A Statistical Perspective on Coreset Density Estimation

Abstract: Coresets have emerged as a powerful tool to summarize data by selecting a small subset of the original observations while retaining most of its information. This approach has led to significant computational speedups but the performance of statistical procedures run on coresets is largely unexplored. In this work, we develop a statistical framework to study coresets and focus on the canonical task of nonparameteric density estimation. Our contributions are twofold. First, we establish the minimax rate of estimation achievable by coreset-based estimators. Second, we show that the practical coreset kernel density estimators are near-minimax optimal over a large class of Hölder-smooth densities.

\section{Introduction}

    The ever-growing size of datasets that are routinely collected has led practitioners across many fields to contemplate effective data summarization techniques that aim at reducing the size of the data while preserving the information that it contains. While there are many ways to achieve this goal, including standard data compression algorithms, they often prevent direct manipulation of data for learning purposes. \emph{Coresets} have emerged as a flexible and efficient set of techniques that permit direct data manipulation. Coresets are well-studied in machine learning~\citep{HarKus07,FelSchSoh13,BacLucKra17,BacLucKra18,KarLib19}, statistics~\citep{FelFauKra11,ZhePhi17,MunSchSoh18,HugCamBro16,PhiTai18,PhiTai19}, and computational geometry~\citep{AgaHarVar05, Cla10,FraSoh05,GarJag09, ClaGenSol20}.

Given a dataset $\mathcal{D}=\{X_1, \ldots, X_n\} \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ and task (density estimation, logistic regression, etc.) a coreset $\mathcal{C}$ is given by $\mathcal{C}=\{X_i\,:\, i \in S\}$ for some subset $S$ of $\{1, \ldots, n\}$ of size $|S|\ll n$. A good coreset should suffice to perform the task at hand with the same accuracy as with the whole dataset $\mathcal{D}$.

In this work we study the canonical task of density estimation. Given i.i.d random variables  $X_1, \ldots, X_n \sim \mb{P}_f$ that admit a common density $f$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure over $\mathbb{R}^d$, the goal of density estimation is to estimate~$f$. It is well known that the minimax rate of estimation over the $L$-H\"{o}lder smooth densities $\mc{P}_{\mc{H}}(\beta, L)$ of order $\beta$ is given by
\begin{equation}
    \label{eqn:classical_risk}
     \inf_{ \hat{f} } \sup_{ f \in \mc{P}_{\mc{H}}(\beta, L)  }\mb{E}_f \, \norm{ \hat{f} - f }_2    = \Theta_{\beta, d, L}( n^{-\frac{\beta}{2 \beta + d} } )\,,
\end{equation}
where the infimum is taken over all estimators based on the dataset $\mathcal{D}$. Moreover the minimax rate above is achieved by a kernel density estimator
\begin{equation}
\label{EQ:KDE}
\hat f_n(x):=\frac{1}{nh^d}\sum_{j=1}^n K\left(\frac{X_i-x}{h}\right)
\end{equation}
for suitable choices of kernel  $K: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$ and bandwidth $h>0$  \citep[see e.g.][Theorem~1.2]{Tsy09}.

The main goal of this paper is to extend this understanding of rates for density estimation to estimators based on coresets. Specifically we would like to characterize the statistical performance of coresets in terms of their cardinality. To do so, we investigate two families of estimators built on coresets: one that is quite flexible and allows arbitrary estimators to be used on the coreset and another that is more structured  and driven by practical considerations; it consists of weighted kernel density estimators built on coresets.

\subsection{Two statistical frameworks for coreset density estimation}

We formally define a coreset as follows. Throughout this work $m=o(n)$ denotes the cardinality of the coreset. Let $S = S(y|x)$ denote a conditional probability measure on $\binom{[n]}{m}$, where $x \in \mb{R}^{d \times n}$.
In information theoretic language, $S$ is a channel from $\mb{R}^{d \times n}$ to subsets of cardinality $m$.
We refer to the channel $S$ as a \textit{coreset scheme} because it designates a data-driven method of choosing a subset of data points. In what follows, we abuse notation and let $S = S(x)$ denote an instantiation of a sample from the measure $S(y|x)$ for $x \in \mb{R}^{d \times n}$.
A \textit{coreset} $X_S$ is then defined to be the projection of the dataset $X = (X_1, \ldots, X_n)$ onto the subset indicated by $S(X)$: $X_S := \{ X_i \}_{i \in S(X)}$.

The first family of estimators that we investigate is quite general and allows the statistician to select a coreset and then employ an estimator that only manipulates data points in the coreset to estimate an unknown density. To study coresets, it is convenient to make the dependence of estimators on observations more explicit than in the traditional literature. More specifically, a density estimator $\hat f$ based on $n$ observations $X_1, \ldots,X_n \in \mb{R}^d$  is a function $\hat f: \mb{R}^{d \times n} \to L_2(\mb{R}^d)$ denoted by $\hat f[X_1, \ldots, X_n](\cdot)$. Similarly, a \textit{coreset-based estimator} $\hat{f}_S$ is constructed from a coreset scheme $S$ of size $m$ and an estimator (measurable function) $\hat f: \mb{R}^{d \times m} \to L_2(\mb{R}^d)$ on $m$ observations. We enforce the additional restriction on $\hat f$ that for all $y_1, \ldots, y_m \in \mb{R}^d$ and for all bijections $\mathsf{\pi}:[m] \to [m]$, it holds that $\hat{f}[y_1, \ldots, y_m](\cdot) = \hat{f}[y_{\mathsf{\pi}(1)}, \ldots, y_{\mathsf{\pi}(m)}](\cdot)$. Given $S$ and $\hat f$ as above, we define the \textit{coreset-based estimator} $\hat{f}_S: \mathbb{R}^{d \times n} \to L_2(\mb{R}^d)$ to be the function $\hat{f}_S[X]( \cdot ) := \hat{f}[X_S](\cdot): \mb{R}^d \to \mb{R}$. We evaluate the performance of coreset-based estimators in Section \ref{sec:coreset_based} by characterizing their rate of estimation over H\"{o}lder classes.\footnote{Our notion of coreset-based estimators bares conceptual similarity to various notions of \textit{compression schemes} as studied in the literature, e.g. \cite{LitWar86,AshBenHar20,HanKonSad19}.}

The symmetry restriction on $\hat f$ prevents the user from exploiting information about the ordering of data points to their advantage: the only information that can be used by the estimator $\hat f$ is contained in the unordered collection of distinct vectors given by the coreset $X_S$.

As evident from the the results in Section~\ref{sec:coreset_based}, the information-theoretically optimal coreset estimator does not resemble coreset estimators employed in practice. To remedy this limitation, we also study \textit{weighted coreset kernel density estimators} (KDEs) in Section~\ref{sec:Cara}. Here the statistician selects a kernel $k$, bandwidth parameter $h$, and a coreset $X_S$ of cardinality $m$ as defined above and then employs the estimator
\[
\hat f_S(y) = \sum_{j \in S} \lambda_j h^{-d} k\left( \frac{X_j - y}{h} \right),
\]
where the weights $\{ \lambda_j \}_{j \in S}$ are nonnegative, sum to one and are allowed to depend on the full dataset.

In the case of uniform weights where $\lambda_j = \frac{1}{m}$ for all $j \in S$, coreset KDEs are well-studied \citep[see e.g.][]{BacLacObo12,HarSam14,PhiTai18,PhiTai19,KarLib19}. Interestingly, our results show that allowing flexibility in the weights gives a definitive advantage for the task of density estimation. By Theorems \ref{thm:main_Caratheodory} and \ref{thm:kde_lbd}, the uniformly weighted coreset KDEs require a much larger coreset than that of weighted coreset KDEs to attain the minimax rate of estimation over univariate Lipschitz densities.

\subsection{Setup and Notation}

We reserve the notation $\norm{ \cdot }_2$ for the $L_2$ norm
and $\abs{\cdot}_p$ for the $\ell_p$-norm. The constants $c, c_{\beta, d}, c_{L},$ etc. vary from line to line and the subscripts indicate parameter dependences.

Fix an integer $d \ge 1$. For any  multi-index $s = (s_1,\ldots, s_d) \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^d$ and $x =(x_1, \ldots, x_d) \in \mathbb{R}^d$, define $s!=s_1!\cdots s_d!$, $x^s=x_1^{s_1}\cdots x_d^{s_d}$ and let  $D^s$ denote the differential operator defined by
$$
D^s=\frac{\partial^{|s|_1}}{\partial x_1^{s_1} \cdots \partial x_d^{s_d}}\,.
$$
Fix a positive real number $\beta,$ and let $\lfloor \beta \rfloor$ denote the maximal integer \textit{strictly} less than $\beta$. Given a multi-index $s$, the notation $\abs{s}$ signifies the coordinate-wise application of $\abs{\cdot}$ to $s$.

Given $L>0$ we let  $\mc{H}(\beta, L)$ denote the space of H\"{o}lder functions $f:\mb{R}^d \to \mb{R}$ that are supported on the cube $[-1/2,1/2]^d$, are $\lfloor \beta \rfloor$ times differentiable, and satisfy
\begin{equation*}
|D^s f(x) - D^s f(y)| \leq L \abs{x - y}_2^{\beta - \lfloor \beta \rfloor}\,,\quad
\end{equation*}
for all $x, y \in \mb{R}^d$ and for all multi-indices $s$ such that $\abs{s}_1 = \flo{\beta}$.

Let $\mc{P}_{\mc{H}}(\beta, L)$ denote the set of probability density functions contained in $\mc{H}(\beta,L)$. For $f \in \mc{P}_{\mc{H}}(\beta,L)$, let $\mb{P}_f$ (resp. $\mb{E}_f$) denote the probability distribution (resp. expectation) associated to $f$.

For $d \geq 1$ and $\gamma \in \mb{Z}_{\geq 0}$, we also define the Sobolev functions $\sd(\gamma, L')$ that consist of all $f: \mb{R}^d \to \mb{R}$ that are $\gamma$ times differentiable and satisfy
\begin{equation*}
\norm{D^\alpha f}_2 \leq L'
\end{equation*}
for all multi-indices $\alpha$ such that $\abs{\alpha}_1 = \gamma$.

\section{Coreset-based estimators}
\label{sec:coreset_based}

In this section we study the performance of coreset-based estimators. Recall that coreset-based estimators are estimators that only depend on the data points in the coreset.

Define the \textit{minimax risk for coreset-based estimators} $ \psi_{n,m}(\beta,L)$ over $\mathcal{P}_{\mc{H}}(\beta, L)$ to be
\begin{equation}
    \label{eqn:coreset_risk}
    \psi_{n,m}(\beta,L) = \inf_{ \hat{f}, |S| = m } \sup_{ f \in \mc{P}_{\mc{H}}(\beta,L)} \mb{E}_{f} \, \norm{\hat{f}_S - f}_2,
\end{equation}
where the infimum above is over all choices of coreset scheme $S$ of cardinality $m$ and all estimators $\hat{f}:\mb{R}^{d \times m} \to L_2(\mb{R}^d)$.

Our main result on coreset-based estimators characterizes their minimax risk.

\begin{theorem}
    \label{thm:coreset_rate}
Fix $\beta, L>0$ and an integer $d \geq 1$. Assume that $m = o(n)$. Then the minimax risk of coreset-based estimators satisfies
\begin{equation*}
        \label{eqn:coreset_rate}
        \inf_{ \hat{f}, |S| = m } \, \, \sup_{ f \in \mc{P}_{\mc{H}}(\beta, L)} \mb{E}_{f} \, \norm{\hat{f}_S - f}_2 = \\ \Theta_{\beta, d, L}(  n^{-\frac{\beta}{2\beta + d}} + (m \log{n})^{-\frac{\beta}{d}}   ).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

The above theorem readily yields a characterization of the minimal size  $m^*(\beta,d)$ that a coreset can have while still enjoying the minimax optimal rate $n^{-\frac{\beta}{2\beta + d}}$ from~\eqref{eqn:classical_risk}. More specifically, let $m^*=m^*(n)$ be such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] if $m(n)$ is a sequence such that $m =o( m^*)$, then  $\liminf_{n \to \infty}n^{\frac{\beta}{2\beta + d}}\psi_{n,m}(\beta)= \infty$, and
\item[(ii)] if $m =\Omega( m^*)$ then $\limsup_{n \to \infty}\psi_{n,m}(\beta)n^{\frac{\beta}{2\beta + d}}\le C_{\beta, d, L}$ for some constant $C_{\beta, d, L}>0$.
\end{itemize}
Then it follows readily from from Theorem~\ref{thm:coreset_rate} that $m^*= \Theta_{\beta, d, L}( n^{\frac{d}{2 \beta + d}}/\log n)$.

