$C^{2,\alpha}$ estimates for solutions to almost linear elliptic equations
Arunima Bhattacharya, Micah Warren

TL;DR
This paper establishes $C^{2,eta}$ interior regularity estimates for viscosity solutions of nearly linear, fully non-linear elliptic equations, providing explicit bounds on how close the equations are to linear ones.
Contribution
It introduces explicit bounds for the closeness of nearly linear elliptic equations to linear equations, enabling $C^{2,eta}$ regularity results for viscosity solutions.
Findings
Proves $C^{2,eta}$ interior estimates for solutions.
Provides explicit bounds on the closeness to linear equations.
Extends regularity theory to nearly linear fully non-linear elliptic equations.
Abstract
In this paper, we show interior estimates for viscosity solutions of fully non-linear, uniformly elliptic equations, which are close to linear equations and we also compute an explicit bound for the closeness.
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 for solutions to almost Linear elliptic equations
Arunima Bhattacharya AND Micah Warren
Abstract.
In this paper, we show explicit interior estimates for viscosity solutions of fully non-linear, uniformly elliptic equations, which are close to linear equations and we also compute an explicit bound for the closeness.
1. Introduction
In this paper, we derive an a priori interior estimate for viscosity solutions of the non-linear, uniformly elliptic equation
[TABLE]
under the assumption that and is -close to a linear operator.
For viscosity solutions of second order, fully non-linear equations of the form
[TABLE]
where is concave and uniform elliptic, the landmark estimate is that of Krylov and Evans, who proved estimates from estimates [N.V83], [Eva82]. For general , the fundamental results on the regularity of solutions to fully non-linear uniformly elliptic equations of the form (1.2) include interior estimates of [KS81] and interior estimate of [CC95]. The structure of plays a key role in deriving higher order estimates for fully non-linear elliptic equations of the forms (1.1) and (1.2). In [NV08], the authors produced counterexamples to Evans-Krylov type estimates for general fully non-linear equations. In fact, solutions need not even be [NV10].
Prior to Krylov and Evans, few fully non-linear equations where known to enjoy a to regularity boost. The Monge-Ampère equation was shown to have this property (even stronger, to following Calabi’s calculation [Cal58]. Other results, requiring stronger conditions on are mentioned in [Eva82, pg 335.]. If the linearized operator for satisfies a Cordes-Nirenberg condition, one can also obtain this boosting (see Section 5). Since the 1980s, it has been a challenge to find equations with the regularity boosting property that are niether convex nor concave, see for example [CY00], [Yua01], [CC03] , [Col16], [SW16], [Pin16]. Savin [Sav07] proved interior (and higher) estimates for viscosity solutions of (1.2) that are sufficiently close to a quadratic polynomial, for smooth. When full regularity is not available, partial regularity results can be found, see [ASS].
Here, we consider a space of uniformly elliptic, non-linear equations of the forms (1.2) and (1.1) where we assume that is uniformly differentiable and lies in a set of diameter . We formally define this property of in definition 1.2. We show that given ellipticity constants and an of your choice, there is a universal constant guaranteeing regularity.
Differentiating (1.2) with respect to a direction , one sees that solves a linear equation with bounded measurable coefficients (now depending on not . One then hopes to achieve estimates on yielding estimates on In particular, it may be possible to apply estimates of Cordes and Nirenberg from the 1950s: Any solution of a linear equation
[TABLE]
with coefficients close to will enjoy regularity. Thus when a solution is already universal interior estimates should follow by the Cordes-Nirenberg theory. A delicate analysis of the Dirichlet boundary value problem, approximating with mollifications on the boundary should also yield the estimates when is not known to be cf.[Eva82, Section 7]. The closeness constants of Cordes-Nirenberg are explicit and mildly restrictive, in fact much less restrictive than ours. As the historical literature is not widely known, we discuss the Cordes-Nirenberg results in more detail in Section 5.
