mathematics

Article
Existence, Regularity, and Uniqueness of Solutions to
Some Noncoercive Nonlinear Elliptic Equations in
Unbounded Domains
Patrizia Di Gironimo

Dipartimento di Matematica, Università degli Studi di Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 84084 Fisciano, Italy;
[email protected]

Abstract: In this paper, we study a noncoercive nonlinear elliptic operator with a drift term in an
unbounded domain. The singular first-order term grows like | E( x )||∇u|, where E( x ) is a vector field
belonging to a suitable Morrey-type space. Our operator arises as a stationary equation of diffusion–
advection problems. We prove existence, regularity, and uniqueness theorems for a Dirichlet problem.
To obtain our main results, we use the weak maximum principle and the same a priori estimates.

Keywords: noncoercive nonlinear elliptic equations; Dirichlet problems; singular drift; unbounded domains

MSC: 35A15; 35J25; 35B65

1. Introduction

In this paper, we study a Dirichlet boundary value problem for a noncoercive operator
whose model appears in stationary diffusion–advection problems. Precisely, we consider
the following Dirichlet problem:
(
−div(b( x )∇u) + µu = H ( x, ∇u) + f ( x ) in Ω,
(1)
Citation: Di Gironimo, P. Existence, u ∈ W01,2 (Ω),
Regularity, and Uniqueness of
2
Solutions to Some Noncoercive where Ω is an open unbounded subset of R N , N > 2, b : Ω → R N is a measurable matrix
Nonlinear Elliptic Equations in field such that almost every x ∈ Ω, and for some α, β ∈ R+ .
Unbounded Domains. Mathematics
2024, 12, 1860. https://doi.org/ α|ξ |2 ≤ b( x ) ξξ, |b( x )| ≤ β, ∀ξ ∈ R N , (2)
10.3390/math12121860

Academic Editor: Carlo Bianca

µ > 0. (3)

Received: 9 May 2024

The drift term H : Ω × R N → R is a Carathéodory function verifying
Revised: 6 June 2024
Accepted: 11 June 2024
| H ( x, ξ )| ≤ | E( x )||ξ |, ∀ x ∈ Ω, ∀ξ ∈ R N , (4)
Published: 14 June 2024
where E : Ω → R N is a vector field such that

| E| ∈ L2 (Ω) ∩ M0s,N −s (Ω), for some s ∈]2, N ]. (5)

Copyright: © 2024 by the author.
In the datum, we assume that
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article ∗ )′ 2N
distributed under the terms and f ∈ L (2 (Ω), where (2∗ )′ = . (6)
N+2
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// In this paper, we show the existence and regularity of a solution of problem (1) by using
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the spaces of a Morrey-type introduced in [1], denoted by M p,λ (Ω). These spaces were
4.0/). introduced to overcome some difficulties encountered when studying variational elliptic

Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12121860 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics

Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 2 of 19

problems in unbounded domains. More precisely, the natural decreasing inclusions among
Lebesgue spaces and compactness results do not hold, and the norm in W01,2 (Ω) is not
equivalent to the L2 (Ω) norm of a gradient. In Section 2, the decreasing inclusion relation
and the compactness result for Morrey-type spaces are given. For the last statement, we
make hypothesis (3). In a recent paper [2], problem (1) was studied assuming that

| E| ∈ L2 (Ω) ∩ M0N (Ω),

where M0N (Ω) is a generalization of Lebesgue spaces in unbounded domains. The space
M p,λ (Ω) is smaller than the class of the space M p (Ω) of [3] and larger than the class of the
spaces L p,λ (R N ) studied in [4] when Ω = R N . Noting that, for any 0 < s ≤ N, it results in
M N (Ω) ⊂ Ms,N −s (Ω), the need to study the problem in the setting of Morrey-type spaces
arises quite naturally.
The uniqueness of the solution is proved if the following holds:

| H ( x, ξ ) − H ( x, η )| ≤ | E( x )||ξ − η | ∀ξ, η ∈ R N . (7)

We observe that the problem is not coercive unless ∥ E∥ Ms,N −s (Ω) is small enough.
0
Our results are obtained following some nonlinear methods. The main difficulty that
arises is obtaining uniform (with respect to n) a priori estimates on the solutions un of
approximating problems. Our strategy is as follows: first, we prove the existence of weak
solutions of coercive nonlinear approximating problems (18). Then we show an a priori
estimate using the weak maximum principle, since the method of test functions cannot be
applied. Indeed, as shown in [5] (see also [6]), one cannot find a real Lipschitz continuous
function φ such that using φ(un ) as a test function provides uniform a priori estimates for
the solutions of (18).
Finally, passing the limit, we obtain the existence of a weak solution of problem (1),
contained in Theorem 5. We achieve the Stampacchia-type regularity results [7], which can
be found in Theorem 6. The uniqueness result of the solution is given in Theorem 7.
Our problem recovers the case
(
−∆u + µu = E( x )∇u + f ( x ) in Ω,
(8)
u ∈ W01,2 (Ω)

which appears in the stationary diffusion–advection problems. The study of (8) reflects on
its dual problem. (
−∆v + µv = div( E( x )∇v) + g( x ) in Ω,
(9)
v ∈ W01,2 (Ω).
The dual problem can be seen as the stationary counterpart of the Fokker–Planck equation,
which appears in several contexts, such as the description of the Brownian motion of a
particle (for instance, in a fluid). See also [8] for applications to mean field games. On
the other hand, since we study problems dealing with diffusion–advection phenomena,
it is natural to consider cases where Ω can be unbounded. If we think of a diffusing gas,
ideally in applications, the gas diffuses into containers that are extremely large. In view of
this, it could be useful to work in the whole R N or in a domain that is unbounded at least
along one direction. Although (8) and (9) are dual problems with different features, one
can use the results on one model to deduce results for the other model, thanks to linear
theory. When we consider nonlinear generalizations of such models, the approaches for
these two types could be quite different. In general, results in unbounded domains are
applied to studies in different fields, such as population dynamics, phase transition theory
(see [9]), pseudoplastic fluids in [10], and ecology models in [11]. For the reader’s complete
understanding of this topic, see also [12].
Existence and uniqueness results for problem (8) in a coercive case were studied
in [13]. The dual problem of (8) in a noncoercive case was considered in [14] (see also [15]).
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 3 of 19

Existence and regularity results for a noncoercive nonlinear operator that behaves like the
p-Laplacian were considered in [16,17] (see also [18,19]). A related obstacle problem can be
found in [20]. Regularity results for noncoercive problems in divergence form in a linear
case were obtained from [21]. We refer to [22–24] for the study of the Dirichlet problems in
an unbounded domain under various assumptions.
The existence and regularity of the solutions for a Dirichlet problem in an bounded
domain have been largely studied. Here, we recall the classical works [7,25,26] regarding
the study of the coercive linear problem (8), where | E( x )| is assumed to belong to L N (Ω)
with a sufficiently small L N -norm.
In [27], existence and regularity results were obtained for the noncoercive linear
problem (8), assuming µ = 0 and E ∈ L N (Ω).
We also quote [28], where a weaker datum f was considered. Analogous results in the
nonlinear case were obtained in [6]. We refer to [29–31] for existence results.

