Metric upper bounds for Steklov and Laplace eigenvalues

Abstract: We prove two upper bounds for the Steklov eigenvalues of a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary. The first involves the volume of the manifold and of its boundary, as well as packing and volume growth constants of the boundary and its distortion. Its proof is based on a metric-measure space technique that was introduced by Colbois and Maerten. The second bound is in terms of the extrinsic diameter of the boundary and its injectivity radius. It is obtained from a concentration inequality, akin to Gromov-Milman concentration for closed manifolds. By applying these bounds to cylinders over closed manifold, we obtain bounds for eigenvalues of the Laplace operator, in the spirit of Grigor'yan-Netrusov-Yau and of Berger-Croke. For a family of manifolds that has uniformly bounded volume and boundary of fixed intrinsic geometry, we deduce that a large first nonzero Steklov eigenvalue implies that each boundary component is contained in a ball of small extrinsic radius.

\section{\bf Introduction}
Let $M$ be  a smooth connected compact Riemannian manifold of dimension $n+1\geq 2$, with boundary $\Sigma=\partial M$.
The Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator $\mathcal{D}:C^\infty(\Sigma)\to C^\infty(\Sigma)$ is defined by
$\mathcal{D} f=\partial_\nu{\hat{f}}$, where $\nu$ is the outward normal  along the boundary $\Sigma$ and where the function $\hat{f}\in C^\infty(M)$ is the unique harmonic extension of $f$ to the interior of $M$.
The eigenvalues of $\mathcal{D}$ are known as \emph{Steklov eigenvalues} of $M$. They form an unbounded sequence
$0=\sigma_0\leq\sigma_1\leq\sigma_2\leq\cdots\to\infty,$
where as usual each eigenvalue is repeated according to its multiplicity.
The interplay of these eigenvalues with the geometry of $M$ has been an active area of investigation in recent years. See~\cite{GPsurvey} for a survey and~\cite{CGG,ColboisGittins,ColboisVerma2020,Kokarev2021,Brisson2021,GL,GKL} for recent relevant results.

In this paper we study upper bounds for Steklov eigenvalues in terms of geometric quantities that are metric in nature: packing and growth constants, distortion between the intrinsic and extrinsic distances on the boundary, as well as diameters and injectivity radius of the boundary components.
A recuring feature is that the bounds are linked to some comparison between intrinsic and extrinsic geometry of the boundary. They do not directly involve the curvature. See~\cite{Korevaar, GNY, CM} for early use of similar techniques and \cite{CEG1, CEG2, CGG} some more recent results in the same spirit.
Upper bounds for the eigenvalues $\lambda_k$ of the Laplacian on a closed Riemannian manifold will also be obtained. They are in the spirit of~\cite{Berger1979, Croke1980, Kokarev2021}, and of \cite{GNY, CM}.

\subsubsection*{Notations}
We use two distances on the boundary $\Sigma$. The first one is the geodesic distance $d_\Sigma$. The second distance is induced on $\Sigma$ from the geodesic distance $d_M$ in $M$. In general, the letters $M$ and $\Sigma$ will be used to specify which distance is involved. For instance,  for $x\in M$ define the ball
$$B^M(x,r):=\{y\in M\,:\,d_M(x,y)<r\},$$
and for $x\in\Sigma$,
$$B^\Sigma(x,r):=\{y\in \Sigma\,:\,d_\Sigma(x,y)<r\}.$$
Similarly, we write $\vol{\mathcal{O}}_M$ for the Riemannian measure of a Borel set $\mathcal{O}\subset M$, while  $\vol{\mathcal{O}}_\Sigma$ is the Riemannian measure of $\mathcal{O}\cap\Sigma$.

\subsection{Upper bound in term of metric invariants}
For $x,y\in\Sigma$, we have $d_M(x,y)\leq d_\Sigma(x,y)$, where the convention is that for $x$ and $y$ in different connected components of $\Sigma$, we set $d_\Sigma(x,y)=+\infty$.
Let $\Sigma_1,\cdots,\Sigma_b$ be the connected components of the boundary $\Sigma$.
The \emph{distortion of\, $\Sigma_j$ in $M$} is the number $\Lambda_j\in [1,\infty)$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:condition}
\Lambda_j:=\inf\{c\geq 1\,:\ d_\Sigma(x,y)\le cd_M(x,y)\quad\forall x,y\in\Sigma_j\}.
\end{equation}
The distortion of $\Sigma$ in $M$ is
$$\Lambda:=\max\{\Lambda_1,\cdots,\Lambda_b\}.$$
The distortion is a measure of how much the geodesic distance $d_\Sigma$ differs from the induced distance $d_M\bigl\vert_\Sigma\bigr.$.
To state our first main result we also need two more geometric invariants.
It follows from the compactness of\, $\Sigma$ that there exist a \emph{packing constant} $N_M\in\mathbb{N}$ for $(\Sigma,d_M)$ and a \emph{growth constant }$\Gamma>1$ for the metric-measure space $(\Sigma, d_\Sigma,\vol{\cdot}_\Sigma)$, which are defined by the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item  For each $r>0$ and each $x\in\Sigma$, the extrinsic ball $B^M(x,r)\cap\Sigma$ can be covered by $N_M$ extrinsic balls of radius $r/2$ centered at points $x_1,\cdots,x_{N_M}\in\Sigma$:
  $$B^M(x,r)\cap\Sigma\subset \bigcup_{i=1}^{N_M}B^M(x_i,r/2);$$
\item For each $x\in\Sigma$ and each $r>0$, $|B^\Sigma(x,r)|_\Sigma\leq \Gamma r^n$.
\end{itemize}
The first main result of this paper is a generalization of~\cite[Theorem 1.1]{CGG}, where $M$ was a submanifold in some euclidean space.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:upperbound}
  Let $M$ be a smooth connected compact Riemannian manifold of dimension $n+1$ with boundary $\Sigma$.
  The following holds for each $k\ge 1,$
  \begin{gather}\label{ineq:upperboundintro}
    \sigma_k\le 512b^2N_M^3\Gamma\Lambda^2\frac{\vert M\vert}{\vert \Sigma\vert^{\frac{n+2}{n}}}k^{2/n}.
  \end{gather}
The exponent $2/n$ on $k$ is optimal: it cannot be replaced by any smaller number.
\end{theorem}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound} will be presented in Section~\ref{section:upperbounds}, where it will be deduced from a slightly more general statement (Theorem~\ref{thm:upperboundGeneral}). The optimality of the exponent is discussed in Remark~\ref{remark:optimal}.

The  volume $|M|$, the distortion $\Lambda$ and the packing constant $N_M$ depend on the geometry of $M$ in its interior, while  the constants $b,\Gamma, |\Sigma|$ depend only on the intrinsic geometry of the boundary $\Sigma$. While inequality~\eqref{ineq:upperboundintro} is somewhat cumbersome, its strenght is that its geometric dependance is completely explicit. The reader is invited to compare with~\cite[Theorem 1.1]{CGG}. Note also that none of the geometric invariants appearing in inequality~\eqref{ineq:upperboundintro} is superfluous. This will be discussed in Section~\ref{subsection:relevance}.

\begin{rem}
  One can rewrite~\eqref{ineq:upperboundintro} in the following scale-invariant fashion:
\begin{gather}\label{ineq:reformulation}
    \sigma_k|\Sigma|^{1/n}\le \frac{512}{I(M)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}}b^2N_M^3\Gamma \Lambda^2k^{2/n},
\end{gather}
  where $I(M)=|\Sigma|/|M|^{\frac{n}{n+1}}$ is the isoperimetric ratio of $M$. One should compare this with~\cite[Theorem 1.3]{CEG1}, which states that
  \begin{gather}\label{ineq:CEGsteklov}
    \sigma_k|\Sigma|^{1/n}\le \frac{\gamma(n)}{I(M)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}k^{2/(n+1)},
  \end{gather}
  for domains $M$ in a complete space that is conformally equivalent to a complete manifold with non-negative Ricci curvature. Our new inequality~\eqref{ineq:reformulation} applies to a much larger class of manifolds, since no curvature asumption is required.
\end{rem}

Given a compact connected Riemannian manifold $\Sigma$, the eigenvalues of the Laplace operator $\Delta:C^\infty(\Sigma)\longrightarrow C^\infty(\Sigma)$ are written $0=\lambda_0<\lambda_1\leq\lambda_2\leq\cdots\to\infty$.
\begin{cor}\label{coro:gnycm}
  Let $\Sigma$ be a compact connected Riemannian manifold of dimension $n$. Then,
    \begin{gather}\label{ineq:lambdak}
    \lambda_k\vert\Sigma\vert^{2/n}\le 2048\GN_\Sigma^3k^{2/n},
    \end{gather}
    where $N_\Sigma$ a packing constant of $(\Sigma,d_\Sigma)$.
  \end{cor}

  This result is similar in spirit to those presented in~\cite{GNY} and~\cite{CM}. This is not surprising since the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound} is based on a simplification of the main technical tool from~\cite{CM}, presented here as Lemma~\ref{CMrevisited}. One should compare this with~\cite[Remark 5.10]{GNY}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{coro:gnycm}]
  The Steklov eigenvalues of the cylinder $M=[0,L]\times\Sigma$ have been computed in~\cite[Lemma 6.1]{CEG1}. For $L>0$ small enough,
  $\sigma_k=\sqrt{\lambda_k}\tanh(\sqrt{\lambda_k}L)$, and it follows from inequality~\eqref{ineq:upperboundintro} that
  \begin{gather*}
    \sqrt{\lambda_k}\tanh(\sqrt{\lambda_k}L)\le 2048N^3\Gamma \Lambda^2\frac{L\vert \Sigma\vert}{\vert \Sigma\vert^{\frac{n+2}{n}}}k^{2/n}.
  \end{gather*}
    Dividing by $L$ on each side and taking the limit as  $L\to 0$ completes the proof, since for each $c>0$ the following holds:
  $$\lim_{x\to 0}c\tanh(cx)/x=c^2.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{remark:optimal}
  It follows from Weyl's law for $\lambda_k$ that the power ${2/n}$ on $k$ is optimal in~\eqref{ineq:lambdak}, and therefore also in~\eqref{ineq:upperboundintro}.
\end{rem}

\subsection{A Berger-Croke type inequality for  Steklov and Laplace eigenvalues}

 Let $M$ be a compact manifold with boundary $\Sigma$. The diameter of $\Sigma$ in $M$ is defined by
$$\text{Diam}_M(\Sigma):=\sup\left\{d_M(x,y)\,:\,x,y\in\Sigma\right\}.$$
Let $\Sigma_1,\cdots,\Sigma_b$ be the connected components of $\Sigma$.
The intrinsic diameter of each component is given by
$$\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j):=\sup\left\{d_\Sigma(x,y)\,:\,x,y\in\Sigma_j\right\}.$$
The main result of this section is the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:upperboundDiam}
  Let $M$ be a smooth connected compact Riemannian manifold of dimension $n+1$ with boundary $\Sigma$. Then, for each $j=1,\cdots,b$ and each $k\geq 1$,
  \begin{gather}\label{ineq:upperboundDiam}
    \sigma_k
    \leq
    K(n)\frac{|M|}{\text{Diam}_M(\Sigma_j)^{n+2}}\left(\frac{\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j)}{\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)}\right)^nk^{n+1},
  \end{gather}
  where $K(n)$ is an explicit dimensional constant, given in equation~\eqref{constant:KN}.
\end{theorem}
The proof of this result is based on the classical min-max characterization of Steklov eigenvalues that will be recalled in Section~\ref{section:upperdiam}. For bounded domains in Euclidean space, upper bounds for $\sigma_k$ in terms of the diameter are also obtained in~\cite{HenrotDiam, BBG}.

