This paper investigates the limits of density-constrained dynamic optimal transport, deriving variational limits for singular phenomena such as permeable membranes and homogenized porous media.
Contribution
It introduces new variational limit results for optimal transport under density constraints, including membrane and homogenization effects.
Findings
01
Optimal flow through an infinitesimal permeable membrane.
02
Homogenized optimal flow through a porous medium.
03
Gamma-convergence characterizes the limits of constrained optimal transport.
Abstract
We consider the problem of dynamic optimal transport with a density constraint. We derive variational limits in terms of Γ-convergence for two singular phenomena. First, for densities constrained near a hyperplane we recover the optimal flow through an infinitesimal permeable membrane. Second, for rapidly oscillating periodic constraints we obtain the optimal flow through a homogenized porous medium.
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.
Full text
Limits of density-constrained optimal transport
Peter Gladbach and Eva Kopfer
Abstract
We consider the problem of dynamic optimal transport with a density constraint. We derive variational limits in terms of Γ-convergence for two singular phenomena. First, for densities constrained near a hyperplane we recover the optimal flow through an infinitesimal permeable membrane. Second, for rapidly oscillating periodic constraints we obtain the optimal flow through a homogenized porous medium.
1 Introduction
Over the last few years, optimal transport has become a vibrant research area with many different applications. In particular, density-constrained flow problems have garnered significant interest starting with the seminal work of Ford and Fulkerson [11].
In recent years, the theory of constraints has been adapted to optimal transport, first as a static version in [14] and then as dynamic constraints in [8] and [9].
The model we use is based on the dynamic formulation of the Kantorovich distance due to Benamou and Brenier [3],
[TABLE]
Here the infimum is taken over all curves of probability measures (ρt)t∈[0,1]⊂P(Rd) with fixed endpoints.
In this paper, we constrain the densities of all intermediate measures ρt by some measurable maximal density h:Ω→[0,∞]. In this article Ω is a manifold with boundary, typically Rd or the torus Td:=Rd/Zd.
More precisely we consider first the space M+(Ω) of finite nonnegative Radon measures on Ω equipped with the weak-∗ (also called narrow) topology in duality with Cb(Ω).
By extension the space of weakly-∗ continuous curves of finite nonnegative Radon measures is
[TABLE]
We study in this article the constrained transport functional Eh:CM+(Ω)→[0,∞],
[TABLE]
Note that the constraint is closed under weak-∗ convergence by the Portmanteau theorem.
For h=∞ we recover the classical Benamou-Brenier formula. If h∈Lloc1(Ω) then every admissible ρ is absolutely continuous with density dxdρ≤h(x) almost everywhere. The case h=\mathds1U for some nonconvex U⊂Ω, e.g. an hourglass (see Figure 1), models optimal transport of an incompressible but sprayable fluid. This specific problem was treated in [16], [17]. If U is convex, W2-geodesics between two measures ρ0,ρ1≤\mathds1U satisfy the density constraints. If U is not convex, optimal curves under the constraint are not W2-geodesics and interact with the constraint.
We find the variational limits of two singular phenomena.
1.1 Thin permeable membranes
The first is the derivation of an infinitesimal membrane from the constraint
[TABLE]
for some α∈(0,∞).
Then, as ε→0, we derive an effective variational model in the sense of Γ-convergence as introduced by De Giorgi. We refer to [5] and [10] for comprehensive overviews of the theory.
The limit functional acts on curves of nonnegative Radon measures on the topological disjoint union R−d⊔R+d of the closed half-spaces
[TABLE]
and is given by E0:CM+(R−d⊔R+d)→[0,∞],
[TABLE]
where we use the identification M+(R−d⊔R+d)=M+(R−d)×M+(R+d). The infimum is taken over all pairs of distributional solutions to the continuity equations
[TABLE]
meaning that in both half-spaces, for all ϕ±∈Cc∞((0,1)×R±d) the following equation holds
[TABLE]
Here Vt±∈M(R±d;Rd) is a vector-valued finite Radon measure which is absolutely continuous with respect to ρt± and ft∈L2(Rd−1)=L2(∂R±d) is the flux through the membrane, with positive sign denoting flux from the lower into the upper half-space.
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let ε>0.
Then, as ε→0, the energies Ehε:CM+(Rd)→[0,∞]Γ-converge to the limit functional E0:CM+(R−d⊔R+d)→[0,∞] in the sense that
(lower bound)
if ρtε∣R−d⇀∗ρt− in M+(R−d) for every t∈[0,1], and ρtε∣(R+d)∘⇀∗ρt+ in M+(R+d) for every t∈[0,1] then
[TABLE]
2. (upper bound)
for all curves (ρt−,ρt+)t∈[0,1] with E0((ρt−,ρt+)t∈[0,1])<∞ there exists a sequence (ρtε)t∈[0,1] in CM+(Rd) with ρtε∣R−d⇀∗ρt−
in M+(R−d) for every t∈[0,1], and ρtε∣(R+d)∘⇀∗ρt+ in M+(R+d) for every t∈[0,1] and
[TABLE]
We prove this theorem in Section 6. Note that the part ρtε∣(R+d)∘ includes the mass in the membrane, which is locally bounded by αε2.
Since Γ-convergence implies the convergence of minimizers, the associated minimal energies between two measures (ρ0−,ρ0+),(ρ1−,ρ1+)∈M+(R−d⊔R+d) of equal mass converge as well, as do the minimizing curves themselves.
1.2 Homogenization of periodic constraints
The second result concerns the effective limit as ε→0 for
[TABLE]
where h:Rd→[0,∞) is Zd-periodic. This problem is related to the periodic homogenization of elliptic functionals, see [6]. In fact it is a special case of A-quasiconvex homogenization treated in [7]. In particular it includes perforated domains, where h(x)=\mathds1U for some periodic open set U⊂Rd, modelling the optimal flow of an incompressible fluid through a porous medium (see Figure 2), which has received a lot of attention in recent years, see e.g. [19], [24].
To the best knowledge of the authors this is a new development in the derivation of porous media equations from inhomogenous materials via optimal transport.
We will assume throughout the article that h:Rd→[0,∞) satisfies
(A1)
h is Zd-periodic.
2. (A2)
{h>0}⊂Rd is open, connected, and Lipschitz bounded.
3. (A3)
h is measurable.
4. (A4)
h(x)∈{0}∪[α,α1] for some α∈(0,1], for almost every x∈Rd.
We note that h can be interpreted as either a function on the torus Td or as a periodic function on Rd.
The connectedness of {h>0}⊂Rd is stronger than connectedness of {h>0}⊂Td.
Under these admissibility assumptions, we show Γ-convergence of Ehε to the homogenized transport cost Ehom:CM+(Td)→[0,∞],
[TABLE]
where only absolutely continuous curves ρt,Vt≪Ld are allowed. Otherwise Ehom is defined to be ∞.
