1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to investigate the fractional heat semigroup of Schrödinger operators
where
denotes the Laplace operator
, and
V is a non-negative potential belonging to the reverse Hölder class
.
Definition 1. A non-negative locally integrable function V on is said to belong to if there exists such that the reverse Hölder inequality,holds for every ball B in . This kind of operator was firstly noted in the famous paper by C. Fefferman [
1]. For the special case
,
, the fractional heat semigroup can be defined via the Fourier transform:
In the literature, the fractional heat semigroup
has been widely used in the study of partial differential equations, harmonic analysis, potential theory, and modern probability theory. For example, the semigroup
is usually applied to construct the linear part of solutions to fluid equations in mathematical physics, e.g., the generalized Navier–Stokes equation, the quasi-geostrophic equation, and the generalized MHD equations. In the field of probability theory, the researchers use
to describe some kind of Markov process with jumps. For further information and the related applications of fractional heat semigroups
, we refer the reader to [
2,
3,
4,
5].
Denote, by
, the integral kernel of
, i.e.,
and denote, by
, the integral kernel of
. In [
6], by an invariant derivative technique and the Fourier analysis method, Miao–Yuan–Zhang concluded that the kernels
and
satisfy the following pointwise estimates, respectively (cf., [
6], Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2):
Compared with
, for arbitrary Schrödinger operator
L with the non-negative potential
V, the fractional heat semigroup
, can not be defined via (
2). In addition, it is obvious that the methods in [
6] are invalid for the estimation of the integral kernels of
. In this paper, by the functional calculus, we observe that the integral kernel of the Poisson semigroup associated with
L can be defined as:
where
denotes the integral kernel of
, i.e.,
Recall that
is a positive, symmetric function on
, and satisfies
. Generally, for
, the subordinative formula (cf., [
3]) indicates that there exists a continuous function
on
, such that:
The identity (
5) enables us to estimate
via the heat kernel
. Let
be the auxiliary function defined by (
12) below. In Propositions 7 and 8, we can obtain the following pointwise estimates of
: for every
, there exists a constant
, such that:
and for every
,
, and all
, there exists a constant
, such that:
Based on the estimates (
6) and (
7), we consider the regularity properties of
. Let
denote the gradient operator on
, that is,
, where
. Generally speaking, for a differential operator
L, if the semigroup
is analytic, then the estimate of the derivative in time of integral kernels can be deduced. However, for the derivatives in spatial variables, it is relatively difficult. Specially, let
be the Hermite operators. The heat kernel related to
H, denoted by
, can be expressed precisely. Hence, the derivative
can be obtained via a direct computation. (cf., [
7,
8]). For a general Schrödinger operator, obviously, there does not exist an exact expression of
, and the regularity estimates of
cannot be obtained directly as the case of the Hermite operator
H. Alternatively, we obtain an energy estimate of the solution to the equation:
By the fundamental solution of
, we prove that, for any
, there exists a constant
, such that:
in Lemma 8. A direct computation, together with the subordinative formula, gives:
see Proposition 11. By a similar method, we obtain the Hölder regularity of
, i.e., for
and
,
see Proposition 12.
In
Section 3.3, we focus on the time-fractional derivatives of
. Recently, there has been an increasing interest in fractional calculus, since time-fractional operators are proven to be very useful for modeling purposes. For example, the following fractional heat equations,
are used to describe heat propagation in inhomogeneous media. It is known that, as opposed to the classical heat equation, Equation (
9) is known to exhibit sub-diffusive behaviour and is related to anomalous diffusions or diffusions in non-homogeneous media, with random fractal structures. Recall that the fractional derivative of
is defined as:
For some recent works in the frame of confromable derivatives and Mittag–Leffler kernels, see [
9,
10]. In
Section 3.1, we first obtain the regularity estimates of
denoted by
; see Proposition 9. Then, the desired estimates of
can be deduced from (
10) and Proposition 9; see Propositions 14–16, respectively.
As an application, in
Section 4, we characterize the Camapnato-type spaces associated with
L, denoted by
, via the fractional heat semigroup
. In the last decades, the characterizations of function spaces associated with Schrödinger operators via semigroups and Carleson measures have attracted the attention of many authors. Let
,
. Using the family of operators
, the Carleson measure characterization of
was obtained by Dziubański–Garrigós–Martínez–Torrea–Zienkiewicz [
11]. Replacing the potential
V by a general Radon measure
, in [
12], Wu–Yan extended the result of [
11] to generalized Schrödinger operators. The analogue in the setting of Heisenberg groups was obtained by Lin–Liu [
13]. Ma–Stinga–Torrea–Zhang [
14] characterized the Campanato-type spaces associated with
L via the fractional derivatives of the Poisson semigroup. For further information on this topic, we refer to [
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21] and the references therein. Assume that
, with
. By the regularity estimates obtained in
Section 3, we establish the following equivalent characterizations: for
,
where
See Theorems 3 and 4, respectively.
Remark 1. - (i)
The regularity estimates obtained in this paper generalize several results on the regularities of the Schrödinger operators. Letting , is the Poisson kernel associated with the Schrödinger operator. For this case, Propositions 11 and 12 come back to ([15], Lemma 3.9). Moreover, the regularities of obtained in Section 3.3 generalize ([14], Proposition 3.6, (b), (c), and (d)). - (ii)
The regularity results for obtained in Section 3.2 all are pointwise estimations, which is stronger than the norm estimates. As a corollary of Lemma 8, by a trivial computation, we can obtain the estimates appearing in ([22], Lemma 2.1) in our suitable setting; see Proposition 10.
Remark 2. For the case of , the regularities of have been studied by Ma–Stinga–Torrea–Zhang [14]. We point out that our method is slightly different from that of [14]. In [14], via the Hermite polynomials , the authors converted the estimate of to the estimate of ; see ([14], (3.12)). In Section 3.3, we estimate the time-fractional derivatives of via , instead of the Hermite polynomials. Remark 3. - (i)
In the regularity estimates of , one of the main tools is the subordinative formula. Due to the analytic property of the heat semigroup , the estimates of can be deduced from the Cauchy integral formula. Then, we can use the subordinative formula to obtain the related estimates of . However, for the derivatives of in the spatial variables, i.e., , the method of is invalid and we need a more technical estimate; see Lemmas 8–11 for details.
- (ii)
Following the idea of [11], we can apply the regularities of obtained in Section 3 to establish the characterizations of the BMO-type space . Since the proofs are similar to those in Section 4, we omit the details.
Some notations:
represents that there is a constant , such that , whose right inequality is also written as . Similarly, one writes for ;
For convenience, the positive constants C may change from one line to another and usually depend on the dimension , and other fixed parameters;
Let B be a ball with the radius r. In the rest of this paper, for , we denote by the ball with the same center and radius .
3. Regularities on Fractional Heat Semigroups Associated with L
The aim of this section is to estimate the regularities of the fractional heat kernel
. By the use of (
5), we first estimate
Then, via the solution to (
8), we investigate the spatial gradient of
. At last, we obtain the estimation of the time-fractional derivatives of
.
3.1. Regularities of the Fractional Heat Kernel
We first investigate the regularities of .
Proposition 7. Let and . For every , there exists a constant , such that: Proof. By Proposition 1, we use (
13)–(
15) to obtain for any
, a constant
, such that:
By changing variables, we have:
Let
. Then,
which gives:
On the other hand, using the change of variables again, we obtain:
The above estimate implies that:
Now, combining (
17) and (
18), we have:
which, together with the arbitrariness of
, indicates that:
This completes the proof of Proposition 7. □
Proposition 8. Let and . For any , there exists a constant , such that for every and all , Proof. The proof is similar to that of Proposition 7. We first assume that
. By the subordinative Formula (
15), we can use Proposition 2 to obtain, for any
, a constant
, such that:
which implies:
On the other hand, letting
, we have:
The estimates (
19) and (
20) indicate that:
Due to the arbitrariness of
, we have:
This proves Proposition 8 under the assumption .
