Normalized ground state solutions for nonlinear Schrödinger equations with general Sobolev critical nonlinearities

Abstract.

This paper is concerned with the existence of normalized solutions for nonlinear Schrödinger equations. The nonlinearity has a Sobolev critical growth at infinity but does not satisfy the Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition. By analysing the monotonicity of the ground state energy with respect to the prescribed mass $c$, we employ the constrained minimization approach and concentration-compactness principle to establish the existence of normalized ground state solutions for all $c>0.$

Manting Liu${}^{{\href mailto:[email protected]}}$ and Xiaojun Chang${}^{{\href mailto:[email protected]}*}$

School of Mathematics and Statistics & Center for Mathematics and Interdisciplinary Sciences

Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China

1. Introduction and main results

In this paper, we deal with the following nonlinear Schrödinger equation

$$-\Delta u=f(u)+\lambda u\quad\mbox{in}\ \mathbb{R}^{N}$$ (1.1)

under the constraint

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u|^{2}dx=c,$$ (1.2)

where $N\geq 3$, $c>0$, $f\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$ and $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$ is a Lagrange multiplier. A function $u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$ satisfying (1.1)-(1.2) is usually referred as a normalized solution of (1.1). The study of normalized solutions for (1.1) is motivated by the search of standing waves solutions with form $\Psi(t,x)=e^{-i\lambda t}u(x)$ of prescribed mass $c$ for the following time-dependent Schrödinger equation

$$i\Psi_{t}(t,x)+\Delta_{x}\Psi(t,x)+g\left(|\Psi(t,x)|^{2}\right)\Psi(t,x)=0,\quad(t,x)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{N}.$$

Consider the associated energy functional $J:H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\to\mathbb{R}$ given by

$$J(u):=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u|^{2}dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(u)dx,$$

where $F(u):=\int_{0}^{u}f(s)ds$. Set $\mathcal{S}_{c}:=\Big{\{}u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}):\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u|^{2}dx=c\Big{\}}$. Clearly, $J$ is of $C^{1}$ under suitable conditions on $f$, and any critical point of $J$ on $\mathcal{S}_{c}$ corresponds to a normalized solution of (1.1). Furthermore, each normalized solution of (1.1) stays in the following Nehari-Pohozaev type set

$$\mathcal{M}:=\Big{\{}u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\setminus\{0\}:\mathcal{P}(u)=0\Big{\}}.$$

Here $\mathcal{P}:H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\to\mathbb{R}$ is the Nehari-Pohozaev functional defined by

$$\mathcal{P}(u):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u|^{2}dx-\frac{N}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}H(u)dx,\quad u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}),$$

where $H(u):=f(u)u-2F(u)$.

If $f$ admits a $L^{2}$ subcritical growth at infinity, i.e., $f(s)$ has a growth $|s|^{p-1}$ with $p<2+\frac{4}{N}$ as $|s|\to+\infty$, then $J|_{\mathcal{S}_{c}}$ is bounded below and one can use the minimization method to get a global minimizer, see for example [6, 18].

If $f$ admits a $L^{2}$ supercritical growth at infinity, i.e., $p>2+\frac{4}{N}$, then $J|_{\mathcal{S}_{c}}$ is unbounded below and the direct minimization does not work. The first breakthrough in the case of $L^{2}$ supercritical was made by Jeanjean [10], where a mountain-pass type argument for the scaled functional $\tilde{J}(u,t):=J(t\star u)$ with $t\star u(\cdot):=t^{\frac{N}{2}}u(t\cdot)$ was introduced. Subsequently, Bartsch and de Valerioda [2] applied the genus theory to obtain infinitely many normalized solutions of (1.1). Ikoma and Tanaka [9] established a deformation result on $\mathcal{S}_{c}$, and gave an alternative proof of the results in [2, 10]. Bartsch and Soave [3, 4] demonstrated that the set $\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$ is a $C^{1}$ manifold and constitutes a natural constraint. They developed a minimax approach on $\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$ based on the $\sigma$-homotopy stable family of compact subsets of $\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$ to investigate the existence and multiplicity of normalized solutions of (1.1). In these studies, the following Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz (AR) condition:

• there exists  $\alpha>2+\frac{4}{N}$  such that  $f(s)s\geq\alpha F(s)>0,\quad s\neq 0$

plays an essential role in obtaining the bounded constrained Palais-Smale sequences of $J$.

Jeanjean and Lu [13] investigated the normalized solutions of (1.1) when $f$ satisfies a certain monotonicity condition (see $(f_{3})$ below), but not the (AR) condition. For any $c>0$, define

$$m(c):=\inf\limits_{u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}}J(u).$$

By analysing the variation of ground state energy $m(c)$ with respect to the prescribed mass $c$, they modified the minimax arguments [3] to establish the existence of normalized ground state solutions.

Bieganowski and Mederski [5] introduced a constrained minimization method for the $L^{2}$ supercritical problem without imposing the (AR) condition. In order to establish the existence of normalized ground state solutions, they first pursued the existence of minimizers for $J$ on $\mathcal{D}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$, where

$$\mathcal{D}_{c}:=\left\{u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\setminus\{0\}:\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u|^{2}dx\leq c\right\}.$$

The proof was then performed through an analysis of Lagrange multipliers for the constraints $\mathcal{S}_{c}$ and $\mathcal{M}$, respectively.

Both of [13] and [5] were carried out under the assumption that the nonlinearity $f$ satisfies $L^{2}$-supercritical but Sobolev subcritical growth at infinity. In the case where $f$ admits Sobolev critical growth, Soave [19] initially explored the following Sobolev critical Schrödinger equation

$$-\Delta u=\lambda u+\mu|u|^{q-2}u+|u|^{2^{*}-2}u\qquad\mbox{in}~{}\mathbb{R}^{N},~{}N\geq 3,$$ (1.3)

where $2<q<2^{*}:=\frac{2N}{N-2}$ and the condition $\mu c^{(1-\gamma_{q})q}<\alpha(N,q)$ is imposed. Here $\gamma_{q}=\frac{N(q-2)}{2q}$, $\alpha(N,q)=+\infty$ if $N=3,4$ and $\alpha(N,q)$ is finite for $N\geq 5$. Soave [19] employed the Ekeland variational principle and Schwarz rearrangement techniques to establish the existence of normalized ground state solutions, acting as local minimizers, specifically for the range $2<q<2+\frac{4}{N}$. In scenarios where $q$ exhibits $L^{2}$-critical and $L^{2}$-supercritical growth, i.e., $2+\frac{4}{N}\leq q<2^{*}$, the Ghoussoub minimax principle was utilized to demonstrate the existence of mountain pass type normalized ground state solutions. Subsequently, under the perturbation term $\mu|u|^{q-2}u$, exhibiting $L^{2}$-subcritical, $L^{2}$-critical, and $L^{2}$-supercritical characteristics respectively, significant progress has been made towards a complete understanding of (1.3). Interested readers are referred to [1, 11, 12, 14, 17, 20], and the references therein for further details.

In this paper, we develop a constraint minimization approach to study the existence of normalized ground state solutions of (1.1) when $f$ satisfies a general Sobolev critical growth. Using a monotonicity condition as in [13] but not the (AR) condition, we shall establish the existence of normalized ground state solutions of (1.1) for all $c>0$.

