Intrinsic Ultracontractivity of Non-local Dirichlet forms on Unbounded Open Sets
Xin Chen, Panki Kim, Jian Wang

TL;DR
This paper establishes explicit criteria for the compactness and intrinsic ultracontractivity of non-local Dirichlet forms associated with symmetric jump processes on unbounded open sets, including horn-shaped regions, with detailed estimates of ground states.
Contribution
It provides new explicit criteria for ultracontractivity and compactness of non-local Dirichlet forms on unbounded sets, extending understanding of jump processes in complex geometries.
Findings
Criteria for compactness and ultracontractivity of Dirichlet semigroups.
Two-sided estimates of ground states in horn-shaped regions.
Analysis of jump processes with stable-like and super-exponential jumps.
Abstract
In this paper we consider a large class of symmetric Markov processes on generated by non-local Dirichlet forms, which include jump processes with small jumps of -stable-like type and with large jumps of super-exponential decay. Let be an open (not necessarily bounded and connected) set, and be the killed process of on exiting . We obtain explicit criterion for the compactness and the intrinsic ultracontractivity of the Dirichlet Markov semigroup of . When is a horn-shaped region, we further obtain two-sided estimates of ground state in terms of jumping kernel of and the reference function of the horn-shaped region .
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMathematical Dynamics and Fractals · advanced mathematical theories · Stochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Intrinsic Ultracontractivity of
Non-local Dirichlet forms on Unbounded Open Sets
Xin Chen Panki Kim Jian Wang
Abstract.
In this paper we consider a large class of symmetric Markov processes on generated by non-local Dirichlet forms, which include jump processes with small jumps of -stable-like type and with large jumps of super-exponential decay. Let be an open (not necessarily bounded and connected) set, and be the killed process of on exiting . We obtain explicit criterion for the compactness and the intrinsic ultracontractivity of the Dirichlet Markov semigroup of . When is a horn-shaped region, we further obtain two-sided estimates of ground state in terms of jumping kernel of and the reference function of the horn-shaped region .
Keywords: symmetric jump process; non-local Dirichlet form; intrinsic ultracontractivity; ground state; intrinsic super Poincaré inequality.
MSC 2010: 60G51; 60G52; 60J25; 60J75.
X. Chen: Department of Mathematics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 200240 Shanghai, P.R. China; & Fujian Key Laboratory of Mathematical Analysis and Applications (FJKLMAA), Fujian Normal University, 350007 Fuzhou, P.R. China. [email protected]
P. Kim: Department of Mathematics, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, South Korea. [email protected]
J. Wang: School of Mathematics and Computer Science & Fujian Key Laboratory of Mathematical Analysis and Applications (FJKLMAA), Fujian Normal University, 350007 Fuzhou, P.R. China. [email protected]
1. Introduction and Main Results
Suppose that is a strongly continuous Markov semigroup in generated by a symmetric Markov process in an open subset of , and that has the transition density with respect to the Lebesgue measure. If is a compact semigroup, then it is known that there exists a complete orthonormal set of eigenfunctions such that for all , and , where are eigenvalues of such that as . In the literature, the first eigenfunction is called ground state. Suppose furthermore that (from now we write as for simplicity) can be chosen to be bounded, continuous and strictly positive on . The semigroup is said to be intrinsically ultracontractive, if for every there is a constant such that
[TABLE]
The notion of intrinsic ultracontractivity for symmetric semigroups was first introduced by Davies and Simon in [24]. It has wide applications in the area of analysis and probability. Recently, the intrinsic ultracontractivity of Markov semigroups (including Dirichlet semigroups and Feyman-Kac semigroups) has been intensively established for various Lévy type processes, see e.g. [10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36].
The aim of this paper is to study the intrinsic ultracontractivity of Dirichlet semigroup for a large class of symmetric jump processes on an unbounded open set . It is twofold. Firstly, under quite general setting we obtain sufficient conditions and necessary conditions for the intrinsic ultracontractivity of . We emphasize that these results are illustrated to be optimal for symmetric jump processes with small jumps of -stable-like type and with large jumps of super-exponential decay on horn-shaped regions, even the knowledge of such interesting processes is still far from completeness. Secondly, for horn-shaped regions we establish sharp two-sided estimates of ground state explicitly in terms of jumping kernel and the reference function of horn-shaped regions. This is the most sophisticated part of this paper, since usually the ground state is very sensitive with respect to the behavior of the process and the shape of the open set.
1.1. Basic setting
Let be a non-negative symmetric Borel measurable function on satisfying that
[TABLE]
Here diag denotes the diagonal set, i.e., diag . Consider the following non-local quadratic form on :
[TABLE]
Here, denotes the space of functions on with compact support, and is the closure of with respect to the metric Under (1.1), it is known that is a regular Dirichlet form on , see e.g. [25, Example 1.2.4]. Hence there exist a subset having zero capacity with respect to the Dirichlet form , and a symmetric Hunt process X=\big{(}(X_{t})_{t\geqslant 0},(\mathds{P}^{x})_{x\in\mathds{R}^{d}\setminus\mathcal{N}}\big{)} with state space . See [25, Chapter 7]. Throughout this paper, we always assume that i.e., the associated Hunt process can start from all x\in\mathds{R}^{d}$$), and that there exists a transition density function so that
[TABLE]
where is the semigroup associated with .
Let be an open (not necessarily bounded and connected) set. We define a subprocess of as follows
[TABLE]
where and denotes the cemetery point. The process is called the killed process of upon exiting . By the strong Markov property, it is easy to see that the process has a transition density (or Dirichlet heat kernel) , which enjoys the following relation with :
[TABLE]
Define
[TABLE]
It is well known that is a strongly continuous contraction semigroup on , which is called Dirichlet semigroup associated with the process . Furthermore, in this paper except Appendix, we assume that for every the function is bounded, continuous and strictly positive on . This assumption is also mild in a number of applications. See Propositions 7.1 and 7.2 in Appendix.
1.2. Main results for horn-shaped regions
In the following, denote by , , and . For any non-negative function and , means that there is a constant such that , and means that there exist positive constants such that . For any open subset and , stands for the Euclidean distance between and . We call an open set a domain, when it is connected.
The contribution of this paper is to obtain efficient criterion for the intrinsic ultracontractivity of Dirichlet semigroup generated by non-local Dirichlet forms on general unbounded open sets, and to establish two-sided estimates for the corresponding ground state (i.e., the first eigenfunction). To illustrate how powerful our approach is and to show how precise and sharp our estimates are, here we summarize our results on horn-shaped regions with specific reference functions for several classes of jump processes, including symmetric jump processes with small jumps of stable-like type and large jumps of super-exponential decay.
Let us first recall the definition of horn-shaped region (domain). For any , let . Suppose that is a bounded and continuous function such that . Then, the open set is called the horn-shaped region. We call the reference function of . The study of Dirichlet semigroups for Brownian motions on horn-shaped regions has a long history. For (both mathematical and physical) backgrounds and motivations on such subject, see [1, 2, 3, 6, 23, 24, 37] and the references therein.
Let be a strictly increasing function on satisfying that there exist constants and such that
[TABLE]
Obviously (1.4) implies that .
