On minimal decay at infinity of Hardy-weights
Hynek Kovarik, Yehuda Pinchover

TL;DR
This paper investigates the decay properties of Hardy-weights for p-Laplacian type operators, establishing sharp conditions at infinity based on integrability, with extensions to nonsymmetric linear elliptic operators and practical applications.
Contribution
It provides necessary sharp decay conditions for Hardy-weights at infinity and extends results to nonsymmetric linear elliptic operators.
Findings
Derived sharp decay conditions for Hardy-weights at infinity
Extended decay results to nonsymmetric linear elliptic operators
Discussed applications to various elliptic operator examples
Abstract
We study the behaviour of Hardy-weights for a class of variational quasi-linear elliptic operators of -Laplacian type. In particular, we obtain necessary sharp decay conditions at infinity on the Hardy-weights in terms of their integrability with respect to certain integral weights. Some of the results are extended also to nonsymmetric linear elliptic operators. Applications to various examples are discussed as well.
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.
On minimal decay at infinity of Hardy-weights
Hynek Kovařík
Hynek Kovařík, DIGICAM, Sectioned di Matematica
Università degli Saudi di Brescia
Via Braze,
38 - 25123, Brescia, Italy
and
Yehuda Pinchover
Yehuda Pinchover, Department of Mathematics, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
Abstract.
We study the behaviour of Hardy-weights for a class of variational quasilinear elliptic operators of -Laplacian type. In particular, we obtain necessary sharp decay conditions at infinity on the Hardy-weights in terms of their integrability with respect to certain integral weights. Some of the results are extended also to nonsymmetric linear elliptic operators. Applications to various examples are discussed as well.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 47J20; Secondary 35B09, 35J08, 35J20, 49J40.
Keywords: ground state, Hardy inequality, minimal growth, positive solutions.
1. Introduction
The problem of finding a function such that a given nonnegative operator in a domain satisfies, in certain sense, the inequality
[TABLE]
has been intensively studied in the past decades. For a detailed analysis of these so-called Hardy-type inequalities we refer to the monographs [1, 8, 11] and references therein. The function is usually called a Hardy-weight for the operator .
The aim of the present paper is to study the ‘decay’ at infinity of Hardy-weights for a class of variational quasilinear operators, the so-called Laplacians with a potential term, in external domains, see Section 2 for a detailed definition. For practical purposes, and also from the theoretical point of view, it is very natural to address the question of ‘how large’ the weight function might be. One would of course like to make as large as possible in order to optimize inequality (1.1) (see [5, 6]). However, there are certain constrains, depending on and , which have to be respected.
In this note we study one of such constrains, namely the behaviour of at infinity. Roughly speaking we show that the Hardy-weights cannot decay too slowly at infinity. More precisely, we establish necessary decay conditions on in terms of integrability of (at infinity) with respect to integral weights which are related to positive solutions of the equation . This is done in Section 3.1 for critical operators (see Theorem 3.1), and in Section 3.2 for subcritical operators (see Theorem 3.2). In Section 3.3 we show that the results can be extended also to a certain class of linear nonsymmetric operators (see, Theorem 3.5).
In Section 2 we introduce the necessary notation and recall some results previously obtained in the literature on some of which we rely in the proofs of our main theorems. The latter are formulated and proved in Section 3. In the closing Section 4, we illustrate the sharpness of our decay conditions by several examples.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Notation
Let be a domain in , , . Throughout the paper we use the following notation.
- •
We denote by the ideal point which is added to to obtain the one-point compactification of .
- •
We write if the set is open in , the set is compact and .
- •
Let be two positive functions defined in a domain . We say that is equivalent to in (and use the notation in ) if there exists a positive constant such that
[TABLE]
- •
The open ball of radius centered at is denoted by
[TABLE]
- •
We denote by the diameter of the set .
