i dz dζ∣∣∣ ≤ C(CN/λ)N + CNe−λ/C .

Now on the set z; |z − w| 6 δ/C, C 1, we apply the complex stationary phase method for the restof ζ-integral in (

284.5). To estimate (

284.5) for |z − w| ≤ δ/C0 we set

3131 (4.8) ψ(z, w, η) = Φ|ζ=ζc .

Therefore,

ψ = η · (z − w) + i|z − w|2 − i

2|z − w|2 = η · (z − w) +

i

2|z − w|2.

Clearly the new phase function ψ(z, w, η) satisfies

3232 (4.9) ψz(z, z, ζ) = ζ, ψw(z, z, ζ) = −ζ, ψ(z, z, ζ) = 0

For (z, ζ) close to (0, e1) we use this phase function and apply [34, Theorem 2.8] and the remark after itto the ζ-integral above to get ∫∫

|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλΦ∓(z,w,ζ,η)bN (z, ζ, η)hi(z)(1, θ∓(ζ))i dz dζ

=

∫|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλΦ(z,w,ζc,η)bN (z, ζc, η)hi(z)(1, θ∓(ζc))i dz

=

∫|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλψ(z,w,η)bλ(z, w, η)hi(z)(1, θ∓(z, w, η))i dz

=

∫|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλψ(z,β)bλ(z, β)hi(z)(1, θ∓(z, β))i dz

=

∫|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλψ(z,β)hi(z)Biλ∓(z, β) dz = O(λn/2(CN/λ)N + CNe−λ/C)

00 (4.10)

where β = (w, η), and B is a classical elliptic analytic symbol of order 0 with principal part equal to (1, θ∓(β))up to an elliptic factor near (z, β) = (0, 0, e1). In particular,

3333 (4.11) σp(Biλ∓(0, 0, e1) ≡ (1, θ∓(0, 0, e1))i = (1, 0,∓1) = (1,∓e2), up to an elliptic factor.

For |z−w| ≤ δ/C0 with δ 1 and |w| 1, η close to e1, the variable (z, β) in (04.10) is near (0, 0, e1) and

then B is independent of N because χN = 1 near the origin. Choose now N so that N ≤ λ/(Ce) ≤ N + 1to get the following exponential error on the right,

3434 (4.12)

∫|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλψ(z,β)hi(z)Biλ∓(z, β) dz = O(e−λ/C)

Since (1,∓e2) are two linearly independent vectors, we have two independent equations(under-determinedsystem). To get an elliptic (determined) system we need one more equation. For this purpose, we use thefact that ω = (0, θ⊥) ∈ (1, θ)⊥. So set

ω = ω(ζ) = (0, (θ+(ζ))⊥),

where θ+(ζ) is defined by (83.4). Notice that for ζ ≈ ζ0, ω(ζ) stays within a neighborhood of ζ0. This implies

that we may choose ω = ω(ζ) = ζ. Now plugging it into in the equation (254.2) gives us

3535 (4.13)

∫|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλψ(z,β)hi(z)Biλ⊥(z, β) dz = O(e−λ/C)

where σp(Biλ⊥)(0, 0, ζ0) = (ζ0)i.


Considering the principal symbols above, to show that they form an elliptic system of equations weconsider the following system of equations. Equations (

344.12) and (

354.13) are equivalent to

3636 (4.14) (1, θ∓(0, 0, e1))ihi = 0 and (e1)ihi = 0, i = 0, 1, 2,

or

3737 (4.15) (1, 0,∓1)ihi = 0, and (0, 1, 0)ihi = 0, i = 0, 1, 2.

This in turn implies that (0, ζ0) 6∈WFA(h) which proves the first part of lemma.

ii) Let n = 3; as we mention later the proof for n > 3 will be in the similar fashion. By assumptionIh(x, θ, ω) = 0 near γx0,θ0 , so localization is needed. We choose a local chart for the geodesics close to γ,and without loss of generality we may assume that x0 = 0 and θ0 = en.

Our goal is to show (0, ζ0) 6∈WFA(h) for ζ0 a non-zero space-like vector and co-normal to γ0 at x0 = 0.Applying the Lorentz transformation, we may assume that ζ0 = en−1 := (0, . . . , 0, 1, 0) ∈ R1+n.