Our assumptions are formulated as follows:

• $f\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$ and $\lim\limits_{|s|\rightarrow 0}\frac{F(s)}{|s|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}}=0;$

• there exists $0<\eta<+\infty$ such that $\eta:=\lim\limits_{|s|\rightarrow\infty}\frac{F(s)}{|s|^{2^{*}}};$

• $\frac{H(s)}{|s|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}}$ is strictly decreasing on $(-\infty,0)$ and strictly increasing on $(0,+\infty)$;

• there exist constants $p>2+\frac{4}{N}$ and $\mu>0$ such that

  $$sgn(s)f(s)\geq\mu|s|^{p-1},{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\quad s\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\},}$$

  where $sgn:\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}\to\mathbb{R}$ is defined by

  $$sgn(s)=\left\{\begin{aligned} &1,&s>0,\\ &-1,&s<0;\end{aligned}\right.$$

• $f(s)s<2^{*}F(s),\quad\forall s\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}.$

The main result of this paper is stated as follows.

Theorem 1.1.

Assume that $(f_{1})$-$(f_{5})$ hold. Then, for any $c>0$, there exists $\mu_{0}>0$ such that problem (1.1) admits a normalized ground state solution pair $(u,\lambda)\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\times\mathbb{R}$ with $\lambda<0$ for all $\mu>\mu_{0}$.

Remark 1.2.

Condition $(f_{4})$ was utilized to investigate normalized ground state solutions for problem (1.1) with $N=2$ when the nonlinearity $f$ displays exponential critical growth at infinity [1, 7]. By imposing more specific assumptions and performing a detailed energy estimate, it becomes possible to eliminate the requirement that $\mu$ is large. Additional insights into this can be found in [8].

Remark 1.3.

Following the strategy [5], Mederski and Schino [17] obtained the existence of ground state solutions of problem (1.1) when $c>c^{*}$ for some $c_{*}>0$, where the nonlinearity is of the following form

$$f(u)=g(u)+|u|^{2^{*}-2}u.$$

The lower power nonlinearity $g$ was required to satisfy several assumptions distinct from $(f_{3})$ but not the (AR) type condition. The approach [17] addressing the lack of compactness due to critical growth relies on a profile decomposition theorem established in [16]. However, in our situation, we cannot directly apply the profile decomposition theorem as done in [5, 17].

To establish Theorem 1.1, we employ a direct minimization argument for $J$ on $\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$. Our work space is $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$, necessitating the addressing of challenges arising from the absence of a compact embedding $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\subseteq L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$ for $r\in[2,2^{*}]$. Our strategy for restoring compactness involves a detailed examination of the monotonicity of the ground state energy $m(c)$ concerning the mass parameter $c$, as elaborated in [13, 23]. This analysis is coupled with a Brezis-Lieb type result for Sobolev critical nonlinearity and an inequality relationship between the energy functional $J$ and the Nehari-Pohozaev functional $\mathcal{P}$. The presence of Sobolev critical growth in the nonlinearity adds intricacy to the problem.

Here is a brief outline for the proof of Theorem 1.1: Start with a minimizing sequence ${u_{n}}\subset\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$ of $J$ at $m(c)$. Using conditions $(f_{3})-(f_{4})$, we apply concentration compactness arguments (refer to [15]) and energy estimates to establish the boundedness of $\{u_{n}\}$. Subsequently, assuming $u_{n}\rightharpoonup u_{0}$ in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$, by the Lions lemma, we deduce $\|u_{0}\|_{2}^{2}:=c_{0}\in(0,c].$ Then, we can skillfully utilize a Brezis-Lieb splitting argument and $(f_{3})$ to prove that $\mathcal{P}(u_{0})\leq 0$, which implies that there exists $t_{0}\in(0,1]$ such that $t_{0}\star u_{0}\in\mathcal{S}_{c_{0}}\cap\mathcal{M},$

$$J(u_{0})-J(t_{0}\star u_{0})\geq\frac{1-t_{0}^{2}}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{0}).$$

Hence by delicate integral estimates, we have

$$m(c)\geq J(u_{0})-\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{0})\geq J(t_{0}\star u_{0})-\frac{t_{0}^{2}}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{0})\geq J(t_{0}\star u_{0})\geq m(c_{0}).$$

On the other hand, using the monotonicity of $m(c)$ with respect to $c>0$, we infer that $m(c)\leq m(c_{0}),$ which implies that $\mathcal{P}(u_{0})=0$ and thus $m(c)=m(c_{0}).$ Hence, we get $J(u_{0})=m(c_{0}).$ Since the function $c\mapsto m(c)$ is strictly decreasing at $c_{0}$, we derive $c_{0}=c$ and then $u_{0}\in\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}.$ Thereafter, by showing that $\mathcal{M}$ is a natural constraint, we prove that the minimizer $u_{0}$ of $J$ on $\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$ is a normalized ground state solution of (1.1).

The paper is organized as follows. In Section $2,$ we introduce some preliminary results. In Section $3$, the monotonicity of $m(c)$ with respect to $c>0$ will be analyzed. In Section $4$, we give the proof of Theorem 1.1.

Regarding the notations, for $p\geq 1,$ the (standard) $L^{p}-$ norm of $u\in L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$ is denoted by $\|u\|_{p}$ and $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the norm in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}).$

2. Preliminaries

In this section, we prove some preliminary results. We recall that, for $N\geq 2$ and $q\in(2,2^{*})$, there exists $C_{N,q}>0$ depending on $N$ and $q$ such that the following Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality holds:

$$\|u\|_{q}\leq C_{N,q}\|u\|^{1-\gamma_{q}}_{2}\|\nabla u\|^{\gamma_{q}}_{2},\quad\forall u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}),$$ (2.1)

where $\gamma_{q}:=N(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q}).$ See [21]. If $N\geq 3$, by [22], there exists an optimal constant $S>0$ depending only on $N$ such that

$$S\|u\|^{2}_{2^{*}}\leq\|\nabla u\|^{2}_{2},\quad\forall u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}).$$ (2.2)

Lemma 2.1.

Assume that $(f_{1})-(f_{2})$ and $(f_{4})-(f_{5})$ hold. Then $\inf\limits_{\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}}\|\nabla u\|_{2}>0.$

Proof.

We assume by contradiction that there exists $\{u_{n}\}\subset\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$ such that

$$\|\nabla u_{n}\|_{2}\rightarrow 0.$$ (2.3)

By $(f_{1})-(f_{2})$ and $(f_{4})$, for any $\epsilon>0,$ there exist $p<p_{1}<2^{*}$ and $C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}>0$ such that

$$F(s)\leq C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}|s|^{p_{1}}+(\eta+\epsilon)|s|^{2^{*}},\quad\forall s\in\mathbb{R}.$$ (2.4)

Then, by (2.1)-(2.4), $(f_{5})$ and $\gamma_{p_{1}}p_{1}>2,$ we get

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}f(u_{n})u_{n}dx \leq 2^{*}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(u_{n})dx$$

$$\leq 2^{*}C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}C_{N,p_{1}}^{p_{1}}c^{\frac{1-\gamma_{p_{1}}}{2}p_{1}}\|\nabla u_{n}\|_{2}^{\gamma_{p_{1}}p_{1}-2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx$$

$$+2^{*}(\eta+\epsilon)S^{-\frac{2^{*}}{2}}\|\nabla u_{n}\|_{2}^{2^{*}-2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx$$

$$\leq \frac{1}{4}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx$$

for $n$ large enough. Hence, using $(f_{5})$ again,

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}H(u_{n})dx = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\big{[}f(u_{n})u_{n}-2F(u_{n})\big{]}dx$$

$$\leq \frac{2}{N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}f(u_{n})u_{n}\leq\frac{1}{N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx,$$

which together with $\{u_{n}\}\subset\mathcal{M}$ implies that

$$0=\mathcal{P}(u_{n})=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx-\frac{N}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}H(u_{n})dx\geq\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx.$$

This is a contradiction with $\{u_{n}\}\subset\mathcal{S}_{c}$. Therefore, $\inf\limits_{\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}}\|\nabla u\|_{2}>0.$ ∎

For any $u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\setminus\{0\}$ and $t>0$, set

$$(t\star u)(x):=t^{\frac{N}{2}}u(tx),~{}~{}~{}\forall x\in\mathbb{R}^{N}.$$

Clearly, $t\star u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}$ if $u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}$.

