Obstacle problem and Obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian: Difference between pages

From nonlocal pde
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Luis
No edit summary
 
imported>Luis
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
The study of the obstacle problem originated in the context of elasticity as the equations that models the shape of an elastic membrane which is pushed by an obstacle from one side affecting its shape. The resulting equation for the function whose graph represents the shape of the membrane involves two distinctive regions. In the part of the domain where the membrane does not touch the obstacle, the function will satisfy an elliptic PDE. In the part of the domain where the function touches the obstacle, the function will be a supersolution of the elliptic PDE. Everywhere, the function in constrain to stay larger or equal than the value of the obstacle.
The obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian refers to the particular case of the [[obstacle problem]] when the elliptic operator $L$ is given by the [[fractional Laplacian]]: $L = -(-\Delta)^s$ for some $s \in (0,1)$. The equation reads
\begin{align}
u &\geq \varphi \qquad \text{everywhere}\\
(-\Delta)^s u &\geq 0 \qquad \text{everywhere}\\
(-\Delta)^s u &= 0 \qquad \text{wherever } u > \varphi.
\end{align}
 
The equation is derived from an [[optimal stopping problem]] when considering $\alpha$-stable Levy processes. It serves as the simplest model for other optimal stopping problems with purely jump processes and therefore its understanding is relevant for applications to [[financial mathematics]].


More precisely, there is an elliptic operator $L$ and a function $\varphi$ (the obstacle) so that
== Existence and uniqueness ==
The equation can be studied from either a variational or a non-variational point of view, and with or without boundary conditions.
 
As a variational inequality the equation emerges as the minimizer of the homoegeneous $\dot H^s$ norm from all functions $u$ such that $u \geq \varphi$. In the case when the domain is the full space $\mathbb R^d$, a decay at infinity $u(x) \to 0$ as $|x| \to \infty$ is usually assumed. Note that in low dimensions $\dot H^s$ is not embedded in $L^p$ for any $p<\infty$ and therefore the boundary condition at infinity cannot be assured. In low dimensions one can overcome this inconvenience by minimizing the full $H^s$ norm and therefore obtaining the equation with an extra term of zeroth order:
\begin{align}
\begin{align}
u &\geq \varphi \qquad \text{everywhere in the domain } D,\\
u &\geq \varphi \qquad \text{everywhere}\\
Lu &\leq 0 \qquad \text{everywhere in the domain } D,\\
(-\Delta)^s u + u &\geq 0 \qquad \text{everywhere}\\
Lu &= 0 \qquad \text{wherever } u > \varphi.
(-\Delta)^s u + u &= 0 \qquad \text{wherever } u > \varphi.
\end{align}
\end{align}
This extra zeroth order term does not affect any regularity consideration for the solution.
From a non variational point of view, the solution $u$ can be obtained as the smallest $s$-superharmonic function (i.e. $(-\Delta)^s u \geq 0$ such that $u \geq \varphi$. In low dimensions one cannot assure the boundary condition at infinity because of the impossibility of constructing barriers (this is related to the fact that the fundamental solutions $|x|^{-n+2s}$ fail to decay to zero at infinity if $2s \geq n$). This can be overcome with the addition of the zeroth order term or by the study of the problem in a bounded domain with Dirichlet boundary conditions in the complement.
== Regularity considerations ==
=== Regularity of the solution ===
Assuming that the obstacle $\varphi$ is smooth, the optimal regularity of the solution is $C^{1,s}$.
The regularity $C^{1,s}$ coincides with $C^{1,1}$ when $s=1$, which is the optimal regularity in the classical case of the Laplacian. However, adapting the ideas of the classical proof to the fractional case suggests that the optimal regularity should be only $C^{2s}$. The optimal regularity in the case $s<1$ is better than the order of the equation and cannot be justified by any simple scaling argument.
Below, we outline the steps leading to the optimal regularity with a sketch of the ideas used in the proofs.
==== Almost $C^{2s}$ regularity ====
This first step of the proof is the simplest and it is the only step which is an adaptation of the classical case $s=1$.


The operator $L$ can be a classical second order elliptic operator, an integro-differential one, and even a nonlinear one.
From the statement of the equation we have $(-\Delta)^s u \geq 0$.


The same equation can be derived from a [[stochastic control]] problem called [[optimal stopping problem]]. This is a model in [[financial mathematics]] used to value American options. This application made the obstacle problem very relevant in recent times in all its forms.  
Since the average of two $s$-superharmonic function is also $s$-superharmonic, one can see that for any $h \in \mathbb R^d$, the function $v(x):=(u(x+h)+u(x-h))/2 + C|h|^2$ is $s$ superharmonic and $v \geq \varphi$ if $C = ||D^2 \varphi||_{L^\infty}$. By the comparison principle $v \geq u$. This means that $u$ is semiconvex: $D^2 u \geq -C I$.


==Existence and uniqueness of solutions==
Interpolating the semiconvexity and $L^\infty$ boundedness of $u$, we obtain that $(-\Delta)^s u \leq C$ for some constant $C$.
The existence and uniqueness of solutions follows from appropriately understanding the equation. There are different approaches that are explained below.


===Variational inequality===
The boundedness of $(-\Delta)^s u$ does not imply that $u \in C^{2s}$ but it does imply that $u \in C^\alpha$ for all $\alpha < s$.
When the elliptic operator $L$ is the Euler-Lagrange equation of a functional $F: H^1 \to \mathbb R$, then we can identify the solution to the obstacle problem as the minimizer of the functional $F(u)$ among all functions $u$ in the set $\{u \in H^1(D) : u \geq \varphi \text{ in } D\}$. This is a minimization problem constrained to a convex set and thus it has a minimum provided $F$ is a weakly lower semicontinuous functional. If $F$ is a convex functional, then this minimizer is unique.


===Nonvariational techniques===
==== $C^{2s+\alpha}$ regularity, for some small $\alpha>0$ ====
For any elliptic equation $L$ that satisfies a comparison principle, the solution $u$ to the obstacle problem can be identified as the minimum supersolution of the equation which is above the obstacle $\varphi$.
Let $w(x) = (-\Delta)^s u(x)$. A key observation is that the function $w$ satisfies the equation
\begin{align}
(-\Delta)^{1-s} w = -\Delta \varphi \qquad \text{in } \{u=\varphi\}, \\
w = 0 \varphi \qquad \text{outside } \{u=\varphi\}.
\end{align}


==Optimal stopping problem==
This is a Dirichlet problem for the conjugate fractional Laplacian. However there are two difficulties. First of all we need to prove that $w$ is continuous on the boundary $\partial \{u=\varphi\}$. Second, this boundary can be highly irregular a priori so we cannot expect to obtain any H\"older continuity of $w$ from the Dirichlet problem alone.
This is an excerpt from the main article on the [[optimal stopping problem]].


Given a [[Levy process]] $X_t$ we consider the following problem. We want to find the optimal stopping time $\tau$ to maximize the expected value of $\varphi(X_{\tau})$ for some given (payoff) function $\varphi$.
From the semiconvexity of $u$ we have $-\Delta u \leq C$, and therefore we derive the extra condition $(-\Delta)^{1-s} w \leq C$ in the full space $\R^d$ (in particular across the boundary $\partial \{u=\varphi\}$). Moreover, we also know that $w \geq 0$ everywhere.


In this setting, the value of $\varphi(X_{\tau})$ depends on the initial point $x$ where the Levy process starts. We can call $u(x) = \mathbb E[\varphi(X_{\tau}) | X_0 = x]$. Under this choice, the function $u$ satisfies the obstacle problem with $L$ being the generator of the Levy process $X_t$.
The H\"older continuity of $w$ on the boundary $\partial \{u=\varphi\}$ is obtained from an [[iterative improvement of oscillation]] procedure. Since $w \geq 0$ and $(-\Delta)^{1-s} u \leq C$, for any $x_0$ on $\partial \{u=\varphi\}$ we can show that $\max_{B_r(x_0)} w$ decays provided that $\{u > \varphi\} \cap B_r$ is sufficiently "thick" using the [[weak Harnack inequality]]. We cannot rule out the case in which $\{u > \varphi\} \cap B_r$ has a very small measure. However, in the case that $\{u > \varphi\} \cap B_r$ is too small in measure, we can prove that $u$ separates very slowly from $\varphi$. This slow separation is used to prove that $w$ must also improve its oscillation and this step is particularly tricky <ref name="S"/>.


==Regularity considerations==
Once we know that $w(x) = (-\Delta)^s u(x)$ is $C^\alpha$, this implies that $u \in C^{2s+\alpha}$ by classical potential analysis theory.
===Regularity of the solutions===
For the classical obstacle problem where $L$ is just the Laplacian, the solutions are known to be $C^{1,1}$. This was originally proved by Frehse.  


The intuition behind the regularity result is that where $u = \varphi$ then $\Delta u = \Delta \varphi$ (strictly speaking, we can only claim this in the interior of the contact set $\{u=\varphi\}$). On the other hand, where $u > \varphi$ we have $\Delta u = 0$. Since the Laplacian jumps from $\Delta \varphi$ to $0$ across the free boundary, the second derivatives of $u$ must have a discontinuity and $C^{1,1}$ is the maximum regularity class than can be expected.  
==== $C^{1,s}$ regularity ====
If the contact set $\{u=\varphi\}$ is convex or at least has an exterior ball condition, a fairly simple barrier function can be constructed to show that $w$ must be $C^{1-s}$ on the boundary $\partial \{u=\varphi\}$. This is the generic boundary regularity for solutions of fractional Laplace equations in smooth domains.


Following the argument above it is not hard to conclude that $\Delta u \in L^\infty$ and $u \in C^{1,\alpha}$ for all $\alpha<1$. In order to obtain the sharp $C^{1,1}$ regularity, a slightly sharper estimate is needed using the [[Harnack inequality]] centered on a free boundary point of $u$.
Without assuming anything on the contact set $\{u=\varphi\}$, one can still obtain that $w \in C^\alpha$ for every $\alpha < 1-s$ though an iterative use of barrier functions <ref name="S"/>. The sharp $w \in C^{1-s}$ regularity in full generality was obtained rewriting the equation as a [[thin obstacle problem]] using the [[extension technique]] and then applying blowup techniques, the Almgren monotonicity formula and classification of global solutions <ref name="CSS"/>.


The case $L = -(-\Delta)^s$ corresponds to the [[obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian]]. In this case the reasoning above suggests that the solution is in the class $C^{2s}$. In fact, an adaptation of the ideas of the classical case can be used to prove the $C^{2s}$ regularity of solutions. However, the optimal regularity is $C^{1,s}$. This is a somewhat surprising result because the regularity exponent is higher than the order of the equation and there is no scaling argument suggesting this class.
=== Regularity of the free boundary ===
 
== The parabolic version ==


===Regularity of the free boundary===
In general one can prove that the free boundary is smooth (analytic in the case of the Laplacian) in a generic point. However, there can be some exceptional points where the free boundary forms a cusp singularity.


==Parabolic version==
The parabolic version of the obstacle problem is inspired in the [[optimal stopping problem]] with a deadline $T$. It corresponds to the American option pricing problem with expiration at time $T$. Because of the model, it makes sense to consider the obstacle $\varphi$ to coincide with the initial value of $u$. The precise equation is
\begin{align}
u(x,0) &= \varphi(x) \\
u(\cdot,t) &= \varphi \qquad \text{on the lateral boundary } \partial D \times [0,T],\\
u &\geq \varphi \qquad \text{everywhere in the domain } D \times [0,T],\\
u_t - Lu &\geq 0 \qquad \text{everywhere in the domain } D \times [0,T],\\
u_t - Lu &= 0 \qquad \text{wherever } u > \varphi.
\end{align}


The optimal stopping problem corresponds to this equation backwards in time.
== References ==
{{reflist|refs=
<ref name="S">{{Citation | last1=Silvestre | first1=Luis | title=Regularity of the obstacle problem for a fractional power of the Laplace operator | publisher=Wiley Online Library | year=2007 | journal=[[Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics]] | issn=0010-3640 | volume=60 | issue=1 | pages=67–112}}</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>
}}

Revision as of 13:19, 28 January 2012

The obstacle problem for the fractional Laplacian refers to the particular case of the obstacle problem when the elliptic operator $L$ is given by the fractional Laplacian: $L = -(-\Delta)^s$ for some $s \in (0,1)$. The equation reads \begin{align} u &\geq \varphi \qquad \text{everywhere}\\ (-\Delta)^s u &\geq 0 \qquad \text{everywhere}\\ (-\Delta)^s u &= 0 \qquad \text{wherever } u > \varphi. \end{align}

The equation is derived from an optimal stopping problem when considering $\alpha$-stable Levy processes. It serves as the simplest model for other optimal stopping problems with purely jump processes and therefore its understanding is relevant for applications to financial mathematics.

Existence and uniqueness

The equation can be studied from either a variational or a non-variational point of view, and with or without boundary conditions.

As a variational inequality the equation emerges as the minimizer of the homoegeneous $\dot H^s$ norm from all functions $u$ such that $u \geq \varphi$. In the case when the domain is the full space $\mathbb R^d$, a decay at infinity $u(x) \to 0$ as $|x| \to \infty$ is usually assumed. Note that in low dimensions $\dot H^s$ is not embedded in $L^p$ for any $p<\infty$ and therefore the boundary condition at infinity cannot be assured. In low dimensions one can overcome this inconvenience by minimizing the full $H^s$ norm and therefore obtaining the equation with an extra term of zeroth order: \begin{align} u &\geq \varphi \qquad \text{everywhere}\\ (-\Delta)^s u + u &\geq 0 \qquad \text{everywhere}\\ (-\Delta)^s u + u &= 0 \qquad \text{wherever } u > \varphi. \end{align} This extra zeroth order term does not affect any regularity consideration for the solution.

From a non variational point of view, the solution $u$ can be obtained as the smallest $s$-superharmonic function (i.e. $(-\Delta)^s u \geq 0$ such that $u \geq \varphi$. In low dimensions one cannot assure the boundary condition at infinity because of the impossibility of constructing barriers (this is related to the fact that the fundamental solutions $|x|^{-n+2s}$ fail to decay to zero at infinity if $2s \geq n$). This can be overcome with the addition of the zeroth order term or by the study of the problem in a bounded domain with Dirichlet boundary conditions in the complement.

