Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2026 Mar 14;177(2):24. doi: 10.1007/s00229-026-01694-7

Sharp upper bound for anisotropic Rényi entropy and Heisenberg uncertainty principle

Marianna Chatzakou 1, Michael Ruzhansky 1,2,✉, Anjali Shriwastawa 3
PMCID: PMC12988971  PMID: 41841039

Abstract

In this paper, we prove the anisotropic Shannon inequality for the Rényi entropy with the best constant on Folland-Stein homogeneous Lie groups. As a consequence, we also prove the optimal Shannon inequality in the same setting. Using a logarithmic Sobolev inequality in the setting of stratified groups, we prove a Heisenberg-type uncertainty principle in the latter setting.

Mathematics Subject Classification: 94A17, 22E30, 35H10

Introduction

Shannon and Rényi entropies were initially served as characteristics of probability distributions. To begin with, the Shannon entropy was introduced by Shannon in [20], and for a discrete random variable X with distribution p(x) it is given via

h[X]=-∑ip(xi)logp(xi).

In the continuous setting for a continuous random variable X with (probability) density u(x), the natural analog of the previous definition is as follows:

h[X]:=h[u]=-∫Rnu(x)logu(x)dx. 1

Clearly the Shannon entropy (1) makes sense for a nonnegative u∈L1(Rn) such that ‖u‖L1(Rn)=1. In the sequel we will write h[u] instead of h(X), to denote the Shannon entropy of the continuous random variable X with density u. Let us point out that in the continuous case that we study here, p(x) is not a probability, but a probability density, and the latter are not the same. Indeed, the quantity h[X], for X being a discrete random variable, is always non-positive, while if X is the continuous random variable which is uniformly distributed over the interval (a, b); that is

u(x)=1b-a,ifx∈(a,b)0,otherwise,

then h[X]=h[u]=-log(b-a), and clearly h[u]>0 if b-a<1, see e.g. [17]. Therefore, in the continuous case, one cannot, strictly speaking, talk about the “amount of information” represented by the entropy.

There are other features of the Shannon continuous entropy that make its study a quite involved subject; see for example [13]. Despite these difficulties, continuous informatics is a field of wide interest, c.f. the monograph of Ihara [10], or the work of Conrad [6]. Particularly, in relation to partial differential equations, the conclusion of the Boltzman H-Theorem, see e.g. [25], holds true for the solution to the heat equation on Rn

∂tu=Δu,t>0; 2

that is the Shannon entropy (1) is not decreasing in time, since

ddth[u(x,t)]=∫Rn1u(x,t)|∇u(x,t)|2dx≥0.

Analogously, the Rényi entropy, introduced by Rényi in [16], is for nonnegative function u≥0 with ‖u‖L1(Rn)=1, given by

hα[u]=11-αlog∫Rnu(x)αdx, 3

“corresponds” to the nonlinear diffusion equations

∂tu=Δuα,t>0,α>0,α≠1.

It is easy to check that the Rényi entropy (3) is an extension of the Shannon entropy (1) for different values of α in the sense that

limα→1hα[u]=h[u],

for any function u as above. Both Shannon and Rényi entropies, in both discrete and continuous settings, are monotone in the sense that they increase whenever an independent random variable is added, and hence a natural question is whether one can find an upper bound for them; in the Euclidean setting Rn, this is given by Shannon’s inequality [20, 22] which is an upper bound of the form:

h[u]≤n2log2πen∫Rn|x|2u(x)dx. 4

Hence inequality (4) shows that the Shannon entropy of a function u is bounded by the second moment of u, and the constant 2πen is the best possible. In the case of the Rényi entropy, this upper bound reads as follows:

hα[u]≤nblogCb∫Rn|x|bu(x)dx,α∈R+\{1}; 5

that is the Rényi entropy of the function u is bounded by the bth-moment of u, where b>0 depends on the range of α. Both inequalities (4) and (5) are valid for functions u in some suitable weighted Lebesgue spaces. Inequality (5) is sharp, and the constant Cb in (5) depends on the parameter b on the right-hand side of (5), which in turn depends on the parameter α and is given explicitly in [22] where the aforementioned inequality is proved. For the so-called Shannon inequality in the Euclidean setting (4) we refer to the paper [15], while Shannon’s inequality has also been proved in the general setting of homogeneous Lie groups in [3]. Properties of both entropies have been widely studied; see e.g. [1] and references therein.

Applications of Shannon’s inequality (4) and Shannon’s inequality for the Rényi entropy also include the positivity of the relative Lyapunov functional

Hα[u|v]=Hα[u]-Hα[v],

where Hα[·] is the Lyapunov functional, see e.g. [14], given by

Hα[u]=1α-1∫Rnu(x)αdx+12∫Rn|x|2u(x)dx,

see [22] and [24]. Importantly, the combination of Shannon inequality (4) together with the version of logarithmic Sobolev inequality thanks to Stam [21]

h[u]≥-n2log12nπe∫Rn1u(x)|∇u(x)|2dx, 6

which holds true for non-negative u∈L1(Rn) with u1/2∈H1(Rn), gives rise to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; that is for such u we have

n≤∫Rn|x|2u(x)dx12∫Rn1u(x)|∇u(x)|2dx12, 7

where n is the best possible. Still in the Euclidean setting, Carillo and Toscani [2] proved the logarithmic Sobolev-type inequalities for the Rényi entropy; see also [19].

