Abstract
We consider the maximal regularity problem for non-autonomous evolution equations
Each operator \(A(t)\) is associated with a sesquilinear form \({\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; \cdot , \cdot )}\) on a Hilbert space \(H\). We assume that these forms all have the same domain and satisfy some regularity assumption with respect to \(t\) (e.g., piecewise \(\alpha \)-Hölder continuous for some ). We prove maximal \(L_p\)-regularity for all \(u_0 \) in the real-interpolation space . The particular case where \(p = 2\) improves previously known results and gives a positive answer to a question of Lions (Équations différentielles opérationnelles et problèmes aux limites, Springer, Berlin, 1961) on the set of allowed initial data \(u_0\).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction and main results
Let \(H\) be a real or complex Hilbert space and let \(V\) be another Hilbert space with dense and continuous embedding \(V \hookrightarrow H\). We denote by \(V'\) the (anti-)dual of \(V\) and by \(\left[ \cdot \,|\,\cdot \right] _H\) the scalar product of \(H\) and \(\left\langle \cdot , \cdot \right\rangle \) the duality pairing \(V'\times V\). The latter satisfies (as usual) \(\left\langle v, h \right\rangle = \left[ v\,|\,h\right] _H\) whenever \(v \in H\) and \(h \in V\). By the standard identification of \(H\) with \(H'\) we then obtain continuous and dense embeddings \(V \hookrightarrow H \eqsim H' \hookrightarrow V'\). We denote by \(\Vert . \Vert _V\) and \(\Vert . \Vert _H\) the norms of \(V\) and \(H\), respectively.
We are concerned with the non-autonomous evolution equation
where each operator \(A(t)\), \(t \in [0, \tau ]\), is associated with a sesquilinear form \({\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; \cdot , \cdot )}\). Throughout this article we will assume that
-
H1
(Constant form domain) \({\mathcal {D}(\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; \cdot , \cdot )) = V}\).
-
H2
(Uniform boundedness) there exists \(M>0\) such that for all \(t \in [0, \tau ]\) and \(u, v \in V\), we have \({|\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; u, v)|\le M \Vert u \Vert _V \Vert v \Vert _V}\).
-
H3
(Uniform quasi-coercivity) there exist \(\alpha >0\), \(\delta \in \mathbb {R}\) such that for all \(t \in [0, \tau ]\) and all \(u, v \in V\) we have \({\alpha \Vert u \Vert _V^2 \le \text {Re}\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; u, u) + \delta \Vert u \Vert _H^2}\).
Recall that \(u \in H\) is in the domain \(\mathcal {D}(A(t))\) if there exists \(h\in H\) such that for all \(v \in V\): \({\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; u, v) = \left[ h\,|\,v\right] _H}\). We then set \(A(t)u := h\). We mention that equality of the form domains, i.e., \({\mathcal {D}(\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; \cdot , \cdot )) = V}\) for \(t \in [0, \tau ]\) does not imply equality of the domains \(\mathcal {D}(A(t))\) of the corresponding operators. For each fixed \(u \in V\), \({\phi := \mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; u, \cdot )}\) defines a continuous (anti-)linear functional on \(V\), i.e., \(\phi \in V'\), then it induces a linear operator \({\mathcal {A}}(t): V \rightarrow V'\) such that \({\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; u, v) = \left\langle {\mathcal {A}}(t)u, v \right\rangle }\) for all \(u, v \in V\). Observe that for \(u \in V\),
so that \({\mathcal {A}}(t) \in \mathcal {B}(V, V')\). The operator \({\mathcal {A}}(t)\) can be seen as an unbounded operator on \(V'\) with domain \(V\) for all \(t \in [0, \tau ]\). The operator \(A(t)\) is then the part of \({\mathcal {A}}(t)\) on \(H\), that is,
It is a known fact that \(-A(t)\) and \(-{\mathcal {A}}(t)\) both generate holomorphic semigroups \((e^{-s \, A(t)})_{s \ge 0}\) and \((e^{-s\, {\mathcal {A}}(t)})_{s \ge 0}\) on \(H\) and \(V'\), respectively. For each \(s \ge 0\), \(e^{-s \, A(t)}\) is the restriction of \(e^{-s \, {\mathcal {A}}(t)}\) to \(H\). For all this, we refer to Ouhabaz [22, Chapter 1].
The notion of maximal \(L_p\)-regularity for the above Cauchy problem is defined as follows:
Definition 1
Fix \(u_0\). We say that (P) has maximal \(L_p\)-regularity (in \(H\)) if for each \(f \in L_p(0,\tau ; H)\) there exists a unique \(u \in W^{1}_p(0, \tau ; H)\), such that \(u(t) \in \mathcal {D}(A(t))\) for almost all \(t\), which satisfies (P) in the \(L_p\)-sense. Here \(W^{1}_p(0, \tau ; H)\) denotes the classical \(L_p\)-Sobolev space of order one of functions defined on \((0, \tau )\) with values in \(H\).
Maximal regularity of an evolution equation on a Banach space \(E\) depends on the operators involved in the equation, the space \(E\) and the initial data \(u_0\). The initial data has to be in an appropriate space. In the autonomous case, i.e., \(A(t) = A\) for all \(t \in [0, \tau ]\), maximal \(L_p\)-regularity is well understood and it is also known that \(u_0\) has to be in the real-interpolation space , see [7]. We refer the reader further to the survey of Denk et al. [10] and the references given therein. Note also that maximal regularity turns to be an important tool to study quasi-linear equations, see e.g., the monograph of Amann [13].
For the non-autonomous case we consider here, we first recall that if the evolution equation is considered in \(V'\), then Lions proved maximal \(L_2\)-regularity for all initial data \(u_0 \in H\), see e.g., [17], [25, p.112]. This powerful result means that for every \(u_0 \in H\) and \(f \in L_2(0, \tau ; V')\), the equation
has a unique solution \(u \in W^{1}_2(0,\tau ; V') \cap L_2(0, \tau ;V)\). Note that this implies the continuity of \(u(\cdot )\) as an \(H\)-valued function, see [8, XVIIIChapter 3, p. 513]. It is a remarkable fact that Lions’s theorem does not require any regularity assumption (with respect to \(t\)) on the sesquilinear forms apart from measurability. The apparently additional information \(u \in L_2(0, \tau ; V)\) follows from maximal regularity and the equation as follows: for almost all \(t\), \(u(t) \in V\). For these \(t \in (0, \tau )\)
Suppose now that the forms are coercive (i.e., \(\delta = 0\) in [H3]). Then for some constant \(c> 0\) independent of \(t\),
Therefore, \(u \in L_2(0, \tau ; V)\) whenever \(u \in W^{1}_2(0,\tau ; V')\) and \(f \in L_2(0,\tau ; V')\). If the forms are merely quasi-coercive, we note that if \(u(t)\) is the solution of (P\(^{\prime }\)) then \(u(t)e^{-\delta t}\) is the solution of the same problem with \({\mathcal {A}}(t) + \delta \) instead of \({\mathcal {A}}(t)\) and \(f(t)e^{-\delta t}\) instead of \(f(t)\). We apply now the previous estimate (2) to \(u(t)e^{-\delta t}\) and \(f(t) e^{-\delta t}\) and obtain
for some constant \(c'\) independent of \(t\).
