Interior estimates for Hessian quotient equations

Abstract

We prove interior Hessian estimates in arbitrary dimensions for admissible solutions of Hessian quotient equations with constant right-hand side, when the numerator and denominator differ in degree by one or two. Counterexamples show that this degree range is optimal. The proof combines a new nonlinear comparison function, a doubling maximum principle, and a Pogorelov estimate.

1 Introduction

Let $\sigma_{j}$ denote the unnormalized elementary symmetric polynomial, with $\sigma_{0}=1$, and let

$$\Gamma_{k}=\{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^{n}:\sigma_{j}(\lambda)>0,\ 1\leq j\leq k\}.$$

We use the same notation for the corresponding cone of real symmetric matrices. We consider the constant Hessian quotient equations

$$\frac{\sigma_{k}(D^{2}u)}{\sigma_{l}(D^{2}u)}=1,\qquad D^{2}u\in\Gamma_{k},\qquad 0\leq l<k\leq n.$$ (1.1)

The case $l=0$ is the $k$-Hessian equation. The operator $(\sigma_{k}/\sigma_{l})^{1/(k-l)}$ is elliptic and concave on $\Gamma_{k}$.

For the $k$-Hessian equations, interior Hessian estimates hold for $k=1$ by linear theory and for $k=2$ in every dimension. The two-dimensional case goes back to the pioneering work of E. Heinz [13] on the Monge–Ampère equation. In higher dimensions, the result was established in dimension three by Warren–Yuan [33] and Qiu [27], in dimension four by Shankar–Yuan [29] and Fan [8], and in arbitrary dimensions by Li–Wu [15]. For $k\geq 3$, the counterexamples of Pogorelov and Urbas [23, 31] show that such estimates fail in general, even for convex solutions with constant right-hand side.

For Hessian quotients, the constant equation $\sigma_{2}/\sigma_{1}=1$ follows in every dimension from the quadratic Hessian estimate by a scalar Hessian translation. Interior Hessian estimates for admissible solutions of $\sigma_{3}/\sigma_{1}=1$ in dimensions three and four follow from the work of Wang and Yuan [32]. Interior estimates have been obtained under convexity by Lu [18, 19], Lu and Tsai [16], and Li and Wu [14], and under semiconvexity by Mei and Yan [20] and Dong and Zhang [7]. For degree gaps at least three, Lu [19] constructed singular convex solutions with smooth positive right-hand sides. These results leave the following question for general adjacent and gap-two quotients: does an interior Hessian estimate hold in every dimension under natural admissibility alone? We answer this question affirmatively.

Theorem 1.1.

Let $2\leq k\leq n$, $0\leq l<k$, and $k-l\in\{1,2\}$. Let $u\in C^{4}(B_{1})$ satisfy

$$D^{2}u\in\Gamma_{k},\qquad\frac{\sigma_{k}(D^{2}u)}{\sigma_{l}(D^{2}u)}=1\quad\text{in }B_{1},\qquad\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{1})}+\|Du\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{1})}\leq K.$$

Then

$$\sup_{B_{1/2}}|D^{2}u|\leq C(n,k,K).$$

Remark 1.2 (Sharpness).

The degree range in Theorem 1.1 is sharp, even for convex solutions with constant right-hand side. For every $0\leq l<k\leq n$ with $k-l\geq 3$, there is a sequence of smooth convex solutions of $\sigma_{k}(D^{2}u)/\sigma_{l}(D^{2}u)=1$ on $B_{1}$, with uniformly bounded $C^{1}$ norms but unbounded Hessians on $B_{1/2}$. Such a sequence can be constructed by adapting the Dirichlet approximation and barrier argument of Urbas [31, Section 3] to the Pogorelov-type quotient profile of Lu [19, Section 7].

We briefly describe the main methods behind the interior theory.

Integral methods. The special Lagrangian estimates of Warren–Yuan, Wang–Yuan, and Chen–Warren–Yuan [34, 32, 4] combine Jacobi inequalities, geometric mean value inequalities, and integration by parts on the gradient graph. Qiu developed this approach for scalar curvature equations [26], and Qiu–Zhou [25] extended it to special Lagrangian curvature equations.

Legendre transforms and concavity inequalities. Yuan’s Lewy rotation [35] and the Legendre–Lewy method of Shankar–Yuan [28] use convexity or semiconvexity to change variables and obtain estimates for the transformed equation. Lu developed this approach for Hessian quotient equations, first proving an interior estimate for $\sigma_{3}/\sigma_{1}$ in dimension three [18], and then treating $\sigma_{n}/\sigma_{n-1}$ and $\sigma_{n}/\sigma_{n-2}$ for convex solutions in arbitrary dimensions [19]. A key contribution of the latter work is a new concavity inequality that controls the third-order terms and yields a Jacobi inequality for the logarithm of the largest Hessian eigenvalue. The Legendre transform then leads to a mean value inequality, while an induction argument controls the integrals arising from repeated integration by parts. An important structural advance was made by Guan–Sroka [11], who established a special concavity inequality for $\sigma_{n}/\sigma_{l}$, $1\leq l<n$, on the positive cone. Lu–Tsai [16] extended the Legendre and integral approach to general Hessian quotients with degree gaps one and two, reducing the convex interior estimate to a suitable concavity inequality. This inequality was subsequently established for adjacent quotients by Tsai [30] and for both degree gaps by Li–Wu [14]. For semiconvex admissible solutions, Dong–Zhang [7] proved a quantitative concavity inequality using a lifting argument and a decomposition into tangential and radial directions. This verifies the structural condition needed in the Lu–Tsai framework under semiconvexity and, together with a Lewy–Legendre transform and integral estimates, yields the corresponding interior Hessian bounds. Legendre duality also plays a central role in the Pogorelov estimates of Lu–Tsai [17].

Doubling inequalities and compactness arguments. A doubling maximum principle from the first author’s paper [27] propagates a Hessian bound from a small ball to a larger one. Shankar–Yuan [29] combine doubling with a compactness argument by contradiction: almost-everywhere second differentiability of the limit and Savin’s small perturbation theorem imply a uniform Hessian bound for the approximating sequence on one small ball. Doubling propagates this bound to contradict Hessian blow-up. Fan adapted this approach to variable right-hand sides. Fung [9] obtained convex quotient estimates by a pointwise doubling argument without Legendre transforms or integral estimates.

Maximum principles and comparison functions. Guan–Qiu [10, Theorem 4 and Eq. (20)] established an interior maximum-principle estimate for the $\sigma_{2}$-Hessian equation. Their proof introduced $x\cdot Du-u$ as an auxiliary function in the maximum-principle approach to these interior estimates. This function subsequently became a key ingredient in the first author’s doubling maximum principle [27] and its later developments. The Pogorelov estimate of Chou–Wang [5] uses a comparison function as a cutoff. Mooney [22] proposed constructing such a comparison function from a linearized Dirichlet problem, while Li–Wu used a nonlinear Dirichlet comparison in their proof of the quadratic Hessian estimate. Qiu–Yan [24] combined a two-surface comparison with a doubling argument for the graphical scalar-curvature equation.

Our proof for $l=k-1$ has three steps. Write $F=\sigma_{k}/\sigma_{k-1}$.