The setting of the current work is that of homogeneous Lie groups introduced in Section 2. In this setting, in [3] the authors proved the (anisotropic) Shannon inequality, with an explicit constant that is sharp, see the discussion that follows after Remark 3.3. Here we prove the analogue of Shannon’s inequality for the Rényi entropy as in (5) for the setting of homogeneous Lie groups, see Theorem 3. For the proof of the latter, we follow the lines in [22] and we prove the aforementioned inequality with the best constant as it happens in [22], see Corollary 3.2. Later on, in Theorem 3.4, we prove the Shannon inequality as in (5) in the setting of homogeneous Lie groups, using the fact that the Shannon entropy is the limiting case when α→1 of the Rényi entropy. The Shannon inequality in the aforesaid setting was also proved in [3] using different methods and the constant there coincides with ours since both are optimal. Our final result is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in the setting of stratified Lie groups, see Corollary 3.7. The latter is proved by combining Shannon’s inequality with a version of logarithmic Sobolev inequality in the aforesaid setting that is derived by the logarithmic Sobolev inequality as in [4]; see Theorem 3.6.

Preliminaries

In this section, we give a brief description of our setting of homogeneous Lie groups. Such groups were initiated by Folland and Stein, see [8], and later on, they became a subject of study by many authors; see [7] and references therein. The notation that we adopt in the sequel follows the more recent open access monograph on homogeneous Lie groups [7].

A connected, simply connected Lie group G≅RN whose Lie algebra g admits a gradation of the form

g=⊕j=1∞Vj, 8

where finitely many Vj’s are nonzero and satisfy relations of the form [Vi,Vj]⊂Vi+j is called a graded Lie group. Graded Lie groups are naturally homogeneous Lie groups meaning that there exists a dilation mapping denoted as Dλ:RN→RN, where λ>0, that is an automorphism of G, and so also of g. Particularly, for λ>0, the mapping Dλ acts on x∈G via

Dλ(x)=(λv1x1,λv2x2,…,λvNxN),v1,v2,⋯,vN>0. 9

The so-called weights v1,⋯,vn determine the homogeneous dimension, usually denoted by Q, of the homogeneous group G in the following way:

Q=v1+v2+...+vN.

A homogeneous group is unimodular and the unique Haar measure denoted by dx on G is the Lebesgue measure on the underlying manifold RN. Hence for ω⊂G being a measurable set in G, if |ω| stands for the volume of ω, then for λ>0 we have

|Dλ(ω)|=λQ|ω|and∫Gf(Dλ(x))dx=λ-Q∫Gf(x)dx. 10

For any homogeneous Lie group G, there exists a homogeneous (with respect to the dilations determined by Dλ on G) quasi-norm |·| defined on G; that is |·|:G→[0,∞) is a continuous, non-negative function that satisfies the following conditions:

  • (i)

    For all x∈G, |x|=|x-1|.

  • (ii)

    For all x∈G and λ>0, |λx|=λ|x|.

  • (iii)

    |x|=0 if and only if x=0.

We note that in the sequel we use the notation |·| to denote both the volume of a measurable set in G and the homogeneous quasi-norm of an element x∈G, and the meaning of |·| is each appearance will be clear from the context.

Finally, let us introduce the following Lebesgue spaces that are useful for our purposes: For a>0, the weighted Lebesgue space denoted by La1(G) is defined as follows:

La1(G)={u∈L1(G)such that|x|au∈L1(G)},

where |x| stands for the quasi-norm of x∈G.

Main Results

In this section, we establish the main results of the paper starting with proving the Shannon inequality for the Rényi entropy in the setting of homogeneous Lie groups.

Theorem 3.1

Let G be a homogeneous Lie group of homogeneous dimension Q, and let |·| be a homogeneous quasi-norm on G. Suppose that α>0, α≠1, and

b>Q1α-1,if0<α<1,0,ifα>1.

Then, for any nonnegative function u∈Lb1(G) with ‖u‖L1(G)=1, the inequality

11-αlog∫Gu(x)αdx≤QblogAα,Q,b∫G|x|bu(x)dx, 11

holds, where

Aα,Q,b:=b|S|Γ11-αΓ11-α-QbΓ(Qb)-bQαbαb-Q(1-α)bQ(1-α)αb-Q(1-α)Q(1-α),if0<α<1,αbQ(α-1)αb+Q(α-1)αbQ(α-1)+bQ(α-1)b|S|Γαα-1+QbΓQbΓαα-1-bQ,ifα>1,

and |S| stands for the Q-1 dimensional surface measure of the unit (quasi-)sphere with respect to |·|.

