On the Dirichlet problem in cylindrical domains for evolution Ole\v{\i}nik--Radkevi\v{c} PDE's: a Tikhonov-type theorem
Alessia E. Kogoj

TL;DR
This paper establishes a Tikhonov-type theorem linking boundary regularity of solutions for certain evolution PDEs in cylindrical domains to the regularity of their spatial parts, with applications to degenerate Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operators.
Contribution
It proves a new boundary regularity criterion for evolution PDEs with hypoelliptic spatial operators, extending classical results to degenerate and hypoelliptic cases.
Findings
Boundary regularity in cylindrical domains is characterized by the spatial boundary regularity.
The theorem applies to PDEs with nonnegative characteristic form and hypoellipticity conditions.
A new criterion for boundary regularity of degenerate Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operators is derived.
Abstract
We consider the linear second order PDO's and assume that has nonnegative characteristic form and satisfies the Ole\v{\i}nik--Radkevi\v{c} rank hypoellipticity condition. These hypotheses allow the construction of Perron-Wiener solutions of the Dirichlet problems for and on bounded open subsets of and of , respectively. Our main result is the following Tikhonov-type theorem: Let be a bounded cylindrical domain of , and Then is -regular for if and only if…
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
TopicsAdvanced Mathematical Modeling in Engineering · Numerical methods in inverse problems · Spectral Theory in Mathematical Physics
On the Dirichlet problem in cylindrical domains
for evolution Oleǐnik–Radkevič PDE’s:
a Tikhonov-type theorem
Alessia E. Kogoj
Dipartimento di Scienze Pure e Applicate (DiSPeA)
Università degli Studi di Urbino “Carlo Bo”
Piazza della Repubblica, 13 - 61029 Urbino (PU), Italy.
Abstract.
We consider the linear second order PDO’s
[TABLE]
and assume that has nonnegative characteristic form and satisfies the Oleǐnik–Radkevič rank hypoellipticity condition. These hypotheses allow the construction of Perron-Wiener solutions of the Dirichlet problems for and on bounded open subsets of and of , respectively.
Our main result is the following Tikhonov-type theorem:
Let be a bounded cylindrical domain of , and . Then is -regular for if and only if is -regular for .
As an application, we derive a boundary regularity criterion for degenerate Ornstein–Uhlenbeck operators.
Key words and phrases:
Dirichlet problem, Perron-Wiener solution, Boundary behavior of Perron-Wiener solutions, Hypoelliptic operators, Potential theory
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
35H10; 35K65; 35J70; 35J25; 31D05; 35D99
1. Introduction
We consider linear second order partial differential operators of the type
[TABLE]
in an open set of , and their “evolution”counterpart in
[TABLE]
We assume in (1.1) is of non totally degenerate Oleǐnik and Radkevič type, i.e., we assume
- (H1)
and
[TABLE]
Moreover
[TABLE]
- (H2)
where,
[TABLE]
Hypotheses (H1) and (H2) imply that is hypoelliptic in (see [OR73]), that is:
open subset of ,
The same assumptions (H1) and (H2) also imply that is hypoelliptic in .
We will show in Section 2 that and endow and , respectively, with a local structure of -harmonic space, in the sense of [3], Chapter 6. As a consequence, in particular, the Dirichlet problems
[TABLE]
have a generalized solution in the sense of Perron–Wiener, for every bounded open set for every , and for every and . We will denote such generalized solutions by, respectively,
[TABLE]
As usual, we say that a point () is -regular for (-regular for ) if
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
The aim of this paper is to prove the following theorem:
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let be a bounded open set with , and let and . Then, is -regular for if and only if is -regular for .
When is the classical heat operator, our result re-establishes a theorem proved by Tikhonov in 1938 [Tik38]. Other proofs of the Tikhonov Theorem were given by Fulks in 1956 and in 1957 [Ful56, Ful57] and by Babuška and Výborný in 1962 [BV62]. Chan and Young extended the Tikhonov Theorem to parabolic operators with Hölder continuous coefficients in 1977 [CY77], and Arendt to parabolic operators with bounded measurable coefficients in 2000 [Are00]. The corresponding version for -Laplacian-type evolution operators has been proved by Kilpeläinen and Lindqvist in 1996 [KL96] and by Banerjee and Garofalo in 2015 [BG15].