Lemma 2.2.

Suppose that $(f_{1})-(f_{4})$ hold. Then, for any $u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\setminus\{0\}$, there exists a unique number $t_{u}>0$ such that $t_{u}\star u\in\mathcal{M}.$ Moreover, $J(t_{u}\star u)>J(t\star u)$ for all $t>0$ with $t\neq t_{u}.$

Proof.

Using similar argument as in Lemma 2.1, by $(f_{1})-(f_{2}),(f_{4})$, for any $\epsilon>0,$ there exist $p<p_{1}<2^{*},C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}>0$ such that

$$J(t\star u)\geq\frac{t^{2}}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u|^{2}dx-C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}t^{\frac{N}{2}(p_{1}-2)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u|^{p_{1}}dx-(\eta+\epsilon)t^{2^{*}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u|^{2^{*}}dx$$

and

$$J(t\star u)\leq\frac{t^{2}}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u|^{2}dx-\frac{\mu}{p}t^{\frac{N}{2}(p-2)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u|^{p}dx.$$

Then, by $p_{1}>p>2+\frac{4}{N},$ we have

$$J(t\star u)\rightarrow 0^{+}\quad\quad\ \ \ \ \mbox{as}\quad t\rightarrow 0^{+},$$

$$J(t\star u)\rightarrow-\infty\quad\quad\ \ \mbox{as}\quad t\rightarrow+\infty,$$

which imply that $\Phi_{u}(t):=J(t\star u)$ admits a global maximum point $t_{u}>0$ and thus $\frac{d}{dt}\Phi_{u}(t)|_{t=t_{u}}=0.$ Since

$$\frac{d}{dt}J(t\star u)=t^{-1}\mathcal{P}(t\star u),$$

we deduce $t_{u}\star u\in\mathcal{M}.$

In what follows, we prove the uniqueness. Assume by contradiction that there exist $0<\tilde{t}_{u}<t_{u}$ such that $\tilde{t}_{u}\star u,t_{u}\star u\in\mathcal{M}$. Then

$$t_{u}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u|^{2}dx-\frac{N}{2}t_{u}^{-N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}H(t_{u}^{\frac{N}{2}}u)dx=0$$ (2.5)

and

$$\tilde{t}_{u}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u|^{2}dx-\frac{N}{2}\tilde{t}_{u}^{-N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}H(\tilde{t}_{u}^{\frac{N}{2}}u)dx=0.$$ (2.6)

By similar arguments as in Remark 2.2 in [13], we may assume that $\frac{H(s)}{|s|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}}$ is continuous on $\mathbb{R}$, $\frac{H(s)}{|s|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}}=0$ at $s=0$. Furthermore, the ratio is strictly decreasing on $(-\infty,0]$ and strictly increasing on $[0,+\infty)$. Then by (2.5)-(2.6) we get

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\left(\frac{H(t_{u}^{\frac{N}{2}}u)}{|t_{u}^{\frac{N}{2}}u|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}}-\frac{H(\tilde{t}_{u}^{\frac{N}{2}}u)}{|\tilde{t}_{u}^{\frac{N}{2}}u|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}}\right)|u|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}dx=0.$$

However, by $(f_{3})$ we can deduce

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\left(\frac{H(t_{u}^{\frac{N}{2}}u)}{|t_{u}^{\frac{N}{2}}u|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}}-\frac{H(\tilde{t}_{u}^{\frac{N}{2}}u)}{|\tilde{t}_{u}^{\frac{N}{2}}u|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}}\right)|u|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}dx>0,$$

which provides a contradiction. Hence $\tilde{t}_{u}=t_{u}$, which implies that $t_{u}\star u\in\mathcal{M}$ is the unique global maximum point of $\Phi_{u}$ and $J(t_{u}\star u)>J(t\star u)$ for all $t\neq t_{u}.$ ∎

Lemma 2.3.

Assume that $(f_{1})-(f_{5})$ hold. Then $\inf\limits_{\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}}J(u)=\inf\limits_{u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}}\max\limits_{t>0}J(t\star u)>0.$

Proof.

By Lemma 2.2, it is easily seen that the $"="$ holds. Then, by $(f_{1})-(f_{2}),(f_{4})$ and similar arguments as in Lemma 2.1, for any $\epsilon>0,$ there exist $p<p_{1}<2^{*},C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}>0$ such that for any $t>0$ and $u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$, we have

$$J(u)$$

$$\geq\frac{t^{2}}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u|^{2}dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\Big{(}C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}t^{\frac{N}{2}(p_{1}-2)}|u|^{p_{1}}+(\eta+\epsilon)t^{2^{*}}|u|^{2^{*}}\Big{)}dx$$

$$\geq\frac{t^{2}}{2}\|\nabla u\|^{2}_{2}-\Big{(}C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}C_{N,p_{1}}^{p_{1}}t^{\frac{N(p_{1}-2)}{2}}c^{\frac{1-\gamma_{p_{1}}}{2}p_{1}}\|\nabla u\|^{\frac{N(p_{1}-2)}{2}}_{2}+(\eta+\epsilon)S^{-\frac{2^{*}}{2}}t^{2^{*}}\|\nabla u\|^{2^{*}}_{2}\Big{)}.$$

Hence, in view of $p_{1}>2+\frac{4}{N}$, taking $t=\delta/\|\nabla u\|_{2}$ with $\delta>0$ small enough, we deduce

$$J(u)\geq\frac{\delta^{2}}{2}-\left(C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}C_{N,p_{1}}^{p_{1}}c^{\frac{1-\gamma_{p_{1}}}{2}p_{1}}\delta^{\gamma_{p_{1}}p_{1}}+(\eta+\epsilon)S^{-\frac{2^{*}}{2}}\delta^{2^{*}}\right)\geq\frac{\delta^{2}}{4}>0.$$

∎

Lemma 2.4.

Assume that $(f_{1})-(f_{4})$ hold. Then, for any $u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\setminus\{0\},$ we have

(i):

The map $u\mapsto t_{u}$ is continuous.

(ii):

$t_{u(\cdot+y)}=t_{u}$ for any $y\in\mathbb{R}^{N}.$

Proof.

For (i), by Lemma 2.2, the mapping $u\mapsto t_{u}$ is well defined. Let $\{u_{n}\}\subset H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\setminus\{0\}$ be any sequence such that $u_{n}\rightarrow u$ in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$. We first show that $\{t_{u_{n}}\}$ is bounded. If not, $t_{u_{n}}\rightarrow+\infty.$ Then, by $(f_{4})$ it follows that

$$0\leq t_{u_{n}}^{-2}J(t_{u_{n}}\star u_{n}) = \frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx-t_{u_{n}}^{-(2+N)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(t_{u_{n}}^{\frac{N}{2}}u_{n})dx$$

$$\leq \frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx-\frac{\mu}{p}t_{u_{n}}^{\frac{N}{2}\left(p-(2+\frac{4}{N})\right)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u_{n}|^{p}dx$$

$$\to -\infty\quad\mbox{as}~{}~{}t\to+\infty,$$

which is a contradiction. Hence, the sequence $\{t_{u_{n}}\}$ is bounded, which implies that there exists $t^{*}\geq 0$ such that $t_{u_{n}}\rightarrow t^{*}$. Due to $u_{n}\rightarrow u$ in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$ and $\mathcal{P}(t_{u_{n}}\star u_{n})=0,$ we get $t_{u_{n}}\star u_{n}\rightarrow t^{*}\star u$ in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$ and $\mathcal{P}(t^{*}\star u)=0.$ By Lemma 2.2, we have $t^{*}=t_{u_{n}}$ and thus (i) is proved. By the definition of $t_{u(\cdot+y)}$ and direct computations, we get (ii). ∎

3. Monotonicity of the ground state energy

In this section, we shall study the behavior of the ground state energy $m(c)$.

