Arxiv:2008.09543V2 [Math.FA] 22 Sep 2020 of [0 [ of Authors Ratio

arXiv:2008.09543v2 [math.FA] 22 Sep 2020 of [0 [ of authors ratio. i oa ult setedfiiin nSubsection in definitions the (see duality polar via form in Werner E. Shütt, and fi C. the Li, approaches. and B. their functions, by log-concave introduced integrable was of Löwner ellipsoid setting the t to [ for lipsoid Villa investigated R. been Jiménez, and C.H. has functions [ log-concave to of setting eral objects. connected AS17 hnteplro h onelpodof ellipsoid John the of polar the then If duality: polar containing volume minimal the of called ellipsoid now volume, maximal fteform the of nqefnto fmnmlitga hti onws rae hnor than greater pointwise function is log-concave that continuous integral minimal of function unique ndffrn ra fmteais opttoa ahmtc and mathematics computational mathematics, convex of modern areas the different of in cornerstones the are Löwner ellipsoids and ucino iia nerlthe integral minimal of function , n[ In e od n phrases. and words Key si h etn fcne es h oncinbtenteetw these between connection 1991 the sets, convex of setting the in As in ellipsoids of functions characteristic scaled of class the Consider ana convex of results the extending of idea the hand, other the On h uhr f[ of authors The ∞ [ BGVV14 AGMJV18 ,teei nqefnto,wihw ee oa the as to refer we which function, unique a is there ), ) neomu ubro rbeshsbe ovduigpropertie using solved been has problems of number enormous An ]). α Joh14 e ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics osrcinda otercnl endJohn defined recently the to dual construction feitneaduiuns fteslto oti rbe.Frany For problem. this to solution the equ of fin or uniqueness than and greater and positions, pointwise existence is “affine” it of of that condition set the this under integral to belonging functions consider ai,w en h ue nerlrtoo o-ocv function log-concave a of it. ratio on integral bound outer the define we ratio, ls,w osdrtesto l t an”pstos o n log-co any For positions. “affine” its all of va set a ellipsoids the concentric consider consider We are we sets functions. class, superlevel concave whose logarithmically functions of concave setting the to Abstract. eemnsauiu ucinadcl tthe it call and function unique a determines ucin as functions −|A x AGMJV18 ,FizJh rvdta ahcne body convex each that proved John Fritz ], | α , where , χ AS17 ,o hscaso aia nerlta spitiels hno equal or than less pointwise is that integral maximal of class this of ], E , K where eetn h oino h mletvlm lisi otiigaconve a containing ellipsoid volume smallest the of notion the extend We s LSW19 , sacne oyin body convex a is ed ozr n oifiiy ial,etnigtento fteout the of notion the extending Finally, infinity. to and zero to tends AAGM15 α hwdta,udraml odto nalgcnaefunction log-concave a on condition mild a under that, showed ] > ¨ we’ lisi,Jh’ lisi,lgrtmclycnaefnto,o function, concave logarithmically ellipsoid, John’s Löwner’s ellipsoid, UCINLL FUNCTIONAL α and 0 RGR VNVADIO TSIUTSIURUPA IGOR AND IVANOV GRIGORY td h ulpolm hycnie h ls ffntoso t of functions of class the consider They problem: dual the study ] > AGMJV18 and 0 ) otebs forkolde .Aos-uierz ..Merin Alonso-Gutiérrez, B.G. D. knowledge, our of best the To ]). A ¨ we ucinof Löwner function f sanniglran rnfrain n hwta hr sa is there that show and transformation, affine nonsingular a is onellipsoid John : χ R E d rmr 22;Scnay5A0 46T12. 52A40, Secondary 52A23; Primary K K 1. stecaatrsi ucino nellipsoid an of function characteristic the is → eetefis h xeddtento fteJh el- John the of notion the extended who first the were ] R aldthe called , d steLonrelpodo h oa e of set polar the of Löwner ellipsoid the is Introduction [0 uhta h rgni h etro t onellipsoid John its of center the is origin the that such , WE ELLIPSOIDS OWNER ¨ s ∞ fnto [ -function Löwner 1 ffiiepstv nerl ecl hsunique this call We integral. positive finite of ) of 2.3 K Löwner ellipsoid f s .The ). lsl eae beti h (unique) the is object related closely A . -function ntesneof sense the in IN20 K .W rv htsc construction a such that prove We ]. in polar n iea smttclytight asymptotically an give and o xdfnto rmthis from function fixed a For . onfnto of function John lto al R of d f. nlss hs bet appear objects These analysis. h n ihtesmallest the with one the d cv function ncave els e eae w refer (we decades few last he s otisauiu lisi of ellipsoid unique a contains f. s xeso ftento of notion the of extension rst (or tcaso logarithmically of class st ∈ esuyteLöwner the study We qa oagvnuprsemi- upper given a to equal hsc se[ (see physics of esuyteproperties the study We piiainpolm is problems optimization o [0 [ R log-conjugate LSW19 , [ K ∞ LSW19 d yi otemr gen- more the to lysis , h oncini via is connection The . ) , hti,tefunctions the is, that fteetodeeply two these of s ecnie the consider we ]. oyin body x f .Ltu explain us Let ]. on rvolume er f Bal01 E K. R ucinof function ) ntesense the in to d in , trvolume uter h John The R we f f. s , R d - : Hen12 d R . d The → he o, , FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 2

x the characteristic function of the Euclidean unit ball is e−| |. Therefore, the classes of functions considered in [AGMJV18] and [LSW19] consist of translates of functions that are polar to each other. Recently, a more general approach to the definition of John function has been considered in [IN20], where the John s-functions of an integrable log-concave function are constructed for all s (0, ). We define and discuss these functions in Subsection 6.1. It was shown [IN20, Theorem∈ 7.3]∞ that the John function in the sense of [AGMJV18] is the limit (in a rather strong sense) of the John s-function as s 0. Apart of this limit result, a characterization of the John s-function similar to the one given→ by John in his fundamental theorem is given in [IN20, Theorem 5.1]. Combining ideas of [LSW19] and [IN20], we consider the “dual” problem and define the Löwner s-function below. In hindsight, we understood that it is easier to see the main ideas of our proofs and geometric construction considering a more abstract approach than the one in [IN20]. We formalize our approach in a functional way. The classical Löwner ellipsoid can be introduced as follows. We consider the class of all nonsingular affine images (we may call them positions) of the unit ball Bd. The Löwner ellipsoid of a convex body K is the (unique) largest volume element of this class containing K. For a function ψ : [0, ) R + , we consider the following class of functions ∞ → ∪{ ∞} d ψ( A(x a) ) d [ψ]= αe− | − | : A GL(d), α > 0, a R . E ∈ ∈

d ψ( x ) One may consider the functional class [ψ] as the class of “affine” positions of the function e− | | , x Rd. Now we can say that the classesE of “affine” positions of the characteristic function of ∈ x d the unit ball and the function x e−| |, x R , were considered in [AGMJV18] and [LSW19], respectively. 7→ ∈ We require for functions of d[ψ] to be reasonably good log-concave functions. We say that E ψ( t ) ψ : [0, ) R + is an admissible function if the function t e− | | , t R, is an upper semi-continuous∞ → ∪{ log-concave∞} function of finite positive integral. We7→ discuss the∈ properties of admissible functions in Subsection 2.5 and consider only classes d[ψ] with ψ being admissible. d E d We will say that a function f1 : R R is below a function f2 : R R, denoted f1 f2, if → → d ≤ f1 is pointwise less than or equal to f2, that is, f1(x) f2(x) for all x R . For an admissible function ψ : [0, ) R + ≤and an upper semi-continuous∈ log-concave function f : Rd [0, ) of finite positive∞ → integral,∪{ ∞} we study the following optimization problem: → ∞

(1.1) min ℓ subject to f ℓ. ℓ d[ψ] Rd ≤ ∈E Z

1.1. The main results. First, we study the uniqueness of the solution to (1.1).

Theorem 1.1. Let ψ : [0, ) R + be an admissible function and let ψ satisfy one of the following conditions: ∞ → ∪{ ∞} (1) ψ is strictly increasing and takes only finite values; (2) the effective domain of ψ is bounded. Further, let f : Rd [0, ) be an upper semi-continuous log-concave function of finite positive integral. If there exists→ ℓ∞ d[ψ] such that f ℓ, then there exists a unique solution to problem (1.1). Moreover, the∈ supremum E of a solution≤ to this problem is at most ed the supremum of f.

The question of existence of ℓ d[ψ] satisfying relation f ℓ is not hard. As shown in Lemma 5.2, it suﬃces for ψ to be of∈ linearE growth at inﬁnity. ≤ FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 3

Next, we study the dual problem to that considered in [IN20]. For any s [0, ) , we define ψ : [0, ) [0, ) by ∈ ∞ ∪ {∞} s ∞ → ∞ t, s =0 2 t 2 s t 1+ 1+4 s (1.2) ψs(t)=  1+4 ln 1 , s (0, ) . 2 s s −  q 2  −  ∈ ∞  t2,    s =  ∞  As it will be shown in Subsection 6.1, the function ψs is an admissible function for an arbitrary  d s [0, ) . One sees that [ψs] with s = 0 coincides with the class of functions considered in∈ [LSW19∞ ∪{∞}], and that the LöwnerE function in the sense of [LSW19] is a solution to problem (1.1) d with ψ = ψ0. The class [ψ ] consists of Gaussian densities. The cumbersome definition of ψs in the case s (0, ) is causedE ∞ by polar duality. In Subsection 6.1, we will show that the problem (1.1) with ψ∈ = ψ∞and s (0, ) is dual to the problem of finding the John s-function considered s ∈ ∞ in [IN20]. We study problem (1.1) with ψ = ψs in the last four sections of the paper. As a simple consequence of Theorem 1.1, we obtain the following result. Theorem 1.2. Fix s [0, ) and let f : Rd [0, ) be an upper semi-continuous log-concave function of finite positive∈ integral.∞ Then there→ exists∞ a unique solution to problem

(1.3) min ℓ subject to f ℓ. d ℓ [ψs] Rd ≤ ∈E Z We will refer to the solution to problem (1.3) for a fixed s [0, ) as the Löwner s-function of f, (s) ∈ ∞ (0) and denote it by Lf . Note that the Löwner function in the sense of [LSW19] is precisely Lf . As in the case of John s-functions, we get the following limit result as s tends to zero. Theorem 1.3. Let f : Rd [0, ) be a an upper semi-continuous log-concave function of finite positive integral. Then the→ Löwner∞ s-functions of f converge uniformly on Rd to the Löwner function of f in the sense of [LSW19] as s +0. → (s) (0) d In other words, Lf Lf uniformly on R . That is, the Löwner s-functions of f can be considered as a reasonable→ extension of the Löwner function in the sense of [LSW19]. Probably, the most striking difference between the John s-functions and the Löwner s-functions appears in the case s = . We prove the following statement. ∞ Theorem 1.4. Let f : Rd [0, ) be a an upper semi-continuous log-concave function of finite positive integral. Then the→ following∞ assertions are equivalent: (1) (s) lim inf Lf < ; s Rd ∞ →∞ Z (2) There exists a Gaussian density G such that f G; (3) There exists a unique solution to problem ≤

(1.4) min ℓ subject to f ℓ. d ℓ [ψ∞] Rd ≤ ∈E Z Also, the L¨owner s-functions of f converge uniformly on Rd to the solution to problem (1.4) as s . →∞ Surprisingly enough, it was shown in [IN20] that the Gaussian density of maximal integral below a given upper semi-continuous log-concave function of positive integral is not necessarily unique. d Let K be a convex body in R and LK be its L¨owner ellipsoid. The ratio 1/d vold LK vol K d FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 4 is called the outer volume ratio of K. Using the reverse Brascamp–Lieb inequality, F. Barthe [Bar98] showed that for any positive integer d and any convex body K Rd, the outer volume ratio of K ∈ is at most Θ√d for some positive constant Θ. We extend this result to the setting of log-concave functions.