Let be a nondecreasing function on with for , and there exist constants and such that
[TABLE]
We next consider the jumping kernel in the regular Dirichlet form given by (1.2) with the following expression
[TABLE]
where is a measurable function satisfying that and there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
According to [17], the Dirichlet form with jumping kernel above generates an symmetric Hunt process , which starts from all and has a transition density function with respect to the Lebesgue measure, such that is bounded, continuous and strictly positive.
Let be a horn-shaped region with respect to the reference function , and denote by the associated Dirichlet semigroup. Then, the Dirichlet heat kernel exists, and is bounded, continuous and strictly positive on for every . When is intrinsically ultracontractive, we denote by the corresponding ground state. To obtain two-sided estimates for , we should further assume that the reference function is , and also impose the following additional assumptions on the coefficient function and the scaling function , respectively. We remark here that such assumptions are not needed for Theorems 1.1(1), 1.1(2) and 1.2 below, which consider the intrinsic ultracontractivity of .
- (Kη)
There are constants and such that
[TABLE]
for every with , where is the constant in (1.4).
- (SD)
The function such that is decreasing on .
Note that condition (SD) above holds for pure jump isotropic unimodal Lévy processes including all subordinated Brownian motions, whose characteristic exponents satisfy the weak scaling conditions in (1.4). See e.g. [27, Remark 1.4].
Theorem 1.1**.**
With all notations and assumptions above, we have the following two statements.
- (1)
Suppose that in (1.5) and that
[TABLE]
for some . Then,
* is intrinsically ultracontractive if and only if *
if is intrinsically ultracontractive, then for all with large enough,
[TABLE]
- (2)
Suppose that in (1.5) and that
[TABLE]
for some . Then,
* is intrinsically ultracontractive if and only if *
if is intrinsically ultracontractive, then for all with large enough,
[TABLE]
For the class of jump processes considered in this subsection, our method works for with not only specific reference functions in (1.7) and (1.9), but also general reference functions . Here we restrict ourselves on (1.7) and (1.9) to light up the structure of . In the setting of Theorem 1.1, two-sided estimates of can be decomposed into two terms. Roughly speaking, for with large enough, the term in (1.8) and (1.10) represent the probability (called exiting probability later) of the process exiting from , and both of the other term in (1.8) and (1.10) describe the probability (called returning probability later) of the process from to the origin, which is independent of and correlates with . By [14, Theorem 1.2] and [17, Theorem 1.2 and Theorem 1.4], we know that two-sided heat kernel estimates of are comparable to the jumping kernel for large enough, when enjoys the form (1.6) with .
Theorem 1.2**.**
Suppose that in (1.5) and that
[TABLE]
for some constant . Then,
the Dirichlet semigroup is intrinsically ultracontractive;
for any with large enough,
[TABLE]
In particular, when ,
[TABLE]
The result above indicates the term that describes the returning probability of from to the origin should depend on the reference function , if is decay faster than polynomials, see e.g. (1.11). In particular, (1.12) implies that, when , the returning probability dominates the exit probability since the exponential term can be absorbed into ; while, when the returning probability reveals some delicate interactions between the reference function and the jumping kernel .
To the best of our knowledge, both results above concerning the intrinsic ultracontractivity and two-sided estimates of ground state for general symmetric (non-Lévy) jump processes on unbounded open sets are new. In fact, previously the intrinsic ultracontractivity of symmetric jump processes on unbounded open sets is considered only for symmetric -stable Lévy processes, e.g., see [36, Example 2] for related conclusions on horn-shaped regions. The argument of [36] is heavily based on uniform boundary Harnack inequalities in [8]. Even though the uniform boundary Harnack inequalities for a quite general discontinuous Feller process in metric measure space have been proved in [9, 33], it is still not available for symmetric jump processes whose jumping kernel given by (1.6) with and it is not true when , see [31, Section 6]. Thus the approach of [36] can not yield Theorem 1.1 when and Theorem 1.2. Moreover, our criterion could also be applied to a class of jump processes whose scaling orders depend on their position, see e.g. Example 5.4 below.
We would like to mention that, in both theorems above we only present two-sided estimates of ground state for with large enough. The reason is that the horn-shaped region may not be a domain even if , because the boundary of at corner near the point y_{0}=\big{(}0,f(0),0\cdots 0\big{)}\in\partial D_{f} is only Lipschitz. (Note that for Lipschitz domain no explicit estimates for ground state are available even when is bounded, see e.g. [7].) If we assume additionally that is a domain, then it is not difficult to see that Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 hold true for all .
1.3. Further comments
We will make further comments on the setting and the approach of our paper.
- (1)
Brownian motions on horn-shaped regions. As mentioned before, the intrinsic ultracontractivity of Dirichlet semigroups for Brownian motions on horn-shaped regions has been studied by many authors. Our assumptions on horn-shaped regions are more general than those in previous literatures. For example, in [24, Section 7, p. 366] the reference function is required to satisfy that as . In [36, Proposition 1] the function fulfills that is bounded. Clearly, the function given by (1.11) does not necessarily satisfy such assumption. Besides, our estimates in Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 are quite precise, since they consist both the exit probability term (i.e., involving the behavior of ground state near the boundary) and the returning probability term (i.e., involving the behavior of ground state far from the boundary).
- (2)
Symmetric pure-jump processes on bounded open sets. When is bounded, there are already a lot of works on the intrinsic ultracontractivity of symmetric jump processes, see [10] and the references therein. Several differences and difficulties occur when is unbounded. For instance, firstly the Dirichlet semigroup is always compact when is bounded; however, it is not true when is unbounded. Secondly the (uniform) property of open set has a crucial effect on explicit estimates of ground state in the bounded open set , see e.g. [18, 27, 30]; however, as mentioned above, even if we assume that the reference function of an unbounded horn-shaped region is a function, only enjoys characteristics locally.
We believe that our approach, to yield the intrinsic ultracontractivity of Dirichlet semigroups via intrinsic super Poincaré inequalities of non-local Dirichlet forms, is interesting of its own. Such idea has been efficiently used to consider the corresponding problem for Feyman-Kac semigroups of general symmetric jump processes in [11, 12]. Also our methods could be used to study related topics for non-local Dirichlet forms on general metric measure spaces. On the other hand, in order to obtain two-sided estimates for ground state some new ideas and techniques are required. In particular, the approach via Harnack inequalities or harmonic measure for Brownian motions (see [24] and [2] respectively) and the idea by using uniform boundary Harnack inequality for symmetric -stable Lévy processes are not feasible in this paper. Instead, we make full use of the formula for the Lévy system, two-sided estimates for Dirichlet heat kernels and sharp estimates for distributions of the first exit time and the return probability.
The remainder of the paper is arranged as follows. In the next section, we study the compactness of Dirichlet semigroup . Our criterion on the compactness of is quite general and works, in particular, for symmetric jump processes with small jumps of high intensity in Example 2.4. In Section 3 we derive (rough) lower bound estimates for ground state, which is one of key ingredients to establish sufficient conditions for the intrinsic ultracontractivity of . General results about sufficient conditions and necessary conditions for the intrinsic ultracontractivity of are presented in Section 4. In Section 5, we will apply the results in Section 4 to study the intrinsic ultracontractivity of associated with the Dirichlet form with jumping kernel given by (1.6) on two specific unbounded regions, including horn-shaped regions and an unbounded and disconnected open set with locally -fat property. Proofs of Theorems 1.1(1), 1.1(2) and 1.2 are given in the end of subsection 5.1. Finally, by using the characterization of horn-shaped regions and estimates for (Dirichlet) heat kernel, we will obtain two-sided estimates of ground state corresponding to in Section 6. Proofs of Theorems 1.1(1), 1.1(2) and 1.2 are given after the statement of Theorem 6.1.
