arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 1 Feb 2015

Transcription

1 GLOBAL WEAK SOLUTIONS FOR KOLMOGOROV-VICSEK TYPE EQUATIONS WITH ORIENTATIONAL INTERACTION IRENE M. GAMBA AN MOON-JIN KANG arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 1 Feb 2015 Abstract. We rove the global existence of weak solutions to kinetic Kolmogorov-Vicsek models that can be considered a non-local non-linear Fokker-Planck tye equation describing the dynamics of individuals with orientational interaction. This model is derived from the discrete Couzin-Vicsek algorithm as mean-field limit [2, 9], which governs the interactions of stochastic agents moving with a velocity of constant magnitude. Therefore, the velocity variable of kinetic Kolmogorov-Vicsek models lies on the unit shere. For our analysis, we take advantage of the boundedness of velocity sace to get L estimates and comactness roerty. 1. Introduction Recently, a variety of mathematical models caturing the emergent henomena of selfdriven agents have received lots of attention extensively. In articular, the discrete Couzin- Vicsek algorithm (CVA has been roosed a model describing the interactions of agents moving with a velocity of constant magnitude, and with angles measured from a reference direction (See [1, 3, 15, 21]. In this manuscrit, we look into analytical issues for the kinetic (mesoscoic descrition associated to the discrete Couzin-Vicsek algorithm with stochastic dynamics corresonding to Brownian motion on a shere. More recisely, we consider the corresonding kinetic Kolmogorov-Vicsek model describing stochastic articles with orientational interaction: (1.1 t f +ω x f = ω (ff o + ω f, F o (x,ω,t = ν(ω Ω(f(Id ω ωω(f, Ω(f(x,t = J(f(x,t J(f(x,t, J(f(x,t = K( x y ωf(y,ω,tdydω, R d S d 1 f(x,ω,0 = f 0 (x,ω, x R d, ω S d 1, t > 0. where f = f(x,ξ,t is the one-article distribution function at osition x R d, velocity direction ω S d 1 and time t. The oerators ω and ω denote the gradient and the Lalace-Beltrami oerator on the shere S d 1. The term F o (x,ω,t is the mean-field force ate: February 3, Mathematics Subject Classification. 35Q84, Acknowledgment. I. M. Gamba is suorted by the NSF under grants MS , and NSF RNMS (KI-Net grant MS , and M.-J. Kang is suorted by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (NRF-2013R1A6A3A The suort from the Institute of Comutational Engineering and Sciences at the University of Texas Austin is gratefully acknowledged. 1

2 2 GAMBA AN KANG that governs the orientational interaction of self-driven articles by aligning them with the direction Ω(x,t S d 1 that deends on the flux J(x,t. This mean-field force is also roortional to the interaction frequency ν. Its algebraic inverse ν 1 reresents the tyical time-interval between two successive changes in the trajectory of the orientational swarm article to accommodate the resence of other article in the neighborhood. The function K is an isotroic observation kernel around each article and it is assumed to be integrable in R. Following egond and Motsch in [9], the interaction frequency function ν is taken to be a ositive function of cosθ, where θ is the angle between ω and Ω. Such deendence of ν with resect to the angle θ reresents different turning transition rates at different angles. Hence, the constitutive form of such interaction frequency ν(θ is inherent to secies being modeled by orientational interactions. As in [9], we assume that ν(θ is a smooth and bounded function of its argument. The kinetic Kolmogorov-Fokker-Planck tye model with orientational interactions (1.1 was formally derived in [9] as a mean-field limit of the discrete Couzin-Vicsek algorithm (CVA with stochastic dynamics. There, the authors mainly focused on the model with the following interaction term (1.2 t f +ω x f = ω (ff o + ω f, F o (x,ω,t = ν(ω Ω(f(Id ω ωω(f, Ω(f(x,t = J(f(x,t J(f(x,t, J(f(x,t = ωf(x,ω,tdω, S d 1 f(x,ω,0 = f 0 (x,ω, x R d, ω S d 1, t > 0. This form of J(f(x,t was derived in [9] from the corresonding one (1.1 with the kernel K by rescaling time and satial variables. Such scaling describes dynamics for the model in (1.1 at large time and length scales comared with scales of the individuals: We discuss more on the secifics of both models, (1.1 and (1.2, in the next section. The urose of this article is to resent the global existence of weak solutions to models (1.1 and (1.2 in aroriate Sobolev saces. In fact we will show that the roofs for both models, (1.1 and (1.2, are exactly the same. The classical Vicsek model have been receiving lots of attention in the last few years concerning the rigor of mathematical studies of its mean-field limit, hydrodynamic limit and hase transition, among the main roerties. More secifically, Bolley, Cañizo and J. A. Carrillo have rigorously justified mean-field limit in [2]. When the force acting on the articles is not normalized, i.e., νω(x,t relaced by J(x,t in force term F o. This modification leads to the aearance of hase transitions from disordered states at low density to aligned states at high densities. This hase transition roblem has been studied in [1, 3, 7, 8, 13, 15]. Also, issues on hydrodynamic descritions of kinetic Vicsek model have been discussed in [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. We also refer to [6, 16] concerning related models of Vicsek model. Although the Vicsek model has been studied via a variety of scales from microscoic level to macroscoic level, there is few results on existence theory of kinetic descrition. In [13], Frouvelle and Liu have shown the well-osedness of the sace-homogeneous case of (1.2, in which νω(x,t is relaced by J(x,t. More recisely, when there is no advection due to satial homogeneity, the kinetic equation (1.2 becomes Smoluchowski equation defined

