Abstract
Given an Axiom A attractor for a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) flow (\(\alpha >0\)), we construct a countable Markov extension with exponential return times in such a way that the inducing set is a smoothly embedded unstable disk. This avoids technical issues concerning irregularity of boundaries of Markov partition elements and enables an elementary approach to certain questions involving exponential decay of correlations for SRB measures.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Statistical properties of Anosov and Axiom A diffeomorphisms [3, 33] were developed extensively in the 1970 s. Key tools were the construction of finite Markov partitions [10, 32] and the spectral properties of transfer operators [28]. In particular, ergodic invariant probability measures were constructed corresponding to any Hölder potential [12, 29, 31]; moreover, it was shown that hyperbolic basic sets for Axiom A diffeomorphisms are always exponentially mixing up to a finite cycle for such measures, see for example [12, 22, 29].
Still in the 1970 s, finite Markov partitions were constructed [11, 26] for Anosov and Axiom A flows. This allows us to model each hyperbolic basic set as a suspension flow over a subshift of finite type, enabling the study of thermodynamic formalism (see e.g. [14]) and statistical properties (see e.g. [17, 27]). By the Anosov alternative [3, 23], a transitive Anosov flow is mixing if and only if it is a constant suspension over an Axiom A diffeomorphism.
However, rates of mixing for Axiom A flows are still poorly understood. By [24, 30], mixing Axiom A flows can mix arbitrarily slowly. Although there has been important progress starting with [16, 18, 20], it remains an open question whether mixing Anosov flows have exponential decay of correlations. Very recently, this question was answered positively [35] in the case of \(C^\infty \) three-dimensional flows.
It turns out that using finite Markov partitions for flows raises technical issues due to the irregularity of their boundaries [5, 15, 34]. Even in the discrete-time setting, it is known that the boundaries of elements of a finite Markov partition need not be smooth [13]. In this paper, we propose using the approach of [36] to circumvent such issues at least in the case of SRB measures. In particular, we show that
Any attractorFootnote 1for an Axiom A flow can be modeled by a suspension flow over a full branch countable Markov extension where the inducing set is a smoothly embedded unstable disk. The roof function, though unbounded, has exponential tails.
A precise statement is given in Theorem 2.1 below.
Remark 1.1
The approach of Young towers [36] has proved to be highly effective for studying discrete-time examples like planar dispersing billiards and Hénon-like attractors where suitable Markov partitions are not available. However, as shown in the current paper, there can be advantages (at least in continuous time) to working with countable Markov extensions even when there is a well-developed theory of finite Markov partitions. The extra flexibility of Markov extensions can be used not only to construct the extension but to ensure good regularity properties of the partition elements.
As a consequence of Theorem 2.1, we obtain an elementary proof of the following result:
Theorem 1.2
Suppose that \(\Lambda \) is an Axiom A attractor with SRB measure \(\mu \) for a \(C^{1+}\) flow \(\phi _t\) with \(C^{1+}\) stable holonomiesFootnote 2 and such that the stable and unstable bundles are not jointly integrable. Then for all Hölder observables \(v,\,w:\Lambda \rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\), there exist constants \(c,C>0\) such that
Remark 1.3
Joint nonintegrability holds for an open and dense set of Axiom A flows and their attractors, see [19] and references therein. It implies mixing and is equivalent to mixing for codimension one Anosov flows. It is conjectured to be equivalent to mixing for Anosov flows [23].
Remark 1.4
-
(a)
In the case when the unstable direction is one-dimensional and the stable holonomies are \(C^2\), this result is due to [4, 5, 8, 9]. In particular, using the fact that stable bunching is a robust sufficient condition for smoothness of stable holonomies together with the robustness of joint nonintegrability, [4] constructed the first robust examples of Axiom A flows with exponential decay of correlations. The smoothness condition on stable holonomies was relaxed from \(C^2\) to \(C^{1+}\) in [6] extending the class of examples in [4]. This class of examples is extended further by Theorem 1.2 with the removal of the one-dimensionality restriction on unstable manifolds.
-
(b)
There is no restriction on the dimension of unstable manifolds in [8], and it is not surprising that the smoothness assumption on stable holonomies can also be relaxed as in [6]. However, there is a crucial hypothesis in [8] on the regularity of the inducing set in the unstable direction which is nontrivial in higher dimensions.
Theorem 1.2 is stated in the special case of Anosov flows in [15]. In [15, Appendix] it is argued that at least in the Anosov case the Markov partitions of [26] are sufficiently regular that the methods in [8] can be pushed through. In [5], a sketch is given of how to prove Theorem 1.2 also in the Axiom A case, but the details are not fully worked out.
As mentioned, our approach in this paper completely bypasses such issues since our inducing set is a smoothly embedded unstable disk. Moreover, our method works equally well for Anosov flows and Axiom A attractors. As a consequence, we recover the examples in [15], in particular that codimension one volume-preserving mixing \(C^{1+}\) Anosov flows are exponentially mixing in dimension four and higher.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we state precisely and prove our result on good inducing for attractors of Axiom A flows. In Sect. 3, we prove a result on exponential mixing for a class of skew product Axiom A flows, extending/combining the results in [6, 8]. In Sect. 4, we complete the proof of Theorem 1.2.
2 Good Inducing for Attractors of Axiom A Flows
Let \(\phi _t: M\rightarrow M\) be a \(C^{1+}\) flow defined on a compact Riemannian manifold \((M,d_M)\), and let \(\Lambda \subset M\) be a closed \(\phi _t\)-invariant subset. We assume that \(\Lambda \) is an attracting transitive uniformly hyperbolic set with adapted norm and that \(\Lambda \) is not a single trajectory. In particular, there is a continuous \(D\phi _t\)-invariant splitting \(T_\Lambda M=E^s\oplus E^c\oplus E^u\) where \(E^c\) is the one-dimensional central direction tangent to the flow, and there exists \(\lambda \in (0,1)\) such that \(|D\phi _t v|\le \lambda ^t|v|\) for all \(v\in E^s\), \(t\ge 1\); \(|D\phi _{-t} v|\le \lambda ^t|v|\) for all \(v\in E^u\), \(t\ge 1\). Since the time-s map \(\phi _s:\Lambda \rightarrow \Lambda \) is ergodic for all but countably many choices of \(s\in {{\mathbb {R}}}\) [25], we can scale time by a constant close to one if necessary so that \(\phi _{-1}:\Lambda \rightarrow \Lambda \) is transitive. Then there exists \(p\in \Lambda \) such that \(\bigcup _{i\ge 1}\phi _{-i}p\) is dense in \(\Lambda \).
We can define (local) stable disks \(W^s_\delta (y)=\{z\in W^s(y):d_M(y,z)<\delta \}\) for \(\delta >0\) sufficiently small for all \(y\in \Lambda \). Define local center-stable disks \(W^{cs}_\delta (y)=\bigcup _{|t|<\delta }\phi _t W^s_\delta (y)\). Let \({\text {Leb}}\) and d denote induced Lebesgue measure and induced distance on local unstable manifolds. It is convenient to define local unstable disks \(W^u_\delta (y)=\{z\in W^u(y):d(y,z)<\delta \}\) using the induced distance.
For \(\delta _0\) small, define \({{\mathcal {D}}}=W^u_{\delta _0}(p)\) and \({\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}=\bigcup _{x\in {{\mathcal {D}}}}W^{cs}_{\delta _0}(x)\). Define \(\pi :{\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal {D}}}\) such that \(\pi | W^{cs}_{\delta _0}(x)\equiv x\). Whenever \(\phi _ny\in {\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}\), we set \(g_ny=\pi (\phi _ny)\).
We are now in a position to give a precise description of our inducing scheme.
Theorem 2.1
There exists an open unstable disk \(Y=W^u_\delta (p)\subset {{\mathcal {D}}}\) (for some \(\delta \in (0,\delta _0)\)) and a discrete return time function \(R:Y\rightarrow {{\mathbb {Z}}}^+\cup \{\infty \}\) such that
-
(i)
\({\text {Leb}}(R>n)=O(\gamma ^n)\) for some \(\gamma \in (0,1)\);
-
(ii)
Each connected component of \(\{R=n\}\) is mapped by \(\phi _n\) into \({\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}\) and mapped homeomorphically by \(g_n\) onto Y.
Remark 2.2
Let \({{\mathcal {P}}}\) be the partition of Y consisting of connected components of \(\{R=n\}\) for \(n\ge 1\). (It follows from Theorem 2.1(i) that \({{\mathcal {P}}}\) is a partition of \(Y\bmod 0\).) Define \(F:Y\rightarrow Y\), \(F=g_R=\pi \circ \phi _R\). Note that F is locally the composition of a time-R map \(\phi _R\) (where R is constant on each partition element) with a center-stable holonomy. Since center-stable holonomies are Hölder continuous, it follows that F maps partition elements \(U\in {{\mathcal {P}}}\) homeomorphically onto Y and that \(F|_U:U\rightarrow Y\) is a bi-Hölder bijection. If moreover, the center-stable holonomies are \(C^1\), then the partition elements are diffeomorphic to disks (in contrast to the situation for finite Markov partitions of \(\Lambda \) [13]).
In the remainder of this section, we prove Theorem 2.1. Our proof is essentially the same as in [36, Section 6] for Axiom A diffeomorphisms, but we closely follow the treatment in [2] which provides many of the details of arguments sketched in [36].
