Open problems and Conformally invariant operators: Difference between pages

From nonlocal pde
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Luis
m (Reverted edits by Luis (talk) to last revision by Adina)
 
imported>Tianling
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
== Well posedness of the supercritical [[surface quasi-geostrophic equation]] ==
On a general compact Riemannian manifold $M$ with metric $g$, a metrically defined operator $A$ is said to be conformally invariant if under the conformal change in the metric $g_w=e^{2w}g$, the pair of the corresponding operators $A_w$ and $A$ are related by
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?
\[
\begin{align*}
A_w(\varphi)=e^{-bw} A(e^{aw}\varphi)\quad\mbox{for all }\varphi \in C^{\infty}(M),
\theta(x,0) &= \theta_0(x) \\
\]
\theta_t + u \cdot \nabla \theta &= 0 \qquad \text{in } \R^2 \times (0,+\infty)
where $a, b$ are constant.
\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.
Examples of conformally invariant operators include:


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 conformal Laplacian:
\[
L_g=-\Delta_g + \frac{n-2}{4(n-1)}R_g,
\]
where $n$ is the dimension of the manifold, $-\Delta_g$ is the Laplace–Beltrami operator of $g$, and $R_g$ is the scalar curvature of $g$. This is a second order differential operator. One can check that in this case, $a=\frac{n-2}{2}$ and $b=\frac{n+2}{2}$.


== Regularity of [[nonlocal minimal surfaces]] ==
* The Paneitz operator <ref name="paneitz1983quartic"/> <ref name="paneitz2008quartic"/>:
\[
P=(-\Delta_g)^2-\mbox{div}_g (a_n R_g g+b_n Ric_g)d+\frac{n-4}{2}Q,
\]
where $\mbox{div}_g$ is the divergence operator, $d$ is the differential operator, $Ric_g$ is the Ricci tensor,
\[
Q=c_n|Ric_g|^2+d_nR_g^2-\frac{1}{2(n-2)}\Delta_gR
\]
and
\[
a_n=\frac{(n-2)^2+4}{2(n-1)(n-2)}, b_n=-\frac{4}{n-2}, c_n=-\frac{2}{(n-2)^2}, d_n=\frac{n^3-4n^2+16n-16}{8(n-1)^2(n-2)^2}.
\]
This is a fourth order operator with leading term $(-\Delta_g)^2$.


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.
* GJMS operators <ref name="GJMS"/>: this is a family of conformally invariant differential operators with leading term $(-\Delta_g)^k$ for all integers $k$ if $n$ is odd, and for $k\in \{1,2,\cdots,\frac{n}{2}\}$ if $n$ is even. A nonexistence result can be found in <ref name="gover2004conformally"/> for $k>\frac n2$ and $n\ge 4$ even. An explicit formula and a recursive formula each for GJMS operators and Q-curvatures have been found by Juhl <ref name="Juhl1"/><ref name="Juhl2"/> (see also Fefferman-Graham<ref name="FG13"/> ). The formula are more explicit when they are on the standard spheres.  


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
*Scattering operators <ref name="graham2003scattering"/>, or the conformally invariant fractional powers of the Laplacian <ref name="chang2011fractional"/>: This is a family of conformally invariant pseudo-differential operators $P_\sigma$ defined on the conformal infinity of asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds with leading term $(-\Delta_g)^\sigma$ for all real numbers $\sigma\in (0,\frac n2)$ except at most finite values. The authors <ref name="chang2011fractional"/> reconciled the way of defining $P_\sigma$ in <ref name="graham2003scattering"/> and the localization method of Caffarelli-Silvestre  <ref name="CSextension"/> for the fractional Laplacian $(-\Delta)^\sigma$ in the Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^n$.
# $A$ 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
\[ \int_C \int_{C} \frac{|\chi_A(x) - \chi_A(y)|}{|x-y|^{n+s}} \mathrm d x \mathrm d y + 2 \int_C \int_{\R^n \setminus C} \frac{|\chi_A(x) - \chi_A(y)|}{|x-y|^{n+s}} \mathrm d x \mathrm d y \leq \int_C \int_{C} \frac{|\chi_B(x) - \chi_B(y)|}{|x-y|^{n+s}} \mathrm d x \mathrm d y + 2\int_C \int_{\R^n \setminus C} \frac{|\chi_B(x) - \chi_B(y)|}{|x-y|^{n+s}} \mathrm d x \mathrm d y. \]


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


== An integral ABP estimate ==
Special cases:


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?
* On the Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^n$: the operators mentioned above are just the fractional Laplacians.


