On the Schauder Estimates for Non-local Equations with Drift: The Supercritical Case

Abstract.

We establish a Schauder estimate for a nonlocal Cauchy problem with drift. The leading operator is the generator of a non-degenerate $\alpha$-stable process with $\alpha\in(0,1)$, and the drift is $\beta$-Hölder continuous with $\beta\in(1-\alpha,1)$. The proof relies on a refined conic Littlewood–Paley decomposition and a one-dimensional one-sided dyadic maximum principle.

Keywords: Schauder Estimates, Non-local Equations, Conic Littlewood–Paley decomposition, maximum principle

AMS 2020 Mathematics Subject Classification: 35B45, 45K05

1. Introduction and main estimate

The main purpose of this paper is to establish a Schauder estimate for the following non-local parabolic equation

(1.1) $$\partial_{t}u+\lambda u-Lu-b\cdot\nabla u=h,\quad u(0)=f.$$

Here $b:[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, and $L$ is the infinitesimal generator of an $\alpha$-stable process $Z=(Z_{t})_{t\geqslant 0}$ with $\alpha\in(0,1)$. More precisely,

$$L\varphi(x):=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}\bigl(\varphi(x+z)-\varphi(x)\bigr)\nu(\text{\rm{d}}z),\quad\varphi\in C_{b}^{1}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}),$$

where $\nu$ is the Lévy measure of $Z$. Equation (1.1) is the backward Kolmogorov equation associated with the SDE

(1.2) $$\text{\rm{d}}X_{t}=b(t,X_{t})\,\text{\rm{d}}t+\text{\rm{d}}Z_{t},\qquad X_{0}=x.$$

The $\alpha$-stable Lévy measure $\nu$ admits the polar decomposition

$$\nu(A)=\int_{{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}}\int_{0}^{\infty}{\mathbf{1}}_{A}(r\theta)\,\frac{\text{\rm{d}}r}{r^{1+\alpha}}\,\mu(\text{\rm{d}}\theta),\quad A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\setminus\{0\},$$

where $\mu$ is a finite non-negative Borel measure on ${\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}$, called the spectral measure of $Z$.

Thoughout this paper, we impose the non-degeneracy condition

(A) $$\int_{{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}}|e\cdot\theta|^{\alpha}\,\mu(\text{\rm{d}}\theta)\geqslant\kappa>0,\qquad e\in{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}.$$

Our main result is the following.

Theorem 1.1.

Let $\alpha\in(0,1)$, $\beta\in(1-\alpha,1)$ and $s:=\alpha+\beta\in(1,2)$. Assume (A) holds. Suppose that

$$\|b\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}C^{\beta}_{x}},~\|h\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}C^{\beta}_{x}},~\|f\|_{C^{s}}<\infty,$$

and $u$ is a smooth bounded solution of (1.1), then

(1.3) $$[u]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{s}}\leqslant C\left([f]_{\dot{C}^{s}}+[h]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}+[b]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}\|\nabla u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}\right),$$

where $C$ depends only on $d,\alpha,\beta,\kappa,\mu({\mathbb{S}}^{d-1})$. Consequently, for every $\lambda>0$,

(1.4) $$\|u\|_{L_{T}^{\infty}C_{x}^{s}}\leqslant C\left(1+[b]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}^{s/(s-1)}\right)\|f\|_{C^{s}}+C\left(1+\lambda^{-1}+\lambda^{-1}[b]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}^{s/(s-1)}\right)\|h\|_{L_{T}^{\infty}C_{x}^{\beta}}.$$

Remark 1.2.

1. The above theorem is an a priori estimate. It is stated for smooth bounded solutions in order to focus on the proof of the estimate. More general versions can be obtained by mollifying the data and the solution, proving the estimate uniformly, and then passing to the limit.

2. The assumption that $L$ is translation-invariant and exactly stable is made only to streamline the presentation. The argument can also be extended to time- and space-dependent Lévy-type operators of the form

   $$L_{t}\varphi(x):=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}\bigl(\varphi(x+z)-\varphi(x)\bigr)\nu_{t,x}(\text{\rm{d}}z),$$

   where the jump measure $\nu_{t,x}$ is bounded between the Lévy measures of two non-degenerate $\alpha$-stable processes and has sufficient regularity assumptions in $x$.

Regularity estimates for non-local operators with irregular drift play an important role in the study of nonlinear integro-differential equations and stochastic differential equations driven by Lévy processes. In the model case of the fractional Laplacian, the interplay between the regularizing effect of non-local diffusion and the drift has been studied through Schauder, Hölder, and related regularity estimates for integro-differential equations; see for instance, [18, 3, 19, 4]. Regularity theories have also been developed for non-local equations with non-translation-invariant, anisotropic, or singular jump kernels; see, among others, [12, 6, 7, 9, 10].

For equation (1.1), the regime $\alpha\in(0,1)$ is supercritical because the first-order drift $b\cdot\nabla$ has higher differential order than the non-local diffusion $L$. For the fractional Laplacian $L=\Delta^{\alpha/2}$, Silvestre’s work [19] identified the condition $\alpha+\beta>1$ as the natural threshold for obtaining differentiability of the solution. This threshold also appears in the study of SDE (1.2) with irregular drift $b$. In particular, Priola proved pathwise uniqueness for SDEs of the form (1.2) with Hölder drifts [15, 16], using Schauder estimates for the associated Kolmogorov equation (1.1) together with Zvonkin’s transformation. Such estimates are also useful in the study of stochastic flows property, path-by-path uniqueness for random ODEs, and convergence rates of the Euler–Maruyama scheme for (1.2), where one needs sufficiently regular solutions of the Kolmogorov equation to control the transformed dynamics (see for instance [17] and [14]).

However, available Hölder-space Schauder estimates for (1.1) in supercritical case are more restricted beyond the isotropic fractional Laplacian. de Raynal, Menozzi and Priola [8] treated general stable-type generators satisfying suitable heat-kernel smoothing assumptions. For general non-degenerate symmetric stable operators, including the cylindrical stable operator, the verification in [8] requires $\beta<\alpha$; together with $\alpha+\beta>1$, this imposes the restriction $\alpha>1/2$. Other partial results were obtained, for instance, in [2, 11, 13], under additional restrictions on the range of $\alpha$ or on the structure of the operator. Related estimates in Besov or fractional Sobolev spaces were obtained in [5, 22]. We also mention that a closely related estimate was stated in [20, Theorem 4.8]. Its proof uses the frequency-localized maximum principle of [21], but whose direct form does not apply to the general anisotropic stable measures considered there and here. The angular maximum principle developed below will is designed to address this point.

In conclusion, these restrictions leave a gap in the Hölder-space Schauder theory for general stable operators in the whole supercritical range $\alpha\in(0,1)$. The purpose of this paper is to prove such an estimate for the parabolic equation (1.1), where the leading operator is generated by an arbitrary non-degenerate $\alpha$-stable Lévy measure, and $b\in C^{\beta}$ with $\beta>1-\alpha$. The proof is based on a fine conic Littlewood–Paley decomposition. The main observation is that the stable Lévy measure yields an angular dyadic maximum principle, which plays the role of the usual dyadic maximum principle for the isotropic fractional Laplacian. This point is especially useful for anisotropic or singular jump measures, where the standard isotropic maximum-principle argument is no longer directly available, and is the reason that the same method can be extended to more general Lévy operators as indicated in the remark above.