Choice of constants We can choose \(\delta _0>0\) such that the following bounded distortion property holdsFootnote 3: there exists \(C_1\ge 1\) so that
for every \(n\ge 1\) and all \(x,y\in \Lambda \) with \(\phi _nx,\phi _ny\) in the same unstable disk such that \(d(\phi _jx,\phi _jy)<4\delta _0\) for all \(0\le j \le n\).
By standard results about stable holonomies, \(\pi \) is absolutely continuous and \(C^\alpha \) for some \(\alpha \in (0,1)\) when restricted to unstable disks in \({\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}\). For \(\delta _0\) sufficiently small, there exists \(C_2\), \(C_3\ge 1\) such that
for all Lebesgue-measurable subset \(E\subset W^u_{\delta _0}(y)\cap {\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}\) and all \(y\in \Lambda \), and
for all \(x,y\in {\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}\) with x, y in the same unstable disk such that \(d(x,y)<4\delta _0\).
Let \(d_u=\dim E^u\) and fix \(L>3\) so that
By the local product structure, there exists \(\delta _1\in (0,\delta _0)\) such that \(W^{cs}_{\delta _0}(x)\cap W^u_{\delta _0}(y)\) consists of precisely one point for all \(x,y\in \Lambda \) with \(d_M(x,y)<4\delta _1\). Similarly, there exists \(\delta \in (0,\delta _1)\) such that \(W^{cs}_{\delta _1}(x)\cap W^u_{\delta _1}(y)\) consists of precisely one point for all \(x,y\in \Lambda \) with \(d_M(x,y)<(L+1)\delta \). Since local center-stable/unstable manifolds lie in the corresponding cones, and the center-stable/unstable cones are uniformly transverse, the intersection point \(z\in W^{cs}_{\delta _1}(x)\cap W^u_{\delta _1}(y)\) satisfies \(d(z,y)\le C_4d_M(x,y)\) where \(C_4\ge 1\) is a constant. Shrink \(\delta >0\) if necessary so that \(C_3(3\delta )^\alpha <\frac{1}{2}\delta _0\) and \(C_4(L+1)\delta <\delta _0\). Choose \(N_1\ge 1\) such that \(\bigcup _{i=1}^{N_1} \phi _{-i}p\) is \(\delta \)-dense in \(\Lambda \).
Construction of the partition We consider various small neighborhoods \({{\mathcal {D}}}_c=W^u_{c\delta }(p)\) with \(c\in \{1,2,L-1,L\}\). Define \({\widetilde{{\mathcal {D}}}}_c=\bigcup _{x\in {{\mathcal {D}}}_c}W^{cs}_{\delta _1}(x)\).
Take \(Y={{\mathcal {D}}}_1\). Define a partition \(\{I_k:k\ge 1\}\) of \({{\mathcal {D}}}_2\setminus {{\mathcal {D}}}_1\),
Fix \(\varepsilon >0\) small (as stipulated in Propositions 2.4 and 2.5 and Lemma 2.9 below). We define sets \(Y_n\) and functions \(t_n:Y_n\rightarrow {{\mathbb {N}}}\), and \(R:Y\rightarrow {{\mathbb {Z}}}^+\) inductively, with \(Y_n=\{R> n\}\). Define \(Y_0=Y\) and \(t_0\equiv 0\). Inductively, suppose that \(Y_{n-1}=Y\setminus \{R<n\}\) and that \(t_{n-1}:Y_{n-1}\rightarrow {{\mathbb {N}}}\) is given. Write \(Y_{n-1}=A_{n-1}\,{{\dot{\cup }}}\,B_{n-1}\) where
Consider the neighborhood
of the set \(A_{n-1}\). Define \(U_{nj}^L\), \(j\ge 1\), to be the connected components of \(A^{(\varepsilon )}_{n-1}\cap \phi _{-n}{\widetilde{{\mathcal {D}}}}_L\) that are mapped inside \({\widetilde{{\mathcal {D}}}}_L\) by \(\phi _n\) and mapped homeomorphically onto \({{\mathcal {D}}}_L\) by \(g_n\). Let
Define \(R|U_{nj}^1=n\) for each \(U_{nj}^1\) and take \(Y_n=Y_{n-1}\setminus \bigcup _j U_{nj}^1\). Finally, define \(t_n:Y_n\rightarrow {{\mathbb {N}}}\) as
and take \(A_n=\{t_n=0\}\), \(B_n=\{t_n\ge 1\}\) and \(Y_n = A_n\,{{\dot{\cup }}}\,B_n\).
Remark 2.3
By construction, property (ii) of Theorem 2.1 is satisfied. It remains to verify that \({\text {Leb}}(R>n)\) decays exponentially.
Visualisation of \(B_n\). The set \(B_n\) is a disjoint union \(B_n=\bigcup _{m=1}^n C_n(m)\) where \(C_n(m)\) is a disjoint union of collars around each component of \(\{R= m\}\). Each collar in \(C_n(m)\) is homeomorphic under \(g_m\) to \(\bigcup _{k\ge n-m+1}I_k\) with outer ring homeomorphic under \(g_m\) to \(I_{n-m+1}\), and the union of outer rings is the set \(\{t_n=1\}\). This picture presupposes Proposition 2.4 below which guarantees that each new generation of collars \(C_n(n)\) does not intersect the set \(\bigcup _{1\le m\le n-1}C_{n-1}(m)\) of collars in the previous generation. A sample visualization after 7 generations is shown in Fig. 1.
We now turn to the proof of Proposition 2.4. A cautionary diagram is shown in Fig. 2.
Proposition 2.4
Choose \(\varepsilon <(C_3^{-1}\delta )^{1/\alpha }\) sufficiently small that \(W^u_\varepsilon (x)\subset {\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}\) for all \(x\in {\widetilde{{\mathcal {D}}}}_L\). Then \(\bigcup _jU_{nj}^{L-1}\subset A_{n-1}\) for all \(n\ge 1\).
Proof
We argue by contradiction. There is nothing to prove for \(n=1\). Let \(n\ge 2\) be least such that the result fails and choose j such that \(U_{nj}^{L-1}\) intersects \(B_{n-1}\). Then either (i) \(U_{nj}^{L-1}\subset B_{n-1}\), or (ii) \(U_{nj}^{L-1}\) intersects \(\partial A_{n-1}\).
In case (i), choose \(x\in U_{nj}^{L-1}\) (so in particular \(\phi _nx\in {\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}\)) with \(g_nx=p\). Since \(U_{nj}^{L-1}\subset U_{nj}^L\subset A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\), there exists \(y\in A_{n-1}\) with \(d(\phi _nx,\phi _ny)<\varepsilon \). In particular, \(\phi _ny\in {\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}\) so \(g_ny\) is well-defined. Note that \(x\in U_{nj}^{L-1}\) and \(y\not \in U_{nj}^{L-1}\) since \(U_{nj}^{L-1}\subset B_{n-1}\). Hence the geodesic \(\ell \) in \({{\mathcal {D}}}\) joining \(g_nx\) and \(g_ny\) intersects \(g_n\partial U_{nj}^{L-1}\). Choose \(z\in \partial U_{nj}^{L-1}\cap g_n^{-1}\ell \). Since \(g_n=\pi \circ \phi _n\), it follows from (2.3) that
which is a contradiction. This rules out case (i).
In case (ii), choose \(x\in U_{nj}^{L-1}\cap \partial A_{n-1}\). We show below that there exists \(y\in \partial A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\) such that \(d(\phi _nx,\phi _ny)\le \varepsilon \). In particular, \(g_nx\) and \(g_ny\) are well-defined and \(d(g_nx,g_ny)\le C_3\varepsilon ^\alpha <\delta \). Since \(U_{nj}^L\subset A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\), we have that \(y\not \in U_{nj}^L\). It follows that \(g_nx\in {{\mathcal {D}}}_{L-1}\) while \(g_ny\not \in {{\mathcal {D}}}_L\). Hence \(d(g_nx,g_ny)\ge \delta \) which is the desired contradiction.
It remains to verify that there exists \(y\in \partial A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\) such that \(d(\phi _nx,\phi _ny)\le \varepsilon \). Since n is least, \(B_{n-1}\) is a disjoint union of collars as described in the visualization above. Hence there exists a collar \(Q\subset C_{n-1}(n-k)\) intersected by \(U_{nj}^{L-1}\) for some \(1\le k<n\) such that x lies in the outer boundary \(\partial _oQ\) of Q. Note that \(\partial _o Q= \partial A_{n-1}\cap Q\). Let D denote the disk enclosed by \(\partial _oQ\) and let
We claim that \(S\ne \emptyset \) and \(S\subset Q\). Then S is a \((\dim Y-1)\)-dimensional sphere contained in \(\partial A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\) and there exists \(y\in S\) with the desired properties, see Fig. 3. (The point of the claim is that S lies entirely in \(Y_{n-1}\).)
Note that \(g_{n-k}\) maps Q homeomorphically onto the set \(J=\bigcup _{i\ge k}I_i\) which is an annulus of radial thickness \(\delta \lambda ^{\alpha k}\). By (2.3), \(\phi _{n-k}\) maps Q homeomorphically onto a set \({{\tilde{J}}}=\pi ^{-1}J\) of radial thickness at least \((C_3^{-1}\delta \lambda ^{\alpha k})^{1/\alpha } = (C_3^{-1}\delta )^{1/\alpha }\lambda ^k\).
