On the regularity of harmonic maps from {\sf RCD}(K,N) to {\sf CAT}(0) spaces and related results

By the assumptions we can pick B=B_r(\bar x) with r=R arbitrarily large in (1.1). We then conclude from the fact that the right hand side is bounded by C(0,N)f(2r).

Considering the function g(\cdot):=f(x,\cdot), all the stated results follow from the analysis carried out in [AmbrosioGigliSavare11, Section 3]. Specifically, the monotonicity (3.1) and the last claim in item (ii) are proved in [AmbrosioGigliSavare11, Proposition 3.1], the semicontinuity in [AmbrosioGigliSavare11, Proposition 3.2] and the convergence to 0 is obvious from the fact that f is bounded from below (see also the explicit bound (?).

If D_t^+(x)=0 there is nothing to prove, thus we assume D_t^+(x)>0. Let x\in{\rm X}, t>0 and (y_n)\subset{\rm X} a minimizing sequence for F(t,x;\cdot) such that {\sf d}(x,y_n)\to D_t^+(x). For every n\in\varmathbb{N}, let \gamma_n:[0,1]\to{\rm X} be with constant speed equal to {\sf d}(x,y_n)(1+\frac1n) such that \gamma_n(0)=x, \gamma_n(1)=y_n. Then {\sf d}(\gamma_n(s),y_n)\leqslant (1-s)(1+\frac1n){\sf d}(x,y_n) for every s,n and thus

Rearranging, dividing by sD_t^+(x)>0 and recalling that {\sf d}(x,\gamma_n(s))\leqslant s{\sf d}(x,y_n)(1+\frac1n)\to sD_t^+(x) we get

By diagonalization we can find sequences n_j,m_j\uparrow+\infty such that

as desired.

The inequality f_0(x)\geqslant f_t(x) is obvious by the definitions, while from the regularity established in item (i) of Proposition 3.1 we know that

The conclusion follows from Lemma 3.2.

Letting y_t be (almost) minimizers for f_t(x) we get

where the last inequality comes from Young’s inequality (and we shall use at the end of the proof that * is actually an equality). Similarly with the \varliminf. If {\sf tilt}(f)(x)=0 this gives the first equality in (3.4), that a_t=-\frac{{\sf d}^2(x,y_t)}{2t^2} and that all the \varlimsup must be limits. Thus by (3.1) we get the second inequality in (3.4).

We thus we assume {\sf tilt}(f)(x)>0 and notice that for a,c\geqslant 0 the quantity \sup_{b>c}ab-\frac{b^2}2 is equal to \frac{a^2}2 if a\geqslant c and to ac-\frac{c^2}2 if a\leqslant c. It follows that for any x,y\in{\rm X} and \varepsilon>0 we have

Taking \varlimsup_{y\to x} and noticing that by {\sf tilt}(f)(x)>0 we are eventually in the first case we obtain

and the arbitrariness of \varepsilon>0 gives \frac12{\sf tilt}(f)^2(x)\leqslant \varlimsup_{t\downarrow0}-\frac{f_t(x)}{t}.

Hence the inequalities in (Proof) must all be equalities: then the first in (3.4) follows, while the second is a consequence of the equality in the starred inequality in (Proof) and of (3.1). The last claim also follows from these arguments.

For (i) let \varphi\in\widetilde{\rm Test}^+({\rm X}) and recall (?) to get

so the claim follows from the density result (?). For (ii) we pick \varphi\in \widetilde{\rm Test}^+({\rm X}) and notice that

thus (i), the weak maximum principle, the fact that \varphi\in L^1({\rm X}) and (reverse) Fatou’s lemma give

as desired. For (iii), let A\subset {\rm X} be as in (?). Then (i) and the continuity of {\sf h}_tf (recall (?)) and \int_0^t{\sf h}_sg\,{\rm d} s (that follows from the representation formula (?) and dominated convergence) ensure that {\sf h}_t f(x)\leqslant f(x)+(\int_0^t{\sf h}_sg\,{\rm d} s)(x) for every x\in A. Then (?), again the continuity of {\sf h}_tf and \varlimsup_t\fint_0^t{\sf h}_s g\,{\rm d} s\leqslant g (from (?) and upper semicontinuity) yield the claim.

Since the essential infimum can be realized as infimum of a suitably chosen countable subfamily, recalling the stability result (?) it is sufficient to prove the claim for I=\{1,2\}. Thus let f_1,f_2\in L^\infty({\rm X}) be with {\bf \Delta} f_1,{\bf \Delta} f_2\leqslant C{\mathfrak m} and recall (?) to see that \tilde{\sf h}_nf_1\wedge \tilde{\sf h}_nf_2\to f_1\wedge f_2 and \tilde{\sf h}_ng\to g in L^1_{loc}({\rm X}). Thus from (?) and (?) (possibly after passing to a suitable {\mathfrak m}-a.e. converging sequences) we see that we can replace f_i with \tilde{\sf h}_nf_i, i=1,2, in our claim.

By (?) we thus reduced to proving that for f_1,f_2\in{\rm Lip}_{\sf b}({\rm X})\cap D(\Delta_{loc}) with \Delta f_1,\Delta f_2\leqslant g {\mathfrak m}-a.e. we have {\bf \Delta}(f_1\wedge f_2)\leqslant g{\mathfrak m}. Since the functions h_n:=-\frac1n\log(e^{-nf_{1}}+e^{-nf_{2}}) are uniformly bounded and pointwise converge to f_1\wedge f_2, by (?) again it is sufficient to show that \Delta h_n\leqslant g {\mathfrak m}-a.e. for every n\in\varmathbb{N}. This follows by direct computation, as (?) gives

so that \Delta f_1,\Delta f_2\leqslant g implies \Delta h_n\leqslant g as well, as desired.

For the second claim notice that the inequality f\leqslant \bar f is trivial. For the other start defining, for \varepsilon>0, the function f_\varepsilon(x):=\varepsilon+\sup_{B_\varepsilon(x)}f and notice that since f\lower3pt\hbox{|_E} is upper semicontinuous (as infimum of upper semicontinuous functions) we have that f_\varepsilon\downarrow f as \varepsilon\downarrow0 on E.

Now fix \varepsilon>0 and for every x\in E use the upper semicontinuity of the f_i’s to find i_x\in I and r_x\in(0,\varepsilon) such that f_{i_x}(y)< f(x)+\varepsilon for every y\in B_{r_x}(x)\cap E. Thus we have f_{i_x}\leqslant f_\varepsilon on B_{r_x}(x). By the Lindelof property of E (that is a separable, though not complete in general, metric space when equipped with the restricted distance - see [Kelley75, Chapter I, Thm. 15]) there is a countable collection (x_n)\subset E such that \cup_nB_{r_{x_n}}(x_n)\supset E. Since \bar f\leqslant f_{i_{x_n}}\leqslant f_\varepsilon {\mathfrak m}-a.e. on B_{r_{x_n}}(x_n) for every n\in\varmathbb{N}, we deduce that \bar f\leqslant f_\varepsilon {\mathfrak m}-a.e.. The conclusion follows from the arbitrariness of \varepsilon>0.

Replacing f with f-c we can assume that c=0. Then let \eta be as in (?) with K\subset\subset U being a compact neighbourhood of \bar V and let \tilde f:=\eta f. Then starting from (?) and arguing as for (?) taking into account that {\rm supp}(\eta)\subset\subset U it is easy to prove that {\bf \Delta}(\eta f)\leqslant g'{\mathfrak m} on U for g':=g\eta+f\Delta \eta+2\nabla f\cdot\nabla\eta. Then letting \eta f be 0 outside U and using the locality property (?) with U_1:=U and U_2={\rm X}\setminus K we see that {\bf \Delta}(\eta f)\leqslant g'{\mathfrak m} holds on {\rm X} and thus from Lemma 4.3 that {\bf \Delta}(f^+)\leqslant (g')^+{\mathfrak m}. To replace (g')^+ with g^+=g we use again (?), this time with U_1:=\{\text{interior of }\{\eta=1\}\} and U_2:={\rm X}\setminus \bar V.

