We recall briefly how optimal maps are expressed through a c-convex potential: given a lower semi-continuous function $\phi :\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n\to \mathbb{R}$  , we define its c-transform by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\phi }^c\left(y\right)={sup}_{x\in \Omega }\{-c(x,y)-\phi (x\left)\right\}.& & \end{array}$$

(1)

A function is said c-convex if it is the c-transform of another function, moreover in this case ${\phi }^{cc}=\phi$  . Assuming for simplicity that $\Omega$  is bounded, note that for a $C^2$  cost $c$  , ${\phi }^c$  will be locally semi-convex and Lipschitz. Through Monge-Kantorovitch duality, the problem of optimal transportation becomes a problem of linear programming. For instance, the Monge-Kantorovitch problem associated to the optimal transport of ${\rho }_0$  onto ${\rho }_1$  under the cost $c$  is to find an optimal pair of potentials $(\phi ,\psi )$  that realizes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{inf}_{\phi \left(x\right)+\psi \left(y\right)\ge -c(x,y)}\int \phi \left(x\right)d{\rho }_0\left(x\right)+\int \psi \left(y\right)d{\rho }_1\left(y\right).& & \end{array}$$

We can assume that for the optimal pair we have $\psi ={\phi }^c$  . For $d{\rho }_0$  almost every $x$  , there will be a unique $y_x$  such that $\phi \left(x\right)+{\phi }^c\left(y_x\right)=-c(x,y_x)$  .

The map $x\to y_x$  will then yield the optimal map for the transportation problem. Such map will be denoted $G_{\phi }$  . Formally, for a given $x$  at which $\phi$  is differentiable, $G_{\phi }\left(x\right)$  is defined as the unique $y$  such that $-{\nabla }_{x}c(x,y)=\nabla \phi \left(x\right)$  (this makes sense under condition A1 below). In the case of the optimal transportation on a Riemannian manifold with distance $d(\cdot ,\cdot )$  and with $c=d^2/2$  , the map $G_{\phi }$  will be $x\to {exp}_x(\nabla \phi )$  (see [?] ).

In this setting, for a $C^2$  smooth c-convex potential $\phi$  such that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{G}_{\phi \#}{\rho }_0={\rho }_1,& & \end{array}$$

the corresponding Monge-Ampere equation will be

$$\begin{array}{ccc}det\left(D_{xx}^{2}c\right(x,G_{\phi }\left(x\right))+D^2\phi )=|det{D}_{xy}^{2}c|\frac{{\rho }_0\left(x\right)}{{\rho }_1\left(G_{\phi }\right(x\left)\right)}.& & \end{array}$$

(2)

(See [?]  for a derivation of this equation, or [?] , [?] .)

1.1 Conditions on the cost function

In this paper we will make the following assumptions on the cost function, that are the same as in [?]  (the assumption A3 is equivalent, although in a different form).

• A1 For all $(x,p)\in {\mathbb{R}}^n\times {\mathbb{R}}^n$  , there exists a unique $y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$  such that $-{\nabla }_{x}c(x,y)=p$  . Such $y$  will then be denoted $T_x\left(p\right)$  .
• A2 The cost function $c$  satisfies $det{D}_{xy}^{2}c\ne 0$  for all $x,y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n\times {\mathbb{R}}^n$  .
• A3 We have $c\in C^4({\mathbb{R}}^n\times {\mathbb{R}}^n)$  and there exists $C_0>0$  such that for all unit vectors $\nu ,\xi$  with $\xi \perp \nu$  ,

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}{D}_{p_{\nu }{p}_{\nu }}^2\left[p\to D_{\xi \xi }^{2}c(x,T_x(p\left)\right)\right]\le -C_0,& & \end{array}$$

  where $D_{p_{\nu }{p}_{\nu }}^2$  denotes the pure second derivative with respect to $p$  in the direction $\nu$  , and $D_{\xi \xi }^2$  the pure second derivative with respect to $x$  in the direction $\xi$  .

