Arxiv:2001.00815V3 [Math.AP]

Home , Alessio Figalli

arXiv:2001.00815v3 [math.AP] 22 Jul 2021 fw nyko httescn nqaiyi 1 ssatisfied, is (1) in inequality second the that know only we If (2) by ovrec.Nml,asqec,o eeaie sequence generalized a or sequence, in a Namely, convergence. sa nescino aahspaces, Banach of intersection an As (1) esyta ucinΨ: function a that say We rn ubr2017/26/M/ST1/00700. number grant linear constants exist f eune ragnrlzdsqec,cnegs(ekyco (weakly converges sequence, generalized a or sequence, a ovre wal ovre)in converges) (weakly converges h functional The ec,wtotadtoa assumptions additional without Hence, ∈ Let h eerho ohatoswsprilyspotdb h N the by supported partially was authors both of research The phrases. and words Key 2010 Date ute,ltΦ: let Further, W XSEC OF EXISTENCE L 2 RBESWT IERGOT NCNE DOMAINS CONVEX ON GROWTH LINEAR WITH PROBLEMS growth. fadol fi ovre wal ovre)in converges) (weakly converges it if only and if uy2,2021. 23, July : m Ω,w osdrtemnmzto rbe o h functiona the for problem minimization the consider we (Ω), ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics ato h rdeto h iiie ntecs httedatu the that case the in minimizer the of gradient the of part supinta h oano nerto scne,w prov we convex, is integration of domain the that assumption hntefntoa a iiie in minimizer a has functional the then rmtedtmfrany for datum the from au.Sc ucinl r nw oati hi nm nth in infima their attain to known are functionals Such datum. eut o h rdetflwo h neligfntoa of functional underlying growth. the linear of of flow integrand gradient convex the for results rwhi h rdeto h ruet n dlt eminv term fidelity a and argument, the of gradient the in growth Abstract. ∈ N n e eabudddmi in domain bounded a be Ω let and E C f λ 1 C , ecnie ls fcne nerlfntoascomposed functionals integral convex of class a consider We swal oe eiotnoson semicontinuous lower weakly is R m 2 > iergot,mnmzr xsec,regularity. existence, minimizer, growth, Linear → uhthat such 0 W C [0 E 1 1 R , IH LSC N IT RYBKA PIOTR AND MICHA LASICA L p | , 1 f λ ξ N + ∈ ( ≤ | OUIN OACASO VARIATIONAL OF CLASS A TO SOLUTIONS w ∞ → [1 W = ) , eacne ucino iergot.Given growth. linear of function convex a be [ Ψ( + W 1 [0 , ∞ 1 λ ξ 1. , Ω n sbuddin bounded is and (Ω) 50,3B5 56,3J0 35J75. 35J70, 35J60, 35B65, 35A01, = .W looti uniaiebudo h singular the on bound quantitative a obtain also We ]. ) + Z W ≤ E Ω ∞ Introduction L W f λ Φ( 2 C [, 1 (Ω) oe ihntrlntoso togadweak and strong of notions natural with comes a alt tanisifiu.I re oresolve to order In infimum. its attain to fail may , 2 1 ∇ N 1+ (1 nfc,temnmzrinherits minimizer the fact, In . 1 w ∩ ∈ + ) W R | N ξ m | 1 1 2 for ) , sof is ewl write will We . 1 W Z (Ω) Ω toa cec etr oad hog the through Poland, Center, Science ational oee,ti pc sntreflexive. not is space this However, . | w . L linear ξ sin is m 2 − hti h au sin is datum the if that e iergot.W di any admit We growth. linear Ω and (Ω) ∈ L vre)in nverges) ovre wal converges) (weakly converges , f 2 R olving | (Ω). 2 e esyta sof is Ψ that say we rwh(tifiiy,i there if infinity), (at growth N . BV BV . l eifranalogous infer We . E L W pc.Udrthe Under space. fatr flinear of term a of 2 f λ 1 itnefo a from distance : W , 1 → W W Ω.Equivalently, (Ω). 1 ,p fadol fit if only and if regularity [0 W , + 1 , 1 ∞ , at > λ given [ most 0, 2 MICHAL LASICA AND PIOTR RYBKA

λ 2 this issue, one may opt to consider instead its lower semicontinuous envelope Ef in L (Ω). λ 2 This relaxation amounts to extending the eﬀective domain of Ef to BV (Ω) ∩ L (Ω) by the formula λ ac ∞ ∇sw s 1 2 Ef (w)= λ Φ(∇ w)+ λ Φ |∇sw| d|∇ w| + |w − f| , Ω Ω 2 Ω Z Z Z ac m s ac ∇w ∇sw ∇w where ∇w = ∇ wL + ∇ w, ∇ w = Lm ( |∇sw| and Lm are Radon-Nikodym derivatives) and Φ∞ : Sm−1 → [0, +∞[, Φ∞(ξ) = lim Φ(tξ) t→+∞ t is the recession function of Φ [22, 12], see also [1, Theorem 5.47]. The direct method of the λ calculus of variations produces a minimizer u of Ef which by strict convexity is unique. A question arises then, to what extent can one control the singularity of measure ∇u λ in terms of ∇f. In particular, what are the conditions implying that the minimizer u of Ef 1,1 λ belongs to W (Ω), i. e. u is also a minimizer of Ef . Let us mention a few known results in this direction. In [9] and [6], it has been established for m =1andΦ= |·| that |∇u|≤|∇f| in the sense of measures. This was later generalized to the vectorial case (where u, f :Ω → Rn,n> 1) in [16]. Such an estimate is known to fail if m> 1. However, analogous estimate was proved for the jump part of measure |∇u| in [11, 10]. A similar result was obtained for a more general class of integrands Φ in [32]. Whether an estimate of this kind holds for the Cantor part of measure |∇u| in m > 1 remains, to our knowledge, an open question. In [27], it is assumed that Ω is convex and Φ is of form Φ ◦ φ, where φ is a norm on Rm and Φ is of linear growth. Under this condition, it is proved that if f admits any modulus of continuity with respect to the dual norm φ∗, then it is inheritede by u. In particular, if f ∈ W 1e,∞(Ω), then u ∈ W 1,∞(Ω) ⊂ W 1,1(Ω). On the other hand, in [28], the case m = 1 is considered (with Ω= T). In this setting it is proved for any convex Φ with linear growth that if f ∈ W 1,1(Ω), then u ∈ W 1,1(Ω) as well. Here, we generalize this statement to an arbitrary value of m. Theorem 1. Suppose that Ω is convex. If f ∈ W 1,1(Ω), then there exists a minimizer 1,1 λ R u ∈ W (Ω) of Ef . Moreover, for any even, convex function Ψ: → [0, +∞[ there holds

(3) Ψ(Φ(∇u)) ≤ Ψ(Φ(∇f)). e ZΩ ZΩ Note that we never evaluate Ψ one negative arguments.e We could equivalently assume that Ψ is a continuous, convex, non-decreasing function [0, +∞[→ [0, +∞[. Note also that the r. h. s. of (3) may be inﬁnite. e e As an immediate consequence of Theorem 1, we deduce that if f ∈ W 1,p(Ω), then u ∈ W 1,p(Ω) with

kΦ(∇u)kLp(Ω) ≤ kΦ(∇f)kLp(Ω) for p ∈]1, ∞[, and therefore also for p = ∞. Our strategy in the proof of Theorem 1 is ﬁrst to obtain a version of (3) for a family of smooth, uniformly convex approximations to Φ. This is done using an energy method. An λ 2,2 important point here is that the minimizers of approximations to Ef have W regularity, which is enough to diﬀerentiate the Euler-Lagrange system and test it with a suitable function. Estimate (3) is then used to obtain compactness of approximate minimizers in weak W 1,1 λ topology and exhibit a minimizer of Ef as their limit point. EXISTENCE OF W 1,1 SOLUTIONS 3

