arxiv: v1 [math.pr] 4 Aug 2016

Transcription

1 Hea kernel esimaes on conneced sums of parabolic manifolds arxiv:68.596v [mah.pr] 4 Aug 26 Alexander Grigor yan Deparmen of Mahemaics Universiy of Bielefeld 335 Bielefeld, Germany grigor@mah.uni-bielefeld.de Saoshi Ishiwaa Deparmen of Mahemaical Sciences Yamagaa Universiy Yamagaa , Japan ishiwaa@sci.kj.yamagaa-u.ac.jp Lauren Saloff-ose Deparmen of Mahemaics ornell Universiy Ihaca, NY, , USA lsc@mah.cornell.edu July 26 Absrac We obain maching wo sided esimaes of he hea kernel on a conneced sum of parabolic manifolds, each of hem saisfying he Li-Yau esimae. The key resul is he on-diagonal upper bound of he hea kernel a a cenral poin. onrary o he nonparabolic case which was seled in [5], he on-diagonal behavior of he hea kernel in our case is deermined by he end wih he maximal volume growh funcion. As examples, we give explici hea kernel bounds on he conneced sums R 2 #R 2 and R #R 2 where R = R + S. 2 Mahemaics Subjec lassificaion: Primary 35K8, Secondary 58J65, 58J35 Keywords: hea kernel, manifold wih ends, parabolic manifold, inegraed resolven onens Inroducion 2 2 Saemen of main resuls and examples 5 2. Weighed manifolds Noion of conneced sum On-diagonal esimaes Off-diagonal esimaes Examples Some auxiliary esimaes 7 3. Inegraed resolven omparison principles Funcions Φ Ω and ΨΩ Parially suppored by SFB 7 of German Research ouncil Parially suppored by JSPS, KAKENHI Parially suppored by NSF gran DMS 44435

2 2 3.4 Some local esimaes Global esimaes of Φ Ω and ΨΩ On-diagonal esimaes a cener Esimaes of inegraed resolven on conneced sums Proof of Theorem 2.: Upper bound Proof of Theorem 2.: Lower bound Off-diagonal esimaes 3 Inroducion Le M be a Riemannian manifold. The hea kernel p, x, y on M is he minimal posiive fundamenal soluion of he hea equaion u = u on M where u = u, x, >, x M and is he negaive definie Laplace-Belrami operaor on M. For example, in R n he hea kernel is given by he classical Gauss-Weiersrass formula p, x, y = exp 4π n/2 x y 2 4 The hea kernel is sensiive o he geomery of he underlying manifold M, which resuls in numerous applicaions of his noion in differenial geomery. On he oher hand, he hea kernel has a probabilisic meaning: p, x, y is he ransiion densiy of Brownian moion {X }, {P x } x M on M. Namely, for any Borel se A M, we have P x X A = p, x, ydy, where P x X A is he probabiliy ha Brownian paricle saring a he poin x will be found in he se A in ime. From now on le us assume ha he manifold M is non-compac and geodesically complee. Dependence of he long ime behavior of he hea kernel on he large scale geomery of M is an ineresing and imporan problem ha has been inensively sudied during he pas few decades by many auhors see, for example, [4], [], [2] and references herein. In he case when he Ricci curvaure of M is non-negaive, P.Li and S.-T.Yau proved in heir pioneering work [9] he following esimae, for all x, y M and > : p, x, y V x, exp b d2 x, y, LY where he sign means ha boh and hold bu wih differen values of posiive consans and b, V x, r is he Riemannian volume of he geodesic ball of radius r cenered a x M, and d x, y is he geodesic disance beween he poins x, y. The esimae LY is saisfied also for he hea kernel of uniformly ellipic operaors in divergence form in R n as was proved by Aronson []. I was proved by Fabes and Sroock [6], ha he esimae LY is equivalen o he uniform parabolic Harnack inequaliy see also [2]. Grigor yan [7] and Saloff-ose [2], [2] proved ha LY is equivalen o he conjuncion of he Poincaré inequaliy and he volume doubling propery. One of he simples example of a manifold where LY fails is he hyperbolic space H n. A more ineresing counerexample was consruced by Kuz menko and Molchanov [8]: hey showed ha he conneced sum R n #R n of wo copies of R n, n 3, admis a nonrivial bounded harmonic funcion, which implies ha he Harnack inequaliy and, hence, A.

3 3 LY canno be rue. Benjamini, havel and Feldman [2] explained his phenomenon by a boleneck-effec: if x and y belong o he differen ends of he manifold R n #R n and x y hen p, x, y n/2 where n/2 is prediced by he righ hand side of LY. This phenomenon is especially ransparen from probabilisic viewpoin: Brownian paricle can go from x o y only hrough he cenral par, which reduces drasically he ransiion densiy see Fig.. A similar phenomenon was observed by B.Davies [5] on a model case of one-dimensional line complex. x R n y R n Figure : Brownian pah goes from x o y via he boleneck Based on hese early works, he firs and he hird auhors of he presen paper sared a projec on hea kernel bounds on conneced sums of manifolds, provided each of hem saisfies he Li-Yau esimae LY. The resuls of his sudy are published in a series [], [2], [3], [5], and [6]. In paricular, hey obained in [5] maching upper and lower esimaes of hea kernels on conneced sums of manifolds when a leas one of hem is non-parabolic. Recall ha a manifold M called parabolic if Brownian moion on M is recurren, and non-parabolic oherwise. There are several equivalen definiions of paraboliciy in differen erms see, for example, [9]. In his paper we complemen he resuls [5] by proving wo-sided esimaes of hea kernels on conneced sums of parabolic manifolds. The deailed saemens are given in he nex secion. We illusrae our resuls on he following wo examples. onsider firs he manifold M = R #R 2, where R = R + S see Fig. 2. For x M, R x y R 2 Figure 2: onneced sum R #R 2 define x := dx, K + e, where K M is he cenral par of M. Then we obain ha for

4 4 x R, y R 2 and > p, x, y d 2 x,y e b + x log e y if y >, if x, y, log e y if x > y. In paricular, if x, y are bounded and, hen p, x, y. If x and y remains bounded, hen r = 2 cosh z: p, x, y log. onsider now he manifold M = R 2 #R 2 [cosh s; ; s], or, equivalenly, a caenoid see Fig. 3. Figure 3: aenoid Then we have he following esimae for all x, y lying in differen shees and for > : log + log 2 log x log y if x, y, p, x, y log 2 log log e d y e b log log e d x e b log x + log y 2 x,y 2 x,y e b d2 x,y In paricular, if x, y are bounded and, hen If x y hen p, x, y. p, x, y log. if y < x, if x < y, if x, y >. The hea kernel esimaes on R 2 #R 2 was also obained in [5] by an ad hoc mehod. In he presen paper hese esimaes are par of our general Theorem 2.3. We also give furher examples, in paricular, he hea kernel esimaes on R #R #R 2. In he nex secion we inroduce necessary definiions and sae our main resuls. In Secion 3 we prove some auxiliary resuls abou he inegraed resolven. In Secion 4 we prove he main echnical resul of his paper Theorem 2. abou on-diagonal upper bound

5 5 of he hea kernel on he conneced sum of parabolic manifolds. Finally, in Secion 5 we use Theorem 2. and he gluing echniques from [5] o obain full off-diagonal esimaes of he hea kernels; hey are saed in Theorems and orollaries 2.8 and 2.9. Noaion. Throughou his aricle, he leers c,, b,... denoe posiive consans whose values may be differen a differen insances. When he value of a consan is significan, i will be explicily saed. The noaion f g for wo non-negaive funcions f, g means ha here are wo posiive consans c, c 2 such ha c g f c 2 g for he specified range of he argumens of f and g. 2 Saemen of main resuls and examples The main resul will be saed in a more general seing of weighed manifolds ha is explained below. 2. Weighed manifolds Le M be a conneced Riemannian manifold of dimension N. The Riemannian meric of M induces he geodesic disance dx, y beween poins x, y M and he Riemannian measure dvol. Given a smooh posiive funcion σ on M, le µ be he measure on M given by dµx = σxdvolx. The pair M, µ is called a weighed manifold. Any Riemannian manifold can be considered also as a weighed manifold wih σ. The Laplace operaor of he weighed manifold M, µ is defined by = div σ, σ where div and are he divergence and he gradien of he Riemannian meric of M. I is easy o see ha is he generaor of he following Dirichle form D f, f = f 2 dµ in W,2 M, µ. The associaed hea semigroup e has always a smooh posiive kernel p, x, y ha is called he hea kernel of M, µ. A he same ime, p, x, y is he minimal posiive fundamenal soluion of he corresponding hea equaion u = u on M R + see []. The hea kernel is also he ransiion probabiliy densiy of Brownian moion {X }, {P x } on M ha is generaed by. A weighed manifold M, µ is called parabolic if any posiive superharmonic funcion on M is consan, and non-parabolic oherwise. The paraboliciy is equivalen o each of he following properies, ha can be regarded as equivalen definiions see, for example, [9]:. There exiss no posiive fundamenal soluion of. 2. p, x, y d = for all/some x, y M. 3. Brownian moion on M is recurren. 2.2 Noion of conneced sum Le M, µ be a geodesically complee non-compac weighed manifold. Le K M be a conneced compac subse of M wih non-empy inerior and smooh boundary such ha M \ K has k non-compac conneced componens E,..., E k ; moreover, assume also ha he M

6 6 closures E i are disjoin. We refer o each E i as an end of M. learly, is a disjoin union of E i, i =,..., k. Assume also ha E i is isomeric o he exerior of a compac se K i in anoher weighed manifold M i, µ i. Then we refer o M as he conneced sum of M,..., M k and wrie see Fig. 4. M = M #M 2 # #M k Figure 4: onneced sum M = M #M 2 #M k. Denoe by d i he geodesic disance on M i and by B i x, r he geodesic ball in M i of radius r cenered a x M i. Se also V i x, r = µ i B i x, r. Fix a reference poin o i K i and se V i r = V i o i, r. In his paper we always assume ha every manifold M i, i =,..., k, saisfies he following four condiions. a The hea kernel p i, x, y of M i, µ i saisfies he Li-Yau esimae LY, ha is, p i, x, y b d2 i V i x, exp x, y. 2. b M i is parabolic; under he sanding assumpion 2., he paraboliciy of M i is equivalen o rdr =. 2.2 V i r c M i has relaively conneced annuli, ha is, here exiss a posiive consan A > such ha for any r > A 2 and all x, y M i wih d i o i, x = d i o i, y = r, here exiss a coninuous pah from x o y saying in B i o i, Ar \ B i o, A r. We denoe his condiion shorly by RA. d M i is eiher criical or subcriical; here M i is called criical if, for all large enough r, and subcriical if, for all large enough r, r V i r r 2, sds V i s r2 V i r. 2.3

7 7 For example, if V i r r α log β r for some < α < 2 and β R, hen M i is subcriical. On he oher hand, in he case V i r r2 wih β > he manifold M log β r i is neiher criical nor subcriical, alhough sill parabolic. Le us describe a class of manifolds saisfying all he hypoheses a d. For any < α 2 consider a Riemannian model manifold R α := R 2, g α, where g α is a Riemannian meric on R 2 such ha, in he polar coordinaes ρ, θ, i is given for ρ > by g α = dρ 2 + ρ 2α dθ 2. For example, if α = 2 hen g 2 can be aken o be he Euclidean meric of R 2 so ha in his case R 2 = R 2. If α = hen g = dρ 2 + dθ 2 so ha he exerior domain {ρ > } of R is isomeric o he cylinder R + S see Fig. 5. Figure 5: Model manifold R For a general < α < 2, he exerior domain {ρ > } of R α is isomeric o a cerain surface of revoluion in R 3. Observe ha he volume funcion V x, r on R α admis for r > he esimae V x, r { r α, x < r min r 2, r x α, x r r 2 + r x +r α 2.4 see [4, Sec. 4.4]. In paricular, if x = o, where o is he origin of R 2, hen V o, r r α. 2.5 By [4, Prop. 4.], R α saisfies he parabolic Harnack inequaliy and, hence, he Li-Yau esimae LY. Obviously, R α saisfies 2.2 and, hence, R α is parabolic. I is easy o see ha R α saisfies RA. Noe also ha R α is criical if α = 2 and subcriical if α < 2. Hence, R α saisfies all hypoheses a d. One can make a similar family of examples also in class of weighed manifolds. Indeed, for any α > consider in R 2 he following measure dµ α = + x 2 α 2 dx. I is easy o see ha R 2, µ α saisfies 2.5. The Li-Yau esimae on R 2, µ α holds by [4, Prop. 4.9]. Hence, R 2, µ α saisfies all he hypoheses a d provided < α 2. Reurning o he general seing, le us menion ha he hypoheses a, b, c are essenial for our main resul, whereas d is echnical. Probably, he mehod of proof will work also wihou assuming d bu, even if ha is he case, he necessary compuaions will become much more echnical and complicaed. So, we prefer o impose here he addiional condiion d o simplify he compuaional par of he proof, which even under d remains quie involved. Observe also ha he condiion b follows from d. Indeed, if he inegral 2.2 converges hen by 2.3 V i r r 2, which implies he divergence of he inegral in 2.2. However, for he aforemenioned reason, we sae b independenly of d.

8 8 In fac, in he subcriical case we have V i r = o r 2 as r, 2.6 as i follows from 2.2 and 2.3. Moreover, subsiuing 2.6 o he lef hand side of 2.3, we obain ha, in he subcriical case, r 2 V i r = o as r. 2.7 log r 2.3 On-diagonal esimaes Denoe by d x, y he geodesic disance beween poins x, y M and by V x, r he Riemannian volume of he geodesic ball on M of radius r cenered a x M. Fix a reference poin o K and se V r = V o, r. Se also I is easy o see ha, for all r >, V max r = max i k V ir. V r V r + V 2 r + + V k r V max r. The firs main resul of his paper is as follows. Theorem 2. Le M = M # #M k be a conneced sum of non-compac complee manifolds M,..., M k. Assume ha each M i is parabolic and saisfies LY and RA. We also assume ha each M i is eiher criical or subcriical. Then we have for all >. p, o, o V max V, 2.8 Le us menion for comparison he following resul of [5]: if all manifolds M i are nonparabolic and saisfy LY and RA, hen he hea kernel on M = M # #M k saisfies where p, o, o V min r := min i k V ir. The proof of he upper bound in 2.9, ha is, of he inequaliy p, o, o V min, 2.9 V min, 2. goes as follows. By [8, Prop. 5.2], he upper bound in LY on M i is equivalen o a cerain Faber-Krahn ype inequaliy on M i. Using a echnique for merging of such inequaliies, developed in [6, Thm. 3.5], one obains a similar Faber-Krahn inequaliy on M, which hen implies he hea kernel upper bound 2. by [8, Thm. 5.2] see [6, Thm. 4.5] and [5, or. 4.7] for he deails. The reason for appearing of V min in 2. is ha he Faber-Krahn inequaliy on M canno be sronger han ha of each end M i and, hence, is deermined by he end wih he smalles funcion V i r.

