On the Smoothness of Zero–Extensions

Abstract

This note investigates the regularity of zero–extensions of $L^{p}$ functions from bounded domains. Simple examples show the possibility of a loss in smoothness and our goal is to quantify this loss more generally.

For the unit cube $\mathcal{Q}=[0,1]^{d}$, one of our main results is a bound for the $L^{p}$ modulus of continuity of zero–extensions. Using this, we prove that nonconstant functions in the Besov space $B^{\alpha}_{p,q}(\mathcal{Q})$ have zero–extensions in $B^{\beta}_{p,r}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ with $\beta=\frac{\alpha}{\alpha p+1}$ and $r=q(1+\alpha p)$. This seems to be new when $\frac{1}{p}\leq\alpha<1$. The key idea behind the main estimate is to use piecewise constant approximation on dyadic subcubes. This technique can likely be sharpened—even for the unit cube—and extended to less regular domains.

Keywords and Phrases: moduli of continuity, zero–extensions, Besov spaces
MSC: (Primary) 46E35, 41A25, 42Bxx; (Secondary) 41A10, 41A17.

1 Introduction and Statement of Results

Let $W^{\alpha}_{p}(U)$ denote a “Sobolev–type” space on the bounded domain $U\subset\mathbb{R}^{d}$. There is a well-known result in the theory of such spaces which says that

1. if the domain is smooth enough (Lipschitz suffices), and

2. if the smoothness index $\alpha$ satisfies $0\leq\alpha<1/p$,

then extending the function by zero outside $U$ preserves the space. In other words, the zero–extension of a function in $W^{\alpha}_{p}(U)$ is also in $W^{\alpha}_{p}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$. As usual, a domain is defined to be a connected open set. This result is sharp because, when $\alpha\geq 1/p$, preservation of class is no longer guaranteed as illustrated by the characteristic function $\chi_{U}(x)$. We thus expect zero–extensions to be less regular in general.

However, the known results give no estimates on the loss of smoothness and it is natural to ask if this loss can be quantified. The ideal scenario is that given a function $f(x)\in L^{p}(U)$ with smoothness $\alpha$, we should be able to determine the smoothness index $\beta$ of its zero–extension and characterize the dependence of $\beta$ on the parameters $\alpha$, $p$, as well as its dependence on the fine structure of the function $f$ and the geometry of the domain $U$.

Similar problems arise in approximation theory. More concretely, we have an approximate identity in $L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ defined by the convolution $A_{t}f(x):=K_{t}\star f(x)$. It is clear that $A_{t}$ also acts on $L^{p}(U)$ since the latter functions can be extended by zero in $\mathbb{R}^{d}\backslash U$. This leads to a question akin to the one above: given a certain class of “smooth functions” on $U$, how does the order of approximation compare for functions on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ with similar smoothness? Can we quantify the loss if there is any? As will soon become evident, these two problems are very closely related.

These questions are rather general as stated, so we make specific assumptions on $U$ and $A_{t}$. First, we take the domain $U$ to be the unit cube $\mathcal{Q}:=[0,1]^{d}$. This simplification allows us to focus on the behaviour of the functions. For $f\in L^{p}(\mathcal{Q})$ we denote the zero–extension by ${f^{o}}(x)$, where ${f^{o}}(x)=f(x)$ for $x\in\mathcal{Q}$ and ${f^{o}}(x)=0$ for $x\notin\mathcal{Q}$. Also important is the approximation error $E_{t}f:=A_{t}f-f$ and various estimates on its size. We focus on the $L^{p}$ norm $\|E_{t}[f^{o}]\|_{p}$ in this paper.

To quantify smoothness, we use the $L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ modulus of continuity ($1\leq p<\infty$)

$$\omega(f,t)_{p}:=\sup_{|h|\leq t}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}\left|f(x+h)-f(x)\right|^{p}\,dx\right)^{\frac{1}{p}},$$ (1)

and, with $\mathcal{Q}_{h}:=\{x\in\mathcal{Q}:x+h\in\mathcal{Q}\}$, the $L^{p}(\mathcal{Q})$ modulus of continuity

$$\zeta(f,t)_{p}:=\sup_{|h|\leq t}\left(\int_{\mathcal{Q}_{h}}\left|f(x+h)-f(x)\right|^{p}\,dx\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}.$$ (2)

The notation $\zeta(f,t)_{p}$ is not standard, but should not cause any confusion. Note that the (semi)norms for the Sobolev–Slobodeckij spaces ($W^{\alpha}_{p}(\mathcal{Q})$ and $W^{\alpha}_{p}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$) or the Besov spaces ($B^{\alpha}_{p,q}(\mathcal{Q})$ and $B^{\alpha}_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$) can be defined using the modulus of continuity so we may as well focus on the latter.

Regarding the approximation $A_{t}$, we assume

1. $K_{t}$ is supported on all of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ for all $t>0$.

2. $\|A_{t}f\|_{p}\leq C_{p}\|f\|_{p}$ for $1\leq p\leq\infty$ and $t>0$.

3. $\|E_{t}f\|_{p}\sim\omega(f,t)_{p}$ for $p\in(1,\infty)$.

4. $\displaystyle\|E_{t}f\|_{1}\leq C\omega(f,t)_{1}\log\left(\frac{\|f\|_{1}}{\omega(f,t)_{1}}\right)$ for $p=1$.

