Non-local to local transition for ground states of fractional Schr\"{o}dinger equations on bounded domains
Bartosz Bieganowski, Simone Secchi

TL;DR
This paper investigates how ground state solutions of nonlinear fractional Schrödinger equations on bounded domains transition to local solutions as the fractional order approaches 1, revealing a convergence behavior under specific conditions.
Contribution
It establishes the convergence of ground states from fractional to local Schrödinger equations as the fractional parameter approaches 1, under certain assumptions.
Findings
Ground states converge in L^2 as s approaches 1
Convergence occurs along subsequences under specified conditions
Results connect fractional and classical Schrödinger equations
Abstract
We show that ground state solutions to the nonlinear, fractional problem \begin{align*} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} (-\Delta)^{s} u + V(x) u = f(x,u) &\quad \mathrm{in} \ \Omega, \newline u = 0 &\quad \mathrm{in} \ \mathbb{R}^N \setminus \Omega, \end{array} \right. \end{align*} on a bounded domain , converge (along a subsequence) in , under suitable conditions on and , to a solution of the local problem as .
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.
Non-local to local transition for ground states of fractional Schrödinger equations on bounded domains
Bartosz Bieganowski Email address: [email protected] Nicolaus Copernicus University
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
ul. Chopina 12/18, 87-100 Toruń, Poland
Simone Secchi Email address: [email protected] Dipartimento di Matematica e Applicazioni
Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
via Roberto Cozzi 55, I-20125, Milano, Italy
Abstract
We show that ground state solutions to the nonlinear, fractional problem
[TABLE]
on a bounded domain , converge (along a subsequence) in , under suitable conditions on and , to a solution of the local problem as .
Keywords: variational methods, fractional Schrödinger equation, non-local to local transition, ground state, Nehari manifold.
AMS Subject Classification: 35Q55, 35A15, 35R11
Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The variational setting
- 3 Existence of ground states
- 4 Non-local to local transition
1 Introduction
The aim of this paper is to analyze the asymptotic behavior of least-energy solutions to the fractional Schrödinger problem
[TABLE]
in a bounded domain . We recall that the fractional laplacian is defined as a singular integral via the formula
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
This formal definition needs of course a function space in which problem (1.1) becomes meaningful: we will come to this issue in 2.
Several models have appeared in recent years that involve the use of the fractional laplacian. We only mention elasticity, turbulence, porous media flow, image processing, wave propagation in heterogeneous high contrast media, and stochastic models: see [1, 8, 13, 9].
Instead of fixing the value of the parameter , we will start from the well-known identity (see [7, Proposition 4.4])
[TABLE]
and investigate the convergence properties of solutions to (1.1) as . In view of the previous limit, it is somehow natural to conjecture that solutions to (1.1) converge to solutions of the problem
[TABLE]
We do not know if this conjecture is indeed correct with this degree of generality, but we will prove that this happens — up to a subsequence — for least-energy solutions. Our result extends the very recent analysis of Biccari et al. (see [2]) in the linear case for the Poisson problem to the semilinear case. See also [4].
We collect our assumptions.
- (N)
, ;
- ()
is bounded domain with continuous boundary ;
- (V)
and ;
- (F1)
is a Carathéodory function, namely is measurable for any and is continuous for a.e. . Moreover there numbers are and such that
[TABLE]
for and a.e. .
- (F2)
as , uniformly with respect to .
- (F3)
uniformly with respect to , where .
- (F4)
The function is strictly increasing on and on , for a.e. .
Remark 1.1*.*
It follows from (F1) and (F2) that for every there is such that
[TABLE]
for every and a.e . Furthermore, assumption (F4) implies the validity of the inequality
[TABLE]
for every and a.e. .
We can now state our main result.
Theorem 1.2**.**
Suppose that assumptions (N), (), (V), (F1)–(F4) hold. For , let be a ground state solution of problem (1.1). Then, there is a sequence such that as and converges in to a ground state solution of the problem (1.2).
Remark 1.3*.*
Actually, see Corollary 4.3, it follows that converges to in for every .
Remark 1.4*.*
Unlike in [2], we cannot expect a convergence of the family as , since solutions to (1.2) are not unique, in general.
The paper is organized as follows. The second section contains a short introduction into fractional Sobolev spaces and the variational setting. In the third section we give the sketch of the proof of existence of ground states to (1.1). The fourth section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1.2.
2 The variational setting
In this section we collect the basic tools from the theory of fractional Sobolev spaces we will need to prove our results. For a thorough discussion, we refer to [10, 7] and to the references therein.