Regularity considerations

Regularity of the solution

Assuming that the obstacle $\varphi$ is smooth, the optimal regularity of the solution is $C^{1,s}$.

The regularity $C^{1,s}$ coincides with $C^{1,1}$ when $s=1$, which is the optimal regularity in the classical case of the Laplacian. However, adapting the ideas of the classical proof to the fractional case suggests that the optimal regularity should be only $C^{2s}$. The optimal regularity in the case $s<1$ is better than the order of the equation and cannot be justified by any simple scaling argument.

Below, we outline the steps leading to the optimal regularity with a sketch of the ideas used in the proofs.

Almost $C^{2s}$ regularity

This first step of the proof is the simplest and it is the only step which is an adaptation of the classical case $s=1$.

From the statement of the equation we have $(-\Delta)^s u \geq 0$.

Since the average of two $s$-superharmonic function is also $s$-superharmonic, one can see that for any $h \in \mathbb R^d$, the function $v(x):=(u(x+h)+u(x-h))/2 + C|h|^2$ is $s$ superharmonic and $v \geq \varphi$ if $C = ||D^2 \varphi||_{L^\infty}$. By the comparison principle $v \geq u$. This means that $u$ is semiconvex: $D^2 u \geq -C I$.

Interpolating the semiconvexity and $L^\infty$ boundedness of $u$, we obtain that $(-\Delta)^s u \leq C$ for some constant $C$.

The boundedness of $(-\Delta)^s u$ does not imply that $u \in C^{2s}$ but it does imply that $u \in C^\alpha$ for all $\alpha < s$.

$C^{2s+\alpha}$ regularity, for some small $\alpha>0$

Let $w(x) = (-\Delta)^s u(x)$. A key observation is that the function $w$ satisfies the equation \begin{align} (-\Delta)^{1-s} w = -\Delta \varphi \qquad \text{in } \{u=\varphi\}, \\ w = 0 \varphi \qquad \text{outside } \{u=\varphi\}. \end{align}

This is a Dirichlet problem for the conjugate fractional Laplacian. However there are two difficulties. First of all we need to prove that $w$ is continuous on the boundary $\partial \{u=\varphi\}$. Second, this boundary can be highly irregular a priori so we cannot expect to obtain any H\"older continuity of $w$ from the Dirichlet problem alone.

From the semiconvexity of $u$ we have $-\Delta u \leq C$, and therefore we derive the extra condition $(-\Delta)^{1-s} w \leq C$ in the full space $\R^d$ (in particular across the boundary $\partial \{u=\varphi\}$). Moreover, we also know that $w \geq 0$ everywhere.

The H\"older continuity of $w$ on the boundary $\partial \{u=\varphi\}$ is obtained from an iterative improvement of oscillation procedure. Since $w \geq 0$ and $(-\Delta)^{1-s} u \leq C$, for any $x_0$ on $\partial \{u=\varphi\}$ we can show that $\max_{B_r(x_0)} w$ decays provided that $\{u > \varphi\} \cap B_r$ is sufficiently "thick" using the weak Harnack inequality. We cannot rule out the case in which $\{u > \varphi\} \cap B_r$ has a very small measure. However, in the case that $\{u > \varphi\} \cap B_r$ is too small in measure, we can prove that $u$ separates very slowly from $\varphi$. This slow separation is used to prove that $w$ must also improve its oscillation and this step is particularly tricky [1].

Once we know that $w(x) = (-\Delta)^s u(x)$ is $C^\alpha$, this implies that $u \in C^{2s+\alpha}$ by classical potential analysis theory.

$C^{1,s}$ regularity

If the contact set $\{u=\varphi\}$ is convex or at least has an exterior ball condition, a fairly simple barrier function can be constructed to show that $w$ must be $C^{1-s}$ on the boundary $\partial \{u=\varphi\}$. This is the generic boundary regularity for solutions of fractional Laplace equations in smooth domains.

Without assuming anything on the contact set $\{u=\varphi\}$, one can still obtain that $w \in C^\alpha$ for every $\alpha < 1-s$ though an iterative use of barrier functions [1]. The sharp $w \in C^{1-s}$ regularity in full generality was obtained rewriting the equation as a thin obstacle problem using the extension technique and then applying blowup techniques, the Almgren monotonicity formula and classification of global solutions [2].

Regularity of the free boundary

The parabolic version

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Silvestre, Luis (2007), "Regularity of the obstacle problem for a fractional power of the Laplace operator", Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics (Wiley Online Library) 60 (1): 67–112, ISSN 0010-3640 
  2. 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