Since we are unable to localize (3), we need to work up to the boundary. For this reason we need convexity of Ω, as it implies that the boundary term that appears in our energy estimate has a definite sign. In fact, we can also obtain the following quantitative bound on the singular part of the λ minimizer of Ef in the case that f ∈ BV (Ω). λ Theorem 2. Suppose that Ω is convex and f ∈ BV (Ω). Let u be the minimizer of Ef . We have ∞ ∇su s ∞ ∇sf s (4) Φ |∇su| d|∇ u|≤ Φ |∇sf| d|∇ f|. Ω Ω Z Z We note that the first (existential) assertion of Theorem 1 follows from Theorem 2. We decided to present the two results as separate theorems because their proofs are somewhat different (although both are based on Lemma 9). In particular in Theorem 1 the minimizer 1,1 λ u is exhibited as a limit of a weakly convergent sequence in W (Ω), without introducing Ef and resorting to any weak-∗ lower semicontinuity result. The assumption of convexity of Ω in Theorems 1 and 2 cannot be dropped. In fact, in the λ 1,1 case of non-convex Ω, the minimizer of Ef might not belong to Wloc even if f is smooth up to the boundary, see e. g. [25, Example 3]. During the preparation of this manuscript, we learned about work [29], where the case Φ= | · | is considered. The author obtains inheritance of W 1,∞ regularity without assuming convexity of Ω. Additionally, assuming convexity of Ω, inheritance of W 1,p regularity is obtained for p ∈ [2, +∞], which is a special case of Theorem 1. We would also like to mention a paper [2], where existence of W 1,1 solutions is obtained in vectorial setting for functionals of linear growth with a regular enough source term instead of fidelity term. There, Φ is of form Φ ◦|·|, with Φ strictly convex and sufficiently regular with a bound on the tail of Φ′′. However, Ω is only assumed to be simply connected. On a side note, we point out thate there are severale results concerning solvability in Sobolev spaces of the minimizatione problem for integral functionals of linear growth with prescribed boundary condition under certain assumptions. For instance, in [26] suitable restrictions are imposed on the boundary datum, while in [5] (see also [4, 3]) a quantitative strict convexity condition is imposed on the integrand. There are also related works on solvability of the least gradient problem in BV with boundary condition prescribed in the trace sense (as opposed to the relaxed sense) and inheritance of (Hölder) continuity from the boundary datum, where various notions of strict convexity of Ω are assumed, see e. g. [31, 23]. In all papers mentioned in this paragraph, except [5, 4], only the scalar case is considered. A reader may ask whether we can apply our approach to the vectorial case, where u, f :Ω → Rn, n > 1. We do not directly use linear order of R via the comparison principle or such, instead relying only on energy-type estimates. However, we are only able to derive our estimates in the scalar case. In the course of proof of Theorem 1, see Remark 1, we explain where our method breaks down for n > 1. We note that the W 2,2 regularity result that we show for the uniformly convex approximation is valid also in the vectorial case. We include it in full generality for possible future reference. Now, let us define F : L2(Ω) → [0, +∞] by the following formula:

s Φ(∇acw)+ Φ∞ ∇ w d|∇sw| if w ∈ BV (Ω), (5) F (w)= Ω Ω |∇sw|  +∞ otherwise.  R R  4 MICHAL LASICA AND PIOTR RYBKA

λ The minimization problem for Ef coincides with the resolvent problem for the gradient ﬂow of F . Since F is convex and lower semicontinuous, it generates a gradient ﬂow [7, Corollary 2 1,2 2 20], i. e. given u0 ∈ D(F ) = L (Ω) ∩ BV (Ω) there exists exactly one u ∈ W (0, ∞; L (Ω)) such that u(0) = u0 and for a. e. t> 0,

(6) ut ∈−∂F (u). As a corollary of our previous results, we obtain 2 1,2 2 Theorem 3. Given u0 ∈ L (Ω) ∩ BV (Ω), let u ∈ W (0, ∞; L (Ω)) be the solution to (6) with u(0) = u0. For a. e. t> 0 there holds

s s ∞ ∇ u(t) s ∞ ∇ u0 s (7) Φ |∇su(t)| d|∇ u(t)|≤ Φ |∇su | d|∇ u0|. Ω Ω 0 Z Z 1,1 1,1 If moreover u0 ∈ W (Ω) then, for a. e. t > 0, u(t) ∈ W (Ω) and for any even, convex function Ψ: R → [0, +∞[ and a. e. t> 0,

(8) e Ψ(Φ(∇u(t))) ≤ Ψ(Φ(∇u0)). ZΩ ZΩ N On many occasions, we use a standarde approximatee identity (ϕδ)δ>0 on R , N ∈ N. This is 1 · ∞ RN a family of functions of form ϕδ = δN ϕ δ , where ϕ ∈ Cc ( , [0, 1]) is a radially symmetric B N ϕ function whose support is contained in the unit ball 1(0), such that R = 1. Throughout the paper, we use the summation convention except when explicitly stated. R . Alternatively, we also use index free notation with stacked vertical dots ·, ., ., depending on how many pairs of indices are contracted. A single dot is often omitted, in line with standard notation for multiplying matrices. The symbol ∇ is used to denote derivation with respect to the spatial variable x ∈ Ω, while D denotes derivatives of functions such as Φ with respect to Euclidean spaces they are deﬁned on. The notation | · | will stand for the Euclidean norm 2 on Rm, Rm etc.

2. Convex functions of at most linear growth It is well known that a convex function Ψ: RN → [0, +∞[, N ∈ N is locally Lipschitz, and hence diﬀerentiable LN -a. e. This a. e. deﬁned derivative, which we denote DΨ, belongs ∞ RN RN to Lloc( , ) and coincides with the distributional derivative of Ψ. Furthermore, DΨ ∈ N N BVloc(R , R ) [14]. In the case that Ψ is of at most linear growth, the situation is remarkably more convenient. Proposition 4. Suppose that Ψ: RN → [0, +∞[ is a convex function of at most linear growth. Then DΨ ∈ L∞(RN , RN ), D2(ϕ ∗ Ψ) ∈ L∞(RN , RN×N ), N for any ϕ ∈ Cc(R ). Proof. For ξ ∈ RN , i = 1,...,N, let Li = {ξ + te : t ∈ R} be a line parallel to the i- 0 ξ0 0 i N ∂Ψ R i R , th coordinate axis of . The restriction Ψ|L : → [0 +∞[ is convex. Hence, ∂pi i is ξ0 L ξ0 monotone. Therefore

∂Ψ (9) − C2 ≤ i ≤ C2, ∂p i Lξ 0

EXISTENCE OF W 1,1 SOLUTIONS 5

lest the second inequality in (1) be violated. Since i and ξ0 are arbitrary, we have demonstrated the ﬁrst part of the assertion. ∂Ψ By (9) and, again, monotonicity of i , we have for any i, ξ0 the following estimate, ∂p Li ξ0 2 2 ∂ Ψ i ∂ Ψ i Lξ = Lξ ≤ 2C2. (∂pi)2 0 (∂pi)2 0

Hence, by Tonelli’s theorem, for ξ ∈ RN we obtain the estimate,

2 2 2 ∂ (ϕ ∗ Ψ) ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ N−1 (ξ)= ϕ ∗ (ξ)= ϕ(ξ − ζ)d (ζ) ≤ 2C2(diam supp ϕ) sup ϕ. (∂pi)2 (∂pi)2 RN (∂pi)2 Z N Finally, we note that ϕ ∗ Ψ is convex, and therefore ϕ ∗ Ψ| i j for ξ ∈ R , i, j = 1,...,N Lξ×Lξ are convex as well. Hence, by Sylvester’s criterion, we obtain a bound on mixed derivatives: 1 ∂2(ϕ ∗ Ψ) ∂2(ϕ ∗ Ψ) ∂2(ϕ ∗ Ψ) 2 1 ∂2(ϕ ∗ Ψ) ∂2(ϕ ∗ Ψ) i j ≤ i j ≤ i + j , ∂p ∂p (∂p )2 (∂p )2 ! 2 (∂p )2 (∂p )2 ! which completes the proof.

