Fully nonlinear integro-differential equations and Open problems: Difference between pages

From nonlocal pde
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Luis
 
imported>Adina
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Fully nonlinear integro-differential equations are a nonlocal version of fully nonlinear elliptic equations of the form $F(D^2 u, Du, u, x)=0$. The main examples are the integro-differential [[Bellman equation]] from optimal control, and the [[Isaacs equation]] from stochastic games.
== Well posedness of the supercritical [[surface quasi-geostrophic equation]] ==
Let $\theta_0 : \R^2 \to \R$ be a smooth function either with compact support or periodic. Let $s \in (0,1/2)$. Is there a global classical solution $\theta :\R^2 \to \R$ for the SQG equation?
\begin{align*}
\theta(x,0) &= \theta_0(x) \\
\theta_t + u \cdot \nabla \theta &= 0 \qquad \text{in } \R^2 \times (0,+\infty)
\end{align*}
where $u = R^\perp \theta$ and $R$ stands for the Riesz transform.
 
This is a very difficult open problem. It is believed that a solution would be a major step towards the understanding of Navier-Stokes equation. In the supercritical regime $s\in (0,1/2)$, the effect if the drift term is larger than the diffusion in small scales. Therefore, it seems unlikely that a proof of well posedness could be achieved with the methods currently known and listed in this wiki.


Equations of this type commonly satisfy a [[comparison principle]] and have some [[Regularity results for fully nonlinear integro-differential equations|regularity results]].
Note that if the relation between $u$ and $\theta$ was changed by $u = R\theta$, then the equation is ill posed. This suggests that the divergence free nature of $u$ must play an important role, unlike the critical and subcritical cases $s \geq 1/2$.


The general definition of ellipticity provided below does not require a specific form of the equation. However, the main two applications are the two above.
== Regularity of [[nonlocal minimal surfaces]] ==


== Abstract definition <ref name="CS"/><ref name="CS2"/> ==
A nonlocal minimal surface that is sufficiently flat is known to be smooth <ref name="CRS"/>. The possibility of singularities in the general case reduces to the analysis of a possible existence of nonlocal minimal cones. The problem can be stated as follows.


A nonlocal operator is any rule that assigns a value to $Iu(x)$ whenever $u$ is a bounded function in $\mathbb R^n$ that is $C^2$ around the point $x$. The most basic requirement of ellipticity is that whenever $u-v$ achieves a global nonnegative maximum at the point $x$, then
For any $s \in (0,1)$, and any natural number $n$, is there any set $A \in \R^n$, other than a half space, such that
\[ Iu(x) \leq Iv(x).\]
# $A$ is a cone: $\lambda A = A$ for any $\lambda > 0$.
# If $B$ is any set in $\R^n$ which coincides with $A$ outside of a compact set $C$, then the following inequality holds
\[ \int_C \int_{C} \frac{|\chi_A(x) - \chi_A(y)|}{|x-y|^{n+s}} \mathrm d x \mathrm d y + 2 \int_C \int_{\R^n \setminus C} \frac{|\chi_A(x) - \chi_A(y)|}{|x-y|^{n+s}} \mathrm d x \mathrm d y \leq \int_C \int_{C} \frac{|\chi_B(x) - \chi_B(y)|}{|x-y|^{n+s}} \mathrm d x \mathrm d y + 2\int_C \int_{\R^n \setminus C} \frac{|\chi_B(x) - \chi_B(y)|}{|x-y|^{n+s}} \mathrm d x \mathrm d y. \]


We now proceed to define the concept of uniform ellipticity. Given the richness of variations of nonlocal equations, we provide a flexible definition of uniform elliticity depending an arbitrary family of linear operators.
When $s$ is sufficiently close to one, such set does not exist if $n < 8$.


Given a family of [[linear integro-differential operators]] $\mathcal{L}$, we define the [[extremal operators]] $M^+_\mathcal{L}$ and $M^-_\mathcal{L}$:
== An integral ABP estimate ==
 
The nonlocal version of the [[Alexadroff-Bakelman-Pucci estimate]] holds either for a right hand side in $L^\infty$ <ref name="CS"/> (in which the integral right hand side is approximated by a discrete sum) or under very restrictive assumptions on the kernels <ref name="GS"/>. Would the following result be true?
 