Now, we prove this proposition for the case
. For
or
, the desired estimate can be deduced from (
19) and (
20). The case
remains to be considered. We split:
where
For
, since
, we can follow the procedure of (
20) to deduce that:
We further divide
into
, where
Noticing
, for
, it follows from Proposition 7 that:
For
, similarly, we use Proposition 7, again, to deduce that:
which, together with the arbitrariness of
N, indicates that:
Because
, by Lemma 3, it holds that:
which gives:
The estimates for
and
, together with
, imply that:
□
For and , define: We can obtain the following estimates about the kernel: .
Proposition 9. Let , , , and , where appears in Proposition 2.
- (i)
For any , there exists a constant , such that: - (ii)
Let . For any , there exists a constant , such that for all , - (iii)
Let . For any , there exists a constant , such that:
Proof. For (i), since
,
By (i) of Proposition 3 and the higher-order derivative formula of the composite function, we can obtain:
Notice that
. By changing the variables, we obtain:
Finally, we have proved that, for arbitrary
,
which gives:
For (ii), via the subordinative Formula (
15), we can complete the proof by using (ii) of Proposition 3. We omit the details.
For (iii), it is easy to see that
Hence,
It follows from (iii) of Proposition 3 that:
If
, since
, then:
If
, then:
Because the function
is continuous, the integral
. On the other hand, recalling that
, we obtain:
which implies that:
□
3.2. Estimation on the Spatial Gradient
In this section, we investigate the spatial gradient of
,
. For the special case
, i.e., the Poisson kernel, the regularity estimates have been obtained in ([
15], Lemma 3.9).
Lemma 8. Suppose that for some . For every , there exist constants and , such that for all and , the kernels satisfy the following estimates: Proof. Let
be the fundamental solution of
in
, i.e.,
where
denotes the area of the unit sphere in
. Fix
and
. Assume that
is a weak solution to the equation:
Let
, with some
, such that
,
, and
Noticing that
, we can obtain:
which, together with integration by parts, gives:
Notice that it follows from Lemma 5 that (cf., [
23], (1.7)):
Thus, for
, it holds that:
Take
and
. We obtain:
If
, then
. Additionally,
for
. It follows, from Propositions 1 and 3, that for any
there exists a constant
, such that:
Finally, it can be deduced from (
21) that:
The rest of the proof is divided into three cases:
Case 1:
. For this case,
. We split
where
Similarly, for the term
, we can also obtain:
Case 2:
. We write:
Because
, taking the infimum for
R yields:
Case 3:
. Similarly, we can see that:
Since
, the function
is decreasing and with the infimum at
. Then,
Case 3.1:
. Since
N is arbitrary, we can deduce from (
22) that:
Case 3.2:
. For this case, by (
22) again, it holds that:
Finally, we obtain the following estimates:
Then, if
,
This proves Lemma 8. □
Our spatial gradient estimates in this paper all are pointwise estimations, which is stronger than the norm estimates. From the spatial gradient estimates in Lemma 8, we can obtain the estimates appearing in ([
22], Lemma 2.1) in the following.
Proposition 10. Suppose that for some , . For , the spatial derivative of satisfies the following -estimate and -estimate, respectively. Proof. We only give the details for the
-estimate, and the estimate for
can be dealt with similarly. By Lemma 8, we obtain:
where
By the change of variables, we can obtain:
For
, applying the change of variables again,
Case 1: . For this case, it is obvious that .
