arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 5 Dec 2018

Transcription

1 The non-local mean-field equation on an interval arxiv:8.65v [math.ap] 5 Dec 8 Azahara DelaTorre Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Ali Hyder UBC Vancouver Yannick Sire John Hopkins University December 6, 8 Abstract Luca Martinazzi Universitá di Padova We consider the fractional mean-field equation on the interval = (, ( u = ρ e u eu dx, subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions, and prove that existence holds if and only if ρ < π. This requires the study of blowing-up sequences of solutions. We provide a series of tools in particular which can be used (and extended to higher-order mean field equations of non-local type. ntroduction Given a number ρ >, we consider the non-local mean-field equation subject to the Dirichlet boundary condition ( e u u = ρ, = (, ( eu dx u in R\. ( There are different ways to define the fractional Laplacian ( and therefore make sense of Problem (-(. Consider the space of functions L (R defined by L(R = {u L loc (R : R u(x + x dx < }. (3 For a function u L(R one can define ( u as a tempered distribution as follows: ( u,ϕ := u( ϕdx, ϕ S, (4 R where S denotes the Schwartz space of rapidly decreasing smooth functions and for ϕ S we set ( ϕ := F ( ˆϕ.

2 Here the Fourier transform is defined by ˆϕ(ξ Fϕ(ξ := π R e ixξ ϕ(xdx. Notice that the convergence of the integral in (4 follows from the fact that for ϕ S one has ( ϕ(x C(+ x. f u C,α ( we can also define ( u(x := π P.V. u(x u(y R (x y dy, x. These definitions are equivalent for the functions that we shall consider, namely function in C, (R vanishing outside. n fact, every solution to (-( lies in C, (R, see e.g. Corollary.6 of [6], and it is smooth inside by a standard bootstrap argument. Therefore there is no loss of generality in working only with functions in C, (R C (. n this paper we shall develop some tools to treat existence and non-existence for problem (-(. n spite of the possibility of working with the extention of u to the upper half-plane, i.e. of localizing the problem as often done, we will only use purely non-local methods, that can be best extended to treat also non-local higher-dimensional cases. n dimension the ana of Problem (-( is e u u = ρω eu dx in Ω, u = on Ω, Ω R (5 where Ω is smoothly bounded. As proven in [4] using variational arguments (minimization of a suitable functional and in [5] via probabilistic methods, Problem (5 has a solution for every ρ (,8π. The threshold 8π is sharp since when Ω is star-shaped (5 has no solution for every ρ 8π by the Pohozaev identity. f, on the other hand, Ω is not simply connected or it is replaced by a closed Riemann surface (Σ,g of genus at least, in which case (5 is replaced by ( e u g u = ρ in Σ, (6 Σ eu dv g Ding-Jost-Li-Wang [8] proved that (6 admits a solution for every ρ (8π, 6π. Struwe and Tarantello [7] independently proved a similar result on the flat torus and for ρ (8π,4π. For a general closed surface (including a sphere Malchiodi [8] proved existence for every ρ 8πN, using the barycenter technique, see also [9]. An important tool in proving such existence results is an a priori study of the blowingup behavior of sequences (u k of solutions to (5 or (6 with ρ = ρ k. This was performed by Brezis-Merle [3] and Li-Shafrir [6] for the Liouville equation, which arises from (5 by adding a constant. Theses seminal works have several extensions to even dimension 4 and higher, see e.g. [9],[5] and [3], using higher-dimensional compactness results, see e.g. []. n order to study the -dimensional case we will need the following anaue non-local blow-up result.

3 Theorem Let u k be a sequence of solutions to (, ( with ρ = ρ k >. Then up to a subsequence one of the following is true: (i (u k is bounded in C, (R Cloc l ( for every l N. (ii lim k u k ( = ρ k π as k. (7 Moreover, for < σ < u k πg in C,σ loc (R\{}, (8 where G is the Green function of ( on with Dirichlet boundary condition. Let us notice that if we replace the right-hand side of ( with the nonlinearity e u, nonlocal compactness problems have been studied in [4] and [7], but the techniques used there are different, for instance because of the lack of a Pohozaev-type identity. n fact a result ana to (8 is still unknown in the fractional case, although in dimension it was recently proven by Druet-Thizy [], see also []. Using Theorem and Schauder s fixed-point theorem we are able to prove the following result about existence and non-existence. Theorem There exists a non-trivial non-negative solution u = u ρ to (( if and only if ρ (,π. Moreover, u ρ ( as ρ π. Although our method is topoical, it is plausible that a variational argument in the spirit of [4] can also be employed. The non-existence for ρ π follows at once from a Pohozaev-type inequality (see Proposition 6, consistently with the non-existence in dimension when the domain is star-shaper. Notice that the critical threshold π in Theorem corresponds to the value 8π for Problems (5 and (6. The last statement of Theorem is about the existence of blowing-up sequences of solutions, namely it shows that the situation presented in Case (ii of Theorem actually occurs. The proof will follow by contradiction, together with the non-existence result of ρ = π. n dimension and higher, several such results (sometimes very subtle are obtained by the Lyapunuv-Schmidt reduction. For instance, when Ω is simply connected, Weston [3] proved existence of solutions to (5 blowing-up on a critical point of the Robin function of Ω, and [8] extended this result to the non-simply connected case. Multi-peak solutions have also been constructed, starting with the seminal work of Baraket-Pacard[], see e.g. the work [] and its references. We also mention that in dimension, when Ω is simply connected and ρ (,8π, Suzuki [8] proved uniqueness of solutions for Problems (5. t is reasonable to expect that the same holds in dimension for (-(. Acknowledgements We are grateful to Francesca Da Lio for reading the manuscript and for very useful remarks and to Gabriele Mancini for interesting conversations. The first, second and third author have been supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation projects n. PPP-44669, PPP-7588/ and PBSP-764. The first author is also partially supported by Spanish government grants MTM4-54-C3--P and MTM P. The fourth author is supported by a Simons fellowship. 3

4 Preliminaries We shall use the Green function defined by the formula ( G x (y := π ( ( x ( y + xy x y =: π x y +H(x,y, x,y (9 and G x (y = for x, y R\. t is well-known (see e.g. [] that ( G x = δ x for x. ( As usual, usingthegreen function we can write solutions to (-( in terms of agreen representation formula. Lemma 3 A function u C (R C ( solves (-( if and only if u(x = ρ e u(y G x (y eu(ξ dξ dy. Proof. This standard proof can be found for instance in the proof of [, Proposition 7] (dentity (5 in particular. Corollary 4 f u solves (-(, then u > in. n the following lemma we apply a non-local version of the famous moving-plane technique. Lemma 5 Let u C (R C ( solve (-(. Then u is even and decreasing, in the sense that u(x = u( x and u(x u(y for x y. Proof. This follows at once from the moving plane technique, see Theorem in the Appendix. Proposition 6 Let û C (R C ( be a solution to û(x = G x (yeû(y dy +c, for some c R. Then for we have ρ < π. ρ := eû(y dy, Proof. We fix ψ C ((, such that ψ = on [, and ψ = on (,. Set for ε > small enough, ψ ε (x := ψ( x ε. We can rewrite û as û(x = ( ψ ε π x y ( x y eû(y dy + H(x,yeû(y dy +w(x+c, ( 4

5 where w(x := w ψ,ε (x := π ( ( ψ ε x y ( x y eû(y dy. ( Note that by definition of ψ ε we integrate only on [ ε,ε], so we obtain w L ( Cε ε eû L (. Moreover, w C (, which follows from û C (. Differentiating under the integral sign in ( we get û (x = ( π x x y ψ ε( x y eû(y dy + x H(x,yeû(y dy +w (x. We define as the quantity that we obtain multiplying the above identity by xeû(x and integrating over, i.e, := xû (xeû(x dx. On the one hand, since û is even by Lemma 5, integration by parts yields = eû( eûdx = eû( ρ. (3 On the other hand, by definition = x π x + =: ( x y ψ ε( x y x x H(x,yeû(y eû(x dydx+ eû(y eû(x dydx w (xxeû(x dx Using that ψ ε = on [,ε] we obtain = ( x ψ ε( x y x y + π x y x y ψ ε ( x y x y = ψ ε π ( x y eû(y eû(x dydx F(x,ydydx π + π x y x y ψ ε( x y eû(y eû(x dydx =: J +J +J 3, eû(y eû(x dydx where F(x,y := x+y ( ψ ε ( x y x y x y ψ ε( x y x y eû(y eû(x. By dominated convergence theorem, using the definition and regularity of ψ we can assert J ε ρ π, J 3 ε. 5

6 Moreover, since F(x,y = F(y,x, we have J =. Therefore, we get We claim now that 3 <. To prove it, we first compute ε ρ π. (4 x x H(x,y = x ( π x ( x ( y + xy = x y y x x π ( x ( y + xy x y π ( x ( y + xy, This inequality together with Lemma 5 (which implies û( x = û(x prove the claim as follows 3 xy π ( x ( y + xy eûk(y eûk(x dydx =: π <, K(x,yeûk(y eûk(x dydx where the last inequality follows from ( K(x,y := xy ( x ( y + xy > ( x ( y ++xy on (, (,. Finally we show that 4 as ε. ndeed, integration by parts and the bound for the function w defined in ( hold 4 = (+û eûwdx+o ε ( = o ε (+o ε ( ε û eûdx, where we used that û eû L (. ndeed, by Lemma 5, û on (,, so we have Summarising, we obtain that û eûdx = (eû dx = (eû( <. = < + 4 ε ρ π, The proposition follows immediately from (3. 6

7 3 Proof of Theorem We set ( û k := u k α k, α k := eu kdx ρ k. (5 Using Lemma 3 we write û k (x = and C l loc G x (yeûk(y dy α k, u k (x = eûk dx = ρ k, (6 G x (yeûk(y dy. (7 f û k ( C, then by (7 u k is bounded in C,α ([,] for every α [, ] and in (, for l, so that possibility (i in the theorem occurs. n the following we assume that û k ( and we shall set r k := e û k(. Lemma 7 Assume that û k (. Then we have i r k u k (. ii η k (x := û k (r k x+(r k η (x := +x in C loc (R. iii lim R lim k Rrk Rr k eûkdx = π. iv α k. v û k in Cloc (Ī \{}. Proof. Step We show that r k u k (. ndeed from (7, for every δ > ( u k ( = + G (yeûk(y dy y <δ δ< y < eûk( G (ydy +eûk(δ y <δ Ceûk( δ δ +eûk(δ. δ< y < G (ydy Note that for both inequalities we have used that, by Lemma 5, û is decreasing on y. Sinceδ > is arbitrarysmall, andû k (δ (otherwiseproposition6wouldbeviolated, multiplying both sides of the inequality by r k, letting k and δ we complete the proof of i. We will divide the proof of part ii in three main steps: 7

8 Step For every ε > there exists R such that for k large η k (x +xdx < ε. x >r k x >R On the one hand, by definition of η k and r k and by (7 (which implies u(x = if x > we obtain that η k (x = r k α k = u k ( for x > r k. Then, we can assert that η k (x +x dx Cu k k(r k. On the other hand, again by definition of η k and r k and by (7, for x < r k we have η k (x = u k (r k x u k ( = y π r k x y eûk(y dy + (H(r k π x,y H(,yeûk(y dy =: f k (x+g k (x. First, we bound the first integral as follows. Changing the variable y r k y we obtain ( y f k (x = e ηk(y dy, x y y <r k and with Fubini s theorem we bound f k (x R +x dx C e η k(y y x y y <r k R We claim that for R sufficiently large f k (x R +xdx < ε. dx +x dy, R := ( r k,r k \( R,R. By the previous bound (8, this would follow immediately once we prove y dx x y < ε for y. (9 +x R Note that the inequality is trivial if y <. Splitting R into R = 3 i=a i, A := { x y } R, A := { x y } R, A 3 := R \(A A we write R y dx 3 x y +x = i= Using that x y y on A one gets ( C A i y dx x y +x =: ( +( +( 3. x >R 8 dx +x < ε 4. (8

9 Since x y x on A ( C x R x +x dx < ε 4 for y. Finally, we have y x on A 3, and using the assumption y, we get for R large enough x ( 3 C +x dx+cmin{ R, y } x y dx A 3 x R ε 8 +Cmin{ R, y } y (+ y < ε 4. This proves (9. Using that H(x,y C + ( x, one easily gets g k (x R +xdx < ε for R. Step follows. Step 3 (Equicontinuity For every ε > and R > there exists δ = δ(ε,r > such that η k (x η k (x < ε for x x < δ with x,x ( R,R. We have η k (x η k (x = r kx y π r k x y eûk(y dy + (H(r k x,y H(r k x π,yeûk(y dy =: f k (x,x +g k (x,x. t is easy to see, using the continuity of H, that g k (x,x < ε if δ > is sufficiently small. For M R ( f k (x,x + π r kx y y Mr k Mr k y r k x y eûk(y dy = π x y x y eηk(y dy + π x y x y eηk(y dy y M =: (+(. M y r k As η k, for every fixed M > we can choose δ > so that ( < ε. Since x y x y = + x x O( M for x,x ( R,R and y M >> R, one gets ( C M x x e ηk(y dy C y r M x x C δ M. k This proves Step 3. 9

10 Step 4 (Up to a subsequence η k η in Cloc (R where η satisfies (S(R is the Schwartz space η( ϕdx = e η ϕdx for every ϕ S(R. R R This follows directly, by Ascoli-Arzelá Theorem, from Steps and 3. Then, by a classification results, see e.g. [6, Theorem.8] or [7, Theorem.7], η = η, and ii is proven. Moreover, as a corollary of ii we obtain iii: Rrk R lim lim R k eûk dx = lim Rr k R R +xdx = π. Step 5 We prove here α k. Assume by contradiction that α k. Then for every ε > and for k large, from (6, and together with ii û k (x π ( x y eûk(y dy C 3 C, ε x. x This contradicts ρ k < π, thanks to Proposition 6. Thus, part iv is proved. Step 6 û k in Cloc (Ī \{}. Since û k is monotone decreasing, it is sufficient to show that û k (ε for every ε >. As û k ( ε, which follows from ρ k < π and the monotonicity of û k, we have û k (ε+α k C(+ ε + ( π ε y eûk(y dy y ε < ε C(+ ε +Ceûk( ε C(ε. This bound, together with Step 5, implies Step 6. n this way, we have proved part v, and with it, the whole Lemma. Lemma 8 For σ (, we have u k πg in C,σ loc (Ī \{}. ( Proof. C convergence: We write u k (x πg (x = (G x (y G (xeûk(y dy +(ρ k πg (x =: v k (x+(ρ k πg (x. t follows that (ρ k πg in C (Ī, thanks to Proposition 6 and part iii of Lemma 7. For < ε x we have G x (y G (x ε if y ε and G x (y G (x C +C x y +C ( y for y <.

11 This bound together with part v of Lemma 7 would imply v k in Cloc (Ī \{}. We claim that [u k ] C, ((ε, C(ε for every ε >. Then the C,σ loc (Ī \ {} convergence for σ < will follow immediately from the Ascoli- Arzerlà Theorem. For x (ε, and h > with x+h we have u k (x+h u k (x = x y π x+h y eûk(y dy + (H(x+h,y H(x,yeûk(y dy =: + Since x y x+h y = O ε(h for y ε, x ε, h >, and û k in Cloc (Ī \{} by part v in Lemma 7, we obtain C ε h+c x y x+h y dy C εh h. n order to bound we use H(x+h,y H(x,y = = h π t H(x+th,ydt = O(h y = O(h y = O(h y y y (x+th (x+th ( (x+th ( y + (x+thy dt dt +O(h (x+th dt (x+th dt (x+th = O( ( x x h y y (x+thy dt (x+th = O( h, ( y where, since x+th t (,, nd to 3rd equality follows from { } ( (x+th ( y + (x+thy min ( (x+th ( y, (x+thy and 3rd to 4th equality follows from y y (x+thy y C. y

12 Therefore This proves our claim. C h y eûk(y dy C h. 4 Proof of Theorem We set We define T ρ : X X given by X := C ([,], u X := max [,] u(x. T ρ (u(x := ρ e u(y G(x, y eu(ξ dξ dy. Lemma 9 For every ρ > the operator T ρ is compact. Proof. Let (u k be a sequence of functions in X such that u k X M. Then, up to a subsequence, e u k dx c, for some c >. Moreover, there exists C = C(M,ρ > such that for every x,x T ρ (u k (x T ρ (u k (x C x y x y dy +C H(x,y H(x,y dy where we have used that C x x, H(x,y H(x,y C x x ( y, which follows from (. Thus, the sequence (T ρ (u k is bounded in C (, and hence, it is pre-compact in X. Proof of Theorem (completed. Non-existence of solutions to (-( for ρ π follows at once from Proposition 6. We will use the Schauder fixed-point theorem to prove that T ρ has a fixed point (say u ρ for every ρ (,π, which by Lemma 3 will be a solution to (-(. Fix ρ (,π, and consider any sequence (t k,u k (,] X such that u k = t k T ρ (u k. Then u k satisfies (-( with ρ replaced by ρt k < π. Therefore, by Theorem there exists C > such that u k X C. Hence, by Schauder s theorem, T ρ has a fixed point in X, which is a solution to (-(. For ρ (,π let u ρ X be a fixed point of T ρ. Since T π does not have a fixed point, thanks to Proposition 6, and, since u ρ ( = max u(ρ by Lemma 5, we must have u ρ ( as ρ π.

13 5 Appendix We present here a self-contained proof of the non-local moving-plane technique in the simple case of an interval. t will be based on the following non-local Hopf-type lemma, which is now a rather classical result (see e.g. [5, Theorem ], [, Lemma.] or [3, Lemma.7]. We present a proof here, since we could not find a reference fitting our assumptions, and the same result can be used in other fractional problems on an interval, see e.g. [9]. Lemma (Hopf-type lemma Let w L (R C (R be a solution to ( w(x = c(xw(x on (a, w(x = w( x on R w on (, for some bounded function c, and a [,. Assume that w is C 3 in a neighborhood of the origin. Then w on R if and only if w ( =. Proof. We assume by contradiction that w on R and w ( =. Then, as w is an odd function, we have w( = w ( = w ( =. Hence, by Taylor expansion, for some δ > w(y w(x = (y xw (x+ (y x w (x+o((x y 3 w(x = O(x 3, w (x = O(x, w (x = O(x, ( for every x,y ( δ,δ. For x < near the origin we write ( w(x = π P.V. w(x w(y R (x y dy = ( P.V. K(x,y(w(x w(ydy + π where y< =: π [P.V.(+(], y< w(x (x+y dy ( K(x,y := (x y (x+y > on (, (,. This implies that w < on (a,, since if w(x = for some x (a,, we would have = ( w(x = P.V. K(x,yw(ydy <, contradiction. Consequently, w M on (a,a for some M > and a < a < a <. For x < very close to the origin and for a >> ε >> x we split (, into (, = 5 i= A i where A := (x,, A = ( ε,x, A 3 := (a,a, A 4 := (a, ε, A 5 := (,a. y< We now write ( = 5 i, i := K(x,y(w(x w(ydy. A i i= 3

14 Using ( we obtain w(x w(y A (x+y dy = O(x. Therefore, as is in the PV sense, again by ( From and ( one gets = O(x +PV x w (x+ (x yw (x+o((x y dy = O(x. x y K(x,y x y 3 4 x and K(x,y = O(ε x. Since K(x,y x and w(x w(y M for y A 3, we obtain Now we fix ε > small enough so that 3 c x for some c >. + 4 c x. (x y for y A, Then, for ε >> x > we have w(x w(y > for y A 4, which leads to 4 >. Recalling that w on (,, we have w(x w(y w(x = O(x 3 for y A 5, which gives 5 O(x 4. Thus Note that Combining these estimates we obtain ( 3 4 c x +O(x 4. ( = O(x. = ( w(x+c(xw(x 3 4 c x +O(x +c(xo(x 3 = 3 4 c x +O(x >, for x < sufficiently small, a contradiction. Theorem Let u C (R C ( be a solution to ( u = f(u in u = in R\ u > in, where f is Lipschitz continuous, non-negative and non-decreasing. Then u is even and u(x u(y for x y. Proof. First, we claim that u is monotone decreasing on ( ε, for some ε >. Although this follows from Lemma. in [], we shall give a simple self-contained proof. We write u(x = π v(x+w(x, 4

15 where ( v(x := f(u(ydy, w(x := H(x, yf(u(ydy, x y where H(x,y is as in (9. Differentiating under the integral sign one obtains w C on (,. For h small we have v(x+h v(x = f(u(x + Using that u C (R one gets ( x y x+h y ( x y x+h y =: v (x,h+v (x,h. Computing the integral explicitly we obtain Thus, for ε > sufficiently small v (x,h lim = O( on. h h dy (f(u(y f(u(xdy v (x,h lim = f(u(x(( x (+x on. h h u (x C + f(u(x(( x (+x < on ( ε,, π proving the claimed monotonicity. n particular, as u = on c and u > on, for λ > ε we have u λ (x := u(x λ u(x on Σ λ := (,λ, x λ := λ x. We set λ := inf{ λ > : u λ on Σ λ for every λ λ}. We claim nowthat λ =. Otherwisetherewouldbeasequenceλ n λ > andx n Σ λn such that max Σ λn u λn = u λn (x n >. Moreover, since u(x = for x and u > in, we must have x n ( +λ n,λ n. Then, up to a subsequence, x n x [ +λ,λ ] and u λ (x =. Now, on the one hand, using the equation we have ( u λ (x = f(u(x λ f(u(x for x ( +λ,λ. On the other hand, with the singular kernel definition for the fractional Laplacian, since u λ on Σ λ, u λ (x = and u λ (x = u λ (x λ, we can compute its value at x [ +λ,λ ]: ( uλ (x = π P.V. u λ (x u λ (y = π P.V.. R Σ λ (x y dy ( u λ (y 5 (x λ y (x y dy

16 Then, we conclude that x = λ. Hence, = u λ (x = u (λ. Moreover, u λ < in ( +λ,λ, and this contradicts Lemma. Thus λ = and u. n a similar way one can show that u. References [] S. Baraket, F. Pacard, Construction of singular limits for a semilinear elliptic equation in dimension, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 6 ( [] Blumenthal, R. M.; Getoor, R. K.; Ray, D. B. On the distribution of first hits for the symmetric stable processes, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 99 (96, [3] H. Brézis, F. Merle Uniform estimates and blow-up behaviour for solutions of u = V(xe u in two dimensions, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 6 (99, [4] E. Caglioti, P.L. Lions, C. Marchioro, M. Pulvirenti, A special class of stationary flows for two-dimensional Euler equations: a statistical mechanics description, Comm. Math. Phys. 43 (99, [5] W. Chen, C. Li, A Hopf type lemma for fractional equations, Preprint (7 arxiv: [6] F. Da Lio, L. Martinazzi, T. Rivière, Blow-up Analysis of a nonlocal Liouville-type equation, Analysis and PDE 8 (5 no. 7, [7] F. Da Lio, L. Martinazzi, The nonlocal Liouville-type equation in R and conformal immersions of the disk with boundary singularities, Calc. Var. (7 56:5. [8] W. Ding, J. Jost, J. Li, G. Wang, Existence results for mean field equations, Ann. nst. H. Poincaré Analyse Non Linéaire 6 (999, [9] Z. Djadli, Existence result for the mean field problem on Riemann surfaces of all genuses, Commun. Contemp. Math. (8, 5-. [] O. Druet, P-D. Thizy, Multi-bumps analysis for trudinger-moser nonlinearities - quantification and location of concentration points, preprint (7, arxiv:7.88. [] P. Esposito, M. Grossi, A. Pistoia, On the existence of blowing-up solutions for a mean field equation, Ann. nst. H. Poincaré Analyse Non Linéaire ( [] A. Greco, R. Servadei, Hopf s lemma and constrained radial symmetry for the fractional Laplacian, Math. Res. Lett. 3 (6, [3] A. annizzotto, S. Mosconi, M. Squassina, H s versus C -weighted norms, Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. (5, [4] S. ula, A. Maalaoui, L. Martinazzi, Critical points of a fractional Moser-Trudinger embedding in dimension, Differ. ntegr. Equ. 9 (6, [5] M. K. H. Kiessling, Statistical mechanics of classical particles with arithmic interactions, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 46 (993,

17 [6] Y. Li,. Shafrir Blow-up analysis for solutions of u = Ve u in dimension, ndiana Univ. Math. J. 43 (994, [7] A. Maalaoui, L. Martinazzi, A. Schikorra, Blow-up behavior of a fractional Adams- Moser-Trudinger-type inequality in odd dimension, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 4 n. (6, [8] A. Malchiodi, Topoical methods for an elliptic equation with exponential non-linearities, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. (8, [9] G. Mancini, L. Martinazzi, Extremal functions for some fractional Moser-Trudinger inequalities in dimension, in preparation. [] L. Martinazzi Concentration-compactness phenomena in higher order Liouville s equation, J. Funct. Anal. 56 (9, [] L. Martinazzi, Fractional Adams-Moser-Trudinger type inequalities, Nonlinear Analysis 7 (6, [] A. Malchiodi, L. Martinazzi, Critical points of the Moser-Trudinger functional on a disk, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS 6 (4, [3] L. Martinazzi, M. Petrache, Asymptotics and quantization for a mean-field equation of higher order. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 35 (, no. 3, [4] K. Nagasaki, T. Suzuki Asymptotic analysis for two-dimensional elliptic eigenvalue problems with exponentially dominated nonlinearity, Asymptotic Analysis. 3 (99, [5] F. Robert, J.-C. Wei, Asymptotic behavior of a fourth order mean field equation with Dirichlet boundary condition, ndiana Univ. Math. J. 57 (8, [6] X. Ros-Oton, J. Serra, The Dirichlet problem for the fractional Laplacian: Regularity up to the boundary, J. Math. Pures Appl. (4, no. 3, [7] M. Struwe, G. Tarantello On multivortex solutions in Chern-Simons Gauge theory, Boll. UM (8 -B (998, 9-. [8] T. Suzuki, Global analysis for a two-dimensional eigenvalue problem with exponential nonlinearity, Ann. nst. H. Poincaré Analyse Non-Linéaire 9 (99, [9] J.-C. Wei, Asymptotic behavior of a nonlinear fourth order eigenvalue problem, Comm. Partial Differential Equations (996, [3] V. H. Weston, On the asymptotic solution of a partial differential equation with exponential nonlinearity, SAM J. Math. Anal. 9 (978,