The second statement follows as in Lemma 4.3. For the first we notice that by the locality property (?) we can assume that U is bounded. Then fix V\subset\subset U open and notice that for C>0 sufficiently big we have: for the functions \tilde f_i:=f_i+C{\sf d}^2(\cdot,V) there is c>0 independent on i such that V\subset \{\tilde f_i\leqslant c\}\subset\subset U. Then Theorem 4.6, Lemma 4.5 and the locality of the Laplacian ensure that {\bf \Delta} (\tilde f_i\wedge c)\leqslant ({\raise.3ex\hbox{}}_Vg+({\raise.3ex\hbox{}}_{V^c}(g+C')){\mathfrak m} for some C'>0. Hence from Lemma 4.3 we deduce that {\bf \Delta}(\operatorname*{\rm ess-inf} (\tilde f_i\wedge c))\leqslant ({\raise.3ex\hbox{}}_Vg+({\raise.3ex\hbox{}}_{V^c}(g+C')){\mathfrak m} as well and since \tilde f_i\wedge c=f_i on V and V\subset\subset U was arbitrary, the conclusion follows.

Let x\in A, B\subset\subset U be an open neighbourhood of x and notice that for C>0 big enough we have: for the function f':=f+C{\sf d}^2(\cdot,B) there is c>0 such that B\subset\{f'\leqslant c\}\subset\subset U. Then as in the proof of Lemma 4.7 above we have that {\bf \Delta}\tilde f\leqslant \tilde g{\mathfrak m}, where \tilde f:=f'\wedge c and \tilde g:={\raise.3ex\hbox{}}_Bg+{\raise.3ex\hbox{}}_{B^c}(g+C') for some C'. Up to subtract a constant to f we can assume that c=0, so that \tilde f has bounded support and thus is in L^2({\rm X}). Then {\sf h}_tf\in D(\Delta) for every t>0 and, quite obviously, \Delta{\sf h}_t\tilde f\leqslant{\sf h}_t\tilde g {\mathfrak m}-a.e. for every t>0, hence for \varepsilon\in(0,t) we have

holds {\mathfrak m}-a.e.. Then notice that by the Gaussian and volume growth estimates (?), (?), the L^\infty-{\rm Lip}-regularization (?) and the fact that \tilde g is constant outside a bounded set it follows that {\sf h}_s\tilde g is continuous uniformly on s\in[\varepsilon,t]. Since so are {\sf h}_t\tilde f,{\sf h}_\varepsilon\tilde f, we see that (Proof) holds everywhere on {\rm X}. Now observe that the construction ensures that \tilde f\lower3pt\hbox{|_A} is continuous and the fact that {\mathfrak m}({\rm X}\setminus A)=0, the absolute continuity {\sf h}_t\delta_y\ll{\mathfrak m} and the fact that {\sf h}_t\delta_y\rightharpoonup\delta_y easily imply that {\sf h}_\varepsilon\tilde f(y)\to\tilde f(y) for every y\in A. Thus we can pass to the limit in (Proof) evaluated at x\in A as \varepsilon\downarrow0, noticing that the right hand side is continuous in \varepsilon, to deduce that

We then recall (?) and notice that \eqref{eq:LDP} and the fact that f,\tilde f coincide on B and are both bounded grant that \tilde \Delta f(x)=\tilde \Delta\tilde f(x): the inequality (?) follows.

The second claim follows from the extension argument just used and item (ii) in Lemma 4.2 while for the last claim we notice that by the arguments just used and the locality of the Laplacian we can reduce to the case {\bf \Delta} f_i\leqslant g_i on {\rm X} for g_i\in L^\infty({\rm X}). Then by Lemma 4.2 it is sufficient to show that \tilde\Delta(f_1\wedge f_2)\leqslant g {\mathfrak m}-a.e.. Thus let x\in{\rm X} be so that f_1(x)\leqslant f_2(x) and notice that the monotonicity of the heat flow (or equivalently (?)) tells that {\sf h}_s(f_1\wedge f_2)(x)\leqslant {\sf h}_sf_1(x). Subtracting the equality that holds for s=0 and dividing by s we get \tilde \Delta (f_1\wedge f_2)(x)\leqslant \tilde\Delta f_1(x). Recalling (?) and with an analogous argument for points x such that f_2(x)<f_1(x) we conclude.

Clearly we have \sup_t\||v_t|\|_{L^\infty}<\infty. Then notice that the definitions (?), [Gigli14, Definition 2.3.11] and the characterization (?) trivially give {\rm div}(v_t)=\Delta f_t. Also, from the Leibniz rule [Gigli14, 2.3.13] we see that

Now recall that the identity {\rm d}(g_1{\rm d} g_2)={\rm d} g_1\wedge {\rm d} g_2 holds for g_1,g_2\in{\rm Test}^\infty({\rm X}) (see [Gigli14, Theorem 3.5.2 (iv)]) and use the closure of the exterior differential (see [Gigli14, Theorem 3.5.2 (ii)]) to conclude that {\rm d} (\varphi {\rm d} f_t)={\rm d} \varphi\wedge {\rm d} f_t and thus that \||{\rm d} (\varphi {\rm d} f_t)|\|_{L^2}\leqslant \||{\rm d} f_t|\|_{L^\infty}\||{\rm d}\varphi\|_{L^2}. By [Gigli14, Corollary 3.6.4], this (Proof) and assumption (5.3) are sufficient to conclude that \sup_{t}\|\varphi \nabla f_t\|_{W^{1,2}_C}<\infty.

(a)\Rightarrow(b) By (?), (?) and the assumption |v_t|\in L^\infty_{t,x} we see that {\mbox{\boldmath}}:=({\sf Fl}_\cdot)_*\mu is a test plan (see [AmbrosioGigliSavare11]). Then the conclusion follows from [GigTam18, Lemma 5.3] combined with formula (5.1).
(b)\Rightarrow(c) Obvious.

(c)\Rightarrow(a) Pick f_t\equiv f\in W^{1,2}({\rm X}) and then apply [GR17, Proposition 2.7].

For n\in \varmathbb{N}, n>0 and t\in[0,1] we define f^n_t:=\tilde {\sf h}_n Q_tf (recall (?)) and then v^n_t:=-\nabla f^n_{1-t}. It is clear from (?), (?) and Lemma 5.3 that for every n\in\varmathbb{N} the vectors (v^n_t) satisfy the assumptions of Theorem 5.2 and (using also (5.5), (?)) that {\rm div}(v^n_t)\geqslant -C for any t,n. It follows that for every n\in\varmathbb{N} the vector fields (v^n_t) admit a (unique) RLF ({\sf Fl}^n_t) satisfying

Let \rho be as in the statement, put \mu:=\rho{\mathfrak m} and {\mbox{\boldmath}}^n:=({\sf Fl}^n_\cdot)_*\mu\in\mathscr P(C([0,1],{\rm X})): the desired plan {\mbox{\boldmath}} will be found as weak limit of these. Start noticing that (Proof) gives

and that for \delta\in(0,1) from (?) and (?) we see that

For later use we also observe that

Indeed, for t\ni[0,1), and \eta\in{\rm Lip}_{\sf bs}({\rm X}) identically 1 on B the functions \eta f^n_{1-t} are uniformly Lipschitz (by (Proof)), have uniformly bounded supports and converge pointwise to \eta Q_{1-t}f as n\to\infty. Thus the reflexivity of L^2(T^*{\rm X}) and the closure of the differential ensure that {\rm d} (\eta f^n_{1-t})\rightharpoonup {\rm d} (\eta Q_{1-t}f) in the weak topology of L^2(T^*{\rm X}). By locality we deduce that {\raise.3ex\hbox{}}_Bv^n_t\rightharpoonup -{\raise.3ex\hbox{}}_B\nabla Q_{1-t}f and since (?) implies \varlimsup_n\int_B|v^n_t|^2\,{\rm d}{\mathfrak m}\leqslant \int_B|{\rm d} Q_{1-t}f|^2\,{\rm d}{\mathfrak m} the claim (?) follows.

