## Sharp kernel bounds for parabolic operators with first order degeneracy

$$L. \, \text{Negro} ^ { * } \quad C. \, \text{Spina} ^ { \dagger }$$

## Abstract

We prove sharp upper and lower estimates for the parabolic kernel of the singular elliptic operator

$$\mathcal { L } = \text{Tr } ( A D ^ { 2 } ) + \frac { ( v, \nabla ) } { y },$$

in the half-space R N +1 + = { ( x, y ) : x ∈ R N , y &gt; 0 } under Neumann or oblique derivative boundary conditions at y = 0.

Mathematics subject classification (2020): 35K08, 35K67, 47D07, 35J70, 35J75. Keywords: degenerate elliptic operators, singular elliptic operators, boundary degeneracy, kernel estimates.

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we study sharp upper and lower estimates for the parabolic kernel of the singular operator

$$\mathcal { L } & = \text{Tr} \, \left ( A D ^ { 2 } \right ) + \frac { ( v, \nabla ) } { y } = \sum _ { i, j = 1 } ^ { N + 1 } a _ { i j } D _ { i j } + \frac { d \cdot \nabla _ { x } + c D _ { y } } { y } \\ \intertext { s l f s c o n c e } \mathbb { R } ^ { N + 1 } = \mathfrak { l } ( r _ { \ } u ) \cdot r \in \mathbb { R } ^ { N } \ u > \mathfrak { 0 } \mathfrak { \lambda } \text{ Here } A = ( a \dots ) \in \mathbb { R } ^ { N + 1, N + 1 } \text{ is a symmetric and}$$

in the half-space R N +1 + = ( { x, y ) : x ∈ R N , y &gt; 0 } . Here A = ( a ij ) ∈ R N +1 ,N +1 is a symmetric and positive definite matrix and we suppose c γ +1 &gt; 0, where γ = a N +1 ,N +1 ; the vector v = ( d, c ) ∈ R N +1 satisfies d = 0 if c = 0 i.e. v is oblique with respect to the boundary of R N +1 + . We endow L with Neumann or oblique derivative boundary conditions at y = 0

/negationslash

$$\lim _ { y \to 0 } D _ { y } u = 0 \ \ ( \text{if } v = 0 ), \quad \ \lim _ { y \to 0 } y ^ { \frac { c } { 7 } } v \cdot \nabla u = 0 \ \ ( \text{if } c \neq 0 ).$$

Up to some suitable linear transformations, the latter operator is equivalent to the model operator

$$\mathcal { L } = \Delta _ { x } + 2 a \cdot \nabla _ { x } D _ { y } + B _ { y }, \quad B _ { y } = D _ { y y } + \frac { c } { y } D _ { y }$$

∗ Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica'Ennio De Giorgi', Universit` del Salento, C.P.193, 73100, Lecce, Italy. a e-mail: luigi.negro@unisalento.it

† Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica 'Ennio De Giorgi', Universit` del Salento, C.P.193, 73100, Lecce, Italy. a e-mail: chiara.spina@unisalento.it

were B y is a one-dimensional Bessel operator, c + 1 &gt; 0 and a ∈ R N satisfies the requirement | a | &lt; 1 which is equivalent to the ellipticity of the top order coefficients.

In the special case a = 0 and L = ∆ x + B y , that is when the mixed second order derivatives do not appear, the Bessel operator B y and the Laplacian ∆ x commute and sharp kernel estimates can be proved after an explicit description of the kernel of the Bessel operator (see [10]). These operators play a major role in the investigation of the fractional powers ( -∆ ) x s and ( D t -∆ ) , x s s = (1 -c / ) 2, through the 'extension procedure' of Caffarelli and Silvestre, see [1].

Unfortunately adding the mixed second order derivatives term is an hard complication of the problem, one important reason being the loss of commutativity. However the study of the general operator (1) is crucial for treating degenerate operators in domains since mixed derivatives and oblique boundary conditions appear in the localization procedure. For this reason its properties have been studied in a series of previous papers. Elliptic and parabolic solvability of the associated problems in weighted L p spaces have been investigated in [15, 14, 10, 13, 17] where we proved, under suitable assumptions on m and p and for c γ +1 &gt; 0, that L generates an analytic semigroup in L p m = L p ( R N +1 + ; y m dxdy ). In addition we characterized its domain as a weighted Sobolev space and showed that it has the maximal regularity.

In addition we also refer to [4, 6, 3, 5] where the authors studied operators of this form, even for variable coefficients, using tools form linear PDE and Muckhenoupt weights. In [21], among other properties, kernel estimates for some second order degenerate operators in divergence form are considered.

Our main results are Theorems 7.15 and 7.16 where we prove that L generates in L 2 c γ a contractive analytic semigroup ( e t L ) t ∈ Σ on some suitable sector Σ of the complex plane, and its heat kernel p L , written with respect the measure y c γ dz , satisfies the following two-sided estimates

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) \simeq C t ^ { - \frac { N + 1 } { 2 } } y _ { 1 } ^ { - \frac { \partial } { 2 \gamma } } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 1 } } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) ^ { \frac { c } { 2 \gamma } } y _ { 2 } ^ { - \frac { c } { 2 \gamma } } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) ^ { \frac { c } { 2 \gamma } } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k t } \right ) \quad ( 3 )$$

where t &gt; 0, z 1 = ( x , y 1 1 ) , z 2 = ( x , y 2 2 ) ∈ R N +1 + and C, k &gt; 0 are some positive constants which may be different in the lower and upper bounds. We also point out here that the above inequalities can be written in the equivalent form (13) (see Remark 2.3).

We proved the upper bound of (3) in [19] by revisiting the classical method based upon the equivalence between Gagliardo-Nirenberg type inequalities and ultra-contractivity estimates; we also proved that the same estimate extends to complex times t ∈ Σ.

In this the paper we therefore focus on proving the lower bounds in (3). As a needed, but also of independent interest, result, we prove in Theorem 5.7 the following gradient estimates

$$| \nabla p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) | \, \leq C | t | ^ { - \frac { N + 2 } { 2 } } y _ { 2 } ^ { - \frac { \alpha } { 7 } } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { | t | } } \right ) ^ { \frac { \alpha } { 7 } } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k | t | } \right ), \quad t \in \Sigma. \quad ( 4 ) \\ \text{Let us describe the strategy of proof employed. Let us discuss, preliminarily and in an abstract}$$

Let us describe the strategy of proof employed. Let us discuss, preliminarily and in an abstract setting, a well established strategy (see e.g. [20, Chapter 7, Section 7.8]) for deducing lower heat kernel estimates referring to the discussion at the beginning of Section 7 for further details. Let A be a non-negative self-adjoint operator acting on L 2 ( X,µ ) where X is a homogeneous space i.e. a metric space ( X,d ) endowed with a doubling measure µ . Assume that the semigroup e tA has a

kernel p t, z ( 1 , z 2 ) which satisfies the Gaussian upper bound

$$p ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) \leq \frac { C } { V \left ( z _ { 1 }, \sqrt { t } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } V \left ( z _ { 2 }, \sqrt { t } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } } \exp \left ( - \frac { d ( z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } } { \kappa t } \right ), \ \forall \ t > 0, \ z _ { 1 }, \ z _ { 2 } \in X. \quad ( 5 ) \\ \text{where } V ( z, r ) = \mu ( B ( z, r ) ) \text{ is the measure of the } X \text{-balls.  Then the first crucial step consists in} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda`} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$} \text{$\lambda$,}$$

where V ( z, r ) = µ B z, r ( ( )) is the measure of the X -balls. Then the first crucial step consists in the derivation of the on-diagonal lower estimate

$$p ( t, z, z ) \geq \frac { C } { V ( z, \sqrt { t } ) }, \quad z \in X, \ t > 0,$$

which can be proved by combining the conservation property of the kernel and the upper estimate (5) (see e.g. [20, Proposition 7.28]). The general off-diagonal lower bound then is proved by using the H¨ older continuity of p to go outside of the diagonal and an iterative argument based on the validity of the so-called chain condition for X .

In our case, due to the non self-adjointness of L , this strategy does not work. Then, inspired by the method of Nash [16, 7], we prove the on-diagonal lower estimate by proving, in Proposition 7.12, the so-called 'G-bound'

$$\int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) e ^ { - \alpha | z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } y _ { 2 } ^ { \frac { c } { 7 } } \, d z _ { 2 } \geq - C, \quad | z | \leq 1,$$

namely a lower bound of the integral of the logarithm of the heat kernel with respect to the weighted gaussian measure ν = e - | | α z 2 y c γ dz , α &gt; 0. This is not an easy task due to the presence of the weight y c γ introduced to treat the degeneracy of the operator and which can be either singular or degenerate at y = 0 and at infinity. We emphasize that the derivation of (7) relies on the validity of some Poincar´ e-type inequalities in H 1 ν ( R N +1 + ) which require a separate study and which we prove in [18].

Another difficulty appears: in order to compensate the non self-adjointness of L , we need also to study in parallel both L and L ∗ . In particular once (7) is proved for both L and L ∗ , then by using the reproducing property of the kernel and Jensen inequality we derive, in Proposition 7.13, the on-diagonal lower estimate for p L . Finally, thanks to the gradient estimates proved in Section 5, we can go outside the diagonal proving the off-diagonal lower bound in (3).

We now describe the structure of the paper.

In Section 2 we introduce the operator L in (1) and we collect the results we need about generation of semigroups, maximal regularity and domain characterization in the weighted spaces L p m ( R N +1 + ) := L p ( R N +1 + ; y m dxdy ) proved in [15, 17]. We also recall the upper kernel estimates proved in [19].

In Section 3 we describe a simple change of variable which allows to simplify the discussion to the model operator (2) under Neumann boundary conditions. In all the subsequent sections we therefore deal, without any loss of generality, almost exclusively with the model case, leaving to Theorem 7.16 the generalization of our results to the general case.

In Section 4 we write the forms associated with L and the adjoint L ∗ in the weighted space L 2 c , where the weighted measure y c dz takes into account the degeneracy of the operators. We state the main properties of the forms which allow to get generation of analytic semigroups in L 2 c .

In Section 5 we prove gradient estimates for the heat kernels of L and L ∗ . The strategy here relies on the analyticity of the semigroup and the Cauchy formula for holomorphic functions which allow to deduce a pointwise estimates for D p t L = L p L . Then the estimate for the gradient is proved by an interpolation argument using the solvability theory of Section 2 for L in L p ( R N +1 + ) for p &gt; N +1 and the Morrey's embeddings.

In Section 6 we prove that the semigroups e t L , e t L ∗ , initially defined on L 2 c , extend also on L 1 c and we prove their conservation property.

Section 7, which contains the main result of the paper, is devoted to prove the lower kernel estimates. As explained before the crucial step consists in proving the 'G-bound' (7) which allows to deduce the lower bounds on the diagonal. Here we mainly focus on the range | x | √ t , y √ t ≤ 1 while the lower bound far away from the boundary is deduced by domination with a uniformly elliptic operator.

In Appendix we characterize the boundedness on L p m of a family of integral operators which are related to our operator.

/negationslash

We write often ( x, y ) or x y · to denote the inner product of R N and, for A,B ∈ R N,N symmetric, Tr ( AB ) = ∑ i,j a ij b i,j . Given a and b ∈ R , a ∧ b , a ∨ b denote their minimum and maximum. We write f ( x ) /similarequal g x ( ) for x in a set I and positive f, g , if for some C , C 1 2 &gt; 0

Notation. For N ≥ 0, R N +1 + = { ( x, y ) : x ∈ R N , y &gt; 0 } . We write ∇ u, D 2 u for the gradient and the Hessian matrix of a function u with respect to all x, y variables and ∇ x u, D y u, D x x i j u, D x y i u and so on, to distinguish the role of x and y . For m ∈ R we consider the measure y m dxdy in R N +1 + and we write L p m ( R N +1 + ), and often only L p m when R N +1 + is understood, for L p ( R N +1 + ; y m dxdy ). C + stands for { λ ∈ C : Re λ &gt; 0 } and, for | θ | ≤ π , we denote by Σ θ the open sector { λ ∈ C : λ = 0 , | Arg λ ( ) | &lt; θ } .

$$C _ { 1 } \, g ( x ) \leq f ( x ) \leq C _ { 2 } \, g ( x ), \ \ x \in I.$$

Sometimes we also write C = C α ( ) to emphasize, for a positive constant C &gt; 0, its dependence on the parameter α .

Acknowledgment. The authors are members of the INDAM ('Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica') research group GNAMPA ('Gruppo Nazionale per l'Analisi Matematica, la Probabilit` e a le loro Applicazioni').

## 2 The operator in L p m and upper kernel estimates

We consider the singular elliptic operator

$$\mathcal { L } = \text{Tr} \, & \left ( A D ^ { 2 } \right ) + \frac { ( v, \nabla ) } { y }, \\ \{ ( x. u ) \, \colon x \in \mathbb { R } ^ { N }. u > 0 \}. \, \text{Here } A = ( a _ { i i } ) \in \mathbb { R } ^ { N + 1, N + 1 } \text{ is a svmmetric and}$$

in the half-space R N +1 + = ( { x, y ) : x ∈ R N , y &gt; 0 } . Here A = ( a ij ) ∈ R N +1 ,N +1 is a symmetric and positive definite matrix and we write Tr ( AD 2 ) = ∑ N +1 i,j =1 a ij D ij . The vector v = ( d, c ) ∈ R N +1 satisfies

$$d = 0 \quad \text{ if } \quad c = 0$$

i.e. v is oblique with respect to the boundary of R N +1 + . Writing

$$A \coloneqq \left ( \frac { Q \, \Big | \, q ^ { t } } { q \, \Big | \, \gamma } \right )$$

where Q ∈ R N × N , q = ( q 1 , . . . , q N ) ∈ R N and γ = a N +1 ,N +1 &gt; 0, the operator L takes the form

$$\mathcal { L } = \text{Tr} \ \left ( Q D _ { x } ^ { 2 } \right ) + 2 \left ( q, \nabla _ { x } D _ { y } \right ) + \gamma D _ { y y } + \frac { d \cdot \nabla _ { x } + c D _ { y } } { y }. \quad \left ( 9 \right ) \\ \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots. \end{array}$$

We work in the weighted spaces L p m ( R N +1 + ) := L p ( R N +1 + ; y m dxdy ), where m ∈ R and we often write only L p m when R N +1 + is understood. In this section we recall the results about generation of semigroups, maximal regularity and domain characterization in L p m proved in [15, 17].

