Abstract
We study the asymptotic behaviour of the renormalised s-fractional Gaussian perimeter of a set E inside a domain \(\Omega \) as \(s\rightarrow 0^+\). Contrary to the Euclidean case, as the Gaussian measure is finite, the shape of the set at infinity does not matter, but, surprisingly, the limit set function is never additive.
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
In this paper we consider the fractional Gaussian perimeter
where \(\gamma \) is the standard Gaussian measure in \({\mathbb {R}}^N\) defined in (2.1) and the kernel \(K_s\) is the jumping kernel defined in (2.3) and study the asymptotics of \(sP^\gamma _s(E;\Omega )\) as \(s\rightarrow 0^+\). In this sense this is a parallel study of our previous paper [5], where the \(\Gamma \)-limit of \((1-s)P^\gamma _s(E;\Omega )\) as \(s\rightarrow 1^-\) is studied.
In the Euclidean setting the notion of s-fractional perimeter recovers the classical perimeter when \(s\rightarrow 1^-\) in various senses as proved in [1, 2, 4, 7, 12, 17]. On the other side when \(s\rightarrow 0^+\) one may wonder if there is convergence to some measure related to the Lebesgue one, and actually it holds true when considering the fractional perimeter of a set in the whole space (see [15]), but in a domain \(\Omega \) the limit of \(sP^\gamma _s(E;\Omega )\) does not always exist, and when it does, as a function of the set E it is not always a measure as proved in [9].
The main result of this paper consists in the computation of the limit
and the analysis of the set function \(\mu \). The Gaussian case is different from the Euclidean case treated in [9]. Indeed, the limit in (1.2) always exists under the only assumption that \(P^\gamma _{s_0}(E;\Omega )<\infty \) for some \(s_0\in (0,1)\) and it is not affected neither by the behaviour at infinity of the set E nor on the unboundedness and \(C^{1,\alpha }\) regularity of \(\Omega \). Nevertheless, in the limit cases \(E\subset \Omega \) or \(\Omega ={\mathbb {R}}^N\) we dot not recover at the limit the Gaussian measure of E, but rather \(2\gamma (E)\gamma (E^c)\), a result that is is coherent with the fact that, whenever it exists, \(\mu (E)=\mu (E^c)\). A related result in the Euclidean setting is the Maz’ya-Shaposhnikova approximation theorem proved in [15] in the framework of fractional Sobolev spaces \(W^{s,p}({\mathbb {R}}^N)\). We prove in Theorem 2 an analogous result in the Gaussian case, \(p=2\). Our result is intrinsecally different with respect to its Euclidean counterpart concerning both the methods and the result, since in the Gaussian case the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator has compact resolvent (hence we can use a series expansion) and the constants are eigenfunctions relative to the 0 eigenvalue.
We point out that, when \(\Omega ={\mathbb {R}}^N\), it is convenient to write the fractional Gaussian perimeter in terms of the \(H_\gamma ^{\frac{s}{2}}\)-seminorm introduced in Definition 2, namely
This allows to prove Theorem 1 in the case \(\Omega ={\mathbb {R}}^N\) as a straightforward consequence of Theorem 2. The approach via \(H_\gamma ^{\frac{s}{2}}\)-seminorms has been useful to study the isoperimetric in this context. For instance we mention [16], where authors introduce a notion of fractional Gaussian perimeter via extension techniques (see [18]) in the more general setting of Wiener spaces and then prove that halfspaces are the unique volume-constrained isoperimetric sets by means of cylindrical approximation and Ehrhard symmetrization, and also [6] for a quantitative version of the isoperimetric inequality for \(P^\gamma _s(\cdot ;{\mathbb {R}}^N)\) in finite dimension.
In the following, we denote by \({\mathcal {E}}\) the family of sets \(E\subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\) such that the limit in (1.2) exists which is defined as
We stress that, differently from [9], we do not need to complement \({\mathcal {E}}\) with a control of the behaviour at infinity of its elements. Let us state the main result of the present paper.
Theorem 1
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\) an open connected set with Lipschitz boundary. Then for any \(E\subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\) measurable set such that \(P^\gamma _{s_0}(E;\Omega )<\infty \) for some \(s_0\in (0,1)\) the limit (1.2) exists and it holds
In Sect. 2 we introduce the main tools and definitions. In Sect. 3 we firstly prove Theorem 1 by stating and proving the ancillary Propositions 1 and 2 and we show some properties of the limit set function \(\mu \). In the last Sect. 4 we prove that for the Gaussian fractional perimeter defined and used in [8] the asymptotics for \(s\rightarrow 0^+\) is trivial.
