Directional delays and singular strong-barrier limits for Fisher–KPP propagation across a semipermeable interface

Let \mathsf T_\kappa(t) denote the heat semigroup on H with Robin coefficient \kappa. We use the endpoint conventions

The kernel inequalities 0\le r_\kappa\le r_{\mathrm N} imply, uniformly for \kappa\in[0,\infty],

These estimates include evaluation on y=0, using the continuous positive-time representatives.

We first verify operator convergence away from time zero. For 0<\kappa<\infty, positivity and (?) give

Similarly, (?) gives

For a finite positive coefficient \kappa_*, the same formula yields

whose right-hand side tends to zero as \kappa\to\kappa_*. The tangential heat kernel has mass one. Consequently, for every 0<h<T and every \kappa_j\to\kappa_*\in[0,\infty],

In particular, this convergence is uniform up to the flat boundary.

Write

with 2/0=\infty and 2/\infty=0. The folded reaction vector is

It is bounded and Lipschitz on the common invariant region 0\le S-D\le S+D\le1.

Fix 0<h<t_*/2. For t\in[t_*,T], apply the mild formula on the short interval [t-h,t]:

Subtract the corresponding formula for \beta_j. The two recent-time integrals have total L^\infty norm at most Ch, uniformly in the parameters. For the initial term, insert and subtract \mathsf S_{\beta_j}(h)\mathbf U_\beta(t-h). The smoothing estimate and operator convergence then give

The already established C([0,T];L^2) convergence makes the first term vanish as j\to\infty. For fixed h, operator convergence makes the second term vanish as well. Thus the limit superior is bounded by Ch. Letting h\downarrow0 proves uniform convergence of the folded pair. Since p=S+D and q=S-D, the asserted convergence of both densities follows, including at y=0.

Choose a compactly supported radial upper datum as above. The corresponding homogeneous solution dominates every interface solution, including both traces, independently of the resistance. Lemma A.1 in Appendix ?, together with f(u)\le u, gives (2.2) for this radial solution and hence for u. Applying the same construction to a radial datum dominating the initial density of P gives the estimate for P.

The construction uses only linear comparison and the explicit supersolution of Appendix ?, independently of the subsequent front-localization and matching arguments.

Choose a smooth cutoff \chi_0 with 0\le\chi_0\le1, \chi_0=0 on (-\infty,1], and \chi_0=1 on [2,\infty). Set

Testing (?) with \chi^2\Psi W, initially with compact outer cutoffs, produces the nonnegative boundary dissipation

The polynomial weight satisfies

The potential is controlled by (?). Moreover, \partial_\tau\chi is uniformly bounded and supported in a(t)\le\rho\le2a(t). The cutoff terms are therefore controlled by the weighted energy and

To estimate this term, write

Since 0\le D_\beta\le p_\beta/2, the Gaussian envelope gives

On the cutoff layer, l is comparable to t, and

Hence integration against any fixed polynomial weight yields

The layer has width a(t), so

This proves (Proof).

The same envelope gives a uniform bound for

For large \rho, the estimate

combined with \mathrm e^{-c\rho^2} controls all polynomial moments and justifies removing the outer cutoffs. After absorbing the gradient cross terms, the energy inequality therefore gives

Integrating over [\log T,\log(2T)], whose length is \log2, and using the uniform bound on E, we obtain

Since \kappa\ge2/B, t\ge T, and \chi=1 for \rho\ge2a(t), this proves (3.1).

Finally, W\ge0, and the condition M>(N+1)/2 ensures

Cauchy–Schwarz in space and logarithmic time now gives (3.1).

Choose a space–time cutoff 0\le\zeta\le1, equal to one on Q_r^+, vanishing at the initial time and near the curved spatial boundary of Q_R^+, and satisfying

The cutoff may be nonzero on the flat boundary.

For p\ge2, test the differential inequality with \zeta^2w^{p-1}. The boundary condition gives

Thus the Robin term contributes nonnegative dissipation after it is moved to the left-hand side. Estimate the drift directly by Young’s inequality, without differentiating b, and use c\le c_+\le M. Setting v=w^{p/2}, integrating in time, and taking the supremum of the spatial energy yields

No upper bound or derivative bound on \lambda enters this estimate. Truncated and regularized power tests justify the calculation for weak subsolutions. Under homogeneous Dirichlet conditions, the boundary contribution vanishes.

Extend \zeta v evenly across \{Y=0\}. Since it vanishes near the curved boundary, the extension belongs to H_0^1(B_R(X_0)). The parabolic Sobolev inequality therefore applies with a constant depending only on N; only the test function is extended, not the equation. With \chi=1+2/N, the energy estimate (?) gives

Here R-r\le1 allows the zeroth-order contribution to be included in the same factor.

Iterate this inequality with

using R_j as the outer radius and R_{j+1} as the inner radius. Since

the iteration yields (3.2). Continuity up to the flat boundary gives the trace estimate.

The volume contribution is controlled by (?). It remains to estimate the interface contribution in (?) uniformly as the direction approaches the equator.

On each fixed receiving cone, use D\le p_\infty/2 and the linear Neumann Gaussian upper bound; the tilted interface term is exponentially integrable. Near the equator write \theta=(b\eta,s), b=\sqrt{1-s^2}\ge1/2, and \lambda=1-b. For s>0, the change of variables (?) bounds the absolute interface contribution by

On \rho\ge2a(t), maximizing the scalar coefficients over s and using s^2=\lambda(1+b) bounds (?) by

The factor t^{k\lambda} is absorbed into \mathrm e^{-\lambda t} for large t. Integration over t\in[T,2T], using \,\mathrm d t/t=\,\mathrm d\tau and (3.1), gives C_BT^{-1/4}.

For the complementary part l=\eta\cdot x'\le m+2t^\gamma, first restrict to r'=|x'|\le m+4t^\gamma. Near the front, tangential angular integration contributes t^{(N-2)/2}, so the tilted radial factor is t^{-2+k\lambda}\mathrm e^{-2\lambda t}. For r'=m+z, 0\le z\le4t^\gamma, the remaining integral is bounded by

Multiplication by s and maximization give Ct^{-5/2+3\gamma}(1+\log t). The part z<0 is smaller, using u\le1. If r'>m+4t^\gamma but l\le m+2t^\gamma, then r'-l\ge2t^\gamma; the factor \mathrm e^{-b(r'-l)} makes this remainder superpolynomially small. Since \gamma=1/4, the complementary contribution integrated over [T,2T] is O(T^{-3/4}\log T).

Summing the dyadic bounds and the volume tail with \sigma=1/16 proves (3.3). At each fixed positive time, parameter continuity and the common Gaussian bound make E_\beta(t,\theta) jointly continuous. Uniform convergence therefore gives joint continuity of the limit. At s=0, the interface contribution vanishes identically, and integration of (?) gives the stronger equatorial estimate.

Write w=1-U_*, a=-f'(1)>0 and \lambda=\lambda_*. Then w'>0, \lambda^2+2\lambda=a, and

First, v=w' is bounded. Indeed, v'+2v=f(1-w)\ge0 implies v(r)\ge\mathrm e^{-2(r-s)}v(s) for r\ge s, whereas \int_s^{s+1}v(r)\,\mathrm d r\le1; hence v(s)\le2/(1-\mathrm e^{-2}). Thus q=w'-\lambda w is bounded and satisfies q'+(\lambda+2)q=R(w). Variation of constants from -\infty gives, for all sufficiently negative s,

where we used monotonicity of w. Consequently, (\log w)'=\lambda+O(w)\ge\lambda/2 on a left half-line. Integrating backwards gives w(s)\le C\mathrm e^{\lambda s/2}, so w is integrable at -\infty. Since

this logarithm has a finite real limit there. Thus w(s)\sim B_-\mathrm e^{\lambda s} with B_->0. Integrating the last identity once more yields w=B_-\mathrm e^{\lambda s}+O(\mathrm e^{2\lambda s}). The identity w'=\lambda w+q and the wave equation give the asserted first and second derivative expansions.

For the right tail set V(s)=\mathrm e^sU_*(s). The normalization in (?) gives V(s)/s\to1, while

The second estimate makes V'' integrable at +\infty; the limiting value of V' must be 1, since V(s)/s\to1. Therefore

This error is also integrable, so V(s)-s has a finite limit B_+ and V(s)=s+B_++O((1+s)^2\mathrm e^{-s}). Using U_*'=\mathrm e^{-s}(V'-V) and U_*''=\mathrm e^{-s}(V''-2V'+V) proves the three right-tail expansions without differentiating an uncontrolled remainder. Division yields (5.1) at both ends. On compact intervals, continuity and U_*'<0 bound r_U.

We derive the bounds from scalar comparisons, independently of the multidimensional wave convergence to be proved below.

First, the radial linear supersolution gives

Indeed, apply Lemma A.1 in Appendix ? with \sigma=0. Then \eta_t=t^{-1/2}, the inner boundary is z_r=-1, and the coefficient bounds give bounded \zeta_{\rm lin} and Q\asymp\eta_t. Here \zeta_{\rm lin} is the scalar coefficient in (?). The comparison accommodates both the inner-boundary data and the Gaussian tail at the starting time. The normalized supersolution is therefore bounded by C(\rho+\eta_t) for 0\le\rho\le1, which yields (Proof) after multiplication by \sqrt t\,\mathrm e^{-z_r}. This construction uses only f(u)\le u.

For the lower bound, use the common radial seed and the inequality f(u)\ge u-C_fu^2. The auxiliary logistic matching estimate in Appendix ? gives

Its weighted matching error is O(t^{3\gamma-1}), which tends to zero because \gamma<1/3. The fixed time shift used to insert the seed changes only the constants.

Since

the bounds (Proof)–(?), together with the right-hand wave tail, imply (5.2) for sufficiently large positive z. It remains to control bounded values of z and the region behind the front.

For this purpose, consider the common radial comparison solutions with the original reaction f. Their leading-edge identification and relative mesoscopic matching use only g\ge0 and the radial envelope. On |z_r|\le t^\gamma, the radial moving-frame equation has drift

Let \mathcal U(t,z) denote one of the radial comparison solutions in its moving coordinate z=r-m(t), and let a>0 be its leading-edge amplitude. Fix 0<\varepsilon<a and put R(t)=t^\gamma. The relative mesoscopic estimate allows us to choose T_\varepsilon sufficiently large that, for every t\ge T_\varepsilon,

Increase T_\varepsilon if necessary so that the prescribed right boundary values lie in [0,1] and m(t)-R(t)>0.

