Estimates of Dirichlet heat kernels for unimodal L\'evy processes with low intensity of small jumps
Soobin Cho, Jaehoon Kang, Panki Kim

TL;DR
This paper derives two-sided estimates for the transition densities of unimodal Lévy processes with low jump intensity, extending understanding of heat kernels in cases where the Lévy density's scaling index matches the Euclidean dimension.
Contribution
It provides the first two-sided Dirichlet heat kernel estimates for Lévy processes with Lévy densities that have a weak lower scaling index equal to the Euclidean dimension.
Findings
Establishes two-sided heat kernel estimates for a broad class of Lévy processes.
Covers cases with Lévy densities that are regularly varying with index equal to the dimension.
Extends previous results to processes with low jump intensity and matching scaling index.
Abstract
In this paper, we study transition density functions for pure jump unimodal L\'evy processes killed upon leaving an open set . Under some mild assumptions on the L\'evy density, we establish two-sided Dirichlet heat kernel estimates when the open set is . Our result covers the case that the L\'evy densities of unimodal L\'evy processes are regularly varying functions whose indices are equal to the Euclidean dimension. This is the first results on two-sided Dirichlet heat kernel estimates for L\'evy processes such that the weak lower scaling index of the L\'evy densities is not necessarily strictly bigger than the Euclidean dimension.
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.
Estimates of Dirichlet heat kernels for unimodal Lévy processes with low intensity of small jumps
Soobin Cho
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Seoul National University, Building 27, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea
,
Jaehoon Kang
Department of Mathematical Sciences, KAIST, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34141, Republic of Korea
and
Panki Kim
Department of Mathematical Sciences and Research Institute of Mathematics, Seoul National University, Building 27, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea
Abstract.
In this paper, we study transition density functions for pure jump unimodal Lévy processes killed upon leaving an open set . Under some mild assumptions on the Lévy density, we establish two-sided Dirichlet heat kernel estimates when the open set is . Our result covers the case that the Lévy densities of unimodal Lévy processes are regularly varying functions whose indices are equal to the Euclidean dimension. This is the first results on two-sided Dirichlet heat kernel estimates for Lévy processes such that the lower scaling index of the Lévy densities is not necessarily strictly bigger than the Euclidean dimension.
The research of Soobin Cho is supported by the POSCO Science Fellowship of POSCO TJ Park Foundation.
The research of Jaehoon Kang is supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (No. NRF-2019R1A5A1028324).
The research of Panki Kim is supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) : NRF-2016K2A9A2A13003815.
Keywords: transition density; heat kernel estimates; Dirichlet heat kernel estimates; unimodal Lévy processes; geometric stable process.
AMS 2020 Mathematics Subject Classification: 60J35, 60J50, 60J76
1. Introduction and Main results
1.1. Introduction
The transition density of a Lévy process killed upon leaving an open set (called the Dirichlet heat kernel of the process in ) is the fundamental solution of the equation with zero exterior condition on , where is the infinitesimal generator of the Lévy process. When the sample paths of the Lévy process are discontinuous, such generator is a non-local operator. Hence, transition densities of killed Lévy processes with jumps play significant roles in the study of non-local operators with killings. However, except for a few special cases, it is impossible to find an explicit expression of the Dirichlet heat kernel. Thus, obtaining sharp two-sided estimates on the Dirichlet heat kernels for discontinuous Lévy processes is a fundamental problem both in probability theory and analysis.
The first result on this topic was done in [14]. In [14], the third named author, jointly with Chen and Song, established sharp two-sided small time estimates on the Dirichlet heat kernel of an isotropic -stable process () killed upon leaving a open set in . They also obtained large time estimates on the Dirichlet heat kernel when is bounded. After [14], much has been developed on the Dirichlet heat kernel estimates for discontinuous Markov processes. In [20], the authors obtained global Dirichlet heat kernel estimates for an isotropic -stable process in a half-space like or an exterior open set in . Then in [6], the authors succeeded in extending that result for a -fat open subset in , and suggested a factorization formula for the Dirichlet heat kernel. Very recently, in [21], the first and third named authors, jointly with Song and Vondraček, obtained a general factorization formula for the Dirichlet heat kernel in a metric measure space. We refer to [12, 15, 19] for the Dirichlet heat kernel estimates for isotropic Lévy processes with non-vanishing Gaussian component, [16, 17] for relativistic stable processes (see also [22, 27]), and mixed -stable processes in [8, 18]. Note that, every aforementioned result on the Dirichlet heat kernel estimates cover neither processes with high intensity of small jumps nor processes with low intensity of small jumps, namely, whose Lévy measure has the form or for a function slowly varying at infinity (in Karamata’s sense). The case of high intensity of small jumps was treated for subordinate Brownian motions in [30] by the third named author jointly with Mimica using the result in [36]. After that, the third named author and Bae extended that result to a subordinate Brownian motion with non-vanishing Gaussian component in [1].
The purpose of this paper is treating the other case, low intensity of small jumps, in the study of the Dirichlet heat kernel estimates. We consider the Dirichlet heat kernel estimates on isotropic unimodal Lévy processes without Gaussian components whose Lévy measure has a radially non-increasing density which is comparable to for a function satisfying weak scaling conditions at infinity with possibly non-positive lower scaling index (see Definition 1.1 for the notion of the weak scaling condition). Typical examples of such processes are geometric stable processes and iterated geometric stable processes. (See, e.g., [4, Page 112] for the definitions of these processes.) We refer to [24, 28, 29] for the scale invariant version of Harnack inequality and the Green function estimates for these processes. To the authors best knowledge, our result (Theorems 1.5 and 1.6) is the first result on the Dirichlet heat kernel estimates for Lévy processes with low intensity of small jumps both in small time and large time. Our paper is motivated by the recent paper [25] where sharp two-sided estimates on the heat kernel in the whole space for pure jump isotropic unimodal Lévy processes (without killing) having the Lévy measure in the form for a bounded function slowly varying at infinity. Unlike [25], in this paper, we allow the function to be unbounded and not slowly varying at infinity. Hence, our result is even new for the whole space case.
In this paper, we first derive heat kernel estimates for small time and the whole space by using the results and methods from [25]. Our heat kernel estimates in have two forms depending on whether is bounded or unbounded. If the lower scaling index of is positive, then our results can be written in the form of , which coincides with the main result in [7]. Hereinafter, denotes the transition density function which is also called as the heat kernel.
Next, we study behaviours of the process near the boundary of . To do this, we use the boundary Harnack principle and gradient estimates on harmonic functions for pure jump isotropic Lévy processes. These results were obtained in [23] and [35], respectively, under some mild assumptions. Under a set of conditions that give the boundary Harnack principle and gradient estimates (see the condition (B) below), we obtain two-sided estimates on the mean exit time from the intersection of an open ball and , and survival probability in .