2. Spaces of Morrey-Type in Unbounded Domains

We recall the definitions of the function spaces we deal with that are suitable for the
study of variational problems in unbounded domains.
For this aim, let Ω be an unbounded open subset of R N , N > 2, and Σ(Ω) the σ-
algebra of Lebesgue measurable subsets of Ω. Let O ∈ Σ(Ω), χO the characteristic function
of O, O( x, r ) the intersection O ∩ B( x, r ) (x ∈ R N , r ∈ R+ ), and |O| the Lebesgue measure
of O.
The class D(Ω) contains the restrictions to Ω of functions ζ ∈ C0∞ (R N ), while Ltloc (Ω)
denotes the class of functions g : Ω → R such that ζ g ∈ Lt (Ω) for any ζ ∈ D(Ω).
The space of Morrey-type M p,λ (Ω), 0 ≤ λ < n and 1 ≤ p < +∞, is the set of all the
functions g ∈ L p (Ω ∩ Br ) for each r ∈ R+ such that

|| g|| M p,λ (Ω) := sup |r −λ g| p,Ω∩ B(x,r) < +∞ , (10)

x ∈Ω
0<r ≤1

equipped with the norm defined above.

These functional spaces generalize the classical notion of Morrey spaces to the case of
unbounded domains and are introduced and largely studied in [1]. For these spaces, differ-
ent from Lebesgue spaces defined on unbounded domains, one has the decreasing inclusion

λ−N λ −N
M p0 ,λ0 (Ω) → M p,λ (Ω), if p ≤ p0 and ≤ 0 ,
p p0

and the following inclusion holds:

L∞ (Ω) ⊂ M p,λ (Ω).

Moreover, as observed in [32], for any 0 < s ≤ N,

M N (Ω) ⊂ Ms,N −s (Ω).

Indeed, if we consider
1
g( x ) = ,
|x|
we have g ∈ Ms,N −s (Rn ), 0 < s < N, but g ̸∈ Lloc
N (Rn ) and so g ̸ ∈ M N (Rn ).
p,λ
The space M0 (Ω) denotes the subspace of M p,λ (Ω) of the functions g ∈ M p,λ (Ω)
such that

∀ϵ ∈ R+ ∃νϵ ∋′ E ∈ Σ(Ω), | E(0, σϵ )| ≤ νϵ ⇒ ∥ gχ E ∥ M p,λ (Ω) ≤ ϵ. (11)

In the sequel, we will use the following embedding result from [33]:
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 4 of 19

Theorem 1. If g ∈ M p,λ (Ω), with p > 2 and λ = 0 if N = 2, and p ∈]2, N ] and λ = N − p if

N > 2, then the operator
u ∈ W01,2 (Ω) → gu ∈ L2 (Ω) (12)
is bounded and there exists a constant c ∈ R+ such that

|| gu|| L2 (Ω) ≤ c|| g|| M p,λ (Ω) ||u||W 1,2 (Ω) , ∀u ∈ W01,2 (Ω), (13)

p,λ
with c = c( N, p). Moreover, if g ∈ M0 (Ω), then the operator in (12) is also compact.

3. Weak Maximum Principle

This section is dedicated to the weak maximum principle, which is an indispensable

tool for obtaining our results. It extends the well-known one contained in [25] (see also [31]).

Theorem 2. Assume (2)–(5). If w ∈ W01,2 (Ω) is such that

Z Z Z
b( x )∇w∇ φ dx + µ w φ dx ≤ | E( x )||∇w|| φ| dx, ∀ φ ∈ W01,2 (Ω), (14)
Ω Ω Ω

then w ≤ 0.

Proof. For k > 0, we choose wk = (w − k)+ as a test function in (14), and by (3), we have
Z Z Z
b( x )∇w∇wk dx + µ (w − k)wk dx ≤ | E( x )||∇w|wk dx.
Ω Ω Ω

Now, observe that ∇w = ∇wk , if w > k; thus by (2), Hölder’s inequality and Theorem 1,
we have

2 2
min(α, µ)∥wk ∥W 1,2 ( Ω ) ≤ C ∥ E ∥ M s,N −s ( Ek ) ∥ wk ∥W 1,2 ( Ω ) , (15)

where Ek = { x ∈ Ω : w( x ) > k, |∇w( x )| > 0} and C = C ( N, s) is a positive constant.

Therefore,
2
(min(α, µ) − C ∥ E∥ Ms,N −s (Ek ) )∥wk ∥W 1,2 ( Ω ) ≤ 0. (16)

Now, by contradiction, let us suppose that sup w > 0 and set M = sup w. If M = +∞, then

lim meas( Ek ) = 0. (17)

k→ M

If M is finite, since w ∈ W01,2 (Ω), by the known properties of Sobolev functions (see, e.g.,
ref. [25]), we have |∇w( x )| = 0 a.e. on { x ∈ Ω : w( x ) = M}; hence, we still deduce (17).
By (11) and (17), we have limk→ M ∥ E∥ Ms,N −s (Ek ) = 0; hence, there exists k0 < M such
min(α,µ)
that ∥ E∥ Ms,N −s (Ek ) < C , for k ≥ k0 . This, together with (16) written for k = k0 ,
implies that ∥wk0 ∥W 1,2 (Ω) = 0 and then wk0 = 0 a.e. in Ω, that is, w ≤ k0 a.e. in Ω. With
sup w ≤ k0 < M, the contradiction follows.

4. Existence Result

In order to prove the existence of a weak solution of problem (1), we start to study the
existence of solutions to some approximating problems.
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 5 of 19

We consider the following coercive nonlinear approximating problems of (1):

−div(b( x )∇un ) + µun







H ( x, ∇un ) f



=   + 1
, (18)
1 + 1
|∇ u n | 1 + 1
| E | 1 + n |f|


 n n




un ∈ W01,2 (Ω).


As usual, we first prove the existence of a solution sequence to (18) using the next surjectivity
theorem (see [34]). Then, applying the weak maximum principle, we archive uniform a
priori estimates for {un }, and finally, using the method of passing the limit, we establish
the existence result for problem (1).

Theorem 3 (Surjectivity). Let V be a reflexive and separable Banach space. If the operator
A : V → V ′ is
1. coercive, i.e.,
< A ( u ), u >
→ +∞, ∥u∥ → +∞;
∥u∥
2. pseudomonotone, i.e.,
(i) A is bounded (it transforms bounded sets of V in bounded sets of V ′ );
(ii) if un ⇀ u weakly in V and lim sup < A(un ), un − u >≤ 0, then
n→+∞
lim inf < A(un ), un − w >≥< A(u), u − w > for all w in V.
n→+∞
Then A is surjective; i.e., for every f in V ′ , there exists u in V such that A(u) = f .

We will use the following lemma shown in Theorem 2.1 of [34] in the case of an
bounded domain, but the result holds also for unbounded domains.

Lemma 1. Let p > 1, { f n } be a sequence of functions in L p (Ω), and f be a function in L p (Ω).

