Structure-preserving neural networks for the regularized entropy-based closure of the Boltzmann moment system

From the fact that {h}^\gamma(\mathbf{u}) =-\phi^\gamma({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_{\mathbf{u}}^\gamma;\mathbf{u}) and the definition of \phi^\gamma in (?), the gradient of h^\gamma can be expressed as

Since {\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_{\mathbf{u}}^\gamma is defined as the minimizer of \phi^\gamma in (?), \nabla_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_{\mathbf{u}}^\gamma}{\phi}^\gamma({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_{\mathbf{u}}^\gamma; \mathbf{u} )=0. Thus the last term in (Proof) vanishes, which proves the claim.

Recall that, by definition, \overline{u}_0=1. The first order optimality condition of (?) leads to

The first element of this vector equation implies that \left< m_0\exp\left( {\boldsymbol{\alpha}}^\gamma_{\overline{{\mathbf{u}}}}\cdot {\mathbf{m}}\right) \right>=\overline{u}_0 =1. Since {\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_{{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}}^\gamma= \left[\alpha^\gamma_{\overline{\mathbf{u}},0},\left({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}^\gamma_{\overline{{\mathbf{u}}}}\right)^\top \right]^\top,

which, together with the definition of \vartheta given in Eq. (1), proves the claim.

The first claim that

follows directly from the definitions of \hat{\phi}^\gamma, \phi^\gamma, and \vartheta given in Eqs. (3), (?), and (1), respectively. From Eq. (Proof), it is clear that \hat{\phi}^\gamma is twice differentiable with respect to {\boldsymbol{\beta}}. To show that \hat{\phi}^\gamma is convex, we use the fact that sums of convex functions are convex and prove that \log\left(\left< \exp({\boldsymbol{\beta}}\cdot {\mathbf{m}}_\# \right>\right) satisfies Jensen’s inequality, thus is convex. We prove Jensen’s inequality by using the monotonicity of the logarithm and Hölder’s inequality with 1/p=t and 1/q=(1-t). Specifically, for t\in(0,1) and {{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}_1,{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}_2\in\mathbb{R}^{n} with {\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1\not= {\boldsymbol{\beta}}_2, we have

Further, for \gamma>0, \hat{\phi}^\gamma is strictly convex since \frac{\gamma}{2} \left\lVert{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\right\rVert^2 is strictly convex. (It turns out that the function \hat{\phi}^\gamma(\cdot;\mathbf w) is strictly convex even when \gamma=0. This can easily be shown by verifying that Hölders inequality is strict unless {\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1 = {\boldsymbol{\beta}}_2.)

Since \hat{\phi}^\gamma is strictly convex, there exists a unique minimizer {\boldsymbol{\beta}}_{{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}}^\gamma in (3) that satisfies the first order optimality condition, i.e.,

On the other hand, the first order optimality condition of (?) is given by

Using Eq. (Proof) and Lemma 1, it is straightforward to verify that [\vartheta({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_{{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}}^\gamma),({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_{{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}}^\gamma)^\top]^\top satisfies the optimality condition in Eq. (Proof). The equivalence of {\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_{\overline{{\mathbf{u}}}}^\gamma and [\vartheta({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_{{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}}^\gamma),({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_{{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}}^\gamma)^\top]^\top then follows directly from the strict convexity of {\phi}^\gamma, which implies uniqueness of the minimizer. Finally, the fact that \phi^\gamma({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_{\overline{{\mathbf{u}}}}^\gamma;{\overline{{\mathbf{u}}}})= \hat{\phi}^\gamma({{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}_{{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}}^\gamma;{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}) is a direct consequence of the definition of \hat{\phi}^\gamma in Eq. (3).

It follows from the formulation of \hat{\phi}^\gamma in (2) that \hat{H}^\gamma({\boldsymbol{\beta}}) = \hat{H}^{\gamma=0}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}) + \gamma I. Thus, the condition number of \hat{H}^\gamma({\boldsymbol{\beta}}) can be written as

where \hat{\lambda}_{\max} and \hat{\lambda}_{\min} are the maximum and minimum eigenvalues of \hat{H}^{\gamma=0}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}), respectively. According to Lemma 2, \hat{\phi}^\gamma is strictly convex even when \gamma=0. Hence, \hat{\lambda}_{\min}\geq0, and \text{cond}(\hat{H}^\gamma({\boldsymbol{\beta}})) is upper bounded by 1+\gamma^{-1}\hat{\lambda}_{\max}.

According to Lemma 3, \bm\alpha_{\overline{{\mathbf{u}}}}^\gamma = [\vartheta({{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}_{{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}}^\gamma),({{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}_{{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}}^\gamma)^\top]^\top. Thus, we first show that \bm\alpha_{{\mathbf{u}}}^\gamma = [\alpha_{\overline{\mathbf{u}},0}^\gamma + \frac{\log \,u_0}{m_0}, (\bm\alpha_{\overline{{\mathbf{u}}}}^\gamma)_{\#}^\top]^\top. The first order optimality condition of (?) at \mathbf{u} and \overline{\mathbf{u}} (see, e.g., (Proof)) gives

respectively. Multiplying the second equation above by u_0 yields

Therefore, [\alpha_{\overline{\mathbf{u}},0}^\gamma + \frac{\log \,u_0}{m_0}, (\bm\alpha_{\overline{{\mathbf{u}}}}^\gamma)_{\#}^\top]^\top satisfies the optimality condition at \mathbf{u} given in (Proof), we have \bm\alpha_{{\mathbf{u}}}^\gamma = [\alpha_{\overline{\mathbf{u}},0}^\gamma + \frac{\log \,u_0}{m_0}, (\bm\alpha_{\overline{{\mathbf{u}}}}^\gamma)_{\#}^\top]^\top.

We next show that \hat{h}^\gamma\colon \mathbb{R}^{n}\to\mathbb{R} is strictly convex. By the definition of \hat{h}^\gamma and the formulation of \hat{\phi}^\gamma in (2),

Thus \hat{h}^\gamma is the Legendre dual of the function {\boldsymbol{\beta}} \mapsto \hat{\phi}^\gamma({\boldsymbol{\beta}};{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}) +{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}} \cdot \overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#},

which is strictly convex by Lemma 2. Therefore, \hat{h}^\gamma is also strictly convex. As for the gradient of \hat{h}^\gamma, since \hat{h}^\gamma(\mathbf{w}):= -\hat{\phi}^\gamma({{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}_{\mathbf{w}}^\gamma;\mathbf{w}) and -\nabla_{\mathbf{w}} \hat{\phi}^\gamma( {\boldsymbol{\beta}};\mathbf{w}) = {\boldsymbol{\beta}},

Since {\boldsymbol{\beta}}_{\mathbf{w}}^\gamma minimizes \hat{\phi}^\gamma, the last term in (?) vanishes, which proves the claim.

To derive the relation between h^\gamma and \hat{h}^\gamma, see Definition 2 and 3, we start with

see Eq. (?). Plugging \bm\alpha_{{\mathbf{u}}}^\gamma = [\alpha_{\overline{\mathbf{u}},0}^\gamma + \frac{\log \,u_0}{m_0}, (\bm\alpha_{\overline{{\mathbf{u}}}}^\gamma)_{\#}^\top]^\top, where \bm\alpha_{\overline{{\mathbf{u}}}}^\gamma = [\vartheta({{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}_{{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}}^\gamma),({{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}_{{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}}^\gamma)^\top]^\top, into the above equation then gives

where the last equality uses the first equality in (?) and the definition of \vartheta in (1). Finally, h^\gamma(\overline{\mathbf{u}})= \hat{h}^\gamma(\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}) is a direct consequence of the relation between h^\gamma and \hat{h}^\gamma given in (?).

First, it follows from (3) and (3) that ({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_\mathbf{u}^\gamma)_{\#} = ({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_{\overline{{\mathbf{u}}}}^\gamma )_{\#} = {{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}_{{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}}^\gamma, which when combined with the first equation in (Proof) implies that

Since {{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}_{{\overline{\mathbf{u}}_{\#}}}^\gamma\in B_M, (4) immediately holds.

In addition, since \mathbf{g}^\gamma_{\mathbf{u}}= {\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_{\mathbf{u}}^\gamma - \frac{\gamma}{2}\big[\|({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_{\mathbf{u}}^\gamma)_{\#}\|^2,\mathbf{0}^{\top}\big]^{\top} (see (2) in Theorem 2),

Further, (?) implies

The fact that

see [atkinson2012spherical, Section 2.1.3], where \left|\mathbb{S}^2\right| is the measure of the unit sphere. Normalization of the moment vector and the triangle inequality gives

which yields the last inequality of Eq. (?). The bound in (4) a direct consequence of the triangle inequality.

For entropy dissipation, we first show that the integrability condition holds for the entropy/entropy-flux pair h^\gamma and \mathbf{j}^\gamma with the flux term \mathbf{F}(\mathbf{u})=\left< \mathbf{v}\otimes\mathbf{m}f^\gamma_{\mathbf{u}} \right>. For i=1,2,3, let j_{i}^\gamma:=\left< v_i \eta(f^\gamma_{\mathbf{u}}) \right> and F_i(\mathbf{u}):=\left< v_i\,\mathbf{m}f^\gamma_{\mathbf{u}} \right>, then

where we have used the chain rule, the definition of f^\gamma_{\mathbf{u}} in Eq. (?), the Legendre duality, and the fact that \mathbf{g}^\gamma_{\mathbf{u}}= \nabla_\mathbf{u} h^\gamma(\mathbf{u}). To derive the entropy dissipation law, we multiply the moment system from the left with \nabla_\mathbf{u} h^\gamma(\mathbf{u}) and obtain

From the reverse chain rule and Eq. (?), this leads to

Entropy dissipation requires non-positivity of right-hand side term, which is given by

where the equalities follow from similar properties used in Eq. (?) in the reversed order, and the inequality is from the entropy dissipation law in Eq. (?).

We next show that the closed moment system is hyperbolic. Note that the hyperbolicity follows from the entropy dissipation property of the moment system. Consider again the flux function of the moment system

We define j_{i,*}(\mathbf{g})=\left< v_i\eta_*(\mathbf{g}\cdot \mathbf{m}) \right>, i=1, 2, 3, such that \nabla_{\mathbf{g}}j_{i,*}(\mathbf{g}^\gamma_{\mathbf{u}})=F_i(\mathbf{u}), and denote

where K is symmetric positive definite by the strict convexity of h^\gamma(\mathbf{u}). By using chain rule, the flux term in Eq. (5) can be written as

The symmetric positive definite matrix K then symmetrizes [friedrichs1971systems] the closed moment system (5); that is, after multiplication on the left by K,

where the matrix K J_i K is symmetric for each i \in \{1,2,3\}.