\subsubsection*{Berger--Croke type inequality for eigenvalues of the Laplace operator}
Berger~\cite{Berger1979} proved that on any closed Riemmanian manifold $\Sigma$ which admits an isometric involution without fixed points, the first nonzero eigenvalue of the Laplacian satisfies
\begin{gather}\label{ineq:Berger1970}
  \lambda_1\leq K(n)\frac{|\Sigma|}{\text{inj}(\Sigma)^{n+2}}.
\end{gather}
This result was generalized by Croke, who proved in~\cite{Croke1980} that any closed Riemannian manifold satisfies the following for each $k\in\mathbb{N}$,
\begin{gather}\label{ineq:Croke1980}
  \lambda_k\leq K(n)\frac{|\Sigma|^2}{\text{conv}(\Sigma)^{2n+2}}k^{2n}.
\end{gather}
Here $\text{conv}(\Sigma)$ is the \emph{convexity radius} of $\Sigma$.
One should also see the recent paper~\cite{Kokarev2021} by Kokarev.
Surprisingly, Theorem~\ref{thm:upperboundDiam} leads to the following improvement of the Berger and Croke inequalities.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:bergerlambda}
    Let $\Sigma$ be a closed Riemannian manifold. Then for each $k\in\mathbb{N}$,
    \begin{gather}\label{ineq:BergerCroke}
      \lambda_k\text{diam}(\Sigma)^2\leq K(n)\frac{|\Sigma|}{\text{inj}(\Sigma)^n}k^{n+1}.
    \end{gather}
\end{cor}
  Inequality~\eqref{ineq:BergerCroke} improves on Berger and Croke in several ways. For instance,the exponent on $k$ is better. Perhaps more interestingly, because $\text{conv}(\Sigma)\leq\text{inj}(\Sigma)\leq\text{Diam}(\Sigma)$, inequality~\eqref{ineq:BergerCroke} allows a finer control for manifolds that have small injectivity radius and large radius.
\begin{ex}
    The first nonzero Laplace eigenvalue of $\Sigma_L=\mathbb{S}^1_L\times \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$
    behaves as $\lambda_1\sim 1/L^2$ as $L\to+\infty$. Moreover, the volume of $\Sigma_L$ is $|\Sigma_L|=L|\mathbb{S}^{n-1}|$, its injectivity and convexity radii both are the constant $\pi$. If $L>0$ is large enough, the diameter of $\Sigma$ is of order $L$. Whence, the upper bound from Berger and Croke read
    $$\lambda_1\leq K(n)L|\mathbb{S}^{n-1}|/\pi^{n+2}\qquad\text{ and }\qquad \lambda_1\leq K(n)L^2|\mathbb{S}^{n-1}|^2/\pi^{2n+2}.$$
    Both upper bounds diverges as $L\to+\infty$.
    On the other hand, our bound~\eqref{ineq:BergerCroke} gives the much more accurate
    $$\lambda_1\leq K(n)\frac{|\mathbb{S}^{n-1}|}{L\pi^{n}}\xrightarrow{L\to\infty}0.$$
  \end{ex}
Let us show how Corollary~\ref{cor:bergerlambda} is obtained from Theorem~\ref{thm:upperboundDiam}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:bergerlambda}]
As in the proof of Corollary~\eqref{coro:gnycm}, we consider the Steklov eigenvalues of the cylinder $M=(0,L)\times\Sigma$. For $L>0$ small enough,
$\sigma_k=\sqrt{\lambda_k}\tanh(\sqrt{\lambda_k}L)$ and it follows from inequality~\eqref{ineq:upperboundDiam} that
\begin{align*}
  \sqrt{\lambda_k}\tanh(\sqrt{\lambda_k}L)&\leq K(n)\frac{|M|}{\text{Diam}_M(\Sigma)^{n+2}}\left(\frac{\text{Diam}(\Sigma)}{\text{inj}(\Sigma)}\right)^nk^{n+1}\\
                                          &=
                                              K(n)\frac{|\Sigma|L}{\text{Diam}(\Sigma)^{2}\text{inj}(\Sigma)^n}k^{n+1}.
  \end{align*}
  Dividing by $L$ on each side and taking the limit as  $L\to 0$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}

  The the diameter of $M$ itself does not appear in inequality~\eqref{ineq:upperboundDiam}. This is not surprising, since one can modify $M$ away from the boundary so as to obtain arbitrarily large diameter
  $$\sup\{d_M(x,y)\,:\,x,y\in M\},$$
  without significant change to $\sigma_1$, the extrinsic diameter $\text{Diam}_M(\Sigma)$ and the volume $\vert M\vert$. This can be performed for instance by replacing two small balls in $M$ with a long thin tube joining them. See~\cite[Theorem 1.2]{FS4}.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
  The presence of the injectivity radius in the denominator of inequality~\eqref{ineq:upperboundDiam} is essential. Indeed, let $(M,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold of dimension $n\geq 3$ and let $C\subset M$ be a smooth embedded connected closed curve. For $\varepsilon>0$ small enough
  $$\Omega_\varepsilon:=\{x\in M\,:\,d_g(x,C)>\varepsilon\}$$
  is a connected domain with smooth boundary. In her upcoming paper~\cite{Brisson2021}, Jade Brisson proves that
  $\sigma_1(\Omega_\varepsilon)\xrightarrow{\varepsilon\to 0}\infty.$
  Because $|\Omega_\varepsilon|, \text{Diam}_M(\partial\Omega_\varepsilon)$ and $\text{Diam}(\partial\Omega_\varepsilon)$ are uniformly bounded as $\varepsilon\to 0$.
\end{rem}

\subsection*{Plan of the paper}
In Section~\ref{section:GromovMilman}, we present some motivations for this project which stem from a concentration phenomenon akin to that of Gromov--Milman~\cite[Theorem 4.1]{GM}. Our observations are recorded as Proposition~\ref{prop:GromovMilman}, which we prove after recalling the variational characterization of the first nonzero Steklov eigenvalue $\sigma_1$.
In section~\ref{section:upperdiam} we start by proving Lemma~\ref{lemma:packing} which links the packing constant of $(\Sigma,d_m)$ and of $(\Sigma,d_\Sigma)$ and we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:upperboundDiam} using the variational characterisation of $\sigma_k$.
To prove Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound} some tools from metric geometry will then be used in Section~\ref{section:upperbounds}.

\section{\bf Milman--Gromov type concentration for $\sigma_1$}\label{section:GromovMilman}

Because inequality~\eqref{ineq:upperboundDiam} is equivalent to
\begin{gather}
  \text{Diam}_M(\Sigma_j)^{n+2}
  \leq
  K(n)\left(\frac{\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j)}{\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)}\right)^n\frac{|M|k^{n+1}}{\sigma_k},
\end{gather}
it implies a form of concentration of the boundary components with respect to the extrinsic distance $d_M$.
\begin{cor}\label{coro:concentration}
  For $j\in\{1,\cdots,b\}$, consider the intrinsic constant
  $$C_j=K(n)\left(\frac{\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j)}{\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)}\right)^{\frac{n}{n+2}}.$$
  Let
  $$\gamma_j=C_j\left(\frac{|M|}{\sigma_k}\right)^{\frac{1}{n+2}}k^{\frac{n+1}{n+2}}.$$
  Then there exists $x_j\in\Sigma_j$ such that
  $\Sigma_j\subset B^M(x_j,\gamma_j).$
\end{cor}
For any given $k\geq 1$, if $\sigma_k$ is large in comparison to the other geometric constants, the connected component $\Sigma_j$ must be contained in a small ball for the extrinsic distance $d_M$.
This behaviour should be compared with~\cite[Theorem 3]{CS2}, which essentially implies the following: if the first nonzero eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ of the Laplacian on a closed Riemannian manifold $M$  is large with respect to its packing constant, then the Riemannian measure of $M$ is concentrated near one point. In contrast, if the first nonzero Steklov eigenvalue $\sigma_1$ is large then  Corollary~\ref{coro:concentration}  only claims that each connected components of the boundary is contained in a small ball, but there is nothing preventing these small balls from being far appart. This behaviour is meaninglul and there are indeed examples where $\sigma_1$ is large while the boundary components remain far from each others. The easiest example is obtained by removing two antipodal spherical caps of small radius from $\mathbb{S}^n$. This follows from the computation of L. Tschanz in~\cite{Tschanz}.

The initial impetus for this project was the observation that the concentration phenomena discovered by Gromov and Milman~\cite[Theorem 4.1]{GM} admits an interpretation for the Steklov problem on a manifold with boundary.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:GromovMilman}
Let $M$ a smooth compact Riemannian manifold with boundary $\Sigma$. Let $A,B\subset\Sigma$ be disjoint measurable subsets of strictly positive measure which are at a positive extrinsic distance $\rho=d_M(A,B)>0$ from one another.
The following inequality holds:
\begin{gather}\label{ineq:GromovMilman}
  \rho^2\leq\frac{\vert M\vert }{\sigma_1}\left(\frac{1}{\volS{A}}+\frac{1}{\volS{B}}\right).
\end{gather}
\end{prop}

Given $A\subset\Sigma$ of positive measure and $\rho>0$, let
$$A^\rho=\left\{x\in\Sigma\,:\,d_M(A,x)<\rho\right\}.$$
Applying Proposition~\ref{prop:GromovMilman} with $B=\Sigma\setminus A^\rho$ leads to

\begin{gather}\label{ineq:GMconsequence}
  \volS{A^\rho}\geq\vert \Sigma\vert-\left(\frac{\sigma_1\rho^2}{\vert M\vert}-\frac{1}{\vert A\vert}\right)^{-1}.
\end{gather}
For $\sigma_1/|M|$ large and $\rho>0$ fixed, it follows that the neighborhood $A^\rho$ cover almost all of $\Sigma$ in measure. This applies in situations where the boundary is fixed, $|M|$ is bounded above and  $\sigma_1$ becomes large. See~\cite{CiG} for one such example.

\begin{rem}
  While the hypothesis in Proposition~\ref{prop:GromovMilman} are very weak, the concentration it affords is of a different nature than that provided by Corollary~\ref{coro:concentration}.
  It means that most of the boundary $\Sigma$ is near $A$ in the extrinsic distance $d_M$ when $\sigma_1$ is large compared to the total volume $|M|$. This is a form of concentration of the measure with respect to the distance. The nature of this concentration is different from that of Corollary~\ref{coro:concentration}. In particular, it is crucial here that the subset $A\subset\Sigma$ has positive measure, where as Corollary~\ref{coro:concentration} provides concentration near a point, and captures the connected component $\Sigma_j$, not only in measure, but as a subset subset of some small ball.
\end{rem}

The proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:GromovMilman} is similar to that of~\cite[Theorem 4.1]{GM}. It is based on the following variational characterization of $\sigma_1$:
\begin{gather}\label{eq:mingap}
\sigma_1=\min\Bigl\{R_M(u)\,:\,u\in H^1(M), \int_{\Sigma}u\,dV_{\Sigma}=0\Bigr\}.
\end{gather}
where
\begin{equation*}
\label{Rayleighquotient}
R_M(u) = \frac{\int_{M} \vert \nabla u \vert^2 dV_M}{\int_{\Sigma} u^2\, dV_{\Sigma}}
\end{equation*}
is the Rayleigh--Steklov quotient.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:GromovMilman}]
The proof is analogous to that of~\cite[Theorem 4.1]{GM}.
Define $a,b>0$ by $\vol{A}=a\vol{\Sigma}$ and $\vol{B}=b\vol{\Sigma}$.
Consider the trial function $f:M\to\mathbb{R}$ defined by
$$
f(x)= \frac{1}{a}-\frac{1}{\rho}\left(\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}\right)\min(d_M(A,x),\rho).
$$
Its value on $A$ is $\frac{1}{a}$ and its value on $B$ is $-\frac{1}{b}$.
The average of $f$ on $\Sigma$ is
$$
\alpha = \frac{1}{\vert \Sigma \vert}\int_{\Sigma} f.
$$
It follows that $\int_{\Sigma} (f-\alpha)=0$ and the variational characterization~\eqref{eq:mingap} gives
$$
\sigma_1 \Vert f-\alpha\Vert_{\Sigma}^2 \le \int_M\vert \nabla f \vert^2 \le \frac{1}{\rho^2}\left(\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}\right)^2  \vert \mbox{supp} \nabla f\vert_M.
$$
Here $\mbox{supp} \nabla f$ is the support of the gradient. Its measure is obviously bounded above by the total measure of $M$: $\vert\mbox{supp}\nabla f\vert_M\leq|M|$.
Moreover
\begin{align*}
\Vert f-\alpha\Vert_{\Sigma}^2 &
\ge\left(\int_A (f-\alpha)^2+\int_B(f-\alpha)^2\right)\\
&=\left(\left(a^{-1}-\alpha\right)^2a\vert \Sigma\vert+\left(b^{-1}+\alpha\right)^2b\vert \Sigma\vert\right)\\
&\ge \left(\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}\right)\vert \Sigma\vert.
\end{align*}
It follows from these two inequalities that
  \begin{gather*}
    \rho^2\sigma_1\leq
    \frac{\left(\frac{1}a+\frac{1}b\right)\vert M \vert}
         {\vert \Sigma\vert}.
    \end{gather*}
\end{proof}

\section{Upper bounds in terms of diameters}
\label{section:upperdiam}

In order to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic geometric effects, it is useful to link the packing constant $N$ of $(\Sigma,d_M)$ to the intrinsic packing constant of $(\Sigma,d_\Sigma)$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:packing}
    Let $\Lambda\geq 1$ be the distortion of\, $\Sigma$ in $M$. Let $N_\Sigma$ be a packing constant for $(\Sigma,d_\Sigma)$. That is, each ball $B^\Sigma(x,r)$ can be covered by $N_\Sigma$ balls $B^\Sigma(x_i,r/2)$, with centers $x_i\in\Sigma$. Then $N=bN_\Sigma^{\log_2(2\Lambda)}$ is a packing constant for $(\Sigma,d_M)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  Let $\Sigma_1,\cdots,\Sigma_b$ be the connected components of $\Sigma$.
  Let $p\in\Sigma$ and $r>0$. Select one point $y_j\in B^M(p,r)\cap\Sigma_j$ whenever this intersection is nonempty. Then
  $$B^M(p,r)\cap\Sigma \subset \cup_jB^M(y_j,2r)\cap\Sigma_j\subset\cup_jB^\Sigma(y_j,2\Lambda r).$$
  For each $j$, there exists $N_\Sigma$ balls $B^\Sigma(x_i,\Lambda r)$ with centers $x_i\in\Sigma_j$, that cover $B^\Sigma(y_j,2\Lambda r)$. Each of these is covered by $N_\Sigma$ balls of radius
  $\frac{\Lambda r}{2}$, and repeating this process $m+1\in\mathbb{N}$ times leads to a cover of $B^\Sigma(y_j,2\Lambda r)$ by $N_\Sigma^{m+1}$ balls of radius $\frac{\Lambda r}{2^m}$. Now, for $m> 1+\log_2(\Lambda)$ the radius of the covering balls is smaller than $r/2$.
  It follows that $B^M(p,r)\cap\Sigma$ is covered by at most $N:=bN_\Sigma^{m+1}$ balls of radius $r/2$:
  $$B^M(p,r)\cap\Sigma\subset\cup_{i=1}^{N}B^\Sigma(x_i,r/2)\subset\cup_{i=1}^{N_\Sigma}B^M(x_i,r/2).$$
\end{proof}

\label{section:upperdiam}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperboundDiam} depends on the min-max characterization of Steklov eigenvalues:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:minmax}
\sigma_j = \min_{E \in \mathcal{H}_j} \max_{0 \neq u \in E} R_M(u),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{H}_j$ is the set of all $j+1$-dimensional subspaces in the Sobolev space $H^1(M)$.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperboundDiam}]
  Let $\Sigma_j$ be a connected component of $\Sigma$.
  The injectivity radius and diameter of $\Sigma_j$ satisfy
  $$\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)\leq\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j).$$
  Let $s_n$ is the volume of the unit $n$-sphere $\mathbb{S}^n$ and let
  $$\gamma(n):=\frac{2^{n-1}s_{n-1}^n}{n^ns_n^{n-1}}.$$
  It follows from~\cite[Proposition 14]{Croke1980} that for each $j=1,\cdots,b$, each $r\in(0,\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)/2)$ and each $x\in\Sigma_j$,
  \begin{align*
      |B^{\Sigma}(x,r)|_\Sigma&\geq
      \gamma(n)r^n\nonumber\\
                              &\geq\gamma(n)\left(\frac{\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)}{\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j)}\right)^nr^n\nonumber\\
    &\geq\frac{\gamma(n)}{2^n}\left(\frac{\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)}{\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j)}\right)^nr^n.
  \end{align*}
  The same inequality also holds for $\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)/2\leq r\leq\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j)$. Indeed using monotonicity and~\cite[Proposition 14]{Croke1980} again, we see that
  $$|B^{\Sigma}(x,r)|_\Sigma\geq |B^{\Sigma}(x,\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)/2)|_\Sigma\geq\frac{\gamma(n)}{2^n}\left(\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)\right)^n.$$
  Multiplying and dividing the right-hand side by $r^n$ leads to
  $$|B^{\Sigma}(x,r)|_\Sigma\geq \frac{\gamma(n)}{2^n}\frac{\left(\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)\right)^n}{r^n}r^n\geq
  \frac{\gamma(n)}{2^n}\left(\frac{\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)}{\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j)}\right)^nr^n,$$
  as claimed.
Because $B^M(x,r)\cap\Sigma_j\supset B^\Sigma(x,r)$ the following also holds for each $r\leq\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j)$ and each $x\in\Sigma_j$:
\begin{gather}\label{ineq:heavyballs}
\volS{B^M(x,r)\cap\Sigma_j} \ge \frac{\gamma(n)}{2^n}\left(\frac{\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)}{\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j)}\right)^nr^n.
\end{gather}
Let $\Sigma_j$ be one of the connected component of the boundary $\Sigma$. Let $\delta:=\text{Diam}_M(\Sigma_j)$. Then for any $k\geq 1$,
let  $x_i\in\Sigma_j$, $i=1,\cdots,2k+2$ be such that for each $i\neq \ell$,
  $$d_M(x_i,x_\ell)\geq\frac{\delta}{4k}.$$
  Because the $2k+2$ balls $B^M(x_i,\frac{\delta}{8k})$ are disjoint, we can reorder them according to their volume. For $i=1,\cdots,k+1$ this implies
  $$|B^M(x,\frac{\delta}{8k})|\leq \frac{|M|}{k}.$$
  We define the usual trial functions $f_i\in H^1(M)$, supported on the
$B^M(x_i,\frac{\delta}{8k})$.
These function are identically equal to one on the balls $B^M(x_i,\frac{\delta}{16k})$ and decrease radially to 0 proportionally to $d_M(\cdot,B^M(x_i,\frac{\delta}{16k}))$. For $i=1,\cdots,k+1$, the Dirichlet energy of either of these satisfy
  $$\int_M|\nabla f_i|^2\,dV_M\leq\left(\frac{16k}{\delta}\right)^2|B^M(x_i,\frac{\delta}{8k})|\leq\left(\frac{16k}{\delta}\right)^2\frac{|M|}{k}.$$
  One also have
$$\int_{\Sigma}f_i^2\,dA\geq |B^M(x_i,\frac{\delta}{16k})|_\Sigma
\geq
\frac{\gamma(n)}{2^n}\left(\frac{\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)}{\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j)}\right)^n\left(\frac{\delta}{16k}\right)^n.
$$
It follows that  the Rayleigh--Steklov quotient corresponding to $x_1,\cdots,x_{k+1}$ is bounded above by
\begin{align*}
  \left(\frac{16k}{\delta}\right)^{n+2}\frac{|M|}{k}
\frac{2^n}{\gamma(n)}
\left(\frac{\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j)}{\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)}\right)^n
  &=
  \frac{2^{5n+8}}{\gamma(n)}\left(\frac{\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j)}{\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)}\right)^n\frac{|M|}{\delta^{n+2}}k^{n+1}
\end{align*}
This leads to
  \begin{gather*}
    \sigma_k
    \leq
    K(n)\frac{|M|}{\text{Diam}_M(\Sigma_j)^{n+2}}\left(\frac{\text{Diam}(\Sigma_j)}{\text{inj}(\Sigma_j)}\right)^nk^{n+1},
  \end{gather*}
  where
  \begin{gather}\label{constant:KN}
    K(n)=\frac{2^{5n+8}}{\gamma(n)}=\frac{2^{4n+9}n^ns_n^{n-1}}{s_{n-1}^n}.
  \end{gather}
\end{proof}

\section{\bf Upper bounds in term of distortion, packing and growth}\label{section:upperbounds}
The goal of this section is to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound}. We will prove the following slightly more general result.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:upperboundGeneral}
  Let $M$ be a smooth connected compact Riemannian manifold of dimension $n+1$ with boundary $\Sigma$. Let $\Sigma_0$ be a connected component of the boundary.
Let $\Gamma ,N$ be growth and packing constants for $\Sigma_0$. Let $\Lambda$ be the distortion of $\Sigma_0$ in $M$. Then, the following holds for each $k\ge 1,$
  \begin{gather}\label{ineq:upperbound}
    \sigma_k\le 512N^3\Gamma \Lambda^2\frac{\vert M\vert}{\vert \Sigma_0\vert^{\frac{n+2}{n}}}k^{2/n}.
  \end{gather}
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound} follows by taking $\Sigma_0$ to be the connected component of the boundary with the largest volume and observing that in this case
$|\Sigma_0|\geq|\Sigma|/b$.

