Gradient estimate for harmonic functions on K\"ahler manifolds
Ovidiu Munteanu, Lihan Wang

TL;DR
This paper establishes a precise gradient estimate for harmonic functions on noncompact K"ahler manifolds, leading to spectral bounds and a splitting theorem, advancing understanding of geometric analysis in complex manifolds.
Contribution
It provides a sharp integral gradient estimate for harmonic functions on noncompact K"ahler manifolds, with applications to spectral theory and manifold splitting.
Findings
Sharp gradient estimate for harmonic functions
Bounds on the bottom of the spectrum of the p-Laplacian
Splitting theorem for manifolds attaining the estimate
Abstract
We prove a sharp integral gradient estimate for harmonic functions on noncompact K\"ahler manifolds. As application, we obtain a sharp estimate for the bottom of spectrum of the p-Laplacian and prove a splitting theorem for manifolds achieving this estimate.
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
TopicsGeometric Analysis and Curvature Flows · Geometry and complex manifolds · Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations
Gradient estimate for
harmonic functions on Kähler manifolds
Ovidiu Munteanu
Department of Mathematics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06268, USA
and
Lihan Wang
Department of Mathematics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06268, USA
Abstract.
We prove a sharp integral gradient estimate for harmonic functions on noncompact Kähler manifolds. As application, we obtain a sharp estimate for the bottom of spectrum of the -Laplacian and prove a splitting theorem for manifolds achieving this estimate.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 53C21; Secondary 58J50
The first author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-811845.
1. Introduction
This paper studies harmonic functions and spectral information of complete noncompact manifolds. On a Riemannian manifold the Laplace operator acting on functions is essentially self adjoint and has its spectrum contained in . Properties of harmonic functions are well understood for manifolds with Ricci curvature bounded from below. If the Ricci curvature is non-negative, Yau’s Liouville theorem [15] proves that there are no positive harmonic functions on . Furthermore, there are important works concerning the space of polynomially growing harmonic functions, for example [2, 4].
On the other hand, when the Ricci curvature has lower bound , for some , then there may exist positive harmonic functions. In this case, Yau’s gradient estimate asserts that
[TABLE]
for any positive harmonic function on . This estimate is sharp, as it can be seen for example on the hyperbolic space .
Assume now that is Kähler, where is the complex dimension. On we consider the Riemannian metric
[TABLE]
If is an orthonormal frame in this metric, so that , then
[TABLE]
is a unitary frame, where . Assume the Ricci curvature of this Riemannian metric is bounded below by or equivalently that in the unitary frame Then Yau’s gradient estimate (1.1) implies
[TABLE]
for any positive harmonic function on . For the estimate (1.2) is no longer sharp in the class of complete Kähler manifolds with . In fact, G. Liu proved [10] that there exists a constant so that
[TABLE]
for any harmonic. In view of known examples, it is an interesting question whether the improved gradient estimate
[TABLE]
holds for any positive harmonic function on a Kähler manifold with . There exist positive harmonic functions on the complex hyperbolic space for which equality holds.
In this paper we have established some sharp integral gradient estimates which present supporting evidence for (1.3).
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let be a complete Kähler manifold of complex dimension with . Then any positive harmonic function satisfies the integral gradient estimate
[TABLE]
for any , any , and any with compact support in .
For the estimate was first established by the first author in [12], so our contribution here is to prove it for higher exponents . While in doing this we are inspired by the ideas in [12], Theorem 1.1 will require some delicate new estimates. Let us briefly describe the idea of proof for (1.4). Recall that Yau’s gradient estimate for Riemannian manifolds uses the maximum principle, the Bochner formula applied to the function , and a clever manipulation of the hessian term . To get a sharp estimate for Kähler manifolds, the hessian term needs to be dealt with differently. To prove (1.4) we will use integration by parts and we will estimate the complex hessian and the reminder in different ways. This strategy seems to break down when , because some additional terms appear that are difficult to control.
However, we have obtained an integral estimate valid for all exponents provided the manifold satisfies an additional assumption. Recall that the bottom of spectrum of the Laplace operator is characterized by
[TABLE]
According to [12], holds on any complete Kähler manifold with . This estimate is sharp, being achieved on and on other examples [3, 9]. We have the following result.
Theorem 1.2**.**
Let be a complete Kähler manifold of complex dimension , with . Assume in addition that has maximal bottom of spectrum for the Laplacian, Then any positive harmonic function satisfies the integral gradient estimate
[TABLE]
for any , any , and any with compact support in .
Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 have applications to spectral estimates. Using judicious test functions in (1.5) it is possible to obtain upper bound estimates for the bottom spectrum of the Laplacian. The most natural test functions in (1.5) are those depending only on distance function; this eventually needs application of the Laplacian comparison theorem. Using this approach, Cheng proved the sharp upper bound [1]
[TABLE]
on any Riemannian manifold satisfying . This result was generalized in [11] to the bottom spectrum of the -Laplacian
[TABLE]
which is characterized by
[TABLE]
It was proved in [11] that
[TABLE]
on any Riemannian manifold with . This can be seen as a generalization of Cheng’s estimate, because by Hölder inequality (1.8) implies (1.6).
Both (1.6) and (1.8) are no longer sharp if is Kähler with Ricci curvature bounded by . Furthermore, the Laplace comparison theorem with comparison space fails for only Ricci curvature bounds [10], so different ideas are now required. In [12] the first author proved the sharp spectral estimate
[TABLE]
by using a positive harmonic function (for example, the Green’s function) as a test function in (1.5) and applying the integral gradient estimate in Theorem 1.1 for .
As application of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, we are able to extend (1.9) for the Laplacian.
Theorem 1.3**.**
Let be a Kähler manifold of complex dimension , with . Then the bottom spectrum of the -Laplacian is bounded by
[TABLE]
for any . If, moreover, has maximal bottom of spectrum of the Laplacian,
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
for any .
Let us note that by Hölder inequality, the assumption that implies for any . So to prove (1.11) we showed the converse inequality that for any . Hence, (1.11) can be rephrased that if is maximal relative to the Ricci curvature bound, then is maximal as well. The converse of this statement is not known.
Finally, as Theorem 1.3 is sharp, we address the equality case. A remarkable theory developed by P. Li and J. Wang [6, 7, 8, 9] proves rigidity of complete manifolds with more than one end and achieving maximal bottom of spectrum. As this theory uses harmonic functions associated to the number of ends of a manifold, it can be applied here to study rigidity in Theorem 1.3.
Theorem 1.4**.**
Let be a Kähler manifold of complex dimension , with . Assume that and
[TABLE]
Then either has one end or it is diffeomorphic to for a compact dimensional manifold , and the metric on is given by
[TABLE]
where is an orthonormal coframe for .
The proof of this theorem uses the new estimates obtained in Theorem 1.1, applied to a harmonic function constructed under the assumption that the manifold has more than one end. The rigidity is obtained by reading the equality from the estimates in Theorem 1.1. The restriction is assumed in order to use a result in [14] that rules out the existence of two infinite volume ends.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we prove the gradient estimate Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. This is applied in Section 3 to obtain the spectral estimates Theorem 1.3. In Section 4 we study the rigidity result in Theorem 1.4.
2. An integral gradient estimate for harmonic functions
Let be a Kähler manifold. On we consider the Riemannian metric
[TABLE]
In this Riemannian metric we have
[TABLE]
for any two function on . Throughout the paper we use Einstein’s summation convention.
With respect to this metric, Yau’s gradient estimate says that
[TABLE]
for any positive harmonic function on . We will prove the following sharp integral gradient estimate.
Theorem 2.1**.**
Let be a complete Kähler manifold of complex dimension , with . Then any positive harmonic function satisfies the integral gradient estimate
[TABLE]
for any , any , and any with compact support in . Here is a constant depending only on .
Proof.
Let be a positive harmonic function on a Kähler manifold with . In complex coordinates, this means that
[TABLE]
Here and throughout, is a local unitary frame. Denote with
[TABLE]
Let be a cut-off function with compact support in and fix any . To prove this theorem we use a strategy inspired from [12]. Let us note that the two end example from Theorem 1.4 admits a positive harmonic function so that and the hessian of satisfies
[TABLE]
Because for this example , we will compute each expressions separately, using integration by parts. We have
[TABLE]
Since is harmonic, we have that . This implies
[TABLE]
where denotes the real part of .
Furthermore, since
[TABLE]
it follows that
[TABLE]
We use this to compute
[TABLE]
Notice that
[TABLE]
We write
[TABLE]
and hence get that
[TABLE]
In conclusion,
[TABLE]
Plugging this in (2.4) it follows that
[TABLE]
Similarly, one can also prove the following identity that will be used later
[TABLE]
Plugging (2) into (2) we obtain
[TABLE]
Integrating by parts, we get that
[TABLE]
Using this in (2), we conclude that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
We now proceed similarly and compute
[TABLE]
Note that by Ricci identities,
[TABLE]
Hence, we get
[TABLE]
By (2) it follows that
[TABLE]
Finally, from
[TABLE]
we obtain that
[TABLE]
Hence, we get
[TABLE]
By (2) we conclude that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Recall that in (2) we proved the following:
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Adding (2) and (2) implies that
[TABLE]
Note that (2) is exactly the identity that one gets by multiplying the (Riemannian) Bochner formula
[TABLE]
by and integrating it on . However, inspired by (2.2), we will use different estimates for (2) and (2).
Note that we have the following inequalities
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Using (2.14) we have
[TABLE]
and from (2) we get
[TABLE]
Plugging these two inequalities into (2) implies
[TABLE]
We have the following inequality
[TABLE]
from which we deduce that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Using this into (2) we obtain
[TABLE]
Plugging (2.16) into (2) it follows that
[TABLE]
This holds for any . Choosing into (2) implies
[TABLE]
By Young’s inequality we have
[TABLE]
In conclusion, (2) implies that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
We now estimate as follows. Recall that (2) proved
[TABLE]
By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
By (2) this implies that
[TABLE]
Using Yau’s gradient estimate it results that
[TABLE]
for some constant depending only on dimension . Hence, for any small enough, we get
[TABLE]
where in the last line we used (2).
Using (2) we estimate from (2.22) by
[TABLE]
Hence, (2.22) implies
[TABLE]
where depends only on dimension. This proves the theorem for . For this follows immediately from Young’s inequality. ∎
We now prove that Theorem 2.1 can be in fact extended to all values of , provided in addition that is maximal.
Theorem 2.2**.**
Let be a complete Kähler manifold of complex dimension , with . Assume in addition that has maximal bottom of spectrum for the Laplacian,
[TABLE]
Then any positive harmonic function satisfies the integral gradient estimate
[TABLE]
for any , any , and any with compact support in . Here depends only on and .
Proof.
Start with the inequality
[TABLE]
This implies that for any ,
[TABLE]
Combining this with (2), we get
[TABLE]
Recall that by (2) we have
[TABLE]
Hence, by (2) and (2) it follows that
[TABLE]
Finally, combining this with (2.16) implies
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and are specified in (2) and (2), respectively. Denote with
[TABLE]
We now observe that (2) is equivalent to
[TABLE]
for any . We estimate as in the proof of Theorem 2.1. Note that
[TABLE]
As in (2) we get
[TABLE]
which yields similarly to (2.27) that
[TABLE]
Using this in (2.33) implies that
[TABLE]
for all . Iterating from we obtain
[TABLE]
where depends only on and dimension . By (2) we see that
[TABLE]
Using (2) for it follows that
[TABLE]
We now use the assumption that and obtain
[TABLE]
On the other hand, we have
[TABLE]
which combined with (2) implies
[TABLE]
Using this in (2) yields
[TABLE]
for some constant depending only on dimension. By (2.35) and (2.38) we conclude
[TABLE]
where depends only on and dimension . Hence, by (2) we have proved that
[TABLE]
for any . Recall that by (2) we have
[TABLE]
Combining with (2) it follows that for
[TABLE]
where depends only on and dimension This implies the desired result. ∎
3. Spectrum of -Laplacian
As an application of the integral estimate, we prove a sharp upper bound for the bottom of the spectrum of
[TABLE]
It is known that this satisfies
[TABLE]
for any with compact support in . Hence, to obtain an upper bound for we will apply (3.1) to a carefully chosen test function . For this, let us recall some relation between for and . First, observe that for any with compact support in ,
[TABLE]
This proves that
[TABLE]
for any with compact support in . Hence
[TABLE]
According to a result of Sung-Wang, it is possible to obtain a reversed inequality, but which is not sharp anymore. By (3.8) in [14] we know that
[TABLE]
for any with compact support, where is a positive eigenfunction of the Laplacian, . According to Theorem 2.2 in [14], on a complete manifold with Ric, we have a gradient estimate
[TABLE]
where is the first positive root of the equation
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that
[TABLE]
where the last line follows applying (1.8) for the Ricci curvature bound . This implies
[TABLE]
By (3.3) and (3.5) we conclude that
[TABLE]
From here we infer in particular that implies . It is known that a manifold with positive bottom of spectrum is non-parabolic, so it admits a positive minimal Green’s function for the Laplacian. The Green’s function with a pole at is harmonic on and will be used as a test function in (3.1). We will prove the following result.
Theorem 3.1**.**
Let be a Kähler manifold of complex dimension , with . Then the bottom spectrum of the -Laplacian is bounded by
[TABLE]
for any .
Proof.
It suffices to prove the theorem for , as the estimate for smaller follows from Hölder inequality. Hence, throughout this proof, .
Let us assume by contradiction that . Then there exists so that
[TABLE]
Consider the positive minimal Green’s function, which exists by (3.6). Define
[TABLE]
for a cut-off function with support in given by
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
Then it follows that
[TABLE]
Since and by Yau’s estimate on the support of , we get that
[TABLE]
From the integral estimate from Theorem 2.1 we have that
[TABLE]
where is a constant depending only on . In conclusion, we obtain that
[TABLE]
By (3.1), (3.7) and (3.9) we conclude that
[TABLE]
In particular, this proves that there exists a constant so that
[TABLE]
for any . Recall from [13] that
[TABLE]
for some constant dependent only on and . Tis contradicts (3). The theorem is proved. ∎
We now obtain (1.11) by applying Theorem 2.2.
Theorem 3.2**.**
Let be a Kähler manifold of complex dimension , with . Assume that has maximal bottom of spectrum of the Laplacian,
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
for any .
Proof.
The proof of follows as in Theorem 3.1. The converse inequality results from (3.2). ∎
4. Rigidity for maximal bottom spectrum
In this section, we follow a theory developed by P. Li and J. Wang [6, 7, 8, 9] and study the rigidity of manifolds that achieve the estimate for the bottom spectrum of the -Laplacian in Theorem 3.1, and have more than one end. The strategy is to use harmonic functions constructed in [5] for manifolds with more than one end, whose behavior depends on whether the end has finite or infinite volume.
Assuming the manifold has at least two ends, we will first prove that one of these ends must have finite volume. For a harmonic function associated to any two ends of the manifold, where one of them has finite volume, Theorem 2.1 proves a gradient estimate that implies Theorem 3.1. When is maximal, one can infer from the proof of Theorem 2.1 that all inequalities used there must turn into equalities. This will imply the splitting of the manifold topologically into product of the real line with a compact manifold, and will determine the metric as well. For this approach to work, it is crucial that the boundary terms expressed in in (2.22) converge to zero for a carefully chosen cut-off function. This turns out to be the case eventually. Although each term in does not converge to zero on a given end, it can be computed explicitly and it yields the same absolute constant but with different signs on the two ends. Hence, after cancellation we are able to conclude the rigidity question. It should be noted that this complication arises only in the Kähler case (cf. [12]).
First, note that if is maximal, then is also maximal, for any . Similarly to (3.2), this follows from Hölder inequality. Hence, throughout this section we will assume that and is maximal, which is to say . The following result therefore implies Theorem 1.4.
Theorem 4.1**.**
Let be a Kähler manifold of complex dimension and with . Suppose has maximal bottom of spectrum of the Laplacian,
[TABLE]
Then either has one end or it is diffeomorphic to for a compact dimensional manifold , and the metric on is given by
[TABLE]
where is an orthonormal coframe for .
The proof will be done in several steps. From now on we will assume that satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem 4.1 and that has at least two ends. We first record the following result.
Proposition 4.2**.**
Let be a Kähler manifold of complex dimension and with . Assume that has maximal bottom of spectrum of the Laplacian,
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
and has only one infinite volume end.
Proof.
From (3.6) we have
[TABLE]
It follows through elementary calculations that
[TABLE]
for any . Indeed, it can be checked that the function
[TABLE]
is decreasing on and has positive limit at infinity. This implies (4.1).
By Theorem B in [9], this proves that there exists only one infinite volume end. ∎
Proposition 4.2 implies that there exists an infinite volume end of , and is a finite volume end. According to a result of Li and Tam [5], there exists a positive harmonic function with the following behavior at infinity.
On the infinite volume end the function is bounded, , and has finite Dirichlet energy, . Moreover, it was proved in Lemma 1.1 of [6] that there exists a constant so that
[TABLE]
On the finite volume end the function is unbounded, . Moreover, by Theorem 1.4 in [6] we have
[TABLE]
The next result follows from Theorem 2.1 for by carefully keeping track of all boundary terms.
Proposition 4.3**.**
Let be a Kähler manifold of complex dimension and with . Assume that has maximal bottom of spectrum of the Laplacian, . Let be the harmonic function defined above and a non-negative cut-off function satisfying . Denoting , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
for some constants depending only on .
Proof.
To prove the first inequality in (4.4) we use that , so
[TABLE]
We have that
[TABLE]
We write the right hand side of (4.6) as
[TABLE]
By Yau’s estimate , and by hypothesis satisfies . So for we have
[TABLE]
Hence, it follows that
[TABLE]
Consequently, (4.6) and (4) imply that
[TABLE]
Together with Young’s inequality
[TABLE]
this proves
[TABLE]
This is the first inequality in (4.4).
We now prove the second inequality in (4.4). Recall that by (2) we get setting and replacing by
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
To simplify notation, we subsequently omit the dependency of on .
We estimate the left side of (4) by using (2) that
[TABLE]
Moreover, we have the following estimate
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
We use this in (4) to conclude
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Combining this with (4) yields
[TABLE]
We use Young’s inequality
[TABLE]
to conclude from (4) that
[TABLE]
This completes the proof of (4.4).
To prove the first inequality in (4.5), we first use (4.17) into (4) to get
[TABLE]
We plug (4) into this inequality and obtain
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
This proves the first inequality in (4.5).
To prove the second inequality in (4.5), we plug (4.17) into (4) and get
[TABLE]
Using (4) into this inequality it follows that
[TABLE]
for
[TABLE]
This proves the result. ∎
From the inequality (4.4) in Proposition 4.3 we see that
[TABLE]
where for
[TABLE]
for some constants depending only on . From (4.19) we conclude that there exist constants so that
[TABLE]
Our goal is to prove that the right side of (4) converges to zero. As in [8], we will use to construct a cut-off function on . Denote the level and sublevel sets of with
[TABLE]
Note that and may not be compact for all and all .
For arbitrary numbers and we consider the cut-off function
[TABLE]
where is given by
[TABLE]
and is a function with support in so that on and . Eventually, we will let and then and . The following observation will be important for this purpose.
Using the co-area formula and that is harmonic, it was proved in Lemma 5.1 of [8] that
[TABLE]
for any .
By the co-area formula, it follows that for any function we have
[TABLE]
where we have denoted with
[TABLE]
We fix and study (4) as . We first record two preliminary results.
Lemma 4.4**.**
Under the assumptions of Theorem 4.1, for given in (4.22), we have
[TABLE]
for a constant depending only on .
Proof.
By Proposition 4.3 we have
[TABLE]
for any non-negative cut-off on so that .
We choose , where
[TABLE]
and is as in (4.21).
Hence, we are applying Proposition 4.3 to a cut-off function that is supported on the end , and satisfies on We now want to bound and .
We have
[TABLE]
On one hand, by (4.2) we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by Yau’s gradient estimate and (4.23) we have
[TABLE]
Hence, by (4) we get as
[TABLE]
A similar proof shows that
[TABLE]
Following the proof of (2) we obtain similarly from (2) for that
[TABLE]
By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we get as
[TABLE]
where in the last line we used (4.28) and (4). The estimate
[TABLE]
follows similarly. This proves that
[TABLE]
Making in (4.25) and using (4.30) we get
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
we conclude from above that
[TABLE]
Note that by (4.23)
[TABLE]
Hence, we conclude from (4.31) that
[TABLE]
This proves the first estimate of the lemma. The corresponding estimate on follows similarly, the only difference being that we use (4.3) to get
[TABLE]
Certainly, the right side converges to zero when and are fixed. This proves the lemma. ∎
The next result is similar to Lemma 4.4.
Lemma 4.5**.**
Under the assumptions of Theorem 4.1, for given in (4.22) we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where is a constant depending only on .
Proof.
By Proposition 4.3 we have
[TABLE]
for any cut-off on . We choose the cut-off as in Lemma 4.4. From (4.30) we know that
[TABLE]
By (4), this proves the estimate on . The proof of the estimate on is similar. ∎
We use Lemma 4.4 and Lemma 4.5 to estimate each term in (4) for the cut-off specified in (4.21).
Lemma 4.6**.**
Under the assumptions of Theorem 4.1, for given in (4.21), we have as
[TABLE]
for a constant depending only on .
Proof.
We have
[TABLE]
Using (4.23) we have
[TABLE]
By (4.3) and (4.2) we also have that
[TABLE]
The result follows from (4) and (4). ∎
We continue with the following.
Lemma 4.7**.**
Under the assumptions of Theorem 4.1, for given by (4.21), we have as
[TABLE]
for a constant depending only on .
Proof.
We have
[TABLE]
For the first term, we use Yau’s gradient estimate and (4) to get
[TABLE]
For the second term in (4) note that
[TABLE]
By Lemma 4.4 we have as
[TABLE]
By (4), (4) and (4.37) we conclude as
[TABLE]
This proves the result. ∎
We now prove the following.
Lemma 4.8**.**
Under the assumptions of Theorem 4.1, for given in (4.21), we have as
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for a constant depending only on
Proof.
We have
[TABLE]
As in the proof of Lemma 4.4, we use (2), (4.2) and (4.3) to estimate
[TABLE]
Furthermore, we have
[TABLE]
Using Lemma 4.5 it follows that
[TABLE]
Plugging (4) and (4) into (4) implies as
[TABLE]
This proves the first estimate of the lemma. For the other estimate, we proceed similarly and get
[TABLE]
where the last line follows similarly to (4). Furthermore, we have
[TABLE]
Using a cut-off function as in Lemma 4.4, and by (4), Lemma 4.4 and Lemma 4.5 it follows that as
[TABLE]
We therefore obtain from above that as
[TABLE]
This proves the lemma. ∎
We now finish the proof of Theorem 4.1. By (4) and Lemmas 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8, we get as
[TABLE]
where . Making and implies that all inequalities used in proving (4.4) in Proposition 4.3 must turn into equalities. Now (4.17) implies that
[TABLE]
and by (2) we have that
[TABLE]
Moreover, equality in (4) yields
[TABLE]
Note that (4.41), (4.42) and (4.43) are the same as the identities (12) in the proof of Theorem 4 of [12]. They imply the splitting as claimed in Theorem 4.1. This proves the result.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] S. Y. Cheng, Eigenvalue comparison theorems and its geometric application, Math. Z. 143 (1975), 289-297.
- 2[2] T. Colding and W. Minicozzi., Harmonic functions on manifolds, Ann. of Math.(2) 146 (1997), no. 3, 725-747.
- 3[3] K. Corlette, Hausdorff dimensions of limit sets, Invent. Math. 102 (1990), no. 3, 521–541.
- 4[4] P. Li, Harmonic sections of polynomial growth, Math. Res. Lett 4(1997), 35-44.
- 5[5] P. Li and L.-F. Tam, Harmonic functions and the structure of complete manifolds, J. Differential Geom. 35 (1992), 359–383.
- 6[6] P. Li and J. Wang, Complete manifolds with positive spectrum, J. Differential Geom. 58 (2001), 501–534.
- 7[7] P. Li and J. Wang, Complete manifolds with positive spectrum II, J. Differential Geom. 62 (2002), 143–162.
- 8[8] P. Li and J. Wang, Weighted Poincaré inequality and rigidity of complete manifolds, Ann. Sc. Ec. Norm. Sup., 4e serie, t. 39 (2006), 921–982.