Thus denoting by {\mbox{\boldmath}}^n_\delta the restriction of {\mbox{\boldmath}}^n to [0,1-\delta] (more precisely: the image of {\mbox{\boldmath}}^n under the restriction map that takes \gamma\in C([0,1],{\rm X}) and returns \gamma\lower3pt\hbox{|_[0,1-]}\in C([0,1-\delta],{\rm X})) we see from (?) and (Proof) that the plans {\mbox{\boldmath}}^n_\delta are concentrated on equiLipschitz curves. In particular, from (Proof) and the boundedness of {\rm supp}(\rho) we see that {\rm supp}(\mu^n_t)\subset B(\delta) for some bounded Borel set B(\delta)\subset{\rm X} and every n\in\varmathbb{N}, n>0, t\in[0,1-\delta]. This is enough to prove that ({\mbox{\boldmath}}^n_\delta)_{n} is tight, indeed from the tightness of {\mathfrak m}\lower3pt\hbox{|_B()} there is a function \varphi:{\rm X}\to[0,\infty] with compact sublevels such that \int_{B(\delta)}\varphi\,{\rm d}{\mathfrak m}<\infty, then the function

also has compact sublevels in C([0,1-\delta],{\rm X}) (see [GMS15, Lemma 5.8]) and (Proof),(Proof),(?) give

for every n. By Prokhorov’s theorem this proves the tightness of ({\mbox{\boldmath}}^n_\delta) so that up to pass to a non-relabeled subsequence we can assume that it weakly converges to some {\mbox{\boldmath}}_\delta\in C([0,1-\delta],{\rm X}).

Now observe that (?) and (Proof) tell that for any \eta\in{\rm Lip}_{\sf bs}({\rm X}) the curve t\mapsto \eta f^n_{1-t} is in AC([0,1-\delta],L^2({\rm X}))\cap L^\infty([0,1-\delta],W^{1,2}({\rm X})) and \frac{\rm d}{{\rm d} t}(\eta f^n_{1-t})= \tfrac12\eta\,\tilde{\sf h}_n({\rm lip}^2(Q_{1-t}f)). Then Proposition 5.4 (applied in [0,1-\delta] rather than [0,1]) gives that [0,1-\delta]\ni t\mapsto \int\eta f^n_{1-t}\circ{\rm e}_t\,{\rm d}{\mbox{\boldmath}}^n is absolutely continuous and formula (?) yields

where \mu^n_t:=({\rm e}_t)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}}^n. Picking \eta\equiv 1 on B(\delta) we get

We wish to pass to the limit in this identity and notice that by (?) and (?) we get that the functions (\tilde{\sf h}_n({\rm lip}^2(Q_{1-t}f)))_{n\in\varmathbb{N}} are uniformly bounded and converge in L^1_{loc} to {\rm lip}^2(Q_{1-t}f) as n\to\infty. This, the convergence (?), the uniform bound (Proof), the assumption (5.5) together with the weak convergence of \mu^{n}_t to \mu_t:=({\rm e}_t)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}}_\delta and the fact that these measures have uniformly bounded supports and densities (by (Proof)) give A_n\to 0 as n\to\infty.

Similarly, we have \int f^{n}_{1-t}\,{\rm d}\mu^{n}_{t}\to \int Q_{1-t} f\,{\rm d} \mu_{t} for every t\in[0,1], so that passing to the limit in the above taking into account the lower semicontinuity of the kinetic energy gives

We now wish to send \delta\downarrow 0 and to this aim we apply the construction above to \delta=\delta_j\downarrow0 and proceed by diagonalization to find plans {\mbox{\boldmath}}_{\delta_j}\in \mathscr P(C([0,1-\delta_j],{\rm X})) so that {\mbox{\boldmath}}_{\delta_j} is the ‘restriction’ - in the sense previously made rigorous - of {\mbox{\boldmath}}_{\delta_k} for k>j. From (?) and (?) we also deduce the uniform bound

and from this we infer that there is {\mbox{\boldmath}}\in C([0,1],{\rm X}) whose ‘restriction’ to [0,1-\delta_i] is {\mbox{\boldmath}}_{\delta_j} for every j\in\varmathbb{N}: just ‘extend’ each {\mbox{\boldmath}}_{\delta_j} to a probability measure on C([0,1],{\rm X}) imposing that curves in the support are constant on [1-\delta_j,1] and notice that the resulting sequence has uniformly bounded kinetic energy and tight marginals (by (Proof) and the uniform bound on second moments that follows from (?)). Then weak compactness follows from the same arguments previously used.

Finally, we recall the lower semicontinuity property in (?) and Fatou’s lemma for weakly converging sequences of measures (see e.g. [GDP17, Lemma 2.5]) to see that \varliminf_{j}\int Q_{\delta_j} f\,{\rm d} \mu_{1-\delta_j}\geqslant \int f\,{\rm d}\mu_0. Therefore we can pass to the limit in (?) and conclude.

For arbitrary \gamma\in C([0,1],{\rm X}) the definition of Q_1f gives

On the other hand, the assumption (5.6) tells

thus forcing (**) to be an equality and (*) to be an equality for {\mbox{\boldmath}}-a.e. \gamma. Equality in (**) holds iff {\mbox{\boldmath}}-a.e. \gamma is a (constant speed) geodesic, and since the collection of geodesics is a closed subset of C([0,1],{\rm X}), property (ii) follows (the estimate on the length also comes from (Proof)). A similar argument by continuity based on the continuity of Q_1f (recall (?)), on the lower semicontinuity of f and on {\mbox{\boldmath}}-a.e. equality on (*) tells that equality in (*) holds for every \gamma\in{\rm supp}({\mbox{\boldmath}}). It is now clear that item (iii) holds.

Now observe that for the cost function c(x,y):=\frac{{\sf d}^2(x,y)}{2} we have Q_1f=(- f)^c and since the identity g^{cc}\geqslant g holds for arbitrary functions g (see e.g. [G11, Proposition 2.2.9 (ii)]), from the fact that (*) is an equality we deduce

This is sufficient to ensure that ({\rm e}_0,{\rm e}_1)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}} is c-optimal and since we already established that {\mbox{\boldmath}} is concentrated on geodesics, (iv) follows. Item (v) is equivalent to (?). For (vi) we notice that considering the (normalized) restriction of {\mbox{\boldmath}} to \{\gamma:\frac{{\rm d}({\rm e}_0)_*{\mbox{\scriptsize\boldmath}}}{{\rm d}{\mathfrak m}}(\gamma_0)+\frac{{\rm d}({\rm e}_1)_*{\mbox{\scriptsize\boldmath}}}{{\rm d}{\mathfrak m}}(\gamma_1)+{\sf d}(\gamma_0,\bar x)+{\sf d}(\gamma_1,\bar x)\leqslant n\} for n\gg1 and keeping in mind the estimate in [AmbrosioGigliMondinoRajala12, Theorem 4.2] we can assume that ({\rm e}_t)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}}\leqslant C{\mathfrak m} for every t\in[0,1]. Now keeping in mind item (ii), by [Gigli12, Proposition 3.11] we need to prove that

and these follow from the metric Brenier theorem [AmbrosioGigliSavare11, Theorems 10.3, 10.4]. For (vi-b) we notice that from (v) and the general theory of interpolation of Kantorovich potentials (see [G11, Theorem 2.2.10] or [Villani09, Theorem 7.36] paying attention to the different sign convention) we have that Q_tf,Q_{1-t}(-Q_1f) are Kantorovich potentials for ({\rm e}_t,{\rm e}_0)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}},({\rm e}_t,{\rm e}_1)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}} respectively and - recalling that these are continuous function - that

Then again the metric Brenier theorem [AmbrosioGigliSavare11, Theorems 10.3] and a simple scaling show that

while (?) gives Q_tf(\gamma_{1-t})-Q_tf(x)\leqslant Q_{1-t}(-Q_1f)(x)-Q_{1-t}(-Q_1f)(\gamma_{1-t}) for any x\in{\rm X} and \gamma\in {\rm supp}({\mbox{\boldmath}}). Taking positive parts this implies |\partial^- Q_tf |(\gamma_t)\leqslant |\partial^+ Q_{1-t}(-Q_1f)|(\gamma_t) that together with (?) and the trivial identity {\rm lip}\, g=|\partial^+g|\vee|\partial^-g| gives (5.6).

The fact that {\mbox{\boldmath}} is induced by a map now follows from [RajalaSturm12, Corollary 1.3]. The uniqueness of {\mbox{\boldmath}} is then a consequence of standard arguments in Optimal Transport: if {\mbox{\boldmath}}'\neq{\mbox{\boldmath}} also satisfies the assumptions, the plan \tfrac12({\mbox{\boldmath}}+{\mbox{\boldmath}}') would also do so, without being induced by a map.

For the last claims we use uniqueness of optimal maps as stated in [GigliRajalaSturm13, Theorem 1.1] in place of [RajalaSturm12, Corollary 1.3] and notice that if we pick, via a Borel selection argument, for \mu-a.e. x a geodesic F(x) with F_0(x)=x and F_1(x) minimizer for f(\cdot)+\frac{{\sf d}^2(\cdot,x)}{2}, then what said above show that {\mbox{\boldmath}}:=(F_\cdot)_*\mu satisfies (5.6). Hence it is unique and a fortiori so is F_1(x) for \mu-a.e. x\in{\rm X}.

From [AmbrosioGigliSavare12, Lemma 3.4] and its proof we know that for any s>0 it holds

Subtracting the identity Q_tf( x)=f( y)+\frac{{\sf d}^2( x, y)}{2t}, dividing by s and letting s\downarrow0 we conclude.

We shall prove (?) for t=1 only and the statements about minimizers for T=1 only. The general cases follow by the same arguments, or by replacing the distance {\sf d} with \sqrt t{\sf d}, noticing that both Laplacian and Ricci bounds are affected by a factor \frac1t and taking also into account the natural rescaling properties for RLFs.
Step 1: the core argument We claim that all the stated conclusions follow if f\in{\mathcal AC}^-({\rm X}) is such that {\bf \Delta} f\leqslant C{\mathfrak m} and

(in particular, even if a priori we only have some ‘bad’ upper bound on the Laplacian, we can improve it to the ‘correct’ estimate (?)).

Let us prove (?). Put A_t:=\{|{\rm d} Q_tf|={\rm lip}(Q_tf)\} (this is a Borel set defined up to {\mathfrak m}-negligible sets), let \bar x\in{\rm X} and 0<R_1<R_2. Put \rho:={\mathfrak m}(B_{R_1})^{-1}{\raise.3ex\hbox{}}_{B_{R_1}} and apply Proposition 5.5 with C' in place of C to find a plan {\mbox{\boldmath}} satisfying (?) and (?). We can thus apply Proposition 5.6 and deduce, by item (ii) of such statement, that {\rm supp}(({\rm e}_t)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}})\subset B_{R_2}(x) for t\ll1. Thus letting \rho_t be the density of ({\rm e}_t)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}}, we have

We apply this estimate to the scaled space ({\rm X},\frac{{\sf d}}{\sqrt{1-t}},{\mathfrak m}) for t\ll1 noticing that the Laplacian and Ricci bounds are only slightly affected and that Q^{\sf d}_{1-t}f=Q^{\frac{{\sf d}}{\sqrt{1-t}}}_{1}f (equivalently: in the above argument we apply Propositions 5.5, 5.6 to slightly different time intervals) . We conclude that

thus letting first t\downarrow0 and then R_1\uparrow R_2 we deduce that {\mathfrak m}(A_1\cap B_{R_2})={\mathfrak m}(B_{R_2}). By the arbitrariness of R_2, this proves (?) for t=1. The general case follows by scaling.

We turn to the rest of the proof and observe that for {\mbox{\boldmath}}={\mbox{\boldmath}}_{R_1} built as above the plan {\mbox{\boldmath}}':=\sum_{n}2^{-n}{\mbox{\boldmath}}_{R_{1,n}} for some R_{1,n}\uparrow\infty satisfies ({\rm e}_0)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}},({\rm e}_1)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}}\ll{\mathfrak m} and (5.6), thus Proposition 5.6 ensures that is induced by a map F. The fact that F takes values on geodesics of length \leqslant \sqrt{2{\sf Osc}(f)} and satisfies (?) (for T=1) follows from the analogue statements in Proposition 5.6. Now observe that from Lemma 4.2 and the assumptions f\in{\mathcal AC}^-({\rm X}), {\bf \Delta} f\leqslant C{\mathfrak m} we have that \tilde\Delta f(y)\leqslant C for every y\in{\rm X}. Hence by (?) we are in position to apply Lemma 5.8 above in conjunction with the trivial bound (?) to deduce that

This bound and the distributional inequality (Proof) give, via Lemma 4.2, estimate (?).

Now that we have (?) we can apply once again Proposition 5.5, this time with C+2K^-{\sf Osc}(f) in place of C to conclude, by (?) and the construction, that (?) holds.

The validity of (?), the very definition of Q_1f and the fact that \int_0^1|\dot\gamma_t|^2\,{\rm d} t\geqslant{\sf d}^2(\gamma_0,\gamma_1) with equality iff \gamma is a constant speed geodesic, ensure that F_\cdot(x) is a minimizer for (?). Thus existence is proved. Uniqueness follows from Proposition 5.6: if \tilde F:{\rm X}\to C([0,1],{\rm X}) is also a selection of minimizers with (\tilde F_1)_*{\mathfrak m}\ll{\mathfrak m}, then for \mu\in\mathscr P({\rm X}) with {\mathfrak m}\ll\mu\ll{\mathfrak m} the plan {\mbox{\boldmath}}:=\frac12((F_\cdot)_*\mu+(\tilde F_\cdot)_*\mu) satisfies (5.6) with ({\rm e}_0)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}}=\mu and ({\rm e}_1)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}}\ll{\mathfrak m}. By Proposition 5.6 this is enough to ensure that {\mbox{\boldmath}} is induced by a map, i.e. that F=\tilde F {\mathfrak m}-a.e.. The last claim in Proposition 5.6 also gives {\mathfrak m}-a.e. uniqueness of minimizers of (?) if {\rm X} is {\sf RCD}(K,N).

It remains to prove that (F_t) is the only Regular Lagrangian Flow of v_t:=-\nabla Q_{1-t}f. To see that it is a RLF, since F takes values in continuous curves, it is sufficient to show that for any \delta\in(0,1) it is the RLF of (v_t) on [0,1-\delta]. In this direction notice that (?) tells

Then let \rho be a bounded probability density with bounded support, put {\mbox{\boldmath}}:=(F_\cdot)_*(\rho{\mathfrak m}) as above and use (?) to apply Proposition 5.4 on [0,1-\delta] and deduce that it is sufficient to prove that for any \varphi\in W^{1,2}({\rm X}) the map [0,1-\delta]\ni t\mapsto \int\varphi \circ{\rm e}_t\,{\rm d}{\mbox{\boldmath}} is absolutely continuous with derivative equal to -\int{\rm d}\varphi(\nabla Q_{1-t}f)\circ{\rm e}_t\,{\rm d}{\mbox{\boldmath}} for a.e. t. Absolute continuity follows from the Sobolev regularity of \varphi and the fact that {\mbox{\boldmath}} is a test plan (see e.g. [GP19, Theorem 2.1.21]). Then recalling that {\mbox{\boldmath}} is an optimal geodesic test plan and by a simple scaling argument we see that it is sufficient to prove the formula for the derivative for t=0, i.e. to prove that

This follows recalling that {\mbox{\boldmath}} represents the gradient of -Q_1f in the sense of [Gigli12, Definition 3.7] (recall item (vii) in Proposition 5.6) and the lemma about ‘horizontal and vertical derivatives’, see [Gigli12, Theorem 3.10] (and [AmbrosioGigliSavare11-2, Lemma 4.5]).

We pass to uniqueness, thus let \rho as before, \tilde {\sf Fl} be a RLF of the v_t’s, put \tilde{\mbox{\boldmath}}:=(\tilde {\sf Fl}_\cdot)_*\mu, let f_t:=Q_{t}f and notice that - by (?) and the assumption (?) - the identity \partial_tf_t=-\frac12|{\rm d} f_t|^2 holds {\mathfrak m}-a.e. for a.e. t\in[0,1]. Then from (?) and (?) and arguing as for (?) we obtain

Now notice that the continuity of t\mapsto\tilde {\sf Fl}_t(x) for {\mathfrak m}-a.e. x\in {\rm X} implies the weak convergence of ({\rm e}_{1-\delta})_*\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath}} to ({\rm e}_1)_*\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath}}, hence the lower semicontinuity stated in (?) and Fatou’s lemma for weakly converging measures (see e.g. [GDP17, Lemma 2.5]) imply \varliminf_{\delta\downarrow0}\int Q_\delta f\,{\rm d}(\tilde {\sf Fl}_{1-\delta})_*\mu\geqslant \int f\,{\rm d}({\rm e}_1)_*\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath}}.

We can therefore pass to the limit in the above and conclude that \tilde{\mbox{\boldmath}} satisfies (5.6), so that the uniqueness claim follows again by Proposition 5.6.

Step 2: the approximation argument Let f\in{\mathcal AC}^-({\rm X}) be such that {\bf \Delta} f\leqslant C{\mathfrak m} and assume that (f_n)\subset{\mathcal AC}^-({\rm X}) is a sequence that is \Gamma-converging to f (see [DalMaso93], [Braides02]), i.e. so that

Assume also that for some C''>0 the uniform bounds

hold for every n\in\varmathbb{N} and that the conclusions of the theorem are true for the f_n’s (with the estimate (?) depending on C''). We claim that in this case the conclusions of the statement hold for f (with the correct estimate (?) depending on C,{\sf Osc}(f) only). According to the previous step to this aim it is sufficient to show that the properties (Proof) hold. In proving this we shall frequently use the fact that (?) and (?) give that the f_n’s - and thus also the Q_tf_n’s - are equibounded.

We start claiming that

Indeed, for x,y\in{\rm X} we use (?) to find y_n\to y with \varlimsup_nf_n(y_n)\leqslant f(y) and observe that

so that the arbitrariness of y\in{\rm X} gives (?).

To get (a sort of) the \Gamma-\varliminf inequality analogue to (?) we need to overcome the lack of compactness by using the uniform estimates (?).

We assumed that for the f_n’s the conclusions are true, thus let F^n:{\rm X}\to C([0,1],{\rm X}) be the corresponding maps as in the statement, fix a bounded probability density \rho with bounded support, define {\mbox{\boldmath}}_n:=(F^n)_*(\rho{\mathfrak m})\in\mathscr P(C([0,1],{\rm X})) and notice that by (?) and the last claim in the statement the {\mbox{\boldmath}}_n’s are concentrated on a bounded set of geodesics. Also, by (?) and (?), they satisfy

Arguing as in the proof of Proposition 5.5, this is enough to conclude that the family ({\mbox{\boldmath}}_n) is tight, so that passing to a non-relabeled subsequence we can assume that it converges to a limit plan {\mbox{\boldmath}}. Now observe that integrating (?) we get

The bound (?), identity ({\rm e}_0)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}}_n=({\rm e}_0)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}}=\rho{\mathfrak m} and (reverse) Fatou’s lemma give

while (?) and Fatou’s lemma for weakly converging sequences of measures (see e.g. [GDP17, Lemma 2.5]) give \varliminf_n\int f_n\,{\rm d}({\rm e}_1)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}}_n\geqslant \int f\,{\rm d}({\rm e}_1)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}}. Thus by the lower semicontinuity of the kinetic energy we can pass to the limit in the above and obtain

Since (?) implies ({\rm e}_1)_*{\mbox{\boldmath}}\ll{\mathfrak m}, we can apply Proposition 5.6 and deduce that

Then the arbitrariness of \rho and the very same arguments used at the beginning of the previous step (based on the fact that the estimate (?) passes to the limit in place of (?)) show that (?), and in particular (Proof), holds.

Also, since the inequality f(\gamma_1)+\frac12\int_0^1|\dot\gamma_t|^2\,{\rm d} t\geqslant f(\gamma_1)+\frac{{\sf d}^2(\gamma_0,\gamma_1)}2\geqslant Q_1f(\gamma_0) is true for any \gamma\in C([0,1],{\rm X}), the bound (?) gives \varliminf_n\int Q_1f_n\,{\rm d}(\rho{\mathfrak m})\geqslant \int Q_1f\,{\rm d}(\rho{\mathfrak m}). Now put g_n:=\sup_{k\geqslant n}Q_1f_k, g:=\inf_n g_n=\varlimsup_nQ_1f_n and observe that, by dominated convergence, g_n\to g in L^1({\rm X},\rho{\mathfrak m}). On the other hand

This forces at once Q_1f_n\to g in L^1(\rho{\mathfrak m}) and g=Q_1f \rho{\mathfrak m}-a.e., hence the arbitrariness of \rho tells that (Q_1f_n) converges to Q_1f in L^1_{loc}({\rm X}). Now from (?) and the validity of (?) for f_n we get {\bf \Delta} Q_1f_n\leqslant (C''+2K^-C''){\mathfrak m} and according to the stability property (?) we can conclude that {\bf \Delta} Q_1f\leqslant (C''+2K^-C''){\mathfrak m}. Since by a scaling argument the same inequality is true for Q_tf, (Proof) holds. We thus established (Proof), as desired.

Step 3: wrapping everything up

The case of test functions Let f\in{\rm Test}^\infty({\rm X}). Then clearly f\in{\mathcal AC}^-({\rm X}). Also, the properties (Proof) are granted by Lemma 5.7, hence in this case the conclusion follows from the first step.

Intermediate regularity Assume that f is in {\rm Lip}_{\sf b}({\rm X})\cap D(\Delta_{\rm loc}) with \Delta f\in {\rm Lip}_b({\rm X}). Pick \bar x\in{\rm X}, let \phi_n:=(1-{\sf d}(\cdot,B_n(\bar x)))^+, define \eta_n:=\tilde{\sf h}_1\phi_n\in\widetilde{\rm Test}({\rm X}) and then f_n:=\eta_nf. It is clear from (?) that f_n\in{\rm Test}^\infty({\rm X}) for every n\in\varmathbb{N}, so by the previous step the conclusions of the theorem are true for it. We claim that the bounds (?) and the \Gamma-convergence (?) are in place.

The bound (?) is trivial and since (?) gives

the bound (?) follows from the Leibniz rule for the Laplacian (?). We pass to (?) and notice that the monotonicity of the heat flow grants that (\eta_n(x)) is a bounded non-decreasing sequence for every x\in{\rm X}, hence it converges to a limit \eta(x). In particular for \varphi\in\widetilde{\rm Test}({\rm X}) by dominated convergence we have \int\eta_n\varphi\,{\rm d}{\mathfrak m}\to\int\eta\varphi\,{\rm d}{\mathfrak m}. On the other hand we have

and by the density property (?) we conclude that \eta=1 {\mathfrak m}-a.e., and thus everywhere because it is a Lipschitz function (being limit of equiLipschitz functions). It follows that for x_n\to x we have

and thus, since f\in{\rm Lip}_{\sf b}({\rm X}), that f_n(x_n)\to f(x). This property is clearly stronger than (?), which therefore is proved. Hence the desired conclusion for f follows from Step 2.

The general case Let f:{\rm X}\to\varmathbb{R} be as in the assumptions, put f_n:=\tilde{\sf h}_n f and notice that by (?) and (?) we have f_n\in {\rm Lip}_{\sf b}({\rm X})\cap D(\Delta_{\rm loc}) with \Delta f_n\in{\rm Lip}_b({\rm X}). Then by the previous set the conclusions of the theorem are true for f_n, whereas by (?) and the weak maximum principle we see that the uniform bounds (?) are in place.

According to Step 2 to conclude it is therefore sufficient to show that the \Gamma-convergence (?) is in place. To prove (?) we let g\in{\rm Lip}_{{\sf b}}({\rm X}), g_n:=\tilde{\sf h}_n g and notice that (?) implies L:=\sup_n{\rm Lip}(g_n)<\infty. Thus if g\in {\rm Lip}_{\sf b}({\rm X}), for any x_n\to x the monotonicity of the heat flow gives

where in the last equality we used the continuity of g, the representation {\sf h}_tg(x)=\int g\,{\rm d}{\sf h}_t\delta_x and the fact that {\sf h}_t\delta_x\rightharpoonup\delta_x as t\downarrow0. From the lower semicontinuity of f it is easy to establish that f=\sup\{g\, :\, g\in {\rm Lip}_b({\rm X}), g\leqslant f\} (see e.g. [AmbrosioGigliSavare08, Section 5.1]), thus (?) follows from (?).

To prove (?) we recall that for some Borel set E\subset{\rm X} with {\mathfrak m}-negligible complement we have that f\lower3pt\hbox{|_E} is continuous. Also, using (?) and a diagunalization argument it is clear that it suffices to prove (?) for x\in E. Fix such x, let \varepsilon>0, find r>0 such that f\leqslant f(x)+\varepsilon on B_r(x)\cap E and notice that since {\sf h}_t\delta_x\ll{\mathfrak m} for every t>0 and {\sf h}_t\delta_x(B_r^c)\to 0 as t\downarrow0 we have

Since \varepsilon>0 was arbitrary, the claim (?) follows by picking x_n\equiv x.

By (?) and Theorem 6.5 we know that for any p\in{\rm Y} we have {\bf \Delta}{\sf d}_{{\rm Y}}( u(\cdot),p)\geqslant 0 on U, thus by the second part of Theorem 6.7 we know that there is a Borel {\mathfrak m}-negligible set N_p\subset U such that {\sf d}_{{\rm Y}}( u(\cdot),p) is upper semicontinuous. Now recall that since u is essentially separable valued there is {\rm Y}'\subset{\rm Y} separable such that {\mathfrak m}(U\setminus u^{-1}({\rm Y}'))=0, then let (p_n)\subset{\rm Y}' be countable and dense and put

Then {\sf Cont}(u) is Borel with {\mathfrak m}(U\setminus {\sf Cont}(u))=0 and

for every x\in {\sf Cont}(u) and n\in\varmathbb{N}. Taking the \inf in n we obtain the desired continuity, while estimate (?) follows directly from (6.7) with C=C_1(0,\tfrac1{1-\lambda},K^-R^2,N).

(i) For x\in{\sf Cont}(u) we have {\sf d}_u(x,y)={\sf d}_{\rm Y}(u(x),u(y)) for {\mathfrak m}-a.e. y\in U by (?) and (?). Thus in this case the claims follow from item (ii) in Proposition 6.3 and Theorem 6.5 in conjunction with property (?). For the general case we fix x\in U and for r>0 put g_r(y):=\sup_{x'\in B_r(x)\cap {\sf Cont}(u)}{\sf d}_u(x',y). Then (?) and (?) ensure that

Now notice that {\sf d}_{\rm Y}(u(x'),\cdot) is 1-Lipschitz for every x'\in U, thus the uniform estimate (6.3) - recall also (6.1) -, the lattice property of Sobolev functions (that in turn follows from the chain rule and the locality of minimal weak upper gradients) and the lower semicontinuity of minimal weak upper gradients easily give that g_r\in W^{1,2}(U) with |{\rm d} g_r|\leqslant c(d){\rm e}_2[u]. Then (Proof) and again the lower semicontinuity of minimal weak upper gradients tell that {\sf d}_u(x,\cdot)\in W^{1,2}(U).

For the Laplacian estimate we apply Lemma 4.7 (with inverted signs) to deduce that {\bf \Delta} g_r\lower3pt\hbox{|_U}\geqslant0, so that by (Proof) and the stability property (?) we conclude.

(ii) Let x\in{\sf Cont}(u) and r>0 be so that B:=B_r(x) and 2B=B_{2r}(x) are contained in U. Then

hence dividing by r and letting r\downarrow0 we conclude recalling (6.3).

With an approximation argument we can assume that { B}\subset\subset U. Hence u\lower3pt\hbox{|_ B} is (essentially) bounded by Proposition 6.8 and clearly harmonic. In particular u( B) is essentially contained in a closed ball {\rm Y}' of {\rm Y}. As it is well-known, and trivial consequence of (?), closed balls in {\sf CAT}(0) spaces are convex, and thus {\sf CAT}(0) as well. Then for {\sf o}\in{\rm Y} let {\sf d}_{\sf o}:{\rm Y}'\to\varmathbb{R} be given by {\sf d}_{\sf o}(q):={\sf d}_{\rm Y}(q,{\sf o}) and notice that by (?) {\sf d}_{\sf o}^2 is 2-convex on {\rm Y}', thus Theorem 6.5 (with B in place of U) gives {\rm e}_2^2[u]{\mathfrak m}\leqslant c(d) {\bf \Delta}({\sf d}^2_{\sf o}\circ u) on B. Therefore (6.3) gives |{\rm d} u|^2{\mathfrak m}\leqslant c(d) {\bf \Delta}({\sf d}^2_{\sf o}\circ u) on B and for \varphi:=(1-\tfrac2{r(1-\lambda)}{\sf d}(\cdot,B_{\lambda r}(x)))^+ and \alpha>0 we have

Picking \alpha<\frac1{2c(d)}, using the trivial bound |{\rm d}\varphi|\leqslant \frac2{r(\lambda-1)}{\raise.3ex\hbox{}}_{ B} and (6.3) we get the conclusion.

By [GT20, Prop. 2.5, Lemma 3.4] and with the terminology therein we have {\rm lip}(v)(x)=|||{\sf md}_x(v)||| for {\mathfrak m}-a.e. x\in U, thus taking into account [GT20, Thm 4.12] we need only to verify that

where in both cases the {\mathfrak m}-essential supremum is taken among {\sf v}\in L^0(T{\rm X}) with |{\sf v}|\leqslant 1 {\mathfrak m}-a.e.. The first in (Proof) is obvious (see also [GT20, Thm 4.9] and [GP16] for the definition of the isomorphism \mathscr I between the ‘abstract’ L^0(T{\rm X}) and ‘concrete’ L^0(T_{\rm GH}{\rm X}) tangent modules), while the second comes from the properties of the abstract differential {\rm d} v (see [GPS18, Prop. 3.5]).

