Now suppose, more generally, that the second commutators formed from any two vector fields vanish, that is for any $i,j=1\dots m$  ,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}0& =& [X_i,[X_i,X_j\left]\right]\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& X_i[X_i,X_j]-[X_i,X_j]X_i\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& X_i{X}_j{X}_j-2X_i{X}_j{X}_i+X_j{X}_i{X}_i\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& X_j\left(X_i{X}_i\right)+X_i(X_i{X}_j-2X_j{X}_i).\end{array}$$

Then, defining for any real matrix $r\in {\mathbb{R}}^n\times {\mathbb{R}}^n$  ,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\mathfrak{F}}_2\left(r\right)& :=& \frac{1}{2}\left\{(r_{ii}{)}^2-r_{ij}{r}_{ji}+\frac{1}{2}(r_{ij}-r_{ji}{)}^2\right\}\end{array}$$

(2.4)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& F_2\left[r\right]+\frac{3}{4}{\sum }_{i<j}(r_{ij}-r_{ji}{)}^2,\end{array}$$

we have the identity

$$\begin{array}{c}{X}_i{\mathfrak{F}}_2^{ij}\left(X^{2}u\right)=0,\end{array}$$

(2.5)

where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\mathfrak{F}}_2^{ij}\left(r\right)& =& \frac{\partial {\mathfrak{F}}_2}{\partial r_{ij}}\left(r\right)\end{array}$$

(2.6)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& \text{(trace}r\text{)}{\delta }_{ij}+r_{ij}-2r_{ji},\end{array}$$

which extends ( 2.1 ) in the case $k=2$  . The identity ( 2.5 ) was discovered by Gutiérrez and Montanari [8] , [9] for the Heisenberg groups ${\mathbb{H}}^n$  , (see also [5] , [7] ).

From ( 2.5 ), we infer the monotonicity formula for the operator ${\mathfrak{F}}_2$  defined by

$$\begin{array}{c}{\mathfrak{F}}_2\left[u\right]={\mathfrak{F}}_2\left(X^{2}u\right),\end{array}$$

(2.7)

extending Lemma 2.1 in [14] for $k=2$  .

Lemma 2.1. Let $u,v\in C^2(\Omega )\cap C^0\left(\overline{\Omega }\right)$  satisfy $u\le v$  in $\Omega$  , $u=v$  on $\partial \Omega$  with the operator $F_2$  degenerate elliptic with respect to their sum $u+v$  , that is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\mathfrak{F}}_2^{ij}\left(X^2\right(u+v\left)\right){\xi }_i{\xi }_j& =& F_2^{ij}\left(X^2\right(u+v\left)\right){\xi }_i{\xi }_j\end{array}$$

(2.8)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \ge & 0\end{array}$$

for all $\xi \in {\mathbb{R}}^m$  . Then, if the vector fields $X_1\dots X_m$  satisfy conditions  (i) and  (iii) , we have

$$\begin{array}{c}{\int }_{\Omega }{\mathfrak{F}}_2\left[v\right]\le {\int }_{\Omega }{\mathfrak{F}}_2\left[u\right]\end{array}$$

(2.9)

• Proof. By integration by parts and the identity ( 2.5 ), we have, for $u,v\in C^2\left(\overline{\Omega }\right)$  ,

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}{\int }_{\Omega }\left({\mathfrak{F}}_2\left[u\right]-{\mathfrak{F}}_2\left[v\right]\right)& =& {\int }_0^{1}dt{\int }_{\Omega }{\mathfrak{F}}_2^{ij}\left[X^2\right(tu+(1-t)v\left)\right]X_i{X}_j(u-v)\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\int }_0^{1}dt{\int }_{\partial \Omega }{\mathfrak{F}}_2^{ij}(X_i.\gamma )X_j(u-v)\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\int }_0^{1}dt{\int }_{\partial \Omega }{\mathfrak{F}}_2^{ij}(X_i.\gamma )(X_j.\gamma )\left|D(u-v)\right|\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& \ge & 0\end{array}$$

  Here $\gamma$  denotes the outer unit normal to $\partial \Omega$  and
  $$X_i.\gamma =b^{ij}{\gamma }_j.$$ 
  The general case $u,v\in C^0\left(\overline{\Omega }\right)\cap C^2\left(\Omega \right)$  follows by approximation.

For weak continuity with respect to $C^0\left(\Omega \right)$  and for groups of Heisenberg type we may proceed exactly as in [14] . In the next section we present the basic gradient estimates for $k$  -convex functions needed to handle the general case.