Note that our result is stated for every . Also, note that for equation (1.1) one cannot hope to differentiate either side of (1.1) if the right hand side is merely so the regularity theory cannot be immediately reduced to the Cordes-Nirenberg theory. Our methods for proving 1.3 are much different in nature than the proof of Cordes and Nirenberg: we use the method of constructing approximating polynomials, instead of integral estimates. In Theorem 1.4, we prove interior estimates for solutions of (1.1) using our estimates for (1.2) together with estimates found in [CC95].
This paper is divided into the following sections. In the remainder of this section we state definitions and our main results. In section 2, we prove Theorem 1.3 and in section 3, we prove Theorem 1.4. In section 4 we explicity state and prove an often used result involving Hölder estimates and in section 5 we further discuss the Cordes-Nirenberg regularity and some applications of Cordes-Nirenberg regularity to equations of the form (1.2).
1.1. Definitions and notations
We first define a few terms that we will be using to state the properties of the operator .
Condition 1.1**.**
Throughout this paper we make the assumption
[TABLE]
Definition 1.2**.**
We define the uniformly elliptic, non-linear operator to be almost linear with constant if
[TABLE]
for all where is the space of all real symmetric matrices. We define to be the closeness constant of .
We say that is elliptic if
[TABLE]
for all positive matrices To be clear, for matrices and their dual (linear operators) we use to denote the norm, that is
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.3**.**
Given , , and there exists a universal constant such that if is almost linear with constant and is a viscosity solution of (1.2) on , then and satisfies the following estimate
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
The constant is determined in (2.44), (2.27)
Theorem 1.4**.**
Given , , and , suppose that is almost linear with constant for the same constant as in Theorem 1.3 and is viscosity solution of (1.1) on . If , then and the following estimate holds
[TABLE]
where depends on , .
The methods involved in our proof include comparing equation (1.2) to the Laplace equation with boundary data equal to a mollification of . We use the Krylov-Safanov Theorem [KS81] along with harmonic estimates to construct a quadratic polynomial that separates from to order on the ball of radius . This is used in the construction of an iterative sequence of quadratic polynomials that leads to our desired estimate in the first theorem. The proof of Theorem 1.4 uses arguments from regularity found in [CC95, Chapter 7] .
2. Proof of Theorem 1.3
By calculus,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
With this is mind we begin with the following Lemma.
Lemma 2.1**.**
Given there exist universal constants and , such that if the elliptic operator satisfies
[TABLE]
for all , then for any viscosity solution of (1.2) in , we can find a polynomial of degree 2 satisfying
[TABLE]
We compute the explicit values of the universal constants to be
- (i)
** 2. (ii)
** 3. (iii)
* where , , are defined in (2.7), (2.4),and (2.21) respectively.*
The required constant is defined in the proof of the Lemma, and will require the Krylov-Safanov Theorem, so we state that here.
Theorem 2.2**.**
[KS81, Theorem 1]** [Krylov-Safanov] Let be a viscosity solution of in . Then is Hölder continuous and
[TABLE]
with (small) .
We will apply the following result to the Laplace operator to determine the constant We state a weaker version than in [CC95, Theorem 9.5].
Theorem 2.3**.**
[CC95, Theorem 9.5]** Let be a smooth function in If is a solution of
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
where is a universal constant.
Proof of Lemma 2.1.
Let’s denote . We consider a function that satisfies the following boundary value problem:
[TABLE]
Here refers to a mollification of for some , defined by
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and is given by
[TABLE]
with the constant being chosen such that . Note that since is defined on all of , the mollifier sequence is well defined on when and that
[TABLE]
From the Krylov-Safanov theorem, we get the following estimate
[TABLE]
This implies that converges to uniformly on as and satisfies the following estimate:
[TABLE]
Since is harmonic and thus analytic there exists a polynomial of degree two
[TABLE]
such that for all ,
[TABLE]
where is the remainder term of order 3 in the Taylor series expansion of . Estimates for harmonic functions (cf. [GT01, (2.31)]), considering (2.6) are of the form
[TABLE]
Thus we have on
[TABLE]
Choosing
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Now from (2.2) and , we see that
[TABLE]
So using -ellipticity, there is a such that the quadratic polynomial
[TABLE]
satisfies
[TABLE]
Using harmonic estimates again we see that
[TABLE]
Bringing in (2.11) we see
[TABLE]
Insisting on a choice of such that
[TABLE]
we conclude from (2.13) and (2.10)
[TABLE]
Again using harmonic estimates (2.12), we get the following estimate for :
[TABLE]
Next, by (2.2) for we have
[TABLE]
Now recall (2.5):
[TABLE]
We compute the value of .