Theorem 1.5. Fix s [0, ). There exists Θs such that for any positive integer d and an upper semi-continuous log-concave∈ ∞ function f : Rd [0, ) of finite integral, the following inequality holds: → ∞ (s) 1/d Rd Lf Θs√d. R Rd f ! ≤ 1.2. Organization of the paper. In SectionR 2, we introduce the basic definitions and all needed terminology. In Section 3, we discuss the properties of existence of a solution to problem (1.1) in a broad sense. To establish the existence, we show in Lemma 3.1 that the set of parameters of problem (1.1) is a bounded set in a finite-dimensional linear space. This yields a compactness result, namely, the convergence of minimizing sequences (see Corollary 3.1). We also explain one of our tools, interpolation between the functions of the class d[ψ] . We use this tool to show that all the solutions to problem (1.1) are necessarily translatesE of each other (see Theorem 3.1). In Section 4, we investigate the question of uniqueness of a solution to problem (1.1). Given d two functions ℓ1,ℓ2 [ψ] that are translates of each other, we construct a special function ℓ d[ψ] that satisfies∈ E two conditions: First, ℓ ℓ and ℓ ℓ; second, ℓ is of smaller integral ∈ E 1 ≤ 2 ≤ than that of the functions ℓ1 or ℓ2 (see Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.2). We note here that we use two different geometric ideas when the function ψ satisfies different conditions in Theorem 1.1. Using this construction, we immediately get the uniqueness result (see Theorem 4.1). We also show in Subsection 4.2 that there is no uniqueness of a solution if ψ does not satisfy both conditions in Theorem 1.1. In Section 5, we show in Lemma 5.2 that a solution to problem (1.1) exists if ψ is of linear growth at infinity. In Lemma 5.3, we obtain the upper bound on the supremum of a solution in terms of the supremum of f. Summarizing the results, we complete the proof of Theorem 1.1. In Section 6, we restrict ourselves to the function ψs, s [0, + ). We recall the definition of John s-functions introduced in [IN20]. Using the Legendre∈ transform,∞ we obtain several simple properties of the function ψs and show that problem (1.1) and the problem considered in [IN20] are dual. This explains our motivation for introducing the function ψs. We prove Theorem 1.2 and discuss the properties of Löwner s-functions. Next, we consider the limit case as s 0 and prove Theorem 1.3. → In Section 7, we prove Theorem 1.4. This shows that the choice of ψ is indeed reasonable. In Section 8, we prove Theorem 1.5 and discuss its interrelation with∞ the notions of volume ratio and outer volume ratio. Finally, in Section 9, the duality between John s-function introduced in [IN20] and our Löwner s-function is discussed. 2. Notation, Basic Terminology 2.1. Matrices. We will use to denote the standard partial order on the cone of positive semi- definite matrices, that is, we≺ write A B if B A is positive-definite. We recall the additive and the multiplicative form of Minkowski’s≺ determinant− inequality. Let A and B be positive-definite matrices of order d. Then, for any λ (0, 1), ∈ (2.1) (det(λA + (1 λ)B))1/d λ(det A)1/d + (1 λ)(det B)1/d − ≥ − with equality if and only if A = cB for some c> 0, and λ 1 λ (2.2) det(λA + (1 λ)B) (det A) (det B) − − ≥ · with equality if and only if A = B. FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 5

2.2. Functions. Log-concave functions. A function ψ : Rd R + is called convex if ψ((1 λ)x + λy) (1 λ)ψ(x)+ λψ(y) for every x, y Rd →and λ∪{ [0∞}, 1]. A function f on d − ≤ − ∈ ψ ∈ R is logarithmically concave (or, log-concave for short) if f = e− for a convex function ψ on Rd. We say that a log-concave function f on Rd is a proper log-concave function if f is upper semi-continuous and has ﬁnite positive integral. Clearly, if f and g are log-concave functions, then

(2.3) f g log g log f. ≤ ⇐⇒ − ≤ − For a function f : Rd R and a scalar α R, we denote the superlevel set of f by → ∈ [f α]= x Rd : f(x) α . ≥ { ∈ ≥ } The L norm of a function f is denoted as f . Recall that the eﬀective domain of a convex function ∞ϕ: Rd R + is the set dom ϕ =k kx Rd : ϕ(x) < + . → ∪{ ∞} { ∈ ∞}

2.3. Concept of duality. Recall the definition of the classical convex conjugate transform (or Legendre transform) defined for functions ϕ : Rd R , by L → ∪ {−∞ ∞} ( ϕ)(y) = sup x, y ϕ(x) . L x Rd{h i − } ∈ The reasonable extension (justified in [AAM07, AAM08, AAM09]) of this notion to the setting ψ d of log-concave functions is the following. Let f = e− : R [0, ], then its log-conjugate (or polar) function is defined by → ∞

x,y ( ψ)(y) e−h i f ◦(y)= e− L = inf . x Rd f(x) ∈ Clearly, the log-conjugate function of any function is log-concave. It is known [AAKM04] that the log-conjugate function of a proper log-concave function is a proper log-concave function. Also, if f and g are log-concave functions, then

(2.4) f g g◦ f ◦. ≤ ⇐⇒ ≤ The following result is proven in [AAKM04, Lemma 3.2].

Rd Lemma 2.1. Let f, fi 1∞ : [0, ) be log-concave functions such that fn f on a dense set A Rd. Then { } → ∞ → ⊂ (1) f f, Rd i → Rd (2) (f )◦ f ◦ locally uniformly on the interior of the support of f ◦. R n → R 2.4. Ellipsoids. We denote the Euclidean unit ball in Rn by Bn, where n will mostly be d or d+1. d d For a matrix A R × and a number α, A α denotes (d + 1) (d + 1) matrix ∈ ⊕ × A 0 A α = . ⊕ 0 α We introduce the convex cone

d d d d = (A α, a): A R × is positive-deﬁnite, α > 0, a R . E ⊕ ∈ ∈ There is a one-to-one correspondence between d and the class of (d + 1)-dimensional ellipsoids in Rd+1 symmetric with respect to Rd (for example,E (A α, a) (A α)Bd+1 + a). We will refer to the elements of d as d-ellipsoids. ⊕ 7→ ⊕ E FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 6

2.5. Admissible convex functions. Clearly, ψ : [0, ) R + is an admissible function if and only if ψ has the following properties: ∞ → ∪{ ∞} ψ( t ) ψ is convex with minimum at 0 (otherwise, e− | | is not log-concave); • ψ( t ) ψ is lower semi-continuous (otherwise, e− | | is not upper semi-continuous); • ψ( t ) lim ψ(t)=+ (otherwise, the integral of e− | | equals + ); • t + ∞ ∞ → ∞ ψ( t ) dom ψ has positive measure (otherwise, the integral of e− | | equals zero). • Recall that a convex function is continuous (even locally Lipschitz) on the interior of the eﬀective domain (see [Cla90, Proposition 2.2.6]). We say that an admissible function ψ is of linear growth if inequality ψ(t) ct holds for some constant c and all t [0, ). By convexity, ψ is an admissible function of linear≤ growth if and ∈ψ(t) ∞ only if the limit lim exists and is ﬁnite. For example, ψs is an admissible function of linear t t growth for any s →∞[0, ), as it is shown in Subsection 6.1 ∈ ∞ ψ(t)+c c ψ(t) Let ψ : [0, ) R + be a convex function. Since e− = e e− , we have that d[ψ] = d[ψ∞+ c→] for any∪{ constant∞} c R. We will use this observation and assume sometimes Ethat an admissibleE function is zero at zero.∈

2.6. Classes of ellipsoidal functions. We say that the functions of d[ψ] are ψ-ellipsoidal functions. If ψ is an admissible function, then all the functions of d[ψ]E are proper log-concave functions. E d d ψ( A(x a) ) Given (A α, a) , we say that the ψ-ellipsoidal function on R deﬁned by x α e− | − | is represented⊕ by (∈EA α, a). We use ℓ to denote the ψ-ellipsoidal function7→ represented· by ⊕ ψ,E E =(A α, a) d. By deﬁnition, we have ⊕ ∈E

(2.5) ℓ (x)= α ℓ Bd+1 (A(x a)) . ψ,E · ψ, − This simple identity plays a crucial role in our proofs. By the polar decomposition theorem, any ψ-ellipsoidal function is represented by a unique element of d. Thus, E d ψ( A(x a) ) d d [ψ]= αe− | − | :(A α, a) = ℓ :(A α, a) . E ⊕ ∈E ψ,E ⊕ ∈E

The number α is called the height of the ψ-ellipsoidal function ℓψ,(A α,a). ⊕ We use λd[ψ] to denote the integral of ψ-ellipsoidal function represented by the unit Euclidean ball Bd+1, that is,

λd[ψ]= ℓψ,Bd+1 . Rd Z Clearly, λ [ψ] is a positive number. Also, for an arbitrary E =(A α, a) , we have that d ⊕ ∈E α (2.6) ℓψ,E = λd[ψ]. Rd det A · Z

2.7. Classes of ψs-ellipsoidal functions. We will use the following notations related to ψs to stress the fact that we restrict ourselves to the admissible functions ψs in the last four Sections:

s-ellipsoidal function instead of ψs-ellipsoidal function; • (s)ℓ instead of ℓ ; • E ψs,E (s)λ instead of λ [ψ]. • d d That is, for any d-ellipsoid E and the s-ellipsoidal function (s)ℓ identity (2.6) takes the form ∈E E α (s) (s) (2.7) ℓE = λd. Rd det A Z FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 7