We close this section by mentioning some notations and recalling very basic facts from standard Littlewood-Paley theory: Let ${\mathscr{S}}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ be the Schwartz space of all rapidly decreasing functions, and ${\mathscr{S}}^{\prime}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ the dual space of ${\mathscr{S}}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ called Schwartz generalized function (or tempered distribution) space. For any $f\in{\mathscr{S}}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ define its Fourier transform by

$${\mathcal{F}}(f)(\xi)=\widehat{f}(\xi)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}\mathrm{e}^{-ix\cdot\xi}f(x)\,\text{\rm{d}}x.$$

Let $\chi:{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\to[0,1]$ be a smooth radial function so that $\chi|_{B_{3/4}}=1$ and $\chi|_{B_{1}^{c}}=0$. Define

$$\varphi(\xi):=\chi(\xi)-\chi(2\xi).$$

For $j\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, define the homogeneous dyadic block by

$$\dot{\Delta}_{j}f:={\mathcal{F}}^{-1}\left(\varphi(2^{-j}\,\cdot)\widehat{f}\right).$$

Let $\mathcal{P}$ denote the space of polynomials on ${\mathbb{R}}^{d}$. Homogeneous Besov spaces are naturally defined on the quotient ${\mathscr{S}}^{\prime}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})/\mathcal{P}$. For $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$, set

$$\dot{B}^{s}_{\infty,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}):=\Big\{f\in{\mathscr{S}}^{\prime}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})/\mathcal{P}:\|f\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{\infty,\infty}}:=\sup_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}2^{js}\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}f\|_{L^{\infty}}<\infty\Big\}.$$

We next recall the homogeneous Hölder spaces. Let $0<s\notin{\mathbb{N}}$ and write $s=k+\gamma$ with $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $\gamma\in(0,1)$. Denote by $\mathcal{P}_{k}$ the space of polynomials on ${\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ of degree at most $k$. Define

$$\dot{C}^{s}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}):=\Big\{f\in C^{k}_{\mathrm{loc}}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}):[f]_{\dot{C}^{s}}:=\sup_{x\neq y}\frac{|\nabla^{k}f(x)-\nabla^{k}f(y)|}{|x-y|^{\gamma}}<\infty\Big\}\big/\mathcal{P}_{k}.$$

It is well-known that for every positive non-integer $s$,

$$\dot{B}^{s}_{\infty,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})=\dot{C}^{s}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}),\qquad\|f\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{\infty,\infty}}\asymp[f]_{\dot{C}^{s}}.$$

See, for instance, [1].

The inhomogeneous Hölder space is

$$C^{s}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}):=\Big\{f\in C^{k}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}):\|f\|_{C^{s}}:=\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant k}\|\nabla^{i}f\|_{L^{\infty}}+[f]_{\dot{C}^{s}}<\infty\Big\}.$$

For a function $f=f(t,x)$ on $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, we set

$$\|f\|_{L_{T}^{\infty}C_{x}^{s}}:=\mathop{\mathrm{ess\,sup}}_{t\in[0,T]}\|f(t,\cdot)\|_{C^{s}},\qquad[f]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{s}}:=\mathop{\mathrm{ess\,sup}}_{t\in[0,T]}[f(t,\cdot)]_{\dot{C}^{s}}.$$

2. Maximum principles

2.1. One-dimensional dyadic maximum principle

We begin with a one-dimensional one-sided dyadic maximum principle.

Lemma 2.1.

Let $0<\alpha<1$ and $0<a<A<\infty$. There exists $c=c(\alpha,a,A)>0$ such that the following holds. Let $g:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be bounded and real-valued, and suppose

$$\operatorname{supp}\widehat{g}\subset\{\eta\in{\mathbb{R}}:a2^{j}\leqslant|\eta|\leqslant A2^{j}\}$$

for any $j\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. If

$$g(0)=\|g\|_{L^{\infty}}>0,$$

then

$$\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{g(0)-g(r)}{r^{1+\alpha}}\,\text{\rm{d}}r\geqslant c2^{j\alpha}g(0).$$

Proof.