Let χN ∈ C∞0 (Rn) be supported in B(0, ε), ε > 0, with χN = 1 near x0 = 0 so that

3838 (4.16) |∂αxχN | ≤ (CN)|α|, for |α| ≤ N.

Then for 0 < ε 1, λ > 0, and (1, θ) close to (1, θ0),

0 =


∫∫eiλx·ξχN (x)h(γx,θ(s)) · ω ds dx.

Since (1, θ) · ζ = 0 with ζ = (τ, ξ), then γx,θ · ζ = (s, x+ sθ) · ζ = x · ξ. Make a change of variables z = γx,θin the integral above to get

3939 (4.17) 0 =


∫eiλx(z,θ)·ξaN (z, θ)hi(z)ω

i dz =

∫eiλz·ζaN (z, θ)hi(z)ω

i dz,

if (1, θ) · ζ = 0 and ω⊥(1, θ). Notice that aN (0, θ) = 1. Set

4040 (4.18) θk(a, b) = (sin(a) sin(b))ek + (sin(a) cos(b))en−1 + (cos(a))en, k = 1, 2, . . . , n− 2

where b is a non-zero fixed parameter near zero. Clearly∣∣θk(a, b)

∣∣ = 1, θ0 = θk(0, b) = en. On the other

hand, we know that ω = (1, θ) ∈ (1, θ)⊥. So we set

ω = ω(a, b) = (1,−θk(a, b)),

and

4141 (4.19) ζk(a, ξ) = (−τ, ξ) = (−θk(a, b) · ξ, ξ) = (− sin(a) sin(b)ξk − sin(a) cos(b)ξn−1 − cos(a)ξn, ξ).

Note that for ζ ≈ ζ0 (and therefore a ≈ 0), we have θ = θk(a, b) ≈ θ0. Plugging ω into (0.39) we get

4242 (4.20)

∫eiλφ(z,ζ)aN (z, θk(a, b))hi(z)(1,−θk(a, b))i dz = 0, near a = 0,

where φ(z, ζ) = z · ζk(a, ξ), aN (z, θk(a, b)) = χN (x− sθk(a, b)) where aN (0, (a, b)) = 1. Note that

4343 (4.21) φz(0, ζ) = ζ, φzζ = Id.

Later, as we did for the case n = 2, we make another choice for ω to have an elliptic system andtherefore conclude our result for the second part of theorem. The map (a, ξ)→ ζ ∈ R1+n is a local analyticdiffeomorphism near ((0, b), en−1). More precisely, the determinant of the Jacobean associated with the map(a, ξ)→ ζ ∈ R1+n is

sin(b) cos(a)ξk − cos(a) cos(b)ξn−1 + sin(a)ξn,

which is equal to − sin(b)ξk − cos(b)ξn−1 near a = 0. But our choice of ζ0 implies that the determinant is− cos(b) which non-zero when b is a fixed parameter near zero. Hence we may apply the Implicit function


theorem near a = 0 to locally invert the map to ζ → (a, ξ) ∈ R1+n. In fact we can compute it explicitly toget:

a = a(ζ) = − tan−1(ξn

sin(b)ξk + cos(b)ξn−1) + sin−1(− τ√

(sin(b)ξk + cos(b)ξn−1)2 + (ξn)2),

which maps a = 0 to ζ0 diffeomorphically. Therefore we can work in the ζ variables instead of the (a, ξ)ones to get

4444 (4.22)

∫eiλz·ζ aN (z, ζ)hi(z)(1,−θk(ζ))i dz = 0, near ζ = en−1, k = 1, 2, . . . , n− 2,

where aN (z, ζ) = aN (z, θk(a, b)) and aN (0, ζ) = 1.In the next step we will apply the complex stationary phase method [of Sjostrand] which means we need

to analyze the phase function and its critical points.Fix 0 < δ 1 and let χδ be the characteristic function of the unit ball B(0, δ) in R1+n. With some w,

η ∈ R1+n close to w = 0, η = e1, multiply the l.h.s. of (444.22) by

4545 (4.23) χδ(ζ − η)eiλ(i(ζ−η)2/2−w·ζ)

and integrate w.r.t. ζ to get

4646 (4.24)

∫∫eiλΦ(z,w,ζ,η)bN (z, ζ, η)hi(z)(1,−θk(ζ))i dz dζ = 0, k = 1, 2, . . . , n− 2,

where bN = χδ(ζ − η)aN is a new amplitude and

Φ = (z − w) · ζ + i(ζ − η)2/2.

