Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Incompressible Euler limit from the Boltzmann equation with Maxwell reflection boundary condition in the half-space

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that shear-flow solutions of the Boltzmann equation in a half-space converge to an incompressible Euler flow plus a coupled Prandtl–Knudsen boundary layer as the Knudsen number tends to zero.

desk verdict A credible and important new technique for the Boltzmann half-space boundary-layer problem, but the current version leans on an unproved Proposition 3.1 and unpublished Knudsen-layer results, so conditional acceptance is right. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18420 v1 pith:UJXJYQU3 submitted 2025-06-23 math.AP

Ning Jiang , Chao Wang , Yulong Wu , Zhifei Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35B2535F2035Q2076N1582C40
keywords BoltzmannequationincompressibleEulerlimitMaxwellreflectionboundaryPrandtllayerKnudsenHilbertexpansionanalyticenergyestimatesshearflow
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to justify, from the kinetic Boltzmann equation, the incompressible Euler limit in a half-space with a wall that reflects particles according to Maxwell's law with any accommodation coefficient $\alpha\in(0,1]$. For well-prepared data whose leading Euler and Prandtl profiles are shear flows, it constructs a truncated Hilbert expansion made of an interior part, a Prandtl layer of thickness $\sqrt{\varepsilon}$, and a Knudsen layer of thickness $\varepsilon^2$, and proves the kinetic solution stays within $O(\varepsilon^{3/2})$ of this expansion over a fixed time interval. The difficulty is the strong nonlinear Prandtl layer: the remainder equation loses a normal derivative, and the authors show that the full conservation laws convert this loss into a loss of tangential derivatives only, which analytic regularity in the tangential variables can absorb. The result matters because it is a rigorous passage from kinetic theory to inviscid fluid dynamics through a boundary layer that is both viscous and kinetic, a regime previously accessible only for diffuse or specular reflection.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a local Maxwellian $\mu_\varepsilon$ built from the leading Euler and Prandtl profiles, $\mu_\varepsilon=(\rho_\varepsilon/(2\pi\theta_\varepsilon)^{3/2})\exp(-|v-u_\varepsilon|^2/(2\theta_\varepsilon))$ with $(\rho_\varepsilon,u_\varepsilon,\theta_\varepsilon)=(1+\varepsilon(\rho_0+\rho^b_0),\varepsilon(u_0+u^b_0),1+\varepsilon(\theta_0+\theta^b_0))$. Around this Maxwellian, the linearized collision operator $L_\varepsilon$ and the bilinear form $\Gamma_\varepsilon$ absorb the singular term $(1/\varepsilon^2)[\Gamma(g_{R,\varepsilon},g_0+g^b_0)+\Gamma(g_0+g^b_0,g_{R,\varepsilon})]$ that would otherwise blow up. Because the profiles are shear flows, the tangential derivatives $\partial_1,\partial_2$ commute with $L_\varepsilon$ and $\Gamma_\varepsilon$, so no singular commutator appears. The remaining singular contribution $(\partial_t+\varepsilon^{-1}v\cdot\nabla_x)\mu_\varepsilon/(2\mu_\varepsilon)g$ is $O(\varepsilon^{-1/2})$; Lemma 4.2 uses the macroscopic conservation laws to rewrite it as tangential derivatives of the remainder, losing one tangential derivative but no time derivative. The estimate then closes in the analytic spaces $X$ (based on $L^2$) and $Y$ (based on $L^\infty$) with weight $\omega_\beta(v)=(1+|v|^2)^\beta$, $\beta\geq(9-2\gamma)/2$.

What would settle it

Compute, for a non-shear solution of the Euler–Prandtl system (for example a vortex whose horizontal velocity varies in both $x_1$ and $x_2$), the term $(1/\varepsilon^3)\int [L_\varepsilon,\partial_i]g_{R,\varepsilon}\cdot g_{R,\varepsilon}\,dxdv$ in the differentiated remainder equation. If this term is $O(1)$ instead of being absorbable into the coercive term $(c/\varepsilon^3)\|\nu^{1/2}P^\perp_\varepsilon g\|_X^2$, then the analytic $L^2$ estimate cannot close without new ideas, confirming that the shear-flow condition is essential; if it is absorbable, the theorem should extend to general profiles.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for $-3<\gamma\leq 1$, $q=2$, and $\alpha\in(0,1]$ with $\alpha=O(1)$, analytic well-prepared initial data give a unique nonnegative solution $F_\varepsilon$ of the scaled Boltzmann equation of the form $\mu+\varepsilon\sum_{k=0}^{13}\sqrt{\mu}(\sqrt{\varepsilon}^k g_k+\sqrt{\varepsilon}^k g^b_k+\sqrt{\varepsilon}^k g^{bb}_k)+\sqrt{\mu_\varepsilon}\sqrt{\varepsilon}^8 g_{R,\varepsilon}$, where $(\rho_0,u_0,\theta_0)$ solves the incompressible Euler system and $(\rho^b_0,u^b_0,\theta^b_0)$ solves the incompressible Prandtl system, both for shear flows. The remainder obeys the uniform bound $\|g_{R,\varepsilon}\|_X^2+\varepsilon^6\|h_{R,\varepsilon}\|_Y^2\leq C_T$ on $t\in[0,T]$. Remark 1.1 interprets this as the incompressible Euler limit: the $L^2$ distance between $F_\varepsilon/\mu_\varepsilon$ and the leading Euler-plus-Prandtl profile is $O(\varepsilon^{3/2})$. This gives a rigorous justification, for shear flows, of the Euler limit from the Boltzmann equation under the full Maxwell reflection condition, with the nonlinear Prandtl layer and the Knudsen layer present and coupled at leading order.

Load-bearing premise

The entire remainder estimate assumes the leading Euler and Prandtl profiles are shear flows, which lets tangential derivatives pass through the collision operators; if the profiles depend on both horizontal directions, the proof leaves the singular commutator term $(1/\varepsilon^3)[L_\varepsilon,\partial_i]g$ uncontrolled, so the main theorem as stated does not cover that case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For shear-flow data, the kinetic Boltzmann solution tracks the Euler-plus-Prandtl profile with error $O(\varepsilon^{3/2})$ in $L^2$ up to a fixed time $T$, uniformly in the accommodation coefficient as long as $\alpha$ is $O(1)$.
  • The leading boundary layer is genuinely nonlinear: the Prandtl system enters at the same order as the Euler profile, so the inviscid limit at a Maxwell-reflecting wall cannot be described by Euler alone.
  • The Knudsen layer is needed at scale $\varepsilon^2$ and is coupled to the Prandtl layer through the boundary conditions, giving slip coefficients for the higher-order fluid profiles.
  • For general $q>1$, the paper outlines a multi-scale expansion with Prandtl thickness $\varepsilon^{(q-1)/2}$; the theorem proves the limit for $q=2$ and indicates the same remainder method applies after truncating the ansatz.
  • The remainder estimate is uniform in analytic norms that differentiate only in the tangential variables, so no loss of time regularity occurs; this is what allows the energy estimate to close.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: if the singular commutator $(1/\varepsilon^3)[L_\varepsilon,\partial_i]g$ can be controlled, the same conservation-law mechanism should extend the result to general Euler–Prandtl data, because the normal-to-tangential transfer in Lemma 4.2 does not itself use the shear structure.
  • Inference: the analytic-in-tangential-only framework suggests a route to convergence statements for data with only Sobolev-type tangential regularity, since time derivatives are never lost in the estimate.
  • Inference: the slip coefficients produced by the Knudsen layer solvability conditions could be used to formulate effective Navier-type boundary conditions for truncated fluid models derived from the Boltzmann equation.
  • Inference: a numerical test varying $\varepsilon$ and $\alpha$ for a fixed shear flow could check whether the $O(\varepsilon^{3/2})$ rate is uniform as $\alpha$ approaches zero; the paper assumes $\alpha=O(1)$, so near-specular behavior may be different.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims a rigorous incompressible Euler limit from the scaled Boltzmann equation (1.1)-(1.2) in the half-space with Maxwell reflection, for shear-flow initial data, accommodation coefficient α ∈ (0,1], collision kernels with -3 < γ ≤ 1, and scaling q = 2. The proof constructs a Hilbert-type expansion with interior fluid terms, nonlinear and linear Prandtl layers, and Knudsen layers, then proves uniform analytic L2-L∞ estimates for the remainder. The main theorem states a solution of the form F_ε = µ + ε Σ_{k=0}^{13} √ε^k (g_k + g_k^b + g_k^{bb}) + √µ_ε √ε^8 g_{R,ε} with bound ||g_{R,ε}||_X^2 + ε^6 ||h_{R,ε}||_Y^2 ≤ C_T. The formal derivation in Section 2 is detailed, and the central technical novelty is the use of the conservation laws (4.4) to convert the singular boundary-layer term into a loss of tangential, rather than time, derivatives, enabling closure in an analytic norm with radius σ(t) = 2 - λt.