By scaling and normalization it suffices to prove the claim for $j=0$ and $g(0)=\|g\|_{L^{\infty}}=1$. Suppose the claim is false. Then there exists a sequence $g_{n}$ such that

$$\operatorname{supp}\widehat{g}_{n}\subset\{a\leqslant|\eta|\leqslant A\},\quad g_{n}(0)=\|g_{n}\|_{L^{\infty}}=1,$$

but

$$\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{1-g_{n}(r)}{r^{1+\alpha}}\,\text{\rm{d}}r\to 0.$$

Since the Fourier supports are contained in a fixed compact set and $\|g_{n}\|_{L^{\infty}}\leqslant 1$, Bernstein’s inequalities imply uniform bounds for all derivatives on compact sets. Passing to a subsequence, $g_{n}\to g$ locally uniformly, with

$$g(0)=\|g\|_{L^{\infty}}=1,\quad\operatorname{supp}\widehat{g}\subset\{a\leqslant|\eta|\leqslant A\}.$$

Since $1-g_{n}(r)\geqslant 0$, Fatou’s lemma gives, for every $R>0$,

$$\int_{0}^{R}\frac{1-g(r)}{r^{1+\alpha}}\,\text{\rm{d}}r=0.$$

Hence $g(r)=1$ for every $r>0$. The function $g$ is band-limited, hence real analytic; therefore $g\equiv 1$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$. This contradicts the fact that the Fourier support of $g$ is disjoint from the origin. The lemma follows. ∎

Next we recall a standard support property for restrictions to lines.

Lemma 2.2.

Let $v$ be a smooth tempered function on ${\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ such that $\operatorname{supp}\widehat{v}\subset K$, where $K\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ is compact. Fix $x_{0}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ and $\theta\in{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}$, and define

$$g_{\theta}(r):=v(x_{0}+r\theta),\quad r\in{\mathbb{R}}.$$

Then, as a distribution on ${\mathbb{R}}$,

$$\operatorname{supp}\widehat{g_{\theta}}\subset\{\xi\cdot\theta:\xi\in K\}.$$

Proof.

Since $\widehat{v}$ is supported in the compact set $K$, the inverse Fourier formula gives

$$g_{\theta}(r)=(2\pi)^{-d}\left\langle\widehat{v}(\xi),e^{ix_{0}\cdot\xi}e^{ir\xi\cdot\theta}\right\rangle.$$

Let $\varphi\in C_{c}^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})$ and define its one-dimensional Fourier transform by $\widehat{\varphi}(r):=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}e^{-ir\eta}\varphi(\eta)\,\text{\rm{d}}\eta$. By the definition of the Fourier transform of a distribution, we have

(2.1) $$\langle\widehat{g_{\theta}},\varphi\rangle =\langle g_{\theta},\widehat{\varphi}\rangle=(2\pi)^{-d}\left\langle\widehat{v}(\xi),e^{ix_{0}\cdot\xi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}e^{ir\xi\cdot\theta}\widehat{\varphi}(r)\,\text{\rm{d}}r\right\rangle$$

$$=(2\pi)^{1-d}\left\langle\widehat{v}(\xi),e^{ix_{0}\cdot\xi}\varphi(\xi\cdot\theta)\right\rangle.$$

In the last equality we used the one-dimensional inversion identity

$$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}e^{irs}\widehat{\varphi}(r)\,\text{\rm{d}}r=2\pi\varphi(s).$$

Now suppose that

$$\operatorname{supp}\varphi\cap\{\xi\cdot\theta:\xi\in K\}=\varnothing.$$

Since $\operatorname{supp}\widehat{v}\subset K$, and $\xi\mapsto\varphi(\xi\cdot\theta)$ vanishes on a neighbourhood of $K$, the last integration in (2.1) is zero. Hence, one sees that

$$\operatorname{supp}\widehat{g_{\theta}}\subset\{\xi\cdot\theta:\xi\in K\}.$$

∎

2.2. Conic decomposition and Angular dyadic maximum principle

Let $M_{\mu}:=\mu({\mathbb{S}}^{d-1})$. Choose $\delta\in(0,1)$ so small that

(2.2) $$(2\delta)^{\alpha}M_{\mu}\leqslant\frac{\kappa}{2}.$$

For $e\in{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}$, set

$$E(e):=\{\theta\in{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}:|e\cdot\theta|\geqslant 2\delta\}.$$

By (A) and (2.2), we have

$$\kappa\leqslant\int_{{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}}|e\cdot\theta|^{\alpha}\,\mu(\text{\rm{d}}\theta)\leqslant(2\delta)^{\alpha}M_{\mu}+\mu(E(e))\leqslant\frac{\kappa}{2}+\mu(E(e)),$$

which yields that

(2.3) $$\mu(E(e))\geqslant\frac{\kappa}{2},\quad e\in{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}.$$

Choose finitely many points $e_{m}\in{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}$, $1\leqslant m\leqslant N$, and smooth real-valued even functions $q_{m}$, $1\leqslant m\leqslant N$, on ${\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}$ such that

$$\bigcup_{m=1}^{N}E(e_{m})={\mathbb{S}}^{d-1};\quad\sum_{m=1}^{N}q_{m}(\omega)=1,\quad\omega\in{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1};$$

and

$$\operatorname{supp}q_{m}\subset\{\omega\in{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}:\operatorname{dist}(\omega,\pm e_{m})<\delta\}.$$

Then, for every $\omega\in\operatorname{supp}q_{m}$ and $\theta\in E(e_{m})$,

(2.4) $$|\omega\cdot\theta|\geqslant\delta.$$

Recall that $(\dot{\Delta}_{j})_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is the standard Littlewood–Paley family with

(2.5) $$\operatorname{supp}\widehat{\dot{\Delta}_{j}h}\subset\{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d}:c_{0}2^{j}\leqslant|\xi|\leqslant C_{0}2^{j}\},\quad j\in{\mathbb{Z}}.$$

Extend $q_{m}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^{d}\setminus\{0\}$ homogeneously of degree zero, and define the conic dyadic projectors

$$P_{j,m}h:=q_{m}(D)\dot{\Delta}_{j}h.$$

Since the $q_{m}$ are real and even, $P_{j,m}$ maps real-valued functions to real-valued functions. Moreover,

(2.6) $$\dot{\Delta}_{j}h=\sum_{m=1}^{N}P_{j,m}h.$$

Figure 1 illustrates the conic dyadic decomposition in the 2D cylindrical case.

Figure 1. The black dots show the four directions in $\operatorname{supp}\mu=\{\pm\varepsilon_{1},\pm\varepsilon_{2}\}$. Let $A_{j}:=\{\xi:c_{0}2^{j}\leqslant|\xi|\leqslant C_{0}2^{j}\}$. For each $m$, the colored arrow in the central disk indicates the representative direction $e_{m}$, while the two opposite sectors with the same color and hatching show $A_{j}\cap\{\xi:\xi/|\xi|\in\operatorname{supp}q_{m}\}$. The Fourier support of $P_{j,m}h$ is contained in this set. Neighboring sectors overlap because the $q_{m}$ form a smooth partition of unity. The two sectors are centered at $\pm e_{m}$ and are opposite because $q_{m}$ is even.

The following lemma is inspired by [21, Lemma 3.4] and provides an angular analogue.

Lemma 2.3 (Angular dyadic maximum principle).

Let $w\in{\mathscr{S}}^{\prime}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$ and $v=P_{j,m}w$. Suppose $v$ attains a positive maximum at $x_{0}$, namely

$$v(x_{0})=\|v\|_{L^{\infty}}>0.$$

Then

$$-Lv(x_{0})\geqslant c2^{\alpha j}v(x_{0}),$$

where $c>0$ depends only on $d,\alpha,\kappa,M_{\mu}$ and on the fixed cutoffs.

Proof.

