On the Fundamental Eigenvalue Gap of Sturm-Liouville Operators
Abstract.
We use methods of direct optimization as in [9] to find the minimizers of the fundamental gap of Sturm-Liouville operators on an interval, under the constraint that the potential is of single-well form and that the weight function is of single-barrier form, and under similar constraints expressed in terms of convexity.
Key words and phrases:
Fundamental spectral gap, eigenvalue estimates, Sturm-Liouville operators, single-well potential, Dirichlet boundary conditions2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
34L15, 34B27, 35J60, 35B05.1. Introduction
The goal of this article is to find optimal estimates, under constraints on the form of the coefficient functions in (1), for the fundamental eigenvalue gap of the Sturm-Liouville equation
(1) |
on a finite interval, with self-adjoint boundary conditions, According to [21], §8.4, one may impose any separated homogeneous boundary conditions of the form
where , to make self-adjoint; the interval has been standardized as without loss of generality. To keep the exposition simple we restrict to Dirichlet boundary conditions, i.e., , although our techniques also work with other self-adjoint boundary conditions, with suitable changes. Some further simplifications will be imposed below.
The quantity is of interest as the ionization energy in quantum theory, and sharp bounds for natural categories of potential energies that prevent its collapse, especially single-well and convex , have been studied since the 1980s; cf. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14, 18] and references therein. The problem of maximizing not only casts light on the physical problem of ionization, but is interesting as a mathematical problem in its own right.
Most prior work has assumed or emphasized the case where both and the weight are held constant. Liouville transformations allow one to convert (1) into equivalent equations with different , , and , but in general only one of these three functions can be eliminated. In the first three sections of this article we standardize with , and recall how the Liouville transformation works in an appendix. In summary, these remarks allow us to concentrate on the problem
(2) |
in the following two sections.
In [2], for the problem (2) with Dirichlet conditions, Ashbaugh and Benguria proved that the optimal lower bound for for symmetric single-well potentials is achieved if and only if is constant on . In [18] Lavine considered the class of convex potentials on and proved, with either Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions, that the constant potential function minimizes . Later Horváth [13] returned with Lavine’s methods to the problem of single-well potentials, but without symmetry assumptions, and again showed that the constant potential was optimal with some restrictions on the transition point, and in 2015 Yu and Yang [20] extended Horváth’s result by allowing other transition points and both Dirichlet and Neumann conditions. More recently El Allali and Harrell [9] used direct optimization methods to prove sharp lower bounds for with general single-well potential , without any restriction on the transition point , and obtained similar results in the case where the potential is convex. El Allali and Harrell were furthermore able to analyze the case where , where is a fixed background potential energy and is assumed either single-well or convex. In contrast to the earlier studies of single-well potentials, which restrict the transition point in one way or other, the minimizing single-well potentials they found are in general step functions and not necessarily constant, unless extra conditions are imposed. In the classic case where they recovered with different arguments the result of Lavine that is uniquely minimized among convex by the constant, and in the case of single-well potentials, with no restrictions on the position of the minimum, they obtained a new, sharp bound, that . Some further related articles are Huang’s discussion of the eigenvalue gap [15] and eigenvalue ratio [16] for the vibrating string with symmetric densities, i.e., allowing variable , and the works of Ashbaugh and Benguria [4], Huang and Law [17], and Horvàth and Kiss [14], which include other expressions related to the low-lying eigenvalues such as eigenvalue ratios like .
2. Simple properties of the fundamental gap
We shall use expressions such as and to indicate the dependence on the fundamental gap on coefficients in (2) with respect to which we wish to optimize. In this section we review and slightly extend some useful observations about that are familiar from previous sources such as [2, 18, 9]. Most importantly, there is an explicit formula for the first derivative with respect to perturbations of and :
Lemma 2.1.
Suppose that and are one-parameter families of real-valued, locally functions, with , for some , and and . Then
Proof.
Because and are relatively bounded perturbations, Kato’s theory of analytic perturbations applies, and since the eigenvalues with separated homogeneous boundary conditions are simple, this justifies the use of a formal expansion to calculate the effect of the perturbation, à la Feynman-Hellmann: Denoting , differentiation of (2) with respect to gives
We multiply the equation above by and integrate with respect to from to . This yields
Observing that ,
Integrating by parts twice yields
with boundary conditions . This gives
so that
Noting that
∎
Lemma 2.2.
Consider the problem (2) with the same assumptions on and as in Lemma 2.1. Without loss of generality we standardize the first two normalized eigenfunctions so that for for some . Then:
-
(1)
is decreasing on .
-
(2)
The equation has either one or two solutions on .
-
(3)
There exist two points and , at least one of which is interior to , such that on and on .
-
(4)
The equation has either one or two solutions on .
-
(5)
There exist two points and , at least one of which is interior to , such that on and on .
Proof.
We first show that for , where and hence that there can be at most one value for which .
