\section{Introduction}
The main goal of this work is to study the evolution problem
	associated to the following nonlinear non-local operator
	\begin{equation}\label{operador}
	\Lambda_1^s u(x)\coloneqq\inf_{\theta\in\mathbb{S}^{N-1}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}
\dfrac{{u}(x+\tau \theta)-{u}(x)}{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau.
\end{equation}
	Here $s\in(0,1)$ and $\mathbb{S}^{N-1}$ denotes the $(N-1)-$sphere.
	Notice that in the previous definition the infimum among directions $z$ of the $1-$dimensional
	fractional Laplacian is computed in the line with direction $\theta$ that passes
	trough the point $x$.
	This paper is a natural continuation of \cite{DPQR_FC} where the elliptic problem
	$\Lambda_1^s u(x)=0$ inside a convex domain with a Dirichlet exterior condition
	is studied. However, we want to highlight that in the present work we establish some relevant results also related with the elliptic problem like the regularity up to the boundary.

	The operator described in \eqref{operador} appears naturally when we extend the notion
	of convexity of a function to the non-local setting. Let us describe this
	fact with more detail.
	It is well
	known that a function $u\colon\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ is said to be
	convex in $\Omega$
	if for any two points $x,y\in\Omega$ such that the segment that goes from $x$ to $y$ is contained in $\Omega$, i.e.,
	\[
		[x,y]\coloneqq\{tx+(1-t)y\colon t\in(0,1)\}\subseteq\Omega,
	\]
	it holds that
	\[
		u(tx+(1-t)y)\le t u(x)+(1-t) u(y), \quad t\in(0,1).
	\]
	See for instance, \cite{Vel}.
	It terms of a second order partial equations, a function
	$u$ is convex if and only if
	\begin{equation}\label{eq_intro_Du}
		\lambda_1(D^2u)(x)\ge0,
	\end{equation}
	in the viscosity sense. Here $\lambda_1(D^2u)$ denotes the
	smallest eigenvalue of the Hessian, $D^2u,$ that is
	\begin{equation}\label{eq_intro_lamba1}
		\lambda_1(D^2u)(x)\coloneqq\inf
		\left\{
			\langle D^2u(x) z,z\rangle\colon z\in\mathbb{S}^{N-1}
		\right\}.
	\end{equation}
	We refer to \cite{BlancRossi,HL1,OS,Ober}, and references therein.

	In \cite{DPQR_FC}, inspired by the classical notion of convexity,
	 the authors propose the following natural extension
	of convexity for functions in the non-local setting: a function
	$u\colon \mathbb{R}^N\to \mathbb{R}$ is said $s-$convex in $\Omega$ if
	for any $x,y\in\Omega$ such that $[x,y]\subseteq\Omega$ it holds that
	\[
		u(tx+(1-t)y)\le v(tx+(1-t)y),\quad t\in(0,1),
	\]
	where now $v$ is the viscosity solution of the $1-$dimensional fractional
	Laplacian of order $s$ in the line $t \mapsto tx + (1-t)y$ for $t \in (0,1)$ with
	exterior values $u(tx+(1-t)y)$ for $t \not\in (0,1)$, that is, $v$ is the solution to
		\begin{align*}
		&\Delta_1^sv(tx+(1-t)y)
			\coloneqq \int_{\mathbb{R}}
			\dfrac{{v}(x+\tau z)-{v}(x)}{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau=0
			\quad t\in(0,1),\\
		&{v(tx+(1-t)y)}=u(tx+(1-t)y),\quad t\not \in(0,1).
	\end{align*}
	As usual, the integral is to be understood in the principal
	value sense. Finally, in \cite{DPQR_FC}, it is shown that $u$
	is $s-$convex in a bounded strictly convex $\mathcal{C}^{2}$ domain $\Omega$
	(from this point, $\Omega$ will be
		a bounded domain with $\mathcal{C}^2$-boundary such that all the principal curvatures of the surface $\partial\Omega$
		are positive everywhere) if only if
	it satisfies
	\[
		\Lambda_1^s u(x)\ge 0\text{ in } \Omega,
	\]
	in the viscosity sense where $\Lambda_1^s$ is the operator given by \eqref{operador}.

We notice that this operator \eqref{operador} also appears as part of a family of operators
	called the truncated fractional Laplacians that where studied in \cite{TBG}.
	For the local counterpart of truncated Laplacians we refer to \cite{BGI,BGI2,BGL}.
	As far as we know this is the first reference dealing with the associated evolution problem.

	\medskip

	Coming back to the main objective of the work, we will study the following problem
	\begin{equation}\label{ev_eq-1}
		\begin{cases}
			u_t(x,t) =\Lambda_1^s u(x,t) &\text{in }\Omega\times(0,\infty),\\
			u(x,t)=g(x) &\text{in }
				(\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega)\times (0,\infty),\\
			u(x,0)=u_0(x) &\text{in }{ \mathbb{R}^N},
		\end{cases}
	\end{equation}
	where $\Omega$ is a bounded and strictly convex domain,
	$g$ is a function defined in $\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega$ and $u_0$ is a fixed initial condition defined in $\Omega$.

	Since the operator \eqref{operador} is not in divergence form
	the natural framework to treat this problem is to use the theory
	of viscosity solutions (see Section \ref{sect-evolution} for more details). For this notion of solutions we refer to the celebrated work of \cite{CIL} for the classical local concept and, for instance, to \cite{RO} for a non-local counterpart. It is good to bear in mind that, in order to guarantee the attainability of the datum in the notion of the viscosity solution, we have to impose some reasonable conditions. Indeed in what follows we will assume that
{	\begin{equation}\label{hip}
			\Lambda_1^su_0(x)\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)  ,\,
			g\in \mathcal{C}({\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega})\cap
		L^\infty({\mathbb{R} ^N\setminus\Omega})
		\mbox{ and }
			u_0=g \mbox{ in }	\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega.
			\end{equation}
}

	Our first result, presented in the following theorem, says the the evolution problem is well posed.

	\begin{theorem} \label{teo-1.intro} If $\Omega$ is a bounded strictly convex domain,
	$u_0{\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}^N)}$ and $g$ verifying \eqref{hip}, then there exists a unique viscosity solution to
	\begin{equation}\label{ev_eq}
		\begin{cases}
			u_t(x,t)=\Lambda_1^s u(x,t) &\text{in }\Omega\times(0,\infty),\\
			u(x,t)=g(x) &\text{in }
				(\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega)\times(0,\infty),\\
			u(x,0)=u_0(x) &\text{in }{ \mathbb{R}^N}.
		\end{cases}
	\end{equation}
	Moreover, a comparison principle holds; that is, if $\overline{u}$ is a supersolution
	 and $\underline{u}$ is a subsolution to \eqref{ev_eq} then it holds that
	 $$\overline{u} (x,t) \geq \underline{u} (x,t),$$ for every $(x,t) \in \Omega \times (0,\infty)$.
	\end{theorem}

	Our next objective is to study the asymptotic behavior of the solution as $t\to \infty$
	in the special case $g \equiv 0$.
	When we deal with the homogeneous case, $g \equiv 0$, we can obtain an
	exponential bound for the rate of convergence to zero.
	In parabolic problems the exponential decay rate
	is associated with the first eigenvalue of the operator.
	In our case this eigenvalue problem reads as
		\begin{equation} \label{eigen.intro}
			\begin{cases}
				-\Lambda_1^s \varphi_1(x)=\mu_{1}\varphi_1
				&\text{in }\Omega,\quad\\
			 \varphi_1=0&\text{in } \mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus\Omega.
				\end{cases}
		\end{equation}
At this point we mention that this eigenvalue problem and a regularity issue associated to the operator \eqref{operador} were also studied in the recent work \cite{biri} but we include the result here because our proof is different. To prove the existence of the eigenfunctions we need a regularity result that
we consider interesting in its own right and that reads as follows,
\begin{theorem}\label{regularidad.intro} Assume $s>1/2$.
		Let $u$ be a viscosity solution
		of

        $$\begin{cases}
		-\Lambda_1^s u(x)=f(x) & \mbox{in}\quad \Omega,\\
		u(x)=g(x) & \mbox{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega.
		\end{cases}

    $$
Assume that $g$ satisfies a H\"older bound, so that there exist $M_g$ and $\gamma\in(0,2s-1)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{holder-g}
|g(x)-g(y))| \leq M_g |x-y|^{\gamma},\, x,\, y\in \mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega.
\end{equation}
Then,  there exists $C>0$ such that
 		\[
 			\|u\|_{\mathcal{C}^\gamma({\bar\Omega)}}\leq C.
 		\]
	\end{theorem}

As we commented before, thanks to this regularity result we can show the existence of a first eigenvalue
with a corresponding nontrivial
eigenfunction. Then, we obtain the following result
for the asymptotic behavior of solutions to our evolution equation (first we show exponential convergence to the steady state and, in the
special case of $g \equiv 0$ and $u_0$ compactly supported inside
$\Omega$ we obtain more precise bounds that imply that the exponential rate is given by the first eigenvalue).

\begin{theorem} \label{teo.conver.intro} Let $s>1/2$.
If $u_0$ and $g$ satisfy \eqref{hip}
		then there exist $C(u_0)>0$ and $\mu>0$ such that
		\begin{equation}\label{c_uniforme}
			 \|  u(\cdot,t)-z(\cdot) \|_{L^\infty (\overline\Omega)}
			\leq C e^{-\mu t},\quad t>0,
		\end{equation}
		where $u(x,t)$ is the unique viscosity solution of \eqref{ev_eq}
		and $z$ is the unique viscosity solution of
		\begin{equation}\label{eliptico0}
			\begin{cases}
				-\Lambda_1^s z(x)=0&\text{in }\Omega,\\
				z=g&\text{in } \mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus\Omega.\\
			\end{cases}
		\end{equation}

When $g \equiv 0$ and $u_0$ is compactly supported inside $\Omega$
we have that there exists $T$ such that
$$
C e^{-\mu_1 t} \varphi_1 (x) \leq u(x,t)  \leq 0, \qquad x \in \overline{\Omega}, \, t>T,
$$
here
$\mu = \mu_1$ is the first eigenvalue
		of our operator and $\varphi_1$ is a negative eigenfunction.

\end{theorem}

For similar results established in the local case for the evolution problem associated with
	\eqref{eq_intro_lamba1} we refer to \cite{BlancRossi}.

		 \begin{remark}
		{\rm The results obtained in the present work could be extended to other kind of operators like
		\begin{equation}\label{operador.j}
	\Lambda_j^s u(x)\coloneqq \sup_{S } \inf_{\theta\in S \cap \mathbb{S}^{N-1}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}
\dfrac{{u}(x+\tau \theta)-{u}(x)}{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau.
\end{equation}
Here $S$ is a subspace of dimension $j$ in $\mathbb{R}^{N}$.
This extension could be obtained as soon as one proves a comparison
principle for this kind of operators. }
	\end{remark}

	\medskip

	The paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{sect-regul}
	we deal with the regularity result and prove Theorem \ref{regularidad.intro};
	in Section \ref{sect-eigen} we prove the existence of the first eigenvalue (with
	a corresponding eigenfunction); finally, in Section \ref{sect-evolution}
	is devote to the study of
	the evolution problem, that is, we prove Theorem \ref{teo-1.intro} and
	Theorem \ref{teo.conver.intro}.

	\medskip

	We remark here that along the work we will denote by $C$ a positive constant that
	may change from line to line and that we use $B_R(x)$ to denote the ball of radius
	$R>0$ centered at $x\in\mathbb{R}^{N}.$

\section{Regularity, up to the boundary, for the elliptic problem} \label{sect-regul}
    We will assume that $s>\nicefrac12$ in the whole section and the main objetive will be the study of the H\"older regularity, up to the boundary, of a viscosity solution to
    \begin{equation}\label{eq:regularidad}
        \begin{cases}
		-\Lambda_1^s u(x)=f(x) & \mbox{in}\quad \Omega,\, s>\nicefrac12\\
		u(x)=g(x) & \mbox{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega,
		\end{cases}
    \end{equation}
	{where $f$ is a bounded function and $g\in\mathcal{C}^{\gamma}$ for some $0<\gamma<2s-1$. First of all, it is worth to bear in mind that the notion of viscosity solution that we will use for the elliptic problem can be found in \cite{DPQR_FC}. We start by introducing some notation. For every $x\in B_1(0)$ and $\theta\in \mathbb{S}^{N-1},$ we
    define
    \[
	  d(x)\coloneqq (1-|x|^2)_+, \quad \mu(x,\theta)\coloneqq\frac{\langle x,\theta \rangle}{|x|}\in[-1,1],
    \]
    and
    \[
         p_{x,\theta}(t)\coloneqq t^2+2\mu(x,\theta)|x|t-d(x).
    \]
    We denote by $t_0(x,\theta)$ and $t_1(x,\theta)$ the two roots of the $p_{x,\theta}(t),$ that is,
    \begin{align*}
	&t_0(x,\theta)\coloneqq-\langle x,\theta \rangle-\sqrt{d(x)+\langle x,\theta \rangle^2}< 0,\\
	&t_1(x,\theta)\coloneqq-\langle x,\theta \rangle+\sqrt{d(x)+\langle x,\theta \rangle^2}>0,
    \end{align*}
    that satisfy
    \begin{equation}\label{tt01}
        t_0(x,\theta)t_1(x,\theta) =-d(x).
    \end{equation}

    Let us define our first barrier by
    \[
	w_\gamma(x)\coloneqq d(x)^\gamma, \quad \gamma\in\mathbb{R},
    \]
    and the integral
    \[
        \mathcal{I}_{\theta} (f)(x)\coloneqq\int_{\mathbb{R}}
			\dfrac{f(x+\tau \theta)-f(x)}{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau,\quad \theta\in\mathbb{S}^{N-1}.
    \]

    Taking into account the previous notations, we can formulate our first lemma.

    \begin{lemma} \label{barrera_2}
	If $0<\gamma<2s-1$ then there exits $c_1>0$ such that
	\[
	    \mathcal{I}_{\theta} (w_\gamma)(x)\leq w_\gamma(x)  \left[
	    	-\frac{t_1(x,\theta)^{-2s} + |t_0(x,\theta)|^{-2s}}{2s}
	    -c_1\left(\frac{2\mu(x,\theta)|x|}{d(x)}\right)^{2s}\right],
	\]
	for all $ x\in B_1(0)$ and $\theta\in \mathbb{S}^{N-1}.$ In particular,
	there exists $c_2>0$ such that
	\[
	    \mathcal{I}_{\theta}(w_\gamma(x))\leq -c_2 d(x)^{\gamma-2s},\quad x\in B_1(0),\, \theta\in \mathbb{S}^{N-1}.\]
    \end{lemma}
    \begin{proof}
        Let $ x\in B_1(0)$ and $\theta\in \mathbb{S}^{N-1}.$
        To simplify the notation, let us now temporarily write  $w=w_\gamma,$
	$\mu=\mu(x,\theta),$ and $t_i=t_i(x,\theta)$ with $i=0,1.$ First of all we notice that
	\begin{equation}
            \label{naux1}
            \begin{aligned}
	        \mathcal{I}_{\theta} (w)(x)&=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\dfrac{(1-|x+\tau\theta|^2)^\gamma_+-(1-|x|^2)^\gamma}{|\tau|^{1+2s}}d\tau\\
		&=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\dfrac{(1-|x|^2-2\mu |x|\tau-\tau^2)^\gamma_+-(1-|x|^2)^\gamma}{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau\\
		&=\int_{\mathbb{R}\setminus(t_0,t_1)}\dfrac{(1-|x|^2-2\mu |x|\tau-\tau^2)^\gamma_+-(1-|x|^2)^\gamma}{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau
		+ J,
	    \end{aligned}
        \end{equation}
	where
	\[
	    J\coloneqq\int_{t_0}^{t_1}
			\dfrac{(1-|x|^2-2\mu |x|\tau-\tau^2)^\gamma-(1-|x|^2)^\gamma}{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau.
	\]
	Since by definition of $t_i$, $i=0,1$, it is clear that
	\[
	    1-|x|^2-2\mu |x|\tau-\tau^2< 0, \quad\tau\in (-\infty,t_0)\cup(t_1,\infty),
	\]
        from \eqref{naux1} we get
	\[
	    \mathcal{I}_{\theta} (w)(x)\le -\frac{w(x)}{2s}\left( t_1^{-2s}  + |t_0|^{-2s}\right)+J.
	\]
	So, to conclude, we just need to estimate $J$. For that, by symmetry, we split the rest of the proof in the two cases $\mu>0$ and $\mu=0.$

        \medskip

	\noindent {\it Case 1: $\mu>0.$} Since it is clear that
		\begin{equation}\label{Rada1}
			J\leq\int_{t_0}^{t_1}
				\dfrac{(1-|x|^2-2\mu |x|\tau)^\gamma-(1-|x|^2)^\gamma}{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau
				= w(x) \int_{t_0}^{t_1}
				\dfrac{\left(1-\tfrac{2\mu |x|}{d(x)}\tau\right)^\gamma-1}{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau,
		\end{equation}
		by making the change of variable $\upsilon=\frac{2\mu |x|}{d(x)}\tau$ we get
		\[
			J\leq w(x) \left(\frac{2\mu|x|}{d(x)}\right)^{2s}
			\int_{\upsilon_0}^{\upsilon_1}\frac{(1-\upsilon)^\gamma-1}{|\upsilon|^{1+2s}}d\upsilon=:w(x) \left(\frac{2\mu|x|}{d(x)}\right)^{2s}
J_1,
		\]
		where $\upsilon_i=\tfrac{2\mu |x|}{d(x)}, t_i=1-\tfrac{t^2_i}{d(x)}$, $i=0,1.$ Proceeding now as in \cite[Lemma B.1]{BCGJ}, by making the change of variable  $e^\rho =1-\upsilon$, only in  $\rho \in [\rho_1(x), \rho_0(x)]$ (not in all the Euclidean space as in \cite{BCGJ}) where
		$\rho_i(x)=\ln \left(\tfrac{\upsilon_i^2}{d(x)}\right)$, $i=0,1$, we obtain that
		\[
			J_1=2^{-2s}\int_{\rho_1}^{\rho_0}e^{(\gamma+1-2s)\frac{\rho}2}
				\sinh\left(\gamma \frac{\rho}2\right)|\sinh(\rho)|^{-(1+2s)}d\rho
				\begin{cases}
					<0 &\text{if } \gamma<2s-1,\\
					=0 &\text{if } \gamma=2s-1.\\
				\end{cases}
		\]
		Observe that, by \eqref{tt01}, in the previous estimate, we have used that $|\rho_0(x)|=|\rho_1(x)|$ for all $x\in B_1(0)$. Thus the conclusion follows in the case $\mu>0$.

		\medskip

		\noindent {\it Case 2: $\mu=0.$} As now $t_0=-\sqrt{d(x)},$ $t_1=\sqrt{d(x)}$, by symmetry of the integral it is follows that
		$$
		\begin{aligned}
		J&=2 w(x)\int_{0}^{\sqrt{d(x)}}\dfrac{(1-|x|^2-\tau^2)_{+}^\gamma-(1-|x|^2)^\gamma}{|\tau|^{1+2s}}d\tau\\
&=2w(x)\int_{0}^{\sqrt{d(x)}}\frac{\left(1-\frac{\tau^2}{d(x)}\right)^{\gamma}-1}{|\tau|^{1+2s}}\, d\tau\\
&=2\frac{w(x)}{d(x)^s}\int_{0}^{1}\frac{(1-z)^{\gamma}-1}{|z|^{1+s}}\, dz<-C\frac{w(x)}{d(x)^s},
\end{aligned}
$$
for some $C>0$ as wanted.
	\end{proof}

	Let us define the second barrier
		\[
			v_\gamma(x):=|x|^\gamma,  \quad \gamma\in\mathbb{R},
		\]
for which we have the next results.
	\begin{lemma}\label{barrera_1}
		For every
		$0<\gamma<2s-1$ there exists
		 $C>0$ such that
		\[
			\mathcal{I}_{\hat{x}} (v_\gamma)(x)\le -C|x|^{\gamma-2s},\,
			x\in \mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus\{0\},
		\]
		where $\hat{x}=\tfrac{x}{|x|}\in \mathbb{S}^{N-1}.$
	\end{lemma}
	\begin{proof}
		Let $x\in \mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus\{0\},$ and $\gamma\in\left(0,2s-1\right)$.
		By using the change of variable $t=\tfrac{\tau}{|x|},$ we have that
		\begin{equation}\label{b2_1}
			\begin{aligned}
				\mathcal{I}_{\hat{x}} (v_\gamma)(x)&=|x|^{\gamma-2s}
				\int_{\mathbb{R}}
				\dfrac{ |1+t|^\gamma-1}
				{|t|^{1+2s}}dt,\\

			\end{aligned}
		\end{equation}
		where the last integral is finite and negative by using, one more time, the ideas of \cite[Proof of Lemma B.1]{BCGJ}.
	\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{cota1+}
For every $0<\gamma<2s$ and $y_0\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ there exists $C > 0$ such that
$$\Lambda_N^s (|x-y_0|)^\gamma\leq C (|x-y_0|^{\gamma-2s})\ ,\,x\in\mathbb{R}^{N},$$
here $\Lambda_N^s$ is a maximal operator define as
\begin{equation}\label{operador+}
	\Lambda_N^s (v)(x)\coloneqq\sup_{\theta\in\mathbb{S}^{N-1}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}
\dfrac{{v}(x+\tau \theta)-{v}(x)}{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau.
\end{equation}

	\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Follows the same lines of the proof of \cite[Lemma 3.3]{DQT}.
      \end{proof}

	To prove our last auxiliary result we have to take into account the geometry properties of our domain. In particular we will use that, by \cite[Lemma 6.2]{BGI},
	\begin{equation}\label{geometria}
		\Omega= \bigcap\limits_{z\in \partial\Omega}B_R(z-R\nu(z)),
	\end{equation}
for some $R>0$ whose value it is related with the principal curvatures of $\partial\Omega$ and $\nu(z)$ denotes the outward normal unit vector of $\Omega$ in $z\in\partial\Omega$.
Now we can establish the following result.
	\begin{lemma} \label{cota11}
		Let $u$ be a {viscosity}  solution  of \eqref{eq:regularidad} with $g$ satisfying \eqref{hip} and \eqref{holder-g}. Then there exists $C>0$ such that
 		\[
 		u(x)-g(z)\geq -C \mbox{dist}(x,\partial\Omega)^\gamma, \quad x\in\overline{\Omega},
 		\]
with $z \in \partial \Omega$ verifying that $\mbox{dist}(x,\partial\Omega)=|x-z|$.

	\end{lemma}

	\begin{proof} Let us first consider the case $g=0$. For that let $\gamma\in(0,2s-1),$ $z\in \partial\Omega$ and $M>0$ a positive constant that will be chosen later. We define the nonpositive function
		\[
			g_{z,M}(x)\coloneqq -M\left(R^2-|x-y_z|^2\right)_{+}^\gamma,\quad\mbox{where}\quad y_z:=z-R\nu(z),\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^{N}.
		\]
		Since, by Lemma \ref{barrera_2}, we know that there exists $C>0$ such that
		\[
			-\Lambda_1^s g_{z,M}(x)\le -CM\left(R^2-|x-y_z|^2\right)^{\gamma-2s},\quad x\in B_R(y_z),
		\]
		using the fact that $\gamma-2s\le0,$ we get
		\begin{equation}\label{desp}
			-\Lambda_1^s g_{z,M}(x)\le -CMR^{2(\gamma-2s)},\quad
			x\in B_R(y_z).
		\end{equation}
		Taking now $M\ge \tfrac{\|f\|_{\infty}}{CR^{2(\gamma-2s)}},$ (independent of $z$), it is clear that
		\[
			-\Lambda_1^s g_{z,M}(x)\le -\|f\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}
			\le -\Lambda_1^s u(x), \quad
			x \in B_R(y_z).
		\]

		On the other hand, since by \eqref{geometria} $\Omega\subseteq B_R(y_z)$, we also have that $g_{z,M}(x)=0 =u(x)$ for any $x\in\mathbb{R}^N\setminus B_R(y_z)\,$. Thus the comparison principle given in \cite{DPQR_FC} allows us to affirm
		\[
			u(x)\ge g_{z,M}(x),\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^N.
		\]

		Let us now consider a fixed but arbitrary $x\in \Omega$. Taking $z\in\partial\Omega$ such that
		$|z-x|=\mbox{dist} (x, \partial\Omega)$ by using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality we conclude that
		\begin{align}
			g_{z,M}(x)&=-M\left(R^2-|x-z+R\nu(z)|^2\right)^\gamma\\
			&=-M\left(-|x-z|^2-2R(x-z)\cdot\nu(z)\right)^\gamma\\
			&=-M\left||x-z|^2+2R(x-z)\cdot\nu(z)\right|^\gamma\\
			&\ge-M\left(|x-z|^{2\gamma}+2R|x-z|^\gamma\right)\\
			&=-M|x-z|^\gamma\left(|x-z|^{\gamma}+2R\right)\\
			&\ge-M\mbox{dist} (x, \partial\Omega)^\gamma\left(\max_{y\in\Omega,\, z\in\partial\Omega}|y-z|^{\gamma}+2R\right),\label{despp}
		\end{align}
		as wanted.

		In the case $g\not=0$ we define, for every $x\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ the auxiliary function,
		$$h(x)=g(z)-M_g|x-z|^{\gamma}+\mu g_{z,M}(x), z\in\partial\Omega,$$
		where $M_g$ is the H\"older constant given in \eqref{holder-g} and $\mu>0$ is a fixed, but arbitrary, parameter that will be taken later. Applying the standard extremal inequality
		$$-\Lambda_1^sv_1\leq- \Lambda_1^sv_2+ \Lambda_N^s(v_2-v_1),$$
		for $v_1=h(x)$ and $v_2=\mu g_{z,M}(x)$, Lemma \ref{cota1+} and \eqref{desp}, we get
		$$-\Lambda_1^sh(x)\leq M_g|x-z|^{\gamma-2s}-CM\mu R^{2(\gamma-2s)},$$
		with $x\in B_{R}(y_z),\, y_z=z-R\nu(z)$. Thus by using the fact that $\gamma<2s$ by choosing $\mu$ large enough, we obtain that $-\Lambda_1^sh(x)\leq -\|f\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}$ in $B_R(y_z)$. Since, by \eqref{holder-g},  it is also true that $h(x)\leq g(x),\, x\in \mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus B_R(y_z)$ we obtain that the function $h$ is a subsolution of \eqref{eq:regularidad}. Thus, by comparison we have that $h(x)\leq g(x) $ for all $x \in  \mathbb{R}^N$.
		Doing as we did in the case $g=0$ we consider now $z$ such that $|z-x|=\mbox{dist} (x,\partial\Omega)$. So that, by using \eqref{despp} we conclude
		$$u(x)-g(z)\geq  h(x)-g(z)\geq -C\mbox{dist} (x, \partial\Omega)^\gamma.$$
		as wanted.
	\end{proof}

	We are now able to conclude this section by proving the regularity result.

	\begin{demoregularidad}

		We proceed again as in \cite{BGI}.
		Let us fix $\gamma\in(0,2s-1)$ and some points, fixed but arbitrary, $x_0,y_0\in\bar\Omega$. We have to prove that there exists $L>0$ such that
	\begin{equation}\label{puntito}
	u(x_0)\leq u(y_0)+L|x_0-y_0|^{\gamma}.
	\end{equation}
For that, on one hand we notice that, by Lemma \ref{barrera_1}, there exists $C>0$, independent of
		$y_0,$ satisfying
$$-\Lambda_1^s H_{y_0}(x) \ge CL|x-y_0|^{\gamma-2s},\, x\neq y_0,$$
where $$H_{y_0}(x):=u(y_0)+L|x-y_0|^{\gamma},\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^{N}.$$ Therefore we can choose $L>0$ in order to have
\begin{equation}\label{ppa}
-\Lambda_1^s H_{y_0}(x) \ge CL\delta^{\gamma-2s}\geq\|f\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\geq -\Lambda_1^s u(x),\quad |x-y_0|<\delta,\, x\in\Omega,
\end{equation}
for a fixed but arbitrary $0<\delta<1$. Let us now prove that
\begin{equation}\label{ppa2}
u(x)\leq H_{y_0}(x)\quad\mbox{ in $\mathbb{R}^N\setminus (B_{\delta}(y_0)\cap\Omega)$.}
\end{equation}
Indeed if $x\in \Omega\cap (\mathbb{R}^N\setminus B_{\delta}(y_0))$ we can pick $L>0$ large enough such that \eqref{ppa2} is satisfied by using the fact that $u$ is a bounded function and $\gamma>0$. Moreover when $x\in\mathbb{R}^N\setminus \Omega$ applying Lemma \ref{cota11} we know that there exists $C>0$, independent of $y_0$, such that
$$u(x)-u(y_0)=-u(y_0)\leq C\mbox{dist}(y_0,\partial\Omega)^{\gamma}\leq C|x-y_0|^{\gamma}\leq L|x-y_0|^{\gamma},$$
by choosing $L\geq C$. Therefore, from \eqref{ppa} and \eqref{ppa2}, applying one more time the comparison principle given in \cite{DPQR_FC} we conclude that
$$u(x)\leq H_{y_0}(x),\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^{N},$$
that implies \eqref{puntito} by taking $x=x_0\in\bar{\Omega}.$

For the general case $g\not =0$ we borrow some ideas of \cite{DQT}. For that we take $y_0\in\overline{\Omega}$, and {a small parameter $\nicefrac12>{\delta}$.} For some $L>0$, fixed but arbitrary, we define the function
$$\Phi (x):= u(x)-u(y_0)-L|x-y_0|^\gamma.$$
We claim that, for $L$ large enough, just in terms of the data and ${\delta}$, but not on $y_0$, $\Phi$ is nonpositive in $\mathbb{R}^{N}$. We notice that, from this, we get that
$$u(x)-u(y_0)\leq L|x-y_0|^\gamma \quad \mbox{for all}\quad \mathbb{R}^{N},$$
so, since $L$ does not depend on $y_0$, interchanging the role of $y_0$ and $x$ we conclude the $\gamma$-H\"older regularity of $u$ as wanted.
Suppose by contradiction that the previous claim is false, that is
\begin{equation}\label{vv}
\sup_{\mathbb{R}^{N}} \Phi> 0.
\end{equation}
With an initial choice
{$L \geq 2\nicefrac{\|u\|_\infty}{{\delta}^\gamma}$
it is follows that the supremum, that has to be positive, is achieved at some point $\bar x\neq y_0$, $\bar x\in B_{{\delta}}(y_0)$. Let us now prove that this would be impossible by the fact that $\bar x$ cannot belong to $\Omega$ nor to $\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega$. Indeed, if $\bar x\in\Omega$} we consider $\phi(x)\coloneqq H_{y_0}(x) \coloneqq u(y_0){+}L|x-y_0|^\gamma$ as a test function  (regarded as a subsolution to the problem) at the maximum point $\bar x$
to obtain
$$-\Lambda_1^s H_{y_0}(\bar x) \le f,$$
{that contradicts \eqref{ppa} by taking $L>0$ large enough.
Let us now conclude by proving that $\bar x \in  (\mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus \Omega)$ is not possible too}. In fact, {if $\mbox{dist} (y_0,\partial\Omega):=|y_0-z|,\, z\in\partial\Omega$}, since by Lemma \ref{cota11}, we have
\[
u(\bar x)-u(y_0)\leq u(\bar x)-g(z)+g(z)-u(y_0) \leq g(\bar x)-g(z)+C \mbox{dist}({y_0},\partial\Omega)^\gamma,\, \bar x \in  (\mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus \Omega),
 \]
by the H\"older condition for $g$ we get
\begin{equation}\label{desppp}
u(\bar x)-u(y_0)\leq M_g |  \bar x-z |^\gamma+C |y_0-z|^\gamma \leq  \tilde C |\bar x -y_0|^\gamma.
\end{equation}
We notice that to obtain the last inequality we have used the simple fact that $|y_0-z| \leq |y_0-\bar x|$ and, therefore, $|\bar x -z|\leq 2 |\bar x -y_0|$.	We conclude by noticing that \eqref{desppp} is also not possible by taking $L \geq \tilde C$ since this implies $\Phi(\bar x)\leq 0$ against the hypothesis \eqref{vv}. So that the regularity follows.

	\end{demoregularidad}

\section{Eigenvalue problem} \label{sect-eigen}

	Before starting the study of the eigenvalue problem, we need to establish a maximum principle given in the next	lemma.
	\begin{lemma}[Strong Maximum Principle] \label{SMP}
		Let $u$ be a non-positive  viscosity solution of
		$$
		 \begin{cases}
		-\Lambda_1^s u(x)\leq 0 & \mbox{in}\quad \Omega,\\
		u(x)=0 & \mbox{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega.
		\end{cases}
$$ Then $u =0$ or $u<0$.
	\end{lemma}
	\begin{proof}
		Let us suppose by contradiction that there exits $x_0 \in \Omega$
		such that $u(x_0)=0$ and $u<0$ in $B_r(x_1)\subset \Omega$ for some $r>0$, $x_1\in\Omega$.
 		We take now a non-positive function $\varphi \in \mathcal{C}^\infty(\bar\Omega)$  above $u$
 		(that is, $u \leq \varphi\leq 0$) such that
 		$$spt (\varphi) \subset  B_r(x_1)\quad\mbox{ and }\quad  \varphi(x)<0,\quad x\in B_{\frac{r}2}(x_1).$$
		Thus, if we define $$\theta:=\frac{x_1-x_0}{|x_1-x_0|}\in\mathbb{S}^{N-1}$$ and we chose $\delta>0$ small enough such that
 		$B_\delta(x_0)\subset \Omega$, we get
 		\[
 			\int_{-\delta}^{\delta}\frac{-{\varphi }(x_0+\tau \theta)}
			{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau+ \int_{\mathbb{R}\setminus(-\delta,\delta)}
			\frac{-{u }(x_0+\tau \theta)}{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau>0.
		\]
  		Since $\varphi(x_0)=0$ the previous inequality implies
  		\begin{equation}\label{simpli}
  			\sup_{z\in\mathbb{S}^{N-1}}\int_{-\delta}^{\delta}\frac{\varphi(x_0)-{\varphi} (x_0+\tau z)}
			{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau+ \int_{\mathbb{R}\setminus(-\delta,\delta)}
			\frac{\varphi(x_0)-{u }(x_0+\tau z)}{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau
			>0.
		\end{equation}
		By using the fact that $x_0$ is a local maximum for
		$u-\varphi$ and $-\Lambda_1^s u\leq 0$ in the viscosity sense, we also get
		$$
			-\inf_{z\in\mathbb{S}^{N-1}}\int_{-\delta}^{\delta}\frac{-\varphi(x_0)+{\varphi} (x_0+\tau z)}
			{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau+ \int_{(-\delta,\delta)^c}
			\frac{-\varphi(x_0)+{u }(x_0+\tau z)}{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau
			\leq 0,
		$$
		that is in contradiction with \eqref{simpli}.
	\end{proof}

	We can now show the main result of this section.
	\begin{theorem} \label{autof}
	    Assume $s>\nicefrac12.$
		There exist $0>\varphi_1\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$
			and $\mu_1>0$ solving the Dirichlet problem
		$$
			\begin{cases}
				-\Lambda_1^s \varphi_1(x)=\mu_{1}\varphi_1
				&\text{in }\Omega,\quad\\
			 \varphi_1=0&\text{in } \mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus\Omega,\\
				\end{cases}
		$$
		in the viscosity sense.
	\end{theorem}

	\begin{proof}
		The idea is to apply the above Krein-Rutman Theorem in the real Banach of continuous functions
		$X\coloneqq \mathcal{C}(\overline\Omega)$, with  the uniform norm.
		The cone will be the set of nonpositive continuous functions
		$K\coloneqq\mathcal{C}_{-}(\overline\Omega)$.
		Notice that this produce a ``reverse inequality" since the standard is the nonnegative cone.
		In fact, given $x,y \in X$  $ x\preceq y \iff y-x \in \mathcal{C}_{-}(\overline\Omega)$
		so  $y\leq x$ in $\overline\Omega$. For the  definition of
		$\mathcal T$ we proceded to invert the operator $-\Lambda_1^s$.
		For every $v\in\mathcal{C}(\overline{\Omega})$ we know that
		there exists an unique viscosity solution $u\in\mathcal{C}(\overline{\Omega})$ of the problem
		$$
			\begin{cases}
			-\Lambda_1^s u=v &\text{in }\Omega,\quad\\
			u=0&\text{in } \mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus\Omega,\\
				\end{cases}
		$$
		{(see \cite[Theorem 1.1]{DPQR_FC})} then the operator
		$\mathcal T\colon\mathcal{C}(\overline\Omega)\to
		\mathcal{C}(\overline\Omega)$ given by
		$\mathcal{T}(v)\coloneqq u$, is well defined.
		Moreover, the operator $-\Lambda_1^s$ satisfies comparison principle
		{(see \cite[Theorem 2.2]{DPQR_FC})}
		thus $\mathcal{T}$ is increasing and also positively $1-$homogeneous.
		With  the same arguments as in  \cite[Lemma 4.5]{CS}  (see also \cite[Corollary 4.7]{CS})
		$\mathcal{T}$ continuos with the uniforme norm.

		Moreover using the trivial function as a super solution and comparison we get that if
			$v\in \mathcal{C}_{-}(\overline\Omega)$ then  $T(u_0)\in \mathcal{C}_{-}(\overline\Omega)$.
	So
	$$
		\mathcal T:\mathcal{C}_{-}(\overline\Omega)
		\to \mathcal{C}_{-}(\overline\Omega),
	$$
	is weel define.

	 Now by Theorem \ref{regularidad.intro} we also know that if $v_n$ is a uniforme bound sequence then
	$$
		\|\mathcal T(v_n)\|_{\mathcal{C}^{\beta}
		(\overline\Omega)}\leq C,
	$$
	for some $C>0$ (independent of  $n$) and
	for some $\beta\in (0,1)$, thus we get that the operator is
	compact using Arzela-Ascoli Theorem.

	If we take $v_0 \in K$ non trivial with compact support in $\Omega$ then $\mathcal T(v_0)<0$
	by the strong maximum principle so there exists  $M$ large such
	that  $M\mathcal  T(v_0)\leq v_0$. therefore we have check all the requirements to apply the Krein-Rutman
	Theorem that allows us to conclude the existence of
	$\varphi_1\in\mathcal{C}_{-}(\overline\Omega)$,
	$\varphi_1\neq 0$ and $\mu_1>0$ such
	that $\mathcal T(\varphi_1)=\mu_1\varphi_1$.
	This implies the existence of an eigenvalue for
	$-\Lambda_1^s$ associated to a negative eigenfunction
	$\varphi_1$ as we wanted to show. Finally, notice that $\varphi_1<0$ by the strong maximum principle given in Lemma \ref{SMP}.
	\end{proof}

	\begin{remark}
		{\rm It is important to bear in mind that, as occurs in the local case, the simplicity of the eigenvalue found in the previous results is nowadays an open problem. }
	\end{remark}
\section{Evolution problem} \label{sect-evolution}
	This section is devoted to study the evolution problem given in
	\eqref{ev_eq} under some conditions on the datum. We start by introducing the notion
	of viscosity solution we will work with.

	\medskip

	Let $T>0.$ A bounded upper (resp. lower) semicontinuous function
	$u\colon\mathbb{R}^N\times[0,T]\to\mathbb{R}^N$
	is said to be a viscosity subsolution  (resp. supersolution) of
	\begin{equation}\label{ev_eq_T}
		\begin{cases}
			u_t (x,t) =\Lambda_1^s u(x,t) &\text{in }\Omega\times(0,T),\\
			u(x,t)=g(x) &\text{in }
				(\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega)\times(0,T),\\
			u(x,0)=u_0(x) &\text{in }\mathbb{R}^N,
		\end{cases}
	\end{equation}
	if
	\begin{itemize}
		\item $u(x,t)\leq g(x)$ in $(\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega)\times(0,T);$
		\item $u(x,0)\leq u_0(x)$ in $\mathbb{R}^N;$
		\item For every smooth function
			$\varphi\colon\mathbb{R}^N\times[0,\infty)\to \mathbb{R}$
			in every maximum (resp. minimum) point of $(x_0,t_0)\in\Omega\times (0,T)$ of
			$u-\varphi$ in $B_\delta(x_0)\times (t_0-\delta,t_0+\delta)
			\subseteq \Omega\times (0,T)$ for some $\delta>0$ we have that
			\[
				\bar{u}_t(x_0,t_0)-\Lambda_1^su(x_0,t_0)\le0\, (resp. \ge0)
			\]
			where
			\[
				\bar{u}(x,t)=
				\begin{cases}
					\varphi(x,t) &\text{ if } x\in
						B_\delta(x_0)\times (t_0-\delta,t_0+\delta),\\
					u(x,t) &\text{ if } x\not\in
						B_\delta(x_0)\times (t_0-\delta,t_0+\delta),
				\end{cases}
			\]
	\end{itemize}

	A bounded function $u\colon \mathbb{R}^N\times[0,T]\to\mathbb{R}^N$ is a
	viscosity solution of \eqref{ev_eq_T} if it is both subsolution and supersolution.

	\medskip

	Then, a bounded upper (resp. lower) semicontinuous function
	$u\colon\mathbb{R}^N\times[0,\infty) \to\mathbb{R}^N$
	is said to be a viscosity subsolution  (resp. supersolution) of \eqref{ev_eq} if
	$u$ is  a viscosity subsolution  (resp. supersolution) of \eqref{ev_eq_T} for any
	$T>0.$ Consequently, a continuous function
	$u\colon \mathbb{R}^N\times[0,\infty)\to\mathbb{R}^N$ is a
	viscosity solution of \eqref{ev_eq} if it is both subsolution and
	supersolution.

	\medskip

	Our next aim is to show that, under reasonable hypothesis, there exists a unique viscosity solution of
	\eqref{ev_eq}, that is, to obtain the proof of Theorem \ref{teo-1.intro}. The proof is obtained as usual: first, we show a comparison
	principle and then we conclude by the Perron's method using adequate sub and supersolutions.

	\begin{theorem} \label{comparacion}
		Let $T>0$, $u$ and $v$ be  viscosity subsolution and supersolution of
		\eqref{ev_eq_T} respectively. If
		$u_0$ and $g$ satisfy \eqref{hip} then
		$u\le v$ on $\Omega\times [0,T]$.
	\end{theorem}

	\begin{proof}
 		Following the  ideas given in \cite{CIL},
 		we {\it double variables} defining the function
 		$$
 			\widetilde{u}(x,t)\coloneqq u(x,t)-
 			\tfrac{\varepsilon}{T-t},\quad\varepsilon>0,
 		$$
  		that satisfies, in the viscosity sense,
  		$$
  			\begin{cases}
			\widetilde {u}_t(x,t)-\Lambda_1^s \widetilde{u}(x,t)\leq-
			\tfrac{\varepsilon}{(T-t)^2}<0 &\text{in }\Omega\times(0,T),\\
			\widetilde{u}\to -\infty, &\text{when }
				t\to T^{-}.\\
				\end{cases}
		$$
		It is clear that, if we prove
		$\widetilde{u}(x,t)\leq v(x,t)$ for $x\in\Omega$ and $t\in (0,T)$
		then the conclusion follows by taking $\varepsilon\to 0$.
		Therefore let us assume that
  		$$
  		 	\begin{cases}
				u_t(x,t)-\Lambda_1^s u(x,t)<0 &\text{in }\Omega\times(0,T),\\
				u\to -\infty, &\text{when }
					t\to T^{-},\\
			\end{cases}
		$$
 		and we suppose, by contradiction, that
 		$$
 			\sup_{x\in\overline{\Omega},\, t\in [0,T)}{u(x,t)-v(x,t)}
 			\coloneqq\eta>0.
 		$$

 		Since $u$ and $-v$ are bounded from above,
 		$\overline\Omega$ is compact and $u\to -\infty$ as $t\to T^{-}$ then,
 		for some $\alpha$ big enough that will be chosen later, there exists
 		$(x_{\alpha}, y_{\alpha}, t_{\alpha}, r_{\alpha})$ the maximum point of
 		$$
 			G_{\alpha}(x,y,t,r)\coloneqq u(x,t)-v(y,r)-
 			\alpha(|x-y|^{2}+|t-r|^2),\, (t,r)\in [0,T)^2,
 			 (x,y)\in \overline{\Omega}\times \overline{\Omega}.
 		$$
 		If we denote
 		$$
 			M_{\alpha}\coloneqq
 			G_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha}, y_{\alpha}, t_{\alpha}, r_{\alpha})(\geq \eta>0),
 		$$
 		it is clear that
 		$M_{\alpha}\searrow \widetilde{M}$ as $\alpha\to\infty,$
 		for some $\widetilde{M}\geq\eta>0$.
 		Moreover, since
 		$$
 			M_{\frac{\alpha}{2}}
 			\geq G_{\frac{\alpha}{2}}(x_{\alpha}, y_{\alpha}, t_{\alpha},
 			r_{\alpha})
 			=M_{\alpha}+\frac{\alpha}{2}(|x_{\alpha}-y_{\alpha}|^{2}
 			+|t_{\alpha}-r_{\alpha}|^2),
 		$$
		it follows that
		$$
			\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\alpha |x_{\alpha}-y_{\alpha}|^{2}
			=\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}
			\alpha |t_{\alpha}-r_{\alpha}|^{2}= 0.
		$$
		We notice that the previos limits also implies that, if, by subsequence,
		\[
			\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}(x_\alpha,y_\alpha)\coloneqq
			(\widetilde x, \widetilde y)
			\in \overline{\Omega}\times \overline{\Omega},\text{ and }
			\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}(t_\alpha,r_\alpha)=(\widetilde t, \widetilde r)
			\in [0,T)\times [0,T),
		\]
		then $\widetilde x=\widetilde y$ and $\widetilde t=\widetilde r.$
		We also observe that, since
		$$
			0<\eta\leq\widetilde{M}=\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}
			G_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha},
			y_{\alpha}, t_{\alpha}, r_{\alpha})
			\leq u(\widetilde x, \widetilde t)-v(\widetilde x,
			\widetilde t)\leq \eta,
		$$
		clearly
		\begin{equation}\label{mg}
		\eta=u(\widetilde x, \widetilde t)-v(\widetilde x, \widetilde t).
		\end{equation}
		By using the facts that $u(\cdot,t)\leq v(\cdot, t)$ in $\partial\Omega$
		and $u(x,0)=v(x,0),$ \eqref{mg} implies that
		$\widetilde x=\widetilde y\notin \partial\Omega$ and
		$\widetilde t=\widetilde r\neq 0$. Therefore, we can define
		\begin{equation}\label{interior}
			d_{\alpha}
			\coloneqq\min\{d(x_\alpha,\partial\Omega),\,
			d(y_\alpha,\partial\Omega)\}>0,\mbox{ and }\delta_{\alpha}
			\coloneqq\min  \{t_{\alpha},\, r_{\alpha}\}>0.
		\end{equation}

		Without loss of generality, we can also assume that
		\begin{equation}\label{tecnico}
			\frac{d(\widetilde{x},\partial\Omega)}2<d_\alpha\text{ and }
				0<t_{\alpha}\leq r_{\alpha}.
		\end{equation}

		We define now the regular function
		$$
			\psi_{\alpha}(z,t)\coloneqq v(y_{\alpha}, r_{\alpha})
			+\alpha(|t-r_{\alpha}|^2+|z-y_{\alpha}|^2),
		$$
		that clearly satisfies
		\begin{equation}\label{entiempo}
			\partial_{t}\psi_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha}, t_{\alpha})=2\alpha(t_\alpha-r_\alpha).
		\end{equation}
		Moreover $\psi_{\alpha}(z,t)$ touches $u$ from above in $(x_\alpha,t_{\alpha})$.
		Indeed, by \eqref{interior}, if we consider $w\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ and $\delta>0$
		such that $x_{\alpha}+w\in \Omega$ and $t_{\alpha}+\delta\in [0,T)$ since 			\[
			G_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha}, y_{\alpha}, t_{\alpha}, r_{\alpha})\geq
			G_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha}+w, y_{\alpha}, t_{\alpha}+\delta, r_{\alpha}),
		\]
		 by \eqref{tecnico} we get that
		$$
			u(x_\alpha,t_{\alpha})-\alpha|x_{\alpha}-y_{\alpha}|^2
			-u(x_{\alpha}+w,t_{\alpha}+\delta)+\alpha|x_{\alpha}+w-y_{\alpha}|
			\geq -\alpha\delta^2.
		$$
		Thus
		$$
			u(x_{\alpha},t_{\alpha})-\psi_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha},t_{\alpha})
			\geq u(x_{\alpha}+w,t_{\alpha}+\delta)-\psi_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha}
			+w,t_{\alpha}+\delta),
		$$
		as wanted. Therefore, since $u$ is a subsolution,
		by \eqref{entiempo} it follows that
		\begin{equation}\label{uno}
				0\geq
				2\alpha(t_\alpha-r_\alpha)-\Lambda_1\psi_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha},t_{\alpha})
				=-\inf\{E_{z,\delta}(u,\psi_\alpha,x_\alpha,t_\alpha)\colon
				z\in\mathbb{S}^{N-1}\}.
		\end{equation}
		for any $\delta<d_\alpha.$ Here
		$$
		\begin{array}{l}
			\displaystyle E_{z,\delta}(w,\phi,x,t)\coloneqq
			I^1_{z,\delta}(\phi,x,t)+
			I^2_{z,\delta}(w,x,t)+I^3_{z}(w,x,t)-2\alpha(t_\alpha-r_\alpha),\\[7pt]
			\displaystyle I^1_{z,\delta}(\phi,x,t)\coloneqq\int_{-\delta}^\delta
			\frac{\phi(x+\tau z,t)-\phi(x,t) }{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau,\\[7pt]
			\displaystyle I^2_{z,\delta}(w,x,t)\coloneqq\int_{A_\delta^{z}(x)}
			\hspace{-.6cm}\frac{w(x+\tau z,t)-w(x,t) }{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau
			\\[7pt] \qquad \text{ where }
			A_\delta^{z}(x)\coloneqq \{t\in \mathbb{R}
			\setminus(-\delta,\delta)\colon x+tz\in\Omega\},\\[7pt]
			\displaystyle I^3_{z}(w,x,t)\coloneqq\int_{B^{z}(x)}
			\hspace{-.6cm}
			\frac{g(x+\tau z,t)-w(x,t) }{|\tau|^{1+2s}} d\tau \\[7pt]
			\qquad \text{ where }
			B^{z}(x)\coloneqq \{t\in \mathbb{R}\colon x+tz\not\in\Omega\},
		\end{array}
		$$
		for $w$ and $\phi$ regular functions and $(x,t)\in\mathbb{R}^N\times(0,T).$
		Defining now
		$$
			\varphi_{\alpha}(z,t)\coloneqq
			u(x_{\alpha}, t_{\alpha})-\alpha(|t-t_{\alpha}|^2+|z-x_{\alpha}|^2),
		$$
		reasoning in a similar way, we also get that $\varphi_{\alpha}(z,t)$ touches
		$v$ from below in $(y_\alpha,r_{\alpha})$.
		Therefore, since it is also true that
		$\partial_t\varphi_{\alpha}(y_{\alpha},r_{\alpha})
		=-2\alpha(r_\alpha-t_\alpha)$,
		using now the fact that $v$ is supersolution, we obtain
		\begin{equation}\label{dos}
			0 \leq 2(t_\alpha-r_\alpha)-\Lambda_1\varphi_{\alpha}(y_{\alpha},r_{\alpha})
			=-\inf\{E_{z,\delta}(v,\varphi_\alpha,y_\alpha,r_\alpha)\colon
				z\in\mathbb{S}^{N-1}\}.
		\end{equation}
		for any $\delta<d_{\alpha}.$

		Therefore, by \eqref{uno} and \eqref{dos}, for each $h>0$
		there exists $z_{\alpha,h}\in \mathbb{S}^{N-1} $
		such that
		\begin{equation}\label{EE}
			E_{(z_{\alpha,h}),\delta}(u,\psi_\alpha,x_\alpha,t_\alpha)\geq 0,
			\quad \mbox{and}
			\quad
			E_{(z_{\alpha,h}),\delta}
			(v,\varphi_\alpha,y_\alpha,r_\alpha)
			\leq h,
		\end{equation}
		for any $\delta\in(0,d_\alpha),$ so
		%
		\begin{equation}\label{eq:estiinf}
			-h \le E_{(z_{\alpha,h}),\delta}(u,\psi_\alpha,x_\alpha,t_\alpha)-
			E_{(z_{\alpha,h}),\delta}
			(v,\varphi_\alpha,y_\alpha,r_\alpha)
		\end{equation}
		for $0<\delta<\tfrac{d(\widetilde{x},\partial \Omega )}2.$
		We will get a contradiction from the previous estimate by finding an
		upper bound and passing to the limit in a delicate way.
		For that, let us first assume
		\[
		    z_{\alpha,h} \to z_0,\quad\text{when } \alpha\to \infty, \text{ and } h \to 0,
		\]
		by a subsequence
		if necessary. Let us now observe that there is a positive constant $C$ independent of $\delta,$
		$\alpha$ and $h$, such that
        \begin{equation}\label{eq:nueva1}
                  	\max
			\left\{
				|I^1_{(z_{\alpha,h}),\delta}(\psi_{\alpha},x_\alpha,t_\alpha)|,
				|I^1_{(z_{\alpha,h}),\delta}(\varphi_{\alpha},y_\alpha,r_\alpha)|,
			\right\}
			\le C\alpha\delta^{2-2s}.
         \end{equation}
		Let us now denote by $L_z(x)$ the line that passes trough $x$ with direction $z$, that is
		\[
			L_z (x) \coloneqq x+\tau z,\qquad \tau \in \mathbb{R}.
		\]
		To continue our argument it will be crucial to bear in mind that
		$z_{\alpha,h} \to z_0$ when $\alpha\to \infty,$ and  $h \to 0,$ and the fact that
		$\Omega$ is a strictly convex domain. Indeed this allows us to affirm
		\[
			\mathbf{1}_{L_{z_{\alpha,h}}(y_\alpha)\cap \Omega},
			\mathbf{1}_{L_{z_{\alpha,h}}
			(x_\alpha)\cap \Omega} \to
			\mathbf{1}_{L_{z_0}(\widetilde{x})
			\cap \Omega}\quad \mbox{ a.e.,}
		\]
		and
		\[
			\mathbf{1}_{L_{z_{\alpha,h}}(x_\alpha) \cap (\mathbb{R}^N \setminus \Omega)},
			\mathbf{1}_{L_{z_{\alpha,h}}(y_\alpha)\cap (\mathbb{R}^N \setminus \Omega)}
			\to \mathbf{1}_{L_{z_0}(\widetilde{x})\cap (\mathbb{R}^N \setminus \Omega)} \quad\mbox{ a.e.},
		\]
		when $\alpha\to \infty, \text{ and } h \to 0.$ Thus since $(x_{\alpha}, y_{\alpha}, t_{\alpha}, r_{\alpha})$ is the maximum point of
 		$G_{\alpha}(x,y,t,r)$ and $u,v$ are bounded continuous functions, by using the previous two limits and the dominated convergence theorem, it follows that
            \begin{equation}\label{eq:nueva2}
                \limsup_{\alpha\to\infty\atop\delta,h\to0}
			I^2_{(z_{\alpha,h}),\delta}(u,x_\alpha,t_\alpha)
			-I^2_{(z_{\alpha,h}),\delta}(v,y_\alpha,r_\alpha)\le 0,
            \end{equation}
		and
		\begin{equation}\label{eq:nueva3}
                  \lim_{\alpha\to\infty\atop h\to0}
			I^3_{z_{\alpha,h}}(u,x_\alpha,t_\alpha)
			-I^3_{z_{\alpha,h}}(v,y_\alpha,r_\alpha)
			=-\widetilde{M} \int_{L_{z_0}(\bar x)\cap (\mathbb{R}^N \setminus \Omega)}
			\frac{d\tau}{|\tau|^{1+2s}}.
                \end{equation}

		Therefore,
		from \eqref{eq:nueva1}, \eqref{eq:nueva2}, and \eqref{eq:nueva3}, letting first
		$\delta \to 0$, then $\alpha \to \infty $,
		and $h \to 0,$ we get
		\begin{equation
			\begin{aligned}
				\limsup\limits_{\alpha\to\infty,\atop \delta,h\to 0}
				E_{(z_{\alpha,h}),\delta}(u, \phi_\alpha, x_\alpha,t_\alpha)&-
				E_{(z_{\alpha,h}),\delta}
				(v, \varphi_{\alpha}, y_\alpha,r_\alpha)	\\
				&\le \displaystyle
						-\widetilde{M} \int_{L_{z_0}(\bar x)\cap (\mathbb{R}^N \setminus \Omega)}
						\frac{d\tau}{|\tau|^{1+2s}}.
			\end{aligned}
		\end{equation}
		Thus by \eqref{eq:estiinf}, we conclude
		\[
			0\le -\widetilde{M}
			\int_{L_{z_0}(\bar x)
			\cap (\mathbb{R}^N \setminus \Omega)} \frac{dt}{|t|^{1+2s}}<0,
		\]
		which implies the desirable contradiction.
	\end{proof}

	With the previous result the classical Perron's method can be used so we obtain the next result. Since we assumed that \eqref{hip} holds, by the results obtained in \cite{DPQR_FC}, we know that there exists a unique function $
	 \overline{w}\in\mathcal{C}(\overline\Omega)$ that satisfies,
	\[
		\begin{cases}
			\Lambda_1^s \overline{w}(x)=-\|\Lambda_1^su_0\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} &\text{in }\Omega,\\
			\overline{w}(x)=g(x) &\text{in }
				\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega,
		\end{cases}
	\]
	in the viscosity sense, with $\overline{w}|_{\partial\Omega}=g|_{\partial\Omega}.$
	Since by the comparison principle proved in \cite[Theorem 2.2]{DPQR_FC} it is clear that
	$\overline{w}\geq u_0$ in $\mathbb{R}^{N}$ we get that $\overline{u}(x,t)\coloneqq\overline{w}(x)$
	is a viscosity supersolution of \eqref{ev_eq} where the datum is attained in
	a classical continuous way. Reasoning similarly we also get that
	$\underline u(x,t)\coloneqq\underline{w}(x)$ with
	$$
		\begin{cases}
			\Lambda_1^s \underline{w}(x)=\|\Lambda_1^su_0\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} &\text{in }\Omega,\\
			\underline{w}(x)=g(x) &\text{in }
				\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega,\\
		\end{cases}
	$$
	is a subsolution of \eqref{ev_eq} where the datum is also attained in a classical continuous way. That is
	by assuming \eqref{hip} we obtain a well orderer viscosity sub and supersolution continuous up to $
	\overline{\Omega}$, of problem \eqref{ev_eq}.
	Then, Perron's method gives us the existence of a viscosity solution to \eqref{ev_eq}. Since the uniqueness follows from the comparison principle, Theorem \ref{teo-1.intro} is proved.

	\bigskip

	Once we have proven the existence and uniqueness of viscosity solutions of the parabolic problem, by using
	the existence of the first eigenvalue and eigenfunction of $-\Lambda_1^s$ (see Theorem \ref{autof}) and
	following some ideas from \cite{BlancRossi}, we can establish the asymptotic behavior of the solutions
	of 	\eqref{ev_eq}. For that let us consider
	\begin{equation}\label{auto1}
		\begin{cases}
			-\Lambda_1^s \varphi_R(x)=\mu_{R}\varphi_R &\text{in }\Omega_{R},\quad\\
			 \varphi_R=0&\text{in } \mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus\Omega_{R},\\
				\end{cases}
	\end{equation}
	and
	\begin{equation}\label{autoN}
		\begin{cases}
			-\Lambda_N^s \psi_R(x)=\mu_{R}\psi_R &\text{in }\Omega_{R},\\
			 \psi_R=0&\text{in } \mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus\Omega_{R},\\
				\end{cases}
		\end{equation}
	where $\Omega\subset\subset\Omega_R$ with $\Omega_R$ is a strictly convex domain of
	$\mathbb{R}^{N}$, $\mu_R>0$, $0\leq \psi_R(x)=-\varphi_R(x)$, $x\in\Omega_R$.

	Then we have the following result.
	\begin{theorem}\label{asymp}
		Assume $s>\nicefrac12.$ If $u_0$ and $g$ satisfy \eqref{hip}
		then there exist $C_i=C_i(u_0)>0$, $i=1,\, 2$ such that
		\begin{equation}\label{c_uniforme_2}
			C_1e^{-\mu_Rt}\varphi_R(x)\leq u(x,t)-z(x)\leq C_2 e^{-\mu_Rt}\psi_R(x),
			\quad x\in\overline{\Omega},\quad t>0,
		\end{equation}
		where $u(x,t)$ is the unique viscosity solution of \eqref{ev_eq}
		given by Theorem \ref{teo-1.intro} and $z$ is the unique viscosity solution of
		\begin{equation}\label{eliptico0}
			\begin{cases}
				-\Lambda_1^s z(x)=0&\text{in }\Omega,\\
				z=g&\text{in } \mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus\Omega.\\
			\end{cases}
		\end{equation}
	\end{theorem}

	\begin{proof}
		For every $x\in\overline{\Omega}$ and $t>0$ let us define, for some positive constants
		that will be chosen later, the functions
		$$
			\underline u(x,t)\coloneqq z(x)+C_1e^{-\mu_Rt}\varphi_R(x)
			$$
			 and
			 $$
			\overline u(x,t)\coloneqq z(x)+C_2e^{-\mu_Rt}\psi_R(x).
		$$
		On the first hand it is clear that
		$\underline u(x,t)=g(x)=\overline u(x,t)$ in $\mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus\Omega$.
		By choosing the constants in an appropriate way, depending on the datum $u_0$, since
		$$
			\mbox{$0< \psi_R(x) =-\varphi_R(x)$, (so that $0>\varphi_R(x)$), $x\in\Omega$,}
		$$
		it is also true that $\underline u(x,0)\leq u_0(x)\leq \overline u(x,0)$.
		On the other hand, since for every functions $f,\, g$ we have that,
		$$
			\inf_{x\in\mathbb{R}^N} f(x)+\inf_{x\in\mathbb{R}^N} g(x)\leq \inf_{x\in\mathbb{R}^N} (f(x)+g(x))\leq \inf_{x\in\mathbb{R}^N} f(x)
			+\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^N} g(x),
		$$
		then
		$$
			\Lambda_1^{s}\underline u(x,t)\geq \Lambda_1^{s}z(x)+C_1e^{-\mu_Rt}\Lambda_1^{s}\varphi_R(x)
		$$
		and
		$$
			\Lambda_1^{s}\overline u(x,t)\leq \Lambda_1^{s}z(x)+C_2e^{-\mu_Rt}\Lambda_N^{s}\psi_R(x),
		$$
		for every $x\in\Omega_R$ and $t>0$. Therefore, by \eqref{auto1},\eqref{autoN} and \eqref{eliptico0}
		we obtain that $\underline{u}(x,t)$ (resp. $\overline{u}(x,t)$) is a viscosity subsolution
		(resp. supersolution) of \eqref{ev_eq}.
		Thus, the conclusion follows by the comparison principle proved in Theorem \ref{comparacion}.
	\end{proof}

		\begin{remark} {\rm
		If we would like to obtain the same bound as the one given in \eqref{c_uniforme_2}
		replacing $\varphi_R$ (resp. $\psi_R$) by $\varphi_1$ (resp. $\psi_1$),
		the first eigenfunction in $\Omega$, not in $\Omega_R$, of $\Lambda_1^s$ (resp. $\Lambda_N^s$),  in the general case,
		we would need to have a Hopf Lemma for these eigenfunction. That is, a bound like
		$\varphi_1(x)\leq -C\delta(x)^{\beta}$ (resp. $\psi_1(x)\geq C\delta(x)^{\beta}$),
		for some $\beta\in (0,1)$, as well as some additional hypothesis on the datum $g$, like H\"older regularity that would imply $z\in\mathcal{C}^{\beta}(\overline{\Omega})$, would be required
		in order to guarantee $C\varphi_1(x)\leq u_0(x)-z(x)\leq C\psi_1(x),\, x\in\overline{\Omega}$.

		\medskip

		Whether we have \eqref{c_uniforme_2} with $(\varphi_R, \psi_R)$ or with
		$(\varphi_1, \psi_1)$ the conclusion of Theorem \ref{asymp}
		implies the uniform convergence of the solution of the parabolic problem \eqref{ev_eq}
		to the $s$-convex envelope of the datum $g$, $z$. That is, \eqref{c_uniforme} that we presented in Theorem \ref{teo.conver.intro}.}
	\end{remark}

	In some particular cases we can improve the exponential bound obtained in the previous result.
	Indeed we have the following result.

	\begin{proposition}\label{particular}
		Asumme $s>\nicefrac12.$
		If $u_0$ and $g$ is an affine function in the whole $\mathbb{R}^N$ then
		there exists $T=T(\Omega)$ such that
		\begin{equation}\label{lonuestro}
			u(x,t)\leq z(x),\quad x\in\overline{\Omega},\quad t>T.
		\end{equation}
		with $u(x,t)$ the unique viscosity solution of \eqref{ev_eq} given
		by Theorem \ref{teo-1.intro} and $z$ is the unique viscosity solution of \eqref{eliptico0}.
	\end{proposition}
	\begin{proof}
	        Notice that since $g$ is an affine function, we have that $\Lambda_1^s g(x)=0$ for any $x\in\mathbb{R}^N.$
	        Then $v(x,t)=u(x,t)-g(x)$ is a solution of
	        \[
                    \begin{cases}
			v_t(x,t)=\Lambda_1^s v(x,t) &\text{in }\Omega\times(0,T),\\
			v(x,t)=0 &\text{in }
				(\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega)\times(0,T),\\
			v(x,0)=u_0(x)-g(x) &\text{in }\mathbb{R}^N.
	    	    \end{cases}
	        \]
		Thus we could assume that $g\equiv0$ that in particular implies $z\equiv 0$.
		Let us consider now $\Omega\subseteq B_{R}\coloneqq B_R(0)$, $R>0$ and we define
		$$
			0\leq w(x,t)\coloneqq e^{\mu_{R}\xi^{2s}(R-t)}\psi_{R}(\xi|x|)),\quad x\in B_{R},\, t>0,\, \xi>0,
		$$
		where $\mu_R>0$ and $\psi_R$ were given in \eqref{autoN} with $B_{R}$ instead of $\Omega_R$
		such that $\|\psi_{R}\|_{L^{\infty}(B_R)}=1$. Since clearly $\Lambda_1^s\leq \Lambda_N^s$
		it follows that
		$$
			\partial_t w(x,t)=-\mu_R\xi^{2s}w(x,t)=e^{\mu_{R}\xi^{2s}(R-t)}
			\Lambda_{N}^{s}\psi_{R}(\xi|x|))\geq \Lambda_1^s w(x,t),
		$$
		for every $(x,t)\in\Omega\times (0,\infty)$.
		Moreover by using that $\psi_{R}>0$ in
		$\Omega$ we get that $w(x,0)=e^{\mu_{R}\xi^{2s}R}\psi_{R}(\xi|x|))\geq u_0(x)$ if $x\in\Omega$.
		That is, $w(x,t)$ is a supersolution of \eqref{ev_eq} so by Theorem \ref{comparacion} it follows that
		$$
			u(x,t)\leq e^{\mu_{R}\xi^{2s}(R-t)}\psi_{R}(\xi|x|)).
		$$
		Thus, by taking $\xi\to\infty$ there exists $T(=R)$ such that the conclusion follows.
	\end{proof}

	{
	In the special case that $g\equiv 0$ and $u_0$ is compactly supported
	we have that the exponential rate is given by the first eigenvalue in $\Omega$.
	Notice that in this case
	$z \equiv 0$ is the unique viscosity solution of \eqref{eliptico0}.

	\begin{theorem}\label{particular.fin}
	    Let $s>\nicefrac12.$
		If $g\equiv 0$ and $u_0$ is compactly supported inside
		$\Omega$ then
		\begin{equation}\label{lonuestro.fin}
		C e^{-\mu_1 t}	\leq u(x,t)\leq 0,\quad x\in\overline{\Omega},\quad t>T.
		\end{equation}
		with $u(x,t)$ the unique viscosity solution of \eqref{ev_eq} given
		by Theorem \ref{teo-1.intro}.
	\end{theorem}

	\begin{proof}

	Finally, in the special case that $u_0$ is compactly supported we have that
		$$u_0 (x) \geq C \varphi_1(x), \qquad x \in \mathbb{R}^N $$
		for a large constant $C$ (recall that the first eigenfunction is
		strictly negative in $\Omega$). Therefore, from a comparison argument, we get
		$$u(x,t)\geq C \varphi_1(x)e^{-\mu_1 t}.$$
		This bound together with \eqref{lonuestro}
		give the result.
		\end{proof}

		}

	\bigskip
	Of course the bound obtained in Proposition \ref{particular} cannot be expected in general, we mean, for instance $u(x,t)=e^{-\mu_1 t}
	\varphi_1(x)$, where $(\mu_1,\varphi_1)$ were given in Theorem \ref{autof}, is a solution of \eqref{ev_eq}
	that it is not zero in finite time. That is, we could not expect, in general, that the solution of the
	evolution problem lies bellow the $s$-convex enveloped in $\overline{\Omega}$ in finite time. Indeed we
	have the following result.

	\begin{proposition}
		For every $x_0\in\Omega$ there exist $K_i>0$, $i=1,\,2$,
		$u_0\in{\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}^N)}$
		and $g$ satisfy
		\eqref{hip} such that  $u(x,t),$ the unique viscosity solution of \eqref{ev_eq}, satisfies
		$$
			u(x_0,t)\geq z(x_0)+K_1e^{-K_2t},\quad t>0,
		$$
		with $z$ the unique viscosity solution of \eqref{eliptico0}.
	\end{proposition}
	\begin{proof}
	    Let us assume, without loss of generality that $x_0\in\Omega$ is the origin and  let us consider
	    \begin{equation}\label{diff}
		B_r\coloneqq B_r(0)\subset\subset\Omega.
	    \end{equation}
	    In what follows we  write $x=(x_1, x')\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ and we define
	    \[
	        B_r^{1}\coloneqq B_r\cap\{x'=0\}=[-r,r]\subseteq\mathbb{R}.
	    \]
		Therefore there exist (see \cite{SV}) $\mu_1^{1}>0$ a positive eigenvalue and $\varphi_1^{1}$ a
		positive eigenfunction that is $\mathcal{C}^{s}$ up to the boundary such that
		$$
			\begin{cases}
				-\Lambda_1^s\varphi_1^{1}(x)
				\left(=(-\Delta)^s_1 \varphi_1^{1}(x)\right)=\mu_{1}^1\varphi^{1}_1 &\text{in }[-r,r],\quad\\
					 \varphi_1^{1}=0&\text{in }(-\infty,-r)\cup(r,\infty).\\
			\end{cases}
		$$
		Since, by \eqref{diff}, if $(x_1,0)\in B_r$ clearly
		$(x_1,0)\notin (\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega)\cap\{x'=0\}$
		we can consider a nonnegative function
		$g\in \mathcal{C}(\overline{\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega})\cap
		L^\infty(\overline{\mathbb{R} ^N\setminus\Omega})$ such that
		\begin{equation}\label {sobre_gg}
			g(x_1,x')\geq \varphi_1^{1}(x_1),\quad \{|x_1|\leq r,\, (x_1,x')\notin\Omega\
		\end{equation}
		\begin{equation}\label{sobre_g}
			g(x_1,0)=0,\quad (x_1,0)\in (\mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus\Omega)\cap\{x'=0\},
		\end{equation}
		as a datum of \eqref{eliptico0}. On one hand, by the comparison principle
		(see \cite[Theorem 2.2]{DPQR_FC}) it is follows that $z\geq 0$.
		On the other hand, taking into account the geometric interpretation
		of the $s$-convex envelope (see \cite[Theorem 1.1]{DPQR_FC}) $z\leq z_{D}$
		with $z_D$ the convex envelope of $g$ in $\Omega\cap\{x'=0\}$. Since,
		by \eqref{sobre_g}, $z_D\equiv 0$ it follows that, in particular,
		\begin{equation}\label{zetaen0}
			z(0)=0.
		\end{equation}

		Let us now take $u_0\geq 0$ such that
		$\Lambda_1^su_0(x)\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$ and
		\begin{equation}\label{sobre_u0}
			u_0(x_1,x')\geq \varphi^1_1(x_1),\quad |x_1|\leq r.

		\end{equation}
		Thus, by \eqref{sobre_gg}, \eqref{sobre_u0} and the fact that
		$\varphi_1^1(x_1)=0$ if $|x_1|>r$, the function
		$$
			v(x_1, x', t)\coloneqq\varphi_1^1(x_1)e^{-\mu_1^1t}\left(\leq \varphi_1^1(x_1)\right),
			\quad t>0,$$ satisfies
		$$
		\begin{cases}
					v_t(x,t)=\Lambda_1^s v(x,t) &\text{in }\widetilde{\Omega}_r\times(0,\infty),\\
					{v(x_1,x',t)\leq g(x)} &\text{in }
						(\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\widetilde{\Omega}_r)\times(0,\infty),\\
					v(x_1,x',0)\leq u_0(x) &\text{in }\mathbb{R}^N,
				\end{cases}
		$$
		where
		$$
		    \widetilde{\Omega}_r\coloneqq\{ (x_1,x')\in\Omega\colon |x_1|\leq r\}.
		   $$
		Therefore by Theorem \ref{comparacion} we get that $u(x_1,x',t)\geq v(x_1, x', t)$ so,
		by \eqref{zetaen0}, we conclude
		$$u(0,t)\geq z(0)+\varphi_1^{1}(0)e^{-\mu_1^1t},\quad t>0,$$
		as wanted.
\end{proof}

\section*{Acknowledgements}
BB was partially supported by AEI MTM2016-80474-P grant and Ram\'on y Cajal fellowship RYC2018-026098-I (Spain).

    LMDP and JDR are partially supported by
    Agencia Nacional de Promoción de la Investigación, el Desarrollo
    Tecnológico y la Innovación PICT-2018-3183, and
    PICT-2019-00985 and UBACYT 20020190100367 (Argentina).

LMDP was also partially
    supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program
    under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 777822,


\section{Introduction}

Brain stroke is a devastating medical condition, that affects world population and is the main cause of disabilities worldwide~\cite{Caplan.etal2023}.  Disabilities related to stroke can affect motor pathways, and may lead to several motor function disorders.   One important aspect of motor function is balance which is the ability to control the body's center of mass inside the base support provided by the lower limb~\cite{Bowman2021}.  Stroke can affect dynamic balance as well,  which is manifested while walking, impairing autonomy and independence, important factors in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) particularly for young patients~\cite{Afrasiabifar.etal2020,Donato.etal2016}.

Strong evidence suggests that neuroplasticity can be enhanced by neural rehabilitation~\cite{DeAngelis.etal2021,Albert.etal2012}.  These procedures are aimed to relearn movements that can trigger new neural pathway generation which reroute, or even completely replace, those pathways that were damaged by the stroke.   Recently, biofeedback techniques aiming to provide extra information to the patient to aid in the relearning, have appeared as a complementary treatment to increase neuralplasticity. These are in the form of Wearable devices-based biofeedback rehabilitation (WDBR)~\cite{Peake.etal2018} or robotic rehabilitation gait devices~\cite{Zhao.etal2022,Peshkin.etal2005,Tong.etal2006}.

Therefore, the addition of an independent and new peripheral therapeutic signal, that can be assimilated as an extrasensory input~\cite{Brandebusemeyer.etal2021},  could improve dynamic balance performance on post-stroke patients which may have yet insufficiency to deal properly with the complexities of walking.  Meaningful balance information, in terms of timing and location, can provide this extra signal in any form of stimulation, particularly vibrotactile feedback (VF)~\cite{Islam.etal2022}.  Although the effectiveness of biofeedback on static balance has been studied more extensively in the literature~\cite{DeAngelis.etal2021}, to the best of our knowledge works dealing with dynamic balance problems while walking have been more scarce.

This work presents the development of a device which is grounded on this idea, and aims to help a post-stroke patient with a remaining dynamic balance problem, presenting it as a case study.  The proposed development is implemented as a smart-vest~\cite{Brandebusemeyer.etal2021}, which we will call, \textit{Equilivest}, that address three possible clinical hypothesis of the underlying problem.  We aim to provide motor learning, meaning to generate an assist-as-needed~\cite{Balasubramian.etal2010,Maaref.etal2016} vibrotactile feedback signal which initially promotes voluntary control over movements of the joints~\cite{Islam.etal2022}, but which fades away to encourage automatism~\cite{Srivastava.etal2016,Donato.etal2016}.  The device aims to increase plasticity by producing timing vibrotactile stimulation based on kinematic and dynamics measurements.

\section{Materials and Methods}

\subsection{Patient Case Study}
\label{sec:case-study}

Patient is a 36 years-old female, without any history of chronic ailment, who suffered an acute brainstem stroke after giving birth.  The stroke was on posterior fossa subarachnoid due to a brain artereovenous malformation (AVM), which could be linked to pregnancy or puerperium~\cite{Porras.etal2017}.  Patient was in induced coma for around 1 month, and after that unable to walk, move, talk or swallow.  Throughout a first period of intensive rehabilitation, the patient managed to recover significantly, including from dysphagia.

After 7 months since event, the patient was discharged from hospital and maintained a daily rehabilitation treatment, focusing on a remaining affection related to dynamic balance problems while walking.  The patient achieved satisfactory index scores in static balance tests and is able to perform static hip-balance and ankle-balance.  She has recovered muscle force in her legs and can perform lower-limb exercises.  Her vision is normal.

However, when the patient tries to walk on open-spaces, or with confronting lights (like walking towards sunlight), with other people moving around, or when concentration fades while walking, she is unable to keep up with the pace of the gait and the risk of fall increases, in a non-lateralized locomotion (symmetric)~\cite{Welniarz.etal2015}. Nowadays, the patient walks freely unaided at home but requires a Canadian cane otherwise and constant supervision.

\subsection{Underlying hypothesis}
\label{sec:hypothesis}

Human balance is composed of a complex interaction of different subsystems, which includes somatosensorial information, vestibular system and visual information as input sources.  These are later processed in different networks of the Central Nervous System (CNS), and finally actuated by motor pathways at many different scales~\cite{Donato.etal2016}.

\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}[!t]{|p{0.45\linewidth} |p{0.45\linewidth} |}
\hline
\textbf{Question} & \textbf{Answer} \\
\hline
\hline
Under which situations do you feel you are prone to fall ? & When I am tired, distracted or stressed. \\
\hline
What do you feel ?  & I feel that I loss my balance\\
\hline
What do you feel before you fall ? & Sometimes I do feel something before.  I realize that I am going to fall, but there isn't anything I can do to avoid it. \\
\hline
When do you use the cane ?  & Only when I am out of home.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{2pt}
\caption{Survey and responses provided by the patient.}
\label{tab:patientsurvey}
\end{center}
\end{table*}

\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}[!t]{|p{0.45\linewidth} |p{0.45\linewidth} |}
\hline
\textbf{Question} &  \textbf{Answer} \\
\hline
\hline
Describe the situation when the patient loss her balance & Loss of balance is manifested at the beginning, during the gait cycle or with sudden stops. Walking is performed using intense visual compensation.   Instability increase when the patient is distracted, when she stops looking at the floor, or when she looks sideways.  Her gait is not automated, and demands cognitive resources. \\
\hline
Does she presents any of the following muscular dystrophy in lower-limbs / dysmetria / heavy shaking / somatosensorial alterations / proprioceptive alterations ? & No \\
\hline
Does she have any visible reaction before falling?  & She presents dynamic alterations in hip and ankle compensation.\\
\hline
Is the patient gait normal ?  &  No, the patient presents ataxic gait, likely triggered by slow reaction to perform lower-limb balance correction. \\
\hline
Is there any behavioral pattern linked to falling events ? &  Yes, cognitive workload.  Dual tasks situations, when the patient needs to perform something extra while walking. \\
\hline
Describe current treatment. & The patient is currently working on rehabilitation exercises to retrain her Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex (VOR), to improve her static and dynamic balance, and improve her locomotor automatism.  She is improving on a monthly basis, but still she has not reached the level to walk autonomy without any aid. \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{2pt}
\caption{Survey and responses provided by patient's rehabilitation caregiver.}
\label{tab:caregiverssurvey}
\end{center}
\end{table*}

We perform a series of surveys and interviews with the patient and their caregivers.  Main results are summarized in
Tables ~\ref{tab:patientsurvey} and \ref{tab:caregiverssurvey}.  Based on these results and patient's clinical history, we postulate three different potential clinical situations that could use the external biofeedback signal eventually aiding in rehabilitation procedures.  The first (i) is a potential problem in the integration of vestibular information while walking, the second (ii) is bradykinesia where the required processing speed to effectively adjust the lower limb to keep the center of mass inside the base support is not achieved.  Finally, the third (iii) hypothesis is an ataxic gait, where non-automated gait produces an increase in the likelihood of failing.

\subsection{Robotic Device Vest}
\label{sec:vest}

The vest system prototype is based on Internet of Robot Thing (IoRT) technology~\cite{Simoens.etal2018,Domingo.etal2012}. The controller is an Arduino UNO (Arduino LLC, Italy) board coupled with ESP8266 shield (WeMos, United Kingdom).  The system is powered by a commercial power bank with Li-Po 18650 cells (Ipower, United States). It also contains an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) MPU 6050 (OEM ITG/MPU6050) and a FA-12350 DC motor scavenged from old compact discs which provide the vibrotactile feedback.  The IMU provides accelerometer and gyroscope data to get a 3-dimensional angular acceleration vector and a linear acceleration vector. Roll (Z), yaw (Y) and pitch (X) angles, aligned respectively with anatomical planes coronal, horizontal and sagittal are calculated from a set of transforming equations and processed with a complementary filter which relies $0.98$ in gyroscope data and $0.02$ in accelerometer data~\cite{Fetick.2022}. These values are transmitted by telemetry in real-time as UDP packets for off-board register, processing and further analysis. Data recovered by the device is sampled at 100 Hz. The smart-vest prototype can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:smart-vest}.  It is based on a safety vest, complemented with Velcro pockets.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{equilivest.png}
\caption{Front and back views of the Equilivest prototype.  The vest is based on a safety vest, with additional velcro pockets.  The battery is located on the back, while the vibrotactile motor is located on the belly~\cite{Brandebusemeyer.etal2021}.  The IMU sensor is pressed against the chest by the use of a flexible elastic band. }
\label{fig:smart-vest}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Experimental Design}
\label{sec:experimental}

Three experiments are designed in order to assess each one of the potential clinical causes, and to derive for each one of them a stimulation strategy.  Participants are recruited voluntarily and the experiment is conducted anonymously in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki published by the World Health Organization. No monetary compensation is handed out and all participants agree and sign a written informed consent. This study is approved by the Departamento de Investigación y Doctorado, Instituto Tecnológico de Buenos Aires (ITBA).  All the participants wear the smart-vest with an elastic band pressed tightly towards the chest, tied in no-restrictive manner, holding the sensor firmly.

\subsubsection{Vestibular Information Integration}

This experiment aims to study the falling process. Participants are told to lean forward performing ankle forward until they couldn't maintain balance anymore and let themselves fall into a mattress. This experiment is used to determine a threshold for the data that can help to identify the breakpoint conditions based on the IMU information where each subject falls.

In order to test it, 5 healthy participants are recruited to perform 10 runs of falling situations  Participants wearing the vest lean forward by adjusting their ankle joint, without performing a one-step forward movement,  at different angles progressively until they can no longer cope with the unbalance situation and fall to the mattress.

\subsubsection{Ataxic Gait}

This experiment has the purpose of analyzing and studying gait's behavior. In order to accomplish this,  5 participants are instructed to execute 10 sessions of walking in a straight line across ten meters, performing Ten-Meter Walking (10MWT) assesment~\cite{Olmos.etal2008}.  We collected and analyzed pitch, roll and yaw values as well as angular acceleration changes registered by the IMU gyroscope. In this study our goal is to be able to process and identify gait abnormalities as well as all steps occurring and any fall that might develop.

\subsubsection{Bradykinesia}

This experiment involves the coupling of the other two.  Five participants are instructed to perform 10 runs of a ten-meter walking procedure, followed by a falling into a mattress.  The purpose of this experiment is obtain a multichannel time series of the whole sequence, including the walk and the falling action.

\section*{Results and Discussion}

Preliminary results show that for the first (1) experiment, on Figure \ref{fig:vestibular}, the pitch angle can be used to determine a breakpoint where the fall is inevitable (black vertical line, marked as 1*).   On the other hand, results from experiment number (2) in Figure \ref{fig:gait} show that the gait cycle is clearly visible from raw acceleration data.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{vestibular.png}
\caption{Pitch value in degrees and angular acceleration around X axis showing the progressive increase as participants leaned forward crossing the instability condition (1).  Time is in milliseconds. }
\label{fig:vestibular}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{gait.png}
\caption{Angular acceleration for the X and Z axis showing 7 steps of the 10MWT assessment.  Time is in milliseconds. }
\label{fig:gait}
\end{figure}

The information provided from all the experiments allow us to implement three different VF strategies:  The first is an \textbf{Artificial Vestibular Feedback}, which provides information as a feedback for vestibular information integration process.  This is implemented as a frequency-increasing VF signal that increases as long as the distance from the breaking condition position where the fall is inevitable, decreases.   The purpose is to provide the patient with a continuous sensation that modulates the risk of falling.

The second strategy, independent of the first one, is the implementation of \textbf{Gait Pacemaker}.  The obtained data from the analysis of the ataxic gait is used to implement a podometer.  It has been showed that gait synchronization with music increase gait performance~\cite{Roerdink.etal2007} and synchronized gait trainer achieved positive results on patient~\cite{Blicher.etal2009}.  Hence, the aim of this stimulation approach is to keep the patient as close as possible to a normal and safe gait.

The final stimulation scheme deals with the Bradykinesia condition, and aims to have a \textbf{Risk-Predictor}~\cite{Rahman.etal2022,Ali.etal2022}.  The IMU data  represents a multichannel time series.  Hence, it can be used to predict a risk of falling, ahead of its occurrence, by building a machine-learning predictor based on the analysis of the time-series data.  The rationale is to counter the slowness of the response by predicting the falling situation ahead of its occurrence and providing the VF stimulation to force a change in the risky gait pattern.

\section*{Conclusion}
Overall, we aim for \textit{Equilivest} to serve as a testbed that can be iteratively extended to obtain experimental data and to implement biofeedback strategies~\cite{Bowman2021}.

\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}


\section{Introduction}
Nitrogen-vacancy centers (referred to as NV-centers in the following) are used in various applications ranging from high-precision temperature measurements \cite{2013toylithermometry}, magnetic-field measurements in various modalitites, with \cite{2015wolfsubpico,georgioscavity} or without employing microwaves \cite{arnemwfree} or bias fields\cite{tillzero} for instance, electric-field measurements\cite{doldeelectric} to quantum computing\cite{Quantumcomputer2010}, gyroscopy \cite{andreygyro} as well as bio-sensing \cite{barryworm}.

A NV-center is a point defect in diamond, where a pair of neighbouring carbon atoms is replaced by a nitrogen atom and a vacancy. It is an atom-like system, that can be in different charge states, called NV$^{+}$, NV$^{0}$ and NV$^{-}$, where the latter one is favoured for applications due to its optical spin read-out \cite{DOHERTY20131}. The NV$^{-}$ center has a total electron spin of 1, the corresponding electrons being contributed by the NV-center nitrogen itself, the open bonds from the carbon atoms and of another substitutional nitrogen atom in the lattice. The electron spins can be optically pumped into one of the NV's Zeeman sublevels by illuminating the diamond with, for example, \SI{532}{\nano \meter} laser light driving transitions into the phonon broadened excited state. The spin state can be read out by detecting the amount of (infra)red fluorescence light, due to spin selective non-radiative transitions \cite{DOHERTY20131}. Driving microwave transitions between the various spin states leads to observable changes in fluorescence. Those can be used to measure magnetic fields over the respective transition frequency shifts via the Zeeman effect .

A fundamental noise limit of fluorescence detection arises from photon shot noise, depending on the amount of collected light which usually dominates over spin-projection noise as another fundamental limit. Therefore, by increasing the amount of collected light, the signal-to-noise ratio of such measurements can be improved.
Several different techniques have been developed to improve photon-collection efficiency, in both single-NV setups \cite{Haddena2010,Li2015,Choy2013} and ensemble experiments \cite{2015wolfsubpico,fourphotdiodes}.
\begin{figure}[h]
    \centering
    {\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/MainSketch.pdf}}
    \caption{Diamond assembly images: (a) Sketch of the NV-bearing diamond pyramid at the front (science diamond)  dimensions on top of the diamond anvil. (b) Photo of the science diamond, glued to the diamond anvil. c) Image of fluorescence light collected  from the back of the diamond anvil used for alignment purposes and taken with a CCD camera. The circle in the center of the cross is the apex of the fluorescence cone from the laser beam focal spot and the four side beams arise due to the side reflections of the anvil. All measures are in mm. }
    \label{fig:diamond}
\end{figure}

In this work, the diamond containing the NV centers, referred to as the sensing diamond, was glued to a cone-shaped diamond piece, referred to as the diamond anvil, which increases the amount of collected fluorescence light. The sensing diamond was cut to direct side emitted fluorescence from the sensing volume into the back direction via total internal reflection, see Fig.\,\ref{fig:diamond}. The curved back surface of the diamond anvil reduces losses due to total internal reflection at the diamond to air interface. Detection with a photodiode confirms an improvement factor of $3.8(1)$ expected from simulations compared to the other exiting surface.

\section{Sample preparation}
The sensing diamond, a  high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) sample (Element Six DNV-B14), is specified to contain 13\,ppm nitrogen, 3.7\,ppm NV$^-$-centers and 1.4\,ppm NV$^0$-centers. This specific sample is $^{13}$C-depleted (99.999\% $ ^{12}$C).
The sample was irradiated with \SI{5}{\mega\electronvolt} electrons at a dose of \SI{2e19}{\centi\meter^{-2}} and then annealed at \SI{700}{\degreeCelsius} for eight hours. Its measured minimal linewidth in a pulsed optically detected magnetic resonance (ODMR) experiment is around \SI{300}{\kilo\hertz}.

 The shape of the diamond anvil and sensing diamond pieces was optimised using the COMSOL Multiphysics software.  The simulations were used to evaluate the improvement in fluorescence collection between the back and front side.

The science diamond is a trapezoid with a back surface being a square \SI{0.5}{\milli\meter} on the side, a height of \SI{0.18}{\milli\meter}, and the upper square surface being  \SI{0.15}{\milli\meter} on the side, see Fig.\,\ref{fig:diamond}. The base angle for this shape is close to 45 degrees to match with the single-crystal diamond anvil manufactured by Dutch Diamond Technologies. This limits the angular distribution of about 90\% of rays exiting the diamond construction to below 45 degrees with respect to the symmetry axis, see Fig.\,\ref{fig:Simulation}. This means 90\% of the light can be picked up by a lens with numerical aperture of 0.7. A very weak requirement.
 The two diamond pieces were joined with a thin layer of Norland Optical Adhesive 170 with refractive index of 1.7  (the highest-index material that we could find) applied between the anvil and the back surface of the sensing diamond while pressing the pieces together. Effects as for instance etaloning due to a significant glue layer thickness were not observed.

 In the COMSOL simulation within the ray-tracing module, the number of collected rays were given a cylindrical distribution of ray sources inside the sensing diamond to mimic the excitation volume shape by the laser light inside the diamond. Three \SI{30}{\micro\meter} spaced point sources arranged along the symmetry axes of the sensing diamond emitted isotropically each 2000 rays. The ratio of collected rays between the front and back side on a photodiode using an 8 mm focal length, 12.7 mm diameter aspheric condenser lens was 3.8.

 The diamond was mounted on a custom made peek mount during the experiment. Trying to test thermal durability of the glue joint, we applied around 1.8\,W of green laser light in a 0.9 mm diameter beam focused using 8\,mm focal length lens for around 10\,s on the sensing diamond from the back side. No degradation of the diamond optical assembly was observed at temperatures at which the peek material started to deform which are estimated to be around 150 °C based on its glass transition temperature \cite{peek}.

\begin{figure}[h]
    \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/anglecomparison2_AW.pdf}
    \caption{Simulated fractional cumulative angular ray distribution as a function of $\alpha$, the ray angle with respect to the symmetry axis of the diamond anvil with the sensing diamond. The cumulative ray fraction per single side collection is indicated as fraction of total number of emitted rays per side. The dashed red line indicates the numerical aperture of the collecting lens used in this note, the grey one the anvil opening angle of 45 degrees.  }
    \label{fig:Simulation}
\end{figure}

\section{Characterisation measurements}
To verify the simulation results we built a setup to measure the amount of fluorescence light collected from the front and back sides of the diamond simultaneously.

\begin{figure}[h]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/sketch_AW.pdf}
    \caption[Experimental setup schematic]{Experimental setup: the \SI{532}{\nano \meter} laser light is focused on a NV-center doped sensing diamond, attached to a diamond anvil. The emitted light is focused onto the same model of photodiodes on each side. A dichroic mirror is used to block the reflected green light going towards the first photodiode, which is used to to record the intensity of the fluorescence light. An interference filter is employed to reject the laser light and transmit the fluorescence light. The right photodiode and lens were replaced with a CCD camera and a longer focal length lens respectively to capture images used to align the light beam with respect to the diamond.}
    \label{fig:experimental setup}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Experimental setup}
The setup is sketched in
Fig.\,\ref{fig:experimental setup}. A \SI{532}{\nano\meter} laser beam was focused into the sensing diamond using a plano-convex lens with a focal length of $f=$ \SI{8}{\milli\meter}. Behind the diamond we placed initially another lens and a notch filter to separate out green light from the (infra)red fluorescence light emitted from the diamond detected with a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera. That way we were able to verify that the diamond was well centred illuminated with the \SI{532}{\nano\meter} light. The camera was positioned on the back side producing the characteristic cross shape shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:diamond} (c). This shape originates from reflections of the side surfaces of the sensing diamond and allows for precise positioning of the diamond relative to the laser beam using a XYZ-stage.

After alignment, the optics at the back side were replaced with the same type of aspheric condenser lens with $f$=\SI{8}{\milli\meter} focal length, a notch filter and a photodiode. The fluorescence was compared in both front and back direction simultaneously. Integrated over the expected fluorescence spectrum the notch filter (Thorlabs NF 533-17) transmits about 2\%  more than the dichroic mirror  (Thorlabs DMLP-567 ), negligible within the measurement error.

\begin{figure}[h]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figures/comparisonsidesodmr.pdf}
    \caption{Comparison of the signal improvement due to the higher photon collection efficiency exemplified by an optically detected magnetic resonance spectra, both normalised to the back surface peak signal value.}
    \label{fig:odmr}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Measurements}

 Measuring on both sides simultaneously, for five laser powers equally spaced between 50 and 150\,mW gave a mean increase of collected fluorescence light by a factor of $ 3.8 (1)$ between the back and front side.
Next, a magnetic field was applied with Helmholtz coils and we used microwaves to obtain ODMR spectra of the NV centers to visualize the difference, see Fig.\,\ref{fig:odmr}.

\section{Conclusion}
We described a design to improve the amount of collected fluorescence light emitted by a nitrogen-vacancy center ensemble in diamond.
We were able to experimentally measure an increase by a factor of $3.8(1)$ between the improved design (back) with respect to the not improved opposing facet (front). This increase is supported by ray tracing simulations. An additional feature of the design is the improved angular distribution of the fluorescence. It would allow for over 90\% of the emitted fluorescence to be collected by a lens with a numerical aperture bigger than 0.7. These lenses are widely available.
 In sensing applications relying on the collected fluorescence this improvement results in a lowered shot noise limit by a factor of nearly 2. Further improvement in overall light collection are possible for example deploying reflective coating on the front surface and anti-reflective coating on the back surface. Including the coating and neglecting losses this optic then allows to collect all emitted photons, which amounts to an additional increase of more than 40\%.

\section{Funding}
This work was supported by the European Commission’s Horizon Europe Framework Program under the
Research and Innovation Action MUQUABIS GA no.10107054 and by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the MILIQUANT project no. 13N15062 and DIAQNOS project no. 13N16455.

\section{Acknowledgements}
We thank Dr. Till Lenz, Joseph Shaji Rebeirro and Omkar Dhungel for the many and fruitful discussions concerning this project.
\section{Disclosures}
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
\section{Data availability}
Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at this time but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request.