2.2. The quasilinear case
Let be a domain in , , . In this note we consider the quasilinear operator acting on of the form
[TABLE]
and the following associated functional defined on
[TABLE]
where is a symmetric matrix, is a potential function, and
[TABLE]
We assume that is locally bounded and locally uniformly positive definite, i.e., for any there exists such that
[TABLE]
and belongs to a certain local Morrey space which is defined below (see [14]).
Definition 2.1**.**
Let and let . Given a measurable function , we set
[TABLE]
We write if for any it holds . We then define
[TABLE]
and for we write , if for some and any it holds
[TABLE]
We are now ready to introduce our regularity hypotheses on the coefficients of the operator . Throughout the paper we assume that
[TABLE]
In the case , we make the following stronger hypothesis:
[TABLE]
Definition 2.2**.**
The functional is said to be
- (1)
nonnegative* in (in short, in ) if*
[TABLE] 2. (2)
subcritical* in if there exists a nonzero nonnegative weight function , called a Hardy-weight, such that*
[TABLE] 3. (3)
critical* in if in , but does not admit any Hardy-weight.* 4. (4)
supercritical* in if in (that is, there exists such that ).*
Definition 2.3**.**
We say that the operator is nonnegative in if the equation in admits a positive weak supersolution .
First, we recall the following Allegretto-Piepenbrink-type theorem.
Theorem 2.4** (Allegretto-Piepenbrink-type theorem [14, Theorem 4.3]).**
Suppose and satisfy hypothesis (H0). Then the following assertions are equivalent:
- •
The functional is nonnegative on .
- •
The equation in admits a positive solution .
- •
The equation in admits a positive supersolution .
Definition 2.5**.**
A sequence is called a null-sequence with respect to the nonnegative functional in if
a) for all ,
b) there exists a fixed open set such that for all ,
c) .
We call a positive function a ground state of in if is an limit of a null-sequence.
We have [14, Theorem 4.15]:
Theorem 2.6**.**
Suppose that is nonnegative on with and satisfying hypothesis (H0) if or (H1) if . Then is critical in if and only if admits a null-sequence. Moreover, in this case the equation admits (up to multiplicative constant) a unique positive supersolution . Furthermore, is a ground state.
If is subcritical in , then the set of all Hardy-weights is convex. Moreover, is an extreme point of this set if and only if is critical. This indicates that critical Hardy-weights are rare, and in general difficult to be determined concretely. The papers [5, 6] are devoted to the search of a class of optimal Hardy-weights, that is, Hardy-weights that are ‘as large as possible’ in the following sense.
Definition 2.7**.**
Suppose that in . Assume that a nonzero nonnegative function satisfies the following Hardy-type inequality
[TABLE]
with some . We say that is an optimal Hardy-weight for the operator in if the following conditions hold true.
- •
(Criticality) The functional is critical in . In particular, admits a ground state in .
- •
(Null-criticality) The functional is null-critical in with respect to , that is, .
- •
(Optimality at infinity) is also the best constant for inequality (2.8) restricted to functions that are compactly supported in any fixed neighborhood of infinity in .
For the -Laplacian in ‘exterior’ domains we have
Theorem 2.8** ([6, Theorem 6.1]).**
Let be a domain (not necessarily bounded), where . Let be an open subdomain of , and consider . Denote by the infinity in , and assume that admits a nonconstant positive -harmonic function in satisfying the following conditions
[TABLE]
where , and . Denote
[TABLE]
Define positive functions and , and a nonnegative weight on as follows:
(a) If , assume further that either or , and let
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
(b) If , define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then the following Hardy-type inequality holds true
[TABLE]
and is an optimal Hardy-weight for in .
Moreover, up to a multiplicative constant, is the unique positive supersolution of the equation in .
2.3. The linear case
In the same token, we consider also linear (not necessarily symmetric) second-order elliptic operators with real coefficients in divergence form:
[TABLE]
We assume that satisfied hypothesis (H0), and and are measurable vector fields in of class and is a measurable function in of class for some . By a solution of the equation in , we mean that and satisfies the equation in the weak sense. Subsolutions and supersolutions are defined similarly.