Significance. If the proof can be completed, the result would be a significant advance: it is, to my knowledge, the first justification of the incompressible Euler limit from the Boltzmann equation with Maxwell reflection boundary condition in which the strongly coupled nonlinear Prandtl and Knudsen layers are both present in the leading-order expansion. The formal analysis of the coupled layer hierarchy in Section 2 is nontrivial and appears to be carried out with care. The key estimate in Lemma 4.2, converting the singular O(1/√ε) boundary-layer term into a tangential-derivative loss via the full conservation laws, is elegant and avoids analyticity in time, which is a genuine improvement over prior shear-flow boundary-layer works. The L∞ estimate in Lemma 4.5 follows the established L2-L∞ framework and is presented in enough detail to be checked. The main reservation is that the theorem is conditional on Proposition 3.1, which is stated without proof and relies on unpublished material, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.5, Proposition 3.1 (p. 26)] Proposition 3.1 is a load-bearing statement but is not proved: the entire proof is the sentence that it 'follows directly from the techniques developed in the Appendix of [44]'. The estimates (3.10) from this proposition are used at every critical step of Section 4, including (4.29)-(4.31) for S2, S3, S4 in Lemma 4.3, (4.54)-(4.56) in Corollary 4.1, and ultimately in the Grönwall argument (4.58). The cited reference [44] is about the zero-viscosity limit of Navier-Stokes equations in an analytic setting; it does not visibly cover the coupled linear Prandtl hierarchy (2.57) with sources f^b_{k-1} and g^b_k, the Knudsen-layer equations, the requirement that the analytic radius σ(t) not degrade with k, or the ε-independence of all constants under the boundary-layer scaling. I request a complete proof of Proposition 3.1 or, at minimum, a precise theorem statement with all hypotheses, a derivation of the uniform bounds, and an explicit check of the ε-uniformity; otherwise Theorem 1.1 is unsupported.
  2. [Section 2.3, (2.65)-(2.68) and Section 3.5] The solvability of the Knudsen-layer systems (2.65)-(2.67) and the four slip conditions (2.68) are quoted from the unpublished preprints [23] and [30]. These slip coefficients b1 and c1 determine the boundary conditions for the linear Euler and linear Prandtl systems, and hence are needed for the entire inductive construction of the expansion. Since the systems are explicitly overdetermined, the solvability statement is not a routine fact. The footnote in Section 3.5 about decomposing S^{bb}_k into null-space and its orthogonal part does not, by itself, establish the four solvability conditions for all α ∈ (0,1] and the full range -3 < γ ≤ 1. I ask that the relevant solvability theorem be stated precisely and either proved in an appendix or formulated so that the reader can verify it without access to unpublished preprints.
  3. [Section 4.2, Lemma 4.2 (proof of (4.13))] The proof of Lemma 4.2 estimates the singular term J1 in detail but states that the terms J2, J3 and J4 'can be handled in a similar manner' and omits the computations. These terms are of the same order 1/ε times ∂_3(ρ_ε, u_ε, θ_ε) = O(1/√ε), and their control requires the same conservation-law and Hardy-inequality mechanism, including the time-derivative removal procedure. Because (4.13) is the key estimate that allows the boundary-layer singularity to be absorbed in Lemma 4.3, the omission is not merely cosmetic. Please include the complete estimates for J2, J3 and J4, or provide the final bounds with a clear indication of which identities in (4.4) are used for each term.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1.1] The accommodation coefficient is introduced as α ∈ [0,1], but Theorem 1.1 and the abstract restrict to α ∈ (0,1]; the paper should state explicitly that the specular case α = 0 is excluded and refer to the separate treatment mentioned in the introduction.
  2. [Section 1.5, equation (1.27)] The abbreviation 's.o.t.' is used without definition at its first occurrence; please define it or replace it with an explicit description of the terms, since the subsequent formal discussion relies on this notation.
  3. [Section 3.5, Proposition 3.1] The statement contains a typo: 'exist in the time interval [0, T0.' should read '[0, T0]'. In addition, the initial-data assumption is stated for 1 ≤ k ≤ 13, but the proposition concerns (ρ_k,u_k,θ_k) and (ρ_k^b,u_k^b,θ_k^b) for the full hierarchy including k = 0; please make the range of k precise.
  4. [Section 5] The outline for general q > 1 is heuristic: the claim that 'the same method as in Section 4' yields uniform remainder estimates is plausible but not demonstrated. Please label Section 5 explicitly as formal, and avoid suggesting that the general-q theorem is proved in this paper.
  5. [References [23], [30]] References [23] and [30] are unpublished preprints, and [23] appears to be by the same group; if the paper is accepted, these references should be updated or the relevant results included in the manuscript so that the verification of Proposition 3.1 and (2.68) does not depend on inaccessible material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Euler/Prandtl profiles are external PDE inputs and the remainder estimate is a genuine a priori estimate, not a restatement of the conclusion.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the truncation ansatz (2.69) through the remainder equation (2.73) to the energy estimates (4.23), (4.37), and (4.50). The Euler/Prandtl/Knudsen profiles are not derived from the Boltzmann solution or from the theorem being proved; they satisfy the Euler system (2.15)/(3.1), Prandtl systems (2.47)/(2.57), and Knudsen systems (3.9). Their analytic regularity is imported as Proposition 3.1, which states that the estimates follow from the Appendix of [44]; this is an external PDE well-posedness input, not the target Euler-limit conclusion, so invoking it is not circular even though [44] shares authors. The remainder estimate does not assume the theorem: Lemma 4.3 and Corollary 4.1 bound ||g_R,epsilon||_X^2 + epsilon^6 ||h_R,epsilon||_Y^2 using coercivity (1.19), boundary trace identity (4.26), and the singular-term absorption (4.13), with the right-hand side containing only initial data, sources, and the analytic norms themselves. The Knudsen solvability conditions (2.68) with slip coefficients b1 and c1 are cited from [30], a separate kinetic boundary-layer result; this is an input, not a renamed version of the present conclusion. The shear-flow restriction, stated around (4.1), is an explicitly declared limitation of the proof, not a circular mechanism. The omitted proof of Proposition 3.1 and reliance on author preprints are completeness and correctness risks, but under the given standards they are not circular steps because no equation or quantity is defined in terms of the claimed result or fitted to it.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities: no new particles, forces, or mediators. The new content is the coupled boundary-layer expansion and the conservation-law estimate. The main external dependencies are the Knudsen layer theory [30,23] and the analytic Prandtl well-posedness [44]; both are cited rather than re-proved. The shear-flow assumption is an explicit restriction that is structural: the proof does not work without it.

