Maximal regularity for semilinear non-autonomous evolution equations in temporally weighted spaces

We consider the problem of maximal regularity for the semilinear non-autonomous evolution equations u′(t)+A(t)u(t)=F(t,u),t-a.e.,u(0)=u0.\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\begin{aligned} u'(t)+A(t)u(t)=F(t,u),\, t \text {-a.e.}, \, u(0)=u_0. \end{aligned}$$\end{document}Here, the time-dependent operators A(t) are associated with (time dependent) sesquilinear forms on a Hilbert space H.\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathcal {H}.$$\end{document} We prove the maximal regularity result in temporally weighted L2\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$L^2$$\end{document}-spaces and other regularity properties for the solution of the previous problem under minimal regularity assumptions on the forms, the initial value u0\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$u_0$$\end{document} and the inhomogeneous term F. Our results are motivated by boundary value problems.


Introduction
The present paper deals with maximal L 2 -regularity for non-autonomous evolution equations in the setting of Hilbert spaces. Before explaining our results, we introduce some notations and assumptions.
Let (H, (·, ·), · ) be a Hilbert space over R or C. We consider another Hilbert space V which is densely and continuously embedded into H. We denote by V the (anti-) dual space of V so that We denote by , the duality V-V and note that ψ, v = (ψ, v) if ψ, v ∈ H. Given τ ∈ (0, ∞) and consider a family of sesquilinear forms : Re a(t, u, u) + ν u 2 ≥ δ u 2 V (∀u ∈ V) for some δ > 0 and some ν ∈ R (uniform quasicoercivity).
Here and throughout this paper, · V denotes the norm of V.
To each form a(t), we can associate two operators A(t) and A(t) on H and V , respectively. Recall that u ∈ H is in the domain D(A(t)) if there exists h ∈ H such that for all v ∈ V: a(t, u, v) = (h, v). We then set A(t)u := h. The operator A(t) is a bounded operator from V into V such that A(t)u = a(t, u, ·). The operator A(t) is the part of A(t) on H. It is a classical fact that −A(t) and −A(t) are both generators of holomorphic semigroups (e −r A(t) ) r ≥0 and (e −r A(t) ) r ≥0 on H and V , respectively. The semigroup e −r A(t) is the restriction of e −r A(t) to H. In addition, e −r A(t) induces a holomorphic semigroup on V (see, e.g., Ouhabaz [15,Chapter 1]). We consider the non-homogeneous Cauchy problem By a well-known result of J.L. Lions, the maximal regularity always holds in the space V . That is for every f ∈ L 2 (0, τ ; V ) and u 0 ∈ H there exists a unique u ∈ H 1 (0, τ ; V ) ∩ L 2 (0, τ ; V) which solves the problem (1.1). The maximal regularity in H is however more interesting since when dealing with boundary value problems one cannot identify the boundary conditions if the Cauchy problem is considered in V . The maximal regularity in H is more difficult to prove.
It has been shown in [12] that the maximal regularity in H may fail for forms C 1 2 in time. For A(.) ∈ W s, p (0, τ ; L(V, V )), with s < 1 2 the maximal regularity does not hold and this comes from the inclusion C For p > 2 and A(.) ∈ W 1 2 , p (0, τ ; L(V, V )), the maximal regularity can fail also and this follows from the counterexample in [6]. It is proved in [3] that the maximal regularity holds if t → A(t) ∈ W 1 2 ,2 (0, τ ; L(V, V )) (with some integrability conditions). This result is optimal. For the case of weighted spaces, we refer the reader to the recent paper [4]. The choice of weighted spaces has a big advantages. Among them is to reduce the necessary regularity for initial conditions of evolution equations. Time-weights can be used also to exploit parabolic regularization which is typical for quasilinear parabolic problems.
The main focus of this paper is to consider the semilinear equation ). The Kato square root property plays an important role in the questions of (non-autonomous) maximal regularity and optimal control. We remark that (1.2) was studied recently in [11] in non weighted spaces, such that the non-linearity term F is a bounded valued function on H, satisfies other more regularity assumptions and some Dini-condition holds for A(.) (see [11,Theorem 5.1] for more details). In the present paper, the regularity assumptions on A(.) and F are significantly weaker than those from previous results.
To prove our results, we appeal to classical tools from harmonic analysis such as square function estimate and from functional analysis such as interpolation theory or operator theory.

Notation.
We denote by L(E, F) (or L(E)) the space of bounded linear operators from E to F (from E to E).The spaces L p (a, b; E) and W 1, p (a, b; E) denote respectively the Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces of function on (a, b) with values in E. C α (a, b; E) denote the space of Hölder continuous functions of order α, recall that the norms of H and V are denoted by · and · V . The scalar product of H is (·, ·). We denote by C, C or c... all inessential positive constants, their values may change from line to line. Finally, by (E, F) θ, p and [E, F] θ ( θ ∈ (0, 1) and p ∈ (1, ∞)) we denote the real interpolation space defined by the K −method and complex interpolation space, respectively, between E and F. We refer the reader to [14, Definition 1.1.2, Definition 2.1.3] for more details.

Preliminaries
In this section, we state several definitions and properties which will play an important role in the proof of our results.
We briefly recall the definitions and we give the basic properties of vector-valued function spaces with temporal weights. For more details, we refer to [4].
We define the corresponding weighted Sobolev spaces which are Banach spaces for the norms, respectively

Remark 2.1
The restriction on β comes from several facts. The first one is the embedding L 2 The second one is due to Hardy' inequality and the third reason comes from the fact that functions in W 1,2 β (0, τ ; H) have a well-defined trace in case that −1 < β < 1.
Due to Holder's inequality, we get Therefore, (2.1) follows immediately.
Let us define the space It is easy to see that From now, we assume without loss of generality that the forms are coercive, that is [H 3] holds with ν = 0. The reason is that by replacing A(t) by A(t) + ν, the solution v of (1.1) is v(t) = e −νt u(t) and it is clear that In the statements below, we shall need the following square root property (called Kato's square root property) for all v ∈ V and t ∈ [0, τ ], where the positive constants c 1 and c 2 are independent of t. This assumption is always true for symmetric forms when ν = 0 in [H3]. It is also valid for uniformly elliptic operator on R n , see [8].

Main results
In this section, we state explicitly our main results.
x) satisfies the following continuity property: for any ε > 0 there exists a constant N ε > 0 such that where N ε = K 4 δ 2 ε . The following theorem is proved in [4, Theorem 5.3]. The following proposition gives a characterization of the trace space T R(s, β). The following is our main result. We define

Theorem 3.3 Suppose that
Set K 0 := N ε and K 1 := N N ε . Then, repeating the above inequality and using the identity we obtain (D(A(.),H) .
In the second inequality we used n k=0 n k = 2 n .
Then S n is a contraction map on W β (D(A(.), H) and this yields the existence and uniqueness of a solution w ∈ W β (D(A(.), H) to (3.4). Therefore it only remains to prove the a priori estimate (3.3). From the linear equation and (3.1), we have for all ε > 0 For w ∈ W β (D(A(.), H), we define the function It is easy to check that G satisfies the condition (3.1), t → G(t, w, w ) ∈ L 2 Now, we follow the same procedure as before we get the existence and the uniqueness of the solution to the equation Hence, u is the unique solution to (3.2).

Applications
This section is devoted to application of our results on existence and maximal regularity to concrete evolution equations. We show how they can be applied to both linear and semilinear evolution equations.

Note that
The maximal regularity we proved here holds also in the case of elliptic operators on Lipschitz domains with Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions. The arguments are the same. One define the previous forms a(t) with domain V = H 1 0 ( ) (for Dirichlet boundary conditions) or V = H 1 ( ) (for Neumann boundary conditions).
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/.
Funding The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Declarations
Competing interests A competing interests declaration is mandatory for publication in this journal. Please confirm that this declaration is accurate, or provide an alternative.