Linear Stability of Hyperbolic Moment Models for Boltzmann Equation

Abstract: Grad's moment models for Boltzmann equation were recently regularized to globally hyperbolic systems, and thus the regularized models attain local well-posedness for Cauchy data. The hyperbolic regularization is only related to the convection term in Boltzmann equation. We in this paper studied the regularized models with the presentation of collision terms. It is proved that the regularized models are linear stability at the local equilibrium and satisfy Yong's first stability condition with commonly used approximate collision terms, and particularly with Boltzmann's binary collision model.

\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}
The linear stability at the local equilibrium of both HME and OHME has
been proved with commonly used approximate collision terms, and
particularly with Boltzmann's binary collision model. Since HME
and OHME contain almost all hyperbolic regularized Grad's moment
system, the linear stability of almost all Grad-type moment system is
clarified.

Yong's first stability condition is essential to the existence of the
solution of nonlinear first-order hyperbolic with stiff source term.
The positive results in this paper may be helpful for the future study
on the existence of the solution of HME and OHME.

The linearized equation of HME is same as that of Grad's moment
equations at the local equilibrium, so the linear stability
at the local equilibrium
can be shared with the Grad's moment equations. However,
for Grad's moment equations,
due to the lack of the hyperbolicity, even in the neighborhood of the
local equilibrium, the linear stability can not ensure the existence
of the solution. What's more, Yong's stability condition is stronger
than linear stability, which is satisfied by HME, but not
Grad's moment equations.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
Y. Di was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No. 11271358). Y. W. Fan was supported in part by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 91434201). R. Li was supported in part by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 91330205, 11421110001,
11421101 and 11325102).

\section{Stability Analysis of OHME}
\label{sec:grad13}
In Grad's moment method, there are two groups of moment systems. One is
choosing the basis function as
\[
    \left\{\Halphau(\bxi):|\alpha|\leq M\right\},
\]
which gives us the reduced models with $20$, $35$, $56$, $84$,
$\cdots$ moments for $D=3$.  Grad's 20 moment system is the most popular
one of them. HME are globally hyperbolic regularized version of this
group of Grad's moment system. The other one is choosing the basis
function as
\[
    \left\{\Halphau(\bxi):|\alpha|\leq M-1\right\}\bigcup
    \left\{\sum_{d=1}^D\mathcal{H}_{\alpha+2e_d}^{[\bu,\theta]}(\bxi):|\alpha|=M-2\right\},
\]
which gives us moment system with $13$, $26$, $45$, $71$, $\cdots$
moments for $D=3$. In this group, Grad's 13 moment system is
definitely the most famous one. Following \cite{Torrilhon2015}, we
called this set of moment system as ordered Grad's moment system.

As the most important Grad's moment system, Grad's 13 moment equations
\cite{Grad} draw a lot of authors' attention in the past six decades.
Due to the lack of hyperbolicity, a globally hyperbolic
regularization, similarly as that for $M$-order Grad's moment system,
is required. In \cite{framework}, the authors extended the globally
hyperbolic regularization in \cite{Fan,Fan_new} into a framework to
derive moment equations from kinetic equations. By applying the
framework on Grad's 13 moment system, the authors proposed a globally
hyperbolic 13 moment equations (HME13). In \cite{Fan2015}, the authors
applied the globally hyperbolic regularization on ordered Grad's
moment system to obtain the Ordered Hyperbolic Moment Equations(OHME),
and pointed out that $M$-th order OHME can be derived from $M$-th
order HME.

Denote $N_O$ by the number of equations of $M$-th order OHME, and let
\[
    \bPb=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq M-1}\hat{\bE}_{\alpha,\alpha}
    +\sum_{d=1}^D\sum_{|\alpha|=M-2}\hat{\bE}_{\alpha+2e_1,\alpha+2e_d},
\]
where $\hat{\bE}_{\alpha,\beta}\in\bbR^{N_O\times N}$ is the matrix with
all its entries to be $0$, except for the only entry with row index
$\alpha$ and column index $\beta$ to be $1$.
We define the diagonal matrix $\bT_O\in\bbR^{N_O\times N_O}$ as
\[
    \bT_O=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq M-1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha!}}\bE^O_{\alpha,\alpha}
    +\sum_{|\alpha|=M-2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sum_{d=1}^D(\alpha+2e_d)!}}\bE^O_{\alpha+2e_1,\alpha+2e_1},
\]
where $\bE^O_{\alpha,\alpha}\in\bbR^{N_O\times N_O}$ has the
same definition as $\bE_{\alpha,\alpha}$. Let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_bPp}
    \bPp=\bT_O^2\bPb(\bT^2)^{-1},
\end{equation}
then OHME can be written as \cite{Fan2015}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:OHMEoriginal}
    \begin{aligned}
        \bPp\bD(\bPb^T\bPp\bw)\bPb^T \pd{\bPp\bw}{t}
        &+\sum_{d=1}^D
        \bPp\bM_d(\bPb^T\bPp\bw)\bPb^T\bPp\bD(\bPb^T\bPp\bw)\bPb^T\pd{\bPp\bw}{x_d}\\
        &\qquad\qquad\qquad=\bPp\bS(\bPb^T\bPp\bw).
    \end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let
\[
    \begin{aligned}
        \bw_O&=\bPp\bw, &
        \bD_O(\bw_O)&=\bPp\bD(\bPb^T\bw_O)\bPb^T,\\
        \bS_O&=\bPp\bS(\bPb^T\bw_O),    &
        \bM_{O,d}(\bw_O)&=\bPp\bM_d(\bPb^T\bw_O)\bPb^T,
        \quad d=1,\cdots,D,
    \end{aligned}
\]
then \eqref{eq:OHMEoriginal} can be reformulated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:OHME}
    \bD_O(\bw_O)\pd{\bw_O}{t}
    +\sum_{d=1}^D\bM_O(\bw_O)\bD_O(\bw_O)\pd{\bw_O}{x_d}
    =\bS_O(\bw_O).
\end{equation}

We claim that for this system \eqref{eq:OHME}, it is linearly stable and
fulfils Yong's first stability condition, exactly the same as HME we
studied in the last sections.

Using the same linearization as in Section \ref{sec:stability} on OHME,
we obtain the linearized OHME as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LinearizedOHME}
    \bar{\bD}^O\pd{\bar{\bw}_O}{t}+\sum_{d=1}^D\bar{\bM}_O\bar{\bD}_O\pd{\bar{\bw}_O}{x_d}
    =\bar{\bQ}_O\bar{\bw}_O,
\end{equation}
where
\[
    \begin{aligned}
        \bar\bw_O&=\bPp\bar\bw, &
        \bar\bD_O&=\bPp\bar\bD\bPb^T,\\
        \bar\bQ_O&=\bPp\bar\bQ\bPb^T,   &
        \bar\bM_{O,d}&=\bPp\bar\bM_d\bPb^T,
        \quad d=1,\cdots,D.
    \end{aligned}
\]
Noticing the discussion in Section \ref{sec:stability}, we can prove OHME
is also linearly stable both in space and in time at the local
Maxwellian, once Lemma \ref{Qsymmetric} and Lemma \ref{lem:DQD} are
valid for $\bar{\bD}_O$, $\bar{\bM}_{O,d}$ and $\bar{\bQ}_O$.

Actually, due to \eqref{eq:def_bPp}, we find that both
\[
    \bT_O^{-1}\bar{\bM}_{O,d}\bT_O=(\bT^{-1}\bPb^T\bT_O)^T(\bT^{-1}\bar{\bM}_d\bT)
    (\bT^{-1}\bPb^T\bT_O),\quad d=1,\dots,D,
\]
and
\[
    \bT_O^{-1}\bar{\bQ}_O\bT_O=(\bT^{-1}\bPb^T\bT_O)^T(\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT)
    (\bT^{-1}\bPb^T\bT_O)
\]
are symmetric matrices. Noticing here $\bT$ and $\bT_O$ are diagonal
matrices, we obtain that Lemma \ref{Qsymmetric} is valid for
$\bar{\bM}_{O,d}$ and $\bar{\bQ}_O$.

The equation $\bar{\bD}^{-1}\bar{\bQ}=\bar{\bQ}$ is valid, since the
collision operator has $D+2$ conserved quantities and all entries of
$\bar{\bD}-\bI$ are zeroes except for some entries with row and column
indices corresponding to these conserved quantities. Since $\bPp$ and
$\bPb$ only change entries with row and column indices corresponding to
$|\alpha|>M-1$, Lemma \ref{lem:DQD} is still valid for $\bar{\bD}_O$
and $\bar{\bQ}_O$. Furthermore, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:OHME_DQD}
    \bD_O(\bw_{eq}^O)\bQ_O(\bw_{eq}^O)\bD_O(\bw_{eq}^O)=\bQ_O(\bw_{eq}^O),
\end{equation}
where $\bQ_O=\pd{\bS_O}{\bw_O}$.
Hence, we have the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:OHMELS}
  The linearized OHME \eqref{eq:LinearizedOHME} is stable both in
  space and in time. OHME \eqref{eq:OHME} is linearly stable both in
  space and in time at the local Maxwellian.
\end{corollary}

Following Section \ref{sec:Yong}, here we verify that Yong's first
stability condition is satisfied for OHME, making use of the
connections \eqref{eq:OHME} between HME and OHME.
Precisely, we have the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:OHMESC}
    OHME satisfies Yong's first stability condition.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us verify all three equalities one by one:
\begin{itemize}
\item Condition 1:
Let $\bw_{eq}^O=\bPp\bw_{eq}$. Direct calculations yield
\[
    \bQ_O(\bw_O):=\pd{\bS_O(\bw_O)}{\bw_O}=\bPp\pd{\bS(\bPb^T\bw_O)}{\bw}
    \pd{\bPp^T\bw_O}{\bw_O}=\bPp\bQ(\bw)\bPb^T.
\]
Let
\[
    \hat{\bP}_O=\bI+\sum_{i=2}^D\bE^O_{2e_1,2e_i},
\]
then we have $\hat{\bP}_O\bPp=\bPp\hat{\bP}$ and
$\hat{\bP}_O\bPb=\bPb\hat{\bP}$, and thus
\[
    \hat{\bP}_O\bQ_O(\bw_{eq}^O)=\bPp\hat{\bP}\bQ(\bw_{eq}^O)\bPb^T=
    \bPp \left(\begin{array}{cc}
        0 & 0\\
        0 & \hat{\bQ}(\bw_{eq})
    \end{array}\right) \bPb^T\hat{\bP}_O
    =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
        0 & 0\\
        0 & \hat{\bQ}_O(\bw_{eq})
    \end{array}\right) \hat{\bP}_O,
\]
where $\hat{\bQ}_O\in\bbR^{(N_O-D-2)\times(N_O-D-2)}$ is an invertible
matrix.
\item Condition 2:
Let $\bLambda_1^O=\bPp\bLambda_1\bPb^T$, then one is easy to see that
\[
    \bM_{O,d}=\bPp\bM_d\bPp^T=\sqrt{\theta}\bLambda_1^O\bT_0
    \bPb^T(\bT^{-1}\bar{\bM}_d\bT)\bPb(\bLambda_1^O\bT_O)^{-1}.
\]
Let
\[
    \bA_0^O(\bw_O)=
    =( (\bLambda_1^O\bT_O)^{-1}\bD_O(\bw_O))^T(
    (\bLambda_1^O\bT_O)^{-1}\bD_O(\bw_O)),
\]
then
\[
    \bA_0^O\bA_d^O=\sqrt{\theta}
    ( (\bLambda_1^O\bT_O)^{-1}\bD_O)^T\bPb
    (\bT^{-1}\bar{\bM}_{O,d}\bT)\bPb^T(\bLambda_1^O\bT_O)^{-1}\bD_O
\]
is symmetric, thus \eqref{eq:Yong2} holds.