2 Notation and preliminary results
For \(N\in {\mathbb {N}}\) we denote by \(\gamma \) the Gaussian measure on \({\mathbb {R}}^N\)
where \({\mathscr {L}}^{N}\) is the Lebesgue measure. With a little abuse of notation we denote by \(\gamma \) both the measure and its density with respect to \({\mathscr {L}}^{N}\). Moreover, in the sequel we use the measure \(\lambda :=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{N/2}}e^{-\frac{|\cdot |^2}{4}}{\mathscr {L}}^{N}\).
In order to define the fractional perimeter, we introduce the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck semigroup, its generator \(\Delta _\gamma \), the fractional powers of the generator and the functional setting.
Definition 1
Let \(t>0\) and \(x\in {\mathbb {R}}^N\). For \(u\in L^1_\gamma ({\mathbb {R}}^N)\) we define the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck semigroup as
where \(M_t(x,y)\) denotes the Mehler kernel
which satisfies
for any \(t>0\) and any \(x\in {\mathbb {R}}^N\).
The generator of \(e^{t\Delta _\gamma }\) acts on sufficiently smooth functions as
and is called Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator; see e.g. [13] and the references therein for the main properties of \(e^{t\Delta _\gamma }\) and \(\Delta _\gamma \).
Since \(-\Delta _\gamma \) is a positive definite and selfadjoint operator which generates a \(C_0\)-semigroup of contractions in \(L^2_\gamma ({\mathbb {R}}^N)\), we can define its fractional powers by means of spectral decomposition via the Bochner subordination formula. In particular, for \(s\in (0,1)\) and \(x\in {\mathbb {R}}^N\) the fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator is defined as
where for \(\sigma >0\) we have set
and the right-hand side in (2.2) has to be intended in the Cauchy principal value sense. Notice that the integrability of the function
near zero, for any \(x,y\in {\mathbb {R}}^N\), \(x\ne y\), is ensured by the fact that
where, for \(r\ge 0\), \(H_t\) is the Gauss-Weierstrass kernel \(H_t(r):=\frac{e^{-\frac{r^2}{4t}}}{(4\pi t)^{N/2}}\).
Definition 2
Let \(s\in (0,1)\) and \(1\le p<\infty \). We define the fractional Gaussian Sobolev space \(W^{s,p}_\gamma ({\mathbb {R}}^N)\) as
where
and \(K_{sp}\) is defined in (2.3) with \(\sigma =sp\). When \(p=2\), as usual we use the notation \(H^s_\gamma ({\mathbb {R}}^N)\) instead of \(W^{s,2}_\gamma ({\mathbb {R}}^N)\).
For the sake of completeness we recall that the Gaussian perimeter of a measurable set E in a Lipschitz open connected set \(\Omega \) is defined by
Now, we make more precise the definition of Gaussian fractional perimeter (1.1) given in Sect. 1.
Definition 3
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\) be a connected open set with Lipschitz boundary, and \(E\subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\) a measurable set. We define the Gaussian s-perimeter of E in \(\Omega \) as
where the local part is
and the nonlocal part is
Using the symmetry of the kernel \(K_s\) we immediately notice that \(P^\gamma _s(E^c;\Omega )=P^\gamma _s(E;\Omega )\) for any measurable set E. If \(\Omega ={\mathbb {R}}^N\) we simply write \(P^\gamma _s(E)\) instead of \(P^\gamma _s(E;{\mathbb {R}}^N)\). We notice that if \(E\subset \Omega \) or \(E^c\subset \Omega \) we have that \(P^\gamma _s(E;\Omega )=P^\gamma _s(E)\).
In the sequel, for A, B measurable and disjoint sets, we denote with \(L^\gamma _s(A,B)\) the (s-Gaussian) interaction functional
Using this notation we have
It is useful the following integration by parts formula proved for instance in [5]
The kernel \(K_s\) satisfies the following estimates (see [5, Lemmas 2.8, 2.9]).
Lemma 1
For any \(x,y\in {\mathbb {R}}^N\) and for any \(s\in (0,1)\) we have
where \(C_{N,s}:=2^{s+\frac{N}{2}}\Gamma \left( \frac{s+N}{2}\right) \), and
where, for any \(r\ge 0\), \({\tilde{K}}_s\) denotes the decreasing kernel
3 Main Results
We begin this section by proving the analogue of [15, Theorem 3] in the case \(p=2\) in the Gaussian setting. Notice that our proof exploits the Hilbert structure of \(H^s_\gamma ({\mathbb {R}}^N)\) and the compactness of the resolvent of \(\Delta _\gamma \). For \(p\ne 2\) the proof is more delicate and requires explicit estimates on the kernel joint with a Hardy-type inequality (see [11, Subsection 2.1]).