Assume $u_n \leq 0$ outside $B_1$ and for all $x \in B_1$,
\[ \int_{\R^n} (u(x+y)-u(x)) K(x,y) \mathrm d y \geq \chi_{A_n}(x). \]
Where $\chi_{A_n}$ stands for the characteristic function of the sets $A_n$. Assume that the kernels $K$ satisfy symmetry and a uniform ellipticity condition
\begin{align*}
\begin{align*}
M^+_\mathcal{L} u(x) &= \sup_{L \in \mathcal{L}} \, L u(x) \\
K(x,y) &= K(x,-y) \\
M^-_\mathcal{L} u(x) &= \inf_{L \in \mathcal{L}} \, L u(x)
\lambda |y|^{-n-s} \leq K(x,y) &\leq \Lambda |y|^{-n-s} \qquad \text{for some } 0<\lambda<\Lambda \text{ and } s \in (0,2).
\end{align*}
\end{align*}
If $|A_n|\to 0$ as $n \to +\infty$, is it true that $\sup u_n^+ \to 0$ as well?
This type of estimate is currently known only under strong structural hypothesis on the kernels $K$.<ref name="GS"/>
== A [[comparison principle]] for $x$-dependent nonlocal equations which are '''not''' in the Levy-Ito form ==
Consider two continuous functions $u$ and $v$ such that
\begin{align*}
u(x) &\leq v(x) \qquad \text{for all $x$ outside some set } \Omega,\\
F(x,\{I_\alpha u(x)\}) &\geq F(x,\{I_\alpha v(x)\})\qquad \text{for all $x \in \Omega$}.
\end{align*}
Is it true that $u \leq v$ in $\Omega$ as well?
It is natural to expect this result to hold if $F$ is continuous respect to $x$ and the [[linear integro-differential operators]] $I_\alpha$ satisfy some nondegeneracy condition and continuity respect to $x$, e.g.
\begin{align*}
I[u] = \int (u(x+z) - u(x) - Du(x)\cdot z 1_{B}(z))\mu_x(dz)
\end{align*}
where $(\mu_x)_x$ is a family of L\'evy measures, H\"older continous with respect to $x$?
Currently the comparison principle is only known if the kernels are continuous when written in the Levy-Ito form.<ref name="BI"/>
== A local [[differentiability estimates|$C^{1,\alpha}$ estimate]] for integro-differential equations with nonsmooth kernels ==
Assume that $u : \R^n \to \R$ is a bounded function satisfying a [[fully nonlinear integro-differential equation]] $Iu=0$ in $B_1$. Assume that $I$ is elliptic with respect to the family of kernels $K$ such that
\[ \frac{\lambda(2-s)}{|y|^{n+s}} \leq K(y) \leq \frac{\Lambda(2-s)}{|y|^{n+s}}. \]
Is it true that $u \in C^{1,\alpha}(B_1)$?
An extra symmetry assumptions on the kernels may or maynot be necessary. The difficulty here is the lack of any smoothness assumption on the tails of the kernels $K$. This assumption is used in a localization argument in the proof of the [[differentiability estimates|$C^{1,\alpha}$ estimates]] <ref name="CS"/>. It is conceivable that the assumption may not be necessary at least for $s>1$.


We define a nonlinear operator $I$ to be '''uniformly elliptic''' in a domain $\Omega$ with respect to the class $\mathcal{L}$ if it assigns a continuous function $Iu$ to every function $u \in L^\infty(\R^n) \cap C^2(\Omega)$, and moreover for any two such functions $u$ and $v$:
The need of the smoothness assumption for the $C^{1,\alpha}$ estimate is a subtle technical requirement. It is easy to overlook going through the proof naively.
\[M^-_\mathcal{L} [u-v](x)\leq Iu(x) - Iv(x) \leq M^+_\mathcal{L} [u-v] (x), \]
for any $x \in \Omega$.


A fully nonlinear elliptic equation is an equation of the form $Iu=0$ in $\Omega$, for some elliptic operator $I$.
Note that the assumption is used only to localize an iteration of the [[Holder estimates]]. An equation of the form $Iu = f$ in the whole space $\R^n$ with $f$ smooth enough would easily have $C^{1,\alpha}$ estimates without any smoothness restriction of the tails of the kernel.


{{note|text= If $\mathcal L$ consists of purely second order operators of the form $\mathrm{tr} \, A \cdot D^2 u$ with $\lambda I \leq A \leq \Lambda I$, then $M^+_{\mathcal L}$ and $M^-_{\mathcal L}$ denote the usual extremal Pucci operators. It is a ''folklore'' statement that then nonlinear operator $I$ elliptic respect to $\mathcal L$ in the sense described above must coincide with a fully nonlinear elliptic operator of the form $Iu = F(D^2u,x)$. However, this proof may have never been written anywhere.
It is not clear how important or difficult this problem is. The solution may end up being a relatively simple technical approximation technique or may require a fundamentally new idea.
}}


{{note|text=It is conceivable that any uniformly elliptic integro-differential equation coincides with some [[Isaacs equation]] for some family of linear operators $L_{ab}$, at least in the translation invariant case. This was proved in the case that the operator $I$ is Frechet differentiable <ref name="Guillen-Schwab"/>.
The same difficulty arises for $C^{s+\alpha}$ [[nonlocal Evans-Krylov theorem|estimates for convex equations]]. For example, is it true that a bounded function $u$ such that $M^+u = 0$ in $B_1$, where $M^+$ is the [[extremal operators|monster Pucci operator]] is $C^{s+\alpha}$ for some $\alpha>0$?
}}


== Another definition==
== A nonlocal generalization of the parabolic [[Krylov-Safonov theorem]] ==
Another definition which gives a more concrete structure to the equation has been suggested <ref name="BI"/>. It is not clear if both definitions are equivalent, but both include the most important examples and are amenable of approximately the same methods.


