The Stokes resolvent problem: Optimal pressure estimates and remarks on resolvent estimates in convex domains

The Stokes resolvent problem $\lambda u - \Delta u + \nabla \phi = f$ with $\mathrm{div}(u) = 0$ subject to homogeneous Dirichlet or homogeneous Neumann-type boundary conditions is investigated. In the first part of the paper we show that for Neumann-type boundary conditions the operator norm of $\mathrm{L}^2_{\sigma} (\Omega) \ni f \mapsto \pi \in \mathrm{L}^2 (\Omega)$ decays like $\lvert \lambda \rvert^{- 1 / 2}$ which agrees exactly with the scaling of the equation. In comparison to that, we show that the operator norm of this mapping under Dirichlet boundary conditions decays like $\lvert \lambda \rvert^{- \alpha}$ for $0 \leq \alpha<1 / 4$ and we show that this decay rate cannot be improved to any exponent $\alpha>1 / 4$, thereby, violating the natural scaling of the equation. In the second part of this article, we investigate the Stokes resolvent problem subject to homogeneous Neumann-type boundary conditions if the underlying domain $\Omega$ is convex. We establish optimal resolvent estimates and gradient estimates in $\mathrm{L}^p (\Omega ; \mathbb{C}^d)$ for $2d / (d + 2)<p<2d / (d - 2)$ (with $1<p<\infty$ if $d = 2$). This interval is larger than the known interval for resolvent estimates subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions on general Lipschitz domains and is to the best knowledge of the author the first result that provides $\mathrm{L}^p$-estimates for the Stokes resolvent subject to Neumann-type boundary conditions on general convex domains.


Introduction
The main object under investigation is the Stokes resolvent problem in a bounded domain Ω ⊂ R d λu − ∆u + ∇φ = f in Ω div(u) = 0 in Ω. (Res) The resolvent parameter λ is supposed to be contained in a sector S θ , θ ∈ [0, π), in the complex plane, i.e., S θ := {z ∈ C \ {0} : |arg(z)| < θ} if θ ∈ (0, π) and S 0 := (0, ∞). In this article, this system is complemented with two different types of boundary conditions. There is the Dirichlet boundary condition Here µ ∈ (−1, 1] is a parameter, n denotes the outward unit normal to Ω, and Du the Jacobimatrix of u. There is a tremendous literature on these equations on different types of domains, see, e.g., [1,6,7,16,22,25,38,39,44,50,52] to mention only a few. Notice that the Neumanntype boundary condition with µ = 1 plays an eminent role in the study of problems involving a free boundary [2,4,28,42,47] and that the condition with µ = 0 is central in the study of Date: November 15, 2019. The author was supported by the project ANR INFAMIE (ANR-15-CE40-0011). 1 inhomogeneous boundary value problems involving the Stokes equations [14,40,44]. In this article, we investigate two different questions: Question 1: The first question deals with the behavior of the operator norm of the mapping f → φ with respect to λ, i.e., we seek an inequality of the form φ L 2 (Ω) ≤ C(λ) f L 2 (Ω;C d ) (f ∈ L 2 σ (Ω)) and we would like to know what the exact behavior of the constant C(λ) is with respect to λ. Notice that in the case of homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions the pressure φ is unique up to an additive constant so that we assume its mean value to be zero. Notice further that the space of solenoidal L 2 -integrable functions differs depending on whether (Res) is considered with condition (Dir) or (Neu), cf. Section 2. However, during this introduction, we will only use one notation having in mind the difference of the two spaces.
Pressure estimates of the Stokes resolvent problem are studied in the engineering literature [34] and they also appear in the study of the Stokes operator [20,22,35,52]. Another interesting application can be found in the analysis of the discrete Stokes resolvent problem, comparable to the Poisson case in [33,48], where the pressure appears in the derivation of weighted norm estimates.
To obtain an idea of what the right behavior of C(λ) with respect to λ would be, set for a moment Ω = R d . In this case, the solutions u and φ satisfy the following scaling property: Let r > 0 and assume that u and φ solve (Res) for some resolvent parameter λ and right-hand side f . Then, u r := u(r·) and φ r := rφ(r·) solve (Res) for the resolvent parameter r 2 λ and right-hand side f r := r 2 f (r·). Put r := |λ| −1/2 so that |r 2 λ| = 1. If there would be a constant C > 0 (which on the whole space certainly does not have to be true) such that holds, then the substitution rule ensures the estimate (1.1) We will show in Section 3 that this behavior of C(λ) is false on bounded C 4 -domains and if homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions are imposed. More precisely, it is known [35,52] that C(λ) satisfies for each 0 ≤ α < 1/4 and some constant C > 0 independent of λ C(λ) ≤ C|λ| −α , (1.2) see also Proposition 3.3. In Proposition 3.4 we show that the condition α < 1/4 is sharp in the sense that for no α > 1/4 there exists a constant C > 0 independent of λ such that (1.2) is valid. This shows, that the presence of a boundary causes the pressure to behave differently than its natural scaling would dictate.
In contrast to that, under boundary condition (Neu), then on each domain Ω with a sufficiently nice boundary, e.g., bounded C 1,1 -domains or bounded convex domains, we show that C(λ) satisfies (1.2) with α = 1/2, see Proposition 3.1. Thus, depending on the particular boundary condition at stake, the behavior of the pressure with respect to λ might differ.
For both boundary conditions, we perform a similar analysis in which the L 2 -norm of f on the right-hand side is replaced by the H −1 -norm of f , see Propositions 3.6 and 3.7. For simplicity, we considered only L 2 -based spaces. An extension to the L p -situation should be straightforward. Notice that the exponent α for which the pressure estimates in L p are valid satisfies the relation α < 1/2 − 1/(2p), see [35], so that the decay estimate with exponent α > 1/2 − 1/(2p) should fail.

Question 2:
If Ω ⊂ R d , d ≥ 3, is a bounded Lipschitz domain the resolvent estimate |λ| u L p (Ω;C d ) ≤ C f L p (Ω;C d ) (f ∈ L p σ (Ω)) (1. 3) was proven for solutions to (Res) subject to the boundary condition (Dir) in the seminal paper of Shen [44]. Here, p satisfies 1 for some ε > 0 depending only on d, θ, and the Lipschitz geometry. A special class of bounded Lipschitz domains are bounded convex domains and one might wonder, whether the condition (1.4) on p improves if convexity of Ω is imposed. It was for example proven by Geng and Shen [23] that on bounded and convex domains the Helmholtz projection gives rise to a bounded projection on L p (Ω; C d ) for all 1 < p < ∞. Moreover, a work of Geissert, Heck, Hieber, and Sawada [21] formalizes the philosophy that the boundedness of the Helmholtz projection implies functional analytic properties of the Stokes operator like (1.3) at least under the condition that Ω is a (not necessarily bounded) uniform C 3 -domain. Combining the result of [23] with this philosophy leads to the conjecture that the resolvent estimate (1.3) should be valid for all 1 < p < ∞ if Ω is convex. This is a question that was raised by Maz'ya in [36,Prob. 66].
We give first results in this direction for the Stokes resolvent problem (Res) subject to the Neumann-type boundary condition (Neu) but we restrict the interval of parameters µ to be (−1, √ 2−1). This still includes the case µ = 0 but unfortunately excludes the physically important case µ = 1. The corresponding results are explained as follows.
By virtue of a famous formula of integration by parts by Grisvard for some constant C > 0 depending only on d, θ, and µ, see Theorem 4.4. In particular, this implies that solutions u and φ to −∆u + ∇φ = f and div(u) = 0 for some f ∈ L 2 σ (Ω) and subject to the boundary condition (Neu) satisfy u ∈ H 2 (Ω; C d ) and φ ∈ H 1 (Ω). This should be compared with the results of Kellogg and Osborn [32], Dauge [10], and Maz'ya and Rossmann [37] in the case of the boundary condition (Dir) and convex polygonal/polyhedral domains. For general bounded and convex domains this higher regularity property in the case of homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions is unknown.