\item Condition 3:
Noticing \eqref{eq:OHME_DQD}, we obtain that
\[
    \begin{aligned}
        \bA_0^O(\bw^O_{eq})\bQ_O(\bw^O_{eq})&=
        ((\bLambda_1^O\bT_O)^{-1}\bD_O(\bw^O_{eq}))^T(
        (\bLambda^O_1\bT_O)^{-1}\bD_O(\bw^O_{eq}))\bQ^O(\bw^O_{eq})\\
        &= ((\bLambda^O_1\bT_O)^{-1}\bD_O(\bw^O_{eq}))^T
        (\bLambda^O_1\bT_O)^{-1}\bQ_O(\bw^O_{eq})\\

        &=\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{L}\bD_O^T(\bw^O_{eq})(\bLambda^O_1\bT_O)^{-T}\bPb(\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT)\bPb^T
        (\bLambda_1^O\bT_O)^{-1}\\
        &=\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{L}\left((\bLambda_1^O\bT_O)^{-T}\bPb(\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT)\bPb^T
        (\bLambda_1^O\bT^O)^{-1}\bD_O(\bw^O_{eq})\right)^T\\
        &=\left((\bLambda_1^O\bT_O)^{-T}(\bLambda_1^O\bT_O)^{-1}\bQ_O(\bw^O_{eq})\bD_O(\bw^O_{eq})\right)^T\\
        &=\left((\bLambda^O_1\bT_O)^{-T}(\bLambda^O_1\bT_O)^{-1}\bQ_O(\bw^O_{eq})\right)^T\\
        &=(\bLambda_1^O\bT_O)^{-T}\bPb(\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT)\bPb^T(\bLambda_1^O\bT_O)^{-1}
    \end{aligned}
\]
is symmetric. Analogous to that in Sec. \ref{sec:Yong}, there exists
an invertible matrix $\bP_O$ subject to both \eqref{eq:Yong1} and
\eqref{eq:Yong3}.
\end{itemize}
This is the end of the proof.
\end{proof}

\section{HME for Boltzmann Equation}
\label{sec:hme}
Let us denote the distribution function in gas kinetic theory by
$f(t,\bx,\bxi)$ describing the probability density to find a particle
at space point $\bx$ and the time $t$ with velocity $\bxi$ in
$D$-dimensional space. The macroscopic density $\rho$, flow velocity
$\bu$, temperature $T$, pressure tensor $P=(p_{ij})_{D\times D}$,
stress tensor $\Sigma=(\sigma_{ij})_{D\times D}$ and heat flux $\bq$
are related to the distribution function by
\begin{equation}
    \begin{aligned}
        \rho(t,\bx)&=\int_{\bbR^D}f(t,\bx,\bxi)\dd\bxi,   &
        P&=\int_{\bbR^D}(\bxi-\bu)\otimes(\bxi-\bu)f(t,\bx,\bxi)\dd\bxi,\\
        \rho(t,\bx)\bu(t,\bx)&=\int_{\bbR^D} \bxi f(t,\bx,\bxi)\dd\bxi,   &
        \bq&=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\bbR^D}|\bxi-\bu|^2(\bxi-\bu)f(t,\bx,\bxi)\dd\bxi,\\
        D \rho RT
        &=\int_{\bbR^D}|\bxi-\bu|^2 f(t,\bx,\bxi)\dd\bxi, &
        \Sigma&=P-p\bI,
    \end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $p= \displaystyle \frac{1}{D}\sum_{d=1}p_{dd}=\rho RT$ is
pressure, and the constant $R$ stands for the gas constant. For
convenience, use $\theta(t,\bx) = R T(t,\bx)$ to simplify the
notations.

The distribution function $f(t,\bx,\bxi)$ is governed by the Boltzmann
equation\cite{Boltzmann}
\begin{equation} \label{BoltzmannEQ}
  \pd{f}{t}+\bxi\cdot \nabla_{\bx} f = Q(f,f),
\end{equation}
where the right hand side $Q(f,f)$ is the collision term, which models
the interaction among particles at the position $\bx$ and time $t$.
The collision term is assumed to have only $1$, $\bxi$ and
$|\bxi|^2$ as locally conserved quantities, saying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:conservedquantities}
    \int_{\bbR^D}Q(f,f)(1,\bxi,|\bxi|^2)^T\dd\bxi=\boldsymbol{0},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:conservedquantities2}
    \text{if } \int_{\bbR^D}Q(f,f)\psi(\bxi)\dd\bxi=0,
    \text{ for all } f, \text{ then }
    \psi(\bxi)=a+\boldsymbol{b}^T\bxi+c|\bxi|^2.
\end{equation}
The collision term is also assumed that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:equilibriummanifold}
    Q(f,f)=0\Rightarrow f=f_{eq},
\end{equation}
where $f_{eq}$ is the local equilibrium
\begin{equation} \label{Maxwellian}
    f_{eq}(t,\bx,\bxi)=\frac{\rho(t,\bx)}{[2\pi\theta(t,\bx)]^{D/2}}
    \exp \left( -\frac{|\bxi-\bu(t,\bx)|^2} {2\theta(t,\bx)} \right).
\end{equation}

The binary collision term\cite{Cowling,Grad} is commonly used to model
the dilute gas, and has a quadratic form
\begin{equation} \label{binarycollsion}
    Q(f,f)=\int_{\bbR^D}\int_{S_+^{D-1}}
    (f'f'_1-ff_1)B(|\bxi-\bxi_1|,\sigma)\dd\bn\dd\bxi_1,
\end{equation}
where $S_+^{D-1}$ is the upper half sphere, $B(|\bxi-\bxi_1|,\sigma)$
is the collision kernel, and $\sigma$ is a function of $\bn$, $\bxi$
and $\bxi_1$, depending on the type of particles.
In \eqref{binarycollsion},
\[
f=f(t,\bx,\bxi),~~ f_1=f(t,\bx,\bxi_1),~~ f'=f(t,\bx,\bxi'),~~
f'_1=f(t,\bx,\bxi'_1),
\]
where $\bxi$ and $\bxi_1$ are the velocities of two particles before
collision, $\bxi'$ and $\bxi'_1$ are their velocities after collision,
and $\bn$ is the direction between their centers of mass.
The specific expressions of $B(|\bxi-\bxi_1|,\sigma)$ and $\sigma$ are
not concerned in this paper.

As simplifications of the binary collision, researchers proposed some
alternative collision models to approximate the binary collision
model, such as BGK model\cite{BGK}, Shakhov model\cite{Shakhov} and
ES-BGK model\cite{Holway}. We list these models below for later usage:
\begin{itemize}
    \item Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook(BGK) model \cite{BGK}:
        \begin{equation} \label{BGKeq}
            Q(f,f)=\frac{1}{\tau}(f_{eq}-f),
        \end{equation}
        where $\tau$ is relaxation time.
    \item Shakhov model \cite{Shakhov}:
        \begin{equation} \label{ShakhovEQ}
            Q(f,f)=\frac 1 \tau (f_S-f),
        \end{equation}
        where
        \begin{equation*}
            f_S(t,\bx,\bxi)=f_{eq}(t,\bx,\bxi)\left( 1 + \dfrac{(1-\Pr)
            \bq^T (\bxi - \bu)}
            {(D+2)\rho\theta^2} \left(\dfrac{|\bxi-\bu|^2}{\theta}-(D+2)\right)
            \right),
        \end{equation*}
        where $\Pr$ is the Prandtl number, which is $2/3$ for
        monatomic gas.
\item ES-BGK model \cite{Holway}:
    \begin{equation} \label{ES-BGKeq}
        Q(f,f)=\frac{\Pr}{\tau}(f_G-f),
    \end{equation}
    where
    \begin{equation*}
        f_G=\dfrac{\rho}{\sqrt{
            \mathrm{det}(2\pi\bLambda)}}\exp\left(-\dfrac{1}{2}
        (\bxi-\bu)^T \bLambda^{-1}(\bxi-\bu) \right),
    \end{equation*}
    where $\bLambda = (\lambda_{ij}) \in \bbR^{D\times D}$ is a
    symmetric positive definite matrix with entries as $\lambda_{ij} =
    \dfrac{\theta \delta_{ij}}{\text{Pr}} + \left( 1 - \dfrac 1
    {\text{Pr}} \right) \dfrac{p_{ij}}{\rho}$, $i$, $j=1, \cdots, D$,
    and $\delta_{ij}$ is Kronecker delta symbol.
\end{itemize}
All of the four collision models satisfy the relationship
\eqref{eq:conservedquantities}, \eqref{eq:conservedquantities2} and
\eqref{eq:equilibriummanifold}.

In 1949, Grad proposed the well-known Grad's moment method\cite{Grad}
to derive moment equations from the Boltzmann equation. The key point
is to expand the distribution function around the local Maxwellian
into Hermite series as
\begin{equation}
	\label{fexpand}
	f(t,\bx,\bxi)=\sum_{\balpha\in\bbN^D}
	f_{\balpha}(t,\bx) \Halphau(\bxi),
\end{equation}
where $\balpha$ is a $D$-dimensional multi-index, $\Halphau(\bxi)$ is
the basis function, defined by
\begin{equation} \label{Halphau}
    \Halphau(\bxi)=\Healphau(\bxi)\omegau(\bxi),
    \quad
    \omegau(\bxi)=\frac{f_{eq}}{\rho}
    =\frac{1}{[2\pi\theta]^{D/2}}
    \exp\left( -\frac{|\bxi-\bu|^2}{2\theta} \right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
    \Healphau(\bxi)=
    \frac{1}{\omegau(\bxi)}\prod_{d=1}^D \pd{^{\alpha_d}}{\xi_d^{\alpha_d}}\omegau(\bxi)
    ,\quad \balpha\in\bbN^D.
\end{equation}
Due to the orthogonality of the basis function, we have
\cite{Qiao,FanDissertation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_falpha}
    f_{\balpha}=\frac{\theta^{|\balpha|}}{\balpha!}\int_{\bbR^D}f\Healphau(\bxi)\dd\bxi,
\end{equation}
where $|\balpha|=\sum_{d=1}^D\alpha_d$, and $\balpha!=\prod_{d=1}^D\alpha_d!$.
Particularly, we have for $i,j=1,\cdots,D$
\begin{equation}
    \begin{aligned}
        &f_0=\rho,\quad f_{e_i}=0, \quad \sum_{d=1}^Df_{2e_d}=0,\\
        &p_{ij}=p\delta_{ij}+(1+\delta_{ij})f_{e_i+e_j},\quad
        q_i=2f_{3e_i}+\sum_{d=1}^Df_{e_i+2e_d},
    \end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $e_i$, $i=1,\cdots,D$ is unit multi-index with its $i$-th entry
to be $1$.

