.
Definition 1.3
Let
$A,B\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
. We say that
$B$
is cconvex with respect to
$A$
if for all
${y}_{0},{y}_{1}\in B,x\in A$
, the csegment with respect to
$x$
going from
${y}_{0}$
to
${y}_{1}$
is contained in
$B$
.
1.3 Statement of the results
We are now ready to state our main result; hereafter
$dVol$
denotes the Lebesgue measure of
${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
, and
${B}_{r}$
(resp.
${B}_{r}\left(x\right)$
) denotes a ball of radius
$r$
(resp. centered at
$x$
).
Theorem 1.4
Let
$c$
be a cost function that satisfies assumptions A1, A2, A3. Let
${\rho}_{0},{\rho}_{1}$
be two nonnegative functions. Let
$\phi $
be a
${C}^{1}$
cconvex potential, that solves
$$\begin{array}{ccc}det\left({D}_{xx}^{2}c\right(x,{G}_{\phi}\left(x\right))+{D}^{2}\phi )=det{D}_{xy}^{2}c\frac{{\rho}_{0}\left(x\right)}{{\rho}_{1}\left({G}_{\phi}\right(x\left)\right)}& & \end{array}$$ 
(3)

in the sense that
${G}_{\phi \#}{\rho}_{0}dVol={\rho}_{1}dVol$
. Assume that
${\rho}_{1}\ge \lambda >0$
and that
${\rho}_{0}$
satisfies
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\int}_{{B}_{\epsilon}}{\rho}_{0}\le C{\epsilon}^{n(1\frac{1}{p})}& & \end{array}$$ 
(4)

for some
$p\in ]n,+\infty ]$
and for all
$\epsilon >0$
. Then for
$\beta =\frac{\alpha}{4n2+\alpha}$
,
$\alpha =1\frac{n}{p}$
, we have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\parallel \phi {\parallel}_{{C}^{1,\beta}}\le {C}^{\prime},& & \end{array}$$  
and
${C}^{\prime}$
depends only on
$C$
in ( 4 ) and on the constant
${C}_{0}>0$
in condition A3. If we only know that
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\rho}_{0}\left({B}_{\epsilon}\right)=f\left(\epsilon \right){\epsilon}^{n(1\frac{1}{n})}& & \end{array}$$ 
(5)

with
${lim}_{\epsilon \to 0}f=0$
then the modulus of continuity of
$\nabla \phi $
is controlled by the modulus of continuity of
$f$
at 0.
Remark 1. Equation ( 3 ) with
${\rho}_{1}=dVol$
can also be formulated as
$$\begin{array}{ccc}Jac\left({G}_{\phi}\right)={\rho}_{0},& & \end{array}$$  
with
$Jac(\cdot )$
the Jacobian determinant, and therefore is the analog of the MongeAmpere equation
$det{D}^{2}\phi ={\rho}_{0}$
.
Remark 2.
Conditions ( 4 ) (resp. ( 5 )) are implied by
${\rho}_{0}\in {L}^{p}$
(resp.
${\rho}_{0}\in {L}^{n}$
). Note also that we obtain a continuity result even in the critical case
${\rho}_{0}\in {L}^{n}$
which is somehow surprising.
Remark 3.
Here condition A3 is not invariant under affine transformations that preserve the volume. This noninvariance might explain why we obtain better regularity in this case. Indeed, to obtain
${C}^{1,\alpha}$
regularity for the MongeAmpere equation
$det{D}^{2}u=f$
, the condition on
$f$
is
$f$
bounded away from 0 and
$\infty $
(note that affine transformations do not preserve
${L}^{p}$
norms for
$p<\infty $
). Moreover, some pathological situations known as Pogorelov’s counterexamples can happen where, with a
${C}^{\infty}$
right hand side, the solution is not strictly convex, and hence not
${C}^{2}$
(see [
?]
, [
?]
).
This Theorem is established assuming
${C}^{1}$
regularity for the following reason: we obtain the result by estimating the size of
${\partial}^{c}\phi \left({B}_{\epsilon}\right)$
for some balls
${B}_{\epsilon}$
. If we don’t have the
${C}^{1}$
regularity assumption, the subdifferential of
$\phi $
can contain more than one point, but we don’t know if for all
$p\in \partial \phi \left(x\right)$
,
$p\in {\partial}^{c}\phi \left(x\right)$
(see [
?]
for a discussion on the subject). We then use Theorem 1.4 as an apriori estimate that leads to the following corollary:
Corollary 1.5
Let
$\Omega $
and
${\Omega}^{\prime}$
be bounded open subsets of
${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
with
${\Omega}^{\prime}$
cconvex with respect to
$\Omega $
. Let
$\phi :\Omega \to {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
be a cconvex potential such that
${G}_{\phi \#}{\rho}_{0}dVol={\rho}_{1}dVol$
for
${\rho}_{0},{\rho}_{1}$
two nonnegative functions on
$\Omega $
and
${\Omega}^{\prime}$
. Assume that
${\rho}_{1}$
is bounded away from
$0$
. Then under the assumption ( 5 ),
$\phi $
is
${C}^{1}$
, and hence the Theorem 1.4 applies.
Proof. In [
?]
, it has been proved that under assumptions A13, if the densities
${\rho}_{0},{\rho}_{1}$
are
${C}^{2}$
smooth, bounded away from 0, and if
${\Omega}^{\prime}$
is cconvex with respect to
$\Omega $
, the potential
$\phi $
is
${C}^{3}$
smooth in
$\Omega $
. Hence by a standard regularization procedure, we can find smooth positive sequences
${\rho}_{0}^{\epsilon},{\rho}_{1}^{\epsilon}$
that converge to
${\rho}_{0},{\rho}_{1}$
in
${L}^{1}$
. The a priori bound of Theorem 1.4 apply to the sequence
${\phi}^{\epsilon}$
, and
${\phi}^{\epsilon}$
converges uniformly to
$\phi $
.
$\square $
2 Proof of the results
We begin by giving some heuristic arguments that explain how we obtain our results, and in particular why the results obtained here are better than those for the ’usual’ MongeAmpere equation
$$det{D}^{2}\phi =\frac{{\rho}_{0}}{{\rho}_{1}(\nabla \phi )}$$
(see [
?]
for examples of nonsmooth solutions to this equation).
Geometric interpretation of condition A3 and sketch of the proof.
We explain the geometrical meaning of condition A3, and how it will imply
${C}^{1}$
regularity for
$\phi $
: assume that for a cconvex function
$\phi $
the functions
$\phi (\cdot )c(\cdot ,{y}_{0})$
and
$\phi (\cdot )c(\cdot ,{y}_{1})$
both reach a local maximum at
$x=0$
(in other words, assume that
$\phi $
is not
${C}^{1}$
at 0). Consider
${y}_{\theta}$
the csegment centered at
$x=0$
joining
${y}_{0}$
to
${y}_{1}$
, i.e.
${y}_{\theta}={T}_{x=0}(\theta {v}_{1}+(1\theta \left){v}_{0}\right)$
with
${v}_{0},{v}_{1}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
such that
${T}_{x=0}{v}_{i}={y}_{i},i=1,2$
. Then, as we will see in Lemma 2.1 , condition A3 implies that
$\phi c(x,{y}_{\theta})$
will also have a local maximum at 0, and moreover that
${D}^{2}\phi \left(0\right)+{D}_{xx}^{2}c(0,{y}_{\theta})$
(in some generalized sense, since
$\phi $
is not
${C}^{2}$
at 0) will be bounded by below by
$\alpha I$
, with
$\alpha >0$
for
$\theta $
away from
$0,1$
. Then, by estimating all supporting functions to
$\phi $
on a small ball centered at 0, we will find that
${G}_{\phi}\left({B}_{\epsilon}\right(0\left)\right)$
contains
${B}_{C\epsilon}\left({y}_{\theta}\right)$
for some
$C>0$
, and for all
${y}_{\theta}$
, where
$\theta $
is in
$[1/4,3/4]$
. This will contradict the bound on Jacobian determinant of
${G}_{\phi}$
.
We now enter into the rigorous proof of Theorem
1.4 .
2.1 Geometric interpretation of condition A3
The core of the proof is the following lemma, which a somehow geometrical translation of assumption A3. Actually, I believe that this lemma is indeed equivalent to assumption A3 for a smooth cost function.
Lemma 2.1
For
${y}_{0},{y}_{1}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$
, let
$({y}_{\theta}{)}_{\theta \in [0,1]}$
be the csegment with respect to
$x=0$
joining
${y}_{0}$
to
${y}_{1}$
, in the sense that if
${T}_{x}\left({z}_{0}\right)={y}_{0},{T}_{x}\left({z}_{1}\right)={y}_{1}$
, we have
${y}_{\theta}={T}_{x}(\theta {z}_{1}+(1\theta \left){z}_{0}\right)$
.
Let
$\overline{\phi}=max\{c(x,{y}_{0})+c(0,{y}_{0}),c(x,{y}_{1})+c(0,{y}_{1}\left)\right\}$
. Then for all
$\epsilon >0$
, for all
$\theta \in [\epsilon ,1\epsilon ]$
, for all
$\leftx\right\le C\epsilon $
, we have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\phi}\left(x\right)\ge c(x,{y}_{\theta})+c(0,{y}_{\theta})+{\delta}_{0}{y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2}\theta (1\theta \left)\rightx{}^{2}\gamma x{}^{3},& & \end{array}$$  
where
${\delta}_{0}>0$
depends on
${C}_{0}>0$
in assumption A3,
$\gamma $
depends on
$\parallel c(\cdot ,\cdot ){\parallel}_{{C}^{3}}$
, and
$C$
is bounded away from 0 for
$\left{y}_{0}\right,\left{y}_{1}\right$
bounded.
Proof of Lemma 2.1 . Rotating the coordinate, and subtracting an affine function, we can assume the following:
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & {f}_{0}\left(x\right)=c(x,{y}_{0})+c(0,{y}_{0})=a{x}_{1}{D}_{xx}^{2}c(0,{y}_{0}).x.x/2+o\left({x}^{2}\right),\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & {f}_{1}\left(x\right)=c(x,{y}_{1})+c(0,{y}_{1})=b{x}_{1}{D}_{xx}^{2}c(0,{y}_{1}).x.x/2+o\left({x}^{2}\right),\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & c(x,{y}_{\theta})+c(0,{y}_{\theta})=[\theta b+(1\theta \left)a\right]{x}_{1}{D}_{xx}^{2}c(0,{y}_{\theta}).x.x/2+o\left({x}^{2}\right),\end{array}$$  
with
$a<b$
and where
${x}_{i}$
is the coordinate of
$x$
in the direction
${e}_{i}$
. Using the general fact that
$max\{{f}_{0},{f}_{1}\}\ge \theta {f}_{1}+(1\theta ){f}_{0}$
for
$0\le \theta \le 1$
, we have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\phi}\left(x\right)\ge (\theta b+(1\theta \left)a\right){x}_{1}\left(\theta {D}_{xx}^{2}c\right(0,{y}_{1})+(1\theta \left){D}_{xx}^{2}c\right(0,{y}_{0}\left)\right).x.x/2+o\left({x}^{2}\right).& & \end{array}$$  
Then we use the assumption A3:
Lemma 2.2
Under assumption A3,
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{D}_{xx}^{2}c(0,{y}_{\theta}).x.x\le \left(\right(1\theta \left){D}_{xx}^{2}c\right(0,{y}_{0})+\theta {D}_{xx}^{2}c(0,{y}_{1}\left)\right).x.x\delta x{}^{2}+\Delta {x}_{1}\left\rightx,& & \end{array}$$  
$\delta ={\delta}_{0}{y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2}\theta (1\theta )$
,
${\delta}_{0}$
depends on
${C}_{0}$
in assumption A3, and
$\Delta ={\Delta}_{0}{y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2}\theta (1\theta )$
,
${\Delta}_{0}$
depends on
$c(\cdot ,\cdot {)}_{{C}^{4}}$
.
Proof. Let
$f:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$
be convex, with
${f}^{\prime \prime}\ge \alpha >0$
. Then we have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\theta f\left({y}_{0}\right)+(1\theta )f\left({y}_{1}\right)\ge f(\theta {y}_{0}+(1\theta \left){y}_{1}\right)+C\theta (1\theta ){y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2},& & \end{array}$$  
where
$C>0$
depends on
$\alpha >0$
. Then note that the convexity assumption A3 concerns only
${D}_{\xi \xi}c$
for
$\xi \perp {e}_{1}$
. For the
${e}_{1}$
direction, we note that for a
${C}^{2}$
function
$f$
, we have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left\theta f\right({y}_{0})+(1\theta \left)f\right({y}_{1})f(\theta {y}_{0}+(1\theta ){y}_{1}\left)\right\le C\theta (1\theta ){y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2},& & \end{array}$$  
where
$C$
depends on
$\parallel f{\parallel}_{{C}^{2}}$
.
$\square $
Using the previous lemma, we now have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\phi}& \ge & (\theta b+(1\theta \left)a\right){x}_{1}{D}_{xx}^{2}c(0,{y}_{\theta}).x.x/2\end{array}$$ 
(6)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& +& \delta x{}^{2}\Delta {x}_{1}\left\rightx+o(\leftx{}^{2}\right).\end{array}$$  
We need to eliminate the term
$\Delta \left{x}_{1}\right\leftx\right$
. In order to do so, notice that
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left{D}_{xx}^{2}c\right(0,{y}_{\theta}).x.x/2{D}_{xx}^{2}c(0,{y}_{{\theta}^{\prime}}).x.x/2\le C\theta {\theta}^{\prime}x{}^{2}.& & \end{array}$$  
Then in ( 6 ), we can write
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\delta x{}^{2}\Delta x\left\right{x}_{1}& =& {y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2}\theta (1\theta \left)\right({\delta}_{0}x{}^{2}{\Delta}_{0}x\left\right{x}_{1}\left\right)\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \ge & {y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2}\theta (1\theta \left)\right({\delta}_{0}x{}^{2}/2{\Delta}_{0}^{2}/(2{\delta}_{0}\left)\right{x}_{1}{}^{2}).\end{array}$$  
Hence we have, setting
$\delta :=\delta /2$
,
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\phi}\ge & & ({\theta}^{\prime}b+(1{\theta}^{\prime}\left)a\right){x}_{1}{D}_{xx}^{2}c(0,{y}_{\theta}^{\prime}).x.x/2\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & +\delta x{}^{2}+((ba)(\theta {\theta}^{\prime}){C}_{0}{x}_{1}){x}_{1}C\theta {\theta}^{\prime}\left\rightx{}^{2}.\end{array}$$  
where
${C}_{0}=\theta (1\theta ){y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2}{\Delta}_{0}^{2}/(2{\delta}_{0})$
. Taking
${\theta}^{\prime}\in [\epsilon ,1\epsilon ]$
,
$\theta ={\theta}^{\prime}+{x}_{1}{C}_{0}/(ba)$
, and restricting to
$\left{x}_{1}\right\le (ba){C}_{0}^{1}\epsilon $
, we can find
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\forall \theta \in [\epsilon ,1\epsilon ],\overline{\phi}\ge (\theta b+(1\theta \left)a\right){x}_{1}{D}_{xx}^{2}c(0,{y}_{\theta}).x.x/2+\delta x{}^{2}+o(\leftx{}^{2}\right).& & \end{array}$$  
Noticing that all the terms
$o\left(\rightx{}^{2})$
are in fact bounded by
$C\left{D}^{3}c\right(\cdot ,\cdot \left)\rightx{}^{3}$
, and that
$\theta b+(1\theta )a={\nabla}_{x}c(0,{y}_{\theta})$
, we conclude the lemma.
$\square $
2.2 Bounds on the modulus of continuity of
$\nabla \phi $
Here we suppose that there exists
${x}_{0}$
and
${x}_{1}$
close such that
$\nabla \phi \left({x}_{1}\right)\nabla \phi \left({x}_{0}\right)$
is large compared to
${x}_{1}{x}_{0}$
. If this does not happen, then
$\phi $
is
${C}^{1,1}$
.
We can assume that
$\phi \left({x}_{0}\right)=\phi \left({x}_{1}\right)$
. The supporting functions
$c(x,{y}_{0})+c({x}_{0},{y}_{0})+\phi \left({x}_{0}\right)$
and
$c(x,{y}_{1})+c({x}_{1},{y}_{1})+\phi \left({x}_{1}\right)$
will cross somewhere (say at
${x}_{m}$
) on the segment
$[{x}_{0},{x}_{1}]$
. We might suppose that at this point they are equal to 0.
Lemma 2.3
Under the assumptions made above, we have
$\phi \le {C}_{1}{x}_{1}{x}_{0}{y}_{1}{y}_{0}$
in the segment
$[{x}_{0},{x}_{1}]$
.
Proof. We have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}H& =& \phi \left({x}_{0}\right)={\nabla}_{x}c({x}_{m},{y}_{0})\cdot ({x}_{0}{x}_{m})+O\left(\right{x}_{0}{x}_{m}{}^{2})\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& \phi \left({x}_{1}\right)={\nabla}_{x}c({x}_{m},{y}_{1})\cdot ({x}_{1}{x}_{m})+O\left(\right{x}_{1}{x}_{m}{}^{2}).\end{array}$$  
By semiconvexity, on
$[{x}_{0},{x}_{1}]$
we have
$\phi \le H+C{x}_{1}{x}_{0}{}^{2}$
. Then we assume that
${\nabla}_{x}c({x}_{m},{y}_{0})\cdot ({x}_{0}{x}_{m})$
and
${\nabla}_{x}c({x}_{m},{y}_{1})\cdot ({x}_{1}{x}_{m})$
are both positive, otherwise we are done. Then we have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}2H& \le & {\nabla}_{x}c({x}_{m},{y}_{0})\cdot ({x}_{0}{x}_{1}){\nabla}_{x}c({x}_{m},{y}_{1})\cdot ({x}_{1}{x}_{0})+Cx{x}_{1}{}^{2}\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \le & C{x}_{1}{x}_{0}{y}_{1}{y}_{0}+Cx{x}_{1}{}^{2},\end{array}$$  
where
$C$
depends on
$\left{D}_{xy}c\right,\left{D}_{xx}c\right$
. Recall that we assume that
${x}_{1}{x}_{0}$
is small compared to
${y}_{1}{y}_{0}$
, otherwise there is nothing to prove; this means that
${x}_{1}{x}_{0}{}^{2}$
is small compared to
${x}_{1}{x}_{0}{y}_{1}{y}_{0}$
, and we conclude.
$\square $
We use again Lemma 2.1 (centered at
${x}_{m}$
) that will yield
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\phi \left(x\right)& \ge & max\{c(x,{y}_{0})+c({x}_{m},{y}_{0}),c(x,{y}_{1})+c({x}_{m},{y}_{1}\left)\right\}\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \ge & c(x,{y}_{\theta})+c({x}_{m},{y}_{\theta})+{\delta}_{0}\theta (1\theta ){y}_{0}{y}_{1}{}^{2}x{x}_{m}{}^{2}\gamma x{x}_{m}{}^{3}.\end{array}$$  
for all
$\theta \in [\epsilon ,1\epsilon ]$
,
$x{x}_{m}\le C\epsilon $
, and with
${y}_{\theta}$
the csegment from
${x}_{m}$
joining
${y}_{0}$
to
${y}_{1}$
. Note that
$\epsilon $
is small but fixed once for all.
We want to find supporting functions to
$\phi $
on a ball of suitable radius.
For that we consider a function of the form
$$\begin{array}{ccc}c(x,y)+c({x}_{m},y)+\phi \left({x}_{m}\right).& & \end{array}$$  
Of course, this function coincides with
$\phi $
at
${x}_{m}$
. We then have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & c(x,y)+c({x}_{m},y)+\phi \left({x}_{m}\right)\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \le & c(x,{y}_{\theta})+c({x}_{m},{y}_{\theta})+{C}_{2}y{y}_{\theta}x{x}_{m}+{C}_{1}{x}_{1}{x}_{0}{y}_{1}{y}_{0},\end{array}$$  
where
${C}_{2}$
depends on
$\left{D}_{xy}^{2}c\right$
, and we have used Lemma 2.3 to estimate
$\phi \left({x}_{m}\right)$
. We want this to be bounded by
$$c(x,{y}_{\theta})+c({x}_{m},{y}_{\theta})+{\delta}_{0}\theta (1\theta ){y}_{0}{y}_{1}{}^{2}x{x}_{m}{}^{2}\gamma x{x}_{m}{}^{3}.$$
First we restrict
$\theta $
to
$[1/4,3/4]$
, then we want
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\delta}_{0}{y}_{0}{y}_{1}{}^{2}x{x}_{m}{}^{2}\gamma x{x}_{m}{}^{3}\ge {C}_{2}y{y}_{\theta}\left\rightx{x}_{m}+{C}_{1}{x}_{1}{x}_{0}\left\right{y}_{1}{y}_{0}.& & \end{array}$$  
We choose
$y{y}_{\theta}\le {C}_{3}x{x}_{m}{y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2}$
for
${C}_{3}$
small enough (for example
${C}_{3}={\delta}_{0}/4$
) , and the above inequality will be satisfied for
$$\begin{array}{ccc}x{x}_{m}{}^{2}={C}_{4}\frac{{x}_{1}{x}_{0}}{{y}_{1}{y}_{0}},& & \end{array}$$  
if for this value of
$x{x}_{m}$
, we have indeed
$x{x}_{m}\le {\delta}_{0}/\left(2\gamma \right){y}_{0}{y}_{1}{}^{2}$
. If not then it means that
${y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{5}\le C{x}_{1}{x}_{0}$
and we are done.
Now we assume that this is not the case, and therefore the ratio
$\frac{{x}_{1}{x}_{0}}{{y}_{1}{y}_{0}}$
is small. Hence we consider a ball of radius
$$\nu =C{\left(\frac{{x}_{1}{x}_{0}}{{y}_{1}{y}_{0}}\right)}^{1/2}$$
centered at
${x}_{m}$
.
We denote
$\mu ={C}_{3}\nu {y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2}$
. We denote
${N}_{\mu}\left(S\right)$
the
$\mu $
neighborhood of a set
$S$
. The functions
$c(x,y)+c({x}_{m},y)+\phi \left({x}_{m}\right)$
, for
$y\in {N}_{\mu}\{{y}_{\theta},\theta \in [1/4,3/4\left]\right\}$
will be equal to
$\phi $
at
${x}_{m}$
, and will be below
$\phi $
on the the boundary of the ball
${B}_{\nu}\left({x}_{m}\right)$
. Hence they are supporting functions to
$\phi $
at some point in
${B}_{\nu}\left({x}_{m}\right)$
.
The volume of all such
$y$
is comparable to
$$[{y}_{1}{y}_{0}]{\mu}^{n1}\sim [{y}_{1}{y}_{0}]{\nu}^{n1}{y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2(n1)},$$
while the ball around
${x}_{m}$
has a volume comparable to
${\nu}^{n}$
.
If the Jacobian determinant of the mapping
${G}_{\phi}$
is bounded, we get that
${y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2n1}\le C\nu $
. This implies
$${y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2n1}\le C{\left(\frac{{x}_{1}{x}_{0}}{{y}_{1}{y}_{0}}\right)}^{1/2},$$
thus we conclude, using
${\nabla}_{x}c(x,{y}_{i})=\nabla \phi \left({x}_{i}\right),i=0,1$
, that
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\nabla \phi ({x}_{1})\nabla \phi ({x}_{0}\left)\right\le C{x}_{1}{x}_{0}{}^{\frac{1}{4n1}}.& & \end{array}$$  
We can refine the argument: Let
$F$
be defined by
$$\begin{array}{ccc}F\left(V\right)=sup\{dVol({G}_{\phi}\left(B\right)),B\text{a ball of volume}V\}.& & \end{array}$$  
We have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}F\left(V\right)\le (inf{\rho}_{1}{)}^{1}{sup}_{\leftB\right=V}{\int}_{B}{\rho}_{0}.& & \end{array}$$  
Then we have
$F\left(\right{B}_{\nu}\left\right)\ge dVol\left({N}_{\mu}\right\{{y}_{\theta},\theta \in [1/4,3/4]\left\}\right)$
, which gives
$$\begin{array}{ccc}F\left(\frac{{x}_{1}{x}_{0}{}^{n/2}}{{y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{n/2}}\right)\ge C{x}_{1}{x}_{0}{}^{(n1)/2}{y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{(3n1)/2}.& & \end{array}$$ 
(7)

Assume that
$F\left(V\right)\le C{V}^{\kappa}$
for some
$\kappa \in \mathbb{R}$
. Note that
${\rho}_{0}\in {L}^{p}$
implies that
$F\left(V\right)=O\left({V}^{11/p}\right)$
, hence we may write
$\kappa =11/p$
for some
$p\in ]1,+\infty ]$
.
Then we find
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2n1+\frac{1}{2}(1\frac{n}{p})}\le C{x}_{1}{x}_{0}{}^{\frac{1}{2}(1\frac{n}{p})}.& & \end{array}$$  
We see first that we need
$p>n$
, then we get, setting
$\alpha =1n/p$
,
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{y}_{1}{y}_{0}\le {x}_{1}{x}_{0}{}^{\frac{\alpha}{4n2+\alpha}}.& & \end{array}$$  
If we only know that
$F\left(V\right)=o\left({V}^{11/n}\right)$
, (which is true if
${\rho}_{0}\in {L}^{n}$
), we write
$F\left(V\right)={\left[f\left({V}^{2/n}\right)\right]}^{2n1}{V}^{11/n}$
, for some nondecreasing
$f$
, with
${lim}_{V\to 0}f=0$
. We then have, as
${x}_{1}{x}_{0}$
goes to 0,
$\frac{{x}_{1}{x}_{0}}{{y}_{1}{y}_{0}}$
that goes also to 0 (otherwise there is nothing to prove). Using the special form of
$F$
in ( 7 ), we get
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{f}^{2n1}\left(\frac{{x}_{1}{x}_{0}}{{y}_{1}{y}_{0}}\right)\ge {y}_{1}{y}_{0}{}^{2n1},& & \end{array}$$  
hence we get that
${y}_{1}{y}_{0}$
goes to 0 when
${x}_{1}{x}_{0}$
goes to 0. Let
$g$
be the function such that
${y}_{1}{y}_{0}\le g\left(\right{x}_{1}{x}_{0}\left\right)$
(
$g$
is the modulus of continuity of
${G}_{\phi}$
), then
$g$
satisfies
$$\begin{array}{ccc}f\left(\frac{u}{g\left(u\right)}\right)\ge g\left(u\right).& & \end{array}$$  
This yields a uniform control on the modulus of continuity of
${G}_{\phi}$
: indeed, for
$v>0$
, if
$g>v$
, then
$f(u/v)\ge v$
, and
$u\ge v{f}^{1}\left(v\right)$
. The function
$v\to v{f}^{1}\left(v\right)$
is nondecreasing and goes to
$0$
when
$v$
goes to 0. Considering
$\omega $
its inverse,
$\omega $
is the modulus of continuity of
${G}_{\phi}$
. Finally we have
$\nabla \phi \left(x\right)={\nabla}_{x}c(x,{G}_{\phi}(x\left)\right)$
, and the continuity of
$\nabla \phi $
is asserted.
$\square $
Remark. The power
$\beta =\frac{\alpha}{4n2+\alpha}$
is not optimal for example if
$n=1,p=+\infty $
, for which the
${C}^{1,1}$
regularity is trivial, but note that in order to obtain this bound, we had to assume that
${y}_{1}{y}_{0}\ge {x}_{1}{x}_{0}{}^{1/5}$
, and, before, that
${x}_{1}{x}_{0}=o\left(\right{y}_{1}{y}_{0}\left\right)$
. Hence the conclusion should be: either
$\phi $
is
${C}^{1,1}$
, or
$\phi $
is
${C}^{1,1/5}$
or
$\phi $
is
${C}^{1,\beta}$
. Note that
$\beta \le 1/7$
for
$n\ge 2$
.
Gregoire Loeper EPFL, SBIMA 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland gregoire.loeper@epfl.ch