Some comments are in order. (H1) plays a non technical role. It ensures that $A_{t}(f^{o})$ is, in general, non zero outside $\mathcal{Q}$. This forces us to (indirectly) deal with issues of convergence outside $\mathcal{Q}$. Observe that we make no explicit smoothness assumptions on $K_{t}$—they are hidden in (H3) and (H4). It turns out that (H3) is satisfied by a rather large class of kernels. For instance, it holds for the dilation of kernels whose Fourier transform satisfy the conditions of the Mikhlin–Hörmander theorem. This is shown in Liu–Lu [13] and it is implicit in Colzani [6]. A famous example in this class is the Bochner–Riesz kernel above the critical index. Most importantly though, (H3) connects the two problems mentioned at the start of this section—the problem of determining the modulus of continuity of the zero–extensnion $\omega(f^{o},t)$ and the search for error estimates $\|E_{t}[f^{o}]\|_{p}$.

For classical Hölder–Lipschitz functions, assumption (H4) is an analogue of the Jackson–Lebesgue theorem for Fourier series (see Jackson’s book [9, Ch. 1, Corollary II] or Zygmund’s book [16, Ch. 2, (10.8)]) and the Bernstein–Zygmund theorem for Fejer means (see [9, Ch. 2, Theorem X] or [16, Ch. 3, (3.14)]). Note that (H1)–(H4) also hold for the recently defined Bessel–Reisz quotient as shown in [1]. All this is merely to say that the assumptions have a long history and are satisfied in concrete examples. We stress that there are certainly approximate identities for which (H3) holds, when $p=1$, instead of (H4). We trust that the reader can modify the definitions as well as the statements and proofs of the main results accordingly.

Having clarified the assumptions on $A_{t}$, we describe the last ingredient.

Definition 1.1.

For $1<p<\infty$, $f\in L^{p}(\mathcal{Q})$ and $t>0$, we define

$$\Omega(f,t)_{p}:=\inf_{0<s\leq 1}\left[\zeta(f,s)_{p}+\min\left\{\left(\frac{\sqrt{d}t}{s}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}},1\right\}\|f\|_{p}\right].$$ (3)

If $f\in L^{1}(\mathcal{Q})$

$$\Omega(f,t)_{1}:=\inf_{0<s\leq 1}\left(\zeta(f,s)_{1}+\max\left\{\frac{\sqrt{d}t}{s},1\right\}\left|\log\left(\frac{s}{\sqrt{d}t}\right)\right|\|f\|_{1}\right).$$ (4)

Note that $\Omega(f,t)_{p}\to 0$ as $t\to 0^{+}$ and $\Omega(f+g,t)_{p}\leq\Omega(f,t)_{p}+\Omega(g,t)_{p}$, at least for $p>1$. Moreover $\Omega(f,t)_{p}\leq 3\|f\|_{p}$, so in many respects it behaves like a modulus of continuity.

We can finally state one of the main results of this note.

Theorem 1.2.

Suppose $f\in L^{p}(\mathcal{Q})$ and $A_{t}$ satisfies (H2)–(H4). There is a constant $C_{p,d}>0$ such that the approximation error satisfies

$$\|E_{t}\left[f^{o}\right]\|_{p}\leq C_{p,d}\Omega(f,t)_{p},\quad 1\leq p<\infty.$$ (5)

Let us briefly summarize the key ideas in the proof of Theorem 1.2. It relies on approximation by piecewise constant functions on a uniform (i.e same length) dyadic grid. In fact, the variable $s$ in (3) and (4) represents the length of cubes in the grid, so the “minimization” is done over all such grids. First, we partition $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ into a grid of cubes of length $2^{-N}$ and approximate $f^{o}$ by its averages on those cubes. Call this approximation $f_{N}$. By the “add zero trick” we get that

$$\|E_{t}\left[f^{o}\right]\|_{p}=\|E_{t}\left[f^{o}-f_{N}+f_{N}\right]\|_{p}\leq\|E_{t}\left[f^{o}-f_{N}\right]\|_{p}+\|E_{t}\left[f_{N}\right]\|_{p}.$$

The problem thus reduces to estimating these two terms. The bounds we get depend on the length of the cubes and choosing the optimal grid leads to (5). The eager reader is invited to skip ahead to §2 for the details.

Theorem 1.2 has some consequences of independent interest because of the assumption, (H3), that $\|E_{t}f\|_{p}\sim\omega(f,t)_{p}$.

Corollary 1.3.

The $L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ modulus of continuity of the zero–extension satisfies

$$\omega(f^{o},t)_{p}\leq C_{p,d}\Omega(f,t)_{p},\quad 1<p<\infty.$$ (6)

If $\chi_{\mathcal{Q}}(x)$ is the indicator function, then $\zeta(\chi_{\mathcal{Q}},t)=0$ while $\omega(\chi_{\mathcal{Q}},t)=O(t^{\frac{1}{p}})$ as $t\to 0$. Thus, (6) is attained by constant functions. In one view, this class of functions is trivial since $\zeta(f,t)$ vanishes, so it is natural to wonder what happens if $f$ is nontrivial. The next result provides a partial answer.

Corollary 1.4.

Suppose $0<\alpha<1$ and $1<p<\infty$. If $\zeta(f,t)_{p}=O(t^{\alpha})$ as $t\to 0$, i.e., $f\in\text{Lip}(\alpha,p,\mathcal{Q})$, then $\omega(f^{o},t)_{p}=O(t^{\frac{\alpha}{\alpha p+1}})$, i.e., $f^{o}\in\text{Lip}\left(\frac{\alpha}{\alpha p+1},p,\mathbb{R}^{d}\right)$.