Remark. The map $(x,p)\to T_x\left(p\right)$  is the ’c-analog’ of the exponential map on a Riemannian manifold, in the case where $c=d^2/2$  , it coincides.

Remark. The condition A3 will be analyzed in greater detail at the beginning of the proof of our main result, and a geometric interpretation of this condition will be given.

1.2 Some definitions

Definition 1.1 For $\phi$  a semi-convex function, the sub-differential of $\phi$  at $x$  , that we denote $\partial \phi \left(x\right)$  , is the set

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\partial \phi \left(x\right)=\left\{p\in {\mathbb{R}}^n,\phi \left(y\right)\ge \phi \left(x\right)+p\cdot (y-x)+o\left(\right|x-y\left|\right)\right\}.& & \end{array}$$

If $\phi$  is c-convex, the c-sub-differential of $\phi$  at $x$  , that we denote ${\partial }^c\phi$  , is the set

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\partial }^c\phi \left(x\right)=\left\{p\in {\mathbb{R}}^n,{\phi }^c\left(T_p\right(x\left)\right)+\phi \left(x\right)=-c(x,T_p(x\left)\right)\right\}.& & \end{array}$$

From ( 1 ), we see immediately that ${\partial }^c\phi \subset \partial \phi$  . The concern is that this inclusion might be strict, except in the case where $\phi$  is differentiable (and hence $C^1$  by semi-convexity) at $x$  , see [?]  for a discussion about this subject.

Definition 1.2 Let $p\to T_x\left(p\right)$  be the mapping defined by assumption A1. The point $x$  being fixed, a c-segment with respect to $x$  is the image by $T_x$  of a segment of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$  .

If for $v_0,v_1\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$  we have $T_x\left(v_i\right)=y_i,i=0,1$  , the c-segment centered at $x$  joining $y_0$  to $y_1$  will denoted $\{y_{\theta },\theta \in [0,1\left]\right\}$  where $y_{\theta }=T_x(\theta v_1+(1-\theta \left)y_0\right)$  .

Definition 1.3 Let $A,B\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$  . We say that $B$  is c-convex with respect to $A$  if for all $y_0,y_1\in B,x\in A$  , the c-segment with respect to $x$  going from $y_0$  to $y_1$  is contained in $B$  .

1.3 Statement of the results

We are now ready to state our main result; hereafter $dVol$  denotes the Lebesgue measure of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$  , and $B_r$  (resp. $B_r\left(x\right)$  ) denotes a ball of radius $r$  (resp. centered at $x$  ).

Theorem 1.4 Let $c$  be a cost function that satisfies assumptions A1, A2, A3. Let ${\rho }_0,{\rho }_1$  be two non-negative functions. Let $\phi$  be a $C^1$  c-convex potential, that solves

$$\begin{array}{ccc}det\left(D_{xx}^{2}c\right(x,G_{\phi }\left(x\right))+D^2\phi )=|det{D}_{xy}^{2}c|\frac{{\rho }_0\left(x\right)}{{\rho }_1\left(G_{\phi }\right(x\left)\right)}& & \end{array}$$

(3)

in the sense that $G_{\phi \#}{\rho }_{0}dVol={\rho }_{1}dVol$  . Assume that ${\rho }_1\ge \lambda >0$  and that ${\rho }_0$  satisfies

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\int }_{B_{\epsilon }}{\rho }_0\le C{\epsilon }^{n(1-\frac{1}{p})}& & \end{array}$$

(4)

for some $p\in ]n,+\infty ]$  and for all $\epsilon >0$  . Then for $\beta =\frac{\alpha }{4n-2+\alpha }$  , $\alpha =1-\frac{n}{p}$  , we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\parallel \phi {\parallel }_{C^{1,\beta }}\le C^{\prime },& & \end{array}$$

and $C^{\prime }$  depends only on $C$  in ( 4 ) and on the constant $C_0>0$  in condition A3. If we only know that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\rho }_0\left(B_{\epsilon }\right)=f\left(\epsilon \right){\epsilon }^{n(1-\frac{1}{n})}& & \end{array}$$

(5)

with ${lim}_{\epsilon \to 0}f=0$  then the modulus of continuity of $\nabla \phi$  is controlled by the modulus of continuity of $f$  at 0.