We define a Sobolev space on as
[TABLE]
endowed with the norm
[TABLE]
Furthermore, is the closure of with respect to the -norm.
Definition 2.1**.**
For , we define as the set of all measurable functions such that the restriction of to lies in and the map
[TABLE]
belongs to , where
[TABLE]
and . We also define
[TABLE]
It is well know, see [10, Lemma 1.24], that with a continuous embedding, and that
[TABLE]
Since we assume that has a continuous boundary , is dense in (see [10, Theorem 2.6]), so that actually for such a domain . For , an equivalent norm of is (see [10, Proposition 1.18])
[TABLE]
More explicitly, for every ,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.2**.**
For every , there results
[TABLE]
Proof.
From [7, Proposition 3.6], we know that
[TABLE]
From [7, Remark 4.3], we know that
[TABLE]
Therefore, recalling [7, Corollary 4.2],
[TABLE]
∎
On we introduce a new norm
[TABLE]
which is, under (V), equivalent to . Similarly we introduce the norm on by putting
[TABLE]
Corollary 2.3**.**
For every we have
[TABLE]
The following convergence result will be used in the sequel.
Lemma 2.4**.**
For every , there results
[TABLE]
Proof.
We notice that
[TABLE]
where is a constant, independent of , that depends on the definition of the Fourier transform . It is now easy to conclude, since the Fourier transform of a test function is a rapidly decreasing function. ∎
We will use the following embedding result.
Theorem 2.5** ([10]).**
If has a continuous boundary , then the embedding is compact for every , where .
We will need some precise information on the embedding constant for fractional Sobolev spaces.
Theorem 2.6** ([6]).**
Let and . Then
[TABLE]
for every , where denotes the -dimensional unit sphere and its surface area.
Lemma 2.7**.**
Let and . Then there exists a constant such that, for every and every , we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since is a continuous function on the interval which does not contain non-positive integers, the constant
[TABLE]
in (2.3) is bounded from above independently of . Therefore inequality (2.3) holds true with a constant independent of . Since obviously
[TABLE]
for every , we can fix any and interpolate:
[TABLE]
Explicitly,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Since the function is continuous in the interval , the proof is complete. ∎
Remark 2.8*.*
It follows from the previous proof that the same result is true for any , with fixed.
Definition 2.9**.**
A weak solution to problem (1.1) is a function such that
[TABLE]
for every .
Weak solutions are therefore critical points of the associated energy functional defined by
[TABLE]
We recall also the definition of a weak solution in the local case.
Definition 2.10**.**
A weak solution to problem (1.2) is a function such that
[TABLE]
for every .
For the local problem (1.2) we put
[TABLE]
Recalling the notation (2.1) and (2.2), we can rewrite our functionals in the form
[TABLE]
3 Existence of ground states
We define the so-called Nehari manifolds
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Definition 3.1**.**
A ground state of (1.1) is any minimum point of constrained on . Similarly, a ground state of (1.2) is any minimum point of constrained on .
To proceed, we show that ground states actually exist.
Proposition 3.2**.**
For every , there exists a ground state solution to (1.1). Moreover
[TABLE]
Proof.
The proof is rather standard, so we will present a sketch and refer the reader to [3, 11, 12] for the details. Consider . It follows from our assumptions that the Nehari manifold is homeomorphic to the unit sphere in . The homeomorphism is given by
[TABLE]
where is the unique positive number such that . The inverse is given by . Moreover is still of class . Then there is a Palais-Smale sequence for . Moreover, we can show that the sequence given by is a bounded Palais-Smale sequence for such that , where . Since is compactly embedded into for every , see Theorem 2.5, it is easy to check that converges strongly (up to a subsequence) in to a function such that . Finally, the properties of yield
[TABLE]
The proof for the case is similar. ∎
4 Non-local to local transition
For any we define
[TABLE]
Similarly, we put also
[TABLE]
For any we let be the unique positive real number such that . Then we put (see the proof of Proposition 3.2).
Lemma 4.1**.**
There results
[TABLE]
Proof.