For the stable operator $L$ defined above,

$$-L\varphi(x):=\int_{{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}}\int_{0}^{\infty}\left[\varphi(x)-\varphi(x+r\theta)\right]\frac{\text{\rm{d}}r}{r^{1+\alpha}}\,\mu(\text{\rm{d}}\theta).$$

At the maximum point $x_{0}$, $\nabla v(x_{0})=0$. Fix $\theta\in E(e_{m})$ and set

$$g_{\theta}(r):=v(x_{0}+r\theta).$$

By Lemma 2.2, the one-dimensional Fourier support of $g_{\theta}$ is contained in the projection of $\operatorname{supp}\widehat{v}$ onto the line spanned by $\theta$. Using (2.4) and (2.5), we get

$$\operatorname{supp}\widehat{g_{\theta}}\subset\{\eta\in{\mathbb{R}}:a2^{j}\leqslant|\eta|\leqslant A2^{j}\},$$

where $a=c_{0}\delta$ and $A=C_{0}$ are independent of $j,m$ and $\theta$. Since $x_{0}$ is a global maximum of $v$,

$$g_{\theta}(0)=v(x_{0})=\|v\|_{L^{\infty}}.$$

By Lemma 2.1,

(2.7) $$\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{v(x_{0})-v(x_{0}+r\theta)}{r^{1+\alpha}}\,\text{\rm{d}}r\geqslant c2^{\alpha j}v(x_{0}),\quad\theta\in E(e_{m}).$$

Since $x_{0}$ is a maximum point, the integrand $v(x_{0})-v(x_{0}+r\theta)$ is non-negative for all $r>0$ and $\theta\in{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}$. Hence, integrating (2.7) over $E(e_{m})$ and using (2.3), we obtain

$$-Lv(x_{0})\geqslant\int_{E(e_{m})}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{v(x_{0})-v(x_{0}+r\theta)}{r^{1+\alpha}}\,\text{\rm{d}}r\,\mu(\text{\rm{d}}\theta)\geqslant c2^{\alpha j}v(x_{0}).$$

This proves the lemma. ∎

3. Proof of Theorem 1.1

Proof.

Apply $P_{j,m}$ to (1.1). Let

$$v=P_{j,m}u,\quad G_{j,m}:=P_{j,m}h-[b\cdot\nabla,P_{j,m}]u.$$

Since $(-L)$ commutes with $P_{j,m}$, then

(3.1) $$\partial_{t}v+\lambda v-Lv-b\cdot\nabla v=G_{j,m}$$

with initial condition $v(0,\cdot)=P_{j,m}f$.

We first claim that for every $j\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ and $1\leqslant m\leqslant N$,

(3.2) $$\|P_{j,m}u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}\leqslant\|P_{j,m}f\|_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}+(\lambda+c2^{\alpha j})^{-1}\|G_{j,m}\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}.$$

In fact, assume first that $v$ attains a positive space-time maximum at $(t_{0},x_{0})$. If this maximum is no larger than $\|P_{j,m}f\|_{L^{\infty}}$, it is already controlled by the initial datum. Otherwise $t_{0}>0$. At such a maximum point, using the one-sided time derivative if $t_{0}=T$,

$$\partial_{t}v(t_{0},x_{0})\geqslant 0,\quad\nabla v(t_{0},x_{0})=0.$$

By Lemma 2.3,

$$(-L)v(t_{0},x_{0})\geqslant c2^{\alpha j}v(t_{0},x_{0}).$$

Evaluating (3.1) at $(t_{0},x_{0})$ yields

$$(\lambda+c2^{\alpha j})v(t_{0},x_{0})\leqslant\|G_{j,m}\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}.$$

Applying the same argument to $-v$ at a negative minimum gives (3.2).

If maxima or minima are not attained, one can use standard cut-off argument, as presented in the proof of [13, Theorem 3.6], to obtain the same estimate.