9 9 The proof of he lower bound in 2.9, ha is, of he inequaliy uses he comparison p, o, o p, x, y p Ei, x, y c V min 2. on each end E i, where p Ei, x, y is he Dirichle hea kernel on E i vanishing on E i. By [2, Thm 3.], non-paraboliciy of M i and LY imply ha, away from E i, p Ei, x, y cp i, x, y. 2.2 I follows ha, for any i =,..., k, p, o, o c V i, which is equivalen o 2.. In he presen seing, when all he manifolds M i are parabolic, boh argumens described above work bu give non-opimal resuls. For example, one obains as above he upper bound 2., which in general is weaker han he upper in 2.8. As far as he lower bound is concerned, he esimae 2.2 fails in he parabolic case and has o be replaced by a weaker one cf. [2, Thm 4.9], which does no yield an opimal lower bound for p, o, o. This explains why we have o develop enirely new mehod for obaining opimal bounds for p, o, o in he case when all manifolds M i are parabolic. The mos significan par of he esimae 2.8 is he upper bound p, o, o V max. 2.3 The proof of 2.3 is he main achievemen of he presen paper. We use for ha a new mehod involving he inegraed resolven γ x = e p, x, y ddµ y K defined for >. The paraboliciy of M implies ha γ x as, and he rae of increase of γ x as is relaed o he rae of decay of p, o, o as. In fac, he inegraed resolven γ on he conneced sum M saisfies a cerain inegral equaion involving as coefficiens he Laplace ransforms of he exi probabiliies a each end. This allows o esimae he rae of growh of γ as and hen o recover he upper bound 2.3 in he subcriical case. In he criical case one has o use insead γ. Since V max r V o, r and V o, r saisfies he volume doubling propery, he upper bound 2.3 implies auomaically a maching lower bound of p, o, o by [3, Thm. 7.2] see Secion 4.3 for he deails. Remark 2.2 Kasahara and Koani recenly obained in [7, Example 6.] he same ondiagonal hea kernel esimaes for a conneced sum of wo Bessel processes on he half line [, by using he Sieljes ransforms.

10 2.4 Off-diagonal esimaes In order o sae he esimaes for p, x, y for arbirary x, y M, we need some noaion. For any x M se x := d x, K + e. For all x M and for all > 2, define he following funcions:, if x > and x E i, x Dx, := 2 V i V i x, if x and x E i,, if x K, 2.4 U x, := W x, := { log x, log log e if x > x, if x, {, if x > log x log, if x I is clear ha U x,, U x, as, and W x, and W x, as. I is also useful o observe ha U x, + W x, If V i r is eiher criical or subcriical, hen i is possible o show ha D x, is bounded. The nex hree heorems consiue our second main resul. I is obained by combining Theorem 2. wih several resuls from [2], [3] and [5]. In he firs heorem we consider he case when x and y lie a differen ends. Theorem 2.3 In he seing of Theorem 2., he following esimaes are rue for all x E i, y E j wih i j and >, where is large enough. i If all he manifolds M l, l =,..., k, are subcriical hen p, x, y V max d 2 x,y e b. 2.8 ii Suppose ha a leas one of he manifolds M l, l =,..., k, is criical. ii If boh of M i and M j are subcriical, hen p, x, y + Dx, + Dy, log e b d2 x,y. 2.9 ii 2 If boh of M i and M j are criical, hen p, x, y Ux, Uy, + W x, Uy, + Ux, W y, e b d2 x,y. 2.2 ii 3 If M i is subcriical and M j is criical, hen p, x, y + Dx, Uy, log e b d2 x,y. 2.2 The nex wo heorems cover he case when x, y lie a he same end.

11 Theorem 2.4 In he seing of Theorem 2., assume ha x, y E i and >. a If min x, y hen p, x, y V i x, d 2 x,y e b b Moreover, if V i r V max r for all large r, hen 2.22 holds for all >. paricular, his is he case when M i is criical. In Esimae 2.22 means ha, for a resriced ime, Brownian moion on each end does no see he oher ends, which is naural o expec. Noe ha he same phenomenon holds also in he case when all M i are non-parabolic. The second claim of Theorem 2.4 means ha, on he maximal end, Brownian moion does no see he oher ends for all imes. I is ineresing o observe ha in he case when all M i are non-parabolic, a similar saemen holds for he minimal end. Theorem 2.5 In he seing of Theorem 2., assume ha M i is subcriical, x, y E i and >. If min x, y hen he following is rue. i If all he manifolds M l, l =,..., k, are subcriical, hen Dx, Dy, p, x, y V i + V max e b d2 x,y ii If a leas one of he manifolds M l, l =,..., k, is criical hen Dx, Dy, p, x, y V i + + Dx, + Dy, log e b d2 x,y Remark 2.6 All he esimaes of Theorems can be exended o all x, y M including also a possibiliy x K or y K. This follows from he local Harnack inequaliy for he hea kernel p, x, y and from a careful analysis of he esimaes. The laer shows ha in all cases when x or y remains bounded, he erms conaining D x, are dominaed by ohers and, hence, can be eliminaed, which is equivalen o seing D x, = as in 2.4. A graphical summary of he esimaes of Theorems can be found a he following locaion: hps:// grigor/ables.pdf Remark 2.7 By [5, Lemma 5.9], for all x, y M and <, he hea kernel on M saisfies he Li-Yau esimae LY wih consans depending on. For his resul i suffices o assume ha each end M i saisfies he Li-Yau esimae. Hence, in Theorems we do no worry abou he esimaes for. If V i r is a power funcion for each i =,... k, hen we can simplify he hea kernel esimaes of Theorems as follows. In he nex saemen x, y lie a differen ends. orollary 2.8 Suppose ha V i r r α i for all i =,..., k and r, where < α i 2. i Assume ha < α i < 2 for all i =,..., k and se α = max i k α i. Then, for all x, y lying a differen ends and for all > 2, we have p, x, y d 2 x,y e b. α/2

12 2 ii Assume ha α l = 2 for some l k. Then he following esimaes hold for i j, x E i, y E j, > 2. ii Le α i < 2 and α j < 2. If min x, y hen p, x, y log e b d2 x,y, and if min x, y hen p, x, y + log [ x 2 αi ] y 2 αj +. ii 2 If α i = α j = 2 hen p, x, y U x, U y, + U x, log y log + U y, log y + log x e b d2 x,y. log x + log onsequenly, if x, y hen p, x, y log x + e b d2 x,y, 2.25 log y if x, y hen and if x y hen p, x, y log 2 log + log 2 log x log y, 2.26 p, x, y log log e y e b d 2 x,y Similarly, if y x hen p, x, y log log e x e b d 2 x,y ii 3 If α i < 2 and α j = 2 hen p, x, y x 2 αi + x + U y, log e b d2 x,y onsequenly, if y hen p, x, y e b d2 x,y, if x, y hen p, x, y + x 2 αi log e, y and if x y hen p, x, y log e d 2 x,y y e b.

13 3 Proof. All he esimaes of orollary 2.8 follow immediaely from hose of Theorem 2.3 and he definiions of funcions D and W. In he case ii 2, in he range x, y, Theorem 2.3 gives he esimae p, x, y log 2 log e x log e + log y log e + log x log e. y x y Since he sum in he brackes is equal o log x + log e log y + log e log x log y = + log 2 log x log y, x y we obain Le us sae some consequences of Theorems in he general seing, bu under some specific resricions of he variables x, y,. orollary 2.9 Under he hypoheses of Theorems , we have he following esimaes. a Long ime regime For fixed x, y M and, p, x, y V max. 2.3 b Medium ime regime Le x E i and y E j wih i j. If x y hen in he cases i and ii 3 we have 2.3, in he case ii we have p, x, y log, 2.3 and in he case ii 2 p, x, y log Proof. a The esimae 2.3 follows easily from Theorem 2. by using a local Harnack inequaliy. However, we show here how i follows from Theorems 2.3, 2.5. Observe ha, for a fixed x E i and large we have D x, V i, U x,, W x, log Assume ha x E i, y E j and consider he cases i, ii, ii 2 and ii 3 as in Theorem 2.3. ase i. Using 2.8, 2.23, 2.33 and V i x, Vi as we obain p, x, y V i 2 δ ij + V max V max, where we have also used ha V j r V max r = o r 4. ase ii. By 2.9, 2.24 and 2.33 we have p, x, y V i 2 δ ij + { Vi + + V j } log, V max

14 4 because of V max r r 2 and 2.7. ase ii 2. If i j hen by 2.2 and 2.33 p, x, y + log. V max If i = j hen 2.3 follows rivially from ase ii 3. In his case necessarily i j, and we obain by 2.2 p, x, y { + V i } log. V max b In he case x y we have d 2 x, y and D x,, U x,, W x,. log Then he required esimaes follow direcly from hose saed in Theorem 2.3. Le us observe he following. In he medium ime regime, ha is, when x and y lie a differen ends and x y, we have by b: in he cases i and ii 3 p, x, y V max, ha is, p, x, y behaves iself as in he long ime regime, whereas in he case ii p, x, y log V max, and in he case ii 2 p, x, y log V max. Hence, we observe in he case ii 2 he boleneck effec: he hea kernel value log in he medium ime regime is significanly smaller han ha of long ime regime. For example, his case happens for M = R 2 #R 2 see Fig.. A similar boleneck effec was observed in [5] for M = R n #R n wih n 3: he hea kernel of M in he long ime regime is comparable o whereas in he medium ime regime o. In he case n = 2 he boleneck effec n/2 n is quaniaively weaker as he disincion beween he wo regimes is deermined by log in conras o he power of in he case n 3. On he conrary, in he case ii we observe an ineresing ani-boleneck effec: he hea kernel value log in he medium ime regime is significanly larger han ha of he long ime regime. This effec occurs only when here are a leas hree ends, one of hem being criical and wo subcriical. For example, his is he case for M = R #R #R 2 see Fig Examples We presen here hea kernel bounds on some specific examples using Theorems and orollary 2.8.

15 5 R 2 x y R R Figure 6: onneced sum R #R #R 2 Example 2. Hea kernel on R α #R α 2 Le us wrie down he hea kernel bounds on he conneced sum M = M #M 2 = R α #R α 2, where α α 2 < 2. In his case boh M and M 2 are subcriical so ha Theorem 2.3i, Theorem 2.4 and Theorem 2.5i apply. Observe ha {, if x >, Dx, = 2 αi x 2.34, if x, and V max r r α 2, r >. In he case x E and y E 2, we obain by 2.8 or by orollary 2.8i, p, x, y d 2 x,y α 2/2 e b. Assume now ha x, y E. If x, y >, hen by 2.22 we have p, x, y If x, y hen by 2.23 and 2.34 we obain p, x, y α /2 V x, d 2 x,y e b. x y In paricular, in he long ime regime we obain p, x, y α 2/2, 2 α + α 2/ which, of course, maches 2.3. Assume now ha x > y. Subsiuing 2.34 ino 2.23, we obain y 2 α p, x, y α + /2 α e b d2 x,y. 2/2 A similar esimae holds in he case y > x.

16 6 Finally, if x, y E 2 hen we have by Theorem 2.4 ha for all > p, x, y V 2 x, d 2 x,y e b. Example 2. Hea kernel on R #R 2 onsider M = M #M 2 = R #R 2 see Fig. 2. Suppose ha x E, y E 2. Then by Theorem 2.3ii 3 or by he esimae 2.29 of orollary 2.8 p, x, y + x x + Uy, log e b d2 x,y. Using 2.5 we obain: if y >, hen p, x, y e b d2 x,y ; if x, y, hen and if x > y, hen p, x, y + x log e y, p, x, y log e d 2 x,y y e b. Assume ha x, y E. If min x, y, hen we obain by 2.24 and 2.34 p, x, y x y x + y + + log e b d2 x,y. In paricular, if x > y, we obain p, x, y y + log e b d2 x,y. Similar esimae follows when y > x. If min x, y >, we obain by Theorem 2.4 p, x, y e b d2 x,y. In he case x, y E 2, we obain by Theorem 2.4 p, x, y e b d2 x,y Example 2.2 Hea kernel on R 2 #R 2 Suppose ha x E and y E 2. If x, y, hen by 2.2, or by 2.26 p, x, y log 2 log + log 2 log x log y. In paricular, in he long ime regime x y we obain p, x, y,

17 7 and in he medium ime regime x y we have p, x, y log, which means a mild boleneck-effec on R 2 #R 2. If x, y hen he hea kernel on R 2 #R 2 saisfies 2.25, ha is, p, x, y log x + e b d2 x,y. log y The cases x > y and y > x are covered by 2.27 and 2.28, respecively. If x, y E or x, y E 2 hen p, x, y saisfies 2.36 by Theorem 2.4. Example 2.3 Hea kernel on R #R #R 2 Le M = M #M 2 #M 3 = R #R #R 2 see Fig. 6. If x and y are a he same end, or x R and y R 2, hen he hea kernel p, x, y saisfies same esimaes as in he above case R #R 2. Assume now ha x E and y E 2. Then by orollary 2.8ii we obain he following esimaes: if min x, y hen p, x, y + log x + y, and if min x, y >, hen In paricular, if x y, hen 3 Some auxiliary esimaes p, x, y log e b d2 x,y. p, x, y log. In his secion we prove some auxiliary resuls o be used in he proof of Theorem 2.. Le M, µ be a geodesically complee non-compac weighed manifold we do no even assume paraboliciy of M unless i is clearly saed. For any open se Ω M, denoe by p Ω, x, y he Dirichle hea kernel in Ω. Assume from now on ha Ω has smooh boundary. Then p Ω, x, y = whenever x or y belongs o Ω. Denoe also by P Ω he associaed hea semigroup. Denoe as before by {X }, {P x } x M Brownian moion on M. Le τ Ω be he firs exi ime of X from Ω, ha is, τ Ω = inf { > : X / Ω}. Then, for any bounded coninuous funcion f on M, P Ω f x = E x f X {τω >}. 3.

18 8 3. Inegraed resolven The resolven operaor G Ω is defined for any > as an operaor on non-negaive measurable funcions f on Ω by G Ω f x = e P Ω f d. learly, G Ω is a linear operaor ha preserves non-negaiviy. Noe ha by definiion GΩ f vanishes in Ω c. If Ω = M hen we wrie G G M. learly, GΩ is an inegral operaor whose kernel g Ω x, y = e p Ω, x, y d is called he resolven kernel. In general, G Ω f may ake value +. However, if f is bounded and coninuous hen he funcion u = G Ω f is finie and, moreover, is he minimal non-negaive soluion of he equaion u u = f see []. I follows from 3. ha τω G Ω f x = E x f X e d. 3.2 If in addiion Ω is precompac hen he funcion u = G Ω f solves he Dirichle problem { u u = f in Ω, u = on Ω. For he proof of Theorem 2. we need he noion of inegraed resolven. Fix a compac se K M wih non-empy inerior K such ha K is he closure of K and he boundary is smooh. Fix also once and for all a reference poin o K. For any >, define he funcion γ on M by γ x := G K x = g x, z dµ z = e p, x, z dz d. 3.3 The funcion γ is called he inegraed resolven. Se also K K γ = G γ. 3.4 I follows from he resolven equaion G α G β = β α G α G β ha γ = γ = e p, x, z dz d. 3.5 K Lemma 3. i If here exis posiive consans, and a funcion F : R + R + such ha, for some x K, γ x F for all, ], 3.6 hen here exis posiive consans, such ha p, o, o F for all. 3.7

19 9 ii If here exis posiive consans, such ha, for some x K, γ x for all, ], 3.8 hen here exis posiive consans, such ha p, o, o for all. Proof. i Se δ = diamk 2. By he local Harnack inequaliy, here exi posiive consans c, c 2 such ha, for all x, z K and s > 2c 2 δ, which implies by 3.3, for all x K, ps, x, z c p s c 2 δ, o, o, 3.9 γ x c volk 2c 2 δ e s ps c 2 δ, o, ods. Using he monooniciy of ps, o, o wih respec o s see [, Exercises 7.22], we obain, for 4c 2 δ, γ x c volk c volk /2 /2 e s ps c 2 δ, o, ods e s p, o, ods ce p, o, o. 3. Se := max{4c 2 δ, }. For any and using 3.6 and 3. wih =, we obain which implies F ce p, o, o, p, o, o F. ii Arguing as in i and using 3.9 and 3.5, we obain, for 4c 2 δ and x K, γ x = se s ps, x, zdsdµz K c volk /2 se s p, o, ods c 2 e p, o, o. 3. Assuming := max{4c 2 δ, } and using 3.8 and 3. wih =, we obain which implies c2 e p, o, o, p, o, o.

20 2 Remark 3.2 Lemma 3. will be used in he proof of Theorem 2. in Secion 4.2 as follows. In he case when all he ends are subcriical, we will prove he following upper bound for he inegraed resolven: sup γ which hen implies by Lemma 3.i he desired upper bound p, o, o V max, 3.2 V max. However, in he case when one of he ends is criical, we obain insead of 3.2 a weaker inequaliy which yields insead of he desired esimae sup γ log, 3.3 p, o, o log p, o, o. 3.4 In order o be able o prove he laer, we will use he second par of Lemma 3.. Namely, we will prove ha in he criical case sup γ, 3.5 which hen will imply 3.4 by Lemma 3.ii. Noe ha he esimae 3.3 of γ is already opimal as i is mached by he esimae 3.5 of γ = γ. However, he funcion γ alone does no allow o recover an opimal esimae of he hea kernel, while is -derivaive γ does. 3.2 omparison principles Fix an open se Ω M and >. We say ha a funcion u is -harmonic in Ω if i saisfies in Ω he equaion u u =. A funcion u is called -superharmonic if u u. We will frequenly use he following minimum principle: if Ω is precompac, u Ω is -superharmonic in Ω and u on Ω hen u in Ω. I implies he comparison principle: if u, v Ω, u is -superharmonic in Ω and v is -harmonic in Ω hen u v on Ω u v in Ω. 3.6 Le now Ω be an exerior domain, ha is, Ω = F c where F is a compac subse of M. Le v Ω be non-negaive and -harmonic in Ω. We say ha v is minimal in Ω if here exiss an exhausion {U k } of M by precompac open ses U k F and a sequence {v k } of funcions v k U k \ F ha are non-negaive and -harmonic in U k \ F and such ha v k Uk = and v k v in Ω. Then he following modificaion of he comparison principle holds in Ω: if u, v Ω, u is non-negaive -superharmonic in Ω and v is non-negaive minimal -harmonic in Ω hen 3.6 is saisfied. Indeed, by he comparison principle in U k \ F we obain u v k whence he claim follows. We are lef o menion ha, for any non-negaive bounded funcion f wih compac suppor, he funcion G f is non-negaive, minimal, -harmonic ouside supp f, since G U k f G f.

21 2 3.3 Funcions Φ Ω and ΨΩ In any open se Ω M, consider a funcion Since P Ω, we see ha I follows from 3. ha Φ Ω := GΩ = e P Ω d. 3.7 Φ Ω. 3.8 Φ Ω x = e P x τ Ω > d. 3.9 Le A be a precompac open subse of M wih smooh boundary and le K A. Se γ A x := GA K x = g A x, z dµ z = e p A, x, zddµz. 3.2 Lemma 3.3 a The following inequaliy holds in A: b The following inequaliy holds in K c : K K γ γ A sup γ Φ A. 3.2 A γ sup Proof. a By 3.7, he funcion Φ A saisfies { Φ A Φ A = in A Φ A = on A. γ Φ Kc I follows ha he funcion u := Φ A solves he boundary value problem { u u = in A u = on A. Noe ha γ γ A = G K G A K is -harmonic in A and is equal o γ on A, which implies by he comparison principle in A ha γ γ A sup γ u in A, A which proves 3.2. b Se Ω = K c. As in a, he funcion u := Φ Ω solves he following boundary value problem: { u u = in Ω u = on Ω The funcion γ = G K is non-negaive, -harmonic, and minimal in Ω. On Ω = we have γ sup γ = sup γ u Since u is non-negaive and -harmonic in Ω, i follows by he comparison principle in Ω ha 3.23 holds also in Ω, which proves Se Ψ Ω := GΩ Φ Ω 3.24 and observe ha Ψ Ω by 3.8.