We continue by establishing a localized version of (1.5) which can be found in Proposition 4.12. Combining this with a Caccioppoli type estimate, see Lemma 6.1, and Sobolev's embedding yields the validity of a weak reverse Hölder estimate of the form where Q(x 0 , r) is a cube in R d with midpoint x 0 and diameter r > 0, where p satisfies 2 < p < ∞ if d = 2 and p = 2d/(d − 2) if d ≥ 3, and where u and φ solve the Stokes resolvent problem with a right-hand side f ∈ L 2 (Ω; C d ) that vanishes on Ω ∩ Q(x 0 , 2r). One could now conclude by an L p -extrapolation theorem of Shen [43] that the family of (sublinear) operators L q (Ω; C d ) ∋ f → |λ||u| + |λ| 1/2 |∇u| + |λ| 1/2 |φ| is uniformly bounded with respect to λ on L q , where 2 < q < 2d/(d − 2) if(!) the family of operators is uniformly bounded on L 2 . This gives a connection to Question 1 discussed above. Unfortunately, only the restriction of T λ to solenoidal vector fields satisfies this uniform bound, whereas the operators on all of L 2 (Ω; C d ) grow like |λ| 1/2 . This fact can be easily seen by noting that the pressure φ solving (Res) for general f ∈ L 2 (Ω; C d ) is the sum of the pressure associated to (Res) but with the right-hand side Qf ∈ L 2 σ (Ω) and the function g which satisfies (Q − Id)f = ∇g. Here, Q denotes the Helmholtz projection on L 2 (Ω; C d ). Notice that the function g does not depend on λ at all, which explains that the family defined in (1.8) cannot be uniformly bounded on L 2 .
To circumvent this problem, we discuss in Section 5 a version of Shen's L p -extrapolation theorem, which is valid for subspaces of L p . This allows us to employ the uniform boundedness of the restriction of the operators T λ to solenoidal spaces and delivers the following theorem which is proven in Section 6.
be a bounded and convex domain and r 0 > 0 be such that Then there exists a constant C > 0 such that for all λ ∈ S θ and all f ∈ L 2 (Ω; If p ≥ 2 it additionally holds The constant C > 0 depends only on d, θ, µ, diam(Ω), and r 0 . Furthermore, there exists a constant C > 0 such that for all λ ∈ S θ and all F ∈ L 2 (Ω; If p ≥ 2 it additionally holds Again, the constant C > 0 depends only on d, θ, µ, diam(Ω), and r 0 .
Acknowledgements. The author likes to thank Niklas Behringer for initiating a discussion on the sharpness of the pressure decay estimates presented in Section 3 and pointing out the references [33,48]. Moreover, he likes to thank Zhongwei Shen for interesting discussions on the Stokes equations in convex domains.
2. The Stokes operator on L 2 σ (Ω) and H −1 σ (Ω) In the following, we will assume that Ω ⊂ R d , d ≥ 2, is a bounded and open domain whose boundary is at least Lipschitz regular, i.e., locally represented as the graph of a Lipschitz continuous function. This section is devoted to present results concerning the Stokes resolvent problem (Res) subject to no-slip boundary conditions (Dir) and subject to Neumann-type boundary conditions (Neu).
2.1. Function spaces. We define the space of compactly supported smooth and solenoidal vector fields in Ω as : div(ϕ) = 0} and the space of solenoidal vector fields that are smooth up to the boundary as endowed with their natural norms. These spaces are usually introduced if the Stokes equations subject to no-slip boundary conditions are studied, e.g., see [19,38,45]. If one is interested in Neumann-type boundary conditions, then one defines the spaces : div(u) = 0} endowed with their natural norms, see, e.g., [39,46]. If p = 2 we write H 1 0,σ (Ω) := W 1,2 0,σ (Ω) and H 1 σ (Ω) := W 1,2 σ (Ω) henceforth. Notice that L 2 σ (Ω) and L 2 σ (Ω) do in general not coincide. Indeed, elements u ∈ L 2 σ (Ω) satisfy n · u = 0 on ∂Ω whereas the mean value of n · u on ∂Ω vanishes for elements u in L 2 σ (Ω). Furthermore, notice that C ∞ σ (Ω) embeds densely into L 2 σ (Ω), by [ . Notice further, that an element u ∈ L 2 (Ω; C d ) can be considered as an element in the spaces of negative order by identifying u with the functional The weak Stokes operator A on H −1 σ (Ω) subject to no-slip boundary conditions is defined as The Stokes operator A on L 2 σ (Ω) subject to no-slip boundary conditions is then defined as the part of A in L 2 σ (Ω), i.e., Elements u ∈ D(A) satisfy no-slip boundary conditions. Notice that the symmetry of a implies that A is a self-adjoint operator on L 2 σ (Ω), see [31,Thm. VI.2.23]. Furthermore, the definition of A implies for the resolvent sets the inclusion ρ(A) ⊂ ρ(A) and that for λ ∈ ρ(−A) it holds The Stokes operator subject to Neumann-type boundary conditions. Define for µ ∈ (−1, 1] the coefficients a αβ jk (µ) := δ jk δ αβ + µδ jβ δ kα , where δ αβ denotes Kronecker's delta. Notice that the divergence form operator with coefficients a αβ jk (µ) is formally given by (here and below we sum over repeated indices) ∂ j a αβ jk (µ)∂ k u β = ∆u α + µ∂ α div(u). Hence, if this operator acts only on solenoidal functions, this in merely the Laplacian. Consequently, defining the sesquilinear form gives still rise to an operator associated to the Stokes equations. The weak Stokes operator B µ on H −1 0,σ (Ω) subject to Neumann-type boundary conditions is defined as . For the Stokes operator subject to Neumann-type boundary conditions on the negative scale one has to understand the boundary condition very carefully as right-hand sides in H −1 0,σ (Ω) could induce inhomogeneous boundary terms. For example the functional for a smooth function f lies in H −1 0,σ (Ω). Thus, the solution to the problem B µ u = F would satisfy an inhomogeneous boundary condition.
Furthermore, the definition of B µ implies for the resolvent sets the inclusion ρ(B µ ) ⊂ ρ(B µ ) and that for λ ∈ ρ(−B µ ) it holds The domain of the sesquilinear form V is taken to be H 1 0 (Ω) for the Dirichlet Laplacian and H 1 (Ω) for the Neumann Laplacian. Recall that by Poincaré's inequality ∆ D is invertible and that ∆ N is invertible if considered on the factor space (H 1 (Ω)/const) * . Finally, recall that if the boundary of Ω is C 1,1 -regular or if Ω is convex the operators ∆ −1 D : L 2 (Ω) → H 2 (Ω) and ∆ −1 N : L 2 0 (Ω) → H 2 (Ω) are bounded, see [27,Sec. 3.2.1] for the particular statements on convex domains, see also the discussion at the beginning of Section 4. Here L 2 0 (Ω) denotes the L 2 -space of average free functions. In the following, we do not distinguish the notation between the weak Laplacians defined on negative spaces or the strong Laplacians defined on L 2 (Ω).
2.5. The Bogovskiȋ operator. Let us consider the divergence problem where f ∈ L 2 0 (Ω) and Ω is a bounded Lipschitz domain. It is well-known, see, e.g., [19, Ch. III.3] and the references therein, that there exists a bounded and linear operator B : L 2 0 (Ω) → H 1 0 (Ω; C d ) which satisfies div(Bf ) = f . This means that u := Bf solves the divergence problem posed above. Clearly, B is a highly non-unique operator as one can always add a function v ∈ H 1 0,σ (Ω) to the solution u and still have a solution to the problem. Here and below, the operator B is called the Bogovskiȋ operator.