Take as a ground state solution of (1.2), in particular and , where is given by (2.4). Consider the function . Obviously
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
Recall that for some real numbers . Suppose by contradiction that as . Then, in view of the Nehari identity
[TABLE]
but the left-hand side stays bounded (see Corollary 2.3). Hence is bounded. Take any convergent subsequence of , i.e. as . Obviously . We will show that . Indeed, suppose that , i.e. . Then, in view of the Nehari identity
[TABLE]
By Corollary 2.3, . Hence, in view of (F2),
[TABLE]
a contradiction. Hence . Again, by Corollary 2.3,
[TABLE]
Moreover, in view of Remark 1.1,
[TABLE]
for some constant , independent of . In view of the Lebesgue’s convergence theorem
[TABLE]
Thus the limit satisfies
[TABLE]
Taking the Nehari identity into account we see that . Hence as . Repeating the same argument we see that
[TABLE]
and the proof is completed. ∎
Lemma 4.2**.**
There exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
for every .
Proof.
Note that , for some independent of . So it is enough to show that . Suppose by contradiction that
[TABLE]
Put . Then , so [5, Corollary 7] implies that in for some . From Lemma 2.7 is bounded in . Take any and by the interpolation inequality
[TABLE]
where is chosen so that . Hence in for all . In particular, we can choose a sequence such that for a.e. . Note that, from Lemma 4.1, we know that is bounded. We will consider two cases.
- •
Suppose that . Fix any . By (3.1) we obtain
[TABLE]
From Remark 1.1 we see that
[TABLE]
Hence, for any
[TABLE]
which is a contradiction with the boundedness of .
- •
Suppose that , i.e. . Note that for a.e. we have
[TABLE]
Hence, taking into account the boundedness of and Fatou’s lemma,
[TABLE]
again a contradiction.
∎
Corollary 4.3**.**
There is and a sequence such that and
[TABLE]
for all .
Proof.
From Lemma 4.2 and [5, Corollary 7] we note that
[TABLE]
for some and sequence . In view of Lemma 2.7 there is a constant (independent of ) such that
[TABLE]
In particular, is bounded in . Then for any we have
[TABLE]
where is chosen so that
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 4.4**.**
The limit is a weak solution for (1.2).
Proof.
Take any test function and note that by [14, Section 6] we have
[TABLE]
Moreover
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
Obviously
[TABLE]
Take any measurable set and note that, taking into account Remark 1.1,
[TABLE]
Hence the family is uniformly integrable on and in view of the Vitali convergence theorem
[TABLE]
Therefore satisfies
[TABLE]
i.e. is a weak solution to (1.2). ∎
Lemma 4.5**.**
Since there is (independent of ) constant such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since , we can write by Remark 1.1
[TABLE]
for a constant independent of . Choosing small enough, we conclude that
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 4.6**.**
We have and therefore .
Proof.
If , then in and in . Then
[TABLE]
a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 4.7**.**
There results
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since , then by Corollary 4.3 we have
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 4.8**.**
The function is a ground state solution to (1.2).
Proof.
Note that, from Lemma 4.1 and 4.7 we have
[TABLE]
Hence exists and . From the proof of Lemma 4.7 we have
[TABLE]
Thus . ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.2.
The statement is a direct consequence of Corollary 4.3 and Lemma 4.8. ∎
Acknowledgements
Bartosz Bieganowski was partially supported by the National Science Centre, Poland (Grant No. 2017/25/N/ST1/00531). Simone Secchi is member of 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[1] O. G. Bakunin, Turbulence and Diffusion: Scaling Versus Equations , Springer, Berlin, 2008.
- 2[2] U. Biccari, V. Hernández-Santamaría, The Poisson equation from non-local to local , Electronic Journal of Differential Equations Vol. 2018 (2018), no. 145, 1–13.
- 3[3] B. Bieganowski, J. Mederski, Nonlinear Schrödinger equations with sum of periodic and vanishing potentials and sign-changing nonlinearities , Commun. Pure Appl. Anal., Vol. 17 , Issue 1 (2018), 143–161.
- 4[4] J.P. Borthagaray, P. Ciarlet Jr., On the convergence in the H 1 superscript 𝐻 1 H^{1} -norm for the fractional laplacian , ar Xiv:1810.07645.
- 5[5] J. Bourgain, H. Brezis, P. Mironescu, Another look at Sobolev spaces , Optimal Control and Partial Differential Equations, 439–455, IOS, Amsterdam, 2001.
- 6[6] A. Cotsiolis, N. Tavoularis, Best constants for Sobolev inequalities for higher order fractional derivatives , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 295 (2004), 225–236.
- 7[7] E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci, E. Valdinoci, Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces , Bull. Sci. Math. 136 (2012), 521–573.
- 8[8] S. Dipierro, G. Palatucci, E. Valdinoci, Dislocation dynamics in crystals: A macroscopic theory in a fractional Laplace setting , Comm. Math. Phys. 333 (2015), no. 2, 1061–1105.
