On the degrees of polynomial divisors over finite fields

Abstract: We show that the proportion of polynomials of degree $n$ over the finite field with $q$ elements, which have a divisor of every degree below $n$, is given by $c_q n^{-1} + O(n^{-2})$. More generally, we give an asymptotic formula for the proportion of polynomials, whose set of degrees of divisors has no gaps of size greater than $m$. To that end, we first derive an improved estimate for the proportion of polynomials of degree $n$, all of whose non-constant divisors have degree greater than $m$. In the limit as $q \to \infty$, these results coincide with corresponding estimates related to the cycle structure of permutations.

\section{Introduction}

There are many parallels between the factorization of integers into primes and the decomposition of combinatorial structures into components.
For an overview with examples see the surveys \cite{ABT, GRA, Rud}. In this note we want to explore a correspondence between the distribution of integer divisors and the degree distribution of polynomial divisors over finite fields.

Let $\mathbb{F}_q$ be the finite field with $q$ elements. What proportion of polynomials of degree $n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ have divisors of every degree below $n$? How does this question relate to the distribution of divisors of integers?

Let $F$ be a monic polynomial of degree $n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ with factorization $F=\prod_{1\le i \le j} P_i$, where the $P_i$ are irreducible monic polynomials. The set of degrees of divisors of $F$ is given by
$$ A_1= A_1(F)= \Biggl\{ \sum_{1\le i \le j} \varepsilon_i \deg(P_i) : \varepsilon_i \in \{0,1\} \Biggr\} \subseteq [0,n].$$
Hence $F$ has a divisor of every degree below $n$ if and only if $A_1=[0,n]\cap \mathbb{Z}$, i.e. the set $A_1$ has no gaps of size greater than $1$.

For an integer $N$ with prime factorization $N=\prod_{1\le i \le j} p_i $,  the set
$$A_2=A_2(N) = \Biggl\{ \sum_{1\le i \le j} \varepsilon_i \log p_i : \varepsilon_i \in \{0,1\}  \Biggr\}\subseteq [0,\log N] $$
has no gaps of size greater than $1$ if and only if every interval
of the form $[x,ex)$, $1\le x\le N$, contains a divisor of $N$, i.e. the sequence of divisors of $N$,
$1=d_1<d_2<\ldots <d_k=N$, satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{maxratio}
\max_{1\le i<k} \frac{d_{i+1}}{d_{i}} \le e.
\end{equation}

The similarity between the sets $A_1$ and $A_2$, with the logarithms of the integers ($\log N$ and $\log p_i$) taking the roles of the degrees of the polynomials ($n$ and  $\deg(P_i)$), suggests that the study of polynomials having divisors of every degree is related to the study of integers whose sequence of divisors satisfies \eqref{maxratio}.
Improving on earlier estimates by Tenenbaum \cite{Ten86, Ten95} and Saias \cite{Sai}, we found \cite[Corollary 1.1]{PDD} that the number of such integers $\le x$ is given by
$$ \frac{c_0 x}{\log x}\left(1+ O\left(\frac{1}{\log x}\right)\right),$$
for some positive constant $c_0$. Here we use a similar strategy to establish the analogous result for polynomials.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm1}
The proportion of polynomials of degree $n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$, which have a divisor of every degree below $n$, is given by
$$
\frac{c_q}{n} \left(1+ O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right).
$$
The factor $c_q$ depends only on $q$ and satisfies
$$0< c_q  = C+ O\left(q^{-2\tau}\right),$$
where $C=(1-e^{-\gamma})^{-1}=2.280291...$, $\gamma$  denotes Euler's constant and the constant
$\tau=0.205466...$ is defined in Proposition \ref{etaqm}.
\end{theorem}

In Theorem \ref{thm1} and below, the implied constants in the error terms are absolute.
In particular, all of our estimates are valid uniformly in $q$.

The method in \cite{PDD} relies on a sharp estimate by Tenenbaum \cite[Corollary 7.6, Section III.6]{Ten} for the number of integers $\le x$ which are free of prime divisors $\le y$,  for the entire range of $y$-values $2\le y \le x$.
The corresponding results for polynomials, which are available in the literature, are not precise enough for our method to succeed.
Thus we first derive an improved estimate for $r(n,m)$, the proportion of polynomials of degree $n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$, all of whose non-constant divisors have degree $>m$.  Such polynomials are sometimes referred to as $m$-rough, and estimates of $r(n,m)$ play a role in the analysis of factorization algorithms \cite{GP, PR}. Hence Theorem \ref{thm2} may be of independent interest.

We will need the following notation.
Buchstab's function $\omega(u)$ is the
unique continuous solution to the equation
\begin{equation*}
(u\omega(u))' = \omega(u-1) \qquad (u>2)
\end{equation*}
with initial condition
$\omega(u)=1/u$ for $1\le u \le 2$. Let $\omega(u)=0$ for $u<1$.
The number of monic irreducible polynomials of degree $n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ is given by \cite[Theorem 3.25]{LN}
\begin{equation*}
 I_n=\frac{1}{n} \sum_{d|n} \mu \left(\frac{n}{d}\right) q^d  \qquad (n\ge 1),
\end{equation*}
where $\mu$ is the M\"obius function. An easy exercise \cite[p. 142, Ex. 3.26 and Ex. 3.27]{LN} shows that
\begin{equation}\label{In}
 \frac{q^n}{n} - \frac{2q^{n/2}}{n}< I_n \le \frac{q^n}{n} \qquad (n\ge 1) .
\end{equation}
Define
$$\lambda_q(m) := \prod_{k=1}^m \left(1-\frac{1}{q^k}\right)^{I_k} .$$

\begin{theorem}\label{thm2}
Let $u=n/m$. For $n>m\ge 1$ we have
$$ r(n,m)=\lambda_q(m) \, e^\gamma \, \omega(u) \left(1+ O\left(\frac{(u/e)^{-u}}{m}\right)\right),$$
and
$$ \lambda_q(m)=e^{-H_m}  \left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{m q^{(m+1)/2}}\right)\right)
= \frac{e^{-\gamma}}{m} \left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{m}\right)\right),$$
where $\displaystyle H_m:=\sum_{1\le k \le m} \frac{1}{m}$.
\end{theorem}

With the second estimate for $\lambda_q(m)$, Theorem \ref{thm2} simplifies to
\begin{corollary}\label{cora}
For $n>m\ge 1$ we have
$$r(n,m)= \frac{\omega(u)}{m} \left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{m}\right)\right).$$
\end{corollary}
Warlimont \cite[Eqs. (3) and (4)]{War} showed that Corollary \ref{cora} and the second estimate for $\lambda_q(m)$ hold in the more general setting of arithmetical semigroups.

Inserting the estimate for $\omega(u)$ from Lemma \ref{lemom}
into Theorem \ref{thm2}, we obtain the following improvement of \cite[Theorem 3.1]{GP} and \cite[Theorem 3.1]{PR}.
\begin{corollary}\label{corb}
For $n>m\ge 1$ we have
$$r(n,m)=\lambda_q(m)  \Bigl(1+O \bigl((u/e)^{-u}\bigr)\Bigr) .$$
\end{corollary}

When $m\ge 3$, we can replace $(u/e)^{-u}$ by $u^{-u}$ in the error terms of Theorem \ref{thm2} and Corollary \ref{corb}.

For $m \le n/\log n$, we derive Theorem \ref{thm2} by applying the residue theorem to the generating function of $r(n,m)$.
When $m>n/\log n$, we show that $r(n,m)$ is very close to $p(n,m)$, the proportion of permutations of $n$ objects which
have no cycles of length $\le m$. The result then follows from a recent estimate of $p(n,m)$ due to Manstavi\v{c}ius and Petuchovas \cite{Man}.

With very little extra effort, we can generalize Theorem \ref{thm1} as follows.
Let $f(n,m)=f_q(n,m)$ be the proportion of monic polynomials $F$ of degree $n$ over  $\mathbb{F}_q$, with the property that the set of degrees of divisors of $F$ (i.e. the set $A_1$) has no gaps of size greater than $m$.
The original question corresponds to $m=1$. The corresponding generalization in the case of the divisors of integers would be to replace the upper bound $e$ in \eqref{maxratio} by some parameter $t$. The asymptotic behavior of the number of integers up to $x$, all of whose ratios of consecutive divisors are at most $t$, is described in \cite[Theorem 1.3]{PDD}
in terms of a function $d(u)$, which is defined as follows.

Let $d(u)=0$ for $u<0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{dinteq}
d(u)= 1-\int_0^{\frac{u-1}{2}} \frac{d(v)}{v+1} \ \omega\left(\frac{u-v}{v+1}\right) \mathrm{d} v \qquad (u\ge  0),
\end{equation}
where $\omega(u)$ is Buchstab's function.
In \cite[Theorem 1]{IDD3}, we used equation \eqref{dinteq} to show that
\begin{equation}\label{IDD3T1}
d(u)=\frac{C}{u+1}\, \Bigl(1+ O\left(u^{-2}\right)\Bigr) \qquad (u \ge 1),
\end{equation}
where  $C=(1-e^{-\gamma})^{-1}=2.280291...$,  as in Theorem \ref{thm1}.

\begin{figure}[htb]\label{fig1}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=5.2cm,width=11cm]{du}
\caption{The graphs of $d(u)$ (solid) and $\frac{C}{u+1}$ (dashed).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

The following result is the polynomial analogue of \cite[Theorem 1.3]{PDD}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm3}
For $n\ge 0$, $m\ge 1$ we have
$$ f(n,m)= \eta_q(m) \, d(n/m) \left( 1+O\left(\frac{1}{n+m}\right)\right) .$$
The factor $\eta_q(m)$ depends only on $q$ and $m$, and satisfies
$$ 0<  \eta_q(m) = 1 + O\left(\frac{1}{m q^{(m+1)\tau}}\right),$$
where $\tau =0.205466...$ is defined in Proposition \ref{etaqm}.
\end{theorem}

Depending on the size of $m$ relative to $n$, we can simplify Theorem \ref{thm3} in different ways.
With the estimate \eqref{IDD3T1}, we get
\begin{corollary}\label{cor1}
For $n\ge m\ge 1$ we have
$$f(n,m)=  \frac{c_q(m) m}{n+m} \left( 1+O\left(\frac{m^2}{n^2}+\frac{1}{n}\right)\right),$$
where
$$ 0< c_q(m):= C \eta_q(m)=C + O\left(\frac{1}{m q^{ (m+1)\tau }}\right).$$
\end{corollary}
Theorem \ref{thm1} follows from Corollary \ref{cor1} with $m=1$ and $c_q=c_q(1)$.
Corollary \ref{cor1} clearly implies
\begin{corollary}\label{cor2}
For $n\ge m\ge 1$ we have
$$f(n,m)= \frac{C m}{n+m} \left(1+O\left(\frac{m^2}{n^2}+\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{m q^{(m+1)\tau}}\right)\right).$$
\end{corollary}
Finally, the estimate for $\eta_q(m)$ in Theorem \ref{thm3} implies
\begin{corollary}\label{cor3}
For $n\ge 0$, $m\ge 1$ we have
$$ f(n,m)=  d(n/m) \left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{n+m}+\frac{1}{m q^{(m+1)\tau}}\right)\right).$$
\end{corollary}

We now turn to analogous results in the context of permutations and their decomposition into disjoint cycles.
Let $S_n$ be the symmetric group on $\{1,2, \ldots ,n\}$.
One reason for considering permutations is that our proof of the asymptotic result for the factor $\eta_q(m)$ in Theorem \ref{thm3} (and hence for the factor $c_q$ in Theorem \ref{thm1}) depends on Theorem \ref{thm5}, the corresponding result in the context of permutations.
Moreover, each of the following estimates related to permutations coincides with the limit, as $q\to \infty$, of the corresponding estimate related to polynomials over $\mathbb{F}_q$. Theorem \ref{thm1} takes the following form.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm4}
The proportion of permutations $\sigma \in S_n$, which have a cycle structure such that every positive integer below $ n$ can be expressed as a sum of lengths of distinct cycles of $\sigma$, is given by
$$
\frac{C}{n}\left( 1 + O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right),
$$
where $C$ is as in Theorem \ref{thm1}.
\end{theorem}

An alternate way to state Theorem \ref{thm4} is as follows. The proportion of permutations $\sigma \in S_n$, with the property that for every positive integer $m\le n$ there exists a set $M \subseteq \{1,2,3,\ldots,n\}$ with cardinality $m$ such that $\sigma(M)=M$, is given by $Cn^{-1}+O(n^{-2})$.