The proof is simple enough to be presented here.

Proof.

We use the fact that $\min\{\sqrt{d}ts^{-1},1\}\leq\sqrt{d}ts^{-1}$. From Definition 1.1 and Corollary 1.3 we obtain

$$\omega(f^{o},t)_{p}\leq C_{p,d}\Omega(f,t)_{p}\leq\min_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left(C_{1}s^{\alpha}+C_{2}(ts^{-1})^{\frac{1}{p}}\right),$$

where the constants $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ depend on $f$. A straightforward minimization yields the result. ∎

Note that when $\alpha<\frac{1}{p}$, Kuttner [11] and Nikol’skii [14] have shown that the zero–extension preserves the Lipschitz class, $\text{Lip}(\alpha,p)$. This property also holds for Sobolev, Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces on domains with Lipschitz boundaries as shown by Yakovlev [15], Burenkov [5], Kuznetsov [12] and Kalyabin [10]. As far as we can tell, nothing is known about $\omega(f^{o},t)_{p}$ for $f\in\text{Lip}(\alpha,p,\mathcal{Q})$ when $\frac{1}{p}\leq\alpha\leq 1$. Thus, Corollary 1.4 appears to be new in this case, though it is likely not sharp. As mentioned ealier, Sobolev–Slobodeckji and Besov spaces can be defined using the modulus of continuity so Theorem 1.2 has implications for these spaces as well. One such example is Theorem 2.4 in §2.

It is appropriate here to say a few words comparing approaches to Corollary 1.4. A direct attack requires estimating $\|f^{o}(x+h)-f^{o}(x)\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{d})}$ which, in turn, equals

$$\int_{\mathcal{Q}_{h}}\left|f(x+h)-f(x)\right|^{p}\,dx+\int_{\mathcal{Q}-h\backslash\mathcal{Q}}\left|f(x+h)\right|^{p}\,dx+\int_{\mathcal{Q}\backslash\mathcal{Q}-h}\left|f(x)\right|^{p}\,dx.$$

The last two integrals are related to the behaviour of $f$ on small/thin sets near the boundary. It is usually estimated using a Hardy type inequality for fractional integrals leading to the restriction $\alpha<1/p$ in the works [11], [14], [15], [5], [12] cited above. Our main technical innovation is that we avoid directly estimating the $L^{p}$ norm of the function near the boundary. Having said this, we suspect that sharp results likely require some combination of the two approaches and possibly other ideas.

It turns out that Theorem 1.2 is a special case of Proposition 3.1 which allows for nonuniform grids in the piecewise constant approximation. Restricting to uniform partitions obviously leads to Theorem 1.2. In general though, this replaces the infimum in (3) with a much more difficult minimization problem over the set of finite partitions of the unit cube. As a way around this, we propose a stopping time argument to construct specific grids. This has the advantage of selecting partitions which are adapted to the function and should lend itself well to numerical experimentation.

2 Proof of Theorem 1.2

We first introduce some notation. A cube is a set of the form $Q=I_{1}\times I_{2}\times\ldots\times I_{d}$ where each $I_{1},I_{2},\ldots,I_{d}\subset\mathbb{R}$ are closed intervals of equal length. The sidelength of $Q$ is denoted by $l(Q)$. Any cube $Q$ can be bisected into $2^{d}$ subcubes $Q_{1},\ldots,Q_{2^{d}}$ each of sidelength $l(Q)/2$. We sometimes refer to $Q_{1},\ldots,Q_{2^{d}}$ as the dyadic children of $Q$. We will use $\mathcal{D}_{k}$ to denote the subcubes of length $2^{-k}l(Q)$ obtained by $k$ sucessive bisections. Throughout $|Q|=(l(Q))^{d}$ will denote the volume of a cube.

For the piecewise constant approximation we use the so called dyadic martingale

$$f_{N}(x)=2^{Nd}\int_{{Q}(x)}f(y)dy\cdot\chi_{Q(x)},$$

where $Q(x)$ with sidelength $l(Q)=2^{-N}$ is the dyadic subcube of $\mathcal{Q}$ containing $x$. Our approximation is then of the form $\displaystyle f_{N}=\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_{k}}f_{Q}\chi_{Q}(x)$ where $\displaystyle f_{Q}:=\frac{1}{|Q|}\int_{Q}f(y)\,dy$ is the average of $f$ over the cube $Q$.

The proof of Theorem 1.2 requires several Lemmas. The first is modified from Bourgain–Brezis–Mironescu [3]. It is an estimate for the $L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ modulus of continuity of piecewise constant functions on $\mathcal{Q}$. Below, if $h\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ then $\Delta_{h}g(x):=g(x+h)-g(x)$ denotes the difference operator.

Lemma 2.1.

Let $a_{Q}\in\mathbb{R}$ be constants and suppose that $\displaystyle\psi(x)=\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_{k}}a_{Q}\chi_{Q}(x)$. Then

$$\|\Delta_{h}\psi\|_{p}^{p}\leq 2^{p}\min\{|h|2^{k}\sqrt{d},1\}\|\psi\|_{p}^{p},$$

and if the cubes are from an arbitrary partition of $\mathcal{Q}$,

$$\|\Delta_{h}\psi\|_{p}^{p}\leq 2^{p}\sum_{Q\subset\mathcal{Q}}\min\left\{\sqrt{d}\frac{|h|}{l(Q)},1\right\}|Q||a_{Q}|^{p}.$$

Next is an estimate for the error in piecewise constant approximation. A more general statement can be found in Brudnyi [4, Theorem 1, §2]

Lemma 2.2.

$$\|f-\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_{k}}f_{Q}\chi_{Q}\|_{p}\leq C\zeta(f,2^{-k})_{p}$$

Theorem 1.2 follows rather quickly from these Lemmas.