Remark 1. Equation ( 3 ) with ${\rho }_1=dVol$  can also be formulated as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Jac\left(G_{\phi }\right)={\rho }_0,& & \end{array}$$

with $Jac(\cdot )$  the Jacobian determinant, and therefore is the analog of the Monge-Ampere equation $det{D}^2\phi ={\rho }_0$  .

Remark 2. Conditions ( 4 ) (resp. ( 5 )) are implied by ${\rho }_0\in L^p$  (resp.

${\rho }_0\in L^n$  ). Note also that we obtain a continuity result even in the critical case ${\rho }_0\in L^n$  which is somehow surprising.

Remark 3. Here condition A3 is not invariant under affine transformations that preserve the volume. This non-invariance might explain why we obtain better regularity in this case. Indeed, to obtain $C^{1,\alpha }$  regularity for the Monge-Ampere equation $det{D}^{2}u=f$  , the condition on $f$  is $f$  bounded away from 0 and $\infty$  (note that affine transformations do not preserve $L^p$  norms for $p<\infty$  ). Moreover, some pathological situations known as Pogorelov’s counterexamples can happen where, with a $C^{\infty }$  right hand side, the solution is not strictly convex, and hence not $C^2$  (see [?] , [?] ).

This Theorem is established assuming $C^1$  regularity for the following reason: we obtain the result by estimating the size of ${\partial }^c\phi \left(B_{\epsilon }\right)$  for some balls $B_{\epsilon }$  . If we don’t have the $C^1$  regularity assumption, the sub-differential of $\phi$  can contain more than one point, but we don’t know if for all $p\in \partial \phi \left(x\right)$  , $p\in {\partial }^c\phi \left(x\right)$  (see [?]  for a discussion on the subject). We then use Theorem  1.4 as an a-priori estimate that leads to the following corollary:

Corollary 1.5 Let $\Omega$  and ${\Omega }^{\prime }$  be bounded open subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$  with ${\Omega }^{\prime }$  c-convex with respect to $\Omega$  . Let $\phi :\Omega \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$  be a c-convex potential such that $G_{\phi \#}{\rho }_{0}dVol={\rho }_{1}dVol$  for ${\rho }_0,{\rho }_1$  two non-negative functions on $\Omega$  and ${\Omega }^{\prime }$  . Assume that ${\rho }_1$  is bounded away from $0$  . Then under the assumption ( 5 ), $\phi$  is $C^1$  , and hence the Theorem  1.4 applies.

Proof. In [?] , it has been proved that under assumptions A1-3, if the densities ${\rho }_0,{\rho }_1$  are $C^2$  smooth, bounded away from 0, and if ${\Omega }^{\prime }$  is c-convex with respect to $\Omega$  , the potential $\phi$  is $C^3$  smooth in $\Omega$  . Hence by a standard regularization procedure, we can find smooth positive sequences ${\rho }_0^{\epsilon },{\rho }_1^{\epsilon }$  that converge to ${\rho }_0,{\rho }_1$  in $L^1$  . The a priori bound of Theorem  1.4 apply to the sequence ${\phi }^{\epsilon }$  , and ${\phi }^{\epsilon }$  converges uniformly to $\phi$  .

$\square$ 

2 Proof of the results

We begin by giving some heuristic arguments that explain how we obtain our results, and in particular why the results obtained here are better than those for the ’usual’ Monge-Ampere equation $$det{D}^2\phi =\frac{{\rho }_0}{{\rho }_1(\nabla \phi )}$$  (see [?]  for examples of non-smooth solutions to this equation).

Geometric interpretation of condition A3 and sketch of the proof.