3. Classes of ψ-ellipsoidal functions 3.1. Boundedness. In this subsection we show that for any admissible function ψ, we can restrict ourselves to the bounded in d set of parameters in problem (1.1). The main result of this subsection is the following lemma.E Lemma 3.1. For any f : Rd [0, ) be a proper log-concave function and δ > 0 there exist ρ,ν,µ ,µ > 0 with the following→ property.∞ If for an admissible function ψ : [0, ) R + 1 2 ∞ → ∪{ ∞} with ψ(0) = 0 and E =(A α, a) inequalities ⊕ ∈E

f ℓψ,E and ℓψ,E δ ≤ Rd ≤ Z hold, then inequalities (3.1) a ρ and f α ν | | ≤ k k ≤ ≤ and

λd[ψ] (3.2) µ1 d 1 Id A µ2λ1[ψ] Id (λ1[ψ]) − · ≺ ≺ · hold. Proof. Put Θ = f /2 and consider the superlevel set [f Θ]. Since f is log-concave and has ﬁnite positive integral,k k [f Θ] is a convex body in Rd. Without≥ loss of generality, we assume that ϑBd [f Θ] for some≥ ϑ> 0. Since f ⊂ ℓ ≥, one sees that [f Θ] [ℓ Θ]. By the log-concavity of ℓ and since the ≤ ψ,E ≥ ⊂ ψ,E ≥ ψ,E maximum of ℓ is attained at a, we have co ϑBd, a [ℓ Θ]. Hence, ψ,E { } ⊂ ψ,E ≥ d 1 d 1 d ϑ − vold 1 B − δ ℓψ,E Θ χco ϑBd,a = Θ vold co ϑB , a Θ − a . ≥ Rd ≥ Rd { } { } ≥ d | | Z Z Thus there exists ρ> 0 depending only on f and δ such that a ρ. Clearly, α f . We proceed with an upper bound on α.| Using| ≤ again the inclusion ϑBd [f Θ] [ℓ ≥ k kΘ] and by symmetry, we conclude that ϑBd + a [ℓ Θ]. Therefore, for⊂ ≥ ⊂ ψ,E ≥ ⊂ ψ,E ≥ all x ϑBd we have ∈ |x| |x| ϑ ϑ 1 |x| x 1 |x| |x| Θ ℓ (x + a) ℓ (a) − ϑ ℓ a + ϑ α − ϑ Θ ϑ α . ψ,E ≥ ψ,E · ψ,E x ≥ · ≥ · α | | Therefore, |x| ϑ α Θ δ ℓψ,E ℓψ,E(x + a) dx dx. ≥ Rd ≥ Bd ≥ Bd α Z Zϑ Zϑ By routine computation, the right-hand side tends to + as α . The existence of ν follows. This completes the proof of inequality (3.1). ∞ →∞ We proceed with inequality (3.2). Let l be the line passing through a in the direction of an d eigenvector of A corresponding to the eigenvalue A . Since ϑB + a [ℓψ,E Θ]. and by (2.6), we have k k ⊂ ≥ α ν 2Θϑ ℓ = λ [ψ] λ [ψ]. ≤ ψ,E A 1 ≤ A 1 Zl k k k k Thus, A µ2λ1[ψ] for some µ2 > 0. Let kβ bek ≤ the smallest eigenvalue of A. Using the obtained bound on A and identity (2.6), we get k k α α α 1 δ ℓψ,E = λd[ψ] d 1 λd[ψ] d 1 λd[ψ]. ≥ Rd det A ≥ A − β ≥ (µ λ [ψ]) − · β Z 2 1 d 1 k k Thus, β µ λ [ψ]/λ [ψ] − for some µ > 0. This completes the proof. ≥ 1 d 1 1 As an immediate consequence of Lemma 3.1, we have FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 8

Corollary 3.1. Let ψ : [0, ) R + be an admissible function and let f : Rd [0, ) be a proper log-concave function.∞ → If∪{ there∞} exists ℓ d[ψ] such that f ℓ, then there→ exists∞ a solution to problem (1.1). ∈ E ≤ Proof. If there is ℓ d[ψ] such that f ℓ, then, by Lemma 3.1, there is a minimizing sequence ∈E ≤ E ∞ d such that f ℓ for all i N, i 1 ⊂E ≤ ψ,Ei ∈ d (3.3) lim Ei = E i →∞ ∈E and

(3.4) lim ℓψ,Ei = inf ℓ : f ℓ . i Rd ℓ d[ψ] Rd ≤ →∞ Z ∈E Z Next, by continuity of a convex function ψ on the interior of its eﬀective domain, identity (3.3) implies that ℓψ,Ei ℓψ,E on the interior of the support of ℓψ,E. Thus, by assertion (1) of Lemma 2.1, → ℓψ,E is a solution to problem (1.1). 3.2. Interpolation between ψ-ellipsoidal functions. Lemma 3.2 (Interpolated ψ-ellipsoidal function). Let ψ : [0, ) R + be an admissible ∞ → ∪{ ∞} function. Let f and f be proper log-concave functions on Rd. Let E = (A α , a ) and 1 2 1 1 ⊕ 1 1 E = (A α , a ) be d-ellipsoids in d such that f ℓ and f ℓ . Let β , β > 0 be 2 2 ⊕ 2 2 E 1 ≤ ψ,E1 2 ≤ ψ,E2 1 2 such that β1 + β2 =1. Put

β1 β2 1 (3.5) A = β A + β A , α = α α , a = A− (β A a + β A a ) and E =(A α, a). 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 ⊕ Then ℓψ,E satisﬁes the following inequalities: (3.6) f β1 f β2 ℓ 1 2 ≤ ψ,E and β1 β2

(3.7) ℓψ,E ℓψ,E1 ℓψ,E1 , ≤ Rd Rd Z Z Z with equality in (3.7) if and only if A1 = A2. Proof. Since f ℓ and f ℓ , we have 1 ≤ ψ,E1 2 ≤ ψ,E2 (3.8) f β1 f β2 ℓ β1 ℓ β2 . 1 2 ≤ ψ,E1 ψ,E2 Since ℓ Bd+1 is log-concave and β A (x a )+ β A (x a )= A(x a), inequality ψ, 1 1 − 1 2 2 − 2 − β1 β2 ℓ Bd+1 (A(x a)) ℓ Bd+1 (A (x a )) ℓ Bd+1 (A (x a )) ψ, − ≥ ψ, 1 − 1 ψ, 2 − 2 β β holds for all x Rd. Using the identities (2.5) and α = αβ1αβ2 , we get ℓ 1 ℓ 2 ℓ . ∈ 1 2 ψ,E1 ψ,E2 ≤ ψ,E This and inequality (3.8) imply inequality (3.6). Using (2.6), we see that (3.7) is equivalent to inequality

λd[ψ] λd[ψ] β β , det(β1A1 + β2A2) ≤ (det A1) 1 (det A2) 2 which is equivalent to (det A )β1 (det A )β2 det(β A + β A ). 1 2 ≤ 1 1 2 2 That is, inequality (3.7) and the equality condition in it follow from Minkowski’s determinant inequality (2.2) and the equality condition therein. Lemma 3.2 and Corollary 3.1 imply Theorem 3.1. Let ψ : [0, ) R + be an admissible function and let f be a proper log-concave function. If there∞ exists→ ∪{ℓ ∞}d[ψ] such that f ℓ, then there exists a solution to problem (1.1). Moreover, all solutions to∈ this E problem are translates≤ of each other. FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 9

Proof. By Corollary 3.1, if the set ℓ d[ψ]: f ℓ is nonempty, then the minimum in (1.1) ∈E ≤ is attained at some ψ-ellipsoidal function. Let E = (A α , a ) and E = (A α , a ) be 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 d-ellipsoids in d such that ℓ and ℓ are the solutions⊕ to problem (1.1). ⊕ E ψ,E1 ψ,E2 Set β1 = β2 =1/2 and let E be given by (3.5). By the choice of the ellipsoids and Lemma 3.2, ℓ is a ψ-ellipsoidal function such that f ℓ and ψ,E ≤ ψ,E

ℓψ,E1 ℓψ,E ℓψ,E1 ℓψ,E2 = ℓψ,E1 . Rd ≤ Rd ≤ Rd · Rd Rd Z Z sZ Z Z

Hence, by the equality condition in (3.7), we have A1 = A2. Since the integrals of ℓψ,E1 and ℓψ,E2 are equal and by (2.6), we obtain α1 = α2. This completes the proof. 4. When is the solution unique?

Let ℓ1 and ℓ2 be two ψ-ellipsoidal function that are translates of each other. Summarizing the already proved results, we need to be able to “squeeze” a ψ-ellipsoidal function ℓ between ℓ1 and ℓ2 in such a way that Rd ℓ< Rd ℓ1 = Rd ℓ2 and min ℓ1,ℓ2 ℓ to show the uniqueness of a solution to problem (1.1). We are able to ﬁnd such an interpolation{ } ≤ for two classes of admissible functions. They are the classR of strictlyR increasingR admissible functions and the class of admissible functions with bounded eﬀective domain. We will prove the following two lemmas about interpolation between two translated ψ-ellipsoidal functions:

Lemma 4.1. Let ψ : [0, ) R + be a strictly increasing admissible function. Let a1 = a2 ∞ → ∪{ ∞} d d 6 and let E1 =(A α, a1) and E2 =(A α, a2) be elements of . Then there exists E such that ⊕ ⊕ E ∈E

ℓψ,E < ℓψ,E1 = ℓψ,E2 and min ℓψ,E1 ,ℓψ,E2 ℓψ,E. Rd Rd Rd ≤ Z Z Z Lemma 4.2. Let ψ : [0, ) R + be an admissible function with bounded eﬀective domain. ∞ → ∪{ ∞} Let a = a and let E = (A α, a ) and E = (A α, a ) be elements of d. Then there exists 1 6 2 1 ⊕ 1 2 ⊕ 2 E E d such that ∈E

ℓψ,E < ℓψ,E1 = ℓψ,E2 and min ℓψ,E1 ,ℓψ,E2 ℓψ,E. Rd Rd Rd ≤ Z Z Z We use two different ideas of how to construct a ψ-ellipsoidal function ℓψ,E in these lemmas. Before we proceed with the proofs of Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2, let us show how they imply the uniqueness result. Theorem 4.1. Let ψ : [0, ) R + be an admissible function. Additionally, let ψ be a strictly increasing function∞ or→ let the∪{ effective∞} domain of ψ be bounded. Let f : Rd [0, ) be a proper log-concave function. If there exists ℓ d[ψ] such that f ℓ, then there exists→ a∞ unique solution to problem (1.1). ∈E ≤ Proof. Assume there exists ℓ d[ψ] such that f ℓ. By Corollary 3.1, the solution to prob- ∈ E ≤ lem (1.1) exists. Assume that there are at least two different solutions ℓ1 and ℓ2. By construction, we have that f min ℓ ,ℓ . This means that a ψ-ellipsoidal function ℓ such that min ℓ ,ℓ ℓ ≤ { 1 2} { 1 2} ≤ also satisfies inequality f ℓ. By Theorem 3.1, the ψ-ellipsoidal functions ℓ1 and ℓ2 are translates of each other. Hence, by Lemma≤ 4.1 (in case ψ is strictly increasing) and by Lemma 4.2 (in case ψ has bounded effective domain), ℓ1 and ℓ2 are not solutions to problem (1.1). This contradicts the choice of ℓ1 and ℓ2. 4.1. Proofs of Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.2. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that ψ(0) = 0. Without loss of generality, we assume that a1 and a2 are the opposite vectors, that is, a2 = a1 =0. Set−a =6 Aa . Consider the half-space H+ = x Rd : Ax, a 0 . Clearly, we have − 1 { ∈ h i ≥ } (4.1) ℓ (x) ℓ (x) for all x H+. ψ,E1 ≤ ψ,E2 ∈ FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 10

Proof of Lemma 4.1. The idea of our construction is as follows. We consider ψ-ellipsoidal func- α tions ℓψ,E, where E is of the form (ρ1A ρ2 , 0) . Next, we find suitable ρ1, ρ2 (0, 1). That is, we decrease the height and the determinant⊕ of the operator. ∈ First, we construct ψ-ellipsoidal functions which satisfy inequality min ℓ ,ℓ ℓ . ψ,E1 ψ,E2 ≤ ψ,E Claim 4.1. Set 1 (4.2) ε = inf ψ( Ax + a ) ψ( Ax ) , 1 2d { | | − | | } + where the infimum is taken over x H satisfying ψ( Ax ) 2d. Then ε1 > 0 and for any ε [0, min ε , 1 ), the ψ-ellipsoidal function∈ ℓ with | | ≤ ∈ { 1 } ψ,E 2d ε (4.3) E = (1 ε)A αe− · , 0 , − ⊕ satisfies inequality min ℓ ,ℓ ℓ . ψ,E1 ψ,E2 ≤ ψ,E Proof. Let us show thatε1 > 0. Since ψ is a convex function, for any τ,t > 0 we have ψ(τ)= ψ(τ) ψ(0) ψ(τ + t) ψ(t). − ≤ − Hence, ψ( Ax + a Ax ) ψ( Ax + a ) ψ( Ax ) . Since ψ is a convex function and since lim ψ(t)=| , the|−| set x| ≤Rd : ψ| ( Ax ) | −2d is| bounded.| Clearly, Ax + a Ax is bounded t ∞ ∈ | | ≤ | |−| | from→∞ below by some positive constant on the bounded set H+ x : ψ( Ax ) 2d . Since ψ is ∩{ | | ≤ } strictly increasing, we conclude that ε1 > 0.

Let us check inequality min ℓψ,E1 ,ℓψ,E2 ℓψ,E. Using (2.3) and (4.1), we see that it suffices to prove that ≤ ψ ( (1 ε)Ax )+2d ε ψ( Ax + a ) for all x H+. | − | · ≤ | | ∈ Since ψ is a convex function, for any ε [0, 1), we have ∈ ψ ( (1 ε)Ax ) (1 ε)ψ( Ax )+ εψ(0) = (1 ε)ψ( Ax ). | − | ≤ − | | − | | Therefore, it suffices to show that (4.4) (1 ε)ψ( Ax )+2d ε ψ( Ax + a ) for all x H+. − | | · ≤ | | ∈ Consider three cases. First, if ψ( Ax )=+ for x H+, then ψ( Ax + a )=+ . Therefore, inequality (4.4) trivially holds in| this| case.∞ Second,∈ since Ax + a| > Ax| for∞ any x H+, inequality (4.4) holds for any non-negative ε and any x in | y H|+ : |ψ( Ay| ) 2d . ∈Third, consider x y H+ : ψ( Ay ) 2d . Then inequality (4.4){ takes∈ the form| | ≥ } ∈{ ∈ | | ≤ } (4.5) ε(2d ψ( Ax )) ψ( Ax + a ) ψ( Ax ) . − | | ≤ | | − | | Set ψ( Ax + a ) ψ( Ax ) ε0 = inf | | − | | . x H+: ψ( Ax ) 2d 2d ψ( Ax ) ∈ | | ≤ − | | We see that inequality (4.5) holds for any ε [0,ε0]. Hence, inequality (4.4) holds for any + ∈ ε [0, min 1,ε0 ] and any x H . Clearly, ε0 ε1. By symmetry, ε1 given by (4.2) satisfies the required∈ property.{ } ∈ ≥

Using (2.6) with E given by (4.3), we obtain e 2d ε ℓ = − · ℓ . ψ,E d ψ,E1 Rd (1 ε) · Rd Z − Z −2d·ε However, since e < 1 for any ε (0, 1/2], we conclude that ℓ < ℓ for a (1 ε)d ∈ Rd ψ,E Rd ψ,E1 suﬃciently small positive− ε. This completes the proof of Lemma 4.1. R R FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 11

Proof of Lemma 4.2. Here we use the same idea as in the setting of convex sets, that is, if the d d d a1+a2 set B + a1 B + a2 with a1 = a2 is nonempty, then it is a subset of ρB + 2 for some ρ (0, 1). We∩ apply this observation6 for the superlevel sets of ψ-ellipsoidal functions and consider ∈ ψ-ellipsoidal functions ℓ , where E is of the form (A α, 0) with A A . The boundedness ψ,E 1 ⊕ ≺ 1 of the effective domain allows us to show that there exists a suitable A1. Denote δ = a . Let [0, τ] be the closure of dom ψ. We have that supp ℓ = x Rd : | | ψ,E1 { ∈ Ax + a τ . Hence, the interiors of supports of ℓ and ℓ do not intersect if δ τ. Thus, | | ≤ } ψ,E1 ψ,E2 ≥ any E of the form (ρA α, 0) with any ρ> 1 suits us in this case. Assume that δ < τ. Choose⊕ an orthonormal basis of Rd such that the first vector of the basis is in the direction of the vector a. We claim that the function ℓψ,E with τ E =(MA α, 0), where M = diag , 1,..., 1 , ⊕ τ δ − satisfies the condition of the lemma.

The bound on the integral of ℓψ,E trivially holds. Let us check inequality min ℓ ,ℓ ℓ . By (2.3) and (4.1), it suffices to prove that ψ,E1 ψ,E2 ≤ ψ,E + (4.6) ψ ( MAx ) ψ( Ax + a ) for all x H supp ℓψ,E . | | ≤ | | ∈ ∩ 1 Since an admissible function is increasing on its domain, inequality (4.6) follows from the following: (4.7) MAx Ax + a for all x H+ v Rd : Av + a τ . | |≤| | ∈ ∩{ ∈ | | ≤ } Indeed, denote y = Ax and let y = λa + z, where z is orthogonal to a. We have τ 2 τ 2 My 2 = M(λa + z) 2 = λa + z = λ2δ2 + z 2 | | | | τ δ τ δ | | − − 2 2 and y + a =(1+ λ)2δ2 + z . Since λ 0 for x H +, inequality (4.7) is equivalent to | | | | ≥ τ ∈ λ 1+ λ, τ δ ≤ − which trivially holds since (1 + λ)δ y + a = Ax + a τ. Thus, inequality (4.6) holds. We conclude that min ℓ ,ℓ ℓ ≤ |, completing| | the proof| ≤ of Lemma 4.2. ψ,E1 ψ,E2 ≤ ψ,E 4.2. Chimeras. Let ψ : [0, ) R be an admissible function such that it is constant on some interval [0, τ],τ > 0, and it∞ takes→ only finite values. We claim that, given such an admissible function and a log-concave function f, a solution to problem (1.1) is not necessarily unique, which we show in the following example. For simplicity, we assume that ψ(0) = 0. d Example 4.1. Let f : R [0, ) be given by f = min ℓψ,(Id 1, c),ℓψ,(Id 1,c) , where c = τ. → ∞ ⊕ − ⊕ | | Then the functions of the form ℓψ,(Id 1,ρc) with ρ 1 are solutions to problem (1.1). ⊕ | | ≤ Proof. By monotonicity of the Euclidean norm, we see that any function of the form ℓψ,(Id 1,ρc) ⊕ with ρ 1 satisfies inequality f ℓψ,(Id 1,ρc). Thus, we need to show that these functions are of minimal| | ≤ integral. ≤ ⊕ d Let (A α, a) be such that f ℓψ,(A α,a). Since f(0) = 1, we conclude that α 1. By this and by⊕ (2.6),∈ it Esuffices to show that≤ A ⊕ 1. Assume the contrary: There is an eigenvalue≥ λ of A such that λ > 1. Denote by u a unitk k eigenvector ≤ corresponding to λ such that u,c 0. Then, for all ξ > 0, the following inequality holds: h i ≥ ψ( λξu Aa ) ψ( ξu+c ) αe− | − | e− | | , ≥ or, equivalently, (4.8) ψ( ξu + c ) ψ( λξu Aa ) ln α. | | − | − | ≥ − By convexity of ψ, the left-hand side in (4.8) is at most ψ( λξu Aa ξu + c ). Since λ> 1, the argument of ψ tends to infinity as ξ tends to infinity.− | Thus,− the|−| left-hand| side in (4.8) is strictly less than ln α for a sufficiently large ξ. We obtain a contradiction. − FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 12

5. When does the solution exist? In this Section, we address the question of existence of a solution to problem (1.1). By Corol- lary 3.1, it suﬃces to ﬁnd one ψ-ellipsoidal function ℓ such that f ℓ. This is a simple technical question. ≤

Example 5.1. Let ψ : [0, ) R + be an admissible function which is not of linear growth. Then for any d N∞, the→ set ∪{ ∞} ∈ d x ℓ [ψ]: e−| | ℓ ∈E ≤ is empty.

We show below that if ψ : [0, ) R + is an admissible function of linear growth, then for any proper log-concave function∞ →f : R∪{d ∞}[0, ), there is a ψ-ellipsoidal function ℓ such that f ℓ. Next, we bound the norm of the maximizers→ ∞ of (1.1) in Lemma 5.3, and complete the proof≤ of Theorem 1.1.

5.1. Existence of a “covering”.

Lemma 5.1. Let ψ : [0, ) R + be an admissible function and f : Rd [0, ) be a ∞ → ∪{ ∞} d → ∞ proper log-concave function. If there exists E such that f ℓψ,E, then for an arbitrary d ∈ E ≤ α > f , there exists (A α, a) such that f ℓψ,(A α,a). k k ⊕ ∈E ≤ ⊕ Proof. Without loss of generality, we assume that E = Bd+1 and ψ(0) = 0. Case α > 1 is α Rd trivial. Consider f < < 1. Put S = x : ℓψ,(1/2 Id α,0) ℓψ,Bd+1 . Since ψ is convex and admissible, itk followsk that S is bounded.{ ∈ Clearly, for· a⊕ suﬃciently≤ small} ρ (0, 1/2) we ∈ have f ℓψ,(ρ Id α,0)(x) for all x S. By monotonicity, ℓψ,(1/2 Id α,0) ℓψ,(ρ Id α,0). Thus, by k k ≤ · ⊕ ∈ · ⊕ ≤ · ⊕ construction, f ℓψ,(ρ Id α,0). ≤ · ⊕ Lemma 5.2. Let ψ : [0, ) R + be an admissible function of linear growth with ψ(0) = 0 and f : Rd [0, ) be a∞ proper→ log-concave∪{ ∞} function. Then for any (A α, a) d with α > f , → ∞ ⊕ ∈E k k there exists γ > 0 such that f ℓψ,(γA α,a). ≤ ⊕ Proof. By monotonicity of ψ, it suﬃces to prove the lemma for A = Id. Without loss of generality, we assume that a =0. It is known that (see [BGVV14, Lemma 2.2.1]) for any proper log-concave function f on Rd, there are Θ,ϑ> 0 such that

ϑ x d f(x) Θe− | |, for all x R . ≤ ∈

On the other hand, since ψ is convex and of linear growth, there are γ1 > 0 and C > 0 such that

ϑ x ψ(γ1 x ) Θe− | | αe− | | for all x such that x > C. ≤ | | By monotonicity of ψ, this inequality holds for all γ (0,γ ). ∈ 1 However, by continuity, there exists γ2 > 0 such that inequality

ψ(γ2 x ) f αe− | | holds for all x such that x C. k k ≤ | | ≤ That is, γ = min γ ,γ satisﬁes the required property. { 1 2} As an immediate consequence of Corollary 3.1 and Lemma 5.2, we get the following.

Corollary 5.1. Let ψ : [0, ) R + be an admissible function of linear growth. Let f : Rd [0, ) be a proper∞ log-concave→ ∪{ function.∞} Then there exists a solution to problem (1.1). → ∞ FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 13

5.2. Bound on the height. The following result is an extension of the analogous result from [IN20] about the John s-function with a similar proof. The idea of the proof can be traced back to [AGMJV18]. Lemma 5.3. Let ψ : [0, ) R + be an admissible function and f : Rd [0, ) be a proper log-concave function.∞ Then→ ∪{ for a∞} solution L to problem (1.1) we have → ∞ (5.1) L ed f . k k ≤ k k Proof. Without loss of generality, we assume that ψ(0) = 0. There is nothing to prove if f = L . Assume f < L . We define a function Ψ: ( f , + ) [0, + ) as follows. Letk αk > k k k k k k kd k ∞ → ∞ f . By Lemma 5.1, there exists Eα =(Aα α, a) such that f ℓ . By Lemma 3.1 and k k ⊕ ∈E ≤ ψ,Eα by compactness, we may assume that ℓψ,Eα is of minimal integral among ψ-ellipsoidal functions ℓ of height α and such that f ℓ. Put Ψ(α) = det Aα. The function Ψ is well-defined. Indeed, by (2.6), we have that the determinants≤ of operators that correspond to two different ψ-ellipsoidal functions with the same heights and the same integrals, are equal. Claim 5.1. For any α , α ( f , ) and λ [0, 1], we have 1 2 ∈ k k ∞ ∈ λ 1 λ 1/d 1/d 1/d (5.2) Ψ α α − λΨ(α ) + (1 λ)Ψ(α ) . 1 2 ≥ 1 − 2 Proof. Let (A α , a ) , (A α , a ) d be such that 1 ⊕ 1 1 2 ⊕ 2 2 ∈E

f ℓψ,(A1 α1,a1) and f ℓψ,(A2 α2,a2), ≤ ⊕ ≤ ⊕ and

Ψ(α1) = det A1 and Ψ(α2) = det A2. By the deﬁnition of the function Ψ, Lemma 3.2 and identity (2.6), we have that λ 1 λ Ψ α α − det (λA + (1 λ)A ) . 1 2 ≥ 1 − 2 Now, (5.2) follows immediately from Minkowski’s determinant inequality (2.1). Set Φ(t) = Ψ(et)1/d for all t (log f , + ) . Inequality (5.2) implies that Φ is a concave function on its domain. ∈ k k ∞ Let α0 be the height of L. Then, by (2.6), for any α in the domain of Ψ, we have that α α 0 . Ψ(α0) ≤ Ψ(α)

Setting t0 = log α0 and taking root of order d, for any t in the domain of Φ we obtain 1 (t t0) Φ(t) Φ(t )e d − . ≤ 0 The expression on the right-hand side is a convex function of t, while Φ is a concave function. Since these functions take the same value at t = t0, we conclude that the graph of Φ lies below 1 (t t0) the tangent line to the graph of Φ(t0)e d − at the point t0. That is, 1 Φ(t) Φ(t ) 1+ (t t ) . ≤ 0 d − 0 Passing to the limit as t log f and since the values of Φ are positive, we get → k k log f t 0 1+ k k 0 , ≤ d − d d or, equivalently, t0 d + log f . Therefore, α0 = L e f . This completes the proof of Lemma 5.3. ≤ k k k k ≤ k k

5.3. Proof of Theorem 1.1. Since d[ψ] = d[ψ + c] for any constant c, Theorem 1.1 is an immediate consequence of Theorem 4.1E and LemmaE 5.3. FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 14

6. Classes of s-ellipsoidal functions In this Section, we discuss s-ellipsoidal functions and their properties. We recall the deﬁnition of John s-function and explain basic properties of the duality between two optimization problems. Next, we prove Theorem 1.2 and 1.3.

6.1. Basic properties of s-ellipsoidal functions and the John s-functions. Recall that for α d (s) any E =(A , a) and any s (0, ), the s-ellipsoidal function ℓE is given by (6.1) ⊕ ∈E ∈ ∞ s/2 4 2 1+ 1+ 2 A(x a) (s) ψs( A(x a) ) s 4 2 ℓ (x)= αe− | − | = α | − | exp 1 1+ A(x a) . E q 2  2 · − r s | − | !   However, we have not shown that ψs is an admissible function. To avoid boring computations, we show the basic properties of s-ellipsoidal functions using their log-conjugate functions. At the same time, we reveal the duality between our definition of Löwner s-function and the definition of John s-function introduced in [IN20]. For any d-ellipsoid E =(A α, a) d and any s> 0, define ⊕ ∈E s/2 1 1 2 d (s) 1 A (x a) , if x AB + a h (x)= α − E  −| − | ∈ 0, h i otherwise. (1) The geometric sense of this function is as follows. The graph of h(A α,a) restricted to its 1/s⊕ d+1 support coincides with the upper hemisphere of the d-ellipsoid (A α− )B + a. It follows (s) α d+1 ⊕ that hE f if and only if the d-ellipsoid (A 1/ ) B + a is contained within the subgraph 1/s ≤ ⊕ (1) of f . Another consequence of the observation that hE is a “height” function of the d-ellipsoid (1) (s) (s) is that hE is concave on its support. Hence, hE is log-concave. Clearly, hE is a proper log-concave function. For a d-ellipsoid E =(A α, a) d, we put ⊕ ∈E 2 (0) 1 ( ) 1 A−1(x a) hE = αχABd+a and ∞ hE = αe−| − | . The authors of [IN20] consider the problem

(s) (s) (6.2) max hE subject to hE f; E d Rd ≤ ∈E Z and show that for any fixed s [0, ) the solution to this problem exists and is unique [IN20, Theorems 4.5 and 7.3] for any∈ proper∞ log-concave function f : Rd [0, ). The case s = 0 was studied earlier in [AGMJV18]. For a proper log-concave function→f : R∞d [0, ), we call the →(s) ∞ unique solution to problem (6.2) the John s-function of f and denote it by J f . In the next lemma we prove that for any s [0, ], the affine classes (s)h : E d and ∈ ∞ E ∈E d[ψ ] = (s)ℓ : E d are the affine classes of two functions polar ton each other. Thato is, E s E ∈E problemsn (6.2) and (1.3)o are dual. This gives us a reason for considering classes of s-ellipsoidal functions. Lemma 6.1. Let E =(A α, 0) d and s [0, ]. Then ⊕ ∈E ∈ ∞ (s) ◦ (s) (s) ◦ (s) (6.3) hE = ℓE and ℓE = hE. Before we prove this lemma, let us mention several corollaries. First, it follows that for any s [0, ], ψs is indeed a strictly increasing admissible function, and s-ellipsoidal functions are ∈ ∞ (s) proper log-concave functions. Moreover, as the support of hBd+1 is bounded for any s [0, ), ∈ ∞ FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 15 we conclude that ψ is of linear growth for any s [0, ). Also, we will need the following simple s ∈ ∞ observations. For any E d, we have ∈E (s) (s) (s) (s) (6.4) hE ℓE = hBd+1 ℓBd+1 . Rd · Rd Rd · Rd Z Z Z Z (s) d Clearly, hBd+1 (x) is a strictly decreasing function of s on [0, + ) for any fixed x B 0 . By this and (2.4), we have that ∞ ∈ \{ } (s) d (6.5) ℓBd+1 (x) is a strictly increasing function of s on [0, + ) for any fixed x R 0 . ∞ ∈ \{ } Proof of Lemma 6.1. Identities (6.3) are trivial in two cases s = 0 and s = . Assume s (0, ). By definition, for any log-concave function f and any positive-definite operator∞ A, we have∈ ∞ 2/s 1 d+1 (s) 2 (f A)◦ = f ◦ A− . Thus, it suffices to consider E = B . Consider f = hBd+1 =1 x , ◦ ◦ −| | then x,y t y 2 e−h i e− | | 1+ 1+ y 2 f ◦(y) = inf 2 = inf = | | exp 1 1+ y . x <1 1 x t [0,1) 1 t2 2 − | | | | ∈ − p −| | q p q Again, by the definition of the log-conjugate function, we have (f )◦(x) = [f ◦(x/q)] for all x Rd and q > 0. Thus, we prove the leftmost identity in (6.3), which implies the rightmost identity.∈

6.2. L¨owner s-functions. We proved all the required results to understand the properties of existence and uniqueness of a solution to problem (1.3).

Proof of Theorem 1.2. The result follows from Corollary 5.1, Theorem 4.1 and the fact that ψs is a strictly increasing admissible function of linear growth for a fixed s [0, ). ∈ ∞ (s1) The following lemma says that for fixed s1 and s2, the integrals of the Löwner functions Lf (s2) and Lf are bounded by each other. (s) Note that by (6.5), λd is an increasing function of s [0, ). By simple computation, we (0) d (s) ∈ ∞ have λd = d! vold B . Actually, λd can be computed using hypergeometric functions. We claim without proof that d s d s (s)λ = πd/2sd d U + 1; d + + 1; s + U ; d + + 1; s , d · 2 2 2 2 where U(a; b; z) is the hypergeometric Tricomi function defined by + 1 ∞ a 1 b a 1 zv U(a; b; z)= v − (v + 1) − − e− dv. Γ(a) Z0 (s) We do not use this representation of λd in our proofs. Lemma 6.2. Let f : Rd [0, ) be a proper log-concave function and 0 s

(s1) (s1) s2 d (s1) λd Rd Lf d + s2 d + s2 λd (6.6) (s ) (s ) (s ) . 2 ≤ 2 L ≤ s s2 d · 2 λd RRd f λd Proof. We prove the leftmostR inequality in (6.6) first. Without loss of generality, assume that (s1) (s2) (s2) ℓBd+1 is the Löwner s -function of f. By(6.5), we have that f ℓBd+1 . Hence, L 1 ≤ Rd f ≤ (s2)λ . The leftmost inequality in (6.6) follows. d R (s2) Now, we prove the rightmost inequality in (6.6). Assume that ℓBd+1 is the Löwner s2-function of f. For a fixed ρ (0, 1), consider ∈ s2 E = ρ Id 1 ρ2 − , 0 . ρ · ⊕ − p FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 16

(s2) (s1) We claim that ℓBd+1 ℓ for all ρ (0, 1). By (2.4) and by (6.3), it is equivalent to the ≤ Eρ ∈ (s1) (s2) d 2 inequality h hBd+1 . Since for any ρ (0, 1) the cylinder ρB 0, 1 ρ is contained Eρ ≤ ∈ × − d+1 in B , we conclude that h p i s2 s2 s2 (s1) 2 2 (1) (s2) h 1 ρ χ Bd = 1 ρ χ Bd hBd+1 = hBd+1 . Eρ ≤ − · ρ − · ρ ≤ (s2) (s1) (s1) (s1) (s1) Thus, ℓBd+1 pℓ for all ρ (0, 1)p. Therefore, f ℓ and L ℓ . ≤ Eρ ∈ ≤ Eρ Rd f ≤ Rd Eρ Using (2.7) with ρ = d , we obtain d+s2 R R q (s1) (s1) (s1) s2 d (s1) d L d L Rd ℓ d + s d + s λ R f = R f Eρ = 2 2 d . (s2) (s2) (s2) (s2) L Bd+1 ≤ Bd+1 s s2 d · RRd f Rd ℓ R d ℓ λd R R R 6.3. The limit as s 0. In this subsection, we prove Theorem 1.3. → (s) Proof of Theorem 1.3. Let the Löwner s-function Lf be represented by (As αs, as) for every s [0, 1]. Clearly, it suffices to show that ⊕ ∈ E ∈ (6.7) lim (As αs, as)=(A0 α0, a0). s 0+ → ⊕ ⊕ (s) Assume the contrary. By Lemma 6.2, we see that the integrals of Lf for s [0, 1] are bounded (s) (0) (1)∈ from above by some finite constant. By monotonicity, λd λd, λd for any d N. s [0,1] ⊂ ∈ ∈ α Thus, applying Lemma 3.1 for ψ = ψs, s [0, 1], wen geto that theh set (As i s, as) s [0,1] is d ∈ { ⊕ } ∈ bounded in . Now, we see that there exists a sequence of positive numbers si 1∞ with lim si =0 E { } i such that →∞ α α d α α lim (Asi si , asi )=(A , a) and (A , a) =(A0 0, a0). i →∞ ⊕ ⊕ ∈E ⊕ 6 ⊕ Clearly, we have that

~~(0) (0) (si) (6.8) f ℓ(A α,a) and ℓ(A α,a) = lim Lf . ≤ ⊕ Rd ⊕ i Rd Z →∞ Z (s) By (6.5), we have f ℓ(A0 α0,a0) for any positive s. This and (6.8) imply that ≤ ⊕~~

(0) (si) (si) (0) ℓ(A α,a) = lim Lf lim ℓ(A0 α0,a0) = Lf . Rd ⊕ i Rd ≤ i Rd ⊕ Rd Z →∞ Z →∞ Z Z (0) This contradicts the choice of Lf . 7. Gaussian densities. The limit as s →∞ In this Section, we prove Theorem 1.4. That is, we show that the limit of ψs-function as s tends to may be only the gaussian distribution, which motivates our choice of the function ψ . ∞ ∞ 7.1. Basic identities. For any positive-deﬁnite operator A, we have 2 A−1x ◦ 1 Ax 2 (7.1) e−| | = e− 4 | | . By direct computations, we ﬁnd that t2 (7.2) lim ψs √s t = for any t [0, + ). s →∞ · 2 ∈ ∞ (s) x 2/2 This implies that the functions ℓ(c(s)I 1,0), where c(s)= √s, converge to e−| | as s . By this and using assertion (1) of Lemma 2.1⊕ , we have →∞ (s) d/2 d/2 (7.3) lim λd s− = (2π) . s →∞ · FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 17

As an immediate consequence of Lemma 3.1 and identity (7.3), we obtain Corollary 7.1. Let f : Rd [0, ) be a proper log-concave function such that there is a sequence → ∞ si 1∞ of positive numbers with lim si = and i { } →∞ ∞

(si) lim Lf = λ< . i Rd ∞ →∞ Z Further, let (A α , a ) represent the L¨owner s-function of f, s [0, ). Then inequality s ⊕ s s ∈ ∞ Asi ρ1 Id ρ2 Id. · ≺ √si ≺ · holds for some positive ρ , ρ and all i N. 1 2 ∈ (s) x 2/2 Using (6.3) in assertion (2) of Lemma 2.1, we conclude that h √s Id 1,0 (x) e−| | . Again, ( · ⊕ ) → by assertion (1) of Lemma 2.1, we get

~~d/2 (s) d/2 lim s hBd+1 = (2π) . s Rd →∞ Z Thus, we conclude that~~

~~(s) (s) d (7.4) lim λd hBd+1 = (2π) . s · Rd →∞ Z For any (A α, a) d, identity (2.7) gives ⊕ ∈E d/2 ( ) π (7.5) ∞ ℓ(A α,a) = α . Rd ⊕ det A Z 7.2. Limits of centered sequences.~~

Lemma 7.1. Let si 1∞ be a sequence of positive scalars such that lim si = , let Ai 1∞ be i { } →∞ ∞ { } a sequence of positive-deﬁnite operators with lim Ai = A, where A is positive-deﬁnite, and let i Ai →∞ k k (si) the ellipsoids Ei, represented by (Ai 1, 0) satisfy lim Rd ℓE = λ < . Then the functions i i ⊕ →∞ ∞ (si) Rd ( ) ℓE converge uniformly on to the Gaussian densityR ∞ ℓ(AL 1,0), where i ⊕ n o √π (7.6) AL = A. (λ det A)1/d

(si) ∞ Proof. Consider the functions hE . By (7.4), we have that i 1 n o d (si) (2π) lim hEi = . i Rd λ →∞ Z (si) Rd As shown in [IN20, Lemma 8.5], the functions hEi converge uniformly on to the Gaussian 2 A−1x density e−| J | with 2√π A = A. J (λ det A)1/d

~~(si) Thus, by (7.1) and by assertion (2) of Lemma 2.1, we get that the functions ℓEi converge ( ) locally uniformly to the Gaussian density ∞ ℓ(AL 1,0) with AL given by (7.6). Since ⊕~~

~~(si) ( ) ∞ lim ℓEi = ℓ(AL 1,0), i Rd Rd ⊕ →∞ Z Z (si) Rd we conclude that the functions ℓEi are uniformly convergent on . n o FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 18~~

(s) d Lemma 7.2. Let G be a Gaussian density. Then the functions LG converge uniformly on R to G as s . →∞ x 2/2 Proof of Lemma 7.2. We assume that G(x) = e−| | . First, we relax the condition and prove that it suffices to approximate G by any suitable s-ellipsoidal functions. Claim 7.1. If there is a function c: [1, ) [1, ) such that ∞ → ∞ (s) d/2 (7.7) lim ℓ(c(s)I 1,0) = G = (2π) , s Rd ⊕ Rd →∞ Z Z (s) (s) d and G ℓ(c(s)I 1,0) for all s 1, then the functions LG converge uniformly on R to G as s .≤ ⊕ ≥ →∞ (s) Proof. By Theorem 1.2, the Löwner function LG exists and is unique for any positive s. (s) (s) By symmetry, we see that LG is of the form ℓ(β(s)Id α(s),0), where β : [1, ) (0, ) and α: [1, ) [1, ). By (7.7), we obtain that ⊕ ∞ → ∞ ∞ → ∞ (s) lim LG = G. s Rd Rd →∞ Z Z (s) (s) This implies that α(s) 1 as s . Hence, the functions LG = ℓ(β(s)Id α(s),0) converge ⊕ d → → ∞ (s) uniformly on R to the same function as the functions ℓ(β(s)Id 1,0) as s tends to (if the latter ⊕ (s) ∞ d converges). However, by Lemma 7.1, the functions ℓ(β(s)Id 1,0) converge uniformly on R to G as s . ⊕ →∞ It is not hard to find a suitable function c(s). (s) Claim 7.2. Let c(s)= √s. Then G ℓ(c(s)I 1,0) for all s 1 and identity (7.7) holds. ≤ ⊕ ≥ Proof. Identity (7.7) is an immediate consequence of (2.7) and (7.3). (s) d Inequality G ℓ(c(s)I 1,0) is purely technical. By (7.2), for any x R , we have ≤ ⊕ ∈ (s) lim ℓ(c(s)I 1,0)(x)= G(x). s ⊕ →∞ (s) d We claim that ℓ(c(s)I 1,0)(x) is a decreasing function of s [1, ) for any fixed x R . Or, ⊕ ∈ ∞ ∈ equivalently, that ψs(√s t) is an increasing function of s [1, ) for any fixed t [0, ). The derivative of ψ (√s t) as· a function of s is ∈ ∞ ∈ ∞ s · 1 t2/s t2 ln 1+ +1 + ln 2. 2 1+ t2/s +1 − r s ! It is a function of t2/s, andp we use Φ(t2/s) to denote this function. Making the substitution z = t2/s and computing the derivative of Φ(z), we get that z Φ′(z)= 2 > 0. 4√z +1 1+ √z +1

By this and since Φ(z)=0, we conclude that the derivative of ψs(√s t) as a function of s is positive for any s [1, ). This completes the proof of the Claim. · ∈ ∞ Lemma 7.2 follows from Claims 7.1 and 7.2. 7.3. Proof of Theorem 1.4. Implication (3) (2) is trivial. Implication (2) (1) is a direct consequence of Lemma 7.2. ⇒ ⇒ (s) We proceed with implication (1) (3). Let the L¨owner s-function Lf be represented by the ellipsoid (A α , a ) for any ⇒s [1, ). Applying Lemma 3.1 with ψ = ψ , one sees that s ⊕ s s ∈ E ∈ ∞ s there exists a minimizing sequence si 1∞ with lim si = such that i { } →∞ ∞ A (si) (s) si α α lim Lf lim inf Lf , A, si and asi a i Rd → s Rd A → → → →∞ Z →∞ Z k si k FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 19

d d d for some positive semideﬁnite matrix A R × , a number α > 0 and a R as i tends to . By Corollary 7.1, we conclude that A is∈ positive-deﬁnite. Thus, by Lemma∈ 7.1, we have that∞ (si) d the functions Lf converge uniformly on R to some Gaussian density G. Clearly, f G and (s) ≤ Rd G = lim inf Rd Lf . Hence, by Theorem 1.1, there exists a unique solution to problem (1.4). s →∞ RWe use GL to denoteR this solution. By Lemma 7.2, we have (s) (s) GL = lim inf LGL lim inf Lf = G. Rd s Rd ≥ s Rd Rd Z →∞ Z →∞ Z Z Thus, by the choice of GL, we conclude that GL = G. Again, by Lemma 7.2, we have that

(s) (s) lim Lf = lim inf Lf = GL. s Rd s Rd Rd →∞ Z →∞ Z Z Hence, As A, α α and a a as s . Indeed, otherwise using Lemma 7.1, we see that As s s k k → → → →∞ there is another Gaussian density G such that f G and G = G , which contradicts 2 ≤ 2 Rd 2 Rd L the choice of G . Thus, we conclude that the functions (s)L converge uniformly on Rd as s L f R R →∞ to GL, completing the proof of Theorem 1.4. Proposition 7.1. Let K Rd be a convex body containing the origing in its interior and let ⊂ 1 d K denote the gauge function of K, that is, x K = inf λ > 0 : x λK . Let A− B be thek·k smallest volume origin-centered ellipsoid containingk k K, {where A is a∈ positive-deﬁnite} matrix. Then the -ellipsoidal function (Gaussian density) represented by (A 1, 0) is the unique solution ∞ x 2 ⊕ to (1.4) with f = e−k kK .

d ( ) 1 d Proof. Let (A′ α′, a′) be such that f ∞ ℓ(A′ α′,a′). First, we show that K (A′)− B . Indeed, we have⊕ ∈ E ≤ ⊕ ⊂ α 2 A′(x a′), A′(x a′) ln( ′) x K d h − − i − ≤k k 1 d for every x R . Suppose for a contradiction that there is y K (A′)− B . Consider x = ϑy, and substitute∈ into the previous inequality. We obtain ∈ \ 2 2 2 2 2 2 ϑ A′y 2ϑ A′a′, A′y + A′a′ ln(α′) ϑ y < ϑ . | | − h i | | − ≤ k kK 1 d As A′y > 1, letting ϑ tend to infinity, we obtain a contradiction. Thus, K (A′)− B . | | ⊂ Hence, det A′ det A. On the other hand, α′ f = 1. The proposition now easily follows from (7.5). ≤ ≥ k k 8. Outer integral ratio The notion of the volume ratio was extended to the setting of log-concave functions in [AGMJV18] and then in [IN20] for John s-functions. For any s [0, ), the s-integral ratio of f is defined by ∈ ∞ 1/d (s) Rd f I. rat(f)= (s) . RRd J f ! Corollary 1.3 of [AGMJV18] states that there existsR Θ > 0 such that (0)I. rat(f) Θ√d ≤ for any proper log-concave function f : Rd [0, ) and any positive integer d. As a simple consequence of this result, the authors of [IN20→ ] generalized∞ this asymptotically tight bound to the John s-functions with fixed s [0, ). However, the similar property∈ of the∞ Löwner ellipsoid is not obtained in [LSW19]. For any s [0, ), it is reasonable to define the outer s-integral ratio of f by ∈ ∞ 1/d (s)L (s)I. or(f)= Rd f . R Rd f ! Theorem 1.5 is an immediate corollary of the followingR result and Lemma 6.2. FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 20

Theorem 8.1. There exists Θ0 such that for any positive integer d and a proper log-concave function f : Rd [0, ), the following inequality holds → ∞ (0)I. or(f) Θ √d. ≤ 0 Proof of Theorem 8. Since the outer integral ratio is the same for all functions of the form αf(x d d − a) with α > 0 and a R , we assume that f(0) = f = e− . By Lemma 5.2, there is a d-ellipsoid ∈ (0) k k (A 1, 0) such that f ℓ(A 1,0). By Lemma 3.1 and Corollary 3.1, there exists a 0-ellipsoidal function⊕ of minimal integral≤ among⊕ those even 0-ellipsoidal functions with height 1 that are pointwise greater than or equal to f. Applying a suitable linear transform, we assume that the (0) x (0) (0) minimal integral is attained at ℓBd+1 = e−| |. That is, we assume that f ℓBd+1 and ℓBd+1 is the solution to problem ≤

(0) (0) min ℓ(A 1,0) subject to f ℓ(A 1,0). (A 1,0) d Rd ⊕ ≤ ⊕ ⊕ ∈E Z (0) Let us show the geometric necessary condition for ℓ(A 1,0) to be the solution to this problem. Deﬁne the convex set ⊕

~~1 r K = cl [f e− ] . f r ≥ r d ! [≥ d Claim 8.1. The unit ball B is the smallest volume origin centered ellipsoid containing Kf .~~

d (0) Proof. By identity f(0) = f = e− and inequality f ℓBd+1 , we see that each of the convex 1 r k k ≤ d d sets [f e− ] with r d is nonempty and is a subset of the unit ball B . Thus, K B . By r ≥ ≥ f ⊂ construction, the origin belongs to Kf . It is easy to see that the smallest volume origin centered ellipsoid containing Kf is unique. 1 d Assume, by a contradiction, that the ellipsoid A− B with det A > 1 contains Kf . Consider (0) the function ℓ(A 1,0). Fix r d. By definition, we have ⊕ ≥ (0) r d Ax r d 1 d ℓ(A 1,0) e− = x R : e−| | e− = x R : Ax r = r A− B . ⊕ ≥ ∈ ≥ ∈ | | ≤ · h 1 r i 1 d This and [f e− ] A− B yield r ≥ ⊂ r (0) r [f e− ] ℓ(A 1,0) e− . ≥ ⊂ ⊕ ≥ (0) (0) (0)h i Thus, f ℓ(A 1,0) and Rd ℓ(A 1,0) < Rd ℓBd+1 . We obtain a contradiction. ≤ ⊕ ⊕ Adjusting the celebratedR John’s theoremR (for example, following the proof given in [Bal97]) to our case, we get the following statement, the proof of which is given in Appendix A. Claim 8.2. Let K be a convex body in Rd. If Bd is the smallest volume origin symmetric ellipsoid m m containing K, then there exist unit vectors (ui)1 on the boundary of K and positive weights (ci)1 satisfying John’s condition m m (8.1) c u u = Id and c = d. i i ⊗ i i i=1 i=1 X X We use another key tool related to John’s condition, namely, the Brascamp–Lieb inequality. We recall the reverse Brascamp–Lieb inequality of F. Barthe [Bar98, Theorem 5]. It states that if m m unit vectors (ui)1 and positive weights (ci)1 satisfy John’s condition (8.1), then for measurable non-negative functions q on R, i [m], one has i ∈ m m m ci ci (8.2) sup qi(Θi) : x = ciΘiui dx qi . Rd ≥ R Z (i=1 i=1 ) i=1 Z m Y X Y m Let unit vectors (ui)1 on the boundary of Kf and positive weights (ci)1 satisfy John’s condition (8.1). Fix i [m]. Let f be the restriction of f on the line with directional vector u , that ∈ i i FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 21 is, fi(t)= f(tui), t R. What does it mean that ui belongs to the boundary of Kf ? The answer ∈ t is simple: either there exists t d such that fi(t) = e− or, by convexity, ui is an accumulation 1 ≥ r point of the segments r [fi e− ] r d and does not belong to any of these segments. In the ≥ ≥ t former case, we set t = min t 0 : f(tu ) = e− . Otherwise, put t = + . Clearly, t d. i { ≥ i } i ∞ i ≥ Define for a finite ti d d t1 t e− e− − i , if t [0, ti), gi(t)= ∈ (0, otherwise and for t =+ i ∞ d t e− e− , if t [0, ), gi(t)= ∈ ∞ . (0, otherwise Claim 8.3. For any i [m], we have that g f . ∈ i ≤ i Proof. If ti is finite, the result follows from the the log-concavity of fi. Consider the case ti =+ . r ∞ Then for any ε (0, 1), there exists r> 1/ε such that fi((1 ε)r) e− . The log-concavity of fi yields ∈ − ≥ d t[ 1 d ] f (t) e− e− 1−ε − (1−ε)r i ≥ d t for all t [0, 1/ε]. Taking the limit as ε tends to 0, we see that fi(t) e− e− for all t [0, ). This completes∈ the proof of Claim 8.3. ≥ ∈ ∞