Proof of Theorem 1.2.

First, assume $1<p<\infty$. The triangle inequality gives

$$\|E_{t}[f^{o}]\|_{p}\leq\|E_{t}(f^{o}-f_{N})\|_{p}+\|E_{t}f_{N}\|_{p}.$$

This in turn can be estimated using the $L^{p}$ boundedness of $E_{t}$ stipulated in (H2), the equivalence hypothesis (H3), Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 to show that

$$\|E_{t}[f^{o}]\|_{p} \leq C\|f-f_{N}\|_{p}+C\omega(f_{N},t)_{p}$$

$$\leq C\left(\zeta(f,2^{-N})_{p}+\min\{(\sqrt{d}2^{N}t)^{\frac{1}{p}},1\}\|f\|_{p}\right)$$

$$\leq C\inf_{s}\left(\zeta(f,s)_{p}+\min\{(\sqrt{d}ts^{-1})^{\frac{1}{p}},1\}\|f\|_{p}\right).$$

The case $p=1$ is only slightly different. Using (H4), we now have

$$\|E_{t}[f^{o}]\|_{1} \leq C\|f-f_{N}\|_{1}+C\omega(f_{N},t)_{1}\log\left(\frac{\|f\|_{1}}{\omega(f_{N},t)_{1}}\right)$$

$$\leq C\inf_{s}\left(\zeta(f,s)_{1}+\max\{\sqrt{d}ts^{-1},1\}\left|\log(s(\sqrt{d}t)^{-1})\right|\|f\|_{1}\right).$$

Taken together, these prove the estimate (5) and (6) follows immediately from assumption (H2). ∎

Remark 2.1.

The same argument applies if instead of (H4), we assume that (H3) holds when $p=1$, that is, we assume $\|E_{t}f\|_{1}\sim\omega(f,t)_{1}$.

For completeness we give proofs of the Lemmas.

Proof of Lemma 2.1.

First, assume that the cubes form an arbitrary partition of $\mathcal{Q}$. Hölder’s inequality shows

$$|\Delta_{h}\psi|^{p} =\left|\sum_{Q\subset\mathcal{Q}}a_{Q}\Delta_{h}\chi_{Q}\right|^{p}\leq\sum_{Q\subset\mathcal{Q}}|a_{Q}|^{p}|\Delta_{h}\chi_{Q}|\cdot\left(\sum_{Q\subset\mathcal{Q}}|\Delta_{h}\chi_{Q}|\right)^{p-1}.$$

Now $|\Delta_{h}\chi_{Q}(x)|=|\chi_{Q}(x+h)-\chi_{Q}(x)|$ which is 0 if either (i) both $x$ and $x+h$ are in $Q$, or (ii) both are not in $Q$. It is $1$ exactly when $x+h\in Q$ and $x\notin Q$ or when $x+h\notin Q$ and $x\in Q$. Thus we have the $L^{\infty}$ bound:

$$\sum_{Q\subset\mathcal{Q}}|\Delta_{h}\chi_{Q}(x)|\leq 2.$$

It follows that

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}|\Delta_{h}\psi|^{p}\,dx\leq 2^{p-1}\sum_{Q\subset\mathcal{Q}}|a_{Q}|^{p}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}|\Delta_{h}\chi_{Q}|\,dx,$$

and the argument above shows that

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}|\Delta_{h}\chi_{Q}|\,dx\leq|Q\backslash(Q-h)|+|(Q-h)\backslash Q|\leq 2\sqrt{d}|h|l(Q)^{d-1}\leq 2\sqrt{d}|Q|\frac{|h|}{l(Q)}.$$

A moment’s reflection shows that

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}|\Delta_{h}\chi_{Q}|\,dx\leq 2|Q|,$$

and altogether

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}|\Delta_{h}\psi|^{p}\,dx\leq 2^{p}\sum_{Q\subset\mathcal{Q}}|a_{Q}|^{p}|Q|\min\left\{\frac{\sqrt{d}|h|}{l(Q)},1\right\}.$$

This handles the case of an arbitrary partition. If each $Q\in\mathcal{D}_{k}$, we only need realize that $l(Q)=2^{-k}$ does not depend on $Q$ and

$$\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_{k}}|Q||a_{Q}|^{p}=\|\psi\|_{p}^{p}.$$

∎

Remark 2.2.

Lemma 2.1 does a lot of heavy lifting in this paper. It is likely not sharp since the proof does not pay special attention to the boundary of $\mathcal{Q}$. Improvements in Lemma 2.1 would sharpen all the results in this paper. We pose it formally as a question of interest.

Problem 2.3.

Can the Bourgain–Brezis–Mironescu estimate, i.e., Lemma 2.1, be sharpened?

We turn next to the proof of the other Lemma.

Proof of Lemma 2.2.

