1: \errorcontextlines10

2: %\long\def\meta#1{\texttt{#1}}

3: \documentclass[reqno]{amsart}

4: %\usepackage[notref]{showkeys}

5: %

6: \usepackage{geompsfi}

7: %\input supp-pdf.tex

8: %\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.ps,.0}

9: %\DeclareGraphicsRule{*}{mps}{*}{}

10: \usepackage{latexsym}

11: \usepackage{amstext}

12: \usepackage {amsmath}

13: \usepackage {amsfonts}

14: \usepackage {amssymb}

15: \usepackage {amsthm}

16: \usepackage {bbm}

17: \usepackage{enumerate}

18: \usepackage{array}

19: %\usepackage{pictex}

20: %\usepackage[metapost]{mfpic}

21: \usepackage{comment}

22: \usepackage{xspace}

23: \sloppy

24: %\usepackage{showkeys}\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5}

25: %==================

26: % new commands

27: %==================

28: \def\cringle{\mathaccent"7017 }

29: \newcommand{\GammaD}{\ensuremath{\Gamma_{\!\text{\tiny D}}}}

30: \newcommand{\uD}{\ensuremath{u_{\text{\tiny D}}}}

31: \DeclareMathOperator{\dist}{dist}

32: \DeclareMathOperator{\sgn}{sgn}

33: \DeclareMathOperator{\spt}{supp}

34: \DeclareMathOperator\supp{supp}

35: \DeclareMathOperator{\aplim}{ap-lim}

36: \DeclareMathOperator{\dive}{div}

37: %\DeclareMathOperator{\loc}{loc}

38: \def\loc{{\mathrm{loc}}}

39: \DeclareMathOperator{\Lp}{L}

40: \DeclareMathOperator{\BV}{BV}

41: \DeclareMathOperator{\Lip}{Lip}

42: \DeclareMathOperator{\HS}{H}

43: \DeclareMathOperator{\p}{p}

44: \DeclareMathOperator{\diam}{diam}

45: \DeclareMathOperator{\modulo}{\, mod}

46: \DeclareMathOperator{\Int}{Int}

47: \DeclareMathOperator{\length}{length}

48: \newcommand{\HO}{\ensuremath{\cringle{\HS}\mbox{}}}

49: \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}

50: \newcommand{\Wasserstein}{Monge-Kantorovich\xspace}

51: \newcommand{\multiplicity}{multiplicity\xspace}

52: \newcommand{\Chi}{\mathcal{X}}

53: \newcommand{\R}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}

54: \newcommand{\Rn}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}^2}}

55: \newcommand{\N}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}\ }

56: \newcommand{\LL}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}

57: \newcommand{\K}{\ensuremath{\mathcal K}}

58: \newcommand{\sphere}{\ensuremath{\mathcal S}}

59: \newcommand{\F}{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}

60: \newcommand{\G}{\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}

61: \newcommand{\Fone}{\ensuremath{\mathcal F_1}}

62: \newcommand{\A}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}

63: \newcommand{\Ha}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}

64: \newcommand{\ma}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{m}}}

65: \newcommand{\te}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}

66: \newcommand{\alphaprime}{\ensuremath{\alpha^\prime}}

67: \newcommand{\schwsternto}{\ensuremath{\overset{*}{\rightharpoonup}}}

68: \newcommand{\eing}{\ensuremath{\lfloor}}

69: \newcommand{\schwto}{\ensuremath{\to}}

70: \newcommand{\schwstto}{\ensuremath{\overset{*}{\rightharpoonup}}}

71: \let\ds\displaystyle

72: \def\Mod#1{\left\|#1\right\|}

73: \def\mod#1{\left|#1\right|}

74: \def\vc#1{\ensuremath{\vcenter{\hbox{#1}}}}

75: %

76: % environments

77: %

78: \newcounter{counter-liste}

79: \newcounter{counter-liste2}

80: \newenvironment{liste2}{\ 

81: \begin{list}{{\arabic{counter-liste2}.}\hfill}{\usecounter{counter-liste2}

82: \setlength{\topsep}{0bp}

83: \setlength{\labelwidth}{10bp}

84: \setlength{\leftmargin}{12bp}%0.04\linewidth}

85: \setlength{\labelsep}{2bp}

86: \setlength{\itemindent}{0bp}%-0.2\leftmargin}

87: %\setlength{\itemsep}{3bp}%{3bp}

88: \setlength{\parsep}{0bp}}

89: }{\end{list}}

90: \newenvironment{liste}%

91:   {\ \begin{list}{{(\arabic{counter-liste})}\hfill}%

92:   {\topsep2mm\itemindent1ex\leftmargin0cm\usecounter{counter-liste}}

93:   }%

94:   {\end{list}}

95: \newenvironment{liste(a)}%

96:   {\ \begin{list}{{(\alph{counter-liste})}\hfill}%

97:   {\topsep2mm\itemindent1ex\leftmargin0cm\usecounter{counter-liste}}

98:   }%

99:   {\end{list}}

100: %

101: \def\R{\mathbb R}

102: \def\H{\mathcal H}

103: \def\W{\mathcal W}

104: \let\e\varepsilon

105: \def\mod#1{\left|#1\right|}

106: \def\BV{\mathrm{BV}}

107: \let\ds\displaystyle

108: \def\pref#1{(\ref{#1})}

109: \theoremstyle{plain}

110: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

111: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[section]

112: \newtheorem{theorem}[lemma]{Theorem}

113: \newtheorem{proposition}[lemma]{Proposition}

114: \newtheorem{definition}[lemma]{Definition}

115: \newtheorem{assumption}[lemma]{Assumption}

116: \newtheorem{corollary}[lemma]{Corollary}

117: \newtheorem*{prob-mass-transport}{Optimal mass transport}

118: \newtheorem*{prob-Kantorovich}{Optimal Kantorovich potential}

119: \theoremstyle{definition}

120: \newtheorem{remark}[lemma]{Remark}

121: %

122: %\opengraphsfile{helf-figs}

123: %

124: %  From Blom-Peletier

125: %

126: \def\nw{{N_w}}

127: \def\nl{{N_\ell}}

128: \def\X{{\mathcal{X}}}

129: \def\E{{\mathcal{E}}}

130: \def\Fid{F^{\textrm{id}}}

131: \def\Fnid{F^{\textrm{nid}}}

132: \def\Hid{H^{\textrm{id}}}

133: 

134: %=====================================================================================================

135: % main

136: %=====================================================================================================

137: \begin{document}

138: \title{Partial Localization, Lipid Bilayers, and the Elastica Functional}

139: \author{Mark A. Peletier \and Matthias R\"oger}

140: \begin{abstract}

141: \emph{Partial localization} is the phenomenon of self-aggregation of

142: mass into high-density structures that are thin in one direction and

143: extended in the others.  

144: We give a detailed study of an energy functional that arises in a

145: simplified model for lipid bilayer membranes. We demonstrate that this

146: functional, defined on a class of two-dimensional spatial mass

147: densities, exhibits partial localization and displays the `solid-like'

148: behavior of cell membranes.

149: 

150: Specifically, we show that density fields of moderate energy are

151: partially localized, \emph{i.e.} resemble thin structures. Deviation

152: from a specific uniform thickness, creation of `ends', and the bending of such

153: structures all carry an energy penalty, of different orders in terms

154: of the thickness of the structure. 

155: 

156: These findings are made precise in a Gamma-convergence result. We prove

157: that a rescaled version of

158: the energy functional converges in the zero-thickness limit  to a

159: functional that is defined on 

160: a class of planar curves. Finiteness of the limit enforces both

161: optimal thickness and non-fracture; if these conditions are met, then

162: the limit value is given by the classical Elastica

163: (bending) energy of the curve. 

164: \begin{comment}

165: \vspace*{2cm}

166: \emph{Partial localization} is the phenomenon of self-aggregation of

167: mass into high-density structures that are thin in one direction and

168: extended in the others.  

169: We give a detailed study of a simplified energy functional that is

170: inspired by well-known block copolymer energies, and show that this

171: functional exhibits such partial localization. The energy functional is

172: definied on a class of two-dimensional spatial mass densities, and we

173: characterize the properties of this functional by identifying its

174: behaviour in a particular limit $\e\to0$. 

175: 

176: Specifically, we show that (a) density fields of moderate energy are

177: partially localized, \emph{i.e.} are thin (order $\e$) in one direction

178: and extended in the other; (b) these thin structures prefer a thickness

179: of \emph{exactly} $2\e$, and deviations from this optimal thickness are

180: penalized at order $\e^0$; (c) they resist fracture, in the sense that

181: an `end' carries an energy penalty that is larger than $O(\e^2)$; (d)

182: they resist bending, and that bending is penalized at order $\e^2$. 

183: 

184: These findings are formulated as a Gamma-convergence result, in which we

185: show that an $\e^{-2}$-rescaled version of the functional converges to a

186: limit functional that is defined on a class of planar curves. Finiteness

187: of the limit value enforces both optimal thickness and non-fracture; if

188: these conditions are met, then the value of this functional is given by

189: the classical Elastica (bending) energy of the curve. 

190: \end{comment}

191: \end{abstract}

192: \keywords{Partial localization, concentration on curves, lipid bilayers,

193:   Elastica functional, Willmore functional, Monge-Kantorovich distance,

194: Geometric Measure Theory, Gamma-convergence, block copolymers}

195: \maketitle

196: 

197: \section{Introduction}

198: 

199: In this paper we study the asymptotic expansion as $\eps\to 0$ of the

200: functional  

201: \begin{equation}

202: \label{def:Fe}

203: \F_\eps(u,v) := \begin{cases}

204:   \;\ds\e\! \int \mod{\nabla u} + \frac1\e d_1(u,v) \qquad\qquad &

205:   \text{if }(u,v)\in \K_\eps, \\ 

206:   \;\infty & \text{otherwise.}

207: \end{cases}

208: \end{equation}

209: Here $d_1(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the \Wasserstein distance 

210: (Definition~\ref{def:wasserstein}), and

211: \begin{multline}

212: \label{def:Ke}

213: \K_\eps := \biggl\{ (u,v)\in 

214:    \BV\bigl(\R^2;\{0,\e^{-1}\}\bigr)\times L^1\bigl(\R^2;\{0,\eps^{-1}\}\bigr): \\

215:   \left.\int u = \int v =M , \ uv = 0\text{ a.e.}\right\}.

216: \end{multline}

217: How this singular-perturbation problem is related to the terms in the title---partial

218: localization, lipid bilayers, and the Elastica functional---we explain in the rest

219: of this introductory section. 

220: %Starting with Section~\ref{sec:heuristics}

221: %we then discuss and prove our main results, and we conclude with 

222: %an interpretation of our mathematical findings in both mathematical and biological context.

223: 

224: 

225: \subsection{Lipid Bilayers}

226: Lipid bilayers, biological membranes,

227: are the living cell's main separating structure. 

228: They shield the interior of the cell from the outside, and their

229: mechanical properties determine a large part of the interior

230: organization of living cells. 

231: The main component is a lipid molecule (Fig.~\ref{fig:bl}) which consists

232: of a head and two tails. The head is usually charged, and therefore

233: hydrophilic, while the tails are hydrophobic. This difference in water

234: affinity causes lipids to aggregate, and in the biological setting

235: the lipids are typically found in a bilayer

236: structure as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bl}. In such a structure the

237: energetically unfavorable tail-water interactions are avoided by

238: grouping the tails together in a water-free zone, shielded from the water

239: by the heads. Note that, despite the structured appearance of the bilayer,

240: there is no covalent bonding between any two lipids; the bilayer structure is

241: entirely the result of the hydrophobic effect.

242: %While in the context of living cells lipids are exclusively found

243: %in structures that are planar, it is known that by adding or removing

244: %tails a preference can be created for structures with other symmetries.

245: %

246: %

247: %While for other amphiphilic molecules spherical or

248: %linear arrangements are also possible, most lipids have a preference

249: %for planar structures.

250: 

251: \begin{figure}[t]

252: \centering

253: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{membr-1azw}

254: \caption{Lipid molecules aggregate into macroscopically surface-like structures}

255: \label{fig:bl}

256: \end{figure}

257: As planar structures, lipid bilayers have a remarkable combination of solid-like and

258: liquid-like properties. On one hand they resist various types

259: of deformation, such as extension, bending, and fracture, much in the way

260: a sheet of rubber or another elastic material does: 

261: for instance, in order to stretch the bilayer, a tensile

262: force has to be applied, and when this force is removed the structure will again relax to

263: its original length. 

264: With respect to in-plane rearrangements of the lipid molecules,

265: however, the material behaviour is viscous, and there is no penalty to large 

266: in-plane deformations.

267: 

268: While this interesting combination of properties is clearly related to the chemical

269: makeup of the lipids---most importantly, the hydrophobic character

270: of the tails---quantitative and detailed understanding of the phenomenon is

271: still lacking. Here we focus on a simple question that has already been alluded to above:

272: how can we understand the stability of these planar structures,

273: and their pseudo-solid behaviour, if they are constructed

274: from independent, non-bound molecules? This is the main question behind 

275: the analysis of this paper. 

276: 

277: \subsection{Partial localization}

278: 

279: The self-aggregation  of lipids into bilayers is fundamentally different

280: from the self-aggregation of `simple' hydrophobic compounds in

281: water. 

282: Lipid bilayers are \emph{thin structures}, in the sense that

283: there is a separation of length scales: the thickness of a lipid bilayer is fixed

284: to approximately two lipid lengths, while the in-plane spatial 

285: extent is only limited by the surroundings. By contrast, 

286: `simple' hydrophobic compounds aggregate in  water to form

287: drops that lack the small intrinsic length scale of lipid bilayers.

288: 

289: We use the term \emph{partial localization} for the self-aggregation

290: into structures that are thin in one or more directions and

291: `large' in others. The word \emph{localization} is taken from

292: the literature of reaction-diffusion equations, in which localized 

293: solutions are those that are concentrated, in a well-defined way, in a 

294: small neighbourhood of a point. By \emph{partial} localization

295: we refer to localization to the neighbourhood of a set that

296: has intermediate dimension, \emph{i.e.} dimension

297: larger than zero (a point) but

298: smaller than that of the ambient space.

299: 

300: \subsection{Energy on a mesoscale: The functional \boldmath $\F_\eps$}

301: The functional $\F_\eps$ that is defined above is

302: the result of an attempt to capture enough of the essence

303: of lipid bilayers to address the issues of stability

304: and pseudo-solid behaviour while

305: keeping the description as simple as possible. 

306: %The 

307: %goal is to find an energy functional for which functions of

308: %near-minimal energy display partial localization;

309: %existing models for lipid bilayers and, more generally,

310: %block co-polymers

311: %provide a promising starting-point.

312: %

313: The derivation of $\F_\eps$, which is given in Appendix~\ref{app:derivation},

314: starts with a simple two-bead model of lipid molecules, inspired by

315: well-known models of block copolymers~\cite{Leibler80,BatesFredrickson90,FredricksonBates96}, and 

316: proceeds to reduce complexity through a number of sometimes

317: radical simplifications. Despite these simplifications the physical

318: origin of the various elements of $\F_\eps$ remains identifiable:

319: \begin{itemize}

320: \item The functions $u$ and $v$ represent densities of the (hydrophobic) tail and (hydrophilic) headb eads;

321: \item The term $\int \mod{\nabla u}$, coupled with the restriction to 

322: functions $u$ and $v$ that take only two values, and have disjoint

323: support, represents an interfacial energy that arises from the hydrophobic effect;

324: \item The \Wasserstein distance $d_1(u,v)$ between $u$ and 

325: $v$ is a weak remnant of the covalent bonding between head and tail

326: particles.

327: \end{itemize}

328: The parameter $\eps$ appears in \eqref{def:Ke} as a density scaling.

329: We prove that $\eps$ in fact is related

330: to the \emph{thickness} of structures with moderate energy.

331: 

332: We show in this paper that 

333: the functional $\F_\eps$ favours partial localization, \emph{i.e.}

334: that pairs $(u,v)$ for which $\F_\eps(u,v)$ is not too large

335: are necessarily partially localized. We will also show that $\F_\eps$

336: displays three additional

337: properties that were already mentioned: resistance to stretching,

338: to fracture, and to bending. To describe the last of these in more

339: detail we briefly return to biophysics. 

340: 

341: \subsection{Energy on the macroscale: The Helfrich Hamiltonian and the Elastica functional}

342: 

343: Intrigued by the shape of red blood cells

344: Canham, Helfrich, and Evans pioneered the modelling

345: of lipid bilayer vesicles by energy 

346: methods~\cite{Canham70,Helfrich73,Evans74}.

347: The name of Helfrich is now associated with 

348: a surface energy for closed vesicles, 

349: %On the basis of symmetry arguments the biophysicist Helfrich 

350: %postulated a surface energy density for closed

351: %vesicles, 

352: represented by a smooth boundaryless surface $S$, of the form

353: \begin{equation}

354: \label{def:EHelfrich}

355: E_{\mathrm{Helfrich}}(S) =  

356: \int_S \bigl[ k(H - H_0)^2 + \overline k K\bigr]\, d\H^2.

357: \end{equation}

358: Here $k,\ \overline k$, and $H_0$ are constants, $H$ and $K$

359: are the (scalar) total and Gaussian curvature, and $\H^2$ is the 

360: two-dimensional Hausdorff measure. This energy functional, 

361: and many generalizations in the same vein, have been 

362: remarkably successful in describing the 

363: wide variety of vesicle shapes that are observed in laboratory 

364: experiments~\cite{Seifert97}.

365: If we add an assumption of symmetry, in which

366: both `sides' of the surface have the same properties, the `spontaneous

367: curvature' $H_0$ vanishes.

368: For closed surfaces in the same homotopy class, by the Gau\ss-Bonnet

369: Theorem, $E_{\mathrm{Helfrich}}$

370: is essentially equal to the

371: \emph{Willmore functional}~\cite{Willmore65}

372: \begin{gather}

373:  W(S) \,=\, \frac{1}{2}\int_S H^2 \, d\H^2,\label{eq:willmore}

374: \end{gather}

375: which arises in a wide variety of

376: situations other than that mentioned here.

377: 

378: %Since the original derivation of~\pref{def:EHelfrich}

379: %is phenomenological in nature,

380: %many authors have presented alternative derivations

381: %from more elementary descriptions~\cite{SzleiferKramerBenShaulGelbartSafran90,%

382: %ChaconSomozaTarazona98,%

383: %OversteegenBlokhuis00,LaradjiMouritsen00,Wuerger00}. 

384: 

385: \medskip

386: 

387: In this paper we discuss the  above mentioned bilayer

388: models in two space dimensions, 

389: \emph{i.e.}\ we consider functions

390: whose support resembles fattened curves in $\R^2$;

391: in the limit $\e\to0$ the thickness of these curves tends to zero. 

392: If we consider the limit curves to be two-dimensional restrictions

393: of cylindrical surfaces, we observe that the

394: Gaussian curvature $K$ vanishes.

395: If we also assume that the bilayer is symmetric

396: then the Helfrich energy reduces to the Elastica functional $\W$, the

397: classical  bending energy of the curve, 

398: \begin{gather}

399:   \W(\gamma) \,=\, \frac{1}{2}\int_\gamma \kappa^2 \,

400:   d\H^1,\label{eq:def-elastica} 

401: \end{gather}

402: where $\kappa$ is the curvature of the curve. This functional has a

403: long history going back at least to Jakob Bernoulli; critical points of

404: this energy are known as \emph{Euler elastica}, see \cite{truesdell} for

405: a historical review. 

406: 

407: \subsection{The main result: the singular limit $\e\to0$} 

408: 

409: In the main result of this paper we study the limit $\e\to0$, and

410: connect all the aspects that were discussed above. The result revolves

411: around a rescaled functional 

412: \[

413: \G_\e = \frac{\F_\eps - 2M}{\e^2},

414: \]

415: where $M$ is the mass of $u$ and $v$ (see~\pref{def:Ke}).

416: 

417: Take any sequence \mbox{$(u_\e,v_\e)_{\eps>0}\subset \K_\eps$}. 

418: \emph{If the rescaled energy $\G_\e(u_\e,v_\e)$ is

419:   bounded}, then 

420: \begin{enumerate}

421: \item the sequence $u_\e$ converges as measures;

422: \item the limit measure can be represented as a collection of curves (which may overlap);

423: \item the support of $u_\e$ is of `thickness' approximately $2\e$;

424: \item in particular the \emph{total length} of the curves is $M/2$;

425: \item each curve in the collection is \emph{closed}.

426: \end{enumerate}

427: Boundedness of $\G_\e$ along the sequence therefore implies partial

428: localization: the support of $u_\e$ resembles a tubular

429: $\e$-neighbourhood of a curve.  

430: In addition, \emph{stretching} and \emph{fracture} are also represented

431: in this result: stretching corresponds to deviation in total length 

432: %\footnote{Actually the result is stronger: it is \emph{local} deviation

433: %from optimal length that is penalized; deviation from optimal

434: %\emph{total} length follows as a consequence}  

435: from the optimal value $M/2$, and fracture to creation of non-closed

436: curves. Neither is possible for a sequence of bounded $\G_\e$; both are

437: penalized in $\G_\e$ at an order larger than $O(1)$, or equivalently, at

438: an order larger than $O(\e^2)$ in $\F_\e$. 

439: 

440: The resistance to \emph{bending} arises as the Gamma-limit of the

441: functional $\G_\e$ itself: 

442: \begin{enumerate}

443: \item For any sequence \mbox{$(u_\e,v_\e)_{\eps>0}\subset \K_\eps$}, 

444: \[

445: \W(\Gamma) := \sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma} \W(\gamma) \leq

446: \liminf_{\e\to0} \G_\e(u_\e,v_\e),

447: \]

448: where $\Gamma $ is the collection of limit curves introduced above, and $\W(\gamma)$ is the curve bending energy defined in 

449:   \eqref{eq:def-elastica}; 

450: \item For any given collection of curves $\Gamma$, there exists a

451:   sequence \mbox{$(u_\e,v_\e)_{\eps>0}\subset \K_\eps$} such that 

452: $\W(\Gamma) = \lim_{\e\to0} \G_\e(u_\e,v_\e)$.

453: \end{enumerate}

454: The details of this result are given as Theorem~\ref{the:main}. 

455: 

456: Summarizing, only partially localized structures can have moderate

457: energy, and 

458: such thin structures also display resistance to bending, stretching, and

459: fracture. 

460: %Summarizing, only partially localized structures can have moderate

461: %energy, and 

462: %such thin structures also display the three properties mentioned above:

463: %the resistance to fracture and stretching 

464: %is encoded in the requirement that the limit curves are 

465: %closed and of fixed length, and the resistance to bending

466: %is represented by the limit functional $\W$.

467: 

468: \medskip

469: So far we have described the result that we prove in this paper. The

470: proof, however, also suggests a more refined result, that we present

471: here as a conjecture: if a sequence \mbox{$(u_\e,v_\e)_{\eps>0}\subset

472:   \K_\eps$} converges 

473: to a collection of curves~$\Gamma$,

474: then

475: \begin{align}\label{eq:asym-Fe}

476:   \F_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)\,\geq\, 2M + \mathfrak L_M(\Gamma) 

477:   + \eps \mathfrak{B}(\Gamma)

478:   + \eps^2 \sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\W(\gamma) + O(\e^3).

479: \end{align}

480: In this development,

481: \begin{itemize}

482: \item the function  $\mathfrak L_M(\Gamma)$ is a measure of

483: the deviation of $\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\length(\gamma)$ from length

484: $M/2$: $\mathfrak L_M(\Gamma)\geq0$, 

485: and $\mathfrak L_M(\Gamma)=0 $ only if this sum equals $M/2$;

486: \item $\mathfrak B(\Gamma)$ is zero if all curves $\gamma\in\Gamma$ are 

487: closed, and strictly positive (a positive constant times the

488: number of endpoints) if at least one $\gamma\in\Gamma$ is open.

489: \end{itemize}

490: As for the Gamma-convergence above,

491: the inequality in this statement should be interpreted as 

492: a `best-possible' behaviour; while for given limit curves $\gamma$ 

493: sequences exist for which this inequality is an equality, 

494: it is also possible to construct sequences along which the difference

495: between the left- and right-hand sides is unbounded. 

496: \subsection{Strategy of the analysis and overview of the paper}

497: At first glance it is not obvious that the functionals $\F_\eps$

498: encode bending stiffness effects. Curvature terms in fact appear at 

499: order $\eps^2$ of an asymptotic development, which asks for a

500: careful analysis. Most information is hidden in the

501: nonlocal \Wasserstein 

502: distance term. The special property that makes our analysis work is that

503: this distance decouples into one-dimensional problems. This reduction is

504: the major step in our analysis and the connection to the \emph{optimal mass

505: transport problem} is the most important tool here. Whereas the idea

506: becomes very clear in simple situations which resemble the lim-sup

507: construction in the Gamma-convergence proof, some effort is required to

508: prove the lim-inf estimate in the general case, where certain `defects'

509: such as high curvature and vanishing thickness of approximating structures

510: have to be controlled simultaneously.   

511: 

512: In the next section we motivate our choice of scaling in the functional

513: $\F_\eps$ and illustrate the behaviour of $\F_\eps$ and $\G_\e$ in two

514: particular examples. In Section \ref{sec:wass} we give definitions of

515: the 

516: \Wasserstein distance and `systems of curves' which describe the class of

517: limit structures.

518: A precise statement of our results is given in Section

519: \ref{sec:main}. We briefly review the optimal mass transport problem

520: in Section \ref{sec:mtp}. In Section~\ref{sec:overview} we provide a short guide to the structure of the proof of our 

521: main result, Theorem~\ref{the:main}, and the proof itself is given 

522: in Sections \ref{sec:liminf} and \ref{sec:limsup}.

523: We conclude in Section \ref{sec:discussion} with some discussions of generalisations and the wider implications of this result.

524: 

525: \bigskip

526: \textbf{Acknowledgement.} The authors are grateful for several inspiring

527: discussions with Prof.\ Felix Otto and Prof.\ Reiner Sch\"atzle. 

528: \\[5mm]

529: %==================

530: % notation

531: %==================

532: \begin{minipage}{12cm}

533: \centering{\bf Summary of notation}

534: \ \\[3mm]

535: \begin{small}

536: \begin{tabular}{lll}

537:   $\F_\eps(\cdot,\cdot)$         & functionals describing the mesoscale energy & \eqref{def:Fe}\\

538:   $\G_\eps(\cdot,\cdot)$         & rescaled functionals & \eqref{eq:def-Ge-uv}\\

539:   $\K_\eps$         & domain of $\F_\eps$, $\G_\eps$ & \eqref{def:Ke}\\

540:   $\W(\gamma)$     & bending energy of a curve $\gamma$ & \eqref{eq:def-elastica}\\

541:   $\W(\Gamma)$     & generalized bending energy of a system of

542:   curves $\Gamma$ & \eqref{eq:def-W-Gamma}\\

543:   $d_1(\cdot,\cdot)$             & \Wasserstein distance &\eqref{eq:def-d-1}\\

544:   $d_p(\cdot,\cdot)$             & $p$-Wasserstein distance & \eqref{eq:def-d-p}\\

545:   $\spt(\Gamma)$

546:                     & support of a system of

547:   curves $\Gamma$   & Def.~\ref{def:sys-curves}\\

548:   $\theta(\Gamma,\cdot)$

549:                     & \multiplicity of a system of

550:   curves $\Gamma$   & Def.~\ref{def:sys-curves}\\

551:   $|\Gamma|$

552:                     & total mass of a system of

553:   curves $\Gamma$   & Def.~\ref{def:sys-curves}\\

554:   $\Lip_1(\R^2)$ 	& Lipschitz continuous functions with Lipschitz constant 1

555:   					& \pref{eq:phi_eps}\\

556:   $\mathcal{T},\mathcal{E}$

557:                     & transport set and set of endpoints of rays &

558:   Def.~\ref{def:rays}\\

559:   $E$               & $\{s: \gamma(s) \text{ lies inside a transport ray}\}$ &

560:   Def.~\ref{def:para}\\

561:   $\theta(s)$          & ray direction in $\gamma(s)$ & Def.~\ref{def:para}\\

562:   $L^+(s),L^-(s),l^+(s)$     & positive, negative and effective ray

563:   length in $\gamma(s)$&

564:   Def.~\ref{def:para}\\

565:   $\psi(\cdot,\cdot)$            & parametrization & Def.~

566:   \ref{def:para}\\

567:   $E_\delta$        & boundary points with uniformly bounded ray lengths

568:   & \eqref{eq:def-E-delta}\\ 

569:   $\alpha(s),\beta(s)$    & direction of ray and difference to tangent

570:   at $\gamma(s)$& \eqref{eq:def-beta}\\

571:   $\ma(s,\cdot)$             & mass coordinates & \eqref{eq:def-mass}\\

572:   $\te(s,\cdot)$             & length coordinates & \eqref{eq:def-t_s}\\

573:   $M(s)$               & mass over $\gamma(s)$& \eqref{eq:def-Ms}\\

574:   $E_i,\theta_i,\psi_i$,

575:                     \\

576:   $L^+_i,L^-_i,l_i^+$,& corresponding quantities for a collection

577:   $\{\gamma_i\}$ & Rem.~\ref{rem:corr-lengths}\\

578:   $\alpha_i,\beta_i,\ma_i,\te_i,M_i$\\

579:   $E_{\eps,i},\theta_{\eps,i},\psi_{\eps,i}$,\\

580:   $L^+_{\eps,i},L^-_{\eps,i},l_{\eps,i}^+$

581:                     & corresponding quantities for  a collection

582:   $\{\gamma_{\eps,i}\}$ & Rem.~

583:   \ref{rem:corr-lengths}\\

584:   $\alpha_{\eps,i},\beta_{\eps,i},\ma_{\eps,i},\te_{\eps,i},M_{\eps,i}$

585: \end{tabular}

586: \end{small}

587: \end{minipage}

588: 

589: \section{Heuristics: the functional $\F_\eps$}

590: \label{sec:heuristics}

591: 

592: In the preceding section we postulated that the energy

593: functional $\F_\eps$, defined in~\pref{def:Fe}, favours

594: %as a candidate for stable

595: partial localization. More precisely,

596: we claim that for

597: small but fixed $\e>0$ functions $(u,v)$ with moderate $\G_\eps(u,v)$ 

598: will be partially localized, in the sense that

599: their support resembles one or more fattened curves. 

600: 

601: In this section we first provide some heuristic arguments to support 

602: this claim,  mostly to develop some intuitive

603: understanding of the functional~$\F_\eps$ and its properties. 

604: 

605: For the discussion below it is 

606: useful to remark that the distance $d_1(u,v)$ as defined in

607: Definition \ref{def:wasserstein}

608: scales as the mass 

609: $\int u = \int v$ times a length scale, and can be interpreted as

610: a $u$-weighted spatial distance between the mass distributions

611: $u$ and~$v$. 