The analogue of Theorem \ref{thm2} in the context of permutations is Proposition \ref{fullp}, which depends on a recent result by Manstavi\v{c}ius and Petuchovas \cite{Man}.
The analogue of Theorem \ref{thm3} also holds in this context. Assume a permutation $\sigma \in S_n$ has cycles of length $l_1, l_2, \ldots, l_j$.
The set
$$ A_3=A_3(\sigma)= \Biggl\{ \sum_{1\le i \le j} \varepsilon_i l_i  : \varepsilon_i \in \{0,1\} \Biggr\} \subseteq [0,n]$$
represents the set of cardinalities of sets $M \subseteq \{1,2,3,\ldots,n\}$ such that $\sigma(M)=M $.
Let $g(n,m)$ denote the proportion of permutations in $S_n$ with the property that $A_3$ has no gaps of size greater than $m$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm5}
For $n\ge 0$, $m\ge 1$ we have
$$ g(n,m)= d(n/m) \left( 1+O\left(\frac{1}{n+m}\right)\right)  .$$
\end{theorem}

Unlike Theorem \ref{thm3} and \cite[Theorem 1.3]{PDD},
Theorem \ref{thm5} does not involve a factor $\eta(m)$, which suggests that
this variant of the problem, dealing with permutations, exhibits the simplest behavior.
With the estimate \eqref{IDD3T1}, we get
\begin{corollary}\label{cor1P}
For $n\ge m\ge 1$ we have
$$g(n,m)=  \frac{C m}{n+m} \left( 1+O\left(\frac{m^2}{n^2}+\frac{1}{n}\right)\right).$$
\end{corollary}
Theorem \ref{thm4} follows from Corollary \ref{cor1P} with $m=1$.

\medskip

The situation is somewhat different in the context of integer partitions.
Erd\H{o}s and Szalay \cite{ES}, and later Dixmier and Nicolas \cite{DN}, investigated the problem analogous to Theorems \ref{thm1} and \ref{thm4}. For the integer partition $n=l_1+l_2+ \ldots + l_j$, consider the set
$$ A_4 =  \Biggl\{\sum_{1\le i \le j} \varepsilon_i l_i  : \varepsilon_i \in \{0,1\} \Biggr\} \subseteq [0,n].$$
Dixmier and Nicolas \cite{DN} call a partition \emph{practical} if $A_4=[0,n]\cap \mathbb{Z}$. They show that the proportion of partitions of $n$ which are practical is given by (see \cite[Theorem 2]{DN} for the full  result)
$$ 1-\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{6n}} + O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right).$$
Thus, unlike with integers, polynomials and permutations, almost all partitions satisfy $A_4=[0,n]\cap \mathbb{Z}$.

A related problem is the study of the sequence of degrees $n$ for which the particular polynomial $X^n-1$ has divisors of every degree in $K[X]$, where $K$ is a given field.
By adapting the work of Saias \cite{Sai} on practical numbers, Thompson \cite{T1} found that the number of such $n\le x$ is $\asymp x/\log x$ when $K=\mathbb{Q}$.  This was extended to any number field $K$ by Pollack and Thompson \cite{PT}. When $K=\mathbb{F}_p$, the true order of magnitude of the number of such $n\le x$ is still unknown,
but Thompson \cite{T2} shows that they have asymptotic density zero by assuming the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis.

\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
The author thanks Paul Pollack for suggesting the question which is answered in Theorem \ref{thm1}, and Eugenijus
Manstavi\v{c}ius for providing some references.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm2}}

 When $m\le n/\log n $, the first statement in Theorem \ref{thm2} follows from Lemma \ref{lemom} and Proposition \ref{rsm}.
When $n/\log n < m < n$, Theorem \ref{thm2} follows from Propositions \ref{Mansta}, \ref{rap}  and  \ref{cqh}. The second statement in Theorem \ref{thm2} is Proposition \ref{cqh}.
We put $r(0,m)=1$ for $m\ge 0$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemom}
For $u>1$, we have $\omega(u)- e^{-\gamma} \ll \exp(-u\log (u\log u) +O(u)) .$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
This follows from  \cite[Theorem III.6.4]{Ten}.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{rsm}
Let  $u=n/m$. For $1\le m \le n/\log n$,
$$r(n,m)=\lambda_q(m) \Bigl(1+O \bigl((u/e)^{-u} m^{-1}\bigr)\Bigr).$$
If $m\ge 3$, we can replace $e$ by $1$ in the error term.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The number of monic polynomials of degree $n$, which have no non-constant divisors of degree $\le m$, is given by $[z^n] F_m(z)$, the coefficient of $z^n$ in the power series of
$$ F_m(z):= \prod_{k>m} \left(1-z^k\right)^{-I_k} = \frac{1}{1-qz} \prod_{1\le k\le m} \left(1-z^k\right)^{I_k}
\quad (|z|<1/q).$$
Cauchy's residue theorem yields
$$r(n,m)= \frac{[z^n] F_m(z)}{q^n} = [z^n] F_m(z/q)
= \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{|z|=1/2} F_m(z/q) \frac{\mathrm{d} z}{z^{n+1}}.$$
Stretching the contour to $|z|=R>1$ leaves a residue of $\lambda_q(m)$ from the pole at $z=1$.
When $|z|=R$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\bigl|F_m(z/q)\bigr| \le \frac{1}{R-1}\prod_{1\le k \le m } \left(1+\frac{R^k}{q^k}\right)^{I_k}
\le \frac{1}{R-1} \exp\left(\sum_{1\le k \le m} \frac{R^k }{k} \right),
\end{equation*}
since  $I_k \le q^k/k$ by \eqref{In} and $\log(1+x)\le x$ for $x>0$. Hence
\begin{equation}\label{rcd}
\bigl|r(n,m)-\lambda_q(m)\bigr| \le \frac{1}{R-1}  \exp\left(\sum_{1\le k \le m} \frac{R^k }{k} \right) \frac{1}{R^{n}}.
\end{equation}
If $m=1$ or $2$, the choice $R^m=n$ makes  the right-hand side of \eqref{rcd} $\ll (u/e)^{-u} m^{-2}$.
For $m\ge 3$, we write
\begin{equation}\label{sumzj}
\begin{split}
\sum_{1\le k \le m} \frac{R^k }{k} & = H_m +  \sum_{1\le k \le m} \frac{R^k-1 }{k} = H_m +  \sum_{1\le k \le m} \int_0^{\log R} e^{kt}  \, \mathrm{d} t \\
& =H_m+ \int_0^{\log R}  (e^t -1+1) \, \frac{e^{mt}-1}{e^t-1}  \, \mathrm{d} t \\
&= H_m+ \int_0^{\log R} (e^{mt}-1)  \, \mathrm{d}t + \int_0^{\log R}  \frac{e^{mt}-1}{e^t-1}  \, \mathrm{d}t \\
& \le H_m + \frac{R^m}{m} +  \int_0^{\log R^m}  \frac{e^t-1}{t}  \, \mathrm{d}t,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
since $e^t-1\ge t$.
A little calculus exercise shows that for $x>0$ we have
$$ \int_0^x \frac{e^t -1}{t}  \, \mathrm{d}t \le \frac{e^x}{x}\left(1+\frac{2}{x}\right).$$
Hence
\begin{equation}\label{ser}
\sum_{1\le k \le m} \frac{R^k }{k}  \le H_m + \frac{R^m}{m}
+ \frac{R^m}{\log R^m} \left(1+\frac{2}{\log R^m}\right).
\end{equation}
When $3\le m \le \log n / \log\log\log n$, we choose $R$ such that $R^m=n$.
If $\log n / \log\log\log n <m\le n/\log n$, we choose $R$ such that $R^m=u \log u$. In each case, \eqref{ser} shows that the right-hand side of \eqref{rcd} is $\ll u^{-u} m^{-2}$.
 \end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{fer}
For $n>m\ge 1$,
$$ n \, r(n,m)=1+\sum_{m<k<n-m} r(k,m) +  O\left( \frac{1}{q^{n/2}} + \frac{1}{m q^{(m+1)/2}} \right).$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $R(n,m)=q^n r(n,m)$, the number of monic polynomials of degree $n$, which have no non-constant divisors of degree $\le m$.
As in the proof of Proposition \ref{rsm}, the generating function of $R(n,m)$ is given by
$$ \sum_{n\ge 0} R(n,m) z^n = F_m(z) = \prod_{k>m} \left(1-z^k\right)^{-I_k} = \exp\left( -\sum_{k>m} I_k \log(1-z^k) \right).$$
Differentiating with respect to $z$ gives
$$  \sum_{n\ge 1} n\, R(n,m) z^{n-1}=F'_m(z) = F_m(z) \sum_{k>m} I_k \frac{k z^{k-1}}{1-z^k} $$
and hence
$$  \sum_{n\ge 1} n\, R(n,m) z^{n-1} = \left( \sum_{n\ge 0} R(n,m) z^n\right) \left(\sum_{k>m} k I_k   \sum_{j\ge 1} z^{kj-1}\right).$$
Comparing coefficients of $z^{n-1}$, we find that
$$  n\, R(n,m) = \sum_{k>m} k I_k   \sum_{j\ge 1} R(n-kj,m)  .$$
We estimate $k I_k$ by \eqref{In} and divide both sides by $q^n$ to get
\begin{equation}\label{rer}
  n \, r(n,m) =  \sum_{k>m} r(n-k,m) + O\left(   \sum_{m<k\le n} q^{-k/2} r(n-k,m) + \sum_{j\ge 2} \sum_{k>m} q^{-k(j-1)} \right).
\end{equation}
Note that
$$  \sum_{k>m} r(n-k,m)  = 1+\sum_{m<k<n-m} r(k,m),$$
since $r(0,m)=1$ and $r(k,m)=0$ for $1\le k \le m$. The double sum in the error term of \eqref{rer} is $\ll q^{-(m+1)}$, since $q\ge 2$.
We have $r(n-k,m)=1$ when $k=n$ and $r(n-k,m) \ll 1/m$ when $k<n$. Hence the first sum in the error term of \eqref{rer} is acceptable.
\end{proof}

Recall that $p(n,m)$ denotes the proportion of permutations of $n$ objects having no cycles of length $\le m$. We put $p(0,m)=1$.

\begin{proposition}\label{psm}
Let $u=n/m$. For $1\le m \le n/\log n$,
$$p(n,m)=e^{-H_m} \Bigl(1+O \bigl((u/e)^{-u} m^{-1}\bigr)\Bigr).$$
 If $m\ge 3$, we can replace $e$ by $1$ in the error term.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The generating function for $p(n,m)$ satisfies \cite[Ex. IV.9]{FS}
\begin{equation}\label{Dgen}
D_m(z) := \sum_{n\ge 0} p(n,m)z^n = \exp \left(\sum_{k\ge m+1} \frac{z^k}{k} \right)
= \frac{1}{1-z} \exp \left(-\sum_{1\le k\le m} \frac{z^k}{k} \right)  ,
\end{equation}
for $|z|<1$.
Cauchy's residue theorem yields
$$p(n,m)= \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{|z|=1/2} D_m(z) \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{z^{n+1}}.$$
Stretching the contour to $|z|=R>1$ leaves a residue of $e^{-H_m}$ from the pole at $z=1$.
When $|z|=R$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\bigl|D(z)\bigr| \le \frac{1}{R-1} \exp\left(\sum_{1\le k \le m} \frac{R^k }{k} \right),
\end{equation*}
hence
\begin{equation*}
\bigl|p(n,m)-e^{-H_m}\bigr| \le \frac{1}{R-1}  \exp\left(\sum_{1\le k \le m} \frac{R^k }{k} \right) \frac{1}{R^{n}}.
\end{equation*}
The remainder of the proof is identical to that of Proposition \ref{rsm} following the estimate \eqref{rcd}.
\end{proof}

The following result is a somewhat weaker version of a recent result by Manstavi\v{c}ius and Petuchovas \cite[Theorem 1.1]{Man}.
\begin{proposition}[Manstavi\v{c}ius and Petuchovas]\label{Mansta}
Let $u=n/m$. For $n>m\ge \sqrt{n \log n}$ we have
$$ p(n,m) = e^{\gamma-H_m} \omega(u) \left(1+O\left(\frac{u^{-u}}{m}\right)\right).$$
\end{proposition}

Combining Propositions \ref{psm} and \ref{Mansta} with Lemma \ref{lemom}, we get the following estimate.
\begin{proposition}\label{fullp}
Let $u=n/m$. For $n>m\ge 1$ we have
$$ p(n,m) = e^{\gamma-H_m} \omega(u) \left(1+O\left(\frac{(u/e)^{-u}}{m}\right)\right).$$
\end{proposition}

The next estimate is an immediate consequence of Manstavi\v{c}ius \cite[Theorem 3]{Man02}.
It is also follows from Propostion \ref{fullp}.
\begin{proposition}[Manstavi\v{c}ius]\label{pub}
For $n>m\ge 1$, we have
$$ p(n,m) = \frac{\omega(n/m)}{m}\left(1 +O\left(\frac{1}{m}\right)\right).$$
\end{proposition}

\begin{lemma}\label{fep}
For $n>m\ge 0$,
$$ n \, p(n,m)=1+\sum_{m<k<n-m} p(k,m) .$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
From \eqref{Dgen} we have
$$ D'_m(z) = \sum_{n\ge 1} n \, p(n,m)z^{n-1} = D_m(z) \sum_{k\ge m} z^k.$$
Comparing the coefficients of $z^{n-1}$ in the last equation leads to
$$ n\, p(n,m) = \sum_{m\le k \le n-1} p(n-1-k,m) = 1 + \sum_{m<k<n-m} p(k,m) ,$$
for $n> m\ge 0$, since $p(0,m)=1$ and $p(k,m)=0$ for $1\le k \le m$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{rap}
For $n\ge 1, m\ge 1$,
$$r(n,m)=p(n,m) + O\left( \frac{1}{n q^{n/2}} + \frac{1}{m^2 q^{(m+1)/2}} \right).$$
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
If $m\ge n \ge 1$, then $r(n,m)=p(n,m)=0$. Hence we may assume $n>m\ge 1$.
Let $s(n,m)=r(n,m)-p(n,m).$ Lemmas \ref{fer} and \ref{fep} imply
\begin{equation}\label{qrec}
  |s(n,m)| \le \frac{B}{nq^{n/2}}+ \frac{B}{nm q^{(m+1)/2}} + \frac{1}{n} \sum_{m<k<n-m} |s(k,m)|,
\end{equation}
where $B$ is the implied constant in the error term of Lemma \ref{fer}.
When $n/2 \le m <n$, the last sum is empty and we have
\begin{equation}\label{ind}
 |s(n,m)|  \le  \frac{B}{nq^{n/2}} + \frac{4B}{m^2 q^{(m+1)/2}}.
\end{equation}
Now assume that \eqref{ind} holds for all $n\ge 1$ and $n/j \le m <n$, for some $j\ge 2$.
Let $n/(j+1) \le m < n$. Then $n\le m(j+1)$ and $k<n-m$ imply $k<mj$. Hence \eqref{qrec}
and the inductive hypothesis show that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
|s(n,m)| & \le  \frac{B}{nq^{n/2}} + \frac{B}{nm q^{(m+1)/2}}
+ \frac{1}{n} \sum_{m<k<n-m}  \left(\frac{B}{k q^{k/2}} + \frac{4B}{m^2 q^{(m+1)/2}}\right) \\
& \le  \frac{B}{nq^{n/2}}+ \frac{4B}{m^2 q^{(m+1)/2}} \left(\frac{m}{4n}+  \frac{m}{4n}\sum_{k\ge 0} q^{-k/2} + \frac{n-2m}{n}\right) \\
&  \le \frac{B}{nq^{n/2}}+ \frac{4B}{m^2 q^{(m+1)/2}},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
since $\sum_{k\ge 0} q^{-k/2} \le \sum_{k\ge 0} 2^{-k/2} < 4$.
Thus \eqref{ind} holds for all $n\ge 1$ and all $m$ with $0<m<n$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{cqh}
For $m\ge 1$ we have
$$ \lambda_q(m)=e^{-H_m}  \left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{m q^{(m+1)/2}}\right)\right)
= \frac{e^{-\gamma}}{m} \left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{m}\right)\right).$$
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Proposition \ref{rsm} implies that
$ \lim_{n\to \infty} r(n,m) = \lambda_q(m)$,
while Proposition \ref{psm} (or \cite[Ex. IV.9]{FS}) shows that $\lim_{n\to \infty} p(n,m) = e^{-H_m}$.
Letting $n\to \infty $ in Proposition \ref{rap} gives the first equation.
The second equation follows from the well-known estimate $H_m= \log m + \gamma + O(m^{-1})$.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm3}}

Let $\mathcal{A}(n,m)$ denote the set of monic polynomials $F$ of degree $n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ with the property that the set of degrees of divisors of $F$ has no gaps of size greater than $m$. We have $f(n,m)= q^{-n} |\mathcal{A}(n,m)| $.

\begin{lemma}\label{cond}
A monic polynomial $F$ of degree $n$,
$F=P_1 P_2 \cdots P_j$, where the $P_i$ are monic irreducible polynomials with $\deg(P_1) \le \deg(P_2) \le \ldots \le \deg(P_j)$,
satisfies $F \in \mathcal{A}(n,m)$ if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{conde}
\deg(P_i) \le \deg(P_1\cdots P_{i-1}) + m \qquad (1\le i \le j).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
If $\deg(P_i) > \deg(P_1\cdots P_{i-1}) + m$ for some $1\le i \le j$, then the open interval $ ( \deg(P_1\cdots P_{i-1}) , \deg(P_i))$ is of length $>m$ and contains no degrees of divisors of $F$. Thus \eqref{conde} is a necessary condition for $F \in \mathcal{A}(n,m)$. To see that  \eqref{conde} is sufficient, we use induction on $j$. The case $j=1$ is obvious. Assume that \eqref{conde} implies $F \in \mathcal{A}(n,m)$ for some $j\ge 1$. Let
$ F=P_1 P_2 \cdots P_j P_{j+1}$ satisfy \eqref{conde}, with $j$ replaced by $j+1$. The set of degrees of divisors of $F$ is $D \cup (D+\deg(P_{j+1}))$, where $D$ is the set of degrees of divisors of $P_1 P_2 \cdots P_j $. Now $D$ has no gaps greater than $m$ by the inductive hypothesis and $\deg(P_{j+1})\le m+ \max D $ by \eqref{conde}. Thus  $D \cup (D+\deg(P_{j+1}))$ also has no gaps greater than $m$ and $F \in \mathcal{A}(n,m)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{fe}
For $n\ge 0$, $m\ge 0$ we have
$$ 1=\sum_{0\le k \le n} f(k,m) \, r(n-k,k+m)  .$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Lemma \ref{cond} implies that each monic polynomial $F$ of degree $n$ factors uniquely as $F=QR$, where $F=P_1 P_2 \cdots P_j$,  the $P_i$ are monic irreducible polynomials with $\deg(P_1) \le \deg(P_2) \le \ldots \le \deg(P_j)$,
$$ Q=P_1\cdots P_{i_0} , \quad R=P_{i_0+1}\cdots P_j ,$$
and $i_0$ is the unique index such that
$$ Q \in \mathcal{A}(\deg(Q),m), \quad \deg{P_{i_0+1}}>\deg(Q)+m.$$
The case $i_0=0$ corresponds to $Q=1$ and $R=F$, while $i_0=j$ means $Q=F\in  \mathcal{A}(n,m)$ and $R=1$.
Given $\deg(Q)=k$, there are $q^{k} f(k,m)$ choices for $Q$ and $q^{n-k}r(n-k,k+m)$ choices for $R$. Counting all of the $q^n$ monic polynomials of degree $n$ according to the degree of $Q$, we find that
$$ q^n = \sum_{0\le k \le n}q^{k}  f(k,m) \, q^{n-k}r(n-k,k+m),$$
from which the result follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{fe2}
For $n\ge 0$, $m\ge 0$ we have
$$ 1= f(n,m)+\sum_{0\le k < \frac{n-m}{2}} f(k,m) \, r(n-k,k+m) .$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
This follows from Lemma \ref{fe} since $r(0,n+m)=1$ and $r(n-k,k+m)=0$ if $\frac{n-m}{2} \le k < n$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{se}
For $m\ge 0$ we have
$$ 1=\sum_{k\ge 0} f(k,m) \, \lambda_q(k+m).$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
If $m=0$, we have $f(0,0)=1$, $\lambda_q(0)=1$ and $f(k,0)=0$ for $k\ge 1$. Now fix any $m\ge 1$. We have $r(n-k,k+m) \asymp (k+m)^{-1}$ for $n-k>k+m$, by Corollary \ref{cora}. Lemma \ref{fe2} implies that $\sum_{0 \le k < \frac{n-m}{2}} \frac{f(k,m)}{k+m}$ is bounded from above as $n\to \infty$ and hence  $\sum_{k\ge 0} \frac{f(k,m)}{k+m}$ converges. Thus
$$ \liminf_{k\to \infty} f(k,m)=0, \quad \lim_{n\to \infty} \sum_{n/\log n < k < \frac{n-m}{2}} f(k,m) \, r(n-k,k+m) = 0.$$
Lemma \ref{fe2} shows that, as $n\to \infty$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
1 &= o(1)+ f(n,m)  + \sum_{k\le n/\log n} f(k,m) \, r(n-k,k+m)  \\
& =  o(1)  + f(n,m)+ \sum_{k\le n/\log n} f(k,m) \, \lambda_q(k+m),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
by Corollary \ref{corb}. Since $ \liminf_{n\to \infty} f(n,m)=0$ and the last sum is increasing in $n$, the result follows.
\end{proof}

For real $t\ge 0$, we define $f(t,m)=f(\lfloor t \rfloor, m)$.

\begin{lemma}\label{inteq}
For $n\ge 0$, $m \ge 1$ we have
$$ f(n,m) = \int_0^\infty \frac{f(t,m)}{t+m} \left( e^{-\gamma} - \omega\left(\frac{n+m}{t+m}-1\right) \right)   \mathrm{d}t + E(n,m), $$
where
$$ E(n,m) \ll  E_0(n,m):=\int_0^\infty \frac{f(t,m)}{(t+m)^2}\exp\left(-\frac{n+m}{t+m}\right)  \mathrm{d}t  + \frac{f(\frac{n-m}{2},m)}{n+m}. $$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Lemmas \ref{fe2} and \ref{se} imply
\begin{multline*}
 f(n,m)= \sum_{0\le k < \frac{n-m}{2}} f(k,m) \,\Bigl(\lambda_q(k+m)- r(n-k,k+m)\Bigr) \\
+\sum_{k \ge  \frac{n-m}{2}} f(k,m) \, \lambda_q(k+m) =: S_1 + S_2,
\end{multline*}
say. We approximate $r(n-k, k+m)$ in $S_1$ by Theorem \ref{thm2} to get
$$ S_1 =   \sum_{0\le k < \frac{n-m}{2}} f(k,m) \, \lambda_q(k+m) \, e^\gamma
\left(e^{-\gamma} -\omega\left(\frac{n-k}{k+m}\right)\right) +E_1(n,m),$$
where $ E_1(n,m) \ll  E_0(n,m). $
Next, we approximate $\lambda_q(k+m)$ in $S_1$ and $S_2$ by the second estimate in Proposition \ref{cqh}.
The resulting error term is again $\ll E_0(n,m)$ by Lemma \ref{lemom}. Thus
$$  f(n,m)=S_1+S_2 = \sum_{k\ge 0} \frac{f(k,m)}{k+m} \left( e^{-\gamma} - \omega\left(\frac{n+m}{k+m}-1\right) \right)
+E_2(n,m),$$
where $ E_2(n,m) \ll E_0(n,m)$,
since $\omega(1)=1$ and $\omega(u)=0$ for $u<1$.
It remains to replace the sum by an integral. If $g(k)$ represents the $k$-th term of the sum, we estimate the error simply by
$g(k) - \int_k^{k+1} g(t)\,  \mathrm{d}t \ll \max_{t\in [k,k+1]} |g'(t)|$ and use Lemma \ref{lemom} and $\omega'(u)\ll e^{-2u}$ for $u\ge 1$ (see \cite[Theorem III.6.4]{Ten}). The discontinuity of $\omega(u)$ at $u=1$ leads to an error of $\ll  f(\frac{n-m}{2},m)/(n+m) $. Thus we find that the error from replacing the sum by the integral is also $\ll E_0(n,m)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm3}]
Note that replacing the integer $n$ in Lemma \ref{inteq} by the real number $x$ with $n=[x]$ leaves the left-hand-side unchanged, and alters the integral by $\ll E_0(x,m)$. Thus, for $x\ge 0$,
$$ f(x,m) = \alpha(m)- \int_0^\infty   \frac{f(t,m)}{t+m}  \, \omega\left(\frac{x+m}{t+m}-1\right)    \mathrm{d}t + E(x,m), $$
where
$$ \alpha(m) := e^{-\gamma}  \int_0^\infty \frac{f(t,m)}{t+m}  \, \mathrm{d}t$$
and $E(x,m) \ll E_0(x,m)$. Lemma \ref{se} ensures that the integral defining $\alpha(m)$ converges and that $\alpha(m)\ll 1$.
Let $z\ge 0$ be given by $e^z=x/m+1$ and $y\ge 0$ by $e^y=t/m+1$. Define $G_m(z):=f(m(e^z-1),m)\,  e^z$ and
$ \Omega(z):=\omega(e^z-1)$. We get
$$ G_m(z)=\alpha(m) e^z - \int_0^z G_m(y) \, \Omega(z-y) \, e^{z-y}  \, \mathrm{d}y + E_m(z),$$
where
\begin{equation}\label{error}
E_m(z) \ll \frac{e^z}{m} \int_0^\infty \frac{G_m(y)}{e^{2y}} \exp\left( -e^{z-y}\right)  \mathrm{d}y + \frac{G_m(z-\log 2)}{me^z}.
\end{equation}
The last equation allows us to calculate Laplace transforms:
$$ \widehat{G}_m(s) = \frac{\alpha(m)}{s-1} - \widehat{G}_m(s) \widehat{\Omega}(s-1) + \widehat{E}_m(s) \qquad (\re s >1). $$
Hence
$$\widehat{G}_m(s) = \frac{\alpha(m)}{(s-1) (1+\widehat{\Omega}(s-1))} + \frac{\widehat{E}_m(s)}{1+\widehat{\Omega}(s-1)}
\qquad (\re s >1).$$
Equation \eqref{dinteq} written in terms of
$ G(z):= e^z d(e^z -1) \asymp 1 $
is
$$ G(z) =e^z - \int_{0}^{z} G(y) \, \Omega(z-y) e^{z-y} \mathrm{d}y,$$
which shows that the Laplace transform of $G(z)$ is given by
$$ \widehat{G}(s) = \frac{1}{(s-1) (1+\widehat{\Omega}(s-1))} \qquad (\re s >1).$$
Thus
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\widehat{G}_m(s) & = \alpha(m) \widehat{G}(s) + \widehat{E}_m(s) \widehat{G}(s) (s-1) \\
& = \alpha(m) \widehat{G}(s) +\widehat{E}_m(s) ( \widehat{G'}(s) - \widehat{G}(s)+1 ),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
since $G(0)=1$. Now
$$ G'(y)-G(y) = e^{2y} d'(e^y-1) = -C + O\left(e^{-2y}\right)$$
by \cite[Corollary 5]{IDD3}. Inversion of the Laplace transforms yields
\begin{equation}\label{rep}
G_m(z) = \alpha(m) G(z) + E_m(z)+  \int_0^z E_m(y)\left( -C + O\left(e^{-2(z-y)}\right)\right) \mathrm{d}y .
\end{equation}
Since $0\le f(x,m) \le 1$, we have $0\le G_m(z) \le e^z$. Thus \eqref{error} shows that $E_m(z) \ll 1$ and \eqref{rep} yields $G_m(z) \ll 1+z$.  Using this estimate in \eqref{error} we find that $E_m(z)\ll (1+z) e^{-z}$ and \eqref{rep} now gives $G_m(z) \ll 1$.
Appealing to \eqref{error} one last time, we finally arrive at
$$E_m(z) \ll \frac{1}{m e^{z}}.$$
Hence
\begin{equation*}\label{betadef}
\beta(m) := -\int_0^\infty E_m(y) \, \mathrm{d}y
= -\int_0^z E_m(y)\, \mathrm{d}y + O\left(\frac{1}{m e^z }\right)
\end{equation*}
and
$$ \int_0^z | E_m(y)| \, e^{-2(z-y)}\, \mathrm{d}y \ll  \frac{1}{m e^z }.$$
Thus \eqref{rep} yields
\begin{equation*}
G_m(z) = \alpha(m) G(z) + C \beta(m) +O\left(\frac{1}{m e^z }\right),
\end{equation*}
that is
\begin{equation*}\label{last}
f(x,m)= \alpha(m) \, d(x/m) + \frac{C \beta(m)}{x/m+1} +O\left(\frac{m}{(x+m)^2}\right),
\end{equation*}
for $x\ge 0$,  $m \ge 1$. Letting $x=m$ in the last equation shows that $\alpha(m)=1+O(1/m)$, since $\beta(m)\ll 1/m$, $f(m,m)=1$ and $d(1)=1$.
With
\begin{equation}\label{etadef}
\eta_q(m):= \alpha(m)+\beta(m)=1+O(1/m),
\end{equation}
the estimate \eqref{IDD3T1} yields
\begin{equation}\label{lastf}
f(x,m)= \eta_q(m) \, d(x/m) +O\left(\frac{m}{(x+m)^2}\right).
\end{equation}
We need to show that $\eta_q(m) >0 $.
If $\eta_q(m)=0$ for some $m\ge 1$ and some $q\ge 2$, then there exists an $m$ such that $\eta_q(m)=0$ but $\eta_q(m+1)>0$, since $\eta_q(m)=1+O(1/m)$. Hence $f(n,m)\ll_{m,q} n^{-2}$ while $f(n,m+1) \asymp_{m,q} n^{-1}$.
Lemma \ref{lb} shows that this is impossible.
Finally, the  estimate $\eta_q(m)=1 + O(m^{-1}q^{-(m+1)\tau})$ is the topic of Proposition \ref{etaqm}.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lb}
For $n\ge 0$, $m\ge 1$ we have $f(n,m+1)\le q f(n+1,m)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
For each $F\in \mathcal{A}(n,m+1)$, we have $xF(x)\in  \mathcal{A}(n+1,m)$. Hence $| \mathcal{A}(n,m+1)| \le | \mathcal{A}(n+1,m)|$, that is $q^n f(n,m+1) \le q^{n+1} f(n+1,m)$.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm5}}

Let $\mathcal{B}(n,m)$ denote the set of permutations $\sigma \in S_n$ with the property that
$A_3$ has no gaps of size greater than $m$.  We have $g(n,m)=|\mathcal{B}(n,m)|/n! $. The following five lemmas correspond to Lemmas \ref{cond} through \ref{inteq} in the last section. We omit some of the proofs of these lemmas and the first half of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm5}, since they are almost identical to those of the previous section.

\begin{lemma}\label{condp}
A permutations $\sigma \in S_n$, which decomposes into $j$ cycles with cycle lengths $l_1 \le l_2 \le \ldots \le l_j$,
satisfies $\sigma \in \mathcal{B}(n,m)$ if and only if
\begin{equation*}
l_i \le m+ \sum_{1\le k < i} l_k  \qquad (1\le i \le j).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Follow the proof of Lemma \ref{cond}, replacing $\deg(P_i)$ by $l_i$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{ge}
For $n\ge 0$, $m\ge 0$ we have
$$ 1=\sum_{0\le k \le n} g(k,m) \, p(n-k,k+m)  .$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Lemma \ref{condp} implies that each  $\sigma \in S_n$ decomposes uniquely as $\sigma=\rho \tau$, where $\sigma=\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \cdots \sigma_j$,  the $\sigma_i$ are cycles with lengths $l_1 \le l_2 \le \ldots \le l_j$,
$$ \rho=\sigma_1\cdots \sigma_{i_0} , \quad \tau=\sigma_{i_0+1}\cdots \sigma_j ,$$
and $i_0$ is the unique index such that
$$ l_i \le  m+ \sum_{1\le r < i} l_r  \qquad (1\le i \le i_0) , \quad l_{i_0+1}>l_1+\ldots + l_{i_0}+m.$$
The case $i_0=0$ corresponds to $\tau=\sigma$, while $i_0=j$ means $\rho=\sigma \in \mathcal{B}(n,m)$.
Given that $\sum_{1\le r \le  i_0} l_r =k$, there are $\binom{n}{k}$ ways to choose the $k$ numbers from $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$, which $\rho$ is acting on. Once these $k$ numbers are chosen, there are $k! \, g(k,m)$ choices for $\rho$ and $(n-k)! \,  p(n-k,k+m)$ choices for $\tau$. Counting all of the $n!$ permutations in $S_n$ according to $k=\sum_{1\le r \le  i_0} l_r $ , we find that
$$n! = \sum_{0\le k \le n}\binom{n}{k} k! \, g(k,m) \, (n-k)! \, p(n-k,k+m),$$
from which the result follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{ge2}
For $n\ge 0$, $m\ge 0$ we have
$$ 1= g(n,m)+\sum_{0\le k < \frac{n-m}{2}} g(k,m) \, p(n-k,k+m) .$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
This follows from Lemma \ref{ge} since $p(0,n+m)=1$ and $p(n-k,k+m)=0$ if $\frac{n-m}{2} \le k < n$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{sep}
For $m\ge 0$ we have
$$ 1=\sum_{k\ge 0} g(k,m) \, e^{-H_{k+m}} .$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Follow the proof of Lemma \ref{se}.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{inteqp}
For $n\ge 0$, $m \ge 1$ we have
$$ g(n,m) = \int_0^\infty \frac{g(t,m)}{t+m} \left( e^{-\gamma} - \omega\left(\frac{n+m}{t+m}-1\right) \right)   \mathrm{d}t + \mathcal{E}(n,m), $$
where
$$ \mathcal{E}(n,m) \ll  \mathcal{E}_0(n,m):=\int_0^\infty \frac{g(t,m)}{(t+m)^2}\exp\left(-\frac{n+m}{t+m}\right)   \mathrm{d}t  + \frac{g(\frac{n-m}{2},m)}{n+m}. $$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Follow the proof of Lemma \ref{inteq} and use Proposition \ref{fullp} (in place of Theorem \ref{thm2}) to approximate $p(n-k,k+m)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm5}]
As in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm3}, we arrive at the analogue of \eqref{etadef} and \eqref{lastf}, namely
\begin{equation}\label{lastg}
g(x,m)= \eta(m) \, d(x/m) +O\left(\frac{m}{(x+m)^2}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\eta(m)=1+O(1/m)$. It remains to show that $\eta(m)=1$ for all $m\ge 1$.
To this end, we multiply the equation in Lemma \ref{ge} by $z^n$, $|z|<1$, to get
$$ z^n=\sum_{0\le k \le n} g(k,m)z^k \, p(n-k,k+m) z^{n-k} .$$
Summing over $n\ge 0$ yields
$$ \frac{1}{1-z} = \sum_{k\ge 0}  g(k,m)\, z^k \, \frac{1}{1-z} \exp \left(-\sum_{j=1}^{k+m} \frac{z^j}{j}\right),$$
by \eqref{Dgen}, and hence
$$ z^m = \sum_{k\ge m}  g(k-m,m)\,  z^k  \exp \left(-\sum_{j=1}^{k} \frac{z^j}{j}\right).$$
Differentiating both sides with respect to $z$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{mz}
m z^{m-1} =  \sum_{k\ge m}  g(k-m,m) \,  z^k \exp \left(-\sum_{j=1}^{k} \frac{z^j}{j}\right) \left(\frac{k}{z}-\frac{1-z^k}{1-z}\right).
\end{equation}
Our plan is to learn about $\eta(m)$ by inserting the estimate \eqref{lastg} into \eqref{mz}.
Let $m\ge 1$ be arbitrary but fixed and let $z=1-\delta$, where $0<\delta <1/2$.
We will need the following estimates.
First,
$$ \frac{k}{z}-\frac{1-z^k}{1-z} =\frac{k}{1-\delta} -\frac{1-\exp(-k\delta(1+O(\delta)))}{\delta}\ll
\begin{cases}
   k^2 \delta & (k\le \delta^{-1})  \\
   k       & (k> \delta^{-1}).
  \end{cases}
$$
Second, as in \eqref{sumzj}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\sum_{j=1}^{k} \frac{z^j}{j}
& = H_k+ \int_{\log z}^0 (1-e^{kt})  \, \mathrm{d}t - \int_{\log z}^0  \frac{1-e^{kt}}{1-e^t}  \, \mathrm{d}t \\
& \ge H_k + 0 -  \int_{\log z}^0  \frac{1-e^{kt}}{-t} (1+O(t))  \, \mathrm{d}t \\
& \ge \log k -\max(0,\log(-k\log z)) -O(1) \\
&\ge \min(\log \delta^{-1}, \log k) - O(1),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
hence
$$  \exp \left(-\sum_{j=1}^{k} \frac{z^j}{j}\right) \ll \max(\delta, 1/k).$$
Since $g(k-m,m)\ll m/k$ by \eqref{lastg}, the contribution from $k\le \delta^{-1/2}$ to the right-hand side of \eqref{mz} is
$$\ll \sum_{m\le k\le \delta^{-1/2}} \frac{m}{k}\cdot 1 \cdot  \frac{1}{k}\cdot k^2 \delta \le m \delta^{1/2}. $$
For $k>\delta^{-1/2}$, we estimate $g(k-m,m)$ in \eqref{mz} by
$$g(k-m,m)= \frac{C\eta(m) m}{k} +O\left(\frac{m}{k^2}+\frac{m^3}{k^3}\right),$$
which follows from \eqref{lastg} and \eqref{IDD3T1}. The contribution from the error terms is
$$ \ll \sum_{\delta^{-1/2}<k\le \delta^{-1}} \frac{m^3}{k^2} \cdot 1 \cdot \frac{1}{k} \cdot k^2 \delta
+ \sum_{k>\delta^{-1}} \frac{m^3}{k^2} \cdot e^{-\delta k} \cdot \delta \cdot k
\ll m^3\delta \log (\delta^{-1}) .
$$
After inserting the terms corresponding to $1\le k\le \delta^{-1/2}$, which contribute $\ll m\delta^{1/2}$, we get
$$ m z^{m-1} =O\left(m^3 \delta^{1/2}\right)+  \sum_{k\ge 1} \frac{C\eta(m) m}{k} z^k \,  \exp \left(-\sum_{j=1}^{k} \frac{z^j}{j}\right) \left(\frac{k}{z}-\frac{1-z^k}{1-z}\right),$$
where $z=1-\delta$. Taking the limit as $\delta \to 0^+$, we find that
$$ \frac{1}{C\eta(m)} = \lim_{z\to 1^-} \sum_{k\ge 1} \frac{z^k }{k} \,  \exp \left(-\sum_{j=1}^{k} \frac{z^j}{j}\right) \left(\frac{k}{z}-\frac{1-z^k}{1-z}\right).$$
Since the right-hand side is independent of $m$, so is $\eta(m)$. But $\eta(m)=1+O(1/m)$. Thus $\eta(m)=1$ for all $m\ge 1$ and the proof of Theorem \ref{thm5} is complete.
\end{proof}

\section{An estimate for $\eta_q(m)$.}

Define $\kappa $ to be the unique positive constant satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{kappa}
1=\int_1^\infty \omega(y)\, (y+1)^{-1-\kappa}\,  \mathrm{d} y  .
\end{equation}
Numerical calculations show that $\kappa = 0.433489...$.
This estimate was obtained using exact formulas for $\omega(y)$ for $0\le y \le 5$, derived with the help of Mathematica; we used a table of zeros and relative extrema of $\omega(u)-e^{-\gamma}$ on the interval $[5, 10.3355]$ due to Cheer and Goldston \cite{CG}, and the estimate $|\omega(u)-e^{-\gamma}|<1/\Gamma(u+1)$ from \cite[Lemma 1]{IDD3} for $u\ge 10.3355$.

\begin{proposition}\label{fandg}
For $n\ge 0$, $m\ge 1$ we have
$$ f(n,m)=g(n,m) + O\left(\frac{n^\kappa}{m^{1+\kappa} q^{(m+1)/2}}\right).$$
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
We show the result for all $m\ge 1$ and $n\le m 2^j$ by induction on $j$. If $n\le m$, then $f(n,m)=g(n,m)=1$.
Assume that, for some $j\ge 0$, there is a constant $B_j\ge 1$, such that for all $m\ge 1$ and $n\le m 2^j$,
$$|f(n,m)  -g(n,m)|\le \frac{B_j (n+m)^\kappa}{m^{1+\kappa} q^{(m+1)/2}}.$$
Now let $m\ge 1$ and $m2^j < n \le m 2^{j+1}$.
From Lemmas \ref{fe2} and \ref{ge2} we have
\begin{align*}
|f(n,m) & -g(n,m)| \\
& \le \sum_{0\le k < \frac{n-m}{2}}\Bigl| g(k,m) \, p(n-k,k+m) - f(k,m) \, r(n-k,k+m)\Bigr| \\
 & \le S_1 + S_2,
\end{align*}
where, by Proposition \ref{pub},
\begin{align*}
S_1 & := \sum_{0\le  k < \frac{n-m}{2}}p(n-k,k+m) \Bigl| g(k,m) - f(k,m)\Bigr|\\
& \le  \sum_{0\le  k < \frac{n-m}{2}} \left( \frac{\omega\left(\frac{n-k}{k+m}\right)}{k+m} + \frac{O(1)}{(k+m)^2}\right)
\frac{B_j (k+m)^\kappa}{m^{1+\kappa} q^{(m+1)/2}} \\
& \le \frac{B_j }{m^{1+\kappa} q^{(m+1)/2}}
\left( \int_0^\frac{n-m}{2}  \frac{\omega\left(\frac{n-t}{t+m}\right)}{(t+m)^{1-\kappa}} \, \mathrm{d}t
+ O\left(\frac{1}{m^{1-\kappa}}\right)\right) \\
& \le  \frac{B_j (n+m)^\kappa}{m^{1+\kappa} q^{(m+1)/2}}
\left( \int_1^\infty  \omega\left(y\right) (y+1)^{-1-\kappa} \, \mathrm{d}y
+ O\left(\frac{m^\kappa}{m (n+m)^{\kappa}}\right)\right) \\
& =  \frac{B_j (n+m)^\kappa}{m^{1+\kappa} q^{(m+1)/2}}
\left( 1+ O\left(\frac{1}{m 2^{j \kappa}}\right)\right).
\end{align*}
 By  Proposition \ref{rap},
\begin{align*}
S_2 & := \sum_{0\le k < \frac{n-m}{2}}f(k,m) \Bigl| p(n-k,k+m) - r(n-k,k+m)\Bigr|\\
& \ll  \sum_{0\le k < \frac{n-m}{2}} \frac{1 }{(k+m) q^{(k+m+1)/2}}  \ll \frac{1}{m q^{(m+1)/2}} \\
& \le  \frac{ (n+m)^\kappa}{m^{1+\kappa} q^{(m+1)/2}} \frac{1}{2^{j \kappa}}.
\end{align*}
Combining these estimates, we obtain
$$ |f(n,m)  -g(n,m)|\le  \frac{B_{j+1} (n+m)^\kappa}{m^{1+\kappa} q^{(m+1)/2}}  \qquad (m\ge 1, \  n\le m 2^{j+1}),
$$
where $B_{j+1}:=B_j(1+A 2^{-j \kappa})$ and $A$ is a suitable absolute constant.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{etaqm}
Let $\tau = 1/(4+2\kappa) =0.205466...$, where $\kappa$ is given by \eqref{kappa}.
For $m\ge 1$, we have $$\eta_q(m) = 1 +  O\left(\frac{1}{m  q^{(m+1)\tau}}\right).$$
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Assume $n\ge m$. In Proposition \ref{fandg}, replace $f(n,m)$ and $g(n,m)$ by their respective estimates \eqref{lastf} and \eqref{lastg}, with $\eta(m)=1$.
We obtain
$$ \eta_q(m) d(n/m) =  d(n/m) +O\left(\frac{m}{n^2}+ \frac{n^\kappa}{m^{1+\kappa} \, q^{(m+1)/2}}\right).$$
Dividing by $d(n/m) \asymp m/n$ gives
$$ \eta_q(m)=1+ O\left(\frac{1}{n}+ \frac{n^{1+\kappa}}{m^{2+\kappa} \, q^{(m+1)/2}}\right).$$
The result now follows with $n=\lfloor m q^{(m+1)/(4+2\kappa)} \rfloor = \lfloor m  q^{(m+1)\tau} \rfloor$.
\end{proof}


The PPW conjecture in curved spaces

Abstract: In Euclidean and Hyperbolic space, and the hemisphere in $S^n$, geodesic balls maximize the gap $\lambda_2 - \lambda_1$ of Dirichlet eigenvalues, amoung domains with fixed $\lambda_1$. We prove an upper bound on $\lambda_2 - \lambda_1$ for domains in manifolds with certain curvature bounds. The inequality is sharp on geodesic balls in spaceforms.

\section{Introduction}

In the '90s Ashbaugh-Benguria \cite{ashbaugh-benguria} settled the following conjecture of Payne, Polya and Weinberger.

\begin{theorem}[PPW conjecture, \cite{ashbaugh-benguria}]\label{theorem:ppw-Rn}
Among all bounded domains in $\mathbb{R}^n$, the round ball uniquely maximizes the ratio $\frac{\lambda_2}{\lambda_1}$ of first and second Dirichlet eigenvalues.
\end{theorem}

Given a bounded domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$, the Dirichlet eigenvalues $\lambda_i = \lambda_i(\Omega)$ are solutions to the PDE
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:dirichlet-pde}
\Delta u + \lambda_i u = 0 \text{ in $\Omega$}, \quad u = 0 \text{ on $\partial\Omega$},
\end{equation}
where $\Delta$ denotes the usual Laplacian $\sum_k \partial_k^2$.

Physically the $\lambda_i$ correspond to harmonics in a flat drum of shape $\Omega$, so Theorem \ref{theorem:ppw-Rn} says that one can tell whether a drum is circular by listening to only the first two harmonics.  As an aside we mention that Theorem \ref{theorem:ppw-Rn} is very unstable: by gluing balls of various radii together with thin strips, one can construct domains with ratio $\lambda_2/\lambda_1$ arbitrarily close to the maximum, but which are far from being circular.

Payne-Polya-Weinberger \cite{ppw} originally bounded the ratio $\lambda_2/\lambda_1$ by $3$.  Their bound was subsequently improved by Brands \cite{brands}, de Vries \cite{devries}, then Chiti \cite{chiti}, until Ashbaugh-Benguria proved the sharp inequality, building on the work of Chiti and Talenti \cite{talenti}.  For more history and references see \cite{ashbaugh-benguria}.

If one considers the problem \eqref{eqn:dirichlet-pde} for domains in a curved space $M$, with the corresponding metric Laplacian, one is effectively considering harmonics on a drum with tension.  Benguria-Linde \cite{benguria-linde} extended the PPW conjecture to hyperbolic space.
\begin{theorem}[PPW for hyperbolic space, \cite{benguria-linde}]\label{theorem:ppw-Hn}
Among all bounded domains in $\mathbb{H}^n$ with the same fixed first Dirichlet eigenvalue $\lambda_1$, the geodesic ball maximizes $\lambda_2$.
\end{theorem}

In $\mathbb{R}^n$ the ratio $\lambda_2/\lambda_1$ is scale-invariant, but in other spaces the appropriate inequality requires one to normalize competitors by $\lambda_1$.  Ashbaugh-Benguria \cite{ashbaugh-benguria-sphere} also extended the PPW conjecture to the hemisphere in $S^n$.
\begin{theorem}[PPW for hemispheres, \cite{ashbaugh-benguria-sphere}]\label{theorem:ppw-Sn}
Among all bounded domains in the hemisphere of $S^n$ with the same fixed Dirichlet eigenvalue $\lambda_1$, the geodesic ball maximizes $\lambda_2$.
\end{theorem}

In this paper we seek to prove a general upper bound, in terms of geometric quantities, on the gap $\lambda_2 - \lambda_1$ for a bounded domain in a manifold $M$, and which reduces to the inequalities \ref{theorem:ppw-Rn}, \ref{theorem:ppw-Hn}, \ref{theorem:ppw-Sn} when $M$ is a spaceform.  The case of warped product manifolds has been considered by Miker \cite{miker} in her thesis, though we find her result less geometrically intuitive.

Before stating our Theorem we introduce some notation.  Given a Riemannian manifold $M^n$, we write $\mathrm{Sect}_M$, $\mathrm{Ric}_M$ for the sectional, Ricci curvatures (respecively).  Given a bounded domain $\Omega \subset M$, write $|\Omega|_M$ for the $n$-dimensional volume of $\Omega$, $|\partial \Omega|_M$ for the $(n-1)$ Hausdorff measure of $\partial \Omega$, and $\mathrm{diam}(\Omega)$ for the diameter of $\Omega$, each taken with respect to $M$'s Riemannian metric.

Let $N^n(k)$ be the spaceform of constant sectional curvature $k$.  Define the generalized sine function $\mathrm{sn}_k$ on $\mathbb{R}$ by
\[
\mathrm{sn}_k(r) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \frac{1}{\sqrt{k}} \sin (\sqrt{k} r) & k > 0 \\
r & k = 0 \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{-k}} \sinh (\sqrt{-k} r) & k < 0 \end{array} \right. .
\]

The following isoperimetric inequality holds for any bounded domain $\Omega \subset N^n(k)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:isop-ineq}
|\partial\Omega|_N \geq A_{n,k}(|\Omega|_N),
\end{equation}
with equality iff $\Omega$ is a geodesic ball (see \cite{schmidt}).

Fix (for the duration of this paper) $M^n$ to be a complete, simply-connected $n$-manifold with $\mathrm{Sect}_M \leq k$.  Then for some $\alpha \leq 1$, $M$ satisfies an isoperimetric inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:weak-isop-ineq}
|\partial\Omega|_M \geq \alpha A_{n,k}(|\Omega|_M)
\end{equation}
for any bounded domain $\Omega$.  We assume throughout this paper that $\alpha > 0$, which is no real loss of generality as we only concern ourselves with a compact neighborhood of $\Omega$.

If $k \leq 0$ then $\Omega$ has a closed geodesic convex hull, which we write as $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$.  Using elementary comparison geometry one can verify that $\mathrm{diam}(\Omega) = \mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{hull}\Omega)$.

If $k > 0$, we impose the condition on $\Omega$ that we can find some strongly convex closed set, which we also write as $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$, containing $\Omega$ and satisfying the following properties
\begin{enumerate}
\item[A)] $\mathrm{diam}\Omega = \mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{hull}\Omega) < \min\{\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{k}}, \text{injectivity radius of $M$}\},$
\item[B)] $|\mathrm{hull}\Omega|_M < |N(k)|_{N(k)}/2$.
\end{enumerate}
By strongly convex we mean that the minimizing geodesic connecting any two points in $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$ itself lies in $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$.  We require A) so that the exponential function $\exp_p$ is a diffeomorphism onto $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$, for any $p \in \mathrm{hull}\Omega$; we require B) so that we can ultimately work in the hemisphere of $N$.

We extend Theorems \ref{theorem:ppw-Rn}, \ref{theorem:ppw-Hn}, \ref{theorem:ppw-Sn} to prove the following inequality for the gap $\lambda_2 - \lambda_1$.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:eigenvalue-estimate}
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $M^n$.  If $k > 0$ let $\Omega$ be such that some $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$ exists.  Let $B_{\alpha,\Omega}$ be a geodesic ball in $N^n(k)$, normalized so that $\lambda_1(B_{\alpha,\Omega}) = \alpha^{-2}\lambda_1(\Omega)$.

If $\mathrm{Ric} \geq (n-1)K$ on $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$, then
\begin{equation}
\lambda_2(\Omega) - \lambda_1(\Omega) \leq \left( \frac{\mathrm{sn}_K(\mathrm{diam}\Omega)}{\mathrm{sn}_k(\mathrm{diam}\Omega)} \right)^{2n-2} (\lambda_2(B_{\alpha,\Omega}) - \lambda_1(B_{\alpha,\Omega})) .
\end{equation}
In particular, if $k = K$ then the constant factor is $1$, and the inequality is sharp on geodesic balls.
\end{theorem}

On spaceforms (i.e. when $k = K$) Theorem \ref{theorem:eigenvalue-estimate} reduces to the sharp estimates in \cite{ashbaugh-benguria}, \cite{benguria-linde}, \cite{ashbaugh-benguria-sphere}.  In Hadamard manifolds we have a more explicit estimate, due to the scaling of $\lambda_i$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:hadamard}
Suppose $k = 0$, and $\Omega$ is a bounded domain in $M^n$ so that $\mathrm{Ric}_M \geq (n-1)K$ on $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$.  Then
\[
\frac{\lambda_2(\Omega)}{\lambda_1(\Omega)} - 1 \leq \frac{1}{\alpha^2} \left( \frac{\sinh(\sqrt{-K} \mathrm{diam}(\Omega))}{\sqrt{-K} \mathrm{diam}(\Omega)} \right)^{2n-2} \left( \frac{\lambda_2(B_1^n)}{\lambda_1(B_1^n)} - 1 \right).
\]
Here $B_1^n$ is the unit ball in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{remark}
The constant factor in Theorem \ref{theorem:eigenvalue-estimate} is the ratio of areas of geodesics spheres:
\[
\lambda_2(\Omega) - \lambda_1(\Omega) \leq \left( \frac{|\partial B_{\mathrm{diam}\Omega}|_{N(K)}}{|\partial B_{\mathrm{diam} \Omega}|_{N(k)}}\right)^2 (\lambda_2(B_{\alpha,\Omega}) - \lambda_1(B_{\alpha,\Omega})) .
\]
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
We emphasize that in many cases $\alpha$ can be explicitly computed.  If $k = 0$, then Croke \cite{croke} proved an isoperimetric relation
\[
|\partial\Omega| \geq c_n |\Omega|^{\frac{n-1}{n}} ,
\]
where $c_n$ is given by an integral formula of trigonometric functions.  If $n = 4$ then in fact $c_n$ is the Euclidean constant, and so $\alpha = 1$.

More generally, the Hadamard conjecture implies that if $k \leq 0$, then $\alpha = 1$.  The conjecture is known in the following case: $n = 2$, proved by Weil \cite{weil} (for $k = 0$), and Aubin \cite{aubin} ($k < 0$); $n = 3$, proved by Kleiner \cite{kleiner}; $n = 4$, proved by Croke \cite{croke} when $k = 0$.  Further, when $n = 4$ and $k < 0$, Kloeckner-Kuperberg \cite{kloeckner-kuperberg} proved that domains in $M$ which are appropriately "small" (in a quantitative sense) satisfy the Hadamard conjecture.  The problem is open for general $n$.

If the metric $g_M$ is $C^0$-close to $g_N$, then $\alpha$ can be written in terms of this bound.
\end{remark}

Our approach follows \cite{ashbaugh-benguria}, though subtleties arise in the presence of non-constant curvature.  We ``symmetrize'' a function defined on $M$ to a function defined on $N(k)$.  We prove a version of Chiti's theorem for this notion of symmetrization, which requires a ``sharp'' form of Faber-Krahn for manifolds satisfying a weak isoperimetric inequality \eqref{eqn:weak-isop-ineq}.  The constant term in Theorem \ref{theorem:eigenvalue-estimate} essentially results from the fact that symmetrization does not anymore preserve symmetric functions (Proposition \ref{prop:sym-of-sym}).

We remark that our choice of test functions differ from \cite{ashbaugh-benguria} even when $M = N(k) = \mathbb{R}^n$.  Unlike \cite{ashbaugh-benguria}, we ultimately truncate all our functions to $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$, which slightly changes the symmetrizations.

We are not sure whether the diameter or Ricci curvature assumptions are necessary to obtain a gap bound like Theorem \ref{theorem:eigenvalue-estimate}, though they are necessary in our proof.  We mention that Benguria-Linde \cite{benguria-linde-ratio} showed that for geodesic balls in hyperbolic space, the ratio $\lambda_2/\lambda_1$ is strictly decreasing in the radius.

I thank my advisor Simon Brendle for his advice and encouragement, and for suggesting this problem.  I also thank Benoit Kloeckner for pointing out an error in an earlier version, and the referees for helpful comments, and for suggesting Corollary \ref{cor:hadamard}.

\section{Preliminaries}

Given $p \in M$, and vectors $v, w \in T_p M$, write $v \cdot w$ for the Riemannian inner product, and $|v| = \sqrt{v \cdot v}$ for the length.  $\exp_p : T_pM \to M$ denotes the the usual Riemannian exponential map.  If $f : M \to \mathbb{R}$ is differentiable at $p$, then $\nabla f$ is the gradient vector.  We write $\omega_n$ for the volume of the Euclidean unit ball in $\mathbb{R}^n$.

For the duration of this paper $N^n$ will denote $N^n(k)$.  We fix a $q \in N = N(k)$, and write $r_q(x) = \mathrm{dist}_N(x, q)$.  Given a function $f : M \to \mathbb{R}_+$, define $\mu_f(t) = |f > t|_M$.  As usual we write $\mathrm{spt} f$ for the support of $f$.

\begin{definition}\label{def:sym}
Take a bounded domain $D \subset M$, and a non-negative integrable $f : D \to \mathbb{R}_+$.  Define the \emph{decreasing (resp. increasing) symmetrizations}
\[
S^{D, N} f : N \to \mathbb{R}_+, \quad S_{D, N} f : N \to \mathbb{R}_+,
\]
by the formulae
\begin{align*}
&S^{D, N} f (x) = \mu_f^{-1} (|B_{r_q(x)}(q)|_N) , \\
&S_{D, N} f(x) = \mu_f^{-1} (\max\{|D|_M - |B_{r_q(x)}(q)|_N, 0\} ) .
\end{align*}

Let $S^N D$ be the geodesic ball in $N$ centered at $q$ satisfying $|S^N D|_N = |D|_M$.
\end{definition}

In casual terms the $S^{D, N} f$ (resp. $S_{D, N} f$) is the decreasing (resp. increasing) function of $r_q(x)$ fixed by the condition
\[
|S^{D,N} f > t|_N = |S_{D,N} f > t |_N = |f > t|_M  \quad \forall t > 0.
\]
Both $\mathrm{spt} S^{D,N} f$ and $\mathrm{spt} S_{D, N} f$ are contained in the closure of $S^N D$.

\begin{remark}\label{rem:decr-sym}
The decreasing symmetrization is actually independent of $D$, so long as $D \supset \mathrm{spt} f$.  In other words, if $D' \supset D$, then $S^{D, N} f \equiv S^{D', N} f$.  However in the definition of increasing symmetrization there is an ambiguity without specifying the domain of definition: if $f(x) = 0$, do we count that towards the domain of $f$ or not?
\end{remark}

\begin{prop}\label{prop:sym-preserves-norm}
For any $p \geq 1$, we have
\[
||f||_{L^p(D)} = ||S^{D,N} f||_{L^p(N)} = ||S_{D,N} f||_{L^p(N)} .
\]
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
By Fubini's theorem,
\begin{align*}
\int_D f^p
&= p \int_0^\infty t^{p-1} |f > t|_M dt \\
&= p \int_0^\infty t^{p-1} |S^{D, N} f > t|_N dt \\
&= \int_{N} (S^{D,N} f)^p .
\end{align*}
The case of $S_{D,N} f$ is verbatim.
\end{proof}

Take a $p \in M$, and define
\[
m_{D, p}(\rho) = |B_\rho(p) \cap D|_M.
\]
Similarly, write $m_{N}(\rho) = |B_\rho(q)|_N$.

\begin{prop}\label{prop:sym-of-sym}
Suppose $f : D \to \mathbb{R}_+$ is a decreasing function of $r_p(x) = \mathrm{dist}_M(x, p)$, then
\[
S^{D,N} f(x) = f( (m_{D, p}^{-1} \circ m_{N})(r_q(x))) .
\]
If, on the other hand, $f$ is increasing in $r_p$, then
\[
S_{D,N} f(x) = f((m_{D, p}^{-1} \circ m_{N})(r_q(x))) .
\]
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
If $f$ is decreasing in $r_p$, then $f^{-1}(t, \infty) = B_\rho(p)\cap D$ for some $\rho = \rho(t)$, and so $\mu_f(t) = m_{D, p}(\rho(t))$.  Similarly, $f$ is increasing then $f^{-1}(t, \infty) = D \sim \overline{B_\rho(p)}$.  Now use the definition of $S^{D,N} f$, $S_{D,N} f$.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{prop:sym-ineq}
If $f, g : D \to \mathbb{R}_+$, then
\[
\int_{S^N D} (S^{D,N} f)(S_{D,N} g) \leq \int_D fg \leq \int_{S^N D} (S^{D,N} f)( S^{D,N} g) .
\]
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
By Fubini's theorem, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\int_D fg
&= \int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty |\{ f > s\} \cap \{ g > t\}|_M ds dt \\
&\leq \int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty \min\{ |f > s|_M, |g > t|_M \} ds dt \\
&= \int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty |\{S^{D,N} f > s\} \cap \{ S^{D,N} g > t\}|_N ds dt \\
&= \int_{S^N D} S^{D,N} f S^{D,N} g .
\end{align*}
The penultimate equality arises because both $S^{D,N} f$, $S^{D,N} g$ are decreasing functions of $r_q$ (i.e. the upper level-sets are balls concentric about $q$). By the same logic, since $S_{D,N} g$ is an increasing function of $r_q$,
\begin{align*}
&\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty |\{ f > s \} \cap \{ g > t \}|_M ds dt \\
& \geq \int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty \max\{ |f > s|_M + |g > t|_M - |D|_M, 0 \} ds dt \\
& = \int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty | \{ S^{D,N} f > s \} \cap \{ S_{D,N} g > t \}|_N ds dt . \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{prop:sym-respects-powers}
For any $\beta > 0$,
\[
S^{D,N} (f^\beta) = (S^{D,N} f)^\beta
\]
and similarly for $S_{D,N} f$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We have $\mu_{f^\beta}(t^\beta) = \mu_f(t)$, and hence $\mu_{f^\beta}^{-1} = (\mu_f^{-1})^\beta$.
\end{proof}

\section{Faber-Krahn and Chiti}

We need the following weak version of Faber-Krahn.  The inequality \eqref{eqn:faber-krahn} is a standard argument, but we find that despite any sharpness of the isoperimetric profile, we can still obtain a characterization of equality.  Recall the definition \eqref{eqn:weak-isop-ineq} of $\alpha$.
\begin{theorem}[weak Faber-Krahn]\label{theorem:faber-krahn}
If $\Omega$ is a bounded domain in $M$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:faber-krahn}
\lambda_1(\Omega) \geq \alpha^2 \lambda_1(S^N\Omega) ,
\end{equation}
with equality if and only if
\[
S^{\Omega,N} u_1 \equiv v_1
\]
where $u_1$ is the first Dirichlet eigenfunction of $\Omega$, and $v_1$ the first Dirichlet eigenfunction on $S^N \Omega$, both normalized so that
\[
||u_1||_{L^2(\Omega)} = ||v_1||_{L^2(S^N\Omega)} .
\]
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Write $S^N\Omega = B = B_R(q)$, and without loss of generality suppose $||u_1||_{L^2(\Omega)} = ||v_1||_{L^2(B)} = 1$, so of course $||S^{\Omega,N} u_1||_{L^2(B)} = 1$ also.  Let $\mu(t) = |u_1 > t|_M$.  For ease of notation write $A = A_{n,k}$ for the isoperimetric profile \eqref{eqn:isop-ineq} of the model space $N^n(k)$, and $\lambda_1 = \lambda_1(\Omega)$.

We have, for a.e. $t$,
\begin{align*}
-\mu'(t)
&\geq |\partial\{u_1 > t\}|^2_M \left( \int_{\{u_1 = t\}} |\nabla u_1| \right)^{-1}\\
& \geq \alpha^2 A(|u_1 > t|_M)^2 \left( \int_{\{u_1 = t\}} |\nabla u_1| \right)^{-1} \\
&= \alpha^2 A(\mu(t))^2 \left( \int_{u_1 > t} -\Delta u_1 \right)^{-1} \\
&= \alpha^2 A(\mu(t))^2 \left( \lambda_1 \int_0^{\mu(t)} \mu^{-1}(\sigma) d\sigma \right)^{-1},
\end{align*}
and hence
\[
(\mu^{-1})'(s) \geq -\frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha^2} A^{-2}(s) \int_0^s \mu^{-1}(\sigma) d\sigma .
\]

Since $|B|_N = |\Omega|_M$, and $u_1 = 0$ on $\partial \Omega$, then $S^{\Omega,N} u_1$ has Dirichlet boundary conditions.  If $S^{\Omega,N} u_1 \not\equiv v_1$, then
\[
\lambda_1(S^N\Omega) < \int_B |\nabla S^{\Omega,N} u_1|^2 .
\]

Write $m(r) = |B_r(q)|_N$, and observe that $A(s) = m'(m^{-1}(s))$.  Since $S^{\Omega,N} u_1(r) = \mu^{-1}(m(r))$, we have
\[
|\nabla S^{\Omega,N} u_1|^2 = \left[ (\mu^{-1})'(m(r)) m'(r)\right]^2 .
\]
Therefore, we calculate
\begin{align*}
\lambda_1(S^N\Omega)
&< \int_B ((\mu^{-1})'(m (r)) m'(r))^2 \\
&= \int_0^R ((\mu^{-1})'(m (r)) m'(r))^2 m'(r) dr \\
&\leq \frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha^2} \int_0^R \frac{m'(r)^2}{A(m(r))^2} |(\mu^{-1})'|(m(r)) \int_0^{m(r)} \mu^{-1}(\sigma) d\sigma m'(r) dr \\
&= \frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha^2} \int_0^R \frac{A(m (r))^2}{A(m(r))^2} |(\mu^{-1})'|(m(r)) \int_0^{m(r)} \mu^{-1}(\sigma) d\sigma m'(r) dr \\
&\leq \frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha^2} \int_0^{|B|} ((-\mu^{-1})'(s)) \int_0^s \mu^{-1}(\sigma) d\sigma ds \\
&= \frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha^2} \int_0^{R} \mu^{-1}(m(r))^2 m'(r) dr \\
&= \frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha^2} \int_B (S^N u_1)^2 \\
&= \frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha^2} . \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

Suppose $B_{\alpha,\Omega}$ is a ball in $N$, centered at $q$, with first eigenvalue $\lambda_1(B_{\alpha,\Omega}) = \lambda_1(\Omega) / \alpha^2$, and first eigenfunction $z$.  By the maximum principle and simplicity of $\lambda_1$, $z$ is a decreasing function of $r_q$.  By Faber-Krahn above, $\lambda_1(B_{\alpha,\Omega}) \geq \lambda_1(S^N\Omega)$, and hence $B \subset S^N\Omega$.  Further, if $B = S^N\Omega$ then necessarily $z \equiv S^N u_1$.

We obtain the following weak version of Chiti's theorem \cite{chiti}.
\begin{theorem}[weak Chiti]\label{theorem:chiti}
Let $\Omega \subset M$ be a bounded domain with first eigenvalue $\lambda_1(\Omega)$, and first eigenfunction $u_1$.  Let $B_{\alpha,\Omega} = B_R(q)$ be a ball in $N$ with first eigenvalue $\lambda_1(B_{\alpha,\Omega}) = \lambda_1(\Omega) / \alpha^2$, and first eigenfunction $z$.  Let $u_1$ and $z$ be normalized so that
\[
||u_1||_{L^2(\Omega)} = ||z||_{L^2(B_{\alpha,\Omega})}.
\]

Then there is an $r_0 \in (0, R)$ so that
\begin{align*}
&z \geq S^{\Omega,N} u_1 \text{ on $[0, r_0]$} \\
&z \leq S^{\Omega,N} u_1 \text{ on $[r_0, R]$} .
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $\mu(t) = |u_1 > t|_M$ and $\nu(t) = |z > t|_N$.  Write $\lambda_1 = \lambda_1(\Omega)$.  Recall we had
\[
(\mu^{-1})'(s) \geq -\frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha^2} A^{-2}(s) \int_0^s \mu^{-1}(\sigma) d\sigma .
\]
By repeating the proof of this with $\nu$ instead of $\mu$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
(\nu^{-1})'(s)
&= -\lambda_1(B_{\alpha,\Omega}) A^{-2}(s) \int_0^s \nu^{-1}(\sigma) d\sigma \\
&= -\frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha^2} A^{-2}(s) \int_0^s \nu^{-1}(\sigma) d\sigma .
\end{align*}

The normalization implies $s_0 = \sup \{ s \in (0, |B|_N) : \mu^{-1}(s) \leq \nu^{-1}(s) \}$ is defined and positive.  If $s_0 = |B|_N$, then since $\nu^{-1}(|B|_N) = 0$ and $\mu^{-1}$ is decreasing, we necessarily have that $|B|_N = |\Omega|_M$.  Otherwise $u_1$ would be zero on an open set, contradicting unique continuation.  If $|B|_N = |\Omega|_M$ then by Theorem \ref{theorem:faber-krahn} $S^{\Omega,N} u_1 \equiv z$ and the Theorem is vacuous.

So we can assume $s_0 \in (0, |B|_N)$.  Clearly $\mu^{-1} \geq \nu^{-1}$ on $[s_0, |B|_N]$, and $\mu^{-1}(s_0) = \nu^{-1}(s_0)$.  We show $\mu^{-1} \leq \nu^{-1}$ on $[0, s_0]$.

Suppose, towards a contradiction, that $\beta = \sup_{[0, s_0]} \frac{\mu^{-1}}{\nu^{-1}} > 1$.  Then we calculate, for $s \in [0, s_0]$,
\[
(\beta \nu^{-1} - \mu^{-1})'(s) \leq -\frac{\lambda_1}{\alpha^2} A^{-2}(s) \int_0^s (\beta \nu^{-1} - \mu^{-1})(\sigma) d\sigma \leq 0 .
\]
And therefore
\[
(\beta \nu^{-1} - \mu^{-1})(s) \geq (\beta \nu^{-1} - \mu^{-1})(s_0) = (\beta - 1)\nu^{-1}(s_0) > 0
\]
for any $s \in [0, s_0]$, contradicting our choice of $\beta$.  The Theorem follows by choosing $r_0$ which satisfies $|B_{r_0}(q)|_N = s_0$.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}\label{corollary:chiti}
If $F : S^N \Omega \to \mathbb{R}_+$ is a decreasing function of $r_q$, then
\[
\int_{S^N \Omega } (S^{\Omega,N} u_1)^2 F \leq \int_{B_{\alpha,\Omega}} z^2 F
\]
with $B_{\alpha,\Omega}$, $z$ as in Theorem \ref{theorem:chiti}.  If $F$ is an increasing function of $r_q$, then
\[
\int_{S^N \Omega} (S^{\Omega,N} u_1)^2 F \geq \int_{B_{\alpha,\Omega}} z^2 F .
\]
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
Let $r_0$ be as in Theorem \ref{theorem:chiti}.  For $F$ decreasing, we have that
\[
(z^2 - (S^{\Omega, N} u_1)^2)(F - F(r_0)) \geq 0,
\]
with support in $S^N \Omega$.  Therefore we have
\begin{align*}
\int_{S^N \Omega} (z^2 - (S^{\Omega, N} u_1)^2) F
&\geq F(r_0) \left( \int_B z^2 - \int_{S^N \Omega} (S^{\Omega, N} u_1)^2 \right) = 0
\end{align*}
having used Proposition \ref{prop:sym-preserves-norm}.  The case of $F$ increasing follows similarly.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem}

Fix (for the duration of this paper) $\Omega$, $B = B_{\alpha,\Omega}$ as in Theorem \ref{theorem:chiti}, so that $\lambda_1(B) = \lambda_1(\Omega)/\alpha^2$.  Take as before $u_1$ for the first eigenfunction of $\Omega$, and $z$ the first eigenfunction of $B$.  We will sometimes abbreviate $\lambda_i = \lambda_i(\Omega)$.

If $P : \Omega \to \mathbb{R}$ is any Lipschitz function such that $P u_1$ is $L^2$ orthogonal to $u_1$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:min-max}
\int_\Omega |\nabla P|^2 u_1^2 \geq (\lambda_2(\Omega) - \lambda_1(\Omega)) \int_\Omega P^2 u_1^2
\end{equation}
by min-max ($Pu_1$ has the right boundary conditions) and integration by parts.  We cook up a collection of good test functions $P_i$.

Write $r_p(x) = \mathrm{dist}_M(p, x) = |\exp^{-1}_p(x)|$, and define $\sigma(r)$ by the condition
\[
|B_{\sigma(r)}(q)|_N = |B_r(p) \cap \mathrm{hull}\Omega|_M.
\]
In the notation of Proposition \ref{prop:sym-of-sym}, $\sigma(r) = (m_N^{-1} \circ m_{\mathrm{hull}\Omega, p})(r)$.

Let $h : \mathbb{R}_+ \to \mathbb{R}_+$ be a non-negative Lipschitz function with $h(0) = 0$.  For a given $p \in \mathrm{hull}\Omega$, define $P_p : \mathrm{hull}\Omega \to T_p M$ by
\[
P_p(x) = \frac{\exp_p^{-1}(x)}{r_p} h(\sigma(r_p)) .
\]

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:base-point}
We can choose a $p \in \mathrm{hull}\Omega$ so that $\int_{\Omega} P_p(x) u_1^2(x) dx  = 0$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Define the vector field
\[
X(p) = \int_\Omega P_p u_1^2.
\]
We show the integral curves of $X$ define a mapping of $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$ to itself.  Since $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$ is convex and contained in the injectivity radius, $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$ is topologically a ball, and therefore $X$ must have a zero by the Brouwer fixed point Theorem.

Take $q \not\in \mathrm{hull}\Omega$, but near enough so $\exp_q$ is a diffeomorphism on $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$.  Let $p \in\mathrm{hull}\Omega$ be the nearest point to $p$.  By convexity, the vector $\exp_{p}^{-1}(q)$ defines a supporting hyperplane for $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$ at $p$.  In other words,
\[
\exp_p^{-1}(\mathrm{hull}\Omega) \subset \{ v : v \cdot \exp_p^{-1}(q) \leq 0\}.
\]
By definition of $P$, we deduce $X(p) \cdot \exp_p^{-1}(q) \leq 0$ also.

Let $\phi_t(p)$ be the integral curves of $X(p)$, and define the function
\[
f(q) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \mathrm{dist}(q, \mathrm{hull}\Omega) & q \not\in \mathrm{hull}\Omega \\ 0 & \text{else} \end{array} \right. .
\]
Since $X$ is Lipschitz we have by the above reasoning that
\[
\limsup_{t \to 0_+} \frac{f(\phi_{t}(p)) - f(p)}{t} \leq C f(p),
\]
and therefore $f(\phi_t(p)) = 0$ if $f(p) = 0$.  This shows $\phi_t$ maps $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$ into itself.
\end{proof}

Choose an orthonormal basis $\{e_i\}$ of $T_p M$.  Define
\[
P_i(x) = e_i \cdot P_p(x) ,
\]
where we choose and fix $p$ (as a function of $h$) as in Lemma \ref{lemma:base-point}.  So $\int_\Omega P_i u_1^2 = 0$ for each $i$, and by \eqref{eqn:min-max} we have
\[
\int_\Omega (\sum_i |\nabla P_i|^2) u_1^2 \geq (\lambda_2 - \lambda_1) \int_\Omega (\sum_i P_i^2) u_1^2 = (\lambda_2 - \lambda_1) \int_\Omega h^2(\sigma(r_p)) u_1^2 .
\]

For ease of notation, in the following we will write $g \equiv h\circ \sigma$ and $r \equiv r_p$, so that $P_i(x) = e_i\cdot \exp_p^{-1}(x) g(r)/r$.  We calculate
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{ds} |_{s=0} P_i(\exp_p(v + sw))
&= \frac{d}{ds}|_{s = 0} \left( e_i \cdot (v + sw) \frac{g(|v + sw|)}{|v + sw|} \right) \\
&= e_i \cdot w \frac{g(|v|)}{|v|} + \frac{ (e_i \cdot v)(v \cdot w)}{|v|} {\frac{d}{dr}}|_{r = |v|} \frac{g(r)}{r}  .
\end{align*}

Choose an orthonormal basis $E_i$ at a fixed $x = \exp_p(v)$, such that $E_1 = \frac{\partial}{\partial r}$.  Write
\[
w_j = (D\exp_p|_v)^{-1}(E_j)
\]
and since $D\exp_p$ is a radial isometry $w_1 = \frac{v}{|v|}$.  We have
\begin{align*}
&E_1 P_i = e_i \cdot v \frac{g(r)}{r^2} + e_i \cdot v \left( \frac{g(r)}{r} \right)' \\
&E_j P_i = e_i \cdot w_j \frac{g(r)}{r} \quad \text{ $j > 1$}.
\end{align*}

Therefore
\begin{align*}
\sum_i |\nabla P_i|^2
&= \sum_i (E_1 P_i)^2 + \sum_{j > 1, i} (E_j P_i)^2 \\
&= r^2 \left[ \frac{g(r)^2}{r^4} + 2 \frac{g(r)}{r^2} \left(\frac{g(r)}{r}\right)' + {\left(\frac{g(r)}{r}\right)'}^{2} \right] + \sum_{j > 1} |w_j|^2 \frac{g(r)^2}{r^2} \\
&= g'(r)^2 + \frac{g(r)^2}{r^2} \sum_{j>1} |w_j|^2 \\
&\leq g'(r)^2 + \frac{n-1}{\mathrm{sn}_k^2(r)} g(r)^2
\end{align*}
having used Rauch's theorem to deduce
\[
1 = |D\exp_p|_v(w_j)| \geq \frac{\mathrm{sn}_k(|v|)}{|v|} |w_j| .
\]

Recalling the definition $g = h \circ \sigma$, we estimate for a.e. $r \in r_p(\Omega)$,
\begin{align*}
g'(r)^2 + \frac{n-1}{\mathrm{sn}_k^2 r} g(r)^2
&= h'(\sigma(r))^2 \sigma'(r)^2 + \frac{n-1}{\mathrm{sn}_k^2 r} h(\sigma(r))^2 \\
&\leq C_1^2 \left( h'(\sigma(r))^2 + \frac{n-1}{\mathrm{sn}_k^2 \sigma(r)} h(\sigma(r))^2 \right)
\end{align*}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:c_1}
C_1 = \max_{r \in r_p(\Omega)} \left\{ \sigma'(r), \frac{\mathrm{sn}_k (\sigma(r))}{\mathrm{sn}_k (r)} \right\} .
\end{equation}

We obtain
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:balancing-estimate}
For any Lipschitz $h: \mathbb{R}_+ \to \mathbb{R}_+$ with $h(0) = 0$, we can choose a point $p \in \mathrm{hull}\Omega$ so that
\[
(\lambda_2(\Omega) - \lambda_1(\Omega)) \int_{\Omega} u_1^2 h(\sigma(r_p))^2 \leq C_1^2 \int_\Omega u_1^2 F(\sigma(r_p)) .
\]
Here $F(t) = h'(t)^2 + \frac{n-1}{\mathrm{sn}_k^2(t)} h(t)^2$, and $C_1$ as in \eqref{eqn:c_1}.
\end{theorem}

\begin{corollary}\label{corollary:balancing-chiti-estimate}
If $h$, $p$ are as in Theorem \ref{theorem:balancing-estimate}, and $h$ further satisfies:
\begin{align*}
(\star) \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\text{$h(r)$ is increasing} \\
\text{$F(r)$ is decreasing}
\end{array}\right. ,
\end{align*}
then
\[
(\lambda_2(\Omega) - \lambda_1(\Omega) ) \int_B z^2 h(r_q)^2 \leq C_1^2 \int_B z^2 F(r_q) .
\]
Here $B$ and $z$ are as in Theorem \ref{theorem:chiti}.
\end{corollary}

\begin{remark}
In Corollary \ref{corollary:balancing-chiti-estimate} we have still not used the lower Ricci curvature bound.
\end{remark}

\begin{proof}
Extend $u_1$ by $0$ to be define on $\mathrm{hull}\Omega$, and recall that Remark \ref{rem:decr-sym} implies
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:sym-extended-u}
S^{\mathrm{hull}\Omega, N}u_1 \equiv S^{\Omega, N} u_1.
\end{equation}
We calculate
\begin{align*}
\int_{\Omega} u_1^2 F(\sigma(r_p))
&\leq \int_{S^N\mathrm{hull}\Omega} (S^{\mathrm{hull}\Omega,N} u_1)^2 (S^{\mathrm{hull},N} (F \circ \sigma \circ r_p)) \\
&= \int_{S^N \Omega} (S^{\Omega, N} u_1)^2 F(r_q) \\
&\leq \int_B z^2 F(r_q) .
\end{align*}
In the first line we used Proposition \ref{prop:sym-ineq}; in the second line we used Proposition \ref{prop:sym-of-sym}, the definition of $\sigma(r)$, and \eqref{eqn:sym-extended-u}; in the third we used Corollary \ref{corollary:chiti}.

Using the same Theorems in the same order, but since $h$ is increasing, we have
\begin{align*}
\int_{\Omega} u_1^2 h(\sigma(r_p))^2
&\geq \int_{S^N \mathrm{hull}\Omega} (S^{\mathrm{hull}\Omega, N} u_1)^2 (S_{\mathrm{hull},N} (h \circ \sigma\circ r_p))^2 \\
&= \int_{S^N \Omega} (S^{\Omega, N} u_1)^2 h(r_q)^2 \\
&\geq \int_B z^2 h(r_q)^2 .
\end{align*}

Now plug these calculations into Theorem \ref{theorem:balancing-estimate}.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:eigenvalue-estimate}]
Recall that $B_{\alpha,\Omega} = B_R(q)$ was the geodesic ball in $N^n(k)$ with first eigenvalue $\lambda_1(B_{\alpha,\Omega}) = \lambda_1(\Omega)/\alpha^2$, and $z = z(r_q)$ was its first eigenfunction.  Let $J = J(r_q)$ be the radial component of the second Dirchlet eigenfunction of $B$ (c.f. equation 2.11 of \cite{ashbaugh-benguria}, section 3 of \cite{benguria-linde}, section 3 of \cite{ashbaugh-benguria-sphere}).

Notice that when $k > 0$, the assumption $|\mathrm{hull}\Omega|_M < |N|_N/2$ implies $S^N\Omega \supset B$ lies in the hemisphere.

Define
\[
h(t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l}
 \frac{J(t)}{z(t)} & t \in [0, R) \\
 \lim_{s \to R_-} w(s) & t \geq R \end{array} \right.
\]
Using Corollary 3.4 of \cite{ashbaugh-benguria} (if $k = 0$), Lemma 7.1 in \cite{benguria-linde} (if $k < 0$), or Theorem 4.1 in \cite{ashbaugh-benguria-sphere} (if $k > 0$), we deduce that $h(t)$ is increasing, and $F(t) = h'(t)^2 + \frac{n-1}{\mathrm{sn}_k^2(t)} h(t)^2$ is decreasing.

We can therefore apply Theorem \ref{corollary:balancing-chiti-estimate} to deduce
\[
(\lambda_2(\Omega) - \lambda_1(\Omega)) \leq C_1^2 (\lambda_2(B_{\alpha,\Omega}) - \lambda_1(B_{\alpha,\Omega})) ,
\]
with $C_1$ as in \eqref{eqn:c_1}.

We show that
\[
C_1 \leq \frac{|\partial B_{\mathrm{diam} \Omega}|_{N(K)}}{|\partial B_{\mathrm{diam} \Omega}|_{N(k)} }.
\]
For ease of notation write $m_\ell(r) = |B_r|_{N(\ell)}$.  All balls in $M$ are centered at $p$, and balls in $N(k)$, $N(K)$ are centered at $q$, $\tilde q$ (resp.).

Suppose $C_p$ is a geodesic cone in $M$, centered at $p$, with solid angle $\gamma n\omega_n$ in $T_pM$.  If $\mathrm{Ric}_M \geq (n-1)K$ on $B_r \cap C_p$, then by the Bishop-Gromov volume comparison we have
\[
|\partial B_r \cap C_p|_M \leq \gamma |\partial B_r|_{N(K)} .
\]

Conversely, choosing a linear isometry $\iota : T_pM \to T_q N(k)$, take
\[
C'_p = (\exp^{N(k)}_q \circ \iota \circ (\exp^M_p)^{-1})(C_p)
\]
to be a geodesic cone in $N(k)$ with the same cone angle as $C_p$.  Since $\mathrm{Sect}_M \leq k$ we have by Hessian comparision that
\[
|B_r \cap C_p|_M \geq |B_r \cap C'_p|_{N(k)} = \gamma |B_r|_{N(k)} .
\]

Recall that $\sigma(r) = m^{-1}_k (|B_r(p) \cap \mathrm{hull}\Omega|_M)$.  Notice that
\[
B_r(p)\cap \mathrm{hull}\Omega \supset B_r(p) \cap C_p
\]
where $C_p$ is a geodesic cone at $p$ over $\partial B_r(p) \cap \mathrm{hull}\Omega$.  Therefore
\begin{align*}
\sigma'(r)
&= \frac{1}{m'_k (m^{-1}_k (|B_r \cap \mathrm{hull}\Omega|_M))} |\partial B_r \cap \mathrm{hull}\Omega|_M \\
&\leq \frac{1}{m'_k ( m^{-1}_k (|B_r\cap C_p|_M))} |\partial B_r \cap C_p|_M \\
&\leq \frac{1}{m'_k (m^{-1}_k (\gamma |B_r|_N))} \gamma |\partial B_r|_{N(K)} \\
&\leq \frac{|\partial B_r|_{N(K)}}{|\partial B_r|_{N(k)}}.
\end{align*}
The last inequality follows because the isoperimetric profile $A_{n,k}(s) = m'_k ( m_k^{-1} (s))$ is concave.  We elaborate.  The last inequality is equivalent to
\[
m'_k (m_k^{-1} (s)) \leq \frac{m'_k ( m^{-1}_k (\gamma s))}{\gamma}
\]
for any $\gamma \in (0, 1]$.  But the RHS is a dilation of the graph of the LHS, hence the inequality follows if the graph is concave.  We calculate
\[
(m'_k\circ m^{-1}_k)'' = \frac{(m'_k\circ m^{-1}_k) (m'''_k\circ m^{-1}_k) - (m''_k\circ m^{-1}_k)^2}{(m'_k\circ m^{-1}_k)^3} .
\]
Since
\[
(m'_k m'''_k - (m''_k)^2)(r) = -(n-1) n^2\omega_n^2 \mathrm{sn}_k(r)^{2n-4} \leq 0,
\]
the graph is concave (here again we use that $S^N \Omega$ lies in the hemisphere of $N(k)$, if $k > 0$).

We prove now the inequality
\[
\frac{\mathrm{sn}_k (\sigma(r))}{\mathrm{sn}_k (r)} \leq \frac{|\partial B_r|_{N(K)}}{|\partial B_r|_{N(k)}} .
\]
Since $\sigma(r) \leq m^{-1}_k (m_K ( r) )$, it suffices to prove the inequality
\[
m_K (r) \leq m_k \left[ \mathrm{sn}_k^{-1} \left( \frac{m'_K (r)}{m'_k (r)} \mathrm{sn}_k (r) \right) \right] .
\]

We therefore calculate
\begin{align*}
m_k\left[\mathrm{sn}_k^{-1}\left( \frac{m'_K(r)}{m'_k(r)} \mathrm{sn}_k(r) \right) \right]
&= m_k\left[ \mathrm{sn}_k^{-1} \left( \mathrm{sn}_K(r) \left(\frac{\mathrm{sn}_K(r)}{\mathrm{sn}_k(r)}\right)^{n-2} \right) \right] \\
&\geq m_k\left[ \mathrm{sn}_k^{-1} (\mathrm{sn}_K(r)) \right] \\
&= n\omega_n \int_0^{\mathrm{sn}_k^{-1}(\mathrm{sn}_K(r))} \mathrm{sn}_k(\rho)^{n-1} d\rho \\
&= n\omega_n \int_0^r \mathrm{sn}_K(\rho)^{n-1} \sqrt{\frac{1-K \mathrm{sn}_K(\rho)^2}{1-k\mathrm{sn}_K(\rho)^2}} d\rho \\
&\geq n\omega_n \int_0^r \mathrm{sn}_K(\rho)^{n-1} d\rho \\
&= m_K(r) ,
\end{align*}
using that $\mathrm{sn}_k'(r)^2 = 1-k\mathrm{sn}_k(r)^2$.
\end{proof}

\bibliographystyle{alpha}

The PPW conjecture in curved spaces