~~By the log-concavity of f and the rightmost identity in (8.1), we get~~

~~m m (8.3) f(x) sup f (d Θ )ci/d : x = c Θ u . ≥ i · i i i i (i=1 i=1 ) Y X Using (8.3) in the reverse Brascamp–Lieb inequality (8.2) and by Claim 8.3, we obtain~~

ci m ci m ci m ti/d 1/d 1/d 1/d f fi(td) dt gi(td) dt = gi(td) dt . Rd ≥ R ≥ R i=1 i=1 i=1 0 ! Z Y Z Y Z Y Z τ/d + t(1 d/τ) d ∞ t For any τ d, deﬁne p(τ)= e− − dt. Additionally, put p(+ )= e− e− dt. Therefore, ≥ 0 ∞ 0 by the previous inequality andR the rightmost identity in (8.1), we get R

ci ci m ti/d m ti/d d 1/d 1 t(1 d/ti) d f gi(td) dt = e− − dt e− inf p(τ) . Rd ≥ e ≥ · τ [d,+ ] i=1 0 ! i=1 0 ! ∈ ∞ Z Y Z Y Z We claim that inf p(τ)=1. Indeed, p(d) = 1 and lim p(τ) = p(+ ) = 1; on the other hand, if τ d τ →∞ ∞ τ [d, + ), we≥ have ∈ ∞ 1 τ/d 1 e − eτ p(τ)= − > 1 eτ/d > . 1 d/τ ⇐⇒ d − d The last inequality is simple and holds for any τ [d, + ). Thus, Rd f e− , and we conclude that ∈ ∞ ≥ R 1/d 1/d (0) x d 1/d 1/d d L d e−| | dx d! vol B d! (0)I. or(f)= R f R d = e√π , f ≤ f ≤ e d Γ(1 + d/2) R Rd ! R Rd ! − where Γ( ) is Euler’sR Gamma function.R The existence of Θ follows. · 0 FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 22

9. Duality d Recall that the polar set K◦ of a body K R is deﬁned by ⊂ d K◦ = y R : x K y, x 1 . { ∈ ∀ ∈ h i ≤ } d It is known that for a convex body K R with the John ellipsoid JK centered at the origin, we have ⊂

(JK)◦ = LK◦ , where LK◦ is the Löwner ellipsoid of K◦. One would expect the same properties for John and Löwner functions (see Subsections 6.1 and 1.1). However, as was shown in [LSW19], there is no duality between the John and Löwner 0-functions. That is, assuming the John 0-function of f is represented by an ellipsoid centered at (0) ◦ (0) the origin, we might have J = L ◦ . By continuity and Theorem 1.3, it follows that there f 6 f (s) ◦ (s) exist functions f such that J = L ◦ for a sufficiently small positive s. We conjecture f 6 f that for any positive s there is such an example. (s) (s) The problem is that the centers of d-ellipsoids representing J f and Lf ◦ might be different. It is not the case for the setting of convex sets (key observation: the polar of an ellipsoid containing the origin in the interior is an ellipsoid). However, for any s [0, ], if d-ellipsoids representing (s) (s) ∈ ∞ J f and Lf ◦ are origin symmetric, we have the duality, that is, the following identity

(s) ◦ (s) (s) ◦ (s) (9.1) J f = Lf ◦ and Lf = J f ◦ holds. Indeed, it follows from Lemma 6.1, identity (6.4) and (2.4). Here are some examples of such a duality. By symmetry, we have the following. Example 9.1. Let s [0, ] and f : Rd [0, ) be a proper even log-concave function on Rd. Then identity (9.1) holds.∈ ∞ → ∞ In Theorem 5.1 of [IN20], the authors give a necessary and sufficient condition for a proper (s) (s) log-concave functions f to satisfy hBd+1 = J f , s (0, ). This and Example 9.1 yield the same type result for proper even log-concave functions.∈ ∞ In the following example, the centers were computed directly. By Proposition 7.1 and Propo- sition 8.3 of [IN20], we obtain Rd Example 9.2. Let K be a convex body containing the origin it its interior and let K ⊂ x 2 k·k denote the gauge function of K, that is, x = inf λ> 0 : x λK . Set f = e−k kK . Then k kK { ∈ } (s) ◦ (s) (s) ◦ (s) J f = Lf ◦ and Lf = J f ◦ . Finally, we note that the duality helps us to understand the properties of the constructed (s) Löwner functions. The key tool for the interpolation between ellipsoidal functions h( ) is the d · Asplund sum (or, sup-convolution), which is defined for two functions f1 and f2 on R by

~~(f1 ⋆ f2)(x) = sup f1(x1)f2(x2). x1+x2=x~~

~~(s) In our case everything is easier; we use the product of two ℓ( ) functions. It is easy to check that ·~~

(f ⋆ f )◦ = f ◦ f ◦. 1 2 1 · 2 That is, despite the fact that there is no duality between the John and L¨owner s-functions in general, there is duality between the methods. FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 23

Appendix A. Proof of Claim 8.2. We equip the space of symmetric matrices of order d with an inner product deﬁned by A, B = trace(A B) . h i Denote the set of contact points by C = bd Bd bd(K) and consider ∩ C = u u : u C . { ⊗ ∈ } The proof of Claim 8.2 is an adaptationb of the argument given in [Bal97] and [Gru07]. First, as a standard observation, we state the relationship between (8.1) and separation by a hyperplane of the point Id from the set pos C in the space of symmetric matrices. We claim that the following assertions are equivalent: (1) There are contact points and weightsb satisfying (8.1). (2) There are contact points and weights satisfying the leftmost identity in (8.1). (3) Id pos C. ∈ d d (4) There is no symmetric matrix H R × with ∈ b (A.1) H, Id > 0, and H,u u < 0 for all u C. h i h ⊗ i ∈ m Indeed, taking the trace of both sides in the leftmost identity in (8.1), we get that ci = d. i=1 Thus, the equivalence of (1) and (2) follows. The equivalence of (2), (3) and (4) is an immediateP consequence of the hyperplane separation lemma. Assume that there are no contact points and weights satisfying the leftmost identity in (8.1). d d Then there is a symmetric matrix H R × satisfying (A.1). Consider the matrix Id + δH. By (A.1∈ ), for some δ > 0 and for any δ (0, δ ), we obtain 1 ∈ 1 det (Id + δH)=1+ δ Id,H + o(δ) > 1. h i 1 d d Hence, the ellipsoid (Id + δH)− B has the volume strictly less than the volume of B for any δ (0, δ ). ∈ 1 Thus, it suﬃces to show that that there exists δ0 > 0 such that for any δ [0, δ0), the ellipsoid 1 d ∈ (Id + δH)− B contains K. Let us prove this assertion. Fix any u C and denote x = x(δ, u) = (Id + δH) u. Then ∈ x 2 = (Id + δH) u, (Id + δH) u =1+2δ u,Hu + δ2 Hu 2 . | | h i h i | |

By (A.1), we conclude that there exists δu > 0 such that x < 1 for all δ (0, δu). Hence, 1 1 d | | ∈ u = (Id+ δH)− x belongs to the interior of (Id + δH)− B for all δ (0, δu). By compactness, ∈1 d there exists δ > 0 such that C belongs to the interior of (Id + δH)− B for all δ (0, δ ). 2 ∈ 2 Again, by compactness, it follows that there exists δ0 > 0 such that for any δ [0, δ0), the ellip- 1 d ∈ δ 1 d − 0 − soid (Id + δH) B contains K. That is, the original symmetric ellipsoid Id + 2 H B contains K and has the volume that is strictly less than the volume of Bd. We obtain a contradic- tionwith the choice of the smallest volume origin symmetric ellipsoid containing K, and complete the proof of Claim 8.2. Remark A.1. It is not hard to prove that under the assertion of Claim 8.2, the unit ball Bd is the smallest volume origin centered ellipsoid containing K if and only if John’s condition (8.1) holds. Acknowledgement. The authors acknowledge the ﬁnancial support from the Ministry of Educa- tional and Science of the Russian Federation in the framework of MegaGrant no 075-15-2019-1926 FUNCTIONAL LOWNER¨ ELLIPSOIDS 24

References [AAGM15] Shiri Artstein-Avidan, Apostolos Giannopoulos, and Vitali D Milman. Asymptotic geometric analysis, Part I, volume 202. American Mathematical Soc., 2015. [AAKM04] Shiri Artstein-Avidan, Bo’az Klartag, and Vitali Milman. The Santalópoint of a function, and a functional form of the Santalóinequality. Mathematika, 51(1-2):33–48, 2004. [AAM07] Shiri Artstein-Avidan and Vitali Milman. A characterization of the concept of duality. Electronic Research Announcements in Mathematical Sciences, 14:42–59, 2007. [AAM08] Shiri Artstein-Avidan and Vitali Milman. The concept of duality for measure projections of convex bodies. Journal of Functional Analysis, 254(10):2648–2666, 2008. [AAM09] Shiri Artstein-Avidan and Vitali Milman. The concept of duality in convex analysis, and the characterization of the legendre transform. Annals of mathematics, pages 661–674, 2009. [AGMJV18] David Alonso-Gutiérrez, Bernardo González Merino, C. Hugo Jiménez, and Rafael Villa. John’s ellipsoid and the integral ratio of a log-concave function. The Journal of Geometric Analysis, 28(2):1182– 1201, 2018. [AS17] Guillaume Aubrun and Stanislaw J. Szarek. Alice and Bob Meet Banach: The Interface of Asymptotic Geometric Analysis and Quantum Information Theory, volume 223. American Mathematical Soc., 2017. [Bal97] Keith Ball. An elementary introduction to modern convex geometry. Flavors of geometry, 31:1–58, 1997. [Bal01] Keith Ball. Convex geometry and functional analysis. Handbook of the geometry of Banach spaces, 1:161–194, 2001. [Bar98] Franck Barthe. On a reverse form of the Brascamp–Lieb inequality. Inventiones mathematicae, 134(2):335–361, 1998. [BGVV14] Silouanos Brazitikos, Apostolos Giannopoulos, Petros Valettas, and Beatrice-Helen Vritsiou. Geom- etry of isotropic convex bodies, volume 196. American Mathematical Society Providence, 2014. [Cla90] Frank H. Clarke. Optimization and nonsmooth analysis. SIAM, 1990. [Gru07] Peter M. Gruber. Convex and Discrete Geometry. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. [Hen12] Martin Henk. Löwner–John ellipsoids. Documenta Math, pages 95–106, 2012. [IN20] Grigory Ivanov and Márton Naszódi. Functional John Ellipsoids. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.09934, 2020. [Joh14] Fritz John. Extremum problems with inequalities as subsidiary conditions. In Traces and emergence of nonlinear programming, pages 197–215. Springer, 2014. [LSW19] Ben Li, Carsten Schütt, and Elisabeth M. Werner. The Löwner function of a log-concave function. The Journal of Geometric Analysis, pages 1–34, 2019.

~~GRIGORY IVANOV: INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AUSTRIA (IST AUSTRIA), KLEUSTENEUBURG, AUSTRIA. MOSCOW INST. OF PHYSICS AND TECHNOLOGY, MOSCOW, RUSSIA E-mail address: [email protected]~~

~~IGOR TSIUTSIURUPA: MOSCOW INST. OF PHYSICS AND TECHNOLOGY, MOSCOW, RUS- SIA E-mail address: [email protected]~~