
Left: A free standing tree with 5 branches. In this example,
A model of irrigation network, where lower branches must be thicker in order to support the weight of the higher ones, was recently introduced in [
Citation: Qing Sun. Irrigable measures for weighted irrigation plans[J]. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2021, 16(3): 493-511. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2021014
[1] | Qing Sun . Irrigable measures for weighted irrigation plans. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2021, 16(3): 493-511. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2021014 |
[2] | Xin Yang Lu . Regularity of densities in relaxed and penalized average distance problem. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2015, 10(4): 837-855. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2015.10.837 |
[3] | Rudy R. Negenborn, Peter-Jules van Overloop, Tamás Keviczky, Bart De Schutter . Distributed model predictive control of irrigation canals. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2009, 4(2): 359-380. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2009.4.359 |
[4] | Didier Georges . Infinite-dimensional nonlinear predictive control design for open-channel hydraulic systems. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2009, 4(2): 267-285. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2009.4.267 |
[5] | Thibault Liard, Raphael Stern, Maria Laura Delle Monache . A PDE-ODE model for traffic control with autonomous vehicles. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(3): 1190-1206. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023051 |
[6] | Ling Zhang, Xuewen Tan, Jia Li, Fan Yang . Dynamic analysis and optimal control of leptospirosis based on Caputo fractional derivative. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2024, 19(3): 1262-1285. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2024054 |
[7] | Vincent Renault, Michèle Thieullen, Emmanuel Trélat . Optimal control of infinite-dimensional piecewise deterministic Markov processes and application to the control of neuronal dynamics via Optogenetics. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2017, 12(3): 417-459. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2017019 |
[8] | Xiaoqian Gong, Benedetto Piccoli . A measure model for the spread of viral infections with mutations. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2022, 17(3): 427-442. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2022015 |
[9] | João M. Lemos, Fernando Machado, Nuno Nogueira, Luís Rato, Manuel Rijo . Adaptive and non-adaptive model predictive control of an irrigation channel. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2009, 4(2): 303-324. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2009.4.303 |
[10] | Wen Dong, Dongling Wang . Mittag-Leffler stability of numerical solutions to linear homogeneous time fractional parabolic equations. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(3): 946-956. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023041 |
A model of irrigation network, where lower branches must be thicker in order to support the weight of the higher ones, was recently introduced in [
In a ramified transport network [1, 2, 14, 15, 16, 17], the Gilbert transport cost along each arc is computed by
[length]×[flux]α | (1) |
for some given
In the recent paper [7], the authors considered an irrigation plan where the cost per unit length is determined by a weight function
In this model, the weights are constructed inductively, starting from the outermost branches and proceeding toward the root. Along each branch, the weight
W(s)=∫ℓsf(W(σ))dσ+m(s), | (2) |
where
f(0)=0,f′(z)>0,f″(z)≤0∀z>0. | (3) |
The main result in [7] established the lower semicontinuity of the weighted irrigation cost, w.r.t. the pointwise convergence of irrigation plans. In particular, for any positive, bounded Radon measure
The goal of the present paper is to understand whether a given Radon measure
As shown by our analysis, in the presence of weights the irrigability of a measure
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the construction of the weight functions on the various branches of an irrigation plan. In Section 3 we prove our main results on the irrigability of Radon measures.
To illustrate the basic idea of the weighted irrigation model, we first consider a network with finitely many branches. As shown on the left of Fig. 1, each directed branch will be denoted by
On each branch
Call
O(i)={j∈{1,…,N};γj(aj)=Pi}. | (4) |
Moreover, consider the sets of indices inductively defined by
I1≐{i∈{1,…,N};O(i)=∅},Ik+1≐{i∈{1,…,N};O(i)⊆I1∪⋯∪Ik}∖(I1∪⋯∪Ik). | (5) |
From [7] the weight function
ω(t)=∫bitf(ω(s))ds+mi(t),t∈]ai,bi], | (6) |
where
For
ω(t)=∫bitf(ω(s))ds+mi(t)+¯ωi,t∈]ai,bi], | (7) |
where
¯ωi≐∑j∈O(i)Wj(a+j)−∑j∈O(i)mj(a+j). | (8) |
Following Maddalena, Morel, and Solimini [15], the transport network for general Radon measure can be described in a Lagrangian way. Let
χ:Θ×R+↦Rd, |
measurable w.r.t.
● All particles initially lie at the origin:
● For a.e.
