1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{amssymb,amsthm,amsmath,amsfonts}

3: \usepackage{epsfig}

4: 

5: \theoremstyle{plain}

6: \begingroup

7: %\theorembodyfont{plain}

8: \newtheorem*{metathm}{Metatheorem} 

9: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem} 

10: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}

11: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

12: %\newtheorem{prop}[thm]{Proposition}

13: %\newtheorem{metathm}{Metatheorem}[section] 

14: %\newtheorem{conj}[thm]{Conjecture}

15: %\newtheorem*{refthm}{Theorem}

16: \endgroup

17: 

18: 

19: \theoremstyle{definition}

20: \newtheorem{remark}{Remark} 

21: 

22: 

23: \newcommand{\nwc}{\newcommand}

24: \nwc{\bit}{\begin{itemize}}

25: \nwc{\eit}{\end{itemize}}

26: \nwc{\Levy}{L\'evy}

27: \nwc{\LK}{L\'evy-Khintchine}

28: \nwc{\LI}{L\'evy-It\^{o}}

29: \nwc{\CH}{Cole-Hopf}

30: \nwc{\Holder}{H\"{o}lder}

31: \nwc{\cadlag}{c\`{a}dl\`{a}g}

32: \nwc{\be}{\begin{equation}}

33: \nwc{\ee}{\end{equation}}

34: \nwc{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}

35: \nwc{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}

36: \nwc{\la}{\label}

37: \nwc{\nn}{\nonumber}

38: \nwc{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}}

39: \nwc{\C}{\mathbb{C}}

40: \nwc{\E}{\mathbb{E}}

41: \nwc{\R}{\mathbb{R}}

42: \nwc{\N}{\mathbb{N}}

43: \nwc{\prob}{\mathbb{P}}

44: \nwc{\Skor}{\mathbb{D}}

45: \nwc{\attr}{\mathcal{A}}

46: \nwc{\PP}{\mathcal{P}}

47: \nwc{\PPE}{\mathcal{P}(E)}

48: \nwc{\M}{\mathcal{M}}

49: \nwc{\Tt}{T^{(t)}}

50: \nwc{\Ut}{U^{(t)}}

51: \nwc{\Vt}{V^{(t)}}

52: \nwc{\tlambda}{\tilde{\lambda}}

53: \nwc{\tbar}{\bar{t}}

54: \nwc{\gtx}{g^{(t)}_x}

55: \nwc{\order}{\prec}

56: \nwc{\law}{\stackrel{\mathcal{L}}{\rightarrow}}

57: \nwc{\eqd}{\stackrel{\mathcal{L}}{=}}

58: \nwc{\vp}{\varphi}

59: \nwc{\Vp}{\Phi}

60: \nwc{\psilevy}{\Psi}

61: \nwc{\ve}{\varepsilon}

62: \nwc{\veps}{\varepsilon}

63: \nwc{\eps}{\ve}

64: \nwc{\betarsc}{\theta}

65: \nwc{\cl}{c\'{a}dl\'{a}g}

66: \nwc{\qref}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

67: \nwc{\D}{\partial}

68: \nwc{\Ebar}{\bar{E}}

69: \nwc{\mmt}{m}

70: \nwc{\dnto}{\downarrow}

71: \nwc{\fzero}{F_\rho} %{F_{0,\rho}}

72: \nwc{\fone}{M_\rho} %{F_{1,\rho}}

73: \nwc{\ip}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}

74: \nwc{\ipbig}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}

75: \nwc{\Lip}{\mathop{\rm Lip}\nolimits}

76: \nwc{\Tmin}{T_{\min}}

77: \nwc{\Tmax}{T_{\max}}

78: \nwc{\Tgel}{T_{\rm gel}}

79: \nwc{\LL}{\mathcal{L}}

80: \nwc{\mudot}{\mu}

81: \nwc{\nudot}{\nu}

82: \nwc{\rme}{{\rm e}}

83: \nwc{\rmi}{{\rm i}}

84: \nwc{\nsup}{^{(n)}}

85: \nwc{\ksup}{^{(k)}}

86: \nwc{\jsup}{^{(j)}}

87: \nwc{\nksup}{^{(n_k)}}

88: \nwc{\inv}{^{-1}}

89: \nwc{\qxfac}{(1-\rme^{-qx})}

90: \nwc{\one}{\mathbf{1}}

91: \nwc{\psib}{\psi^{(b)}}

92: \nwc{\pss}{\psi_\#}

93: \nwc{\phss}{\Phi_\#}

94: \nwc{\asharp}{\gamma}

95: \nwc{\vfour}{\hat{v}}

96: \nwc{\Pss}{\Psi_\#}

97: \nwc{\pibar}{\Pi}

98: \nwc{\Ltail}{\bar{\Lambda}}

99: \nwc{\vb}{v^{(b)}}

100: \nwc{\spec}{\tilde{\beta}}

101: \nwc{\hv}{\hat{v}}

102: \nwc{\hvl}{\hat{v}_L}

103: \nwc{\lap}{{\,\cal L}}

104: \renewcommand{\Re}{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}

105: \renewcommand{\Im}{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}

106: \begin{document}

107: %

108: \title{Universality classes in Burgers turbulence} 

109: \author{Govind Menon\textsuperscript{1} and Robert. L.

110: Pego\textsuperscript{2}}

111: 

112: \date{\today}

113: 

114: \maketitle

115: %

116: \begin{abstract}

117: We establish necessary and sufficient conditions for the shock statistics

118: to approach self-similar form in Burgers turbulence with \Levy\/

119: process initial data. The proof relies upon an elegant closure theorem

120: of Bertoin %~\cite{B_burgers} %({\em Comm. Math. Phys. {\bf 193}, 1998\/})  

121: and Carraro and Duchon %~\cite{Duchon1} %%Can't put citations in abstract

122: that reduces the

123: study of shock statistics to  Smoluchowski's coagulation equation with

124: additive kernel, and upon our previous characterization of the 

125: domains of attraction

126: of self-similar solutions for this equation.  %~\cite{MP1}.

127: %~({\em  Comm. Pure. Appl. Math. {\bf 57}, 2004\/}).  

128: \end{abstract}

129: 

130: \medskip

131: \noindent

132: {\bf Keywords:\/} Burgers turbulence, Smoluchowski's coagulation equation,

133:   \Levy\/ processes, dynamic scaling, regular variation, 

134: agglomeration, coagulation, coalescence, shock statistics.

135: 

136: \medskip

137: \noindent

138: {\bf MSC classification:\/} 60J75, 35R60, 35L67, 82C99

139: %

140: \medskip

141: \footnotetext[1]

142: {Division of Applied Mathematics, Box F, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912.

143: Email: menon@dam.brown.edu}

144: \footnotetext[2]{Center for Nonlinear Analysis, Department of

145:   Mathematical Sciences,  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

146: Email: rpego@cmu.edu}

147: 

148: \pagebreak

149: \section{Introduction}

150: The construction of stochastic processes that are also weak solutions

151: to the equations of fluid mechanics is one approach to rigorous

152: mathematical theories of turbulence. This is poorly understood at

153: present, and we must 

154: settle for insights from vastly simplified model problems. We consider

155: the invisicid Burgers equation  

156: \begin{equation}

157: \label{E.burgers}

158: \D_t u + \D_x\left( \frac{u^2}{2} \right) =0, \quad t>0,\ x \in \R, \quad

159: u(x,0)=u_0(x),

160: \end{equation}

161: with random initial data $u_0$. The problem is to determine the

162: statistical properties of the \CH\ (entropy) solution $u(x,t)$ to

163: (\ref{E.burgers}), given the statistical properties of $u_0$. 

164: There is a large literature on the subject; we refer to

165: Burgers' book~\cite{Burgers} and the

166: more recent survey articles~\cite{ES,Gurbatov2,Woc}. 

167: The problem was proposed by Burgers as a

168: model for turbulence in incompressible fluids, but it has several

169: well-known flaws in this regard. 

170: 

171: Explicit solutions play a special role in the theory.

172: Burgers studied the case when $u_0$ is 

173: white noise in his monograph~\cite{Burgers}.

174: His work remains the foundation for several rigorous results, which

175: culminate with the 

176: complete solution by Frachebourg and Martin for the velocity and shock

177: statistics (see ~\cite{Frachebourg} and references therein).

178: The case when $u_0$ is a Brownian motion has attracted much attention

179: since the work of  

180: She, Aurell and Frisch~\cite{She} and Sinai~\cite{Sinai}. 

181: An elegant solution to

182: this problem was obtained by Bertoin~\cite{B_burgers} and Carraro and

183: Duchon~\cite{Duchon1}. More generally, these authors considered 

184: initial data that comprise a \Levy\/ process

185: with only downward jumps (i.e., shocks). A \Levy\/ process  

186: $X_x$ ($x \geq 0$) is a continuous-time random walk with stationary and

187: independent increments. It is determined completely 

188: by its characteristic exponent $\Psi$, satisfying $\E(e^{ikX_x})

189: = e^{-x\Psi(k)}$, via the celebrated \LK\/ formula 

190: \be 

191: \label{E.LK1}

192: \Psi(k)  = i b k +

193: \frac{\sigma^2 k^2}{2} + \int_{\R} \left(1-e^{iks}+ 

194: i ks\one_{|s|<1} \right) \Pi(ds), \quad k \in \R.

195: \ee

196: The process $X$ is the superposition of three independent

197: processes related to this formula: a Brownian motion

198: with variance $\sigma^2$ and drift $b \in \R$, a compound Poisson

199: process with jump measure $\Pi \one_{|s| \geq 1}$, and a pure 

200: jump martingale 

201: %\footnote{??check mean drift. 6/1/06: this is OK.}

202: with jump measure $\Pi \one_{|s| <1}$ (see~\cite[Ch.1]{B_book}).

203: The measure $\Pi$ is arbitrary, subject to the condition

204: $\int_\R (1\wedge s^2)\Pi(ds)<\infty$, where $a\wedge b$ means $\min(a,b)$.

205: 

206: We say $X$ is {\em spectrally negative\/} if $\Pi$ is

207: concentrated on the half-line $s<0$. In all that follows we assume

208: \be

209: \la{E.initial}

210: u_0(x)  = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} 0, \quad x < 0, \\

211: \text{a spectrally negative \Levy\/ process}, \quad x

212: \geq  0, \end{array} \right.  

213: \ee

214: As we show below, we can always reduce to the case where $u_0(x)$ has zero mean

215: $\E(u_0(x))$ for all $x$, 

216: and $\int_{-\infty}^0(|s|\wedge s^2) \Pi(ds) < \infty$. It is then 

217: more convenient to use the Laplace exponent 

218: \be

219: \label{E.LKu}

220:  \psi(q) = -\Psi(-iq) = \frac{\sigma^2 q^2}{2}  + \int_0^\infty \left(

221: e^{-qs} -1 + qs \right) \,\Lambda(ds), \quad q >0,

222: \ee

223: where  $\Lambda((s,\infty)) = \Pi((-\infty,-s))$ for every $s>0$, so that 

224: $\E(e^{qX_x}) = e^{x\psi(q)}$ and $\E(X_x)=x\psi'(0)=0$.

225: 

226: For this class of initial data, Bertoin

227: proved a remarkable closure property for the entropy

228: solution of \qref{E.burgers}, namely: 

229: $x\mapsto u(x,t)-u(0,t)$  {\em remains a spectrally negative

230: \Levy\/ process for all $t>0$.}  

231: This closure property was first noted by Carraro and

232: Duchon in connection with their notion of statistical

233: solutions to Burgers equation~\cite{Duchon0}. That these

234: statistical solutions agree with the \CH\/ solution for spectrally

235: negative data  was shown by Bertoin~\cite[Thm. 2]{B_burgers}.  

236: The closure property fails if $u_0$ has positive jumps---These

237: positive jumps open into rarefaction waves for $t>0$, and this is

238: incompatible with the rigidity of sample paths of \Levy\/ processes.

239: An interesting formal analysis of closure properties of Burgers equation

240: is presented in~\cite{Duchon2}. 

241: 

242: Henceforth, we write $v(x,t)=u(x,t)-u(0,t)$ for brevity.  

243: The \LK\ representation now implies that the law of the \Levy\/ process

244: $x\mapsto v(x,t)$ is completely described by a corresponding 

245: ``\Levy\/ triplet'' $(b_t,\sigma_t^2, \Lambda_t)$. 

246: The mean drift $b_t=\E(v(1,t))$ satisfies $b_t=b_0=0$ for every 

247: $t \geq 0$. Moreover, for every $t >0$, $v(\cdot,t)$ is

248: of bounded variation, thus the variance $\sigma_t=0$.  Consequently, 

249: the law of $v(\cdot,t)$ is completely determined

250: by only the jump measure $\Lambda_t$ which contains the shock statistics.

251: 

252: It is a striking fact, implicit in \cite{B_burgers}, that the evolution of

253: $\Lambda_t$ is described by {\em Smoluchowski's coagulation equation with

254: additive kernel}, an equation that arises in entirely different

255: areas such as the analysis of algorithms~\cite{Chassaing}, the kinetics of

256: polymerization~\cite{Ziff}, and cloud formation from

257: droplets~\cite{Golovin} (see~\cite{Aldous} for a review). 

258: %% Smoluchowski's coagulation equation in the following theorem.

259: %% \begin{theorem}

260: %% Assume $u_0$ is a spectrally negative \Levy\/ process with \Levy\/ triplet

261: %% $(0, \sigma^2_0, \Lambda_0)$. With probability $1$, $v(\cdot,t)$, $t

262: %% \in [0,\infty)$ are \Levy\/ processes  whose \Levy\/

263: %%   measures form a continuous semigroup  generated by Smoluchowski's coagulation

264: %%   equation with rate $x+y$ as described in

265: %%   \qref{E.smolburgers}. 

266: %% \end{theorem}

267: What this means is that {\em mean-field theory is exact\/} for Burgers

268: equation with   

269: initial data of the form \qref{E.initial}, i.e., random one-sided

270: data with stationary and independent increments.

271: We give a precise statement to this effect below in 

272: Theorem~\ref{T.meanfield}. Several connections

273: between stochastic models of coalescence and Burgers turbulence are

274: reviewed in~\cite{B_icm}. 

275: 

276: Here, we use the closure property as a basis for a rigorous study of

277: {\em universality classes for dynamic scaling} in Burgers turbulence. 

278: Our motivation is the 

279: following. A central theme in studies of homogeneous isotropic turbulence in

280: incompressible fluids is the universality of the Kolmogorov 

281: spectrum~\cite{Kolm}. A possible rigorous formulation of such 

282: universality involves (a) the construction of stochastic

283: processes that mimic a `typical turbulent flow', and (b) a characterization

284: of the domains of attraction of these processes.  

285: For Burgers turbulence,

286: step (a) consists of constructing exact solutions for special initial data, say

287: white noise or Brownian motion. In this article, we

288: carry out step (b) for initial data that satisfy \qref{E.initial}. 

289: 

290: Domains of attraction are studied in the classical limit theorems in  

291: probability (e.g., the central limit theorem), and their process

292: versions (e.g., Donsker's invariance principle). For Smoluchowski's

293: coagulation equation with additive kernel, we characterized 

294: all possible domains of attraction in~\cite{MP1}, 

295: a result akin to the classical limit theorems. 

296: In this article we deal with a process version. 

297: In all that follows, we consider the processes

298: $x\mapsto v(x,t)$ as elements

299: of the space $\Skor$ of right continuous paths $\R_+\to \R$ 

300: with left limits (\cadlag\/ paths) equipped with the Skorokhod

301: topology~\cite[Ch. VI]{Jacod}. The shock statistics determine

302: completely the law of this process (a probability measure on

303: $\Skor$). Approach to limiting forms will be phrased in terms of 

304: weak convergence of probability measures on $\Skor$. 

305: 

306: Among the initial data we consider, the stable processes are of particular

307: importance because of their self-similarity. Let $X^\alpha, \alpha \in

308: (1,2]$ denote the stable process with Laplace exponent $q^\alpha$ 

309: ($\alpha=2$ corresponds to Brownian motion). 

310: The corresponding jump measure 

311: $\Lambda(ds)=s^{-1-\alpha}\,ds/\Gamma(-\alpha)$ for $\alpha<2$.

312: There is a one-to-one correspondence between (a) these stable 

313: processes, (b) statistically self-similar solutions in

314: Burgers turbulence, and (c) self-similar solutions  to Smoluchowski's

315: coagulation equation. 

316: Precisely, this works as follows. Let $\alpha \in (1,2]$, and let $T^\alpha$

317: denote the first-passage process for $x\mapsto X^\alpha_x+x$, i.e.,

318: \be

319: \label{E.firstpass}

320: T^\alpha_x = \inf \{y \left| X^\alpha_y + y > x \right.\}.

321: \ee

322: Then for the solution to (\ref{E.burgers}) with 

323: $u_0(x)=X^\alpha_x$ for $x \geq 0$, 

324: $v(x,t)$ is statistically self-similar, with 

325: \begin{equation}

326: \label{eq:selfsimilar}

327: v(x,t) \eqd 

328: t^{1/\beta-1} V^\alpha_{xt^{-1/\beta}}

329: := 

330: t^{1/\beta-1}\left(xt^{-1/\beta} -

331: T^\alpha_{xt^{-1/\beta}} \right) 

332: , \quad \; t,x>0,

333: \end{equation}

334: where $\beta= (\alpha-1)/\alpha$.

335: Here $\eqd$ means both processes define the same measure on $\Skor$.

336: The process $T^\alpha$ is a pure jump \Levy\ process with

337: \Levy\ measure $f_\alpha(s) 

338: \,ds$, where $f_\alpha$ is the number density profile

339: of a self-similar solution to Smoluchowski's coagulation

340: equation~\cite[Sec 6]{MP1}:

341: \be

342: \label{E.ndensity}

343: f_\alpha(s) = \frac{1}{\pi} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{k-1}

344:   s^{k\beta-2}}{k!} \Gamma(1+k-k \beta) \sin \pi k \beta, \quad \alpha

345: \in (1,2].

346: \ee

347: These solutions are related to classical distributions in probability 

348: theory by rescaling. If  $p(s;\alpha,2-\alpha)$ denotes the density of

349: a  maximally-skewed \Levy\ stable  law~\cite[XVII.7]{Feller} we have

350: \cite{B_eternal,MP1} 

351: \be

352: \label{E.max_stable}

353: f_\alpha (s)  = s^{\beta-2} p(s^\beta;\alpha, 2-\alpha).

354: \ee

355: By the \LI\ decomposition~\cite[Thm 1.1]{B_book} and

356: (\ref{eq:selfsimilar}) we may conclude   

357: that the magnitudes of shocks  in $u(\cdot,t)$ form a Poisson point

358: process valued in $(0,\infty)$ whose characteristic measure is

359: \begin{equation}

360: \label{eq:shock_intensity}

361: \Lambda^\alpha_t(ds) = t^{1-2/\beta} 

362: f_\alpha\left( {s t^{1-1/\beta}} \right) \, ds.

363: \end{equation}

364: 

365: For $1<\alpha <2$ the self-similar solutions have algebraic tails,

366: with $f_\alpha(s) \sim s^{-1-\alpha}/\Gamma(-\alpha)$ as $s\to\infty$.

367: The case $\alpha=2$ is particularly important since it corresponds to Brownian

368: initial data. Here we obtain a solution found by Golovin in a model

369: for cloud formation from droplets~\cite{Golovin}, 

370: \be

371: \label{E.golovin}

372: f_2(s) = (4\pi)^{-1/2} s^{-3/2} e^{-s/4}.

373: \ee

374: For the corresponding solution to \qref{E.burgers}, the

375: law of $v(x,t)$ can be recovered from 

376: the law of $T^2_x$, the first-passage time for Brownian motion with

377: unit drift, which is explicitly given as follows (see section 2.6):

378: %and thus $V^2_x$, may then be determined

379: %explicitly by Laplace inversion~\cite[Ch.29]{Abramowitz}, and we have 

380: \be

381: \label{E.golovin2}

382: {\prob}(T^2_x \in (y,y+dy) ) =

383: \frac{x  \one_{y >0}}{2\sqrt{\pi y^3}}

384: \exp\left(-\frac{(x-y)^2}{4y}\right) \, dy. 

385: \ee

386: 

387: 

388: %% Notice that the typical length scale in $x$ is $t^{1/\beta}$. However, it is

389: %% imprecise to think of this as the typical gap between shocks, since

390: %% the shocks are dense ($\int_0^\infty n(t,s) ds$ is divergent) . 

391: %% When $\alpha=2$ these densities may be expressed in the closed form

392: %% \[ n(t,s) ds = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} s^{-3/2} e^{-s/2t^2}.\]

393: 

394: Considering now arbitrary solutions to \qref{E.burgers} with initial data 

395: \qref{E.initial}, we classify solutions that approach self-similar

396: form as $t\to\infty$ as follows.  We establish necessary and

397: sufficient conditions for convergence of the laws of the rescaled processes 

398: \begin{equation}

399: \label{E.rscV}

400: x\mapsto \Vt_x =  \frac{t}{\lambda(t)}v(\lambda(t)x, t)

401: %,\qquad x \geq 0,

402: \end{equation}

403: in the sense of weak convergence of measures on $\Skor$.  (Since

404: the shocks coalesce, a rescaling $\lambda(t) \to \infty$ is needed

405: to obtain a non-trivial limit. The amplitude scaling is natural, 

406: see Section~\ref{S.proof}.)  Convergence

407: to a process $V^*$ is written $\Vt \law V^*$ as in~\cite{Jacod}.

408: Recall that a positive function $L$ is said to be slowly varying at $\infty$

409: if $\lim_{t\to\infty}L(tx)/L(t)=1$ for all $x>0$. 

410: %We implicitly exclude the trivial case when $\Lambda_0$ vanishes in

411: %the following theorem.

412: \begin{theorem}

413: \label{T.main}

414: Let $u_0$ be a spectrally negative \Levy\ process with zero mean 

415: $\E(u_0(x))$, 

416: variance $\sigma_0^2\ge0$, and downward jump measure %$\Lambda_0$ 

417: satisfying $\int_0^\infty (s \wedge s^2) \Lambda_0(ds)<\infty$.

418: \begin{enumerate}

419: \item Suppose there is a rescaling  $\lambda(t) \rightarrow \infty$ as

420:   $t\to\infty$ and a \Levy\ process $V^*$ with zero mean $\E(V^*_1)$ 

421: such that the random variables $\Vt_1$ converge to $V^*_1$ in law.  

422: Then there exists $\alpha \in (1,2]$ 

423: and a function $L$ slowly varying at infinity such that 

424: \begin{equation}

425: \label{E.RV}

426: \sigma_0^2+ \int_0^s r^2 \Lambda_0(dr) \sim {s^{2-\alpha} L(s)}

427: \quad\text{as $ s \to \infty.$} 

428: \end{equation}

429: \item Conversely, assume that there exists $\alpha \in (1,2]$ and a

430: function $L$ slowly varying at infinity such that (\ref{E.RV})

431:   holds. Then there is a strictly increasing rescaling $\lambda(t) \to

432:   \infty$ such that $\Vt \law V^{\alpha}$.

433: \end{enumerate}

434: \end{theorem}

435: \begin{remark}

436: %It is not necessary to assume that $\Vt \law V^*$ in order to

437: %obtain \qref{E.RV}. 

438: %$\Vt_{x_0}$ for some fixed $x_0 \in (0,\infty)$ suffices. 

439: Since $\Vt$ and $V^*$ are \Levy\/ processes, we have 

440: $\Vt \law V^*$ if and only if

441: we have convergence in law of the random variables

442: $\Vt_{x_0}$ for some fixed $x_0 \in (0,\infty)$ (see \qref{E.eqv1}-\qref{E.eqv2} in

443: section 3 below).  We take $x_0=1$ without loss of generality. 

444: Part (2) implies in particular that the only

445: possible limits are statistically self-similar.

446: \end{remark}

447: \begin{remark}

448: \label{R.energy}

449: We say a solution has finite energy if for any finite

450: interval $I \subset \R_+$ we have $\E\left(\int_I|v(x,t)|^2 \, dx\right) <

451: \infty$. The jump measure $\Lambda_t$ for the solution is related 

452: to the energy by (see Section~\ref{S.energy})

453: \[ \E\left(\int_I v(x,t)^2 \, dx \right) = \left(\int_0^\infty s^2

454: \Lambda_t(ds) \right) \int_I x\,dx. \]

455: %% Let $(b_t,0, \Lambda_t)$ denote the triplet for the \Levy\/

456: %% process $v(\cdot,t)$.  Then (see Section~\ref{S.energy})

457: %% \[ \E\left(\int_I v(x,t)^2 \, dx \right) = b_t^2 \int_I x^2\, dx  +

458: %% \left(\int_0^\infty y^2 \Lambda_t(dy) \right) \int_I x\,dx. \]

459: The integral in \qref{E.RV} is thus a measure of the energy in an

460: interval. If it is initially finite, it is conserved for $t>0$,

461: and it remains infinite if it is initially infinite. 

462: The only self-similar solution  with finite energy corresponds to

463: $\alpha=2$, and Theorem~\ref{T.main} implies it attracts all solutions with

464: initially finite energy. In this sense, one may say that the finite energy

465: solution is universal. However, Theorem~\ref{T.main} also indicates 

466: the delicate dependence of the domains of attraction on the tail

467: behavior of $\Lambda_0$. Heavy-tailed solutions seem to us no less interesting

468: than those with finite energy.  Finer results on asymptotics, and a

469: compactness theorem for subsequential limits that 

470: builds on Bertoin's \LK\/ classification for eternal

471: solutions to Smoluchowski's equation~\cite{B_eternal}, will be

472: developed elsewhere. 

473: \end{remark}

474: \begin{remark}

475: The case of zero mean, $b_0=0$, is the most interesting. 

476: If $b_0> 0$ or $b_0<0$ we can

477: reduce to this case by a change of variables (see below). If $b_0<0$,

478: the solution is defined only for $0 \leq t <

479: -b_0^{-1}$. Theorem~\ref{T.main} then characterizes the approach to

480: self-similarity at the blow-up time. If $b_0>0$ then the behavior of

481: the solution as $t\to\infty$ is determined by the zero-mean solution

482: with the same $\sigma_0^2$ and $\Lambda_0$ at the finite time $b_0^{-1}$.

483: \end{remark}

484: \begin{remark} The \CH\/ solution is  geometric  and 

485: Theorem~\ref{T.main} may be a viewed as a limit theorem for

486: statistics of minima. The utility of regular variation in such

487: problems is widely known~\cite{Resnick}. If the initial data is white

488: noise, the \CH\/ solution is a study of the parabolic hull of

489: Brownian motion. Groeneboom's work on this problem~\cite{Groen} is the

490: basis for several results on Burgers turbulence~(in

491: particular~\cite{AE,Frachebourg,Giraud}).  We have been

492: unable to find a   similar reference to the problem we consider in the

493: probability literature (\cite{Bingham2} seems the closest). 

494: \end{remark}

495: 

496: \begin{remark}

497: There is a growing literature on  intermittence, and the asymptotic

498: self-similarity of Burgers turbulence, see for

499: example~\cite{Woc2,Gurbatov}.  

500: Numerical simulations and heuristic arguments suggest that this is a

501: subtle problem with several distinct regimes. 

502: It is hard to obtain rigorous results for general initial data. 

503: Theorem~\ref{T.main} tells us that the approach

504: to self-similarity is at least as complex as in the classical limit

505: theorems of probability.  

506: \end{remark}

507: 

508: The rest of this article is organized as follows. We explain the

509: mapping from Burgers equation to Smoluchowski's coagulation

510: equation in Section~\ref{S.meanfield}. This is followed by the proof of

511: Theorem~\ref{T.main} in Section~\ref{S.proof}. Finally, in

512: Section~\ref{S.energy} we compute a number of statistics of

513: physical interest: energy and dissipation in solutions,  the

514: Fourier-Laplace spectrum, and the multifractal spectrum.

515: 

516: 

517: \section{Mean field theory for Burgers equation}

518: \label{S.meanfield}

519: In this section we explain the connection between Burgers equation with

520: spectrally negative \Levy\ process data and Smoluchowski's coagulation

521: equation. The  main results are due to

522: Bertoin~\cite{B_burgers} and Carraro and Duchon~\cite{Duchon1}. 

523: We follow Bertoin's approach, and explain results  implicit

524: in~\cite{B_burgers} and \cite{B_eternal}. 

525: We think it worthwhile to make this connection widely known 

526: in full generality, since the results are of interest to

527: many non-probabilists. Exact solutions of this simplicity are also

528: useful as benchmark problems for numerical calculations. 

529: %% To this end,

530: %% we also tabulate some quantities of physical interest: the BV decay,

531: %% dissipation at shocks, the multifractal spectrum, and the power spectrum. 

532: %% 

533: 

534: \subsection{Shock coalescence and Smoluchowski's coagulation equation}

535: Smoluchowski's coagulation equation is a widely used mean-field model of 

536: cluster growth~(see~\cite{Aldous,Drake} for introductions).

537: We begin with a heuristic derivation of

538: the coagulation equation as a mean-field model of shock

539: coalescence. First consider the evolution of 

540: a single shock of size $s>0$.  

541: Let $u_0(x)= -s \one_{x \geq 0}$. Then the solution is  

542: \be

543: \la{E.ba1}

544: u(x,t) = -s \one_{x \geq x_1(t)}, \quad x_1(t) =

545: -\frac{s}{2}t. 

546: \ee

547: Shock coalescence is nicely seen as follows. 

548: Let $u_0(x) = -\sum_{k=1}^N s_k(0)

549: \one_{x \geq x_k(0)}$ where $s_k(0) >0$ for 

550: $k=1,\ldots,N$ and $x_1(0) < \ldots x_N(0)$. 

551: The solution may be constructed

552: using the method of characteristics and the standard jump condition

553: \[

554: \dot{x} = \frac12(u^- + u^+)

555: \]

556: across a shock at $x=x(t)$, where $u^-$ and $u^+$ denote respectively the left

557: and right limits of $u(\cdot,t)$ at $x$. At any time

558: $t>0$, there are $N(t) \leq N(0)$ shocks at locations $x_1(t) <

559: x_k(t) < x_{N(t)}(t)$ and 

560: \be

561: \la{E.ba2}

562: u(x,t) = - \sum_{k=1}^N s_k(t) \one_{x \geq x_k(t)}, \quad

563: \dot{x}_k(t_+) = -\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} s_j(t_+) -

564: \frac{s_k(t_+)}{2}. 

565: \ee

566: The shock sizes $s_k(t)$ are constant between collisions, 

567: and add upon collision---when shocks $k$ and $k+1$ collide,  

568: we set $s_k(t_+) = s_k(t_-)+ s_{k+1}(t_-)$ and relabel.

569: This yields an appealing {\em sticky

570:   particle\/} or {\em ballistic aggregation\/} scenario.

571: We say a system of particles with position, mass and

572: velocity $(x_k(t),m_k(t),v_k(t))$ undergoes ballistic aggregation if

573: (a) the particles move with constant mass and velocity between collisions, 

574: and (b) at collisions, the colliding particles stick to form a single particle,

575: conserving mass and momentum in the process. We map this shock coalescence

576: problem to a sticky particle system by setting $m_k= s_k$ and 

577: $v_k = \dot x_k$. %-\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} s_j - s_k/2$. 

578: Suppose particles $k$ and $k+1$ meet at time $t$. 

579: Then, with unprimed variables denoting values before collision and

580: primed variables denoting values after, 

581: since $v_{k+1}=v_k-(m_k+m_{k+1})/2$ we have

582: \[

583: m_k v_k + m_{k+1} v_{k+1} 

584: %= m_k v_k + m_{k+1}\left(v_k - \frac{m_k+m_{k+1}}{2} \right) 

585: =(m_k + m_{k+1})\left(v_k - \frac{m_{k+1}}{2} \right) 

586: = m_k'v_k'. 

587: \]

588:  

589: %Then just before the collision

590: %\[ (m_k v_k)(t_-) + (m_{k+1} v_{k+1}(t_-) = 

591: %(m_k + m_{k+1})\left(v_k(t_-) -

592: %\frac{s_{k+1}(t_-)}{2} \right). \]

593: %The velocity just after collision is given by conservation of momentum

594: %\[ v_k(t_+)= -\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} s_j

595: %-\frac{s_k(t_-)+s_{k+1}(t_-)}{2} = -\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} s_j

596: %-\frac{s_k(t_+)}{2},  \]

597: %in agreement with \qref{E.ba2}. 

598: 

599: The calculations so far involve no randomness. Suppose now that the 

600: shock sizes $s_j$ are independent and let $f(s,t)\,ds$ denote 

601: the expected number of shocks per unit length with size in 

602: $[s,s+ ds]$.  We derive a mean-field rate equation for $f$ as follows. 

603: Let $I$ be an interval of unit length. 

604: The number density changes because of the flux of

605: shocks entering and leaving $I$ and because of shock collisions within $I$. 

606: On average, the velocity difference across $I$ is 

607: \[

608: M_1(t) = \int_0^\infty s f(s,t) ds,

609: \]

610: therefore the average influx is $M_1(t)f(s,t)\,ds$.

611: Next consider the formation of a shock of size $s_1+ s_2$ by a collision

612:   of shocks of size $s_1$ and $s_2$ as shown in

613:   Figure~\ref{fig:heuristic}. The relative velocity 

614:   between these shocks is $(s_1+ s_2)/2$

615:   (see Figure~\ref{fig:heuristic}). 

616: The expected number of neighboring pairs with sizes in

617: $[s_1,s_1+ds_1]$, 

618: $[s_2,s_2+ds_2]$ 

619: %$s_1$ and $s_2$ is $f(s_1,t)f(s_2,t)$. 

620: respectively is 

621: \[

622: f(s_1,t)f(s_2,t) \,ds_1\,ds_2 .

623: \]

624: The probability that these neighboring shocks are near enough to collide in

625: time $dt$ is $\frac12(s_1+s_2)\,dt$, 

626: thus the number of these shocks 

627: that collide in time $dt$ is 

628: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

629: \begin{figure}

630: \centerline{\epsfysize=5cm{\epsffile{heuristic2.eps}}}

631: \caption{Binary clustering of shocks \label{fig:heuristic} 

632: }

633: \end{figure}

634: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

635: \be

636: \label{E.rate}

637: % f(m_1,t) f(m_2,t) \frac{\Delta_1+ \Delta_2}{2} dt =  

638: f(s_1,t) f(s_2,t) \frac{s_1+ s_2}{2}\, ds_1\,ds_2\,dt. 

639: \ee

640: Summing over all collisions that create shocks of size $s=s_1+s_2$,

641: and accounting for the loss of shocks of size $s$ ($=s_1$ or $s_2$)

642: in collisions with other shocks, we obtain the rate equation

643: %For every such collision, we gain one particle of size $m_1+m_2$ 

644: %and lose two particles. We 

645: \[

646: %\nn %\la{E.smol_ba} %\lefteqn

647: {\partial_t f (s,t)=  M_1(t) f + Q(f,f)}

648: \] %\ea

649: where 

650: $Q(f,f)$ denotes the collision operator given by  

651: \[

652: Q(f,f)(s,t) = \frac{1}{2}\int_0^s s f(s_1,t)

653: f(s-s_1, t) \, ds_1

654:  - \int_0^\infty (s+ s_1)  f(s,t) f(s_1,t) \,ds_1. 

655: \]

656: We integrate in $s$ to

657: find $\dot M_1 = M_1^2$, therefore the normalized

658: density $f/M_1$ satisfies the equation

659: \be

660: \la{E.smol_ba}

661: \frac1{M_1} \partial_t \left( \frac{f}{M_1} \right) = Q \left( \frac{f}{M_1},

662: \frac{f}{M_1} \right). 

663: \ee

664: Up to a change of time scale, this is a fundamental mean-field model of

665: coalescence: Smoluchowski's coagulation equation with additive kernel. 

666: We treat this equation in greater depth below. 

667: 

668: More precisely, it turns out that the random solution $u(x,t)$ has the

669: structure described in \qref{E.ba2} when the initial data $u_0$ consists of a

670: compound Poisson process with only downward jumps. The mean drift rate at

671: time $t$ is then $-M_1(t)$, and this example shows that the solution

672: blows up at the time $M_1(0)^{-1}$ in this case.

673: We show below (see \qref{E.changedrift}) that one may remove the mean drift by

674: a change of scale and slope, yielding `sawtooth' data with a deterministic

675: upward drift that compensates the random downward jumps. 

676: For such data we obtain a global solution. Thus, there is no essential

677: distinction between sawtooth data and the decreasing initial data

678: considered above. 

679: 

680: 

681: %% This heuristic calculation is made precise by Bertoin's theorem. 

682: %% Arguably the simplest random initial data is  a compound Poisson

683: %% process: that is, the jumps $\Delta_k$ are iid with 

684: %% law $\nu_0$ on $(0,\infty)$, and $x_k(0)$ are points of an

685: %% independent Poisson process with  rate $r>0$.  In this case, the

686: %% \Levy\/ measure of $u_0$ is $\Lambda_0(ds) = r \nu_0(ds)$. This is a

687: %% typical `sawtooth' profile, and remarkably this form is preserved by

688: %% the equation.

689: 

690: 

691: %% Since

692: %% $\E(u_0(x)) = x\left( c_0 - \int_0^\infty y\Lambda(dy)\right)$, it is

693: %% natural to assume that $M_0 = \int_0^\infty y \Lambda(dy)< \infty$,

694: %% and $c_0=M_0$ in order that the process $u_0$ has no net drift. A particular

695: %% case of Bertoin's theorem is that the solution remains a compound

696: %% Poisson process with no drift for all time, and the statistics of

697: %% $u(x,t)$ can be recovered from \qref{E.smol_ba} with initial data

698: %% $\nu_0$.

699: 

700: 

701: %% To summarize, what has worked in our favor here is  that the rigidity of

702: %% sample paths of \Levy\/ processes is perfectly compatible with

703: %% entropy solutions for Burgers equation. This is clear for the compound

704: %% Poisson processes. Remarkably, it holds even

705: %% when the initial data is not of bounded variation.

706: 

707: 

708: \subsection{The \CH\ formula}

709: The modern notion of an entropy solution stems from the penetrating

710: analysis by Hopf of the vanishing viscosity limit to

711: \qref{E.burgers}. His work was based on a change of variables

712: (re)discovered independently by Cole 

713: and Hopf~\cite{Cole,Hopf}.  This solution is obtained via

714: minimization of the \CH\/ function \cite{Cole,Hopf}

715: \begin{equation}

716: \label{E.CH}

717: H(y,t;x) = \frac{(x-y)^2}{2t} 

718: + \int_{-\infty}^y u_0(y')dy'.

719: \end{equation}

720: The minimum in $y$ is well-defined for all $t>0$ 

721: provided $U(y)= \int_0^y u_0(y') dy'$ is

722: lower semicontinuous and $\lim_{x \to \pm \infty} y^{-2} U(y)=0$.

723: This is a mild assumption and holds for the random data we consider

724: provided that the mean drift is zero. 

725: We denote the extreme points where $H$ is minimized by

726: \be

727: \la{E.IL}

728: a_-(x,t) = \inf\{z | H(z,t;x)= \min_y H\}, \quad 

729: a_+(x,t) = \sup\{z| H(z,t;x)= \min_y H \}. 

730: \ee

731: Notice that any $z \in \R$ such that $x= tu_0(z) +z$ is a critical

732: point of $H$, and represents a Lagrangian point that arrives at $x$ at

733: time $t$. Of these $z$, the `correct' Lagrangian points  are 

734: the minimizers of $H$. If $a_-(x,t)=a_+(x,t)$, this point is unique,

735: and we have 

736:  \begin{equation} 

737: \label{E.hopf}

738: u(x,t) = \frac{x - a_\pm(x,t)}{t}, \quad x \in \R,\ t >0. \quad

739: \end{equation}

740: There is a shock at $(x,t)$ when $a_-(x,t) \neq a_+(x,t)$. In this

741: case, the Lagrangian interval 

742: $[a_-(x,t),a_+(x,t)]$ is absorbed into the shock and the velocity of the

743: shock is given by the Rankine-Hugoniot condition (conservation of momentum)

744: \be

745: \la{E.ushock}

746: u(x,t) =  \frac{u(x_+,t) + u(x_-,t)}{2} = 

747: \frac{1}{a_+(x,t)-a_-(x,t)}\int_{a_-(x,t)}^{a_+(x,t)} u_0(y) \, dy. 

748: \ee

749: It will be convenient for us to assume that $u$ is

750: right-continuous and we call $a(x,t) = a_+(x,t)$ the {\em inverse

751: Lagrangian function\/}. Of course, the speed of shocks are still 

752: determined by the right-hand side of \qref{E.ushock}.  

753: 

754: %% A similar calculation holds if  the collisions are not binary. We now

755: %% incorporate a drift  and consider `sawtooth' initial data of the form

756: %% \be

757: %% \label{E.ba4}

758: %% u^{(c)}_0(x) = cx - \sum_{k=1}^N \Delta_k(0) \one_{x > x_k(0)}.

759: %% \ee

760: In order to deal with non-zero mean drift in initial data, 

761: we will use the following interesting

762: invariance of Burgers equation. 

763: Assume that $u_0(x)=o(|x|)$ as $|x| \to \infty$, and 

764: let $u(x,t)$ be the \CH\/ solution with $u(x,0)=u_0(x)$, 

765: defined for all $t \geq 0$.  Let $c\in\R$ and 

766: define

767: \be 

768: \label{E.Tc}

769: u^{(c)}_0(x) = u_0(x) + cx , \qquad 

770: T_c = \left\{ \begin{array}{rl} -c^{-1}, &\quad c <0, \\

771: +\infty, &\quad c \geq 0. \end{array} \right. 

772: \ee

773: Then the \CH\/ solution with initial data $u^{(c)}_0$ is given by

774: \be

775: \label{E.changedrift}

776: u^{(c)}(x,t) = \frac{1}{1+ct} u\left( \frac{x}{1+ct}, \frac{t}{1+ct} \right)

777: + \frac{cx}{1+ct}, \quad t \in [0,T_c).

778: \ee

779: This is seen as follows. An elementary calculation shows that the

780: \CH\/ functionals for the different data are related by

781: \[ H^{(c)}(y,t;x) = H\left(y, \frac{t}{1+ct};\frac{x}{1+ct}\right) +

782: \frac{cx^2}{2(1+ct)}, \]

783: which implies the inverse Lagrangian functions are related by

784: \be

785: \label{E.changedrift2}

786: a^{(c)}(x,t) = a\left(\frac{x}{1+ct}, \frac{t}{1+ct}\right). 

787: \ee

788: We now substitute in \qref{E.hopf} to obtain \qref{E.changedrift}. 

789: %% can be verified by differentiation at points where $u(x,t)$ is

790: %% smooth. At discontinuities,

791: %% \qref{E.changedrift} preserves Oleinik's entropy condition $u(x_-,t) >

792: %% u(x_+,t)$ which is sufficient to guarantee uniqueness. 

793: %% For sawtooth initial data, we now see from \qref{E.ba2} and

794: %% \qref{E.changedrift} that the shock speeds are constant between

795: %% collisions. Thus, the solution is generated by sticky

796: %% particle dynamics as before. If initially  

797: %% \be

798: %% \label{E.ba6}

799: %% m_k = \Delta_k(0), \quad v_k(0) = c_0 x_k(0) - \sum_{j=1}^{k-1}

800: %% \Delta_j(0) - \frac{\Delta_k(0)}{2}, 

801: %% \ee

802: %% then the solution to Burgers equation is reconstructed  by 

803: %% \be

804: %% \label{E.ba5}

805: %% u^{(c)}(x,t) = c(t) x - \sum_{k=1}^{N(t)} \Delta_k(t) \one_{x \geq x_k(t)}.

806: %% \ee

807: %% where 

808: %% \be

809: %% \label{E.ba7}

810: %% c(t) = \frac{c_0}{1+c_0t}, \quad \Delta_j(t) = \frac{m_j(t)}{1+c_0t}.

811: %% \ee

812: %% %% In particular, $u(x,t)$ is of the same form as the initial

813: %% %% data. Moreover, $c(t)$ and

814: %% %% $\Delta_1(t)$ reflect the typical decay of BV  data. 

815: %% %% The

816: %% %% crucial assumption here is that the slope $c_0$ is the same to

817: %% the left and 

818: %% %% the right of the shock. This ensures that while $u_\pm(x_1(t))\neq

819: %% %% u_\pm(x_1(0)$, it is still true that the shock speed  

820: %% %% \[ \frac{u_-(x_1(t)) + u_+(x_1(t))}{2} = - \frac{\Delta}{2},

821: %% %% \quad t \geq 0. \]

822: %% %% Thus, the shock path is linear and it is appealing to think of the shock

823: %% %% as a particle of mass $\Delta(0)$. This is the basis for the widely

824: %% %% known mapping from Burgers equation to {\em ballistic aggregation\/}

825: %% %% or {\em sticky particles\/}. Consider $N$ particles with  mass  $m_k$

826: %% %% and initial velocity $v_k(0)$ located at $x_1(0) < x_2 \ldots <

827: %% %% x_N(0)$. The particles move with constant  velocity between

828: %% %% collisions. At collisions they stick, conserving mass and momentum. 

829: %% %% This yields an intuitive picture for Burgers equation with   

830: %% %% `sawtooth' initial data  with slope $c_0 >0$, and  $N$

831: %% %% downward  jumps $\Delta_k(0) >0$ at points $x_1(0) < x_2(0) < \ldots <

832: %% %% x_N(0)$: 

833: %% %% We define an associated system of sticky particles at $x_k(0)$, with 

834: %% %% %k=1, \ldots N$ with mass and velocity 

835: %% %% %% Following 

836: %% %% %% It is clear that at least for a short time, the shocks cannot

837: %% %% %% collide, and we may piece together the solution using \qref{E.ba3}. 

838: %% %% %% The extension to collisions is simple. If two shocks meet, say

839: %% %% %% $x_k(t)=x_{k+1}(t)$, then they stick, and the new velocity is

840: %% %% %% determined by conservation of momentum 

841: %% %% %% \[ v_k(t_+) = \frac{ \Delta_k(t_-) v_k(t_-) + \Delta_{k+1}(t_-)

842: %% %% %%   v_{k+1}(t_-)}{\Delta_k(t_-) + \Delta_{k+1}(t_-)}. \]

843: %% %% %

844: %% %% %What we have described is the basic and widely known mapping from

845: %% %Burgers equation to {\em ballistic aggregation\/}.  

846: %% The heuristic

847: %% calculation above, can be made precise for the class of \Levy\/

848: %% process initial data with only downward jumps. 

849: %% The main idea is as

850: %% follows. 

851: 

852: \subsection{Solutions with \Levy\/ process initial data}\label{S.sol}

853: Here we describe how the solution of \qref{E.burgers},

854: with initial data of the form \qref{E.initial},

855: is determined in terms of Laplace exponents,

856: essentially following Bertoin's treatment in \cite{B_burgers}.

857: 

858: Suppose $x\mapsto u_0(x)$ is an arbitrary spectrally 

859: negative \Levy\/ process for $x\ge0$, with Laplace exponent $\psi_0$

860: having downward jump measure $\Lambda_0$. 

861: We first show that we may assume without loss of generality that

862: $\int_0^\infty (s\wedge s^2)\Lambda_0(ds)<\infty$.  Indeed, 

863: if $\int_1^\infty s\Lambda_0(ds)=\infty$, then

864: $u_0(x)/x \to-\infty$ almost surely as $x\to\infty$. (This follows from

865: the fact that for the compound Poisson process $X_x$ with jump measure

866: $\Lambda_0(ds) \one_{|s| \geq 1}$, one has $X_x/x\to\infty$ as $x\to\infty$

867: by the law of large numbers.)

868: In this case the \CH\/ function $H(y,t;x)$  has no minimum for any $t>0$, 

869: and equation \qref{E.burgers} has no finite entropy solution

870: for any positive time. 

871: Hence, we may suppose that $\int_1^\infty s\Lambda_0(ds)<\infty$. 

872: 

873: Next, we show that one may assume the mean drift $b_0=\E(u_0(1))$ is

874: zero. If $b_0$ is nonzero, we have $\lim_{x \to \infty} u_0(x)/x =

875: b_0$ a.s.\, by the strong law of large numbers.  

876: If $b_0<0$, then by comparison to compression-wave solutions 

877: with initial data $A+b \max(x,0)$, we find using the maximum

878: principle that a.s.\, the solution blows up exactly 

879: at time $-b_0^{-1}$. If $b_0>0$ there is a global solution. 