Let x\in B'' and notice that, by the choice of \bar T and direct computation, for t\in(0,\bar T) we have f(x,\cdot)+\frac{{\sf d}^2(x,\cdot)}{2t}>c outside B' for c:=4r^2+1. Thus by item (i) in Proposition 6.9, Theorem 4.6 and Lemma 4.5 we know that \tilde f(x,\cdot):=(f(x,\cdot)+\frac{{\sf d}^2(x,\cdot)}{2t})\wedge c satisfies {\bf \Delta} \tilde f(x,\cdot)\leqslant \frac {C(K^-R^2,N)}t{\mathfrak m} and, picking A:={\sf Cont}(u)\cup({\rm X}\setminus U), that \tilde f(x,\cdot)\in {\mathcal AC}^-({\rm X}).

Now for any z\in B define \tilde g_{t,n}(x,y,z):=\tilde f(x,y)+\tfrac{{\sf d}^2(y,z)}n. We claim that

To see this, let y be a minimizer for \tilde g_{t,n}(x,\cdot,z) and notice that

In particular, \tilde f(x,y)\leqslant 4r^2<c, hence \tilde f(x,y)=f(x,y)+\frac{{\sf d}^2(x,y)}{2t} and thus \tilde g_{t,n}(x,y,z)= g_{t,n}(x,y,z). Since \tilde g_{t,n}\leqslant g_{t,n}, we see that y minimizes g_{t,n}(x,\cdot,z). The above also implies {\sf d}^2(x,y)\leqslant 2t(4r^2+\bar C\,{\sf Norm})\leqslant\frac{r^2}{36}. Since x\in B'' this implies y\in B', so that (?) is proved.

Now for every x\in B'' we apply Theorem 5.9 to \tilde f(x,\cdot) to find a Borel map T(x,\cdot):{\rm X}\to {\rm X} so that for {\mathfrak m}-a.e. z\in{\rm X} the point T(x,z) is the only minimizer of \tilde g_{t,n}(x,\cdot,z) and

By compactness we see that the multivalued map (x,z)\mapsto K(x,z):=\{\text{minimizers ofg_t,n(x,,z)}\} satisfies the assumption of the Borel selection theorem [Bogachev07, Theorem 6.9.3], thus there is \tilde T:{\rm X}^2\to{\rm X} Borel so that \tilde T(x,z)\in K(x,z) for any x,z. The uniqueness part of Theorem 5.9 for {\sf RCD}(K,N) spaces forces T(x,\cdot)=\tilde T(x,\cdot) {\mathfrak m}-a.e., hence (?) gives \tilde T_*({\mathfrak m}\times{\mathfrak m})\ll{\mathfrak m}.

Since {\mathfrak m}(B'\setminus E)=0 by assumption, we have ({\mathfrak m}\times{\mathfrak m})\big((B''\times B)\cap \tilde T^{-1}(B'\setminus E)\big)=0, thus from Fubini’s theorem and (?) we see that for {\mathfrak m}-a.e. z\in B we have: for {\mathfrak m}-a.e. x\in B'' the point \tilde T(x,z) is in E\subset B' and minimizes g_{t,n}(x,\cdot,z). Since n ranges over \varmathbb{N}, this suffices to conclude.

By Lemma 6.13 and Definitions (?), (?) we know that for {\mathfrak m}-a.e. x\in B'' we have

On the other hand, by Theorem 4.6 and Proposition 6.9 we know that

so that the conclusion follows from Lemma 4.7 (using the second part with E:={\sf Cont}(u)).

If {\sf d}_u(\bar x,\bar y)=0 or both x and y are not in B' the claim is obvious. Then we observe that rearranging the terms in (?) we easily get that (6.15) holds for any x,y,\bar x,\bar y\in{\sf Cont}(u) with {\sf d}_u(\bar x,\bar y)>0 and x,y\in B'. The conclusion for x,y\in B' arbitrary follows from the definition of {\sf d}_u(x,y) and {\sf d}_{u,p}(x). It remains to deal with the case {\sf d}_u(\bar x,\bar y)>0 and x\in B', y\notin B': if this happens (6.15) reads as

To prove this notice that we know the validity of (6.15) for x,\bar x,\bar y as in (Proof) and the choice y:=\bar y. With this choice we have F_{\bar y,\bar x}(y)=0 and thus (Proof) follows from (?).

For any p\in{\rm Y} the identity {\sf d}_{u,p}(\cdot)={\sf d}_{\rm Y}(u(\cdot),p)) holds on {\sf Cont}(u), hence {\mathfrak m}-a.e. on B'. Then (?) and Theorem 6.5 give {\bf \Delta}(-{\sf d}_{u,p}^2)\lower3pt\hbox{|_B’}\leqslant- 2(d+2){\rm e}_2[u]^2{\mathfrak m} and thus Lemma 4.8 implies

Similarly, for x\in{\sf Cont}(u) the identity {\sf d}_u(x,y)={\sf d}_{\rm Y}(u(x),u(y)) holds for {\mathfrak m}-a.e. y\in U, thus for any such x for which the limiting property (6.4) holds, since {\sf d}_u(x,x)=0 we have

The conclusion follows from the subadditivity of \tilde\Delta (which is obvious by definition).

We apply Lemma 6.13 with E\subset B' chosen as the set of points for which the conclusions of Lemma 6.16 hold and then define the functions f_{t,n} accordingly. By the very definitions of f_t and f_{t,n} and keeping also in mind that for x\in B'' a minimizer for f_{t,n} exists in B' (by Lemma 6.13), we have that f_{t,n}\to f_t uniformly on B'' as n\to\infty.

Hence taking into account the ‘bad’ distributional bound (6.14), Lemma 4.8 and the stability property (?), to conclude it is sufficient to find C(K^-R^2,N)>0 such that

By Lemma 6.13 we know that for {\mathfrak m}-a.e. \bar x\in B''\cap E there is \bar y\in E minimizer for f_{t,n}(\bar x) (recall the definition ?). Fix such \bar x,\bar y and notice that for every x\in B'' we have

with equality for x=\bar x. By the monotonicity of the heat flow (or the representation formula (?)) it follows that for every s>0 we have

hence subtracting (?) written for the equality case x=\bar x, after passing to the limit we obtain:

Now observe that Lemma 6.16 and the fact that \bar x\in E give \tilde\Delta F_{\bar x,\bar y}(\bar x)\leqslant 0. Also, by inspecting the equality case x=\bar x in (?) we see that the inf in the definition of Q_t\big(F_{\bar y,\bar x}(\cdot)+\tfrac{{\sf d}^2(\cdot,\bar z)}n\big)(\bar x) is realized in \bar y, therefore Lemma 5.8, the subadditivity of \tilde\Delta and the definition (?) give

Now observe that since \bar y\in E we have \tilde\Delta F_{\bar y,\bar x}(\bar y)\leqslant 0 by Lemma 6.16. To bound the second term we apply Lemma 4.8 with g\equiv C and C=C(K^-R^2,N) given by Theorem 4.6 (recall that \bar x.\bar y,\bar z_t\in B'\subset B_R(\hat x)): we obtain \tilde\Delta {\sf d}^2(\cdot,\bar z_t)\leqslant C on B'. The conclusion (?) follows.

Rough estimates Let \tfrac12 B:=B_{\tfrac r2}(\hat x), \tfrac14 B:=B_{\tfrac r4}(\hat x). We claim that for some C, T>0 we have

To see this, start noticing that |\partial^-f_t|\leqslant{\rm lip}(f_t) holds everywhere, so by (6.11) for {\rm Y}=\varmathbb{R} (or the analogous result in [Cheeger00]) we get |\partial^-f_t|\leqslant|{\rm d} f_t| {\mathfrak m}-a.e.. Then Theorem 3.3 and (6.9) give

for every t\in(0,\bar T). Now let \varphi:=(1-\tfrac{1}{3r}{\sf d}(\cdot, B))^+ and notice that

where in the last inequality we used (?) and the trivial bound |{\rm d}\varphi|\leqslant \tfrac{1}{3r}{\raise.3ex\hbox{}}_{2 B}. Now observe that Proposition 6.17 and the bounds (?), (?) give

and since \varphi=0 outside B'' and f_t\varphi^2\leqslant 0, by (?) and (?) we get the uniform bound \int_{ B}|{\rm d} f_t|^2\,{\rm d}{\mathfrak m}\leqslant C for any t\in (0,\bar T). We use this estimate in (?) to deduce \|f_t\|_{L^1(B)}\leqslant tC and then apply Theorem 6.7 using again (?) to get the first in (Proof).

For the second, we notice that arguing as for (?) using the uniform bound (?) we see that, possibly picking \bar T smaller, for x\in \tfrac14B any minimizer y_t for f_t(x) belongs to \tfrac12B. Then the claim follows from what already proved and the estimate (?).

Core argument By the continuity in t of f_t(x) (item (i) of Proposition 3.1) we see that \varlimsup_{t\downarrow0}\frac{-f_t}{t}=\inf_{n\in\varmathbb{N}}\sup_{t\in \varmathbb{Q}\cap(0,\frac1n)}\frac{-f_t}{t} pointwise on {\rm X}. Thus letting, for every n\in\varmathbb{N}, \{t_{n,i}\}_{i\in\varmathbb{N}} be an enumeration of \varmathbb{Q}\cap(0,\frac1n), by Proposition 3.4 we have that \sup_i\frac{-f_{t_{n,i}}}{t_{n,i}} converges to \tfrac12{\sf tilt}(f)^2 pointwise. Then by the first estimate in (Proof) we see that the convergence is also in L^1(\tfrac12B), hence by a diagonalization argument we can find N_n\in\varmathbb{N} so that \tilde f_n:=\frac{f_{t_{n,1}}}{t_{n,1}}\wedge \cdots\wedge \frac{f_{t_{n,N_n}}}{t_{n,N_n}} converge to -\tfrac12{\sf tilt}(f)^2 in L^1(\tfrac12B), and then up to pass to a non-relabeled subsequence also pointwise {\mathfrak m}-a.e..

Let A_{n,i}:=\{\frac{f_{t_{n,i}}}{t_{n,i}}=\tilde f_{n}\}\setminus \cup_{j<i}A_{n,j}\subset{\rm X}, notice that for every n\in\varmathbb{N} the sets (A_{n,i})_{i=1,\ldots,N_n} form a Borel partition of {\rm X} and then put \tilde g_n:=\sum_i{\raise.3ex\hbox{}}_{A_{i,n}}\frac{D_{t_{n,i}}^2}{t_{n,i}^2}. By the last claim in Proposition 3.4 and the construction we see that \tilde g_n\to {\sf tilt}(f)^2 {\mathfrak m}-a.e. on B, so that by the second estimate in (Proof) the convergence is also in L^1(\frac14B).

Now notice that Proposition 6.17 and the last claim in Lemma 4.8 (and induction) give

so that the L^1 convergences, the uniform bounds (Proof) and the stability property (?) imply

on \frac14B, having also used (?). By the arbitrariness of B and the locality property (?) we infer that (?) holds on U. We now claim that {\rm lip}^2(u)\in W^{1,2}_{loc}(U) and to this aim, by the arbitrariness of B it is sufficient to prove that for any V\subset\subset\frac14 B open we have {\rm lip}^2(u)\in W^{1,2}(\bar V,{\sf d},{\mathfrak m}\lower3pt\hbox{|_V}) (this is a direct consequence of the locality of the concepts of ‘being Sobolev’ and ‘minimal weak upper gradients’, see for instance [AmbrosioGigliSavare11-2, Theorem 4.19]). Thus let \varphi\in{\rm Lip}_{{\sf bs}}({\rm X}) be identically 1 on V with support in \frac14B and notice that (?) and the same computations in (?) give

Since \sup_n\|\tilde f_n\|_{L^\infty(\frac14B)},\|\tilde g_n\|_{L^\infty(\frac14B)}<\infty by (Proof), this is sufficient to derive a uniform bound on \int\varphi^2|{\rm d} \tilde f_n|^2\,{\rm d}{\mathfrak m} and thus on \int_{V}|{\rm d} \tilde f_n|^2\,{\rm d}{\mathfrak m} so that the lower semicontinuity of the Cheeger energy on the space (\bar V,{\sf d},{\mathfrak m}\lower3pt\hbox{|_V}) gives our claim.

We can thus apply Theorem 6.7 to f:={\rm lip}^2(u)\in W^{1,2}_{loc}(U) using (?) and conclude that

for some {\sf C}={\sf C}(K^-R^2,N). Now let (p_n) be a countable set dense in the essential image of u, put u_n:={\sf d}_{\rm Y}(u(\cdot),p_n) and notice that - trivially - we have {\rm lip}(u_n)\leqslant {\rm lip}(u) everywhere and by item (ii) in Proposition 6.3 we know that u_n\in W^{1,2}(U). Hence (?) and the simple Lemma 6.19 below ensure that |{\rm d} u_n|\leqslant \frac {\sf C}r \,{\sf Norm} {\mathfrak m}-a.e. on B''. We can then apply the local Sobolev-to-Lipschitz property (see [GV21, Proposition 1.10]) and deduce that u_n has a representative \tilde u_n that is locally Lipschitz on B'' with local Lipschitz constant uniformly bounded by \frac {\sf C}r\,{\sf Norm}. Since any two points x,y\in B can be joined by a curve lying on B'' with length bounded by 3{\sf d}(x,y) (if a geodesic \gamma from x to y is so that \gamma_t\notin B'' for some t, its length, and thus {\sf d}(x,y), must be at least \tfrac{2r}3, while a curve passing through the center has length \leqslant 2r), we conclude that {\rm Lip}(\tilde u_n\lower3pt\hbox{|_B})\leqslant \frac {\sf C}r\,{\sf Norm}.

Since this is true for any n\in\varmathbb{N}, it follows that for some N\subset B Borel negligible we have

Taking the supremum in n we conclude that the restriction of u to B\setminus N is \frac {\sf C}r\,{\sf Norm}-Lipschitz, so that u:U\to{\rm Y} has a locally Lipschitz representative satisfying (?), as desired.

Finally, (?) follows from (?) taking into account the identity (6.11).

Multiplying f by a sequence of Lipschitz cut-off functions with support in U we can, and will, reduce to the case U={\rm X}'. Observe that for any curve \gamma and t\in[0,1] for which the metric speed |\dot\gamma_t| of \gamma exists and {\rm lip} f(\gamma_t) is finite we have \varlimsup_{h\to 0}\frac{|f(\gamma_{t+h})-f(\gamma_t)|}{|h|}\leqslant {\rm lip} f(\gamma_t)|\dot\gamma_t|. Now let {\mbox{\boldmath}} be a test plan and notice that (by [GP19, Theorem 2.1.21]) for {\mbox{\boldmath}}-a.e. \gamma we have f\circ\gamma\in W^{1,1}(0,1), thus by what just proved it is easy to see that its distributional derivative is bounded in modulus by {\rm lip} f(\gamma_t)|\dot\gamma_t|. By [GP19, Theorem 2.1.21] again this is sufficient to conclude.