Proof of Theorem 3.1

Note that it is enough to prove (11) for a nonnegative function u≥0 that is smooth on G. The result will then follow by a density argument. We will treat the cases where α∈(0,1) and α>1 separately. Let us first consider the case α∈(0,1). For such values of α and for b>Q1α-1 we consider the auxiliary function ϕ1 given by

ϕ1(x)=C11+|x|b1α-1,

with C1 computed in the Appendix, see (A6). Using Jensen’s inequality for the convex function log1/t and the the probability measure u(x)α‖u‖Lα(G)αdx we estimate from above the relative entropy of u and ϕ1 as follows

∫Gu(x)αlogϕ1(x)u(x)dx=‖u‖Lα(G)αα∫Gu(x)α‖u‖Lα(G)αlogϕ1(x)αu(x)αdx≤‖u‖Lα(G)ααlog1‖u‖Lα(G)α∫Gϕ1(x)αdx=‖u‖Lα(G)ααlog‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)α‖u‖Lα(G)α, 12

where ‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)α is computed in Appendix, see (A11), as

‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)α=C1α-1αbαb-Q(1-α),

where C1 is given in (A6).

Let us now give a lower bound for the relative entropy of u and ϕ1. By Jensen’s inequality for the same probability measure, and since α<1, we have

∫Gu(x)αlogϕ1(x)u(x)dx=1α-1∫G‖u‖Lα(G)α‖u‖Lα(G)αu(x)αlog1+|x|bu(x)α-1dx+‖u‖Lα(G)αlogC1≥‖u‖Lα(G)αα-1log1‖u‖Lα(G)α+1‖u‖Lα(G)α∫G|x|bu(x)dx+‖u‖Lα(G)αlogC1, 13

where we have used the fact that ‖u‖L1(G)=1. A combination of (12) and (13) gives

1α-1log1‖u‖Lα(G)α+1‖u‖Lα(G)α∫G|x|bu(x)dx+logC1≤1αlog‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)α‖u‖Lα(G)α. 14

Now, let us apply inequality (14) to the function u~(x):=λQu(Dλ(x)). To this end, first we note that

1‖u~‖Lα(G)α+1‖u~‖Lα(G)α∫G|x|bu~(x)dx=λ-Q(α-1)‖u‖Lα(G)α+λ-Q(α-1)-b‖u‖Lα(G)α∫G|x|bu(x)dx, 15

since

‖u~‖Lα(G)α=∫G|λQu(Dλ(x))|αdx=y=Dλ(x)∫GλQα|u(y)|α(λ-Qdy)=λQ(α-1)‖u‖Lα(G)α.

Similarly we have

1αlog‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)α‖u~‖Lα(G)α=1αlogλ-Q(α-1)‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)α‖u‖Lα(G)α=1α-1logλ-Q(α-2+1α)‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)α-1‖u‖Lα(G)α-1. 16

Hence, with the use of (15) and (16), inequality (14) for the function u~ reads as follows

1α-1logλ-Q(α-1)‖u‖Lα(G)α+λ-Q(α-1)-b‖u‖Lα(G)α∫G|x|bu(x)dx+logC1≤1α-1logλ-Q(α-2+1α)‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)α-1‖u‖Lα(G)α-1.

Using the properties of the logarithm, the latter inequality can be rearranged as follows

1α-1logλQ1α-1+λQ1α-1-b∫G|x|bu(x)dx≤1α-1logC11-α‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)α-1‖u‖Lα(G)-1, 17

and since

1α-1logC11-α‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)α-1‖u‖Lα(G)-1=-logC1‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)‖u‖Lα(G)11-α

multiplying (17) by -1 we get

logC1‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)‖u‖Lα(G)11-α≤11-αlogλQ1α-1+λQ1α-1-b∫G|x|bu(x)dx, 18

where the last inequality holds true for any λ>0. In view of minimising the right-hand side of (18) over λ>0, we set

M(λ):=λQ1α-1+λQ1α-1-b∫G|x|bu(x)dx.

If λ∗ minimises M(λ), then M′(λ∗)=0, where M′(λ∗) is given by

Q1α-1(λ∗)Q(1α-1)-1+Q1α-1-b(λ∗)Q(1α-1)-b-1∫G|x|bu(x)dx.

One can easily check that for

λ∗=αb-Q(1-α)Q(1-α)∫G|x|bu(x)dx1b

we have M′(λ∗)=0, and we we can compute

M(λ∗)=(λ∗)Q1α-11+(λ∗)-b∫G|x|bu(x)dx=αb-Q(1-α)Q(1-α)∫G|x|bu(x)dxQb1α-1×1+Q(1-α)αb-Q(1-α)∫G|x|bu(x)dx-1∫G|x|bu(x)dx=αbαb-Q(1-α)αb-Q(1-α)Q(1-α)∫G|x|bu(x)dxQb(1α-1).

