ScalingStacks

5.2 Quantitative almost calibratedness [04EI]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

5.2 Quantitative almost calibratedness

One major advantage of the quantitative almost calibrated condition is that within a fixed homology class of Lagrangians, it guarantees an a priori volume upper bound (cf. Lemma 2.1). We shall explain that, under very mild asymptotic conditions on the ambient Calabi-Yau manifolds, it also guarantees that the Lagrangian remains within a bounded region. As such, the Federer-Fleming compactness applies automatically, and Allard compactness applies under the additional hypothesis of a uniform bound on ∫L|H→|\int_{L}|\vec{H}|. We also discuss a number of instructive but not particularly difficult consequences of quantitative almost calibratedness.

Remark 5.9.

The arguments in this section are adaptions of Neves [63]. They can also be easily adapted to the almost Calabi-Yau setting under mild conditions on the volume density.

As a preliminary, we will say the regularity scale near a given point PP on the Calabi-Yau manifold is at least O⁡(R)O(R), if PP is contained in a complex coordinate ball with Euclidean radius at least RR, on which Ω=f​d​z1∧…​d​zn\Omega=fdz_{1}\wedge\ldots dz_{n}, and6060 60 We will actually only use the metric uniform equivalence. But for Calabi-Yau metrics, the higher derivative estimates are in any event implied by metric equivalence, after shrinking the balls slightly, by Evans-Krylov theory.

C−1​δi​j≤gi​j¯≤C​δi​j,|∂kgi​j¯|≤C⁡(k)​R−k,|f−1|≤12,|∂kf|≤C​R−k.C^{-1}\delta_{ij}\leq g_{i\bar{j}}\leq C\delta_{ij},\quad|\partial^{k}g_{i\bar{j}}|\leq C(k)R^{-k},\quad|f-1|\leq\frac{1}{2},\quad|\partial^{k}f|\leq CR^{-k}. (55)

From now on we will assume the regularity scale tends to infinity for P→∞P\to\infty. This is a very mild condition on the Calabi-Yau manifold, for instance satisfied by asymptotically conical Calabi-Yaus.

Remark 5.10.

This asymptotic condition is essentially the weakest that can prevent the almost calibrated Lagrangian in a given homology class from escaping to infinity. For instance, if LL is a special Lagrangian in XX, then L×S1L\times S^{1} is a special Lagrangian in the product X×T∗​S1X\times T^{*}S^{1}, which can obviously be translated in the ℝ\mathbb{R} direction to escape to infinity, albeit not preserving the Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) class. One can still hope to obstruct escaping to infinity using Floer theory, but then incorporating singular Lagrangians requires more foundational work.

Isoperimetric inequality

Lemma 5.10.

(Isoperimetric inequality cf. [63, Lem 3.10]) Let LL be a closed Lagrangian integral current in (X,ω,Ω)(X,\omega,\Omega), and consider a Euclidean coordinate ball B2​RB_{2R} on which the regularity scale is at least O⁡(R)O(R). Assume the quantitative almost calibrated condition cos⁡θ≥sin⁡ϵ\cos\theta\geq\sin\epsilon. Then there is a universal constant CC depending only on ϵ,n\epsilon,n and the metric uniform equivalence constant in (55), so that

M​a​s​s​(A)(n−1)/n≤C​M​a​s​s​(∂A)Mass(A)^{(n-1)/n}\leq CMass(\partial A)

for all closed subsets AA of supp​(L)∩BR\text{supp}(L)\cap B_{R} with rectifiable boundary. Here the Hausdorff measures are computed using the Calabi-Yau metric.

Proof.

The isoperimetric theorem [71, Thm 6.1] guarantees the existence of an integral current A′A^{\prime} supported in BRB_{R} such that ∂A′=∂A\partial A^{\prime}=\partial A and for which

M​a​s​s​(A′)(n−1)/n≤C​M​a​s​s​(∂A).Mass(A^{\prime})^{(n-1)/n}\leq CMass(\partial A).