On -R(t)<z<R(t), let q_- and q_+ solve

with boundary values

and initial profiles

The initial profiles need not agree with the boundary data at the two initial corners; this is permitted in Lemma C.1. Comparison with the constants 0 and 1 gives 0\le q_\pm\le1. The initial and lateral inequalities then yield

Lemma C.1, whose argument is adapted from [Wang, Lemma 4.1], applies because |b(t,z)|\le C/t. In particular, the drift contribution

is estimated by Young’s inequality without differentiating b. The resulting errors

are integrable since \gamma<1/3. Thus, for each fixed \varepsilon,

locally uniformly in z as t\to\infty. The comparison consequently gives

First let t\to\infty with \varepsilon fixed, and then let \varepsilon\downarrow0. Continuity of the translated wave, uniformly on compact z-intervals, proves

locally uniformly in z.

The radial comparison solutions are nonincreasing in radius. Their convergence bounds u away from both 0 and 1 on each fixed interval of z_r, completing (5.2). It also gives uniform saturation behind the front.

To quantify the latter statement, fix a sufficiently small 0<\varepsilon<\lambda_*. We claim that

for sufficiently large t in the region

where Z_0 is chosen sufficiently large. The constants do not depend on a subsequent fixed left cutoff in the moving coordinate.

Set v=1-u and \omega_*=-f'(1)>0. Then

and saturation makes |A+\omega_*| arbitrarily small in |x|\le m(t)-Z_0. Put \nu_\pm=\lambda_*\pm\varepsilon. Upper and lower comparison functions on this ball are, respectively,

Choose R_0 large, then make the coefficient error small by increasing Z_0, and finally take the starting time large. The differential inequalities follow from

together with

and

The scalar radial comparisons provide the required bounds at the moving outer boundary. The constants c,C can be chosen to fit the data on the finite starting ball, and both radial comparison functions satisfy every transmission condition. On |x|\ge t, these bounds give (?).

Finally, the left-hand wave asymptotics convert (?) into a bound of the form

Combining this with the bounded-interval estimates and choosing the auxiliary \varepsilon sufficiently small proves (5.2). For each fixed Z, the corresponding points satisfy |x|\ge t once t is sufficiently large, which explains the allowed dependence of the starting time on Z.

Let U be the common radial upper solution, and let w(t-t_0,\cdot) be the common radial lower solution inserted at time t_0, as constructed in Section ?. Thus

Both comparison solutions are nonincreasing in radius.

The radial wave convergence established in the proof of Lemma 5.2 gives finite constants \xi_- and \xi_+ such that, locally uniformly in z,

Here the radial solutions are written as functions of radius, and the fixed time shift is absorbed into \xi_-, using m(t)-m(t-t_0)\to2t_0.

For each fixed A>0, radial monotonicity gives

and

First let t\to\infty, and then let A\to\infty. The limits U_*(-\infty)=1 and U_*(+\infty)=0 prove both assertions.

Put w_i=v_i-B. Since the same function B is subtracted from both components,

Multiply by \mathrm e^{-C_0(s-s_0)}, where C_0>\max_i\sup c_i, and relabel the resulting functions as w_i. Their zeroth-order coefficients are now \widetilde c_i=c_i-C_0<0, while their exchange conditions are unchanged.

To obtain strict inequalities, subtract from both components \delta\psi, where

Choose K_0 large enough that

This choice uses only the interior coefficient bounds and the finite box. Moreover,

The functions \widetilde w_i=w_i-\delta\psi therefore satisfy strict interior and exchange inequalities; the common perturbation cancels from the exchange differences.

A positive maximum over both components and the closed space-time cylinder cannot occur initially or on a prescribed spatial face. An interior maximum contradicts the strict parabolic inequality and \widetilde c_i<0. At a maximum on \Gamma, the maximizing component satisfies

Since a_i\ge0, this gives

contrary to the strict exchange inequality. Edges are covered by the prescribed-face inequalities and continuity. Letting \delta\downarrow0 proves the assertion. No derivative or quantitative upper bound of a_i enters the argument.

Let t_0>0 be a time at which the seed is dominated. Since Q is bounded, heat comparison gives, at every fixed T>t_0,

where M_0 bounds the support radius of the seed and c_T>0.

Use logarithmic time \tau=\log t and, in the exterior region, set

For the coefficients in (?), direct differentiation yields

Here

for sufficiently large t. Consequently,

The singular term -(\sigma\eta_t+p_{\rm rad})X^{-1} is nonpositive. The remaining positive linear term in X is bounded by C\eta_tX and can be absorbed into the negative quadratic term, leaving an upper bound C\eta_t for the residual in (?).

The assumed envelope bound also gives

Both error bounds are integrable in logarithmic time. Define

Then \chi(\infty)>0 whenever \chi(\log T)>0. The residual estimate and q_c\ge0 show that

is a radial subsolution of \partial_t-\Delta-(1-Q) in |x|>m(t)+t^\sigma. This comparison is valid even when Q is not radial, since its bound is pointwise. The subsolution vanishes on the moving inner boundary.

Choose T sufficiently large that

At time T, the subsolution therefore has faster Gaussian decay than the heat lower bound. A sufficiently small \chi(\log T)>0 makes \underline V(T,\cdot)\le V(T,\cdot) on the entire exterior region. Exterior comparison gives \underline V\le V for all later times.

Finally, \eta_t\to0, c_t\to1/4, and \chi(\log t)\to\chi(\infty)>0. Hence

uniformly on each compact subset of (0,\infty). This proves (6.1).

The function f' is nonincreasing and cannot be constant: otherwise f'(0)=1 would contradict f(1)=f(0)=0. Since f\in C^2([0,1]), there is an s_*\in(0,1) and a neighborhood of s_* on which f''<0.

By local convergence to 1, for some sufficiently large t_* the donor density p_1(t_*,\cdot) exceeds s_* at an interior point. At spatial infinity it tends to zero by the finite-time Gaussian bound. Continuity along a path in H therefore gives an interior point x_* such that

Since D_1>0 in H, we have q_1(t_*,x_*)<s_*. Concavity and strict decrease of f' immediately below s_* imply

Thus the integrand defining B is strictly positive at the interpolation endpoint s=1. By continuity, B>0 on a space-time neighborhood of (t_*,x_*).

Since Z>0, the source BZ in the first equation of (?) is positive on that neighborhood. Choose C_0 such that A+C_0\ge0. Then

Positivity of the Neumann heat kernel makes R strictly positive throughout \overline H at every time after this positive source has acted. The same argument applies when \beta_1=0, since D_0>0 in the interior.

The boundary flux

satisfies 0\le j\le\varepsilon. The Neumann heat boundary-response operator has L^\infty norm bounded by C(t-s)^{-1/2}: the tangential heat kernel has mass one, and the normal boundary kernel contributes this factor.

Set d=p_\infty-p_\beta. The mild equations for d and q_\beta, together with the Lipschitz continuity of f on [0,1], yield

Gronwall’s inequality proves the first estimate in (7.1).

For the second estimate, put w=q_\beta/\varepsilon-v. Then

The first estimate gives

Since g(q)\le C_fq^2, it also gives

The same heat-kernel estimates therefore imply \|w\|_\infty\le C_T\varepsilon.

For the input moments, use 0\le s_\varepsilon\le p_\infty and the compact-data linear Neumann upper bound for p_\infty. Tangential exponential tilting produces the factor

Thus, for each fixed integer j\ge0, the weighted boundary integral is bounded by a constant times

where d_0>0 is the distance of the initial support from the interface. This bound is integrable at both zero and infinity.

Finite-time convergence, followed by dominated convergence, proves convergence of the weighted input moments. The domination is uniform for \theta\in\Gamma_\delta, so the convergence is uniform on that cone. This argument does not assert an O(\varepsilon) rate after integration over the entire time interval.

Let U_\varepsilon be the corresponding solution. Fix 0<\zeta<1, put L=\log(1/\varepsilon), and choose

Suppose \operatorname{supp}\varphi\subset B_{R_0} and take \varepsilon sufficiently small that \varepsilon\|\varphi\|_\infty\le1. For each \theta\in\mathbb S^{N-1}, introduce the moving half-space

We construct a linear Dirichlet lower solution in D_t and compute its kernel explicitly. All constants below may depend on \varphi,N,\zeta, but are independent of \theta and sufficiently small \varepsilon.

Linear comparison gives U_\varepsilon(t,x)\le C\varepsilon\mathrm e^t. For t\ge A/2\ge1 and x\in D_t, the compact-data heat bound gives

Indeed, with B=A+R_0, the exponent is at most B: if 2t\le B it equals t\le B/2, and otherwise it equals B-B^2/(4t). Choose a common constant C so that

bounds U_\varepsilon throughout D_t, and set \Lambda_\varepsilon(t)=\int_0^t q_\varepsilon(s)\,\mathrm d s. Then

Let v solve the linear problem

For large L, the initial support lies strictly inside D_0. Moreover,

Thus U_\varepsilon\ge v by the parabolic comparison principle. One can apply comparison separately on the two time intervals on which q_\varepsilon is continuous. On each finite time interval the solutions are bounded. To justify comparison on the unbounded domain, add \delta\mathrm e^{(2N+2)t}(1+|x|^2) to U_\varepsilon, apply comparison on D_t\cap B_R for sufficiently large R, and then let R\to\infty and \delta\downarrow0. The added function has nonnegative residual under \partial_t-\Delta-1+q_\varepsilon and dominates the bounded solutions on the artificial outer boundary.

To compute v, write

and let \widetilde v(t,x_\perp,h)=v(t,x). Then

The substitution \widetilde v=\mathrm e^{-h-\Lambda_\varepsilon(t)}Z reduces this equation to Z_t=\Delta Z on h>0, with zero Dirichlet boundary value and initial datum

The method of images gives the Dirichlet kernel

Using

we obtain the exact formula

The integral may be taken over \mathbb R^N because the support of \varphi lies in D_0. This identity follows entirely from the fixed-half-space heat equation and its explicit kernel. It also constructs the bounded solution used in the comparison: the factor in parentheses belongs to [0,1] on the support, so 0\le v(t,x)\le\varepsilon\mathrm e^t(G_t^N*\varphi)(x). The compact initial support is separated from \partial D_0, which ensures compatibility at the initial boundary; v is continuous across t=A/2 and classical on either side of it.

At x=(m(T)+\rho\sqrt T)\theta, \rho\ge0, the two heights are

for sufficiently large L. Hence the kernel factor satisfies

Here we used the valid inequality 1-\mathrm e^{-v}=\int_0^v\mathrm e^{-s}\,\mathrm d s\ge v\mathrm e^{-v} for v\ge0.

Define the normalized field and the directional coefficient by

For a=\theta\cdot y and y_\perp=y-a\theta, completing squares gives the exact identity

Since |y|\le R_0 on the support and \rho\ge0, it follows that

where

Combining comparison, (?), and (?) therefore yields

uniformly for \rho\ge0 and \theta\in\mathbb S^{N-1}. The prefactor \mathrm e^{-\Lambda_\varepsilon(T)-d_L}=1-o(1) is independent of \rho and \theta.

We next propagate (?) with a multiplicative loss tending to zero. Fix

and, for t\ge T, set

We record the residual calculation because the vanishing multiplicative loss is needed for the sharp coefficient. Put

and use logarithmic-time derivatives. Then

For

direct differentiation gives

and hence

Here p_{\rm rad} and L_0 are as in (?).

For sufficiently large L, throughout t\ge T=L^4 and X>0,

The singular term -(\sigma\eta_t+p_{\rm rad})X^{-1} is therefore nonpositive. Also b_G\le L^{-1}, so c(t) is uniformly bounded. Since \nu<1, Young’s inequality gives

It follows from (?) that

In radial and angular coordinates, the normalized logistic equation is

Here W is the normalized field defined above. The positive angular function c_\varphi is smooth, and

Since \Delta_\theta\mathrm e^{\theta\cdot y} =(|y|^2-(\theta\cdot y)^2-(N-1)\theta\cdot y) \mathrm e^{\theta\cdot y}, we also have

Thus the angular error has a bound independent of both \theta and \varepsilon. Moreover, q_c\ge0 and t/r^2\le C/t in the exterior region under consideration. A common radial upper datum for the small-seed solutions, together with (2.2), gives

uniformly in \varepsilon.

Consequently, define the trial profile

Its full residual satisfies

where

All constants are independent of \varepsilon and t\ge T, with \sigma,\nu,\varphi fixed.

The loss is integrable in logarithmic time. Indeed,

and, since 1-2\sigma-\nu>0,

Therefore

Since \sigma<1/4, we have 8\sigma-3<0. Thus the correction factor

uniformly for t\ge T as \varepsilon\downarrow0. Multiplying \Psi_L by this factor makes its full residual nonpositive.

It remains to fit the initial data. At t=T, write \rho=X+\eta_T. The ratio of \rho\mathrm e^{-\rho^2/4-c_L\rho} to F(T,\rho) is bounded below, uniformly for X>0, by

Indeed, b_G(T)=L^{-1}, c_L=O(L^{-1}), and \eta_T=L^{4\sigma-2} imply

Thus the full exponential loss in the Dirichlet-kernel lower bound is compatible with the same initial fitting and does not change the limiting coefficient. To track all losses explicitly, put

For fixed \zeta,\sigma,\nu,\varphi, every term is nonnegative and E_L=o(1), independently of the direction. Define

The initial fitting above gives \underline W(T,\rho,\theta)\le W(\log T,\rho,\theta) for every \rho>\eta_T and every direction. The residual is nonpositive, and \underline W=0 at \rho=\eta_t.

For completeness, comparison on the unbounded moving exterior can be justified in physical coordinates. Set

The normalized equation implies

Here U_\varepsilon is a fixed bounded coefficient; this is linear comparison, not a claim that \underline u solves the nonlinear logistic equation. On each finite interval [T,T_1], \underline u tends to zero as r\to\infty uniformly in time and direction, by its Gaussian formula. For \delta>0, the function U_\varepsilon+\delta\mathrm e^{t-T} is a supersolution of the same linear equation, since its added term has residual \delta\mathrm e^{t-T}U_\varepsilon\ge0. For a sufficiently large outer radius it dominates \underline u there; it also dominates the initial and moving inner-boundary data. Comparison on the truncated moving annulus, followed by letting the outer radius tend to infinity and \delta\downarrow0, gives \underline u\le U_\varepsilon. As T_1 is arbitrary, this comparison holds for all t\ge T.

Now fix \varepsilon and any \rho>0, and let t\to\infty. Then \eta_t,b_G(t)\to0 and F(t,\rho)\to\rho\mathrm e^{-\rho^2/4}. The homogeneous version of (?), applied to the fixed datum \varepsilon\varphi, identifies the limit of W as a_{\varepsilon,\varphi}(\theta)\rho\mathrm e^{-\rho^2/4}. Dividing the comparison by this positive Gaussian profile gives

The right-hand error is independent of \theta; no convergence rate uniform in \varepsilon is needed, because the large-time limit has already been taken for each fixed \varepsilon. Next let \varepsilon\downarrow0 with \zeta fixed. Since \alpha_L\to1-\zeta and E_L\to0, the liminf in (8.1) is at least -\zeta\sup_\theta c_\varphi(\theta). Finally let \zeta\downarrow0. This proves (8.1) with the exact coefficient c_\varphi, without requiring any of the error estimates to be uniform as \zeta\downarrow0.

The scaling cancellation used in [Wang, Section 7.2] applies in every dimension. Choose C_f\ge1 such that f(u)\ge u-C_fu^2 on [0,1], and let

If U_{\varepsilon,f} is the homogeneous f-solution with the same initial density, comparison gives w_\varepsilon\le U_{\varepsilon,f}.

The function C_fw_\varepsilon solves the standard logistic equation with initial density C_f\varepsilon\varphi. Lemma 8.1 therefore yields

Here a[w_\varepsilon] denotes the diffusive leading-edge coefficient. The factor C_f cancels, and replacing \log(1/(C_f\varepsilon)) by \log(1/\varepsilon) changes the bound only by a relative o(1).

The homogeneous f-amplitude exists by the Cartesian argument of Section ?. Comparison in the diffusive leading edge transfers (?) to that amplitude, uniformly in direction.

Fix S>0 and set

For 0<\zeta<1, choose a nonnegative smooth compactly supported function \varphi, even in x_N, such that \varphi\le(1-\zeta)v_S. The strict margin on its compact support and (7.1) imply that, for sufficiently small \varepsilon, both folded components at time S dominate \varepsilon\varphi.

The homogeneous solution from this even initial density has equal interface traces and zero normal derivative. It therefore satisfies every interface condition. Comparison gives

The factor \mathrm e^{-2S} follows from m(t)-m(t-S)\to2S and the normalized leading-edge asymptotics.

The even extension of (?) has source 2p_\infty\delta_\Sigma. Its critical mass identity gives

Apply Lemma 8.2, approximate (1-\zeta)v_S from below by such functions \varphi, and then let \zeta\downarrow0 and S\to\infty. The fixed-time Gaussian tails and the exponential input tail on \Gamma_\delta make these passages uniform in direction.

A common compactly supported radial datum \psi and linear heat comparison give

For every P_0>0, choose C_{P_0} sufficiently large. Outside

the integral of (1+|2t-\theta\cdot x|)V_\varepsilon is bounded by C_{P_0}\mathrm e^{-P_0L}\mathrm e^{-ct}. Completing the square on a hyperplane gives the corresponding trace estimate.

Fix \theta\in\Gamma_\delta and project onto its longitudinal coordinate. Write Z_\perp\in\theta^\perp for the physical transverse integration variable, with \,\mathrm d Z_\perp denoting Lebesgue measure on this subspace. Define

Then

Define the positive source measure by

for every bounded Borel function \chi. Projecting (?) yields

in space–time distributions, with source \,\mathrm d t\,\mathcal J_{\varepsilon,\theta}(t,\,\mathrm d z). The critical weight and the shift \theta\cdot x=2t+z cancel linear growth and longitudinal drift; integration over \theta^\perp removes transverse diffusion. Gaussian truncation justifies these operations.

No density of the source in z is required. In particular, for the normal direction,

We also need the absolute input moment

Let d_0>0 be the distance of the initial support from \Sigma. The linear Neumann bound for p_\infty and s_\varepsilon\le p_\infty imply

Indeed, the tilted tangential Gaussian has mean a'+2t\theta' for a in the initial support. The expected absolute centered factor is therefore at most C(1+t+\sqrt t)\le C'(1+t).

It follows that, for every A\ge0,

The total space–time source mass is 2\varepsilon J_\varepsilon=O_\delta(\varepsilon). These estimates involve no division by |\theta'| and are therefore uniform up to the normal direction.

Set A=(1+\gamma_0)L and work on z>-A. Let b_A(t)=\mathfrak f(t,-A) be the actual wall trace. Using Q_\varepsilon\le1 inside the large ball and (Proof) outside it gives

The Dirichlet heat kernel and boundary Poisson kernel on this half-line are

Discarding the nonpositive absorption term in (?) gives

For completeness, this comparison follows by testing against nonnegative backward Dirichlet heat solutions. The boundary term is the Poisson contribution of the actual trace b_A, which is bounded by (?). One may first use positive initial times and finite spatial cutoffs. The Gaussian bound removes the outer cutoff, while (?) gives

Thus the initial term vanishes. Approximation of nonnegative terminal test functions then gives (?), with the kernel integrated directly against the source measure.

Only the source restricted to (-A,\infty) appears in the interior integral. Source at or to the left of the wall affects the half-line through its actual trace, already controlled by (?). For example, the atom in (?) lies inside the half-line for s<A/2 and outside it for s>A/2. Its crossing time carries no atom in the time measure.

For d=\zeta+A>0, direct integration gives

Tonelli’s theorem applies to these nonnegative integrals, including atomic sources.

Split the source times at T/2. By (?) and (?), the source contribution to the mass at time T is at most

The wall contribution is bounded by

For the mass with z\le-A, use \mathrm e^zQ_\varepsilon\le\mathrm e^{-A} inside the large ball and (Proof) outside it. This gives

Adding the three contributions and using A+1=O(L), we obtain

With T=\varepsilon^{-\eta_0}, the restriction on \eta_0 makes the two volume terms o(\varepsilon). The first two terms also have this property, and choosing P_0>1+\eta_0/2 controls the last term.

Finally, integrating (?) from T to infinity and using M_\varepsilon(\infty)=0 gives

This proves both assertions in (8.4).

Write D_x=2t-\theta\cdot x and fix \gamma_0>0. Choose

Then T<T_2, and Lemma 8.4 applies at time T.

On 0\le t\le T, use

The constant part contributes at most

For the excess, inside |x-2t\theta|\le C_{P_0}(t+L) use

Spatial and time integration gives

Outside the ball, g(Q_\varepsilon)\le C_fQ_\varepsilon and (Proof) give an arbitrarily large exponential power of \varepsilon.

On the intermediate interval T\le t\le T_2, split at D_x=C_0L. The constant part is bounded by

The excess is controlled by the same volume argument:

Choose C_0>4(N+2)+2 and then P_0 sufficiently large. This contribution is also o(\varepsilon L).

For t\ge T_2, choose \sigma=1/16 in (?). The absolute centered absorption is bounded by

Finally, (?) makes the source first moment in (?) O_\delta(\varepsilon). Combining the three time intervals yields

For each fixed \gamma_0, all error estimates are uniform on \Gamma_\delta. Let \varepsilon\downarrow0 and then \gamma_0\downarrow0 to conclude.

Use polar coordinates on the (N-1)-dimensional interface. With d=N-1, the angular Laplace formula is

For d=1, the angular integral is a two-point sum: the forward term gives the displayed expression, while the backward term is exponentially smaller.

For the profiles considered here, the formula can be used uniformly in \eta. On compact positive longitudinal intervals, homogeneous leading-edge convergence for P is uniform in direction, and its limiting angular amplitude is continuous. The radial Gaussian envelope controls the remaining longitudinal ranges and supplies an integrable majorant.

First consider r\le m(t). Using P\le1 and the angular upper bound gives a contribution

For r>m(t), write

Combining the angular factor, the radial Jacobian, and \,\mathrm d r=\sqrt t\,\,\mathrm d\rho yields, when \lambda t\le M,

The error is uniform in \eta and \lambda t\le M. To obtain this expression, first restrict \rho to a compact subset of (0,\infty), where r/(2t)\to1 uniformly, and then remove the restriction using the Gaussian envelope. The contribution near \rho=0 is controlled by the same envelope.

In this regime,

uniformly, while

Since

dominated convergence in (?) proves (9.1).

For the upper bound, use the angular Gaussian estimate and the radial envelope directly, without imposing \lambda t\le M. The factor \mathrm e^{-\lambda\sqrt t\rho} is at most one, and the remaining longitudinal integral is uniformly bounded. Together with the interior estimate, this gives (9.1).

All coefficients below are evaluated at \rho=X-\eta_t. After increasing T, we have

Define

For \Phi=\mathrm e^{-X^2/8}F(\tau,X), differentiation at fixed \rho, using \partial_\tau\eta_t=(\sigma-1/2)\eta_t, gives

Here F_\tau on the right is taken at fixed X.

The coefficient bounds follow from

Consequently, for all X\ge0,

These estimates include \sigma=0, for which \ell_1=p_{\rm rad} and \log t/t=O(t^{-1/2}). The coefficients become small on every fixed X-interval. We do not require \ell_2 to be uniformly small on the entire half-line.

We now choose the three spatial profiles. Let \chi\in C^\infty(\mathbb R;[0,1]) be nonincreasing, equal to one on (-\infty,0] and zero on [1,\infty). For example, take

Set

Thus \gamma_1=1 on [0,1/4] and vanishes on [1/3,\infty), while \gamma_2=0 on [0,1] and equals one on [2,\infty). Moreover,

The positive mode \varphi_0 bridges the two cutoff regions.

Define

We first estimate its residual under the assumptions

where primes denote logarithmic-time derivatives. The coefficient equations chosen below will ensure all three conditions.

For 0\le X\le1/4, we have \phi_1\ge2^{-1/2} and |\phi_1'|\le\pi\phi_1. By (?), increasing T gives

Since \varphi_0 and \varphi_0' are bounded on this interval, and \zeta_{\rm lin}'\varphi_0\ge0,

For the far region, put d_\mu=1/16-4\mu^2>0. Direct calculation gives

The bracket is bounded below by d_\mu X^2-C(1+X), uniformly for t\ge T. Choose R\ge2 so that this lower bound is at least one for X\ge R. Also, (?) and \mu<1/8 give

Since \gamma_1=0 and \gamma_2=1 in this region,

On the remaining compact interval 1/4\le X\le R, all cutoff profiles and their first two derivatives are bounded, and \min\varphi_0>0. Using Q'\ge-Q and (?), we obtain

Choose K\ge\max\{2C_1,2C_2,C_3,1\} and solve

from positive initial values at \tau_0=\log T. Positivity is preserved, Q'\ge-Q, and \zeta_{\rm lin}'\ge0. Thus (?)–(?), together with (Proof), prove the supersolution inequality. The cutoffs and constants chosen up to this point depend only on N,\sigma,\mu.

We next control the time-dependent coefficients. Set \mathcal V=Q+\zeta_{\rm lin}/K. Then

Gronwall’s inequality and monotonicity of \zeta_{\rm lin} imply

With \alpha=1/2-\sigma\in(0,1/2], variation of constants gives

Dividing by \eta_t=\mathrm e^{-\alpha\tau} yields

These constants may also depend on the positive initial coefficients.

The near-origin term, the positive mode on compact subintervals of X>0, and the far Gaussian term now give (A.1). In particular,

The upper bound uses a_\mu<1/4, so that the mode X\mathrm e^{-X^2/4} decays faster than the far Gaussian.

It remains to fit the comparison data. Take a compact radial upper datum U_0\in[0,1] as in Section ?, supported in \{r\le R_0\}. At the fixed starting time T, linear heat comparison gives

Fix a_\mu<\nu<1/4, substitute

and multiply by T^{-1/2}\mathrm e^{\sqrt T(X-\eta_T)}. Absorbing the resulting linear term in X into the Gaussian yields

Because \nu>a_\mu, a constant multiple of the lower bound in (A.1) dominates this initial field on the entire half-line.

At the moving inner boundary, U\le1 gives

For \sigma=0, the bound is exactly \mathrm e^{-1}\eta_t before the last inequality. Since (?) is linear and homogeneous in (Q,\zeta_{\rm lin}), multiplying both initial coefficients by one sufficiently large constant fits (?) and (?). We continue to denote the rescaled supersolution by \Phi.

We finally justify comparison at spatial infinity. On each finite logarithmic-time interval [\tau_0,\tau_1], the heat bound implies that W\to0 uniformly as X\to\infty. Add

to \Phi, where A\ge\sup(1+q_c) on the domain. This added function is a supersolution in the original \rho coordinates. For fixed \varepsilon>0 and sufficiently large L, it dominates W on the outer boundary X=L.

Apply comparison on the moving strip 0\le X\le L, then let L\to\infty and \varepsilon\downarrow0. This proves W\le\Phi on [\tau_0,\tau_1]. Since \tau_1 is arbitrary, the comparison holds for all later times. The interface solutions are first bounded by the common radial solution U, so the resulting constants are uniform for \beta\in[0,\infty], including both interface traces.

For z\ge0, multiply the upper bound in (A.1) by \sqrt t\,\mathrm e^{-z} to obtain

This gives (2.2); the choice \sigma=0 also gives (Proof). The bounded interval 2\le t\le T is covered by the compact-data heat bound after increasing the constant. The construction uses neither reaction-specific wave convergence nor concavity.

Set

The transformed equation is

The boundary values become

Define the renormalized energy

Completing the square on the positive half-interval gives the exact identity

Here V(t,0)=q(t,0)\le1 and P\ge0.

This identity also controls the drift error. On [0,R], write

On [-R,0], use the corresponding expression in terms of V_z. Cauchy–Schwarz and (?) then yield, for R\ge1,

We next differentiate the energy, including the moving endpoints. At the right boundary,

After including the derivative of -\alpha^2R/2, the right endpoint contributes

At the left boundary,

so its contribution is

Since R'>0, this is bounded above by

All positive boundary remainders are integrable in time. Indeed, G(u)\le Cu^3 on [0,1] gives

and

The boundedness of h_b' and the exponential factors therefore control the left boundary terms as well.

The interior contribution is

Young’s inequality and |d|\le C/t give

Combining the preceding estimates yields

No derivative of d occurs.

The two power errors are integrable because \gamma<1/3. Applying Gronwall’s inequality to \mathcal F+\alpha+1, which is positive by (?), gives a uniform energy bound. Integrating (?) and using the lower bound \mathcal F\ge-\alpha then gives

for any fixed starting time t_1 after parabolic regularization.

Consider a sequence t_j\to\infty. On each fixed space–time cylinder, the translated functions V(t_j+s,z) are uniformly bounded because 0\le V\le\mathrm e^z. Local parabolic compactness gives a subsequential limit. The total dissipation on every such translated cylinder tends to zero, so the limit is independent of s. Since d(t_j+s,z)\to0 uniformly on compact sets, the limiting equation is

The passage to this equation uses local energy bounds and does not require uniform derivative bounds for d.

Lower semicontinuity in (?) gives

Convexity makes V_\infty' nondecreasing. Its square integrability relative to \alpha therefore forces

In particular, the limiting profile is nonzero.

Set Q=\mathrm e^{-z}V_\infty. Then

Its mechanical energy

satisfies \mathcal H'=-2Q'^2. Boundedness of the entire solution and the ODE give bounded derivatives. The limiting sets at either end therefore consist of equilibria, as follows from the energy identity; since the only zeros of f in [0,1] are 0 and 1, the end limits exist and belong to \{0,1\}.

The left limit cannot be zero. Otherwise the mechanical energy would have the same value zero at both ends, forcing Q'\equiv0, contrary to the nonzero right-hand tail. Hence Q(-\infty)=1. Uniqueness for the ODE gives 0<Q<1 at finite z. At any critical point,

Thus every critical point would be a strict local maximum. The end limits 1 and 0, together with 0<Q<1, exclude such a point, so Q is strictly decreasing.

Wave uniqueness now identifies Q as a translate of U_*. Its leading-edge coefficient is \alpha, because \mathrm e^zQ(z)=V_\infty(z)=\alpha z+o(z). The normalization of U_* therefore gives

Every subsequential limit is the same, proving local uniform convergence of the full solution.

The energy calculations may be started at a positive time after the initial boundary corners. Thus no compatibility between the bounded initial profile and the boundary data is needed.