Assume $u_n \leq 0$ outside $B_1$ and for all $x \in B_1$,
* On the standard sphere $(\mathbb{S}^n, g_{\mathbb{S}^n})$ (which is the conformal infinity of the standar Poincare disk): they are the following intertwining operator <ref name="branson1987group"/> of explicit formula:
\[ \int_{\R^n} (u(x+y)-u(x)) K(x,y) \mathrm d y \geq \chi_{A_n}(x). \]
\[
Where $\chi_{A_n}$ stands for the characteristic function of the sets $A_n$. Assume that the kernels $K$ satisfy symmetry and a uniform ellipticity condition
P_\sigma=\frac{\Gamma(B+\frac{1}{2}+\sigma)}{\Gamma(B+\frac{1}{2}-\sigma)},\quad B=\sqrt{-\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{S}^n}}+\left(\frac{n-1}{2}\right)^2},
\begin{align*}
\]
K(x,y) &= K(x,-y) \\
where $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function and $\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{S}^n}}$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator on $(\mathbb{S}^n, g_{\mathbb{S}^n})$. Moreover, the operator $P_{\sigma}$
\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).
* is the pull back of $(-\Delta)^{\sigma}$ under stereographic projections,
\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"/>
* has the eigenfunctions of spherical harmonics, and


== A [[comparison principle]] for $x$-dependent nonlocal equations which are '''not''' in the Levy-Ito form ==
* is the inverse of a spherical Riesz potential.
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 ==
== References ==
 
{{reflist|refs=
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 $s>1$.
 
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 $C^{s+\alpha}$ [[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 $\alpha>0$?
<ref name="branson1987group">{{Citation | last1=Branson | first1= Thomas P | title=Group representations arising from Lorentz conformal geometry | journal=Journal of functional analysis | year=1987 | volume=74 | pages=199--291}}</ref>


== A nonlocal generalization of the parabolic [[Krylov-Safonov theorem]] ==
<ref name="CSextension">{{Citation | last1=Caffarelli | first1= Luis | last2=Silvestre | first2= Luis | title=An extension problem related to the fractional Laplacian | journal=Communications in Partial Differential Equations | year=2007 | volume=32 | pages=1245--1260}}</ref>


Let $u$ be a bounded function in $\R^n \times [-1,0]$ such that it solves an integro-differential parabolic equation
<ref name="chang2011fractional">{{Citation | last1=Chang | first1= Sun-Yung Alice | last2=González | first2= Maria del Mar | title=Fractional Laplacian in conformal geometry | journal=Advances in Mathematics | year=2011 | volume=226 | pages=1410--1432}}</ref>
\[ u_t - \int_{\R^n} (u(x+y)-u(x)) K(x,y) \mathrm d y = 0 \qquad \text{in } B_1 \times (-1,0).\]
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]] <ref name="S2"/>.
<ref name="FG13">{{Citation | last1=Fefferman | first1= Charles | last2=Graham | first2= C | title=Juhl’s formulae for GJMS operators and 𝑄-curvatures | journal=Journal of the American Mathematical Society|year=2013 | volume=26 | pages=1191--1207}}</ref>


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.
<ref name="gover2004conformally">{{Citation | last1=Gover | first1= A | last2=Hirachi | first2= Kengo | title=Conformally invariant powers of the Laplacian—a complete nonexistence theorem | journal=Journal of the American Mathematical Society |year=2004 |volume=17 | pages=389--405}}</ref>


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.
<ref name="GJMS">{{Citation | last1=Graham | first1= C Robin | last2=Jenne | first2= Ralph | last3=Mason | first3= Lionel J | last4=Sparling | first4= George AJ | title=Conformally invariant powers of the Laplacian, I: Existence | journal=Journal of the London Mathematical Society | year=1992 | volume=2 | pages=557--565}}</ref>


== Optimal regularity for the [[obstacle problem]] for a general integro-differential operator ==
<ref name="graham2003scattering">{{Citation | last1=Graham | first1= C Robin | last2=Zworski | first2= Maciej | title=Scattering matrix in conformal geometry | journal=Inventiones mathematicae | year=2003 | volume=152 | pages=89--118}}</ref>


Let $u$ be the solution to the [[obstacle problem for the fractional laplacian]],
<ref name="Juhl1">{{Citation | last1=Juhl | first1= Andreas | title=On the recursive structure of Branson’s Q-curvature | journal=arXiv preprint arXiv:1004.1784}}</ref>
\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
<ref name="Juhl2">{{Citation | last1=Juhl | first1= Andreas | title=Explicit formulas for GJMS-operators and Q-curvatures | journal=Geometric and Functional Analysis | year=2013|volume=23 | pages=1278--1370}}</ref>
\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.
<ref name="paneitz1983quartic">{{Citation | last1=Paneitz | first1= S | title=A quartic conformally covariant differential operator for arbitrary pseudo-Riemannian manifolds |year=1983 | journal=preprint}}</ref>


== Holder estimates for drift-diffusion equations (sharp assumptions for $b$ in the case $s>1/2$) ==
<ref name="paneitz2008quartic">{{Citation | last1=Paneitz | first1= S | title=A quartic conformally covariant differential operator for arbitrary pseudo-Riemannian manifolds (summary) | url=http://dx.doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2008.036 | doi:10.3842/SIGMA.2008.036 | year=2008 | journal=SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. | issue=4 | Paper=036}}</ref>


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 $b \in L^\infty(BMO)$ <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 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 $p$.
== 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 <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''?
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 ==
{{reflist|refs=
<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="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>
<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="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>
}}
}}

Revision as of 22:05, 23 September 2013

On a general compact Riemannian manifold $M$ with metric $g$, a metrically defined operator $A$ is said to be conformally invariant if under the conformal change in the metric $g_w=e^{2w}g$, the pair of the corresponding operators $A_w$ and $A$ are related by \[ A_w(\varphi)=e^{-bw} A(e^{aw}\varphi)\quad\mbox{for all }\varphi \in C^{\infty}(M), \] where $a, b$ are constant.

Examples of conformally invariant operators include:

  • The conformal Laplacian:

\[ L_g=-\Delta_g + \frac{n-2}{4(n-1)}R_g, \] where $n$ is the dimension of the manifold, $-\Delta_g$ is the Laplace–Beltrami operator of $g$, and $R_g$ is the scalar curvature of $g$. This is a second order differential operator. One can check that in this case, $a=\frac{n-2}{2}$ and $b=\frac{n+2}{2}$.

\[ P=(-\Delta_g)^2-\mbox{div}_g (a_n R_g g+b_n Ric_g)d+\frac{n-4}{2}Q, \] where $\mbox{div}_g$ is the divergence operator, $d$ is the differential operator, $Ric_g$ is the Ricci tensor, \[ Q=c_n|Ric_g|^2+d_nR_g^2-\frac{1}{2(n-2)}\Delta_gR \] and \[ a_n=\frac{(n-2)^2+4}{2(n-1)(n-2)}, b_n=-\frac{4}{n-2}, c_n=-\frac{2}{(n-2)^2}, d_n=\frac{n^3-4n^2+16n-16}{8(n-1)^2(n-2)^2}. \] This is a fourth order operator with leading term $(-\Delta_g)^2$.

  • GJMS operators [3]: this is a family of conformally invariant differential operators with leading term $(-\Delta_g)^k$ for all integers $k$ if $n$ is odd, and for $k\in \{1,2,\cdots,\frac{n}{2}\}$ if $n$ is even. A nonexistence result can be found in [4] for $k>\frac n2$ and $n\ge 4$ even. An explicit formula and a recursive formula each for GJMS operators and Q-curvatures have been found by Juhl [5][6] (see also Fefferman-Graham[7] ). The formula are more explicit when they are on the standard spheres.
  • Scattering operators [8], or the conformally invariant fractional powers of the Laplacian [9]: This is a family of conformally invariant pseudo-differential operators $P_\sigma$ defined on the conformal infinity of asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds with leading term $(-\Delta_g)^\sigma$ for all real numbers $\sigma\in (0,\frac n2)$ except at most finite values. The authors [9] reconciled the way of defining $P_\sigma$ in [8] and the localization method of Caffarelli-Silvestre [10] for the fractional Laplacian $(-\Delta)^\sigma$ in the Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^n$.


Special cases:

  • On the Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^n$: the operators mentioned above are just the fractional Laplacians.
  • On the standard sphere $(\mathbb{S}^n, g_{\mathbb{S}^n})$ (which is the conformal infinity of the standar Poincare disk): they are the following intertwining operator [11] of explicit formula:

\[ P_\sigma=\frac{\Gamma(B+\frac{1}{2}+\sigma)}{\Gamma(B+\frac{1}{2}-\sigma)},\quad B=\sqrt{-\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{S}^n}}+\left(\frac{n-1}{2}\right)^2}, \] where $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function and $\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{S}^n}}$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator on $(\mathbb{S}^n, g_{\mathbb{S}^n})$. Moreover, the operator $P_{\sigma}$

  • is the pull back of $(-\Delta)^{\sigma}$ under stereographic projections,
  • has the eigenfunctions of spherical harmonics, and
  • is the inverse of a spherical Riesz potential.


References

  1. ↑ Paneitz, S (1983), "A quartic conformally covariant differential operator for arbitrary pseudo-Riemannian manifolds", preprint 
  2. ↑ Paneitz, S (2008), "A quartic conformally covariant differential operator for arbitrary pseudo-Riemannian manifolds (summary)", SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. (4), http://dx.doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2008.036 
  3. ↑ Graham, C Robin; Jenne, Ralph; Mason, Lionel J; Sparling, George AJ (1992), "Conformally invariant powers of the Laplacian, I: Existence", Journal of the London Mathematical Society 2: 557--565 
  4. ↑ Gover, A; Hirachi, Kengo (2004), "Conformally invariant powers of the Laplacian—a complete nonexistence theorem", Journal of the American Mathematical Society 17: 389--405 
  5. ↑ Juhl, Andreas, "On the recursive structure of Branson’s Q-curvature", arXiv preprint arXiv:1004.1784 
  6. ↑ Juhl, Andreas (2013), "Explicit formulas for GJMS-operators and Q-curvatures", Geometric and Functional Analysis 23: 1278--1370 
  7. ↑ Fefferman, Charles; Graham, C (2013), "Juhl’s formulae for GJMS operators and 𝑄-curvatures", Journal of the American Mathematical Society 26: 1191--1207 
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Graham, C Robin; Zworski, Maciej (2003), "Scattering matrix in conformal geometry", Inventiones mathematicae 152: 89--118 
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Chang, Sun-Yung Alice; González, Maria del Mar (2011), "Fractional Laplacian in conformal geometry", Advances in Mathematics 226: 1410--1432 
  10. ↑ Caffarelli, Luis; Silvestre, Luis (2007), "An extension problem related to the fractional Laplacian", Communications in Partial Differential Equations 32: 1245--1260 
  11. ↑ Branson, Thomas P (1987), "Group representations arising from Lorentz conformal geometry", Journal of functional analysis 74: 199--291 
Retrieved from "https://web.ma.utexas.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Open_problems&oldid=1325"