The strategy is similar to the one used to prove~\cite[Theorem 1.1]{CGG}.
It is based on the following result, which is a simplification of~\cite[Lemma 2.1]{CEG2}.
\begin{lemma}\label{CMrevisited}
	Let $(X,d,\mu)$ be a complete, locally compact metric measure
	space, where $\mu$ is a non-atomic finite measure. Assume that for all
	$r>0$, there exists an integer $N$ such that each ball of radius
	$r$ can be covered by $N$ balls of radius $r/2$.
	Let $K>0$. If there
	exists a radius $r>0$ such that,
	for each $x \in X$
	$$
	\mu(B(x,r)) \le \frac{\mu(X)}{4N^2K},
	$$
	then, there exist $\mu$-measurable subsets $A_1,...,A_K$ of $X$
	such that, $\forall i\le K$, $\mu(A_i)\ge \frac{\mu(X)}{2NK}$
	and, for
	$i\not =j$, $d(A_i,A_j) \ge 3r$.
\end{lemma}
See~\cite[Lemma 4.1]{CGG} and the following paragraph for a discussion.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:upperboundGeneral}]
We apply Lemma~\ref{CMrevisited} to the metric measure space $(X,d,\mu)$ where $X=M$, and  $d=d_M$ is the extrinsic distance. The measure $\mu$ is  associated to the boundary component $\Sigma_0$ having the largest volume: for a Borelian
subset $\mathcal{O}$ of $M$, we take
$$\mu(\mathcal O)=|\Sigma_0 \cap \mathcal O|_\Sigma.$$
In particular, $\mu (M)$
is the usual volume $\vert \Sigma_0 \vert_\Sigma$ of this largest component.
In order to estimate $\sigma_k$, we first construct $(2k+2)$ trial functions, so we will take $K=2k+2$. The existence of the constant $N$ which appears in the hypothesis of Lemma~\ref{CMrevisited} is garanteed from compactness of $\Sigma$ and Lemma~\ref{lemma:packing}.
Let $\Lambda$ be the distortion of $\Sigma_0$ in $M$, so that $d_\Sigma(x,y)\leq \Lambda d_M(x,y)$, for each $x,y\in\Sigma_0$.  For each $x\in \Sigma_0$, this implies
$$
\{y\in \Sigma_0: d_M(y,x)\le r\} \subset \{y\in \Sigma_0: d_\Sigma(y,x)\le \Lambda r\}.
$$
In other words, $B^M(x,r)\cap\Sigma_0\subset B^\Sigma(x,\Lambda r)$.
Recall that $\Gamma $ is the growth constant of $\Sigma_0$. That is, for each $x\in\Sigma_0$ and each $r>0$,
$$
\mu(B^\Sigma(x,r)) \le \Gamma r^n.
$$
This implies that for all $r>0$,
$$
\mu(B^M(x,r)) \le \Gamma \Lambda^nr^n.
$$
Let $K=2(k+1)$.
Any
$r<\left(\frac{  \vert \Sigma_0\vert}{4N^2\Lambda^n\Gamma K}\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}$ is such that
$$
\mu(B^M(x,r))\le \frac{\vert \Sigma_0\vert}{ 4N^2 K}.
$$
It follows from Lemma~\ref{CMrevisited}
that there are $2(k+1)$ measurable subsets $A_i\subset \Sigma_0$, $i=1,...,2(k+1)$, that are  $3r$-separated for $d_M$ and satisfy
$$
\mu(A_i)\ge \frac{\vert \Sigma_0 \vert}{4N(2k+2)} \ge \frac{\vert \Sigma_0 \vert}{16Nk}.
$$
Taking
$$
r=\left( \frac{\vert \Sigma_0\vert }{C_2K}\right)^{\frac{1}{n}},
$$
with $C_2=8\Gamma \Lambda^nN^2$ is enough to insure that
$$r<\left(\frac{\vert \Sigma_0\vert}{4N^2\Gamma \Lambda^nK}\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}.$$
\medskip
This family of subset $A_i$ allows to construct a family of trial functions as follow.
Let $A$ be one of the subsets $A_i$ and consider
 $A^r:=\{x\in M: d_M(A,x) \le r \}$. There exists a function $f$ supported in $A^r$ whose Rayleigh-Steklov quotient satisfies
 $$R(f) =\frac{\int_M \vert \nabla f\vert^2}{\int_{\Sigma} f^2}\le \frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\volM{A^r}}{\volS{A}}.$$

\medskip
  For this, we consider the function
$$f(p)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cll}
	1 & {\rm if } & p\in A \\
	1-\frac{d_M(p,A)}{r} & {\rm if } & p\in \left(A^r\setminus A\right) \\
	0 & {\rm if } & p\in (A^r)^{c}  \ .
\end{array}\right.$$

It takes the value $1$ on $A$ and it gradient satisfies $\vert \nabla f\vert \le \frac{1}{r}$.
As we dispose from $2(k+1)$ subsets $A_i$, with $A_i^r$ and  $A_j^r$ disjoint if $i\not =j$, $k+1$ of them, say $A_1,...,A_{k+1}$ satisfy
$$
\vert A_i^r \vert \le  \frac{\vert M\vert}{k+1} \le  \frac{\vert M\vert}{k}.
$$
So, for the function $f$ associated to $A_i$, $i=1,...,k+1$, we have:
$$R(f)\le \frac{\vert M\vert}{k} \left(\frac{C_2k}{\vert \Sigma_0\vert}\right)^{\frac{2}{n}}\frac{8N k}{\vert \Sigma_0\vert}$$
Using that
$$C_2=8\Gamma \Lambda^nN^2,$$
we obtain
\begin{align*}
  R(f)&\le
  8N\left(8\Gamma \Lambda^nN^2\right)^{\frac{2}{n}}\frac{\vert M\vert}{\vert \Sigma_0\vert^{\frac{n+2}{n}}}k^{2/n}\\
  &=
  8^{1+2/n}N^\frac{n+4}{n}\Gamma ^{2/n}\Lambda^2\frac{\vert M\vert}{\vert \Sigma_0\vert^{\frac{n+2}{n}}}k^{2/n}.
\end{align*}
Because $8^{1+2/n}\leq 8^3=512$, this completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperboundGeneral}.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Relevance of the geometric invariants}
\label{subsection:relevance}
In recent years, several families of Riemannian manifolds $M_\varepsilon$ with $\sigma_1(M_\varepsilon)\xrightarrow{\varepsilon\to 0}+\infty$ have been discovered. We will use them to show that none of the geometric invariants appearing in inequality~\eqref{ineq:upperboundintro} is superfluous.
To this end, it will be useful to provide a reformulation of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound} where the intrinsic and extrinsic constants are even more clearly distinguished.
In particular, notice that the packing constant $N$  corresponds to the metric space $(\Sigma,d_M)$. In Section~\ref{section:upperdiam} we prove a technical result (Lemma~\ref{lemma:packing}) which shows that a control of the distortion $\Lambda\geq 1$, together with the intrinsic packing constant $N_\Sigma$ of $(\Sigma,d_\Sigma)$ allows a control of $N$.
This allows the following reformulation of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound}.
\begin{cor}
  \begin{gather}\label{ineq:upperboundmodif}
    \sigma_k\le 512b^5N_\Sigma^{3\log_2(2\Lambda)}\Gamma \Lambda^2\frac{\vert M\vert}{\vert \Sigma\vert^{\frac{n+2}{n}}}k^{2/n}.
\end{gather}
\end{cor}
\begin{rem}
  In inequality~\eqref{ineq:upperboundmodif}, apart from $\sigma_k$, only the distortion and the volume of $M$ depend on the geometry of $M$. All other geometric quantities are intrinsic to the boundary $\Sigma$.
\end{rem}

Let us now proceed to show that each geometric constant appearing in Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound} is essential.
\subsubsection*{a) The distortion is necessary}

  Given a compact manifold $M$ of dimension at least four, with boundary $\Sigma$, in~\cite{CiG} the second author and D. Cianci constructed a sequence of Riemannian metrics $g_\varepsilon$ on $M$ such $\sigma_1\xrightarrow{\varepsilon\to 0}+\infty$, while  $|M|$ is uniformly bounded and the restriction of $g_\varepsilon$ to the boundary $\Sigma$ does not depend on $\varepsilon$. If follows from~\eqref{ineq:upperboundmodif}
that the distortion $\Lambda$ must also become arbitrarily large as $\varepsilon\to 0$. In particular, it is impossible to remove the distortion from inequality~\eqref{ineq:upperboundintro}.

\subsubsection*{b) The volume of $M$ is necessary}   Given a compact manifold $M$ of dimension at least three, with boundary $\Sigma$, we constructed in~\cite{CEG3} a sequence of Riemannian metrics $g_\varepsilon$ such that $\sigma_1\xrightarrow{\varepsilon\to 0}+\infty$, while the distortion $\Lambda$ is uniformly bounded above and  the restriction of $g_\varepsilon$ on the boundary $\Sigma$ does not depend on $\varepsilon$. If follows from~\eqref{ineq:upperboundmodif}
that the volume $|M|$ must also be large.

\subsubsection*{c) The number of boundary components is necessary} In~\cite{ColbGirGraphSurface}, we constructed a sequence of compact surfaces $M_\ell$ with boundary such that $\sigma_1\xrightarrow{\ell\to\infty}+\infty$, and for each $\ell$:
  $$
  |\partial M_\ell|=|M_\ell|=\Lambda=1.
  $$
  Because the boundary is one-dimensional, the packing constant $N_\Sigma$ and the growth constant $\Gamma $ are also independant of $\ell$.
  It follows from~\eqref{ineq:upperboundmodif} that the number of connected components $b$ of the boundary must satisfy $b\to\infty$. A similar construction works in arbitrary dimension.

\subsubsection*{d) The packing and growth constant are necessary}
  If Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound} was true with $\Gamma $ and $N$ removed, then Corollary~\ref{coro:gnycm} would would hold without these constants appearing. That is, a universal upper bound on $\lambda_1(\Sigma)|\Sigma|^{2/n}$ would be provided for each compact manifold $\Sigma$. This is impossible. See~\cite{ColboisDodziuk}.

\subsubsection*{e) The volume of the boundary is necessary} Let $M$ be a closed Riemannian manifold, and consider the perforated domain $M_\varepsilon:=M\setminus B(p,\varepsilon)$. Then $b=1$ while $N_\Sigma$, $\Lambda$, $\Gamma $ and $|M|$ are uniformy bounded. It is proved in~\cite{Brisson2021} that $\sigma_1\xrightarrow{\varepsilon\to 0}+\infty$. It follows that the presence of $|\Sigma|$ in the denominator of inequality~\eqref{ineq:upperboundmodif} is required.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank Iosif Polterovich and Jean Lagac\'e for useful comments on a preliminary version of this paper.
  The research of BC is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)
  (Grant 200021\_196894,  Geometric Spectral Theory).
  AG is supported by NSERC (Discovery grant, Spectral geometry of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map.) and FRQNT (Projet de recherche en \'equipe Applications de Dirichlet-
  Neumann: g\'eom\'etrie spectrale
 et probl\`emes inverses
 ).

\bibliographystyle{plain}

Spectral Theory (math.SP); Differential Geometry (math.DG)


An improved lower bound on multicolor Ramsey numbers

Abstract: A recent breakthrough of Conlon and Ferber yielded an exponential improvement on the lower bounds for multicolor diagonal Ramsey numbers. In this note, we modify their construction and obtain improved bounds for more than three colors.

\section{Introduction}
For positive integers $t$ and $\ell$, let $r(t;\ell)$ denote the $\ell$-color Ramsey number of $K_t$, i.e.\ the least integer $N$ such that every $\ell$-coloring of $E(K_N)$ contains a monochromatic $K_t$. The most well-studied case is that of $\ell=2$, where the bounds
\[
	2^{t/2} \leq r(t;2) \leq 2^{2t}
\]
were proved by Erd\H os \cite{Erdos} and Erd\H os--Szekeres \cite{ErSz} in 1947 and 1935, respectively. Despite decades of effort, only lower-order improvements have been made to these bounds \cite{Spencer,Conlon,Sah}.

For larger values of $\ell$, even less is known. The Erd\H os--Szekeres \cite{ErSz} argument yields that $r(t;\ell) \leq \ell^{\ell t}$. For the lower bound, Erd\H os's random construction \cite{Erdos} shows that $r(t;\ell) \geq \ell^{t/2}$. This was improved substantially by Lefmann \cite{Lefmann}, who used an iterated product coloring to show that $r(t;\ell) \geq 2^{t\ell/4}$. Thus, we see that the dependence on the clique size $t$ is exponential, and the dependence on the number of colors $\ell$ is somewhere between exponential and super-exponential, i.e.\ between $2^{\Omega(\ell)}$ and $2^{O(\ell \log \ell)}$. It is a major open problem to determine the correct $\ell$-dependence. Already for the case $t=3$, Erd\H os offered \$100 for the determination of whether $r(3;\ell)$ is exponential or super-exponential in $\ell$, and this question is closely related to a number of other questions in graph theory, coding theory, and beyond; see e.g.\ \cite{Alon,NeRo} for more.

In a recent breakthrough, Conlon and Ferber \cite{CoFe} improved Lefmann's lower bound on $r(t;\ell)$ for fixed $\ell>2$ and $t \to \infty$. To do so, they introduced a new construction that mixes algebraic and probabilistic approaches, and which does better than the random construction for $\ell=3$ and $\ell=4$. Then, they use Lefmann's iterated product trick to obtain better bounds for all larger values of $\ell$ as well. Their result is that
\[
	r(t;\ell) \geq \left( 2^{\frac{7\ell}{24}+C} \right) ^{t-o(t)},
\]
for some constant $C$ that depends only on the residue of $\ell$ modulo 3. In this note, we use a variant of the Conlon--Ferber construction to improve the lower bounds on $r(t;\ell)$ for fixed $\ell$ and large $t$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:high-level}
	For any fixed $\ell \geq 2$,
	\[
		r(t;\ell) \geq \left( 2^{\frac{3\ell}{8}- \frac 14} \right) ^{t-o(t)}.
	\]
\end{thm}
Theorem \ref{thm:high-level} gives the best known bound for all $\ell \geq 4$, and for large $\ell$, improves the constant in the exponent by roughly a factor of $9/7$. It is interesting to note that for our bound, we do not use a product coloring at all, and instead obtain the bound in \cref{thm:high-level} directly from the construction. The bound also matches the best known exponential constant for $\ell=2$ (due to Erd\H{o}s \cite{Erdos}) and for $\ell=3$ (due to Conlon and Ferber \cite{CoFe}). This is because our construction specializes for $\ell=2,3$ to these earlier constructions.

At a high level, our construction differs from the Conlon--Ferber construction by replacing their random induced subgraph by a number of independent random blowups. Such an approach to proving lower bounds for multicolor Ramsey problems goes back to work of Alon and R\"odl \cite{AlRo}. Moreover, it was observed in \cite{HeWi}, combining ideas of Alon--R\"odl with those of Mubayi--Verstra\"ete \cite{MuVe}, that for such problems random induced subgraphs and random blowups are closely related, and are both part of a more general framework of random homomorphisms.

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:high-level}}

We begin by recalling the basics of the Conlon--Ferber construction, in the special case of $q=2$. Let $t$ be even and let $V \subset \F_2^t$ denote the set of vectors of even Hamming weight, so that $\ab V=2^{t-1}$. We define a graph $G_0$ with vertex set $V$ by letting $\{u,v\} \in E(G_0)$ if and only if $u \cdot v=1$, where $u \cdot v = \sum_{i=1}^t u_i v_i$ denotes the scalar product over $\F_2$.

\begin{lem}[Conlon--Ferber \cite{CoFe}]\label{lem:oddtown}
	$G_0$ has no clique of order $t$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
	This is a simple variant of the Oddtown theorem \cite{Berlekamp}. Since $V$ consists of vectors of even Hamming weight, we see that $v \cdot v=0$ for all $v \in V$. Therefore, it is simple to show that every clique in $G_0$ of order $t$ consists of linearly independent vectors, since $t$ is even. Since $\dim V=t-1$, this gives the desired result.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}[Conlon--Ferber \cite{CoFe}]\label{lem:ind-number-bound}
	$G_0$ has at most $2^{\frac{5t^2}8+o(t^2)}$ independent sets of order at most $t$.
\end{lem}

In their paper, Conlon and Ferber only state this bound for the number of independent sets of size exactly $t$, but their proof actually yields \cref{lem:ind-number-bound}.

We now fix a non-negative integer $m$, and define an $(m+2)$-coloring $\chi$ of $E(K_N)$ for every $N$. We will eventually take $N=2^{\frac{3mt}{8}+\frac t2-o(t)}$; in particular, one should think of $N$ as much larger than $\ab V = 2^{t-1}$. We pick $m$ uniformly random functions $f_1,\ldots,f_m:[N] \to V$, all independent of one another. For two distinct vertices $x,y \in [N]$, we define their color $\chi(x,y)$ as follows. First, if there is some index $i \in [m]$ such that $\{f_i(x),f_i(y)\} \in E(G_0)$, then we let $\chi(x,y)$ be the minimum such index $i$; note that in particular, $\chi(x,y)=i$ implies that $f_i(x) \neq f_i(y)$. If there is no such $i$, then we pick $\chi(x,y) \in \{m+1,m+2\}$ uniformly at random, with these choices made independently over all pairs $x,y$.

In other words, the coloring of $K_N$ is obtained by overlaying $m$ random blowups of $G_0$ to $N$ vertices, and then randomly coloring all the remaining pairs with the two unused colors. We now claim that for an appropriate choice of $N$, this coloring will contain no monochromatic cliques of order $t$.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:main}
	For every non-negative integer $m$, if $N=2^{\frac{3mt}{8}+\frac t2-o(t)}$, then the coloring $\chi$ will contain no monochromatic clique of order $t$ with positive probability. In particular, $r(t;m+2) \geq 2^{\frac{3mt}{8}+\frac t2-o(t)}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
	By letting $m=\ell-2$, one obtains the bound in \cref{thm:high-level}.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
	We fix a set $S \subset [N]$ with $\ab S=t$, and will bound the probability that $S$ spans a monochromatic clique under $\chi$. First, we observe that $S$ cannot be a monochromatic clique in any of the first $m$ colors, since blowing up a graph cannot increase its clique number. More formally, if $S$ were a monochromatic clique in color $i \in [m]$, then the set of vertices $f_i(S) \subset V$ would form a clique in $G_0$ of order $t$, which cannot exist by \cref{lem:oddtown}.

	Now we bound the probability that $S$ is monochromatic in one of the last two colors. To do so, we will first compute the probability that no pair in $S$ receives one of the first $m$ colors, i.e.\ the probability that all the functions $f_1,\ldots,f_m$ map $S$ into an independent set of $G_0$. If $T$ is some independent set of $G_0$ with $\ab T\leq t$, then the probability that $f_i(S) \subseteq T$ is precisely $(\ab T/\ab V)^t$, since each vertex of $S$ has a $\ab T/\ab V$ chance of being mapped into $T$ by $f_i$. Therefore,
	\[
		\pr(f_i(S) = T) \leq \left( \frac{\ab T}{\ab V} \right) ^t\leq \left( \frac{t}{2^{t-1}} \right) ^t=2^{-t^2+o(t^2)}.
	\]
	By \cref{lem:ind-number-bound}, the number of choices for such a $T$ is at most $2^{5t^2/8+o(t^2)}$. Therefore, by the union bound, the probability that $f_i(S)$ is an independent set in $G_0$ is at most $2^{-3t^2/8+o(t^2)}$. Since these events are independent over all $i \in [m]$, we conclude that
	\[
		\pr(f_i(S)\text{ is independent in }G_0\text{ for all }i \in [m]) \leq 2^{-\frac{3mt^2}{8}+o(t^2)}.
	\]
	Now, for $S$ to be monochromatic in one of the last two colors, we must first have that $f_i(S)$ is independent in $G_0$ for all $i$, and then that all the pairs in $S$ receive the same color under the random assignment of the colors $m+1$ and $m+2$. In other words,
	\begin{align*}
		\pr(S\text{ is monochromatic}) &= 2^{1-\binom t2}\pr(f_i(S)\text{ is independent in }G_0\text{ for all }i \in [m])\\
		&\leq 2^{-\frac{t^2}{2}- \frac{3mt^2}{8}+o(t^2)}.
	\end{align*}
	Finally, we can apply the union bound over all choices of $S$, and conclude that
	\begin{align*}
		\pr(K_N\text{ has a monochromatic clique of order }t) &\leq \binom Nt 2^{-\frac{t^2}{2}- \frac{3mt^2}{8}+o(t^2)}\\
		&\leq \left( N 2^{-\frac{t}{2}-\frac{3mt}{8}+o(t)} \right) ^t\\
		&=o(1),
	\end{align*}
	by our choice of $N=2^{\frac{3mt}{8}+\frac t2-o(t)}$.
\end{proof}

For $m=1$, our construction is actually identical to the Conlon--Ferber construction, so of course yields their bound of $r(t;3) \geq 2^{7t/8-o(t)}$. However, already for four colors our construction starts doing better than theirs. Specifically, applying \cref{thm:main} to $m=2$, we conclude that
\[
	r(t;4) \geq 2^{\frac{6t}{8}+\frac{t}{2}-o(t)} = 2^{\frac{5t}{4}-o(t)} \approx 2.37^t,
\]
whereas their lower bound is roughly $2.13^t$. Additionally, one can check that our bound is stronger than the Conlon--Ferber bound for all $\ell \geq 4$.

