Sharp Logarithmic Sobolev and related inequalities with monomial weights
Filomena Feo, and Futoshi Takahashi

TL;DR
This paper establishes a sharp Logarithmic Sobolev inequality with monomial weights, extending classical results and providing new characterizations of equality cases, with implications for related inequalities like Shannon and Heisenberg's uncertainty.
Contribution
It introduces a novel proof for the sharp Logarithmic Sobolev inequality with monomial weights, including new equality characterizations, even in the unweighted case.
Findings
Derived a sharp Logarithmic Sobolev inequality with monomial weights
Established related inequalities such as Shannon and Heisenberg's uncertainty
Provided a new proof for the unweighted case with equality characterization
Abstract
We derive a sharp Logarithmic Sobolev inequality with monomial weights starting from a sharp Sobolev inequality with monomial weights. Several related inequalities such as Shannon type and Heisenberg's uncertain type are also derived. A characterization of the equality case for the Logarithmic Sobolev inequality is given when the exponents of the monomial weights are all zero or integers. Such a proof is new even in the unweighted case.
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
TopicsNonlinear Partial Differential Equations
Sharp Logarithmic Sobolev and related inequalities with monomial weights
Filomena Feo
and
Futoshi Takahashi
Abstract.
We derive a sharp Logarithmic Sobolev inequality with monomial weights starting from a sharp Sobolev inequality with monomial weights. Several related inequalities such as Shannon type and Heisenberg’s uncertain type are also derived. A characterization of the equality case for the Logarithmic Sobolev inequality is given when the exponents of the monomial weights are all zero or integers. Such a proof is new even in the unweighted case.
Key words and phrases:
Weighted Sobolev inequalities, Weighted Logarithmic Sobolev inequality, Weighted Shannon type inequality, uncertain type inequality, monomial weights
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 26D10; Secondary 46E35
1. Introduction
In the recent paper [5], the authors establish an isoperimetric inequality with monomial weights and derive Sobolev, Morrey, and Trudinger inequalities from such geometric inequality. More precisely, let be a nonnegative vector in , i.e. , and define
[TABLE]
and the monomial weight
[TABLE]
For any bounded open set of let us denote by the closure of the space with the norm for . The Sobolev inequality with monomial weights proved in [5] reads as follows:
Theorem 1.1**.**
(Sharp Sobolev inequality with monomial weights [5])*
Let be a nonnegative vector in , and . Then the inequality*
[TABLE]
holds true for any , where
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Here denotes the number of positive entries of the vector , denotes the Gamma function, and as usual . Moreover, the constant is not attained by any function in . On the other hand, the constant is attained in for by functions of the form
[TABLE]
where and are any positive constants.
When , Theorem 1.1 reduces to the classical Sobolev inequality. Unlike the classical one, the previous inequality is not invariant under the translation and the rotation of the space when , but is homogeneous and invariant with respect to the rescaling for . Note that it is established only when or for all , that all extremizers which achieve the equality must be of the form (4). Moreover the best constant is the inverse of the corresponding best constant of the isoperimetric inequality with the monomial weight:
[TABLE]
where is a bounded Lipschitz domain,
[TABLE]
and denotes the intersection of the unit ball with :
[TABLE]
In this paper, we derive a sharp Logarithmic Sobolev inequality with monomial weights starting from the sharp Sobolev inequality with monomial weights above. We follow the idea by Beckner and Pearson [3]. As in [3], the product structure of both the Euclidean space and the weight (in our case), and the asymptotic behavior of the constant (3) as , are essential. Also several related inequalities such as Shannon type and Heisenberg’s uncertain principle type are also derived. A characterization of the equality case for the Logarithmic Sobolev inequality is given when the exponents of the monomial weights are all zero or integers. Such a proof is new even in the unweighted case.
First, we obtain the following theorem where denotes .
Theorem 1.2**.**
(Sharp Logarithmic Sobolev inequality with monomial weights)*
Let be a nonnegative vector in and . For any such that , the inequality*
[TABLE]
holds true, where
[TABLE]
and . The equality in (7) holds if , which satisfies that and .
