An eradication time problem for the SIR model

Abstract: We consider a susceptible, infected, and recovered infectious disease model which incorporates a vaccination rate. In particular, we study the problem of choosing the vaccination rate in order to reduce the number of infected individuals to a given threshold as quickly as possible. This is naturally a problem of time-optimal control. We interpret the optimal time as a solution of two dynamic programming equations and give necessary and sufficient conditions for a vaccination rate to be optimal.

\section{Introduction}
The SIR infectious disease model in epidemiology involves the system of ODE
\begin{equation}\label{SIR}
\begin{cases}
\dot S=-\beta S I\\
\dot I=\beta SI -\gamma I\\
\dot R=\gamma I.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Here $S,I,R: [0,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ represent the susceptible, infected, and recovered compartments of a total population, and $\beta>0$ and $\gamma>0$ are the respective infected and recovery rates per unit time.  It is also clear that once $S, I$ are determined then $R$ is known. As a result, we only need to consider the first two equations.

\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
 \includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{SIRsoln2}
 \caption{Solution of the SIR system with $S(0)=2$, $I(0)=3$, $\beta=1/2$, and $\gamma=2$. The graph of $S$ is shown in blue, and the graph of $I$ is shown in red. Note that $\beta S(0)\le \gamma$ so that $I$ is decreasing.}\label{SIdecrease}
\end{figure}

\par It is not hard to see that any solution $S, I$ of \eqref{SIR} with initial conditions $S(0), I(0)>0$, remains positive and bounded with $S$ decreasing. Moreover, if
$$
\beta S(0)\le \gamma,
$$
then $I$ is also decreasing. Otherwise, $I$ increases for an interval of time and decreases from then on. And in either case,
$$
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}I(t)=0.
$$
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
 \includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{SIRsoln1}
 \caption{Solution of the SIR system with $S(0)=2$, $I(0)=1$, $\beta=2$, and $\gamma=2$. The graph of $S$ is shown in blue, and the graph of $I$ is shown in red. Note that $\beta S(0)> \gamma$ so that $I$ increases for an interval and then decreases to $0$.}\label{Iincthendec}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Controlled SIR}
\par In this note, we will consider the following analog of the SIR system
\begin{equation}\label{SIRcontrol}
\begin{cases}
\dot S=-\beta S I-r S\\
\dot I=\beta SI -\gamma I
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $r: [0,\infty)\rightarrow [0,1]$ represents a {\it vaccination rate control} of the SIR model.  This rate is conveniently limited by the upper bound 1; other constant upper bounds would lead to virtually the same theory which we present below.  Even though we have piecewise continuous controls $r$ in mind, it will be advantageous for us to consider \eqref{SIRcontrol} for each $r$
belonging to the collection
$$
{\cal A}:=\{r\in L^\infty([0,\infty)): 0\le r(t)\le 1, \;\text{a.e. } t\ge 0\}
$$
of {\it admissible} vaccination rate controls.

\par We'll see that for any $r\in {\cal A}$, there is a unique solution $S^r,I^r$ of \eqref{SIRcontrol} for given initial conditions $S^r(0), I^r(0)\ge 0$.
Moreover, these solutions have the same qualitative properties of solutions to the uncontrolled SIR system \eqref{SIR} which we described above.
In particular, the first time that the number of infectious individuals $I^r(t)$ falls below a threshold $\mu>0$
$$
u=\min\{t\ge 0: I^r(t)\le\mu\}
$$
is finite.  When $\mu$ is small, we can think of this time as an {\it eradication time}. In this paper, we will address the question:
$$
\text{How do we choose a vaccination rate $r\in {\cal A}$ to minimize the eradication time $u$?}
$$

\par For this problem, the Pontryagin maximum principle \cite{MR0166037} asserts the following necessary conditions on an optimal vaccination rate $r$.
\\\\
{\bf Necessary conditions for an optimal vaccination rate $r\in {\cal A}$}. There are absolutely continuous $P,Q:[0,u]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
such that the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}[$(i)$]

\item $P, Q$ satisfy the ODE
\b
\begin{cases}
\dot P(t) = (\beta I^r(t)+r(t))P(t)-\beta I^r(t)Q(t)\\
\dot Q(t) = \beta S^r(t)P(t)+(\gamma-\beta S^r(t))Q(t)
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
for almost every $t\in [0,u]$.

\item $P(u)=0$ and $Q(u)\neq 0$.

\item $r(t)P(t)=P(t)^+$ for almost every $t\in [0,u]$.

\item For all $t\in [0,u]$,
\begin{equation}
\beta S^r(t)I^r(t) P(t)+S^r(t)P(t)^++(\gamma-\beta S^r(t))I^r(t)Q(t)=1.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{rem}
When $r\in {\cal A}$ is an optimal vaccination rate,  we will specifically refer to the conditions above as the associated {\it necessary conditions $(i)-(iv)$}.
\end{rem}

\par  In a recent paper \cite{MR3688684}, Bolzoni, Bonacini, Soresina, and Groppi used these necessary conditions to show that any optimal vaccination rate $r$ is of the form
\begin{equation}\label{SwitchingTimeControl}
r_\tau(t)=
\begin{cases}
0, \quad t\in [0,\tau]\\
1,\quad t\in (\tau,\infty)
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
for some $\tau\ge 0$.  That is, any optimal vaccination rate will switch from not controlling the SIR system at all on $[0,\tau]$  to maximally controlling the SIR system on $(\tau,\infty)$.
As a result, $\tau$ is interpreted as an optimal switching time. The corresponding vaccination rate $r_\tau$ is a ``bang-bang" control as it only takes on the extreme values in the
interval $[0,1]$ in which each vaccination rate $r$ may assume.

\subsection{The dynamic programming approach}
\par In what follows, we will study this eradication time problem from the standpoint of dynamic programming.  To this end,  we will consider the eradication time function
\begin{equation}
u^r(x,y):=\min\{t\ge 0: I^r(t)=\mu\}
\end{equation}
for a given vaccination rate $r\in {\cal A}$. Here $S^r$ and $I^r$ satisfy \eqref{SIRcontrol} for this $r$ and initial conditions $S^r(0)=x\ge 0$ and $I^r(0)=y\ge \mu.$
A crucial property of $u^r$ is that for each $t\in [0,u^r(x,y)]$,
\begin{equation}\label{babyDPP}
u^r(x,y)=t+u^r(S^r(t),I^r(t)).
\end{equation}
That is, after $t$ units of time, the time remaining for $I^r$ to decease to $\mu$ is simply $u^r(x,y)-t$.

\par The corresponding {\it value function} is defined as
\begin{equation}
u(x,y):=\min_{r\in {\cal A}} u^r(x,y)
\end{equation}
for $x\ge 0$ and $y\ge \mu$.  Employing \eqref{babyDPP}, we will show that $u$ satisfies the {\it dynamic programming principle}
\begin{equation}
u(x,y)=\min_{r\in {\cal A}}\{t+u(S^r(t),I^r(t))\}
\end{equation}
for $t\ge 0$. A direct consequence of dynamic programming is that $u$ is a viscosity solution of a Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation
\begin{equation}\label{HJB}
\beta xy \partial_xu+x(\partial_xu)^++(\gamma-\beta x)y\partial_yu=1
\end{equation}
in $(0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)$.

\par Making use of existing results, we will also argue that $u$ is actually uniquely specified as a continuous viscosity solution of \eqref{HJB} which satisfies
\begin{equation}
u(x,\mu)=0\; \text{ for $0\le x\le \gamma/\beta$}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\lim_{x+y\rightarrow\infty}u(x,y)=\infty.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, we will show that $u$ is twice differentiable almost everywhere and its Hessian is bounded from above in each
compact subdomain of $(0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)$.

\begin{thm}\label{thm1}
For each convex, compact $K\subset (0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)$,
there is a constant $L$ such that
$$
u(x,y)-\frac{L}{2}(x^2+y^2)
$$
is concave on $K$.
\end{thm}

\par Using the fact that each optimal control is of the form $r_\tau$ for some $\tau$, we will also derive the following representation of the value function. Note that this allows
us to give a sufficient condition for a vaccination rate $r_\tau$ to be optimal.
\begin{thm}\label{thm2}
Suppose $S, I$ is the solution of the SIR system \eqref{SIR} with $S(0)=x\ge 0$ and $I(0)=y\ge \mu$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{SecondFormulaU}
u(x,y)=\min_{\tau\ge 0}\{\tau+u^{r_0}(S(\tau),I(\tau))\}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, any $\tau$ for which the minimum is achieved corresponds to an optimal vaccination rate $r_\tau$, and
\begin{equation}\label{minTimeTau}
\tau^*=\min\{t\ge 0: u(S(t),I(t))=u^{r_0}(S(t),I(t)) \}
\end{equation}
is a minimizing time in \eqref{SecondFormulaU}.
\end{thm}

\par The representation \eqref{SecondFormulaU} also implies that $u$ is a viscosity solution of
\begin{equation}\label{HJB2}
\max\{\beta xy \partial_xu+(\gamma-\beta x)y\partial_yu-1, u-u^{r_0}\}=0
\end{equation}
in $(0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)$. Finding a solution of this PDE is sometimes called a ``free boundary" problem as if we happened to know the region
$$
{\cal S}:=\{(x,y)\in(0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty): u(x,y)=u^{r_0}(x,y) \},
$$
we could solve the PDE
$$
\beta xy \partial_xu+(\gamma-\beta x)y\partial_yu=1
$$
in the complement of ${\cal S}$ subject to the boundary condition $u=u^{r_0}$ in order to obtain $u$. In addition, we can use this set to express $\tau^*$ \eqref{minTimeTau} as the first time $t$ for which $(S(t),I(t))\in {\cal S}$.

\par Finally, we will employ the value function $u$ to verify the necessary conditions which follow from the Pontryagin maximum principle.
\begin{thm}\label{thm3}
Let $x\ge 0$ and $y>\mu$ and choose $r\in {\cal A}$ such that
$$
u:=u(x,y)=u^r(x,y).
$$
Define
$$
P(t)=\partial_xu^r(S^r(t),I^r(t))\quad\text{and}\quad Q(t)=\partial_yu^r(S^r(t),I^r(t))
$$
for $t\in [0,u]$. Then $P,Q$ satisfy the necessary conditions $(i)-(vi)$.
\end{thm}

\par  As hinted at above, the paper by Bolzoni, Bonacini, Soresina, and Groppi \cite{MR3688684} was a major inspiration of this work.   However, we would also like to emphasize that we gained perspective and learned techniques for time-optimal control by studying the notes of Evans \cite{EvansNotes} and the monographs by Bardi and Capuzzo-Dolcetta \cite{MR1484411}, Fleming and Soner \cite{MR2179357}, Fleming and Rishel \cite{MR0454768}, and Lamberti \cite{MR688142}.  We would also like to point that there have been several recent papers  \cite{MR3328003,MR3688684,MR3985528,MR2771181, MR3629459,MR1822058,HJBpaper} which consider control problems in compartmental models.  We hope that our work adds in a positive way to this trend.

\par This paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{ExistenceSection}, we will study the controlled SIR system \eqref{SIRcontrol} and verify the existence of an optimal vaccination rate for
any given initial conditions.  Then in section \ref{HJBsect}, we will show $u$ is a continuous viscosity solution of the HJB equation \eqref{HJB}. Next, we'll study the differentiability of $u$ and prove Theorem \ref{thm1} in section \ref{SemiConcaveSect}. In section \ref{OptSwtichSect}, we derive formula \eqref{SecondFormulaU} and consider the PDE \eqref{HJB2}. Finally in section \ref{PMPsect}, we will prove Theorem \ref{thm3}.

\par {\bf Acknowledgements}: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation
under Grants No. DMS-1440140 and DMS-1554130, National Security Agency under Grant No.
H98230-20-1-0015, and the Sloan Foundation under Grant No. G-2020-12602 while the
authors participated in a program hosted by the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, California, during the summer of 2020.

\section{Existence of an optimal control}\label{ExistenceSection}
In this preliminary section, we will explain that there always is a solution of the controlled SIR system \eqref{SIRcontrol} and derive several properties of solutions. In particular, we will show solutions depend continuously on their initial conditions and on the control.  We will use this continuity to show that an optimal vaccination rate exists for our eradication time problem.

\begin{lem}\label{ExistenceLemmaSIRcontrol}
For any $x,y\ge 0$ and $r\in {\cal A}$, there is a unique solution
$$
S,I: [0,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}
$$
of the controlled SIR equations \eqref{SIRcontrol} with $S(0)=x$ and $I(0)=y$.  Moreover, $S, I$, and $\dot I$ are Lipschitz continuous.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By Caratheodory's Theorem (Theorem 5.1 in section I.5 of \cite{MR587488}),
there is an absolutely continuous local solution $S, I: [0,T)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. We also set
$$
R(t):=\displaystyle\gamma \int^t_0I(\tau)d\tau, \quad t\in [0,T)
$$
so that
$$
S(t)+I(t)+R(t)= S(0)+I(0)+R(0)=x+y.
$$
for $t\in [0,T)$. In view of \eqref{SIRcontrol},
\begin{equation}
S(t)= xe^{\displaystyle- \int^t_0\beta I(\tau)+r(\tau)d\tau}\;\;\text{and}\;\; I(t)=ye^{\displaystyle \int^t_0(\beta S(\tau)-\gamma)d\tau}.
\end{equation}
Thus, $S(t),I(t)\ge 0$ for $t\in [0,T)$. It follows that
$$
0\le S(t), I(t)\le x+y, \quad t\in [0,T).
$$
It is then possible to continue this solution to all of $[0,\infty)$ (Theorem 5.2 in section I.5 of \cite{MR587488}).
Given that $S(t), I(t)$ are bounded, it is also not hard to check that this solution is unique.