Theorem 2
(Maz’ya-Shaposhnikova approximation in \(H^s_\gamma ({\mathbb {R}}^N)\)) Let \(s_0\in (0,1)\) and \(u\in H^{s_0}_\gamma ({\mathbb {R}}^N)\). Then it holds that
Proof
Let us notice that since \(u\in L^2_\gamma ({\mathbb {R}}^N)\), we can write it in terms of the orthonormal basis \({\mathcal {B}}\) of eigenfunctions of \((-\Delta _\gamma )^s\) given by Hermite polynomials (see for instance [10]), i.e. \({\mathcal {B}}=\{H_n\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}_0}\), with \(H_0\equiv 1\) on \({\mathbb {R}}^N\). We recall that on the whole of \({\mathbb {R}}^N\) the spectral fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator coincides with the integro-differential operator in (2.2), and so, by the spectral mapping Theorem, see e.g. [14, Theorem 5.3.1], the latter has discrete spectrum given by \(\sigma ((-\Delta _\gamma )^s)=\sigma ((-\Delta _\gamma ))^s=\{n^s\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}_0}.\) With these ideas in mind we have that
We use the integration by parts formula (2.7)
where the right-hand side in (3.1) is finite for any \(s\in (0,s_0)\) thanks to the assumption \(u \in H^{s_0}_\gamma ({\mathbb {R}}^N)\). Passing to the limit for \(s\rightarrow 0^+\) in (3.1) we have
concluding the proof. \(\square \)
Remark 1
We point out that Theorem 2 is sufficient to prove Theorem 1 when \(\Omega ={\mathbb {R}}^N\). Indeed, by choosing \(u=\chi _E\), where E is a measurable set with \(P^\gamma _{s_0}(E)<\infty \) for some \(s_0\in (0,1)\), we get
The remaining part of this section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1 in the general case.
Proposition 1
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\) be an open connected set with Lipschitz boundary and let \(E\subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\) be measurable. If \(P^\gamma _{s_0}(E;\Omega )<\infty \) for some \(s_0\in (0,1)\), then
Proof
We split
For the first term we have
for any \(x,y\in {\mathbb {R}}^N\) and \(s\le s_0\). To handle the second term, we write
and estimate
for any \(t>0\) and \(x,y\in {\mathbb {R}}^N\). Now, we split again
Using (3.4), we have
and
By using (3.3), (3.5) and (3.6), for any \(s\in (0,s_0)\) we obtain
where for A, B measurable and disjoint sets and for \(0\le h\in L^1(A\times B)\) we have used the notation
with \(f(x,y):=\exp \left( -\frac{|x|^2+|y|^2}{2}\frac{1}{1+e^{-1}}\right) \) and \(g_s(x,y):=\exp \left( -\frac{|x|^2+|y|^2}{2}\frac{1}{1+e^{-\frac{1}{s}}}\right) \). To conclude, passing to the \(\limsup \) as \(s\rightarrow 0^+\) in (3.7) it is easily seen that the first four terms in the right hand-side in (3.7) vanish, and, using the dominated convergence Theorem, the last three ones approach exactly the right-hand side in (3.2). \(\square \)
To complete the asymptotic estimate, we need an estimate from below for the liminf.
Proposition 2
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\) be an open connected set with Lipschitz boundary. Then for any measurable set \(E\subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\) it holds
Proof
Let \(\delta >0\) and let \(R>0\) be such that
For any \(x,y\in B_R(0)\) it holds
where \(\phi _t\) is as in (3.4) and we used that \(|x-y|^2\le 4R^2\). Since
and the map
is increasing in \((0,+\infty )\) and by (3.10) we get, for any \(x,y\in B_R(0)\),
We can now estimate from below \(sP^\gamma _s(E;\Omega )\)
By letting \(s\rightarrow 0^+\) we obtain
thus we get (3.8) in view of the arbitrariness of \(\delta >0\). \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 1
It is an immediate consequence of Proposition 1 and Proposition 2.
In the proof of Theorem 1, the hypothesis \(P^\gamma _{s_0}(E;\Omega )<+\infty \) for some \(s_0\in (0,1)\) is crucial (it is required to prove Proposition 1). Adapting [9, Example 2.10], we show that there are measurable sets that do not satisfy that requirement.