free parameters (4)
  • accommodation coefficient alpha = any value in (0,1], considered O(1)
    This is a physical model parameter, not fitted; the theorem covers all such values.
  • scaling exponent q = 2 in the main theorem
    The proof is carried out only for q=2; general q>1 is formal. The choice of q is a restriction, not a fitted parameter.
  • analyticity radius parameter sigma(t) = 2 - lambda t = lambda chosen as 2 C1 in the proof
    This is a proof parameter, not fitted to data; it is used to close the analytic energy estimate.
  • negative velocity cutoff a = 2/(3-gamma) = not numerically relevant; used in Lemma 4.2
    A proof parameter, not fitted to data.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard linearized Boltzmann operator coercivity (1.10) and coercivity of the modified operator (1.19)
    Standard results from [6,29] on the linearized collision operator for hard potentials with cutoff; the paper invokes them in (1.10) and (1.19).
  • standard math The L2-Linfinity framework with backward characteristics and boundary cycles (Lemma 4.4 from [21])
    The paper imports Lemma 2.3 of [21] and follows the approach of Guo [19] without proving the full framework; this is a substantial domain-assumption from the prior literature.
  • standard math Existence and analytic regularity of solutions of the nonlinear incompressible Prandtl system (3.5) and the linear systems (3.7), quoted from [44]
    Used in Proposition 3.1 without proof; the application to Prandtl systems in a half-space is stated as following from [44].
  • domain assumption Existence, solvability conditions, and exponential decay of the Knudsen boundary layer equation (3.9), quoted from [30] and [23]
    The Knudsen layer solution and the slip coefficients b1, c1 in (2.68) are asserted using [30] and the unpublished [23]; this is a load-bearing external regularity result.
  • domain assumption The four solvability conditions for the Knudsen layer and the isotropic properties of LR - alpha LD, quoted from [1,23,33]
    Used in Section 2.3 to impose the boundary conditions (2.66) and (2.68).
  • ad hoc to paper Shear-flow configuration: the leading-order Euler and Prandtl solutions depend only on the normal variable x3 at t=0 and the tangential derivatives commute with L_epsilon and Gamma_epsilon
    The analytic estimate in Section 4 is closed only under this standing assumption; the non-shear case is explicitly deferred. This is a modeling restriction, not an unjustified mathematical axiom, but it is load-bearing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Incompressible Euler limit from the Boltzmann equation with Maxwell reflection boundary condition in the half-space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UJXJYQU3

