Duality on gradient estimates and Wasserstein controls

Duality on gradient estimates and Wasserstein controls

Kazumasa Kuwada

(Ochanomizu University)

§ 1 Introduction

Coupling by parallel transport

& Bakry-´Emery’s gradient estimate X: complete Riemannian manifold

T_t = e^t∆: heat semigroup

Equivalent conditions [von Renesse & Sturm ’05]:

(i) ∀x, y ∈ X, ∃ coupled B.m. (B_t^x, B_t^y) starting from (x, y) s.t.

d(B_t^x, B_t^y) ≤ e^−Ktd(x, y) (ii) |∇T_tf |(x) ≤ e^−KtT_t(|∇f |)(x)

(iii) Ric ≥ K

Coupling by parallel transport

& Bakry-´Emery’s gradient estimate X: complete Riemannian manifold

T_t = e^t∆: heat semigroup

Equivalent conditions [von Renesse & Sturm ’05]:

(i) ∀x, y ∈ X, ∃ coupled B.m. (B_t^x, B_t^y) starting from (x, y) s.t.

d(B_t^x, B_t^y) ≤ e^−Ktd(x, y) (ii) |∇T_tf |(x) ≤ e^−KtT_t(|∇f |)(x)

(iii) Ric ≥ K

A hypoelliptic diffusion on the Heisenberg group

X = RRR³, BBB_t := (B_t¹, B_t², B_t³) from (x, y, z), B_t¹ := W_t¹, B_t² := W_t²,

B_t³ := z + 1 2

∫ t 0

W_s¹dW_s² − W_s²dW_s¹,

where (W_t¹, W_t²): 2-dim. BM starting from (x, y)

• Formally, “Ric” is unbounded from below

• ∃ B.-´E. est. [Driver & Melcher ’05, H.Q.Li ’06, Bakry, Baudoin Bonnefont & Chafa¨ı ’08]

Question

Does there exist a coupling

corresponding to the Bakry-´Emery estimate?

Answer

Yes, in a weak sense.

(by a general duality result below)

Question

Does there exist a coupling

corresponding to the Bakry-´Emery estimate?

Answer

Yes, in a weak sense.

(by a general duality result below)

§ 2 Framework and the main result

(X, d): Polish space

• (P (x, ·))_x∈X ⊂ P(X): Markov kernel P f(x) :=

∫

X

f (y) dP (x, dy), P ^∗µ(A) :=

∫

X

P (x, A)µ(dx)

(e.g. P (x, dy) = p_t(x, dy): heat semigroup)

• d˜: continuous distance functions on X (e.g. d˜ = e^−Ktd)

Π(µ, ν) :=



π

¯¯¯¯

¯¯ π(A × X) = µ(A), π(X × A) = ν(A)



 (couplings of µ, ν ∈ P(X))

L^p-Wasserstein distance For p ∈ [1, ∞],

d_p^W (µ, ν) := inf

π∈Π(µ,ν) kdk^Lp(π) ∈ [0, ∞] L^p-Wasserstein control

d_p^W (P ^∗µ, P ^∗ν) ≤ d˜_p^W (µ, ν) (C_p)

Gradient

|∇^df |(x) := lim sup

y→x

¯¯¯¯ f (x) − f (y) d(x, y)

¯¯¯¯ , k∇^df k_∞ := sup

x∈X |∇^df |(x) L^q-gradient estimate

|∇_d^˜P f|(x) ≤ P (|∇^df |^q)(x)^1/q (G_q) for ∀f ∈ C_b ∩ Lip_d when q ∈ [1, ∞),

k∇_d^˜P f k_∞ ≤ k∇^df k_∞ (G_∞) when q = ∞

For p, q ∈ [1, ∞] with 1

p + 1

q = 1, (i) (C_p) ⇒ (G_q)

(ii) Under Assumptions 1-4 below, (G_q) ⇒ (C_p) Theorem [K. ’10]

v: pos. Radon measure on X with supp(v) = X Assumption 1:

d: geodesic metric, (X, d): locally compact Assumption 2:

• local (uniform) volume doubling condition

• (1, ρ)-local Poincar´e inequality (∃ρ ≥ 1) Assumption 3:

d˜: geodesic metric Assumption 4:

P (x, ·) ¿ v, x 7→ dP (x, ·)

dv (y): conti.

Examples satisfying Assumptions 1-4 A canonical heat semigroup on:

• Complete Riemannian manifold with Ric ≥ K₀ (metric can depend on time, e.g. Ricci flow)

• Carnot groups (see below)

• Alexandrov spaces

Remarks (without Assumptions)

• For p⁰ > p,

(C_p⁰) ⇒ (C_p) and (G_q⁰) ⇒ (G_q)

• (C₁) ⇔ (G_∞) is well known

(via Kantorovich-Rubinstein formula)

• (C_∞) ⇒ (G₁) is essentially well known (Coupling method)

Most interesting part:

(G_q) ⇒ (C_p) for p ∈ (1, ∞]

Remarks (without Assumptions)

• For p⁰ > p,

(C_p⁰) ⇒ (C_p) and (G_q⁰) ⇒ (G_q)

• (C₁) ⇔ (G_∞) is well known

(via Kantorovich-Rubinstein formula)

• (C_∞) ⇒ (G₁) is essentially well known (Coupling method)

Most interesting part:

(G_q) ⇒ (C_p) for p ∈ (1, ∞]

§ 3 Sketch of the proof

Idea of the proof of (C_p) ⇒ (G_q) Recall:

d_p^W (P ^∗µ, P ^∗ν) ≤ d˜_p^W (µ, ν) (C_p)

|∇_d^˜P f |(x) ≤ P (|∇^df |^q)(x)^1/q (G_q) Take π: minimizer of d_p^W (P ^∗δ_x, P ^∗δ_y)

Remark: d˜_p^W (δ_x, δ_y) = ˜d(x, y)

⇒ ¯¯

¯¯¯

P f(x) − P f(y) d(x, y˜ )

¯¯¯¯

¯

= 1

d(x, y˜ )

¯¯¯¯∫

X×X

(f (z) − f (w))π(dzdw)¯¯

¯¯

(C_p) ≤

{ P

(

sup

d(·,w)≤r

¯¯¯¯ f (·) − f (w) d(·, w)

¯¯¯¯^q )

(x)

}1/q

+ o(1) for a suitable choice of r with lim

d(x,y)˜ →0

r = 0 ¥

Sketch of the proof of (G_q) ⇒ (C_p) Recall:

d_p^W (P ^∗µ, P ^∗ν) ≤ d˜_p^W (µ, ν) (C_p)

|∇_d^˜P f |(x) ≤ P (|∇^df |^q)(x)^1/q (G_q)

• (C_p) for ∀p < ∞ ⇒ (C_∞) ÃÃÃ We may assume p ∈ (1, ∞)

• (C_p) for µ = δ_x, ν = δ_y ⇒ (C_p) ÃÃÃ We show d_p^W (P ^∗δ_x, P ^∗δ_y)^p

p ≤ d(x, y˜ )^p p

Sketch of the proof of (G_q) ⇒ (C_p) Recall:

d_p^W (P ^∗µ, P ^∗ν) ≤ d˜_p^W (µ, ν) (C_p)

|∇_d^˜P f |(x) ≤ P (|∇^df |^q)(x)^1/q (G_q)

• (C_p) for ∀p < ∞ ⇒ (C_∞) ÃÃÃ We may assume p ∈ (1, ∞)

• (C_p) for µ = δ_x, ν = δ_y ⇒ (C_p) ÃÃÃ We show d_p^W (P ^∗δ_x, P ^∗δ_y)^p

p ≤ d(x, y˜ )^p p

Sketch of the proof of (G_q) ⇒ (C_p) Recall:

d_p^W (P ^∗µ, P ^∗ν) ≤ d˜_p^W (µ, ν) (C_p)

|∇_d^˜P f |(x) ≤ P (|∇^df |^q)(x)^1/q (G_q)

• (C_p) for ∀p < ∞ ⇒ (C_∞) ÃÃÃ We may assume p ∈ (1, ∞)

• (C_p) for µ = δ_x, ν = δ_y ⇒ (C_p) ÃÃÃ We show d_p^W (P ^∗δ_x, P ^∗δ_y)^p

p ≤ d(x, y˜ )^p p

Kantorovich duality d_p^W (µ, ν)^p

p = sup

f∈C_b∩Lip_d

[∫

X

Q₁f dµ −

∫

X

f dν ]

Q_tf (x) := inf

y∈X

[

f (y) + t p

( d(x, y) t

)^p ]















∀x, ∀y, g(x) − f (y) ≤ 1

p d(x, y)^p

⇒ 1

p kdk^p_L^p_(π) ≥

∫

X

g dµ −

∫

X

f dν







⇒ “≥”









Kantorovich duality d_p^W (µ, ν)^p

p = sup

f∈C_b∩Lip_d

[∫

X

Q₁f dµ −

∫

X

f dν ]

Q_tf (x) := inf

y∈X

[

f (y) + t p

( d(x, y) t

)^p ]















∀x, ∀y, g(x) − f (y) ≤ 1

p d(x, y)^p

⇒ 1

p kdk^p_L^p_(π) ≥

∫

X

g dµ −

∫

X

f dν







⇒ “≥”









Q_tf : Hamilton-Jacobi semigroup Under Assumptions 1 & 2,

• Q_·f (x): Lipschitz, Q_tf (·): d-Lipschitz

• Hamilton-Jacobi equation

∂_tQ_tf = − 1

q |∇^dQ_tf |^q v-a.e.



 [Lott & Villani ’07]

[Balogh, Engoulatov, Hunziker & Maasalo]





Assumption 3:









˜

γ : [0, 1] → X d˜-minimal geodesic,

˜

γ₀ = y, γ˜₁ = x,

d(˜˜ γ_s, γ˜_t) = |t − s|d(x, y˜ )

◦ ◦

d_p^W (P ^∗δ_x, P ^∗δ_y)^p

p = sup

f

[P Q₁f (x) − P f(y)]

interpolation = sup

f

[∫ 1 0

∂_t(P Q_tf (˜γ_t))dt ]

∂_t(P Q_tf (˜γ_t)) (

“=” P (∂_tQ_tf )(˜γ_t) + h∇P Q_tf (˜γ_t), γ˜˙_ti) HJ eq.

upp. grad. ≤ − 1

q P (|∇^dQ_tf |^q)(˜γ_t)

+ d(x, y˜ ) ¯¯∇_d^˜P Q_tf ¯¯ (˜γ_t) (G_q) ≤ d(x, y˜ )σ − 1

q σ^q ≤ d(x, y˜ )^p ( p

σ := P (|∇^dQ_tf |^q)(˜γ_t)^1/q

) ¥

§ 4 H¨ ormander-type operators

on a Lie group

3-dim. Heisenberg group X := RRR³, v: Lebesgue (x, y, z) · (x⁰, y⁰, z⁰)

:= (x + x⁰, y + y⁰, z + z⁰ + 1

2 (xy⁰ − yx⁰)) X₁ := ∂_x − y

2 ∂_z , X₂ := ∂_y + x

2 ∂_z A := 1

2

(X₁² + X₂²) ,

P := T_t = e^tA (t: fixed)

|Γf | := |X₁f |² + |X₂f |²: carr´e du champ L^q-gradient estimate

∃K_q > 1,

|ΓT_tf |(x) ≤ K_qT_t(|Γf |^q/2)(x)^2/q (G^∗_q)

◦ q > 1: [Driver & Melcher ’05]

◦ q = 1: [H.-Q. Li ’06],

[Bakry, Baudoin, Bonnefont & Chafa¨ı ’08]

Carnot-Caratheodory distance For V ∈ T_xX,

|V | :=





√

a²₁ + a²₂ if V = a₁X₁ + a₂X₂,

∞ otherwise.

d(x, y) := inf





∫ 1 0

|γ˙ _s|ds

¯¯¯¯

¯¯ γ₀ = x, γ₁ = y





(i) (X, d, v; P ) satisfies Assumptions 1-4 (ii) (G^∗_q) ⇒ (G_q)

Proposition

(G^∗_q) ⇒ (C_p) for p ∈ [1, ∞] Corollary

(C_∞): For each t > 0 and (BBB₀, BBB˜ ₀),

∃ a coupling (BBB_t, BBB˜ _t) of (B_t¹, B_t², B_t³) s.t.

d(BBB_t, BBB˜ _t) ≤ K₁d(BBB₀, BBB˜ ₀) PPP-a.s.

◦ ◦

Remark

∃C₁, C₂ > 0 s.t.

C₁kbbb⁻¹aaak ≤ d(aaa, bbb) ≤ C₂kbbb⁻¹aaak, where k(x, y, z)k = (

(x² + y²)² + z²)1/4

Extension of (G^∗_q)

• [Melcher ’08]:

X: general, q > 1 (K_q(t) ≡ K_q if X: nilp.)

• [Eldredge ’10]:

X: group of type H, q = 1, K_q(t) ≡ K_q

• [Baudoin & Bonnefont ’09]:

X = SU (2), q > 1, K_q(t) = K_qe^−t Proposition (and Corollary) is still valid

⇒ Our thm also implies (C_p) in these cases

Extension of (G^∗_q)

• [Melcher ’08]:

X: general, q > 1 (K_q(t) ≡ K_q if X: nilp.)

• [Eldredge ’10]:

X: group of type H, q = 1, K_q(t) ≡ K_q

• [Baudoin & Bonnefont ’09]:

X = SU (2), q > 1, K_q(t) = K_qe^−t Proposition (and Corollary) is still valid

⇒ Our thm also implies (C_p) in these cases