The IVP for the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation in low regularity Sobolev spaces
Alysson Cunha, Eduardo Alarcon

TL;DR
This paper establishes local and global well-posedness of the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation in Sobolev spaces with regularity above 1/2, and analyzes the flow map and solution behavior as a parameter approaches zero.
Contribution
It proves well-posedness in low regularity Sobolev spaces and demonstrates the sharpness of the regularity threshold for the flow map.
Findings
Well-posedness for s > 1/2 in Sobolev spaces
Flow map is not C^2 for s < 1/2
Solution behavior analyzed as parameter μ approaches zero
Abstract
In this work, we study the initial-value problem associated with the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation. We show that the associated initial value problem is locally and globally well-posed in Sobolev spaces , where . We also show that our result is sharp, in the sense that the flow-map data-solution is not at origin, for . Furthermore, we study the behavior of the solutions when .
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.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Mathematical Physics Problems · Stability and Controllability of Differential Equations · Navier-Stokes equation solutions
The IVP for the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation in low regularity Sobolev spaces
Alysson Cunha
Universidade Federal de Goiás, Instituto de Matemática e Estatística. Universidade Federal de Goiás - UFG - Campus II, Goiânia, Brazil.
and
Eduardo Alarcon
Universidade Federal de Goiás, Instituto de Matemática e Estatística. Universidade Federal de Goiás - UFG - Campus II, Goiânia, Brazil.
Abstract.
In this work, we study the initial-value problem associated with the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation. We show that the associated initial value problem is locally and globally well-posed in Sobolev spaces , where . We also show that our result is sharp, in the sense that the flow-map data-solution is not at origin, for . Furthermore, we study the behavior of the solutions when .
1. Introduction
This paper is concerned with the initial-value problem (IVP) for the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation (KS)
[TABLE]
where is a constant and is a real-valued function.
First we present a derivation of the equation (1.1). Indeed, an initial value problem equivalent to (1.1)
[TABLE]
where is dimensionless catalyst diffusivity, is relative density and is dimensionless acceleration of gravity, was derived by G. I. Sivashinsky, et al ([30]), to describe vertical propagation of chemical waves fronts in the presence instability due to density gradients (possibly thermally induced). Assuming an interaction region thin enough to be described as a surface (), where is the vertical position of the front, they use thermo-hydrodynamic equations in the regions of reacted fluid ( ) and unreacted fluid ( ) together with conservation of energy, matter and momentum to derive jump conditions on discontinuities at the interface. The equations governing these autocatalytic systems involving propagating reaction-diffusion fronts have been derived in ([19]), where they consider the reaction front to be very thin chemically, other assumption in use involves how the densities of the fluids change with temperature. Since the density changes due to thermal expansion of the fluids are small, write the density of the fluids to first order as , where is the density at temperature , is density at the reference temperature and is the classical thermal expansion coefficient at constant pressure. The relative difference between the densities of these two fluids at the front is one of the key parameters in this study, and is defined by , where and are the densities of the fluid above the front (unreacted fluid) and of that below the front (reacted fluid), respectively. This is due to the fact that is dependent on the thermal diffusivity of the fluids, in ([30]) the diffusivity is assumed to be infinite.
As in ([19]), they obtain the following system of equations
[TABLE]
where is fluid velocity, is the vertical position of the front as a function of , and , unit vector pointing normal to the front into the unreacted fluid, the normal front velocity with respect to the unreacted fluid and is kinematic viscosity.
Together with jump conditions across the interface between the reacted and unreacted fluids given by:
- (1)
, 2. (2)
, 3. (3)
, 4. (4)
,
and viscous stress tensor , is the reduced pressure given by end is the totally antisymmetric tensor.
By making asymptotic expansions in the delta parameter of the variables , and , we obtain equation 1.2 (see [30]).
As the usual, we are assuming the well-posedness in the Kato’s sense, that is, includes, existence, uniqueness, persistence property and smoothness of the map data-solution, see [14], [15], [22], [23] and [24]. In [2] and [13] the authors, using the Banach fixed point theorem obtained the local and global well-posedness for the IVP (1.1). More precisely they proved the following theorems.
Theorem A (Local well-posedness) Let . Then for any there exists a positive and a unique solution of the (1.1). Furthermore, the flow-map is continuous in the -norm.
Theorem B (Global well-posedness) The problem (1.1) is globally well posed in , for .
In this paper, we are mainly interested in improving the last two theorems. For this we look at the dissipative effect of the IVP (1.1) and we will use the same methods of Dix [16] (see also [7]). In general terms, the Dix method consists of an application of the fixed point theorem in a suitable time-weighted function space. Recently, many authors have used this technique, see, for example, Carvajal and Panthee [11, 12], Esfahani [17], Fonseca, Pastrán and Rodríguez-Blanco [8] and Pilot [27]. See also [10]. We observe that, in these works the highest order dissipative term of the equations, often is greater than or equal to three (unless in [12], which is greater than ). In our work, the degree of the highest dissipation term is two, this show, in particular, that this technique is also useful when we have a low order of dissipation.
Our results are sharp in the sense that the flow-map data-solution, for the IVP (1.1), is not at origin, for . As it is well known, a consequence of this fact is that the Cauchy problem (1.1), for , cannot solve by a contraction argument on the integral equation (see [9], [25], [26], [29] and references therein).
Now we state the main results of this paper.
Theorem 1.1**.**
(Local well-posedness). Let and then for all there exists , a space
[TABLE]
and a unique solution of (1.1) in . In addition, the flow map data-solution
[TABLE]
is smooth and
[TABLE]
Moreover, if then the solution with initial data is defined in the same interval , with .
Theorem 1.2**.**
(Global well-posedness). Let and , then the initial value problem (1.1) is globally well-posed in .
Theorem 1.3**.**
(Ill-posedness). Let , if there exists some , such that the problem (1.1) is locally well-posed in , then the flow-map data solution
[TABLE]
is not at zero.
An open problem about the IVP (1.1) is to investigate the existence of a global attractor (see [4], [5] and [6]). In view of the ideas in [1], [4], [6], [20] and [28] we believe that it’s possible to show the existence of the global attractor in , where . For a general theory about the global attractor, see [1] and [28].
Another interesting question would be to explore the well-posedness for the IVP (1.1) with bore-like data. That is, we deal with the problem (1.1), with instead of , where satisfies
- i)
with ;
- ii)
, for some ;
- iii)
and ;
- iv)
and
and .
In particular, these results on bore-like data, would improve those obtained in [3]. More information on bore-like data, can be found in [22].
This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we derive some preliminary estimates. The well-posedness for the IVP (1.1), for , is established in section 3. In section 4 we deal with the limit when . Finally, in section 5 we state the results about Ill-posedness for the IVP (1.1).
1.1. Notation
In this article, we use the following notation. We say if there exists a constant such that . By we mean that and . We write when the constant depends on only parameter . The Fourier transform of , is defined by
[TABLE]
If , represents the nonhomogeneous Sobolev space defined as
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and .
In addition, we define the Bessel potential by
[TABLE]
hence .
In the rest of the paper, we will denote the -norm in the variable by .
2. Preliminary estimates
By defining
[TABLE]
the semigroup associated with the linear part of (1.1) is defined via Fourier transform by
[TABLE]
and the integral equation associated to (1.1)
[TABLE]
The following result is useful in establishing of estimates for the semigroup .
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let , , and . Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Proof.
First we will establish (2.6). For this, note that for all and
[TABLE]
Therefore, looking at the maximum value of function , we obtain the result.
About identity (2.7), by using the change of variables
[TABLE]
This finish the proof.
∎
In the following, we deal with the well-posedness for the IVP 1.1, where . First, we need a technical lemma, which will be useful in our linear estimates. This is a new version of Lemma 2.1 of [12].
Lemma 2.2**.**
There exists such that if , then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Proof.
The inequalities (2.8) and (2.9) follows from
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
∎
The next lemma is a simple result about calculus.
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let and . Then, for all
[TABLE]
Proof.
See Lemma 2.3 of [12]. ∎
Next, we present the function spaces appropriated for to show the existence of a solution.
Let and , then we define
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
In the following, we present the linear estimates in the spaces . The proof follows the same ideas contained in Lemma 2.6 of [12].
Lemma 2.4**.**
Let , and . Then
[TABLE]
where depends on , , and , with as in Lemma 2.2.
Proof.
By the definition of semigroup , the first term in (2.11) can be estimated as follows
[TABLE]
For estimate the second term of the -norm, putting and using the Plancherel identity, we have
[TABLE]
We can write
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
By using Lemmas 2.3 and 2.16, with and , follows that
[TABLE]
where above, we used
[TABLE]
Therefore, by (2.13)–(2.17), we conclude the proof. ∎
Next, we deduce some bilinear estimates useful to proof the Theorem 1.1.
Proposition 2.5**.**
Let and . Then
[TABLE]
for all .
Proof.
Let , therefore by the definition of norms we obtain
[TABLE]
Since , we see that , then
[TABLE]
Therefore, by Young’s inequality for convolution and identity (2.7)
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
In the above, again we used the change of variables .
With respect to second norm in (2.11)
[TABLE]
Therefore, by (2.19)–(2.22) we obtain the proof.
∎
The next result will be useful to obtain regularity of the solutions, in Theorem 1.1.
Proposition 2.6**.**
Let and . If and , then the application
[TABLE]
is continuous.
Proof.
Fixed , then
[TABLE]
Case a): . In view of , we obtain
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
with .
As for the other integral
[TABLE]
with . Where, in the above arguments we used the change of variables and the inequality .
With respect to the first integral in (2.24)
[TABLE]
Then from way analogous to the above case , with .
With respect to second integral
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Note that the function above converges to zero, with goes to , for all . We also have by the inequality that Then by the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem
[TABLE]
Moreover
[TABLE]
A new application of the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem gives us
[TABLE]
This concludes the proof of case a).
Case b): . Since , we obtain
[TABLE]
with
Finally, we see that converges to zero in -norm, by way analogous to the term , in (2.28). Therefore, the proof of proposition is finalized. ∎
Remark 2.7**.**
Let , then modifying the space by
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
and using the fact that
[TABLE]
we obtain, from way similar to the Proposition 2.5
[TABLE]
3. Proof of Theorems 1.1–1.2
Proof of Theorem 1.1.
Let and . Our strategy is to show that the operator given by (2.5) is a contraction in some closed ball in . In fact, by (2.5)
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all and .
Therefore, given we define
[TABLE]
Then taking
[TABLE]
the estimates (3.31) and (3.32) implies that is a contraction on the . Then by the Banach fixed point theorem, there exists a unique solution of the integral equation (2.5) in . By the Proposition 2.6 follows that . The uniqueness in whole space and the smoothness of the flow-map solution follows by know arguments, see for example [2], [8] and [21].
Let , then a similar contraction argument using the norm , defined in Remark 2.7, shows that the solution with initial data is defined on with .
With respect to regularity, we note that is continuous with respect to the topology of , see [2] and [13]. From the Proposition 2.6 there exists such that thus
[TABLE]
Therefore, by a well known bootstrapping argument, using the uniqueness result and the fact that only depends on the -norm of the initial data, we obtain
[TABLE]
∎
Proof of Theorem 1.2.
Let be the local solution given by Theorem 1.1. In view of , we only need an a priori estimate in . For this, putting we get the following
[TABLE]
Multiplying (3.37) by and integrating over the real line we obtain
[TABLE]
Then by the Gronwall’s Lemma
[TABLE]
In the following, multiplying (1.1) by and integrating over we get
[TABLE]
where above, we use respectively, the Gagliardo-Nirenberg’s inequality, and the Young’s inequality. Therefore, an application of Gronwall’s Lemma in (3.39) give us the desired result. This finish the proof.
∎
4. Convergence of solutions when
In this section we study the behavior of the solutions of IVP (1.1), when goes to zero. In the following, we define by , the solution of the IVP (1.1) constructed in Theorem 1.1, on parameter and defined in the interval . Recall that by the proof of Theorem 1.1, is independent of . Here we are using arguments similar to [21] (see also [27]).
Theorem 4.1**.**
Let , and . If is the solution defined as above, for , then
[TABLE]
where is the solution of (1.1), on parameter , with .
Proof.
Putting , after straightforward computations, follows that satisfies the integral equation
[TABLE]
Let solutions constructed in Theorem 1.1, on interval , such that
[TABLE]
In view of inequality
[TABLE]
is enough to examine the convergence on spaces . Then, by using Proposition 2.5
[TABLE]
Taking such that , follows by (4.41)
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
By the last inequality its enough study the limit on and . For this, we observe that by the definition of the -norms and the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, follows that
[TABLE]
About , again by the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem and using the same ideas as in the Propositions 2.5 and 2.6
[TABLE]
Therefore, by (4.42)–(4.47) we conclude that
[TABLE]
To conclude, we can use an interactive process to extend the solution for all interval . This finish the proof. ∎
Remark 4.2**.**
By a modification of the space we can show the existence of solutions to the IVP (1.1), when . In this case, the uniqueness of IVP (1.1) fail, once that’s in [16], the author obtained the non-uniqueness in the initial value problem for the Burgers’ equation, where .
5. Ill-Posedness
In this section we use analogous arguments contained in [27] (see also [8], [12], [17] and [18]).
Theorem 5.1**.**
Let and Then there no exists a space continuously embedded in such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Proof.
The proof follows by a contradiction argument. Suppose that there exists a space as in theorem 5.58. Let and where and is fixed. Using (5.49) and (5.50)
[TABLE]
Now, we will construct functions and such that (5.52) fails. Let and defined by
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
We observe that
[TABLE]
Recalling that
[TABLE]
by taking the Fourier transform and using Fubini’s Theorem
[TABLE]
where, by the change of variables we obtain
[TABLE]
Then the integral above can be written
[TABLE]
where
We observe that if and , then , and . Therefore, we obtain so that
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
Then from (5.50), (5.54) and (5.58) follows that
[TABLE]
which is a contradiction, taking account our hypothesis on .
∎
Proof of Theorem 1.3.
If the flow-map data solution would be at origin, by a computation of the Fréchet derivative we would obtain
[TABLE]
But as we have seen in (5.52) the above inequality fails. This finish the proof. ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] F. Abergel, Existence and finite dimensionality of the global attractor for evolution equations on unbounded domains, J. Differential Equations 83, 85–108, 1990.
- 2[2] E. A. Alarcon and P. J. Otterson, On the Initial Value Problem for a nonlinear wave front evolution equation describing waves with convection, Anais do 45 Seminário Brasileiro de Análise , I, 263–282, 1997.
- 3[3] E. A. Alarcon, On the Initial Value Problem for a nonlinear wave front evolution equation with Bore-Like data, 58º Seminário Brasileiro de Análise , IMECC-UNICAMP, 326–332, 2003.
- 4[4] E. A. Alarcon, Existence of the Global Attractor for the n-dimensional Kuramoto-Sivashinsky Equation, 52º Seminário Brasileiro de Análise , São José dos Campos-SP, 291–298, 2000.
- 5[5] E. A. Alarcon and R. J. Iório, The existence of global attractors for a class of nonlinear dissipative evolution equations, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A , 135, No. 5, 887–913, 2005.
- 6[6] E. A. Alarcon, Existence and finite dimensionality of the global attractor for a class of nonlinear dissipative equations, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 123, No. 5, 893–916, 1993.
- 7[7] D. Bekiranov, The initial value problem for the generalized Burgers’ equation, Diff. Int. Equations 9, 1253–1265, 1996.
- 8[8] G. Fonseca, R. Pastrán and G. Rodriguez, The IVP for a nonlocal perturbation of the Benjamin-Ono equation in classical and weighted Sobolev spaces, Arxiv , 2018.