We denote by the formal adjoint operator of on its natural space . If , then the operator is symmetric in the space , and we call this setting the linear symmetric case. We note that if is symmetric and is smooth enough, then is in fact a Schrödinger-type operator of the form Pu=-\nabla\cdot\big{(}A\nabla u\big{)}+\tilde{c}u, where .
Remark 2.9**.**
Our results hold true also when is of the form
[TABLE]
In this case we should assume that the coefficients and are Hölder continuous and that the quadratic form
[TABLE]
is positive definite for all . In this framework we consider classical solutions and supersolutions. **
Definition 2.10**.**
We say that the operator is
- (1)
nonnegative in* (and we write in ) if the equation in admits a positive (super)solution.* 2. (2)
subcritical* in if there exists a function in such that in . Such a weight is called a Hardy-weight for the operator in . If in , but does not admit any Hardy-weight, then is said to be critical in .*
For more details concerning criticality theory, see for example the review article [13] and references therein. In particular, we need the following result.
Lemma 2.11**.**
The following claims hold true;
- (1)
The operator is critical in if and only if is critical in . 2. (2)
The operator is critical in if and only if the equation in admits (up to a multiplicative constant) a unique positive supersolution called the Agmon ground state (or in short ground state). 3. (3)
The operator is subcritical in if and only if admits a positive minimal Green function in .
Definition 2.12**.**
Let . We say that a positive solution of the equation in is a positive solution of the operator of minimal growth in a neighborhood of infinity in , if for any compact set with a smooth boundary and any positive supersolution of the equation in , , the inequality on implies that in . **
Remark 2.13**.**
Note that
- (1)
If is subcritical in , then for any fixed , the positive minimal Green function is a positive solution of the equation in of minimal growth in a neighborhood of infinity in . 2. (2)
On the other hand, in the critical case, the ground state of in is a positive solution of the equation in of minimal growth in a neighborhood of infinity in .
Definition 2.14**.**
A Hardy-weight for a subcritical operator in is said to be optimal if the following three properties hold:
- •
(Criticality) is critical in . Denote by and the ground states of and , respectively.
- •
(Null-criticality) .
- •
(Optimality at infinity) For any the operator in any neighborhood of infinity in
The following theorem is a version of [5, Theorem 4.12] (cf. the discussion therein); we omit its proof since it can be obtained by a slight modification of the proof in [5].
Theorem 2.15**.**
Let be a subcritical operator in , and let . Consider the Green potential
[TABLE]
where is the minimal positive Green function. Let be a positive solution of the equation in satisfying
[TABLE]
where is the ideal point in the one-point compactification of . Consider the positive supersolution
[TABLE]
of the operator in . Then the associated Hardy-weight
[TABLE]
is an optimal Hardy-weight with respect to in . Moreover,
[TABLE]
3. Main results
3.1. The quasilinear critical case
We suppose that is nonnegative in , in other words (by Theorem 2.4),
[TABLE]
Let be a compact set of positive measure with smooth boundary. Then by [14, Proposition 4.18], the operator is subcritical in . Hence, there exists a Hardy-weight , which depends on and , such that a Hardy-type inequality
[TABLE]
holds true.
The following theorem answers the question how large (in a neighborhood of infinity in ) the Hardy-weight in (3.2) might be if is critical in .
Theorem 3.1**.**
Suppose that is critical in with and satisfying either hypothesis (H0) if , or (H1) if , and let be the corresponding ground state satisfying the normalization condition . Let be a compact set of positive measure with smooth boundary.
Then for any satisfying (3.2) and any compact set such that we have .
Proof.
Let . In view of our ellipticity assumption (2.3) it is possible to choose satisfying
[TABLE]
and such that holds for all . Since is critical in , there exists a null-sequence such that , for all , and
[TABLE]
Moreover, by density and inequality (3.2) we have
[TABLE]
Since holds for all and , we obtain the upper bound
[TABLE]
Hence, there exists such that
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by [14, Theorem 4.12] it then follows that the sequence converges in and almost everywhere in to and that
[TABLE]
Moreover, if we write
[TABLE]
then the sequence is bounded in and in , see [14, Proposition 4.11]. In view of the Rellich-Kondrachov theorem, Hölder inequality and (3.6) it thus follows that is bounded in . Therefore,
[TABLE]
This in turn implies, again by using the Rellich-Kondrachov theorem, that is bounded in for all if , all if and all if , where . By assumption, we have . Then by the Hölder inequality
[TABLE]
To complete the proof we note that in view of the pointwise a.e. convergence of to and the Fatou lemma it holds
[TABLE]
This in combination with (3.3), (3.5), (3.7) and (3.8) gives
[TABLE]
and the claim follows. ∎
3.2. The quasilinear subcritical case
We have
Theorem 3.2**.**
Suppose that of the form (2.1) is subcritical in with and satisfying either hypothesis (H0) if , or (H1) if . Let be a compact set of positive measure with smooth boundary, and let be a positive solution of the equation in of minimal growth in a neighborhood of infinity in .
Then for any Hardy-weight for in , and any compact set such that , we have .
Proof.
Suppose that is subcritical in , and let be a Hardy-weight for in . So,
[TABLE]
Let be a compact set of positive measure with smooth boundary, and let be a positive solution of the equation in of minimal growth in a neighborhood of infinity in .
Let be a nonnegative potential such that is critical in with a ground state [14, Proposition 4.19]. Since both and are positive solutions of the equation in of minimal growth in a neighborhood of infinity in [14, Theorem 5.9], it follows that in . On the other hand, in light of (3.9), we have
[TABLE]
Consequently, Theorem 3.1 implies that . ∎
Remark 3.3**.**
The conditions on the decay of at infinity given by Theorem 3.2 could be compared with the behaviour at infinity of the optimal Hardy-weight given by Theorem 2.8. For example, let and so that and assume that is subcritical in . Let be an optimal Hardy-weight for , and let be the ground state of the critical operator . Then by the null-criticality with respect to
[TABLE]
holds for all . This is of course not in contradiction with Theorem 3.2 because is larger than the function considered in Theorem 3.2. For example, if is given by the supersolution construction as in Theorem 2.8 (or [5, Theorem 1.5]), then and by (3.11) we have , while by Theorem 3.2, .**
As a straightforward consequence of Theorem 3.1, we have:
Corollary 3.4**.**
Suppose that of the form (2.1) is subcritical in with and satisfying either hypothesis (H0) if , or (H1) if . Let be a Hardy-weight for such that (3.9) holds true. If is null-critical, then is also optimal at infinity in the sense of Definition 2.7.
Proof.
Let be the ground state of the critical operator in . Assume that is not optimal at infinity. Then there exists a neighborhood of infinity in , which we denote by , and a constant such that
[TABLE]
Let be a compact set such that . Then
[TABLE]
Hence by Theorem 3.1 we have for any compact set with . Since by density and inequality (3.9), it follows that which is in contradiction with the null-criticality of . ∎
3.3. The linear critical case
We have
Theorem 3.5**.**
Let be an elliptic operator of the form (2.13) (or (2.14)), and assume that is critical in . Let and be the ground states, in , of and , respectively. Let be a compact set of positive measure with smooth boundary.
Let be a Hardy-weight for in . Then for any such that we have .
Proof.
The operator is subcritical in . Let be the minimal positive Green function of in , and let be a Hardy-weight for in . Then by [12, Lemma 3.1]
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by Remark 2.13, for any compact such that , we have for fixed
[TABLE]
Hence, it follows from (3.13) that for fixed it holds
[TABLE]
3.4. The linear subcritical case
We have
Theorem 3.6**.**
Consider a linear operator of the form (2.13) (or (2.14)), satisfying the corresponding local regularity assumption mentioned in Subsection 2.3. Assume that is subcritical in . Let be a compact set of positive measure with smooth boundary, and let be positive solutions of the equation and respectively, in of minimal growth in a neighborhood of infinity in .