Let be a multi-index such that . For any we observe the following:
[TABLE]
We do a change of variable to reduce the above expression to
[TABLE]
This shows that
[TABLE]
Let’s define
[TABLE]
so that
[TABLE]
Using uniform ellipticity, (2.19), and (2.22) we see that the following inequalities hold on :
[TABLE]
Using comparison principles [GT01, Theorem 17.1] and (2.8) we see that for all we have:
[TABLE]
On combining (2.23), (2.15) we see that
[TABLE]
The right hand side of (2.24) will be no greater than provided
[TABLE]
for some choice of and . While this could be optimized with some messy calculus, we scare up constants as follows. Choose
[TABLE]
so that
[TABLE]
and then we want
[TABLE]
so we choose
[TABLE]
where , and are defined in (2.7) and (2.22) respectively and defined by (2.9), From (2.14) and (2.26) we see that
[TABLE]
∎
We now make a proposition similar to the statement of Theorem 1.2, but with the operator close to the Laplacian. Throughout this proof the constants and will refer to the constants obtained in (2.16) and (2.9) respectively.
Proposition 2.4**.**
Given if the elliptic operator satisfies
[TABLE]
for all , then any viscosity solution of (1.2) will be in and satisfy the following estimate
[TABLE]
for
[TABLE]
where and are as stated in Lemma 2.1.
Proof.
We first prove that the estimate holds at the origin. As before, we denote .
We prove that there exists a polynomial of degree 2 such that
[TABLE]
where . In order to prove the existence of such a polynomial , we need the following claim.
Claim 2.5**.**
There exists a sequence of polynomials of degree 2 such that
[TABLE]
where and are as defined in Proposition 2.4.
We first prove the claim.
Proof.
: Let . Then (2.32) holds good for the case. We assume that (2.32) holds for and we prove it for
Consider
[TABLE]
for all . Define
[TABLE]
for all . Since we see that . Since
[TABLE]
we observe that
[TABLE]
Note that the operator satisfies the same properties as the operator :
[TABLE]
and also has the same ellipticity constants as . We apply Lemma 2.1 to the equation . This gives us the existence of a quadratic polynomial
[TABLE]
such that
[TABLE]
We conclude immediately from (2.36) that
[TABLE]
Next, we define
[TABLE]
From (2.34) we see that
[TABLE]
and on substituting the expression for into (2.35) we see that
[TABLE]
which reduces to
[TABLE]
This completes the inductive construction of the quadratic polynomial sequence. Hence the claim 2.5. ∎
Using the above claim, we return to proving Proposition 2.4.
We show that this sequence is convergent and is the required polynomial in (2.30).
From (2.38), (2.33) we see that
[TABLE]
Inequality (2.36) guarantees that the series is bounded by a convergent geometric series
[TABLE]
Hence the telescopic series converges uniformly on the unit ball and we define
[TABLE]
Note that as for all . The limit will be a quadratic polynomial as well.
For we have, using (2.39), (2.37)
[TABLE]
If we fix , we can choose an integer such that
[TABLE]
Then we have the estimate
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
This completes the proof of (2.30).
Next, consider any point in . Let where . Note that and hence makes sense on . Applying estimate (2.40) to for yields a polynomial such that
[TABLE]
holds on
The following Lemma has been used in passing in the literature [CC95, Remark 3, page 74]. We state it here for precision in the estimate. For the proof see Corollary 4.2 in Appendix 1.