If we take , then , , and , so we recover the classical Euclidean Logarithmic Sobolev inequality:
[TABLE]
for with . Stated in this form, (9) appears in a paper by Weissler [25], but in terms of the Entropy power and the Fisher information , the inequality
[TABLE]
goes back to Stam [23]; here is a positive function such that . This is obtained by taking in (9). By this inequality it follows that as information increases then the entropy (a measure of disorder) must increase also. For more information about the Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities we refer the reader to [13], [9], [12] and the book [16]. Note that (7) is not invariant under the translation and the rotation of the space when , but is invariant with respect to the scaling for . Finally we stress that (7) cannot be obtained by a change of variables from the unweighted Logarithmic Sobolev inequality, even when for every . This is different from the case for (1).
The characterization of the extremals for (9) is well-known (see [7]). Here we propose a new (also in the unweighted case) and more elementary proof in the case when for every .
Theorem 1.3**.**
If for every , then the equality in (7) occurs if and only if
[TABLE]
with and , respectively.
In order to explain the basic idea of the proof let us consider . We take into account the following observations:
- i)
Logarithmic Sobolev inequality can be obtained (see the proof of Theorem 1.2) as a “limit” of the Sobolev inequality for suitable functions;
- ii)
The equality case in the classical Sobolev inequality occurs if and only if the functions are of the form
[TABLE]
where and and ;
- iii)
The family of functions (11) are densities of some generalized Cauchy distributions, which have the general form with and normalizing constant depending on an . These probability measures may be considered (see e.g. [4]) as a natural “pre-Gaussian model”, where the Gaussian case appears in the limit as (after proper rescaling of the coordinates).
Similar observations hold in the case . However, since all extremals for (1) are given by (4) only if are integers or zero (see [5]), we can derive a result only in this special case.
As a corollary of Theorem 1.2, we obtain a Nash type inequality with monomial weights as follows:
Corollary 1.4**.**
(Nash type inequality with monomial weights)**
Let and be as in Theorem 1.2. For any , we have the inequality
[TABLE]
where is defined in (8).
The unweighted version of (12) is one of the main tools used by J. Nash in [17] on the Hölder regularity of solutions of divergence form uniformly elliptic equations. It is well-known that the Nash inequality can also be derived by combining the Hölder and the Sobolev inequality. Indeed in our case we may use (1) and the following Hölder inequality
[TABLE]
where and where . Even in the unweighted case the constant in (12) is not sharp as observed in [8].
Finally we prove a “dual” inequality of the Logarithmic Sobolev inequality with monomial weight (7).
Theorem 1.5**.**
(Shannon type inequality with monomial weights)*
Let and be as in Theorem 1.2. For any with and , the inequality*
[TABLE]
holds true.
More generally, for any with , the inequality
[TABLE]
holds true, where
[TABLE]
for and
[TABLE]
The equality in (14) holds if (up to scaling).
Note that in (13) and the equality holds for which satisfies and . Moreover the inequality (14) is invariant with respect to the scaling for . An unweighted version of this Theorem appears in [18] and [19]. Classical Shannon’s inequality states that the normal distribution maximizes the Shannon Entropy among all distributions with fixed variance and mean . The inequality takes the form (14) (without weight) since the Shannon Entropy of normal distribution is .
Inequalities (7) and (13) give a lower and an upper bound of the entropy term. Indeed we have
[TABLE]
for with and . As an easy consequence we get the following corollary.
Corollary 1.6**.**
(Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle type inequality with monomial weights)*
For any with*
[TABLE]
the inequality
[TABLE]
holds true. The equality holds for , which satisfies and .
The classical Heisenberg’s uncertainty inequality, a precise mathematical formulation of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, states that
[TABLE]
for any . Define the Fourier transform of as and recall that . Then it follows that for any with and for any . In other terminology, the above inequality reads , where . The variance is a measure of the concentration of the probability density . The more concentrated is around , the smaller the variance will be. The above inequality states that if is concentrated around , then cannot be concentrated around , no matter which point in we choose. For more information on the uncertainty inequality, see e.g. [11].
The structure of the paper is as follows: The proofs of all results stated here are given in . Remarks and several related inequalities are discussed in .
2. Proofs
First we collect here several lemmas which will be useful later.
Next lemma is an exercise of the book by W. Rudin [22] Chapter 3, page 71, see also [2] page 122, and [20].
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let be a measure space with and assume that for some . Then it holds
[TABLE]
if is defined to be [math].
Lemma 2.2**.**
For any and , we have
[TABLE]
In particular,
[TABLE]
where is defined by (15).
Proof.
Since (18) is derived from (17) by differentiating it with respect to , we prove (17) only. Let be defined as in (6) and put , where and be the unit vector in . Note that is the curved part of the boundary portion of . Then and
[TABLE]
where denotes the surface measure on . We calculate
[TABLE]
where . As observed in [5] (Theorem 1.4 and Lemma 4.1), and . Thus we obtain
[TABLE]
The transformation for yields (17).
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let . Then we have
[TABLE]
In particular,
[TABLE]
for any .
Proof.
For (20) we also refer to [4]. We derive (19) by using the “polar coordinates” again. As in the proof of the former lemma, we compute
[TABLE]
2.1. Proof of Theorem 1.2
By density argument it is enough to prove our results for functions .
Let and let be a nonnegative vector. Let us take with and let us denote and . Since the sharp -Sobolev inequality with monomial weights (1) yields that for
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and , then we obtain
[TABLE]
Let us consider a nonnegative vector . We express for . For a function satisfying , we put
[TABLE]
where for each , and . Note that for and as above, we have the product structure of the space
[TABLE]
and of the weight
[TABLE]
Moreover we stress that
[TABLE]
where . Under these notations, we have the next relations:
Lemma 2.4**.**
Under the assumptions of this subsection we have
[TABLE]
The proof of this Lemma follows by a direct computation, so we omit it. By this lemma, we have for in (24).
By Lemma 2.4, the inequality (23) becomes
[TABLE]
Now, by (22) with and it follows that
[TABLE]
Let in the above equality. Stirling’s formula
[TABLE]
implies that
[TABLE]
Now we apply Lemma 2.1 with , , and as . Note that by the -Sobolev inequality with monomial weight (1), , thus we may take in Lemma 2.1. Then Theorem 1.2 follows by taking a limit in (25) with (27).
By Lemma 2.2 with and , we easily check that the equality in (7) holds for , which satisfies that and .
Remark 2.5**.**
We stress that it is the sharp asymptotics rather than the precise form of the Sobolev embedding constant that determines the Logarithmic Sobolev inequality. Indeed the constant in Theorem 1.1 is such that (up to a constant) as , i.e., (27).
Remark 2.6**.**
The original proof by Beckner and Pearson [3] used Jensen’s inequality instead of Lemma 2.1. It works also in our framework. Indeed Jensen’s inequality implies that
[TABLE]
For given by (24), we easily see that
[TABLE]
Recalling Lemma 2.4 and combining (2.6), (29), and (23), we obtain
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.2 follows form the inequality above with (27).
Remark 2.7**.**
We stress that the isoperimetric inequality (5), or equivalently (1) with implies (7). Indeed, let be such that . Jensen’s inequality and (1) with imply that
[TABLE]
Taking where is in (24) with , and using Hölder’s inequality, Lemma 2.4 and (29), we have
[TABLE]
By Stirling formula (26), the inequality (7) follows.
2.2. Proof of Theorem 1.3
We use the same notation introduced in the previous subsection.
It is easy to check that functions defined in (10) gives the equality in the Logarithmic Sobolev inequality. We want to prove that they are the only one. In order to do this we characterize the equality cases in every inequality in the proof of Theorem 1.2. Without loss of generality we may consider only positive functions. For simplicity, first we consider the case , i.e. and no weight is considered. Recall that extremals in the classical Sobolev inequality are all given by (11), see [24]. In order to have the equality for in (21), it is necessary that, as ,
[TABLE]
with , , and . Here we have used the notation which emphasizes the dependence on of involved functions and constants. Also we use the notation if . By translation invariance, we may fix for a fixed point . Also recalling that we consider function with , by (20) we see that is related with as
[TABLE]
for . Stirling formula (26) yields
[TABLE]
Choose
[TABLE]
Then it follows that
[TABLE]
where is such that , . Note that as . We have three possible behaviors of the sequence as :
- i)
- ii)
- iii)
Indeed if the limit does not exist, then we can argue one of the previous cases up to a subsequence. The only non-trivial case to be considered is the third one, since the case i) or the case ii) occurs, then as which is absurd by the restriction . When iii) occurs, we have
[TABLE]
Again three cases (up to a subsequence) are possible for the behaviors of the sequence , but the only one to be considered is (otherwise ). Under this assumptions
[TABLE]
up to a constant. By -normalization the characterization of the equality follows.