The homogenized energy density fhom:[0,∞)×Rd→[0,∞] is given by
[TABLE]
and the infimum is taken among all ν∈L∞(Td) such that 0≤ν(x)≤h(x) almost everywhere and ∫Tdν(x)dx=m, and all W∈L2(Td;Rd) such that
divW=0 in D′(Td), and ∫TdW(x)dx=U.
Theorem 1.2**.**
Let h:Td→[0,∞) satisfy the assumptions (A1) - (A4).
Then, as ε→0, and ρtε⇀∗ρt in M+(Td) for every t∈[0,1], Ehε:CM+(Td)→[0,∞]Γ-converges to Ehom:CM+(Td)→[0,∞] in the sense that
(lower bound)
if ρtε⇀∗ρt in M+(Td) for every t∈[0,1], then
[TABLE]
(upper bound)
for all curves (ρt)t∈[0,1] with Ehom((ρt)t∈[0,1])<∞ there exists a sequence (ρtε)t∈[0,1] in CM+(Td) with ρtε⇀∗ρt
in M+(Td) for every t∈[0,1], and
[TABLE]
Remark 1.3**.**
In the one-dimensional case Ehom is given by
[TABLE]
where F(m):=(inf{∫01ν(x)1dx:ν≤h,∫01ν=m})−1 is the mobility. Since fhom(m,U)=F(m)U2 is convex (see Lemma 7.1), this means that the mobility m↦F(m)≤m must be concave, which signifies a congestion effect.
In Section 2 we prove lower-semicontinuity and compactness of the functionals Eh, E0 and Ehom, which is relevant for later sections. In Section 3 we find the dual problems of (3), (5) and (10) and characterize the minimizers by the respective Euler-Lagrange equations. In Section 4 we state the PDE solved by the steepest descent of the Helmholtz free energy functional
ρ↦RT∫Ωρ(x)logρ(x)dx+∫Ωρ(x)ψ(x)dx
for each cost. Additionally, in Section 5 we give an example of an optimal curve under a nontrivial density constraint.
Finally, in Section 6 and Section 7 we prove Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 respectively.
2 Compactness
Lemma 2.1**.**
The functionals Eh, E0, and Ehom defined in (3), (5), and (10) are lower semicontinuous with respect to pointwise weak-∗ convergence on CM+(Ω), where Ω is Rd or Td, R−d⊔R+d, or Td respectively.
Given a fixed finite Radon measure ρ0∈M+(Ω), all families of curves starting in ρ0 with bounded energies have a subsequence converging pointwise weak-∗ in CM+(Ω).
Proof.
Compactness in the constrained and homogenized case follows from the fact that in (3), (10), the functional is bounded from below by the Wasserstein action (1). For (10), this bound is shown in Lemma 7.1. The compactness then follows from the tightness of balls in Wasserstein space and the uniform continuity of sequences of curves with finite energy.
We show compactness in the membrane case in two steps. First, for 0<r<R define a test function ηr,R∈Cc∞(R−d⊔R+d) such that ηr,R(x)=ηr,R(∣x∣), ηr,R=0 outside of B(0,2R)∖B(0,r/2), η=1 in B(0,R)∖B(0,r), and ∣∇ηr,R∣≤rC. Then
[TABLE]
The last term is uniformly small in n as r→∞, showing tightness of the (ρt−,n,ρt+,n)t∈[0,1],n∈N⊂M+(R−d⊔R+d).
Now pick a countable family (ηi)i∈N⊂Cc∞(R−d⊔R+d) that is dense in Cc0(R−d⊔R+d). Then whenever 0≤t0≤t1≤1, n,i∈N, we have
[TABLE]
It follows that limh→0supn,t⟨ρt+hn−ρtn,ηi⟩=0 for every i. By Helly’s Selection Theorem there exists a subsequence (ρtnk)t,∈[0,1],k∈N and a curve (ρt−,ρt+)t∈[0,1]⊂M+(R−d⊔R+d) such that ⟨ρtnk,ηi⟩→⟨ρt,ηi⟩ for every i∈N and every t∈[0,1]. By tightness, ρtnk⇀∗ρt for every t∈[0,1], which proves the compactness.
In cases (3) and (10), to prove the lower bound, take a sequence of curves (ρtn,Vtn)t∈[0,1],n∈N with finite energy. We see by Hölder’s inequality that
[TABLE]
where E=Eh or E=Ehom, respectively.
The right hand side is bounded, so that a subsequence Vtn converges vaguely (not necessarily weak-∗ in the case of (5)) to some V∈M([0,1]×Ω;Rd). We note that Vt is absolutely continuous with respect to dt, so that by the disintegration theorem V=∫01Vtdt for some Vt∈M(Ω;Rd) defined for almost every t, and ∂tρt+divVt=0 in D′((0,1)×Ω).
The same argument works in case \eqrefeq:membrane, yielding finite measures (Vt−,Vt+)t∈[0,1]⊂M(R−d⊔R+d;Rd). Additionally, ftn⇀ft in L2([0,1]×Rd−1). The limits then solve ∂tρt±+divVt±±ftHd−1∣∂R±d=0 in D′((0,1)×(R−d⊔R+d)), and by Fubini’s theorem and the weak lower semicontinuity of the norm
[TABLE]
To show lower semicontinuity of the remaining term
[TABLE]
with Ω∈{Rd,R−d⊔R+d,Td}, we use Theorem 2.34 in [2], which states that for g:RM→[0,∞] convex, lower semicontinuous, with recession function g∞:RM→[0,∞], the functional defined on M(Ω;RM)
[TABLE]
is vaguely sequentially lower semicontinuous. We apply this to the sequence Ptn:=(ρtn,Vtn)∈M(Ω;Rd+1), which in any case converges vaguely to Pt:=(ρt,Vt). The function g is either g(m,U)=m∣U∣2 in cases (3) and (5) or g=fhom in case (10). We now have to do some extra work depending on the case:
In case (3), we have to show that ρt(A)≤∫Ah(x)dx for every open set A⊂Ω. This is the Portmanteau theorem, found in e.g. [2, Example 1.63].
In case (10), we know from Lemma 7.1 that fhom is convex and lower semicontinuous. We have to make sure that the singular part of (ρt,Vt) vanishes. Indeed, this holds if h∈L1(Td), as in that case dxdρtn≤∫Tdh(y)dy for every n, and this property is inherited by ρt. Moreover, Vt≪ρt if the energy is finite.
In case (5), we have nothing more to show. This completes the proof.
∎
3 Duality and minimality
In this section, we characterize the dual problems to (3), (5), and (10) and find the Euler-Lagrange equations. To this end, we fix endpoints ρ0,ρ1∈M+(Ω) with finite and equal mass.