Using heat kernel estimates in the whole space and boundary behaviours of the process, we establish small time two-sided Dirichlet heat kernel estimates for isotropic unimodal Lévy processes in open sets (see Theorem 1.5 below). Even with the heat kernel estimates and the precise boundary behaviour of the mean exit time and the survival probability on hand, it is highly non-trivial to obtain Dirichlet heat kernel estimates because the lower scaling index of can be [math] and the heat kernel can be unbounded.
For bounded open sets in , we also obtain large time estimates (see Theorem 1.6 below). Since the killed semigroup may not be compact operators for all even for a bounded open set , our method is different from ones for obtaining large time Dirichlet heat kernel estimates of stable processes or mixed stable processes.
Then we obtain two-sided estimates on the Green function in a bounded open subset in (see Theorem 1.7 below). This result partially extends the result in [29] where the Green function estimtates on subordinate Brownian motions, whose Lévy-Khintchine exponent possibly has the lower scaling index [math], are treated (see Remark 1.8 below).
The paper ends with an explicit example on the Dirichlet heat kernel estimates and the Green function estimates for some Lévy processes including geometric stable processes and iterated geometric stable processes.
Notations: We will use the symbol “” to denote a definition, which is read as “is defined to be.” For , we denote and . For two functions and a constant , the notation for means that there are strictly positive constants and such that for all . We denote an open ball by and the diagonal set by . For an open set in , we denote .
Upper case letters with subscripts and the constants and will remain the same throughout this paper. Lower case letters ’s without subscripts denote strictly positive constants whose values are unimportant and which may change even within a line, while values of lower case letters with subscripts , are fixed in each proof, and the labeling of these constants starts anew in each proof. The notation denotes a constant depending on .
1.2. Setup
To describe our results, we introduce the notions of the weak scaling conditions, almost monotonicity and some geometric properties of subsets of .
Definition 1.1**.**
Let be a given (Lebesgue) measurable function.
(i) For and , we say that satisfies (resp. ) if there exists such that
[TABLE]
Similarly, for and , we say that satisfies (resp. ) if there exists such that
[TABLE]
If satisfies (1.1) (resp. (1.2)), then we call (resp. ) the lower scaling index (resp. the upper scaling index) of the function . If satisfies both and for some and , we say that satisfies .
(ii) We say that is almost increasing if there exists such that
[TABLE]
Similarly, we say that is almost decreasing if there exists such that
[TABLE]
Definition 1.2**.**
(i) Let . An open set in is said to be a (uniform) open set if there exist a localization radius and a constant such that for every , there exist a function satisfying , , , for and an orthonormal coordinate system with its origin at such that
[TABLE]
The pair is called the characteristics of the open set .
(ii) An open set in is said to be a open set if there exists a localization radius such that is an union of open intervals of length at least and distanced one from another at least .
(iii) A bounded set in is said to be of scale if there exist such that .
Let be a Lévy process in with the Lévy-Khintchine exponent . Then,
[TABLE]
where is the transition probability of . If is a pure jump symmetric Lévy process with Lévy measure , then is of the form
[TABLE]
where .
A measure is isotropic unimodal if it is absolutely continuous on with a radial and radially non-increasing density. A Lévy process is isotropic unimodal if is isotropic unimodal for all . This is equivalent to the condition that the Lévy measure of is isotropic unimodal if is pure jump Lévy process. (See, [39].)
Throughout this paper, we always assume that is a pure jump isotropic unimodal Lévy process with the Lévy-Khintchine exponent . With a slight abuse of notation, we will use the notations and for . Then, throughout this paper, we also assume the following condition (A) holds. A smooth function is called a Bernstein function if for all and .
(A) The Lévy measure on is infinite and there exist constants and a continuous function satisfying for some such that
[TABLE]
If , then we assume further that either or for a Bernstein function .
Note that, since we allow the constant to be negative, the map can be increasing near zero.
Here, we enumerate other main conditions which we will assume later.
(B) is absolutely continuous such that is non-increasing on and there exists a constant such that for all ;
(C) satisfies for some ;
(S-1) ;
(S-2) and is almost increasing;
(L-1) and is almost decreasing;
(L-2) ;
(D) If , then where is the constant in (A).
Remark 1.3**.**
Let be a Brownian motion in and be a driftless subordinator independent of . The process defined by is called a subordinate Brownian motion (SBM). Every SBM is an isotropic unimodal Lévy process. Let be the Laplace exponent of the subordinator , namely,
[TABLE]
It is known that the Laplace exponent is a Bernstein function with . Since has no drift, has the representation where is a measure on satisfying , called the Lévy measure of . Note that the characteristic exponent of is .
A function is said to be completely monotone, if on for every . A Bernstein function is said to be a complete Bernstein function, if its Lévy measure has a completely monotone density.
(i) Suppose that is a complete Bernstein function such that and satisfies for some . Suppose further that, if , then satisfies for some , and if , then satisfies for some . Then according to [29, Proposition 2.6], a SBM with the characteristic exponent satisfies (A) with such that for .
(ii) Let be a SBM with the characteristic exponent for a complete Bernstein function . Then by [22, Remark 1.4] and [5, Lemma 7.4], it satisfies (B). (See also the proof of [31, Proposition 3.5(b)].) **
Remark 1.4**.**
(i) (A) implies that satisfies . Therefore, under (A), for every , there exists such that
[TABLE]
On the other hand, (C) implies that satisfies for some . Thus, (C) implies that for every , there exists such that
[TABLE]
(ii) If (A) holds with , then (S-2) holds. (See, [3, Section 1.5].)
1.3. Main results.
We define for ,
[TABLE]
Since (A) holds, we see that
[TABLE]
which are the functions introduced in [37]. We also define
[TABLE]
and denote by the right continuous inverse of , that is,
[TABLE]
Now, we are ready to state our main results. Recall that .
Theorem 1.5**.**
Suppose that is a pure jump isotropic unimodal Lévy process satisfying (A) and (B). Let be a open set in with characteristics . If is unbounded, we further assume that (C) holds. Then, the following estimates hold:
(i) If (S-1) holds, then for every , there exist positive constants , and such that
[TABLE]
for all .
(ii) If (S-2) holds, then for every and , there exist positive constants , and such that
[TABLE]
for all where and is defined as (1.6).
If we further assume that is bounded, then we can obtain the large time estimates for the Dirichlet heat kernel and the Green function estimates under some mild assumptions.