880: In either case, we may use the transformation

881: \qref{E.changedrift} with $c=b_0$ to reduce to the case $b_0=0$, replacing

882: $u_0(x)$ by $u_0(x)-b_0x\one_{x>0}$. More precisely, we apply

883: \qref{E.changedrift} for $x \geq 0$ noting that $a(0,t) \geq 0$,

884: thus $a(x,t) \geq a(0,t) \geq 0$ for $x \geq 0$, so that

885: \qref{E.changedrift2} holds for $x \geq 0$. %\marginpar{must check: ok} 

886: We have:

887: \begin{lemma}

888: If $u^{(c)}_0$ is a spectrally negative \Levy\/ process with

889: \Levy\/ triplet $(c, \sigma^2_0, \Lambda_0)$, the Cole-Hopf

890: solution $u^{(c)}(x,t)$ is determined

891: via \qref{E.changedrift} for $x\ge0$ and $t \in  [0,T_c)$, 

892: in terms of a solution $u(x,t)$ having zero mean drift and 

893: defined for all $t\ge0$.

894: \end{lemma}

895: 

896: With these reductions, we may restrict ourselves to Laplace

897: exponents $\psi_0$ of the form 

898: \begin{equation}\label{psi0}

899: \psi_0(q) = \frac{\sigma_0^2q^2}2 + \int_0^\infty

900: \left(e^{-qs} - 1 + qs \right)

901: \Lambda_0(ds), \quad q\ge0.

902: \end{equation}

903: We will always assume that $a$ 

904: and $u$ are right continuous (i.e., $a(x,t)= a(x_+,t)$, compare with

905: \qref{E.ushock}). This ensures $a$ is an element of the 

906: Skorokhod space $\Skor$, so that we may use the 

907: standard Skorokhod topology to study limiting behavior.

908: For brevity, we write 

909: \[

910: v(x,t)=u(x,t)-u(0,t),\qquad 

911: l(x,t)=a(x,t)-a(0,t),

912: \]

913: and rewrite \qref{E.hopf} as 

914: \be

915: \la{E.vl}

916:  v(x,t) = \frac{x-l(x,t)}{t}, \quad x \geq 0,\ t > 0. 

917: \ee

918: %It will be convenient to break with convention and suppose \qref{E.vl}

919: %holds everywhere; that is $v(x,t)=v(x_+,t)$. 

920: Bertoin has shown that for all $t>0$, $x\mapsto l(x,t)$ is an increasing

921: \Levy\ process (a subordinator) with the same law as the first passage

922: process for $tu_0(x)+x$. 

923: We denote the Laplace exponents of  $l$ and $v$ by $\Phi$ and

924: $\psi$ respectively:

925: \be

926: \la{E.LElv}

927: \E\left(e^{-ql(x,t)}\right) = e^{-x\Phi(q,t)}, \quad \E

928: \left(e^{qv(x,t)}\right) = e^{x \psi(q,t)}, \quad x,q,t \geq 0.

929: \ee

930: We  combine (\ref{E.vl}) and \qref{E.LElv} to obtain 

931: \begin{equation}

932: \label{E.psi_t}

933: \psi(q,t) =\frac{q}{t}-\Phi\left(\frac{q}{t},t\right).

934: \end{equation}

935: Since $l$ is a subordinator, it has the simpler \LK\/ representation 

936: \begin{equation}

937: \label{E.phi}

938: \Phi(q,t) = d_tq + \int_0^\infty (1-e^{-qs})\mu_t(ds), \quad q >0,

939: \end{equation}

940: where $d_t \geq 0$ supplies the deterministic part of the drift, 

941: and $\mu_t$ is the \Levy\ measure  of $l(\cdot,t)$, 

942: which now must satisfy $\int_0^\infty (1\wedge s)\mu_t(ds)<\infty$ \cite{B_book}. 

943: We see from \qref{E.vl} that

944: $v(\cdot,t)$ is a \Levy\ process with no Gaussian component, 

945: and thus has a \LK\/ representation 

946: \be

947: \la{E.defpsi}

948: \psi(q,t) = b_t q + \int_0^\infty\left(e^{-qs} - 1 + qs \right)

949: \Lambda_t(ds), \quad q\ge0,\ t>0, 

950: \ee

951: related to \qref{E.phi} by

952: \be

953: \la{E.mulambda}

954: \Lambda_t( ds) =  \mu_t(t\,ds) ,

955: \qquad 

956: b_t + \int_0^\infty s\Lambda_t(ds) = \frac{1-d_t}{t}.

957: \ee

958: 

959: Due to the result that $l$ and the first passage process 

960: of $tu_0(x)+x$ have the same law, a simple functional relation holds between 

961: $\psi_0$ and $\Phi(q,t)$ \cite[Thm.~2]{B_burgers}:

962: \begin{equation}

963: \label{E.main}

964: \psi_0(t\Phi(q,t)) + \Phi(q,t)= q, \quad q \geq 0,\ t >0.

965: \end{equation}

966: %[[Implies $t\D_t\Phi-\Phi\D_q\Phi=-\Phi$.]]

967: The evolution takes a remarkably simple form when 

968: we combine equations (\ref{E.psi_t}) and (\ref{E.main}) to obtain

969: \begin{equation}

970: \label{E.psi_soln}

971: \psi(q,t) = \psi_0(q -t\psi(q,t)), \quad q \geq 0,\ t>0.

972: \end{equation}

973: But then $\psi(q,t)$ solves the inviscid Burgers equation (in $q$ and $t$!)

974: \begin{equation}

975: \label{E.psi_burgers}

976: \partial_t \psi + \psi \partial_q \psi =0, \quad \psi(0,q) = \psi_0(q).

977: \end{equation}

978: The solution to (\ref{E.psi_burgers}) may be constructed

979: by the method of characteristics and takes the form

980: (\ref{E.psi_soln}). The remarkable fact that the Laplace exponent is

981: also a solution to Burgers equation was first observed by Carraro and

982: Duchon~\cite[Thm.~2]{Duchon1}. 

983: 

984: Since $\psi_0$ is analytic and strictly convex,

985: the solution (\ref{E.psi_soln}) is analytic for all time and unique,

986: and the condition $\partial_q \psi(0,t)=0$ is preserved for all $t>0$. 

987: By \qref{E.psi_t}--\qref{E.mulambda}, we have

988: %Thus, $b_t=0$, %  Since $\partial_q\psi(0,t)=0$ for $t>0$, 

989: %and equation (\ref{E.psi_t}) implies 

990: \begin{equation}

991: \label{E.phi_mass}

992: b_t = 0,  \qquad d_t = 1 - t \int_0^\infty 

993: s\Lambda_t(ds), \quad t>0.

994: %\partial_q \Phi(q,t)\left|_{q=0} \right.= d_t + \int_0^\infty x

995: %\mu_t(ds) = 1.

996: \end{equation}

997: %Thus, $m(t) : = \int_0^\infty x \mu_t(ds) \leq 1$, and $\lim_{q \to \infty}

998: %\partial_q \Phi(q,t) =d_t$. 

999: %We now use \qref{E.psi_t} to see that $\mu_t$

1000: %and $\Lambda_t$ are related by the simple rescaling

1001: %% Moreover, (\ref{E.main}) implies $\lim_{q \to

1002: %%   \infty} \Phi(q,t)=\infty$. 

1003: Let

1004: \begin{equation}\la{E.m0}

1005: M_0= \lim_{q \to \infty} \psi'_0(q) , \qquad

1006:  %= \int_0^\infty y\Lambda_0(dy) .

1007: \end{equation}

1008: %(argh, if $\sigma^2=0$)

1009: We find $\Phi(q,t)\to\infty$ as $q\to\infty$ from (\ref{E.main}),

1010: and differentiate to obtain 

1011: \begin{equation}

1012: \label{E.drift}

1013: d_t = \lim_{q \to \infty} \partial_q \Phi(q,t) = \lim_{q\to \infty}

1014: \frac{1}{1+t\psi_0'\left(t \Phi(q,t)\right)} = \frac{1}{1+tM_0}, \quad t >0,

1015: \end{equation}

1016: with the understanding that $d_t=0$ if $M_0=+\infty$. 

1017: Then 

1018: \begin{equation}\la{E.m}

1019: M(t):= \lim_{q\to\infty} \D_q\psi(q,t) = \int_0^\infty s\Lambda_t(ds)

1020: = \frac{M_0}{1+tM_0}, \quad t>0,

1021: \end{equation}

1022: with the understanding that $M(t)=t^{-1}$ when $M_0=\infty$. 

1023: Note $M'=-M^2$. Below we will characterize the evolution

1024: of $\Lambda_t$ differently.

1025: %

1026: %

1027: %

1028: 

1029: \subsection{BV regularity}

1030: It is clear from the \CH\ formula that 

1031: $u$ is locally of bounded variation for every $t>0$. We derive a

1032: decay estimate that quantifies this. 

1033: The sample paths of $u_0$ have unbounded variation if and only

1034: if~\cite[p.15]{B_book} 

1035: \be

1036: \label{E.sigma1}

1037: \sigma_0^2 >0 \quad \mbox{or} \quad \int_0^\infty s \Lambda_0(ds) =

1038: \infty.

1039: \ee

1040: Heuristically, this corresponds to the presence of many small

1041: jumps (`dust'). This is reflected in the Laplace exponent as

1042: $M_0=\lim_{q \to \infty} \psi_0'(q) = +\infty$ in this case. 

1043: On the other hand, $M_0$ is finite if and only if 

1044: $u_0$ is BV, in which case $\sigma_0=0$ and 

1045: $M_0 = \int_0^\infty s \Lambda_0(ds) < \infty$.  

1046: 

1047: The analytic

1048: formula (\ref{E.phi}) has the following probabilistic meaning. 

1049: If we take a Poisson point process $x\mapsto m^t_x$ (masses of clusters) with

1050: jump measure $\mu_t$ we have the representation~\cite[p.16]{B_book}

1051: \begin{equation}

1052: \label{E.a_repn}

1053: l(x,t) = d_tx + \sum_{0 \leq y \leq x} m^{t}_y.

1054: \end{equation}

1055: The velocity field, and a point process of shock strengths 

1056: $s^t_y= t^{-1}m^t_y$ are 

1057: determined from  (\ref{E.hopf}), (\ref{E.drift}) and (\ref{E.a_repn}) by

1058: \begin{equation}

1059: \label{E.BV}

1060: v(x,t) = M(t) x - \frac{1}{t}\sum_{0 \leq y \leq

1061:   x} m^{t}_y  = M(t)x - \sum_{0 \leq y} s^t_y,

1062: %:=  \frac{M_0}{1+tM_0}x - \sum_{0 \leq y \leq x} \Delta^{t}_y,

1063: \end{equation}

1064: 

1065: For every $t>0$, $v(x,t)$ is the difference of

1066: two increasing  functions: a linear drift and a pure jump process.

1067: Thus, it is of bounded variation, and  by \qref{E.phi_mass} and

1068: \qref{E.a_repn} we have  

1069: \begin{equation}

1070: \label{E.m1_finite}

1071: \E \left( \int_0^x |\partial_y v(y,t)| dy \right) = 

1072: 2M(t)x ,

1073: %= 2 x \int_0^\infty x \Lambda_t (ds) =: 2x M(t),

1074: \quad x,t>0,

1075: \end{equation}

1076: because $\E \left( \sum_{0 \leq y \leq x} m^t_y\right) =

1077: xM(t)=x(1-d_t)$. 

1078: %% Let us also note that \qref{E.BV} implies 

1079: %% $v(\cdot,t)$ has the characteristic sawtooth profile seen in

1080: %% simulations for every $t>0$. If the shocks are discrete ($\int_0^\infty

1081: %% \mu_t(ds) < \infty$), this implies the shock paths are straight lines

1082: %% with speed given by \qref{E.ushock}. As $t$ increases, the shock

1083: %% structure coarsens purely because of collisions. Remarkably, this is

1084: %% exactly described by the following model.

1085: %% Let us also note that \qref{E.BV} implies 

1086: %% $v(\cdot,t)$ has the characteristic sawtooth profile seen in

1087: %% simulations for every $t>0$. If the shocks are discrete ($\int_0^\infty

1088: %% \mu_t(ds) < \infty$), this implies the shock paths are straight lines

1089: %% with speed given by \qref{E.ushock}. As $t$ increases, the shock

1090: %% structure coarsens purely because of collisions. Remarkably, this is

1091: %% exactly described by the following model.

1092: %% %% This is the basic BV estimate. It will appear below 

1093: %% %% in  the time change for the mapping to Smoluchowski's equation.  

1094: 

1095: %

1096: \subsection{Relation to Smoluchowski's coagulation equation}

1097: 

1098: We consider a positive measure $\nu_\tau(ds)$ interpreted as the 

1099: number of clusters of mass or size $s$ per unit

1100: volume at time $\tau$. Clusters of mass $r$ and $s$ coalesce by

1101: binary collisions  at a rate governed by a symmetric kernel $K(r,s)$. 

1102: A weak formulation of Smoluchowski's coagulation equation

1103: can be based on a general moment identity 

1104: for suitable test functions $\zeta$ (see~\cite{MP1}):

1105: \begin{align}

1106: \label{E.smol}

1107: &\D_\tau \int_0^\infty \zeta(s)\,\nu_\tau(ds) 

1108:  = \nonumber\\ &\qquad\qquad 

1109: \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \!\! \int_0^\infty

1110: \left( \zeta(r+s)-\zeta(r)-\zeta(s) \right) K(r,s)\,\nu_\tau(dr) \,\nu_\tau(ds).

1111: \end{align}

1112: We consider only the {\em additive kernel \/}$K(r,s)=r+s$. It is classical that

1113: (\ref{E.smol}) can then be solved by the Laplace

1114: transform~\cite{Drake}. We denote the 

1115: initial time by $\tau_0$ (to be chosen

1116: below). The minimal (and natural) hypothesis on initial data

1117: $\nu_{\tau_0}$ is that the mass $\int_0^\infty s \nu_{\tau_0}(ds)$ is

1118: finite. We scale the initial data such that $\int_0^\infty s \nu_{\tau_0}

1119: =1$. The Laplace exponent 

1120: \begin{equation}\label{E.nu}

1121: \vp(q,\tau) = \int_0^\infty

1122: (1-e^{-qs}) \nu_\tau(ds)

1123: \end{equation} 

1124: then satisfies

1125: \begin{equation}

1126: \label{E.vp1}

1127: \quad \partial_\tau \vp - \vp \partial_q \vp = -\vp, \quad \tau >\tau_0.

1128: \end{equation}

1129: We showed in~\cite{MP1} that (\ref{E.vp1}) may be used to define

1130: unique, global, mass-preserving solutions to (\ref{E.smol}).

1131: In particular, a map $\tau\mapsto \nu_\tau$ from $[\tau_0,\infty)$

1132: to the space of positive Radon measures on $(0,\infty)$, such that

1133: $\int_0^\infty s\nu_\tau(ds)=1$ for all $\tau\ge\tau_0$, is a solution

1134: of Smoluchowski's equation with $K(r,s)=r+s$ (in an appropriate weak

1135: sense detailed in  \cite{MP1}) if and only if $\vp$ satisfies \qref{E.vp1}.

1136: 

1137: We now connect solutions of the inviscid Burgers equation \qref{E.burgers}

1138: with \Levy\/ process initial data to solutions of Smoluchowski's

1139: equation through a change of scale.

1140: Let $u_0$ satisfy \qref{E.initial} and assume as in subsection~\ref{S.sol}

1141: that the corresponding downward jump measure $\Lambda_0$ satisfies 

1142: $\int_0^\infty (s\wedge s^2)\Lambda_0(ds)<\infty$ and the mean drift is zero.

1143: Let $\Lambda_t$ be the jump measure of the \CH\/ solution.

1144: With $M_0$ and $M(t)$ as in \qref{E.m0} and \qref{E.m}, 

1145: let $\tau_0=-\log M_0$ if $u_0$ is

1146: of bounded variation, and $\tau_0= -\infty$ otherwise, and set

1147: \be

1148: \la{E.smolburgers}

1149: \tau = -\log M(t), \quad 

1150: \nu_\tau(ds) = \Lambda_t(M(t)ds).

1151: %\qquad[[=\mu_t(tM(t)\,ds)]]

1152: %\tau = \log\left(t + e^{\tau_0} \right), \quad \nu_\tau(ds) = 

1153: %\mu_{t} \left( \frac{t\,ds}{t+e^{\tau_0}} \right) = 

1154: %\Lambda_t

1155: %\left(\frac{ds}{t+e^{\tau_0}} \right).

1156: \ee

1157: From \qref{E.m} it follows $\int_0^\infty s \nu_\tau(ds)=1$,

1158: and by \qref{E.nu} and \qref{E.defpsi} we find 

1159: \be

1160: \label{E.changevars}

1161: \vp(q,\tau) = q - \psi(qe^\tau,t) .

1162: \ee

1163: %\[

1164: %[[= q-\psi(q/M(t),t) =

1165: %q-\left(\frac{q}{tM(t)}-\Phi(\frac{q}{tM(t)},t)\right)

1166: % = \Phi(\frac{q}{tM(t)},t)-\frac{q}{tM_0}. ]] 

1167: %\]

1168: We see that $\psi$ solves (\ref{E.psi_burgers}) if and only if $\vp$

1169: solves \qref{E.vp1}. 

1170: Therefore, the rescaled \Levy\/ measure of $v(\cdot,t)$

1171: evolves according to Smoluchowski's equation.

1172: Conversely, given any solution of Smoluchowski's equation with initial

1173: data $\nu_0$ at a finite $\tau_0$, we can

1174: construct a corresponding solution of \qref{E.burgers} by choosing

1175: $u_0$ to be a spectrally negative \Levy\/ process with jump measure

1176: $\Lambda_{t_0}$ via \qref{E.smolburgers}

1177: 

1178: Initial data $u_0$ with unbounded variation are  of particular 

1179: interest. Here we have  {\em eternal solutions\/} $\nu_\tau$ to

1180: (\ref{E.smol}) defined for all $\tau \in \R$. 

1181: We see that eternal solutions are in

1182: one-to-one correspondence with initial data $u_0$ of unbounded 

1183: variation via \qref{E.changevars}. A finer correspondence

1184: mapping the clustering of shocks to the additive coalescent is found

1185: in~\cite{B_cluster}.  

1186: %% When the initial data have bounded

1187: %% variation, the change of time scale is required for the following

1188: %% reason. Here shocks grow because of coalescence, and also because they

1189: %% absorb mass from intervals that have not participated in shocks ({\em

1190: %%   Lagrangian regular intervals\/}). 

1191: 

1192: To summarize, we have the following correspondence.

1193: 

1194: \begin{theorem}

1195: \label{T.meanfield}

1196: Assume $u_0$ is a spectrally negative \Levy\/ process with 

1197: \Levy\/ triplet $(0, \sigma_0^2, \Lambda_0)$, with the same assumptions

1198: as in Theorem~\ref{T.main}. 

1199: Then for all $t>0$, $v(\cdot,t)$ and $l(\cdot,t)$ are 

1200:   \Levy\/ processes with triplet $(0,0,\Lambda_t)$, whose jump

1201:   measures $\Lambda_t$ determine a solution $\nu_\tau(ds)$ to Smoluchowski's coagulation

1202:   equation with rate kernel $K(r,s)=r+s$ as described in

1203:   \qref{E.smolburgers}. 

1204: \end{theorem}

1205: 

1206: %(b) If $u^{(c)}_0$ is a spectrally negative \Levy\/ process with

1207: %  \Levy\/ triplet $(c, \sigma^2_0, \Lambda_0)$, the Cole-Hopf

1208: %  solution $u^{(c)}(x,t)$  is in one-to-one  correspondence with a

1209: %  solution $u(x,t), t \in  [0,T_c)$ with zero drift, via

1210: %    \qref{E.changedrift}. 

1211: %[[Shouldn't this statement be in sec.  2.3??]]\marginpar{move??}

1212: 

1213: %% Moreover, the maps $t \mapsto v(\cdot,t)$ and

1214: %%   $t \mapsto l(\cdot,t)$ are continuous in the Skorokhod topology at

1215: %%   all but a countable set of points corresponding to the jumps of

1216: %%   $u(0,t)$ (a shock at $x=0$). 

1217: %

1218: %

1219: %

1220: %

1221: %

1222: %

1223: %

1224: %

1225: \subsection{Self-similar solutions}

1226: Bertoin's characterization of eternal solutions is the analogue of the

1227: \LK\ characterization of  infinitely divisible

1228: distributions~\cite{B_book,Feller}. Among the latter, the 

1229: stable distributions  are of particular interest, and their analogues

1230: for Smoluchowski's equations are obtained by choosing the Laplace

1231: exponent $\psi_0(q) = q^\alpha$, $\alpha \in (1,2]$. For $\alpha \in

1232: (1,2)$ the corresponding \Levy\/ measures are 

1233: \[

1234: \Lambda(ds) =

1235: \frac{ s^{-(1+\alpha)}}

1236: {\Gamma(-\alpha)}

1237: \,ds. 

1238: \]

1239: The Laplace exponent $q^2$

1240: corresponds to an atom at the origin. We thereby

1241:  obtain for $\alpha \in (1,2]$ a  family of self-similar 

1242: solutions to Smoluchowski's equation with Laplace exponent of the form 

1243: $\vp(\tau,q) = e^{-\beta \tau} \vp_\alpha(q e^{\beta \tau})$ where

1244: $\vp_\alpha$ solves 

1245: \begin{equation}

1246: \label{E.add_scaling}

1247: %\frac{1}{\alpha} 

1248: \vp_\alpha(q)^\alpha + \vp_\alpha(q) =

1249: q, \quad q>0.

1250: \end{equation}

1251: The self-similar solutions to Smoluchowski's coagulation

1252: equation are 

1253: \begin{equation}

1254: \label{E.nform}

1255: \nu_\tau(ds) = e^{-2\tau/\beta} f_{\alpha}(e^{-\tau/\beta}s)\,ds, \quad

1256: \beta=\frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}, \quad \alpha \in (1,2],

1257: \end{equation}

1258: where $f_\alpha$ has been defined in \qref{E.ndensity}. 

1259: An analytic proof that these are the only self-similar solutions to

1260: Smoluchowski's equation may be found in~\cite{MP1}. Each of these

1261: solutions corresponds to a self-similar process. Precisely,

1262: let $X^\alpha$ denote the stable process with Laplace exponent

1263: $q^\alpha$, and $T^\alpha$ and $V^\alpha$ denote the processes  

1264: \begin{equation}

1265: \label{E.first_pass}

1266: T^\alpha_x=\inf \{y\geq 0: X^\alpha_y +y > x \}, \qquad

1267: %\mathrm{and}\quad 

1268: V^\alpha_{x} = x - T^\alpha_x.

1269: \end{equation}

1270: %

1271: %\quad \E(e^{-qT^\alpha_x}) = e^{-x\vp_\alpha(q)}, \quad q >0. 

1272: %\end{equation}

1273: We have $M_0=+\infty$ and $M(t)=t^{-1}=e^{-\tau}$ in this case, and 

1274: the Laplace exponent of the process $l(\cdot,t)$ is of the self-similar form

1275: %\marginpar{check??}

1276: \begin{equation}

1277: \label{E.ss3}

1278: \Phi(q,t) = \vp(q,\tau)= t^{-1/\beta} \vp_\alpha \left( qt^{1/\beta}\right), \;\;

1279: t >0. 

1280: \end{equation}

1281: The solution processes have the scaling property 

1282: \begin{equation}

1283: \label{E.shock_scaling}

1284: l(x,t) \eqd t^{1/\beta} T^\alpha_{xt^{-1/\beta}}, %\quad \mbox{and}

1285:   \qquad v(x,t) \eqd t^{1/\beta-1} V^\alpha_{xt^{-1/\beta}}.

1286: \end{equation}

1287: The corresponding \Levy\/ measures are obtained from

1288: \qref{E.mulambda}, \qref{E.smolburgers} and \qref{E.nform}:

1289: \be

1290: \mu^\alpha_t(ds)= t^{-2/\beta} f_{\alpha}(t^{-1/\beta}s) \, ds,  \quad

1291: \Lambda^{\alpha}_t(ds) = t^{1-2/\beta} f_{\alpha} \left(

1292: t^{1-1/\beta} s \right) \, ds. 

1293: \ee

1294: In the important case $\alpha=2$, we have 

1295: $1/\beta=2$ and $\vp_2(q)=-\frac12+\sqrt{\frac14+q}$, 

1296: and by Laplace inversion~\cite[Ch.29]{Abramowitz}

1297: we obtain the explicit expression in \qref{E.golovin2}

1298: for the distribution of $T^2_x$.

1299: 

1300: \section{The convergence theorem}

1301: \label{S.proof}

1302: In \cite{MP1} we proved the following theorem characterizing solutions

1303: that approach  self-similar form in Smoluchowski's coagulation

1304: equation with additive  kernel. To every solution $\nu_\tau$ of

1305: \qref{E.smol} with 

1306: $\int_0^\infty s \nu_\tau(ds)=1$ we associate the probability

1307: distribution function

1308: \be\label{E.Fsd}

1309:  F(s,\tau) = \int_{(0,s]} r\nu_\tau(dr). 

1310: \ee

1311: To a self-similar solution $f_{\alpha}$, $\alpha \in (1,2]$ with

1312:   $\beta = (\alpha-1)/\alpha$ we associate

1313: \begin{equation}

1314: \label{E.Fdef}

1315: F_{\alpha}(s) = \int_0^s rf_{\alpha}(r)\,dr = 

1316:  \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{k-1}s^{k\beta}}{k!}

1317: \Gamma(1+k-k\beta)\frac{\sin \pi k\beta}{\pi k\beta}.

1318: \end{equation}

1319: A probability distribution function $F^*$ is called nontrivial if

1320: $F^*(s) <1 $ for some $s>0$; this means the distribution is proper

1321: ($\lim_{s \to \infty}F^*(s)=1$) and not concentrated at $0$.

1322: \begin{theorem}

1323: \label{T.add}

1324: Suppose $\tau_1 \in \R$ and $\nu_{\tau}$, $\tau \in [\tau_1,\infty)$, is

1325:   a solution to Smoluchowski's 

1326: coagulation equation with additive kernel such that $\int_0^\infty s

1327: \nu_{\tau_1}(ds) =1$.  

1328: \begin{enumerate}

1329: \item Suppose there is a rescaling function 

1330: $\tlambda(\tau) \rightarrow \infty$ as $\tau\to\infty$ and a

1331: nontrivial probability distribution function $F^*$ such that 

1332: \begin{equation}

1333: \label{E.add5}

1334: \lim_{\tau \rightarrow \infty} F(\tlambda(\tau)s,\tau) = F^*(s) 

1335: \end{equation}

1336: at all points of continuity of $F^*$. Then there exists $\alpha \in (1,2]$ 

1337: and a function $L$ slowly varying at infinity such that 

1338: \begin{equation}

1339: \label{E.add_M2}

1340: \int_0^s r^2 \nu_{\tau_1}(dr) \sim {s^{2-\alpha} L(s)}

1341: \quad\text{as $s \to \infty.$} 

1342: \end{equation}

1343: \item Conversely, assume that there exists $\alpha \in (1,2]$ and a

1344: function $L$ slowly varying at infinity such that (\ref{E.add_M2})

1345:   holds. Then there is a strictly increasing rescaling $\tlambda(\tau) \to

1346:   \infty$ such that

1347: \[ \lim_{\tau\to\infty} F(\tlambda(\tau) s,\tau) = F_{\alpha}(s), \quad 0

1348: \leq s < \infty,\] 

1349: where $F_{\alpha}$ is a distribution function for a self

1350: similar solution as in \qref{E.Fdef}.

1351: %whose Laplace transform $u_\rho$ solves (\ref{eq:add_scaling}).

1352: \end{enumerate}

1353: \end{theorem}

1354: 

1355: We now prove Theorem~\ref{T.main}. Let $u_0$ be a spectrally

1356: negative \Levy\/ process with zero mean drift and $\int_0^\infty (s \wedge

1357: s^2) \Lambda_0(ds) < \infty$. To the solution increment

1358: $v(x,t)=u(x,t)-u(0,t)$ with downward jump measure $\Lambda_t$, 

1359: associate a solution $\nu_\tau$ of Smoluchowski's coagulation equation

1360: \qref{E.smol} as in Theorem~\ref{T.meanfield}

1361: with Laplace exponent $\vp(q,\tau)$ given by \qref{E.changevars}.

1362: Let $\tau_1=\tau_0=-\log M_0$ if $M_0<\infty$, and

1363: let $\tau_1=0$ if $M_0=+\infty$ and $\tau_0=-\infty$.

1364: 

1365: We deduce Theorem~\ref{T.main} from Theorem~\ref{T.add} by 

1366: establishing two equivalences:

1367: \begin{itemize}

1368: \item[(a)] 

1369: There is a rescaling  $\lambda(t) \rightarrow \infty$ as $t\to\infty$

1370: and a \Levy\ process $V^*$ with zero mean drift $\E(V^*)$ such that

1371: % the marginal distributions of $\Vt$ converge to those of $V^*$

1372: $\Vt \law V^*$ 

1373: %\marginpar{which? 6/1: convergence in law seems  better here; we note

1374: %  the equivalence with convergence of marginals   in the proof}

1375: if and only if 

1376: there is a rescaling $\tlambda(\tau)\to\infty$ as $\tau\to\infty$

1377: and a nontrivial probability distribution function $F^*$

1378: such that \qref{E.add5} holds.

1379: \item[(b)] 

1380: $ \int_0^\infty s^2 \nu_{\tau_1}(ds)< \infty$ if and only if 

1381: $\int_0^\infty s^2   \Lambda_0 (ds) < \infty$. 

1382: Moreover, 

1383: $\int_0^s r^2 \nu_{\tau_1}(dr) \sim s^{2-\alpha}L(s)$ as $s \to \infty$ 

1384: if and only if 

1385: $\int_0^s r^2 \Lambda_0(dr) \sim s^{2-\alpha}L(s)$ as $s \to \infty$. 

1386: \end{itemize}

1387: 

1388: %\begin{proof}[Proof of (1)]

1389: {\em Proof of (a).}

1390: We prove claim (a) by showing each part equivalent

1391: to a corresponding convergence statement for rescaled Laplace

1392: exponents.  

1393: First, convergence in law in

1394: $\Skor$ for  processes with independent 

1395: increments can be reduced to the convergence of characteristic

1396: exponents~\cite[Cor. VII.4.43, p.440]{Jacod}.

1397: In particular, suppose $\lambda(t)\to\infty$ as $t\to\infty$.

1398: Then we have 

1399: \be

1400: \la{E.eqv1}

1401: \Vt \law V^*,  \quad\mbox{with \ $\E(V^*_1)=0$,} 

1402: \ee

1403: if and only if

1404: $\E(e^{ik\Vt_x}) \to \E(e^{ikV^*_x})$ for all 

1405: {$k \in \R$, uniformly for $x$ in compact sets, and $\E(V^*_1)=0$}.

1406: But since we are working with \Levy\/ processes, the \LK\/ formula

1407: shows the dependence on $x$ is trivial, and thus \qref{E.eqv1} is equivalent to 

1408: \be

1409: \la{E.eqv2}

1410: \E(e^{ik\Vt_1}) \to \E(e^{ikV^*_1}) \quad\mbox{for all $k \in \R$, 

1411: \quad and\ \ $\E(V^*_1)=0$}.

1412: \ee

1413: But pointwise convergence of characteristic functions is equivalent to

1414: convergence in distribution of the random variables

1415: $\Vt_1$~\cite[XV.3.2]{Feller}, and since $\Vt_1=1-\Tt_1 

1416: \leq 1$, \qref{E.eqv2} is equivalent to convergence of the Laplace

1417: transforms~\cite[XIII.1.2]{Feller}:

1418: \be

1419: \la{E.eqv4}

1420: \E(e^{q\Vt_1}) \to \E(e^{qV^*_1}) \quad \mbox{for all $q >0$}, 

1421: \quad\mbox{and}\ \  \E(V^*_1)=0. 

1422: \ee

1423: Taking logarithms and using \qref{E.rscV} and \qref{E.LElv}, 

1424: \qref{E.eqv4} is equivalent to 

1425: \be \la{C.psi}

1426: \lambda \psi\left({qt}/{\lambda},t\right) \to \psi^*(q) 

1427: \quad\mbox{for all $q>0$}, 

1428: \quad \mbox{and}\ \ \D_q\psi^*(0)=0,

1429: %\lambda \Phi(q \lambda^{-1},t) \to \Phi^*(q), \quad -\partial_q

1430: %\Phi^*(0)=1,

1431: \ee

1432: where $\E(e^{qV^*_x})=e^{x\psi^*(q)}$.

1433: This expresses the convergence of $\Vt$ in terms of convergence

1434: of rescaled Laplace exponents.

1435: 

1436: Now suppose $\tlambda(\tau)\to\infty$ as $\tau\to\infty$. 

1437: Using~\cite[XIII.1.2]{Feller} again, the (proper) convergence in \qref{E.add5}

1438: is equivalent to pointwise convergence of Laplace transforms:

1439: \be \la{C.eta}

1440: \eta(q,\tau) \to \eta^*(q)  \quad\mbox{for all $q>0$},

1441: \quad\mbox{with}\ \ \eta^*(0)=1.

1442: \ee

1443: where $\eta(q,\tau) := \int_0^\infty e^{-qs}

1444: F(\tlambda(\tau)\,ds,\tau)$,

1445: $ \eta^*(q) := \int_0^\infty e^{-qs} F^*(ds)$.

1446: By \qref{E.Fsd} and \qref{E.nu}, we have

1447: \be 

1448: \eta(q,\tau)= (\D_q\vp)(q/\tlambda,\tau), \qquad

1449: \int_0^q \eta(r,\tau)\,dr = \tlambda \vp(q/\tlambda,\tau).

1450: \ee

1451: We claim that \qref{C.eta} is equivalent to the statement that

1452: (with $\vp^*(q)=\int_0^q \eta^*(r)\,dr$)

1453: \be \label{C.vp}

1454: \tlambda\vp(q/\tlambda,\tau) \to \vp^*(q) 

1455: \mbox{\ \ for all $q>0$}, \quad\mbox{and}\quad

1456: \D_q\vp^*(0)=1.

1457: \ee

1458: Clearly, since $\eta(\cdot,\tau)$ is completely monotone

1459: and bounded, \qref{C.eta} implies \qref{C.vp}. In the other

1460: direction, assume \qref{C.vp}. For any sequence $\tau_j\to\infty$

1461: there is a subsequence along which $\eta(q,\tau_j)$ converges

1462: for all (rational, hence real) $q>0$, to some limit whose integral

1463: must be $\vp^*$. Thus \qref{C.eta} follows.

1464: 

1465: We now finish the proof of claim (a) by observing that due

1466: to \qref{E.changevars}, we have

1467: \be

1468: \tlambda\vp(q/\tlambda,\tau)= q - 

1469: \tlambda\psi({q e^\tau}/{\tlambda},t).

1470: \ee

1471: Hence the convergence in \qref{C.psi}

1472: is equivalent to that in \qref{C.vp} provided we have

1473: \be \la{E.lrel}

1474: \lambda(t)/t = \tlambda(\tau)/e^\tau, 

1475: %\qquad\mbox{or}\quad

1476: \ee

1477: or $\lambda(t) = tM(t) \tlambda(\tau)$, since $tM(t)\to1$ as $t\to\infty$. 

1478: (Note $tM(t)=1$ if $M_0=\infty$.)

1479: 

1480: 

1481: %

1482: %

1483: %

1484: %\begin{proof}[Proof of (2)]

1485: {\em Proof of (b).}

1486: It is only the case $M_0=\infty$ that requires some work. Indeed, if

1487: $M_0 < \infty$ we see from \qref{E.smolburgers} that $\nu_{\tau_1}(ds)

1488: = \Lambda_0(M_0 \,ds)$. In what follows, we suppose that $M_0=\infty$.

1489: We then have an eternal solution to Smoluchowski's equation, and $t=e^\tau$. 

1490: We shall compare the tails of

1491: $\nu_{0}$ ($\tau=0$) with that of $\Lambda_0$ ($t=0$). 

1492: 

1493: Claim (b) is a purely analytic fact that follows from Karamata's Tauberian

1494:  theorem~\cite{Feller}. We first reformulate it as a  statement about

1495:  Laplace transforms.  Let $\vp_0(q)=\vp(q,0)$, $\psi_0(q)=\psi(q,0)$.

1496: For every $\alpha \in (1,2]$ we have

1497: \begin{equation}

1498: \label{eq:tauber1}

1499: \int_0^s r^2 \nu_0(dr) \sim s^{2-\alpha}L(s) \iff 1-\vp_0'(q) \sim

1500: q^{\alpha-1} L\left(\frac{1}{q}\right) \frac{\Gamma(3-\alpha)}{\alpha-1}

1501: \end{equation}

1502: as $s \to \infty$ and $q \to 0$ respectively (see~\cite[eq. 7.4]{MP1}). 

1503: By the same argument,

1504: \begin{equation}

1505: \label{eq:tauber2}

1506: \int_0^s r^2 \Lambda_0(dr) \sim s^{2-\alpha}L(s) \iff \psi_0'(q) \sim

1507: q^{\alpha-1} L\left(\frac{1}{q}\right) \frac{\Gamma(3-\alpha)}{\alpha-1},

1508: \end{equation}

1509: with the following caveat when $\alpha=2$. 

1510: If $\int_0^\infty r^2 \Lambda(dr)=\infty$ then

1511: (\ref{eq:tauber2}) holds. On the other hand, if $\int_0^\infty r^2

1512: \Lambda_0(dr) <\infty$ then we must modify the second condition

1513: in (\ref{eq:tauber2}) to

1514: %this is $\lim_{x \to \infty} L(x)$. If 

1515: %$\sigma^2 > 0$, then we  have 

1516: \[\psi_0'(q) \sim \left( \sigma^2 + \int_0^\infty r^2 \Lambda(dr)\right) q,

1517: \quad q \rightarrow 0.\]

1518: We set $t=1$ in (\ref{E.changevars}) and differentiate

1519: \qref{E.psi_soln} with respect to $q$ to obtain 

1520: \begin{equation}

1521: \label{eq:psiphi}

1522: \psi_0'(\vp_0(q)) = \frac{1- \vp_0'(q)}{\vp_0'(q)} 

1523: = \frac1{\vp_0'(q)}-1.

1524: \end{equation}

1525: The functions $\psi_0'$, $\vp_0$, and $1/\vp'$ 

1526: are strictly increasing. Since $\vp_0'(0)=1$

1527: we also have $\vp_0(q)= q(1+o(1))$ as $q \to 0$. A sandwich

1528: argument as in~\cite{Feller} may now be used to deduce claim (b). 

1529: First suppose that (\ref{eq:tauber1}) holds. Fix $b,\ve>0$. 

1530: Then for $q$ sufficiently small we use monotonicity

1531: and (\ref{eq:psiphi}) to obtain

1532: \[

1533: \frac{1- \vp_0'(bq(1-\ve))}{1-\vp_0'(q(1+\ve))} 

1534: \frac{\vp_0'(q(1+\ve))}{\vp_0'(bq(1-\ve))}

1535: <

1536: \frac{\psi_0'(bq)}{\psi_0'(q)}  < 

1537: \frac{1- \vp_0'(bq(1+\ve))}{1-\vp_0'(q(1-\ve))}

1538: \frac{\vp_0'(q(1-\ve))}{\vp_0'(bq(1+\ve))}.

1539: \]

1540: Letting first $q$ and then $\ve \to 0$, we obtain 

1541: \[ \lim_{q \to 0} \frac{\psi_0'(bq)}{\psi_0'(q)} = b^{\alpha-1}.\]

1542: Thus, $\psi_0'$ is regularly varying with exponent $\alpha-1$.

1543: Similarly, if we assume that (\ref{eq:tauber2}) holds, we sandwich

1544: \[ 

1545: \frac{\psi_0'(b(1-\ve)q)}{\psi_0'((1+\ve)q)} <

1546: \frac{1-\vp_0'(bq)}{1-\vp_0'(q)} 

1547: \frac{\vp_0'(q)}{\vp_0'(bq)}.

1548: <

1549: \frac{\psi_0'(b(1+\ve)q)}{\psi_0'((1-\ve)q)},

1550: \]

1551: to deduce that $1-\vp_0'$ is regularly varying with exponent

1552: $\alpha-1$. Finally, since $\vp_0'(0)=1$ it follows from (\ref{eq:psiphi}) that 

1553: $\lim_{q \to 0} {\psi_0'(q)}/(1-\vp_0'(q))=1.$

1554: This finishes the proof of Theorem~1.

1555: 

1556: \section{Energy, dissipation and spectra}

1557: \label{S.energy}

1558: In this section, we compute several statistics of physical

1559: interest for the solution increments: mean energy and dissipation, 

1560: the law of the Fourier-Laplace transform, and the multifractal spectrum.

1561: While the computations are routine, some

1562: interesting features emerge, namely (i) conservation of energy

1563: despite dissipation at shocks, (ii) a simple evolution rule for the

1564: Fourier-Laplace spectrum, and (iii) a multifractal spectrum in sharp

1565: variance with %[[??]] 

1566: that of fully developed turbulence.  Simple proofs of fine regularity

1567: properties (e.g., Hausdorff dimension of the set of Lagrangian regular

1568: points) may be found in~\cite{B_burgers}. 

1569: 

1570: \subsection{Energy and dissipation}

1571: The energy in any finite interval $I \subset \R_+$is computed using

1572: the \LK\/ formula \qref{E.defpsi} and Fubini's theorem as follows. 

1573: \ba 

1574: \nn

1575: && \E\left(\int_I v(x,t)^2 \, dx \right) = 

1576: \int_I \E \left( v(x,t)^2\right) \, dx =

1577: \int_I

1578: \left( \partial_q^2\left. \E \left( e^{q v(x,t)}\right) 

1579:  \right|_{q=0} \right) dx \\

1580: \nn 

1581: &&

1582: = \int_I \left. \partial_q^2 e^{x \psi(q,t)} \right|_{q=0} \, dx 

1583: = \int_I \left( x^2 \partial_q \psi (0,t)^2 + x \partial_q^2 \psi(0,t)

1584: \right) \, dx \\

1585: \label{E.energy}

1586: && 

1587: = b_t^2 \int_I x^2\, dx  + \left(\int_0^\infty y^2 \Lambda_t(dy)

1588: \right) \int_I x\,dx. 

1589: \ea

1590: Let us restrict attention to solutions of mean zero, that is

1591: $b_t=0$. Then we have conservation of energy in the sense that 

1592: \be

1593: \label{E.cons2}

1594: \E \left(\int_I v(x,t)^2 \, dx\right)= \E \left( \int_I v(x,0)^2 \, dx

1595: \right), \quad t \geq 0. 

1596: \ee

1597: Indeed, by \qref{E.energy}, we see that \qref{E.cons2} is equivalent to

1598: \be

1599: \label{E.cons3}

1600:  \partial_q^2 \psi(0,t) =  \partial_q^2 \psi_0 = \sigma_0^2 +

1601: \int_0^\infty s^2 \Lambda_0(ds) =: M_2, 

1602: \ee

1603: with the understanding that $\partial_q^2\psi(0,t) =\infty$ if

1604: $\int_0^\infty s^2 \Lambda_0(ds)$ is divergent. It is only necessary

1605: to differentiate \qref{E.psi_soln} to obtain

1606: \[ \partial_q \psi(q,t) = \frac{\psi_0'(q-t\psi)}{1+ t \psi_0'(q-t\psi)}, \quad 

1607: \partial_q^2 \psi(q,t) = \frac{1}{\left(1+

1608:   t\psi_0'(q-t\psi)\right)^3} \psi_0''(q-t\psi), \]

1609: and then take the limit $q\to 0$ to obtain \qref{E.cons2}. 

1610: 

1611: The dissipation at a shock with left and right limits $u_\pm$ is

1612: % defined to \be \la{E.diss1}

1613: %\frac{(u_- -u_+)^3}{3}. \ee

1614: obtained as follows. The decay 

1615: of the $L^2$ norm for solutions to Burgers equations with viscosity

1616: $\eps$,  $u_t + uu_x = \eps u_{xx}$, is given by

1617: \[ \frac{d}{dt} \int_{\R} u^2 \, dx = 2 \eps \int_{\R} u_x^2 \, dx. \]

1618: The right hand side may be evaluated exactly for traveling waves (viscous

1619: shocks) of the form $u(x,t)=u^\eps(x-ct)$. It is easily seen that for

1620: any $\eps>0$ a traveling wave profile connecting the states $u_- >

1621: u_+$ at $\mp \infty$ is of the form $u^\eps(x-ct)= w((x-ct)/\eps)$

1622: where $w$ satisfies the  ordinary differential equation

1623: \[ -c\left(w-u_-\right) + \frac{1}{2}\left(w^2 -u_-^2 \right)  =

1624: \frac{dw}{d\xi},

1625: \quad c = \frac{u_-+u_+}{2}.\]  

1626: We therefore have 

1627: \ba

1628: \nn

1629: && 2 \eps \int_\R u_x^2 \, dx = 2 \int_\R (w')^2 \, d\xi =2

1630:   \int_{u_-}^{u_+} \left[-c(w-u_-) +  \frac{1}{2}\left(w^2 -u_-^2 

1631:   \right) \, \right] dw\\ 

1632: \nn

1633: && 

1634: = 2(u_--u_+)^3 \int_0^1 w(1-w) \, dw  = \frac{(u_--u_+)^3}{3}. 

1635: \ea

1636: %multiply both sides by $u^\eps$, integrate, and simplify to find

1637: %\[ 2 \eps \int_{-\infty}^\infty (u^\eps_x)^2 \, dx = (u_--u_+)^3

1638: %\int_0^1 s(1-s) \, ds =  \frac{(u_--u_+)^3}{6}.\]

1639: %The decay is well-defined, even if the traveling waves are not in $L^2$.

1640: The right hand side is independent of $\eps$ and captures the

1641: dissipation of the entropy solution in  the limit $\eps \to 0$. 

1642: The dissipation at shocks in any finite interval $I \subset \R_+$ may now be

1643: computed by summing over all shocks in $I$ using \qref{E.a_repn} and

1644: \qref{E.BV}:

1645: \be

1646: \label{E.diss}

1647: \frac{1}{3}\E \left( \sum_{y \in I} (v(y_-,t)- v(y_+,t))^3\right)

1648: = \frac{1}{3} \E \left( \sum_{y \in I} (s_y^t)^3 \right) 

1649: = \frac{|I|}{3} \int_0^\infty s^3 \Lambda_t(ds), 

1650: \ee

1651: where $|I|$ is the length of $I$.

1652: 

1653: Conservation of energy in the sense described in \qref{E.cons2} is

1654: rather surprising in 

1655: view of the dissipation  at shocks. In particular, there are

1656: solutions with finite energy ($\int_0^\infty s^2 \Lambda_t(ds) < \infty$),

1657: but infinite dissipation ($\int_0^\infty s^3 \Lambda_t(ds) =

1658: \infty$). However, there is no contradiction, since \qref{E.cons2}

1659: refers to the expected value of the energy in any finite interval $I$, and

1660: the energy dissipated in shocks is compensated by energy input

1661: from the endpoints of $I$. 

1662: %Indeed, for any an interval $I=(0,x)$ we have the iden

1663: % On any interval $(0,x)$ we have the identity

1664: %\[ 0 = \frac{d}{dt} \E\left( \int_0^x v(y,t)^2\, dy \right) =

1665: % -\frac{\E(v(y,t)^3)}{3} - \]

1666: %% This is the basic BV estimate. It will appear below 

1667: %% in  the time change for the mapping to Smoluchowski's equation.   

1668: 

1669: \subsection{The Fourier-Laplace spectrum}

1670: We show that the law of the Fourier transform $\hat{v}(k,t)$ 

1671: of paths $x\mapsto v(x,t)$, is determined by a \Levy\/ process

1672: with jump measure $s^{-1}\Ltail_t(s)\, ds$, where 

1673: $\Ltail_t(s)= \int_s^\infty \Lambda_t(ds)$. 

1674: Here $\Lambda_t(ds)$ denotes the jump measure of $v(x,t)$

1675: (see Theorem~\ref{T.spectrum} below). 

1676: The assertion $\hat{v} \sim k^{-1}$ as $k \to \infty$ 

1677: for white noise initial data is common in the Burgers turbulence

1678: literature (e.g., see \cite{Frisch-Parisi,Woc}).    

1679: For the present case of \Levy\/ process initial data, 

1680: we show that $\hat{v}(k,t) \sim -iM(t)k^{-2}$ as $k \to \infty$. 

1681: In addition, we find precise corrections under additional assumptions on

1682: $\Lambda_t$ (for example, for self-similar solutions). 

1683: 

1684: These computations with the laws of the Fourier-Laplace

1685: transform should be contrasted with the conventional notion of 

1686: the power spectrum.

1687: %, defined to be the measure with density $\E\left(|\hv (k,t)|^2\right)$. 

1688: Despite its widespread use for wide-sense stationary processes,

1689: the power spectrum is of limited utility for the present problem 

1690: involving stationary increments, as we now show.

1691: Fix $L>0$ and consider the interval $[0,L]$. Almost every sample path 

1692: $v(x,t)$ is bounded on $[0,L]$ and we may define the truncated Fourier

1693: transform

1694: \be

1695: \label{E.Fourier1}

1696:  \hvl (k, t) = %\frac{1}{L} 

1697: \int_0^L e^{-ikx} v(x,t) \, dx. 

1698: %\quad k = \frac{2 n \pi}{L},\ n \in \Z. 

1699: \ee

1700: %More precisely, these are the Fourier coefficients of the periodic

1701: %extension of $v(x,t)$ restricted to $[0,L]$. 

1702: If the energy is finite ($M_2 < \infty$ in \qref{E.cons3}), we may

1703: compute a truncated power spectral density $S_L(k)$ as follows. We have

1704: %$\E(|\hvl(k,t)|^2)$ 

1705: \be

1706: \label{E.Fourier2}

1707: \frac1L |\hvl(k,t)|^2 = \frac{1}{L} \int_0^L \int_0^L e^{-ik(x-y)} v(x,t)

1708: v(y,t) \, dx \, dy. 

1709: \ee

1710: Since $v(x,t)$ is a \Levy\/ process with mean zero, 

1711: the autocorrelation is

1712: \be

1713: \mathbb{E}(v(x,t) v(y,t)) = (x\wedge y)M_2. 

1714: \ee

1715: We take expectations in \qref{E.Fourier2} to find 

1716: \be

1717: \label{E.Fourier3}

1718: % \E\left(|\hvl(0,t)|^2\right) = \frac{M_2 L}{3}, 

1719: %\qquad 

1720: S_L(k):= \frac1L \E\left(|\hvl(k,t)|^2\right) = \frac{2 M_2}{k^2}

1721: \left(1-\frac{\sin kL}{kL}\right),\quad k \neq 0.

1722: \ee

1723: The power spectrum $S(k)=\lim_{L\to\infty}S_L(k)=2M_2/k^2$ is now seen to be 

1724: well-defined, but is unsuitable for distinguishing solutions 

1725: because all solutions with

1726: the same energy (possibly infinite) have identical power spectrum. 

1727: 

1728: A well-defined spectrum that distinguishes solutions may be obtained by 

1729: taking the Fourier-Laplace transform of process paths. 

1730: For fixed $p>0$ we define the random variable

1731: \be

1732: \label{E.Fourier4}

1733: \lap{v}(p,t) = \int_0^\infty e^{-px} v(x,t) \,dx =

1734: \frac{1}{p}\int_0^{\infty} e^{-px} v(dx,t). 

1735: \ee

1736: The integrals are well-defined because $\lim_{x\to \infty}

1737: v(x,t)/x=0$ a.s.\ by the strong law of large numbers, and $v(x,t)$ is of

1738: bounded variation. If $s^t$ denotes a point process of shock strengths

1739: as in \qref{E.BV} we have 

1740: \be

1741: \label{E.Fourier_CM}

1742: p\lap{v}(p,t) = \frac{M(t)}{p} - \sum_{0\le x} e^{-px}s^t_x.

1743: %\int_0^\infty e^{-px} s^t(dx). 

1744: \ee

1745: We determine the law of $p\lap{v}(p,t)$ by computing its Laplace transform 

1746: via the `infinitesimal' \LK\/ formula  $\E\left( e^{q v(dx,t)} \right) =

1747: e^{\psi(q,t) \, dx}$. We then have

1748: \ba

1749: \nn

1750: \lefteqn{\E \left(e^{q p \lap{v}(p,t)}\right) = 

1751: \exp \left( \int_0^\infty \psi( q e^{-px}, t) \, dx \right)} \\

1752: \label{E.Fourier5}

1753: && = \exp \left( \frac{1}{p} \int_0^q \frac{\psi(q',t)}{q'} \,

1754: dq'\right) =: \exp \left( {\frac{1}{p}\pss(q,t)}\right), \quad p,q>0,

1755: \ea

1756: after the change of variables $q'=q e^{-px}$. We now observe that 

1757: $\pss$ determines a Laplace exponent as follows. 

1758: Let $\Ltail_t(s) = \int_s^\infty \Lambda_t(ds)$ denote the tail of the 

1759: \Levy\ measure $\Lambda_t$. Since $\int_0^\infty (s\wedge s^2)

1760: \Lambda_t(ds) < \infty$ we have the bounds  

1761: \[ s\Ltail_t(s) \leq \int_s^\infty r \Lambda_t(dr),

1762: %\quad\mathrm{and}

1763: \qquad s^2 \Ltail_t(s) \leq \int_0^\eps r^2 \Lambda_t(dr)

1764: + s^2 \Ltail_t(\eps), \quad s \in (0,\eps). \]

1765: Therefore, 

1766: \[

1767: \lim_{s \to \infty} s \Ltail_t(s) = 0, 

1768: \qquad \lim_{s \to 0} s^2 \Ltail_t(s)=0, 

1769: \]

1770: and we may integrate by parts in \qref{E.defpsi} to obtain

1771: \be

1772: \la{E.pss1}

1773: \frac{\psi(q',t)}{q'} 

1774: = \int_0^\infty (1-e^{-q's}) \Ltail_t(s) \, ds.

1775: \ee

1776: Integrating once more in $q'$ we find

1777: \be

1778: \label{E.Fourier6}

1779: \pss(q,t) = 

1780: \int_0^q \frac{\psi(q',t)}{q'} \,dq' = 

1781: \int_0^\infty (e^{-qs}-1 + qs) \frac{\Ltail_t(s)}{s} \,

1782: ds. %\quad \Ltail_t(s) = \Lambda_t((s,\infty)),

1783: \ee

1784: We integrate by parts in \qref{E.m} to see that 

1785: \be

1786: \label{E.Lam1}

1787: \int_0^\infty \Ltail_t(s) \, ds= \int_0^\infty s

1788: \Lambda_t(ds) =  M(t) <\infty.

1789: \ee

1790: This enables us to write

1791: \be

1792: \label{E.phss1}

1793: \pss(q,t) = M(t)q - \phss(q,t), \quad 

1794: \phss(q,t) = \int_0^\infty (1-e^{-qs}) \frac{\Ltail_t(s)}{s} \, ds.

1795: \ee

1796: Since \qref{E.Lam1} ensures $s^{-1}\Ltail_t(s) \,ds$ satisfies 

1797: the finiteness conditions for a jump measure, $\pss$ is a

1798: Laplace exponent for a \Levy\/ process with zero mean drift that we denote

1799: by $Z^t$. Similarly, $\phss$ is the Laplace exponent for a subordinator that

1800: we denote $Y^t$.  We summarize our calculations in the identities

1801: \be

1802: \label{E.phss2}

1803: Z^t_r  =  M(t)r -Y^t_r, \;\;

1804: \E\left(e^{qZ^t_r} \right) = e^{r \pss(q,t)}, \;\; \E\left(e^{-qY^t_r}

1805: \right) = e^{-r \phss(q,t)},\;\; r,q, t >0.

1806: \ee

1807: 

1808: The result is that the Laplace spectrum of the solution increments is determined by

1809: \be

1810: \label{E.Fourier7}

1811: \E \left(e^{q p \lap{v}(p,t)}\right) = \E \left( e^{ q Z^t_{1/p}} \right),

1812: \quad q>0,\ p >0,

1813: \ee

1814: which implies that $\lap{v}(p,t)$ has the same law as $p^{-1} Z_{1/p}^t$

1815: for fixed  $p>0$. Note that $\lap{v}(p,t)$ is not a \Levy\/ process

1816: in $p$. In fact, for a fixed realization, $\lap{v}(p,t)$ is analytic

1817: in $p$. Nevertheless, its law is determined by the \Levy\/ process $Z^t$. 

1818: 

1819: We extend this computation to the Fourier spectrum ($p=ik$) as

1820: follows. The calculations leading to \qref{E.Fourier5} hold for

1821: complex $q$ with $\mathrm{Re}(q) \geq 0$, and in particular for $q =

1822: i\xi$, $\xi \in \R$. Moreover, $\lap{v}(p,t)$ is a well-defined random

1823: variable for every $p$ with $\mathrm{Re}(p)>0$. Thus, we may

1824: analytically continue the identity 

1825: $E(e^{qp \lap{v}(p,t)}) = \exp( p^{-1}\pss(q,t))$  

1826: to  all $p$ with $\mathrm{Re}(p)>0$, and

1827: $q=i\xi$. As in \qref{E.LKu}, let $\Pss(\xi,t)=-\pss(i\xi,t)$ define

1828: the characteristic exponent corresponding to the \Levy\/ process $Z^t$.

1829: For $\eps, k>0$ we set $p= \eps +ik$, $\hat{v}(k-i\eps,t)=\lap{v}(\eps+ik,t)$ 

1830: and pass to the limit $\eps \to 0$

1831: on both sides of \qref{E.Fourier5} to obtain

1832: \ba

1833: \lim_{\eps \dnto 0} \lefteqn{\E \left(e^{i\xi (ik \hat{v}(k-i\eps,t))}

1834: \right) = \exp \left( \frac{1}{ik}\pss(i\xi,t) \right) } \\

1835: && = \exp \left( \frac{i}{k}\Pss(\xi,t) \right) = \E \left( e^{ i\xi

1836:     Z^t_{1/k}} \right), \quad  \xi \in \R, k>0. 

1837: \ea

1838: Thus, for fixed $k >0$, as $\eps\dnto 0$ 

1839: the random variables $ik\hat{v}(k-i\eps,t)$ converge in law 

1840: to the (real) random variable $Z^t_{1/k}$. 

1841: We denote this limit by $ik\vfour(k,t)$. 

1842: As before we do not assert that

1843: the processes $ik\hat{v}(k-i\eps,t)$ converge in law to the process

1844: $Z^t_{1/k}$, simply the convergence of random variables for fixed

1845: $k$. We summarize our conclusions as follows.

1846: \begin{theorem}

1847: \label{T.spectrum}

1848: Let $Y^t$ be a subordinator with Laplace exponent $\phss(q,t)$ from 

1849: \qref{E.phss1}, and let $Z^t$ the \Levy\/ process defined by \qref{E.phss2}. 

1850: Then  for every fixed $p>0$ and $k>0$ the random variables $p\lap{v}(p,t)$ 

1851: and $ik \vfour(k,t)$ have the same law as $Z^t_{1/p}$ and $Z^t_{1/k}$,

1852: respectively.

1853: \end{theorem} 

1854: 

1855: Due to this result and \qref{E.phss2},

1856: we always have the upper bound $ik^2\vfour(k,t) \leq  M(t)$ a.s. 

1857: This crude bound may be refined as $k \to \infty$ using information

1858: related to the sample path

1859: behavior of subordinators (see~\cite[Ch.~III.4]{B_book}). 

1860: %To avoid repetition, we restrict attention to $\vfour$. 

1861: %The same conclusions hold for $\lap{v}(p)$.   

1862: \begin{corollary}

1863: \label{C.asympt1}

1864: For every $t>0$, $\lim_{k \to \infty} ik^2 \vfour(k,t) = M(t)$ in probability. 

1865: %and $\lim_{p \to \infty} p^2 \hat{v}(p,t) =M(t)$ 

1866: \end{corollary}

1867: \begin{proof}

1868: This follows from the fact that 

1869: $\lim_{r \dnto 0}Y^t_r/r=0$ in probability, proved as

1870: follows. By \qref{E.phss2} we have

1871: $\E(e^{-q Y^t_r/r})= e^{-r\Phi_\#(q/r,t)}$, and since

1872: $1-e^{-s}\le 1\wedge s$, by \qref{E.phss1} we have

1873: that the Laplace exponent 

1874: \[

1875: r\Phi_\#(q/r,t) = r\int_0^\infty(1-e^{-qs/r})

1876: \frac{\Ltail_t(s)}s\,ds

1877: \le  \int_0^\infty (r\wedge qs)

1878: \frac{\Ltail_t(s)}s\,ds \to 0

1879: \]

1880: as $r\dnto0$ for each $q>0$.

1881: Hence $Y^t_r/r\to 0$ in law.

1882: \end{proof}

1883: 

1884: A similar conclusion holds for the Laplace spectrum as $p\to\infty$.

1885: Actually, for the subordinator $Y^t_r$, the sample paths have the stronger

1886: property that $\lim_{r\dnto0} Y^t_r/r\to 0$ a.s.~\cite[III.4.8]{B_book}.

1887: Under a mild assumption on the integrability of the small jumps, 

1888: we can strengthen convergence in probability to almost-sure

1889: convergence of the Laplace spectrum. 

1890: 

1891: \begin{corollary}

1892: \label{C.asympt2}

1893: For every $t>0$, $\lim_{p\to\infty} p^2\lap{v}(p,t)=M(t)$ in

1894: probability.  If we also assume $\int_0^1 |\log s| \Ltail_t(s)\,ds < \infty$, 

1895: then $\lim_{p \to \infty} p^2 \lap{v}(p,t)=M(t)$ a.s.

1896: \end{corollary}

1897: \begin{proof}

1898: For notational convenience, we suppress the dependence on $t$ in the proof.

1899: Fix $\eps >0$, % choose $a$ such that $1 < a< 1 + \eps/M$ 

1900: and let $p_m= 2^m$ for positive integers $m$. We will show that

1901: $\lim_{m \to \infty} p_m^2\lap{v}(p_m) =M$ a.s. That is, for every

1902: $\eps>0$, we claim 

1903: \be

1904: \label{E.bc1}

1905: \prob\left( \left| p_m^2 \lap{v}(p_m) - M \right| > \eps 

1906: \ \mbox{infinitely often}\right) =0.

1907: \ee

1908: This is sufficient to establish $\lim_{p\to \infty}p^2 \lap{v}(p)=M$

1909: a.s. Indeed, since $M/p- p\lap{v}(p)$ is completely monotone by

1910: \qref{E.Fourier_CM}, for  $p\in (p_m,p_{m+1})$ we have the bounds

1911: \[ 

1912: 0 < M(t) - p^2\lap{v}(p) 

1913: < 

1914: \frac{p}{p_m} \left( M(t) - p^2_{m}\lap{v}(p_{m}) \right)

1915: <

1916:  2 \left( M- p_m^2 \lap{v}(p_m)\right) ,

1917: \]

1918: and therefore 

1919: \be

1920: \{M-p^2\lap{v}(p) > 2\eps\} \subset \{ M - p_m^2 \lap{v}(p_m) > \eps \}.

1921: %\subset \{M-p_m^2  \lap{v}(p_m) > 2\eps\}  

1922: \ee

1923: %

1924: %\{M- p_{m+1}^2 \lap{v}(p_{m+1}) > 2\eps,

1925: % %  -(a-1)M \}} \\ 

1926: % && 

1927: % \nn

1928: % \subset \{M- p_{m+1}^2 \lap{v}(p_{m+1}) > \eps \}

1929: % \ea

1930: % by the choice of $a$. 

1931: %Now \qref{E.bc1} implies $\lim_{p\to \infty}p^2 \lap{v}(p)=M$ a.s. 

1932: 

1933: In order to prove \qref{E.bc1} we use the elementary estimate

1934: \ba

1935: \nn

1936: && \prob \left( \left| p_m^2 \lap{v}(p) - M \right| > \eps \right)

1937: = \prob\left( p_m Y_{1/p_m} > \eps \right) 

1938: \leq \frac{e}{e-1}\E\left(1 -  \exp \left(-\frac{p_m}{\eps}

1939:       Y_{1/p_m}\right) \right)  \\

1940: \nn

1941: && = \frac{e}{e-1} \left(1-

1942:   \exp\left(-\frac{1}{p_m}\phss(\frac{p_m}{\eps}) \right) \right) 

1943: \leq \frac{e}{e-1}

1944: \frac{1}{p_m}\phss(\frac{p_m}{\eps}).

1945: \ea

1946: We will show that $\sum_{m=1}^\infty p_m^{-1} \phss(p_m/\eps) <

1947: \infty$. The first Borel-Cantelli lemma then implies \qref{E.bc1}. 

1948: For clarity, we suppose $\eps=1$. This causes no essential

1949: difference and reveals the main computation.

1950: 

1951: %In the following, $\pibar$ denotes the integrated tail

1952: %measure for the subordinator $Y^t$:[[move into proof??]]

1953: Denote the integrated tail of the \Levy\ measure for $Y^t$ by

1954: \be 

1955: \label{E.pibar}

1956: \pibar_t(s) = \int_s^\infty \frac{\Ltail_t(s')}{s'} \, ds'.

1957: \ee 

1958: We integrate by parts and use Tonelli's theorem to find

1959: \be

1960: \label{E.lil3}

1961: \sum_{m=1}^\infty p_m^{-1} \phss(p_m) = \int_0^\infty

1962: \sum_{m=1}^\infty e^{-p_m s} \pibar_t(s) \,ds. 

1963: \ee

1964: It is only necessary to check that the integral over $s\in (0,1)$ is

1965: finite. Here we use the elementary estimate 

1966: \[ 

1967: \sum_{m=1}^\infty e^{-2^m s} \leq \int_0^\infty \exp(-e^{x\log 2}s)

1968: \,dx  = \frac{1}{\log 2} \int_{s}^\infty e^{-y} \frac{dy}{y} \leq

1969: \frac{|\log s|+1}{\log 2},

1970: \]

1971: so that

1972: \[ 

1973: \int_0^1 \sum_{m=1}^\infty e^{-p_m s} \pibar_t(s) \,ds \leq

1974: \frac{1}{\log 2} \int_0^1 (1+|\log s|) \pibar_t(s) \,ds. 

1975: \] 

1976: By the definition of $\pibar_t(s)$ in \qref{E.pibar}, the last integral is

1977: \ba

1978: \nn

1979: && {\int_0^1 |\log s| \int_s^\infty \frac{\Ltail_t(r)}{r} \, dr \, ds 

1980: = \int_0^\infty \frac{\Ltail_t(r)}{r} \, dr \int_0^{1\wedge r}

1981: |\log s| \, ds} \\

1982: \nn

1983: &&\qquad \leq \int_0^1 |\log r| \Ltail_t(r)\, dr + \int_0^\infty

1984: \Ltail_t(r)\, dr, 

1985: \ea

1986: which is finite by assumption. 

1987: \end{proof}

1988: 

1989: Corrections to the bound $ik^2\hat{v}(k,t)\le M(t)$ 

1990: involve the law of the iterated logarithm~\cite[III.4]{B_book}. 

1991: The following corollary holds for initial data that is not 

1992: BV (so $M_0=+\infty$ and $M(t)=1/t$) with suitably regular small

1993: jumps (`dust'). 

1994: %We define a rate function

1995: %\be

1996: %\la{E.LIL1}

1997: %h(k,t) = \frac{k \log \log k}{\psi_0(t k \log \log k)+ k \log\log k},

1998: %\quad e < k, 

1999: %\ee

2000: %using the map $r \mapsto g_0(r):=\psi_0(tr)+r$ which is the inverse of 

2001: %$q\mapsto \Phi(q,t)$  (see \qref{E.main}).

2002: %[[?? Isn't $\Phi_\#$ the relevant Laplace exponent for $Y^t$?]]

2003: % $\phss^{-1}(\phss(q,t),t)=q$, $q >0$. The following corollary holds if

2004: % the small jumps are suitably regular. In 

2005: % particular, it holds  for the self-similar solutions.

2006: % Recall that $\sigma_0^2$ and $\Lambda_0$ denote the Gaussian

2007: %part and jump measure of the initial data.

2008: \begin{corollary}

2009: \label{C.LIL}

2010: %\marginpar{Restate in terms of $\Lambda_t(s)$ near $0$?}

2011: Assume $\sigma_0\ne0$ and $\alpha=2$, or assume 

2012: $\sigma_0=0$ and $\Ltail_0(s)=\int_s^\infty \Lambda(dr)$ is regularly varying at 

2013: zero with exponent $-\alpha$ where $\alpha \in (1,2)$. 

2014: Then for every $c>0$ and $t>0$ we have 

2015: \be

2016: \label{E.LIL7} 

2017:  -\log \prob\left( \frac{t^{-1}- ik^2\vfour(k,t)}

2018: {h(k\log\log k)} \leq c \right) \sim

2019: \frac  %{\alpha-1}

2020: {\log\log k}

2021: {\gamma c^\gamma t^{1+2\gamma}}

2022: %\frac{1-\alpha^{-1}}{(c\alpha )^{1/(\alpha-1)}} % C_{c,\alpha} 

2023: , \quad k \to \infty,

2024: \ee

2025: where $\gamma=1/(\alpha-1)$ and $h(k)=k/\psi_0(k)$.

2026: %\be \label{E.hdef}

2027: %h(k) = %\frac{\alpha^\alpha}{t^{1+\alpha}} 

2028: %\frac{k \log \log k}{\psi_0( k \log \log k)}.

2029: %\ee

2030: %with $C_{c,\alpha} = (1-1/{\alpha}) (\alpha c)^{1/(1-\alpha)}$.

2031: \end{corollary}

2032: 

2033: This corollary is a consequence of~\cite[Lemma III.12]{B_book} and is

2034: associated with the following lemma of independent interest which shows that

2035: the evolution preserves the regularity of the dust. 

2036: \begin{lemma}

2037: \label{L.LIL}

2038: (a) Assume that $\sigma_0=0$ and $\Ltail_0(s)$ is regularly varying at

2039: zero with exponent $-\alpha$, $\alpha \in (1,2)$. Then $\Ltail_t(s)$ is

2040: regularly varying at zero with exponent $-1/\alpha$ for every $t>0$.

2041: 

2042: (b) If $\sigma_0\neq 0$, then $\Ltail_t(s) \sim (\sigma_0 t)^{-1}

2043: \sqrt{2/(\pi s)}$ as $s \to 0$, for every $t>0$. 

2044: \end{lemma}

2045: \begin{proof}

2046: Recall that $t^{-1}-ik^2\hat{v}(k,t)$ agrees in law with

2047: $kY^t_{1/k}$.

2048: Combining \qref{E.psi_t} with \qref{E.Fourier6} we find

2049: that the Laplace exponent of the subordinator $Y^t$ satisfies

2050: \be\label{E.Phish}

2051: \Phi_\#(q,t) = \int_0^q \Phi\left(\frac{q'}{t},t\right) \frac{dq'}{q'}

2052: = \int_0^{q/t} \Phi\left({q'},t\right) \frac{dq'}{q'}.

2053: \ee

2054: We claim that $\Phi(\cdot,t)$, and hence $\Phi_\#(\cdot,t)$, is 

2055: regularly varying at $\infty$ with exponent 

2056: $\hat\alpha=1/\alpha\in[\frac12,1)$. 

2057: 

2058: To prove the claim, we integrate by parts in \qref{psi0} to obtain

2059: \[ \frac{\psi_0(q)}{q^2} = \frac{\sigma_0^2}{2}+ \int_0^\infty e^{-qs}

2060: \left(\int_s^\infty \Ltail_0(r) \, dr \right) \, ds. \]

2061: First assume $\sigma_0=0$ and $\Ltail_0$ is regularly varying at

2062: zero with exponent $-\alpha$. 

2063: Then $\psi_0$ is regularly varying at infinity with exponent $\alpha$. 

2064: This follows from \cite[XIII.5.3]{Feller}, or 

2065: may be proved directly.  If $\sigma_0 \neq 0$, we have

2066: $\lim_{q \to \infty} \psi_0(q)/q^2=\sigma_0^2/2$. 

2067: The Laplace exponent $\Phi(q,t)$ is determined via 

2068: the functional relation \qref{E.main}. Since $\alpha >1$, the map 

2069: $\Phi \mapsto g_0(\Phi):= \psi_0(t\Phi)+\Phi$ is regularly varying 

2070: (in $\Phi)$ at $\infty$ with

2071: exponent $\alpha$. Therefore, the inverse function $\Phi(q,t)$ is

2072: regularly varying (in $q$) at $\infty$ with exponent $1/\alpha$.

2073: 

2074: Now let $g_\#(\cdot,t)$ be the inverse function to $\Phi_\#(\cdot,t)$.

2075: Then by \cite[Lemma III.4.12]{B_book}

2076: we infer that for every $\hat c>0$,

2077: \be

2078: \label{E.LIL8} 

2079:  -\log \prob\left( \frac{k Y^t_{1/k}} {h_\#(k\log\log k,t)} \leq \hat{c} \right) \sim

2080: (1-\hat\alpha)(\hat\alpha/\hat{c})^{{\hat\alpha}/(1-\hat\alpha)}

2081: \log\log k, \quad k \to \infty,

2082: \ee

2083: where 

2084: \[

2085: h_\#(k,t) =  \frac{ k}{g_\#(k,t)}.

2086: \]

2087: By \qref{E.Phish} and regular variation we have 

2088: $\Phi_\#(q,t)\sim \Phi(q/t,t)/\hat\alpha$ as $q\to\infty$,

2089: and thus by \qref{E.main} we find that as $q\to\infty$,

2090: \[

2091: g_\#(q,t)\sim t g_0(\hat\alpha q)\sim t\psi_0(\hat\alpha tq)

2092: \sim t^{1+\alpha}\alpha^{-\alpha} \psi_0(q).

2093: \]

2094: Substituting $\hat c=ct^{1+\alpha}\alpha^{-\alpha}$ into \qref{E.LIL8} 

2095: yields Corollary~\ref{C.LIL}.

2096: 

2097: Karamata's Tauberian theorem and the monotone density theorem now imply that

2098: $\Ltail_t(s)$ is regularly varying at zero with exponent

2099: $-1/\alpha$. If $\sigma_0 \neq 0$, we find $\Phi(q,t) \sim (\sigma_0

2100: t)^{-1} \sqrt{2q}$ as $q \to \infty$. Assertion (b) of the Lemma then follows from

2101: the Tauberian theorem. 

2102: \end{proof}

2103: 

2104: For the self-similar solutions, $\psi_0(q)=q^\alpha$ with $\alpha \in (1,2]$,

2105: $\Ltail_0(s)=s^{-\alpha}/(\alpha\Gamma(-\alpha))$ for $\alpha\in(1,2)$, and we have

2106: $\Ltail_t(s) \sim t^{-1}(ts)^{-1/\alpha}/\Gamma(1-1/\alpha)$ as $s \to 0$. 

2107: 

2108: \subsection{The multifractal spectrum}

2109: The notion of a multifractal spectrum was introduced by Frisch and

2110: Parisi to describe the intermittency of velocity fields in fully developed

2111: turbulence~\cite{Frisch-Parisi}.  The multifractal spectrum $d(h)$ measures the 

2112: dimension of the set $S_h$ where the velocity field has singularities of

2113: order $h$. There are different mathematical formulations of

2114: multifractality, corresponding to different notions of what one means

2115: by singularities of order $h$. Here we follow the treatment by

2116: Jaffard, which yields $d(h)$ rather easily~\cite{Jaffard} (the

2117: notation has been changed slightly for consistency with this

2118: article). 

2119: 

2120: We say a function

2121: $v:\R_+ \to \R$, is $C^r(x_0)$ for a point $x_0 \in \R_+$ if there is

2122: a polynomial $P_{x_0}$ of degree at most $[r]$ such that 

2123: \[ |v(x)-P_{x_0}(x)| \leq C|x-x_0|^r, \]

2124: in a neighborhood of $x_0$. The \Holder\/ exponent of $v$ at $x_0$ is

2125: defined as 

2126: \[ h_v(x_0)= \sup\{r\left| v \in C^r(x_0)\right. \}. \]

2127: We define $S_h$ to be the set of points where $v$ is of \Holder\/

2128: exponent $h$. The multifractal spectrum $d(h)$ is the Hausdorff

2129: dimension of $S_h$. If $S_h$ is empty, the convention is

2130: $d(h)=-\infty$. As an example, let us compute the multifractal

2131: spectrum when the initial data is of bounded variation. Then $M_0< \infty$ 

2132: in~\qref{E.BV} and there is a finite number of 

2133: shocks $s^t_y$ in a finite interval $[0,x]$ with probability

2134: $1$. Suppose $x_0$ is not a shock location for $v(\cdot,t)$. Then~\qref{E.BV}

2135: shows $v$ is analytic near $x_0$ and  $h_v(x_0) = \infty$.  If $x_0$ is a shock

2136: location, then $v \in C^{-\eps}(x_0)$ for every $\eps >0$, so that

2137: $h_v(x_0)=0$. Thus, we have 

2138: simply $d(0)=0$ and $d(h)= -\infty$ for every $h \neq 0$. 

2139: 

2140: The multifractal spectrum is more interesting for initial data of

2141: unbounded variation, that is, when \qref{E.sigma1} holds. In this case, the

2142: jumps in $v$ are dense. Following Jaffard~\cite{Jaffard}, 

2143: the multifractal spectrum is computed as follows. We define

2144: %If $\Lambda_t$ denotes the \Levy\/ measure for $v(\cdot,t)$, 

2145: \be

2146: \label{E.multfrac}

2147: C_j(t) = \int_{2^{-j-1}}^{2^{-j}} \Lambda_t(ds), \quad

2148: \spec_t = \max \left(0, \limsup_{j \to \infty} \frac{\log C_j(t)}{j

2149:   \log 2} \right). 

2150: \ee

2151: For any $t >0$, $v(\cdot, t)$ has no Brownian component. It then

2152: follows from~\cite[Thm. 1]{Jaffard} that 

2153: \be

2154: \label{E.multfrac2}

2155:  d_t(h) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \spec_th, &\quad  h \in [0,

2156:     1/\spec_t], \\ -\infty, &\quad \mathrm{else}. \end{array} \right.

2157: \ee

2158: Experiments suggest that the multifractal spectrum for fully developed

2159: three-dimensional turbulence is a concave

2160: curve~\cite[Fig. 2]{Meneveau-Sreenivasan}. This is in clear contrast

2161: with \qref{E.multfrac2}.  

2162: 

2163: 

2164: For example, let us compute the multifractal spectrum for the

2165: self-similar process $V^\alpha$ of index 

2166: $\alpha \in (1,2]$. Since $\Lambda^\alpha_t(s)$ is a

2167: scaled copy of $\Lambda^\alpha_1(s)$, $d_t(h)$ is independent of $t$. 

2168: We use \qref{E.ndensity} to obtain the asymptotics as $s \to

2169: 0$: 

2170: \[ \Lambda^\alpha_1(ds) = f_\alpha(s) \, ds \sim \frac{\sin \pi

2171:   \beta}{\pi} s^{\beta-2} 

2172: \Gamma(2-\beta) \, ds ,  \quad \beta = \frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}. \]

2173: We then have $\spec_t= \alpha^{-1}, t >0$ and 

2174: \be

2175: \label{E.multfrac3}

2176: d(h) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} h/\alpha, &\quad  h \in [0, \alpha],

2177:   \\ -\infty, &\quad \mathrm{else}. \end{array} \right. 

2178: \ee

2179: In particular, \qref{E.multfrac3} implies that $d(\alpha)=1$, that is

2180: $v(x,t)$ is $C^{\alpha}(x)$ for a.e $x \in \R_+$. For this set a finer

2181: characterization of the local variation of $v(\cdot,t)$ may be

2182: obtained by using the Fristedt-Pruitt  law of the iterated

2183: logarithm (see~\cite[Cor.~1]{B_burgers}). However, the

2184: multifractal spectrum, also describes sets

2185: $S_h$, $0<h< \alpha$, that are not covered by the Fristedt-Pruitt law.

2186: 

2187: 

2188: \section{Acknowledgement}

2189: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation

2190: under grants DMS 03-05985 and DMS 04-05343. G.M. thanks the University

2191: of Crete for hospitality during part of this work. 

2192: %(Center for Nonlinear

2193:                                 %Analysis)   

2194: 

2195: \bibliographystyle{siam}

2196: \bibliography{mp4}

2197: \end{document}

2198: 

2199: 

2200: 

2201: 

2202: 

2203: 

2204: 

2205: 

2206: 

2207: