Skip to main content

Full text of "Rearrangement inequalities for functionals with monotone integrands"

See other formats


C3 



Rearrangement inequalities for functionals 
with monotone integrands 



§ ■ Almut Burchard* and Hichem Hajaiej^ 

(N 

b : June 2004; final revision March 2006. 

< 



Dedicated to Albert Baernstein, II on the occasion of his 65 th birthday. 

Abstract 



< 

C$ , The inequalities of Hardy-Littlewood and Riesz say that certain integrals involving 

products of two or three functions increase under symmetric decreasing rearrangement. It 
is known that these inequalities extend to integrands of the form F(ui, ■ ■ ■ , u m ) where F 
. is supermodular; in particular, they hold when F has nonnegative mixed second deriva- 

tives didjF for all i ^ j. This paper concerns the regularity assumptions on F and the 
equality cases. It is shown here that extended Hardy-Littlewood and Riesz inequalities 



£T) ■ are valid for supermodular integrands that are just Borel measurable. Under some non- 

degeneracy conditions, all equality cases are equivalent to radially decreasing functions 
^ | under transformations that leave the functionals invariant (i.e., measure-preserving maps 

for the Hardy-Littlewood inequality, translations for the Riesz inequality). The proofs rely 



on monotone changes of variables in the spirit of Sklar's theorem. 



1 Introduction 



The systematic study of rearrangements begins with the final chapter of "Inequalities" 
by Hardy, Littlewood, and Poly a 0. Two inequalities are discussed there at length, the 
Hardy-Littlewood inequality (Theorems 368-370 and 378 of 



u(x)v(x)dx< / u* (x)v* (x) dx , (1.1) 
Jr 

and the Riesz rearrangement inequality (QIIH, Theorem 370 of [ 1 ]) 

u{x)v{x')w(x — x) dxdx < I I u* (x)v* (x')w* (x — x') dxdx' . (1.2) 



"University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada M5S 2E4. almut@math . utoronto . ca. 

t University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4137, USA. hichem . ha jaie j @gmail . com. 



Here, u, v, and w are nonnegative measurable functions that vanish at infinity, and u* , v* , 
and w* are their symmetric decreasing rearrangements. 

The Hardy-Littlewood inequality is a very basic inequality that holds, with suitably 
defined rearrangements, on arbitrary measure spaces [4]. Its main implication is that rear- 
rangement decreases L 2 -distances 0. In contrast, the Riesz rearrangement inequality is 
specific to Z and to M. n , where it is closely related with the Brunn-Minkowski inequality 
of convex geometry. The generalization of Eq. dl.2t from E to IR n is due to Sobolev [6|, 
and the inequality is also known as the Riesz-Sobolev inequality. For many applications, 
the third function in Eq. dl.2t is already radially decreasing, i.e., w(x — x') = K(\x — x'\) 
with some nonnegative nonincreasing function K, such as the heat kernel or the Coulomb 
kernel (Theorems 371-373 and 380 of Q). This special case of the inequality also holds 
on the standard spheres and hyperbolic spaces ElUJ, and it still contains the isoperimetric 
inequality as a limit. 

It is a natural question whether these inequalities carry over to more general integral 
functionals. Under what conditions on F do the extended Hardy -Litdewood inequality 



j F(u 1 (x),...,u m (x))dx < J F(u*(x), . . . ,u* n (x)) dx 
and the extended Riesz inequality 

j ■ ■■ j F{ui{x\), . . .,u m (x m )) Y\Kij(d(x i ,x j ))dx 1 . ..dx m 

i<j 

< J-J F(u* 1 (x 1 ),...,u^ n (x m ))Y\Kij(d(x i ,x j ))dxi...dx r 



(1.3) 



(1.4) 



hold for all choices of u\,... ,u m ? In Eq. dl.4t the Kij are given nonnegative nonin- 
creasing functions on M + , and d(x, y) denotes the distance between x and y. Eq. (I1.3t 
can be recovered from Eq. dl.4t by choosing K^j as a Dirac sequence and passing to the 
limit. Note that Eq. dl.4t contains only the case of Eq. dl.2t where the third function is a 
symmetric decreasing kernel. A larger class of integral kernels K{x\, . . . , x m ) was con- 
sidered in [9|. The full generalization of Riesz' inequality to products of more than three 
functions was found by Brascamp-Lieb-Luttinger [ 10 1 ; again, one may ask to what class 
of integrands the Brascamp-Lieb-Luttinger inequality naturally extends. 

The main condition on F was identified by Lorentz lITTl as the second-order mono- 
tonicity property 

F(y + he, + kej) + F(y) > F(y + he,) + F(y + kej) (i + j, h,k > 0) , (1.5) 

where y = (yi, . . . , y m ), and e, denotes the i-th standard basis vector in ]R m . Functions 
satisfying Eq. (I1.5t are called supermodular or 2-increasing in Economics. A smooth func- 
tion is supermodular, if all its mixed second partial derivatives are nonnegative. Eqs. (I1.3t 
and il.4l were proved for continuous supermodular integrands depending onm = 2 func- 
tions by Crowe-Zweibel-Rosenbloom [12| and Almgren-Lieb (Theorem 2.2 of 11731 ). For 
m > 2, Eq. (I1.3t is due to Brock 1 14 1, and Eq. (I1.4t is a recent result of Draghici [ 15 1. The 



2 



purpose of this paper is to dispense with the continuity assumptions on F in the theorems 
of Brock and Draghici, and to characterize the equality cases in some relevant situations. 
This continues prior work of the second author [16-19]. 

Acknowledgments. We thank Friedemann Brock, Cristina Draghici, and Loren Pitt for 
useful discussions, and especially Al Baernstein for drawing our attention to Sklar's the- 
orem. A.B. was partially funded by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), 
the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and a Uni- 
versity of Toronto Connaught award. H.H. was supported by the Fonds National Suisse de 
la Recherche Scientifique (FNS). 

2 Statement of the results 

Let X denote either the Euclidean space R n , the sphere S n , or the hyperbolic space EP, 
equipped with the standard distance function d(-, •) and the uniform volume measure A. 
Choose a distinguished point x* £ X to serve as the origin or the north pole. Consider a 
nonnegative measurable function u on X. When X = W n or H n , we require u to vanish 
at infinity in the sense that all its positive level sets {x G X : u(x) > t} have finite 
measure; when X = S n this requirement is void. By definition, the symmetric decreasing 
rearrangement u* of u is the unique upper semicontinuous, nonincreasing function of 
d(x, x*) that is equimeasurable with u. Explicitly, if 

p(t) = \({x £ X : u(x) > t}) 

is the distribution function of u, and B r denotes the open ball of radius r centered at x*, 
then 

u*(x) := sup{i > : p{t) > X(B d ^ X}X ^)} . 

Theorem 1 (Extended Hardy-Littlewood inequality.) Eq. M.3\ holds for all nonnes- 
ative measurable functions u\ , . . . , u m that vanish at infinity on X = W 1 , § n , or M n , 
provided that the integrand F is a supermodular Borel measurable function on the closed 
positive cone with F(0) = 0, and that its negative part satisfies 

F-(y,i(x) eA dx < oo (2.1) 

for i = I, ... ,m. 

Suppose Eq. <\1.3t holds with equality, and the integrals are finite. If F satisfies 
Eq. <\1.5t with strict inequality for some i ^ j, all y G M.™ and all h, k > 0, then 

(ui(x) - Ui(x')) (uj(x) - Uj(x')) > 

for almost all x,x' £ X; in particular, if u; L = u* is strictly radially decreasing, then 
Uj = u*. 



3 



/ 



The Borel measurability of F and the integrability assumption in Eq. (I2.lt ensure that the 
integrals in Eq. (11.31) are well-defined, though they may take the value +00. 

The left hand side of Eq. J1.3i is invariant under volume-preserving diffeomorphisms 
of X. More generally, if (f2, p) and (ft , //) are measure spaces and r : Q —>■ ft pushes p 
forward to p! in the sense that p'(A) = p(r~ 1 (A)) for all ^'-measurable subsets A C ft, 
then 

/ F(u 1 (u),...,u m (u))d(j,(w)= F(ui ot(uj'),... ,u m oT(u'))df/(u/) . 
Jq Jq' 

The right hand side of Eq. J1.3i can also be expressed in an invariant form. Define the 
nonincreasing rearrangement vfr of u as the unique nonincreasing upper semicontinuous 
function on M + that is equimeasurable with u, 

u*(£) : = sup{t > : p(t) > . 

By construction, {u o r)# = for any map r : Q — > ft that pushes p forward to p! . 
On X = W 1 , S n and H n , the nonincreasing rearrangement is related with the symmetric 
decreasing rearrangement by u*(x) = (A {Bm x tX *)))- Theorem [l]implies that 

F{u x {u>\...,u m {u))dn{u)< F(uf(0,...,u*(0)d£ (2.2) 

in Jo 

for all nonnegative measurable functions u\ , . . . , u m on U that vanish at infinity. 

When fi is a probability measure, Eq. i2.2t says that the expected value of F(Y\ , . . . , Y m ) 
is maximized among all random variables Y\ , . . . , Y m with given marginal distributions by 
the perfectly correlated random variables Yf, . . . , Ym - The joint distribution of the max- 
imizer is uniquely determined, if Yi is continuously distributed for some i and Eq. (I1.5t 
is strict for all j ^ i. In this formulation, the invariance under measure-preserving trans- 
formations is evident, since the expected value depends only on the joint distribution of 
Yi, ... ,Y m . The assumption that F is supermodular signifies that each of the random 
variables enhances the contribution of the others. 

Theorem 2 (Extended Riesz inequality.) Eq. M.4\ holds for all nonnegative measurable 
functions u%, . . . , u m on X = W 1 , § n , or HP that vanish at infinity, provided that F is a su- 
permodular Borel measurable function on WV with F(0) = 0, each Kij is nonincreasing 
and nonnegative, and the negative part of F satisfies 

■ ■■ F^(ue(xe)ei) Y[ K ij(d(xi,Xj)) dxi ... dx m < 00 (2.3) 

Jx Jx iKj 

for £ = 1, . . . , m. 

Suppose Eq. M.4\ holds with equality. Assume additionally that the integrals are finite, 
and that Kij(t) > Ofor all i < j and all t < diamX. Let Tq be the graph on the vertex 
set {1, . . . , m} which has an edge between i and j whenever K{j is a strictly decreasing 
function, and let i 7^ j be from the same component of Tq. If Eq. M.5t is strict for all 
y G R!? and all h,k > 0, and if ui and Uj are non-constant, then m = u* o r and 
Uj = Uj o t for some translation r on X. 



4 



3 Related work 



There are several proofs of the extended Hardy-Littlewood inequality in the literature. For 
continuous integrands, Lorentz showed by discretization and elementary manipulations of 
the Ui that Eq. ( I2.2t holds for all measurable functions u\, . . . , u m on $7 = (0, 1) if and 
only if F is supermodular |11|. By the invariance under measure-preserving transforma- 
tions, this implies Eq. (U.3t . as well as Eq. (I2.2t for arbitrary finite measure spaces Q. 
However, Lorentz' paper has had little impact on subsequent developments. 

More than thirty years later, Crowe-Zweibel-Rosenbloom proved Eq. dl.3t for m = 2 
on X = W 1 lfT2l . They expressed a given continuous supermodular function F on M. 2 ^ that 
vanishes on the boundary as the distribution function of a Borel measure fj,p, 

F(Vi,1to) = Mf([0>l/i) x C '^)) • 

layer-cake representation 



j F(u 1 (x),u 2 (x))dx = |y l Ul{x)>yi l U2ix)>y2 dx^ d/j, F (y 1 ,y 2 ) , (3.1) 

which reduces Eq. dl.3l > to the case where F is a product of characteristic functions (see 
Theorem 1.13 in [20 1). Another reduction to products was proposed by Tahraoui [21 1. The 
regularity and boundary conditions on F were relaxed by Hajaiej-Stuart, who assumed it 
to be supermodular, of Caratheodory type (i.e., Borel measurable in the first, continu- 
ous in the second variable), and to satisfy some growth and integrability restrictions llT6l . 
Equality statements for their results were obtained by Hajaiej llT7l[T8l . Using a slightly 
different layer-cake decomposition, Van Schaftingen-Willem recently established Eq. (I2.2t 
for m = 2, under additional assumptions on F, for any equimeasurable rearrangement that 
preserves inclusions [22|. 

The drawback of the layer-cake representation is that for m > 2 it requires an ru- 
th order monotonicity condition on the integrand, which amounts for smooth F to the 
nonnegativity of all (non-repeating) mixed partial derivatives 1 19 1. Brock proved Eq. (I1.3t 
under the much weaker assumption that F is continuous and supermodular [ 14 1. 

Carrier viewed maximizing the left hand side of Eq. (I2.2t for a given right hand side 
as an optimal transportation problem where the distribution functions of m, . . . , u m de- 
fine mass distributions /ij on R, the joint distribution defines a transportation plan, and 
the functional represents the cost after multiplying by a minus sign [23 1. He showed that 
the functional achieves its maximum (i.e., the cost is minimized) when the joint distribu- 
tion is concentrated on a curve in M m that is nondecreasing in all coordinate directions, 
and obtained Eq. (I2.2t as a corollary. His proof takes advantage of the dual problem of 
minimizing 

m „ 

X / fi(y) d ^(y) 



i=i 



over fi,...,f m , subject to the constraint that £ frfa) > F(y 1 , ... ,y m ) for all y%, . . . , y Tl 



5 



Theorem ^ can be applied to some integrands that depend explicitly on the radial 
variable 03] ED E3- If G is a function on R + x R™ such that F(y , ...,y m ) := 
G(yQ , 2/1, ■ ■ ■ ,y m ) satisfies the assumptions of Theorem ^ then 

G(\x\,ui(x), . . . ,u m (x)) dx < / G(|x|, u*(x), . . . , u* m (x)) dx . (3.2) 

Hajaiej-Stuart studied this inequality in connection with the following problem in nonlin- 
ear optics IT6l IT9l . The profiles of stable electromagnetic waves traveling along a planar 
waveguide are given by the ground states of the energy functional 

£( u ) = o / \u'\ 2 dx — I G(\x\,u)dx 

under the constraint ||u||2 = c. Here, x is the position relative to the optical axis, G is de- 
termined by the index of refraction, and c > is a parameter related to the wave speed [ 24 1 . 
If the index of refraction of the optical media decreases with \x\, then F(r, y) = G(r _1 , y) 
satisfies the assumptions of Theorem ^ Then the first integral shrinks under symmetric 
decreasing rearrangement by the Polya-Szego inequality, the second integral grows by 
Eq. d3.2t . and the L 2 -constraint is conserved. Thus, one may rearrange any minimizing 
sequence to obtain a minimizing sequence of symmetric decreasing functions. This is a 
crucial step in the construction of ground states — if G violates the monotonicity con- 
ditions, then a ground state need not exist (25J. Hajaiej-Stuart worried about restrictive 
regularity assumptions, because G may jump at interfaces between layers of different me- 
dia. 

The Riesz inequality in Eq. (I1.4t is non-trivial even when F is just a product of two 
functions. Ahlfors introduced two-point rearrangements to treat this case on X = S 1 [26|, 
Baernstein-Taylor proved the corresponding result on S ra [7], and Beckner noted that the 
proof remains valid on M n and R n [ 8 1. When F is a product of m > 2 functions, Eq. (I1.4t 
has applications to spectral invariants of heat kernels via the Trotter product formula 11271 . 
This case was settled by Friedberg-Luttinger [28 1, Burchard-Schmuckenschlager [29], and 
by Morpurgo, who proved Eq. (II At more generally for integrands of the form 

m 

F(y 1 ,...,y m ) = ^(j2y^) (3-3) 

i=l 

with <I> convex (Theorem 3.13 of 1301 1. In the above situations, equality cases have been 
determined l3T1l32ll29ll30l . Almgren-Lieb used the technique of Crowe-Zweibel-Rosen- 
bloom to prove Eq. (I1.4t for m = 2 |13 |. The special case where F(u, v) = <I>(|n — v |) for 
some convex function was identified by Baernstein as a 'master inequality' from which 
many classical geometric inequalities can be derived quickly ll33l . Eq. (II .4t for continuous 
supermodular integrands with m > 2 is due to Draghici lfT31 . 



4 Outline of the arguments 

In their proofs of Eqs. (U.3t and (U.4t . Brock and Draghici showed that the left hand sides 
increase under two-point rearrangements if F is any supermodular Borel integrand [14 



6 



fT5l . Then they approximated the symmetric decreasing rearrangement with sequences of 
repeated two-point rearrangements. Baernstein-Taylor had established that such sequences 
can be made to converge to the symmetric decreasing rearrangement in a space of contin- 
uous functions Q, and Brock-Solynin had proved this convergence in L p -spaces [34). To 
pass to the desired limits, Brock and Draghici assumed that F is continuous and satisfies 
some boundary and growth conditions. 

No new proofs of these inequalities will be given here. Rather, we reduce general su- 
permodular integrands to the known cases of integrands that are also bounded and contin- 
uous. This reduction needs more care than the usual density arguments, because pointwise 
a.e. convergence of a sequence of integrands F^ does not guarantee pointwise a.e. con- 
vergence of the compositions Fk(u±, . . . , u m ). Approximation within a class of functions 
with specified positivity or monotonicity properties can be subtle; for instance, nonnega- 
tive functions of m variables cannot always be approximated by positive linear combina- 
tions of products of nonnegative functions of the individual variables (contrary to Theorem 
2.1 and Lemma 4.1 of ED). 

In Section |5j we prove a variant of Sklar's theorem [ 35 1 which factorizes a given su- 
permodular function on W£ as the composition of a Lipschitz continuous supermodular 
function on M.™ with m monotone functions on R + , and a cutoff lemma that replaces a 
given supermodular function by a bounded supermodular function. Section|6]is dedicated 
to the two-point versions of Theorems [2 and |2] Here, we review the proofs of the two- 
point rearrangement inequalities of Lorentz [ 11 1, Brock [ 14 1, and Draghici [ 15 | and find 
their equality cases. The main theorems are proved in Section 0by combining the results 
from Sections |5] and |6] Adapting Beckner's argument from [32], we note that the inequal- 
ities in Eq. (I1.3t and Eq. (I1.4t are strict unless u\ , . . . , u m produce equality in all of the 
corresponding two-point inequalities, and then apply the results from Section |6] In the 
final Section[8l we briefly discuss extensions for the Brascamp-Lieb-Luttinger and related 
inequalities. 

5 Monotone functions 

In this section, we provide two technical results about functions with higher-order mono- 
tonicity properties. We begin with an auxiliary lemma for functions of a single variable. 

Lemma 5.1 (Monotone change of variable.) Let <fi be a nondecreasing real-valued 
function defined on an interval I. Then, for every function f on I satisfying 

\f(z)-f(y)\<C(<Kz)-<Ky)) (5.1) 

for all points y < z £ I with some constant C, there exists a Lipschitz continuous function 
f : R — * [inf /, sup /] such that f = f o <p. Furthermore, if f is nondecreasing, then f is 
nondecreasing. 

PROOF. If t = (f>(y) we set f(t) := f(y). For s < t with s = <f>(y), t = <j>{z), Eq. (BH 
implies that 

- f(s)\ = \f(z) - f(y)\ < C(^{z) - 4>{y)) = C(t - s) . (5.2) 



7 



Since / is uniformly continuous on the image of <p, it has a unique continuous extension to 
the closure of the image. The complement consists of a countable number of open disjoint 
bounded intervals, each representing a jump of (p, and possibly one or two unbounded 
intervals. On each of the bounded intervals, we interpolate / linearly between the values 
that have already been assigned at the endpoints. If (f> is bounded either above or below, 
we extrapolate / to t > sup <fi and t < inf 4> by constants. 

By construction, f = f ° 4> and f(M) = [inf /, sup/]. The continuous extension and 
the linear interpolation preserve the modulus of continuity of /, and hence, by Eq. (I5.2t . 

\Rt)-f(s)\<C\t-s\ (5.3) 

for all s, t G M.. If / is nondecreasing, then / is nondecreasing on the image of <p by defini- 
tion, and on the complement by continuous extension and linear interpolation. ■ 

Lemma l5~Tl is related to the elementary fact that a continuous random variable can be 
made uniform by a monotone change of variables. More generally, if <fi is nondecreasing 
and right continuous, and its generalized inverse is defined by rp(t) = inf{y : <j>(y) > t}, 
then the cumulative distribution functions of two random variables that are related by Y = 
ip(Y) satisfy 

F(y) = P(Y <y) = P(Y < 0(y)) = F^y)) , 

i.e., F = F o (p. Choosing 4> = F results in a uniform distribution for Y. 

The corresponding result for m > 2 random variables is known as Sklar's theo- 
rem [35 1 . The theorem asserts that a collection of random variables Y\, . . . , Y m with a 
given joint distribution function F can be replaced by random variables Y\ , . . . , Y m whose 
marginals % are uniformly distributed on [0, 1], and whose joint distribution function jP is 
continuous. The next lemma contains Sklar's theorem for supermodular functions. Since 
the lemma follows from the arguments outlined in [36| rather than from the statement of 
the theorem, we include its proof for the convenience of the reader. 

We first introduce some notation. Let F be a real- valued function on the closed positive 
cone M™. For i = 1, . . . , m and h > 0, consider the finite difference operators 

A l F(y;/ l ) := F(y + he t ) - F(y) . 

The operators commute, and higher order difference operators are defined recursively by 

A h _ ie F(y;hi,. . . ,h e ) := A il ...^_ 1 A k F((y; hi); h u ■ ■ ■ M-i) ■ 

If F is £ times continuously differentiable, then 

&i 1 ...i t F(y;hi,...,hi) = •••/ d h . . . d ie F[ y + V] ) dt x . . . dte . 

Jo Jo v i=1 J 

A function F is nondecreasing in each variable if Aji 7 > for i = 1, . . . , m; it is super- 
modular, if AijF > for all i / j. The joint distribution function of m random variables 
satisfies A^ . . . Ai e F > for any choice of distinct indices i\, . . . , 



8 



Lemma 5.2 (Sklar's theorem.) Assume that F is bounded, nondecreasing in each 
variable, and supermodular on R™. Then there exist bounded nondecreasing functions 
01, ... , (p m on with 4>i(0) = and a Lipschitz continuous function F on such that 

F(yi, ■■■;y m ) = F{fa(y{), . . .,<t> m {Vm)) ■ 

Furthermore, F is bounded, nondecreasing in each variable, and supermodular. If in 
addition, A^^^F > on MJ? xl^. for some distinct indices i±, . . . , %i, then A^.^F > 0. 

Proof. Set 



(y) = lim iF(yi,...,y m ) - F(y 1} . . . ,y m ) 



yi=y 



Vi=0 



These functions are nonnegative and bounded by sup F — inf F. Since F is nondecreasing 
in each variable, they are nonnegative, and since F is supermodular, they are nondecreas- 
ing and satisfy 

F(y + he i )-F(y)<Myi + h)-Myi) (5-4) 

for all y = (y h . . . , y m ) G and all h > 0. 

We construct F by changing one variable at a time. For the first variable, we write 
y = (y, y) where y G M + and y G By Eq. (Bil l, for each y G IR+ -1 , the function 

f(y) = F(y,y) satisfies Eq. (I5.U with C = 1 and (p = fa- By Lemma |5~T1 there exists a 
function F\ satisfying 

F( y ,y) = F 1 (My),y) 

for all (y, y) G M.™. Furthermore, Fi is Lipschitz continuous in the first variable, 

iFx^-Fx^y)! < \t-s\ . 



We claim that F\ satisfies Eq. (15 .4t for all j : > 1 with the same function fa as F. To see 
this, note that for each h > and every y, 

f(y) = A j F(y,y;h) 

satisfies the assumptions of Lemma l5~Tl with C = 2 and <p = fa. A moment's considera- 
tion shows that 

f(t) = A j F 1 (t,y;h) 

and the claim follows since sup / = sup / < fa (yj + h) — <pj (yj ) by Lemma |5~T1 

We next verify that Fx has the same monotonicity properties as F. Suppose that 
&-ii...i t F > for some set of £ > 1 distinct indices £]_,... , t£. If 1 . . . 
we apply Lemma l5~Tl to /(y) = Ai 1 ,„i e F(y, y; /ii, . . . , which satisfies Eq. (I5.lt 
with C = 2* and </> = fa for all y G R m ~ l and all h u ...,h t > 0. It follows 
that f{t) = Aj 1 ...i f i ; i(t, y; foi, . . . , hi) > 0. On the other hand, if z'i = 1, we apply 
Lemma l5~T1 to /(y) = Ai 2r „ ; i t F(y,y; fi2, ■ ■ ■ , fog). Since /(y) is nondecreasing by as- 
sumption, fit) = Ai 2i ... ) ^i ? i(t, y; /12, . . . , /i^) is again nondecreasing, and we conclude 
that A^ . ^Fi > also in this case. 



9 



Iterating the change of variables for i = 2, . . . , m gives functions Fj satisfying 

Fj-i^i, . . .,U-i,yi, . . .,y m ) = Fi(ti, . . . (/)i(yi), yi+i, . . . y m ) , 
as well as 

0<A j F i (t 1 ,...,t i ,y i+1 ,...y m ;h)<S [ ^ + fc) _ ^ J .f l . (5.5) 

Finally, we set F = F m . It follows from Eq. (I5.5t that F satisfies the Lipschitz 
condition |F(z) — F(y)| < \ z i ~ Vi\ ^ \An |z — y| for all y, z G ■ 

The distribution function of a Borel measure on can be conveniently approximated 
from below by restricting the measure to a large cube [0, L) m . The next lemma constructs 
the corresponding approximation for functions with weaker monotonicity properties. 

Lemma 5.3 (Cutoff.) Given a real-valued function F in WV, set 

F L (yi, ...,y m ):= F(mm{yi,L}, . . . ,min{y m ,L}) . 

If F is nondecreasing in each variable, then F L < F. If Ai 1 . ^ e F > on W± X M.+ for 
some distinct indices i\, . . . , then Aj lj ... ) j £ i ?lZ ' > 0. In particular, if F is supermodular, 
so is F L . If F has the property that A^.^.F > on R'P x W+for every set of distinct 
indices ix,...,ig, then F — F L also has this property. 

PROOF. As in the proof of Lemma l5~2l we modify the variables one at a time. The func- 
tion F 1,L (y, y) := F(min{y, L}, y) has the same monotonicity properties as F because 
min{y, L} is nondecreasing in y. 

If Aj 1 ...j { i ?1 > for all collections of distinct indices i\, . . . , i#, we write 

F(y, y) - F l ' L {y, y) = & x F{y, y; [y - L]+) , 

and it follows that A^ . j^F — F l,L ) > whenever 1 ^ . . . , ig}. For i\ = 1, we write 

A X {F(y, y; h) - F 1,L (y, y; h) = A 1 F(max{y, L},y; [h - [L - y]+} + ) , 

and conclude that Aj 1 ...j ( ,(F — F 1, ) > also in this case. 

Repeating the construction for the variables y%, . . . , y m gives the claims. ■ 

6 Two-point rearrangements 

Let X be R n , S n , or H n . A reflection on X is an isometry characterized by the properties 
that (i) a 2 x = x for all x G X; (hJ the fixed point set Hq of a separates M into two 
half-spaces H + and that are interchanged by a; and (Hi) d(x, x') < d(x, ax') for all 
x, x' G We call and the positive and negative half-spaces associated with 
a. By convention, we always choose H + to contain the distinguished point x* of X in 



10 



its closure. The two-point rearrangement, or polarization of a real- valued function u with 
respect to a reflection a is defined by 

or \ _ \ max{«(x),u((Tx)} , x G H + U 
[ mm{u(x), u(ax)} , x G ff_ . 

This definition makes sense, and the two-point versions of Eqs. (I1.3t and (ll.4t hold for 
any space with a reflection symmetry. 

On X = R n , § n , and H n , any pair of points is connected by a unique reflection. The 
space of reflections forms an n-dimensional submanifold of the n{n + l)/2-dimensional 
space of isometries, and thus has a natural uniform metric. If u is measurable, both the 
composition u o a and the rearrangement u a depend continuously on a in the sense that 
<7fc — > a implies that u o o~k — > u o a and u°" fc — > u a in measure. 

Two-point rearrangements are particularly well-suited for identifying symmetric de- 
creasing functions, because 

u = u* u = u a for all a . (6.1) 

Functions that are radially decreasing about some point are characterized by 

u = u* o t for some translation r <^=^ for all a, either u = u a or u = u a o a (6.2) 

(see Lemma 2.8 of 11291). 

Integral inequalities for two-point rearrangements typically reduce to elementary com- 
binatorial inequalities for the integrands. The following lemma supplies the elementary 
inequality for the Hardy-Littlewood and Riesz functionals. 

Lemma 6.1 (Lorentz two-point inequality.) A real-valued function F on M.™ is super- 
modular, if and only if for every pair of points z, w G M.™. 

F(z 1 ,...,z m )+F(w 1 ,...,w m ) < F(Taax{z 1 ,Wx},...,max{z m ,w m }) 

+F(mm{zi,w 1 }, . . . , min{z m , w m }) . 

If AijF > Ofor some i ^ j then Eq. \6.3\ is strict unless [z% — Wi)(zj — Wj) > 0. 

PROOF. Given z, w G M™, define y, h G by yi = min{zj, Wi} and hi = \zi — Wi\ for 
i = l,...m. If / C {1, . . . , m}, we use the notation h/ = X^ig/ ^i e «- Subtracting the left 
hand side of Eq. (I6.3t from the right hand side results in the equivalent statement 

A/jF(y; h/, hj) := F(y + hjuj) - F(y + h/) - F(y + hj) + F(y) > , (6.4) 

where I = {i : z\ < Wi}, and J = {i : z-i > Wi}. If either / or J is empty, Eq. (I6.4t 
is trivially satisfied. If / and J each have exactly one element, Eq. (I6.4t is equivalent to 
Eq. dl.5t . If one of the sets, say /, has several elements, then decomposing it into disjoint 
subsets as I = I' U I" gives 

A/jF(y; h/, hj) = A JV F(y + h 7 », h 7 ,, hj) + A / » J F(y, hj,, hj) , 



11 



and Eq. (I6.4t follows by recursion. The same recursion implies that if \jF > and 
Wi and Zj — Wj have opposite signs, then the inequality in Eq. ( I6.4t is strict whenever 



I contains i, J contains j, and hi, hj > 0. ■ 

Brock proved that the left hand side of Eq. (I1.3t increases under two-point rearrange- 
ment FPU : 

Lemma 6.2 (Hardy-Littlewood two-point inequality.) Let F be a supermodular Borel 
measurable function on W?, and let u±, . . . , u m be nonnegative measurable functions on 
X satisfying the integrability condition in Eq. ( I2.il) . Then, for any reflection a on X, 

F(ui(x), . . . ,u m (x)) dx < / F(u1(x), . . . ,v% n (x)) dx . (6.5) 

Jx 

Assume furthermore that A-ijF > on M.™ x (0, oo) 2 for some i ^ j. If Eq. ( 16. 51 ) 
holds with equality and the integrals are finite, then 

[ui{x] — Ui(ax)) (uj(x) — Uj(ax)) > a.e. . 

In particular, ifm = u* is strictly radially decreasing and cr(x*) ^ x*, then Uj = u°. 

PROOF. The inequality XTH : The left hand side of Eq. d6-5l > can be written as an integral 
over the positive half-space, 



T(ux, . . . ,u m ) := / F(u 1 (x),...u m (x)) + F(ux(o-x),...u m (ax)) dx . 

By Lemma |6~T1 with Zi = Ui(x) and Wi = Ui(ax), the integrand satisfies 

F(m(x), . . . u m (x)) + F(ui(ax), . . . u m (ax)) 

< F(uf(x), . . . u° m {x)) + F(ul(ax), . . . <H) 

for all x € H + . Integrating over H + yields Eq. (16.5b . 



Equality statement: Assume that I(u\, u m ) = 
Eq. ( 16.6b must hold with equality almost everywhere on H + . If A^F > on W? x 
(0,oo) 2 , then Lemma l6~Tl implies that Ui(x) — Ui(ox) and Uj(x) — Uj{ax) cannot have 
opposite signs except on a set of zero measure. If moreover U{ = u* is strictly radially 
decreasing and ax* ^ x* , then u,i(x) > Ui(ax) for a.e. x £ H + , and Lemma l6~Tl implies 
that Uj(x) > Uj(ax) for a.e. x £ H + . ■ 

Brock completed the proof of Eq. dl.3t by approximating the symmetric decreasing rear- 
rangement with a sequence of two-point rearrangements a la Baernstein-Taylor Q. We 
sketch his argument in the simplest case where F is a continuous supermodular function 
that vanishes on the boundary of the positive cone W?, and u%,..., u m are bounded and 
compactly supported. 



12 



By Theorem 6.1 of [34] there exists a sequence of reflections {crfc}fc>i such that 

u <n,—>°k _^ u * i n measure (k — ► oo) (6.7) 

for i = 1, . . . ,m. By Lemma l6~2l the functional increases monotonically along such a 
sequence. If B is a ball centered at x* that contains the supports of m, . . . , u m , then the 
rearranged functions u^ 1 ''"' <7/s are also supported on B, and dominated convergence yields 



i^.^g^iK 1 (fc-oo). (6.8) 

The corresponding results for Eq. dl.4t are due to Draghici lfT5l . The two-point in- 
equality is not an immediate consequence of Lemma l6~Tl but requires an additional com- 
binatorial argument. This argument was used previously by Morpurgo 1 30 1 , and a simpler 
version appears in [29|. 



Lemma 6.3 (Riesz two-point inequality.) Assume that F is a supermodular Borel mea- 
surable function on M™. For each pair of indices 1 < i < j < m, let Kij be a nonin- 
creasing function on R + , and let u\, . . . ,u m be nonnegative measurable functions on X 
satisfying the integrability condition in Eq. A2.3i . Then, for any reflection a, 

■■ F(m(xi), . . . ,u m (x m ))T\ Kij(d(xi,Xj)) dxi . . .dx m 
Jx Jx T<4 

I f TT (6 - 9) 

Jx Jx f Kj 

Assume additionally that that Kij(t) > Ofor all i < j and all t < diamX. Let Tq be 
the graph on { 1 , . . . , m} with an edge between i and j whenever K^ is strictly decreasing. 
If Ay F > Ofor some i ^ j lying in the same connected component of To, and that Ui and 
Uj are not symmetric under a. If the integrals in Eq. \6.9\ have the same finite value, then 
either Uj = u" and Uj = u", or m = u° o a and Uj = uj o a. 



PROOF. The inequality KT5V : The left hand side of Eq. < I6.9I > can be written as an m-fold 
integral over the positive half-space 



T(ui,...,u m ) :-- 



/ .../ Yl <F(u 1 (a £l x 1 ),...,u m (a £m x m )) x 

Jh+ Jh+ e . 6{0)1 } )i=1) ... jm I 

x Y\ K ij (d(a £l Xi,a ej Xj)) > dx\ . . . dx m . (6.10) 



Fix xi, . . . , x m £ H + . For each pair of indices i < j, set = K^ (d(xi,axj)) and 
bij = (d(xi,Xj)) — (d(xi,crxj)) , so that 

Kij{d(o- £t Xi,cj e ixj)) = + bijl £i=e . . 



13 



The product term in Eq. (I6.10t expands to 

11 K ij (d(a £ ^x l , a £ i Xj )) = J2( II ( II h: ' X ) =: Crl^^ieE , 
i<j r ijeE 

where T runs over all proper graphs on the vertex set V = {1, . . . , m}, and 2? is the set of 
edges of T. Inserting the expansion into Eq. (I6.10t and exchanging the order of summation 
shows that each graph contributes a nonnegative term 

C r F{M^ El xx),---,u m (a Em x m ))l £i=£dj i jeE (6.11) 

e t e{0,l},i&V 

to the integral in Eq. (I6.10t . If T is connected, then 

F(ni(<T £l 2;i), . . . ,u m (a £m x m ))l £i=£ ^ ij( zE 

e;6{0,l},«eV 

= F(u 1 (x 1 ), . . .,u m (x m )) + F(ux((TXi), . . .,u m (ax m )) 

< F«(si)),...,u^(x m )) + F«(<7Xi)),...,< l (<7s m )) (6.12) 

£,£{0,11,16^ 

where the second step follows from Lemma l6~Tl with Zi = Ui{xi) and Wi = Ui(axi). 

If T is not connected, choose a connected component V and let r" be its complement. 
Let E' , E" , V, and V" be the corresponding edge and vertex sets. The sum in Eq. (16.1 It 
can be decomposed as 

^2 \ ^2 F(ui{a £l xi), ... ,u m (a £m x m )) l £l=£] , ijeE' > l £% =e 3 ,ijaE" ■ 

The key observation is that Eq. (I6.12t applies to the term in braces for fixed £j,i G V"; in 
other words, the contribution of T can only increase if u, is replaced by v!J L for all i 6 V . 
An induction over the connected components of F shows that 

^ F(ui(a £l xi), . . . 1 U m (a £m X rn ))l £l=£ ^ ij( zE 
e l G{0,l},«6V 

e,e{0,l},i£V 

for any graph T = (E?, F). Adding the contributions of all graphs shows that the integrand 
in Eq. (I6.10t increases pointwise under two-point rearrangement, and Eq. (I6.9E follows. 

Equality statement: Let To be the graph defined in the statement of the lemma, and let 
Eq be its edge set. By assumption, 

Cvo = ( II Kij(d(xi,Xj)) - K ij {d(axi,x j ))^(^ Ky (d(a Xi , Xj))j >0 

ij0nEg ij&Eo 



14 



for a.e. x\,..., x m E H + . If AijF > 0, then Lemma l6Jl implies that Eq. (I6.12t is strict 
unless 

(v,i(xi) — Ui{axij) (uj{xj) — Uj(axj)) > , a.e. Xi,Xj G H + . 

If Ui and uj are not symmetric under a, the product is not identically zero. Since Xi and 
Xj can vary independently, this means that Ui(x) — m{ax) and Uj(x) — Uj(ax) cannot 
change sign on H + . We conclude that equality in Eq. (I6.9t implies that either m = u? and 
Uj = Uj, or m = u° o a and Uj = u" o a. ■ 

Draghici also used Baernstein-Taylor approximation to obtain Eq. dl.4t from Eq. <6.9b . If 
F is bounded and continuous and ify is bounded for 1 < j < j < m, then for bounded 
functions u\ , . . . , u m that are supported in a common ball the inequality follows from 
Lemma lOl bv approximating the symmetric decreasing rearrangement with a sequence of 
two-point rearrangements, see Eq. <6.7b . Dominated convergence applies as in Eq. J6.8t . 
since the integrations extend only over the bounded set B m . 



7 Proof of the main results 

PROOF OF Theorem Q The inequality for Borel integrands: Let F be a supermod- 
ular Borel function with F(0) = 0, and let and u\, . . . ,u m be nonnegative measurable 
functions that vanish at infinity, as in the statement of the theorem. Denote by 

l(ui, . . . ,u m ) := / F(ui(x),...,Um(x))dx 
Jx 

the left hand side of Eq. (11.3b - Replacing F(y) by F(y) — YliLi F{Vi e i) an d using that 
F{ui{-) Bi) and F(u*{-) e«) contribute equally to the two sides of Eq. dl.3t . we may as- 
sume F to be nondecreasing in each variable. 

Fix L > 0, and replace itj by the bounded function 

uf(x) :=min{it i (a;) ) L}l { | a .| <£ ,} 

for i = 1, . . . ,m. Then 

F(u^,...,ui) = F L (ui,...,ui) , (7.1) 

where F L is the function defined in Lemma 1531 By construction, F L is bounded, and by 
Lemma l531 it is nondecreasing and supermodular. By Lemma l5^2l there exist nondecreas- 
ing functions 4>i with 4>i(0) = and a continuous supermodular function F L on R!^ such 
that 

F L ( yi , . . . ,y m ) = F L (Myi), ■ ■ ■ ,4m(y m )) ■ (7.2) 

Since (pi is nondecreasing and vanishes at zero, u\ is compactly supported, and (uf)* < 
(u*) L pointwise by construction, we have 

o uf)* = fa o {ufY < (Pi o (u*) L (7.3) 



15 



for i = 1, . . . , m. By Theorem 1 of [ 14 1), 

F L (<t> 1 o U L(x),...,(f> m ou% l (x))dx < [ F L ((0 1 ou^)*(x),...,(0 m ou^)*(x))dx . 



With Eqs. (fTlVlfOl. this becomes 

J(4,...,n^)<T(K) i ,...,(n^) i ). 

Since nf(x) = Ui{x) for L > max{-Uj(x), |x|}, we see that F(uf(x), . . . ,u^(x)) con- 
verges pointwise to F(u\(x), . . . ,u m (x)), and Eq. (I1.3t follows by monotone conver- 
gence. 

Equality statement: Combining Eq. (I6.5t with Eq. dl.3t and using that is equimea- 
surable with Uj, we see that 

U m ) < I(Ui, U a m ) < I(u*, U* m ) . 

Hence equality in Eq. dl.3t implies equality in Eq. (I6.5t for every choice of the reflection 
a. Given two points x, x' in X, choose a such that a{x) = x' . If A^F > for some 
i 7^ j, then Ui(x) — ui(x') and Uj(x) — Uj(x') cannot have opposite signs by Lemma l6!2l 
If Ui = u* is strictly radially decreasing, then it follows that uj = Uj for every reflection 
a that does not fix x*. By Eq. (I6.U . Uj = u* as claimed. ■ 

PROOF OF THEOREM EJ The inequality for Borel integrands: The proof of Eq. ( 11.41) 
proceeds along the same lines as the proof of Eq. dl.3t . Let 

l(ui, . . . ,u m ) := / ••• / F(u 1 (xi),...,u m (x m ))T\K ij (d(x i ,x j ))dxi...dx m 

be the left hand side of Eq. fll.4t . As before, we may assume that F is nondecreasing in 
each variable. We replace F with F L , Ui with fa o uf, Kij with = min{Kij, L}, and 
set 

2 L (ui, . . . ,u m ) := / ••• / F L (ui(x 1 ), . . . ,u m (x m )) T\ K ij{d(xi,Xj)) dxi . . .dx m . 
Jx Jx 

Applying Theorem 2.2 of lfT31 . we obtain with the help of Eqs. <I7. H - d7.3b 

l L (u^...,ui)<l L ((ul) L ,...,(u* m ) L ) . 

Eq. (I1.4t follows by taking L —> oo and using monotone convergence. 

Equality statement: Consider the set Si of all reflections a of X that fix Uj. If is 
non-constant, then Si is a closed proper subset of the space of all reflections on X. This 
subset is nowhere dense, since any open set of reflections generates the entire isometry 
group of X. If Eq. (I1.4t holds with equality, then the two-point rearrangement inequality 
in Eq. (I6.9t holds with equality for every reflection a. For a Si, Lemma lOl implies that 
either Uj = Uj or Uj = u" o a. Since Si is nowhere dense, it follows from the continuous 
dependence of u a on a that uj agrees with either u a - or nj o a also for a G Si. By Eq. J6.2t . 
there exists a translation r such that uj = u* o r. Lemma IQI implies furthermore that 
Ui agrees with uf when uj = u a -, and with u" o a when Uj = u° o a. We conclude that 
u,' = u* or. ■ 



16 



8 Concluding remarks 



In the proof of Eq. il.4l and its two-point version in Eq. (I6.9I) . the kernels Ky played a 
very different role from the functions u\, . . . , u rn that enter into the integrand. However, 
the Riesz functional on the left hand side of Eq. dl.2t depends equally on u, v, and w. 
We will use the connection of Riesz' inequality with the Brunn-Minkowski inequality to 
construct examples where the two-point rearrangement fails for Eq. <1.2b . 

The Brunn-Minkowski inequality says that the measures of two subsets A, B C W 1 
are related to the measure of their Minkowski sum A + B = {a + b : a G A,b G B} by 



Recognizing the two sides of the inequality as proportional to the radii of the balls A* + B* 
and (A + B)*, we rewrite it as the rearrangement inequality 



Eq. (18.11) follows rather directly from Riesz' inequality in Eq. J1.2i . because the sup- 
port of the convolution of two nonnegative functions is essentially the Minkowski sum 
of their supports. Conversely, the Brunn-Minkowski inequality enters into the proof of the 
Brascamp-Lieb-Luttinger inequality [ 10 1, of which Eqs. (11.21) and HAt are special cases. 

Equality in the Brunn-Minkowski inequality implies that A and B differ only by sets of 
measure zero from two independently scaled and translated copies of a convex body 1371 . 
Let A = B be an ellipsoid in M. n with n > 1 that is centered at a point c ^ 0, so that 
Eq. (I8.lt holds with equality. If a is the reflection at a hyperplane through c that is not a 
hyperplane of symmetry for A and B, then A a and B a are non-convex, and therefore 



Choosing u, v, and w as the characteristic functions of A, A + B, and B provides an 
example where the Riesz functional strictly decreases under two-point rearrangement. For 
an example of this phenomenon in one dimension, consider the symmetric decreasing 
functions 



\{Af/ n + \{B) l / n < X(A + B) 



\(A* +B*) < \{A + B) . 



(8.1) 



X(A a + B a ) > X(A* + B*) = X(A + B) . 



u(x) = 1 



x-2\<s i 



V{x) = U)(x) = l\ x -!\ <e , 



and let a be the reflection at x = 1. Then 



u a (x) = 1 



X \<E ) 



V a {x) = W a {x) = l|a._i| <e 



and if < e < ^, Riesz' inequality fails for a, 




17 



While the two-point rearrangement is not useful for Eq. (I1.2I) . the layer-cake represen- 
tation of Crowe-Zweibel-Rosenbloom shows that 

F(u(x),v(x'),w(x — x')) dxdx' 

< / / F(u* (x),v* (x'),w* (x — x')) dxdy 



for any integrand that can be written as the joint distribution function of a Borel measure 

F{y 1 ,y 2 ,y 3 ) = Pf([0,Vl) x [0,y 2 ) x [0,y 3 )) . 

Such integrands are left continuous, vanish at the origin, and satisfy Aj lv .. ^ e F > for 
every choice of £ < 3 distinct indices. Lemma I5T21 allows to accommodate integrands 
in Eq. d8.2t that are only Borel measurable. The main condition is that A123-F > 0; the 
second-order monotonicity conditions can be replaced by integrability assumptions on the 
negative part F_ similar to Eq. (12.31 . To ensure that the functional is finite at least when 
u,v,w are bounded and compactly supported, F should vanish on the coordinate axes. 
For example, Eq. (I8.2t holds for 



UV1V 

F(u, v, w) = — — r - (uv + uw + vw) 

(1 + u)(l + v)(l + w) 

since A 123 F > 0, even though \jF < for all i / j. 

For Borel integrands satisfying A123-F > 0, equality in Eq. d8.2t implies that every 
triple of level sets of u, v, w produces equality in Eq. dl.2b . These equality cases were 
described in [38 1. In particular, if two of the three functions u,v,w are known to have 
continuous distribution functions and the value of the functional is finite, then equality 
implies that u,v,w are equivalent to u*,v*,w* under the symmetries of the functional 
(see Theorem 2 of [38 1). 

By the same line of reasoning, the Brascamp-Lieb-Luttinger inequality ifTOl implies 

that 

l(ui, . . . ,u m ) := / ... / F[ui (V] aijXj) (V] a m jXj) ) dxi . . . dx k 

jR n JR n V j =1 . =1 7 

increases under symmetric decreasing rearrangement, if Aj x ... > for all choices of 
distinct indices ii, . . . , with £ < m. Interesting examples are integrands of the form in 
Eq. (13.3b . where $ is completely monotone in the sense that all its distributional derivatives 
are nonnegative. If A^ . ^F > for all choices of i\, . . . then the last statement of 
Lemma l531 can be used to show that the extended Brascamp-Lieb-Luttinger inequality has 
the same equality cases as the original inequality. The characterization of these equality 
cases remains an open problem. 



References 

[1] G. E. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, and G. Polya. Inequalities. First / second edition, 
Cambridge University Press, London and New York, 1934 / 1952. 



18 



[2] F. Riesz. Sur une inegalite integrale. /. London Math. Soc, 5:162-168, 1930. 

[3] A. Zygmund. On an integral inequality. /. London Math. Soc. 8:175-178, 1933. 

[4] M. G. Crandall and L. Tartar. Some relations between nonexpansive and order 
preserving mappings. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc, 78:385-390, 1980. 

[5] B. Kawohl. Rearrangements and convexity of level sets in PDE. Springer Lecture 
Notes in Mathematics 1 150, 1980. 

[6] S. L. Sobolev On a theorem of functional analysis. Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 4:471-497, 1938 
lAMSTransl. (2), 34:39-68, 1963. 

[7] A. Baernstein, II and B. A. Taylor. Spherical rearrangements, subharmonic functions, 
and *-functions in n-space. Duke Math. J., 43:245-268, 1976. 

[8] W. Beckner. Sobolev inequalities, the Poisson semigroup and analysis on the sphere 
S n . Proc. N.A.S., 89:4816^1819, 1992. 

[9] C. Draghici. A general rearrangement inequality. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc, 133: 735- 
743, 2005. 

[10] H. J. Brascamp, E. H. Lieb, and J. M. Luttinger. A general rearrangement inequality 
for multiple integrals. /. Funct. Anal., 17:227-237 ', 1974. 

[1 1] G. G. Lorentz. An inequality for rearrangements. Amer. Math. Monthly, 60:176-179, 
1953. 

[12] J. A. Crowe, J. A. Zweibel, and P. C. Rosenbloom. Rearrangements of functions. J. 
Funct. Anal, 66:432^138, 1986. 

[13] F. Almgren and E. H. Lieb. Symmetric decreasing rearrangement is sometimes con- 
tinuous. Journal of the AMS, 2:683-773, 1989. 

[14] F. Brock. A general rearrangement inequality a la Hardy-Littlewood. /. Ineq. Appi, 
5:309-320, 2000. 

[15] C. Draghici. Rearrangement inequalities with applications to ratios of heat kernels. 
Potential Analysis, 22:351-374 (2005). 

[16] H. Hajaiej and C. A. Stuart. Symmetrization inequalities for composition operators 
of Carafheodory type. Proc. London Math. Soc, 87:396^118, 2003. 

[17] H. Hajaiej. Cases of equality and strict inequality in the Extended Hardy Littlewood 
inequalities. Proc. Royal Soc. Edinburgh A 135:643-661, 2005. 

[18] H. Hajaiej. Extended Hardy-Littlewood inequalities and applications. Trans. Amer. 
Math. Soc, 357: 4885-4896 (2005). 

[19] H. Hajaiej and C. A. Stuart. Extensions of the Hardy-Littlewood inequalities for 
Schwarz symmetrization. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci., 59:3129-3150, 2004. 

[20] E. H. Lieb and M. Loss. Analysis. First / second edition, AMS Graduate Studies in 
Mathematics, 1996/2001. 

[21] R. Tahraoui. (a) Symmetrization inequalities, (b) Corrigendum. Nonlinear Anal, 
27:933-955, 1996 and 39:535, 2000. 



19 



[22] J. Van Schaftingen and M. Willem, Set transformations, symmetrizations and isoperi- 
metric inequalities. In: Nonlinear analysis and applications to physical sciences, 
135-152, Springer Italia, Milan, 2004. 

[23] G. Carlier. On a class of multidimensional optimal transportation problems. /. Con- 
vex Anal, 10:517-529, 2003. 

[24] C. A. Stuart. Guidance properties of nonlinear planar wave guides. Arch. Rat. Mech. 
Anal, 125:145-200, 1993. 

[25] H. Hajaiej and C. A. Stuart. Existence and non-existence of Schwarz symmetric 
ground states for eigenvalue problems. Matematica Pura ed Applicata, 186, 2005. 

[26] L. V. Ahlfors. Conformal Invariants: Topics in Geometric Function Theory. 
McGraw-Hill Series in Higher Mathematics, 1973. 

[27] J. M. Luttinger. Generalized isoperimetric inequalities, I, II, III. /. Math. Phys., 
14:586-593, 1444-1447 and 1448-1450, 1973. 

[28] R. Friedberg and J. M. Luttinger. (a) Rearrangement inequalities for periodic func- 
tions, (b) A new rearrangement inequality for multiple integrals. Arch. Rat. Mech. 
Anal, 61:35^14 and 45-64, 1976. 

[29] A. Burchard and M. Schmuckenschlager. Comparison theorems for exit times. 
Geom. Fund. Anal, 11:651-692, 2001. 

[30] C. Morpurgo. Sharp inequalities for functional integrals and traces of conformally 
invariant operators. Duke Math. J., 114:477-553, 2002. 

[31] E. H. Lieb. Existence and uniqueness of the minimizing solution of Choquard's 
nonlinear equation. Studies in Applied Mathematics, 57:93-105, 1977. 

[32] W. Beckner. Sharp Sobolev inequalities on the sphere and the Moser-Trudinger in- 
equality. Ann. Math. (2), 138:213-242, 1993. 

[33] A. Baernstein, II. A unified approach to symmetrization. In: Partial differential equa- 
tions of elliptic type (Cortona, 1992), 47-91, Sympos. Math., XXXV, Cambridge 
Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1994. 

[34] F. Brock and A. Yu. Solynin. An approach to symmetrization via polarization. Trans. 
Amer. Math. Soc, 352:1759-1796, 2000. 

[35] A. Sklar. Fonctions de repartition a n dimensions et leurs marges. Inst. Statist. Univ. 
Paris, 8:229-231, 1959. 

[36] A. Sklar. Random variables, joint distribution functions, and copulas. Kybernetika 
(Prague), 9:449^160, 1973. 

[37] H. Hadwiger and D. Ohmann. Brunn-Minkowskischer Satz und Isoperimetrie. Math. 
Z, 66:1-8, 1956. 

[38] A. Burchard. Cases of equality in the Riesz rearrangement inequality. Ann. Math. 
(2), 143:499-527, 1996. 



20