Lemma 3.1.

Assume that $(f_{1})-(f_{5})$ hold. Then the function $c\mapsto m(c)$ is continuous.

Proof.

For any $c>0,$ we take $\{c_{n}\}$ be such that $c_{n}\rightarrow c$ as $n\rightarrow\infty.$ For any $u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M},$ set $u_{n}=\sqrt{\frac{c_{n}}{c}}u,\ n\in\mathbb{N}^{+}.$ Clearly, $u_{n}\in S_{c_{n}}$ and $u_{n}\rightarrow u$ in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}).$ Then, by Lemma 2.4 (i), we have

$$t_{u_{n}}\to t_{u}=1,~{}~{}~{}t_{u_{n}}\star u_{n}\rightarrow t_{u}\star u=u\quad\mbox{in}\ H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}),$$

which implies that

$$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sup m(c_{n})\leq\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sup J(t_{u_{n}}\star u_{n})=J(u).$$

Since $u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$ is arbitrary, we get

$$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sup m(c_{n})\leq m(c).$$ (3.1)

In what follows, we prove

$$m(c)\leq\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\inf m(c_{n}).$$ (3.2)

There exists $v_{n}\in S_{c_{n}}\cap\mathcal{M}$ such that

$$J(v_{n})\leq m(c_{n})+\frac{1}{n}.$$ (3.3)

We claim $\{v_{n}\}$ is bounded in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}).$ If not, due to $\|v_{n}\|_{2}^{2}=c_{n}\rightarrow c,$ we deduce $\|\nabla v_{n}\|_{2}\rightarrow\infty.$ Set $w_{n}=\frac{1}{s_{n}}\star v_{n},$ where $s_{n}=\|\nabla v_{n}\|_{2}.$ Clearly,

$$s_{n}\rightarrow\infty,\quad s_{n}\star w_{n}\in\mathcal{S}_{c_{n}}\cap\mathcal{M}\quad\mbox{and}\quad\|\nabla w_{n}\|_{2}=1,$$

which imply that $\{w_{n}\}$ is bounded in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}).$ Set

$$\hat{\delta}:=\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sup\Big{(}\sup\limits_{y\in\mathbb{R}^{N}}\int_{B(y,1)}|w_{n}|^{2}dx\Big{)}.$$

We distinguish the following two cases:

Case 1. $\hat{\delta}>0$, i.e., non-vanishing occurs. Then, up to a subsequence, there exists $\{z_{n}\}\subset\mathbb{R}^{N}$ such that

$$w_{n}(\cdot+z_{n})\rightharpoonup w\neq 0\quad\mbox{in}\ H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\quad\mbox{and}\quad w_{n}(x+z_{n})\rightarrow w(x)\quad\mbox{for}\ a.e.\ x\in\mathbb{R}^{N}.$$

By $(f_{4})$ and Lemma 2.3, we have

$$0\leq s_{n}^{-2}J(v_{n})\leq\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\mu}{p}s_{n}^{\frac{N}{2}\left(p-(2+\frac{4}{N})\right)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\big{|}w_{n}(x+z_{n})\big{|}^{p}dx\rightarrow-\infty,$$

which is a contradiction.

Case 2. $\hat{\delta}=0$, i.e., $\{w_{n}\}$ is vanishing. By the Lions lemma [15], we deduce

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|w_{n}|^{p_{1}}dx\rightarrow 0.$$ (3.4)

Moreover, by $(f_{1})-(f_{2}),(f_{4}),$ (2.2), (3.3), Lemma 2.2 and $\|\nabla w_{n}\|_{2}=1,$ for any $\epsilon>0,$ there exist $p<p_{1}<2^{*},C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}>0$ such that for any $s>0,$ we have

$$m(c_{n})+\frac{1}{n} \geq \frac{1}{2}s^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla w_{n}|^{2}dx-s^{-N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(s^{\frac{N}{2}}w_{n})dx$$

$$\geq \frac{1}{2}s^{2}-s^{\frac{N}{2}(p_{1}-2)}C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|w_{n}|^{p_{1}}dx-s^{2^{*}}(\eta+\epsilon)S^{\frac{N}{2-N}}.$$

Hence, letting $n\to\infty,$ by (3.1) and (3.4), we obtain

$$m(c)\geq\frac{1}{2}s^{2}-s^{2^{*}}(\eta+\epsilon)S^{\frac{N}{2-N}},\quad\forall s\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}.$$

Taking $s=\left(2^{*}(\eta+\epsilon)\right)^{\frac{2-N}{4}}S^{\frac{N}{4}},$ we get

$$m(c)\geq\frac{1}{N}\left(2^{*}(\eta+\epsilon)\right)^{\frac{2-N}{2}}S^{\frac{N}{2}}.$$ (3.5)

However, by $(f_{4}),$ for any $u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}$,

$$m(c)\leq\max\limits_{t\geq 0}J(t\star u) \leq \max\limits_{t\geq 0}\Big{\{}\frac{t^{2}}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u|^{2}dx-\frac{\mu}{p}t^{\frac{N(p-2)}{2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u|^{p}dx\Big{\}}$$ (3.6)

$$\leq C\left(\frac{1}{\mu}\right)^{\frac{4}{N(p-2)-4}}\rightarrow 0\quad as\ \mu\rightarrow+\infty,$$

which contradicts with $(\ref{4.4}).$ Hence, $\{v_{n}\}$ is bounded in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}).$

Take $\tilde{v}_{n}:=v_{n}(\frac{\cdot}{\tau_{n}})$ with $\tau_{n}=(\frac{c}{c_{n}})^{\frac{1}{N}}.$ Clearly, $\tilde{v}_{n}\in\mathcal{S}_{c},$ $t_{\tilde{v}_{n}}\star\tilde{v}_{n}\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\{\tilde{v}_{n}\}$ is bounded in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}).$ We claim that

$$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sup t_{\tilde{v}_{n}}<+\infty.$$ (3.7)

We first show $\{\tilde{v}_{n}\}$ is non-vanishing, i.e.,

$$\tilde{\delta}:=\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sup\Big{(}\sup\limits_{y\in\mathbb{R}^{N}}\int_{B(y,1)}|\tilde{v}_{n}|^{2}dx\Big{)}>0.$$

If not, $\tilde{\delta}=0,$ then by the Lions lemma [15], $\tilde{v}_{n}\rightarrow 0$ in $L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$ for $q\in(2,2^{*}).$ Clearly,

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|v_{n}|^{p_{1}}dx=\tau^{-N}_{n}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\tilde{v}_{n}|^{p_{1}}dx\rightarrow 0.$$ (3.8)

Then, by $(f_{1})-(f_{2}),(f_{4})-(f_{5}),$ $\mathcal{P}(v_{n})=0$ and $(\ref{2.15})$, for any $\epsilon>0,$ there exist $p<p_{1}<2^{*},C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}>0$ such that

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla v_{n}|^{2}dx \leq \frac{N}{2}\left(2^{*}-2\right)\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(v_{n})dx$$ (3.9)

$$\leq 2^{*}C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|v_{n}|^{p_{1}}dx+2^{*}(\eta+\epsilon)S^{\frac{N}{2-N}}\Big{(}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla v_{n}|^{2}dx\Big{)}^{\frac{N}{N-2}}$$

$$= 2^{*}(\eta+\epsilon)S^{\frac{N}{2-N}}\Big{(}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla v_{n}|^{2}dx\Big{)}^{\frac{N}{N-2}}+o_{n}(1).$$

Since $\{v_{n}\}$ is bounded in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$, in view of Lemma 2.1, we may assume that, up to a subsequence, $\|\nabla v_{n}\|^{2}_{2}\rightarrow l>0.$ Combining with (3.9), we deduce

$$l\geq\left(2^{*}(\eta+\epsilon)\right)^{\frac{2-N}{2}}S^{\frac{N}{2}}.$$ (3.10)

By $(f_{1})-(f_{2}),(f_{4}),$ (2.2), (3.3), (3.8) and Lemma 2.2, for any $\epsilon>0,$ there exist $p<p_{1}<2^{*},C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}>0$ such that for any $t>0,$ we have

$$m(c_{n})+\frac{1}{n}$$

$$\geq\frac{t^{2}}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla v_{n}|^{2}dx-t^{\frac{N(p_{1}-2)}{2}}C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|v_{n}|^{p_{1}}dx-t^{2^{*}}(\eta+\epsilon)\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|v_{n}|^{2^{*}}dx$$

$$\geq\frac{t^{2}}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla v_{n}|^{2}dx-t^{2^{*}}(\eta+\epsilon)S^{\frac{N}{2-N}}\Big{(}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla v_{n}|^{2}dx\Big{)}^{\frac{N}{N-2}}+o_{n}(1).$$

Then, taking $t=\left(2^{*}(\eta+\epsilon)\right)^{\frac{2-N}{4}}S^{\frac{N}{4}}l^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and $n\to\infty,$ together with (3.1) and (3.10) it follows that

$$m(c)\geq\frac{1}{N}\left(2^{*}(\eta+\epsilon)\right)^{\frac{2-N}{2}}S^{\frac{N}{2}},$$

which produces a contradiction with (3.6). Hence, $\{\tilde{v}_{n}\}$ is non-vanishing, which implies that there exists a sequence $\{y_{n}\}\subset\mathbb{R}^{N}$ and $v\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$ such that, up to a subsequence, $\tilde{v}_{n}(\cdot+y_{n})\rightarrow v\neq 0$ almost everywhere in $\mathbb{R}^{N}.$

Now, we prove (3.7). By contradiction, up to a subsequence $t_{\tilde{v}_{n}}\rightarrow+\infty\ \ as\ n\rightarrow\infty.$ By Lemma 2.4 (ii), we have $t_{\tilde{v}_{n}(\cdot+y_{n})}=t_{\tilde{v}_{n}}\rightarrow+\infty.$ Using $(f_{4})$, we deduce

$$0 \leq t^{-2}_{\tilde{v}_{n}(\cdot+y_{n})}J\left(t_{\tilde{v}_{n}(\cdot+y_{n})}\star\tilde{v}_{n}(\cdot+y_{n})\right)$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\big{|}\nabla\tilde{v}_{n}(\cdot+y_{n})\big{|}^{2}dx-\frac{\mu}{p}t_{\tilde{v}_{n}}^{\frac{N}{2}\left(p-(2+\frac{4}{N})\right)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\big{|}\tilde{v}_{n}(\cdot+y_{n})\big{|}^{p}dx$$

$$\rightarrow-\infty,$$

which is a contradiction. Then (3.7) holds.

By (3.7) and the fact that $\{v_{n}\}$ is bounded in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$, it follows that $\big{\{}t_{\tilde{v}_{n}}\star v_{n}\big{\}}$ is bounded in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}).$ By $(\ref{2.9})$ and Lemma 2.2, we obtain

$$m(c)$$

$$\leq J(t_{\tilde{v}_{n}}\star v_{n})+\Big{|}J(t_{\tilde{v}_{n}}\star\tilde{v}_{n})-J(t_{\tilde{v}_{n}}\star v_{n})\Big{|}$$

$$\leq\frac{1}{2}\left|\tau^{N-2}_{n}-1\right|\cdot\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\big{|}\nabla\left(t_{\tilde{v}_{n}}\star v_{n}\right)\big{|}^{2}dx+\left|\tau^{N}_{n}-1\right|\cdot\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\big{|}F(t_{\tilde{v}_{n}}\star v_{n})\big{|}dx$$

$$\quad+m(c_{n})+\epsilon.$$

Hence, in view of $\tau_{n}\rightarrow 1$ and $\epsilon$ is arbitrary, we get $(\ref{2.8}).$ Together with $(\ref{2.7}),$ it follows that $c\mapsto m(c)$ is continuous. ∎

Lemma 3.2.

Assume that $(f_{1})-(f_{5})$ hold. Then $m(c)$ is non-increasing with respect to $c>0$.

Proof.

For any $u_{1}\in\mathcal{S}_{c_{1}},$ set $u_{2}(x)=\theta^{\frac{2-N}{4}}u_{1}\big{(}\theta^{-\frac{1}{2}}x\big{)},$ where $\theta=\frac{c_{2}}{c_{1}}>1.$ Clearly, $\|\nabla u_{2}\|^{2}_{2}=\|\nabla u_{1}\|^{2}_{2}$ and $\|u_{2}\|^{2}_{2}=c_{2}.$ For any $s\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}$, we define

$$G_{s}(\sigma):=F(s)-\sigma^{\frac{N}{2}}F(\sigma^{\frac{N-2}{4}}s),\quad\forall\sigma\geq 1.$$

Clearly, $G_{s}(1)=0.$ By $(f_{5}),$ we get

$$G^{\prime}_{s}(\sigma)=-\frac{N}{2}\sigma^{\frac{N-2}{2}}\left(F(\sigma^{\frac{2-N}{4}}s)-\frac{N-2}{2N}f(\sigma^{\frac{2-N}{4}}s)\sigma^{\frac{2-N}{4}}s\right)<0.$$

Then we deduce $G_{s}(\theta)<0,$ which implies that

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(t_{2}\star u)dx-\theta^{\frac{N}{2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F\left(\theta^{\frac{2-N}{4}}(t_{2}\star u)\right)dx<0.$$ (3.11)

Take $t_{2}>0$ such that $t_{2}\star u_{2}\in\mathcal{S}_{c_{2}}\cap\mathcal{M}.$ Then by Lemma 2.2, Lemma 2.3 and (3.11), we get

$$m(c_{2})$$

$$\leq\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\big{|}\nabla(t_{2}\star u_{1})\big{|}^{2}dx-\theta^{\frac{N}{2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F\left(\theta^{\frac{2-N}{4}}(t_{2}\star u_{1})\right)dx$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\big{|}\nabla(t_{2}\star u_{1})\big{|}^{2}dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(t_{2}\star u_{1})dx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(t_{2}\star u_{1})dx$$

$$\quad-\theta^{\frac{N}{2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F\left(\theta^{\frac{2-N}{4}}(t_{2}\star u_{1})\right)dx$$

$$\leq J(t_{2}\star u_{1}),$$

which implies that

$$m(c_{2})\leq\inf\limits_{u\in\mathcal{S}_{c_{1}}}\max\limits_{t>0}J(t\star u)=m(c_{1}).$$

∎

To show the function $c\mapsto m(c)$ is strictly decreasing, the following result is crucial.

Lemma 3.3.

Suppose that $(f_{1})-(f_{5})$ hold. Assume that there exists $u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$ such that $J(u)=m(c).$ Then $m(c)>m(c^{\prime})$ for any $c^{\prime}>c$ close enough to $c.$

Proof.