3 on shere, for which Frouvelle and Liu have roved the global solvability and regularity, moreover by making use of Onsager free energy functional, the large time behavior has been shown. On the other hand, Bolley, Cañizo and J. A. Carrillo [2] have resented the existence of weak solution of sace-inhomogeneous equation with a different kind of force. More recisely, they considered the difference between satial convolutions of mass and momentum with Lischitz and bounded kernel K, namely ωk x ρ K x J instead of νω. This force has regular effect for satial variable comared to our case νω. To the best of our knowledge, the well-osedness of the sace-inhomogeneous for both kinetic Kolmogorov-Vicsek models, (1.1 and (1.2, is still oen. This aer is devoted to show the existence of weak solutions to the kinetic Kolmogorov- Vicsek tye models with orientational interactions, given by (1.1 and (1.2. In Section 2, we briefly rovides some known results for these kinetic models, which give a heuristic justification for a riori non-zero assumtion to be stated in our main result. In Section 3, we resent a riori estimates and comactness lemma, which lay crucial roles in the main roof in Section Preliminaries and Main result In this section, we briefly review how the kinetic Kolmogorov-Viscek equations, (1.1 and (1.2 can be formally derived from the discrete Couzin-Vicsek algorithm model [9] with stochastic dynamics. Then we rovide our main result and useful formulations Kinetic Kolmogorov-Vicsek models. Following [9], the kinetic Kolmogorov-Vicsek model considered in (1.1 is derived from the following classical discrete Vicsek model modeling Brownian motion of the shere S d 1 given by the stochastic differential equations for 1 i N, (2.3 dx i = ω i dt, dω i = (Id ω i ω i ν(ω i Ω i Ω i dt+ 2µ(Id ω i ω i dbt i, Ω i = J i J i, Ji = ω j. j, X j X i R Here, the neighborhood of the i-th article is the ball centered at X i R d with radius R > 0. The velocity director ω i S d 1 of the i-th article tends to be aligned to the director Ω i of the average velocity of the neighboring articles with noise B i t that stand for N indeendent standard Brownian motions on R d with intensity 2µ. Then, its rojection (Id ω i ω i db i t reresents the contribution of a Brownian motion on the shere Sd 1. We refer to [17] for more details on Brownian motions on Riemannian manifolds. The first interaction term of (2.3 2 is the sum of smooth binary interactions with same seed, whereas there is no constraint on the velocity in the Cucker-Smale model [4]. In addition the interaction frequency (weight function ν(ω i Ω i deends on the angle between ω i and Ω i, arametrized by cosθ i = ω i Ω i. From the individual-based model (2.3, the corresonding kinetic mean-field limit as the number of articles N tends to infinity was roosed in [2, 9], results in the henomenological model for f = f(x,ω,t, the one-oint robability density function of finding a article at osition x R d, with velocity ω S d 1 and time t, evolving according

4 4 GAMBA AN KANG t f +ω x f = ω (ff+µ ω f, F(x,ω,t = ν(ω Ω(f(Id ω ωω(f, (2.4 Ω(f(x,t = J(f(x,t J(f(x,t, J(f(x,t = K( x y ωf(y,ω,tdydω, R d S d 1 where K is an isotroic observation kernel around each article, which is assumed to be of L 1 class in our framework. Notice that µ corresonds to the diffusive coefficient associated to the Brownian motion on the shere S d 1. On the other hand, if we observe the dynamics of the system at large time and length scales comared with the scales of the individuals by introducing new dimensionless variables x = εx, t = εt with ε 1, this makes the interaction local and to be aligned the article velocity to the direction of the local article flux. This interaction term is balanced at leading order ε by the diffusion term. Under this consideration, (2.4 can be considered as the following equation (see [9] t f +ω x f = Q(f, Q(f = ω (fν(ω Ω(f(Id ω ωω(f+µ ω f, (2.5 Ω(f(x,t = J(f(x,t J(f(x,t, J(f(x,t = ωf(x,ω,tdω. S d 1 Notice that Ω(f in (2.4 and (2.5 have a singularity when J(f becomes 0. To avoid this singularity issue, we are going to resent the existence of weak solutions to (2.4 and (2.5 in a subclass of solutions with the non-zero local momentum, i.e. J(f 0. As shown in [9], since ω is not a collisional invariant of oerator Q, the momentum is not conserved. Thus, it is not straightforward to get J(f(x,t 0 for all (x,t from imosing non-zero initial momentum, i.e. J(f(x,0 0 for all x. Moreover, there is no canonical entroy for a tye of the kinetic equations (2.4 and (2.5. ue to these analytical difficulties, we are going to heuristically justify our constraint J(f 0 by observing equilibria only for (2.5, which has been studied in [9] as follows: For classification of equilibria in the case of dimension d = 3, we define the Fisher-von Mises distribution by 1 ( σ(ω Ω M Ω (ω = S ex( σ(ω Ω 2 µ dω ex µ for a given unit vector Ω S 2 dσ. Here, σ denotes an antiderivative of ν, i.e. dτ (τ = ν(τ. Since ν is ositive, σ is an increasing function, M Ω is maximal for ω Ω = 1, i.e. for ω ointing in the direction of Ω. Therefore, Ω lays the same role as the averaged velocity of the classical Maxwellian of gas dynamics. Moreover, the diffusion constant µ corresonds to the strength of temerature, which measures the sreading of the equilibrium about the average direction Ω. Here, the value of the diffusion constant is fixed, in contrast with the classical gas dynamics where the temerature is a thermodynamical variable whose evolution is determined by the energy balance equation. By using Fisher-von Mises distribution, the oerator Q and equilibria of (2.5 are exressed as follows: Lemma 2.1. [9] (i The oerator Q(f can be written as [ ( f ] Q(f = µ ω M Ω(f ω. M Ω(f