By Hölder’s inequality,

$$\|f-\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_{k}}f_{Q}\chi_{Q}\|_{p}^{p}=\sum_{Q}\int_{Q}|f(x)-f_{Q}|^{p}\,dx \leq\sum_{Q}\frac{1}{|Q|^{p}}\int_{Q}\left(\int_{Q}|f(x)-f(y)|\,dy\right)^{p}\,dx$$

$$\leq\sum_{Q}\frac{1}{|Q|}\int_{Q}\int_{Q}|f(x)-f(y)|^{p}\,dx\,dy.$$

Changing variables as well as the order of integration yields

$$\|f-\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_{k}}f_{Q}\chi_{Q}\|_{p}^{p} \leq\sum_{Q}\frac{1}{|Q|}\int_{Q}\int_{Q-y}|f(y+z)-f(y)|^{p}\,dz\,dy$$

$$\leq\sum_{Q}2^{kd}\int_{|z|\leq\frac{\sqrt{d}}{2^{k}}}\int_{Q}|\Delta_{z,Q}f(y)|^{p}\,dy\,dz,$$

where $\Delta_{z,U}f(y):=f(y+z)-f(y)$ if both $y\in U$ and $y+z\in U$ and zero otherwise. This notation is borrowed from DeVore–Sharpley [8, pgs. 844-845]. Note that $|\Delta_{z,U^{\prime}}f(y)|\leq|\Delta_{z,U}f(y)|$ if $U^{\prime}\subset U$. Hence

$$\|f-\sum_{Q}f_{Q}\chi_{Q}\|_{p}^{p} \leq 2^{kd}\int_{|z|\leq\frac{\sqrt{d}}{2^{k}}}\sum_{Q}\int_{Q}|\Delta_{z,Q}f(y)|^{p}\,dy\,dz$$

$$\leq 2^{kd}\int_{|z|\leq\frac{\sqrt{d}}{2^{k}}}\int_{\mathcal{Q}}|\Delta_{z,\mathcal{Q}}f(y)|^{p}\,dy\,dz$$

$$\leq 2^{kd}\int_{|z|\leq\frac{\sqrt{d}}{2^{k}}}(\zeta(f,|z|)_{p})^{p}\,dz$$

$$\leq v_{d}d^{\frac{d}{2}}(\zeta(f,\sqrt{d}2^{-k})_{p})^{p}\leq v_{d}d^{\frac{d+p}{2}}(\zeta(f,2^{-k})_{p})^{p}.$$

Here $v_{d}$ is the volume of the unit ball in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. This concludes the proof. ∎

We are now in a position to generalize Corollary 1.4 from the Introduction, but we need a definition first. For $0<s<1$, $1\leq p<\infty$ and $1\leq q\leq\infty$, we define the Besov spaces $B^{s}_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ as those $f\in L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ for which the seminorm

$$|f|_{B^{s}_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^{d})}:=\begin{cases}&\left(\int_{0}^{1}(t^{-s}\omega(f,t)_{p})^{q}\frac{dt}{t}\right)^{1/q}<\infty,\text{\,\,if\,\,}q\in[1,\infty);\\ &\sup_{t\in(0,1]}t^{-s}\omega(f,t)_{p}<\infty,\text{\,\,if\,\,}q=\infty.\end{cases}$$

Equipped with the norm $\|f\|_{B^{s}_{p,q}}:=\|f\|_{p}+|f|_{B^{s}_{p,q}}$ this becomes a Banach space. Note that the integral defining the seminorm is sometimes evaluated on $(0,\infty)$, but both seminorms are equivalent and in fact the integral can be taken over any interval $(0,\delta)$ for any $\delta>0$. The space $B^{s}_{p,q}(\mathcal{Q})$ is similarly defined but with $\zeta(f,t)_{p}$ in place of $\omega(f,t)_{p}$. Corollary 1.4 can then be obtained by setting $q=r=\infty$ in the following result.

Theorem 2.4.

Assume $0<\alpha<1$, $1<p<\infty$ and $1\leq q\leq\infty$. Suppose that $f\in B^{\alpha}_{p,q}(\mathcal{Q})$ and $\zeta(f,t)_{p}$ does not vanish for small $t$. Then $f^{o}\in B^{\beta}_{p,r}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ where $\beta=\frac{\alpha}{\alpha p+1}$ and $r=q(1+\alpha p)$.

The proof relies on the following elementary Lemma.

Lemma 2.5.

Define $\phi(s):=s^{\frac{1}{p}}\zeta(f,s)_{p}$. Under the hypothesis of Theorem 2.4, the following hold:

1. There is $\delta>0$ such that $s^{\frac{1}{p}}>\phi(s)$ for $s\in(0,\delta]$.

2. $\phi^{-1}(t)$ exists and so $\displaystyle\psi(t):=\|f\|_{p}t^{\frac{1}{p}}\left(\phi^{-1}(t^{\frac{1}{p}}\|f\|_{p})\right)^{-\frac{1}{p}}$ is well defined.

3. $t^{-\frac{1}{p}}\psi(t)$ is decreasing. That is, if $0<u<v$ then $\psi(v)<\left(\dfrac{v}{u}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\psi(u)$.

4. $\omega(f^{o},t)_{p}\leq C\min\{\psi(t),\|f\|_{p}\}$, for some constant $C$ independent of $f$.

Proof of Lemma 2.5.

We proceed in order.