Substituting the expansion \eqref{fexpand} into the Boltzmann equation
\eqref{BoltzmannEQ}, and matching the coefficients of the basis
function $\Halphau(\bxi)$, we can obtain the governing equation of
$\bu$, $\theta$ and $f_{\alpha}$, $\alpha\in\bbN^3$. However, the
resulting system contains infinite number of equations. A cut-off and
moment closure are required. Choosing a positive integer
$3\leq M\in\bbN$, and discarding all the equations including
$\pd{f_{\alpha}}{t}$, $|\alpha|>M$, and setting $f_{\alpha}=0$,
$|\alpha|>M$ to closure the residual system, we can obtain $M$-th
order Grad's moment system as
\begin{equation}
	\begin{aligned}
		\pd{f_{\balpha}}{t}&+\sum_{d=1}^D\left( \theta \pd{f_{\balpha-\be_d}}{x_d}+u_d\pd{f_{\balpha}}{x_d}+
		(1-\delta_{|\balpha|,M})
		(\balpha_d+1)\pd{f_{\balpha+\be_d}}{x_d} \right) \\
		+\sum_{k=1}^Df_{\balpha-\be_k}\pd{u_k}t&+\sum_{k,d=1}^D\pd{u_k}{x_d}(\theta f_{\balpha-\be_k-\be_d} +u_d f_{\balpha-\be_k}+
		(\balpha_d+1)f_{\balpha-\be_k+\be_d }) \\
		+\frac 12 \sum_{k=1}^D f_{\balpha-2\be_k}\pd{\theta}t&+\sum_{k,d=1}^D\frac 12 \pd{\theta}{x_d}(\theta f_{\balpha-2\be_k-\be_d}+u_df_{\balpha-2\be_k}+
		(\balpha_d+1)f_{\balpha-2\be_k+\be_d}) \\
		&=S_{\balpha},\quad |\balpha|\leq M,
	\end{aligned}
	\label{Gradeq}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_Salpha}
    S_{\balpha}=
    \frac{\theta^{|\balpha|}}{\balpha!}\int_{\bbR^D}Q(f,f)\Healphau(\bxi)\dd\bxi.
\end{equation}
It is well-known that Grad's moment system lacks of global
hyperbolicity \cite{Muller} and it was found recently that it is not
hyperbolic even around the local Maxwellian \cite{Grad13toR13}. The
globally hyperbolic regularization proposed in \cite{Fan,Fan_new}
essentially fixes this drawback and yields the globally hyperbolic
moment equations (HME) as
\[
	\begin{aligned}
		\pd{f_{\balpha}}{t}&+\sum_{d=1}^D\left(
		\theta \pd{f_{\balpha-\be_d}}{x_d}+u_d\pd{f_{\balpha}}{x_d}+
		(1-\delta_{|\balpha|,M})
		(\balpha_d+1)\pd{f_{\balpha+\be_d}}{x_d} \right) \\
		+\sum_{k=1}^Df_{\balpha-\be_k}\pd{u_k}t&+
		\sum_{k,d=1}^D\pd{u_k}{x_d}(\theta f_{\balpha-\be_k-\be_d} +u_d f_{\balpha-\be_k}+
		(1-\delta_{|\balpha|,M})
		(\balpha_d+1)f_{\balpha-\be_k+\be_d }) \\
		+\frac 12 \sum_{k=1}^D f_{\balpha-2\be_k}\pd{\theta}t&
		+\sum_{k,d=1}^D\frac 12 \pd{\theta}{x_d}(\theta f_{\balpha-2\be_k-\be_d}+u_df_{\balpha-2\be_k}+
		(1-\delta_{|\balpha|,M})
		(\balpha_d+1)f_{\balpha-2\be_k+\be_d}) \\
		&=S_{\balpha},\quad |\balpha|\leq M,
	\end{aligned}
	\label{HME}
\]
where $(\cdot)_{\alpha}$ is taken as zero if any component of $\alpha$
is negative. To simplify the notations, we introduce the ordering
relation on $\bbN^D$.
\begin{definition}[Graded reverse lexicographic]
    An ordering relaxation on $\bbN^D$ is called graded reverse
    lexicographic ordering $\prec$ if for any $\balpha,
    \bbeta\in\bbN^D$
    \[
        \begin{aligned}
            \balpha\prec\bbeta \Longleftrightarrow&
            |\balpha|\le|\bbeta| ~\text{or}~\\
            &|\balpha|=|\bbeta|, ~
            \text{and}~\exists i (1\leq i\leq D), ~\text{s.t.}
            ~\alpha_i>\beta_i,~\alpha_j=\beta_j (i < j \leq D).
        \end{aligned}
    \]
\end{definition}
With this ordering, we adopt the multi-indices as the subscripts of
vectors and matrices since now on, sorting the multi-indeices by the
graded reverse lexicographic ordering $\prec$. Let $N$ to be all the
multi-indices not greater than $Me_D$, which is the total number of
the equations in $M$-th order Grad's moment system. For a vector
$\bw\in\bbR^N$, $w_\alpha$ stands for the entry with $\alpha$ as
subscript, and for a matrix $\bD \in \bbR^{N \times N}$,
$D_{\alpha,\beta}$ stands for the entry with row index $\alpha$ and
column index $\beta$.

Following the notations in \cite{Fan_new}, define $\bw\in\bbR^N$ and
\begin{align} \label{bwdefine}
	w_{\balpha}= \left\{
	\begin{aligned}
		&\rho,    &&\balpha=\bzero, \\
		&u_i,   && \balpha=\be_i,~i=1,\cdots,D, \\
		&\frac{p_{ij}}{1+\delta_{ij}},  &&
                \balpha=\be_i+\be_j,~i,j=1,\cdots,D, \\
		&f_{\balpha},   &&3\leq|\balpha|\leq M.
	\end{aligned}
	\right.
\end{align}
The HME \eqref{HME} can be written into quasi-linear form\cite{framework}:
\begin{equation} \label{HMEquasilinear}
	\bD \pd{\bw}{t}+\sum_{d=1}^D \bM_d\bD\pd{\bw}{x_d}=\bS,
\end{equation}
where the coefficient matrices $\bD$, $\bM_d$ are defined as\cite{FanDissertation}
\begin{align}
	\begin{split} \label{bD}
		\bD&=\bI+\sum_{|\balpha|\leq M}\Big(
		\sum_{d=1}^Df_{\balpha-\be_d}\bE_{\balpha,\be_d}
		-\frac{\theta}{2\rho}\sum_{d=1}^Df_{\balpha-2\be_d}\bE_{\balpha,\bzero}\\
		&\qquad\qquad+H(|\balpha|-3)\frac
        1{D\rho}\left(\sum_{d=1}^Df_{\balpha-2\be_d}\right)\sum_{k=1}^D\bE_{\balpha,2\be_k}\Big)
		-\sum_{d=1}^D \bE_{\be_d,\be_d},
	\end{split}\\
	\bM_d &= \sum_{|\balpha|\leq M}(\theta \bE_{\balpha,\balpha-\be_d}
	+u_d\bE_{\balpha,\balpha}+(1-\delta_{|\balpha|,M})(\alpha_d+1)\bE_{\balpha,\balpha+\be_d}),
	\label{bM}
\end{align}
where $\bI$ is the identity matrix and $\bE_{\balpha,\bbeta}$ is zero
matrix if any component of $\balpha,\bbeta$ is negative or
$|\bbeta|>M$, and is the matrix with all its entries to be $0$, except
for the only entry with row index $\balpha$ and column index $\beta$
to be $1$. The Heaviside step function $H(x)$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
    H(x)= \left \{
        \begin{aligned}
            0, \quad x<0, \\
            1, \quad x\geq 0.
        \end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
As pointed out in \cite{FanDissertation}, $\bD$ is a lower triangular
matrix with all diagonal entries nonzero thus invertible, and its
inverse is
\begin{align} \label{bD-1}
	\begin{aligned}
		\bD^{-1}=\bI-\sum_{|\balpha|\leq M}&\Big(\sum_{d=1}^D\frac{f_{\balpha-\be_d}}{\rho}\bE_{\balpha,\be_d}
		+H(|\balpha|-3)\frac 1{D\rho}\left(\sum_{d=1}^Df_{\balpha-2\be_d}\right)\sum_{k=1}^D\bE_{\balpha,2\be_k}\Big)\\
		&+\sum_{d=1}^D \frac 1\rho \bE_{\be_d,\be_d} +\frac{\theta}2\sum_{d=1}^D \bE_{2\be_d,\bzero}.
	\end{aligned}
\end{align}

Noticing \eqref{eq:conservedquantities} and \eqref{bD-1}, we obtain
$\left( \bD^{-1}-\bI \right)\bS=\boldsymbol{0}$, thus
\begin{equation} \label{bmS}
\bD^{-1}\bS=\bS.
\end{equation}
Hence, the HME \eqref{HMEquasilinear} can be reformulated as
\begin{equation}
	\label{HMEmatrix}
	\pd{\bw}{t}+\sum_{d=1}^D \bA_d\pd{\bw}{x_d}=\bS,
\end{equation}
where $\bA_d=\bD^{-1}\bM_d\bD$.

\section{Introduction}
Boltzmann equation \cite{Boltzmann} is the most important kinetic
equation, governing the movement of a particle system, particularly
the gas particles. Since the distribution function in the Boltzmann
equation is in very high dimension, Grad \cite{Grad} purposed the
famous moment method for gas kinetic theory to reduce the kinetic
equation into low-dimensional models. In more than half a century,
Grad's moment equations were suffered by the lack of hyperbolicity
\cite{Muller,Grad13toR13}. Only very recently, in \cite{Fan, Fan_new},
the authors revealed the underlying reason that Grad's moment equations
lost its hyperbolicity during the model reduction, and
purposed new reduced models of Boltzmann equation. The new models are
referred to as globally Hyperbolic Moment Equations (HME) hereafter, which
are symmetric quasi-linear systems \cite{framework} with global
hyperbolicity.

As new models for fluid dynamics, one may prefer to carry out studies
on some fundamental mathematical properties on HME before further
numerical applications. Among these fundamental mathematical
properties, linear stability is one of the most important points
\cite{Bobylev,RosenauCE,Struchtrup2003} for a system to be applied in
numerical experiments. It should be noted that the linear stability is not
automatically attained for models in fluid dynamics. For instance,
famous Burnett equations and super-Burnett equations are discovered
not linearly stable \cite{Bobylev,Struchtrup}, and thus are ill-posed
and rarely have practical applications.

Except for linear stability, Yong proposed the called Yong's first
stability condition \cite{yongdissertation,yong1999singular},
for nonlinear first-order hyperbolic systems with
source term. With this stability condition, a formal asymptotic
approximation of the initial-layer solution to the nonlinear problem
has been constructed \cite{yong1999singular}. Furthermore, with
some regularity assumption of the solution, the existence of classical
solutions is guaranteed in the uniform time interval. The stability
condition is essential for the nonlinear first-order hyperbolic
system. And in \cite{yongdissertation,yong1999singular}, several
classical models have been verified to satisfy the stability condition.

In this paper, we focus on the linear stability analysis of HME at
local equilibrium and Yong's first stability condition. The collision
term under consideration includes the commonly used approximate
formations, such as BGK model \cite{BGK}, ES-BGK model \cite{Holway},
Shakhov model \cite{Shakhov} and the original Boltzmann's collision
term \cite{Boltzmann}, particularly the binary collision term
\cite{Cowling, Grad1949note}. We prove that both HME and Ordered
globally Hyperbolic Moment Equations(OHME) are linearly stable at local
equilibrium for all the four collision models, and satisfy Yong's
first stability condition.

We start with a brief review of HME and the collision term to be
considered. The globally hyperbolic regularization enables us to write
HME into an elegant quasi-linear form. It is essential to expand the
distribution function at the local equilibrium, where the collision
term vanishes. This property provides us some additional equalities which
significantly simplify the linear stability analysis. For the binary
collision model, the symmetry of the collision plays an important
role, which indicates some induced symmetry in the Jacobian of the
collision term. With some linear algebra, we proved that HME is linear
stable at local equilibrium for all the four collision models. This
proof is not trivial noticing that HME we are studying is for
arbitrary order.

For Yong's first stability condition, the third inequality plays a
major role. We verified this inequality by applying the results in the
linear stability analysis, together with some linear algebraic
technique. In such sense, Yong's first stability condition can be
regarded as an enhanced version of linear stability for nonlinear
balance laws.

OHME, first proposed in \cite{Fan2015}, is the hyperbolic version of
ordered Grad's moment system, which includes the well-known Grad's 13
moment system. Since OHME can be derived from HME, the linear
stability of OHME at the local equilibrium is deduced from that of
HME, as well as Yong's first stability condition.

The rest of the paper is organized as following.  Section
\ref{sec:Preliminaries} presents a brief introduction of the linear
stability and some useful linear algebraic results.  The Boltzmann
equation and Grad's moment method, together with the globally
hyperbolic moment system are reviewed in Section \ref{sec:hme}.  In
Section \ref{sec:stability}, four Boltzmann collision terms are
studied, and the linear stability of HME at local equilibrium is
rigorous proved. In Section \ref{sec:Yong}, Yong's first stability
condition is verified for HME.  We extend the results in Section
\ref{sec:stability} and Section \ref{sec:Yong} to OHME and prove that OHME
is also linearly stable at local equilibrium and satisfies Yong's
first stability condition in Section \ref{sec:grad13}.  The paper ends
with a conclusion.

\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:Preliminaries}
\subsection{Linear stability}
Let us consider the linear PDEs with source term as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:balancelaw}
    \pd{\bU}{t}+\sum_{d=1}^D\bA_d\pd{\bU}{x_d}=\bQ\bU,
\end{equation}
where the matrices $\bA_d$, $d=1,\dots,D$, and $\bQ$ are constant.
Following \cite{Struchtrup}, we assume the solution is plane waves of the form
\begin{equation}
    \bU = {\bU}_*\exp\left( \imag(\Omega t-\bk^T\bx) \right),
\end{equation}
where $\imag$ is the imaginary unit, ${\bU}_*$ is the complex
amplitude of the wave, $\Omega$ is its frequency and $\bk$ is its wave
number. Here we use complex variables for convenience, and only the
real parts of the expressions for the $\bU$ are relevant. The
equation \eqref{eq:balancelaw} can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
    \left(\imag\Omega\bI-\sum_{d=1}^D\imag k_d\bA_d-\bQ\right){\bU}_*=0,
\end{equation}
where $\bI$ is the identity matrix.
The existence of a nontrivial solution $\bU_*$ of the equation
requires the coefficient matrix to be singular
\begin{equation} \label{singularity}
	\det\left(\Omega \bI - \sum_{d=1}^D k_d\bA_d+\imag\bQ\right)=0.
\end{equation}
This gives us the dispersion relation between $\Omega$ and $\bk$.

Considering a disturbance in space, the wave number $\bk$ is real
and the frequency is complex $\Omega=\Omega_r(\bk)+\imag\Omega_i(\bk)$.
Then the plane wave solutions have the form
\[
    \bU=\bU_*\exp(-\Omega_i(\bk)t)\exp(\imag(\Omega_r(\bk)t-\bk^T\bx)).
\]
Note that $\bU_*\exp(-\Omega_i(\bk)t)$ is the local amplitude of $\bU$
as a function of time, and stability requires the local amplitude to
be non-increasing, thus $\Omega_i(\bk) \geq 0$.

If we consider a disturbance in time at a given location, the
frequency $\Omega$ is real and the wave number is complex
$k=k_r(\Omega)+\imag k_i(\Omega)$, where we consider this problem for
one-dimensional processes following \cite{Struchtrup,Struchtrup2003}.
Then the plane wave solutions is
\[
    \bU=\bU_*\exp(k_{i}(\Omega)x)\exp(\imag(\Omega t-k_{r}(\Omega)x)).
\]
Here $\bU_*\exp(k_{i}(\Omega)x)$ is the amplitude of $\bU$ at the
point $x$. To be a stable solution, which is a wave traveling in
positive $x$ direction($k_{r}>0$), it requires a non-increasing
amplitude ($k_{i} \leq 0$), and vice versa, thus $k_{r} k_{i} \leq 0$.

\begin{definition}[Stability]
  The system \eqref{eq:balancelaw} is stable in time if
  $\Omega_i(\bk)\geq0$ for each $\bk\in\bbR^D$; it is stable in space
  for one-dimensional processes if $k_{r}(\Omega)k_{i}(\Omega)\leq0$
  for each $\Omega\in\bbR^+$.
\end{definition}

\subsection{Yong's first stability condition}
In \cite{yong1999singular}, Yong developed a singular perturbation
theory for initial-value problems of nonlinear first-order hyperbolic
system with stiff source term in several space variables, and proposed
the stability condition. Under the stability condition, a formal
asymptotic approximation of the initial-layer solution to the
nonlinear problem are constructed. Moreover, with some regularity
assumption on the solution, the existence of classical solutions is
guaranteed in uniform time interval. The stability condition is
fundamental for the nonlinear first-order hyperbolic system with the
form
\begin{equation}
    \pd{\bU}{t}+\sum_{d=1}^D\bA_d(\bU)\pd{\bU}{x_d}=\bS(\bU),\quad
    \bU\in\bbG\subset\bbR^n.
\end{equation}
Let $\bQ=\pd{\bS}{\bU}$, and define the equilibrium manifold
\[
    \mE:=\{\bU\in\bbG\mid\bS(\bU)=0\}.
\]
The stability condition in \cite{yong1999singular} reads {\it
\begin{enumerate}
    \item There is an invertible $n \times n$ matrix $\bP(\bU)$ and an
        invertible $r\times r$ matrix $\hat{\bQ}(\bU)$, defined on the
        equilibrium manifold $\mE$, such that
        \begin{equation}\label{eq:Yong1}
            \bP(\bU)\bQ(\bU) =
            \left(\begin{array}{cc}
                0 & 0\\
                0 & \hat{\bQ}(\bU)
            \end{array}\right)
            \bP(\bU)\quad \text{ for }
            \bU\in\mE.
        \end{equation}
  \item There is a symmetric positive definite matrix $\bA_0(\bU)$
      such that
      \begin{equation}\label{eq:Yong2}
          \bA_0(\bU)\bA_d(\bU)=\bA_d^T(\bU)\bA_0(\bU),
          \qquad\bU\in\bbG,~ d=1,\dots,D.
      \end{equation}
  \item The hyperbolic part and the source term are coupled in the sense
      \begin{equation}\label{eq:Yong3}
          \bA_0(\bU)\bQ(\bU)+\bQ(\bU)^T\bA_0(\bU)\leq-\bP(\bU)^T
          \left(\begin{array}{cc}
              0 & 0\\
              0 & \mathbf{I}_r
          \end{array}\right)
          \bP(\bU).
      \end{equation}
\end{enumerate}}
The first condition requires that the source term is dissipation or
relaxation, and the second condition guarantees that the hyperbolic
part is a symmetric hyperbolic system. The third condition specifies
how the hyperbolic part and the source term can be coupled, which is
the key condition to the stability of the solution.

\subsection{Two lemmas}
At the end of the section, we give two useful lemmas in linear
algebra for usage later on.
\begin{lemma} \label{eigenvaluenonnegative}
  Matrices $\bA$, $\bB \in \bbR^{n\times n}$ are symmetric, and $\bB$
  is negative semi-definite, then each eigenvalue of the matrix $\bA
  -\imag\bB$ has a non-negative imaginary part.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  We prove it by contradiction. Suppose that $\lambda = a + b \imag$, $a$,
  $b \in \bbR$, is an eigenvalue of matrix $\bA -\imag\bB$, and $b<0$,
  with the corresponding eigenvector $\bv \in \bbC^n$, then
  \[
      [(\bA - a \bI) - \imag (\bB + b \bI)] \bv = \bm{0}.
  \]
  Denote $\bv$ by $\bv=\bv_r + \imag \bv_i$, $\bv_r$, $\bv_i \in \bbR^n$.
  Multiplying the upper equation by $\overline{\bv} = \bv_r - \imag
  \bv_i$, we obtain
  \[
      \overline{\bv}^T (\bA - a \bI) \bv - \imag \overline{\bv}^T (\bB + b
      \bI) \bv = 0.
  \]
  Noticing that $\overline{\bv}^T (\bA - a \bI) \bv$,
  $\overline{\bv}^T (\bB + b \bI) \bv \in \bbR$, we have
  $\overline{\bv}^T (\bB + b \bI) \bv = 0$. Direct calculations yield
  that $\bv_r^T (\bB + b \bI) \bv_r + \bv_i^T (\bB + b \bI) \bv_i =
  0$. Since $\bB + b \bI$ is symmetric negative definite, $\bv_r$ and
  $\bv_i$ have to vanish, and thus $\bv=\bm{0}$. This contradiction
  ends the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{eigenvaluek}
    Matrices $\bA$, $\bB \in \bbR^{n\times n}$ are symmetric, and
    $\bB$ is negative semi-definite. Let $k = k_r + i k_i \in \bbC$,
    $k_r$, $k_i \in \mathbb{R}$ be the solution of
    $\det(k \bA - \imag \bB -\lambda \bI) = 0$, for any given
    $0<\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$, then $k_r k_i\leq 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}

    Let $\bv \in \bbC^n$, $\| \bv \| \neq 0$ be an vector s.t.
    $(k \bA - \imag \bB - \lambda \bI) \bv = \bm{0}$, then
    $\overline{\bv}^T (k_r \bA - \lambda \bI) \bv + \imag \overline{\bv}^T
    (k_i \bA - \bB) \bv = 0$, which indicates
    $k_r \overline{\bv}^T \bA \bv = \lambda \overline{\bv}^T \bv > 0$
    and $k_i \overline{\bv}^T \bA \bv = \overline{\bv}^T \bB \bv \leq
    0$. Thus, $k_rk_i\leq 0$.
\end{proof}

\section{Linear Stability of HME}
\label{sec:stability}
Now we begin to investigate the linear stability of the HME at the
thermodynamic equilibrium. First we linearize the HME into linear
balance laws at a local Maxwellian given by $\rho_0$,
$\bu_0=\boldsymbol{0}$, and $\theta_0$. Let us introduce the
dimensionless variables $\bar{\rho}$, $\bar{\theta}$, $\bar{\bu}$,
$\bar{p}$, $\bar{p}_{ij}$ and $\bar{f}_{\alpha}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dimensionless}
  \begin{aligned}
    &\rho = \rho_0 (1 + \bar{\rho}),\quad u_i = \sqrt{\theta_0} \bar{u}_i,
    \quad \theta = \theta_0 (1 + \bar{\theta}),
    \quad p = p_0 (1 + \bar{p}),\\
    &p_{ij}=p_0(\delta_{ij}+\bar{p}_{ij}),
    \quad f_{\alpha}=\rho_0\theta_0^{\frac{|\alpha|}{2}} \cdot \bar{f}_{\alpha},
    \quad \bx = L\cdot
    \bar{\bx},\quad t = \frac{L}{\sqrt{\theta_0}}\bar{t},
  \end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $L$ is a characteristic length, $\bar{\bx}$ and $\bar{t}$ are
the dimensionless coordinates and time, respectively.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dimensionOfbw}
    \bLambda_0=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq
    M,|\alpha|\neq 1}\rho_0\theta_0^{|\alpha|/2}\bE_{\alpha,\alpha}
    +\sqrt{\theta_0}\sum_{d=1}^D\bE_{e_d,e_d},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bw0}
    \bw_0=\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
		1,    \\
		0,    \\
        \frac{\delta_{ij}}{2},\\
		0,
    \end{array} \right.
    \qquad
    \bar{\bw}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
        \bar{\rho},    &\balpha=\bzero, \\
        \bar{u}_i,   & \balpha=\be_i,~i=1,\cdots,D, \\
        \frac{\bar{p}_{ij}}{1+\delta_{ij}},  & \balpha=\be_i+\be_j,~i,j=1,\cdots,D, \\
        \bar{f}_{\alpha},   &3\leq|\balpha|\leq M,
    \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
then $\bw=\bLambda_0(\bw_0+\bar{\bw})$.
All the dimensionless variables $\bar{\rho}$, $\bar{\theta}$,
$\bar{\bu}$, $\bar{p}$, $\bar{p}_{ij}$ and $\bar{f}_{\alpha}$ are
small quantities.
Substituting \eqref{eq:dimensionless}, \eqref{eq:dimensionOfbw} and
\eqref{eq:bw0} into the globally hyperbolic moment system
\eqref{HMEquasilinear}, and discarding all the high-order
quantities, we obtain the linearized HME as
\begin{equation}
    \bD(\bLambda_0\bw_0)\bLambda_0\pd{\bar{\bw}}{\bar{t}}\frac{\sqrt{\theta_0}}{L} +
    \sum_{d=1}^D\bM(\bLambda_0\bw_0)\bD(\bLambda_0\bw_0)\bLambda_0\pd{\bar{\bw}}{\bar{x}_d}\frac{1}{L}
    =\bQ(\bLambda_0\bw_0)\bLambda_0\bar{\bw},
\end{equation}
where $\bS(\bLambda_0\bw_0)=0$ is applied and $\bQ=\pd{\bS}{\bw}$.
Let $\bLambda_1=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq
M}\rho_0\theta_0^{|\alpha|/2}\bE_{\alpha,\alpha}$, then some
simplifications yield
\begin{equation}
    \bar{\bD}\pd{\bar{\bw}}{\bar{t}}+
    \sum_{d=1}^D\bar{\bM}_d\bar{\bD}\pd{\bar{\bw}}{\bar{x}_d}=
    \bar{\bQ}\bar{\bw},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:barDMQ}
    \begin{aligned}
        \bar{\bD}&=\bLambda_1^{-1}\bD(\bLambda_0\bw_0)\bLambda_0
        =\bI-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{d=1}^D\bE_{2e_d,0},\\
        \bar{\bM}_d&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\theta_0}}\bLambda_1^{-1}\bM_d(\bLambda_0\bw_0)\bLambda_1
        =\sum_{|\alpha|\leq M}\left(
        \bE_{\alpha,\alpha-e_d}+(1-\delta_{|\alpha|,M})(\alpha_d+1)\bE_{\alpha,\alpha+e_d}
        \right),\\
        \bar{\bQ}&=\frac{L}{\sqrt{\theta_0}}\bLambda_1^{-1}\bQ(\bLambda_0\bw_0)\bLambda_0
        = \frac{L}{\sqrt{\theta_0}}\bLambda_1^{-1}\bQ(\bLambda_0\bw_0)\bLambda_1,
    \end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where \eqref{eq:conservedquantities} is used in the last equation.
The equation \eqref{bmS} indicates
$\bar{\bD}^{-1}\bar{\bQ}=\bar{\bQ}$,
so we have
\begin{equation} \label{linearHME}
    \pd{\bar{\bw}}{\bar{t}}+\sum_{d=1}^D\bar{\bA}_d\pd{\bar{\bw}}{\bar{x}_d}
    =\bar{\bQ}\bar{\bw}, \quad\text{ with }
    \bar{\bA}_d=\bar{\bD}^{-1}\bar{\bM}_d\bar{\bD}.
\end{equation}

To investigate the linear stability of the HME \eqref{HMEmatrix} is to
study the stability of the linearized HME \eqref{linearHME}. We first
directly propose two lemmas on the properties of the linearized HME
\eqref{linearHME} and leave the proof to the following part of this
section.
\begin{lemma}\label{Qsymmetric}
    There exists a constant invertible matrix $\bT\in\bbR^{N\times
    N}$ subject to $\bT^{-1}\bar{\bM}_d\bT$, $d=1,\cdots,D$ is symmetric,
    and $\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT$ is symmetric negative semi-definite.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:DQD}
    Matrices $\bar{\bD}$ and $\bar{\bQ}$ satisfy
    \begin{equation}
        \bar{\bD}^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bar{\bD}=\bar{\bQ},
    \end{equation}
    for all the four collision models, including BGK model, Shakhov
    model, ES-BGK model and binary collision model.
\end{lemma}

With the lemmas above, our main result of this section is the
following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:linearstability}
    The HME \eqref{HMEmatrix} is linearly stable both in space and in
    time at the local Maxwellian, i.e. the linearized HME
    \eqref{linearHME} is stable both in space and in time.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
  We first prove the linear stability in time. Let $\bT$ be the
  constant invertible matrix $\bT$ in Lemma \ref{Qsymmetric}, then
  $\displaystyle\sum_{d=1}^Dk_d\bT^{-1}\bar{\bM}_d\bT$ is symmetric,
  and $\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT$ is symmetric negative semi-definite. Due
  to Lemma \ref{eigenvaluenonnegative}, each eigenvalue of the matrix
  $\displaystyle\sum_{d=1}^Dk_d\bT^{-1}\bar{\bM}_d\bT
  -\imag\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT$
  has a non-negative imaginary part, and thus each eigenvalue of
  \[
        \sum_{d=1}^Dk_d\bar{\bA}_d-\imag\bar{\bQ}=
        \left( \bT^{-1}\bar{\bD} \right)^{-1}
        \left(\sum_{d=1}^Dk_d\bT^{-1}\bar{\bM}_d\bT -\imag\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT\right)
        \left( \bT^{-1}\bar{\bD} \right)
  \]
  has a non-negative imaginary part, i.e. $\Omega_i\geq0$. Here Lemma
  \ref{lem:DQD} is used.

  Analogously, the linear stability in space can be proved directly with
  Lemma \ref{eigenvaluek}, Lemma \ref{Qsymmetric} and Lemma
  \ref{lem:DQD}.
\end{proof}

To finish the proof of theorem \ref{thm:linearstability}, we need to
check the validity of Lemma \ref{Qsymmetric} and Lemma \ref{lem:DQD}.
Below we construct a constant invertible $\bT$ subject to
$\bT^{-1}\bar{\bM}_d\bT$, $d=1,\cdots,D$ is symmetric at first, and then
we prove that $\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT$ is symmetric negative
semi-definite for all the four collisions and Lemma \ref{lem:DQD}.

It is easy to see that the construction of the matrix $\bT$ is not
unique. Actually, if the matrix $\bT$ satisfies the constraints in
Lemma \ref{Qsymmetric}, then for any orthogonal matrix $\bT_1$,
$\bT_1\bT$ also satisfies the constraints in Lemma \ref{Qsymmetric}.
Here, we provide a direct construction. Precisely, if we define
\begin{equation}
    \bT=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq
    M}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha!}}\bE_{\alpha,\alpha},
\end{equation}
then
\[
    \bT^{-1}\bar{\bM}_d\bT=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq M}
    \left( \sqrt{\alpha_d}\bE_{\alpha,\alpha-e_d}
    +(1-\delta_{|\alpha|,M})\sqrt{\alpha_d+1}\bE_{\alpha,\alpha+e_d}\right),
    \quad d=1,\cdots,D
\]
is symmetric.

In Grad's expansion \eqref{fexpand}, the basis function
$\Halphau(\bxi)$ is orthogonal but not normalized. The construction of
$\bT$ here is equivalent to a normalization of the basis functions.

Lemma \ref{lem:DQD} can be directly proved if Lemma \ref{Qsymmetric}
is valid.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:DQD}]
  Similarly as the derivative of \eqref{bmS}, it is easy to check
  $\bar{\bD}^T\bar{\bQ}=\bar{\bQ}$.  Let
  $\bK=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{d=1}^D\bE_{2e_d,0}$, then $\bar{\bD}=\bI-\bK$
  and $\bar{\bD}^{-1}=\bI+\bK$, and thus $\bK^T\bar{\bQ}=0$.

  It is easy again to check $\bT\bK=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bK$ and
  $\bK^T\bT^{-1}=\sqrt{2}\bK^T$,
  thus $\bK^T\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT=0$.  If
  Lemma \ref{Qsymmetric} is valid, then $\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT$ is
  symmetric, and thus
  $0=\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT\bK
  =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bK$. Since $\bT^{-1}$
  is invertible, $\bar{\bQ}\bK=0$, which indicates
  $\bar{\bQ}\bar{\bD}^{-1}=\bar{\bQ}$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

Now let us prove Lemma \ref{Qsymmetric}. This requires us to verify
that $\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT$ is symmetric negative semi-definite. Due
to the definition of $\bar{\bQ}$ \eqref{eq:barDMQ}, we need only to
show that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Qconstrain}
    \frac{L}{\sqrt{\theta_0}}\bT^{-1}\bLambda_1^{-1}\bQ(\bLambda_0\bw_0)\bLambda_1\bT
    \text{ is symmetric negative semi-definite}.
\end{equation}
We check \eqref{eq:Qconstrain} case by case for the four
collision models we are considering:
\begin{itemize}
\item BGK model: Direct calculation of \eqref{eq:def_Salpha} yields
  $S_{\alpha}^{BGK}=H(|\alpha|-2)f_{\alpha}$, thus
  \[
    \bQ^{BGK}(\bLambda_0\bw_0)=-\frac{1}{\tau}\left(\bI-\sum_{|\alpha|\leq1}\bE_{\alpha,\alpha}
    -\frac{1}{D}\sum_{i,j=1}^D\bE_{2e_i,2e_j}\right).
  \]
  It is then easy to check \eqref{eq:Qconstrain} is valid for BGK model.
\item Shakhov model: Direct calculation of \eqref{eq:def_Salpha}
  yields
  \[
    S_{\alpha}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
        0,  &   |\alpha|\leq1,\\
        \dfrac{1-\Pr}{(D+2)\tau}q_i-\dfrac{f_{\alpha}}{\tau}, &
        \alpha=e_i+2e_k,~i,k=1,\cdots,D,\\
        -\dfrac{f_{\alpha}}{\tau},   &   \text{otherwise},
    \end{array} \right.
  \]
  thus
  \[
    \begin{aligned}
    \bQ^{Shakhov}(\bLambda_0\bw_0)&=
    -\frac{1}{\tau}\left(\bI-\sum_{|\alpha|\leq1}\bE_{\alpha,\alpha}
     -\frac{1}{D}\sum_{i,j=1}^D\bE_{2e_i,2e_j}\right.\\
    &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad~~\left.-\frac{1-\Pr}{D+2}\sum_{i,j,k=1}^D(1+2\delta_{ij})\bE_{e_i+2e_k,e_i+2e_j}\right).
    \end{aligned}
    \]
    It is easy again to check \eqref{eq:Qconstrain} is valid for
    Shakhov model.
\item ES-BGK model: Let
\[
    G_{\alpha}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
        \rho,   &   \alpha=0,\\
        0,  &   |\alpha| \text{ is odd},\\
        \frac{1-1/\Pr}{\alpha_i\rho}\sum_{d=1}^D\sigma_{id}G_{\alpha-e_i-e_d},
        &   |\alpha|\geq2, ~i=1,\cdots,D \text{ and } \alpha_i>0,
    \end{array} \right.
\]
then $S_{\alpha}^{ES-BGK}=\frac{\Pr}{\tau}(G_{\alpha}-f_{\alpha})$.
Direct calculation yields
\begin{equation}
    \bQ^{ES-BGK}(\bLambda_0\bw_0)=-\frac{\Pr}{\tau}\left(\bI-\sum_{|\alpha|\leq2}\bE_{\alpha,\alpha}
    \right)
    -\frac{1}{\tau}\left( \sum_{d=1}^D\bE_{2e_d,2e_d}
    -\frac{1}{D}\sum_{i,j=1}^D\bE_{2e_i,2e_j} \right).
\end{equation}
One then may directly show \eqref{eq:Qconstrain} is valid for ES-BGK model.
\item Binary collision model: It it clear that the symmetry of the
  matrix $\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT$ is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Qalphabeta}
    \frac{\alpha!}{\theta_0^{|\alpha|}}Q_{\alpha,\beta}(\bLambda_0\bw_0)=
    \frac{\beta!}{\theta_0^{|\beta|}}Q_{\beta,\alpha}(\bLambda_0\bw_0),
    \quad |\alpha|,|\beta|\leq M,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{bQab}
    Q_{\alpha,\beta}=\pd{S_{\alpha}}{w_{\beta}},
\end{equation}
and $S_{\alpha}$ is defined in \eqref{eq:def_Salpha}.  Noticing that
at the local Maxwellian
\[
\int_{\bbR^D} \bm Q(f_{eq},f_{eq}) \Healphau(\bxi)
\dd\bxi = 0,
\]
we have
\[
    Q_{\alpha,\beta}(\bLambda_0\bw_0)= \frac{\theta^{|\alpha|}}{\alpha!}
    \pd{(\frac{\alpha!}{\theta^{|\alpha|}}
    S_{\alpha})}{w_{\beta}}\Big{|}_{\bLambda_0\bw_0}.
\]
Let
\[
    \bar{S}_{\alpha}=\frac{\alpha!}{\theta^{|\alpha|}}S_{\alpha},
\]
then considering \eqref{eq:def_Salpha}, we have
\[
    \bar{S}_{\alpha}=\int_{\bbR^D}\int_{\bbR^D}\int_{S_+^{D-1}}
    \Healphau(\bxi)(f'f'_1-ff_1)B(|\bxi-\bxi_1|,\sigma)
    \dd\bn\dd\bxi_1\dd\bxi.
\]
We denote the notations
$\displaystyle \int_{\bbR^D}\int_{\bbR^D}\int_{S_{+}^{D-1}}$,
$B(|\bxi-\bxi_1|,\sigma)$ and $\dd\bn\dd\bxi_1\dd\bxi$ in the last
equation by $\displaystyle\int$, $B$ and $\dd\bm{\tau}$, respectively,
hereafter for convenience. Let $\bV\in\bbR^{N+D+1}$, and
$v_{\alpha}=f_{\alpha}$, $|\alpha|\leq M$, and $v_{N+d}=u_d$, and
$v_{N+D+1}=\theta$, then $\bV$ contains all the variables in $\bw$,
together with velocity and temperature. And thus
\[
    \bQ=\pd{\bS}{\bw}=\pd{\bS}{\bV}\pd{\bV}{\bw},
    \quad \bQ(\bLambda_0\bw_0)=\frac{\theta^{|\alpha|}}{\alpha!}\pd{\bar{\bS}}{\bV}
    \pd{\bV}{\bw}\Big{|}_{\bLambda_0\bw_0},
\]
where $\bar{\bS}=(\bar{S}_{\alpha})$.

Since $\pd{f}{s}|_{\bLambda_0\bw_0}=\pd{f_{eq}}{s}$, $s \in \{u_1,
  ... u_d, \theta \}$,
and $f'f_1'-ff_1\mid_{\bLambda_0\bw_0}=0$ hold, we have
\[
    \pd{f'f_1'-ff_1}{s}\Big{|}_{\bLambda_0\bw_0}=
    \pd{(f'f_1'-ff_1)|_{\bLambda_0\bw_0}}{s}=0,\quad
	\quad s\in \{u_1,\ldots,u_D, \theta \}.
\]
Hence, $\bar{S}_{\alpha}$  only depends on $f_{\beta}$, $|\beta|\leq M$ and
does NOT depend on $\bu$ and $\theta$. Direct calculations yield
\[
    \begin{aligned}
        \pd{\bar{S}_{\alpha}}{w_{\beta}}\Big{|}_{\bLambda_0\bw_0}&=
        \int \Healphau(\bxi)
        \left[
            \Hbetau(\bxi')\sum_{|\gamma|\leq M}f_{\gamma}\Hgammau(\bxi_1')
            +\Hbetau(\bxi_1')\sum_{|\gamma|\leq M}f_{\gamma}\Hgammau(\bxi')
            \right.\\
        &\qquad-\left.
            \Hbetau(\bxi)\sum_{|\gamma|\leq M}f_{\gamma}\Hgammau(\bxi_1)
            -\Hbetau(\bxi_1)\sum_{|\gamma|\leq M}f_{\gamma}\Hgammau(\bxi)
            \right]B\dd \bm{\tau}\Big{|}_{\bLambda_0\bw_0}\\
        &= \int \Healphau(\bxi)
        \rho\omegau(\bxi)\omegau(\bxi_1)
        L(\beta) B\dd\bm{\tau}\Big{|}_{\bLambda_0\bw_0}\\
        &= - \frac{1}{4}\int \rho\omegau(\bxi)\omegau(\bxi_1)
        L(\alpha)L(\beta) B\dd\bm{\tau}\Big{|}_{\bLambda_0\bw_0},\\
    \end{aligned}
\]
where
$L(\alpha)= \Healphau(\bxi') + \Healphau(\bxi_1') - \Healphau(\bxi) -
\Healphau(\bxi_1)$.
Here the third equality is due to the symmetry of $\bxi$, $\bxi'$ and
$\bxi_1$, $\bxi_1'$, and the fact that the collision kernel $B$
preserves its formation once exchanging the variables
$(\bxi,\bxi_1)\leftrightarrow(\bxi',\bxi_1')$ and
$(\bxi,\bxi')\leftrightarrow(\bxi_1,\bxi_1')$ (see
\cite{Struchtrup}). Obviously, we have
\begin{equation}
    \pd{\bar{S}_{\alpha}}{w_{\beta}}\Big{|}_{\bLambda_0\bw_0}
    =\pd{\bar{S}_{\beta}}{w_{\alpha}}\Big{|}_{\bLambda_0\bw_0},
\end{equation}
which indicates $\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT$ is symmetric.
Since $\rho\omegau(\bxi)\omegau(\bxi_1)B>0$ holds,
the matrix $\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT$ is symmetric and negative
semi-definite.
\end{itemize}

This proved Lemma \ref{Qsymmetric}, so did Theorem
\ref{thm:linearstability}.

\iffalse
\subsection{Numerical Analysis}\label{sec:numericalHME}
The linear stability of HME is equivalent to
$\text{Im}(\Omega)\geq 0$, when $k\in\bbR^+$, and
$\text{Re}(k)\text{Im}(k)\leq 0$, when $\Omega\in\bbR^+$,
which is mentioned in the last subsection. Now we calculate the exact
value $\Omega$ and $k$ in the 1D case in order to verify our theorem
and to analyse the wave structure of HME. However, the binary collision model is
too complex to calculate numerically, now we only calculate for the three simple models
to show the results and try to discover some phenomenon.
\subsubsection{Linear Stability in Time}

\begin{figure}[H]
	\centering
	\subfigure[M=2]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/M2-1.png}
	}
	\subfigure[M=2]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/M2-2.png}
	}
\end{figure}
The left is the dispersion diagram for the transport equations,
and the right is the wave mode damping diagram.
\par
These two figures show $\Omega(k)$ when $M=2$.
The horizontal coordinate of the left figure
is $\text{Re}(\Omega)/k$,
and the vertical coordinate is $\text{Im}(\Omega)/k$;
The horizontal coordinate of the right figure
is $k$,
and the vertical coordinate is $\exp(-\text{Im}(\Omega))$.
They provide
another evidence to proof that $\text{Im}(\Omega)\geq 0$
for any $k>0$, that is
HME is linearly stable in time.
\par
When $M\geq 3$, different models perform differently. We display
their results as before,
\subsubsection*{$M=3$}
\begin{figure}[H]
	\centering
	\subfigure[BGK,M=3]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/BGK-M3-1.png}
	}
	\subfigure[BGK,M=3]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/BGK-M3-2.png}
	}
	\subfigure[Shakhov,M=3]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/Shakhov-M3-1.png}
	}
	\subfigure[Shakhov,M=3]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/Shakhov-M3-2.png}
	}
	\subfigure[ES-BGK,M=3]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/ESBGK-M3-1.png}
	}
	\subfigure[ES-BGK,M=3]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/ESBGK-M3-2.png}
	}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{$M=4$}
\begin{figure}[H]
	\centering
	\subfigure[BGK,M=4]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/BGK-M4-1.png}
	}
	\subfigure[BGK,M=4]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/BGK-M3-2.png}
	}
	\subfigure[Shakhov,M=4]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/Shakhov-M4-1.png}
	}
	\subfigure[Shakhov,M=4]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/Shakhov-M4-2.png}
	}
	\subfigure[ES-BGK,M=4]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/ESBGK-M4-1.png}
	}
	\subfigure[ES-BGK,M=4]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/ESBGK-M4-2.png}
	}
\end{figure}
Now, we simply conclude the phenomenon we discovered:
\begin{itemize}
	\item These graphs help us verify our above theorem, that is
		the linear stability im time of HME.
	\item In BGK model, the eigenvalues can be divided into two classes.
		The real part of eigenvalues in the first class remains the same,
		they are roots of
		$\text{He}_{1}^{n+1}\text{He}^n_{2}\cdots \text{He}_{n-1}^2$,
		where $\text{He}$ is the Hermite polynomials, they can be
		decomposed easily. The other class
		is corresponding to the roots of
		$\text{He}_{n-1}\text{He}_n^2\text{He}_{n+1}$, they are
		complicated beacuse of their coupling together.
		It is shown that Shakhov model and ES-BGK model can decompose
		these different waves, which are shown coupling in the BGK model.
		This result shows the superiority of these two models rather than
		BGK model.
   \item Shakhov model when $M$ is even and ES-BGK model when $M$ is odd,
	   their eigenvalues' graph will intersect at the vertical axis:
\begin{figure}[H]
	\centering
	\subfigure[Shakhov,M=3]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/Shakhov-3.png}
	}
	\subfigure[ES-BGK,M=3]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/ESBGK-3.png}
	}
	\subfigure[Shakhov,M=4]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/Shakhov-4.png}
	}
	\subfigure[ES-BGK,M=4]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./images/ESBGK-4.png}
	}
\end{figure}
      This result tallies with the numerical result that results differs
	  when the order is even and odd.
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection{Linear Stability in Space}
Similarly, in this part, we let $\Omega\in\bbR^+$, and calculate
$k(\Omega)$.

We test the stability against local disturbances of
frequency $\Omega$.  As we have seen, stability requires different signs
of real and imaginary part of $k(\Omega)$, and it can be also seen
in \cite{Struchtrup2003}.

\begin{figure}[H]
	\centering
	\subfigure[BGK,M=3]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{./images/BGK-M3.png}
	}
	\subfigure[Shakhov,M=3]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{./images/Shakhov-M3.png}
	}
	\subfigure[ES-BGK,M=3]{
	\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{./images/ESBGK-M3.png}
	}
\end{figure}
where the gray region marks the unstable regime.
\par
These figures show that $\text{Re}(k)\text{Im}(k)\leq 0$,
which verifies our theorem that HME is linear
 stable at local equilibrium in both time and space.
\fi

\section{Yong's First Stability Condition}\label{sec:Yong}

Now we examine Yong's first stability condition
\cite{yong1999singular} for HME \eqref{HMEmatrix}. The equation
\eqref{eq:equilibriummanifold} indicates that the equilibrium
manifold, denoted by $\mE$ hereafter, for HME is the local
equilibrium, which is denoted by $\bw_{eq}$ in this section. Since the
momentum is conserved, flow velocity does not change the collision
term. Due to the Galilean transformation invariance of the model, the
variation in the flow velocity is only a translation of the
system. Hence, the value of the flow velocity $\bu$ does not matter
in our discussion in this section, thus we let $\bu=0$ without loss of
generality. Each state in $\mE$ can be uniquely determined by the
density $\rho$ and the temperature $\theta$, so if we let
$\bLambda_0\bw_0=\bw_{eq}$, then all the results in Section
\ref{sec:stability} are still valid. In the following, let us directly
verify Yong's first stability condition for HME:
\begin{itemize}
\item Condition 1:
Let
\begin{equation}
    \hat{\bP}=\bI+\sum_{i=2}^D\bE_{2e_1,2e_i},
\end{equation}
then the conservation law \eqref{eq:conservedquantities} indicates
that the first $D+2$ rows of $\hat{\bP}\bQ(\bw_{eq})$ are zeros, and
the equation \eqref{eq:conservedquantities2} indicates the other
rows are full row rank. Hence, there exists an invertible
$(N-D-2)\times(N-D-2)$ matrix $\hat{\bQ}(\bw_{eq})$ such that
\[
    \hat{\bP}\bQ(\bw_{eq}) =
    \left(\begin{array}{cc}
        0 & 0\\
        0 & \hat{\bQ}(\bw_{eq})
    \end{array}\right) \hat{\bP}.
\]

\item Condition 2:
Since $\bM_d$, $d=1,\cdots,D$ only depends on $\bw_{eq}$, we have
\begin{equation}
    \bM_d(\bw)=\bM_d(\bw_{eq})
    =\sqrt{\theta}\bLambda_1\bar{\bM}_d\bLambda_1^{-1}
    =\sqrt{\theta}\bLambda_1\bT(\bT^{-1}\bar{\bM}_d\bT)(\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1},
    \quad d=1,\cdots,D.
\end{equation}
Let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:YongbA0}
    \bA_0(\bw)=( (\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1}\bD(\bw))^T(
    (\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1}\bD(\bw)),
\end{equation}
then
\[
    \bA_0\bA_d=\sqrt{\theta}
    ( (\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1}\bD)^T
    (\bT^{-1}\bar{\bM}_d\bT)(\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1}\bD
\]
is symmetric, thus \eqref{eq:Yong2} holds.

\item Condition 3:
The definition of $\bar{\bD}$ and the definition of $\bar{\bQ}$
\eqref{eq:barDMQ} indicate that
\[
    \bD(\bw_{eq})=\bLambda_1\bar{\bD}\bLambda_0^{-1},
    \qquad
    \bQ(\bw_{eq})=
    \frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{L}\bLambda_1\bar{\bQ}\bLambda_1^{-1}
    = \frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{L}\bLambda_1\bT\left( \bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT
    \right)(\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1}.
\]
Direct calculation yields
\[
    \begin{aligned}
        \bD(\bw_{eq})\bQ(\bw_{eq})
        &= \frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{L}
        \bLambda_1\bar{\bD}\bLambda_0^{-1}\bLambda_1\bar{\bQ}\bLambda_1^{-1}\\
        &=\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{L} \bLambda_1\bar{\bD}\bar{\bQ}\bLambda_1^{-1}
        =\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{L}
        \bLambda_1\bar{\bQ}\bLambda_1^{-1}=\bQ(\bw_{eq}),\\
    \end{aligned}
\]
where the first equality is obtained by
$\bLambda_0^{-1}\bLambda_1\bar{\bQ}=\bar{\bQ}$, and the relation
$\bar{\bD}\bar{\bQ} = \bar{\bQ}$, derived in the proof of Lemma
\ref{lem:DQD}, is used in the second equality. Analogously, we
have
\[
    \begin{aligned}
        \bQ(\bw_{eq})\bD(\bw_{eq})&=
        \frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{L}
        \bLambda_1\bar{\bQ}\bLambda_1^{-1}\bLambda_1\bar{\bD}\bLambda_0^{-1}\\
        &=
        \frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{L} \bLambda_1\bar{\bQ}\bLambda_0^{-1}
        =\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{L}
        \bLambda_1\bar{\bQ}\bLambda_1^{-1}=\bQ(\bw_{eq}),\\
    \end{aligned}
\]
due to Lemma \ref{lem:DQD} and
$\bar{\bQ}\bLambda_0^{-1}=\bar{\bQ}\bLambda_1^{-1}$.  Thus, we have
\[
    \begin{aligned}
        \bA_0(\bw_{eq})\bQ(\bw_{eq})&=
        ((\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1}\bD(\bw_{eq}))^T(
        (\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1}\bD(\bw_{eq}))\bQ(\bw_{eq})\\
        &= ((\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1}\bD(\bw_{eq}))^T(
        (\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1})\bQ(\bw_{eq})\\

        &=\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{L}\bD^T(\bw_{eq})(\bLambda_1\bT)^{-T}(\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT)
        (\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1}\\
        &=\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{L}\left((\bLambda_1\bT)^{-T}(\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT)
        (\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1}\bD(\bw_{eq})\right)^T\\
        &=\left((\bLambda_1\bT)^{-T}(\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1}\bQ(\bw_{eq})\bD(\bw_{eq})\right)^T\\
        &=\left((\bLambda_1\bT)^{-T}(\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1}\bQ(\bw_{eq})\right)^T\\
        &=(\bLambda_1\bT)^{-T}(\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT)(\bLambda_1\bT)^{-1}.
    \end{aligned}
\]
where $-T$ stands for transposition of inverse. It is clear that this
is a symmetric matrix. Since $\bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT$ is symmetric
negative semi-definite, there exists an invertible matrix $\bP_1$
subject to
\[
    \bT^{-1}\bar{\bQ}\bT=-\bP_1^T
    \left(\begin{array}{cc}
        0 & 0\\
        0 & \bI_{N-D-2}
    \end{array}\right)\bP_1.
\]
Therefore, there exists an invertible matrix $\bP$ subject to
both \eqref{eq:Yong1} and \eqref{eq:Yong3}.
\end{itemize}

This gives us the following theorem to end this section:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Yong}
    HME satisfies Yong's first stability condition.
\end{theorem}


On the validity of the local Fourier analysis

Abstract: Local Fourier analysis (LFA) is a useful tool in predicting the convergence factors of geometric multigrid methods (GMG). As is well known, on rectangular domains with periodic boundary conditions this analysis gives the exact convergence factors of such methods. In this work, using the Fourier method, we extend these results by proving that such analysis yields the exact convergence factors for a wider class of problems.

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The local Fourier analysis (LFA) introduced by A. Brandt \cite{Bra77},
is a tool which provides realistic quantitative estimates of the
asymptotic convergence factors of the GMG algorithms.  For
discretizations of partial differential equations, the traditional LFA
is based on a discrete Fourier transform and is accurate if the
influence of the boundary conditions is negligible.  In fact, it is
well known (see \cite{Stu1982, Brandt1994}), that for model
problems on rectangular domains and with periodic boundary
conditions this analysis gives the exact convergence rate of GMG.

In this work we focus on the question whether the LFA can be made
rigorous for a wider class of problems with boundary
conditions that are not necessarily periodic. We answer to this
question positively.  Our approach relies on the embedding of the
model problem into a periodic problem. Similar ideas have also been
explored in works on circulant preconditioners for elliptic
problems~\cite{Lirkov1994, Lirkov1997} and also for preconditioning
the indefinite Helmholtz equation~\cite{ludmil}. We introduce a class
of operators called LFA-compatible operators here and prove that for
such operators the LFA gives the exact multigrid convergence
factors. Our studies include the Dirichlet, the Neumann and the mixed
boundary condition problem for a constant coefficient,
reaction-diffusion equation on a $d$-dimensional tensor product grid.

\section{Preliminaries}

\subsection{The Dirichlet problem and its discretization}
We consider a reaction-diffusion problem in $d$ spatial dimensions on
the domain $\Omega^D =(0,1)^d$,
\begin{equation}\label{dD_model_problem_D}
-\Delta u(\bm{x}) + c u(\bm{x}) = f(\bm{x}), \ \ \bm{x} \in \Omega^D,
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
u(\bm{x}) = 0, \ \ \bm{x} \in \partial \Omega^D,
\end{equation}
where $c>0$ is a constant. First, let us consider the simplest case
when $d=1$ (one dimensional problem). The computational domain then is
the interval $\Omega^D =(0,1)$ and the corresponding two-point
boundary value problem~\eqref{dD_model_problem_D} is:
\begin{equation}\label{1D_model_problem_D}
-u''(x) + c u(x) = f(x), \ \ x\in \Omega^D,\quad u(0) = u(1) = 0.
\end{equation}
For $d=1$, we introduce a uniform grid
$\Omega_h^D = \{x_k=kh\}_{k = 0}^n$, with step size $h=1/n$,
$n\in \mathbb{N}$ and we discretize this problem by the standard
central difference scheme. As a result, we obtain the linear system of
algebraic equations with tri-diagonal matrix:
\begin{equation}\label{system_eqs_D}
A_h^D \bm{u} = \bm{f} \ \hbox{where} \
A_h^D = T_h^D +c I_{n-1}\in \mathbb{R}^{(n-1)\times (n-1)},
\end{equation}
where $\bm{u} = \left(u_1, \ldots,
 u_{n-1}\right)^T$, $\bm{f} = \left(f_1, \ldots, f_{n-1}\right)^T$,
$I_{n-1}\in \mathbb{R}^{(n-1)\times (n-1)}$ is the identity matrix, and
\begin{equation}\label{T_D}
  T_h^D = \frac{1}{h^2}\ \operatorname{diag}(-1,2,-1)
\in \mathbb{R}^{(n-1)\times (n-1)}.
\end{equation}

This was the simple, but very important, one dimensional case. In the case of
higher spatial dimensions and on a uniform grid with the same
step size $h=1/n$ in all the directions the linear
systems are written in compact form by using the standard tensor
product $\otimes$ for matrices. We recall the following properties of
the tensor product
\begin{equation}\label{tensor_product}
(X + Y) \otimes Z = (X \otimes Z) + (Y \otimes Z), \quad (X_1 \otimes
X_2)(Y_1 \otimes Y_2) = (X_1Y_1 \otimes X_2 Y_2).
\end{equation}
We further denote the $k$-th tensor power of a matrix $X$ by
$X^{\otimes k} = \underbrace{X \otimes \ldots \otimes X}_{k}$.
Finally, let us note that the generalization to different step sizes in
different directions is straightforward.

With this notation, the standard second order central difference
scheme for discretization of the Dirichlet
problem~\eqref{dD_model_problem_D} results in the linear system
\begin{equation}\label{system_eqs_dD}
A_h^D \bm{u} = \bm{f}, \quad   A_h^D = \sum_{j=1}^d  \left(I_{n-1}^{\otimes(j-1)} \otimes T_h^D \otimes I_{n-1}^{\otimes(d-j)}\right) + c I_{n-1}^{\otimes d} \in \mathbb{R}^{(n-1)^d\times (n-1)^d}.
\end{equation}

\subsection{A periodic problem}\label{s:periodic}
We now consider a finite difference discretization on a grid with step size $h = 1/n$ of a periodic
problem on $\Omega^P=(0,2)$:
\begin{equation}\label{system_eqs_P}
A_{h}^P \widetilde{\bm{u}}= \widetilde{\bm{f}}, \quad \hbox{where} \quad
A_{h}^P = T_h^P+ c I_{N}\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N},
\end{equation}
with $N=2n$ and
$T_{h}^P = \frac{1}{h^2}\ \operatorname{diag}(-1,2,-1) -
\bm{e}_1^N(\bm{e}^N_N)^T - \bm{e}^N_N(\bm{e}^N_1)^T \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$.  Here, we have denoted
$\widetilde{\bm{u}} = \left(\widetilde{u}_1, \ldots,
  \widetilde{u}_{N}\right)^T$,
$\widetilde{\bm{f}} = \left(\widetilde{f}_1, \ldots,
  \widetilde{f}_{N}\right)^T$, and $\bm{e}_k^m$ is the $k$-th canonical Euclidean basis vector in $\mathbb{R}^{m}$.  Finally, let us point out that by a
periodic problem here we mean the problem~\eqref{1D_model_problem_D} defined on $\Omega^P$
with boundary conditions $u(0)-u(2)=u'(0)-u'(2)=0$.

The extension to higher dimension $d>1$ is obvious and we have
the linear system $A_h^P \widetilde{\bm{u}} = \widetilde{\bm{f}}$,
with
\begin{equation}\label{system_eqs_dP}
A_h^P = \sum_{j=1}^d \left(I_N^{\otimes(j-1)} \otimes T_h^P \otimes I_N^{\otimes(d-j)}\right)
+ c I_N^{\otimes d} \in \mathbb{R}^{N^d\times N^d}.
\end{equation}

\subsection{Relation between the Dirichlet and the periodic problem}
Our goal now is to describe how the discretized Dirichlet problem
relates to the periodic problem defined in section~\ref{s:periodic}. To begin, we
consider the 1-dimensional case given in~\eqref{system_eqs_D}
and we define the {\it odd extension operator}
as the linear operator
$E_{o,h}:\ \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \ \rightarrow \ \mathbb{R}^N$, $N=2n$ such
that
\begin{equation}\label{extension_op}
E_{o,h} \bm{e}_i^{n-1} = \bm{e}_i^N - \bm{e}_{N-i}^N, \quad i=1,\ldots,n-1.
\end{equation}
The \emph{restriction operator} $R_{o,h}$ is defined as
$R_{o,h} = \frac{1}{2} E_{o,h}^T$.
It is easy to see that the following relations hold in the one dimensional case:
$R_{o,h} E_{o,h}= I_{n-1}$, and
$E_{o,h} R_{o,h} \bm{u} = \bm{u}$, for all
$\bm{u}\in\operatorname{range} (E_{o,h})$.
Notice also that
$\operatorname{range} (E_{o,h}) = \{\bm{u}\in \mathbb{R}^N \ | u_n = u_N
= 0, u_{j} = -u_{N-j}, j=1,\ldots,n-1\}$
and $\widetilde{\bm{f}} = E_{o,h} \bm{f}$.
For $d>1$ the restriction and extensions are
$R_{o,h}^{\otimes d}$ and $E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}$ and we have:
\begin{equation}\label{property12}
R_{o,h}^{\otimes d}  E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} = I_{n-1}^{\otimes d},
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} R_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{u} = \bm{u},
\quad
\mbox{for all}\quad \bm{u}\in \operatorname{range} (E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}).
\end{equation}

\subsubsection{LFA-compatibility} \label{s:lfa-compatibility}

We now clarify the relation between the Dirichlet and the periodic
problem. We begin with a very general definition of LFA-compatibility.
\begin{definition}
  Let $R_{o,h}$ and $E_{o,h}$ be operators
  satisfying~\eqref{property12}. We say that the pair of operators
  $(M_h^D,M_h^P)$ is an
  \emph{LFA-compatible} pair if and only if $M_h^D=R_{o,h} M_h^P E_{o,h}$ and
  $M_h^P \bm{v} \in \operatorname{range} (E_{o,h})$ for
  all $\bm{v} \in \operatorname{range} (E_{o,h})$.
\end{definition}
The LFA-compatibility is, in some sense, the minimal requirement which
allows for building relations between solutions to a periodic and
the corresponding Dirichlet problems, or the iterates constructed in an iterative method
for these problems. In a more abstract setting, the operators $M_h^P$
and $M_h^D$ do not have to be a periodic or a Dirichlet problem, they only
need to be connected via a compatibility relation based on operators
$E_{o,h}$ and $R_{o,h}$ satisfying the relations
in~\eqref{property12}. In the following, however, we only use
$E_{o,h}$ and $R_{o,h}$ as defined above.

Now we prove several results, which follow directly from the
definition of LFA-compatibility.
\begin{lem}\label{Th_relation}
Let $A_h^D$ and $A_h^P$ be the coefficient matrices related to the Dirichlet and periodic problems. Then, $(A_h^D,A_h^P)$ is an LFA-compatible pair.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The standard properties of the tensor product imply that
\begin{eqnarray*}
R_{o,h}^{\otimes d} A_h^P  E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} &=& R_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \left(\sum_{j=1}^d \left(I_N^{\otimes(j-1)} \otimes T_h^P \otimes I_N^{\otimes(d-j)}\right)
+ c I_N^{\otimes d}\right) E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \\
& = & R_{o,h}^{\otimes d}\left(\sum_{j=1}^d  \left(E_{o,h}^{\otimes(j-1)} \otimes T_h^P E_{o,h} \otimes E_{o,h}^{\otimes(d-j)}\right)
+ c E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}\right) \\
& = & \sum_{j=1}^d  \left(I_{n-1}^{\otimes(j-1)} \otimes R_{o,h}T_h^P E_{o,h} \otimes I_{n-1}^{\otimes(d-j)}\right)
+ c  I_{n-1}^{\otimes d}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Further, taking into account that  $R_{o,h} T_h^P E_{o,h} = T_h^D$, we also have $A_h^D = R_{o,h}^{\otimes d}  A_h^P  E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}$.
If $\bm{u} \in \operatorname{range} (E_{o,h}^{\otimes d})$, then there exists
$\bm{v} \in \mathbb{R}^{(n-1)^d}$ such that
$\bm{u} = E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}\bm{v}$ and we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
A_h^P \bm{u} &=& \left(\sum_{j=1}^d I_N^{\otimes(j-1)} \otimes T_h^P \otimes I_N^{\otimes(d-j)}\right) E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}\bm{v}+ c I_N^{\otimes d}E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}\bm{v} \\
&=&  \left(\sum_{j=1}^d E_{o,h}^{\otimes(j-1)} \otimes T_h^P E_{o,h} \otimes E_{o,h}^{\otimes(d-j)}\right)  \bm{v}+ c E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}\bm{v}.
\end{eqnarray*}
A straightforward computation shows that
$T_h^P \bm{u} \in \operatorname{range}(E_{o,h})$
for any $\bm{u} \in \operatorname{range}(E_{o,h})$, and this completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{th_sol_DP}
If $\bm{u}$ satisfies $A_h^D \bm{u} = \bm{f}$,
then  $A_h^P (E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{u}) = E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{f}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Using that $A_h^D = R_{o,h}^{\otimes d}  A_h^P  E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}$, we have that $R_{o,h}^{\otimes d}  A_h^P  E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{u} = \bm{f}.$ Applying $E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}$ on the left and taking into account that $A_h^P E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{u} \in \operatorname{range} (E_{o,h}^{\otimes d})$, completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{inv_invariance_d}
The pair $((A_h^D)^{-1},(A_h^P)^{-1})$ is LFA-compatible.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
  We consider $\bm{f} \in \operatorname{range}(E_{o,h}^{\otimes d})$. Then, there exists $\bm{g}\in \mathbb{R}^{{(n-1)}^d}$ such that $E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{g} = \bm{f}$. If $\bm{u} = (A_h^D)^{-1}\bm{g}$, by using Lemma~\ref{th_sol_DP} we have that $E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}\bm{u}=(A_h^P)^{-1}\bm{f}$, which implies that $(A_h^P)^{-1}\bm{f}\in \operatorname{range}(E_{o,h}^{\otimes d})$.
Next, again from Lemma~\ref{th_sol_DP}, it follows that
if $\bm{u}=(A_h^D)^{-1}\bm{f}$, then
  $(A_h^P)^{-1} E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{f} = E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}\bm{u}$. Hence,
  $R_{o,h}^{\otimes d}(A_h^P)^{-1} E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{f} =
  R_{o,h}^{\otimes d} E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{u} = \bm{u}$ and the
proof is complete.
\end{proof}

\section{Linear iterative methods and multigrid}
Let us consider a general stationary iterative method for the Dirichlet and the periodic problems:
\begin{equation}
\bm{u}^{k+1} = \bm{u}^k + B_h^D(\bm{f}-A_h^D\bm{u}^k), \quad
\widetilde{\bm{u}}^{k+1} = \widetilde{\bm{u}}^k + B_h^P(\widetilde{\bm{f}}-A_h^P\widetilde{\bm{u}}^k),\label{iterative_d}
\end{equation}
where $B_h^{D,P}$ are linear operators (called iterators).
We have the following theorem which shows that
the LFA-compatibility of the iterators provides a relation between the
iterates.
\begin{thm}\label{th_iterdD}
  Let $(B_h^D,B_h^P)$ be an LFA-compatible pair and
  $\widetilde{\bm{f}} = E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{f}$. If
  $\widetilde{\bm{u}}^0 = E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{u}^0$, then
  $\widetilde{\bm{u}}^{k} = E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{u}^{k}, \;
  k=1,2,\ldots$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
  We prove the result by showing that if
  $\widetilde{\bm{u}}^k = E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{u}^k$ then
  $\widetilde{\bm{u}}^{k+1} = E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}
  \bm{u}^{k+1}$. Clearly, from \eqref{iterative_d}, and the fact that
  $\widetilde{\bm{u}}^k = E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{u}^k$, we have
  $\widetilde{\bm{u}}^{k+1} = E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{u}^k +
  B_h^P(E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{f}-A^P_h E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}
  \bm{u}^k)$. Next, we use
  Lemmata~\ref{Th_relation}--\ref{inv_invariance_d} to obtain that,
\[
\widetilde{\bm{u}}^{k+1} = E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}\bm{u}^k + B_h^P(E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{f}-E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}
R_{o,h}^{\otimes d} A^P_h E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{u}^k) =  E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}\bm{u}^k + B_h^P E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}(\bm{f}-A^D_h \bm{u}^k).
\]
Since,
$E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}(\bm{f}-A^D_h \bm{u}^k)\in \operatorname{range}
(E_{o,h}^{\otimes d})$, and
$B_h^P E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}(\bm{f}-A^D_h \bm{u}^k)\in
\operatorname{range} (E_{o,h}^{\otimes d})$
we have that
\[
\widetilde{\bm{u}}^{k+1} = E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{u}^k + E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} R_{o,h}^{\otimes d} B_h^P E_{o,h}^{\otimes d}(\bm{f}-A^D_h \bm{u}^k).
\]
Finally, we use that $(B_h^D,B_h^P)$ is an LFA-compatible pair to
obtain that
$\widetilde{\bm{u}}^{k+1} = E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} (\bm{u}^k +
B_h^D(\bm{f}- A_h^D \bm{u}^k)) = E_{o,h}^{\otimes d} \bm{u}^{k+1}$
which is what we wanted to show.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Two grid methods}
We now consider the two-grid and multigrid methods. We begin by
defining the coarse grids for the Dirichlet and periodic problems in
one spatial dimension ($d=1$). In a standard fashion, we define
\[
\Omega_{2h}^D = \{x_i = 2ih \ | \ i = 0,\ldots, n/2\},
\quad \mbox{and}\quad \Omega_{2h}^P = \{x_i = 2ih \ | \ i = 0,\ldots, n\}.
\]
We denote by $\mathcal{G}(\Omega_h^{D,P})$,
$\mathcal{G}(\Omega_{2h}^{D,P})$ the subspaces of grid-functions
defined on $\Omega_h^{D,P}$ and $\Omega_{2h}^{D,P}$, respectively.  On
such coarse grid, we also define $A_{2h}^{D,P}$ by~\eqref{system_eqs_dD} but
with $2h$ instead of $h$. The extension to higher spatial dimensions is done using standard tensor products of grids and operators.

We now consider the two-grid algorithms, which are linear iterative methods already defined in~\eqref{iterative_d} with special iterators
$B_{TG}=B_{TG}^{D,P}$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{two-grid}
B_{TG} = \left(I-(I-I_{2h,h}(A_{2h})^{-1}I_{h,2h}A_h)(I-S_hA_h)\right)(A_h)^{-1},
\end{equation}
In~\eqref{two-grid} all operators change depending on whether we
consider Dirichlet or periodic problem, namely, we have $A_h^D$,
$A_h^P$, $I_{2h,h}^D$, $I_{2h,h}^P$, etc. Here, $S_h^{D,P}$ are
relaxation (smoothing) operators,
$I_{h,2h}^{D,P}: \mathcal{G}(\Omega_h^{D,P})\rightarrow
\mathcal{G}(\Omega_{2h}^{D,P})$ are the restriction operators and
$I_{2h,h}^{D,P}:\mathcal{G}(\Omega_{2h}^{D,P}) \rightarrow
\mathcal{G}(\Omega_{h}^{D,P})$ are the prolongation operators.  To prove
the main result, we need to introduce LFA-compatible restriction and
prolongation operators. We say that
the pairs
$(I^D_{2h,h},I^P_{2h,h})$ and $(I^D_{h,2h},I^P_{h,2h})$ are \emph{LFA-compatible} if and only if
\begin{eqnarray}\label{h-2h-h-compatible}
I_{h,2h}^D = R_{o,2h} I_{h,2h}^P E_{o,h}, \quad
I_{h,2h}^P v \in \operatorname{range} (E_{o,2h}),
\quad\mbox{for all} \quad v \in \operatorname{range} (E_{o,h}),\\
I_{2h,h}^D = R_{o,h} I_{2h,h}^P E_{o,2h}, \quad
I_{2h,h}^P v \in \operatorname{range} (E_{o,h})
\quad\mbox{for all} \quad v \in \operatorname{range} (E_{o,2h}).
\end{eqnarray}

The multigrid iterator is obtained from the two grid by recursion, namely,
\begin{equation}\label{m-grid}
B_{h} = \left(I-(I-I_{2h,h}B_{2h}I_{h,2h}A_h)(I-S_hA_h)\right)(A_h)^{-1},
\end{equation}
where $B_{nh}= A_{nh}^{-1}$ for both the Dirichlet and the periodic problem.

We have the following theorem, showing that the iterations via two grid are related.
\begin{thm}\label{multigrid_eq}
If $(A_h^D,A_h^P)$, $((A_{2h}^D)^{-1},(A_{2h}^P)^{-1})$, $(S_h^D,S_h^P)$, $(I^D_{2h,h},I^P_{2h,h})$, $(I^D_{h,2h},I^P_{h,2h})$ are LFA compatible,  then $(B_{h}^D,B_{h}^P)$ is
LFA-compatible.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
  We prove this theorem for the case $d=1$ only and $B_h=B_{TG}$ as
  the general case follows from recursive application of this argument
  and the properties of tensor product listed earlier.
\begin{eqnarray*}
R_{o,h} B_{TG}^P E_{o,h} &=& R_{o,h} \left(I-(I-I_{2h,h}^P(A^P_{2h})^{-1}I_{h,2h}^PA_h^P)E_{o,h} R_{o,h} (I-S_h^PA_h^P)\right)E_{o,h} R_{o,h} (A_h^P)^{-1} E_{o,h} \\
& = & \left(I-(I-R_{o,h} I_{2h,h}^P(A^P_{2h})^{-1}I_{h,2h}^PA_h^PE_{o,h})  (I-S_h^DA_h^D)\right)  (A_h^D)^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, because of the invariant properties it follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
R_{o,h} I_{2h,h}^P(A^P_{2h})^{-1}I_{h,2h}^PA_h^PE_{o,h} = (R_{o,h} I_{2h,h}^P E_{2h}) (R_{2h} (A^P_{2h})^{-1} E_{2h})
(R_{2h} I_{h,2h}^P E_{o,h}) (R_{o,h}  A_h^PE_{o,h}).
\end{eqnarray*}
By using the properties in the assumptions in the theorem we have that $B_{TG}^D = R_{o,h} B_{TG}^P E_{o,h}$.
The invariant property of $B_{TG}^P$ follows from the invariant properties of all the operators involved in the two-grid method.
\end{proof}
\section{Examples and extensions}
The compatibility result in Theorem~\ref{multigrid_eq} shows that the
LFA, which is strictly justified for periodic problems, provides rigorous
results also for the Dirichlet problems. Of course, this is for particular choices of $S_h$, $I_{h,2h}$ and the rest of the involved operators. LFA-compatible smoothers include the weighted Jacobi method, the Red-Black Gauss-Seidel, line relaxation methods and polynomial smoothers. The frequently used inter-grid transfer operators full-weighting and bilinear interpolation are LFA-compatible restriction and prolongation operators, respectively. Therefore, multigrid methods based on these components applied to problems with Dirichlet boundary conditions can be analyzed rigorously by LFA.

Moreover, problems with other boundary conditions can also be put into this framework. For example, all the results presented in this work are easily reproduced for the pure Neumann problem by using an even extension operator instead the odd extension operator. Problems
with mixed boundary conditions can also be included in this framework by using an even extension operator followed by an odd extension operator.

We conclude that for a wide range of multigrid components and for problems with other boundary conditions than the periodic ones, the LFA provides rigorous asymptotic multigrid convergence factors.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

The work of F.~J. Gaspar is supported by the European Union's
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie
Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement NO 705402, POROSOS. The research of
C.~Rodrigo is supported in part by the Spanish project FEDER /MCYT
MTM2016-75139-R and the DGA (Grupo consolidado PDIE). L.~Zikatanov is supported in part by NSF DMS-1522615 and DMS-1720114.

\section*{\refname}
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}