\paragraph{Acknowledgments.} I would like to thank David Conlon and Asaf Ferber for helpful comments, and Xiaoyu He for introducing me to the method of random homomorphisms. I am also extremely grateful to Jacob Fox for many insights and for carefully reading an earlier draft of this paper.


Concentration inequalities for Paley-Wiener spaces

Abstract: This article considers the question of how much of the mass of an element in a Paley-Wiener space can be concentracted on a given set. We seek bounds in terms of relative densities of the given set. We extend a result of Donoho and Logan from 1992 in one dimension and consider similar results in higher dimensions.

\section{Introduction}

 Let $M$ be a convex body in $\R^d$, and let $\mc{B}_p(M)$, $1\le p\le \infty$, be the Paley-Wiener space of elements from $L^p(\R^d)$ with distributional Fourier transform supported in $M$. The Fourier transform $\mc{F} f$ is given by
\[
\mc{F}f(\varphi)  = \int_\R \widehat{\varphi}(t) f(t) dt
\]
 for a Schwarz function $\varphi$.  (We use $\widehat{\varphi}(t) = \int \varphi(x) e^{-2\pi i x t} dx$.) We write $\mc{B}_p(\tau)$ if $M$ is the ball with center at the origin and radius $\tau$.

Let $N$ and $W_\delta\subseteq \R^d$ be measurable and set $W_\delta(x) = x+ W_\delta$. (In this article, $W_\delta$ is either a ball or a cube.)  We consider the problem of finding a constant $C(M,\delta)>0$ such that
\begin{align}\label{intro-mass}
\|G \chi_N\|_1 \le C(M,\delta) \sup_{x\in\R^d} |N\cap W_\delta(x)| \, \|G\|_1\text{ for all }G\in \mc{B}_1(M).
\end{align}

Here $|.|$ denotes Lebesgue measure and $\chi_N$ is the characteristic function of $N$. We emphasize that the constant is  not allowed to depend on  $N$.

This question was studied by Donoho and Logan \cite{DL} in dimension $d=1$ in connection with recovery of a bandlimited signal that is corrupted by noise. In their setting, an unknown noise $n\in L^1(\R)$ is added to a known signal $F\in \mc{B}_1([-\tau,\tau])$, and they investigate sufficient conditions under which the best approximation $\widetilde{F}\in \mc{B}_1([-\tau,\tau])$ to $F+n$ satisfies $\widetilde{F} = F$, i.e., when $F$ can be perfectly recovered from knowledge of $F+n$ through  best $L^1$-approximation.

Denoting now by $N$ the support of $n$, it is a remarkable fact that the concentration condition
\begin{align}\label{logan-phenom}
\frac{\|G \chi_N\|_1 }{\| G\|_1 } <\frac12\textrm{ for all $G\in \mc{B}_1(M)$}
\end{align}
 is  sufficient to conclude that $F = \widetilde{F}$. The argument can be found in several places, e.g., Donoho and Stark \cite[Section 6.2]{DS}, who refer to it as Logan's phenomenon. (Logan's thesis \cite{L65} appears to contain the earliest record of this argument.) It was shown in \cite[Theorem 7]{DL} that \eqref{intro-mass} holds for $W_\delta(x) = [x-\frac\delta2,x+\frac\delta2]$ with
\begin{align}\label{DL-result}
C([-\tau,\tau],\delta) = \frac{\pi\tau}{\sin(\pi\tau\delta)},
\end{align}
and combining this with \eqref{logan-phenom}, it is evident that this gives $F = \widetilde{F}$ provided the relative density (or Nyquist density) of the support of the noise satisfies
\[
\delta^{-1}\sup_{x\in \R} |N\cap[x,x+\delta]| <\frac{\sin(\pi\tau\delta)}{2\pi\tau \delta}.
\]

We mention that conditions to recover an element of a closed subspace of an $L^1$ space that has been corrupted by a sparse $L^1$-noise have been investigated in many different settings, and concentration inequalities lead frequently to sufficient conditions. (This relies on the fact that if a set $N$ satisfies an analogue of \eqref{logan-phenom} for all $G$ in a given closed subspace of an $L^1$-space, then the zero function is the closest element from the subspace to every $L^1$ function with support contained in $N$.) For interested readers we refer to  Cand\`es, Romberg, and Tao \cite{CRT06}, Benyamini, Kro\'o, and Pinkus  \cite{BKP12}, Abreu and Speckbacher \cite{AS21}, and the references therein.

\section{Results}

There are two questions that this article seeks to address. First, it is clear that the shape of the  bound in \eqref{DL-result} requires $\delta\tau<1$. In contrast, it was shown for $p=2$ in \cite[Theorem 4]{DL} that for any positive $\tau$ and $\delta$
\[
\|G\chi_N\|_2^2 \le \left(\tau+\delta^{-1}\right) \sup_{x\in\R} \left|N\cap[x,x+\delta]\right| \, \|G\|_2^2
\]
for all $G\in \mc{B}_2(\tau)$ (with constants adjusted due to the different normalization of the Fourier transform) which suggests that an inequality with constant $c(\tau+\delta^{-1})$ should also be true for $p=1$. Our first result confirms that this is the case.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm1} Let $N$ be the support of $n\in L^1(\R)$. Then for all $G\in \mc{B}_1(\tau)$
\[
\|G\chi_N\|_1 \le C_{\tau,\delta} \sup_{x\in \R} \left|N\cap [x,x+\delta]\right|\, \|G\|_1.
\]
where $C_{\tau,\delta}\le \frac{80}{13}(\tau + \delta^{-1})$ for all positive $\tau$ and $\delta$. The bound may be improved to $C_{\tau,\delta}\le \frac52(\tau+\delta^{-1})$ for $\tau\delta\ge 2$. Moreover, $\lim_{\tau\delta\to\infty} C_{\tau,\delta} =2$.
\end{theorem}

As is usual with this method, the bounds only become effective when the density is a fraction of the reciprocal of the type $\tau$. If one is interested in bounds for $\|G\chi_N\|_1/ \|G\|_1$ at larger densities, a version of the Logvinenko-Sereda theorem from O. Kovrijkine \cite{Kov01} gives non-trivial bounds whenever the density is smaller than $1$\footnote{The authors are grateful to Walton Green to draw their attention to \cite{Kov01}.}. The constants are not effective and don't yield concrete bounds to decide when the quotient is $<1/2$.

Our second result deals with reconstruction in higher dimensions. We investigate the case when $M$ is a cube and $W_\delta(0)$ is a ball with center at the origin, and we indicate the obstructions that we encountered when taking $M$ to be a ball with center at the origin. We denote by $J_\nu$ the Bessel function of the first kind and by $j_\nu(k)$ its $k$th positive zero.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm2}
Let $d\in\N$ and  let $N\subseteq \R^d)$. If $\alpha\lambda<j_{d/2}(1) \, d^{-\frac12},$ then for all $G\in \mc{B}_1([\lambda,\lambda]^d)$
\begin{align*}
 \|G\chi_N\|_1
&\leq\frac{(\sqrt{d}\lambda)^{d/2}}{\alpha^{d/2}J_{d/2}(2\pi\sqrt{d}\alpha\lambda)}\sup_{x\in\R^d}\left| N\cap B(x,\alpha)\right| \, \|G\|_1.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}

Analogously to dimension one, for a convex body $K$ we define the maximum Nyquist density of $N$ (relatively to $K$) by
\[
\rho(N,K)=\frac{1}{|K|}\sup\limits_{u\in \R^d}|N\cap (u+K)|.
\]

We compare the result of Theorem \ref{thm2} to the case where the window $K$ is a hypercube of side length $\delta$, which is an extension of the $L_1$ reconstruction result by \cite{DL}.  The zero $j_{p}(1)$ has an asymptotic expansion given in \cite{NIST:DLMF} by $$j_{p}(1)\simeq \left(\frac{p}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\right)\pi.$$
Denote the ball of radius $r$ centered at origin by $B(0,r)$, and the volume of a ball with radius $\alpha$ in $d$-dimensions by $V_d(\alpha)$. It is given by $V_d(\alpha)=\frac{\pi^{d/2}}{\Gamma(d/2+1)}\alpha^d.$
When the window is a ball of radius $\alpha$, perfect reconstruction is possible if the maximum Nyquist density satisfies
\[
\rho(N,B(0,\alpha))<\frac{\Gamma(d/2+1)J_{d/2}(2\pi\sqrt{d}\alpha\lambda)}{2(\pi\alpha\sqrt{d}\lambda)^{d/2}},
\]
 where $\alpha<\frac{j_{d/2}(1)}{2\pi\sqrt{d}\lambda}$.
For $\lambda\delta<2\pi$, the corresponding density bound is
\[
\rho(N,[-\delta/2,\delta/2]^d)<\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\sin(\lambda\delta/2)}{\lambda\delta/2}\right)^d.
\]

The support of the Fourier transform for both the problems is same, that is, $[-\lambda,\lambda]^d$.
In the second case, we consider the ball just outside the cube such that the radius satisfies $\alpha=\frac{\delta\sqrt{d}}{2}$. Let $\delta=\frac{1}{2\pi^2}.$ For large $d$, the bound is asymptotically
\begin{align*}
\rho(T,B(0,\alpha),F)&<\frac{\Gamma(d/2+1)J_{d/2}(d/2)}{2(d/4)^{d/2}}\\
&\sim \frac{\sqrt{\pi d}\left(\frac{d}{2e}\right)^{d/2}}{2\left(\frac{d}{4}\right)^{d/2}}\frac{\Gamma(1/3)}{2^{1/3}\cdot 3^{1/6}\cdot \pi.d^{1/3}}\\
&\sim d^{1/6}\left(\frac{2}{e}\right)^{d/2}
\end{align*}
The Nyquist density for the cube window satisfies
$$\rho(T,[-\delta/2,\delta/2]^d,F)<\frac{1}{2}\left(4\pi^2\sin(1/4\pi^2)\right)^d.$$
 The bound for the Nyquist density of the cube window remains larger than the bound for the Nyquist density of ball window for any $d$ in this case.

Third, we set the volume of the cube is equal to the volume of the ball. Then the radius $\alpha$ of the ball satisfies
$$\alpha=\delta\sqrt[d]{\frac{\Gamma(d/2+1)}{\pi^{d/2}}}.$$
Using Sterling's approximation, we get
$$\alpha\simeq \delta\sqrt[d]{\left(\frac{d}{2\pi e}\right)^{d/2}(\pi d)^{1/2}}.$$
Let $\delta=\frac{\sqrt{2\pi e}}{4\pi^2}$. For large $d$, the Bessel function in the Nyquist density of the ball window satisfies
$$J_{d/2}(2\pi^2\sqrt\alpha)=J_{d/2}(d\cdot\pi^{1/2d}\cdot d^{1/2d}/2)\rightarrow J_{d/2}(d/2),$$
since $\pi^{1/2d}\cdot d^{1/2d}\rightarrow 1$ for large $d$. The bound for the  Nyquist density of the ball window is then
\begin{align*}
\rho(T,B(0,\alpha),F)&<\frac{\Gamma(d/2+1)J_{d/2}(d/2)}{2\left(\pi^2\sqrt{d}\frac{\sqrt{2\pi e}}{4\pi^2 \sqrt{\pi}}\sqrt[d]{\Gamma(d/2+1)}\right)}\\
&\sim\frac{\Gamma(1/3).\pi^{1/4}}{2\cdot 2^{1/3}\cdot 3^{1/6}\cdot \pi}\left(\frac{4}{2e}\right)^{d/2}\frac{1}{d^{1/12}}
\end{align*}

Tor the cube window, the sufficient bound for reconstruction is
$$\rho(T,[-\delta/2,\delta/2]^d,F)<\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\sin(\sqrt{2\pi e}/8\pi)}{\sqrt{2\pi e}/8\pi}\right)^d.$$
In this case also, the Nyquist density for the cube window remains larger than the Nyquist density of ball window for any dimension $d$.

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1}} We briefly review a general approach to prove inequalities of the above form introduced by Donoho and Logan in \cite{DL}. Construct a kernel $K(x,y)$ so that $f\mapsto Tf$ given by
\[
Tf(y) = \int K(x,y) f(x) dx
\]
defines a bounded invertible transformation when restricted to $\mc{B}_1(\tau)$. Then a change of integration order gives
\begin{align*}
\int_N |G(x)| dx &\le \int_N  \int|K(x,y)| T^{-1}G(x)| dx dy \\
&\le \left(\sup_x \int_N K(x,y) dy\right) \|T^{-1}\| \|G\|_1.
\end{align*}

If $K(x,y) = g(x-y)$ for some $g\in L^\infty$ with ${\rm supp}(g)\subseteq W_\delta(0)$, then the supremum may be further estimated by $\|g\|_\infty \sup_x |N\cap W_\delta(x)|$, where $T=T_g$ is now  the convolution operator $T_gf = f*g$ restricted to $\mc{B}_1(\tau)$. For given $g$ the size of the constant depends then only on $\|g\|_\infty \|T_g^{-1}\|$, and \eqref{logan-phenom} shows that we need
\[
\sup_x |N\cap W_\delta(x)| <\frac1{2 \|g\|_\infty \|T_g^{-1}\|}.
\]

Thus, it is the task to construct $g$ as above where $\|g\|_\infty \|T_g^{-1}\|$ is as small as possible. The choice in \cite{DL} was $g = \chi_{[-\frac\delta2,\frac\delta2]}$, which is optimal for $\delta\tau\le\frac12$, gives a non-optimal bound for $\frac12<\delta\tau<1$, and fails to give a bound for $\delta\tau\ge 1$. This can be traced back to the fact that $\widehat{g}(\delta) =0$.

\medskip

To create an auxiliary function $g$ with computable product $\|g\|_\infty \|T_g^{-1}\|$, Logan and Donoho observed that if $1/\widehat{g}$ is positive and convex up on an interval $I = [-a,a]$ with center at the origin, then the periodic extension of $1/\widehat{g}$ restricted to $I$ is the Fourier transform of a measure $\nu$ that acts as the inverse operator of convolution with $g$ on $\mc{B}_1(a)$ and has total variation $|\nu| = 1/\widehat{g}(a)$. (In fact, $\nu$ is the minimal extrapolation of $1/\widehat{g}$ restricted to $I$ in the sense of Beurling.) Our choice of $g$ is based on this idea. We define for $\tau>0$ and real $x$ a function $g_\tau$, supported on $[-1,1]$, by
\[
g_\tau(x) = -2 (1-|x|) \frac{\cos2\pi (\tau+1) x - \cos2\pi \tau x}{4\pi^2 x^2} \chi_{[-1,1]}(x).
\]

The Fourier transform of $g_\tau$ has the useful property that  the sum of its  partials with respect to $t$ and $\tau$ has a simple integral representation.

\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{g4}
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{ghat4}
\caption{The transform pair $g_4(x)$ and $\widehat{g}_4(t)$}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}

\begin{proposition}\label{first-partials}  For any $t$ and $\tau$
\[
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left(\widehat{g}_\tau(t) \right) + \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} \left(\widehat{g}_\tau(t)\right) = \int_{2\pi(t+\tau)}^{2\pi(t+\tau+1)} \frac{\sin^2 u}{u^2} du.
\]
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}  For ease of notation we set $G(t,\tau) = \widehat{g}_\tau(t)$, and we denote first  partials by $G_t$ and $G_\tau$. Writing
\[
g_\tau(x) = 2(1-|x|) \frac{\cos 2\pi (\tau+1)x - \cos2\pi \tau x}{(-2\pi ix)^2}\chi_{[-1,1]}(x)
\]
and using that $g_\tau(x)$ is even, we have
\begin{align*}
G_t(t,\tau) &= \int_{-1}^1  (-2\pi i x)  g_\tau(x) e^{-2\pi i x t}dx \\
&= \int_{-1}^1 (-2\pi i x) g_\tau(x) (-i\sin(2\pi x t)) dx \\
&= \int_{-1}^1 2(1-|x|) \frac{\cos(2\pi(\tau+1) x) - \cos(2\pi \tau x)}{2\pi x} \sin(2\pi x t) dx\\
&= 4\int_0^1 (1-x) \frac{\cos(2\pi(\tau+1) x) - \cos(2\pi \tau x)}{2\pi x} \sin(2\pi x t) dx.
\end{align*}

Similarly,
\begin{align*}
G_\tau(t,\tau) &= \int_{-1}^1 \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} (g_\tau(x)) e^{-2\pi i x t} dx \\
&= 4 \int_{0}^1 (1-x) \frac{\sin(2\pi(\tau+1) x) - \sin(2\pi \tau x)}{2\pi x} \cos(2\pi x t) dx.
\end{align*}

The integrals have representations in terms of the sine-integral $\Si(u) = \int_0^u \sin(w)/w dw$. A direct calcuation gives
\begin{align*}
2\int_0^1 \cos(2\pi a x) \frac{\sin(2\pi b x)}{x} dx &= \Si(2\pi(a+b)) - \Si(2\pi(a-b))\\
2\int_0^1 \cos(2\pi a x) \sin(2\pi b x)dx&= -\frac{b}{\pi(a-b) (a+b)} +\frac{\cos(2\pi(a-b))}{2\pi(a-b)} -\frac{\cos(2\pi (a+b))}{2\pi(a+b)}.
\end{align*}

We obtain
\begin{align*}
G_t(t,\tau) + G_\tau(t,\tau) &= \frac2{\pi^2} \left(  \frac{\sin^2 (\pi(t+\tau))}{(t+\tau)(t+\tau+1)}  +\pi \Si(2\pi(t+\tau+1))-\pi \Si( 2\pi(t+\tau) \right)\\
&= \frac2\pi \int_{\pi(t+ \tau)}^{\pi (t+\tau+1)} \left(-\frac{\partial}{\partial u} \frac{\sin^2 u}{u}\right) du+ \frac2\pi \int_{2\pi (t+\tau)}^{2\pi (t+\tau+1)} \frac{\sin w}{w} dw\\
&=\frac2\pi \int_{\pi(t+\tau)}^{\pi(t+\tau+1)} \frac{\sin^2 u}{u^2} du
\end{align*}
after substituting $w = 2u$ and combining the integrands.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{pt-two} $\|g_\tau\|_\infty = g_\tau(0) =2\tau+1$.
\item\label{pt-three} The function $\tau\mapsto \widehat{g}_\tau(0)$ is positive, monotonically increasing, and has limit $1$ as $\tau\to \infty$. Moreover,
\begin{align*}
\widehat{g}_0(0)>0.65, \qquad \widehat{g}_1(1) >0.8.
\end{align*}
\item\label{pt-four} $t\mapsto \big(\widehat{g}_\tau(t)\big)^{-1}$ is positive and convex (up) on $[-\tau,\tau]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}   Property (\ref{pt-two}) is obtained by direct calculation.  For the proof of  (\ref{pt-three}) it follows from symmetry of $t\mapsto \widehat{g}_\tau(t)$ that  $\widehat{g}_\tau'(0) =0$, and hence Proposition \ref{first-partials} gives $\partial/\partial \tau \widehat{g}_\tau(0)>0$. Direct calculations give the claimed bounds.

 Regarding (\ref{pt-four}),  we require an explicit representation of $\widehat{g}_\tau''(t)$. It follows from
\[
g_\tau(x) = 2(1-|x|) \frac{\cos 2\pi (\tau+1)x - \cos2\pi \tau x}{(-2\pi ix)^2}\chi_{[-1,1]}(x)
\]
that
\begin{align}\label{gk-2nd}
\begin{split}
 \widehat{g}_\tau''(t) &= \int_{-1}^1 (-2\pi i x)^2 g_\tau(x) e^{-2\pi i x t} dx\\
&= -\left(\frac{\sin \pi (t-\tau)}{\pi (t-\tau)}\right)^2 -  \left(\frac{\sin \pi (t+\tau)}{\pi (t+\tau)}\right)^2 \\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad+ \left(\frac{\sin \pi (t-\tau-1)}{\pi (t-\tau-1)}\right)^2 +  \left(\frac{\sin \pi (t+\tau+1)}{\pi (t+\tau+1)}\right)^2 \\
&= \frac{\sin^2(\pi(t-\tau)) (2(t-\tau)-1)}{(t-\tau)^2 (t-\tau-1)^2} - \frac{\sin^2(\pi(t+\tau))(2(t+\tau)+1)}{(t+\tau)^2 (t+\tau+1)^2}.
\end{split}
\end{align}

 Since the first term is negative for $t-\tau <1/2$ and the second term is positive for $t+\tau>-1/2$, it follows  that
\[
\widehat{g}_\tau''(t)<0\text{ for } -\tau -\tfrac12< t < \tau+\frac12.
\]

Multivariate chain rule and Proposition \ref{first-partials} show that
\[
\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau} \left( \widehat{g}_\tau(\tau) \right) >0,
\]
 and since $\widehat{g}_0(0)>0$, it follows that $\widehat{g}_\tau(\tau)>0$ for all $\tau$. Since $\widehat{g}_\tau$ is concave down on $[-\tau,\tau]$, it follows that $\widehat{g}_\tau(t)>0$  for $t\in [-\tau,\tau]$. It follows that the second derivative of $t\mapsto (\widehat{g}_\tau(t))^{-1}$ is positive for $|t|\le \tau$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1}]  Setting $g_{\tau,\delta}(x) = g_{\tau\delta/2}(2x/\delta)$, we observe that $g_{\tau,\delta}$ is supported on $[-\delta/2,\delta/2]$, and
\[
\widehat{g}_{\tau,\delta}(t) = \frac{\delta}{2} \widehat{g}_{\tau\delta/2}(\delta t/2).
\]

It follows that $t\mapsto (\widehat{g}_{\tau,\delta}(t))^{-1}$ is positive and convex up for $|t|\le \tau$.  Let $a_n = a_n(\tau,\delta)$ be the Fourier coefficients satisfying
\[
\frac{1}{\widehat{g}_{\tau,\delta}(t)} = \sum_{n\in \Z} a_n e^{\pi i \frac{t}{\tau} n}
\]
for $|t|\le \tau$.   Positivity and convexity imply that $|a_n| = (-1)^n a_n$. Define a measure $\nu= \nu_{\tau,\delta}$ on $\R$ for any Borel set $A$ by
\[
\nu(A) = \sum_{n\in\Z} a_n\delta_{n/(2\tau)}(A)
\]
where $\delta_b$ is the Dirac measure at $b\in \R$. We observe that $\widehat{\nu}(t) = 1/\widehat{g}_{\tau,\delta}(t)$ for $|t|\le \tau$, and the total variation satisfies
\[
|\nu|(\R) = \sum_{n\in\Z} |a_n| = \sum_{n\in\Z} a_n(-1)^n = \frac{1}{\widehat{g}_{\tau\delta/2} (\tau\delta/2)}.
\]

It follows that convolution with $\nu$ is the inverse operator of convolution with $g_{\tau,\delta}$ when restricted to $PW_\tau^1$. Moreover, for $g_{\tau,\delta}$ the choice of $\nu$ is optimal, since the value of the Fourier transform of $\nu$ is always a lower bound for the total variation.

 It follows that
\[
\|T_{g_{\tau,\delta}}^{-1}\| = \frac{1}{\widehat{g}_{\tau\delta/2}(\tau\delta/2)}.
\]

We observe the identities
\[
\frac{\|g_{\tau,\delta}\|_\infty}{\widehat{g}_{\tau,\delta}(\tau)} = \frac{2}{\delta} \frac{\|g_{\tau\delta/2}\|_\infty}{\widehat{g}_{\tau\delta/2}(\tau\delta/2)} =   \frac{2\tau +2\delta^{-1}}{\widehat{g}_{\tau\delta/2}(\tau\delta/2)}.
\]

For $\tau>0$ and $\delta>0$ we use the inequality $\widehat{g}_{\tau\delta/2}(\tau\delta/2) \ge \widehat{g}_0(0) >0.65$. For $\tau\delta \ge 2$, we may use the lower bound $\widehat{g}_1(1) > 0.8$ instead.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm2}}

As in the first section, the main task lies in computing a minimal extrapolation of $1/\widehat{g}$ restricted support of the Fourier transform for a suitably chosen function $g$. For $x\in \R^d$ we consider
\[
g_\alpha(x) = \chi_{B(0,\alpha)}(x)
\]
whose Fourier transform for $t\in\R^d$ is
\[
\widehat{g}_\alpha(t) = \frac{\alpha^{d/2} J_{d/2}(2\pi \alpha |t|)}{|t|^{d/2}}.
\]

To construct a minimal extrapolation of $1/\widehat{g}_\alpha$ restricted to $[-\tau,\tau]^d$, we need  facts from the theory of Laguerre-P\'olya entire functions. We follow   \cite{HW55}. An entire function $E$ belongs to the Laguerre-P\'olya class $\mc{E}$ if and only if it has the form
\[
E(s)=e^{cs^2+bs}\prod\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(1-\frac{s}{a_k}\right)e^{\frac{s}{a_k}},$$ where $c\geq 0$, $b$, $a_k(k=1,2,\cdots)$ are real, and $$\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{a_k^2}<\infty.
\]

\begin{lemma}\label{recip}
There exists a non-negative, integrable function $G$ such that for $x\in (-j_p(1),j_p(1))$
$$\frac{x^p}{J_{p}(x)}=\int\limits_{-\infty}^0 e^{-x^2 t}G(t)dt.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The Bessel function $J_p(x)$ has an infinite product representation  \cite[Section 10.21(iii)]{NIST:DLMF}. Dividing each side by $x^p$ gives us
\begin{align*}
\frac{J_p(x)}{x^p}&=\frac{1}{2^p \Gamma(p+1)}\prod\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(1-\frac{x^2}{j_{p,k}^2}\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{2^p \Gamma(p+1)}\prod\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(1-\frac{x}{j_{p,k}}\right)e^{x/j_{p,k}}\prod\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(1+\frac{x}{j_{p,k}}\right)e^{-x/j_{p,k}}
\end{align*}

Substituting $x=\sqrt{y}$ in the infinite product representation of $\frac{J_p(x)}{x^p}$ gives us
$$\frac{J_p(\sqrt{y})}{y^{p/2}}=\frac{1}{2^p\Gamma(p+1)}\prod\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(1-\frac{y}{j_{p,k}^2}\right)$$
which is an entire function and belongs to class $\mc{E}$. Let $E(x)=\frac{J_p(x)}{x^p}$. Then by \cite[Theorem 6.1]{HW55} the function $1/E(\sqrt{y})$ has a Laplace transform representation given by
$$\frac{1}{E(\sqrt{y})}=\int\limits_{\R}e^{-y t}G(t)dt,$$
where $G(t)\in C^{\infty}$ is a nonnegative, integrable function and the integral converges in the largest vertical strip which contains the origin and is free of zeroes of $E(\sqrt{y})$, which is $-\infty<y<j_{p,1}^2$. Next, we want to determine the values of $t$ for which $G(t)>0$. This result is obtained using Corollary 3.1 (Chapter 5 in \cite{HW55}). Note that $E(\sqrt{y})$ can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
E(\sqrt{y})&=\frac{1}{2^p\Gamma(p+1)}\prod\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(1-\frac{y}{j_{p,k}^2}\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{2^p\Gamma(p+1)}\frac{1}{e^{-\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}(y/j_{p,k})}}\prod\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(1-\frac{y}{j_{p,k}^2}\right)e^{(y/j_{p,k})}\\
\end{align*}
The function $E(\sqrt{y})$ has no negative zeroes. Therefore, in the setting of Corollary 3.1, $\alpha_1=-\infty$ and $b=-\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{j_{p,k}}$. Therefore $G(t)>0$ if $t\in(-\infty,0))$ and $G(t)=0$ otherwise, giving us for $y\in (0,j_{p,1}^2)$,
$$\frac{1}{E(\sqrt{y})}=\int\limits_{-\infty}^0 e^{-yt}G(t)dt.$$
Substituting $y = x^2$ gives the claim.
\end{proof}

Let $\lambda>0$ and $\alpha>0$ with $2\pi\sqrt{d} \alpha\lambda<j_{d/2}(1)$. We construct a (signed) measure $\nu$ that is an inverse transform on $\mc{B}_1([-\lambda,\lambda]^d)$ of convolution with $g_\alpha$ satisfying
\[
\|f*\nu\|_1 \le \frac{(\sqrt{d} \lambda)^{d/2} }{\alpha^{d/2} J_{d/2}(2\pi\sqrt{d} \lambda \alpha)}\|f\|_1,
\]
and we show that the constant is best possible among all inverse transformations of convolution with $g_\alpha$ on $\mc{B}_1([-\lambda,\lambda]^d)$.  We expand $1/\widehat{g}_\alpha$ restricted to $[-\lambda,\lambda]^d$ into its Fourier series
\[
\frac{1}{\widehat{g}_\alpha(t)} = \sum_{n\in\Z^d} H_\alpha(n) e^{2\pi i n t}
\]
where
\[
H_\alpha(n) = \left(\frac{1}{2\lambda}\right)^d \int_{[-\lambda,\lambda]^d} \frac{|x|^{d/2}}{\alpha^{d/2} J_{d/2}(2\pi \alpha|x|)} e^{-i\frac\pi\lambda nx} dx.
\]

\begin{lemma} The coefficients satisfy
\[
H(n_1,...,n_d) = (-1)^{n_1+...+n_d} |H(n_1,...,n_d)|
\]
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} The restrictions on $\alpha\lambda$ imply that the following integrals converge absolutely. Inserting the Schoenberg representation \eqref{} gives with $n = (n_1,...,n_d)$
\[
H_\alpha(n) = \left( \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2\pi} \alpha\lambda}\right)^d \int_{-\infty}^0 G(t) \left( \prod_{j=1}^d \int_{[-\lambda,\lambda]} e^{-x_j^2 t} e^{-i\frac\pi\lambda n_j x_j} dx_j\right) dt
\]

Since $t<0$, the function $x_j\mapsto e^{-t x_j^2}$ is positive, symmetric, and convex up. Hence $e^{-i\frac\pi\lambda n_j x_j}$ may be replaced by $\cos(\frac\pi\lambda n_j x_j)$. A short argument involving two integration by parts may be used to show that
\[
(-1)^{n_j} \int_{[-\lambda,\lambda]} e^{-x_j^2 t} \cos(\tfrac\pi\lambda n_j x_j ) dx_j \ge 0,
\]
which implies the claim of the lemma.
\end{proof}

We define a measure $\nu_\alpha$ on $\R^d$ by
\[
\nu_\alpha = \sum_{n\in \Z^d} H_\alpha(n) \delta_{\frac{n}{2\lambda}}
\]
where $\delta_x$ is the point measure at $x$ with $\delta_x(\R^d) =1$.

\begin{lemma}\label{d-dim-conv-inv} Let $\lambda$ and $\alpha$ be positive with $2\pi\sqrt{d} \lambda\alpha< j_{d/2}(1)$. Convolution with $\nu_\alpha$ is the inverse operator of convolution with $g_\alpha$ on $\mc{B}_1([-\lambda,\lambda]^d$ with
\[
\|f*\nu_\alpha\|_1 \le \frac{(\sqrt{d} \lambda)^{d/2}}{\alpha^{d/2} J_{d/2}(2\pi\sqrt{d} \alpha\lambda)} \|f\|_1
\]
for all $f\in \mc{B}_1([-\lambda,\lambda]^d)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} By construction of $\nu_\alpha$ we have
\[
\widehat{g}_\alpha(t) \widehat{\nu}_\alpha(t) = 1
\]
for all $t\in [-\lambda,\lambda]^d$, and we observe that the total variation measure $|\nu_\alpha|$ satisfies
\[
|\nu_\alpha|(\R^d) = \sum_{n\in\Z^d} |H_\alpha(n)| = \sum_{n\in\Z^d} H_\alpha(n) (-1)^{n_1+...+n_d} = \frac{1}{\widehat{g}_\alpha(\lambda,...,\lambda)},
\]
and Minkowski's inequality $\|f*\nu_\alpha\|_1 \le |\nu_\alpha| \, \|f\|_1$ shows that convolution with $\nu_\alpha$ defines a bounded operator on $\mc{B}_1([-\lambda,\lambda]^d)$ that inverts convolution with $g_\alpha$.
\end{proof}

 Lemma \ref{d-dim-conv-inv} gives a bound for the operator norm of the inverse of convolution with $g_\alpha$, and the calculation at the beginning of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm1} may be used to complete the proof of Theorem \ref{thm2}.

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}