\par Note that
$$
0\ge \dot S(t)\ge -\beta (x+y)^2-(x+y)
$$
for almost every $t\ge 0$.  Thus, $S$ is Lipschitz continuous. We also note
$$
|\dot I(t)|\le \beta (x+y)^2+\gamma(x+y)
$$
for all $t\ge 0$, so $I$ is Lipschitz continuous. Differentiating the second equation in \eqref{SIRcontrol} we see that
$$
\ddot I(t)=-\beta (\beta I(t)+r(t))S(t)I(t)+(\beta S(t)-\gamma)^2I(t)
$$
for almost every $t\ge 0$. Thus,
\begin{equation}
|\ddot I(t)|\le \beta (\beta (x+y)+1)(x+y)^2+2(\beta^2(x+y)^2+\gamma^2)(x+y)
\end{equation}
for almost every $t\ge 0$. It follows that $\dot I$ is also Lipschitz continuous.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{LimitLemma}
Suppose $S,I$ is a solution of \eqref{SIRcontrol} with $S(0)\ge 0$ and $I(0)>0$ for some $r\in {\cal A}$. Then the limit
\begin{equation}
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}S(t)\in\left[0,\frac{\gamma}{\beta}\right)
\end{equation}
exists and
$$
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}I(t)=0.
$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
From the proof of the previous lemma, we have
$$
\gamma\int^\infty_0 I(\tau)d\tau\le S(0)+I(0).
$$
It follows that there is a sequence of times $t_k\nearrow\infty$ such that $\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}I(t_k)=0$.  Also note that
\begin{equation}\label{IformulaGoesZero}
I(t)=I(0)+\beta \int^t_0 S(\tau)I(\tau)d\tau -\gamma\int^t_0 I(\tau)d\tau
\end{equation}
for all $t\ge 0$. Choosing $t=t_k\rightarrow\infty$ and sending $k\rightarrow\infty$ gives
$$
0=I(0)+\beta \int^\infty_0 S(\tau)I(\tau)d\tau -\gamma\int^\infty_0 I(\tau)d\tau.
$$
Now we can send $t\rightarrow\infty$ in \eqref{IformulaGoesZero} to get
$$
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}I(t)=I(0)+\beta \int^\infty_0 S(\tau)I(\tau)d\tau -\gamma\int^\infty_0 I(\tau)d\tau=0.
$$

\par Suppose $S(0)>0$ or else $S(t)=0$ for all $t\ge 0$. For $S(0)>0$, $S$ is decreasing and positive, thus $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}S(t)$ exists.  It follows that if $\beta S(0)\le \gamma$, then
\begin{equation}\label{Slimitlessthan}
\beta\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}S(t)<\gamma.
\end{equation}
Otherwise, $I$ is initially increasing and must have a critical point at a time $t_0>0$ with $\beta S(t_0)=\gamma.$
As $S$ is decreasing, \eqref{Slimitlessthan} holds in this case, as well.
\end{proof}

\par We emphasize that since $S$ is decreasing, $I$ can have at most one critical point.  We'll also record one more fact which essentially follows from the
proof above.
\begin{cor}\label{Sulessthan}
Let $r\in {\cal A}$ and suppose $S, I$ is the corresponding solution of the \eqref{SIRcontrol}
which satisfies $S(0)=x> 0$ and $I(0)=y>\mu$. Then
$$
\beta S(u)<\gamma
$$
where $u=\min\{t\ge 0: I(t)= \mu\}.$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
As $S$ is decreasing and $u>0$, $\beta x\le \gamma$ implies
$$
\beta S(u)-\gamma<\beta x-\gamma\le 0.
$$
If $\beta x>\gamma$, $I$ will initially increase. Let $t>0$ be the maximum time for $I$. At this time  $\beta S(t)=\gamma$ and $I(t)> \mu.$
It follows that $t<u$ and
$$
\beta S(u)-\gamma<\beta S(t)-\gamma=0.
$$
\end{proof}

\par We recall that a sequence $(r^k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}}\subset L^\infty([0,\infty))$ converges weak* to $r$ if
$$
\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\int^\infty_0 g(t)r^k(t)dt=\int^\infty_0 g(t)r(t)dt
$$
for each $g\in L^1([0,\infty))$. Moreover, any sequence $(r^k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}}\subset L^\infty([0,\infty))$ with
$$
\sup_{k\in \mathbb{N}}\|r^k\|_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}<\infty
$$
has a subsequence which converges weak*.  In particular, the control set ${\cal A}$ is weak* compact. We can use this notion to show solutions of \eqref{SIRcontrol} depend continuously on $r$ and their initial conditions.

\begin{prop}\label{CompactnessProp}
Suppose $x^k,y^k\ge 0$ and $r^k\in {\cal A}$ for each $k\in \mathbb{N}$, and
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
x^k\rightarrow x^\infty\\
y^k\rightarrow y^\infty\\
r^k\rightarrow r^\infty\;\text{weak*}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
as $k\rightarrow\infty$. If $S^k,I^k$ is the solution of \eqref{SIRcontrol} with $r=r^k$, $S^k(0)=x^k$, and  $I^k(0)=y^k$,
then
$$
\begin{cases}
S^k(t)\rightarrow S^\infty(t)\\
I^k(t)\rightarrow I^\infty(t)\\
\end{cases}
$$
uniformly for $t$ belonging to bounded subintervals of $[0,\infty)$.  Here $S^\infty,I^\infty$ is the solution of \eqref{SIRcontrol} with $r=r^\infty$, $S^\infty(0)=x^\infty$, and  $I^\infty(0)=y^\infty$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We showed in Lemma \ref{ExistenceLemmaSIRcontrol} that
$$
0\le S^k(t), I^k(t)\le x^k+y^k, \quad t\ge 0
$$
and
$$
\begin{cases}
|\dot S^k(t)|\le \beta(x^k+y^k)^2+(x^k+y^k)\\\\
|\dot I^k(t)|\le \beta(x^k+y^k)^2+\gamma(x^k+y^k)
\end{cases}
$$
for almost every $t\ge 0$.  As $x^k$ and $y^k$ are convergent, the sequences $(S^k)_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ and
$(I^k)_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ of continuous functions are both uniformly bounded and uniformly equicontinuous. The Arzel\`a-Ascoli
Theorem implies that there are locally uniformly convergent sequences $(S^{k_j})_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ and $(I^{k_j})_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$.
Let us write $S, I: [0,\infty)\rightarrow\infty$ for their respective limits.

\par Clearly $S(0)=x$ and $I(0)=y$. By Lemma \ref{ExistenceLemmaSIRcontrol}, it suffices to show $S,I$ satisfy  \eqref{SIRcontrol} with $r=r^\infty$.
To this end, we note that $S^k$ and $I^k$ satisfy
$$
S^k(t)=x^k-\beta \int^t_0 S^k(\tau)I^k(\tau)d\tau -\int^t_0 r^k(\tau)S^k(\tau)d\tau
$$
and
$$
I^k(t)=y^k+\beta \int^t_0 S^k(\tau)I^k(\tau)d\tau -\gamma\int^t_0 I^k(\tau)d\tau
$$
for each $t\ge 0$. Employing the weak* convergence of $r^{k}$ and the the local uniform convergence of $(S^{k_j})_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ and $(I^{k_j})_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$,
we can let $k=k_j\rightarrow\infty$ in the two identities above to conclude
$$
S(t)=x-\beta \int^t_0 S(\tau)I(\tau)d\tau -\int^t_0 r^\infty(\tau)S(\tau)d\tau
$$
and
$$
I(t)=y+\beta \int^t_0 S(\tau)I(\tau)d\tau -\gamma\int^t_0 I(\tau)d\tau
$$
for each $t\ge 0$. That is, $S=S^\infty$ and $I=I^\infty$.
\end{proof}

\par Let us fix a threshold
$$
\mu>0
$$
and a pair of initial conditions
$$
x\ge 0\;\text{and}\; y\ge\mu.
$$
For a given $r\in {\cal A}$,  we will denote $S^r, I^r$ denote the solution of the  \eqref{SIRcontrol}
which satisfies $S^r(0)=x$ and $I^r(0)=y$. We define
$$
u^r:=\min\{t\ge 0: I^{r}(t)= \mu\}
$$
and now argue that a minimizing vaccination rate $r\in {\cal A}$ exists.

\begin{thm}
There is an $r^*\in {\cal A}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{rstarIneq}
u^{r^*}\le u^r
\end{equation}
for all $r\in {\cal A}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Choose a minimizing sequence $(r^k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}}\subset {\cal A}$
$$
\inf_{r\in {\cal A}} u^r=\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}u^{r^k}.
$$
Without any loss of generality we may assume that $r^k\rightarrow r^\infty$ weak* in $L^\infty$ to some $r^\infty$ as this occurs
for a subsequence. Let $S^k, I^k$ denote the solution of  \eqref{SIRcontrol} with $r=r^k$, $S^k(0)=x$, and $I^k(0)=y$.
By Proposition \ref{CompactnessProp}, $S^k$ and $I^k$ converge locally uniformly to $S^\infty$ and $I^\infty$, respectively, the
 solution of  \eqref{SIRcontrol} with $r=r^\infty$, $S^\infty(0)=x$, and $I^\infty(0)=y$.

 \par Therefore, we can send $k\rightarrow\infty$ in $I^k(u^{r^k})=\mu$ to get
 $$
 I^\infty\left(\inf_{r\in {\cal A}} u^r \right)=\mu.
 $$
 That is,
 $$
u^{r^\infty}=  \inf_{r\in {\cal A}}u^r.
 $$
\end{proof}

\par We'll call any $r^*\in {\cal A}$ satisfying \eqref{rstarIneq} an {\it optimal vaccination rate} (for the SIR eradication time problem) with
initial conditions $S(0)=x\ge0$ and $I(0)=y\ge\mu$.  In the sections that follow, we will develop methods to characterize such rates.

\section{The HJB equation}\label{HJBsect}
We will now consider our time optimal control problem for varying initial conditions.  To this end, we will employ the value function
\begin{equation}\label{ValueFunction}
u(x,y)=\min_{r\in {\cal A}} u^r(x,y)
\end{equation}
discussed in the introduction. Here $u^r(x,y)=\inf\{t\ge 0: I^r(t)=\mu\}$ is the eradication time corresponding to a given vaccination rate $r\in {\cal A}$, and $S^r$ and $I^r$ satisfy \eqref{SIRcontrol} with $S^r(0)=x\ge 0$ and $I^r(0)=y\ge \mu$.  In this section, we will characterize $u$ as a viscosity solution of the HJB equation \eqref{HJB}.

\par Our first task will be to establish that $u$ is continuous. To this end, we'll first show that $u^r$ is locally bounded uniformly in $r\in {\cal A}$.
\begin{lem}
Let $r\in {\cal A}$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{uarrUpperBound}
0\le u^r(x,y)\le \frac{x+y}{\mu\gamma}
\end{equation}
for $x\ge 0$ and $y\ge \mu$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Set
$$
v(x,y)=\frac{x+y}{\mu\gamma}
$$
and note $\beta xy \partial_xv +(\gamma-\beta x)y\partial_yv=y/\mu.$  As a result,
\begin{align}
&\frac{d}{dt}v(S^r(t),I^r(t))\\
&=
\partial_xv(S^{r}(s),I^{r}(s))(-\beta S^{r}(t) I^{r}(t)-r(t)S^{r}(t))+\partial_yv(S^{r}(t),I^{r}(t))(\beta S^{r}(t)I^{r}(t) -\gamma I^{r}(t))\\
&=-\frac{1}{\mu\gamma}r(t)S^{r}(t)-\frac{1}{\mu}I^r(t)\\
&\le -\frac{1}{\mu}I^r(t)\\
&\le -1
\end{align}
for $t\in [0,u^r(x,y)]$.  Integrating from $0$ to $t=u^r(x,y)$ gives
$$
v(S^r(u^r(x,y)),I^r(u^r(x,y)))-v(x,y) \le -u^r(x,y).
$$
And as $v$ is nonnegative, $v(x,y)\ge u^r(x,y)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Suppose $x^k\ge 0, y^k\ge \mu$ and $r^k\in {\cal A}$ for each $k\in \mathbb{N}$, and
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
x^k\rightarrow x^\infty\\
y^k\rightarrow y^\infty\\
r^k\rightarrow r^\infty\;\text{weak*}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
as $k\rightarrow\infty$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{Convergenceurkayxkayykay}
\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}u^{r^k}(x^k,y^k)=u^{r}(x,y).
\end{equation}
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
Suppose $S^{r^k}, I^{r^k}$ is solution of \eqref{SIRcontrol} with $S^{r^k}(0)=x^k$ and $I^{r^k}(0)=y^k.$   By Proposition \ref{CompactnessProp}, $S^{r^{k}}, I^{r^{k}}$ converge locally uniformly to $S^{r}, I^{r}$ as $k\rightarrow\infty$.  In view of the previous lemma, $u^{r^{k}}(x^{r^{k}},y^{r^{k}})$ is a bounded sequence. Thus there is a
convergent subsequence $u^{r^{k_j}}(x^{r^{k_j}},y^{r^{k_j}})$
$$
t:=\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}u^{r^{k_j}}(x^{r^{k_j}},y^{r^{k_j}}).
$$
As a result,
$$
I^{r}(t)=\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}I^{r^{k_j}}(u^{r^{k_j}}(x^{r^{k_j}},y^{r^{k_j}}))=\mu
$$
and so $t=u^{r}(x,y)$. Since this limit is independent of the subsequence, \eqref{Convergenceurkayxkayykay} holds.
\end{proof}