Now let $K_{j,m}$ denote the convolution kernel of $P_{j,m}$. It is not hard to verify that

(3.3) $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}K_{j,m}(y)\,\text{\rm{d}}y=0, \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}yK_{j,m}(y)\,\text{\rm{d}}y=0,$$

$$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}|y|^{\beta}|K_{j,m}(y)|\,\text{\rm{d}}y\leqslant C2^{-\beta j}, \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}|y|^{s}|K_{j,m}(y)|\,\text{\rm{d}}y\leqslant C2^{-sj}.$$

Noting that

$$P_{j,m}f(x)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}K_{j,m}(y)\bigl(f(x-y)-f(x)+y\cdot\nabla f(x)\bigr)\,\text{\rm{d}}y,$$

we have

(3.4) $$\|P_{j,m}f\|_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}\leqslant C2^{-sj}[f]_{\dot{C}^{s}}.$$

Similarly,

$$P_{j,m}h(t,x)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}K_{j,m}(y)\bigl(h(t,x-y)-h(t,x)\bigr)\,\text{\rm{d}}y$$

gives

(3.5) $$\|P_{j,m}h\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}\leqslant C2^{-\beta j}[h]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}.$$

For the commutator, we write

$$u(t,x) =b(t,x)\cdot\nabla P_{j,m}u(t,x)-P_{j,m}\bigl(b(t,\cdot)\cdot\nabla u(t,\cdot)\bigr)(x)$$

$$=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}K_{j,m}(y)\bigl(b(t,x)-b(t,x-y)\bigr)\cdot\nabla u(t,x-y)\,\text{\rm{d}}y.$$

Again using (3.3), we obtain

(3.6) $$\|[b\cdot\nabla,P_{j,m}]u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}\leqslant C2^{-\beta j}[b]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}\|\nabla u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}.$$

Combining (3.2), (3.4), (3.5) and (3.6), and using $\lambda+c2^{\alpha j}\geqslant c2^{\alpha j}$, gives

$$\|P_{j,m}u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}\leqslant C2^{-(\alpha+\beta)j}\left([f]_{\dot{C}^{s}}+[h]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}+[b]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}\|\nabla u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}\right).$$

By (2.6),

$$\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}\leqslant C2^{-sj}\left(\|f\|_{C^{s}}+[h]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}+[b]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}\|\nabla u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}\right).$$

Taking the supremum over $j\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ and using the Littlewood–Paley characterization of $\dot{C}^{s}$ for $s\in(1,2)$, we get

$$[u]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{s}}\leqslant C\left([f]_{\dot{C}^{s}}+[h]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}+[b]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}\|\nabla u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}\right).$$

This proves (1.3).

On the other hand, we also have the parabolic maximum principle

(3.7) $$\|u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}\leqslant\|f\|_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}+\lambda^{-1}\|h\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}.$$

In fact, if a positive space-time maximum of $u$ is attained at $t=0$, it is bounded by $\|f\|_{L^{\infty}}$. Otherwise, at the maximum point,

$$\partial_{t}u\geqslant 0,\quad\nabla u=0,\quad(-L)u\geqslant 0.$$

Hence $\lambda u\leqslant h$ at that point. Applying the same argument to $-u$ gives the lower bound.

Since $s\in(1,2)$, the interpolation inequality

(3.8) $$\|\nabla u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}\leqslant\varepsilon[u]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{s}}+C\varepsilon^{-1/(s-1)}\|u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}$$

holds for every $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$.

Substituting (3.7) and (3.8) into (1.3) gives

$${}_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{s}} \leqslant C[f]_{\dot{C}^{s}}+C[h]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}+C\varepsilon[b]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}[u]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{s}}$$

$$\quad+C\varepsilon^{-1/(s-1)}[b]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}\lambda^{-1}\|h\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{\infty}_{x}}+C\varepsilon^{-1/(s-1)}[b]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}\|f\|_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}.$$

Choose $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, so that

$$C\varepsilon[b]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}\leqslant\frac{1}{2}.$$

Then

$$[u]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{s}}\leqslant C\left(1+[b]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}^{s/(s-1)}\right)\|f\|_{C^{s}}+C\left(1+\lambda^{-1}[b]_{L_{T}^{\infty}\dot{C}_{x}^{\beta}}^{s/(s-1)}\right)\|h\|_{L_{T}^{\infty}C_{x}^{\beta}}.$$

Combining this and (3.7) gives (1.4). The proof is complete. ∎