Linear convergence of a primal-dual algorithm for distributed interval optimization

Yinghui Wang; Jiuwei Wang; Xiaobo Song; Yanpeng Hu; Yinghui Wang; Jiuwei Wang; Xiaobo Song; Yanpeng Hu

doi:10.3934/era.2024041

Electronic Research Archive

2024, Volume 32, Issue 2: 857-873. doi: 10.3934/era.2024041

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Linear convergence of a primal-dual algorithm for distributed interval optimization

1.
Key Laboratory of Knowledge Automation for Industrial Processes of Ministry of Education, School of Automation and Electrical Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China
2.
Beijing Engineering Research Center of Industrial Spectrum Imaging, School of Automation and Electrical Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China
3.
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
4.
Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China

Received: 09 October 2023 Revised: 18 December 2023 Accepted: 27 December 2023 Published: 12 January 2024

In this paper, we investigate a distributed interval optimization problem whose local functions are interval functions rather than scalar functions. Focusing on distributed interval optimization, this paper presents a distributed primal-dual algorithm. A criterion is introduced under which linear convergence to the Pareto solution of distributed interval optimization problems can be achieved without strong convexity. Lastly, a numerical simulation is presented to illustrate the linear convergence of the algorithm that has been proposed.

Keywords:

distributed interval optimization problem,
Pareto solution,
linear convergence rates,
primal-dual algorithm

Citation: Yinghui Wang, Jiuwei Wang, Xiaobo Song, Yanpeng Hu. Linear convergence of a primal-dual algorithm for distributed interval optimization[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(2): 857-873. doi: 10.3934/era.2024041

Related Papers:

[1]	Jens Lorenz, Wilberclay G. Melo, Suelen C. P. de Souza . Regularity criteria for weak solutions of the Magneto-micropolar equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(1): 1625-1639. doi: 10.3934/era.2020083
[2]	Hua Qiu, Zheng-An Yao . The regularized Boussinesq equations with partial dissipations in dimension two. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(4): 1375-1393. doi: 10.3934/era.2020073
[3]	Zhi-Ying Sun, Lan Huang, Xin-Guang Yang . Exponential stability and regularity of compressible viscous micropolar fluid with cylinder symmetry. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 861-878. doi: 10.3934/era.2020045
[4]	Changjia Wang, Yuxi Duan . Well-posedness for heat conducting non-Newtonian micropolar fluid equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(2): 897-914. doi: 10.3934/era.2024043
[5]	Jinheng Liu, Kemei Zhang, Xue-Jun Xie . The existence of solutions of Hadamard fractional differential equations with integral and discrete boundary conditions on infinite interval. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(4): 2286-2309. doi: 10.3934/era.2024104
[6]	Noelia Bazarra, José R. Fernández, Ramón Quintanilla . Numerical analysis of a problem in micropolar thermoviscoelasticity. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(2): 683-700. doi: 10.3934/era.2022036
[7]	Xiaojie Yang, Hui Liu, Haiyun Deng, Chengfeng Sun . Pullback $\mathcal{D}$ -attractors of the three-dimensional non-autonomous micropolar equations with damping. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(1): 314-334. doi: 10.3934/era.2022017
[8]	Wenlong Sun . The boundedness and upper semicontinuity of the pullback attractors for a 2D micropolar fluid flows with delay. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(3): 1343-1356. doi: 10.3934/era.2020071
[9]	Haibo Cui, Junpei Gao, Lei Yao . Asymptotic behavior of the one-dimensional compressible micropolar fluid model. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(2): 2063-2075. doi: 10.3934/era.2020105
[10]	José Luis Díaz Palencia, Saeed Ur Rahman, Saman Hanif . Regularity criteria for a two dimensional Erying-Powell fluid flowing in a MHD porous medium. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(11): 3949-3976. doi: 10.3934/era.2022201

Abstract

1. Introduction

In this paper, we consider the three-dimensional magneto-micropolar fluid equations with fractional dissipation

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} { \partial_{t}u+\mu (-\Delta)^{\alpha} u-\chi\Delta u+u\cdot\nabla u-b\cdot\nabla b+\nabla p-2\chi\nabla\times v = 0, }\\ { \partial_{t}v+\eta (-\Delta)^{\beta} v-\kappa\nabla\nabla\cdot v+4\chi v+u\cdot\nabla v-2\chi\nabla\times u = 0, }\\ { \partial_{t}b+\lambda (-\Delta)^{\gamma} b+u\cdot\nabla b-b\cdot\nabla u = 0, }\\ { \nabla\cdot u = 0, \nabla\cdot b = 0, }\\ \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(1.1)

with an initial value

$\begin{equation} t = 0: u = u_0(x), \; \; v = v_0(x), \; \; b = b_0(x), \; \; x\in \mathbb{R}^{3}. \end{equation}$

(1.2)

Here $u = u(x, t)$ , $v = v(x, t)$ , $b = b(x, t)\in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ , and $p = p(x, t)\in \mathbb{R}$ are the velocity, micro-rotational velocity, magnetic fields, and scalar pressure, respectively. $\mu$ , $\chi$ , and $\frac{1}{\lambda}$ represent the kinematic viscosity, vortex viscosity, and magnetic Reynolds number, respectively. $\eta$ and $\kappa$ are angular viscosities. $\alpha$ , $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are the parameters of the fractional dissipations corresponding to the velocity, micro-rotational velocity and magnetic field, respectively. The fractional Laplace operator $(-\Delta)^\alpha$ is defined through the Fourier transform as

$\begin{equation*} \widehat{(-\Delta)^\alpha f}(\xi) = \widehat{\Lambda ^{2\alpha }f} = |\xi|^{2\alpha}\hat f(\xi). \end{equation*}$

The incompressible magneto-micropolar fluid equations have made analytic studies a great challenge but offer new opportunities due to their distinctive mathematical features. Regularity criteria for weak solutions are established by Fan and Zhong ^[1] in pointwise multipliers for $1\leq \alpha = \beta = \gamma\leq \frac{5}{4}$ . Local and global well-posedness have been established in ^[2,3,4], respectively. For $\alpha = \beta = \gamma = 1$ , we refer to ^[5,6,7] for the existence of strong solutions and weak solutions, respectively. In the study field of the magneto-micropolar fluid equations, regularity criteria for weak solutions and blow-up criteria for smooth solutions are very important topics. The readers may refer to regularity criteria of weak solutions in Morrey-Campanato space ^[8], in Lorentz space ^[9], Besov space ^[10], Triebel-Lizorkin space ^[11] and other regularity criteria for weak solutions ^{[12,13,14,15]}, and ^[16,17] for blow-up criteria of smooth solutions in different function spaces, respectively. Serrin-type regularity criteria for weak solutions via the velocity fields and the gradient of the velocity field were established in Yuan ^[13], respectively. We may refer to ^[18,19,20] for global well-posedness. On the other hand, the global regularity of weak solutions to (1.1) with partial viscosities becomes more complex. In the case of 2D, we may refer to ^{[22,23,24,25]}, and in the case of 3D, we may refer to ^[26,27].