Theorem \ref{thm:coreset_rate} illustrates two different curses of dimensionality: the first stems from the original estimation problem, and the second stems from the compression problem. As $d \to \infty$, it holds that $m^* \sim n/\log n$, and in this regime there is essentially no compression, as the implicit constant in Theorem \ref{thm:coreset_rate} grows rapidly with $d$.\footnote{ In fact, even for the classical estimation problem \eqref{eqn:classical_risk}, this constant scales as $d^d$ \citep[see][Theorem 3]{McD17}.}

Our proof of the lower bound in Theorem \ref{thm:coreset_rate} first uses a standard reduction from estimation to multiple hypothesis testing problem over a finite function class. While Fano's inequality is the workhorse of our second step, note that the lower bound must hold only for coreset estimators and not \emph{any} estimator as in standard minimax lower bounds. This additional difficulty is overcome by a careful handling of the information structure generated by coreset scheme channels rather than using off-the-shelf results for minimax lower bounds. The full details of the lower bound are in the Appendix.

The estimator achieving the rate in Theorem \eqref{thm:coreset_rate} relies on an encoding procedure. It is constructed by building a dictionary between the subsets in $\binom{[n]}{m}$ and an $\varepsilon$-net on the space of H\"{o}lder functions. The key idea is that, for $\omega(1) = m \leq n/2$, the amount of subsets of size $m$ is extremely large, so for $m$ large enough, there is enough information to encode a nearby-neighbor in $L_2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ to the kernel density estimator on the entire dataset.

\subsection{Proof of the upper bound in Theorem \ref{thm:coreset_rate}}

Fix $\eps = c^*(m \log n)^{-\frac{\beta}{d}}$ for $c^*$ to be determined and let  $\mathcal{N}_\eps$ denote an $\eps$-net of $\mc{P}_{\mc{H}}(\beta, L)$ with respect to the $L_2([-\frac{1}{2},\frac12]^d)$ norm. It follows from the classical Kolmogorov-Tikhomorov bound~\citep[see, e.g., Theorem XIV of][]{Tik93} that there exists a constant $C_{\mathsf{KT}}(\beta, d, L)>0$ such that we can choose $\mathcal{N}_\eps$ with $\log |\mathcal{N}_\eps|\le C_{\mathsf{KT}}(\beta, d, L)\,\eps^{-d/\beta}$. In particular, there exists $\mathsf{f} \in \mathcal{N}_\eps$ such that $\|\hat f_n - \mathsf{f}\|_{L^2([-1/2,1/2]^d)}\le \eps$ where $\hat f_n$ is the minimax optimal kernel density estimator defined in~\eqref{EQ:KDE}.

We now develop our encoding procedure for $\mathsf{f}$. To that end, fix an integer $K \ge m$ such that $\binom{K}{m}\ge |\mathcal{N}_\eps|$ and let $\mathsf{\phi} : \binom{[K]}{m} \to
\mathcal{N}_\eps$ be any surjective map. Our procedure only looks at the first coordinates of the sample $X = \{X_1, \ldots, X_n\}$. Denote these coordinates by $x=\{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}$ and note that these $n$ numbers are almost surely distinct. Let $A$ denote a parameter to be determined, and define the intervals
\begin{equation*}
    B_{ik} = [ (i - 1)K^{-1}A + (k -1)A , \\ \quad (i - 1)K^{-1}A + (k -1)A + K^{-1}A ].
\end{equation*}

For $i = 1, \ldots, K$, define
\begin{equation*}
    B_i = \bigcup_{k =1}^{1/A} B_{ik} .
\end{equation*}

The next lemma, whose proof is in the Appendix, ensures that with high probability every bin $B_i$ contains the first coordinate $x_i$ of at least one data point.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:good_bins}
    Let $K^{-1} = c(\log n)/n$ for $c>0$ a sufficiently large absolute constant, and let $A = A_{\beta, L,K}$ denote a sufficiently small constant. Then for all $f \in \mc{P}_{\mc{H}}(\beta, L)$ and $X_1, \ldots, X_n \stackrel{iid}{\sim} \mb{P}_f$, the event that for every $j = 1, \ldots, K$ there exists some $x_{i}$ in bin $B_j$ holds with probability at least $1 - O(n^{-2})$.
\end{lemma}

In the high-probability event $\mathcal{E}$ that every bin $B_i$ contains the first coordinate of some data point, choose a unique representative $x_j^\circ \in x$ such that $x_j^\circ\in B_j$ and pick any $T_{\mathsf{f}}\in \mathsf{\phi}^{-1}(\mathsf{f})$. Then define $S=\{i\,:\, x_i=x^\circ_j, j \in T_{\mathsf{f}}\}$. If there exists a bin with no observation, then let $X_S$ consist of two data points lying in the same bin and $m - 2$ random data points. Then set $\hat f_S \equiv 0$.

Note that $\hat f_S$ is indeed a coreset-based estimator. The function $\hat f$ such that $\hat f_S = \hat f[X_S]$ looks at the $m$ data points in the coreset, and if their first coordinates lie in distinct bins, then $X_S$ is decoded as above to output the corresponding element $\mathsf{f}$ of the net $\mc{N}_\eps$. Otherwise, $\hat f \equiv 0$.

Next, it suffices to show the upper bound of Theorem \ref{thm:coreset_rate} in the case when $m \leq c n^{d/(2\beta+ d)}$ for $c$ a sufficiently small absolute constant. For $c^* = c^*_{\beta, d, L}$ sufficiently large, by Stirling's formula and our choice of $K$ it holds that
\begin{equation*}
    \label{eqn:Stirling}
     \log \binom{K}{m}
     \geq   C_{\mathsf{KT}}(\beta, d, L) \, \left( \frac{1}{\eps} \right)^{\frac{d}{\beta}} \ge \log |\mathcal{N}_\eps|.
\end{equation*}
Hence, the surjection $\mathsf{\phi}$ and our encoding estimator $\hat f_S$ are well-defined.

Next
we have
$$
 \mb{E}_f \norm{\hat f_S -f }_2=  \mb{E}_f\big[ \norm{\mathsf{f} -f }_2 {\rm 1}\kern-0.24em{\rm I}_{\mathcal{E}}\big]+  \mb{E}_f\big[ \norm{0  -f }_2 {\rm 1}\kern-0.24em{\rm I}_{\mathcal{E}^c}\big].
$$
We control the first term as follows using~\eqref{eqn:classical_risk} and the fact that $\norm{\mathsf{f} - \hat f_n}_2\le \eps$ on $\mathcal{E}$:
\begin{align*}
\mb{E}_f\big[ \norm{\mathsf{f} -f }_2 {\rm 1}\kern-0.24em{\rm I}_{\mathcal{E}}\big] &\le \mb{E}_f\norm{\hat f_n - f}_2+\mb{E}_f\norm{\mathsf{f} - \hat f_n}_2   \\
&\le c_{\beta, d, L} \,\big(n^\frac{-\beta}{2\beta +d}+(m \log n)^{-\frac{\beta}{d}}\big).
\end{align*}

By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,
\begin{align*}
\mb{E}_f\big[ \norm{0-f }_2 {\rm 1}\kern-0.24em{\rm I}_{\mathcal{E}^c}\big] &\le \big(\mb{E}_f \norm{f }_2^2 \, \mb{P}(\mathcal{E}^c)\big)^{1/2} \\
& \le c_{\beta, d, L} \, n^{-1}\,.
\end{align*}

Put together, the previous three displays yield the upper bound of Theorem \ref{thm:coreset_rate}.

\section{Coreset kernel density estimators}
\label{sec:Cara}

In this section, we consider the family of weighted kernel density estimators built on coresets and study its rate of estimation over the H\"{o}lder densities. In this framework, the statistician first computes a minimax estimator $\hat f$ using the entire dataset and then approximates $\hat f$ with a weighted kernel density estimator over the coreset. Here we allow the weights to be a measurable function over the entire dataset rather than just the coreset.

As is typical in density estimation, we consider kernels $k: \mb{R}^d \to \mb{R}$ of the form $k(x) = \prod_{i = 1}^d \kappa(x_i)$ where $\kappa$ is an even function and $\int \kappa(x) \, \mathrm{d} x = 1$. Given bandwidth parameter $h$, we define $k_h(x) = h^{-d} \, k(\frac{x}{h})$.

\subsection{Carath\'{e}odory coreset method}
\label{sec:Cara_construction}
Given a KDE with uniform weights and bandwidth $h$ defined by
    \[
    \hat f(y) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j = 1}^n k_h(X_j - y),
    \]
on a sample $X_1, \ldots, X_n$, we define a coreset KDE $\hat g_S$ as follows in terms of a cutoff frequency $T>0$. Define $A = \{ \omega \in \frac{\mathsf{\pi}}{2}\mb{Z}^d:\, \abs{\omega}_\infty \leq T \}$. Consider the complex vectors $(e^{i \langle X_j, \omega \rangle} )_{\omega \in A}$. By Carath\'{e}odory's theorem \citep{Car07}, there exists a subset $S \subset [n]$ of cardinality at most $2(1 + \frac{4T}{\mathsf{\pi}})^d + 1$ and nonnegative weights $\{ \lambda_j \}_{j \in S}$ with $\sum_{j \in S} \lambda_j = 1$ such that

\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Cara_condition}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{j = 1}^n (e^{i \langle X_j,  \omega \rangle})_{\omega \in A} = \sum_{j \in S} \lambda_j (e^{i \langle X_j, \omega \rangle})_{\omega \in A}.
\end{equation}
Then $\hat g_S(y)$ is defined to be
\begin{equation*}
\hat g_S(y) = \sum_{j \in S} \lambda_j k_h(X_j - y).
\end{equation*}

\subsubsection{Algorithmic considerations}
For a convex polyhedron $P$ with vertices $v_1, \ldots, v_n \in \mb{R}^D$, the proof of Carath\'{e}odory's theorem is constructive and yields a polynomial-time algorithm in $n$ and $D$ to find a convex combination of $D+1$ vertices that represents a given point in $P$ \citep{Car07} \citep[see also ][Theorem 1.3.6]{HirLem04}. For completeness, we describe below this algorithm applied to our problem.  Note that, more generally, for a large class of convex bodies, Carath\'{e}odory's theorem may be implemented efficiently using standard tools from convex optimization \citep[][Chapter 6]{GroLovSch12}.

Set $D = 2|A| \leq 2(1 + \frac{4T}{\mathsf{\pi}})^d$. For $j = 1, \ldots, n$, let
\[
v_j = ( \mathsf{Re} \, e^{i\langle X_j, \omega \rangle}, \mathsf{Im} \, e^{i\langle X_j, \omega \rangle} )_{\omega \in A} \in \mb{R}^{D}.
\]
Let $M$ denote the matrix with columns $(v_1, 1)^T, \ldots, (v_n,1)^T \in \mb{R}^{D+1}$, and let $\Delta_{n-1} \subset \mb{R}^n$ denote the standard simplex. Assume without loss of generality that $n \geq D + 2$. Next,

\begin{enumerate}
\item Find a nonzero vector $w \in \text{ker}(M)$
\item Find $\alpha>0$ so that $\lambda_1 := \frac{1}{n} {\rm 1}\kern-0.24em{\rm I} + \alpha w$ lies on the boundary of $\Delta_{n-1}$
\end{enumerate}
Observe that $M \lambda_1 = ( \frac{1}{n} \sum v_i, 1)^T$, and since $\lambda_1 \in \partial \Delta_{n-1}$ the average is now represented using a convex combination of at most $n - 1$ of the vertices $v_1, \ldots, v_n$. As long as at least $D+2$ vertices remain, we can continue reducing the number of vertices used to represent $\frac{1}{n} \sum v_j$ by applying steps 1 and 2. Thus after at most $n - D-1$ iterations, we obtain $\lambda \in \Delta_D$  that satisfies $\sum \lambda_j v_j = \frac{1}{n} \sum v_i$, as desired.

\subsection{Results on Carath\'{e}odory coresets}
\label{sec:Cara_results}
Proposition \ref{prop:Caratheodory_prop} is key to our results and specifies conditions on the kernel guaranteeing that the Carath\'{e}odory method yields an accurate estimator.

\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:Caratheodory_prop}
Let $k(x) = \prod_{i = 1}^d \kappa(x_i)$ denote a kernel with $\kappa \in \sd(\gamma, L')$ such that $\abs{\kappa(x)} \leq c_{\beta,d} \abs{x}^{-\nu}$ for some $\nu \geq \beta + d$, and the KDE
\[
\hat f(y) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n k_h(X_i - y)
\] with bandwidth $h = n^{-\frac{1}{2\beta + d}}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:minimax_condition}
\sup_{f \in \hd(\beta, L)} \mb{E} \norm{f - \hat f}_2 \leq c_{\beta, d, L}  \, n^{-\frac{\beta}{2\beta + d}}.
\end{equation}
Then the Carath\'{e}odory coreset estimator $\hat g_S(y)$ constructed from $\hat f$ with $T = c_{d, \gamma,L' } \, n^{\frac{d/2 + \beta + \gamma}{\gamma(2\beta + d)}}$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
	\sup_{f \in \hd(\beta, L)} \mb{E} \norm{\hat g_S - f}_2 \leq c_{\beta, d,L} \, n^{-\frac{\beta}{2\beta + d}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}

There exists a kernel $k_s \in \mc{C}^\infty$ that satisfies the conditions above for all $\beta$ and $\gamma$. We sketch the details here and postpone the full argument to the Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main_Caratheodory} in the Appendix. Let $\psi:[-1,1] \to [0,1]$ denote a cutoff function that has the following properties: $\psi \in \mc{C}^{\infty}$, $\psi\big|_{[-1, 1]} \equiv 1$, and $\psi$ is compactly supported on $[-2, 2]$. Define $\kappa_S(x) = \mc{F}[\psi](x)$, and let $k_s(x) = \prod_{i = 1}^d \kappa_S(x_i)$ denote the resulting kernel. Observe that for all $\beta > 0$, the kernel $k_s$ satisfies
\[
\text{ess sup}_{\omega \neq 0} \frac{1 - \mc{F}[k_s](\omega)}{ \abs{\omega}^{\alpha} } \leq 1, \quad \forall  \alpha \preceq \beta.
\]
Using standard results from \citep{Tsy09}, this implies that the resulting KDE $\hat f_s$ satisfies \eqref{eqn:minimax_condition}. Since $\psi = \mc{F}^{-1}[k_s] \in \mc{C}^\infty$, the Riemann--Lebesgue lemma guarantees that $\abs{\kappa_s(x)} \leq c_{\beta,d} \abs{x}^{\nu}$ is satisfied for $\nu = \ceil{\beta + d}$. Since $\psi$ is compactly supported, an application of Parseval's identity yields $\kappa_s \in \sd(\gamma, c_{\gamma})$. Applying Proposition \ref{prop:Caratheodory_prop} to $k_s$, we conclude that for the task of density estimation, weighted KDEs built on coresets are nearly as powerful as the coreset-based estimators studied in Section~\ref{sec:coreset_based}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main_Caratheodory}
Let $\eps > 0$. The Carath\'{e}odory coreset estimator $\hat g_S(y)$ built using the kernel $k_s$ and setting $T = c_{d, \beta, \eps} \, n^{\frac{\eps}{d} + \frac{1}{2\beta + d} }$ satisfies
\[
\sup_{f \in \hd(\beta, L)} \mb{E}_f \norm{\hat g_S - f}_2 \leq c_{\beta, d, L} \, n^{-\frac{\beta}{2\beta + d}}.
\]
The corresponding coreset has cardinality \[m = c_{d, \beta, \eps} n^{ \frac{d}{2\beta + d}+\eps}.\]
\end{theorem}

Theorem \ref{thm:main_Caratheodory} shows that the Carath\'eodory coreset estimator achieves the minimax rate of estimation with near-optimal coreset size. In fact, a small modification yields a near-optimal rate of convergence for any coreset size as in Theorem~\ref{thm:coreset_rate}.

\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:general_Cara_bd}
Let $\eps > 0$ and $m \leq c_{\beta, d, \eps} \, n^{\frac{d}{2\beta + d} + \eps}$. The Carath\'{e}odory coreset estimator $\hat g_S(y)$ built using the kernel $k_s$, setting $h = m^{-\frac{1}{d} +  \frac{\eps}{\beta} }$ and $T =c_d \, m^{1/d}$, satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{f \in \hd(\beta, L)} \mb{E}\norm{ \hat g_S - f}_2 \leq c_{\beta, d, \eps, L} \, \left(  m^{-\frac{\beta}{d} + \eps} + n^{-\frac{\beta}{2\beta + d} + \eps} \right),
\end{equation*}
and the corresponding coreset has cardinality $m$.
\end{corollary}

Next we apply Proposition \ref{prop:Caratheodory_prop} to the popular Gaussian kernel $\mathsf{\phi}(x) = (2 \mathsf{\pi})^{-d/2} \exp(-\frac{1}{2}\abs{x}_2^2)$. This kernel has rapid decay in the real domain and Fourier space, and is thus amenable to our techniques. Moreover, $k_\mathsf{\phi}$ is a kernel of order $\ell = 1$, \citep[Definition 1.3 and Theorem 1.2]{Tsy09} and so the standard KDE $\hat f_\mathsf{\phi}$ on the full dataset attains the minimax rate of estimation $c_{d,L} n^{1/(2 + d)}$ over the Lipschitz densities $\hd(1, L)$.

\begin{theorem}
Let $\eps> 0$. The Carath\'{e}odory coreset estimator $\hat g_\mathsf{\phi}(y)$ built using the kernel $\mathsf{\phi}$ and setting $T = c_{d,\eps} \, n^{ \frac{1}{2 + d}+\frac{\eps}{d}}$ satisfies
\[
\sup_{f \in \hd(1, L)} \mb{E} \norm{\hat g_\mathsf{\phi} - f}_2 \leq c_{ d, L} \, n^{-\frac{1}{2 + d}}.
\]
The corresponding coreset has cardinality \[m = c_{d, \eps} n^{\frac{d}{2 + d}+\eps}.\]
\end{theorem}

In addition, we have a nearly matching lower bound to Theorem \ref{thm:main_Caratheodory} for coreset KDEs. In fact, our lower bound applies to a generalization of coreset KDEs where the vector of weights $(\lambda_j)_j$ is not constrained to be in the simplex but can range within a hypercube of width that may grow polynomially with $n$: $\max_{j \in S} \abs{\lambda _j} \leq n^B$.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:weight_kde_lbd}
Let $A, B \geq 1$. Let $k$ denote a kernel with $\norm{k}_2 \leq n$. Let $\hat g_S$ denote a weighted coreset KDE with bandwidth $h \geq n^{-A}$ built from $k$ with weights $\{\lambda_j\}_{j \in S}$ satisfying $\max_{j \in S} \abs{\lambda _j} \leq n^B$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{ f \in \hd(\beta, L)}  \mb{E}_f \norm{\hat g_S -  f}_2 \geq \\ c_{\beta, d, L} \left[ (A + B)^{-\frac{\beta}{d}} (m \log{n})^{-\frac{\beta}{d}} + n^{-\frac{\beta}{2\beta + d}} \right].
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

This result is essentially a consequence of the lower bound in Theorem~\ref{thm:coreset_rate} because, in an appropriate sense, coreset KDEs with bounded weights are well-approximated by coreset-based estimators. Hence, in the case of bounded weights, allowing these weights to be measurable functions of the entire dataset rather than just the coreset, as would be required in Section~\ref{sec:coreset_based}, does not make a significant difference for the purpose of estimation. The full details of Theorem~\ref{thm:weight_kde_lbd} are postponed to the Appendix.

\subsection{Proof sketch of Proposition \ref{prop:Caratheodory_prop}}

Here we sketch the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:Caratheodory_prop}, our main tool in constructing effective coreset KDEs. Full details of the argument may be found in the Appendix.

Let $k(x) = \prod_{i =1}^d \kappa(x_i)$ denote a kernel, and suppose that $\hat f(y) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n k_h(X_i -y)$ is a good estimator for an unknown density $f$ in that
\[\norm{ f - \hat f}_2 \leq \eps := c_{\beta,d } n^{-\frac{\beta}{2\beta + d}}\] on setting $h = n^{-1/(2\beta + d)}$. Our goal is to find a subset $S \subset [n]$ and weights $\{\lambda_j\}_{j \in S}$ such that \[\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n k_h(X_i -y) \approx \sum_{j \in S} \lambda_j k_h(X_j - y)  .\] Suppose for simplicity that $\kappa$ is compactly supported on $[-1/2, 1/2]$. By hypothesis and Parseval's theorem $\kappa \in \sd(\gamma, L')$, and we can further show that $k \in \sd(\gamma, c_{d, L'})$ and $k_h \in \sd(\gamma, c_{d, L'} h^{-d/2 - \gamma})$. Let $\mc{\bar F}$ denote the Fourier transform on the interval $[-1, 1]$. Using the Fourier decay of $k_h$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:kernel_series}
\norm{ k_h(x) - \sum_{ \abs{\omega}_\infty < T } \mc{\bar F}[k_h](\omega) e^{i \langle x, \omega \rangle} }_2 \leq \eps
\end{equation}
when $T = (\frac{c_{d, \gamma, L'} h^{-\frac{d}{2} - \gamma}}{\eps} )^{1/\gamma} = c_{d, \gamma, L'} \, n^{\frac{d/2 + \beta + \gamma}{\gamma(2\beta + d)}}$. Observe that this matches the setting of $T$ in Proposition~\ref{prop:Caratheodory_prop}.

The approximation \eqref{eqn:kernel_series} implies that for $X_i \in [-1/2, 1/2]^d$,
\begin{equation*}
\hat f(y) \approx \sum_{ \abs{\omega}_\infty < T } \mc{\bar F}[k_h](\omega) \left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n e^{i \langle X_i, \omega \rangle} \right)  e^{i \langle y, \omega \rangle}.
\end{equation*}
Using the Carath\'{e}odory coreset and weights $\{\lambda_j\}_{j \in S}$ constructed in Section \ref{sec:Cara_construction}, it follows that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{ \abs{\omega}_\infty < T } \mc{\bar F}[k_h](\omega) \left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n e^{i \langle X_i, \omega \rangle} \right)  e^{i \langle y, \omega \rangle} = \\
\sum_{ \abs{\omega}_\infty < T } \mc{\bar F}[k_h](\omega) \left( \sum_{i = 1}^n \lambda_j e^{i \langle X_i, \omega \rangle} \right)  e^{i \langle y, \omega \rangle}.
\end{equation*}
Applying \eqref{eqn:kernel_series} again, we see that the right-hand-side is approximately equal to $\hat g_S(y)$, the estimator produced in Section \eqref{sec:Cara_construction}. By the triangle inequality, we conclude that $\norm{\hat g_S(y) - f}_2 \leq c_{\beta, d} \, \eps$, as desired.

\section{Lower bounds for coreset KDEs with uniform weights}

In this section we study the performance of univariate uniformly weighted coreset KDEs
\begin{equation*}
\hat f_S^{\mathsf{unif}}(y) = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i \in S} k_h(X_i - y),
\end{equation*}
where $X_S$ is the coreset and $|S| = m$. The next results demonstrate that for a large class of kernels, there is significant gap between the rate of estimation achieved by $\hat f_S^{\text{unif}}(y)$ and that of coreset KDEs with general weights. First we focus on the particular case of estimating Lipschitz densities, the class $\hd(1, L)$. For this class, the minimax rate of estimation (over all estimators) is $n^{-1/3}$, and this can be achieved by a weighted coreset KDE of cardinality $c_\eps n^{1/3 + \eps}$ by Theorem \ref{thm:main_Caratheodory}, for all $\eps > 0$.

\begin{theorem}
    \label{thm:kde_lbd}
     Let $k$ denote a nonnegative kernel satisfying
    $$
            k(t) = O( \abs{t}^{-(k+1)}), \quad  \text{and} \quad
            \mc{F}[k](\omega) = O(\abs{\omega}^{-\ell})
    $$
        for some $\ell > 0,\, k > 1$. Suppose that $0<\alpha<1/3$. If
        \[
        m \leq \frac{n^{\frac23 - 2\left( \alpha(1 - \frac{2}{\ell}) + \frac{2}{3 \ell} \right)}}{\log n},
        \]
        then
        \begin{equation}
            \label{eqn:kde_lbd}
            \inf_{ h, S: |S|  \leq m } \, \sup_{f \in \mc{P}_{\mc{H}}(1, L)} \mathbb{E} \norm{ \unif - f  }_2= \Omega_k\Big( \frac{n^{-\frac13+\alpha}}{\log n} \Big).
        \end{equation}
        The infimum above is over all possible choices of bandwidth $h$ and all coreset schemes $S$ of cardinality at most $m$.
\end{theorem}

By this result, if $k$ has lighter than quadratic tails and fast Fourier decay, the error in \eqref{eqn:kde_lbd} is a polynomial factor larger than the minimax rate $n^{-1/3}$ when $m \ll n^{2/3}$. Hence, our result covers a wide variety of kernels typically used for density estimation and shows that the uniformly weighted coreset KDE performs much worse than the encoding estimator or the Carath\'{e}odory method. In addition, for very smooth univariate kernels with rapid decay, we have the following lower bound that applies for all $\beta > 0$.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:kde_lbd_allbeta}
Fix $\beta>0$ and a nonnegative kernel $k$ on $\mathbb{R}$ satisfying the following fast decay and smoothness conditions:
\begin{align}
\lim_{s\to+\infty}\frac1{s}\log\frac1{\int_{|t|>s}k(t)dt}&>0,
\\
\lim_{\omega\to\infty}\frac1{|\omega|}\log\frac1{|\mathcal{F}[k](\omega)|}&>0,
\end{align}
where we recall that $\mathcal{F}[k]$ denotes the Fourier transform.
Let $\hat{f}_S^{\mathsf{unif}}$ be the uniformly weighted coreset KDE.
Then there exists $L_{\beta}>0$ such that for $L\ge L_{\beta}$ and any $m$ and $h>0$, we have
\begin{align*}
\inf_{ h, S: |S| \leq  m } \, \sup_{f \in \mc{P}_{\mc{H}}(\beta, L)} \mathbb{E} \norm{ \hat{f}_S^{\mathsf{unif}} - f  }_2
&=\Omega_{\beta, k}\left(\tfrac{m^{-\frac{\beta}{1+\beta}}}{\log^{\beta + \frac{1}{2}} m}\right).
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
Therefore attaining the minimax rate with $\unif$ requires $m \geq n^{\frac{\beta + 1}{2\beta + 1}}$ for such kernels. Next, note that the Gaussian kernel satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{thm:kde_lbd} and \ref{thm:kde_lbd_allbeta}. As we show in Theorem \ref{thm:discrepancy_phitai}, results of \citep{PhiTai19} imply that our lower bounds are tight up to logarithmic factors: there exists a uniformly weighted Gaussian coreset KDE of size $m = \tilde{O}(n^{2/3})$ that attains the minimax rate $n^{-1/3}$ for estimating univariate Lipschitz densities ($\beta = 1$). In general, we expect a lower bound $m = \Omega( n^{\frac{\beta + d}{2\beta + d}} )$ to hold for uniformly weighted coreset KDEs attaining the minimax rate. The proofs of Theorems \ref{thm:kde_lbd} and \ref{thm:kde_lbd_allbeta} can be found in the Appendix.

\section{Comparison to other methods}

Three methods for constructing coreset kernel density estimators that have previously been explored include random sampling \citep{JosKomVar11,LopMuaSch15}, the Frank--Wolfe algorithm \citep{BacLacObo12,HarSam14,PhiTai18}, and discrepancy-based approaches \citep{PhiTai19,KarLib19}. These procedures all result in a uniformly weighted coreset KDE. To compare these results with ours on the problem of density estimation, for each method under consideration we raise the question: How large does $m$, the size of the coreset, need to be to guarantee that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:comparison}
\sup_{ f \in \hd(\beta, L)} \mb{E}_f\norm{ \hat g_S - f}_2 = O_{\beta, d, L}\left( n^{-\frac{\beta}{2\beta + d}} \right) \, ?
\end{equation}
Here $\hat g_S$ is the resulting coreset KDE and the right-hand-side is the minimax rate over all estimators on the full dataset $X_1, \ldots, X_n$.

Uniform random sampling of a subset of cardinality $m$ yields an i.i.d dataset, so the rate obtained is at least $m^{-\beta/(2\beta + d)}$. Hence, we must take $m = \Omega( n)$ to achieve the minimax rate.

The Frank--Wolfe algorithm is a greedy method that iteratively constructs a sparse approximation to a given element in a convex set \citep{MarWol56, Bub14}. Thus Frank--Wolfe may be applied directly in the RKHS corresponding to a positive-semidefinite kernel as shown in \cite{PhiTai19} to approximate the KDE on the full dataset. However, due to the shrinking bandwidth in our problem, this approach also requires $m = \Omega( n)$ to guarantee the bound in \eqref{eqn:comparison}. Another strategy is to approximately solve the linear equation \eqref{eqn:Cara_condition} using the Frank--Wolfe algorithm. Unfortunately, a direct implementation again uses $m = \Omega(n)$ data points.

A more effective strategy utilizes discrepancy theory \citep{Phi13, PhiTai19, KarLib19} \citep[see][for a comprehensive exposition of discrepancy theory]{Mat99,Cha00}. By the well-known halving algorithm \citep[see e.g.][]{ChaMat96,PhiTai19} if for all $N \leq n$, the \textit{kernel discrepancy}
\[
\mathsf{disc}_k = \sup_{x_1, \ldots, x_N} \, \min_{\substack{\sigma \in \{-1, +1\}^n \\ {\rm 1}\kern-0.24em{\rm I}^T \sigma = 0  }} \norm{ \sum_{i = 1}^N \sigma_i k(x_i - y)  }_\infty
\]
is at most $D$, then there exists a coreset $X_S$ of size $\tilde{O}_D(\eps^{-1})$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:discrepancy_bd}
\norm{ \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n k(X_i - y) - \frac{1}{m} \sum_{j \in S} k(X_i - y)}_\infty = \tilde{O}_D(\eps).
\end{equation}

The idea of the halving algorithm is to maintain a set of datapoints $\mc{C}_\ell$ at each iteration and then set $\mc{C}_{\ell +1}$ to be the set of vectors that receive sign $+1$ upon minimizing $\norm{ \sum_{x \in \mc{C}_\ell } \sigma_x k(x - y) }_\infty$. Starting with the original dataset and repeating this procedure $O(\log \frac{n}{m})$ times yields the desired coreset $X_S$ satisfying \eqref{eqn:discrepancy_bd}.

\citet[][Theorem 4]{PhiTai19} use a state-of-the-art algorithm from \cite{BanDadGarLov18} called the \textit{Gram--Schmidt walk} to give strong bounds on the kernel discrepancy of bounded and Lipschitz kernels $k: \mb{R}^d \times \mb{R}^d \to \mb{R}$ that are positive definite and decay rapidly away from the diagonal. With a careful handling of the Lipschitz constant and error in their argument when the bandwidth is set to be $h = n^{-1/(2\beta + d)}$, their techniques yield the following result applied to the kernel $k_s$. For completeness we give details of the argument in the Appendix.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:discrepancy_phitai}
Let $k_s$ denote the kernel from Section \ref{sec:Cara_results}. The algorithm of \cite{PhiTai19} yields in polynomial time a subset $S$ with $\abs{S} = m = \tilde{O}( n^{\frac{\beta+d}{2\beta + d}} )$ such that the uniformly weighted coreset KDE $\hat g_S$ satisfies
\[
\sup_{ f \in \mc{P}_{\mc{H}}(\beta, L)  } \mb{E} \norm{f - \hat g_S}_2 \leq c_{\beta, d, L}  \, n^{-\frac{\beta}{2\beta + d}} .
\]
\end{theorem}

This result also applies to more general kernels, for example, the Gaussian kernel when $\beta = 1$. We suspect that this is the best result achievable by discrepancy-based methods. In particular for nonnegative univariate kernels with fast decay in the real and Fourier domains, such as the Gaussian kernel, Theorem \ref{thm:kde_lbd} implies that this rate is optimal for estimating Lipschitz densities with uniformly weighted coreset KDEs.

In contrast, the \Cara coreset KDE as in Theorem \ref{thm:main_Caratheodory} only needs cardinality $m = O_{\varepsilon}( n^{\frac{d}{2\beta + d} + \varepsilon})$ to be a minimax estimator. By Theorem \ref{thm:weight_kde_lbd}, this result is nearly optimal for coreset KDEs with bounded kernels and weights. And as with the other three methods described, our construction is computationally efficient. Hence allowing more general weights results in more powerful coreset KDEs for the problem of density estimation.

Statistics Theory (math.ST); Information Theory (cs.IT); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Machine Learning (stat.ML)


Extremal functions for Morrey's inequality in convex domains

Abstract: For a bounded domain $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ and $p>n$, Morrey's inequality implies that there is $c>0$ such that $$ c\|u\|^p_{\infty}\le \int_\Omega|Du|^pdx $$ for each $u$ belonging to the Sobolev space $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$. We show that the ratio of any two extremal functions is constant provided that $\Omega$ is convex. We also explain why this property fails to hold in general and verify that convexity is not a necessary condition for a domain to have this property. As a by product, we obtain the uniqueness of an optimization problem involving the Green's function for the $p$-Laplacian.

\section{Introduction}
Suppose $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a bounded domain and $p>n$.  Morrey's inequality for $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ functions $u$ may be expressed as
$$
c\|u\|^p_{C^{1-\frac{n}{p}}(\overline\Omega)}\le \int_\Omega|Du|^pdx,
$$
where $c>0$ is a constant that is independent of $u$. In particular,
\begin{equation}\label{WeakMorrey}
c\|u\|^p_{\infty}\le  \int_\Omega|Du|^pdx.
\end{equation}
Let us define
$$
\lambda_p:=\inf\left\{\frac{\displaystyle\int_\Omega|Du|^pdx}{\| u\| _\infty^p}:u\in W_0^{1,p}(\Omega)\setminus\{0\}\right\}.
$$
Observe that
\begin{equation}\label{SecondMorrey}
\lambda_p\|u\|^p_{\infty}\le \int_\Omega|Du|^pdx
\end{equation}
and that $c=\lambda_p$ is the largest constant such that \eqref{WeakMorrey} is valid. Furthermore, if there is a function $u \in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\setminus\{0\}$ such that equality holds in \eqref{WeakMorrey}, then $c=\lambda_p$.
\begin{defn*}
A function $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\setminus\{0\}$ is an {\it extremal} if equality holds in \eqref{SecondMorrey}.
\end{defn*}

\par It is plain to see that any multiple of an extremal is also an extremal. Using routine compactness arguments, it is not difficult to verify that extremal functions exist. We will argue below that any extremal $u$ satisfies the boundary value problem
\begin{equation}\label{pGroundStateMeasure}
\begin{cases}
-\Delta_pu=\lambda_p |u(x_0)|^{p-2}u(x_0)\delta_{x_0}\quad &x\in \Omega\\
\hspace{.34in} u=0 \quad &x\in \partial \Omega,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
which was derived by Ercole and Pereira in \cite{ErcoleP}. Here $\Delta_p\psi:=\text{div}(|D\psi|^{p-2}D\psi)$ is the $p$-Laplacian, and $x_0$ is the {\it unique} point for which $|u|$ is maximized in $\Omega$.  Moreover, using \eqref{pGroundStateMeasure} we will be able to conclude that any extremal has a definite sign in $\Omega$. And as the PDE in \eqref{pGroundStateMeasure} is homogeneous, the optimal constant $\lambda_p$ can be interpreted as being an eigenvalue.

\par The primary goal of this work is to address the extent to which extremal functions can be different. In particular, we would like to know if any two extremal functions are necessarily multiples of one another. If they are, we consider the set of extremals to be uniquely determined. For once one extremal is found, all others can be obtained by scaling. We will argue that annuli never have this uniqueness property.  We will also exhibit star-shaped domains for which this uniqueness property fails. However, we will see that if a planar domain has enough symmetry, then its extremals are one dimensional.

\par Our main result is that convex domains always have the aforementioned uniqueness property.
\begin{thm}\label{mainThm}
Assume that $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is open, convex and bounded. If $u$ and $v$ are extremal, then $u/v$ is constant throughout $\Omega$.
\end{thm}
\noindent We will also explain how Theorem \ref{mainThm} implies the following corollary involving the Green's function of the $p$-Laplacian in $\Omega$.

\begin{cor}\label{Greenthm} Assume that $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is open, convex and bounded. Suppose that $G(\cdot,y)$ is the Green's function of the $p$-Laplacian in $\Omega$ with pole $y\in \Omega$; that is, $G(\cdot,y)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{GreenPDE}
\begin{cases}
-\Delta_p w=\delta_{y}\quad &x\in\Omega\\
\hspace{.34in}w=0\quad &x\in \partial\Omega.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Then $x_0$ given in equation \eqref{pGroundStateMeasure} is the unique point in $\Omega$ for which
$$
G(x_0,x_0)=\sup\{G(y,y): y\in \Omega\}.
$$
\end{cor}

\par Part of our motivation was to extend a previous result of Talenti. He considered extremal functions for the following inequality, which is also due to Morrey. For each weakly differentiable function $u:\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$,
\begin{equation}\label{MorreyonWholeSpace}
\|u\|^p_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)}
\le C(n,p)\left|\text{supp}(u)\right|^{\frac{p}{n}-1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|Du|^pdx.
\end{equation}
Here $C(n,p)$ is an explicit constant depending only on $p$ and $n$, and $|\text{supp}(u)|$ is the Lebesgue measure of the support of $u$. Employing Schwarz symmetrization, Talenti showed in \cite{Talenti} that if equality holds in \eqref{MorreyonWholeSpace} there are $a\in \mathbb{R}$, $r>0$ and $x_0\in \mathbb{R}^n$ such that
$$
u(x)=
\begin{cases}
a\left(r^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}-|x-x_0|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}\right), \quad & |x-x_0|< r\\
0, & |x-x_0|\ge r.
\end{cases}
$$
We also would like to mention the recent work of Cianchi \cite{Cianchi}, in which a quantitative version of Talenti's result was established.  Noteworthy are also the papers \cite{FL} and \cite{AP}, where uniqueness and nonuniqueness for eigenvalue problems of the type
$$
-\Delta_p u = \lambda|u|^{q-2}u
$$
are discussed.

\par Unfortunately, $\mathbb{R}^n$ and balls are the only known domains for which the extremals have such convenient characterizations. Nevertheless, in this paper, we believe that we have taken significant steps in understanding precisely which domains have a one dimensional collection of extremals. In Section \ref{Prelim}, we will derive basic properties of extremal functions, and in Section \ref{SuppSec}, we consider the support function of an extremal.  In Section \ref{CounterEx}, we will provide examples of domains for which uniqueness fails; these include annuli, bow tie and dumbbell shaped planar domains.  In Section \ref{UniquenessArgs}, we verify Theorem \ref{mainThm}, and in Section \ref{Steiner}, we use Steiner symmetrization to exhibit some nonconvex planar domains that have unique extremals.

\section{Properties of extremals}\label{Prelim}
We now proceed to deriving some properties of extremal functions. These properties will be crucial to our uniqueness study. First, we verify that extremal functions satisfy the boundary value problem \eqref{pGroundStateMeasure}. Then we will study the behavior of extremal functions on convex domains near their global maximum or minimum points and consider their support functions.  We also refer the reader the  recent paper \cite{ErcoleP} by
Ercole and Pereira, where they studied properties of extremal functions in a wide class of inequalities that include \eqref{WeakMorrey}.

\begin{lem}
A function $u\in W_0^{1,p}(\Omega)$ is extremal if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{WeakMeasure}
\int_\Omega|Du|^{p-2}Du\cdot D\phi dx=\lambda_p\max\left\{|u(x)|^{p-2}u(x)\phi(x): x\in \overline{\Omega}, |u(x)|=\|u\|_\infty\right\}
\end{equation}
for all $\phi\in W_0^{1,p}(\Omega)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
1. First let us establish the following identity
\begin{equation}\label{supnormderiv}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0^+}\frac{\|u+\epsilon\phi \|^p_\infty-\|u\|^p_\infty}{\epsilon}=p\max\left\{|u(x)|^{p-2}u(x)\phi(x): x\in \overline{\Omega}, |u(x)|=\|u\|_\infty\right\}
\end{equation}
for $u,\phi\in C(\overline\Omega)$.  For any $x_0$ such that $|u(x_0)|=\|u\|_\infty$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{p}\|u+\epsilon\phi\|_\infty^p&\ge\frac{1}{p}|u(x_0)+\epsilon\phi(x_0)|^p\\
&\ge \frac{1}{p}|u(x_0)|^p+\epsilon|u(x_0)|^{p-2}u(x_0)\phi(x_0)\\
&= \frac{1}{p}\|u\|_\infty^p+\epsilon|u(x_0)|^{p-2}u(x_0)\phi(x_0).
\end{align*}
Therefore,
$$
\liminf_{\epsilon\rightarrow0^+}\frac{\|u+\epsilon\phi \|^p_\infty-\|u\|^p_\infty}{\epsilon}\ge p|u(x_0)|^{p-2}u(x_0)\phi(x_0)
$$
and so $``\ge"$ holds in \eqref{supnormderiv}.
\par Now choose a sequence of positive numbers $(\epsilon_j)_{j\in \mathbb{N}}$ tending to $0$ such that
$$
\limsup_{\epsilon\rightarrow0^+}\frac{\|u+\epsilon\phi\|_\infty^p-\|u\|_\infty^p}{\epsilon}=\limsup_{j\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\|u+\epsilon_j\phi\|_\infty^p-\|u\|_\infty^p}{\epsilon_j}
$$
and select a sequence $(x_{j})_{j\in \mathbb{N}}$ maximizing $|u+\epsilon_j \phi|$ that converges to a maximizer $x_0$ of $|u|$. Such sequences exist by the continuity of $u$ and $\phi$, the compactness of $\overline\Omega$, and the inequalities $|u(x)+\epsilon_j \phi(x)|\le \|u+\epsilon_j \phi\|_\infty=|u(x_j)+\epsilon_j\phi(x_j)|$. Therefore, by the convexity of the function $|x|^p$
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{j\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\|u+\epsilon_j\phi\|_\infty^p-\|u\|_\infty^p}{\epsilon_j}&\le \limsup_{j\rightarrow\infty}\frac{|u(x_{\epsilon_j})+\epsilon_j\phi(x_{\epsilon_j})|^p-|u(x_{\epsilon_j})|^p}{\epsilon_j}\\
&=p|u(x_0)|^{p-2}u(x_0)\phi(x_0)\\
&\le p\max\{|u(x)|^{p-2}u(x)\phi(x) : |u(x)|=\|u\|_\infty \}.
\end{align*}
We conclude \eqref{supnormderiv}.
\par 2. Any extremal $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\setminus\{0\}$ satisfies
$$
\lambda_p=\frac{\int_\Omega|Du|^pdx}{\| u\| _\infty^p}\le \frac{\int_\Omega|Du+\epsilon D\phi|^pdx}{\| u+\epsilon\phi \| _\infty^p}
$$
for each $\phi\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ and $\epsilon>0$ sufficiently small. Exploiting \eqref{supnormderiv}
\begin{align*}
0&\le \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0^+}\frac{1}{p\epsilon}\left(\frac{\int_\Omega|Du+\epsilon D\phi|^pdx}{\| u+\epsilon\phi \| _\infty^p}-\frac{\int_\Omega|Du|^pdx}{\| u\| _\infty^p}\right)\\
&= \frac{\int_\Omega|Du|^{p-2}Du\cdot D\phi dx}{\| u\| _\infty^p}-\frac{\int_\Omega|Du|^pdx}{\| u\| _\infty^{2p}}\max\{|u(x)|^{p-2}u(x)\phi(x): x\in \overline{\Omega}, |u(x)|=\|u\|_\infty\}\\
&=\frac{1}{\| u\| _\infty^p}\left(\int_\Omega|Du|^{p-2}Du\cdot D\phi dx-\lambda_p\max\{|u(x)|^{p-2}u(x)\phi(x): x\in \overline{\Omega}, |u(x)|=\|u\|_\infty\}\right).
\end{align*}
Canceling the factor $1/\| u\| _\infty^p$ and replacing $\phi$ with $-\phi$ gives \eqref{WeakMeasure}.
\par 3. Of course if \eqref{WeakMeasure} holds, we can choose $\phi=u$ to verify that $u$ is extremal.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}
Each extremal function is everywhere positive or everywhere negative in $\Omega$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\setminus\{0\}$ is extremal. Then $w:=|u|$ is extremal, as well. Moreover, \eqref{WeakMeasure} implies
$$
\int_\Omega|Dw|^{p-2}Dw\cdot D\phi dx\ge 0
$$
for all $\phi\ge 0$.  Therefore, $w$ is $p$-superharmonic, $w\ge 0$ and $w|_{\partial\Omega}=0$. Since $w$ doesn't vanish identically, $w=|u|>0$
(Theorem 11.1 in \cite{PucSer}). Hence,
$u$ doesn't vanish in $\Omega$ and so $u$ has a definite sign in $\Omega$.
\end{proof}
Observe that the left hand side of \eqref{WeakMeasure} is linear in $\phi$, while the right hand side appears to be nonlinear in $\phi$.  We will argue that this forces
the set $\{x\in \overline{\Omega}: |u(x)|=\|u\|_\infty\}$ to be a singleton for any extremal function.

\begin{prop}
Assume $u$ is an extremal function. Then $\{x\in \Omega: |u(x)|=\|u\|_\infty\}$ is a singleton.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Without any loss of generality, we may assume $u>0$ and $\|u\|_\infty=1$. By \eqref{WeakMeasure}, for any two $\phi_1,\phi_2\in C^\infty_c(\Omega)$
\begin{equation}\label{linearRelation}
\max_{\{u=1\}}\{\phi_1+\phi_2\}=\max_{\{u=1\}}\phi_1+\max_{\{u=1\}}\phi_2.
\end{equation}
Suppose that there are two distinct points $x_1$ and $x_2$ for which $u(x_1)=u(x_2)=1$. In this case,
there are balls $B_\delta(x_1), B_\delta(x_2)\subset\Omega$ that are disjoint for some $\delta>0$ small enough. We choose functions $\phi_1\in C^\infty_c(\Omega)$, $\phi_2\in C^\infty_c(\Omega)$ that
are nonnegative, have maximum value 1, and are supported in $B_\delta(x_1)$ and $B_\delta(x_2)$. It follows that
$$
\max_{\{u=1\}}\{\phi_1+\phi_2\}=1,
$$
while $\max_{\{u=1\}}\phi_1=1$ and $\max_{\{u=1\}}\phi_2=1$. This contradicts \eqref{linearRelation}.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}
Assume $u$ is an extremal function. Then $|u|$ attains its maximum value uniquely at some $x_0\in\Omega$. Moreover,
$$
\int_\Omega|Du|^{p-2}Du\cdot D\phi dx=\lambda_p |u(x_0)|^{p-2}u(x_0)\phi(x_0)
$$
for each $\phi\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$. In particular, $u$ is a weak solution of \eqref{pGroundStateMeasure}.
\end{cor}

\par It now follows that any solution $u$ of \eqref{pGroundStateMeasure}  is differentiable with a locally H\"older continuous gradient in $\Omega\setminus\{x_0\}$, see \cite{Evans, Lewis1, Ural}.   However, we show below that $u$ is not differentiable at $x_0$.

\begin{ex}\label{TalentiExample}
As we noted above, when $\Omega=B_r(x_0)$, we have an explicit extremal function
\begin{equation}\label{TalentiLoc}
u(x)=a\left(r^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}-|x-x_0|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}\right), \quad x\in B_r(x_0)
\end{equation}
for each $a\in \mathbb{R}$. Moreover, any extremal is of the form \eqref{TalentiLoc} for some $a\in \mathbb{R}$; in particular, any ball has a one dimensional collection of extremal functions. The corresponding optimal constant in \eqref{SecondMorrey} is
$$
\lambda_p=\frac{\displaystyle\int_{B_r(x_0)}|Du|^pdx}{\displaystyle\|u\|^p_\infty} =\left(\frac{p-n}{p-1}\right)^{p-1}r^{n-p}n\omega_n.
$$
\end{ex}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{Talenti3.eps}
\caption{Example \ref{TalentiExample} with $a=1$, $p=3$, $n=2$, $r=1$ and $x_0=0$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\par We can use the extremals for balls \eqref{TalentiLoc} to study the behavior of general extremals near the points which maximize their absolute values. Note in particular, that the family of extremals \eqref{TalentiLoc} are H\"{o}lder continuous with exponent $\frac{p-n}{p-1}\in (0,1]$, which is a slight improvement of the exponent $\frac{p-n}{p}$ one has from the Sobolev embedding $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\subset C^{1-\frac{n}{p}}(\overline{\Omega})$.  We will first argue that each extremal has exactly this type of continuity at their maximizing or minimizing points.

\begin{prop}
Assume $u$ is an extremal function and that $|u|$ achieves its maximum value at $x_0$. Suppose $B_r(x_0)\subset \Omega\subset B_R(x_0)$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{HolderEst}
\frac{\|u\|_\infty}{R^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}}|x-x_0|^\frac{p-n}{p-1}\le |u(x)-u(x_0)|\le \frac{\|u\|_\infty}{r^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}}|x-x_0|^\frac{p-n}{p-1}
\end{equation}
for each $x\in \Omega.$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $u>0$ and $u(x_0)=1$, and define
\begin{align*}
v(x):&=\frac{1}{r^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}}\left(r^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}-|x-x_0|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}\right)\\
&=1-\frac{1}{r^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}}|x-x_0|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}
\end{align*}
for $x\in B_r(x_0).$  Observe that $u$ and $v$ are $p$-harmonic in $B_r(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}$, $u(x_0)=v(x_0)$ and $u\ge v$ on $\partial B_r(x_0)$.
By weak comparison, $u\ge v$ in  $B_r(x_0)$. That is
$$
u(x)\ge 1-\frac{1}{r^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}}|x-x_0|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}, \quad x\in B_r(x_0).
$$
Since $v(x)\le 0$ for $x\not\in B_r(x_0)$, the above inequality trivially holds for $x\in\Omega\setminus B_r(x_0)$.

\par Now set
\begin{align*}
w(x):&=\frac{1}{R^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}}\left(R^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}-|x-x_0|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}\right)\\
&=1-\frac{1}{R^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}}|x-x_0|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}.
\end{align*}
Observe that $u$ and $w$ are $p$-harmonic in $\Omega\setminus\{x_0\}$, $u(x_0)=w(x_0)$ and $u\le w$ on $\partial\Omega$.
By weak comparison, $u\le w$ in  $\Omega$. That is
$$
u(x)\le 1-\frac{1}{R^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}}|x-x_0|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}, \quad x\in \Omega.
$$
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Suppose that $u$ is an extremal function such that $|u|$ attains its maximum value at $x_0\in \Omega$. Then $u$ is not differentiable
at $x_0$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
First assume $\frac{p-n}{p-1}\in (0,1)$.  By hypothesis, $u(x)=u(x_0)+Du(x_0)\cdot(x-x_0)+o(|x-x_0|)$, as $x\rightarrow x_0$. Choosing $R$ so large that $\Omega\subset B_R(x_0)$, we have by the previous proposition that
$$
\frac{\|u\|_\infty}{R^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}}|x-x_0|^\frac{p-n}{p-1}\le|u(x)-u(x_0)|\le |Du(x_0)||x-x_0|+o(|x-x_0|),
$$
as $x\rightarrow x_0$. That is,
$$
\frac{\|u\|_\infty}{R^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}}\frac{1}{|x-x_0|^{1-\frac{p-n}{p-1}}}\le |Du(x_0)|+o(1).
$$
This inequality can not be true since $\frac{p-n}{p-1}\in (0,1)$. If $\frac{p-n}{p-1}=1$, then $n=1$ and the claim trivially holds by Example \ref{TalentiExample}.
\end{proof}
We will now refine the above estimates to deduce the exact behavior of an extremal $u$ and its derivative near the point at which $|u|$ achieves its maximum.  The following
proposition relies on the results of Kichenassamy and Veron in \cite{KV}.
\begin{prop}\label{LimitProp}
Assume that $u$ is an extremal function for which $|u|$ attains its maximum value at $x_0\in \Omega$. Then
$$
\lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}\frac{|u(x)-u(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|^\frac{p-n}{p-1}}
=\|u\|_\infty\left(\frac{p-1}{p-n}\right)\left(\frac{\lambda_p}{n\omega_n}\right)^{\frac{1}{p-1}}
$$
and
$$
\lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}\frac{|Du(x)|}{|x-x_0|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}-1}}
=\|u\|_\infty\left(\frac{\lambda_p}{n\omega_n}\right)^{\frac{1}{p-1}}.
$$
Here $\omega_n$ is the Lebesgue measure of $B_1(0)\subset \mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Without any loss of generality, we may assume that $u$ is positive in $\Omega$ and that $u(x_0)=1$. Recall that $u$ is $p$-harmonic in $\Omega\setminus \{x_0\}$, and in view of the previous lemma, $u$ satisfies $0\le 1-u(x)\leq C|x-x_0|^\frac{p-n}{p-1}$ in $\Omega$ for some constant $C$. By Theorem 1.1 and Remark 1.6 in \cite{KV}, there is $\gamma> 0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{uas}
\lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}\frac{1-u(x)}{|x-x_0|^\frac{p-n}{p-1}}
=\gamma,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{duas}
\lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}\frac{|Du(x)|}{|x-x_0|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}-1}}
=\left(\frac{p-n}{p-1}\right)\gamma,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{tuas}
\lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}\left(\frac{Du(x)}{|Du(x)|}+\frac{x-x_0}{|x-x_0|}\right)=0.
\end{equation}

\par We may integrate by parts and exploit  \eqref{tuas} to get
\begin{align*}
\lambda_p& =\int_{\Omega}|Du|^{p}dx\\
&=\lim_{r\rightarrow 0^+}\int_{\Omega\setminus B_{r}(x_0)}|Du|^{p}dx\\
&=\lim_{r\rightarrow 0^+}\int_{\Omega\setminus B_{r}(x_0)}\text{div}(u|Du|^{p-2}Du)dx\\
&=\lim_{r\rightarrow 0^+}\int_{\partial B_{r}(x_0)}u|Du|^{p-2}|Du|\cdot \left(- \frac{x-x_0}{|x-x_0|}\right)d\sigma\\
&=\lim_{r\rightarrow 0^+}\int_{\partial B_{r}(x_0)}u|Du|^{p-1}d\sigma.
\end{align*}
In view of \eqref{uas}, we actually have
\begin{equation}\label{LamPeeLimit}
\lambda_p = \lim_{r\rightarrow 0^+}\int_{\partial B_{r}(x_0)}|Du|^{p-1}d\sigma.
\end{equation}

\par Now we can apply \eqref{duas}. This limit gives
$$
|Du(x)|^{p-1}= \left(\frac{p-n}{p-1}\gamma\right)^{p-1}|x-x_0|^{-(n-1)}+o(1)
$$
as $x\rightarrow x_0$. By \eqref{LamPeeLimit},
$$
\lambda_p =  \lim_{r\rightarrow 0^+}\int_{\partial B_{r}(x_0)}\left[\left(\frac{p-n}{p-1}\gamma\right)^{p-1}r^{-(n-1)}+o(1)\right]d\sigma = \left(\frac{p-n}{p-1}\gamma\right)^{p-1}n\omega_n
$$
which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
A function $w\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ that satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{PotentialPDE}
\begin{cases}
-\Delta_pw=0,& \quad x\in\Omega\setminus\{x_0\}\\
\hspace{.33in}w=1,& \quad x=x_0\\
\hspace{.33in}w=0,& \quad x\in \partial\Omega
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
weakly is called a {\it potential} function.  Observe that every extremal is a multiple of a potential function but not vice versa. The strong maximum principle for $p$-harmonic functions implies that $0<w<1$ in $\Omega\setminus\{x_0\}$. In particular, $w$ is uniquely maximized at $x_0$.

\par Using similar arguments as in the proof of Proposition \ref{LimitProp}, one can easily show that
$$
-\Delta_pw=\lambda \delta_{x_0}\quad x\in \Omega
$$
where $$
\lambda:=\int_\Omega|Dw|^pdx.
$$
Moreover, we can repeat the proof of Proposition \ref{LimitProp} to find
\begin{equation}\label{potentialLim1}
\lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}\frac{1-w(x)}{|x-x_0|^\frac{p-n}{p-1}}
=\left(\frac{p-1}{p-n}\right)\left(\frac{\lambda}{n\omega_n}\right)^{\frac{1}{p-1}}.
\end{equation}
These facts will be used to verify Theorem \ref{mainThm}.

\section{Support function of an extremal}\label{SuppSec}
Suppose now that $\Omega$ is convex and that $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ is a positive extremal which achieves its maximum at $x_0\in \Omega$.  The results of Lewis in \cite{JLewis} imply that
\begin{equation}\label{CapacitaryFun}
\begin{cases}
\text{ $-(x-x_0)\cdot Du(x)>0$ for  $x\in\Omega \setminus \{x_0\}$,} \\
\text{ $u$ is locally real analytic in $\Omega\setminus \{x_0\}$,}\\
\text{$\{u>t\}$ is convex for each $t\in \mathbb{R}$, and}\\
\text{$\{u=t\}$ has positive Gaussian curvature for each $t\in (0,\|u\|_\infty)$}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
By the implicit function theorem, it is also follows that the level sets of $u$ are smooth.

\par We define the {\it support function} of $u$ as
\begin{equation}\label{SuppExtreme}
h(\xi,t):=\sup\left\{x\cdot \xi: x\in \overline{\Omega}, u(x)\ge t\right\}
\end{equation}
$\xi\in \mathbb{R}^n, t\in [0,\|u\|_\infty]$. For $t\in [0,\|u\|_\infty]$, $h(\cdot,t)$ is the usual support function of the convex set $\{u\ge t\}$; if $u(0)\ge t$ and $|\xi|=1$, $h(\xi,t)$ represents the distance from the origin to the hyperplane that supports $\{u\ge t\}$ with outward normal $\xi$. It follows from \eqref{CapacitaryFun} and Theorem 4 of \cite{ColSal}, $h\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n\setminus\{0\}\times(0,\|u\|_\infty))$ and $h_t<0$.

\par Suppose $u(x_0)=\|u\|_\infty$. Then for
$$
x\in \Omega\setminus\{x_0\},\quad\xi=-\frac{Du(x)}{|Du(x)|},\quad \text{and}\quad t=u(x),
$$
we have
$$
h(\xi,t)=x\cdot \xi,\quad h_t(\xi,t)=-\frac{1}{|Du(x)|},\quad \text{and}\quad D_\xi h(\xi,t)=x.
$$
See \cite{LonSal}. In particular, since $\xi$ is the outward unit normal to the hypersurface $\{u=t\}$ at the point $x$,  $D_\xi h(\xi,t)$ is the inverse image of the Gauss map at $x$. Moreover, as $D^2_\xi h(\xi,t)\xi=0$, the restriction of the linear transformation $D^2_\xi h(\xi,t):\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ to $\xi^\perp:=\{z\in \mathbb{R}^n: z\cdot \xi=0\}$ is the inverse of the second fundamental form of $\{u=t\}$ at the point $x$ (see section 2.5 of \cite{RS} for more on this point). In particular, $D^2_\xi h(\xi,t)|_{\xi^\perp}:\xi^\perp\rightarrow \xi^\perp$ is positive definite and its eigenvalues are the reciprocals of the principle curvatures of $\{u=t\}$ at $x$.

\par Recall that $-\Delta_pu=0$ in $\Omega\setminus\{x_0\}$. Using this equation, it was proved by Colesanti and Salani (Proposition 1 of \cite{ColSal}) that $h$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{plaph}
h_t^2\operatorname{tr}\left[\left(D^2_\xi h|_{\xi^\perp}\right)^{-1}\right]+(p-1)\left( \left(D^2_\xi h|_{\xi^\perp}\right)^{-1} \nabla_\xi h_t\cdot  \nabla_\xi h_t-h_{tt}\right)=0
\end{equation}
for each $|\xi|=1$ and $t\in (0,\|u\|_\infty)$. Here $\nabla_\xi h_t:=(I_n-\xi\otimes\xi)D_\xi h_t$ is the projection of the gradient of $h_t$ onto $\xi^\perp$. Equation \eqref{plaph} will
have an important role in our proof of Theorem \ref{mainThm}.

\section{Nonuniqueness}\label{CounterEx}
We now begin our study of the uniqueness of extremals for a given domain $\Omega$.  First, we first explain that uniqueness does not hold in general by providing explicit examples below.  These instances include planar  annuli, bow tie and dumbbell shaped domains.  The perceptive reader will also see how to construct other examples from our remarks below.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{Annulus.eps}
\caption{$\Omega_{4,6}$ when $n=2$.}
\label{AnnFig}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{ex}
Define
$$
\Omega_{r_1,r_2}:=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^n: r_1<|x|<r_2\}
$$
for $r_1,r_2>0$ with $r_1<r_2$.
As mentioned above, there is a positive extremal $u$ that achieves is maximum at a single point $x_0\in \Omega_{r_1,r_2}$.  Notice that for any $n\times n$ orthogonal matrix $O$,  $v:=u\circ O$ is a positive extremal and $\|v\|_\infty=\|u\|_\infty$. Consequently, for each $y_0\in \Omega_{r_1,r_2}$ with $|y_0|=|x_0|$, there is a distinct positive extremal with supremum norm equal to $\|u\|_\infty$. Thus, uniqueness of extremals does not hold for annuli as showed in Figure \ref{AnnFig}.
\end{ex}

\begin{ex}\label{BowTieEx} Consider the ``bow tie" domain in the plane
$$
\Omega_\epsilon:=\left\{(x_1,x_2)\in \mathbb{R}^2: |x_2|<|x_1|+\epsilon, |x_1|<1\right\}
$$
for $\epsilon>0$. Note, in particular, that $\Omega_\epsilon$ is star-shaped with respect to the origin; see Figure \ref{BowtieFig}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{Bowtie.eps}
\caption{$\Omega_{1/10}$}
\label{BowtieFig}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Let $u_\epsilon$ be a positive extremal for $\Omega_\epsilon$ with $\|u_\epsilon\|_\infty=1$. If $u_\epsilon$ is unique, then it must be that
\begin{equation}\label{uisoneatZEro}
u_\epsilon(0,0)=1.
\end{equation}
This is due to the fact that the $\Omega_\epsilon$ and the $p$-Laplacian are invariant with respect to reflection about the $x_1$ and $x_2$ axes.

\par Let us assume \eqref{uisoneatZEro} holds for each $\epsilon>0$ and extend $u_\epsilon$ to be 0 outside of $\Omega_\epsilon$. Notice that the resulting function, which we also denote as $u_\epsilon$, belongs to $W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)$. Also note that since $\Omega_0\subset \Omega_\epsilon$
$$
\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}|Du_\epsilon|^pdx=\int_{\Omega_\epsilon}|Du_\epsilon|^pdx=\lambda_p(\Omega_\epsilon)\le \lambda_p(\Omega_0).
$$
Consequently, there is a decreasing sequence of positive numbers $(\epsilon_j)_{j\in \mathbb{N}}$ tending to 0 and a continuous function $u_0:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow [0,1]$ for which $u_{\epsilon_j} \rightarrow u_0$ locally uniformly on $\mathbb{R}^2$. In view of \eqref{uisoneatZEro},
$$
u_0(0,0)=1.
$$
On the other hand, $u_\epsilon(0,2\epsilon)=0$ for all $\epsilon>0$. Thus
$$
u_0(0,0)=\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}u_{\epsilon_j}(0,2\epsilon_j)=0,
$$
which is a contradiction.
\par As a result, we conclude that there is some $\epsilon>0$ such that $u_\epsilon$ does not achieve its maximum value at $(0,0)$. For this value of $\epsilon$, $\Omega_\epsilon$ will have a least two  positive extremals with supremum norm equal to 1.
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}
The same ideas used in Example \ref{BowTieEx}, can be used to show the dumbbell-shaped domain
$$
B_1(-5,0)\cup \left([-5,5]\times[-\delta,\delta]\right)\cup B_1(5,0)\quad (0<\delta<1)
$$
does not have unique extremals for some $\delta>0$ chosen small enough. See Figure \ref{DumbellFig}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{Dumbell.eps}
\caption{Dumbbell-shaped domain for $\delta=\pi/15$.}
\label{DumbellFig}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{ex}

\section{Convex domains}\label{UniquenessArgs}
Throughout this section, we will assume that $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a bounded convex domain. We will also suppose that $u_0, u_1\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ are positive extremal functions that satisfy
$$
\begin{cases}
u_0(x_0)=\|u_0\|_\infty=1\\
u_1(x_1)=\|u_1\|_\infty=1
\end{cases}
$$
for some $x_0,x_1\in \Omega$.  We aim to show that
\begin{equation}\label{CrucialEquality}
u_0\equiv u_1.
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that Theorem \ref{mainThm} follows from \eqref{CrucialEquality}.

\par For each $\rho\in (0,1)$, we define the {\it Minkowski combination} of $u_0$ and $u_1$
$$
u_\rho(z):=\sup\left\{\min\{u_0(x),u_1(y)\}: z=(1-\rho)x+\rho y,\; x,y\in \overline{\Omega}\right\}
$$
$z\in \overline{\Omega}$. We recall that $u_0$ and $u_1$ are quasiconcave. Using the definition above, it is straightforward to verify that for each $t\in \mathbb{R}$
\begin{equation}\label{SuperLevelSetIdentity}
\{u_\rho>t\}=(1-\rho)\{u_0>t\}+\rho \{u_1>t\}.
\end{equation}
Here the addition is the usual Minkowski addition of convex sets.  In particular, $u_\rho$ itself is quasiconcave.

\par The Minkowski combination was introduced in work of Borell in \cite{Borell} when he studied capacitary functions; although his work was motivated by the previous papers of Lewis \cite{JLewis} and Gabriel \cite{Gabriel}.   We also were particularly inspired to utilize the Minkowski combination after we became aware of the work of Colesanti and Salani in \cite{ColSal}, who verified a Brunn-Minkowski inequality for $p$-capacitary functions $(1<p<n)$, and the work of Cardaliaguet and Tahraoui in \cite{CarTah} on the strict concavity of the harmonic radius.

\par Along the way to proving \eqref{CrucialEquality}, we will need some other useful properties of $u_\rho$.
\begin{prop}\label{uRhoProp} Define
$$
x_\rho:=(1-\rho)x_0+\rho x_1.
$$
Then the following hold:\\
\noindent $(i)$ $u_\rho(x_\rho)=\|u_\rho\|_\infty=1$.\\
$(ii)$ $u_\rho|_{\partial\Omega}=0$.\\
$(iii)$ $u_\rho\in C^\infty(\Omega\setminus\{x_\rho\})\cap C(\overline{\Omega})$.\\
$(iv)$ For each $z\in \Omega\setminus\{x_\rho\}$, there are $x\in \Omega\setminus\{x_0\}$ and $y\in \Omega\setminus\{x_1\}$ such that
\begin{align*}
z&=(1-\rho)x+\rho y,&\\
u_\rho(z)&=u_0(x)=u_1(y),&\\
\frac{Du_\rho(z)}{|Du_\rho(z)|}&=\frac{Du_0(x)}{|Du_0(x)|}=\frac{Du_1(y)}{|Du_1(y)|},&\\
\frac{1}{|Du_\rho(z)|}&=(1-\rho)\frac{1}{|Du_0(x)|}+\rho\frac{1}{|Du_1(y)|}, &\\
\frac{D^2u_\rho(z)}{|Du_\rho(z)|^3}&\ge (1-\rho)\frac{D^2u_0(x)}{|Du_0(x)|^3}+\rho\frac{D^2u_1(y)}{|Du_1(y)|^3}.&
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
We omit the proof of the above proposition. However, we remark that $(i)$ and $(ii)$ are elementary; Theorem 4 of \cite{ColSal} and Theorem 1 of \cite{JLewis} together imply $(iii)$; and $(iv)$ follows from Section 2 of \cite{CarTah} or Section 7 of \cite{LonSal}. Using these properties we will verify that $u_\rho$ itself is an extremal for each $\rho\in (0,1)$.

\begin{lem}
$u_\rho$ is extremal.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We first show that $u_\rho$ is $p$-subharmonic and integrate by parts to derive an upper bound on the integral $\int_\Omega|Du_\rho|^pdz$. Then we show that $u_\rho$ satisfies the limits in Proposition \ref{LimitProp} (that are also satisfied by every extremal function). Finally, we combine the upper bound and the limits to arrive at the desired conclusion.

\par 1. Let $z\in \Omega\setminus\{x_\rho\}$, and select $x\in \Omega\setminus\{x_0\}$ and $y\in \Omega\setminus\{x_1\}$ such that
$$
e:=\frac{Du_\rho(z)}{|Du_\rho(z)|}=\frac{Du_0(x)}{|Du_0(x)|}=\frac{Du_1(z)}{|Du_1(z)|}
$$
and
$$
\frac{D^2u_\rho(z)}{|Du_\rho(z)|^3}\ge (1-\rho)\frac{D^2u_0(x)}{|Du_0(x)|^3}+\rho\frac{D^2u_1(y)}{|Du_1(y)|^3}.
$$
Recall that such $x,y$ exist by Proposition \ref{uRhoProp}.  We have
\begin{align*}
|Du_\rho(z)|^{-(p+1)}\Delta_pu_\rho(z)&=\frac{\Delta u_\rho(z)}{|Du_\rho(z)|^3}+(p-2)\frac{D^2u_\rho(z)e\cdot e}{|Du_\rho(z)|^3}\\
&=\left(I_n+(p-2)e\otimes e\right)\cdot \frac{D^2u_\rho(z)}{|Du_\rho(z)|^3}.
\end{align*}
Note that $\min\{1,p-1\}>0$ is a lower bound on the eigenvalues of the matrix $I_n+(p-2)e\otimes e$. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
|Du_\rho(z)|^{-(p+1)}\Delta_pu_\rho(z)&\ge\left(I_n+(p-2)e\otimes e\right)\cdot\left( (1-\rho)\frac{D^2u_0(x)}{|Du_0(x)|^3}+\rho\frac{D^2u_1(y)}{|Du_1(y)|^3}\right)\\
&= (1-\rho)|Du_0(x)|^{-(p+1)}\Delta_pu_0(x)+ \rho|Du_1(y)|^{-(p+1)}\Delta_pu_1(y)\\
&= (1-\rho)\cdot 0+ \rho\cdot 0\\
&=0.
\end{align*}
Consequently, $-\Delta_p u_\rho\le 0$ in $\Omega\setminus\{x_\rho\}$.

\par 2. The divergence theorem gives
$$
\int_{\Omega\setminus B_r(x_\rho)}\text{div}(u_\rho|Du_\rho|^{p-2}Du_\rho)dz =\int_{\partial B_r(x_\rho)}u_\rho|Du_\rho|^{p-2}Du_\rho \cdot \left(-\frac{z-x_\rho}{|z-x_\rho|}\right)d\sigma.
$$
On the other hand, since $u_\rho$ is a positive $p$-subharmonic function in $\Omega\setminus\{x_\rho\}$
\begin{align*}
\int_{\Omega\setminus B_r(x_\rho)}\text{div}(u_\rho|Du_\rho|^{p-2}Du_\rho)dz &=\int_{\Omega\setminus B_r(x_\rho)}\left(u_\rho\Delta_p u_\rho +|Du_\rho|^{p}\right)dz \\
&\ge \int_{\Omega\setminus B_r(x_\rho)}|Du_\rho|^{p}dz.
\end{align*}
As $u_\rho\le 1$,
\begin{equation}\label{UpperLiminf}
\int_{\Omega}|Du_\rho|^pdz\le \liminf_{r\rightarrow 0^+}\int_{\partial B_r(x_\rho)}|Du_\rho|^{p-1}d\sigma.
\end{equation}

\par 3. Let $w_\rho$ be a solution of the PDE \eqref{PotentialPDE} with $x_\rho$ replacing $x_0$. As $u_\rho$ is $p$-subharmonic, $u_\rho(x_\rho)=1$ and $u_\rho|_{\partial\Omega}=0$,  weak comparison implies $u_\rho\le w_\rho.$ This is a version of Borell's inequality , see \cite{Borell, CarTah}. In particular,
\begin{equation}\label{WlowerBound}
w_\rho(z)\ge u_\rho(z)\ge \min\{u_0(x),u_1(y)\}
\end{equation}
whenever $z=(1-\rho)x+\rho y$.

\par  Now let $z^k\rightarrow x_\rho$ with $z^k\neq x_\rho$ for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$ sufficiently large.  Set
$$
\begin{cases}
x^k:=z^k+(x_0-x_\rho) \\
y^k:=z^k+(x_1-x_\rho)
\end{cases}
$$
for each $k\in \mathbb{N}$. Observe $z^k=(1-\rho)x^k+\rho y^k$ and
$$
|z^k-x_\rho|=|x^k-x_0|=|y^k-x_1|.
$$
Setting $\lambda:= \int_\Omega|Dw_\rho|^pdz$, we have from Proposition \ref{LimitProp}, \eqref{potentialLim1} and \eqref{WlowerBound} that
\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{p-1}{p-n}\right)\left(\frac{\lambda}{n\omega_n}\right)^\frac{1}{p-1}
&=\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}
\frac{1-w_\rho(z^k)}{|z^k-x_\rho|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}}\\
&\le \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \max\left\{\frac{1-u_0(x^k)}{|x^k-x_0|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}},
\frac{1-u_1(y^k)}{|y^k-x_1|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}}\right\}\\
&=\left(\frac{p-1}{p-n}\right)\left(\frac{\lambda_p}{n\omega_n}\right)^\frac{1}{p-1}.
\end{align*}
It follows that $\lambda= \lambda_p$. In view of \eqref{WlowerBound}, and since the sequence $z^k$ was arbitrary,
\begin{equation}\label{urhoLimit1}
\lim_{z\rightarrow x_\rho}
\frac{1-u_\rho(z)}{|z-x_\rho|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}}}=\left(\frac{p-1}{p-n}\right)\left(\frac{\lambda_p}{n\omega_n}\right)^\frac{1}{p-1}.
\end{equation}

\par 4. Again let let $z^k\rightarrow x_\rho$ with $z^k\neq x_\rho$ for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$ sufficiently large. By Proposition \ref{uRhoProp}, there are
$x^k\in \Omega\setminus\{x_0\}$ and $y^k\in \Omega\setminus\{x_1\}$ such that $z^k=(1-\rho)x^k+\rho y^k$,
\begin{equation}\label{AllfunctionEqualk}
u_\rho(z^k)=u_0(x^k)=u_1(y^k),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{ReciprocalDerivativeEqualk}
\frac{1}{|Du_\rho(z^k)|}=(1-\rho)\frac{1}{|Du_0(x^k)|}+\rho\frac{1}{|Du_1(y^k)|}.
\end{equation}
Since $u_\rho(z^k)\rightarrow 1$, \eqref{AllfunctionEqualk} implies that $x^k\rightarrow x_0$ and $y^k\rightarrow x_1$ as $u_0$ and $u_1$ are uniquely maximized as these points, respectively.  Combining this fact with Proposition \ref{LimitProp}, \eqref{urhoLimit1} and again with \eqref{AllfunctionEqualk} also gives
\begin{equation}
\label{yjlim}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{|y^k-x_1|}{|z^k-x_\rho|}=\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{|x^k-x_0|}{|z^k-x_\rho|}=1.
\end{equation}

\par By \eqref{ReciprocalDerivativeEqualk},
\begin{align*}
\frac{|z^k-x_\rho|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}-1}}{|Du_\rho(z^k)|}&=(1-\rho)\frac{ |z^k-x_\rho|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}-1}}{|Du_0(x^k)|}+\rho\frac{|z^k-x_\rho|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}-1}}{|Du_1(y^k)|}\\
&=\left(\frac{|z^k-x_\rho|}{|x^k-x_0|}\right)^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}-1}(1-\rho)\frac{ |x^k-x_0|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}-1}}{|Du_0(x^k)|}+
\left(\frac{|z^k-x_\rho|}{|y^k-x_1|}\right)^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}-1}\rho\frac{|y^k-x_1|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}-1}}{|Du_1(y^k)|}.
\end{align*}
We can now employ the gradient limit in Proposition \ref{LimitProp} and \eqref{yjlim} to obtain
$$
\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}
\frac{|Du_\rho(z^k)|}{|z^k-x_\rho|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}-1}}=\left(\frac{\lambda_p}{n\omega_n}\right)^\frac{1}{p-1}.
$$
And since $z^k$ was arbitrary,
\begin{equation}\label{urhoLimit2}
\lim_{z\rightarrow x_\rho}
\frac{|Du_\rho(z)|}{|z-x_\rho|^{\frac{p-n}{p-1}-1}}=\left(\frac{\lambda_p}{n\omega_n}\right)^\frac{1}{p-1}.
\end{equation}

\par 5. Using the upper bound \eqref{UpperLiminf} and the limits \eqref{urhoLimit1} and \eqref{urhoLimit2}, we can
proceed with the same arguments as in the proof of Proposition \ref{LimitProp} to conclude
\begin{align*}
\int_{\Omega}|Du_\rho|^pdz&\le \liminf_{r\rightarrow 0^+}\int_{\partial B_r(x_\rho)}|Du_\rho|^{p-1}d\sigma\le \lambda_p.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
In order to verify \eqref{CrucialEquality}, we will employ the respective support functions $h_0$, $h_1$, and $h_\rho$ of $u_0$, $u_1$ and $u_\rho$; recall the support function of an extremal was defined in \eqref{SuppExtreme}. In particular, we note that the identity \eqref{SuperLevelSetIdentity} implies
$$
h_\rho=(1-\rho)h_0+\rho h_1.
$$
Using this identity with the fact that $h_0, h_1$ and $h_\rho$ all satisfy equation \eqref{plaph}, Colesanti and Salani showed for each $t\in (0,1)$ there is $C(t)>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{HesshmatrixId}
D^2_\xi h_0(\xi,t)|_{\xi^\perp}=C(t)D^2_\xi h_1(\xi,t)|_{\xi^\perp}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{DthId}
\partial_th_0(\xi,t)=C(t)\partial_th_1(\xi,t)
\end{equation}
for all $|\xi|=1$ (see the proof of Theorem 1 in \cite{ColSal}).

\par As $D^2_\xi h_0(\xi,t)\xi=D^2_\xi h_0(\xi,t)\xi=0\in \mathbb{R}^n$, it follows from \eqref{HesshmatrixId} and the homogeneity of $h_0$ and $h_1$ that
$$
D^2_\xi h_0(\xi,t)=C(t)D^2_\xi h_1(\xi,t)
$$
for $(\xi,t)\in (\mathbb{R}^n\setminus\{0\})\times(0,1)$. Upon integration we find
$$
h_0(\xi,t)=C(t)h_1(\xi,t)+a(t)\cdot \xi +b(t)
$$
for some $a(t)\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $b(t)\in \mathbb{R}$. Since $h_0$ and $h_1$ are homogeneous of degree one, it must be that $b(t)=0$ for each $t\in (0,1)$. Thus,
$$
h_0(\xi,t)=C(t)h_1(\xi,t)+a(t)\cdot \xi.
$$
Taking the time derivative of both sides of this equation gives
$$
\partial_th_0(\xi,t)=C(t)\partial_th_1(\xi,t)+C'(t)h_1(\xi,t)+a'(t)\cdot \xi.
$$
Comparing with \eqref{DthId} leads us to
$$
C'(t)h_1(\xi,t)+a'(t)\cdot \xi=0.
$$

\par Suppose that $C'(t_0)\neq 0$ for some $t_0\in (0,1)$. Then
$$
h_1(\xi,t_0)=\left[\frac{-a'(t_0)}{C'(t_0)}\right]\cdot \xi.
$$
This would imply the level set $\{u_1=t_0\}$ is the singleton $\{-a'(t_0)/C'(t_0)\}$, which is not possible. Therefore, $C'(t)= 0$ for $t\in (0,1)$ and thus $a'(t)\cdot \xi=0$ for all $\xi$. Consequently, $a'(t)=0$ for $t\in (0,1)$. Since $h_0$ and $h_1$ coincide at $t=0$, $C(t)=1$ and $a(t)=0$ for all $t\in [0,1]$. As a result, $h_0\equiv h_1$ and so $\{u_0\ge t\}=\{u_1\ge t\}$ for each $t\in [0,1]$ (Theorem 8.24 in \cite{RocWet}). This verifies \eqref{CrucialEquality}.

\begin{proof}[~Proof of Corollary \ref{Greenthm}] By equation \eqref{GreenPDE} and inequality \eqref{SecondMorrey},
\begin{align*}
G(y,y)&=\int_\Omega |DG(x,y)|^pdx\\
&\ge\lambda_p\|G(\cdot,y)\|^p_\infty\\
&\ge\lambda_pG(y,y)^p.
\end{align*}
Therefore, $G(y,y)\le\lambda_p^{-1/(p-1)}$ and equality holds if and only if $G(\cdot,y)$ is extremal.  Theorem \ref{mainThm} in turn implies that equality occurs if and only if $y=x_0$.
\end{proof}

\section{Steiner symmetric domains}\label{Steiner}
Theorem \ref{mainThm} implies that if a convex domain has some reflectional symmetry, then we have additional information on the location of the maximum points of positive extremals.  More precisely, we can make the following observation.

\begin{cor}
Assume $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is a convex domain that is invariant with respect to reflection across the hyperplanes $\{x\in \mathbb{R}^n: x_j=0\}$ for $j=1,\dots, n$.  Then any positive (negative) extremal achieves
its maximum (minimum) value at $0\in \mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Assume $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ is a positive extremal that achieves it maximum value at $z$.  As $\Omega$ is invariant with respect to $\{x\in \mathbb{R}^n: x_1=0\}$, the function
$$
u_1(x_1,x_2,\dots, x_n):=u(-x_1,x_2,\dots, x_n),\quad (x_1,x_2,\dots, x_n)\in \Omega
$$
belongs to $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ and $\|u\|_\infty=\|u_1\|_\infty$. Moreover, it is routine to verify that $u_1$ is also a positive extremal that achieves it maximum at the reflection of $z$ about the plane $\{x\in \mathbb{R}^n: x_1=0\}$.  By Theorem \ref{mainThm}, $u_1=u$ which forces $z\in \{x\in \mathbb{R}^n: x_1=0\}$.   Repeating this argument for $j=2,\dots, n$, we find $z\in \{x\in \mathbb{R}^n: x_j=0\}$ for $j=1,\dots, n$. As a result, $z=0$.
\end{proof}
We now seek to extend this observation. We will show below that certain symmetric two dimensional domains have uniqueness of extremals without assuming the domains were convex to begin with. To this end, we employ Steiner symmetrization. In particular, we will make use of the results by Cianchi and Fusco in \cite{CianchiFusco} on the equality condition in the P\'olya-Szeg\"o inequality associated with  Steiner symmetrization. We also use special properties of the critical points of $p$-harmonic functions in two dimensions due to Manfredi in \cite{Man88}.

\par Let us first briefly recall the notion of the Steiner symmetrization of a subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$. For a given $A\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ and $a\in \mathbb{R}$, we will denote $A\cap \{x_1=a\}$ as the intersection of $A$ with the vertical line $x_1=a$.  We also will write ${\cal L}^m$ for the outer Lebesgue measure defined on all subsets of $\mathbb{R}^m$ $(m=1,2)$.
\begin{defn}
Assume $A\subset \mathbb{R}^2$. The {\it Steiner symmetrization} of $A$ with respect to the $x_1$ axis is
$$
A^{*}_1=\left\{(a,b)\in \mathbb{R}^2: |b|< \frac{1}{2} {\cal L}^1\left(A\cap \{x_1=a\}\right)\right\}.
$$
$A$ is said to be {\it Steiner symmetric} with respect to the $x_1$ axis if $A^*_1=A$.
\end{defn}

Now suppose $u:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow [0,\infty)$ is Lebesgue measurable. We can use the above definition to provide the following rearrangement of $u$
$$
u^*_1(x):=\int^\infty_0\chi_{\{u>t\}^{*}_{1}}(x)dt, \quad x\in \mathbb{R}^2.
$$
This function is called the {\it Steiner rearrangement} of $u$ with respect to the $x_1$ axis. Observe that
\begin{equation}\label{EquiMeasProp}
\{u^*_1>t\}=\{u>t\}^*_1
\end{equation}
for each $t\ge 0$. Note that $u^*_1(x_1,\cdot)$ and $u(x_1,\cdot)$ have the same distribution for ${\cal L}^1$ almost every $x_1\in \mathbb{R}$.

\par It is known that if $p\in [1,\infty)$, $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ is a bounded domain and $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$, then $u^*_1\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$. Moreover, if $\Omega^*_1$ is
Lebesgue measurable, the {\it P\'olya-Szeg\"{o} inequality}
\begin{equation}\label{PSineq}
\int_{\Omega^*_1} |D u_1^*|^p dx \leq \int_\Omega |D u|^p dx
\end{equation}
holds, see \cite{Brock, CianchiFusco}. Cianchi and Fusco showed that if $\Omega^*_1=\Omega$ and equality holds
in \eqref{PSineq}, then $u^*_1=u$ provided
\begin{equation}\label{CFcondition}
{\cal L}^2\left(\{u_{x_2}=0\}\right)=0
\end{equation}
(Theorem 2.2 in \cite{CianchiFusco}).  All of the above definitions and facts regarding Steiner symmetrization and rearrangements with respect to the $x_1$ axis have obvious counterparts with respect to the $x_2$ axis.

\par Our main assertion regarding the uniqueness of extremals on Steiner symmetric domains is as follows.
\begin{prop}\label{2DSimple} Assume $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ is a bounded domain that is equal to its Steiner symmetrization about the $x_1$ and $x_2$ axes. Then any positive (negative) extremal achieves
its maximum (minimum) value at $0\in \mathbb{R}^2$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Assume $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ is a positive extremal with $\|u\|_\infty=u(z)=1$. In view of \eqref{EquiMeasProp}, $\|u^*_1\|_\infty=1$, as well. By the P\'olya-Szeg\"o inequality \eqref{PSineq},
we easily conclude  $u^*_1$ is extremal and $\int_\Omega |D u_1^*|^p dx = \int_\Omega |D u|^p dx$.  We now claim that $u$ satisfies \eqref{CFcondition}. Once we verify this assertion, we would have $u=u^*_1$ which implies $u(x_1,x_2)=u(x_1,-x_2)$ for all $(x_1,x_2)\in \Omega$. As a result $z$ belongs to the $x_1$ axis, and very similarly we would have that $z$ also belongs to the $x_2$ axis. Therefore, $z=0\in \mathbb{R}^2$.

\par  Let us now show that any positive extremal $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ satisfies \eqref{CFcondition}. Recall that $u$ is $p$-harmonic in $\Omega\setminus\{z\}$ and therefore, $u\in C^1_{\text{loc}}(\Omega\setminus\{z\})$. By the results of Manfredi in \cite{Man88}, we know the zeros of $Du$ are isolated in $\Omega\setminus\{z\}$. Consequently, $u$ is locally real analytic in $S:=\Omega\setminus\left(\{z\}\cup\{|Du|=0\}\right)$, which is an open set of full measure. In particular, $u_{x_2}$ is also locally real analytic in $S$.  Therefore, if
$$
{\cal L}^2\left(\{x\in S : u_{x_2}(x)=0\}\right)>0,
$$
then it must be that $u_{x_2}\equiv 0$ in $S$; see section 3.1 of \cite{KraPar}. Since $u_{x_2}$ is continuous in $\Omega\setminus\{z\}$, it would then follow that $u_{x_2}\equiv 0$ in $\Omega\setminus\{z\}$, as well. However, this is clearly not possible as the function
$$
[0,\infty) \ni t\mapsto u(z+te_2)
$$
is positive at $t=0$ and vanishes for all $t>0$ sufficiently large.  As a result, \eqref{CFcondition} holds and the assertion follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.75\textwidth]{StarFish.eps}
\caption{}
\label{StarFish}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{CrossFig.eps}
\caption{}
\label{CrossFig}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{WobbleFig.eps}
\caption{}
\label{WobbleFig}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
See Figures \ref{StarFish}, \ref{CrossFig} and \ref{WobbleFig} for Steiner symmetric, nonconvex domains $\Omega$ for which Proposition \ref{2DSimple} applies to.  Figure \ref{StarFish} displays
$$
\{(x_1,x_2)\in \mathbb{R}^2: |x_1|+2|x_2|<1, 2|x_1|+|x_2|<1 \},
$$
Figure \ref{CrossFig} shows
$$
([-3,3]\times[-1,1])\cup([-1,1]\times[-3,3])
$$
and Figure \ref{WobbleFig} exhibits the region bounded by the curve
$$
r=10+\frac{13}{20}\cos(8\theta)
$$
given in polar coordinates.