Theorem 1.6**.**
Suppose that is a pure jump isotropic unimodal Lévy process satisfying (A) and (B). Let be a bounded open set in with characteristics of scale . Then, the following estimates hold:
(i) If (L-1) holds, then for every , there exist positive constants and such that
[TABLE]
for all where and are the positive constants in (A) and and are positive constants which only depend on the dimension .
(ii) If (L-2) holds, then there exist and such that for every fixed , there exists such that
[TABLE]
for all . Moreover, we have
[TABLE]
(iii) If (S-2) holds, then the estimates in (ii) holds with . Moreover, the constant is the largest eigenvalue of the generator of .
For a Borel subset , the Green function of in is defined by
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.7**.**
Suppose that is a pure jump isotropic unimodal Lévy process satisfying (A), (B) and (D). Let be a bounded open subset in with characteristics of scale . Then, the Green function of in satisfies the following two-sided estimates: for every ,
[TABLE]
where the comparison constants depend only on and .
Remark 1.8**.**
(i) One can obtain (1.7) just by integrating the estimates for given in Theorems 1.5 and 1.6 (e.g. [30, Theorem 7.3]). However, to use Theorems 1.5 and 1.6, we need conditions more than (A), (B) and (D). By adopting arguments from [29] instead of integrating the Dirichlet heat kernel, we obtained the Green function estimates in more general situations.
(ii) It is established in [29, Theorem 1.2] that for a large class of transient subordinate Brownian motions, the Green function in a bounded open set enjoys the following sharp two-sided estimates:
[TABLE]
An important novelty of this result is that it was the first explicit Green function estimates even if the lower scaling index of the Lévy-Khintchine exponent can be [math]. Note that, in view of Remark 1.3 and [28, Lemma 4.1], when the lower scaling index of the Lévy-Khintchine exponent can be [math], assumptions (A-1)–(A-5) in [29, Theorem 1.2] imply the following:
(1) The Lévy-Khintchine exponent for a complete Bernstein function . Thus, (B) holds (see Remark 1.3(ii));
(2) (A) holds with such that for , and constants and . Thus, (D) holds.
Therefore, by Lemma 2.1 and (2.4), we see that Theorem 1.7 recovers (1.8). Here, we note that Theorem 1.7 does not assume the transience of the process unlike [29, Theorem 1.2].
2. Heat kernel estimates in
Recall that under (A), we have
[TABLE]
Clearly, is decreasing. Moreover, we see that for all and hence is also decreasing. Since the underlying process is isotropic unimodal, there are a number of general properties related to these functions. (See, [7], [9] and [23].)
First, since is non-increasing, we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by Karamata’s Tauberian-type theorem, the opposite inequality holds for if and only if satisfies for some . Similarly, we have for if and only if satisfies for some . (See, [23, Appendix A].) In particular, (A) implies that
[TABLE]
and (C) implies that
[TABLE]
Next, by [7, (6) and (7)], there exist positive constants and which only depend on the dimension and and in (1.3) such that for all ,
[TABLE]
Under (A), we can extend this relations by including if is small.
Lemma 2.1**.**
There exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
**Proof. **From the definitions of and , the first inequality is obvious. To prove the second inequality, it suffices to show that there exists such that for . Since (A) holds, by (1.4) and (2.2), we have and for . Thus, for , we get
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.1 and (2.4), we deduce that for small . In view of this relation, to make some computations easier, we define by
[TABLE]
We used the change of variables in the last equality.
Lemma 2.2**.**
*(i) satisfies .
(ii) We have that*
[TABLE]
Moreover, there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
**Proof. **(i) Let . By the change of variables and (A), we have that
[TABLE]
The first inequality in (2.7) shows that satisfies .
Now, we prove that satisfies . Choose any and . Let be the smallest integer satisfying . By applying the latter inequality in (2.7) times, since is increasing, we obtain
[TABLE]
Besides, for any and , since is increasing, we see from the above inequalities that . Hence, we get the desired result.
(ii) It follows from the definition of , Lemma 2.1 and (2.4).
Let be the set of all continuous functions which vanish at infinity. In [26], Hartman and Wintner proved sufficient conditions in terms of the Lévy exponent under which the transition density of is in . Then, in [34], Knopova and Schilling improve that result and they also give some necessary conditions. Using (2.5) and (2.6), we can formulate these conditions in terms of . Since the underlying process is isotropic unimodal, these conditions determine whether or .
Proposition 2.3**.**
Let be the transition density of . Suppose that
[TABLE]
*Then, the following are true.
(i) If , then for all .
(ii) If , then for all .
(iii) If , then there exist such that for and for .*
*In particular, by l’Hospital’s rule, the following are true.
(iv) If , then for all .
(v) If , then for all .
(vi) If , then there exist such that for and for .*
**Proof. **By (2.5) and (2.6), the first two assertions follow from Part II in [26] and the third one follows from [34, Lemma 2.6].
Here, we introduce some general estimates which are established in [25]. Note that the following estimates hold no matter or .
Proposition 2.4** ([25, Proposition 5.3]).**
There are constants , which only depend on the dimension and in (1.3) such that for all ,
[TABLE]
Proposition 2.5** ([25, Theorem 5.4]).**
There is a constant , which only depends on the dimension and in (1.3) such that for all and ,
[TABLE]
The following lemma will be used several times to obtain heat kernel upper bounds for the whole space. (Cf. [25, Lemma 4.1 and Corollary 4.4].)
Lemma 2.6**.**
For every , there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
**Proof. **Recall the condition (A). We first assume that either or . For , set if , and
[TABLE]
We claim that there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
If , then (2.9) follows from (1.3). Hence, we assume and . Since is continuous and satisfies , it also satisfies . Hence, according to (1.3) and the change of the variables, we have that, for any ,
[TABLE]
Besides, since is non-increasing and a Lévy measure, we also have that for any ,
[TABLE]
Therefore, we obtain (2.9) with .
Observe that for ,
[TABLE]
Hence, we see that for any and ,
[TABLE]
By Taylor expansion of the cosine function, (2.9) and the assumption that satisfies with , we have
[TABLE]
Next, to bound and , we use a trick from the proof of [25, Theorem 3.5]. Since is non-increasing, there exists a measure on such that for . Then by Fubini theorem and (2.9), we obtain
[TABLE]
Similarly, we also have that . Therefore, we get (2.8) in this case.
For the case for a Bernstein function , we use [25, Lemma 5.13] and (2.2), and obtain that for any and ,
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.
Now, we first consider the case when (S-2) holds. Recall that and is the right continuous inverse of (see (1.6)). Since (S-2) holds, we get that and there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
Note that in this case, by Proposition 2.3, for all . Here, we give the small time estimates for under (S-2).
Lemma 2.7**.**
Assume that (S-2) holds. Then, there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
for all and where , and .