The Wronskian is by definition
Thus with the weight in (2),
and for the the quotient ,
Hence
(3) |
since and on .
Suppose that there exist distinct such that
Then . By Rolle’s theorem there exists such that , but this contradicts (3).
Since vanishes at a unique point and the same argument can be carried out after the change of variables and an adjustment of the sign of , it follows that is strictly monotonic on and that there is at most one value for which .
At least one of the points , because if and then for all , which would contradict . ∎
3. Characterization of optimizers
In this section, we determine the explicit form of the gap-minimizing potential and density function of problem (2), closely following the strategy of [9].
3.1. The class of single-well potentials and single-barrier densities
Definition 3.1.
Let . The function is called a single-well function if is non-increasing on and non-decreasing on , for some . The point is called a transition point (with no assumption of uniqueness). The notation below will be used through this article:
Definition 3.2.
Let . The function is called a single-barrier density if is non-decreasing on and non-increasing on for some . The following notation will be used through this article:
Definition 3.3.
Consider the Sturm Liouville problem
(4) | ||||
, |
where is a single-well function and is a single-barrier density. The background potential is assumed bounded and measurable. If there exist and such that
then we call the function an optimal potential and the function an optimal density for problem (4).
As in [9], we will use compactness of the sets and , following from a theorem of Helly:
Proposition 3.1.
For any sequence , ( or with any fixed positive ), there exist a subsequence and a function such that for a.e. .
For the proof, see [9], Proposition .
Corollary 3.1.
There exist a potential and a density that minimize .
Proof.
According to Proposition 3.1, since the gap is positive, there exist minimizing sequences and such that
By Proposition 3.1 we may pass to subsequences in that converge pointwise a.e. to limits and :
By the dominated convergence theorem these sequences also converge in . Hence by continuity of with respect to relatively bounded perturbations,
∎
Theorem 3.1.
For any piecewise continuous, strictly positive weight function , the optimal potential is a step function. For any piecewise continuous potential function , the optimal weight is a step function. The same is true for jointly optimal and . In each case the optimizers have the following characterization:
-
(1)
a.e. on a connected component of and on the complement of that interval, a.e.
-
(2)
a.e. on a connected component of and on the complement of that interval, a.e.
Proof.
Let and be the minimizing potential and density guaranteed by the lemma.
We can characterize with the same argument as was used in [9], since Lemma 2.2 allows for the possibility of variable weight. We repeat it here to make the proof self-contained, and to point out a key difference. By Lemma 2.2 there exist : , for which
We define a family of single-well potentials by perturbing so that
Next, we work out the explicit form of in two cases, beginning with
(i) . For definiteness we arrange by reflecting if necessary that , , and is nondecreasing for . In this case we proceed in two stages. First, let
We observe that has been chosen so that and has the opposite sign to a.e.
By the Feynman-Hellmann formula, at ,
(5) |
Since is a minimizer and
which implies that the integrand in (5) equals 0 a.e. Thus a.e. on . I.e., a.e. But if the alternative choice
is also valid, ensuring that and that has the opposite sign to a.e. We are thus led to the conclusion that a.e. In particular, for the unique transition point is .
(ii) Secondly, suppose that ; the case when , is similar. Let
Then with
We note that , and by the optimality of ,
Hence, as before we conclude that on . Indeed, since we have concluded that , we may as well redefine as , which reduces case (ii) to case (i). In conclusion all optimal must be step functions with a unique jump coinciding with either or .
In [9], where the weight was constant, it was possible to conclude that was of the form for an interval by relying on the fact that adding a constant to the potential function does not change the gap . With a variable weight we are only able to conclude that in general for an undetermined constant .
It remains to characterize the optimal weight by a similar argument applied to for fixed . Just as before, we can use Lemma 2.2 to conclude that there exist : , satisfying
Given an optimal , we extend it to a family of weights by
There are again two cases, beginning with
(i) . As before we can arrange a convenient orientation by reflecting if necessary. We thus posit that , , and is nonincreasing for . If we let
then and has the opposite sign to a.e.
Fixing and differentiating the eigenvalues at by the Feynman-Hellman formula,
By the optimality of and since
implies that
a.e. on .
In conclusion the optimal must be a step function with at most one jump, located at .
If , then the alternative choice
still ensures that and and has the opposite sign to a.e. We are thus led to the conclusion that a.e. for and a.e. for . In particular, for the unique transition point is .
(ii) Secondly, suppose that ; the case when is similar. Let
We have with
Noting that and using the optimality of ,
We conclude that a.e. on . As with the characterization of , this means that we can now suppose that is a transition point, reducing this case to case (i).
∎
Theorem 3.2.
The eigenvalues of the Sturm-Liouville problem (2) correspond to the real roots of the transcendental equation
where , , and .
Proof.