A slight modification of this proof works well when monomial weights are taken into account. In this case, since for all , the situation is simpler. However as noticed before, we need the additional assumption that for all , in order to assure that all extremal functions of the Sobolev inequality with monomial weights (1) are of the form (4).
2.3. Proof of Corollary 1.4
We follow the “geometric” argument by Beckner [1]. We will derive the desired inequality (12) from Jensen’s inequality and the Logarithmic Sobolev inequality with monomial weights. As before, it is enough to prove Corollary for by density.
Let satisfying
- i)
on any subset of with positive measure,
- ii)
.
By Jensen’s inequality and the Logarithmic Sobolev inequality (7), we have
[TABLE]
Thus by the monotonicity of -function, we get
[TABLE]
By homogeneity we get (12). To avoid the assumption it is enough to integrate on and observe that .
Remark 2.8**.**
As observed in of [2] the homogeneity and the dilation invariance of (12) allow us to use the convexity of the function defined by . Indeed, for with , define with . Then we see , and we have
[TABLE]
Then (12) follows from (7) for .
2.4. Proof of Theorem 1.5
We give a proof of Theorem 1.5 along the line of [18]. It is enough to prove (14) for any with , since (13) is derived by putting and in (14) instead of .
For , put , where defined as in (15), is chosen so that (see Lemma 2.2). For with , Jensen’ s inequality implies that
[TABLE]
From this, we have
[TABLE]
Thus we obtain
[TABLE]
Now, put for . It is easy to check that
[TABLE]
We insert instead of into (30). Since
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Since we assume , we have
[TABLE]
We optimize with respect to . Denoting , then for . An easy computation shows that has the unique minimum point when , and the global minimum value is
[TABLE]
Returning to (31), we obtain the inequality
[TABLE]
Concerning the equality case, Lemma 2.2 implies that
[TABLE]
Thus realizes the equality in (14). This completes the proof.
3. Some remarks
In this section, we discuss about several inequalities related to our former results. For other inequalities such as Hardy-Sobolev type or Trudinger-Moser type with monomial weights, see [6] and [15].
3.1. Inequalities on the whole space
It is easy to check that Theorem 1.1 holds on the whole without the best constant.
Corollary 3.1**.**
Let and be as in Theorem 1.1.Then
[TABLE]
holds true for any , where
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let . We apply (1) for hyperoctants of , each is a copy of and \cup_{i=1}^{2^{k}}Q_{i}=\mathbb{R}^{n}\setminus\cup_{i=1}^{n}\{\text{x_{i}-axis}\}:
[TABLE]
The assertion follows by observing that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
with .
We can also derive a Logarithmic Sobolev inequality (7) (not in sharp form) and a Nash type inequality when the domain of integration is whole , starting from Corollary 3.1 with instead of Theorem 1.1.
3.2. -Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities
Using the -Sobolev inequality it is possible to derive (in general not sharp) -version of Logarithmic Sobolev inequality. For we obtain a sharp inequality.
Proposition 3.2**.**
Let and be as in Theorem 1.2. The following inequality
[TABLE]
holds true for any such that , with the sharp constant given by defined as in (2). Also no function in achieves the equality in (32).
When , (32) is obtained by combining Jensen’s inequality and (1) with . Then as an easy consequence, we see is an upper bound for . Let be the characteristic function of defined as in (6). Since is the best constant of the isoperimetric inequality (5), gives the equality in (32). It follows that the constant is sharp in (32). When we reduce to the case without weight and Proposition follows by Theorem 2 of [2], where the unweighted version of this result is proved.
The above argument does not give the sharp result for .
Proposition 3.3**.**
( Logarithmic Sobolev inequality with monomial weights)*
Let and as in Theorem 1.2 and . Then the following inequality*
[TABLE]
holds true for any such that , where is defined as in (3).
The proof of Proposition 3.3 runs again by combining Jensen’s inequality and (1). Even in the unweighted case the constant is not sharp (see [9]). When , sharp versions of (9) are proved in [9] and in [12].