Given a family of [[linear integro-differential operators]] $L_\alpha$ indexed by a parameter $\alpha$ which ranges in an arbitrary set $A$, a fully nonlinear elliptic equation is an equation of the form
Let $u$ be a bounded function in $\R^n \times [-1,0]$ such that it solves an integro-differential parabolic equation
\[ F(D^2 u, Du, u, x, \{L_\alpha\}_\alpha) = 0 \qquad \text{in } \Omega.\]
\[ u_t - \int_{\R^n} (u(x+y)-u(x)) K(x,y) \mathrm d y = 0 \qquad \text{in } B_1 \times (-1,0).\]
Where the function $F(X,p,z,x,\{i_\alpha\}_\alpha)$ is monotone increasing with respect to $X$ and $\{i_\alpha\}$ and monotone decreasing with respect to $z$.
Making the usual symmetry and uniform ellipticity assumptions on the kernel $K$:
\begin{align*}
K(x,y) &= K(x,-y) \\
\frac{\lambda(2-s)}{ |y|^{n+s}} \leq K(x,y) &\leq \frac{\Lambda(2-s)}{ |y|^{n+s}} \qquad \text{for some } 0<\lambda<\Lambda \text{ and } s \in (0,2).
\end{align*}
Is it true that the solutions $u$ is Holder continuous in $B_{1/2} \times [-1/2,0]$, with an estimate
\[ ||u||_{C^\alpha(B_{1/2} \times [-1/2,0])} \leq C ||u||_{L^\infty(\R^n \times [-1,0])}, \]
for constants $C$ and $\alpha>0$ which do not blow up as $s \to 2$?


Note that the family of linear operators $\{L_\alpha\}$ can range in an arbitrarily large set $A$ (it could even be uncountable).
For an estimate with constants that blow up as $s \to 2$, one can easily adapt an argument for [[drift-diffusion equations]] <ref name="S2"/>.


{{note|text= In several articles <ref name="BI"/><ref name="BIC2"/><ref name="BIC"/>, fully nonlinear integro-differential equations of the form $F(D^2 u, Du, u, x, Lu)=f(x)$ are analyzed, where $L$ is one fixed [[linear integro-differential operator]]. This is a rigid structure for purely integro-differential equations because such equation (which would not depend on $D^2u$, $Du$ or $u$) would be forced to be linear: $Lu(x) = [F(x,\cdot)^{-1}f(x)]$.
The elliptic version of this result is well known <ref name="CS"/>. The proof is not easy to adapt to the parabolic case because the [[Alexadroff-Bakelman-Pucci estimate]] is quite different in the elliptic and parabolic case.


On the other hand, the results in these papers apply to the more general definitions of fully nonlinear integro-differential equations as well. The reason for the restriction to one single integro-differential operator instead of a family $\{L_\alpha\}_\alpha$ seems to be taken only for simplicity.
For gradient flows of Dirichlet forms, the problems appears open as well. However, it is conceivable that one could adapt the proof of the stationary case <ref name="K"/> to obtain the result without a major difficulty.
}}
 
== Optimal regularity for the [[obstacle problem]] for a general integro-differential operator ==
 
Let $u$ be the solution to the [[obstacle problem for the fractional laplacian]],
\begin{align*}
u &\geq \varphi \qquad \text{in } \R^n, \\
(-\Delta)^{s/2} u &\geq 0 \qquad \text{in } \R^n, \\
(-\Delta)^{s/2} u &= 0 \qquad \text{in } \{u>\varphi\}, \\
\end{align*}
where $\varphi$ is a smooth compactly supported function. It is known that $u \in C^{1,s/2}$ (where $s$ coincides with the order of the fractional Laplacian). This regularity is optimal in the sense that one can construct solutions that are not in $C^{1,s/2+\varepsilon}$ for any $\varepsilon>0$. One can consider the same problem replacing the fractional Laplacian by any other nonlocal operator. In fact, this problem corresponds to the [[optimal stopping problem]] in stochastic control, with applications to mathematical finance. The fractional Laplacian is just the particular case when the [[Levy  process]] involved is $\alpha$-stable. The optimal regularity for the general problem is currently an open problem. Even in the linear case with constant coefficients this is nontrivial. If $u$ is a solution of
\begin{align*}
u &\geq \varphi \qquad \text{in } \R^n, \\
L u &\leq 0 \qquad \text{in } \R^n, \\
L u &= 0 \qquad \text{in } \{u>\varphi\}, \\
\end{align*}
where $L$ is a [[linear integro-differential operator]], then what is the optimal regularity we can obtain for $u$?
 
The optimal regularity would naturally depend on some assumptions on the linear operator $L$. If $L$ is a purely integro-differential with a kernel $K$ satisfying the usual ellipticity conditions
\begin{align*}
K(y) &= K(-y) \\
\frac{\lambda(2-s)}{ |y|^{n+s}} \leq K(y) &\leq \frac{\Lambda(2-s)}{ |y|^{n+s}} \qquad \text{for some } 0<\lambda<\Lambda \text{ and } s \in (0,2),
\end{align*}
it is natural to expect the solution $u$ to be $C^s$, but this regularity is not optimal. Is the optimal regularity going to be $C^{1,s/2}$ as in the fractional Laplacian case? Most probably some extra assumption on the kernel will be needed.