1. A new nonlinear comparison function. The natural extension of the Li–Wu comparison, $F(D^{2}v)=1/2$ with $v=u$ on the boundary, yields uniform separation but not the decaying linearized error needed for our Pogorelov estimate. Section 9 records a matrix obstruction and a four-dimensional failure of the comparison-gap estimate when only the diameter and $C^{1}$ data are controlled. We instead solve

$$\begin{cases}\sigma_{k}(D^{2}v)-\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}v)=-\varepsilon&\text{in }B_{7/8},\\ v=u&\text{on }\partial B_{7/8},\end{cases}\qquad D^{2}v-\tau I\in\Gamma_{k},$$

where $\tau=1/[2(n-k+1)]$ and $\varepsilon>0$ is fixed and sufficiently small. We choose this equation because, at the original solution $u$, the linearization of $\sigma_{k}-\sigma_{k-1}$ is $\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}u)$ times that of $F$. This suggests a linearized comparison error of order $\varepsilon/\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}u)$. Inspired by Guan–Zhang’s treatment of mixed Hessian equations [12, Example 2.1 and Proposition 2.2], we use a scalar Hessian translation to obtain a concave elliptic formulation on a suitable admissible branch. The Dirichlet theorem of Caffarelli–Nirenberg–Spruck [2, Theorem $2^{\prime}$] then provides the comparison solution. The key estimate is

$$F^{ij}(D^{2}u)(v-u)_{ij}\geq-\frac{k\varepsilon}{\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}u)}.$$

A second reason for this choice is that the linearization is a combination of divergence-free Newton tensors. This structure is essential for the subsequent integration-by-parts argument, which yields a quantitative lower bound for $v-u$ in a small ball.

2. Uniform separation. Two integrations by parts using the Newton tensors, together with an interior gradient bound, imply a fixed positive gap on a small ball. A doubling maximum principle from [27] propagates this gap to $B_{1/2}$.

3. A Pogorelov estimate. We use a positive level of $v-u$ as a cutoff. Ordinary concavity leads to a directional Jacobi-type inequality for $\log\lambda_{1}$; its unfavorable terms are absorbed by the gradient-square term in the test function. The decaying comparison error and $\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}u)\geq c(n,k)\lambda_{1}$ close the estimate. For $l=k-2$, adding the quadratic term $t^{2}/2$ in a new variable reduces the equation to the adjacent case in dimension $n+1$.

Section 2 collects the algebraic estimates. Sections 3–5 construct the comparison solution and prove its gradient bound and uniform separation. Sections 6–7 establish the directional Jacobi-type inequality and complete the adjacent interior estimate. Section 8 treats the gap-two Hessian equation, and Section 9 records the counterexamples.

2 Preliminaries

Throughout Sections 2–7, we assume ${l}=k-1$. Write

$$F(A)=\frac{\sigma_{k}(A)}{\sigma_{k-1}(A)},\qquad G(A)=\sigma_{k}(A)-\sigma_{k-1}(A).$$

On $\Gamma_{k}$, $F$ is positive and homogeneous of degree one. It is elliptic and concave; see, e.g., [2]. Derivatives with respect to matrix entries are denoted by $F^{ij}$ and $G^{ij}$. We use the standard Newton–Maclaurin and Gårding inequalities throughout. Constants denoted by $c,C>0$ may change from line to line, with their dependencies indicated.

We first collect some basic estimates used in the comparison construction and the final maximum principle. In particular, we verify that a fixed scalar translation preserves admissibility for the solution $u$. Set

$$\tau=\frac{1}{2(n-k+1)}.$$ (2.1)

Lemma 2.1.

For $A\in\Gamma_{k}$,

$$\frac{n-k+1}{k}\leq\sum_{i}F^{ii}(A)\leq n-k+1.$$ (2.2)

If $F(A)\geq 1/2$, then, in an eigenbasis of $A$, for each $i=1,\ldots,n$,

$$F^{ii}(A)(1+|\lambda_{i}|)^{2}\geq c(n,k),\qquad\lambda_{i}\leq 0\ \Longrightarrow\ F^{ii}(A)\geq c(n,k).$$ (2.3)

If $F(A)=1$, the following properties hold:

1. $$\sigma_{k-1}(A)\geq c(n,k)\tr A.$$ (2.4)

2. $$\sum_{i}F^{ii}(A)\lambda_{i}^{2}\geq\frac{1}{n-k+1}.$$ (2.5)

3. $$A-\tau I\in\Gamma_{k}.$$ (2.6)

Proof.

Newton’s inequality yields

$$\sum_{i}F^{ii}(A)=(n-k+1)-(n-k+2)\frac{\sigma_{k}(A)\sigma_{k-2}(A)}{\sigma_{k-1}(A)^{2}}\in\left[\frac{n-k+1}{k},\,n-k+1\right],$$

which proves (2.2).

Compute in an eigenbasis of $A$ and fix $i$. Since $\lambda|i\in\Gamma_{k-1}$, both $\sigma_{k-1}(\lambda|i)$ and $\sigma_{k-2}(\lambda|i)$ are positive. Newton’s inequality in dimension $n-1$ yields

$$F^{ii}(A)=\frac{\sigma_{k-1}(\lambda|i)^{2}-\sigma_{k-2}(\lambda|i)\sigma_{k}(\lambda|i)}{\sigma_{k-1}(A)^{2}}\geq\frac{n}{k(n-k+1)}\left(\frac{\sigma_{k-1}(\lambda|i)}{\sigma_{k-1}(A)}\right)^{2}.$$ (2.7)

Moreover,

$$\sigma_{k-1}(\lambda|i)-F(A)\sigma_{k-2}(\lambda|i)=\sigma_{k-1}(A)F^{ii}(A)>0.$$

Thus, if $F(A)\geq 1/2$ and $\lambda_{i}\geq 0$,

$$\frac{\sigma_{k-1}(\lambda|i)}{\sigma_{k-1}(A)}=\left(1+\lambda_{i}\frac{\sigma_{k-2}(\lambda|i)}{\sigma_{k-1}(\lambda|i)}\right)^{-1}\geq\frac{1}{1+2\lambda_{i}}.$$

If $\lambda_{i}\leq 0$, the same ratio is at least one. Together with (2.7), this proves (2.3).

We also prove an inequality which will be used later. Newton-Maclaurin’s inequality implies

$$\sigma_{k-1}(\lambda|i)^{k-2}\leq C(n,k)\sigma_{k-2}(\lambda|i)^{k-1}.$$

Consequently,

$$\frac{\sigma_{k-1}(\lambda|i)^{2}}{\sigma_{k-2}(\lambda|i)}\geq c(n,k)\left(\frac{\sigma_{k-1}(\lambda|i)}{\sigma_{k-2}(\lambda|i)}\right)^{k}\geq c(n,k)F(A)^{k}.$$ (2.8)

We now assume $F(A)=1$ and prove (i)–(iii). Newton-Maclaurin’s inequality again yields

$$\frac{\sigma_{j}(A)}{\sigma_{j-1}(A)}\geq\frac{k(n-j+1)}{j(n-k+1)}F(A),\qquad 1\leq j<k.$$ (2.9)

Multiplying over $2\leq j\leq k-1$ proves (2.4).

By the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality and (2.2), we have

$$\sum_{i}F^{ii}(A)\lambda_{i}^{2}\geq\frac{\bigl(\sum_{i}F^{ii}(A)\lambda_{i}\bigr)^{2}}{\sum_{i}F^{ii}(A)}=\frac{1}{\sum_{i}F^{ii}(A)}\geq\frac{1}{n-k+1},$$

which proves (2.5).

Finally, along the admissible part of the path $A-tI$, (2.2) implies

$$\frac{d}{dt}F(A-tI)=-\sum_{i}F^{ii}(A-tI)\geq-(n-k+1).$$

Thus

$$F(A-tI)\geq 1-(n-k+1)t\geq\frac{1}{2}\qquad(0\leq t\leq\tau).$$

The Newton–Maclaurin inequality shows $F\leq C(n,k)\sigma_{k}^{1/k}$ on $\Gamma_{k}$. Thus $F$ tends to zero at every finite boundary point of $\Gamma_{k}$. The path cannot leave the cone while $F\geq 1/2$, proving (2.6). ∎

3 A concave Dirichlet comparison

We construct the comparison solution and prove the two linearized inequalities used below. Only the shifted operator associated with $\sigma_{k}-\sigma_{k-1}=-\varepsilon$ is needed.

Fix $\tau$ as in (2.1), and for $0\leq j\leq k-1$, set

$$\alpha_{j}=\binom{n-j}{k-1-j}\tau^{k-1-j}\left(1-\frac{(n-k+1)\tau}{k-j}\right)>0.$$ (3.1)

In particular, $\alpha_{k-1}=1/2$. The identity

$$\sigma_{l}(B+\tau I)=\sum_{j=0}^{l}\binom{n-j}{{l}-j}\tau^{{l}-j}\sigma_{j}(B)$$

shows

$$G(B+\tau I)=\sigma_{k}(B)-\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\alpha_{j}\sigma_{j}(B).$$ (3.2)

For $0<\varepsilon<\alpha_{0}/2$, define $\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}$ on $\Gamma_{k}$ by

$$\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}(B)=\frac{\sigma_{k}(B)}{\sigma_{k-1}(B)}-\sum_{j=1}^{k-2}\alpha_{j}\frac{\sigma_{j}(B)}{\sigma_{k-1}(B)}-\frac{\alpha_{0}-\varepsilon}{\sigma_{k-1}(B)}.$$ (3.3)

Equivalently,

$$\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}(B)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{G(B+\tau I)+\varepsilon}{\sigma_{k-1}(B)}.$$ (3.4)

For $0\leq j\leq k-2$, $(\sigma_{k-1}/\sigma_{j})^{1/(k-1-j)}$ is positive, concave, and elliptic. For $m=k-1-j$, the scalar function $s\mapsto-s^{-m}$ is increasing and concave on $(0,\infty)$. Composition with the corresponding degree-one quotient is therefore concave and increasing in positive matrix directions. Thus $\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}$ is concave and elliptic on $\Gamma_{k}$. This operator belongs to the class considered in [12, Proposition 2.2]; the argument above gives the properties needed here directly.

Proposition 3.1.

There is a fixed $\varepsilon=\varepsilon(n,k)>0$ and a smooth solution $v$ on $\overline{B}_{7/8}$ of

$$\begin{cases}\sigma_{k}(D^{2}v)-\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}v)=-\varepsilon&\text{in }B_{7/8},\\ v=u&\text{on }\partial B_{7/8},\end{cases}\qquad D^{2}v-\tau I\in\Gamma_{k}.$$ (3.5)

It satisfies $u<v\leq\max_{\partial B_{7/8}}u$. Write

$$L_{u}f=F^{ij}(D^{2}u)f_{ij},\qquad a^{ij}=\frac{G^{ij}(D^{2}v)}{\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}v)},\qquad L_{v}f=a^{ij}f_{ij}.$$

Then

$$L_{u}(v-u) \geq-\frac{k\varepsilon}{\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}u)},$$ (3.6)

$$L_{v}(v-u) <0.$$ (3.7)

Moreover, in a principal basis for $D^{2}v$,

$$c(n,k)\leq\sum_{i}a^{ii}\leq C(n,k),\qquad a^{ii}(1+|v_{ii}|)^{2}\geq c(n,k),$$ (3.8)

$$v_{ii}\leq 0\ \Longrightarrow\ a^{ii}\geq c(n,k),\qquad\frac{1}{2}\leq L_{v}v\leq 1,\qquad L_{v}v_{l}=0.$$ (3.9)

Proof.

The operator $\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}$ is smooth, symmetric, elliptic, and concave on $\Gamma_{k}$. Since $\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}\leq F$, at each finite boundary point we have

$$\limsup_{B\to\partial\Gamma_{k}}\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}(B)\leq 0<\frac{1}{2}.$$

Moreover, homogeneity of its terms leads to

$$\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}(tB)=tF(B)+O(t^{-1})\longrightarrow+\infty\qquad\text{as }t\to\infty,$$

uniformly on compact subsets of $\Gamma_{k}$. The ball satisfies the boundary cone condition. Thus [2, Theorem $2^{\prime}$], applied to $v-\tau|x|^{2}/2$ with boundary value $u-\tau|x|^{2}/2$, yields a smooth admissible solution of (3.5). Here $u$ is smooth near $\overline{B}_{7/8}$ by local ellipticity and bootstrapping. The existence theorem may use higher norms of $u$; its quantitative bounds are not used below.

By (2.6), $u-\tau|x|^{2}/2$ is admissible, and

$$\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}(D^{2}u-\tau I)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\varepsilon}{\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}u-\tau I)}>\frac{1}{2}.$$

The comparison principle shows $v>u$. Since $D^{2}v\in\Gamma_{k}$, subharmonicity implies $v\leq\max_{\partial B_{7/8}}u$, hence $|v|\leq K$.

We next derive the two linearized comparison inequalities. For this calculation, write $A=D^{2}u$ and $B=D^{2}v$. Since $G(A)=0$, we have $G^{ij}(A)=\sigma_{k-1}(A)F^{ij}(A)$. Concavity of $\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}$ at $A-\tau I$, together with (3.4), leads to

$$\sigma_{k-1}(A)L_{u}(v-u) \geq-\varepsilon+\varepsilon\frac{\sigma_{k-1}^{ij}(A-\tau I)(B-A)_{ij}}{\sigma_{k-1}(A-\tau I)}\geq-k\varepsilon.$$ (3.10)

The last inequality follows from $A-\tau I,B-\tau I\in\Gamma_{k}$, Gårding’s inequality, and homogeneity:

$$\sigma_{k-1}^{ij}(A-\tau I)(B-\tau I)_{ij}>0,\qquad\sigma_{k-1}^{ij}(A-\tau I)(A-\tau I)_{ij}=(k-1)\sigma_{k-1}(A-\tau I).$$

This proves (3.6).

At $B-\tau I$ the numerator $G(B)+\varepsilon$ vanishes. Concavity at this point yields

$$\frac{\varepsilon}{\sigma_{k-1}(A-\tau I)}\leq\frac{G^{ij}(B)(A-B)_{ij}}{\sigma_{k-1}(B-\tau I)}.$$

Consequently,

$$L_{v}(v-u)=\frac{G^{ij}(B)(B-A)_{ij}}{\sigma_{k-1}(B)}\leq-\frac{\varepsilon\,\sigma_{k-1}(B-\tau I)}{\sigma_{k-1}(B)\sigma_{k-1}(A-\tau I)}<0,$$

which proves (3.7).

We finally fix $\varepsilon$ and establish the coefficient bounds needed for the gradient and separation estimates. Since $D^{2}v-\tau I\in\Gamma_{k}$, we have $\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}v)\geq\binom{n}{k-1}\tau^{k-1}$. Choose

$$0<\varepsilon<\min\left\{\frac{\alpha_{0}}{2},\,\frac{1}{2k}\binom{n}{k-1}\tau^{k-1}\right\}.$$

Then

$$\frac{1}{2}\leq F(D^{2}v)=1-\frac{\varepsilon}{\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}v)}<1.$$ (3.11)

In the notation of Lemma 2.1,

$$a^{ii}=F^{ii}(D^{2}v)-\frac{\varepsilon\,\sigma_{k-2}(\lambda|i)}{\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}v)^{2}}.$$

By (2.7) and (2.8),

$$0\leq\frac{F^{ii}(D^{2}v)-a^{ii}}{F^{ii}(D^{2}v)} =\frac{\varepsilon\,\sigma_{k-2}(\lambda|i)}{\sigma_{k-1}(\lambda|i)^{2}-\sigma_{k-2}(\lambda|i)\sigma_{k}(\lambda|i)}$$

$$\leq C(n,k)\varepsilon\frac{\sigma_{k-2}(\lambda|i)}{\sigma_{k-1}(\lambda|i)^{2}}$$

$$\leq C(n,k)\varepsilon F(D^{2}v)^{-k}\leq C(n,k)\varepsilon,$$

where the last inequality uses $F(D^{2}v)\geq 1/2$. Decreasing $\varepsilon(n,k)$ if necessary, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{2}F^{ii}(D^{2}v)\leq a^{ii}\leq F^{ii}(D^{2}v).$$ (3.12)

Together with (2.2) and (2.3), this proves (3.8).