Lemma 2.6**.**
Suppose for all there a second order polynomial such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
on Then
It follows from Lemma 2.6 that with bounds given by
[TABLE]
Combining (2.41) with (2.42) proves the estimate (2.29). ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.3.
:
We are assuming that is an operator on the space of symmetric matrices, and thus we can take a that is symmetric. Let
[TABLE]
which will be a positive symmetric matrix, by ellipticity. In particular
[TABLE]
We can find a positive square root of the inverse, namely
[TABLE]
Now define
[TABLE]
Observe
[TABLE]
But by (2.43),
[TABLE]
It follows that . Note that has ellipticity constants in .
Finally, note that if satisfies a closeness condition then
[TABLE]
Therefore, is almost linear with constant
Now we let
[TABLE]
for defined in Lemma 2.1. It follows that satisfies the criterion of 2.1 when satisfies the closeness condition. Now let
[TABLE]
Notice that
[TABLE]
so
[TABLE]
Now if is defined on , the new function will be defined on Rescaling
[TABLE]
we have a function defined on and can apply Proposition 2.4 to
[TABLE]
Meanwhile, provided that
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
We conclude that for the estimate holds. ∎
3. Proof of Theorem 1.4
To begin proving Theorem 1.4 we require the following version of [CC95, Lemma 7.9]:
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let be a viscosity solution of (1.1) in such that and . Assume that has interior estimates (with constant ). Then there exists a function such that satisfies (for a constant depending only on ) and
[TABLE]
Here is a positive constant depending on .
Note: We say that has interior estimates (with constant ) if for any there exists a solution of
[TABLE]
such that .
Proof.
The statement in [CC95, lemma 7.9] is given for elliptic operators that may depend also on The obvious approximation argument when there is no dependence on gives the proof of Lemma 3.1. ∎
Lemma 3.2**.**
There exists depending on and such that if is a viscosity solution of (1.1) in with almost linear with constant with
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
then there exists a polynomial of degree 2 such that
[TABLE]
for some constant depending only on .
Proof.
The proof follows from the following claim.
Claim 3.3**.**
Given and suppose that is a viscosity solution of (1.1) in for almost linear with constant , with satisfying (3.2) and satisfying
[TABLE]
Then there exists , and a sequence
[TABLE]
satisfying
[TABLE]
We first prove the claim.
Proof.
Let . Then for , we see that (3.6) holds trivially for any from (3.4). For determined by (3.8), we will show that whenever (3.6) holds for , then there exist so that (3.6) holds for
We choose small enough such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We define
[TABLE]
where . Thus
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
by (3.6). Now we choose small enough such that
[TABLE]
where is the volume of a unit ball in dimensions and is the constant appearing in the first inequality of (3.1) in Lemma 3.1.
We consider the equation (3.11). Observe that (3.2) implies
[TABLE]
Note that satisfies
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
so also satisfies the closeness condition (1.5) when does. Since , by applying Lemma 3.1 to (3.11) considering (3.14) we see that there exists such that
[TABLE]
and solves the following boundary value problem:
[TABLE]
Then from the definition of above, it follows that
[TABLE]
Now apply Theorem 1.3 to so see that
[TABLE]
from (3.17) and the maximum principle (cf. [CC95, Proposition 2.13]), and the last inequality follows from (3.12). Since is , there exists a polynomial given by
[TABLE]
such that
[TABLE]
From (3.16), (3.9) and (3.22) we have
[TABLE]
where the last two inequalities follow from (3.13) and (3.8).