If $v = 0$ and $\chi = 0$ , then (1.1) reduces to MHD equations with fractional dissipation. The MHD equations govern the dynamics of the velocity and magnetic fields in electrically conducting fluids such as plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water. We only recall regularity criteria for our purpose. If $\alpha, \beta > \frac{5}{4}$ , some regularity criteria have been established by Wu ^[28,29], which are given in terms of the velocity $u$ . If $1\leq \alpha = \beta\leq \frac{3}{2}$ , Zhou ^[30] obtained the Serrin-type criteria $u\in L^p_TL^q_x$ with $\frac{2\alpha}{p}+\frac{3}{q}\leq 2\alpha-1$ and $\frac{3}{2\alpha-1} < q\leq\infty$ . Later, Yuan ^[14] extended the above function space $L^q$ to $B^s_{q, \infty}$ . Recently, the regularity criterion involving $u_3, b \in L^\omega_TL^q_x$ is given in ^[31]. We also refer to ^[32,33] for well-posedness and ^[34] for blow up criterion of smooth solutions.

Motivated by the Serrin-type regularity criterion of weak solutions to Navier-Stokes equations ^[35,36] and MHD equations ^[30,31]. The main purpose is to investigate the regularity criterion of weak solutions to the systems (1.1) and (1.2) in this paper and establish the Serrin-type regularity criterion of weak solutions involving partial components. We state our main result as follows:

Theorem 1.1. Let $1\le\alpha = \beta = \gamma \le \frac{3}{2}$ and $\chi, \kappa\geq 0$ . Assume that $(u_0, v_0, b_0)\in H^1(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and $\nabla\cdot u_0 = \nabla\cdot b_0 = 0$ . Furthermore, if

$\begin{equation*} u_3, v, b \in L^{\varrho} (0, T;L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^3)), \end{equation*}$

with

$\begin{equation} \frac{2\alpha }{\varrho} + \frac{3}{q} \le \frac{3}{4} (2\alpha-1 )+\frac{3(1-\epsilon )}{4q}, \ \ \frac{3+\epsilon }{2\alpha -1} < q\le \infty , \ \ 0 < \epsilon\le \frac{1}{3}, \end{equation}$

(1.3)

then the solution $(u, v, b)$ to the systems (1.1) and (1.2) remains smooth on $\big [0, T \big]$ .

Remark 1.2. Since the concrete values of the constants $\mu$ , $\eta$ , and $\lambda$ play no role in our proof, for this reason, we shall assume them to be all equal to one throughout this paper. For convenience of description, we define horizontal derivatives $\nabla_h: = (\partial_{1}, \partial_{2})$ .

Remark 1.3. When $v = 0$ and $\chi = 0$ , the conclusion in Theorem 1.1 is reduced to the one in ^[31].

Remark 1.4. Compared with ^[31], the main difficulty in this paper comes from the nonlinear term $u\cdot\nabla v$ . In order to overcome the difficulty caused by the nonlinear term, owing to the energy functional (see (2.2)), we first use integrating by parts and $\nabla\cdot u = 0$ to transform it into a control of the horizontal derivative, and then use Hölder's inequality, multiplicative Sobolev inequality, the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, and Young's inequality to control the nonlinear term.

2. Proof of main result

In this section, our main purpose is to complete the proof of Theorem 1.1. To this end, we introduce the following lemma:

Lemma 2.1. (^[37]) The multiplicative Sobolev inequality

$\begin{equation} \|\nabla u\|_{L^{3q}}\le C\|\partial_1\nabla u\|_{L^2}^{\frac{1}{3}} \|\partial_2\nabla u\|_{L^2}^{\frac{1}{3}} \|\partial_3\nabla u\|_{L^q}^{\frac{1}{3}}, \ \ 1\le q < \infty, \end{equation}$

(2.1)

holds.

In what follows, we prove Theorem 1.1.

Proof. Let

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} E(t) : = & \|\nabla _hu(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _hv(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _hb(t)\|_{L^2}^2+ \int_0^t(\|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\\ & \|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2)d\tau+ \kappa\int_0^t\|\nabla _h \nabla\cdot v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2d\tau. \end{split} \end{equation}$

(2.2)

The proof is divided into two cases: $\frac{3+\epsilon }{2\alpha -1} < q < \infty$ and $q = \infty$ . We first consider the case $\frac{3+\epsilon }{2\alpha -1} < q < \infty$ .

Taking the inner product of the first three equations of (1.1) with $(u, v, b)$ , and adding them up, using integrating by parts, the divergence-free condition, and Cauchy inequality, we obtain

$\begin{equation*} \label{5} \begin{split} & \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}(\|u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|b(t)\|_{L^2}^2) +\|\Lambda ^{\alpha } u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha } v(t)\|_{L^2}^2 \\ & +\|\Lambda ^{\alpha } b(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\kappa\|\nabla\cdot v(t)\|_{L^2}^2 \leq 0. \end{split} \end{equation*}$

Integrating the above inequality with respect to $t$ and then obtaining

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} & \|u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|b(t)\|_{L^2}^2 +2\int^t_0(\|\Lambda ^{\alpha } u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha } v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2 \\ & +\|\Lambda ^{\alpha } b(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\kappa\|\nabla\cdot v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2)d\tau \leq \|u_0\|_{L^2}^2+\|v_0\|_{L^2}^2+\|b_0\|_{L^2}^2. \end{split} \end{equation*}$