Thus, inequality (18) for λ=λ∗ becomes

logC1‖u‖Lα(G)11-α‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)≤1(1-α)log[αbαb-Q(1-α)×αb-Q(1-α)Q(1-α)∫G|x|bu(x)dxQb(1α-1)]. 19

Now, in order to rewrite the equation (19) in the form of (11), observe that (19) can equivalently be written as

log‖u‖Lα(G)11-α≤log‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)C1+11-αlogαbαb-Q(1-α)αb-Q(1-α)Q(1-α)IQb1α-1,

where we have denoted I:=∫G|x|bu(x)dx. Now, multiplying the latter by α we obtain

log∫G|u(x)|αdx11-α≤log‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)αC1α+α1-αlogαbαb-Q(1-α)αb-Q(1-α)Q(1-α)IQb1α-1.

Observe that the first term of the RHS in the above inequality can be written as

Qblog‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)αC1αbQ, 20

while the second term of the RHS can be written as

Qblogαbαb-Q(1-α)αbQ(1-α)αb-Q(1-α)Q(1-α)I. 21

Now, using (A11) we see that the (20) can be written as

Qblog‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)αC1αbQ=QblogC1-bQαbαb-Q(1-α)bQ. 22

Now a combination of (22) together with (21) gives that

Aα,Q,b=C1-bQαbαb-Q(1-α)bQαbαb-Q(1-α)αbQ(1-α)αb-Q(1-α)Q(1-α)=C1-bQαbαb-Q(1-α)bQ(1-α)αb-Q(1-α)Q(1-α).

We now treat the case where α>1. We consider the auxiliary function ϕ2 given by

ϕ2(x)=C2(1-|x|b)+1α-1,

with C2 given in (A13). Using Jensen’s inequality for the concave function G(x)=-xlogx and with the probability measure u(x)α‖u‖Lα(G)αdx we estimate

∫Gu(x)ϕ2(x)α-1logϕ2(x)α-1u(x)α-1dx=∫Gu(x)αϕ2(x)α-1u(x)α-1logϕ2(x)α-1u(x)α-1dx=-∫Gu(x)αGϕ2(x)α-1u(x)α-1dx=-‖u‖Lα(G)α∫Gu(x)α‖u‖Lα(G)αGϕ2(x)α-1u(x)α-1dx≥-‖u‖Lα(G)αG1‖u‖Lα(G)α∫Gu(x)ϕ2(x)α-1dx.

Now, if we denote by K=K(u,ϕ2,α) the quantity

K:=∫Gu(x)ϕ2(x)α-1dx=∫Gu(x)(C2(1-|x|b)+1α-1)α-1dx<∞, 23

then, by the above computations, and the definition of the function G, we get

∫Gu(x)ϕ2(x)α-1logϕ2(x)α-1u(x)α-1dx≥KlogK‖u‖Lα(G)α. 24

On the other hand, by the properties of the logarithm we have

∫Gu(x)ϕ2(x)α-1logϕ2(x)α-1u(x)α-1dx=(α-1)K∫Gu(x)ϕ2(x)α-1Klogϕ2(x)u(x)dx. 25

Another application of Jensen’s inequality to the right-hand side of (25) yields

∫GK-1u(x)ϕ2(x)α-1logϕ2(x)α-1u(x)α-1dx≤(α-1)log(K-1‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α), 26

where ‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α has been computed in the Appendix, see (A14), as

‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α=‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α=C2α-1αbbα+Q(α-1).

Hence by (25) and (26) we get

∫Gu(x)ϕ2(x)α-1logϕ2(x)α-1u(x)α-1dx≤(α-1)Klog‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)αK. 27

A combination of (24) and (27) gives

logK‖u‖Lα(G)α≤(α-1)log‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)αK, 28

or equivalently

αlogK‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α-1‖u‖Lα(G)≤0,

and since logx≤0 for x≤1, the latter implies that

K≤‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α-1‖u‖Lα(G). 29

Now, by (23), and since clearly (1-|x|b)+≥(1-|x|b), we have

C2α-1∫G(1-|x|b)u(x)dx≤K. 30

A combination of (29) and (30) gives

C2α-1∫G(1-|x|b)u(x)dx≤‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α-1‖u‖Lα(G),

or, using the fact that ‖u‖L1(G)=1, the latter can be simplified as follows

C2α-1≤C2α-1∫G|x|bu(x)dx+‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α-1‖u‖Lα(G). 31

For u~ as before, the right-hand side of (31) becomes

λ-bC2α-1∫G|x|bu(x)dx+λQ1-1α‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α-1‖u‖Lα(G).

Therefore, for any λ>0 the following inequality holds true

C2α-1≤λ-bC2α-1∫G|x|bu(x)dx+λQ1-1α‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α-1‖u‖Lα(G):=N(λ). 32

Our next aim is, as we did above, to minimise the quantity N(λ) over λ. Now, if we set I=∫G|x|bu(x)dx, then we can write

N(λ)=λ-bC2α-1I+λQ1-1α‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α-1‖u‖Lα(G),

and we have

N′(λ)=(-b)λ-b-1C2α-1I+Q1-1αλQ1-1α-1‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α-1‖u‖Lα(G).

It is then not difficult to check that N′(λ∗∗)=0, for

λ∗∗=bαC2α-1I‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α-1Q(α-1)‖u‖Lα(G)αbα+Q(α-1).

