3

I'm attempting to solve or to understand the conditions in which the following 1-dimensional second order, linear PDE can be solved. It is akin to a Fokker-Planck equation with constant coefficients, but with an additional linear sink term with space and time dependence:

$$ \frac{\partial f(x,t)}{\partial t} = - \mu \frac{\partial f(x,t)}{\partial x} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 f(x,t)}{\partial x^2} - u(x,t)f(x,t) $$

With natural boundary conditions in the domain $x\in(-\infty,\infty)$, $t\in[0,\infty)$, and initial condition

$$ f(x,t=0) = \delta(x) $$

Additionally, $\mu$ is a positive real constant, and $u(x,t)$ is a strictly positive real function, monotonically increasing with $x$, and with asymptotes $a$ and $b$ at $x \rightarrow -\infty$, and $x \rightarrow \infty$ respectively (think of a sigmoid function that moves with time).

I have done an extense literature search that hasn't been fruitful. What I know is that the solution for the homogenous equation with $u(x,t)=0$ is

$$ f(x,t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi t}} \exp\Bigl( -\frac{(x-\mu t)^2}{2t} \Bigr) $$

and that the solution with $u(x,t)=\alpha>0$ is

$$ f(x,t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi t}} \exp\Bigl( -\frac{(x-\mu t)^2}{2t} - \alpha t\Bigr) $$

What is the best approach for solving this equation? Is there perhaps a change of variables that would simplify the problem? Is it even possible to obtain an analytical solution?


EDIT

I realized (also inspired by Harry49's answer) that the drift term can be removed with the following substitution:

$$ f(x,t) = g(x,t) \exp\Bigl( \mu x - \frac{\mu^2t}{2} \Bigr) $$

Which results in the following equation for $g$

$$ \frac{\partial g(x,t)}{\partial t} = \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 g(x,t)}{\partial x^2} - u(x,t)g(x,t) $$

J. R. C.
  • 311

2 Answers2

3

Not a complete answer but I managed to convert it into an integral equation. I'm not sure if you can do better for a general $u$, but if you can, it will be essentially characterizing the semigroup generated by the operator $LG = -\frac{1}{2}\omega^2G-[U(\cdot,t)*G(\cdot,t)]$. Convolutions are pretty well-studied, but given that they are by definition global operators, I am sure the analysis is much harder and I am not familiar with the analysis needed to study such an operator in detail. I'm not sure how much can be done in closed form on that front, but I honestly doubt a nice analytic expression exists in general.

Starting from $$g_t = \frac{1}{2}g_{xx}-ug,$$ we take a Fourier transform $G:=\mathcal{F}g$ to obtain $$G_t = -\frac{1}{2}\omega^2G-[U(\cdot,t)*G(\cdot,t)](\omega)$$ with $G(\omega,0) = \mathcal{F}\delta = 1$. We can then use an integrating factor to obtain $$G(\omega,t) = e^{-\frac{1}{2}\omega^2t}-\int_{0}^te^{-\frac{1}{2}\omega^2(t-s)}[U(\cdot,s)*G(\cdot,s)](\omega)ds.$$ Now applying the inverse Fourier transform, we obtain $$g(x,t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}e^{-\frac{x^2}{2t}}-\int_0^t\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left\{e^{-\frac{1}{2}\star^2(t-s)}[U(\cdot,s)*G(\cdot,s)](\star)\right\}(x)ds.$$

We now focus on this inverse Fourier transform. We first split it into a product of the exponential and the convolution. Note that this convolution is in the Fourier variable. So $$ \mathcal{F}^{-1}\left\{e^{-\frac{1}{2}\star^2(t-s)}[U(\cdot,s)*G(\cdot,s)](\star)\right\}(x) = \left[\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left\{e^{-\frac{1}{2}\star^2(t-s)}\right\}(\diamond)*\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left\{[U(\cdot,s)*G(\cdot,s)](\star)\right\}(\diamond)\right](x). $$ Notation is getting gross, but just keep in mind that the "inner" convolution was in the Fourier variable and the "outer" convolution is in the spatial variable. We can now compute these separate inverse transforms.

$$ \mathcal{F}^{-1}\left\{e^{-\frac{1}{2}\star^2(t-s)}[U(\cdot,s)*G(\cdot,s)](\star)\right\}(x) = \left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi (t-s)}}e^{-\frac{\diamond^2}{2(t-s)}}*u(\diamond,s)g(\diamond,s)\right](x) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi(t-s)}}e^{-\frac{(x-y)^2}{2(t-s)}}u(y,s)g(y,s)dy. $$

Combining everything, we have $$ g(x,t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}e^{-\frac{x^2}{2t}}-\int_0^t\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi(t-s)}}\left[\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-\frac{(x-y)^2}{2(t-s)}}u(y,s)g(y,s)dy\right]ds. $$

This offloads a lot of the work to you, but to determine when the equation can be solved, you could examine under what conditions any of the steps I made in my derivation would not hold, like exchanging limits, assuming integrability, etc.

whpowell96
  • 5,530
  • Nice answer, +1. I tried to follow a similar route by using the known formula for the fundamental solution of the "perturbed heat operator" $P(D_t,D_x)(\cdot)=(\partial_t -\partial_x^2)(\cdot) - (\mu+b) (\cdot) $: in doing so, however, when applying the Cauchy condition $g(x,t)|_{t=0}=\delta(x)$, I get an integral equation of the first kind, whose solvability is a delicate problem. – Daniele Tampieri Jan 26 '20 at 07:46
  • Your route avoid the problem and you get a (non homogeneous) Fredholm integral equation of the second kind. By using Fredholm's theorems you should be able to settle the existence and uniqueness problem for the integral equation and thus for the original PDE, provided the appropriate conditions on $u(x,t)$ are satisfied. – Daniele Tampieri Jan 26 '20 at 07:50
  • 1
    On an unbounded spatial domain with with general $u$, I am doubtful that one can acheive an analytic solution, since it requires one to explicitly characterize the semigroup either in Fourier or Cartesian space. To me, seems at least at the difficulty of solving the steady state BVP analytically, which also seems extremely hard, if not impossible – whpowell96 Jan 26 '20 at 15:30
  • Hi, thanks for all your efforts. I'm quite convinced that a solution exists and it's unique, just thinking intuitively that it's just diffusion with an added sink term that it's just removing mass from the system ($u$ is positive, smooth, differentiable at the very least $C_2$, etc). I'm also quite convinced that the analytic solution is indeed impossible to obtain explicitely. Playing around with the numerical solution appying Crank-Nicolson, It seems like the solution decays with $x$ in the limit as $\exp(-ax)$ and not as $\exp(-ax^2)$ as I was expecting ($a$ an unkown positive constant). – J. R. C. Jan 26 '20 at 16:29
  • @whpowell96 in terms of finding a numerical solution, does the integral representation provide any advantage over the differential equation? In the case for instance of applying finite differences, the differential equation is quite convenient because it's linear. Is there a similarly simple method to tackle the integral equation? – J. R. C. Jan 27 '20 at 10:15
  • No this integral equation is likely much harder to solve than the differential equation since the integrals are improper and the kernel loses continuity. – whpowell96 Jan 27 '20 at 15:50
0

Let us introduce $g(X,t)$ such that $$ g(X,t) = f(X+\mu t, t)\, e^{\int_0^t u(X+\mu\tau,\tau)\, \text d\tau} , $$ where $X=x-\mu t$. Thus, we have the partial derivatives $$ g_X = \left( f_X + f {\textstyle \int_0^t} u_X\, \text d\tau\right) e^{\int_0^t u\, \text d\tau} , $$ $$ g_{XX} = \left( f_{XX} + f {\textstyle \int_0^t} u_{XX}\, \text d\tau + 2 f_X {\textstyle \int_0^t} u_X\, \text d\tau + f\, ( {\textstyle \int_0^t} u_X\, \text d\tau)^2\right) e^{\int_0^t u\, \text d\tau} , $$ and $$ g_t = \left(\mu f_X + f_t + u f\right) e^{\int_0^t u\, \text d\tau} . $$ Using the PDE, we have $$ g_t -\tfrac12 g_{XX} = -\tfrac12 \left( f {\textstyle \int_0^t} u_{XX}\, \text d\tau + 2 f_X {\textstyle \int_0^t} u_X\, \text d\tau + f\, ( {\textstyle \int_0^t} u_X\, \text d\tau)^2\right) e^{\int_0^t u\, \text d\tau} . $$ One recognizes the classical heat equation for $g$ if $u_X \equiv 0$, i.e. if $u$ is a function of $t$ only. Thus this method won't work in the general case where $u$ is a function of $(x,t)$.

For the general case, Laplace or Fourier transforms may provide integral representations of the solution (cf. [1] for the methodology). It might be also of interests to look at the stationary solution.


[1] R. Habermann, Applied Partial Differential Equations with Fourier Series and Boundary Value Problems, 5th ed. Pearson Education Inc., 2013.

EditPiAf
  • 20,898