To the best of our knowledge, the only Tikhonov-type theorem for second order “evolution”sub-Riemannian PDO’s appearing in the literature is the result by Negrini [Neg83] in abstract -harmonic spaces111For a definition of -harmonic spaces see [CC72]..
This paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, all the notions and results from Potential Theory that we need are briefly recalled. In particular, we recall the notion of -harmonic space and then we prove that and endow and , respectively, with a local structure of -harmonic space. In this way, we derive the existence of a generalized solution in the sense of Perron–Wiener in both our settings. Section 3 is devoted to two key results for the proof of the main theorem (Theorem 1.1), which is the content of Section 4. Finally, combining our Tikhonov-type theorem with a corollary of the Wiener–Landis-type criterion for Kolmogorov-type operators proved in [KLT18], we establish a geometric boundary regularity criterion for degenerate Ornstein–Uhlenbeck operators.
2. -harmonic and -harmonic spaces
2.1. The -harmonic space
For the readers’ convenience we recall the definition of -harmonic space supported on a an open set , and refer to Chapter 6 of the monograph [BLU07] for details.
Let be a sheaf of functions in such that is a linear subspace of , for every open set . The functions in are called -harmonic in The open set is called -regular if
is compact;
for every there exists a unique function such that
as , for every
if
A lower semicontinuous function open, is called -superharmonic if
in for every -regular open set with and for every with
is dense in
We denote by the cone of the -superharmonic functions in
The couple is called a -harmonic space if the following axioms hold:
- (A1)
There exists a function such that .
- (A2)
If is a monotone increasing sequence of -harmonic functions in an open set such that
[TABLE]
is dense in , then
[TABLE]
- (A3)
The family of the -regular open sets is a basis of the Euclidean topology on .
- (A4)
For every , , there exist two nonnegative -superharmonic and continuous functions in such that
[TABLE]
- (A5)
For every there exists a nonnegative -superharmonic and continuous function in , such that and
[TABLE]
for every neighborhood of .
We now recall some crucial results in -harmonic space theory; first of all the definition of Perron–Wiener solution to the Dirichlet problem.
Let be a bounded open set with , and let be a bounded lower semicontinuous or upper semicontinuous function. Define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then is -harmonic in It is called the generalized Perron–Wiener solution to the Dirichlet problem
[TABLE]
We also have
[TABLE]
where,
[TABLE]
Here denotes the cone of the -subharmonic functions in
A point is called -regular for if
[TABLE]
On the -harmonic space Bouligand Theorem holds. Indeed: a point is -regular for if and only if there exists a -barrier for at , i.e., if there exists a function -superharmonic in where is a neighborhood of such that
is -superharmonic;
and as
For our purposes it is important to recall that if is -regular for there exists a barrier function for at which is defined and -harmonic all over
Finally, we recall the minimum principle for -superharmonic functions.
Let be a bounded open set with and let If
[TABLE]
then in
2.2. The -harmonic space
Let be a bounded open subset of such that For every open set we let
[TABLE]
Then, is a a sheaf of functions such that is a linear subspace of
If we will say that is -harmonic or -harmonic in
We have that
[TABLE]
Before showing this statement we remark that a -function in a open set is -superharmonic if and only if in . This is a easy consequence of Picone’s maximum principle (see e.g. [KP16], page 547). Now we are ready to prove (2.3).
(A1) is satisfied since the constant functions are -harmonic.
(A2) -(A4) are proved in [KP16]. We would like to stress that our operators are contained in the class considered in [KP16] since the rank condition (H2) implies that both and for every are hypoelliptic.
The axiom (A5) follows from the following Lemma which seems to have an independent interest in its own right.
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let us consider a linear second order PDO of the kind
[TABLE]
where are continuous functions in , where is a bounded open subset of . Suppose
[TABLE]
Then, for every there exists a function such that
* and for every *
* in *
Proof.