3 Gradient Estimates

In this section we provide the necessary gradient estimates for our proof of weak continuity. For these we do not have to restrict to the case $k=2$  and moreover we only need to assume the vector fields $X_1\dots X_m$  satisfy conditions  (i) and  (ii) . First we note that since $k$  -convexity implies 1-convexity, $k$  -convex functions $u$  are subharmonic with respect to the sub-Laplacian associated with $X_1\dots X_n$  , that is

$$\begin{array}{c}{\Delta }_{X}u:=X_i{X}_{i}u\ge 0\end{array}$$

(3.1)

in $\Omega$  . From ( 3.1 ) we infer immediately a bound from above, namely, for any ${\Omega }^{\prime }\subset \subset \Omega$  ,

$$\begin{array}{c}{sup}_{{\Omega }^{\prime }}u\le C{\int }_{\Omega }\left|u\right|\end{array}$$

(3.2)

where the constant $C$  depends on $X_1\dots X_m$  and $dist({\Omega }^{\prime },\partial \Omega )$  . As we are only dealing with local estimates in this paper, we will always assume, without loss of generality, that $u\in L^1(\Omega )$  . Following [15] , our treatment of gradient estimates depends on the relation between $k$  -convexity and the subelliptic p-Laplacian operators ${\Delta }_p$  defined by

$$\begin{array}{c}{\Delta }_{p}u=X_i\left({\left|Xu\right|}^{p-2}{X}_{i}u\right)\end{array}$$

(3.3)

for $p>1$  .

Lemma 3.1. Let $u$  be $k$  -convex in $\Omega$  . Then $u$  is subharmonic with respect to ${\Delta }_p$  for $p-1\le k\left(m-1\right)/\left(m-k\right)$  .

• Proof. Although this is just the special case $l=1$  in Lemma 4.2 of [15] , we include it for completeness as it is simpler that the cases $l>1$  . We use the notation

  $$\begin{array}{c}{S}_{k,i}\left(\lambda \right)=S_k\left(\lambda \right){|}_{{\lambda }_i=0}\end{array}$$

  (3.4)

  so that

  $$\begin{array}{c}{S}_{j,i}\left(\lambda \right)\ge 0\end{array}$$

  (3.5)

  for all $j\le k-1$  , if $S_j\left(\lambda \right)\ge 0$  , for all $j=1,\dots k$  . It follows then that

  $$\begin{array}{c}0\le S_k\left(\lambda \right)=S_{k,i}\left(\lambda \right)+S_{k-1,i}\left(\lambda \right){\lambda }_i,i=1,\dots m,\end{array}$$

  (3.6)

  whence

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}-{\lambda }_i& \le & \frac{S_{k,i}}{S_{k-1,i}}\left(\lambda \right)\end{array}$$

  (3.7)

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& \le & \frac{(m-k)}{k(m-1)}{S}_{1,i}\left(\lambda \right)\end{array}$$

  by MacLaurins' inequality for ratios of elementary symmetric functions.
  Consequently, if $u$  is $k$  -convex,

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}{\Delta }_{p}u& =& X_i\left({\left|Xu\right|}^{p-2}{X}_{i}u\right)\end{array}$$

  (3.8)

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\left|Xu\right|}^{p-2}\left\{\Delta u+(p-2)\frac{X_{i}u{X}_{j}u}{{\left|Xu\right|}^2}{X}_i{X}_{j}u\right\}\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& \ge & 0,\end{array}$$

  for $p-1\le k\left(m-1\right)/\left(m-k\right)$  , by taking ${\lambda }_1\dots {\lambda }_m$  to be the eigenvalues of $X_s^{2}u$  .

Note that Lemma  3.1 also includes the case $k=m,p=\infty$  , when ${\Delta }_p$  is the subelliptic $\infty$  -Laplacian

$$\begin{array}{c}{\Delta }_{\infty }u=X_{i}u{X}_{j}u{X}_{ij}u\end{array}$$

(3.9)

Our gradient estimates now follow immediately from [17] but to express them we need the concept of homogeneous dimension. For our purposes here, we define the C-C (Carnot-Caratheodory) metric induced from the vector fields $X_1\dots X_m$  by $$d(x,y)=inf\{T>0|\exists \text{a sub-unitary}\gamma :[0,T]\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$$ 

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{with}\gamma \left(0\right)=x,\gamma \left(T\right)=y\},\end{array}$$