For any $s>0,$ set $\alpha(s):=J\big{(}t_{w}\star(sw)\big{)},$ where $w\in\mathcal{S}_{c^{\prime}}.$ Clearly,

$$\alpha(s)=\frac{1}{2}s^{2}t_{w}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla w|^{2}dx-t_{w}^{-N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(st_{w}^{\frac{N}{2}}w)dx.$$

Furthermore, we have

$$\frac{d}{ds}\alpha(s) = st_{w}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla w|^{2}dx-t_{w}^{-N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}f(st_{w}^{\frac{N}{2}}w)t_{w}^{\frac{N}{2}}wdx$$ (3.12)

$$= \frac{1}{s}J^{\prime}\big{(}t_{w}\star(sw)\big{)}\big{(}t_{w}\star(sw)\big{)},$$

where $J^{\prime}(u)u$ denotes the unconstrained derivative of $J$. By $t_{w}\star w\in\mathcal{M}$ and $(f_{5}),$ we get

$$J^{\prime}\left(t_{w}\star w\right)\left(t_{w}\star w\right)=\frac{N-2}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\Big{[}f\left(t_{w}\star w\right)\left(t_{w}\star w\right)-2^{*}F\left(t_{w}\star w\right)\Big{]}dx<0.$$

Then by (3.12), we deduce for a fixed $\delta_{1}>0$ small enough, $\frac{d}{ds}\alpha(s)<0,\forall s\in[1-\delta_{1},1).$ Then by the mean value theorem, we obtain

$$\alpha(1)=\alpha(s)+(1-s)\frac{d}{ds}\alpha(s)|_{s=\xi}<\alpha(s),$$

where $1-\delta_{1}\leq s<\xi<1.$ For any $c^{\prime}>c$ close enough to $c,$ set $s_{1}=\sqrt{\frac{c}{c^{\prime}}}.$ Clearly, $s_{1}\in[1-\delta_{1},1)$ and there exists $w\in\mathcal{S}_{c^{\prime}}$ such that $u=s_{1}w.$ Hence, by Lemma 2.2, we have

$$m(c^{\prime})\leq J\left(t_{w}\star w\right)=\alpha(1)<\alpha(s_{1}) = J\big{(}t_{w}\star(s_{1}w)\big{)}$$

$$= J(t_{w}\star u)\leq J(t_{u}\star u)=J(u)=m(c).$$

∎

By Lemma 3.2 and Lemma 3.3, we deduce the following result.

Lemma 3.4.

Assume that $(f_{1})-(f_{5})$ hold. If there exists $u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$ such that $J(u)=m(c),$ then $m(c)>m(c^{\prime})$ for any $c^{\prime}>c.$

4. Proof of Theorem 1.1

In this section, we shall prove Theorem 1.1. Firstly, we show the minimizer of $J(u)$ constrained on $\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$ is attained.

Lemma 4.1.

Assume that $(f_{1})-(f_{5})$ hold. Then there exists $u_{0}\in\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$ such that $J(u_{0})=m(c).$

Proof.

By Lemma 2.3 and the Ekeland variational principle, there exists a minimizing sequence $\{u_{n}\}\subset\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$ such that

$$J(u_{n})\to m(c)~{}~{}\mbox{as}~{}~{}n\to+\infty.$$ (4.1)

By similar arguments as in the proof of Lemma 3.1, we can get that $\{u_{n}\}$ is bounded in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}).$ We claim that $\{u_{n}$} is non-vanishing. We assume by contradiction that $\{u_{n}$} is vanishing. Then by the Lions lemma [15], we deduce

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u_{n}|^{p_{1}}dx\rightarrow 0.$$ (4.2)

Then, by $(f_{1})-(f_{2}),(f_{4})-(f_{5}),$ $\mathcal{P}(u_{n})=0$ and $(\ref{2.15}),$ for any $\epsilon>0,$ there exist $p<p_{1}<2^{*},$ $C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}>0$ such that

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx \leq \frac{N}{2}(2^{*}-2)\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(u_{n})dx$$ (4.3)

$$\leq 2^{*}C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u_{n}|^{p_{1}}dx+2^{*}(\eta+\epsilon)\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u_{n}|^{2^{*}}dx$$

$$\leq 2^{*}(\eta+\epsilon)S^{\frac{N}{2-N}}\Big{(}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx\Big{)}^{\frac{N}{N-2}}+o_{n}(1).$$

Since $\{u_{n}\}$ is bounded in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$, by Lemma 2.1, we may assume that, up to a subsequence, $\|\nabla u_{n}\|_{2}^{2}\to l^{*}>0$. By (4.3), we obtain $l^{*}\geq\left(2^{*}(\eta+\epsilon)\right)^{\frac{2-N}{2}}S^{\frac{N}{2}}.$ Moreover, by $(f_{1})-(f_{2}),(f_{4}),$ (4.1)-(4.2) and Lemma 2.2, for any $\epsilon>0,$ there exist $p<p_{1}<2^{*},C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}>0$ such that for any $t>0,$ we have

$$m(c)+o_{n}(1)$$

$$\geq\frac{t^{2}}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx-t^{\frac{N}{2}(p_{1}-2)}C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u_{n}|^{p_{1}}dx-t^{2^{*}}(\eta+\epsilon)\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u_{n}|^{2^{*}}dx$$

$$\geq\frac{t^{2}}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx-t^{2^{*}}(\eta+\epsilon)S^{\frac{N}{2-N}}\Big{(}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx\Big{)}^{\frac{2^{*}}{2}}.$$

Hence, taking $t=\left(2^{*}(\eta+\epsilon)\right)^{\frac{2-N}{4}}S^{\frac{N}{4}}(l^{*})^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ and $n\to+\infty$, by (4.2), we obtain $m(c)\geq\frac{1}{N}\left(2^{*}(\eta+\epsilon)\right)^{\frac{2-N}{2}}S^{\frac{N}{2}},$ which is contrary to (3.6). Therefore the claim holds. Thus there exists $u_{0}\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\setminus\{0\}$ such that up to a subsequence $u_{n}\rightharpoonup u_{0}$ in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}).$ Denote $u_{n,0}=u_{n}-u_{0}.$ By the Brezis-Lieb lemma, we have

$$\|u_{n}\|^{2}_{2}=\|u_{0}\|^{2}_{2}+\|u_{n,0}\|^{2}_{2}+o_{n}(1)$$

and

$$\|\nabla u_{n}\|^{2}_{2}=\|\nabla u_{0}\|^{2}_{2}+\|\nabla u_{n,0}\|^{2}_{2}+o_{n}(1).$$ (4.4)

For convenience, we let $F_{1}(s)=F(s)-\eta|s|^{2^{*}}$. By $(f_{1})-(f_{2})$ we deduce

$$\lim\limits_{s\to 0}\frac{F_{1}(s)}{|s|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}}=0\quad\mbox{and}\quad\lim\limits_{s\to+\infty}\frac{F_{1}(s)}{|s|^{2^{*}}}=0.$$

Denote $f_{1}=F_{1}^{\prime}.$ Clearly $f_{1}\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R})$ and

$$\lim\limits_{s\to 0}\frac{f_{1}(s)}{|s|^{1+\frac{4}{N}}}=0\quad\mbox{and}\quad\lim\limits_{s\to+\infty}\frac{f_{1}(s)}{|s|^{2^{*}-1}}=0.$$

By the Brezis-Lieb lemma again, using the boundedness of $\{u_{n}\}$ in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$, we get

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\big{(}F_{1}(u_{n})-F_{1}(u_{n,0})-F_{1}(u_{0})\big{)}dx=o_{n}(1).$$

Then, in view of

$$\|u_{n}\|^{2^{*}}_{2^{*}}=\|u_{0}\|^{2^{*}}_{2^{*}}+\|u_{n,0}\|^{2^{*}}_{2^{*}}+o_{n}(1),$$ (4.5)

it follows that

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\big{(}F(u_{n})-F(u_{n,0})-F(u_{0})\big{)}dx=o_{n}(1),$$ (4.6)

which together with (4.4) gives

$$J(u_{n})=J(u_{0})+J(u_{n,0})+o_{n}(1).$$ (4.7)

By similar arguments as (4.6), we obtain

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}H(u_{n})dx=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}H(u_{0})dx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}H(u_{n,0})dx+o_{n}(1).$$ (4.8)

Indeed, defining $H_{1}(s)=f_{1}(s)s-2F_{1}(s),\forall s\in\mathbb{R}$, we have

$$\lim\limits_{s\to 0}\frac{H_{1}(s)}{|s|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}}=0\quad\mbox{and}\quad\lim\limits_{s\to+\infty}\frac{H_{1}(s)}{|s|^{2^{*}}}=0.$$

Then

$$\lim\limits_{s\to 0}\frac{h_{1}(s)}{|s|^{1+\frac{4}{N}}}=0\quad\mbox{and}\quad\lim\limits_{s\to+\infty}\frac{h_{1}(s)}{|s|^{2^{*}-1}}=0,$$

where $h_{1}=H_{1}^{\prime}.$ Thus

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\big{(}H_{1}(u_{n})-H_{1}(u_{n,0})-H_{1}(u_{0})\big{)}dx=o_{n}(1).$$

We note that $H(s)=H_{1}(s)+\eta(2^{*}-2)|s|^{2^{*}},$ using (4.5) yields (4.8). Therefore we obtain

$$0=\mathcal{P}(u_{n})=\mathcal{P}(u_{0})+\mathcal{P}(u_{n,0})+o_{n}(1).$$ (4.9)

In what follows, we claim that $\mathcal{P}(u_{0})\leq 0.$ In fact, up to a subsequence if necessary, assuming $\alpha_{n}:=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n,0}|^{2}dx\rightarrow\alpha_{0}\geq 0$, we divide into the following two cases:

Case 1. $\alpha_{0}=0.$ By (2.2), we deduce

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u_{n,0}|^{q}dx\rightarrow 0\quad\mbox{for}\ q\in(2,2^{*}).$$ (4.10)

Furthermore, by $(f_{1})-(f_{2}),(f_{4}),$ for any $\epsilon>0,$ there exist $p<p_{1}<2^{*}$ and $C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}>0$ such that

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(u_{n,0})dx\leq\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\left(C_{\epsilon,p_{1}}|u_{n,0}|^{p_{1}}+(\eta+\epsilon)|u_{n,0}|^{2^{*}}\right)dx.$$ (4.11)

By (4.10)-(4.11) and $(f_{5}),$ we get

$$0\leq\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}H(u_{n,0})dx\leq(2^{*}-2)\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(u_{n,0})dx\rightarrow 0,$$

which implies that $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}H(u_{n,0})dx\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow+\infty.$ Together with $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n,0}|^{2}dx\rightarrow 0,$ we get $\mathcal{P}(u_{n,0})\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow+\infty.$ Hence, by (4.9), we obtain $\mathcal{P}(u_{0})=0$ and the claim holds.

Case 2. $\alpha_{0}>0.$ By contradiction, we assume that $\mathcal{P}(u_{0})>0.$ By $(f_{1})-(f_{3}),$ we have

$$f(s)s\geq\big{(}2+\frac{4}{N}\big{)}F(s),\quad s\in\mathbb{R}.$$ (4.12)

Then

$$J(u_{0})=\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{0})+\frac{N}{4}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\left(f(u_{0})u_{0}-\big{(}2+\frac{4}{N}\big{)}F(u_{0})\right)dx>0.$$ (4.13)

In view of (4.9), we get $\mathcal{P}(u_{n,0})\leq 0.$ Then by Lemma 2.2 and $(f_{3}),$ there exists $t_{u_{n,0}}\in(0,1]$ such that $\mathcal{P}(t_{u_{n,0}}\star u_{n,0})=0.$ Furthermore, we have

$$J(u_{n,0})-J(t_{u_{n,0}}\star u_{n,0})$$

$$=\frac{1-t_{u_{n,0}}^{2}}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u_{n,0}|^{2}dx+t_{u_{n,0}}^{-N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(t_{u_{n,0}}^{\frac{N}{2}}u_{n,0})dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(u_{n,0})dx$$

$$=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\Bigg{[}\frac{N\big{(}1-t_{u_{n,0}}^{2}\big{)}}{4}f(u_{n,0})u_{n,0}-\Big{(}1+\frac{N\big{(}1-t_{u_{n,0}}^{2}\big{)}}{2}\Big{)}F(u_{n,0})$$

$$\quad+t_{u_{n,0}}^{-N}F(t_{u_{n,0}}^{\frac{N}{2}}u_{n,0})\Bigg{]}dx+\frac{1-t_{u_{n,0}}^{2}}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{n,0})$$

$$=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\int_{t_{u_{n,0}}}^{1}\left[\frac{N}{2}t|u_{n,0}|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}\Bigg{(}\frac{H(u_{n,0})}{|u_{n,0}|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}}-\frac{H(t^{\frac{N}{2}}u_{n,0})}{|t^{\frac{N}{2}}u_{n,0}|^{2+\frac{4}{N}}}\Bigg{)}\right]dtdx$$

$$\quad+\frac{1-t_{u_{n,0}}^{2}}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{n,0})\geq\frac{1-t_{u_{n,0}}^{2}}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{n,0}).$$

Denote $c_{n,0}:=\|u_{n,0}\|^{2}_{2}.$ Clearly, $c_{n,0}\leq c.$ Then by (4.6), (4.8), (4.12) and Lemma 3.2, we obtain

$$m(c) =\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\left(J(u_{n})-\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{n})\right)$$

$$=\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\left(\frac{N}{4}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}H(u_{n})dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(u_{n})dx\right)$$

$$=\frac{N}{4}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\left(f(u_{0})u_{0}-\big{(}2+\frac{4}{N}\big{)}F(u_{0})\right)dx+\lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}\left(J(u_{n,0})-\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{n,0})\right)$$

$$\geq\lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}\left(J(u_{n,0})-\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{n,0})\right)$$

$$\geq\lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}\left(J(t_{u_{n,0}}\star u_{0})-\frac{t_{u_{n,0}}^{2}}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{n,0})\right)$$

$$\geq\lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}J(t_{u_{n,0}}\star u_{0})\geq\lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}m(c_{n,0})\geq m(c),$$

which implies that $\lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}\mathcal{P}(u_{n,0})=0$ and

$$\lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}J(u_{n,0})=\lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}m(c_{n,0})=m(c).$$ (4.14)

On the other hand, by (4.1) and (4.7), we have

$$m(c)=J(u_{n})+o_{n}(1)=J(u_{0})+J(u_{n,0})+o_{n}(1).$$

Therefore, by (4.13) and (4.14), it follows that

$$m(c)>m(c)-J(u_{0})=\lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}J(u_{n,0})=\lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}m(c_{n,0})=m(c),$$

which produces a contradiction and then the claim holds.