1. Since $\lim_{s\to 0}\zeta(f,s)_{p}=0$, there is a $\delta>0$ such that $s^{\frac{1}{p}}>s^{\frac{1}{p}}\zeta(f,s)_{p}$ for $0<s\leq\delta$. In other words $s^{\frac{1}{p}}>\phi(s)$ for $s\in(0,\delta]$.

2. Note that $\zeta(f,s)_{p}$ is continuous and non–decreasing. Since $\zeta(f,0)_{p}=0$, it follows that $\zeta(f,s)_{p}\geq 0$ for $s\geq 0$. Let $s^{\star}=\sup\{s\in[0,1]:\zeta(f,s)_{p}=0\}$. We claim that $s^{\star}=0$. Indeed, $s^{\star}>0$ implies $\zeta(f,s)_{p}=0$ for $0\leq s<s^{\star}$. This contradicts our assumption that $\zeta(f,s)_{p}$ does not vanish for small $s$. As $s^{\frac{1}{p}}$ is continuous and strictly increasing, we see that $\phi(s)=s^{\frac{1}{p}}\zeta(f,s)_{p}$ is also continuous and strictly increasing. Hence both its inverse $\phi^{-1}(t)$ and $\psi(t)$ are well defined.

3. If $0<u<v$ then, by monotonicity, $\phi^{-1}(u^{\frac{1}{p}}\|f\|_{p})<\phi^{-1}(v^{\frac{1}{p}}\|f\|_{p})$. Hence

   $$\frac{v^{\frac{1}{p}}\|f\|_{p}}{(\phi^{-1}(v^{\frac{1}{p}}\|f\|_{p}))^{\frac{1}{p}}}<\frac{v^{\frac{1}{p}}\|f\|_{p}}{(\phi^{-1}(u^{\frac{1}{p}}\|f\|_{p}))^{\frac{1}{p}}}<\frac{u^{\frac{1}{p}}\|f\|_{p}}{(\phi^{-1}(u^{\frac{1}{p}}\|f\|_{p}))^{\frac{1}{p}}}\left(\frac{v}{u}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}},$$

   which is exactly the statement that $\psi(v)<\left(\dfrac{v}{u}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\psi(u)$.

4. The proof of Theorem 1.2 shows that for $C=C(d,p)$

   $$\omega(f^{o},t)_{p}\leq C\left(\zeta(f,s)_{p}+(ts^{-1})^{\frac{1}{p}}\|f\|_{p}\right).$$

   We choose $s$ so that $s^{\frac{1}{p}}\zeta(f,s)_{p}=t^{\frac{1}{p}}\|f\|_{p}$ which balances the two terms above. This is tantamount to setting $s=\phi^{-1}(t^{\frac{1}{p}}\|f\|_{p})$ and so

   $$\omega(f^{o},t)_{p}\leq 2C(ts^{-1})^{\frac{1}{p}}\|f\|_{p}\leq 2C\psi(t),$$

   concluding the proof.

∎

Proof of Theorem 2.4.

Using part (iv) of Lemma 2.5, we must show that the seminorm

$$|f^{o}|^{r}_{B^{\beta}_{p,r}(\mathbb{R}^{d})}=\int_{0}^{1}\left(t^{-\beta}\omega(f^{o},t)_{p}\right)^{r}\frac{dt}{t}\leq C\int_{0}^{1}\left(t^{-\beta}\psi(t)\right)^{r}\frac{dt}{t}<\infty.$$

To this end, set $t_{0}=1$ and for $j\in\mathbb{N}$ choose $t_{j}$ so that $t_{j}^{\frac{1}{p}}\|f\|_{p}=\phi(2^{-j})$. It follows from the almost decreasing property of $\psi(t)$ in Lemma 2.5 part (iii), and an explicit integration that

$$\int_{0}^{1}\left(t^{-\beta}\psi(t)\right)^{r}\frac{dt}{t}=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\int_{t_{j+1}}^{t_{j}}\left(t^{-\beta}\psi(t)\right)^{r}\frac{dt}{t} \leq\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\left(t_{j+1}^{-\beta}\psi(t_{j+1})\left(\frac{t_{j}}{t_{j+1}}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\right)^{r}\log\frac{t_{j}}{t_{j+1}}$$

As $t_{j}=\|f\|_{p}^{-p}2^{-j}(\zeta(f,2^{-j})_{p})^{p}$, the inequality $\zeta(f,\gamma t)_{p}\leq(1+\gamma)\zeta(f,t)_{p}$ shows that $\dfrac{t_{j}}{t_{j+1}}\leq 3^{p+1}$. Since $\psi(t_{j})=\zeta(f,2^{-j})_{p}$ we have

$$\int_{0}^{1}\left(t^{-\beta}\psi(t)\right)^{r}\frac{dt}{t} \leq\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\left(t_{j+1}^{-\beta}\psi(t_{j+1})\left(\frac{t_{j}}{t_{j+1}}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\right)^{r}\log\frac{t_{j}}{t_{j+1}}$$

$$\leq C_{p,\beta,r}\|f\|_{p}^{\beta pr}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}2^{j\beta r}\left(\zeta(f,2^{-j})_{p}\right)^{r(1-\beta p)}$$

$$\leq C_{p,\beta,r}\|f\|_{p}^{\beta pr}\int_{0}^{1}\left(t^{-\frac{\beta}{1-\beta p}}\zeta(f,t)_{p}\right)^{r(1-\beta p)}\frac{dt}{t}$$

By hypothesis, $q=r(1-\beta p)$ and $\alpha=\beta/(1-\beta p)$. This shows that

$$|f^{o}|^{r}_{B^{\beta}_{p,r}(\mathbb{R}^{d})}\leq C_{p}\|f\|_{p}^{\beta pr}\int_{0}^{1}\left(t^{-\alpha}\zeta(f,t)_{p}\right)^{q}\frac{dt}{t}\leq C_{p}\|f\|_{p}^{\beta pr}|f|^{q}_{B^{\alpha}_{p,q}(\mathcal{Q})}<\infty,$$

as desired. ∎

Remark 2.3.