612: 

613: \subsection{Fixed thickness (\boldmath $\e=1$), part 1: 

614: comparing disc and strip structures}

615: To gain some insight into the properties of $\F_\eps$ we start with the case of

616: fixed $\e=1$, and study the limit of large mass

617: \[

618: M = \int u  = \int v,\qquad M \longrightarrow \infty.

619: \]

620: We now compare two different specific realizations, a disc and a strip.

621: \begin{figure}[ht]

622: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{disc}}%width=\textwidth

623: \caption{Disc and strip structures.}

624: \label{fig:disc}

625: \end{figure}

626: 

627: \begin{enumerate}

628: \item The \textbf{disc: } we 

629: concentrate all the mass of $u$ into a disc

630:  in $\R^2$,

631: of radius $R\sim M^{1/2}$, surrounded by the mass of $v$ in an

632: annulus (Figure~\ref{fig:disc}). In this setup mass is transported (in

633: the sense of the definition of $d_1(u,v)$) over

634: a distance  $O(R) = O(M^{1/2})$, so that

635: \begin{equation}

636: \label{sim:d1}

637: d_1(u,v)\sim MR\sim M^{3/2} \qquad \text{as }M\to\infty.

638: \end{equation}

639: On the other hand, the interfacial length 

640: $\int\mod{\nabla u}$ equals $2\pi R\sim M^{1/2}$,

641: and the functional $\Fone$ picks up the larger of the two:

642: \[

643: \Fone(u,v) = d_1(u,v) + \int\mod{\nabla u} \sim M^{3/2}.

644: \]

645: 

646: \item For the  \textbf{strip} we take the support of $u$ to be

647: a rectangle of width 2 and length $M/2$, flanked by two strips

648: of half this width for $\supp(v)$ (Figure~\ref{fig:disc}).

649: The transport distance can now be taken constant and equal to 1,

650: so that we find

651: \[

652: \Fone(u,v) = M + M + 4 = 2M+4.

653: \]

654: For this choice of geometry $\Fone$ scales linearly with $M$ in

655: the limit $M\to\infty$.

656: \end{enumerate}

657: 

658: Comparing the two we observe that the linear structure has lower energy,

659: for large mass, than a spherical one. This is a first

660: indication that $\Fone$ may favour partial localization.

661: 

662: \medskip

663: 

664: With this example we can also illustrate an additional property.

665: Let us take for $\supp(u)$ a strip of thickness $t$ and length $M/t$, and recalculate

666: the value of $\Fone$:

667: \[

668: \Fone(u,v) = \left(\frac t2  + \frac 2t\right) M + 2t.

669: \]

670: For large $M$ this expression is dominated by the value of

671: the prefactor $t/2+ 2/t$, suggesting two additional features:

672: \begin{enumerate}

673: \item There is a preferred thickness, which is that value of $t$ for which

674: $t/2+2/t$ is minimal (i.e. $t=2$);

675: \item For the preferred thickness, the functional $\Fone$ equals $2M$

676: plus `other terms'.

677: \end{enumerate}

678: Although these statements only give suggestions, not proofs, for the case of general geometry, 

679: we shall see below that they both are true, and that these examples

680: do demonstrate the general behaviour. The `other terms' in the 

681: example above are the single term~$2t$, a term which is associated

682: with the ends of the strip; we now turn to a different case,

683: in which there are no loose ends, but instead the curvature of the structure

684: creates an energy penalty.

685: 

686: \subsection{Fixed thickness (\boldmath $\e=1$), part 2: comparing line with

687: ring structures}

688: 

689: In the previous section we argued that the energy $\Fone$ favours 

690: objects of thickness~$2$ and penalizes loose ends. We now consider

691: \emph{ring} structures, and we will see that also the \emph{curvature} carries

692: an energy penalty.

693: 

694: \medskip

695: 

696: Let the supports of $u$ and $v$ be the ring structures of

697: Fig.~\ref{fig:rings}: the support of $u$ is a single ring between 

698: circles of radii $r_2$ and $r_3$, and the support of $v$ consists

699: of two rings flanking $\supp(u)$.

700: 

701: \begin{figure}[ht]

702: \centerline{\psfig{width=\textwidth,figure=rings}}

703: \caption{Ring structures; the pairs $(u,v)$ on the right-hand figure

704: indicate the values of $u$ and $v$ in that region in the plane.}

705: \label{fig:rings}

706: \end{figure}

707: 

708: We first do some direct optimization to reduce the number of 

709: degrees of freedom in this geometry.

710: For fixed outer radii $r_1$ and $r_4$ one may optimize $\Fone$ 

711: over variations of $r_2$ and $r_3$ that respect the mass

712: constraint $\int u = \int v$, and this optimization results

713: in the values of $r_2$ and $r_3$ given by

714: \begin{equation}

715: \label{def:r2r3}

716: r_2^2 = \tfrac12(R^2 + r_1^2), \qquad \text{and}\qquad

717: r_3^2 = \tfrac12(R^2 + r_4^2)

718: \end{equation}

719: in terms of the mean radius $R = \tfrac12(r_1+r_4)$. The functional $\Fone$

720: can then be computed explicitly in terms of $r_1$ and $r_4$ (see

721: Appendix~\ref{app:ring_solutions}). The interesting quantity is actually

722: the energy per unit mass, 

723: $\Fone/M$, as a function of the mean radius $R$ and the thickness $t$ of the

724: structure,

725: \begin{gather*}

726:   M\,:=\, \int u, \qquad t\,:=\, \frac{r_4-r_1}{2}.

727: \end{gather*}

728: Expanding $\Fone/M$ around $R=\infty$ and $t=2$, we find 

729: \begin{align}

730: \label{asymp:F1}

731:   \frac{\Fone}{M}(R,t)\,=\,& 2 +\frac{1}{4}(t-2)^2

732:   +\frac{1}{4}R^{-2} + O(|t-2|^3 + R^{-3}),

733: \end{align}

734: see Appendix \ref{app:ring_solutions}.

735: 

736: Again we recognize a preference for structures of thickness $t=2$;

737: we now also observe a penalization of the curvature in the term $R^{-2}/4$.

738: The main result of this paper indeed is to identify this 

739: curvature penalization for structures of arbitrary geometry, in the form of an elastica limit energy.

740: 

741: 

742: 

743: 

744: \subsection{Rescaling and renormalization}

745: 

746: In the previous sections we have seen that the functional $\F_\eps$

747: at $\e=1$ has a preference for structures of thickness $2$. It is easy

748: to see, by repeating the arguments above, that this becomes a 

749: preference for thickness $2\e$ in the general case. For instance,

750: the development~\pref{asymp:F1} generalizes to 

751: \[

752: \frac{\F_\eps}{M}(R,t) = 2 + \frac1{4}(t/\e-2)^2 + \frac14 \e^2R^{-2} 

753:   + O\bigl(|t/\e-2|^3+ \e^3R^{-3}\bigr).

754: \]

755: 

756: This expression provides us with a recipe for identifying the bending

757: energy in the limit $\e\to0$. The curvature, which is equal to $1/R$ for

758: this 

759: spherical geometry, enters the expression above as the term $\e^2R^{-2}/4$.

760: This suggests that the alternative functional

761: \[

762: \G_\e(u,v) := \frac1{\e^2}\bigl[\F_\eps(u,v) - 2M\big], 

763: \qquad \text{where}\qquad M  = \int u = \int v,

764: \]

765: may have a (Gamma-)limit similar to the Elastica functional.

766: This suggestion is proved in Theorem~\ref{the:main}.

767: \begin{comment}

768: To relate this to the asymptotic devellopment \eqref{eq:asym-Fe} we

769: remark that $M=4\pi R$ so that the curvature term  becomes

770: $2\cdot\eps^2\frac{1}{4}2\pi R \frac{1}{R^2}$.

771: \end{comment}

772: %==========================================================

773: % Wasserstein etc

774: %==========================================================

775: \section{\Wasserstein distance, systems of curves and a generalized curve

776: bending energy}

777: \label{sec:wass}

778: In this section we introduce some basic definitions and concepts.

779: \begin{definition}

780: \label{def:wasserstein}

781: Consider $u,v\in L^1(\Rn)$ with compact support in $\Rn$ satisfying the mass balance

782: \begin{gather}\label{eq:fun-eq-mass}

783:   \int_{\Rn} u\,d\LL^2 \,=\, \int_{\Rn} v\,d\LL^2\,=\, 1.

784: \end{gather}

785: The \Wasserstein distance $d_1(u,v)$ is defined as

786: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:def-d-1}

787:   d_1(u,v) &:=& \min \Big( \int_{\Rn\times\Rn} |x-y| \,d\gamma(x,y)\Big)

788: \end{eqnarray}

789: where the minimum is taken over all Radon measures $\gamma$ on $\Rn\times\Rn$

790: with \emph{marginals}

791: $u\LL^2$ and $v\LL^2$, that means $\gamma$ satisfies

792: \begin{eqnarray}

793:   \int_{\Rn\times\Rn} \varphi(x) \,d\gamma(x,y) &=& \int_{\Rn}\varphi u\,d\LL^2,\label{eq:marg-u}\\

794:   \int_{\Rn\times\Rn} \psi(y) \,d\gamma(x,y) &=& \int_{\Rn}\psi v\,d\LL^2\label{eq:marg-v}

795: \end{eqnarray}

796: for all $\varphi,\psi\in C^0_c(\Rn)$.

797: \end{definition}

798: The \Wasserstein distance

799: is characterized by the optimal mass transport problem described in

800: \mbox{section \ref{sec:mtp}}. 

801: \begin{remark}\label{rem:wass}

802: For $\mu,\nu\in \mathcal{P}_1$, where

803: \begin{gather*}

804:   \mathcal{P}_1(\Rn)\,:=\, \big\{ \mu\text{ Radon measure on }\Rn \,:\, \int_{\Rn}d\mu\,=\,1,

805:   \,\,\int_{\Rn} |x|\,d\mu(x)\,<\,\infty\big\},

806: \end{gather*}

807: we can define the \Wasserstein distance $d_1(\mu,\nu)$ analogously to \eqref{eq:def-d-1},

808: substituting $u\LL^2$ and $v\LL^2$

809: in \eqref{eq:marg-u}, \eqref{eq:marg-v} by $\mu$ and $\nu$.

810: The minimum in \eqref{eq:def-d-1} is always attained and $d_1$ is a distance function on

811: $\mathcal{P}_1$~\cite{Amb04}. Moreover $d_1$ is continuous in the sense that for

812: $(\mu_k)_{k\in\N}\subset \mathcal{P}_1(\Rn), \mu\in \mathcal{P}_1(\Rn)$

813: \begin{gather*}

814:   d_1(\mu_k,\mu) \,\to\, 0\qquad \Longleftrightarrow\qquad

815:   \begin{cases}

816:     \mu_k\to\mu\text{ as Radon measures and}\\

817:     \int_{\Rn} |x|\,d\mu_k\,\to\,\int_{\Rn} |x|\,d\mu,

818:   \end{cases}

819: \end{gather*}

820: see \cite[Theorem 3.2]{Amb04}.

821: 

822: A family of related distances is given by

823: the $p$-Wasserstein distances

824: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:def-d-p}

825:   d_p(\mu,\nu) &:=& \min \Big( \int_{\Rn\times\Rn} |x-y|^p \,d\gamma(x,y)\Big)^{\frac{1}{p}},

826: \end{eqnarray}

827: where the minimum is taken over all Radon measures $\gamma$ on $\Rn\times\Rn$

828: with \emph{marginals} $\mu$ and $\nu$. The \Wasserstein distance 

829: coincides with the 1-Wasserstein distance.

830: \end{remark}

831: We will describe the limit structures in terms of \emph{systems of closed $W^{2,2}$-curves}.

832: The following definitions are mainly taken from \cite{BeM}.

833: \begin{definition}\label{def:sys-curves}

834: We call $\gamma:\R\to\R^2$  a closed $W^{2,2}$-curve if

835: \begin{align*}

836: 	&\gamma\in W^{2,2}_{\loc}(\R,\R^2),\\

837: 	&\gamma^\prime(r)\neq 0\text{ for all }r\in \R,\\

838: 	&\gamma\text{ is $L$-periodic for some }0<L<\infty.

839: \end{align*}

840: If $\gamma$ is $L$-periodic and injective on $[0,L)$ the

841: curve 

842: $\gamma$ is called \emph{simple}. The length $L(\gamma)$ of a closed curve

843: $\gamma$ is defined by

844: \[

845: L(\gamma) := \int_0^L |\gamma'(r)|\, dr,

846: \]

847: where $L$ is the the minimal   period of $\gamma$.

848: 

849: A $W^{2,2}$-\emph{system of closed curves} is a finite collection of

850: closed $W^{2,2}$-curves. We represent a system of curves by a

851: \emph{multiset} $\{\gamma_i\}_{i=1,...,N}$, $N\in\N$, \emph{i.e.}

852: a set in which repeated elements are counted with multiplicity.

853: 

854: A system of curves $\Gamma=\{\gamma_i\}_{i=1,...,N}$ is called \emph{disjoint}

855: if each $\gamma_i$ is simple and $\gamma_i(\R)\cap\gamma_j(\R)=\emptyset$ for $i\not=j$.

856: $\Gamma$

857: has \emph{no transversal crossings} if for any $1\leq i,j\leq m$, $s_i,s_j\in\R$,

858: \begin{gather*}

859:   \gamma_i(s_i)\,=\,\gamma_j(s_j)\text{ implies that }\gamma_i^\prime(s_i)\text{ and }

860:   \gamma_j^\prime(s_j)\text{ are parallel}.

861: \end{gather*}

862: We define the \emph{support}, \emph{multiplicity} and \emph{total mass}

863: of a system of curves $\Gamma=\{\gamma_i\}_{i=1,...,N}$ by

864: \begin{align*}

865:   \spt(\Gamma) &:=\, \bigcup_{i=1}^N \gamma_i(\R),\\

866:     \theta(\Gamma,x) &:=\, \#\big\{(i,s) : \gamma_i(s) =x,\ 1\leq i\leq N,\ 

867:     0\leq s< L(\gamma_i)\big\},\\

868:     |\Gamma| &:=\, \sum_{i=1}^N L(\gamma_i)

869: \end{align*}

870: and define a corresponding

871: Radon measure $\mu_\Gamma$ on $\Rn$ to be the measure that

872: satisfies  

873: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:def-gamma-mu}

874:   \int_{\Rn} \varphi\,d\mu_\Gamma &=& \sum_{i=1}^N

875:   \int_0^{L(\gamma_i)}\varphi(\gamma_i(s))\,|\gamma_i^\prime(s)|\,ds 

876: \end{eqnarray}

877: for all $\varphi\in C^0_c(\Rn)$.

878: 

879: Two systems of curves are identified if the corresponding Radon measures

880: coincide. 

881: \end{definition}

882: \begin{remark}

883: We can represent a given system of closed curves $\Gamma$ by a multiset

884: $\Gamma\,=\,\{\gamma_i\}_{i=1,...,N},\,\text{ where for all }i=1,...,N$

885: \begin{gather}

886:   \gamma_i\text{ is one-periodic, with $1$ being the smallest

887:   possible period},\label{eq:stand-sys}\\

888:   \gamma_i\text{ is parametrized proportional to arclength.}

889:   \label{eq:curve-arclength}

890: \end{gather}

891: \end{remark}

892: We generalize the classical curve bending energy %\emph{Willmore functional} 

893: defined in \eqref{eq:def-elastica} to $W^{2,2}$-systems of closed curves.

894: \begin{definition}\label{def:W-Gamma}

895: Let $\Gamma$ be a $W^{2,2}$-system of closed

896: curves represented by $\Gamma=\{\gamma_i\}_{i=1,...,N}$ as in

897: \eqref{eq:stand-sys}-\eqref{eq:curve-arclength} and set $L_i = L(\gamma_i)$. 

898: Then we define

899: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:def-W-Gamma}

900:   \W(\Gamma) &:=& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^N L_i^{-3}\int_0^1

901:   \gamma_i^{\prime\prime}(s)^2 \,ds. 

902: \end{eqnarray}

903: \end{definition}

904: \begin{remark}

905: The support and total mass of a system of curves coincide with

906: the support and  total mass of the corresponding Radon measure~\cite{Sim}.

907: The multiplicity functions of $\Gamma$ and of $\mu_\Gamma$ coincide

908: $\Ha^{1}$-almost everywhere on the support of $\Gamma$.\\ 

909: By Remark 3.8, Proposition 4.5, and Corollary 4.8 of \cite{BeM05}, 

910: we obtain that

911: $\Gamma$ is a $W^{2,2}$-system of closed curves without transversal crossings if and only if

912: $\mu_\Gamma$  is a \emph{Hutchinson varifold} with weak mean curvature

913: $\vec{H}\in L^2(\mu_\Gamma)$ 

914: such that in every point of $\supp(\Gamma)$ a unique tangent line exists. Moreover

915: \begin{eqnarray}

916:   \W(\Gamma) &=& \frac{1}{2}\int |\vec{H}|^2\,d\mu_\Gamma\label{eq:W-hutch}

917: \end{eqnarray}

918: holds.

919: \end{remark}

920: %==================

921: % Main results

922: %==================

923: \section{Main results}\label{sec:main}

924: To investigate the limit behaviour of the functionals 

925: $ \F_\eps$ as $\eps\to 0$ 

926: we fix $M>0$ and study the rescaled functionals

927: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:def-Ge-uv}

928:   \G_\eps(u,v) &:=& \frac{1}{\eps^2} \Big(  \F_\eps(u,v) - 2M\Big).

929: \end{eqnarray}

930: 

931: \begin{theorem}

932: \label{the:main}

933: The curve bending energy $\W$ as defined in \eqref{eq:def-W-Gamma} is the Gamma-limit

934: of the functionals $\G_\eps$ in the following sense.

935: \begin{liste2}

936: \item

937: Let $(u_\eps, v_\eps)_{\eps>0}\subset

938: L^1(\Rn)\times L^1(\Rn)$, $R>0$ and a Radon measure $\mu$ on $\Rn$ be given with 

939: \begin{eqnarray}

940:   \spt(u_\eps)&\subset& B_R(0)\quad\text{ for all }\eps>0,\label{eq:spt-ue}\\

941:   u_\eps\LL^2 &\to& \mu\quad\text{ as Radon measures on

942:   }\R^2,\label{eq:conv-ue}

943: \end{eqnarray}

944: and

945: \begin{eqnarray}

946:   \liminf_{\eps\to 0} \G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)&<&\infty.\label{eq:liminf-bounded}

947: \end{eqnarray}

948: Then there is a $W^{2,2}$-system of closed curves $\Gamma$

949: such that

950: \begin{gather}

951:   2\mu_\Gamma = \mu,\label{eq:rep-Gamma}\\

952:   \spt(\Gamma)\text{ is bounded},\label{eq:Gamma-0}\\

953:   \Gamma\text{ has no transversal crossings},\label{eq:Gamma-1}\\

954:   2|\Gamma|\,=\, M\label{eq:Gamma-3},

955: \end{gather}

956: and such that the \emph{liminf-estimate}

957: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:liminf-esti}

958:   \W(\Gamma) &\leq& \liminf_{\eps\to 0} \G_\eps(u_\eps)

959: \end{eqnarray}

960: holds.

961: \item

962: Let $\Gamma$ be a $W^{2,2}$-system of closed curves such that

963: \eqref{eq:Gamma-0}-\eqref{eq:Gamma-3} holds. Then there exists a

964: sequence $(u_\eps,v_\eps)_{\eps>0}\subset \K_\eps$ 

965: such that \eqref{eq:spt-ue} holds for some $R>0$,

966: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:conv-ue-Gamma}

967:   u_\eps\LL^2 &\to& 2\mu_\Gamma\quad\text{ as Radon measures on }\R^2,

968: \end{eqnarray}

969:  and such that the \emph{limsup-estimate}

970: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:limsup-esti}

971:  \W(\Gamma) &\geq& \limsup_{\eps\to 0} \G_\eps(u_\eps)

972: \end{eqnarray}

973: is satisfied.

974: \end{liste2}

975: \end{theorem}

976: \begin{remark}

977: \label{rem:convergence}

978: Let $X$ be the space of nonnegative Radon measures on $\R^2$. Define a concept of convergence on $X\times X$ by which 

979: \begin{gather*}

980:   (\mu_i,\nu_i) \,\to\, (\mu,\nu)\quad\text{ in }X\times X\quad\text{ iff }\quad

981: \begin{cases}

982:   \quad\mu_i\,\to\,\mu\quad\text{ as Radon measures on }\R^2\text{ and }\\

983:   \quad\bigcup_{i\geq i_0}\spt(\mu_i) \text{ is bounded for some }i_0\in\N.

984: \end{cases}

985: \end{gather*}

986: Note that no condition is placed on $\nu_i$.

987: We now define

988: \begin{eqnarray*}

989:   \G_\eps(\mu,\nu) &:=&

990:   \begin{cases}

991:     \G_\eps(u,v) \quad &\text{ if }\mu\,=\,u\LL^2,\,\nu\,=\,v\LL^2

992:        \text{ for some }(u,v)\in \K_\eps,\\

993:     \infty &\text{ otherwise}

994:   \end{cases}

995: \end{eqnarray*}

996: and

997: \begin{eqnarray*}%\label{eq:def-W-mu}

998:   \G_0(\mu,\nu) &:=& 

999:   \begin{cases}

1000:     \W(\Gamma) &\begin{cases}

1001:         \text{if $\mu=\nu$ is given by a $W^{2,2}$-system of closed curves}\\

1002:         \text{$\Gamma=\{\gamma_i\}_{i=1,...,N}$ satisfying \eqref{eq:rep-Gamma}-\eqref{eq:Gamma-3}}

1003:       \end{cases} \\[5\jot]

1004:     \infty & \text{otherwise.}

1005:   \end{cases}

1006: \end{eqnarray*}

1007: Then Theorem \ref{the:main} can be rephrased as

1008: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:gamma-conv}

1009:   \lim_{\eps\to 0} \G_\eps &=& \G_0

1010: \end{eqnarray}

1011: in the sense of Gamma-convergence with respect to the topology of

1012: $X\times X$ defined above. 

1013: \end{remark}

1014: 

1015: \begin{remark}

1016: Implicit in the formulation of Theorem~\ref{the:main} is the following

1017: (contrapositive) statement: if a sequence $(u_\e,v_\e)_{\e>0}\subset

1018: \K_\e$ converges to a measure that \emph{cannot} be represented

1019: by a system of curves satisfying~\eqref{eq:rep-Gamma}--\eqref{eq:Gamma-3},

1020: then $\G_\e$ is unbounded along this sequence. Put differently,  

1021: each of

1022: the following is penalized in $\F_\e$ at an order lower (\emph{i.e.} larger) than $\eps^2$: 

1023: \begin{enumerate}

1024: \item a fracture in the limit structure, occurring as a nonclosed curve;

1025: \item a total mass $|\Gamma|$ that deviates from~$M/2$;

1026: \item a non-even \multiplicity.

1027: \end{enumerate}

1028: 

1029: In the Introduction we conjectured the asymptotic 

1030: development~\eqref{eq:asym-Fe}. 

1031: Theorem~\ref{the:main} justifies the zeroth and second order of this

1032: development in the following way: if $F_\e-2M$ is of order $O(\e^2)$,  

1033: then the three types of degeneracy above can not occur, and the dominant term

1034: is given in the limit by $\e^2 \W$. 

1035: \end{remark}

1036: 

1037: \begin{remark}

1038: By the definition of the set $\K_\eps$ and the functionals $\F_\eps$ in

1039: \eqref{def:Fe}, \eqref{def:Ke} it is clear that for a 

1040: sequence $(u_\eps, v_\eps)_{\eps>0}$ along which $\G_\e$ is bounded the supports of $u_\eps$ and $v_\eps$ necessarily concentrate as $\eps \to

1041: 0$. The crucial conclusions are (a) that the concentration is on curves

1042: rather than on points or other sets and (b) that the limit measure can

1043: be constructed as a sum of curves, each with density two. The latter

1044: property 

1045: implies a uniform thickness of structures with bounded energy and

1046: paraphrases the stretching resistance of lipid bilayers.

1047: \end{remark} 

1048: 

1049: \begin{remark}

1050: We also obtain a compactness result for sequences with bounded $\G_\e$: Let

1051: $(u_\eps, v_\eps)_{\eps>0}\subset L^1(\R^2)\times

1052: L^1(\R^2)$ satisfy \eqref{eq:spt-ue}, \eqref{eq:liminf-bounded}.

1053: Then there exists a Radon measure $\mu$ on $\R^2$ such that

1054: \eqref{eq:conv-ue} holds for a subsequence $\eps\to 0$. Theorem

1055: \ref{the:main} then implies that there 

1056: is a $W^{2,2}$-system $\Gamma$ of closed 

1057: curves such 

1058: that the conclusions \eqref{eq:rep-Gamma}-\eqref{eq:liminf-esti} hold.

1059: \end{remark}

1060: %====================================================

1061: % Mass transport

1062: %====================================================

1063: \section{The Mass Transport Problem}

1064: \label{sec:mtp}

1065: In this section we recall the classical Monge problem of optimal mass transport and review

1066: some results that we will use later.

1067: \begin{definition}\label{def:trans-maps}

1068: Fix two non-negative Borel functions $u,v\in L^1(\R^2)$ with compact support

1069: satisfying the

1070: mass balance \eqref{eq:fun-eq-mass}.

1071: By $\mathcal{A}(u,v)$ we denote the set of all Borel maps $S:\R^2\to\Rn$

1072: \emph{pushing $u$ forward to $v$}, that is

1073: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:trans-map}

1074:   \int\eta(S(x)) u(x)\,dx &=& \int_{\Rn} \eta(y)v(y)\,dy

1075: \end{eqnarray}

1076: holds for all $\eta\in C^0(\Rn)$.

1077: \end{definition}

1078: \begin{prob-mass-transport}

1079: For $u,v$ as in Definition \ref{def:trans-maps} minimize the \emph{transport cost}

1080: $I:\mathcal{A}(u,v)\to \R$,

1081: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:transportcost}

1082:   I(S) &:=& \int_\Omega |S(x)-x| u(x)\,dx.

1083: \end{eqnarray}

1084: \end{prob-mass-transport}

1085: The following dual formulation is due to Kantorovich \cite{Kan}.

1086: \begin{prob-Kantorovich}

1087: For $u,v$ as in Definition \ref{def:trans-maps} maximize $K: \Lip_1(\Rn)\to\R$,

1088: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:phi_eps}

1089:   K(\phi) &:=& \int_\Omega \phi(x)(u-v)(x)dx,

1090: \end{eqnarray}

1091: where $\Lip_1(\Rn)$ denotes the space of Lipschitz functions on $\R^2$

1092: with Lipschitz constant not larger than $1$.

1093: \end{prob-Kantorovich}

1094: There is a vast literature on the optimal mass transportation problem

1095: and an impressive number of applications, see for example \cite{EGan,TW,CFC,Amb,Vil,JKF,Ott}.

1096: We only list a few results which we will use later.

1097: \begin{theorem}[\cite{CFC},\cite{FeC}]%[Caffarelli, Feldman, McCann], [Feldman, McCann]

1098: Let $u,v$ be given as in Definition \ref{def:trans-maps}.

1099: \begin{liste2}

1100: \item There exists an optimal transport map $S\in \mathcal{A}(u,v)$.

1101: \item There exists an optimal Kantorovich potential $\phi\in \Lip_1(\Rn)$.

1102: \item The identities

1103: \begin{gather*}

1104:   d_1(u,v)\,=\, I(S)\,=\,K(\phi)

1105: \end{gather*}

1106: hold.

1107: \item Every optimal transport map $S$ and every optimal Kantorovich potential $\phi$

1108: satisfy

1109: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:dual-crit}

1110:   \phi(x) -\phi(S(x)) &=& |x-S(x)|\quad\text{ for almost all }x\in\spt(u).

1111: \end{eqnarray}

1112: \end{liste2}

1113: \end{theorem}

1114: The optimal transport map and the optimal Kantorovich potential are in general not

1115: unique. We can choose $S$ and $\phi$ enjoying some additional properties.

1116: \begin{proposition}[\cite{CFC,FeC}]\label{prop:add-prop}

1117: There exists an optimal transport map $S\in \mathcal{A}(u,v)$ and an optimal

1118: Kantorovich potential $\phi$ such that

1119: \begin{eqnarray}

1120:   \phi(x) &=& \min_{y\in\spt(v)}\big(\phi(y)+|x-y|\big)\quad\text{ for

1121:   any }x\in\spt(u),\label{eq:add-prop-phi1}\\ 

1122:   \phi(y) &=& \max_{x\in\spt(u)}\big(\phi(x)-|x-y|\big)\quad\text{ for

1123:   any }y\in\spt(v),\label{eq:add-prop-phi2}

1124: \end{eqnarray}

1125: and such that $S$ is the unique monotone transport map in the sense of

1126: \cite{FeC},

1127: \begin{gather*}

1128:   \frac{x_1-x_2}{|x_1-x_2|}

1129:   +\frac{S(x_1)-S(x_2)}{|S(x_1)-S(x_2)|}\,\neq\, 0\quad\text{ for all

1130:   }x_1\neq x_2\in\Rn\text{ with }S(x_1)\neq S(x_2).

1131: \end{gather*}

1132: 

1133: \begin{comment}

1134: We can choose $S$ to be essentially one-to-one

1135: in the sense that there exists an (optimal) transport map $\tilde{S}\in\mathcal{A}(v,u)$ pushing

1136: $v$ forward to $u$ such that

1137: \begin{eqnarray}

1138:   \tilde{S}\circ S &=& Id\quad\text{ almost everywhere on }\spt(u),\label{eq:1-1-u}\\

1139:   S\circ \tilde{S} &=& Id\quad\text{ almost everywhere on }\spt(v).\label{eq:1-1-v}

1140: \end{eqnarray}

1141: \end{comment}

1142: \end{proposition}

1143: \begin{comment}

1144: \begin{proof}

1145: We let $\phi,S$ be the optimal Kantorovich potential and optimal transport map constructed in

1146: \cite{CFC}. Then \eqref{eq:add-prop-phi1} and \eqref{eq:add-prop-phi2} hold and $S$ is the unique

1147: monotone transport map in the sense of \cite{FeC}. Moreover the pushforward

1148: $(Id\times S)_\#\, u\LL^2$ gives the unique solution of the secondary variational problem

1149: described in \cite{AP}. Choose $\tilde{S}\in \A(v,u)$ to be the optimal transport pushing

1150: $v$ forward to $u$. Then $(\tilde{S}\times Id)_\#\, v\LL^2$ coincides with $(Id\times S)_\#\, u\LL^2$

1151: and we deduce \eqref{eq:1-1-u}, \eqref{eq:1-1-v}.

1152: \end{proof}

1153: \end{comment}

1154: We will extensively use the fact that, by~\eqref{eq:dual-crit} the optimal transport is organized along

1155: {\itshape transport rays} which are defined as follows.