Note however that maximal regularity in \(V'\) is not satisfactory in applications to elliptic boundary value problems. For example, in order to identify the boundary condition one has to consider the evolution equation in \(H\) rather than in \(V'\). For symmetric forms (equivalently, self-adjoint operators \(A(t)\)) and \(u_0 = 0\), Lions [17, p. 65], proved maximal \(L_2\)-regularity in \(H\) under the additional assumption that \({t \mapsto \mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; u, v)}\) is \(C^1\) on \([0,\tau ]\). For \(u(0) = u_0 \in \mathcal {D}(A(0))\) Lions [17, p. 95] proved maximal \(L_2\)-regularity in \(H\) for (P) provided \({t \mapsto \mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; u, v)}\) is \(C^2\). If the forms are symmetric and \(C^1\) with respect to \(t\), Lions proved maximal \(L_2\)-regularity for \(u(0) = u_0 \in V\) (one has to combine [17, Theorem 1.1, p. 129, Theorem 5.1, p. 138] to see this). He asked the following problems.
Problem A
Does the maximal \(L_2\)-regularity in \(H\) hold for (P) with \(u_0 = 0\) when \({t \mapsto \mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; u, v)}\) is continuous or even merely measurable?
Problem B
For \(u(0) = u_0 \in \mathcal {D}(A(0))\), does the maximal \(L_2\)-regularity in \(H\) hold under the weaker assumption that \({t \mapsto \mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; u, v)}\) is \(C^1\) rather than \(C^2\)?
The Problem A is still open although some progress has been made. We mention here Ouhabaz and Spina [23] who prove maximal \(L_p\)-regularity for (P) when \(u(0) = 0\) and \({t \mapsto \mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; u, v)}\) is \(\alpha \)-Hölder continuous for some \(\alpha > \frac{1}{2}\). More recently, Arendt et al. [3] prove maximal \(L_2\)-regularity in \(H\) for
in the case where \({t \mapsto \mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; u, v)}\) is piecewise Lipschitz and \(B(t)\) are bounded measurable operators satisfying \(\gamma \Vert v \Vert _H^2 \le \text {Re}\left[ B(t)v\,|\,v\right] _H \le \gamma ' \Vert v \Vert _H^2\) for some positive constants \(\gamma \) and \(\gamma '\) and all \(v \in H\). The multiplicative perturbation by \(B(t)\) was motivated there by applications to some quasi-linear evolution equations.
Concerning the problem with \(u_0 \ne 0\) and forms which are not necessarily symmetric, Bardos [5] gave a partial positive answer to Problem B in the sense that one can take the initial data \(u_0\) in \(V\) under the assumptions that the domains of both and coincide with \(V\) as spaces and topologically with constants independent of \(t\), and that is continuously differentiable with values in \({\mathcal L}(V,V')\). Note however that the property is not always true; this equality is equivalent to the Kato’s square root property: . The result of [5] was extended in Arendt et al. [3] by including the multiplication \(B(t)\) above and also weakening the regularity of from continuously differentiable to piecewise Lipschitz. As in [5], it is also assumed in [3] that the domains of and coincide with \(V\) as spaces and topologically with constants independent of \(t\).
We emphasize that the above results from [3, 5, 17] on maximal \(L_2\)-regularity do not give any information on maximal \(L_p\)-regularity when \(p \ne 2\) since the techniques used there are based on a representation lemma in (pre-) Hilbert spaces.
In the present paper we prove maximal \(L_p\)-regularity for (P) for all \(p \in (1, \infty )\). We extend the results mentioned above and give a complete treatment of the problem with initial data \(u_0 \not = 0\) even when the forms are not necessarily symmetric. In particular, we obtain a positive answer to Problem B under even more general assumptions.
Our main result is the following.
Theorem 2
Suppose that the forms \({(\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; \cdot , \cdot ))_{0 \le t \le \tau }}\) satisfy the standing hypotheses [H1]–[H3] and the regularity condition
where \(\omega : [0, \tau ] \rightarrow [0, \infty )\) is a non-decreasing function such that
Then the Cauchy problem (P) with \(u_0 = 0\) has maximal \(L_p\)-regularity in \(H\) for all \(p \in (1, \infty )\). If in addition \(\omega \) satisfies the \(p\)-Dini condition
then (P) has maximal \(L_p\)-regularity for all . Moreover there exists a positive constant \(C\) such that
In this theorem, denotes the classical real-interpolation space, see [26, Chapter 1.13] or [18, Proposition 6.2].
We wish to point out that YamamotoFootnote 1 states a result which resembles to our previous theorem in the setting of operators satisfying the so-called Acquistapace–Terreni conditions on the corresponding resolvents. Unfortunately it is difficult to follow his proofs.Footnote 2
We have the following corollaries.
Corollary 3
Under the assumptions of the previous theorem, the Cauchy problem (P) with \(u_0 = 0\) has maximal \(L_2\)-regularity in \(H\). If in addition \(\omega \) satisfies
then (P) has maximal \(L_2\)-regularity for all . In addition, there exists a positive constant \(C\) such that
Obviously, if \(A(0)\) is accretive then is well defined and . This corollary solves Problem B even under more general conditions than conjectured by J.L. Lions
Corollary 4
Assume additionally to the standing assumptions [H1]–[H3] that the form \({\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; \cdot , \cdot )}\) is piecewise \(\alpha \)-Hölder continuous for some . That is, there exist \(t_0 = 0 < t_1< \cdots < t_k = \tau \) such that on each interval \((t_i, t_{i+1})\) the form is the restriction of a \(\alpha \)-Hölder continuous form on \([t_i, t_{i+1}]\). Assume in addition that at the discontinuity points, we have . Then the Cauchy problem (P) has maximal \(L_2\)-regularity for all and there exists a positive constant \(C\) such that
In this corollary, \(A(t_j^-)\) is the operator associated with the extension of the form at the left of point \(t_j\). Similarly for \(A(t_j^+)\).
We mention that Fuje and Tanabe [12] constructed an evolution family associated with the non-autonomous problem considered here when the form \({\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; \cdot , \cdot )}\) is \(\alpha \)-Hölder continuous for some . This is of independent interest but it is not clear if one obtains maximal regularity from any property of the corresponding evolution family.