\par Note that \eqref{Convergenceurkayxkayykay} implies $u^r$ is continuous for each $r\in {\cal A}$.  The continuity of $u$ will also follow from this limit.
\begin{prop}
The value function $u:[0,\infty)\times[\mu,\infty)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is continuous.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $x^k\ge 0, y^k\ge \mu$, and $x^k\rightarrow x, y^k\rightarrow y$ as $k\rightarrow\infty$.  Choose $r^k\in {\cal A}$ for which
\begin{equation}\label{Firstukayidentity}
u(x^k,y^k)=u^{r^k}(x^k,y^k)
\end{equation}
($k\in \mathbb{N}$). We may select an increasing sequence of positive integers $k=k_j\rightarrow\infty$ such that
 $$
 \liminf_{k\rightarrow\infty}u(x^k,y^k)=\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}u^{r^{k_j}}(x^{k_j},y^{k_j})
 $$
and for which $r^{k_j}$ converges weak$^*$ to some $r^*\in {\cal A}$.  Using \eqref{Convergenceurkayxkayykay} gives
$$
\liminf_{k\rightarrow\infty}u(x^k,y^k)=\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}u^{r^{k_j}}(x^{k_j},y^{k_j})=u^{r^*}(x,y)\ge u(x,y).
$$
\par By \eqref{Firstukayidentity}, we also have $u(x^k,y^k)\le u^{r}(x^k,y^k)$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$ and each $r\in {\cal A}$. Using  \eqref{Convergenceurkayxkayykay} again gives
$$
\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}u(x^k,y^k)\le u^r(x,y).
$$
Since $r\in {\cal A}$ is arbitrary, $\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}u(x^k,y^k)\le u(x,y)$. That is,
$$
\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}u(x^k,y^k)= u(x,y)= \liminf_{k\rightarrow\infty}u(x^k,y^k)
$$
for every sequence $x^k\ge 0$ and $y^k\ge \mu$ with $x^k\rightarrow x$ and $y^k\rightarrow \mu$. It follows that $u$ is continuous.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
It is natural to inquire if $u$ is {\it uniformly} continuous on $[0,\infty)\times[\mu,\infty)$.
\end{rem}

\par Next, we will establish dynamic programming and then use this property to verify that $u$ is a viscosity solution of the
HJB equation \eqref{HJB}.  We note that these types of results have been considered more generally elsewhere. An excellent reference for dynamic programming in time optimal control is Chapter IV of the monograph by Bardi and Capuzzo-Dolcetta \cite{MR1484411}.   In addition to \cite{MR1484411}, another standard reference for viscosity solutions is the monograph by Fleming and Soner  \cite{MR2179357}.

\begin{prop}\label{DPPprop}
Let $x\ge 0$ and $y\ge \mu$. If $t\in [0,u(x,y)]$,
\begin{equation}\label{DPP}
u(x,y)=\min_{r\in {\cal A}}\{t+u(S^r(t),I^r(t))\}.
\end{equation}
The minimum is attained by any $r\in {\cal A}$ such that $u(x,y)=u^{r}(x,y)$, and for any such $r$,
\begin{equation}
u(S^{r}(t),I^{r}(t))=u^{r}(S^{r}(t),I^{r}(t)).
\end{equation}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We note that $0\le t\le u^r(x,y)$ for $r\in {\cal A}$ and
$$
u^r(x,y)=t+u^r(S^r(t), I^r(t)).
$$
For any $r^*\in {\cal A}$ such that $u(x,y)=u^{r^*}(x,y)$,
\begin{equation}\label{DPPreallymin}
u(x,y)=t+u^{r^*}(S^{r^*}(t),I^{r^*}(t))\ge t+u(S^{r^*}(t),I^{r^*}(t))\ge \inf_{r\in {\cal A}}\{t+u(S^r(t),I^r(t))\}.
\end{equation}

\par To derive the opposite inequality, we fix $r\in {\cal A}$ and choose $r^*\in {\cal A}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{SettingUpkeyTimeIdentity}
u(S^r(t),I^r(t))=u^{r^*}(S^r(t),I^r(t)).
\end{equation}
Let us also define
\begin{equation}\label{overlinearrr}
\overline{r}(s)=
\begin{cases}
r(s), \quad &0\le s\le t\\
r^*(s-t), \quad &t\le s<\infty.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{keyTimeIdentity}
u^{\overline{r}}(S^{\overline{r}}(t), I^{\overline{r}}(t))=u^{r^*}(S^r(t), I^r(t)).
\end{equation}
In particular, this common number is the first time $s$ the solution of
\begin{equation}\label{SIRcontrolex}
\begin{cases}
\dot X(s)=-\beta X(s) Y(s)-r^*(s-t) X(s)\\
\dot Y(s)=\beta X(s)Y(s) -\gamma Y(s)
\end{cases} \; (s>t)
\end{equation}
with $X(t)=S^r(t), Y(t)=I^r(t)\ge \mu$ satisfies $Y(s)=\mu$. The claim follows for $u^{\overline{r}}(S^{\overline{r}}(t), I^{\overline{r}}(t))$ by \eqref{overlinearrr}; note in particular that $S^{\overline{r}}(t)=S^r(t)$ and $ I^{\overline{r}}(t)=I^r(t)$.
The right hand side of \eqref{keyTimeIdentity} also equals $s$ once we note $S(\tau)=X(\tau+t)$ and $I(\tau)=Y(\tau+t)$ solve \eqref{SIRcontrol}
with $r^*$ and satisfy $S(0)=S^r(t)$ and $I(0)=I^r(t)$.

\par By \eqref{SettingUpkeyTimeIdentity} and \eqref{keyTimeIdentity},
\begin{align}
u(x,y)&\le u^{\overline{r}}(x,y)\\
&= t+u^{\overline{r}}(S^{\overline{r}}(t), I^{\overline{r}}(t))\\
&= t+u^{r^*}(S^r(t),I^r(t))\\
&=t+u(S^r(t),I^r(t)).
\end{align}
That is,
$$
u(x,y)\le  \inf_{r\in {\cal A}}\{t+u(S^r(t),I^r(t))\}.
$$
In view of \eqref{DPPreallymin}, equality holds in this inequality, the infimum is achieved for any $r^*\in {\cal A}$ such that $u(x,y)=u^{r^*}(x,y)$,
and $u^{r^*}(S^{r^*}(t),I^{r^*}(t))=u(S^{r^*}(t),I^{r^*}(t))$.
\end{proof}

\par It is now appropriate to recall the notion of a viscosity solution corresponding the Hamilton-Jacobi equation \eqref{HJB}
\begin{equation}
\beta xy \partial_xu+x(\partial_xu)^++(\gamma-\beta x)y\partial_yu=1.
\end{equation}
\begin{defn}\label{ViscSolnDefn}
A function $v:(0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a {\it viscosity solution} of \eqref{HJB} if
the following two conditions hold at each $x_0>0$ and $y_0>\mu$. $(i)$  If $\varphi: (0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is
continuously differentiable and $v-\varphi$ has a local maximum at $(x_0,y_0)$, then
\begin{equation}\label{HJBup}
\beta x_0y_0 \partial_x\varphi(x_0,y_0)+x_0(\partial_x\varphi(x_0,y_0))^++(\gamma-\beta x_0)y_0\partial_y\varphi(x_0,y_0)\le 1.
\end{equation}
$(ii)$  If $\psi: (0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is
continuously differentiable and $v-\psi$ has a local minimum at $(x_0,y_0)$,  then
\begin{equation}\label{HJBdown}
\beta x_0y_0 \partial_x\psi(x_0,y_0)+x_0(\partial_x\psi(x_0,y_0))^++(\gamma-\beta x_0)y_0\partial_y\psi(x_0,y_0)\ge 1.
\end{equation}
\end{defn}

\par A corollary of dynamic programming is that the value function $u$ is a viscosity solution of \eqref{HJB} in $(0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)$.
\begin{cor}
The value function $u$ is a viscosity solution of the HJB equation \eqref{HJB}.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Fix $x_0>0$ and $y_0>\mu$ and suppose that $u-\varphi$ has a local maximum at $(x_0,y_0)$.  We further assume $a\in [0,1]$, we set $r(t)=a$ for all $t\ge 0$. As a result,
$$
(u-\varphi)(S^r(t),I^r(t))\le (u-\varphi)(x_0,y_0)
$$
for all $t\ge 0$ small.  By dynamic programming $u(x_0,y_0)\le t+ u(S^r(t),I^r(t))$ for $t\ge 0$. It follows that,
$$
-t\le u(S^r(t),I^r(t))-u(x_0,y_0)\le \varphi(S^r(t),I^r(t))-\varphi(x_0,y_0)
$$
for all $t\ge 0$ small. In particular,
\begin{align}
-1&\le \left.\frac{d}{dt} \varphi(S^r(t),I^r(t))\right|_{t=0}\\
&=-(\beta x_0y_0 +ax_0) \partial_x\varphi(x_0,y_0)-(\gamma-\beta x_0)y_0\partial_y\varphi(x_0,y_0).
\end{align}
Rearranging this inequality gives
$$
\beta x_0y_0 \partial_x\varphi(x_0,y_0)+x_0a\partial_x\varphi(x_0,y_0)+(\gamma-\beta x_0)y_0\partial_y\varphi(x_0,y_0)\le 1.
$$
Taking the supremum over all $a\in [0,1]$ leads us to the desired inequality \eqref{HJBup}.

\par Conversely, suppose $u-\psi$ has a local minimum at $(x_0,y_0)$ and $r^*\in{\cal A}$ such that $u(x_0,y_0)=u^{r^*}(x_0,y_0)$. By Proposition \ref{DPPprop},
$$
u(x_0,y_0)= t+ u(S^{r^*}(t),I^{r^*}(t))
$$
for all small $t> 0$.  Consequently,
$$
-t=u(S^{r^*}(t),I^{r^*}(t))-u(x_0,y_0)\ge \psi(S^{r^*}(t),I^{r^*}(t))-\psi(x_0,y_0)
$$
for all small $t> 0$.  As $0\le r^*\le 1$,
\begin{align}
-1&\ge \frac{1}{t}( \psi(S^{r^*}(t),I^{r^*}(s))-\psi(S^{r^*}(0),I^{r^*}(s)))\\
&= \frac{1}{t}\int^t_0\frac{d}{ds}\psi(S^{r^*}(s),I^{r^*}(s))ds\\
&=\frac{1}{t}\int^t_0\partial_x\psi(S^{r^*}(s),I^{r^*}(s))(-\beta S^{r^*}(s) I^{r^*}(s)-r^{*}(s)S^{r^*}(s))+ \\
&\hspace{2in}\partial_y\psi(S^{r^*}(s),I^{r^*}(s))(\beta S^{r^*}(s)I^{r^*}(s) -\gamma I^{r^*}(s)) ds\\
&\ge \frac{1}{t}\int^t_0\left[-\beta S^{r^*}(s) I^{r^*}(s)\partial_x\psi(S^{r^*}(s),I^{r^*}(s))- S^{r^*}(s)\partial_x\psi(S^{r^*}(s),I^{r^*}(s))^+ + \right.\\
&\hspace{1.5in}\left. (\beta S^{r^*}(s)I^{r^*}(s)-\gamma I^{r^*}(s))\partial_y\psi(S^{r^*}(s),I^{r^*}(s)) \right]ds.
\end{align}
Sending $t\rightarrow 0^+$ gives
$$
-1\ge -\beta x_0y_0 \partial_x\psi(x_0,y_0)-x_0(\partial_x\psi(x_0,y_0))^+-(\gamma-\beta x_0)y_0\partial_y\psi(x_0,y_0),
$$
which is \eqref{HJBdown}.
\end{proof}

\par Now that we know $u$ as the unique viscosity solution of \eqref{HJB}, we will derive a few boundary conditions that $u$ satisfies. The first is
\begin{equation}\label{BCsegment}
u(x,\mu)=0\; \text{ for $0\le x\le \gamma/\beta$}.
\end{equation}
This is immediate from the definition of $u$.  The second is a boundary condition at $\infty$
\begin{equation}\label{BCatInfinity}
\lim_{ x+y\rightarrow\infty}u(x,y)=\infty,
\end{equation}
which is a consequence of the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
For each $x\ge 0$ and $y\ge \mu$,
\begin{equation}\label{LB2u}
u(x,y)\ge \frac{\ln(x+y)-\ln(\gamma/\beta+\mu)}{\max\{\gamma,1\}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Set
$$
v(x,y)=\frac{\ln(x+y)-\ln(\gamma/\beta+\mu)}{\max\{\gamma,1\}}.
$$
Observe
\begin{equation}
\beta xy \partial_xv+x(\partial_xv)^++(\gamma-\beta x)y\partial_yv =\frac{1}{\max\{\gamma,1\}}\frac{x+\gamma y}{x+y}\le 1
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{BC2}
v(x,\mu)\le 0\;\text{ for $0\le x\le \gamma/\beta$}.
\end{equation}
It then follows that if $r\in {\cal A}$,
\begin{align}
&\frac{d}{dt}v(S^r(t),I^r(t))\\
&=
\partial_xv(S^{r}(s),I^{r}(s))(-\beta S^{r}(t) I^{r}(t)-r(t)S^{r}(t))+\partial_yv(S^{r}(t),I^{r}(t))(\beta S^{r}(t)I^{r}(t) -\gamma I^{r}(t))\\
&\ge -\beta S^{r}(t) I^{r}(t)\partial_xv(S^{r}(s),I^{r}(s)) -S^{r}(t)\partial_xv(S^{r}(t),I^{r}(t))^+\\
&\hspace{2in}-(\gamma-\beta S^{r}(t)) I^{r}(t)\partial_yv(S^{r}(t),I^{r}(t))\\
&\ge-1
\end{align}
for almost every $t\ge 0$. Integrating from $t=0$ to $t=u^r(x,y)$ gives
$$
v(S^r(u^r(x,y)),I^r(u^r(x,y)))-v(x,y) \ge -u^r(x,y).
$$
As $I^r(u^r(x,y))=\mu$, we can apply \eqref{BC2} to find $v(x,y)\le u^r(x,y)$. Since $r\in{\cal A}$ is arbitrary, $v(x,y)\le u(x,y).$
\end{proof}
It now follows from Theorem 2.6 in Chapter IV section 2 of \cite{MR1484411} that $u$ is the unique continuous, viscosity solution which satisfies the boundary conditions \eqref{BCsegment} and \eqref{BCatInfinity}.

\section{Local semiconcavity}\label{SemiConcaveSect}
Let us now investigate differentiability of the value function. We'll argue that $u$ is twice differentiable almost everywhere and its Hessian is locally bounded above.  We will establish these properties by deriving various bounds on $u^r$ that are independent of $r\in {\cal A}$.
With these goals in mind, we will study $u^r$ and $u$ on triangles defined as
$$
T_{N,\delta}:=\{(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^2: x\ge \delta,y\ge \mu+\delta,\;\text{and}\; x+y\le N\}
$$
for $N,\delta>0$ which satisfy
$$
\mu+\delta<N.
$$

\par We will also employ the {\it flow} of the controlled SIR system \eqref{SIRcontrol}
$$
\Phi^r: [0,\infty)\times[\mu,\infty)\times[0,\infty)\rightarrow [0,\infty)^2; (x,y,t)\mapsto (\Phi^r_1(x,y,t),\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)).
$$
Here $S^r(t)=\Phi^r_1(x,y,t)$ and $I^r(t)=\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)$ is the solution of the controlled SIR system \eqref{SIRcontrol} with
$S^r(0)=x$ and $I^r(0)=y$.  We note that for any $r\in {\cal A}$,
$$
(x,y)\mapsto \Phi^r(x,y,t)\;\text{is smooth for each $t\ge 0$}
$$
by Theorem 3.3 and Exercise 3.2 of \cite{MR587488}, and
$$
(x,y,t)\mapsto \Phi^r_2(x,y,t)\;\text{is continuously differentiable}
$$
by Lemma \ref{ExistenceLemmaSIRcontrol}.

\par It also follows that $(x,y,t)\mapsto \Phi^r(x,y,t)$ is smooth whenever $r$ is smooth. Since $u^r$ satisfies the implicit
equation
\begin{equation}\label{impliciturequation}
\Phi_2^r(x,y,u^r(x,y))=\mu
\end{equation}
for each $x>0$ and $y>\mu$, we can then differentiate this equation twice to obtain bounds on the second derivatives of $u^r$ when $r$ is smooth.  Of course, $r$ is in general not smooth. We will get around this by finding estimates which are independent of $r$ and using the fact that $r\mapsto u^r$ is continuous.

\par  To this end, we will employ the following assertion about solutions of linear ODEs.  Since this claim follows from an easy application of Gr\"onwall's lemma, we will omit the proof.
\begin{lem}
Suppose $A(t)$ is a $2\times 2$ matrix for each $t\ge0$ and $f: [0,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$.  If $z: [0,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$ solves
\begin{equation}\label{zODE}
\dot z(t)=A(t)z(t)+f(t), \quad t\ge 0,
\end{equation}
then
$$
\|z(t)\|^2\le e^{(2c+1)t}\left(\|z(0)\|^2 + \int^t_0e^{-(2c+1)s} \|f(s)\|^2ds\right).
$$
where $c\ge \max_{t\ge 0}\|A(t)\|$.
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
Here $\|A(t)\|$ denotes the Frobenius norm of $A(t)$.
\end{rem}
We will now derive various bounds on the derivatives of $\Phi_2^r$ when $r$ is smooth.
\begin{lem}\label{DerivativeBoundsPhi2}
Suppose $r\in {\cal A}$ is smooth and $N\ge \mu$. Then
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]

\item $0\le \Phi^r_2(x,y,t)\le N$
\\
\item $|\partial_t\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)|\le \beta N^2+\gamma N$
\\
\item $|\partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)|,|\partial_y\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)|\le\displaystyle e^{(C+1/2) t}$
\\
\item $|\partial_t^2\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)|\le  (\beta N^2+N)\beta N+(\beta^2N^2+\gamma^2)N$
\\
\item $|\partial_x\partial_t\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)|,|\partial_y\partial_t\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)|\le \displaystyle \displaystyle e^{(C+1/2)t}(2\beta N+\gamma)$
\\
\item $|\partial^2_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)|,|\partial^2_y\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)|,|\partial_x\partial_y\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)|\le \displaystyle\frac{2\beta}{\sqrt{C}}e^{(2C+1) t}$

\end{enumerate}
for $(x,y)\in T_{0, N}$ and $t\ge 0$.  Here $C:=\sqrt{6\beta^2 N^2+2\gamma^2+2}.$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Assertions $(i),(ii)$ and $(vi)$ follow from the proof of Lemma \ref{ExistenceLemmaSIRcontrol}. Moreover,
\begin{equation}\label{propertyzero}
0\le \Phi^r_1(x,y,t)\le N
\end{equation}
holds for $(x,y)\in T_{0, N}$, as well. Differentiating \eqref{SIRcontrol} with respect to $x$ gives
\begin{equation}\label{linearizationfirstinx}
\partial_t\left(\begin{array}{c}
 \partial_x\Phi^r_1(x,y,t)  \\
 \partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)
\end{array}\right)
=
A(t)\left(\begin{array}{c}
 \partial_x\Phi^r_1(x,y,t)  \\
 \partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)
\end{array}\right),
\end{equation}
with
$$
A(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
-\beta \Phi^r_2(x,y,t) -r(t) & -\beta \Phi^r_1(x,y,t) \\
\beta \Phi^r_2(x,y,t) & \beta \Phi^r_1(x,y,t) -\gamma
\end{array}\right).
$$
As
\begin{align}
\|A(t)\|^2&=(\beta \Phi^r_2(x,y,t) +r(t))^2+(\beta \Phi^r_1(x,y,t) )^2+(\beta \Phi^r_2(x,y,t))^2 +(\beta \Phi^r_1(x,y,t) -\gamma)^2\\
&\le 2(\beta^2N^2+1)+\beta^2N^2+\beta^2N^2+2(\beta^2N^2+\gamma^2)\\
&=6\beta^2 N^2+2\gamma^2+2\\
&=C^2
\end{align}
and $\|\partial_x\Phi^r(x,y,0)\|=1$, the previous lemma with $z(t)=\partial_x\Phi^r(x,y,t)$ implies
\begin{equation}\label{gradxPhir2bound}
\|\partial_x\Phi^r(x,y,t)\|\le e^{(C+1/2)t}.
\end{equation}
We can derive the same upper bound for $\|\partial_y\Phi^r(x,y,t)\|$, so assertion $(iii)$ follows.

\par The second equation in \eqref{linearizationfirstinx} is
$$
\partial_t\partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)=\beta (\partial_x\Phi^r_1(x,y,t)\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)+\Phi^r_1(x,y,t)\partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)) -\gamma \partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t).
$$
Using $(i)$ and \eqref{gradxPhir2bound} leads to
$$
|\partial_t\partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)|\le  e^{(C+1/2) t}(2\beta N+\gamma).
$$
This method also leads to the same bound for $|\partial_t\partial_y\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)|$.  This proves $(v)$.

\par As for $(vi)$, we will prove the estimate for $\partial^2_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)$ as the other cases can be handled similarly.  Upon differentiating
 \eqref{linearizationfirstinx} with respect to $x$,
 \begin{equation}\label{Secondlinearizationinx}
\partial_t\left(\begin{array}{c}
 \partial^2_x\Phi^r_1(x,y,t)  \\
 \partial^2_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)
\end{array}\right)
=
A(t)\left(\begin{array}{c}
 \partial^2_x\Phi^r_1(x,y,t)  \\
 \partial^2_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)
\end{array}\right)+2\beta\left(\begin{array}{c}
 -\partial_x\Phi^r_1(x,y,t)\partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)  \\
\partial_x\Phi^r_1(x,y,t)\partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)
\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
Note that $\partial^2_x\Phi^r_1(x,y,0) =\partial^2_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,0) =0$ and
$$
\left\|2\beta\left(\begin{array}{c}
 -\partial_x\Phi^r_1(x,y,t)\partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)  \\
\partial_x\Phi^r_1(x,y,t)\partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)
\end{array}\right)\right\|^2\le8\beta^2 e^{4(C+1/2)t}
$$
by \eqref{gradxPhir2bound}. The previous lemma then implies
\begin{align}
| \partial^2_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t) |^2&\le  e^{(2C+1)t}8\beta^2\int^t_0e^{-(2C+1)s} e^{(4C+2)s}ds\\
&\le  e^{(2C+1)t}8\beta^2\int^t_0e^{(2C+1)s}ds\\
&\le  e^{(2C+1)t}8\beta^2\frac{1}{2C+1}(e^{(2C+1)t}-1)\\
&\le e^{(4C+2)t}\frac{4\beta^2}{2C}.
\end{align}
\end{proof}
When we differentiate \eqref{impliciturequation}, it will be crucial that
$$
\partial_t\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)= (\beta\Phi^r_1(x,y,t) -\gamma) \Phi^r_2(x,y,t)< 0
$$
when $t=u^r(x,y)$. We'll show that this quantity is uniformly bounded away from 0 for $(x,y)\in T_{N,\delta}$.
\begin{lem}
Let $N\ge\mu+\delta$. There is
$$
\epsilon >0
$$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{NondegdotIarr}
\gamma-\beta\Phi^r_1(x,y,u^r(x,y)) \ge \epsilon
\end{equation}
for each $r\in {\cal A}$ and $(x,y)\in T_{N,\delta}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If this assertion is false, for each $k\in \mathbb{N}$ there would be $(x^k,y^k)\in T_{N,\delta}$ and $r^k\in {\cal A}$ such that
$$
\gamma-\beta\Phi^{r^k}_1(x^k,y^k,u^{r^k}(x^k,y^k))<\frac{1}{k}.
$$
Passing to subsequences if necessary, we may suppose that $(x^k,y^k)\rightarrow (x,y) \in T_{N,\delta}$ and $r^k\rightarrow r$ weak$^*$ in ${\cal A}$.   According to Proposition \ref{CompactnessProp} and \eqref{Convergenceurkayxkayykay},
$$
\gamma-\beta\Phi^{r}_1(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))\le 0.
$$
This would imply $\Phi^{r}_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))=\mu$ and
$$
\partial_t\Phi^r_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))= (\beta\Phi^r_1(x,y,u^{r}(x,y)) -\gamma) \mu\ge 0.
$$
However, this contradicts Lemma \ref{Sulessthan} as $y\ge \delta+\mu>\mu$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{uarrSmoothCor}
For each $r\in {\cal A}$, $u^r$ is continuously differentiable on $(0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)$.  Moreover, for each $N,\delta$ with $N>\delta+\mu$, there is a constant
$B$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{LipschitzBounduArr}
|\partial_xu^r(x,y)|,|\partial_yu^r(x,y)|\le B
\end{equation}
for $(x,y)\in T_{N,\delta}$ and $r\in {\cal A}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $\Phi^r_2$ is continuously differentiable for all $r\in {\cal A}$.  In view of the previous lemma,
$$
\partial_t\Phi^r_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))<0
$$
for $x>0$ and $y>\mu$.
Applying the implicit function theorem to equation \eqref{impliciturequation} gives that $u^r$ is continuously differentiable.