1156: \begin{definition}[\cite{CFC}]

1157: \label{def:rays}

1158: Let $u,v$ be as in Definition \ref{def:trans-maps} and let $\phi\in \Lip_1(\Rn)$

1159: be the optimal transport map as in Proposition \ref{prop:add-prop}.

1160: A {\itshape transport ray} is a line segment in $\Rn$ with endpoints $a,b\in\Rn$ such that

1161: $\phi$ has slope one on that segment and $a,b$ are maximal, that is

1162: \begin{gather*}

1163:   a\in\spt(u),\,b\in\spt(v),\quad a\neq b,\\

1164:   \phi(a)-\phi(b)\,=\,|a-b|\\

1165:   |\phi(a+t(a-b))-\phi(b)| \,<\, |a+t(a-b)-b|\quad\text{ for all }t>0,\\

1166:   |\phi(b+t(b-a))-\phi(a)| \,<\, |b+t(b-a)-a|\quad\text{ for all }t>0.

1167: \end{gather*}

1168: We define the {\itshape transport set }$\mathcal{T}$ to consist of all points which

1169: lie in the (relative) interior of some transport ray and define $\mathcal{E}$ to be the

1170: set of all endpoints of rays. 

1171: \end{definition}

1172: 

1173: Some important properties of

1174: transport rays are given in the next proposition.

1175: \begin{proposition}[\cite{CFC}]\label{prop:cfm-rays}

1176: \begin{liste2}

1177: \item Two rays can only intersect in a common endpoint.

1178: %\item The support of $u,v$ is almost covered by the interior of rays:\\

1179: %  $\spt(u_\eps)\cup\spt(v_\eps)\,\subset\, \mathcal{T}\cup \mathcal{B}$ where $\mathcal{B}$ is

1180: %  an $\LL^2$-nullset.

1181: \item

1182: The endpoints $\mathcal{E}$ form a Borel set of measure zero.

1183: \item If $z$ lies in the interior of a ray with endpoints $a\in\spt(u),b\in\spt(v)$

1184: then $\phi$ is differentiable in $z$ with $\nabla\phi(z)\,=\,(a-b)/|a-b|$.

1185: \end{liste2}

1186: \end{proposition}

1187: In Section \ref{subsec:para} we will use the transport rays to parametrize the support of $u$ and

1188: to compute the \Wasserstein distance between $u$ and $v$.

1189: %==================

1190: % Overview of proof

1191: %==================

1192: 

1193: \section{Overview of the proof of Theorem~\ref{the:main}}

1194: \label{sec:overview}

1195: 

1196: \subsection{The lower bound}

1197: The heart of the proof of the lower bound~\pref{eq:liminf-esti} is a 

1198: parametrization of $\supp(u)\cup\supp(v)$ that allows us to rewrite the

1199: functionals  $\F_\e$ and $\G_\e$ in terms of the geometry of $\supp(u)$ and

1200: $\supp(v)$ and the structure of the transport rays.

1201: 

1202: The first step in the proof of~\pref{eq:liminf-esti} is to pass to

1203: functions $u$ and $v$ with smooth boundaries (Proposition~\pref{prop:red})

1204: so that $\partial \supp(u)$ can be represented by a collection $\{\gamma_i\}$

1205: of smooth curves. For the discussion in this section we will pretend

1206: that there is only one curve $\gamma:[0,L)\to\R^2$, which is closed and 

1207: which we parametrize by arclength.

1208: 

1209: The properties of the \Wasserstein distance $d_1$ give that almost

1210: every point $x\in \supp(u)\cup\supp(v)$ lies in the interior of exactly

1211: one transport 

1212: ray; the set $\supp(u)\cup \supp(v)$ can therefore be written, up to a

1213: null set, as the disjoint union of transport rays.  

1214: 

1215: In addition, along each ray mass  is transported `from $u$ to $v$', implying 

1216: that each ray intersects $\partial\supp(u)$. We therefore can parametrize

1217: the collection of rays by their intersections with $\partial \supp(u)$.

1218: 

1219: 

1220: The ray direction of the ray $\mathcal  R(s)$ that passes through $\gamma(s)$

1221: defines a unit length vector $\theta(s)$;

1222: we now introduce a parametrization $\psi$ by

1223: \[

1224: \psi(s,t) := \gamma(s) + t\theta(s).

1225: \]

1226: In terms of such a parametrization the first term of $\F_\e$ has a simple

1227: description as the length of the curve $\gamma$,

1228: \[

1229: \e\int|\nabla u| = \int_0^L 1\,ds = L.

1230: \]

1231: To rewrite $d_1(u,v)$ we

1232: use the fact that transport takes place along transport rays; when restricted to a single ray the transport problem becomes one-dimensional, and even explicitly solvable. 

1233: 

1234: The central estimate in this part of the proof is the following lower bound:

1235: \begin{align}

1236: \label{est:central}

1237: d_1(u,v) %&\geq \int_0^L \frac{\sin^3\beta(s)}{3\alphaprime(s)^2\eps}

1238: %  \Bigg[\Big(

1239: %  1+\frac{2\alphaprime(s)\eps}{\sin^2\beta(s)}M(s)\Big)^{\frac{3}{2}} 

1240: %    +\Big(

1241: %  1-\frac{2\alphaprime(s)\eps}{\sin^2\beta(s)}M(s)\Big)^{\frac{3}{2}} 

1242: %    -2\,\Bigg]ds\\

1243:     &\geq \int_0^L \Biggl[\frac{\eps}{\sin\beta(s)}M(s)^2+

1244:    \frac{\eps^3}{4\sin^5\beta(s)}\alphaprime(s)^2M(s)^4\Biggr]ds.

1245: \end{align}

1246: In this inequality the geometry of $\supp(u)$ is characterized by

1247: functions $\alpha$, $\beta$, and~$M$, which are illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:explanation}.

1248: \begin{figure}[ht]

1249: \centering

1250: \includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{geometry2}

1251: \caption{The parametrization of $\supp(u)\cup\supp(v)$. On the left six transport rays are drawn over the two supports; on the right the functions $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $M$ are indicated. At a boundary point $\gamma(s)$, $\alpha(s)$ is the angle of the transport ray through that point, and $\beta(s)$ is the angle between $\gamma$ and the ray. Finally, $M(s)ds$ is the amount of mass contained between the rays at positions $s$ and $s+ds$.}

1252: \label{fig:explanation}

1253: \end{figure}

1254: The functions $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are angles: $\alpha(s)$ is the angle

1255: between the ray direction $\theta(s)$ and a reference direction and $\beta(s)$ is the angle between $\theta(s)$ and the tangent $\gamma'(s)$ to $\gamma$. The function $M(\cdot)$, finally, measures the amount of mass supported on a ray. The relation between the function $M(\cdot)$ and the scalar $M$ in~\pref{def:Ke} is

1256: \[

1257: M = \int_0^L M(s)\, ds.

1258: \]

1259: 

1260: 

1261: With the estimate~\pref{est:central}, the main result can readily be appreciated. Let a sequence $(u_\e,v_\e)$ be such that $\G_\e(u_\e,v_\e)$

1262: is bounded as $\e\to0$, and let $\alpha_\e$, $\beta_\e$, and $M_\e$ be the

1263: associated geometric quantities. With the inequality above,

1264: \begin{align}

1265: \G_\e(u_\e,v_\e) &= \frac{\F_\e(u_\e,v_\e)-2M_\e}{\e^2} \notag \\

1266: &\geq \int_0^L \Bigl[\frac1{\e^2} - \frac{2M_\e(s)}{\e^2}+\frac{M_\e(s)^2}{\e^2\sin\beta_\e(s)}+

1267:    \frac{\alphaprime_\e(s)^2M_\e(s)^4}{4\sin^5\beta_\e(s)}\Bigr]ds\notag\\

1268: &= \int_0^L \Biggl[\frac1{\e^2}\bigl(1-M_\e(s)\bigr)^2\

1269:    +\frac1{\e^2}\left(\frac1{\sin\beta_\e(s)}-1\right) M_\e(s)^2+

1270:    \frac{\alphaprime_\e(s)^2M_\e(s)^4}{4\sin^5\beta_\e(s)}\Biggr]ds

1271:    \label{est:informal}

1272: \end{align}

1273: Note that each of the three terms above is non-negative.

1274: If $\G_\e(u,v)$ is bounded, then one concludes that as $\e\to0$ the mass $M_\eps(s)$ tends to one for almost all $s$. Similarly, $\beta_\e$ converges to $\pi/2$, implying that 

1275: the ray angle $\alpha_\eps$ converges to the angle

1276:  of the normal to $\gamma_\eps$, and in a weak sense therefore $\alpha^\prime_\eps$ converges to the curvature $\kappa_\eps=\gamma_\eps^{\prime\prime}$.

1277: The inequality above suggests 

1278: a $W^{2,2}_{\mathrm{loc}}$ bound for curves $\gamma_\eps$ with the last term approximating 

1279: \begin{gather*}

1280: 		\frac{1}{4}\int_0^L \kappa_\eps(s)^2\,ds

1281: \end{gather*}

1282: This integral is the bending energy that we expect in the limit.

1283: 

1284: Based on the inequality~\pref{est:informal} we show that the boundary curves of $\spt(u_\eps)$ are compact, that the limit is given

1285: by a $W^{2,2}$ system of closed curves as in \eqref{eq:rep-Gamma}-\eqref{eq:Gamma-3}

1286:  and that the lim-inf estimate is satisfied. We finally conclude

1287: that the limit of the mass distributions $u_\eps$ is identical to the limit of the boundary curves.

1288: \begin{comment}

1289: \[

1290: M_\e(s) \to 1\qquad\text{and} \qquad \sin\beta_\e(s) \to 1,

1291: \]

1292: implying that in the limit the ray angle $\alpha$ coincides with

1293: the angle of the normal to $\gamma$; therefore $\alpha'$ coincides 

1294: in the limit with the curvature $\kappa=\gamma''$ of $\gamma$, and the last term in the integral above converges to

1295: \[

1296: \frac14\int_0^L \kappa(s)^2\,ds.

1297: \]

1298: \end{comment}

1299: 

1300: The main reasons why the proof in Section~\ref{sec:liminf} is more involved than this brief explanation are related to the gaps in the reasoning above:

1301: \begin{itemize}

1302: \item A ray can intersect $\partial\supp(u)$ multiple times, and care must be taken to ensure that the parametrization is a bijection.

1303: \item The ray direction $\theta$  is not necessarily smooth; to be precise, when the ray length tends to zero (which is equivalent to $M(\cdot)$ vanishing), $\theta$ may vary wildly. 

1304: \item Similarly, when $M(\cdot)$ vanishes, the $L^2$-estimate on $\alpha'$ in~\pref{est:informal} degenerates,

1305: resulting in a compactness problem  for the boundary curves.

1306: \end{itemize}

1307: 

1308: \subsection{The upper bound}

1309: With the machinery of the lower bound in place, and with the insight that is provided, the upper bound becomes a relatively simple construction. Around a given limit curve tubular neighbourhoods are constructed for the supports of $u$ and $v$. The thickness of these neigbourhoods can be chosen just right, and the calculation that leads to~\pref{est:central} now gives an exact value for $\G_\e$.

1310: 

1311: The main remaining difficulty of the proof is the fact that a $W^{2,2}$-curve need not have a non-self-intersecting tubular neighbourhood of any thickness, and therefore an approximation argument is needed.

1312: 

1313: %==================

1314: % liminf

1315: %==================

1316: \section{Proof of the lim-inf estimate}

1317: \label{sec:liminf}

1318: In this section we prove the first part of Theorem~\ref{the:main}. 

1319: The main idea is to use the optimal Kantorovich potential

1320: of the mass transport problem of $u_\eps$ to $v_\eps$ to construct a

1321: parametrization of the support of $u_\eps$ 

1322: and $v_\eps$ and to derive a lower bound for the functionals

1323: $\G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)$. This lower bound yields the compactness of the

1324: systems of curves 

1325: which describe the boundary of the support of $u_\eps$ as well as the

1326: desired lim-inf estimate.

1327: 

1328: We first show that we can restrict ourselves to a class of `generic

1329: data'. 

1330: \begin{proposition}\label{prop:red}

1331: It is sufficient to prove the \emph{liminf} part of Theorem

1332: \ref{the:main} under the additional assumptions that

1333: \begin{align}

1334:   &M=1,\quad\text{ that is } \int u_\e \,=\, \int v_\e \,=\,1\quad\text{ for 

1335:   }(u_\e,v_\e)\in\K_\eps, \label{eq:M=1}\\[2mm]

1336:   &\sup_{\eps>0}\G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)\,\leq

1337:   \,\Lambda\quad\text{ for some }\quad 0<\Lambda<\infty,\label{eq:bound-G-eps}\\[2mm]  

1338:   &(u_\eps, v_\eps)\,\in\, \K_\eps\quad\text{ for all

1339:   }\eps>0,\label{eq:ass-K}\\[2mm]

1340:   &\lim_{\eps\to 0} \G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)\,=\,\liminf_{\eps\to 0}

1341:   \G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)\quad\text{ exists,} \label{eq:ex-lim-G}\\[2mm]

1342:   &\partial\spt(u_\eps)\text{ is given by a disjoint system of

1343:   smooth, simple curves } \Gamma_{\eps}. \label{eq:reg-u-eps}

1344: \end{align}

1345: \end{proposition}

1346: \begin{proof}

1347: To prove that we can restrict ourselves to $M=1$ we do a

1348: spatial rescaling and set

1349: \begin{gather*}

1350:   \tilde{\eps}\,:=\,\frac{\eps}{M},\quad

1351:   \tilde{u}_{\tilde{\eps}}(x)\,:=\, M u_\eps(Mx),\quad

1352:   \tilde{v}_{\tilde{\eps}}(x)\,:=\, M v_\eps(Mx).

1353: \end{gather*}

1354: We then obtain

1355: \begin{gather}

1356:   \int_{\R^2} \tilde{u}_{\tilde{\eps}}\,=\,\int_{\R^2} \tilde{v}_{\tilde{\eps}}\,=\,1,\qquad\qquad 

1357:   {\tilde{\eps}}\int |\nabla \tilde{u}_\eps|\,=\,

1358:   \frac{\eps}{M}\int|\nabla\label{eq:tilde-u-bdry} 

1359:   u_\eps|.

1360: \end{gather}

1361: Moreover, if $S$ is the optimal transport map from $u_\eps$ to

1362: $v_\eps$, then $\tilde{S}(x):=

1363: M^{-1}S(Mx)$ is the optimal transport map from $\tilde{u}_{\tilde{\eps}}$

1364: to $\tilde{v}_{\tilde{\eps}}$ and

1365: \begin{gather}

1366:   d_1(\tilde{u}_{\tilde{\eps}},\tilde{v}_{\tilde{\eps}})\,=\, M^{-2}

1367:   d_1(u_\eps,v_\eps). \label{eq:tilde-d1} 

1368: \end{gather}

1369: We obtain from \eqref{eq:tilde-u-bdry},

1370: \eqref{eq:tilde-d1} that

1371: \begin{align}

1372:   {\G}_{\tilde{\eps}}(\tilde{u}_{\tilde{\eps}},\tilde{v}_{\tilde{\eps}})

1373:   \,=\,&\frac{1}{\tilde{\eps}^2}  

1374:   \Big(\frac{1}{\tilde{\eps}}d_1(\tilde{u}_{\tilde{\eps}},\tilde{v}_{\tilde{\eps}})

1375:   +\tilde{\eps}\int|\nabla\tilde{u}_{\tilde{\eps}}| -2\Big)\notag\\

1376:   \,=\,& \frac{M^2}{\eps^2}\Big( \frac{1}{M\eps}d_1(u_\eps,v_\eps) +

1377:   \frac{\eps}{M}\int|\nabla u_\eps| - \frac{2}{M}\int u_\eps\Big)\notag\\

1378:   =&\, M \G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps).\label{eq:tilde-Ge}

1379: \end{align}

1380: We observe that $(\tilde{u}_{\tilde{\eps}},\tilde{v}_{\tilde{\eps}})\in

1381: \K_{\tilde{\eps}}$ iff 

1382: $(u_\eps,v_\eps)\in \K_\eps$ and that

1383: $(\tilde{u}_{\tilde{\e}})_{\tilde{\e}>0}$ satisfies 

1384: \eqref{eq:spt-ue}, \eqref{eq:conv-ue} for \mbox{$\tilde{R}:= R/M$} and

1385: $\tilde{\mu}$ defined by

1386: \begin{gather}

1387:   \int \eta(x)\,d\tilde{\mu}(x)\,=\, \int

1388:   \frac{1}{M}\eta\big(\frac{x}{M}\big)\,d\mu(x)\quad\text{ for }\eta\in

1389:   C^0_c(\R^2). \label{eq:tilde-mu}

1390: \end{gather}

1391: If Theorem \ref{the:main} holds for $M=1$ then there exists a

1392: $W^{2,2}$-system of closed curves $\tilde{\Gamma}$ with

1393: \begin{gather}

1394:   2\mu_{\tilde{\Gamma}}\,=\,\tilde{\mu},\qquad

1395:   2|\tilde{\Gamma}|\,=\,1,\label{eq:the-mu-tilde}

1396: \end{gather}

1397: such that \eqref{eq:Gamma-0}, \eqref{eq:Gamma-1} holds and

1398: \begin{gather}

1399:   \W(\tilde{\Gamma}) \,\leq\, \liminf_{\tilde{\eps}\to

1400:     0}\G_{\tilde{\eps}}(\tilde{u}_{\tilde{\eps}},\tilde{v}_{\tilde{\eps}}). \label{eq:liminf-tilde}

1401: \end{gather}

1402: We deduce from \eqref{eq:tilde-mu} and \eqref{eq:the-mu-tilde}

1403: that $\mu$ is

1404: given as system of closed curves:

1405: Let $\tilde{\Gamma}\,=\,\{\tilde{\gamma}_i\}_{i=1,...,N}$ with

1406: \begin{gather*}

1407:   \tilde{\gamma}_i : [0,\tilde{L}_i)\,\to\,\R^2, \qquad

1408:     |\tilde{\gamma}_i^\prime|\,=\,1 

1409: \end{gather*}

1410: and define a

1411: system of curves $\Gamma=\{\gamma_i\}_{i=1,...,N}$ by

1412: \begin{gather*}

1413:   \gamma_i : [0,L_i)\,\to\,\R^2,\quad L_i:= M\tilde{L}_i,\\

1414:     \gamma_i(s):= M\tilde{\gamma}\big(\frac{s}{M}\big)\quad\text{ for }s\in

1415:     [0,L_i). 

1416: \end{gather*}

1417: Then $|\gamma_i^\prime|=1$ and $\Gamma$ satisfies \eqref{eq:Gamma-0},

1418: \eqref{eq:Gamma-1}.

1419: We obtain from \eqref{eq:tilde-mu} that

1420: \begin{align*}

1421:   \int \eta \,d\mu\,&=\, M\int

1422:   \eta(Mx)\,d\tilde{\mu}(x)\,=\,2M\sum_{i=1}^m\int_0^{\tilde{L}_i} 

1423:   \eta(M\tilde{\gamma}_i(s))\,ds \\

1424:   \,&=\, 2\sum_{i=1}^m\int_0^{L_i}\eta(\gamma_i(s))\,ds

1425:   \,=\, 2\int \eta\,d\mu_{\Gamma},

1426: \end{align*}

1427: which yields $\mu=2\mu_\Gamma$ and, by taking $\eta=1$ inside $B_R(0)$,

1428: that \eqref{eq:Gamma-3} holds.

1429: Finally we deduce from \eqref{eq:tilde-mu}

1430: \begin{align*}

1431:   \W(\Gamma)\,&=\,\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^m \int_0^{L_i}

1432:   |\gamma_i^{\prime\prime}(s)|^2\,ds \\

1433:   \,&=\,

1434:   \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^m \int_0^{L_i}

1435:   \frac{1}{M^2}\Big|\tilde{\gamma}_i^{\prime\prime}\Big(\frac{s}{M}\Big)\Big|^2\,ds

1436:   \,=\, 

1437:   \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^m \int_0^{\tilde{L}_i}

1438:   \frac{1}{M}|\tilde{\gamma}_i^{\prime\prime}(s)|^2\,ds \\

1439:   \,&=\,

1440:   \frac{1}{M}\W(\tilde{\Gamma})

1441: \end{align*}

1442: and by \eqref{eq:tilde-Ge}, \eqref{eq:liminf-tilde} this yields that

1443: \eqref{eq:liminf-esti} 

1444: holds. Therefore we have shown that it is sufficient to prove the

1445: lim-inf part of Theorem \ref{the:main} for $M=1$.

1446: 

1447: Eventually restricting ourselves to a subsequence $\eps\to 0$ we can

1448: assume \eqref{eq:ex-lim-G}. The existence of a $0<\Lambda<\infty$

1449: such that \eqref{eq:bound-G-eps} holds follows from

1450: \eqref{eq:liminf-bounded}. By the definition of $\G_\eps$ this in

1451: particular implies \eqref{eq:ass-K}.

1452: 

1453: It remains to show that it is sufficient to consider functions $u_\eps$

1454: such that $\partial\spt(u_\eps)$ is smooth. We already have seen that we

1455: can assume that $(u_\eps,v_\eps)\in\K_\eps$. This implies that

1456: $\spt(u_\eps)$ is a set of finite perimeter. Moreover

1457: $\spt(u_\eps)\subset B_R(0)$ and by

1458: \cite[Theorem~3.42]{AFP} there exists a sequence of

1459: open sets $(E_k)_{k\in\N}$ with smooth boundary such that

1460: \begin{eqnarray}

1461:   \Chi_{E_k} &\to& \eps u_\eps\quad\text{ in }L^1(\Rn),\label{eq:E-k-1}\\

1462:   |\nabla\Chi_{E_k}|(\Rn) &\to& \eps|\nabla u_\eps|(\Rn)\label{eq:E-k-2}\\

1463:   E_k &\subset& B_{2R}(0).\label{eq:E-k-3}

1464: \end{eqnarray}

1465: We set

1466: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:def-r-k}

1467:   r_k &:=& \eps^{\frac{1}{2}}|E_k|^{-\frac{1}{2}}

1468: \end{eqnarray}

1469: and define functions $\hat{u}_k$,

1470: \begin{eqnarray}

1471:   \hat{u}_k(x) &:=& \frac{1}{\eps}\Chi_{E_k}(r_k^{-1}x).\label{eq:def-u-hat}

1472: \end{eqnarray}

1473: This yields

1474: \begin{gather}

1475:   \int_{\R^2} \hat{u}_k \,=\, \frac{r_k^2}{\eps}|E_k|\,=\,1\label{eq:mass-hat-u}

1476: \end{gather}

1477: and

1478: \begin{gather}

1479:   \int_{\R^2} |\nabla\hat{u}_k| \,=\, \frac{r_k}{\eps}\int_{\Rn}

1480:   |\nabla E_k|.\label{eq:surf-hat-u} 

1481: \end{gather}

1482: Moreover, from \eqref{eq:E-k-1}, \eqref{eq:def-r-k} and

1483: $|\spt(u_\eps)|=\eps$ we 

1484: observe that

1485: \begin{gather}

1486:   r_k\,\to\, 1\quad\text{ as }k\to\infty.\label{eq:conv-k}

1487: \end{gather} 

1488: We compute that

1489: \begin{eqnarray*}

1490:   \int_{\R^2} |\hat{u}_k -u_\eps| &=&

1491:   \frac{1}{\eps}\int_{\R^2} \Big|\Chi_{E_k}(r_k^{-1}x)-\eps

1492:   u_\eps(x)\Big|\,dx\\ 

1493:   &\leq& \frac{1}{\eps}\int_{\R^2} \big|\Chi_{E_k}(r_k^{-1}x)

1494:   -\eps u_\eps(r_k^{-1}x)\big|\,dx\\

1495:   &&+\frac{1}{\eps}\int_{\R^2} \big|\eps u_\eps(r_k^{-1}x)-\eps

1496:   u_\eps(x)|\,dx\\ 

1497:   &=& \frac{r_k^2}{\eps}\int_{\R^2} \big|\Chi_{E_k}-\eps

1498:   u_\eps(x)\big|\,dx 

1499:   +\int_{\R^2} \big|u_\eps(r_k^{-1}x)-u_\eps(x)|\,dx.

1500: \end{eqnarray*}

1501: Since the right-hand side converges to zero as $k\to\infty$ by

1502: \eqref{eq:E-k-1}, \eqref{eq:conv-k} we deduce that

1503: \begin{eqnarray}

1504:   \hat{u}_k &\to& u_\eps\quad\text{ in }L^1({\R^2})\label{eq:conv-u-hat-L1}

1505: \end{eqnarray}

1506: as $k\to\infty$. Equations \eqref{eq:E-k-2}, \eqref{eq:surf-hat-u} and

1507: \eqref{eq:conv-k} yield that 

1508: \begin{eqnarray}

1509:   \int_{\R^2} |\nabla\hat{u}_k| &\to& \int_{\R^2} |\nabla

1510:   u_\eps|\quad\text{ as }k\to\infty.\label{eq:conv-u-hat-area} 

1511: \end{eqnarray}

1512: We construct approximations $\hat{v}_k$ of $v_\eps$ by setting

1513: \begin{gather}

1514:   \hat{v}_k(x) \,:=\, v_\eps(x)\big(1-\eps \hat{u}_k(x)\big) +w_k(x),

1515:   \label{eq:def-hat-v} 

1516: \end{gather}

1517: for a suitable $w_k\in L^1\big(B_{2R}(0),\{0,\eps^{-1}\}\big)$ with

1518: \begin{gather}

1519:   \int_{\R^2} ( w_k -\eps v_\eps\hat{u}_k)\,=\, 0. \label{eq:def-wk}

1520: \end{gather}

1521: We then deduce from \eqref{eq:def-hat-v}, \eqref{eq:def-wk} that

1522: $(\hat{u}_k,\hat{v}_k )\in\K_\eps$. It follows from

1523: \eqref{eq:conv-u-hat-L1}, \eqref{eq:def-wk} and $u_\eps v_\eps=0$ that

1524: $w_k\to 0$ as $k\to \infty$. Together with \eqref{eq:def-hat-v} we

1525: obtain that 

1526: \begin{gather}

1527:   \lim_{k\to\infty}\hat{v}_k\,=\, v_\eps\quad\text{ in

1528:   }L^1(\R^2). \label{eq:conv-hat-vk} 

1529: \end{gather}

1530: 

1531: 

1532: By \eqref{eq:E-k-3}, \eqref{eq:conv-u-hat-L1} and \eqref{eq:conv-hat-vk}

1533: we deduce from Remark \ref{rem:wass} the continuity of the \Wasserstein

1534: distance term in $\F_\eps(\hat{u}_k,\hat{v}_k)$. Together with

1535: \eqref{eq:conv-u-hat-area} this yields

1536: \begin{eqnarray*}

1537:   \F_\eps(\hat{u}_k,\hat{v}_k) &\to& \F_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)\quad\text{ as }k\to\infty.

1538: \end{eqnarray*}

1539: Therefore we can choose $k(\eps)\in\N$ such that for

1540: $\tilde{u}_\eps:=\hat{u}_{k(\eps)}$, $\tilde{v}_\eps:=\hat{v}_{k(\eps)}$

1541: satisfy the estimate

1542: \begin{eqnarray*}

1543:   \|u_\eps -\tilde{u}_\eps\|_{L^1({\R^2})} +

1544:   |\G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)-\G_\eps(\tilde{u}_\eps,\tilde{v}_\eps)| &\leq&

1545:   \eps. 

1546: \end{eqnarray*}

1547: This yields a sequence $(\tilde{u}_\eps,\tilde{v}_\eps)_{\eps>0}$ that satisfies

1548: \eqref{eq:reg-u-eps} and has the same limit as

1549: $(u_\eps,v_\eps)_{\eps>0}$ in \eqref{eq:conv-ue}, \eqref{eq:liminf-esti}.

1550: \end{proof}

1551: 

1552: 

1553: From now on, for the rest of this section, we assume that

1554: \eqref{eq:M=1}-\eqref{eq:reg-u-eps} hold.

1555: %============================================================

1556: % Parametrization by rays

1557: %============================================================

1558: \subsection{Parametrization by rays}

1559: \label{subsec:para}

1560: Due to \eqref{eq:reg-u-eps} the boundary $\partial\spt(u_\eps)$ is smooth.

1561: We are free to choose a suitable representation.

1562: \begin{remark}\label{rem:arclength-curves}

1563: We can represent $\partial\spt(u_\eps)$ by a disjoint system

1564: $\Gamma_\eps$ of closed curves such that for all $\gamma\in \Gamma_\eps$

1565: \begin{gather}

1566:   \gamma \text{ is parametrized by arclength}, |\gamma^\prime|=1,\notag

1567:   \\ 

1568:   \spt(u_\eps)\text{ is `on the left hand side' of

1569:   }\gamma. \label{eq:spt-ue-lhs} 

1570: \end{gather}

1571: In particular $\gamma$ is $L(\gamma)$-periodic and

1572: \begin{gather*}

1573:   \det (\gamma^\prime(s),\nu(s)) \,\leq\, 0,

1574: \end{gather*}

1575: where $\nu(s)$ denotes the outward unit normal of $\spt(u_\eps)$ at

1576: $\gamma(s)$. 

1577: \end{remark}

1578: Let $\phi\in \Lip_1(\R^2)$ be an optimal Kantorovich potential for

1579: the mass transport from $u_\eps$ to $v_\eps$ as in Proposition

1580: \ref{prop:add-prop}, with 

1581: $\mathcal{T}$ being the set of transport rays as in Definition

1582: \ref{def:rays}. 

1583: Recall that $\phi$ is differentiable, with $|\nabla \phi| = 1$, in the

1584: relative interior of any ray. 