We explain the geometrical meaning of condition A3, and how it will imply $C^1$  regularity for $\phi$  : assume that for a c-convex function $\phi$  the functions $-\phi (\cdot )-c(\cdot ,y_0)$  and $-\phi (\cdot )-c(\cdot ,y_1)$  both reach a local maximum at $x=0$  (in other words, assume that $\phi$  is not $C^1$  at 0). Consider $y_{\theta }$  the c-segment centered at $x=0$  joining $y_0$  to $y_1$  , i.e. $y_{\theta }=T_{x=0}(\theta v_1+(1-\theta \left)v_0\right)$  with $v_0,v_1\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$  such that $T_{x=0}{v}_i=y_i,i=1,2$  . Then, as we will see in Lemma  2.1 , condition A3 implies that $-\phi -c(x,y_{\theta })$  will also have a local maximum at 0, and moreover that $D^2\phi \left(0\right)+D_{xx}^{2}c(0,y_{\theta })$  (in some generalized sense, since $\phi$  is not $C^2$  at 0) will be bounded by below by $\alpha I$  , with $\alpha >0$  for $\theta$  away from $0,1$  . Then, by estimating all supporting functions to $\phi$  on a small ball centered at 0, we will find that $G_{\phi }\left(B_{\epsilon }\right(0\left)\right)$  contains $B_{C\epsilon }\left(y_{\theta }\right)$  for some $C>0$  , and for all $y_{\theta }$  , where $\theta$  is in $[1/4,3/4]$  . This will contradict the bound on Jacobian determinant of $G_{\phi }$  .

We now enter into the rigorous proof of Theorem  1.4 .

2.1 Geometric interpretation of condition A3

The core of the proof is the following lemma, which a somehow geometrical translation of assumption A3. Actually, I believe that this lemma is indeed equivalent to assumption A3 for a smooth cost function.

Lemma 2.1 For $y_0,y_1\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$  , let $(y_{\theta }{)}_{\theta \in [0,1]}$  be the c-segment with respect to $x=0$  joining $y_0$  to $y_1$  , in the sense that if $T_x\left(z_0\right)=y_0,T_x\left(z_1\right)=y_1$  , we have $y_{\theta }=T_x(\theta z_1+(1-\theta \left)z_0\right)$  .

Let $\overline{\phi }=max\{-c(x,y_0)+c(0,y_0),-c(x,y_1)+c(0,y_1\left)\right\}$  . Then for all $\epsilon >0$  , for all $\theta \in [\epsilon ,1-\epsilon ]$  , for all $\left|x\right|\le C\epsilon$  , we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\phi }\left(x\right)\ge -c(x,y_{\theta })+c(0,y_{\theta })+{\delta }_0|y_1-y_0{|}^2\theta (1-\theta \left)\right|x{|}^2-\gamma |x{|}^3,& & \end{array}$$

where ${\delta }_0>0$  depends on $C_0>0$  in assumption A3, $\gamma$  depends on $\parallel c(\cdot ,\cdot ){\parallel }_{C^3}$  , and $C$  is bounded away from 0 for $\left|y_0\right|,\left|y_1\right|$  bounded.

Proof of Lemma  2.1 . Rotating the coordinate, and subtracting an affine function, we can assume the following:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & f_0\left(x\right)=-c(x,y_0)+c(0,y_0)=a{x}_1-D_{xx}^{2}c(0,y_0).x.x/2+o\left(x^2\right),\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & f_1\left(x\right)=-c(x,y_1)+c(0,y_1)=b{x}_1-D_{xx}^{2}c(0,y_1).x.x/2+o\left(x^2\right),\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & -c(x,y_{\theta })+c(0,y_{\theta })=[\theta b+(1-\theta \left)a\right]x_1-D_{xx}^{2}c(0,y_{\theta }).x.x/2+o\left(x^2\right),\end{array}$$

with $a<b$  and where $x_i$  is the coordinate of $x$  in the direction $e_i$  . Using the general fact that $max\{f_0,f_1\}\ge \theta f_1+(1-\theta )f_0$  for $0\le \theta \le 1$  , we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\phi }\left(x\right)\ge (\theta b+(1-\theta \left)a\right)x_1-\left(\theta D_{xx}^{2}c\right(0,y_1)+(1-\theta \left)D_{xx}^{2}c\right(0,y_0\left)\right).x.x/2+o\left(x^2\right).& & \end{array}$$

Then we use the assumption A3:

Lemma 2.2 Under assumption A3,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}-D_{xx}^{2}c(0,y_{\theta }).x.x\le -\left(\right(1-\theta \left)D_{xx}^{2}c\right(0,y_0)+\theta D_{xx}^{2}c(0,y_1\left)\right).x.x-\delta |x{|}^2+\Delta |x_1\left|\right|x|,& & \end{array}$$

$\delta ={\delta }_0|y_1-y_0{|}^2\theta (1-\theta )$  , ${\delta }_0$  depends on $C_0$  in assumption A3, and $\Delta ={\Delta }_0|y_1-y_0{|}^2\theta (1-\theta )$  , ${\Delta }_0$  depends on $c(\cdot ,\cdot {)}_{C^4}$  .

Proof. Let $f:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$  be convex, with $f^{\prime \prime }\ge \alpha >0$  . Then we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\theta f\left(y_0\right)+(1-\theta )f\left(y_1\right)\ge f(\theta y_0+(1-\theta \left)y_1\right)+C\theta (1-\theta )|y_1-y_0{|}^2,& & \end{array}$$

where $C>0$  depends on $\alpha >0$  . Then note that the convexity assumption A3 concerns only $-D_{\xi \xi }c$  for $\xi \perp e_1$  . For the $e_1$  direction, we note that for a $C^2$  function $f$  , we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left|\theta f\right(y_0)+(1-\theta \left)f\right(y_1)-f(\theta y_0+(1-\theta )y_1\left)\right|\le C\theta (1-\theta )|y_1-y_0{|}^2,& & \end{array}$$

where $C$  depends on $\parallel f{\parallel }_{C^2}$  .

$\square$  Using the previous lemma, we now have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\phi }& \ge & (\theta b+(1-\theta \left)a\right)x_1-D_{xx}^{2}c(0,y_{\theta }).x.x/2\end{array}$$

(6)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& +& \delta |x{|}^2-\Delta |x_1\left|\right|x|+o(\left|x{|}^2\right).\end{array}$$

We need to eliminate the term $-\Delta \left|x_1\right|\left|x\right|$  . In order to do so, notice that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left|D_{xx}^{2}c\right(0,y_{\theta }).x.x/2-D_{xx}^{2}c(0,y_{{\theta }^{\prime }}).x.x/2|\le C|\theta -{\theta }^{\prime }||x{|}^2.& & \end{array}$$

Then in ( 6 ), we can write

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\delta |x{|}^2-\Delta |x\left|\right|x_1|& =& |y_1-y_0{|}^2\theta (1-\theta \left)\right({\delta }_0|x{|}^2-{\Delta }_0|x\left|\right|x_1\left|\right)\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \ge & |y_1-y_0{|}^2\theta (1-\theta \left)\right({\delta }_0|x{|}^2/2-{\Delta }_0^2/(2{\delta }_0\left)\right|x_1{|}^2).\end{array}$$

Hence we have, setting $\delta :=\delta /2$  ,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\phi }\ge & & ({\theta }^{\prime }b+(1-{\theta }^{\prime }\left)a\right)x_1-D_{xx}^{2}c(0,y_{\theta }^{\prime }).x.x/2\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & +\delta |x{|}^2+((b-a)(\theta -{\theta }^{\prime })-C_0{x}_1)x_1-C|\theta -{\theta }^{\prime }\left|\right|x{|}^2.\end{array}$$

where $C_0=\theta (1-\theta )|y_1-y_0{|}^2{\Delta }_0^2/(2{\delta }_0)$  . Taking ${\theta }^{\prime }\in [\epsilon ,1-\epsilon ]$  , $\theta ={\theta }^{\prime }+x_1{C}_0/(b-a)$  , and restricting to $\left|x_1\right|\le (b-a)C_0^{-1}\epsilon$  , we can find

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\forall \theta \in [\epsilon ,1-\epsilon ],\overline{\phi }\ge (\theta b+(1-\theta \left)a\right)x_1-D_{xx}^{2}c(0,y_{\theta }).x.x/2+\delta |x{|}^2+o(\left|x{|}^2\right).& & \end{array}$$

Noticing that all the terms $o\left(\right|x{|}^2)$  are in fact bounded by $C\left|D^{3}c\right(\cdot ,\cdot \left)\right||x{|}^3$  , and that $\theta b+(1-\theta )a=-{\nabla }_{x}c(0,y_{\theta })$  , we conclude the lemma.