Assume that
1. { f n } is bounded in L p (Ω);
2. f n → f a.e. in Ω.
Then f n ⇀ f weakly in L p (Ω).

We also need the following lemma (see [35]).

Lemma 2. Let un , u ∈ W01,2 (Ω). Under hypotheses (2) and (3) and if

b( x )(∇un − ∇u)2 + µ(un − u)2 → 0 a.e. in Ω,

then
un → u a.e. in Ω, (19)
and
∇un → ∇u a.e. in Ω. (20)

Theorem 4. Assume (2)–(6). Then, for any n ∈ N, there exists a weak solution un of problem (18).
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 6 of 19

Proof. The proof is obtained for n = 1 using the surjectivity Theorem 3. For this aim, we
define the operator A as follows:

A : u ∈ W01,2 (Ω) → −div(b( x )∇u) + µu

H ( x, ∇u) f
− − ∈ W −1,2 (Ω).
(1 + |∇u|)(1 + | E|) 1 + | f |

First, we show that A is coercive.

Indeed, from (2)–(6), Hölder’s and Sobolev inequality, we have for every u ∈ W01,2 (Ω)

| E( x )||∇u| | f ||u|
Z Z Z Z
< A(u), u >≥ α |∇u|2 dx + µ |u|2 dx − |u|dx − dx
Ω Ω Ω (1 + |∇u|)(1 + | E|) Ω 1 + |f|

2
≥ C (∥u∥W 1,2 ( Ω ) − ∥ E ∥ L2 ( Ω ) ∥ u ∥W 1,2 ( Ω ) − ∥ f ∥ L(2∗ )′ ( Ω ) ∥ u ∥W 1,2 ( Ω ) )

 
= C ∥u∥W 1,2 (Ω) − ∥ E∥ L2 (Ω) − ∥ f ∥ L(2∗ )′ (Ω) ∥u∥W 1,2 (Ω) ,

where the constant C = C ( N, α, µ).

Now, we prove that A is pseudomonotone.
We start to show that A is bounded. Indeed, for every u, v ∈ W01,2 (Ω) also by the
Sobolev inequality, one has
< A ( u ), v >

≤ C ∥∇u∥ L2 (Ω) ∥∇v∥ L2 (Ω) + ∥u∥ L2 (Ω) ∥v∥ L2 (Ω)

+∥ E∥ L2 (Ω) ∥v∥ L2 (Ω) + ∥ f ∥ L(2∗ )′ (Ω) ∥v∥ L2∗ (Ω)
 
≤ C ∥u∥W 1,2 (Ω) + ∥ E∥ L2 (Ω) + ∥ f ∥ L(2∗ )′ (Ω) ∥v∥W 1,2 (Ω) ,

where C = C ( N, β, µ).
Now, we have to prove that if

un ⇀ u weakly in W01,2 (Ω) (21)

and
lim sup < A(un ), un − u > ≤ 0, (22)
n→+∞

then
lim inf < A(un ), un − w > ≥ < A(u), u − w >, ∀w ∈ W01,2 (Ω). (23)
n→+∞

Step 1. We start to archive that

b( x )(∇un − ∇u)2 + µ(un − u)2 → 0 strongly in L1 (Ω). (24)

From (21), we have

"Z Z
#
lim b( x )∇u∇(un − u)dx + µ u(un − u)dx = 0, (25)
n→+∞ Ω Ω
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 7 of 19

and so, we deduce that

lim sup < A(un ), un − u >

n→+∞
"Z Z
2
= lim sup b( x )(∇un − ∇u) dx + µ (un − u)2 dx
n→+∞ Ω Ω (26)
#
H ( x, ∇un ) f
Z Z
− (un − u)dx − (un − u)dx .
Ω (1 + |∇un |)(1 + | E( x )|) Ω 1 + |f|

Combining hypothesis (5), convergence (21), and the compactness result of Theorem 1, we
obtain, up to a subsequence, that

| E( x )|un → | E( x )|u strongly in L2 (Ω). (27)

Thus, (4) and (21), Hölder’s inequality, and (27) give

| H ( x, ∇un )|
Z
lim |un − u|dx
n→+∞ Ω (1 + |∇un |)(1 + | E( x )|)
(28)
≤ lim ∥ E( x )(un − u)∥ L2 (Ω) ∥∇un ∥ L2 (Ω) = 0.
n→+∞

Then it results in
H ( x, ∇un )
Z
lim (un − u)dx = 0. (29)
n→+∞ Ω (1 + |∇un |)(1 + | E( x )|)

In view of (21), one has

f
Z
lim (un − u)dx = 0. (30)
n→+∞ Ω 1 + |f|
Now, combining (22), (26), (29), and (30), we deduce
Z Z 
2 2
lim sup b( x )(∇un − ∇u) dx + µ (un − u) dx ≤ 0. (31)
n→+∞ Ω Ω

Putting together (2), (3), and (31), we have

"Z Z
#
2 2
lim b( x )(∇un − ∇u) dx + µ (un − u) dx = 0, (32)
n→+∞ Ω Ω

and so we obtain (24).

Step 2. Let us now prove (23).
Let unk be the subsequence of un such that

lim inf < A(un ), un − w >= lim < A(unk ), unk − w > . (33)
n→+∞ k →+∞

In view of (24), we deduce that there exists unkm such that

 2
b( x ) ∇unkm − ∇u (unkm − u)2 → 0 a.e. in Ω.

Thus, from Lemma 2, we deduce that

unkm → u a.e. in Ω
(34)
∇unkm → ∇u a.e. in Ω.
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 8 of 19

Using (33) and the definition of A, we have

Z Z
lim inf < A(un ), un − w >= lim b( x )|∇unkm |2 dx + µ |unkm |2 dx
n→+∞ m→+∞ Ω Ω

Z H ( x, ∇unkm ) Z H ( x, ∇unkm )
− unkm dx + wdx
Ω (1 + |∇ unk m |)(1 + | E ( x )|) Ω (1 + |∇ unk m |)(1 + | E ( x )|)
!
f f
Z Z Z Z
− b( x )∇unkm ∇wdx − µ unkm wdx − unkm dx + wdx .
Ω Ω Ω 1 + |f| Ω 1 + |f|

Now, we pass the limit as m → +∞ on the right-hand side of the previous inequality.
Concerning the first two integrals, thanks to (2), (3), and (34), we can apply Fatou’s lemma.
The third and fourth integrals can be estimated using (21) and (34) and Lemma 1. For the
fifth integral, observing that H ( x, ∇u) is a Carathéodory function and using the second
convergence in (34), we obtain

H ( x, ∇unkm ) H ( x, ∇u)
→ q.o. in Ω. (35)
(1 + |∇unkm |)(1 + | E( x )|) (1 + |∇u|)(1 + | E( x )|)
Moreover, with

H ( x, ∇unkm ) | E( x )||∇unkm |
≤ ≤ | E( x )| ∈ L2 (Ω),
(1 + |∇unkm |)(1 + | E( x )|) (1 + |∇unkm |)(1 + | E( x )|)

from (35) and the Lebesgue Theorem, we obtain

H ( x, ∇unkm ) H ( x, ∇u)
→ strongly in L2 (Ω). (36)
(1 + |∇unkm |)(1 + | E( x )|) (1 + |∇u|)(1 + | E( x )|)