== Examples ==
A solution to this problem would be very interesting if it provides an optimal regularity result for a natural family of kernels. If the assumption is something hard to check (like for example that there exists an extension problem whose Dirichlet to Neumann map is $L$), then the result may not be that interesting.


The two main examples are the following.
== Holder estimates for drift-diffusion equations (sharp assumptions for $b$ in the case $s>1/2$) ==


* The [[Bellman equation]] is the equality
Consider a [[drift-diffusion equation]] of the form
\[ \sup_{a \in \mathcal{A}} \, L_a u(x) = f(x), \]
\[ u_t + b \cdot \nabla u + (-\Delta)^s u = 0.\]
where $L_a$ is some family of linear integro-differential operators indexed by an arbitrary set $\mathcal{A}$.


The equation appears naturally in problems of stochastic control with [[Levy processes]].
The solution $u$ is known to become Holder continuous under a variety of assumptions on the vector field $b$. If we assume that $\mathrm{div}\, b = 0$, we may expect that the required assumptions are slightly more flexible. Indeed, if $s=1/2$, the solution $u$ becomes Holder for positive time if $b \in L^\infty(BMO)$ <ref name="CV"/>. On the other hand, if $s=1$, the solution $u$ becomes Holder continuous for positive time if $b \in L^\infty(BMO^{-1})$ (if $b$ is the sum of derivatives of $BMO$ functions) <ref name="FV"/> <ref name="SSSZ"/>. A natural conjecture would be that the same result applies for $s \in (1/2,1)$ if $b \in L^\infty(BMO^{2s-1})$ (meaning that $(-\Delta)^{1-2s} b \in L^\infty(BMO)$).


The equation is uniformly elliptic with respect to any class $\mathcal{L}$ that contains all the operators $L_a$.
The case $s < 1/2$ is completely understood and the assumption $\mathrm{div}\, b =0$ is not even necessary. For $s \in (1/2,1)$, only some perturbative results seem to be known under stronger assumptions. It is conceivable that the approach of Caffarelli and Vasseur <ref name="CV"/> can be worked out assuming that $b \in L^\infty(L^p)$ for a critical power $p$.


* The [[Isaacs equation]] is the equality
== Complete classification of free boundary points in the [[fractional obstacle problem]] ==
\[ \sup_{a \in \mathcal{A}} \ \inf_{b \in \mathcal{B}} \ L_{ab} u(x) = f(x), \]
where $L_{ab}$ is some family of linear integro-differential operators with two indices $a \in \mathcal A$ and $b \in \mathcal B$.


The equation appears naturally in zero sum stochastic games with [[Levy processes]].
Some free boundary points of the [[fractional obstacle problem]] are classified as regular and the free boundary is known to be smooth around them <ref name="CSS"/>. Other points on the free boundary are classified as singular, and they are shown to be contained in a lower dimensional differentiable surface, and therefore to be rare <ref name="GP"/>. However, there may be other points on the free boundary that do not fall under those two categories. Two questions need to be answered.\
# Can there be any point on the free boundary that is neither regular nor singular? It is easy to produce examples in the [[thin obstacle problem]], using the [[extension technique]]. However, it is not clear if such examples can be made in the original formulation of the [[fractional obstacle problem]] since because of the decay at infinity requirement.
# In case that point of a third category exist, is the free boundary smooth around these points in the ''third category''?


The equation is uniformly elliptic with respect to any class $\mathcal{L}$ that contains all the operators $L_{ab}$.
Other open problems concerning the [[fractional obstacle problem]] are
# Further regularity of the free boundary in smoother classes than $C^{1,\alpha}$.
# Regularity of the free boundary for the parabolic problem.