Now consider the phase function ζ → Φ. If w = z, there is a unique real critical point ζc = η, and it satisfies=Φζζ > 0 at ζ = ζc. For w 6= z, the phase Φ, as function of ζ, has a unique critical point ζc = η + i(z − w).

Now we split the z integral (464.24) into two parts: over z; |z − w| 6 δ/C0, for some C0 > 1, and then

over the complement of that set. Since |Φζ | has a (δ-dependent) positive lower bound for |z − w| > δ/C0(for ζ real) and there is no real critical point for the function ζ → Φ in this set, we can estimate that part ofintegral. Since

4747 (4.25) eiλΦ =(Φ)c

ζ · ∂ζiλ|Φζ |2

eiλΦ,

using estimate (384.16), integration by parts N-times w.r.t. ζ, and the fact that on the boundary |ζ − η| = δ,

the factor eiλΦ is exponentially small with λ, we get

4848 (4.26)∣∣∣ ∫∫

|z−w|>δ/C0

eiλΦ(z,w,ζ,η)bN (z, ζ, η)hi(z)(1,−θk(ζ))i dz dζ∣∣∣ ≤ C(CN/λ)N + CNe−λ/C .

Now on the set z; |z − w| 6 δ/C, C 1, we apply stationary phase method for the rest of ζ-integralin (

464.24). To estimate (

464.24) for |z − w| ≤ δ/C0 we set

4949 (4.27) ψ(z, w, η) = Φ|ζ=ζc .

Therefore,

∗ ψ = η · (z − w) + i|z − w|2 − i

2|z − w|2 = η · (z − w) +

i

2|z − w|2.

Clearly the new phase function ψ(z, w, η) satisfies

5050 (4.28) ψz(z, z, η) = η = φz(0, η), ψw(z, z, η) = −η = −φz(0, η), ψ(z, z, η) = 0


For (z, ζ) close to (0, en−1) we use this phase function and apply [34, Theorem 2.8] and the remark afterit to the ζ-integral above to get ∫∫

|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλΦ(z,w,ζ,η)bN (z, ζ, η)hi(z)(1,−θk(ζ))i dz dζ

=

∫|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλΦ(z,w,ζc,η)bN (z, ζc, η)hi(z)(1,−θk(ζc))i dz

=

∫|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλψ(z,w,η)bλ(z, w, η)hi(z)(1,−θk(z, w, η))i dz

=

∫|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλψ(z,β)bλ(z, β)hi(z)(1,−θk(z, β))i dz

=

∫|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλψ(z,β)hi(z)Biλk

(z, β) dz = O(λn/2(CN/λ)N + CNe−λ/C),

000000 (4.29)

for k = 1, 2, . . . , n − 2 where β = (w, η), and B is a classical elliptic analytic symbol of order 0. For|z −w| ≤ δ/C0 with δ 1 and |w| 1, η close to en−1, the variable (z, β) in (

0004.29) is near (0, 0, en−1) and

then B is independent of N because χN = 1 near the origin. Choose now N so that N ≤ λ/(Ce) ≤ N + 1to get the following exponential error on the right,

5151 (4.30)

∫|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλψ(z,β)hi(z)Biλk

(z, β) dz = O(e−λ/C), k = 1, 2, . . . , n− 2.

Now by (504.28) on a small neighborhood of ζ0 we consider the following change of variables:

5252 (4.31) (z, w, η) −→ (z, w, ζ) = (z, w, φz(w, η)).

Applying above change of variables in (514.30) we get

5353 (4.32)

∫|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλψ(z,w,ζ)hi(z)Biλk

(z, w, ζ) dz = O(e−λ/C), k = 1, 2, . . . , n− 2,

where the function ψ satisfies (504.28) and Biλ is a new function with same property as before (a classical

elliptic symbol of order 0.) Now the principal part of the symbols in (534.32) satisfy

5454 (4.33) σp(Bλk(z, z, ζ)) ≡ (1,−θk(ζ)), up to an elliptic factor,

so in particular at (z, w, ζ) = (0, 0, ζ0) we have,

5555 (4.34) σp(Bλk(0, 0, ζ0)) ≡ (1, θk(ζ0)) = (1, 0, . . . , 0,−1) = (1,−en), up to an elliptic factor.