We endow L with Neumann or oblique derivative boundary conditions

$$\hat { \alpha }$$

$$\lim _ { y \to 0 } D _ { y } u = 0 \ \ ( \text{if } v = 0 ), \quad \ \lim _ { y \to 0 } y ^ { \frac { c } { \gamma } } \, v \cdot \nabla u = 0 \ \ ( \text{if } c \neq 0 ).$$

/negationslash

The latter conditions can be equivalently written in integral form (see [17, Proposition 4.9] and [11, Proposition 4.6]: we define accordingly the weighted Sobolev spaces

$$W ^ { 2, p } ( m ) = \left \{ u \in W ^ { 2, p } _ { l o c } ( \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } ) \, \colon \, D ^ { 2 } u, \, \nabla u, \, u \in L ^ { p } _ { m } \right \} \\ \underset { \text{money conditions thus definition} } { \text{min} }$$

and we then impose the boundary conditions thus defining

/negationslash

$$W _ { v } ^ { 2, p } ( m ) = & \{ u \in W ^ { 2, p } ( m ) \, \colon \, y ^ { - 1 } v \cdot \nabla u \in L ^ { p } _ { m } \}, \quad ( c \neq 0 ) ; \\ W _ { \mathcal { N } } ^ { 2, p } ( m ) = & \{ u \in W ^ { 2, p } ( m ) \, \colon \, y ^ { - 1 } D _ { y } u \in L ^ { p } _ { m } \}, \quad ( v = 0 ), \\. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad.. \quad.$$

where, to keep consistency of the notation we write when d = 0, W 2 ,p (0 ,c ) ( m )= W 2 ,p N ( m ).

Theorem 2.1 ([17, Theorem 5.2] and [15, Theorem 7.7]) Let v = ( d, c ) ∈ R N +1 with d = 0 if c = 0 , and let

$$0 < \frac { m + 1 } { p } < \frac { c } { \gamma } + 1.$$

Then the operator

$$\mathcal { L } = T r \, \left ( A D ^ { 2 } \right ) + \frac { ( v, \nabla ) } { y } \\ \Gamma _ { \cdot } ^ { 2, p } ( m ) \ a e n e r a t e s \ a \ b o u n d e d \ a n a$$

endowed with domain D ( L ) = W 2 ,p v ( m ) generates a bounded analytic semigroup in L p m which has maximal regularity.

Corollary 2.2 ([17, Corollary 5.3]) Under the assumptions of the previous theorem, the estimate

$$\| D ^ { 2 } u \| _ { L ^ { p } _ { m } } + \| y ^ { - 1 } v \cdot \nabla u \| _ { L ^ { p } _ { m } } \leq C \| \mathcal { L } u \| _ { L ^ { p } _ { m } } & & ( 1 1 )$$

holds for every u ∈ W 2 ,p v ( m ) (if c = 0 replace y -1 v · ∇ u with y -1 D u y ).

The aim of the paper is to prove that, if c γ + 1 &gt; 0, then the heat kernel p L of L , written with respect the measure y c γ dz , satisfies the upper and lower Gaussian estimates

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) & \simeq C t ^ { - \frac { N + 1 } { 2 } } y _ { 1 } ^ { - \frac { c } { 2 \gamma } } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 1 } } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) ^ { \frac { c } { 2 \gamma } } y _ { 2 } ^ { - \frac { c } { 2 \gamma } } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) ^ { \frac { c } { 2 \gamma } } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k t } \right ), \quad ( 1 2 ) \\. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad.$$

where t &gt; 0, z 1 = ( x , y 1 1 ) , z 2 = ( x , y 2 2 ) ∈ R N +1 + and C, k are some positive constants which may differ from the upper and the lower bounds.

Remark 2.3 We emphasize that the above estimate can be written equivalently as

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) & \simeq C t ^ { - \frac { N + 1 } { 2 } } y _ { i } ^ { - c } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { i } } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) ^ { c } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k t } \right ), \quad i = 1, 2 \quad \quad ( 1 3 ) \\. \quad \dots \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \$$

for some possibly different constants C, k &gt; 0 . This is a consequence of [10, Lemma 10.2] which guarantees that for any /epsilon1 &gt; 0 one has

$$y _ { 1 } ^ { - \frac { c } { 2 } } \left ( 1 \wedge y _ { 1 } \right ) ^ { \frac { c } { 2 } } \simeq y _ { 2 } ^ { - \frac { c } { 2 } } \left ( 1 \wedge y _ { 2 } \right ) ^ { \frac { c } { 2 } } \exp \left ( \epsilon | y _ { 1 } - y _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } \right ), \quad \forall y _ { 1 }, y _ { 2 } > 0 \quad \quad ( 1 4 ) \\ \text{In } [ 1 9 ] \text{ we already proved the upper kernel estimate of } ( 1 2 ) \colon \text{ we recall here the main results}$$

In [19] we already proved the upper kernel estimate of (12): we recall here the main results referring also to Section 4 for the construction of L in the space L 2 c γ via form methods.

Theorem 2.4 ([19, Theorems 4.18 and 5.3]) Let c γ +1 &gt; 0 . Then for some θ ∈ (0 , π 2 ) , the operator L generates in L 2 c γ a contractive analytic semigroup ( e t L ) t ∈ Σ π 2 -θ which is positive for t &gt; 0 . The semigroup consists of integral operators i.e. there exists p L ( t, · , · ) ∈ L ∞ ( R N +1 + × R N +1 + ) such that for t ∈ Σ π 2 -θ , z 1 = ( x , y 1 1 ) , z 2 = ( x , y 2 2 ) ∈ R N +1 +

$$e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } f ( z _ { 1 } ) = \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) f ( z _ { 2 } ) \, y _ { 2 } ^ { \frac { \mathcal { L } } { \gamma } } \, d z _ { 2 }, \ \ f \in L _ { \frac { \mathcal { L } } { \gamma } } ^ { 2 }.$$

Moreover for every ε &gt; 0 there exist constants C , k ε ε &gt; 0 such that if t ∈ Σ π 2 - -θ ε then

$$| p _ { L } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) | \leq C _ { \epsilon } | t | ^ { - \frac { N + 1 } { 2 } } y _ { 1 } ^ { - \frac { \epsilon } { 2 \gamma } } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 1 } } { \sqrt { | t | } } \right ) ^ { \frac { \epsilon } { 2 \gamma } } y _ { 2 } ^ { - \frac { \epsilon } { 2 \gamma } } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { | t | } } \right ) ^ { \frac { \epsilon } { 2 \gamma } } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k _ { \epsilon } | t | } \right ). \\ \intertext { I n v i o r o f t h o r a n i o n e T h o r a m i n e n t o f t h o r a m i n e n t o f t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a r n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a r o n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r o n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o r a n i o n e t h o n o n o n o n t h o n o n o n t h o n o n t h o n o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t o n e t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n t h o n$$

In view of the previous Theorem the remaining part of the paper is then devoted to prove the lower bound of (12).

## 3 Similarity transformations and the model operator

In this section we show that some simple change of variables allows to work, in what follows and without any loss of generality, with the model operator

$$\Delta _ { x } + 2 a \cdot \nabla _ { x } D _ { y } u + D _ { y y } + \frac { c } { y } D _ { y } \coloneqq \Delta _ { x } u + 2 a \cdot \nabla _ { x } D _ { y } u + B _ { y } u$$

under Neumann boundary conditions. Here B y = D yy + c y D y is a Bessel operator and a ∈ R N satisfies the requirement | a | &lt; 1 which is equivalent to the ellipticity of the top order coefficients.

We briefly describe the strategy referring to [15, Section 8] and [19, Section 5] for further details. Let

$$\mathcal { L } = \text{Tr} \, \left ( A D ^ { 2 } \right ) + \frac { ( v, \nabla ) } { y } = \text{Tr} \, \left ( Q D _ { x } ^ { 2 } \right ) + 2 \left ( q, \nabla _ { x } D _ { y } \right ) + \gamma D _ { y y } + \frac { d \cdot \nabla _ { x } + c D _ { y } } { y } \\ \text{be the operator in } ( 8 ). \text{ If } d \neq 0 \text{ and } c \neq 0. \text{ a first transformation allows to transform $\mathcal{L}$ into a similar}$$

be the operator in (8). If d = 0 and c = 0, a first transformation allows to transform L into a similar operator with d = 0 and Neumann boundary conditions. This is a consequence of the following lemma which follows by straightforward computation. Let us consider the following isometry of L p m

/negationslash

/negationslash

$$T \, u ( x, y ) \coloneqq u \left ( x - \frac { d } { c } y, y \right ), \ \ ( x, y ) \in \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 }. \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ( 1 6 )$$

/negationslash

$$\left ( i \right ) \, T ^ { - 1 } \, \left ( v \cdot \nabla \right ) T \, u = c D _ { y } u ; \, \\ \cdot \, \quad \, - \cdot$$

Lemma 3.1 Let 1 &lt; p &lt; ∞ , v = ( d, c ) ∈ R N +1 , c = 0 . Then for u ∈ W 2 1 , loc ( R N +1 + )

$$\left ( i i \right ) \, T ^ { - 1 } \, \left ( T r \, \left ( A D ^ { 2 } \right ) + \frac { v \cdot \nabla } { y } \right ) T \, u = T r \, \left ( \tilde { A } D ^ { 2 } u \right ) + \frac { c } { y } D _ { y } u. \\ \text{Here } \tilde { A } \text{ is a uniformlu elliptic summetric matrix defined } b u$$

Here ˜ A is a uniformly elliptic symmetric matrix defined by

$$\tilde { A } = \left ( \frac { Q - \frac { 2 } { c } d \otimes q + \frac { \gamma } { c ^ { 2 } } d \otimes d } { q - \frac { \gamma } { c } d } \right )$$

and γ = q N +1 ,N +1 .

Proof. The proof follows by a straightforward computation.

The latter lemma shows that the operator L , endowed with the oblique boundary condition lim y → 0 y c γ v · ∇ u = 0 is unitarily equivalent to the operator

$$\tilde { \mathcal { L } } \coloneqq T ^ { - 1 } \mathcal { L } T & = \text{Tr} \, \left ( \tilde { A } D ^ { 2 } \right ) + \frac { c } { y } D _ { y } = \text{Tr} \, \left ( \tilde { Q } D _ { x } ^ { 2 } \right ) + 2 \, ( \tilde { q }, \nabla _ { x } D _ { y } ) + \gamma D _ { y y } + \frac { c } { y } D _ { y } \\ \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \end{array}$$

with the Neumann boundary condition lim y → 0 y c γ D u y = 0. Then through a linear change of variables in the x variables, the term Tr ( ˜ QD 2 x ) can be finally transformed into γ ∆ x thus obtaining an operator which is similar to the one in (15).

In view of the above simplification, in the next sections, without any loss of generality, we will work almost exclusively with the model operator (15), referring to Theorem 7.16 for the generalization of our results to the general case.

We start in the next section with the L 2 -theory. In order to control the non self-adjointness of L , we need to simultaneously study both L and L ∗ .

## 4 The operator L = ∆ x +2 a · ∇ x D y + B u y in L 2 c

Let c ∈ R , a = ( a , . . . , a 1 N ) ∈ R N such that c + 1 &gt; 0, | a | &lt; 1. In this section we study the L 2 theory related to the model degenerate operator

$$\mathcal { L } \coloneqq \Delta _ { x } u + 2 a \cdot \nabla _ { x } D _ { y } u + B _ { y } u$$

in L 2 c equipped with Neumann boundary condition. The requirement | a | &lt; 1 is equivalent to the ellipticity of the top order coefficients.

We use the Sobolev space H 1 c := { u ∈ L 2 c : ∇ u ∈ L 2 c } equipped with the inner product

$$\langle u, v \rangle _ { H _ { c } ^ { 1 } } \coloneqq \langle u, v \rangle _ { L _ { c } ^ { 2 } } + \langle \nabla u, \nabla v \rangle _ { L _ { c } ^ { 2 } } \,.$$

The condition c +1 &gt; 0 assures, by [11, Theorem 4.9], that the set

$$\mathcal { C } \coloneqq \left \{ u \in C _ { c } ^ { \infty } \left ( \mathbb { R } ^ { N } \times [ 0, \infty ) \right ), \ D _ { y } u ( x, y ) = 0 \text{ for } y \leq \delta \text{ and some } \delta > 0 \right \}, \quad ( 1 8 ) \\ \text{is dense in } H _ { c } ^ { 1 } \text{ Moreover, by } [ 1 1, \text{ Remark } 4. 1 4 ], \text{ if a function } u \in H _ { c } ^ { 1 } \text{ has support in } \mathbb { R } ^ { N } \times [ 0, b ], \\ \text{k_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_t_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_S_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_ s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_ss_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_n_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_a_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_c_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_l_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_g_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_r_l_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_ss_ss_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_ss_n_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_ss_t_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_ss_$$

We consider the form in L 2 c is dense in H 1 c . Moreover, by [11, Remark 4.14], if a function u ∈ H 1 c has support in R N × [0 , b then there exists a sequence ( u n n ) ∈ N ∈ C such that supp u n ⊆ R N × [0 , b ] and u n → u in H 1 c .

$$\mathfrak { a } ( u, v ) \coloneqq \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \langle \nabla u, \nabla \overline { v } \rangle \, y ^ { c } d x \, d y + 2 \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } D _ { y } u \, a \cdot \nabla _ { x } \overline { v } \, y ^ { c } d x \, d y,$$

$$D ( \mathfrak { a } ) \coloneqq H _ { c } ^ { 1 }$$

$$v ) & \coloneqq \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \langle \nabla u, \nabla \overline { v } \rangle \, y ^ { c } d x \, d y + 2 \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } D _ { y } \\ \mathfrak { a } ) & \coloneqq H _ { c } ^ { 1 }$$

and its adjoint a ∗ ( u, v ) = a ( v, u )

$$\mathfrak { a } ^ { * } ( u, v ) = \overline { \mathfrak { a } ( v, u ) } \coloneqq \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \langle \nabla u, \nabla \overline { v } \rangle \, y ^ { c } d x \, d y + 2 \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } a \cdot \nabla _ { x } u \, D _ { y } \overline { v } \, y ^ { c } d x \, d y.$$

Proposition 4.1 ([19, Proposition 2.1]) The forms a , a ∗ are continuous, accretive and sectorial.

We define the operators L and L ∗ associated respectively to the forms a and a ∗ by

$$D ( \mathcal { L } ) & = \{ u \in H _ { c } ^ { 1 } \, \colon \exists f \in L _ { c } ^ { 2 } \text{ such that } \mathfrak { a } ( u, v ) = \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } f \overline { v } y ^ { c } \, d z \text{ for every } v \in H _ { c } ^ { 1 } \}, \\ \mathcal { L } u & = - f ;$$

$$\mathcal { L } u = - f$$

$$D ( \mathcal { L } ^ { * } ) & = \{ u \in H _ { c } ^ { 1 } \, \colon \exists f \in L _ { c } ^ { 2 } \text{ such that } \mathfrak { a } ^ { * } ( u, v ) = \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } f \overline { v } y ^ { c } \, d z \text{ for every } v \in H _ { c } ^ { 1 } \}, \\ \mathcal { L } ^ { * } u & = - f. & & ( \text{21} ) \\ \mathfrak { r } \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \ dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots.$$

If u, v are smooth functions with compact support in the closure of R N +1 + (so that they do not need to vanish on the boundary), it is easy to see integrating by parts that

$$- \mathfrak { a } ( u, v ) = \langle \Delta _ { x } u + 2 a \cdot \nabla _ { x } D _ { y } u + B _ { y } u, \overline { v } \rangle _ { L _ { c } ^ { 2 } }$$

if lim y → 0 y D u c y = 0. This means that L is the operator

$$\Delta _ { x } + 2 a \cdot \nabla _ { x } D _ { y } + B _ { y }$$

with Neumann boundary conditions at y = 0. On the other hand

$$- \mathfrak { a } ^ { * } ( u, v ) = \left \langle \Delta _ { x } u + 2 a \cdot \nabla _ { x } D _ { y } u + 2 c \frac { a \cdot \nabla _ { x } u } { y } + B _ { y } u, \overline { v } \right \rangle _ { L _ { c } ^ { 2 } }$$

if lim y → 0 y c (2 a · ∇ x u + D u y ) = 0 and therefore the adjoint of L is the operator

$$\mathcal { L } ^ { * } = \Delta _ { x } + 2 a \cdot \nabla _ { x } D _ { y } + 2 c \frac { a \cdot \nabla _ { x } u } { y } + B _ { y }$$

with the above oblique condition at y = 0. We refer the reader to [11] for further details about the Sobolev spaces H 1 c and their boundary conditions at y = 0.

Proposition 4.2 ([19, Proposition 2.2]) L and L ∗ generate contractive analytic semigroups e t L , e t L ∗ , t ∈ Σ π 2 -arctan | a | 1 -| | a , in L 2 c . Moreover the semigroups ( e t L ) t ≥ 0 , ( e t L ∗ ) t ≥ 0 are positive and L p c -contractive for 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞ .

The previous proposition is a special case of Theorem 2.1 which shows that the semigroups e t L , e t L ∗ extrapolate to the weighted spaces L p ( R N +1 + , y m dxdy ) , m ∈ R , when 0 &lt; m +1 p &lt; c +1, and which describes the domain of their generators as respectively the weighted Sobolev spaces defined in (10)

$$W _ { \mathcal { N } } ^ { 2, p } ( m ), \quad \ W _ { v } ^ { 2, p } ( m ), \ \ v = ( 2 a, 1 ).$$

Finally we collect in the following proposition some invariance properties of L , e t L and of of L ∗ , e t L ∗ whose proofs follow after an easy computation.

Proposition 4.3 The following properties hold.

- (i) The scale homogeneity of L is 2 :

$$s ^ { 2 } \mathcal { L } = I _ { s } ^ { - 1 } \mathcal { L } I _ { s }, \quad I _ { s } u ( x, y ) = u ( s x, s y ), \quad s > 0.$$

- (ii) L is invariant under translation in the x -direction:

$$\mathcal { L } = T _ { x _ { 0 } } ^ { - 1 } \mathcal { L } T _ { x _ { 0 } }, \quad T _ { x _ { 0 } } u ( x, y ) = u ( x + x _ { 0 }, y ), \quad x _ { 0 } \in \mathbb { R } ^ { N }.$$

Moreover the semigroup e t L generated by L in L 2 c satisfies for any t ∈ Σ π 2 -arctan | a | 1 -| | a

$$e ^ { s ^ { 2 } t \mathcal { L } } = I _ { s } ^ { - 1 } e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } I _ { s }, \ \ s > 0, \quad e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } = T _ { x _ { 0 } } ^ { - 1 } e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } T _ { x _ { 0 } }, \ \ x _ { 0 } \in \mathbb { R } ^ { N }.$$

The same results hold for the adjoint operator L ∗ and its generated semigroup.

By Theorem 2.4 , the semigroup e t L , t ∈ Σ π 2 -arctan | a | 1 -| | a , consists of integral operators and its heat kernel p L , written with respect to the measure y dz c , satisfies the upper estimate

$$0 \leq p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) \leq C t ^ { - \frac { N + 1 } { 2 } } y _ { 1 } ^ { - \frac { \mathfrak { a } } { 2 } } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 1 } } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) ^ { \frac { \mathfrak { a } } { 2 } } y _ { 2 } ^ { - \frac { \mathfrak { a } } { 2 } } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) ^ { \frac { \mathfrak { a } } { 2 } } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k t } \right ).$$

which is valid for any t &gt; 0, z , z 1 2 ∈ R N +1 + and for some positive constant C, k &gt; 0. By remark 2.3 the above estimate can be written equivalently as

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) \leq C t ^ { - \frac { N + 1 } { 2 } } y _ { i } ^ { - c } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { i } } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) ^ { c } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k t } \right ), \quad i = 1, 2 \quad \left ( 2 6 \right ) \\ \intertext { T w i t e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e f e r }$$

The latter bounds extends also, for some possibly different C, k &gt; 0, for t in any sub-sector Σ π 2 -arctan | a | 1 -| | a -ε . Moreover, using the invariance properties of Proposition 4.3, we have that for any t ∈ Σ π 2 -arctan | a | 1 -| | a , z , 1 z 2 ∈ R N +1 + ,

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( s ^ { 2 } t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) = s ^ { - ( N + 1 + c ) } \, p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, s ^ { - 1 } z _ { 1 }, s ^ { - 1 } z _ { 2 } ), \quad s > 0,$$

and

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 } + x _ { 0 }, z _ { 2 } + x _ { 0 } ) = p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ), \quad x _ { 0 } \in \mathbb { R } ^ { N }, \quad \ \ ( 2 8 ) \\ \quad \ \. \.$$

where for z = ( x, y ) ∈ R N +1 + , we wrote, with a little abuse of notation, z + x 0 = ( x + x , y 0 ) to denote the translation in the x 0 -direction.

The same results hold for the adjoint operator L ∗ and its generated semigroup. In particular, if p L ∗ is the heat kernel of L ∗ , written with respect to the measure y dz c , then by definition and by the positivity of the semigroups, the following relations hold for any z , 1 z 2 ∈ R N +1 + :

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } ^ { * } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) & = \overline { p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 2 }, z _ { 1 } ) }, \quad \ \forall t \in \Sigma _ { \frac { \pi } { 2 } - \arctan \frac { | a | } { 1 - | a | } }, \\ p _ { \mathcal { L } ^ { * } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) & = p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 2 }, z _ { 1 } ), \quad \ \forall t > 0.$$

## 5 Gradient estimates

In this section we prove gradient estimates for the heat kernels of L and L ∗ . For simplicity in what follows we only work with L but all the results hold with similar proof also for L ∗ .

$$W _ { \mathcal { N } } ^ { 2, p } \coloneqq W _ { \mathcal { N } } ^ { 2, p } ( 0 ) = \{ u \in W ^ { 2, p } \left ( \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } \right ) \colon \, y ^ { - 1 } D _ { y } u \in L ^ { p } \}. \\ \text{rom Morrey} ^ { \prime } s & \text{ embedding, if } p > N + 1, \text{ then } W _ { \mathcal { N } } ^ { 2, p } \hookrightarrow C _ { b } ^ { 1 } \left ( \overline { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \right ).$$

We start by stating the next lemma in which we specialize Theorem 2.1 and Corollary 2.2 to the case of L p := L p ( R N +1 + ) with Lebesgue measure. In what follows, recalling (10), we write

Note that from Morrey's embedding, if p &gt; N +1, then W 2 ,p N ↪ → C 1 b ( R N +1 + ) .

Lemma 5.1 Let 0 &lt; 1 p &lt; c +1 . Then L endowed with domain D ( L ) = W 2 ,p N generates a bounded analytic semigroup in L p . Moreover there exists C &gt; 0 such that for λ &gt; 0 and u ∈ W 2 ,p N one has

$$\lambda \| u \| _ { p } + \lambda ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \| \nabla u \| _ { p } + \| D ^ { 2 } u \| _ { p } \leq C \| \lambda u - \mathcal { L } u \| _ { p }.$$

Proof. Recalling Theorem 2.1 and Corollary 2.2, ( L , W 2 ,p N ) generates a bounded semigroup on L p ( R N +1 + ) and moreover we have for u ∈ W 2 ,p N , λ &gt; 0

$$\lambda \| u \| _ { p } \leq C \left ( \| \lambda u - \mathcal { L } u \| _ { p } \right ), \quad \| D ^ { 2 } u \| _ { p } \leq C \| \mathcal { L } u \| _ { p } \leq C ( \lambda \| u \| _ { p } + \| \lambda u - \mathcal { L } u \| _ { p } ). \\ \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

The estimate of the gradient term follows by the interpolative inequality ‖∇ ‖ u 2 p ≤ C u ‖ ‖ ‖ p D u 2 ‖ p .

The following regularity result is an immediate consequence of the holomorphy of the semigroup e t L .

Lemma 5.2 For every fixed z , 1 z 2 ∈ R N +1 + the kernel p L ( t, z 1 , z 2 ) is holomorphic with respect to t ∈ Σ π 2 -arctan | a | 1 -| | a and p t, ( · , z 2 ) ∈ C 1 b ( R N +1 + ) .

Proof. Let us fix p &gt; max ( +1) { c -1 , N +1 } and let us work, using Lemma 5.1, in L p := L p ( R N +1 + ) . If s &gt; 0, by (26), p L ( s, · , z 2 ) ∈ L p and then, since the semigroup is analytic, e t L p L belongs to the domain of L , D ( L ) = W 2 ,p N . Since e t L p L ( s, z 1 , z 2 ) = p L ( t + s, z 1 , z 2 ), by the semigroup law, we have that p t ( + s, · , z 2 ) ∈ W 2 ,p N ↪ → C 1 b ( R N +1 + ) . The analyticity with respect to t ∈ Σ π 2 -arctan | a | 1 -| | a follows again by the identity e t L p L ( s, z 1 , z 2 ) = p L ( t + s, z 1 , z 2 ), using the analyticity of the semigroup.

The Cauchy formula for the derivatives of holomorphic functions allows to estimate D p t L and L p L .

Proposition 5.3 Let c + 1 &gt; 0 , ε &gt; 0 . Then there exists C, k &gt; 0 , such that, for every t ∈ Σ π 2 -arctan | a | 1 -| | a -ε and almost every z , 1 z 2 ∈ R N +1 + ,

$$\zeta _ { 1 - | a | } ^ { 1 - | a | } \\ & | \mathcal { L } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) | + | D _ { t } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) | \, \leq C | t | ^ { - \frac { N + 3 } { 2 } } \, y _ { 2 } ^ { - c } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { | t | } } \right ) ^ { c } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k | t | } \right ). \\ \text{PROOF. Since the kernel } p _ { \mathcal { L } } \text{ satisfies the equation } D _ { t } p _ { \mathcal { L } } = \mathcal { L } p _ { \mathcal { L } }, \text{ it is sufficient to deal only with } \\ D _ { n } \text{.} \text{ Let } r \text{ be small enough such that}$$

Proof. Since the kernel p L satisfies the equation D p t L = L p L , it is sufficient to deal only with D p t L . Let r be small enough such that

$$B \left ( t _ { 0 }, r | t _ { 0 } | \right ) \subset \Sigma _ { \frac { \pi } { 2 } - \arctan \frac { | a | } { 1 - | a | } }, \quad \forall t _ { 0 } \in \Sigma _ { \frac { \pi } { 2 } - \arctan \frac { | a | } { 1 - | a | } - \varepsilon }.$$

Using the Cauchy formula for the derivatives of holomorphic functions in the ball B t , r t ( 0 | 0 | ), we get

$$| D _ { t } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t _ { 0 }, y, \rho ) | \leq \frac { 1 } { r | t _ { 0 } | } \max _ { | t - t _ { 0 } | = r | t _ { 0 } | } | p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) |, \quad z _ { 1 }, \ z _ { 2 } \in \mathbb { R } ^ { N + 1 } _ { + }. \\ \text{driven to estimate of } T \text{the room } 9 \, 4 \, \text{ in to cohort } \Sigma \quad \dots \quad \text{and recolline} \text{Romorb} \, 9 \, 2$$

Applying the estimate of Theorem 2.4 in the sector Σ π 2 -arctan | a | 1 -| | a and recalling Remark 2.3, we obtain for suitable C , κ ′ ′

$$| D _ { t } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t _ { 0 }, y, \rho ) | \leq C ^ { \prime } | t | ^ { - \frac { N + 3 } { 2 } } y _ { 2 } ^ { - c } \left ( \frac { y _ { 2 } } { | t _ { 0 } | ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } } \wedge 1 \right ) ^ { c } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { \kappa ^ { \prime } | z _ { 0 } | } \right ) \\ \text{is equivalent to the statement}$$

which is equivalent to the statement.

Before proving the estimates for the gradient of p L , we recall that, using the scaling equalities of Proposition 4.3, we have that for any t ∈ Σ π 2 -arctan | a | 1 -| | a , z , z 1 2 ∈ R N +1 +

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) & = | t | ^ { - \frac { N + 1 + c } { 2 } } p _ { \mathcal { L } } \left ( t | t | ^ { - 1 }, \frac { z _ { 1 } } { \sqrt { | t | } }, \frac { z _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { | t | } } \right ), \\ \nabla _ { - } n \varkappa ( t. z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) & = | t | ^ { - \frac { N + 2 + c } { 2 } } \nabla n \varkappa \left ( t | t | ^ { - 1 }. \frac { z _ { 1 } } { 2 }. \frac { z _ { 2 } } { 2 } \right ).$$

Now we localize the estimates of Lemma 5.1. For z ∈ R N +1 + , r &gt; 0 we set B + ( z, r ) := B z, r ( ) ∩ R N +1 + .

$$\nabla _ { z _ { 1 } } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) = | t | ^ { - \frac { N + 2 + c } { 2 } } \nabla p _ { \mathcal { L } } \left ( t | t | ^ { - 1 }, \frac { z _ { 1 } } { \sqrt { | t | } }, \frac { z _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { | t | } } \right ). \\ \intertext { we localize the estimates of Lemma } 5. 1. \text{ for } z \, \in \, \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 }, \, r \, > \, 0 \, \text{ we set } B ^ { + } ( z, r ) \, \coloneqq$$

Proposition 5.4 Let c +1 &gt; 0 , p &gt; max ( { c +1) -1 , N +1 } . Then there exists a constant C &gt; 0 such that for every u ∈ W 2 ,p N , r &gt; 0 ,

$$\| \nabla u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( B _ { \frac { r } { 2 } } ^ { + } ) } \leq C r ^ { - \frac { N + 1 } { p } } \left ( r ^ { 2 } \| \mathcal { L } u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B _ { r } ^ { + } ) } + \| u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B _ { r } ^ { + } ) } \right ) \\ \intertext { t o c o l i n e a m o n t m o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o }$$

Proof. Up to a scaling argument we can suppose, without any loss of generality, r = 1. Set r n = n k =1 2 -k . Then r 1 = 1 2, / r ∞ = 1, r n +1 -r n = 2 -( n +1) .

∑ Let B + n = B + ( z, r n ), B + = B + ( z, 1), B + 1 2 = B + ( z, 1 / 2) and choose cut-off functions η n ∈ C ∞ c ( R N +1 ) such that η n ( x, y ) = η n ( x, -y ), 0 ≤ η n ≤ 1, η n = 1 in B + n , (supp η n ) ∩ R N +1 + ⊂ B + n +1 , |∇ η n | ≤ C r 2 n , | D η 2 n | ≤ C r 2 4 n for some constant C &gt; 0 independent of n . Then also | y -1 D η y n | ≤ C r 2 4 n , since D η y n ( x, 0) = 0. If u ∈ W 2 ,p N then η n u ∈ W 2 ,p N and we have

$$\mathcal { L } ( \eta _ { n } u ) = & \eta _ { n } \mathcal { L } u + 2 \nabla _ { x } \eta _ { n } \nabla _ { x } u + 2 D _ { y } \eta _ { n } D _ { y } u + 2 a \cdot ( \nabla _ { x } \eta _ { n } D _ { y } u + D _ { y } \eta _ { n } \nabla _ { x } u ) \\ & + u \left ( D _ { y y } \eta _ { n } + \Delta _ { x } \eta _ { n } + 2 a \cdot \nabla _ { x } D _ { y } \eta _ { n } + c \frac { D _ { y } \eta _ { n } } { y } \right ). \\ \mathbb { A } _ { \dots } \cdots + \tau \, \dots \cdots + \tau \, \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$$

Applying Lemma 5.1 with λ = 1 to η n u we get

$$\| \eta _ { n } u \| _ { p } + \| \nabla ( \eta _ { n } u ) \| _ { p } + \| D ^ { 2 } ( \eta _ { n } u ) \| _ { p } \leq C \left ( \| \mathcal { L } ( \eta _ { n } u ) \| _ { p } + \| \eta _ { n } u \| _ { p } \right )$$

$$\omega & \leq C \left ( \| \mathcal { L } u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ) } + 2 ^ { n } \| \nabla ( \eta _ { n + 1 } u ) \| _ { p } + ( 4 ^ { n } + 1 ) \, \| u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } _ { r } ) } \right ). \\ \intertext { a t h o i n o l t i v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m a l i t v o m } & \leq C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdot C \cdots }$$

Applying the interpolative inequality ‖∇ ‖ u p ≤ C/epsilon1 ‖ D u 2 ‖ 2 p + 1 /epsilon1 ‖ u ‖ p we get for /epsilon1 &gt; 0

$$\| \eta _ { n } u \| _ { p } + \| \nabla ( \eta _ { n } u ) \| _ { p } + \| D ^ { 2 } ( \eta _ { n } u ) \| _ { p }$$

$$\leq C \left ( \| \mathcal { L } u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ) } + \epsilon 2 ^ { n } \| D ^ { 2 } ( \eta _ { n + 1 } u ) \| _ { p } + \frac { 2 ^ { n } } { \epsilon } \| \eta _ { n + 1 } u \| _ { p } + ( 4 ^ { n } + 1 ) \, \| u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ) } \right ) \\ \quad \,. \quad \,. \quad.$$

$$\leq & \ C \left ( \| \mathcal { L } u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ) } + \epsilon 2 ^ { n } \| D ^ { 2 } ( \eta _ { n + 1 } u ) \| _ { p } + \left ( \frac { 2 ^ { n } } { \epsilon } + 4 ^ { n } + 1 \right ) \| u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } _ { r } ) } \right ) \\ _ { \real } \quad. & \quad. & \quad.$$

Setting ξ := C 2 n ε , we get

$$\| \eta _ { n } u \| _ { p } + \| \nabla ( \eta _ { n } u ) \| _ { p } + \| D ^ { 2 } ( \eta _ { n } u ) \| _ { p }$$

$$\leq C \left ( \| u - \mathcal { L } u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ) } + \left ( \frac { 4 ^ { n } } { \xi } + 4 ^ { n } \right ) \| u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ) } \right ) + \xi \| D ^ { 2 } ( \eta _ { n + 1 } u ) \| _ { p }.$$

It follows that

$$& \xi ^ { n } \Big ( \| \eta _ { n } u \| _ { p } + \| \nabla ( \eta _ { n } u ) \| _ { p } + \| D ^ { 2 } ( \eta _ { n } u ) \| _ { p } \Big ) \\ & \leq C \Big ( \xi ^ { n } \| u - \mathcal { L } u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } _ { r } ) } + \xi ^ { n } \Big ( \frac { 4 ^ { n } } { \xi } + 4 ^ { n } \Big ) \| u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ) } \Big ) + \xi ^ { n + 1 } \| D ^ { 2 } ( \eta _ { n + 1 } u ) \| _ { p }.$$

By choosing ε = ε n so that ξ = 1 8 and summing up the previous inequality over n ∈ N we get

$$\| \nabla u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B _ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } ^ { + } ) } + \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } \xi ^ { n } \| D ^ { 2 } ( \eta _ { n } u ) \| _ { p } \leq & C \left ( \| u - \mathcal { L } u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ) } + \| u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ) } \right ) \\ & \infty$$

$$+ \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } \xi ^ { n + 1 } \| D ^ { 2 } ( \eta _ { n + 1 } u ) \| _ { p }. \\ \vdots \vdots \vdots$$

Cancelling equal terms on both sides it follows that

$$\| \nabla u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B _ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } ^ { + } ) } + \frac { 1 } { 8 } \| D ^ { 2 } u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B _ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } ^ { + } ) } \leq C \left ( \| u - \mathcal { L } u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ) } + \| u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ) } \right ). \\ \intertext { e n > N + 1. \, using the Morrev's embedding, the previous inequality implies we get }$$

Since p &gt; N +1, using the Morrey's embedding, the previous inequality implies we get

$$\| \nabla u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( B _ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } ^ { + } ) } \leq C \left ( \| \nabla u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B _ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } ^ { + } ) } + \| D ^ { 2 } u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B _ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } ^ { + } ) } \right ) \leq C \left ( \| u - \mathcal { L } u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ) } + \| u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ) } \right ) \\ \text{which implies the required claim for $r=1$}.$$

which implies the required claim for r = 1.

Remark 5.5 We remark that the same results as those in Lemmas 5.1 and 5.2 and Propositions 5.3 and 5.4 hold also for the adjoint operator L ∗ under the oblique boundary condition lim y → 0 y c (2 a · ∇ x u + D u y ) = 0 . To be concise we do not state them explicitly but their proof follows by arguing as before and by using the generation and the domain characterization for the operator L ∗ endowed with domain D ( L ) = W 2 ,p v , v = (2 a, 1) (see Theorem 2.1 and Corollary 2.2).

We need the following basic estimate.

Lemma 5.6 Let z , z 0 2 ∈ R N +1 + . Then

$$\sup _ { z _ { 1 } \in B ( z _ { 0 }, \sqrt { t } ) } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { t } \right ) \leq e ^ { 1 6 } \exp \left ( - \frac { 9 } { 1 6 } \frac { | z _ { 0 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { t } \right )$$

Proof. If | z 0 -z 2 | ≤ 4 √ t then for every z 1 ∈ R N +1 +

$$\exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { t } \right ) \leq e ^ { 1 6 } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 0 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { t } \right ).$$

If | z 0 -z 2 | &gt; 4 √ t and z 1 ∈ B z , ( 0 √ t ), then | z 1 -z 2 | ≥ | z 0 -z 2 | - | z 1 -z 0 | ≥ | z 0 -z 2 | -1 4 | z 0 -z 2 | = 3 4 | z 0 -z 2 | and

$$\exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { t } \right ) \leq \exp \left ( - \frac { 9 } { 1 6 } \frac { | z _ { 0 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { t } \right ).$$

We can finally deduce pointwise estimates for the gradient of the kernel p L ( t, z 1 , z 2 ). Recalling (29), due to the asymmetry of p L and in order to control both derivatives with respect to z , 1 z 2 ∈ R N +1 + , we state them also for the adjoint operator L ∗ .

Theorem 5.7 Let c + 1 &gt; 0 , ε &gt; 0 . Then for every /epsilon1 &gt; 0 , there exist C, k &gt; 0 , such that, for every t ∈ Σ π 2 -arctan | a | 1 -| | a -/epsilon1 and almost every z , 1 z 2 ∈ R N +1 + ,

$$\cdot \cdot \\ | \nabla _ { z _ { 1 } } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) | + | \nabla _ { z _ { 1 } } p _ { \mathcal { L } ^ { * } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) | \leq C | t | ^ { - \frac { N + 2 } { z _ { 2 } } } y _ { 2 } ^ { - c } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { | t | } } \right ) ^ { c } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k | t | } \right ). \\ \text{PROOF. Let us firstly prove the required estimate for $\nabla_{z_{1} p_{\mathcal{L}}$. In virtue of the validity of the scaling} \\ \text{www.\emph{$2\infty}$} \text{ and some common that $1t|=1$} \text{ $1e^{-}$} \text{ $-} \text{ $-} \text{ $-} \text{ $2\infty}$} \text{$N^{+1}$} \text{ $Thenomin}$} \text{$continuation}$$

Proof. Let us firstly prove the required estimate for ∇ z 1 p L . In virtue of the validity of the scaling property (30), we may assume that | t | = 1. Let z , z 0 2 ∈ R N +1 + . Then applying Proposition 5.4 with r = 1 to the function u = p L ( t, · , z 2 ) in B + ( z , 0 1) we get

$$| \nabla p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 0 }, z _ { 2 } ) | & \leq C \left ( \| \mathcal { L } u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ( z _ { 0 }, 2 ) ) } + \| u \| _ { L ^ { p } ( B ^ { + } ( z _ { 0 }, 2 ) ) } \right ) \\ & \leq C \left ( \| \mathcal { L } u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( B ^ { + } ( z _ { 0 }, 2 ) ) } + \| u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( B ^ { + } ( z _ { 0 }, 2 ) ) } \right ). \\ \text{i} \right ) \text{and Proposition 5.3, we get for suitable $C,\kappa>0$}$$

Using (26) and Proposition 5.3, we get for suitable C, κ &gt; 0

$$\| u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( B ^ { + } ( z _ { 0 }, 2 ) ) } + \| \mathcal { L } u \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( B ^ { + } ( z _ { 0 }, 2 ) ) } \leq C y _ { 2 } ^ { - c } \left ( y _ { 2 } \wedge 1 \right ) ^ { c } \sup _ { z \in B ^ { + } ( z _ { 0 }, 2 ) } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { \kappa } \right ).$$

Lemma 5.6, combined with the previous inequalities, then implies (for suitable C , κ ′ ′ &gt; 0)

$$| \nabla p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 0 }, z _ { 2 } ) | & \leq C ^ { \prime } y _ { 2 } ^ { - c } ( y _ { 2 } \wedge 1 ) ^ { c } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 0 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { \kappa ^ { \prime } } \right ) \\. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \.$$

which is the statement for | t | = 1. The result for general t follows by the scaling property (30). The analogous estimates p ∗ can be proved similarly using Remark 5.5.

∇ z 1 L

The following corollary is a direct consequence of Theorem 5.7. For simplicity we state it only for L .

Corollary 5.8 Let 1 &lt; p &lt; ∞ , 0 &lt; m +1 p &lt; c +1 , f ∈ L p m . Then for every t ∈ Σ π 2 -arctan | a | 1 -| | a -/epsilon1 , e t L f is differentiable in R N +1 + and one has

$$\nabla e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } f = \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \nabla p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, \cdot, z _ { 2 } ) f ( z _ { 2 } ) \, y _ { 2 } ^ { c } d z _ { 2 }.$$

Moreover, for every /epsilon1 &gt; 0 , there exist C, k &gt; 0 such that,

$$\Lambda ^ { \prime } _ { \ } z \, \Lambda ^ { \prime } _ { \ } f ( z _ { 1 } ) | \leq \frac { C } { | t | ^ { \frac { N + 2 } { 2 } } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { N + 1 } _ { + } } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { | t | } } \right ) ^ { c } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k | t | } \right ) | f ( z _ { 2 } ) | \, d z _ { 2 }. \\ \text{PROOF} \text{ Let } z _ { 0 }, r > 0 \text{ such that } B ( z _ { 0 }, r ) \in \mathbb { R } ^ { N + 1 } _ { + }. \text{ By Theorem 5.7, for almost every } z _ { 1 } \in B ( z _ { 0 }, r ),$$

Proof. Let z , r &gt; 0 0 such that B z , r ( 0 ) ∈ R N +1 + . By Theorem 5.7, for almost every z 1 ∈ B z , r ( 0 ), z 2 ∈ R N +1 + , one has

$$& \cdot \quad \\ & \left | \nabla p _ { \mathcal { C } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) \right | y _ { 2 } ^ { c } \leq \frac { C } { | t | ^ { \frac { N + 2 } { 2 } } } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { | t | } } \right ) ^ { c } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k _ { \epsilon } | t | } \right ) | f ( z _ { 2 } ) |. \\ \text{for suitable $C$ and $k$ depending also on $r$ and $z_{0}$. Then $(31)$ follows by differentiating under the} \\ & \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot$$

for suitable C and κ depending also on r and z 0 . Then (31) follows by differentiating under the integral sign since the right hand side of (33) belongs to L p ′ m . Finally, (32) is consequence of Theorem 5.7.

## 6 The semigroup in L 1 c and the conservation property

In this section we prove that the semigroups e t L , e t L ∗ , initially defined on L 2 c , extend also on L 1 c and we discuss the conservation property

$$e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } 1 = 1, \quad e ^ { t \mathcal { L } ^ { * } } 1 = 1, \quad \text{ for any } \ t \geq 0.$$

Following the notation introduced in the appendix, we start by rewriting the upper estimates of Theorems 2.4 and 5.7 in terms of the family of integral operators

$$S ^ { 0, - c } ( t ) f ( z _ { 1 } ) = t ^ { - \frac { N + 1 } { 2 } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \left ( \frac { y _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { t } } \wedge 1 \right ) ^ { c } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { \kappa t } \right ) f ( z _ { 2 } ) \, d z _ { 2 },$$

defined for t &gt; 0 and z 1 = ( x , y 1 1 ) , z 2 = ( x , y 2 2 ) ∈ R N +1 + . Here κ is a positive constant; to shorten the notation we omit the dependence on κ which may vary in each occurrence. We recall that, by Proposition 8.1 and by [12, Proposition A.1], if c + 1 &gt; 0 then the family S 0 , -c ( ) t is uniformly bounded on L p c for 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞ .

Proposition 6.1 Let c + 1 &gt; 0 . Then, for some positive constant C &gt; 0 and a suitable κ &gt; 0 , one has for any f ∈ L 2 c and t &gt; 0

∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ Proof. The required estimates follows from Theorems 2.4, Corollary 5.8 and Remark 2.3.

$$\xi _ { \ell } \\ | e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } f | + \sqrt { t } \left | \nabla e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } f \right | \leq C S ^ { 0, - c } ( t ) | f |, \quad \left | e ^ { t \mathcal { L } ^ { * } } f \right | + \sqrt { t } \left | \nabla e ^ { t \mathcal { L } ^ { * } } f \right | \leq C S ^ { 0, - c } ( t ) | f |. \quad ( 3 4 ) \\ \text{PROOF. The required estimates follows from Theorems 2.4, Corollary 5.8 and Remark 2.3.} \quad \Box$$

We now prove that the semigroups e t L , e t L ∗ extend from L 2 c ∩ L 1 c to strongly continuous semigroups on L 1 c .

Proposition 6.2 Let c + 1 &gt; 0 and 1 ≤ p &lt; ∞ . Then the semigroup e t L and e t L ∗ extend from L 2 c ∩ L p c to strongly continuous semigroups on L p c .

Proof. We prove the statement for L ; the analogous claim for L ∗ follows identically. By Proposition 4.2, e t L is contractive in L p c for every 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞ : then e t L clearly extends, by density, from L 2 c ∩ L p c to L p c and the semigroup law is inherited from the one of L 2 c . Therefore we have only to prove the strong continuity at 0. Assume first that 1 &lt; p &lt; ∞ and let f, g ∈ C ∞ c ( R N +1 + ). Then as t → 0

$$\int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } ( e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } f ) \, g \, y ^ { c } d y \longrightarrow \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } f g y ^ { c } d y, \\ \cdots \cdots _ { - \infty } \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots.$$

by the strong continuity of e t L in L 2 c . Since e t L is contractive on L p c , a density argument then proves that the previous limit holds for every f ∈ L p c , g ∈ L p ′ c . The semigroup is then weakly continuous, hence strongly continuous. Assume now p = 1 and let us fix, preliminarily, f ∈ L 1 c ∩ L 2 c . For any r &gt; 0 we set B r = B (0 , r ) × ]0 , r [ and write f = f | B r + f | B c r . Then we have, using the contractivity of e t L on L 1 c ,

$$\| e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } f - f \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { c } } & \leq \| e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } \left ( f _ { | B _ { r } } \right ) - f _ { | B _ { r } } \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { c } } + \| e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } \left ( f _ { | B ^ { c } _ { r } } \right ) - f _ { | B ^ { c } _ { r } } \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { c } } \\ & \leq \| e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } \left ( f _ { | B _ { r } } \right ) - f _ { | B _ { r } } \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { c } } + 2 \| f _ { | B ^ { c } _ { r } } \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { c } }.$$

$$\leq \| e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } \left ( f _ { | B _ { r } } \right ) - f _ { | B _ { r } } \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { c } } + 2 \| f _ { | B ^ { c } _ { r } } \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { c } }.$$

Recalling that the measure µ = y dz c is locally finite and using the H¨lder inequality we get o

$$\left \| e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } \left ( f _ { | B _ { r } } \right ) - f _ { | B _ { r } } \right \| _ { L _ { c } ^ { 1 } } & = \int _ { B _ { r } } \left | e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } \left ( f _ { | B _ { r } } \right ) - f _ { | B _ { r } } \right | y ^ { c } d z + \int _ { B _ { c } ^ { c } } \left | e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } \left ( f _ { | B _ { r } } \right ) \right | y ^ { c } d z \\ & \leq \left ( \mu \left ( B _ { r } \right ) \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \left \| e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } \left ( f _ { | B _ { r } } \right ) - f _ { | B _ { r } } \right \| _ { L _ { c } ^ { 2 } } + \int _ { B _ { c } ^ { c } } \left | e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } \left ( f _ { | B _ { r } } \right ) \right | y ^ { c } d z \\ & \coloneqq A _ { 1 } + A _ { 2 } \\ \cdots \quad \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdot \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cd: \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cd: \, \cd: \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cd: \, \cd> \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdets \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cd><</></></$$

which goes to 0 as t → 0. Indeed lim t → 0 A 1 = 0 by the strong continuity of e t L in L 2 c . For the second term we observe that, using again the contractivity of e t L on L 1 c

$$\| f _ { | B _ { r } } \| _ { L _ { e } ^ { 1 } } \geq \| e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } \left ( f _ { | B _ { r } } \right ) \| _ { L _ { e } ^ { 1 } } = \int _ { B _ { r } ^ { c } } \left | e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } \left ( f _ { | B _ { r } } \right ) \right | y ^ { c } d z + \int _ { B _ { r } } \left | e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } \left ( f _ { | B _ { r } } \right ) \right | y ^ { c } d z. \\ \text{Then taking the limit in the above estimate and observing that, from the previous point,}$$

Then taking the limit in the above estimate and observing that, from the previous point,

$$\int _ { B _ { r } } \left | e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } \left ( f _ { | B _ { r } } \right ) \right | y ^ { c } d z \rightarrow \| f _ { | B _ { r } } \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { c } }, \\ \text{t follows from } ( 3 5 ) \text{ that }$$

we get lim t → 0 A 2 = 0. Then it follows from (35) that

$$\lim _ { t \to 0 } \| e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } f - f \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { c } } \leq 2 \| f _ { | B ^ { c } _ { r } } \| _ { L ^ { 1 } _ { c } } \longrightarrow 0, \quad \text{as } \ r \to \infty$$

which proves that lim t → 0 ‖ e t L f -f ‖ L 1 c = 0 which is the required claim for f ∈ L 1 c ∩ L 2 c . The general case follows by a density argument.

For the case p = ∞ of the above Proposition we refer the reader to [12] for generation of semigroup, in a special case, in spaces of continuous functions.

We can now prove the conservation property of the semigroups.

Proposition 6.3 Let us assume c +1 &gt; 0 . Then the heat kernel p L of L satisfies

$$\int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } p$$

The same conservation property also holds for the kernel p L ∗ of the adjoint operator L ∗ .

Proof. We prove the statement for P L ; the analogous claim for p L ∗ follows identically. We prove, equivalently, that for every f ∈ L 2 c ∩ L 1 c one has

$$\int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } e$$

We fix a cut-off function η z ( ) = ϑ x θ y ( ) ( ) where ϑ ∈ C ∞ c ( B (0 , 2)) is a cut-off function in the x -variables which satisfies 0 ≤ ϑ ≤ 1, ϑ = 1 in B (0 , 1) ⊂ R N and θ ∈ C ∞ c ([0 , 2[) such that 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1,

θ y ( ) = 1 for y ≤ 1. We also set, for every n &gt; 0, η n ( z ) = η ( z n ) . Then differentiating under the integral sign and recalling Section 4, we have for every t &gt; 0

$$\begin{array} {$$

Therefore, since |∇ η n | ≤ C n , using Propositions 6.1 and 8.1 we get for some possibly different positive constants C &gt; 0

$$| I _ { n } ( t ) | \leq \frac { C } { n } \$$

which implies lim n →∞ I n ( ) = 0. t Then using Lebesgue's Theorem it follows that for every t, s &gt; 0

$$& \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } }$$

and hence

$$\int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } f ( z ) \ y ^ { c } \, d z = \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } e ^ { s \mathcal { L } } f ( z ) y ^ { c } \, d z, \quad t, \ s > 0. \\ \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \colon$$

Letting s go to 0, the claim follows by the strong continuity of e t L in L 1 c proved in Proposition 6.2.

## 7 Kernel lower bounds

This section, which contains the main result of the paper, is devoted to prove lower estimates for the heat kernel of L , defined in (17), of the same form of the upper ones of Theorem 2.4. We need some preparation.

We work in R N +1 + endowed with the standard euclidean metric and, for z 0 = ( x , y 0 0 ) ∈ R N +1 + and r &gt; 0, we consider the cylindric balls

$$Q ( z _ { 0 }, r ) \coloneqq B ( x _ { 0 }, r ) \times [ y _ { 0 }, y _ { 0 } + r )$$

in place of the standard balls B z , r ( 0 ); we keep the same notation to denote Q (0 , r ) := B (0 , r ) × [0 , r [. For c + 1 &gt; 0 we consider the weighted measure µ = y c dxdy and we write V ( z , r 0 ) := µ Q z , r ( ( 0 )) to denote the measure of the cylindric balls given by

$$V ( z _ { 0 }, r ) = \int _ { Q ( z _ { 0 }, r ) } y ^ { c } d z = w _ { N } r ^ { N } \int _ { y _ { 0 } } ^ { y _ { 0 } + r } y ^ { c } d y.$$

We need the following elementary lemma which guarantees that µ is a doubling measure and which is proved in [9, Lemma 5.2].

Lemma 7.1 Let c +1 &gt; 0 . Then one has

$$V ( z _ { 0 }, r ) = r ^ { N + 1 + c } V ( \frac { z _ { 0 } } { r }, 1 ), \quad V ( z _ { 0 }, r ) \simeq r ^ { N + 1 + c } \left ( \frac { y _ { 0 } } { r } \right ) ^ { c } \left ( \frac { y _ { 0 } } { r } \wedge 1 \right ) ^ { - c }. \\ \intertext { n \, \text{articular the function $V$ satisfies. for some constants $C>1$. the doubling condition}$$

In particular the function V satisfies, for some constants C ≥ 1 , the doubling condition

$$\frac { V ( z _ { 0 }, s ) } { V ( z _ { 0 }, r ) } \leq C \left ( \frac { s } { r } \right ) ^ { N } \left ( 1 \vee \frac { s } { r } \right ) ^ { 1 + c ^ { + } }, \quad \forall s, r > 0. \\ \intertext { h a n o i u a t i u i m l i o n l i o n t h a t f o r c o m a n o i t i n o c o n t }$$

Remark 7.2 The previous inequality implies that, for some positive constant C &gt; 0 , one has

$$V ( z _ { 0 }, 2 r ) \leq C V ( z _ { 0 }, r ), \quad \forall z _ { 0 } \in \ R _ { + } ^ { N + 1 }, \ r > 0.$$

In order to prove lower heat kernel estimates we also need to rewrite the upper bounds of Theorem 2.4 in terms of the measure of the cylindric balls.

Proposition 7.3 Let us assume c +1 &gt; 0 . Then the heat kernel p L of L , written with respect to the measure y c dxdy , satisfies

$$p _ { \mathcal { C } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) \leq \frac { C } { V \left ( z _ { 1 }, \sqrt { t } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } V \left ( z _ { 2 }, \sqrt { t } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { \kappa t } \right ), \ \forall \ t > 0, \ z _ { 1 }, \ z _ { 2 } \in \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 }. \quad ( 3 6 ) \\ \text{PROOF.} \ The required estimates follows from Theorems 2.4 and Lemma 7.1. \quad \text{$\Box$}$$

Proof.

The required estimates follows from Theorems 2.4 and Lemma 7.1.

In what follows we aim to prove that the similar lower bound

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) \geq \frac { C } { V \left ( z _ { 1 }, \sqrt { t } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } V \left ( z _ { 2 }, \sqrt { t } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { \kappa t } \right ), \ \forall \, t > 0, \ z _ { 1 }, \ z _ { 2 } \in \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } \quad ( 3 7 ) \\ \text{holds for the heat kernel of $\mathcal{L}$}.$$

holds for the heat kernel of L .

Before to prove this result, let us discuss, in an abstract setting, a well established strategy (see e.g. [20, Chapter 7, Section 7.8]) for deducing lower kernel estimates for a non-negative self-adjoint operator A acting on an L 2 -space L 2 ( X,µ ); here X is a homogeneous space i.e. a metric space ( X,d ) endowed with a doubling measure µ . Assume that the semigroup e tA has a kernel p t, z ( 1 , z 2 ) which satisfies the conservation property as the one in Proposition 6.3 and some Gaussian upper bounds of the same form as in (36) (in this setting V ( z, r ) is the measure of the X -balls and | z 1 -z 2 | is the X -distance d z , z ( 1 2 )). Then the analogous lower bound can be derived from the conservation property of the semigroup, the Gaussian upper bound and the H¨lder continuity of o p (or, a fortiori, from some gradient estimates on p ). To be precise, the Gaussian lower bound (37) can be obtained by:

- (i) proving, preliminarily, the on-diagonal lower estimates

$$p ( t, z, z ) \geq \frac { C } { V ( z, \sqrt { t } ) }, \quad z \in X, \ t > 0,$$

using the conservation property of the kernel and the upper estimates (36) (see e.g. [20, Proposition 7.28]);

- (ii) proving the off-diagonal bound (37), adding also the Gaussian term, using the H¨lder cono tinuity of p to go outside of the diagonal and an iterative argument based on the validity of the so-called chain condition for X (see e.g. [20, Theorem 7.29]).

In our case, due to the non self-adjointness of L , this strategy does not work. Then, inspired by the method of Nash [16, 7], we prove the on-diagonal lower estimate (38) by proving in Proposition 7.12 the so-called 'G-bound', namely a lower bound of the integral of the logarithm of the heat kernel with respect to a weighted Gaussian measure and whose validity relies on some suitable Poincar´ e inequalities. Some difficulties appear: in order to compensate the non self-adjointness of L we need to prove all the statements for both L and L ∗ and we need also to take control of the weighted measure y dz c whose density can be either singular or degenerate at y = 0 and at infinity. Then, thanks to the gradient estimates proved in Section 5, we can go outside the diagonal proving the off-diagonal lower bound (37).

The proof is structured in many steps and requires some preliminary results.

Remark 7.4 We point out that, by (14) and Lemma 7.1 the estimates

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) \simeq \frac { \cdot \cdot } { V \left ( z _ { 1 }, \sqrt { t } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } V \left ( z _ { 2 }, \sqrt { t } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { \kappa t } \right ) \\ \intertext { l e n t, \ u p t o \, \text{ change the constants $C,k>0$, to},$$

are equivalent, up to change the constants C, k &gt; 0 , to

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) \simeq \frac { C } { V \left ( z _ { i }, \sqrt { t } \right ) } \, \exp \left ( - \frac { \left | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } \right | ^ { 2 } } { k t } \right ), \quad i = 1, 2. \\ \intertext { art by proving, preliminary, the lower estimate (37) far away from the bounda} \, \sum \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots } \, _ { \cdots. }$$

We start by proving, preliminarily, the lower estimate (37) far away from the boundary i.e. for z 1 = ( x , y 1 1 ) , z 2 = ( x , y 2 2 ) ∈ R N +1 + satisfying y 1 √ t ≥ r, y 2 √ t ≥ r . Its proof follows by domination with a uniformly elliptic operator with bounded coefficients.

Lemma 7.5 Let r &gt; 0 and let us consider the operator A = ∆ x + a · ∇ x D y + B y acting in the L 2 -space L 2 ( R N × [ r, + ∞ [ , y c dz ) endowed with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Then A generates an analytic semigroup of integral operator which is positive for t &gt; 0 and whose kernel p 0 ( t, z 1 , z 2 ) , taken with respect to the Lebesgue measure, satisfies, for some positive constants C, c &gt; 0 ,

$$p _ { 0 } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) & \geq C \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 1 } - r } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 2 } - r } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) t ^ { - \frac { N + 1 } { 2 } } \exp \left ( - c \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { t } \right ) \quad \quad ( 3 9 ) \\ t _ { \dots } \dots t \times \wedge \dots \times \dots$$

for any t &gt; 0 , y 1 ≥ r , y 2 ≥ r .

Proof. We consider in L 2 ( R N × [ r, + ∞ [ , y c dz ) the sesquilinear form

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00031v1-figure-31bf11ec-fffc-458f-8f18-8b379e604a04.jpg)

where, in the latter equality, the closure is taken in the norm of H 1 c . Recalling Section 4, a 0 is the restriction of a to the space H 1 c, 0 ( R N × [ r, + ∞ [ ) ↪ → H 1 c and therefore inherits all its properties stated in Proposition 4.1; moreover A is the operator associated with a 0 . The generation results for A then follows by classical results on forms as in [19, Proposition 2.2]. The existence of the kernel as well as its estimate follows by [2, Theorem 3.8].

$$- \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, - \, \, \longmapsto \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdot \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdclots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \colon \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cd: \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cd.: \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdelta _ { 0 } ( u, v ) \colon = \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { N } \times [ r, + \infty ] } \left ( \mathbb { R } ^ { N } \times [ r, + \infty ] \right ) \colon = \overline { C } _ { c } ^ { \infty } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { N } \times ] r, + \infty ] \right ) \\ \text{where, in the latter equality, the closure is taken in the norm of } H _ { c } ^ { 1 }. \text{ Recalling Section 4, } \mathfrak { a } _ { 0 } \text{ is the properties all its properties}$$

Proposition 7.6 Let r &gt; 0 , c +1 &gt; 0 . Then there exists a positive constant C = C r ( ) &gt; 0 such that

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) & \geq \frac { C } { V ( z _ { 1 }, \sqrt { t } ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } V ( z _ { 2 }, \sqrt { t } ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } } \exp \left ( - c \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { t } \right )$$

for every t &gt; 0 and every z , 1 z 2 ∈ R N +1 + satisfying y 1 √ t ≥ r, y 2 √ t ≥ r .

Proof. Let us suppose, for simplicity, r = 1. The general case follows similarly. Let us set R N +1 ≥ 1 2 := R N × [ 1 2 , + ∞ [ . We consider the uniformly elliptic operator A of Lemma 7.5, in the case r = 1 2 , acting in L 2 c ( R N +1 ≥ 1 2 ) := L 2 ( R N +1 ≥ 1 2 , y c dz ) and endowed with Dirichlet boundary conditions. By construction the operators A and L are associated respectively with the sesquilinear forms a 0 , a . Moreover

$$\mathfrak { a } _ { 0 } = \mathfrak { a } _ { | D ( \mathfrak { a } _ { 0 } ) } \quad \text{and} \quad D ( \mathfrak { a } _ { 0 } ) = H ^ { 1 } _ { c, 0 } \left ( \mathbb { R } ^ { N + 1 } _ { \geq \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \right ) \hookrightarrow H ^ { 1 } _ { c } = D ( \mathfrak { a } ). \\ \text{under the notation of } [ 8. \, Section 4]. \, the previous relations imply that \, D ( \mathfrak { a } _ { 0 } ) \, \text{is an i}.$$

Then, under the notation of [8, Section 4], the previous relations imply that D ( a 0 ) is an ideal of D ( a ) and moreover we have, in particular,

$$\mathfrak { a } _ { 0 } ( u, v ) = \mathfrak { a } ( u, v ), \quad \text{for any } \ 0 \leq u, v \in D ( \mathfrak { a } _ { 0 } ).$$

Then, recalling that A and L generate positive semigroups, we apply [8, Corollary 4.2] thus obtaining which in terms of their heat kernels rewrites as

$$| e ^ { t \mathcal { A } } f | \leq e ^ { t \mathcal { L } } | f |, \quad \forall f \in L _ { c } ^ { 2 } \left ( \mathbb { R } _ { \geq \frac { 1 } { 2 } } ^ { N + 1 } \right ) \\ \text{heat kernels rewrites as}$$

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) \geq p _ { 0 } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) y _ { 2 } ^ { - c }, \quad t > 0, \ z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } \in \mathbb { R } _ { \geq \frac { 1 } { 2 } } ^ { N + 1 },$$

(note that p L is written with respect to the measure y dz c and p 0 with respect to the Lebesgue measure). Then specializing the previous inequality for t = 1 and z , z 1 2 ∈ R N × [1 , + ∞ [ and using (39), we get for some positive constant C, c &gt; 0

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 1, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) \geq p _ { 0 } ( 1, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) y _ { 2 } ^ { - c } \geq C y _ { 2 } ^ { - c } \exp \left ( - c | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } \right ). \\ \text{sing the scaling property (27) and Lemma } 7. 1, \, \text{we get}$$

Finally, using the scaling property (27) and Lemma 7.1, we get

$$- \, \cdots \, \nu \, \cdots \, \circ \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \circ \, r \, \cdots \, \nu \, \cdots \, \nu \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \circ \, \cdots \\ p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) & = t ^ { - \frac { N + 1 + c } { 2 } } p _ { \mathcal { L } } \left ( 1, \frac { z _ { 1 } } { \sqrt { t } }, \frac { z _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) \geq C t ^ { - \frac { N + 1 + c } { 2 } } \left ( \frac { y _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) ^ { - c } \exp \left ( - c \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { t } \right ) \\ & \simeq \frac { C } { V ( z _ { 2 }, \sqrt { t } ) } \exp \left ( - c \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { t } \right ) \\ \intertext { f o r o r v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v e n v o n }$$

for every z 1 , z 2 ∈ R N +1 + such that y 1 √ t ≥ 1, y 2 √ t ≥ 1. The required estimates then follows by Remark 7.4.

We now come to the main part of the section: we prove the lower estimate (37) near the boundary i.e. for z , z 1 2 ∈ R N +1 + when at least one of z 1 √ t , z 2 √ t lies in R N × ]0 , 1]. The main point consists in Proposition 7.12 where we prove the so-called 'G-bound', i.e. a lower bound of the

integral of the logarithm of the heat kernel with respect to a weighted Gaussian measure. We need some preparation.

We fix α &gt; 0 and we consider the weighted Gaussian measure ν := y e c - | | a z 2 dz on R N +1 + which, from the assumptions α, c +1 &gt; 0, is finite on R N +1 + . By standard computation one has

$$\nu \left ( \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } \right ) = \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } y ^ { c } e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, d z = a ^ { - \frac { N + 1 + c } { 2 } } \pi ^ { \frac { N } { 2 } } \Gamma \left ( \frac { c + 1 } { 2 } \right ) & & ( 4 0 ) \\ \Gamma \text{ is the Gamma function } ( \infty ) \, \text{$1$} \, \text{$Section $2$} \ll \, \text{$1$} \, ( \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } \ll -$$

where Γ is the Gamma function (see [18, Section 3]). We consider the space L 2 ν ( R N +1 + ) := L 2 ( R N +1 + , y c e - | | a z 2 dz ) and we define also the Sobolev space

$$H _ { \nu } ^ { 1 } ( \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } ) \coloneqq \{ u \in L _ { \nu } ^ { 2 } ( \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } ) \colon \nabla u \in L _ { \nu } ^ { 2 } ( \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } ) \}$$

The following Poincar´-type inequality in e H 1 ν ( R N +1 + ) is essential for the proof of Proposition 7.12.

Theorem 7.7 (Poincar´ inequality) e Let α &gt; 0 , c + 1 &gt; 0 . Then, for some positive constant C &gt; 0 , one has

$$\| u - \overline { u } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { \nu } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { N + 1 } _ { + } ) } \leq C \| \nabla u \| _ { L ^ { 2 } _ { \nu } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { N + 1 } _ { + } ) }, \quad \forall u \in H ^ { 1 } _ { \nu } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { N + 1 } _ { + } ),$$

$$\ w h e r e \, \overline { u } = \frac { 1 } { \nu ( \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } ) } \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } u \, d \nu ( z ). \quad.$$

Proof.

$$\mathbb { R }. \, See [18, Theorem 3.7].$$

From now on, without any loss of generality, we fix α &gt; 0 in (40) such that

$$\int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } y ^ { c } \, e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } d z = 1.$$

We define, for fixed θ ∈ [ 1 2 , 1) and z 2 ∈ R N +1 + , the function

$$u ( t, z ) \coloneqq \theta p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z, z _ { 2 } ) + 1 - \theta, \quad \forall t > 0, \ z \in \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 }.$$

We collect in the next lemma the properties we need about u .

Lemma 7.8 Let u be the function above defined. Then the following properties hold.

$$( i ) \ u ( t, z ) \geq 1 - \theta > 0 \text{ for any } t > 0, \, z \in \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 }.$$

$$( i i ) \ F o r \ f i x e d \ t > 0 \ o n e \ h a s \ \frac { e ^ { - a | x | ^ { 2 } } } { u } \in H ^ { 1 } _ { c } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { N + 1 } _ { + } ) \ a n d \log u \in H ^ { 1 } _ { \nu } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { N + 1 } _ { + } ). \\ \dots \quad \vdots \quad \varepsilon \ \varepsilon \ \varepsilon \ \vdots \quad \dots.$$

(iii) If z 2 ∈ R N × ]0 , 1] the one has

$$\sup _ { t \in [ \frac { 1 } { 2 }, 1 ] } u ( t, z ) \leq K, \quad \forall z \in \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 }$$

for some positive constant K &gt; 0 , independent on θ and on z 2 .

(iv) One has

$$\lim _ { R \to + \infty } \int _ { Q ( 0, R ) } u ( t, z ) y ^ { c } \, d z \geq \frac { 1 } { 2 } \\ \dots \, 1 \,. \, - \, \cap \partial ( \alpha ) \, \cdots \, \quad \, \partial ( \alpha ) \, \cdots \, \omega \, t$$

uniformly on θ , t ∈ [ 1 2 , 1 ] and z 2 ∈ Q (0 , 1) = B (0 , 1) × [0 , 1[ .

Proof. (i) follows from the positivity of p L . (ii) follows from standard calculation, the previous property, the upper estimates (13) and of the gradient estimates of Theorem 5.7. To prove (iii) we use again (13) to write

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z, z _ { 2 } ) & \leq C t ^ { - \frac { N + 1 } { 2 } } y _ { 2 } ^ { - c } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) ^ { c } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k t } \right ) \\. &. &. &. &.$$

which from the assumption y 2 ≤ 1 implies

$$\sup _ { t \in [ \frac { 1 } { 2 }, 1 ] } u ( t, z ) \leq K \, \exp \left ( - \frac { | z - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k ^ { \prime } } \right ) \leq K$$

for some positive constants K,k &gt; ′ 0.

Let us finally prove (iv). Since by the definition u t, z ( ) ≥ 1 2 p L ( t, z, z 2 ) then using the conservation property of Proposition 6.3 we get

$$\int _ { Q ( 0, R ) } u ( t, z ) \, y ^ { c } d z \geq \frac { 1 } { 2 } \int _ { Q ( 0, R ) } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z, z _ { 2 } ) \, y ^ { c } d z = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( 1 - \int _ { Q ( 0, R ) ^ { c } } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z, z _ { 2 } ) \, y ^ { c } d z \right ).$$

We then observe that, by the upper kernel estimates (13) and the assumption 1 2 ≤ t ≤ 1, | x 2 | &lt; 1, y 2 &lt; 1, one has, for some positive constants C, k &gt; 0 which may be different in each occurrence,

$$\text{$w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$, $w$} \\ p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z, z _ { 2 } ) & \leq C t ^ { - \frac { N + 1 } { 2 } } y ^ { - c } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) ^ { c } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k t } \right ) \\ & \leq C y ^ { - c } \left ( 1 \wedge y \right ) ^ { c } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z | ^ { 2 } } { k } \right ). \\ \text{$qualities then imnlv.} \, \text{by Lebesgue $v$ theorem.} }$$

The last inequalities then imply, by Lebesgue's Theorem,

$$\int _ { Q ( 0, R ) ^ { c } } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z, z _ { 2 } ) \, y ^ { c } d z \leq C \int _ { Q ( 0, R ) ^ { c } } \left ( 1 \wedge y \right ) ^ { c } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z | ^ { 2 } } { k } \right ) d z \underset { R \to + \infty } { \longrightarrow } 0$$

which using (42) proves (iv).

We can define now the Nash's G -function.

Definition 7.9 For fixed θ ∈ [ 1 2 , 1) and z 2 ∈ R N +1 + , we define

$$G ( t ) \coloneqq \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log u ( t, z ) e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } y ^ { c } d z, \quad \forall t > 0.$$

We remark that, in virtue of Theorem 2.4 and of (13) , G t ( ) is well defined and finite.

We will estimate G (1) from below trough a differential inequality satisfied by G t ( ) which we prove in the following lemma.

Lemma 7.10 The following properties hold.

$$( i ) \ G ( t ) \leq 0 \ f o r \ a n y \ t > 0.$$

- (ii) For some positive constants A,B &gt; 0 , independent of t , z 2 and θ , one has

$$G ^ { \prime } ( t ) & \geq - A + B \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } | \nabla \log u | ^ { 2 } e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } d z. & & ( 4 3 ) \\ \dots & \.$$

In particular G t ( ) + At is increasing.

Proof. To prove (i) we recall that, by Proposition 6.3 one has

$$\int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z, z _ { 2 } ) y ^ { c } \, d z = 1. \\.. \. \. \. \. \. \.$$

Recalling (41) and applying Jensen's inequality it follows that

$$\text{Recalling} \left ( 4 1 \right ) \text{ and applying Jensen's inequality it follows that} \\ G ( t ) & = \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log u ( t, z ) e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } y ^ { c } \, d z \leq \log \left ( \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } u ( t, z ) e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } y ^ { c } \, d z _ { 2 } \right ) \\ & = \log \left ( \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \theta p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z, z _ { 2 } ) e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } y ^ { c } \, d z + \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } ( 1 - \theta ) e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } y ^ { c } \, d z \right ) \\ & \leq \log \left ( \theta \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z, z _ { 2 } ) y ^ { c } \, d z + ( 1 - \theta ) \right ) = \log 1 = 0. \\ \text{To prove (ii)} \, \text{we observe preliminary that}$$

To prove (ii) we observe preliminarily that

$$\partial _ { t } u ( t, z ) = \theta \mathcal { L } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z, z _ { 2 } ) = \mathcal { L } u ( t, z ).$$

Then differentiating under the integral sign and using Lemma 7.8 we obtain

$$\text{mowing under one megra on any any term } \colon & \text{we over} \\ G ^ { \prime } ( t ) & = \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \partial _ { t } \log u ( t, z ) e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } y ^ { c } \, d z \\ & = \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \mathcal { L } u ( t, z ) \frac { e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } } { u } y ^ { c } \, d z = - \mathfrak { a } \left ( u, \frac { e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } } { u } \right ). \\ \text{ing} \, ( 1 9 ) \, \text{and by standard calculation we get}$$

Then recalling (19) and by standard calculation we get

$$G ^ { \prime } ( t ) & = - \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \nabla u \cdot \nabla \left ( \frac { e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } } { u } \right ) y ^ { c } \, d z - 2 \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } D _ { y } u \, a \cdot \nabla _ { x } \left ( \frac { e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } } { u } \right ) y ^ { c } \, d z \\ & = 2 \alpha \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \nabla \log u \cdot z \, e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } \, d z + \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } | \nabla \log u | ^ { 2 } e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } \, d z \\ & \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + + } ^ { N + 1 } } \quad \left.$$

$$& + 4 \alpha \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } D _ { y } \log u \, a \cdot x e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } \, d z + 2 \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } a \cdot \nabla _ { x } \log u \, D _ { y } \log u \, e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } \, d z. \\ - \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \end{array}$$

By Young's inequality we get for any ε &gt; 0 and some positive constant C &gt; 0

$$\int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \nabla \log u \cdot z \, e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } \, d z \Big | & \leq \varepsilon \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } | \nabla \log u | ^ { 2 } \, e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } \, d z \\ & + C \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } | z | ^ { 2 } \, e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } \, d z,$$

$$\left | 4 \alpha \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } D _ { y } \log u \, a \cdot x e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } \, d z \right | & \leq \varepsilon \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } | D _ { y } \log u | ^ { 2 } \, e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } \, d z \\ & + C \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } | x | ^ { 2 } \, e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } \, d z,$$

$$\left | 2 \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } a \cdot \nabla _ { x } \log u \, D _ { y } \log u \, e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } \, d z \right | & \leq | a | \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } | \nabla _ { x } \log u | ^ { 2 } \, e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } \, d z \\ & + | a | \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } | D _ { y } \log u | ^ { 2 } \, e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } \, d z. \\ \text{Putting to other the revisions inequality and choosing } \epsilon \text{ sufficient} v \,small \,we \,oct}$$

Putting together the previous inequality and choosing /epsilon1 sufficiently small we get

$$G ^ { \prime } ( t ) \geq - A + B \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } | \nabla \log u | ^ { 2 } e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } d z,$$

some positive constants A,B &gt; 0, independent of t , z 2 and θ . This proves the required claim.

Remark 7.11 We can also consider, similarly,

$$u ^ { * } ( t, z ) \coloneqq \theta p _ { \mathcal { L } ^ { * } } ( t, z, z _ { 2 } ) + 1 - \theta, \quad G ^ { * } ( t ) \coloneqq \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log u ^ { * } ( t, z ) e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } y ^ { c } d z.$$

Then, adapting almost identically all the proofs to the operator L ∗ , the same results of Lemmas 7.8 and 7.10 keep to hold for u ∗ and G ∗ .

Proposition 7.12 (G-bound) There exists a positive constant C &gt; 0 such that one has

$$\int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) e ^ { - \alpha | z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } y _ { 2 } ^ { c } d z _ { 2 } \geq - C, \ \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log p _ { \mathcal { L } ^ { * } } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) e ^ { - \alpha | z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } y _ { 2 } ^ { c } d z _ { 2 } \geq - C.$$

for any z ∈ B (0 , 1) × ]0 , 1[ .

Proof. Let θ ∈ [ 1 2 , 1), z 2 ∈ B (0 , 1) × ]0 , 1[ and let us consider, recalling Definition 7.9 , the function

$$G ( t ) = \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log u ( t, z ) e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } y ^ { c } \, d z, \quad \forall t \in \left [ \frac { 1 } { 2 }, 1 \right ].$$

Our aim is to prove that

$$G ( 1 ) \geq - C$$

for some positive constant C &gt; 0 independent of θ and of z 2 . Indeed once proved (44), then taking the limit for θ → 1 and recalling that p L (1 , z, z 2 ) = p L ∗ (1 , z 2 , z ), one obtains

$$\int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z, z _ { 2 } ) e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } y ^ { c } \, d z = \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log p _ { \mathcal { L } ^ { * } } ( 1, z _ { 2 }, z ) e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } y ^ { c } \, d z \geq - C$$

which is the second required inequality for p L ∗ . The analogue inequality for p L follows in the same manner after replacing the function G with G ∗ and using Remark 7.11.

Let us then prove (44). Recalling that, by (ii) of Lemma 7.8, log u ∈ H 1 ν ( R N +1 + ), we can combine (43) and the weighted Poincar´ inequality of Theorem 7.7 applied to log e u to obtain

$$G ^ { \prime } ( t ) \geq - A + B \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } ( \log u - G ( t ) ) ^ { 2 } e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y ^ { c } d z$$

for some positive constants A,B &gt; 0, independent of t , z 2 and θ . In particular the function G t ( ) + At is increasing.

We make, preliminarily, the following useful observation: the previous properties allow, without any loss of generality, to suppose the function G very negative, i.e. satisfying

$$G ( t ) < - D, \quad \forall t \in \left [ \frac { 1 } { 2 }, 1 \right ], \quad \quad \quad$$

for some arbitrary large constant D &gt; 0 to be specified later. Indeed if (45) fails for some t 0 ∈ [ 1 2 , 1 ] then we have, from the monotonicity of G t ( ) + At ,

$$G ( 1 ) + A \geq G ( t _ { 0 } ) + A t _ { 0 } \geq - D + \frac { A } { 2 }$$

which already imply the required claim (44).

Assuming (45) we are going now to estimate G (1) from below by proving the differential inequality (47) which we derive using Lemma 7.10 and the upper kernel estimates of Theorem 2.4. We start by observing that by (iii) of Lemma 7.8 one has

$$\sup _ { t \in [ \frac { 1 } { 2 }, 1 ] } u ( t, z ) \leq K, \quad \forall z \in \math$$

↦

for some positive constant K independent on θ and z 2 . Moreover the function u → (log u -G t ( )) 2 u is decreasing as a function of u in [ e 2+ G t ( ) , + ∞ [. Therefore, choosing in (45) D sufficiently large, we can then suppose e 2+ G t ( ) &lt; K thus obtaining, since by (46) u ≤ k ,

$$G ^ { \prime } ( t ) \geq - A + B \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } ( \log u$$

$$\geq - A + B \int _ { \{ u \geq e ^ { 2 + G ( t ) } \} } \frac { ( \log u - G ( t$$

$$\geq - A + B \frac { ( \log K - G ( t ) ) ^ { 2 } } { K } \int _ { \{ u \geq e ^ { 2 + G ( t ) } \} } u ( t, z ) e ^ { - \alpha | z | ^ { 2 } } \, y _ { 2 } ^ { c } d z _ { 2 }.$$

Next we prove that ∫ { u ≥ e 2+ G t ( ) } u t, z ( ) e - | | α z 2 y dz c is bounded from below. Using (iv) of Lemma 7.8 we get, choosing a sufficiently large R &gt; 0,

$$\int _ { Q ( 0, R ) } u ( t, z ) \, y ^ { c } d z \geq \frac { 1 } { 4 }$$

which implies

$$\text{when imports} \\ \int _ { u \geq e ^ { 2 + G ( t ) } } u ( t, z ) e ^ { - \alpha | z | } ^ { 2 } y ^ { c } d z & = \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { N + 1 } _ { + } } u ( t, z ) e ^ { - \alpha | z | } ^ { 2 } y ^ { c } d z - \int _ { \{ u < e ^ { 2 + G ( t ) } \} } u ( t, z ) e ^ { - \alpha | z | } ^ { 2 } y ^ { c } d z \\ & \geq e ^ { - \alpha R ^ { 2 } } \int _ { Q ( 0, R ) } u ( t, z ) y ^ { c } d z - e ^ { 2 + G ( t ) } \\ & \geq \frac { 1 } { 4 } e ^ { - \alpha R ^ { 2 } } - e ^ { 2 + G ( t ) }. \\ \text{We then obtain}$$

We then obtain

$$G ^ { \prime } ( t ) \geq - A + B \frac { ( \log K - G ( t ) ) ^ { 2 } } { K } \left ( \frac { 1 } { 4 } e ^ { - \alpha R ^ { 2 } } - e ^ { 2 + G ( t ) } \right ).$$

Choosing D large enough in (45) in order to have 1 4 e -αR 2 -e 2+ G t ( ) &gt; 0 and using Young's inequality

$$2 | \log k | | G ( t ) | < \epsilon G ( t ) ^ { 2 } + \frac { | \log k | ^ { 2 } } { \epsilon }$$

with /epsilon1 = 1 2 , we get for some possibly different constants A,B &gt; 0

$$G ^ { \prime } ( t ) \geq - A + B \, G ( t ) ^ { 2 }.$$

Choosing again D large enough in (45) in order to have G t ( ) 2 &gt; 2 A B , the previous inequality implies

$$G ^ { \prime } ( t ) & \geq \frac { B } { 2 } G ( t ) ^ { 2 }.$$

Integrating between 1 2 and 1 and recalling that G t ( ) &lt; 0, we finally obtain G (1) ≥ -4 B which is the required claim.

We can now deduce, from the G-bound of Proposition 7.12, the lower estimates (38) on the diagonal.

Proposition 7.13 There exists a positive constant C &gt; 0 such that

$$p _ { \mathcal { C } } ( t, z, z ) \geq \frac { C } { V ( z, \sqrt { t } ) }, \quad \forall \ t > 0, \ z \in \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 }.$$

Proof. Recalling the scaling properties (27) of the kernel and of the function V of Lemma 7.1, we have

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z, z ) & = \left ( \frac { t } { 2 } \right ) ^ { - \frac { N + 1 + \epsilon } { 2 } } p _ { \mathcal { L } } \left ( 2, \sqrt { 2 } \frac { z } { \sqrt { t } }, \sqrt { 2 } \frac { z } { \sqrt { t } } \right ), \\ V ( z, \sqrt { t } ) & = \left ( \frac { t } { 2 } \right ) ^ { - \frac { N + 1 + \epsilon } { 2 } } V \left ( \sqrt { 2 } \frac { z } { \sqrt { t } }, \sqrt { 2 } \right ). \\ \text{us equalities we can then assume, without any loss of generality, i}$$

From the previous equalities we can then assume, without any loss of generality, t = 2.

If y ≥ 1, the claimed bound follows from Proposition 7.6. Let us assume, therefore, y &lt; 1. By using the invariance for translation in the x -variable of the kernel (28) and of the function V of Lemma 7.1 we have

$$\cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z + x _ { 0 }, z + x _ { 0 } ) = p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z, z ), \quad V ( z + x _ { 0 }, \sqrt { t } ) = V ( z, \sqrt { t } )$$

where for any z = ( x, y ) ∈ R N +1 + and any x 0 ∈ R N , we wrote, with a little abuse of notation, z + x 0 = ( x + x , y 0 ) to denote the translation in the x 0 -direction. Choosing then a suitable x 0 ∈ R N , we may also assume | x | &lt; 1. Let α &gt; 0 satisfying (41); then by using the reproducing property of the kernel we get

$$\text{the kernel we get} \\ p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 2, z, z ) & = \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 1, z _ { 2 }, z ) y _ { 2 } ^ { c } d z _ { 2 } \\ & = \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) p _ { \mathcal { L } } ^ { * } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) y _ { 2 } ^ { c } d z _ { 2 } \\ & \geq \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) p _ { \mathcal { L } } ^ { * } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) e ^ { - \alpha | z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } y _ { 2 } ^ { c } d z _ { 2 }. \\ * \quad \cdot \quad \dots \quad \dots \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad - \alpha | z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

$$\int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N \cdot } }$$

Applying then Jensen inequality with respect to the unitary measure ν = e - | α z 2 | 2 y dz c 2 2 and using Proposition 7.12, it follows that, for some positive constant C &gt; 0, one has

$$\log ( p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 2, z, z ) ) \geq \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log \left ( p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) p _ { \mathcal { L } } ^ { * } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) \right ) e ^ { - \alpha | z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } y _ { 2 } ^ { c } d z _ { 2 }$$

$$= \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) e ^ { - \alpha | z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } y _ { 2 } ^ { c } \, d z _ { 2 }$$

$$z ) ) & \geq \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log \left ( p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) p _ { \mathcal { L } } ^ { * } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) \right ) e ^ { - \alpha | z _ { 2 } } \\ & = \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) e ^ { - \alpha | z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } y _ { 2 } ^ { c } \, d z _ { 2 }$$

$$+ \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log p _ { \mathcal { L } } ^ { * } ( 1, z, z _ { 2 } ) e ^ { - \alpha | z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } y _ { 2 } ^ { c } d z _ { 2 } \geq - C$$

$$= & \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } } \log p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 1, z, z ) \\ & + \int _ { \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 } }.$$

which implies

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 2, z, z ) \geq e ^ { - C }.$$

Recalling Lemma 7.1, since we are assuming y &lt; 1, we have

$$\dots \times \dots \times \dots \times \dots \times \dots \times \\ V ( z, \sqrt { 2 } ) \simeq V ( z, 1 ) \simeq y ^ { c } \left ( y \wedge 1 \right ) ^ { - c } = 1 ; \\. \quad. \quad.$$

the above inequality is then equivalent to

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( 2, z, z ) \geq \frac { C } { V ( z, \sqrt { 2 } ) }.$$

which proves the required claim.

We may now use the gradient estimates proved in Section 5, to extend the lower bounds of Proposition 7.13 'near the diagonal' i.e. in the range | z 1 -z 2 | &lt; c √ t , for some c &gt; 0.

Proposition 7.14 There exist some positive constants C, c &gt; 0 such that

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t,$$

Proof. Using the mean value theorem we get

$$| p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t$$

where ˜ lies in the segment linking z z 1 and z ′ 1 . Then using the gradient estimate of Theorem 5.7 and Remark 7.4 we get

$$| \nabla p _ { \mathcal { L$$

which combined with the previous inequality yields

$$| p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t$$

Then, specializing the above inequality to z ′ 1 = z 2 and using Proposition 7.13, we get for some positive constants C, C 1 &gt; 0.

$$\ast \quad & \quad \quad \quad$$

where we set c = C /C 1 . Then imposing c -t -1 2 | z 1 -z 2 | ≥ c 2 , that is | z 1 -z 2 | √ t ≤ c 2 , we get the required claim.

We can finally deduce the lower estimate (37) in the whole space using a classical iterative argument based on the doubling property of Lemma 7.1 satisfied by the function V and the chain condition satisfied by R N +1 + , namely the existence, for any z 1 , z 2 ∈ R N +1 + of a sequence of point ω 0 = z , 1 ω , 2 . . . , ω n = z 2 ∈ R N +1 + joining z 1 and z 2 and satisfying

$$| \omega _ { i } - \omega _ { i + 1 } | \leq C \, \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | } { n }, \quad \forall i = 0, \dots, n - 1.$$

Theorem 7.15 There exists a positive constant C such that the heat kernel p L of L satisfies

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) \geq \frac { C } { V \left ( z _ { 1 }, \sqrt { t } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } V \left ( z _ { 2 }, \sqrt { t } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { \kappa t } \right ), \quad \forall \ t > 0, \ z _ { 1 }, \ z _ { 2 } \in \mathbb { R } _ { + } ^ { N + 1 }. \\ \text{PROOF.} \, The proof follows identically as in the proof of [20, Theorem 7.29]. \quad \text{ } \quad \Box$$

Proof.

The proof follows identically as in the proof of [20, Theorem 7.29].

We end the section by stating the final result for the general operator (8) of Section 2 under Neumann or oblique derivative boundary condition which is a direct consequence of Theorems 2.4 and 7.15 and the transformation explained in Section 3.

Theorem 7.16 Let v = ( d, c ) ∈ R N +1 with d = 0 if c = 0 , A be an elliptic matrix and let us consider the operator

$$\mathcal { L } = T r \, \left ( A D ^ { 2 } u \right ) + \frac { v \cdot \nabla } { y }$$

endowed with the boundary conditions

/negationslash

$$\lim _ { y \to 0 } y ^ { \frac { c } { \gamma } } \, v \cdot \nabla u = 0, \quad ( i f \, c \neq 0 ), \quad \lim _ { y \to 0 } y ^ { \frac { c } { \gamma } } \, D _ { y } u = 0, \quad \ \ ( i f \, c = 0 ) \\. \quad \ \. \ \. \ \. \ \. \ \. \ \. \ \. \ \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \..$$

where γ = a N +1 ,N +1 . If c γ +1 &gt; 0 then the semigroup ( e t L ) t&gt; 0 consists of integral operators and its heat kernel p L , written with respect the measure y c γ dz , satisfies for some C, k &gt; 0 ,

$$p _ { \mathcal { L } } ( t, z _ { 1 }, z _ { 2 } ) \simeq C t ^ { - \frac { N + 1 } { 2 } } y _ { 1 } ^ { - \frac { c } { 2 \gamma } } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 1 } } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) ^ { \frac { c } { 2 \gamma } } y _ { 2 } ^ { - \frac { c } { 2 \gamma } } \left ( 1 \wedge \frac { y _ { 2 } } { \sqrt { t } } \right ) ^ { \frac { c } { 2 \gamma } } \exp \left ( - \frac { | z _ { 1 } - z _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } } { k t } \right ).$$

## 8 Appendix

We consider on the weighted spaces L p m ( R N + M ) := L p ( R N + M , | y | m , dxdy ) the two-parameters family of integral operators ( S α,β ( )) t t&gt; 0 defined for α, β ∈ R and t &gt; 0 by

$$S ^ { \alpha, \beta } ( t ) f ( z _ { 1 } ) = t ^ { - \frac { N + M } { 2 } } \left ( \frac { | y _ { 1 } | } { \sqrt { t } } \wedge 1 \right ) ^ { - \alpha } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { N + M } } \left ( \frac { | y _ { 2 } | } { \$$

where κ is a positive constant, z 1 = ( x , y 1 1 ) , z 2 = ( x , y 2 2 ) ∈ R N + M . We omit the dependence on κ even though in some proofs we need to vary it. We characterize in the proposition below the boundedness of ( S α,β ( )) t t&gt; 0 on L p m . The proof follows by using the strategy in [10, Proposition 12.2] where the case 1 &lt; p &lt; ∞ has been considered. For completeness we refer to [12, Proposition 6.2] for the case p = ∞ .

We start by observing that the scale homogeneity of S α,β is 2 since a simple change of variable in the integral yields which in particular gives

$$S ^ { \alpha, \beta } ( t ) \left ( I _ { s } f \right ) = I _ { s } \left ( S ^ { \alpha, \beta } ( s ^ { 2 } t ) f \right ), \quad I _ { s } f ( z ) = f ( s z ), \quad t, s > 0, \\ \hbar { \, } \text{in particular gives} \quad \quad \quad$$

$$S ^ { \alpha, \beta } ( t ) f = I _ { 1 / \sqrt { t } } \left ( S ^ { \alpha, \beta } ( 1 ) I _ { \sqrt { t } } f \right ), \quad t > 0. \\ \colon S ^ { \alpha, \beta } ( t ) f \text{ in } L _ { m } ^ { p } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { N +$$

Proposition 8.1 Let m ∈ R , θ ≥ 0 and 1 ≤ p &lt; ∞ . The following properties are equivalent.

The boundedness of S α,β ( ) t f in L p m ( R N + M ) is then equivalent to that for t = 1 and ‖ S α,β ( ) t ‖ p = ‖ S α,β (1) ‖ p .

- (i) For every t &gt; 0 ( S α,β ( )) t t ≥ 0 is bounded from L p m to L p m pθ -and

$$\| S ^ { \alpha, \beta } ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { p } _ { m } \to L ^ { p } _ { m - p \theta } } \leq C t ^ { - \frac { \theta } { 2 } }.$$

- (ii) S α,β (1) is bounded from from L p m to L p m pθ -.
- (iii) One of the following properties:
- 1. 1 &lt; p &lt; ∞ and α + θ &lt; M m + p &lt; M -β ;
- 2. p = 1 and α + θ &lt; M + m ≤ M -β .

In particular α + β &lt; M -θ .

Proof. The proof follows identically as in [10, Proposition 12.2] where the case N = 0 has been considered.

We refer also the reader to [12, Proposition A.1] for the case p = ∞ of the above Proposition.

## References

| [1]   | Caffarelli, L., and Silvestre, L. An extension problem related to the fractional Lapla- cian. Communications in Partial Differential Equations 32 , 8 (2007), 1245-1260.                                                                         |
|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [2]   | Cho, S., Kim, P., and Park, H. Two-sided estimates on dirichlet heat kernels for time- dependent parabolic operators with singular drifts in C 1 ,α -domains. Journal of Differential Equations 252 , 2 (2012), 1101-1145.                       |
| [3]   | Dong, H., and Phan, T. Weighted mixed-norm L p -estimates for elliptic and parabolic equa- tions in non-divergence form with singular coefficients. Revista Matematica Iberoamericana 37 , 04 (2020).                                            |
| [4]   | Dong, H., and Phan, T. Parabolic and elliptic equations with singular or degenerate coefficients: The Dirichlet problem. Transaction of the American Mathematical Society 374 , 09 (2021).                                                       |
| [5]   | Dong, H., and Phan, T. On parabolic and elliptic equations with singular or degenerate coefficients. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 72 (2023), 1461-1502.                                                                                                |
| [6]   | Dong, H., and Phan, T. Weighted mixed-norm L p estimates for equations in non-divergence form with singular coefficients: The Dirichlet problem. Journal of Functional Analysis 285 , 2 (2023), 109964.                                          |
| [7]   | Fabes, E. B., and Stroock, D. W. A new proof of moser's parabolic harnack inequality using the old ideas of nash. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 96 (1986), 327-338.                                                                |
| [8]   | Manavi, A., and ang J.Voigt, H. V. Domination of semigroups associated with sectorial forms. Journal of Operator Theory 54 , 1 (2005), 9-25.                                                                                                     |
| [9]   | Metafune, G., Negro, L., and Spina, C. Degenerate operators on the half-line. Journal of Evolution Equations 22 , 3 (2022), 60.                                                                                                                  |
| [10]  | Metafune, G., Negro, L., and Spina, C. L p estimates for the Caffarelli-Silvestre extension operators. Journal of Differential Equations 316 (2022), 290-345.                                                                                    |
| [11]  | Metafune, G., Negro, L., and Spina, C. Anisotropic Sobolev Spaces with Weights. Tokyo Journal of Mathematics 46 , 2 (2023), 313 - 337. doi: 10.3836/tjm/1502179386.                                                                              |
| [12]  | Metafune, G., Negro, L., and Spina, C. Schauder estimates for Bessel operators. Forum Mathematicum (2023). doi:10.1515/forum-2023-0334.                                                                                                          |
| [13]  | Metafune, G., Negro, L., and Spina, C. A unified approach to degenerate problems in the half-space. Journal of Differential Equations 351 (2023), 63-99.                                                                                         |
| [14]  | Metafune, G., Negro, L., and Spina, C. Regularity theory for parabolic operators in the half-space with boundary degeneracy, 2024. To appear on Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci.. Online prepreint arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.14319v2. |
| [15]  | Metafune, G., Negro, L., and Spina, C. Singular parabolic problems in the half-space. Studia Mathematica (2024). doi:10.4064/sm230710-18-3.                                                                                                      |
| [16]  | Nash, J. Continuity of solutions of parabolic and elliptic equations. American Journal of Mathematics 80 , 4 (1958), 931-954.                                                                                                                    |

- [17] Negro, L. Singular parabolic operators in the half-space with boundary degeneracy: Dirichlet and oblique derivative boundary conditions, 2024. Online preprint arXiv:2405.09540.
- [18] Negro, L., and Spina, C. Gaussian Poincar´ e inequalities on the half-space with singular weights, 2024. Online preprint arXiv:2407.17096.
- [19] Negro, L., and Spina, C. Kernel bounds for parabolic operators having first-order degeneracy at the boundary, 2024. arXiv:2403.01959.
- [20] Ouhabaz, E. M. Analysis of Heat Equations on Domains . Princeton University Press, 2009.
- [21] Robinson, D. W., and Sikora, A. Analysis of degenerate elliptic operators of Gruˇin type. s Mathematische Zeitschrift 260 , 3 (Nov 2008), 475-508.
Luigi Negro Chiara Spina
Sharp kernel bounds for parabolic operators with first order degeneracy
We prove sharp upper and lower estimates for the parabolic kernel of the
singular elliptic operator \begin{align*}
  \mathcal L&=\mbox{Tr }\left(AD^2\right)+\frac{\left(v,\nabla\right)}y,
\end{align*} in the half-space $\mathbb{R}^{N+1}_+=\{(x,y): x \in \mathbb{R}^N,
y>0\}$ under Neumann or oblique derivative boundary conditions at $y=0$.