== References ==
== References ==
{{reflist|refs=
{{reflist|refs=
<ref name="CS2">{{Citation | last1=Caffarelli | first1=Luis | last2=Silvestre | first2=Luis | title=Regularity results for nonlocal equations by approximation | publisher=[[Springer-Verlag]] | location=Berlin, New York | journal=Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis | issn=0003-9527 | pages=1–30}}</ref>
<ref name="CS">{{Citation | last1=Caffarelli | first1=Luis | last2=Silvestre | first2=Luis | title=Regularity theory for fully nonlinear integro-differential equations | url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpa.20274 | doi=10.1002/cpa.20274 | year=2009 | journal=[[Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics]] | issn=0010-3640 | volume=62 | issue=5 | pages=597–638}}</ref>
<ref name="CS">{{Citation | last1=Caffarelli | first1=Luis | last2=Silvestre | first2=Luis | title=Regularity theory for fully nonlinear integro-differential equations | url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpa.20274 | doi=10.1002/cpa.20274 | year=2009 | journal=[[Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics]] | issn=0010-3640 | volume=62 | issue=5 | pages=597–638}}</ref>
<ref name="BIC">
<ref name="S2">{{Citation | last1=Silvestre | first1=Luis | title=Holder estimates for advection fractional-diffusion equations | year=To appear | journal=Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Scienze}}</ref>
{{Citation | last1=Barles | first1=Guy | last2=Chasseigne | first2=Emmanuel | last3=Imbert | first3=Cyril | title=Hölder continuity of solutions of second-order non-linear elliptic integro-differential equations | url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4171/JEMS/242 | doi=10.4171/JEMS/242 | year=2011 | journal=Journal of the European Mathematical Society (JEMS) | issn=1435-9855 | volume=13 | issue=1 | pages=1–26}}</ref>
<ref name="K">{{Citation | last1=Kassmann | first1=Moritz | title=A priori estimates for integro-differential operators with measurable kernels | url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00526-008-0173-6 | doi=10.1007/s00526-008-0173-6 | year=2009 | journal=Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations | issn=0944-2669 | volume=34 | issue=1 | pages=1–21}}</ref>
<ref name="BIC2">{{Citation | last1=Barles | first1=G. | last2=Chasseigne | first2=Emmanuel | last3=Imbert | first3=Cyril | title=On the Dirichlet problem for second-order elliptic integro-differential equations | url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1512/iumj.2008.57.3315 | doi=10.1512/iumj.2008.57.3315 | year=2008 | journal=Indiana University Mathematics Journal | issn=0022-2518 | volume=57 | issue=1 | pages=213–246}}</ref>
<ref name="CV">{{Citation | last1=Caffarelli | first1=Luis A. | last2=Vasseur | first2=Alexis | title=Drift diffusion equations with fractional diffusion and the quasi-geostrophic equation | url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4007/annals.2010.171.1903 | doi=10.4007/annals.2010.171.1903 | year=2010 | journal=[[Annals of Mathematics|Annals of Mathematics. Second Series]] | issn=0003-486X | volume=171 | issue=3 | pages=1903–1930}}</ref>
<ref name="SSSZ">{{Citation | last1=Seregin | first1=G. | last2=Silvestre | first2=Luis | last3=Sverak | first3=V. | last4=Zlatos | first4=A. | title=On divergence-free drifts | year=2010 | journal=Arxiv preprint arXiv:1010.6025}}</ref>
<ref name="FV">{{Citation | last1=Friedlander | first1=S. | last2=Vicol | first2=V. | title=Global well-posedness for an advection-diffusion equation arising in magneto-geostrophic dynamics | year=2011 | journal=Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincare (C) Non Linear Analysis}}</ref>
<ref name="CRS">{{Citation | last1=Caffarelli | first1=Luis A. | last2=Roquejoffre | first2=Jean Michel |last3= Savin | first3= Ovidiu | title= Nonlocal Minimal Surfaces | url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpa.20331/abstract | doi=10.1002/cpa.20331 | year=2010 | journal=[[Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics]] | issn=0003-486X | volume=63 | issue=9 | pages=1111–1144}}</ref>
<ref name="GS">{{Citation | last1=Guillen | first1=N. | last2=Schwab | first2=R. | title=Aleksandrov-Bakelman-Pucci Type Estimates For Integro-Differential Equations | year=2010 | journal=Arxiv preprint arXiv:1101.0279}}</ref>
<ref name="CSS">{{Citation | last1=Caffarelli | first1=Luis A. | last2=Salsa | first2=Sandro | last3=Silvestre | first3=Luis | title=Regularity estimates for the solution and the free boundary of the obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian | url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00222-007-0086-6 | doi=10.1007/s00222-007-0086-6 | year=2008 | journal=[[Inventiones Mathematicae]] | issn=0020-9910 | volume=171 | issue=2 | pages=425–461}}</ref>
<ref name="GP">{{Citation | last1=Petrosyan | first1=A. | last2=Garofalo | first2=N. | title=Some new monotonicity formulas and the singular set in the lower dimensional obstacle problem | publisher=[[Springer-Verlag]] | location=Berlin, New York | year=2009 | journal=[[Inventiones Mathematicae]] | issn=0020-9910 | volume=177 | issue=2 | pages=415–461}}</ref>
<ref name="GS">{{Citation | last1=Guillen | first1=N. | last2=Schwab | first2=R. | title=Aleksandrov-bakelman-pucci type estimates for integro-differential equations | year=2010 | journal=Arxiv preprint arXiv:1101.0279}}</ref>
<ref name="BI">{{Citation | last1=Barles | first1=Guy | last2=Imbert | first2=Cyril | title=Second-order elliptic integro-differential equations: viscosity solutions' theory revisited | url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2007.02.007 | doi=10.1016/j.anihpc.2007.02.007 | year=2008 | journal=Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincaré. Analyse Non Linéaire | issn=0294-1449 | volume=25 | issue=3 | pages=567–585}}</ref>
<ref name="BI">{{Citation | last1=Barles | first1=Guy | last2=Imbert | first2=Cyril | title=Second-order elliptic integro-differential equations: viscosity solutions' theory revisited | url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2007.02.007 | doi=10.1016/j.anihpc.2007.02.007 | year=2008 | journal=Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincaré. Analyse Non Linéaire | issn=0294-1449 | volume=25 | issue=3 | pages=567–585}}</ref>
<ref name="Guillen-Schwab">{{Citation | last1=Guillen | first1= Nestor | last2=Schwab | first2= Russell W | title=Neumann Homogenization via Integro-Differential Operators | journal=arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.1980}}</ref>
}}
}}

Revision as of 21:44, 23 February 2012

Well posedness of the supercritical surface quasi-geostrophic equation

Let $\theta_0 : \R^2 \to \R$ be a smooth function either with compact support or periodic. Let $s \in (0,1/2)$. Is there a global classical solution $\theta :\R^2 \to \R$ for the SQG equation? \begin{align*} \theta(x,0) &= \theta_0(x) \\ \theta_t + u \cdot \nabla \theta &= 0 \qquad \text{in } \R^2 \times (0,+\infty) \end{align*} where $u = R^\perp \theta$ and $R$ stands for the Riesz transform.