{|χ(θ,t)−χ(θ,s)|≤|t−s|for allt,s≥0,χ(θ,t)=χ(θ,τ(θ))for everyt≥τ(θ). |
Throughout the following,
●
μ(V)=meas({θ∈Θ;χ(θ,τ(θ))∈V}). |
One can think of
To define the flux on
Definition 2.1. We say that two 1-Lipschitz maps
σ↦γ(s(σ)),where∫s(σ)0|˙γ(t)|dt=σ, |
then two 1-Lipschitz maps are equivalent means their arc-length re-parametrizations coincide.
Throughout the following, we denote by
Definition 2.2. Let
s↦χ(θ,s),s∈[0,t]ands↦χ(θ′,s),s∈[0,t′] |
are equivalent in the sense of Definition 2.1.
The multiplicity at
m(θ,t)≐meas({θ′∈Θ;(θ′,t′)∼(θ,t)for somet′>0}). | (9) |
Given an irrigation plan
Given a bounded Radon measure
Definition 2.3. Given an irrigation plan
meas({θ∈Θ;χ(θ,⋅)|[0,t]≃γfor somet=t(θ)>0})≥ε, | (10) |
where the equivalence relation
In other words,
For any given
τε(θ)≐max{t≥0;m(θ,t)≥ε}. | (11) |
Define the
χε(θ,t)≐{χ(θ,t) if t<τε(θ)χ(θ,τε(θ)) if t≥τε(θ) | (12) |
In other words, in the
Notice that the family of all curves parameterized by arc-length comes with a natural partial order. Namely, given two maps
For a fixed
ˆmi(s)≐meas({θ∈Θ;thereexistst≥0suchthatχ(θ,⋅)|[0,t]≃ˆγi|[0,s]}). | (13) |
Since two maximal paths may coincide on the initial portion and bifurcate later, we consider the bifurcation times
τij=τji≐max{t≥0;ˆγi(s)=ˆγj(s)∀s∈[0,t]}. | (14) |
For each maximal path
{τi1,…,τiν}={ti,1,…,ti,N(i)}, |
where the times
0=ti,0<ti,1<ti,2<⋯<ti,N(i)<ˆℓi | (15) |
provide an increasing arrangement of the set of times
mi,k(t)=ˆmi(t),t∈[ti,k−1,ti,k]. | (16) |
If
γi:[ai,bi]↦Rd,mi:[ai,bi]↦R+,i=1,…,N | (17) |
where
On these elementary branches
On each maximal
ˆWi(t)=ˆWi,k(t)ift∈[ti,k−1,ti,k]. | (18) |
Next, on the
Wε(θ,t)≐{ˆWi(s)ift≤τε(θ),χ(θ,⋅)|[0,t]≃ˆγi|[0,s],0ift>τε(θ). | (19) |
As proved in [7], the map
Definition 2.4. Let
W(θ,t)≐supε>0Wε(θ,t). | (20) |
Once we computed the weight functions on the irrigation plan
Definition 2.5. Let
EW,α(χ)≐∫M0∫τ(θ)0(W(θ,t))αm(θ,t)|˙χ(θ,t)|dtdθ. | (21) |
In the special case where
EW,α(χ)=N∑i=1∫biai[Wi(s)]αds, | (22) |
where
In this section we recall the main theorems on the lower semicontinuity of weighted irrigation cost, proved in [7]. Given a sequence of irrigation plans
limn→∞‖χn(θ,⋅)−χ(θ,⋅)‖L∞([0,κ])=0. | (23) |
Theorem 2.6. Let
EW,α(χ)≤lim infn→∞EW,α(χn). | (24) |
Given a positive, bounded Radon measure
IW,α(μ)≐infχEW,α(χ), | (25) |
where the infimum is taken over all irrigation plans for the measure
The next result states the lower semicontinuity of the weighted irrigation cost, w.r.t. weak convergence of measures. For a proof, see Theorem 6.2 in [7].
Theorem 2.7. Let
IW,α(μ)≤lim infn→∞IW,α(μn). | (26) |
When
Here is a formal computation in this direction. It is obtained by modifying the estimates at p. 113 of [1].
Let
#Pj≤C2jd |
We can define a map
|x−γj(x)|≤3⋅2−j |
for every
Consider a probability measure
Eα(Pn,Pn−1)≤[number of arcs]×[flow]α×[length]≤C2nd⋅(1C2nd)α⋅3⋅2−n=3C1−α⋅(2αd−d+1)−n. | (27) |
Notice that we are here considering the worst possible case, where we have the largest number of arcs and all arcs carry equal flow.
Summing over
Eα≤3C1−α⋅n∑j=1(2αd−d+1)−j≤3C1−α2αd−d+1−1. | (28) |
The series
(d−1)−αd<0,henceα>1−1d |
To understand what happens in the case where weights are present, we first make an explicit computation in the case of a dyadic irrigation plan [1, 16]. More precisely, as shown in Fig. 3, we now assume
For each
μn≐∑xni∈Pnmniδxni, | (29) |
where
ˆQni≐Qni∖⋃j<iQnj,mni≐μ(ˆQni),∀1≤i≤2nd. |
It is not hard to show that
● First, move the particles from the origin (center of
● By induction, at the level
Since the dyadic measure
For example, in the case
The dyadic irrigation plans in
Given an irrigation plan with finite branches as in Section 2.1, consider the case
Wi(s)=(¯W1−βi+c(1−β)(ℓi−s))11−β,¯Wi=mi+∑j∈O(i)(¯W1−βj+c(1−β)ℓj)11−β. | (30) |
If
The following two lemmas proved that under suitable conditions, the weighted irrigation costs of the dyadic irrigation plans
To fix the ideas, we first consider the case that
Lemma 3.1. Suppose
Wn≤C,EW,α(χn)≤C. | (31) |
Proof. For the dyadic irrigation plan
1. From
By formula (30), for
Wnn(s)=((12nd)1−β+c(1−β)(√d2n+1−s))11−β, | (32) |
Wnn(0)=((12nd)1−β+c(1−β)√d2n+1)11−β. | (33) |
2. From
¯Wnn−1=2dWnn(0)=2d((12nd)1−β+c(1−β)√d2n+1)11−β. | (34) |
Each branch between
Wnn−1(s)=(2d(1−β)[(12nd)1−β+c(1−β)√d2n+1]+c(1−β)(√d2n−s))11−β, | (35) |
Wnn−1(0)=((12(n−1)d)1−β+c(1−β)[√d2n+1−d(1−β)+√d2n])11−β. | (36) |
3. From
Wnn−k(s)=((12(n−k)d)1−β+c(1−β)√d2n+1k∑j=12(k−j)+jd(1−β)+c(1−β)(√d2n+1−k−s))11−β, | (37) |
Wnn−k(0)=((12(n−k)d)1−β+c(1−β)√d2n+1k∑j=02(k−j)+jd(1−β))11−β=((12(n−k)d)1−β+c(1−β)√d2n+1−kk∑j=012[1−d(1−β)]j)11−β. | (38) |
4. Since
Wnn−k(0)≤((12(n−k)d)1−β+c(1−β)√d2n+1−k⋅11−(12)1−d(1−β))11−β. | (39) |
Therefore, we have an uniform bound for the weight function
Wn≤(1+c(1−β)√d1−(12)1−d(1−β))11−β, | (40) |
which is independent of
5. We now estimate the irrigation cost
Enn=2nd∫√d2n+10((12nd)1−β+c(1−β)(√d2n+1−s))α1−βds=2ndc(1+α−β)([(12nd)1−β+c(1−β)√d2n+1]1+α−β1−β−[(12nd)1−β]1+α−β1−β). | (41) |
Similarly, denote
Enn−k=2(n−k)d∫√d2n+1−k0((¯Wnn−k)1−β+c(1−β)(√d2n+1−k−s))α1−βds | (42) |
In the following, we use the same
(¯Wnn−k)1−β+c(1−β)√d2n+1−k≤C2(n−k)(1−β)d. | (43) |
Consider
g(x,y)≐(x+y)1+α−β1−β−x1+α−β1−β,x+y≤C2(n−k)(1−β)d | (44) |
then, by a first order Taylor expansion,
g(x,y)≤1+α−β1−β(C2(n−k)(1−β)d)α1−β⋅y≤Cy2(n−k)αd | (45) |
Applying (43) and (45) in (42), we obtain
Enn−k≤2(n−k)dC2(n−k)(αd+1)=C2(n−k)[(α−1)d+1]. | (46) |
When
EW,α(χn)=n−1∑k=0Enn−k≤n−1∑k=0C2(n−k)[(α−1)d+1]≤C1−(12)(α−1)d+1, | (47) |
where
Under the same conditions on
Lemma 3.2. Suppose
Wn≤C(M1−β+L)11−β, | (48) |
Moreover, the irrigation cost