**Proof. **Let and . Then, for all . By Fourier inversion theorem, (2.5), integration by parts and the change of variables , we have that for all ,
[TABLE]
Observe that for , we have
[TABLE]
Thus, for all , we have that (cf. Section 3.10 in [3])
[TABLE]
Then, by (2.11) and the definition of , we get
[TABLE]
On the other hand, define g(r):=r^{d}\exp\big{(}-\frac{C_{0}}{2C_{3}}t\Phi(r)\big{)} for . Then, we have
[TABLE]
It follows that is strictly increasing on . Therefore, we obtain
[TABLE]
We also have that
[TABLE]
Finally, we deduce the result from (2.6).
Lemma 2.8**.**
Assume that (S-2) holds. Let and be the positive constants in Lemma 2.7. Then, there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
for all and satisfying .
**Proof. **Fix satisfying and let . By [25, (5.4)], the mean value theorem, (2.5) and Lemma 2.6, for , we have
[TABLE]
Since satisfies and is increasing, we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, define m(u):=u^{d-1/2}\exp\big{(}-\frac{C_{0}}{4C_{3}}t\Phi(u/r)\big{)} for . Then, for all , since and , we get
[TABLE]
It follows that is increasing on . In particular, we have that
[TABLE]
Since , we obtain
[TABLE]
Therefore, we deduce the result from (2), (2.13) and (2.6).
In view of Lemma 2.7 and Lemma 2.8, we define for ,
[TABLE]
Note that both and are increasing, while is decreasing.
Proposition 2.9**.**
Assume that (S-2) holds. For all , there exists a constant such that for all ,
[TABLE]
where and are the constants in Lemma 2.7.
**Proof. **Choose any , and let and be the constants in Lemma 2.7.
We first assume that . If , then we have so that by (2.10). Hence, we obtain (2.15) from (2.1), (1.3) and Lemma 2.7. Else if , then (2.15) follows from (2.1), (1.3), (2.10) and Lemma 2.8. Otherwise, if , then since is decreasing, we see that
[TABLE]
Thus, we get (2.15) from Proposition 2.5.
Now, suppose that . In this case, we have that . Therefore, if , then we get the result from Proposition 2.5. Otherwise, if , then by the semigroup property, Lemma 2.7 and (2.2), we have that
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.
By combining Propositions 2.4 and 2.9, we obtain the following two-sided heat kernel estimates under (S-2).
Corollary 2.10**.**
Assume that (S-2) holds. For all , there exists a constant such that for every fixed , we have that for all ,
[TABLE]
where is the constant in Proposition 2.4, and and are the constants in Lemma 2.7.
**Proof. **The upper bound follows from Proposition 2.9. On the other hand, since is radially non-increasing and for all and , we deduce the lower bound from Proposition 2.4.
Remark 2.11**.**
If satisfies for some , then for . (See, [3, Theorem 2.6.1].) Therefore, when satisfies for some , we see that the estimate (2.10) can be expressed as follows: For every ,
[TABLE]
Hence, if (C) further holds, then we see from (2.2) and (2.3) that for . In view of (2.4), (2.5) and (2.6), this coincides with the main result in [7]. **
In the rest of this section, we assume that (S-1) holds. Then, by Proposition 2.3, we have that for all sufficiently small . Recently, some general estimates for such type of heat kernels were established in [25]. Using that results, we obtain the heat kernel estimates in analogous form to (2.10).
Proposition 2.12**.**
Assume that (S-1) holds. Then, there exist constants such that for all ,
[TABLE]
**Proof. **Let for where denotes the indicator function on a set . By (2.2), Lemma 2.6, (A) and (S-1), there exists a constant such that satisfies the assumptions (5.7) and (5.8) in [25]. Therefore, by [25, Proposition 5.6], there exist such that for all and , the estimate (2.17) holds. Moreover, for and , we have that . Then, we get the result from Proposition 2.5.
Corollary 2.13**.**
Assume that (S-1) holds. For all , there exist constants such that
[TABLE]
for all where is the constant in Proposition 2.4.
**Proof. **By Propositions 2.4 and 2.12, (2.4) and induction, it suffices to prove the upper bound in (2.18) for and , where is the constant in Proposition 2.12. If , then \exp\big{(}-cth(|x|)\big{)}\asymp 1 for each fixed constant so that the assertion holds by Proposition 2.5. Suppose that . Without loss of generality, we may assume that . Then, by the semigroup property, (2.2), the induction hypothesis, monotonicity of and Proposition 2.5, we get
[TABLE]
3. Boundary Harnack principle with explicit decay
In this section, we investigate the boundary behaviour of the process via the renewal function of and the tail of its Lévy measure. Throughout this section, we assume that (B) holds. For an open set , the first exit time is denoted by . We give the probabilistic definition of a (regular) harmonic function.
Definition 3.1**.**
(i) A function is said to be harmonic in an open set with respect to if for every open set whose closure is a compact subset of , and for every .
(ii) A function is said to be regular harmonic in an open set with respect to if and for every
Here, we provide the precise definition of the renewal function of . Let be the last coordinate of , and be the local time at [math] for , the last coordinate of reflected at the supremum. Define the ascending ladder-height process as where is the right continuous inverse of . Then, the renewal function is defined as
[TABLE]
Since the process is isotropic unimodal, there are several known properties for the renewal function. (See, [38, Theorem 1.2], [2, p.74] and [8, Section 1.2].)
Lemma 3.2**.**
*(i) is strictly increasing, if and .
(ii) is subadditive; that is,*
[TABLE]
(iii) is absolutely continuous and harmonic on for the process . Also, is a positive harmonic function for on .
According to [9, Proposition 2.4], the relation (2.4) can be extended to include the renewal function. That is, there exist comparison constants which are only depend on the dimension and and in (1.3) such that for all . Then, by Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2, we have that
[TABLE]
In particular, by (3.1) and Lemma 2.2, there are constants such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Proposition 3.3**.**
The renewal function is twice-differentiable on , and there exists such that
[TABLE]
**Proof. **Since (A) and (B) hold, the scale-invariant Harnack inequality holds for . (See, [23, Theorem 1.9].) Then, the results follows from [35, Theorem 1.1] and Lemma 3.2(iii).
Define for and let the upper half-space. Since the renewal function is harmonic on for , by the strong Markov property, is harmonic in with respect to .
Proposition 3.4**.**
For all , there exists such that for any ,
[TABLE]
**Proof. **See, the proof of [22, Proposition 3.2].
Denote by the set of all twice-differentiable functions in vanishing at infinity. We define an operator as follows: for and ,
[TABLE]
Theorem 3.5**.**
For any , is well-defined and .
**Proof. **By Propositions 3.3 and 3.4, using [11, Lemma 2.3, Theorem 2.11], the proof is essentially the same as the one given in [22, Theorem 3.3]. Hence, we omit it.
Lemma 3.6**.**
Let be a open set in with characteristics . For any and , we define
[TABLE]
Then, there exist and independent of such that for every , is well defined in and
[TABLE]
**Proof. **Since the case of is easier, we only give the proof for . Fix and . Let be the point satisfying and denote and by the function and orthonormal coordinate system determined by , respectively. (See, Definition 1.2.) Henceforth, we use the coordinate system . Hence, we have , and Since is a open set, it satisfies the inner and outer ball conditions. Thus, we may assume that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where is defined by
Let , and . We also let . By Theorem 3.5, we get . Since and for , we have
[TABLE]
First, since , using Lemma 2.1, (3.1), (3.2) and Proposition 3.4, we have
[TABLE]
Next, we note that for ,
[TABLE]
and hence by subadditivity of , we obtain
[TABLE]
Since for , we have for ,
[TABLE]
where is the -dimensional Lebesgue measure. From these observations, using (1.4), (2.1), the definitions of and , (3.1) and (3.2), since , we get
[TABLE]
Lastly, to estimate we first claim that
[TABLE]
Indeed, for any , if , then we have
[TABLE]
Otherwise, if , then we have
[TABLE]
Hence, since , we get . Therefore, (3.5) holds.
Recall that by Lemma 3.2(iii), is a harmonic function for on . Since the scale-invariant Harnack inequality holds for (see, [23, Theorem 1.9]), by (3.5), we deduce that for every ,
[TABLE]
for some constant independent of choice of and . Hence, we obtain
[TABLE]
By the monotonicity of , (2.1), the definition of , (3.1) and (3.2), since , we have
[TABLE]
Besides, set . By Proposition 3.3, (2.1), the definition of , (3.1) and (3.2), since for all , we have that
[TABLE]
By (3.2), since , we see that for all ,
[TABLE]
Since and are non-increasing, by (3.6), [33, Lemma 4.4], (3.7) and (3.2), we obtain that
[TABLE]
Finally, we get from (3) that . By (3.1), this finishes the proof.
For , we define .
Lemma 3.7**.**
Let be a open set in with characteristics and be the constant in Lemma 3.6. Then, there exist constants and such that for every and with ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where is the point satisfying .
**Proof. **Let be the constant in Lemma 3.6. Fix and with where the constant will be selected later. Let be the point satisfying . As in Lemma 3.6, we denote by and for a function and coordinate system with respect to , respectively and hereinafter we use the coordinate system .
Denote by for . Then, we define
[TABLE]
Using Dynkin’s formula and approximation argument, (see, [30, Proposition 4.7],) by Lemma 3.6, there exists a positive constant independent of choice of and such that
[TABLE]
for every open subset .
Let
[TABLE]
We claim that . Indeed, the first inclusion is obvious. Moreover, for all , Hence, the second inclusion holds.
Observe that for and , we have
[TABLE]
for some constant which only depends on . By the Lévy system, (3.11), integration by parts, Lemma 2.1, (3.1), (3.3) and monotonicity of , for ,
[TABLE]
for some constants independent of . Moreover, by the similar argument, we also have that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We used (1.4) in the third inequality.
For selected constants and in (3.10), (3) and (3), we set
[TABLE]
Then, by (3.10) and (3), we get
[TABLE]
This proves the upper bound of (3.8).
On the other hand, by (3), we get
[TABLE]
By [9, Lemma 2.1] and (3.1), there exists such that
[TABLE]
Then, by (3.10), (3), (3.16), (3.2) and the monotonicity of , we get
[TABLE]
This proves the lower bound of (3.8) in view of (3.1). Finally, we get (3.9) from (3.15).
4. Estimates of survival probability
In this section, we obtain two-sided estimates for the survival probability which play a crucial role in factorization of the Dirichlet heat kernel. We first state the general two-sided estimates for the survival probability in balls which are recently established in [25].
Proposition 4.1** ([25, Proposition 5.2]).**
There exist positive constants and which only depend on the dimension such that for all ,
[TABLE]
where and are constants in (A). As a consequence, for all ,
[TABLE]
Note that the last inequality in (4.1), and (4.2) were obtained for a large class of Feller processes in . See [10, Corollaries 5.3, 5.8 and Theorem 5.9].
In the rest of this section, we assume that (B) holds. Fix and a open set in with characteristics . Let be the constant in Lemma 3.7. For , we set
[TABLE]
For with , we define an open neighborhood of and an open ball as follows:
*Find satisfying and let . Then, we have We define *
[TABLE]
Note that by the construction, we have that for all and ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.2**.**
Let be a open set in with characteristics . Let and be defined as in just before the Proposition. For all and , we have that for every and with ,
[TABLE]
where the comparison constants depend only on and .
**Proof. **Recall that is the point satisfying . Let
[TABLE]
Indeed, we have By (A) and (B), we see that assumptions in [23, Theorem 1.9] hold and hence by that theorem, the (scale-invariant) boundary Harnack principle holds. Therefore, we get
[TABLE]
where is the subset of defined as in just before the Proposition. By the Lévy system, (1.4), (4.4) and Lemma 3.7, we have
[TABLE]
Similarly, we also have that
Then, by the strong Markov property, Chebyshev’s inequality, (4.5) and Lemma 3.7, since , we obtain
[TABLE]
On the other hand, for any , by the strong Markov property, (4.1), (3.1), Lemma 3.7 and Chebyshev’s inequality,
[TABLE]
Take . By Lemma 3.7 and the fourth line in the above inequalities, we obtain
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.
Corollary 4.3**.**
Let be a open set in with characteristics . For all , there exists a constant such that for every and ,
[TABLE]
**Proof. **We use the same notations as those in Proposition 4.2. If , then the result follows from Proposition 4.2. If , then . Also, by (4.1) and (3.1), we get .
Corollary 4.4**.**
Let be a bounded open subset in with characteristics of scale . Then, there exists such that for all and ,
[TABLE]
where are constants in (A) and are constants in (4.1).
**Proof. **Fix . If , then the assertion follows from Corollary 4.3. Hence, we assume that . Let be the points satisfying . By the semigroup property, (4.1) and Corollary 4.3, we get
[TABLE]
To prove the lower bound, we first assume that where is the constant in Lemma 3.7. Without loss of generality, we may assume that . Let be the point satisfying and be the shift operator defined as . Then, by the strong Markov property, (3.9), the Lévy system and (4.1), we have
[TABLE]
Indeed, on , we have . Also, since , we can always find such that for some constant . Then, by the Lévy system and (4.2), we obtain
[TABLE]
Similarly, if , then we have
[TABLE]
5. Small time Dirichlet heat kernel estimates in open set
In this section, we provide the proof of Theorem 1.5. Let be a fixed constant and be a fixed open set in with characteristics . We assume that (B) holds. If is unbounded, then we further assume that (C) holds. Then, by (1.4) and (1.5), we have
[TABLE]
By (2.2), (2.3), Corollary 2.10 and Corollary 2.13, we have the following heat kernel estimates for small . Let be the constant in Proposition 2.4.