For the sake of simplicity we assume We define
[TABLE]
where will be fixed below. Moreover,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We have:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
On the other hand
[TABLE]
Therefore, letting
[TABLE]
we get
[TABLE]
If is big enough, this implies
[TABLE]
Moreover
[TABLE]
The proof is complete. ∎
2.3. The -harmonic space
Let be a bounded open subset of such that For every open set we let
[TABLE]
Then, is a a sheaf of functions making
[TABLE]
This can be proved just by proceeding as in subsection 2.2. We call -harmonic or -harmonic in a open set the solutions to in
Here we prove some typical results of the present -harmonic space, that we will need in the proof of the main theorem of this paper. We first show a “parabolic”minimum principle for -subharmonic functions in cylindrical domains.
Proposition 2.2**.**
Let be a bounded open subset of such that and let . Consider the cylindrical domain and define the “parabolic boundary”of as follows
[TABLE]
Then, if is such that
[TABLE]
we have in
Proof.
For every arbitrarily fixed we let We will prove that in . Since is arbitrarily fixed in , this will give the proof of our lemma. To this end, given any , we define
[TABLE]
Since is -superharmonic in and
[TABLE]
then is -superharmonic in . Moreover
[TABLE]
and, for every
[TABLE]
By the minimum principle recalled in subsection 2.1, we have in . Letting go to zero we have in , thus completing the proof. ∎
Proposition 2.3**.**
Let be open and let and such that Let and be such that the restrictions and are -superharmonic. Then, if
[TABLE]
the function is -superharmonic in
Proof.
Since is lower semicontinuous in and in , the assumption (2.4) implies that u is lower semicontinuous in
To prove that is -harmonic in we will show the following claim.
*Claim. * For every there exists a basis of -regular neighborhoods of such that
[TABLE]
Here denotes the unique -harmonic function in , continuous up to and such that
From this Claim our assertion follows thanks to Corollary 6.4.9 in [BLU07].
If or if , the Claim is satisfied since is -superharmonic both in and in . Then it remains to prove the Claim for every point Let be a basis of -regular neighborhoods of such that Let Then is -superharmonic in and
[TABLE]
Therefore, by Proposition 2.2,
[TABLE]
As a consequence, keeping in mind assumption (2.4),
[TABLE]
that is,
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.∎
3. Some preliminary results
The proof of our main theorem rests on the following two lemmata.
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let be a bounded open set such that , and let , Let be upper semicontinuous and such that is monotone decreasing, and
[TABLE]
Then, the Perron solution is monotone decreasing w.r.t. the variable : more precisely
[TABLE]
Proof.
For every fixed let us define
[TABLE]
It is enough to prove that in To this end we show that, for every and , the function
[TABLE]
is nonnegative in . Now, we have:
is -superharmonic in , since and is -subharmonic in being and translation invariant in the variable .
For every
[TABLE]
We remark that in since is -subharmonic and
[TABLE]
Here we use the maximum principle for subharmonic functions.
For every ,
[TABLE]
by hypotesis.
From , and and the minimum principle for superharmonic functions we get
[TABLE]
This completes the proof. ∎
With Lemma 3.1 at hand we can easily prove the following key result for our main theorem.
Lemma 3.2**.**
Let be a bounded open set such that and let , , Let be a -regular boundary point.
Then there exists a function such that
* is an -barrier for at ;*
* is monotone decreasing for every fixed *
Proof.
Let be a bounded open set such that and let . By Lemma 2.1 there exists a function such that
and
in .
For a fixed let us define
[TABLE]
where
This function is -superharmonic in and in since
[TABLE]
On the other hand,
[TABLE]
Then, by Proposition 2.3,
[TABLE]
Moreover,
[TABLE]
for every fixed
Let us now put
[TABLE]
which is well defined and -harmonic in , since is bounded and upper semicontinuous.
Moreover, by Lemma 3.1, is monotone decreasing for every fixed
It remains to show that is an -barrier for at . To this end we first remark that
[TABLE]
so that
[TABLE]
This implies in since is strictly positive.
On the other hand, since is continuous in a neighborhood of , and is -regular for ,
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.∎
4. Proof of Theorem 1.1
Let us keep the notation of Theorem 1.1 and split the proof in two steps.
- (1)
If is -regular for , then is -regular for
Indeed, the -regularity of implies the existence of a -harmonic barrier for at , i.e. a function such that
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
is -harmonic in (). Moreover,
[TABLE]
Hence, is an -barrier function for at and, as a consequence, is -regular for .
- (2)
If , is -regular for , then is -regular for .
Indeed, by Lemma 3.2, there exists a function such that as and
[TABLE]
It follows that, letting
[TABLE]
Hence, is -superharmonic in Moreover, in and
[TABLE]
Therefore, is an -barrier for at , and is -regular.
5. An application to degenerate Ornstein–Uhlenbeck operators
In let us consider the partial differential operator
[TABLE]
where and are real constant matrices, is the point of , and denote the divergence, the Euclidean gradient and the inner product in , respectively.
We suppose that the matrix is symmetric, positive semidefinite and that it assumes the following block form
[TABLE]
being a strictly positive definite matrix with . Moreover, we assume the matrix to be of the following type
[TABLE]
where is a block with rank (), and .
Finally, letting
[TABLE]
we assume that the following condition is satisfied
[TABLE]
As it is quite well known this condition implies the hypoellipticity of , see [LP94]. In that paper it is proved that the evolution counterpart of , i.e. the operator
[TABLE]
is left translation invariant and homogeneous of degree two on the homogeneous group
[TABLE]
with composition law defined as follows
[TABLE]
and dilation of this kind
[TABLE]
where
The natural number , with
[TABLE]
is the homogenous dimension of In what follows we will write
[TABLE]
where,
[TABLE]
Obviously, is a group of dilations in . The natural number in (5.3) is the homogeneous dimension of w.r.t. the group .
The operator has a fundamental solution given by
[TABLE]
where is the composition law in , denotes the opposite of in and, for a suitable
[TABLE]
where,
[TABLE]
see again [LP94].
It is quite easy to recognise that our Tikhonov-type theorem applies to the operators and . Hence, if is a bounded open subset of , and we have:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
On the other hand, in [KLT18, Corollary 1.3] it is proved that
[TABLE]
if, for a the following condition holds:
[TABLE]
where , denotes the Lebesque measure in and
[TABLE]
We express now this condition in a more explicit form. To this end we let
[TABLE]
Then,
[TABLE]
Hence, denoting for the sake of brevity,
[TABLE]
condition (5.4) is satisfied if
[TABLE]
On the other hand, for every
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Then, since as (as we will see later) condition (5.6) is satisfied if
[TABLE]
Keeping in mind the very definition of , we have that is equal to the following set
[TABLE]
whereby, with the change of variables , we get
[TABLE]
Here and .
Therefore,
[TABLE]
Hence, for a suitable dimensional constant
[TABLE]
Then,
[TABLE]
since and
We have completed the proof of the following criterion:
Let be the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck-type operator in (5.1) and let be a bounded open set. Then, a point is -regular for if
[TABLE]
where is defined in (5.8).
We note that condition (5.9) holds if satisfies the exterior cone-type condition introduced in [Kog19]. Geometric boundary regularity criteria for wide classes of hypoelliptic evolution operators are also established in [Man97], [LU10], [LTU17] and [Kog17].
Acknowledgment
The author has been partially supported by the Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM).
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[Are 00] W. Arendt. Resolvent positive operators and inhomogeneous boundary conditions. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) , 29(3):639–670, 2000.
- 2[BG 15] A. Banerjee and N. Garofalo. On the Dirichlet boundary value problem for the normalized p 𝑝 p -Laplacian evolution. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. , 14(1):1–21, 2015.
- 3[BLU 07] A. Bonfiglioli, E. Lanconelli, and F. Uguzzoni. Stratified Lie groups and potential theory for their sub-Laplacians . Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 2007.
- 4[BV 62] I. Babuška and R. Výborný. Reguläre und stabile Randpunkte für das Problem der Wärmeleitungsgleichung. Ann. Polon. Math. , 12:91–104, 1962.
- 5[CC 72] C. Constantinescu and A. Cornea. Potential theory on harmonic spaces . Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1972. With a preface by H. Bauer, Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 158.
- 6[CY 77] C. Y. Chan and E. C. Young. Regular regions for parabolic and elliptic equations. Portugal. Math. , 36(1):7–12, 1977.
- 7[Ful 56] W. Fulks. A note on the steady state solutions of the heat equation. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 7:766–770, 1956.
- 8[Ful 57] W. Fulks. Regular regions for the heat equation. Pacific J. Math. , 7:867–877, 1957.