1585: 

1586: \begin{definition}[Parametrization by rays]\label{def:para}

1587: For $\gamma\in \Gamma_\eps$ we define

1588: \begin{liste}

1589: \item

1590: a set $E$ of `inner points' with respect to the transport set

1591: $\mathcal{T}$,

1592: \begin{eqnarray*}

1593:   E &:=& \{s\in \R :\gamma(s) \in \mathcal{T}\},

1594: \end{eqnarray*}

1595: \item

1596: a direction field

1597: \begin{eqnarray*}

1598:   \theta: E\to \sphere^1, \qquad \theta(s) := \nabla\phi(\gamma(s)),

1599: \end{eqnarray*}

1600: \item

1601: the positive and negative total ray length $L^+,L^-:E\to \R$,

1602: \begin{eqnarray}

1603:   L^+(s) &:=& \sup\{t>0 : \phi(\gamma(s)+t\theta

1604:   (s))-\phi(\gamma(s))\,=\,t\},\label{eq:def-L+}\\ 

1605:   L^-(s) &:=& \inf\{t<0 : \phi(\gamma(s)+t\theta

1606:   (s))-\phi(\gamma(s))\,=\,t\},\label{eq:def-L-} 

1607: \end{eqnarray}

1608: \item the \emph{effective} positive ray length $l^+: E\to\R$,

1609: \begin{gather}

1610:   l^+(s) := \sup\ \{t\in [0,L^+(s)] : \gamma(s) + \tau\theta(s)\in

1611:   \Int\bigl(\spt(u_\eps)\bigr)\text{ for all }0<\tau<

1612:   t\}.\label{eq:def-l+} 

1613: \end{gather}

1614: \end{liste}

1615: Finally we define a map $\psi$ which will serve as a parametrization of

1616: $\spt(u_\eps)\cup\spt(v_\eps)$ by 

1617: \begin{gather}

1618:   \psi: \big[0,L(\gamma)\big)\times\R\,\to\,\R^2,\quad

1619:     \psi(s,t) \,:=\, \gamma(s) + t\theta(s).\label{eq:def-psi}

1620: \end{gather}

1621: \end{definition}

1622: \begin{remark}\label{rem:corr-lengths}

1623: All objects defined above are properties of $\gamma$ even if we

1624: do not denote this dependence explicitely. When dealing with a

1625: collection of curves $\{\gamma_i :i=1,...,N\}$ or $\{\gamma_{\eps,i} : \eps>0,

1626: i=1,...,N(\eps)\}$ then $E_i$, $l_{\eps,i}^+$ etc. refer to the

1627: objects defined for the corresponding curves.

1628: \end{remark}

1629: 

1630: \begin{figure}[ht]

1631: \centerline{\psfig{width=\textwidth,figure=para}}%width=\textwidth

1632: \caption{The parametrization in a `simple' situation. Here

1633:   $l^+(s)=L^+(s)$ coincide.}

1634: \label{fig:para}

1635: \end{figure}

1636: 

1637: 

1638: See the Figures

1639: \ref{fig:para} and \ref{fig:para2} for an illustration of the

1640: parametrization defined above. The {\itshape effective ray length} is

1641: introduced to obtain the injectivity of the parametrization 

1642: in the case that a ray crosses several times the boundary

1643: of $\spt(u_\eps)$ (as it is the case in the situation depicted in Figure

1644: \ref{fig:para2}).

1645: The set $\{\gamma(s): l^+(s)>0\}$ represents the points of the boundary

1646: where mass is transported in the `right

1647: direction'.

1648: 

1649: We will first prove some results which are analogous to those in \cite{CFC}.

1650: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:usc}

1651: The ray direction $\theta: E\to\R^2$ is continuous.

1652: The positive, negative, and effective positive ray lengths $L^+, L^-,l^+ : E\to\R$

1653: are measurable.

1654: \end{lemma}

1655: 

1656: \begin{proof}

1657: Consider a sequence $(s_k)_{k\in\N}\subset E$, $s\in E$, with $s_k\to s$.

1658: Choose $\tilde{t}_k\leq t_k$ such that

1659: \begin{align}\label{eq:t_n}

1660:   L^+(s_k)-\frac{1}{k} \,&<\, t_k \, <\, L^+(s_k),\\

1661:   l^+(s_k)-\frac{1}{k} \,&<\, \tilde{t}_k\, < \, l^+(s_k).\label{eq:tilde-t_n}

1662: \end{align}

1663: It follows from \eqref{eq:def-L+} and \eqref{eq:t_n} that

1664: \begin{eqnarray}

1665:   \phi(\gamma(s_k)+t_k\theta(s_k)) &=& \phi(\gamma(s_k))+t_k.\label{eq:theta_n}

1666: \end{eqnarray}

1667: Since $(t_k)_{k\in\N},(\tilde{t}_k)_{k\in\N}$ are uniformly bounded by

1668: $2R$ and $|\theta(s_k)|=1$ there exists a subsequence $k\to\infty$ and

1669: $\tilde{t}$,  

1670: $t\in\R,\theta\in\R^2$

1671: with $\tilde{t}\leq t$, $|\theta|=1$ such that

1672: \begin{gather*}

1673:   t_k \,\to\, t,\quad \tilde{t}_k\,\to\, \tilde{t},\quad\text{and} \quad

1674:   \theta(s_k)\,\to\, \theta.

1675: \end{gather*}

1676: We deduce from \eqref{eq:t_n}-\eqref{eq:theta_n} that

1677: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:t}

1678:   \limsup_{k\to\infty} L^+(s_k) &\leq& t,\\\label{eq:tilde-t}

1679:   \limsup_{k\to\infty}\, l^+(s_k) &\leq& \tilde{t},\\\label{eq:theta}

1680:   \phi(\gamma(s)+t\theta) &=& \phi(\gamma(s)) + t.

1681: \end{eqnarray}

1682: Since $\phi$ has Lipschitz constant one it follows from

1683: \eqref{eq:theta} that

1684: \begin{gather}

1685:   \theta \,=\, \nabla\phi(\gamma(s))\,=\,\theta(s).\label{eq:equal-theta}

1686: \end{gather}

1687: We therefore deduce by \eqref{eq:theta} that $t\leq

1688: L^+(s)$ and by \eqref{eq:t} we find that 

1689: \begin{eqnarray*}

1690:  \limsup_{k\to\infty} L^+(s_k) &\leq&  L^+(s),

1691: \end{eqnarray*}

1692: which proves the upper-semicontinuity and therefore the measurability 

1693: of $L^+$.  By analogous arguments one proves that $L^-$

1694: is lower-semicontinuous and measurable.\\

1695: Let now $0<\tau<\tilde{\tau}$. Since $\tilde{t}_k\to\tilde{t}$  we

1696: obtain from \eqref{eq:tilde-t_n} that 

1697: \begin{gather*}

1698:   \phi\big(\gamma(s_{k_i}) +\tau\theta(s_{k_i})\big) \,\in\, \spt

1699:   (u_\eps)\quad\text{ for all sufficiently large }k\in\N.

1700: \end{gather*}

1701: Since $\spt(u_\eps)$ is closed and since $\phi$ is continuous this yields

1702: \begin{eqnarray*}

1703:   \phi\big(\gamma(s)+\tau\theta(s)\big) &\in& \spt(u).

1704: \end{eqnarray*}

1705: But $0<\tau<\tilde{\tau}$ was arbitrary and we deduce that

1706: $\tilde{t}\leq l^+(s)$. 

1707: By \eqref{eq:tilde-t} this shows the upper-semicontinuity

1708: and measurability of $l^+$.

1709: \end{proof}

1710: 

1711: \begin{figure}[ht]

1712: \centerline{\psfig{width=\textwidth,figure=para2}}%width=\textwidth

1713: \caption{A situation where a ray crosses several times the boundary of

1714:   $\spt(u_\eps)$, given by curves $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3$. On the

1715:   right for each of the curves $\gamma_i$ the positive, negative

1716:   and effective ray lengths $L^+_i,L^-_i,l^+_i$ is depicted. Observe that

1717:   $l^+_2(s)=0$.} 

1718: \label{fig:para2}

1719: \end{figure}

1720: 

1721: The next result is similar to Lemma~16 of \cite{CFC}:

1722: since rays can only intersect in a common endpoint, the ray directions vary

1723: Lipschitz continuously.

1724: 

1725: \begin{proposition}\label{prop:lip-l>c}

1726: Let $\gamma\in \Gamma_\eps$ be given as in Remark

1727: \ref{rem:arclength-curves} and set for 

1728: $\delta>0$

1729: \begin{gather}

1730:   E_\delta \,:=\, \{s\in E :

1731:   L^+(s),|L^-(s)|\geq\delta\}. \label{eq:def-E-delta} 

1732: \end{gather}

1733: Then $\theta$ is Lipschitz continuous on $E_\delta$ with

1734: \begin{eqnarray}

1735:   \big|\theta(s_1)-\theta(s_2)\big|

1736:   &\leq& \frac{2}{\delta}\, |s_1-s_2|\quad\text{ for all }s_1,s_2\in

1737:   E_\delta. \label{eq:lipconst-theta} 

1738: \end{eqnarray}

1739: \end{proposition}

1740: \begin{proof}

1741: To prove \eqref{eq:lipconst-theta} it is sufficient

1742: to consider the case $\theta(s_1)\neq\theta(s_2)$. Then there exist

1743: $t_1,t_2\in\R$ such that

1744: \begin{eqnarray}

1745:   \gamma(s_1)+t_1 \theta(s_1) &=& \gamma(s_2) +t_2\theta(s_2).

1746:   \label{eq:triangle}

1747: \end{eqnarray}

1748: By the definition of $L^+,L^-$ and since rays can only intersect in

1749: common endpoints we obtain

1750: \begin{gather}

1751:   t_i\,\in\, \R\setminus\big(L^-(s_i),L^+(s_i)\big),\quad

1752:   i=1,2. \label{eq:bounds-triangle} 

1753: \end{gather}

1754: By taking the determinant with $\theta(s_2)$ in

1755: \eqref{eq:triangle} we compute

1756: \begin{gather}

1757:   \det\big(\gamma(s_1)-\gamma(s_2),\theta(s_2)\big)\,=\,

1758:   -t_1\det\big(\theta(s_1),\theta(s_2)\big).\label{eq:eq-det}

1759: \end{gather}

1760: From \eqref{eq:bounds-triangle}

1761: and since $s_1,s_2\in E_\delta$ we deduce that

1762: %\begin{gather*}

1763:   $t_1^2\,\geq\,\delta^2$. 

1764: %\end{gather*}

1765: Taking squares in \eqref{eq:eq-det} we therefore obtain

1766: \begin{align}

1767:   (s_1-s_2)^2 \,&\geq\,

1768:   \delta^2\det\big(\theta(s_1),\theta(s_2)\big)^2\notag\\

1769:   &=\,  \delta^2\Big[ 1-(\theta(s_1)\cdot\theta(s_2))^2\Big] \notag\\

1770:   &=\, \frac{\delta^2}{4}\big|\theta(s_1)-\theta(s_2)\big|^2

1771:   \big|\theta(s_1)+\theta(s_2)\big|^2. \label{eq:est-rays-1}

1772: \end{align}

1773: Next we observe that

1774: \begin{gather}

1775:   \big|\theta(s_1)+\theta(s_2)\big|\,\geq\, 1 \quad\text{ if }

1776:   |s_1-s_2|\leq \delta.\label{eq:small-sdiff}

1777: \end{gather}

1778: Indeed we compute

1779: \begin{align*}

1780:   4\delta\,&=\, \phi(\gamma(s_1)+\delta \theta(s_1)) -

1781:   \phi(\gamma(s_1)-\delta\theta(s_1)) + \phi(\gamma(s_2)+\delta

1782:   \theta(s_2)) - \phi(\gamma(s_2)-\delta\theta(s_2))\\

1783:   &=\, \phi(\gamma(s_1)+\delta \theta(s_1))-

1784:   \phi(\gamma(s_2)-\delta\theta(s_2))+  \phi(\gamma(s_2)+\delta

1785:   \theta(s_2))-\phi(\gamma(s_1)-\delta\theta(s_1))\\

1786:   &\leq\, 2|\gamma(s_1)-\gamma(s_2)| +2\delta|\theta(s_1)+\theta(s_2)|\\

1787:   &\leq\, 2|s_1-s_2| +2\delta|\theta(s_1)+\theta(s_2)|

1788: \end{align*}

1789: which proves \eqref{eq:small-sdiff}.\\

1790: By \eqref{eq:est-rays-1}, \eqref{eq:small-sdiff} we deduce that

1791: \eqref{eq:lipconst-theta} holds for

1792: $s_1,s_2\in E_\delta$ 

1793: with $|s_1-s_2|\leq \delta$. In the case $|s_1-s_2|>\delta$

1794: we obtain \eqref{eq:lipconst-theta} since $|\theta(s_1)-\theta(s_2)|\leq

1795: 2$. 

1796: \end{proof}

1797: \begin{definition}\label{def:alpha}

1798: Define two functions $\alpha,\beta: E\,\to\, \R\modulo 2\pi$ by

1799: requiring that 

1800: \begin{gather}

1801:   \theta(s) \,=\,

1802:   \begin{pmatrix}

1803:     \cos \alpha(s)\\

1804:     \sin \alpha(s)

1805:   \end{pmatrix},

1806:   \qquad\det\big(\gamma^\prime(s),\theta(s)\big) \,=\, \sin\beta(s).\label{eq:def-beta}

1807: \end{gather}

1808: \end{definition}

1809: We note that

1810: \begin{gather}

1811:   \sin\beta(s)\,\geq\, 0\quad\text{ for }s\in E\text{ with }l^+(s)>0

1812:   \label{eq:sin-beta} 

1813: \end{gather}

1814: by \eqref{eq:spt-ue-lhs} and the definition of $l^+$.

1815: 

1816: Proposition \ref{prop:lip-l>c} yields the Lipschitz continuity of

1817: $\theta,\alpha$ on sets where the positive and negative ray lengths are

1818: strictly positive. By Kirszbraun's Theorem and Rademacher's Theorem we

1819: obtain an extension which is differentiable almost everywhere. To

1820: identify these derivatives as a property of $\alpha$ we prove

1821: the existence of $\alpha^\prime$ in the sense of \emph{approximate

1822:   derivatives}~\cite[section 6.1.3]{EG}.  

1823: 

1824: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:alpha-prime}

1825: The function $\alpha: E\to \R\modulo 2\pi$ as defined in Definition

1826: \ref{def:alpha} is  almost everywhere approximately differentiable and

1827: its approximate differential 

1828: satisfies

1829: \begin{eqnarray}

1830:   \sin \beta(s) - t \alpha^\prime(s) &\geq& 0\quad\text{ for all }\quad

1831:   L^-(s)\,\leq t\, \leq\, L^+(s) 

1832:   \label{eq:det>0}

1833: \end{eqnarray}

1834: for almost all $s\in E$ with $l^+(s)>0$.

1835: \end{lemma}

1836: \begin{proof}

1837: Consider for $\delta>0$ the set $E_\delta$ defined in \eqref{eq:def-E-delta}.

1838: By Proposition \ref{prop:lip-l>c} the restriction of $\theta$ to

1839: $E_\delta$ is Lipschitz continuous. 

1840: From Kirszbraun's Theorem we deduce the existence of a Lipschitz

1841: continuous extension $\tilde{\alpha}_\delta:\R\to\R\modulo 2\pi$ of $\alpha$, see for example the construction in \cite{Gan}.

1842: This extension is almost everywhere differentiable by Rademacher's Theorem.

1843: By \cite[Corollary 1.7.3]{EG} almost all points of $E_\delta$ have

1844: density one in $E_\delta$ and 

1845: we deduce that $\alpha$ is approximately differentiable in these points

1846: and that the approximate differential coincides with

1847: $\tilde{\alpha}_\delta^\prime$.

1848: Since \mbox{$E=\cup_{k\in\N}E_{1/k}$} this proves that $\alpha$ is

1849: approximately differentiable almost everywhere in $E$.

1850: 

1851: Since a measurable function is almost everywhere approximately continuous

1852: by \cite[Theorem 1.7.3]{EG}, it is sufficient to prove \eqref{eq:det>0}

1853: for $s\in E$ with $l^+(s)>0$ such that 

1854: \begin{itemize}

1855: \item $\alpha$ is approximately differentiable in $s$, and 

1856: \item there exists a sequence

1857: $(s_k)_{k\in\N}\subset E$ with $s_k\to s$ as $k\to\infty$ and 

1858: \begin{gather*}

1859:   L^+(s_k)\to L^+(s),\quad L^-(s_k)\to L^-(s),\quad l^+(s_k)\to l^+(s),\\

1860:   L^+(s_k),\, -L^-(s_k),\, l^+(s_k)\,>\,0\quad\text{ for all }k\in \N.

1861: \end{gather*}

1862: \end{itemize}

1863: Since \eqref{eq:det>0} is satisfied for $\alpha'(s)=0$ we can

1864: also assume that

1865: \begin{itemize}

1866: \item $\alpha'(s)>0$ (the other case is analogous);

1867: \item $(\alpha(s_k)-\alpha(s))/(s_k-s)\to \alpha'(s)$, or equivalently, that

1868: $(\theta(s_k)-\theta(s))/(s_k-s)\to\theta'(s)$;

1869: \item for all $k\in\N$ there exist $t_k,t^*_k$ such that

1870: \begin{gather}

1871: \label{eq:gamma-theta}

1872:   \gamma(s_k)+t_k\theta(s_k) \,=\, \gamma(s)+t^*_k\theta(s).

1873: \end{gather}

1874: \end{itemize}

1875: Analogously to \eqref{eq:bounds-triangle}, \eqref{eq:eq-det} we find

1876: from~\pref{eq:gamma-theta}

1877: \begin{gather}

1878:    t_k\,\in\, \R\setminus\big(L^-(s_k),L^+(s_k)\big),\quad

1879:    t^*_k\,\in\, \R\setminus\big(L^-(s),L^+(s)\big),

1880:    \label{eq:length-t-k}\\ 

1881:   \det\big(\gamma(s_k)-\gamma(s),\theta(s)\big)\,=\,

1882:   -t_k\det\big(\theta(s_k),\theta(s)\big).\label{eq:eq-det-k}

1883: \end{gather}

1884: Writing equation~\pref{eq:eq-det-k} as

1885: \[

1886: \det\Big(\frac{\gamma(s_k)-\gamma(s)}{s_k-s},\theta(s)\Big)\,=\,

1887:   -t_k\det\Big(\frac{\theta(s_k)-\theta(s)}{s_k-s},\theta(s)\Big),

1888: \]

1889: we observe that the left-hand side converges to

1890: $\det(\gamma'(s),\theta(s)) = \sin \beta(s)\geq0$

1891: and the determinant on the right-hand side to $\det(\theta'(s),\theta(s)) = -\alpha'(s)<0$.

1892: For sufficiently large  $k$ we

1893: can therefore eliminate the negative range for $t_k$ in~\pref{eq:length-t-k} 

1894: and obtain

1895: \[

1896: t_k\,\geq\, L^+(s_k).

1897: \]

1898: Again using the negative sign of $\det\bigl((\theta(s_k)-\theta(s))/(s_k-s),\theta(s)\bigr)$ we then find 

1899: \begin{gather*}

1900:   \det\Big(\frac{\gamma(s_k)-\gamma(s)}{s_k-s},\theta(s)\Big)\,\geq\,

1901:   -L^+(s_k)\det\Big(\frac{\theta(s_k)-\theta(s)}{s_k-s},\theta(s)\Big)

1902: \end{gather*}

1903: Taking the limit $k\to\infty$ we

1904: deduce

1905: \begin{gather*}

1906:   \sin\beta(s) \,\geq\,

1907:   L^+(s)\,\alpha'(s).

1908: \end{gather*}

1909: This proves the Lemma.

1910: \end{proof}

1911: 

1912: For each $\gamma\in\Gamma_\eps$ we define analogously to

1913: \eqref{eq:def-psi}  a map $\psi$. Restricting these maps

1914: suitably we obtain a parametrization of $\spt(u_\eps)$ which is

1915: essentially 

1916: one-to-one. 

1917: \begin{proposition}\label{prop:parametrization}

1918: Let $\Gamma_\eps=\{\gamma_i:i=1,...,N\}$ be chosen as in Remark

1919: \ref{rem:arclength-curves}. For all $i=1,...,N$ let $L_i=L(\gamma_i)$.

1920: Then, with

1921: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:def-E^i}

1922:   D_i &:=& \big\{(s,t): s\in E_i\cap [0,L_i), 0\leq t<l_i^+(s)\},

1923: \end{eqnarray}

1924: the restrictions $\psi_i: D_i\to\R^2$ give, up to a Lebesgue

1925: nullset, an injective map onto $\spt(u_\eps)$:

1926: for almost all $x\in \spt(u_\eps)$ there exists a unique

1927: $i\in\{1,...,N\}$ and a unique 

1928: $(s,t)\in D_i$ such that $\psi_i(s,t)=x$.

1929: \end{proposition}

1930: \begin{proof}

1931: For both the injectivity and the surjectivity it

1932: is sufficient to consider only interior points of

1933: $\spt(u_\eps)$ that are not ray ends, since the boundary of

1934: $\spt(u_\eps)$ and the sets 

1935: of ray ends form an $\LL^2$-nullset (Proposition \ref{prop:cfm-rays}). 

1936: 

1937: For the surjectivity, let $x$ be such a point in $\spt(u_\eps)$. By

1938: \eqref{eq:add-prop-phi1} there exists $y\in \spt(v)$ such

1939: that 

1940: \begin{eqnarray*}

1941:   \phi(x)-\phi(y) &=& |x-y|

1942: \end{eqnarray*}

1943: and it follows that $x$ is on the interior of a ray with direction

1944: $\nabla\phi(x)=\frac{x-y}{|x-y|}$.

1945: Define

1946: \begin{eqnarray*}

1947:   t &:=& \min\ \{t>0: x-t\nabla\phi(x)\in\partial\spt(u_\eps)\}.

1948: \end{eqnarray*}

1949: Then there exists $i\in\{1,...,N\}$ and $s\in E_i$ such that $l^+(s)\geq

1950: t>0$ and

1951: \[

1952:   x \,=\,\gamma_i(s)+t\theta_i(s) \,=\, \psi_i(s,t). 

1953: \]

1954: 

1955: To prove the injectivity part, let $x$ be the same point again, and

1956: assume that there exists $j\in\{1,...,N\}$, 

1957: $(\sigma,\tau)\in D_j$ such that

1958: \begin{gather*}

1959:   x \,=\, \psi_i(s,t)\,=\,\psi_j(\sigma,\tau).

1960: \end{gather*}

1961: Since different rays cannot intersect in interior points such as $x$, 

1962: the three points $x$, $\gamma_i(s)$, and 

1963: $\gamma_j(\sigma)$ are on the same ray, and since $t>0$ and $\tau>0$

1964: we have

1965: \begin{gather*}

1966:   \phi(\gamma_i(s))\, <\, \phi(x) \qquad\text{and}\qquad\phi(\gamma_j(\sigma)) \,<\, \phi(x).

1967: \end{gather*}

1968: This implies that $\gamma_i(s)$ and $\gamma_j(\sigma)$ are on the same side of the ray with respect to $x$. 

1969: On the other hand by the definition of $l^+$ and since $t<l^+(s)$,

1970: $\tau<l^+(\sigma)$, 

1971: neither the part of the ray between $x$ and $\gamma_i(s)$

1972: nor the part between $x$ and $\gamma_j(\sigma)$ contains a point of

1973: $\partial\spt(u_\eps)$. This implies that $\gamma_i(s)=\gamma_j(\sigma)$

1974: which proves the injectivity part of the proposition.

1975: \end{proof}

1976: 

1977: Using Proposition \ref{prop:lip-l>c} and Proposition \ref{prop:parametrization}

1978: we can justify the following transformation formula for integrals.

1979: 

1980: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:trafo-formula}

1981: Let $\Gamma_\eps=\{\gamma_i\}_{i=1,...,N}$ be as in Remark

1982: \ref{rem:arclength-curves} and $D_i$ as defined in \eqref{eq:def-E^i}. 

1983: Then for all \mbox{$g\in L^1(\R^2)$}

1984: \begin{gather}\label{eq:trafo}

1985:   \int g(x)u_\eps(x)\,dx =

1986:   \sum_{i=1}^N \int_{D_i} g(\psi_i(s,t))\frac{1}{\eps}

1987:   \big(\sin\beta_i(s)-t\alphaprime_i(s)\big)\,dt\,ds

1988: \end{gather}

1989: holds.

1990: \end{lemma}

1991: \begin{proof}

1992: We deduce from Proposition \ref{prop:lip-l>c} that for all $i\in

1993: \{1,...,N\}$ the functions $\theta_i$ and $\psi_i$ are approximately

1994: differentiable on $D_i$ with approximate differentials

1995: \begin{align*}

1996:   \theta_i^\prime(s)\,&=\, \alphaprime_i(s)

1997:   \begin{pmatrix}

1998:     -\sin \alpha_i(s)\\ \cos \alpha_i(s)

1999:   \end{pmatrix},\\

2000:   \partial_s\psi_i(s,t)\,&=\,

2001:     \gamma_i^{\prime}(s)+t\theta_i^\prime(s),\qquad

2002:    \partial_t\psi_i(s,t)\,=\, \theta_i^\prime(s).

2003: \end{align*}

2004: This yields that

2005: \begin{align*}

2006:   |\det D\psi_i(s,t)|

2007:   \,=\,& \big|\det \big(\gamma_i^\prime(s),\theta_i(s)\big)+

2008:   t \det\big(\theta_i^\prime(s),\theta_i(s)\big)\big|\\

2009:   =\,& | \sin\beta_i(s) - t\alphaprime_i(s)|\\

2010:   =\,& \sin\beta_i(s) -

2011:   t\alphaprime_i(s)

2012: \end{align*}

2013: where we have used \eqref{eq:det>0} in the last equality.\\

2014: We then deduce from the generalized transformation formula~\cite[Remark 5.5.2]{AGS} that

2015: \begin{gather*}

2016:   \int_{D_i} g(\psi_i(s,t))\frac{1}{\eps}

2017:   \big(\sin\beta_i(s)-t\alphaprime_i(s)\big)\,dt\,ds\,=\,

2018:   \int_{\psi_i(D_i)} g(x)u_\eps(x)\,dx. 

2019: \end{gather*}

2020: Summing these equalities over $i=1,...,N$ we deduce by Proposition

2021: \ref{prop:parametrization} that \eqref{eq:trafo} holds.

2022: \end{proof}

2023: Often it is more convenient to work not in {\itshape length coordinates} but rather in

2024: {\itshape mass coordinates} which are defined as follows.

2025: 

2026: \begin{definition}\label{def:mass-coordinates}

2027: For $\gamma\in\Gamma_\eps$ and $s\in \R$ we define a map

2028: $\mathfrak{m}_s:\R\to \R$ and a map $M: \R\to\R$ by

2029: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:def-mass}

2030:   \mathfrak{m}(s,t) &:=&

2031:   \begin{cases}

2032:     \frac{t}{\eps}\sin\beta(s) -\frac{t^2}{2\eps}\alphaprime(s)&\text{ if }l^+(s)>0,\\

2033:     0 &\text{ otherwise.}

2034:   \end{cases}\\

2035:   \label{eq:def-Ms}

2036:   M(s) &:=& \mathfrak{m}(s,l^+(s)).

2037: \end{eqnarray}

2038: \end{definition}

2039: 

2040: \begin{figure}[ht]

2041: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=6cm]{masscoord2}}

2042: \caption{The function $\mathfrak m$. Two rays delimit a section of $u$-mass (below the curve $\gamma$, in this figure) that is transported to the associated section of $v$-mass. For given $t>0$, $\mathfrak m(s,t)\,ds$ is the amount of $u$-mass contained between the two rays and stretching from $\gamma(s)$ to the point $\gamma(s)+t\theta(s)$. For $t<0$,  $\mathfrak m(t,s)$ is the corresponding amount of $v$-mass, with a minus sign.}

2043: \end{figure}

2044: 

2045: \begin{lemma}\label{lem-mass}

2046: The map $\mathfrak{m}(s,\cdot)$ is strictly monotone on $\big(L^-(s),L^+(s)\big)$ with

2047: inverse

2048: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:def-t_s}

2049:   \te(s,m) &=& \frac{\sin\beta(s)}{\alphaprime(s)}

2050:     \Big[1- \Big(1-\frac{2\alphaprime(s)\eps} 

2051:     {\sin^2\beta(s)}m\Big)^\frac{1}{2}\Big].

2052: \end{eqnarray}

2053: Let $\Gamma_\eps=\{\gamma_i\}_{i=1,...,N}$ be given as in Remark

2054: \ref{rem:arclength-curves}, set $L_i=L(\gamma_i)$, and let $M_i$ be the

2055: mass function~\pref{eq:def-Ms} for curve $\gamma_i$. We obtain for

2056: $g\in L^1(\R^2)$ 

2057: that 

2058: \begin{gather}\label{eq:trafo2}

2059:   \int g(x)u_\eps(x)\,dx =

2060:   \sum_{i=1}^N \int_0^{L_i}\int_0^{M_i(s)}

2061:   g(\psi_i(s,\te_i(s,m)))\,dm\,ds. 

2062: \end{gather}

2063: In particular, the total mass of $u_\eps$ is given by

2064: \begin{eqnarray}

2065:   \int u_\eps(x)\,dx &=&

2066:     \sum_{i=1}^N \int_0^{L_i} M_i(s)\,ds.\label{eq:tot-mass}

2067: \end{eqnarray}

2068: \end{lemma}

2069: 

2070: \begin{proof}

2071: The calculation of the inverse is straightforward. For the transformation formula~\pref{eq:trafo2} we combine~\pref{eq:trafo} with the remark that

2072: \[

2073: \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\,\mathfrak m(s,t)= \frac{1}{\eps}

2074:   \big(\sin\beta_i(s)-t\alphaprime_i(s)\big).

2075: \]

2076: Note that the integration interval $0<t<l^+_i(s)$ in the definition~\pref{eq:def-E^i} of $D_i$ transforms to $0<m<M_i(s)$.

2077: \end{proof}

2078: 

2079: Typically, the optimal transport map is built by gluing solutions of

2080: one-dimensional transport problems on single rays together.

2081: We observe a similar structure here.

2082: 

2083: \begin{proposition}\label{prop:mass-balance}

2084: Let $\gamma\in \Gamma_\eps$ be as in Remark \ref{rem:arclength-curves}

2085: and $S$ be 

2086: the optimal transport map from $u_\eps$ to $v_\eps$, as in Proposition

2087: \ref{prop:add-prop}. Define

2088: for $s\in E$ with $l^+(s)>0$ 

2089: an interval $I(s)\subset\R$ and

2090: measures $f_s^+,f_s^-$ on $I(s)$,

2091: \begin{align*}

2092:   I(s) &:=

2093:   \Big(\mathfrak{m}_s\big(L^-(s)\big),

2094:   \mathfrak{m}_s\big(L^+(s)\big)\Big),\\  

2095:   df_s^+ &:= u_\eps\big(\psi(s,\te(s,m))\big)\,dm,\qquad

2096:   df_s^- := v_\eps\big(\psi(s,\te(s,m))\big)\,dm.

2097: \end{align*}

2098: Moreover, define a map

2099: \begin{eqnarray*}

2100:   \hat{S}:I(s) \cap\spt(f_s^+) &\to& I(s)\cap\spt(f_s^-),

2101: \end{eqnarray*}

2102: by the equation 

2103: %(see Section~\ref{sec:mtp} for the optimal transport map $S$),

2104: \begin{gather}\label{eq:def-s-hat}

2105:   S\big(\psi(s,\te(s,m))\big) \,=\,

2106:   \psi\big(s,\te(s,\hat{S}(m))\big)\quad\text{ for }m\in I\cap\spt(f_s^+).

2107: \end{gather}

2108: Then for almost all $s\in E$ with $l^+(s)>0$

2109: the map $\hat{S}$

2110: is the unique monotone transport map pushing $f_s^+$ forward to $f_s^-$. 