Example 1
(A measurable set with \(P^{\gamma }_{s}(E;\Omega )=+\infty \) for any \(s\in (0,1)\)) Let us consider a decreasing sequence \((\beta _k)_k\subset {\mathbb {R}}\) with \(\beta _k>0\) for any \(k\in {\mathbb {N}}\) such that
but
for every \(s\in (0,1)\) (in [9, Example 2.10] the authors suggest the possible choice \(\beta _1=\frac{1}{\log ^2 2}\) and \(\beta _k=\frac{1}{k\log ^2 k}\) for any \(k\ge 2\)). Let us define
We claim that \(P^\gamma _{s}(E;\Omega )=+\infty \) for any \(s\in (0,1)\). By recalling that \(E\subset \Omega \) it holds
where in the first inequality we used (2.8), while in the second inequality we used that \(C_{1,s}\ge 1\), the boundedness from below of the Gaussian weights in \((\sigma _{2j},\sigma _{2j+1})\times (\sigma _{2j+1},\sigma _{2j+2})\) for any \(j\ge 1\) and that for \(a<b\le c<d\)
Since the map \(t\mapsto (1+t)^{1-s}\) is concave in [0, 1), it holds
By the choice \(t=\frac{\beta _{2j+2}}{\beta _{2j+1}}\) we get
and so,
concluding the proof of the claim.
Now we state some properties of the set function \(\mu \).
Proposition 3
\(\mu \) is subadditive on \({\mathcal {E}}\), i.e. \(\mu (E\cup F)\le \mu (E)+\mu (F)\) for any \(E, F\in {\mathcal {E}}\); \(\mu \) is not monotone with respect to inclusions.
Proof
To show the subadditivity, we proceed as in the proof of [9, Proposition 2.1]; to show the lack of monotonicity, it is sufficient to choose as E a small ball contained in \(\Omega \) or a halfspace such that \({\mathcal {H}}^{N-1}(\partial E\cap \Omega )>0\) and \(F={\mathbb {R}}^N\). \(\square \)
Notice that \(\mu \) is not additive. Indeed, if \(\Omega ={\mathbb {R}}^N\), then, for any pair of measurable disjoint sets \(A,B\subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\)
Otherwise, if \(\Omega \ne {\mathbb {R}}^N\), we proceed as in the proof [9, Proposition 2.3] by using the following result.
Lemma 2
For any A, \(B\subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\) measurable disjoint sets there exists \(C=C(A,B)>0\) such that
for any \(s\in (0,1)\).
Proof
We firstly assume that A, B are bounded and fix \(R>0\) sufficiently large such that \(A,B\subset B_R\). We have
If A, B are unbounded we simply have
for any \(s\in (0,1)\) and \(R>0\). \(\square \)
Remark 2
We notice that, even if we add in Lemma 2 the hypothesis of strictly positive distance between A and B, the result is left unchanged.
4 Final remarks
We conclude by studying the asymptotics for \(s\rightarrow 0^+\) even for the fractional perimeter defined in [8]
We recall that the functional (4.1) is linked to (1.1) by the fact that they have the same \(\Gamma \)-limit by multiplying by \(1-s\) and letting \(s\rightarrow 1^-\) ( [5, Main Theorem]); this depends on the fact that \(K_s(x,y)\gamma (x)\gamma (y)\) and \(\frac{\lambda (x)\lambda (y)}{|x-y|^{N+s}}\) approach the Dirac delta in the same way, up to a multiplicative constant, when \(|x-y|\rightarrow 0\). Nevertheless, definition (4.1) is somehow unnatural, because it is not linked to functional calculus as (1.1). Therefore, we can say that (1.1) is the fractional counterpart of the Gaussian perimeter (2.5), and we can refer to it as “Fractional Gaussian perimeter”, while (4.1) is a weighted version of the fractional perimeter defined in [3], and we can refer to it as “Gaussian fractional perimeter”. As already said in Sect. 1 for the Gaussian fractional perimeter the asymptotics for \(s\rightarrow 0^+\) is not meaningful. Indeed the following proposition holds.
Proposition 4
For any measurable set E such that \({\mathcal {J}}^\lambda _{s_0}(E;\Omega )<\infty \) for some \(s_0\in (0,1)\) we have
Proof
Let A, B be measurable and disjoint sets such that \(L^\lambda _{s_0}(A,B)<\infty \) for some \(s_0\in (0,1)\), where
Then, for any \(s\in (0,s_0)\) we have
Therefore
By applying (4.3) to the couples of sets \((E\cap \Omega ,E^c\cap \Omega )\), \((E\cap \Omega ,E^c\cap \Omega ^c)\), \((E\cap \Omega ^c,E^c\cap \Omega )\), we completely prove the claim. \(\square \)
Remark 3
We notice that even in this case we cannot drop the condition \({\mathcal {J}}^\lambda _{s_0}(E;\Omega )<\infty \) for some \(s_0\in (0,1)\). Indeed [9, Example 2.10] still works with
for any \(s\in (0,1)\).