As we showed before, the map (a, ξ) → ζ is a local diffeomorphsim near a = 0 (equivalently near ζ0 =en−1). So we may work with the principal symbol in terms of (a, ξ) instead. So up to an elliptic factor, weget

5656 (4.35) σp(Bλk(z, z, (a, ξ)) ≡ (1,−θk(a, b)).

In order to recover the analytic wave front-set of the vector field f , we need to have an elliptic (determined)system of equations (symbols) in the sense of (

534.32). Small perturbations of θk(a, b) near a ≈ 0 provides us

three equations which is under-determined. To get the fourth equation and therefore the determined system,we use the fact that ω = (0, θ⊥) ∈ (1, θ)⊥, and set

ω = ω(a, b) = (0, (θk(a, b))⊥),

Now note that for ζ ≈ ζ0, ω(a, b) stays within a neighborhood of ζ0. So similar to the case n = 2, wechoose ω = ω(ζ) = ζ (we remind that the map (a, ξ) → ζ ∈ R1+n is a local analytic diffeomorphism near((0, b), en−1)), and plug it into in the equation (

394.17) to get

5757 (4.36)

∫|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλψ(z,β)hi(z)Biλ⊥(z, β) dz = O(e−λ/C)

where σp(Biλ⊥)(0, 0, ζ0) = (ζ0)i.


For now let n = 3, then we only have θ1(a, b) and therefore ζ1(a, ξ) as k can have 1 as its value. We slightlyperturb θ1(a, b) near a = 0, and let α = (w, ζ), and Biλ1

(z, w, ζ)3i=0 represent the following symbols:

Θ = (1,−θ1(a, b)), (1,−θ1(−a, b)), (1,−θ1(0, b)), (0, 0, 1, 0)),

where the last symbol is associated with equation (574.36). Now let [A] be the matrix associated with above

principle symbols. The determinant of [A]:

5858 (4.37) det

1 − sin(a) sin(b) − sin(a) cos(b) − cos(a)1 sin(a) sin(b) sin(a) cos(b) − cos(a)1 0 0 −10 0 1 0

= 2 sin(a) sin(b)(1− cos(a)),

which is nonzero for a and our fixed parameter b near zero. Therefore (534.32) with above principal symbols

leads to a system of four linearly independent equations, that is, in the coordinate system related to θ0 = enwe have:

5959 (4.38)

∫|z−w|≤δ/C0

eiλψ(z,w,ζ)hi(z)Biλ(z, w, ζ) dz = O(e−λ/C), for i = 0, 1, 2, 3,

where the phase function ψ satisfies the conditions (504.28), and =ψ > C0|z − w|2 as ψzζ = Id.

Microlocal version of ellipticity is equivalent to show that Ah = 0 implies that h = 0. But [A] is invertibleand hence we have microlocal version of ellipticity and therefore (0, ζ0) 6∈ WFA(h). To prove the generalcase, n > 3, one needs to consider the family θk(a, b) ∈ Rn

∣∣k = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n− 2 and small perturbation ofeach unit vector θk(a, b) in a similar way as we discussed above.

Corollary 4.1. Let f ∈ C∞(R1+n) and let γx0,θ0 be a fixed light-like line so that γx,θ(s) 6∈ supp f for|s| ≥ 1/C with some C for all (x, θ) near (x0, θ0). Assume that

i) For n = 2, if Lf(x, θ) = 0 near (x0,±θ0), then WFA(Curl f) contains no space-like co-vectors co-normalto γx0,±θ0 .

ii) For n > 3, if Lf(x, θ) = 0 near (x0, θ0), then WFA(df) contains no space-like co-vectors co-normal toγx0,θ0 .