3. The approximate problem λ In this section, we introduce a smoothed version of the functional Ef . We consider a smooth, uniformly convex approximation (Φε)ε>0 of Φ given by ε 2 (10) Φε(ξ) = (ϕε ∗ Φ)(ξ)+ 2 |ξ| m m ε for ξ ∈ R , where (ϕε)ε>0 is a standard approximate identity on R . Further, we let (Ω )ε>0 be a family of smooth, convex subsets of Rm, such that Ω ⊂ Ωε for ε > 0 and Ωε → Ω as ε → 0+ in Hausdorﬀ distance. We can produce such a family similarly as in [17, Lemma A.3]. 2 ε λ,ε 1,2 ε Given g ∈ L (Ω ), we deﬁne Eg : W (Ω ) → [0, +∞[ by

λ,ε 1 2 (11) Eg (w)= λ Φε(∇w)+ |w − g| . ε 2 ε ZΩ ZΩ ε 1,2 ε λ,ε Proposition 5. There exists a unique minimizer u ∈ W (Ω ) of Eg . Furthermore, (a) uε ∈ W 2,2(Ωε); ε 1,2 ε m 2 ε ∞ ε m2 (b) DΦε(∇u ) ∈ W (Ω , R ) and D Φε(∇u ) ∈ L (Ω , R ); (c) uε satisﬁes the Euler-Lagrange system ε ε ε (12) u − g = λ div (DΦε(∇u )) in Ω ,

ε Ωε ε (13) DΦε(∇u ) · ν = 0 on ∂Ω . λ,ε 1,2 ε Proof. Eg is a proper, convex and coercive functional on W (Ω ), hence it is weakly lower semicontinuous and attains minimum. By strict convexity, the minimizer uε is unique. Using convexity of Φ, Φ(ξ) ≤ ϕε ∗ Φ(ξ) ≤ max Φ. B(ξ,ε) Hence, ϕε ∗ Φ is of linear growth. Owing to Proposition 4, there exists C > 0, such that m (14) |DΦε(ξ)| ≤ |D(ϕε ∗ Φ)(ξ)| + ε|ξ|≤ C + ε|ξ| for ξ ∈ R . 6 MICHAL LASICA AND PIOTR RYBKA

With this growth condition at hand, one can easily prove that uε is a weak solution to the Euler-Lagrange system (12, 13). Next, again using Proposition 4, we obtain, 2 m |D Φε(ξ)|≤ C(ε) for ξ ∈ R . By ﬂattening the boundary and applying a variant of tangential diﬀerence quotient technique, we then obtain uε ∈ W 2,2(Ωε). We present this argument in detail in the appendix. Consequently, ε 2 ε 2 ε 2 ε m2 ∇(DΦε(∇u )) = D Φε(∇u ) ∇ u ∈ L (Ω , R ).

We have following lemmata. Lemma 6. Let Ψ: R → [0, +∞[ be an even, convex function and let w ∈W. There exists a ε ε 1,∞ ε ε + family of maps (w )ε∈]0,ε0] such that w ∈ W (Ω ), w → w in W as ε → 0 , e ε (15) lim Ψ(Φε(∇w )) = Ψ(Φ(∇w)) ε→0+ ε ZΩ ZΩ and e e (16) lim (wε)2 = 0. ε + ε →0 ZΩ \Ω

Proof. We denote Ψ = Ψ ◦ Φ, Ψε = Ψ ◦ Φε. Since Ψ is convex and non-decreasing on [0, +∞[, 2 m 1,1 m both Ψ and Ψε are convex. Let w ∈ L (R ) ∩ W (R ) be an extension of w. Fix x0 ∈ Ω. m m For µ> 0 consider affinee dilation Sµ :eR → R givene by Sµ(x)= x0 +(1+µ)(x−x0). Since Ω µ 2 m 1,1 m is open and convex, we have Ω ⊂⊂e Sµ(Ω) for any µ> 0. We define w ∈ L (R ) ∩ W (R ) µ −1 by w (x)= w(Sµ (x)). Due to convexity of Ψ, we have for x ∈ Sµ(Ω) e µ 1 −1 1 −1 µ e Ψ(e∇w (x))=Ψ 1+µ ∇w(Sµ (x)) ≤ 1+µ Ψ ∇w(Sµ (x)) + 1+µ Ψ(0) and so e µ 1 −1 µ (17) Ψ(∇w (x)) dx ≤ 1+µ Ψ ∇w(Sµ (x)) + 1+µ Ψ(0) dx Sµ(Ω) Sµ(Ω) Z Z e = (1+ µ)m−1 Ψ(∇w)+ µ(1 + µ)m−1|Ω|Ψ(0). ZΩ For any δ > 0, letµ ˆ =µ ˆ(δ) denote the smallest µ > 0 such that Ω+ Bδ(0) ⊂ Sµ(Ω). It is + easy to check thatµ ˆ is well defined andµ ˆ(δ) → 0 as δ → 0 . Pick any δ0 > 0. Note that we + have locally uniform convergence Φε → Φ, and hence also Ψε → Ψ as ε → 0 . Recalling also ε + that |Ω \ Ω|→ 0 , we see that there exists an ε0 > 0 such that

ε µˆ(δ) ∞ 1 (18) |Ω | · max |Ψε(ξ) − Ψ(ξ)| : |ξ|≤k∇ϕδ ∗ w kL (Ωε,Rm) ≤ 2 δ and n o e µˆ(δ) 1 (19) Ψ(∇ϕδ ∗ w ) ≤ δ ε 2 ZΩ \Ω are satisﬁed for δ = δ0 and all ε ∈]0, ε0]. We deﬁnee δˆ: ]0, ε0] → [0, δ0] by the following formula,

δˆ(ε) = inf{δ ∈]0, δ0] : (18, 19) hold}, EXISTENCE OF W 1,1 SOLUTIONS 7

and set for ε ∈]0, ε0], ˆ ε w|Ωε if δ(ε) = 0, w = µˆ(δˆ(ε)) ( ϕδˆ(ε) ∗ w Ωε otherwise. e One can check that if δˆ(ε) 6= 0 then (18, 19) hold with δ = δˆ(ε), while if δˆ(ε) = 0 then e

max |Ψε(A) − Ψ(A)| : |A|≤ ess sup |∇w| = Ψ(∇w) = 0. ε ε Ω ZΩ \Ω ε Again, by locally uniform convergence of Ψε and convergencee of |Ω \ Ωe| to zero, δˆ(ε) tends to 0 as ε → 0+. In particular, wε → w in W 1,1(Ω) and L2(Ω) as ε → 0+. By the deﬁnitions of wε and δˆ, we have

ε ε ε ε ε (20) Ψε(∇w )= (Ψε(∇w ) − Ψ(∇w )) + Ψ(∇w ) ≤ Ψ(∇w )+ δˆ(ε). ε ε ε ZΩ ZΩ ZΩ ZΩ Due to convexity of Ψ and Rm ϕ = 1,

ε R µˆ(δˆ(ε)) µˆ(δˆ(ε)) (21) Ψ(∇w ) ≤ ϕδˆ(ε) ∗ Ψ ∇w ≤ Ψ ∇w Ω Ω Ω+B (0) Z Z Z δ provided that δˆ(ε) 6= 0. By (20, 21, 17), e e

