Contractivity of Wasserstein distance and exponential decay for the Landau equation with Maxwellian molecules

We start with Proposition 1, using that \lambda_i-1 =e^{-4dt}(\lambda_i^\textnormal{in}-1):

Because the \lambda_i^{in} are nonnegative, and their sum equals to d, at most d-1 of them are greater than one and at most d-1 of them are less than one. Also, the maximum value of (\lambda_i^{in}-1) is d-1 and the minimum is -1. Now, we note that

since \sum_i(\lambda_i-1)=0. Moreover \sum_{i}(\lambda_{i}-1)\lambda_{i} = \sum_{i}(\lambda_{i}-1)^2\geq 0, which implies

Going back to the original estimate, we have that

For the \lambda^{in}_i greater or equal 1, the quantity in the square bracket is nonpositive, and we just trivially bound

For the terms with \lambda^{in}_i<1 in (?) we use lemma 2 (for \varphi = f/m-1) to obtain

Assume now the worst case scenario in which only one \lambda_i^{\textnormal{in}} is greater or equal than 1 and the rest are all less or equal than 1. Without loss of generality let \lambda_1^{in} \ge 1 and \lambda_j^{in}\le 1 for j\ge 2. We have that

where we have used the fact that \sum_{i=2}^{d} (1-\lambda_{i}^{in}) = (\lambda_{1}^{in}-1) and the Gaussian Poincare inequality. The ODE

has solution

and this finishes the proof.

Due to Proposition 4, it is enough to show that {\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}\mathcal T_\varepsilon(F,G)\leq0} where F, G are solutions of the lifted equations \partial_{t}F=Q(F), \partial_tG=Q(G). We rewrite this as

Consider for k=1,2,3 solutions of

Since \mathcal T_\varepsilon(F_{k},G_k) is constant, we deduce that

Then, the expression (?) for the operator Q shows

where we have used that \mathcal T_\varepsilon is linearly convex, as evidenced by the dual formulation (?).

The starting point is the expression for the dissipation of \mathcal{T} found in Lemma 4.

We first consider the second term and apply Young’s inequality. We get

To bound the first term, we make use of the following identity (see [GS24]) for functions {G:\mathbb{R}^6\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}}:

In particular, this shows that

Plugging both estimates in (?) and denoting by

we get

It is now necessary to introduce \rho(v,w)\equiv\rho(v)\rho(w), u(v,w)\equiv u(v)+u(w), which yields the expression

We now focus on the case -3<\gamma<0, and we simply bound

and reverse the role of v, w in one of the terms to obtain

Next, we bound the singular integral I_{\gamma}\rho by splitting the integral in a ball of radius R and its complement:

where p>\frac{3}{3+\gamma}. By choosing R=\left\Vert \rho\right\Vert _{L^{p}}^{-\frac{p'}{3}} we obtain the following bound:

Recall that the functional \rho\mapsto\int\rho^{p}\,dv is convex with respect to the 2-Wasserstein distance, see [mccann1997convexity]. Interpolation yields:

In summary, we have shown that for \alpha(r)=r^{\gamma}, -3<\gamma <0, and p>\frac{3}{3+\gamma}, there exists C_{\gamma,p}>0 and 0<\alpha_{\gamma,p}<1 such that

This proves Theorem 3 for -3<\gamma<0.

Next, we study the Coulomb case \gamma = -3, which requires a special adaptation of the previous computation since |v-w|^{-3} is not locally integrable. We need to use the regularity of u, which can be expressed through the Hopf-Lax formula as

Since \phi^{*} is convex, this shows D^{2}u_{s}\leq\frac{1}{s}\textnormal{Id}. On the other hand, it is easy to see that \tilde{u}(s,v)=-u(1-s,v) also satisfies a similar inequality. In fact, we have the bounds

which implies that \left|\nabla u(v)-\nabla u(w)\right|\leq\frac{1}{\min\left(s,1-s\right)}\left|v-w\right|. We consider a parameter 0<\varepsilon<\frac{1}{2} to be optimized and note that \frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{T}(f_t,g_t) is bounded by

Using the inequality \left(\left|\nabla u(v)\right|+\left|\nabla u(w)\right|\right)^{2(1-\varepsilon)}\leq2^{1-2\varepsilon}\left(\left|\nabla u(v)\right|^{2(1-\varepsilon)}+\left|\nabla u(w)\right|^{2(1-\varepsilon)}\right) and swapping the roles of v, w in the second resulting term, we see that

where (I_\gamma\rho)(v)=\int\rho(w)\left|v-w\right|^{\gamma}\,dw as before. This yields

Next, we use that (\rho,u) are the constant-speed geodesic between f and g in the 2-Wasserstein distance. In particular, this means that \int\left|\nabla u_{s}(v)\right|^{2}\rho_{s}(v)\,dv is independent of s and equal to \mathcal T(f,g). Then, using that \int_{0}^{1}\left[\min\left(s,1-s\right)\right]^{-2\varepsilon}\,ds=\frac{4^{1-\varepsilon}}{1-2\varepsilon}, we are left with

Finally, we need to optimize in \varepsilon. As a first step, we carefully bound the singular integral with respect to \varepsilon. Given R>0 we have

Setting R=\left\Vert \rho\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}^{-\frac{1}{3}}\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{3}} yields that

If we plug (?) in (?) and assume that 0<\varepsilon<\frac{1}{4} we obtain

We choose \varepsilon that minimizes \varepsilon^{-1}\mathcal T(f,g)^{1-\varepsilon}:

In the case \mathcal T(f,g)\leq e^{-4}, the bound is given by

and the proof is finished by solving the ode. Moreover \mathcal T(f,g)=0 if f_{in} = g_{in} from Osgood uniqueness criteria.

Direct computations show that

For the first term we have

For the second:

Hence we have

This also provides a very simple expression for

Since (?) can be expressed in terms of A[f] as

substituting A[f] and \textnormal{div}\left(A[f]\right) above we obtain (?).

Using the equation for f, and \textnormal{div}\left(A[f]\right)=-(d-1)v we deduce

The first term simplifies as

Note that D^{2}(w_{i}w_{j})=\Delta_{ij}+\Delta_{ji}, where \Delta_{ij} is the matrix with all zeroes except a one at position (i,j). In general, if A is a matrix then A\Delta_{ij} has all of its columns equal to 0 except the j-th, where you find the i-th column of A. Therefore, if the matrix A is symmetric, we have \textnormal{tr}\left(AD^{2}(w_{i}w_{j})\right)=2A_{ij}, which shows:

Similarly, we have

which shows

Now we use the following expression for A[f]

which we plug into (?), yielding

which finishes the proof.

We rewrite (?) as

Because of conservation of mass, \int f^2/m\,dv and \int \left(f/m-1\right)^2m\,dv only differ by a constant, so

Since K(v) \nabla m =0, the first term in the last expression is negative:

Therefore, we have

where I_1 := \int fv\cdot\nabla(f/ m )\,dv and I_2 :=\int\left\langle \mathbb{P}\nabla f,\nabla(f/ m ) \right\rangle\,dv. Expanding \nabla (f/m) in I_1 yields

The identity \nabla f= m \nabla(f/ m )-fv yields

We rewrite the last term as

since \textnormal{tr}( \mathbb{P}(t)) = d. This yields

which proves the lemma.

We consider the basis of Hermite polynomials \{H^\alpha\}_{\alpha\in \mathbb{N}^d} defined by

where \alpha = (\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_d) is a multi-index and \alpha! = \prod_{i=1}^d \alpha_i!. The Hermite polynomials form a complete orthonormal basis with respect to the Gaussian measure m(x). Any smooth function \varphi can be expressed as

where a_\alpha = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \varphi(x) H_\alpha(x) m(x) \, dx are the coefficients of the expansion. We start with the first inequality. We have

where we have used the identity x\textnormal{He}_n=\textnormal{He}_{n+1}+\textnormal{He}_n'. We thus have

The Poincare inequality follows in a similar manner, using the identity \textnormal{He}_n'=n\textnormal{He}_{n-1}.

To prove (?) we use the following dual formulation (see for instance [gigli2020benamou]):

where \mathcal H(f) is the entropy of f and u verifies the bHJB equation. As a first step, we show that the entropy functional verifies the desired equality. On the one hand, we have

On the other hand, we have

Now we show that \mathcal J(f,g) lifts in the same way as the entropy by relating the optimal u to the optimal plan. It is known that the optimal plan between f and g is of the form

where r_t(v,w) denotes the heat kernel at the time t and \tilde \phi_\varepsilon, \tilde \psi_\varepsilon are the Schrodinger pontentials, which converge to the Kantorovich potentials \tilde \phi, \tilde \psi for the cost |v-w|^2 as \varepsilon\to 0. Moreover, \pi^* is the only plan \pi\in\Pi(f,g) such that \displaystyle\frac{d\pi}{dr_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}} is tensorized and the Kantorovich potentials provide the optimal u for the dynamic formulation \mathcal J(f,g), given by

where h_t denotes the heat flow so that \partial_t (h_tf) = \Delta (h_tf) and h_0=\textnormal{Id}. If we double the variables and consider F=f\otimes f, G=g\otimes g then the optimal plan would be \pi^* \otimes \pi^* and the optimal solution for \mathcal J(F,G) would be u(v)+u(w) giving:

which finishes the proof.

Firstly note that we can write (3) as continuity equations using that \tilde b_k are divergence free:

Then it is known (see [santambrogio2015OT, Chap. 4]) that F_k(\cdot, t) = (X_t)_\#F, G_k(\cdot ,t)=(X_t)_\#G where X_t(v,w) represents the flow of the ODE \begin{pmatrix}\dot v\\\dot w\end{pmatrix}=-\tilde{b}_{k}(v-w). By the previous Remark, we see that X_t is an isometry in \mathbb{R}^6, which shows

Using Proposition 4 and the dual formulation (?) we see that

where F(v,w)=f(v)f(w), G(v,w)=g(v)g(w) and u(v,w,s) is a solution in \mathbb{R}^6 of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation from (?). We note that the previous expression can be rewritten as

where \rho is the Wasserstein geodesic interpolating F and G. To lighten notation, we drop the integration with respect to s and focus on rewriting \frac{d}{ds}\iint uQ(\rho)\,dv\,dw\,ds. For this purpose, we use the decomposition

where from now on \nabla and \textnormal{div} denote gradient and divergence with respect to v,w. We will repeatedly use that \alpha \tilde b_k is divergence free, which shows that Q is self-adjoint:

Introducing r=\left|v-w\right| and \hat n = \begin{pmatrix}v-w\\w-v\end{pmatrix}, we see that \nabla \alpha(r) = \frac{\alpha'(r)}{r}\hat n so that

Our next goal is to rewrite (?) as

The last term in (?) already matches (?), so we focus on the first term of the right hand side of (?). We decompose it using the basis vectors

where e_i form the canonical basis of \mathbb{R}^3. More precisely, we use the decompositions

and

This allows us to rewrite (?) as

where we set for a fixed vector e\in \mathbb{R}^6 the quantities

The advantage of using \tilde{e}_{i}, \hat{e}_{i} over the canonical basis is the simplicity of the Lie brackets [\tilde e_i,\tilde b_k], [\hat e_i,\tilde b_k], which we will call commutators from now on. We remind the reader that if a=a(v), b=b(v) are vector fields then Lie bracket [a,b] is another vector field that verifies the identity

for any smooth function u. The components of [a,b] are defined as

We calculate, all the possible commutators. We have that [\tilde e_i,\tilde b_k]=0 for every i and k, and that [\hat e_i,\tilde b_k] satisfies:

Now we rewrite I_1(e,k) by commuting e, \tilde b_k and integrating by parts keeping in mind that \textnormal{div}(\alpha\tilde b_k)=0:

Similarly, I_2(e,k) integrating by parts and commuting \tilde b_k, e:

Note that the second to last term cancels with one of I_1(e,k), yielding

Now, to compute (?) we must set e=e_i and sum in i. Using that [\tilde e_i,\tilde b_k]=0 for all i,k, we have

Now observe that (?) is symmetric in \hat e_i, [\hat e_i,\tilde b_k]. Since the table of commutators is antisymmetric, we deduce that actually (?) vanishes.

A similar reasoning shows that (?) and (?) vanish. Plugging all this information into (?) shows that

This concludes the proof.