(3.10)

where a piecewise $C^1$  curve $\gamma :[0,T]\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$  is said to be sub-unitary, with respect to $X_1\dots X_m$  , if for every $\xi \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$  and $t\in (0,T)$  ,

$$\begin{array}{c}{\left|{\gamma }^{\prime }\left(t\right).\xi \right|}^2\le {\sum }_{i=1}^m\left(X_i\right(\gamma \left(t\right)).\xi {)}^2.\end{array}$$

(3.11)

Let $B_R\left(x\right)$  denote the C-C ball $\left\{y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n\left|d\right(x,y)<R\right\}$  , and let $\Omega$  be a bounded domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$  . The the fundamental result of Nagel, Stein and Wainger [11] asserts that there exist positive constants $C,R_0$  and positive integer $Q$  , depending on $X$  and $\Omega$  such that

$$\begin{array}{c}\left|B_{tR}\left(x\right)\right|\ge C{t}^Q\left|B_R\left(x\right)\right|\end{array}$$

(3.12)

for any $x\in \Omega$  , $t\in (0,1)$  and $R<R_0$  , where $\left|\right|$  denotes the Lebesgue volume.

The number $Q$  ( $\ge n$  ), is chosen as the least integer for which ( 3.12 ) holds and is called the homogeneous dimension of $X$  in $\Omega$  . For ( 3.12 ) we only need the Hormander condition  (ii) and we could replace it more generally in this paper by simply the validity of ( 3.12 ).

Theorem 3.1. For any $k$  -convex function $u$  in $\Omega$  , and subdomain ${\Omega }^{\prime }\subset \subset \Omega$  , we have the estimates

$$\begin{array}{c}\left|\right|Xu|{|}_{L^q\left({\Omega }^{\prime }\right)}\le C\left({\int }_{\Omega }\left|u\right|\right)\end{array}$$

(3.13)

$$\begin{array}{c}{\int }_{{\Omega }^{\prime }}{\left|Xu\right|}^r{\Delta }_{X}u\le C{\left({\int }_{\Omega }\left|u\right|\right)}^{1+r}\end{array}$$

(3.14)

for $1\le q<Qk(m-1)/(Q-1)(m-k)$  , $0\le r<m(k-1)/(m-k)$  where $C$  depends on $\Omega$  , ${\Omega }^{\prime }$  , $X_1\dots X_m$  and $q$  or $r$  as appropriate.

• Proof. The estimate ( 3.13 ) follows from Lemma  3.1 and [17] . For ( 3.14 ), we have from Lemma  3.1 ,

  $$\begin{array}{c}{\left|Xu\right|}^r{\Delta }_{X}u\le \frac{m(k-1)}{m(k-1)-r(m-k)}{\Delta }_{p}u\end{array}$$

  (3.15)

  and since

  $$\begin{array}{c}{\int }_{\Omega }\eta {\Delta }_{p}u\le {\int }_{\Omega }\left|X\eta \right|{\left|Xu\right|}^{p-1},\end{array}$$

  (3.16)

  for any $\eta >0,\in C_0^1(\Omega )$  , we infer ( 3.14 ) from ( 3.13 ).

By using the subelliptic Sobolev inequality [2] , we obtain corresponding $L^p$  estimates, namely

$$\begin{array}{c}\left|\right|u|{|}_{L^p\left({\Omega }^{\prime }\right)}\le C|\left|u\right|{|}_{L^1(\Omega )}\end{array}$$

(3.17)

where

$$1\le p<\frac{Qk(m-1)}{(Q-1)m-(Q+m-2)k}$$ 

for $(Q-1)m\ge (Q+m-2)k$  and $p=\infty$  if $(Q-1)m<(Q+m-2)k$  . For this last case we have a Hölder estimate [3] , [17] ,

$$\begin{array}{c}{sup}_{{\Omega }^{\prime }}\frac{\left|u\left(x\right)-u\left(y\right)\right|}{{\left|d(x,y)\right|}^{\alpha }}\le C\left|\right|u|{|}_{L^1(\Omega )}\end{array}$$

(3.18)

where

$$\alpha =\frac{k(Q+m-2)-m(Q-1)}{k(m-1)},$$ 

if $k<m$  ( $\alpha <$  1 if $k=m$  ).

4 Weak Continuity

In this section, we complete the proof of Theorem  1.1 . First we prove a local bound for ${\mathfrak{F}}_2$  . For convenience we use the notation

$$\begin{array}{c}{\mathfrak{E}}_2\left[u\right]={\sum }_{i<j}{\left([X_i,X_j]u\right)}^2,\end{array}$$

(4.1)

so that

$$\begin{array}{c}{\mathfrak{F}}_2\left[u\right]=F_2\left[u\right]+\frac{3}{4}{\mathfrak{E}}_2\left[u\right]\end{array}$$

(4.2)

Lemma 4.1. Let $u\in C^2(\Omega )$  be 2-convex in $\Omega$  with respect to $X_1,\dots X_m$  , satisfying hypotheses  (i) to  (iii) . Then, for any subdomain ${\Omega }^{\prime }\subset \subset \Omega$  , we have

$$\begin{array}{c}{\int }_{{\Omega }^{\prime }}{\mathfrak{F}}_2\left[u\right]\le C{\left({\int }_{\Omega }\left|u\right|\right)}^2,\end{array}$$

(4.3)

where $C$  depends on $dist({\Omega }^{\prime },\partial \Omega )$  , $X_1,\dots X_m$  .

In particular, Lemma  4.1 provides a local $L^2$  estimate for the commutators $[X_i,X_j]u$  .

• Proof. Letting $\eta >0\in C_0^1(\Omega )$  be a cut-off function, we have

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}{\int }_{\Omega }{\eta }^2{\mathfrak{F}}_2\left[u\right]& =& \frac{1}{2}{\int }_{\Omega }{\eta }^2{\mathfrak{F}}_2^{ij}{X}_i{X}_{j}u\end{array}$$

  (4.4)

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& -\frac{1}{2}{\int }_{\Omega }{\mathfrak{F}}_2^{ij}{X}_i{\eta }^2{X}_{j}u\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& -\frac{1}{2}{\int }_{\Omega }\left\{F_2^{ij}{X}_i{\eta }^2{X}_{j}u+\frac{3}{4}[X_i,X_j]u{X}_i{\eta }^2{X}_{j}u\right\}\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& \le & C{\int }_{\Omega }\left\{\left|X{\eta }^2\right|\left|Xu\right|{\Delta }_{X}u+\eta {\mathfrak{E}}_2^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[u\right]\left|X\eta \right|\left|Xu\right|\right\}.\end{array}$$

  Consequently,

  $$\begin{array}{c}{\int }_{\Omega }{\eta }^2{\mathfrak{F}}_2\left[u\right]\le C{\int }_{\Omega }\left\{\left|X{\eta }^2\right|\left|Xu\right|{\Delta }_{X}u+{\left|X\eta \right|}^2{\left|Xu\right|}^2\right\}\end{array}$$

  (4.5)

  and ( 4.3 ) follows from Theorem  3.1 .

• Proof of Theorem  1.1 . Letting $u$  and $v$  be 2-convex in $\Omega$  , $u_t=tu+(1-t)v,0\le t\le 1$  and $\eta \ge 0,\in C_0^2(\Omega )$  , we now have

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& & {\int }_{\Omega }\eta \left({\mathfrak{F}}_2\left[u\right]-{\mathfrak{F}}_2\left[v\right]\right)\end{array}$$

  (4.6)

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\int }_0^{1}dt{\int }_{\Omega }\eta {\mathfrak{F}}_2^{ij}\left[u_t\right]X_i{X}_j(u-v)\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& \frac{1}{2}{\int }_{\Omega }\eta {\mathfrak{F}}_2^{ij}[u+v]X_i{X}_j(u-v)\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& -\frac{1}{2}{\int }_{\Omega }{\mathfrak{F}}_2^{ij}{X}_i\eta X_j(u-v)\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& -\frac{1}{2}{\int }_{\Omega }\left\{{\mathfrak{F}}_2^{ji}+\frac{3}{2}[X_i,X_j](u+v)\right\}{X}_i\eta X_j(u-v)\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& \frac{1}{2}{\int }_{\Omega }\left\{{\mathfrak{F}}_2^{ij}{X}_i{X}_j\eta (u-v)-\frac{3}{2}[X_i,X_j](u+v)X_i\eta X_j(u-v)\right\}\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& \frac{1}{2}{\int }_{\Omega }{F}_2^{ij}[u+v]\left(X_i{X}_j\eta \right)(u-v)\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& & +\frac{3}{8}{\int }_{\Omega }[X_i,X_j](u+v)\left\{\left(X_i{X}_j\eta \right)(u-v)-2X_i\eta X_j(u-v)\right\}\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& :=& \frac{1}{2}{I}_1+\frac{3}{8}{I}_2\end{array}$$