Now we explain briefly the strategy of the proof. A starting point is a representation formula for the solution \(u\) (recall that \(u\) exists in \(V'\) by Lions theorem), which already appeared in the work of Acquistapace and Terreni [1], namely
This allows us to write \({\mathcal {A}}(t) u(t) = (Q {\mathcal {A}}(\cdot )u(\cdot ))(t) + (L f)(t) + (Ru_0)(t)\), where
Condition (4) allows us to prove invertibility of the operator \((I{-}Q)\) on \(L_p(0, \tau ; H)\). The operator \(L\) is seen as a pseudo-differential operator with an operator-valued symbol. We prove an \(L_2\)-boundedness result for such operators in Sect. 4, see Theorem 13. For operators with scalar-valued symbols, this result is due to Muramatu and Nagase [20]. We adapt their arguments to our setting of operator-valued symbols. This theorem is then used to prove \(L_2(0, \tau ; H)\)-boundedness of \(L\). In order to extend \(L\) to a bounded operator on \(L_p(0, \tau ; H)\), for \(p \in (1, \infty )\), we look at \(L\) as a singular integral operator with an operator-valued kernel. We show that both \(L\) and its adjoint \(L^*\) satisfy the well known Hörmander integral condition. Finally, we treat the operator \(R\) by taking the difference with \({\mathcal {A}}(0) e^{-t \,{\mathcal {A}}(0)} u_0\) and using the functional calculus for accretive operators on Hilbert spaces. In order to handle this difference we use (5), the remaining term, \(t \mapsto A(0) e^{-t \, A(0)}u_0\) is then in \(L_p(0, \tau ; H)\) if and only if .
Although most of the arguments outlined here use heavily the fact that \(H\) is a Hilbert space, the strategy justifies some hope that the results extend to other situations such as \(L_q\)-spaces. One would then hope to prove \(L_p(L_q)\) a priori estimates for parabolic equations with time dependent coefficients. In the last section of this paper we give some applications and prove \(L_p(L_2)\)—a priori estimates.
Maximal regularity may fail even for ordinary differential equations, letting \(H = \mathbb {R}\). We illustrate this by an example which is essentially taken from Batty et al. [6].
Example 5
Consider . Then \(\varphi \) in \(L_{q, \text {loc}}(\mathbb {R})\) for \(1\le q < p\) but \(\varphi \not \in L_p([0,\varepsilon ])\) for \(\varepsilon >0\). Chose a dense sequence \((t_n)\) of \([0,1]\) and a positive, summable sequence \((c_n)\). Define \(a(t) := 1+ \sum c_n \varphi (t-t_n)\). Then \(a \in L_q([0,1])\) for \(1 \le q < p\) but \(a \not \in L_p(I)\) for any interval \(I \subset [0,1]\). Consider the non-autonomous equation
Then by variation of constants formula, \(x(t)=\int _0^t \exp \left( -\int _s^t a(r)\,{\mathrm {d}}r\right) \,{\mathrm {d}}s\). Since \(a(r) \ge 0\),
Therefore, for \(0<\alpha < \beta \le 1\) we have \(|a(t)x(t)| \ge \alpha C\; a(t)\) on \([\alpha , \beta ]\) which implies that (8) cannot have maximal \(L_p\)-regularity.
On the other hand, if we replace the constant function 1 by \(f\) we obtain
on \([0,1]\) and this shows that (8) has maximal \(L_q\)-regularity for \(q<p\).
Notice however, that letting \(p=2\) this example is not a counterexample to the questions we raise, since our standing hypothesis [H2] is not satisfied here.
Observe also that the operators in this example are all bounded and commute. Thus, these last two properties are not enough to obtain maximal \(L_2\)-regularity for non-autonomous evolution equations.
2 Preparatory lemmas
In this section we prove most of the main arguments which we will need for the proofs of our results. The only missing argument here concerns boundedness of pseudo-differential operators with operator-valued symbols which we write in a separate section for clarity of exposition. We formulate our arguments in a series of lemmata.
Throughout this section we will suppose that [H1]–[H3] are satisfied. Let \(\mu \in \mathbb {R}\) and set \(v(t) := e^{-\mu t} u(t)\). If \(u\) satisfies (P), then \(v\) satisfies the evolution equation
In addition, \(v \in W^{1}_p(0, \tau ; H)\) if and only if \(u \in W^{1}_p(0, \tau ; H)\). This shows that we may replace \({\mathcal {A}}(t)\) (resp., \(A(t)\)) by \({\mathcal {A}}(t) + \mu \) (resp. \(A(t) + \mu \)). Therefore, we may suppose without loss of generality that \(\delta =0\) in [H3]. In particular, we may suppose that \(A(t)\) and \({\mathcal {A}}(t)\) are boundedly invertible by choosing \(\mu > 0\) large enough. We will do so in the sequel without further mentioning it.
It is known that \({-}A(t)\) generates a bounded holomorphic semigroup on \(H\). The same is true for \({-}{\mathcal {A}}(t)\) on \(V'\). We write this explicitly in the next proposition in order to point out that the constants involved in the estimates are uniform with respect to \(t\). The arguments are standard and can be found e.g., in [22, Sect. 1.4]. Denote by \(S_\theta \) the open sector \(S_{\theta } = \{ z \in \mathbb {C}^* :\;|\text {arg}(z) < \theta \}\) with vertex \(0\).
Proposition 6
For any \(t \in [0, \tau ]\), the operators \(-A(t)\) and \(-{\mathcal {A}}(t)\) generate strongly continuous analytic semigroups of angle on \(H\) and \(V'\), respectively. In addition, there exist constants \(C\) and \(C_\theta \), independent of \(t\), such that
-
(a)
,
-
(b)
\(\displaystyle \Vert A(t) e^{-s \, A(t) } \Vert _{\mathcal {B}(H)} \le \tfrac{C}{s} \quad \mathrm{and}\quad \Vert {\mathcal {A}}(t) e^{-s \, {\mathcal {A}}(t) } \Vert _{\mathcal {B}(V')} \le \tfrac{C}{s}\),
-
(c)
\(\Vert e^{-s \, A(t)} x \Vert _V \le \tfrac{C}{\sqrt{s}} \Vert x \Vert _H \quad \mathrm{and}\quad \Vert e^{-s \, {\mathcal {A}}(t)} \phi \Vert _H \le \tfrac{C}{\sqrt{s}} \Vert \phi \Vert _{V'}\),
- (d)
-
(e)
All the previous estimates hold for \(A(t) + \mu \) with constants independent of \(\mu \) for \(\mu \ge 0\).
Proof
Fix \(t \in [0, \tau ]\). By uniform boundedness and coercivity,
This means that \(A(t)\) has numerical range contained in the closed sector \(\overline{S_{\omega _0}}\) with . This implies the first part of assertion (a), see e.g., [22, Theorem 1.54]. Let \(u \in V\) and set \(\varphi = (\lambda + {\mathcal {A}}(t)) u \in V'\). Then
and so coercivity yields
We aim to estimate \( |\lambda | \Vert u \Vert _H^2\) against \(\Vert u \Vert _V \Vert \varphi \Vert _{V'}\). Since the numerical range of \({\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; \cdot , \cdot )}\) in contained in \(\overline{S_{\omega _0}}\) we have
Now let \(\theta >\omega _0\) and \(\lambda \not \in S_{\theta }\). Then \( \text {dist}(\lambda , -S_{\omega _0}) \ge |\lambda | \sin (\theta {-}\omega _0)\) and therefore
as desired. From this and (10) it follows that
uniformly for all \(\lambda \not \in S_{\theta }\), \(\theta >\omega _0\). This implies that \((\lambda +{\mathcal {A}}(t))\) is invertible with a uniform norm bound on \(S_{\theta }^\complement \), \(\theta >\omega _0\). This is equivalent to \(-{\mathcal {A}}(t)\) being the generator of a bounded analytic semigroup on \(V'\). The bound is independent of \(t\). This proves assertion (a).
Assertion (b) follows from the analyticity of the semigroups \((e^{-s \, A(t)})_{s\ge 0}\) on \(H\) and \((e^{-s \, {\mathcal {A}}(t)})_{s\ge 0}\) on \(V'\) and the Cauchy formula as usual.
For assertion (c), observe that for \(x \in H\)
The second inequality in (c) follows by duality.
The estimate (d) follows in a a natural way from (a) and (c) by writing the resolvent as the Laplace transform of the semigroup. Finally, in order to prove assertion (e), we notice that for a constant \(\mu \ge 0\) we have
for all . The same estimate also holds when replacing the norm of \(H\) by the norm of \(V\) or the norm of \(V'\). Now we use the Cauchy formula to obtain (b) for \(A(t) + \mu \). Assertion (d) for \(A(t) + \mu \) follows again by the Laplace transform. The other estimates are obvious. \(\square \)
Finally we mention the following easy corollary of the proposition.
Corollary 7
Let \(\omega : \mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\) be some function and assume that
for all \(u, v \in V\). Then
for all \(z \notin S_{\theta }\) with any fixed .
Proof
Observe that for \(u, v \in V\),
where we used Proposition 6(d). \(\square \)
Next we come to a formula for the solution \(u\) of (P\(^{\prime }\)) in \(V'\). Recall that \(u\) exists by Lions’ theorem mentioned in the introduction. This formula already appears in Acquistapace–Terreni [1]. Fix \(f \in C_c^\infty (0, \tau ; H)\) and \(u_0 \in H\).
Lemma 8
For almost every \(t \in (0, \tau )\), we have, in \(V'\),
Proof
Recall that \(u \in W^1_2(0, \tau ; V')\) by Lions’ theorem and hence \(u\) has a continuous representative. Fix \(t \in (0, \tau )\) such that \(\mathcal {D}({\mathcal {A}}(t)) = V\) (recall that this is true for almost all \(t\)). Set \(v(s) := e^{-(t{-}s) \, {\mathcal {A}}(t) } u(s)\) for \(0<s\le t<\tau \). Recall that \(-{\mathcal {A}}(t)\) generates a bounded semigroup \(e^{-s {\mathcal {A}}(t) }\) on \(V'\), see Proposition 6(b). Since \(u \in W^1_2(0,\tau ; V')\), \(v\) has a distributional derivative in \(V'\) which satisfies
Using the fact that \(u \in L_2(0, \tau ; V)\), it follows that \(v \in W^1_2(0,\tau ; V')\). Hence
This gives (12) by observing that \(v(t) = u(t)\) and \(v(0)=e^{-t \,{\mathcal {A}}(t)}u_0\). \(\square \)
Lemma 9
Suppose (4). Then for almost all \(t \in [0, \tau ]\)
in \(V'\), where
and
Proof
As in the proof of the previous lemma, we fix \(t \in (0, \tau )\) such that \(V = \mathcal {D}({\mathcal {A}}(t))\). It is enough to prove that each term in the sum (12) is in \(V\). Observe that by analyticity, \(e^{-t \,{\mathcal {A}}(t)}u_0 \in \mathcal {D}({\mathcal {A}}(t)) = V\). In passing we also note that since \(u_0 \in H\), \({\mathcal {A}}(t) e^{-t \, {\mathcal {A}}(t)}u_0 = A(t) e^{-t \,A(t)}u_0\).
Concerning the first term, we recall that \(u(s) \in V\) for almost all \(s\) (note that \(u \in L_2(0, \tau ; V)\)). Therefore, \(e^{-(t{-}s) {\mathcal {A}}(t)} ({\mathcal {A}}(t){-}{\mathcal {A}}(s)) u(s) \in V\) for almost every \(s < t\) by the analyticity of the semigroup generated by \(-{\mathcal {A}}(t)\). In addition,
Note that the operator
is bounded on \(L_p(0, \tau ; \mathbb {R})\) for all \(p \in [1, \infty ]\). The reason is that the associated kernel \((t,s) \mapsto 1\!\!1_{[0, t]}(s)\tfrac{\omega (t{-}s)}{t-s}\) is integrable with respect to each variable with a uniform bound with respect to the other variable as can be seen easily from (4). Recall again that \(\Vert u(\cdot ) \Vert _V \in L_2(0, \tau ; \mathbb {R})\). Hence
is in \(L_1(0, \tau ;V')\). Therefore, for every \(\varepsilon > 0\)
and the fact that \({\mathcal {A}}(t)\) is a closed operator gives
Since
we may let \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\) and obtain \(\int _0^{t} e^{-(t{-}s) {\mathcal {A}}(t)} ({\mathcal {A}}(t){-}{\mathcal {A}}(s)) u(s)\,{\mathrm {d}}s\in \mathcal {D}({\mathcal {A}}(t))\) and
Finally, the equality (12) and the fact that \(u(t) \in V\) for almost all \(t\) yields
This proves the lemma. \(\square \)
Recall the definition of the operator \(L\),
Let \(f \in C_c^\infty (0, \tau ; H)\) and denote by \(f_0\) its extension to the whole of \(\mathbb {R}\) by \(0\) outside \((0, \tau )\). Observe that \(f_0\) is then in the Schwarz class \(\mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}; H)\). We denote for Fourier transform of \(f_0\) by \(\mathcal {F}f_0\) or \(\widehat{f}_0\). Clearly,
Now, exponential stability of \((e^{-s \, A(t)})_{s\ge 0}\) and the fact that \(f_0 \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}; H)\) allows us to use Fubini’s theorem, giving
It follows that
Observe that the right hand side of (16) converges in norm (as a Bochner integral) and that the same holds for
since \(\widehat{f_0} \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}; H)\). Thus, both terms in (16) take values in \(\mathcal {D}(A(t))\). This shows that for \(f\in C_c^\infty (0, \tau ; H)\), \((Lf)(t)\) is a well-defined function taking pointwise values in \(H\). Hille’s theorem (see e.g., [11, II.2, Theorem 6]) then allows us to take the closed operator \(A(t)\) inside the integral which finally gives the representation formula
that allows us to see \(L\) as a pseudo-differential operator with operator-valued symbol
Lemma 10
Suppose that in addition to our standing assumptions [H1]–[H3] that (3) holds with \(\omega : [0, \tau ] \rightarrow [0, \infty )\) a non-decreasing function such that
Then \(L\) is a bounded operator on \(L_2(0, \tau ; H)\).
Proof
We prove the Lemma by verifying the conditions of Theorem 13 below. Let \(\sigma (t, \xi )\) be given by (18). We need to prove that
for \(k = 0, 1, 2\). For \(k=0\), (20) is just the sectoriality of \(A(t)\), see Proposition 6 whereas (21) is precisely Corollary 7. Observe that a holomorphic function that satisfies
on the complement of a sector of angle \(\theta \) will automatically satisfy
on the complement of strictly larger sectors, simply by Cauchy’s integral formula for derivatives. Conditions (20) and (21) follow therefore for all \(k \ge 1\). \(\square \)
Next we prove that the operator \(L\) extends to a bounded operator on \(L_p(0,\tau ;H)\).
Lemma 11
Under the assumptions of the previous lemma the operator \(L\) is bounded on \(L_p(0, \tau ; H)\) for all \(p \in (1, \infty )\).
Proof
The operator \(L\) is a singular integral operator with operator-valued kernel
where \(1\!\!1\) denotes the indicator function. We prove that both \(L\) and \(L^*\) are of weak type \((1,1)\) operators and we conclude by the Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem together with the previous lemma that \(L\) is bounded on \(L_p(0, \tau ; H)\) for all \(p \in (1, \infty )\). It is known (see, e.g. [9, Theorems III.1.2, III.1.3]) that \(L\) (respectively \(L^*\)) is of weak type \((1,1)\) if the corresponding kernel \(K(t, s)\) satisfies the Hörmander integral condition. This means that we have to verify
and
for some constant \(C\) independent of \(s, s' \in (0, \tau )\). Note that the above mentioned theorems in [9] are formulated for integral operators on \(L_p(\mathbb {R}; H)\) instead of \(L_p(0, \tau ; H)\); however it is known that Hörmander’s integral condition works on any space satisfying the volume doubling condition, see [9, p. 15].
First consider the integral in (22). When \(s \le s'\) and \(2|s'{-}s| > \tau \) the integral vanishes. When \(0 \le s \le s' \le t\le \tau \) and \(2 s' {-}s \le \tau \), using that the semigroup \((e^{-s \,A(t)})_{s\ge 0}\) generated by \(-A(t)\) is bounded holomorphic, with a norm bound independent of \(t\), we have for some constant \(C\)
When \(s' < s\) and \(3s-2s'>\tau \), the integral (22) vanishes. When \(s'<s\) and \(3s-2s' < \tau \), a similar calculation to the above shows that the integral is bounded by .
We now consider (23). When \(s\le s'\), as above, we may assume that \(3s{-}2s'>0\), since otherwise the integral in (23) vanishes. We have
The first term \(I_1\) is handled exactly as in the proof of (22). For the second term \(I_2\), we write by the functional calculus
where \(\Gamma \) is the boundary of an appropriate sector \(S_{\theta }\). We apply Corollary 7 to deduce
Therefore,
where we used the fact that \(\omega \) is non-decreasing and \(s'{-}s \le s'{-}t\) to write the second inequality. Finally, the integral (23) in the case \(s'<s\) is treated similarly. Remark: A similar reasoning for the weak type \((1,1)\) estimate for \(L\) and \(L^*\) appears in [14, p.1051]. \(\square \)
Now we study the operator \(R\).
Lemma 12
Assume (5). Then there exists \(C > 0\) such that for every :
Proof
Recall that the operator \(R\) is given by \((R g)(t) = A(t) e^{-t \,A(t)} g\) for \(g \in H\). Let
We aim to estimate the difference \((R-R_0)g\). Let \(\Gamma = \partial S_{\theta }\) with and \(\omega _0\) is as in the Proof of Proposition 6. Then, for \(v \in V\), the functional calculus for the sectorial operators \(A(t)\) and \(A(0)\) gives
Now, taking the absolute value it follows from Proposition 6(d) that
Since this true for all \(v \in H\) we conclude that
From the hypothesis (5) it follows that \(Ru_0- R_0 u_0 \in L_p(0, \tau ; H)\). On the other hand, since \(A(0)\) is invertible, it is well-known that \(A(0) e^{-t \,A(0)}u_0 \in L_p(0, \tau ; H)\) if and only if (see Triebel [26, Theorem 1.14]). Therefore, \(Ru_0 \in L_p(0, \tau ;H)\) and the lemma is proved. \(\square \)
3 Proofs of the main results
Proof of Theorem 2
Assume first that \(u_0 = 0\) and let \(f \in C_c^\infty (0, \tau ; H)\). From Lemma 9 it is clear that
Recall that \(L\) is bounded on \(L_p(0, \tau ; H)\) by Lemma 11. We shall now prove that \(Q\) is bounded on \(L_p(0, \tau ; H)\). Let \(g \in C_c^\infty (0, \tau ; H)\). By Proposition 6 we have
Since \({\Vert {\mathcal {A}}(t) x \Vert _{V'} = \sup _{\Vert v \Vert _V=1} \left| \mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; x, v)\right| }\), we use the regularity assumption (3) to bound \(Qg\) further by
Now we estimate \(\Vert {\mathcal {A}}(s)^{-1} g(s) \Vert _{V}\). By coercivity
We obtain from (26) that
Now, once we replace \(A(t)\) by \(A(t){+}\mu \), (26) is valid with a constant independent of \(\mu \ge 0\) by Proposition 6(e). Using the estimate
in (27) for \(A(s){+}\mu \) we see that
It remains to see that the operator \(S\) defined by
is bounded on \(L_p(0,\tau ; \mathbb {R})\). Observe that \(S\) is an integral operator with kernel function . Hence by assumption (4) it is integrable with respect to each of the two variables with uniform bound with respect to the other variable. This implies that \(S\) is bounded on \(L_1(0, \tau ; H)\) and on \(L_\infty (0, \tau ; H)\) and hence bounded on \(L_p(0, \tau ;H)\).
It follows that \(Q\) is bounded on \(L_p(0, \tau ; H)\) with norm of at most \(\tfrac{C''}{\sqrt{\mu }}\) for some constant \(C''\). Taking then \(\mu \) large enough makes \(Q\) strictly contractive such that \((I-Q)^{-1}\) is bounded by the Neumann series. Then, for \(f \in C_c^\infty (0, \tau ; H)\), (25) can be rewritten as
For general we suppose in addition to (4) that (5) holds. Lemma 12 shows that \(R u_0 \in L_p(0, \tau ; H)\). As previously we conclude that
whenever \(f \in C_c^\infty (0, \tau ; H)\). Thus taking the \(L_p\) norms we have
We use again the previous estimates on \(L\) and \(R\) to obtain
Using the equation (P) we obtain a similar estimate for \(u'\) and so
We write \(u(t) = A(t)^{-1} A(t) u(t)\) and use one again the fact that the norms of \(A(t)^{-1}\) on \(H\) are uniformly bounded we obtain
We conclude therefore that the following a priori estimate holds
where the constant \(C\) does not depend on \(f \in C_c^\infty (0, \tau ; H)\).
Now let \(f \in L_p(0, \tau ; H)\) and \((f_n) \subset C_c^\infty (0, \tau ; H)\) be an approximating sequence that converges in \(L_p\) and pointwise almost everywhere. For each \(n\), denote by \(u_n\) the solution of (P) with right hand side \(f_n\). We apply (28) to \(u_n - u_m\) and we see that there exists \(u \in W^1_p(0, \tau ; H)\) and \(v \in L_p(0, \tau ; H)\) such that
By extracting a subsequence, we may assume that these limits hold in the pointwise a.e. sense as well. For a fixed \(t\), the operator \(A(t)\) is closed and so \(v (\cdot ) = A(\cdot ) u(\cdot )\). Passing to the limit in the equation
shows that
for a.e. \(t \in (0, \tau )\). On the other hand, by Sobolev embedding, \((u_n)\) is bounded in \(C([0,\tau ];H)\) and hence \(u(0) = u_0\) since \(u_n(0) = u_0\) by the definition of \(u_n\). We conclude that \(u\) satisfies
in the \(L_p\) sense. This means that \(u\) is a solution to (P). Moreover, (28) transfers from \(u_n\) to \(u\). The uniqueness of the solution \(u\) follows from the a priori estimate (28) as well. \(\square \)
Proof of Corollary 3
The result follows from Theorem 2 and the observation that
see e.g., [18, Corollaries 4.37, 4.30]. \(\square \)
Proof of Corollary 4
By the definition of maximal regularity, one may modify the operators \(A(t), \ 0 \le t \le \tau \), on a set of Lebesgue measure zero. Therefore, we may assume without loss of generality that the mapping \({t \mapsto \mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; u, v)}\) is right continuous. We may assume again that the operators \(A(\cdot )\) are all invertible. We apply Corollary 3 to the evolution equation
since it is obvious that the assumed \(\alpha \)-Hölder continuity for some implies both (4) and (6). The solution \(u_{j}\) is in \( W^1_2(t_{j}, t_{j+1} ; H)\) provided the initial data satisfies
Note that the endpoint \(u_{j-1}(t_{j})\) is well defined since \(u_j \in C([t_{j}, t_{j+1}];H)\) by [8, XVIII Chapter3, p. 513]. In order to obtain a solution \(u \in W^1_2(0, \tau ; H)\), we glue the solutions \(u_j\). That is, we set \(u(t) = u_j(t)\) for \(t \in [t_j, t_{j+1}]\). What remains then to prove is that , where \(u \in W^1_2(0, \tau ; V')\) is the solution in \(V'\) given by Lions’ theorem.
Fix one of the discontinuity points \(t_j\) and consider the autonomous equation
By maximal regularity of \(A(t_j^-)\), its solution \(v(s) = \int _0^s e^{-(s{-}r) A(t_j^-)} \, f(r)\,{\mathrm {d}}r\) satisfies \(v(s) \in \mathcal {D}(A(t_j^-))\) for almost all \(s\). Choose a sequence \((s_n)\) converging to \(t_j\) from the left such that \(v(s_n) \in \mathcal {D}(A(t_j^-))\). Since \(A(t_j^-)\) is an accretive and sectorial operator it has a bounded \(H^\infty \)-calculus of some angle . Hence \(A(t_j^-)\) and its adjoint admit square-function estimates of the form:
see e.g. [2, Sect. 8]. It follows that
Thus, (30) implies that the sequence \((v(s_n))_{n\ge 0}\) is bounded in the Hilbert space . It has a weakly convergent subsequence. By extracting a subsequence, we may assume that \((v(s_n))_{n\ge 0}\) converges weakly to some \(v\) in . But the continuity of the solution \(v(\cdot )\) implies that \(v(s_n)\) tends also to \(v(t_j)\) in \(H\). Therefore,
In particular,
On the other hand, as in the proof of Lemma 8, we have for all \(t> t_{j{-}1}\)
By analyticity of the semigroup \(e^{-s \, {\mathcal {A}}(t_j^-) }\) it follows that . Now we prove that . It is enough to prove that
To this end, let \(h \in H\) be such that \(\Vert h \Vert _H \le 1\). By Proposition 6, (c), we have
Thus, since the form is \(C^\alpha \) on \((t_{j-1}, t_j)\), we have for every small \(\epsilon > 0\)
Taking the supremum over all \(h \in H\) of norm we obtain
Since this is true for all \(\epsilon > 0\) we obtain (33). We conclude from this, (31) and (32) that . Finally, the latter space coincides with by the assumptions of the corollary. \(\square \)
4 Operator-valued pseudo-differential operators
Given a Hilbert space \(H\), our aim in this section is to prove results on boundedness on \(L_2(\mathbb {R}^n ; H)\) for pseudo-differential operators with minimal smoothness assumption on the symbol. The main results we will show here were proved in [20] in the scalar case (i.e., \(H = \mathbb {C}\)), see also [4]. The operator-valued version follows the lines in [20] and we give the details here for the sake of completeness. Let us mention the paper [15] where results on \(L_p\)-boundedness of pseudo-differential operators with operator-valued symbols are proved even when \(H\) is not a Hilbert space. We do not appeal to the results from [15] in order to avoid assuming continuity and concavity assumptions on the function \(\omega \) in Theorem 2.
Let \(H\) be a Hilbert space on \(\mathbb {C}\), with scalar product \(\left[ \cdot \,|\,\cdot \right] _H\) and associated norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _H\).
be bounded measurable. We define for \(f \) in the Schwartz space \(\mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^n; H)\)
where we write \(\widehat{f}\) for the Fourier transform of \(f\). We shall also use the notation \(|\xi |\) for the Euclidean distance in \(\mathbb {R}^n\) and write henceforth \(\langle \xi \rangle := \sqrt{1 + |\xi |^2}\). For the rest of this section, we will ignore the normalisation constant in the definition of the Fourier transform.
Theorem 13
Suppose that there exists a non-decreasing function \(\omega : [0, \infty ) \rightarrow [0, \infty )\) such that
and
for all and some positive constant \(C_\alpha \). Suppose in addition that
then \(T_\sigma \) is a bounded operator on \( L_2(\mathbb {R}^n ; H)\).Footnote 3
Proof
Let \(\varphi \in C^\infty (\mathbb {R}^n)\) be a non-negative function with support in the unit ball such that \(\int _{\mathbb {R}^n} \varphi (x) \,{\mathrm {d}}x= 1\). Fix a constant \(\delta \in (0,1)\) and define the symbols
and
It is clear that
and one checks that
and
for \(|\alpha | \le [\frac{n}{2}] + 2\) and all \(\beta \). Using (36) we conclude by the next theorem that \(T_{\sigma _2}\) is bounded on \(L_2(\mathbb {R}^n; H)\). The boundedness of \(T_{\sigma _1}\) on \(L_2(\mathbb {R}^n; H)\) follows from (35) and Theorem 1 in [19]. Note that it is assumed there that the symbol is \(C^\infty \) but the estimate needed in Theorem 1 is exactly (35) with \(|\alpha | \le [\frac{n}{2}] + 2\).
Theorem 14
Let \(\delta \in (0, 1)\) and \(w: [0, 1]\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_+\) be a non-decreasing measurable function satisfying
If a bounded strongly measurable symbol \(\sigma : \mathbb {R}^n \times \mathbb {R}^n \rightarrow \mathcal {B}(H)\) satisfies
for , then \(T_\sigma \) is bounded on \(L_2(\mathbb {R}^n; H )\).
Proof
Let \(\varphi \) be a non-negative \(C_c^\infty \) function satisfying \(\varphi (\xi ) = 1\) for \(|\xi | \le 2\) and \(\varphi (\xi ) = 0\) for \(|\xi |>3\). Then we may rewrite
and treat both parts separately. For the first part, let \(f \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^n ; H)\) and \(h \in H\). Then
By Plancherel’s theorem,
where \(C_1\) is finite due to the support of \(\sigma _1\). By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,
Thus, \(T_{\sigma _1}\) is bounded on \(L_2(\mathbb {R}^n; H)\).
Next we show boundedness of \(T_{\sigma _2}\). Recall that \(\text {supp}(\sigma _2) \subset \{ (x, \xi ) :\;|\xi | \ge 2 \}\). Let \(\phi \in C_c^\infty \) such that \(\text {supp}(\phi ) \subseteq [1,2]\) and \(\int _0^\infty |\phi (t)|^2\,\tfrac{{\mathrm {d}}t}{t} = 1\). Let \(f \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^n; H)\) and \(h \in H\).
Recall that \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R})\), so that by Plancherel’s theorem
where \(K_1\) and \(K_2\) are the respective Fourier transforms
and
Now, by the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality,
Observe that . Recall that \(\phi \in C_c^\infty (\mathbb {R})\) has its support in \([1, 2]\), so that, for \(|\xi | \ge 1\), and using the growth assumption (37) on derivatives of \(\sigma \),
Note that we used here the monotonicity of \(\omega \). The Dini type condition on \(\omega \) then gives
We conclude by observing that, again by Plancherel,
Therefore, \(T_{\sigma _2}\) and hence \(T_\sigma \) are bounded on \(L_2(\mathbb {R}^n; H)\). \(\square \)
5 Examples
In this section we discuss some examples and applications of our results. We shall focus on two simple but relevant linear problems which involve elliptic operators. Note that following [3], we may also consider quasi-linear evolution equations. Our maximal regularity results can be used to improve some results in [3] on existence of solutions to quasi-linear problems in the sense that we assume less regularity with respect to \(t\) of the coefficients of the equations. We shall not pursue this direction here.
5.1 Elliptic operators
Define on \(H = L_2(\mathbb {R}^d, {\mathrm {d}}x)\) the sesquilinear forms
We assume that \(a_{kj}: [0, \tau ] \times \mathbb {R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb {C}\) such that:
and
Here \(\nu > 0\) is a constant independent of \(t\).
It is easy to check that \({\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; \cdot , \cdot )}\) is \( W^{1}_2(\mathbb {R}^d)\)-bounded and quasi-coercive. The associated operator with \({\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; \cdot , \cdot )}\) is the elliptic operator given by the formal expression
In addition to the above assumptions we assume that for some constant \(M\) and
By the Kato square root property, it is known that , see [24]. Therefore, applying Corollary 4 we conclude that for every \(f \in L_2(0,\tau ; H)\) the problem
has a unique solution \(u \in W^{1}_2(0,\tau ; H) \cap L_2(0,\tau ; W^{1}_2(\mathbb {R}^d))\).
5.2 Time-dependent Robin boundary conditions
We consider here the Laplacian on a domain \(\Omega \) with a time dependent Robin boundary condition
for some function \(\beta : [0,\tau ] \times \Gamma \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\). This example is taken from [3]. The difference here is that we assume less regularity on \(\beta \) and also that we can treat maximal \(L_p\)-regularity for \(p \in (1, \infty ) \) whereas the results in [3] are restricted to the case \(p=2\).
Let \(\Omega \) be a bounded domain of \(\mathbb {R}^d\) with Lipschitz boundary \(\Gamma = \partial \Omega \) and denote by \(\sigma \) the \((d{-}1)\)-dimensional Hausdorff measure on \(\Gamma \). Let \(\beta : [0,\tau ] \times \Gamma \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be a bounded measurable function which is Hölder continuous w.r.t. the first variable, i.e.,
for some constants \(M\), and all \(t, s \in [0, \tau ], \ x \in \Gamma \). We consider the symmetric form
The form \({\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; \cdot , \cdot )}\) is \( W^{1}_2(\Omega )\)-bounded and quasi-coercive. The first statement follows from the continuity of the trace operator and the boundedness of \(\beta \). The second one is a consequence of the inequality
which is valid for all \(\varepsilon > 0\) (\(c_\varepsilon \) is a constant depending on \(\varepsilon \)). Note that (42) is a consequence of compactness of the trace as an operator from \( W^{1}_2(\Omega )\) into \(L_2(\Gamma , d \sigma )\), see [21, Chapter 2 §6, Theorem 6.2].
The operator \(A(t)\) associated with \({\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; \cdot , \cdot )}\) on \(H:= L_2(\Omega )\) is (minus) the Laplacian with time dependent Robin boundary conditions (39). As in [3], we use the following weak definition of the normal derivative. Let \(v \in W^{1}_2(\Omega )\) such that \(\Delta v \in L_2(\Omega )\). Let \(h \in L_2(\Gamma , d \sigma )\). Then \(\partial _\nu v = h\) by definition if \(\int _\Omega \nabla v \nabla w + \int _\Omega \Delta v w = \int _\Gamma h w \, d \sigma \) for all \(w \in W^{1}_2(\Omega )\). Based on this definition, the domain of \(A(t)\) is the set
and for \(v\in \mathcal {D}(A(t))\) the operator is given by \(A(t)v = - \Delta v\).
Observe that the form \({\mathop {{\varvec{\mathfrak {a}}}}(t; \cdot , \cdot )}\) is symmetric, so that . From Corollary 4 it follows that the heat equation
has a unique solution \(u \in W^{1}_2(0,\tau ; L_2(\Omega ))\) whenever \(f \in L_2(0,\tau ; L_2(\Omega ))\). This example is also valid for more general elliptic operators than the Laplacian.
Note that in both examples we have assumed \(\alpha \)-Hölder continuity in (38) and (40). We could replace this assumption by piecewise \(\alpha \)-Hölder continuity as authorised by Corollary 4.
Notes
See Solutions in \(L_{p}\) of abstract parabolic equations in Hilbert spaces. J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 33 (2), 299–314 (1993).
It seems to be difficult to understand the Proof of Lemma 4.3 at the beginning of page 306, the end of the Proof of Proposition 2 at page 307, as well as estimates after formula (5.5) at page 310 in the Proof of Lemma 3.4.
In [14], \(L_2(\mathbb {R}; H)\)-boundedness of \(T_\sigma \) is claimed for symbols \(\sigma : \mathbb {R}{\times } \mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathcal {B}(H)\) that admit a bounded holomorphic extension to a double sector of \(\mathbb {C}\) in the variable \(\xi \), without any kind of regularity in the variable \(x\).
References
Acquistapace, P., Terreni, B.: A unified approach to abstract linear nonautonomous parabolic equations. Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Padova 78, 47–107 (1987)
Alan, M.: Operators which have an \(H_\infty \) functional calculus, Miniconference on operator theory and partial differential equations (North Ryde, 1986). In: Proc. Cent. Math. Anal. Aust. Natl. Univ., vol. 14, pp. 210–231. Aust. Natl. Univ. Canberra (1986)
Arendt, W., Dier, D., Laasri, H., Ouhabaz, E.M.: Maximal regularity for evolution equations governed by non-autonomous forms. Adv. Differ. Equ. 19(11–12), 1043–1066 (2014)
Ashino, R., Nagase, M., Vaillancourt, R.: Pseudodifferential operators in \(L^p({{\mathbb{R}}^n})\) spaces. Cubo 6(3), 91–129 (2004)
Bardos, C.: A regularity theorem for parabolic equations. J. Funct. Anal. 7, 311–322 (1971)
Batty, C.J.K., Chill, R., Srivastava, S.: Maximal regularity for second order non-autonomous Cauchy problems. Stud. Math. 189(3), 205–223 (2008)
Cannarsa, P., Vespri, V.: On maximal Lp regularity for the abstract Cauchy problem. Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. B (6) 5(1), 165–175 (1986)
Dautray, R., Lions, J.L.: Mathematical analysis and numerical methods for science and technology, In: Evolution problems I, vol. 5. Springer, Berlin (1992)
de Francia, J.L.R., Ruiz, F.J., Torrea, J.L.: Calderón–Zygmund theory for operator-valued kernels. Adv. Math. 62, 7–48 (1986)
Denk, R., Hieber, M., Prüss, J.: \(R\)-boundedness, Fourier multipliers and problems of elliptic and parabolic type. Mem. Am. Math. Soc. 166(788) (2003)
Diestel, J., Uhl, J.J.: Vector measures, American Mathematical Society, Providence. With a foreword by B.J. Pettis, Mathematical Surveys, No. 15 (1977)
Fuje, Y., Tanabe, H.: On some parabolic equations of evolution in Hilbert space. Osaka J. Math. 10, 115–130 (1973)
Herbert A.: Linear and Quasilinear Parabolic Problems: Volume I: Abstract Linear Theory. Birkhäuser, Basel (1995)
Hieber, M., Monniaux, S.: Pseudo-differential operators and maximal regularity results for non-autonomous parabolic equations. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 128(4), 1047–1053 (2000)
Hytönen, T., Portal, P.: Vector-valued multiparameter singular integrals and pseudodifferential operators. Adv. Math. 217(2), 519–536 (2008)
Kunstmann, P.C., Weis, L.: Maximal \(L_p\)-regularity for parabolic equations, Fourier multiplier theorems and \(H^\infty \)-calculus. In: Iannelli, M., Nagel, R., Piazzera, S. (eds.) Functional Analytic Methods for Evolution Equations, Springer Lecture Notes, vol. 1855, pp. 65–311 (2004)
Lions, J-L: Équations différentielles opérationnelles et problèmes aux limites. In: Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 111. Springer, Berlin (1961)
Lunardi, A.: Interpolation Theory, 2nd edn. Edizioni della Normale, Pisa (2009)
Muramatu, T.: On the boundedness of a class of operator-valued pseudo-differential operators in \(L^{p}\) spaces. Proc. Jpn. Acad. 49, 94–99 (1973)
Muramatu, T., Nagase, M.: \(L^2\)-boundedness of pseudo-differential operators with non-regular symbols. Can. Math. Soc. Conf. Proc. 1, 135–144 (1981)
Nečas, J.: Les méthodes directes en théorie des équations elliptiques. Masson et Cie, Éditeurs, Paris (1967)
Ouhabaz, E.M.: Analysis of heat equations on domains. In: London Mathematical Society Monographs Series, vol. 31. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2005)
Ouhabaz, E.M., Spina, C.: Maximal regularity for non-autonomous Schrödinger type equations. J. Differ. Equ. 248(7), 1668–1683 (2010)
Pascal, A., Steve, H., Michael, L., Alan, M., Tchamitchian, Ph: The solution of the Kato square root problem for second order elliptic operators on \({{\mathbb{R}}^n}\). Ann. Math. (2) 156(2), 633–654 (2002)
Ralph, E.: Showalter monotone operators in banach space and nonlinear partial differential equations. In: Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. AMS (1996)
Triebel, H.: Interpolation Theory, Function Spaces, Differential Operators, 2nd edn. Johann Ambrosius Barth, Heidelberg (1995)
Acknowledgments
Both authors wish to thank the anonymous referee for his or her thorough reading of the manuscript and his or her suggestions and improvements. We further wish to thank Dominik Dier for his useful remarks on an earlier version of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research of both authors was partially supported by the ANR project HAB, ANR-12-BS01-0013-02.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haak, B.H., Ouhabaz, E.M. Maximal regularity for non-autonomous evolution equations. Math. Ann. 363, 1117–1145 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-015-1199-7
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-015-1199-7