Then for any Hardy-weight for in , and any compact set such that , we have .
Proof.
The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 3.2, and therefore it is omitted. ∎
Similar to the quasilinear case, we have the following consequence of Theorem 3.5.
Corollary 3.7**.**
Let be a subcritical elliptic operator of the form (2.13) (or (2.14)), and let be a Hardy-weight for in . If is null-critical with respect to in , then is also optimal at infinity in the sense of Definition 2.14.
Proof.
Let and be the ground states, in , of and , respectively. Let be a compact set of positive measure with smooth boundary, and assume to the contrary that for some the operator is nonnegative in . In other words, is a Hardy-weight for in . Then it follows from Theorem 3.5 that for any such that we have , but this contradicts the null-criticality of with respect to . ∎
Remark 3.8**.**
The integrability conditions in the present section are only necessary conditions for to be a Hardy-weight, as the following elementary example demonstrates.
Consider the operator on , where and the weight . Then a positive harmonic function of minimal growth at infinity in satisfies , which is in for sufficiently large if and only if . On the other hand, in any dimension, is not a Hardy-weight for the Laplacian in .
For sufficient conditions, as well as necessary and sufficient conditions for to be a Hardy-weight in the linear case, see [12] and references therein. **
Remark 3.9**.**
Since criticality theory and in particular, the results concerning Hardy-type inequalities are valid in the setting of second-order elliptic operators on noncompact Riemannian manifolds [5, 6, 13], it follows that the results of the paper hold true also when is a noncompact Riemannian manifold of dimension . **
4. Examples
4.1. Example 1
Consider the case and , i.e. the -Laplacian. So, is the identity matrix, and assume that . It is well-known that is critical in if and only if , and therefore, is its ground state.
We first consider the example and . Theorem 2.8 with \mathcal{G}(x):=\log\big{(}|x|/R\big{)} directly implies the following Leray-type inequality (cf. [5, Example 13.1]).
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let and let . Then for any it holds
[TABLE]
Moreover,
[TABLE]
is an optimal Hardy-weight for in with being the ground state for the operator in .
Remark 4.2**.**
Inequality (4.1) is well-known (see e.g. [11, Thm. 1.14]), while the optimality of follows from Theorem 2.8. Note also that in the linear case inequality (4.1) can be generalized, with suitable modifications, to Laplace operators with Robin boundary conditions on , see [7]. **
Here the optimal Hardy-weight is not in , but Theorem 3.1 implies that for any such that . Indeed, for any such that we have
[TABLE]
Theorem 3.1 now implies that the logarithmic factor in (4.1) cannot be removed. This is in contrast with the well-known (optimal) Hardy inequality
[TABLE]
which holds for (see for example, [6, Example 4.7]). Note also that by the optimality of it follows that the weight function satisfies , where , c.f. (3.11). Indeed, we have
[TABLE]
for some .
In the case , we apply Theorem 2.8 with . This gives
[TABLE]
In agreement with Theorem 3.1, we have
[TABLE]
for any such that .
4.2. Example 2
Let , , , and
[TABLE]
Here we have
[TABLE]
and the optimality of the integral weight in (4.2) implies in particular, that the operator is critical in . A straightforward calculation shows that is the ground state for in . The null-criticality, implies that
[TABLE]
On the other hand, if we set , then
[TABLE]
where the constant is optimal, see e.g., [10, Section 4] and [9]. Since , it follows that
[TABLE]
with the Hardy-weight
[TABLE]
It is now easy to verify that
[TABLE]
for any .