  The estimation of the integral $I_1$  is similar to the corresponding term in the commuting case [15] . Namely

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}\left|I_1\right|& =& \left|{\int }_{\Omega }{F}_2^{ij}[u+v]\left(X_i{X}_j\eta \right)(u-v)\right|\end{array}$$

  (4.7)

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& \le & {\int }_{\Omega }{\Delta }_X(u+v)\left|X^2\eta \right|\left|u-v\right|.\end{array}$$

  Denoting

  $$\begin{array}{c}\delta ={\int }_{\Omega }\left|u-v\right|,K={\int }_{\Omega }\left|u+v\right|,\end{array}$$

  (4.8)

  we have, for any $\epsilon >0$  ,
  $$\left|u-v\right|<\epsilon$$ 
  except on a set $A_{\epsilon }$  of measure $\left|A_{\epsilon }\right|\le \delta /\epsilon$  . We then estimate for a further cut-off function $\tilde{\eta }\in C_0^1(\Omega )$  , $0\le \tilde{\eta }\le 1$  ,

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& & {\int }_{\Omega }\tilde{\eta }{\Delta }_X(u+v)(u-v{)}^{+}\end{array}$$

  (4.9)

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& \le & \epsilon {\int }_{\Omega }\tilde{\eta }{\Delta }_X(u+v)+{\int }_{\Omega }\tilde{\eta }(u-v-\epsilon {)}^{+}{\Delta }_X(u+v)\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& \epsilon {\int }_{\Omega }\tilde{\eta }{\Delta }_X(u+v)-{\int }_{A_{\epsilon }}{X}_i(u+v)X_i\left\{\tilde{\eta }(u-v-\epsilon {)}^{+}\right\}\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& \le & C\left(\epsilon +{\left|A_{\epsilon }\right|}^{1-\frac{2}{q}}\right)\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& \le & C\left\{\epsilon +{\left(\frac{\delta }{\epsilon }\right)}^{1-\frac{2}{q}}\right\}\end{array}$$

  by Theorem  3.1 , where $q$  is chosen so that
  $$2<q<\frac{2Q(m-1)}{(Q-1)(m-2)}$$ 
  and $C$  depends on $\tilde{\eta }$  , $K$  , $\delta$  , $X_1,\dots X_m$  . It then follows that

  $$\begin{array}{c}\left|I_1\right|\le C\left\{\epsilon +{\left(\frac{\delta }{\epsilon }\right)}^{1-\frac{2}{q}}\right\}\end{array}$$

  (4.10)

  where $C$  depends on $\eta$  , $K$  , $\delta$  , $X_1,\dots X_m$  . To estimate $I_2$  , we first use the bound for ${\mathfrak{E}}_2$  in Lemma  4.1 , to obtain

  $$\begin{array}{c}{I}_2\le C{\left\{{\int }_{supp\eta }{\left|X(u-v)\right|}^2+{\left|u-v\right|}^2\right\}}^{\frac{1}{2}},\end{array}$$

  (4.11)

  where $C$  depends on $\eta$  , $K$  , $\delta$  , $X_1,\dots X_m$  . The first part of the above integral may be estimated similarly to $I_1$  , since

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}{\int }_{\Omega }\tilde{\eta }{\left|X(u-v)\right|}^2& =& -{\int }_{\Omega }{X}_i\left(\tilde{\eta }{X}_i\right(u-v\left)\right)(u-v)\end{array}$$

  (4.12)

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& \le & {\int }_{\Omega }\left\{\left|X\tilde{\eta }\right|\left|X(u-v)\right|+\tilde{\eta }{\Delta }_X(u-v)\right\}\left|u-v\right|\end{array}$$

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}& \le & {\int }_{\Omega }\tilde{\eta }{\Delta }_X(u-v)\left|u-v\right|+C{\left\{{\int }_{supp\tilde{\eta }}{\left|u-v\right|}^2\right\}}^{\frac{1}{2}},\end{array}$$

  while the second parts of ( 4.11 ) and ( 4.12 ) are handled readily by the estimate ( 3.17 ). It follows that

  $$\begin{array}{c}{I}_2\le C{\left\{\epsilon +{\left(\frac{\delta }{\epsilon }\right)}^{1-\frac{2}{q}}\right\}}^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{array}$$

  (4.13)

  With appropriate choice of $\delta$  , we then conclude Theorem  1.1 from the estimates ( 4.10 ) and ( 4.13 ).

Remark. By inspection of the above proofs, we see that condition  (iii) may be weakened to only requiring that the vector fields $$Y_j:={\sum }_{i=1}^m[X_i,[X_i,X_j\left]\right],j=1\dots m,$$  lie in the span of $X_i,[X_i,X_j]$  , $i,j=1\dots m.$  Without condition  (iii) additional terms

$$\begin{array}{c}-\frac{1}{2}{\int }_{\Omega }{\eta }^{2}Xu.Yu\end{array}$$

(4.14)

and

$$\begin{array}{c}-\frac{1}{2}{\int }_{\Omega }\eta X(u-v).Y(u+v)+\frac{1}{2}{\int }_{\Omega }(u-v)X\eta .Y(u+v)\end{array}$$

(4.15)

will arise in the right hand sides of ( 4.4 ) and ( 4.6 ) respectively and these are then automatically controlled. More general hypotheses are clearly possible.

Note also that if $Y$  commutes with $X$  , then the quantity

$$\begin{array}{c}{\mathfrak{F}}_2^{*}\left[u\right]:={\mathfrak{F}}_2\left[u\right]+\frac{1}{2}Xu.Yu\end{array}$$

(4.16)

also satisfies the monotonicity property ( 2.9 ). For the Engel group, this was also observed in [7] .

More generally if we integrate by parts in ( 4.15 ), we find

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & {\int }_{\Omega }\eta X(u-v).Y(u+v)\end{array}$$

(4.17)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& -{\int }_{\Omega }\eta (u+v)Y.X(u-v)+(u+v)Y\eta .X(u-v)\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\int }_{\Omega }\eta \left\{X\right(u+v).Y(u-v)+(u+v\left)Z\right(u-v\left)\right\}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & -{\int }_{\Omega }(u+v)\{Y\eta .X(u-v)-X\eta .Y(u-v\left)\right\}\end{array}$$

where $Z$  is the vector field given by

$$\begin{array}{c}Z=X.Y-Y.X.\end{array}$$

(4.18)

Inserting ( 4.16 ) into ( 4.6 ) and ( 4.15 ) we may infer weak continuity results, in the absence of condition  (iii) , with respect to stronger topologies. For example $F_2$  will be weakly continuous with respect to $L_{loc}^1(\Omega )$  on 2-convex functions, with uniformly bounded $X\_$  gradients and $Y,Z\_$  gradients in $L_{loc}^{\infty }(\Omega )$  and $L_{loc}^1(\Omega )$  respectively.

Finally without hypothesis  (iii) in Lemma 2.1, we obtain, from the proof,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\int }_{\Omega }\left({\mathfrak{F}}_2\right[u]-{\mathfrak{F}}_2[v\left]\right)& \ge & -\frac{1}{2}{\int }_{\Omega }Y(u+v).X(u-v)\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& -\frac{1}{4}{\int }_{\Omega }\left\{Y\right(u+v).X(u-v)+Y(u-v\left)X\right(u+v)\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & -Z(u+v)(u-v)\}\end{array}$$

so that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\int }_{\Omega }\left({\mathfrak{F}}_2^{*}\right[u]-{\mathfrak{F}}_2^{*}[v\left]\right)& \ge & \frac{1}{4}{\int }_{\Omega }(u-v)Z(u+v)\end{array}$$

(4.19)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \ge & 0\end{array}$$

if $Z(u+v)\le 0$  . In a similar fashon, we may combine ( 4.15 ) and ( 4.17 ) in ( 4.6 ) to conclude,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\int }_{\Omega }\eta \left({\mathfrak{F}}_2^{*}\right[u]-{\mathfrak{F}}_2^{*}[v\left]\right)& =& \frac{1}{2}{I}_1+\frac{3}{8}{I}_2+\frac{3}{4}{\int }_{\Omega }(u-v)X\eta .Y(u+v)\end{array}$$

(4.20)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& +& \frac{1}{4}{\int }_{\Omega }(u^2-v^2)X.Y\eta +\frac{1}{4}{\int }_{\Omega }\eta (u-v)Z(u+v)\end{array}$$

5 General $k$  -convex functions

For our purposes here, we define a function $u\in L_{loc}^1(\Omega )$  to be $k$  -convex in $\Omega$  , with respect to the system of vector fields $X=\left(X_1\dots X_m\right)$  if, for any ${\Omega }^{\prime }\subset \subset \Omega$  , there exists a sequence of $k$  -convex functions in $C^2\left({\Omega }^{\prime }\right)$  converging to $u$  in $L_{loc}^1\left({\Omega }^{\prime }\right)$  . We designate the general class of $k$  -convex functions in $\Omega$  by ${\phi }^k\left(\Omega \right)$  . The estimates of the preceeding sections then extend as regularity properties and imbeddings of ${\phi }^k\left(\Omega \right)$  . In particular if the system $X$  satisfies conditions  (i) and  (ii) , we have from Theorem  3.1 that the distributional derivatives $Xu\in L_{loc}^q\left(\Omega \right)$  for

$$\begin{array}{c}1\le q<\frac{Qk(m-1)}{(Q-1)(m-k)}\end{array}$$

(5.1)

and that ${\phi }^k(\Omega )$  imbeds continuously in the Sobolev space,

$$\begin{array}{c}{S}_{loc}^{1,q}(\Omega )=\left\{u\in L_{loc}^1\left(\Omega \right)|Xu\in L_{loc}^q(\Omega )\right\},\end{array}$$

(5.2)

as defined, for example, in [2] , [17] . Moreover for

$$\begin{array}{c}k>\frac{(Q-1)m}{(Q+m-2)},\end{array}$$

(5.3)

we see from ( 3.18 ) that ${\phi }^k(\Omega )$  imbeds continuously in the Hölder space $C^{0,\alpha }(\Omega )$  where

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha =\frac{k(Q+m-2)-m(Q-1)}{k(m-1)},\end{array}$$

(5.4)

if $k<m$  ( $\alpha <1$  if $k=m$  ). Note that for smaller $\alpha$  , this follows from ( 3.13 ) but we need the full strength of the capacity estimates in [3] to get the sharp exponent ( 5.4 ). It follows from [10] that we can also take $\alpha =1$  when $k=m$  and $X$  generates the Lie algebra of a Carnot group.

For $k\ge 2$  , the symmetric Hessian $X_s^{2}u$  consists of signed Radon measures.

This follows exactly as in the Euclidean case [4] , [15] but it may also be observed directly from the degenerate ellipticity of $F_2$  ,

$$\begin{array}{c}{\Delta }_{X}uI-X_s^{2}u\ge 0.\end{array}$$

(5.5)

By taking limits, we see that the above quantities are measures if $u\in {\phi }^k(\Omega )$  .

If we also assume $X$  satisfies  (iii) , we obtain from Lemma  4.1 , that the commutators $[X_i,X_j]u\in L_{loc}^2(\Omega )$  for $u\in {\phi }^k(\Omega )$  , $k\ge 2$  . Hence the full Hessian $X^{2}u$  comprises Radon measures. From Theorem  3.1 , we also infer that ${\phi }^k(\Omega )$  , $k\ge 2$  , imbeds continuously into the Euclidean Sobolev space $W_{loc}^{1,2}(\Omega )$  if condition  (iii) is strengthened to all second order commutators vanishing. Also if $X$  generates the Lie algebra of a Carnot group as in [1] , then from the Hölder estimate ( 3.18 ) and the weak differentiability result in [1] we conclude that functions in ${\phi }^k(\Omega )$  will be twice differentiable almost everywhere in $\Omega$  , with respect to the system $X$  , if $k$  satisfies ( 5.3 ). This extends the corresponding result for the convex case $k=m$  in [5] , [9] , [10] and the Euclidean case $k>n/2$  in [4] .

Finally we may define the Hessian measure ${\mu }_2\left[u\right]$  , with respect to $X$  , for any function $u\in {\phi }^2(\Omega )$  by

$$\begin{array}{c}{\int }_{\Omega }\eta d{\mu }_2\left[u\right]={lim}_{m\to \infty }{\int }_{\Omega }\eta d{\mu }_2\left[u_m\right]\end{array}$$

(5.6)

where $\eta \in C_0^0(\Omega )$  , $\text{supp}\eta \subset {\Omega }^{\prime }\subset \subset \Omega$  and $\left\{u_m\right\}\subset C^2\left({\Omega }^{\prime }\right)$  is a sequence of $k$  -convex functions converging to $u$  in $L_{loc}^1\left({\Omega }^{\prime }\right)$  . By Theorem  1.1  ${\mu }_2$  is well defined and weakly continuous with respect to convergence in $L_{loc}^1(\Omega )$  , that is if $\left\{u_m\right\}\subset {\phi }^2(\Omega )$  , converges to $u\in {\phi }^2(\Omega )$  in $L_{loc}^1(\Omega )$  , the corresponding sequence of measures $\left\{{\mu }_2\right[u_m\left]\right\}$  converges weakly to ${\mu }_2\left[u\right]$  . Note that the case $\alpha =\frac{1}{2}$  in Theorem  1.1 also shows that the sum of the principal $2\times 2$  minors of the full Hessian $X^{2}u$  also extends as a weakly continuous measure on ${\phi }^2(\Omega )$  .

From Lemma  2.1 , we also conclude a more general monotonicity property, namely that if $u,v\in {\phi }^2(\Omega )$  satisfy $u\le v$  in $\Omega$  , $u=v$  continuously on $\partial \Omega$  , then

$$\begin{array}{c}{\mu }_2\left[v\right](\Omega )+\frac{3}{4}{\mathfrak{E}}_2\left[v\right]\le {\mu }_2\left[u\right](\Omega )+\frac{3}{4}{\mathfrak{E}}_2\left[u\right].\end{array}$$

(5.7)

General subharmonic functions.

More generally we may define subharmonic functions along the lines of [15] , [16] , [17] . In particular we define an upper-semicontinuous function $u:\Omega \mapsto [-\infty ,\infty )$  to be subharmonic with respect to the operator $F_k$  if $u$  satisfies $F_k\left[u\right]\ge 0$  in the viscosity sense, that is for any quadratic polynomial $q$  for which the difference $u-q$  has a finite local maximum at a point $y\in \Omega$  , we have $F_k\left[q\right]\left(y\right)\ge 0$  . For smooth vector fields and $k=1$  , this is also equivalent to our definition in [17] , which corresponds to the traditional definition of subharmonicity. A $k$  -convex function, as defined above by approximation, will be equivalent to a subharmonic function and moreover the estimates of Section 3 extend to the class of proper subharmonic functions. For Carnot groups of step 2, it follows from [10] that proper subharmonic functions will also be $k$  -convex but we would expect this characterization to hold more generally.

References

1. L. Ambrosio and V. Magnani. Weak differentiability of BV functions on stratified groups. Math. Zeit., (245):123 – 153, 2003.
2. L. Capogna, D. Danielli, and N. Garofalo. An embedding theorem and the Harnack inequality for nonlinear subelliptic equations. Comm. Part. Diff. Eqns, (18):1765 – 1794, 1993.
3. L. Capogna, D. Danielli, and N. Garofalo. Capacitary estimates and the local behaviour of solutions of nonlinear subelliptic equations. Amer. J. Math, (118):1153 – 1196, 1997.
4. N. Chaudhuri and N.S. Trudinger. An Alexsandrov type theorem for k-convex functions. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc., 71:305–314, 2005.
5. D. Danielli, N. Garofalo, D.M. Nhieu, and F. Tournier. The theorem of Busemann-Feller-Alexandrov in Carnot groups. Comm. Anal. Geom, 12(4):853–886, 2004.
6. G.B. Folland and E.M. Stein. Hardy spaces on homogeneous groups. Princeton Univ. Press, 1982.
7. N. Garofalo and F. Tournier. New properties of convex functions in the Heisenberg group. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., to appear.
8. C.E. Gutiérrez and A. Montanari. Maximum and comparison principles for convex functions on the Heisenberg group. Comm. Part. Diff. Eqns., 29:1305–1334, 2004.
9. C.E. Gutiérrez and A. Montanari. On the second order derivatives of convex functions on the Heisenberg group. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci (5), (3):349–366, 2004.
10. V. Magnani. Lipschitz continuity, Aleksandrov theorem and characterizations for H-convex functions. preprint.
11. A. Nagel, E.M. Stein, and S. Wainger. Balls and metrics defined by vector fields. Acta. Math., (155):103–147, 1985.
12. A.V. Pogorelov. Monge-Ampére equations of elliptic type. Noordhoff, Groningen, 1964.
13. E.M. Stein. Harmonic Analysis. Princeton Univ Press, 1993.
14. N.S. Trudinger and X.J. Wang. Hessian Measures I. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal., (10):225–239, 1997.
15. N.S. Trudinger and X.J. Wang. Hessian Measures II. Ann. Math, (150):579–604, 1999.
16. N.S. Trudinger and X.J. Wang. Hessian Measures III. J. Funct. Anal., (193):1–23, 2002.
17. N.S. Trudinger and X.J. Wang. On the weak continuity of elliptic operators and applications to potential theory. Amer. J. Math, (124):369 – 410, 2002.

Centre for Mathematics and its Applications, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. Email: neil.trudinger@anu.edu.au