Incompressible Navier-Stokes limit of non-bilinear kinetic equations and application to the BGK, nonlinear Fokker-Planck and Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac equations

Pierre Gervais

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Incompressible Navier-Stokes limit of non-bilinear kinetic equations and application to the BGK, nonlinear Fokker-Planck and Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac equations

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A unified spectral framework derives Navier-Stokes-Fourier limits for kinetic equations with non-bilinear collision operators, covering BGK, nonlinear Fokker-Planck, and Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac models.

desk verdict The real contribution is the abstract remainder framework and the NFP application; the Fermi-Dirac application rests on an unverified spectral assumption and needs to be proved or cut. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18939 v1 pith:UQBONUXV submitted 2026-07-21 math.AP

Pierre Gervais This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35Q2035Q3076P0582C40

keywords hydrodynamiclimitNavier-Stokes-Fourierkineticequationsnon-bilinearcollisionoperatorsBGKequationnonlinearFokker-PlanckBoltzmann-Fermi-Diracspectralanalysis

topics Navier-Stokes Regularity

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

This paper extends the abstract hydrodynamic limit theory of Gervais-Lods, which handled bilinear collision operators like Boltzmann and Landau, to non-bilinear models such as BGK, nonlinear Fokker-Planck, and Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac. The main result, Theorem 1.3, proves that small fluctuations around equilibrium in these kinetic equations converge quantitatively to solutions of the incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier system, with explicit exponential decay of kinetic initial layers and vanishing of oscillatory (dispersive) parts. The significance is that it unifies the formal Bardos-Golse-Levermore conditional convergence with the spectral strategy of Bardos-Ukai, providing a single framework that covers several collision operators without assuming bilinearity. The paper also provides the first derivation of the Navier-Stokes-Fourier system for the nonlinear Fokker-Planck model with non-constant temperature and velocity.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the abstract spectral framework from Gervais-Lods, built on Structural Assumptions 1-4. The central object is the linearized collision operator L, which is assumed to decompose as L = B + A with a uniform resolvent bound (L4)(d): ||(z - B + i v·ξ)^{-1}||_{V_j→V_j} ≲ |Re z + λ_B|^{-1}. This resolvent bound, together with orthogonality of Q and R^ε to the null-space of L, yields the linear and nonlinear estimates in the space X^s = H^s + K^s_ε. The paper introduces new structural assumptions on the nonlinear remainder R^ε (Assumptions 3) and shows they hold for the three models, using Taylor expansions of the collision operators and nonlinear Sobolev estimates (Lemmas B.1,

What would settle it

To test the paper's claim, one could try to verify (L4)(d) explicitly for the linearized Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac operator in the stated spaces V = L²(μ^{-1}), V• = L²(⟨v⟩^γ μ^{-1}), and Vº = L²(⟨v⟩^{-γ} μ^{-1}) for γ ∈ [0,1]. If the resolvent bound fails for some γ or for the required j=0,1,2, then the BFD application would collapse. A concrete calculation: check whether ||(z - B + i v·ξ)^{-1}||_{V_j→V_j} ≲ |Re z + λ_B|^{-1} holds uniformly in ξ for the decomposition proposed by the author (which is not explicitly given for BFD in the paper).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier limit holds for any kinetic equation satisfying a set of structural assumptions on the linearized collision operator L, the bilinear part Q, and the fully nonlinear remainder R^ε. Specifically, the paper proves that for small initial data, the kinetic solution f^ε decomposes as f_NS + f_kin^ε + f_disp^ε + f_err^ε, where f_NS is the Navier-Stokes-Fourier fluid limit, f_kin^ε decays exponentially in time with rate λ/ε², f_disp^ε vanishes in averaged L^p norms and uniformly away from t=0, and f_err^ε vanishes uniformly in time. The proof uses a sum space X^s = H^s + K^s_ε that captures both hydrodynamic and kinetic regimes, and

Load-bearing premise

The entire proof rests on the existence of a decomposition L = B + A satisfying the uniform resolvent bound (L4)(d) for a hierarchy of velocity spaces V_j, which is a spectral condition that must be verified for each specific collision operator; if this condition fails for a model, the abstract theorem does not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Navier-Stokes-Fourier limit is now proven for a class of kinetic equations that includes non-bilinear collision operators, not just bilinear ones, under quantified spectral assumptions.
For the nonlinear Fokker-Planck model with non-constant temperature and velocity, this provides the first rigorous derivation of the incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier system, filling a gap in the literature.
For the BGK and Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac equations, the convergence is now quantitative and includes a precise description of initial layers (exponential decay for the kinetic part, dispersive decay for the oscillatory part), whereas previous results were mainly qualitative or compactness-based.
The functional space X^s = H^s + K^s_ε simplifies the proof by capturing both hydrodynamic and kinetic regimes, potentially applicable to other kinetic models satisfying the structural assumptions.
The quantitative error estimates in the well-prepared case (∥f_err∥ ≲ ε^δ) and for the dispersive part (∥f_disp∥ ≲ (ε/t)^{(d-1)/2} in Besov norms) give explicit rates of convergence.

Reading between the lines

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

The structural assumptions, especially the resolvent bound (L4), are the real bottleneck: the proof of Theorem 1.3 depends on verifying (L4) for each model. The paper's checks for BGK and Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac are brief and rely on prior results for the Fermi-Dirac case, so a careful reader should verify that (L4) holds in the exact space hierarchy (V_j) required; if not, the BFD application might
The framework is designed for small, well-prepared or ill-prepared initial data; the author remarks (Remark 1.5) that it can be adapted to large data on finite time intervals, but only for the Navier-Stokes existence time. Extending to global large-data results would require additional a priori estimates beyond the current contraction argument.
The paper excludes the quantum Landau equation (Remark 5.1) because its nonlinearity involves a quadratic term α(v) f^2(v) that is not compatible with the Hilbertian setting; this suggests that the framework is limited to non-local collision operators and cannot directly handle local quadratic nonlinearities without higher-order velocity regularity.
The author claims first derivation for the nonlinear Fokker-Planck model; if challenged, one could compare with existing results for the constant-temperature case to isolate the role of non-constant temperature and velocity, which the paper handles via the full expansion of the local Maxwellian.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the genuinely new piece is the abstract treatment of a nonzero nonlinear remainder R^ε, and it holds up. The contraction argument in the sum space X^s is coherent, and the nonlinear Fokker-Planck application is carefully done—this looks like the first NSF derivation for that model. But the Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac section never verifies the spectral assumption (L4)(d), and the one-line γ generalization doesn't fix it. That is a real gap in one of the three headline applications.

The paper's contribution is real. Gervais-Lods [20] required R^ε=0; here the author adds Structural Assumption 3 (N1)-(N3), proves the Duhamel remainder estimates (Prop. 2.4) and the criterion (Prop. B.3) that a trilinear remainder satisfying (N') fits (N2)-(N3). The fixed point in X^s is neat, and the rate statements are explicit. Section 3 checks every structural assumption for the nonlinear Fokker-Planck operator, including the (L4) decomposition via commutator estimates—a genuine piece of work. The paper is also honest: small data, Remark 5.1 excludes quantum Landau, and the BGK/BFD results are framed as quantifications of previously known compactness limits.

Now the soft spots. Section 5 is the problem. It defines V, V^•, V^∘ for BFD and cites [23] for (L3), (B3), (N'), then says nothing about (L1) or (L4). (L4)(d) is the uniform resolvent bound for the decomposition L=B+A in the weighted hierarchy; it is exactly the input that lets [20] produce the linear and bilinear estimates that Theorem 1.3 inherits. The comment that the γ∈[0,1] case follows by replacing |v-v_*| with |v-v_*|^γ is a kernel estimate, not a resolvent bound. As written, the BFD application is not proven. This is not nitpicking; without (L4) the theorem's hypotheses are not shown to hold for BFD. The BGK check is also compressed into "easy to check by adapting Section 3.3", and there the gap is plausibly fillable because L=-(Id-Π) is explicit. A referee should ask for both to be written out, and if (L4) doesn't hold for BFD in this hierarchy, the claim should be dropped or the hierarchy changed.

The rest of the proof is in good shape. I did not find a fatal error in the abstract argument. The reliance on [20] for the semigroup machinery is legitimate—[20] is a peer-reviewed paper, and the new remainder estimates are derived, not assumed. No free parameters, no circularity. The paper is clearly a serious piece of work that needs one more round of surgery, not a rewrite.

Who should read it: researchers working on quantitative hydrodynamic limits for kinetic equations, and anyone who needs a unified framework for non-bilinear collision operators. The NFP result alone justifies a careful read and a citation. The BFD section needs to be fixed or qualified before I'd trust the title's claim. I'd send it to a serious referee with a clear directive to verify or remove the BFD application.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an abstract quantitative hydrodynamic-limit theorem for kinetic equations with non-bilinear collision operators, extending the spectral framework of Gervais–Lods [20] to models with a nonlinear remainder. Under structural assumptions on the linearized operator (L1–L4), the bilinear part (B1–B3), and the remainder (N1–N3), Theorem 1.3 proves existence of global solutions close to equilibrium with a decomposition into a Navier–Stokes–Fourier part, a kinetic initial layer, a dispersive acoustic part, and a vanishing error. Applications are claimed for the BGK, nonlinear Fokker–Planck, and Boltzmann–Fermi–Dirac equations. The proof uses a contraction argument in a mixed kinetic/hydrodynamic space X^s, with new remainder estimates in Proposition 2.4.

Significance. If the gaps noted below are fixed, this is a substantial contribution: it provides a unified, quantitative framework for the Bardos–Golse–Levermore program in the non-bilinear setting, simplifies the earlier spectral approach, and appears to give the first derivation of the Navier–Stokes–Fourier system for the fully nonlinear Fokker–Planck model. The abstract fixed-point argument and the X^s functional setting are clean and internally coherent. The paper is also transparent about the dependence of the semigroup machinery on the author's own prior work [20].

major comments (2)

[§5, Assumption (L4)(d)] The verification of the structural assumptions for the Boltzmann–Fermi–Dirac equation is incomplete. Section 5 cites [23] for (L3), (B3), and (N'), and extends from γ=1 to γ∈[0,1] via the kernel inequality |v−v∗|^γ ≲ ⟨v⟩^γ⟨v∗⟩^γ. It never verifies (L1) or, crucially, (L4)(d): the existence of a decomposition L=B+A with the uniform resolvent bound ∥(z−B+iv·ξ)^{-1}∥_{V_j→V_j} ≲ |Re z + λ_B|^{-1} in the weighted hierarchy (V_j). The cited estimates from [23] are hydrodynamic-limit estimates obtained by compactness and do not contain such a resolvent bound; the kernel estimate is not a substitute. Since Propositions 2.1, 2.2 and the entire semigroup machinery in the proof of Theorem 1.3 are inherited from [20] under exactly this assumption, the claimed BFD application in the title/abstract is not established as written.
[§3.4.2, §4.4, Prop. B.3 vs. (N2)] Assumption (N2) requires the remainder estimate in V◦,s ∩ ˙V^{1−α}. The verifications in the NFP section (§3.4.2), the BGK section (§4.4), and the proof of Proposition B.3 produce the bound with a different homogeneous index: α−1 in the former two, and α−d/2 in Prop. B.3. For d=3, α=1 and these coincide with 1−α, but for d=2, α∈(1/2,1) gives α−1<0<1−α, and the norms are not comparable. Thus the d=2 case of Theorem 1.3 and its applications is not covered by the provided remainder estimates. This is load-bearing because the theorem's ill-prepared data condition and source-term estimates use ˙V^{1−α}.

minor comments (5)

[§1.3.1] The text says 'Since proving that the BGK model (1.8) falls within our framework already requires tedious computations, we treat the case of the ES-BGK model.' Section 4, however, treats the BGK operator L=−(Id−Π), not the ES-BGK operator. This is contradictory and should be corrected.
[§2.2.5] In the proof of convergence, the line 'Since we have constructed gε so that |||gε|||_{X^s} ⩽ δ' should refer to the radius R of the ball from §2.2.3, not δ. The subsequent estimates depend on R being small but not on equality with δ.
[§4.2] For the BGK application, the verification of Assumption 1 is compressed into 'it is easy to check... by adapting the arguments... from Section 3.3.' Because (L4) requires a precise weighted hierarchy V_j and a splitting B+A, this step should be written out in detail rather than left as an exercise.
[§5] The weight µ=M(1−M) is not normalized; (L2) requires ∫µ dv = 1. The author should state that µ is rescaled or that the normalization is irrelevant for the estimates, and similarly for the definition of V=L^2(µ^{-1}).
[Prop. B.3] The proof concludes with the homogeneous norm ˙H^{α−d/2}, which is different from both 1−α and α−1. If the intended result is (N2) with 1−α, the frequency exponents in (B.4)–(B.5) must be adjusted; as written, the proof establishes a different statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the abstract hydrodynamic limit is derived from explicit Assumptions 1–3, self-citations to [20] are to a prior parameter-free work, and the Section 5 BFD gap is a missing verification, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1.3, an abstract theorem conditional on Structural Assumptions 1, 2 and 3. The proof constructs f^ε as the unique fixed point of the integral equation (2.13), estimates the source terms, linear operator, bilinear Duhamel term, and nonlinear remainder Λ^ε from those assumptions, and then extracts f_NS, f_kin, f_disp, and f_err from the constructed solution. Nothing in the conclusion is inserted as an input: f_NS is the solution of the Navier-Stokes-Fourier integral equation with the projected initial data; the dispersive and kinetic layers are defined from the initial-data decomposition, not fitted to the output. The nonlinear remainder estimates of Prop. 2.4 and Prop. B.3 are new and are proved in the text. The main inherited input is the spectral/semigroup machinery of [20] (Propositions 2.1–2.2, Lemmas 4.1–6.2). This is a self-citation, but [20] is a published, parameter-free derivation with stated assumptions that do not include the non-bilinear conclusion; per the review rules it is real evidence and does not raise the circularity score. The model sections independently check the hypotheses for NFP and BGK; the NFP checks are computations from the Taylor expansion of the operator, and BGK uses the explicit linearization L=-(Id-Π). For the Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac application, Section 5 cites [23] for (L3), (B3), and (N'), and extends γ=1 estimates to γ∈[0,1] via a triangle-inequality replacement. It does not verify the resolvent bound (L4)(d), which is needed by the inherited machinery. That is a real correctness/completeness gap in the BFD application, but it is not a circular step: the missing hypothesis is not assumed in the conclusion, and the cited estimates are not being used both as input and as output. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness assertion from the author's prior work is used to force the conclusion. Therefore the derivation chain is not circular; score 0.

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

The paper is a theorem paper: no constants are fitted to data. Its decisive inputs are (a) the structural assumptions 1-4 that define the model class, (b) the published spectral machinery of [20] which is quoted rather than reproved, and (c) for the BFD application, estimates imported from [23] whose precise match to Assumption 1 (especially L4) is not documented in the text. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Structural Assumptions 1 (L1-L4): self-adjoint rotation-invariant L with null space Span{µ, vµ, |v|²µ}, coercivity on the complement, and the B+A decomposition with the uniform resolvent bound (L4d).
These hypotheses define the class of linearized operators the proof can handle; they are assumed for the abstract theorem and must be verified model by model (Sections 3-5).
domain assumption Structural Assumptions 2 (B1-B3): bilinear part Q is orthogonal to the null space, rotation-invariant, and satisfies the dual estimate ∥Q(f,g)∥_{V^∘} ≲ ∥f∥_V ∥g∥_{V^•} + ∥f∥_{V^•} ∥g∥_V.
Inherited in spirit from [20]; for each model the paper gives or cites a verification.
domain assumption Structural Assumptions 3 (N1-N3) and sufficient condition (N'): the nonlinear remainder R^ε is orthogonal to the null space and satisfies uniform/Lipschitz quadratic bounds; the N'-linear trick verifies them.
This is the new structural content of the paper; Proposition B.3 proves N' ⇒ N2,N3, and Sections 3-5 check N' (or N2,N3 directly).
standard math The entire linear/semigroup machinery of Gervais-Lods [20]: spectral projectors P^ε, semigroup U^ε, estimates of Propositions 2.1-2.2, the Navier-Stokes integral equation (2.2), lemmas 4.1-6.2.
The proof quotes [20] extensively (published, Ann. Henri Lebesgue 2024) instead of reproving; Theorem 1.3 is conditional on [20] being correct.
domain assumption Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac estimates from Jiang-Xiong-Zhou [23]: (L3) from [23, Prop. 2.1], (B3) from [23, eq. (2.6)], (N') from [23, eq. (2.8)], plus the claimed extension to all γ∈[0,1].
Section 5 imports these without proof in the text; (L4)(d) is not even attributed, so the BFD application depends on unstated spectral facts.
standard math Classical harmonic analysis facts: Sobolev product estimates (Lemma B.1), analytic composition estimates (Lemma B.2), Bernstein/Littlewood-Paley inequalities (Prop. B.3), Leray projection and NSF well-posedness for small data (Lemarié-Rieusset [24]).
Background PDE/FA tools used throughout Sections 2 and B.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Incompressible Navier-Stokes limit of non-bilinear kinetic equations and application to the BGK, nonlinear Fokker-Planck and Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQBONUXV

@misc{pith2026260718939,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Incompressible Navier-Stokes limit of non-bilinear kinetic equations and application to the BGK, nonlinear Fokker-Planck and Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQBONUXV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18939}
}

read the original abstract

We consider collisional kinetic equations whose collision operator is not necessarily bilinear and prove quantitative convergence to the Navier-Stokes-Fourier system in weighted Sobolev spaces, together with a description of the initial layers. The aim of this paper is to conciliate the conditional convergence result of Bardos-Golse-Levermore for abstract kinetic equations conserving macroscopic quantities and dissipating entropy with the spectral strategy initiated by Bardos-Ukai for the Boltzmann equation. This work extends the abstract approach of Gervais-Lods which was restricted to bilinear collisions (Boltzmann, Landau or quadratic approximation of other models) to non-bilinear models such as the Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac equation, the BGK equation and the nonlinear Fokker-Planck equation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier limit from a nonlinear quantum Fokker-Planck equation
math.AP 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A nonlinear quantum Fokker-Planck equation with self-consistent fields converges in the diffusive limit to the incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier system, retaining quantum statistics in the transport coefficients.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

[20]

Hydrodynamic limits for kinetic equations preserving mass, momentum and energy: a spectral and unified approach in the presence of a spectral gap.Ann

Pierre Gervais and Bertrand Lods. Hydrodynamic limits for kinetic equations preserving mass, momentum and energy: a spectral and unified approach in the presence of a spectral gap.Ann. Henri Lebesgue, 7:969–1098, 2024

2024
[23]

The incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier limit from Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac equation.J

Ning Jiang, Linjie Xiong, and Kai Zhou. The incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier limit from Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac equation.J. Differ. Equations, 308:77–129, 2022

2022
[1]

The Gaussian- BGK model of Boltzmann equation with small Prandtl number.Eur

Pierre Andries, Patrick Le Tallec, Jean-Philippe Perlat, and Beno ˆ ıt Perthame. The Gaussian- BGK model of Boltzmann equation with small Prandtl number.Eur. J. Mech., B, Fluids, 19(6):813–830, 2000

2000
[2]

From Boltzmann’s equation to the incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier sys- tem with long-range interactions.Arch

Diogo Ars´ enio. From Boltzmann’s equation to the incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier sys- tem with long-range interactions.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 206(2):367–488, 2012

2012
[3]

Wiss.Berlin: Springer, 2011

Hajer Bahouri, Jean-Yves Chemin, and Rapha¨ el Danchin.Fourier analysis and nonlinear partial differential equations, volume 343 ofGrundlehren Math. Wiss.Berlin: Springer, 2011

2011
[4]

David Levermore

Claude Bardos, Fran¸ cois Golse, and C. David Levermore. Fluid dynamic limits of kinetic equations. II: Convergence proofs for the Boltzmann equation.Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 46(5):667–753, 1993

1993
[5]

Fluid dynamic limits of kinetic equa- tions

Claude Bardos, Fran¸ cois Golse, and David Levermore. Fluid dynamic limits of kinetic equa- tions. I: Formal derivations.J. Stat. Phys., 63(1-2):323–344, 1991

1991
[6]

The classical incompressible Navier-Stokes limit of the Boltz- mann equation.Math

Claude Bardos and Seiji Ukai. The classical incompressible Navier-Stokes limit of the Boltz- mann equation.Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 1(2):235–257, 1991

1991

Show all 33 references

[7]

P. L. Bhatnagar, E. P. Gross, and M. Krook. A model for collision processes in gases. I: Small amplitude processes in charged and neutral one-component systems.Phys. Rev., II. Ser., 94:511–525, 1954

1954
[8]

From the Boltzmann equation to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations on the torus: a quantitative error estimate.J

Marc Briant. From the Boltzmann equation to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations on the torus: a quantitative error estimate.J. Differ. Equations, 259(11):6072–6141, 2015

2015
[9]

From Boltzmann to incompress- ible Navier-Stokes in Sobolev spaces with polynomial weight.Anal

Marc Briant, Sara Merino-Aceituno, and Cl´ ement Mouhot. From Boltzmann to incompress- ible Navier-Stokes in Sobolev spaces with polynomial weight.Anal. Appl., Singap., 17(1):85– 116, 2019

2019
[10]

Hydrodynamic limit for the non-cutoff Boltzmann equa- tion.Ann

Chuqi Cao and Kleber Carrapatoso. Hydrodynamic limit for the non-cutoff Boltzmann equa- tion.Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e C, Anal. Non Lin´ eaire, 43(2):417–482, 2026

2026
[11]

The Navier–Stokes limit of kinetic equations for low regularity data.Tunis

Kleber Carrapatoso, Isabelle Gallagher, and Isabelle Tristani. The Navier–Stokes limit of kinetic equations for low regularity data.Tunis. J. Math., 8(3):497–538, 2026. INCOMPRESSIBLE NA VIER-STOKES-FOURIER LIMIT OF KINETIC EQUATIONS 29

2026
[12]

Regularization estimates and hydrodynamical limit for the Landau equation.J

Kleber Carrapatoso, Mohamad Rachid, and Isabelle Tristani. Regularization estimates and hydrodynamical limit for the Landau equation.J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 163:334–432, 2022

2022
[13]

Global classical solutions of the Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation with local alignment forces.Nonlinearity, 29(7):1887–1916, 2016

Young-Pil Choi. Global classical solutions of the Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation with local alignment forces.Nonlinearity, 29(7):1887–1916, 2016

1916
[14]

Global existence of weak solutions to the nonlinear Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation.J

Young-Pil Choi, Byung-Hoon Hwang, and Yeongseok Yoo. Global existence of weak solutions to the nonlinear Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation.J. Differ. Equations, 444:53, 2025. Id/No 113573

2025
[15]

Incompressible Navier-Stokes limit from nonlinear Vlasov- Fokker-Planck equation.Appl

Young-Pil Choi and Jinwook Jung. Incompressible Navier-Stokes limit from nonlinear Vlasov- Fokker-Planck equation.Appl. Math. Lett., 158:Paper No. 109214, 7, 2024

2024
[16]

Dolbeault

J. Dolbeault. Kinetic models and quantum effects: A modified Boltzmann equation for Fermi- Dirac particles.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 127(2):101–131, 1994

1994
[17]

Ellis and Mark A

Richard S. Ellis and Mark A. Pinsky. The first and second fluid approximation to the lin- earized Boltzmann equation.J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 54:125–156, 1975

1975
[18]

On the convergence of smooth solutions from Boltz- mann to Navier-Stokes.Ann

Isabelle Gallagher and Isabelle Tristani. On the convergence of smooth solutions from Boltz- mann to Navier-Stokes.Ann. Henri Lebesgue, 3:561–614, 2020

2020
[19]

On the convergence from Boltzmann to Navier-Stokes-Fourier for general initial data.SIAM J

Pierre Gervais. On the convergence from Boltzmann to Navier-Stokes-Fourier for general initial data.SIAM J. Math. Anal., 55(2):805–848, 2023

2023
[21]

The Navier-Stokes limit of the Boltzmann equation for bounded collision kernels.Invent

Fran¸ cois Golse and Laure Saint-Raymond. The Navier-Stokes limit of the Boltzmann equation for bounded collision kernels.Invent. Math., 155(1):81–161, 2004

2004
[22]

The incompressible Navier-Stokes limit of the Boltzmann equation for hard cutoff potentials.J

Fran¸ cois Golse and Laure Saint-Raymond. The incompressible Navier-Stokes limit of the Boltzmann equation for hard cutoff potentials.J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 91(5):508–552, 2009

2009
[24]

Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2nd edition edition, 2023

Pierre Gilles Lemarie-Rieusset.The Navier-Stokes problem in the 21st century. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2nd edition edition, 2023

2023
[25]

David Levermore and Nader Masmoudi

C. David Levermore and Nader Masmoudi. From the Boltzmann equation to an incompress- ible Navier-Stokes-Fourier system.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 196(3):753–809, 2010

2010
[26]

Stability of global Maxwellian for fully nonlinear Fokker-Planck equations.J

Jie Liao and Xiongfeng Yang. Stability of global Maxwellian for fully nonlinear Fokker-Planck equations.J. Stat. Phys., 185(3):27, 2021. Id/No 23

2021
[27]

Mathiaud and L

J. Mathiaud and L. Mieussens. A Fokker-Planck model of the Boltzmann equation with correct Prandtl number.J. Stat. Phys., 162(2):397–414, 2016

2016
[28]

A new model for self-organized dynamics and its flocking behavior.J

Sebastien Motsch and Eitan Tadmor. A new model for self-organized dynamics and its flocking behavior.J. Stat. Phys., 144(5):923–947, 2011

2011
[29]

Perthame

B. Perthame. Global existence to the BGK model of Boltzmann equation.J. Differ. Equa- tions, 82(1):191–205, 1989

1989
[30]

Incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier limit from the Landau equation

Mohamad Rachid. Incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier limit from the Landau equation. Kinet. Relat. Models, 14(4):599–638, 2021

2021
[31]

From the BGK model to the Navier-Stokes equations.Ann

Laure Saint-Raymond. From the BGK model to the Navier-Stokes equations.Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4), 36(2):271–317, 2003

2003
[32]

A review of mathematical topics in collisional kinetic theory

C´ edric Villani. A review of mathematical topics in collisional kinetic theory. InHandbook of mathematical fluid dynamics. Vol. 1, pages 71–305. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2002

2002
[33]

Spectrum analysis of some kinetic equations.Arch

Tong Yang and Hongjun Yu. Spectrum analysis of some kinetic equations.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 222(2):731–768, 2016. Email address:pierre.gervais@math.univ-toulouse.fr

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [20]

Hydrodynamic limits for kinetic equations preserving mass, momentum and energy: a spectral and unified approach in the presence of a spectral gap.Ann

Pierre Gervais and Bertrand Lods. Hydrodynamic limits for kinetic equations preserving mass, momentum and energy: a spectral and unified approach in the presence of a spectral gap.Ann. Henri Lebesgue, 7:969–1098, 2024

2024

[2] [23]

The incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier limit from Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac equation.J

Ning Jiang, Linjie Xiong, and Kai Zhou. The incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier limit from Boltzmann-Fermi-Dirac equation.J. Differ. Equations, 308:77–129, 2022

2022

[3] [1]

The Gaussian- BGK model of Boltzmann equation with small Prandtl number.Eur

Pierre Andries, Patrick Le Tallec, Jean-Philippe Perlat, and Beno ˆ ıt Perthame. The Gaussian- BGK model of Boltzmann equation with small Prandtl number.Eur. J. Mech., B, Fluids, 19(6):813–830, 2000

2000

[4] [2]

From Boltzmann’s equation to the incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier sys- tem with long-range interactions.Arch

Diogo Ars´ enio. From Boltzmann’s equation to the incompressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier sys- tem with long-range interactions.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 206(2):367–488, 2012

2012

[5] [3]

Wiss.Berlin: Springer, 2011

Hajer Bahouri, Jean-Yves Chemin, and Rapha¨ el Danchin.Fourier analysis and nonlinear partial differential equations, volume 343 ofGrundlehren Math. Wiss.Berlin: Springer, 2011

2011

[6] [4]

David Levermore

Claude Bardos, Fran¸ cois Golse, and C. David Levermore. Fluid dynamic limits of kinetic equations. II: Convergence proofs for the Boltzmann equation.Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 46(5):667–753, 1993

1993

[7] [5]

Fluid dynamic limits of kinetic equa- tions

Claude Bardos, Fran¸ cois Golse, and David Levermore. Fluid dynamic limits of kinetic equa- tions. I: Formal derivations.J. Stat. Phys., 63(1-2):323–344, 1991

1991

[8] [6]

The classical incompressible Navier-Stokes limit of the Boltz- mann equation.Math

Claude Bardos and Seiji Ukai. The classical incompressible Navier-Stokes limit of the Boltz- mann equation.Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 1(2):235–257, 1991

1991