Since $\mathcal{P}(u_{0})\leq 0,$ as before, one can see that there exists $t_{0}\in(0,1]$ such that $t_{0}\star u_{0}\in\mathcal{S}_{c_{0}}\cap\mathcal{M}$ and

$$J(u_{0})-J(t_{0}\star u_{0})\geq\frac{1-t_{0}^{2}}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{0}).$$ (4.15)

Denote $c_{0}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u_{0}|^{2}dx.$ Clearly, $c_{0}\in(0,c].$ Therefore, by (4.6), (4.8), (4.12), (4.15) and Lemma 3.2, we obtain

$$m(c)$$

$$= \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(J(u_{n})-\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{n})\right)$$

$$= \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\left(\frac{N}{4}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}H(u_{n})dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}F(u_{n})dx\right)$$

$$= J(u_{0})-\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{0})+\lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}\frac{N}{4}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\Big{(}f(u_{n,0})u_{n,0}-\big{(}2+\frac{4}{N}\big{)}F(u_{n,0})\Big{)}dx$$

$$\geq J(t_{0}\star u_{0})-\frac{t_{0}^{2}}{2}\mathcal{P}(u_{0})\geq m(c_{0})\geq m(c)$$

which implies $m(c_{0})=m(c)$ and $\mathcal{P}(u_{0})=0,$ that is $t_{0}=1.$ Then we obtain $u_{0}\in\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$ and $J(u_{0})=m(c_{0}).$ Using Lemma 3.4 at $c_{0}$ and $m(c_{0})=m(c),$ we deduce $c_{0}=c$ and thus $J(u_{0})=m(c).$ ∎

Completion of the proof of Theorem 1.1..

Set $E(u):=J(t_{u}\star u),$ where $u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}$ and $t_{u}\star u\in\mathcal{M}.$ By Lemma 2.2 and Lemma 2.3, we get

$$m(c)=\inf\limits_{u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}}J(u)=\inf\limits_{u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}}\max\limits_{t>0}J(u)=\inf\limits_{u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}}J(t_{u}\star u)=\inf\limits_{u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}}E(u).$$

Using Lemma 4.1, we obtain $u_{0}\in\mathcal{S}_{c}\cap\mathcal{M}$ such that $J(u_{0})=m(c).$ Then there exists $v_{0}\in\mathcal{S}_{c}$ such that $t_{v_{0}}\star v_{0}=u_{0}$ and $E(v_{0})=J(t_{v_{0}}\star v_{0})=J(u_{0})=m(c),$ which implies $v_{0}$ is a minimizer of $E|_{\mathcal{S}_{c}}.$

We claim that for any $u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}$ and $\psi\in T_{u}\mathcal{S}_{c},$ $E\in\mathcal{C}^{1}(\mathcal{S}_{c},\mathbb{R})$ and

$$J^{\prime}(t_{u}\star u)(t_{u}\star\psi)=E^{\prime}(u)\psi.$$ (4.16)

For $|s|$ small enough, we estimate $E(u+s\psi)-E(u)$. By Lemma 2.2, for any $u\in\mathcal{S}_{c},$ there exists $t_{u}$ such that $t_{u}\star u\in\mathcal{M}$ and $J(t_{u}\star u)>J(t\star u)$ for any $t\neq t_{u}.$ Then, for any $\psi\in T_{u}\mathcal{S}_{c},$ by the mean value theorem we obtain

$$E(u+s\psi)-E(u)$$

$$=J\big{(}t_{u+s\psi}\star(u+s\psi)\big{)}-J(t_{u}\star u)$$

$$\leq J\big{(}t_{u+s\psi}\star(u+s\psi)\big{)}-J\left(t_{u+s\psi}\star u\right)$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}t_{u+s\psi}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\Big{(}2s\nabla u\cdot\nabla\psi+s^{2}|\nabla\psi|^{2}\Big{)}dx$$

$$\quad-t_{u+s\psi}^{-N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\Big{[}f\left(t_{u+s\psi}^{\frac{N}{2}}\left(u+\xi_{s}s\psi\right)\right)t_{u+s\psi}^{\frac{N}{2}}s\psi\Big{]}dx,$$

where $s\in[0,1]$ and $\xi_{s}\in(0,1).$ Similarly,

$$E(u+s\psi)-E(u)$$

$$=J\left(t_{u+s\psi}\star(u+s\psi)\right)-J(t_{u}\star u)$$

$$\geq J\big{(}t_{u}\star(u+s\psi)\big{)}-J(t_{u}\star u)$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}t_{u}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\Big{(}2s\nabla u\cdot\nabla\psi+s^{2}|\nabla\psi|^{2}\Big{)}dx-t_{u}^{-N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}f\left(t_{u}^{\frac{N}{2}}(u+\zeta_{s}s\psi)\right)t_{u}^{\frac{N}{2}}s\psi dx.$$

By Lemma 2.4 (i), we get $\lim\limits_{s\rightarrow 0}t_{u+s\psi}=t_{u}.$ Hence, we have

$$\lim\limits_{s\rightarrow 0}\frac{E(u+s\psi)-E(u)}{s}=t_{u}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\nabla u\cdot\nabla\psi dx-t_{u}^{-N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}f(t_{u}^{\frac{N}{2}}u)t_{u}^{\frac{N}{2}}\psi dx.$$

By $(f_{1}),$ the Hölder inequality and Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, it follows that the Gâteaux derivative of $E$ is bounded linear in $\psi.$ In view of Lemma 2.4 (i), it is continuous in $u.$ Therefore, by Proposition 1.3 in [22], we deduce $E:\mathcal{S}_{c}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is of class $\mathcal{C}^{1}.$ Furthermore, by direct computations,

$$E^{\prime}(u)(\psi) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\nabla(t_{u}\star u)\cdot\nabla(t_{u}\star\psi)dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}f(t_{u}\star u)(t_{u}\star\psi)dx$$

$$= J^{\prime}(t_{u}\star u)(t_{u}\star\psi).$$

Hence the claim holds.

Now, by (4.16) we deduce

$$\|dJ(u_{0})\|_{(T_{u_{0}}\mathcal{S}_{c})^{*}} =\sup\limits_{\phi\in T_{u_{0}}\mathcal{S}_{c},\|\phi\|\leq 1}\Big{|}dJ(u_{0})[\phi]\Big{|}$$

$$=\sup\limits_{\phi\in T_{u_{0}}\mathcal{S}_{c},\|\phi\|\leq 1}\Big{|}dJ(t_{v_{0}}\star v_{0})\big{[}t_{v_{0}}\star(t^{-1}_{v_{0}}\star\phi)\big{]}\Big{|}$$

$$=\sup\limits_{\phi\in T_{u_{0}}\mathcal{S}_{c},\|\phi\|\leq 1}\Big{|}dE(v_{0})\big{[}t_{v_{0}}^{-1}\star\phi\big{]}\Big{|}$$

$$\leq\|dE(v_{0})\|_{(T_{v_{0}}\mathcal{S}_{c})^{*}}\cdot\sup\limits_{\phi\in T_{u_{0}}\mathcal{S}_{c},\|\phi\|\leq 1}\|t_{v_{0}}^{-1}\star\phi\|$$

$$=\|dE(v_{0})\|_{(T_{v_{0}}\mathcal{S}_{c})^{*}}\cdot\sup\limits_{\phi\in T_{u_{0}}\mathcal{S}_{c},\|\phi\|\leq 1}\Big{(}t_{v_{0}}^{-1}\|\nabla\phi\|_{2}+\|\phi\|_{2}\Big{)}$$

$$\leq\max\left\{t_{v_{0}}^{-1},1\right\}\|dE(v_{0})\|_{(T_{v_{0}}\mathcal{S}_{c})^{*}}=0.$$

It follows that $u_{0}$ is a critical point of $J|_{\mathcal{S}_{c}}.$ Using $(f_{5})$, by standard arguments it follows that, for some $\lambda<0$, $u_{0}$ weakly solves (1.1). In view of $J(u_{0})=\inf\limits_{u\in\mathcal{S}_{c}}J(u)=m(c)$, we infer that $u_{0}$ is a normalized ground state solution of problem (1.1). This completes the proof. ∎

Received February 2024; revised March 2024; early access March 2024.