By multiplying the first three equations of (1.1) by $\Delta_hu$ , $\Delta_hv$ , and $\Delta_hb$ , respectively, and adding them up, using integrating by parts and the divergence-free condition, we have

$\begin{eqnarray} &&\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}(\|\nabla _hu(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _hv(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _hb(t)\|_{L^2}^2) +\|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } v(t)\|_{L^2}^2 \\ && +\|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\kappa\|\nabla _h \nabla\cdot v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\chi\|\nabla _h\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+ 4\chi\|\nabla _hv\|_{L^2}^2 \\ & : = & \sum\limits_{i = 1}^6I_i, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.3)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} \label{} I_1 & = &\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u\cdot\nabla u)\cdot\Delta_hu\;dx, \\ I_2& = &-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(b\cdot\nabla b)\cdot\Delta_hu\;dx, \\ I_3& = &\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u\cdot\nabla b)\cdot\Delta_hb\;dx, \\ I_4& = &-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(b\cdot\nabla u)\cdot\Delta_hb\;dx, \\ I_5& = &\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u\cdot\nabla v)\cdot\Delta_hv\;dx, \\ I_6& = &-2\chi \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}[(\nabla \times v)\cdot\Delta_h u + (\nabla \times u) \cdot\Delta_h v]\;dx. \end{eqnarray}$

Thanks to integration by parts and Cauchy's inequality, we arrive at

$\begin{eqnarray} I_6 & = & 4\chi\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \nabla_h(\nabla \times u) \cdot \nabla_h v\;dx \\ &\leq & \chi\|\nabla_h (\nabla \times u)\|^2_{L^2}+4\chi\|\nabla_hv\|^2_{L^2} \\ & = & \chi\|\nabla_h \nabla u\|^2_{L^2}+4\chi\|\nabla_hv\|^2_{L^2}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.4)

For $I_1$ , we divide it into the following three items: $I_{1i}(i = 1, 2, 3)$ as

$\begin{eqnarray} I_1 & = & \sum\limits_{j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_j\partial_j u_k\Delta_hu_k\;dx +\sum\limits_{j = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_j\partial_j u_3\Delta_hu_3\;dx+ \\ && \sum\limits_{k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_3\partial_3 u_k\Delta_hu_k\;dx \\ &: = & I_{11}+ I_{12}+ I_{13}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.5)

The divergence-free condition and integration by parts entail that

$\begin{eqnarray} I_{11}& = &\sum\limits_{i, j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_j\partial_j u_k\partial^2_{ii}u_k\;dx\\& = & -\sum\limits_{i, j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{i}u_j\partial_j u_k\partial_{i}u_k\;dx+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i, j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{j}u_j|\partial_i u_k|^2\;dx\\& = & -\sum\limits_{i, j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{i}u_j\partial_j u_k\partial_{i}u_k\;dx-\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{3}u_3|\partial_i u_k|^2\;dx\\& = & -\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{1}u_1\partial_1 u_1\partial_{1}u_1\;dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{1}u_1\partial_1 u_2\partial_{1}u_2\;dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{1}u_2\partial_2 u_1\partial_{1}u_1\;dx\\&&-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{1}u_2\partial_2 u_2\partial_{1}u_2\;dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{2}u_1\partial_1 u_1\partial_{2}u_1\;dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{2}u_1\partial_1 u_2\partial_{2}u_2\;dx\\&&-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{2}u_2\partial_2 u_1\partial_{2}u_1\;dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{2}u_2\partial_2 u_2\partial_{2}u_2\;dx-\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{3}u_3|\partial_i u_k|^2\;dx\\& = & -\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{1}u_1\partial_1 u_1\partial_{1}u_1\;dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{2}u_2\partial_2 u_2\partial_{2}u_2\;dx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{3}u_3\partial_2 u_1\partial_{2}u_1\;dx\\&&+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{3}u_3\partial_1 u_2\partial_{1}u_2\;dx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{3}u_3\partial_2 u_1\partial_{1}u_2\;dx-\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{3}u_3|\partial_i u_k|^2\;dx\\& = & \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_3 u_3\partial_k u_j\partial_k u_j\;dx -\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_3 u_3\partial_1 u_1\partial_2 u_2\;dx +\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_3 u_3\partial_2 u_1\partial_1 u_2\;dx \\& = & -\sum\limits_{j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} u_3\partial_{3k}^{2} u_j\partial_k u_j\;dx +\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} u_3(\partial_{32}^{2} u_2\partial_1 u_1+\partial_{31}^{2} u_1 \partial_2 u_2)\;dx \\&& -\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} u_3(\partial_{32}^{2} u_1\partial_1 u_2+\partial_{31}^{2} u_2 \partial_2 u_1)\;dx, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.6)

and

$\begin{eqnarray} I_{12} = - \sum\limits_{j = 1}^3\sum\limits_{l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_l u_j\partial_j u_3\partial_l u_3\;dx = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^3\sum\limits_{l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_l u_j u_3\partial_{jl}^{2} u_3\;dx. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.7)

Therefore, we obtain

$\begin{equation} |I_1|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |u_3||\nabla u||\nabla_h\nabla u|\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.8)

From Hölder's inequality, Lemma 2.1, the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, and Young's inequality, it follows that

$\begin{eqnarray} |I_1| &\leq & C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |u_3||\nabla u||\nabla_h\nabla u|\;dx \\ &\leq & C\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^{\theta _1}} \|\nabla_h\nabla u\|_{L^{\theta _2}} \\ &\leq & C\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}\| \nabla_h\nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2}{3} } \| \Delta u\|_{L^{\frac{\theta _1}{3} } }^{\frac{1}{3} } \|\nabla_h\nabla u\|_{L^{\theta _2}} \\ &\leq & C\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}\| \nabla_h u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3} } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} }\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} }\| \nabla_h u\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }\\ &\leq & C\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3} } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} }\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} }\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }\\ &\leq& C\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3}+\frac{s_2}{3}+s_3}\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1} u\|_{L^{2}}^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} }\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3}+1-s_3 } \\ &\leq & C\big[ \|u_3\|_{L^{q}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3}+\frac{s_2}{3}+s_3 } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1} u\|_{L^{2}}^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} } \big]^{m^{\prime }} +\frac{1}{6}\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{(\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3}+1-s_3 )m}, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.9)

where the constants $1 < \theta _1, \theta _2, m, m^{\prime } < \infty$ and $0\le s_1, s_2, s_3\le1$ satisfy