2.6. The Helmholtz projection. The Helmholtz projection P : L 2 (Ω; C d ) → L 2 (Ω; C d ) is introduced as being the orthogonal projection of L 2 (Ω; C d ) onto L 2 σ (Ω). Analogously, let Q : L 2 (Ω; C d ) → L 2 (Ω; C d ) denote the orthogonal projection of L 2 (Ω; C d ) onto L 2 σ (Ω). It is wellknown, see [15,Sec. 11], that the range of Id −P is given by and that the range of Id −Q is given by Notice that P and Q can be realized by employing the Neumann and the Dirichlet Laplacian as follows. Define a distribution div(u), v H −1 0 ,H 1 := −ˆΩ u · ∇v dx for u ∈ L 2 (Ω; C d ) and v ∈ H 1 (Ω), which acts as the distribution generated by the divergence operator but ignores the boundary values that would arise due to the integration by parts. Furthermore, define the usual divergence as div(u), v H −1 ,H 1 0 := −ˆΩ u · ∇v dx for u ∈ L 2 (Ω; C d ) and v ∈ H 1 0 (Ω).
Then, P and Q can be represented as Proof. Notice that if u ∈ H 1 0 (Ω; C d ), then div(u) = div(u) and since u ∈ H 1 0 (Ω) the average of div(u) on Ω is zero. Thus, the statements concerning the boundedness of P and Q directly follow by (2.4) and the assumption that ∆ −1 D : L 2 (Ω) → H 2 (Ω) and ∆ −1 N : L 2 0 (Ω) → H 2 (Ω) are bounded. Concerning the dependence of the constants for Ω being convex, see [27, By (2.4) it should be clear that P does not map H 1 0 (Ω; C d ) into H 1 0 (Ω; C d ), i.e., that it does not preserve zero boundary values (if the boundary is merely Lipschitz, then also the differentiability is not preserved). A formal proof on bounded C 4 -domains is given in the next lemma. The proof uses so-called Fermi coordinates. These coordinates are introduced following the exposition in [12,Sec. 2.3].
Let δ(x) denote the oriented distance function, i.e., If Ω has a C k -boundary with k ∈ N with k ≥ 2, one verifies by virtue of uniform inner and outer ball properties of ∂Ω, that there exists ε > 0 such that with one has δ ∈ C k (U ε ) and that for every point x ∈ U ε there exists a unique point a(x) ∈ ∂Ω such that where n denotes the exterior unit normal to ∂Ω. Thus, in the neighborhood U ε , every point x can be represented uniquely by the new coordinates a(x) and δ(x). To proceed, we introduce some further geometric notions. A function u ∈ L 1 (∂Ω) is weakly differentiable if its composition with the coordinate chart is weakly differentiable in R d−1 . For such functions one can define the tangential gradient ∇ T u of u (see, e.g., the exposition in [49,Sec. 1.3]). The tangential gradient has the property, that for functions u that are smooth enough and defined in a neighborhood of ∂Ω one has Notice that ∇ T u(x) for x ∈ ∂Ω always lies in the tangent space at x if ∂Ω is smooth enough. Similarly, we define a vector v ∈ C d and x ∈ ∂Ω its tangential component v T to satisfy This will be used in Section 4.
Given a function g ∈ C 1 (∂Ω), then g can be extended to a function G on U ε by setting and [12,Eq. (2.14)] shows that Here, H denotes the extended Weingarten map, which is given by i,j=1 := e i · ∇ T n j (x) and which is C 2 -regular if Ω has a C 4 -boundary. Notice that e i denotes the ith standard basis vector of R d .

Lemma 2.2.
Let Ω be a bounded domain with C 4 -boundary. Then there exists u ∈ H 1 0 (Ω; C d ) such that the trace of Pu to ∂Ω is not zero.
Proof. Notice that div : Consequently, the range of ∆ −1 N div is given by : n · ∇u = 0 on ∂Ω}. Now, if there exists u ∈ H 2 (Ω) with n · ∇u = 0 on ∂Ω and ∇u = 0 on ∂Ω, set f := B∆ N u (with B being the Bogovskiȋ operator) which lies in H 1 0 (Ω; C d ) and by virtue of (2.4) Pf satisfies tr(Pf ) = 0. This would conclude the proof. To construct such a function u, let g : ∂Ω → C be a non-constant and smooth function and let η ∈ C ∞ c (U ε ) with η = 1 in a neighborhood of ∂Ω. Extend g to U ε by setting The gradient of u is calculated by virtue of (2.6), leading to Clearly, the normal derivative of u vanishes on ∂Ω while its full gradient is non-zero since g is non-constant on ∂Ω. Since η, δ, and H are at least C 2 -regular, it follows that u ∈ R(∆ −1 N div) with ∇u not being constantly zero on ∂Ω.

Resolvent estimates.
We continue by discussing some classical resolvent estimates in L 2 σ (Ω) and H −1 σ (Ω) for the operators A and A, and for B µ and B µ on L 2 σ (Ω) and H −1 0,σ (Ω). In the case of Neumann-type boundary conditions, we restrict ourselves to parameters that satisfy µ ∈ (−1, 1]. This is due to the fact, that this ensures a certain coercivity of the sesquilinear form b µ . Indeed, by [40,Prop. 4 Moreover, the same result ensures that in the case µ = 1 there exists κ 1 > 0 such that To proceed, define for some angle θ ∈ [0, π) the sector in the complex plane Notice, that by elementary trigonometry, one can prove that there exists C θ > 0 depending only on θ, such that . Moreover, there exists C > 0 depending only on d and θ such that for all f ∈ L 2 σ (Ω), all F ∈ H −1 σ (Ω), and all λ ∈ S θ it holds and denotes the Jacobian matrix of some function u. Proof. The statements on the resolvent set follow by the Lemma of Lax-Milgram. Indeed, for λ ∈ S θ one defines new sesquilinear forms and analogously one defines b µ,λ . By (2.9), a λ becomes coercive. If |µ| < 1, then (2.9) together with (2.7) implies the coercivity of b µ,λ . Finally, in the case µ = 1, one uses a Korn-type inequality proved in [40,Prop. 11.4.2], to define an equivalent norm on H 1 (Ω; C d ), which is given by . Notice that the constants implicit in the equivalence of the norms depend on the Lipschitz character of Ω and its diameter. In this case, the coercivity of b 1,λ follows from (2.9) and (2.8). The first inequalities of (1), (2), and (3) follow as usual by testing the resolvent equation by the solution u and by employing (2.9), see, e.g., [49,Prop. 5.2.5]. Also the estimates on the second and third terms in the second inequalities of (1), (2), and (3) follow by testing the resolvent equations by the solution u. Finally, the H −1 σ (Ω)-estimate on |λ|(λ + A) −1 F =: |λ|u follows by virtue of the resolvent equation and the estimates that were already established before by In (2) and (3) the remaining estimates follow analogously.

On uniform pressure estimates
Having the theory on the Stokes operator from Section 2 at hand, one associates a pressure function φ to a solution u as follows.
Then G is a functional in H −1 (Ω) which vanishes on C ∞ c,σ (Ω) so that G must in fact be a gradient. Indeed, by [45, Lem. II.2.2.2] there exists φ ∈ L 2 (Ω) with mean value zero such that In the case of Neumann-type boundary conditions, one proceeds similarly. As above, for However, it would be desirable to lift this identity to hold for all v ∈ H 1 (Ω; C d ). As one can expect, by the boundary condition given in (Neu), the pressure function is unique (in the case of no-slip boundary conditions the pressure is unique up to an additive constant). Thus, one must find a constant c ∈ C such that the identity above with ϑ replaced by φ := ϑ + c holds for all v ∈ H 1 (Ω; C d ). In fact, a way of how to construct this constant c is described in the proof of [39, Thm. 6.8]. Thus, we record that there exists φ ∈ L 2 (Ω) such that we find by virtue of (2.2) and (2.3) and for functions g 1 ∈ H 1 (Ω) and g 2 ∈ H 1 0 (Ω). Absorbing the functions g 1 and g 2 , respectively, into the pressure functions, one finds the identities (by abusing the notation we write f instead of F 1 and F 2 ) Consequently, solving the Stokes resolvent problem with a right-hand side f ∈ L 2 (Ω; C d ) is the same as solving the Stokes resolvent problem with right-hand side Pf (or Qf , respectively) and one only changes the pressure by the gradient part inherent in f . Given F ∈ H −1 σ (Ω), we say that φ is the associated pressure to (Res) subject to (Dir) with right-hand side F if φ ∈ L 2 0 (Ω) and if u := (λ+A) −1 F and φ satisfy (3.1). Analogously, we proceed for Neumann-type boundary conditions but with the relation (3.2) and without the requirement on the mean value.
For Neumann-type boundary conditions we have the following estimates on the pressure.
If Ω is bounded and convex and |µ| < 1, the constants C > 0 depend at most on d, θ, and µ. If µ = 1, the constants further depend on the Lipschitz character of Ω and its diameter.
To establish (3.5) use the same test function. The only difference to the calculation above is the behavior in λ of the terms ∇u L 2 (Ω;C d 2 ) and Du + [Du] ⊤ L 2 (Ω;C d×d ) and the fact, that F, v H −1 0 ,H 1 does not vanish. However, it is estimated by the boundedness assumption of the Laplacian as Concerning the dependence of C on the quantities d, θ, and µ, notice that the only critical quantity is the operator norm of ∇ 2 ∆ −1 D on L 2 . That this is bounded by a constant depending only on d follows by [27,Eq.   (1) Notice that (3.4) cannot hold if f ∈ L 2 (Ω; C d ) \ L 2 σ (Ω) since in this case the pressure part g 2 defined in (3.3) does not vanish. This gives a contribution that does not even depend on λ.
(2) Since ∇u and the pressure are connected via the imposed boundary condition in (Neu), it seems natural that the pressure and ∇u both have the same behavior in the resolvent parameter λ.
To find out how the corresponding estimates for the Stokes resolvent problem subject to noslip boundary conditions look like will occupy the rest of this section. Notice that the following proposition was proven (also in the L p -situation) on bounded and smooth domains in [35,Lem. 13] and on bounded Lipschitz domains in [52,Prop. 4.3].
The first term on the right-hand side is estimated by the boundedness of B and by Proposi- . To bound the second term, use that Au = PAu, that P is self-adjoint, and that P maps the . Notice that the estimate on A 1−α u follows by writing u = (λ + A) −1 f and by using the moment inequality [29,Prop. 6.6.4].
For the improved inequality for small λ, use the invertibility of the Stokes operator and estimate . Comparing this estimate with the corresponding estimate for Neumann-type boundary conditions, one sees that there is a lack of an exponent of 1/4 in the decay rate as |λ| → ∞. As the proof for the decay estimate for no-slip boundary conditions relied on the construction of an appropriate test function, one might wonder whether the test function was just a "bad choice" and whether one could do better by choosing a more subtle test function. The following proposition shows that this is not the case, i.e., that the decay rate above is optimal.
Let Ω be a bounded domain with C 4 -boundary, θ ∈ (π/2, π), and α > 1/4. Then for all n ∈ N there exist f n ∈ L 2 σ (Ω) and λ n ∈ S θ with |λ n | ≥ 1 such that the to (Res) subject to (Dir) with right-hand side f n associated pressure φ n ∈ L 2 0 (Ω) satisfies |λ n | α φ n L 2 (Ω) > n f n L 2 σ (Ω) . Proof. We argue by contradiction and assume without loss of generality that 1/4 < α ≤ 1/2. Assume that there exists C > 0 such that for all f ∈ L 2 σ (Ω), λ ∈ S θ with |λ| ≥ 1, and the to (Res) and (Dir) associated pressure φ it holds By duality, there exists C > 0 such that for all g ∈ H 1 0 (Ω; C d ) and λ ∈ S θ with |λ| ≥ 1 it holds Similarly to [52,Prop. 3.7], use (3.7) and (2.11), to deduce a semigroup estimate of the form Next, we estimate for a natural number n ∈ N the term (tA) n e −tA Pg. To this end, write The first semigroup term in the product on the right-hand side is estimated by a combination of the interpolation inequality · H 2α ≤ C · 1−2α L 2 ∇ · 2α L 2 with the uniform boundedness of the semigroup e −tA as a family on L 2 σ (Ω) and the gradient estimate (2.12) as (3.10) This holds for all h ∈ L 2 σ (Ω). The term in the center of the product on the right-hand side of (3.9) is estimated by (2.10) by Finally, the last term in (3.9) is estimated by using (3.8) yielding Combining (3.9), (3.10), (3.11), and (3.12) and using that n n ≤ n!e n (Stirling formula!) finally yields (tA) n e −tA Pg H 2α (Ω;C d ) ≤ (C(n + 1)) n+1 g H 1 0 (Ω;C d ) ≤ (n + 1)!(Ce) n+1 g H 1 0 (Ω;C d ) . To proceed, let 0 < t ≤ 1 and s ∈ R with |s| being small enough. Since e −tA is an analytic semigroup, it can be written by its Taylor expansion Combining this with (3.13) finally yields if |s| < t/(4Ce) by using (n + 1) Especially, if s = 0, this shows that the family of operators (e −tA P) 0<t≤1 is uniformly bounded in the space L(H 1 0 (Ω; C d ), H 2α (Ω; C d )). To conclude the argument, let (t n ) n∈N ⊂ (0, 1] converge to zero. Notice that e −tA Pg → Pg in L 2 σ (Ω) as t → 0 by the strong continuity of the semigroup. Since (e −tnA Pg) n∈N is uniformly bounded in the space H 2α (Ω; C d ), for any 0 < ε ≤ 2α there exists a convergent subsequence in the space H 2α−ε (Ω; C d ) by the Theorem of Rellich and Kondrachov. Denoting the subsequence again by (t n ) n∈N we have that e −tnA Pg → Pg as n → ∞ in H 2α−ε (Ω; C d ). Notice that 2α > 1/2 and choose ε small enough such that 2α − ε > 1/2 holds. Now, the trace operator tr is well-defined on the space H 2α−ε (Ω; C d ) and it is continuous from H 2α−ε (Ω; C d ) to L 2 (∂Ω; C d ). Consequently, 0 = lim n→∞ tr(e −tA Pg) = tr(Pg).
We thus proved that for any g ∈ H 1 0 (Ω; C d ) the trace of Pg to ∂Ω is zero. This contradicts Lemma 2.2.
In the following, we do the same analysis for right-hand sides in H −1 (Ω; C d ). We start with the following lemma, relating an estimate on the L 2 -norm of φ to a corresponding estimate on the H −1 -norm of u.
We start by establishing of the actual estimates being valid and prove their sharpness afterwards.
Proposition 3.6. Let Ω be a bounded Lipschitz domain and θ ∈ (0, π]. For all 1/4 < α ≤ 1/2, there exists a constant C > 0 such that for all F ∈ H −1 (Ω; C d ) and λ ∈ S θ the associated pressure φ ∈ L 2 0 (Ω) to (Res) subject to (Dir) and right-hand side F satisfies Proof. First of all, notice that the calculation carried out in (3.14) already gives the uniform boundedness of the constant for all λ ∈ S θ with |λ| < 1 and thus, leaving us with the task to prove estimates in the case |λ| ≥ 1. In this case, Lemma 3.5 reduces the problem to bound the H −1 -norm of u.
Now, the continuous inclusion H −1 (Ω; C d ) ֒→ H −1 σ (Ω) concludes the proof. Finally, we prove that this bound is in fact sharp.
Proof. We argue by contradiction. Hence by virtue of Lemma 3.5, we assume that there exists 0 ≤ α < 1/4 and C > 0 such that for all F ∈ H −1 σ (Ω) and λ ∈ S θ with |λ| ≥ 1 it holds By duality and (2.1), there exists C > 0 such that for all λ ∈ S θ with |λ| ≥ 1 and all g ∈ H 1 0 (Ω; C d ) it holds Next, we are going to estimate as in the proof of Proposition 3.4 for a natural number n ∈ N and 0 < t ≤ 1 the term (tA) n e −tA Pg. To this end, write The first term in the product on the right-hand side is estimated by means of the interpolation inequality · H 1−2α ≤ C · 2α L 2 ∇ · 1−2α L 2 , the uniform boundedness of the semigroup e −tA as a family on L 2 σ (Ω), the gradient estimate (2.12), and (2.13). Indeed, for all h ∈ L 2 σ (Ω), we have (3.18) The second term in the product in (3.17) was already estimated in (3.11). The third term in the product in (3.17) is finally estimated, by using (2.14) and (3.16) by Combining (3.17), (3.18), (3.11), (3.19), and using n n ≤ n!e n (Stirling formula!) finally yields (tA) n e −tA Pg H 1−2α (Ω;C d ) ≤ (C(n + 1)) n+1 g H 1 0 (Ω;C d ) ≤ (n + 1)!(Ce) n+1 g H 1 0 (Ω;C d ) . The rest of the contradiction argument follows exactly the lines below (3.13) in the proof of Proposition 3.4 and is thus omitted.
Recall that in order to derive the estimates in the case of Neumann-type boundary conditions in Proposition 3.1 it was needed that solutions to the Poisson problem with right-hand side in L 2 (Ω) admit H 2 -regularity. Thus, this proof cannot be carried out on general bounded Lipschitz domains. However, as all objects appearing in the estimate in Proposition 3.1 exist if the boundary of Ω is merely Lipschitz. Thus, one might wonder whether Proposition 3.1 is true on general Lipschitz domains. Unfortunately, one cannot deduce the validity of these estimates by approximating the Lipschitz domain by smooth domains as the constants in the respective estimate blow up. If one wants to prove Stokes resolvent estimates in L p for Neumann-type boundary conditions on mere Lipschitz domains, it would be tempting to imitate Shen's proof [44] carried out for noslip boundary conditions. As it was described in the introduction, a corresponding weak reverse Hölder estimate might look as (1.6) but on general Lipschitz domains with p := 2d/(d − 1). It was further described in the introduction, that an estimate of the form presented in Proposition 3.1 would help to achieve these resolvent estimates. In view of this, it would be interesting to know the answer to the following problem.

Regularity estimates in convex domains
If Ω is a bounded and convex domain, it is well-known that weak solutions to the Poisson problem with homogeneous Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions and right-hand side in L 2 (Ω) admit H 2 -regularity. To understand a rough sketch of its proof, we need to introduce some notions from geometry.
If Ω ⊂ R d is a bounded domain with C 2 -boundary (not necessarily convex), and if after a suitable translation and rotation of Ω the function ϕ : R d−1 → R locally describes the boundary of Ω around the point p = (0, ϕ(0)), then, if the rotation is chosen such that ∇ϕ(0) = 0, the second fundamental form I p at this boundary point is the sesquilinear form given by Notice that I p (·; ·) is conjugate symmetric and thus I p (ξ; ξ) is a real number for each ξ ∈ C d−1 .
If Ω is convex and if Ω locally lies below the graph of ϕ, then −ϕ is convex and thus the second fundamental form is non-positive, which means that Furthermore, if I p denotes the matrix associated to the sesquilinear form I p (·; ·), then convexity of Ω implies that tr(I p ) ≤ 0. (4.2) In the following, we skip the subscript p and keep in mind, that the second fundamental form varies from boundary point to boundary point.
To understand why the domain of the Laplacian embeds into H 2 in convex domains, the following formula of integration by parts due to Grisvard is eminent [27, Thm. 3.1.1.1]. Notice that in [27, Thm. 3.1.1.1] this formula is derived for real-valued functions, but that a short analysis of its proof reveals the following formulation for complex-valued functions. Here and below, σ generically denotes the surface measure of a set with a Lipschitz boundary. Recall further the notation v T for the tangential component of a vector v introduced in (2.5). Let Ω ⊂ R d be a bounded domain with C 2 -boundary and let v ∈ C ∞ (Ω; C d ).
There is also a counterpart of Theorem 4.1 for piecewise C 2 -domains, see [27, Thm. 3.1.1.2] for real-valued functions. To state the theorem, we adopt the definition by Grisvard, that a bounded Lipschitz domain Ω is said to be piecewise C 2 -regular if there exist Γ 0 , Γ 1 ⊂ ∂Ω with ∂Ω = Γ 0 ∪Γ 1 and where Γ 0 has surface measure zero and for each x ∈ Γ 1 the boundary of ∂Ω can be described as the graph of a C 2 -function in a neighborhood of x.

Theorem 4.2.
Let Ω ⊂ R d be a bounded domain with a piecewise C 2 -boundary and let v ∈ C ∞ (Ω; C d ). Then, To deduce that weak solutions to the equation −∆u = f with Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions lie in H 2 (Ω) if Ω is bounded and convex, let first Ω be a bounded, convex, and smooth domain. If f ∈ C ∞ (Ω; R), then u ∈ C ∞ (Ω; R) by higher regularity of the Laplacian. Take v := ∇u and apply Theorem 4.1 together with (4.1) and (4.2) to deducê A computation of the first term on the right-hand side yieldŝ and since div(v) = −f , it remains to understand what the boundary integral does. Here, the boundary conditions enter the game. If u satisfies homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions, i.e., u = 0 on ∂Ω, then v T = ∇ T u = 0 and if u satisfies homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions, then v · n = n · ∇u = 0. Hence, by Theorem 4.1, we infer By density, one obtains this estimate for all f ∈ L 2 (Ω). Finally, since the constant in this inequality is one, in particular, it is independent of properties of the boundary, one can conclude the H 2 -regularity for general bounded convex domains by an approximation argument. Remark 4.3. Let us explain the approximation of a bounded and convex domain by a sequence of smooth, bounded, and convex domains (Ω k ) k∈N with Ω k ⊂ Ω k+1 and k∈N Ω k = Ω in more detail.
Let Ω be a bounded and convex domain and assume without loss of generality that 0 ∈ Ω. For k ∈ N let K k denote the closure of (1 − 2 −k )Ω and notice that K k ⊂ (1 − 2 −(k+1) )Ω and that K k is a compact and convex set. In this situation, [30,Lem. 2.3.2] provides us with a compact and convex set C k with smooth boundary that satisfies K k ⊂ C k ⊂ (1 − 2 −(k+1) )Ω. Now, let Ω k be defined as the interior of C k .
One could also ask, whether the sets are uniform in certain properties. For example, for all k ∈ N it holds 1 2 Ω ⊂ Ω k ⊂ Ω so that diam(Ω)/2 ≤ diam(Ω k ) ≤ diam(Ω). Another property is a uniform d-set property, which is the following: Let r 0 > 0 be such that B := B(0, r 0 ) ⊂ 1 2 Ω so that B ⊂ Ω k for all k ∈ N. Let x 0 ∈ ∂Ω k . Since Ω k is convex, for all t ∈ [0, 1) and x ∈ B the points (1 − t)x + tx 0 are contained in Ω k . This implies that Ω k contains a cone with vertex at x 0 , height h = |x 0 | ≥ r 0 , and opening angle ω = 2 arctan(r 0 /|x 0 |). Since |x 0 | ≤ diam(Ω) we find ω ≥ 2 arctan(r 0 / diam(Ω)). Thus, if Q(x 0 , r) is a cube centered in x 0 and diameter 0 < r ≤ 2r 0 , then there exists a constant C > 0 depending only on r 0 , diam(Ω), and d such that Notice that if R 0 > r 0 , then for all 2r 0 < r ≤ 2R 0 it holds Thus, we can assume that for all R 0 > 0 there exists a constant C > 0 depending only on r 0 , R 0 , diam(Ω), and d such that for all k ∈ N and all x 0 ∈ ∂Ω k the inequality (4.3) holds.
Let Ω again be a bounded convex domain with smooth boundary. If u and φ satisfy with f being smooth up to the boundary, one could try to imitate the calculations for the Laplacian above. To this end, there are at least two obvious choices for v. Fix 1 ≤ β ≤ d. For the first choice, define v β := ∇u β . Clearly, all boundary integrals as well as the integral involving the mixed product can be handled as above. However, div(v β ) = −f β + ∂ β φ, so that the gradient of the pressure appears on the right-hand side of the inequality, which is an unfortunate situation. Another choice for v should incorporate that div(v) = −f β . For the βth component of the equation, this is accomplished by choosing v β := ∇u β − φe β , where e β denotes the βth unit basis vector. Moreover, convexity deals with the terms involving the second fundamental form, and one directly verifies that the mixed product (for β fix) computes as Next, a summation over β yields due to the solenoidality of u (notice that we now sum over repeated indices as usual) Altogether, we find Unfortunately, one cannot simply conclude that the boundary integral vanishes as nothing is known about the trace of the pressure on the boundary of Ω. However, imposing for example the Neumann-type boundary condition n · ∇u − φn = 0 seems to be better suited for this approach as in this case the function v β turns out to have the additional property that v β · n = 0 on ∂Ω. For more general Neumann-type boundary conditions and the resolvent problem this is made precise in the following theorem.
, and θ ∈ (0, π). Then for all λ ∈ S θ and all f ∈ L 2 (Ω; C d ) the weak solutions u and φ to (Res) subject to (Neu) satisfy u ∈ H 2 (Ω; C d ) and φ ∈ H 1 (Ω). Moreover, there exists C > 0 depending only on d, µ, and θ such that Proof. Assume first that Ω has a C ∞ -boundary and that f ∈ C ∞ c (Ω; C d ). Then, by virtue of Since u and φ solve (Res) one readily verifies that and thus vanishes on the boundary. The mixed product is calculated as follows (note that we also sum over β in this calculation so that in particular ∂ β u β = 0)

Relabelling the index variables yields
Finally, Young's inequality implies (4.8) Use the two rightmost representations of div(v β ) in (4.5) and an integration by parts together with the fact that n · v β = 0 on ∂Ω (due to (4.6) and the imposed boundary condition), the representation of v β in (4.4), and the solenoidality of u to deduce Finally, apply Theorem 4.1 with v = v β and sum over β. By (4.7) and since the term in (4.6) vanishes on the boundary one finds after rearranging terms (4.10) Now, notice the following facts: If λ ∈ S θ , then λ ∈ S θ . If |µ| ≤ 1, then If |2µ + µ 2 | < 1, then the sum of the second and third integrals on the left-hand side of (4.10) is non-negative due to (4.8). If 1 − 2µ > 0, then the fourth integral on the left-hand side of (4.10) is non-negative and finally, the convexity of Ω implies that the fifth integral is non-positive. This results in the condition −1 < µ < √ 2 − 1, which is the imposed condition on µ. Thus, the left-hand side is of the form z + α for some z ∈ S θ and α ≥ 0. Consequently, by (2.9) there exists a constant C θ > 0 depending only on θ, such that By virtue of (4.11), (4.8), and the convexity of Ω one finds The desired inequality now follows for f ∈ C ∞ c (Ω; C d ) by an application of Young's inequality and for f ∈ L 2 (Ω; C d ) by density.
To conclude the proof, we approximate an arbitrary bounded and convex domain Ω by smooth, bounded, and convex domains Ω k as described in Remark 4.3. Let R Ω k denote the restriction operator to Ω k , Q k be the Helmholtz projection on Ω k , and B µ,k the Stokes operator subject to Neumann-type boundary conditions on Ω k . Define f k := R Ω k f ∈ L 2 (Ω k ; C d ), u k := (λ + B µ,k ) −1 Q k f k , and define u : Rearranging terms yields (4.12) Since u ∈ H 1 (Ω; C d ) and f ∈ L 2 (Ω; C d ), we find by (2.7) and (2.9), that (u − u k ) k∈N defines a bounded sequence in L 2 (Ω; C d ) and (∇u − ∇u k ) k∈N defines a bounded sequence in L 2 (Ω; C d 2 ).
Here, we regard u − u k and ∇u − ∇u k to be zero on Ω \ Ω k . Thus, there exist subsequences (again denoted by the same indices) and weak limits v ∈ L 2 (Ω; C d ) and w ∈ L 2 (Ω; C d 2 ), such that u−u k ⇀ v and ∇u−∇u k ⇀ w as k → ∞. One directly verifies that v is weakly differentiable with ∇v = w and that the distributional divergence of v is zero. It follows that v ∈ H 1 σ (Ω). Now, for ϕ ∈ H 1 σ (Ω) one finds, since u and u k solve their respective equations, that In follows that v is zero. Going back to (4.12), one even finds that u k → u in H 1 loc (Ω; C d ). Since due to the first part of the proof, also the sequence (∇ 2 u k ) k∈N is bounded in L 2 (Ω; C d 3 ), where ∇ 2 u k is regarded to be zero in Ω \ Ω k , we find again by picking a weakly convergent subsequence that u is in H 2 (Ω; C d ) and that If φ k denotes the pressure such that λu k − ∆u k + ∇φ k = f k holds in Ω k (and satisfies the appropriate boundary condition), then we find by virtue of (3.2) with ϕ k : Since Ω is convex, it holds ∇ϕ k L 2 (Ω;C d 2 ) ≤ φ−φ k L 2 (Ω k ) . This implies by Poincaré's inequality and Ω k ⊂ Ω that ϕ k L 2 (Ω;C d ) ≤ C diam(Ω) φ − φ k L 2 (Ω k ) , where C > 0 depends only on d.
Thus, by virtue of Young's inequality, one can absorb φ − φ k L 2 (Ω k ) to the left-hand side of the inequality above so that the convergences proven above together with the facts that φ, u, and f are L 2 -integrable on Ω yield that φ − φ k → 0 as k → ∞ in L 2 (Ω), where φ − φ k is defined to be zero in Ω \ Ω k . Finally, since each φ k lies in H 1 (Ω k ) and respects the estimate from the formulation of the theorem, we find that φ ∈ H 1 (Ω) and that This proves the desired estimate for u and φ.
Remark 4.5. For a similar approximation scheme in the case of no-slip boundary conditions see [41].
Notice that the sectoriality of B µ (by Proposition 2.  . Then for all u ∈ D(B µ )∩R(B µ ) and the associated pressure φ one finds that u ∈ H 2 (Ω; C d ) and φ ∈ H 1 (Ω). Moreover, there exists C > 0 depending only on d and µ such that Proof. First of all, notice that the statement below concerning the strong convergence of resolvent operators follow from [29, Prop. 2.2.1]. Define f := B µ u. The solution u is approximated by u λ := (λ + B µ ) −1 f as λ ∈ S π/2 tends to zero. Indeed, since f = B µ u and since u ∈ R(B µ ) by assumption, one has due to the sectoriality of B µ , see Proposition 2.3, that σ (Ω) as λ → 0. Furthermore, the sectoriality implies that B µ u λ tends to f in L 2 σ (Ω) and as well that λu λ → 0 tends to zero in L 2 σ (Ω) as λ ∈ S π/2 . The convergence of the associated pressures φ λ in L 2 (Ω) is proven as before by invoking Bogovskiȋ's operator. Finally, the convergence in the H 2 (Ω; C d )and H 1 (Ω)-norms of the respective sequences follows by employing the inequality proven in Theorem 4.4 and the fact that the "right-hand side" B µ u λ of the equations for u λ and φ λ tend to f in L 2 σ (Ω). The desired inequality follows from Theorem 4.4 by taking limits. In the case of no-slip boundary conditions, the H 2 -regularity is known in two and three dimensions if convex polygonal/polyhedral domains are considered, see [10,32,37]. It would be interesting to know if this property holds on arbitrary convex domains. In the following, we start by working with cubes in R d . By this we mean a non-degenerate cube of the form (a, b) d , i.e., its Lebesgue measure is non-zero and its sides are parallel to the axes. Sometimes we will use the notation Q(x 0 , r) to denote a cube with center x 0 and diameter r. We continue by deriving local H 2 -estimates and start with a technical lemma.

Lemma 4.9.
Let Ω ⊂ R d be a bounded convex domain with C 2 -boundary and let Q be a cube. Then Q ∩ Ω is piecewise C 2 -regular, i.e, there exist sets Γ 0 and Γ 1 such that ∂[Q ∩ Ω] = Γ 0 ∪ Γ 1 , where Γ 0 has surface measure zero and where for each x ∈ Γ 1 the boundary part of Q ∩ Ω is C 2 -regular in a neighborhood of x. In particular, Γ 1 satisfies Γ 1 ∩ Ω ⊂ ∂Q ∩ Ω.
Proof. First of all, notice that Q∩Ω is a bounded convex domain and thus in particular a bounded Lipschitz domain, see [27,Cor. 1.2.2.3]. Notice that due to the Lipschitz boundary of Q ∩ Ω the surface measure is equivalent to the (d − 1)-dimensional Hausdorff measure in R d . To decompose the boundary of Q ∩ Ω, notice that elementary set theoretic manipulations yield Notice that any point in Q ∩ (∂Ω) has a neighborhood with an at least C 2 -regular boundary. Thus, we consider (∂Q) ∩ Ω more closely.
Let N ⊂ ∂Q denote the edges of the cube Q. Clearly, its (d−1)-dimensional Hausdorff measure is zero. Let F ⊂ ∂Q be a face of Q (we consider F to be closed). Since F and Ω are convex, also F ∩ Ω is convex. Notice that F ∩ Ω is congruent to a convex set in R d−1 . As convex sets are Lipschitz regular, the boundary of F ∩ Ω (with respect to the subspace topology of F ) has zero (d − 1)-dimensional Hausdorff measure. If x is in the interior of F ∩ Ω (with respect to the subspace topology of F ) and if x / ∈ N , then there is ε > 0 such that F ∩ Ω ∩ B(x, ε) = F ∩ B(x, ε). Thus, in this neighborhood, F ∩ Ω can be represented as the graph of a smooth function. Denote the boundary of F ∩ Ω taken with respect to the subspace topology by ∂ F (F ∩ Ω) and the interior by int F (F ∩ Ω) and define Notice that Γ 1 ∩ Ω ⊂ ∂Q ∩ Ω holds by construction.
By definition of v β this readily concludes the proof.
In the previous proposition we saw that a local H 2 -estimate can be achieved with the drawback that highest-order terms appear in boundary integrals on the right-hand side of the inequality. The following lemma (the so-called ε-lemma) will help us to absorb these terms to the left-hand side and can be found in [24,Lem. 0.5]. Notice that the notation of cubes Q(x 0 , r) used here differs from the one used in [24], so that our formulation is slightly different.
Lemma 4.11. Let f , g, and h be non-negative functions in L 1 (Q), where Q is a cube in R d and let α > 0. There exists ε 0 > 0, depending only on d and α, such that if for some 0 ≤ ε ≤ ε 0 and some holds for all x 0 ∈ Q and 0 < r < √ d dist(x 0 , ∂Q), then there exists a constant C > 0, depending only on d, α, and C 1 , such that The following proposition finally provides us with a local higher-order estimate.
Proof. Fix a cube Q ⊂ R d with Q ∩ Ω = ∅. Let Q := Q(x 0 , r) ⊂ R d be a cube with center x 0 ∈ Q and diam(Q) = r that satisfies 0 < r < √ d dist(x 0 , ∂Q). Let 1 < s < 2. By Lemma 4.10 one finds where the constant C > 0 depends only on d, µ, and θ. An application of Young's inequality (this produces the factors rε and (rε) −1 for some ε > 0) followed by an integration over s yields g dσ ds ≤ C co-area rˆ2 Q g dx for all representatives g of a function g ∈ L 1 (R d ), where C co-area > 0 is an absolute constant. Choosing g in the first integral as E 0 (|∇u| 2 +|φ| 2 ) and in the second integral as E 0 (|∇ 2 u| 2 +|∇φ| 2 ), where E 0 extends functions outside of 2Q ∩ Ω by zero delivers The proof is concluded for ε small enough by an application of Lemma 4.11.
5. An L p -extrapolation theorem suitable for subspaces of L p In classical Calderón-Zygmund theory, operators T associated to an integral kernel K(·, ·) give rise to an L p -bounded operator for all 1 < p < ∞ if T is bounded on L 2 and if the kernel K is a so-called standard kernel. The standard kernel property is some kind of cancellation property of K, see [11,Def. 5.11]. If the operator T is not associated to a kernel or if one is only interested in whether T is bounded on L p but for p being merely in an interval I ⊂ (1, ∞), then one can replace the property that T is associated to a standard kernel by weaker cancellation properties. In this context, there are for example the L p -extrapolation theorems of Shen [43] (if one is interested to conclude the L p -boundedness on an interval (2, q) with q > 2) or of Blunck and Kunstmann [5] (if one is interested to conclude the L p -boundedness on an interval (q, 2) with q < 2). In the following, we will consider Shen's theorem more closely and begin with a formulation of his theorem which can be found in [49,51].
Suppose that there exist constants q > 2, R 0 > 0, α 2 > α 1 > 1, and C > 0, where R 0 = ∞ if diam(Ω) = ∞, such that the following holds. Namely, for all B = B(x 0 , r) with 0 < r < R 0 , whose center x 0 is either such that x 0 ∈ ∂Ω or α 2 B ⊂ Ω, and all compactly supported f ∈ L ∞ (Ω; C m ) with f = 0 on Ω ∩ α 2 B the estimate holds. Here the supremum runs over all balls B ′ containing B. Then for each 2 < p < q the restriction of T onto L 2 (Ω; C m ) ∩ L p (Ω; C m ) extends to a bounded linear operator from L p (Ω; C m ) into L p (Ω; C n ), with operator norm bounded by a constant depending on d, p, q, α 1 , α 2 , C, and M, and additionally on R 0 and diam(Ω) if Ω is bounded.
In this theorem, the standard kernel property is replaced by the validity of (5.1). If Ω = R d , then the proof builds on a good-λ argument. If Ω is not R d , one can define an appropriate operator on the whole space given by Sf := E 0 T R Ω f , where E 0 extends functions on Ω by zero and R Ω restricts functions on the whole space to Ω. One can show, that if T satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 5.1 on Ω, then S satisfies the assumptions of the same theorem with Ω set to R d , cf. [49, p. 78f]. If Ω = R d , an analysis of the good-λ argument reveals that (5.1) enters the game only once, namely, in order to deduce an inequality of the form cf. [49, p. 76f]. Here, ι > 0 is arbitrary, Q is a cube in R d , Q * is its "parent", i.e., Q arises from Q * by bisecting its sides, and M 2Q * is the localized maximal operator where in the supremum R denotes a cube in R d . To derive (5.2) from (5.1) and the L 2 -boundedness of T , notice that (5.1) can equivalently be formulated with cubes instead of balls. Then, f is decomposed as f = f χ 2α2Q * + f χ R d \2α2Q * , where χ denotes the characteristic function of a set. This decomposition is used on the left-hand side of (5.2) to estimate The first term on the right-hand side is controlled by the weak type-(1, 1) estimate of the localized maximal operator and the L 2 -boundedness of T , yielding the first term on the righthand side of (5.2). The second term on the right-hand side is controlled by the embedding L q/2 ֒→ L q/2,∞ and the L q/2 -boundedness of the localized maximal operator followed by (5.1) and the L 2 -boundedness of T yielding the remaining terms on the right-hand side of (5.2), cf. [49, p. 76f].