$\square$ 

2.2 Bounds on the modulus of continuity of $\nabla \phi$ 

Here we suppose that there exists $x_0$  and $x_1$  close such that $\nabla \phi \left(x_1\right)-\nabla \phi \left(x_0\right)$  is large compared to $x_1-x_0$  . If this does not happen, then $\phi$  is $C^{1,1}$  .

We can assume that $\phi \left(x_0\right)=\phi \left(x_1\right)$  . The supporting functions $-c(x,y_0)+c(x_0,y_0)+\phi \left(x_0\right)$  and $-c(x,y_1)+c(x_1,y_1)+\phi \left(x_1\right)$  will cross somewhere (say at $x_m$  ) on the segment $[x_0,x_1]$  . We might suppose that at this point they are equal to 0.

Lemma 2.3 Under the assumptions made above, we have $\phi \le C_1|x_1-x_0||y_1-y_0|$  in the segment $[x_0,x_1]$  .

Proof. We have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H& =& \phi \left(x_0\right)=-{\nabla }_{x}c(x_m,y_0)\cdot (x_0-x_m)+O\left(\right|x_0-x_m{|}^2)\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& \phi \left(x_1\right)=-{\nabla }_{x}c(x_m,y_1)\cdot (x_1-x_m)+O\left(\right|x_1-x_m{|}^2).\end{array}$$

By semi-convexity, on $[x_0,x_1]$  we have $\phi \le H+C|x_1-x_0{|}^2$  . Then we assume that $-{\nabla }_{x}c(x_m,y_0)\cdot (x_0-x_m)$  and $-{\nabla }_{x}c(x_m,y_1)\cdot (x_1-x_m)$  are both positive, otherwise we are done. Then we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}2H& \le & -{\nabla }_{x}c(x_m,y_0)\cdot (x_0-x_1)-{\nabla }_{x}c(x_m,y_1)\cdot (x_1-x_0)+C|x-x_1{|}^2\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \le & C|x_1-x_0||y_1-y_0|+C|x-x_1{|}^2,\end{array}$$

where $C$  depends on $\left|D_{xy}c\right|,\left|D_{xx}c\right|$  . Recall that we assume that $|x_1-x_0|$  is small compared to $|y_1-y_0|$  , otherwise there is nothing to prove; this means that $|x_1-x_0{|}^2$  is small compared to $|x_1-x_0||y_1-y_0|$  , and we conclude.

$\square$  We use again Lemma  2.1 (centered at $x_m$  ) that will yield

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\phi \left(x\right)& \ge & max\{-c(x,y_0)+c(x_m,y_0),-c(x,y_1)+c(x_m,y_1\left)\right\}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \ge & -c(x,y_{\theta })+c(x_m,y_{\theta })+{\delta }_0\theta (1-\theta )|y_0-y_1{|}^2|x-x_m{|}^2-\gamma |x-x_m{|}^3.\end{array}$$

for all $\theta \in [\epsilon ,1-\epsilon ]$  , $|x-x_m|\le C\epsilon$  , and with $y_{\theta }$  the c-segment from $x_m$  joining $y_0$  to $y_1$  . Note that $\epsilon$  is small but fixed once for all.

We want to find supporting functions to $\phi$  on a ball of suitable radius.