Notice the metric uniform equivalence means we do not need to be careful to distinguish the Hausdorff measure for the Euclidean metric and the Calabi-Yau metric. Let TT denote the cone over the current A−A′A-A^{\prime}, then ∂T=A−A′\partial T=A-A^{\prime}, and thus by the quantitative calibrated condition,

M​a​s​s​(A)≤1sin⁡ϵ​∫ARe​Ω=1sin⁡ϵ​∫A′Re​Ω+1sin⁡ϵ​∫∂TRe​Ω≤1sin⁡ϵ​M​a​s​s​(A′)+1sin⁡ϵ​∫Td​Re​Ω≤1sin⁡ϵ​C​M​a​s​s​(∂A)n/(n−1),\begin{split}&Mass(A)\leq\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{A}\text{Re}\Omega=\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{A^{\prime}}\text{Re}\Omega+\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{\partial T}\text{Re}\Omega\\ \leq&\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}Mass(A^{\prime})+\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{T}d\text{Re}\Omega\leq\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}CMass(\partial A)^{n/(n-1)},\end{split}

which is the isoperimetric inequality. ∎

Remark 5.11.

The standard isoperimetric theorem inside the Euclidean space [71, Thm 6.1] does not state supp​(A′)⊂BR\text{supp}(A^{\prime})\subset B_{R}. Once we have found some A′A^{\prime} with ∂A′=∂A\partial A^{\prime}=\partial A with mass control, we can pushforward by a Lipschitz retraction map F:ℝ2​n→B1F:\mathbb{R}^{2n}\to B_{1}:

F⁡(x)={x,x∈BR,R​x|x|,x∈ℝ2​n∖BR.F(x)=\begin{cases}x,\quad x\in B_{R},\\ \frac{Rx}{|x|},\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}\setminus B_{R}.\end{cases}

Replacing A′A^{\prime} by F∗​A′F_{*}A^{\prime}, the mass cannot increase, and ∂F∗​(A′)=F∗​(∂A′)=F∗​(∂A)=∂A\partial F_{*}(A^{\prime})=F_{*}(\partial A^{\prime})=F_{*}(\partial A)=\partial A, and we have ensured the support is contained in BRB_{R}.

The following version of the isoperimetric theorem should be well known to experts, but for lack of a reference we include a proof below.

Proposition 5.11.

(Isoperimetric theorem on complete manifolds) Let XX be a complete Riemannian manifold, and ∂A\partial A be an mm-dimensional exact integral current supported in a fixed bounded open subset U⊂XU\subset X. Then there is an integral current A′A^{\prime} supported in a fixed large bounded subset of XX, with ∂A=∂A′\partial A=\partial A^{\prime} and

M​a​s​s​(A′)≤Const⋅min⁡{M​a​s​s​(∂A)(m+1)/m,M​a​s​s​(∂A)}.Mass(A^{\prime})\leq\text{Const}\cdot\min\{Mass(\partial A)^{(m+1)/m},Mass(\partial A)\}.
Proof.

We first isometrically embed XX into an ambient Euclidean space ℝN\mathbb{R}^{N}, so AA can be regarded as an integral current compactly supported in XX. Fix a small number ρ0>0\rho_{0}>0 such that over UU the ρ0\rho_{0}-neighbourhood in ℝN\mathbb{R}^{N} is isomorphic to the normal bundle, so there is a smooth retraction map FF back to UU. The Lipschitz norm of FF is approximately one.

Applying the deformation theorem for ℝN\mathbb{R}^{N} [71, section 5.3] to the current ∂A\partial A, with a parameter ρ≤ρ0\rho\leq\rho_{0} to be fixed, we can write

∂A=P+∂R,\partial A=P+\partial R,

where P,RP,R are integral currents inside ℝN\mathbb{R}^{N}, supported in the O⁡(ρ)O(\rho) neighbourhood of supp​(∂A)\text{supp}(\partial A), with

M​a​s​s​(R)≤C​ρ​M​a​s​s​(∂A),M​a​s​s​(P)≤C​M​a​s​s​(∂A),Mass(R)\leq C\rho Mass(\partial A),\quad Mass(P)\leq CMass(\partial A),

where the constant CC depends only on N,mN,m. Morever, PP is an integral linear sum of mm-dimensional faces in the standard grid decomposition of ℝN\mathbb{R}^{N} with cube size ρ\rho. We now push forward via FF:

F∗​P+∂F∗​R=F∗​(∂A)=∂A,F_{*}P+\partial F_{*}R=F_{*}(\partial A)=\partial A,

since ∂A⊂U⊂X\partial A\subset U\subset X is fixed by FF. Note that F∗​P,F∗​RF_{*}P,F_{*}R both live inside UU, and their mass bounds are essentially the same as P,RP,R respectively.