Rescaling the bound (3.23) back via (3.10) we see that
[TABLE]
for all
We define
[TABLE]
and we have
[TABLE]
From (3.24) we see that
[TABLE]
which proves (3.6) for Now from (3.18) and (3.26) we get
[TABLE]
proving (3.5). Now evaluating (3.25) and its first and second derivates at yields
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
by (3.21), proving (3.7). This proves claim 3.3. ∎
Now we return to proving Lemma 3.2, which will follow by arguments similar to those used in the proof of Theorem 1.3 following (2.39). In particular, define
[TABLE]
which will have coefficients
[TABLE]
Note that by (3.7)
[TABLE]
We conclude that the tails of the constant, linear, and quadratic terms of the polynomial series converge uniformly with upper bounds given by
[TABLE]
respectively. Thus is well-defined. Next,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Clearly we have
[TABLE]
We see that (3.3) holds good for . This proves the lemma. ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.4.
Fix . We will first prove that the estimate (1.8) holds at the origin, in particular, we show that there exists a polynomial of degree 2 such that
[TABLE]
where , and is the Hölder exponent appearing in (1.6):
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
so that the function satisfies the following
[TABLE]
The proof now follows directly from Lemma 3.2, if we do the following rescaling for all : Consider the following function
[TABLE]
with as defined in (3.13). Note that
[TABLE]
and that
[TABLE]
Now we consider the operator
[TABLE]
defined for all .
Note that satisfies the following properties:
- (i)
has the same ellipticity constants and as . 2. (ii)
satisfies condition (1.5) with the same constant if does.
We see that satisfies the equation
[TABLE]
where for we compute
[TABLE]
recalling (3.28) in the last inequality.
Therefore, the equation
[TABLE]
satisfies all the conditions of Lemma 3.2 and hence the function satisfies the estimates (3.3). In particular, there exists such that
[TABLE]
that is, letting
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Next, consider any point in . The remainder of the proof follows verbatim from the argument following (2.41). ∎
4. Appendix 1:Pointwise Hölder implies Hölder
Lemma 4.1**.**
Suppose that
[TABLE]
satsifies the following condition for some fixed . For every there exists a linear function such that
[TABLE]
Then for all we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
We will assume by adding a linear function that
[TABLE]
First note that (4.1) implies that the derivative exists at any and
[TABLE]
thus
[TABLE]
That is
[TABLE]
Now consider any point with Let
[TABLE]
and let
[TABLE]
Now consider the point
[TABLE]
which satisfies
[TABLE]
So Letting in (4.1) and using (4.2) we conclude
[TABLE]
Plugging into (4.3) and using (4.5)
[TABLE]
But
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
So we have shown that
[TABLE]
that is
[TABLE]
∎
Corollary 4.2**.**
Suppose that
[TABLE]
satisfies the following condition for some fixed . For every there exists a quadratic function such that
[TABLE]
Then for
[TABLE]
Proof.
As before subtract off a quadratic function so that vanishes at secord order at Apply the previous Lemma with and conclude that for all
[TABLE]
that is
[TABLE]
So we apply the previous Lemma, with and conclude that
[TABLE]
∎
5. Appendix 2: Cordes-Nirenberg
In [Nir53, Lemma 3], Nirenberg proved the following result (slightly reworded).
Lemma 5.1**.**
Let be an -valued continuous function defined in a domain having continuous first derivatives satisfying
[TABLE]
and let .
Then there exists depending on , and such that
[TABLE]
With this integral estimate in hand, a univeral Hölder estimate on the functions and follows.
Now suppose that
[TABLE]
Note
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
In two dimensions, we have
[TABLE]
so
[TABLE]
In particular, (5.1) holds with constants
[TABLE]
Thus in two dimensions a estimate is available provided
[TABLE]
For higher dimensions, in [Nir54, Lemma 3], Nirenberg stated the following generalization
Theorem 5.2**.**
Let be an -valued continuous function defined in a domain having continuous first derivatives satisfying
[TABLE]
and in addition
[TABLE]
Then the functions are Hölder continuous on the interior domain.
The proof of Theorem 5.2 would follow from an integral estimate of the form Lemma 5.1. However a proof is not given, although it is stated [Nir54, Section 3] that the proof of Theorem 5.2 is “similar”to the proof of Lemma 5.1.
