Scattering from a random thin coating of nanoparticles: the Dirichlet case

It is easy to see that \mathcal{W}_0(D) is a Pre-Hilbert space. Let us prove completeness. For all R>0 and \omega\in\Omega, let D^\omega_R\coloneqq D^\omega\cap(\square_R\times (0,+\infty)). Since a.s. \mu^{-1}\in L^1_{loc}(D^\omega_R) , the weighted Sobolev space

equipped with the norm

is a Hilbert space [kufner1984define, Theorem 1.11]. Therefore (L^2(\Omega, W_0(D^\omega_R)), \|\cdot\|_{L^2(\Omega, W_0(D^\omega_R))}) is also a Hilbert space.

Let (v_n)_{n\inn\in\mathbb{N}} be a Cauchy sequence in \mathcal{W}_0(D). By stationarity (v_n)_{n\inn\in\mathbb{N}} is a Cauchy sequence in L^2(\Omega, W_0(D^\omega_R)) for any R>0. As \displaystyle\lim_{R\to\infty}\uparrow \square_R=\mathbb{R}^{d-1}, there exists v\in H^1_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^d,L^2(\Omega)) such that for all R>0, v_n\xrightarrow[n\to\infty]{}v in L^2(\Omega, W_0(D^\omega_R)).

It remains to show that \mathbb{1}_D v(\cdot,x_d) is stationary for all x_d>0. Let n\in\mathbb{N}. By stationarity of \mathbb{1}_D v_n(\cdot,x_d), we have for a.e. \omega\in \Omega, \boldsymbol{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{d-1}\times(0,+\infty) and \boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel\in\mathbb{R}^{d-1}

We would like to pass to the limit in this equality but we only have that v_n\xrightarrow[]{}v in L^2(\Omega, W_0(D^\omega_R)). Let R such that \boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel, \boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel+\boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel\in \square_{R}. Using (?) and the stationarity of \mu we obtain by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality

Since v_n\xrightarrow[]{} v in \vspace{0.1cm} L^2(\Omega, W_0(D^\omega_{R})), we deduce by passing to the limit in this last inequality that \mathbb{1}_D v(\cdot,x_d) is stationary for all x_d>0.

We first prove the result for \alpha\in\{0,h\}. Let v\in\mathcal{W}_0(D). Let us consider the Voronoı̈ diagram (V_n^\omega)_{n\in \mathbb{N}} in \mathbb{R}^{d-1}\times[0,h] associated with the point process \{\boldsymbol{x}_n^\omega\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}} defined by the sets

For \omega\in\Omega, n\in\mathbb{N} let \Sigma_n^\omega(\alpha) denote the intersection of the hyperplane \{y_d=\alpha\} with the Voronoı̈ cell V_n^\omega . Let (\rho, \boldsymbol{\theta}) be the spherical coordinate system centered at \boldsymbol{x}_n^\omega. Since V_n^\omega is convex, \Sigma_n^\omega(\alpha) can be parametrized as \Sigma_n^\omega(\alpha)\coloneqq \left\{(r(\boldsymbol{\theta}), \boldsymbol{\theta}), r(\boldsymbol{\theta})\in [1,+\infty), \boldsymbol{\theta}\in [\boldsymbol{\theta}_0, \boldsymbol{\theta}_1]\subset\mathbb{S}^{d-1}\right\}. Since v^\omega\in H^1(V_n^\omega) with v^\omega=0 on \partial B(\boldsymbol{x}^\omega_n), there exists (v_p^\omega)_{p\in\mathbb{N}} in \mathcal{C}^\infty(V_n^\omega)^\mathbb{N} with v_p^\omega=0 on \partial B(\boldsymbol{x}^\omega_n) such that v_p^\omega\to v^\omega in H^1(V_n^\omega). We have for all p,

We deduce for any non-negative function \tilde{\mu} on (1,+\infty), for all \boldsymbol{\theta}\in [\boldsymbol{\theta}_0, \boldsymbol{\theta}_1]

For \tilde{\mu}(\rho)\coloneqq \displaystyle\left(\int_1^{\rho} s^{1-d}ds\right)^{-1}\rho^{1-d}, we get after integrating with respect to \boldsymbol{\theta}

We can now pass to the limit when p\to+\infty to obtain the first inequality of

By definition (?), for \boldsymbol{y}\in V_n^\omega, \mu^\omega(\boldsymbol{y})=r(\boldsymbol{\theta})^{-m} with m>2d. Therefore \displaystyle\boldsymbol{y}\mapsto{\mu^\omega}/{\tilde{\mu}^\omega}(\boldsymbol{y}) is bounded by monotonicity and there exists a constant independent of \boldsymbol{y}\in V_n^\omega such that \mu^\omega(\boldsymbol{y})\lesssim\tilde{\mu}^\omega(\boldsymbol{y}). Consequently (Proof) holds replacing \tilde{\mu} by \mu. For any L>0, we sum over all \Sigma^\omega_n(\alpha) such that \boldsymbol{x}_n^\omega\in\square_L\times(0,h) to obtain

where N_L\coloneqq \Big\{n \in \mathbb{N} \text{ such that } \boldsymbol{y}_n^\omega\in\square_L\times(0,h)\Big\}. Finally we apply Birkhoff Theorem (Theorem 3) to conclude.

Let us consider now \alpha>h. We write for v\in\mathcal{C}^\infty(\overline{\square_1\times(h,\alpha)})

By Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we get

We integrate over \square_1 to obtain

By density, this equality also holds for v\in {\cal W}_0(D). On one hand, by definition (?) and since \alpha>h, we have \mu^\omega(\boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel,\alpha)\leq 1 for all \boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel\in\square_1 so we deduce for the first term of the r.h.s.

On the other hand using the fact that \mu^\omega(\boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel,\alpha)\leq \mu^\omega(\boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel,h) for all \boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel\in\square_1 and the first part of the proof, we get for the second term of the r.h.s.

Combining (?) and (?) we obtain the desired result.

We first prove that for all v\in\mathcal{W}_0(D)

Let us consider the Voronoı̈ diagram (V_n^\omega)_{n\in \mathbb{N}} in \mathbb{R}^{d-1}\times[0,h] associated with the point process \{\boldsymbol{x}_n^\omega\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}. Let n\in\mathbb{N} and \omega\in\Omega. We first prove that the following inequality holds a.s. in V_n^\omega

The proof of (Proof) relies on similar arguments as in the proof of Lemma 1.3 of [beliaev1996darcy]. We reproduce it here for completeness. Let (\rho, \boldsymbol{\theta}) be the spherical coordinate system centered at \boldsymbol{x}_n^\omega. Since V_n^\omega is convex, it can be parametrized as V_n^\omega\coloneqq \left\{(\rho, \boldsymbol{\theta}), \rho\in(1,R(\boldsymbol{\theta})], \boldsymbol{\theta}\in \mathbb{S}^{d-1}\right\}. Let v^\omega\in\mathcal{C}^\infty(\overline{V_n^\omega}) such that v^\omega=0 on \partial B(\boldsymbol{x}^\omega_n). We have for all (\rho, \boldsymbol{\theta})\in V_n^\omega

Therefore we derive by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality

and for \tilde{\mu} a non-negative function on (1,+\infty)

By Fubini-Tonelli’s Theorem we get

For \tilde{\mu}(\rho)\coloneqq \rho^{-m} with m>d, \displaystyle\int_1^{+\infty} \left(\int_1^\rho s^{1-d}ds\right)\tilde{\mu}(\rho)\rho^{d-1}d\rho<+\infty. We integrate with respect to \boldsymbol{\theta} to get

To obtain (Proof) for v\in{\cal W}_0(D), we use a density argument and that for \boldsymbol{y}\in V_n^\omega, \mu^\omega(\boldsymbol{y})\leq\tilde{\mu}^\omega(\boldsymbol{y}). We conclude using Birkhoff Theorem (Theorem 3).

Let us now prove (8). By integrating by parts, we obtain

We deduce the following by applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and using the weighted trace theorem (Lemma 7)

(8) is then a consequence of Young’s inequality.

A straighforward computation yields

it is then easy to show the first inequality of (10). Moreover, by a change of variable \boldsymbol{z}_\shortparallel\mapsto \boldsymbol{z}_\shortparallel/y_d, we obtain the second inequality of (10)

The proof of (10) can be done using similar arguments.

Let us fix \varepsilon>0. We suppose now that there exist C\geq0 and R>0 such that for all R'>R

Using similar arguments as in the proof of Proposition 11, we have for \boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel\in \mathbb{R}^{d-1}, y_d>L,

We can bound the second term of the right-hand side as in the proof of Proposition 11 (see (?)). To bound the first term, we use the second inequality of (10).

To prove the second part of (12), we decompose similarly \mathbb{E}\left[\left|\nabla \widehat{U}^\omega\right|^2\right] and use the two inequalities of (10).

Let H’>H. One can easily establish thanks to proposition 5 that

Taking the limit as y_d\to+\infty, one gets

Choosing H' large enough leads to (13).

Let e_\varepsilon\coloneqq u_0^{FF}+\varepsilon u_1^{FF}-v_\varepsilon. Applying the Fourier Transform in the \boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel-direction to (Definition), (Definition) and (Definition), one obtains that

where \widehat{e_\varepsilon} (resp. \partial_{x_d}\widehat{u}^{FF}_1) denotes the Fourier Transform of e_\varepsilon (resp. \partial_{x_d}{u_1}) and by convention \sqrt{k^2-|\boldsymbol{\zeta}|^2}=\mathrm{i}\sqrt{|\boldsymbol{\zeta}|^2-k^2}. Using the characterization of Sobolev spaces from the Fourier Transform (see (?)), one easily shows that

By stationarity of U (and a change of variable in the first integral), we get immediately

Let \delta>0. By (15), there exists L_0\geq 0 such that for all y_d\geq L_0,

We can then write

This and the previous relation prove that for \varepsilon small enough, \left\|\mathcal{U}_\varepsilon\right\|^2_{L^2(\Omega, L^2(\mathcal{B}^{\omega}_{L}))}\leq \delta\,\|u\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^{d-1})}. Moreover

The first term can be dealt with in the same way as \left\|u(\cdot)U\left(\frac{\cdot}{\varepsilon}\right)\right\|^2_{L^2(\Omega, L^2(\mathcal{B}^{\omega}_{L}))} replacing u by \nabla_{\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel}u. For the second term, we use (Proof) to obtain

We follow the same ideas as in the proof of Lemma 15. Thanks to (16) we can improve our initial estimate of \displaystyle\int_0^{\frac{L}{\varepsilon}} \mathbb{E}\left[\left|U\left(\cdot,y_d\right)\right|^2\right]\mathrm{d} y_d as such

This inequality combined with (Proof) gives us the first result. Moreover, one has to adapt (Proof) using that

Let us write the problem verified by w^\omega_\varepsilon in \mathcal{B}^{\omega}_{L}. w^\omega_\varepsilon satisfies on one hand for \boldsymbol{x}\in\mathcal{B}^\omega_L

where we used that U_1^{NF} and \widetilde{U}_2^{NF} are solutions of near-field problems with no volume source terms and that \varepsilon\nabla [V(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel;\boldsymbol{x}/\varepsilon)]=\varepsilon[\nabla_{\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel}V](\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel;\boldsymbol{x}/\varepsilon)+[\nabla_y V](\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel;\boldsymbol{x}/\varepsilon). On the other hand w^\omega_\varepsilon verifies the following jumps and boundary conditions

where \Lambda^K denotes the DtN operator introduced in the definition Definition.

We can now write the variational formulation verified by e_\varepsilon\coloneqq u_\varepsilon-w_\varepsilon in L^2\big(\Omega,H^1(\mathcal{B}^{\omega}_{L})\big). For all v \in L^2\big(\Omega,H^1(\mathcal{B}^{\omega}_{L})\big),

where a_\varepsilon^\omega is defined in (?) and

Let us now bound the norm of each anti-linear form appearing in (?). For \ell_\varepsilon^1, both volume integrals can be bounded applying Lemma 15 to U_1^{NF}, \nabla_{\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel} U_1^{NF}, \widetilde{U}_2^{NF} or \nabla_{\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel}\widetilde{U}_2^{NF} with U being V_i, i=1,2 and u being \partial_{x_d} u_i^{FF}\big|_{\Sigma_{\varepsilon H}} or \nabla_{\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel}\partial_{x_d} u_i^{FF}\big|_{\Sigma_{\varepsilon H}}. Note that V_i, i=1,2 verify (15) by Proposition 11 and \partial_{x_d} u_i^{FF}\big|_{\Sigma_{\varepsilon H}}, \nabla_{\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel}\partial_{x_d} u_i^{FF}\in H^{1}(\Sigma_{\varepsilon H}), i=1,2 (\Sigma_{\varepsilon H} being identified to \mathbb{R}^{d-1}). By Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we get

where \eta(\varepsilon) tends to 0 as \varepsilon tends to 0.

For \ell_\varepsilon^2, we use that under Hypothesis Hypothesis the following trace theorem (analogue to Lemma 7) holds for all U\in\mathcal{H}_0(D)

We obtain for u\in L^2(\mathbb{R}^{d-1}) and U\in\mathcal{H}_0(D)

Applying this result to \widetilde{U}_2^{NF} we get by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality

We conclude with a trace inequality in L^2(\Omega, H^1(\mathcal{B}^\omega_L))

Finally let us focus on \ell_\varepsilon^3. Since by Proposition 11 \|V_i(\cdot,y_d)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+y_d\|\nabla V_i(\cdot,y_d)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\underset{y_d\to+\infty}{=}o(1) for i=1 and 2, we deduce that

By Definition (?) and (?) of U_1^{NF} and \widetilde{U}_2^{NF} and thanks to the continuity of \Lambda^k and (?) we deduce that

Therefore, we have shown that, for any v\in L^2\Big( \Omega,H^1\big(\mathcal{B}^{\omega}_{L}\big)\Big)

Thanks to the well-posedness result of Corollary 4 we deduce that

This ends the proof of (17).

To prove (17) we decompose the error in two parts

From (17), we know that the first term of the right-hand side is a o(\varepsilon). For the second term we use the result of Lemma 15.

To prove (18) we need to estimate the norm of w_\varepsilon-\widetilde{w}_\varepsilon in V_L\coloneqq L^2(\Omega, H_1(\mathcal{B}_L^\omega)). To do so we decompose the error in three parts

Proposition 14 allows us to estimate the first term of the right-hand-side. Let us now deal with the two remaining terms. Since V_i, i=1,2 verify (15) by Proposition 11 and \partial_{x_d} u_i^{FF}\big|_{\Sigma_{\varepsilon H}},\partial_{x_d} v_\varepsilon^{FF}\big|_{\Sigma_{\varepsilon H}}\in H^{s}(\Sigma_{\varepsilon H}) for any s, we get deriving inequalities similar to (Proof) and (Proof), and from Lemma 15

and

where \eta(\varepsilon) tends to 0 as \varepsilon tends to 0. From (14) we know moreover that

Inserting (Proof) into (Proof) and (Proof) allows us to conclude. Finally, to prove (18) we combine (17) and (14).

By Theorem 19, under Hypotheses Hypothesis and Hypothesis, for all R\geq1

Consequently by Proposition 12 we know that V_1, defined in (?), verifies

We then obtain for L>\varepsilon H

Inserting (Proof) and the result of Corollary 16 in the proof of Theorem 17 yields (20).

The proof is identical as the proof of Corollary 18 but we take advantage here of the improved estimate of Corollary 16.

It suffices to use Lax-Milgram Theorem. The variational formulation reads for

The coercivity of the sesquilinear form is ensured by (?). Since f\in L^2(\Sigma_L) has compact support, \mu^{-\frac{1}{2}}f\in L^2(\Sigma_L) and

Step 1. We prove that a.s. for all 2\leq p\leq 2+\frac{1}{C_0}

Let R>0. Take \chi a smooth cut-off function such that \chi|_{\square_R\times(0,R)}\equiv1, \chi\geq 0, \textrm{supp}\chi\subset\square_{2R}\times(0,2R) and \vspace{0.1cm}\left|\nabla \chi\right|\lesssim \displaystyle\frac{1}{R}. We test (Proof) with v\coloneqq \chi(u_{f,\boldsymbol{g}}-c) where c is a constant. We obtain

Using Young’s inequality with K\geq 1 we get

Choosing c\coloneqq \displaystyle\fint_{\square_{2R}\times(0,2R)} \mathbb{1}_{D^\omega}u_{f,\boldsymbol{g}}^\omega, we apply Poincaré-Sobolev inequality to the first term and the trace Theorem to the third term of the right-hand side

with p^\star={2d}/{(d+2)} and where we have identified the function \mu^{-1}|f|^2\in L^1(\square_{2R}\cap\Sigma_L) to a function in L^1(\square_{2R}\times(0,2R)) that is independent of x_d. We conclude by applying Gehring’s Lemma (Lemma 32) with q={2}/{p^\star}, F\coloneqq \left(|\boldsymbol{g}|^2+(2R\mu)^{-1}|f|^2\right)^{{p^\star}/{2}} and G\coloneqq |\nabla u_{f,\boldsymbol{g}}^\omega|^{p^\star} that for all 2\leq p\leq 2+ {1}/{C_0}

where C_0\coloneqq \eta_0p^\star. By Jensen’s inequality and since 2>p^*, (?) yields

(22) implies

Next we let R\to+\infty and obtain (Proof) for 2\leq p\leq 2+ \frac{1}{C_0}.

Step 2: Proof of (23) for 2\leq q<p\leq 2+\frac{1}{C_0} Let 2\leq p_0\leq p_1\leq 2+\frac{1}{C_0} and R>0. Let u^{\omega, 0}_{f,\boldsymbol{g}} be the unique solution in W_0(D^\omega) of

We apply (Proof) to u^{\omega, 0}_{f,\boldsymbol{g}}

On the other hand u^{\omega, 1}_{f,\boldsymbol{g}}\coloneqq u^{\omega}_{f,\boldsymbol{g}}-u^{\omega, 0}_{f,\boldsymbol{g}} verifies in D^\omega_R\coloneqq \square_R\times(0,R)\setminus\overline{\mathcal{P}^\omega}

We first deduce from the triangle inequality in L^{\frac{p_1}{p_0}}(\square_{\frac{R}{2}}\times(0,\frac{R}{2})) the following

From (?) with g=0 on \square_R\times(0,R) and f=0 on \Sigma_L\cap\square_R, we obtain

Finally with Jensen’s inequality (since p_0\geq p^\star) we conclude that

We are now in position to apply Lemma 33 with C=2,

We obtain for all p_0<p<p_1, R_0>0

We let R_0\to+\infty and obtain (23) for 2\leq p\leq 2+ \frac{1}{C_0}.

Step 3: Proof of (23) for 2-{1}/{2C_0}\leq p<q\leq 2. We proceed by duality:

Moreover testing the variational formulation verified by u_{0,\boldsymbol{h}} with v\coloneqq \overline{u_{f,\boldsymbol{g}}} yields

Testing the variational formulation verified by u_{f,\boldsymbol{g}} with v\coloneqq \overline{u_{0,\boldsymbol{h}}} and subtracting (?) gives

Moreover

Since 2\leq q'<p'\leq 2+\frac{1}{C_0} we conclude thanks to step 2.2. By interpolation estimate (23) holds then for all |p-2|, |q-2|<\frac{1}{C_0'} with C_0'=8C_0.

We prove here (24) for q\gg 2. By Jensen’s inequality the result can then be extended to all q\geq 2. By stationarity of W_1 we have on one hand for all R_1, R_2\geq 1, L\geq H

where we used Jensen’s inequality since x\mapsto \sqrt{x} is concave. On the other hand according first to Proposition 26 for R\gg 1, L\gg1 and q\gg2 and second to Proposition 25

Injecting (?) with R=R_1+R_2 into the final inequality of (Proof) yields

With \alpha chosen so that (1-\alpha)d<1 and R_2 large enough, the second term of the right-hand side can be absorbed into the left hand-side and we get the result.

Step 1: Sensitivity of the \nabla W_1 Let \boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel\in \mathbb{R}^{d-1} and \ell\geq 1. In what follows we use the same notations as in the proof of Proposition 27. Let us first prove that

Let \boldsymbol{g}\in\mathcal{C}_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d-1}\times \mathbb{R}^+, \mathbb{R}^d). We introduce the auxiliary problem u_{\boldsymbol{g}} solution of (?) with f\coloneqq 0. The weak formulation associated to (?) reads for all \varphi\in W_0(\widetilde{D}^\omega)

We evaluate (?) for \varphi=\overline{u_{\boldsymbol{g}}} and (?) for \varphi=\overline{Z}. After substracting both expressions we obtain

Using the same arguments as in the proof of proposition 27, we can estimate by duality \|\nabla u_{\boldsymbol{g}}\cdot\boldsymbol{n}\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial B(\boldsymbol{x}_i^\omega))}

and obtain,

Combining (?) and (?) we conclude that

We get (Proof) using (?).

Step 2: Let g\in\mathcal{C}_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d-1}\times \mathbb{R}^+) and 2\leq q<+\infty. The second step consists in applying the higher-order version (Lemma 34) of the mixing hypothesis (Hypothesis Hypothesis) to \displaystyle\int_0^{+\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d-1}}\mathbb{1}_{D^\omega}\boldsymbol{g}\cdot\nabla W_1(\boldsymbol{y})\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y}.

Next we use Hypothesis Hypothesis to bound a.s. and for a.e. \boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel\in R^{d-1}, \ell^{\omega}_+(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel) by \ell+R^+.

By duality we can write

where \tilde{q}=\frac{q}{q-2} and the supremum is computed over positive random variables X independent of \boldsymbol{x}. We artificially introduce a spatial average over \square_{R_1} for a given R_1\geq 1 by noticing that by Fubini-Tonelli’s Theorem for h\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^{d-1})

We get

By Hölder’s inequality and the stationarity of \nabla W_1 we obtain then for q\gg2 such that |\tilde{q}-1|\leq \frac{1}{2C_0}

Since X\mapsto\mathbb{E}[|X|^{\frac{q}{2}}]^{\frac{1}{\frac{q}{2}}}is a norm we have by Jensen’s inequality and the stationarity of \nabla W_1

Since X\mapsto\mathbb{E}[|X|^{\tilde{q}}]^{\frac{1}{\tilde{q}}} is a norm we get by Jensen’s inequality

In the last inequality we simplified the spatial averages in the right-hand side thanks to (?). Moreover since the supremum is computed over positive X we can reformulate it as follows

Appealing to Theorem 23 we get

Finally we proved that

We inject (?) into (?) and conclude thanks to the weight \pi with super-algebraic decay.

Let R\geq R^+ and L\geq R+H. Take \chi a smooth cut-off function such that 0\leq\chi\leq 1, \chi|_{\square_R\times(0,L)}\equiv1, \textrm{supp}\chi\subset\square_{2R}\times (0,2L) and \vspace{0.1cm}\left|\nabla \chi(\boldsymbol{x})\right|\lesssim \displaystyle\frac{1}{R} for all \boldsymbol{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{d-1}\times\mathbb{R}. We test (?) with v\coloneqq \chi W_1. We obtain

Using Young’s inequality with K\geq 1 we get

Next we apply the trace Theorem to the third term of the right-hand side

Recall that under Hypothesis Hypothesis Poincaré’s inequality holds in boxes larger than R^+ with a constant linear in R^+. We decompose the second term of the right-hand side as follows

where \text{\large}_r(\boldsymbol{x})\coloneqq r^{-d}\text{\large}\left(\frac{\boldsymbol{x}}{r}\right). On one hand, we obtain by Poincaré’s inequality under Hypothesis Hypothesis

On the other hand, we write

Using Jensen’s inequality, we get

Plugging back (Proof) and (Proof) into (Proof) we finally proved the following

Next we take the L^{\frac{q}{2}}(\Omega) norm of both sides of (Proof) for q\geq 2. By stationarity and Jensen’s inequality we have on one hand

and on the other hand similarly as in (?)

To conclude we want to absorb the last term of the right-hand side of (Proof) into the left-hand side. In order to do so we decompose the integral in y_d in two parts: (0,L) and (L, 2L+r). Thanks to (Proof) choosing K\gg 1 and r={R}^\alpha for some \alpha\in(0,1) so that \frac{1}{K^2}+K^2\frac{r^2}{R^2} is small enough we can absorb \mathbb{E}\left[\left(\fint_{\square_{R}}\int_{0}^{L} \mathbb{1}_{D^\omega}|\nabla W_1^\omega|^2\right)^{\frac{q}{2}}\right]^{\frac{2}{q}} into the left-hand side.

Let us deal with the last term \mathbb{E}\left[\left(\fint_{\square_{R}}\int_{L}^{2L+r} \mathbb{1}_{D^\omega}|\nabla W_1^\omega|^2\right)^{\frac{q}{2}}\right]^{\frac{2}{q}}. We plug in W_1^{\omega}’s integral representation (9) and use Jensen’s inequality

where \varphi\coloneqq W_1^\omega|_{\Sigma_{L'}} with L>L' and \partial_d\Gamma is defined in (10). By the trace Theorem we deduce

where the constant is proportional to R^+L'. We obtain finally

We conclude once again by stationarity of W_1 and thanks to the integrability property of \nabla \partial_d\Gamma that ensures that both in 2 and 3 dimensions

Let \boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel\in \mathbb{R}^{d-1} and \ell\geq 1. Consider \mathcal{P}^\omega a realization of the particle distribution in the layer and let \mathcal{P}' be a repartition of particles satisfying the hard-core assumption and such that

We let W_1' denote the solution of problem (?) where \mathcal{P}^\omega (resp. D^\omega) is replaced by \mathcal{P}' (resp. D'\coloneqq \mathbb{R}^{d-1}\times\mathbb{R}^+\setminus\overline{\mathcal{P}'}).

Step 1: We first prove that W_1^{'} is well-defined and verifies

Consider the set of particles of \mathcal{P}^\omega (resp. \mathcal{P}') intersecting with \mathcal{L}_\ell(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel), i.e.

Let \mathcal{S}\coloneqq\text{Hull}\left(\mathcal{P}_\ell^\omega\right) where \text{Hull} denotes the convex hull. Let \text{\large} be a smooth cut-off function such that \text{supp} \text{\large} \subset \mathcal{S}

then X^\omega\coloneqq W_1'-\mathbb{1}_{\mathcal{P}_\ell^\omega} W_1^\omega(1-\chi) verifies the following problem in D'

Since \nabla (\chi W_1)\in [L^2(D')]^d with compact support, there exists a unique X^\omega\in W_0(D') by proposition 22. Hence W_1' is well-defined. Let us now show that it verifies estimate (?).

Let \widetilde{D}^\omega\coloneqq D^\omega\cup\overline{\mathcal{P}_\ell^\omega}. Z^\omega\coloneqq \mathbb{1}_{\mathcal{P}_\ell'}W_1'- \mathbb{1}_{\mathcal{P}_\ell^\omega}W_1^\omega verifies

To simplify notations we use here integrals on the boundary of \mathcal{P}_\ell^\omega and \mathcal{P}_\ell' to denote the duality product H^{-{1}/{2}}, H^{{1}/{2}}.

The coercivity of the associated sesquilinear form is a direct consequence of the weighted Poincaré inequality (?). The continuity of the linear form is ensured by the trace theorem and a Poincare’s inequality that holds with a constant proportional to \ell^{\omega}_+(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel) since at least one particle lies in \mathcal{L}_{\ell^{\omega}_+(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel)}(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel). We obtain for all i\in\mathcal{I}'_\ell(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel), j\in\mathcal{I}_\ell^\omega(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel), v\in W_0(\widetilde{D}^\omega)

Let us now estimate \|\nabla W_1^\omega\cdot\boldsymbol{n}\|_{H^{-{1}/{2}}(\partial B(\boldsymbol{x}_i^\omega))} for i\in\mathcal{I}_\ell^\omega(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel). We proceed by duality. Let \psi_i\in H^{{1}/{2}}(\partial B(\boldsymbol{x}_i^\omega)) and \Psi_i\in H^1(\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{\ell^{\omega}_+}(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel)) a lifting of \psi such that \textrm{supp} \Psi_i\subset \displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{\ell^{\omega}_+}(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel), \Psi_i|_{\partial B(\boldsymbol{x}_i^\omega)}=\psi_i\delta_{i,j} for all j\in\mathcal{I}_\ell^\omega(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel) and

We write the weak formulation associated to (?) in \mathcal{L}_{\ell^{\omega}_{+}}(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel)

By definition of the H^{-1/2}-norm we deduce that

We can prove similarly for i\in\mathcal{I}'_\ell(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel), \|\nabla W_1^{'}\cdot\boldsymbol{n}\|_{H^{-{1}/{2}}(\partial B(\boldsymbol{x}_i'))}\leq\|\mathbb{1}_{D'}\nabla W_1'\|_{L^2(\mathcal{L}_{\ell^{\omega}_{+}}(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel))}.

Testing (?) with v=Z^\omega, we get

and therefore

Claim (?) follows from Young’s inequality.

Step 2: Sensitivity of W_1|_{\Sigma_L}

Recall that u_f\coloneqq u_{f,\boldsymbol{0}} denotes the unique weak solution in W_0(D^\omega) of (?) with \boldsymbol{g}=\boldsymbol{0}. The weak formulation associated to (?) reads for all v\in W_0(\widetilde{D}^\omega)

We evaluate (?) for v=\mathbb{1}_{D^\omega}\overline{u_{f}^\omega} and (?) for v=\overline{Z^\omega}. After subtracting both expressions and since u_f^\omega=W^\omega_1=0 on \partial\mathcal{P}^\omega, we obtain

Next we can estimate \|\nabla u_{f}^\omega\cdot\boldsymbol{n}\|_{H^{-{1}/{2}}(\partial B(\boldsymbol{x}_i^\omega))} for i\in\mathcal{I}_{\ell}(\boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel) using similar steps as in the estimate of \|\nabla W_1^\omega\cdot\boldsymbol{n}\|_{H^{-{1}/{2}}(\partial B(\boldsymbol{x}_j^\omega))}. We deduce that

Therefore

Using (?) we deduce that

where \mathcal{P}_\ell'' satisfies the same assumption than \mathcal{P}_\ell' and W_1'' is the associated solution. By definition of (Hypothesis), this allows us to conclude.

Let {V}_T be given by the integral expression of (?). It is easy to show (using similar arguments than in [colton2013integral] or in [chandler1997impedance, Theorem 3.2] for instance) that a.s. for any \boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel\in \mathbb{R}^{d-1}, y_d>L, \widetilde{V}_T^\omega is in C^2(\mathcal{B}_L^\infty), it satisfies the first equation of (29) and the boundary condition of (29) in the trace sense. This implies in particular that a.s. V_T^\omega\in H_{loc}^1(\mathcal{B}^\infty_L) . By stationarity of \varphi, we have for \boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel, \boldsymbol{x}_\shortparallel \in \mathbb{R}^{d-1} and y_d>L,

which shows that \big(\omega,\boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel\big)\mapsto V^\omega\big(\boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel,y_d\big)\text{is stationary for any } y_d>L .

Moreover, we have on one hand for L'>L,

where we used that \mu(\cdot,L) and \varphi are stationary, \mathbb{E}[\mu^{-1}(\cdot,L)]\lesssim L^2 and that (thanks to (?) and (?)) for L' large enough

On the other hand, for \chi\in \mathcal{C}_c^\infty\big(\mathbb{R}^{d-1}\big) such that 0\leq \chi\leq 1 and \chi=1 on \left(-\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}\right)^{d-1}, we can write

Since a.s. \chi \varphi^\omega \in {H}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Sigma_L) it is easy to show (see Remark 6) that a.s.

Moreover, using that when \boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel\in\square_1, (1-\chi)(\boldsymbol{y}_\shortparallel-\boldsymbol{z}_\shortparallel)= 0 when \boldsymbol{z}_\shortparallel\in\square_1, we deduce that

Note that \partial_{y_d}G_T\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^{d-1}\setminus\square_1\times(L,L')) is a regular function with an exponential decay at infinity (see (?)-(?)).

Similar results can be derived for \nabla V_T^\omega.

The variational formulation associated with (?) is given by

The coercivity of the sesquilinear form can be directly deducted from Hardy’s inequality (?). From the integral representation of V_T, we deduce that y_d\mapsto V_T(\cdot,y_d) is exponentially decaying and in particular

We have then by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality

The linear form in the r.h.s of (Proof) is then continuous in \mathcal{W}^{0}. We conclude by Lax-Milgram’s Theorem.

We follow the same steps as in the proof of Lemma 29 to show that Z satisfies (?), that a.s. it belongs to H^1_\text{loc}( \mathcal{B}_L^\infty) and that Z(\cdot,y_d) is stationary for y_d>L. To prove that

the calculations are similar to the proof of Lemma 29, provided one uses that

and