Suppose first that M​a​s​s​(∂A)≪1Mass(\partial A)\ll 1. If PP is nonzero, then by the grid description of PP,

ρm≤M​a​s​s​(P)≤C​M​a​s​s​(∂A)\rho^{m}\leq Mass(P)\leq CMass(\partial A)

So by choosing ρ=2​(C​M​a​s​s​(∂A))1/m\rho=2(CMass(\partial A))^{1/m} in the above, we force P=0P=0, so ∂A=∂F∗​R\partial A=\partial F_{*}R, with mass bound M​a​s​s​(F∗​R)≤const​M​a​s​s​(∂A)(m+1)/mMass(F_{*}R)\leq\text{const}Mass(\partial A)^{(m+1)/m}, so it suffices to take A′=F∗​RA^{\prime}=F_{*}R.

Now suppose M​a​s​s​(∂A)≳1Mass(\partial A)\gtrsim 1, then we choose ρ=ρ0\rho=\rho_{0}. Without loss of generality, we can replace ∂A\partial A by F∗​PF_{*}P, and pretend R=0R=0. We know

  • •

    PP is an integral linear combination of grid cube faces, where all the cubes lie in a bounded region of a fixed grid,

  • •

    F∗​PF_{*}P is an exact current on XX.

The set of all such PP form a finitely generated abelian group, which by classification is isomorphic to the direct sum of ⊕1rℤei\oplus_{1}^{r}\mathbb{Z}e_{i} and a finite abelian group. For any given element

P=∑ai​ei+finite group part,P=\sum a_{i}e_{i}+\text{finite group part},

the linear coefficients aia_{i} of eie_{i} for i=1,…​ri=1,\ldots r are bounded by |ai|≲M​a​s​s​(P)≲M​a​s​s​(∂A)|a_{i}|\lesssim Mass(P)\lesssim Mass(\partial A). Each eie_{i} gives rise to an exact simplicial chain F∗​eiF_{*}e_{i} inside XX, which is the boundary of a finite mass integral current QiQ_{i}. Thus

M​a​s​s​(∑1rai​Qi)≤∑1r|ai|​M​a​s​s​(Qi)≤const⋅M​a​s​s​(∂A).Mass(\sum_{1}^{r}a_{i}Q_{i})\leq\sum_{1}^{r}|a_{i}|Mass(Q_{i})\leq\text{const}\cdot Mass(\partial A).

The finite group part gives rise to another simplicical chain inside XX which is the boundary of some finite mass integral current. Thus we have produced an integral current A′A^{\prime} with ∂A′=∂A\partial A^{\prime}=\partial A, and mass bound

M​a​s​s​(A′)≤C⁡(M​a​s​s​(∂A))+C≤const ​M​a​s​s​(∂A).Mass(A^{\prime})\leq C(Mass(\partial A))+C\leq\text{const }Mass(\partial A).

since we are in the M​a​s​s​(∂A)≳1Mass(\partial A)\gtrsim 1 case. ∎

Volume monotonicity and lower bound

Corollary 5.12.

(Volume lower bound) If PP is in the support of LL, then there is a uniform lower bound on the volume of LL inside Eulidean coordinate balls of radius less than RR:

Volg​(L∩B⁡(P,r))≥C−1​rn,∀r≤R.\text{Vol}_{g}(L\cap B(P,r))\geq C^{-1}r^{n},\quad\forall r\leq R. (56)
Proof.

Let f⁡(r)=ℋn​(L∩B⁡(r))>0f(r)=\mathcal{H}^{n}(L\cap B(r))>0, then ff is increasing in rr, and for a.e. 0<r<R0<r<R, by the coarea formula,

f′​(r)=∫∂B⁡(r)∩L1|∇r|​d​ℋn−1≥C−1​ℋn−1​(∂B⁡(r)∩L)≥C−1​f​(r)(n−1)/n.f^{\prime}(r)=\int_{\partial B(r)\cap L}\frac{1}{|\nabla r|}d\mathcal{H}^{n-1}\geq C^{-1}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial B(r)\cap L)\geq C^{-1}f(r)^{(n-1)/n}.

The last inequality is the isoperimetric inequality. Thus dd​r​f1/n≥C−1,\frac{d}{dr}f^{1/n}\geq C^{-1}, whence we have the volume lower bound f​(r)1/n≥C−1​rf(r)^{1/n}\geq C^{-1}r. ∎

Remark 5.12.

Volume lower bounds like (56) are familiar in minimal surface theory, but usually require some integral bound on the mean curvature. Notably, here we need no such assumption; the quantitative almost calibrated condition only concerns the antiderivative θ\theta of H→=J∇θ\vec{H}=J\nabla\theta.

No escape to spatial infinity

Corollary 5.13.

Assume near the infinity of XX, the regularity scale grows to infinity. Fix the homology class of the quantitatively almost calibrated Lagrangian LL. Then LL is contained in a fixed compact subset of XX.

Proof.

From Lemma 2.1 there is an a priori volume bound Vol​(L)≤C\text{Vol}(L)\leq C. But if PP is in the support of LL, then the regularity scale of XX near PP is bounded by

Rn≤C​Vol​(L∩B⁡(R))≤C,R^{n}\leq C\text{Vol}(L\cap B(R))\leq C,

whence PP must remain in a fixed compact subset. ∎

Nontriviality of homology classes

Corollary 5.14.

(Nontriviality of homology classes) There is a lower bound ∫LRe​Ω≥C−1\int_{L}\text{Re}\Omega\geq C^{-1} depending only on the ambient Calabi-Yau and the almost calibratedness constant ϵ\epsilon. Here we do not a priori specify the homology class of LL.

Proof.

The asymptotic hypothesis on the regularity scale implies in particular that the regularity scale has a global lower bound on XX. This gives a uniform lower bound on Vol​(L)\text{Vol}(L), which by the quantitative almost calibratedness gives a lower bound on the homological integral ∫LRe​Ω\int_{L}\text{Re}\Omega. ∎

The significance is that in a variational setup to find special Lagrangians among certain Lagrangian currents in the fixed homology class [L0][L_{0}], it may happen that the Lagrangian breaks into several connected components, each given by a closed Lagrangian current LiL_{i} with ∑i∫LiRe​Ω=∫LRe​Ω\sum_{i}\int_{L_{i}}\text{Re}\Omega=\int_{L}\text{Re}{\Omega}. The nontriviality of each homology class then puts an upper bound on the number of connected components. Morever, each LiL_{i} would inherit a volume upper bound from LL. Since all Lagrangians are contained in a fixed compact region, Poincaré duality easily gives an upper bound on the homology classes of LiL_{i}:

‖[Li]‖Hn​(X)≤C​Vol​(Li)≤C.\left\lVert[L_{i}]\right\rVert_{H_{n}(X)}\leq C\text{Vol}(L_{i})\leq C.

Combining the above, only finitely many homology classes, multiplicities, and number of components can appear in a given variational problem.

5.2.1 Intrinsic distance bound and potential clustering

Suppose LL is a smooth immersed Lagrangian, then it inherits a Riemannian metric from the restriction of the Calabi-Yau metric, so we can speak of the intrinsic distance function on LL. Instead of extrinsic balls such as B⁡(P,r)B(P,r), we can talk about intrinsic balls B^​(P,r)\hat{B}(P,r). A key distinction is that intrinsic distance does not need to extend to a continuous function on X×XX\times X, the prototypical example being the union of two embedded Lagrangians, whose domains are disjoint, but whose images in XX intersect. Clearly, the intrinsic distance bounds extrinsic geodesic distance, so B^​(P,r)\hat{B}(P,r) is always contained in an extrinsic geodesic ball of radius rr, but the converse is far from true. The intrinsic distance between two distinct connected components would simply be infinity. One can think of intrinsic distance as a quantitative measurement of connectedness.

As usual, the regularity scale on XX grows to infinity asymptotically by assumption, so the regularity scale has a global lower bound. The following lemma has the same proof as Cor. 5.12. (The essence of this argument also appears in Neves [63, Lem 3.9]).

Lemma 5.15.

(Intrinsic ball volume lower bound) Let LL be a smooth immersed compact Lagrangian in XX, satisfying the quantitative almost calibrated condition. For any PP in the support of LL, there is a uniform bound

Vol​(B^​(P,r)∩L)≥C−1​rn,r≤1.\text{Vol}(\hat{B}(P,r)\cap L)\geq C^{-1}r^{n},\quad r\leq 1.
Corollary 5.16.

(Intrinsic diameter bound) Assume further that the smooth, quantitatively almost calibrated compact Lagrangian LL has connected domain. Then within a fixed homology class, the intrinsic distance of LL has a uniform upper bound.

Proof.

Let d=d​i​s​t​(P,P′)≥N=[d]d=dist(P,P^{\prime})\geq N=[d] be the intrinsic diameter of LL. By connectedness, we can find P1,…​PNP_{1},\ldots P_{N} with d​i​s​t​(P,Pi)=idist(P,P_{i})=i. Now the intrinsic balls B^​(Pi,12)\hat{B}(P_{i},\frac{1}{2}) are disjoint, but each takes up a nontrivial amount of volume ≥C−1\geq C^{-1}. Thus

C−1​N≤Vol​(L)≤1sin⁡ϵ​∫LRe​(Ω)≤C,C^{-1}N\leq\text{Vol}(L)\leq\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{L}\text{Re}(\Omega)\leq C,

so there is an a priori bound on NN, hence on dd. ∎

Corollary 5.17.

(Potential oscillation bound) Assume LL is an exact, immersed, compact Lagrangian, satisfying the almost calibrated condition, such that the Lagrangian potential fLf_{L} has connected range. Then the potential fLf_{L} has an a priori bound

supLfL−infLfL≤C.\sup_{L}f_{L}-\inf_{L}f_{L}\leq C.
Proof.

Given any P,P′P,P^{\prime} on LL, we write the potential as a line integral of the Liouville 1-form

fL​(P)−fL​(P′)=∫P′Pλ≤‖λ‖C0​𝑑i​s​t​(P,P′).f_{L}(P)-f_{L}(P^{\prime})=\int_{P^{\prime}}^{P}\lambda\leq\left\lVert\lambda\right\rVert_{C^{0}}dist(P,P^{\prime}).

Thus the intrinsic ball volume lower bound implies that if aa lies in the range of fLf_{L}, then

Vol({|fL−a|<12})≥C−1.\text{Vol}(\{|f_{L}-a|<\frac{1}{2}\})\geq C^{-1}.

The range of fLf_{L} is by assumption a closed interval. If the interval has length ≥N\geq N, then we can find NN distinct values of aa with disjoint {|fL−a|<12}\{|f_{L}-a|<\frac{1}{2}\}, so

C−1​N≤Vol​(L)≤1sin⁡ϵ​∫LRe​(Ω)≤C,C^{-1}N\leq\text{Vol}(L)\leq\frac{1}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{L}\text{Re}(\Omega)\leq C,

This provides an a priori bound on NN, hence on the potential oscillation. ∎

Corollary 5.18.

Assume LL is an exact, immersed, compact Lagrangian, satisfying the almost calibrated condition, then it satisfies (N,A)(N,A)-potential clustering (cf. section 5.1.2) for some N,AN,A with uniform bounds. Morever, if LL carries an unobstructed brane structure, then the potential clustering property is consistent with the twisted complex interpretation.

Proof.

By Lemma 6.3, a general immersed Lagrangian can be decomposed into a union of Lagrangians LiL_{i} such that the ranges of the potentials fLif_{L_{i}} are connected, and any bounding cochain structure naturally produces a twisted complex. The oscillation of each LiL_{i} is bounded in terms of the quantitative almost calibration condition, and the ambient features of XX. Morever, the number of Lagrangian components is also a priori bounded. ∎

As a notable consequence, we obtain the uniform energy bound on the holomorphic curves (cf. Prop. 3.41).

Remark 5.13.

Although it is unclear how to make sense of the intrinsic distance on a general Lagrangian integral current, mildly singular Lagrangians (for instance with local conical singularities) do have a sensible notion of intrinsic distance, and the arguments in this section extend practically to all non-pathological examples, covering all Lagrangians that appear in Joyce’s LMCF program. Furthermore, the potential clustering is robust under limits (cf. Cor. 5.9). As such, we believe it holds for all Lagrangians relevant to our variational program (cf. the class ℒ\mathcal{L} in section 5.3 below).

5.2.2 Bounded part of the Solomon functional revisited

In section 3.8.3, we discussed a Floer theoretic method to bound the difference between the Solomon functional and the elementary functional. The following alternative method is based on the homological nature of the Solomon functional (20), and has a more geometric measure theory flavour. Holomorphic curves do not feature in this approach, so the automatic transversality and the positivity conditions are not needed, and in fact the discussion works in the weak setting of varifolds and currents. It is vital to this approach that Hn+1​(X)=0H_{n+1}(X)=0 for Stein manifolds, so no homological ambiguity can arise for the bordism current.

Proposition 5.19.

Assume the Lagrangian LL with potential fLf_{L} is quantitatively almost calibrated, homologous to L0L_{0}, and satisfies (N,A)(N,A)-potential clustering. The elementary functional (45) makes sense verbatim, with no smoothness assumptions. Then |𝒮​(L)−𝒮¯​(L)||\mathcal{S}(L)-\bar{\mathcal{S}}(L)| has a uniform upper bound independent of LL.

Proof.

We know L−L0L-L_{0} is homologous to zero in XX, and contained in a bounded subset of XX by Cor. 5.13. By a version of the isoperimetric theorem (cf. Prop. 5.11), we can find some compactly supported integral current 𝒞\mathcal{C} with ∂𝒞=L−L0\partial\mathcal{C}=L-L_{0}, with mass bound

Mass​(𝒞)≤const⋅min⁡{Mass​(L−L0)(n+1)/n,Mass​(L−L0)}.\text{Mass}(\mathcal{C})\leq\text{const}\cdot\min\{\text{Mass}(L-L_{0})^{(n+1)/n},\text{Mass}(L-L_{0})\}.

This 𝒞\mathcal{C} has no relation to holomorphic curves. The quantitative almost calibratedness implies a volume bound on LL (cf. Lemma 2.1), hence Mass​(𝒞)\text{Mass}(\mathcal{C}) is a priori bounded. The homological nature of the Solomon functional (20) gives

𝒮⁡(L)=∫LfL​Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω)−∫L0fL0​Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω)−Im​∫𝒞λ∧e−i​θ^​Ω.\mathcal{S}(L)=\int_{L}f_{L}\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)-\int_{L_{0}}f_{L_{0}}\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)-\text{Im}\int_{\mathcal{C}}\lambda\wedge e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega.

The mass bound then implies

|∫𝒞λ∧e−i​θ^​Ω|≤C​‖λ‖C0​‖Ω‖C0​Mass​(𝒞)≤const.|\int_{\mathcal{C}}\lambda\wedge e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega|\leq C\left\lVert\lambda\right\rVert_{C^{0}}\left\lVert\Omega\right\rVert_{C^{0}}\text{Mass}(\mathcal{C})\leq\text{const}.

Here since LL is contained in a bounded region, the terms λ\lambda and Ω\Omega are bounded. Finally, using the potential clustering bound,

|∫LfL​Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω)−∫L0fL0​Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω)−𝒮¯​(L)|≤A⁡(∫L|Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω)|+∫L0|Im​(e−i​θ^​Ω)|)≤A⁡(Mass​(L)+Mass​(L0))≤2​Asin⁡ϵ​∫L0Re​Ω.\begin{split}&|\int_{L}f_{L}\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)-\int_{L_{0}}f_{L_{0}}\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)-\bar{\mathcal{S}}(L)|\\ &\leq A(\int_{L}|\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)|+\int_{L_{0}}|\text{Im}(e^{-i\hat{\theta}}\Omega)|)\\ &\leq A(\text{Mass}(L)+\text{Mass}(L_{0}))\leq\frac{2A}{\sin\epsilon}\int_{L_{0}}\text{Re}\Omega.\end{split}

Combining the above shows the a priori bound on |𝒮​(L)−𝒮¯​(L)||\mathcal{S}(L)-\bar{\mathcal{S}}(L)|. ∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.