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} { \frac{1}{\theta _1} + \frac{1}{\theta _2}+\frac{1}{q} = 1, }\\ { 2-\frac{3}{2} = \big(1-\frac{3}{2}\big) s_1+\big(1+\alpha-\frac{3}{2}\big) \big(1-s_1\big), }\\ { 2-\frac{3}{\theta_1/3} = \big(1-\frac{3}{2}\big) s_2+\big(1+\alpha-\frac{3}{2}\big)\big(1-s_2\big), }\\ { 2-\frac{3}{\theta_2} = \big(1-\frac{3}{2}\big) s_3+\big(1+\alpha-\frac{3}{2}\big)\big(1-s_3\big), }\\ { \frac{1}{m} + \frac{1}{m^{\prime }} = 1, }\\ { \big(\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3}+1-s_3\big)m = 2.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.10)

Noting that $1\le\alpha\le\dfrac{3}{2}$ and $\frac{3+\epsilon }{2\alpha -1} < q\le \infty$ , one solution to (2.10) can be written as

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} { \theta _1 = \frac{18q}{5q-18\epsilon}, }\\ { \theta _2 = \frac{18q}{13q-18(1-\epsilon)}, }\\ { s _1 = 1-\frac{1}{\alpha}, }\\ { s _2 = 1-\frac{9\epsilon}{\alpha q}, }\\ { s _3 = 1-\frac{1}{3\alpha}-\frac{3(1-\epsilon)}{\alpha q}, }\\ { m = \frac{2\alpha q}{q+3(1-\epsilon)}, }\\ { m^{\prime } = \frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.11)

To bound $I_3$ , we decompose it into three pieces as

$\begin{eqnarray} I_3& = &\sum\limits_{j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_j\partial_j b_k\Delta_hb_k\;dx +\sum\limits_{j = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_j\partial_j b_3\Delta_hb_3\;dx+\sum\limits_{k = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_3\partial_3 b_k\Delta_h b_k\;dx \\&: = & I_{31}+ I_{32}+ I_{33}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.12)

By using integrating by parts (see^[31]), we have

$\begin{eqnarray} I_{31}& = & \sum\limits_{j, k, l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \big[\partial_{ll}^{2} u_j\partial_j b_k b_k +\partial_l u_j\partial_{lj}^{2} b_k b_k\big]\;dx - \\ && \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{j, k, l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \big[\partial_{lj}^{2} u_j\partial_l b_k b_k +\partial_j u_j\partial_{ll}^{2} b_k b_k\big]\;dx. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.13)

Similarly, we have

$\begin{eqnarray} I_{32} & = & \sum\limits_{j, l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \big[\partial_{ll}^{2} u_j\partial_j b_3 b_3 +\partial_l u_j\partial_{lj}^{2} b_3 b_3\big]\;dx -\\ && \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{j, k, l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \big[\partial_{lj}^{2} u_j\partial_l b_3 b_3 +\partial_j u_j\partial_{ll}^{2} b_3 b_3\big]\;dx, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.14)

and

$\begin{eqnarray} I_{33} & = & \sum\limits_{k = 1}^3 \sum\limits_{l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \big[\partial_{3l}^{2} u_3\partial_l b_k b_k +\partial_l u_3\partial_{3l}^{2} b_k b_k\big]\;dx +\\ && \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{k = 1}^3\sum\limits_{j, l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \big[\partial_{lj}^{2} u_j\partial_l b_k b_k +\partial_j u_j\partial_{ll}^{2} b_k b_k\big]\;dx. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.15)

Collecting (2.13)–(2.15), it is easy to derive that

$\begin{equation} |I_3|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |b|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla b|)(|\nabla_h\nabla u|+|\nabla_h\nabla b|)\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.16)

Furthermore, we have

$\begin{equation} |I_2+I_3+I_4|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |b|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla b|)(|\nabla_h\nabla u|+|\nabla_h\nabla b|)\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.17)

Similar to (2.13), it follows from Hölder's inequality, Lemma 2.1, Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, and Young's inequality that

$\begin{eqnarray} && |I_2+I_3+I_4| \\ &\le& C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |b|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla b|)(|\nabla_h\nabla u|+|\nabla_h\nabla b|)\;dx \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}}\| |\nabla u|+|\nabla b|\|_{L^{\theta _1}} \||\nabla_h\nabla u|+|\nabla_h\nabla b|\|_{L^{\theta _2}} \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}}\big(\| \nabla_h\nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2}{3} } \| \Delta u\|_{L^{\frac{\theta _1}{3} } }^{\frac{1}{3} } +\| \nabla_h\nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2}{3} } \| \Delta b\|_{L^{\frac{\theta _1}{3} } }^{\frac{1}{3} }\big)\cdot\\ && \quad \big(\|\nabla_h\nabla u\|_{L^{\theta _2}}+\|\nabla_h\nabla b\|_{L^{\theta _2}} \big) \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}}\Big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3} } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} } \| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} } + \\ && \quad\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3} } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} } \| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} }\Big)\cdot \\ && \quad \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }\big) \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}} \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3} } +\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3} }\big) \big(\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} }+\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} }\big)\cdot \\ &&\quad \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} }\big) \big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} }\big)\cdot \\ &&\quad \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 }\big) \big(\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }+\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }\big) \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}} \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2s_1}{3}+\frac{s_2}{3}+s_3 } \big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{1-s_2}{3}}\cdot \\ &&\quad \big(\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3}+1-s_3}\\ &\le& C\big [ \|b\|_{L^{q}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2s_1}{3}+\frac{s_2}{3}+s_3 } \big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} } \big ]^{m^{\prime}}+\\ &&\quad \frac{1}{6}\big(\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b\|_{L^{2}}\big)^{\big(\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3}+1-s_3 \big)m}, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.18)

where the constants $1 < \theta _1, \theta _2, m, m^{\prime } < \infty$ and $0\le s_1, s_2, s_3\le1$ satisfy (2.10).

Similar to $I_3$ , we bound $I_5$ as

$\begin{equation} |I_5|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |v|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla v|)(|\nabla_h\nabla u|+|\nabla_h\nabla v|)\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.19)

Using the same steps as (2.18), we obtain

$\begin{eqnarray} \label{22} |I_5| &\le& C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |v|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla v|)(|\nabla_h\nabla u|+|\nabla_h\nabla v|)\;dx \\ &\le& C\big [ \|v\|_{L^{q}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2s_1}{3}+\frac{s_2}{3}+s_3 } \big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} } \big ]^{m^{\prime}}+\\ &&\quad \frac{1}{6}\big(\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } v\|_{L^{2}}\big)^{\big(\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3}+1-s_3 \big)m}, \end{eqnarray}$

where the constants $1 < \theta _1, \theta _2, m, m^{\prime } < \infty$ and $0\le s_1, s_2, s_3\le1$ satisfy (2.10).

Combining (2.3), (2.4), (2.9), (2.18), and (2.20), we arrive at

$\begin{eqnarray} &&\frac{d}{dt}(\|\nabla _hu(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _hv(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _hb(t)\|_{L^2}^2) +\|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\\ && \|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\kappa\|\nabla _h \nabla\cdot v(t)\|_{L^2}^2\\ &\le& C\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}} \| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2\big((2\alpha-1) q-3\big)}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}} \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{6\epsilon }{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)} } +\\ && \|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2\big((2\alpha-1) q-3\big)}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)} } \big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{6\epsilon }{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)} }+\\ && \|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2\big((2\alpha-1) q-3\big)}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)} } \big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{6\epsilon }{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)} }\\ &\le& C\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\\ && \| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2\big((2\alpha-1) q-3\big)}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}}\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{6\epsilon }{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.20)

Set

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} { \Theta_1 = \frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}, }\\ { \Theta_2 = \frac{2\big((2\alpha-1) q-3\big)}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}, }\\ { \Theta_3 = \frac{6\epsilon }{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}.} \end{array} \end{equation}$

(2.21)

Integrating (2.20) with respect to $t$ , we obtain

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} E(t) &\le CJ_0+C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\Theta_1} \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\\ & \quad \| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\Theta_2}\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\Theta_3}d\tau, \end{split} \end{equation}$

(2.22)

where $J_0 = \|\nabla u(0)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(0)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(0)\|_{L^2}^2$ .

By taking the inner product of the first three equations of (1.1) with $(-\Delta u, -\Delta v, -\Delta b)$ and integrating by parts, the divergence-free condition, we have

$\begin{eqnarray} && \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}(\|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(t)\|_{L^2}^2) +\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 }u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 }v(t)\|_{L^2}^2 +\\ && \|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\kappa\|\nabla \nabla\cdot v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\chi\|\nabla \nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+ 4\chi\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2\\ &: = & \sum\limits_{i = 1}^6J_i, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.23)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} \label{} J_1& = &\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u\cdot\nabla u)\cdot\Delta u\;dx, \\ J_2& = &-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(b\cdot\nabla b)\cdot\Delta u\;dx, \\ J_3& = &\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u\cdot\nabla b)\cdot\Delta b\;dx, \\ J_4& = &-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(b\cdot\nabla u)\cdot\Delta b\;dx, \\ J_5& = &\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u\cdot\nabla v)\cdot\Delta v\;dx, \\ J_6& = &-2\chi \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}[(\nabla \times v)\cdot\Delta u + (\nabla \times u) \cdot\Delta v]\;dx. \end{eqnarray}$

By integration by parts and Cauchy's inequality, we arrive at

$\begin{eqnarray} J_6 & = & 4\chi\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \nabla(\nabla \times u) \cdot \nabla v\;dx \\ &\leq& \chi\|\nabla (\nabla \times u)\|^2_{L^2}+4\chi\|\nabla v\|^2_{L^2} \\ & = & \chi\|\nabla \nabla u\|^2_{L^2}+4\chi\|\nabla v\|^2_{L^2}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.24)

For $J_1$ , we divide it into the following three items: $J_{1i}(i = 1, 2, 3)$

$\begin{eqnarray} J_1 & = &\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_3\partial_3 u\cdot\Delta_hu\;dx +\sum\limits_{j = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_j\partial_j u\cdot\Delta u\;dx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_3\partial_3 u\cdot \partial_{33}^{2} u\;dx \\ &: = & J_{11}+ J_{12}+ J_{13}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.25)

Integrating by parts and using the divergence-free condition yields

$\begin{equation} J_{11} = \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{k = 1}^3\sum\limits_{l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_3 u_3\partial_l u_k\partial_l u_k\;dx -\sum\limits_{k = 1}^3\sum\limits_{l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_l u_3\partial_3 u_k\partial_l u_k\;dx, \end{equation}$

(2.26)

$\begin{equation} J_{12} = \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^3\sum\limits_{k, l = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_j u_j\partial_l u_k\partial_l u_k\;dx -\sum\limits_{j = 1}^2\sum\limits_{k, l = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_l u_j\partial_j u_k\partial_l u_k\;dx, \end{equation}$

(2.27)

and

$\begin{equation} J_{13} = \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{k = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(\partial_1 u_1+\partial_2 u_2)\partial_3 u_k\partial_3 u_k\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.28)

Therefore, we have

$\begin{equation} |J_1|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |\nabla_h u||\nabla u|^{2}\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.29)

From Hölder's inequality and Lemma 2.1, it follows that

$\begin{eqnarray} |J_1| &\le & C\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^4}^{2} \\ &\le& C\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^2}^{2-\frac{3}{2\alpha}} \| \Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{6} }^{\frac{3}{2\alpha} } \\ &\le& C\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^2}^{2-\frac{3}{2\alpha}} \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{\alpha} }\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{2\alpha} }. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.30)

By using integrating by parts and the divergence-free condition, we have

$\begin{eqnarray} J_{3} & = & -\sum\limits_{j, k, l = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_l (u_j\partial_j b_k)\partial_l b_k\;dx \\ & = & -\sum\limits_{j, k, l = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} (\partial_l u_j\partial_j b_k\partial_l b_k+u_j\partial_{lj}^{2} b_k\partial_l b_k)\;dx \\ & = & \sum\limits_{j, k, l = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}b_k\partial_l (\partial_lu_j\partial_j b_k)\;dx\\ & = & \sum\limits_{j, k, l = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} (b_k\partial_{ll}^{2} u_j\partial_j b_k+b_k\partial_l u_j\partial_{jl}^{2} b_k)\;dx. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.31)

Then we arrive at

$\begin{equation} |J_3|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |b|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla b|)(|\Delta u|+|\Delta b|)\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.32)

Furthermore, we have

$\begin{equation} |J_2+J_3+J_4|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |b|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla b|)(\Delta u|+|\Delta b|)\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.33)

It follows from the same procedure (2.18) that

$\begin{eqnarray} && |J_2+J_3+J_4| \\ &\le& C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |b|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla b|)(|\Delta u|+|\Delta b|)\;dx \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}}\| |\nabla u|+|\nabla b|\|_{L^{\theta _1}} \||\Delta u|+|\Delta b|\|_{L^{\theta _2}} \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}}\big(\| \Delta u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2}{3} } \| \Delta u\|_{L^{\frac{\theta _1}{3}}}^{\frac{1}{3} } +\| \Delta b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2}{3} } \| \Delta b\|_{L^{\frac{\theta _1}{3} } }^{\frac{1}{3}}\big) \big(\|\Delta u\|_{L^{\theta _2}}+\|\Delta b\|_{L^{\theta _2}} \big) \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}}\Big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3}} \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2}}^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} } \| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2}}^{\frac{1-s_2}{3}} +\\ && \| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3} } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} } \| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} }\Big)\times \\ && \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }\big) \\ &\le & C\|b\|_{L^{q}} \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2s_1}{3}+\frac{s_2}{3}+s_3 } \big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3}+\frac{1-s_2}{3}+1-s_3 }\\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}} \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big) +\frac{1}{8}\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big), \end{eqnarray}$

(2.34)

where the constants $1 < \theta _1, \theta _2, m, m^{\prime } < \infty$ and $0\le s_1, s_2, s_3\le1$ satisfy (2.10).

Similar to $J_3$ , we bound $J_5$ as

$\begin{equation} |J_5|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |v|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla v|)(|\Delta u|+|\Delta v|)\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.35)

The same procedure leads to (2.34) yields

$\begin{eqnarray} \label{38} |J_5| &\le& C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |v|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla v|)(|\Delta u|+|\Delta v|)\;dx \\ &\le& C\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}} \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big) +\frac{1}{8}\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1} v\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\big). \end{eqnarray}$

Combining (2.23), (2.24), (2.30), (2.34), and (2.36), we have

$\begin{eqnarray} && \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}(\|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(t)\|_{L^2}^2) +\frac{3}{4}(\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v(t)\|_{L^2}^2)\\ && +\frac{3}{4}\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1}b(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\kappa\|\nabla \nabla\cdot v(t)\|_{L^2}^2\\ &\le& C(\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}) \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big)+ \\ && C\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^2}^{2-\frac{3}{2\alpha}} \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{\alpha} }\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{2\alpha}}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.36)

Integrating (2.36) over the interval $(0, t)$ and using Hölder's inequality, it was deduced that

$\begin{eqnarray} && \frac{1}{2}(\|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(t)\|_{L^2}^2)+ \frac{3}{4}\int_0^t(\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\\ && \|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2)d\tau +\int_0^t\kappa\|\nabla \nabla\cdot v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2d\tau \\ &\le& C+ C\int_0^t(\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}) \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big) d\tau +\\ && C \int_0^t\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^2}^{2-\frac{3}{2\alpha}} \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{\alpha} }\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{2\alpha} } d\tau \\ &\le& C+ C\int_0^t(\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}) \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big) d\tau+\\ && C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}} \int_0^t\| \nabla u\|_{L^2}^{2-\frac{3}{2\alpha}} \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{\alpha} }\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{2\alpha} } d\tau. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.37)

From Young's inequality, it follows that

$\begin{eqnarray} && C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}} \int_0^t\| \nabla u\|_{L^2}^{2-\frac{3}{2\alpha}} \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{\alpha} }\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{2\alpha} } d\tau \\ &\le& C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}} \big[ \int_0^t \| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau\big]^{1-\frac{3}{4\alpha}} \big[ \int_0^t \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau\big]^{\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau\big]^{\frac{1}{4\alpha}} \\ &\le& C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}} \big[ \int_0^t \| u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2\alpha}{1+\alpha}} \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2}{1+\alpha}} d\tau\big]^{1-\frac{3}{4\alpha}} \big[ \int_0^t \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau\big]^{\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau\big]^{\frac{1}{4\alpha}} \\ &\le & C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}} \big[ \int_0^t \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau\big]^{\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau\big]^{\frac{1}{4\alpha}+\frac{4\alpha-3}{4\alpha(1+\alpha)}} \\ &\le& C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}} \big[ \big( \int_0^t \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2}}^{2} d\tau\big)^{\frac{1}{2}} +1\big]\big[\big( \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2}}^{2} d\tau\big)^{\frac{1}{4}}+1 \big] \\ &\le& CE(t)\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2}}^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}} \big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+\\ && CE(t)+C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}}\\ &\le & CE(t)\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+C\big( \sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+1 \big) \big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2}}^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}} +\\ && CE(t)+C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+C \\ &\le& CE(t)\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2}}^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+C \big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1} u\|_{L^{2}}^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+CE(t)+C. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.38)

Then, we have

(2.39)

By using Hölder's inequality, Young's inequality, and (2.22), we deduce that

$\begin{eqnarray} CE(t)&\le& C+C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\Theta_1}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\\ && \| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\Theta_2}\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1} v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\Theta_3} d\tau \\ &\le& C+C\big[ \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\\ && \| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau \big]^{\Theta_2} \big[ \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2 }d\tau\big]^{\frac{1}{2}\Theta_3} \\ &\le& C+C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau + \\ && \frac{1}{16} \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2 }d\tau. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.40)

Similarly, it follows from (2.22) and Hölder's inequality and Young's inequality that

$\begin{eqnarray} && CE(t)\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}} \\ &\le& C\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+C\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}\int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\\ && \|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\Theta_1}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{\Theta_2}{2}}\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\Theta_3}d\tau\\ &\le & C\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+C\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}\big[ \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\\ && \|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau \big] ^{\frac{\Theta_2}{2}}\big[ \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\\ && \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2 }d\tau\big]^{\frac{\Theta_3}{2}} \\ &\le& C\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+C\big[ \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2 }d\tau\big]^{\frac{2\Theta_3+1}{4}}\cdot \\ &&\big[ \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau \big] ^{\Theta_2}\\ &\le& C\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+C\big[ \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2 }d\tau\big]^{\frac{2\Theta_3+1}{4}}\cdot\\ &&\big[ \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\Theta_4}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau \big] ^{\frac{3(2\alpha-1)q+3(1-\epsilon)-12}{4\big[ (2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)\big] } } \\ &\le& C+C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\Theta_4}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\\ && \| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau + \frac{1}{16} \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2 }d\tau, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.41)

where $\Theta_4 = \frac{8\alpha q}{3(2\alpha-1)q+3(1-\epsilon)-12}.$

We substitute (2.40) and (2.41) into (2.39) and then use Young's inequality to obtain

$\begin{eqnarray} && \frac{1}{2}(\|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(t)\|_{L^2}^2)+\frac{3}{4}\int_0^t(\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\\ &&\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2)d\tau+\int_0^t\kappa\|\nabla \nabla\cdot v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2d\tau \\ &\le& C+ C\int_0^t(\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}) \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big) d\tau+\\ && C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\Theta_4}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau +\\ && C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau +\\ && \frac{1}{8}\big[ \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2}d\tau\big]\\ &\le& C+C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}\big)\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau +\\ && \frac{1}{4} \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big) d\tau. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.42)

Then we have

$\begin{eqnarray} && \|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\int_0^t(\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\\ && \|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2)d\tau+\int_0^t\kappa\|\nabla \nabla\cdot v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2d\tau \\ &\le& C+C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}\big)\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.43)

Thanks to Gronwall's inequality and condition (1.3), we obtain

$\begin{eqnarray} && \|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\int_0^t(\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\\ && \|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2)d\tau+\int_0^t\kappa\|\nabla \nabla\cdot v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2d\tau \\ &\le& C\exp \big[ C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}\big)d\tau \big] < \infty. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.44)

Finally, we consider the case $q = \infty$ . By repeating the above procedure, we derive that

$\begin{equation*} \label{48} E(t) \le CJ_0+C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{\infty}}+\|b\|_{L^{\infty}}+\|v\|_{L^{\infty}}\big)^{\frac{2\alpha }{2\alpha-1}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2 }d\tau. \end{equation*}$

Thanks to Gronwall's inequality and condition (1.3), we obtain

$\begin{eqnarray} && \|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(t)\|_{L^2}^2 +\int_0^t(\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\\ && \|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2)d\tau +\int_0^t\kappa\|\nabla \nabla\cdot v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2d\tau \\ &\le& C\exp \big[ C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{\infty}}^{\frac{8\alpha }{3(2\alpha-1)}}+\|b\|_{L^{\infty}}^{\frac{8\alpha }{3(2\alpha-1)}}+\|v\|_{L^{\infty}}^{\frac{8\alpha }{3(2\alpha-1)}}\big)d\tau\big ] < \infty. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.45)

By the above steps, we establish a higher-order a priori estimate of the solutions, and then we obtain that the higher-order norm of the solutions is bounded, thus proving the smoothness of the solutions. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.

3. Conclusions

In this paper, the regularity criterion of the weak solution of the three-dimensional magnetic micropolar fluid equation when $1\le\alpha = \beta = \gamma \le \frac{3}{2}$ is studied. However, the regularity of the weak solution of the magnetic micropolar fluid equation when $1\le\alpha, \beta, \gamma \le \frac{3}{2}$ on $\mathbb{R}^3$ is still an open problem, and it is hoped that the method in this paper can provide inspiration for the solution of this problem.

Use of AI tools declaration

The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by [the Basic Research Project of Key Scientific Research Project Plan of Universities in Henan Province (Grant No. 20ZX002)].

Conflict of interest

The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

References

[1]	I. Necoara, Y. Nesterov, F. Glineur, Linear convergence of first order methods for non-strongly convex optimization, Math. Program., 175 (2019), 69–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-018-1232-1 doi: 10.1007/s10107-018-1232-1
[2]	A. Makhdoumi, A. Ozdaglar, Convergence rate of distributed admm over networks, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 62 (2017), 5082–5095. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2017.2677879 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2017.2677879
[3]	X. He, T. Huang, J. Yu, C. Li, Y. Zhang, A continuous-time algorithm for distributed optimization based on multiagent networks, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.: Syst., 49 (2017), 2700–2709. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2017.2780194 doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2017.2780194
[4]	H. Li, Q. Lü, X. Liao, T. Huang, Accelerated convergence algorithm for distributed constrained optimization under time-varying general directed graphs, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.: Syst., 50 (2018), 2612–2622. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2018.2823901 doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2018.2823901
[5]	Q. Wang, J. Chen, B. Xin, X. Zeng, Distributed optimal consensus for euler-lagrange systems based on event-triggered control, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.: Syst., 51 (2021), 4588–4598. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2019.2944857 doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2019.2944857
[6]	J. Guo, R. Jia, R. Su, Y. Zhao, Identification of fir systems with binary-valued observations against data tampering attacks, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.: Syst., 53 (2023), 5861–5873. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2023.3276352 doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2023.3276352
[7]	J. Guo, X. Wang, W. Xue, Y. Zhao, System identification with binary-valued observations under data tampering attacks, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 66 (2020), 3825–3832. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2020.3029325 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2020.3029325
[8]	X. Zeng, Y. Peng, Y. Hong, Distributed algorithm for robust resource allocation with polyhedral uncertain allocation parameters, J. Syst. Sci. Complexity, 31 (2018), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-018-7145-5 doi: 10.1007/s11424-018-7145-5
[9]	V. Kekatos, G. B. Giannakis, Distributed robust power system state estimation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 28 (2013), 1617–1626. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2012.2219629 doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2012.2219629
[10]	S. Sra, S. Nowozin, S. J. Wright, Optimization for Machine Learning, Mit Press, 2012.
[11]	B. Q. Hu, S. Wang, A novel approach in uncertain programming part Ⅰ: new arithmetic and order relation for interval numbers, J. Ind. Manage. Optim., 2 (2006), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.3934/jimo.2006.2.351 doi: 10.3934/jimo.2006.2.351
[12]	L. Wu, M. Shahidehpour, Z. Li, Comparison of scenario-based and interval optimization approaches to stochastic SCUC, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 27 (2012), 913–921. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2011.2164947 doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2011.2164947
[13]	A. Neumaier, Interval Methods for Systems of Equations, Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[14]	J. Rohn, Positive definiteness and stability of interval matrices, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 15 (1994), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0895479891219216 doi: 10.1137/S0895479891219216
[15]	V. I. Levin, Nonlinear optimization under interval uncertainty, Cybern. Syst. Anal., 35 (1999), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02733477 doi: 10.1007/BF02733477
[16]	T. Saeed, S. Treană, New classes of interval-valued variational problems and inequalities, Results Control Optim., 13 (2023), 100324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rico.2023.100324 doi: 10.1016/j.rico.2023.100324
[17]	M. Ciontescu, S. Treană, On some connections between interval-valued variational control problems and the associated inequalities, Results Control Optim., 12 (2023), 100300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rico.2023.100300 doi: 10.1016/j.rico.2023.100300
[18]	Y. Guo, G. Ye, W. Liu, D. Zhao, S. Treanţǎ, Solving nonsmooth interval optimization problems based on interval-valued symmetric invexity, Chaos, Solitons Fractals, 174 (2023), 113834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113834 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113834
[19]	S. Treană, T. Saeed, On weak variational control inequalities via interval analysis, Mathematics, 11 (2023), 2177. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11092177 doi: 10.3390/math11092177
[20]	I. Hisao, T. Hideo, Multiobjective programming in optimization of the interval objective function, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 48 (1990), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90375-L doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90375-L
[21]	S. T. Liu, R. T. Wang, A numerical solution method to interval quadratic programming, Appl. Math. Comput., 189 (2007), 1274–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2006.12.007 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2006.12.007
[22]	C. Jiang, X. Han, G. Liu, G. Liu, A nonlinear interval number programming method for uncertain optimization problems, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 188 (2008), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.031 doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.031
[23]	A. Jayswal, I. Stancu-Minasian, I. Ahmad, On sufficiency and duality for a class of interval-valued programming problems, Appl. Math. Comput., 218 (2011), 4119–4127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2011.09.041 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2011.09.041
[24]	M. Hladık, Interval linear programming: a survey, in Linear Programming-New Frontiers in Theory and Applications, (2012), 85–120.
[25]	A. Bellet, Y. Liang, A. B. Garakani, M. F. Balcan, F. Sha, A distributed Frank-Wolfe algorithm for communication-efficient sparse learning, in Proceedings of the 2015 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM), (2015), 478–486. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974010.54
[26]	G. Qu, N. Li, Accelerated distributed Nesterov gradient descent, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 65 (2020), 2566–2581. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2019.2937496 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2019.2937496
[27]	A. Nedic, A. Olshevsky, W. Shi, Achieving geometric convergence for distributed optimization over time-varying graphs, SIAM J. Optim., 27 (2017), 2597–2633. https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1084316 doi: 10.1137/16M1084316
[28]	S. Liang, L. Y. Wang, G. Yin, Exponential convergence of distributed primal–dual convex optimization algorithm without strong convexity, Automatica, 105 (2019), 298–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2019.04.004 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2019.04.004
[29]	X. Yi, S. Zhang, T. Yang, K. H. Johansson, T. Chai, Exponential convergence for distributed optimization under the restricted secant inequality condition, IFAC-PapersOnLine, 53 (2020), 2672–2677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.383 doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.383
[30]	S. Treană, Lu-optimality conditions in optimization problems with mechanical work objective functionals, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., 33 (2021), 4971–4978. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3066196 doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3066196
[31]	H. C. Wu, On interval-valued nonlinear programming problems, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 338 (2008), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.05.023 doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.05.023
[32]	B. T. Polyak, Introduction to Optimization, Chapman and Hall, 1987.
[33]	R. Durrett, Probability: Theory and Examples, Cambridge University Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779398
[34]	T. Maeda, On optimization problems with set-valued objective maps: existence and optimality, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 153 (2012), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-011-9952-x doi: 10.1007/s10957-011-9952-x
[35]	A. K. Bhurjee, G. Panda, Efficient solution of interval optimization problem, Math. Methods Oper. Res., 76 (2012), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00186-012-0399-0 doi: 10.1007/s00186-012-0399-0
[36]	S. S. Ram, A. Nedić, V. V. Veeravalli, Distributed stochastic subgradient projection algorithms for convex optimization, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 147 (2010), 516–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-010-9737-7 doi: 10.1007/s10957-010-9737-7
[37]	A. Nedic, A. Ozdaglar, Distributed subgradient methods for multi-agent optimization, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 54 (2009), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2008.2009515 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2008.2009515
[38]	A. P. Ruszczyński, A. Ruszczynski, Nonlinear Optimization, Princeton University Press, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400841059
[39]	A. Nedic, A. Ozdaglar, P. A. Parrilo, Constrained consensus and optimization in multi-agent networks, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 55 (2010), 922–938. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2010.2041686 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2010.2041686
[40]	A. Nedić, A. Olshevsky, Stochastic gradient-push for strongly convex functions on time-varying directed graphs, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 61 (2016), 3936–3947. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2016.2529285 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2016.2529285

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

Electronic Research Archive

1 1.3

Metrics

Article views(1229) PDF downloads(60) Cited by(0)

Preview PDF

Download XML

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline

Electronic Research Archive

Linear convergence of a primal-dual algorithm for distributed interval optimization

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Proof of main result

3. Conclusions

Use of AI tools declaration

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Catalog

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Proof of main result

3. Conclusions

Use of AI tools declaration

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

Electronic Research Archive

Linear convergence of a primal-dual algorithm for distributed interval optimization

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Proof of main result

3. Conclusions

Use of AI tools declaration

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Export File

Citation

Format

Content

Catalog

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Proof of main result

3. Conclusions

Use of AI tools declaration

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References