4.3. Example 3
Let , , and be as in Example 2 with and . Let and . Using the supersolution construction with and in , we obtain the following optimal Hardy inequality in
[TABLE]
with ground state , and
[TABLE]
Recall that is a ground state of the critical operator in . It is now easy to verify that as claimed in Theorem 3.1 for any and any such that we have
[TABLE]
where . On the other hand, the optimality of in implies that there exists such that
[TABLE]
demonstrating the sharpness of Theorem 3.1.
4.4. Example 4
Let , the identity matrix, and . In this case we have that is subcritical operator in . The fundamental solution with a singular point at the origin is a positive -harmonic function of minimal growth at infinity in . Assume further that . Then the following Hardy inequality holds true with a subcritical Hardy-weight
[TABLE]
By Theorem 3.2, we have
[TABLE]
The optimality at infinity of the Hardy-weight in with a ground state implies, on the other hand, that
[TABLE]
4.5. Example 5
(cf. [2, 3, 4]) Let be a -bounded domain in . and let be the identity matrix, and . Fix , and denote . Let be a compact set of positive measure with smooth boundary and suppose that is large enough such that in . For define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
For , and , let
[TABLE]
and let in . Then is a Hardy-weight for in (obtained by the supersolution construction), and is a positive solution of the equation
[TABLE]
of minimal growth in a neighborhood of infinity in . Let
[TABLE]
Then is a Hardy-weight for in and a straightforward calculation shows that
[TABLE]
in agreement with Theorem 3.2.
4.6. Example 6
(cf. [9]) Let be a -bounded domain in , and fix . Let be the distance function to . Then there exists , a neighborhood of infinity in such that the following Hardy inequality holds
[TABLE]
A positive solution for of minimal growth at infinity in behaves like (see [9]). Hence, for we obtain . In particular, by Theorem 3.2 we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, let , then is a Hardy-weight for the subcritical operator in . Any positive solution for of minimal growth at infinity in behaves like , where is a solution of the transcendental equation , see [9]. Note that as . Hence, we have , demonstrating again the sharpness of Theorem 3.2.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Idan Versano for pointing out to them corollaries 3.4 and 3.7, and to Georgios Psaradakis for a useful discussion. The authors thanks the departments of Mathematics at the Technion and at the Università degli studi di Brescia for the hospitality during their mutual visits Y. P. acknowledges the support of the Israel Science Foundation (grant 970/15) founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. H. K. acknowledges the support of the Project FFABR of the Italian Ministry of Education.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] A.A. Balinsky, W.D. Evans, and R.T. Lewis: The analysis and geometry of Hardy’s inequality . Universitext. Springer, Cham, 2015.
- 2[2] G. Barbatis, S. Filippas, and A. Tertikas: Series expansion for L p superscript 𝐿 𝑝 L^{p} Hardy inequalities. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 52 (2003), 171–190.
- 3[3] G. Barbatis, S. Filippas, and A. Tertikas: A unified approach to improved L p superscript 𝐿 𝑝 L^{p} Hardy inequalities with best constants. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 356 (2004), 2169–2196.
- 4[4] B. Devyver: A spectral result for Hardy inequalities. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 102 (2014), 813–853.
- 5[5] B. Devyver, M. Fraas, and Y. Pinchover: Optimal Hardy weight for second-order elliptic operator: An answer to a problem by Agmon. J. Func. Anal. 266 (2014), 4422–4489.
- 6[6] B. Devyver, and Y. Pinchover: Optimal L p superscript 𝐿 𝑝 L^{p} Hardy-type inequalities. Ann. Inst. H. Poincare. Anal. Non Lineaire 33 (2016), 93–118.
- 7[7] H. Kovařík, and D. Mugnolo: Heat kernel estimates for Schrödinger operators on exterior domains with Robin boundary conditions. Pot. Analysis 48 (2018), 159–180.
- 8[8] A. Kufner, L.-E. Persson, and N. Samko: Weighted inequalities of Hardy type . Second edition. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2017.