Hence, by (21),
Z H ( x, ∇unkm ) Z
H ( x, ∇u)
unkm dx → udx.
Ω (1 + |∇unkm |)(1 + | E( x )|) Ω (1 + |∇ u |)(1 + | E ( x )|)

From (21) and (36), we deduce the convergences of the other integrals. It follows that
Z Z
lim inf < A(un ), un − w >≥ b( x )|∇u|2 dx + µ |u|2 dx
n→+∞ Ω Ω

H ( x, ∇u) f
Z Z Z Z
− udx − udx − b( x )∇u∇wdx − µ uwdx
Ω (1 + |∇u|)(1 + | E( x )|) Ω 1 + |f| Ω Ω

H ( x, ∇u) f
Z Z
+ wdx + wdx =< A(u), u − w >,
Ω (1 + |∇u|)(1 + | E( x )|) Ω 1 + |f|
and the theorem is proved.

Lemma 3. Assume (2)–(6) and let {un } be a solution sequence to problem (18). Then, there exists
a constant C, independent of n, such that

||un ||W 1,2 (Ω) ≤ C. (37)

Proof. Reasoning by contradiction, we assume that

∥un ∥W 1,2 (Ω) → +∞. (38)

Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 9 of 19

Putting
un
wn = , (39)
∥un ∥W 1,2 (Ω)

it follows that ∥wn ∥W 1,2 (Ω) = 1, and that there exists w̄ ∈ W01,2 (Ω) such that

wn ⇀ w̄ weakly in W01,2 (Ω), (40)

up to a subsequence not relabeled.

Dividing the variational formulation of (18) by ∥un ∥W 1,2 (Ω) and using (4), it results in

Z Z
b( x )∇wn ∇ φ dx + µ wn φ dx
Ω Ω

| E( x )||∇wn || φ| 1 f
Z Z
≤
dx +
φ dx (41)
Ω (1 + n1 |∇un |) 1 + n1 | E| ∥un ∥W 1,2 (Ω) Ω 1 + n1 | f |

1 f
Z Z
≤ | E( x )||∇wn || φ| dx +
φ dx, ∀ φ ∈ W01,2 (Ω).
Ω ∥un ∥W 1,2 (Ω) Ω 1 + n1 | f |

Putting φ = wn − w̄ in (41), we obtain

Z Z
b( x )∇wn ∇(wn − w̄) dx + µ wn (wn − w̄) dx
Ω Ω
(42)
1 f
Z Z
≤ | E( x )||∇wn ||wn − w̄| dx +
(wn − w̄)dx.
Ω ||un ||W 1,2 (Ω) Ω 1 + n1 | f |

Thus,
Z Z
b( x )(∇wn − ∇w̄)2 dx + µ (wn − w̄)2 dx
Ω Ω

f 1
Z Z
≤ | E( x )||∇wn ||wn − w̄| dx +
(wn − w̄) dx (43)
Ω 1 + n1 | f |
||un ||W 1,2 (Ω) Ω
Z Z 
− b( x )∇w̄∇(wn − w̄) dx + µ w̄ (wn − w̄) dx .
Ω Ω

Repeating the reasoning for obtaining (32), we have

Z Z
lim b( x )(∇wn − ∇w̄)2 dx + µ (wn − w̄)2 dx = 0, (44)
n→+∞ Ω Ω

and we deduce, up to a subsequence not relabeled, that

b( x )(∇wn − ∇w)2 + µ(wn − w)2 → 0 a.e. in Ω. (45)

Then, by Lemma 2, we obtain

wn → w̄ a.e. in Ω (46)
and
∇wn → ∇w̄ a.e. in Ω. (47)
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 10 of 19

As a consequence of (46) and (47) and the boundedness of the W 1,2 -norm of wn , applying
the Lebesgue Theorem and (38), we can pass the limit in (41), obtaining
Z Z
b( x )∇w̄∇ φ dx + µ w̄ φ dx
Ω Ω
Z (48)
≤ | E( x )||∇w̄|| φ| dx, ∀φ∈ W01,2 (Ω).
Ω

From the previous inequality, we deduce that w̄ satisfies the hypothesis of Proposition 2,
and so w̄ ≤ 0. Reasoning in a similar way for −w̄, we have w̄ ≥ 0, and hence, w̄ = 0. Thus,
we deduce that
wn ⇀ 0 weakly in W01,2 (Ω). (49)
Now, putting φ = wn in (41), from (2) and (3), we have
2
min{α, µ}∥wn ∥W 1,2 ( Ω )

1 f (50)
Z Z
≤ | E( x )||∇wn |wn dx + 1
wn dx.
Ω ∥un ∥W 1,2 (Ω) Ω 1+ n|f|

Thanks to (38) and (49) and the compactness result of Theorem 1, we pass the limit in (50),
obtaining that wn → 0 strongly in W01,2 (Ω). This is a contradiction since ∥wn ∥W1,2 (Ω) = 1.

Corollary 1. Assume (2)–(6). Let {un } be a solution sequence to problem (18). Then, for any
ε > 0, there exists k ε , independent of n, such that

|Ωn,k | ≤ ε, ∀ k > kε , (51)

where Ωn,k is defined by

Ωn,k = { x ∈ Ω : |un ( x )| > k}. (52)

Now, we can prove the existence result for our problem.

Theorem 5. Assume (2)–(6). Then, there exists a u ∈ W01,2 (Ω) weak solution to (1).

Proof. Let {un } be a solution sequence to (18), that is,

Z Z
b( x )∇un ∇v dx + µ un v dx
Ω Ω
(53)
H ( x, ∇un ) v f
Z Z
=
dx + v dx,
Ω (1 + n1 |∇un |) 1 + n1 | E| Ω 1 + n1 | f |

for every v ∈ W01,2 (Ω).

From (37), we deduce that there exists u ∈ W01,2 (Ω) such that, unless passing a subsequence
not relabeled,
un ⇀ u weakly in W01,2 (Ω). (54)
Arguing as shown (46) and (47), we have

un → u a.e. in Ω (55)

and
∇un → ∇u a.e. in Ω. (56)
By (54)–(56), the property of H ( x, ξ ) and the Lebesgue Theorem, we can take the limit
n → +∞ with respect to (53), obtaining the thesis.
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 11 of 19

5. Regularity

The following lemma contained in [13] generalizes a well-known result proved in [7]
to the case of unbounded domains.

Lemma 4. Let G be a uniformly Lipschitz function satisfying G (0) = 0 and u ∈ W01,2 (Ω). Then
G ◦ u ∈ W01,2 (Ω).

For k ∈ R+ , we consider the truncation function

(
s, if |s| ≤ k,
Tk (s) = s (57)
k |s| , if |s| > k

and we set
Gk (s) = s − Tk (s). (58)
For every u ∈ W01,2 (Ω), we define

Ωk = { x ∈ Ω : |u( x )| > k}. (59)

As a consequence of Lemma 4, we have

Lemma 5. Let u ∈ W01,2 (Ω) and k ∈ R+ . The following properties hold:

Gk (u) = Gk ◦ u ∈ W01,2 (Ω), (60)

| Gk (u)| ≤ |u|, a.e. in Ω, (61)

|u| ≤ | Gk (u)| + k, a.e. in Ω, (62)
∇u∇ Gk (u) = |∇ Gk (u)|2 , a.e. in Ω, (63)
u Gk (u) ≥ | Gk (u)|2 , a.e. in Ω, (64)
supp Gk (u) ⊆ Ωk , (65)
u xi a.e. in Ωk ,

( Gk (u)) xi = (66)
0 a.e. in Ω \ Ωk , i = 1 . . . N,

Tk (u) = Tk ◦ u ∈ W01,2 (Ω), (67)

∇u∇ Tk (u) = |∇ Tk (u)|2 , a.e. in Ω, (68)

u Tk (u) ≥ | Tk (u)|2 , a.e. in Ω, (69)
u ∇ Tk (u) = Tk (u)∇ Tk (u), a.e. in Ω. (70)

To prove the boundedness result, we need the following lemma due to G. Stampacchia (see
Lemma 4.1 of [7]).

Lemma 6. Let k0 > 0 and φ : [k0 , +∞[→ R+ be a nonincreasing function such that

C
φ(h) ≤ [ φ(k)]δ ∀ h > k ≥ k0 , (71)
( h − k )γ

where C, γ, and δ are positive constants, with δ > 1. For

δ δ −1
d = 2 δ−1 C1/γ [ φ(k0 )] γ , (72)

one has
φ(k0 + d) = 0. (73)
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 12 of 19

∗ ′
Lemma 7. Assume (2)–(5) and f ∈ L(2 ) (Ω) ∩ Lr (Ω), with r > N2 . Let {un } be a solution
sequence of problem (18). Then, there exists a positive constant Cr , independent of n, such that
 
∥un ∥ L∞ (Ω) ≤ Cr α, µ, N, s, ∥ E∥ Ms,N −s (Ω) , ∥ f ∥ Lr (Ω) . (74)

Proof. From (60), we consider Gk (un ) as test function in the variational formulations of (18).
Using (2), (3), (4), (52), and (63)–(65) and Young’s inequality, we obtain
Z Z
α |∇ Gk (un )|2 dx + µ | Gk (un )|2 dx
Ω Ω
1
Z Z
α
≤ |∇ Gk (un )|2 dx + | E( x )|2 | Gk (un )|2 dx
2 Ωn,k 2α Ωn,k
Z
+ | f || Gk (un )| dx.
Ωn,k

Therefore, from Theorem 1 and Hölder’s inequality, we have

Z Z
α
|∇ Gk (un )|2 dx + µ | Gk (un )|2 dx
2 Ω Ω
1
Z Z
≤ | E( x )|2 | Gk (un )|2 dx + | f || Gk (un )| dx
2α Ωn,k Ωn,k

≤ C ∥ E∥2Ms,N −s (Ω 2
∥ Gk (un )∥W 1,2 ( Ω ) + ∥ f ∥ L(2∗ )′ ( Ω ∥ Gk (un )∥ L2∗ (Ωn,k ) ,
n,k ) n,k )

where C = C (α, N, s).

Then, from (3), nα o
min , µ ∥ Gk (un )∥2
2 W01,2 (Ω)

≤ C ∥ E∥2Ms,N −s (Ω 2
∥ Gk (un )∥W 1,2 ( Ω ) + ∥ f ∥ L(2∗ )′ ( Ω ∥ Gk (un )∥ L2∗ (Ωn,k ) . (75)
n,k ) n,k )

Using (11) and Corollary 1, there exists k0 ∈ R+ , independent of n, such that

min{ α2 , µ}
∥ E∥2Ms,N −s (Ω < ∀k ≥ k0 . (76)
n,k ) C
From previous inequalities using the Sobolev inequality, we obtain

∥ Gk (un )∥2L2∗ (Ω) ≤ C ∥ f ∥ L(2∗ )′ (Ω ∥ Gk (un )∥ L2∗ (Ω) ,

n,k )

where C = C (α, µ, N, s, ∥ E∥ Ms,N −s (Ω) ).

Applying Hölder’s inequality, we deduce
1 − 1r
∥ Gk (un )∥ L2∗ (Ω) ≤ C ∥ f ∥ L(2∗ )′ (Ω ≤ C ∥ f ∥ Lr (Ω) |Ωn,k | (2∗ )′ . (77)
n,k )

On the other hand, from (52) and (62) , for every h > 0, we obtain
Z 1
1 ∗ 2∗ 1

h|Ωn,h | 2∗ = |h|2 dx ≤ ∥un ∥ L2∗ (Ωn,h ) ≤ ∥ Gk (un )∥ L2∗ (Ωn,h ) + k|Ωn,h | 2∗ ,
Ωn,h

thus
1
(h − k)|Ωn,h | 2∗ ≤ ∥ Gk (un )∥ L2∗ (Ωn,h ) , ∀h > k. (78)

Combining (77) and (78), we have

 
2∗ (21∗ )′ − 1r
|Ωn,k |
|Ωn,h | ≤ C , ∀h > k ≥ k0 ,
( h − k ) 2∗
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 13 of 19

 
with C = C (α, µ, N, s, ∥ E∥ Ms,N −s (Ω) , ∥ f ∥ Lr (Ω) ). Now, since r > − 1r > 1. N
2, one has 2∗ 1
(2∗ )′
Thus, from Lemma 6, we deduce that there exists d ∈ R+ such that |Ωk0 +d | = 0. The
(74) follows.

The following lemma gives a further regularity result.

Lemma 8. Assume(2)–(5) and f ∈ L1 (Ω) ∩ Lm (Ω). If (2∗ )′ < m < N2 , then there exists a positive
constant C = C (α, µ, N, m, || E|| Ms,N −s (Ω) , || E|| L2 (Ω) , || f || Lm (Ω) ), independent of n, such that

∥un ∥ Lm∗∗ (Ω) ≤ C. (79)

Proof. We prove (79) by means of three steps. For k ∈ R+ , being un = Tk (un ) + Gk (un ) for
∗∗
obtaining the estimate, we first show that the sequence { Tk (un )} is bounded in Lm , and
∗∗
then we prove that there exists k0 > 0 such that the sequence { Gk (un )} is bounded in Lm ,
for every k ≥ k0 . Combining these results, we conclude the proof.
Step 1. If |t| ≤ M, for some M > 0 and for every λ > 1, the function |t|2(λ−1) t satisfies the
| Tk (un )|2(λ−1) Tk (un ) ∗∗
hypotheses of Lemma 4. Then we can choose , with λ = m2∗ , as a test
2λ − 1
function in the variational formulation of problem (18).
Then, by (2), (4), (52), (68), and (70) and Young’s inequality, we have
Z Z
µ
α | Tk (un )|2(λ−1) |∇ Tk (un )|2 dx + | Tk (un )|2λ dx
Ω 2λ − 1 Ω

1 1
Z Z
≤ | Tk (un )|2λ−1 | E( x )||∇un |dx + | f || Tk (un )|2λ−1 dx
2λ − 1 Ω 2λ − 1 Ω

1
Z
≤ | Tk (un )|2λ−1 | E( x )||∇ Tk (un )|dx (80)
2λ − 1 Ω\Ωn,k

1
Z
+ | Tk (un )|2λ−1 | E( x )||∇ Gk (un )|dx
2λ − 1 Ωn,k

k2λ−1
Z
+ | f |dx.
2λ − 1 Ω

From Young’s inequality, we obtain

Z
| Tk (un )|2λ−1 | E( x )||∇ Tk (un )|dx
Ω\Ωn,k
Z Z (81)
≤ϵ | Tk (un )|2(λ−1) |∇ Tk (un )|2 dx + C (ϵ) | E( x )|2 | Tk (un )|2λ dx,
Ω\Ωn,k Ω\Ωn,k

with ε = ε(α, λ).

Combining (3), (80), and (81), we obtain
Z
| Tk (un )|2(λ−1) |∇ Tk (un )|2 dx
Ω
n Z Z Z o (82)
≤ C k2λ | E( x )|2 dx + | Tk (un )|2λ−1 | E( x )||∇ Gk (un )| dx + k2λ−1 | f | dx ,
Ω\Ωn,k Ωn,k Ω

with C = C (α, λ). Using the Sobolev inequality, we deduce

2
2∗
Z  Z
λ2∗
| Tk (un )| dx ≤ CS |∇(| Tk (un )|λ )|2 dx
Ω Z Ω (83)
2( λ −1) 2
= CS | Tk (un )| |∇ Tk (un )| dx,
Ω
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 14 of 19

where CS denotes the Sobolev constant. Putting together (82) and (83), by Hölder’s inequal-
ity and (37), we obtain
2
2∗
Z   Z Z 
m∗∗
| Tk (un )| dx ≤ C k2λ | E( x )|2 dx + k2λ−1 ∥ E∥ L2 (Ω) + k2λ−1 | f | dx , (84)
Ω Ω Ω

with a C positive constant independent of n.

| Gk (un )|2(λ−1) Gk (un )
Step 2. For Lemma 7 and Lemma 4, sign((un )) can be considered as
2λ − 1
test function in the variational formulation of problem (18). Combining (2), (4), and (63),
we have Z Z
µ
α | Gk (un )|2(λ−1) |∇ Gk (un )|2 dx + | G (un )|2λ dx
Ω 2λ − 1 Ω k
Z
1
≤ | E( x ))|∇ Gk (un )|| Gk (un )|2λ−1 dx (85)
2λ − 1 Ω
Z 
+ | f || Gk (un )|2λ−1 dx .
Ω

By Young’s inequality, we have

Z Z
µ
α | Gk (un )|2(λ−1) |∇ Gk (un )|2 dx + | G (un )|2λ dx
Ω 2λ − 1 Ω k
 Z
1
≤ ϵ |∇ Gk (un )|2 | Gk (un )|2(λ−1) dx (86)
2λ − 1 Ω
Z Z 
2 2λ 2λ−1
+C (ϵ) | E( x )| | Gk (un )| dx + | f || Gk (un )| dx ,
Ωk,n Ω

with ε = ε(α, λ).

From (3), Theorem 1 and Hölder’s inequality, we have
2
∥| Gk (un )|λ ∥W 1,2 ( Ω )

≤ C ∥ E∥2Ms,N −s (Ω 2
∥| Gk (un )|λ ∥W 1,2 ( Ω ) (87)
n,k )

Z 1 
′ m′

+∥ f ∥ Lm (Ω) | Gk (un )|(2λ−1)m dx ,
Ω

C = C (α, µ, N, λ).
Therefore, from the same argument as in Lemma 7, using (11) and Corollary 1, we observe
that there exists k0 ∈ R+ , independent of n, such that
Z 1
′ m′

2
∥| Gk (un )|λ ∥W 1,2 ( Ω ) ≤ C ∥ f ∥ Lm ( Ω ) | Gk (un )|(2λ−1)m dx , ∀k ≥ k0 , (88)
Ω

with C = C (α, µ, N, λ, || E|| Ms,N −s (Ω) ).

By the Sobolev inequality, since 2∗ λ = (2λ − 1)m′ = m∗∗ , we have
Z 2 Z 1 ,
∗∗ 2∗ ∗∗ m′
 
| Gk (un )|m dx ≤ C ∥ f ∥ Lm (Ω) | Gk (un )|m dx ∀k ≥ k0 , (89)
Ω Ω

with C = C (α, µ, N, λ, || E|| Ms,N −s (Ω) ).

N 2 1
Since m < 2, one has 2∗ − m′ > 0, and it follows that
Z 2 − m1′
∗∗ 2∗

| Gk (un )|m dx ≤ C ∥ f ∥ Lm (Ω) , ∀k ≥ k0 . (90)
Ω
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 15 of 19

Step 3. Combining (84) with (90), we have

Z
∗∗
|un |m dx
Ω
 22∗  (91)
2∗ m ′
  Z Z
2m′ −2∗ −1 −1
≤ C ∥f∥ Lm (Ω)
+ k2λ
0
2
| E( x )| dx + k2λ
0 ∥ E ∥ L2 ( Ω ) + k2λ
0 | f | dx ,
Ω Ω

with C independent of n, and the theorem is proved.

In line with [18] and the references therein, we show the exponential summability of un .

Lemma 9. Assume (2)–(5) and f ∈ L1 (Ω) ∩ L N/2 (Ω). Then, for any λ > 0, there exists a
positive constant C, independent of n, such that
Z   2∗
eλ|un | − 1 dx ≤ C. (92)
Ω

Proof. We obtain the result arguing as in the proof of Lemma 4.6 of [2]. We give the proof
in three steps.
Step 1. First, we prove that, for any λ > 0, there exist k0 > 0 and a positive constant C,
independent of n, such that one has
Z   2∗
eλ|Gk0 (un )| − 1 dx ≤ C. (93)
Ω
 
By Lemma 4 and Lemma 5, we can take e2λ|Gk (un )| − 1 sgn( Gk (un )) as a test function in
the variational formulation of problem (18), and using (2) and (4), we have

Z Z  
2λα |∇ Gk (un )|2 e2λ|Gk (un )| dx + µ un e2λ|Gk (un )| − 1 sgn( Gk (un ))dx
Ω Ω
Z   Z  
≤ | E( x )||∇ Gk (un )| e2λ|Gk (un )| − 1 dx + | f | e2λ|Gk (un )| − 1 dx.
Ωn,k Ω

Taking into account that, for any t ≥ 0 and any D > 1, the following inequality holds:

1
| t2 − 1| ≤ D ( t − 1)2 + ,
D−1
and using (3), Young’s and Hölder’s inequalities, one has
Z Z  2
2 2λ| Gk (un )|
2λα |∇ Gk (un )| e dx ≤ CαλD | E( x )|2 eλ|Gk (un )| − 1 dx
Ω Ωn,k
Z  2 1
+λα |∇ Gk (un )|2 eλ|Gk (un )| − 1 dx + ∥ E( x )∥ L2 (Ω) ∥∇un ∥ L2 (Ω) (94)
Ωn,k D−1
1
+ D ∥ f ∥ L N/2 (Ωn,k ) ∥eλ|Gk (un )| − 1∥2L2∗ (Ω) + ∥ f ∥ L1 ( Ω ) .
D−1
Noting that
2
Z   Z
∇ eλ|Gk (un )| − 1 dx = λ2 |∇ Gk (un )|2 e2λ|Gk (un )| dx (95)
Ω Ω
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 16 of 19

by a previous inequality and Theorem 1, we obtain

2
Z  
∇ eλ|Gk (un )| − 1 dx
Ω
 
≤ C ∥ E( x )∥2Ms,N −s (Ω ∥∇(eλ|Gk (un )| − 1)∥2L2 (Ω) + ∥eλ|Gk (un )| − 1∥2L2 (Ω)
n,k ) (96)
+C ∥ E( x )∥ L2 (Ω) ∥∇un ∥ L2 (Ω)

+C ∥ f ∥ L N/2 (Ωn,k ) ∥eλ|Gk (un )| − 1∥2L2∗ (Ω) + C ∥ f ∥ L1 (Ω) ,

where C is a different positive constant, independent of n, on each line.

Thus, in view of (11) and Corollary 1, there exists k0 , independent of n, such that, using
the Sobolev and Hölder’s inequality, we have

∥eλ|Gk0 (un )| − 1∥2L2∗ (Ω) ≤

2
≤ C |Ωn,k0 |1− 2∗ ∥ E( x )∥2Ms,N −s (Ω) ∥eλ|Gk0 (un )| − 1∥2L2∗ (Ω)
(97)
+C ∥ E( x )∥ L2 (Ω) ∥∇un ∥ L2 (Ω)

+C ∥ f ∥ L N/2 (Ωn,k ) ∥eλ|Gk0 (un )| − 1∥2L2∗ (Ω) + C ∥ f ∥ L1 (Ω) .

0

Hence, by (24) and using again Corollary 1, unless the value of k0 is enlarged, we have
 
∥eλ|Gk0 (un )| − 1∥2L2∗ (Ω) ≤ C ∥ E( x )∥ L2 (Ω) + ∥ f ∥ L1 (Ω) , (98)

with C independent of n.
Step 2: Let us prove that, for any λ > 0 and any k > 0, there exists a positive constant C,
independent of n, such that
Z   2∗
eλ|Tk (un )| − 1 dx ≤ C. (99)
Ω
 
By Lemma 4, we can choose e2λ|Tk (un )| − 1 sgn( Tk (un )) as a test function in the variational
formulation of (18), obtaining, by (2) and (4),
Z Z  
2λα |∇ Tk (un )|2 e2λ|Tk (un )| dx + µ un e2λ|Tk (un )| − 1 sgn( Tk (un ))dx
Ω Ω
Z   Z  
2λ| Tk (un )|
≤ | E( x )||∇un | e − 1 dx + | f | e2λ|Tk (un )| − 1 dx.
Ω Ω
Therefore, by the analogous results of (95) and the Sobolev inequality, we obtain
 
∥eλ|Tk (un )| − 1∥2L2∗ (Ω) ≤ C (e2λk − 1) ∥ E( x )∥ L2 (Ω) ∥∇un ∥ L2 (Ω) + ∥ f ∥ L1 (Ω) , (100)

which gives (99), using (37).

Step 3. It results in
Z   2∗ Z   2∗
eλ|un | − 1 dx ≤ eλ(|Tk0 (un )|+|Gk0 (un )|) − 1 dx
Ω Ω
 Z   2∗ Z   2∗  (101)
2∗ λk0 λ| Gk0 (un )| λ| Tk0 (un )|
≤C e e −1 dx + e −1 dx .
Ω Ω

Putting together (93), (99), and (101), we have (92).

Finally, proceeding as in [2], we obtain the following:

Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 17 of 19

Theorem 6. Assume (2)–(5). Then,

1. if f ∈ L1 (Ω) ∩ Lm (Ω), (2∗ )′ < m < N2 , then there exists a weak solution u ∈ W01,2 (Ω) ∩
∗∗
Lm (Ω) of problem (1);
∗ ′
2. if f ∈ L(2 ) (Ω) ∩ Lm (Ω), m > N2 , then there exists a weak solution u ∈ W01,2 (Ω) ∩ L∞ (Ω)
of problem (1);
3. if f ∈ L1 (Ω) ∩ L N/2 (Ω), then there exists a weak solution u ∈ W01,2 (Ω) of problem (1) such
∗
that (eλ|u| − 1) ∈ L2 (Ω) for any λ > 0.

6. Uniqueness

In this section, under the following assumption:

| H ( x, ξ ) − H ( x, η )| ≤ | E( x )||ξ − η |, ∀ x ∈ Ω, ∀ξ, η ∈ R N , (102)

we prove the following uniqueness result.

Theorem 7. Under hypotheses (2)–(6) and (102), let u1 , u2 be solutions of (1). Then, we have
u1 = u2 almost everywhere in Ω.

Proof. We obtain the result from the same covering argument as in [2].

7. Concluding Remarks

In this article, we study a noncoercive nonlinear elliptic operator in an unbounded

domain. We prove existence, regularity, and uniqueness theorems for a Dirichlet problem
when the function that controls the first-order term is given in an appropriate space of a
Morrey-type, improving previous results known in the literature. Specifically, the novelty
of this work with respect to the current literature is studying the Dirichlet problem when
the singular first-order term is controlled through a function in a suitable space of a Morrey
type, which has been introduced to deal with problems in unbounded domains.
The essential tools for achieving our results are the boundedness and compactness
of a multiplication operator (see Theorem 1) and the weak maximum principle. To obtain
the existence result, we start proving the existence of a solution of the approximating
problems using the surjectivity theorem. Then, by means of the weak maximum principle,
we show a priori bounds. This estimate is needed to pass the limit in the variational
formulation of approximating problems, obtaining the claimed existence result. Then we
prove the regularity results as the summability of the datum f varies. We also establish
the uniqueness. In the future, it will be possible to extend this study to systems or to the p-
Laplacian. It is worth pointing out that the strengths of the used methods are the inclusion
M N (Ω) ⊂ Ms,N −s (Ω) (which leads to an improvement of previous results), the weak
maximum principle, and the related a priori estimates of solutions of an approximating
problem (which provide good properties of the obtained solutions).
In addition, the results concerning existence (Theorem 5) and uniqueness (Theorem 7)
can be used to analyze certain first-passage-time problems for diffusion processes with
advection defined in unbounded domains. These kinds of problems deserve interest in
various applications related to mathematical biology, for instance, the modeling of protein
receptor motion in neurophysiology, transport problems in cells, and water diffusion
through porin in outer bacterial membranes (see details in [36] and references therein).
However, due to complexity and the relevance of the aspects related to problem (1), a deeper
study focused on the mentioned applications will be the subject of future investigations.

Funding: This work was partially supported by the project PRIN2022-D53D23005580006, “Elliptic
and parabolic problems, heat kernel estimates and spectral theory”.
Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available within
the article.
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 18 of 19

Acknowledgments: The author is a member of GNAMPA of INDAM.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Transirico, M.; Troisi, M.; Vitolo, A. Space of Morrey Type and Elliptic Equations in divergence form on unbounded domains. Boll.
Unione Mat. Ital. 1995, 7, 153–174.
2. Di Gironimo, P.; Monsurrò, S.; Zecca, G. Dirichlet problem for noncoercive nonlinear elliptic equations with singular drift term in
unbounded domains. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 2023, 29, 85. [CrossRef]
3. Transirico, M.; Troisi, M. Equazioni ellittiche del secondo ordine a coefficienti discontinui e di tipo variazionale in aperti non
limitati. Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. 1988, 7, 385–398.
4. Chiarenza, F.; Frasca, M. A remark on a paper by C. Fefferman. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1990, 108, 407–409. [CrossRef]
5. Boccardo, L.; Orsina, L. Very singular solutions for linear Dirichlet problems with singular convention terms. Nonlinear Anal.
2020, 194, 111437. [CrossRef]
6. Boccardo, L.; Buccheri, S.; Cirmi, G.R. Caldéron-Zygmund-Stampacchia theory for infinite energy solutions of nonlinear elliptic
equations with singular drift. Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. 2020, 27, 38. [CrossRef]
7. Stampacchia, G. Equations elliptiques du second ordre à coefficients discontinus. In Proceedings of the Séminaire de Math-
ématiques Supérieures, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada, 4e Session, été 1965; Les Presses de l’Université de
Montréal: Montréal, QC, Canada, 1966.
8. Porretta, A. Weak solutions to Fokker-Planck equations and mean field games. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 2015, 216, 1–62.
[CrossRef]
9. Murray, J.D. Mathematical Biology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1993.
10. Nachman, A.; Callegari, A. A nonlinear singular boundary value problem in the theory of pseudoplastic fluids. SIAM J. Appl.
Math. 1980, 38, 275–281. [CrossRef]
11. Okubo, A.; Levin, S.A. Diffusion and Ecological Problems: Modern Prospectives; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
12. Carrillo, J.A.; del Pino, M.; Figalli, A.; Mingione, G.; Vazquez, J.L. The Mathematical Theories of Diffusion: Nonlinear and Fractional
Diffusion; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 205–278.
13. Bottaro, G.; Marina, M.E. Problema di Dirichlet per equazioni ellittiche di tipo variazionale su insiemi non limitati. Boll. Unione
Mat. Ital. 1973, 4, 46–56.
14. Monsurrò, S.; Transirico, M. Noncoercive elliptic equations with discontinuous coefficients in unbounded domains. Nonlinear
Anal. 2017, 163, 86–103. [CrossRef]
15. Alfano, E.A.; Di Gironimo, P.; Monsurrò, S. Regularity results for a noncoercive nonlinear Dirichlet Problem. Rend. Lincei Mat.
Appl. 2022, 33, 139–159. [CrossRef]
16. Di Gironimo, P.; Monsurrò, S.; Zecca, G. On some noncoercive nonlinear problems in unbounded domains. preprint 2023.
17. Dall’Aglio, A.; De Cicco, V.; Giachetti, D.; Puel, J.-P. Existence of bounded solutions for nonlinear elliptic equations in unbounded
domains. NoDEA Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. 2004, 11, 431–450. [CrossRef]
18. Dall’Aglio, A.; Giachetti, D.; Puel, J.-P. Nonlinear elliptic equations with natural growth in general domains. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl.
2002, 181, 407–426. [CrossRef]
19. de Bonis, I. Singular elliptic problems in general domains. Appl. Anal. 2023, 102, 2978–2998. [CrossRef]
20. Di Gironimo, P.; Monsurrò, S.; Zecca, G. An obstacle problem for a class of noncoercive nonlinear operators in unbounded
domains. preprint 2023.
21. Mourgoglou, M. Regularity theory and Green’s function for elliptic equations with lower order terms in unbounded domains.
Calc. Var. Partial. Differ. Equ. 2023, 62, 266. [CrossRef]
22. Caso, L.; Di Gironimo, P.; Monsurrò, S.; Transirico, M. Uniqueness results for higher order elliptic equations in weighted Sobolev
spaces. Int. J. Differ. Equ. 2018, 2018, 6259307. [CrossRef]
23. Di Gironimo, P. Dirichlet problem for elliptic equations with coefficients in locally Morrey spaces. J. Interdiscip. Math. 2020, 23,
1109–1120. [CrossRef]
24. Wiśniewski, D. Best possible estimates of weak solutions of boundary value problems for quasi-linear elliptic equations in
unbounded domains. An. St. Univ. Ovidius Constanta 2017, 25, 201–224. [CrossRef]
25. Gilbarg, D.; Trudinger, N.S. Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1983.
26. Stampacchia, G. Le probléme de Dirichlet pour les équations elliptiques du second ordre à coefficients discontinus. Ann. Inst.
Fourier 1965, 15, 189–258. [CrossRef]
27. Boccardo, L. Stampacchia-Caldéron-Zygmund theory for linear elliptic equations with discontinuous coefficients and singular
drift. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 2019, 25, 47. [CrossRef]
28. Boccardo, L.; Buccheri, S.; Cirmi, G.R. Two nonlinear coercive Dirichlet problems in duality. Milan J. Math. 2018, 86, 97–104.
[CrossRef]
29. Del Vecchio, T.; Porzio, M.M. Existence results for a class of noncoercive Dirichlet problems. Ric. Mat. 1995, 44, 421–438.
30. Del Vecchio, T.; Posteraro, M.R. An existence result for nonlinear and noncoercive problems. Nonlinear Anal. 1998, 31, 191–206.
[CrossRef]
Mathematics 2024, 12, 1860 19 of 19

31. Porretta, A. Elliptic Equations with First Order Terms; Lecture Notes; CIMPA School: Alexandria, Egypt, 2009.
32. Di Gironimo, P.; Vitolo, A. Elliptic Equations with Discontinuous coefficients in weighted Sobolev Spaces on unbounded domains.
J. Math Anal. Appl. 2001, 253, 297–309. [CrossRef]
33. Monsurrò, S.; Transirico, M. Dirichlet problem for divergence formelliptic equations with discontinuos coefficients. Bound Value
Probl. 2012, 2012, 67. [CrossRef]
34. Boccardo, L.; Croce, G. Esistenza e Regolarità di Soluzioni di Alcuni Problemi Ellittici; Pitagora: Roma, Italy, 2010.
35. Lions, J.L. Quelques Mèthode de Rèsolutions des Problèmes Aux Limites Non Linèaires; Dunod, Gauthier-Villars: Paris, France, 1969.
36. Di Crescenzo, A.; Spina, S.; Vitolo, A. Existence of bounded solutions of fully nonlinear elliptic equations modeling the first
passage time in cylindrical domains. Differ. Integral Equ. 2024, 37, 237–266. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.