Time Delay of KPP Fronts Across a Semipermeable Barrier

Fix a finite \beta\ge0, choose 0<\gamma<1/3, and set R(t)=t^\gamma. Given 0<\varepsilon<\alpha_\beta, Lemma 3.2 allows us to choose T sufficiently large that

Increase T if necessary so that the moving interval stays a fixed positive distance from the interface and (\alpha_\beta+\varepsilon)R(t)e^{-R(t)}\le1 for all t\ge T.

Set \widehat u_\beta(t,z)=u^\beta(t,m(t)+z). Since m'(t)=2-3/(2t), this function satisfies the same equation as the auxiliary solutions in (4.1). We apply Lemma 4.1 with amplitudes \alpha_\beta\pm\varepsilon, common initial data

and common left boundary data

These data lie in [0,1]. Moreover,

Interior parabolic estimates away from the interface bound u_t^\beta and u_x^\beta along this curve, while m'-R' is bounded. Thus h\in C^1([T,\infty)) has bounded derivative, with constants allowed to depend on the fixed \beta. All hypotheses of the matching lemma are satisfied. Possible incompatibilities at the initial right corners are covered by its formulation.

The two auxiliary problems have the same initial profile and left boundary value as \widehat u_\beta, and their right boundary values bracket its trace by (Proof). Comparison therefore gives

For every fixed K>0, the matching lemma gives uniform convergence of these two bounds on [-K,K] to

respectively. Both profiles tend uniformly on [-K,K] to U_*(z-\xi_\beta) as \varepsilon\downarrow0. Taking t\to\infty first and then \varepsilon\downarrow0 in the comparison yields

locally uniformly in z.

We extend this convergence to the entire receiving half-line using (2.2). Fix K>0 and take t large enough that m(t)>K. On 0\le x\le m(t)-K, their deviations from 1 are controlled by the values at x=m(t)-K, since

At x=0, these inequalities are understood using the right-hand trace. On x\ge m(t)+K, their values are controlled by those at x=m(t)+K, since

On the intervening interval, (?) gives uniform convergence. Consequently,

Letting K\to\infty proves (?).

Finally, suppose that another phase \widetilde\xi_\beta gives the same convergence. Evaluating both limits at x=m(t)+z for any fixed z yields

Strict monotonicity of U_* implies \widetilde\xi_\beta=\xi_\beta, proving uniqueness.

Fix \beta\in[0,\infty) and \eta\in(0,1), and set z_\eta=U_*^{-1}(\eta). For every fixed R>0, (?) and m(t)\to\infty imply u^\beta(t,R)\to1. Thus the set in (?) is nonempty, and T_\eta^\beta(R)<\infty for every R>0.

The same convergence gives u^\beta(t,0^+)\to1, whereas (?) implies u^\beta(t,x)\to0 as x\to\infty for each fixed t>0. Continuity and strict spatial monotonicity therefore provide a unique positive level-set position X_\eta^\beta(t) for all sufficiently large t. To locate it, fix \delta>0. Since

(?) gives, for all sufficiently large t,

Both spatial arguments are then positive. Strict spatial monotonicity places X_\eta^\beta(t) between them. As \delta>0 is arbitrary, this proves

For a fixed \delta>0, choose T_\delta large enough that m is strictly increasing on [T_\delta,\infty) and

For sufficiently large R, (?) gives u^\beta(t,R)<\eta for 0<t\le T_\delta. Since m(t)\to\infty, the equations

have unique roots in [T_\delta,\infty), with T_\delta<t_-(R)<t_+(R), once R is sufficiently large. For T_\delta\le t\le t_-(R), we have

hence u^\beta(t,R)<\eta. At t=t_+(R), we instead have X_\eta^\beta(t)>m(t)+\xi_\beta+z_\eta-\delta=R, hence u^\beta(t,R)>\eta. Together with the exclusion of arrivals before T_\delta, these inequalities yield

Applying the increasing function m to this bracket gives

Since this holds for every \delta>0 and all sufficiently large R, we obtain

Apply the same argument with \beta=0 and subtract the two identities. The mean value theorem gives a point \theta_R between the two arrival times such that

If the arrival times coincide, take \theta_R equal to their common value. By (?), both arrival times tend to infinity as R\to\infty. Hence \theta_R\to\infty and m'(\theta_R)=2-3/(2\theta_R)\to2, proving (?). The level-dependent term z_\eta cancels upon subtraction, so the limiting delay is independent of \eta.

Fix 0\le\beta_1<\beta_2<\infty and set W=q_{\beta_1}-q_{\beta_2}. Proposition 5.1 gives 0<W\le1 on t>0,x>0. Positive-time interior regularity makes W a classical solution of

The arguments of f' lie in [0,1], so |c|\le\|f'\|_{L^\infty([0,1])}. Moreover, f'(0)=1 and f\in C^2([0,1]) imply

Together with (?), this gives, for all sufficiently large t and all z\ge0,

All hypotheses of Lemma 5.2 are therefore satisfied. Here concavity enters only through the pointwise comparison giving W>0. Fix any 0<\gamma<1/3. Combining the positive lower bound with the amplitude limits in Lemma 3.2, we obtain

The phase formula \xi_\beta=\log(\alpha_\beta/A_*) now gives

Thus the phase is strictly decreasing with resistance, and (?) yields

Taking \beta_1=0 and using \tau_0=0 gives \tau_\beta>0 for every \beta>0.

By (?), choose C_f\ge1, depending only on f, such that f(s)\ge s-C_fs^2 on [0,1]. Fix T>0 and choose a nonzero, nonnegative, even function \chi\in C_c(\mathbb R) such that, for some 0<\eta<1,

where v_T is extended evenly. Since v_T is continuous and strictly positive, the gap v_T-\chi on this compact support is at least \eta\min_{\operatorname{supp}\chi}v_T>0. The uniform convergence in (7.1) therefore gives \varepsilon\chi\le q_\beta(T) on x\ge0 for all sufficiently small \varepsilon, with the threshold allowed to depend on T,\chi,\eta. Outside the support this comparison follows from q_\beta\ge0. Let w^\varepsilon solve the full-line problem

Further restrict \varepsilon so that \varepsilon\|\chi\|_\infty\le1/C_f. Comparison with the constant solutions gives

Hence w^\varepsilon_t-w^\varepsilon_{xx} =w^\varepsilon-C_f(w^\varepsilon)^2\le f(w^\varepsilon) throughout its evolution. Evenness and uniqueness imply w^\varepsilon_x(s,0)=0 for s>0, whereas

The half-line comparison principle, with the initial ordering at time T, therefore yields

The function C_fw^\varepsilon solves the standard logistic equation with initial datum C_f\varepsilon\chi. Write x_\varepsilon^{\rm log} for its displacement parameter in the convention U_{\rm log}(z+x_\varepsilon^{\rm log}) of Lemma 7.2, and define

Lemma 7.2, applied with \delta=C_f\varepsilon, gives

Indeed, the multiplicative C_f cancels, and \log(C_f\varepsilon)^{-1} =\log\varepsilon^{-1}-\log C_f\sim\log\varepsilon^{-1}.

For fixed \varepsilon,T,\chi, evaluate (Proof) at x=m(t)+z. Since

phase convergence for the actual solution and for the logistic comparison solution gives, for every fixed z\in\mathbb R,

Now let z\to+\infty. The coefficient of ze^{-z} on the left is \alpha_\beta, and that on the right is e^{-2T}\alpha[w^\varepsilon]. Thus

This comparison uses the tails of the two limiting waves and does not require their profiles to coincide. Letting \varepsilon\downarrow0 with T,\chi fixed gives

To recover the full profile, choose continuous even cutoffs 0\le\eta_n\le1 with compact support, \eta_n=1 on [-n,n], and \eta_n\uparrow1 pointwise. For n\ge2, set

Each \chi_n is admissible with gap parameter \eta=1/n, and \chi_n\uparrow v_T. Apply (?) first for each fixed T,n, and then let n\to\infty. Monotone convergence and (7.1) yield

No uniform small-data asymptotics in n or T are required: the \varepsilon\downarrow0 limit was taken with both fixed. Finally, I_T\uparrow I as T\to\infty, proving

Fix \beta\ge e^2, so that L is fixed, and take t\to\infty first. For every fixed \eta>0, set

Since \mu(t)-m(t)\to0, the point X=\mu(t)-L+\eta\sqrt{1+t} is eventually positive. The normalized solution w_\beta from Section ? satisfies the exact relation

The profile estimate (3.2), applied near the positive limit \eta, therefore gives

Apply Fatou’s lemma to the nonnegative functions \eta r(\sigma,\eta). Since \int_0^\infty\eta^2e^{-\eta^2/4}\,d\eta=2\sqrt\pi, Lemma 7.3 yields

Only now divide by L=\log\beta and let \beta\to\infty. We obtain

The lower bound (?) and this upper bound prove (1.4). Finally, the amplitude–delay relation (?) gives

which is (1.4) and completes the proof.

Extend f to a globally Lipschitz function on \mathbb R. The contraction property of the linear semigroup makes the right-hand side of (2.1) a contraction on bounded measurable functions on a sufficiently short time interval. This gives local existence and uniqueness without requiring continuity of the initial data.

To obtain comparison, choose a Lipschitz constant L for the extension, so that s\mapsto f(s)+Ls is nondecreasing. In the equivalent integral formulation with the damped kernel e^{-Lt}P_\beta(t,x,y) and reaction f(u)+Lu, positivity of the kernel and Picard iteration preserve the order of the initial data. Comparison with the constant solutions 0 and 1 gives 0\le u^\beta\le1, and hence global continuation and independence of the chosen extension of f.

Kernel smoothing, followed by parabolic regularity for the folded Neumann and Robin problems, gives positive-time classical regularity and the transmission traces; see [Lieberman1996] for the scalar boundary regularity tools. The explicit kernel supplies the interface structure used here. Finally, the kernel has the initial approximation property locally in L^p and at continuity points away from the interface, while the reaction integral in (2.1) is O(t) in L^\infty. This proves the asserted initial convergence.

Define

Then (D_\beta)_t=(D_\beta)_{xx}+c_\beta D_\beta, with |c_\beta|\le\|f'\|_{L^\infty([0,1])} and D_\beta(0,x)=u_0(-x)/2\ge0 not identically zero. Robin comparison for \beta>0, or Dirichlet comparison for \beta=0, followed by the strong maximum principle gives D_\beta(t,x)>0 for t>0 and x>0. If \beta>0 and D_\beta(t,0)=0 at a positive time, the boundary Hopf lemma would give (D_\beta)_x(t,0)>0, contradicting (?). Thus D_\beta(t,0)>0, and the interface law yields (2.2). When \beta=0, the Hopf lemma instead gives j_0(t)=(D_0)_x(t,0)>0.

For the receiving-side monotonicity, set v=q_{\beta,x}. At positive times,

The zero initial condition for this derivative is justified directly from the kernel, even though u_0 is only measurable. Indeed, differentiation of (?) gives \sup_{x>0}\int_\mathbb R|\partial_xP_\beta(t,x,y)|\,dy\le Ct^{-1/2}. Since u_0 vanishes for y\ge b with b<0, the initial term and the bounded reaction term in (2.1) therefore give

where c>0. With M=\|f'\|_{L^\infty([0,1])} and v^+=\max\{v,0\}, comparison on [\varepsilon,T]\times(0,\infty) gives

Letting \varepsilon\downarrow0 yields v\le0. The strong maximum principle and the strictly negative boundary values give v<0 in the interior. Neither concavity of f nor monotonicity of u_0 is used.

Choose a fixed smooth, compactly supported function \chi with \chi(0)=1, and lift the boundary data in the first part by h(\sigma)\chi(y). The function V=Q-h\chi has homogeneous boundary data and satisfies

The drift convolution is controlled by

Indeed, on \sigma-s\ge1 use the integrable tail of d, and on 0<\sigma-s<1 use d(s)\le d(\sigma_0) and the integrability of (\sigma-s)^{-1/2}. Since |\theta_0|\le C_\rho d, (?)–(?) give, for every finite final time S,

Taking \sigma_0 sufficiently large in terms of \rho, we absorb the last term and obtain the Gaussian bound. On 0\le y\le2, the drift and the lifted forcing are uniformly bounded. Local parabolic gradient estimates up to the flat boundary, applied to V with homogeneous Dirichlet data on unit time intervals, give the second estimate in (?); see [Lieberman1996] for the standard boundary regularity theory. The bound on h' controls the lifted forcing, and adding back h\chi preserves the gradient estimate. Consequently, Q(\sigma,2d)\le h+C(2d)\le Cd.

The first moment in the second part satisfies the exact identity

The identity can also be obtained from the mild formula using the kernel moment identities above and integration by parts for the drift term. The Gaussian bound justifies the resulting integrals. Thus |J'|\le Cd, and integration of the integrable tail gives (?). To prove the profile estimate, separate the projection (?) in Duhamel’s formula. The stable part of the initial term is controlled by (?). For the drift term, use (?) and (?), interpreting the derivative in the distributional sense. For the potential term, use (?)–(?). Split the boundary term into the most recent unit interval and the preceding times, and apply the two estimates in (?). For \sigma\ge\sigma_0+1, the stable terms are bounded in sum by

Here we use a_0<1; the first unit interval is controlled by the assumed weighted bound on P, with a constant depending on \sigma_0. Hence \|P-\Pi P\|_{1/6}\le Cd, and the first-moment estimate yields (?).

Fix \rho, and write d(\sigma)=e^{-(1/2-\rho)\sigma}. By (?), at any fixed positive time the weighted right tail has a Gaussian bound uniform in \beta. Choose a common starting time \sigma_* sufficiently large for Lemma 3.1 and for the negative cutoff z=-t^\rho to lie in x>0 for all subsequent times. Write t_*=e^{\sigma_*}. This cutoff uses the bound u^\beta\le1 to make the boundary input small:

Remove the nonnegative absorption term from (?) and construct a common linear supersolution with boundary value h. Its initial profile can be chosen continuous, nonnegative, dominating every w_\beta(\sigma_*,\cdot) on the truncated region, with a common X_{1/5} bound after shifting the boundary to zero, and with value h(\sigma_*) at that boundary. Indeed, take the minimum of the bound t_*^{-1/2}e^{\sqrt{t_*}\eta} and a Gaussian upper envelope furnished by (?), enlarged to be at least h(\sigma_*) at the cutoff. This also ensures initial-boundary compatibility. Move the negative cutoff to zero by setting y=\eta+d(\sigma). The drift coefficient is exactly \theta_0=\rho d+\frac32e^{-\sigma/2}, so the first part of Lemma 3.1 applies; h and h' satisfy its required decay bound. For \sigma\ge\sigma_*+1, the gradient bound for the linear supersolution and comparison yield

The point \eta=d corresponds to y=2d in the supersolution coordinates. We increase the threshold time T to include this one-unit waiting interval.

The positive cutoff makes the nonlinear potential uniformly small. Move this cutoff to zero and set

The coefficients in (?) are now

The Gaussian bound for the common supersolution and (?) give, on z\ge t^\rho,

After the shift, the Gaussian bound remains uniform with the weaker weight 1/6. Together with (Proof), the second part of Lemma 3.1, started at \sigma_*+1, yields a nonnegative amplitude and the profile and first-moment estimates. Positive-time regularity gives continuous coefficients, boundary traces, and compatible initial values at this starting time. The common weighted bound also yields a uniform upper bound for the amplitudes. Returning from y=\eta-d to \eta and weakening the Gaussian weight slightly once more gives (3.2). The change of variables also gives the exact identity

so (3.2) holds with the same common constant. If two different cutoff exponents are used, the resulting profile limits at any fixed \eta>0 must agree. Since \phi(\eta)>0, their amplitudes coincide; we denote this common value by \alpha_\beta.

We now prove strict positivity for each fixed \beta. First fix a nonzero function \psi\in C_c^\infty((1,2)) with \psi\ge0. Choose a time \sigma_1\ge\sigma_*+1 sufficiently large that the decaying drift and potential can be absorbed in the homogeneous-boundary Duhamel estimate below and that

where C is the constant in that estimate, independent of sufficiently large \sigma_1. Finally, positivity of the transmission kernel and comparison with the linear heat evolution give \mathcal P_\beta(\sigma_1,y)>0 for y>0. Hence one can choose \varepsilon>0 such that \varepsilon\psi\le \mathcal P_\beta(\sigma_1,\cdot).

Let H solve (?) with the actual coefficients \vartheta,A_\beta, homogeneous Dirichlet boundary data, and initial datum \varepsilon\psi at \sigma_1. Comparison gives 0\le H\le \mathcal P_\beta. In Duhamel’s formula, (Proof) bounds the drift contribution by Cd(\sigma_1) times the weighted supremum norm. The potential contribution is bounded by C\int_{\sigma_1}^\infty\|A_\beta(s)\|_\infty\,ds times that norm, using (?). Both coefficients are small for sufficiently large \sigma_1. Absorbing these terms gives

By (?) with zero boundary data, the total variation of its first moment on [\sigma_1,\infty) is at most

Thus the limiting first moment of H is positive. Since H\le \mathcal P_\beta, this implies \alpha_\beta>0. The seed size \varepsilon may depend on \beta, so this argument does not assert a positive lower bound uniform over all parameters.

For the intermediate-scale limits, given \gamma, choose 0<\rho<\gamma. At \eta=t^{\gamma-1/2}, the profile error divided by \eta is O(t^{\rho-\gamma}), which proves the first limit in (3.2). For the gradient limit, use the unshifted self-similar coordinates and set

Then

For 2d(\sigma)\le\eta\le1 and sufficiently large \sigma, take a backward parabolic cylinder with spatial radius \eta/4 and time length (\eta/4)^2. It remains to the right of the moving positive cutoff, and d is comparable to d(\sigma) throughout it. On this cylinder, (3.2) bounds E_\beta by Cd, while the potential is superexponentially small and the amplitudes are uniformly bounded. The scaled interior parabolic gradient estimate (see [Lieberman1996]) therefore gives

At the intermediate scale above, this yields \partial_zv_\beta=\alpha_\beta+o(1). Using u_x^\beta=e^{-z}(\partial_zv_\beta-v_\beta) and dividing by z=t^\gamma proves the second limit in (3.2).

To obtain Kato’s inequality, use the smooth convex approximation \Phi_\delta(s)=\sqrt{s^2+\delta^2}. The equation for W gives

Letting \delta\downarrow0 against nonnegative compactly supported test functions yields \partial_t|W|-\partial_{xx}|W|\le c|W|\le|W| in distributions. The same argument for an additional bounded source F gives the upper bound c|W|+|F|, a form used in Section ?. At the negative cutoff, prescribe the smooth upper envelope

Choose M_1 large enough, in terms of the common data, that h(\log T_0)\ge M. Then h(\log T_0)e^{-y^2/5} is a common dominating initial profile in the shifted negative-cutoff coordinates, compatible with h at y=0. The linear supersolution construction used in the preceding subsection applies to |W|. If necessary, propagate this common supersolution to a later fixed time before applying Lemma 3.1(i). On this finite interval, the kernel estimates and a Volterra Gronwall estimate with the integrable singularity (\sigma-s)^{-1/2} preserve a common X_{1/5} bound. Thus the bound at the later starting time depends only on the listed common data. After a further one-unit waiting interval, its gradient bound over the distance 2d between the cutoffs gives

No derivative estimate for the actual boundary trace of W is needed.

In the positive-cutoff coordinates, direct calculation gives

The coefficient assumption and the preceding nonlinear estimates imply

Thus all bounds in Lemma 3.1(ii) hold with common constants, and positive-time continuity gives compatible initial and boundary traces at the chosen starting time. That lemma yields the asserted profile estimate and a bounded family of real amplitudes. The identity

gives (3.3). Finally, for \gamma>\rho, set y=t^{\gamma-1/2}-d. The profile error, after division by t^{\gamma-1/2}, is O(t^{\rho-\gamma}), while y/t^{\gamma-1/2}\to1 and \phi(y)/y\to1. This proves (3.3) uniformly.

Write q=q_{\mathrm{aux}}. Standard parabolic theory, after mapping the moving interval to a fixed interval, gives the bounded solution and positive-time regularity; see [Lieberman1996]. Comparison gives 0\le q\le1. All energy calculations below start at T+1, so initial corner incompatibilities cause no difficulty. The identities may first be derived for smooth data and then justified by approximation on time intervals separated from T. Recall g(s)=s-f(s) from (?), and set

By (?), 0\le g(s)\le Cs^2, hence 0\le G(s)\le Cs^3. The function V satisfies

where

The right boundary condition becomes V(t,R(t))=\alpha R(t), corresponding to the linear leading-edge growth V\sim\alpha z. Its gradient energy on the positive half of the interval has the leading contribution \alpha^2R(t)/2. Subtracting this contribution, define

Using that boundary condition and completing the square gives

Since V(t,0)=q(t,0)\le1, every term on the right is nonnegative. In particular, E\ge-\alpha.

The energy also controls the norm needed to estimate the drift term. On the negative half of the interval we use V\le e^z; on the positive half we use

The Cauchy–Schwarz inequality and (Proof) give

The constants below may depend on \alpha,T,\gamma,f and \|h'\|_{L^\infty([T,\infty))}, but not on t. The resulting energy and dissipation bounds may additionally depend on the initial profile through the finite energy E(T+1).

Differentiate (Proof) and use (Proof) to eliminate V_{zz}-P_V. The interior contribution is

At the moving right endpoint, V_t+R'V_z=\alpha R'. Thus the right boundary contribution, including the renormalization term, is exactly

Since P(R,\alpha R)\le C\alpha^3R^3e^{-R}, its positive part is integrable. At the left endpoint, write b(t)=e^{-R(t)}h(t). Differentiation along this moving endpoint gives

The corresponding boundary contribution is

Since R'(t)>0, Young’s inequality gives directly

Here b'=e^{-R}(h'-R'h) and P(-R,b)=e^{-2R}G(h). Hence the positive part of (?) is bounded by

which is integrable. This polynomial factor can be absorbed into a weaker exponential bound Ce^{-R(t)}.

Use Young’s inequality to absorb the drift term into the dissipation. Together with (?), this gives

Both t^{2\gamma-2} and t^{3\gamma-2} are integrable, the latter being the term that requires \gamma<1/3; the exponential remainder is integrable as well. Apply Gronwall’s inequality to E+\alpha+1\ge1, and then integrate (?), to obtain

We next identify the limits of time translates. Take any sequence t_n\to\infty. On fixed compact subsets of space-time, 0\le q\le1 and interior parabolic estimates give local compactness of V(t_n+s,z). After passing to a subsequence, these functions and their first spatial derivatives converge uniformly on compact subsets. For fixed K,S>0, the expanding domain eventually contains [-K,K] throughout [t_n-S,t_n+S], and (?) yields

Thus every subsequential limit is independent of s. Passing to the limit in the equation in the distributional sense, using a(t_n+s)\to0 uniformly for bounded s, and then applying local regularity, we find that its stationary profile V_\infty satisfies

By (Proof) and the uniform energy bound, we may first pass to the limit on [0,K] and then let K\to\infty to obtain

Equation (?) shows that V_\infty' is nondecreasing. Consequently, (?) forces

In particular, V_\infty\not\equiv0.

It remains to identify this stationary profile as a translated wave. Set Q=e^{-z}V_\infty. Then

To identify the limit at the other end, set F(s)=\int_0^s f(r)\,dr. Local ODE estimates give a uniform bound on the derivative of the bounded solution Q, whose mechanical energy satisfies

The energy has finite limits at both ends, so Q'\in L^2(\mathbb R). The boundedness of Q''=-2Q'-f(Q) makes Q' uniformly continuous, and therefore Q'(\pm\infty)=0. The boundedness of Q'''=-2Q''-f'(Q)Q' also makes Q'' uniformly continuous. Together with the finite limits of Q' at both ends, this implies Q''(\pm\infty)=0: otherwise, uniform continuity would force changes of a fixed size in Q' along intervals escaping to one of the two ends. The ODE therefore gives f(Q(z))\to0. For every 0<\delta<1/2, positivity of f on [\delta,1-\delta] implies that Q eventually avoids this interval at either end. Continuity prevents repeated transitions between the neighborhoods of 0 and 1 on either tail. Letting \delta\downarrow0 shows that each end limit exists and is either 0 or 1. If Q(-\infty)=0, both limiting energies vanish, and the energy identity forces Q'\equiv0, contradicting (?). Thus Q(-\infty)=1. The strong maximum principle gives 0<Q<1. At any point where Q'=0, one has Q''=-f(Q)<0, so every critical point would be a strict local maximum. If Q' were positive somewhere, it would remain positive to the left, since a transition from negative to positive would require a local minimum. This contradicts Q(-\infty)=1 and Q<1. Thus Q'\le0, and a zero of Q' would itself force positive values immediately to its left. Hence Q'<0. By the classical uniqueness recalled with (?), Q(z)=U_*(z-\xi).

The expansion of the wave tail gives

Comparison with (?) yields \xi=\log(\alpha/A_*). Every subsequence of time translates has the same stationary limit. Hence the full family converges locally uniformly, as asserted in (4.1).

First suppose 0<\beta_1<\beta_2 and put k_i=2/\beta_i, so k_1>k_2. Use the subscript i for the reflected quantities in (?). Lemma 2.2 gives

Set

Both states and the line segment joining them lie in the convex set \{(S,D):0\le S-D\le S+D\le1\}. On this set concavity gives

At each (t,x), write (S_\theta,D_\theta)=(1-\theta)(S_2,D_2)+\theta(S_1,D_1) and define

These coefficients are bounded and B\ge0. The identities in (Proof) give the cooperative system

The common initial datum gives zero initial data for (r,h), and the boundary conditions are

For the cooperative comparison, choose L\ge\|A\|_\infty and use the damped scalar Neumann and Robin semigroups. Both preserve positivity; the nonnegative Robin boundary input also has a nonnegative response by scalar comparison. In the Duhamel system the remaining coefficients are A+L\ge0 and B\ge0, so successive approximation preserves nonnegativity and gives r,h\ge0. This mild argument applies to the measurable initial datum without initial compatibility conditions. For positive times, h_t-h_{xx}-Ah=Br\ge0. The strictly positive boundary input in (Proof) excludes an identically zero solution on any positive time interval. The strong maximum principle therefore gives h(t,x)>0 for t>0,x>0. Since q_{\beta_1}-q_{\beta_2}=r+h, this proves (5.1) when \beta_1>0. Strict concavity is not needed: strictness comes from the boundary input, even if the coupling coefficient B vanishes.

If \beta_1=0, use r=S_0-S_2 and h=D_2-D_0. The same coefficient construction gives (Proof). Here D_0(t,0)=0 and D_0>0 in the interior by Lemma 2.2; the Hopf lemma gives (D_0)_x(t,0)>0. Thus the boundary condition for h becomes

The same mild comparison and positive-time strong maximum principle give r\ge0 and h>0, completing the proof.

Fix 0<\gamma<1/3, choose 0<\kappa<\gamma, and set

A direct calculation gives

For all sufficiently large t and y>0, the potential is bounded below by -\omega(t), where

This function is integrable at infinity.

Choose T>1 sufficiently large that m(t)+B(t)>0, the potential bound (5.2) holds, b(t)\ge0, and 0<t^{\kappa-1/2}\le1/2 for every t\ge T. Fix this T before choosing the initial seed and the normalization below. We construct a subsolution from the Dirichlet heat profile yr^{-3/2}e^{-y^2/(4r)}. The exponential factor e^{-b(t)y/2} removes the first spatial derivative from the residual. Slowing the heat time slightly below unit speed creates a negative quadratic term that absorbs the term involving b'(t)y. Accordingly, define

Then r>0 and r(t)/t\to1. Define

The normalization a(T)>0 will be chosen from an initial Gaussian lower bound for W. For now, prescribe

Substitution gives the exact identity

Since

and 2\kappa-2<-1, \kappa-3/2<-1, all terms in (?) are integrable on [T,\infty). Thus, for any a(T)>0, the limit a_\infty equals a(T) times the exponential of minus the finite integral of the nonnegative loss terms, and is strictly positive.

To establish the initial comparison, fix x_0=m(T)+B(T)>0. Positivity and continuity of W(T-1,\cdot) allow us to choose a nonzero, nonnegative smooth seed supported in (x_0+1,x_0+2) and lying below W(T-1,\cdot). Evolve this seed on the fixed half-line x>x_0 under the heat equation with potential -\|c\|_\infty and zero boundary data. The comparison principle and the explicit Dirichlet kernel give

Indeed, for 1\leq s\leq2,

By (?), \widetilde P(T,y)\geq C'_Ty e^{-y^2/4+y}. Since r(T)=1 and b(T)\ge0, choosing 0<a(T)\le C'_T ensures Q(T,y)\le\widetilde P(T,y) for all y>0. This fixes a and its positive limit a_\infty.

To justify comparison on the unbounded moving domain, return to the original variables and set

By (5.2) and (?), \underline W_t-\underline W_{xx}-c\underline W\le0. The initial inequality holds by the choice of a(T), and \underline W(t,m(t)+B(t))=0<W(t,m(t)+B(t)). The moving boundary is smooth and stays in x>0. Moreover, b\ge0 and the Gaussian factor in Q ensure that \underline W is bounded on every strip T\le t\le T_1<\infty, as is W by assumption. The comparison principle for bounded solutions on this moving half-line therefore gives \underline W\le W, equivalently Q\le\widetilde P. No boundary condition at spatial infinity is required in this bounded class.

Finally, set y=t^\gamma-t^\kappa. Since \kappa<\gamma<1/3,

Equations (?) and (Proof) yield

Use the transmission kernel (?), with P_0(t)=G_t. We use the same notation for these kernels and their integral operators. Differentiating its integral representation from the right at \beta=0 gives

At the interface, signs are interpreted through one-sided limits. Write \mathcal D_\beta(t)=(P_\beta(t)-G_t)/\beta for \beta>0. The mean-value formula and integration of |G'_t| give

Subtracting G'_t(|x|+|y|) from its translated value in the mean-value formula also gives

In particular, convergence holds in operator norm uniformly on [\delta,T] for every 0<\delta<T.

The initial term admits a stronger bound near t=0. With d=-b>0 from Assumption H2, u_0 is supported in (-\infty,-d]. Integrating |G'_t| over this region yields

Splitting [0,T] at a small positive time and then using operator-norm convergence away from zero shows that

For the reaction term, split the time integral according to whether t-s<\delta or t-s\ge\delta. The first part is bounded by C\sqrt\delta uniformly for t\le T, by (Proof); the second tends to zero by operator-norm convergence. Hence

Fix \beta_*>0 and put W_\beta=(u^\beta-U)/\beta, with W_\beta(0)=0. Subtracting the two nonlinear Duhamel formulas gives

The contraction bound for P_\beta, the Lipschitz continuity of f, and (?) imply, by Gronwall’s inequality,

Here and below the constants may depend on f,u_0,T, but not on \beta\in(0,\beta_*]. Define w as the unique bounded solution, on each finite time interval, of

Existence and uniqueness follow by successive approximation for this linear Volterra equation; uniqueness makes these solutions consistent as T varies. The first two terms tend to zero in L^\infty as t\downarrow0, by (?) and (Proof), so \|w(t)\|_\infty\to0 as well.

Taylor’s formula gives

When the integral equations for W_\beta and w are subtracted, the initial and reaction forcing errors tend to zero uniformly on [0,T] by the estimates above. The additional semigroup error is bounded by

The Taylor remainder contributes at most C_T\beta T, and the remaining term is bounded by \|f'\|_\infty\int_0^t\|W_\beta(s)-w(s)\|_\infty\,ds. Another application of Gronwall’s inequality proves uniform convergence W_\beta\to w on [0,T], establishing (6.1).

We next record a spatial bound needed for the later amplitude analysis. The same kernel representation gives

With M=\|f'\|_\infty, the difference-quotient equation therefore yields

Iterating this inequality and using the Gaussian convolution identity gives

Since e^{-x^2/(4r)}\le e^{-x^2/(4T)} for r\le T and \int_0^T r^{-1/2}\,dr=2\sqrt T, we conclude that

The same bound holds for w(T,x) by passage to the limit. For any fixed, sufficiently large starting time T_0 and fixed cutoff exponent \rho, the negative-cutoff normalization Z_{W_\beta} in Corollary 3.3 consequently satisfies \sup_{0<\beta\le\beta_*}\|Z_{W_\beta}(\log T_0,\cdot)\|_{1/5}<\infty. Indeed, after that change of variables the bound is a Gaussian with quadratic exponent -y^2/4 and a linear term, which is absorbed by the weaker weight e^{y^2/5}. This is an initial weighted bound at the fixed time T_0.

It remains to identify the equation and interface traces of w. For a bounded Lipschitz function \phi, direct integration of (Proof) gives, for r>0,

These trace identities also hold for bounded measurable \phi when r>0 is fixed. To justify taking traces under the time integral in (?), fix t>0 and split it at s=t/2. For s\le t/2, all kernel derivatives involved are integrable with bounds away from r=t-s=0. For s\ge t/2, f(U(s,\cdot)) has a common spatial Lipschitz bound. In fact, writing a=|x| gives on either side of the interface

and thus

This integrable bound permits passage to both derivative traces; the traces of \mathcal B_r\phi itself are controlled by (Proof). The last, ordinary heat-potential term in (?) has continuous value and first spatial derivative across zero, since its source is bounded and \|G'_r\|_1\le Cr^{-1/2}. Taking jumps in (?) and using the Duhamel formula for U therefore gives

Away from the interface, \mathcal B_r solves the heat equation and its initial action vanishes locally as r\downarrow0. The integral equation and interior parabolic regularity then give w_t=w_{xx}+f'(U)w on each half-line for positive times. Equivalently, in distributions,

Indeed, the distributional second derivative contributes [w_x]\delta_0+[w]\delta'_0 in addition to the piecewise second derivative. The difference of two solutions in the stated class has zero jumps, solves the homogeneous full-line equation with bounded potential f'(U), and has zero initial data. Full-line uniqueness therefore proves the asserted uniqueness for (6.1).

The parameter order and the reflection comparison give

Fix 0<c_{\rm in}<c_{\rm out}<2. Spatial monotonicity gives

with one-sided traces at zero. Since c_{\rm out}<2, phase convergence for the fixed parameter \beta_* makes the last expression tend to 1. Thus, for every sufficiently small \delta>0, there is a common starting time beyond which

Choose a_*>0 so that

Thus 1-u^\beta satisfies (\partial_t-\partial_{xx}+a_*)(1-u^\beta)\le0 in this interval. Choose b_*>0 such that b_*^2+b_*c_{\rm out}<a_*. The even function

satisfies

It is continuous at zero with \Psi_x(t,0)=0, so it satisfies the interface conditions for every \beta. Choose T above the common starting time. The first term controls the initial section t=T, while e^{-b_*c_{\rm out}t}\cosh(b_*c_{\rm out}t)\ge1/2 at each lateral endpoint. Thus a common choice of C bounds 1-u^\beta on the parabolic boundary. On |x|\le c_{\rm in}t, the spatial term is at most Ce^{-b_*(c_{\rm out}-c_{\rm in})t}. The comparison principle gives

Let \mathsf S_\beta(r) denote the transmission heat operator, and write F_\beta(t)=f(u^\beta(t)). Differentiating (?) in the heat time, each Gaussian term is controlled after spatial integration by \|\partial_rG_r\|_{L^1(\mathbb R)}\le C/r. The translated Gaussian terms have the same bound, and their averaging weight has total mass \int_0^\infty e^{-s}\,ds=1. Consequently, for r,h>0,

uniformly in \beta. For the second estimate, integrate the first when h\le r, and otherwise use the contraction bound. Apply Duhamel’s formula on [t-1,t+h], keeping the lower endpoint fixed. Boundedness of u^\beta and F_\beta gives, for t\ge1 and 0<h\le1,

The Lipschitz continuity of f gives the same temporal modulus for F_\beta. To differentiate at time t\ge2, again treat t-1 as a fixed starting time and subtract the terminal reaction value. The resulting cancellation is

The last integrand has norm at most Cr^{\theta-1}. Hence

These estimates use the invariant bound 0\le u^\beta\le1 and the boundedness and Lipschitz continuity of f on [0,1]. They require neither spatial regularity of the initial datum nor concavity.

For each fixed \beta, the positive-time differences (u^\beta(t+h)-u^\beta(t))/h satisfy the same homogeneous interface law, with reaction coefficient \int_0^1f'((1-\theta)u^\beta(t)+\theta u^\beta(t+h))\,d\theta. Passing to the limit at positive times yields the linear evolution for v_\beta=u_t^\beta:

The identities hold first in the mild sense on intervals separated from zero; fixed-parameter parabolic regularity with f\in C^2 then gives the one-sided traces. This regularity is used only to justify the equation and boundary identities. Since f'(u^\beta)\le-a_* on the outer moving interval, \Psi from (Proof) is also a supersolution for \partial_t-\partial_{xx}-f'(u^\beta) there. Compare both v_\beta and -v_\beta with \Psi. The common global bound in (?) controls the initial data and lateral endpoints. Thus, after increasing the common starting time,

The constants are obtained by comparison and do not depend on a boundary regularity estimate as \beta\downarrow0.

We next control the Robin traces directly. Let k=2/\beta, let \mathsf T_k(s) be the half-line heat operator with condition v_x(0)=kv(0), and denote its kernel by K_k. The formula (?) and integration by parts give

More precisely, for every R\ge0,

Here ke^{-kr}\,dr is a probability measure, so the bounds are independent of k. Set

Time derivatives are written explicitly as \partial_t D_\beta; the dot in \dot\alpha_0 denotes the right derivative with respect to resistance. The folded equations and their positive-time difference quotients yield

In particular, on the most recent unit time interval,

The definitions give

Thus D_\beta,N_\beta,\partial_t D_\beta,M_\beta are bounded by a common constant on the half-line for sufficiently large times. Moreover, |D_\beta|\le((1-p_\beta)+(1-q_\beta))/2. By (Proof) and (?), all four functions are bounded by Ce^{-\omega t} on 0\le y\le R_t:=c_{\rm in}(t-1) throughout [t-1,t], once this interval lies beyond the common decay threshold. Multiply the boundary traces in (?) by k and split the integrals at R_t. Equations (?)–(?) give

For each fixed \beta, the positive-time regularity used above also permits differentiation of the boundary value D_\beta(t,0) in time, with derivative \partial_t D_\beta(t,0). The Robin condition therefore gives

In particular d_\beta\in C^1((0,\infty)). The trace estimates prove (6.2) after reducing the common decay rate if necessary; no uniform estimate for u_{tx}^\beta is needed.

We first establish a negative potential behind the front. Choose \delta,a_*>0 so that f'(s)\le-a_* on [1-\delta,1]. Parameter ordering and phase convergence for \beta_* allow a fixed K_*>0 and a common starting time such that q_\beta(t,x)\ge1-\delta for 0\le x\le m(t)-K_* and 0\le\beta\le\beta_*. Reflection comparison gives the same lower bound for p_\beta in this range. To cover the remaining donor-side region, put L=-a>0, where a is from Assumption H2, and consider the Dirichlet heat solution

Its initial datum lies below p_\beta(0,\cdot), its boundary value is zero, and f(p_\beta)\ge0, so p_\beta\ge v for every 0\le\beta\le\beta_*. For y\ge L,

Since m(t)-K_*\sim2t, this deficit is at most Ce^{-ct} uniformly for y\ge m(t)-K_* at large times. Thus both u^\beta and U lie in [1-\delta,1] whenever x\le m(t)-K_*. The entire secant segment lies in that interval, proving

for all sufficiently large times, uniformly in 0<\beta\le\beta_*.

Take an even \chi\in C_c^\infty(\mathbb R) equal to one near zero and set

By (?), V_\beta and its first spatial derivative are continuous across zero. Its full-space equation holds in distributions:

There are no singular interface terms because the two jumps vanish. Lemma 6.2 gives |\mathcal F_\beta|\le Ce^{-\omega t}, with support in the fixed compact set \operatorname{supp}\chi.

In the coordinate z=x-m(t), set r_\beta(t,z)=e^{x-2t}V_\beta(t,x). Then

where the coefficients on the right are evaluated at x=m(t)+z. Choose \lambda>1 close enough to one that \lambda^2<1+a_* and 2(\lambda-1)<\omega, and define

For \mathscr Q_\beta=\partial_t-\partial_{zz} +\frac3{2t}\partial_z+(1-c_\beta), we have \mathscr Q_\beta\psi\ge0 at large times. On the left this follows from (Proof) and 1+a_*-\lambda^2>0; on the right it follows from c_\beta\le1 and \psi'\ge0. The weight is C^1, so its second derivative has no measure at the join.

Choose a common T large enough that these estimates hold and \operatorname{supp}\chi\subset(-\infty,m(t)-K_*) for t\ge T. On the support of the forcing,

Accordingly, choose the same bounded increasing function for all parameters,

with C large enough to dominate this forcing bound. The Gaussian estimate (?) and the compact support of the lifting allow a common A_0 such that |V_\beta(T,x)|\le A_0e^{2T-x}\psi(x-m(T)) for all x. To apply comparison, return to the original variables and set

Then (\partial_t-\partial_{xx}-c_\beta)\mathcal V\ge|\mathcal F_\beta| in distributions. The function \mathcal V is bounded on each strip [T,T_1]\times\mathbb R, T_1>T: as x\to-\infty it decays like e^{(\lambda-1)x}, and as x\to+\infty like a linear factor times e^{-x}. The same boundedness holds uniformly in \beta for V_\beta by (?) and (6.2). Although c_\beta may jump at zero, it is a bounded measurable coefficient on the full line. The convex approximation used in the proof of Corollary 3.3, now including the source, gives

in distributions. The approximation is valid across zero because V_\beta and (V_\beta)_x are continuous there, so no interface measure is generated. To justify full-space comparison, set Z=|V_\beta|-\mathcal V and apply the positive-part version of the same inequality. With M=\|c_\beta\|_\infty\le\|f'\|_\infty, heat-kernel testing of the bounded distributional subsolution gives

The testing can be performed first with smooth spatial cutoffs and then on the whole line; boundedness permits removal of the cutoffs against the Gaussian kernel. Gronwall’s inequality yields Z_+=0, hence |V_\beta|\le\mathcal V. Since A is uniformly bounded,

We now check the hypotheses of Corollary 3.3. Choose a common T_0\ge T large enough that x=m(t)-t^\rho lies to the right of \operatorname{supp}\chi and -t^\rho<-K_* for t\ge T_0. At this negative cutoff, V_\beta=W_\beta and the normalized trace satisfies

The equality uses m(t)=2t-\frac32\log t. At the fixed time T_0, (?) supplies the common X_{1/5} bound for Z_{W_\beta}(\log T_0,\cdot) established in the first subsection. The solutions W_\beta are classical on the right half-line, continuous up to T_0, and uniformly bounded on every finite time strip. Their coefficients are continuous there, and concavity and f'(0)=1 give

With the cutoff \chi fixed once and for all, the quantities K_*,\lambda,T,T_0 and the constants in these bounds can all be chosen in terms of f,u_0,\beta_*,\rho, independently of \beta\in(0,\beta_*]. Thus all hypotheses of the corollary hold with common constants and with the two background solutions u^\beta,u^0. It yields signed amplitudes \alpha_{W_\beta} and a common moment error. For each fixed \beta>0, linearity of the moment and Lemma 3.2 identify

Substituting this identity in (3.3) proves (6.3).

Fix 0<\rho<1/3. For each fixed, sufficiently large t, finite-time convergence from Proposition 6.1 and the common Gaussian bound (?) permit dominated convergence:

At one fixed such time, Lemma 6.3 therefore bounds (\alpha_\beta-\alpha_0)/\beta for small \beta. Applying its uniform error estimate at any sufficiently large t gives

Letting t\to\infty shows that the two finite limits coincide, proving existence of \dot\alpha_0. Passing \beta\downarrow0 in the same estimate now yields the quantitative bound

In particular,

The moment \mathcal J_w uses the fixed cutoff exponent \rho, but (Proof) identifies its limiting amplitude with the same derivative \dot\alpha_0 for every 0<\rho<1/3. The common negative-cutoff trace bound passes to w by pointwise convergence at each fixed time. At T_0, the common Gaussian bound (?) passes to w as well and gives the initial X_{1/5} estimate: equivalently, take the pointwise limit in the common weighted bound for Z_{W_\beta} and then the supremum over y\ge0. Its equation has coefficient f'(U), which is continuous, bounded, and satisfies

Together with the regularity and finite-strip boundedness from Proposition 6.1, these verify the hypotheses of Corollary 3.3 for w, using u^0 as both background solutions. The corollary gives an amplitude \alpha_w; (Proof) identifies it as \dot\alpha_0. For any fixed 0<\theta<1/3, choose 0<\rho<\theta and use (3.3) to obtain (6.4). Finally, substituting \alpha_\beta=\alpha_0+\beta\dot\alpha_0+o(\beta) into (?) proves (6.4).

Lemma 2.2 gives U_x(t,0)<0 for t>0. The positive-semigroup argument in the proof of Proposition 5.1, now with Neumann and Dirichlet semigroups and nonnegative Dirichlet input, gives R,H\ge0 in (?); the positive Dirichlet boundary value of H and the strong maximum principle give H(t,x)>0 for t>0,x>0. For each fixed s>0, the initial end states and the full-line comparisons

give p(s,x)\to1 and q(s,x)\to0 as x\to\infty. The first comparison uses f(U)\ge0, and the second uses f(U)\le U. Since f'(1)<f'(0), we have B(s,x)>0 for sufficiently large x. Continuity therefore makes BH strictly positive on a nonempty space-time open set before any prescribed time t>0. Choose L\ge\|A\|_\infty and write R_t=R_{xx}-LR+(A+L)R+BH. The Neumann heat kernel is strictly positive, including at its boundary argument. Its Duhamel representation, with nonnegative sources (A+L)R and BH, thus gives R(t,0)>0 for every t>0. This argument uses concavity, but does not require strict concavity.

On the right half-line, -w=R+H, and (?) shows that R+H solves the scalar linear equation with potential A+B=f'(q)=f'(U). The function k=-U_x/2 solves the same equation and has boundary value -U_x(t,0)/2. To justify its zero initial datum despite the possible roughness of u_0, recall that u_0=0 on [b,\infty) for some b<0. Differentiating the full-line heat representation of U gives, with d=-b>0,

Here the first term bounds the initial heat evolution on the right half-line, and the second uses boundedness of f(U) and \|G'_r\|_{L^1}\le Cr^{-1/2}. Consequently, R+H-k is bounded on finite time strips, has zero initial datum uniformly, and has boundary value R(t,0). Uniqueness for (6.5) identifies

This also constructs the solution Z in the stated class. Comparison and the strong maximum principle, using R(t,0)>0, give Z(t,x)>0 for all t>0,x>0.

The gradient limit in (3.2), with \beta=0, gives

Combining this with (6.4) and (?) proves that the limit in (6.5) exists and equals -\alpha_0/2-\dot\alpha_0, independently of \theta. To prove that it is strictly positive, we apply Lemma 5.2 directly to Z. The solution is positive, classical, and bounded on every finite time strip away from t=0, and its coefficient f'(U) is bounded. Moreover, (?) and f\in C^2([0,1]) imply, for all sufficiently large t and z\ge0,

All hypotheses of the lemma hold, so the lower limit of the normalized Z in (6.5) is strictly positive. Since its limit already exists, \zeta>0. Substitution into (6.4) proves (6.5).

Recall the Neumann heat semigroup \mathsf N(t) on the half-line and put

The mild formulas with boundary loss and input give

Since \|b_\beta(t)\|_\infty\le2\varepsilon\sqrt{t/\pi}, contractivity of \mathsf N and the Lipschitz continuity of f, with f(0)=0, imply

Gronwall’s inequality proves (7.1). These formulas hold up to the boundary for positive times. The initial profiles vanish near the interface, so the heat representations also give p_\beta(t,0),q_\beta(t,0),h(t)\to0 as t\downarrow0. Thus j_\beta has the stated continuous extension at zero. The identity j_\beta/\varepsilon=p_\beta(t,0)-q_\beta(t,0) now gives

Writing f(q)=q-g(q), the receiving-side formula becomes

By (?) and (7.1), \sup_{s\le T}\|g(q_\beta(s))\|_\infty\le C_T\varepsilon^2. Divide the formula by \varepsilon and subtract v(t,x). The flux error contributes at most C_T\varepsilon\int_0^t(t-s)^{-1/2}\,ds, and the nonlinear term contributes at most C_T\varepsilon\int_0^t e^{t-s}\,ds. This proves (7.1) and hence (7.1).

Continuity and positivity of v_T follow from its integral representation, h(s)>0 for s>0, and the integrable bound G_r(x)\le Cr^{-1/2}. After even extension, Tonelli’s theorem and \int_\mathbb R e^xG_r(x)\,dx=e^r give

which proves (7.1).

With this wave normalization and sign convention for the shift, Mytnik–Roquejoffre–Ryzhik [MRR2022, Theorem 1.1] give

Our fixed, nonnegative, continuous, compactly supported profile satisfies their hypotheses. Exponentiating the negative of this expansion proves (7.2).

We first bound the mass and boundary trace. Full-space linear comparison in (?) gives

Changing variables in the mass integral, enlarging its spatial domain to \mathbb R, and using \int_\mathbb R e^XG_r(X)\,dX=e^r yield

For b(\sigma)=r(\sigma,0), (?) implies b\le C\varepsilon e^t/(1+t)\le Ce^{-3L/4} when t\le L/4. For t\ge L/4, the bound Q_\beta\le1 gives b\le(1+t)^{-1/2}. Since d\sigma=dt/(1+t),

Define the source weight without evaluating W at negative arguments:

Using (?) and W(\sigma,0)=0, integration by parts gives, for almost every \sigma>0,

We justify this identity in its time-integrated form. First fix \beta and a finite physical time horizon T. The linear Gaussian bound and j_\beta\le\varepsilon give

because \int_{\mathbb R}(1+|X|)e^XG_s(X)\,dX is bounded for 0<s\le T. On \eta\ge0, we have W\le C(1+\eta), and the coordinate change therefore implies

This establishes the initial weighted trace. These finite-time constants are used only to justify the identity, not to obtain its uniform upper bound.

Choose \vartheta\in C_c^\infty([0,\infty)) with 0\le\vartheta\le1, \vartheta=1 on [0,1], and \vartheta=0 on [2,\infty), and put \vartheta_R(\eta)=\vartheta(\eta/R). Use W\vartheta_R as a spatial test function, together with a smooth time test function, in (?). Its value at zero vanishes and its derivative there equals W_\eta(\sigma,0), giving the displayed boundary term. The distributional source gives its weight \mathcal W_s once R exceeds the source position on the time interval. All spatial derivatives can be transferred to the test function. Thus the cutoff errors involve only r multiplied by derivatives of W\vartheta_R, supported in R\le\eta\le2R. The Gaussian bound controls these terms on the fixed finite time interval and makes them vanish as R\to\infty; no far-field derivative estimate for r is needed. Moreover, 0\le g(Q_\beta)\le C Q_\beta gives N\le C(1+t)r, so the weighted absorption is locally integrable by the preceding moment bound. The boundary and source terms are also locally integrable. Passing to the limit yields the time-integrated identity, local absolute continuity of \mathcal M, and (?) almost everywhere. The initial weighted trace permits integration from \sigma=0. The function \mu is strictly increasing from zero, so the source crosses \eta=0 once. Since W(\sigma,0)=0 and r is continuous across the source, the crossing produces no additional atomic term in the moment.

We now integrate (?) and discard its nonpositive absorption term. The boundary contribution satisfies

because W_\eta(\sigma,0)=1+k\sqrt\pi e^{-\sigma/2} is bounded. The adjoint error is integrable uniformly in \beta: by (Proof) and (?),

For the source term, when \mu(t)<L we have

Its full time integral is therefore

Here \mu(t)\ge0 and 0\le\eta_s(t)\le L on the integration region. Using j_\beta/\varepsilon\le h and (?), the contribution of L-\mu(t) is at most 2IL, and that of the correction is at most CI\log(2+L). Thus (?) is bounded by 2IL+C\log(2+L). All three retained contributions are nonnegative, so their full time integrals bound their integrals up to any \sigma. Together with \mathcal M(0)=0 and W\ge\eta, these estimates prove (7.3).