Case 2:
. Then, we spilt
, where:
Obviously,
. For
, we have:
where
Noting that
we can obtain
. □
Lemma 9. Suppose that for some . For every , there exists a constant , such that for all and , the semigroup kernels satisfy the following estimate: Proof. Assume that
is a weak solution of the equation
Similar to Lemma 8, we can prove that for all
,
Take
for fixed
, and let
. It can be deduced from Propositions 1 and 3 that:
This, together with
, implies that:
If
, taking the infimum for
R on both sides of (
23) reaches:
If
, note that the function
is decreasing on
. Taking the infimum again, we obtain:
This completes the proof of Lemma 9. □
Now, we give the gradient estimate of .
Proposition 11. Suppose and for some . For every , there exists a constant , such that for all and , Proof. The subordinate formula gives:
which, together with Lemma 8, implies that
where:
For
, letting
, we can obtain:
Similarly, for the term
, a change of variables yields:
The estimates for
and
indicate that:
On the other hand, by Lemma 9 and changing variables
, we obtain:
The arbitrariness of
N indicates that:
□
Below, we estimate the Lipschitz continuity of .
Lemma 10. Suppose that and for some . Let . For every , there exist constants and , such that for all , and , Proof. The proof is similar to that of Lemma 8. Let
be the fundamental solution of
in
. Assume that
. Let
, such that
on
,
, and
. It is easy to see that:
Similar to the proof of Lemma 8, an integration by parts implies that:
which yields:
Then, for
,
, and
which gives
, where:
Now, we estimate the terms
separately. For the term
, because it is well known that
is a Calderón–Zygmund kernel (see [
35]), we have:
The estimate of
is similar to that of
. Noting that
on
, we can obtain:
For
and
, a direct computation gives
and
Following the same procedure, we apply the Young inequality to obtain:
At last, for the term
, by Lemma 5 and the condition
, we can obtain, via the
-boundedness of the operator with the kernel
, the following:
The estimates for
indicate that:
Let
. Then,
Take
. If
, then
, that is,
. Moreover, if
,
, which means that
. We can obtain:
Define a function . Then, we can see that for , , i.e., F is increasing, which means that the function is decreasing for . Below, we divide the rest of the proof into two cases:
Case 1: . We further divide the discussion into two subcases:
Case 1.1:
, i.e.,
. For this case, the function
has the infimum
for
. Then, taking the infimum for
R on both sides of (
24), we can use the fact that
to obtain:
Case 1.2:
, i.e.,
. Similar to Case 1.1, taking the infimum for
gives:
Case 2: . Similar to Case 1, we divide the discussion into two subcases again:
Case 2.1:
. It follows from (
24) that:
Taking the infimum on both sides (
25) reaches:
Case 2.2:
. Similarly, taking the infimum on both sides of (
25), we obtain:
If
, then:
If
, we have:
If
, then:
If
, then:
□
Lemma 11. Suppose that for some . Let . For every , there exists a constant , such that for all and , the semigroup kernels satisfy the following estimate: for , Proof. Similar to Lemma 10, we take
and obtain:
Case 1:
. This implies
. We can obtain:
Case 2:
. For this case,
. Then, the following two cases are considered:
It is obvious that Case 2.1 comes back to Case 1. For Case 2.2, letting
on the right-hand side of (
26), we have:
□
Proposition 12. Suppose that and for some . Let . For every , there exists a constant , such that for all and , the fractional heat kernels satisfy the following estimate: for , Proof. By the subordinative formula and Lemma 10, we can obtain:
where
We first estimate
and apply a change of variables to obtain:
Similarly, for
, we have:
which gives:
On the other hand, we can deduce from Lemma 11 that:
Finally, the arbitrariness of
N indicates that:
which proves Proposition 12. □
Proposition 13. Assume that for some . Let . For every , Proof. We divide the proof into two cases:
Case 1:
. By Proposition 11, we use a direct computation to obtain:
Because
, then
Case 2:
. It follows from (
5) that:
where:
In fact, by Lemma 8, we have
, where:
Taking
N as large enough, it is easy to see that:
Similarly, a direct calculus gives, together with changing variables:
,
Then, we can deduce from (
27) that:
For
, it follows from the perturbation formula (see [
36], p. 497, (2.3), also [
11], (5.25)), that:
and that for
,
Therefore, noting that
, we can use the change of variables to obtain:
The above estimates, (
29) and (
28), imply that:
□
3.3. Estimation on Time-Fractional Derivatives
In this section, we give some gradient estimates for the fractional heat kernel associated with the variable
t. Define an operator:
Denote, by , the integral kernel of . Then, we can obtain the following proposition:
Proposition 14. Let , and . For every , there exists a constant , such that: Proof. The following two cases are considered:
Case 1:
. It is easy to see that:
which, together with Proposition 9, gives:
On the other hand, since
,
By Proposition 3, we can obtain:
By the arbitrariness of
N, we obtain:
Case 2: . Let
. We can obtain:
It follows from Proposition 9 that:
On the other hand, we obtain:
which indicates that (
30) holds. □
In the next proposition, we give the Lipschitz continuity of .
