Abstract
In a recent paper by Kurasov et al. (Math Biosci 305:170–177, 2018), a hybrid gene regulatory network was proposed to model gene expression dynamics by using a stochastic system of coupled partial differential equations. In more recent work, the existence and strong convergence of the solutions to equilibrium were proven. In this article, we improve upon their result by showing that the convergence rate is independent of the initial state, therefore proving that the solutions converge not only strongly but even uniformly to equilibrium. To this end, we make use of a recent convergence theorem for stochastic, irreducible semigroups that contain partial integral operators.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Let \(a, b, c, d \in \mathbb {R}\) such that \(b, d > 0\) and \(\tfrac{a}{b} < \tfrac{c}{d}\). Set \(I :=\left[ \frac{a}{b}, \frac{c}{d} \right] \) and let \(\nu , \mu : I \rightarrow (0, \infty )\) be continuous. Given an initial state \(u_0 \in L^1(I; \mathbb {C}^2)\), we are interested in the long-term behaviour of the solutions to the system
subject to the boundary conditions
In [17], the authors Kurasov, Lück, Mugnolo and Wolf described a hybrid gene regulatory network model aiming to model the evolution of protein counts in cells on a continuous state space by a piecewise deterministic Markov processes, i.e. a system of coupled partial differential equations. Classically, the state space of discrete-stochastic models representing gene regulatory networks is typically high-dimensional due to the combinatorial nature of molecule counts (see [31] for a survey). However, under additional assumptions, exact solutions of the discrete state-space models can be found (see, e.g., [16, 19]). Due to their high-dimensional nature, these models are difficult to solve numerically. Hybrid models of gene regulatory networks emerged as a compromise between the accuracy of deterministic models and the computational efficiency of stochastic models (see [27]). The model in (1.1) follows the same approach and models gene expressions in single cells on a continuous state space. In [18], exact solutions of (1.1) for special choices of parameters are given and proven to converge individually to equilibrium.
Following [17, 18], we discuss the long-term behaviour of solutions of (1.1) by using classical semigroup methods. In [18, Proposition 4.3], it was proven that the problem is well posed and that its solution is given by a stochastic, irreducible semigroup when modelled on a suitable \(L^1\)-space. Moreover, in [18, Theorem 4.6] the authors prove the existence of equilibrium states and that the solutions to (1.1) converge strongly to equilibrium.
In this paper, we strengthen [18, Theorem 4.6] to operator norm rather than strong convergence. To be precise, we prove the following result.
Theorem 1.1
The solution semigroup \((S(t))_{t \ge 0}\) of (1.1) converges to a rank-1-projection onto its fixed space with respect to the operator norm as \(t \rightarrow \infty \).
In other words, the convergence of the solutions to the equilibrium cannot happen arbitrarily slow, while varying over all the initial conditions of the system. A few comments on the above result are in order:
-
(a)
The first-order differential operator occurring in (1.1) essentially acts as a shift; in particular, it exhibits no smoothing on the solutions unlike diffusion terms. Hereby, the entire mass in the different coordinates is shifted in two opposing directions and concentrated at the opposing ends of the interval I. Hence, one cannot expect the solutions to converge without the action of the potential term.
-
(b)
The potential term is a multiplication operator and, therefore, has also no particular smoothing properties. However, the potential term causes a mixing of the coordinates resulting in these shifts to counteract each other, ensuring the convergence of solutions. This idea was the gist in [18].
1.1 Methodology and related literature
There exists a substantial number of results in the literature on the long-term behaviour of semigroups on \(L^p\)-spaces that show strong convergence to an equilibrium as \(t \rightarrow \infty \) under the assumption that the semigroup contains an integral operator (see Section 3 for a definition). These results have a long history, going back to [15, Korollar 3.11]. Subsequent works provide similar results (see [3, 7, 9,10,11] for examples). For a brief survey of these results, we refer to [4, Section 3]. Furthermore, in [12] results of this type are obtained under the condition that the semigroup contains an operator that dominates a nonzero integral operator. In [13], a generalization of many of the aforementioned results is presented in a more abstract setting.
Furthermore, in [22,23,24,25, 28] and [26, Section 5] an asymptotic theory of substochastic \(C_0\)-semigroups that dominate an integral operator on an \(L^1\)-space is developed. These results all yield the strong convergence of semigroups to equilibrium and have a history of applications to models from mathematical biology, kinetic equations and queueing theory. In the proof of Theorem 1.1, we employ a more recent theorem from [14] that yields the stronger operator norm convergence of stochastic semigroups (see Theorem 3.1).
1.2 Organization of the article
In Section 2, we study the first-order differential operators that appear in (1.1). Moreover, the proof of Theorem 1.1 is prepared by simplifying (1.1) via a state-space transform. This shortens the calculations in Section 3.
In Section 3, the main result is proved. This is achieved by showing the existence of a lower bound for the dual resolvent of the generator of the solution semigroup \((T(t))_{t \ge 0}\) and by proving that the solution semigroup contains a partial integral operator. This allows us to apply the aforementioned result from [14].