In any case, the result of Cordes in 1956 [Cor56, page 292] provides better constants: Cordes defines the -condition for a symmetric matrix with eigenvalues as:
[TABLE]
Cordes proves the following [Cor56, Satz 8, page 303] :
Theorem 5.3**.**
Suppose the coefficients satisfy a -condition. There exists an depending on such that the solutions to (5.2) satisfy an estimate of the form
[TABLE]
The proof involves pages of integrals. In 1961, [Cor61, Theorem 2], Cordes offered an outline for a refined argument, and summarized the results (in English).
The “Cordes condition” in the literature is often phrased as the following:
[TABLE]
Note that this is equivalent (for not equal to but depending on ) to the -condition defined by Cordes in [Cor56, page 292]:
[TABLE]
Cordes showed solutions to (5.2) will be for bounded. Talenti [Tal65] applied this condition to show that solutions to (5.2) exist in when
It is interesting to look at the linearized operator for nonlinear equations of the form (1.2), in particular when equation (1.2) is neither convex nor concave. If the linearized operator satisfies a -condition, then solutions will be with uniform estimates based on the norm.
In general, a regularity boosting with estimates for equations of the form (1.2) can follow by applying Cordes-Nirenberg type results, locally, to smooth solutions, even when the operator does not globally satisfy such a condition. For a given nonlinear equation one may differentiate (1.2). When the oscillation of the linearized operator depends continuously on the oscillation of there will be a such that if the oscillation of the Hessian is smaller than the oscillation of will be less than thus estimates apply. In particular, any modulus of continuity on the Hessian can be used to derive Hölder continuity: Essentially, the results in [CLW11] can be “quantized”. (Keep in mind that we may alway use a transformation like the one following (2.43), locally, so that the equation satisfies a -condition nearby). Bootstrapping, using Schauder theory on difference quotients, one can derive estimates of all orders. In particular, the full suite of estimates can be derived by knowing the Hessian is nearly continuous.
We record the following corollary which follows immediately from this discussion.
Corollary 5.4**.**
Suppose that is a entire quadratic solution to for Then there is an such that any solution with
[TABLE]
must also be quadratic.
Thus quadratic solutions are rigid with respect to the global norm.
Acknowledgments. The first author is grateful to Professor Yu Yuan for discussions.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[ASS] Scott N. Armstrong, Luis E. Silvestre, and Charles K. Smart, Partial regularity of solutions of fully nonlinear, uniformly elliptic equations , Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 65 , no. 8, 1169–1184.
- 2[Cal 58] Eugenio Calabi, Improper affine hyperspheres of convex type and a generalization of a theorem by K. Jörgens , Michigan Math. J. 5 (1958), 105–126. MR 0106487
- 3[CC 95] Luis A Caffarelli and Xavier Cabré, Fully nonlinear elliptic equations , vol. 43, American Mathematical Soc., 1995.
- 4[CC 03] Xavier Cabré and Luis A. Caffarelli, Interior C 2 , α superscript 𝐶 2 𝛼 C^{2,\alpha} regularity theory for a class of nonconvex fully nonlinear elliptic equations , J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 82 (2003), no. 5, 573–612. MR 1995493
- 5[CLW 11] Yi Cao, Dong Sheng Li, and Li He Wang, A priori estimates for classical solutions of fully nonlinear elliptic equations , Sci. China Math. 54 (2011), no. 3, 457–462. MR 2775423
- 6[Col 16] Tristan C. Collins, C 2 , α superscript 𝐶 2 𝛼 C^{2,\alpha} estimates for nonlinear elliptic equations of twisted type , Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 55 (2016), no. 1, Art. 6, 11. MR 3441283
- 7[Cor 56] Heinz Otto Cordes, Über die erste randwertaufgabe bei quasilinearen differentialgleichungen zweiter ordnung in mehr als zwei variablen , Mathematische Annalen 131 (1956), no. 3, 278–312.
- 8[Cor 61] H. O. Cordes, Zero order a priori estimates for solutions of elliptic differential equations , Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. IV, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1961, pp. 157–166. MR 0146511