@misc{pith2026250618420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Incompressible Euler limit from the Boltzmann equation with Maxwell reflection boundary condition in the half-space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UJXJYQU3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18420}
}
abstract

In this paper, we rigorously justify the incompressible Euler limit of the Boltzmann equation with general Maxwell reflection boundary condition in the half-space. The accommodation coefficient $\alpha \in (0,1]$ is assumed to be $O(1)$. Our construction of solutions includes the interior fluid part and Knudsen-Prandtl coupled boundary layers. The corresponding solutions to the nonlinear Euler and nonlinear Prandtl systems are taken to be shear flows. Due to the presence of the nonlinear Prandtl layer, the remainder equation loses one order normal derivative. The key technical novelty lies in employing the full conservation laws to convert this loss of the normal derivative into the loss of tangential spatial derivative, avoiding any loss of regularity in time. By working within an analytic $L^2 \mbox{-} L^\infty$ framework, we establish the uniform estimate on the remainder equations, thus justify the validity of the incompressible Euler limit from the Boltzmann equation for the shear flow case.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [44]

    C. Wang, Y. Wang, and Z. Zhang, Zero-viscosity limit of t he Navier-Stokes equations in the analytic setting. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 224 (2017), no. 2, 555–595. 46 NING JIANG, CHAO W ANG, YULONG WU, AND ZHIFEI ZHANG (Ning Jiang) School of Mathematics and Statistics, Wuhan University, Wu han, 430072, P. R. China Email address : njiang@whu.edu.cn (Chao W...

    work page 2017

  2. [23]

    L.-B. He, N. Jiang, Y. Wu, Boltzmann boundary layer equa tion with Maxwell reflection boundary condi- tion and applications to fluid limits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08733 , (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [30]

    Jiang, Y.-L

    N. Jiang, Y.-L. Luo, and Y. Wu, Knudsen boundary layer eq uations for full ranges of cutoff collision kernels: Maxwell reflection boundary with all accommodation coefficie nts in [0,1], arXiv:2407.02852 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  4. [1]

    K. Aoki, C. Baranger, M. Hattori, S. Kosuge, G. Martal` o, J. Mathiaud and L. Mieussens, Slip boundary conditions for the compressible Navier-Stokes equations. J. Stat. Phys. , 169 (2017), 744-781

    work page 2017

  5. [2]

    Bardos, R

    C. Bardos, R. E. Caflisch and B. Nicolaenko, The Milne and K ramers problems for the Boltzmann equation of a hard sphere gas. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 39 (1986), no. 3, 323-352

    work page 1986

  6. [3]

    Bardos, F

    C. Bardos, F. Golse, and C. D. Levermore, Fluid Dynamic Li mits of Kinetic Equations I: Formal Deriva- tions. J. Stat. Phys. , 63 (1991), 323-344

    work page 1991

  7. [4]

    Bardos, F

    C. Bardos, F. Golse, and C. D. Levermore, Fluid Dynamic Li mits of Kinetic Equations II: Convergence Proof for the Boltzmann Equation. Commun. Pure and Appl. Math. , 46 (1993), 667-753

    work page 1993

  8. [5]

    Briant, From the Boltzmann equation to the incompress ible Navier-Stokes equations on the torus: a quantitative error estimate

    M. Briant, From the Boltzmann equation to the incompress ible Navier-Stokes equations on the torus: a quantitative error estimate. J. Differential Equations , 259 (2015), no. 11, 6072-6141

    work page 2015

Show all 44 references
  1. [6]

    R. E. Caflisch, The fluid dynamic limit of the nonlinear Bol tzmann equation. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 33 (1980), no. 5, 651-666

    1980

  2. [7]

    Y. Cao, J. Jang, and C. Kim, Passage from the Boltzmann equ ation with diffuse boundary to the incom- pressible Euler equation with heat convection. J. Differential Equations 366 (2023), 565–644

    2023

  3. [8]

    Cercignani, The Boltzmann equation and its applications

    C. Cercignani, The Boltzmann equation and its applications. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 67. Springer- Verlag, New York, 1988

    1988

  4. [9]

    Cercignani, R

    C. Cercignani, R. Illner and M. Pulvirenti, The mathematical theory of dilute gases. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 106. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994

    1994

  5. [10]

    Coron, F

    F. Coron, F. Golse, C. Sulem, A classification of well-po sed kinetic layer problems. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 41 (1988), no. 4, 409–435

    1988

  6. [11]

    De Masi, R

    A. De Masi, R. Esposito, J. L. Lebowitz, Incompressible Navier-Stokes and Euler limits of the Boltzmann equation. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 42 (1989), no. 8, 1189–1214

    1989

  7. [12]

    R. J. DiPerna and P.-L. Lions, On the Cauchy problem for B oltzmann equations: global existence and weak stability. Ann. of Math. (2) 130 (1989), no. 2, 321-366

    1989

  8. [13]

    Golse, Analysis of the boundary layer equation in the kinetic theory of gases

    F. Golse, Analysis of the boundary layer equation in the kinetic theory of gases. Bull. Inst. Math. Acad. Sin. (N.S.) 3 (2008), no. 1, 211-242

    2008

  9. [14]

    Golse, B

    F. Golse, B. Perthame and C. Sulem, On a boundary layer pr oblem for the nonlinear Boltzmann equation. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 103 (1988), no. 1, 81-96

    1988

  10. [15]

    Golse and L

    F. Golse and L. Saint-Raymond, The Navier-Stokes limit of the Boltzmann equation for bounded collision kernels. Invent. Math. 155 (2004), no. 1, 81–161

    2004

  11. [16]

    Golse and L

    F. Golse and L. Saint-Raymond, The Incompressible Navi er-Stokes Limit of the Boltzmann Equation for Hard Cutoff Potentials. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 91 (2009), no. 5, 508–552. INCOMPRESSIBLE EULER LIMIT FROM THE BOLTZMANN EQUATION 45

    2009

  12. [17]

    Guo, The Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann system near Maxw ellians

    Y. Guo, The Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann system near Maxw ellians. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 55 (2002), no. 9, 1104–1135

    2002

  13. [18]

    Guo, Boltzmann diffusive limit beyond the Navier-Sto kes approximation, Comm

    Y. Guo, Boltzmann diffusive limit beyond the Navier-Sto kes approximation, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 59 (2006), no. 5, 626–687

    2006

  14. [19]

    Guo, Decay and continuity of the Boltzmann equation i n bounded domains

    Y. Guo, Decay and continuity of the Boltzmann equation i n bounded domains. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 197 (2010), no. 2, 713-809

    2010

  15. [20]

    Y. Guo, J. Jang and N. Jiang, Local Hilbert expansion for the Boltzmann equation. Kinet. Relat. Models , 2 (2009), no. 1, 205-214

    2009

  16. [21]

    Y. Guo, J. Jang and N. Jiang, Acoustic limit for the Boltz mann equation in optimal scaling. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 63 (2010), no. 3, 337-361

    2010

  17. [22]

    Guo, F.M

    Y. Guo, F.M. Huang and Y. Wang. Hilbert expansion of the B oltzmann equation with specular boundary condition in half-space. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 241 (2021), no. 1, 231-309

    2021

  18. [24]

    Huang and Y

    F. Huang and Y. Wang, Boundary layer solution of the Bolt zmann equation for diffusive reflection bound- ary conditions in half-space. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 54 (2022), no. 3, 3480-3534

    2022

  19. [25]

    Huang, Z-H

    F. Huang, Z-H. Jiang and Y. Wang, Boundary layer solutio n of the Boltzmann equation for specular boundary condition. Acta Math. Appl. Sin. Engl. Ser. 39 (2023), no. 1, 65-94