Proof. i) Set h = Curl f . By assumption we have Lf(x, θ) = 0 near ±θ0, so Ih(x, θ, ω) = 0 for all x andω⊥(1, θ). Now the first part of theorem 4.1 proves part (i).

ii) Set h = df . Now the second part of theorem 4.1 with similar argument in part (i) proves the secondpart.

5. Proof of Main Results

For our main result we need the following lemma which is a unique analytic continuation result across atime-like hypersurface in the Minkowski time-space.

Lemma 5.1. Let f ∈ C∞(R1+n) and let γx0,θ0 be a fixed light-like geodesics in the Minkowski time-spaceso that γx,θ does not intersect supp f for |s| ≥ 1/C with some C for all (x, θ) near (x0, θ0). Fix z0 =(s0, x0 + s0θ0) ∈ γx0,θ0 , let S be an analytic time-like hypersurface near z0 and assume that γx0,θ0 is tangentto S at z0. If Lf(x, θ) = 0 near (x0, θ0) and if df = 0 on one side of S near z0, then df = 0 near z0 .

Proof. Set h = df and assume that z0 ∈ supph. Clearly by assumption Ih(x, θ, ω) = 0 near (z0, θ0). Sinceh is non-zero only in half space S, then there exists ζ0 such that (z0, ζ0) ∈WFA h, as h cannot be analyticat z0. Now by Sato-Kawai-Kashiwara theorem (see [32, 34]), (z0, ζ0 + sν(z0)) ∈WFA h, where ν(z0) is one

of the two unit co-normals to S at z0. This in turn implies that (z0,ζ0s + ν(z0)) ∈ WFA h as the wave

front-set is a conic set. Now passing to limit we have (z0, ν(z0)) ∈WFA h since the wave front-set is closed.


By assumption on S, that co-vector is space-like and is co-normal to γ′x0,θ0(s0). This contradicts the above

theorem 4.1, which implies that h = 0 and completes the proof.

Remark 5.1. We may have the Lemma 5.1 for the operator Ih as well.

Now we are ready to prove our main result.

Proof of theorem 2.1. Set h = df . Then Ih(x, θ, ω) = 0 as Lf(x, θ) = 0. Now the proof follows from [33,Theorem 2.1] replacing Lf(x, θ) by Ih(x, θ, ω).

6. Examples

In the following examples we illustrate how our result imply the recovery of vector field up to a smoothpotential field.

Example 6.1. Let f be a vector field (distribution) supported in cone (t, x) ∈ R1+n||x| < c|t| and letΓρ0 be the following surface:

6060 (6.1) Γρ0 = (t, x) ∈ R1+n | ψ(t, x) = |x− x0|2 − c2|t− t0|2 − ρ20 = 0,

for some ρ0 ≥ 0 and 0 < c ≤ 1. Assume now that f integrates to zero over all light-like geodesics (lines) γin the exterior of Γρ0 , ext(Γρ0).

Figure 1. Γρ0 with 0 < c ≤ 1.

We show the vector field f can be recovered up to a potential field in the ext(Γρ0). By definition (z, ζ) isco-normal to Γρ0 if and only if

6161 (6.2) (z, ζ) ∈ N∗Γρ0 = (t, x, τ, ξ) ∈ T ∗(R1+n ×R1+n) | (t, x) ∈ Γρ0 , (τ, ξ) = 0 on T(t,x)Γρ0.Clearly the gradient of ψ, ∇ψ, is normal to surface Γρ0 at (t, x). So by definition σ∇ψ · (dt, dx) is theco-normal co-vector to surface Γρ0 at (t, x). In fact to find the co-normal we compute the total differentialof ψ, dψ:

6262 (6.3) dψ(t, x) = −2c2(t− t0)dt+ 2(x− x0)dx,

and therefore the co-vector:

6363 (6.4) (z, ζ) = (t, x, τ, ξ) = (t, x,−2σc2(t− t0), 2σ(x− x0)) ∈ N∗Γρ0 , for σ ∈ R,

is co-normal to Γρ0 . Clearly the ζ = (τ, ξ) is space-like in the ext(Γρ0) as it is easy to show |τ | = 2σc2|t−t0| ≤2σ|x − x0| = |ξ| in the ext(Γρ0). Therefore for any decreasing family of ρ with the property ρ → ρ0, thesurfaces Γρ will be a family of analytic time-like hypersurfaces in the ext(Γρ0).


Let σ = 12 , (t0, x0) = (0, 0), and fixed ρ > 0 be the smallest one with the property that supp f ∩ Γρ 6= ∅.

This is true since supp f , Γρ is a compact set. Now assume that γ0 is tangent to Γρ at z0 (i.e. (z0, ζ0) isco-normal to γ0). By compactness of supp f , we have γ 6∈ supp f for any γ approaching γ0 in the ext(Γρ0).Theorem 4.1 implies WFA(f) contains no space-like co-vector co-normal to γ0 since by assumption Lf = 0over all light-like geodesics γ near γ0 on one side of analytic time-like hypersurface Γρ (see Figure 1.) Nowusing the analytic continuation result, lemma 5.1, we can recover the vector field f up to a potential field.

Example 6.2. Let f ∈ E ′(R1+n) be so that supp f expands with a speed less than one and let Γ0 be thefollowing surface:

6464 (6.5) Γ0 = (t, x) ∈ R1+n | ψ(t, x) = (|x− x0| −R)2 − c2|t− t0|2 = 0, for some 0 < c ≤ 1.

Figure 2. Γ0 with 0 < c ≤ 1.

Assume now that f integrates to zero over all light-like geodesics (lines) γ intersecting supp f outside ofthe surface Γ0. We show the vector field f can be recovered up to a potential field in the ext(Γρ), where thesurface Γρ with ρ > 0 is defined as follow:

6565 (6.6) Γρ = (t, x) ∈ R1+n | ψ(t, x) = (|x− x0| −R)2 − c2|t− t0|2 − ρ2 = 0.By definition the co-vector:

6666 (6.7) (z, ζ) = (t, x, τ, ξ) = (t, x,−2σc2(t− t0), 2σx− x0

|x− x0|(|x− x0| −R)) ∈ N∗Γρ, for σ ∈ R,

is co-normal to Γρ. Note that |τ | = 2σc2|t− t0| and |ξ| = |2σ x−x0

|x−x0| (|x− x0| −R)| = 2σ||x− x0| −R|. So in

the ext(Γρ), the co-vector ζ = (τ, ξ) is space-like (i.e. |τ | ≤ |ξ|.) Therefore for ρ > 0, the surfaces Γρ will bea family of analytic time-like hypersurfaces.

Let σ = 12 , z0 = (t0, x0) = (0, 0), and ρ > 0 fixed be the smallest one with the property that supp f∩Γρ 6= ∅.

Similar argument as above example shows that the vector field f can be recovered up to a potential field onΓρ. Notice that the case where c = 0 corresponds to the classical support theorem for balls.

Note that on the surface Γ0, there is no co-normal co-vector at t = t0 as |x − x0| = R. Being outside ofΓρ guarantees the existence of co-normal co-vector as ρ > 0 on Γρ. (See Figure 2)

Next example is a partial data case of Example 6.2 for the inverse recovery of a smooth potential field forthe hyperbolic Dirichlet-to-Neumann (DN) maps. It is known that, all the integral lines can be extractedfrom the DN map for hyperbolic (wave) equations, see, e.g., [36, 29, 28, 45, 30, 4, 3]. Our result providesthe optimal way of the inverse recovery process up to a smooth potential. Similar result for recovery of theunknown potential can be found in [42].


Example 6.3. Let f ∈ E ′(R1+n) be so that supp f expands with a speed less than one, and consider thecylinder [0, T ] × Ω for some T > 0 and Ω ⊂ Rn. In Example 6.2 we showed that the vector field f can berecovered up to a smooth potential field in the exterior of Γρ. Now consider the surface Γ as union of all thoseexteriors of time-like hypersurfaces for t ∈ [0, T ]. This surface includes all light-like lines γx,θ = (s, x+ sθ),(z, θ) ∈ Rn × Sn−1, not intersecting the top and the bottom of the cylinder [0, T ] × Ω (see Figure 3.) By

Figure 3. Γ0 with 0 < c ≤ 1.

Theorem 2.1 we can recover f up to dφ, φ = 0 on [0, T ] × Ω in the set covered by those lines for n ≥ 3.As we pointed out on Remark 3.2, for n = 2 there are two discrete choices of directions which means thatfor recovery of f up to a potential dφ one needs to know Lf along light-like γx,θ as well as knowing Lfalong γx,−θ. Note that our uniqueness result do not require the vector field to be compactly supported intime. Moreover, we are not considering any Cauchy data on circles on top and bottom of the cylinder, whichmeans there is no internal measurement. This is the optimal way one can wish to recover the vector fieldf in this set. Uniqueness result in this paper and result in [42] (recovery of the unknown potential q in Γ)generalize the uniqueness results in [36, 29, 28, 45, 30, 4, 3].

References

[1] A. Begmatov. A certain inversion problem for the ray transform with incomplete data. Siberian Math. Journal,42(3):428434, 2001.

[2] M. Bellassoued and I. Ben Aicha. Stable determination outside a cloaking region of two time-dependent coefficients inan hyperbolic equation from Dirichlet to Neumann map. arXiv:1605.03466, 2016.[3] M. Bellassoued and D. Dos Santos Ferreira. Stability estimates for the anisotropic wave equation from the Dirichlet-to-

Neumann map. Inverse Problem. Imaging, 5(4):745773, 2011.

[4] I. Ben Aicha. Stability estimate for hyperbolic inverse problem with time dependent coefficient. arXiv:1506.01935, 2015.[5] J. Boman. Helgasons support theorem for Radon transforms a new proof and a generalization. In Mathematical methods

in tomography (Oberwolfach, 1990), volume 1497 of Lecture Notes in Math., pages 15. Springer, Berlin, 1991.[6] J. Boman and E. T. Quinto. Support theorems for real-analytic Radon transforms. Duke Math. J.,55(4):943948, 1987.

[7] J. Boman and E. T. Quinto. Support theorems for Radon transforms on real analytic line complexes in three-space.

Trans.Amer. Math. Soc., 335(2):877890, 1993[8] A. Denisiuk. Inversion of the x-ray transform for 3D symmetric tensor elds with sources on a curve. Inverse Problems,2

(2006) 399411.

[9] B. Frigyik, P. Stefanov, and G. Uhlmann. The X-ray transform for a generic family of curves and weights. J.Geom.Anal., 18(1):89108, 2008.

[10] A. Greenleaf and G. Uhlmann. Nonlocal inversion formulas for the X-ray transform. Duke Math. J., 58(1):205240,

1989.[11] A. Greenleaf and G. Uhlmann. Estimates for singular Radon transforms and pseudo differential operators with singular

symbols. J. Funct. Anal., 89(1):202232, 1990


[12] A. Greenleaf and G. Uhlmann. Microlocal techniques in integral geometry. In Integral geometry and tomography

(Arcata,CA, 1989), volume 113 of Contemp. Math., pages 121135. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1990.

[13] V. Guillemin. On some results of Gelfand in integral geometry. In Pseudo differential operators and applications (NotreDame, Ind., 1984), volume 43 of Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., pages 149155. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1985.

[14] V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg. Geometric asymptotics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1977.

Mathematical Surveys, No. 14[15] S. Helgason. The Radon transform, volume 5 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkhuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, second

edition, 1999.

[16] S. Holman and P. Stefanov. The Weighted Doppler Transform. Inverse Problem. Imaging, 4(1):111-130, 2010.[17] C. E. Kenig, J. Sjostrand., and G. Uhlmann. The Caldern problem with partial data. Ann. of Math. (2), 165(2):567591,

2007.

[18] Y. Kian. Recovery of time-dependent damping coefficients and potentials appearing in wave equation from partialdata. arXiv:1603.09600,2016.

[19] V. P. Krishnan. A support theorem for the geodesic ray transform on functions J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 15(4):515520,2009.

[20] V. P. Krishnan and P. Stefanov. A support theorem for the geodesic ray transform of symmetric tensor elds. Inverse

Probl. Imaging, 3(3):453464, 2009.[21] M. Lassas, L. Oksanen, P. Stefanov, and G. Uhlmann. On the Inverse Problem of Finding Cosmic Strings and Other

Topological Defects. arXiv:1505.03123

[22] R. B. Melrose. Spectral and scattering theory for the Laplacian on asymptotically Euclidian spaces. Inverse Probl. InSpectral and scattering theory (Sanda, 1992), volume 161 of Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., pages 85130. Dekker,

New York, 1994.