For that we consider a function of the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}-c(x,y)+c(x_m,y)+\phi \left(x_m\right).& & \end{array}$$

Of course, this function coincides with $\phi$  at $x_m$  . We then have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & -c(x,y)+c(x_m,y)+\phi \left(x_m\right)\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \le & -c(x,y_{\theta })+c(x_m,y_{\theta })+C_2|y-y_{\theta }||x-x_m|+C_1|x_1-x_0||y_1-y_0|,\end{array}$$

where $C_2$  depends on $\left|D_{xy}^{2}c\right|$  , and we have used Lemma  2.3 to estimate $\phi \left(x_m\right)$  . We want this to be bounded by $$-c(x,y_{\theta })+c(x_m,y_{\theta })+{\delta }_0\theta (1-\theta )|y_0-y_1{|}^2|x-x_m{|}^2-\gamma |x-x_m{|}^3.$$  First we restrict $\theta$  to $[1/4,3/4]$  , then we want

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\delta }_0|y_0-y_1{|}^2|x-x_m{|}^2-\gamma |x-x_m{|}^3\ge C_2|y-y_{\theta }\left|\right|x-x_m|+C_1|x_1-x_0\left|\right|y_1-y_0|.& & \end{array}$$

We choose $|y-y_{\theta }|\le C_3|x-x_m||y_1-y_0{|}^2$  for $C_3$  small enough (for example $C_3={\delta }_0/4$  ) , and the above inequality will be satisfied for

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|x-x_m{|}^2=C_4\frac{|x_1-x_0|}{|y_1-y_0|},& & \end{array}$$

if for this value of $|x-x_m|$  , we have indeed $|x-x_m|\le {\delta }_0/\left(2\gamma \right)|y_0-y_1{|}^2$  . If not then it means that $|y_1-y_0{|}^5\le C|x_1-x_0|$  and we are done.

Now we assume that this is not the case, and therefore the ratio $\frac{|x_1-x_0|}{|y_1-y_0|}$  is small. Hence we consider a ball of radius $$\nu =C{\left(\frac{|x_1-x_0|}{|y_1-y_0|}\right)}^{1/2}$$  centered at $x_m$  .

We denote $\mu =C_3\nu |y_1-y_0{|}^2$  . We denote $N_{\mu }\left(S\right)$  the $\mu$  neighborhood of a set $S$  . The functions $-c(x,y)+c(x_m,y)+\phi \left(x_m\right)$  , for $y\in N_{\mu }\{y_{\theta },\theta \in [1/4,3/4\left]\right\}$  will be equal to $\phi$  at $x_m$  , and will be below $\phi$  on the the boundary of the ball $B_{\nu }\left(x_m\right)$  . Hence they are supporting functions to $\phi$  at some point in $B_{\nu }\left(x_m\right)$  .

The volume of all such $y$  is comparable to $$[y_1-y_0]{\mu }^{n-1}\sim [y_1-y_0]{\nu }^{n-1}|y_1-y_0{|}^{2(n-1)},$$  while the ball around $x_m$  has a volume comparable to ${\nu }^n$  .

If the Jacobian determinant of the mapping $G_{\phi }$  is bounded, we get that $|y_1-y_0{|}^{2n-1}\le C\nu$  . This implies $$|y_1-y_0{|}^{2n-1}\le C{\left(\frac{|x_1-x_0|}{|y_1-y_0|}\right)}^{1/2},$$  thus we conclude, using $-{\nabla }_{x}c(x,y_i)=\nabla \phi \left(x_i\right),i=0,1$  , that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|\nabla \phi (x_1)-\nabla \phi (x_0\left)\right|\le C|x_1-x_0{|}^{\frac{1}{4n-1}}.& & \end{array}$$

We can refine the argument: Let $F$  be defined by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F\left(V\right)=sup\{dVol(G_{\phi }\left(B\right)),B\text{a ball of volume}V\}.& & \end{array}$$

We have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F\left(V\right)\le (inf{\rho }_1{)}^{-1}{sup}_{\left|B\right|=V}{\int }_B{\rho }_0.& & \end{array}$$

Then we have $F\left(\right|B_{\nu }\left|\right)\ge dVol\left(N_{\mu }\right\{y_{\theta },\theta \in [1/4,3/4]\left\}\right)$  , which gives

