Contractive metrics for scalar conservation laws
François Bolley
, Yann Brenier
, Gregoire Loeper
Abstract
We consider nondecreasing entropy solutions to 1-d scalar conservation laws and show that the spatial derivatives of such solutions satisfy a contraction property with respect to the Wasserstein distance of any order. This result extends the
-contraction property shown by Kru
kov.
Existence and uniqueness of solutions to scalar conservation laws in one space dimension have been established by Kru
kov in the framework of entropy solutions (see [4] for instance), and among the properties satisfied by these solutions it is known that the
norm between any two of them is a non-increasing function of time.
In this work we shall focus on a class of entropy solutions such that a certain distance between the space derivatives of any two such solutions is also nonincreasing in time. On this class of solutions this result extends the
norm contraction property.
More precisely we consider as initial data nondecreasing functions on
with limits
and
at
and
respectively. These properties are preserved by the conservation law, and corresponding solutions have been shown in [2] to arise in some models of pressureless gases, obtained as a continuous limit of systems of sticky particles. Noticing that the distributional space derivative of these functions are probability measures, we may consider the Wasserstein distance between the space derivatives of any two such solutions, and we shall prove in this paper that this distance is a nonincreasing function of time, constant in the case of classical solutions.
1 Introduction to the results
Given a locally Lipschitz real-valued function
on
, called a flux, we consider the scalar conservation law
|
(1)
|
with unknown
and initial datum
, and where the subscripts stand for derivation.
We shall consider solutions that are called entropy solutions (see [5] for instance) and are defined as follows: a function
is said to be an entropy solution of ( 1 ) on
if the entropy inequality
|
(2)
|
holds in the sense of distributions for all convex Lipschitz function
on
, and with associated flux
defined by
|
(3)
|
This means that
for all nonnegative
in the space
of
functions on
with compact support.
We shall also consider classical solutions, that is, functions
in
satisfying 1 pointwise.
In particular any classical solution to 1 satisfies 2 , i.e. is an entropy solution, and conversely any entropy solution satisfies 1 in the distribution sense.
For entropy solutions, the following result is due to Kru
kov (see [4] ):
Theorem 1.1
For every
, there exists a unique entropy solution
to 1
in
.
Moreover for classical solutions, we have (see [5] for instance):
Theorem 1.2
Given a
flux
and a
bounded initial datum
such that
is nondecreasing on
, the unique entropy solution
to 1
is a classical solution.
In this work we shall consider initial data in the subset
of
defined by
Definition 1.3
A function
belongs to
if it is nondecreasing, right-continuous, and has limits
and
at
and
respectively.
The following proposition expresses that this set is preserved by the conservation law 1 :
Proposition 1.4
Given an initial datum
, the entropy solution
given by Theorem 1.1 is such that
belongs to
for all
.
More precisely, given any
, the
function
is
equal to an element of the set
, which on the other hand is characterized by
Proposition 1.5
The distributional derivative
of any
is a Borel probability measure on
, and for any
,
Conversely, if
is a probability measure on
, then
defined on
as
belongs to
, and
.
Consequently the map
is one-to-one from
onto the set
of probability measures on
(and
can be seen as the set of repartition functions of real-valued random variables).
Propositions 1.4 and 1.5 allow us to characterize at any time the distance between two solutions (with initial datum in
) in terms of their space derivatives, in particular by means of the Wasserstein distances: given any real number
, the Wasserstein distance of order
is defined on the set of probability measures on
by
where
runs over the set of probability measures on
with marginals
and
; these distances are considered here in a broad sense with possibly infinite values.
This paper aims at proving that the Wasserstein distances between the space derivatives of any two such entropy solutions is a nonincreasing function of time:
Theorem 1.6
Given a locally Lipschitz real-valued function
on
and two initial data
and
in
, let
and
be the associated entropy solutions to 1 . Then, for any
and
, we have (with possibly infinite values)
We shall see in Section 2 that for
the distance
satisfies
for all
. Hence Theorem 1.6 reads in the case
:
Thus, for initial profiles in
, we recover the
-contraction property given by Kru
kov.
In the case of classical solutions, the result of Theorem 1.6 is improved, since the Wasserstein distance between two solutions is conserved:
Theorem 1.7
Given a
real-valued function
on
, let
and
in
be two initial data such that the associated entropy solutions
and
to 1 are classical solutions, increasing in
for all
. Then for any
and
we have (with possibly infinite values)
>From these general results can be induced some corollaries in the case of initial data in the subsets
of
defined as:
Definition 1.8
Let
. A function
in
belongs to
if its distributional derivative
has finite moment of order
, that is, if
is finite.
As in Proposition 1.5 the map
is one-to-one from
onto the set
of probability measures on
with finite moment of order
. But we shall note in Section 2 that the map
on
defines a distance on
. Then the real-valued map
defined on
by
induces a distance on
, and for the associated topology we have
Corollary 1.9
Given a locally Lipschitz function
on
,
and
, the entropy solution
to 1 belongs to
In particular for
and the previous result can be precised by
Corollary 1.10
Given a locally Lipschitz function
on
and
, the entropy solution
to 1 is such that
This known result holds under weaker assumptions (for
with bounded variation, see [5] ), but in our case it will be recovered in a straightforward way.
Finally Theorem 1.7 can be precised in the
framework in the following way:
Corollary 1.11
Given a
convex flux
and two
increasing initial data
and
in
for some
, the following three properties hold:
1. the associated entropy solutions
and
are classical solutions; 2.
and
belong to
and are increasing for all
; 3. for all
, we have (with finite values)
The paper is organized as follows. The definition and some properties of Wasserstein distances are discussed in greater detail in Section 2 . In Section 3 we consider the case of classical solutions, proving Theorem 1.7 and Corollary 1.11 . Then the general case of entropy solutions is studied in Sections 4 and 5 : more precisely in Section 4 we introduce a time-discretized scheme, show the
contraction property for this discretized evolution and prove the convergence of the corresponding approximate solution toward the entropy solution; Theorem 1.6 and its corollaries follow from this in Section 5 . In Section 6 we shall finally see how such results extend to viscous conservation laws.
2 Wasserstein distances
In this section
is a real number with
,
(resp.
) stands for the set of probability measures on
(resp. with finite moment of order
) and
for the Lebesgue measure on
.
The Wasserstein distance of order
, valued in
, is defined on
by
|
(4)
|
where
runs over the set of probability measures on
with marginals
and
. It is equivalently defined by
|
(5)
|
where the infimum is taken over all random variables
and
on the probability space
with respective laws
and
. It takes finite values on
and indeed defines a distance on
.
For complete references about the Wasserstein distances and related topics the reader can refer to [6] . We only mention that both infima in ( 4 ) and ( 5 ) are achieved, and for the second definition we shall precise some random variables that achieve the infimum. For this purpose we introduce the notion of generalized inverse:
Definition 2.1
Let
belong to
. Then its generalized inverse is the function
defined on
by
| |
Then
is a nondecreasing random variable on
by definition, with law
since
| |
| |
| |
| |
for all
in
. In particular its repartition function is
.
Moreover this generalized inverse achieves the infimum in ( 5 ):
Proposition 2.2
Let
and
in
. Then we have (with possibly infinite values)
| |
for all
. In particular for
we also have
| |
Proof. The general result is proved in [6] . The result specific to the case
follows by introducing, for a given
, the map defined on
by
for which we have
for almost every
, and
for almost every
. Integrating the first equality on
in
and the second one on
in
, we deduce
Given
, its generalized inverse
is actually the a.e. unique nondecreasing random variable on
with law
. Given any other random variable
on
with law
,
is called the (a.e. unique) nondecreasing rearrangement of
(see [6] ).
We conclude this section recalling a result relative to the convergence of probability measures. A sequence
of probability measures on
is said to converge weakly toward a probability measure
if, as
goes to
,
tends to
for all boundedcontinuous real-valued functions
on
(or equivalently for all
functions
with compact support, that is, if
converges to
in the distribution sense). Given
this convergence is metrized on
by the distance
as shown by the following proposition (see [6] ):
Proposition 2.3
Let
,
a sequence of probability measures in
and
Then the following statements are equivalent:
i)
converges to
; ii)
converges weakly to
and
tends to
as
goes to infinity.
In this proposition we do not a priori assume that
belongs to
, but it can be noted that this property is actually induced by any of both hypotheses
and
.
For measures in
we have the weaker result:
Proposition 2.4
Let
,
and
two sequences in
converging weakly to
and
in
respectively. Then (with possibly infinite values)
3 The case of classical solutions: Theorem 1.7 and corollary
3.1 Proof of Theorem 1.7
We consider two classical solutions
and
to ( 1 ) such that
and
belong to
and are increasing for all
, and we shall prove that
as a consequence of Proposition 2.2 .
The map
is increasing from
to
, so has a (true) inverse
defined on
by
Then, given
, we consider a characteristic curve
solution of
|
(6)
|
for
, and taking value
at
. Since
is
and
is bounded there exists a (non necessarily unique) solution
to 6 by Peano Theorem (see [3] for instance); moreover by a classical computation from 1 it is known to satisfy
|
(7)
|
for all
, from which it follows that
and hence
|
(8)
|
In particular there exists a unique solution
to 6 . Now given
,
is the (true) inverse of the increasing function
(by 7 ), and Proposition 2.2 writes
But from 8 we obtain
|
(9)
|
This result ensures in particular that
remains constant in time, may its initial value be finite or not; note however that 9 is actually much stronger that Theorem 1.7 .
3.2 Proof of Corollary 1.11
We assume that
is a
convex function on
, and
is a
increasing initial profile in
.
First of all we note that the associated entropy solutions
is a classical solution in view of Theorem 1.2 : this result is proved in [5] for instance, and its proof also ensures that
is increasing for all
.
Then we check that the moment property is preserved by the conservation law, that is, that
also belongs to
for any
. Indeed, given
, we have by the change of variable
:
| |
| |
| |
which is finite since
is finite by assumption. This ends the proof of Corollary 1.11 .
4 Time discretization of the conservation law
In the previous section we have seen that the classical solutions are obtained through the method of characteristics, that we now summarize in our case: given an initial profile
in
such that the corresponding solution
is
and increasing in
for all
, let
be its inverse, defined by
for all
. Let then
evolve into
|
(10)
|
for all
and
(see 8 ). The solution
is then the inverse of the increasing map
, that is, is the unique solution of
In the general case, defining
in some similar way, there is no hope for the function
defined by 10 to be increasing for
; inverting it would thus lead to a multivalued function, and no more to the entropy solution of the conservation law, as in the particular case discussed above.
However, averaging (or ”collapsing”) this multivalued function into a single-valued function, Y. Brenier showed in [1] how to build an approximate solution to the conservation law.
We now precisely describe this so-called Transport-Collapse method in our case.
4.1 Definition and
contraction property of the discretized solution
Let
be some fixed initial profile, with generalized inverse
given as in Definition 2.1 by
for all
.
can be seen as a random variable on the probability space
equipped with the Lebesgue measure
; its law is
, as pointed out after Definition 2.1 .
We let then
evolve according to the method of characteristics, denoting
for all
and almost every
. Again, given
,
can be seen as a random variable on
; let then
be its repartition function, that is, the function belonging to
and defined at any
as the Lebesgue measure of the set
. It is given by
We summarize this construction in the following definition:
Definition 4.1
Let
with generalized inverse
defined on
by
Then, given
, and letting
for almost every
, we define the
function
on
by
In the case of Section 3 (see 8 ), it turns out that
is the (true) inverse of
and
is exactly the entropy solution to equation 1
with initial datum
in
. This does not hold anymore in the general case, but will allow us to build an approximate solution
by iterating the operator
. Let us first give two important properties of
:
Proposition 4.2
Let
,
defined as above and
. Then i)
belongs to
if so does
.
ii) For any
and
in
we have (with possibly infinite values unless
and
)
Proof. It is really similar to what has been done in Section 3 as for Corollary 1.11 .
belongs to
as a repartition function of a random variable, and we have
| |
| |
| |
| |
which ensures that
has finite moment of order
if so does
.
On one hand the generalized inverses
and
of
and
respectively satisfy
|
(11)
|
by Proposition 2.2 (with finite values if both
and
belong to
, and possibly infinite otherwise). On the other hand
and
have respective law
and
, so
|
(12)
|
by definition of the Wasserstein distance. But
for almost every
by definition, which concludes the argument by 11 and 12 .
Note again that 12 holds only as an inequality since
and
are not necessarily nondecreasing, which was the case in the example discussed in Section 3 .
We now use the operator
defined above to build an approximate solution
to the conservation law 1
:
Definition 4.3
Let
be some positive number and
. For any
decomposed as
with
and
, we let
where
and
.
These iterations make sense because
if
,
(resp.
) for any
and
(resp.
).
We now prove two contractions properties on these approximate solutions. We first have the
contraction property:
Proposition 4.4
Let
be some fixed positive number and
defined as above. Then, for any
and
we have
Proof. As in [1] we first observe that
for any
, then let
and
with
and
, and, for instance assuming that
, prove the proposition by applying this first bound to
for
.
Then we have the
contraction property:
Proposition 4.5
Let
be some fixed positive number and
defined as above. Then, given
and
in
, we have for any
:
Proof. It follows from Proposition 4.2 (about
) and to the convexity of the
distance to the power
, in the sense that
for all real number
and probability measures
and
(see [6] for instance).
We shall now recall the convergence of the scheme toward the entropy solution of the conservation law.
4.2 Convergence of the scheme in the
sense
In this section we consider the space
equipped with the topology defined by the semi-norms
for any integers
and
and
. Then we have
Proposition 4.6
Let
. Then, as
goes to
, the function
converges in
to the entropy solution of ( 1 ) with initial datum
.
We briefly give the steps of the proof, which follows the one of Brenier in [1] , adapted to functions of
instead of
.
We first prove that the family
is relatively compact in
by means of Proposition 4.4 , and Helly and Ascoli-Arzela Theorems. Then we check that the limit of any sequence of
converging in
is an entropy solution to the conservation law 1 with initial datum
. By the uniqueness of this solution ensured by Theorem 1.1 , this concludes the proof of Proposition 4.6 .
4.3 Convergence of the scheme in
distance sense
We first prove a uniform equiintegrability result on the approximate solutions:
Proposition 4.7
Let
be defined as above,
and
. Then
| |
tends to
as
goes to infinity.
Proof. We again denote
, and first consider
itself, writing
| |
| |
| |
for
. From this computation we deduce by iteration
for
, with
Thus
for any
and
such that
.
>From this we get for instance
for any
and
smaller than
. This concludes the argument since the last integral tends to
as
goes to infinity.
>From this we deduce the convergence of the scheme in
distance sense:
Proposition 4.8
Let
and
be the entropy solution to ( 1 ) with initial datum
. Then, for any
,
converges to
as
goes to
.
Proof. Given
,
converges to
in
as
goes to
(by Proposition 4.6 ), so
converges to the probability measure
, first in the distribution sense, then in the weak sense of probability measures, and finally in
distance by Propositions 4.7 and 2.3 .
Note in particular that
has finite moment of order
for any
, that is,
belongs to
.
5 The general case of entropy solutions: Theorem 1.6 and corollaries
5.1 Proof of Theorem 1.6
We let
and consider two initial data
and
in
with associated entropy solutions
and
.
Given
, Proposition 4.6 yields again the convergence of
to
in the weak sense of probability measures. Since this holds also for
, we obtain
by Proposition 2.4 . But, for each
,
by Proposition 4.5 , so finally
This concludes the argument.
5.2 Proof of Corollary 1.9
We recall that in the introduction we have defined a distance on each
by letting
and we now prove that, given
and
, the entropy solution
to the conservation law 1 belongs to
.
We first note, in view of the proof of Proposition 4.8 , that
indeed belongs to
for all
.
Then, given
, we need to prove that
tends to
as
goes to
. Indeed, on one hand
tends to
in
by Theorem 1.1 , so
tends to
, first in the distribution sense, then in the weak sense of probability measures.
On the other hand, given
, we now prove that
goes to
as
goes to infinity. For this, given
, let
such that
by Proposition 4.7 . Let then
such that
and
if
.
On one hand
as
goes to
since
and
tends to
in distribution sense. On the other hand
for all
. Hence at the limit
for all
, from which it follows that
which means that indeed
goes to
as
goes to infinity.
From these two results we deduce the continuity result by Proposition 2.3 .
5.3 Proof of Corollary 1.10
Given
,
converges to
in
by Proposition 4.6 , so for all
we have
But
for all
by Proposition 4.4 , so letting
go to
we get
Since this holds for all
, we obtain Corollary 1.10 .
6 Extension to viscous conservation laws
In this section we let
be a positive number and consider the viscous conservation law
|
(13)
|
with initial datum
.
Assuming that
is a locally Lipschitz real-valued function on
, and calling solution a function
in
such that 13 holds in the sense of distributions, it is known that, given
, there exists a unique solution
to 13 . If moreover
, then
also belongs to
for all
, and the
contraction property stated in Theorem 1.6 in the inviscid case
still holds:
Theorem 6.1
Given a locally Lipschitz real-valued function
on
and two initial data
and
in
, let
and
be the associated solutions to 13 . Then, for any
and
, we have (with possibly infinite values)
We briefly mention how this contraction property for the viscous conservation law allows to recover the same property for the inviscid equation, given in Theorem 1.6 .
Given some initial datum
in
and
, let indeed
be the corresponding solution to the viscous equation 13 . Then it is known (see [5] for instance) that
converges in
to the solution
to the inviscid conservation law 1 with initial datum
.
From this the argument already used in Section 5.1 (with
intead of
) enables to recover Theorem 1.6 .
The proof of Theorem 6.1 follows the lines of Sections 4 and 5 and makes use of a time-discretization of equation 13 based on the discretization of the inviscid conservation law previously discussed. More precisely, given a time step
, we first map
to
as in section 4.1, and then let
evolve along the heat equation on a time interval
, that is, map it to
where
is the heat kernel defined on
by
Then, defining an approximate solution
by iterating the
operator as in Definition 4.3 , we prove that Propositions 4.2 and 4.5 still hold for the new
and
operators (Note that the convolution with the heat kernel is a contraction for the Wasserstein distance of any finite order).
Proposition 4.4 only holds assuming that
is twice derivable with
in
: it more precisely reads
As in Section 4.2 , this enables to prove that, given
in
, twice derivable with
in
, the family
converges in
to the solution of 13 with initial datum
.
With this convergence result in hand we follow the lines of Section 5.1 to prove Theorem 6.1 in the case of twice derivable initial data, with
second derivative, while the general case follows by a density argument.
Acknowledgments: This work has been partly supported by the European network Hyke, funded by the EC contract HPRN-CT-2002-00282. References
-
Y. Brenier, Resolution d’equations d’evolution quasilineaires en dimension
d’espace a l’aide d’equations lineaires en dimension
, J. Diff. Eq. 50, 3, p. 375-390 (1983).
-
Y. Brenier and E. Grenier, Sticky particles and scalar conservation laws, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 35, 6, p. 2317-2328 (1998).
-
L. Hormander, Lectures on nonlinear hyperbolic differential equations, Mathematics & Applications (26), Springer, Berlin (1997).
-
S. Kru
kov, Generalized solutions of the Cauchy problem in the large for first order nonlinear equations, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, 187, p. 29-32 (1969).
-
D. Serre, Systemes de lois de conservations I, Diderot, Paris (1996).
-
C. Villani, Topics in optimal transportation, Grad. Stud. Math (58), American Mathematical Society, Providence (2003).