Proposition 15. Let , , and . Let . For every , there exists a constant , such that for all , Proof. It is equivalent to verify:
Without loss of generality, for
, it holds that:
By Proposition 9, we can obtain:
On the other hand, we obtain:
which implies (
31). □
Proposition 16. Let , , , and . For every , there exists a constant , such that: Proof. Let
. By (iii) of Proposition 9, we change the order of integrations to obtain:
If
, then:
If
, then:
which completes the proof of Proposition 16. □
4. Characterization of Campanato–Morrey Spaces Associated with L
Firstly, we deduce a reproducing formula:
Lemma 12. Let and . The operator defines an isometry from into . Moreover, in the sense of , it holds that: Proof. Note that for
, the spectral resolution of the operator
L, it follows from
that:
Then, for
, we have:
Below, we only prove that for every pair of sequences
and
as
,
If (
32) holds, there exists a function
, such that:
which implies that for all
,
This means
. Now, we verify (
32). As
, we can apply the functional calculus to deduce that:
since
The integral
can be dealt with similarly. □
The following inequality was established by Harboure–Salinas–Viviani [
37]:
Lemma 13. ([
37], (5.3))
Let . For any pair of measurable functions F and G on , we have: In Lemma 13, letting
we have:
On the left-hand side of (
33), since
we can obtain, via the change of variables,
On the right-hand side of (
33), using change of variables again, we obtain:
meanwhile,
For
and
, define an area function
as follows:
where
denotes the cone
.
Lemma 14. Let and . The area function is bounded on .
Proof. Hence, it follows from (
35) that:
□
Theorem 2. Assume that , and . Let f be a linear combination of -atoms. There exists a constant C, such that: Proof. Let
a be an
-atom associated with a ball
. Then, we write:
where
We use Lemma 14 and Hölder’s inequality to obtain:
Now, we deal with in the following two cases:
Case 1:
. For this case,
. We write
where:
We first estimate
. Since
, then
for
and
. We can use Propositions 14 and 15 to deduce that there exists
, such that:
Because
and
, then
. This implies
. We have:
which, via a direct computation, gives:
Let us continue with
. Similarly, it follows from Proposition 15 that:
Hence, we still have
Case 2:
. For this case, the atom
a has no canceling condition. We have
, where:
Because
and
, then
. On the other hand, for
,
. This means that
. We can obtain:
which indicates that:
Notice that
for
. It can be deduced from the triangle inequality that
. Then,
The estimate for
is similar to that of
. In fact, due to
,
The estimates for
and
indicate that:
□
Lemma 15. Let , be a function of and . Assume that for each , there exists a constant , such that for , Then, for any -atom a supported on , there exists a constant , such that: Proof. If
, then
. It follows from the condition
that:
If
, then for any
,
. On the other hand,
, since
and
. By (
36), we have:
which implies that:
Because
, set
, where
. Then,
and
which implies that
. This completes the proof of Lemma 15. □
Lemma 16. Given , and . Let for any , and let a be an -atom. Then, for there exists a constant , such that: Proof. Assume that
a is an
-atom associated with a ball
. By Lemma 13 and Theorem 2, we obtain:
The inner integration satisfies the following:
By Proposition 14, we can see that:
If
, then
. It follows from the condition
that:
If
, then for any
,
. On the other hand,
, since
and
. By Proposition 14, we have:
which implies that:
Because
, set
, where
. Then,
and
which implies that
, and
The above estimate indicates that
satisfies (
36) with
. On the other hand, it can be deduced from (
37) and (
38) that:
where
If
, then
, i.e.,
.