EW,α(χn)≤C(MαL+L1+α1−β) | (49) |
where
Proof. For the dyadic irrigation plan
1. From
Wnn,i(s)=((mni)1−β+c(1−β)(√dL2n+1−s))11−β, | (50) |
Wnn,i(0)=((mni)1−β+c(1−β)√dL2n+1)11−β. | (51) |
2. From
¯Wnn−1,i=∑j∈O(i)Wnn,j(0)=∑j∈O(i)((mnj)1−β+c(1−β)√dL2n+1)11−β. | (52) |
Notice for fixed
1NN∑j=1(x1−βj+b)11−β≤((N∑j=1xjN)1−β+b)11−β. | (53) |
For each
¯Wnn−1,i≤2d[(∑j∈O(i)mnj2d)1−β+c(1−β)√dL2n+1]11−β. | (54) |
Each branch from
Wnn−1,i(s)=((¯Wnn−1,i)1−β+c(1−β)(√dL2n−s))11−β≤((∑j∈O(i)mnj)1−β+c(1−β)[√dL2n+1−d(1−β)+(√dL2n−s)])11−β, | (55) |
Wnn−1,i(0)≤((∑j∈O(i)mnj)1−β+c(1−β)[√dL2n+1−d(1−β)+√dL2n])11−β. | (56) |
3. From
¯Wnn−2,i=∑k∈O(i)Wnn−1,k(0)≤∑k∈O(i)((∑j∈O(k)mnj)1−β+c(1−β)[√dL2n+1−d(1−β)+√dL2n])11−β. | (57) |
Using the concavity inequality (53),
¯Wnn−2,i≤2d[(∑k∈O(i),j∈O(k)mnj2d)1−β+c(1−β)[√dL2n+1−d(1−β)+√dL2n]]11−β |
In the following, for each center
¯Wnn−2,i≤2d[(∑i≺jmnj2d)1−β+c(1−β)[√dL2n+1−d(1−β)+√dL2n]]11−β. | (58) |
Each branch from
Wnn−2,i(s)=((¯Wnn−2,i)1−β+c(1−β)(√dL2n−1−s))11−β≤((∑i≺jmnj)1−β+c(1−β)[√dL2n+1−2d(1−β)+√dL2n−d(1−β)+(√dL2n−1−s)])11−β |
Wnn−2,i(0)≤((∑i≺jmnj)1−β+c(1−β)[√dL2n+1−2d(1−β)+√dL2n−d(1−β)+√dL2n−1])11−β |
4. From
¯Wnn−k,i≤2d((∑i≺jmnj2d)1−β+c(1−β)√dL2n+2−kk−1∑l=012[1−d(1−β)]l)11−β, | (59) |
Wnn−k,i(s)≤((∑i≺jmnj)1−β+c(1−β)√dL2n+1−kk∑l=112[1−d(1−β)]l+c(1−β)(√dL2n+1−k−s))11−β, | (60) |
Wnn−k,i(0)≤((∑i≺jmnj)1−β+c(1−β)√dL2n+1−kk∑l=012[1−d(1−β)]l)11−β. | (61) |
5. Since
Wnn−k,i(0)≤((∑i≺jmnj)1−β+c(1−β)√dL2n+1−k11−121−d(1−β))11−β. | (62) |
Since
Wn≤(M1−β+c(1−β)√dL1−121−d(1−β))11−β≤C(M1−β+L)11−β | (63) |
where we use the same
6. We now estimate the irrigation cost
Enn=∑xni∈Pn∫√dL2n+10(Wnn,i(s))αds=∑xni∈Pn∫√dL2n+10((mni)1−β+c(1−β)(√dL2n+1−s))α1−βds. | (64) |
Similarly, denote
Enn−k=∑xn−ki∈Pn−k∫√dL2n+1−k0(Wnn−k,i(s))αds | (65) |
From (61) and the non-decreasing of
Enn−k≤∑xn−ki∈Pn−k√dL2n+1−k((∑i≺jmnj)1−β+c(1−β)√dL2n+1−k(1−121−d(1−β)))α1−β≤∑xn−ki∈Pn−k[CL(∑i≺jmnj)α2n+1−k+CL1+α1−β2(n+1−k)(α1−β+1)]≐In−k+Jn−k | (66) |
where
Jn−k≐∑xn−ki∈Pn−kCL1+α1−β2(n+1−k)(α1−β+1)≤CL1+α1−β2(n−k)(1+α1−β−d). | (67) |
On the other hand,
In−k≐∑xn−ki∈Pn−kCL(∑i≺jmnj)α2n+1−k≤2(n−k)d(∑xn−ki∈Pn−k∑i≺jmnj2(n−k)d)αCL2n+1−k≤CMαL2(n−k)[1−d(1−α)]. | (68) |
When
1−d(1−α)>0,1+α1−β−d>0. | (69) |
Therefore, using (66)-(68),
EW,α(χn)=n−1∑k=0Enn−k≤n−1∑k=0[In−k+Jn−k]≤Cn∑j=0[LMα2[1−d(1−α)]j+L1+α1−β2(1+α1−β−d)j]≤C(LMα+L1+α1−β) | (70) |
where
By the previous results, when
By a comparison argument we can now prove the irrigability for a wide class of functions
Theorem 3.3. Let
lim supz→0+z−βf(z)<+∞ | (71) |
for some
Proof. The assumptions (71) and (A1) together imply that
f(z)≤czβ∀z∈[0,211−βz0],f(z)≤cz∀z∈[z0,∞), | (72) |
with some constants
It suffices to prove the uniform bound for dyadic approximated measures
c(1−β)√dL2n0⋅(1−121−d(1−β))<z1−β0. | (73) |
In the following, we construct the irrigation plan for
1. Consider first from
W(t)≤∫√dLtf(W(s))ds+M≤∫√dLtcW(s)ds+M≤ec√dLM. | (74) |
On the other hand, for the remaining centers
Wnn,i(s)=((mni)1−β+c(1−β)√dL2n+1)11−β≤(z1−β0+z1−β0)11−β=211−βz0, | (75) |
where we compute the weight
Wi(s)≤Wnn,i(s). | (76) |
Then clearly the total cost on these dyadic branches from
2. From
For each center
∑j∈O(i)mnj≥z0 | (77) |
we then connect
Wi(s)≤Wnn−1,i(s)<211−βz0,s∈[0,√dL2n]. | (78) |
Then clearly the total cost on these dyadic branches from
3. By backward induction we construct the irrigation plan until to the level
#(n⋃k>n0Sk)≤Mz0 | (79) |
where
J≤Mz0⋅(ec√dLM)α√dL≐κ0 | (80) |
On the other hand, the total cost
I≤n∑k>n0Enk≤C(MαL+L1+α1−β)≐κ1 | (81) |
where the last inequality comes from (49).
Notice the bounds in (80)-(81) are independent of
In the following we show some cases for measures
Definition 3.4. Let
1Crγ≤μ(B(x,r))≤Crγ,∀x∈supp(μ),r∈[0,1], | (82) |
then we say
Remark 1. If a measure
∑i≥1(ri)γ≥∑i≥1μ(B(xi,ri))C≥MC>0, |
which implies
∑i≥1(5ri)γ=5γ∑i≥1rγi≤5γC∑i≥1μ(B(xi,ri))≤5βCM, |
and it implies the Hausdorff dimension of
For the irrigation cost
Theorem 3.5. Let
Hs(E)=0, |
where
Remark 2. As mentioned in [7], for any bounded Radon measure
Lemma 3.6. If
μ(Rd∖B(0,r))≤(EW,α(χ)r)1α. | (83) |
Proof. The function
x↦(x1−β+c(1−β)(r−t))11−β,x∈R+ |
is concave. Let
∫r0(m1−βr+c(1−β)(r−t))α1−βdt≤EW,α(χ). | (84) |
Since
(m1−βr)α1−β⋅r=mαr⋅r≤EW,α(χ), |
which completes the proof of (83).
Theorem 3.7. Let
If either
lim infz→0+z−βf(z)>0 | (85) |
for some
Proof. Case 1: If
Case 2: The assumption (85) implies that, for some constants
f(z)≥czβ∀z∈[0,z0]. | (86) |
Since
∫δ0(δd(1−β)+c(1−β)(δ−t))α1−βdt | (87) |
and the total number of such disjoint cubes is
EW,α(χ)≥1δd∫δ0(δd(1−β)+c(1−β)(δ−t))α1−βdt≥1δd∫δ0(c(1−β)(δ−t))α1−βdt≥Cδ1+α−β1−β−d | (88) |
where
This research was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1714237, "Models of controlled biological growth". The author wants to thank his thesis advisor Professor Alberto Bressan for his many useful comments and suggestions. The author also thanks the anonymous referees for their time and helpful suggestions.
Left: A free standing tree with 5 branches. In this example,
Left: Two finite truncation plans, showing three maximal
Left: The dyadic approxmiated measure
The dyadic irrigation plans in