References
Ambrosio, L., De Philippis, G., Martinazzi, L.: Gamma-convergence of nonlocal perimeter functionals. Manuscripta Math. 134(3–4), 377–403 (2011)
Bourgain, J., Brezis, H., Mironescu, P.: Another look at Sobolev spaces. In: Optimal Control and Partial Differential Equations, 439–455, IOS, Amsterdam (2001)
Caffarelli, L., Roquejoffre, J.-M., Savin, O.: Nonlocal minimal surfaces. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 63(9), 1111–1144 (2010)
Caffarelli, L., Valdinoci, E.: Uniform estimates and limiting arguments for nonlocal minimal surfaces. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 41(1–2), 203–240 (2011)
Carbotti, A., Cito, S., La Manna, D.A., Pallara, D.: Gamma convergence of Gaussian fractional perimeter. Advances in Calculus of Variations, Publ. online (2021). https://doi.org/10.1515/acv-2021-0032
Carbotti, A., Cito, S., La Manna, D.A., Pallara, D.: A quantitative dimension free isoperimetric inequality for the fractional Gaussian perimeter. To appear in: Communications in Analysis and Geometry 32(2), 20 pp (2024). ArXiv 2011.10451
Dávila, J.: On an open question about functions of bounded variation. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 15(4), 519–527 (2002)
De Rosa, A., La Manna, D.A.: A nonlocal approximation of the Gaussian perimeter: Gamma convergence and isoperimetric properties. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 20(5), 2101–2116 (2021)
Dipierro, S., Figalli, A., Palatucci, G., Valdinoci, E.: Asymptotics of the \(s\)-perimeter as \(s\searrow 0\). Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 33(7), 2777–2790 (2013)
Erdélyi, A., Magnus, W., Oberhettinger, F., Tricomi, F.G.: Higher Transcendental Functions. Vol. II, Based on notes left by Harry Bateman; Reprint of the: original, p. 1981. Krieger Publishing Co., Inc, Melbourne, Fla, Robert E (1953)
Frank, R.L., Seiringer, R.: Non-linear ground state representations and sharp Hardy inequalities. J. Funct. Anal. 255(12), 3407–3430 (2008)
Lombardini, L.: Fractional perimeters from a fractal perspective. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 19(1), 165–196 (2019)
Lunardi, A., Metafune, G., Pallara, D.: The Ornstein-Uhlenbeck semigroup in finite dimensions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 378 (2020), Art. 20200217
Martínez Carracedo, C., Sanz Alix, M.: The Theory of Fractional Powers of Operators. North-Holland Mathematics Studies, 187, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam (2001)
Maz\(^{\prime }\)ya, V., Shaposhnikova, T.: On the Bourgain, Brezis, and Mironescu theorem concerning limiting embeddings of fractional Sobolev spaces. J. Funct. Anal. 195(2), 230–238 (2002)
Novaga, M., Pallara, D., Sire, Y.: A fractional isoperimetric problem in the Wiener space. J. Anal. Math. 134(2), 787–800 (2018)
Ponce, A.C.: A new approach to Sobolev spaces and connections to \(\Gamma \)-convergence. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 19(3), 229–255 (2004)
Stinga, P.R., Torrea, J.L.: Extension problem and Harnack’s inequality for some fractional operators. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 35(11), 2092–2122 (2010)
Acknowledgements
A.C. has been partially supported by the TALISMAN project Cod. ARS01-01116. S.C. has been partially supported by the ACROSS project Cod. ARS01-00702. D.A.L. has been supported by the Academy of Finland grant 314227. D.P. is member of G.N.A.M.P.A. of the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM) and has been partially supported by the PRIN 2015 MIUR project 2015233N54.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Universitá del Salento within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team.
About this article
Cite this article
Carbotti, A., Cito, S., La Manna, D.A. et al. Asymptotics of the s-fractional Gaussian perimeter as \(s\rightarrow 0^+\). Fract Calc Appl Anal 25, 1388–1403 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13540-022-00066-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13540-022-00066-8
Keywords
- Fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator
- Fractional perimeters
- Fractional Sobolev spaces
- Gaussian analysis