2111: \end{proposition}

2112: 

2113: \begin{proof}

2114: It is sufficient to prove the claim for almost all $s\in \{l^+>k^{-1}\}$,

2115: $k\in\N$ arbitrary.

2116: Let $A\subset E$ be any set such that

2117: \begin{gather}

2118:   A\,\subset\, \{s\in E: l^+(s)>k^{-1}\},\quad \diam(A)\,<\,k^{-1}\label{eq:setA}

2119: \end{gather}

2120: We define rays and a set of rays

2121: \begin{gather*}

2122:   \mathcal{R}(s)\,:=\,\{\gamma(s)+ \tau \theta(s) : \tau \in (L^-(s),

2123:   L^+(s))\},\\

2124:   \mathcal{R}(A)\,:=\, \bigcup_{s\in A} \mathcal{R}(s).

2125: \end{gather*}

2126: Since different rays can only intersect in a common endpoint, two rays

2127: $\mathcal{R}(s), \mathcal{R}(\sigma)$ with $s,\sigma\in A$, $s\neq

2128: \sigma$ can only be disjoint or identical. The latter case is excluded

2129: by \eqref{eq:setA}: since $l^+(s),l^+(\sigma)>k^{-1}$ the distance between

2130: $\gamma(s)$ and $\gamma(\sigma)$ has to be at least $k^{-1}$ in

2131: contradiction to the assumption on the diameter of $A$ in \eqref{eq:setA}.

2132: Therefore the union $\{ \mathcal{R}(s):s\in A\}$ is

2133: pairwise disjoint.

2134: 

2135: Let now $(g_j)_{j\in\N}$ be a dense subset of $C^0(\R)$. Since $S$ pushes 

2136: $u_\eps|_{\mathcal{R}(A)}$

2137: forward to $v_\eps|_{\mathcal{R}(A)}$ we obtain for all $j\in\N$

2138: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:loc-trans}

2139:   \int_{\mathcal{R}(A)}g_j(\phi(S(x)))u_\eps(x)\,dx &=&

2140:   \int_{\mathcal{R}(A)}g_j(\phi(x)) v_\eps(x)\, dx. 

2141: \end{eqnarray}

2142: Repeating the changes of variables of Lemmas~\ref{lem:trafo-formula} and~\ref{lem-mass}, and using the fact that $\{

2143: \mathcal{R}(s):s\in A\}$ is 

2144: pairwise disjoint we obtain 

2145: \begin{align*}

2146:   &\int_A \int_{I(s)}

2147:   g_j\Big(\phi\bigl(S(\psi(s,\te(s,m)))\bigr)\Bigr)u_\eps\big(\psi(s,\te(s,m))\big)\,dm\,ds\\

2148:   &\qquad =\,

2149:   \int_A \int_{I(s)}  g_j\Bigl(\phi\bigl(\psi(s,\te(s,m))\bigr)\Bigr)v_\eps\big(\psi(s,\te(s,m))\big)\,dm\,ds,

2150: \end{align*}

2151: and by using the definition of $\hat S$~\pref{eq:def-s-hat} and the linearity of

2152: $\phi$ along rays we write this

2153: as

2154: \begin{align*}

2155:   &\int_A \int_{I(s)}

2156:   g_j\big(\phi(\gamma(s)) + \te(s,\hat S(m))\bigr)u_\eps\big(\psi(s,\te(s,m))\big)\,dm\,ds\\

2157:   &\qquad =\,

2158:   \int_A \int_{I(s)}  g_j\big(\phi(\gamma(s))

2159:   +\te(s,m)\big)v_\eps\big(\psi(s,\te(s,m))\big)\,dm\,ds,

2160: \end{align*}

2161: Since $A$ as above was arbitrary we deduce that for almost all $s\in \{l^+>0\}$

2162: and all $j\in\N$

2163: \begin{eqnarray*}

2164:   \int_{I(s)} g_j\big(\phi(\gamma(s))+\te(s,\hat{S}(m))\big)\,df_s^+(m) &=&

2165:   \int_{I(s)} g_j\big(\phi(\gamma(s))+\te(s,m)\big)\,df_s^-(m).

2166: \end{eqnarray*}

2167: Since $(g_j)_{j\in\N}$ is dense in $C^0(\R)$ and since for fixed $s$ the

2168: function $m\mapsto

2169: \phi(\gamma(s)) + \te(s,m)$ is a homeomorphism it follows that

2170: \begin{eqnarray*}

2171:   \int_{I(s)} g(\hat{S}(m))\,df_s^+(m) &=&

2172:   \int_{I(s)} g(m)\,df_s^-(m)

2173: \end{eqnarray*}

2174: for all $g\in C^0(\R)$. Therefore $\hat{S}$ pushes $f_s^+$ forward to $f_s^-$.

2175: The monotonicity of $\hat{S}$ follows from the monotonicity of $S$. By \cite[Theorem 3.1]{Amb}

2176: the map $\hat{S}$ is the unique monotone transport map from $f_s^+$ to

2177: $f_s^-$.

2178: \end{proof}

2179: 

2180: 

2181: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:eff-mass-balance}

2182: Let $\gamma\in \Gamma_\eps$ as in Remark \ref{rem:arclength-curves}.

2183: Then for almost all $s\in E$ with $l^+(s)>0$ we

2184: obtain that

2185: \begin{gather}

2186:   \big|\psi\big(s,\te(s,m)\big)-

2187:   S\big(\psi\big(s,\te(s,m)\big)\big)\big|

2188:   \,\geq\, \te(s,m)-\te(s,m-M(s))

2189:   \label{eq:esti-t-diffs} 

2190: \end{gather}

2191: for all $0<m<M(s)$.

2192: \end{lemma}

2193: \begin{proof}

2194: We let $\hat{S}$ be as in \eqref{eq:def-s-hat}.

2195: Using the monotonicity of $\te(s,.)$ we obtain

2196: \begin{align}

2197:   \big|\psi\big(s,\te(s,m)\big)-

2198:   S\big(\psi\big(s,\te(s,m)\big)\big)\big|

2199:   &= \big|\psi\big(s,\te(s,m)\big)-

2200:   \psi\big(s,\te(s,\hat{S}(m))\big)\big|\notag\\

2201:   &= \te(s,m)-\te(s,\hat{S}(m)).\label{eq:t-diff}

2202: \end{align}

2203: By Proposition \ref{prop:mass-balance} the map $\hat{S}$ is the unique monotone

2204: transport map from $f_s^+$ to $f^-_s$. In particular

2205: \begin{gather}

2206:   f^-_s\big(\big[\hat{S}(m),\hat{S}(M(s))\big]\big)

2207:   \,=\,   f^+_s\big([m,M(s)]\big)\label{eq:eq-opt-fs}

2208: \end{gather}

2209: holds. Since $f^+_s$ restricted to the set $[0,M(s)]$ coincides

2210: with the Lebesgue measure and since $0\leq f^-_s,f^+_s\leq \LL^1$ we deduce from

2211: \eqref{eq:eq-opt-fs} that

2212: \begin{gather}

2213:   \hat{S}(M(s))-\hat{S}(m)\,\geq M(s)-m\label{eq:eq-opt-fs2}

2214: \end{gather}

2215: for any $0\leq m\leq M(s)$. The value $\hat{S}(M(s))$ is

2216: less or equal than zero since $\hat{S}$ is decreasing and maps onto the

2217: support of 

2218: $f^-_s$. This implies by \eqref{eq:eq-opt-fs2} that \mbox{$\hat{S}(m)\leq

2219: m-M(s)$}. By the montonicity of $\te_s$ we deduce

2220: \begin{gather*}

2221:   \te(s,m)-\te(s,\hat{S}(m))\,\geq\,

2222:   \te(s,m)-\te(s,m-M(s)).

2223: \end{gather*}

2224: Together with \eqref{eq:t-diff} this proves \eqref{eq:esti-t-diffs}.

2225: \end{proof}

2226: 

2227: By Lemma \ref{prop:lip-l>c} the ray directions vary Lipschitz

2228: continuously on sets where the positive and negative ray lengths are

2229: bounded from below. We obtain a Lipschitz bound also on sets

2230: where $M(\cdot)$ is bounded from below.

2231: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:lip-mass>c}

2232: Let $\gamma\in \Gamma_\eps$ be as in Remark \ref{rem:arclength-curves}.

2233: Then the inequality

2234: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:est-l-m}

2235:   \sin\beta(s) \min\big( L^+(s),|L^-(s)|\big) &\geq& \frac{\eps}{2} M(s)

2236: \end{eqnarray}

2237: holds. In particular, for all $0<\kappa<1$ the function $\alpha$ is

2238: Lipschitz continuous on the set 

2239: $\{s: M(s)\geq (1-\kappa)\}$ and

2240: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:lip-bound-m>0}

2241:   |\alphaprime(s)| &\leq& \frac{2}{\eps(1-\kappa)}

2242: \end{eqnarray}

2243: holds for almost all $s\in \R$ with $M(s)\geq (1-\kappa)$.

2244: \end{lemma}

2245: \begin{proof}

2246: By \eqref{eq:det>0} we get that $\sin\beta(s)\geq 0$ for $s\in E$ with

2247: $l^+(s)>0$ and that $\alphaprime(s)=0$ if $\sin\beta(s)=0$. Since in the

2248: latter case \eqref{eq:est-l-m} holds it is sufficient to assume that

2249: $\sin\beta(s)>0$.

2250: We consider first the case $\alphaprime(s)\leq 0$.

2251: From \eqref{eq:def-mass} and \eqref{eq:def-Ms} we obtain

2252: \begin{eqnarray}

2253:   M(s) &=& \frac{1}{\eps}\Big(l^+(s)\sin\beta(s)

2254:   -\frac{1}{2}l^+(s)^2\alphaprime(s)\Big)\notag\\ 

2255:   &\leq&

2256:   \frac{\sin\beta(s)}{\eps}l^+(s)-\frac{\sin\beta(s)}{\eps}

2257:   \cdot\frac{l^+(s)^2}{2L^-(s)}.\label{eq:eff-mass-est1}   

2258: \end{eqnarray}

2259: By Proposition \ref{prop:mass-balance} the estimate

2260: \begin{gather*}

2261:   M(s)\,=\, f_s^+((0,M(s))\,\leq\,  f^-_s\big(I(s)\cap (L^-(s),0]\big)

2262: \end{gather*}

2263: holds and we deduce that

2264: \begin{eqnarray}

2265:   M(s) &\leq&

2266:   \int_{L^-(s)}^0\frac{1}{\eps}\big(\sin\beta(s)-t\alphaprime(s)\big)\,dt\notag\\ 

2267:   &\leq& \frac{|L^-(s)|}{\eps}\sin\beta(s)\notag\\

2268:   &=&

2269:   -\frac{\sin\beta(s)}{\eps}L^-(s).\label{eq:eff-mass-est5} 

2270: \end{eqnarray}

2271: Together with \eqref{eq:eff-mass-est1} we deduce

2272: \begin{eqnarray*}

2273:   M(s) &\leq& \frac{\sin\beta(s)}{\eps}l^+(s) + \frac{1}{2M(s)}\Big(\frac{\sin\beta(s)}{\eps}l^+(s)\Big)^2.

2274: \end{eqnarray*}

2275: Therefore $\xi=\frac{\sin\beta(s)}{\eps}l^+(s)$ satisfies the inequality

2276: \begin{eqnarray*}

2277:  \xi^2 +2M(s)\xi-2M(s)^2 &\geq & 0

2278: \end{eqnarray*}

2279: and we obtain that

2280: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:eff-mass-est2}

2281:   \frac{\sin\beta(s)}{\eps}l^+(s)&\geq&(\sqrt{3}-1)M(s).

2282: \end{eqnarray}

2283: Together with \eqref{eq:eff-mass-est5} and $l^+(s)\leq L^+(s)$

2284: this proves \eqref{eq:est-l-m} in the case that $\alphaprime(s)\leq0$.\\

2285: Next we assume that $\alphaprime(s)>0$. From

2286: \eqref{eq:def-mass}, \eqref{eq:def-Ms} we observe that

2287: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:eff-mass-est4}

2288:   M(s) &\leq& \frac{1}{\eps}L^+(s)\sin\beta(s).

2289: \end{eqnarray}

2290: To prove \eqref{eq:est-l-m} also for $L^-(s)$ let us assume---without loss 

2291: of generality---that

2292: $|L^-(s)|\leq \frac{\eps}{\sin\beta(s)}M(s)$. We then deduce that

2293: \begin{gather}

2294:   |L^-(s)|\,\leq\, L^+(s)\label{eq:ass-l+-}

2295: \end{gather}

2296: and compute

2297: \begin{eqnarray*}

2298:   M(s) &\leq& \int_{L^-(s)}^0 v_\eps(\psi(s,t))\big(\sin\beta(s)

2299:   -t\alphaprime(s)\big)\,dt\notag\\

2300:   &\leq& \int_{L^-(s)}^0 \frac{1}{\eps}\big(\sin\beta(s)

2301:   -L^-(s)\alphaprime(s)\big)\,dt\,=\,\frac{|L^-(s)|}{\eps}\big(\sin\beta(s)

2302:   -L^-(s)\alphaprime(s)\big).

2303: \end{eqnarray*}

2304: By \eqref{eq:ass-l+-} and \eqref{eq:det>0} we deduce that

2305: \begin{gather*}

2306:    M(s) \,\leq\, \frac{|L^-(s)|}{\eps}\big(\sin\beta(s)

2307:   +L^+(s)\alphaprime(s)\big)\,\leq\,2|L^-(s)|\frac{\sin\beta(s)}{\eps}.

2308: \end{gather*}

2309: Together with \eqref{eq:eff-mass-est4} this proves \eqref{eq:est-l-m} in

2310: the case $\alphaprime(s)>0$. 

2311: 

2312: The estimate \eqref{eq:lip-bound-m>0} follows from \eqref{eq:est-l-m}

2313: and \eqref{eq:det>0}.

2314: \end{proof}

2315: %===============================================================

2316: % estimate from below

2317: %===============================================================

2318: \subsection{Estimate from below}

2319: \label{subsec:est-below}

2320: Let $S$ be the optimal transport map and $\phi\in \Lip_1(\R^2)$

2321: be an 

2322: optimal Kantorovich potential for the mass transport from $u_\eps$ to

2323: $v_\eps$ as in Proposition 

2324: \ref{prop:add-prop}. 

2325: 

2326: Using Lemma \ref{lem-mass} and Lemma \ref{lem:eff-mass-balance}

2327: we obtain for the

2328: \Wasserstein distance between $u$ to $v$ that

2329: \begin{eqnarray}

2330:   d_1(u,v) &=&\int_{\R^2} |x-S(x)|u_\eps(x)\,dx\notag\\

2331:   &=& \sum_{i=1}^N\int_0^{L_i}\int_0^{M_i(s)}

2332:   \big|\psi_i(s,\te_i(s,m))-S

2333:   \big(\psi_i(s,\te_i(s,m))\big|\,dm\,ds\notag\\  

2334:   &\geq& \sum_{i=1}^N\int_0^{L_i}\int_0^{M_i(s)}\bigl[

2335:   \te_i(s,m) -

2336:   \te_i(s,m-M_i(s))\bigr]\,dm.\label{eq:cost-1} 

2337: \end{eqnarray}

2338: We further estimate the right-hand side of this inequality.

2339: 

2340: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:stand-trans-est}

2341: Let $\Gamma_\eps$ be a disjoint system of curves parametrized by

2342: arclength as in Remark \ref{rem:arclength-curves} and let $\gamma\in

2343: \Gamma_\eps$.

2344: Then we obtain for all $s\in E$ with $l^+(s)>0$ and

2345: $\sin\beta(s)>0$ that

2346: \begin{align}

2347:   &\int_0^{M(s)} \bigl[\te(s,m) -

2348:   \te(s,m-M(s))\bigr]\,dm\notag\\ 

2349:   =\,& \frac{\eps}{\sin\beta(s)}M(s)^2+

2350:    \frac{\eps^3}{4\sin^5\beta(s)}\alphaprime(s)^2M(s)^4 +

2351:   R(s)\eps^5,\label{eq:stand-trans-est}

2352: \end{align}

2353: where

2354: \begin{gather}

2355:   0\,\leq\, R(s)\,\leq\,

2356:   \frac{7}{9}\frac{M(s)^6}{\sin\beta(s)^9}\alphaprime(s)^4.\label{eq:est-R}

2357: \end{gather}

2358: \end{lemma}

2359: 

2360: \begin{proof}

2361: We compute for $r\in\R$

2362: \begin{eqnarray}

2363:   \int_0^r \te(s,m)\,dm &=& \int_0^r

2364:     \frac{\sin\beta(s)}{\alphaprime(s)}\Big[1- \Big(1-\frac{2\alphaprime(s)\eps} 

2365:     {\sin^2\beta(s)}m\Big)^\frac{1}{2}\Big]\, dm\notag\\

2366:   &=& \frac{\sin^3\beta(s)}{3\alphaprime(s)^2\eps}\Big[\Big(

2367:     1-\frac{2\alphaprime(s)\eps}{\sin^2\beta(s)}r\Big)^{\frac{3}{2}} 

2368:     +\frac{3\eps\alphaprime(s)}{\sin^2\beta(s)}r -1\Big]\label{eq:cost-4}

2369: \end{eqnarray}

2370: and thus

2371: \begin{align}

2372:   &\int_0^{M(s)} \bigl[\te(s,m)-

2373:   \te(s,m-M(s))\bigr]\,dm\notag\\ 

2374:   =\,&\int_0^{M(s)} \te(s,m)\, dm+ \int_0^{-M(s)}

2375:   \te(s,m)\,dm\notag\\ 

2376:   =\,&\frac{\sin^3\beta(s)}{3\alphaprime(s)^2\eps}

2377:   \Bigg[\Big(

2378:   1+\frac{2\alphaprime(s)\eps}{\sin^2\beta(s)}M(s)\Big)^{\frac{3}{2}} 

2379:     +\Big(

2380:   1-\frac{2\alphaprime(s)\eps}{\sin^2\beta(s)}M(s)\Big)^{\frac{3}{2}} 

2381:     -2\,\Bigg]\label{eq:cost-5}

2382: \end{align}

2383: By a Taylor expansion we observe that for all $\xi>0$

2384: \begin{eqnarray}

2385: \label{eq:Taylor_xi}

2386:   (1+\xi)^{\frac{3}{2}} + (1-\xi)^{\frac{3}{2}} -2 &=& \frac{3}{4}\xi^2

2387:   +\frac{3}{64}\xi^4 + \frac{7}{9}2^{-6}\zeta(\xi)^6

2388: \end{eqnarray}

2389: with $0\leq \zeta(\xi)\leq \xi$.

2390: Using this expansion in \eqref{eq:cost-5} we obtain

2391: \eqref{eq:stand-trans-est}, \eqref{eq:est-R}.

2392: \end{proof}

2393: 

2394: Putting all information together we derive the following

2395: estimate. 

2396: 

2397: \begin{proposition}\label{prop:lower-bound}

2398: Let $\partial\spt(u_\eps)$ be given by a disjoint system $\Gamma_\eps$

2399: of closed curves parametrized by arclength as in Remark

2400: \ref{rem:arclength-curves}. Then the lower bound

2401: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:lower-bound}

2402:   \G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps) &\geq& \sum_{i=1}^N\int_0^{L_i}

2403:   \left[\frac{1}{\eps^2}\Big(\frac{1}{\sin\beta_i(s)}-1\Big)M_i(s)^2 

2404:   +\frac{1}{\eps^2}\big(M_i(s)-1\big)^2\right]\,ds \notag\\

2405:   &&+\sum_{i=1}^N\int_0^{L_i}\frac{1}{4\sin\beta_i(s)}

2406:   \Big(\frac{M_i(s)}{\sin\beta_i(s)}\Big)^4\alphaprime_i(s)^2\,ds  

2407: \end{eqnarray}

2408: holds.

2409: \end{proposition}

2410: 

2411: \begin{proof}

2412: Since $L_i=L(\gamma_i)$ and by \eqref{eq:tot-mass} we obtain that

2413: \begin{gather*}

2414:   \eps\int_{\R^2}|\nabla u_\eps| \,=\, \sum_{i=1}^N L_i\qquad\text{and}\qquad

2415:   1\,=\, \int_{\R^2} u_\eps \,=\, \sum_{i=1}^N\int_0^{L_i} M_i(s)\,ds.

2416: \end{gather*}

2417: From \eqref{eq:cost-1} and Lemma \ref{lem:stand-trans-est} we therefore obtain

2418: \begin{align*}

2419:   \G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)

2420:   \;\geq\;& \sum_{i=1}^N\int_0^{L_i}\Big(\frac{1}{\eps^2\sin\beta_i(s)}M_i(s)^2

2421:    -\frac{2}{\eps^2}M_i(s)

2422:   +\frac{1}{\eps^2}\Big) \\

2423:   & +\sum_{i=1}^N\int_0^{L_i}

2424:   \frac{1}{4\sin^5\beta_i(s)} 

2425:   \alphaprime_i(s)^2M_i(s)^4,

2426: \end{align*}

2427: and observing that

2428: \begin{align*}

2429:   \frac{1}{\sin\beta_i(s)}M_i(s)^2 -2M_i(s) + 1 \,=\,

2430:   \Big(\frac{1}{\sin\beta_i(s)}-1\Big)M_i(s)^2

2431:   +\big(M_i(s)-1\big)^2 

2432: \end{align*}

2433: the estimate \eqref{eq:lower-bound} follows.

2434: \end{proof}

2435: %===============================================================

2436: % Convergence and lower-semicontinuity

2437: %===============================================================

2438: \subsection{Compactness of the boundary curves and proof of the lim-inf

2439:   estimate} 

2440: \label{subsec:conv}

2441: In this subsection we prove that the boundaries of $\spt(u_\eps)$ 

2442: converge

2443: to a system of closed curves which satisfies the

2444: lim-inf estimate. We later identify this limit with the limit of

2445: $u_\eps\LL^2$.

2446: 

2447: Let $\partial\spt(u_\eps)$ be given by a system of closed curves

2448: $\Gamma_{\eps}=\{\gamma_{\eps,i}\}_{i=1,...,N(\eps)}$ 

2449: parametrized by arclength as in Remark \ref{rem:arclength-curves}. In

2450: particular we recall that \mbox{$L_{\eps,i}=L(\gamma_{\eps,i})$}.

2451: 

2452: The total length of the boundary of $\spt(u_\eps)$ is given by

2453: $|\Gamma_{\eps}|$ and we obtain from

2454: \eqref{eq:bound-G-eps} and \eqref{eq:lower-bound}

2455: \begin{gather}

2456:   |\Gamma_{\eps}|\,=\,\sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)} L_{\eps,i}\,=\, \eps\int_{\R^2}|\nabla

2457:   u_\eps|\,\leq\, 2+\eps^2 \G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)\,\leq\, 2+\eps^2\Lambda.

2458:   \label{eq:bound-boundaries}

2459: \end{gather}

2460: This implies the convergence of the measures $\eps |\nabla u_\eps|

2461: =\mu_{\Gamma_\eps}$ as Radon measures on $\R^2$ for a subsequence

2462: $\eps\to 0$. 

2463: 

2464: We first define modified curves $\tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}$ which are

2465: uniformly bounded in 

2466: $W^{2,2}\big(0,L_{\eps,i}\big)$.

2467: % as we will prove in Lemma\ref{lem:mod-curves}.

2468: 

2469: \begin{definition}\label{def:mod-curves}

2470: Let $\gamma\in \Gamma_\eps$ and $0<\lambda<1$.

2471: Choose a periodic Lipschitz continuous function

2472: $\tilde{\alpha}_{\eps,i}:\R\to\R\modulo 2\pi$ with period $L_{\eps,i}$ such that

2473: \begin{align}

2474:   \tilde{\alpha}_{\eps,i}\,&=\,\alpha_{\eps,i}\quad\text{ on }\quad 

2475:   \{s\in \R\,:\, M_{\eps,i}(s)\geq 1-\lambda\},\label{eq:ext-equal}\\

2476:   |\tilde{\alpha}_{\eps,i}^\prime| \,&\leq\,

2477:   \frac{2}{\eps(1-\lambda)}\label{eq:ext-curv-bound}

2478: \end{align} 

2479: and set

2480: \begin{gather*}

2481:   \tilde{\theta}_{\eps,i} \,=\, \begin{pmatrix}

2482:     \cos \alpha_{\eps,i}\\

2483:     \sin \alpha_{\eps,i}

2484:   \end{pmatrix},

2485:   \qquad

2486:   \tilde{\theta}_{\eps,i}^\perp \,=\, \begin{pmatrix}

2487:     \sin \alpha_{\eps,i}\\

2488:     -\cos \alpha_{\eps,i}

2489:   \end{pmatrix}.

2490: \end{gather*}

2491: We then define $\tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}:\R\to\R^2$ to be the curve which satisfies

2492: \begin{eqnarray}

2493:   \tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}(0) &=&

2494:   \gamma_{\eps,i}(0),\label{eq:new-curve-0}\\

2495:   \tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}^\prime(s) &=& \tilde{\theta}_{\eps,i}^\perp(s)

2496:   \quad\text{ for all }s\in\R.\label{eq:new-curve-tan}

2497: \end{eqnarray}

2498: \end{definition}

2499: \begin{remark}

2500: By Proposition \ref{prop:lip-l>c} the

2501: function $\alpha_{\eps,i}$ is Lipschitz continuous on the set

2502: $\{M_{\eps,i}>1-\lambda\}$. By Kirszbraun's Theorem and

2503: \eqref{eq:lip-bound-m>0} 

2504: an extension $\tilde{\alpha}_{\eps,i}$ as in Definition

2505: \ref{def:mod-curves} exists.

2506: 

2507: The curves $\tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}$ are not necessarily closed (or, equivalently, the functions $\tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}$ are not necessarily periodic);

2508: the restriction $\tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}|_{[0,L_{\eps,i})}$ may also

2509: have self-intersections. However the \emph{tangents} of these

2510: curves, the functions

2511: $\tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}^\prime$, are periodic with period~$L_{\eps,i}$.

2512: \end{remark}

2513: 

2514: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:mod-curves}

2515: Let $\eps>0$, $0<\lambda<1$, $1\leq p\leq 2$, and consider for $i\in \{1,...,N(\eps)\}$

2516: functions

2517: $\tilde{\alpha}_{\eps,i}$ and modified curves $\tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}$

2518: as in Definition \ref{def:mod-curves}. Then there exists a constant

2519: $C(\lambda,\Lambda)$, which is independent of $\eps$, such that

2520: \begin{align}

2521:   \sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)} \int_0^{L_{\eps,i}}

2522:   |\gamma_{\eps,i}^\prime(s)-\tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}^\prime(s)|\, ds &\leq

2523:   \, \eps C(\lambda,\Lambda)

2524: %2 \eps (1-\lambda)^{-1} (1+\eps^2\Lambda)^{1/2}\Lambda^{1/2} +\eps^2\lambda^{-2}\Lambda

2525:   \label{eq:mod-curves-1}\\

2526:   \sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)} \int_0^{L_{\eps,i}}

2527:   |\tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}^{\prime\prime}(s)|^2\,ds

2528:   &\leq\, C(\lambda,\Lambda),

2529:   \label{eq:mod-curves-2}\\

2530:   \sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)} \int_0^{L_{\eps,i}}

2531:   |\tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}^{\prime\prime}(s)|^p\,ds

2532:   &\leq\, \Big[\sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)}L_{\eps,i}\Big]^{1-\frac{p}{2}}

2533:   \Big[4(1-\lambda)^{-4} \G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)\Big]^{\frac{p}{2}}\notag\\

2534:   &\qquad{}+  4\lambda^{-2}(1-\lambda)^{-2}\eps^{2-p}\G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps).

2535:   \label{eq:mod-curves-3}

2536: \end{align}

2537: \end{lemma}

2538: \begin{proof}

2539: Dropping the indexes $\eps,i$ for a moment and letting

2540: $\theta(s)^\perp = (\sin \alpha(s),-\cos \alpha(s))^T$ we compute

2541: that 

2542: \begin{eqnarray}

2543:   \int_0^L |\gamma^\prime(s)-\tilde{\gamma}^\prime(s)|\,ds &\leq&

2544:   \int_0^L \Chi_{\{M\geq 1-\lambda\}}(s) \Big|\gamma^\prime(s) -

2545:   \theta(s)^\perp  \Big|\, ds\notag\\

2546:   &&+ 2\int_0^L \Chi_{\{M< 1-\lambda\}}(s)\,ds\label{eq:diff-gamma-prime}

2547: \end{eqnarray}

2548: and 

2549: \begin{align*}

2550:   & |\gamma^\prime(s) - \theta(s)^\perp|^2

2551:   \,=\, 2-2\gamma^\prime(s)\cdot \theta(s)^\perp\\

2552:   =\,& 2- 2\det \big(\gamma^\prime(s),\theta(s)\big)\,=\,

2553:   2\sin\beta(s)\Big(\frac{1}{\sin\beta(s)} -1\Big),

2554: \end{align*}

2555: which implies

2556: \begin{gather}

2557: \int_0^L \Chi_{\{M\geq 1-\lambda\}}(s) \Big|\gamma^\prime(s) -

2558:   \theta(s)^\perp  \Big|^2\, ds  \leq\,

2559:   2(1-\lambda)^{-2}\int_0^L \Big(\frac{1}{\sin\beta(s)}

2560:   -1\Big)M(s)^2\,ds.\label{eq:diff-g-p1}

2561: \end{gather}

2562: Moreover we calculate

2563: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:diff-g-p2}

2564:   \int_0^L \Chi_{\{M< 1-\lambda\}}(s)\,ds &\leq&

2565:   \eps^2\lambda^{-2}\int_0^L \frac{1}{\eps^2}\big(1-M(s)\big)^2\,ds.

2566: \end{eqnarray}

2567: By \eqref{eq:diff-g-p1}, \eqref{eq:diff-g-p2} we obtain from

2568: \eqref{eq:diff-gamma-prime} that

2569: \begin{eqnarray*}

2570:   \int_0^L |\gamma^\prime(s)-\tilde{\gamma}^\prime(s)|\,ds &\leq&

2571:   \sqrt{2L}\eps(1-\lambda)^{-1}\Big( \int_0^L \frac{1}{\eps^2}\Big(\frac{1}{\sin\beta(s)}

2572:   -1\Big)M(s)^2\,ds\Big)^{1/2}\\

2573:   &&+ \eps^2\lambda^{-2}\int_0^L \frac{1}{\eps^2}\big(1-M(s)\big)^2\,ds.

