Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to extend the 𝑊1,𝑝 regularity results in neutron transport theory, with respect to the Lebesgue measure due to Mokhtar-Kharroubi, (1991), and to abstract measures covering, in particular, the continuous models or multigroup models. The results are obtained for vacuum boundary conditions as well as periodic boundary conditions. 𝐻2 regularity results are derived when the velocity space is endowed with an appropriate class of measures (signed in the multidimensional case).

1. Introduction

Let 𝐷 be an open bounded convex subset of 𝑁. Let 𝑑𝜇 be a positive bounded measure on 𝑁 supported by 𝑉={𝑣𝑁;|𝑣|<𝑅},0<𝑅<+. We denote 𝑋𝑝=𝜓𝐿𝑝(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣));𝑣𝜕𝜓𝜕𝑥𝐿𝑝(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)),(1.1)

where 𝐿𝑝(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣))=𝐿𝑝(𝐷×𝑉;𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)), 1𝑝<+, and 𝑑𝑥 is the Lebesgue measure on 𝐷.

The streaming operator 𝑇 is defined 𝑇𝜓=𝑣𝜕𝜓=𝜕𝑥𝜎(𝑣)𝜓,𝐷(𝑇)𝜓𝑋𝑝;𝜓|Γ,=0(1.2) where𝜎()𝐿Γ(𝑉;𝑑𝜇(𝑣)),={(𝑥,𝑣)𝜕𝐷×𝑉;𝑣𝑛(𝑥)<0}.(1.3) Here, 𝑛(𝑥) is the unit outward normal at 𝑥𝜕𝐷. It is well known that under the hypothesis 𝑑𝜇({0})=0, any function 𝜓𝑋𝑝 possesses traces on Γ (see [14]).

Let 𝑘𝑖(,)(𝑖=1,2) be two measurable functions on 𝑉×𝑉 such that𝐾𝑖(𝐿𝑝(𝑉;𝑑𝜇(𝑣))),whereKiistheoperatorwithkernel𝑘𝑖,i.e.𝐾𝑖𝜑𝐿𝑝(𝑉;𝑑𝜇(𝑣))𝑉𝑘𝑖,𝑣𝜑𝑣𝑣𝑑𝜇.(1.4)

Note that, for all 𝜆>𝜆=𝑑𝜇ess-inf𝜎(), the operators 𝒩𝜆=𝐾1(𝜆𝑇)1𝐾2 and 𝜆=𝐾1(𝜆𝑇)1 map continuously 𝐿𝑝(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)) into itself. In [5], several 𝑊1,𝑝 regularity results of the operators 𝒩𝜆 and 𝜆 were established when the velocity space 𝑉 is endowed with the Lebesque measure. These results play a cornerstone role in the proof of the neutron transport approximations [68].

The main purpose of this paper is to extend the results of [5] in two directions. First, we deal with a general class of abstract measures covering, in particular, the continuous models or multigroup models. Secondly, we extend the results to periodic boundary conditions on the torus.

We also give a proof of the 𝐻1/2 Sobolev regularity result, due to Agoshkov, for a general class of measures considered in [9]. We use analogous arguments as in [9] but the result is not a consequence of [9, Theorem 4], (see the commentary on the beginning of Section 4).

Finally, we prove how suitable assumptions on the abstract velocity measure (signed for 𝑁>1) can be useful to derive the 𝐻2 Sobolev regularity for the operator 𝜆.

Before closing the introduction, let us recall that the smoothing effect of velocity averages (0, with 𝑘1=1), in terms of the 𝐻1/2 Sobolev regularity, is given in [10] when the velocity space is endowed with the Lebesque measure, while a systematic analysis of the fractional Sobolev regularity, for general velocity measures in 𝐿𝑝 space (𝑝>1), is given in [9] (see also [1116]). These results play a cornerstone role in the analysis of kinetic models (see, e.g., [17, 18]). Finally, velocity averages turn out to play an important role in the context of inverse problems (see [19, 20]).

2. 𝑊𝑥1,𝑝 Regularity of the Operator 𝒩𝜆=𝐾1(𝜆𝑇)1𝐾2

Let 𝑑𝜇(𝑣)=𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝑑𝑆(𝑤), where 𝑑𝑆 is the Lebesgue measure on 𝕊𝑁1 (the unit sphere of 𝑁) and 𝑑𝛼 is a positive bounded measure on [0,1) such that (for simplicity we assume that 𝑅=1)10𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌<.(2.1) For (𝑧,𝑣,𝑣)𝑉, we set𝐺𝑧,𝑣,𝑣=𝑘1(𝑣,𝑧)𝑘2𝑧,𝑣,𝜆=𝑑𝜇ess-inf𝜎().(2.2) Let 𝜓𝐿𝑝(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)). It is easy to show that for any 𝜆>𝜆𝒩𝜆𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝐾1(𝜆𝑇)1𝐾2=𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)𝑉𝑣𝑑𝜇𝑉𝑣𝑑𝜇𝑡(𝑥,𝑣)0𝐺𝑣,𝑣,𝑣𝑒𝑡(𝜆+𝜎(𝑣))𝜓𝑥𝑡𝑣,𝑣𝑑𝑡,(2.3) where 𝑡(𝑥,𝑣)=inf{𝑡>0,𝑥𝑡𝑣𝐷}.(2.4)