Finally, homogeneity and the choice of $\varepsilon$ yield

$$L_{v}v =\frac{k\sigma_{k}(D^{2}v)-(k-1)\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}v)}{\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}v)}$$

$$=1-\frac{k\varepsilon}{\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}v)}\geq\frac{1}{2}.$$

Differentiating $G(D^{2}v)=-\varepsilon$ yields $G^{ij}(D^{2}v)v_{ij{l}}=0$, and hence $L_{v}v_{l}=0$. ∎

4 Interior gradient and boundary localization

Interior gradient estimates for Hessian quotient equations were studied in [3]. The following proof for our comparison equation uses only the coefficient bounds in Proposition 3.1 and the height bound for $v$. We include its proof because the boundary gradient estimates in the Dirichlet existence theory do not give the required dependence on the lower-order data. We also record a boundary modulus for $v-u$.

Lemma 4.1.

Let $v$ be the solution in Proposition 3.1. Then for every $B_{R}(x_{0})\Subset B_{7/8}$,

$$\sup_{B_{R/2}(x_{0})}|Dv|\leq C(n,k,K,R).$$

There is also a bound

$$0\leq v(x)-u(x)\leq C(n,k)K\,\dist(x,\partial B_{7/8})^{1/2}.$$ (4.1)

Proof.

For the interior gradient estimate, set

$$\rho=R^{2}-|x-x_{0}|^{2},\qquad\phi(t)=-\frac{1}{8}\log(M-t),\qquad M=1+\sup_{B_{7/8}}v.$$

We have $|v|\leq K$, $\phi^{\prime\prime}=8(\phi^{\prime})^{2}$, and $\frac{1}{8(1+2K)}\leq\phi^{\prime}\leq\frac{1}{8}$.

The function $\rho|Dv|e^{\phi(v)}$ vanishes on $\partial B_{R}(x_{0})$. If its maximum is zero, the estimate is immediate. Otherwise, it has a positive interior maximum at $\bar{x}$, where we may use

$$\Psi=\log\rho+\log|Dv|+\phi(v).$$

Choose coordinates at $\bar{x}$ such that $D^{2}v(\bar{x})=\operatorname{diag}(\lambda_{1},\cdots,\lambda_{n})$. All computations below are carried out at $\bar{x}$.

The critical equation is

$$0=\frac{\rho_{i}}{\rho}+\frac{v_{l}v_{{l}i}}{|Dv|^{2}}+\phi^{\prime}v_{i}.$$

It follows that

$$\bigl(\lambda_{i}+\phi^{\prime}|Dv|^{2}\bigr)v_{i}=-\frac{|Dv|^{2}}{\rho}\rho_{i}.$$ (4.2)

Choose $i$ with $|v_{i}|\geq|Dv|/\sqrt{n}$. If $\rho|Dv|\leq 32\sqrt{n}R(1+2K)$, the required bound at the maximum point already holds. Otherwise,

$$\left|\frac{\rho_{i}}{\rho v_{i}}\right|\leq\frac{2\sqrt{n}R}{\rho|Dv|}\leq\frac{\phi^{\prime}}{2},$$

and (4.2) implies

$$\lambda_{i}=-|Dv|^{2}\left(\phi^{\prime}+\frac{\rho_{i}}{\rho v_{i}}\right)\leq-\frac{\phi^{\prime}}{2}|Dv|^{2}<0.$$

By (3.9), $a^{ii}\geq c(n,k)$. Therefore

$$a^{pq}v_{p}v_{q}\geq a^{ii}v_{i}^{2}\geq c(n,k)|Dv|^{2}.$$ (4.3)

Since $L_{v}v_{l}=0$, direct differentiation shows

$$L_{v}\log|Dv|=\frac{a^{ij}v_{{l}i}v_{{l}j}}{|Dv|^{2}}-2a^{ij}(\log|Dv|)_{i}(\log|Dv|)_{j}.$$

Using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality and the critical equation, we obtain

$$-2a^{ij}(\log|Dv|)_{i}(\log|Dv|)_{j} \geq-4(\phi^{\prime})^{2}a^{ij}v_{i}v_{j}-\frac{4}{\rho^{2}}a^{ij}\rho_{i}\rho_{j}.$$

Moreover,

$$L_{v}\phi(v)=\phi^{\prime}L_{v}v+\phi^{\prime\prime}a^{ij}v_{i}v_{j}$$

and

$$L_{v}\log\rho=\frac{L_{v}\rho}{\rho}-\frac{1}{\rho^{2}}a^{ij}\rho_{i}\rho_{j}.$$

Combining the preceding estimates and (3.8), we find

$$0\geq L_{v}\Psi\geq\frac{a^{ij}v_{{l}i}v_{{l}j}}{|Dv|^{2}}+\bigl(\phi^{\prime\prime}-4(\phi^{\prime})^{2}\bigr)a^{ij}v_{i}v_{j}+\phi^{\prime}L_{v}v-\frac{C(n,k,R)}{\rho^{2}}.$$

The first term is nonnegative, while $\phi^{\prime}L_{v}v\geq 0$. Equation (4.3) therefore implies

$$0\geq c(n,k)(\phi^{\prime})^{2}|Dv|^{2}-\frac{C(n,k,R)}{\rho^{2}}.$$

Thus we conclude that

$$\rho(\bar{x})|Dv(\bar{x})|\leq C(n,k,K,R).$$

Since $1\leq M-v\leq 1+2K$, the oscillation of $\phi(v)$ is bounded by a constant depending on $K$. The maximum property therefore leads to $\rho|Dv|\leq C(n,k,K,R)$ in $B_{R}(x_{0})$. On $B_{R/2}(x_{0})$, $\rho\geq 3R^{2}/4$, proving the gradient estimate.

To estimate the decay near the boundary, we adapt the barrier argument in [24, Lemma 6.1]. Set $R_{0}=\frac{7}{8}$. For each $y\in\partial B_{R_{0}}$, define

$$w_{y}(x)=u(y)+K\sqrt{2(R_{0}^{2}-x\cdot y)},\qquad x\in\overline{B}_{R_{0}}.$$

On $\partial B_{R_{0}}$ we have

$$w_{y}(z)=u(y)+K|z-y|\geq u(z)=v(z).$$

The function $w_{y}$ is concave, since it is the square root of a positive affine function plus a constant. Thus $\Delta w_{y}\leq 0$. Since $v$ is subharmonic, the maximum principle shows $v\leq w_{y}$ in $B_{R_{0}}$.

Now fix $x\in B_{R_{0}}$ and set

$$d=\dist(x,\partial B_{R_{0}}).$$

Choose a nearest boundary point $y\in\partial B_{R_{0}}$. Then

$$|x-y|=d,\qquad R_{0}^{2}-x\cdot y=R_{0}d.$$

Using the Lipschitz bound for $u$, we obtain

$$0\leq v(x)-u(x)\leq w_{y}(x)-u(x)\leq K\sqrt{2R_{0}d}+K|x-y|\leq CK\,d^{1/2},$$

This proves (4.1). ∎

5 Uniform separation

We first obtain a quantitative lower bound for the gap on a small interior ball. The argument uses the divergence-free Newton tensors and two integrations by parts. We then propagate this bound by a single maximum-principle argument.

Lemma 5.1.