    2023

  20. [26]

    Huang, W

    F. Huang, W. Wang, Y. Wang, F. Xiao, The Hilbert expansio n of the Boltzmann equation in the incom- pressible Euler level in a channel. Sci. China Math. , 68 (2025), no. 1, 39–88

    2025

  21. [27]

    J. Jang, C. Kim, Incompressible Euler limit from Boltzm ann equation with diffuse boundary condition for analytic data. Ann. PDE , 7 (2021), no. 2, Paper No. 22, 103 pp

    2021

  22. [28]

    Jiang, Y.-L

    N. Jiang, Y.-L. Luo and S. Tang, Compressible Euler limi t from Boltzmann equation with Maxwell reflection boundary condition in half-space. arXiv:2101.11199, (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Jiang, Y.-L

    N. Jiang, Y.-L. Luo and S.J. Tang. Grad-Caflisch type dec ay estimates of pseudo-inverse of linearized Boltzmann operator and application to Hilbert expansion of compressible Euler scaling. arXiv:2206.02677, to appear on Comm. Math. Phys

    arXiv

  24. [31]

    Jiang, Y.-L

    N. Jiang, Y.-L. Luo, Y. Wu and T. Yang, Knudsen boundary l ayer equations with incoming boundary condition: full range of cutoff collision kernels and Mach nu mbers of the far field. arXiv:2501.04035 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Jiang and N

    N. Jiang and N. Masmoudi, Boundary layers and incompres sible Navier-Stokes-Fourier limit of the Boltz- mann equation in bounded domain I. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 70 (2017), no. 1, 90-171

    2017

  26. [33]

    Jiang and Y

    N. Jiang and Y. Wu, Kinetic-fluid boundary layers and aco ustic limit for the Boltzmann equation with general Maxwell reflection boundary condition. Kinet. Relat. Models , 18 (2025), no. 4, 633–663

    2025

  27. [34]

    Jiang and Y

    N. Jiang and Y. Wu, Compressible Navier-Stokes system w ith slip boundary from Boltzmann equations with reflection boundary: derivations and justifications. arXiv:2501.08715v2, (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  28. [35]

    C. Kim, T. T. Nguyen, Validity of Prandtl’s boundary lay er from the Boltzmann theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16160, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Lions, Mathematical topics in fluid mechanics

    P-L. Lions, Mathematical topics in fluid mechanics. Vol. 1. Incompressible models. Oxford Lecture Se- ries in Mathematics and its Applications, 3. Oxford Science Publications. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996

    1996

  30. [37]

    Saint-Raymond, Convergence of solutions to the Bolt zmann equation in the incompressible Euler limit

    L. Saint-Raymond, Convergence of solutions to the Bolt zmann equation in the incompressible Euler limit. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 166 (2003), no. 1, 47–80

    2003

  31. [38]

    Saint-Raymond, Hydrodynamic Limits of the Boltzman n Equation

    L. Saint-Raymond, Hydrodynamic Limits of the Boltzman n Equation. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1971, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009, xii+188 pp

    1971

  32. [39]

    Schlichting, Boundary Layer Theory , translated by J

    H. Schlichting, Boundary Layer Theory , translated by J. Kestin, McGraw-Hill, New York; Pergamon Press, London; Verlag G. Braun, Karlsruhe, 1955, xx+535 pp

    1955

  33. [40]

    Sone, Kinetic theory and fluid dynamics

    Y. Sone, Kinetic theory and fluid dynamics. Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering and Tech- nology. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2002

    2002

  34. [41]

    Sone, Molecular gas dynamics

    Y. Sone, Molecular gas dynamics. Theory, techniques, and applicati ons. Modeling and Simulation in Sci- ence, Engineering and Technology. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2007

    2007

  35. [42]

    Takata and M

    S. Takata and M. Hattori, Asymptotic theory for the time -dependent behavior of a slightly rarefied gas over a smooth solid boundary. J. Stat. Phys. 147 (2012), 1182-1215

    2012

  36. [43]

    S. Ukai, T. Yang and S-H. Yu, Nonlinear stability of boun dary layers of the Boltzmann equation. I. The case M∞ < −1. Comm. Math. Phys. 244 (2004), no. 1, 99-109

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.