22 22 Lemma 3.4 Assume ha M is parabolic. Then we have he following ideniy for all x Ω: Ψ Ω x = e P x τ Ω d Proof. Inegraing by pars in 3.9 ogeher wih he paraboliciy of M, we obain Φ Ω x = P x τ Ω > de = + = On he oher hand, we have e P x τ Ω > e P x τ Ω Ψ Ω = G Ω GΩ ΦΩ = GΩ GΩ GΩ = G Ω + GΩ = G Ω = ΦΩ. Hence, differeniaing 3.26 in, we obain Some local esimaes Recall ha, for any open se A conaining K, we have defined γ A x = GA K x = e p A, x, zddµz. Se also γ A x := GA γa x = γa x = K K e p A, x, zddµz Noe ha γ A and γa vanish ouside A. Noe also ha γ = γ M and γ = γ M. In wha follows we fix a precompac open se A K wih smooh boundary. Lemma 3.5 There exiss a posiive consan = A such ha, for all >, sup γ A A, 3.28 and sup A sup Ψ A A γ A 2, Proof. I follows from 3.2 ha γ A x p A, x, zd dµz = where g A = g A A is he Green funcion of in A. The funcion u x = g A x, zdµz solves he following boundary value problem { u = in A, u = on A, A A g A x, z dµ z,

23 23 which implies ha u x is bounded. Hence, 3.28 holds wih = sup u. By 3.27 we have γ A x = g A x, z γa z dµ z, which implies by 3.28, for any x A, γ A x sup γ A g A x, z dµ z sup u = 2, A which proves Finally, i follows from 3.24 ha which proves 3.3. A A Ψ A x GA x = A g A x, z dµ z, 3.5 Global esimaes of Φ Ω and ΨΩ So far we have used a compac se K and a precompac open se A K. We have also assume ha K and A have smooh boundaries. In he nex Lemma we esimae inf A Φ Kc from below using addiional geomeric assumpions. Denoe by K ɛ he ɛ-neighborhood of K. We will assume in addiion ha K ɛ A for some large enough ɛ specified below. Lemma 3.6 Le M be a geodesically complee, non-compac parabolic manifold saisfying LY, RA. Fix a reference poin o K and se V r = V o, r. Assume in addiion ha K ɛ A for sufficienly large ɛ = ɛ K >. Then here exiss a consan c > such ha inf A ΦKc c e s diama 2 V sh ds, 3.3 s 2 where In addiion, we have: r s Hr := + V s ds i if V r is subcriical hen, for < diama 2, ii If V r is criical hen, for < diama 2, inf A ΦKc cv inf A ΦKc c log Proof. Denoe Ω = K c. By [2, Theorem 4.9 and 4.23], if ɛ is big enough hen, for all a, y ouside K ɛ/2 and for all s >, he following esimae holds: Ds, x, y p Ω s, x, y V x, s exp c d2 x, y, 3.35 s

24 24 where Ds, x, y = By [3, 3.29], we have, for any x / K ɛ, P x τ Ω > c H x H y H x + H s H y + H s. where c = c K, ɛ >, which implies by 3.9 Φ Ω x c e =c =c s e inf y K ɛ\k ɛ/2 p Ω s, x, yds, inf p Ω s, x, yds y K ɛ\k ɛ/2 inf p Ω s, x, yd y K ɛ\k ɛ/2 e s inf y K ɛ\k ɛ/2 p Ω s, x, yds Assume ha x A. Since y K ɛ, we see ha d x, y diama. Also, x, y are bounded by diama + e. I follows from 3.35 ha if s diama 2 hen p Ω s, x, y c V sh s 2. Subsiuing ino 3.36 yields 3.3. In he case i, when V is subcriical, we obain from 3.32 Hr Subsiuing ino 3.3, we obain, for < diama 2, inf A ΦΩ c / which proves In he case ii, when V is criical, we have which implies, for < diama 2, which proves d ds r2 V r e s V s s 2 ds cv, Hr log r, 3.38 inf A ΦΩ c e s ds / s log 2 s c e d log s / log 2 s =c e log,

25 25 Lemma 3.7 Le M be a geodesically complee, non-compac parabolic manifold saisfying LY, RA. Assume in addiion ha K ɛ A for sufficienly large ɛ = ɛ K >. Assume also ha V r := V o, r is eiher criical or subcriical. Then here exiss a consan > such ha, for small enough >, sup Ψ Kc A Proof. Se Ω = K c. Fix a A and se T = log 2. log In he ideniy 3.25 for Ψ Ω, le us decompose he inegraion ino wo inervals: [, T ] and [T,. For he firs inerval, we have by inegraion by pars T e P a τ Ω d = T e T P a τ Ω T T e P a τ Ω d. Assume ha < e so ha log 2 > and, hence, T <. I follows ha on [, T ] and, herefore, he inegral in he righ hand side of he above ideniy is non-negaive. I follows ha T e P a τ Ω d T, which maches he required esimae Le us esimae he inegral 3.25 over [T,. By [3, Remark 4.3], if ɛ is large enough hen, for all a A Ω and for all where depends on diam A, we have P a τ Ω V H, where H is defined by Assuming ha is so small ha T > and using 3.4, we obain e e d P a τ Ω d V H T onsider firs he case when V r is criical, ha is, V r r 2. Then H r log r and we obain T e P a τ Ω d T T e d log 2 log 2 T e d = log 2 T. Taking > sufficienly small so ha log 2, we obain T and log T 2 log, whence T e P a τ Ω d 4T, which proved 3.39 in he criical case. Assume now ha V r is subcriical. Then, for r > 2, we have Subsiuing ino 3.4, we obain T r 2 V r 3 e P a τ Ω d r r/2 T d 3H r. V e d H H T V T, T

26 26 where in he las inequaliy we have used In order o prove ha he righ hand side is bounded by T, i suffices o verify ha V T T 2. Since log log T and, hence,, i suffices o prove ha T log 2 T V T T log 2 T for large enough T. Puing T = r 2, his inequaliy is equivalen o r2 log 2 r V r Since M is subcriical, here exiss a consan b > such ha, for large enough r, Since b subsiuing 3.43 ino he righ hand side of 3.44, we obain log r = r d log r r d V r2 V r d r V = 2 d log, 3.44 V r b 2 r V d log = b Subsiuing his ino 3.44 again, we obain for large r >, whence 3.42 follows. r r log 2 2 r = 2 log d log 2 b 4 On-diagonal esimaes a cener d V 2 b 2 23 d log V b r 2 V r. r 2 V r, In his secion we prove Theorem 2.. In order o obain he upper bound of p, o, o on M = M #...#M k, we use he inegraed resolven inroduced in he previous secion. This idea of using he resolven on a conneced sum goes back o Woess [22, p. 96] where i was used in he seing of conneced sums of graphs. Implemenaion in he presen case of manifolds requires much more echnique, hough. 4. Esimaes of inegraed resolven on conneced sums From now on le M = M #M 2 # #M k be a conneced sum of parabolic manifolds M,..., M k wih a cenral par K. Le A be a conneced, precompac open subse of M wih smooh boundary and such ha K A. In fac, we will need ha K ɛ A for large enough ɛ. Se A i := A E i, i k so ha A = i A i see Fig. 7.

27 27 Figure 7: Ses K and A in he conneced sum M. Lemma 4. There is a consan h = h A, K > such ha, for any >, hsup γ k i= inf Φ E i A i Proof. As i follows from 3.3 and 3.2 he funcion u := γ γ A = G K G A K sup γ A. 4. is -harmonic in A. onsider he funcion h i in A ha solves he Dirichle problem { hi = in A h i = Ai on A. Since on A i we have i follows ha on A u sup A i γ = sup A i γ h i, u n i= sup A i γ h i. 4.2 Since h i is -superharmonic in A, we conclude by he comparison principle in A ha 4.2 holds in A. Le us also observe ha on A k h i =, 4.3 which implies hen ha 4.3 holds in A. Since in E i we have Φ Kc = Φ E i, we obain by Lemma 3.3b ha in E i i= γ sup γ Φ E i, which implies sup γ sup γ sup Φ E i A i A i = sup γ inf A i Φ E i.

28 28 Subsiuing ino 4.2 and recalling he definiion of u, we obain ha on A γ γ A + sup γ k i= inf A i Φ E i h i. 4.4 Le x be a poin where γ aains is maximum on. onsidering 4.4 a his poin x we obain k γ x γ A x + γ x inf Φ E i A h i x, i whence by 4.3 γ x k i= This implies 4. wih h := min i inf h i >. i= i= inf A i Φ E i h i x γ A x. Lemma 4.2 There exiss a consan h = h A, K > such ha k k hsup γ inf Φ E i A sup γ A + sup γ sup Ψ A + sup Ψ E i. 4.5 i A i Proof. By 3.4 and 3.27, he funcion v := γ γ A = G γ G A γa solves in A he following boundary value problem: { v v = γ γ A in A i= v = γ on A. onsider also funcion w ha solves he problem { w w = in A w = γ on A. Then we have v = G A γ γ A + w. 4.6 Using he esimae 3.2 of Lemma 3.3a and 3.24, we obain ha in A G A γ γ A sup γ G A Φ A = sup γ Ψ A. 4.7 A A Observe ha γ sup γ in K c because he consan funcion sup γ is -superharmonic in K c, while γ is minimal - harmonic ha is bounded by sup γ on c. Hence, we obain from 4.7 ha G A γ γ A sup γ Ψ A in A. 4.8 In order o esimae w, le us represen his funcion in he form w = k w i, i=

29 29 where w i solves he Dirichle problem { wi w i = in A w i = γ Ai on A. Le h i be he same as in he proof of Lemma 4.. By he comparison principle, we have ha in A w i sup γ h i. 4.9 A i Le us prove furher ha Indeed, by 3.4, he funcion γ G E i γ sup γ Φ E i in E i. 4. E i γ G E i γ = G γ G E i γ is non-negaive, -harmonic, and minimal in E i. Besides, i is bounded by sup Ei γ on E i. The funcion Φ E i is non-negaive and -harmonic in E i, and is equal o on E i. The esimae 4. follows by he comparison principle in E i. Similarly, we have γ sup γ Φ E i in E i, E i because γ is non-negaive, -harmonic and minimal in E i, and is bounded by sup Ei γ on E i. I follows ha in E i ombining wih 4., we obain ha in E i G E i γ sup E i γ G E i ΦE i = sup E i γ Ψ E i. γ sup E i Subsiuing ino 4.9, we obain ha in A w k i= sup A i γ h i k i= γ Φ E i + sup E i γ Ψ E i. sup γ inf Φ E i E i A + sup γ sup Ψ E i h i. i E i A i ombining wih 4.6 and 4.8, we obain he following esimae of he funcion v = γ γ A in A: k γ γ A sup γ Ψ A + sup γ inf Φ E i i= E i A + sup γ sup Ψ E i h i. i E i A i Le x be a poin of maximum of γ on. I follows ha γ x γ A k x + sup γ Ψ A x + γ x inf Φ E i A + sup γ sup Ψ E i h i x. i i= E i A i Since h i, we see ha γ x cancels ou in he boh sides, and we obain γ x k i= inf A i Φ E i h i x γ A x + sup k γ Ψ A x + sup γ sup E i i= A i Ψ E i Since h h i x where h := min i inf K h i >, we obain from here 4.5. h i x.

30 3 4.2 Proof of Theorem 2.: Upper bound As in he saemen of Theorem 2., le M be a conneced sum of parabolic manifolds M,..., M k, where all M i, i =,..., k saisfy LY and RA. Le V i r = V i o i, r be he volume funcion on M i a o i K i = M i \ E i. We also assume ha every V i r is eiher criical or subcriical, ha is, condiion d of Secion 2.2. Le V r = V o, r be he volume funcion on M a a reference poin o K. I suffices o prove he main esimae 2.8 for large enough because for small we have p, o, o N/2 and V N/2. Fix a conneced precompac open se A wih smooh boundary such ha A K ɛ for large enough ɛ > as in Lemmas 3.6 and 3.7 applied o all ends M i. Recall ha he inegraed resolven γ is defined by 3.3. By Lemmas 3.5 and 4., we have, for any > and any i =,..., k sup γ inf Ai Φ E i, 4. where = K, A. Assume firs ha all manifolds M i are subcriical. Applying 3.33 on each end M i we obain ha inf Φ E i A cv i i provided = A. Subsiuing ino 4., we obain ha, for, sup γ V max, where V max r = max i k V i r. By Lemma 3.i, we conclude ha, for all =, p, o, o V max 4.2 which proves he on-diagonal upper bound in 2.8 in he subcriical case. Assume now ha here exiss a leas one criical end. Le i be M j. Applying 3.34 in M j, we have inf A ΦE j c log, 4.3 which ogeher wih 4. yields, for all, sup γ log. 4.4 However, as we have poined ou before, in order o obain upper bound in 2.8 in he criical case, we need some addiional argumen abou γ. For ha, le us use he esimae 4.5 of sup γ. Subsiuing ino 4.5 he esimaes 3.29 and 3.3, we obain sup γ inf Φ E j A j + sup γ + k i= sup Ψ E i A i Subsiuing here 4.3, 4.4, 3.39, we obain, for all, sup γ log + log + log 2 log,.

31 3 which implies sup By Lemma 3. ii, we conclude ha γ for all. p, o, o for all 4.5 which finishes he proof of he upper bound in 2.8 in he criical case. 4.3 Proof of Theorem 2.: Lower bound Le M be a conneced sum saisfying he assumpion of Theorem 2.. Le us observe ha V r V r + V 2 r + + V k r V max r 4.6 for all r >. By 4.2 and 4.5, we obain ha, for all >, p, o, o V. 4.7 Since each V i r saisfies he doubling condiion, so does V r by 4.6. By [3, Theorem 7.2], he upper bound 4.7 ogeher wih he doubling propery of V r implies he maching lower bound c p, o, o V. Replacing here V by V max, we finish he proof of he lower bound in 2.8 and, hence, he proof of Theorem Off-diagonal esimaes In his secion, we prove Theorems by combining Theorem 2. wih some resuls from [2], [3] and [5]. For any open se Ω in any weighed manifold M, define he exi probabiliy funcion in Ω: for all x Ω and >, ψ Ω y, = P x τ Ω. Equivalenly, ψ Ω x, is he minimal non-negaive soluion of he hea equaion u = u in Ω R + wih he iniial condiion u = = and he boundary condiion u Ω =. We will use he absrac upper and lower off-diagonal esimaes of [5, Theorem 3.5] for he hea kernel p, x, y on an arbirary manifold M for x A and y B where A, B are open subses of M such eiher A and B are disjoin or B A. These esimaes use he exi probabiliies ψ A x, and ψ B y, and heir ime derivaives. Besides, hey use he quaniies and P + = G + = sup sup s [/4,] z A, z 2 B sup z A, z 2 B p s, z, z 2 and P = inf p s, z, z 2 ds and G = s [/4,] inf p s, z, z 2 z A, z 2 B inf p s, z, z 2 ds. z A, z 2 B

32 32 Wih hese noaions, he esimaes of [5, Theorem 3.5] read as follows: for all x A, y B and >, p, x, y p A, x, y + P ± ψ A x, ψ B y, +G ± [ ψ A x, ξ ψ B y, + ψ B y, ζ ψ A x, ], 5. where he index + is used for he upper bound, is used for he lower bound, = for he upper bound, = 4 for he lower bound, ξ and ζ are some values from [/4, ] ha may be differen for upper and lower bounds. Proof of Theorem 2.3. Recall ha M is a conneced sum of M,..., M k wih a cenral par K, where each M i saisfies condiions a-d in Subsecion 2.2. We apply 5. wih A = E i and B = E j where i j. Since A and B are disjoin, we have p A, x, y = for all x A and y B. Noe ha, for all z E i and z 2 E j, he disance d z, z 2 is bounded from above and below by posiive consans. Therefore, assuming >, we obain by he local Harnack inequaliy and Theorem 2. ha P ± p c, o, o V. 5.2 Le us esimae similarly G ±. Assuming >, we can spli he inegrals in he definiion of G ± ino he sum of wo inegrals: over, ] and over, ]. The firs inegral is bounded, while in he second inegral we can apply he local Harnack inequaliy o he hea kernel and, hence, replace z, z 2 by o. Using furher he esimae 2.8 of Theorem 2., we obain ha, for large, G ± V ds. 5.3 s If all ends are subcriical, hen by 2.3 we have, for large, Since also we obain ha ds V s ds V s /2 G ± V. ds V s 2V, V. 5.4 If here exiss a leas one criical end, hen V, and 5.3 implies, for large, G ± log. 5.5 Noe ha he exi probabiliy ψ i x, depends only on he inrinsic geomery of E i. Since each M i saisfies LY and RA, we can use he resuls of [3, Theorem 4.6] ha gives he following: for all x E i wih large enough x, ψ Ei x, and, for large enough x and, ψ Ei x, x 2 exp b x 2 / H V i x H x < 2 x 2, x sds V i s, x 2 H x exp b x 2 /, 5.7 V i H x + H H

33 33 where H is he funcion defined in Noe ha in he case of bounded x he esimae 5.7 maches he esimae 3.4 used in he proof of Lemma 3.7. If M i is subcriical hen H r r 2 /V i r. Subsiuing his ino hen 5.6 and 5.7, we obain, for all large enough and x, x 2 b ψ Ei x, e, 5.8 ψ Ei x, where D is defined in 2.4. If M i is criical hen H r log r which yields Dx, e b x 2, 5.9 x 2 b ψ Ei x, Ux, e, 5. ψ Ei x, x 2 W x, e b, log 5. where U is defined in 2.5 and W is defined in 2.6. Now we are in posiion o verify all he hea kernel esimaes claimed in Theorem 2.3 for x E i, y E j wih i j. I suffices o prove all he esimaes for large enough x, y and. Then he esimaes for all x E i and y E j while is sill large enough follow by applicaion of he local Harnack inequaliy. i If all ends are subcriical, hen 5., 5.2, 5.4, 5.8, 5.9 yield: p, x, y V x 2 + y 2 [ + Dx, + Dy, ] e b. Observing ha ha by 2.4 D x, is bounded and ha x 2 + y 2 d 2 x, y we obain 2.8. ii Now le a leas one of he ends be criical, so ha V r r 2. ii Le M i, M j are subcriical, hen 5., 5.2, 5.5, 5.8, 5.9 yield: p, x, y + Dx, + Dy, log e b x 2 + y 2, which proves 2.9. ii 2 Le boh M i and M j be criical. Then we obain from 5., 5.2, 5.5, 5., 5. ha p, x, y [Ux, Uy, + W x, U y, + Ux, W y, ] e b x 2 + y 2, ha is, 2.2. ii 3 Le M i be subcriical and M j be criical. Then we obain similarly p, x, y [U x, + Dx, U y, log + W x, ] e b x 2 + y 2. By 2.7 we can replace here U + W by, which yields 2.2. For he proof of Theorems 2.4 and 2.5, we will use again he esimae 5. bu his ime we ake A = E i and B = E i where E i = E i \ K and K is a closed ɛ-neighborhood of K for large enough ɛ. In his case we have B A.

34 34 Noe ha, for all z E i and z 2 E i, he disance d z, z 2 is bounded from above and below by posiive consans. Hence, arguing as above, we obain he same esimaes of P ±, G ± as saed in he proof of Theorem 2.3. The esimaes of ψ Ei and ψ Ei also remain he same. learly, ψ E i and ψ E i saisfy similar esimaes. To handle he erm p A, x, y = p Ei, x, y in 5., we use he resul of [2, Theorem 4.9] ha says he following: for all > and all x, y E i wih large x, y, p Ei, x, y V i x, H x H x + H H y H y + H e b d2, where d = d x, y. If M i is subcriical, hen Hr r 2 /V r, which gives If M i is criical, hen Hr log r, which gives Dx, Dy, p Ei, x, y V i x, e b d W x, W y, p Ei, x, y V i x, e b d For he proof of Theorems 2.4 and 2.5 we need he following lemma. Lemma 5. For all x, y E i and min x, y we have e b x 2 + y 2 e b d 2 x,y. 5.4 Moreover, if x hen e b d 2 x,y e b d 2 x,y 5.5 V i x, V i Proof. Se δ = diamk. The riangle inequaliy x + y + δ dx, y implies e b x 2 + y 2 e b d 2 x,y δ 2 e b d 2 x,y. 5.6 To prove he opposie inequaliy, assume ha x he case y is similar. The riangle inequaliy y x + δ + dx, y implies x + y 2 x + δ + dx, y 2 + δ + dx, y, whence i follows ha x 2 + y 2 b d2 x, y + cons, which complees he proof of 5.4. To prove 5.5 observe firs ha by 5.4, he erm d 2 x, y in he boh sides of 5.5 can be replaced by x 2 + y 2. The doubling propery of V i x, r yields V i oi, V i x, + x β e ε x 2,

35 35 for arbirarily small ε >, which implies ha e b x 2 + y 2 V i x, e ε x 2 e b x 2 + y 2 V i o, e b x 2 + y V i o, The opposie inequaliy is proved similarly. Proof of Theorem 2.4a. We consider he same cases as in Theorem 2.3 and use he same esimaes of all he erms in 5., excep for he Dirichle hea kernel. Noe ha he case ii 3 canno occur because x, y are a he same end E i. i Assume ha all ends are subcriical. Subsiuing 5.2, 5.2, 5.4, 5.8 and 5.9 ino 5., we obain Dx, Dy, p, x, y V i x, e b d2 By 2.4 and he assumpion min x, y we have and, hence, p, x, y + V x 2 + y 2 + Dx, + Dy, e b. 5.8 D x, = D y, = Using he volume doubling propery of V i, we obain V x 2 + y 2 e b = V io i, V max V i x, d 2 x,y e b + V x 2 + y 2 e b. 5.9 V i x, V i o i, V i x, e b + x β V i x, x 2 + y 2 e b x 2 + y 2 V i x, d 2 x,y e b, 5.2 which shows ha he firs erm in 5.9 is dominan, hence yielding ii Le a leas one of he ends be criical. ii Le M i be subcriical. In his case we have as above p, x, y V i x, e b d 2 + log e b x 2 + y By 2.7 and he volume doubling propery of M i, we obain log e b x 2 + y 2 = log V i x, V i o i, V i x, V i x, V i o i, e b + x β e b x 2 + y 2 x 2 + y 2 V i x, d 2 x,y e b. 5.22