As shown in of [2], even in the unweighted case the asymptotic behavior of the constant, the product structure of , and of the weight for don’t allow us to obtain sharp inequalities, but only
[TABLE]
for such that . We point out that the last inequality can be derived from (7) by setting .
3.3. Logarithmic Sobolev trace inequality with monomial weights
In this subsection we obtain a Logarithmic Sobolev trace inequality with monomial weights (see [10], [20] for similar inequalities without weights).
Proposition 3.4**.**
(Logarithmic Sobolev trace inequality with monomial weights)*
Let be a nonnegative vector in , , . Then the inequality*
[TABLE]
holds true for any with , where is defined in (3) (replacing by , and by ) and .
The proof of Proposition 3.4 comes from Jensen’s inequality and the following result.
Lemma 3.5**.**
(Sobolev trace inequality with monomial weights)*
Let and be as in Proposition 3.4 and . Then the inequality*
[TABLE]
holds true for any .
By a standard scaling argument one sees that the exponent is optimal, in the sense that this inequality cannot hold with any exponent different from .
Proof of lemma 3.5.
We follow the idea of [14]. We observe that
[TABLE]
The Hölder inequality yields
[TABLE]
It is easy to get
[TABLE]
Let be the even extension of to . Note that if we put , we have . Thus by the Sobolev inequality (1) applied for , we have
[TABLE]
Combining this with the previous estimate we obtain the assertion.
The above proof does not give a sharp constant in (33), so the obtained Logarithmic Sobolev trace inequality with monomial weights is also not sharp.
3.4. From Trudinger-Moser inequality to Logarithmic Sobolev type inequality
In this section, we derive a Logarithmic Sobolev-type inequalities from the sharp Trudinger-Moser inequality with monomial weights obtained recently by Lam [15].
Proposition 3.6**.**
*(Lam [15])
Let be a bounded domain. Then there exists a constant such that*
[TABLE]
holds true for any and , where and
[TABLE]
A similar result is proved in [5] only for sufficiently small .
Using Proposition 3.6, first we obtain an improvement of the Sobolev embedding of into for any .
Proposition 3.7**.**
For any , there exists such that
[TABLE]
holds true for any . Moreover, we have
[TABLE]
where is defined in (35).
Proof.
We argue as in [21] Lemma 2.1. Let . We recall the following elementary inequality
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Set
[TABLE]
Stirling formula (26) implies
[TABLE]
Thus we have (36) and (37) holds.
Now, we derive a Logarithmic Sobolev-type inequality from Proposition 3.7.
Proposition 3.8**.**
Let be a bounded domain and let . Then
[TABLE]
holds true for any with .
Proof.
By Jensen’s inequality and (36), we get
[TABLE]
namely (39).
Acknowledgment: This work has been partially supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), No.19136384 (T.F), by GNAMPA - INdAM (F.F).
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] W. Beckner, Geometric proof of Nash’s inequality , IMRN, Int. Math. Res. Notices 1998 (1998), 67–71.
- 2[2] W. Beckner, Geometric asymptotics and the logarithmic Sobolev inequality , Forum Math. 11 (1999), 105–137.
- 3[3] W. Beckner, and M. Pearson, On sharp Sobolev embedding and the logarithmic Sobolev inequality , Bull. London Math. Soc. 30 (1998), 80–84.
- 4[4] S.G. Bobkov, and M. Ledoux, Weighted Poincaré-type inequalities for Cauchy and other convex measures , Ann. Probab. 37 (2009), 403-–427.
- 5[5] X. Cabré, and X. Ros-Oton, Sobolev and isoperimetric inequalities with monomial weights , J. Differential Equations, 255 (2013), 4312–4336.
- 6[6] H. Castro, Hardy-Sobolev-type inequalities with monomial weights , Ann. Mat. Pura. Appl. (4) 196 (2017), 579–598.
- 7[7] E. A. Carlen, Superadditivity of Fisher’s information and logarithmic Sobolev inequalities , J. Funct. Anal. 101 n.1 (1991), 194–211.
- 8[8] E. A. Carlen, and M. Loss, Sharp constant in Nash’s inequality , IMRN, Int. Math. Res. Notices 7 (1993), 213–215.