1.3 Notation and terminology
Let E be a Banach space. Then, we denote the space of bounded linear operators on E by \(\mathcal {L}(E)\). Furthermore, if A is a closed operator on E, then we denote by \(\sigma (A)\) the spectrum and by \(\rho (A)\) the resolvent set of A. Let \((\Omega , \Sigma , \mu )\) be a measure space. For an element \(f \in L^\infty (\Omega )\), we use the notation \(f \gg 0\) to say that f is bounded away from 0, i.e. that there exists some \(c > 0\) such that \(f \ge c \cdot {{\,\mathrm{\mathbbm {1}}\,}}\), where \({{\,\mathrm{\mathbbm {1}}\,}}:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb {C}, \, x \mapsto 1\). Here, the inequality \(\ge \) between elements in \(L^\infty (\Omega )\) is to be understood pointwise for almost all points in \(\Omega \).
Furthermore, a \(C_0\)-semigroup \((T(t))_{t \ge 0}\) on \(L^1(\Omega )\) is called positive if \(T(t) f \ge 0\) for all \(0 \le f \in L^1(\Omega )\). A positive \(C_0\)-semigroup \((T(t))_{t \ge 0}\) on \(L^1(\Omega )\) is called stochastic if
A \(\mathbb {C}^n\)-valued function f is said to satisfy the above conditions if it satisfies them componentwise.
Throughout the paper, we assume knowledge of classical semigroup theory and the basics of the theory of positive operators on \(L^1\)-spaces. For an introduction to these topics, we refer to [5, 8, 21, 29] and [1, 2, 20, 30, 32], respectively.
2 Setting the stage
Let a, b, c, d as well as the interval I and the functions \(\nu \) and \(\mu \) be defined as in the introduction and let \(\mathring{I} :=(\frac{a}{b}, \frac{c}{d})\). Consider the operator \(\mathcal {A} : D(\mathcal {A}) \rightarrow L^1(\Omega ; \mathbb {C}^2)\) defined by
where
Here, \(L^1(I; \mathbb {C}^2)\) is equipped with the norm
This norm renders \(L^1(I; \mathbb {C}^2)\) isometrically isomorphic to the \(L^1\)-space of scalar-valued functions over two disjoint copies of I. In particular, one can treat \(L^1(I; \mathbb {C}^2)\) as a scalar-valued \(L^1\)-space.
Consider the bounded operator \(\mathcal {B}:L^1(I; \mathbb {C}^2) \rightarrow L^1(I; \mathbb {C}^2)\) given by
Using the operators \(\mathcal {A}\) and \(\mathcal {B}\), we can restate (1.1) as the abstract Cauchy problem
on the state space \(L^1(I; \mathbb {C}^2)\), where \(D(\mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {B}) :=D(\mathcal {A})\).
Via an affine linear state-space transform, we map the interval \(I = [\frac{a}{b}, \frac{c}{d}]\) to the interval [0, 1]. The transformed system is then of the form
subject to the boundary conditions \(u_1(t,1) = 0\) and \(u_2(t, 0) = 0\). Here, \({\tilde{\nu }}\) and \(\tilde{\mu }\) are positive and continuous functions on the interval [0, 1]. It follows that we may choose \(a = 0\) and \(c = d\) without losing the generality offered by the original system (1.1).
In the simplified form (2.2), two differential operators appear. Namely, the operators
We commence by studying these operators. It turns out that it is easiest to consider both operators on a domain in \(L^1([0, \infty ))\) and \(L^1((- \infty , 0])\), respectively. We later restrict the operators to \(L^1([0,1])\). To this end, we define
where the derivatives have to be understood in the distributional sense.
These operators are closely related in the sense that both operators are similar via the reflection operator
More precisely, one has the following lemma. We omit its proof as it is straightforward.
Lemma 2.1
-
(i)
The reflection operator Q is an isometric isomorphism with
$$\begin{aligned} Q^{-1} :L^1((-\infty , 1]) \rightarrow L^1([0, \infty )), \quad Q^{-1}f(x) :=f(1 - x). \end{aligned}$$In particular, both Q and \(Q^{-1}\) are positive.
-
(ii)
The operators \(A_1\) and \(A_2\) are similar via Q, i.e. we have that \(D(A_2) = Q D(A_1)\) and
$$\begin{aligned} A_2 = Q A_1 Q^{-1}. \end{aligned}$$
Next, we prove that \(A_1\) and \(A_2\) generate stochastic semigroups on the spaces \(L^1([0, \infty ))\) and \(L^1((-\infty , 1])\), respectively. For that purpose and for later reference, we give explicit identities for the resolvents of both operators.
Lemma 2.2
The following assertions hold:
-
(i)
We have \((0, \infty ) \subseteq \rho (A_1)\). For all \(\lambda > 0\) and \(g \in L^1([0, \infty ))\), the identity
$$\begin{aligned} R(\lambda , A_1) f(x) = x^{\lambda - 1} \int _x^\infty \frac{f(y)}{y^\lambda } \, \textrm{d}y \end{aligned}$$holds for almost all \(x \in [0, \infty )\).
-
(ii)
We have \((0, \infty ) \subseteq \rho (A_2)\). For all \(\lambda > 0\) and \(g \in L^\infty ((-\infty , 1])\), the identity
$$\begin{aligned} R(\lambda , A_2) f(x) = (1 - x)^{\lambda - 1} \int _{-\infty }^x \frac{f(y)}{(1 - y)^\lambda } \, \textrm{d}y \end{aligned}$$holds for almost all \(x \in (-\infty ,1]\).
Proof
(i): For \(\lambda > 0\), we define the operator
We show that \(R_\lambda \) is well defined, i.e. that \(R_\lambda f \in L^1([0, \infty ))\) for all \(f \in L^1([0, \infty ))\). Fix \(f \in L^1([0, \infty ))\). Clearly, \(R_\lambda f\) is measurable for each \(\lambda > 0\) and by Fubini’s theorem one has
and thus \(R_\lambda f \in L^1([0, \infty ))\). Furthermore, an elementary calculation shows that for all \(\varphi \in \textrm{C}_{\textrm{c}}^\infty ((0, \infty ))\), we have
which implies that
and thus, \(R_\lambda f \in D(A_1)\) for all \(\lambda > 0\). Furthermore, another standard calculation shows that
Hence, the claim follows.
(ii): Since \(A_1\) and \(A_2\) are similar by Lemma 2.1, it follows that \(\sigma (A_1) = \sigma (A_2)\), and thus \((0, \infty ) \subseteq \rho (A_2)\). Also by similarity, \(R(\lambda , A_2) = Q R(\lambda , A_1) Q^{-1}\) (see, e.g. [8, Section II.2.1]) and thus
for all \(\lambda > 0\) and \(f \in L^1([0, \infty ))\). \(\square \)
Now we are in a position to show that \(A_1\) and \(A_2\) generate stochastic semigroups on the spaces \(L^1([0, \infty ))\) and \(L^1((-\infty , 1])\), respectively.
Proposition 2.3
The following assertions hold:
-
(i)
The operator \(A_1\) is the generator of a stochastic \(C_0\)-semigroup \(({\widetilde{T}}_1(t))_{t \ge 0}\) on \(L^1([0, \infty ))\), given by
$$\begin{aligned} {\widetilde{T}}_1(t) f(x) = \textrm{e}^t f(x \textrm{e}^t) \end{aligned}$$for all \(f \in L^1([0, \infty ))\).
-
(ii)
The operator \(A_2\) is the generator of a stochastic \(C_0\)-semigroup \(({\widetilde{T}}_2(t))_{t \ge 0}\) on \(L^1((-\infty , 1])\), given by
$$\begin{aligned} {\widetilde{T}}_2(t) f(x) = \textrm{e}^t f(1 - (1 - x) \textrm{e}^t) \end{aligned}$$for all \(f \in L^1((-\infty , 1])\).
Proof
(i): It is elementary to show that \(({\widetilde{T}}_1(t))_{t \ge 0}\) satisfies the semigroup law and that it is strongly continuous. So, it is just left to show that \(A_1\) is indeed the generator of \(({\widetilde{T}}_1(t))_{t \ge 0}\). To this end, let us denote the generator of \(({\widetilde{T}}_1(t))_{t \ge 0}\) by A. Let \(f \in D(A_1)\). Then, \({\widetilde{T}}_1(t) f \in D(A_1)\) and the classical Sobolev embedding implies that \(T_1(t) f\) is continuous. In particular, we have
by substitution for all \(\lambda > 0\) and \(x \in [0, \infty )\). Since \(R(\lambda , A)\) and \(R(\lambda , A_1)\) coincide on D(A) and D(A) is dense in \(L^1([0, \infty ))\), it follows that \(A = A_1\).
Finally, by using the same substitution as above, one obtains
which implies by density of \(D(A_1)\) that \(({\widetilde{T}}_1(t))_{t \ge 0}\) is a stochastic semigroup.
(ii): The claim that \(A_2\) generates a stochastic semigroup follows immediately from Lemma 2.1. Furthermore, Lemma 2.1 implies
for all \(f \in L^1((-\infty , 1])\). \(\square \)
From the explicit formulas of the resolvents of \(A_1\) and \(A_2\) in Lemma 2.2, we now derive formulas for the resolvents of the dual operators.
Corollary 2.4
The following assertions hold:
-
(i)
We have \((0, \infty ) \subseteq \rho (A_1')\) and for all \(\lambda > 0\) and all \(g \in L^\infty ([0, \infty ))\) that
$$\begin{aligned} R(\lambda , A_1') g(y) = \frac{1}{y^\lambda } \int _0^y g(x) x^{\lambda - 1} \, \textrm{d}x \end{aligned}$$for almost all \(y \in [0,\infty )\).
-
(ii)
We have \((0, \infty ) \subseteq \rho (A_2')\) and for all \(\lambda > 0\) and all \(g \in L^\infty ((-\infty , 1])\) that
$$\begin{aligned} R(\lambda , A_2') g(y) = \frac{1}{(1 - y)^\lambda } \int _y^1 g(x) (1 - x)^{\lambda - 1} \, \textrm{d}x \end{aligned}$$for almost all \(y \in (-\infty ,1]\).
Proof
(i): For \(\lambda > 0\), we define the operator
Then, \(R_\lambda '\) is well defined with \(\Vert R_\lambda '\Vert = \frac{1}{\lambda }\). Now let \(f \in L^1([0, \infty ))\) and \(g \in L^\infty ([0, \infty ))\). Then, Fubini’s theorem yields
and, thus, \(R(\lambda , A_1') = R(\lambda , A_1)' = R_\lambda '\) for all \(\lambda > 0\).