A direct substitution then gives

N(λ∗∗)=bαC2α-1I‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α-1Q(α-1)‖u‖Lα(G)-bαbα+Q(α-1)C2α-1I+bαC2α-1I‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α-1Q(α-1)‖u‖Lα(G)αQbα+Q(α-1)1-1α‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α-1‖u‖Lα(G). 33

Observe that since

--bαbα+Q(α-1)=-αQbα+Q(α-1)1-1α+1=αbQ(α-1)+αb,

and

-bαbα+Q(α-1)+1=αQbα+Q(α-1)1-1α=Q(α-1)Q(α-1)+αb

the quantities IQ(α-1)Q(α-1)+αb and ‖u‖Lα(G)αbQ(α-1)+αb are common multiplies of the summands in (33), and we can write

N(λ∗∗)=SIQ(α-1)Q(α-1)+αb‖u‖Lα(G)αbQ(α-1)+αb 34

where we have denoted by S=S(α,b,Q) the following quantity

S=αbQα-1-αbQ(α-1)+αbC2Q(α-1)2Q(α-1)+αb‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)αb(α-1)Q(α-1)+αbαb+Q(α-1)Q(α-1)=αb+Q(α-1)αbb+Q(α-1)αb+Q(α-1)αbQα-1Q(α-1)αb+Q(α-1)C2(Q+b)(α-1)2Q(α-1)+αb, 35

and for the last equality we have used the expression (A7) for ‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α.

Hence by (32) and (34) we get

1≤SC21-α∫G|x|bu(x)dxQ(α-1)Q(α-1)+αb‖u‖Lα(G)αbQ(α-1)+αb,

where we have substituted the expression for I, and the latter implies that

-log‖u‖Lα(G)αbQ(α-1)+αb≤logSC21-α∫G|x|bu(x)dxQ(α-1)Q(α-1)+αb.

Hence we get

-bQ(α-1)+αblog∫Gu(x)αdx≤Q(α-1)Q(α-1)+αblog[SC21-α]Q(α-1)+αbQ(α-1)∫G|x|bu(x)dx,

or after simplifications

11-αlog∫Gu(x)αdx≤Qblog([C21-αS]bαQ(α-1)+1∫G|x|bu(x)dx), 36

and we have obtained (11) for α>1 with Aα,Q,b given by

Aα,Q,b=[C21-αS]bαQ(α-1)+1=αb+Q(α-1)αbb+Q(α-1)αb+Q(α-1)αbQα-1Q(α-1)αb+Q(α-1)bαQ(α-1)+1×C2(1-α)+(Q+b)(α-1)2Q(α-1)+αbbαQ(α-1)+1=αbQ(α-1)αb+Q(α-1)αbQ(α-1)+bQ(α-1)b|S|Γαα-1+QbΓ(αα-1)Γ(Qb)-bQ, 37

where we have used the expressions for S and C2 given in (35) and (A13), respectively. This completes the proof of the Theorem 3.1.

The proving procedure that we followed in Theorem 3.1 show that the inequality (11) is sharp. Indeed we have the following result:

Corollary 3.2

The constant Aα,Q,b in the inequality (11) is sharp. In particular, when α∈(0,1), the inequality (11) holds true as as equality for (up to L1(G)-scaling) u=ϕ1 where ϕ1(x)=C1(1+|x|b)1α-1 and C1 is given by (A6). Similarly, when α>1, the inequality (11) holds true as an equality for (up to L1(G)-scaling) u=ϕ2, where ϕ2(x)=C2(1+|x|b)+1α-1, with C2 given in (A13).

Remark 3.3

Using simple mathematical arguments, it is easy to check that the left-hand side of the inequality (11), i.e., of the Rényi entropy, when α→1 approximates the Shannon entropy, i.e., the quantity

-∫Gu(x)logu(x)dx.

In [3] the authors proved the optimal Shannon inequality on homogeneous Lie groups that reads as follows

-∫Gu(x)logu(x)dx≤Q2logCG∫G|x|2u(x)dx, 38

where the best constant CG is given by

CG=2eQ|S|ΓQ222Q, 39

and we have CRn=2eπn, as expected, since the constant CG is optimal.

In the next result, by taking the limit of the Rényi entropy, we also obtain the so-called Shannon inequality on homogeneous Lie groups. As expected, the sharpness of the constant in the inequality (11) implies an optimal bound for the Shannon entropy in the aforesaid setting which is exactly the quantity on the right-hand side of (38).

Theorem 3.4

Let G be a homogeneous Lie group of homogeneous dimension Q, and suppose that |·| is a homogeneous quasi-norm on G. Then Shannon inequality reads as follows

-∫Gu(x)logu(x)dx≤Q2logCG∫G|x|2u(x)dx, 40

where

CG=2eQ|S|ΓQ222Q.

Proof

We first consider the case where α>1. By Remark 3.3 it is enough to show that limα→1Aα,Q,2=CG, where Aα,Q,2 is given by Theorem 3.1 for β=2, and α>1. If we set c=αα-1, then c→∞, when α→1, and we have

Ac(α),Q,2=2cQ1+Q2c2cαQ+12|S|Γc+Q2ΓcΓQ2-2Q.