2574: \end{eqnarray*}

2575: Summing the corresponding inequalities for $i=1,...,N(\eps)$, and using

2576: H\"older's inequality, we deduce

2577: that

2578: \begin{align}

2579:   \sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)}&\int_0^{L_{\eps,i}}

2580:  |\gamma_{\eps,i}^\prime(s)-\tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}^\prime(s)|\,ds\notag\\

2581:  &\leq

2582:   \sqrt{2}\eps(1-\lambda)^{-1}\Big(\sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)}L_i\Big)^{1/2}

2583:   \Big( \sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)}\int_0^{L_{\eps,i}} \frac{1}{\eps^2}\Big(\frac{1}{\sin\beta_{\eps,i}(s)}

2584:   -1\Big)M_{\eps,i}(s)^2\,ds\Big)^{1/2}\notag\\

2585:   &\qquad+ \eps^2\lambda^{-2}\sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)}\int_0^{L_{\eps,i}}

2586:  \frac{1}{\eps^2}\big(1-M_{\eps,i}(s)\big)^2\,ds.\\ 

2587:  &\leq

2588:   \sqrt{2}\eps(1-\lambda)^{-1}\Big(\sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)}L_i\Big)^{1/2}

2589:   \Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}} + \eps^2\lambda^{-2}\Lambda,\label{eq:aux-mod-curves}

2590: \end{align}

2591: where we have used \eqref{eq:bound-G-eps} and \eqref{eq:lower-bound}. By \eqref{eq:bound-boundaries}

2592: the inequality \eqref{eq:mod-curves-1} follows from \eqref{eq:aux-mod-curves}.\\

2593: Dropping indexes $\eps,i$ again we obtain that

2594: \begin{eqnarray}

2595:   \int_0^L |\tilde{\gamma}^{\prime\prime}(s)|^p\,ds

2596:   &=& \int_0^L \Chi_{\{M\geq 1-\lambda\}}(s) |\alphaprime(s)|^p\, ds\notag\\

2597:   &&\qquad+ \int_0^L \Chi_{\{M<

2598:   1-\lambda\}}(s)|\tilde{\alpha}^\prime(s)|^p\,ds\notag\\

2599:   &\leq& L^{1-\frac{p}{2}}\Big[4(1-\lambda)^{-4}\int_0^L

2600:   \frac{1}{4\sin\beta(s)}\Big(\frac{M(s)}{\sin\beta(s)}\Big)^4|\alphaprime(s)|^2\,ds\Big]^{\frac{p}{2}}

2601:   \notag\\

2602:   && \qquad{}+4(1-\lambda)^{-2}\frac{1}{\eps^p}\int_0^L \Chi_{\{M<

2603:   1-\lambda\}}(s)\,ds,\notag

2604: \end{eqnarray}

2605: where we have used \eqref{eq:ext-curv-bound} in the last inequality. We

2606: can further estimate the second term on the right-hand side by

2607: \eqref{eq:diff-g-p2},

2608: \begin{gather*}

2609:   4(1-\lambda)^{-2}\frac{1}{\eps^p}\int_0^L \Chi_{\{M<

2610:   1-\lambda\}}(s)\,ds\,\leq\, 4\lambda^{-2}(1-\lambda)^{-2}\eps^{2-p}\int_0^L

2611:   \frac{1}{\eps^2}(1-M(s))^2\,ds.

2612: \end{gather*}

2613: Putting everything together and summing over $i=1,...,N(\eps)$ we obtain

2614: \begin{eqnarray*}

2615:   \sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)}\int_0^{L_{\eps,i}} |\tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}^{\prime\prime}(s)|^p\,ds

2616:   &\leq& \Big[\sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)}L_{\eps,i}\Big]^{1-\frac{p}{2}}

2617:   \Big[4(1-\lambda)^{-4} \G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)\Big]^{\frac{p}{2}}\\

2618:   &&\qquad {}+  4\lambda^{-2}(1-\lambda)^{-2}\eps^{2-p}\G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)

2619: \end{eqnarray*}

2620: which is \eqref{eq:mod-curves-3}. Setting  $p=2$

2621: and using \eqref{eq:bound-G-eps} the estimate \eqref{eq:mod-curves-2} follows.

2622: \end{proof}

2623: 

2624: The next result shows that those curves $\gamma_{\eps,i}$ that

2625: are `too short' do not contribute to the limit.

2626: 

2627: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:density}

2628: There exists $\delta=\delta(\Lambda)$ and $C=C(\Lambda)$ independent of

2629: $\eps$ such that

2630: for the index set

2631: \begin{eqnarray*}

2632:   J(\eps) &:=& \big\{i\in \{1,...,N(\eps)\} : L_{\eps,i} \leq\delta\big\}

2633: \end{eqnarray*}

2634: the estimate

2635: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:density}

2636:   \sum_{i\in J(\eps)} L_{i,\eps} &\leq& \eps C(\Lambda)

2637: \end{eqnarray}

2638: holds.

2639: \end{lemma}

2640: 

2641: \begin{proof}

2642: Let $\eps>0$ and $i\in J(\eps)$ be fixed and consider

2643: $\tilde{\alpha}_{\eps,i}$ and $\tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}$ as in Definition

2644: \ref{def:mod-curves} with $\lambda=1/2$. We drop for a moment the indexes $\eps,i$.

2645: We then have

2646: \begin{eqnarray}

2647:   L &=& \int_0^L |\tilde{\gamma}^\prime(s)|^2\,ds\notag\\

2648:   &=& \int_0^L \tilde{\gamma}^\prime(s)\cdot \big(\tilde{\gamma}(s)-\tilde{\gamma}(0)\big)^\prime\,ds\notag\\

2649:   &=& -\int_0^L \tilde{\gamma}^{\prime\prime}(s)\big(\tilde{\gamma}(s)-\tilde{\gamma}(0)\big)\,ds+

2650:   \tilde{\gamma}^\prime(L)\cdot \big(\tilde{\gamma}(L)-\tilde{\gamma}(0)\big)\notag\\

2651:   &\leq& \int_0^L s |\tilde{\gamma}^{\prime\prime}(s)|\,ds+

2652:   \Big|\int_0^L \bigl(\tilde{\gamma}^\prime(s)-\gamma^\prime(s)\bigr)\,ds \Big|\notag\\

2653:   &\leq& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}L^{3/2}\Big(\int_0^L |\tilde{\gamma}^{\prime\prime}(s)|^2\,ds\Big)^{1/2}

2654:   + \int_0^L \big| \tilde{\gamma}^\prime(s)-\gamma^\prime(s)\big|\,ds. \label{eq:proof-dens-1}

2655: \end{eqnarray}

2656: Summing the corresponding inequalities over $i\in J(\eps)$ and using

2657: \eqref{eq:mod-curves-1} and \eqref{eq:mod-curves-2} we obtain with the

2658: H\"older inequality

2659: \begin{eqnarray*}

2660:   \sum_{i\in J(\eps)} L_{\eps,i} &\leq& 

2661:   C(\Lambda)\Big(\sum_{i\in J(\eps)} L_{\eps,i}^3\Big)^{1/2}\Lambda +

2662:   \eps C(\Lambda)\\

2663:   &\leq& {\delta} \Big(\sum_{i\in J(\eps)} L_{\eps,i}\Big)C(\Lambda) +

2664:   \eps C(\Lambda)\\

2665:   &\leq& \frac{1}{2}\Big(\sum_{i\in J(\eps)} L_{\eps,i}\Big) +

2666:   \eps C(\Lambda)

2667: \end{eqnarray*}

2668: for $\delta=\delta(\Lambda)$ small enough. This proves \eqref{eq:density}.

2669: \end{proof}

2670: 

2671: \begin{proposition}\label{prop:conv-interface}

2672: There exists a

2673: subsequence $\eps\to 0$ and a $W^{2,2}$-system

2674: $\Gamma=\{c_i, i=1,...,N_1\}$ of closed curves without transversal crossings 

2675: such that

2676: \begin{eqnarray}

2677:   \eps|\nabla u_\eps| &\to& \mu_{\Gamma}\label{eq:conv-nabla-ue}

2678: \end{eqnarray}

2679: as measures on $\R^2$. Moreover $\Gamma$ has even \multiplicity and satisfies

2680: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:willmore-1}

2681:  \W(\Gamma) &\leq& 2\liminf_{\eps\to 0} \G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps).

2682: \end{eqnarray}

2683: \end{proposition}

2684: 

2685: \begin{proof}

2686: By Lemma \ref{lem:density} we can, without

2687: loss of generality, assume that $L_{\eps,i}> \delta(\Lambda)$ for

2688: all $\eps,i$. We then deduce that the number of curves $N(\eps)$ is

2689: bounded uniformly in $\eps$.

2690: Next we consider the reparametrized one-periodic functions

2691: $c_{\eps,i}:\R\to\R^2$ defined by 

2692: \begin{gather*}

2693:   c_{\eps,i}(r)\,:=\, \gamma_{\eps,i}(L_{\eps,i}r)\quad\text{ for

2694:   }r\in\R.

2695: \end{gather*}

2696: Since the functions $c_{\eps,i}$ are Lipschitz continuous with uniformly

2697: bounded Lipschitz constant, and since $L_{\eps,i}$ are bounded from above 

2698: and away from zero, there exists a subsequence

2699: $\eps\to 0$, a number $N_1\in\N$ and

2700: \begin{gather*}

2701:   L_i>0,\, 

2702:   c_i:\R\to\R^2,\quad i=1,...,N_1,

2703: \end{gather*}

2704: such that for all $i\in\{1,...,N_1\}$ the functions $c_i$ are Lipschitz

2705: continuous and

2706: \begin{eqnarray}

2707:   N(\eps) &=& N_1\quad\text{ for all }\eps>0,\notag\\

2708:   L_{\eps,i} &\to& L_i\quad\text{ as }\eps\to 0,\label{eq:conv-curve-org-L}\\

2709:   c_{\eps,i} &\to& c_i\quad\text{ in } C^{0,\sigma}(\R;\R^2)\quad\text{ as

2710:   }\eps\to 0\label{eq:conv-curve-org}

2711: \end{eqnarray}

2712: holds for all $0<\sigma<1$.

2713: In particular, the functions $c_i$ are

2714: one-periodic and  $\eps|\nabla u_\eps|$ converge as measures to

2715: $\mu_{\Gamma}$. 

2716: 

2717: We next turn to the $W^{2,2}$-bound on the limit curves $c_i$. 

2718: We fix

2719: $0<\lambda<1$ and consider for $\gamma_{\eps,i}$ modified functions

2720: $\tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}$ as in Definition \ref{def:mod-curves} and the

2721: reparametrizations $\tilde{c}_{\eps,i}$,

2722: \begin{eqnarray*}

2723:   \tilde{c}_{\eps,i}(r) &=&

2724:   \tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}(L_{\eps,i}r)\quad\text{ for }r\in\R.

2725: \end{eqnarray*}

2726: By Lemma \ref{lem:mod-curves} these curves are uniformly bounded in

2727: $W^{2,2}_{\loc}(\R;\R^2)$ and we deduce that there exists a subsequence

2728: $\eps\to 

2729: 0$ of the sequence in \eqref{eq:conv-curve-org} such that the curves

2730: $\tilde{c}_{\eps,i}$ converge weakly in $W^{2,2}_{\loc}(\R;\R^2)$ and

2731: strongly in 

2732: $C^{1,\sigma}([-K,K];\R^2)$ for all $0 <\sigma<1/2$, $K>0$. Since

2733: $c_{\eps,i}(0)=\tilde{c}_{\eps,i}(0)$ we obtain for any $r\in \R$

2734: \begin{eqnarray*}

2735:   \lim_{\eps\to 0} |c_{\eps,i}(r) -\tilde{c}_{\eps,i}(r)| &\leq&

2736:   \lim_{\eps\to 0} \Big|\int_0^r |c_{\eps,i}^\prime(\varrho)-

2737:   \tilde{c}_{\eps,i}^\prime(\varrho)|\,d\varrho\Big|\\

2738:   &\leq& \lim_{\eps\to 0}\Big(1+\frac{|r|}{L_{\eps,i}}\Big) \int_0^{L_{\eps,i}}

2739:   |\gamma_{\eps,i}^\prime(s)-

2740:   \tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}^\prime(s)|\,ds\\

2741:   &=& 0,

2742: \end{eqnarray*}

2743: where we have used \eqref{eq:mod-curves-1}, the periodicity of

2744: $c_{\eps,i}$, $\tilde{c}^\prime_{\eps,i}$ and

2745: $L_{\eps,i}\geq\delta(\Lambda)$. Therefore we can identify 

2746: the limits of $c_{\eps,i},\tilde{c}_{\eps,i}$ and deduce that

2747: \begin{alignat}{3}

2748:   \tilde{c}_{\eps,i} \,&\schwto\, c_i\quad&&\text{ weakly in }

2749:   W^{2,2}_{\loc}(\R;\R^2)\quad&&\text{ as 

2750:   }\eps\to 0,\label{eq:conv-curve-mod-W22}\\

2751:   \tilde{c}_{\eps,i} \,&\to\, c_i\quad&&\text{ in }

2752:   C^{1,\sigma}([-K,K];\R^2)\quad&&\text{ as 

2753:   }\eps\to 0,\label{eq:conv-curve-mod-C1}

2754: \end{alignat}

2755: for all $0\leq\sigma<1/2$, $K>0$. In particular $c_i\in W^{2,2}_{\loc}(\R;\R^2)$.

2756: The lower-semicontinuity of the norm under weak

2757: convergence and \eqref{eq:mod-curves-3} yield that

2758: \begin{eqnarray*}

2759:   \sum_{i=1}^{N_1} L_i^{1-2p}\int_0^1 c_i^{\prime\prime}(r)^p \,dr &\leq&

2760:   \liminf_{\eps\to 

2761:   0}\sum_{i=1}^{N_1}  L_{\eps,i}^{1-2p}\int_0^1

2762:   \tilde{c}_{\eps,i}^{\prime\prime}(r)^p \,dr\\ 

2763:   &=& \liminf_{\eps\to

2764:   0}\sum_{i=1}^{N_1}  \int_0^{L_{\eps,i}}

2765:   \tilde{\gamma}_{\eps,i}^{\prime\prime}(s)^p \,ds\\

2766:   &\leq& \Big[\sum_{i=1}^{{N_1}}L_{i}\Big]^{1-\frac{p}{2}}

2767:   \Big[4(1-\lambda)^{-4} \liminf_{\eps\to

2768:   0}\G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)\Big]^{\frac{p}{2}}

2769: \end{eqnarray*}

2770: holds for all

2771: $1\leq p<2$. Since $0<\lambda<1$ and $1\leq p<2$ are arbitrary we

2772: obtain \eqref{eq:willmore-1}.

2773: 

2774: Since the curves $c_{\eps,i}$

2775: are pairwise disjoint and have no self-intersections, by

2776: \eqref{eq:conv-curve-org} we deduce that  the curves $c_i$ have no

2777: transversal crossings.

2778: Finally we obtain for any $\eta\in C^1_c(\R^2)$ by the divergence theorem 

2779: that

2780: \begin{eqnarray*}

2781:   0 &=& \lim_{\eps\to 0} \int_{\spt(u_\eps)} \nabla\cdot\eta(x)\,dx\\

2782:   &=& \lim_{\eps\to 0} \sum_{i=1}^{N_1} \int_0^{1}

2783:   \eta(c_{\eps,i}(s))\cdot c_{\eps,i}^\prime(s)^\perp\,ds\\

2784:   &=& \sum_{i=1}^{N_1} \int_0^1 \eta(c_{i}(s))\cdot

2785:   c_i^\prime(s)^\perp\,ds\\

2786:   &=& \int_{\spt(\Gamma)} \eta(x)\cdot \Big[ \sum_{\{(i,s): c_i(s)=x\}}

2787:   \frac{1}{L_i}c_i^\prime(s)^\perp\Big]\,d\Ha^{1}(x).

2788: \end{eqnarray*}

2789: We deduce that

2790: \begin{eqnarray*}

2791:    \sum_{(i,s): c_i(s)=x} \frac{1}{L_i}c_i^\prime(s)^\perp &=& 0\quad\text{ for

2792:    }\Ha^1-\text{almost all }x\in \spt(\Gamma)

2793: \end{eqnarray*}

2794: and since $|c_i^\prime|=L_i$ and the vectors

2795: $\{c_i^\prime(s)\,:\,c_i(s)=x\}$ are collinear, this implies that

2796: $\theta_\Gamma(x)=\#\{(i,s): c_i(s)=x\}$ is even.  

2797: \end{proof}

2798: 

2799: Using results from \cite{BeM05} we deduce that $\mu_\Gamma$ as in

2800: Proposition \ref{prop:conv-interface} is given by an alternative system of curves,

2801: where each curve is passed twice.

2802: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:alt-sys}

2803: Let $\Gamma=\{c_i, i=1,...,N\}$ be a $W^{2,2}$-system of closed curves without

2804: transversal crossings and with an even \multiplicity function $\theta_{\Gamma}$. Then

2805: there exists a system of curves $\overline{\Gamma}=\{\overline\gamma_i :

2806: i=1,...,\overline{N}\}$ such that

2807: \begin{align}

2808:   \mu_\Gamma\,&=\, 2\mu_{\overline{\Gamma}},\label{eq:alt-sys-1}\\

2809:  \W(\Gamma) \,&=\, 2\W(\overline{\Gamma}),\label{eq:alt-sys-2}\\

2810:   \theta_{\Gamma} \,&=\, 2\theta_{\overline{\Gamma}}.\label{eq:alt-sys-3}

2811: \end{align}

2812: \end{lemma}

2813: 

2814: \begin{proof}

2815: This Lemma requires some machinery from geometric measure

2816: theory. For the relevant definitions of Sobolev type submanifolds,

2817: Hutchinson varifolds and the various definitions for tangential lines

2818: and \multiplicity functions see \cite{BeM05}.

2819: 

2820: By \cite{BeM05} Remark 4.9 we obtain that

2821: \begin{gather*}

2822:   f\,:=\, \theta(\Gamma,\cdot)\Chi_{\spt(\Gamma)}

2823: \end{gather*}

2824: belongs to $\mathcal{S}^2_{tg}(\R^2)$, that is the set of Sobolev-type

2825: submanifold with 

2826: the additional property that a unique tangential line exists in all points of

2827: the support.

2828: By \cite[Proposition 4.5]{BeM05} this implies that $f\in HV^2(\R^2)$ is a

2829: Hutchinson varifold such that a unique tangential line exists in all points of

2830: the support. Since the \multiplicity is even we conclude that

2831: also $\frac{1}{2}f$ belongs to $HV^2(\R^2)$ and that a unique tangential

2832: line exists in all points of the support. Using again \cite[Proposition 4.5]{BeM05}

2833: we obtain that $\frac{1}{2}f\in \mathcal{S}^2_{tg}(\R^2)$. Now

2834: \cite[Corollary 4.8]{BeM05} gives that $\frac{1}{2}f$ is given by a

2835: $W^{2,2}$-system $\overline{\Gamma}=\{\overline\gamma_i :

2836: i=1,...,\overline{N}\}$ of closed curves without transversal crossings. This implies

2837: \eqref{eq:alt-sys-1}. Equations \eqref{eq:alt-sys-2} and

2838: \eqref{eq:alt-sys-3} are an immediate consequence.

2839: \end{proof} 

2840: 

2841: We next show that the limit of the boundaries of the support of

2842: $u_\eps$ and the limit of the mass distributions $u_\eps$ are identical.

2843: 

2844: \begin{proposition}\label{prop:lim-mass}

2845: For a system of curves $\Gamma$ as obtained in Proposition

2846: \ref{prop:conv-interface} and the measure $\mu$ in \eqref{eq:conv-ue} we have

2847: \begin{gather*}

2848:   \mu_\Gamma\,=\, \mu.

2849: \end{gather*}

2850: In particular, \eqref{eq:conv-nabla-ue} holds for the whole sequence

2851: $\eps\to 0$.

2852: \end{proposition}

2853: 

2854: \begin{proof}

2855: Let $\partial\spt(u_\eps)$ be given by a system of closed curves

2856: $\Gamma_\eps=\{\gamma_{\eps,i}\}_{i=1,...,N(\eps)}$ as in Remark

2857: \ref{rem:arclength-curves}. 

2858: defined in Definition \ref{def:para} we obtain from Lemma \ref{lem:trafo-formula} that

2859: for all $\eta\in C^1_c(\R^{2};R^+_0)$

2860: \begin{align}

2861:   &\Big|\int_{\R^2} \eta u_\eps -\int_{\R^2} \eta \eps|\nabla u_\eps|\,\Big|\notag\\

2862:   =\,& \Bigg|

2863:   \sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)}\int_0^{L_{\eps,i}}\Big( \int_0^{M_{\eps,i}(s)}

2864:   \eta\big(\gamma_{\eps,i}(s)+\te_{\eps,i}(s,m)\theta_{\eps,i}(s)\big)\,dm

2865:   -\eta\big(\gamma_{\eps,i}(s)\big)\Big)\,ds\;\Bigg|\notag\\

2866:   \leq\,& \sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)}\int_0^{L_{\eps,i}}

2867:   \big|M_{\eps,i}(s)-1\big|\eta\big(\gamma_{\eps,i}(s)\big)\,ds\notag\\

2868:   &+ \sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)}\int_0^{L_{\eps,i}}\int_0^{M_{\eps,i}(s)}

2869:   \Big|\eta\big(\gamma_{\eps,i}(s)+\te_{\eps,i}(s,m)\theta_{\eps,i}(s)\big)-

2870:   \eta\big(\gamma_{\eps,i}(s)\big)\Big|\,dm\,ds\notag\\  

2871:   \leq\,& \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)}\int_0^{L_{\eps,i}}

2872:   \big(M_{\eps,i}(s)-1\big)^2\,ds\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big(\sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)}\int_0^{L_{\eps,i}}

2873:   \eta\big(\gamma_{\eps,i}(s)\big)^2\,ds\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\notag\\

2874:   &+\|\eta\|_{C^1(\R^{2})}\sum_{i=1}^{N(\eps)}\int_0^{L_{\eps,i}}\int_0^{M_{\eps,i}(s)}

2875:   \te_{\eps,i}(s,m)\,dm\,ds\notag\\

2876:   \leq\,& \eps \G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps)^{\frac{1}{2}}2\|\eta\|_{C^0(\R^{2})}+

2877:   \|\eta\|_{C^1(\R^{2})}d_1(u_\eps,v_\eps), 

2878:   \label{eq:proof-conv-20}

2879: \end{align}

2880: where we have used \eqref{eq:cost-1}. We observe that by

2881: \eqref{eq:bound-G-eps}

2882: \begin{gather*}

2883:   \frac{1}{\eps} d_1(u_\eps,v_\eps)\,\leq\, 2 +\eps^2 \Lambda

2884: \end{gather*}

2885: and we deduce from \eqref{eq:proof-conv-20} that

2886: \begin{gather*}

2887:   \Big|\int_{\R^{2}} \eta u_\eps -\int_{\R^2} \eta \eps|\nabla u_\eps|\,\Big|

2888:   \,\leq\, \eps \Big(2\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}\|\eta\|_{C^0(\R^{2})}+

2889:   (2+\eps^2\Lambda)\|\eta\|_{C^1(\R^{2})}\Big) 

2890: \end{gather*}

2891: This shows that

2892: \begin{gather*}

2893:   \mu\,=\, \lim_{\eps\to 0}u_\eps\LL^2\,=\,\lim_{\eps\to 0}\eps|\nabla

2894:   u_\eps| \,=\, \mu_\Gamma

2895: \end{gather*}

2896: in the sense of convergence as measures.

2897: \end{proof}

2898: The proof of the lim-inf estimate now follows: 

2899: by  Proposition \ref{prop:conv-interface} there exists a system

2900: of curves $\Gamma$ of even \multiplicity such that 

2901: \[

2902: \frac{1}{2}\W(\Gamma) \leq \liminf_{\eps\to 0} \G_\eps(u_\eps,v_\eps).

2903: \]

2904: By Lemma \ref{lem:alt-sys} there is an alternative system of curves

2905: $\tilde \Gamma$, of integer \multiplicity, such that $\mu_\Gamma =

2906: 2\mu_{\tilde\Gamma}$ 

2907: and $\W(\Gamma) = 2\W(\tilde \Gamma)$. This second system $\tilde \Gamma$

2908: is the system referred to in Theorem~\ref{the:main} as $\Gamma$. Finally, 

2909: Proposition~\ref{prop:lim-mass} guarantees that 

2910: $\mu_\Gamma = 2\mu_{\tilde\Gamma}$ is the limit of the sequence 

2911: $(u_\e,v_\e)$ in the appropriate sense (see \eqref{eq:conv-ue}).

2912: 

2913: %========================================================================

2914: % limsup estimate

2915: %========================================================================

2916: \section{The limsup estimate}

2917: \label{sec:limsup}

2918: %

2919: \subsection{The heart of the construction}

2920: Let us first perform the lim-sup construction in the case that $\mu=2\mu_{\Gamma}$,

2921: where $\Gamma$ consists of one simple curve.

2922: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:single-curve}

2923: Let $\gamma: [0,L)\to\R^2$ be a closed $C^2$-curve without self-intersections

2924: and with $|\gamma^\prime|=1$ and let $\Gamma=\{\gamma\}$.

2925: Then there exists $\eps_0>0$,

2926: $\eps_0=\eps_0(\|\gamma^{\prime\prime}\|_{C^0([0,L))})$ and sequences

2927: $(u_\eps, v_\eps)_{0<\eps<\eps_0}$ with

2928: \begin{gather}

2929:   u_\eps,v_\eps\,\in\, BV(\R^2;\{0,1/\eps\}),\quad u_\eps v_\eps\,=\,0,

2930:   \label{eq:ls-reg}\\

2931:   \int_{\R^2} u_\eps \,=\, \int_{\R^2} v_\eps \,=\,

2932:   2L,\label{eq:ls-mass}\\

2933:   \spt(u_\eps)\cup\spt(v_\eps)\,\subset\, \{x: \dist(x,\Gamma)\leq 3\eps\},

2934:   \label{eq:ls-spt-uv} 

2935: \end{gather}

2936: such that

2937: \begin{align}

2938:   2\mu_{\Gamma} &\,=\, \lim_{\eps\to 0}u_\eps\,\LL^2,\label{eq:ls-conv}\\ 

2939:   \frac{1}{2}\int_0^{L} \gamma^{\prime\prime}(s)^2\,ds &\,\geq\, \limsup_{\eps\to

2940:   0} \frac{1}{\eps^2}\Big(\frac{1}{\eps} d_1(u_\eps,v_\eps)

2941:   +\eps\int_{\R^2}|\nabla u_\eps| -4L\Big).\label{eq:ls-ls} 

2942: \end{align}

2943: \end{lemma}

2944: \begin{proof}

2945: There exists a $\eps_0>0$ such that

2946: \begin{gather}

2947:   \sup_{s\in [0,L)} |\gamma^{\prime\prime}(s)| \,\leq\,

2948:   \frac{1}{4\eps_0},\label{eq:ls-eps0-curv}\\

2949:   x \mapsto \dist(x,\Gamma)\text{ is of class }C^2\text{ in }\{x:\dist(x,\Gamma)< 4\eps_0\}.

2950:   \label{eq:ls-eps0-dist}

2951: \end{gather}

2952: Let $\nu:[0,L)\to S^1$ be the $C^1$ unit normal field of $\gamma$ that satisfies

2953: \begin{gather*}

2954:   \det (\gamma^\prime,\nu)\,=\,-1

2955: \end{gather*}

2956: and let $\kappa(s)$ be the curvature

2957: in direction of $\nu(s)$,

2958: \begin{gather*}

2959:   \kappa(s) \,=\, -\nu^\prime(s)\cdot\gamma^\prime(s) \,=\,

2960:   \nu(s)\cdot\gamma^{\prime\prime}(s). 

2961: \end{gather*}

2962: For $\eps<\eps_0$ we set

2963: \begin{eqnarray*}

2964:   u_\eps(x) &:=&

2965:   \begin{cases}

2966:     \frac{1}{\eps} &\text{ if }\dist(x,\Gamma)<\eps,\\

2967:     0 &\text{ elsewise,}

2968:   \end{cases}

2969: \end{eqnarray*}

2970: and define two curves $\hat{\gamma}_+,\hat{\gamma}_- :[0,L)\to\R^2$ by

2971: \begin{eqnarray*}

2972:   \hat{\gamma}_+ (s)&:=& \gamma(s) +\eps\nu(s),\\

2973:   \hat{\gamma}_- (s)&:=& \gamma(s) -\eps\nu(s),

2974: \end{eqnarray*}

2975: see Figure \ref{fig:limsup}.

2976: Using the parametrization $\Phi(s,r):=\gamma(s)+r\nu(s)$ we calculate

2977: that

2978: \begin{gather*}

2979:   |\det D\Phi(s,r)|\,=\, 1-r\kappa(s)\quad\text{ for }0<

2980:    s<L,\,-\eps<r<\eps.

2981: \end{gather*}

2982: Therefore for any $\eta\in C^0(\R^2)$

2983: \begin{gather*}

2984:   \lim_{\eps\to 0}\int_{\R^2} \eta(x)u_\eps(x)\,ds\,=\, \lim_{\eps\to 0}

2985:   \int_0^L\int_{-\eps}^\eps

2986:   \eta(\Phi(s,r))\frac{1}{\eps}(1-r\kappa(s))\,dr\,ds\\

2987:   =\, \int_0^L

2988:   2\eta(\Phi(s,0))\,ds\,=\, 2\int_0^L \eta(\gamma(s))\,ds

2989: \end{gather*}

2990: holds and we deduce \eqref{eq:ls-conv}.

2991: 

2992: The arc length functions corresponding to $\hat{\gamma}_+, \hat{\gamma}_-$ are given by

2993: \begin{eqnarray*}

2994:   \vartheta_{+}(s) &=& \int_0^s|\hat{\gamma}_+^\prime(\sigma)|\,

2995:   d\sigma\,=\,\int_0^s (1-\eps\kappa(\sigma))\,d\sigma,\\ 

2996:   \vartheta_{-}(s) &=& \int_0^s|\hat{\gamma}_-^\prime(\sigma)|\,

2997:   d\sigma\,=\,\int_0^s (1+\eps\kappa(\sigma))\,d\sigma. 

2998: \end{eqnarray*}

2999: Let $\tilde{\gamma}_+,\tilde{\gamma}_-$ be the corresponding

3000: parametrizations with respect to arclength, 

3001: \begin{gather*}

3002:   \tilde{\gamma}_{+} \,=\, \hat{\gamma}_{+}\circ \vartheta_{+}^{-1},\qquad

3003:   \tilde{\gamma}_+: [0,L_+)\to\R^2,\quad L_+\,=\, L

3004:   -\eps\int_0^L\kappa(\sigma)\,d\sigma,\\ 

3005:   \tilde{\gamma}_{-} \,=\, \hat{\gamma}_{-}\circ

3006:   \vartheta_{-}^{-1},\qquad 

3007:   \tilde{\gamma}_-: [0,L_-)\to\R^2,\quad L_-\,=\, L

3008:   +\eps\int_0^L\kappa(\sigma)\,d\sigma.\\ 

3009: \end{gather*}

3010: The curves $\tilde{\gamma}_+,\tilde{\gamma}_-$ parametrize the boundary of

3011: $\{u_\eps=1/\eps\}$ and we obtain that

3012: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:boundary-limsup}

3013:   \int_{\R^2} \eps|\nabla u_\eps| &=& L_+ + L_- \,=\, 2L.

3014: \end{eqnarray}

3015: Corresponding to $\tilde{\gamma}_+,\tilde{\gamma}_-$ we define unit

3016: normal fields

3017: \begin{eqnarray*}

3018:   \tilde{\nu}_+ &:=& \nu\circ\vartheta_+^{-1},\\

3019:   \tilde{\nu}_- &:=& \nu\circ\vartheta_-^{-1}

3020: \end{eqnarray*}

3021: and we compute the curvature of $\tilde{\gamma}_+,\tilde{\gamma}_-$ in

3022: direction of $\nu_{\pm}$ 

3023: \begin{eqnarray*}

3024:   \tilde{\kappa}_+ &=&

3025:   \frac{\kappa\circ\vartheta_+^{-1}}{1-\eps\kappa\circ\vartheta_+^{-1}},\\  

3026:   \tilde{\kappa}_- &=&

3027:   \frac{\kappa\circ\vartheta_-^{-1}}{1+\eps\kappa\circ\vartheta_-^{-1}}. 

3028: \end{eqnarray*}

3029: Observe that by \eqref{eq:ls-eps0-curv} for $\eps<\eps_0$

3030: \begin{gather}

3031:   |\tilde{\kappa}_+|,|\tilde{\kappa}_-|\,\leq\,

3032:    \frac{1}{3\eps_0}.\label{eq:ls-est-kappa} 

3033: \end{gather}

3034: As in subsection \ref{subsec:para} we define \emph{mass coordinates} $\ma_+,\ma_-$ by

3035: \begin{eqnarray*}

3036:   \ma_+(r,t) &:=& \frac{1}{\eps}\big( t-\frac{t^2}{2}\tilde{\kappa}_+(r)\big),\\

3037:   \ma_-(r,t) &:=& \frac{1}{\eps}\big( t-\frac{t^2}{2}\tilde{\kappa}_-(r)\big)

3038: \end{eqnarray*}

3039: and the inverse mappings $\te_+(r,\cdot)=\ma_+(r,\cdot)^{-1}$, $\te_-(r,\cdot)=\ma_-(r,\cdot)^{-1}$, 

3040: \begin{eqnarray*}

3041:   \te_+(r,m) &=& \frac{1}{\tilde{\kappa}_+(r)}\Big(1-\sqrt{1-2\eps\tilde{\kappa}_+m}\Big),\\

3042:   \te_-(r,m) &=& \frac{1}{\tilde{\kappa}_-(r)}\Big(1-\sqrt{1-2\eps\tilde{\kappa}_-m}\Big).

3043: \end{eqnarray*}

3044: By \eqref{eq:ls-est-kappa} the expressions

3045: $1-2\eps\tilde{\kappa}_\pm m$ are positive for $|m|\leq 1$. Using that

3046: \begin{alignat*}{2}

3047:   \sqrt{1+2z}\,&\leq\, 1+z,\quad&&\text{ for }z\geq -\frac{1}{2},\\

3048:   \sqrt{1+2z}\,&\geq\, 1+2z,\quad&&\text{ for } -\frac{1}{2}\leq z\leq 0

3049: \end{alignat*}

3050: we deduce that

3051: \begin{gather}

3052:   0\,\leq\, \frac{1}{m}\te_+(r,m)\,\leq\,

3053:   2\eps,\qquad 0\,\leq\, \frac{1}{m}\te_-(r,m)\,\leq\,

3054:   2\eps.\label{eq:range-l} 

3055: \end{gather} 

3056: We construct parametrizations $\psi_+,\psi_-$ in the same way as

3057: we did in subsection \ref{subsec:para}. Considering 

3058: $\tilde{\gamma}_+$,  the unit

3059: normal field $\tilde{\nu}_+$ takes the role of the direction field

3060: $\theta$ in subsection \ref{subsec:para}. Therefore $\tilde{\kappa}_+$ and

3061: $1$ appear in place of $\alphaprime$ and $\sin\beta$. Note that,

3062: with respect to $\tilde{\gamma}_+$, $\spt(u_\eps)$ is  in the direction of

3063: $-\tilde{\nu}_+$ and, with respect to $\tilde{\gamma}_-$, in direction of

3064: $\tilde{\nu}_-$.\\

3065: \begin{figure}[ht]

3066: \centerline{\psfig{width=\textwidth,figure=limsup}}

3067: \caption{The limsup construction.}

3068: \label{fig:limsup}

3069: \end{figure}

3070: For $\tilde{\gamma}_+, \tilde{\gamma}_-$ respectively we define `ray

3071: lengths' $l_+(r),l_-(r)$ such that their values in mass

3072: coordinates become $-1$ and $1$, 

3073: \begin{align}

3074:   l_+(r) &:= \te_+(r,-1)\,=\,

3075:   \frac{1}{\tilde{\kappa}_+(r)}\Big(1-\sqrt{1+2\eps\tilde{\kappa}_+}\Big),

3076:   \label{eq:ls-def-l+}\\

3077:   l_-(r) &:= \te_-(r,1)\,=\,

3078:   \frac{1}{\tilde{\kappa}_-(r)}\Big(1-\sqrt{1-2\eps\tilde{\kappa}_-}\Big).

3079:   \label{eq:ls-def-l-}

3080: \end{align}

3081: To parametrize $\spt(u_\eps)$ we define sets

3082: \begin{alignat*}{1}

3083:   D_+ &:=\{ (r,t) : 0\leq r< L_+, l_+(r)<t<0\}\\

3084:   D_- &:=\{ (r,t) : 0\leq r< L_-, 0<t<l_-(r)\}.

3085: \end{alignat*}

3086: and the maps

3087: \begin{xalignat*}{2}

3088:   \psi_+(r,t) &:=

3089:   \tilde{\gamma}_+(r)+ t\tilde{\nu}_+(r)&&\text{ for }0<r<L_+, -2\eps<t<2\eps\\

3090:   \psi_-(r,t) &:=

3091:   \tilde{\gamma}_-(r)+ t\tilde{\nu}_-(r)&&\text{ for }0<r<L_-, -2\eps<t<2\eps,

3092: \end{xalignat*}

3093: which are, for

3094: $\eps<\eps_0$, by \eqref{eq:ls-eps0-dist} injective on their

3095: domains. Analogous to Lemma~\ref{lem-mass} we observe that for any 

3096: $\eta\in C^0_c(\R^2)$

3097: \begin{align}

3098:   \int_{\psi_+(D_+)} \eta(x)u_\eps(x)\,dx \,&=\,

3099:   \int_0^{L_+}\int_{-1}^0 \eta\big(\psi_+(r,\te_+(r,m))\big)\,dm\,dr,

3100:   \label{eq:ls-trafo} \\

3101:   \int_{\psi_-(D_-)} \eta(x)u_\eps(x)\,dx \,&=\,

3102:   \int_0^{L_-}\int_0^1

3103:   \eta\big(\psi_-(r,\te_-(r,m))\big)\,dm\,dr. \label{eq:ls-trafo2} 

3104: \end{align}

3105: Moreover we deduce from \eqref{eq:ls-def-l+}, \eqref{eq:ls-def-l-} that

3106: \begin{align*}

3107:   l_+(\vartheta_+(s)) &= \frac{1}{\kappa(s)}\Big(1-\eps\kappa(s)

3108:   -\sqrt{1-(\eps\kappa(s))^2} \Big),\\

3109:   l_-(\vartheta_-(s)) &= \frac{1}{\kappa(s)}\Big(1+\eps\kappa(s)

3110:   -\sqrt{1-(\eps\kappa(s))^2} \Big).

3111: \end{align*}

3112: which implies that

3113: \begin{gather*}

3114:   l_-(\vartheta_-(s)) - l_+(\vartheta_+(s))\,=\, 2\eps.

3115: \end{gather*}

3116: We conclude that the sets $\psi_+(D_+)$ and $\psi_-(D_-)$

3117: are pairwise disjoint and cover almost all of $\spt(u_\eps)$. We

3118: therefore obtain by \eqref{eq:ls-trafo}, \eqref{eq:ls-trafo2} that

3119: \begin{align*}

3120:   &\int \eta(x)u_\eps(x)\,dx \\

3121:   &\,=

3122:   \int_0^{L_+}\int_{-1}^0 \eta\big(\psi_+(r,\te_+(r,m))\big)\,dm\,dr +

3123:   \int_0^{L_-}\int_0^1 \eta\big(\psi_-(r,\te_-(r,m))\big)\,dm\,dr

3124: \end{align*}

3125: holds.

3126: In particular we obtain

3127: \begin{gather}

3128:   \int_{\R^2} u_\eps \,=\, L_+ +L_- \,=\, 2L. \label{eq:mass-u-eps}

3129: \end{gather}

3130: We now define an injective transport map $S:\spt(u_\eps)\to\R^2$

3131: by

3132: \begin{alignat*}{2}

3133:   S(\psi_+(r,t))\,:=&\,

3134:   \psi_+\big(r,\te_+\big(r,\ma_+(r,t)+1\big)\big)

3135:   &&\text{ for }(r,t)\in D_+,\\

3136:   S(\psi_-(r,t))\,:=&\,

3137:   \psi_-\big(r,\te_-\big(r,\ma_-(r,t)-1\big)\big)

3138:   &&\text{ for }(r,t)\in D_-

3139: \end{alignat*}

3140: and set

3141: \begin{gather*}

3142:  v_\eps \,:=\, \frac{1}{\eps}\Chi_{S(\spt(u_\eps))}.

3143: \end{gather*}

3144: This gives

3145: \begin{gather*}

3146:   \spt(v_\eps)\,=\, \{\psi_+(r,t): 0\leq t\leq \te_+(r,1)\} \cup

3147:   \{\psi_-(r,t): \te_-(r,-1)\leq t\leq 0\}.

3148: \end{gather*}

3149: By \eqref{eq:range-l} we obtain that $\te_+(r,1),|\te_-(r,-1)|\leq

3150: 2\eps$ and 

3151: since the distance of $\hat{\gamma}_+$ and $\hat{\gamma}_-$ to $\gamma$

3152: equals $\eps$ the equation \eqref{eq:ls-spt-uv} follows.

3153: We compute for an arbitrary $\eta\in C^0_c(\R^2)$ that

3154: \begin{align*}

3155:   &\int\eta(S(x))u_\eps(x)\,dx\\

3156:   =\,& \int_0^{L_+}\int_{-1}^0

3157:   \eta\big(S(\psi_+(r,\te_+(r,m)))\big)\,dm\,dr

3158:   + \int_0^{L_-}\int_0^1

3159:   \eta\big(S(\psi_-(r,\te_-(r,m)))\big)\,dm\,dr\\

3160:   =\,& \int_0^{L_+}\int_{-1}^0

3161:   \eta\big(\psi_+(r,\te_+(r,m+1))\big)\,dm\,dr

3162:   + \int_0^{L_-}\int_0^1

3163:   \eta\big(\psi_-(r,\te_-(r,m-1))\big)\,dm\,dr\\

3164:   =\,& \int_0^{L_+}\int_0^1

3165:   \eta\big(\psi_+(r,\te_+(r,m))\big)\,dm\,dr

3166:   + \int_0^{L_-}\int_{-1}^0

3167:   \eta\big(\psi_-(r,\te_-(r,m))\big)\,dm\,dr\\

3168:   =\,& \int \eta(x)v_\eps(x)\,dx,

3169: \end{align*}

3170: where we have used the change-of-variables formula in the last equality. 

3171: This shows that $S$ indeed is a transport map. In particular it follows

3172: from \eqref{eq:mass-u-eps} that \mbox{$\int_{\R^2} v_\eps =2L$} holds,

3173: which 

3174: proves \eqref{eq:ls-mass}. Moreover

3175: we obtain

3176: \begin{eqnarray}

3177:  d_1(u_\eps,v_\eps) &\leq& \int_{\R^2} |x-S(x)| u_\eps(x)\,dx\notag\\

3178:  &=& \int_0^{L_+}\int_{-1}^0  \big(

3179:  \te_+(r,m+1) -\te_+(r,m)\big)\,dm\,dr \notag\\

3180:  && +\int_0^{L_-}\int_0^1 \big( \te_-(r,m)

3181:  -\te_-(r,m-1))\big)\,dm\,dr \label{eq:ls-d1}

3182: \end{eqnarray}

3183: By \eqref{eq:ls-def-l+} we have $\ma_+(r,l_+(r))=-1$ and we deduce for

3184: the inner integral of the first term on the right-hand side of

3185: \eqref{eq:ls-d1} that

3186: \begin{align*}

3187:  & \int_{-1}^0  \big(

3188:  \te_+(r,m+1) -\te_+(r,m)\big)\,dm\notag\\

3189:  =\,& \int_0^{\ma_+(r,l_+(r))}\te_+(r,m)

3190:  -\te_+\bigl(r,m-\ma_+(r,l_+(r))\bigr)\,dm.

3191: \end{align*}

3192: Therefore Lemma \ref{lem:stand-trans-est} yields that

3193: \begin{gather}

3194:  \int_{-1}^0  \big(

3195:  \te_+(r,m+1) -\te_+(r,m)\big)\,dm

3196:  \,=\, \eps +\frac{1}{4}\eps^3

3197:  \tilde{\kappa}_+(r)^2 +R_+(r)\eps^5,\label{eq:ls-d1+}

3198: \end{gather}

3199: where 

3200: \begin{gather}

3201:   0\,\leq\, R_+(r)\,\leq\, \tilde{\kappa}_+(r)^4\,\leq\, C(\eps_0)

3202:   \label{eq:ls-R+} 

3203: \end{gather}

3204: by \eqref{eq:est-R} and \eqref{eq:ls-eps0-curv}.

3205: For the inner integral of the second term in \eqref{eq:ls-d1} we deduce

3206: by similar arguments 

3207: \begin{align}

3208:  \int_0^1 \te_-(r,m)-\te_-(r,m-1)\,dm

3209:   =\,& \eps +\frac{1}{4}\eps^3

3210:  \tilde{\kappa}_-(r)^2 +R_-(r)\eps^5,\label{eq:ls-d1-}

3211: \end{align}

3212: with

3213: \begin{gather}

3214:   0\,\leq\, R_-(r)\,\leq\, \tilde{\kappa}_-(r)^4\,<\, C(\eps_0).

3215:   \label{eq:ls-R-} 

3216: \end{gather}

3217: By \eqref{eq:ls-d1} and \eqref{eq:ls-d1+}-\eqref{eq:ls-R-} we obtain

3218: that 

3219: \begin{align}

3220:   &\frac{1}{\eps} d_1(u_\eps,v_\eps)\notag\\

3221:   \leq\,& L_+ +L_- +\frac{1}{4}\eps^2

3222:   \int_0^{L_+} \tilde{\kappa}_+(r)^2\,dr +\frac{1}{4}\eps^2

3223:   \int_0^{L_-} \tilde{\kappa}_-(r)^2\,dr +\eps^4 L

3224:   C(\eps_0).\label{eq:ls-d1-sum} 

3225: \end{align} 

3226: We compute that

3227: \begin{align*}

3228:   \int_0^{L_+} \tilde{\kappa}_+(r)^2\,dr +

3229:   \int_0^{L_-} \tilde{\kappa}_-(r)^2\,dr \,&=\, \int_0^L\Big(

3230:   \frac{\kappa(s)^2}{1-\eps\kappa(s)} +

3231:   \frac{\kappa(s)^2}{1+\eps\kappa(s)}\Big)\,ds\\

3232:   &=\, 2\int_0^L \kappa(s)^2\,ds + 2\eps^2\int_0^L

3233:   \frac{\kappa(s)^2}{1-\eps^2\kappa(s)^2}\,ds\\ 

3234:   &\leq\, 2\int_0^L \kappa(s)^2\,ds + 2\eps^2 LC(\eps_0)

3235: \end{align*}

3236: which gives with \eqref{eq:ls-d1-sum} and $2L=L_++L_-$ that

3237: \begin{gather}

3238:   \frac{1}{\eps}d_1(u_\eps,v_\eps) \,\leq\, 2L

3239:   +\frac{\eps^2}{2}\int_0^L\kappa(s)^2\,ds +\eps^4LC(\eps_0).

3240:   \label{eq:ls-d1-sum2}

3241: \end{gather}

3242: Since $|\kappa|=|\gamma^{\prime\prime}|$ we obtain from

3243: \eqref{eq:boundary-limsup} and \eqref{eq:ls-d1-sum2} that

3244: \begin{gather*}

3245:   \frac{1}{\eps^2}\Big(\frac{1}{\eps} d_1(u_\eps,v_\eps)

3246:   +\eps\int_{\R^2}|\nabla u_\eps| -4L\Big) \,\leq\,

3247:   \frac{1}{2}\int_0^L\gamma^{\prime\prime}(s)^2\,ds +\eps^2 LC(\eps_0), 

3248: \end{gather*}

3249: which proves \eqref{eq:ls-ls}.

3250: \end{proof}

3251: %

3252: %

3253: %

3254: \subsection{The general case}

3255: \label{subsec:ls-gen}

3256: We prove now the limsup estimate stated in Theorem \ref{the:main}.

3257: First we need a technical Lemma which follows from

3258: results in \cite{BMP} and \cite{BeM} and approximates a given system of

3259: curves as in Theorem \ref{the:main} strongly in $W^{2,2}$ by a sequence

3260: of more regular systems of curves.

3261: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:detach}

3262: Let $\Gamma$ be a $W^{2,2}$-system of closed curves without

3263: transversal crossings. Then there exists a sequence $(\Gamma^j)_{j\in \N}$

3264: of $W^{2,2}$-systems of closed curves and a number

3265: $m\in\N$ such that the following holds:

3266: \begin{liste(a)}

3267: \item

3268: For all $j\in\N$ the system of curves

3269: $

3270:   \Gamma^j = \{\gamma^j_k\}_{k=1,...,m}

3271: $

3272: is given by a pairwise disjoint family of simple closed curves and satisfies

3273: \begin{gather}

3274:   |\Gamma^j| = |\Gamma|.\label{eq:equal-length}

3275: \end{gather}

3276: \item

3277: For all $1\leq k\leq m$ holds

3278: \begin{align}\label{eq:conv-strong-gamma}

3279:   & \gamma^j_k \,\to\, \gamma_k\quad\text{ in }W^{2,2}(0,1)\quad\text{ as }

3280:     j\to\infty.

3281: \end{align}

3282: \item $\tilde{\Gamma}:=\{\gamma_k\}_{k=1,...,m}$ is a

3283: $W^{2,2}$-system of closed curves without transversal crossings.

3284: \item

3285: $\tilde{\Gamma}$ is equivalent to $\Gamma$ in the sense that

3286: \begin{gather*}

3287:   \mu_{\Gamma}\,=\, \mu_{\tilde{\Gamma}}.

3288: \end{gather*}

3289: \end{liste(a)}

3290: In particular we have

3291: \begin{align}

3292:   \W(\Gamma^j)\,&\to \W(\Gamma)\quad\text{ as }

3293:     j\to\infty.\label{eq:conv-G}

3294: \end{align}

3295: \end{lemma}

3296: 

3297: \begin{proof}

3298: By \cite[Corollary 5.2]{BeM} there exists a sequence

3299: $(\tilde{\Gamma}^j)_{j\in\N}$ and a $W^{2,2}$-system of closed curves

3300: $\tilde{\Gamma}$ such that

3301: \begin{liste}

3302: \item

3303: for all $j\in\N$ $\tilde{\Gamma}^j$ is an oriented parametrization of a bounded

3304:   open smooth set $E_j\subset\R^2$,\label{enum:i}

3305: \item

3306: $\tilde{\Gamma}^j$ converge weakly in $W^{2,2}$ to $\tilde{\Gamma}$ as

3307:   $j\to\infty$,\label{enum:ii}  

3308: \item

3309: $\tilde{\Gamma}^j$ converge `in energy' to $\tilde{\Gamma}$ as

3310:   $j\to\infty$.\label{enum:iii}

3311: \item

3312: $\tilde{\Gamma}$ and $\Gamma$ are equivalent. 

3313: \end{liste}

3314: Property \eqref{enum:i} implies that $\tilde{\Gamma}^j$ is a disjoint system of

3315: simple closed curves parametrized on $(0,1)$ proportional to arclength.

3316: 

3317: By property \eqref{enum:ii} there exists a number

3318: $m\in\N$ such that

3319: \begin{gather*}

3320:   \tilde{\Gamma}^j\,=\, \{\tilde{\gamma}^j_k\}_{k=1,...,m},\quad

3321:   \tilde{\Gamma}\,=\, \{\tilde{\gamma}_k\}_{k=1,...,m},\\

3322:   \tilde{\gamma}^j_k,\,\tilde{\gamma}_k : (0,1)\,\to\,\R^2,\\

3323:   |(\tilde{\gamma}^j_k)^\prime|\,=\, L^j_k,\quad

3324:   |(\tilde{\gamma}_k)^\prime|\,=\, L_k\text{ on }(0,1),\notag\\

3325: \end{gather*}

3326: with

3327: \begin{gather}

3328:   \tilde{\gamma}^j_k\,\to\, \tilde{\gamma}_k\quad\text{ weakly in

3329:   }W^{2,2}(0,1)\text{ as }j\to\infty.\label{eq:conv-gamma}

3330: \end{gather}

3331: In particular we deduce that $L^j_k\to\ L_k$ as $j\to\infty$ for all

3332: $k=1,...,m$ 

3333: and

3334: \begin{gather}

3335:   |\tilde{\Gamma}^j|\,\to\, |\tilde{\Gamma}|\label{eq:conv-length}

3336: \end{gather}

3337: holds.

3338: \\

3339: The `convergence in energy' stated in \eqref{enum:iii} gives that, as

3340: $j\to\infty$, 

3341: \begin{gather}

3342:   |\tilde{\Gamma}^j| + \sum_{k=1}^m \int_0^1 (L^j_k)^{-3}

3343:   |(\tilde{\gamma}^j_k)^{\prime\prime}|^2\,\to\,

3344:   |\tilde{\Gamma}|+\sum_{k=1}^m \int_0^1 (L_k)^{-3}

3345:   |(\tilde{\gamma}_k)^{\prime\prime}|^2.\label{eq:conv-energy}

3346: \end{gather}

3347: Together with \eqref{eq:conv-length} and the weak convergence

3348: \eqref{eq:conv-gamma} this 

3349: yields

3350: \begin{gather}

3351:   \tilde{\gamma}^j_k\,\to\, \tilde{\gamma}_k\quad\text{ strongly in

3352:   }W^{2,2}(0,1)\text{ as }j\to\infty,\label{eq:conv-tilde-gamma}\\

3353:   \W(\tilde{\Gamma}^j)\,\to

3354:   \W(\Gamma)\text{ as }j\to\infty.\label{eq:conv-tilde-G} 

3355: \end{gather}

3356: Finally we define for $j\in\N$ a modified system of curves

3357: $\Gamma^j_k=\{\gamma^j_k\}_{k=1,...,m}$ by

3358: \begin{gather*}

3359:   \tilde{\gamma}^j_k(s)\,:=\,

3360:   \frac{|\Gamma|}{|\tilde{\Gamma}^j|}\tilde{\gamma}^j_k(s).

3361: \end{gather*}

3362: Then \eqref{eq:equal-length} is satisfied. By \eqref{eq:conv-length}

3363: we see that $\tilde{\gamma}^j_k$ and $\gamma^j_k$ have for all $1\leq

3364: k\leq m$ the same limits as $j\to\infty$. We therefore obtain from

3365: \eqref{eq:conv-tilde-gamma}, \eqref{eq:conv-tilde-G} that 

3366: \eqref{eq:conv-strong-gamma}, \eqref{eq:conv-G}

3367: hold.

3368: \end{proof}

3369: \ \\

3370: {\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{the:main} (lim-sup part):}\\

3371: Let $\Gamma$ be given as in Theorem \ref{the:main} and

3372: $(\Gamma^j)_{j\in\N}$ be a sequence of systems of closed curves as in 

3373: Lemma \ref{lem:detach}, given by $\Gamma^j=\{\gamma^j_k\}_{k=1,...,m}$. 

3374: We now parametrize the curves $\gamma^j_k$ by arclength,

3375: \begin{gather*}

3376:   \gamma^j_k: (0,L^j_k)\to \R^2,\quad |(\gamma^j_k)^\prime|=1.

3377: \end{gather*}

3378: Choose $\eps^j_0$ such that the distance functions $\dist(\cdot,\Gamma^j)$

3379: is smooth in the set $\{x:\dist(x,\Gamma^j)<4\eps^j_0\}$.\\

3380: For $0<\eps<\eps^j_0$ we let $u^{j,k}_\eps$, $v^{j,k}_\eps$ be the

3381: approximations constructed in Lemma \ref{lem:single-curve} and define

3382: \begin{gather*}

3383:  u^j_{\eps}\,:=\, \sum_{k=1}^m u^{j,k}_\eps,\qquad

3384:  v^j_{\eps}\,:=\, \sum_{k=1}^m v^{j,k}_\eps.

3385: \end{gather*}

3386: By \eqref{eq:ls-spt-uv} all the functions $u^{j,k}_\eps,

3387: v^{j,k}_\eps$ have pairwise disjoint supports.

3388: We compute that

3389: \begin{align*}

3390:  \int_{\R^2} u^j_\eps\,d\LL^2\,=\, \sum_{k=1}^m \int_{\R^2}

3391:  u^{j,k}_\eps\,d\LL^2\,=\, 

3392:  \sum_{k=1}^m 2L^k_j\,=\, 2|\Gamma^j|\,=\, 2|\Gamma|\,=\, M

3393: \end{align*}

3394: and, by similar calculations, $\int v^j_\eps =M$.

3395: Moreover, by \eqref{eq:ls-conv}, \eqref{eq:conv-strong-gamma},

3396: \begin{align*}

3397:  \lim_{j\to\infty}\lim_{\eps\to 0} u^j_\eps\LL^2\,=\, \lim_{j\to\infty}

3398:  \sum_{k=1}^m \lim_{\eps\to 0} u^{j,k}_\eps\LL^2 \,=\,  2\lim_{j\to\infty}

3399:  \mu_{\Gamma^j}\,=\, 2\mu_{\Gamma} 

3400: \end{align*}

3401: and, by \eqref{eq:conv-G}, \eqref{eq:ls-ls},

3402: \begin{align*}

3403:   \W(\Gamma)\,&=\,\lim_{j\to\infty} \W(\Gamma^j)\\

3404:   &=\, \lim_{j\to\infty}\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^m \int_0^{L^j_k}

3405:   \big|(\gamma^j_k)^{\prime\prime}\big|^2 \,ds\\

3406:   &\geq\, \limsup_{j\to\infty}\sum_{k=1}^m \limsup_{\eps\to 0} \frac{1}{\eps^2}\Big(

3407:   \frac{1}{\eps}d_1(u^{j,k}_\eps,v^{j,k}_\eps) + \eps\int |\nabla u^{j,k}_\eps| -

3408:   2\int u^{j,k}_\eps\,d\LL^2\Big)\\

3409:   &\geq\, \limsup_{j\to\infty}\limsup_{\eps\to 0} \frac{1}{\eps^2}\Big(

3410:   \frac{1}{\eps}d_1(u^j_\eps,v^{j}_\eps) + \eps\int |\nabla u^j_\eps| -

3411:   2\int u^j_\eps\,d\LL^2\Big).

3412: \end{align*}

3413: The final inequality follows from constructing an admissible joint transport map for $(u_\eps^j,v_\eps^j)$ from the transport maps of $(u_\eps^{j,k},v_\eps^{j,k})$.

3414: 

3415: 

3416: Therefore there exist subsequences $(j_l)_{l\in\N}, (\eps_l)_{l\in\N}$

3417: such that

3418: \begin{gather*}

3419:  \lim_{l\to\infty} u^{j_l}_{\eps_l}\LL^2\,=\,2\mu_\Gamma

3420: \end{gather*}

3421: as Radon measures on $\R^2$ and

3422: \begin{gather*}

3423:     \W(\Gamma) \,\geq\, \limsup_{l\to\infty} \G_{\eps_l}(u_{\eps_l},v_{\eps_l}).

3424: \end{gather*}

3425: This proves the lim-sup estimate in Theorem \ref{the:main}.\hfill $\Box$

3426: %========================================================================================

3427: % discussion

3428: %========================================================================================

3429: \section{Discussion}

3430: \label{sec:discussion}

3431: 

3432: \subsection{General remarks}

3433: In the Introduction we formulated two basic questions about

3434: self-aggregating, partially localized structures: first, why do they

3435: exist at all (and why are they stable), and secondly, how can we

3436: understand their resistance to stretching, bending, and fracture, that

3437: is observed experimentally. 

3438: 

3439: The fact that the functional $\F_\eps$ favours structures in which $u$

3440: and $v$ alternate on a length scale $\e$ is well illustrated by the

3441: special cases of Section~\ref{sec:heuristics}. Simply put, for

3442: $d_1(u,v)$ to be moderate, the masses represented by $u$ and $v$ have to

3443: be close; the fact that $\Mod u_{L^\infty}$ and $\Mod v_{L^\infty}$ are

3444: limited implies that these masses occupy a certain amount of volume; and

3445: finally the interface penalization prevents the masses of $u$ and $v$

3446: from being too finely interspersed. Together these restrictions impose a

3447: length scale on structures with moderate $\F_\eps$. 

3448: 

3449: This argument does not determine, however, the \emph{geometry} of

3450: structures with moderate (or even lowest) energy. The fact that the

3451: straight lamellar geometry has lowest energy is not obvious, as is

3452: demonstrated by the `wriggled lamellar' patterns of Ren and Wei in a

3453: strongly related system~\cite{RenWei05}. The reason for the penalization

3454: of curvature in the current context can be traced back to a property of

3455: strict convexity of the function $\mathfrak t(s,m)$ defined in

3456: \eqref{eq:def-t_s}. Since this convexity property lies at the 

3457: heart of the stability of these partially localized structures, we take

3458: some time to investigate it further. 

3459: 

3460: \subsection{The geometric basis for stability}

3461: 

3462: An essential observation in the proof is that it is more convenient to

3463: use 

3464: \emph{mass} coordinates along rays instead of \emph{length} coordinates,

3465: since the \Wasserstein distance measures spatial distances between pairs

3466: of infinitesimal portions of mass. The function $\mathfrak t(s,m)$

3467: (see~\eqref{eq:def-t_s}) connects the two descriptions by giving the

3468: length coordinate $t$ as a function of mass coordinate $m$.  

3469: 

3470: For fixed $m$, the value of $\te(s,m)$ depends on the value of

3471: $\alpha'(s)$, as is obvious both from the definition and from a

3472: geometric point of view (see Fig.~\ref{fig:effectcurvature} (left)).  

3473: For the purpose of this discussion we write the dependence on

3474: $\alpha'(s)$ explicitly, as  

3475: $\mathfrak t(s,m;\alpha'(s))$. The pertinent observation is that for

3476: fixed $m\not=0$, the function $\alpha'(s)  \mapsto \mathfrak

3477: t(s,m;\alpha'(s))$ is strictly convex. 

3478: This convexity can be seen in a simple plot of the function $\te$, as in

3479: Fig.~\ref{fig:effectcurvature} (right), but can also be recognized in

3480: the geometry of rays that are rotated with respect to each other

3481: (Fig.~\ref{fig:effectcurvature} (left)).  

3482: 

3483: 

3484: \begin{figure}[ht]

3485: \centering

3486: \centerline{\vc{\psfig{figure=effectcurvature2,height=5cm}}

3487:   \hskip5mm \vc{\psfig{figure=ts2,height=5cm}}}

3488: \caption{Left: the function $\te$ maps the mass coordinate $m$ to a

3489:   length coordinate $t$, in the following way. Fixing an infinitesimal

3490:   section $ds$ of interface, a section of mass $mds$, delimited by $ds$

3491:   and by two rays, extends away from the interface by a distance of

3492:   $\te(s,m;\alpha'(s))$.  

3493: Right: 

3494: the function $\alpha'(s)\mapsto\mathfrak t(s,m;\alpha'(s))$

3495:   (see~\eqref{eq:def-t_s}), plotted for $m\in\{1/3,2/3,1\}$ (curves

3496:   (1--3)). Here we have taken $\e=1$ and $\sin \beta(s)=1$.} 

3497: \label{fig:effectcurvature}

3498: \end{figure}

3499: 

3500: With this convexity we can understand why curvature is penalized. 

3501: In~\eqref{eq:cost-5} the relevant expression is

3502: \[

3503: \int_0^{M(s)} \te(s,m;\alpha'(s))\, dm+ \int_0^{-M(s)}  \te(s,m;\alpha'(s))\,dm

3504: \]

3505: which can be written as

3506: \[

3507: \int_0^{M(s)} \bigl[\te(s,m;\alpha'(s)) - \te(s,-m;\alpha'(s))\bigr]\, dm.

3508: \]

3509: This integral describes the transport cost for the transport along an

3510: individual ray at position $s$.  

3511: Using a symmetry property of $\te$ and the strict convexity mentioned above, 

3512: \begin{align*}

3513: \mathfrak t(s,m;\alpha'(s)) - \mathfrak t(s,-m;\alpha'(s)) 

3514: &= \mathfrak t(s,m;\alpha'(s)) + \mathfrak t(s,m;-\alpha'(s))  \\

3515: &> 2\mathfrak t(s,m;0)\\

3516: &= \mathfrak t(s,m;0) - \mathfrak t(s,-m;0).

3517: \end{align*}

3518: It is in this inequality that we see how curving the interface (or, more

3519: precisely, rotating the rays) creates a higher transport cost and

3520: therefore a larger value of the energy. 

3521: 

3522: 

3523: 

3524: \subsection{Connections to other work: continuum models and phase separation}

3525: 

3526: Beyond the direct context of lipid bilayers, this work is at the

3527: intersection of a variety of different lines of research. There is of

3528: course a long-running tradition of slender-body limits in solid

3529: mechanics, resulting in a wide variety of simplified models (see e.g.\

3530: \cite{FrieseckeJamesMueller05TR} for an overview of the case of elastic

3531: plates and shells). Although our final result is rather similar---the

3532: Gamma-limiting energy $\W$ is the classical elastica bending

3533: energy---the current work is fundamentally different, in that the

3534: material at the $\e>0$ level is closer to a fluid than a solid:

3535: particles may be arbitrarily rearranged without incurring an energy

3536: penalty. Indeed, the penalization of curvature that we find in the limit

3537: is an effect of \emph{global} geometry rather than of (local)

3538: deformation. One might compare this with the difference between an

3539: elastic ball and a drop of water; both resist deformation, but for the

3540: ball this arises from local intermolecular forces, while the form of the

3541: drop results from the global effect of surface area minimization.  

3542: 

3543: Turning to fluid-like systems, the simple fact that the mass represented

3544: by $u$ and $v$ concentrates onto a curve is in itself remarkable. Phase

3545: separation naturally leads to penalization of interfacial length, as

3546: reflected by the term $\int \mod{\nabla u}$ in $\F_\eps$, and the distance

3547: penalization by the term $d_1(u,v)$ is necessary to prevent bulk-scale

3548: separation. To our knowledge the current work is the first example of a

3549: phase-separating system that concentrates on low-dimensional sets.  

3550: 

3551: Concentration onto low-dimensional sets is a commonly observed feature

3552: in many (often non-conservative, non-variational) reaction-diffusion

3553: systems. For domains with sufficient symmetry a soliton- or pulse-like

3554: solution in one dimension can be interpreted as a solution in higher

3555: dimensions that concentrates on a hyperplane. In recent years less

3556: trivial examples of low-dimensional concentration have been

3557: uncovered~\cite{DAprile00,BadialeDAprile02,AmbrosettiMalchiodiNi02,AmbrosettiMalchiodiNi03,AmbrosettiMalchiodiNi04,DoelmanVanderPloeg02,MalchiodiMontenegro02,MalchiodiMontenegro03,Malchiodi05}.

3558: Those concentrated solutions are often unstable, however, and sometimes

3559: even highly unstable

3560: (e.g.\cite{MalchiodiMontenegro02,MalchiodiMontenegro03,Malchiodi05}),

3561: thus strongly contrasting with the stable nature of the structures of

3562: this paper. 

3563: 

3564: %Although some of the results above are on systems with a variational

3565: %structure, for those systems the associated solutions are unstable;. To

3566: %our knowledge this work is the first example of \emph{stable}

3567: %concentration on lower-dimensional sets in the variational context. 

3568: 

3569: \subsection{Connections to other work: The elastica functional}

3570: 

3571: Originally the elastica functional was introduced by Daniel Bernoulli and

3572: Euler as the bending energy of an elastic rod, but it has many other

3573: applications in different fields. In variational methods for image

3574: reconstruction it is widely used~\cite{Mum}. In 

3575: the theory of phase separations the elastica functional appears

3576: as the two dimensional reduction of the Willmore functional

3577: \eqref{eq:willmore}. 

3578: 

3579: It is often natural to consider the elastica functional as acting on 

3580: boundaries of subsets of the ambient space. In \cite{BMP}

3581: the lower semicontinuity of the elastica functional under 

3582: $L^1$-convergence of sets is investigated; see

3583: also \cite{Sch} 

3584: for a generalization to arbitrary dimensions.

3585: The Gamma-convergence of a diffuse interface approximation

3586: of the elastica, and 

3587: more generally the Willmore functional, was conjectured by De Giorgi

3588: \cite{DG} and proved in a modified form in \cite{RS} for space

3589: dimensions two and three. 

3590: 

3591: Our approach is not restricted to curves which are

3592: boundaries of sets, and therefore open curves can be represented in this framework. 

3593: A related approach can be found in \cite{BrM}, where

3594: functionals which act on phase-field approximations of `thickened

3595: curves' are considered and the Gamma-convergence of these functionals

3596: is proved in a topology based on the Haussdorf metric. The

3597: elastica functional is part of the limit, however the approximation is

3598: completely different. 

3599: 

3600: \subsection{Relevance to the understanding of lipid bilayers}

3601: 

3602: The derivation that leads from a self-consistent mean-field theory for

3603: two-bead copolymers to the energy $\F_\eps$  (Appendix~\ref{app:derivation})

3604: contains a number of highly suspicious assumptions. The most glaring one

3605: is the severing of the head-tail bond in individual polymers: under this

3606: assumption a given head does not keep track of to \emph{which} tail it

3607: is connected, as long as it is connected to exactly one tail. The

3608: \Wasserstein distance $d_1(u,v)$ is the mathematical implementation

3609: of this assumption, and this term is all that keeps heads and tails from

3610: separating to arbitrarily large distances. 

3611: 

3612: The most interesting conclusion, from the point of view of applications,

3613: might be that this very weak remnant of the covalent bond

3614: suffices; that apparently \emph{very little} is needed to convert a

3615: system exhibiting bulk-scale phase separation (e.g.\ an oil-water

3616: mixture) into a system which separates at a smaller scale.  

3617: 

3618: 

3619: \subsection{Other approaches to the upscaling limit}

3620: In the physico-chemical literature many authors have established

3621: connections between the Helfrich Hamiltonian~\pref{def:EHelfrich} on one

3622: hand and various smaller-scale models of lipid bilayers on the

3623: other~\cite{SzleiferKramerBenShaulGelbartSafran90,OversteegenBlokhuis00,

3624:   LaradjiMouritsen00}. Besides being an interesting scientific issue,

3625: such a connection should also give insight in the dependence of the

3626: coefficients~$k$ and~$\overline k$ on molecular parameters; indeed the

3627: derivation given by Helfrich and others is phenomenological, based on

3628: scaling and dimensionality arguments, and therefore the coefficients are

3629: unknown. 

3630: 

3631: 

3632: %SzleiferKramerBenShaulGelbartSafran90: berekenen de PDF (maar zeggen niet hoe)

3633: %OversteegenBlokhuis00: lattice gas model

3634: %MarkvoortVanSantenHilbers06TR: MD, relation between headgroup charge vesicle shape

3635: %LaradjiMouritsen00: direct MD simulations

3636: %ChaconSomozaTarazona98: from a density+direction model

3637: 

3638: An approach that comes close to ours is that

3639: of~\cite{ChaconSomozaTarazona98}, in which the  authors connect the

3640: Helfrich description with a model in which lipids are represented by a

3641: density and a vectorial quantity that may be interpreted as an alignment

3642: order parameter. As in the examples above, however, the final

3643: coefficients are again found by a numerical method

3644: (minimization of a grand potential energy). Our result here appears to

3645: be unique in giving a fully analytic formula for the bending modulus,

3646: which is not so surprising since the model contains no unscalable

3647: parameters other than $\e$. 

3648: 

3649: Another way in which our contribution differs from existing work is the

3650: possibility to assess the energy penalties associated with non-optimal

3651: thickness and with curve `ends'.  

3652: In the current paper we only show that these penalities are larger than

3653: $O(\eps^2)$, but determining the actual scale of penalization is an

3654: interesting open question. 

3655: 

3656: \subsection{Generalization to $d_p(u,v)$ for $p>1$}

3657: 

3658: The derivation of the energies $\F_\eps$ presented in

3659: Appendix \ref{app:derivation} suggests substituting  the

3660: \Wasserstein distance by the 2-Wasserstein distance. Some of the 

3661: results of this paper carry over to this situation, and in fact to the

3662: $d_p$-metric for all $1<p<\infty$. This follows from the remark that

3663: \begin{align*}

3664: d_1(u,v) &= \min \Big( \int_{\Rn\times\Rn} |x-y| \,d\gamma(x,y)\Big) \\

3665:   &\leq \min \Big( \int_{\Rn\times\Rn} |x-y|^p \,d\gamma(x,y)\Big)^{1/p}

3666:            \Big( \int_{\Rn\times\Rn} d\gamma(x,y)\Big)^{(p-1)/p}\\

3667:    &= d_p(u,v),

3668: \end{align*}

3669: where we take total mass $M$ equal to one for simplicity. Those statements of Theorem~\ref{the:main} that only depend on the upper 

3670: bound~\pref{eq:liminf-bounded} therefore carry over without change for functionals such as 

3671: \begin{align*}

3672: \F^p_\e(u,v) &= \e\int\mod{\nabla u} + \frac1{\e}d_p(u,v) \\

3673: \tilde \F^p_\e(u,v) &= \e\int\mod{\nabla u} + \frac1{p\e^p}d_p(u,v)^p

3674: \end{align*}

3675: To be concrete, sequences $(u_\e,v_\e)$ along which the associated functionals

3676: $\G^p_\e$ or $\tilde\G^p_\e$ remain bounded will converge along subsequences to a system of closed $W^{2,2}$-curves. 

3677: 

3678: The Gamma-convergence result of this paper, however, can not be proved in this way: there is a gap between this lower bound and the upper bound that follows from a generalization of Section~\ref{sec:limsup}; this gap results from the strict convexity of the function $z\mapsto z^p$ for $p>1$. Nonetheless, we believe a similar result to be true for all $1<p<\infty$.

3679: 

3680: 

3681: \subsection{Generalizations}

3682: There are several other interesting directions in which further research could

3683: continue, among them

3684: \begin{itemize}

3685: \item generalizations to higher dimension and higher codimension,

3686: %\item different $p$-Wasserstein metrics and more realistic cost functions,

3687: \item characterisation of local minimizers of the energies $\F_\eps$, 

3688: \item formulation of consistent evolution equations on the mesoscale,

3689:   \emph{i.e.} for the densities $(u_\e,v_\e)$. 

3690: \end{itemize}

3691: In higher dimensions, and for limit structures of dimension larger than

3692: one, a concept similar to the `systems of curves' will probably not be

3693: appropriate, and we expect that a 

3694: varifold approach will be better suited. Some results of the present

3695: paper are 

3696: easily generalized but there are also fundamental differences.

3697: 

3698: %The derivation of the energies $\F_\eps$ presented in

3699: %Appendix \ref{app:derivation} suggests substituting  the

3700: %\Wasserstein distance by the 2-Wasserstein distance. It would be interesting

3701: %to allow a distance which is built on a general cost

3702: %function (see the remark in Appendix \ref{app:derivation}). 

3703: 

3704: To investigate how close the proposed mesoscale approximation is

3705: to the Helfrich energy or to the elastica functional it is interesting to

3706: compare (local) minimizers of the energy $\F_\eps$  

3707: to the variety of shapes found as local minimizers for the Helfrich

3708: energy. 

3709: 

3710: A natural idea for extending the mesoscale description of lipid bilayers to

3711: a time-dependent evolution is to set up a gradient flow for the energies

3712: $\F_\eps$, such as in~\cite{Fraaije93} or~\cite{BlomPeletier04}. The

3713: latter corresponds to a gradient flow based on the 2-Wasserstein 

3714: distance.

3715: 

3716: 

3717: %===============================================

3718: % appendix

3719: %===============================================

3720: \newpage

3721: \begin{appendix}

3722: \section{Derivation of $\F_\eps$}

3723: \label{app:derivation}

3724: 

3725: The functional $\F_\eps$ that is the basis of this paper arises in a

3726: simple model for a water-lipid system. In this model a lipid is

3727: represented by a two-bead chain: a head bead and a tail bead connected

3728: by a spring. The water molecules are represented by  a third type of

3729: bead. 

3730: 

3731: The state space at the microscopic level is given by the positions

3732: $X^i_t$,  $X^i_h$, and $X^j_w$ of the lipid tail, lipid head, and water

3733: beads; the lipids are numbered by $i=1,\ldots,\nl$ and the water beads

3734: by $j=1,\ldots,\nw$. 

3735: Assuming that the beads are confined to a space $\Omega\subset\R^d$, the

3736: full microscopic state space for the system is then 

3737: \[

3738: \X = \Omega^{2\nl+\nw}.

3739: \]

3740: Elements $X=(X_t^1,\ldots,X_t^\nl,X_h^1,\ldots,X_h^\nl,

3741: X_w^1,\ldots,X_w^\nw)\in \X$ are called microstates.

3742: 

3743: We describe the system in terms of probabilities on $\X$, i.e. the

3744: (probabilistic) state $\psi$ is a probability measure on $\X$:

3745: \[

3746: \psi\in \E, \qquad \text{where} \qquad

3747: \E = \left\{\,\psi : \X \to \R^+, \quad \int_\X \psi = 1 \,\right\}.

3748: \]

3749: We assume that neither the microstates themselves nor the 

3750: measure $\psi$ can be observed at the continuum level; 

3751: the observables are three derived quantities, the volume fractions

3752: of tails, of heads, and of water.

3753: 

3754: For a given probability measure $\psi\in \E$, the water volume fraction

3755: $r_w(\psi):\Omega\to\R^+$ is defined by

3756: \[

3757: r_w(\psi)(x) = v \sum_{j=1}^\nw \int_{\X} \psi\, \delta(X_w^j-x) \, dX

3758: \qquad \text{for all }x\in\Omega.

3759: \]

3760: Here $v$ is the volume fraction of a single bead. The tail and head

3761: volume fractions $r_t(\psi)$ and $r_t(\psi)$ are defined similarly.

3762: 

3763: 

3764: To specify the behaviour of the system we introduce two free energy

3765: functionals. The `ideal' free energy $\Fid:\E\to\R$ models the effects

3766: of entropy and the interactions between beads of the same molecule;

3767: the `non-ideal' free energy $\Fnid:\E\to\R$ represents the interactions

3768: between the beads of different molecules. The total free energy is the 

3769: sum of the two,

3770: \[

3771: F(\psi) = \Fid(\psi) + \Fnid(\psi).

3772: \]

3773: For $\Fid$ we assume zero temperature and postulate

3774: \[

3775: \Fid(\psi) = \int_\X \psi \Hid,

3776: \]

3777: where the function $\Hid:\X\to\R$ is the internal energy of a microstate,

3778: and the superscript `id' again refers to a restriction to interaction

3779: within a single lipid molecule. While remarking that many different

3780: choices are found in the literature, here we choose simply to implement

3781: a spring by penalizing head-tail distance, 

3782: \[

3783: \Hid(X) = \frac k2\sum_{i=1}^\nl \mod{X_t^i-X_h^i}^p.

3784: \]

3785: A natural choice is $p=2$, which gives the energy of a linear

3786: spring. Even more realistic seems a general distance term that becomes

3787: infinite if $\mod{X_t^i-X_h^i}$ exceeds a certain maximal value.

3788: 

3789: For the non-ideal free energy $\Fnid$ we make an important

3790: simplifying assumption: $\Fnid$ can be written as a function

3791: of only the observables, 

3792: \[

3793: \Fnid(\psi)= \Fnid(r_w(\psi),r_h(\psi),r_t(\psi)).

3794: \]

3795: Typical terms in the non-ideal energy 

3796: $\Fnid$ are a convolution integral, in which

3797: proximity of hydrophilic (heads and water) beads and hydrophobic

3798: tail beads is penalized: 

3799: \[

3800: \mu\int_\Omega \int_\Omega 

3801:     \bigl(r_w(\psi)(x)+r_h(\psi)(x)\bigr)\,r_t(\psi)(y)\, \kappa(x-y) \, dxdy,

3802: \]

3803: and a compressibility term that penalizes 

3804: deviation from unit total volume:

3805: \[

3806: \frac K2 \int_\Omega \bigl(r_w(\psi)(x)+r_t(\psi)(x) + r_h(\psi)(x)-1\bigr)^2\, dx.

3807: \]

3808: In these expressions we take two limits:

3809: \begin{itemize}

3810: \item In the limit $K\to\infty$, we find that the observables satisfy an

3811:   incompressibility condition 

3812: \begin{equation}

3813: \label{eq:incompressibility}

3814: r_t(\psi)+r_h(\psi)+ r_w(\psi) \equiv 1.

3815: \end{equation}

3816: With this condition the convolution integral above can be written as

3817: \begin{equation}

3818: \label{int:conv}

3819: \mu\int_\Omega \int_\Omega 

3820:     \bigl(1-r_t(\psi)(x)\bigr)\,r_t(\psi)(y)\, \kappa(x-y) \, dxdy.

3821: \end{equation}

3822: \item Replacing the fixed function $\kappa$ by a rescaled version

3823: $\kappa_\delta$, defined by

3824: \[

3825: \kappa_\delta(x) := \delta^{-d}\kappa(x/\delta),

3826: \]

3827: the integral~\pref{int:conv} Gamma-converges in the following way,

3828: \[

3829: \frac 2\delta \int_\Omega \int_\Omega 

3830:     \bigl(1-r_t(\psi)(x)\bigr)\,r_t(\psi)(y)\, \kappa_\delta(x-y) \, dxdy

3831:     \stackrel{\delta\to0}\longrightarrow 

3832:     K_{1,d} \left(\int \kappa\right) F^{\mathrm{int}}\bigl(r_t(\psi)\bigr)

3833: \]

3834: where the limit interface functional $F^{\mathrm{int}}$ is given by

3835: \begin{equation}

3836: F^{\mathrm{int}}(u) = \begin{cases}

3837: \int_\Omega \mod{\nabla u}\, dx & \text{if $u\in \BV\bigl(\Omega;\{0,1\}\bigr)$}

3838: \\

3839: \infty & \text{otherwise}.

3840: \end{cases}

3841: \label{result:Davila}

3842: \end{equation}

3843: Here $K_{1,1} = 1$, $K_{1,2} = 2/\pi$, and $K_{1,3} = 1/2$

3844: \cite{AlbertiBellettiniCassandroPresutti96,Davila02}. 

3845: \end{itemize} 

3846:     

3847: Putting the ideal and non-ideal energies together, and applying the

3848: simplifications above, we find (up to rescaling) 

3849: \[

3850: F(\psi) := \Fid(\psi) + \Fnid(\psi)

3851:  = \int_\X \sum_{i=1}^\nl\mod{X_t^i-X_h^i}^p\psi(X)\, dX + 

3852:    F^{\mathrm{int}}\bigl(r_t(\psi)\bigr).

3853: \]

3854: We now assume that we minimize $F$ under all variations of $\psi$ that conserve the observables $r_{t,h,w}(\psi)$. By a convexity argument, using the fact that  the functions $r_{t,h,w}$ do not distinguish between different lipids or water molecules, it follows that all lipids are identically distributed, as are all water molecules:

3855: %If we assume that any external forcing does not distinguish between

3856: %different lipids or between different water beads (\emph{i.e.} that the

3857: %external forcing acts on the observables $r_{t,h,w}(\psi)$ rather than

3858: %directly on $\psi$), then a standard argument gives that $\psi$ is

3859: %identically distributed for all lipids and for all water molecules,

3860: %i.e. 

3861: \[

3862: \psi(X) = \prod_{i=1}^\nl \psi_\ell(X^i_t,X_h^i)

3863:   \prod_{j=1}^\nw \psi_w(X^j_w),

3864: \]

3865: and that the total energy becomes a function of the observables alone,

3866: by minimization over all other degrees of freedom (again we disregard

3867: rescaling) 

3868: \begin{align*}

3869: &F(\rho_t,\rho_h,\rho_w) := F^{\mathrm{int}}(\rho_t) +{}\\

3870: &\qquad  {}+\inf_{\psi_\ell}\Bigl\{\int_{\Omega\times\Omega}

3871:   \mod{X_t-X_h}^p\psi_\ell(X_t,X_h)\, dX_tdX_h: 

3872:     r_t(\psi_\ell) = \rho_t, \ r_h(\psi_\ell) = \rho_h\Bigr\}  

3873: \end{align*}

3874: with the remaining constraint $\rho_t+\rho_h+\rho_w \equiv 1.$

3875: Remark that the final infimum is exactly the Wasserstein distance of

3876: degree $p$, $d_p(\rho_t,\rho_h)^p$. 

3877: 

3878: \medskip

3879: We now recover the functional $\F_\eps$ in~\eqref{def:Fe} for $\eps=1$ 

3880: by defining  $u:=\rho_t$, $v:=\rho_h$ and by choosing $p=1$. 

3881: Combining the pure-phase condition $u(x) = \rho_t(x)\in\{0,1\}$ for all $x$~\pref{result:Davila} with the incompressbility condition~\pref{eq:incompressibility} gives $v(x)=\rho_h(x)\in[0,1]$ and $uv=0$. It is easy to see that there is nothing to be gained in letting $v$ take values in the interior $(0,1)$, and we can therefore consider $\F_1$ to be given on the set of admissible functions

3882: \begin{multline*}

3883: \K_1 := \biggl\{ (u,v)\in 

3884:    \BV\bigl(\R^2;\{0,1\}\bigr)\times L^1\bigl(\R^2;\{0,1\}\bigr): \\

3885:   \left.\int u = \int v =M , \ uv = 0\text{ a.e.}\right\}.

3886: \end{multline*}

3887: The remaining dependence on $\eps$ is a consequence of simple rescaling.

3888: 

3889: \section{Ring solutions}

3890: \label{app:ring_solutions}

3891: We consider $r_1<r_2<R<r_3<r_4$ with

3892: \begin{align}

3893:   r_2^2 \,&=\, \tfrac12(R^2 + r_1^2), \qquad

3894:   r_3^2 \,=\, \tfrac12(R^2 + r_4^2),\label{eq:a-r2r3}\\

3895:   2R \,&=\, r_1+r_4\label{eq:a-R}

3896: \end{align}

3897: and $u,v$ given by

3898: \begin{gather*}

3899:   u\,=\, \Chi_{B_{r_3}(0)\setminus B_{r_2}(0)},\qquad v\,=\,

3900:   \Chi_{B_{r_2}(0)\setminus B_{r_1}(0)} +\Chi_{B_{r_4}(0)\setminus

3901:   B_{r_3}}.

3902: \end{gather*}

3903: In this setting the unique monotone optimal transport map $S$ from $u$

3904: to $v$ is radially symmetric, $S(x)=S(|x|)$ and determined

3905: by the requirement that

3906: \begin{alignat}2

3907:   \int_{r_2}^s 2\pi r\,dr \,&=\, \int_{r_1}^{S(s)}2\pi

3908:   r\,dr&\qquad&\text{ for } 

3909:   r_2<s<R,\label{eq:a-cond-S-1}\\ 

3910:   \int_{s}^{r_3} 2\pi r\,dr \,&=\, \int_{S(s)}^{r_4}2\pi r\,dr

3911:   &\qquad&\text{ for } 

3912:   R<s<r_3.\label{eq:a-cond-S-2}

3913: \end{alignat}

3914: Then

3915: \begin{align}

3916:   d_1(u,v)\,&=\, \int |x-S(x)|u(x)\,dx\notag\\

3917:   &=\, \int_{r_2}^R 2\pi r(r-S(r))\,dr + \int_R^{r_3} 2\pi

3918:   r(S(r)-r)\,dr.\label{eq:a-d1-1}

3919: \end{align}

3920: To compute the first integral we introduce new coordinates

3921: \begin{gather}

3922:   m(r)\,=\,\pi r^2-\pi r_2^2\quad\text{ with inverse }\quad

3923:   r(m)\,=\, \big(r_2^2+\frac{1}{\pi}m\big)^{1/2}.\label{eq:a-def-m1}

3924: \end{gather}

3925: In this coordinates \eqref{eq:a-cond-S-1} implies

3926: \begin{gather}

3927:   m(r)\,=\, m(S(r)) -m(r_1),\\

3928:   S(r(m))\,=\, r\big(m+m(r_1)\big)\,=\,r\big(m-m(R)\big),

3929: \end{gather}

3930: where in the last equality we have used that

3931: \begin{gather*}

3932:   m(r_1) + m(R)\,=\,\pi\big(r_1^2-2r_2^2+R^2\big)\,=\, 0

3933: \end{gather*}

3934: by \eqref{eq:a-r2r3}.

3935: The first integral in \eqref{eq:a-d1-1} therefore becomes

3936: \begin{align}

3937:   \int_{r_2}^R 2\pi r(r-S(r))\,dr \,&=\, \int_0^{m(R)}

3938:   \big(r(m)-r(m-m(R))\big)\,dm\notag\\

3939:   &=\, \int_0^{m(R)} r(m)-r(-m)\,dm\notag\\

3940:   &=\, \frac{2\pi}{3}\Big[\Big(r_2^2 +\frac{1}{\pi}m\Big)^{3/2}

3941:   +\Big(r_2^2 -\frac{1}{\pi}m\Big)^{3/2}\Big]_0^{m(R)}\notag\\

3942:   &=\, \frac{2\pi}{3}\Big[\Big(r_2^2 +\frac{1}{\pi}m(R)\Big)^{3/2}

3943:   +\Big(r_2^2 -\frac{1}{\pi}m(R)\Big)^{3/2}-2r_2^3\Big].\label{eq:a-d1-2} 

3944: \end{align}

3945: If we now introduce $t=(r_4-r_1)/2$ then

3946: \begin{gather*}

3947:   R-r_1\,=\,r_4-R\,=\, t,\qquad m(R)\,=\, \frac{\pi}{2}(2Rt-t^2),

3948: \end{gather*}

3949: and \eqref{eq:a-d1-2} yields

3950: \begin{align}

3951:   \int_{r_2}^R 2\pi r(r-S(r))\,dr  \,&=

3952:   \frac{2\pi}{3}

3953:   \Big[R^3+(R-t)^3 -2R^3\Big(1-\frac{t}{R}+\frac{t^2}{2R^2}\Big)^{\frac{3}{2}}\Big].

3954:   \label{eq:a-d1-3} 

3955: \end{align}

3956: If we do the analogous calculations for the second integral in

3957: \eqref{eq:a-d1-1} we obtain that

3958: \begin{align}

3959:   \int_R^{r_3} 2\pi r(S(r)-r)\,dr \,&=

3960:   \frac{2\pi}{3}

3961:   \Big[R^3+(R+t)^3 -2R^3\Big(1+\frac{t}{R}+\frac{t^2}{2R^2}\Big)^{\frac{3}{2}}\Big].

3962:   \label{eq:a-d1-4} 

3963: \end{align}

3964: which is the expression on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:a-d1-3} with

3965: $t$ substituted by $-t$.\\

3966: We consider $R\to\infty$ with $t$ of order one and obtain by a Taylor expansion

3967: in $1/R$

3968: \begin{align*}

3969:   & d_1(u,v) +\int |\nabla u|\\

3970:   =\,&   \frac{2\pi}{3}

3971:   \Big[2R^3+(R+t)^3 +(R-t)^3

3972:   -2R^3\Big(1+\frac{t}{R}+\frac{t^2}{2R^2}\Big)^{\frac{3}{2}}

3973:   -2R^3\Big(1-\frac{t}{R}+\frac{t^2}{2R^2}\Big)^{\frac{3}{2}}\Big]\\

3974:   & +2\pi R\Big[\Big(1+\frac{t}{R}+\frac{t^2}{2R^2}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}

3975:   +\Big(1-\frac{t}{R}+\frac{t^2}{2R^2}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big]\\

3976:   =\,& \pi Rt^2 + \frac{\pi}{16}\frac{t^4}{R}+ 4\pi R

3977:   +\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{t^2}{R} + O(R^{-3}) \\

3978:   =\,& 2\pi Rt \Big[\Big(\frac{t}{2} +\frac{2}{t}\Big) +

3979:   \frac{1}{4R^2} + \frac{(2-t)}{32R^2}\big(t^2+2t-4\big) + O(R^{-2})O(|t-2|) \Big]\\

3980:   =\,& 2\pi Rt\Big[ 2 +\frac{1}{4}(t-2)^2 +\frac{1}{4}R^{-2}+ O(R^{-2})O(|t-2|)\Bigr],

3981: \end{align*}

3982: which is the desired asymptotic development.

3983: \end{appendix}

3984: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3985: % bibliography

3986: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3987: 

3988: \bibliography{helf-lib}

3989: \bibliographystyle{plain}

3990: %

3991: \end{document}

3992: