On Dean-Kawasaki Dynamics with Smooth Drift Potential
Vitalii Konarovskyi, Tobias Lehmann, Max von Renesse

TL;DR
This paper investigates the Dean-Kawasaki equation with smooth drift potential, establishing conditions under which measure-valued solutions exist and linking them to finite Langevin particle systems with mean field interactions.
Contribution
It demonstrates the existence of measure-valued solutions only in specific parameter regimes and connects these solutions to finite Langevin particle systems with mean field interactions.
Findings
Measure-valued solutions exist only in certain parameter regimes.
Solutions correspond to finite Langevin particle systems with mean field interaction.
Provides conditions for existence of solutions in the Dean-Kawasaki equation.
Abstract
We consider the Dean-Kawasaki equation with smooth drift interaction potential and show that measure valued solutions exist only in certain parameter regimes in which case they are given by finite Langevin particle systems with mean field interaction.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
∎
11institutetext: V. Konarovskyi, T. Lehmann, M. von Renesse 22institutetext: Universität Leipzig, Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik,
Augustusplatz 10, 04109 Leipzig, Germany
22email: [email protected], [email protected],
On Dean-Kawasaki Dynamics with
Smooth Drift Potential
Vitalii Konarovskyi
Tobias Lehmann
Max von Renesse
Abstract
We consider the Dean-Kawasaki equation with smooth drift interaction potential and show that measure valued solutions exist only in certain parameter regimes in which case they are given by finite Langevin particle systems with mean field interaction.
Keywords:
Dean-Kawasaki equation Langevin dynamics Wasserstein diffusion Itô formula for measure-valued processes
MSC:
60H15 60K35 82C22 60G57 82C31
1 Introduction and main result
This paper is devoted to the existence, uniqueness and structure of solutions to the Dean-Kawasaki equation
[TABLE]
which appears in macroscopic fluctuation theory or models for glass dynamics in non-equilibrium statistical physics MR2095422 ; RevModPhys.87.593 ; doi:10.1063/1.4913746 ; Dean:1996 ; MR3744636 ; 1742-5468-2014-4-P04004 ; doi:10.1063/1.4883520 ; MR3813113 ; MR1661764 ; MR3280005 ; Kawasaki199435 ; PhysRevE.89.012150 ; MR978701 ; doi:10.1063/1.478705 ; 0953-8984-12-8A-356 ; Rotskoff2018 ; 1742-5468-2016-11-113202 ; Solon2015 ; Spohn:1991 ; MR2452196 . Here denotes a space-time white noise vector field and denotes the functional derivative of .
Extending our previous result for the non-interacting case in Konarovskyi:DK:2018 , we show that for smooth potentials measure valued solutions to (1) exist only for a discrete range of parameters in which case the solution is given in terms of a finite particle system.
The precise definition of a (weak martingale) solution to (1) and our main result read as follows.
Definition 1
A continuous -valued process is a solution to equation (1), if for each the process
[TABLE]
is a continuous martingale with respect to the filtration , , with the quadratic variation
[TABLE]
Let denote the space of twice continuously differentiable functions on , which are bounded on the subsets , , together with their derivatives. For the precise definition of see Section 2.
Theorem 1.1 (Existence and uniqueness of solutions to the Dean-Kawasaki equation)
Let , and . Then the Dean-Kawasaki equation
[TABLE]
has a (unique in law) solution , , starting from , i.e. , if and only if and for some , . Moreover,
[TABLE]
where , , is a (unique) solution to the equation
[TABLE]
with , and , , , are independent standard Wiener processes on .
We remark that the statement above is false for completely arbitrary drift , since Dean-Kawasaki models with singular drift admitting complex solutions are known e.g. MR2537551 and MR2606878 ; Konarovskyi_CM:2017 ; Konarovskyi_SR:2017 ; Konarovskyi_LDP:2015 ; Marx2017 ; Schiavo2018 both in case of or , respectively. We also note that the regularised versions of the Dean-Kawasaki equation can admit non-trivial solutions (see, e.g. Zimmer:2018 ; ZimmerII:2018 ; Gess:2017 ).
Contents of the paper. The proof of our main theorem is based on a reduction to the simpler case when , which was treated in Konarovskyi:DK:2018 , by means of a Girsanov transform which is combined with an appropriate Itô formula for . The latter is obtained by means of an explicit approximation of smooth functionals by simple cylindrical functionals in terms of measure valued versions of Bernstein polynomials, which is given in the appendix and which might be of independent mathematical interest.
2 Preliminaries
Let be the space of continuous functions on a closed subset of , Usually, will be a rectangle or . The set of bounded continuous functions on is denoted by . If is a compact set, then trivially . For we define by the space of times continuously differentiable functions on the interior of and which can be extended to continuous functions on . We say that is smooth on if it belongs to for all . The set of smooth functions on is denoted by . If and , then we will use the notation
[TABLE]
for the corresponding derivative of if it exists. We also set and . If , then we equip with the uniform norm denoted by . If , the topology on is generated by the seminorms of uniform convergence on compact sets.
We will denote the set of finite measures on by (or shortly ). For each we set
[TABLE]
We equip with the weak topology defined by
[TABLE]
It is well known that such a topology is metrisable and is a Polish space.
Lemma 1
If is a compact set, then for each the set is compact in .
Let be the set of continuous functions from to .
If is compact, we equip the space with the topology of uniform convergence on compact sets , . Then one can prove that is a Polish space.
A function is said to be differentiable if for every
[TABLE]
exists for each and belongs to . The set of functions for which is jointly continuous in and is denoted by .
Similarly, we can define the second order derivative. So, the second derivative of a function is defined by
[TABLE]
if it exists for all and belongs to . The set of functions from for which is jointly continuous in , and is denoted by . The notion of differentiable functions on was taken from (MR1242575, , Section 2).
We also set for
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Let for each .
We denote by the set of functions from such that for each , and together with their derivatives up to the order are bounded on , and , respectively.
3 Itô formula for the Dean-Kawasaki equation
Let and be a function from .
In this section, we are going to establish the Itô formula for a solution to the Dean-Kawasaki equation (1). We recall that a continuous -valued process is a solution to equation (1), if for each the process
[TABLE]
is a continuous martingale with respect to the filtration , , with the quadratic variation
[TABLE]
Remark 1
Taking , , it is easy to see that for all . In particular, for all if .
Theorem 3.1 (Itô formula for the Dean-Kawasaki equation)
For every the following process
[TABLE]
is a continuous -martingale with the quadratic variation
[TABLE]
Proof
We first prove the theorem for a function of the form
[TABLE]
where , , , are smooth functions on with compact supports and . By the Itô formula for real valued semimartingales, we have
[TABLE]
Next, using the equalities
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
it is easy to see that
[TABLE]
Moreover, the quadratic variation of , , the martingale part of , , is equal to
[TABLE]
Thus, the Itô formula holds for any function given by (5).
Next, by Theorem A.2 and Remark 6, there exists a sequence of functions of the form (5) such that for all
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover, , and and their derivatives (by and ) are uniformly bounded (in ) on , and , respectively. This implies that for each
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
by the dominated convergence theorem.
Using the uniform boundedness of and its derivatives, Remark 1 and the dominated convergence theorem, we obtain that the Itô formula for is also valid. The theorem is proved.
4 Girsanov’s transformation and proof of the main result
We assume that a solution , , to equation (1) is a canonical process on the filtered probability space , where is the space of continuous functions from to , is the distribution of the process , , is the right-continuous and complete induced filtration generated by , , and . We remark that such a filtration exists by Lemma 7.8 Kallenberg:2002 .
Now, let , , be a continuous nonnegative martingale with . We consider a new measure on defined as
[TABLE]
that is, , , which exists by Lemma 18.18 Kallenberg:2002 . Next we take any function from and note that
[TABLE]
is a continuous -matringale with , by Novikov’s theorem (see Theorem 18.23 Kallenberg:2002 ). Here is given by (4). So, we can define the measure on , that is,
[TABLE]
Theorem 4.1 (Girsanov’s transformation for solutions to the Dean-Kawasaki equation)
Let be a function from and be defined by (6). Then the process , , solves the equation
[TABLE]
on the probability space . In particular, , , is a solution to the equation
[TABLE]
on , if .
Proof
To prove the statement, we use Girsanov’s transformation (see e.g. Theorem 18.19 and Lemma 18.21 Kallenberg:2002 ) and Theorem 3.1. So, we take a function and compute the joint quadratic variation using Theorem 3.1. The polarisation equality implies
[TABLE]
Thus, by Theorem 18.19 and Lemma 18.21 Kallenberg:2002 , the process
[TABLE]
is a continuous -martingale on with the quadratic variation given by (3).
Proof (Proof of Theorem 1.1)
We assume that , , is a solution to the Dean-Kawasaki equation. Applying Theorem 4.1 for , we obtain that , , must solve the equation
[TABLE]
on the space . By a simple computation, it is easy to see that the process , , is a solution to (7) with the parameter instead of . Moreover, , , takes values in the space of probability measures on . Hence, by Theorem 1 Konarovskyi:DK:2018 , and there exists a family of -valued processes , , such that
[TABLE]
with , , , and , , , are standard independent -Wiener processes on . This implies that
[TABLE]
where , .
Next, we note that the process , , is a continuous -martingale on , by Girsanov’s transformation. Thus, we can consider the following transformation of measure given by
[TABLE]
Thus, applying Girsanov’s theorem to , , , on , we obtain that
[TABLE]
are -valued continuous -martingales on for all and , , , where denotes the identity matrix.
The uniqueness also trivially follows from Girsanov’s transformation.
Example 1
We assume that , , , and take
[TABLE]
In this case,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then the Dean-Kawasaki equation for interacting Brownian particles has a form
[TABLE]
where plays a role of a two-body interaction potential between particles and is an external potential (see e.g. MR2095422 ; Dean:1996 ; MR3744636 ; doi:10.1063/1.4883520 ; 0305-4470-33-15-101 ; PhysRevE.91.022130 ; doi:10.1063/1.478705 ).
Since , the Dean-Kawasaki equation has a (unique in law) solution if and only if and for some , , where , by Theorem 1.1. Moreover,
[TABLE]
where the family , , , solves the equation
[TABLE]
Appendix A Approximation of differentiable functions on
A.1 Approximation of differentiable functions on
In this section, we fix , , and denote and , for convenience of notation. We remark that each function from is bounded on for all , since is compact in .
We are going to introduce an analog of the Weierstrass approximation of functions from . For this we use multiplicative Bernstein polynomials on (see e.g. Veretennikov:2016 ). Let . We set for
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Here .
We will consider , , as linear operators from to .
Proposition 1
Let . Then the family of linear operators , , satisfies the following properties:
- (B1)
* is a family of uniformly bounded linear operators on ;* 2. (B2)
For each and , ,
[TABLE]
that is, in , as . 3. (B3)
If in , , then for each , ,
[TABLE]
that is, in , as .
Proof
For Property (B2) was proved in Veretennikov:2016 . The general case can be obtained by the rescaling. Next, for each Property (B2) implies the boundedness of . By the Banach-Steinhaus theorem, we obtain (B1). Property (B3) easily follows from (B1) and (B2).
Now, we introduce an analog of Bernstein polynomials on . We set for each
[TABLE]
where is the point measure at , i.e. equals 1 if and 0 otherwise. We also define for every
[TABLE]
Setting
[TABLE]
it is easy to see that and
[TABLE]
We will denote by the identity map on , that is, , .
Proposition 2
For each the map is continuous and for each sequence converging in one has in as . Moreover, maps to for all and .
Remark 2
Since the set is compact in , we have that for each uniformly on as , by Proposition 2.
Remark 3
Proposition 2 implies that is a linear map from to .
Proof (Proof of Proposition 2)
The continuity of is trivial. We take an arbitrary sequence in which converges to and . Then by Proposition 1,
[TABLE]
since the map is continuous.
Due to the equality
[TABLE]
maps to .
Proposition 3
For each and we have that uniformly on as , that is,
[TABLE]
Remark 4
Proposition 3 yields that for each in as .
Proof (Proof of Proposition 3)
We assume that the statement is not true. Then there exist and a sequence in such that for all . Since is compact, we may assume that without loss of generality. But by Proposition 2 and the continuity of , we have
[TABLE]
which contradicts the assumption.
We note that the space of continuous functions from to furnished with the uniform norm is a Banach space. It is easy to see that for each the map is a continuous linear operator from to . Indeed, the map maps to , by Proposition 2. The continuity trivially follows from the form of (see (8)).
Corollary 1
The family of linear operators on is uniformly bounded.
Proof
The corollary immediately follows from Proposition 3 and the Banach-Steinhaus theorem.
Lemma 2
Let for some . Then the function belongs to . Moreover,
[TABLE]
for all and
[TABLE]
for all , , if .
Proof
The proof easily follows from the definition of and .
Proposition 4
Let for some and . Then for every and for each ,
[TABLE]
and if
[TABLE]
Proof
The proposition follows from the definition of the derivatives , , equality (9) and Lemma 2. Indeed,
[TABLE]
Similarly, one can obtain the equality for .
Theorem A.1
Let for some and . Then for each , and one has
[TABLE]
and if
[TABLE]
Proof
We will prove the theorem similarly as Proposition 3. We start with (10). If (10) does not hold, then there exist and sequences , such that
[TABLE]
for all . Since and are compact sets, we may assume that and as , without loss of generality. So, we compute
[TABLE]
Since is continuous on and is compact, it is easy to see that in as , using Proposition 2. Thus, by Proposition 1 (B3),
[TABLE]
that contradicts (12).
The uniform convergence (11) can be proved by the same argument taking into an account that
[TABLE]
where , , are the Bernstein polynomials defined for functions from .
A.2 Approximation of differentiable functions on
We fix a smooth bounded function and define a map from to as follows
[TABLE]
We also assume that has a compact support. Let such that . Then the measure is supported on and, consequently, we can consider as a map from to .
Lemma 3
The map is continuous.
Proof
The proof trivially follows from the definition of .
We define for each a new function as follows
[TABLE]
Lemma 4
If for some and , then . Moreover,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Remark 5
We remark that for all , thus, we assume that the multiplication , even if is not defined for such .
Proof (Proof of Lemma 4)
The continuity of immediately follows from Lemma 3. The derivatives of can be computed using the following observation
[TABLE]
Lemma 5
Let be a sequence of uniformly bounded continuous functions on which pointwise converges to , then , , for each .
Proof
The lemma easily follows from the dominated convergence theorem.
Proposition 5
Let for some and . Let be a sequence of smooth bounded functions on such that in , , and is uniformly bounded. Then for each
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Proof
We first note that in and in as , if . Thus, the statement immediately follows from lemmas 4 and 5.
We denote by the set of functions on of the form
[TABLE]
where , , are positive smooth functions with compact supports, and .
Remark 6
We remark that a function belongs to if and only if it can be extended to a function from .
Let denote the restriction of a function from to .
Lemma 6
For each the function belongs to and
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Proof
The proof of the lemma is trivial.
Theorem A.2
Let for some and . Then there exists a sequence from such that for all
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover, if for some the functions , and and their derivatives are bounded on sets , and , respectively, then the sequence can be chosen with , , and their derivatives uniformly bounded in on , and , respectively.
Proof
We assume that . Let be a sequence of smooth functions on such that they take values from , , , , and all derivatives are uniformly bounded in and , i.e. for each , the set is bounded. Let us fix a function . We are going to approximate by polynomials introduced in the previous section. So, by Proposition 3 and Theorem A.1, for every there exists a number such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where is defined in Lemma 1 with and , and is defined by (8) for .
We set , . By Lemma 4, . Moreover, it is easy to see that , by the definition of and .
Next, we are going to show that is the sequence which approximates . We fix , and a compact set . We choose such that , , and for all
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Such exists due to Proposition 5, since converges to the function in . Let us remark that , and , by Lemma 6. So, now we can estimate for each
[TABLE]
since . Similarly, for each , we have
[TABLE]
since on for all . Analogously, for all . The theorem is proved.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1(1) Sebastian Andres and Max-K. von Renesse, Particle approximation of the Wasserstein diffusion , J. Funct. Anal. 258 (2010), no. 11, 3879–3905. MR 2606878 (2011 b:60224)
- 2(2) Andrew J. Archer and Markus Rauscher, Dynamical density functional theory for interacting Brownian particles: stochastic or deterministic? , J. Phys. A 37 (2004), no. 40, 9325–9333. MR 2095422
- 3(3) Lorenzo Bertini, Alberto De Sole, Davide Gabrielli, Giovanni Jona-Lasinio, and Claudio Landim, Macroscopic fluctuation theory , Rev. Mod. Phys. 87 (2015), 593–636.
- 4(4) Federico Cornalba, Tony Shardlow, and Johannes Zimmer, A regularised Dean-Kawasaki model: derivation and analysis , ar Xiv:1802.01716, to appear in SIAM J. Math. Anal. (2018).
- 5(5) , A regularised Dean-Kawasaki model for weakly interacting particles , ar Xiv:1811.06448 (2018).
- 6(6) Donald A. Dawson, Measure-valued Markov processes , École d’Été de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XXI—1991, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1541, Springer, Berlin, 1993, pp. 1–260. MR 1242575
- 7(7) J. A. de la Torre, Pep Espanol, and Aleksandar Donev, Finite element discretization of non-linear diffusion equations with thermal fluctuations , The Journal of Chemical Physics 142 (2015), no. 9, 094115.
- 8(8) David S. Dean, Langevin equation for the density of a system of interacting Langevin processes , J. Phys. A 29 (1996), no. 24, L 613–L 617. MR 1446882