To prove that 𝒩𝜆 is an integral operator, we set𝐼=𝑉𝑣𝑑𝜇𝑡(𝑥,𝑣)0𝐺𝑣,𝑣,𝑣𝑒𝑡(𝜆+𝜎(𝑣))𝜓𝑥𝑡𝑣,𝑣=𝑑𝑡10𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝑆𝑁1𝑑𝑆(𝑤)0𝑡(𝑥,𝑤)/𝜌𝐺𝜌𝑤,𝑣,𝑣𝑒𝑡(𝜆+𝜎(𝜌𝑤))𝜓𝑥𝑡𝜌𝑤,𝑣=𝑑𝑡10𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌𝑆𝑁1𝑑𝑆(𝑤)0𝑡(𝑥,𝑤)𝐺𝜌𝑤,𝑣,𝑣𝑒(𝑡/𝜌)(𝜆+𝜎(𝜌𝑤))𝜓𝑥𝑡𝑤,𝑣𝑑𝑡.(2.5) Since 𝐷 is convex, the change of variables 𝑥=𝑥𝑡𝑤 (𝑑𝑥=𝑡𝑁1𝑑𝑡𝑑𝑆(𝑤)) leads to𝐼=10𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌𝐷𝐺𝜌𝑥𝑥/||𝑥𝑥||,𝑣,𝑣𝑒(|𝑥𝑥|/𝜌)(𝜆+𝜎(𝜌((𝑥𝑥)/|𝑥𝑥|)))||𝑥𝑥||𝑁1𝜓𝑥,𝑣𝑑𝑥.(2.6) Thus, 𝒩𝜆 is an integral operator with kernel𝑁𝜆𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣=10𝐺𝜌𝑥𝑥/||𝑥𝑥||,𝑣,𝑣𝑒(|𝑥𝑥|/𝜌)(𝜆+𝜎(𝜌((𝑥𝑥)/|𝑥𝑥|)))|𝑥𝑥|𝑁1𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌.(2.7) Let us now introduce the following hypotheses: (𝒜1)𝐺𝜎(𝑧)=𝜎(𝑧),𝑑𝜇(𝑣)a.e.,𝑧,𝑣,𝑣=𝐺𝑧,𝑣,𝑣,𝑑𝜇(𝑣)a.e.,(2.8)(𝒜2)𝒢(𝐿𝑝(𝒢𝑉;𝑑𝜇(𝑣))),whereistheintegraloperatorwithkernel𝐺𝑣,𝑣=sup𝑧𝑉||𝐺𝑧,𝑣,𝑣||,(2.9)(𝒜3)𝒢(𝐿𝑝(𝑉;𝑑𝜇(𝑣))),where𝒢istheintegraloperatorwithkernel𝐺𝑣,𝑣=sup𝑧𝑉||𝐺𝑧,𝑣,𝑣||,|𝑧|(2.10)(𝒜4)𝒢𝑖(𝐿𝑝(𝒢𝑉;𝑑𝜇(𝑣))),where𝑖istheintegraloperatorwithkernel𝐺𝑖𝑣,𝑣=sup𝑧𝑉||||𝜕𝐺𝜕𝑧𝑖𝑧,𝑣,𝑣||||,1𝑖𝑁,(2.11)(𝒜5)𝜎()𝑊1,(𝑉;𝑑𝜇(𝑣)).(2.12)

Remark 2.1. (1) (𝒜1) is the key assumption.
(2) Assumption (𝒜2) is a consequence of (𝒜3).
(3) Assumption (𝒜3) is not necessary if 𝑑𝜇 is the Lebesgue measure (see [5]).
Throughout this paper we set 𝜎()=𝜆+𝜎().(2.13)

Now, we are ready to state our first main result.

Theorem 2.2. Let assumptions (𝒜1),(𝒜3)(𝒜5) be satisfied. Then, for any 𝜆>𝜆 and 𝑝>1, the operator 𝒩𝜆 maps continuously 𝐿𝑝(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)) into 𝑊𝑥1,𝑝(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)), where 𝑊𝑥1,𝑝(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣))=𝜓𝐿𝑝(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣))suchthat𝜕𝜓𝜕𝑥𝑖𝐿𝑝(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)).(2.14) Moreover, 𝒩𝜆(𝐿𝑝(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣));𝑊𝑥1,𝑝) is locally bounded with respect to 𝜆>𝜆.

Proof . Let us first compute 𝜕𝒩𝜆𝜑/𝜕𝑥𝑖 in the distributional sense for 𝜑𝒟(𝐷×𝑉). To this end, let 𝜓𝒟(𝐷×𝑉), and extend 𝑘𝑖(,), 𝑖=1,2, by zero outside of 𝑉; then 𝜕𝒩𝜆𝜑𝜕𝑥𝑖,𝜓𝒟,𝒟=𝐷×𝑉𝜕𝜓𝜕𝑥𝑖(𝑥,𝑣)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝐷×𝑉𝑁𝜆𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣𝜑𝑥,𝑣𝑑𝑥𝑣𝑑𝜇=lim𝜀0𝑉×𝑉𝑣𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝑑𝜇𝑁𝜑𝑥,𝑣𝑑𝑥×||𝑥𝑥||𝜖𝑁𝜆𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣𝜕𝜓𝜕𝑥𝑖(𝑥,𝑣)𝑑𝑥.(2.15) The use of the Green formula leads to lim𝜀0𝑉×𝑉𝑣𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝑑𝜇𝑁𝜑𝑥,𝑣𝑑𝑥|𝑥x|𝜖𝜕𝑁𝜆𝜕𝑥𝑖𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)𝑑𝑥𝑉×𝑉𝑣𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝑑𝜇𝑁𝜑𝑥,𝑣𝑑𝑥||𝑥𝑥||=𝜖𝑁𝜆𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)𝜈𝑖.𝑑𝜎(𝑥)(2.16)
We claim that the second part of (2.16) goes to zero as 𝜀0.
Indeed, |𝑥𝑥|=𝜖𝑁𝜆𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)𝜈𝑖𝑥𝑑𝜎(𝑥)=𝜓,𝑣|𝑥𝑥|=𝜖𝑁𝜆𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣𝜈𝑖+𝑑𝜎(𝑥)|𝑥𝑥|=𝜖𝑁𝜆𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣||𝑥𝑥||𝑂||𝑥𝑥||𝜈𝑖𝑑𝜎(𝑥)=𝐼1+𝐼2.(2.17) Clearly 𝐼1=0 (because 𝑁𝜆(𝑦,𝑣,𝑣)=𝑁𝜆(𝑦,𝑣,𝑣)). Thus, using the dominated convergence theorem of Lebesgue, it is enough to prove that 𝐼20 as 𝜀 goes to zero. This follows from the estimate ||𝐼2||10𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌𝐺𝑣,𝑣|𝑥𝑥|=𝜀𝑑𝜎(𝑥)𝜀𝑁2=10𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌𝐺𝑣,𝑣||𝕊𝑁1||𝜀,(2.18) which proves the claim.
Next, we compute the derivative of the kernel 𝑁𝜆.
Indeed, by straightforward calculations 𝜕𝑁𝜆𝜕𝑥𝑖𝑥,𝑣,𝑣=𝑗𝑖10𝑥𝑖𝑥𝑗|𝑥|𝑁+2𝐺𝑗𝜌𝑥|𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝑒(|𝑥|/𝜌)𝜎(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|))+𝑑𝛼(𝜌)10|𝑥|2𝑥2𝑖|𝑥|𝑁+2𝐺𝑖𝜌𝑥|𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝑒(|𝑥|/𝜌)𝜎(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|))+𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝑗𝑖10𝑥𝑖𝑥𝑗|𝑥|𝑁+1𝜎𝑗𝜌𝑥|𝐺𝜌𝑥𝑥||𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝑒(|𝑥|/𝜌)𝜎(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|))𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌10|𝑥|2𝑥2𝑖|𝑥|𝑁+1𝜎𝑖𝜌𝑥𝐺𝜌𝑥|𝑥||𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝑒(|𝑥|/𝜌)𝜎(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|))𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌10𝑥𝑖|𝑥|𝑁𝜎𝜌𝑥𝐺|𝑥|𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|),𝑣,𝑣𝜌𝑒(|𝑥|/𝜌)𝜎(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|))𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌(𝑁1)10𝑥𝑖|𝑥|𝑁+1𝐺𝜌𝑥|𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝑒(|𝑥|/𝜌)𝜎(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|))𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌,(2.19) where 𝜎𝑗()=𝜕𝜎𝜕𝑧𝑗(),𝐺𝑗,𝑣,𝑣=𝜕𝐺𝜕𝑧𝑗,𝑣,𝑣.(2.20)
It is easily seen that 𝑒(|𝑥|/𝜌)𝜎(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|))=1(|𝑥|/𝜌)𝜎(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|))𝐵(𝑥,𝜌), where 𝐵(,) is a bounded function.
Therefore, 𝜕𝑁𝜆/𝜕𝑥𝑖 may be decomposed as 𝜕𝑁𝜆𝜕𝑥𝑖𝑥,𝑣,𝑣=𝑗𝑖10𝑥𝑖𝑥𝑗|𝑥|𝑁+2𝐺𝑗𝜌𝑥|𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝑑𝛼(𝜌)+10|𝑥|2𝑥2𝑖|𝑥|𝑁+2𝐺𝑖𝜌𝑥|𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣+𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝑗𝑖10𝑥𝑖𝑥𝑗|𝑥|𝑁+1𝐺𝑗𝜌𝑥|𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝜎𝜌𝑥|𝑥|𝐵(𝑥,𝜌)𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌10|𝑥|2𝑥2𝑖|𝑥|𝑁+1𝐺𝑖𝜌𝑥|𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝜎𝜌𝑥𝐵|𝑥|(𝑥,𝜌)𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌+𝑗𝑖10𝑥𝑖𝑥𝑗|𝑥|𝑁+1𝜎𝑗𝜌𝑥|𝐺𝜌𝑥𝑥||𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝑒(|𝑥|/𝜌)𝜎(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|))𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌10|𝑥|2𝑥2𝑖|𝑥|𝑁+1𝜎𝑖𝜌𝑥|𝐺𝜌𝑥𝑥||𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝑒(|𝑥|/𝜌)𝜎(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|))𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌10𝑥𝑖|𝑥|𝑁𝜎𝜌𝑥𝐺|𝑥|𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|),𝑣,𝑣𝜌𝑒(|𝑥|/𝜌)𝜎(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|))𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌(𝑁1)10𝑥𝑖|𝑥|𝑁+1𝐺𝜌𝑥|𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌+(𝑁1)10𝑥𝑖|𝑥|𝑁𝐺𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|),𝑣,𝑣𝜌𝜎𝜌𝑥|𝑥|𝐵(𝑥,𝜌)𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌.(2.21) Set 𝑆𝑖𝑥,𝑣,𝑣=𝑗𝑖10𝑥𝑖𝑥𝑗|𝑥|2𝐺𝑗𝜌𝑥|𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝑑𝛼(𝜌)+10|𝑥|2𝑥2𝑖|𝑥|2𝐺𝑖𝜌𝑥|𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝑑𝛼(𝜌)(𝑁1)10𝑥𝑖𝐺𝜌𝑥|𝑥||𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌,𝑅𝑖𝑥,𝑣,𝑣=𝑗𝑖10𝑥𝑖𝑥𝑗|𝑥|𝑁+1𝐺𝑗𝜌𝑥|𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝜎𝜌𝑥|𝑥|𝐵(𝑥,𝜌)𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌10|𝑥|2𝑥2𝑖|𝑥|𝑁+1𝐺𝑖𝜌𝑥|𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝜎𝜌𝑥|𝑥|𝐵(𝑥,𝜌)𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌+𝑗𝑖10𝑥𝑖𝑥𝑗|𝑥|𝑁+1𝜎𝑗𝜌𝑥𝐺𝜌𝑥|𝑥||𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝑒(|𝑥|/𝜌)𝜎(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|)𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌10|𝑥|2𝑥2𝑖|𝑥|𝑁+1𝜎𝑖𝜌𝑥𝐺𝜌𝑥|𝑥||𝑥|,𝑣,𝑣𝑒(|𝑥|/𝜌)𝜎(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|)𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌10𝑥𝑖|𝑥|𝑁𝜎𝜌𝑥|𝑥|𝐺(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|),𝑣,𝑣)𝜌𝑒(|𝑥|/𝜌)𝜎(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|))𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌+(𝑁1)10𝑥𝑖|𝑥|𝑁𝐺(𝜌(𝑥/|𝑥|),𝑣,𝑣)𝜌𝜎𝜌𝑥|𝑥|𝐵(𝑥,𝜌)𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌.(2.22)
Now, (2.16) becomes 𝜕𝑁𝜆𝜑𝜕𝑥𝑖,𝜓𝒟,𝒟=lim𝜀0𝑉×𝑉𝑣𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝑑𝜇𝑁𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)𝑑𝑥|𝑥𝑥|𝜖𝑅𝑖𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣𝜑𝑥,𝑣+𝑑𝑥𝑉×𝑉𝑣𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝑑𝜇𝑁𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)𝑑𝑥|𝑥𝑥|𝜖𝑆𝑖𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣𝜑𝑥,𝑣||𝑥𝑥||𝑁𝑑𝑥=𝐽1+𝐽2.(2.23) Clearly, ||𝑅𝑖𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣||𝐶𝐺𝑣,𝑣+𝐺𝑣,𝑣+𝑁𝑗=1𝐺𝑗𝑣,𝑣||𝑥𝑥||𝑁1,(2.24) where 𝐶=10𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌max𝑁𝑗=1𝜎𝑗,𝑁𝐵+1𝜆+𝜎.(2.25) Hence, according to (𝒜2)(𝒜4) and the dominated convergence theorem of Lebesgue 𝐽2=𝐷×𝑉𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝐷×𝑉𝑅𝑖𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣𝜑𝑥,𝑣𝑑𝑥𝑣𝑑𝜇.(2.26) Therefore, using the Hölder inequality and the boundedness of 𝐷, the mapping 𝜓𝐷×𝑉𝑅𝑖𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣𝜓𝑥,𝑣𝑑𝑥𝑣𝑑𝜇(2.27)defines a bounded operator 𝑖(𝐿𝑝(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇)).
Note, parenthetically, that from (2.25) we deduce the second part of the theorem.
Next, to deal with 𝐽1, we first consider the truncated operator 𝒮𝑖,𝜖𝜑|𝑥𝑥|𝜖𝑆𝑖𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣𝜑𝑥,𝑣|𝑥𝑥|𝑁𝑑𝑥forxed𝑣,𝑣.(2.28) It is easily seen that 𝑆𝑖(,𝑣,𝑣) is positively homogeneous of degree 0 and even and satisfies ||𝑆𝑖𝑥,𝑣,𝑣||10𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌(𝑁1)𝐺𝑣,𝑣+𝑁𝑗=1𝐺𝑗𝑣,𝑣.(2.29) So, 𝒮𝑖,𝜖 is a Caldéron-Zygmund operator which converges in 𝐿𝑝, as 𝜀0 to 𝒮𝑖 (see [3, 21]), where 𝒮𝑖𝜑=𝑝𝑣𝑁𝑆𝑖𝑥𝑥,𝑣,𝑣𝜑𝑥,𝑣|𝑥𝑥|𝑁𝑑𝑥.(2.30) Furthermore, the truncated maximal operator 𝒮𝑖 defined by (see [3, 21]) 𝒮𝑖=sup𝜀>0||𝒮𝑖𝜑||(2.31) satisfies 𝒮𝑖𝐿𝑝𝑥(𝑁)𝐶𝑆𝑖,𝑣,𝑣𝐿(𝑆𝑁1)𝜑,𝑣𝐿𝑝𝑥(𝑁).(2.32) By the Hölder inequality and (2.29) ||||𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)𝒮𝑖,𝜀𝜑||||(𝑥,𝑣)𝑑𝑥𝐶(𝑁1)𝐺𝑣,𝑣+𝑁𝑗=1𝐺𝑗𝑣,𝑣|𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)|𝑞1/𝑞𝜑,𝑣𝐿𝑝𝑥(𝑁),(2.33) where 𝑞 is the conjugate of 𝑝, that is, 𝑞=𝑝/(𝑝1). Finally, by the dominated convergence theorem of Lebesque 𝐽2=(𝒮𝑖𝜑,𝜓)𝐿𝑝,𝐿𝑞,𝒮𝑖𝐿𝑝𝑁,×𝑉;𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)(2.34) which amounts to 𝜕𝒩𝜆𝜑𝜕𝑥𝑖,𝜓𝒟,𝒟=𝑖𝜑,𝜓𝐿𝑝,𝐿𝑞+𝒮𝑖𝜑,𝜓𝐿𝑝,𝐿𝑞.(2.35) The density of 𝒟 in 𝐿𝑝(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇) concludes the proof.

Remark 2.3. We note that Theorem 2.2 has already been obtained by [5, Theorem 1] of Mokhtar-Kharroubi when the velocity space is endowed with the Lebesque measure. The choice of an abstract measure is motivated by our desire to give a unified treatment which covers either continuous models (the Lebesque measures on open subsets of 𝑁) or multigroup models (the Lebesque measure on spheres).

3. 𝐻1𝑥 Regularity of the Operator 𝒩𝜆=𝐾1(𝜆𝑇𝑝)1𝐾2 in Periodic Transport

Let us first precise the functional setting of our problem. Let 𝜇 be a positive bounded measure on 𝑉 satisfying the following: 𝑑𝜇isinvariantbysymmetrywithrespecttotheorigin(3.1)ess-sup𝑤𝕊𝑁1𝜇{𝑣𝑉;|𝑣𝑤|𝜖}𝐶𝜖,(3.2) where 𝐶 is a positive constant.

We define the streaming operator 𝑇𝑝 on 𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)) by𝑇𝑝𝜓=𝑣𝜕𝜓𝐷𝑇𝜕𝑥𝜎(𝑣)𝜓,𝑝=𝜓𝑋2;𝜓|𝑥𝑖=0=𝜓|𝑥𝑖=2𝜋,(1𝑖𝑁)(3.3) where 𝐷=(0,2𝜋)𝑁. We expand 𝜓𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)) into the Fourier series with respect to 𝑥:𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑘𝑁𝑓𝑘(𝑣)𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘),(3.4) where 𝑓𝑘(1𝑣)=(2𝜋)𝑛/2𝐷𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘)𝑑𝑥𝐿2(𝑉;𝑑𝜇(𝑣)),𝑘𝑛,(3.5) and by the Parseval formula 𝜓2𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣))=𝑘𝑁𝑉|𝑓𝑘(𝑣)|2𝑑𝜇(𝑣)<.(3.6) By simple computations we have𝒩𝜆𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑘𝑁𝑉𝑓𝑘𝑣𝑣𝑑𝜇𝑉𝐺𝑣,𝑣,𝑣𝜎(𝑣)+𝑖(𝑣𝑣𝑘)𝑑𝜇𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘).(3.7) The regularity result of 𝒩𝜆 is obtained under the following two weaker assumptions: (𝒜7)𝜎(𝑣)=𝜎(𝑣),𝑑𝜇(𝑣)a.e.,𝜎𝐿(𝑉;𝑑𝜇(𝑣)),(3.8)(𝒜8)𝐺𝑧,𝑣,𝑣=𝐺𝑧,𝑣,𝑣,𝐺,𝑑𝜇(𝑣)a.e.𝑣,𝑣=ess-sup𝑧𝑉||𝐺𝑧,𝑣,𝑣||𝐿2(𝑉×𝑉;𝑑𝜇𝑑𝜇),(3.9)

where 𝐺 is defined by (2.2). The following lemma will play a crucial role in the proof of the main result.

Lemma 3.1. Let 𝑘𝑁 such that 𝑘(0,,0). Then, 𝑉𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝜆+𝜆2+(𝑣𝑘)2𝐶0||𝑘||,(3.10) where 𝐶0 is a positive constant.

Proof. We write 𝑉𝑑𝜇(𝑣)(𝜆+𝜆)2+(𝑣𝑘)2=|𝑣(𝑘/|𝑘|)|<𝛼𝑑𝜇(𝑣)(𝜆+𝜆)2+(𝑣𝑘)2+|𝑣(𝑘/|𝑘|)|𝛼𝑑𝜇(𝑣)(𝜆+𝜆)2+(𝑣𝑘)2,(3.11) where 𝛼<1 is to be chosen later. It is clear that |𝑣(𝑘/|𝑘|)|<𝛼𝑑𝜇(𝑣)(𝜆+𝜆)2+(𝑣𝑘)21(𝜆+𝜆)2𝜇||||𝑘𝑣𝑉,𝑣||𝑘||||||<𝛼𝐶𝛼(𝜆+𝜆)2.(3.12) Now, let 𝛽 be the image of 𝜇 under the orthogonal projection on the direction 𝑘/|𝑘|. Hence, |𝑣(𝑘/|𝑘|)|𝛼𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝜆+𝜆2+(𝑣𝑘)2=1𝛼𝑑𝛽(𝑡)𝜆+𝜆2+||𝑘||2𝑡2=1||𝑘||21𝛼||𝑘||2𝑡2𝜆+𝜆2+||𝑘||2𝑡2𝑑𝛽(𝑡)𝑡21||𝑘||21𝛼𝑑𝛽(𝑡)𝑡2.(3.13) Let 𝜁(𝑡)=𝑡𝛼𝑑𝛽(𝑠) for 𝑡>𝛼. An integration by parts yields 1𝛼𝑑𝛽(𝑡)𝑡2=𝜁(𝑡)𝑡21𝛼+21𝛼𝜁(𝑡)𝑡3𝑑𝑡.(3.14) Since 𝜁(𝑡)=𝛽([𝛼,𝑡])𝛽([𝑡,𝑡])𝐶𝑡 by (3.2), it follows that 1𝛼𝑑𝛽(𝑡)𝑡2𝐶+2𝐶𝛼2𝐶2𝐶𝛼.(3.15) By choosing 𝛼=𝜀/|𝑘| with 𝜀<1, we obtain 𝑉𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝜆+𝜆2+(𝑣𝑘)2𝐶0||𝑘||,(3.16) where 𝐶0 is a positive constant. This achieves the proof of the lemma.

Theorem 3.2. Under assumptions (𝒜7)(𝒜8), the operator 𝒩𝜆(𝜆>𝜆) maps continuously 𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)) into 𝐻1𝑥(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)), where 𝐻1𝑥(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣))=𝜓𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)),𝜕𝜓𝜕𝑥𝑖𝐿2(𝑑x𝑑𝜇(𝑣)),for1𝑖𝑁.(3.17) Moreover, 𝒩𝜆(𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣));𝐻1𝑥(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣))) is locally bounded with respect to 𝜆>𝜆.

Proof. Let 𝜓𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)). We recall that 𝒩𝜆𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑘𝑁𝑉𝑓𝑘𝑣𝑣𝑑𝜇𝑉𝐺𝑣,𝑣,𝑣𝜎(𝑣)+𝑖(𝑣𝑣𝑘)𝑑𝜇𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘).(3.18) Since 𝑉𝐺𝑣,𝑣,𝑣𝜎(𝑣)+𝑖(𝑣𝑣𝑘)𝑑𝜇=𝑉𝜎𝑣𝐺𝑣,𝑣,𝑣𝜎(𝑣)2+(𝑣𝑘)2𝑣𝑑𝜇𝑖𝑉𝑣𝐺𝑣𝑘,𝑣,𝑣𝜎(𝑣)2+(𝑣𝑘)2𝑣𝑑𝜇,(3.19) and thanks to the evenness of 𝜎(),𝐺(,𝑣,𝑣) together with the fact that 𝑑𝜇 is invariant by symmetry with respect to the origin, the last integral vanishes. Therefore, 𝒩𝜆𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑘𝑁𝑉𝑓𝑘𝑣𝑣𝑑𝜇𝑉𝜎𝑣𝐺𝑣,𝑣,𝑣𝜎(𝑣)2+(𝑣𝑘)2𝑣𝑑𝜇𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘),(3.20) and consequently 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑗𝒩𝜆𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑘𝑁𝑖𝑘𝑗𝑉𝑓𝑘𝑣𝑣𝑑𝜇𝑉𝜎𝑣𝐺𝑣,𝑣,𝑣𝜎(𝑣)2+(𝑣𝑘)2𝑣𝑑𝜇𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘).(3.21) Now, (𝒜8) and Lemma 3.1 lead to ||||𝑉𝜎𝑣𝐺𝑣,𝑣,𝑣𝜎(𝑣)2+(𝑣𝑘)2𝑣𝑑𝜇||||𝜆+𝜎𝐺𝑣,𝑣𝑉𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝜆+𝜆2+(𝑣𝑘)2𝐶0𝜆+𝜎𝐺𝑣,𝑣||𝑘||.(3.22) By the Hölder inequality, we obtain ||||𝑘𝑗𝑉𝑓𝑘𝑣𝑣𝑑𝜇𝑉𝜎𝑣𝐺𝑣,𝑣,𝑣𝜎(𝑣)2+(𝑣𝑘)2𝑣𝑑𝜇||||𝐶0𝜆+𝜎𝑉||𝑓𝑘𝑣||2𝑣𝑑𝜇1/2𝑉𝐺𝑣,𝑣2𝑣𝑑𝜇1/2(3.23) and by the Parseval formula 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑖𝒩𝜆𝜓𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣))𝐶0𝜆+𝜎𝐺𝐿2(𝑉×𝑉)𝜓𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)).(3.24) This ends the proof of the theorem.

Remark 3.3. The measure 𝑑𝜇(𝑣)=𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝑑𝑆(𝑤), with 10(𝑑𝛼(𝜌)/𝜌)<+, satisfies (3.2). Thus, it covers the continuous models as well as the multigroup models in periodic Transport.

4. 𝐻1 Regularity of the Operator 𝜆=𝐾(𝜆𝑇𝑝)1

Our notations and assumptions on 𝑑𝜇 are the same as in the preceding section. Let 𝑘(,) be a measurable function on 𝑉×𝑉 such that 𝐾𝜑𝑉𝑘,𝑣𝜑𝑣𝑣𝑑𝜇𝐿2(.𝑉;𝑑𝜇(𝑣))(4.1)

It is announced without proof, in [10], that 𝜆 maps continuously 𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)) into 𝐻1/2, where 𝑑𝜇 is the Lebesgue measure and 𝑘(,)=1. We propose a proof for this result (see Theorem 4.1) for a class of measures 𝑑𝜇 satisfying (3.2). The proof is inspired from [9] but is not a consequence of the results of [9] because the traces of 𝜓𝐷(𝑇𝑝) do not lie in 𝐿2(𝜕𝐷×𝑉;|𝑣𝑛(𝑥)|𝑑𝜎(𝑥)𝑑𝜇(𝑣)), but in a certain greatest weighted 𝐿2 space (see [1, 2, 4] for details).

We define 𝜑1/2=(2𝜋)𝑁/2𝑘𝑁||𝑓𝑘||2||𝑘||1+21/21/2,(4.2) where 𝜑(𝑥)=𝑘𝑁𝑓𝑘𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘)𝐿2(𝐷).(4.3)

Theorem 4.1. Assume that 𝑘(,)=1. Then, for any 𝜆>𝜆, the operator 𝜆 maps continuously 𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)) into 𝐻1/2(𝐷).

Proof. Let 𝜓𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)). We expand 𝜓 into the Fourier series: 𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑘𝑁𝑓𝑘(𝑣)𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘).(4.4) We have 𝐾𝜆𝑇𝑝1𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑘𝑁𝑉𝑓𝑘(𝑣)𝑒𝜎(𝑣)+𝑖(𝑣𝑘)𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝑖(𝑥𝑘).(4.5) By the Hölder inequality and Lemma 3.1||𝑘||1+21/2||||𝑉𝑓𝑘(𝑣)||||𝜎(𝑣)+𝑖(𝑣𝑘)𝑑𝜇(𝑣)2||𝑘||1+21/2𝑉||𝑓𝑘||(𝑣)2𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝑉𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝜆+𝜆2+(𝑣𝑘)2𝐶0||𝑘||1+21/2||𝑘||𝑉||𝑓𝑘||(𝑣)2𝑑𝜇(𝑣).(4.6) The proof is achieved by the Parseval formula and the boundedness of (1+|𝑘|2)1/2/|𝑘|.

Remark 4.2. Assumption (3.1) is unnecessary in the proof of Theorem 4.1 but it plays a key role in the following theorem.

Now, we are going to prove the 𝐻1 regularity of 𝜆 when restricted to a subspace of 𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇) consisting of even source term.

Theorem 4.3. Let (𝒜7) be satisfied. In addition, suppose that (𝒜9)𝑘𝑣,𝑣=𝑘𝑣,𝑣,𝑑𝜇(𝑣)a.e.,ess-sup𝑣𝑉||𝑘,𝑣||=𝑘()𝐿2(𝑉;𝑑𝜇(𝑣)).(4.7)Then, for any 𝜆>𝜆, the operator 𝜆 maps continuously 𝒪 into 𝐻1𝑥(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)), where 𝒪=𝜓𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(v)),𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝜓(𝑥,𝑣),sup𝑣𝑉||𝑓𝑘||(𝑣)𝑘𝑁𝑙2(4.8) and 𝑓𝑘()=(1/(2𝜋)𝑁)𝐷𝜓(𝑥,)𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘)𝑑𝑥.
Moreover, 𝜆(𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣));𝐻1𝑥(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣))) is locally bounded with respect to 𝜆>𝜆.

Proof. We proceed as in the proof of Theorem 3.2. We expand 𝜓𝒪 into the Fourier series: 𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑘𝑁𝑓𝑘(𝑣)𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘).(4.9) We have 𝐾𝜆𝑇𝑝1𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑘𝑁𝑉𝑘𝑣,𝑣𝑓𝑘𝑣𝜎(𝑣)+𝑖(𝑣𝑣𝑘)𝑑𝜇𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘).(4.10) According to (𝒜7) and (𝒜9)𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑗𝜆𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑘𝑁𝑖𝑘𝑗𝑉𝜎𝑣𝑘𝑣,𝑣𝑓𝑘𝑣𝜎(𝑣)2+(𝑣𝑘)2𝑣𝑑𝜇𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘).(4.11) The use of Lemma 3.1 gives ||||𝑘𝑗𝑉𝜎𝑣𝑘𝑣,𝑣𝑓𝑘𝑣𝜎(𝑣)2+(𝑣𝑘)2𝑣𝑑𝜇||||||𝑘𝑗||𝜆+𝜎𝑘(𝑣)sup𝑣𝑉||𝑓𝑘||×(𝑣)𝑉𝑣𝑑𝜇(𝜆+𝜆)2+(𝑣𝑘)2𝐶0𝜆+𝜎𝑘(𝑣)sup𝑣𝑉||𝑓𝑘(||.𝑣)(4.12) Since (sup𝑣𝑉|𝑓𝑘(𝑣)|)𝑘𝑁𝑙2, we deduce from the Parseval formula that (𝜕/𝜕𝑥𝑗)𝜆𝜓𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)), which concludes the proof.

Remark 4.4. Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 3.1, one sees that 𝑉𝑣𝑑𝜇𝜆+𝜆2+(𝑣𝑘)22𝐶0||𝑘||,(4.13) where 𝐶0 is a positive constant. So, by the Hölder inequality Theorem 4.3 is still true if we replace 𝒪 by 𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑗𝐽,𝐽isnite𝜓𝑗(𝑥)𝜑𝑗(𝑣),𝜓𝑗𝐿2(𝑑𝑥),𝜑𝑗𝐿(𝑑𝜇)and𝜑𝑗(𝑣)=𝜑𝑗.(𝑣)𝑑𝜇a.e.(4.14) which is of interest for neutron transport approximations.
The subspace 𝒪 can be also replaced by 𝜓𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇(𝑣)),𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)and𝑘𝑁||𝑘||1+21/2𝑣𝑉|𝑓𝑘(𝑣)|2𝑑𝜇<,(4.15) where 𝑓𝑘()=(1/2𝜋𝑁)𝐷𝜓(𝑥,)𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘)𝑑𝑥.

5. 𝐻2 Regularity of the Operator 𝜆=𝐾(𝜆𝑇𝑝)1

In this section we focus our attention on the smoothing effect of the velocity averages (𝐻2) under some particular assumptions on the abstract measure 𝑑𝜇. For technical reasons, we treat separately the cases 𝑁=1 and 𝑁>1.

5.1. 𝐻2𝑥 of Regularity 𝜆 in One Dimension

Let 𝑑𝛼 be a bounded measure (not necessarily positive) on (1,1) satisfying the following assumptions: (𝒜10)d𝛼isinvariantbysymmetrywithrespecttozero,(5.1)(𝒜11)10𝑑|𝛼|(𝜇)𝜇2<,(5.2)

where 𝑑|𝛼| is the absolute value of the measure 𝑑𝛼, (𝒜12)𝜎𝐿((1,1);𝑑|𝛼|),𝜎iseven𝑑|𝛼|a.e.(5.3)

Let 𝑘(,) be a 𝑑|𝛼| measurable function such that (𝒜13)𝑘,𝜇=𝑘,𝜇𝑑|𝛼|a.e.,𝑑|𝛼|ess-sup𝜇(1,1)||𝑘,𝜇||=𝑘()𝐿2((1,1);𝑑|𝛼|).(5.4)

Let us introduce the following subspace of 𝐿2((0,2𝜋)×(1,1);𝑑𝑥(𝑑|𝛼|/𝜇2)): 𝒪=𝜓𝐿2(0,2𝜋)×(1,1);𝑑𝑥𝑑|𝛼|𝜇2,𝜓(,𝜇)=𝜓(,𝜇)𝑑|𝛼|a.e..(5.5) Then, we have the following.

Theorem 5.1. Let assumptions (𝒜10)(𝒜13) be satisfied. Then, for any operator 𝜆>𝜆=𝑑|𝛼|ess-inf𝜎() the operator 𝜆 maps continuously 𝒪 into 𝐻2𝑥(𝑑𝑥𝑑|𝛼|)=𝜓𝐿2𝜕(𝑑𝑥𝑑|𝛼|),2𝜓𝜕𝑥2𝐿2.(𝑑𝑥𝑑|𝛼|)(5.6) Moreover, 𝜆(𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑|𝛼|(𝜇)/𝜇2));𝐻2𝑥(𝑑𝑥𝑑|𝛼|)) is locally bounded with respect to 𝜆>𝜆.

Proof. For 𝒪𝜓 we have 𝐾𝜆𝑇𝑝1𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑘11𝑘𝜇,𝜇𝑓𝑘𝜇𝜆+𝜎(𝜇)+𝑖𝜇𝑘𝜇𝑑𝛼𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑘.(5.7) Thus, 𝜕2𝜆𝜓𝜕𝑥2(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑘𝑘211𝜇𝜆+𝜎𝑘𝜇,𝜇𝑓𝑘𝜇𝜆+𝜎(𝜇)+𝑖𝜇𝑘𝜇𝑑𝛼𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑘=𝑘𝑘211𝜇𝜆+𝜎𝑘𝜇,𝜇𝑓𝑘𝜇(𝜆+𝜎(𝜇))2+𝜇2𝑘2𝜇𝑑𝛼+𝑖𝑘11𝜇𝑘𝜇,𝜇𝑓𝑘𝜇(𝜆+𝜎(𝜇))2+𝜇2𝑘2𝜇𝑑𝛼𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑘.(5.8) Note that the last integral of (5.8) vanishes because its integrand is odd, in view of assumptions (𝒜10),(𝒜12)(𝒜13) and the evenness of 𝑓𝑘(). Now, using the Hölder inequality together with assumption (𝒜10), we obtain 𝑘2||||11𝑘𝜇,𝜇𝑓𝑘𝜇𝜆+𝜎(𝜇)+𝑖𝜇𝑘𝜇𝑑𝛼||||2𝜆+𝜎𝐿(𝑑|𝛼|)𝑘(𝜇)10𝑘2𝜇2(𝜆+𝜎(𝜇))2+𝜇2𝑘2||𝑓𝑘||𝑑(𝜇)|𝛼|(𝜇)𝜇22𝜆+𝜎𝐿(𝑑|𝛼|)𝑘(𝜇)10𝑑|𝛼|(𝜇)𝜇21/210||𝑓𝑘||(𝜇)2𝑑|𝛼|(𝜇)𝜇21/2.(5.9) Next, since 𝑘()𝐿2((1,1);𝑑|𝛼|) and 𝑘10|𝑓𝑘(𝜇)|2(𝑑|𝛼|(𝜇)/𝜇2)<, it follows from the Parseval formula that 𝜕2𝜆𝜓𝜕𝑥2𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑|𝛼|)𝐶𝜓𝐿2(𝑑𝑥(𝑑|𝛼|/𝜇2)),(5.10) where 𝐶=2𝜆+𝜎𝐿(𝑑|𝛼|)𝑘𝐿2(𝑑|𝛼|)10𝑑|𝛼|(𝜇)𝜇21/2(5.11) is locally bounded in 𝜆>𝜆, and the proof is complete.

5.2. 𝐻2 Regularity of 𝜆=𝑀(𝜆𝑇𝑝)1(𝑁>1)

Let 𝑑𝜇(𝑣)=𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝑑𝑆(𝑤), where 𝑑𝑆(𝑤) is the Lebesgue measure on 𝕊𝑁1 and 𝑑𝛼 is a signed measure on [0,1] satisfying the following conditions: (𝒜14)10𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌=0,(5.12)(𝒜15)10𝑑|𝛼|(𝜌)𝜌2<.(5.13)

The more technical assumption (𝒜14) plays a key role for our analysis. In the sequel, we show the optimality of this assumption. We need also the following assumption: (𝒜16)𝜎(𝑣)=𝜎(|𝑣|),𝜎()𝑊1,([]0,1).(5.14)

Theorem 5.2. Let the hypotheses (𝒜14)(𝒜16) be satisfied. Then, for any 𝜆>𝜆=𝑑|𝛼|ess-inf𝜎(), the operator 𝜆=𝑀(𝜆𝑇𝑝)1 maps continuously 𝐿2(𝐷) into 𝐻2(𝐷), where 𝑀𝜑𝐿2(𝑑𝑥𝑑𝜇)𝑉𝜑(𝑥,𝑣)𝑑𝜇(𝑣)𝐿2(𝐷),(5.15) is the averaging operator.

Proof. Let 𝜓𝐿2(𝐷). We use the Fourier series of 𝜓(𝑥)=𝑘𝑁𝑓𝑘𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘). We recall that 𝜆𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑘𝑁𝑓𝑘10𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝕊𝑁1𝑑𝑆(𝑤)𝑒𝜎(𝜌)+𝑖𝜌(𝑤𝑘)𝑖(𝑥𝑘),(5.16) where 𝜎(𝜌)=𝜆+𝜎(𝜌).
Let us recall [22] that for all fixed 𝑤0𝒮𝑁1𝑆𝑁1𝑓𝑤𝑤0||𝑆𝑑𝑆(𝑤)=𝑁2||11𝑓(𝑡)1𝑡2(𝑁3)/2𝑑𝑡.(5.17) Accordingly, 𝜆𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝑓0||𝑆𝑁1||10𝑑𝛼(𝜌)||𝑆𝜎(𝜌)+2𝑁2||𝑘0𝑓𝑘10𝑑𝛼(𝜌)101𝑡2(𝑁3)/2𝜎(𝜌)𝜎(𝜌)2+𝜌2||𝑘||2𝑡2𝑒𝑑𝑡𝑖(𝑥𝑘).(5.18) Set 𝐹0=𝑓0||𝑆𝑁1||10𝑑𝛼(𝜌).𝜎(𝜌)(5.19) We give the proof for 𝑁>3 (the other cases are similar).
An integration by parts with respect to 𝑡 yields 𝜆𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝐹0||𝑆+2(𝑁3)𝑁2||×𝑘0𝑓𝑘||𝑘||10𝑡1𝑡2(𝑁5)/2𝑑𝑡10𝜌||𝑘||𝑡arctan𝜎(𝜌)𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘).(5.20) Thanks to (𝒜14), (5.20) becomes 𝜆𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝐹0||𝑆2(𝑁3)𝑁2||×𝑘0𝑓𝑘||𝑘||10𝑡(1𝑡2)(𝑁5)/2𝑑𝑡10arctan𝜎(𝜌)𝜌||𝑘||𝑡𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘)||𝑆+2𝜋(𝑁3)𝑁2||10𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌10𝑡(1𝑡2)(𝑁5)/2𝑑𝑡𝑘0𝑓𝑘||𝑘||𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘)=𝐹0||𝑆2(𝑁3)𝑁2||×𝑘0𝑓𝑘||𝑘||10𝑡(1𝑡2)(𝑁5)/2𝑑𝑡10arctan𝜎(𝜌)𝜌||𝑘||𝑡𝑑𝛼(𝜌)𝜌𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘).(5.21) Set 𝑃(𝜌)=𝜌0𝑑𝛼(𝑠)𝑠.(5.22) An integration by parts for the Stieltjes measures yields 10arctan𝜎(𝜌)𝜌||𝑘||𝑡1𝑑𝑃(𝜌)=||𝑘||𝑡10𝑃(𝜌)𝜎(𝜌)𝜌𝜌2|𝑘|2𝑡2𝜎(𝜌)2+𝜌2|𝑘|2𝑡2+𝑑𝜌𝑃(𝜌)arctan𝜎(𝜌)𝜌||𝑘||𝑡𝜌=1𝜌=0.(5.23) Now, thanks to (𝒜14), the last term of (5.23) vanishes. Set 𝑍(𝜌)=𝑃(𝜌)𝜎(𝜌)𝜌.(5.24) Accordingly, (5.20) becomes 𝜆𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=𝐹0||𝑆+2(𝑁3)𝑁2||𝑘0𝑓𝑘||𝑘||2𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘)×101𝑡2(𝑁5)/2𝑑𝑡10𝜌𝑍(𝜌)2||𝑘||2𝑡2𝜎(𝜌)2+𝜌2||𝑘||2𝑡2.𝑑𝜌(5.25) Consequently, 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑖𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑗𝜆||𝑆𝜓(𝑥,𝑣)=2(𝑁3)𝑁2||𝑘0𝑘𝑖𝑘𝑗||𝑘||2𝑓𝑘𝑒𝑖(𝑥𝑘)×101𝑡2(𝑁5)/2𝑑𝑡10𝜌𝑍(𝜌)2||𝑘||2𝑡2𝜎(𝜌)2+𝜌2||𝑘||2𝑡2.𝑑𝜌(5.26) Since ||𝑆2(𝑁3)𝑁2|||||||𝑘𝑖𝑘𝑗||𝑘||2101𝑡2(𝑁5)/2𝑑𝑡10𝜌𝑍(𝜌)2||𝑘||2𝑡2𝜎(𝜌)2+𝜌2||𝑘||2𝑡2|||||||𝑆𝑑𝜌(𝑁2)𝑁2||𝜆+𝜎10𝑑|𝛼|(𝜌)𝜌2,(5.27) we deduce from the Parseval formula that (𝜕/𝜕𝑥𝑖)(𝜕/𝜕𝑥𝑗)(𝜆𝜓)𝐿2(𝐷). This achieves the proof.

Remark 5.3. (1) Expression (5.21) shows the optimality of assumption (𝒜14) because (|𝑘|𝑓𝑘)𝑘𝑁 is not necessary in 𝑙2.
(2) Note that in [19, 20] the use of velocity averages in the context of inverse problems has been studied. The problems consist in the explicit determination of the spatial parts of internal sources from two suitable moments (velocity averages) of the solution of integro-differential transport equations for classical vacuum boundary conditions (see [19]) or periodic boundary conditions (see [20]) by means of appropriate signed measures.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Professor M. Mokhtar-Kharroubi for suggesting these problems and for many helpful comments. He also expresses his acknowledgment to the referees for their valuable suggestions that improved the original paper.