To calculate the quantity ΓcΓc+Q22Q, when c≫1, we will use the Stirling approximation formula:

Γ(x)≃2πe-xxx-1/2,whenx≫1. 41

We have

ΓcΓc+Q22Q≃2πe-ccc-1/22πe-c-Q/2(c+Q/2)c+Q/2-1/22Q=ec2cQ-1Q(c+Q/2)-1-2cQ+1Q.

Since

limc→∞,α→11+Q2c2cαQ+1=1,

we have

limc→∞,α→1Ac(α),Q,2=2eQ2|S|ΓQ2-1-2Qlimc→∞cc2cQ-1Q(c+Q/2)-1-2cQ+1Q=2eQ2|S|ΓQ2-1-2Q=2eQ|S|2ΓQ22Q,

and this completes the proof for the case where α>1. As expected, the same constant appears when 0<α<1; Indeed, for b=2 in (11) we have

Aα,Q,2=(2|S|Γ11-αΓ11-α-Q2ΓQ2)-2Q(2α2α-Q(1-α))2Q(1-α)(2α-Q(1-α)Q(1-α)). 42

Set

d:=11-α,α=d-1dso thatd→∞asα→1-.

Then the first factor in (42) becomes

(2|S|Γ(d)Γd-Q2Γ(Q2))-2Q.

By the Stirling formula (41) we have

Γ(d)Γ(d-Q2)∼dQ2,

and so

(2|S|Γ(d)Γd-Q2Γ(Q2))-2Q∼(2|S|Γ(Q2))-2Qd-1. 43

Next, observe that

2α2α-Q(1-α)=2-2d2-Q+2d=1-1d1-Q+22d=(1-1d)(1-(Q+2)/2d)-1.

Hence, using that

(1-(Q+2)/2d)-1=1+(Q+2)/2d+O(d-2).

we conclude that

2α2α-Q(1-α)=1+Q2d+O(d-2),d→∞.

and so also that

(2α2α-Q(1-α))2dQ⟶e(d→∞). 44

For the last factor we have

2α-Q(1-α)Q(1-α)=2αQ(1-α)-1+O(1)=2αQd+O(1). 45

Combining (43), (44), and (45), we obtain

Aα,Q,2∼(2|S|Γ(Q2))-2Qd-1·e·2Qd=2eQ(|S|Γ(Q2)2)2Q.

Summarising, we have shown that

limα→1-Aα,Q,2=CG=limα→1+Aα,Q,2,

completing the proof of (40) also in the case 0<α<1. □

The next result applies to a subclass of graded Lie groups when V1 as in (8) generates the whole of the Lie algebra. Precisely, if G is a graded Lie group with Lie algebra g that admits a gradation of the form (8) and where the elements {X1,⋯,Xk}, that are such that V1=span{X1,⋯,Xk}, generate after iterated commutators the whole of g.

In the case of stratified Lie groups the elliptic Laplace operator Δ on Rn is replaced by the (positive) hypoelliptic operator Δsub, that is commonly called a sub-Laplacian on G, defined via

Δsub=-∑i=1kXi2,

and we have Δsub=-∇H∗∇H, where ∇H is called the horizontal gradient on G; namely ∇H is the vector valued operator acting on f via

∇Hf=(X1f,⋯,Xkf).

Let us recall a version of the logarithmic Sobolev inequality in the setting of stratified groups, as appeared in [4, Corollary 7.1]

Proposition 3.5

Let G be a stratified Lie group with homogeneous dimension Q. Then, the following log-Sobolev inequality is satisfied

∫G|f|2log|f|dx≤Q4logA∫G|∇Hf|2dx, 46

for every f such that ‖f‖L2(G)=1, for some constant A with a formula that depends on the group G, and in particular it depends also on its homogeneous dimension Q.

Let us point out that the constant A is related to the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities in our setting, and cannot be yet explicitly computed in the general setting of a stratified Lie group. However, in the particular case of the Heisenberg group we have A=(n!)1n+1πn2, see [5, 11], and when G=Rn we have A=(πn2-2πn)-1/2Γ(n)Γ(n/2), see [23], and in these cases A is optimal. To avoid technicalities we do not include the explicit formula for A here, and we refer the interested reader to [4, 9, 18].

Theorem 3.6

Let G be a stratified Lie group with homogeneous dimension Q, and let u∈L1(G)∩L2(G) be a nonnegative function such that ‖u‖L1(G)=1. Then it holds that

∫Gu(x)logu(x)dx≤Q2logA4∫G1u(x)|∇Hu|2dx, 47

where the constant A is the one appearing in (46).

Proof

Let u be a function as in the hypothesis. The proof follows by inequality (46) for u such that f=u12. □

As it happens in the Euclidean setting, see [12], a combination of the logarithmic Sobolev inequality of the form (47) with the Shannon’s inequality (40) yields the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in the setting of stratified groups.

Corollary 3.7

A version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in the setting of stratified groups reads as follows:

∫G|x|2u(x)dx∫G1u(x)|∇Hu|2dx≥4CG-1A-1, 48

for all functions u as in the hypothesis of Theorem 3.6, where CG and A are given in (39), (46), respectively.

Proof

A combination of (47) and (38) gives

-Q2logA4∫G1u(x)|∇Hu|2dx≤Q2logCG∫G|x|2u(x)dx.

Therefore, we have

-log(CGA4)≤log∫G1u(x)|∇Hu|2dx∫G|x|2u(x)dx,

and by the properties of the logarithm, we obtain

∫G|x|2u(x)dx∫G1u(x)|∇Hu|2dx≥4A-1CG-1,

and the proof is complete. □

Acknowledgements

The authors are supported by the FWO Odysseus 1 grant G.0H94.18N: Analysis and Partial Differential Equations and by the Methusalem programme of the Ghent University Special Research Fund (BOF) (Grant number 01M01021). Michael Ruzhansky is also supported by EPSRC grants EP/R003025/2 and EP/V005529. M. Chatzakou is a postdoctoral fellow of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO) under the postdoctoral grant No 12B1223N.

Appendix A

For the proof of Theorem 3.1 we used the auxiliary functions ϕ1,ϕ2∈L1(G)∩Lb1(G), given by

ϕ1(x)=C11+|x|b1α-1,whereb>Q1α-1,α∈(0,1),
ϕ2(x)=C21-|x|b+1α-1,whereb>0,α>1, A1

where the constants C1=C1(α,b,Q) and C2=C2(α,b,Q) that we are computing below are such that ‖ϕi‖L1(G)=1, for i=1,2. The computations that follow, is a homogeneous group adaptation of the analogous computation in the Euclidean setting developed in [22].

Using the polar decomposition for the function ϕ1 we can write

∫G1+|x|b1α-1dx=∫0∞∫S1+rb1α-1rQ-1drdσ(y)=|S|∫0∞1+rb1α-1rQ-1dr.

If we set 1+rb=t, so that r=(t-1)1b, then we can further compute

∫G1+|x|b1α-1dx=|S|∫1∞t1α-1(t-1)(Q-1)bb(t-1)1-1bdt=|S|b∫1∞t1α-1(t-1)Qb-1dt. A2

To further compute (A2), let us first recall the definition of the Beta function

B(x,y)=∫01tx-1(1-t)y-1dt, A3

where x,y∈C, with Re(x),Re(y)>0. Alternatively, one can obtain the following representation of B

B(x,y)=∫1∞w-(x+y)(w-1)y-1dw. A4

For -(x+y)=1α-1 and y=Qb, we have x=11-α-Qb, so that with the use of (A4) and the property (see e.g. [22]) which relates the Beta function with the Gamma function

B(x,y)=Γ(x)Γ(y)Γ(x+y),x,y∉Z0-,

due to (A2) and (A4) we have

∫G1+|x|b1α-1dx=|S|bB11-α-Qb,Qb=|S|bΓ11-α-QbΓ(Qb)Γ11-α. A5

Now, the requirement ‖ϕ1‖L1(G)=1, yields

C1=b|S|Γ11-αΓ11-α-QbΓ(Qb). A6

Next we compute the Lα(G)-norm of ϕ1. To this end, let us first compute the following integral

∫G|x|bϕ1(x)dx=C1|S|∫0∞rb(1+rb)1α-1rQ-1dr=C1|S|∫0∞(1+rb)1α-1rb+Q-1dr=C1|Sb|∫1∞t1α-1(t-1)Q+bb-1dt,

where we have used the change of variables (1+rb)=t implying that r=(t-1)1b. Now, using (A4) the latter can be expressed in the following form

∫G|x|bϕ1(x)dx=C1|S|bB11-α-Qb-1,Qb+1=C1|S|bΓ(11-α-Qb-1)ΓQb+1Γ(11-α). A7

Recall the following property of the Gamma function

zΓ(z)=Γ(z+1),for allz∈C,z∉-N.

We then have

Γ11-α-Qb-1=Γ11-α-Qb11-α-Qb-1, A8

and

ΓQb+1=QbΓQb. A9

Using (A8) and (A9) in (A7), we obtain

∫G|x|bϕ1(x)dxx=C1|S|bΓ11-α-Qb11-α-Qb-1QbΓQbΓ(11-α)=Q(1-α)αb-Q(1-α), A10

where for the last equality we have used the formula for C1 given in (A6).

Finally using (A10) and the fact that ‖ϕ1‖L1(G)=1, we get

‖ϕ1‖Lα(G)α=∫GC1α(1+|x|b)αα-1dx=∫GC1α-1C1(1+|x|b)(1+|x|b)1α-1dx=C1α-1∫G(1+|x|b)ϕ1(x)dx=C1α-1∫Gϕ1(x)dx+∫G|x|bϕ1(x)=C1α-11+Q(1-α)αb-Q(1-α)=C1α-1αbαb-Q(1-α). A11

Let us now perform a similar analysis for the function ϕ2 as in (A1) where b>0 and α>1. As before, we use polar decomposition and we have

∫G(1-|x|b)+1α-1dx=∫S∫011-rb1α-1rQ-1drdσ(y)=|S|∫011-rb1α-1rQ-1dr.

For (1-rb)=t we get

∫G(1-|x|b)+1α-1dx=|S|∫01t1α-11-tQ-1b1b1-t1b-1dt=|S|b∫01t1α-11-tQb-1dt. A12

Arguing as before and using the definition of the Beta function as in (A3) for x=αα-1 and y=Qb, the condition ‖ϕ2‖1=1 yields

∫Gϕ2(x)dx=C2b|S|Γ(αα-1)Γ(Qb)Γαα-1+Qb=1,

and consequently, we get

C2=b|S|Γαα-1+QbΓ(αα-1)Γ(Qb). A13

Following the same arguments as before one can compute the Lα(G)-norm of ϕ2 and get

‖ϕ2‖Lα(G)α=C2α-1αbbα+Q(α-1). A14

Declarations

associated data

All three authors have equally contributed. The manuscript has no associated data.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Bobkov, S.G., Marsiglietti, A., Melbourne, J.: Concentration functions and entropy bounds for discrete log-concave distributions. Comb. Probab. Comput. 31, 54–72 (2021) [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Carrillo, J.A., Toscani, G.: Rényi entropy and improved equilibration rates to self-similarity for nonlinear diffusion equations. Nonlinearity 27(12), 3159 (2014) [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chatzakou, M., Kassymov, A., Ruzhansky, M.: Anisotropic Shannon inequality. Osaka J. Math. 61, 79–89 (2024) [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chatzakou, M., Kassymov, A., Ruzhansky, M.: Logarithmic Sobolev-type inequalities on Lie groups. J. Geom. Anal. 34, 275 (2024) [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chatzakou, M., Kassymov, A., Ruzhansky, M.: Logarithmic Sobolev, Hardy and Poincaré inequalities on the Heisenberg group. ArXiv:2310.00992, (2023)
  • 6.Conrad, K.: Probability distributions and maximum entropy. Entropy 6, no. 452 10, (2004)
  • 7.Fischer, V., Ruzhansky, M.: Quantization on nilpotent Lie groups. Progress in Mathematics. vol. 314. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhuser, (2016)
  • 8.Folland, G., Stein, E.M.: Hardy spaces on homogeneous groups. Math, vol. 28. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J, Notes (1982)
  • 9.Ghosh, S., Kumar, V., Ruzhansky, M.: Best constants in subelliptic fractional Sobolev and Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities and ground states on stratified Lie groups. 10.48550/arXiv.2306.07657, (2023) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 10.Ihara, S.: Information Theory for Continuous Systems. Vol. 2 World Scientific, (1993)
  • 11.Jerison, D., Lee, J.M.: Extremals for the Sobolev inequality on the Heisenberg group and the CR Yamabe problem. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 1(1), 1–13 (1988) [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kubo, H., Ogawa, T., Suguro, T.: Beckner type of the logarithmic Sobolev and a new type of Shannon’s inequalities and an application to the uncertainty principle. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 147, 1511–1518 (2019) [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Marsh, C.: Introduction to Continuous Entropy; Department of Computer Science. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA (2013) [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Newman, W.I.: A Lyapunov functional for the evolution of solutions to the porus medium equation to self-similarity. J. Math. Phys. 25, 3120–3123 (1984) [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ogawa, T., Wakui, H.: Non-uniform bound and finite time blow up for solutions to the drift-diffusion equation in higher dimensions. Anal. Appl. 15, 145–183 (2016) [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rényi, A.: Probability theory. North-Holland Pub. Co., Amsterdam (1970) [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rioul, O.: This is IT: A Primer on Shannon’s Entropy and Information. In: Duplantier, B., Rivasseau, V. (eds) Information Theory. Progress in Mathematical Physics, vol 78. Birkhäuser, Cham., (2021)
  • 18.Ruzhansky, M., Tokmagambetov, N., Yessirkegenov, N.: Best constants in Sobolev and Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities on graded groups and ground states for higher order nonlinear subelliptic equations. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 59, 23pp., (2020)
  • 19.Savaré, G., Toscani, G.: The concavity of Rényi entropy power. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 60(5), 2687–2693 (2014) [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Shannon, C.E.: A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal 27(3), 379–423 (1948) [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stam, A.J.: Some inequalities satisfied by the quantities of information of Fisher and Shannon. Inf. Control 2, 102–112 (1959) [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Suguro, T.: Shannon’s inequality for the Rényi entropy and an application to the uncertainty principle. J. Funct. Anal. 283(6), 109566 (2022). 10.1016/j.jfa.2022.109566 [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Talenti, G.: Best constant in Sobolev inequality. Ann. di Mat. Pura ed Appl. 110(1), 353–372 (1976) [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Toscani, G.: Remarks on entropy and equilibrium states. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 110, 353–372m (1976) [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Villani, C.: A review of mathematical topics in collisional kinetic theory. In Handbook of mathematical fluid dynamics, Vol. I. North-Holland, Amsterdam, (2002), pp. 71–305

Articles from Manuscripta Mathematica are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES