Abstract
We show that the knowledge of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann maps given on an arbitrary open non-empty portion of the boundary of a smooth domain in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\), \(n\ge 2\), for classes of semilinear and quasilinear conductivity equations, determines the nonlinear conductivities uniquely. The main ingredient in the proof is a certain \(L^1\)-density result involving sums of products of gradients of harmonic functions which vanish on a closed proper subset of the boundary.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction and statement of results
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\), \(n\ge 2\), be a connected bounded open set with \(C^\infty \) boundary. Let us consider the Dirichlet problem for the following isotropic semilinear conductivity equation,
Here we assume that the function \(\gamma : \overline{\Omega }\times {\mathbb {C}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\) satisfies the following conditions,
-
(a)
the map \({\mathbb {C}}\ni \tau \mapsto \gamma (\cdot , \tau )\) is holomorphic with values in the Hölder space \(C^{1,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) with some \(0<\alpha <1\),
-
(b)
\(\gamma (x, 0)=1\), for all \(x\in \Omega \).
The semilinear conductivity equation (1.1) can be viewed as a steady state semilinear heat equation where the conductivity depends on the temperature, and in physics, such models occur, for instance, in nonlinear heat conduction in composite materials, see [23].
It is shown in Theorem B.1 that under the assumptions (a) and (b), there exist \(\delta >0\) and \(C>0\) such that when \(f\in B_\delta (\partial \Omega ):=\{f\in C^{2,\alpha }(\partial \Omega ): \Vert f\Vert _{C^{2,\alpha }(\partial \Omega )}<\delta \}\), the problem (1.1) has a unique solution \(u=u_{ f}\in C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) satisfying \(\Vert u\Vert _{C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })}<C\delta \). Let \(\Gamma \subset \partial \Omega \) be an arbitrary non-empty open subset of the boundary \(\partial \Omega \). Associated to the problem (1.1), we define the partial Dirichlet-to-Neumann map
where \(f\in B_\delta (\partial \Omega )\) with \(\hbox {supp }(f)\subset \Gamma \). Here \(\nu \) is the unit outer normal to the boundary.
We are interested in the following inverse boundary problem for the semilinear conductivity equation (1.1): given the knowledge of the partial Dirichlet-to-Neumann map \(\Lambda _\gamma ^{\Gamma }\), determine the semilinear conductivity \(\gamma \) in \(\overline{\Omega }\times {\mathbb {C}}\). Our first main result gives a complete solution to this problem.
Theorem 1.1
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\), \(n\ge 2\), be a connected bounded open set with \(C^\infty \) boundary, and let \(\Gamma \subset \partial \Omega \) be an arbitrary open non-empty subset of the boundary \(\partial \Omega \). Let \(\gamma _1, \gamma _2: \overline{\Omega }\times {\mathbb {C}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\) satisfy the assumptions (a) and (b). If \(\Lambda _{\gamma _1}^\Gamma =\Lambda _{\gamma _2}^\Gamma \) then \(\gamma _1=\gamma _2\) in \(\overline{\Omega }\times {\mathbb {C}}\).
It is also of great interest and importance to consider inverse boundary problems for nonlinear conductivity equations with conductivities depending not only on the solution u but also on its gradient, \(\nabla u\). Such equations occur, in particular, in the study of transport properties of non-linear composite materials, see [36], as well as in glaciology, when modeling the stationary motion of a glacier, see [12]. Furthermore, such equations can be considered as a simple scalar model of the nonlinear elasticity system, see [44, Section 2]. To this end, we are able to solve partial data inverse boundary problems for a class of quasilinear conductivities of the form \(\gamma (x,u, \omega \cdot \nabla u)\), depending on the space variable, the solution, as well as the derivative of the solution in a fixed direction \(\omega \in {\mathbb {S}}^{n-1}=\{\omega \in {\mathbb {R}}^n: |\omega |=1\}\). To state the result, let \(\omega \in {\mathbb {S}}^{n-1}\) be fixed and let us consider the Dirichlet problem for the following isotropic quasilinear conductivity equation,
Here we assume that the function \(\gamma : \overline{\Omega }\times {\mathbb {C}}\times {\mathbb {C}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\) satisfies the following conditions,
-
(i)
the map \({\mathbb {C}}\times {\mathbb {C}}\ni (\tau , z)\mapsto \gamma (\cdot , \tau ,z)\) is holomorphic with values in \(C^{1,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) with some \(0<\alpha <1\),
-
(ii)
\(\gamma (x,\tau ,0)=1\), for all \(x\in \Omega \) and all \(\tau \in {\mathbb {C}}\).
It is established in Theorem B.1 that under the assumptions (i) and (ii) for each \(\lambda \in {\mathbb {C}}\), there exist \(\delta _\lambda >0\) and \(C_\lambda >0\) such that when \(f\in B_{\delta _\lambda }(\partial \Omega ):=\{f\in C^{2,\alpha }(\partial \Omega ): \Vert f\Vert _{C^{2,\alpha }(\partial \Omega )}<\delta _\lambda \}\), the problem (1.2) has a unique solution \(u=u_{\lambda , f}\in C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) satisfying \(\Vert u-\lambda \Vert _{C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })}< C_\lambda \delta _\lambda \). Associated to the problem (1.2), we define the partial Dirichlet-to-Neumann map
where \(f\in B_{\delta _\lambda }(\partial \Omega )\) with \(\hbox {supp }(f)\subset \Gamma \) and \(\lambda \in {\mathbb {C}}\).
Our second main result is as follows.
Theorem 1.2
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\), \(n\ge 2\), be a connected bounded open set with \(C^\infty \) boundary, and let \(\Gamma \subset \partial \Omega \) be an arbitrary open non-empty subset of the boundary \(\partial \Omega \). Let \(\omega \in {\mathbb {S}}^{n-1}\) be fixed. Assume that \(\gamma _1, \gamma _2: \overline{\Omega }\times {\mathbb {C}}\times {\mathbb {C}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\) satisfy the assumptions (i) and (ii). Let \(\Sigma \subset {\mathbb {C}}\) be a set which has a limit point in \({\mathbb {C}}\). Then if for all \( \lambda \in \Sigma \), we have
then \(\gamma _1=\gamma _2\) in \(\overline{\Omega }\times {\mathbb {C}}\times {\mathbb {C}}\).
Note that in Theorem 1.2 the Dirichlet-to-Neumann maps \(\Lambda _{\gamma _j}^\Gamma \) map the Dirichlet data \(\lambda +f\), which is not supported on \(\Gamma \), unless \(\lambda =0\), to the Neumann data which is measured on \(\Gamma \).
Remark 1.3
To the best of our knowledge, the partial data results of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 are the first partial data results for nonlinear conductivity equations.
Remark 1.4
It might be interesting to note that an analog of the partial data results of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 is still not known in the case of the linear conductivity equation in dimensions \(n\ge 3\). We refer to [17] for the corresponding partial data result for the linear conductivity equation in dimension \(n=2\).
Remark 1.5
An analog of Theorem 1.1 in the full data case, i.e. when \(\Gamma =\partial \Omega \), was proved in [42] where instead of working with small Dirichlet data one considers small perturbations of constant Dirichlet data as in (1.2). Furthermore, it was assumed in [42] that the semilinear conductivity is strictly positive while no analyticity was required. The proof of [42] relies on a first order linearization of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map at constant Dirichlet boundary values which leads to the inverse boundary problem for the linear conductivity equation and therefore, an application of results of [47] and [35] for the linear conductivity problem in dimensions \(n\ge 3\) and in dimension \(n=2\), respectively, gives the recovery of the semilinear conductivity.
Remark 1.6
To the best of our knowledge Theorem 1.2 is new even in the full data case. Indeed, in the full data case, so far authors have only considered the recovery of conductivities of the form \(\gamma (x,u)\), see e.g. [42, 46], or of the form \(\gamma (u, \nabla u)\), see e.g. [34, 41], or conductivities which depend x and \(\nabla u\) in some specific way, see e.g. [5]. We obtain in Theorem 1.2, for what seems to be the first time, the recovery of some general class of quasilinear conductivities of the form \(\gamma (x,u, \omega \cdot \nabla u)\), depending on the space variable, the solution, as well as the derivative of the solution in a fixed direction.
Remark 1.7
The assumption that the conductivity is holomorphic as a function \({\mathbb {C}}\ni \tau \mapsto \gamma (\cdot , \tau ,\cdot )\) in Theorem 1.2 is motivated by the proof of the solvability of the forward problem and the differentiability with respect to the boundary data. This assumption could perhaps be weakened and one could show that the full knowledge of the partial Dirichlet-to-Neumann map \(\Lambda _{\gamma }^{\Gamma }\) determines the conductivity \(\gamma \). As the main focus of this paper is on establishing the partial data inverse results, we decided not to elaborate upon this issue further.
We remark that starting with [27], it has been known that nonlinearity may be helpful when solving inverse problems for hyperbolic PDE. Analogous phenomena for nonlinear elliptic equations have been revealed and exploited in [10, 29], see also [24,25,26, 28, 30]. A noteworthy aspect of all of these works is that the presence of a nonlinearity enables one to solve inverse problems for nonlinear PDE in situations where the corresponding inverse problems for linear equations are still open. The present paper is also concerned with illustrating this general phenomenon.
Let us proceed to discuss the main ideas of the proofs of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2. Using the technique of higher order linearizations of the partial Dirichlet-to-Neumann map, introduced in [10, 29], see also [42, 46] for the use of the second linearization, we reduce the proof of Theorem 1.2 to the following density result.
Theorem 1.8
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\), \(n\ge 2\), be a connected bounded open set with \(C^\infty \) boundary, let \( \Gamma \subset \partial \Omega \) be an open non-empty subset of \(\partial \Omega \), let \(\omega \in {\mathbb {S}}^{n-1}\) be fixed, and let \(m=2,3, \dots ,\) be fixed. Let \(f\in L^\infty (\Omega )\) be such that
for all functions \(u_l\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\) harmonic in \(\Omega \) with \({\hbox {supp }}(u_l|_{\partial \Omega })\subset \Gamma \), \(l=1,\dots , m+1\). Then \(f=0\) in \(\Omega \).
Similarly, using higher order linearizations of the partial Dirichlet-to-Neumann map, we show that Theorem 1.1 will follow from the following density result.
Theorem 1.9
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\), \(n\ge 2\), be a connected bounded open set with \(C^\infty \) boundary, let \( \Gamma \subset \partial \Omega \) be an open non-empty subset of \(\partial \Omega \), and let \(m=2,3, \dots ,\) be fixed. Let \(f\in L^\infty (\Omega )\) be such that
for all functions \(u_l\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\) harmonic in \(\Omega \) with \(\hbox {supp } (u_l|_{\partial \Omega })\subset \Gamma \), \(l=1,\dots , m+1\). Then \(f=0\) in \(\Omega \).
Theorems 1.8 and 1.9 can be viewed as extensions of the results of [8] and [24]. Indeed, it was proved in [8] that the linear span of the set of products of harmonic functions in \(\Omega \) which vanish on a closed proper subset of the boundary is dense in \(L^1(\Omega )\), and this density result was extended in [24] by showing that the linear span of the set of scalar products of gradients of harmonic functions in \(\Omega \) which vanish on a closed proper subset of the boundary is also dense in \(L^1(\Omega )\).
To prove Theorem 1.8, we shall follow the general strategy of the work [8], see also [24]. We first establish a corresponding local result in a neighborhood of a boundary point in \(\Gamma \) assuming, as we may, that \(\Gamma \) is a small open neighborhood of this point, see Proposition 2.1 below. We then show how to pass from this local result to the global one of Theorem 1.8. The essential difference here compared with the works [8, 24] is that working with products of \(m+1\) gradients in the orthogonality identity (1.3), we need to prove a certain Runge type approximation theorem in the \(W^{1,m+1}\)-topology for any \(m=2,3,\dots \) fixed, as opposed to \(L^2\) and \(H^1\) approximation results obtained in [8] and [24], respectively.
We shall only prove Theorem 1.8 as the proof of Theorem 1.9 is obtained by inspection of that proof as the only difference between the orthogonality relations (1.3) and (1.4) is that (1.3) contains \(\omega \cdot \nabla u_r\) with harmonic functions \(u_r\) while (1.4) contains \(u_r\) instead, and no new difficulties occur.
Remark 1.10
While the present paper was under review, the inverse boundary problem with full data, i.e. when the measurement are performed along the entire boundary \(\partial \Omega \), was solved in [6] for quasilinear isotropic conductivity \(\gamma \) of the form \(\gamma (x,u,\nabla u)\), showing that the quasilinear conductivity \(\gamma \) can indeed be uniquely determined from these measurements, provided that the map \({\mathbb {C}}\times {\mathbb {C}}^n\ni (\rho ,\mu )\mapsto \gamma (\cdot , \rho , \mu )\) is is holomorphic with values in \(C^{1,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) with some \(0<\alpha <1\), and \(0<\gamma (\cdot , 0,0)\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\). It would be interesting to solve the partial data inverse problem for such conductivities to be on par with the full data result of [6]. The difficulty here compared with the recovery of the conductivities of the form \(\gamma (x,u,\omega \cdot \nabla u)\) in Theorem 1.2 is that higher order linearizations of the partial Dirichlet-to-Neumann map lead to a density statement in the spirit of Theorem 1.8 where instead of working with a scalar function f one has to work with a function with values in the space of symmetric tensors of rank \(m\in {\mathbb {N}}\). Furthermore, a challenge in the proof of partial data result compared with the full data result of [6] is that one has to work with harmonic functions which vanish on an arbitrary portion of the boundary in the density statement. It is not quite clear how to extend the analytic microlocal analysis framework of [8] to prove the needed density result in this more general situation.
Let us finally remark that inverse boundary problems for nonlinear elliptic PDE have been studied extensively in the literature. We refer to [4, 5, 7, 10, 15, 18,19,20,21,22, 26, 29, 34, 41,42,43, 45, 46], and the references given there. In particular, inverse boundary problems with partial data were studied for a certain class of semilinear equations of the form \(-\Delta u +V(x,u)=0\) in [25, 30] relying on the density result of [8], for semilinear equations of the form \(-\Delta u+q(x)(\nabla u)^2=0\) in [24], and for nonlinear magnetic Schrödinger equations in [28].
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we establish Theorem 1.8. Theorem 1.2 in proven in Sect. 3. The proof of Theorem 1.1 occupies Sect. 4. In Appendix A we present an alternative simple proof of Theorem 1.2 in the full data case. In Appendix B we show the well-posedness of the Dirichlet problem for our quasilinear conductivity equation, in the case of boundary data close to a constant one.
2 Proof of Theorem 1.8
We shall proceed by following the general strategy of [8]. It suffices to assume that \(\Gamma \subset \partial \Omega \) is a proper open nonempty subset of \(\partial \Omega \), and even a small open neighborhood of some boundary point.
2.1 Local result
Theorem 1.8 will be obtained as a corollary of the following local result.
Proposition 2.1
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\), \(n\ge 2\), be a bounded open set with \(C^\infty \) boundary, and let \(m=2,3, \dots ,\) be fixed. Let \(x_0\in \partial \Omega \), and let \({\widetilde{\Gamma }}\subset \partial \Omega \) be the complement of an open boundary neighborhood of \(x_0\). Then there exists \(\delta >0\) such that if we have (1.3) for any harmonic functions \(u_l\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\) satisfying \(u_l|_{{\widetilde{\Gamma }}}=0\), \(l=1,\dots , m+1\), then \(f=0\) in \(B(x_0, \delta )\cap \Omega \).
Proof
It suffices to choose \(u_1=\dots =u_{m}\) in (1.3). Hence, (1.3) implies that
for all harmonic functions \(v_1, v_2\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\) satisfying \(v_l|_{{\widetilde{\Gamma }}}=0\), \(l=1,2\). Our goal is to show that (2.1) gives that \(f=0\) in \(B(x_0, \delta )\cap \Omega \) with \(\delta >0\). Using conformal transformations (in particular Kelvin transforms) of harmonic functions as in [8, Section 3], and arguing as in that work, we are reduced to the following setting: \(x_0=0\), the tangent plane to \(\Omega \) at \(x_0\) is given by \(x_1=0\),
for some \(c>0\).
Let \(p(\zeta )=\zeta ^2\), \(\zeta \in {\mathbb {C}}^n\), be the principal symbol of \(-\Delta \), holomorphically extended to \({\mathbb {C}}^n\). Let \(\zeta \in p^{-1}(0)\) and let \(\chi \in C_0^\infty ({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) be such that \(\hbox {supp }(\chi )\subset \{x\in {\mathbb {R}}^n: x_1\le -c\}\) and \(\chi =1\) on \(\{x\in \partial \Omega : x_1\le -2c\}\). We shall work with harmonic functions of the form
where r is the solution to the Dirichlet problem,
By the boundary elliptic regularity, we have \(v\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\), and furthermore \(v|_{{\widetilde{\Gamma }}}=0\). Since in view of (2.1) we shall work with products of \(m+1\) gradients of harmonic functions, we need to have good estimates for the remainder r in \(C^1(\overline{\Omega })\). To that end, in view of Sobolev’s embedding, we would like to bound \(\Vert r\Vert _{H^{k}(\Omega )}\) with \(k\in {\mathbb {N}}\), \(k>n/2+1\). Boundary elliptic regularity gives that for \(k\ge 2\),
see [9, Section 24.2]. Now by interpolation, we get
see [14, Theorem 7.22, p. 189]. We have
where \(K=\hbox {supp }\chi \cap \partial \Omega \), and therefore,
It follows from (2.4) and (2.5) that
Using (2.3) and (2.6), we see that
Taking \(k>n/2+1\) and using the Sobolev embedding \(H^k(\Omega )\subset C^1(\overline{\Omega })\), we get
Using that \(\hbox {supp }(\chi )\subset \{x\in {\mathbb {R}}^n: x_1\le -c\}\) and \(\chi =1\) on \(\{x\in \partial \Omega : x_1\le -2c\}\), we obtain from (2.7) that
when \(\text {Im}\,\zeta _1\ge 0\).
Now the identity (2.1) implies that
for all \(\zeta ,\eta \in p^{-1}(0)\). Here \(v(x,\zeta )\) and \(v(x,m\eta )\) are harmonic functions of the form (2.2) and \(D=i^{-1}\nabla \). Using that
we obtain from (2.9) that
where
We shall next proceed to bound the absolute values of \(I_1\) and \(I_2\). To that end, first note that when \(\text {Im}\,\zeta _1\ge 0\), using the fact that \(\Omega \subset \{x\in {\mathbb {R}}^n: |x +e_1|<1\}\), we have
Using (2.8) and (2.11), we obtain that for all \(\zeta ,\eta \in p^{-1}(0)\), \(\text {Im}\,\zeta _1\ge 0\), \(\text {Im}\, \eta _1\ge 0\),
and
As noticed in [8], the differential of the map
at a point \((\zeta _0,\eta _0)\) is surjective, provided that \(\zeta _0\) and \(\eta _0\) are linearly independent. The latter holds if \(\zeta _0=\gamma \) and \(\eta _0=-\overline{\gamma }\) with \(\gamma \in {\mathbb {C}}^n\) given as follows. Recall that \(\omega =(\omega _1,\dots , \omega _n)\in {\mathbb {S}}^{n-1}\) is fixed. Then there exists \(\omega _k\ne 0\), and if \(2\le k\le n \) we set \(\gamma =(i, 0, \dots , 0, 1, 0, \dots , 0)\) where 1 is on the kth position. If \(\omega _1\ne 0\) then we set \(\gamma =(i,1, 0, \dots , 0)\in {\mathbb {C}}^n\).
Note that \(\gamma \cdot \omega \ne 0\) and \(\zeta _0+\eta _0=2i e_1\). An application of the inverse function theorem gives that there exists \(\varepsilon >0\) small such that any \(z\in {\mathbb {C}}^n\), \(|z-2ie_1|<2\varepsilon \), may be decomposed as \(z=\zeta +\eta \) where \(\zeta , \eta \in p^{-1}(0)\), \(|\zeta -\gamma |<C_1\varepsilon \) and \(|\eta +\overline{\gamma }|<C_1\varepsilon \) with some \(C_1>0\). We obtain that any \(z\in {\mathbb {C}}^n\) such that \(|z-2i ae_1|<2\varepsilon a\) for some \(a>0\), may be decomposed as
It follows from (2.14) that
We also conclude from (2.14) that for \(\varepsilon >0\) small enough,
Hence, assuming that \(a>1\), we obtain from (2.10) with the help of (2.12), (2.13), (2.14), (2.15), (2.16) that
for all \(z\in {\mathbb {C}}^n\) such that \(|z-2i ae_1|<2\varepsilon a\) and \(\varepsilon >0\) sufficiently small. Here N is a fixed integer which depends on k and m. The estimate (2.17) is completely analogous to the bound (3.8) in [8], and hence, the proof of Proposition 2.1 is completed by repeating the arguments of [8] exactly as they stand. The idea is to extrapolate the exponential decay to more values of the frequency variable z which is achieved in [8] by using a variant of the proof of the Watermelon theorem. \(\square \)
Next in order to pass from this local result to the global one of Theorem 1.8, we need a Runge type approximation theorem in the \(W^{1,m+1}\)-topology, \(m=2,3,\dots \), which will extend [8, Lemma 2.2] and [24, Lemma 2.2], where approximations in the \(L^2\) and \(H^1\) topologies were established, respectively. To prove such an approximation theorem, we need to recall some facts about \(L^p\) based Sobolev spaces which we shall now proceed to do.
2.2 Some facts about \(L^p\) based Sobolev spaces
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\), \(n\ge 2\), be a bounded open set with \(C^\infty \) boundary, and let \(1<p<\infty \). Then we have for the dual space of the Sobolev space \(W^{1,p}(\Omega )\),
where
and \(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p'}=1\), see [3, page 163], [38, Section 4.3.2]. The duality pairing is defined as follows: if \(v\in {\widetilde{W}}^{-1,p'}(\Omega )\) and \(u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\), we set
where \(\text {Ext}(u)\in W^{1,p}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) is an arbitrary extension of u, see [2, Theorem 9.7] for the existence of such an extension, and \((\cdot , \cdot )_{W^{-1,p'}({\mathbb {R}}^n), W^{1,p}({\mathbb {R}}^n)}\) is the extension of \(L^2\) scalar product \((\varphi , \psi )_{L^2({\mathbb {R}}^n)}=\int _{{\mathbb {R}}^n} \varphi (x)\overline{\psi (x)}dx\). One can show that the definition (2.18) is independent of the choice of an extension.
We shall also need the following fact, see [38, Section 4.3.2, p. 318].
Proposition 2.2
\(C^\infty _0(\Omega )\) is dense in \({\widetilde{W}}^{-1,p'}(\Omega )\) with respect to \(W^{-1,p'}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) topology.
We have the following result concerning the solvability of the Dirichlet problem for the Laplacian, see [32, Theorem 7.10.2, p. 494].
Theorem 2.3
Let \(v\in W^{-1,p}(\Omega )\) and \(g\in W^{1-1/p, p}(\partial \Omega )\) with \(1<p<\infty \). Then the Dirichlet problem
has a unique solution \(u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\). Moreover,
We shall also need the following result about the structure of distributions in \(W^{-1,p}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) supported by a smooth hypersurface in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\). We refer to [1, Theorem 5.1.13], [31, Lemma 3.39] for this result in the case of distributions in \(H^{-1}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\). Since we did not find a reference for the case of distributions in \(W^{-1,p}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) with \(1<p<\infty \), we shall present the proof of this result here.
Proposition 2.4
Let F be a smooth compact hypersurface in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\). Let \(u\in W^{-1,p}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\), with some \(1<p<\infty \), be such that \(\hbox {supp }(u)\subset F\). Then
Here \(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p'}=1\) and \(B_{p,p}^{-(1-1/p')}(F)\) is the Besov space on the manifold F, see [38, Section 2.3.1, p. 169], [39] for the definition, and for any \(\varphi \in C^\infty _0({\mathbb {R}}^n)\), \(u(\varphi )=(v \otimes \delta _F)(\varphi )=v(\varphi |_{F})\).
Proof
Introducing a partition of unity and making a smooth change of variables, we see that it suffices to establish the following local result: let \(u\in W^{-1, p}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\), \(1<p<\infty \), such that \(\hbox {supp }(u)\subset \{x_n=0\}\), then \(u=v\otimes \delta _{x_n=0}\) with \(v\in (W^{1-1/p',p'}({\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}))^*= B_{p,p}^{-(1-1/p')}({\mathbb {R}}^{n-1})\). In order to prove this result we follow [31, Lemma 3.39].
First we claim that if \(\varphi \in C^\infty _0({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) is such that \(\varphi |_{x_n=0}=0\) then \(u(\varphi )=0\). To that end, we let
Then \(\varphi _{\pm }\in W^{1,p'}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) and therefore, by [2, Proposition 9.18], \(\varphi _{\pm }\in W^{1,p'}_0({\mathbb {R}}^n_{\pm })\). Thus, there exist sequences \(\varphi _{j,\pm }\in C^\infty _0({\mathbb {R}}^n_{\pm })\) such that \(\varphi _{j,\pm }\rightarrow \varphi _{\pm }\) in \(W^{1,p'}({\mathbb {R}}^n_{\pm })\) as \(j\rightarrow \infty \). Letting
we see that \(\chi _j\in C^\infty _0({\mathbb {R}}^n)\), \(\chi _j=0\) near \(\{x_n=0\}\), and \(\chi _j\rightarrow \varphi \) in \(W^{1,p'}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\). Hence, we have \(0=u(\chi _j)\rightarrow u(\varphi )\), and therefore, \(u(\varphi )=0\), establishing the claim.
To proceed we need the following result, see [33, 13, Theorem 1.5.1.1, p. 37]. The trace operator \(u\mapsto u|_{x_n=0}\), which is defined on \(C_0^\infty ({\mathbb {R}}^n)\), has a unique continuous extension as an operator,
This operator has a right continuous inverse, the extension operator,
so that \(\gamma (E\psi )=\psi \) for all \(\psi \in W^{1-1/p',p'}({\mathbb {R}}^{n-1})\).
Now we define
We have
and therefore, \(v\in (W^{1-1/p',p'}({\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}))^*\). Note that when \(1<p'<\infty \),
see [38, Section 2.5, p. 190, and Section 2.6.1, p. 198].
Finally, we claim that \(u-v\otimes \delta _{x_n=0}=0\). Indeed, letting \(\varphi \in C^\infty _0({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) and using (2.19) and our first claim, we get
This completes the proof of Proposition 2.4. \(\square \)
2.3 Runge type approximation
Let \(\Omega _1\subset \Omega _2\subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\), \(n\ge 2\), be two bounded open sets with \(C^\infty \) boundaries such that \(\Omega _2{\setminus }\overline{\Omega _1}\ne \emptyset \). Suppose that \(\partial \Omega _1\cap \partial \Omega _2={\overline{U}}\) where \(U\subset \partial \Omega _1\) is open with \(C^\infty \) boundary. Let \({\mathcal {G}}: C^\infty (\overline{\Omega _2})\rightarrow C^\infty (\overline{\Omega _2})\), \(a\mapsto w\), be the solution operator to the Dirichlet problem,
The following result is an extension of [8, Lemma 2.2] and [24, Lemma 2.2], where the similar density results were obtained in the \(L^2\) and \(H^1\) topologies, respectively.
Lemma 2.5
The space
is dense in the space
with respect to the \(W^{1,p}(\Omega _1)\)-topology, for any \(1<p<\infty \).
Proof
We shall follow the proof of [24, Lemma 2.2] closely, adapting it to the \(L^p\) based Sobolev spaces. Let \(v\in {\widetilde{W}}^{-1,p'}(\Omega _1)\), \(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p'}=1\), be such that
for any \(a\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega _2})\), \(\hbox {supp }(a)\subset \Omega _2{\setminus }\overline{\Omega _1}\). In view of the Hahn–Banach theorem, we have to prove that
for any \(u\in S\).
To that end, we first note that as \({\mathcal {G}}a\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega _2})\) and \({\mathcal {G}}a|_{\partial \Omega _2}=0\), we have \({\mathcal {G}}a\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega _2)\). By [2, Proposition 9.18], we can view \({\mathcal {G}}a\) as an element of \(W^{1,p}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) via an extension by 0 to \({\mathbb {R}}^n{\setminus } \Omega _2\). By the definition of \(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega _2)\), there exists a sequence \(\varphi _j\in C^\infty _0(\Omega _2)\) such that \(\varphi _j\rightarrow {\mathcal {G}}a\) in \(W^{1,p}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\). We have in view of (2.20) that
Next, Proposition 2.2 implies that there is a sequence \(v_j\in C^\infty _0(\Omega _1)\) such that \(v_j\rightarrow v\) in \(W^{-1,p'}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\). Consider the following Dirichlet problems,
By Theorem 2.3, the problems (2.22) have unique solutions \(f\in W^{1,p'}_0(\Omega _2)\) and \(f_j\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega _2})\cap W^{1,p'}_0(\Omega _2)\), respectively.
Here we have used Green’s formula, the fact that \(f_j|_{\partial \Omega _2}={\mathcal {G}}a|_{\partial \Omega _2}=0\), and that
which is a consequence of Theorem 2.3.
It follows from (2.23) that \(f=0\) in \(\Omega _2{\setminus } \overline{\Omega _1}\). This together with the fact that \(f\in W^{1,p'}_0(\Omega _2)\), in view of [2, Proposition 9.18], allows us to conclude that \(f\in W^{1,p'}_0(\Omega _1)\). Thus, there exists a sequence \({\widehat{f}}_j\in C^\infty _0(\Omega _1)\) be such that \({\widehat{f}}_j\rightarrow f\) in \(W^{1,p'}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\), and therefore, \(-\Delta {\widehat{f}}_j\rightarrow -\Delta f \) in \(W^{-1,p'}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\).
Let \(u\in S\) and let \(\text {Ext}(u)\in W^{1,p}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) be an extension of u. Using Green’s formula, we get
Let \(g=-\Delta f-v\in W^{-1,p'}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\). We have that \(\hbox {supp }(g)\subset \partial \Omega _1\), in view of the fact that \(\hbox {supp }(v), \hbox {supp }(f)\subset \overline{\Omega _1}\), and (2.22). An application of Proposition 2.4 gives therefore
It also follows from (2.22) that \(\hbox {supp }(g)\subset \partial \Omega _1\cap \partial \Omega _2={\overline{U}}\), and hence, \(\hbox {supp }(h)\subset {\overline{U}}\). Here \(U\subset \partial \Omega _1\) is a bounded open set with \(C^\infty \) boundary, and therefore, there exists a sequence \(h_j\in C^\infty _0(U)\) such that \(h_j\rightarrow h\) in \(B^{-(1-1/p)}_{p',p'}(\partial \Omega _1)\), see [38, Section 4.3.2, p. 318]. Thus, we get
where the last equality follows from the fact that \(u|_{\partial \Omega _1\cap \partial \Omega _2}=0\). Combining (2.24) and (2.25), we see that
\(\square \)
2.4 From local to global results. Completion of proof of Theorem 1.8
We follow [8]. Let \({\widetilde{\Gamma }}=\partial \Omega {\setminus } \Gamma \). Assuming that f satisfies (1.3) and using Proposition 2.1, we would like to show that f vanishes inside \(\Omega \). To that end, let \(x_0\in \Gamma \) and let us fix a point \(x_1\in \Omega \). Let \(\theta :[0,1]\rightarrow \overline{\Omega }\) be a \(C^1\) curve joining \(x_0\) to \(x_1\) such that \(\theta (0)=x_0\), \(\theta '(0)\) is the interior normal to \(\partial \Omega \) at \(x_0\) and \(\theta (t)\in \Omega \), for all \(t\in (0,1]\). We set
and
By Proposition 2.1, we have \(0\in I\) if \(\varepsilon >0\) is small enough. First as in [8], I is a closed subset of [0, 1]. If one proves that I is open then \(I=[0,1]\) due to the fact that [0, 1] is connected. This implies that \(x_1\notin \hbox {supp }(f)\), and as \(x_1\) is an arbitrary point of \(\Omega \), we conclude that \(f=0\) in \(\Omega \), and this will complete the proof of Theorem 1.8. Hence, we only need to prove that the set I is open in [0, 1].
To this end, let \(t\in I\) and \(\varepsilon >0\) be small enough so that \(\partial \Theta _\varepsilon (t)\cap \partial \Omega \subset \Gamma \). Arguing as in [8, 24], we smooth out \(\Omega {\setminus } \Theta _\varepsilon (t)\) into an open subset \(\Omega _1\) of \(\Omega \) with smooth boundary such that
and \(\partial \Omega _1\cap \partial \Omega ={\overline{U}}\) where \(U\subset \partial \Omega _1\) is an open set with \(C^\infty \) boundary. By smoothing out the set \(\Omega \cup B(x_0, \varepsilon ')\), with \(0<\varepsilon '\ll \varepsilon \) sufficiently small, we enlarge the set \(\Omega \) into an open set \(\Omega _2\) with smooth boundary so that
Let \(G_{\Omega _2}\) be the Green kernel associated to the open set \(\Omega _2\),
We have \(G_{\Omega _2}(x,y)\in C(\Omega \times \overline{\Omega }{\setminus }\{x=y\})\), see [40, Section 8.1]. Let us consider
where \(x^{(1)}, \dots , x^{(m+1)}\in \Omega _2{\setminus }\overline{\Omega _1}\). The function v is harmonic in all variables \(x^{(1)}, \dots , x^{(m+1)}\in \Omega _2{\setminus }\overline{\Omega _1}\). Since \(f=0\) on \(\Theta _\varepsilon (t)\cap \Omega \), we have
where \(x^{(1)}, \dots , x^{(m+1)}\in \Omega _2{\setminus }\overline{\Omega _1}\). Now when \(x^{(l)}\in \Omega _2{\setminus }\overline{\Omega }\), the Green function \(G_{\Omega _2} (x^{(l)},\cdot )\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\) is harmonic on \(\Omega \), and \(G_{\Omega _2} (x^{(l)},\cdot )|_{{\widetilde{\Gamma }}}=0\). By the orthogonality condition (1.3), we have \(v(x^{(1)},\dots , x^{(m+1)})=0\) when \(x^{(l)}\in \Omega _2{\setminus }\overline{\Omega }\), \(l=1,\dots , m+1\).
As \(v(x^{(1)},\dots , x^{(m+1)})\) is harmonic in all variables \(x^{(1)}, \dots , x^{(m+1)}\in \Omega _2{\setminus }\overline{\Omega _1}\), and \(\Omega _2{\setminus }\overline{\Omega _1}\) is connected, by unique continuation, we get that \(v(x^{(1)},\dots , x^{(m+1)})=0\) when \(x^{(1)}, \dots , x^{(m+1)}\in \Omega _2{\setminus }\overline{\Omega _1}\), i.e.
Let \(a_l\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega _2})\), \(\hbox {supp }(a_l)\subset \Omega _2{\setminus }\overline{\Omega _1}\), \(l=1,\dots ,m+1\). Multiplying (2.26) by \(a_1(x^{(1)})\cdots a_{m+1}(x^{(m+1)})\), and integrating, we get
Now it follows from the definition of W in Lemma 2.5 that any \(v\in W\) is given by
where \(a\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega _2})\), \(\hbox {supp }(a)\subset \Omega _2{\setminus }\overline{\Omega _1}\). This together with (2.27) gives that
for all \(v^{(1)}, \dots , v^{(m+1)}\in W\).
The \((m+1)\)-linear form,
is continuous in view of Hölder’s inequality. An application of Lemma 2.5 with \(p=m+1\) shows that (2.28) holds for all \(v^{(1)}, \dots , v^{(m)}\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega _1})\) harmonic in \(\Omega _1\) which vanish on \(\partial \Omega _1\cap \partial \Omega _2\). Proposition 2.1 implies that f vanishes on a neighborhood of \(\partial \Omega _1{\setminus }(\partial \Omega _1\cap \partial \Omega _2)\), and therefore, I is an open set. The proof of Theorem 1.8 is complete.
3 Proof of Theorem 1.2
First it follows from (i) and (ii) that for each \(\tau \in {\mathbb {C}}\) fixed, \(\gamma \) can be expanded into a power series
converging in the \(C^\alpha (\overline{\Omega })\) topology. Furthermore, the map \({\mathbb {C}}\ni \tau \mapsto \partial ^k_z\gamma (x,\tau ,0)\) is holomorphic with values in \(C^\alpha (\overline{\Omega })\).
Let \(\lambda \in \Sigma \) be arbitrary but fixed. Let \(\varepsilon =(\varepsilon _1, \dots , \varepsilon _m)\in {\mathbb {C}}^m\), \(m\ge 2\), and consider the Dirichlet problem (1.2) with
Then for all \(|\varepsilon |\) sufficiently small, the problem (1.2) has a unique solution \(u(\cdot ; \varepsilon )\in C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) close to \(\lambda \) in \(C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\)-topology, which depends holomorphically on \(\varepsilon \in \text {neigh}(0,{\mathbb {C}}^m)\), with values in \(C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\).
We shall use an induction argument on \(m\ge 2\) to prove that the equality
for all \(|\varepsilon |\) sufficiently small and all \(f_k\in C^\infty (\partial \Omega )\), \(\hbox {supp }(f_k)\subset \Gamma \), \(k=1,\dots , m\), gives that \(\partial _z^{m-1}\gamma _1(x,\lambda , 0)=\partial _z^{m-1}\gamma _1(x,\lambda , 0)\).
First let \(m=2\) and we proceed to carry out a second order linearization of the partial Dirichlet-to-Neumann map. Let \(u_j=u_j(x;\varepsilon )\in C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) be the unique solution close to \(\lambda \) in \(C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\)-topology of the Dirichlet problem,
for \(j=1,2\). The solution \(u_j\) is \(C^\infty \) with respect to \(\varepsilon \) for \(|\varepsilon |\) sufficiently small in view of Theorem B.1. Applying \(\partial _{\varepsilon _l}|_{\varepsilon =0}\), \(l=1,2\), to (3.3), and using that \(u_j(x,0)=\lambda \), we get
where \(v_j^{(l)}=\partial _{\varepsilon _l}u_j|_{\varepsilon =0}\). It follows that \(v^{(l)}:=v^{(l)}_1=v^{(l)}_2\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\).
Applying \(\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\partial _{\varepsilon _2}|_{\varepsilon =0}\) to (3.3) and letting \(w_j=\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\partial _{\varepsilon _2}u_j|_{\varepsilon =0}\), we obtain that
\(j=1,2\).
The fact that \(\Lambda _{\gamma _1}^\Gamma (\lambda +\varepsilon _1f_1+\varepsilon _2f_2)= \Lambda _{\gamma _1}^\Gamma (\lambda +\varepsilon _1f_1+\varepsilon _2f_2)\) for all small \(\varepsilon \), and all \(f_1,f_2\in C^\infty (\partial \Omega )\) with \(\hbox {supp }(f_1),\hbox {supp }(f_2)\subset \Gamma \), gives that
An application of \(\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\partial _{\varepsilon _2}|_{\varepsilon =0}\) to (3.6) yields that
Multiplying the difference of two equations in (3.5) by \(v^{(3)}\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\) harmonic in \(\Omega \), integrating over \(\Omega \), using Green’s formula and (3.7), we obtain that
provided that \(\hbox {supp }(v^{(3)}|_{\partial \Omega })\subset \Gamma \). It follows from (3.8) that
for all \(v^{(l)}\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\) harmonic in \(\Omega \) such that \(\hbox {supp }(v^{(l)}|_{\partial \Omega })\subset \Gamma \), \(l=1,2,3\). An application of Theorem 1.8 with \(m=2\) allows us to conclude that \(\partial _z\gamma _1(\cdot ,\lambda , 0)=\partial _z\gamma _2(\cdot ,\lambda , 0)\) in \(\Omega \). Now as \(\lambda \in \Sigma \) is arbitrary and the functions \({\mathbb {C}}\ni \tau \rightarrow \partial _z\gamma _j(x,\tau ,0)\), \(j=1,2\), are holomorphic, by the uniqueness properties of holomorphic functions, we have \(\partial _z\gamma _1(\cdot ,\cdot , 0)=\partial _z\gamma _2(\cdot ,\cdot , 0)\) in \(\overline{\Omega }\times {\mathbb {C}}\).
Let \(m\ge 3\) and assume that
for all \(k=1,\dots , m-2\). Let \(\lambda \in \Sigma \) be arbitrary but fixed. To prove that \(\partial _z^{m-1}\gamma _1(\cdot ,\lambda , 0)=\partial _z^{m-1}\gamma _2(\cdot ,\lambda , 0)\) in \(\overline{\Omega }\), we carry out the mth order linearization of the partial Dirichlet-to-Neumann map. In doing so, we let \(u_j=u_j(x;\varepsilon )\in C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) be the unique solution close to \(\lambda \) in \(C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\)-topology of the Dirichlet problem,
for \(j=1,2\). We shall next apply \(\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\dots \partial _{\varepsilon _m}|_{\varepsilon =0}\) to (3.11). To this end, we first note that \(\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\dots \partial _{\varepsilon _m}(\sum _{k=m}^\infty \partial ^k_z\gamma _j(x,u_j,0)\frac{(\omega \cdot \nabla u_j)^k}{k!}\nabla u_j )\) is a sum of terms each of them containing positive powers of \(\nabla u_j\), which vanishes when \(\varepsilon =0\). The only term in \(\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\dots \partial _{\varepsilon _m} ( \partial ^{m-1}_z\gamma _j(x,u_j,0)\frac{(\omega \cdot \nabla u_j)^{m-1}}{(m-1)!}\nabla u_j)\) which does not contain a positive power of \(\nabla u_j\) is
Finally, the expression \(\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\dots \partial _{\varepsilon _m}(\sum _{k=1}^{m-2}\partial ^k_z \gamma _j(x,u_j,0)\frac{(\omega \cdot \nabla u_j)^k}{k!}\nabla u_j )|_{\varepsilon =0}\) is independent of \(j=1,2\). Indeed, this follows from (3.10), the fact that this expression contains only the derivatives of \(u_j\) of the form \(\partial ^s_{\varepsilon _{l_1},\dots , \varepsilon _{l_s}}u_j|_{\varepsilon =0}\) with \(s=1,\dots , m-1\), \(\varepsilon _{l_1},\dots , \varepsilon _{l_s}\in \{\varepsilon _{1},\dots , \varepsilon _{m}\}\), and the fact that
for \(s=1,\dots , m-1\), \(\varepsilon _{l_1},\dots , \varepsilon _{l_s}\in \{\varepsilon _{1},\dots , \varepsilon _{m}\}\). The latter can be seen by induction on s, applying the operator \(\partial ^s_{\varepsilon _{l_1},\dots , \varepsilon _{l_s}}|_{\varepsilon =0}\) to (3.11) and using (3.10) as well as the unique solvability of the Dirichlet problem for the Laplacian. Thus, an application \(\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\dots \partial _{\varepsilon _m}|_{\varepsilon =0}\) to (3.11) gives
cf. (3.12). Here \(w_j=\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\dots \partial _{\varepsilon _m}u_j|_{\varepsilon =0}\) and
The fact that \(\Lambda _{\gamma _1}^\Gamma (\lambda +\varepsilon _1f_1+\dots +\varepsilon _mf_m)=\Lambda _{\gamma _1}^\Gamma (\lambda +\varepsilon _1f_1+\dots +\varepsilon _mf_m)\) for all small \(\varepsilon \) and all \(f_k\in C^\infty (\partial \Omega )\) with \(\hbox {supp }(f_k),\subset \Gamma \), \(k=1,\dots , m\), yields (3.6). Applying of \(\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\dots \partial _{\varepsilon _m}|_{\varepsilon =0}\) to (3.6), using (3.10) and (3.13), we obtain that
Using (3.14), (3.15), and proceeding as in the case \(m=2\), we get
for all \(v^{(l)}\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\) harmonic in \(\Omega \) such that \(\hbox {supp }(v^{(l)}|_{\partial \Omega })\subset \Gamma \), \(l=1,\dots , m+1\). Applying Theorem 1.8, we conclude that \(\partial _z^{m-1}\gamma _1(\cdot ,\lambda , 0)=\partial _z^{m-1}\gamma _2(\cdot ,\lambda , 0)\) in \(\overline{\Omega }\). Now as \(\lambda \in \Sigma \) is arbitrary and the functions \({\mathbb {C}}\ni \tau \rightarrow \partial ^{m-1}_z\gamma _j(x,\tau ,0)\), \(j=1,2\), are holomorphic, we have \(\partial ^{m-1}_z\gamma _1(\cdot ,\cdot , 0)=\partial ^{m-1}_z\gamma _2(\cdot ,\cdot , 0)\) in \(\overline{\Omega }\times {\mathbb {C}}\). This completes the proof of Theorem 1.2.
4 Proof of Theorem 1.1
First it follows from (a) and (b) that \(\gamma \) can be expanded into the following power series,
converging in the \(C^{1,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) topology.
Let \(\varepsilon =(\varepsilon _1, \dots , \varepsilon _m)\in {\mathbb {C}}^m\), \(m\ge 2\), and consider the Dirichlet problem (1.1) with f given by (3.2). For all \(|\varepsilon |\) sufficiently small, the problem (1.1) has a unique small solution \(u(\cdot ; \varepsilon )\in C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\), which depends holomorphically on \(\varepsilon \in \text {neigh}(0,{\mathbb {C}}^m)\).
As in the proof of Theorem 1.2, we use an induction argument on \(m\ge 2\) to show that \(\Lambda _{\gamma _1}^\Gamma =\Lambda _{\gamma _2}^\Gamma \) implies that \(\partial _\lambda ^{m-1}\gamma _1(x, 0)=\partial _\lambda ^{m-1}\gamma _1(x, 0)\).
First let \(m=2\) and we perform a second order linearization of the partial Dirichlet-to-Neumann map. Let \(u_j=u_j(x;\varepsilon )\in C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) be the unique solution small solution of the Dirichlet problem,
for \(j=1,2\). Applying \(\partial _{\varepsilon _l}|_{\varepsilon =0}\), \(l=1,2\), to (4.2), and using that \(u_j(x,0)=0\), we see that
where \(v_j^{(l)}=\partial _{\varepsilon _l}u_j|_{\varepsilon =0}\). We have therefore \(v^{(l)}:=v^{(l)}_1=v^{(l)}_2\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\).
Applying \(\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\partial _{\varepsilon _2}|_{\varepsilon =0}\) to (4.2) and setting \(w_j=\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\partial _{\varepsilon _2}u_j|_{\varepsilon =0}\), we get
\(j=1,2\). The fact that \(\Lambda _{\gamma _1}^\Gamma (\varepsilon _1f_1+\varepsilon _2f_2)= \Lambda _{\gamma _1}^\Gamma (\varepsilon _1f_1+\varepsilon _2f_2)\) for all small \(\varepsilon \), and all \(f_1,f_2\in C^\infty (\partial \Omega )\) with \(\hbox {supp }(f_1),\hbox {supp }(f_2)\subset \Gamma \), implies that
Applying \(\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\partial _{\varepsilon _2}|_{\varepsilon =0}\) to (4.5), we get
Multiplying the difference of two equations in (4.4) by \(v^{(3)}\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\) harmonic in \(\Omega \), integrating over \(\Omega \), using Green’s formula and (4.6), we obtain that
provided that \(\hbox {supp }(v^{(3)}|_{\partial \Omega })\subset \Gamma \). Thus, (4.7) gives that
for all \(v^{(l)}\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\) harmonic in \(\Omega \) such that \(\hbox {supp }(v^{(l)}|_{\partial \Omega })\subset \Gamma \), \(l=1,2,3\). By Theorem 1.9 with \(m=2\), we get \(\partial _\lambda \gamma _1(\cdot , 0)=\partial _\lambda \gamma _2(\cdot , 0)\) in \(\overline{\Omega }\).
Let \(m\ge 3\) and assume that \(\partial _\lambda ^k\gamma _1(\cdot , 0)=\partial _\lambda ^k\gamma _2(\cdot , 0)\text { in }\overline{\Omega }\), for all \(k=1,\dots , m-2\). To prove that \(\partial _\lambda ^{m-1}\gamma _1(\cdot , 0)=\partial _\lambda ^{m-1}\gamma _2(\cdot ,\cdot , 0)\) in \(\overline{\Omega }\), we perform the mth order linearization of the partial Dirichlet-to-Neumann map. In doing so, we let \(u_j=u_j(x;\varepsilon )\in C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) be the unique small solution of the Dirichlet problem,
for \(j=1,2\). Applying \(\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\dots \partial _{\varepsilon _m}|_{\varepsilon =0}\) to (4.8), and arguing as in Theorem 1.2, we obtain that
Here \(w_j=\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\dots \partial _{\varepsilon _m}u_j|_{\varepsilon =0}\) and
which is independent of j.
Now the equality \(\Lambda _{\gamma _1}^\Gamma (\varepsilon _1f_1+\dots +\varepsilon _mf_m)=\Lambda _{\gamma _1}^\Gamma (\varepsilon _1f_1+\dots +\varepsilon _mf_m)\) for all small \(\varepsilon \) and all \(f_k\in C^\infty (\partial \Omega )\) with \(\hbox {supp }(f_k),\subset \Gamma \), \(k=1,\dots , m\), implies (4.5). Applying of \(\partial _{\varepsilon _1}\dots \partial _{\varepsilon _m}|_{\varepsilon =0}\) to (4.5), we obtain that
Proceeding as in the case \(m=2\), and using (4.9), (4.10), we get
for all \(v^{(l)}\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\) harmonic in \(\Omega \) such that \(\hbox {supp }(v^{(l)}|_{\partial \Omega })\subset \Gamma \), \(l=1,\dots , m+1\). An application of Theorem 1.9 allows us to conclude that \(\partial _\lambda ^{m-1}\gamma _1(\cdot , 0)=\partial _\lambda ^{m-1}\gamma _2(\cdot ,0)\) in \(\overline{\Omega }\). This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Agranovich, M.: Sobolev Spaces, their Generalizations and Elliptic Problems in Smooth and Lipschitz Domains, Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, Cham (2015)
Brezis, H.: Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations. Universitext. Springer, New York (2011)
Browder, F.: Functional analysis and partial differential equations. II. Math. Ann. 145, 81–226 (1961/62)
Cârstea, C., Feizmohammadi, A.: A density property for tensor products of gradients of harmonic functions and applications, preprint, arXiv:2009.11217
Cârstea, C., Feizmohammadi, A.: An inverse boundary value problem for certain anisotropic quasilinear elliptic equations. J. Differ. Equ. 284, 318–349 (2021)
Cârstea, C., Feizmohammadi, A., Kian, Y., Krupchyk, K., Uhlmann, G.: The Calderón inverse problem for isotropic quasilinear conductivities. Adv. Math. 391, Paper No. 107956 (2021)
Cârstea, C., Nakamura, G., Vashisth, M.: Reconstruction for the coefficients of a quasilinear elliptic partial differential equation. Appl. Math. Lett. 98, 121–127 (2019)
Dos Santos Ferreira, D., Kenig, C., Sjöstrand, J., Uhlmann, G.: On the linearized local Calderón problem. Math. Res. Lett. 16(6), 955–970 (2009)
Eskin, G.: Lectures on Linear Partial Differential Equations, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 123. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2011)
Feizmohammadi, A., Oksanen, L.: An inverse problem for a semi-linear elliptic equation in Riemannian geometries. J. Differ. Equ. 269(6), 4683–4719 (2020)
Gilbarg, D., Trudinger, N.: Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order, Reprint of the Classics in Mathematics, 1998th edn. Springer, Berlin (2001)
Glowinski, R., Rappaz, J.: Approximation of a nonlinear elliptic problem arising in a non-Newtonian fluid flow model in glaciology. ESAIM: Math. Modell. Numer. Anal. 37, 175–186 (2003)
Grisvard, P.: Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains, Monographs and Studies in Mathematics, 24. Pitman (Advanced Publishing Program), Boston (1985)
Grubb, G.: Distributions and Operators, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 252. Springer, New York (2009)
Hervas, D., Sun, Z.: An inverse boundary value problem for quasilinear elliptic equations. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 27(11–12), 2449–2490 (2002)
Hörmander, L.: The boundary problems of physical geodesy. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 62(1), 1–52 (1976)
Imanuvilov, O., Uhlmann, G., Yamamoto, M.: The Calderón problem with partial data in two dimensions. J. Am. Math. Soc. 23(3), 655–691 (2010)
Imanuvilov, O., Yamamoto, M.: Unique determination of potentials and semilinear terms of semilinear elliptic equations from partial Cauchy data. J. Inverse Ill-Posed Probl. 21(1), 85–108 (2013)
Isakov, V.: Uniqueness of recovery of some quasilinear partial differential equations. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 26(11–12), 1947–1973 (2001)
Isakov, V., Nachman, A.: Global uniqueness for a two-dimensional semilinear elliptic inverse problem. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 347(9), 3375–3390 (1995)
Isakov, V., Sylvester, J.: Global uniqueness for a semilinear elliptic inverse problem. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 47(10), 1403–1410 (1994)
Kang, K., Nakamura, G.: Identification of nonlinearity in a conductivity equation via the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map. Inverse Problems 18(4), 1079–1088 (2002)
Kapanadze, D., Mishuris, G., Pesetskaya, E.: Exact solution of a nonlinear heat conduction problem in a doubly periodic 2D composite material. Arch. Mech. 67(2), 157–178 (2015). arXiv:1403.7914
Krupchyk, K., Uhlmann, G.: Partial data inverse problems for semilinear elliptic equations with gradient nonlinearities. Math. Res. Lett. 27, 1801–1824 (2020)
Krupchyk, K., Uhlmann, G.: A remark on partial data inverse problems for semilinear elliptic equations. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 148(2), 681–685 (2020)
Krupchyk, K., Uhlmann, G.: Inverse problems for nonlinear magnetic Schrödinger equations on conformally transversally anisotropic manifolds, preprint, arXiv:2009.05089 (to appear in Analysis and PDE)
Kurylev, Y., Lassas, M., Uhlmann, G.: Inverse problems for Lorentzian manifolds and non-linear hyperbolic equations. Invent. Math. 212(3), 781–857 (2018)
Lai, R.-Y., Zhou, T.: Partial Data Inverse Problems for Nonlinear Magnetic Schrödinger Equations, preprint arXiv:2007.02475 (to appear in Mathematical Research Letters)
Lassas, M., Liimatainen, T., Lin, Y.-H., Salo, M.: Inverse problems for elliptic equations with power type nonlinearities. J. Math. Pures Appl. 145, 44–82 (2021)
Lassas, M., Liimatainen, T., Lin, Y.-H., Salo, M.: Partial data inverse problems and simultaneous recovery of boundary and coefficients for semilinear elliptic equations. Revista Matemática Iberoamericana 37, 1553–1580 (2021)
McLean, W.: Strongly Elliptic Systems and Boundary Integral Equations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)
Medková, D.: The Laplace Equation, Boundary Value Problems on Bounded and Unbounded Lipschitz Domains. Springer, Cham (2018)
Mironescu, P.: Note on Gagliardo’s theorem “\(\text{tr}\, W^{1,1}=L^1\)”. Ann. Univ. Buchar. Math. Ser. 6(LXIV)(1), 99–103 (2015)
Muñoz, C., Uhlmann, G.: The Calderón problem for quasilinear elliptic equations. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 37(5), 1143–1166 (2020)
Nachman, A.: Global uniqueness for a two-dimensional inverse boundary value problem. Ann. Math. (2) 143(1), 71–96 (1996)
Ponte Castañeda, P., Kailasam, M.: Nonlinear electrical conductivity in heterogeneous media. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 453(1959), 793–816 (1997)
Pöschel, J., Trubowitz, E.: Inverse Spectral Theory, Pure and Applied Mathematics, 130. Academic Press Inc, Boston (1987)
Triebel, H.: Interpolation theory, function spaces, differential operators. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978).. (Mathematical Library, 18)
Triebel, H.: Spaces of Besov-Hardy-Sobolev type on complete Riemannian manifolds. Ark. Mat. 24(2), 299–337 (1986)
Schlag, W.: A Course in Complex Analysis and Riemann Surfaces, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 154. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2014)
Shankar, R.: Recovering a quasilinear conductivity from boundary measurements. Inverse Problems 27, 015014 (2020)
Sun, Z.: On a quasilinear inverse boundary value problem. Math. Z. 221(2), 293–305 (1996)
Sun, Z.: Inverse boundary value problems for a class of semilinear elliptic equations. Adv. Appl. Math. 32(4), 791–800 (2004)
Sun, Z.: Conjectures in inverse boundary value problems for quasilinear elliptic equations. Cubo 7(3), 65–73 (2005)
Sun, Z.: An inverse boundary-value problem for semilinear elliptic equations. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 2010(37), 5 (2010)
Sun, Z., Uhlmann, G.: Inverse problems in quasilinear anisotropic media. Am. J. Math. 119(4), 771–797 (1997)
Sylvester, J., Uhlmann, G.: A global uniqueness theorem for an inverse boundary value problem. Ann. Math. (2) 125(1), 153–169 (1987)
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to the referees for helpful comments and suggestions. The work of Y.K is partially supported by the French National Research Agency ANR (project MultiOnde) grant ANR-17-CE40-0029. The research of K.K. is partially supported by the National Science Foundation (DMS 1815922, DMS 2109199). The research of G.U. is partially supported by NSF, a Walker Professorship at UW and a Si-Yuan Professorship at IAS, HKUST. Part of the work was supported by the NSF grant DMS-1440140 while K.K. and G.U. were in residence at MSRI in Berkeley, California, during Fall 2019 semester.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to this article.
Additional information
Communicated by Y. Giga.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A. Proof of Theorem 1.2 in the case of full data
Note that the result of Theorem 1.2 is new even in the case of full data, i.e. \(\Gamma =\partial \Omega \), and the purpose of this appendix is to present an alternative simple proof in this case.
Using the linearization of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map \(\Lambda _{\gamma }^{\partial \Omega }\), we shall see below that the proof of Theorem 1.2 in the full data case will be a consequence of the following density result.
Proposition A.1
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\), \(n\ge 2\), be a bounded open set with \(C^\infty \) boundary, let \(\omega \in {\mathbb {S}}^{n-1}\) be fixed and let \(m=2,3, \dots ,\) be fixed. Let \(f\in L^\infty (\Omega )\) be such that
for all functions \(v_1, v_2\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega })\) harmonic in \(\Omega \). Then \(f=0\) in \(\Omega \).
Proof
Let \(\xi \in {\mathbb {S}}^{n-1}\) and consider \(k\in {\mathbb {S}}^{n-1}\) such that \(\xi \cdot k=0\). Let \(h>0\). Setting
so that \(v_1,v_2\in C^\infty ({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) and harmonic. Substituting \(v_1\) and \(v_2\) into (A.1) and using that \((k+i\xi )\cdot (-k+i\xi )=-2\), we get
and therefore, we have
for all \(\xi \in {\mathbb {S}}^{n-1}\), \(\xi \cdot \omega \ne 0\), and all \(h>0\). Hence, \(f=0\). \(\square \)
Let \(\lambda \in \Sigma \) be arbitrary but fixed. We shall use an induction argument on \(m\ge 2\) to prove that the equality
for all \(|\varepsilon |\) sufficiently small and all \(f_k\in C^\infty (\partial \Omega )\), \(\hbox {supp }(f_k)\subset \Gamma \), \(k=1,\dots , m\), gives that \(\partial _z^{m-1}\gamma _1(x,\lambda , 0)=\partial _z^{m-1}\gamma _1(x,\lambda , 0)\).
First when \(m=2\), taking \(v^{(1)}=v^{(2)}\) in (3.9) and using Proposition A.1 with \(m=2\), we get \(\partial _z\gamma _1(\cdot ,\lambda , 0)=\partial _z\gamma _2(\cdot ,\lambda , 0)\) in \(\Omega \). Now as \(\lambda \in \Sigma \) is arbitrary, we have \(\partial _z\gamma _1(\cdot ,\cdot , 0)=\partial _z\gamma _2(\cdot ,\cdot , 0)\) in \(\overline{\Omega }\times {\mathbb {C}}\).
Let \(m=3,4, \dots \). Let \(\lambda \in \Sigma \) be arbitrary but fixed. Letting \(v^{(1)}=\dots =v^{(m)}\) in (3.16) and using Proposition A.1, we see that \(\partial _z^{m-1}\gamma _1(\cdot ,\lambda , 0)=\partial _z^{m-1}\gamma _2(\cdot ,\lambda , 0)\) in \(\Omega \). Again, as \(\lambda \in \Sigma \) is arbitrary, we get \(\partial ^{m-1}_z\gamma _1(\cdot ,\cdot , 0)=\partial ^{m-1}_z\gamma _2(\cdot ,\cdot , 0)\) in \(\overline{\Omega }\times {\mathbb {C}}\). This completes the proof of Theorem 1.2 in the full data case.
Appendix B. Well-posedness of the Dirichlet problem for a quasilinear conductivity equation
In this appendix we shall recall a standard argument for showing the well-posedness of the Dirichlet problem for a quasilinear conductivity equation.
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\), \(n\ge 2\), be a bounded open set with \(C^\infty \) boundary. Let \(k\in {\mathbb {N}}\cup \{0\}\) and \(0<\alpha <1\) and let \(C^{k,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) be the standard Hölder space on \(\Omega \), see [16, 24]. We observe that \(C^{k,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) is an algebra under pointwise multiplication, with
see [16, Theorem A.7]. We write \(C^{\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })=C^{0,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\).
Let \(\omega \in {\mathbb {S}}^{n-1}=\{\omega \in {\mathbb {R}}^n, |\omega |=1\}\), be fixed. Consider the Dirichlet problem for the following isotropic quasilinear conductivity equation,
with \(\lambda \in {\mathbb {C}}\). We assume that the function \(\gamma : \overline{\Omega }\times {\mathbb {C}}\times {\mathbb {C}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\) satisfies the following conditions,
-
(i)
the map \({\mathbb {C}}\times {\mathbb {C}}\ni (\tau , z)\mapsto \gamma (\cdot , \tau ,z)\) is holomorphic with values in \(C^{1,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) with some \(0<\alpha <1\),
-
(ii)
\(\gamma (x,0,0)=1\).
It follows from (i) and (ii) that \(\gamma \) can be expand into a power series
converging in the \(C^{1,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) topology.
We have the following result.
Theorem B.1
Let \(\lambda \in {\mathbb {C}}\) be fixed. Then under the above assumptions, there exist \(\delta >0\), \(C>0\) such that for any \(f\in B_{\delta }(\partial \Omega ):=\{f\in C^{2,\alpha }(\partial \Omega ): \Vert f\Vert _{C^{2,\alpha }(\partial \Omega )}< \delta \}\), the problem (B.2) has a solution \(u=u_{\lambda , f}\in C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) which satisfies
The solution u is unique within the class \(\{u\in C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega }): \Vert u-\lambda \Vert _{C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })}< C\delta \}\) and it is depends holomorphically on \(f\in B_\delta (\partial \Omega )\). Furthermore, the map
is holomorphic.
Proof
Let \(\lambda \in {\mathbb {C}}\) be fixed, and let
Consider the map,
Following [29], we shall make use of the implicit function theorem for holomorphic maps between complex Banach spaces, see [37, p. 144]. First we check that F enjoys the mapping property (B.4). To that end in view of the fact that \(C^{1,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) is an algebra under pointwise multiplication, we only need to show that \(\gamma (x,u,\omega \cdot \nabla u)\in C^{1,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\). In doing so, by Cauchy’s estimates, we get
for all \(j\ge 0\), \(k\ge 0\), and \(j+k\ge 1\). With the help of (B.1) and (B.5), we obtain that
Taking \(R_1=2C\Vert u\Vert _{C^{1,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })}\) and \(R_2=2C\Vert \omega \cdot \nabla u\Vert _{C^{1,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })}\), we see that the series
converges in \(C^{1, \alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\). Hence, in view of (B.3), \(\gamma (x,u,\omega \cdot \nabla u)\in C^{1,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\).
Let us show that F in (B.4) is holomorphic. First F is locally bounded as it is continuous in (f, u). Hence, we only need to check that F is weak holomorphic, see [37, p. 133]. To that end, letting \((f_0, u_0), (f_1,u_1)\in B_1\times B_2\), we show that the map
is holomorphic in \({\mathbb {C}}\) with values in \(B_3\). Clearly, we only have to check that the map \(\mu \mapsto \gamma (x,u_0(x)+\mu u_1(x), \omega \cdot (\nabla u_0(x)+\mu \nabla u_1(x)))\) is holomorphic in \({\mathbb {C}}\) with values in \(C^{1,\alpha } (\overline{\Omega })\). This is a consequence of the fact that the series
converges in \(C^{1,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\), locally uniformly in \(\lambda \in {\mathbb {C}}\), in view of (B.6).
We have \(F(0,\lambda )=0\) and the partial differential \(\partial _u F(0,\lambda ): B_2\rightarrow B_3\) is given by
It follows from [11, Theorem 6.15] that the map \(\partial _u F(0,\lambda ): B_2\rightarrow B_3\) is a linear isomorphism.
An application of the implicit function theorem, see [37, p. 144], shows that there exists \(\delta >0\) and a unique holomorphic map \(S: B_\delta (\partial \Omega )\rightarrow C^{2,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\) such that \(S(0)=\lambda \) and \(F(f, S(f))=0\) for all \(f\in B_\delta (\partial \Omega )\). Letting \(u=S(f)\) and using that S is Lipschitz continuous and \(S(0)=\lambda \), we have
\(\square \)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kian, Y., Krupchyk, K. & Uhlmann, G. Partial data inverse problems for quasilinear conductivity equations. Math. Ann. 385, 1611–1638 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-022-02367-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-022-02367-y