\par Differentiating \eqref{impliciturequation} with respect to $x$ gives
\begin{equation}\label{impliciturequation2}
\partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))+\partial_t\Phi^r_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))\partial_xu^{r}(x,y)=0.
\end{equation}
We can then use the previous lemma, part $(iii)$ of Lemma \ref{DerivativeBoundsPhi2} and \eqref{uarrUpperBound} to find
\begin{equation}
|\partial_xu^{r}(x,y)|=\frac{|\partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))|}{|\partial_t\Phi^r_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))|}\le\frac{1}{\epsilon}e^{ (C+1/2) u^r(x,y)}\le\frac{1}{\epsilon}e^{ (C+1/2)N/\mu\gamma}
\end{equation}
for $(x,y)\in T_{N,\delta}$. Here $\epsilon$ is the constant in \eqref{NondegdotIarr} and $C=\sqrt{6\beta^2 N^2+2\gamma^2+2}.$  The same upper bound also holds for $|\partial_yu^{r}(x,y)|$
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{Extenduxuy}
Using \eqref{impliciturequation2} and the corresponding equation obtained by differentiating \eqref{impliciturequation} with respect to $y$, we can extend $\partial_xu^r$ and $\partial_yu^r$ continuously to the interval
$$
0<x<\frac{\gamma}{\beta}\quad \text{and} \quad y=\mu.
$$
In particular,
\begin{equation}
\partial_xu^{r}(x,\mu)=0\quad\text{and}\quad \partial_yu^{r}(x,\mu)=-\frac{1}{(\gamma-\beta x)\mu}
\end{equation}
for any such pair $(x,y)$.
\end{rem}
In view of \eqref{LipschitzBounduArr} and the fact that $T_{N,\delta}$ is convex,
$$
|u^r(x_1,y_1)-u^r(x_2,y_2)|\le \sqrt{2}B(|x_1-y_1|+|x_2-y_2|)
$$
for all $r\in {\cal A}$ and $(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)\in T_{N,\delta}$.  As a result,
$$
|u(x_1,y_1)-u(x_2,y_2)|\le \sqrt{2} B(|x_1-y_1|+|x_2-y_2|)
$$
for $(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)\in T_{N,\delta}$.  In particular, the value function is Lipschitz continuous on $T_{N,\delta}$ for any $N>\delta+\mu$.
By Rademacher's theorem, $u$ is differentiable almost everywhere in $(0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)$.

\par Now we will explain how to bound the second derivatives of $u^r$ when $r$ is smooth.   Our method will be similar as before and involves differentiating \eqref{impliciturequation} twice.

\begin{prop}
Suppose $N,\delta>0$ satisfy $N>\delta+\mu$. There is a constant $D$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{SecondDerivativeBounds}
|\partial^2_xu^r(x,y)|,|\partial^2_yu^r(x,y)|,|\partial_x\partial_yu^r(x,y)|\le D
\end{equation}
for each $(x,y)\in T_{N,\delta}$ and each smooth $r\in {\cal A}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We will establish the bound for $|\partial^2_xu^r(x,y)|$ as the other bounds can be similarly achieved.   Differentiating \eqref{impliciturequation2}
with respect to $x$ gives
\begin{align}
&0=\partial^2_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))+\partial_t\partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))\partial_xu^{r}(x,y)\\
&\quad+(\partial_x\partial_t\Phi^r_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))+\partial^2_t\Phi^r_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))\partial_xu^{r}(x,y) )\partial_xu^{r}(x,y)\\
&\quad+\partial_t\Phi^r_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))\partial^2_xu^{r}(x,y).
\end{align}
In view of  \eqref{uarrUpperBound}, $u^r(x,y)\le N/\mu\gamma$.  Consequently,
$$
|\partial^2_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))|, |\partial_t\partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))|,|\partial^2_t\Phi^r_2(x,y,u^{r}(x,y))|
$$
are each uniformly bounded for all $(x,y)\in T_{N,\delta}$ independently of $r$. This follows from $(iv), (v)$, and $(vi)$ in  Lemma \ref{DerivativeBoundsPhi2}.  We can then solve the equation above for $\partial^2_xu^{r}(x,y)$ and use \eqref{NondegdotIarr} and \eqref{LipschitzBounduArr} to find $D$ as asserted.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{uarrQuasiconcave}
Suppose $N,\delta$ satisfy $N>\delta+\mu$. Then there is a constant $L$ such
$$
(x,y)\mapsto u^r(x,y)-\frac{L}{2}(x^2+y^2)
$$
is concave in $T_{N,\delta}$ for each $r\in {\cal A}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
First suppose $r\in {\cal A}$ is smooth. By \eqref{SecondDerivativeBounds}, we can find $L$ which is independent of $r$ such that
$$
\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\partial^2_xu^r(x,y) & \partial_y \partial_xu^r(x,y) \\
\partial_x \partial_yu^r(x,y) & \partial^2_yu^r(x,y)
\end{array}\right)\right\|\le L
$$
for $(x,y)\in T_{N,\delta}$. It follows that the Hessian of
$$
(x,y)\mapsto u^r(x,y)-\frac{L}{2}(x^2+y^2)
$$
is nonpositive definite in $T_{N,\delta}$, so this function is concave in $T_{N,\delta}$.

\par Now suppose $r\in {\cal A}$ and choose a sequence of smooth  $r^k\in {\cal A}$ such that $r^k\rightarrow r$ weak$^*$.
Such a sequence exists by standard smoothing techniques. See for example Appendix C.5 of \cite{MR2597943}. As
$$
(x,y)\mapsto u^{r^k}(x,y)-\frac{L}{2}(x^2+y^2)
$$
is concave in $T_{N,\delta}$,
\begin{equation}
u^{r^k}\left(\frac{x_1+x_2}{2},\frac{y_1+y_2}{2}\right)\ge \frac{1}{2}u^{r^k}(x_1,y_1)+\frac{1}{2}u^{r^k}(x_2,y_2)-L\left(\left(\frac{x_1-x_2}{2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{y_1-y_2}{2}\right)^2\right)
\end{equation}
for each $(x_1,y_1), (x_2,y_2)\in T_{N,\delta}$. We can then send $k\rightarrow\infty$ in this inequality by \eqref{Convergenceurkayxkayykay} and conclude that this inequality holds for $u^r$. That is, $u^{r }(x,y)-\frac{L}{2}(x^2+y^2)$ is concave in $T_{N,\delta}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1}]
Suppose $K\subset (0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)$ is convex and compact. Then $K\subset T_{N,\delta}$ for some $N,\delta>0$ with $N>\mu+\delta$. Thus,
there is a constant $L$ such that
$$
u(x,y)-\frac{L}{2}(x^2+y^2)=\inf_{r\in {\cal A}}\left(u^r(x,y)-\frac{L}{2}(x^2+y^2)\right)
$$
is necessarily concave in $K$ by Corollary \ref{uarrQuasiconcave}.
\end{proof}
Let $K\subset (0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)$ be convex and compact and choose $L$ such that  $u(x,y)-\frac{L}{2}(x^2+y^2)$ is concave on $K$. Aleksandrov's theorem implies that $u$ is twice differentiable almost everywhere in $K$.
At any point $(x,y)\in K$ for which $u$ is twice differentiable, the eigenvalues of the Hessian
$$
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\partial^2_xu(x,y) & \partial_y \partial_xu(x,y) \\
\partial_x \partial_yu(x,y) & \partial^2_yu(x,y)
\end{array}\right)
$$
are then less than or equal to $L$.

\section{Optimal switching}\label{OptSwtichSect}
In this section, we will prove Theorem \ref{thm2} and a few corollaries. Here we recall the definition of a switching time vaccination rate
\begin{equation}\label{SwitchingTimeControl2}
r_\tau(t)=
\begin{cases}
0, \quad t\in [0,\tau]\\
1,\quad t\in (\tau,\infty).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm2}]
Suppose $x\ge0$ and $y\ge \mu$.  Note that
$$
u^{r_\tau}(x,y)=\tau+u^{r_\tau}(S^{r_\tau}(\tau),I^{r_\tau}(\tau))=\tau+u^{r_0}(S(\tau),I(\tau)).
$$
By the results of  \cite{MR3688684},
\begin{equation}\label{tauMinimizingFormula}
u(x,y)=\min_{\tau\ge 0}u^{r_\tau}(x,y)=\min_{\tau\ge 0}\{\tau+u^{r_0}(S(\tau),I(\tau))\}.
\end{equation}
We've also shown that if $u(x,y)=\tau+u^{r_0}(S(\tau),I(\tau))$, then $u(x,y)=u^{r_\tau}(x,y)$.

\par Now set
\begin{equation}\label{OptimalStoppingTimetau}
\tau^*:=\inf\{t\ge 0: u(S(t),I(t))=u^{r_0}(S(t),I(t)) \},
\end{equation}
and choose a minimizing $\tau\ge 0$ in \eqref{tauMinimizingFormula}.  Then
$$
u^{r_\tau}(x,y)=\tau+u^{r_0}(S(\tau),I(\tau))\ge \tau
$$
and
$$
u(S(t),I(t))=u^{r_\tau}(S(t),I(t))
$$
for $0\le t\le \tau$ by Proposition \ref{DPPprop}. Thus $u(S(\tau),I(\tau))=u^{r_\tau}(S(\tau),I(\tau))=u^{r_0}(S(\tau),I(\tau))$ so that
$$
\tau^*\le \tau<\infty.
$$
Appealing to Proposition \ref{DPPprop} once again gives
\begin{align}
u(x,y)&=\tau^*+u^{r_\tau}(S(\tau^*),I(\tau^*))\\
&\ge \tau^*+u(S(\tau^*),I(\tau^*))\\
&= \tau^*+u^{r_0}(S(\tau^*),I(\tau^*)).
\end{align}
Thus $\tau^*$ is optimal.
\end{proof}
We will make use of the fact that $u^{r_0}$ is a smooth solution of
\begin{equation}\label{urzeroPDE}
\beta xy \partial_xu^{r_0}+x\partial_xu^{r_0}+(\gamma-\beta x)y\partial_yu^{r_0}=1
\end{equation}
in $(0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)$.  This follows from computing the time derivative of both sides of the identity
$$
u^{r_0}(x,y)=t+u^{r_0}(S^{r_0}(t),I^{r_0}(t))
$$
at $t=0$; here $S^{r_0}, I^{r_0}$ is the solution of the \eqref{SIRcontrol} with $S^{r_0}(0)=x$ and $I^{r_0}(0)=y$.
\begin{cor}\label{DerivativesurzeroCor}
Suppose $x>0$, $y>\mu$. If $u(x,y)=u^{r_0}(x,y)$, then
$$
\partial_xu^{r_0}(x,y)\ge 0.
$$
Otherwise
\begin{equation}\label{urzeroxequalzero}
\partial_xu^{r_0}(S(\tau^*),I(\tau^*))=0,
\end{equation}
where $\tau^*$ is given by \eqref{OptimalStoppingTimetau} and $S, I$ is the solution of the SIR system \eqref{SIR} with $S(0)=x$ and $I(0)=y$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
If $u(x,y)=u^{r_0}(x,y)$, then $\tau=0$ is a minimizing time in \eqref{tauMinimizingFormula}.  In view of \eqref{urzeroPDE},
\begin{align}
0&\le\left. \frac{d}{d\tau}\left(\tau+ u^{r_0}(S(\tau),I(\tau))\right)\right|_{\tau=0}\\
&=1-\beta xy \partial_xu^{r_0}-(\gamma-\beta x)y\partial_yu^{r_0}\\
&=x\partial_xu^{r_0}.
\end{align}
If $u(x,y)<u^{r_0}(x,y)$, then $\tau^*>0$, and we can perform a computation similar to the one above to find \eqref{urzeroxequalzero}.
\end{proof}
\par  Combining \eqref{tauMinimizingFormula} with the dynamic programming principle \eqref{DPP} gives
\begin{equation}\label{DPP2}
u(x,y)=\min_{\tau\ge 0}\{\tau+u(S(\tau),I(\tau))\},
\end{equation}
where $S, I$ is the solution of the SIR system \eqref{SIR} with $S(0)=x$ and $I(0)=y\ge \mu$. We will use this identify to verify the following claim.
\begin{cor}
The value function $u$ is a viscosity solution of the PDE \eqref{HJB2}
\begin{equation}
\max\{\beta xy \partial_xu+(\gamma-\beta x)y\partial_yu-1, u-u^{r_0}\}=0
\end{equation}
in $(0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let us $x_0>0$ and $y_0>\mu$ and first suppose that $\varphi$ is continuously differentiable and $u-\varphi$ has a local maximum at $(x_0,y_0)$.  Then
$$
(u-\varphi)(S(t),I(t))\le (u-\varphi)(x_0,y_0)
$$
for all $t\ge 0$ small. Here $S, I$ is the solution of the SIR system \eqref{SIR} with $S(0)=x_0$ and $I(0)=y_0$.
By \eqref{DPP2}, $u(x_0,y_0)\le t+ u(S(t),I(t))$ for all $t\ge 0$,  so that
$$
-t\le u(S(t),I(t))-u(x_0,y_0)\le \varphi(S(t),I(t))-\varphi(x_0,y_0)
$$
for all $t\ge 0$ small. Consequently,
\begin{align}
-1&\le \left.\frac{d}{dt} \varphi(S^r(t),I^r(t))\right|_{t=0}\\
&=-\beta x_0y_0 \partial_x\varphi(x_0,y_0)-(\gamma-\beta x_0)y_0\partial_y\varphi(x_0,y_0).
\end{align}
Therefore,
$$
\max\{\beta x_0y_0 \partial_x\varphi(x_0,y_0)+(\gamma-\beta x_0)y_0\partial_y\varphi(x_0,y_0)-1, u(x_0,y_0)-u^{r_0}(x_0,y_0)\}\le 0.
$$

\par Now suppose $\psi$ is continuously differentiable $u-\psi$ has a local minimum at $(x_0,y_0)$.  We claim
\begin{equation}\label{SuperSolnIneqOST}
\max\{\beta x_0y_0 \partial_x\psi(x_0,y_0)+(\gamma-\beta x_0)y_0\partial_y\psi(x_0,y_0)-1, u(x_0,y_0)-u^{r_0}(x_0,y_0)\}\ge 0.
\end{equation}
Recall that if $u(x_0,y_0)<u^{r_0}(x_0,y_0)$, then the corresponding $\tau^*$ \eqref{OptimalStoppingTimetau} is positive.  As a result,
$$
u(x_0,y_0)=u^{r_{\tau^*}}(x_0,y_0)=t+u^{r_{\tau^*}}(S(t),I(t))=t+u(S(t),I(t))
$$
for $t\in [0, \tau^*]$. It follows that
$$
-t= u(S(t),I(t))-u(x_0,y_0)\ge \psi(S(t),I(t))-\psi(x_0,y_0)
$$
for all $t>0$ small enough.  Therefore,
\begin{align}
-1&\ge \left.\frac{d}{dt} \psi(S^r(t),I^r(t))\right|_{t=0}\\
&=-\beta x_0y_0 \partial_x\psi(x_0,y_0)-(\gamma-\beta x_0)y_0\partial_y\psi(x_0,y_0)
\end{align}
which implies \eqref{SuperSolnIneqOST}.
\end{proof}

\par We have established that the value function is a viscosity solution of the HJB \eqref{HJB} and the PDE \eqref{HJB2}. There is at least one implication of this fact
which we can state in terms of the set ${\cal S}$ mentioned in our introduction
$$
{\cal S}=\{(x,y)\in(0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty): u(x,y)=u^{r_0}(x,y) \}.
$$
\begin{cor}
For each $(x,y)$ belonging to the interior of  ${\cal S}$,
$$
\partial_xu(x,y)\ge 0.
$$
And at almost every $(x,y)\in {\cal S}^c$,
$$
\partial_xu(x,y)\le 0.
$$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
\par As $u$ agrees with $u^{r_0}$ in ${\cal S}$, $u$ is smooth in the interior of ${\cal S}$. It follows from Corollary \ref{DerivativesurzeroCor} that $\partial_xu(x,y)
\ge0$ for each $(x,y)$ in the interior of ${\cal S}$.

\par Since $u$ is locally Lipschitz on $(0,\infty)\times(\mu,\infty)$, $u$ is differentiable almost everywhere in ${\cal S}^c$. Let $(x,y)\in {\cal S}^c$ be a differentiability point of $u$. As $u$ is a viscosity solution of the HJB \eqref{HJB}, it is routine to check that $u$ satisfies the equation at this point. That is,
$$
\beta xy \partial_xu(x,y)+x\partial_xu(x,y)^++(\gamma-\beta x)y\partial_yu(x,y)=1.
$$
See Proposition 1.9 of Chapter II in \cite{MR1484411}, and Corollary 8.1 of Chapter II in \cite{MR2179357} for more on this technical point. And since $u$ is a viscosity solution of \eqref{HJB2} and $(x,y)\in {\cal S}^c$, we also have
$$
\beta xy \partial_xu(x,y)+(\gamma-\beta x)y\partial_yu(x,y)=1.
$$
Upon subtracting these equations, we find $\partial_xu(x,y)^+=0$. That is,  $\partial_xu(x,y)\le 0$.
\end{proof}

\section{Necessary conditions revisited}\label{PMPsect}
In this final section, we will relate our ideas on dynamic programming back to the necessary conditions which follow from Pontryagin's maximum principle. Our first insight is that each optimal vaccination rate $r\in {\cal A}$ is a ``feedback" control. That is, $r(t)$ depends on the value of $(S^r(t),I^r(t))$ for almost every $t\ge 0$.  In proving this assertion, we  will make use of the following basic observation. Whenever $x_0> 0$, $y_0> \mu$, and $u(x_0,y_0)=u^r(x_0,y_0)$, then
$$
u(x,y)-u^r(x,y)\le 0=u(x_0,y_0)-u^r(x_0,y_0)
$$
for each $x>0$ and $y>\mu$.  That is, $u-u^r$ has a maximum at $(x_0,y_0)$. Since $u$ is a viscosity solution and $u^r$ is continuously differentiable,
\begin{equation}\label{LastSupsolnInequArr}
\beta x_0y_0 \partial_xu^r(x_0,y_0)+x_0(\partial_xu^r(x_0,y_0))^++(\gamma-\beta x_0)y_0\partial_yu^r(x_0,y_0)\le 1.
\end{equation}

\begin{prop}\label{OptimalSynthesisProp}
Let $x\ge 0$ and $y>\mu$ and choose $r\in {\cal A}$ such that $u(x,y)=u^r(x,y).$ Then
\begin{equation}\label{OptimalConditionArr}
r(t)\partial_xu^r(S^r(t),I^r(t))=\partial_xu^r(S^r(t),I^r(t))^+
\end{equation}
for almost every $t\in [0,u(x,y)]$ and
\begin{align}\label{HJconditionuArr}
&\beta S^{r}(t)I^{r}(t)\partial_xu^r(S^{r}(t),I^{r}(t))+S^{r}(t)\partial_xu^r(S^{r}(t),I^{r}(t))^+\\
&\hspace{1.5in} +(\gamma-\beta S^{r}(t))I^{r}(t)\partial_yu^r(S^{r}(t),I^{r}(t))=1
\end{align}
for all $t\in [0,u(x,y)]$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{DPPprop},
$$
u(S^r(t),I^r(t))=u^{r}(S^{r}(t),I^{r}(t))
$$
for $t\in [0,u(x,y)]$. And in view of inequality \eqref{LastSupsolnInequArr},
\begin{align}\label{HJconditionuArr2}
&\beta S^r(t)I^r(t) \partial_xu^r(S^r(t),I^r(t))+S^r(t)(\partial_xu^r(S^r(t),I^r(t)))^+\\
&\hspace{1.5in}+(\gamma-\beta S^r(t))I^r(t)\partial_yu^r(S^r(t),I^r(t))\le 1
\end{align}
for all $t\in [0,u(x,y)]$.  Furthermore, we always have
$$
u^{r}(S^{r}(t),I^{r}(t))=u^r(x,y)-t
$$
for $t\in [0,u(x,y)]$. Differentiating gives
\begin{align}
-1&=\frac{d}{dt}u^{r}(S^{r}(t),I^{r}(t))\\
&=-\beta S^r(t)I^r(t) \partial_xu^r(S^r(t),I^r(t))-S^r(t)r(t)\partial_xu^r(S^r(t),I^r(t))\\
&\hspace{1.5in} -(\gamma-\beta S^r(t))I^r(t)\partial_yu^r(S^r(t),I^r(t))\\
&\ge -\beta S^r(t)I^r(t) \partial_xu^r(S^r(t),I^r(t))-S^r(t)(\partial_xu^r(S^r(t),I^r(t)))^+\\
&\hspace{1.5in}-(\gamma-\beta S^r(t))I^r(t)\partial_yu^r(S^r(t),I^r(t))\\
&\ge -1
\end{align}
for almost every $t\in [0,u(x,y)]$; the last inequality is due to \eqref{HJconditionuArr2}. We conclude \eqref{OptimalConditionArr} and \eqref{HJconditionuArr} hold
for almost every $t\in [0,u(x,y)]$.  Since $\partial_xu^r$ and $\partial_yu^r$ are continuous, \eqref{HJconditionuArr} actually holds for all $t\in [0,u(x,y)]$.
\end{proof}

\par We will need to record a basic fact involving the adjoint equations appearing in the necessary conditions obtained via Pontryagin's maximum principle.
\begin{lem}\label{AdjointLemma}
Let $r\in {\cal A}$, $x>0$, and $y>\mu$.  Set
$$
P(t)=u^r_x(S^r(t),I^r(t))\quad \text{and}\quad Q(t)=u^r_y(S^r(t),I^r(t))
$$
where $S^r$ and $I^r$ are the solution of \eqref{SIRcontrol} with $S^r(0)=x$ and $I^r(0)=y$. Then $P, Q$ satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{HODE}
\begin{cases}
\dot P(t) = (\beta I(t)+r(t))P(t)-\beta I(t)Q(t)\\
\dot Q(t) = \beta S(t)P(t)+(\gamma-\beta S(t))Q(t)
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
for almost every $t\in [0,u^r(x,y)]$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Just as we computed \eqref{linearizationfirstinx}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{linearizationfirstinxandy}
\partial_tZ(x,y,t)
=A(x,y,t)Z(x,y,t)
\end{equation}
for almost every $t\in [0,u^r(x,y)]$ where
$$
Z(x,y,t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
 \partial_x\Phi^r_1(x,y,t)& \partial_y\Phi^r_1(x,y,t)  \\
 \partial_x\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)  & \partial_y\Phi^r_2(x,y,t)  \\
\end{array}\right)
$$
and
$$
A(x,y,t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
-\beta \Phi^r_2(x,y,t) -r(t) & -\beta \Phi^r_1(x,y,t) \\
\beta \Phi^r_2(x,y,t) & \beta \Phi^r_1(x,y,t) -\gamma
\end{array}\right).
$$
Taking the transpose of \eqref{linearizationfirstinxandy}
\begin{equation}\label{FirstZdotidentity}
\partial_tZ(x,y,t)^t
=Z(x,y,t)^tA(x,y,t)^t.
\end{equation}
We also note that since
$$
Z(x,y,0)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1& 0  \\
0  & 1 \\
\end{array}\right),
$$
$t\mapsto Z(x,y,t)$ is the fundamental solution of the $2\times 2$ system \eqref{linearizationfirstinxandy}. In particular,  $Z(x,y,t)$ is a nonsingular matrix for each $t\ge 0$.

\par Recall the identity
$$
u^r( \Phi^r_1(x,y,t), \Phi^r_2(x,y,t))=u^r(x,y)-t
$$
for $t\in [0,u^r(x,y)]$. Differentiating with respect to $x$ and $y$ gives
$$
Z(x,y,t)^t
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\partial_xu^r( \Phi^r_1(x,y,t), \Phi^r_2(x,y,t))\\
\partial_yu^r( \Phi^r_1(x,y,t), \Phi^r_2(x,y,t))
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\partial_xu^r(x,y)\\
\partial_yu^r(x,y)
\end{array}\right).
$$
And taking the derivative with respect to $t$ leads to
\begin{align}\label{SecondZdotIdentity}
\partial_tZ(x,y,t)^t
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\partial_xu^r( \Phi^r_1(x,y,t), \Phi^r_2(x,y,t))\\
\partial_yu^r( \Phi^r_1(x,y,t), \Phi^r_2(x,y,t))
\end{array}\right)+ Z(x,y,t)^t  \partial_t
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\partial_xu^r( \Phi^r_1(x,y,t), \Phi^r_2(x,y,t))\\
\partial_yu^r( \Phi^r_1(x,y,t), \Phi^r_2(x,y,t))
\end{array}\right)=0.
\end{align}

\par Let us now fix $x>0$ and $y>\mu$ and set $Z(t)=Z(x,y,t)$, $A(t)=A(x,y,t)$, and
$$
\left(\begin{array}{c}
P(t)\\
Q(t)
\end{array}\right)
=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\partial_xu^r( \Phi^r_1(x,y,t), \Phi^r_2(x,y,t))\\
\partial_yu^r( \Phi^r_1(x,y,t), \Phi^r_2(x,y,t))
\end{array}\right).
$$
By \eqref{FirstZdotidentity} and \eqref{SecondZdotIdentity},
$$
Z(t)^t\frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c}
P(t)\\
Q(t)
\end{array}\right)=-Z(t)^tA(t)^t\left(\begin{array}{c}
P(t)\\
Q(t)
\end{array}\right).
$$
for almost every $t\in [0,u^r(x,y)]$. Since $Z(t)$ is nonsingular,
$$
\frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c}
P(t)\\
Q(t)
\end{array}\right)=-A(t)^t\left(\begin{array}{c}
P(t)\\
Q(t)
\end{array}\right)
$$
which is \eqref{HODE}.
\end{proof}

\par We can now establish the necessary conditions coming from Pontryagin's maximum principle in terms of the derivatives of $u^r$ when $u(x,y)=u^r(x,y)$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm3}]
Properties $(iii)$ and $(iv)$ were established in Proposition \ref{OptimalSynthesisProp}. As for property $(ii)$, recall that
$\partial_xu^r(x,\mu)=0$ for $x\in (0,\gamma/\beta)$ as explained in Remark \ref{Extenduxuy}.  In view of Corollary \ref{Sulessthan}, $S^r(u)\in (0,\gamma/\beta)$ so
$P(u)=0$.  Moreover, evaluating \eqref{HJconditionuArr} at $t=u$ gives
$$
(\gamma-\beta S^{r}(u))\mu Q(u)=1.
$$
Thus, $Q(u)\neq 0$.  Finally, property $(i)$ follows from Lemma \ref{AdjointLemma}.
\end{proof}

Analysis of PDEs (math.AP); Optimization and Control (math.OC)


Integral transforms characterized by convolution

Abstract: Inspired by Jaming's characterization of the Fourier transform on specific groups via the convolution property, we provide a novel approach which characterizes the Fourier transform on any locally compact abelian group. In particular, our characterization encompasses Jaming's results. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the cosine transform as well as the Laplace transform can also be characterized via a suitable convolution property.

\section{Introduction}
\label{Chapter:Introduction}

It is well-known that the Fourier transform satisfies the convolution property. More precisely, let $G$ be a locally compact abelian group with a Haar measure $\mu$ and a dual group $\widehat{G}.$ The Fourier transform is a map $\Fourier: L^1(G)\longrightarrow C_0(\widehat{G})$ given by the formula
\begin{gather}
\forall_{\substack{f\in L^1(G)\\ \chi\in \widehat{G}}}\ \Fourier(f)(\chi) := \int_G\ f(x)\overline{\chi(x)}\ d\mu(x),
\label{Fouriertransform}
\end{gather}

\noindent
whereas the Fourier convolution $\star_{\Fourier}: L^1(G)\times L^1(G)\longrightarrow L^1(G)$ is given by
\begin{gather}
\forall_{\substack{f,g\in L^1(G)\\ x\in G}}\ f\star_{\Fourier} g(x) := \int_G\ f(u)g(x-u)\ d\mu(u).
\label{Fourierconvolution}
\end{gather}

\noindent
For the sake of convenience, from this point onwards we will write $dx$ and $du$ instead of ``$d\mu(x)$'' and ``$d\mu(u)$'', respectively. The following Fourier convolution property (see Lemma 1.7.2 in \cite{DeitmarEchterhoff}, p. 30) holds:
$$\forall_{f,g\in L^1(G)}\ \Fourier(f\star_{\Fourier}g) = \Fourier(f)\Fourier(g).$$

Jaming proved that the convolution property characterizes (to a certain degree) the Fourier transform if $G = \reals, S^1, \integers$ or $\integers_n$ (see \cite{Jaming}). His paper inspired Lavanya and Thangavelu to show that any continuous *-homomorphism of $L^1(\complex^d)$ (with twisted convolution as multiplication) into $B(L^2(\reals^d))$ is essentially a Weyl transform and deduce a similar characterization for the group Fourier transform on the Heisenberg group (see \cite{LavanyaThangavelu} and \cite{LavanyaThangavelu2}). Furthermore, Kumar and Sivananthan went on to demonstrate that the convolution property characterizes the Fourier transform on compact groups (see \cite{KumarSivananthan}), while Alesker, Artstein-Avidan, Faifman and Milman studied the Fourier transform in terms of product preserving maps (see \cite{AleskerArtsteinAvidanFaifmanMilman}).

Studying the topic we realized two things that prompted us to write this paper. Firstly, Jaming's characterization of the Fourier transform need not be restricted to particular cases $G =  \reals, S^1, \integers$ or $\integers_n$. There is a unified approach for all locally compact abelian groups, which we demonstrate in the first part of Section \ref{Chapter:Fouriertransform}.

Secondly, we discovered that the Fourier transform is not the only one that can be characterized via the convolution property. In the second part of Section \ref{Chapter:Fouriertransform} and in Section \ref{Chapter:Laplacetransform} we explain that cosine and Laplace convolutions characterize cosine and Laplace transforms, respectively.

\section{Fourier and cosine transform}
\label{Chapter:Fouriertransform}

As we have agreed in the Introduction, let $G$ stand for a locally compact abelian group with Haar measure $\mu$ and dual group $\widehat{G}.$ The formula for the Fourier transform and Fourier convolution are given by \eqref{Fouriertransform} and \ref{Fourierconvolution}, respectively.

\begin{lemma}
For every function $g\in L^1(G)$ and $x,y\in G$ the following equality holds
$$L_xg \star_{\Fourier} L_yg = g \star_{\Fourier} L_{x+y}g,$$

\noindent
where for every $z\in G$ the operator $L_z:L^1(G)\longrightarrow L^1(G)$ is given by
\begin{gather*}
\forall_{u\in G}\ L_zf(u) := f(u - z).
\end{gather*}
\label{shiftoperators}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For every $u\in G$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
L_xg\star_{\Fourier}L_yg(u) &= \int_G\ L_xg(v)L_yg(u-v)\ dv = \int_G\ g(v-x)g(u-v-y)\ dv\\
&\stackrel{v\mapsto v+x}{=} \int_G\ g(v)g(u-v-(x+y))\ dv = \int_G\ g(v)L_{x+y}g(u-v)\ dv = g\star_{\Fourier}L_{x+y}g(u),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}

\noindent
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}

The following theorem generalizes Theorems 2.1 and 3.1 in Jaming's paper (see \cite{Jaming}).

\begin{thm}
Let $T:L^1(G)\longrightarrow L^{\infty}(\widehat{G})$ be a linear and bounded operator. If it satisfies the Fourier convolution property
$$\forall_{f,g\in L^1(G)}\ T(f\star_{\Fourier} g) = T(f)T(g)$$

\noindent
then there exists a function $\theta_{\Fourier}: \widehat{G} \longrightarrow \widehat{G}\cup\{0\}$ such that
\begin{gather}
\forall_{f\in L^1(G)}\ T(f) = \Fourier(f) \circ \theta_{\Fourier}
\label{mainresultFourier}
\end{gather}

\noindent
where $\theta_{\Fourier}(\phi) = 0$ if and only if $T(f)(\phi) = 0$ for every $f\in L^1(G).$
\label{characterizationofFouriertransform}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We pick $\phi\in\widehat{G}.$ If $T(f)(\phi) = 0$ for every $f\in L^1(G)$, then we define $\theta_{\Fourier}(\phi) := 0$ so that the equality \eqref{mainresultFourier} holds. Suppose then that $\phi$ is such that $T(f)(\phi)\neq 0$ for some $f\in L^1(G)$. We consider a nonzero, linear functional $T_{\phi}: L^1(G)\longrightarrow \complex$ given by $T_{\phi}(f) := T(f)(\phi).$ We pick $g_* \in L^1(G)$ such that $T_{\phi}(g_*) = 1$ and define a function $\chi_{\phi} : G\longrightarrow \complex$ by the formula
$$\chi_{\phi}(x) := \overline{T_{\phi}(L_xg_*)}.$$

\noindent
Let us remark, that the choice of $g_*$ need not be unique, so there might be many functions $\chi_{\phi}$ corresponding to $\phi.$

We will now focus on proving various properties of the function $\chi_{\phi}.$ To begin with, we observe that
\begin{equation*}
\forall_{x,y\in G}\ T_{\phi}(L_xg_*) T_{\phi}(L_yg_*) = T_{\phi}(L_xg_* \star_{\Fourier} L_yg_*) \stackrel{\text{Lemma}\ \ref{shiftoperators}}{=} T_{\phi}(g_* \star_{\Fourier} L_{x+y}g_*) = T_{\phi}(g_*)T_{\phi}(L_{x+y}g_*) = T_{\phi}(L_{x+y}g_*).
\end{equation*}

\noindent
Taking the complex conjugate reveals the equation
$$\forall_{x,y\in G}\ \chi_{\phi}(x)\chi_{\phi}(y) = \chi_{\phi}(x+y).$$

Furthermore, since $T_{\phi}$ is a continuous linear functional, then Lemma 1.4.2 in \cite{DeitmarEchterhoff}, p. 18 implies that $\chi_{\phi}$ is continuous. It is also nonzero (as $\chi_{\phi}(0) = 1$) and bounded, since
\begin{gather}
\forall_{x\in G}\ |\chi_{\phi}(x)| \leqslant |T_{\phi}(L_xg_*)| \leqslant \|T_{\phi}\|\cdot \|L_xg_*\| = \|T_{\phi}\|\cdot \|g_*\|.
\label{boundednessofchi}
\end{gather}

\noindent
Finally we argue that $|\chi_{\phi}(x)| = 1$ for every $x\in G.$ Indeed, suppose there exists $\bar{x} \in G$ such that $|\chi_{\phi}(\bar{x})| \neq 1.$ Since
$$1 = |\chi_{\phi}(0)| = |\chi_{\phi}(\bar{x} - \bar{x})| = |\chi_{\phi}(\bar{x})| |\chi_{\phi}(-\bar{x})|$$

\noindent
then either $|\chi_{\phi}(\bar{x})| > 1$ or $|\chi_{\phi}(-\bar{x})| > 1.$ Without loss of generality, we may assume that the former is true. Consequently, we have
$$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\ |\chi_{\phi}(n\bar{x})| = |\chi_{\phi}(\bar{x})|^n = \infty,$$

\noindent
which contradicts boundedness of $\chi_{\phi}.$ Hence, we conclude that $|\chi_{\phi}(x)| = 1$ for every $x\in G.$ This means that $\chi_{\phi} \in \widehat{G}.$

Finally, using Lemma 11.45 in \cite{AliprantisBorder}, p. 427 (or Proposition 7 in \cite{Dinculeanu}, p. 123) we compute
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\int_G\ f(x)\overline{\chi_{\phi}(x)}\ dx &= \int_G\ f(x) T_{\phi}(L_xg_*)\ dx = T_{\phi}\left(\int_G\ f(x) L_xg_*\ dx\right) \\
&= T_{\phi}(f\star_{\Fourier} g_*) = T_{\phi}(f) T_{\phi}(g_*) = T_{\phi}(f),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}

\noindent
which concludes the proof if we put $\theta_{\Fourier}(\phi) := \chi_{\phi}.$
\end{proof}

We move on to show that the cosine transform admits a similar convolution characterization. The cosine transform is a map $\cosine : L^1(G)\longrightarrow C_0(\widehat{G})$ given by the formula
\begin{gather}
\forall_{\substack{f,g\in L^1(G)\\ \chi\in \COS(G)}}\ \cosine(f)(\chi) := \int_G\ f(x)\chi(x)\ dx,
\label{cosinetransform}
\end{gather}

\noindent
where
\begin{gather}
\COS(G) := \bigg\{\chi \in C^b(G)\ :\ \chi \neq 0,\ \forall_{x,y\in G}\ \chi(x)\chi(y) = \frac{\chi(x+y) + \chi(x-y)}{2}\bigg\}.
\label{cosineclass}
\end{gather}

\noindent
Functions in $\COS(G)$ are called cosine functions on group $G$, since for $G = \reals$ we have
$$\COS(G) = \bigg\{x\mapsto \cos(yx)\ :\ y\in\reals\bigg\}.$$

\noindent
The cosine convolution $\star_{\cosine}:L^1(G)\times L^1(G)\longrightarrow  L^1(G)$ is given by
\begin{gather}
\forall_{x\in G}\ f\star_{\cosine} g(x) := \int_G\ f(u)\cdot \frac{g(x+u) + g(x-u)}{2}\ du.
\label{cosineconvolution}
\end{gather}

Let us recall a property of the cosine convolution which will be crucial in the sequel (see Theorem 2 in \cite{Krukowski}):

\begin{lemma}
Let $x,y\in G.$ If $g\in L^1(G)$ is an even function, then
\begin{gather}
L_yg \star_{\cosine} L_xg = g\star_{\cosine} \frac{L_{x+y}g + L_{x-y}g}{2}.
\label{LxgstarcLyg}
\end{gather}
\label{dAlembertproperty}
\end{lemma}

Before we present a characterization of the cosine transform we need one more technical result:

\begin{lemma}
Let $T:L^1(G)\longrightarrow L^{\infty}(\COS(G))$ be a linear and bounded operator, which satisfies the cosine convolution property
\begin{gather}
\forall_{f,g\in L^1(G)}\ T(f\star_{\cosine} g) = T(f)T(g).
\label{cosineconvolutionproperty}
\end{gather}

\noindent
If $\phi \in \COS(G)$ is such that $T(f_*)(\phi) \neq 0$ for some $f_*\in L^1(G)$, then there exists an even function $g_*\in L^1(G)$ such that $T(g_*)(\phi)\neq 0.$
\label{existenceofevenfunction}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\iota:G\longrightarrow G$ be the inverse function $\iota(x) := -x$ and let $T_{\phi}: L^1(G)\longrightarrow \complex$ be a nonzero, linear functional given by $T_{\phi}(f) := T(f)(\phi).$  Then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\forall_{f\in L^1(G)}\ (f\circ\iota) \star_{\cosine} f(x) &= \int_G\ f\circ\iota(u) \cdot \frac{f(x+u) + f(x-u)}{2}\ du\\
&\stackrel{u\mapsto -u}{=} \int_G\ f(u) \cdot \frac{f(x-u) + f(x+u)}{2}\ du = f\star_{\cosine} f,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}

\noindent
which leads to
\begin{gather*}
\forall_{f\in L^1(G)}\ T_{\phi}(f\circ\iota)T_{\phi}(f) = T_{\phi}((f\circ\iota) \star_{\cosine} f) = T_{\phi}(f\star_{\cosine} f) = T_{\phi}(f)^2.
\label{canwedividebymf}
\end{gather*}

\noindent
Consequently, we have $T_{\phi}(f_*\circ\iota) = T_{\phi}(f_*).$ Finally, we put $g_* := f_* + f_*\circ\iota$ and observe that
$$T_{\phi}(g_*) = T_{\phi}(f_*+f_*\circ\iota) = T_{\phi}(f_*) + T_{\phi}(f_*\circ\iota) = 2T_{\phi}(f_*) \neq 0,$$

\noindent
which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}

We are now ready to demonstrate a counterpart of Theorem \ref{characterizationofFouriertransform} for the cosine transform:

\begin{thm}
Let $T:L^1(G)\longrightarrow L^{\infty}(\COS(G))$ be a linear and bounded operator. If it satisfies the cosine convolution property \eqref{cosineconvolutionproperty}, then there exists a function $\theta_{\cosine}: \COS(G) \longrightarrow \COS(G)\cup\{0\}$ such that
\begin{gather}
\forall_{f\in L^1(G)}\ T(f) = \cosine(f) \circ \theta_{\cosine}
\label{mainresultcosine}
\end{gather}

\noindent
where $\theta_{\cosine}(\phi) = 0$ if and only if $T(f)(\phi) = 0$ for every $f\in L^1(G).$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows the same lines as the proof of Theorem \ref{characterizationofFouriertransform}. We pick $\phi\in\COS(G)$ and check if $T(f)(\phi) = 0$ for every $f\in L^1(G)$. If so, we define $\theta_{\cosine}(\phi) := 0.$ Otherwise, if $T(f)(\phi) \neq 0$ for some $f\in L^1(G),$ then we consider a nonzero, linear functional $T_{\phi}: L^1(G)\longrightarrow \complex$ given by $T_{\phi}(f) := T(f)(\phi).$ By Lemma \ref{existenceofevenfunction} there exists an even function $g_* \in L^1(G)$ such that $T_{\phi}(g_*) = 1.$ We may thus define a function $\chi_{\phi} : G\longrightarrow \complex$ by the formula
$$\chi_{\phi}(x) := T_{\phi}(L_xg_*).$$

As in Theorem \ref{characterizationofFouriertransform} we study the properties of $\chi_{\phi}$ and see that
\begin{itemize}
	\item it is nonzero due to $\chi_{\phi}(0) =1,$
	\item it is bounded due to \eqref{boundednessofchi},
	\item it is continuous due to Lemma 1.4.2 in \cite{DeitmarEchterhoff}, p. 18.
\end{itemize}

\noindent
Furthermore, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\forall_{x,y\in G}\ T_{\phi}(L_xg_*) T_{\phi}(L_yg_*) &= T_{\phi}(L_xg_* \star_c L_yg_*) \stackrel{\text{Lemma}\ \ref{dAlembertproperty}}{=} T_{\phi}\left(g_* \star_{\cosine} \frac{L_{x+y}g_* + L_{x-y}g_*}{2}\right) \\
&= T_{\phi}(g_*) \cdot \frac{T_{\phi}(L_{x+y}g_*) + T_{\phi}(L_{x-y}g_*)}{2}= \frac{T_{\phi}(L_{x+y}g_*) + T_{\phi}(L_{x-y}g_*)}{2},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}

\noindent
which can be written as
$$\forall_{x,y\in G}\ \chi_{\phi}(x)\chi_{\phi}(y) = \frac{\chi_{\phi}(x+y) + \chi_{\phi}(x-y)}{2}.$$

\noindent
We conclude that $\chi_{\phi} \in \COS(G),$ which in particular means that
\begin{gather}
\forall_{y\in G}\ \chi_{\phi}(y) = \frac{\chi_{\phi}(y) + \chi_{\phi}(-y)}{2}.
\label{chiasmean}
\end{gather}

Finally, using Lemma 11.45 in \cite{AliprantisBorder}, p. 427 (or Proposition 7 in \cite{Dinculeanu}, p. 123) we compute
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\int_G\ f(x) \chi_{\phi}(x)\ dx &\stackrel{\eqref{chiasmean}}{=} \int_G\ f(x) \cdot \frac{\chi_{\phi}(x) + \chi_{\phi}(-x)}{2}\ dx = \int_G\ f(x) \cdot \frac{T_{\phi}(L_xg_*) + T_{\phi}(L_{-x}g_*)}{2}\ dx \\
&= T_{\phi}\left(\int_G\ f(x) \cdot \frac{L_xg_* + L_{-x}g_*}{2}\ dx\right) = T_{\phi}(f\star_{\cosine} g_*) = T_{\phi}(f) T_{\phi}(g_*) = T_{\phi}(f),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}

\noindent
which concludes the proof if we put $\theta_{\cosine}(\phi) := \chi_{\phi}.$
\end{proof}

\section{Laplace transform}
\label{Chapter:Laplacetransform}

In the previous section we focused on Fourier and cosine transforms and characterized them via suitable convolution properties. The purpose of the current section is to demonstrate that the Laplace transform enjoys a similar characterization. Let us recall that the Laplace transform is a map
$\Laplace:L^1(\reals_+)\longrightarrow C_0(\reals_+)$ given by
$$\forall_{\substack{f\in L^1(\reals_+)\\ y\in\reals_+}}\ \Laplace(f)(y) := \int_0^{\infty}\ e^{-yx}f(x)\ dx,$$

\noindent
whereas the Laplace convolution $\star_{\Laplace}:L^1(\reals_+)\times L^1(\reals_+)\longrightarrow L^1(\reals_+)$ is given by
\begin{gather}
\forall_{\substack{f,g\in L^1(\reals_+)\\ x \in \reals_+}}\ f\star_{\Laplace} g(x) := \int_0^x\ f(u)g(x-u)\ du.
\label{Laplaceconvolution}
\end{gather}

\noindent
It is well-known that the Laplace transform satisfies the equality (see Theorem 2.39 in \cite{Schiff}, p. 92):
\begin{gather}
\forall_{f,g\in L^1(\reals_+)}\ \Laplace(f\star_{\Laplace}g) = \Laplace(f)\Laplace(g).
\label{Laplaceconv}
\end{gather}

\noindent
Similarly to the previous section, our goal is to ``reverse the implication'' and ask whether there are any other operators satisfying \eqref{Laplaceconv}. A (almost) negative answer will constitute a characterization of the Laplace transform in terms of the Laplace convolution \eqref{Laplaceconvolution}. To this end, we need the following auxilary lemma:

\begin{lemma}
Let $(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ be a measure space, $g\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$ and let $D$ be a dense subset in $L^1(\Omega)$. If
$$\forall_{f\in D}\ \int_{\Omega}\ f(x)g(x)\ dx = 0$$

\noindent
then $g = 0.$
\label{duBoisReymondlemma}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We define a linear and bounded functional $T: L^1(\Omega) \longrightarrow \complex$ with the formula
$$T(f) := \int_{\Omega}\ f(x)g(x)\ dx.$$

\noindent
Since $D$ is dense in $L^1(\Omega)$ and $T|_D = 0$ then by Theorem 1.7 in \cite{ReedSimon}, p. 9 we conclude that $T(f) = 0$ for every $f\in L^1(\Omega).$ In particular, $T(g) = 0,$ which implies that $g = 0.$
\end{proof}

At last, we are ready to characterize the Laplace transform in terms of the Laplace convolution property:

\begin{thm}
Let $T:L^1(\reals_+)\longrightarrow L^{\infty}(\reals_+)$ be a linear and bounded operator. If it satisfies the Laplace convolution property
\begin{gather}
\forall_{f,g\in L^1(G)}\ T(f\star_{\Laplace} g) = T(f)T(g)
\label{Laplaceconvolutionproperty}
\end{gather}

\noindent
then there exists a function $\theta_{\Laplace}: \reals_+ \longrightarrow \complex$ such that
$$\forall_{f\in L^1(\reals_+)}\ T(f) = \Laplace(f) \circ \theta_{\Laplace}$$

\noindent
where $\theta_{\Laplace}(y) = 0$ if and only if $T(f)(y) = 0$ for every $f\in L^1(\reals_+).$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We pick $y\in\reals_+$ and check whether $T(f)(y) = 0$ for every $f\in L^1(\reals_+).$ If so, we define $\theta_{\Laplace}(y) := 0.$ Otherwise, if $T(f)(y) \neq 0$ for some $f\in L^1(\reals_+),$ then we consider a nonzero, linear functional $T_y : L^1(\reals_+)\longrightarrow \complex$ given by $T_y(f) := T(f)(y).$ By Theorem 5.2.16 in \cite{Bobrowski}, p. 161 there exists a function $\chi_y\in L^{\infty}(\reals_+)$ such that
$$\forall_{f\in L^1(G)}\ T_y(f) = \int_0^{\infty}\ f(x)\chi_y(x)\ dx.$$

By Fubini's theorem (see Theorem B.3.1 in \cite{DeitmarEchterhoff}, p. 287 or Theorem 8.8 in \cite{Rudin}, p. 164) we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\forall_{f,g\in L^1(\reals_+)}\ T_y(f\star_{\Laplace}g) &= \int_0^{\infty}\ f\star_{\Laplace}g(u)\chi_y(u)\ du = \int_0^{\infty} \int_0^u\ f(v)g(u-v)\chi_y(u)\ dvdu \\
&= \int_0^{\infty} \int_v^{\infty}\ f(v)g(u-v)\chi_y(u)\ dudv \stackrel{u \mapsto u + v}{=} \int_0^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty}\ f(v)g(u)\chi_y(u+v)\ dudv.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}

\noindent
Since $T_y$ is nonzero we pick $g_*\in C_c(\reals_+)$ such that $T_y(g_*) = 1.$ By the Laplace convolution property \eqref{Laplaceconvolutionproperty} we have
$$\forall_{f\in L^1(\reals_+)}\ T_y(f\star_{\Laplace}g_*) = T_y(f)T_y(g_*) = T_y(f),$$

\noindent
so
$$\forall_{f\in L^1(\reals_+)}\ \int_0^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty}\ f(v)g_*(u)\chi_y(u+v)\ dudv = \int_0^{\infty}\ f(v)\chi_y(v)\ dv,$$

\noindent
which we rewrite as
$$\forall_{f\in L^1(\reals_+)}\ \int_0^{\infty} f(v) \left(\int_0^{\infty}\ g_*(u)\chi_y(u+v)\ du - \chi_y(v)\right) dv = 0.$$

\noindent
Since $v\mapsto \int_0^{\infty}\ g_*(u)\chi_y(u+v)\ du - \chi_y(v)$ is a $L^{\infty}-$function then by Lemma \ref{duBoisReymondlemma} we conclude that
$$\forall_{v\in\reals_+}\ \chi_y(v) = \int_0^{\infty}\ g_*(u)\chi_y(u+v)\ du.$$

\noindent
We use this integral functional equation to establish continuity of $\chi_y.$ For a fixed $v_*\in\reals_+$ and $h\in (-v_*,v_*)$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
|\chi_y(v_* + h) - \chi_y(v_*)| &= \left| \int_0^{\infty}\ g_*(u)\chi_y(u+v_*+h)\ du - \int_0^{\infty}\ g_*(u)\chi_y(u+v_*)\ du\right| \\
&=  \left| \int_{v_*+h}^{\infty}\ g_*(u-v_*-h)\chi_y(u)\ du - \int_{v_*}^{\infty}\ g_*(u-v_*)\chi_y(u)\ du\right| \\
&\leqslant \int_{v_*+h}^{\infty}\ |g_*(u-v_*-h) - g_*(u-v_*)| |\chi_y(u)|\ du + \int_{v_*}^{v_*+h}\ |g_*(u-v_*)| |\chi_y(u)|\ du \\
&\leqslant \|\chi_y\|_{\infty} \left(\int_{v_*+h}^{\infty}\ |g_*(u-v_*-h) - g_*(u-v_*)|\ du + \|g_*\|_{\infty} h\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}

\noindent
Since
$$\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\ \int_{v_*+h}^{\infty}\ |g_*(u-v_*-h) - g_*(u-v_*)|\ du = 0$$

\noindent
due to the dominated convergence theorem, then
$$\lim_{h\rightarrow 0} |\chi_y(v_* + h) - \chi_y(v_*)| = 0,$$

\noindent
establishing the continuity of $\chi_y$.

For the second time we use the Laplace convolution property \eqref{Laplaceconvolutionproperty} to obtain
$$\forall_{f,g\in L^1(\reals_+)}\ \int_0^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty}\ f(v)g(u)\chi_y(u+v)\ dudv = \int_0^{\infty}\ \int_0^{\infty}\ f(v)g(u)\chi_y(v)\chi_y(u)\ dudv,$$

\noindent
which we rewrite as
$$\forall_{f,g\in L^1(\reals_+)}\ \int_0^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty}\ f(v)g(u)\bigg(\chi_y(u+v) - \chi_y(v)\chi_y(u)\bigg)\ dudv = 0.$$

\noindent
Since $(u,v)\mapsto \chi_y(u+v) - \chi_y(v)\chi_y(u)$ is a $L^{\infty}-$function, then by Lemma \ref{duBoisReymondlemma} we have
$$\forall_{u,v\in\reals_+}\ \chi_y(u+v) = \chi_y(v)\chi_y(u).$$

\noindent
This functional equation proves that if $\chi_y(\bar{u}) = 0$ for some $\bar{u}\in\reals_+$ then $\chi_y = 0$ and consequently, $T_y = 0.$ We have already dealt with this case at the beginning of the proof, so we assume that $\chi_y(u) \neq 0$ for every $u\in\reals_+.$ By Theorem 1.6.11 in \cite{Bobrowski}, p. 36 (and boundedness of $\chi_y$) we obtain $\chi_y(u) = e^{-zu}$ for some $z\in\reals_+$ (which is dependent on $y$). This concludes the proof if we put $\theta_{\Laplace}(y) := z.$
\end{proof}