Notations Throughout the paper, we use , with or without subscripts, to denote strictly positive finite constants whose values are insignificant and may change from line to line. We will use “” to denote a definition, which is read as “is defined to be”. Denote by the ball with center at and radius . For , dist. For any Borel subset , we denote the volume of , the complementary set corresponding to , and the closure of the set . For , is the smallest integer greater than or equal to , and is the largest integer smaller than or equal to . For a measurable function , we use notations for all , and for all . For a decreasing function , we denote for any , where . Similarly, for an increasing function , we denote for . For open set , denote by the set of functions on with compact supports.
2. Compactness of the Dirichlet semigroup
Consider the symmetric Hunt process as in Subsection 1.1. The associated Dirichlet form is given by (1.2), and denote by the corresponding transition density function with respect to the Lebesgue measure.
For an open (not necessarily bounded and connected) subset , let be the killed process of upon exiting . Denote by its associated semigroup on , and by its transition density (or Dirichlet heat kernel). Recall that we always assume that is bounded, continuous and strictly positive on for every .
According to [25, Theorem 4.4.3 (i)], the Dirichlet form associated with is given by
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Definition 2.1**.**
Let be a deceasing function on such that
[TABLE]
We say that the on-diagonal upper bound estimate holds for the Dirichlet heat kernel , if
[TABLE]
In particular, according to the relation (1.3) between and , if holds for , then holds for for all open subsets . We next present two examples to show that is satisfied for a large class of symmetric jump processes.
Definition 2.2**.**
Let be a strictly increasing function on satisfying (1.4). We say that holds for the jumping kernel , if there are constants such that
[TABLE]
Without loss of generality, whenever the assumption is considered, we will assume that the constant in (2.3) is .
Example 2.3**.**
According to [17, Proposition 3.1], if is satisfied, then holds with
[TABLE]
for some constant . In particular, it follows that holds for the heat kernel of symmetric jump processes with small jumps of -stable-like type with .
Example 2.4**.**
Suppose that there is a constant such that
[TABLE]
Then, according to [38, Theorem 1.1], holds with
[TABLE]
for some constant . This indicates that is satisfied for the heat kernel of symmetric jump processes with small jumps of high intensity.
The main contribution of this section is the following result.
Theorem 2.5**.**
Suppose that is an open subset of and holds for Dirichlet heat kernel . If
[TABLE]
then the semigroup is compact.
To prove Theorem 2.5, we first cite [45, Corollary 1.2] in our setting. Let be the Dirichlet form associated with , which is given by (2.1). Define
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
is also a regular Dirichlet form on , and can be seen as the perturbation of with potential . Note that, because , [45, (1.3)] holds trivially. Then, according to [45, Corollary 1.2], we have the following statement.
Proposition 2.6**.**
Suppose that condition (2.4) is satisfied and that the following super Poincaré inequality holds
[TABLE]
with a decreasing function satisfying
[TABLE]
Then the semigroup is compact.
Next, we present the
Proof of Theorem 2.5.
Let . Then, the process associated with is a time-change of the process associated with . Let be transition density of the process corresponding to . Then, by ,
[TABLE]
Denote by the transition semigroup of . In particular, according to [42, Theorem 4.5] (or see [44, Theorem 3.3.15]), the following super-Poincaré inequality holds
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
and , we arrive at
[TABLE]
In particular, (2.5) holds with and (2.6) also holds due to (2.2). Combining these with (2.4), we know that all the assumptions of Proposition 2.6 are satisfied, so is compact by Proposition 2.6. ∎
As a direct consequence of Theorem 2.5, we immediately have
Corollary 2.7**.**
Suppose that holds. Then, the semigroup is compact, if either has finite Lebesgue measure or
[TABLE]
The result of above corollary under assumption (2.8) extends [36, Lemma 2], where symmetric -stable Lévy processes is considered.
In the remainder of this paper, we are concerned with the case that (2.8) holds true. In order to verify (2.8), it is necessary to consider lower bounds of . Thus we will study it under the assumption . In fact, in the proof below we can relax the assumption in (1.4) to and (instead of ).
Recall that a Borel subset is called -fat at , if there exists a point such that . We say that is -fat, if there exists a constant such that is -fat at every for each .
Proposition 2.8**.**
Suppose that is an open subset of and that holds. If there is a constant such that for any , there exist a constant and with satisfying that is -fat at for each , then there is a constant such that
[TABLE]
In particular, if is -fat, then there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Noticing that is -fat at , we can find a point such that
[TABLE]
Since for with and ,
[TABLE]
we have, by (i.e., (2.3)),
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
which proves (2.9).
Furthermore, if is -fat, then we can find some constant such that for all in the argument above, and so the second assertion follows. ∎
Combining Example 2.3 and Corollary 2.7 with Proposition 2.8, we have the following simple sufficient condition for the compactness of .
Corollary 2.9**.**
Suppose holds. If is -fat and
[TABLE]
then the semigroup is compact.
3. Lower bound estimates of ground state
In Section 2, we considered the symmetric Hunt process as in Subsection 1.1. Throughout this section, we continue considering the symmetric Hunt process as in Subsection 1.1. Suppose that is a fixed open subset of , and we assume that the Dirichlet semigroup is compact. Then, by assumption that is bounded, continuous and strictly positive on for every , and the standard theory for symmetric compact semigroups, see e.g. [39, Theorem VI. 16] and [40, Theorem XIII. 43], there exists a complete orthonormal set of eigenfunctions such that for all and , where are eigenvalues of such that as ; moreover, the first eigenfunction can be chosen to be bounded, continuous and strictly positive on (see Proposition 7.3 in the Appendix for this fact). In the literature, is called ground state. In what follows, we write as for simplicity.
This section is devoted to driving lower bound estimates for , which is one of key ingredients to establish sufficient conditions for the intrinsic ultracontractivity of .
We begin with the following simple lemma.
Lemma 3.1**.**
For any relatively compact open set and ,
[TABLE]
where
Proof.
For any and ,
[TABLE]
where we have used the property that for any relatively compact open set , thanks to the fact that is continuous and strictly positive. The desired assertion follows from the inequality above. ∎
Recall that for any , stopping time (with respect to the natural filtration of the precess ), and non-negative measurable function on with for all and , we have the following Lévy system:
[TABLE]
see e.g. [13, Lemma 4.7] and [14, Appendix A].
Let be an increasing function on satisfying that there exist constants and such that
[TABLE]
For any , the first exit time from of the process is defined by
[TABLE]
Definition 3.2**.**
Let be an increasing function on such that (3.2) holds. We say that holds on , if there exist constants and such that for all ,
[TABLE]
For simplicity, we say holds if holds on .
Obviously, for any open subset , if holds on , then it also holds on .
Example 3.3**.**
Suppose that there exist constants and such that
[TABLE]
Then, by [12, Lemma 3.1] (or [5, Theorem 2.1]), holds on with
[TABLE]
Proposition 3.4**.**
Suppose that holds on . For any fixed , set , where is the constant in (3.3). Then, there exists a constant such that for all ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Fix . For any such that or , set , , and where is the constant in (3.3). Then, it holds that dist. Indeed, for any and , if , then
[TABLE]
if , then,
[TABLE]
Hence, by strong Markov property,
[TABLE]
where in the third and fourth inequalities we have used the fact that for all ,
[TABLE]
thanks to .
Furthermore, by the Lévy system in (3.1),
[TABLE]
where in the equality above we have used the fact that dist, and in the last inequality we used again.
Combining both estimates above, we arrive at
[TABLE]
This along with Lemma 3.1 yields the desired assertion for any with or .
Next, we set . Then, is a precompact open subset of . Since by assumption is continuous and strictly positive on , we have for some constant . While, since by (1.1)
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Hence, by changing the constant properly, we know that (3.4) also holds on .
Therefore, the desired assertion follows from both estimates above. ∎
Note that the right hand side of (3.4) is zero if the process has finite range jumps and is large enough. Thus, Proposition 3.4 mainly concerns with lower bounds of for processes with infinite range jumps. We next consider another type of lower bounds of , which is suitable for processes with finite range jumps or with sup-exponentially decaying jumps, e.g., the jumping kernel given by (1.6) with .
Definition 3.5**.**
For fixed , we call is connected with in a reasonable way with respect to constants , if there exist and such that , , and for . For simplicity, we write if is connected with in a reasonable way with respect to constants .
Proposition 3.6**.**
Suppose that holds on and that
[TABLE]
For any fixed , there exist constants which may depend on but are independent of n$$) such that for all with it holds that
[TABLE]
where for all , , and is the constant in (3.3).
Proof.
In the following, we fix such that . For , set and Then, for any and with ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
In particular, for .
Define for , and By the convention, we also set (and so under ). Let , where is the constant in (3.3). Then,
[TABLE]
where in the last equality we have used the strong Markov property.
According to the Lévy system in (3.1), for any , if , then,
[TABLE]
where in the equality above we used the fact that , and in the last inequality we used and (3.6).
On the other hand, due to again, if , then
[TABLE]
Therefore, combining (3.8) with (3.9) and (3.10) and using (3.2), we find that
[TABLE]
where in the last inequality we have used the property that
[TABLE]
due to (3.2). This along with Lemma 3.1 proves the desired assertion. ∎
4. Intrinsic ultracontractivity of Dirichlet semigroups: general results
The main purpose of this section is to present sufficient conditions and necessary conditions for intrinsic ultracontractivity of .
4.1. Sufficient conditions for intrinsic ultracontractivity of
In this part, we consider the Dirichlet form given by (1.2) such that is satisfied. Recall that, without loss of generality, we have assumed that in (2.3), i.e.,
[TABLE]
Let be an open set such that (2.8) holds; that is,
[TABLE]
Then, according to Example 2.3 and Corollary 2.7, we know that is compact. As stated before, we always assume that the Dirichlet heat kernel exists, and is bounded, continuous and strictly positive on for every . Let be the associated ground state, which can be chosen to be bounded, continuous and strictly positive, see e.g. Proposition 7.3 below.
Recall that the Dirichlet form is given in (2.1). Our approach to prove the intrinsic ultracontractivity of is based on the intrinsic super Poincaré inequality for . For any open set and constants , let
[TABLE]
We first present the following form of local intrinsic super Poincaré inequality for .
Proposition 4.1**.**
Suppose that holds and satisfies (2.8). Then there exists a constant such that for any , and ,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Proof.
For , define
[TABLE]
Note that for any and , by the definition of , . Thus, we obtain
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
Therefore, we have for any and ,
[TABLE]
where in the third inequality we have used (2.3) and the fact that for any and , .
Setting as in the inequality above and using (1.4), we arrive at that there exist constants such that for any and ,
[TABLE]
When , we apply (4.2) with and get
[TABLE]
where in the last inequality we used (1.4) again. Therefore, the desired assertion follows from both conclusions above. ∎
The following theorem is the main result in this subsection.
Theorem 4.2**.**
Suppose that holds and satisfies (2.8). Then, for any and ,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and is defined in Proposition 4.1. By convention, here.
Consequently, the semigroup is intrinsically ultracontractive, if
[TABLE]
Proof.
Due to (2.1), it holds that
[TABLE]
Then, for any , ,
[TABLE]
This along with (4.1) yields that for any ,
[TABLE]
For any , letting and choosing and such that , we obtain the first desired assertion.
The second assertion is a consequence of the first one and [43, Theorem 3.3] or [44, Theorem 3.3.14]. See e.g. [12, Theorem 2.1] for the proof. ∎
Remark 4.3**.**
Since for any , (2.8) does not guarantee the finiteness of the rate function . According to Proposition 2.8, we know that if is -fat such that (2.11) is satisfied, then the rate function defined by (4.4) is finite
4.2. Necessary conditions for intrinsic ultracontractivity of
We first introduce two definitions.
Definition 4.4**.**
Let be an increasing function on satisfying (3.2). We say that the lower bound near diagonal estimate holds , if there are and such that for all and ,
[TABLE]
Definition 4.5**.**
Let be a non-increasing positive function on such that . We say that the off-diagonal upper bounded estimate holds for the Dirichlet heat kernel if there are such that for all and with ,
[TABLE]
where is a positive constant depending on .
If holds on , then there exists a positive constant such that for all and ,
[TABLE]
and so holds on too. Next, we give the other consequence of .
Lemma 4.6**.**
Suppose that holds on . Then, there exist positive constants such that for all and with ,
[TABLE]
where the positive constant in Definition 4.4.
Proof.
Throughout the proof, let and be positive constants in the definition . Fix with . As mentioned above, implies . Hence, if such that , then
[TABLE]
Next, we consider such that . Set n=\big{\lceil}\frac{t}{c_{1}\Psi(\delta_{D}(x))}\big{\rceil}. Then, by ,
[TABLE]
Therefore, combining with both estimates above, we prove the desired assertion. ∎
Now, we are in the position to present necessary conditions for the intrinsic ultracontractivity of .
Proposition 4.7**.**
Suppose that is an open subset satisfying (2.11), and that holds on and hold for the Dirichlet heat kernel . If is intrinsically ultracontractive, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since is intrinsically ultracontractive, then, for any there is a constant such that for all ,
[TABLE]
see e.g. [24, Theorem 3.2]. Thus, for any it holds that
[TABLE]
For any compact subset of with and for any , we also have
[TABLE]
Combining with both inequalities above, we know that for every and any compact subset of with , there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
Furthermore, by , (2.11) and Lemma 4.6, there exist constants such that for every and with large enough,
[TABLE]
On the other hand, according to (2.11) and , there is a constant such that for any compact set , and with large enough,
[TABLE]
Below, we fix a compact subset with . Therefore, combining (4.7) with (4.8) and (4.9), we arrive at that there is such that for all and with large enough so that ,
[TABLE]
Next, we assume that (4.6) does not hold. Then there exist a constant and a sequence such that and for all . Thus, for any ,
[TABLE]
Taking in the inequality above and using (4.10), we get
[TABLE]
Since , letting we get a contradiction. That is, if is intrinsically ultracontractive, then (4.6) does hold. The proof is complete. ∎
5.
Intrinsic ultracontractivity of Dirichlet semigroups: explicit results
We continue considering the symmetric Hunt process as in Subsection 1.1. The associated Dirichlet form is given by (1.2). Let be an open set of . Denote by and the Dirichlet semigroup and the Dirichlet heat kernel associated with the killed process of the process upon exiting , respectively. Throughout this section, we suppose that both and hold. See Definitions 2.2 and 3.2. Recall that we also always assume that the Dirichlet heat kernel exists, and is bounded, continuous and strictly positive on for every .
In this section, we will apply results in previous sections to establish criteria for the intrinsically ultracontractivity of on two specific types of open sets. One is horn-shaped regions, and the other one is unbounded and disconnected open sets with locally -fat property.
5.1. Horn-shaped regions
Let be a horn-shaped region with the reference function , where is bounded, continuous and satisfies that . As mentioned above, we assume that holds. Then, according to Corollary 2.9, it is easy to see that the semigroup is compact if is -fat. Furthermore, by Proposition 7.3 and the assumption that the Dirichlet heat kernel exists and is bounded, continuous and strictly positive on for every , the corresponding ground state can be chosen to be bounded, continuous and strictly positive on .
To illustrate how powerful Theorem 4.2 is, we begin with horn-shaped regions with general reference functions. For non-negative measurable function , let and for .
Proposition 5.1**.**
Assume that and hold. Let be a horn-shaped region such that is -fat. Then, the following two statements hold true.
- (1)
There are positive constants such that for all ,
[TABLE]
- (2)
The super Poincaré inequality (4.3) holds with
[TABLE]
Here are positive constants. Consequently, the semigroup is intrinsically ultracontractive, if given above satisfies (4.5).
Proof.
(1) The first assertion is a consequence of (3.4).
(2) Denote by for simplicity. Since is -fat, we can use (2.10) in Proposition 2.8. Let be the constant in (2.10). Applying (2.10) and (4.4), we find that (4.3) holds with the rate function satisfying that
[TABLE]
According to (1.4), we can take a constant small enough so that for all . Next, we choose small enough such that for any , and R={f^{*-1}}\big{(}c_{*}(\Phi^{-1}(s)\wedge 1)\big{)}<\infty. Taking this and in the infimum of the last term in the display above, and using assertion (1) for lower bound estimates of , we find that is not bigger than
[TABLE]
This proves the second assertion. ∎
Instead of Proposition 3.4, we can use Proposition 3.6 to obtain the following result.
Proposition 5.2**.**
Assume that and hold. Let be a horn-shaped region such that is -fat. Then the following statements hold true.
- (1)
There are positive constants such that for all ,
[TABLE]
- (2)
The super Poincaré inequality (4.3) holds with
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and are positive constants. Consequently, the semigroup is intrinsically ultracontractive, if defined above satisfies (4.5).
Proof.
We denote throughout the proof.
(1) Choose large enough such that for any . We first consider with . Take for with , and . Then,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
where denotes the constant in (3.3). By the definition of horn-shaped region, for all ,
[TABLE]
Indeed, let such that . Since and , we have
[TABLE]
Therefore, combining all the estimates above with (3.7), we obtain that for every ,
[TABLE]
where in the last inequality we have used the fact that if . This proves that (5.2) holds for every such that .
Next, we consider such that . Since is bounded, we can find and positive constants such that
- (i)
;
- (ii)
For every , for some positive integer , and the connected points satisfies that for all .
Therefore, by (3.7) we know that (5.2) holds for every . On the other hand, since and is continuous, strictly positive on , for some constant . So, by changing the constants properly, (5.2) still holds for any .
Combining all the estimates above, we have shown that (5.2) holds for all .
(2) With (1) at hand, the argument for the proof of (2) is the same as that for Proposition 5.1 (2). So we skip the details. ∎
As a consequence of Propositions 5.1 and 5.2, we have the following corollary.
Corollary 5.3**.**
Assume that and hold. Let be a horn-shaped region such that is -fat. Then, the following statements hold.
- (1)
Suppose that there exist constants such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then is intrinsically ultracontractive if
- (2)
Suppose that there exist constants and such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then is intrinsically ultracontractive if
- (3)
Suppose that in (5.6) and that
[TABLE]
for some constants . Then is intrinsically ultracontractive if
- (4)
Suppose that in (5.6) and that
[TABLE]
for some constants and . Then is intrinsically ultracontractive.
Proof.
(1) By (5.5), for small enough, it holds that
[TABLE]
From the above estimate, (1.4), (3.2), (5.1) and the assumption (5.4), we know that (4.3) holds with
[TABLE]
for some small enough. Hence, it is easy to see that when , (4.5) is satisfied, which shows that is intrinsically ultracontractive.
(2) By (5.7), it is easy to verify that for small enough
[TABLE]
Combining this with (5.1), (1.4), (3.2) and the assumption (5.6) with , we get that (4.3) holds
[TABLE]
for some small enough. Obviously implies (4.5), which shows that is intrinsically ultracontractive if .
(3) Note that the inequality (5.9) is still true. Then, according to (5.2), we have the following estimate for the rate function in (4.3) — there exist constants and such that
[TABLE]
where the first inequality in (5.8) was used. Hence, (4.5) holds if , which proves that is intrinsically ultracontractive when .
(4) The proof is based on Proposition 5.2 as that of (3), and we can see that there exist constants and such that for all
[TABLE]
where in the second inequality we used (1.4) and (3.2), and the last inequality follows from (1.4) again. The rate function above satisfies (4.5), which yields that is intrinsically ultracontractive. ∎
Thanks to the milder assumptions in Corollary 5.3, we can obtain sufficient conditions for intrinsic ultracontractivity of for a class of jumping processes with variable orders as follows.
Example 5.4**.**
Suppose that a function satisfies and
[TABLE]
for some positive constant . We consider the non-local symmetric Dirichlet form given by (1.2), and suppose that the jumping kernel satisfies
[TABLE]
for all and some positive constants . Then, according to [5, Example 2.3 and Theorem 3.5], there exists a symmetric Hunt process on associated with , and the process possesses the transition density function (i.e., heat kernel) so that is jointly continuous on . Following the argument of [10, Proposition 8], one can prove that is strictly positive for every and .
Let be a horn-shaped region such that is -fat. Since is connected, it is easy to verify that the associated Dirichlet heat kernel is bounded, continuous and strictly positive on for every , see e.g. Proposition 7.1 and [10, Corollary 7 and Remark 8 (2)]. Therefore, all the assumptions in Subsection 1.1 are fulfilled in this setting.
It is clear that holds with . On the other hand, according to Example 3.3, holds with . In fact, according to [5, Theorem 2.1 and Example 2.3] and the continuity assumption on , we can obtain that holds with . Now, according to Corollary 5.3 (1), we know that is intrinsically ultracontractive, if there are constants and such that for all ,
[TABLE]
For the remaining part of this section, we consider the regular Dirichlet form whose jumping kernel given by (1.6). (Note that we do not assume that Assumptions and hold here.) As mentioned in Subsection 1.2, associated with there is an Hunt process on , who has a transition density function with respect to the Lebesgue measure satisfying that for every , is bounded, continuous and strictly positive. According to [16, Lemma 2.5] and [16, Theorem 2.4 (ii)], we know that for every open set both and hold with . Furthermore, if , then, by [14, Theorem 1.2] (for the case in [14, (1.12)]), holds with and
[TABLE]
if , then, by [17, (1.13) and (1.16) in Theorem 1.2 and (1.20) in Theorem 1.4], holds with and
[TABLE]
for some constant .
Now, we can prove the assertions for the intrinsic ultracontractivity of in Theorems 1.1 and Theorem 1.2.
Proofs of Theorems and .
The sufficiency of the intrinsic ultracontractivity of can be easily seen from Corollary 5.3(1)–(3). So, one only need to verify the necessity of the corresponding assertions.
(1) Suppose that and that (1.7) holds with . Then, by the definition of horn-shaped region,
[TABLE]
for and large enough. This along with (5.10) implies that (4.6) does not hold. Thus, by Proposition 4.7, is not intrinsically ultracontractive.
(2) Suppose that and that (1.9) holds with . Then,
[TABLE]
for and large enough. Combining this with (5.11) and (4.6), we can see from Proposition 4.7 that is not intrinsically ultracontractive. ∎
Proof of Theorem .
This immediately follows from Corollary 5.3 (4). ∎
5.2. Unbounded and disconnected open set with locally -fat property
Recall that we consider the regular Dirichlet form whose jumping kernel given by (1.6). In this part, let be a measurable function such that Define
[TABLE]
The construction of the open set above is partially inspired by [36, Example 4].
It is easy to see that for each , the set is \Big{(}\kappa,\frac{1}{4\lfloor h(n)\rfloor}\Big{)}-fat at every point of , and for all with . This along with (2.9) yields that for all ,
[TABLE]
In particular, due to the fact that , (2.8) holds, and so is compact. On the other hand, by Propositions 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 in the Appendix, we know that the associated ground state can be chosen to be bounded, continuous and strictly positive on .
The next result illustrates again that our results for the intrinsic ultracontractivity of Dirichlet semigroup are optimal in some sense.
Theorem 5.5**.**
Consider the regular Dirichlet form whose jumping kernel given by (1.6). Let be the open set defined by (5.12). Then, we have the following statements.
- (1)
Suppose that in (1.5) and
[TABLE]
for some . Then is intrinsically ultracontractive if and only if
- (2)
Suppose that in (1.5) and
[TABLE]
for some . Then is intrinsically ultracontractive if and only if
Proof.
(1) Suppose that and (5.14) holds. Since and holds, it follows from (3.4) that there is a constant such that for all
[TABLE]
Applying this estimate and (5.13) into (4.4), we get that the intrinsic super Poincaré inequality (4.3) holds with the rate function as follows
[TABLE]
In the infimum above taking and for small enough and with some suitable positive constants (thanks to (1.4) and (5.14)), we arrive at
[TABLE]
for some constant . This implies that when , the rate function above satisfies (4.5), hence is intrinsically ultracontractive.
If (5.14) holds with , then, by the definition of , we can find a sequence such that and
[TABLE]
This together with (1.4), (5.10) and the fact that shows that (4.6) does not hold. Thus, by Proposition 4.7, we know is not intrinsically ultracontractive.
(2) We first consider the case . Assume that (5.15) holds. For every with , let , , , and
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
using the fact , we see that for all and for all . Then, taking such into (3.7), we obtain that for all with large enough
[TABLE]
where in the last inequality we used the following fact deduced from (5.15) and (1.4) that
[TABLE]
Furthermore, according to the lower bound estimate for above and (5.13), we know the intrinsic super Poincaré inequality (4.3) holds with
[TABLE]
Therefore, in the infimum above choosing and for small enough and with some suitable positive constants (thanks to (1.4) and (5.15)), we will arrive at
[TABLE]
for some . In particular, when , (4.5) holds, and so is intrinsically ultracontractive.
Assume (5.15) holds with . Then, we can find a sequence such that and
[TABLE]
This combined with (5.11) shows that (4.6) does not hold, thanks to . Hence, according to Proposition 4.7, we know that is not intrinsically ultracontractive.
Next we consider the situation that . In this case, we can directly apply (3.4) to derive that
[TABLE]
holds for all with large enough.
Using (5.13), (5.15) and (5.16), and following the same argument as above, we can obtain that the intrinsic super Poincaré inequality (4.3) holds with
[TABLE]
If , then (4.5) holds, and so is intrinsically ultracontractive.
If (5.15) holds with , then, as the same procedure as above, we can show that
[TABLE]
So (4.6) does not hold, and, by Proposition 4.7, is not intrinsically ultracontractive. ∎
Remark 5.6**.**
We close this section with some comments on our approaches on the compactness and the intrinsic ultracontractivity of . Throughout the arguments up to this section, we make use of abstract assumptions like , , and . Such assumptions have been used in [19] to study heat kernel estimates for non-local Dirichlet forms on general metric measure spaces. In fact, the arguments above do not heavily depend on the characteristics of Euclidean space. We believe that our methods above can be used to study the related topics for non-local Dirichlet forms on general metric measure spaces.
6. Two-sided estimates for ground state on horn-shaped regions
This section, as a continuation of Subsection 5.1, is devoted to establishing two-sided estimates for ground state on horn-shaped regions. We concentrate on the regular Dirichlet form with jumping kernel given by (1.6). Let be a horn-shaped region with the reference function . The associated Dirichlet semigroup is denote by .
In order to obtain explicit estimates for , we need additionally assumptions on the coefficient function and the scaling function of jumping kernel and the reference function of horn-shaped region . Recall that a function is a function, if there is a constant satisfying and for all . Throughout this section, the jumping kernel is given by (1.6) and we further assume
- (1)
Assumptions and hold;
- (2)
The reference function of is a function;
- (3)
The semigroup is intrinsically ultracontractive.
Note that, implies that is a -fat set. Thus the semigroup is compact. Furthermore, by Propositions 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3, the ground state is bounded, continuous and strictly positive on . We also emphasize here that we do not assume neither is non-decreasing nor Such assumptions were used in [37, (A1) and (A2) in p. 382] to study lower bound estimates of ground state of killed Brownian motion on horn-shaped region.
The following is the main result in this section. Recall that and .
Theorem 6.1**.**
Under the setting and all the assumptions above, we have the following statements.
- (1)
If in (1.5), then there are constants such that for all with large enough,
[TABLE]
- (2)
If in (1.5), then there are constants such that for all with large enough,
[TABLE]
- (3)
If in (1.5), then, for any increasing function satisfying that for all large enough and some , there are constants such that for all with large enough,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Theorem 6.1 follows from Proposition 6.5 and Proposition 6.7 below, which are concerned with upper bound estimates and lower bound estimates of , respectively. As an application of Theorem 6.1, here we present the second part of proofs of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 about two-sided estimates for .
Proofs of Theorem and .
Theorem 1.1(1) and (2) with follow from Theorem 6.1 (1) and (2), respectively. Concerning Theorem 1.1 (2) with , we take in (6.1) and (6.2). Then, we can get the desired assertion. Note that, in two-sided estimates for in the statement of Theorem 1.1(2), the factor can be absorbed into the exponential term, since for such that large enough
[TABLE]
∎
Proof of Theorem .
When , taking in (6.1) and (6.2), we can get (1.12). When , we choose in (6.1) and (6.2) to obtain (1.12). ∎
6.1. Upper bound estimates for ground state
Let be an open set and let . We say that is near if there exist a localization radius , a constant , a -function satisfying , , , , and an orthonormal coordinate system with its origin at such that
[TABLE]
where . The pair is called the characteristics of at . An open set is said to be a (uniform) open set with characteristics , if it is near every boundary point of with the same characteristics .