(1) If (S-1) holds, then there exist constants and such that
[TABLE]
for all .
(2) If (S-2) holds, then there exist a constant such that
[TABLE]
for all and where and are the constants in Lemma 2.7, and is defined as (2.14).
Before proving Theorem 1.5, we obtain a lower bound of without (S-1) and (S-2). This result will be used later to obtain Green function estimates.
Proposition 5.1**.**
For every , there exist positive constants and such that for all ,
[TABLE]
**Proof. **Let be the constant in Lemma 3.7. Fix and set
[TABLE]
Note that by (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3), we have and
Let be the points satisfying and . By (3.2), there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
Case 1. Suppose that . Define open neighborhoods of and as follows:
{\cal O}(x)=\begin{cases}B\big{(}x,V^{-1}[\frac{1}{8m}V(|x-y|)]\big{)},&\mbox{if }\;\;8mV(\delta_{D}(x))\geq V(|x-y|);\\ D\cap B(z_{x},\frac{1}{3}|x-y|),&\mbox{if }\;\;8mV(\delta_{D}(x))<V(|x-y|),\end{cases}
and
{\cal O}(y)=\begin{cases}B\big{(}y,V^{-1}[\frac{1}{8m}V(|x-y|)]\big{)},&\mbox{if }\;\;8mV(\delta_{D}(y))\geq V(|x-y|);\\ D\cap B\big{(}z_{y},\frac{1}{3}|x-y|\big{)},&\mbox{if }\;\;8mV(\delta_{D}(y))<V(|x-y|).\end{cases}
Then, we see that and
[TABLE]
Thus, by the strong Markov property and (5.1), we have (cf. [17, Lemma 3.3],)
[TABLE]
To calculate the survival probability , we first assume that . In this case, we see from (4.1) and (3.1) that
[TABLE]
Next, assume that . Note that by the monotonicity of and (5.5), we get in this case. Let where will be chosen later. Then, we see from (3.1) and (3.2) that
[TABLE]
Note that we can not expect that in general.
If , then by (4.1) and (5.8), we have
[TABLE]
Indeed, by Lemma 2.2(i) and (3.1), we see that . Thus, if , then we get (5.9). Otherwise, if , then {\mathbb{P}}_{x}(\tau_{{\cal O}(x)}>t)\asymp 1\asymp\exp\big{(}-c_{3}th(|x-y|)\big{)} and hence (5.9) holds.
If , then we can find a piece of annulus such that . Recall that is shift operator. Then, by the strong Markov property, the Lévy system, (4.1), (3.8), (3.1) and (3.2), we have
[TABLE]
where is a constant independent of choice of . Now, we choose . Then, we get from (5.8) that
[TABLE]
Finally, by combining the above inequality with (5.7) and (5.9), we deduce that
[TABLE]
By the same way, we get {\mathbb{P}}_{y}(\tau_{{\cal O}(y)}>t)\geq c\big{(}1\wedge\frac{1}{tL(\delta_{D}(y))}\big{)}^{1/2}\exp\big{(}-c_{5}th(|x-y|)\big{)}. Then, (5) yields the desired lower bound.
Case 2. Suppose that . In this case, we let and . By the same argument as (5), (5.1) and Corollary 4.3, we get
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.
Now, we are ready to prove Theorem 1.5.
Proof of Theorem 1.5. Fix and continue using the notation and in (5.4).
(i) Since we have proved the lower bound in Proposition 5.1, it suffices to show that there exist such that for all ,
[TABLE]
where is the constant in Proposition 2.4. Indeed, if (5.10) holds, then by the semigroup property and (5.2), we get
[TABLE]
which yields the result.
Now, we prove (5.10). If , then (5.10) is a consequence of (5.2) and the trivial bound that . Hence, we assume that . By (3.3), there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
Observe that by the semigroup property, monotonicity of and Proposition 4.2, we have
[TABLE]
Thus, if , then we get (5.10). Therefore, we assume that . Since is strictly decreasing, it follows from (5.11) that and hence where is the point satisfying . Define
[TABLE]
and . Then, for and , we obtain
[TABLE]
Observe that by the strong Markov property,
[TABLE]
First, by the Lévy system and (5.12), we get
[TABLE]
By (5.2) and Lemma 2.1, for all and , we have
[TABLE]
It follows that for all ,
[TABLE]
Indeed, if , then we have . Moreover, by the semigroup property, Proposition 4.2, (5.15) and monotonicity of , we get
[TABLE]
Then, using (5), (5.1), (5.15), (5) and Proposition 4.2, we obtain
[TABLE]
Second, by monotonicity of , (5.2), (5.1) and Proposition 4.2, we get
[TABLE]
In the last inequality, we used (3.1), and the fact thats for all and for all .
Lastly, we note that is increasing on and decreasing on . Thus, using similar calculation as the one given in (5), by monotonicity of , (5.2), (5.1), Proposition 4.2 and (3.1), we have
[TABLE]
Combining the above inequality with (5), (5) and (5), we get (5.10).
(ii) We use the same notations as in the proof of (i) and follow the proof of (i).
(Upper bound) By the semigroup property and (5), it suffices to show that there exist positive constants and such that
[TABLE]
By the similar argument to the one given in the proof of (i), we may assume that . Moreover, observe that for every , by the triangle inequality, . Thus, by the semigroup property, monotonicity of and Proposition 4.2, we have that
[TABLE]
Therefore, if for some , then we get (5.20) from (5). Hence, we may assume that by the same argument as the one given in the proof of (i).
To prove (5.20), we first assume that . In this case, we have that . Then, by the semigroup property, (5) and Proposition 4.2, we get
[TABLE]
Now, suppose that . In this case, we use (5) and find upper bounds for , and . Observe that for all and , by (5) and the similar calculation to the one given in (5.15),
[TABLE]
Then, by using (5) instead of (5.15), we have that for all ,
[TABLE]
Hence, by the similar arguments to the ones given in (5) and (5), we obtain
[TABLE]
Next, by (5), (5.1), monotonicity of , we have
[TABLE]
Let f(r):=r^{-d}\exp\big{(}-c_{7}th(r)\big{)} where the constant will be chosen later. Then, by (2.2), there exists a constant such that for ,
[TABLE]
Set . Then, we see that is decreasing on \big{(}[\ell^{-1}(3a_{1}/t)]^{-1},[\ell^{-1}(a_{1}/t)]^{-1}\big{)}. Using this fact, since is almost increasing, we deduce that
[TABLE]
It follows that by the same argument as in the one given in (5),
[TABLE]
Lastly, we note that since ,
[TABLE]
Therefore, by the same proof as in the one given in (i), we obtain
[TABLE]
This finishes the proof for the upper bound.
(Lower bound) Fix . By Proposition 5.1, it remains to prove the lower bound when , where is the constant in Lemma 3.7. Let and define open neighborhoods of and as follows. Recall that are the points satisfying and . We define
{\cal U}(x)=\begin{cases}B\big{(}x,V^{-1}(\frac{1}{8m}V(\zeta_{t}))\big{)},&\mbox{if}\;\;8mV(\delta_{D}(x))\geq V(\zeta_{t});\\[2.0pt] B(z_{x},\frac{1}{3}\zeta_{t})\cap D,&\mbox{if}\;\;8mV(\delta_{D}(x))<V(\zeta_{t}),\end{cases}
and
{\cal U}(y)=\begin{cases}B\big{(}y,V^{-1}(\frac{1}{8m}V(\zeta_{t}))\big{)},&\mbox{if }\;\;8mV(\delta_{D}(y))\geq V(\zeta_{t});\\[2.0pt] B(z_{y},\frac{1}{3}\zeta_{t})\cap D,&\mbox{if }\;\;8mV(\delta_{D}(y))<V(\zeta_{t}),\end{cases}
where is the constants in (5.5). Then, we can see that and .
We claim that there exist a constant independent of the choice of , and a constant such that
[TABLE]
Indeed, if , then by (4.1) and (3.1), we have
[TABLE]
Suppose that . If , then by Corollary 4.3, we get
[TABLE]
Otherwise, if , then by the similar argument to the one given in the proof of Proposition 5.1,
[TABLE]
In the second inequality, we used which follows from the proof of Lemma 2.1 and (2.2). By combining (5.23), (5.24) and (5), we obtain (5.22).
Let and define
[TABLE]
Then, for all and , we have . Moreover, since , we also have for all and . Thus, for every , by the similar argument to (5), (4.1) and (5.22), we have
[TABLE]
Similarly, we also have that
[TABLE]
It follows that by the semigroup property and (A),
[TABLE]
If , then since is almost increasing, we get . Hence, we are done. Otherwise, if , then we have and hence t^{2}\ell(\zeta_{t}^{-1})\nu(\zeta_{t})\exp\big{(}-2c_{5}th(\zeta_{t})\big{)}\asymp t\nu([\ell^{-1}(\eta/t)]^{-1})\exp\big{(}-cth([\ell^{-1}(\eta/t)]^{-1})\big{)}\asymp 1. This completes the proof.
6. Large time estimates
In this section, we give the proof of Theorem 1.6. Let be a fixed bounded open subset in of scale and be the fixed points satisfying . We mention that under condition (L-1), the transition semigroup of may not be compact operators in , though is bounded. (See, Proposition 2.3.) Hence, in that case, we need some lemmas to obtain the large time estimates instead of the general spectral theory.
Lemma 6.1**.**
There exists a constant which only depend on the dimension such that for all ,
[TABLE]
**Proof. **By the semigroup property, we have
[TABLE]
Hence, we obtain the result from (4.1).
Define for ,
[TABLE]
Note that if (L-1) holds, we have that
[TABLE]
Moreover, by the same argument as the one given in the proof of Lemma 2.2, there exist positive constants and which only depend on the dimension and and in (1.3) such that
[TABLE]
We also note that satisfies . Here, we get the large time on-diagonal estimates for under condition (L-1).
Lemma 6.2**.**
Assume that (L-1) holds. Then, there exists a positive constant such that for any , there exist such that for all and ,
[TABLE]
**Proof. **Fix satisfying and let . By [25, (5.4)], the mean value theorem, Lemma 2.6, (6.1) and (6.2), we have that, for all (cf. (2)),
[TABLE]
First, by (6.1), and the monotonicity and the scaling properties of , and , we have
[TABLE]
In the last inequality above, we used the facts that for and .
On the other hand, set q_{\gamma,k}(u)=q_{\gamma,k}(u,t):=u^{\gamma}\exp\big{(}-kt{\widehat{\Phi}}(u)\big{)} for and . We observe that for any ,
[TABLE]
Since is increasing, it follows that there exists such that is decreasing on and increasing on . Thus, for any and , we have that
[TABLE]
Choose any constant such that . This is possible since . Then we set so that
[TABLE]
First, suppose that . Then by the change of variables and (6.6), since is increasing, we have
[TABLE]
Hence, we obtain (6.3) from (6), (6), (1.3) and (6.2) in this case.
Now, we suppose that . Note that by (6.1) and the scaling property of , it holds that for any ,
[TABLE]
We also note that for any and , the map and for all . Thus, by the change of variables, (6.1), (6.6), (6.7) and the scaling properties of and , since we have assumed , we get that
[TABLE]
Then we get (6.3) by using (6), (6), (1.3) and (6.2) again.
Now, we give the proof of Theorem 1.6.
Proof of Theorem 1.6. Let .
(i) Choose and let be the point satisfying . By the semigroup property, Theorem 1.5(i), (5.2) and (4.1), we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, since is a bounded set, one can follow the proof of Proposition 5.1, after changing the definition of therein from to , and see that
[TABLE]
In the last inequality above, we used the fact that for all , which comes from the monotonicity of and (3.3). By combining (6) with (6), we get the desired lower bound.
Now, we prove the upper bound. By the semigroup property, Theorem 1.5(i), Corollary 2.13, Lemma 6.1 and Lemma 6.2, we get
[TABLE]
which yields the upper bound.
(ii) & (iii) Since the proof of (iii) is similar and easier, we only provide the proof of (ii). By Proposition 2.3, there exist such that the transition semigroup of consists of compact operators. Let be the largest eigenvalue of the operator and be the corresponding eigenfunction with unit -norm. For , we denote by the discrete spectrum of , arranged in decreasing order and repeated according to their multiplicity and be the corresponding eigenfunctions with unit -norm. Then, by the semigroup property, we have and for all . From the eigenfunction expansion of and Parseval’s identity, we have for ,
[TABLE]
On the other hand, for all and , since , we have
[TABLE]
Thus, we obtain for all and ,
[TABLE]
For and , we let and . Recall . By (6.10) and Corollary 4.3, we have
[TABLE]
where . Moreover, by Theorem 1.5, Corollary 4.3 and (6), we get
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.
7. Green function estimates
In this section, we provide the proof of Theorem 1.7. Throughout this section, we assume that (D) holds.