For
, since
, we have:
Hence, there exists a constant
, such that:
Notice that
which, together with the Fubini theorem, indicates that:
For the term
we can see that
By the change of variables, we obtain:
The rest of the proof is divided into three cases:
Case 1:
. For this case,
. Then, a change of variables reaches:
Notice that
and, as
,
An application of integration by parts gives:
where
and where
. By Proposition 7,
Case 2:
. A direct computation gives:
Case 3:
. Let
, such that
,
. We obtain:
where, in the last step, we have used the change of variables:
. Notice that
Then, the integration by parts yields
, where
and
For
, since
, we obtain:
Similarly, for
, because
, then
. Noticing that
, we obtain:
By Lemma 15, the above estimates in Cases 1–3 indciate that:
where
Therefore, we can use Lemma 12 to complete the proof. □
Finally, we can obtain the following characterization of corresponding to the time-fractional derivative:
Theorem 3. Let . Assume that , , and Let f be a function, such that: for some . The following statements are equivalent:
- (i)
;
- (ii)
There exists , such that ;
- (iii)
For all ,
Proof. (i)⟹(ii). If
, then
, where:
We further divide the estimation of into the following two cases:
Case 1:
. By Proposition 14,
Case 2:
. We use Proposition 16 to obtain that there exists
, such that:
(ii)⟹(iii). Assume that (ii) holds. Then,
(iii)⟹(i). Assume that (
40) holds. Let
a be an
-atom associated with
. Then, by Lemma 16,
which, together with (
34) and Theorem 2, gives:
Hence,
is a bounded linear functional on
; equivalently,
. □
Below, we consider the characterization of via the the spatial gradient. Define a general gradient as .
Theorem 4. Let . Assume that , , and Let f be a function satisfying (39). The following statements are equivalent: - (i)
;
- (ii)
There exists a constant , such that: - (iii)
satisfies that, for any balls
Proof. (i) ⟹ (ii). Let
. By Theorem 3,
One writes:
We first estimate the term
I. Because
, then
Since
and a direct computation gives:
By Proposition 13, we have:
The estimate of is divided into two cases:
Case 1:
.
implies that
. Then,
Case 2:
. We can obtain:
(ii)⟹(iii). For every ball
,
which implies that (
41) holds.
(iii)⟹(i). Assume that (
41) holds. For any ball
, it holds that:
It is a corollary of Theorem 3 that
with
□
A positive measure
on
is called a
-Carleson measure if
The following result can be deduced from Theorem 4 immediately:
Theorem 5. Let . Assume that , , and , withLet be a measure defined by: - (i)
If , then is a -Carleson measure;
- (ii)
Conversely, if and is a -Carleson measure, then .
Moreover, in any case, there exists a constant , such that: Proof. (i). In Theorem 3, letting
, we obtain for
,
which, together with a change of variable, gives:
The estimation
can be obtained in the manner of Theorem 3.
(ii). Assume that
is a
-Carleson measure, i.e.,
Subsequently,
It can be deduced from Theorem 4 that
. □