3.1 Constrained optimal transport
Here we minimize the action functional
[TABLE]
subject to 0≤ρt(A)≤∫Ah(x)dx for every open A⊂Ω and ∂tρt+divVt=0 in D′((0,1)×Ω), and ρ0,ρ1 fixed. We introduce the Lagrange multiplier ϕt∈C1([0,1]×Ω) and write by Sion’s minimax theorem
[TABLE]
The last term is the constrained dual problem. Note that wherever h=∞, we formally recover the Kantorovich dual.
By the complementary slackness theorem, the minimizer (ρt)t∈[0,1] and maximizer (ϕt)t∈[0,1] are characterized by the Euler-Lagrange equations
[TABLE]
Here pt:Ω→[0,∞) is the Lagrange multiplier to the constraint on ρt acting as a pressure on the potential.
3.2 Optimal membrane transport
Here we minimize
[TABLE]
subject to 0≤ρt± and ∂tρt±+divVt±±ftHd−1∣∂R±d=0 in D′((0,1)×(R−d⊔R+d)), and ρ0±,ρ1± fixed. We introduce the Lagrange multipliers ϕt±∈C1([0,1]×R±d) and write by Sion’s minimax theorem, denoting [ϕt](x~)=ϕt+(x~)−ϕt−(x~):Rd−1→R,
[TABLE]
The last term is the constrained dual problem. Note that as α→∞, we formally recover the Kantorovich dual problem in Rd, whereas as α→0, we formally recover two separate Kantorovich dual problems in R±d.
By the complementary slackness theorem, the minimizers (ρt±)t∈[0,1] and maximizers (ϕt±)t∈[0,1] are characterized by the Euler-Lagrange equations
[TABLE]
3.3 Homogenized optimal transport
Here we minimize
[TABLE]
subject to ∂tρt+divVt=0 in D′((0,1)×Td), and ρ0,ρ1 fixed. We introduce the Lagrange multiplier ϕt∈C1([0,1]×Td) and write by Sion’s minimax theorem
[TABLE]
The last term is the dual problem. We check that for fhom(m,U)=2m∣U∣2 on [0,∞)×Rd, we have
[TABLE]
as expected.
By the complementary slackness theorem, the minimizer (ρt)t∈[0,1] and maximizer (ϕt)t∈[0,1] are characterized by the Euler-Lagrange differential inclusions, which are stated in terms of the partial Legendre transform fhom∗U(m,P):=supUP⋅U−fhom(m,U) as
[TABLE]
This is a general formulation of congested mean field games. A similar model of congested mean field game is treated in e.g. [4].
To be more specific, in the idealized case fhom(m,U)=2m1−β∣U∣2, β∈[0,1), the mean field game equation is given by
[TABLE]
4 Gradient flows
We now look at the formal constrained gradient flows of the functionals
[TABLE]
with ψ∈C1(Ω) the Gibbs free energy, and R,T>0 the gas constant and the temperature respectively.
We will write down the PDE corresponding to steepest descent of F with costs given by (3), (5), and (10). Without loss generality we assume RT=1.
4.1 Constrained gradient flow
Given ρ∈L1, we want to find V∈Lloc1(Ω;Rd) minimizing
[TABLE]
subject to divV≥0 on {ρ=h}. We introduce a Lagrange multiplier p∈L1(Ω), p≥0, p(h−ρ)=0, and write the above problem as
[TABLE]
We see that the minimizer can be written V(x)=−ρ∇ϕ(x), where ϕ:Ω→R solves the elliptic obstacle problem
[TABLE]
Physically, the difference between ϕ(x) and the chemical potential logρ(x)+ψ(x) acts as a hydrostatic pressure p(x)≥0 with p(x)(h(x)−ρ(x))=0.
Inserting V into the continuity equation yields a constrained version of the Fokker-Planck equation,
[TABLE]
Note that in [13], the authors rigorously derive the unconstrained Fokker-Planck equation as the W2-gradient flow of F. We note that this version of the constrained Fokker-Planck equation differs from the Stefan problem treated in e.g. [18], which is not mass-preserving.
4.2 Membrane gradient flow
Here, given (ρ−,ρ+)∈L1(R−d⊔R+d), and a Gibbs free energy (ψ−,ψ+)∈C1(R−d⊔R+d), we find V−,V+,f minimizing
[TABLE]
Inserting the minimizers into the continuity equation yields two Fokker-Planck equations coupled through the Teorell equation on the membrane [23],
[TABLE]
4.3 Homogenized gradient flow
Given ρ∈L1(Td), we find V∈Lloc1(Td;Rd) minimizing
[TABLE]
We see that V(x)∈∂P−fhom∗U(ρ,−∇logρ(x)−∇ψ(x)). Note that for fhom(m,U)=2m1−β∣U∣2, β∈(0,1), which is a reasonable choice according to Remark 1.3, and ψ=0, we recover the porous medium equation
[TABLE]
We note that Theorem 1.2 does not imply convergence of gradient flows (36) with h=hε to (40).
5 The stark constraint
In the following we give a simple one-dimensional example of an optimal curve under a nontrivial density constraint, which bounds the density by λ>0 on (0,∞).
[TABLE]
where λ,m>0. We call this the stark constraint.
We construct an optimal curve (ρt)t∈[0,1] starting in ρ0=mδ0 and ending in the uniform density ρ1=λ\mathds1(0,λm)dx.
We choose this example because the solution breaks conservation of momentum, while kinetic energy is conserved. The calculations in this case are straightforward but already quite lengthy. The complexity only increases in higher dimensions and with more variation in h.
We choose the following ansatz for the optimal curve:
[TABLE]
We see that any ρt(A)≤λL(A) for any Borel A⊆(0,∞), and the boundary conditions are satisifed if and only if x0=0 and x1=λm. The momentum field Vt=λx˙tL∣(0,xt) solves the continuity equation
[TABLE]
with action given by
[TABLE]
where G(y)=32λ1/2y3/2. The minimizer satisfies dtdG(xt)=c, where c is the unique constant compatible with the boundary conditions x0=0 and x1=λm.
We see that
[TABLE]
and consequently
[TABLE]
We claim that ρt is optimal among all curves independent of the ansatz. To see this we consider the dual problem. Let
[TABLE]
where ϕ0(0)=0 and ϕ0(x)=∞ for x>0.
Formally, we have
[TABLE]
which is half the primal cost ∫01∣dtdG(xt)∣2dt. By duality ρt and ϕt must be optimal. In fact, they formally solve (23) with pressure
[TABLE]
However, at x=0, ϕt is not differentiable and at t=0, it is not continuous.
To make the optimality precise, we approximate ϕ with C1-functions ϕtε(x)=32λmt−31ηε(x), with ηε→x+ uniformly and (ηε)′−\mathds1[0,∞)→0 in L1(R). Then for every δ>0, we have
[TABLE]
This shows that (ρt)t∈[δ,1−δ] is optimal. Letting δ→0, optimality of (ρt)t∈[0,1] follows.
6 The membrane limit
We now prove Theorem 1.1. Recall that hε:Rd→[0,∞] is given by the stark constraint
[TABLE]
with α∈(0,∞) fixed and ε→0.
Because Γ-convergence is compatible with partial minimization, the minimum costs for all curves also Γ-converge.
Proof of the lower bound.
Consider a family of curves of bounded nonnegative measures (ρtε)t∈[0,1],ε>0⊂M+(Rd) with ρtε(dx)≤hε(x)dx, where ρtε∣Rd−1×(−∞,0]⇀∗ρt− and ρtε∣Rd−1×(0,∞)⇀∗ρt+. Also find the respective minimizing momentum fields (Vtε)t∈[0,1],ε>0⊂M(Rd,Rd) such that ∂tρtε+divVtε=0 in D′((0,1)×Rd) and
[TABLE]
We shall assume throughout the proof that (52) is bounded by some constant independent of ε by extracting a subsequence, as without the existence of a bounded energy subsequence there is nothing to prove.
We now employ the standard dimension reduction technique of blowing up the thin constrained region, as was done in e.g. [12]. We introduce the notation x=(x~,xd)∈Rd. To that end, let Tε:Rd→Rd be defined by
[TABLE]
so that Tε(Rd−1×(0,1))=Rd−1×(0,ε).
We define πtε=(Tε)#ρtε and Wtε(x)=DTε(Tε−1(x))Vtε(Tε−1(x)), i.e.
[TABLE]
By this choice, ∂tπtε+divWtε=0, and
[TABLE]
Because πtε≤αε2 in Rd−1×(0,1), it follows that W~tε→0 strongly in L2([0,1]×Rd−1×(0,1)), and that a subsequence of (Wtε)d converges weakly in L2([0,1]×Rd−1×(0,1)) to some ft∈L2([0,1]×Rd−1×(0,1)). In addition, πtε→0 in L∞([0,1]×Rd−1×(0,1)). Thus, the continuity equation holds for the limit, i.e. 0=∂t0+div(0,ft)=∂dft in D′((0,1)×Rd−1×(0,1)), i.e. ft(x~,xd)=ft(x~). By Mazur’s Lemma, it follows that
[TABLE]
Dividing both sides by α yields the part of the lower bound in the membrane Rd−1×(0,ε). For the outer part of the membrane
we find by Jensen’s inequality
[TABLE]
because the energy is finite.
Also ∫01∥Wtε∥L2(Rd−1×(0,1))2dt≤C, from which we infer that a subsequence of Wtε converges vaguely to some Radon measure W=(Wt)t∈[0,1]∈M([0,1]×Rd;Rd) with ∂tπt+divWt=0, where
We define
Vt−:=Wt∣Rd−1×(−∞,0] and Vt+:=Wt(⋅−ed)∣Rd−1×(0,∞). Let ϕ∈Cc∞((0,1)×R−d) and let Φ∈Cc∞((0,1)×Rd−1×(−∞,1)) be an extension of ϕ. Then
[TABLE]
which shows the continuity equation (6) in the lower half-space. The upper half-space works similarly.
∎
To prove the upper bound, we find it is useful to represent the limit problem in Lagrangian coordinates. For curves in W2(Rd) with finite kinetic action, this is done by the well-known superposition principle due to Smirnov [22] and applied to optimal transport in e.g. [1]. Here, the particle trajectories may jump between the half-spaces and are thus not continuous. A natural class of curves are the special curves of bounded variation defined below, see also Figure 3.
Definition 6.1**.**
Given d∈N∖{0}, we define the class SBV2÷ of curves in R−d⊔R+d containing all X:[0,1]→R−d⊔R+d such that X is absolutely continuous up to a finite jump set JX⊂(0,1), with velocity ∫[0,1]∖JX∣X˙t∣2dt<∞, and mirrored traces at the jumps Xt−=SXt+ for all t∈JX, where S:R−d⊔R+d→R−d⊔R+d is the mirror function mapping (x~,xd)∈R±d to (x~,−xd)∈R∓d.
We also define the subclass SBV20 as all curves X∈SBV2÷ with jump traces on the boundary ∂R±d.
*We equip SBV2÷ with the notion of weak convergence, where Xk⇀X if Xk→X in L1([0,1];R−d⊔R+d), X˙k⇀X˙ weakly in L2([0,1];Rd), and the measures
(∑t∈JXkσ(t)δt)k∈N⊂M([0,1]) converge weakly-∗ in M([0,1]) to some ν, with ∑t∈JXσ(t)δt=ν∣(0,1), where σ∈{±1} denotes the sign of the ed component of the jump. (Here we need to exclude jumps converging to [math] or 1, as they vanish from the jump set)*
We now state some elementary properties of SBV2÷.
Lemma 6.2**.**
The notion of weak convergence in SBV2÷ is metrizable. The underlying metric space is Polish, and SBV20 is a weakly closed subset. Given M>0, the set
[TABLE]
is weakly sequentially compact, with SBV2÷=⋃M∈NAM.
Proof.
Since all of L1([0,1;R−d⊔R+d), L2([0,1];Rd) with the weak topology, and M([0,1]) with the weak-∗ topology are metrizable and complete, these properties are inherited by SBV2÷:
If Xk→X in L1([0,1];R−d⊔R+d), X˙k⇀V∈L2([0,1];Rd), and ∑t∈JXkσ(t)δt⇀∗ν∈M((0,1)) vaguely, then X˙=V, #JX=∣ν∣((0,1)), and ∑t∈JXσ(t)δt=ν∣(0,1).
This shows that weak convergence in SBV2÷ is metrizable and complete. For separability, note that while M([0,1]) is not separable, its subset {∑t∈Jσ(t)δt:J⊂[0,1] finite,σ(t)∈{±1}} is. The fact that SBV2÷=⋃M∈NAM follows from the definition. The weak sequential compactness of AM also follows from the above argument.
∎
In the presence of a membrane, we see that some – but not all – particles at the membrane, will jump between the upper and lower half spaces. We model this using a stochastic jump process with rate determined by the ratio of the flux f and the density of ρ±.
Proposition 6.3**.**
Let (ρt−,ρt+)t∈[0,1]⊂M+(R−d⊔R+d) be a curve with finite limit action and finite mass, with ∂tρt±+divVt±±ftHd−1∣∂R±d=0. Then there exists a measure P∈M+(SBV20) with mass P(SBV20)=ρ0−(R−d)+ρ0+(R+d) such that the following hold:
The Borel measures F±∈M+([0,1]×∂R±d) defined as F±(A)=E[#{t∈JX:(t,Xt−)∈A}] are absolutely continuous with respect to dt⊗dHd−1∣∂R±d with densities gt± satisfying gt±(x~)≤(ft(x~))± for almost every (t,x~).
Note that for all nonnegative measures P∈M+(SBV20) with E[∫01∣X˙t∣2dt]<∞ and ∑±∫01∫∂R±d∣gt±∣2dHd−1dt<∞, the laws (ρt−,ρt+)=E[δXt] have finite limit action, with ∂tρt±+divVt±+(gt±−gt∓∘S)Hd−1∣∂R±d=0, where (Vt−,Vt+)=E[X˙tδXt], and
[TABLE]
by Jensen’s inequality.
For the proof, we follow the argument in [1, Theorem 4.4].
Proof.
Step 1: Instead of (ρt−,ρt+)t∈[0,1] we consider the mollified versions ρt±ε(dx):=ρt±∗ϕ±ε(dx)+εe−∣x∣2(dx)∣R±d, where ϕ±ε∈Cc∞(B(±εed,ε)) is a Dirac sequence with ϕ−ε∘S=ϕ+ε.
We note that after the mollification, we have ρt±ε∈C∞(R±d), Lipschitz, and strictly positive. If ∂tρt±+divVt±±ftHd−1∣∂R±d=0, then setting Vt±ε=Vt±∗ϕ±ε, vt±ε=Vt±ε/ρt±ε, and gt±ε=±ftHd−1∣∂R±d∗ϕ±ε, we have
[TABLE]
with vt±ε locally Lipschitz and satisfying the boundary values vt±ε=0 on ∂R±d since Vt±ε=0 on ∂R±d and ρt±ε>0 in R±d. By Jensen’s inequality and the convexity of (V,ρ)↦ρ∣V∣2 in Rd×(0,∞) we may estimate
[TABLE]
We note that gt±ε is no longer supported on the boundary but in a 2ε-neighborhood of the same.
We now define a random curve X∈SBV2÷. First, its starting point X0∈R−d⊔R+d is distributed according to (ρ0−ε,ρ0+ε). Independently of the starting point, take a random realization of the 1-Poisson process, yielding discrete times T={ti}i∈N⊂[0,∞). Then define the random curve (Xt,Tt):[0,1]→R−d⊔R+d×[0,∞) as the solution to the ODE
[TABLE]
Here σ:[0,∞)→{−1,1} is the function indicating whether Xt is in the lower or upper half-space, with σ(0) determined by the starting half-space of X0 and jump set Jσ=T. Clearly X∈SBV2÷ almost surely. In particular, if Xt is in the lower half-space, it jumps to the upper half-space whenever Tt=ti and vice versa. Because its derivative is nonnegative, Tt is nondecreasing.
By using Itô’s formula for semimartingales with jumps (Section 2.1 in [21]) we see that the distribution Xt∼(μt−ε,μt+ε) solves the Cauchy problem
[TABLE]
as does (ρt−ε,ρt+ε), since (gt±ε)+−(gt∓ε)+∘S=gt±ε, and (ρt−ε,ρt+ε) solves (67). Because the solution is unique by the Cauchy-Kovalevskaya theorem, we have μt±ε=ρt±ε for every t∈[0,1]. We take Pε∈M+(SBV2÷) to be the law of X. Defining for a Borel A⊂[0,1]×R±d the nonnegative measure F±ε(A):=Eε[#{t∈JX:(t,Xt−)∈A}], we note that F±ε is absolutely continuous with respect to dt⊗dx with density gt±ε(x) according to the construction.
Step 2:
The next step is to show that the Pε∈M+(SBV2÷) are tight. To this end we use the weakly sequentially compact sets AM from Lemma 6.2 and show that limM→∞supε>0Pε(SBV2÷∖AM)=0. We check each of the three conditions defining AM:
[TABLE]
since the (ρ0ε)ε>0⊂M+(R−d⊔R+d) are tight, where ρ0ε=(ρ0−ε,ρ0ε).
For the second condition, this follows from the finity of the transport part of the energy and Markov’s inequality:
[TABLE]
For the third condition, this follows from the finity of the membrane part of the energy and Hölder’s and Markov’s inequalities. In order to use Hölder’s inequality, we note that if ∣X0∣≤M and ∫01∣X˙t∣2dt≤M2, then ∣Xt∣≤2M for all t, independently of the jump set. Thus,
[TABLE]
This shows that the (Pε)ε>0⊂M+(SBV2÷) are weakly tight, so that by Prokhorov’s theorem they have a weakly convergent subsequence Pε⇀∗P∈M+(SBV20). It is easily seen that the law of Xt under P is Xt∼(ρt−,ρt+). Because the pathwise energy is weakly-∗ lower semicontinuous, it follows from the Portmanteau theorem
[TABLE]
For the membrane part, note that as Pε⇀∗P, we have for any relatively open A⊂[0,1]×R±d that
[TABLE]
since X↦#{t∈JX:(t,Xt−)∈A} is weakly sequentially lower semicontinuous. On the other hand, clearly F±ε⇀∗(±ft(x~))+dt⊗dHd−1∣∂R±d(x~), so that F± is absolutely continuous with density at most (±ft(x~))+.
∎
Example 6.4**.**
Take ρ±=ωd−1Rd−11Hd−1∣∂R±d∩B(0,R) and take ρt−=(1−t)ρ−, ρt+=tρ+. Then Vt±=0, ft(x~)=ωd−1Rd−11\mathds1B(0,R)(x~) in the continuity equation. The probability measure P∈P(SBV20) is the uniform distribution on the curves
[TABLE]
for t0∈[0,1],x0∈∂R−d∩B(0,R). We see that there is no way to choose the jump times deterministically.
We now use this Lagrangian representation to prove the upper bound. Roughly, instead of having particles teleport across the membrane of width ε>0, we replace a particle entering the membrane from one side with a different one exiting on the other side. This technique is inspired by the magical illusion “The Tranported Man” from the novel The Prestige[20], where instead of actually teleporting himself, a magician simply exits the stage as his identical twin brother enters it at the same time. The illusion is the difference between the Eulerian and the supposed Lagrangian formulation of the transport.
Proof of the upper bound.
Take a curve with finite limit action (ρt−,ρt+)t∈[0,1] and represent it using P∈M+(SBV20) as in Proposition 6.3. We shall modify these paths to pay heed to the finite thickness of the membranes. To this end, we modify the curves in suppP as follows:
For any measure F±∈M+([0,1]×∂R±d) with absolutely continuous density dF±=ft±(x~)(dt⊗dHd−1(x~)), define a stopping time τF:SBV20→[0,∞] through
[TABLE]
Note that τF is Borel-measurable and decreasing in F.
On the other hand, given a measurable stopping time τ:SBV20→[0,∞], define a Borel measure Fτ±∈M+([0,1]×∂R±d) through
[TABLE]
where the expectation is taken with respect to P. Note that Fτ is decreasing in τ and Fτ±≤F±. In particular, Fτ± is absolutely continuous.
Define for every ε>0 first τ0:=∞, then Fk±:=Fτk±∈M+([0,1]×∂R±d) and τk+1:=τFk. Then (τk)k∈N⊂[0,∞]SBV20 forms a nonincreasing sequence of Borel-measurable stopping times and converges pointwise to some Borel-measurable τε:SBV20→[0,∞]. Likewise, (Fk±)k∈N⊂M+([0,1]×∂R±d) forms a nonincreasing sequence and converges weakly-∗ to a a limit measure F±ε∈M+([0,1]×∂R±d) with density ft±ε(x~)≤ft±(x~) for every (t,x~)∈[0,1]×∂R±d. By continuity, we then have
[TABLE]
for P-almost every X∈SBV20, and
[TABLE]
Now we define the stopped process SBV20∋X↦Xε∈SBV([0,1];Rd) through
[TABLE]
We note that in the stopped process, the first αε2 particles to attempt a jump across the membrane at x~ are instead frozen inside the membrane. This allows us to easily construct the recovery sequence as follows:
[TABLE]
We define the momentum field first as a measure V∈M([0,1]×Rd;Rd) and later show that V is absolutely continuous in time:
[TABLE]
Here [Xtε]∈Rd denotes the jump of Xtε, which is always parallel to ed.
By the linearity of the continuity equation, it is clear that ∂tρtε+divVε=0 in D′((0,1)×Rd).
Define Utε⊂Rd−1×(0,ε) as the set
[TABLE]
We claim that ρtε∣Rd−1×(0,ε)=αεLd∣Utε, see Figure 4. We test this against cylindrical sets A~×I, with A~⊂Rd−1 and I⊂(0,ε) Borel:
[TABLE]
Here we used (79), (80), Fubini’s theorem, and the change of variables formula. The claim is shown. In particular, ρtε≤hε. It follows that ρtε∣Rd−1×(−∞,0]⇀∗ρt− and ρtε∣Rd−1×(0,∞))⇀∗ρt+ for every ε>0, since P(τε(X)<∞,∣X1ε∣<R)≤C(d)Rd−1αε2, whereas by Prokhorov’s theorem P(∣X1ε∣>R)→0 as R→∞. All in all, ∣ρtε−ρt∣→0.
Finally, we have to estimate the action. Outside of the membrane, this is simply Jensen’s inequality:
[TABLE]
Inside the membrane, we first note that Vε is absolutely continuous with respect to (t,x), with density
Consider d=1 and set ρt−=(1−t)δ0 and ρt+=tδ0. This is an optimal curve connecting its two end points. The flux is f(t)=1 and the cost is simply α1.
Another optimal curve is given by ρt−=\mathds1[−1+t,0], ρt+=\mathds1[0,t]. This curve is also optimal, with the same flux f(t)=1 and cost 1+α1.
For d>1, the optimal curve between ρ0=(δ0,0) and ρ1=(0,δ0) is supported on the curves
[TABLE]
with t0∈[0,1] and x~0∈∂R−d. The distribution μ(dt0,dx~0)∈P([0,1]×∂R−d) of crossing coordinates (t0,x~0) then minimizes
[TABLE]
among all probability measures. A simple calculation shows that
[TABLE]
with c(d,α)>0 chosen uniquely so that μ is a probability measure. We note that for d=1, the only crossing point is x~0=0, and we recover dt0dμ=1.
7 Homogenization
In this section we prove Theorem 1.2, i.e. we will show that EhεΓ-converges to Ehom.
Let us start by collecting a few properties of the functional Ehom defined in (10).
Lemma 7.1**.**
The following properties hold:
(i)
For all m∈(0,∫Tdh(x)dx] there exist minimizers ν(m,U)∈L1(Td) and
W(m,U)∈L2(Td;Rd) of fhom(m,U).
2. (ii)
The map (m,U)↦fhom(m,U) is convex, lower semicontinuous, and 2-homogeneous in U.
3. (iii)
Ehom* is convex and lower semicontinuous.*
4. (iv)
There is a constant C depending only on {h>0} and α such that m∣U∣2≤fhom(m,U)≤Cm∣U∣2 for all U∈Rd, m∈(0,∫Tdh(x)dx].
5. (v)
If m≤infTdh then fhom(m,U)=m∣U∣2.
6. (vi)
With C as above,
[TABLE]
for all U,Z∈Rd, m∈(0,∫Tdh(x)dx]. In addition, fhom is locally Lipschitz in (0,∫Tdh(x)dx]×Rd.
Proof.
(i) First note that fhom(m,U)≥0. We take minimizing sequences (νn)n∈N⊂L∞(Td), (Wn)n∈N⊂L2(Td;Rd). Then 0≤νn(x)≤h(x) almost everywhere and ∫νn(x)dx=m. By the Banach-Alaoglu Theorem there exists a subsequence νn converging weakly-∗ in L∞(Td) to some ν satisfying 0≤ν(x)≤h(x) almost everywhere and ∫ν(x)dx=m. Since ∫Td∣Wn(x)∣2dx≤α1∫νn(x)∣Wn(x)∣2dx, we also get a subsequence Wn⇀W in L2(Td;Rd), with divW=0 in D′(Td) and ∫TdW(x)dx=U. By the convexity and lower semicontinuity of the function (m,U)↦m∣U∣2 and Mazur’s Lemma, we have
[TABLE]
which shows that (ν,W) are minimizers.
(ii) These properties are inherited from the function (ν,W)↦ν∣W∣2.
(iv) The lower bound follows from Jensen’s inequality. For the upper bound, consider the vector field XU∈L2({h>0};Rd) from Lemma 7.2 below, and find ν∈L1(Td) such that h(x)≥ν(x)≥min(m,α) almost everywhere in {h>0}, and ∫Tdν(x)dx=m. Then
[TABLE]
(v) The lower bound is shown in (iv). For the upper bound, take ν(x)=m and W(x)=U.
(vi) This follows from (ii) and (iv): Let p∈∂U−fhom(m,U). Then
[TABLE]
so that ∣p∣≤Cm∣U∣.
Now take U,Z∈Rd, m∈(0,∫Tdh(x)dx], p∈∂U−fhom(m,U+Z). Then
[TABLE]
which is (93). In addition, for 0<m1<m2≤∫Tdh(x)dx, we have
[TABLE]
To see the first inequality, start with a minimizer ν1=ν(m1,U),W1=W(m1,U). Then (ν1+(m2−m1)h−m1h−ν1,W1) is a competitor for fhom(m2,U).
To see the second inequality, start with a minimizer ν2=ν(m2,U),W2=W(m2,U). Then (m2m1ν2,W2) is a competitor for fhom(m1,U).
Together with the growth condition (iv) we obtain the local Lipschitz property on (0,∫Tdh(x)dx]×Rd.
∎
The following lemma turns out to be crucial.
Lemma 7.2**.**
There is a constant C>0 depending only on {h>0} such that for every U∈Rd there is a vector field XU∈Cc∞(Td∩{h>0};Rd) such that divXU=0 in D′(Td), ∫{h>0}XU(x)dx=U, and ∫{h>0}∣XU(x)∣2dx≤C∣U∣2.
Proof.
Let γ:[0,1]→Rd be a Lipschitz curve. Define the vector-valued measure M:=γ#(γ˙dt)∈M(Rd;Rd). Then divM=δγ1−δγ0 in D′(Rd), M(Rd)=γ(1)−γ(0), and ∣M∣(Rd)≤∫01∣γ˙(t)∣dt=L(γ).
Let x∈{h>0}. By the conditions on {h>0}, there are Lipschitz curves γj:[0,1]→{h>0}, j=1,…,d, such that γj(0)=x, γj(1)=x+ej, and δ:=minjdist(γj,∂{h>0})>0.
Define XU=∑z∈Zd∑j=1dUj((γj−z)#γ˙j)∗ϕδ∈Cc∞({h>0};Rd), where ϕδ∈Cc∞(B(0,δ)) is a standard mollifier. We note that XU is Zd-periodic, ∫[0,1)dXU(x)dx=U, divXU=0, and ∥XU∥L2([0,1)d)≤C∥ϕδ∥L2∑j=1d∣Uj∣L(γj)d+1≤C(h)∣U∣, where we used Young’s convolution inequality and the finite overlap of the curves (γj−z)z∈Zd,j=1,…,d. The projection of XU to Td inherits all the relevant properties.
∎
We need the following lemma to estimate corrector errors.
Lemma 7.3** (Local Poincaré-trace inequality).**
There are constants R>0, C>0 depending only on {h>0} such that for any ε>0, a∈Rd, u∈Hloc1({hε>0}), we have
[TABLE]
Here u=\finta+[0,ε]dudx.
This differs from the standard Poincaré-trace inequality (see e.g. Theorem 12.3 in [15]) in that the smaller cube is not connected, nor is either cube Lipschitz-bounded.
Proof.
The statement is independent of ε. We only have to show it for ε=1 and a∈[0,1]d.
We take R>3 as any number such that all y,y′∈[0,2]d∩{h>0} are connected by a rectifiable path in (−R,R)d∩{h>0}.
Assume that for this choice of R, no such C exists. Then there exists a sequence (un)n∈N⊂H1([−R,R]d) and a sequence (an)n∈N⊂[0,1]d such that ∫an+[0,1]dundx=0, ∫an+[0,1]du2dx+∫∂(an+[0,1]d)u2dHd−1=1, and ∫[−R,R]d∣∇un∣2→0.
Because {h>0} is Lipschitz bounded, we can cover ∂{h>0}∩[0,2]d with finitely many open rectangles (Ri)i∈I such that, up to a rigid motion, {h>0}∩Ri={(y~,yd):y~∈R~i,0<yd<fi(y~)}, where f:Rd−1→(0,∞) is Lipschitz.
From [15, Theorem 12.3], we infer that there exists a bounded linear extension operator E:H1([−R,R]d∩{h>0})→H1(([−R,R]d∩{h>0})∪⋃i∈IRi) such that Eu=u almost everywhere in [−R,R]d∩{h>0} and
[TABLE]
Note that only ∇u appears on the right-hand side since we are not looking for a global extension.
Extending each ui using this operator, we extract a subsequence (not relabeled) such that ai→a, Eui→u in Lloc2(([−R,R]d∩{h>0})∪⋃i∈IRi), and ∇Eui→0 in L2(([−R,R]d∩{h>0})∪⋃i∈IRi). Also, the traces un∣∂(an+[0,1]d)\mathds1{h>0} converge in L2(∂([0,1]d)) to the trace u∣∂(a+[0,1]d)\mathds1{h>0}.
It follows that u is piecewise constant. Because any two points in [0,2]d are path-connected in the domain, u is constant in [0,2]d∩{h>0}. Because ∫a+[0,1]dudx=0, u=0 almost everywhere in [0,2]d∩{h>0}. However, we have
[TABLE]
a contradiction.
∎
We note that this implies the usal Poincaré-trace inequality in particular for εZd-periodic functions in H1({hε>0}).
We start with a sequence of curves (ρtε)t∈[0,1]⊂L∞(Td) with 0≤ρtε(dx)≤hε(x)dx, together with a sequence of momentum fields (Vtε)t∈[0,1]⊂L2(Td;Rd), such that ∂tρtε+divVtε=0 in D′((0,1)×Td) and
[TABLE]
Step 1:
We consider instead averaged versions (ρtδ,ε)t,(Vtδ,ε)t defined through
[TABLE]
Here ρtε,Vtε are first extended for t∈R∖[0,1] constantly and by [math] respectively, and Hδε is the discrete heat kernel for εZd/Zd at time δ.
The averaged versions have the following properties:
[TABLE]
We note that ρtε,δ(dx)≤hε(x)dx and ∂tρt+divVtε,δ=0 in D′((0,1)×Td), and by the convexity of the function (m,U)↦m∣U∣2, we have
[TABLE]
Step 2:
Define for x∈Td the cube Qx,ε=(x+[0,ε)d)/Zd⊂Td.
Define mtε,δ(x)=\fintQx,ερtε,δdy and Utε,δ(x)=\fintQx,εVtε,δdy.
Note that ∂tmtε,δ+divUtε,δ=0 in D′((0,1)×Td).
We now find a competitor for fhom(mtε,δ(x),Utε,δ(x)) for almost every x,t:
Consider the Hilbert space Hε-per1({hε>0}) of εZd-periodic functions with mean [math], equipped with symmetric bilinear form A(ϕ,ψ)=∫Qx,ε∩{hε>0}∇ϕ⋅∇ψdy, which is independent of x∈Td and positive definite by Lemma 7.3.
By the Lax-Milgram theorem, we may thus find for every x∈Td a weak solution ϕt,xε,δ∈Hε-per1({hε>0}) of
[TABLE]
for every ψ∈Hε-per1({hε>0}). Moreover, through integration by parts, using Hölder’s inequality and Lemma 7.3, we may estimate
[TABLE]
where we used the fact that ψ is εZd-periodic and that Vtε,δ⋅n=0 on ∂{hε>0} in the sense of distributions.
Inserting the solution ϕt,xε,δ into (LABEL:eq:_estimate_Lax) and using the estimates in (104), we find through Fubini’s theorem and Hölder’s inequality that for every t∈[0,1] we have
[TABLE]
Further, the vector field Wtε,δ=Vtε,δ+∇ϕt,xε,δ∈L2(Qx,ε∩{hε>0};Rd) can be extended periodically to all of {hε>0} and then by 0 in {hε=0}, and the extension has zero distributional divergence in Td by (106). It follows that
[TABLE]
We also use inequality (vi) from Lemma 7.1 to obtain
[TABLE]
Integrating over Td×[0,1] yields
[TABLE]
where we used Jensen’s inequality and the convexity of the function (m,U)↦m∣U∣2 for the first term, and the lower bound ρtε,δ≥δα in {hε>0} for the second.
We can then comfortably bound the error terms by repeatedly applying Hölder’s inequality and (108).
for every δ>0. Using a diagonal sequence δ(ε)→0, we see that mtε,δ(ε)⇀∗ρt for almost every t∈[0,1]. The claim follows then from Lemma 2.1.
∎
Proof of the upper bound.
We have to show that for all curves of measures (ρt)t∈[0,1]⊂M+(Td) there exists for every ε=n1 a curve of measures
(ρtε)t∈[0,1] such that as ε→0 we have for all t∈[0,1]ρtε⇀∗ρt and
[TABLE]
Step 1: We may assume that (ρt)t∈[0,1] has finite energy. We mollify
in time and space with a standard mollifier. Let us call this curve (ρ~t)t∈[0,1]∈C∞([0,1]×Td) and the corresponding optimal
momentum vector field (V~t)t∈[0,1]∈C∞([0,1]×Td,Rd).
Step 2: We fix a number M∈N of time steps satisfying ε≪M1≪1. We define for ti:=Mi and z∈(εZd)/Zd the following objects
[TABLE]
Note that for t∈(ti,ti+1) with mt the linear interpolation between mti and mti+1
[TABLE]
Step 3: We insert the optimal microstructures νti,z∈L1({h>0}) and Wti,z∈L2({h>0};Rd) for fhom(mti(z),Uti(z)), where
[TABLE]
Fix a∈[0,ε)d/Zd to be chosen later, and define for x∈Qz+a,ε
[TABLE]
where δ>0, α is the positive lower bound of the function h, Hδε is the discrete heat flow on
(εZd)/Zd, and XU∈L2({h>0};Rd) is the vector field from Lemma 7.2.
Step 4: For t∈(ti,ti+1) we define ρtε∈L∞(Td) and Vtε∈L2({hε>0};Rd) as the linear interpolations
[TABLE]
We see that
[TABLE]
where [Vtε] denotes the jump of Vtε from Qz+a,ε to Qz+a−εej,ε. Note that since Vtε∈L2(Td;Rd), by Fubini’s theorem the above is defined for almost every a∈[0,ε)d/Zd.
Moreover, for every z∈(εZd)/Zd we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Combining the above with (117), we also obtain that
[TABLE]
or more concisely
[TABLE]
for every z∈(εZd)/Zd, for almost every a. Note that in (125) it is imperative that Qz+aε be the half-open cubes.
Step 5: Let ϕtε∈H1({hε>0}) be the weak solution to
[TABLE]
i.e. the unique function in the Hilbert space Hε1:={ψ∈H1({hε>0}):∫{hε>0}ψ(x)dx=0} with
[TABLE]
for all ψ∈Hε1. Note that after extending ∇ϕtε by [math] in {hε=0}, (LABEL:eq:_weak_form) actually holds for all ψ∈H1(Td).
By the Lax-Milgram Theorem, a unique such ϕtε exists for almost every a. Testing with ψ=ϕtε and using Lemma 7.3, we see that
[TABLE]
At this point we pick a∈[0,ε)2/Zd such that ∥[Vtε]∥L2(⋃z∂Qz+a,ε)2≤C(δ)ε, which is possible by Fubini’s theorem and the regularity of the discrete heat flow. Of course, ∥∂tρtε∥L∞≤CM, so that
[TABLE]
Further, taking Wtε=Vtε+∇ϕtε\mathds1{hε>0}, we see by (LABEL:eq:_weak_form) that ∂tρtε+divWtε=0 in D′((0,1)×Td).
For the main term we find through exploiting the convexity and the definition of Vtiε,ρtiε that
[TABLE]
We now combine the estimates (130), (131), (132), (133) and integrate in time so that
[TABLE]
Finally, we use the Lipschitz continuity of fhom from Lemma 7.1 and the Lipschitz continuity of (ρ~,V~) to estimate the Riemann sum above by the integral
[TABLE]
Choosing M=⌊ε−1/2⌋ and letting ε→0 we otain the desired estimate
[TABLE]
where we used the convexity of Ehom in the last equality (Lemma 7.1).
Finally take a diagonal sequence such that ρtε⇀∗ρt for all t∈[0,1].
∎
Remark 7.4**.**
Finally, we note that we may add lower bounds on the density, in the form ρt(A)≥∫Al(x)dx for every closed set A, with a measurable lower density bound l∈L1(Ω), with l(x)≤h(x) almost everywhere. This is just another convex constraint.
In fact, Theorem 1.2 can be proved under the additional constraint for lε(x)=l(x/ε) with a few easy modifications. In (11), we take the infimum with the additional constraint that ν(x)≥l(x) almost everywhere, increasing the energy.
In Lemma 7.1, the upper bound in (iv) then has to be replaced by
[TABLE]
Finally, in (103) and (119), the term δα\mathds1{hε>0} has to be replaced by δ(α\mathds1{hε>0}∨lε).
Bibliography24
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] Luigi Ambrosio, Gianluca Crippa, Camillo De Lellis, Felix Otto, and Michael Westdickenberg. Transport equations and multi-D hyperbolic conservation laws , volume 5 of Lecture Notes of the Unione Matematica Italiana . Springer-Verlag, Berlin; UMI, Bologna, 2008. Lecture notes from the Winter School held in Bologna, January 2005, Edited by Fabio Ancona, Stefano Bianchini, Rinaldo M. Colombo, De Lellis, Andrea Marson and Annamaria Montanari.
2[2] Luigi Ambrosio, Nicola Fusco, and Diego Pallara. Functions of bounded variation and free discontinuity problems . Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000.
3[3] Jean-David Benamou and Yann Brenier. A computational fluid mechanics solution to the Monge-Kantorovich mass transfer problem. Numerische Mathematik , 84(3):375–393, 2000.
4[4] Jean-David Benamou, Guillaume Carlier, and Filippo Santambrogio. Variational mean field games. In Active Particles, Volume 1 , pages 141–171. Springer, 2017.
5[5] Andrea Braides. Gamma-convergence for Beginners , volume 22. Clarendon Press, 2002.
6[6] Andrea Braides and Anneliese Defranceschi. Homogenization of multiple integrals , volume 12. Oxford University Press, 1998.
7[7] Andrea Braides, Irene Fonseca, and Giovanni Leoni. A-quasiconvexity: relaxation and homogenization. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations , 5:539–577, 2000.
8[8] Giuseppe Buttazzo, Chloé Jimenez, and Edouard Oudet. An optimization problem for mass transportation with congested dynamics. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 48(3):1961–1976, 2009.