5 (ii The equilibria, i.e. the solutions f(ω satisfying Q(f = 0 form a three dimensional manifold E given by E = {ρm Ω (ω ρ > 0, Ω S 2 }, where ρ is the total mass and Ω is the director of the flux of ρm Ω (ω, i.e. ρ = ρm Ω (ωdω, Ω = J(ρM Ω S, 2 J(ρM Ω J(ρM Ω := ρm Ω (ωωdω = ρc(µω, S 2 where ( π 0 cosθex σ(ω Ω µ sin θdθ c(µ = (. π 0 ex σ(ω Ω µ sin θdθ We note that c(µ 1 as µ 0, and c(µ 0 as µ. This means that the local momentum J(ρM Ω of equilibrium solution f = ρm Ω is not zero as long as the strength µ of diffusion is not sufficiently large comared to orientational interaction. Therefore, if the diffusion constant µ is not large, it would make sense that the local momentum J(f of our solution f is assumed to be nonzero at least near the equilibrium Main result. In this art, we resent the main results for global existence of weak solutions to equations (1.1 and (1.2. Before giving the main theorem, we introduce the following notations for simlification. Notation : From now on, denotes R d S d 1, and P ω denotes Id ω ω. Note that the maing v (Id ω ωv is the rojection of the vector v onto the normal lane to ω. Framework : In the following sections, it turns out that the roof for (1.1 is the same as that for (1.2. Thus, for convenience, we rewrite (1.1 and (1.2 as one form: (2.6 t f +ω x f = ω (ff o +µ ω f, F o (x,ω,t = ν(ω Ω(fP ω Ω(f, Ω(f(x,t = J(f(x,t J(f(x,t, f(x,ω,0 = f 0 (x,ω, (x,ω, t > 0. where J(f(x, t denotes either J(f(x,t := K( x y ωf(y,ω,tdydω, or J(f(x,t := ωf(x,ω,tdω. S d 1 Asalreadymentioned, weassumethatν( isasmoothandboundedfunctionofitsargument and K( L 1 (R d. Moreover, we go around the singularity issue for Ω(f by imosing a riori assumtions that the weak solution f of (1.1 satisfies (2.7 J(f(x,t 0 for all x R d, t > 0, 5

6 6 GAMBA AN KANG and the weak solution f of (1.2 satisfies (2.8 J(f(x,t 0 for all x R d, t > 0. Theorem 2.1. Assume that f 0 satisfies (2.9 f 0 L 1 L ( and f 0 0. Then, for given T > 0, under each assumtion (2.7 and (2.8, the equations (1.1 and (1.2 resectively have a weak solution f, which satisfies f 0, f C(0,T;L 1 ( L ((0,T, ω f L 2 ((0,T. and the following weak formulation: for any φ Cc ([0,T, t f t φ+fω x φ+ff o ω φ µ ω f ω φdxdωds 0 ( f 0 φ(0, dxdω = 0, F o (x,ω,t = ν(ω Ω(fP ω Ω(f. Moreover, f satisfies that for any 1 <, (2.11 f L (0,T;L ( + 2µ( 1 and (2.12 f L ((0,T e CT f 0 L (. ω f 2 2 L 2 ((0,T ect 1 f 0 L (, Remark 2.1. In the following sections, it turns out that the roof of Theorem 2.1 is based on energy method, in which the diffusion term µ ω f lays a crucial role, but the strength µ > 0 does not essentially affect the roof of existence. Thus from now on, we set µ = 1 without loss of generality Formulas for Calculus on shere. We here resent some useful formulas on shere S d 1, which are extensively used in this aer. Let F be a vector-valued function and f be scalar-valued function. Then we have a formula related to the integration by arts: (2.13 f ω Fdω = F ( ω f 2ωfdω. S d 1 S d 1 By the definition of the rojection P ω, it is obvious that (2.14 P ω ω = 0, P ω ω f = ω f, P ω u v = P ω v u, for any scalar-valued function f and vectors u, v. On the other hand, for any constant vector v R d, we have (2.15 ω (ω v = P ω v, ω (P ω v = (d 1ω v. In order to easily derive the formulas above, one can begin by rewriting them as sherical coordinates. We refer to [13, 20] for the derivations of formulas above.

7 3. a riori estimates and comactness lemma In this section, we first derive a riori estimates, then comactness lemma, which lay an imortant role in the roof of Theorem 2.1. Lemma 3.1. Assume that f is a smooth solution to (2.6 with f 0 satisfying (2.9. Then, for any 1 <, we have (3.16 f L (0,T;L ( + 2( 1 in articular, if =, we have ω f 2 2 L 2 ((0,T ect 1 f 0 L (, (3.17 f L ((0,T e CT f 0 L (. Proof. For any 1 <, it follows from (2.6 that d f dxdω = f 1 ω (fν(ω ΩP dt ω Ωdxdω + =: I 1 +I 2. f 1 ω fdxdω By integration by arts as (2.13 and using ω ω f = 0, we get I 2 = ( 1 f 2 ω f ω fdxdω +2 f 1 ω ω fdxdω = 4( 1 ω f 2 2 dxdω. We use the formula (2.15 to have I 1 = f 1( ν(ω Ω ω f P ω Ω+fν (ω Ω P ω Ω 2 (d 1fν(ω Ωω Ω dxdω ν(ω Ω L f 1 ω f dxdω + ν (ω Ω L f dxdω +(d 1 ν(ω Ω L f dxdω. Using Hölder s inequality, the first integral in right hand side above can be estimates as ( 1/2 ( 1/2 f 1 ω f dxdω f dxdω f 2 ω f 2 dxdω = 2 ( 1/2 ( 1/2. f dxdω ω f 2 dxdω 2 Then we have I 1 2( 1 ω f 2 2 dxdω +C( 1 + Combining the estimates above, we get d f dxdω + 2( 1 ω f 2 2 dxdω C( dt 1 + which gives the Gronwall tye inequality d dt f L ( C 1 f L (. f dxdω. f dxdω, 7

8 8 GAMBA AN KANG Therefore, we have f L (0,T;L ( e CT 1 f 0 L (, which imlies the L estimate (3.16. Moreover, taking, we have L bound (3.17. Remark 3.1. In the roof of Lemma 3.1, we only needed the boundedness of Ω rather than secific feature of J itself. In the following roofs, each term corresonding to Ω has to be bounded, thus Lemma 3.1 can be alied. The following lemma rovides the comactness that ensure the strong L convergence of solutions to the following equation (3.18 with bounded force term as a generalized form of our main equations. This strong comactness roerty is based on the boundedness of force term and velocity sace. On the other hand, the celebrated velocity averaging lemma lays a imortant role on the analysis for kinetic equations with unbounded velocity variable (See for instance [18]. Our comactness roerty crucially underlies the roof of Theorem 2.1. Lemma 3.2. Assume that f 0 satisfies (2.9, and f n is a smooth solution to t f n +ω x f n = ω (f n ν(ω F n P ω F n + ω f n, (3.18 f n (x,ω,0 = f 0 (x,ω, where F n : R n R + R n is a given function of (x,t. If the sequence (F n is bounded in L ((0,T R d, for any 1 <, then there exists a limit function f such that u to a subsequence, f n f as n in L ((0,T R d L 2 ((0,T R d ;H 1 (S d 1. Moreover, the associated sequences ( J ( n := K( x y ωf n (y,ω,tdydω and ( ( J n := ωf n (x,ω,tdω S d 1 for a given kernel K( L 1 (R d, strongly converge to the corresonding limits J and J in L ((0,T R d resectively, where ( J := K( x y ωf(y,ω,tdydω and ( J := ωf(x,ω,tdω. S d 1 Proof. Since the sequence (F n is bounded in L ((0,T R d, there exists F L ((0,T R d such that u to a subsequence, (3.19 F n F weakly in L ((0,T R d.

9 Let f be a solution of (3.18 corresonding to F. Then, we subtract the equation (3.18 corresonding to F from (3.18 to obtain t (f n f+ω x (f n f = ω ((f n fν(ω F n P ω F n ( ω f(ν(ω F n ν(ω FP ω F n ( ω fν(ω FP ω (F n F + ω (f n f. For any fixed [1,, it follows from the above equation that d dt (f n f dxdω = + (f n f 1 ω (f n fdxdω (f n f 1 ω ((f n fν(ω F n P ω F n dxdω =: J 1 +J 2 +J 3 +J 4. (f n f 1 ω (f(ν(ω F n ν(ω FP ω F n dxdω ( (f n f 1 ω fν(ω FP ω (F n F dxdω We follow the same comutation as I 1 in the roof of the Lemma 3.1, to estimate J 1 = (f n f 1( ν(ω F n ω (f n f P ω F n +(f n fν (ω F n P ω F n 2 (d 1(f n fν(ω F n ω F n dxdω ν(ω F n L F n L (f n f 1 ω (f n f dxdω + ν (ω F n L F n 2 L (f n f dxdω +(d 1 ν(ω F n L F n L (f n f dxdω. 2( 1 ω (f n f 2 2 dxdω + C2 1 (f n f dxdω By the same comutation as I 2 in the roof of the Lemma 3.1, we have J 4 = 4( 1 ω (f n f 2 2 dxdω Thus, we have d (f n f dxdω C dt (f n f dxdω 2( 1 ω (f n f 2 2 dxdω +J 2 +J 3. 9

10 10 GAMBA AN KANG Since f n = f at t = 0, alying the Gronwall s inequality to the above inequality, we have that for any 0 < t T, (f n f dxdω + 2( 1 t t ω (f n f 2 2 dxdωds e CT (J 2 +J 3 (sds. 0 We use the formula (2.15 and the mean-value theorem to rewrite J 2 as J 2 = (f n f 1[ (ν(ω F n ν(ω F ω f P ω F n +f(ν (ω F n F n ν (ω FF P ω F n (d 1f(ν(ω F n ν(ω Fω F n ]dxdω = (f n f 1[ ν (ω Fnω (F n F ω f P ω F n ( +f ν (ω F n (F n F+ν (ω Fn ω (F n FF P ω F n (d 1fν (ω Fn ω (F n Fω F n ]dxdω = (f n f 1[ ν (ω Fn ωf P ω F n ω +fν (ω F n P ω F n +fν (ω Fn F P ω F nω ] (d 1fν (ω Fnω F n ω (F n Fdxdω, where Fn and F n are some bounded functions due to MVT. Similarly, using (2.15, we rewrite J 3 as J 3 = (f n f 1[ ν(ω F ω f P ω (F n F+fν (ω FP ω F P ω (F n F ] (d 1fν(ω Fω (F n F dxdω = (f n f 1[ ] ν(ω F ω f +fν (ω FP ω F (d 1fν(ω Fω (F n Fdxdω. Thus we get (3.20 where T f n f L ( + 4( 1 ω (f n f 2 2 dxdωds 0 T e CT Φ (F n Fdxdωds, 0 Φ = (f n f 1[ ν (ω Fn ωf P ω F n ω +fν (ω F n P ω F n +fν (ω Fn F P ω F nω ] (d 1fν (ω Fn ω F nω +ν(ω F ω f +fν (ω FP ω F (d 1fν(ω Fω Once we can show Φ L 1 ((0,T, we can conclude the roof by the weak convergence F n as (3.19. Thus, it remains to show the L 1 boundedness of φ. 0

11 To this end, using the uniform boundedness of (F n, we have the same estimates as in Lemma 3.1, i.e., for each g = f n,f, g L (0,T;L ( C f 0 L (, 1, ω g 2 L 2 ((0,T C f 0 /2 L (, 1 <, where the ositive constant C only deends on and T. Then using those estimates and Hölder s inequality, we have T ( 1/2 ( 1/2 (f n f 1 ω fdxdωds (f n f dxdω (f n f 2 ω f 2 dxdω 0 ( 1/2 ( C (fn +f dxdω ω f 1/2 2 2 dxdω and T 0 C 0, ( (f n f 1 fdxdωds ( C C 0, 1 ( (f n f dxdω 1 f dxdω 1 ( 1 (fn +f dxdω f dxdω where the ositive constant C 0 deends on f 0 L (. Thus we have Φ L 1 ((0,T C ( (f n f 1 ω f L 1 ((0,T + (f n f 1 f L 1 ((0,T C C 0, where C is a ositive constant as [( C = d ( ν (ω Fn L + ν (ω F n L + ν (ω Fn L F L F n L ] + ν(ω F L + ν (ω F L F L, which does not deend on n thanks to the uniform boundedness of (F n. Therefore, by alying (3.19, it follows from (3.20 that (3.21 f n f in L ((0,T, ω f n ω f in L 2 ((0,T. It remains to show that (3.21 imlies the strong convergence of the associated sequences ( J n and ( J n. For ( J n, using the Minkowski inequality, Hölder s inequality and Young s inequality, we estimate J n J ( T L ((0,T R n = K x (f n fωdω 1 dxds S d 1 0 R d ( T 1 K x (f n f dxds dω S d 1 0 R d ( T C K x (f n f 0 S d 1 L (R d dωds C K L 1 (R d f n f L ((0,T. 1 11

12 12 GAMBA AN KANG Similarly we have J n J ( T L ((0,T R n = ω(f n fdω dxds 0 R d S ( d 1 T 1 f n f dxds dω S d 1 0 R d C f n f L ((0,T Proof of Theorem 2.1 In this section, we use the a riori estimates and comactness roerty in revious lemmas to rove Theorem 2.1. For this end, we intend to use iteration scheme to construct a sequence of solutions (f n to linear aroximate equation of (2.6, for which at n-th ste, Ω(f n 1 in the force term will be given from revious (n 1-th ste. In this iteration, even if we suose (2.7 or (2.8, since the linear aroximate equation is different from the original equation (2.6, the corresonding momentum J(f n of the solution f n of aroximate equation at n-th ste can be zero, which fails in defining Ω(f n at next ste. In order to remove this issue of singularity, we need to first regularize the equation ( Regularized equation. We first regularize (1.1 and (1.2 by adding ε > 0 to the denominator of Ω as follows. t f ε +ω x f ε = ω (f ε ν(ω Ω ε P ω Ω ε + ω f ε, (4.22 Ω ε (x,t = J ε(x,t J ε (x,t +ε, f ε (x,ω,0 = f 0 (x,ω, x R d, ω S d 1, t > 0. where J ε (x,t denotes one of either J(f ε (x,t or J(f ε (x,t Construction of aroximate solutions. We now construct a sequence of aroximate solutions to the regularized equation (4.22 by using the following iteration scheme. We define a initial function f 1 by Then, we find f 2 solving t f 2 +ω x f 2 = ω f 1 (x,ω,t = f 0 (x,ω, (x,ω, t 0. (f 2 ν(ω Ω 1 P ω Ω 1 + ω f 2, Ω 1 (x,t = J 1(x,t J 1 (x,t +ε, J 1(x,t = either J(f 1 (x,t or J(f 1 (x,t, f 2 (x,ω,0 = f 0 (x,ω. Inductively, we define f n+1 as a solution of (4.23 t f n+1 +ω x f n+1 = ω (f n+1 ν(ω Ω n P ω Ω n + ω f n+1, Ω n (x,t = J n(x,t J n (x,t +ε, J n(x,t = either J(f n (x,t or J(f n (x,t, f n+1 (x,ω,0 = f 0 (x,ω,

13 We have omitted ε-deendence in f ε,n above for the notational simlicity. First of all, we need to justify the solvability of the aroximate equations (4.23 for n 1 as follows. Lemma 4.1. For any T > 0 and fixed n 1, assume that f n is a given integrable function and f 0 satisfies (2.9. Then, there exists a unique solution f n+1 0 to the linear equation (4.23 satisfying the L -estimates: (4.24 f n+1 L (0,T;L ( + 2( 1 ω f 2 2 n+1 L 2 ((0,T ect 1 f 0 L (, and (4.25 f n+1 L ((0,T e CT f 0 L (. Theroofof Lemma4.1 follows thesameargument asegond s roofin[5]. We ostone its roof in Aendix for the reader s convenience Passing to the limit as n. We now show that f n converges to the solution of regularized equation (4.22, which rovides the existence of weak solution to (4.22 as follows. Proosition 4.1. For a given T > 0 and ε > 0, if f 0 satisfies (2.9, then there exists a weak solution f ε 0 to the (4.22 satisfying the L -estimates: for 1 <, (4.26 f ε L (0,T;L ( + 2( 1 ω f 2 and 2 ε (4.27 f ε L ((0,T e CT f 0 L (. L 2 ((0,T ect 1 f 0 L (, Proof. Since the sequence (Ω n defined in (4.23 is bounded in L ((0,T R d, we can aly Lemma 3.2 with F n = Ω n. Then, there exists a limit function f ε such that u to a subsequence, f n f ε as n in L ((0,T R d L 2 ((0,T R d ;H 1 (S d 1, J n J ε as n in L ((0,T R d, where the air (J n,j ε is either ( J(f n, J(f ε or ( J(f n, J(f ε. Moreover, this yields Ω n Ω ε := J ε as n in L (0,T;L (. J ε +ε Indeed, this is derived from Ω n Ω ε dx R d = ε(j n J ε + J ε (J n J ε +J ε ( J ε J n dx R d ( J n +ε( J ε +ε 1 ε ε(j n J ε + J ε (J n J ε +J ε ( J ε J n dx R d J ε +ε ( C(ε J n J ε + J n J ε + J n J ε dx R d C(ε J n J ε dx, R d 13

14 14 GAMBA AN KANG Therefore, those imly that the limit f ε satisfies the following weak formulation of (4.22: for all φ Cc ([0,T R d S d 1, t f ε t φ+f ε ω x φ+f ε F ε ω φ ω f ε ω φdxdωds 0 + f 0 φ(0, dxdω = 0, F ε = ν(ω Ω ε P ω Ω ε, Ω ε (x,t = J ε (x,t = either J(f ε or J(f ε. J ε(x,t J ε (x,t +ε, In addition, we use the roof of Lemma 3.1 and the boundedness of Ω ε above, to comlete the L estimates (4.26 and ( Passing to the limit as ε 0. Inthis art, we comlete the roof of Theorem 2.1 by showing the convergence of (4.22 to (2.6 in the weak sense, as ε 0. For the convenience, we denote a sequence f n := f εn for a convergent sequence ε n 0, then consider a sequence F n := J n J n +ε n, J n = S d 1 ωf n dω. Since the sequence (F n defined above is bounded in L ((0,T R d, we can aly Lemma 3.2. Then, there exists a limit function f such that u to a subsequence, (4.28 f n f as n in L ((0,T R d L 2 ((0,T R d ;H 1 (S d 1, J n J as n in L ((0,T R d, where the air (J n,j is either ( J(f n, J(f or ( J(f n, J(f. We may show that f is the weak solution to (2.6, that is, f satisfies the weak formulation (2.10 as the limit of the following formulation for (4.22: t ( ω Jn J n f n t φ+f n ω x φ+f n ν P 0 J n +ε ω ω φ ω f n ω φdxdωds n J n +ε n + f 0 φ(0, dxdω = 0, for any φ C c ([0,T R d S d 1. By the convergence of f n in (4.28, we can easily show that all terms in the formulation above excet for the nonlinear force term converge to the corresonding terms in (2.10. On the other hand, the convergence of the nonlinear term requires further justification as follows. Lemma 4.2. As n, t ( ω Jn J n f n ν P J n +ε ω ω φdxdωds n J n +ε n 0 when J(x,t > 0 by the assumtion (2.7 and (2.8. t 0 fν ( ω J J P ω J J ωφdxdωds, Proof. We here omit the rojection oerator P ω thanks to (2.14 for convenience, i.e., we show that t ( ω Jn J t ( n ω J J f n ν ω φdxdωds fν J n +ε n J n +ε n J J ωφdxdωds, 0 0

15 First of all, since (4.27 and ν is bounded, there is a uniform constant C such that ( ω Jn J n L f n ν J n +ε n J n +ε f n L n ((0,T ((0,T ν L C. which imlies that for some F, ( ω Jn J n f n ν F weakly in L ((0,T. J n +ε n J n +ε n Thus it remains to show F = fν on {(t,x,ω (0,T] R d S d 1 J(x,t > 0}. For that, we consider a bounded set ( ω J J J J, X R,δ := {(t,x,ω (0,T] B R (0 S d 1 J(x,t > δ}, whererand δ are any ositive constants, and B R (0 denote theball withradius R, centered at 0 in R d. Since f n f and J n J a.e. on X R,δ by (4.28, we use Egorov s theorem to have that for any η > 0, there exists Y η X R,δ such that X R,δ \Y η < η and Thus, for sufficiently large n, f n f, J n J in L (Y η. 15 J n (x,t > δ 2 for (x,t Y η, which allows us to get J n J J n +ε n J L (Y η = J (J n J+J( J J n ε n J ( J n +ε n J L (Y η 2 J (J n J+J( J J n ε n J δ J L (Y η 2 ( J n J δ L (Y η + J n J L (Y η ε n 0. This yields ( ω Jn J ( n ω J J f n ν fν J n +ε n J n +ε n J J L (Y η ( ω Jn ( ω J ] J n L = f n [ν ν J n +ε n J J n +ε n (Y η ( ω J ( J n + f n ν J ( J J n +ε n J L (Yη + (fn ω Jn J n L fν J n +ε n J n +ε n (Y η C f n L ( ν J n L + ν L J J n +ε n J +C f L n f L (Y (Y η η ν L 0.

16 16 GAMBA AN KANG Thus we have ( ω J J F = fν on Y η. J J Since η, R and δ are arbitrary, taking η,δ 0 and R, ( ω J J F = fν on {(t,x,ω (0,T] R d S d 1 J(x,t > 0}. J J Therefore, we comlete the convergence. Thanks to lemma above and (4.28, we conclude that f satisfies the weak formulation (2.10. On the other hand, the estimates (2.11 and (2.12 follow directly from the estimates (4.26 and (4.27. Aendix A. Proof of Lemma 4.1 We here rove the existence of solution f to the linear equation ( t f +ω x f = ω fν(ω ΩP ω Ω + ω f, (A.29 J(x, t Ω = J(x,t +ε, J(x,t = ωg(x,ω,tdω, S d 1 f(x,ω,0 = f 0 (x,ω, where g is a given integrable function. We begin by rewriting (A.29 as (A.30 t f +ω x f +ν(ω ΩP ω Ω ω f +fν (ω Ω P ω Ω 2 (d 1fν(ω Ωω Ω ω f = 0, f(x,ω,0 = f 0 (x,ω, where we have used the formula (2.15. Then we consider a new function f(x,ω,t := e λt f(x,ω,t for a given λ > 0, which leads to (A.31 t f +ω x f +ψ1 ω f + (λ+ψ 2 +ψ 3 f ω f = 0, f(x,ω,0 = f 0 (x,ω, where the functions ψ 1, ψ 2 and ψ 3 are given by ψ 1 (x,ω,t = ν(ω ΩP ω Ω, ψ 2 (x,ω,t = ν (ω Ω P ω Ω 2, ψ 3 (x,ω,t = (d 1ν(ω Ωω Ω. Since Ω 1 and the smooth function ν is bounded, ψ 1, ψ 2 and ψ 3 are also all bounded. Therefore, the Lions theorem [19] guarantees the existence of (A.31 by the same argument as [5]. More recisely, the equation (A.31 has a solution f in the sace Y := {f L 2 ([0,T] R d ;H 1 (S d 1 t f +ω x f L 2 ([0,T] R d ;H 1 (S d 1 }. Furthermore, by the Green formula in [5], we have the fact that for any f Y, < t f +ω x f,f >= 1 (A.32 ( f(x,ω,t 2 f(x,ω,0 2 dxdω, 2

17 where <,> denotes the airing of L 2 ([0,T] R d ;H 1 (S d 1 and L 2 ([0,T] R d ;H 1 (S d 1. We use (A.32 to show the uniqueness of solutions f in Y as follows. Let us consider a solution f Y to (A.31 with initial data f 0 = 0. Then by using (A.32, we have (A.33 0 =< t f +ω x f +ψ1 ω f +(λ+ψ2 +ψ 3 f ω f, f > = 1 f(x,ω,t 2 dxdω 1 ω ψ 1 f 2 dxdω (λ+ψ 2 +ψ 3 f 2 dxdω + ω f 2 dxdω ( λ 1 2 ω ψ 1 L ([0,T] ψ 2 L ([0,T] ψ 3 L ([0,T] f 2 dxdω. Since ω ψ 1 = ν (ω Ω ω (ω Ω P ω Ω+ν(ω Ω ω P ω Ω = ν (ω Ω P ω Ω 2 (d 1ν(ω Ωω Ω, ω ψ 1 is bounded. Thus we choose λ such that 17 (A.34 λ > 1 2 ω ψ 1 L ([0,T] + ψ 2 L ([0,T] + ψ 3 L ([0,T], then (A.33 yields f = 0, which roves the uniqueness of the linear equation (A.31. Therefore, (A.31 has a unique solution f L 2 ([0,T] R d ;H 1 (S d 1. Furthermore, since f 0 0 and f 0 L (, by using the similar argument as (A.33, we can show f 0 and f L ([0,T]. For that, we use the following fact in [5], for any f Y, < t f +ω x f,f >= 1 ( f (x,ω,0 2 f (x,ω,t 2 dxdω, 2 where f := max( f,0. Then, since f (x,ω,0 = 0 by f 0 0, we have 0 =< t f +ω x f +ψ1 ω f +(λ+ψ2 +ψ 3 f ω f, f > = 1 f (x,ω,t 2 dxdω + 1 ω ψ 1 f 2 dxdω 2 2 (λ+ψ 2 +ψ 3 f 2 dxdω ω f 2 dxdω ( λ 1 2 ω ψ 1 L ([0,T] ψ 2 L ([0,T] ψ 3 L ([0,T] By the same choice as (A.34, we f = 0, which roves f 0. The same argument also deduces f L ([0,T] f 0 L (. f 2 dxdω. We now go back to (A.30 by using the transformation f(x,ω,t = e λt f(x,ω,t. Since our results for f are invariant under this transformation, we conclude the roof, together with

18 18 GAMBA AN KANG the estimates (4.24 and (4.25, which is estimated by using the roof of Lemma 3.1 and the boundedness of Ω. References [1] M. Aldana and C. Huee, Phase transitions in self-driven many-article systems and related nonequilibrium models: A network aroach, J. Statist. Phys. 112 ( [2] F. Bolley, J. A. Cañizo and J. A. Carrillo, Mean-field limit for the stochastic Vicsek model, Al. Math. Lett. 25, ( [3] I.. Couzin, J. Krause, R. James, G.. Ruxton and N. R. Franks, Collective memory and satial sorting in animal grous, J. Theor. Biol. 218 ( [4] F. Cucker, S. Smale, Emergent behavior in flocks. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 52 ( [5] P. egond, Global existence of smooth solutions for the Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation in 1 and 2 sace dimensions, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Su. (4 19 (1986, [6] P. egond, G. imarco, T. B. N. Mac, Hydrodynamics of the Kuramoto-Vicsek model of rotating selfroelled articles, Math. Models Methods Al. Sci., 24 ( [7] P. egond, A. Frouvelle, J.-G. Liu, Phase transitions, hysteresis, and hyerbolicity for self-organized alignment dynamics, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. to aear [8] P. egond, A. Frouvelle, J-G. Liu, Macroscoic limits and hase transition in a system of self-roelled articles, J. Nonlinear Sci., 23 ( [9] P. egond and S. Motsch, Continuum limit of self-driven articles with orientation interaction, Math. Models Methods Al. Sci., 18 (2008, [10] P. egond, S. Motsch, Macroscoic limit of self-driven articles with orientation interaction, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser I. 345 ( [11] P. egond, T. Yang, iffusion in a continuum model of self-roelled articles with alignment interaction, Math. Models Methods Al. Sci., 20 ( [12] A. Frouvelle, A continuum model for alignment of self-roelled articles with anisotroy and density deendent arameters, Math. Mod. Meth. Al. Sci. 22, (2012 [13] A. Frouvelle, J.-G. Liu, ynamics in a kinetic model of oriented articles with hase transition. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 44 ( [14] I. M. Gamba, J. R. Haack, S. Motsch, Sectral method for a kinetic swarming model, rerint (2014 [15] G. Grégoire and H. Chaté, Onset of collective and cohesive motion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 ( [16] S.-Y. Ha, E. Jeong, M.-J. Kang, Emergent behaviour of a generalized Viscek-tye flocking model, Nonlinearity, 23 ( [17] E.P. Hsu, Stochastic Analysis on Manifolds. Graduate Series in Mathematics. Am. Math. Soc., Providence (2002 [18] T. K. Kaer, A. Mellet and K. Trivisa, Existence of weak solutions to kinetic flocking models, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 45 (2013, [19] J. L. Lions, Equations différentielles oérationelles et roblèmes aux limites, Sringer, Berlin (1961. [20] F. Otto, A. Tzavaras, Continuity of velocity gradients in susensions of rod-like molecules, Commun. Math. Phys. 277 ( [21] T. Vicsek, A. Czirók, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen and O. Shochet, Novel tye of hase transition in a system of self-driven articles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 ( (Irene M. Gamba eartment of Mathematics and ICES, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA address: gamba@math.utexas.edu (Moon-Jin Kang eartment of Mathematics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA address: moonjinkang@math.utexas.edu