This is a very difficult open problem. It is believed that a solution would be a major step towards the understanding of Navier-Stokes equation. In the supercritical regime $s\in (0,1/2)$, the effect if the drift term is larger than the diffusion in small scales. Therefore, it seems unlikely that a proof of well posedness could be achieved with the methods currently known and listed in this wiki.

Note that if the relation between $u$ and $\theta$ was changed by $u = R\theta$, then the equation is ill posed. This suggests that the divergence free nature of $u$ must play an important role, unlike the critical and subcritical cases $s \geq 1/2$.

Regularity of nonlocal minimal surfaces

A nonlocal minimal surface that is sufficiently flat is known to be smooth [1]. The possibility of singularities in the general case reduces to the analysis of a possible existence of nonlocal minimal cones. The problem can be stated as follows.

For any $s \in (0,1)$, and any natural number $n$, is there any set $A \in \R^n$, other than a half space, such that

  1. $A$ is a cone: $\lambda A = A$ for any $\lambda > 0$.
  2. If $B$ is any set in $\R^n$ which coincides with $A$ outside of a compact set $C$, then the following inequality holds

\[ \int_C \int_{C} \frac{|\chi_A(x) - \chi_A(y)|}{|x-y|^{n+s}} \mathrm d x \mathrm d y + 2 \int_C \int_{\R^n \setminus C} \frac{|\chi_A(x) - \chi_A(y)|}{|x-y|^{n+s}} \mathrm d x \mathrm d y \leq \int_C \int_{C} \frac{|\chi_B(x) - \chi_B(y)|}{|x-y|^{n+s}} \mathrm d x \mathrm d y + 2\int_C \int_{\R^n \setminus C} \frac{|\chi_B(x) - \chi_B(y)|}{|x-y|^{n+s}} \mathrm d x \mathrm d y. \]

When $s$ is sufficiently close to one, such set does not exist if $n < 8$.

An integral ABP estimate

The nonlocal version of the Alexadroff-Bakelman-Pucci estimate holds either for a right hand side in $L^\infty$ [2] (in which the integral right hand side is approximated by a discrete sum) or under very restrictive assumptions on the kernels [3]. Would the following result be true?

Assume $u_n \leq 0$ outside $B_1$ and for all $x \in B_1$, \[ \int_{\R^n} (u(x+y)-u(x)) K(x,y) \mathrm d y \geq \chi_{A_n}(x). \] Where $\chi_{A_n}$ stands for the characteristic function of the sets $A_n$. Assume that the kernels $K$ satisfy symmetry and a uniform ellipticity condition \begin{align*} K(x,y) &= K(x,-y) \\ \lambda |y|^{-n-s} \leq K(x,y) &\leq \Lambda |y|^{-n-s} \qquad \text{for some } 0<\lambda<\Lambda \text{ and } s \in (0,2). \end{align*} If $|A_n|\to 0$ as $n \to +\infty$, is it true that $\sup u_n^+ \to 0$ as well?

This type of estimate is currently known only under strong structural hypothesis on the kernels $K$.[3]

A comparison principle for $x$-dependent nonlocal equations which are not in the Levy-Ito form

Consider two continuous functions $u$ and $v$ such that \begin{align*} u(x) &\leq v(x) \qquad \text{for all $x$ outside some set } \Omega,\\ F(x,\{I_\alpha u(x)\}) &\geq F(x,\{I_\alpha v(x)\})\qquad \text{for all $x \in \Omega$}. \end{align*} Is it true that $u \leq v$ in $\Omega$ as well?

It is natural to expect this result to hold if $F$ is continuous respect to $x$ and the linear integro-differential operators $I_\alpha$ satisfy some nondegeneracy condition and continuity respect to $x$, e.g. \begin{align*} I[u] = \int (u(x+z) - u(x) - Du(x)\cdot z 1_{B}(z))\mu_x(dz) \end{align*} where $(\mu_x)_x$ is a family of L\'evy measures, H\"older continous with respect to $x$?

Currently the comparison principle is only known if the kernels are continuous when written in the Levy-Ito form.[4]

A local $C^{1,\alpha}$ estimate for integro-differential equations with nonsmooth kernels

Assume that $u : \R^n \to \R$ is a bounded function satisfying a fully nonlinear integro-differential equation $Iu=0$ in $B_1$. Assume that $I$ is elliptic with respect to the family of kernels $K$ such that \[ \frac{\lambda(2-s)}{|y|^{n+s}} \leq K(y) \leq \frac{\Lambda(2-s)}{|y|^{n+s}}. \] Is it true that $u \in C^{1,\alpha}(B_1)$?