Lemma 7.1**.**
For all Borel set and , we have
[TABLE]
In particular, if is bounded then for all
[TABLE]
**Proof. **Since for every , one inequality in (7.1) is trivial. On the other hand, since for every , it suffices to prove that
[TABLE]
By symmetry, we may assume that . According to the subadditivity of ,
[TABLE]
This proves (7.1). The second claim follows from (3.1).
Lemma 7.2**.**
It holds that
[TABLE]
**Proof. **Since the Lévy measure is infinite, we have . Thus, it suffices to show that the second equality holds. By l’Hospital’s rule, [13, Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2], (1.3) and (3.3), since , we have
[TABLE]
Indeed, since satisfies and , according to [13, Lemma 3.1 and 3.2], there exists a function such that for all , and . Hence, the first inequality in the display holds.
Recall that for a Borel subset , the Green function is defined by
[TABLE]
Since the process can be recurrent, we can not expect to obtain upper estimates for in general. However, when is bounded, we can establish a prior upper estimates for regardless of transience of . By we denote the diameter of .
Lemma 7.3**.**
Let be a bounded Borel set. Then, there exists a constant such that for all ,
[TABLE]
**Proof. **Fix and let . If , by Lemma 7.2, there is nothing to prove. Hence, we assume that .
By Lemma 6.1, (2) and Fubini’s Theorem, we have
[TABLE]
First, by the change of the variables, we have
[TABLE]
Observe that by applying l’Hospital’s rule three times and the same argument as the one, coming from [13, Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2], given in the proof of Lemma 7.2, we obtain
[TABLE]
The fourth inequality above is valid, since we can assume that for by the argument given in the proof of Lemma 7.2 because satisfies and . In the third and fifth inequalities above, we used the fact that for , which follows from (2.2) and the proof of Lemma 2.1. Thus, since is bounded, we get that .
On the other hand, by the scaling property of and the monotonicity of , we obtain
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem 1.7. Fix and set . By (1.3) and Lemma 2.1, it suffices to prove that
[TABLE]
(Lower bound) By Proposition 5.1, we have that
[TABLE]
In the above, we used the change of the variables in the third line, the fact that for all in the fourth line, and Lemma 7.1 and (3.1) in the fifth line.
(Upper bound) Using boundary Harnack principle and Lemma 7.3, one can prove the upper bound following the proofs of [29, Theorem 1.2 and Theorem 6.4] and [32, Theorem 4.6] line by line. Thus, we provide the main steps of the proof only.
By the boundary Harnack principle (see, [23, Theorem 1.9]), Lemma 7.3 and (7), we can follow the proof of [29, Theorem 6.4] to obtain
[TABLE]
where for some fixed constant , is a fixed point in and , where is given by [29, (6.7)]. Moreover, we can also follow the proof of [32, Theorem 4.6] to show that for all ,
[TABLE]
Indeed, let where is the constant in Lemma 3.7. If , then we get . Moreover, by (7) and Lemma 7.2, we also get . Hence, (7.4) holds in this case.
Next, we assume that . Then, we get that . Therefore, by Lemma 7.2, . Choose satisfying . Let and define as (4.3). Then, by the boundary Harnack principle, (3.9), Lemma 7.3, (7) and Proposition 4.2, we get
[TABLE]
Hence, we obtain (7.4).
We see from the definition of that for some constant . Thus, by combining (7.3) and (7.4), we get from (3.3) that
[TABLE]
This together with Lemma 7.3 completes the proof.
8. Example
In this section, we give an example that is covered by our results.
Example 8.1**.**
Let be a pure jump isotropic unimodal Lévy process with Lévy measure satisfying (A) and (B), and be a open set in with characteristics . Suppose that there exists such that
[TABLE]
Typical examples of isotropic unimodal Lévy processes satisfying (8.1) are geometric stable processes and iterated geometric stable processes . The condition is necessary to make the Lévy measure be infinite. We let
[TABLE]
Then, for every fixed , we have that for ,
[TABLE]
We first obtain the small time estimates for the Dirichlet heat kernel. Define for ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
(Case 1)
In this case, (S-2) holds. Note that we do not need the condition (C) when we estimate only for . Thus, according to Theorem 1.5(ii), for every , there are constants , such that for all satisfying ,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
(Case 2)
Since (S-1) holds, by Theorem 1.5(i), for every , there are constants , such that for all satisfying ,
[TABLE]
(Case 3)
Since (S-1) holds, by Theorem 1.5(i), for every , there are constants , such that for all satisfying ,
[TABLE]
Now, we further assume that is bounded and of scale . Then, we get the following large time estimates.
(Case 1)
Since either (S-2) or (L-2) holds, by Theorem 1.6(ii, iii), there exist (if , then ) and such that for every , we have that for all ,
[TABLE]
(Case 2) .
Since (L-1) holds, by Theorem 1.6(i), for every , there are constants such that for all ,
[TABLE]
(Case 3) .
Since (L-1) holds, by Theorem 1.6(i), for every , there are constants such that for all ,
[TABLE]
Finally, we obtain the Green function estimates by Theorem 1.7. Let be a bounded open set in . Note that the Lévy measure satisfies (D). Hence, we have that, for all , if , then
[TABLE]
and if , then
[TABLE]
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] J. Bae and P. Kim. On estimates of transition density for subordinate Brownian motions with Gaussian components in C 1 , 1 superscript 𝐶 1 1 C^{1,1} -open sets. Potential Anal. . 52(4):661–687, 2020.
- 2[2] J. Bertoin. Lévy processes , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
- 3[3] N. H. Bingham, C. M. Goldie, and J. L. Teugels. Regular variation , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
- 4[4] K. Bogdan, T. Byczkowski, T. Kulczycki, M. Ryznar, R. Song and Z. Vondraček. Potential analysis of stable processes and its extensions . Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1980. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009.
- 5[5] K. Bogdan, T. Grzywny, K. Pietruska-Pałuba and A. Rutkowski. Extension and trace for nonlocal operators. J. Math. Pures Appl. , 137: 33–69, 2020.
- 6[6] K. Bogdan, T. Grzywny, and M. Ryznar. Heat kernel estimates for the fractional Laplacian with Dirichlet conditions. Ann. Probab. , 38(5):1901–1923, 2010.
- 7[7] K. Bogdan, T. Grzywny, and M. Ryznar. Density and tails of unimodal convolution semigroups. J. Funct. Anal. , 266(6):3543–3571, 2014.
- 8[8] K. Bogdan, T. Grzywny, and M. Ryznar. Dirichlet heat kernel for unimodal Lévy processes. Stochastic Process. Appl. , 124(11):3612–3650, 2014.