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F\left(\frac{|x_1-x_0{|}^{n/2}}{|y_1-y_0{|}^{n/2}}\right)\ge C|x_1-x_0{|}^{(n-1)/2}|y_1-y_0{|}^{(3n-1)/2}.& & \end{array}$$

(7)

Assume that $F\left(V\right)\le C{V}^{\kappa }$  for some $\kappa \in \mathbb{R}$  . Note that ${\rho }_0\in L^p$  implies that $F\left(V\right)=O\left(V^{1-1/p}\right)$  , hence we may write $\kappa =1-1/p$  for some $p\in ]1,+\infty ]$  .

Then we find

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|y_1-y_0{|}^{2n-1+\frac{1}{2}(1-\frac{n}{p})}\le C|x_1-x_0{|}^{\frac{1}{2}(1-\frac{n}{p})}.& & \end{array}$$

We see first that we need $p>n$  , then we get, setting $\alpha =1-n/p$  ,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|y_1-y_0|\le |x_1-x_0{|}^{\frac{\alpha }{4n-2+\alpha }}.& & \end{array}$$

If we only know that $F\left(V\right)=o\left(V^{1-1/n}\right)$  , (which is true if ${\rho }_0\in L^n$  ), we write $F\left(V\right)={\left[f\left(V^{2/n}\right)\right]}^{2n-1}{V}^{1-1/n}$  , for some non-decreasing $f$  , with ${lim}_{V\to 0}f=0$  . We then have, as $|x_1-x_0|$  goes to 0, $\frac{|x_1-x_0|}{|y_1-y_0|}$  that goes also to 0 (otherwise there is nothing to prove). Using the special form of $F$  in ( 7 ), we get

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{f}^{2n-1}\left(\frac{|x_1-x_0|}{|y_1-y_0|}\right)\ge |y_1-y_0{|}^{2n-1},& & \end{array}$$

hence we get that $|y_1-y_0|$  goes to 0 when $|x_1-x_0|$  goes to 0. Let $g$  be the function such that $|y_1-y_0|\le g\left(\right|x_1-x_0\left|\right)$  ( $g$  is the modulus of continuity of $G_{\phi }$  ), then $g$  satisfies

$$\begin{array}{ccc}f\left(\frac{u}{g\left(u\right)}\right)\ge g\left(u\right).& & \end{array}$$

This yields a uniform control on the modulus of continuity of $G_{\phi }$  : indeed, for $v>0$  , if $g>v$  , then $f(u/v)\ge v$  , and $u\ge v{f}^{-1}\left(v\right)$  . The function $v\to v{f}^{-1}\left(v\right)$  is non-decreasing and goes to $0$  when $v$  goes to 0. Considering $\omega$  its inverse, $\omega$  is the modulus of continuity of $G_{\phi }$  . Finally we have $\nabla \phi \left(x\right)=-{\nabla }_{x}c(x,G_{\phi }(x\left)\right)$  , and the continuity of $\nabla \phi$  is asserted.

$\square$  Remark. The power $\beta =\frac{\alpha }{4n-2+\alpha }$  is not optimal for example if $n=1,p=+\infty$  , for which the $C^{1,1}$  regularity is trivial, but note that in order to obtain this bound, we had to assume that $|y_1-y_0|\ge |x_1-x_0{|}^{1/5}$  , and, before, that $|x_1-x_0|=o\left(\right|y_1-y_0\left|\right)$  . Hence the conclusion should be: either $\phi$  is $C^{1,1}$  , or $\phi$  is $C^{1,1/5}$  or $\phi$  is $C^{1,\beta }$  . Note that $\beta \le 1/7$  for $n\ge 2$  .

Gregoire Loeper EPFL, SB-IMA 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland gregoire.loeper@epfl.ch

^$\text{1}$  Laboratoire J.A.Dieudonné, Université de Nice-Sophia-Antipolis, Parc Valrose, 06108 NICE Cedex 2.