(ii): Since \(A_1\) and \(A_2\) are similar via Q, we have \(R(\lambda , A_2') = Q'^{-1} R(\lambda , A_1') Q'\) for all \(\lambda > 0\), where
denotes the dual of the reflection operator Q. Thus, a simple calculation yields the claim. \(\square \)
Since Theorem 1.1 is concerned with semigroups on the space \(L^1([0, 1])\), one needs to restrict the semigroups \({\tilde{T}}_1\) and \({\tilde{T}}_2\) generated by \(A_1\) and \(A_2\), respectively, to this smaller space in a meaningful way. This is what is done next.
In order to study these restrictions of the semigroups to \(L^1([0, 1])\), we consider the following obvious candidates for their generators. We define the operators \(C_1\) and \(C_2\) by
The following proposition collects some identities related to the operators \(C_1\) and \(C_2\). These are used later on to obtain lower bounds for the resolvent of the generator of the semigroup \((T(t))_{t \ge 0}\).
Proposition 2.5
The following assertions hold:
-
(i)
The operator \(C_1\) is the generator of a stochastic \(C_0\)-semigroup \((T_1(t))_{t \ge 0}\) on \(L^1([0, 1])\), given by
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} T_1(t) f(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \text {e}^t f(x \text {e}^t), \quad &{} \text {if} \ t \le - \ln x, \\ 0, \quad &{} \text {else,} \end{array}\right. \end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$for all \(f \in L^1([0, 1])\). Moreover, for all \(\lambda > 0\) and \(f \in L^1([0, 1])\) the identity
$$\begin{aligned} R(\lambda , C_1) f(x) = x^{\lambda - 1} \int _x^1 \frac{f(y)}{y^\lambda } \, \textrm{d}y \end{aligned}$$holds for almost all \(x \in [0,1]\).
-
(ii)
The operator \(C_2\) is the generator of a stochastic \(C_0\)-semigroup \((T_2(t))_{t \ge 0}\) on \(L^1([0, 1])\), given by
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} T_2(t) f(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \text {e}^t f(1 - (1 - x) \text {e}^t), \quad &{} \text {if } t \le - \ln (1 - x), \\ 0, \quad &{}\text {else,} \end{array}\right. \end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$for all \(f \in L^1([0, 1])\). Moreover, for all \(\lambda > 0\) and \(f \in L^1([0, 1])\) the identity
$$\begin{aligned} R(\lambda , C_2) f(x) = (1 - x)^{\lambda - 1} \int _0^x \frac{f(y)}{(1 - y)^\lambda } \, \textrm{d}y \end{aligned}$$holds for almost all \(x \in [0,1]\).
Proof
(i): Consider the closed, \(({\widetilde{T}}_1(t))_{t \ge 0}\)-invariant subspace
Then, the part \(A_{1 |}\) of \(A_1\) in F is given by
and generates the subspace semigroup \(({\widetilde{T}}_1(t)_|)_{t \ge 0}\) on F (see [8, Section II.2.3]). Clearly, F is isomorphic \(L^1([0, 1])\) and the generator of the subspace semigroup \(({\widetilde{T}}_1(t)_|)_{t \ge 0}\) is isomorphic to \(C_1\). The above resolvent identity is another direct consequence of this isomorphy.
(ii): This follows either from the fact that \((T_2(t))_{t \ge 0}\) is similar to \((T_1(t))_{t \ge 0}\) via the restricted reflection operator
which is an isometric isomorphism with \(Q^{-1} = Q\) or, alternatively, by analogous arguments as used in (i). \(\square \)
Analogously to Corollary 2.4, the following result is a consequence of Proposition 2.5.
Corollary 2.6
The following assertions hold:
-
(i)
We have \((0, \infty ) \subseteq \rho (C_1')\) and for all \(\lambda > 0\) and all \(g \in L^\infty ([0,1])\) that
$$\begin{aligned} R(\lambda , C_1') g(y) = \frac{1}{y^\lambda } \int _0^y g(x) x^{\lambda - 1} \, \textrm{d}x \end{aligned}$$for almost all \(y \in [0,\infty )\).
-
(ii)
We have \((0, \infty ) \subseteq \rho (C_2')\) and for all \(\lambda > 0\) and all \(g \in L^\infty ([0,1])\) that
$$\begin{aligned} R(\lambda , C_2') g(y) = \frac{1}{(1 - y)^\lambda } \int _y^1 g(x) (1 - x)^{\lambda - 1} \, \textrm{d}x \end{aligned}$$for almost all \(y \in [0,\infty )\).
3 Long-term behaviour
In this section, we prove our main result (Theorem 1.1). Namely, we show that the solutions to (1.1) converge uniformly to the equilibrium of the equation with respect to the operator norm. In Sect. 2, we observed that this is equivalent to studying the long-term behaviour of the solutions to the abstract Cauchy problem
in the space \(L^1([0, 1]; \mathbb {C}^2)\). Here, \(\mathcal {A}\) and \(\mathcal {B}\) are given as at the beginning of Sect. 2. Recall that by the discussion in the introduction of Sect. 2 we may, and shall, assume that \(a = 0\) and \(c = d\). It was already shown in [18, Proposition 4.3] that the operator \(\mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {B}\) generates a stochastic, irreducible semigroup \((T(t))_{t \ge 0}\) on \(L^1([0, 1])\).