There are $\delta>0$, $0<r\leq 1/8$, depending only on $n,k,K$, and $y_{0}\in\overline{B}_{1/8}$ such that

$$v-u\geq\delta\quad\hbox{in }B_{r}(y_{0}).$$

Proof.

Write $w=v-u$ and $f_{t}=(1-t)u+tv$. For a fixed nonzero nonnegative cutoff $\zeta\in C_{c}^{\infty}(B_{1/8})$, the divergence-free Newton tensors and two integrations by parts imply

$$\varepsilon\int\zeta =-\int_{0}^{1}\int w\bigl(\sigma_{k}^{ij}(D^{2}f_{t})-\sigma_{k-1}^{ij}(D^{2}f_{t})\bigr)\zeta_{ij}\,dt$$ (5.1)

$$\leq C(n)\sup_{B_{1/8}}w\int_{0}^{1}\int_{B_{1/8}}\bigl(\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}f_{t})+\sigma_{k-2}(D^{2}f_{t})\bigr)\,dt.$$

Here $D^{2}f_{t}\in\Gamma_{k}$ by convexity of the cone, so both Newton tensors are positive definite.

To bound the last integral, we show that if $D^{2}f\in\Gamma_{k}$ on $B_{1/2}$ and $|Df|\leq C$, then

$$\int_{B_{1/4}}\sigma_{j}(D^{2}f)\leq C(n,k,C),\qquad 1\leq j\leq k-1.$$ (5.2)

For a nonnegative cutoff $\chi$, it follows from the divergence-free property that

$$j\int\chi\,\sigma_{j}(D^{2}f)=-\int\chi_{a}\sigma_{j}^{ab}(D^{2}f)f_{b}.$$

The matrix $(\sigma_{j}^{ab})$ is positive definite and has trace $(n-j+1)\sigma_{j-1}$. Hence

$$j\int\chi\,\sigma_{j}(D^{2}f)\leq(n-j+1)\|D\chi\|_{\infty}\|Df\|_{\infty}\int_{\operatorname{supp}D\chi}\sigma_{j-1}(D^{2}f).$$

Choose nested cutoffs between $B_{1/4}$ and $B_{1/2}$ and iterate until $j=0$. This proves (5.2).

Apply this bound to $f_{t}$, whose gradients are uniformly bounded on $B_{1/2}$ by Lemma 4.1. The term $\sigma_{0}=1$ causes no difficulty when $k=2$. Thus the double integral in (5.1) is bounded by $C(n,k,K)$. Since $\varepsilon$ was fixed using only $n,k$, this implies $w(y_{0})\geq c(n,k,K)>0$ at some $y_{0}\in\overline{B}_{1/8}$. The uniform gradient bound for $w$ on $B_{1/2}$ now implies $w\geq\delta$ on $B_{r}(y_{0})$ for some $\delta,r>0$ depending only on $n,k,K$, with $r\leq 1/8$. ∎

We now combine this local lower bound with the gradient estimate and the linearized comparison inequality to obtain uniform separation throughout the target ball.

Proposition 5.2.

There is $\delta_{0}=\delta_{0}(n,k,K)>0$ such that

$$v-u\geq\delta_{0}\quad\hbox{in }B_{1/2}.$$

Proof.

Let $y_{0},r,\delta$ be given by Lemma 5.1, and choose $K_{1}=C(n,k,K)\geq 1$ so that $|Dv|\leq K_{1}$ in $B_{13/16}$. Set

$$w=v-u,\qquad b=\log\frac{\delta}{w},\qquad z=y-y_{0},\qquad\rho=\frac{4}{9}-|z|^{2},\qquad\beta=\frac{C_{0}(n,k)}{r^{2}},$$

where $C_{0}(n,k)\geq 1$ will be fixed below, and define

$$g(t)=-\frac{1}{2\beta}\log\left(1+\frac{t}{12(1+K_{1})}\right).$$ (5.3)

Since $|z\cdot Dv-v+v(y_{0})|\leq 4K_{1}/3$ in $B_{2/3}(y_{0})$, we have

$$|g|\leq 1,\qquad 0<-g^{\prime}\leq 1,\qquad\frac{1}{|g^{\prime}|}\leq C\beta(1+K_{1}),\qquad g^{\prime\prime}=2\beta(g^{\prime})^{2}.$$ (5.4)

Following the doubling construction in [27, p. 584, equation (2.15)], consider

$$\mathcal{Q}=2\log\rho+g\bigl(z\cdot Dv-v+v(y_{0})\bigr)+\log\max\{b,\log 20\}$$ (5.5)

in $B_{2/3}(y_{0})\Subset B_{13/16}$.

Since $w>0$ on $\overline{B_{2/3}(y_{0})}$ and $\rho$ vanishes on its boundary, $\mathcal{Q}$ attains its maximum at an interior point $\bar{y}$. If $b(\bar{y})\leq\log 20$, then $e^{\mathcal{Q}(\bar{y})}\leq C$, and the conclusion follows from the maximum property. We may therefore assume that $b(\bar{y})>\log 20>2$. Since $b\leq 0$ on $\overline{B_{r}(y_{0})}$, we have $|\bar{y}-y_{0}|>r$.

All subsequent calculations are made at $\bar{y}$, in orthonormal coordinates in which $D^{2}v$ and $a^{ij}$ are diagonal. The first derivative condition yields

$$0=-\frac{4z_{i}}{\rho}+g^{\prime}z_{i}v_{ii}+\frac{b_{i}}{b},\qquad\frac{b_{i}}{b}=z_{i}\left(\frac{4}{\rho}-g^{\prime}v_{ii}\right).$$ (5.6)

By (3.7) and $L_{v}v_{l}=0$,

$$L_{v}b=-\frac{L_{v}w}{w}+\frac{a^{ij}w_{i}w_{j}}{w^{2}}\geq\sum_{i}a^{ii}b_{i}^{2},\qquad L_{v}\bigl(z\cdot Dv-v+v(y_{0})\bigr)=L_{v}v.$$

Thus, using $b>2$, (3.8), (3.9), and (5.4), we obtain

$$0\geq L_{v}\mathcal{Q}={} -\frac{4}{\rho}\sum_{i}a^{ii}-\frac{8}{\rho^{2}}\sum_{i}a^{ii}z_{i}^{2}+g^{\prime}L_{v}v+g^{\prime\prime}\sum_{i}a^{ii}z_{i}^{2}v_{ii}^{2}+\frac{L_{v}b}{b}-\frac{1}{b^{2}}\sum_{i}a^{ii}b_{i}^{2}$$ (5.7)

$$\geq{} -\frac{C(n,k)}{\rho^{2}}+2\beta(g^{\prime})^{2}\sum_{i}a^{ii}z_{i}^{2}v_{ii}^{2}+\frac{b}{2}\sum_{i}a^{ii}z_{i}^{2}\left(\frac{4}{\rho}-g^{\prime}v_{ii}\right)^{2}.$$

The constant $C(n,k)$ is independent of $C_{0}$.

Choose $j$ such that $|z_{j}|\geq r/\sqrt{n}$. If $v_{jj}<-2/(\rho|g^{\prime}|)$, then $a^{jj}\geq c(n,k)$ by (3.9). Keeping the $j$-th contribution in the term containing $\beta$ in (5.7) would imply that

$$0\geq\frac{-C(n,k)+c(n,k)\beta r^{2}}{\rho^{2}},$$

which is impossible once $C_{0}$ is fixed sufficiently large. Thus $v_{jj}\geq-2/(\rho|g^{\prime}|)$. Since $g^{\prime}<0$, $|g^{\prime}|\leq 1$, and $0<\rho<1$, it follows that

$$\frac{4}{\rho}-g^{\prime}v_{jj}\geq|g^{\prime}|\bigl(1+\max\{v_{jj},0\}\bigr).$$

By (3.8) and (3.9), $a^{jj}(1+\max\{v_{jj},0\})^{2}\geq c(n,k)$. The last sum in (5.7) therefore yields

$$0\geq-\frac{C(n,k)}{\rho^{2}}+c(n,k)b(g^{\prime})^{2}r^{2}.$$

It follows from (5.4) that

$$b(\bar{y})\rho(\bar{y})^{2}\leq\frac{C(n,k)}{r^{2}(g^{\prime})^{2}}\leq\frac{C(n,k)\beta^{2}(1+K_{1})^{2}}{r^{2}}\leq\frac{C(n,k)(1+K_{1})^{2}}{r^{6}}.$$

The maximum property and $|g|\leq 1$ yield the same bound for $\rho(y)^{2}\max\{b(y),\log 20\}$. If $y\in B_{1/2}$, then

$$|y-y_{0}|\leq\frac{5}{8},\qquad\rho(y)\geq\frac{4}{9}-\frac{25}{64}=\frac{31}{576}.$$

Consequently,

$$\log\frac{\delta}{v-u}\leq\frac{C(n,k)(1+K_{1})^{2}}{r^{6}}\qquad\text{in }B_{1/2},$$

and consequently

$$v-u\geq\delta\exp\left[-\frac{C(n,k)(1+K_{1})^{2}}{r^{6}}\right]=\delta_{0}(n,k,K)>0\qquad\text{in }B_{1/2}.$$

This proves the proposition. ∎

6 A directional Jacobi-type inequality

Ordinary concavity leads to a useful directional Jacobi-type inequality for $\log\lambda_{1}$. The directions with negative coefficients have large Hessian eigenvalues in absolute value; this will allow us to control them in the Pogorelov estimate.

Lemma 6.1.

Let $b$ be a $C^{2}$ function such that

$$b\geq\log\lambda_{1}(D^{2}u)$$

near an interior point, with equality there. In a principal basis, set

$$\mathcal{I}=\{i>1:\lambda_{i}\geq-\lambda_{1}/2\}.$$ (6.1)

Then, at the contact point,

$$L_{u}b\geq\frac{1}{3}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}F^{ii}b_{i}^{2}-\sum_{i\notin\mathcal{I}}F^{ii}b_{i}^{2}.$$ (6.2)

Proof.

Choose a principal basis at the contact point, and let $m$ be the multiplicity of $\lambda_{1}>0$. All quantities below are evaluated at this point. Since $e^{b}I-D^{2}u\geq 0$ nearby, differentiation and polarization on the top eigenspace yield

$$u_{api}=\lambda_{1}b_{i}\delta_{ap},\qquad 1\leq a,p\leq m.$$

In particular, $u_{11i}=\lambda_{1}b_{i}$ and $b_{p}=0$ for $2\leq p\leq m$. Along the line $x+te_{i}$, test the same matrix inequality on

$$e_{1}+t\sum_{p>m}\frac{u_{1pi}}{\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{p}}e_{p}.$$

The second derivative at $t=0$ is nonnegative, giving

$$b_{ii}\geq\frac{u_{11ii}}{\lambda_{1}}+\frac{2}{\lambda_{1}}\sum_{p>m}\frac{u_{1pi}^{2}}{\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{p}}-b_{i}^{2}.$$ (6.3)

This contact calculation also covers simple eigenvalues; see [1, Lemma 5].

Twice differentiating $F(D^{2}u)=1$ and using concavity yields

$$\sum_{i}F^{ii}u_{ii11}=-F^{pq,rs}u_{pq1}u_{rs1}\geq 2\sum_{p>m}\frac{F^{pp}-F^{11}}{\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{p}}u_{11p}^{2}.$$

Contract (6.3) with $F^{ii}$ and keep only $i=1$ in its nonnegative double sum. Since $u_{1p1}=u_{11p}=\lambda_{1}b_{p}$,

$$L_{u}b \geq\frac{2}{\lambda_{1}}\sum_{p>m}\frac{F^{pp}}{\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{p}}u_{11p}^{2}-\sum_{i}F^{ii}b_{i}^{2}$$ (6.4)

$$=-F^{11}b_{1}^{2}+\sum_{p>m}\frac{\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{p}}{\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{p}}F^{pp}b_{p}^{2}.$$

The coefficient in the last sum is at least $1/3$ when $p\in\mathcal{I}$, and greater than $-1$ otherwise. Together with $b_{p}=0$ for $2\leq p\leq m$, this proves (6.2). ∎

Remark 6.2.

For every $i\notin\mathcal{I}$, we have $|\lambda_{i}|\geq\lambda_{1}/2$. Hence

$$\sum_{i\notin\mathcal{I}}F^{ii}\leq\frac{4}{\lambda_{1}^{2}}\sum_{i\notin\mathcal{I}}F^{ii}\lambda_{i}^{2}\leq\frac{4}{\lambda_{1}^{2}}\sum_{i}F^{ii}\lambda_{i}^{2}.$$ (6.5)

This estimate will be used to absorb the unfavorable terms in the maximum-principle argument, without requiring all coefficients in (6.2) to be positive.

7 Completion of the adjacent interior estimate

Proof of Theorem 1.1 for ${l}=k-1$.

Let $v$ be the comparison solution and let $\delta_{0}$ be given by Proposition 5.2. Set

$$\eta=v-u-\frac{\delta_{0}}{2},\qquad\Omega_{\eta}=\{x\in B_{7/8}:\eta(x)>0\}.$$

Then $B_{1/2}\subset\Omega_{\eta}$ and $\eta\geq\delta_{0}/2$ on $B_{1/2}$. The boundary modulus (4.1) places $\overline{\Omega}_{\eta}$ a positive distance from $\partial B_{7/8}$, depending only on $n,k,K,\delta_{0}(n,k,K)$. Applying Lemma 4.1 on balls of a fixed smaller radius yields

$$\sup_{\Omega_{\eta}}(\eta+|D\eta|)\leq C(n,k,K).$$ (7.1)

We also have

$$L_{u}\eta\geq-\frac{k\varepsilon}{\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}u)},\qquad\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}u)\geq c(n,k)\lambda_{1}.$$ (7.2)

Choose

$$a=\frac{1}{12(1+K^{2})},\qquad\beta=4,$$ (7.3)

and consider

$$\Phi=\eta^{\beta}\lambda_{1}\exp\left(\frac{a}{2}|Du|^{2}\right)\quad\text{on }\Omega_{\eta}.$$ (7.4)

Extend $\Phi$ continuously by zero to $\partial\Omega_{\eta}$. Since $\overline{\Omega}_{\eta}\Subset B_{7/8}$, $\Phi$ attains a positive maximum at an interior point $x_{*}$.

Choose a principal basis at $x_{*}$. The function

$$b(x)=\log\Phi(x_{*})-\beta\log\eta(x)-\frac{a}{2}|Du(x)|^{2}$$

touches $\log\lambda_{1}(D^{2}u)$ from above at $x_{*}$. Lemma 6.1 therefore applies, including when the largest eigenvalue is repeated. At $x_{*}$,

$$b_{i}+\beta\frac{\eta_{i}}{\eta}+au_{i}\lambda_{i}=0.$$ (7.5)

Differentiation of the equation shows $L_{u}u_{m}=0$, and hence

$$L_{u}\left(\frac{a}{2}|Du|^{2}\right)=a\sum_{i}F^{ii}\lambda_{i}^{2}.$$

The defining identity for $b$ implies

$$0=L_{u}b+\frac{\beta}{\eta}L_{u}\eta-\frac{\beta}{\eta^{2}}\sum_{i}F^{ii}\eta_{i}^{2}+a\sum_{i}F^{ii}\lambda_{i}^{2}.$$ (7.6)

For $i\in\mathcal{I}$, equation (7.5) and $\beta=4$ yield

$$\frac{1}{3}b_{i}^{2}-\frac{4}{\eta^{2}}\eta_{i}^{2}=\frac{1}{12}(b_{i}-3au_{i}\lambda_{i})^{2}-a^{2}u_{i}^{2}\lambda_{i}^{2}\geq-a^{2}K^{2}\lambda_{i}^{2}.$$ (7.7)

For $i\notin\mathcal{I}$, the same critical equation implies

$$-b_{i}^{2}-\frac{\beta}{\eta^{2}}\eta_{i}^{2}\geq-\frac{2\beta^{2}+\beta}{\eta^{2}}\eta_{i}^{2}-2a^{2}K^{2}\lambda_{i}^{2}.$$ (7.8)

Substituting these inequalities, (6.2), and (7.2) into (7.6), we obtain

$$0\geq{} (a-2a^{2}K^{2})\sum_{i}F^{ii}\lambda_{i}^{2}-\frac{2\beta^{2}+\beta}{\eta^{2}}\sum_{i\notin\mathcal{I}}F^{ii}\eta_{i}^{2}-\frac{\beta k\varepsilon}{\eta\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}u)}.$$ (7.9)

Our choice of $a$ ensures $a-2a^{2}K^{2}\geq a/2$. By (7.1) and (6.5),

$$\frac{2\beta^{2}+\beta}{\eta^{2}}\sum_{i\notin\mathcal{I}}F^{ii}\eta_{i}^{2}\leq\frac{C(n,k,K)}{(\eta\lambda_{1})^{2}}\sum_{i}F^{ii}\lambda_{i}^{2}.$$

Consequently,

$$0\geq\left(\frac{a}{2}-\frac{C(n,k,K)}{(\eta\lambda_{1})^{2}}\right)\sum_{i}F^{ii}\lambda_{i}^{2}-\frac{\beta k\varepsilon}{\eta\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}u)}.$$ (7.10)

Divide (7.10) by $\sum_{i}F^{ii}\lambda_{i}^{2}$. Using (2.5) and (7.2), we obtain

$$\frac{a}{2}\leq\frac{C(n,k,K)}{(\eta\lambda_{1})^{2}}+\frac{C(n,k,K)}{\eta\lambda_{1}}.$$

Hence

$$\eta(x_{*})\lambda_{1}(x_{*})\leq C(n,k,K).$$ (7.11)

It follows that

$$\Phi(x_{*})\leq C(n,k,K)\eta(x_{*})^{\beta-1}\leq C(n,k,K).$$

Since $\eta\geq\delta_{0}/2$ on $B_{1/2}$, the maximum property bounds $\lambda_{1}$ there. Finally, $\Gamma_{k}\subset\Gamma_{2}$ and $|D^{2}u|^{2}<(\operatorname{tr}D^{2}u)^{2}\leq n^{2}\lambda_{1}^{2}$. This proves the adjacent case. ∎

8 The gap-two Hessian equation

Dong–Xu–Zhang [6, Lemma 2.2] used additional fixed eigenvalues to express sum-type Hessian operators as elementary symmetric polynomials in higher dimensions. Li–Wu [14, Eq. (2.28)] used a one-dimensional lifting to reduce a concavity inequality for gap-two quotients to one for adjacent quotients. For the constant equation considered here, the latter lifting is realized by adding a quadratic term in one extra variable, reducing the interior estimate directly to the adjacent case.

Proof of Theorem 1.1 for $l=k-2$.

Define

$$U(x,t)=u(x)+\frac{t^{2}}{2},\qquad(x,t)\in B_{1}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1}.$$

The eigenvalues of $D^{2}U$ are those of $D^{2}u$, together with one. Hence, for $1\leq j\leq k$,

$$\sigma_{j}(D^{2}U)=\sigma_{j}(D^{2}u)+\sigma_{j-1}(D^{2}u)>0,$$

and

$$\sigma_{k}(D^{2}U)-\sigma_{k-1}(D^{2}U)=\sigma_{k}(D^{2}u)-\sigma_{k-2}(D^{2}u)=0.$$

Thus $U$ is an admissible solution of the adjacent quotient equation. Moreover,

$$\|U\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{1})}+\|DU\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{1})}\leq K+\frac{3}{2}.$$

Applying the adjacent interior estimate in dimension $n+1$ yields

$$\sup_{B_{1/2}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1}}|D^{2}U|\leq C(n+1,k,K+3/2).$$

Restriction to $t=0$ proves the required estimate for $u$. ∎

9 Counterexamples

9.1 The natural quotient comparison

Write $F=\sigma_{k}/\sigma_{k-1}$. The natural extension of the Li–Wu construction is to solve

$$F(D^{2}v)=\frac{1}{2}\quad\text{in }B_{R},\qquad v=u\quad\text{on }\partial B_{R},$$

where $D^{2}u,D^{2}v\in\Gamma_{k}$ and $F(D^{2}u)=1$. Concavity at $D^{2}v$ shows

$$F^{ij}(D^{2}v)(v-u)_{ij}\leq-\frac{1}{2}.$$

Since $\sum_{i}F^{ii}\leq n-k+1$, comparison with a quadratic function yields

$$v-u\geq\frac{R^{2}-|x|^{2}}{4(n-k+1)}.$$ (9.1)

At $u$, however, concavity only implies

$$F^{ij}(D^{2}u)(v-u)_{ij}\geq-\frac{1}{2}.$$

The following example shows that the two quotient levels alone cannot yield the decaying error in (3.6).

Proposition 9.1.

Even for positive definite matrices with $n=k=2$, there is no constant $C$ such that

$$F^{ij}(A)(B-A)_{ij}\geq-\frac{C}{\sigma_{1}(A)}$$ (9.2)

whenever $F(A)=1$ and $F(B)=1/2$.

Proof.

For $\lambda_{1}>2$, take

$$A=\operatorname{diag}\left(\lambda_{1},\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\lambda_{1}-1}\right),\qquad B=\frac{1}{2}A.$$

Then $F(A)=1$ and $F(B)=1/2$. By homogeneity,

$$F^{ij}(A)(B-A)_{ij}=-\frac{1}{2},\qquad\sigma_{1}(A)=\frac{\lambda_{1}^{2}}{\lambda_{1}-1}\longrightarrow\infty.$$

This contradicts (9.2) for every fixed $C$. Moreover,

$$F^{11}(A)=\frac{1}{\lambda_{1}^{2}},\qquad F^{22}(A)=\frac{(\lambda_{1}-1)^{2}}{\lambda_{1}^{2}},\qquad\sum_{i}F^{ii}(A)\lambda_{i}^{2}=2.$$

Thus the weighted Hessian-square term also remains bounded as the largest eigenvalue tends to infinity. ∎

This lack of growth in the terms available to the standard Pogorelov argument has been discussed by Lu–Tsai [17]. We next show that a comparison-gap estimate with constants depending only on the diameter and the $C^{1}$ bounds actually fails. The construction starts from the harmonic profile underlying the example of Mooney–Shankar [21, Section 5 and Remark 5.1]. After rescaling, quadratic modifications, and Legendre transforms, we obtain a four-dimensional solution of $\sigma_{3}/\sigma_{2}=1$. We then use two barriers to construct a comparison solution at a fixed lower quotient level and show the failure of the comparison-gap estimate.

Proposition 9.2.

Let $F=\sigma_{3}/\sigma_{2}$ on $\Gamma_{3}\subset\mathbb{R}^{4}$. There are smooth bounded strictly convex domains $\Omega_{r}$, with $\operatorname{diam}\Omega_{r}=1$, and smooth functions $u_{r},v_{r}$ on $\overline{\Omega}_{r}$ such that

$$D^{2}u_{r}>0,\qquad D^{2}v_{r}\in\Gamma_{3},\qquad F(D^{2}u_{r})=1,\qquad F(D^{2}v_{r})=\frac{7}{8},$$

$$v_{r}>u_{r}\quad\text{in }\Omega_{r},\qquad v_{r}=u_{r}\quad\text{on }\partial\Omega_{r},\qquad F^{ij}(D^{2}u_{r})(v_{r})_{ij}\geq\frac{7}{8}.$$

Their $C^{1}$ norms are uniformly bounded:

$$\|u_{r}\|_{C^{1}(\overline{\Omega}_{r})}+\|v_{r}\|_{C^{1}(\overline{\Omega}_{r})}\leq C.$$

Nevertheless, for every fixed $\beta>0$,

$$\sup_{\Omega_{r}}(v_{r}-u_{r})^{\beta}|D^{2}u_{r}|\longrightarrow\infty\qquad\text{as }r\downarrow 0.$$ (9.3)

Proof.

Step 1. The solutions $u_{r}$. For $M\geq 1$, consider the Mooney–Shankar example

$$w_{M}(s,t)=s\operatorname{arsinh}\left(\frac{e^{M}s}{\cos t}\right)-\sqrt{s^{2}+e^{-2M}\cos^{2}t}.$$

It is smooth near $[-1,1]^{2}$. Direct differentiation yields

$$D^{2}w_{M}>0,\qquad\det D^{2}w_{M}=1,\qquad\|w_{M}\|_{C^{1}([-1,1]^{2})}\leq CM,$$

and

$$D^{2}w_{M}(0)=\operatorname{diag}(e^{M},e^{-M}).$$

For $0<r\leq 1/4$, set

$$\Omega_{r}=\left\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{4}:\frac{x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}}{r^{2}}+4(x_{3}^{2}+x_{4}^{2})<1\right\},$$

and define

$$u_{r}(x)=\frac{|x|^{2}}{2}+\sqrt{2}\,r^{2}w_{1/r}\left(\frac{x_{1}}{r},\frac{x_{2}}{r}\right).$$

Then $\operatorname{diam}\Omega_{r}=1$, and

$$D^{2}u_{r}=\left(I_{2}+\sqrt{2}\,D^{2}w_{1/r}\right)\oplus I_{2}\geq I_{4}.$$

If $a,b$ are the eigenvalues of the first block, then

$$a,b>1,\qquad(a-1)(b-1)=2,\qquad ab-a-b=1.$$ (9.4)

Consequently,

$$F(D^{2}u_{r})=\frac{2ab+a+b}{ab+2a+2b+1}=1.$$

The bounds for $w_{M}$ also give

$$\|u_{r}\|_{C^{1}(\overline{\Omega}_{r})}\leq C,\qquad\lambda_{\max}(D^{2}u_{r}(0))=1+\sqrt{2}\,e^{1/r}.$$

Step 2. The comparison solutions $v_{r}$. Define

$$h_{r}(x)=\frac{r^{2}}{16}\left(1-\frac{x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}}{r^{2}}-4(x_{3}^{2}+x_{4}^{2})\right).$$ (9.5)

Then $h_{r}>0$ in $\Omega_{r}$, $h_{r}=0$ on $\partial\Omega_{r}$, and

$$D^{2}h_{r}=\operatorname{diag}\left(-\frac{1}{8},-\frac{1}{8},-\frac{r^{2}}{2},-\frac{r^{2}}{2}\right)\geq-\frac{1}{8}I_{4}.$$

Since $D^{2}u_{r}\geq I_{4}$,

$$D^{2}(u_{r}+h_{r})\geq\frac{7}{8}D^{2}u_{r}>0.$$

Ellipticity and homogeneity therefore imply

$$F(D^{2}(u_{r}+h_{r}))\geq\frac{7}{8}.$$

On the other hand, the eigenvalues of $D^{2}(u_{r}+8h_{r})$ are

$$a-1,\quad b-1,\quad 1-4r^{2},\quad 1-4r^{2},$$

and are all positive. Using (9.4), we obtain

$$F(D^{2}(u_{r}+8h_{r})) \leq F\bigl(\operatorname{diag}(a-1,b-1,1,1)\bigr)$$

$$=\frac{4+(a+b-2)}{3+2(a+b-2)}$$

$$\leq\frac{4+2\sqrt{2}}{3+4\sqrt{2}}<\frac{7}{8}.$$

Here $a+b-2\geq 2\sqrt{2}$, and the displayed rational function is decreasing in $a+b-2$.

Since $\Omega_{r}$ is smooth and strictly convex, the Dirichlet theorem of Caffarelli–Nirenberg–Spruck [2, Theorem $2^{\prime}$] gives a smooth admissible solution of

$$F(D^{2}v_{r})=\frac{7}{8}\quad\text{in }\Omega_{r},\qquad v_{r}=u_{r}\quad\text{on }\partial\Omega_{r}.$$

Indeed, $F$ is concave, elliptic, and homogeneous of degree one on $\Gamma_{3}$, and tends to zero at its finite boundary. Comparison with the two barriers yields

$$u_{r}+h_{r}\leq v_{r}\leq u_{r}+8h_{r}.$$ (9.6)

In particular, $v_{r}>u_{r}$ in $\Omega_{r}$. Concavity at $D^{2}u_{r}$ and homogeneity also imply

$$F^{ij}(D^{2}u_{r})(v_{r})_{ij}\geq F(D^{2}v_{r})=\frac{7}{8}.$$

Step 3. Uniform bounds and divergence. By (9.6), we obtain a uniform height bound for $v_{r}$. On the boundary, the tangential derivatives of $v_{r}-u_{r}$ vanish, and its normal derivative lies between those of $h_{r}$ and $8h_{r}$. Hence

$$|Dv_{r}|\leq|Du_{r}|+8|Dh_{r}|\leq C\quad\text{on }\partial\Omega_{r}.$$

Differentiating the constant equation yields

$$F^{ij}(D^{2}v_{r})(|Dv_{r}|^{2})_{ij}=2F^{ij}(D^{2}v_{r})(v_{r})_{mi}(v_{r})_{mj}\geq 0.$$

The maximum principle proves the same gradient bound in $\Omega_{r}$.

Finally, $h_{r}(0)=r^{2}/16$. For every fixed $\beta>0$,

$$(v_{r}(0)-u_{r}(0))^{\beta}|D^{2}u_{r}(0)| \geq h_{r}(0)^{\beta}\lambda_{\max}(D^{2}u_{r}(0))$$

$$=\left(\frac{r^{2}}{16}\right)^{\beta}\left(1+\sqrt{2}\,e^{1/r}\right)\longrightarrow\infty.$$

This proves (9.3). ∎

The two propositions explain the limitation of the natural quotient comparison. Fixed quotient levels give separation, but do not supply either the decaying linearized error or a comparison-gap Pogorelov estimate controlled only by the diameter and the $C^{1}$ bounds. In the second example, two semiaxes of $\Omega_{r}$ tend to zero. Thus the example does not contradict an interior estimate on a fixed ball. Our comparison equation (3.5) provides the additional decay in (3.6) needed for the Pogorelov argument.

Use of artificial intelligence

The counterexamples constructed in this paper were first found by GPT-6 Astra. Studying these counterexamples led the authors to propose modifying the nonlinear comparison function of Li and Wu. GPT then identified the new comparison function through calculation and derived the proof of the corresponding Pogorelov estimate. The authors proposed applying the doubling maximum principle, and GPT assisted with the calculations. The authors independently checked the entire manuscript and take full responsibility for its contents.

Guohuan Qiu

State Key Laboratory of Mathematical Sciences, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China;
Institute of Mathematics, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 55 Zhongguancun East Road, Beijing 100190, China.

Email: qiugh@amss.ac.cn.

Jin Yan

Institute of Mathematics, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 55 Zhongguancun East Road, Beijing 100190, China.

Email: yanjin@amss.ac.cn.