Moreover, \(\phi _k({{\tilde{J}}}\cap \phi _{n-k}A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )})\subset \phi _nA_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\) is contained in the set of points within d-distance \(\varepsilon \) of \(\phi _n\partial A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\), so by definition of \(\lambda \) we have that \({{\tilde{J}}}\cap \phi _{n-k}A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\) is contained in the set of points within d-distance \(\varepsilon \lambda ^k\) of the outer boundary of \({{\tilde{J}}}\). Since \(\varepsilon <(C_3^{-1}\delta )^{1/\alpha }\), we obtain that \({{\tilde{J}}}\cap \phi _{n-k}\partial A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\) is homeomorphic to a \((\dim Y-1)\)-dimensional sphere contained entirely inside \({{\tilde{J}}}\). Hence \(S=Q\cap \partial A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\) is homeomorphic to a \((\dim Y-1)\)-dimensional sphere contained entirely inside Q, as required. \(\square \)
Proposition 2.5
Choose \(\varepsilon <\big \{C_3^{-1}\delta (\lambda ^{-\alpha }-1)\big \}^{1/\alpha }\). Then for all \(n\ge 1\),
-
(a)
\(A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\subset \{y\in Y_{n-1}:t_{n-1}(y)\le 1\}\) for all \(n\ge 1\).
-
(b)
\(\phi _{-n}W_\varepsilon ^u(\phi _nx)\subset A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\) for all \(x\in A_{n-1}\).
Proof
(a) Suppose that \(t_{n-1}(y)>1\). Then there exists a collar in \(C_{n-1}(n-k)\) containing y. Let Q denote the outer ring of the collar with outer boundary \(Q_1\) and inner boundary \(Q_2\). Then \(t_{n-1}|Q\equiv 1\) and \(t_{n-1}(y)>1\), so y lies inside the region bounded by \(Q_2\).
Suppose for contradiction that \(y\in A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\). Then we can choose \(x\in A_{n-1}\) with \(d(\phi _nx,\phi _ny)<\varepsilon \). Let \(\ell \) be the geodesic in \(W^u_\varepsilon (\phi _nx)\) connecting \(\phi _nx\) to \(\phi _ny\) and define \(q_j\in Q_j\cap \phi _{-n}\ell \) for \(j=1,2\).
Recall that Q is homeomorphic under \(g_{n-k}\) to \(I_k\). Moreover, \(g_{n-k}q_j\) lie in distinct components of the boundary of \(I_k\), so
Hence
But \(d(\phi _nq_1,\phi _nq_2)\le d(\phi _ny,\phi _nx)<\varepsilon \) so we obtain the desired contradiction.
(b) Let \(x\in A_{n-1}\) and \(y\in \phi _{-n}W^u_\varepsilon (\phi _nx)\). Note that \(y\in A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\) if and only if \(y\in Y_{n-1}\). Hence we must show that \(y\in Y_{n-1}\). If not, then there exists \(k\ge 1\) such that \(y\in \{R=n-k\}\). Define \(Q\subset C_{n-1}(n-k)\) to be the outer ring of the corresponding collar. Choosing \(q_1\) and \(q_2\) as in part (a) we again obtain a contradiction. \(\square \)
Lemma 2.6
There exists \(a_1>0\) such that for all \(n\ge 1\),
-
(a)
\({\text {Leb}}(B_{n-1}\cap A_n)\ge a_1{\text {Leb}}(B_{n-1})\).
-
(b)
\({\text {Leb}}(A_{n-1}\cap B_n)\le \tfrac{1}{4}{\text {Leb}}(A_{n-1})\).
-
(c)
\({\text {Leb}}(A_{n-1}\cap \{R=n\})\le \tfrac{1}{4}{\text {Leb}}(A_{n-1})\).
Proof
(a) Let \(y\in B_{n-1}\). By Proposition 2.4, \(y\not \in \bigcup _j U_{nj}^{L-1}\) so in particular \(y\in Y_n\). Note that \(t_n(y)=0\) if and only if \(t_{n-1}(y)=1\). Hence \(B_{n-1}\cap A_n=\{t_{n-1}=1\}\).
Now let \(Q\subset C_{n-1}(n-k)\subset B_{n-1}\) be a collar (\(1\le k\le n\)) with outer ring \(Q\cap A_n=Q\cap \{t_{n-1}=1\}\). Then \(g_{n-k}=\pi \circ \phi _{n-k}\) maps Q homeomorphically onto \(\bigcup _{i\ge k}I_i\) and \(Q\cap \{t_{n-1}=1\}\) homeomorphically onto \(I_k\). Let \(d_u=\dim E^u\). By (2.1) and (2.2),
where \(D(d_u,\lambda ,k)=\dfrac{(1+\lambda ^{k-1})^{d_u}-1}{(1+\lambda ^{k-1})^{d_u}-(1+\lambda ^k)^{d_u}}\). Since \(\lim _{k\rightarrow \infty }D(d_u,\lambda ,k)=(1-\lambda )^{-1}\), we obtain that \({\text {Leb}}(Q)\le C_1C_2^2D{\text {Leb}}(Q\cap A_n)\) where \(D=\sup _{k\ge 1}\)\(D(d_u,\lambda ^\alpha ,k)\) is a constant depending only on \(d_u\) and \(\lambda ^\alpha \). Summing over collars Q, it follows that \({\text {Leb}}(B_{n-1})\le C_1C_2^2D {\text {Leb}}(B_{n-1}\cap A_n)\).
(b) By Proposition 2.4, \(U_{nj}^2\subset U_{nj}^{L-1}\subset A_{n-1}\) for each j. It follows that \(A_{n-1}\cap B_n=\bigcup _j U_{nj}^2\setminus U_{nj}^1\). By (2.1), (2.2) and (2.4),
Hence
(c) Proceeding as in part (b) with \(U_{nj}^2\setminus U_{nj}^1\) replaced by \(U_{nj}^1\), leads to the estimate
\(\square \)
Corollary 2.7
For all \(n\ge 1\),
-
(a)
\({\text {Leb}}(A_{n-1}\cap A_n)\ge \tfrac{1}{2}{\text {Leb}}(A_{n-1})\).
-
(b)
\({\text {Leb}}(B_{n-1}\cap B_n)\le (1-a_1){\text {Leb}}(B_{n-1})\).
-
(c)
\({\text {Leb}}(B_n)\le \frac{1}{4}{\text {Leb}}(A_{n-1})+(1-a_1){\text {Leb}}(B_{n-1})\).
-
(d)
\({\text {Leb}}(A_n)\ge \frac{1}{2}{\text {Leb}}(A_{n-1})+a_1{\text {Leb}}(B_{n-1})\).
Proof
Recall that \(A_{n-1}\subset Y_{n-1}= Y_n\,{{\dot{\cup }}}\,\{R=n\} =A_n\,{{\dot{\cup }}}\, B_n\,{{\dot{\cup }}}\,\{R=n\}\). Hence by Lemma 2.6(b,c),
proving (a). Similarly, by Lemma 2.6(a),
proving (b).
Next, recall that \(B_n=B_n\cap Y_{n-1}= B_n\cap \big (A_{n-1}\,{{\dot{\cup }}}\, B_{n-1}\big )\). Hence part (c) follows from Lemma 2.6(b) and part (b). Similarly, \(A_n=A_n\cap \big (A_{n-1}\,{{\dot{\cup }}}\, B_{n-1}\big )\) and part (d) follows from Lemma 2.6(a) and part (a). \(\square \)
Corollary 2.8
There exists \(a_0>0\) such that \( {\text {Leb}}(B_n)\le a_0{\text {Leb}}(A_n) \) for all \(n\ge 0\).
Proof
Let \( a_0=\dfrac{2+a_1}{2a_1}. \) We prove the result by induction. The case \(n=0\) is trivial since \(B_0=\emptyset \). For the induction step from \(n-1\) to n, we consider separately the cases \({\text {Leb}}(B_{n-1})>\frac{1}{2a_1}{\text {Leb}}(A_{n-1})\) and \({\text {Leb}}(B_{n-1})\le \frac{1}{2a_1}{\text {Leb}}(A_{n-1})\).
Suppose first that \({\text {Leb}}(B_{n-1})>\frac{1}{2a_1}{\text {Leb}}(A_{n-1})\). By Corollary 2.7(c),
By Corollary 2.7(d),
Hence by the induction hypothesis,
establishing the result at time n.
Finally, suppose that \({\text {Leb}}(B_{n-1})\le \frac{1}{2a_1}{\text {Leb}}(A_{n-1})\). By Corollary 2.7(a,c),
completing the proof. \(\square \)
Lemma 2.9
Let \(\varepsilon \in (0,\frac{1}{2}\delta _0)\) be small as in Propositions 2.4 and 2.5. There exist \(c_1>0\) and \(N\ge 1\) such that
Proof
Fix \(\lambda \in (0,1)\), \(L>1\), \(0<\delta<\delta _1<\delta _0\) and \(N_1\ge 1\) as defined from the outset. Recall that \(C_3(3\delta )^\alpha <\frac{1}{2}\delta _0\) and \(C_4(L+1)\delta <\delta _0\). Choose \(N_2\ge 1\) such that \(\lambda ^{N_2}<\varepsilon /\delta _0\) and take \(N=N_1+N_2\).
We claim that
-
(*)
For all \(z\in \Lambda \), there exists \(i\in \{1,\dots ,N_1\}\) such that \(\pi (\phi _{i+N_2} W^u_\varepsilon (z)\cap {\widetilde{{\mathcal {D}}}}_L)\supset {{\mathcal {D}}}_L\).
Fix \(z\in \Lambda \). By the definition of \(N_1\), there exists \(1\le i\le N_1\) such that \(d_M(\phi _{-i}p,\phi _{N_2}z)<\delta \). Let \(y\in {{\mathcal {D}}}_L\). Then
Using the local product structure and choice of \(\delta \), we can define \(x\in W^{cs}_{\delta _1}(\phi _{-i}y)\cap W^u_{\delta _1}(\phi _{N_2}z)\). Then \(\phi _ix\in W^{cs}_{\delta _1}(y)\subset {\widetilde{{\mathcal {D}}}}_L\) and \(g_ix=\pi \phi _ix=y\). Also,
By the definition of \(N_2\),
Hence we obtain that \(y=\pi \phi _ix\in \pi (\phi _{i+N_2}W^u_\varepsilon (z)\cap {\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}_L)\) proving (*).
Next, we claim that
-
(**)
For all \(z\in \phi _nA_{n-1}\), \(n\ge 1\), there exist \(i\in \{0,\dots ,N\}\) and j such that \(U_{n+i,j}^1\subset \phi _{-n}W^u_{\delta _0}(z)\).
To prove (**), define \(V_\varepsilon =\phi _{-n}W^u_\varepsilon (z)\). By Proposition 2.5(b), \(V_\varepsilon \subset A_{n-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\). We now consider two possible cases.
Suppose first that \(V_\varepsilon \subset A_{n+i}\) for all \(0\le i\le N\). By claim (*), there exists \(1\le i\le N=N_1+N_2\) such that
while \(V_\varepsilon \subset A_{n+i-1}\) by assumption. This means that \(V_\varepsilon \supset U_{n+i,j}^L\) for some j. Hence
and we are done.
In this way, we reduce to the second case where there exists \(0\le i\le N\) least such that \(V_\varepsilon \not \subset A_{n+i}\). Since i is least, \(V_\varepsilon \subset A_{n+i-1}^{(\varepsilon )}\). (The \(\varepsilon \) is required in case \(i=0\).) By Proposition 2.5(a), \(V_\varepsilon \subset \{t_{n+i-1}\le 1\}\). Hence
Since \(V_\varepsilon \setminus A_{n+i}\ne \emptyset \), this means that there exists j so that \(V_\varepsilon \) intersects \(U_{n+i,j}^2\). Hence we can choose \(a_2\in W^u_\varepsilon (z)\cap \phi _n U_{n+i,j}^2\).
Recall that \(\phi _{n+i}U_{n+i,j}^m \subset {\widetilde{{\mathcal {D}}}}_m\) and \(g_{n+i}U_{n+i,j}^m = {{\mathcal {D}}}_m\) for \(m=1,2\). In particular, \(b_2=\phi _ia_2\in {\widetilde{{\mathcal {D}}}}_2\) and \(c_2=g_ia_2\in {{\mathcal {D}}}_2\).
Let \(c_1\in {{\mathcal {D}}}_1\). Then \(d_M(c_1,b_2)\le d_M(c_1,c_2)+d_M(c_2,b_2)<3\delta +\delta _1<4\delta _1\). Hence, using the local product structure and definition of \(\delta _1\), we can define \(b_1\in W^{cs}_{\delta _0}(c_1)\cap W^u_{\delta _0}(b_2)\) and \(a_1=\phi _{-i}b_1\). Note that
Hence
and so \(d(a_1,z)\le d(a_1,a_2)+d(a_2,z)<\frac{1}{2}\delta _0+\varepsilon <\delta _0\). It follows that \(a_1\in W^u_{\delta _0}(z)\) and thereby that \(c_1\in g_i(W^u_{\delta _0}(z)\cap \phi _{-i}{\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}_1)\). This proves that \({{\mathcal {D}}}_1\subset g_i(W^u_{\delta _0}(z)\cap \phi _{-i}{\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}_1)\). Hence \(U_{n+i,j}^1\subset g_{-(n+i)}{{\mathcal {D}}}_1\subset \phi _{-n}W^u_{\delta _0}(z)\) verifying claim (**).
We are now in a position to complete the proof of the lemma. Let \(n\ge 1\), and let \(Z\subset \phi _nA_{n-1}\) be a maximal set of points such that the balls \(W^u_{\delta _0/2}(z)\) are disjoint for \(z\in Z\). If \(x\in \phi _nA_{n-1}\), then \(W^u_{\delta _0/2}(x)\) intersects at least one \(W^u_{\delta _0/2}(z)\), \(z\in Z\), by maximality of the set Z. Hence \(\phi _nA_{n-1}\subset \bigcup _{z\in Z}W^u_{\delta _0}(z)\). It follows that
Let \(z\in Z\) and let \(U_z=U_{n+i,j}^1\) be as in claim (**). In particular, \(g_{n+i}U_z={{\mathcal {D}}}_1=W^u_\delta (p)\). Also, \({\text {Leb}}(\phi _{n+i}U_z)\le |D\phi _1|E^u|_\infty ^{im}{\text {Leb}}(\phi _nU_z)\) where \(m=\dim E^u\). Hence, by (2.2),
By (2.1),
where \(K=C_1C_3|D\phi _1|E^u|_\infty ^{Nm}\,\dfrac{\sup _{y\in Y}{\text {Leb}}(W^u_{\delta _0}(y))}{{\text {Leb}}(W^u_\delta (p))}\).
Finally, the sets \(U_z\) are connected components of \(\bigcup _{0\le i\le N}\{R=n+i\}\) lying in distinct disjoint sets \(\phi _{-n}W^u_{\delta _0}(z)\). Hence
as required. \(\square \)
We can now complete the proof of Theorem 2.1.
Corollary 2.10
\({\text {Leb}}(R>n)=O(\gamma ^n)\) for some \(\gamma \in (0,1)\).
Proof
By Corollary 2.8 and Lemma 2.9,
where \(d_2=c_1^{-1}(1+a_0)\). It follows that
Hence
In particular, \({\text {Leb}}(R>kN)\le \gamma ^{kN}\) with \(\gamma =(1-d_2^{-1})^{1/N}\) and the result follows. \(\square \)
3 Exponential Decay of Correlations for Flows
In this section, we consider exponential decay of correlations for a class of uniformly hyperbolic skew product flows satisfying a uniform nonintegrability condition, generalising from \(C^2\) flows as treated in [8] to \(C^{1+\alpha }\) flows. In doing so, we remove the restriction in [6, 9] that unstable manifolds are one-dimensional.
The arguments are a straightforward combination of those in [6, 8]. We follow closely the presentation in [6], with the focus on incorporating the ideas from [8] where required.
Quotienting by stable leaves leads to a class of semiflows considered in Subsection 3.1. The flows are considered in Subsection 3.2.
The current section is completely independent from Sect. 2, so overlaps in notation will not cause any confusion.
3.1 \(C^{1+\alpha }\) Uniformly Expanding Semiflows
Fix \(\alpha \in (0,1)\). Let \(Y\subset {{\mathbb {R}}}^m\) be an open ballFootnote 4 in Euclidean space with Euclidean distance d. We suppose that \({\text {diam}}Y=1\). Let \({\text {Leb}}\) denote Lebesgue measure on Y. Let \({{\mathcal {P}}}\) be a countable partition \(\bmod \, 0\) of Y consisting of open sets.
Suppose that \(F:\bigcup _{U\in {{\mathcal {P}}}}U\rightarrow Y\) is \(C^{1+\alpha }\) on each \(U\in {{\mathcal {P}}}\) and maps U diffeomorphically onto Y. Let \({{\mathcal {H}}}=\{h:Y\rightarrow U:U\in {{\mathcal {P}}}\}\) denote the family of inverse branches, and let \({{\mathcal {H}}}_n\) denote the inverse branches for \(F^n\). We say that F is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly expanding map if there exist constants \(C_1\ge 1\), \(\rho _0\in (0,1)\) such that
-
(i)
\(|Dh|_\infty \le C_1\rho _0^n\) for all \(h\in {{\mathcal {H}}}_n\), \(n\ge 1\);
-
(ii)
\(|\log |\det Dh|\,|_\alpha \le C_1\) for all \(h\in {{\mathcal {H}}}\);
where \(|\psi |_\alpha =\sup _{y\ne y'}|\psi (y)-\psi (y')|/d(y,y')^\alpha \). Under these assumptions, it is standard [1] that there exists a unique F-invariant absolutely continuous measure \(\mu \). The density \(d\mu /d{\text {Leb}}\) is \(C^\alpha \), bounded above and below, and \(\mu \) is ergodic and mixing.
We consider roof functions \(r:\bigcup _{U\in {{\mathcal {P}}}}U\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^+\) that are \(C^1\) on partition elements U with \(\inf r>0\). Define the suspension \(Y^r=\{(y,u)\in Y\times {{\mathbb {R}}}:0\le u\le r(y)\}/\sim \) where \((y,r(y))\sim (Fy,0)\). The suspension semiflow \(F_t:Y^r\rightarrow Y^r\) is given by \(F_t(y,u)=(y,u+t)\) computed modulo identifications, with ergodic invariant probability measure \(\mu ^r=(\mu \times \textrm{Lebesgue})/{{\bar{r}}}\) where \({{\bar{r}}}=\int _Yr\,d\mu \). We say that \(F_t\) is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly expanding semiflow if F is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly expanding map and we can choose \(C_1\) from condition (i) and \(\varepsilon >0\) such that
-
(iii)
\(|D(r\circ h)|_\infty \le C_1\) for all \(h\in {{\mathcal {H}}}\);
-
(iv)
\(\sum _{h\in {{\mathcal {H}}}} e^{\varepsilon |r\circ h|_\infty }|\det Dh|_\infty <\infty \).
Let \(r_n=\sum _{j=0}^{n-1}r\circ F^j\) and define
for \(h_1,h_2\in {{\mathcal {H}}}_n\). We require the following uniform nonintegrability condition [8, Equation (6.6)]:
-
(UNI)
There exists \(E>0\) and \(h_1,h_2\in {{\mathcal {H}}}_{n_0}\), for some sufficiently large \(n_0\ge 1\), with the following property: There exists a continuous unit vector field \(\ell :{{\mathbb {R}}}^m\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^m\) such that \(|D\psi _{h_1,h_2}(y)\cdot \ell (y)|\ge E\) for all \(y\in Y\).
(The requirement “sufficiently large” can be made explicit as in [6, Equations (2.1) to (2.3)].) From now on, \(n_0\), \(h_1\) and \(h_2\) are fixed.
Define \(F_\alpha (Y^r)\) to consist of \(L^\infty \) functions \(v:Y^r\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) such that \(\Vert v\Vert _\alpha =|v|_\infty +|v|_\alpha <\infty \) where
Define \(F_{\alpha ,k}(Y^r)\) to consist of functions with \(\Vert v\Vert _{\alpha ,k}=\sum _{j=0}^k \Vert \partial _t^jv\Vert _\alpha <\infty \) where \(\partial _t\) denotes differentiation along the semiflow direction.
We can now state the main result in this section. Given \(v\in L^1(Y^r)\), \(w\in L^\infty (Y^r)\), define the correlation function
Theorem 3.1
Suppose that \(F_t:Y^r\rightarrow Y^r\) is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly expanding semiflow satisfying (UNI). Then there exist constants \(c,C>0\) such that
(alternatively, all \(v\in F_{\alpha ,2}(Y^r)\), \(w\in L^\infty (Y^r)\)).
In the remainder of this subsection, we prove Theorem 3.1.
For \(s\in {{\mathbb {C}}}\), let \(P_s\) denote the (non-normalized) transfer operator
For \(v:Y\rightarrow {{\mathbb {C}}}\), define \(\Vert v\Vert _\alpha =\max \{|v|_\infty ,|v|_\alpha \}\) where \(|v|_\alpha =\sup _{y\ne y'}|v(y)-v(y')|/d(y,y')^\alpha \). Let \(C^\alpha (Y)\) denote the space of functions \(v:Y\rightarrow {{\mathbb {C}}}\) with \(\Vert v\Vert _\alpha <\infty \). We introduce the family of equivalent norms
Proposition 3.2
Write \(s=\sigma +ib\). There exists \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\) such that the family \(s\mapsto P_s\) of operators on \(C^\alpha (Y)\) is continuous on \(\{\sigma >-\varepsilon \}\). Moreover, \(\sup _{|\sigma |<\varepsilon }\Vert P_s\Vert _b<\infty \).
Proof
The first five lines of the proof of [6, Proposition 2.5] should be changed to the following:
Using the inequality \(1-t\le -\log t\) valid for \(t>0\), we obtain for \(a>b>0\) that \( a-b=a(1-\frac{b}{a})\le -a\log \frac{b}{a}=a(\log a-\log b). \) Hence \(\big ||\det Dh(x)|-|\det Dh(y)|\big |\le |\det Dh|_\infty \big (\log |\det Dh(x)|-\log |\det Dh(y)|\big )\) and so by (ii),
The proof now proceeds exactly as for [6, Proposition 2.5] (with R, \(h'\) and \(|x-y|\) changed to r, \(\det Dh\) and d(x, y)). \(\square \)
The unperturbed operator \(P_0\) has a simple leading eigenvalue \(\lambda _0=1\) with strictly positive \(C^\alpha \) eigenfunction \(f_0\). By Proposition 3.2, there exists \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\) such that \(P_\sigma \) has a continuous family of simple eigenvalues \(\lambda _\sigma \) for \(|\sigma |<\varepsilon \) with associated \(C^\alpha \) eigenfunctions \(f_\sigma \). For \(s=\sigma +ib\) with \(|\sigma |\le \varepsilon \), we define the normalized transfer operators
In particular, \(L_\sigma 1=1\) and \(|L_s|_\infty \le 1\).
Set \(C_2=C_1^2/(1-\rho )\), \(\rho =\rho _0^\alpha \). Then
- (\(\hbox {ii}_1\)):
-
\(|\log |\det Dh|\,|_\alpha \le C_2\) for all \(h\in {{\mathcal {H}}}_n\), \(n\ge 1\),
- (\(\hbox {iii}_1\)):
-
\(|D(r_n\circ h)|_\infty \le C_2\) for all \(h\in {{\mathcal {H}}}_n\), \(n\ge 1\).
Write
Lemma 3.3
(Lasota-Yorke inequality). There is a constant \(C_3>1\) such that
for all \(s=\sigma +ib\), \(|\sigma |<\varepsilon \), and all \(n\ge 1\), \(v\in C^\alpha (Y)\).
Proof
It follows from (\(\hbox {ii}_1\)) that
for all \(h\in {{\mathcal {H}}}_n\), \(n\ge 1\), \(x,y,z\in Y\). The proof now proceeds exactly as for [6, Lemma 2.7]. \(\square \)
Corollary 3.4
\(\Vert L_s^n\Vert _b\le 2C_3\) for all \(s=\sigma +ib\), \(|\sigma |<\varepsilon \), and all \(n\ge 1\).
Proof
This is unchanged from [6, Corollary 2.8]. \(\square \)
Given \(b\in {{\mathbb {R}}}\), we define the cone
(The constant \(C_4\) is specified in Lemma 3.8.)
Throughout \(B_\delta (y)=\{x\in {{\mathbb {R}}}^m:d(x,y)<\delta \}\).
Lemma 3.5
(Cancellation Lemma). Assume that the (UNI) condition is satisfied (with associated constants \(E>0\) and \(n_0\ge 1\)). Let \(h_1,h_2\in {{\mathcal {H}}}_{n_0}\) be the branches from (UNI).
There exists \(0<\delta <\Delta =4\pi /E\) such that for all \(s=\sigma +ib\), \(|\sigma |<\varepsilon \), \(|b|\ge 1\), and all \((u,v)\in {{\mathcal {C}}}_b\) we have the following:
For every \(y'\in Y\) with \(B_{(\delta +\Delta )/|b|}(y')\subset Y\), there exists \(y''\in B_{\Delta /|b|}(y')\) such that one of the following inequalities holds on \(B_{\delta /|b|}(y'')\):
- Case \(h_1\)::
-
\(|A_{s,h_1,n_0}(f_\sigma v)+ A_{s,h_2,n_0}(f_\sigma v)| \le \tfrac{3}{4} A_{\sigma ,h_1,n_0}(f_\sigma u)+ A_{\sigma ,h_2,n_0}(f_\sigma u)\),
- Case \(h_2\)::
-
\(|A_{s,h_1,n_0}(f_\sigma v)+ A_{s,h_2,n_0}(f_\sigma v)| \le A_{\sigma ,h_1,n_0}(f_\sigma u)+ \tfrac{3}{4} A_{\sigma ,h_2,n_0}(f_\sigma u)\).
Proof
Let \(\theta =V-b\psi _{h_1,h_2}\) where \(\psi _{h_1,h_2}=r_{n_0}\circ h_1-r_{n_0}\circ h_2\) and \(V=\arg (v\circ h_1)-\arg (v\circ h_2)\).
We follow the following steps from [6, Lemma 2.9]:
-
(1)
Reduce to the situation where \(|v(h_my')|> \frac{1}{2} u(h_my')\) for both \(m=1\) and \(m=2\).
-
(2)
Establish the estimate \(|V(y)-V(y')|\le \pi /6\) for all \(y\in B_{(\delta +\Delta )/|b|}(y')\).
-
(3)
Construct \(y''\in B_{\Delta /|b|}(y')\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} b(\psi _{h_1,h_2}(y'')-\psi _{h_1,h_2}(y'))=\theta (y')-\pi \, \bmod 2\pi . \end{aligned}$$ -
(4)
Deduce that \(|\theta (y)-\pi |\le 2\pi /3\) for all \(y\in B_{(\delta +\Delta )/|b|}(y')\).
-
(5)
Conclude the desired result.
Only step (3) requires any change from the argument in [6, Lemma 2.9]. We provide here the modified argument. Approximate the continuous unit vector field \(\ell :{{\mathbb {R}}}^m\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^m\) in (UNI) by a smooth vector field \(\ell :{{\mathbb {R}}}^m\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^m\) with \(|\ell (x)|\le 1\) for all \(x\in {{\mathbb {R}}}^m\). By condition (\(\hbox {iii}_1\)), the approximation can be chosen close enough that
Let \(g:[0,\Delta /|b|]\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^m\) be the solution to the initial value problem
and set \(y_t=g(t)\). Note that \(d(y_t,y')\le \int _0^t|\ell (g(s))|\,ds\le \Delta /|b|\), so \(y_t\in B_{\Delta /|b|}(y')\) for all \(t\in [0,\Delta /|b|]\). By the mean value theorem applied to \(\psi _{h_1,h_2}\circ g:[0,\Delta /|b|]\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) and (3.2),
for all \(t\in [0,\Delta /|b|]\). It follows that \(b(\psi _{h_1,h_2}(y_t)-\psi _{h_1,h_2}(y'))\) fills out an interval around 0 of length at least \(2\pi \) as t varies in \([0,\Delta /|b|]\). In particular, we can choose \(y''\in B_{\Delta /|b|}(y')\) such that (3) holds. \(\square \)
Let \(\{y_1',\dots ,y_k'\}\subset Y\) be a maximal set of points such that the open balls \(B_{(\delta +\Delta )/|b|}(y_i')\) are disjoint and contained in Y.
Let \((u,v)\in {{\mathcal {C}}}_b\). For each \(i=1,\dots ,k\), there exists a ball \(B_i=B_{\delta /|b|}(y_i'')\) on which the conclusion of Lemma 3.5 holds. Write \({\text {type}}(B_i)=h_m\) if we are in case \(h_m\). Let \({{\widehat{B}}}_i=B_{\frac{1}{2}\delta /|b|}(y_i'')\)
There exists a universal constant \(C>0\) and a \(C^1\) function \(\omega _i:Y\rightarrow [0,1]\) such that \(\omega _i\equiv 1\) on \({{\widehat{B}}}_i\), \(\omega _i\equiv 0\) on \(Y\setminus B_i\), and \(\Vert \omega _i\Vert _{C^1}\le C|b|/\delta \). Define \(\omega :Y\rightarrow [0,1]\),
Note that \(\Vert \omega \Vert _{C^1}\le C'|b|\) where \(C'=C\delta \) is independent of \((u,v)\in {{\mathcal {C}}}_b\) and \(s\in {{\mathbb {C}}}\), and we can assume that \(C'>4\). Then \(\chi =1-\omega /C':Y\rightarrow [\frac{3}{4},1]\) satisfies \(|D\chi |\le |b|\). Moreover, if \({\text {type}}(B_i)=h_m\) then \(\chi \equiv \eta \) on \({\text {range}}h_m\) where \(\eta =1-1/C'\in (0,1)\).
Corollary 3.6
Let \(\delta \), \(\Delta \) be as in Lemma 3.5. Let \(|b|\ge 1\), \((u,v)\in {{\mathcal {C}}}_b\). Let \(\chi =\chi (b,u,v)\) be the \(C^1\) function described above (using the branches \(h_1,h_2\in {{\mathcal {H}}}_{n_0}\) from (UNI)). Then \(|L_s^{n_0}v|\le L_\sigma ^{n_0}(\chi u)\) for all \(s=\sigma +ib\), \(|\sigma |<\varepsilon \).
Proof
This is immediate from Lemma 3.5 and the definition of \(\chi \). \(\square \)
Define the disjoint union \({{\widehat{B}}}=\bigcup {{\widehat{B}}}_i\).
Proposition 3.7
Let \(K>0\). There exists \(c_1>0\) such that \(\int _{{{\widehat{B}}}}w\,d\mu \ge c_1 \int _Y w\,d\mu \) for all \(C^\alpha \) function \(w:Y\rightarrow (0,\infty )\) with \(|\log w|_\alpha \le K|b|^\alpha \), for all \(|b|\ge 16\pi /E\).
Proof
Let \(y\in Y\). Since \((\delta +\Delta )/|b|\le 2\Delta /|b|=8\pi /(E|b|)\le \frac{1}{2}\), there exists \(z\in Y\) with \(B_{(\delta +\Delta )/|b|}(z)\subset Y\) such that \(d(z,y)<(\delta +\Delta )/|b|\). By maximality of the set of points \(\{y'_1,\dots ,y'_k\}\), there exists \(y'_i\) such that \(B_{(\delta +\Delta )/|b|}(z)\) intersects \(B_{(\delta +\Delta )/|b|}(y'_i)\). Hence \(Y\subset \bigcup _{i=1}^k B_i^*\) where \(B_i^*= B_{3(\delta +\Delta )/|b|}(y_i')\). Since the density \(d\mu /d{\text {Leb}}\) is bounded above and below, there is a constant \(c_2>0\) such that \(\mu ({{\widehat{B}}}_i)\ge c_2 \mu (B_i^*)\) for each i.
Let \(x\in {{\widehat{B}}}_i\), \(y\in B_i^*\). Then \(d(x,y)\le 4(\delta +\Delta )/|b|\) and so \(|w(x)/w(y)|\le e^{K'}\) where \(K'= \{4(\delta +\Delta )\}^\alpha K\). It follows that
where \(c_1=c_2e^{-K'}\). Since the sets \({{\widehat{B}}}_i\subset Y\) are disjoint,
as required. \(\square \)
Lemma 3.8
(Invariance of cone). There is a constant \(C_4\) depending only on \(C_1\), \(C_2\), \(|f_0^{-1}|_\infty \) and \(|f_0|_\alpha \) such that the following holds:
For all \((u,v)\in {{\mathcal {C}}}_b\), we have that
for all \(s=\sigma +ib\), \(|\sigma |<\varepsilon \), \(|b|\ge 1\). (Here, \(\chi =\chi (b,u,v)\) is from Corollary 3.6.)
Proof
This is unchanged from [6, Lemma 2.12]. \(\square \)
Lemma 3.9
(\(L^2\) contraction). There exist \(\varepsilon ,\beta \in (0,1)\) such that
for all \(m\ge 1\), \(s=\sigma +ib\), \(|\sigma |<\varepsilon \), \(|b|\ge \max \{16\pi /E,1\}\), and all \(v\in C^\alpha (Y)\) satisfying \(|v|_\alpha \le C_4|b|^\alpha |v|_\infty \).
Proof
Define \(u_0\equiv 1, v_0=v/|v|_\infty \) and inductively,
where \(\chi _m=\chi (b,u_m,v_m)\). It is immediate from the definitions that \((u_0,v_0)\in {{\mathcal {C}}}_b\), and it follows from Lemma 3.8 that \((u_m,v_m)\in {{\mathcal {C}}}_b\) for all m. Hence inductively the \(\chi _m\) are well-defined as in Corollary 3.6.
We proceed as in [6, Lemma 2.13] in the following steps.
-
(1)
It suffices to show that there exists \(\beta \in (0,1)\) such that \(\int _Y u_{m+1}^2\,d\mu \le \beta \int u_m^2\,d\mu \) for all m.
-
(2)
Define \(w=L_0^{n_0}(u_m^2)\). Then
$$\begin{aligned} u_{m+1}^2(y)\le {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \xi (\sigma )\eta _1 w(y) &{} \quad y\in {{\widehat{B}}}\\ \xi (\sigma ) w(y) &{} \quad y\in Y\setminus {{\widehat{B}}}\end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$where \(\xi (\sigma )\) can be made as close to 1 as desired by shrinking \(\varepsilon \). Here, \(\eta _1\in (0,1)\) is a constant independent of v, m, s, y.
-
(3)
The function \(w:Y\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition 3.7; consequently \(\int _{{{\widehat{B}}}}w\,d\mu \ge c_1 \int _{Y{\setminus }{{\widehat{B}}}}w\,d\mu \). This leads to the desired conclusion.
\(\square \)
Lemma 3.10
(\(C^\alpha \) contraction). Let \(E'=\max \{16\pi /E,2\}\). There exists \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\), \(\gamma \in (0,1)\) and \(A>0\) such that \(\Vert P_s^n\Vert _b\le \gamma ^n\) for all \(s=\sigma +ib\), \(|\sigma |<\varepsilon \), \(|b|\ge E'\), \(n\ge A\log |b|\).
Proof
This is unchanged from [6, Proposition 2.14, Corollary 2.15 and Theorem 2.16]. \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 3.1
This is identical to [6, Section 2.7]. We note that there is a typo in the statement of [6, Lemma 2.23] where \(|b|\le D'\) should be \(|b|\ge D'\) (twice). Also, for the second statement of [6, Proposition 2.18] it would be more natural to argue that
which is finite by condition (iv). Hence \(\int _Y e^{\varepsilon r}\,d\mu <\infty \) by boundedness of \(d\mu /d{\text {Leb}}\).
3.2 \(C^{1+\alpha }\) Uniformly Hyperbolic Skew Product Flows
Let \(X=Y\times Z\) where Y is an open ball of diameter 1 with Euclidean metric \(d_Y\) and \((Z,d_Z)\) is a compact Riemannian manifold. Define the metric \(d((y,z),(y',z'))=d_Y(y,y')+d_Z(z,z')\) on X. Let \(f(y,z)=(Fy,G(y,z))\) where \(F:Y\rightarrow Y\), \(G:X\rightarrow Z\) are \(C^{1+\alpha }\).
We say that \(f:X\rightarrow X\) is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly hyperbolic skew product if \(F:Y\rightarrow Y\) is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly expanding map satisfying conditions (i) and (ii) as in Sect. 3.1, with absolutely continuous invariant probability measure \(\mu \), and moreover
-
(v)
There exist constants \(C>0\), \(\gamma _0\in (0,1)\) such that \(d(f^n(y,z),f^n(y,z'))\le C\gamma _0^n d(z,z')\) for all \(y\in Y\), \(z,z'\in Z\).
Let \(\pi ^s:X\rightarrow Y\) be the projection \(\pi ^s(y,z)=y\). This defines a semiconjugacy between f and F and there is a unique f-invariant ergodic probability measure \(\mu _X\) on X such that \(\pi ^s_*\mu _X=\mu \).
Suppose that \(r:\bigcup _{U\in {{\mathcal {P}}}}U\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^+\) is \(C^1\) on partition elements U with \(\inf r>0\). Define \(r:X\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^+\) by setting \(r(y,z)=r(y)\). Define the suspension \(X^r=\{(x,u)\in X\times {{\mathbb {R}}}:0\le u\le r(x)\}/\sim \) where \((x,r(x))\sim (fx,0)\). The suspension flow \(f_t:X^r\rightarrow X^r\) is given by \(f_t(x,u)=(x,u+t)\) computed modulo identifications, with ergodic invariant probability measure \(\mu _X^r=(\mu _X\times \textrm{Lebesgue})/{{\bar{r}}}\).
We say that \(f_t\) is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly hyperbolic skew product flow provided \(f:X\rightarrow X\) is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly hyperbolic skew product as above, and \(r:Y\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^+\) satisfies conditions (iii) and (iv) as in Sect. 3.1. If \(F:Y\rightarrow Y\) and \(r:Y\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^+\) satisfy condition (UNI) from Sect. 3.1, then we say that the skew product flow \(f_t\) satisfies (UNI).
Define \(F_\alpha (X^r)\) to consist of \(L^\infty \) functions \(v:X^r\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) such that \(\Vert v\Vert _\alpha =|v|_\infty +|v|_\alpha <\infty \) where
Define \(F_{\alpha ,k}(X^r)\) to consist of functions with \(\Vert v\Vert _{\alpha ,k}=\sum _{j=0}^k \Vert \partial _t^jv\Vert _\alpha <\infty \) where \(\partial _t\) denotes differentiation along the flow direction.
We can now state the main result in this section. Given \(v\in L^1(X^r)\), \(w\in L^\infty (X^r)\), define the correlation function
Theorem 3.11
Assume that \(f_t:X\rightarrow X\) is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) hyperbolic skew product flow satisfying the (UNI) condition. Then there exist constants \(c,C>0\) such that
for all \(t>0\) and all \(v,\,w\in F_{\alpha ,1}(X^r)\) (alternatively all \(v\in F_{\alpha ,2}(X^r)\), \(w\in F_\alpha (X^r)\)).
Proof
4 Proof of Theorem 1.2
We return to the situation of Sect. 2, so \(\Lambda \subset M\) is a uniformly hyperbolic attractor for a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) flow, \(\alpha \in (0,1)\), defined on a compact Riemannian manifold. Define the open unstable disk \(Y=W^u_\delta (p)\) with discrete return time \(R:Y\rightarrow {{\mathbb {Z}}}^+\) and induced map \(F=\pi \circ \phi _R:Y\rightarrow Y\) as in Theorem 2.1.
Under smoothness assumptions on holonomies, we verify the conditions on the suspension flow \(f_t\) in Sect. 3 and obtain Theorem 1.2 as an easy consequence.
Proposition 4.1
Suppose that the center-stable holonomies are \(C^{1+\alpha }\). (In particular, \(\pi :{\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal {D}}}\) is \(C^{1+\alpha }\).) Then (after shrinking \(\delta _0\) in Sect. 2 if necessary) F is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly expanding map.
Proof
As in Remark 2.2, it is immediate that \(F|_U:U\rightarrow Y\) is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) diffeomorphism for all \(U\in {{\mathcal {P}}}\). Let \(h:Y\rightarrow U\) be an inverse branch with \(R|_U=n\), and define \(\pi _U=\pi |_{\phi _n(U)}:\phi _n(U)\rightarrow {{\mathcal {D}}}\). Then
for all \(x\in U\), \(v\in T_xY\). Hence \(|Dh|_\infty \le \rho _0\) where \(\rho _0=\lambda \sup _U|(D\pi _U)^{-1}|_\infty \). Shrinking \(\delta _0\), we can ensure that \(\rho _0<1\). In particular, condition (i) in Sect. 3.1 holds (with \(C_1=1\)). Condition (ii) is the standard distortion estimate. \(\square \)
In the remainder of this section, we suppose moreover that the stable holonomies are \(C^{1+\alpha }\). Shrink \(\delta _0\in (0,1)\) as in Proposition 4.1 and shrink \(\delta _1\in (0,\delta _0)\) so that \(\phi _t(W^s_{\delta _1}(y))\subset W^s_{\delta _0}(\phi _ty)\) for all \(t>0\), \(y\in \Lambda \). Recall that \({{\mathcal {D}}}=W^u_{\delta _0}(p)\) and
The projection \(\pi ^s:\bigcup _{y\in {{\mathcal {D}}}}W^s_{\delta _0}(y)\rightarrow {{\mathcal {D}}}\) given by \(\pi ^s|W^s_{\delta _0}(y)\equiv y\) is \(C^{1+\alpha }\). Moreover, \(\pi =\pi ^s\circ \phi _{r_0}\) where \(\phi _{r_0}:{\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}\rightarrow \bigcup _{y\in {{\mathcal {D}}}}W^s_{\delta _0}(y)\) and \(r_0:{\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}\rightarrow (-\delta _0,\delta _0)\) is \(C^{1+\alpha }\). Define \(r=R+r_0\) on Y. The choice \(\delta _0<1\) ensures that \(\inf r\ge 1-\delta _0>0\). Define the corresponding semiflow \(F_t:Y^r\rightarrow Y^r\).
Proposition 4.2
\(F_t:Y^r\rightarrow Y^r\) is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly expanding semiflow.
Proof
By Proposition 4.1, F is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly expanding map. In particular, conditions (i) and (ii) are satisfied.
Notice that \(F=\pi ^s\circ \phi _r\) where \(r=R+r_0:Y\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^+\) is \(C^{1+\alpha }\) on partition elements \(U\in {{\mathcal {P}}}\). Since \(Dr=Dr_0\) on partition elements, it is immediate that \(\sup _{h\in {{\mathcal {H}}}}|D(r\circ h)|_\infty \le |D r_0|_\infty \sup _{h\in {{\mathcal {H}}}}|Dh|_\infty \le \rho _0|Dr_0|_\infty <\infty \) verifying condition (iii) on r. Recall that \({\text {Leb}}(R>n)=O(\gamma ^n)\) for some \(\gamma \in (0,1)\), so we can choose \(\varepsilon >0\) such that \(\int _Y e^{\varepsilon R}\,d{\text {Leb}}<\infty \). Condition (ii) ensures that \(|\det Dh|_\infty \le ({\text {Leb}}Y)^{-1}e^{C_1}{\text {Leb}}({\text {range}}h)\) for all \(h\in {{\mathcal {H}}}\). Hence \(\sum _{h\in {{\mathcal {H}}}}e^{\varepsilon |r\circ h|_\infty }|\det Dh|_\infty \ll \sum _{h\in {{\mathcal {H}}}}e^{\varepsilon |R\circ h|_\infty }{\text {Leb}}({\text {range}}h)=\int _Y e^{\varepsilon R}\,d{\text {Leb}}<\infty \) verifying condition (iv) on r. \(\square \)
We now make a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) change of coordinates so that \({\widehat{{\mathcal {D}}}}\) is identified with \({{\mathcal {D}}}\times W_{\delta _0}^{s}(p)\times (-\delta _0,\delta _0)\) where \(\{y\}\times W_{\delta _0}^{s}(p)\) is identified with \(W_{\delta _0}^{s}(y)\) for all \(y\in {{\mathcal {D}}}\) and \((-\delta _0,\delta _0)\) is the flow direction. Let \(X=Y\times Z\) where \(Z= W_{\delta _0}^{s}(p)\) and define \(r:X\rightarrow (0,\infty )\) by \(r(y,z)=r(y)\). Also, define \(f=\phi _r:X\rightarrow X\) and the corresponding suspension flow \(f_t:X^r\rightarrow X^r\)
Proposition 4.3
\(f_t:X^r\rightarrow X^r\) is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly hyperbolic skew product flow.
Proof
Note that \(\pi ^s(X)=Y\) and \(\pi ^s(y,z)=y\). Also, \(f(y,z)=(Fy,G(y,z))\) where \(G:X\rightarrow Z\) is \(C^{1+\alpha }\). Since Z corresponds to the exponential contracting stable foliation, condition (v) in Sect. 3.2 is satisfied. Hence \(f:X\rightarrow X\) is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly hyperbolic skew product and the corresponding suspension flow \(f_t:X^r\rightarrow X^r\) is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly hyperbolic skew product flow. \(\square \)
Next we recall the standard argument that joint nonintegrability implies (UNI) in the current situation. (Similar arguments are given for instance in [7, Section 3] and [21, Section 5.3].)
Joint nonintegrability is defined in terms of the temporal distortion function. To define this intrinsically (independently of the inducing scheme) we have to introduce the first return time \(\tau :X\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^+\) and the Poincaré map \(g:X\rightarrow X\) given by
Note that \(\tau \) is constant along stable leaves by the choice of X.
For \(x_1,x_2\in X\), define the local product \([x_1,x_2]\) to be the unique intersection point of \(W^u(x_1)\cap W^s(x_2)\). The temporal distortion function D is defined to be
at points \(x_1,x_2\in X\). The stable and unstable bundles are jointly integrable if and only if \(D\equiv 0\).
Lemma 4.4
Joint nonintegrability of the stable and unstable bundles implies (UNI).
Proof
For points \(x,x'\in X\) with \(x'\in W^u(x)\), we define
Since \(\tau \) is constant along stable leaves,
Next, we find a more convenient expression for \(D_0\) in terms of r and f. Note that for any \(x\in X\), there exists \(N(x)\in {{\mathbb {Z}}}^+\) (the number of returns to X up to time r(x)) such that
Corresponding to the partition \({{\mathcal {P}}}\) of Y, we define the collection \({\widetilde{{\mathcal {P}}}}=\{{{\bar{U}}}\times {{\bar{Z}}}:U\in {{\mathcal {P}}}\}\) of closed subsets of X. Suppose that \(x,x'\in V_0\), \(V_0\in {\widetilde{{\mathcal {P}}}}\), with \(x'\in W^u(x)\). The induced map \(f:X\rightarrow X\) need not be invertible since it is not the first return to X. However, we may construct suitable inverse branches \(z_j\), \(z_j'\) of x, \(x'\) as follows. Set \(z_0=x\), \(z_0'=x'\). Since f is transitive and continuous on closures of partition elements, there exists \(V_1\in {\widetilde{{\mathcal {P}}}}\) and \(z_1\in V_1\) such that \(fz_1=z_0\). Since F is full-branch, \(f(W^u(z_1)\cap V_1)\supset W^u(z_0)\), so there exists \(z_1'\in W^u(z_1)\cap V_1\) such that \(fz_1'=z_0'\). Inductively, we obtain \(V_n\in {\widetilde{{\mathcal {P}}}}\) and \(z_j,z_j'\in V_n\) with \(z_j'\in W^u(z_j)\) such that \(fz_j=z_{j-1}\) and \(fz_j'=z_{j-1}'\).
By construction, \(z_{j-1}=fz_j=g^{N(z_j)}z_j\). Hence \(z_j=g^{-(N(z_1)+\dots +N(z_j))}x\) and
A similar expression holds for \(r(z_j')\). Hence
We are now in a position to complete the proof of the lemma, showing that if (UNI) fails, then \(D\equiv 0\). To do this, we make use of [8, Proposition 7.4] (specifically the equivalence of their conditions 1 and 3). Namely, the failure of the (UNI) condition in Sect. 3.1 means that we can write \(r=\xi \circ F-\xi +\zeta \) on Y where \(\xi :Y\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) is continuous (even \(C^1\)) and \(\zeta \) is constant on partition elements \(U\in {{\mathcal {P}}}\). Extending \(\xi \) and \(\zeta \) trivially to \(X=Y\times Z\), we obtain that \(r=\xi \circ f-\xi +\zeta \) on X where \(\xi :X\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) is continuous and constant on stable leaves, and \(\zeta \) is constant on elements \(V\in {\widetilde{{\mathcal {P}}}}\). In particular,
For \(x,x'\in V_0\), \(V_0\in {\widetilde{{\mathcal {P}}}}\), with \(x'\in W^u(x)\), it follows that
Taking the limit as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), we obtain that \(D_0(x,x')=\xi (x)-\xi (x')\). Hence \(D(x_1,x_2)=\xi (x_1)-\xi ([x_1,x_2])-\xi ([x_2,x_1])+\xi (x_2)\). Since \(\xi \) is constant on stable leaves, \(D(x_1,x_2){=0}\) as required. \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 1.2
By Proposition 4.3 and Lemma 4.4, \(f_t\) is a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) uniformly hyperbolic flow satisfying (UNI). The result for \(C^{1+\alpha }\) observables follows from Theorem 3.11. As in [18], the result follows from a standard interpolation argument (see also [6, Corollary 2.3]).
Notes
Here, an attractor is an attracting hyperbolic basic set, and so is topologically transitive with an open basin of attraction.
\(C^{1+}\) means \(C^r\) for some \(r>1\).
The function \(\psi =\log |\det D\phi _1|E^u|\) is Hölder (since the flow is \(C^{1+}\) and the bundle \(E^u\) is Hölder). Hence \(\sum _{j=0}^{n-1}\{\psi (\phi _j x)-\psi (\phi _j y)\}\) is bounded for the specified n, x, y. Estimate (2.1) follows.
More generally, we could consider a John domain as in [8] but the current setting suffices for our purposes.
References
Aaronson, J.: An Introduction to Infinite Ergodic Theory. Math. Surveys and Monographs, vol. 50. Amer. Math. Soc. (1997)
Alves, J.F., Luzzatto, S., Pinheiro, V.: Markov structures and decay of correlations for non-uniformly expanding dynamical systems. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 22, 817–839 (2005)
Anosov, D.V.: Geodesic flows on closed Riemannian manifolds of negative curvature. Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov. 90, 209 (1967)
Araújo, V., Butterley, O., Varandas, P.: Open sets of Axiom A flows with exponentially mixing attractors. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 144, 2971–2984 (2016)
Araújo, V., Butterley, O., Varandas, P.: Erratum to “Open sets of Axiom A flows with exponentially mixing attractors’’. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 146, 5013–5014 (2018)
Araújo, V., Melbourne, I.: Exponential decay of correlations for nonuniformly hyperbolic flows with a \(C^{1+\alpha }\) stable foliation, including the classical Lorenz attractor. Ann. Henri Poincaré 17, 2975–3004 (2016)
Araújo, V., Melbourne, I., Varandas, P.: Rapid mixing for the Lorenz attractor and statistical limit laws for their time-1 maps. Comm. Math. Phys. 340, 901–938 (2015)
Avila, A., Gouëzel, S., Yoccoz, J.: Exponential mixing for the Teichmüller flow. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 104, 143–211 (2006)
Baladi, V., Vallée, B.: Exponential decay of correlations for surface semi-flows without finite Markov partitions. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 133, 865–874 (2005)
Bowen, R.: Markov partitions for Axiom A diffeomorphisms. Amer. J. Math. 92, 725–747 (1970)
Bowen, R.: Symbolic dynamics for hyperbolic flows. Amer. J. Math. 95, 429–460 (1973)
Bowen, R.: Equilibrium States and the Ergodic Theory of Anosov Diffeomorphisms. Lecture Notes in Math, vol. 470. Springer, Berlin (1975)
Bowen, R.: Markov partitions are not smooth. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 71, 130–132 (1978)
Bowen, R., Ruelle, D.: The ergodic theory of Axiom A flows. Invent. Math. 29, 181–202 (1975)
Butterley, O., War, K.: Open sets of exponentially mixing Anosov flows. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 22, 2253–2285 (2020)
Chernov, N.I.: Markov approximations and decay of correlations for Anosov flows. Ann. of Math. 147, 269–324 (1998)
Denker, M., Philipp, W.: Approximation by Brownian motion for Gibbs measures and flows under a function. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 4, 541–552 (1984)
Dolgopyat, D.: On the decay of correlations in Anosov flows. Ann. of Math. 147, 357–390 (1998)
Field, M.J., Melbourne, I., Török, A.: Stability of mixing and rapid mixing for hyperbolic flows. Ann. of Math. 166, 269–291 (2007)
Liverani, C.: On contact Anosov flows. Ann. of Math. 159, 1275–1312 (2004)
Melbourne, I.: Superpolynomial and polynomial mixing for semiflows and flows. Nonlinearity 31, R268–R316 (2018)
Parry, W., Pollicott, M.: Zeta Functions and the Periodic Orbit Structure of Hyperbolic Dynamics. Astérique 187–188, Société Mathématique de France, Montrouge (1990)
Plante, J.F.: Anosov flows. Amer. J. Math. 94, 729–754 (1972)
Pollicott, M.: A complex Ruelle-Perron-Frobenius theorem and two counterexamples. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 4, 135–146 (1984)
Pugh, C., Shub, M.: Ergodic elements of ergodic actions. Compositio Math. 23, 115–122 (1971)
Ratner, M.: Markov partitions for Anosov flows on \(n\)-dimensional manifolds. Israel J. Math. 15, 92–114 (1973)
Ratner, M.: The central limit theorem for geodesic flows on \(n\)-dimensional manifolds of negative curvature. Israel J. Math. 16, 181–197 (1973)
Ruelle, D.: Statistical mechanics of a one-dimensional lattice gas. Comm. Math. Phys. 9, 267–278 (1968)
Ruelle, D.: Thermodynamic Formalism. Encyclopedia of Math. and its Applications, vol. 5. Addison Wesley, Massachusetts (1978)
Ruelle, D.: Flows which do not exponentially mix. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 296, 191–194 (1983)
Sinaĭ, Y.G.: Gibbs measures in ergodic theory. Russ. Math. Surv. 27, 21–70 (1972)
Sinaĭ, Ja.G.: Construction of Markov partitionings. Funkcional. Anal. i Priložen. 2, 70–80 (1968)
Smale, S.: Differentiable dynamical systems. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 73, 747–817 (1967)
Stoyanov, L.: Spectra of Ruelle transfer operators for axiom A flows. Nonlinearity 24, 1089–1120 (2011)
Tsujii, M., Zhang, Z.: Smooth mixing Anosov flows in dimension three are exponentially mixing. Ann. of Math. (2) 197, 65–158 (2023)
Young, L.-S.: Statistical properties of dynamical systems with some hyperbolicity. Ann. of Math. 147, 585–650 (1998)
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by CMUP, which is financed by national funds through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., under the project with reference UIDB/00144/2020. PV also acknowledges financial support from the project PTDC/MAT-PUR/4048/2021 and from the grant CEECIND/03721/2017 of the Stimulus of Scientific Employment, Individual Support 2017 Call, awarded by FCT. The authors are also grateful to Fundação Oriente for the financial support during the Pedro Nunes Meeting in Convento da Arrábida, where part of this work was done, and to the referee for helpful comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Claude-Alain Pillet.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Melbourne, I., Varandas, P. Good Inducing Schemes for Uniformly Hyperbolic Flows, and Applications to Exponential Decay of Correlations. Ann. Henri Poincaré (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00023-024-01439-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00023-024-01439-w