In order to obtain upper bound estimates for ground state , we first present the following upper bound estimate for the expectation of exit time. In what follows, we denote by for simplicity.
Lemma 6.2**.**
There exists a constant such that for every with large enough,
[TABLE]
where such that .
Proof.
Throughout this proof we will consider such that and . Suppose that z_{x}=\big{(}z_{1},\tilde{z}\big{)} with . By a proper orthonormal transformation of in , we can assume that z_{x}=\big{(}z_{1},f(z_{1}),0,\dots,0\big{)}. Let y=\big{(}z_{1},f(z_{1})+\delta_{D}(x),\dots,0\big{)}. Then, and .
Suppose such that . Since is a function, due to the uniform exterior ball condition (see e.g. [18, p. 1309]), there is a constant (which is independent of ) such that for every with large enough, , where . For every with large enough,
[TABLE]
and so . Clearly is a domain with characteristics , which are independent of when is large enough. According to [27, Theorem 1.6], there exists a constant such that for every with large enough and
[TABLE]
where denotes the Green function of the process on . We want to emphasis that the constant above only depends on the characteristics , and it is independent of .
Using and applying (6.4), we find that
[TABLE]
Since , by (1.4) we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, since , we have , where and . Thus,
[TABLE]
Using (1.4), we have
[TABLE]
Moreover, note that the Lebesgue surface measure of is not bigger than
[TABLE]
for any . Using (6.5) and the fact that , we get
[TABLE]
Combining all the estimates with (6.5) yields the desired conclusion (6.3). ∎
The following two lemmas are needed, see [18, Lemma 1.10] or [27, Lemma 5.1] for the first one, and [27, Corollary 2.4] for the second one.
Lemma 6.3**.**
Let and be two open subsets of an open set such that , and let . Then, for every , and ,
[TABLE]
Lemma 6.4**.**
There exists a constant such that for every open set , and ,
[TABLE]
Now, we can give upper bound estimates for the ground state .
Proposition 6.5**.**
The following three statements hold.
- (1)
Suppose that in (1.5). Then there exists a constant such that for every with large enough,
[TABLE]
- (2)
Suppose that in (1.5). Then there exist constants such that for every with large enough,
[TABLE]
- (3)
Suppose that in (1.5). Then, for any increasing function satisfying that for large enough, there exist constants such that for every with large enough,
[TABLE]
In particular, for , there exist constants such that for every with large enough,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Note that the intrinsic ultracontractivity of implies that
[TABLE]
where and is a constant independent of . Therefore, in order to get the desired assertions it suffices to consider upper bound estimates of . Throughout the proof, we consider with large enough such that . Let such that , and set .
(1) By [14, Theorem 1.2], it holds that for and ,
[TABLE]
Recall . Let , and in (6.6). Then, by (6.11), we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
where the second inequality follows from (6.7) and in the third inequality we have used (6.3), (6.12) and (6.13).
(2) Suppose . Then, by [17, Theorem 1.2], for any and with ,
[TABLE]
Using this instead of (6.11) and following the same argument as (1), One can get (6.8) immediately.
(3) Suppose . In this part we need much more delicate arguments instead of applying (6.6) directly. The proof is a little long, and it is split into four steps.
(i) For any with large enough such that , define
[TABLE]
Recall that . By the strong Markov property, we have
[TABLE]
Note that, by (6.7),
[TABLE]
On the other hand, since D\setminus V_{1}=\Big{(}\sum_{k=2}^{N}V_{k}\setminus V_{k-1}\Big{)}\bigcup V_{N+1}, where , by the Lévy system (3.1) of the process ,
[TABLE]
For any and any with large enough,
[TABLE]
and so, by the definition of horn-shaped region,
[TABLE]
Since for every , and ,
[TABLE]
which, along with the assumption that , implies that for every
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Applying all the estimates above into (6.16), we get that
[TABLE]
which together with (6.14) and (6.15) in turn yields that
[TABLE]
where we have used (6.3) in the last inequality above.
(ii) For any , let . For any fixed , let be a point on satisfying , and let . We first observe that , and that for every , and
[TABLE]
Hence, for ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Thus, following the same arguments to derive (6.17), we have that for any and ,
[TABLE]
Here in the last inequality above we have used (6.3), (1.4) and the facts that and to get that
[TABLE]
Therefore, for ,
[TABLE]
(iii) Below, we will apply (6.18) into (6.17) to estimate the remaining term for . Note that if we continue the procedure for times, then it only remains with index . For simplicity, we relabel and use again constants in the argument below without confusion. Thus
[TABLE]
In the argument above and below we assume that .
Note also that, by [17, (1.16) in Theorem 1.2],
[TABLE]
and .
Therefore, repeating the procedure times and using the notational convention that , we can conclude from (6.17) that
[TABLE]
(iv) Since is non-increasing, we have for every ,
[TABLE]
where the last inequality follows from the fact that for every . The inequality above finally leads to the following estimate
[TABLE]
where in the first inequality we used (1.4), and in the last inequality we have used the fact that . Therefore, we have now obtained (6.9). In particular, when ,
[TABLE]
Thus, by taking for , we obtain (6.10). ∎
6.2. Lower bound estimates for ground state
In this subsection, we turn to lower bound estimates of ground state . We begin with the following lower bound estimate for the survival probability. Recall that is a horn-shaped region.
Lemma 6.6**.**
There exists a constant such that for every with large enough
[TABLE]
where such that .
Proof.
We assume that with large enough such that and . Since is a function, due to the local interior ball condition (see [18, p. 1039]), there exist constants and such that, for all with large enough one can choose a ball U:=B\big{(}\xi_{x},\kappa f_{*}(x_{1}+1)\big{)} satisfying that and .
Let (on the same probability space) be a symmetric jump process on , whose jumping kernel is given by (1.6) with , and and are same as those for jumping kernel . One can regard as the process obtained by the Meyer’s construction (see [4, Remark 3.5]) through increasing the intensity of jumps for the process larger than , so that for any , where
[TABLE]
In the following, for any subsect , let
[TABLE]
be the first exit time from of the process . Note that, under the event implies that the process does not have any jump bigger than in time interval . That is, under ,
[TABLE]
Therefore, for any with large enough,
[TABLE]
Next, we choose an orthonormal coordinate system with origin at and, for , let be the scaled process of . Define
[TABLE]
Then the jumping kernel of the process with respect to the Lebesgue measure is related to that of by the following formula
[TABLE]
Clearly, by (SD), and
[TABLE]
is decreasing on . It is also clear that, by (1.4), we have
[TABLE]
Finally, if and , then by (Kη), for every with
[TABLE]
Therefore, for and defined above, (1.4), (Kη) and (SD) hold uniformly for all .
Since f_{*}(x_{1}+1)^{-1}U=B\big{(}\frac{\xi_{x}}{f_{*}(x_{1}+1)},\kappa\big{)}, by using [27, Lemma 7.2] to with and (1.4), we have
[TABLE]
where denotes the first exit time from for the process . This together with (6.20) yields (6.19). ∎
Proposition 6.7**.**
The following two statements hold.
- (1)
Suppose that in (1.5). Then there exists a constant such that for every with large enough,
[TABLE]
- (2)
Suppose that in (1.5). Then, for any increasing function satisfying that for large enough, there exist constants such that for every with large enough,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Proof.
Recall that holds with the constant in (3.3) in this setting (see e.g. [16, Lemma 2.5]). Let , and , where is a positive constant in (3.3). We will always consider such that is large enough and .
(1) The proof of (6.21) is based on that of Proposition 3.4 with some modifications. Set . According to Lemma 3.1, in order to prove the desired lower bound (6.21) of , it suffices to verify the same lower bound (possibly with different constants) for .
In the following, let . For any fixed with large enough such that , let , where such that . Then, using the strong Markov property and , and following the same argument of (3.5), we can get that
[TABLE]
According to the Lévy system (3.1), we have
[TABLE]
where in the second inequality we have used that for with large enough
[TABLE]
and the last inequality follows from (6.19).
Combining (6.24) with (6.25), we prove (6.21).
(2) Since the proof of (6.22) is almost the same as (6.21), we omit it here. The proof of (6.23) is partly motivated by those of Propositions 3.6 and 5.2. We consider with for some large enough. Set n:=\Big{\lceil}\frac{x_{1}-r_{*}}{g(|x|)}\Big{\rceil}, x^{(i)}=\big{(}r_{*}+{i(x_{1}-r_{*})}/{n},\tilde{0}\big{)}:=\big{(}x^{(i)}_{1},\tilde{0}\big{)} and for any .
Define
[TABLE]
Noting that for ,
[TABLE]
we can easily check that dist for , which in turn implies that
[TABLE]
By using the strong Markov property and following the argument of (3.8), we have
[TABLE]
For any , set . It is clear that for large enough, . For every , if , then, by the Lévy system (3.1), we have
[TABLE]
where the third inequality is due to (6.26), in the forth inequality we have used the facts that and, by the definition of horn-shaped region, see e.g. (5.3),
[TABLE]
and in the last one we used .
Furthermore, according to the Lévy system (3.1), (6.26) and (6.19), we know immediately that
[TABLE]
On the other hand, using again, if , then
[TABLE]
Combining all the estimates above, we arrive at
[TABLE]
where the last inequality follows from (1.4) and the fact that
[TABLE]
Hence we have proved (6.23). ∎
7. Appendix: Boundedness, continuity and strict positivity of Dirichlet heat kernel
In this appendix, we make some comments on assumptions of Dirichlet heat kernel in Subsection 1.1. Let be the Dirichlet form given by (1.2) such that its jumping kernel satisfies (1.1). Since is regular on , it associates a symmetric Hunt process starting from quasi-everywhere on . Suppose that there exist and such that
[TABLE]
Then, according to [17, Proposition 3.1], there exist a properly -exceptional set and a transition density (also called heat kernel) such that
[TABLE]
In the following, we further suppose that
[TABLE]
and that
[TABLE]
See [5, 13, 14, 15, 17] and the references therein for sufficient conditions on such assumptions. In particular, the associated semigroup enjoys the strong Feller property.
Proposition 7.1**.**
Under assumptions above, for every open set and , the transition density for the process , , is continuous.
Proof.
We first construct the process from by removing jumps of size larger than via Meyer’s construction (see [4, Remark 3.4]). Let be the transition density of . Note that, from [4, (3.30)] one can check that there exist constants () such that for all
[TABLE]
By [4, Lemma 3.7(2)], we have
[TABLE]
We will claim that for all ,
[TABLE]
In fact, for all by (7.2). On the other hand, by (7.2), (7.3), (7.5) and (7.6), for all ,
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by Meyer’s construction and [4, Lemma 3.8, (3.29) and (3.20)], one can obtain that uniformly in any compact as . Using the continuity of , the strong Feller property of and (7.7), one can follow the proof of [22, Theorem 2.4] line by line and show that, for each , (x,y)\mapsto\mathds{E}^{x}\big{[}p(t-\tau_{D},X_{\tau_{D}},y)\mathds{1}_{\{t\geqslant\tau_{D}\}}\big{]} is continuous on . Thus, by (1.3), for every the function is continuous. ∎
Under assumptions above, if is a domain of (i.e., is a connected open set), then it is easy to verify that Dirichlet heat kernel is strictly positive for any . See [10, Corollary 7 and Remark 8 (2)] or [26, Proposition 2.2 (i)]. For disconnected open set, we need some additional assumption. Following [10, Condition (RC), p. 1120] (or see [32, Definition 4.3]), we call an open set is roughly connected by the process , if for any , there exist and distinct connected components of , such that , and for every , dist, where
[TABLE]
The following proposition essentially has been proved in [10, Proposition 6 and Remark 8].
Proposition 7.2**.**
Under assumptions above, if the open set is roughly connected by the process , then the Dirichlet heat kernel is strictly positive for any .
In particular, if there are some constants such that for all , (that is, is connected with in a reasonable way with respect to constants , see Definition 3.5), then the open set is roughly connected by the process under assumption (3.6).
The result below should be known, see e.g. [41, Chapter V, Theorem 6.6] or [40, Theorem XIII. 43]. The reader can see [12, Proposition 1.2] for the proof.
Proposition 7.3**.**
Suppose that is compact, and let be its first eigenfunction called ground state. If is bounded, continuous and strictly positive on , then also has a version which is bounded, continuous and strictly positive on .
Acknowledgements. The research of Xin Chen is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11501361), “Yang Fan Project” of Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (No. 15YF1405900), and Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Mathematical Analysis and its Applications (FJKLMAA). The research of Panki Kim is supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. 2016R1E1A1A01941893). The research of Jian Wang is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11522106), the Fok Ying Tung Education Foundation (No. 151002), the JSPS postdoctoral fellowship (2604021), National Science Foundation of Fujian Province (No. 2015J01003), the Program for Nonlinear Analysis and Its Applications (No. IRTL1206), and Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Mathematical Analysis and its Applications (FJKLMAA).
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Bañuelos, R.: Sharp estimates for Dirichlet eigenfunctions in simply connected domains, J. Differential Equations 125 (1996), 282–298.
- 2[2] Bañuelos, R. and van den Berg, M.: Dirichlet eigenfunctions for horn-shaped regions and Laplacians on cross sections, J. London Math. Soc. 53 (1996), 503–511.
- 3[3] Bañuelos, R. and Davis, B.: Sharp estimates for Dirichlet eigenfunctions in horn-shaped regions, Comm. Math. Phys. 150 (1992), 209–215. Erratum: Comm. Math. Phys. 162 (1994), 215–216.
- 4[4] Barlow, M.T., Bass, R.F., Chen, Z.-Q. and Kassmann, M.: Non-local Dirichlet forms and symmetric jump processes, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 361 (2009), 1963–1999.
- 5[5] Bass, R.F., Kassmann, M. and Kumagai, T.: Symmetric jump processes: localization, heat kernels, and convergence, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Statist. 46 (2010), 59–71.
- 6[6] van den Berg, M: On the spectrum of the Dirichlet Laplacian for horn-shaped regions in ℝ n superscript ℝ 𝑛 \mathds{R}^{n} with infinite volume, J. Funct. Anal. 58 (1984), 150–156.
- 7[7] Bogdan, K., Grzywny, T. and Ryznar, M.: Heat kernel estimates for the fractional Laplacian with Dirichlet conditions, Ann. Probab. 38 (2010), 1901–1923.
- 8[8] Bogdan, K., Kulczycki, T. and Kwaśnicki, M.: Estimates and structure of α 𝛼 \alpha -harmonic functions, Probab. Theory Relat. Fields 140 (2008), 345–381.