Essentially, the only thing that happened in (5.3) was that T f was decomposed by means of We would like to stress here, that this decomposition of T f was induced by the linearity of T and a decomposition of f . Clearly, one could imagine that other suitable decompositions of T f into a sum of two functions exist and that these might not have anything to do with a decomposition of f . Taking this into account in the formulation of the L p -extrapolation theorem might yield a more flexible result. This could be an advantage if a certain structure of f (such as solenoidality) is eminent and which is destroyed by multiplication by characteristic functions. This happens for example if one considers the map T : f → φ, where f is mapped to the pressure function corresponding to the Stokes resolvent problem (Res) and (Neu). If f is for example divergence-free, then T f enjoys the decay estimate presented in Proposition 3.1 while T f χ 2α2Q * and T f χ R d \2α2Q * enjoy no decay estimates at all by Remark 3.2. This indicates the need of a formulation of Shen's L p -extrapolation theorem that does not rely on a particular decomposition of T f and is presented below.
In the rest of this section, we discuss an adapted version of Theorem 5.1, where (5.1) is replaced essentially by the validity of (5.2) (which has to be modified if Ω = R d ). To this end, we say that Q * is the parent of a cube Q ⊂ R d if Q arises from Q * by bisecting its sides. Moreover, for x 0 ∈ R d and r > 0 let Q(x 0 , r) denote the non-degenerated cube in R d with center x 0 and diam(Q(x 0 , r)) = r. Finally, for a number α > 0 denote by αQ the cube Q(x 0 , αr). The discussion above together with an analysis of the proof of [43, Thm. 3.1] readily shows the validity of the following theorem.
, and let T be an operator (not necessarily linear) such that T (f ) is defined and contained in L 2 (R d ; C n ).
Suppose that there exist constants α 2 > α 1 > 1 and C > 0 such that all ι > 0, all Q = Q(x 0 , r) with r > 0 and x 0 ∈ R d , and all parents Q * of Q the estimate holds. Here the supremum runs over all cubes Q ′ containing 2Q * .
Then there exists a constant C > 0 depending on d, p, q, α 1 , α 2 , and C such that Let T be an operator acting on functions defined on Ω for some Lebesgue-measurable set Ω ⊂ R d and let f ∈ L 2 (Ω; C m ) ∩ L q (Ω; C m ). The following theorem is a direct consequence of Theorem 5.2 when applied to the operator S := E 0 T R Ω and the function Let Ω ⊂ R d be Lebesgue-measurable, 2 < p < q, f ∈ L 2 (Ω; C m ) ∩ L p (Ω; C m ), and let T be an operator (not necessarily linear) such that T (f ) is defined and contained in L 2 (R d ; C n ).
Suppose that there exist constants α 2 > α 1 > 1 and C > 0 such that for all ι > 0, all Q = Q(x 0 , r) with r > 0 and x 0 ∈ R d , and all parents Q * of Q with (2Q * ) ∩ Ω = ∅ the estimate holds. Here the supremum runs over all cubes Q ′ containing 2Q * . Then there exists a constant C > 0 depending on d, p, q, α 1 , α 2 , and C such that
Notice that the case p = 2 readily follows by Propositions 2.3 and 3.1.
Case 1: It holds 2 < p < 2d/(d − 2). Let Ω be a bounded and convex domain and let Ω k be a bounded, convex, and smooth domain introduced in Remark 4.3. Let f ∈ C ∞ σ (Ω k ) and let u be given by u := (λ + B µ,k ) −1 f and let φ denote the associated pressure. Here B µ,k denotes the Stokes operator subject to Neumann-type boundary conditions on Ω k . Notice that u and φ are smooth up to the boundary by Remark 2.4. We show that is uniformly bounded with respect to λ from L p σ (Ω k ) to L p (Ω k ; C d+d 2 +1 )). To this end, we show in the following that T λ f satisfies (5.6) with q := 2d/(d − 2) in the case d ≥ 3 and q > 2 arbitrary in the case d = 2. To obtain the uniform boundedness with respect to λ, we need to verify (5.6) with involved constants independent of λ. Let Q = Q(x 0 , r) ⊂ R d be a cube with center x 0 and diam(Q) = r that satisfies (2Q * ) ∩ Ω = ∅. Then, we consider the following three cases. Case 1.1: It holds 2r > √ d diam(Ω). The conditions imposed on Q * and r imply that for all k ∈ N we have Ω k ⊂ 4Q * . In this case, use the weak-type (1, 1) estimate of the localized maximal operator and the L 2 -boundedness of T λ (cf. Propositions 2.3 and 3.1, notice that the constants only depend on d, θ, and µ) to obtain |{x ∈ Q : M 2Q * (|E 0 T λ f | 2 )(x) > ι}| ≤ C ιˆΩ k |T λ f | 2 dx ≤ C ιˆ( 4Q * )∩Ω |f | 2 dx.

(6.3)
Combining (6.1) and (6.3) one finds analogously to (6.2) that Case 1.3: It holds 2r ≤ √ d diam(Ω) and 2Q * ∩ ∂Ω k = ∅. This case is treated similar as the previous case. The only difference is that there is no need to introduce the cube Q, thus, by setting Q := 2Q * in Case 1.2, the proof is literally the same.
Conclusion of the proof of Case 1. Notice that the family (T λ ) λ∈S θ is uniformly bounded from L 2 σ (Ω k ) into L 2 (Ω k ; C d+d 2 +1 ) and that all estimates proven in Case 1 are uniform with respect to λ. Thus we conclude by Theorem 5.3 that for all 2 < p < 2d/(d − 2) the family (T λ ) λ∈S θ satisfies a uniform boundedness estimate from L p σ (Ω k ) into L p (Ω k ; C d+d 2 +1 ) for all f ∈ C ∞ σ (Ω k ) and by density for all f ∈ L p σ (Ω k ). In particular, this holds true for each of the mappings T 1 λ : f → |λ|u, T 2 λ : f → |λ| 1/2 ∇u, and T 3 λ : f → |λ| 1/2 φ. Now, by the approximation argument carried out in the proof of Theorem 4.4, the uniform boundedness of these mappings also follows on the domain Ω.
Case 2: It holds 2d/(d + 2) < p < 2. To deduce the second case we argue by duality. Thus, let q := 2d/(d − 2) if d ≥ 3 and let q > 2 if d = 2. Let again Ω k be a bounded, convex, and smooth domain introduced in Remark 4.3. Let F ∈ C ∞ c (Ω k ; C d×d ) and let u be given by u := (λ + B µ,k ) −1 div(F ) and let φ denote the associated pressure. Consider the operator Notice that S λ extends to a bounded operator from L 2 (Ω k ; C d×d ) to L 2 (Ω k ; C d+d 2 +1 ) by Propositions 2.3 and 3.1 and that its operator norm is bounded by a constant depending merely on d, µ, and θ. For such a smooth F , the assumptions of Theorem 5.3 are verified analogously to Case 1. It follows that each of the mappings S 1 λ : F → |λ| 1/2 u, S 2 λ : F → ∇u, and S 3 λ : F → φ gives rise to a uniformly bounded family of operators on L r (Ω k ) for each 2 < r < q. The approximation argument carried out in the proof of Theorem 4.4, implies the uniform boundedness of these mappings on the domain Ω. By duality, we conclude from the boundedness properties of the mapping T 1 λ from Case 1 and from the boundedness properties of S 1 λ that there exists C > 0 such that for all λ ∈ S θ and all f ∈ L p σ (Ω) it holds λ(λ + B µ ) −1 f L p σ (Ω) + |λ| 1/2 ∇(λ + B µ ) −1 f L p (Ω;C d 2 ) ≤ C f L p σ (Ω) . (6.4) The estimate on ∇(λ + B µ ) −1 div follows from the boundedness of S 2 λ and duality. ˆΩ ∇u · ∇∇∆ −1 D g dx .
However, one cannot control ∇∇∆ −1 D g in L p ′ due to the counterexample in [18,Prop. 2].