We first recall the notion of integral operators. Let \((\Omega , \Sigma , \mu )\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space. Then, a bounded operator T on \(L^1(\Omega )\) is called an integral operator if there exists a measurable function \(k :\Omega \times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) such that for each \(f \in L^1(\Omega )\) the function \(y \mapsto k(x, y) f(y)\) is in \(L^1(\Omega )\) for almost every \(x \in \Omega \) and
Furthermore, an operator T on \(L^1(\Omega )\) is called a partial integral operator if there exists a nonzero integral operator \(K \in \mathcal {L}(L^1(\Omega ))\) such that \(0 \le K \le T\). The following result (see [14, Corollary 1.2]) is our main tool for the proof of Theorem 1.1.
Theorem 3.1
Let \((\Omega , \Sigma , \mu )\) be a \(\sigma \)-finite measure space and let \({(T(t))}_{t \ge 0}\) be a stochastic and irreducible \(C_0\)-semigroup on \(L^1(\Omega )\). Suppose that there exists \(t_0 > 0\) such that \(T(t_0)\) is a partial integral operator. Then, the following statements are equivalent:
-
(i)
\({(T(t))}_{t \ge 0}\) converges with respect to the operator norm as \(t \rightarrow \infty \).
-
(ii)
For each nonzero \(0 \le g \in L^\infty (\Omega )\), there exists \(\lambda > 0\) such that \(R(\lambda , A)' g \gg 0\).
So to apply Theorem 3.1 to the semigroup \((S(t))_{t \ge 0}\) generated by \(\mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {B}\), we need to show that the following two assertions hold:
-
(a)
For each nonzero \(0 \le g \in L^\infty ([0, 1]; \mathbb {C}^2)\) there exists some \(\lambda > 0\) and some \(c > 0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} R(\lambda , \mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {B})' g \ge c \cdot {{\,\mathrm{\mathbbm {1}}\,}}. \end{aligned}$$This is shown in Sect. 3.1.
-
(b)
There exists a time \(t_0 > 0\) such that \(S(t_0)\) is a partial integral operator. This is shown in Sect. 3.2.
Note that, as discussed at the beginning of Sect. 2, the space \(L^1([0, 1]; \mathbb {C}^2)\) is isometrically isomorphic to a scalar-valued \(L^1\)-space due to the choice of the norm. In particular, the above theorem is applicable.
3.1 The dual resolvent improves positivity
The next proposition shows that condition (a) is true.
Proposition 3.2
For each nonzero \(0 \le g \in L^\infty ([0, 1]; \mathbb {C}^2)\), there exists some \(\lambda > 0\) and some \(c > 0\) such that \(R(\lambda , \mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {B})' g \ge c {{\,\mathrm{\mathbbm {1}}\,}}\).
The following lemma simplifies estimates later in the proof of Proposition 3.2.
Lemma 3.3
There exist \(\varepsilon > 0\), \(\gamma > 0\) and some \(\lambda _0 > 0\) such that the following assertions hold:
-
(i)
\(R(\lambda , \mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {B}) \ge R(\lambda + \gamma , \mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {E})\) for all \(\lambda > \lambda _0\).
-
(ii)
\(\Vert \mathcal {E}R(\lambda , \mathcal {A})\Vert < 1\) for all \(\lambda > \lambda _0\).
Here, \(\mathcal {E}\in \mathcal {L}(L^1([0, 1]; \mathbb {C}^2))\) is given by
Proof
Fix \(\gamma > \max \lbrace \Vert \nu \Vert _\infty , \Vert \mu \Vert _\infty \rbrace \) and pick \(\varepsilon > 0\) such that
Such an \(\varepsilon \) exists, since \(\nu \) and \(\mu \) are strictly positive and continuous. Now pick \(\lambda _0 > \max \lbrace \gamma , 2 \varepsilon \rbrace \) (we may later enlarge \(\lambda _0\) further if necessary). We show that the assertions (i) and (ii) hold for our choices of \(\varepsilon \) and \(\lambda _0\).
(i): By the choice of \(\varepsilon \) and \(\gamma \), one has
where \(\mathcal {B}+ \gamma I - \mathcal {E}\) is a positive operator. Moreover, since \(\mathcal {A}\) is the generator of a stochastic semigroup and \(\mathcal {E}\) is a positive operator, it follows from the Trotter product formula \(\textrm{e}^{t(\mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {E})}f = \lim _{n \rightarrow \infty } \textrm{e}^{\tfrac{t}{n} \mathcal {A}} \textrm{e}^{\tfrac{t}{n} \mathcal {E}}f\) for all \(f \in L^1((0,1);\mathbb {C}^2)\) (see, e.g., [8, Corollary III.5.8]) that the semigroup generated by \(\mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {E}\) is positive. Hence, the integral representation of the resolvent implies that \(R(\lambda , \mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {E})\) is positive for all \(\lambda > \lambda _0\) with \(\lambda _0\) large enough. Moreover, it follows from the Hille–Yosida theorem and by choosing \(\lambda _0\) even larger that
for all \(\lambda > \lambda _0\), where \(\omega \in \mathbb {R}\) is the growth bound of the semigroup generated by \(\mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {E}\). Thus, by a consequence of the Neumann series expansion (see, e.g. [29, Theorem 4.5]), we obtain that
for all \(\lambda > \lambda _0\).
(ii): Since \(\mathcal {A}\) is the generator of a stochastic semigroup, we have
for all \(\lambda > \lambda _0\) by the Hille–Yosida theorem. \(\square \)
We are now in the position to prove Proposition 3.2.
Proof of Proposition 3.2
By Lemma 3.3, there exist \(\varepsilon > 0\), \(\gamma > 0\) and \(\lambda _0 > \gamma \) such that
and thus,
and \(\Vert R(\lambda , \mathcal {A})' \mathcal {E}'\Vert = \Vert \mathcal {E}R(\lambda , \mathcal {A})\Vert < 1\) for all \(\lambda > \lambda _0\). We show that there exists \(\lambda > \lambda _0\) such that \(R(\lambda , \mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {E})' \gg 0\). So, by [29, Theorem 4.5], one has for \(\lambda > \lambda _0\) that
Moreover,
and hence
So altogether, we have
where \({\widetilde{g}} :=R(\lambda , \mathcal {A})' g \ge 0\) is nonzero, whenever \(0 \le g \in L^\infty ([0, 1]; \mathbb {C}^2)\) is nonzero.
So to conclude the proof, it suffices to show that
for each nonzero \(0 \le h \in L^\infty ([0,1])\). Let \(0 \le h \in L^\infty ([0,1])\) be nonzero and choose \(\lambda > \max \{ \lambda _0, b, d, \gamma \}\). Then, by Corollary 2.6, we have
By [6, Lemma 8.2], there exists \(\alpha \in (0, 1)\) and \(\delta > 0\) such that
Using Corollary 2.6, again, we obtain for all \(z \in [0,1]\) that
So, all in all,
Completely analogously, one shows that \(R(b^{-1}\lambda , C_1)' R(d^{-1}\lambda , C_2)' h \gg 0\). Thus, the claim follows as a consequence of the estimate (3.1). \(\square \)
3.2 Partial integral operator
To apply Theorem 3.1, it remains to show that the semigroup \((S(t))_{t \ge 0}\) generated by \(\mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {B}\) contains a partial integral operator, i.e. that condition (b) is satisfied.
Proposition 3.4
Let \({(S(t))}_{t \ge 0}\) be the semigroup generated by \(\mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {B}\). Then, there exists \(t_0 > 0\) such that \(S(t_0)\) is a partial integral operator.
Proof
-
Step 1:
We show that there exist \(\varepsilon > 0\) and \(\gamma > 0\) such that the semigroup \((S(t))_{t \ge 0}\) generated by \(\mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {B}\) and the semigroup \((S_\varepsilon (t))_{t \ge 0}\) generated by \(\mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {E}\), where \(\mathcal {E}\) is defined as in Lemma 3.3, satisfy \(\textrm{e}^{\gamma t} S(t) \ge S_\varepsilon (t)\).
Indeed, by Lemma 3.3, there exist \(\varepsilon > 0\), \(\gamma > 0\) and \(\lambda _0 > 0\) such that \(R(\lambda , \mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {B}) \ge R(\lambda + \gamma , \mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {E}) = R(\lambda , \mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {E}- \gamma )\) for all \(\lambda > \lambda _0\). Hence, the Post–Widder inversion formula (see [8, Corollary III.5.5]) yields
$$\begin{aligned} S(t) \ge \textrm{e}^{-\gamma t} S_\varepsilon (t) \qquad \text {for all } t \ge 0. \end{aligned}$$(3.2) -
Step 2:
We use a perturbation argument to obtain a lower bound for the stochastic semigroup \((T(t))_{t \ge 0}\) generated by \(\mathcal {A}\) (cf. Proposition 2.5): As \(\mathcal {E}\) is a bounded operator, the operator \(\mathcal {A}_\varepsilon :=\mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {E}\) generates a \(C_0\)-semigroup \((S_\varepsilon (t))_{t \ge 0}\) and this semigroup is given by the Dyson–Phillips series
$$\begin{aligned} S_\varepsilon (t)&= \sum _{k = 0}^\infty U_k(t), \qquad \text {for all } t \ge 0 \end{aligned}$$(see, e.g. [8, Theorem III.1.10] or [5, Section 11.2]), where
$$\begin{aligned} U_0(t) :=T(t), \quad U_k(t)&:=\int _0^t T(t - s) \mathcal {E}U_{k - 1}(s) \, \textrm{d}s \qquad \text {for all } t \ge 0, \, k \in \mathbb {N}. \end{aligned}$$Clearly, \(S_\varepsilon (t) \ge U_1(t)\) for all \(t \ge 0\).
-
Step 3:
Next, we decompose \(U_1(t)\) into operators, which we later show to be partial integral operator for some \(t > 0\). This then implies that \(U_1(t)\) is a partial integral operator, which in turn implies that \(S_\varepsilon (t)\), and thus, S(t) are partial integral operators.
Recall from Proposition 2.5 the definition of \((T_1(t))_{t \ge 0}\) and \((T_2(t))_{t \ge 0}\). Clearly,
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} U_1(t) f&= \int _0^t \begin{pmatrix} T_1(b(t-s)) &{}{} 0 \\ 0 &{} T_2 (d(t-s)) \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \varepsilon &{}{} \varepsilon \\ \varepsilon &{}{} \varepsilon \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} T_1(bs) &{}{} 0 \\ 0 &{} T_2 (ds) \end{pmatrix} f \, \text {d}s \\ {}&= \varepsilon \int _0^t \begin{pmatrix} T_1(b(t-s)) &{} T_1(b(t-s)) \\ T_2(d(t-s)) &{} T_2 (d(t-s)) \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} T_1(bs) &{} 0 \\ 0 &{} T_2 (ds) \end{pmatrix} f \, \text {d}s \\ {}&= \varepsilon \int _0^t \begin{pmatrix} T_1(b(t-s))T_1(bs) &{} T_1(b(t-s))T_2(ds) \\ T_2(d(t-s)) T_1(bs) &{} T_2 (d(t-s))T_2(bs) \end{pmatrix} f \, \text {d}s, \end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$dominates both functions
$$\begin{aligned} \int _0^t \varepsilon \begin{pmatrix} 0 &{} T_1(b(t-s))T_2(ds) \\ 0 &{} 0 \end{pmatrix} f \, \textrm{d}s \quad \text {and} \quad \int _0^t \varepsilon \begin{pmatrix} 0 &{} 0 \\ T_2(d(t-s)) T_1(bs) &{} 0 \end{pmatrix} f \, \textrm{d}s \end{aligned}$$for all \(f \in L^1([0, 1]; \mathbb {C}^2)\). Thus, it is sufficient to show that either
$$\begin{aligned} \int _0^t T_1(b(t-s))T_2(ds) \, \textrm{d}s \in \mathcal {L}(L^1([0,1])) \end{aligned}$$(3.3)or
$$\begin{aligned} \int _0^t T_2(b(t-s))T_1(ds) \, \textrm{d}s \in \mathcal {L}(L^1([0,1])) \end{aligned}$$(3.4)is a partial integral operator.
-
Step 4:
We show that (3.3) is a partial integral operator if \(d \le b\). Let \(f \in L^1([0,1])\) and \(t \ge 0\). Then, by Proposition 2.5, we have
$$\begin{aligned} \int _0^t T_1(b(t-s)) T_2(d s) f(x) \, \textrm{d}s = \int _0^t \textrm{e}^{b(t-s)} \textrm{e}^{ds} f(1- (1 - x \textrm{e}^{b(t-s)}) \textrm{e}^{ds} ) \, \textrm{d}s \end{aligned}$$for almost all \(x \in [0, 1]\). As \(0 < d \le b\), the mapping
$$\begin{aligned} \varphi :[0,1] \times [0, 1] \rightarrow \mathbb {R}, \quad (x,s) \mapsto 1- (1 - x \textrm{e}^{b(t-s)}) \textrm{e}^{ds}. \end{aligned}$$has the partial derivative
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial }{\partial s} \varphi (x, s) = d \textrm{e}^{d s} + (b-d)x \textrm{e}^{b(t-s)} \textrm{e}^{ds} > 0. \end{aligned}$$Thus, \(\varphi (x, \mathord {\,\cdot \,})\) is strictly increasing for each \(x \in [0, 1]\). A substitution yields
$$\begin{aligned} \int _0^t T_1(b(t-s)) T_2(d s) f(x) \, \textrm{d}s&= \int _0^t \textrm{e}^{b(t-s)} \textrm{e}^{ds} f(\varphi (x, s)) \, \textrm{d}s \\&\ge \int _0^t f(\varphi (x, s)) \, \textrm{d}s \\&= \int _{\varphi (x, 0)}^{\varphi (x, t)}\frac{1}{\frac{\partial }{\partial s} \varphi (x, s)} f(s) \, \textrm{d}s. \end{aligned}$$Hence, \(\int _0^{t} T_1(b(t-s))T_2(ds) \, \textrm{d}s\) is a partial integral operator for each \(t > 0\).
-
Step 5:
If \(b \le d\), then the proof showing that (3.4) is a partial integral operator for each \(t > 0\) is analogous to the proof presented in the previous step.
In total, we have proven that \(U_1(t_0)\), and thus \(S(t_0)\), is a partial integral operator for some \(t_0 > 0\). \(\square \)
3.3 Proof of the main result
We have now gathered all the tools to conclude with the proof of Theorem 1.1.
Proof of Theorem 1.1
Without loss of generality, we may assume that \(a = 0\) and \(c = d\). By [18, Proposition 4.3], the operator \(\mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {B}\) generates an irreducible stochastic semigroup \((S(t))_{t \ge 0}\) on \(L^1([0, 1]; \mathbb {C}^2)\). Proposition 3.4 shows that there exists a time \(t_0 > 0\) such that \(S(t_0)\) is a partial integral operator. Moreover, by Proposition 3.2, for each nonzero \(0 \le g \in L^\infty ([0, 1]; \mathbb {C}^2)\) there exists some \(\lambda > 0\) such that \(R(\lambda , \mathcal {A}+ \mathcal {B})' g \gg 0\). So, Theorem 3.1 implies that \((S(t))_{t \ge 0}\) converges with respect to the operator norm as \(t \rightarrow \infty \). \(\square \)
Data availability
Due to the nature of the research, there is no supporting data.
References
Charalambos D. Aliprantis and Kim C. Border. Infinite dimensional analysis: A hitchhiker’s guide. Springer, Berlin, third edition, 2006.
Charalambos D. Aliprantis and Owen Burkinshaw. Positive operators, volume 119 of Pure and Applied Mathematics. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL, 1985.
Wolfgang Arendt. Positive semigroups of kernel operators. Positivity, 12(1):25–44, 2008.
Wolfgang Arendt and Jochen Glück. Positive irreducible semigroups and their long-time behaviour. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 378(2185):20190611, 17, 2020.
András Bátkai, Marjeta Kramar Fijavž, and Abdelaziz Rhandi. Positive operator semigroups: From finite to infinite dimensions, Volume 257 of Operator Theory: Advances and Applications. Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham, 2017.
Haim Brezis. Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations. Universitext. Springer, New York, 2011.
E. B. Davies. Triviality of the peripheral point spectrum. J. Evol. Equ., 5(3):407–415, 2005.
Klaus-Jochen Engel and Rainer Nagel. One-parameter semigroups for linear evolution equations, volume 194 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000. With contributions by S. Brendle, M. Campiti, T. Hahn, G. Metafune, G. Nickel, D. Pallara, C. Perazzoli, A. Rhandi, S. Romanelli and R. Schnaubelt.
Moritz Gerlach. On the peripheral point spectrum and the asymptotic behavior of irreducible semigroups of Harris operators. Positivity, 17(3):875–898, 2013.
Moritz Gerlach. Semigroups of kernel operators. PhD thesis, Universität Ulm, 2014.
Moritz Gerlach and Jochen Glück. On a convergence theorem for semigroups of positive integral operators. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, 355(9):973–976, 2017.
Moritz Gerlach and Jochen Glück. Convergence of positive operator semigroups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 372(9):6603–6627, 2019.
Jochen Glück and Markus Haase. Asymptotics of operator semigroups via the semigroup at infinity. In Positivity and noncommutative analysis, Trends Math., pages 167–203. Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham, 2019.
Jochen Glück and Florian G. Martin. Uniform convergence of stochastic semigroups. Israel J. Math., 247(1):1–19, 2022.
Günther Greiner. Spektrum und Asymptotik stark stetiger Halbgruppen positiver Operatoren, volume 82 of Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse [Reports of the Heidelberg Academy of Science. Section for Mathematics and Natural Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982.
Tobias Jahnke and Wilhelm Huisinga. Solving the chemical master equation for monomolecular reaction systems analytically. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 54(1):1–26, 2006.
Pavel Kurasov, Alexander Lück, Delio Mugnolo, and Verena Wolf. Stochastic hybrid models of gene regulatory networks—a PDE approach. Math. Biosci., 305:170–177, 2018.
Pavel Kurasov, Delio Mugnolo, and Verena Wolf. Analytic solutions for stochastic hybrid models of gene regulatory networks. J. Math. Biol., 82(1-2):Paper No. 9, 29, 2021.
Ian J. Laurenzi. An analytical solution of the stochastic master equation for reversible bimolecular reaction kinetics. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 113(8):3315–3322, 2000.
Peter Meyer-Nieberg. Banach lattices. Universitext. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
R. Nagel, editor. One-parameter semigroups of positive operators, volume 1184 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.
Katarzyna Pichór and Ryszard Rudnicki. Continuous Markov semigroups and stability of transport equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 249(2):668–685, 2000.
Katarzyna Pichór and Ryszard Rudnicki. Asymptotic decomposition of substochastic operators and semigroups. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 436(1):305–321, 2016.
Katarzyna Pichór and Ryszard Rudnicki. Asymptotic decomposition of substochastic semigroups and applications. Stoch. Dyn., 18(1):1850001, 18, 2018.
Katarzyna Pichór and Ryszard Rudnicki. Stability of stochastic semigroups and applications to Stein’s neuronal model. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B, 23(1):377–385, 2018.
Katarzyna Pichór, Ryszard Rudnicki, and Marta Tyran-Kamińska. Stochastic semigroups and their applications to biological models. Demonstr. Math., 45(2):463–494, 2012.
Jacek Puchałka and Andrzej M. Kierzek. Bridging the Gap between Stochastic and Deterministic Regimes in the Kinetic Simulations of the Biochemical Reaction Networks. Biophysical Journal, 86(3):1357–1372, 2004.
R. Rudnicki, K. Pichór, and M. Tyran-Kamińska. Markov semigroups and their applications. In Dynamics of dissipation. Invited lectures delivered during the 38th Karpacz winter school of theoretical physics on “Dynamical semigroups: Dissipation, chaos, quanta”, Lądek Zdrój, Poland, February 6–15, 2002, pages 215–238. Berlin: Springer, 2002.
Ryszard Rudnicki and Marta Tyran-Kamińska. Piecewise Deterministic Processes in Biological Models. Springer-Briefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. Springer, Cham, 2017. SpringerBriefs in Mathematical Methods.
Helmut H. Schaefer. Banach lattices and positive operators. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 215. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1974.
David Schnoerr, Guido Sanguinetti, and Ramon Grima. Approximation and inference methods for stochastic biochemical kinetics–a tutorial review. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 50(9):093001, 2017.
Adriaan C. Zaanen. Introduction to operator theory in Riesz spaces. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997.
Acknowledgements
The first-named author thanks Jochen Glück for an invitation to the University of Wuppertal, where major parts of this paper have been written.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare to have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Dobrick, A., Hölz, J. Uniform convergence of solutions to stochastic hybrid models of gene regulatory networks. J. Evol. Equ. 24, 53 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00028-024-00972-9
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00028-024-00972-9