If $\zeta(f,t)_{p}$ does not vanish for small $t$, the proof of Theorem 2.4 above actually yields the interpolation type inequality

$$|f^{o}|_{B^{\beta}_{p,r}(\mathbb{R}^{d})}\leq C_{p}\|f\|_{p}^{\frac{\alpha p}{1+\alpha p}}|f|^{\frac{1}{1+\alpha p}}_{B^{\alpha}_{p,q}(\mathcal{Q})}.$$

It also shows that

$$|f^{o}|_{B^{\alpha}_{p,p}(\mathbb{R}^{d})}\leq C\|f\|_{p}^{\alpha p^{2}}\int_{0}^{1}\left(t^{-\alpha}(\zeta(f,t)_{p})^{1-\alpha p}\right)^{p}\frac{dt}{t}.$$

This last integral diverges if $1-\alpha p\leq 0$, that is, if $\alpha\geq\frac{1}{p}$. Hence we recover the well known result that the condition $0\leq\alpha<\frac{1}{p}$ is necessary for the preservation of class. This condition is also sufficient, but our method is not strong enough to deduce this.

3 A Variation with Adapted Subcubes

The argument in the preceding section utilized cubes of the same (small) size. We can modify it as follows. Let $\mathcal{P}$ be an arbitrary finite partition of $\mathcal{Q}$ into cubes with disjoint interiors and sides parallel to the coordinate axes. If $Q\in\mathcal{P}$ and $f\in L^{p}(\mathcal{Q})$, we define

$$S(Q)=S(Q,f):=\|f-f_{Q}\|_{L^{p}(Q)}.$$

A slight modification of the proof of Theorem 1.2 yields the next result.

Proposition 3.1.

Assume (H1)–(H3) and that $p\in(1,\infty)$. Then

$$\|E_{t}[f^{o}]\|_{p}\leq C\inf_{\mathcal{P}}\left(\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{P}}S(Q)^{p}+\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{P}}\min\left\{\frac{\sqrt{d}t}{l(Q)},1\right\}|Q||f_{Q}|^{p}\right)^{1/p}.$$ (7)

Proof.

Let $\mathcal{P}$ be an arbitrary partition of $\mathcal{Q}$ and set $f_{a}:=\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{P}}f_{Q}\chi_{Q}(x)$. The $L^{p}$ boundedness of $E_{t}$ stipulated in (H2), and the equivalence hypothesis (H3) yield the string of inequalities

$$\|E_{t}[f^{o}]\|^{p}_{p}\leq\|E_{t}[f^{o}-f_{a}]\|^{p}_{p}+\|E_{t}[f_{a}]\|^{p}_{p}\leq C_{1}\|f^{o}-f_{a}\|^{p}_{p}+C_{2}(\omega(f_{a},t)_{p})^{p}.$$

Clearly

$$\|f^{o}-f_{a}\|^{p}_{p}\leq\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{P}}S(Q)^{p},$$

while Lemma 2.1 shows that

$$(\omega(t,f_{a})_{p})^{p}\leq\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{P}}\min\left\{\sqrt{d}t/l(Q),1\right\}|Q||f_{Q}|^{p}.$$

Combining the two inequalities and taking the infimum over all partitions completes the proof. ∎

In essence, things boil down to the minimization in (7). Unfortunately, doing this explicitly is no small matter. We formally pose it as an independent problem.

Problem 3.2.

Find good estimates for the right hand side in (7).

One obstacle to estimating (7) is the possible presence of a large number of small cubes. As a remedy, we propose an adaptive approximation which uses small cubes only when needed. This stopping–time argument is adapted from DeVore [7] which itself is a variant of the construction of Birman–Solomjak [2].

Fix $\epsilon>0$. We say that a cube is good if $S(Q)\leq\epsilon$ and bad otherwise. We generate a dyadic partition $\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}$ of $\mathcal{Q}$ into good cubes as follows. If $\mathcal{Q}$ is good, $\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon,0}:=\{\mathcal{Q}\}$ is our partition and we set $\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon,0}:=\varnothing$ and stop. Otherwise, $\mathcal{Q}$ is bad and we let $\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon,0}:=\{\mathcal{Q}\}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon,0}:=\varnothing$. We then subdivide $\mathcal{Q}$ into its dyadic children putting the good ones into $\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon,1}$ and the bad ones into $\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon,1}$. We continue in this way and at each step $k$ we have a set of good cubes $\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon,k}$ and bad cubes $\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon,k}$ of side length $l(Q)=2^{-k}$. This “algorithm” terminates because of Lebesgue’s Theorem on the differentiation of the integral.

Ordered under inclusion, $\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon}$ is a tree and we let $D_{\epsilon}$ be the “depth” of the tree. The partition is $\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}=\bigcup_{k=0}^{D_{\epsilon}}\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon,k}$ and our approximation is

$$f_{a}:=\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}f_{Q}\chi_{Q}.$$

Let $N_{\epsilon,k}=|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon,k}|$ be the number of cubes in each good set and $N_{\epsilon}=|\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}|$ the total number of cubes in our partition. By construction

$$\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}S(Q)^{p}\leq\epsilon^{p}N_{\epsilon},$$

so Proposition 3.1 and Hölder’s inequality then implies

$$\|E_{t}[f^{o}]\|_{p}\leq C\left(\epsilon^{p}N_{\epsilon}+\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{G}_{\epsilon}}\min\left\{\frac{\sqrt{d}t}{l(Q)},1\right\}\int_{Q}|f|^{p}\right)^{1/p}.$$ (8)

This time we must keep track of the lengths and total number of the cubes in our partition, as well as the $L^{p}$ norm of $f$ over small cubes. We do not know how to do this for an arbitrary function in $L^{p}$.

Problem 3.3.

Find good estimates for $N_{\epsilon,k}$ and characterize the dependence on $\epsilon$ and the smoothness of $f$.

To get concrete results, we will assume some smoothness for $f$ and even then we obtain rather crude estimates. We include the argument here mostly to illustrate the ideas.

Put $\eta=\alpha/d-1/q+1/p$ and suppose that $f\in W^{\alpha}_{q}(\mathcal{Q})$ with $1\leq q\leq d/\alpha$ and $p<q^{*}$ , where $q^{*}=qd/(d-\alpha q)$ is the conjugate Sobolev exponent. These assumptions imply that $\eta>0$. Note that we measure smoothness in $L^{q}$ which may differ from the $L^{p}$ metric in which we measure the approximation error. According to the Poincare–Sobolev inequality we have (see [2, Lemma 3.2])

$$S(Q)\leq C_{p,q,d,\alpha}|Q|^{\eta}|f|_{W^{\alpha}_{q}(Q)};\quad Q\subset\mathcal{Q},$$ (9)

and since $S(Q)>\epsilon$ for $Q\in\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon,k}$, we have

$$\epsilon^{q}\sum_{j=1}^{|\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon,k}|}1\leq C^{q}\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon,k}}|Q|^{\eta q}|f|^{q}_{W^{\alpha}_{q}(Q)}\leq C^{q}2^{-kd\eta q}|f|^{q}_{W^{\alpha}_{q}(\mathcal{Q})},$$

showing that

$$|\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon,k}|\leq\epsilon^{-q}2^{-kd\eta q}|f|^{q}_{W^{\alpha}_{q}(\mathcal{Q})}.$$

Since each good cube is obtained from subdividing a bad cube and there are at most $2^{kd}$ cubes at level $k$ it follows that

$$N_{\epsilon,k}\leq C\min\{2^{kd},\epsilon^{-q}2^{-kd\eta q}|f|^{q}_{W^{\alpha}_{q}(\mathcal{Q})}\}.$$

We stress that this bound is very crude. For instance, if $N_{\epsilon,k}=2^{kd}$, then necessarily $N_{\epsilon,j}=0$ for $j\neq k$. That said, by summing geometric series we see

$$N_{\epsilon}\leq C\left(\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}2^{kd}+\epsilon^{-q}|f|^{q}_{W^{\alpha}_{q}(\mathcal{Q})}\sum_{k=m}^{\infty}2^{-kd\eta q}\right)\leq C\left(2^{md}+\epsilon^{-q}|f|^{q}_{W^{\alpha}_{q}(\mathcal{Q})}2^{-md\eta q}\right),$$

and minimizing the last expression with respect to $m$ gives

$$N_{\epsilon}\leq C_{\eta,q,d}\left(\epsilon^{-1}|f|_{W^{\alpha}_{q}(\mathcal{Q})}\right)^{\frac{q}{1+\eta q}}.$$ (10)

To bound the length of the smallest cube, we go back to (9) and note that $S(Q)\leq\epsilon$ whenever

$$l(Q)\leq\left(\frac{\epsilon}{C|f|_{W^{\alpha}_{q}(\mathcal{Q})}}\right)^{1/\eta d},$$ (11)

where $C$ is the constant in (9). Thus, up to a factor of $2^{\pm 1}$, no cube in the partition can have length smaller than that in (11). We put (10) and (11) into (8). Again, this is crude, but it gives

$$\|E_{t}[f^{o}]\|_{p}\leq C\left(\epsilon^{\frac{\alpha p}{\alpha p+d}}|f|_{W^{\alpha}_{q}(\mathcal{Q})}^{\frac{d}{\alpha p+d}}+t^{\frac{1}{p}}\epsilon^{-\frac{1}{\eta pd}}\|f\|_{L^{p}(\mathcal{Q})}|f|_{W^{\alpha}_{q}(\mathcal{Q})}^{\frac{1}{\eta pd}}\right).$$ (12)

The next result is obtained by choosing $\epsilon$ (depending on $t$) to minimize (12). The proof is a calculus exercise and so it is omitted.

Theorem 3.4.

Suppose $f\in W^{\alpha}_{q}(\mathcal{Q})$ with $1\leq q\leq d/\alpha$ and $p<q^{*}$. With $\beta:=\frac{\alpha}{\alpha p+\frac{\alpha p+d}{\alpha p+d-\frac{pd}{q}}}$, and $C=C(\alpha,p,q,d,\|f\|_{q},|f|_{W^{\alpha}_{q}})$, we have

$$\|E_{t}[f^{o}]\|_{p}\leq Ct^{\beta}.$$