By Theorem 3.1, the optimal potential must be of the form
and the optimal density must be of the form
The eigenfunctions are given by
Where , , and are real constants, with .
Continuity of at gives
and continuity of at gives
Then
Continuity of at gives
It follows that
and by the continuity of at ,
Therefore,
Then
This ends the proof. ∎
4. Liouville transform of Sturm-Liouville operators
In this section we apply Lavine’s estimate on the fundamental gap to the Sturm-Liouville equation (2),
The eigenvalues of (2) coincide with these of the corresponding eigenvalue problem in Liouville normal form,
(6) |
where is the Liouville potential defined by
(7) |
with . (For background on the Liouville transform we refer to [22]). In particular we have
Proposition 4.1.
Proof.
Remark 4.1.
Proposition 4.2.
Consider the Sturm-Liouville problem (2) with positive density function and continuous convex potential on . If the fundamental gap satisfies
Then
for all .
Proof.
If the fundamental gap satisfies
then the Liouville potential is constant, in which case . Therefore
∎
Proposition 4.3.
Proof
To analyze the convexity of , we will apply the nonnegativity criterion for the second derivative. To differentiate the Liouville potential we make use of the chain rule. In particular,
If then is convex, so .
As a consequence
This yields that
References
- [1] M. Ahrami and Z. El Allali, Lower bounds on the fundamental spectral gap with Robin boundary conditions, 2021 UNC Greensboro PDE Conference. Electron. J. Diff. Eqns. Conf. 26 (2022), pp 1-11.
- [2] M. Ashbaugh and R. Benguria, Optimal lower bound for the gap between the first two eigenvalues of one-dimensional Schrödinger operators with symmetric single-well potentials, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 105 (1989), 419–424.
- [3] M. S. Ashbaugh and R. Svirsky, Periodic potentials with minimal energy bands, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 114 (1992) 69–77.
- [4] M. Ashbaugh and R. Benguria, Optimal bounds for ratios of eigenvalues of one-dimensional Schrödinger operators with Dirichlet boundary conditions and positive potentials, Comm. Math. Phys., 124 (1989), 403–415.
- [5] M. S. Ashbaugh, E. M. Harrell II, and R. Svirsky, On minimal and maximal eigenvalues gaps and their causes, Pac. J. Math. 147 (1991) 1–24.
- [6] Y. H. Cheng, S. Y. Kung, C. K. Law and W. C. Lian, The dual eigenvalue problems for the Sturm-Liouville system, Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 60 (2010) 2556–2563.
- [7] M. S. Ashbaugh and E. M. Harrell II, Perturbation theory for shape resonances and large barrier potentials, Commun. Math. Phys. 83 (1982) 151–170.
- [8] J. L. Doob, Measure theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics (143), 1994 Springer.
- [9] Z. El Allali and E. M. Harrell II , Optimal bounds on the fundamental spectral gap with single-well potentials, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 150,(2022), 57–587.
- [10] G. Bognàr and O. Dosly, The ratio of eigenvalues of the Dirichlet eigenvalue problem for equations with one-dimensional p-Laplacian, Abstract and Applied Analyis, 2010 (2010).
- [11] T. Kato, Perturbation theory for linear operator, 1980 Springer-Verlag.
- [12] M. J. Huang, On the eigenvalue ratio for vibrating strings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 127 (1999) 1805–1813.
- [13] M. Horváth, On the first two eigenvalues of Sturm-Liouville operators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 131 4 (2002) 1215–1224.
- [14] M. Horváth and M. Kiss, A bound for ratios of eigenvalues of Schrödinger operators with single-well potentials, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 134 (2006) 1425–1434.
- [15] M. J. Huang, The eigenvalue gap for vibrating strings with symmetric densities, Acta Math. Hungar., 117 (2007) 341–348.
- [16] M. J. Huang, A note on the eigenvalues ratio of vibrating strings, Acta Math. Hungar., 123 (2009) 265–271.
- [17] M. J. Huang and C. K. Law, Eigenvalue ratios for the regular Sturm-Liouville system, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 124 (1996) 1427–1436.
- [18] R. Lavine, The eigenvalue gap for one-dimensional convex potentials, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 1994; 121, 815–821.
- [19] R. Svirsky, Maximally resonant potentials subject to p-Norm constraints, Pac. J. Math. 129, 357–374 (1987).
- [20] X. J. Yu and C. F. Yang, The gap between the first two eigenvalues of Schrödinger operators with single-well potential, Appl. Math. Comp. 268 (2015) 275–283.
- [21] J. Weidmann, Linear operators in Hilbert spaces, volume 68 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1980. Translated from the German by Joseph Szücs.
- [22] Garrett Birkhoff and Gian-Carlo Rota, Ordinary Differential Equations, 4th Edition. New York: Wiley, 1989. See Chapter 10, section 9.
- [23] A. Zettl Strum-Liouville theory, American Mathematical Society, 2005.