ε (22) lim sup Ψε(∇w ) ≤ Ψ(∇w). ε ε→0+ ZΩ ZΩ

On the other hand, since Ψ is non-decreasing on [0, +∞[ and Φε ≥ Φ, we have Ψε ≥ Ψ. Hence, e ε ε (23) lim inf Ψε(∇w ) ≥ lim inf Ψ(∇w ) ≥ Ψ(∇w) ε + ε ε + →0 ZΩ →0 ZΩ ZΩ which concludes the proof of (15). It remains to check (16):

2 2 ε 2 µˆ(δˆ(ε)) µˆ(δˆ(ε)) (24) (w ) ≤ ϕδˆ(ε) ∗ w ≤ w Ωε\Ω Ωε\Ω Ωε\Ω+ B (0) Z Z Z δˆ(ε) m e = 1 +µ ˆ(δˆ(ε)) e w2. −1 ε S Ω \Ω+Bˆ (0) Z µˆ(δˆ(ε)) δ(ε) e Since S−1 Ωε \ Ω+ B (0) → 0 as ε → 0+, the r. h. s of (24) converges to 0. µˆ(δˆ(ε)) δˆ(ε)

Lemma 7. f ε f ε L2 ε ε , ε f ε f Let ( )ε∈]0,ε0] be a family of maps such that ∈ (Ω ) for ∈]0 0], → in 2 ε 2 + λ,ε λ + L (Ω) and Ωε\Ω(f ) → 0 as ε → 0 . Then Ef ε Γ-converges to Ef as ε → 0 with respect to the weakR convergence in W. ε ε 1,2 ε ε Proof. Let w ∈ W. First, take any family (w )ε∈]0,ε0], w ∈ W (Ω ), such that w ⇀ w + in W when ε → 0 . Since Φ is convex, we have Φε ≥ Φ. Hence, due to the weak lower semicontinuity of convex integrals,

λ,ε ε ε 1 ε ε 2 1 2 lim inf Ef ε (w ) ≥ lim inf λ Φ(∇w )+ |w − f | ≥ λ Φ(∇w)+ |w − f| . ε→0+ ε→0+ 2 2 ZΩ ZΩ ZΩ ZΩ Thus we have proved the lower bound inequality in the deﬁnition of Γ-convergence. 8 MICHAL LASICA AND PIOTR RYBKA

ε On the other hand, given any w ∈W, let (w )ε∈]0,ε0] be the family provided by Lemma 6 ε 1,1 ε ε given Ψ= |·|. Then w → w in W (Ω) and Ωε Φε(w ) → Ω Φ(w). Moreover, since f → f, ε 2 ε 2 ε 2 + w → w in L (Ω) and ε (f ) → 0, ε (w ) → 0 as ε → 0 , Ω \Ω Ω \Ω R R e R R |wε − f ε|2 = |wε − f ε|2 + |wε − f ε|2 → |w − f|2 ε ε ZΩ ZΩ ZΩ \Ω ZΩ + ε as ε → 0 . Thus, (w )ε∈]0,ε0] is a (generalized) recovery sequence for w.

4. A superlinear estimate Let us recall a result in linear algebra, which permits us to generalize the results of [28] to higher dimensions. Lemma 8. Let A, B, C be m × m symmetric matrices. Suppose that A and B are positive semideﬁnite. Then Tr ACBC ≥ 0.

Proof. In the proof we suppress the summation convention. As A, B ≥ 0, there exist λk,µk ∈ m [0, +∞[ and ek,fk ∈ R , k = 1,...,m with m m A = λkek ⊗ ek, B = µkfk ⊗ fk. kX=1 kX=1 Thus, appealing to symmetry of C, we record, m m 2 Tr ACBC = λk µl (ek · Cfl) (fl · Cek)= λk µl (ek · Cfl) ≥ 0. k,lX=1 k,lX=1

Next result is a generalization of [28, Theorem 3.1]. Its proof is based on Lemma 8 and a boundary estimate that relies on convexity of the domain. Lemma 9. Suppose that g ∈ W 1,∞(Ωε). Let Ψ: R → [0, +∞[ be an even, convex function ε λ,ε and let u be the minimizer of Eg . Denote Ψε = Ψ ◦ Φε. Then, e ε (25) Ψε(∇u ) ≤ eΨε(∇g). ε ε ZΩ ZΩ Proof. We approximate Ψ with a sequence of smooth, even, convex functions of at most linear growth in the following way. For k ∈ N, we deﬁne a convex TkΨ: R → [0, +∞[ by e ′ ′ ′ TkΨ(p)= Ψ(p) if |Ψ (p)|≤ k, |(TkΨ) (p)| = keif |Ψ (p)| > k R ′ N for a. e. p ∈ wheree Ψ (p)e exists. Next,e for k ∈ wee set e

Ψk = ϕ 1 ∗ (TkΨ), e k where (ϕδ)δ>0 is a standard approximatee identity one the line, and

Ψε,k = Ψk ◦ Φε. Clearly, Ψ is a smooth, even, convex function for any ε> 0, k ∈ N and Ψ → Ψ locally ε,k e ε,k ε uniformly when k → +∞. We calculate ε ′ ε ε (26) DΨε,k(∇u )= Ψk(Φε(∇u ))DΦε(∇u ),

e EXISTENCE OF W 1,1 SOLUTIONS 9

2 ε ′′ ε ε ε ′ ε 2 ε (27) D Ψε,k(∇u )= Ψk(Φε(∇u ))DΦε(∇u ) ⊗ DΦε(∇u )+ Ψk(Φε(∇u ))D Φε(∇u ). 2 ε ∞ ε Rm2 Appealing to Propositione 4 we get D Ψε,k(∇u ) ∈ L (Ω , ),e and by Proposition 5 ε 2 ε 2 ε 2 ε m2 ∇(DΨε,k(∇u )) = D Ψε,k(∇u ) ∇ u ∈ L (Ω , R ). ε 1 ε 1,2 ε It also follows from Proposition 5 that div (DΦε(∇u )) = λ (u − g) ∈ W (Ω ). Thus, ε ε α ε 2 ε Rm (28) ∇div (DΦε(∇u )) = (DΦε(∇u ))i,xixk = div (∇DΦε(∇u )) ∈ L (Ω , ). Hence, we can calculate [15, Lemma 1],

ε ε ε . ε (29) ∇div (DΦε(∇u )) · DΨε,k(∇u )+ ∇(DΦε(∇u )) . ∇(DΨε,k(∇u )) ε ε ZΩ ZΩ ε Ωε ε = h∇DΦε(∇u ) · ν , DΨε,k(∇u )i − 1 1 . H 2 (∂Ωε,Rm),H 2 (∂Ωε,Rm) We have

ε . ε 2 ε 2 ε . 2 ε 2 ε (30) ∇(DΦε(∇u )) . ∇(DΨε,k(∇u )) = (D Φε(∇u ) ·∇ u ) . (D Ψε,k(∇u ) ·∇ u ) 2 ε ε 2 ε ε = D Φε(∇u )ij (u )xj xk D Ψε,k(∇u )kl (u )xlxi . This expression is of form Tr ACBC with A,B,C satisfying conditions of Lemma 8. Therefore,

ε . ε (31) ∇(DΦε(∇u )) . ∇(DΨε,k(∇u )) ≥ 0. ε ZΩ Remark 1. At this point we would like to explain why our approach fails in the vectorial setting. In that case, instead of (30), we would have to deal with . . ε . ε 2 ε . 2 ε . 2 ε . 2 ε ∇(DΦε(∇u )) . ∇(DΨε,k(∇u )) = (D Φε(∇u ) . ∇ u ) . (D Ψε,k(∇u ) . ∇ u ) D2 uε αβ uε β D2 uε αγ uε γ = Φε(∇ )ij ( )xj xk Ψε,k(∇ )kl ( )xlxi which is a sum of expressions of form Tr AαβCβBαγ Cγ, where Aαβ,Bαβ,Cβ are m × m matrices for α, β = 1, · · · ,n. Unfortunately, the conditions of Lemma 8 are in general not satisﬁed, as Aαβ, Bαβ may fail to be non-negative deﬁnite if α 6= β.

∞ ε m Now we return to the proof of Lemma (9). Let (ϕl)l∈N ⊂ C (Ω , R ) be such that Ωε ε (32) ϕl · ν =0 on ∂Ω ,

ε 1,2 ε m (33) ϕl → DΦε(∇u ) in W (Ω , R ),

ε 2 ε m (34) ∇div ϕl →∇div (DΦε(∇u )) in L (Ω , R ). Such a sequence can be produced by flattening the boundary, even reflection and mollification ε Ωε of the pushforward of DΦε(∇u ) by the flattening diffeomorphism. Furthermore, letν ¯ ∈ ε C∞(Rm, Rm) be an extension of νΩ that is constant on the fibers of a tubular neighborhood of ∂Ωε. By Leibniz’ rule Ωε Ωε Ωε (35) (∇ϕl) · ν¯ = ∇(ϕl · ν¯ ) − ϕl · (∇ν¯ ). Ωε ε ε Due to (32), ∇(ϕl · ν¯ ) is perpendicular to ∂Ω on ∂Ω . On the other hand, ε Ωε ′ ε ε Ωε ε DΨε,k(∇u ) · ν = Ψk(Φε(∇u ))DΦε(∇u ) · ν =0 on ∂Ω

e 10 MICHAL LASICA AND PIOTR RYBKA because of (13). Therefore, Ωε ε ε ∇(ϕl · ν¯ ) · DΨε(∇u )=0 on ∂Ω and, by virtue of (35),

ε Ωε ε Ωε DΨε(∇u ) ·∇ϕl · ν¯ = − DΨε(∇u ) ·∇ν¯ · ϕl. ε ε Z∂Ω Z∂Ω Passing with l → +∞, by continuity of the trace operator, we obtain

ε Ωε ε h∇DΦε(∇u ) · ν , DΨε,k(∇u )i − 1 1 H 2 (∂Ωε,Rm),H 2 (∂Ωε,Rm) ε Ωε ε = − DΨε,k(∇u ) ·∇ν¯ · DΦε(∇u ) ε Z∂Ω ′ ε ε Ωε ε = − Ψk(Φε(∇u ))DΦε(∇u ) ·∇ν¯ · DΦε(∇u ). ε Z∂Ω We observe that e ε Ωε ε ε ε DΦε(∇u ) ·∇ν¯ · DΦε(∇u )= A(DΦε(∇u ), DΦε(∇u )), where we have denoted by A the classical second fundamental form of hypersurface ∂Ωε. Since Ωε is convex, A is non-negative. We obtain ε Ωε ε (36) h∇DΦε(∇u ) · ν , DΨε,k(∇u )i − 1 1 ≤ 0. H 2 (∂Ωε,Rm),H 2 (∂Ωε,Rm)

Combining (29, 31, 36) and applying convexity of Ψε yields

ε ε ε (37) Ψε,k(∇u ) − Ψε,k(∇g) ≤ DΨε,k(∇u ) · (∇u −∇g) ε ε ε ZΩ ZΩ ZΩ ε ε = λ ∇div (DΦε,k(∇u )) · DΨε,k(∇u ) ≤ 0. ε ZΩ Finally, we pass to the limit k → +∞ with (37) using the monotone convergence theorem.

5. Proof of Theorem 1 λ We want to exhibit the minimizer of Ef as a weak limit in W of a sequence of minimizers of λ,ε ε Ef ε with suitably chosen (f )ε∈]0,ε0]. For that purpose, we need the following characterization of weak compactness in L1(Ω, RN ). Theorem 10. Let F ⊂ L1(Ω, RN ). The following conditions are equivalent: (a) F is (sequentially) weakly relatively compact, (b) F is uniformly integrable, (c) there exists an even, convex function Ψ: R → [0, +∞[ and C > 0 such that Ψ(p) lim =+∞ and e Ψ(|w|) ≤ C for all w ∈ F. |p|→+∞ |p| Ω e Z The equivalence (a) ⇐⇒ (b) is the content of thee Dunford-Pettis theorem. The equivalence (b) ⇐⇒ (c) is due to de la Vall´ee Poussin, see [30, 1.2]. Note that weak compactness and sequential weak compactness are equivalent in Banach spaces (this is the Eberlein-Shmulyan theorem). The following observation [30, 1.2, Corollary 3] is a very useful immediate consequence of Theorem 10. EXISTENCE OF W 1,1 SOLUTIONS 11

Corollary 11. Let w ∈ L1(Ω, [0, +∞[). There exists an even, convex function Ψ: R → [0, +∞[ such that Ψ(p) e lim =+∞, Ψ(w) < +∞. |p|→+∞ |p| Ω e Z e R Ψ(p) Let Ψ: → [0, +∞[ be an even, convex function such that lim|p|→+∞ |p| = +∞ and Ψ(Φ(∇f)) < +∞. Let (f ε) be the family provided by Lemma 6 given w = f. Using Ω e ε∈]0,ε0] e Lemma 9 and (15), recalling that Φ ≥ Φ, we deduce R ε e ε ε Ψ(Φ(∇u )) ≤ Ψ(Φε(∇u )) ≤ Ψ(Φ(∇f)) + 1 ε ZΩ ZΩ ZΩ for small enough ε. Bye growth conditione (1), we obtain a uniforme bound

ε (38) Ψ(C1|∇u |) ≤ Ψ(Φ(∇f)) + 1. ZΩ ZΩ λ,ε ε λ,ε e e From Ef ε (u ) ≤ Ef ε (0), we get also

(39) |uε|2 ≤ 4 |f ε|2 + 1 ε ZΩ ZΩ for small enough ε. Invoking Theorem 10, we deduce from (38) and (39) the existence of u ∈W and a sequence (εk)k∈N, εk → 0 as k → +∞, such that (40) uεk ⇀ u in W. λ,ε λ We recall that Lemma 7 yields Γ-convergence of Ef ε to Ef with respect to the weak conver- λ gence in W. Thus, we deduce that u is a minimizer of Ef . R ε Now, let Ψ: → [0, +∞[ be any even, convex function and let (f )ε∈]0,ε0] be the family produced by Lemma 6 given Ψ and w = f. We recall that by Lemma 9, e ε ε ε Ψ(Φ(∇eu )) ≤ Ψ(Φε(∇u )) ≤ Ψ(Φε(∇f )), ε ε ZΩ ZΩ ZΩ whence (3) follows by weake convergence ofe uεk and (15). e

6. Proof of Theorem 2 Let Ψ: R → [0, +∞[ be an even, convex function of at most linear growth. We introduce ∞ Ψ(tξ) m notation: Ψε = Ψ ◦ Φε,Ψ= Ψ ◦ Φ, Ψ (ξ) = limt→+∞ for ξ ∈ R and e t ac ∞ ∇sw s e F Ψ(w)=e Ψ(∇ w)+ Ψ |∇sw| d|∇ w| Ω Ω Z Z for w ∈ BV (Ω). The functional F Ψ is weakly-∗ lower semicontinuous [22], see also [1, Theorem 5.47]. We now give BV variants of Lemmata 6 and 7. Lemma 12. Let Ψ: R → [0, +∞[ be an even, convex function of at most linear growth and 2 ε ε 1,∞ ε let w ∈ BV (Ω) ∩ L (Ω). There exists a family of maps (w )ε∈]0,ε0] such that w ∈ W (Ω ), wε → w in L2(Ω) eand weakly-∗ in BV (Ω) as ε → 0+,

ε (41) lim Ψε(∇w )= F Ψ(w) ε + ε →0 ZΩ 12 MICHAL LASICA AND PIOTR RYBKA and (42) lim (wε)2 = 0. ε→0+ ε ZΩ \Ω Proof. We construct the sequence wε as in Lemma 6. The proof that it satisﬁes our assertions also follows along the same lines. The important changes are: ac m ∞ ∇sw s • Ψ(∇w) has to be understood as the measure Ψ(∇ w)L +Ψ |∇sw| |∇ w| (and Ψ(∇w), Ψ(∇wµ) likewise), • to obtain inequality (21), we apply [12, Lemma 2.2] to the function Ψ − Ψ(0), e e • in (23) we use weak-∗ lower semicontinuity of F on BV (Ω) (recall (5)).

ε ε 2 ε ε Lemma 13. Let (f )ε∈]0,ε0] be a family of maps such that f ∈ L (Ω ) for ε ∈]0, ε0], f → f 2 ε 2 + λ,ε λ + in L (Ω) and Ωε\Ω(f ) → 0 as ε → 0 . Then Ef ε Γ-converges to Ef as ε → 0 with 2 respect to the weak-R ∗ convergence in BV (Ω) and L (Ω). Proof. The proof is the same as in the case of Lemma 7, except that we need to use weak-∗ lower semicontinuity of F on BV (Ω) and Lemma 12. N R ε Now, given l ∈ , let Ψ(p) = (|p|− l)+ for p ∈ . Let (f )ε∈]0,ε0] be the family provided ε λ,ε λ,ε ε λ,ε by Lemma 12 given w = f. We denote u the minimizer of E ε . Using E ε (u ) ≤ E ε (0) e f f f and (1) we get ε 1 ε 2 ε 2 λC1 |∇u | + 4 |u | ≤ |f | . ZΩ ZΩ ZΩ 2 + As the r.h.s is bounded, there exists u ∈ BV (Ω) ∩ L (Ω) and a sequence (εk)k∈N, εk → 0 such that uεk converges weakly-∗ in BV (Ω) and L2(Ω). Due to Γ-convergence (Lemma 13) λ the limit u is the minimizer of Ef . We recall that Lemma 9 yields

εk εk Ψε (∇u ) ≤ Ψε (∇f ) ε k ε k ZΩ k ZΩ k for k ∈ N. Passing to the limit k → ∞, by weak-∗ lower semicontinuity of F Ψ and (41) we obtain

(43) F Ψ(u) ≤ F Ψ(f). We note that Ψ∞ =Φ∞. Therefore, (43) translates to

ac ∞ ∇su s ac ∞ ∇sf s (Φ(∇ u) − l)+ + Φ |∇su| d|∇ u|≤ (Φ(∇ f) − l)+ + Φ |∇sf| d|∇ f|. Ω Ω Ω Ω Z Z Z Z We pass to the limit l → +∞.

7. Proof of Theorem 3 2 1,2 2 Given u0 ∈ L (Ω) ∩ BV (Ω), let u ∈ W (0, ∞; L (Ω)) be the solution to the initial value problem ut ∈ −∂F (u) for a. e. t > 0, u(0) = u0. We recall that u is given by the nonlinear exponential formula [8, Corollary 4.4] n t − (44) u(t) = lim id + ∂F u0. n→+∞ n EXISTENCE OF W 1,1 SOLUTIONS 13

This limit is understood in L2(Ω) or equivalently in weak-∗ convergence of BV (Ω) (as the sequence is uniformly bounded in BV (Ω), see below). Denoting k n,k t − u (t)= id + n ∂F u0 we have n,k t n,k n,k−1 u (t)+ n ∂F (u (t)) ∋ u (t) t n,k n for k = 1,...,n, t> 0. Equivalently, u (t) is the minimizer of Eun,k−1(t). With the notation n,k from previous section, we have for all n = 1, 2,..., k = 1,...,n, t> 0, F Ψ(u (t)) ≤ F Ψ(u0) and therefore, by weak-∗ lower semicontinuity of F Ψ,

F Ψ(u(t)) ≤ F Ψ(u0).

Recalling that Ψ(ξ) = (Φ(ξ) − l)+ and passing to the limit l → +∞ we recover (7). 1,1 Now, suppose that u0 ∈ W (Ω). By Corollary 11, there exists a convex function Ψ of superlinear growth such that Ω Ψ(Φ(u0)) < +∞. Then, by Theorem 1, for all n = 1, 2,..., k ,...,n t> un,k t W 1,1 e = 1 , 0, we have R ( ) ∈ (Ω) and e n,k Ψ(Φ(∇u (t))) ≤ Ψ(Φ(∇u0)). ZΩ ZΩ By Theorem 10 and (44), we obtaine that u(t) ∈ W 1e,1(Ω) for t > 0 and the convergence in (44) can be upgraded to weak W 1,1(Ω) convergence. Consequently,

Ψ(Φ(∇u(t))) ≤ Ψ(Φ(∇u0)) ZΩ ZΩ for any even, convex Ψ: R → [0, +e∞[. e

Appendix:e Second derivatives for the approximate problem. Even though Theorems 1-3 deal only with the scalar case, we present the regularity result below in vectorial setting. Let Ω ⊂ Rm be a C2 bounded domain, let λ> 0 and f ∈ L2(Ω, Rn). We consider here the λ 1,2 Rn functional Ff on W (Ω, ) given by 1 F λ(u)= λ Φ(∇u)+ |u − f|2, f 2 ZΩ ZΩ where Φ ∈ C2(Rn×m) is uniformly convex, i. e. there exists µ> 0 such that 1 n×m 2 n×m Rn×m (45) µ I ≤ D Φ(A) ≤ µI for A ∈ . We have denoted by In×m the identity matrix on Rn×m. Possibly enlarging µ, we will also assume (46) |DΦ(0)|≤ µ. 1,2 Rn λ 2,2 Rn Proposition 14. Let u ∈ W (Ω, ) be the minimizer of Ff . Then, u ∈ W (Ω, ). Proof. The proof employs the usual difference quotient technique. As in [18], we prove that 2,2 Rn u ∈ Wloc (Ω, ). However, as far as the boundary regularity is concerned, we failed to find a satisfactory reference. The treatments presented in [13, 6.3.2] and [19, 8.4] are the closest to our needs that we know of. In the former, general linear elliptic equation is handled, while in the latter quasilinear elliptic equation of form div A(∇u) = 0 is considered. In both 14 MICHAL LASICA AND PIOTR RYBKA cases the equation is supplemented with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition, but the same proofs work with homogeneous Neumann condition. However, in [19, 6.4] only half- ball estimates are obtained. In the case of arbitrary Ω, the need to flatten the boundary complicates the situation, since after the change of variables the form of equation changes. Considering vector-valued u introduces further technical difficulty. For these reasons, we include here the complete proof of integrability of the second derivative up to the boundary.1 We recall that u satisfies the Euler-Lagrange system (47) u − f = λdiv (DΦ(∇u)) in Ω,

(48) DΦ(∇u) · νΩ =0 on ∂Ω in a weak sense. In other words,

(49) λDΦ(∇u)∇ϕ + (u − f)ϕ = 0 ZΩ ZΩ holds for all test functions ϕ ∈ W 1,2(Ω, Rn). Let x0 ∈ ∂Ω, r > 0 be such that ∂Ω ∩ B4r(x0) coincides (up to isometry) with a graph of a C2 function. In this case, there exists an open set U ⊂ Rm and a C2 diﬀeomorphism S on + 1 m m B4r(x0) that maps B3r(x0) onto U and Ω ∩ B3r(x0) onto U = {(y ,...,y ) ∈ U : y > 0}. Furthermore, det DS = 1 in B4r(x0) [13, Appendix C.1]. For y ∈ U, we denote Q(y) = DS(S−1(y)). This deﬁnes a function Q ∈ C1(U,SL(m)). + + 0 m For 0

−1 (50) CQ = max kQk 1 , sup |Q(y) | .  C (U3r,SL(m))  y∈S(U3r)   Furthermore, we deﬁne f ∈ L2(U +) by f(y) = f(S−1(y)) for y ∈ U + and u ∈ W 1,2(U +) by u(y)= u(S−1(y)) for y ∈ U +. e e1,2 Let us take any test function ψ ∈ W0 (B3r) in (49). After performinge the change of variablese y = S(x) and taking into account that det DS(x) = 1 we reach

(51) − λDΦ(Q ∇u) · Q∇ψ = (u − f)ψ, + + ZU ZU where ψ(y) = ψ(S−1(y)). Since S is a diﬀeomorphism,e e ψ eis ine facte any test function from W 1,2(U +) vanishing on ∂U + \ U 0. Now,e for i = 1,...,m − 1 and h ∈ R, h 6= 0, we denote the operator of diﬀerence quotient h in direction ei by ∂i , i. e. g(y + he ) − g(y) (∂hg)(y)= i i h for any function g on U + and y ∈ U + such that dist(y,∂U + \ U 0) < h. We will use the h following version of the integration by parts formula for the operator ∂i , h −h (52) f∂i g = ∂i fg, + + ZU ZU which is valid whenever the support of f or g is at a distance at least h from ∂U + \ U 0.

1It has been pointed out by an anonymous referee, that with some additional eﬀort this result could be inferred from [24]. However, we still believe that it is worthwhile to include the detailed proof here. EXISTENCE OF W 1,1 SOLUTIONS 15

1 We take ϕ ∈ Cc (U, [0, 1]) such that ϕ = 1 on Ur, ϕ = 0 on U \ U2r, and h 6= 0, |h| < 1 −h 2 h 2 dist(U2r, ∂U3r). We note that ∂i (ϕ ∂i u), i = 1,...,m − 1 are legitimate test functions for (51) (the summation convention is suppressed here and in the following calculations). If we stick them in (51) and use (52), we shall seee that the r. h. s. of (51) takes the following form,

~~h 2 2 −h 2 h (53) |∂i u| ϕ − f∂i (ϕ ∂i u) =: I1 − I2. + + ZU ZU At the same time, (52) appliede to the l. h. s. ofe (51) yieldse~~

h T h h T . h 2 (54) −λ ϕ∇ϕ·∂i (Q DΦ(Q ∇u))·∂i u−λ ∂i (Q DΦ(Q ∇u)).∂i ∇u ϕ =: −λI3−λI4. + + ZU ZU −h 2 h 2 h Since k∂i (ϕ ∂i u)kL2(U +,Rn) ≤ k(eϕ ∂i ue)yi kL2(U +,Rn), we have e e

~~2 h 2 h |I2| ≤ kfkL2e(U +,Rn) (ϕ ∂i u)yi e ≤ kfkL2(U +,Rn) ∇(ϕ ∂i u) . L2(U +,Rn) L2(U +,Rn×m)~~

~~Moreover, e e~~

~~2 h 2 h h ∇(ϕ ∂i u) ≤ ϕ ∂i ∇u + 2 ϕ∇ϕ ⊗ ∂i u L2(U +,Rn×m) L2(U +,Rn×m) L2(U +,Rn×m)~~

~~h e ≤ ϕ∂i ∇eu + 2 k∇ϕk ∞ +eRm k∇uk 2 + Rn×m . L2(U +,Rn×m) L (U , ) L (U , )~~

~~Hence, for every ε> 0 there exists C3(eε ) > 0 such that e 2 h 2 2 2 (55) I2 ≤ ε ϕ∂i ∇u + k∇ϕk ∞ + Rm k∇uk 2 + Rn×m + C3(ε)kfk 2 + Rn . L2(U +,Rn×m) L (U , ) L (U , ) L (U , )~~

~~Next, we estimate Ie3 and I4, for this purpose we rewritee~~

h (56) h∂i DΦ(Q∇u) = DΦ(Q(· + hei)∇u(· + hei)) − DΦ(Q∇u(· + hei)) + DΦ(Q∇u(· + hei)) − DΦ(Q∇u). e With (56) in mind, we estimate e e e e h T h T T h ∂i (Q DΦ(Q∇u)) ≤ |∂i Q ||DΦ(Q∇u)| + |Q (· + hei)||∂i DΦ(Q∇u)| h h ≤ C µ(1 + |Q||∇u|)+ C µ|∂ (Q∇u)|≤ C µ(1 + C |∇u| + C |∂ ∇u|). e Q e Q i Q Qe Q i Thus, e e e e

~~h 2 (57) |I3|≤ ε ϕ∂i ∇u L2(U +,Rn×m)~~

+ 2 2 e + C4(ε,µ,CQ) |U | + 1+ k∇ϕkL∞(U +,Rm) k∇ukL2(U +,Rn×m) . Estimating I4 requires more care. Using the Leibniz rule, we obtain e 2 h T . h 2 h . h (58) I4 = ϕ (∂i Q )DΦ(Q ∇u) . ∇∂i u + ϕ ∂i DΦ(Q ∇u) . Q∇∂i u =: A1 + A2. + + ZU ZU Using (45, 46, 50), we estimate e e e e h 2 2 (59) |A1|≤ ǫkϕ∂i ∇ukL2(U +,Rn×m) + C5(ǫ,CQ,µ)k∇ukL2(U +,Rn×m).

~~e e 16 MICHAL LASICA AND PIOTR RYBKA~~

~~Recalling (56),~~

1 2 . h (60) A2 = ϕ (DΦ(Q ∇u(· + hei)) − DΦ(Q ∇u))) . Q(∂i ∇u) h + ZU 1 2 . h + ϕ (DΦ(Q(· + hei)e∇u(· + hei)) − DΦ(Qe∇u(· + hei))))e . Q(∂i ∇u) =: B1 + B2. h + ZU We estimate B2 similarly as A1, e e e h 2 2 |B2|≤ ǫkϕ∂i ∇ukL2(U +,Rn×m) + C6(ǫ,CQ,µ)k∇ukL2(U +,Rn×m).

~~We deal diﬀerently with B1. Usinge (45) and (50) yields e h 2 µ h 2 (61) B1 ≥ µkϕQ∂i ∇ukL2(U +,Rn×m) ≥ kϕ∂i ∇ukL2(U +,Rn×m). CQ~~

~~Collecting (53-61) and choosing εesmall enough depending oneµ,CQ, λ we obtain~~

~~2 2 ∂h∇u ≤ ϕ∂h∇u i 2 + n×m i 2 + n×m L (Ur ,R ) L (U ,R )~~

e e ≤ C7 µ,CQ, λ, r, k∇ϕkL∞(U +,Rm) , k∇ukL2(U +,Rn×m) , 1,2 + Rn×m whence uyi ∈ W (Ur , ) for i = 1,...,m − 1. e In order to establish the missing estimate on uymym it is advantageous to write (49) as a diﬀerentiale equation, e (62) u − f = λdiv (QT DΦ(Q ∇u)) in U +,

eT 0 (63) e Q DΦ(Q ∇u) · em =0e on U . Expanding the divergence in (62), we obtain for α = 1,...,n e m m n uα f α Q D α Q u Q D2 αβ Q u Q uβ (64) − = ji,yi ( Φ)j ( ∇ )+ ji ( Φ)jk ( ∇ ) kl,yi yl i,jX=1 i,j,k,lX=1 βX=1 e e e m n e e Q D2 αβ Q u Q uβ . + ji ( Φ)jk ( ∇ ) kl ylyi i,j,k,lX=1 βX=1 We recall (45) to see that e e n m 2 αβ µ n Qjm (D Φ)jk (Q∇u) Qkm ≥ 2 I .   CQ j,kX=1 α,β=1  e  2 + Rn×m Since we have already shown that uylyi ∈ L (Ur , ) as long as it is not the case that 2 + Rn×m l = i = m, it follows from (64) that also uymym ∈ L (Ur , ). Thus, we have shown that 2,2 + Rn×m 2,2 Rn×m u ∈ W (Ur , ) and therefore eu ∈ W (Br(x0) ∩ Ω, ). By compactness of ∂Ω, it follows that u ∈ W 2,2(Ω, Rn×m). e e Acknowledgement. The authors thank an anonymous referee for their comments, which helped us to improve the text. EXISTENCE OF W 1,1 SOLUTIONS 17

References [1] Luigi Ambrosio, Nicola Fusco, Diego Pallara. Functions of bounded variation and free discontinuity problems. Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York (2000). [2] Lisa Beck, Miroslav Bul´ıˇcek, Franz Gmeineder. On a Neumann problem for variational functionals of linear growth. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci (to appear). [3] Lisa Beck, Miroslav Bul´ıˇcek, Erika Maringová. Globally Lipschitz minimizers for variational problems with linear growth. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 24 (2018) pp. 1395–1413. doi:10.1051/cocv/2017065. [4] Lisa Beck, Thomas Schmidt. On the Dirichlet problem for variational integrals in BV . J. Reine Angew. Math. 674 (2013) pp. 113–194. doi:10.1515/crelle.2011.188. [5] Michael Bildhauer. A priori gradient estimates for bounded generalized solutions of a class of variational problems with linear growth. J. Convex Anal. 9 (2002) pp. 117–137. [6] Matteo Bonforte, Alessio Figalli. Total variation flow and sign fast diffusion in one dimension. J. Differential Equations 252 (2012) pp. 4455–4480. doi:10.1016/j.jde.2012.01.003. [7] Ha¨ım Brézis. Monotonicity methods in Hilbert spaces and some applications to nonlinear partial differential equations. In Contributions to nonlinear functional analysis (Proc. Sympos., Math. Res. Center, Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., 1971), pp. 101–156. Aca- demic Press, New York (1971). [8] Ha¨ım Brézis. Opérateurs maximaux monotones et semi-groupes de contractions dans les espaces de Hilbert. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1973). North-Holland Mathematics Studies, No. 5. Notas de Matemática (50). [9] Ariela Briani, Antonin Chambolle, Matteo Novaga, Giandomenico Orlandi. On the gradient flow of a one-homogeneous functional. Confluentes Math. 3 (2011) pp. 617–635. doi:10.1142/S1793744211000461. [10] V. Caselles, K. Jalalzai, M. Novaga. On the jump set of solutions of the total variation flow. Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova 130 (2013) pp. 155–168. doi:10.4171/RSMUP/130-5. [11] Vicent Caselles, Antonin Chambolle, Matteo Novaga. The discontinuity set of solutions of the TV denoising problem and some extensions. Multiscale Model. Simul. 6 (2007) pp. 879–894. doi:10.1137/070683003. [12] F. Demengel, R. Temam. Convex functions of a measure and applications. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 33 (1984) pp. 673–709. doi:10.1512/iumj.1984.33.33036. [13] Lawrence C. Evans. Partial differential equations, vol. 19 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, second edn. (2010). doi:10.1090/gsm/019. [14] Lawrence C. Evans, Ronald F. Gariepy. Measure theory and fine properties of functions. Studies in Advanced Mathematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (1992). [15] Daisuke Fujiwara, Hiroko Morimoto. An Lr-theorem of the Helmholtz decomposi- tion of vector fields. J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA Math. 24 (1977) pp. 685–700. doi:10.15083/00039693. [16] Lorenzo Giacomelli, Micha lLasica. A local estimate for vectorial total variation minimization in one dimension. Nonlinear Anal. 181 (2019) pp. 141–146. doi:10.1016/j.na.2018.11.009. [17] Lorenzo Giacomelli, Micha lLasica, Salvador Moll. Regular 1-harmonic flow. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 58 (2019). doi:10.1007/s00526-019-1526-z. 18 MICHAL LASICA AND PIOTR RYBKA

[18] E. Giusti, M. Miranda. Sulla regolaritàdelle soluzioni deboli di una classe di sis- temi ellittici quasi-lineari. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 31 (1968/1969) pp. 173–184. doi:10.1007/BF00282679. [19] Enrico Giusti. Direct methods in the calculus of variations. World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ (2003). doi:10.1142/9789812795557. [20] Franz Gmeineder, Jan Kristensen. Partial regularity for BV minimizers. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 232 (2019) pp. 1429–1473. doi:10.1007/s00205-018-01346-5. [21] Franz Gmeineder, Jan Kristensen. Sobolev regularity for convex functionals on BD. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 58 (2019). doi:10.1007/s00526-019-1491-6. [22] Casper Goffman, James Serrin. Sublinear functions of measures and variational integrals. Duke Math. J. 31 (1964) pp. 159–178. doi:10.1215/S0012-7094-64-03115-1. [23] Wojciech Górny. Planar least gradient problem: existence, regularity and anisotropic case. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 57 (2018). doi:10.1007/s00526-018-1378-y. [24] C. Hamburger. Regularity of differential forms minimizing degenerate elliptic functionals. J. Reine Angew. Math. 431 (1992) pp. 7–64. doi:10.1515/crll.1992.431.7. [25] Micha lLasica, Salvador Moll, Piotr B. Mucha. Total variation denoising in l1 anisotropy. SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 10 (2017) pp. 1691–1723. doi:10.1137/16M1103610. [26] Carlo Mariconda, Giulia Treu. Existence and Lipschitz regularity for minima. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 130 (2002) pp. 395–404. doi:10.1090/S0002-9939-01-06370-5. [27] Gwenael Mercier. Continuity results for TV-minimizers. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 67 (2018) pp. 1499–1545. doi:10.1512/iumj.2018.67.7393. [28] Atsushi Nakayasu, Piotr Rybka. Integrability of the derivative of solutions to a singular one-dimensional parabolic problem. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 52 (2018) pp. 239– 257. doi:10.12775/TMNA.2018.031. [29] Alessio Porretta. On the regularity of the total variation minimizers. Communications in Contemporary Mathematics (2019). doi:10.1142/S0219199719500822. [30] M. M. Rao, Z. D. Ren. Theory of Orlicz spaces, vol. 146 of Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York (1991). [31] Peter Sternberg, Graham Williams, William P. Ziemer. Existence, uniqueness, and regularity for functions of least gradient. J. Reine Angew. Math. 430 (1992) pp. 35–60. [32] Tuomo Valkonen. The jump set under geometric regularization. Part 1: basic technique and first-order denoising. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 47 (2015) pp. 2587–2629. doi:10.1137/140976248. Institute of Mathematics of the Polish Academy of Sciences ul. Sniadeckich´ 8, 00-656 Warszawa, Poland, ORCID 0000-0002-8365-0484 Email address: [email protected]

~~Institute of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, University of Warsaw ul. Banacha 2, 02-097 Warszawa, Poland, ORCID 0000-0002-0694-8201 Email address: [email protected]~~