An extra symmetry assumptions on the kernels may or maynot be necessary. The difficulty here is the lack of any smoothness assumption on the tails of the kernels $K$. This assumption is used in a localization argument in the proof of the $C^{1,\alpha}$ estimates [2]. It is conceivable that the assumption may not be necessary at least for $s>1$.

The need of the smoothness assumption for the $C^{1,\alpha}$ estimate is a subtle technical requirement. It is easy to overlook going through the proof naively.

Note that the assumption is used only to localize an iteration of the Holder estimates. An equation of the form $Iu = f$ in the whole space $\R^n$ with $f$ smooth enough would easily have $C^{1,\alpha}$ estimates without any smoothness restriction of the tails of the kernel.

It is not clear how important or difficult this problem is. The solution may end up being a relatively simple technical approximation technique or may require a fundamentally new idea.

The same difficulty arises for $C^{s+\alpha}$ estimates for convex equations. For example, is it true that a bounded function $u$ such that $M^+u = 0$ in $B_1$, where $M^+$ is the monster Pucci operator is $C^{s+\alpha}$ for some $\alpha>0$?

A nonlocal generalization of the parabolic Krylov-Safonov theorem

Let $u$ be a bounded function in $\R^n \times [-1,0]$ such that it solves an integro-differential parabolic equation \[ u_t - \int_{\R^n} (u(x+y)-u(x)) K(x,y) \mathrm d y = 0 \qquad \text{in } B_1 \times (-1,0).\] Making the usual symmetry and uniform ellipticity assumptions on the kernel $K$: \begin{align*} K(x,y) &= K(x,-y) \\ \frac{\lambda(2-s)}{ |y|^{n+s}} \leq K(x,y) &\leq \frac{\Lambda(2-s)}{ |y|^{n+s}} \qquad \text{for some } 0<\lambda<\Lambda \text{ and } s \in (0,2). \end{align*} Is it true that the solutions $u$ is Holder continuous in $B_{1/2} \times [-1/2,0]$, with an estimate \[ ||u||_{C^\alpha(B_{1/2} \times [-1/2,0])} \leq C ||u||_{L^\infty(\R^n \times [-1,0])}, \] for constants $C$ and $\alpha>0$ which do not blow up as $s \to 2$?

For an estimate with constants that blow up as $s \to 2$, one can easily adapt an argument for drift-diffusion equations [5].

The elliptic version of this result is well known [2]. The proof is not easy to adapt to the parabolic case because the Alexadroff-Bakelman-Pucci estimate is quite different in the elliptic and parabolic case.

For gradient flows of Dirichlet forms, the problems appears open as well. However, it is conceivable that one could adapt the proof of the stationary case [6] to obtain the result without a major difficulty.

Optimal regularity for the obstacle problem for a general integro-differential operator

Let $u$ be the solution to the obstacle problem for the fractional laplacian, \begin{align*} u &\geq \varphi \qquad \text{in } \R^n, \\ (-\Delta)^{s/2} u &\geq 0 \qquad \text{in } \R^n, \\ (-\Delta)^{s/2} u &= 0 \qquad \text{in } \{u>\varphi\}, \\ \end{align*} where $\varphi$ is a smooth compactly supported function. It is known that $u \in C^{1,s/2}$ (where $s$ coincides with the order of the fractional Laplacian). This regularity is optimal in the sense that one can construct solutions that are not in $C^{1,s/2+\varepsilon}$ for any $\varepsilon>0$. One can consider the same problem replacing the fractional Laplacian by any other nonlocal operator. In fact, this problem corresponds to the optimal stopping problem in stochastic control, with applications to mathematical finance. The fractional Laplacian is just the particular case when the Levy process involved is $\alpha$-stable. The optimal regularity for the general problem is currently an open problem. Even in the linear case with constant coefficients this is nontrivial. If $u$ is a solution of \begin{align*} u &\geq \varphi \qquad \text{in } \R^n, \\ L u &\leq 0 \qquad \text{in } \R^n, \\ L u &= 0 \qquad \text{in } \{u>\varphi\}, \\ \end{align*} where $L$ is a linear integro-differential operator, then what is the optimal regularity we can obtain for $u$?

The optimal regularity would naturally depend on some assumptions on the linear operator $L$. If $L$ is a purely integro-differential with a kernel $K$ satisfying the usual ellipticity conditions \begin{align*} K(y) &= K(-y) \\ \frac{\lambda(2-s)}{ |y|^{n+s}} \leq K(y) &\leq \frac{\Lambda(2-s)}{ |y|^{n+s}} \qquad \text{for some } 0<\lambda<\Lambda \text{ and } s \in (0,2), \end{align*} it is natural to expect the solution $u$ to be $C^s$, but this regularity is not optimal. Is the optimal regularity going to be $C^{1,s/2}$ as in the fractional Laplacian case? Most probably some extra assumption on the kernel will be needed.

A solution to this problem would be very interesting if it provides an optimal regularity result for a natural family of kernels. If the assumption is something hard to check (like for example that there exists an extension problem whose Dirichlet to Neumann map is $L$), then the result may not be that interesting.

Holder estimates for drift-diffusion equations (sharp assumptions for $b$ in the case $s>1/2$)

Consider a drift-diffusion equation of the form \[ u_t + b \cdot \nabla u + (-\Delta)^s u = 0.\]

The solution $u$ is known to become Holder continuous under a variety of assumptions on the vector field $b$. If we assume that $\mathrm{div}\, b = 0$, we may expect that the required assumptions are slightly more flexible. Indeed, if $s=1/2$, the solution $u$ becomes Holder for positive time if $b \in L^\infty(BMO)$ [7]. On the other hand, if $s=1$, the solution $u$ becomes Holder continuous for positive time if $b \in L^\infty(BMO^{-1})$ (if $b$ is the sum of derivatives of $BMO$ functions) [8] [9]. A natural conjecture would be that the same result applies for $s \in (1/2,1)$ if $b \in L^\infty(BMO^{2s-1})$ (meaning that $(-\Delta)^{1-2s} b \in L^\infty(BMO)$).

The case $s < 1/2$ is completely understood and the assumption $\mathrm{div}\, b =0$ is not even necessary. For $s \in (1/2,1)$, only some perturbative results seem to be known under stronger assumptions. It is conceivable that the approach of Caffarelli and Vasseur [7] can be worked out assuming that $b \in L^\infty(L^p)$ for a critical power $p$.

Complete classification of free boundary points in the fractional obstacle problem

Some free boundary points of the fractional obstacle problem are classified as regular and the free boundary is known to be smooth around them [10]. Other points on the free boundary are classified as singular, and they are shown to be contained in a lower dimensional differentiable surface, and therefore to be rare [11]. However, there may be other points on the free boundary that do not fall under those two categories. Two questions need to be answered.\

  1. Can there be any point on the free boundary that is neither regular nor singular? It is easy to produce examples in the thin obstacle problem, using the extension technique. However, it is not clear if such examples can be made in the original formulation of the fractional obstacle problem since because of the decay at infinity requirement.
  2. In case that point of a third category exist, is the free boundary smooth around these points in the third category?

Other open problems concerning the fractional obstacle problem are

  1. Further regularity of the free boundary in smoother classes than $C^{1,\alpha}$.
  2. Regularity of the free boundary for the parabolic problem.

References

  1. Caffarelli, Luis A.; Roquejoffre, Jean Michel; Savin, Ovidiu (2010), "Nonlocal Minimal Surfaces", Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 63 (9): 1111–1144, doi:10.1002/cpa.20331, ISSN 0003-486X, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpa.20331/abstract 
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Caffarelli, Luis; Silvestre, Luis (2009), "Regularity theory for fully nonlinear integro-differential equations", Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 62 (5): 597–638, doi:10.1002/cpa.20274, ISSN 0010-3640, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpa.20274 
  3. 3.0 3.1 Guillen, N.; Schwab, R. (2010), "Aleksandrov-Bakelman-Pucci Type Estimates For Integro-Differential Equations", Arxiv preprint arXiv:1101.0279  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "GS" defined multiple times with different content
  4. Barles, Guy; Imbert, Cyril (2008), "Second-order elliptic integro-differential equations: viscosity solutions' theory revisited", Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincaré. Analyse Non Linéaire 25 (3): 567–585, doi:10.1016/j.anihpc.2007.02.007, ISSN 0294-1449, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2007.02.007 
  5. Silvestre, Luis (To appear), "Holder estimates for advection fractional-diffusion equations", Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Scienze 
  6. Kassmann, Moritz (2009), "A priori estimates for integro-differential operators with measurable kernels", Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations 34 (1): 1–21, doi:10.1007/s00526-008-0173-6, ISSN 0944-2669, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00526-008-0173-6 
  7. 7.0 7.1 Caffarelli, Luis A.; Vasseur, Alexis (2010), "Drift diffusion equations with fractional diffusion and the quasi-geostrophic equation", Annals of Mathematics. Second Series 171 (3): 1903–1930, doi:10.4007/annals.2010.171.1903, ISSN 0003-486X, http://dx.doi.org/10.4007/annals.2010.171.1903 
  8. Friedlander, S.; Vicol, V. (2011), "Global well-posedness for an advection-diffusion equation arising in magneto-geostrophic dynamics", Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincare (C) Non Linear Analysis 
  9. Seregin, G.; Silvestre, Luis; Sverak, V.; Zlatos, A. (2010), "On divergence-free drifts", Arxiv preprint arXiv:1010.6025 
  10. Caffarelli, Luis A.; Salsa, Sandro; Silvestre, Luis (2008), "Regularity estimates for the solution and the free boundary of the obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian", Inventiones Mathematicae 171 (2): 425–461, doi:10.1007/s00222-007-0086-6, ISSN 0020-9910, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00222-007-0086-6 
  11. Petrosyan, A.; Garofalo, N. (2009), "Some new monotonicity formulas and the singular set in the lower dimensional obstacle problem", Inventiones Mathematicae (Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag) 177 (2): 415–461, ISSN 0020-9910