[23] C. Montalto. Stable determination of a simple metric, a covector eld and a potential from the hyperbolic Dirichlet-toNeumann map. Partial Differential Equations, 39(1):120145, 2014.

[24] G.P. Paternain, M. Salo and G. Uhlmann. Tensor tomography on simple surfaces. arXiv:1109.0505, to appear in Invent.

Math.[25] L. Pestov and G. Uhlmann. Two dimensional simple compact manifolds with boundary are boundary rigid.

Ann.Math.161(2)(2005),10891106.[26] A. Z. Petrov. Einstein Spaces. Translated from the Russian by R. F. Kelleher. Translation edited by J. Woodrow.

Pergamon Press, Oxford-Edinburgh-New York, 1969.

[27] E.T. Quinto. Real analytic Radon transforms on Rank one symmetric spaces. Proc. Math. Soc. 117(1993), 179-186.[28] A. G. Ramm and Rakesh. Property C and an inverse problem for a hyperbolic equation. J. Math. Anal. Appl.,

156(1):209219, 1991.

[29] A. G. Ramm and J. Sjostrand. An inverse problem of the wave equation. Math. Z., 206(1):119130, 1991.[30] R. Salazar. Determination of time-dependent coefficients for a hyperbolic inverse problem. Inverse Problems,

29(9):095015, 17, 2013.

[31] R. Salazar. Stability estimate for the relativistic Schroedinger equation with time-dependent vector potentials. InverseProblems, 30(10):105005, 18, 2014.

[32] M. Sato, T. Kawai, and M. Kashiwara. Microfunctions and pseudo-differential equations. In Hyperfunctions and

pseudo-differential equations (Proc. Conf., Katata, 1971; dedicated to the memory of Andr e Martineau), pages 265529.Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 287. Springer, Berlin, 1973.

[33] V. A. Sharafutdinov. Integral Geometry of Tensor Fields, Inverse and Ill-Posed Problems Series. VSP, Utrecht, 1994[34] J. Sjostrand. Singularit es analytiques microlocales. In Ast erisque, 95, volume 95 of Ast erisque, pages 1166. Soc.

Math. France, Paris, 1982.

[35] P. Stefanov. Support Theorems for the Light Ray Transform on Analytic Lorentzian Manifolds. 2015.[arXiv:1504.01184],to appear in Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.

[36] P. Stefanov. Uniqueness of the multi-dimensional inverse scattering problem for time dependent potentials. Math. Z.,201(4):541559, 1989.[37] P. Stefanov and G. Uhlmann. Microlocal Analysis and Integral Geometry. Book in Progress[38] P. Stefanov and G. Uhlmann. Stability estimates for the X-ray transform of tensor elds and boundary rigidity. Duke

Math. J., 123(3):445467, 2004.[39] P. Stefanov and G. Uhlmann. Boundary rigidity and stability for generic simple metrics. J. Amer. Math. Soc.,

18(4):9751003, 2005.[40] P. Stefanov and G. Uhlmann. Integral geometry of tensor elds on a class of non-simple Riemannian manifolds. Amer.J. Math., 130(1):239268, 2008.[41] P. Stefanov and G. Uhlmann. The geodesic X-ray transform with fold caustics. Anal. PDE, 5-2:219260, 2012.

[42] P. Stefanov and Y. Yang. The Inverse Problem for The Dirichket-to-Neumann Map on Lorentzian Manifolds. 2016.[43] F. Tr‘eves. Introduction to pseudo differential and Fourier integral operators. Vol. 1. Plenum Press, New York, 1980.Pseudo differential operators, The University Series in Mathematics.[44] G. Uhlmann and A. Vasy. The inverse problem for the local geodesic ray transform. Inventiones mathematicae, pages138, 2015.


[45] A. Waters. table determination of X-Ray transforms of time dependent potentials from partial boundary data. Comm.

Partial Differential Equations, 39(12):21692197, 2014.

[46] A. Waters and R. Salazar. Global stability for time dependent X-ray transforms on simple manifolds and applications.arXiv:1311.1591, 2013.

Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907

light ray - with examples - arxiv version

Documents